Peter Beinart once published a pro-Iraq war book called The Good Fight: Why Liberals--and Only Liberals--Can Win the War on Terror and Make America Great Again. Well there is a lien on Beinart's liberalism. Here he is reflecting on his late splash, his piece on American Jews and Zionism, to Jeffrey Goldberg:
I'm not asking Israel to be Utopian....I'm not even asking it to allow full, equal citizenship to Arab Israelis, since that would require Israel no longer being a Jewish state. I'm actually pretty willing to compromise my liberalism for Israel's security and for its status as a Jewish state.
This statement is frank and helpful; it allows all readers, Jewish and not, to declare where they stand. Remember that 20 percent of Israel's population is Palestinian, far more than blacks in the U.S. (and I'm not counting 4 million under occupation). Also, reflect that Beinart's watershed piece (in the culture of the Jewish community) was published in the New York Review of Books, a great edifice of the American left that once put a Molotov cocktail on its cover. (Thanks to Ilene Cohen.)
Is he also alright with giving up equal rights for himself and other Jews in non-Jewish states?
yes, sammy, he is. right now joe lieberman and other members of the Kesher Israel synagogue in georgetown where beinart worships are negotiating the conveyance of its property to members of Potomac indian tribe. i understand there will be a ceremonial signing of the deed televised on CNN.
Its easy to give up human rights for other people, isn’t it? Ideologies that oppose universalism are anachronistic to justice and peace
Sammy, it is very easy. I have always been more than willing to give up other peoples’ human rights.
(well, not really, but your point is well taken).
:)
I like this disingenuous bit from the ‘Tablet’ interview:
In all honesty, it [the NYRB article] was originally supposed to be New York Times Magazine. I don’t have any ill will, but there was a stylistic disagreement, not an ideological one.
Stylistic differences? Huh.
There is another aspect to this as well– that Beinhart’s New Republic (and before) regularly slammed any politician who wanted to limit immigration or even enforce existing laws as a bigoted nativist. There are both good and bad things to say about large scale immigration and multiculturalism –but there is a simple enough word for someone who favors multicultural liberalism in America and with equal passion its opposite somewhere else.
“I’m actually pretty willing to admit that I’m a hypocrite and willing to abandon my pretense at liberalism whenever it might be inconvenient to me, personally.”
I liked the article.
I would question if Beinart meant what your quote ascribes.
I would question if Beinart meant what your quote ascribes.
i’m not certain what added meaning you believe that potsherd ascribes to the quote, but if you think some context is needed, fire away.
>> RW: I would question if Beinart meant what your quote ascribes.
I’m not asking Israel to be Utopian. I’m not asking it to allow Palestinians who were forced out (or fled) in 1948 to return to their homes. I’m not even asking it to allow full, equal citizenship to Arab Israelis …
Yeah, the ambiguity is devastating.
BTW, is this guy an example of the warm ‘n fuzzy “liberal Zionism” that is supposed to be (along with green yarn) the cure for all of Israel’s ills?
@eljay: “BTW, is this guy an example of the warm ‘n fuzzy “liberal Zionism” that is supposed to be (along with green yarn) the cure for all of Israel’s ills? ”
How is this different from any other “liberal” politician who rhetorically supports individual liberty while practically supporting kings, dictators and military occupations of sovereign states?
Eljay…you are…
Today’s Winner of “The Mooser Humor Award”!!
>> Eljay…you are…
>> Today’s Winner of “The Mooser Humor Award”!!
Woo-hoo!! :-)
So, do I get an official “Moosie” or something for my family-room mantelpiece? ;-)
The Witty Compass:
North is South
West is East
Wrong is Right
It’s just like when Dick Witty questioned whether Haim Saban was a one-issue guy, when in the article in question, Saban admitted to it.
Dick doesn’t read.
He’s just done the exact same thing on the “we are them and they are us article”. It really pays to read the article in full before you comment on it.
I think there’s another very important statement by Peter:
“So I really believe that Jews–if not perhaps American Jews—need a Jewish state to go to in time of need.”
This is the crux of the whole thing – Israel is a safety net to us. I’m sure he’s heard this many times growing up about how important Israel is, but I feel if we’re truly honest, that’s the bottom line. Why else would we live in other places of the world and not in Israel? Things get bad, we have right od return.
This is our culpability in what is going on.
If the US were not safe for Jews, what will they achieve hiding in Israel? Are Americans incapable of bombing Israel? Would being in Israel give them some immunity they would not have elsewhere in the world?
“Would being in Israel give them some immunity they would not have elsewhere in the world?”
Nobody would make fun of me, since everybody else would look just like me. Is that the ultimate immunity, or what?
Thats a good justification for a goth state or a state for people who enjoy self mutilation or wearing their jeans at their knees.
Self-self-determination for all!
A Goth State, hehe. Morosia.
“Things get bad, we have right od return.”
Mark, asshole, when things get bad for the Jews they don’t let you out! So why don’t you explain about this future of murderous anti-semitism, which allows Jews and their assets to freely leave the US?
And Israel, on the basis of it’s own needs, decides who gets in to Israel, but we won’t go into that. Just bring your certificate of Jewishness, signed by the proper authorities, with you.
Oh wow, that was smooth work! I meant to call Beinart an asshole, not Mark F! “That asshole” in some form or other was what I had in mind, and I am sorry, Mark F. I’ve been so irritated with Beinart for so long, going back to “liberal hawk” days, it ruffled my usual complacency and ameliorated my universal good-will.
My wife’s called me far worse – and completely deserved I might add…….
Not a problem at all.
Well, I felt bad when I realised my mistake, which is more than my wife does. In fact she seems to enjoy them.
Thanks for being generous, it’s big of you. Now if I married two women, that would be….
Nah, honest mistake. It’s all good, thanks for saying that.
Now marrying TWO women – at first I thought you’d be my hero, but upon further review, hmm, I better not say it……
This would be the same Israel surrounded by enemies that want to destroy it and drive the Jews into the sea? Or nuke it into oblivion?
Yeah, that’s why your congress is voting today on a bill that will make US citizens pay for an iron dome missile defense around Israel:
link to endtheoccupation.org
That’s an additional 205 million beyond the standard direct 3 billion annual free aid.
Ugh, why don’t they just put a Simpsons Movie-style Dome over Israel?
“So I really believe that Jews–if not perhaps American Jews—need a Jewish state to go to in time of need.”
And this is the most blatant demonstration of the belief that Jews are much more important than the rest of us.
The possibility of a future injustice against Jews is held to justify the actual past and present injustice to Arabs.
As Selima put it, “We matter and you don’t.”
If he thinks he is compromising his liberalism, he hasn’t seen the real price tag. It’s his humanity he’s spending, and from what I’ve seen of him, he ain’t got much to lose. But then, he may not consider it an asset.
I’m sorry, I just can’t let go of that vision! A dystopian anti-Semitic future, in which the Holacaust rages again, but countries facilitate wire-transfers of Jewish assets, and pay for multitudes of moving vans and airfreight for Jewish property.
But they will show us! When they make us all go (with our assets and property) to Israel, they’ll make us fly coach! And their will be no kosher meals on the plane!
Beinart has been a jerk, but even a jerk can be more truthful about the I/P conflict on some points than our resident humanist, liberal Zionist, and great reconciler (RW, if anyone could be unclear about who that is). Here’s Beinart on the Palestinian civil war–
” Instead we stupidly pushed Fatah to try to take power violently in Gaza, which backfired because they lost the contest of arms (and made us look incredibly hypocritical after Bush’s democracy rhetoric)”
I’m stunned. A liberal Zionist mainstream hypocrite actually telling the truth about this. Take notes, Witty.
More Beinart–
“I’d have insisted that Hamas stop rocket fire but allowed them to fudge recognition of Israel for now and not to demand they abide by past peace agreements (that was the stupidest condition, I think, because various Israeli governments have failed it).”
Not bad–he only had to spell it out a bit more. For instance, Israel killed a lot more civilians in Gaza before the Jan 2009 massacre than Palestinian rocket fire had killed in Israel. And the blockade was collective punishment, a war crime in itself.
Still more Beinart–
“Yes, Hamas’ victory was tragic, but I don’t think it was inevitable that we had to get to where we were in December 2008. I understand that wars like the one in Gaza always inflict a terrible human toll, but it’s important that you’ve exhausted other options first, and I don’t think the US, or Israel, did.”
Again, not bad. He’s admitting that Israel’s killing spree was something they did before exhausting peaceful alternatives. This doesn’t really go far enough–Israel wanted an excuse to hit Gazans even harder. But it’s better than what you usually get from mainstream pundits. I sometimes wonder what goes on inside the minds of mainstream hypocrites–do they really believe the crap they spout? Could they be that self-deluded? I think that Beinart is demonstrating here, that no, they’re not necessarily that stupid–they usually just know what is politically correct to say and they stick to the accepted script. Beinart has decided to abandon much of it.
Of course, on the other hand, there’s this–
Beinart–
“There certainly are leftists (and for that matter) rightists who focus so disproportionately on Israel’s failings as to raise questions about their true motives.”
Translation–If a lefty criticizes Israel with as much harshness as we criticize America or any other ally which massively violates human rights, we might be anti-semites. This is Beinart maintaining his credentials as a “Serious Person” (as Glenn Greenwald would put it).
And then, of course, here’s Beinart again–
“I’m not asking Israel to be Utopian. I’m not asking it to allow Palestinians who were forced out (or fled) in 1948 to return to their homes. I’m not even asking it to allow full, equal citizenship to Arab Israelis, since that would require Israel no longer being a Jewish state.”
Yeah, giving equal rights to Arab citizens is certainly a Utopian notion, totally inconsistent with Israel being a Jewish state. It’s nice that even here, when Beinart tosses aside his liberalism, he is at least honest about it.
Oops, sorry, that last point just repeated Phil’s own post.
donald, i agree more with your first post. maybe i’m the only person here who thinks this interview is a watershed. we already know zionists want a state that conforms with what phil blockquoted so as phil points out we can all acknowledge and hang it out for all to see.
i think you’re wrong w/your translation of ‘There certainly are leftists (and for that matter) rightists‘ because in the context of when he said it (deflecting goldburg’s anti semitic implications wrt NYRB and goldburg’s AS blatherings about ‘proportionality, about the unseemly interest the left takes in Israel’s moral failings.) iow goldberg is trying to sock it to him and his associations w/the breathen who dare publish thru nasty websites like NYRB. so after beinart defends a bunch of liberal jewish writers from the pages of NYRB beinart says ‘In general, I think American Jewish leaders and commentators have become far too promiscuous about throwing around words like anti-Israel. ‘
so after that he attend’s to goldburg’s anti semitism implications and then quickly shuts it down (which i bolded below)
There certainly are leftists (and for that matter) rightists who focus so disproportionately on Israel’s failings as to raise questions about their true motives. I’m not sure what that has to do with my essay. I’m writing about American Jewish groups whose mission is ostensibly to sustain Israel as a democratic Jewish state, and to sustain Zionism in the United States. I think they’re failing on both fronts.
iow, he totally brushes it off . so what does goldburg do? he just dives right back in telling beinart he wants him to ‘confront reality’ which of course is all about israel’s enemies around every nook and cranny.
this is not happening on a ‘moderate’ jewish site. this is happening in the fullthrottled heart of rightwing zionism. beinart represents the new ‘moderate’. that speaks volumes.
I saw that, annie, but don’t quite agree. I’m glad he wrote this, but I can also predict what will happen–Beinart will become the outer limit of permissable dissent, as Chomsky would put it and I just don’t like this reflexive posturing about those crazed lefties who really might be anti-semites, especially given what he says towards the end of his interview. I’m glad he’s pushed the boundary of that as far out as he has, but it’s not like there haven’t been liberal Zionists before who were openly and publicly upset with the far right. Tom Friedman was sort of like this back during the 1982 Lebanon War.
So I have mixed feelings about Beinart–much more positive than negative, but I won’t be surprised if in a few years he’s back in the fold and his current dissent is used to portray Palestinians as the real villains. Friedman played that role when the second intifada broke out. His criticism of Begin and Sharon’s Lebanon War just gave him that much more credibility as an (unfair) critic of Palestinians later.
I agree, it does seem like he’s abandoning the script. I think this is pretty important coming from Peter, a guy who has been very welcome at AIPAC.
It’s not the whole enchilada, but hopefully it might lead to bigger things.
Good breakdown Donald.
The most important factual concession Beinart makes is this: “I’m not even asking it to allow full, equal citizenship to Arab Israelis, since that would require Israel no longer being a Jewish state.” Repeat: Allowing full, equal citizenship to Arab Israelis would mean Israel was no longer a Jewish State. Most of us know that, but somehow the irreconcilability between equal citizenship and the Jewish State escapes mainstream attention. The fact that Ben-Gurion’s 1948 declaration “guaranteed” full equality to non-Jews has been more persuasive than 62 years of history and plain common sense. Beinart decides that the concept of the Jewish State must triumph over equality, but his self-serving opinion is not as important as his recognition that the two cannot exist simultaneously. To me, that is the most important point to be made in this conflict. Are you, like Beinart, willing to sacrifice the principle of equality on the altar of the Jewish State, or do you think that in 2010, the world should not tolerate a “liberal democracy” assigning different rights based on ethno-religious background? This question, more than any other, convinced me that the one-state solution is not only inevitable but desirable. It cannot be done with the flick of a switch, and great care must be taken to protect the rights and security of all factions, but it must be done, eventually.
Of course, Beinart’s willingness to compromise the rights of a minority in favor of his own ethnic group is undeserving of sympathy, even if he acknowledges it comes at the expense of his liberalism, poor boy. But no doubt many Jews would join him in that sentiment: In a world filled with anti-Semitism, we Jews will always need a refuge of last resort, and blah-blah-blah. (That is one reason that anti-Semitism throughout the world is so exaggerated by the pro-Israel community.) But a simple question must be asked of Beinart and those who think like him. While you can rationalize a state which favors Jews, even diaspora Jews, over a native “ethnically-challenged” population, could you reasonably expect any member of that population to agree with you? This is a recipe for perpetual seething discontent by a minority population that would never accept inferior status, and rightly so.
The “conflict” in a nutshell. Great post.
Great explanation, as usual, DS.
“This is a recipe for perpetual seething discontent by a minority population that would never accept inferior status, and rightly so. “
“Every indigenous people will resist alien settlers as long as they see any hope of ridding themselves of the danger of foreign settlement. This is how the Arabs will behave and go on behaving so long as they possess a gleam of hope that they can prevent ‘Palestine’ from becoming the Land of Israel.”
- Ze’ev Jabotinsky
At least he was honest on this matter.
“Hello, Israel, hello? Oh, there you are, look, you got to let me and my family in, the anti-semitism here is terrible! First I lost my job, and now my kids are being kicked out of school. My business has been taken away and all my bank accounts emptied, and it wasn’t my ex-wife who did it!
Can you get us on a plane to Tel- Aviv?
“Sorry, we don’t take welfare cases here”
Today the US congress votes on a bill to give Israel multi millions more beyond the 3 billion direct aid this year–to build an iron dome protecting it against all Palestinian rockets, freeing Israel up to be as agressive as it wants to without paying even a feeble price–courtesy of Obama:
link to haaretz.com
If you want to find out what the money gifted to Israel would buy for your state’s citizens, or your county, etc–go here:
link to aidtoisrael.org
The bill: link to thomas.loc.gov
It provides for an additional 205 million gift dollars to protect Israel from Hamas rockets. If you want to stop it, better call your congress person today.
Based on info contained in an article published in Ha’aretz earlier this year, $205,000,000 would provide enough funds for anti-missile missiles to shoot down somewhere between 2050 and 5125 incoming missiles. That is, if no money is diverted to purchase launchers, maintenance, etc. Hizbullah supposedly has 40,000 missiles. I think it is safe to assume Hamas and Syria also have missiles. Would shooting down 1 out of every 10 to 20 incoming really matter?
link to haaretz.com