1.
The story of filmmaker Nadav Lapid, whose films and public statements have sharply criticized Israeli policy, and who discovered this week that he too was barred from serving as a judge at the FID Marseille Film Festival because he is Israeli, has predictably sparked a sense of schadenfreude. Yet even if that reaction is understandable, his case is first and foremost a parable about the blindness inherent in boycott policies.
First, because a boycott is sweeping by nature and does not distinguish between different views and political camps. After all, there is no connection between Itamar Ben-Gvir, for example, and most Israelis. In the end, boycott supporters are trying to correct what they see as an injustice by creating another injustice.
Moreover, boycotts of Israel only generate alienation and entrenchment among Israelis as a whole. To such an extent that even Lapid, who regularly stresses the need to distinguish between anti-zionist sentiment and antisemitism, responded to his exclusion with hints of anti-Jewish prejudice. Those who disqualified Lapid from the festival’s jury panel also lost a filmmaker who likely would have favored films critical of Zionism.
Following the boycott, it should be noted, a counter-petition was published by 350 filmmakers, including Natalie Portman, who described the boycott as an “intellectual failure.” One may hope that the blindness exposed by this affair will lead those who automatically seek to boycott anything Israeli to reconsider their approach. Yet the more likely outcome is damage to the impact of Lapid’s original critical message: instead of being moved by his calls to end the occupation and pursue reconciliation, viewers of his films will probably focus on the fact that even a filmmaker as critical as him is rejected abroad simply because he is Israeli.
2.
But Israel’s policy also suffers from blindness.
Since President Donald Trump halted the expansion of Israel’s response to Iranian missile attacks, there has been anger within the government and the security establishment that “our hands have been tied.” The truth, however, is that Trump saved us from another unnecessary round of escalation.
First, what additional blow could Israel deliver to Iran that it did not already deliver during 40 days of war? And if such an operational plan exists, why was it not carried out then?
Beyond that, is it not clear that after nearly three years of war on multiple fronts, Israel’s interest is to embark on a new path free of wars?
3.
At the same time, the most common form of blindness within the Israeli leadership lies in its opposition to linking the Lebanese and Iranian arenas.
Second, Israel had already reached a point where it could strike Hezbollah without provoking a response. That was the situation until the most recent war against Iran, which, it turns out, was one step too far — like a person who already has everything but falls because he wanted more.
More fundamentally, what is Israel trying to achieve by continuing its clashes with Hezbollah? Does anyone believe that another targeted killing and another bombing will bring about surrender?
The core blindness lies in failing to see that the best way to separate the arenas is through a different approach: responding positively to Lebanon’s peace proposal and leaving it to the Lebanese to politically weaken Hezbollah, alongside a ceasefire that would make it possible to rebuild northern Israel and allow the exhausted military to recover.
4.
The truth is that, fortunately for us, there is a president in the White House who knows how to prevent Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu from igniting fires that cannot be extinguished.
Trump is right in seeking to focus on efforts to reach an agreement with Iran under which it would eventually give up its nuclear program. For those whose eyes are open, there is no better option.