Scathing dialogue is better than boycotts
The possibility of Donald Trump becoming the next U.S. president is nothing less than a nightmare. The thought of him merely winning the Republican nomination, only to get trounced in the election, is also frightening. Such a development will turn the free world's foremost superpower into a laughingstock, and possibly revoke that title altogether.
However, Trump currently has the support of millions of Americans. He is not a convicted criminal, he is not suspected of any crime, and there is no clause in the American constitution preventing him from vying for the highest office in the U.S. Therefore, I don't see any possibility for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to avoid meeting with him when he visits Israel, as he plans to do in the near future.
Netanyahu needs to speak with Trump bluntly and clearly. Trump should be chastised, unequivocally for his call to comprehensively ban all Muslims from entering the United States, whether due to their religion, place of origin or because some of them may be potential terrorists. He should be brought to task for some choice anti-Semitic remarks he has made as well. This position needs to be projected loudly, clearly, and unwaveringly, but if so many Republicans consider him a legitimate candidate, then Israel cannot judge him from afar.
We mustn't judge because Israel is the country most vulnerable to the brutality of any boycott or siege. Israel's enemies use the same arguments when pressuring companies or threatening to sever business ties with them over links to Israel. The term "boycott" needs to be removed from the Hebrew lexicon, even as applied to a presidential candidate as bizarre, unreasonable, dangerous and contemptible as the one currently vying for the hearts of American voters.
Back in the day, Israel boycotted the separatist Lombard League in Italy due its anti-Semitic leanings -- it was wrong to do so because its leadership eventually changed its tune. Israel also must not offer the loudest condemnation of French politician Marine Le Pen, whose party's revolting anti-Semitic foundations she is trying to shed. Wherever there is dialogue, there is less shooting and less boycotting, and this is where Israel must strive to find itself, without sparing its partner in dialogue the appropriate and relevant criticism.
In this regard it is wise to maintain a consistent response. Theoretically, if Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan proposed a visit to Israel -- should Israel refuse to host him because of the considerable damage he has caused it? And an even wilder hypothetical: What if Iranian President Hassan Rouhani proposed a visit to the Temple Mount in Jerusalem? Should Netanyahu refuse to speak with him? And in all honesty, what about former Argentine President Cristina Kirchner, whose foreign policy was openly anti-Israel? How about the hostile duo from Sweden, Margot Wallstrom and Stefan Lofven, who recently made a string of anti-Israel remarks? A prudent government would receive them warmly and ceremoniously, in accordance with the protocols of any stately visit, and then voice its feelings and misgivings unreservedly.
An honest discourse, however scathing, is preferable to any boycott or cold shoulder. It seems to me that the 37 Knesset members who called on Netanyahu to cancel his meeting with Trump tried hitching a ride on a wave of populism without bothering to read the map.
טעינו? נתקן! אם מצאתם טעות בכתבה, נשמח שתשתפו אותנו