At the end of May, a group of Israeli teenage climbers were due to compete in Brussels. They had registered, been approved, and trained for the event. Then the host venue, Le Camp de Base, informed them that they could participate, but without a flag, without an anthem, and without their country’s name appearing alongside their own. Israel refused, and the competition was canceled. It would be easy to focus on the demand itself, or on the cancellation. But we have seen both before, in one form or another.

What is troubling is the tone in which the decision was presented. The venue did not announce a boycott or engage in a public argument. It simply stated that, under the current circumstances, it could not host an official Israeli delegation. The “current circumstances” were not presented as an argument but as a description of reality, much like saying that it rains in winter.

Once a boycott becomes a trivial matter, the burden of justification disappears. It no longer takes any particular hostility for a competition to be canceled. It is enough that defending its inclusion becomes a burden no one wishes to carry. There was a time when those calling for a boycott were expected to explain themselves. Now the boycott is increasingly taken for granted.

Even at Eurovision, where Israel ultimately participated, participation itself became the subject of controversy and required repeated justification. Suddenly, those who chose to invite an Israeli delegation and proceed with the event as planned........

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)