A country that refuses to look in the mirror

If anyone needs a reminder of how dire Israel’s diplomatic situation has become and how bereft our public discourse is of serious ideas for how to address it, they need only read Dr. Michael Oren’s article, “An Appropriate Diplomatic Response” (12/15) in Yedioth Ahronoth. (For the sake of transparency, Oren served as Israel’s ambassador to Washington while I was the consul general in Boston. We are friends, even though we strongly disagree on what constitutes effective diplomacy.)

In the article, Oren calls on Israel to “avenge” itself against the Netherlands due to its public broadcaster’s decision not to participate in Eurovision alongside Israel. His proposed response is to downgrade Israel’s diplomatic representation in the Netherlands – a country that for many years was one of Israel’s closest allies – from an embassy to a consulate. “If our prime minister cannot visit The Hague, senior Dutch ministers will not be able to visit us,” Oren writes, with considerable pathos.

This argument ignores the uncomfortable reality that the arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC) against Prime Minister Netanyahu renders him unwelcome not only in The Hague but also in the vast majority of liberal democratic countries that abide by international law – a group that includes almost all of Europe. The exception to this rule is Hungary, led by Bibi’s friend and fellow aspiring authoritarian, Viktor Orban.

Oren also disregards another inconvenient fact: the Netherlands has a free press, and its government is legally prohibited from interfering with the decisions of its public broadcaster. And the broadcasting union’s decision was an expression of solidarity with foreign journalists who have been barred from entering Gaza – a targeted rebuke of a specific Israeli policy. If anything, I wish more of our broadcasting unions would demonstrate journalistic ethics and protest against restrictions on free press in Gaza.

Oren’s position is just one example of a broader phenomenon in Israeli public discourse. With remarkable cynicism, Israeli leaders and representatives respond to criticism by diverting the discussion outward. They blame other countries, antisemitism, or social media. They even threaten diplomatic retaliation towards allies, instead of confronting the more difficult question: how is Israel perceived in the world today, and what policies have led to that perception?

This approach also guides the actions of Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar, who chose to respond to criticism from the Irish government not by addressing its substance, but by closing Israel’s embassy in Dublin. When reality becomes uncomfortable, the instinct is not only to look away but also to escalate the confrontation. This mindset may play well domestically, which helps explain Sa’ar’s behavior as a politician. However, it’s concerning that many within Israel’s diplomatic establishment also appear to share this mindset.

Prime Minister Netanyahu’s response to the deadly antisemitic attack in Bondi Beach may be the most grotesque manifestation of this approach. Antisemitism is a real and lethal threat, and its resurgence must be confronted with seriousness and determination. Yet Netanyahu chose to further trivialize the term by accusing the Australian government of “encouraging antisemitism” simply by recognizing a Palestinian state. This cynical use of antisemitism to shield his government from criticism of violations of international law weakens our ability to call out and fight real instances of it.

This reflex to deflect blame now defines this government. The same Netanyahu who blamed the Australian prime minister for a murderous attack that happened on his watch refuses to take responsibility for the catastrophic failures that led to the October 7th attack and for Israel’s deteriorating global standing, both of which he oversaw.

The reality is that this government continues to lead our country down a dangerous path – not because of what is said about it abroad, but because of its own conduct. Its policies toward Palestinians, Arab citizens of Israel, and even dissenting Jews are eroding Israel’s moral standing, diplomatic relations, and long-term security.

Becoming a militarily strong but politically isolated “Sparta,” hostile to criticism and surrounded by enemies, is not inevitable. It is a choice. And unless Israel’s political class, including current and former diplomats like Dr. Oren, recognizes that our policy decisions – not inevitable global hostility – are leading us down this path, we will pay severe economic, diplomatic, and eventually national security costs.

If Israel chooses to cut itself off from every country willing to criticize it, it will soon find itself with very few partners left. No amount of diplomatic vengeance or rhetorical defiance will compensate for that loss.