Peter Beinart’s recent op-ed is an anachronistic apologia constructed around an artificial golden mean.
Beinart seems to have invented Meretz USA, American Friends of Peace Now and the New Israel Fund. He has also discovered the green line and Yitzhak Rabin (both deceased), and the fifteen-year-old Gush Shalom settlement boycott. His declared enemies are the Israeli government and the Palestinian BDS movement, and his weapon of choice is language—fighting a war declared by Yitzhak Shamir (now in a nursing home) in the 1980s. He longs for an Israel that, if it ever existed, died before he was born, and employs even more ancient rhetoric about “Israel’s existence” and the inseparability of “Zionism and democracy”.
For every position he takes, he carefully cites one that he does not take. He does not like the name “Judea and Samaria”, but is equally dissatisfied with the name “West Bank”. He calls for a boycott of “other Jews” (although it pains him to do so), but rejects the goals of BDS. His “democratic Israel” does not include settlements “near the green line” (although “most settlers aren’t bad people”), but he develops an entirely new concept (“right to citizenship”) in order to rationalise his acceptance of the settlements in East Jerusalem. Most importantly, Beinart only appears to call for action against Israel. What he really wants is to save it.
There is nothing new in what Beinart is saying. It is the classic, liberal Zionist position, largely defeated both in Israel and within the American Jewish establishment. He presents it as a solution both to Israel’s woes and to growing disaffection with Israel-centred Jewish life in the US. Yet, a solution in I/P requires far more than the kind of one-sided “generous offers” he implies, and Beinart’s contrived modus vivendi between liberalism and Zionism is unlikely to satisfy the young Jews who keep him awake at night. At the moment, just having the conversation may seem like progress, but unlike the Madrid Conference of over twenty years ago, Beinart is not even sitting down with the Palestinians. In the days preceding and following Rabin’s assassination, the Israeli right used to call such exercises “making peace among ourselves”.
From the point of view of the Israeli anti-settlement ‘Peace Now’ people, who introduced the term ‘occupied territories’ into the public discourse, Beinart has to be Jewish and can only address Jewish Americans. Once you address and ally yourself with non-Jews you are discredited to begin with. That’s part of ‘making peace among ourselves’.
“largely defeated both in Israel and within the American Jewish establishment”
It’s funny when 1SS supporters look at 2SS and consider them to be weak and defeated. As if Israel hasn’t been successful at defeating all Palestinian initiatives regardless of what they represent.
I wonder how many votes the 1SS folks get in the next Palestinian elections or among Palestinians in the next Israeli elections.
Shmeul’s excellent deconstruction of Beinart’s political confusions leaves Beinart, as well as all so-called liberal zionists, standing bare-naked and flummoxed before the intellectual globe. ‘Liberal’ zionism is an oxymoron. What will it take for the well-meaning zionist jewish collective to sober up from their delusions of righteousness and realize this? Is there a word in the English language to describe a pathology of tribal inverted guilt? Do nice jews think that it is possible to separate zionism from racism and ethnic cleansing? Cuz it sure hasn’t since its inception in the 19th century. And the proof is everywhere for everyone to see.
Let’s be clear here also on what the majority of the middle east wants: yes to judaism and a big fat NO to zionism in the holy lands that lay in the heart of Arabia.
Liberal zionists should pay close attention to the above – it ain’t just about zionists and their ‘special’ needs, it’s also about the needs of the lives of some 380 million Arabs.
“having the conversation may seem like progress…”
But it is.
Most certainly, without Beinart’s piece, you wouldn’t have written this tremendous response to it, which untold numbers of others, perhaps, including Beinart, himself (I hope), will read, consider, and further discuss. Dare I say, ripple effect?
Is it fast enough for me? Hardly.
Is it slow enough to “afflict [some of] the comfortable.” Possibly.
The “conversation” is not the only thing, but it’s an important thing.
Beinart is interesting to me – a young guy with an “old guy’s” frame of mind.
,
However, the older generation, along with their influence, is slowly dying off.
For some who are younger, Beinart is a bridge.
Many others have already crossed over and are far beyond.