When Others Defend Israel, Why Do We Undermine Ourselves?

RFK Jr. praises Israel’s achievements while some of our own public figures seem determined to undermine its standing.

There is something deeply troubling about the way we sometimes speak about our own country. In the heat of political arguments, Israeli leaders and public figures can become so intent on attacking their opponents that they seem to forget the damage their words may cause to Israel itself.

Of course, criticism is legitimate and necessary. Governments make mistakes, public institutions must be scrutinised, and those in positions of responsibility must answer for their decisions. Nobody should be expected to remain silent when something is wrong.

But there is a point at which criticism becomes something else. When the language used to attack a political opponent also denigrates the country, its people and its institutions, the damage does not end when the political argument is over.

This matters particularly today. A statement made in Israel can reach an international audience within minutes. It can be translated, circulated and repeated, often by people who have little interest in understanding its original context. Those looking for material with which to attack Israel are only too happy to quote the harshest words spoken by Israelis themselves.

Our public figures should think about that before they speak.

A recent report in Ynet, published on November 1, caught my attention. Its headline was: “Jews Don’t Bomb Buses: RFK Jr. Doubles Down on Arab Remarks and Praises Israel.”

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the United States Secretary of Health and Human Services, had caused considerable controversy with remarks at a campaign event in Michigan.

He made sweeping claims about the lack of scientific and literary achievements in the Arab world and attributed what he described as its decline to radical Islamist ideology.

His comments were widely criticised. There are, of course, many Arab scientists, writers and intellectuals whose achievements directly contradict such generalisations. Ahmed Zewail, Naguib Mahfouz and Omar Yaghi are just a few examples. An entire people cannot be judged by the actions or ideology of particular movements, and it would be wrong to overlook the achievements of Arab individuals.

On October 30, Kennedy published a lengthy statement on X explaining that his criticism, as he saw it, was directed at Islamism rather than at Arabs or Muslims as a whole. He then turned his attention to Israel and the Jewish people.

His words about Israel were striking. He described a small country that had developed into an agricultural and technological power. He praised Israel’s achievements and its contributions to science, medicine and human progress, describing it as “a robust and heroic outpost for freedom and Western values.”

He also drew attention to the achievements of the Jewish people. Jews, he noted, make up approximately 0.2 per cent of the world’s population. According to his calculation, they have received approximately 22 per cent of the Nobel Prizes awarded in all categories since 1901.

Kennedy then presented a list of acts of violence and terror that he contrasted with Jewish society. Among the examples he gave were suicide bombings and the bombing of buses and crowded restaurants. This was the context for the striking headline chosen by Ynet: “Jews Don’t Bomb Buses.”

There is no need to endorse everything Kennedy wrote. His original remarks about Arabs were too sweeping, and his distinction between a people and an ideology does not excuse generalisations about either. His subsequent statement also contained wider political allegations that should not simply be accepted without scrutiny.
Nevertheless, one aspect of his response deserves attention. At a time when Israel is regularly portrayed in the harshest terms, a senior American public figure chose to speak about its achievements and to defend the Jewish people against hostility directed at them.

This raises an uncomfortable question for us. While someone from outside Israel is publicly highlighting what is good about our country, why are some of our own public figures so quick to describe it in the most damaging terms?

I am not suggesting that criticism should be softened simply because Israel is under attack. That would be wrong. We must be able to speak honestly about our failures and demand that they be put right. But there is a fundamental difference between saying that a government has made a serious mistake and suggesting that the country itself has no moral standing. There is a difference between holding leaders accountable and undermining public confidence in everything the country represents.

Those who speak in the name of Israel should remember that their words do not belong only to the political debate of the day. They are heard far beyond our borders and can be used by people whose intentions are very different from their own.

Israel is not simply another country whose standing rises and falls with the fortunes of a government. It is the homeland of the Jewish people, bound to our history and to the generations who worked and prayed for our return. The responsibility to protect its standing does not belong to one party or one political camp. It belongs to all of us.

We will continue to disagree. There will be fierce arguments, difficult decisions and legitimate criticism. That is part of democratic life. But surely we can conduct those arguments without giving the impression that we have lost faith in our own country.
We should be the first to recognise what needs to be corrected. We should also be the first to recognise what is worth defending.

Israel has no shortage of critics abroad. We cannot expect the world to recognise its achievements if we ourselves constantly diminish them. We should not make the task of those who seek to undermine Israel easier by forgetting the responsibility that comes with speaking about our own country.

The world does not expect Israeli leaders to agree with one another. It should, however, be able to expect them to remember that, beyond their political differences, they share a responsibility for the country and the people they represent.