Would it make any difference if Israel “played nice”?

IS

Israel really on the verge of becoming a pariah state? Will international sanctions, boycotts, and threats of its leaders being arrested present serious impediments to its long-term security, its political stability, and its vaunted start-up economy?

If so, what did Israel and its leader, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, do to warrant the wrath, scorn, and constant attention of other nations that should be busying themselves with solving their own knotty problems?

To see what truly harsh sanctions look like and how they can destabilize a country, review the list of mandatory snapback sanctions the United Nations imposed on Iran two weeks ago for noncompliance with the 2015 nuclear deal, including a total arms embargo; financial restrictions such as freezing assets and revoking access to SWIFT, the international system for wiring funds; travel bans; and sweeping restrictions on oil sales and foreign trade.

Israelis are justified in worrying if that’s what the UN eventually has in store for them. When experienced, usually optimistic diplomats like Israel’s UN ambassador Danny Danon say Israel faces unprecedented diplomatic challenges, it pays to sit up and take notice.

The question is, how far can Israel go to mollify world opinion while it fights enemies on all borders and faces potential new threats, including Egypt, Turkey, and possibly even a Saudi Arabia protected by a Pakistani nuclear umbrella?

And would it make any difference if Israel “played nice”?

To answer these last two questions, I’d like to rewind the clock to the night of January 20, 2014, to get some context through the eyes of a true and honest friend of Israel.

That evening, Canada’s Prime Minister Stephen Harper addressed the Knesset. I spent most of that day shadowing Harper’s delegation, including Canadian politicians, businesspeople, and Jewish leaders, for what became our cover story that week.

Harper uttered two unforgettable lines that night. I have saved the second one in my Notes App. I showed it to many delegates at the 2024 Republican National Convention in Milwaukee. They all gulped, nodded, and asked me to send it to them.

Let’s begin with his first quote.

“Of course, no nation is perfect,” Harper said. “But neither Israel’s existence nor its policies are responsible for the instability in the Middle East today.”

Harper’s assessment was correct. Israel is not perfect, but neither Israel nor its elected leaders are responsible for its geopolitical plight, surrounded by armed and dangerous jihadists who hide in bunkers and tunnels, while preaching, praying, and fighting for Israel’s downfall.

This connects to Harper’s second quote, which I use for show and tell.

“If you act to defend yourselves, you will suffer widespread condemnation, over and over again. But should you fail to act, you alone will suffer the consequence of your inaction, and that consequence will be final. Your destruction.”

Reading Harper’s warnings once more, almost 12 years later, do we need any further explanation for why Prime Minister Netanyahu has chosen to suffer verbal slings and arrows rather than the real ones that pierce and kill?

No to a Spartan Existence

Having said that, Israelis have long held different and strong opinions on how long the war in Gaza should have lasted and whether the country needed a respite long ago, even if they hadn’t reached all of their military goals. That’s a valid point for debate, considering that the war drains the economy. Some people value their money more than their lives, so the Torah commands us to love G-d with all our hearts, souls, and resources.

These Israelis and others were startled when, during a speech at a professional conference in Jerusalem, Prime Minister Netanyahu warned that diplomatic isolation could push Israel toward an “autarkic” economy similar to that of ancient Sparta, known for its military power but also for its political isolation.

Netanyahu walked back his comments after the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange dropped nearly 2 percent in response. Bibi stated that his emphasis on “autarky” meant Israel needs to pursue a path to economic independence in a volatile world where public opinion is turning against it.

Many Israelis have built wealth by developing and exporting products and technologies worldwide, including military equipment, advanced water purifiers, drip irrigation systems, food technologies, and natural gas. Israel is a global leader in AI. These individuals would have a lot at stake if the world were to impose sanctions and boycotts on Israel, not to mention the impact on the workers in these companies and the broader economy.

Sharing the Burden

No country is entirely independent. The US is actively negotiating new trade agreements with all its major trading partners, and even China depends on customers worldwide to improve the lives of its 1.4 billion people. Israel, with a population of 10 million and a workforce of just over 4 million, doesn’t want to live a Spartan existence. It needs strong trade and political relations globally to thrive.

Bibi has a reputation as a top-notch historian, but most pundits saw the comparison to Sparta as a rare gaffe. Perhaps he chose the wrong comparison.

Not that he would be the one to suggest a power-sharing arrangement, but one of Sparta’s unique traits was that it had two kings to ensure that no single person held all the power. It’s not that Israel needs or wants two prime ministers, but it’s generally understood that those in the top job are primarily focused on foreign affairs and security issues, which means they double as Israel’s foreign minister even though someone else officially holds that title.

This situation causes two problems. A prime minister obsessed with foreign policy neglects domestic issues, like rising housing costs and a lack of competition, which result from monopolies controlling the prices of major consumer goods. This hampers economic growth and leaves significant problems unaddressed.

The next problem is that Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs is chronically underfunded and kept out of the loop. The minister’s job becomes ceremonial, especially considering Bibi’s dominant role on the international stage.

For Israel to carry out an effective foreign policy and strengthen its political and trade relations, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs must become a powerful entity in its own right, with a skilled, multilingual diplomat at the helm.

There is no shortage of talent in this land. Fighting a war, managing foreign policy, working skillfully to reverse global hostility, and growing a 21st-century economy is too much for one person to handle.

It’s time to diversify leadership at the top of the pyramid. The stakes are too high now to continue with business as usual.

(Originally featured in Mishpacha, Issue 1082)