United States Secretary of State Kerry has repeatedly “warned” Israeli leaders, and in turn the Israeli people, that should the peace talks fail to result in a peace which establishes a Palestinian state, then Israel could be facing political isolation, economic boycotts and potentially a third Intifada, all of which was implied would be completely justified. There has yet to be a single word from Secretary of State Kerry of any consequences for the Palestinians should they not take any of the needed steps nor make any compromises in order to facilitate an agreement. The entire fault has been laid at the feet of the Israelis which will only serve to empower the Palestinians to be steadfast and unyielding when it comes to meeting the Israelis partway and simply holding to their maximalist demands. This has been the bane of all previous peace negotiations, the refusal by the Palestinians to accept any peace which leaves Israel intake with a Jewish majority. This has been the impetus behind the demand to return millions of refugees and their descendants into Israel producing an Arab majority which will effectively vote the Jews off their one sanctuary on planet Earth. But the next most controversial of the threats hanging over the Israelis’ heads is the economic boycott by the European nations, especially should it be declared by the European Union thus forcing it upon all of its members. But what is the truth behind this threat, does it hold water or are those using this threat all wet?
Checking the statistics for the past decade chronicling trade between Israel and the European nations, it has generally trended upward and even more so as Israeli high tech industries have blossomed. The main story line has been one of ever increasing relations and interactions. The crowning element of the interconnections in the high tech fields was the recent Israeli acceptance as a full partner in CERN. This arrangement holds great promise to benefit both Israeli research as well as their opportunity to give assistance to other CERN teams in pursuit of their research. All evidence is that there has been very little if any appetite among European industries and businesses to boycott Israel. On the other side are the governments and those industries either completely owned subsidiaries or closely tied to European nations’ governments. There the boycott infestation appears to have begun to eat away at cooperation between Israel and some European government entities. The situation stands with the governments being pressured by the BDS movement which is well funded and even supported by NGOs who are funded by those very same European governments. The question that rises from this unique situation is whether the European governments will be willing to cut off what are mutually beneficial relations that have built and evolved between the engines of the European economy and the Israeli economic engines. Such a boycott would prove to be a disaster for both the Europeans as well as the Israelis. The governments, if they decide to actually succumb and force a boycott, would be giving in to pressures of an organized, well-funded, methodical, multinational, and politically extreme lobbying effort which has at its financial and organizational heart a core of Jew-hating interests who use propaganda, half-truths, misrepresentations, hyperbole, indoctrination and duplicity to influence uninformed people willing to accept at face value these one sided accusations and allegations of misdeeds all backed by misrepresentations of international law in order to enlist them to push their perverse agenda. The results could very readily backfire with some of their companies deciding to move their headquarters to one of their remote offices or factories in order to continue their trade relations with Israel. Even if this somewhat far-fetched result did not materialize, the loss of trade from a boycott works both ways and the nations deciding to boycott Israel could very easily find the unintended consequences turn out to be far more costly than they had anticipated.
On the Israeli side, there is little Israel can do beyond expressing their side of the argument, something which is already well known by the majority but unfortunately that majority is not made up of people who readily go out and protest and lobby as they have other life pursuits which press on their time leaving little enough time for family. Israel, on the other hand, would continue to trade with the willing, share developments and discoveries with those who remain and care to listen, seek new ventures and friends to exchange in trade and other relations. Those claiming that Israel does not seek peace need to be challenged to explain how such can be true as Israel returned all of the Sinai in order to cement a peace with Egypt, offered to return the Judea and Samaria (West Bank) to Jordan despite the reality that Jordan’s annexation of West Bank was not universally recognized. Truth be told, only Britain and Pakistan recognized the annexation of the West Bank by Jordan and even the rest of the Arab and Muslim worlds as well as the United Nations refused to recognize Jordan occupation of Judea and Samaria. Another question that comes to mind is, exactly who did Jordan illegally occupy Judea and Samaria from after occupying the area after the 1948 War to annihilate the nascent Jewish State of Israel where seven Arab nations attacked Israel the morning after she declared her existence and return to her ancestral homelands. The answer to that question is obvious as long as your mind is open to what are obscure facts which have been ignored and left to echo silently as the media finds covering the reasons why Israel is legal when settling in Judea and Samaria. Israel has returned over ninety percent of the lands occupied resulting from the 1967 Six Day War, more than sufficient to satisfy United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 which required that Israel return only those lands which after their surrender allowed Israel to retain defendable borders. When that resolution was ratified the common expectations were that Israel would retain all of Judea and Samaria, all of the West Bank. The idea that anything different was expected only came about in the late 1980s with the First Intifada, an offensive insurrection directed by the PLO under Yasser Arafat. Truth can be a surprising experience which often sneaks in when we least expect such. Perhaps such a reformation of truth will soon become the new norm, just perhaps.