Israel must overcome two hurdles as it tries to move ahead in the recently renewed peace talks with the Palestinians.
The first, obviously, is the upcoming release of Palestinian prisoners. The second, which has come by surprise, is the European Union's decision to boycott organizations that do business or operate in settlements.
Deputy Foreign Minister MK Zeev Elkin recently said Israel would not be party to a particular bilateral agreement with the EU that would have added hundreds of millions of shekels to the state coffers. He said Israel preferred that over bowing to European pressure on settlements.
The prisoner release is a painful ordeal. While it lacks moral justification, some detractors on the Right -- in the Likud and in the coalition -- must present an alternative.
Would they have preferred an Israeli settlement freeze? Should Israel have told U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry that Tzipi Livni and Yitzhak Molcho would be a no-show for the talks with the Palestinians? Those who oppose the release will have rendered their opposition hollow if they do not put forth a valid alternative and relinquish the key portfolios they hold within the coalition or in the Knesset.
Outrage and vocal protests reflect what many Israelis genuinely feel. Such criticism is particularly pertinent in light of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas' ongoing incitement against Israel, a fact unearthed by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Saturday. But no rational path exists beside the one that involves the release of prisoners, and Israel has already decided to move along that path.
Even the Obama administration is angry over Europe's boycotting of those who make business with the settlements or engage in joint projects. It seems like that boycott is deliberately designed to derail the recently launched talks and undermine the U.S.'s mediation efforts. What exactly are the Europeans mad about? Whom are they trying to punish at this time? Let's cut right to the chase: Europe is largely anti-Israeli, although this sentiment varies from one capital to another.
Israel has expressed outrage over the EU's move. As our sages said, we don't need their help; all we need is for them to do no harm. So Israel went ahead and decided to kill the emerging bilateral agreement.
This is understandable, but was it wise? Israel should have tried to have the new policy diluted. Having failed to undo the damage through diplomacy, it should have tried to mitigate the adverse effect through other means. It should have pressured and prodded Europe on other levels.
The government must do some soul searching, otherwise it is bound to err again. But it should also keep in mind that an Israel-EU spat would be greeted with gleeful delight by some. They would relish it and see it as a vindication of their tough approach on Israel.
Syria is going up in flames, Egypt is imploding, Arabs are being killed by the hundreds on the streets of the Middle East. But as far as Europe is concerned, it is Israel's actions that merit punishment.
Once upon a time, Israel would have discarded Elkin's countermeasures. There was a time, let's call it Israel's Classical Period, when Israel would have none of that and would have registered its protests through other means.
It would have gone ahead and signed the bilateral agreement even as it registered its protest; it would have marshaled all the support it could get from its allies in the effort to have Old Europe -- where the Muslim population is constantly on the rise -- reverse its decision. It would have tried to have Europe make a course correction and come up with a formula that would cleverly bypass the discriminatory agreement.
When it is in its element, Israel knows how to fly under the radar. It could have made sure that the affected enterprises in Judea and Samaria suspend their activity there, "For with wise advice thou shalt make thy war; and in the multitude of counselors there is safety," (Proverbs 24:6).
If I were a settler, I would have supported such a move because this would, among other things, reduce the friction between the settler community and other Israelis, averting the sort of clash our enemies are so eagerly anticipating.

by: Dan Margalit