Only a few dozen Israelis who excel at various fields -- science, law, art, etc. -- keep the bridge open between Israel and the corresponding fields in the democratic West, which is increasingly adopting not only the viewpoint of the Palestinians, but also their aggressive behavior. Only a handful of people in the American legal community realize the contributions of Israeli legal giants Professors Aharon Barak and Dorit Beinisch; only a few scholars recognize what immunologist Professor Michael Sela and political scientist Professor Shlomo Avineri have brought to enlightened academia. Amos Oz, a highly acclaimed, frequent prize-winning Israeli author, holds a place of honor among personalities such as these. Many people do not understand the benefit that these people and institutions can bring, mainly because they interest only a narrow elite. But it seems to me that lately, Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked has come to realize what people have whispered in her ear in the past -- that Israel's Supreme Court is a shining Israeli beacon in a dark world. This realization is evident in the abrupt shift in her remarks about the court. Upon learning that Oz had requested that Israel's embassies in the world stop hosting functions in his honor in protest of Israel's "radicalizing" policies, I saw it as crossing a problematic line, both because of his international prestige and because only a hothead doesn't realize how strong an obligation he has to his people and to the Zionist character of the state. In my column on Friday, I expressed doubts about his decision and received a variety of responses, the most important of which was the question: How else can he express his virulent opposition to the policies of a government that wants to perpetuate the rule over another people? As one who is bothered by the same question, and who believes that a Palestinian state should be established alongside the settlement blocs in Judea and Samaria, it's important to discuss not only the author's intention in boycotting Foreign Ministry events, but also the ramifications of his announcement. A boycott that gathers steam and winds up affecting the entire Jewish people -- including the excellent settler population, with whom there is a dispute over the limitations to the settlement enterprise -- is the first step toward total delegitimacy. This, in turn, leads to horrible acts like the ones committed by the Islamic State group, al-Qaida and Hezbollah. But Oxford, Cambridge, Yale, the Sorbonne and the media are staffed mainly by liberals who are mostly not bred-in-the-bone anti-Semites, and given their correct criticism of the government's conduct toward the U.S. and failure to negotiate with the Palestinians, wonder how they can express their concern. Some even think that by doing so they are helping Israel. The result is not what Oz has in mind. He legitimately disagrees with the government, and the boycotters abroad will see his remarks as a moral green light to turn down doctoral students from Israel's Weizmann Institute or students from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Only Oz and a few others like him are in a position to give them such a moral-ethical pass, which has good intentions but destructive results. The Foreign Ministry understands that, too, which is why it played down as much as possible Oz's intention to boycott Israel's embassies and consulates abroad. "What else could Oz do-" I asked myself. He could fight for his opinion in his own way. He could use the meetings at the consulates and embassies to express his views freely. True, they are using him to bring in visitors who these past few years have refused to visit the consulates. But he could also set clear limitations designed to prevent the struggle by academics and intellectuals from tumbling into the abyss of anti-Semitism. Any boycott is off-limits. We must boycott all boycotts.
