Covering Hamas and Palestinian society: A response to Peter Beinart

Israel/PalestineUS Politics

On Friday Peter Beinart wrote a piece for his website Open Zion criticizing Mondoweiss saying we ignore human rights abuses by Hamas. Using an example of a recent story about Hamas banning women from participating in a Gaza marathon, he said we “don’t want to publicly air dirty linen” and accused the site of “tolerance for certain brands of thuggery” comparing us to apologists for totalitarianism. Beinart is wrong on several fronts, and while we don’t want to get into an accounting debate over what his threshold for a proper number of articles critical of Hamas would be, we do want to respond to the problems with his broader critique.

The focus of our site is the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, the consequences of the “special relationship” between the United States and Israel, and the U.S. domestic politics which relate to the conflict. Because of the close diplomatic and military relationship between the U.S. and Israel, and because of our personal relationship to Israel as Jews, we also focus on Israeli oppression of the Palestinian people covering day-to-day news as well as explaining the roots and history of the conflict. We occasionally cover internal Palestinian politics, but it’s not a focus of the site. If the U.S. government were funding Hamas we’d feel differently, and if there was a propaganda and lobbying effort in the U.S. to justify and promote oppressive Hamas practices we would cover it. But this isn’t the case.

We have run pieces that have been critical of Hamas politically or militarily, but from our perspective the struggle to reform Palestinian society is an issue for the Palestinian people to decide for themselves. Beinart says Hamas denies “women the basic freedoms every Mondoweiss contributor would demand in the United States.” He’s right, we demand those freedoms in the United States. We stand with and support Palestinians working to make Palestinians society more equitable, and have published pieces to this effect, but we don’t see it as our place to dictate to Palestinians what their society should look like. We demand rights for the Palestinian people that they demand for themselves. We do cover the illiberal polices and practices within Israeli society because for decades we have been told the U.S.-Israel relationship is built on a foundation of shared values, and Israel is often portrayed simply as an extension of the Upper West Side. When we cover the Israeli government’s plans to segregate buses or examples of racism in Israeli society we do so to expose the lies of pro-Israel hasbara and critique the oppressive conditions the “special relationship” serves to bolster.

Rather than being truly concerned for the well being of Palestinian women, Beinart is policing the Israel/Palestine debate and determining whose rights matter and when. For Beinart, Palestinian human rights are paramount in Hamas-run Gaza — “Human rights can be menaced by every national and ideological camp, and thus must be defended against every national and ideological camp” — yet he declared to Jeffrey Goldberg he opposes equal rights for Palestinian citizens of Israel because it contradicts his own political mission of maintaining a Jewish state — “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.” In addition, and more shocking considering his attack on us, Beinart was silent on the human rights of these very same women when Israel was bombing Gaza this past November. How then should we understand his new found concern for Palestinian human rights?

Beinart’s argument (or “concern trolling” as author Chase Madar described it over Twitter) is reminiscent of those who use internal struggles within Palestinian society as an excuse to postpone Palestinian freedom. He writes, “the decisions Hamas makes now will shape how it behaves when Palestinians more fully govern themselves, as they one day surely will. To imagine, as leftists often have, that you can ignore the moral character of a national liberation movement until it achieves liberation is naïve. By then it will be too late.” Beinart apparently thinks his concerns about Palestinian “moral character” supersede the daily oppression that Palestinians live under. Oppression, which we should add, Beinart very rarely comments on in his work for Open Zion.

However the most profound thing Beinart gets wrong is how he describes “the nature of the struggle.” He writes, “Less important than what the pro-Palestinian left says to the Zionist right is what it says to itself about the true nature of its struggle. Is the goal merely an end to Israeli control over Palestinian lives or is it individual liberty and accountable government.” Our answer to Beinart is — Yes, at this point in history it would be miraculous to “merely” end Israeli control over Palestinians lives. Soon we will be marking the 65th anniversary of the Nakba and there is no end in sight to Israeli control over Palestinian lives. Beinart should understand that the struggle for “individual liberty and accountable government” will only fully take place once Palestinian rights are truly honored and Palestinians themselves can take full agency over their lives and the society they want to build.

206 Responses

  1. Shingo
    March 11, 2013, 3:30 pm

    I suspect that with the non stop inductments of Israeli siciety and Israeli policies flowing in, Beinart is exasperated and retreating into his Zionist bunker. Rember, that this is a man who argued for empathy towards the settlers, even though they are knowingly commuting war crimes.

    His lame criticism also comes directly put if the pro war play book. The hawks in Washington love to cite the plight if women in Afghnanistan to justify the continued bombing and military occupation – as if to suggest such violence will lead to the liberation of women.

    It’s also worth noting his hypocrisy and double standards. He insists that Palestinian society be judged before independence, but is he willing to accept that Zionist leaders and groups were already practicing segregation (Hafrada), terrorism and erhnic cleansing long before Israelseclared independence?

    • W.Jones
      March 11, 2013, 10:39 pm

      “The hawks in Washington love to cite the plight if women in Afghanistan to justify the continued bombing and military occupation”.

      Good point. Like how the invasion of Iraq was about Regime Change and bringing Democracy to the backward people. The real result was even more sectarianism in a formerly secular country. A similar trend could be seen in Gaza where the retreat into more conservative, stricter religion is a reaction to the harsh conditions imposed on the people.

  2. Pamela Olson
    March 11, 2013, 3:32 pm

    Amen. Very well said.

  3. hophmi
    March 11, 2013, 3:39 pm

    “We have run pieces that have been critical of Hamas politically or militarily, but from our perspective the struggle to reform Palestinian society is an issue for the Palestinian people to decide for themselves. ”

    “[W]e don’t see it as our place to dictate to Palestinians what their society should look like.”

    But you do exactly that with Israeli society, even though what happens in Palestinian society affects Israeli society. So it is exactly as many say – human rights is not your concern. It is simply that you have chosen the Palestinian side of the conflict, and you care little what the consequences are for everyone else.

    Always the same dodge. You say the same thing when you’re asked to condemn suicide bombing.

    • Woody Tanaka
      March 11, 2013, 4:52 pm

      “Always the same dodge. You say the same thing when you’re asked to condemn suicide bombing.”

      That one’s simple. Whatever justification you pull out of your butt, hoppy, to justify the “collateral damage” when israeli’s acts will predictably and knowingly blow up Palestinian civilians… just use that one.

    • Empiricon
      March 11, 2013, 4:52 pm

      Back up two sentences, hophmi: “If the U.S. government were funding Hamas we’d feel differently, and if there was a propaganda and lobbying effort in the U.S. to justify and promote oppressive Hamas practices we would cover it. But this isn’t the case.”
      As Americans, we subsidize Israel’s behavior and are therefore responsible for it. Such is not the case with Hamas. Your unwillingness to comprehend the difference is inevitable given your loyalty to the cult of Zionism.

      • Citizen
        March 11, 2013, 7:57 pm

        @ Empiricon
        hophmi
        Must be blind. He also missed much more in subject article, for example:

        ” We do cover the illiberal polices and practices within Israeli society because for decades we have been told the U.S.-Israel relationship is built on a foundation of shared values, and Israel is often portrayed simply as an extension of the Upper West Side.”

        Once again, hophmi makes a fool of himself. Zionism fries brains like that.

      • hophmi
        March 12, 2013, 11:58 am

        “As Americans, we subsidize Israel’s behavior and are therefore responsible for it. Such is not the case with Hamas. Your unwillingness to comprehend the difference is inevitable given your loyalty to the cult of Zionism.”

        So what? We also subsidize the PA, and our allies certainly subsidize Hamas. Yes, that’s a principled human rights activist; only care about stuff the US gives money to. LOL. Sounds more like a principled hater of the US.

      • Hostage
        March 13, 2013, 6:50 pm

        So what? We also subsidize the PA, and our allies certainly subsidize Hamas.

        In fact Fayyad claimed that US aid was earmarked and that none of it went to the PA, but rather to USAID and other non-weapons programs. None of our allies are supplying 30 billion in military aid in the next 10 years to Palestine. In fact, none of them are supplying aid, outside the area of law enforcement, that could even laughably be considered military assistance to Palestine.

        Yes, that’s a principled human rights activist; only care about stuff the US gives money to. LOL. Sounds more like a principled hater of the US.

        In fact many of us have been critical of Fatah and Hamas human rights violations and their role in committing war crimes and crimes against humanity. But the fact that Israel and the US have prevented Palestine from obtaining all of the legal protections the UN Charter affords to member states and have used the US veto to prevent or delay the Palestinian attempts to employ the international courts only supports the proposition of those who claim Palestinians have no other choice, but to take the law into their own hands.

        You’re not much of a lawyer if the only thing you can imagine to bitch about is the right to run in a marathon.

      • Donald
        March 14, 2013, 1:38 pm

        “Yes, that’s a principled human rights activist; only care about stuff the US gives money to. LOL. Sounds more like a principled hater of the US.”

        Hophmi now channels the America love it or leave it crowd. It’s a basic moral principle that you are most responsible for the crimes your own country commits or sponsors. To hophmi that looks like “hatred”. Rush Limbaugh couldn’t have put it better.

      • hophmi
        March 14, 2013, 3:19 pm

        “Hophmi now channels the America love it or leave it crowd. It’s a basic moral principle that you are most responsible for the crimes your own country commits or sponsors. To hophmi that looks like “hatred”. Rush Limbaugh couldn’t have put it better.”

        LOL. What nonsense. It’s a basic moral principle? Go fight for the rights of Native Americans to own most of New York. Your country committed grave sins against them. Go fight to reform the criminal justice system because Black people make up a ridiculous percentage of incarcerated inmates. That’s your country’s crime. Don’t give this baloney. It’s nonsense and it’s not remotely convincing or honest even as a foreign policy position. As I’ve said many times, Saudi Arabia gets plenty of aid from the United States. So does Egypt. I don’t see much criticism directed at these countries by people here.

        And needless to say, the BDS movement is much stronger in Europe than it is here. Europe is not giving billions of dollars a year to Israel in military aid. So stop hiding behind the US talking point.

        “In fact many of us have been critical of Fatah and Hamas human rights violations and their role in committing war crimes and crimes against humanity. ”

        ROTFLMFAO. Try again. Not in the BDS movement.

        “You’re not much of a lawyer if the only thing you can imagine to bitch about is the right to run in a marathon.”

        You’re not much of a reader if you think I’m talking about running in a marathon.

      • Hostage
        March 14, 2013, 7:10 pm

        Go fight for the rights of Native Americans to own most of New York.

        LOL! Is that the best you can do? Native Americans already do have equal rights, including the right to live in New York and purchase as much of it as they can afford.

        FYI, I’ve noted here in that past that the US and other former colonial powers have used Israel as a convenient excuse to boycott the Durban Review and other UN conferences where discussions about paying reparations for past abuses like slavery, genocide, concentration camps/reservations, the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii, and implementing the basic rights of indigenous peoples is on the formal agenda, e.g.
        * link to mondoweiss.net
        * link to mondoweiss.net
        * link to mondoweiss.net

        I’ve also noted in the comments above that fulfilling treaty obligations to indigenous peoples is an important principle of the international laws that were codified in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007). A review of the applicable treaties probably would reveal that Native Americans are entitled to territory in New York and elsewhere.

        I’ve commented on numerous occasions about the secret oil deals that were consummated during the 1920 San Remo Conference, the Mandate era Red Line Agreement, the CIA plot involving the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, & etc. to the detriment of the rights of the indigenous peoples. I’ve called attention to the “Native American Mutual Defense Treaty Against Tar Sands Projects” because it represents a similar situation.
        link to mondoweiss.net

        So I think we can also talk about ending US arms sales and military assistance that is part of the joint US-Israeli criminal enterprise to colonize Palestine.

      • Citizen
        March 15, 2013, 7:52 am

        @ hophmi
        “As I’ve said many times, Saudi Arabia gets plenty of aid from the United States. So does Egypt. I don’t see much criticism directed at these countries by people here”

        Saudi Arabia has played host to American military bases (Bin Laden’s original gripe), pays through the nose for the weapons it buys from the US (and not with a circle of US tax dollars), and allows US access to its oil distributions). Israel does none of this. There’s no quid pro quo with Israel; it’s a one-sided bargain bought by lobby dollars).

        Egypt and Israel get by far the biggest chunk of total US foreign, with Israel getting the largest chunk no strings attached (and with interest), while Egypt got its chunk for 30 years only so long as it played nice with Israel, and now that Egypt has a new government, there’s plenty of activity in congress to cut off aid to Egypt. And much publicity about that aid in the context of sequestration.

      • Hostage
        March 15, 2013, 8:33 pm

        Saudi Arabia has played host to American military bases . . . and now that Egypt has a new government, there’s plenty of activity in congress to cut off aid to Egypt.

        Both Saudi Arabia and Egypt provided bases for Carter’s hostage rescue attempt, when our friends in Europe and our Middle Eastern “strategic ally” refused to even let the US fly through their airspace or land for repairs, maintenace, or refueling, e.g. link to rescueattempt.com

    • amigo
      March 11, 2013, 5:18 pm

      “But you do exactly that with Israeli society, even though what happens in Palestinian society affects Israeli society ” hoppy

      Yeah Duh Hoppy.

      Land theft and war crimes committed by Israeli society on Palestinian society has consequences.

      I am not aware that Hamas or Fatah are stealing Israeli land.

      Do you always put the horse before the Cart??.

    • German Lefty
      March 11, 2013, 6:23 pm

      But you do exactly that with Israeli society

      No, that’s not the same. What Palestinians do to each other is a national issue and therefore none of our business or at least secondary for now. However, what Zionist Israelis do to Palestinians is an international issue and therefore concerns the international community.

      • OlegR
        March 12, 2013, 6:50 am

        Well then i guess what the Germans did to other German citizens
        was all ok. Internal matter nothing more.

      • Shingo
        March 12, 2013, 9:13 am

        Well then i guess what the Germans did to other German citizens
        was all ok.

        And the Haganah blowing up 200 Jews in Haifa harbor on board the SS Patria in Haifa harbor was OK?

      • German Lefty
        March 12, 2013, 10:38 am

        Well then i guess what the Germans did to other German citizens
        was all ok.

        Oleg, when and where did I say that the gender-based discrimination by Hamas is okay?
        Besides: Unlike the Zionist regime, Hamas doesn’t misuse the Holocaust to justify the unequal treatment. Unlike the Nazi regime, Hamas was democratically elected.

      • Cliff
        March 12, 2013, 11:05 am

        It is an internal matter.

        It isn’t the main culprit in Palestinian misery though. You and Israel are. Zionism is.

        Hamas only arose with Israel’s support and the radicalization of Palestinian society due to decades of Jewish colonialism.

        Hamas is a reaction. And MW has never defended their ‘right to exist’. They are a natural outcome of Palestinian agency given the parameters of the conflict and the nature of Palestinian culture and religion.

        This is best illustrated by the Jewish colonial leaders when they say they would join a terrorist group if they were Palestinian.

        Israel is now cracking down on Palestinian non-violence. So its plain to see that Jewish colonists don’t want any resistance to Jewish colonialism.

        A ‘partner for peace’ in the eyes of Zionism is a slave who does what he or she is told, meaning accepting ‘Jewish sovereignty’ (a lie) without exception.

    • Djinn
      March 11, 2013, 7:25 pm

      Americans are paying for it, either give up the billions or accept that the cheque might come with comments.

    • talknic
      March 12, 2013, 8:06 am

      hophmi
      “It is simply that you have chosen the Palestinian side of the conflict, and you care little what the consequences are for everyone else”

      Er it’s a matter of legality. What people do in their own territory is their own business. What Israel does in Palestinian territory is an international issue.

      Of course you must ignore this simple matter in order to build your strawman arguments … poor things

      • tokyobk
        March 12, 2013, 9:59 am

        talknic,

        You don’t really believe that. What Israel does in Israeli territory is of great concern here, as it should be.

      • hophmi
        March 12, 2013, 12:00 pm

        “Er it’s a matter of legality.

        Shenanigans. Norman Finkelstein cut through that argument when he pointed out that you only seemed to be interested in how minorities were treated in Israel. And you don’t condemn the Palestinians when they violate international law, which they do frequently.

      • Hostage
        March 13, 2013, 6:18 pm

        “Er it’s a matter of legality.

        Shenanigans. Norman Finkelstein cut through that argument when he pointed out that you only seemed to be interested in how minorities were treated in Israel.

        Wrong! Phil and Adam are hosting several megabytes worth of essays on the custom in international law of basing cessions of territory and recognition of statehood on acceptance of minority rights agreements; the fact that both of the new states in Palestine provided the UN with the necessary declarations accepting undertakings to provide all of their citizens equal protection under their laws; and the fact that minority, religious, and women’s rights were placed under UN guarantee according to the explicit terms of the General Assembly’s resolution on 29 November 1947. You are hardly the first Zionist troll who has tried to cite Finkelstein to support the false proposition that no one here cares about Palestinian human rights violations, e.g.:

        * link to mondoweiss.net
        * link to mondoweiss.net

        I’ve consistently pointed out that the term “Palestine refugees” in UN GA Res. 194(III) applies to 17,000 Jewish refugees that were registered with the UNRWA and its predecessor.

        One of the few areas where I disagree with Finkelstein is his contention that international law has nothing to say about the treatment of minorities in Israel. In fact, all of the major human rights conventions, including the ICCPR, ICESCR, and the ICERD have treaty monitoring bodies that participate in the Universal Periodic Review process. Some of those reports have contained findings that Israel’s policies and practices violate international prohibitions of apartheid or similar forms of racial discrimination. He’s certainly correct that states do not ordinarily have the right to interfere in matters that fall essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of other states. But any state can exercise universal jurisdiction over serious human rights violations, including instances of apartheid.

    • Hostage
      March 12, 2013, 9:29 am

      But you do exactly that with Israeli society, even though what happens in Palestinian society affects Israeli society.

      The problem with you and Peter Beinart is that you deliberately ignore the fact that the Government of Israel is supported through US individual or payroll taxes and that it impudently claims to speak on behalf of Jews, like myself, everywhere.

      Neither of you ethically challenged bums will have any trouble finding comments in my archives which acknowledge that I don’t support Hamas. I’ve acknowledged that they are religious fundamentalists who aren’t my cup of tea and that they have committed war crimes by targeting Israeli civilians on their own side of the Green line; that their official organs have made statements that are anti-Semitic; and that they either deny the Holocaust happened or blame the Holocaust on ordinary Zionists.

      You also won’t have any trouble finding comments I’ve made which explain that Hamas and its adherents nonetheless deserve equal human rights and representation in their own government – just like everyone else.

      Beinart implies that Palestinian human rights can be withheld or delayed, based upon their attitude toward an implacable wartime enemy regime. That’s a nonsensical proposition, since Bienart doesn’t propose placing racist Jews who are complicit in war crimes under a similar regime of tutelage or servitude.

      Here’s a typical comment from Annie, a regular contributor which says that terrorism is wrong no matter who commits it. She and I were both opposed to the view of Larry Derfner who felt that attacks on Israeli civilians were justifiable.

      * link to mondoweiss.net

      *http://mondoweiss.net/2011/08/read-the-post-for-which-derfner-was-fired-the-awful-necessary-truth-about-palestinian-terror.html/comment-page-1#comment-355209

      Here are some more comments on the subject of Hamas, Fatah, and human rights or war crimes:
      * link to mondoweiss.net
      * link to mondoweiss.net
      * link to mondoweiss.net
      * link to mondoweiss.net
      * link to mondoweiss.net
      * link to mondoweiss.net
      * link to mondoweiss.net

      • hophmi
        March 12, 2013, 12:06 pm

        “The problem with you and Peter Beinart is that you deliberately ignore the fact that the Government of Israel is supported through US individual or payroll taxes and that it impudently claims to speak on behalf of Jews, like myself, everywhere.”

        Again, so what? Saudi Arabia gets plenty of US money and weapons. It has a dismal human rights record.

        Who cares what the Israelis say? A plurality of the world’s Jews live there. It’s the only Jewish state. It’s sometimes going to speak “on behalf of the Jewish people.” Most Americans seem to understand that just because they do so does not mean that every individual American Jew supports every single thing they say.

        “Neither of you ethically challenged bums will have any trouble finding comments in my archives which acknowledge that I don’t support Hamas.”

        Good for you. You’re a commentator here.

        “Here’s a typical comment from Annie, a regular contributor which says that terrorism is wrong no matter who commits it.”

        It is typical. She does not condemn Palestinian terrorism. It’s a dodge, as far as I’m concerned. Most of the Arab street condemns terrorism too. They just don’t think Palestinian suicide bombing is actually terrorism.

        It is exactly as I say. The BDS movement, and this blog, takes the view that it is not their business to tell Palestinians how to run their society, and this includes issuing clear condemnations for Palestinian terrorism, which kills Israeli civilians.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 12, 2013, 12:51 pm

        this blog, takes the view that it is not their business to tell Palestinians how to run their society, and this includes issuing clear condemnations for Palestinian terrorism

        no sh*t sherlock. have you read the about page lately? link to mondoweiss.net

        notice how it doesn’t say ‘Mondoweiss is a news website devoted to telling Palestinians how to run their society which includes issuing clear condemnations for Palestinian terrorism?’

        go start your own blog! i think the israeli foreign ministry spends about 100 million a year on bloggers condemning palestinians from every single angle, defending zionism, and all the other stuff you subject us to daily. there’s simply no lack of these kinds of blogs. that’s not our focus, never has been and never will be. why should i spend my time condemning palestinians? i don’t see you spending your energy fighting my cause! this is nuts, it’s like…you guys won’t join our team! why not????

        because, we’re the opposition, that’s what we do.

        also, you are reinforcing a concept the occupation would end if their was no violent resistance, which is not the case. the occupation is not in response to violent resistance, it is there to enforce measures to facilitate the expansion of israel into palestinian territory. if they were interested in the security of israel they would not be allowing settlers to invade palestinian territory, used as a fig leaf to allow thousands of soldiers to ‘protect them’. it’s a farce, israel doesn’t want to relinquish the land. they incite terror because they don’t do gandhi. or didn’t you get the message?

        so our job is exposing zionism. i don’t need to do your job, which is defending it and justifying it. that’s not my job. and hey, i would like you to do my job for me if you don’t mind. so why aren’t you fighting my cause for me? get it? you’re turning this into an ad hominem argument. i know this game. asking us to condemn palestinians is as worn out as an old dishrag.

      • Woody Tanaka
        March 12, 2013, 12:57 pm

        “It’s a dodge, as far as I’m concerned. Most of the Arab street condemns terrorism too. They just don’t think Palestinian suicide bombing is actually terrorism.”

        Ignore the mote in your neighbor’s eye, and attend to the beam in your own eye, hoppy. When your favorite ethno-religious Apartheid state bombs civilians and Gaza, West Bank and elsewhere, you’re all too happy to do a bit of dodging about how it’s not really terrorism on those populations. So save your sanctimonious nonsense about Palestinian actions which kills Israeli civilians until you’re ready to condemn the israeli attacks that kill Palestinian civilians without the transparent dodge of claiming it’s legitimate defense, or unintended or whatever evil nonsense you decide to spew.

      • Donald
        March 12, 2013, 1:00 pm

        ” and this includes issuing clear condemnations for Palestinian terrorism, which kills Israeli civilians.”

        I’m in favor of issuing clear condemnations for Palestinian terrorism which kills Israeli civilians. Always have been. I remember the good old days, when the now banned RW accused me several times in a row of defending Hamas terror, I’d point out that it was immoral, he’d accuse of defending it, I’d condemn it, and sometime around iteration 324 or so (I exaggerate slightly) he noticed my condemnation. Then he accused me again later.

        There’s several points to that little story. First, as a moral matter, we should condemn Palestinian terrorism. Second, when we don’t, we get accused of supporting it, which doesn’t do the Palestinian cause any good. Third, when we do condemn it, often we’re still accused of defending it, because the accusation that we don’t condemn it is really one of the best arguments an Israel defender has. They can’t really justify Israel’s violence, so the only option left is to criticize Israel’s critics.

        Which brings me to another point. Shouldn’t Israel defenders like yourself issue clear and unequivocal condemnations of Israeli war crimes, apartheid, and terrorism? It won’t make you popular around here if you do that and still call yourself a liberal Zionist, but shouldn’t you be doing that because it’s the right thing to do? Instead, what most liberal Zionists do is issue mealymouthed condemnations of settlements, but full-throated condemnations of Palestinian terrorism. And consciously or subconsciously the reason for this is clear. It’s because “settlement activity” is such a bloodless unemotional sort of phrase. “Terrorism” is the exact opposite. “Settlement activity” sounds like a real estate scam, while “terrorism” is mass murder.

        It’s also why so many liberal Zionists object to the term “apartheid” to describe settlement activity–“apartheid” is a hot emotional term and we’re only supposed to use those kinds of words about the actions of dastardly Palestinians.

      • Cliff
        March 12, 2013, 1:06 pm

        hoppy,

        This blog is not about Hamas. It’s about Israel, the occupation and the US-Israel relationship.

        If you want content you approve of, then go to Atlas Shrugged or read Daniel Pipes, Robert Spencer, Greet Wilders, Phyllis Chesler, Alan Dershowitz, etc.

        There are plenty of people who focus on Islamic terrorism and do so in a way that you approve of (exagerrated as the end times for human civilization and putting Israelis through a Holocaust).

        All you do is equivocate, divert, and attempt (pitifully) to police the discourse.

      • eljay
        March 12, 2013, 1:33 pm

        >> Shouldn’t Israel defenders like yourself issue clear and unequivocal condemnations of Israeli war crimes, apartheid, and terrorism?

        They would if they weren’t Zio-supremacists, which is to say, hypocrites.

      • Hostage
        March 12, 2013, 1:53 pm

        Hostage: “The problem with you and Peter Beinart is that you deliberately ignore the fact that the Government of Israel is supported through US individual or payroll taxes and that it impudently claims to speak on behalf of Jews, like myself, everywhere.”

        Hophmi: Again, so what? Saudi Arabia gets plenty of US money and weapons.

        So, even though you are trying rather artlessly to divert attention away from direct US support for Israel’s illegal enterprises, you won’t have any trouble finding comments in my archives which point-out the fact that the US is violating its UN Charter obligations and the resolutions adopted by the General Assembly convened in Emergency Sessions by blocking sanctions against Israel and supplying arms to the belligerent parties in the region, including Saudi Arabia – and the fact that those sales of offensive weapon systems have nothing to do with self-defense e.g.
        * link to mondoweiss.net
        * link to mondoweiss.net
        * link to mondoweiss.net
        * link to mondoweiss.net

        I’ve also pointed out that the US support for Israel’s unilateral blockade of Gaza facilitates Israel’s acts of continuing aggression by denying Palestinians even the most rudimentary forms of self-defense. I’ve explained that Judge Eliyahu Lauterpacht expressed concern and affirmed preliminary objections in the Bosnian genocide case which held that even the UN Security Council is not empowered to impose sanctions that restrict the right of self-defense.
        * link to mondoweiss.net

      • Hostage
        March 12, 2013, 2:02 pm

        P.S. I would hasten to add that Saudi Arabia is not getting plenty of the US taxpayer’s money as you’ve alleged. Unlike Israel, they customarily purchase arms under the various US Foreign assistance programs.

      • James Canning
        March 12, 2013, 2:39 pm

        @Hostage – – Yes. And American oil purchases from Saudi Arabia in 2012 were perhaps $60 billion higher than in 2011.

      • German Lefty
        March 12, 2013, 2:43 pm

        you ethically challenged bums

        Thanks a lot, Hostage. I laughed my ass off.

  4. Danaa
    March 11, 2013, 3:56 pm

    Good response to Beinart’s rather unoriginal rolling out his own sad attempt at “concern rolling”. His concern is – by his own admission – is a concern what Israeli oppression of Palestinians does to Israelis – and by extension, Jews like him. What the oppression does to the Palestinians – is of secondary concern, though I’m sure it’s there – theoretically.

    To me complaints about what Hamas is and isn’t is like complaining about the nature of the prisoners self-government. One would perhaps not be entirely remiss in surmising that a government of inmates in a prison or a camp, may not quite resemble the fair and just government of the world outside the prisons walls. If it’s not entirely democratic, and if perhaps not entirely cognizant of gender equality, well, we might not be surprised, would we?

    Being inside Gaza, living the bleak life imposed upon them by Israel – effectively abetted and condoned by the beautiful souls like Beinart – is no picnic. Imagine the challenge of keeping law and order in the face of the enormous deprivation – something which Beinart apparently is not overly concerned about. What’s next on his list of concerns one wonders – not allowing men in Gaza to visit strip clubs? preventing women from bathing in the narrow strip of sea left to them in bikini thongs? denying men and women access to plastic surgery? or, the worst of all – preventing gay men from living in conjugal bliss?

    Actually, the palestinians in gaza are lucky to have religion – oftentimes that’s all prisoners shorn of everything – have left. It is not surprising that the religion of Gaza be a stronger version of the religion in the West Bank – it is often the case that the commitment to a religion or radical ideology is in direct proportion to the level of oppression experienced by those living in the condition. Peter needs to revisit the history of Warsaw ghetto – towards the final days, a government was emerging there that was quite harsh – something that we who read the history find easy to understand, given that equitable distribution of those last few loaves of bread required iron discipline.

    Lastly, I can’t help but wonder – would Peter Beinart feel the same were he to find out that the women in the japanese camps in the US were not allowed to run in a marathon organized by men. Would he be shocked and impose the contingency that if and only if marathons were coed could the japanese be freed?

    Please note how gingerly I walk on the Warsaw ghetto ashes. One wouldn’t want to offend the sensibilities of the beautiful souls like Peter Beinart. I don’t think i could bear the bleating of the wounded hearts.

    • amigo
      March 11, 2013, 5:14 pm

      “would Peter Beinart feel the same were he to find out that the women in the japanese camps in the US were not allowed to run in a marathon organized by men”

      Would he be surprised were he to find out there are women in Israel not allowed to sit at the front of the Bus.

  5. ritzl
    March 11, 2013, 4:03 pm

    Thoughtful, brilliant response.

    The other thing that Beinart and his libzio cohorts neglect entirely is that things change. The PA was moderated (sadly toward corruption) by Oslo, or the prospect of governance. Hamas will be moderated as well. Hopefully toward more rights as opposed to corruption, but the seemingly foregone conclusion that internal rights are not forthcoming in a Palestinian state is, as you say, ideological/apologetic/rationalizing.

    Hamas allowed 20K Fatah supporters to rally a few weeks ago. Including women.

    I guess I don’t get Beinart’s obliviousness to change, or changeability. It seems so calculated, and so, I don’t know, knee-jerk project-able onto others.

    Again, thanks.

  6. Danaa
    March 11, 2013, 4:11 pm

    I’d like to do a bit of my own concern trolling for Beinart – that great champion of gender equality (and no doubt gay rights). Why is he never speaking about the enormous suppression of women in the devout Haredi communities of say, the Satmar in New York City? when has he last advocated the right to work – and vote – for those doubly oppressed women? what about the right to birth control? the right to debate the Torah in the open? the right to enroll in a yeshiva as an equal? what about gay rights among the ultra-orthodox, just recently fawned over most tenderly by Dave brooks? Ah, those beautiful peiots, black hats, black stockings and wigs! all that lovely kosher food! all that marvelous equality!

    I think that Beinart – in the interest of fairness – should take up the cause of the repressed communities of the Jewish ultra-orthodox. I think he should organize a marathon just for them! it should be something, that’s for sure.

    Maybe when he does, maybe when he publishes another column decrying the distribution of welfare payments to families that grow without limit as they partake of the largesse of the society they reject, when he calls for making those welfare and medicaid and school payments contingent upon greater openness of ultra-orthodox hierarchy towards gender equality, when he does that I’ll consider his concerns for the Palestinians commitment to 21st century values sincere.

    So, what say you Peter? what’s good for the goose is good for the gander?

    • Annie Robbins
      March 11, 2013, 4:36 pm

      while you’re at it danaa, perhaps suggest beinart should show a little concern for victims of child sexual abuse in the haredi community as well. just because it’s only reported in the regional section of the nytimes and other local papers don’t imagine it’s not something we know about. it’s a glaringly under reported problem especially juxtaposed to the way the msm in this country did not shy away from exposing what was happening in the catholic church. but, it’s not our turf.

      personally, i don’t share beinart’s concern nor understand why he thinks we should. there are literally 10’s of millions of funds dedicated to exposing every possible problem with hamas (i’m sure he must know this). but the people of gaza have more serious worries. when drones are flying overhead all the time and salt water is coming out of the faucet and the sewer is over flowing and parts and materials are prevented from coming thru the border along with water purification systems and your friends are dying, i seriously doubt running a marathon is going to be on the top of your list. or if it was we’d be hearing something about it from palestinian women, who can be critical of their own cultural norms.

      what an odd thing to go after mondoweiss about, not reporting on women not being allowed to run in a marathon. he wants us to write about how bad hamas is. well perhaps he is unaware how many women are hamas. i met over 100 of them while i was there,and i asked them why they were part of hamas. they definitely were not shy about responding. they should read some helena cobban interviews, women run hamas on the ground. palestinians women are not shrinking violets, they can speak for themselves.

      if there was a decision made by hamas they didn’t want women running in the UN marathon, it’s very probable that was a decision made by the women of hamas.

      • Joe Catron
        March 11, 2013, 6:48 pm

        Honestly, I think it had more to do with UNRWA’s idiotic “no contact” (above the technical level) policy than anything else. If you can’t pick up your phone and make a call, every small problem will be a big problem.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 12, 2013, 6:17 am

        joe, what’s ” UNRWA’s idiotic “no contact” (above the technical level) policy”?

      • Citizen
        March 11, 2013, 8:21 pm

        @ Annie

        RE: “perhaps suggest beinart should show a little concern for victims of child sexual abuse in the haredi community as well. just because it’s only reported in the regional section of the nytimes and other local papers don’t imagine it’s not something we know about. it’s a glaringly under reported problem especially juxtaposed to the way the msm in this country did not shy away from exposing what was happening in the catholic church. but, it’s not our turf.”

        We do know about it. I guess Bill Maher does not, although he slams the Catholic Church for pedophile priests on nearly every weekly show.

      • piotr
        March 12, 2013, 1:57 am

        Personally, I have a soft spot for Satmar. In my dim recollection, the problem concerned girls that were rebelious, e.g. wishing to engage in dating, and sent to youth counseling. Sensibly, the counselor realized the chief problem in the situation, namely totally inadequate knowledge of modern lingerie, what is it and why it is important. You want to go on a date in sensible cotton panties? Do you know how to spell alluring?

        Unfortunately, rather than suffer some personal sacrifice and purchase the educational items with his own cash, the counselor used a credit card of the counseling center.

      • Kathleen
        March 11, 2013, 10:40 pm

        “but the people of gaza have more serious worries. when drones are flying overhead all the time and salt water is coming out of the faucet and the sewer is over flowing and parts and materials are prevented from coming thru the border along with water purification systems and your friends are dying, i seriously doubt running a marathon is going to be on the top of your list. or if it was we’d be hearing something about it from palestinian women, who can be critical of their own cultural norms.”

        Go Annie. You know how to cut to the bone (truth) girlfriend. Would so love to see you on a panel with Beinart. Or on Chris Matthews Hardball. Beinart is Matthews new middle of the road pick supposed to come off as left of center I think. When will Matthews have a truly liberal rep from the American Jewish Community who has taken a stand for justice for the Palestinians? You go Annie

    • tree
      March 11, 2013, 6:39 pm

      Great post, Danaa! BTW, I just reviewed that famous quote of his where he admitted that he was willing to jettison his liberal tendencies when it came to religious/ethnic equality in Israel. Apparently he’s perfectly willing to jettison his championing of gender equality too, when it comes to his Orthodox religious community.

      I think I’ve also been lucky because my community is very tolerant both in terms of observance and political opinion, even on Israel. (I didn’t realize quote how tolerant until I wrote my essay). That makes it much easier for me to deal with those parts of Orthodoxy that do trouble me: for instance, the participation of women. I might have grativated to some more egalitarian conservadox minyan, but the fact that there are so many successful, empowered, articulate women in my community makes me feel more comfortable on questions of gender. There is also a sense of irony and good humor about Orthodox Jewry’s foibles among our friends that I greatly value.

      So I suppose I compromise my liberalism to participate in an Orthodox community, but I’m willing to do so because I am so enriched by it in so many ways. (And perhaps because I fear that a more universalistic Jewish community would be less of a true Jewish community). So it’s a little like Zionism. I recognize that to be a Zionist I have to compromise my liberalism: I have to support a Jewish state, which by definition will never be able to provide absolute equality to its non-Jewish citizens. But I try to do so while still hoping for as much liberalism as possible. I’ve never felt my community is demeaning or disrespectful to women or gays or lesbians or non-Jews, even as I do remain bothered by the roles according to all those groups in mainstream Orthodox practice.

      link to kavvanah.wordpress.com

      Here’s an article from last year on gender discrimination among ultra-Orthodox in Israel. Beinart complaining about gender discrimination in Gaza is like a Jewish pot calling a Palestinian kettle black:

      link to slate.com

      I’m a woman and though I can only imagine what a woman in Gaza might think or feel, I know that I’d tell Beinart to take his phony concern for Gaza women and shove it where the sun don’t shine. Yes, I’d be upset about the restrictions placed on me by Hamas because of my sex (as I would be upset about similar Israeli gender restrictions if I lived in Israel), but I’d be much more upset about the personal assault on my life, my family, and our liberty that comes from the Israeli blockade and Israel’s numerous violent incursions into Gaza. I’d get over not being allowed to run in a marathon. Being bombed or having my house destroyed or my children killed, not so much… And I certainly wouldn’t give the time of day to a jerk who thinks that I don’t deserve an end to the violent Israeli assaults on my human rights and the rights of other Palestinians until the Hamas government allows women to run in marathons. What chutzpah!

  7. Kathleen
    March 11, 2013, 4:19 pm

    “Rather than being truly concerned for the well being of Palestinian women, Beinart is policing the Israel/Palestine debate and determining whose rights matter and when. For Beinart, Palestinian human rights are paramount in Hamas-run Gaza — “Human rights can be menaced by every national and ideological camp, and thus must be defended against every national and ideological camp” — yet he declared to Jeffrey Goldberg he opposes equal rights for Palestinian citizens of Israel because it contradicts his own political mission of maintaining a Jewish state — “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.” In addition, and more shocking considering his attack on us, Beinart was silent on the human rights of these very same women when Israel was bombing Gaza this past November. How then should we understand his new found concern for Palestinian human rights?”

    Can Beinart say “ouch” How can he spin this?

    • Erasmus
      March 12, 2013, 10:26 am

      Beinart’s Zio-Liberalism UNMASKED as cheap Hasbarism – once for all
      T h a n k s to tree and Kathleen!
      Re: tree : March 11, 2013 at 6:39 pm
      .”… So it’s a little like Zionism. I recognize that to be a Zionist I have to compromise my liberalism: I have to support a Jewish state, which by definition will never be able to provide absolute equality to its non-Jewish citizens. But I try to do so while still hoping for as much liberalism as possible…”

      Re Kahleen March 11, 2013 at 4:19 pm
      …yet he declared to Jeffrey Goldberg he opposes equal rights for Palestinian citizens of Israel because it contradicts his own political mission of maintaining a Jewish state —
      “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.”

      That should disqualify Peter Beinarts verbal garbage re Zio-liberalism once for all!
      These quotations unmask P.B. as little else than a cheap hasbarist. I wonder that decent media (print or otherwise, incl. blogs like Mondoweiss) give P.B. hypocritical and/or mendacious utterings any import and coverage at all.
      The only thing that P.B. would have to conclude from his own realization that his generous granting Palestinian Israelis only less than full and unequal citizenhip rights makes him a 100 pc non-Liberal (to put it very mildly).
      The only logic consequence were for him, to repent his treason on the better traditions of enlightened liberalism and give up his mission for a JEWISH State of Israel.

  8. Light
    March 11, 2013, 4:28 pm

    Beinart’s argument boils down to

    1, Israel has flaws
    2. The Palestinians have more flaws
    3. Why aren’t anti-Zionist sites covering these Palestinian flaws?(instead of picking on Israel) ?

    Beinert is a smart man. Is this Hasbara 101 talking point the best he can do?
    Suppose Mondoweiss criticizes Palestinian political parties more, will he then support ending the oppression of Palestinian people and granting them equal rights in Palestine/Israel?

    • German Lefty
      March 11, 2013, 6:08 pm

      Is this Hasbara 101 talking point the best he can do?
      Yes. It’s simply impossible to justify Zionism, even for smart people. That’s why all that Zionists can do is resort to distraction.

      Suppose Mondoweiss criticizes Palestinian political parties more, will he then support ending the oppression of Palestinian people and granting them equal rights in Palestine/Israel?
      Interesting question, but the answer is clear. This Beinart person is such a hypocrite.
      Actually, the so-called “liberal Zionists” infuriate me even more than the Likud Zionists, because “liberal Zionists” claim to see both sides and to represent the moderate middle that fights the extremists on the left and the right. Apparently, demanding no oppression of Palestinians is as extreme as demanding much oppression of Palestinians. According to Beinart, a moderate extent of oppression is the best compromise.

      • Kathleen
        March 11, 2013, 10:43 pm

        The only reason Beinart started taking the stands that he has is because he sees the two state solutions doors closing. Which he knows will be the end of the Jewish state of Israel. He is not taking his stands out of compassion otherwise he would have taken them long ago. He knows what has been going on.

  9. W.Jones
    March 11, 2013, 4:32 pm

    Adam, your second paragraph is very good.

    “If the U.S. government were funding Hamas we’d feel differently, and if there was a propaganda and lobbying effort in the U.S. to justify and promote oppressive Hamas practices we would cover it. But this isn’t the case.”

    What about the 1950’s US Civil Rights movement, in covering discrimination in the US: should it include a strong focus on black crime, including spousal abuse, divorce, and drug abuse in its civil rights bulletins?

    Certainly these are serious problems and must be addressed, but the ultimate cause for them (in both their case and instances of extremism among Palestinians), according to a sociological explanation, is the oppression that both groups face. On a sidenote, racists’ primary focus is on these kinds of problems (“Blacks do X”), without taking into account the sociological explanation for problems of crime and abuse, etc.

  10. Woody Tanaka
    March 11, 2013, 4:43 pm

    Beinart’s on record, in essence, saying that if he has to jettison his liberalism or his zionism, he’d jettison his supposed liberalism. So such a person has no business criticizing anyone over their views. As bad as it is that Hamas would prevent women from running in a marathon, this person supports a state that has kept a population under its book for two generations, for no reason other than the state’s racist ideology; an ideology that Beinart supports. So who is really in the wrong here? The person who ignores Hamas’s restrictive marathon policies or the person who ignores israeli’s Aparthied policies.

    When Beinart calls for an absolute, immediate and complete end of the occupation, withdraw of israeli terror forces to behind the 1967 line, complete restoration to the Palestinians of what’s been stolen from the Palestians and an end to the Judeo-supremacist basis of the israeli state, then he can have an opinion.

    • ritzl
      March 11, 2013, 5:32 pm

      Nailed it.

    • Kathleen
      March 11, 2013, 10:44 pm

      “As bad as it is that Hamas would prevent women from running in a marathon, this person supports a state that has kept a population under its book for two generations, for no reason other than the state’s racist ideology; an ideology that Beinart supports. ”

      Bingo

  11. Woody Tanaka
    March 11, 2013, 4:58 pm

    “We have run pieces that have been critical of Hamas politically or militarily, but from our perspective the struggle to reform Palestinian society is an issue for the Palestinian people to decide for themselves.”

    I disagree with this position, to the extent it is not tied to human rights. Beinart is a toad who has no real adherence to the progressive ideas as he paints himself. Nevertheless, those princles must be the basis of the criticisms or else what is? The fact is that Hamas should be criticized, as appropriate, for its illiberal policies. Of course, israel’s crimes against the Palestinians far overshadow them, but that fact should not stay criticism of those policies, although, as the greater villain and bigger threat to the Palestinians’ human rights, criticism of the israel must be in the forefront.

    • Citizen
      March 11, 2013, 8:12 pm

      @ Woody Tanaka
      Compare the special relationship the American government has with Israel, and the excessively contrary relationship our government has with HAMAS.

      • Woody Tanaka
        March 12, 2013, 10:27 am

        Citizen, I understand your point, however my position exists independently of whatever position America might hold or actions it might take.

        It is my believe that we must come at these questions from a truely progressive perspective, which means, to me, that the horror here is that individuals are being denied their human, civil and political rights and equality. My end game is that all the people in the region have those rights returned and protected, regardless of who they are. To that extent, I believe that Hamas is as guilty of denial of these rights and should be criticized for them, although I recognize that the greater threat to those rights is israel. However, if all that Palestinian activism accomplished was for israel to end the occupation only for Hamas (PA or anyone else, for that matter) to continue illiberal policies, that would simply not be okay.

  12. amigo
    March 11, 2013, 4:58 pm

    The simple response to Beinart is that Israel created Hamas.

  13. freespeechlover
    March 11, 2013, 5:11 pm

    “Rather than being truly concerned for the well being of Palestinian women, Beinart is policing the Israel/Palestine debate and determining whose rights matter and when.”

    I think this is key, and I very much appreciate the point–using women’s rights as a means for other ends is called exploitation.

    • lysias
      March 11, 2013, 7:18 pm

      using women’s rights as a means for other ends is called exploitation.

      Just like pinkwashing.

  14. Edward Q
    March 11, 2013, 5:16 pm

    Why is Beinart concerned about Hamas and not the PA.? A Palestinian from Hebron once told me that the PA is worse then Israel when it comes to treatment of prisoners. After the Oslo accords were signed, which were a recycled version of the Alon plan, and the PA was created, the U.S. and Israel repeatedly demanded that the PA prove it was “serious” about cracking down on terrorism. I think this was code for “use torture, kidnapping, and other forms of oppression against Palestinian resistance.” Lisa Hajjar has probably written about the PA “justice system”.

  15. Edward Q
    March 11, 2013, 5:23 pm

    Another point is that if Beinart wants to speak about the rights of Palestinian women, he should first speak to them to learn what concerns they have and if they want his “help”.

  16. German Lefty
    March 11, 2013, 5:33 pm

    If the U.S. government were funding Hamas we’d feel differently, and if there was a propaganda and lobbying effort in the U.S. to justify and promote oppressive Hamas practices we would cover it. [...] Beinart opposes equal rights for Palestinian citizens of Israel because it contradicts his own political mission of maintaining a Jewish state. [...] Beinart’s argument is reminiscent of those who use internal struggles within Palestinian society as an excuse to postpone Palestinian freedom.

    Exactly. Perfect response.
    Zionists always use distraction as a tactic, e.g. “Why don’t you fight [enter any other injustice], too?”

  17. jon s
    March 11, 2013, 5:39 pm

    See Judith Bell’s comment regarding Mondoweiss below Beinart’s article.

    • Cliff
      March 11, 2013, 6:22 pm

      Nah, this is a better comment:

      As a feminist, I find it fascinating that Beinart has discovered Palestinian women and struggles for their rights. It reminds me of George W. Bush using his wife, Laura Bush, to market the invasion of Afghanistan as a feminist act by proclaiming that we needed to invade to save Afghanistani women.

      Using women’s rights as a means to other ends–i.e. arguing with the “far left” is exploitative. Palestinian women’s rights are conceptualized by and organized around by Palestinian women themselves.

      There has been a Palestinian women’s movement going back decades with internal debates that are similar to those in other colonial contexts. But of course they’re invisible in Beinart’s analysis, because his interest is not in supporting Palestinian movement for women’s rights. His stakes are in drawing lines over what is permissable to think re: Israel and the Palestinians, and he’s willing to use Palestinian women as a tool to argue against his political opponents.

      Don’t talk to us about human rights when you don’t respect them.

      Your priority is Zionism. A worldview within a Zionist framework.

      All throughout the history of the comments section we have had Zionist commentators justify Israeli operations that have resulted in mass civilian death.

      You specifically jon s do not condemn indiscriminate attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure. You don’t do this because Israel is the one doing the killing.

      You won’t find a single MW regular who has ever defended Hamas’s tx of women or Hamas’s rockets or blah blah blah.

      So Beinhart is really just doing this in a pathetic attempt to police discussion.

      When has hophmi criticized the colonization of Palestinian land? Or the legitimacy of Israel and the crimes of 1948?

      In fact, hophmi is a Nakba denier and calls the Palestinians, Nazis.

      I think its safe to assume you’re in the same category of Zionist.

      Oh and giladg, NormanF, Obsidian/ProudZionist, etc. etc. are all pro-colonies and regularly cite the Bible/Torah/etc. (religion) as justification for Zionism.

      You have no ground to stand on because for you this isn’t a moral argument.

      It’s a selfish one.

      What do we care about Hamas? They are so easily dismissible. They are a product of the radicalization of Palestinian society due to the abnormal living conditions inflicted upon the Palestinian people BY ISRAEL.

      That’s what happens. You occupy and colonize a group of people and then police them mercifully and you get something like Hamas.

      And you look across the third world and that pattern is consistent more or less.

    • German Lefty
      March 11, 2013, 6:59 pm

      See Judith Bell’s comment regarding Mondoweiss below Beinart’s article.

      I just read her comment. Wow, she calls us haters and totalitarian leaders. That’s typical for a deluded Zionist.

    • Annie Robbins
      March 11, 2013, 8:36 pm

      she had several of them. i’ve read her here, why would i need to read her anywhere else?

      • Citizen
        March 11, 2013, 9:09 pm

        @ Annie Robbins, German Lefty
        Yeah, she’s got a whole bunch of hateful comments there, and a few others slamming the crap out of MW as a hate site that censors anyone who does not praise the Palestinians or support Israel. I left her and her friends a simple response comment to dispute their characterization, saying MW offered an objective daily discussion of US-Israel special relationship” and the harm it’s causing. Just in case some readers of comments at Open Zion never heard of MW and just might go here to check MW out for themselves.

    • Shingo
      March 12, 2013, 7:49 am

      See Judith Bell’s comment regarding Mondoweiss below Beinart’s article.

      Yeah, she sounds like Caroline Glick.

      Anyone notice Witty’s signature wine?

      • Annie Robbins
        March 12, 2013, 9:04 am

        poor judith couldn’t get her nakba denial passed thru moderation.

      • jon s
        March 13, 2013, 5:06 pm

        The ban on what you call “nakba denial” prevents any meaningful discussion of the events of 1948.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 13, 2013, 11:05 pm

        many agree the ban on what you call “holocaust denial” prevents any meaningful discussion of events during that era.

        i didn’t make the rules. email phil and adam. people who blame the nakba on ‘arab leaders’ should comment elsewhere. in the meanwhile if your ideas are not getting thru try rephrasing them.

      • Shingo
        March 13, 2013, 11:29 pm

        The ban on what you call “nakba denial” prevents any meaningful discussion of the events of 1948.

        No it doesn’t, unless you plan to engage in nakba denial.

      • jon s
        March 14, 2013, 4:49 pm

        Annie,
        I could have guessed that you would try to create a balance between the “nakba denial” policy and holocaust denial.
        Of course I don’t “deny” the nakba. Nakba means catastrophe , and no reasonable person would deny that the Palestinians suffered one in 1948. But -as far as I understand it – the policy here is that pointing out the Palestinians’ role in the events of that period is a no-no. I don’t buy equating that policy with holocaust denial.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 14, 2013, 5:01 pm

        jon, please read the last paragraph here: link to mondoweiss.net

        (after reading the excellent main article of course)

      • Hostage
        March 14, 2013, 5:31 pm

        I could have guessed that you would try to create a balance between the “nakba denial” policy and holocaust denial.

        The EU Framework Decision on Combating Racism and Xenophobia uses exactly the same criteria to define anti-Semetic and Islamophobic hate speech. It criminalizes the act of publicly denying, condoning, or trivializing war crimes or crimes against humanity that target groups or individuals on the basis of their race, nationality, or ethnic characteristics.

        If you’ve ever heard an IDF or Zionist spokesman, then you’ve probably seen an example of someone justify continuing war crimes and crimes against humanity against Palestinians on the completely false bases that human rights do not apply during armed conflicts or that humanitarian laws don’t apply to Palestinians. The ICJ dismissed those spurious arguments. So there’s really nothing “meaningful” about repeating that whole line of argumentation.

      • Cliff
        March 14, 2013, 5:45 pm

        So what is the Palestinian role in their own tragedy?

        Did they rape and massacre themselves or compel the Jewish terrorists to do so?

        Explain to us all what you mean EXACTLY. Don’t censor jon s here. I want to see what he has to say.

      • Cliff
        March 14, 2013, 5:50 pm

        Really jon s?

        Explain.

        Actually, I think you just want to blame the victims.

        How about an ‘honest’ discussion into what caused German enmity with German Jews?

        THUS, we can – by your logic – blame Jews for their own extermination.

        That is what you so desperately want to ‘discuss’.

        You want to talk about Arab this and Arab that causing enmity in the Jewish Zionist community in Palestine and things like the Hebron massacre.

        Which you will then link to the Nakba or IMPLY a link – hence, Arab blah blah set off a sequence of events vis a vis that all-powerful enmity, which led inevitably to the Nakba.

        You’re disgusting and predictable.

        This is like hoppy saying ‘most Americans’ support Israel when in fact most support neither side and want fair treatment and equitable treatment.

        You and every single other Zionist are LIARS.

      • jon s
        March 16, 2013, 5:39 pm

        Cliff
        1.Interesting that you presume to know what I want to say.
        2.According to information published today most Americans do support Israel.
        3.Thanks for asking the moderators to allow my comment, but I don’t know if it will have any effect. One of my recent comments was banned, when the strongest word I used was calling someone ” clueless”. I’ve been called a lot worse. You should know.
        4.On the Nakba, I think that the role of the Palestinians (primarily their leadership at the time) should be discussed. For instance , their decision to reject the UN partition plan, and to take up arms to prevent its implementation, and the consequences of those decisions.
        4. I have no problem discussing the roots of German Anti-Semitism.
        5. I’ve never deliberately lied on this forum. A little promise I made to myself.

      • Hostage
        March 17, 2013, 1:31 pm

        4.On the Nakba, I think that the role of the Palestinians (primarily their leadership at the time) should be discussed. For instance , their decision to reject the UN partition plan, and to take up arms to prevent its implementation, and the consequences of those decisions.

        You can certainly discuss that without denying the facts, but the behavior of some Palestinians 60 years ago can’t be used as an excuse to deny equal human rights to anyone living today. That’s invariably where Zionists try to steer these discussions. After WW-II the Allies excluded war criminals from the definition of the term refugee, but they did not claim that the whole German or Japanese peoples had somehow forfeited their basic human rights. No one today is suggesting that those peoples be denied statehood, self-determination, & etc. on that basis.

        In the past you’ve tried to re-write history and portray the exiled Mufti or the Arab League as the chosen leaders of the Palestinian people, when in fact they were not. Here are a few facts on that subject:

        *Hussam al-Din Jarallah had served on the Supreme Council throughout the Mandate era. He and two other candidates had received more votes than Al-Hajj Amin al-Husayni in the election to the post of Grand Mufti, but British High Commissioner Herbert Samuel had intervened and overturned the results of the popular election. See Philip Mattar, The Mufti of Jerusalem: Al-Hajj Amin al-Husayni and the Palestinian National Movement, Columbia University Press, 1988.

        *Ezra Danin worked in various capacities in the Jewish Agency and the Arab department, “Sherut Yediot”, the “Information Service” of the Haganah. In January of 1948, Danin wrote “I believe the majority of the Palestinian masses accept the partition as a fiat accompli and do not believe it possible to overcome or reject it.” See Document 90, page 128 “Political and Diplomatic Documents Central Zionist Archives/Israel State Archives, December 1947- May 1948, Jerusalem, 1979.

        *The Palestinian Arab leaders, including Nashashibis and Khalidis who advocated negotiations and co-existence with the Jews from the very beginning ended up governing the overwhelming majority of the territory of the former Palestine mandate in the East and West banks.

        *By all accounts the Palestinian Arabs outnumbered the Palestinian Jews by a factor greater than 2 to 1. However the testimony of the representatives of the Jewish Agency to the Security Council indicated that they believed large sections of the Palestinian population were willing to cooperate or acquiesce to the partition of the country. They claimed that the problem was several thousand foreign Arab interlopers who had infiltrated the country. At one and the same time, the British mandatory government was concerned about the infiltration of foreign Jewish fighters, e.g. See pdf pages 6 thru 9 of 19 link to un.org

        *The Arab Higher Committee (AHC) and the Mufti were not the formal or elected representatives of the people of Palestine after WWII. They were a creation of the Arab League. Avi Shlaim noted that when the Arab Higher Committee (AHC) was reestablished in 1946 after a nine-year hiatus, it was not established by the various Palestinian political parties – as had been the case in the past when it was originally founded in 1936 – but rather by a decision of the Arab League of States. See page 1 of Avi Shlaim, The Rise and Fall of the All-Palestine Government in Gaza, Journal of Palestine Studies. 20: 37–53. (2001)
        *In February of 1948, shortly after the UN adopted its plan of partition, the Council of the Arab League decided not to recognize the Arab Higher Committee or the Mufti as the representatives of the Palestinian people. Thereafter, all of the Leagues’ affairs were handled through its own Palestine Council, not through the Mufti or the AHC. See Politics in Palestine: Arab factionalism and social disintegration, 1939-1948, By Issa Khalaf, University of New York Press, 1991, ISBN 0-7914-0708-X, page 290.
        *The members of the Jericho Congress claimed that they represented 90 percent of the population. They also said that the allies of the Mufti in the All Palestine Government in Gaza only represented the views of its 80-odd members and that they were puppets of the Egyptian government. See Sandra Berliant Kadosh, United States Policy toward the West Bank in 1948, Jewish Social Studies, Vol. 46, No. 3/4 (Summer – Autumn, 1984), pp. 231-252 and Hebron Mayor Challenges Egyptians to Tell Truth, Palestine Post, December 14th, 1948. link to jpress.org.il
        *According to Ian Bickerton, Carla Klausner, “A Concise History of the Arab-Israeli Conflict”, 4th Edition, Prentice Hall, 2004, few Palestinians bothered to join the Arab Liberation Army and many Palestinians favored partition more than war and indicated a willingness to live alongside a Jewish state (page 88).
        *Ben-Gurion rebuffed the various efforts of more pragmatic Palestinian Arab leaders to reach a modus vivendi. It was his position that Zionist expansionism would be better served by treating the exiled, extremist Mufti as the leader of the Palestinians, than striking a deal with the ‘moderate’ opposition. “Rely on the Mufti’ became his motto. Blocked by Zionist policy from officially expressing their opposition to war, the Palestinian Arabs arranged “non-aggression” pacts with their Jewish neighbors. The relatively few who did take up arms did so primarily to defend themselves against feared attacks by the Jews. See the review of Simha Flapan’s The Birth of Israel: Myths and Realities

      • James Canning
        March 17, 2013, 2:03 pm

        Palestinian leaders did not control events. Egypt and other Arab countries rejected the N partition plan.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 17, 2013, 2:36 pm

        *Ben-Gurion rebuffed the various efforts of more pragmatic Palestinian Arab leaders to reach a modus vivendi. It was his position that Zionist expansionism would be better served by treating the exiled, extremist Mufti as the leader of the Palestinians, than striking a deal with the ‘moderate’ opposition. “Rely on the Mufti’ became his motto. Blocked by Zionist policy from officially expressing their opposition to war, the Palestinian Arabs arranged “non-aggression” pacts with their Jewish neighbors.

        thanks again hostage

      • Shingo
        March 18, 2013, 6:47 am

        2.According to information published today most Americans do support Israel.

        Compared to the Palestinians yes. Otherwise, they could care less about Israel. Israel ranks very low in terns of their perception of states they consider important.

        4.On the Nakba, I think that the role of the Palestinians (primarily their leadership at the time) should be discussed.

        There was no Palestinian leadership to speak of in 1948. The British had shamed them a decade earlier.

        For instance , their decision to reject the UN partition plan, and to take up arms to prevent its implementation, and the consequences of those decisions.

        1. Only a tiny number took up arms
        2. Ben Gurion himself said that those who rejected partition were right to do so. The only reason the Zionist leadership accepted it is because they saw it as an opening to taking all of Palestine. Ben Gurion said the partition was only temporary and the Zionist leadership did not recognize the corpus separatum status of Jerusalem under the partition anyway.
        3. Had the roles been reversed, and the Jews been required to give up 56% of the territory for an immigrant population they would have responded in exactly the same way – albeit far more ruthlessly.

      • jon s
        March 18, 2013, 5:48 pm

        In 1947-48 the Palestinians were indeed sharply divided, without a united leadership. However, non of the Palestinian factions openly expressed support for partition (the exception being the Communists, whose influence was negligible). Instead, they tried to prevent implementation of the partition plan by force, carrying out a series of attacks within days of the UN vote.
        “What if” questions are hazardous territory, and historians usually avoid them: after all, you can’t prove the answers. But, still: a plausible alternative scenario – what if the Palestians and the Arab states had agreed to the partition plan, had established the proposed Arab-Palestinian State according to the plan, and expressed the desire to live in peace with the Jewish state? No war, no refugees… who knows?

      • RoHa
        March 18, 2013, 10:02 pm

        Let us suppose that the Palestinians had agreed to the Partition plan. (They had very good reasons not to.) Let us also suppose that the Zionists had not attacked the territory of the proposed Arab state before the Partition was due to take effect. Let us further suppose that the Zionist machinations to prevent an Arab state failed.

        The result would have been an Israel with an enormous Arab population. The Israelis would then have started driving out those Arabs. So there would still have been refugees.

      • Hostage
        March 18, 2013, 10:16 pm

        However, non of the Palestinian factions openly expressed support for partition (the exception being the Communists, whose influence was negligible).

        Once again, your own declassified archives contain statements to the contrary from Zionist officials. There were also non-aggression pacts signed on behalf of entire villages and towns.

        The bottom line is that opposition to the UN plan of partition didn’t effect the human rights of the members of the Irgun or Lehi. Fanatics from those factions rose to fill top spots in the Mossad, Shin Beit, and Knesset. Even the Jewish Agency rejected the UNSCOP majority and minority proposals. So what point is there in trying to blame Palestinians for opposing what they viewed as an obviously disproportionate territorial division? Unlike the Irgun and Lehi terrorists, most Palestinians didn’t take-up arms or resort to violence.

        You can’t make the case that opposition to the UN plan has any significance today with regard to the majority of Palestinians. Since the overwhelming majority were born after the proposal was adopted. Millions of Israelis have long since declared the UN plan null and void too. So what do you propose to do about them?

      • jon s
        March 19, 2013, 2:11 am

        Hostage,
        Again, almost no Palestinian leaders or factions openly supported partition, or tried to moblize support for it, despite what some of them whispered among themselves, or told various sources .
        The non-aggresion pacts often didn’t amount to much because in many cases outside forces had moved in -such as the Arab Salvation Army or the Egyptian Army or Moslem Brotherhood volunteers -and were calling the shots (literally). What befell the Palestian people was, indeed, a catastrophe and a tragedy.
        As for today, as you probably know from my posts, I support the two state solution, as the only practical way to ensure peace and equal rights for both peoples.

      • Shingo
        March 19, 2013, 8:53 am

        However, non of the Palestinian factions openly expressed support for partition (the exception being the Communists, whose influence was negligible).

        The Zionist leadership was also divided. Those who supported it, like Ben Gurion, managed to win support for it among his colleagues by assuring them that the partition was only temporary and a stepping stone toward claiming the rest of Palestine.

        So you see Jon, the difference between the Zionist and Palestinian leadership, is that the Zionist’s were prepared to lie.

        But, still: a plausible alternative scenario – what if the Palestians and the Arab states had agreed to the partition plan, had established the proposed Arab-Palestinian State according to the plan, and expressed the desire to live in peace with the Jewish state? No war, no refugees… who knows?

        That’s easy to answer. When Ben Gurion said partition was only temporary and a stepping stone to reclaiming Palestine in it’s entirety, he gave no pause to consider what would happen if the Palestinians rejected the plan. And given that Israel then used 1967 to take more land from the Palestinians and has continued to do so gradually ever since, it is clear that Palestinian acceptance would only have delayed the same outcome.

        As for refugees, BG also said that the small Jewish majority the Jewish state enjoyed would not be sufficient to ensure a demographic majority, so yes, there would have still been refugees.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 19, 2013, 12:25 pm

        befell? come on jon.

      • Woody Tanaka
        March 19, 2013, 12:31 pm

        “As for today, as you probably know from my posts, I support the two state solution, as the only practical way to ensure peace and equal rights for both peoples.”

        No, you support the one-nuclear-armed-state/ one-defenseless-victim-Bantustan Final Solution.

      • Light
        March 19, 2013, 12:45 pm

        outside forces had moved in -such as the Arab Salvation Army or the Egyptian Army or Moslem Brotherhood volunteers -and were calling the shots

        Rehashing the same old Zionist myths are we? For good measure add Hamas, Hezbollah and 1000’s of rockets. Who knows maybe no one will notice.

        What befell the Palestian people was, indeed, a catastrophe and a tragedy.

        Showing some liberal Zionist compassion is touching.

        almost no Palestinian leaders or factions openly supported partition, or tried to moblize support for it

        And this is justification for expelling them and taking their property?

      • Hostage
        March 19, 2013, 2:33 pm

        Hostage,
        Again, almost no Palestinian leaders or factions openly supported partition,

        It’s a matter of public record that the representative of the Jewish Agency testified that neither the UNSCOP majority nor the minority plans were acceptable to the Jewish people. He demanded further discussions on territorial and constitutional provisions. Although the UN immediately reconvened an Ad Hoc Committee that added the entire Negev, it’s 60 years later and Israel is still discussing a constitution and the status of the City of Jerusalem. So get your facts straight. The Jews never accepted any UN proposal without expressing reservations that violated the object and purpose of the plan.

      • James Canning
        March 19, 2013, 7:48 pm

        Woody – – Do you regard an independent Palestine, of West Bank plus Gaza Strip, as a “Bantustan”?

      • Shingo
        March 21, 2013, 8:23 am

        Do you regard an independent Palestine, of West Bank plus Gaza Strip, as a “Bantustan”?

        The Bantustans of South Africa were considered independent, so yes.

      • goldmarx
        March 21, 2013, 10:27 am

        Shingo: The Bantustans of South Africa were considered independent by whom, exactly? The ANC? Or the apartheid regime? I assumed that Canning meant legitimately independent, where Hamas would agree with that.

      • James Canning
        March 21, 2013, 1:13 pm

        Goldmarx – – The idea behind a Bantustan, in the context of South Africa, was to create a “homeland” for blacks living in cities in South Africa, so that those blacks would have voting rights in another place, rather than in that city (and country). A scheme to prevent blacks from voting in cities the whites and honorary whites wished to control.

      • James Canning
        March 21, 2013, 2:02 pm

        Shingo – – Most of those who support an independent Palestine of WB plus Gaza, view the “Bantustan” programme of Israel as attempting to foist much much less onto the Palestinians. Fragments of WB, in other words.

      • Hostage
        March 21, 2013, 3:53 pm

        The Bantustans of South Africa were considered independent by whom, exactly? The ANC? Or the apartheid regime? I assumed that Canning meant legitimately independent, where Hamas would agree with that.

        Frankly the State of Israel explicitly recognized the “territorial jurisdiction” of the PA in the Oslo Accords. The only tangible manifestation of sovereignty is jurisdiction. It also recognized the PA’s right to become a party to international agreements “negotiated on its behalf” by the PLO. A number of the agreements that were concluded in that fashion were only open to “State parties”. So the PA was explicitly accepted as the government of a State by 132 other countries. So the Oslo Accords themselves constituted de facto recognition of statehood. The US State Department Digest of International Law describes the process:

        “A state in the international sense is generally described as a recognized member of the family of nations, an international person. Authorities differ in respect to the qualifications for such statehood, but there is general agreement on certain basic requirements. Independence is not essential. The requisite personality, in the international sense, is seen when the entity claiming to be a State has in fact its own distinctive association with the members of the international society, as by treaties, which, howsoever concluded in its behalf, mark the existence of definite relationships between itself and other contracting parties” Marjorie M. Whiteman, Digest of International Law, vol. 1 (Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1963) page 223

        In the era of the Bantustans, there was no international criminal court with jurisdiction over the crimes of apartheid committed on their territories. So the Security Council and General Assembly simply used their political discretion and refused to recognize them because of the illegal situations that had been created through their establishment. In the case of Israel, the United Nations has refused to recognize the illegal situations created by the annexation of Jerusalem, the Golan Heights, and the establishment of Jewish colonies in the West Bank. But the UN and the international community of States have recognized both Israel and Palestine as States.

        The UN and South Africa are still required today to treat the Bantustans as states for the purposes of harmonizing inter-temporal laws on things like intellectual property, basic human rights, & etc. So a Bantustan is not a legal nullity so far as the UN (e.g. WIPO) and the protection of legal rights are concerned. See for example No. 107 of 1996: Intellectual Property Laws Rationalisation Act: link to info.gov.za

        So the only relevant question is: has Israel pursued an illegal policy of Bantustanization as outlined in published statements by its own state officials, including Ariel Sharon, regarding the need to establish inland Jewish settlements to break-up the territorial contiguity of Arab population centers in Palestine and Israel? Those policies were highlighted in the 1,000+ pages of dossiers submitted by the Secretary General and UN Special Rapporteurs to the ICJ in 2003. They were cited in the Courts findings regarding the fact that thousands of Palestinians had been encompassed in enclaves as a matter of the policies used to govern the territories occupied by Israel. See paragraphs 132-134 of the Advisory Opinion. link to icj-cij.org

      • Danaa
        March 21, 2013, 8:48 pm

        jon s “the policy here is that pointing out the Palestinians’ role in the events of that period is a no-no. I don’t buy equating that policy with holocaust denial.”.

        Actually there’s equivalence here. There are some who imply, now and then, that Jews, specifically zionists, had a role in what happened during the Holocaust. ie not that they could prevent it, but that things were made worse due to various actions such as stopping the German boycott. That’s where the similarity is and that’s why discussions of eg, the infamous Transfer Agreement, have come to a halt here. If you want to discuss ways in which the palestinians brought their own Holocaust upon their heads (eg, by resisting colonization), then you will have to open the discussion also to all kind of events surrounding WWII – and this site made the decision not to do that because it does tend to suck the Oxygen out of the room.

        Of course, not everyone is happy with this editorial position, especially since more of us believe that whatever arguments you have to justify and excuse the expulsion of the palestinians are not likely to hold any more water on human/ethical grounds than the Vale of Tears. And I am one of those who happen to think we can always get us some more oxygen, if need be. But there it is – the equivalence is there – if you want to discuss palestinian resistance then you will have to also sit out discussions of Transfer, immigration quotas and a few other odds and ends. Not such a good deal for you, so be glad it’s the way it is.

      • Shingo
        March 21, 2013, 9:43 pm

        The Bantustans of South Africa were considered independent by whom, exactly? The ANC? Or the apartheid regime?

        The apartheid regime obviously.

        I assumed that Canning meant legitimately independent, where Hamas would agree with that.

        Who cares what he meant. Israel did the same thing with Gaza. It declared the end of the occupation of Gaza, even while it maintains it.

      • James Canning
        March 24, 2013, 3:15 pm

        Shingo – – The Gaza Strip would be a “Bantustan” in the context of South Africa decades ago, if Israel declared that Muslims in Israel proper, were in fact citizens of Gaza and not entitled to vote in Israel.

    • Hostage
      March 14, 2013, 12:07 am

      See Judith Bell’s comment regarding Mondoweiss below Beinart’s article.

      If she thinks my typical comments, and those of many others here, demanding equal human rights for Jews and Palestinians + criminal accountability for those on either side of the armed conflict who attack civilians, engage in war crimes, and crimes against humanity represent “hatred oozing out of every commenter”, then she needs to have her head examined. Some of you Zionists would complain and feel threatened by ordinary people sitting around a campfire singing kumbaya.

      The ban on what you call “nakba denial” prevents any meaningful discussion of the events of 1948.

      It hasn’t so far. You and several others have wasted a great deal of bandwidth copying and pasting shopworn hasbara talking points about the Nakba that are still in the comment archives for all to see and read.

      You’ve been commenting here since September of 2010. There was never any evidence that you had something else that was either new or more “meaningful” to discuss in that connection, before the comment policy was updated in October of 2012.

  18. Chespirito
    March 11, 2013, 5:52 pm

    Great response! And not just ‘cos you quote me. So much more thoughtful and cogent than what Beinart’s concern trolling warranted.

    For me the key part is this:
    “If the U.S. government were funding Hamas we’d feel differently, and if there was a propaganda and lobbying effort in the U.S. to justify and promote oppressive Hamas practices we would cover it. But this isn’t the case.”

    Indeed not. Beinart, to his credit, does not make any pretense about being even-handed in his intellectual approach or his policy recommendations. He supports a US aid package of $3bn/year to a nation openly committing ethnic cleansing and enforcing Jim Crow-like laws. (How on earth can you call yourself a liberal if you support this kind of aggressive intervention in favor of ethnic cleansing and Jim Crow? Why on earth do many other liberals seem to think Beinart’s stance is brave or humane?)

    By contrast, no one at Electronic Intifada or on this site has ever come close to suggesting US military or economic aid for Hamas.

    What makes me grind my molars at night is how American intellectuals write about Israel-Palestine as if Washington played no role in the conflict, as if Washington really was a neutral arbiter, rather than a vested party with its gauntleted fist on the scales for Israel. Washington is actively fueling a war process, not a peace process, and the Beinarts, the J Streets, the APNs are in total denial of this. Their spurious even-handedness is just cover for their support of continuing massive US aid to Israel, a major obstacle to a solution of any kind.

    • Shingo
      March 12, 2013, 7:50 am

      How on earth can you call yourself a liberal if you support this kind of aggressive intervention in favor of ethnic cleansing and Jim Crow?

      That’s what sets Liberal Zionists apart. They have a view of liberal values unlike any other.

  19. tokyobk
    March 11, 2013, 5:53 pm

    I can never understand (except for politics) why these concerns are exclusive.

    In fact, it makes sense to hold both concerns, for the rights of all Palestinians and for the rights of women in Gaza.

    I do think its unfair to accuse Beinart of concern trolling and also not completely convincing that Hamas is out of the mondoweiss purview.

    If you are a true One Stater based on rights for all and protection of minorities, that is to say a democracy of its citizens, than the values of Palestinian governments and movements are fair for critique.

    By the way there was a MW article previously critiquing western feminism. Here is an article by Rema Hammami of Birzeit University, also relevant here; _Women, The Hijab and the Intafada_. I believe it its in the spirit of my opening comment that rights are rights and its is not just possible but morally consistent to apply rights concerns evenly: link to michaelpwolf.net

    • Citizen
      March 11, 2013, 9:31 pm

      @ tokyobk
      The concerns are not exclusive, but there is an issue of time and space on MW, as on any interactive blog site. What Hamas does internally is not out of the MW purview, but HAMAS is not being funded by US at $3 + Billion yearly, and HAMAS does not have USA veto in its pocket at the UN. Nor do US politicians genuflect to any HAMAS leader and constantly tell us how there’s no sky between HAMAS and USA. Priorities. Nobody here ever suggested in any way HAMAS had the same values as America. Nor does the mainstream media which filters data towards “informed consent.”

    • American
      March 14, 2013, 7:27 pm

      @tokyobk

      Save the Hamas and women’s rights concern for after Israel no longer keeps them under occupation, imprisons their husbands and bombs their children.

      Until then it is ‘concern trolling’.

  20. ivri
    March 11, 2013, 6:36 pm

    It is interesting to note that prominent Jews with Zionist background, whose anti-Israeli views have been used as a tool against Israel in a MAJOR way, later find their way back to “the camp”. Beinart, whose views created meaningful problems to Israel because of his stature, joins here Judge Goldstone (whose findings on the Gaza operation created a huge problem for Israel since his committee had an official UN seal) who later retracted, the historian Benny Morris, who was for a long time a darling of Anti-Zionists and was recently blocked by Islamist bodies in Britain from giving a lecture in Oxford due to his pro-Israeli statements, and even Roger Cohen from the NYT appeared recently to change tack.

    • sardelapasti
      March 11, 2013, 10:46 pm

      ivri – You did a good summary of some of the people blackmailed by the Zionists. We know what Goldstone had to go through –and he had to give up, being just a father and grandpa without a single ounce of civic courage. The facts uncovered by Benny Morris never really involved his opinions, so we’ll let that nauseating Zionist go. At any rate, it definitely sounded as if you were now bragging of some horrible blackmail you exerted on Beinart, who by the way never ever opposed Zionism. Do tell.

  21. Sycamores
    March 11, 2013, 7:09 pm

    what zionist ‘concern trolling’ don’t say:

    1999 israeli violations in the West Bank from the 1st of Feb to the 28 Feb

    to list a few:
    killings 3
    injuries 199
    raids 458
    arrest 449
    flying checkpoints 416
    Settlement Activity 11
    Settler Violence 69

    209 israeli violations in Gaza in the same month.

    illegal zionist settlers and the idf like to used their cars to knock down people
    11 February: An Israeli settler vehicle ran over and injured Baha Odeh (8 years old) leaving him hospitalised with contusions.
    3 more children were ran over by Israeli military jeeps during the month of Feb.

    killings

    1/ Arafat Jaradat who died in Magido prison on February 23rd 2013
    2/ Qassam Al-Damini (20 years old) died at a hospital in Jerusalem from serious injuries sustained from being ran over by an Israeli military jeep in 2005 when he was 12 years old which seriously injured his head and left him in a coma.
    3/ a resident from Al-Jalazun camp who died of serious injuries sustained after being shot by Israeli forces in his spinal cord on October 20th 2000.

    how many Palestinians violations – 1 mortar round towards the Green Line from Gaza. i don’t class non-violent protest as a violation so i don’t include them.

    zionism tries to brand all the Jewish people as one monolith with one goal to take all of Palestine by whatever it takes which includes ethnic cleansing, murder and stealing the land from the indigenous people. they want to create a state where non-Jews are second class citizens. the special relationship between the US and israel helps the zionist to do whatever they want.

    for peter beinart to write a piece for his website open zion criticizing Mondoweiss proves to me that certain Jewish voices are been heard that are criticizing the ‘special relationship’ and zionism.

    Palestinian society is an issue for the Palestinian people to decide for themselves once the goal is reach to end israeli control over the Palestinians.

  22. peeesss
    March 11, 2013, 7:17 pm

    Since most everything I was thinking to write in response to the Beinart article was covered by Danaa, Annie and Kathleen in the most intelligent, admirable way, there is no need to reiterate their points. And others made most valid contributions in rebuttal. Beinarts “concern”about women rights in Gaza reminds me of what Arundahti Roy the wonderful Indian author, scholar said about the US war on Afghanistan: “From listening, reading, viewing the MSN it appears that the Marines are leading a Feminist movement “. It is truly marvelous to see Beinarts concern for the female runners in Gaza. Maybe he’ll move onto the children being dragged , beaten in the Israeli Gulag and the Palestinian hunger strikers. “Liberal Zionist” indeed.

  23. ToivoS
    March 11, 2013, 7:25 pm

    This is a never ending problem for anyone who criticizes power. Right now the Leverett’s new book “Going to Tehran” is being pilloried in the MSM because this book does not use its space denouncing the Islamic Republic of Iran for its many human rights abuses. Their thesis is that the IRI has legitimacy with the Iranian people, that US actions will not undermine that legitimacy and that if the US wants a negotiated settlement we will have to acknowledge these facts. None of the negative reviews even mention what the Leverett’s main arguments are, they simply drone on and on about Iranian human rights abuses.

    I was actively involved in an antiwar organization that opposed the war against Serbia. Simple position really — the US had no business in taking sides in the Yugoslav civil war. We were under consistent attack as supporters of the Milosovic “dictatorship”. If we tried to answer that idiotic criticism each time it was made, there would be no time to discuss what the real issues were.

    The movement against the Vietnam war faced the same criticisms — i.e. we were tolerant of communist civil liberty violations, not that we questioned the wisdom of the US fighting a land war in Asia.

    This just goes on and on. It is a little disheartening to see Beinhart stoop to cheap propagandistic tricks, he was starting to sound reasonable from time to time. Maybe he is pulling a Goldstone and realizes loyalty to his tribe is more important than justice for the Palestinians.

  24. joer
    March 11, 2013, 8:24 pm

    Beinhart’s is such a non-sequitor, in terms of the Israel-Palestine conflict. First of all, all the closures, curfews. incursions, etc. effect women as well as men. So these newly minted feminists will be hurting the people they are so concerned about. Also, it is more difficult to solve these societal problems when a society is under assault. In addition, in response to imperialism, returning to traditional ways is a political statement against the occupier. Thus, continuing the occupation and discrimination will strengthen the traditionalists.

  25. Citizen
    March 11, 2013, 8:34 pm

    “It is a little disheartening to see Beinhart stoop to cheap propagandistic tricks, he was starting to sound reasonable from time to time. Maybe he is pulling a Goldstone and realizes loyalty to his tribe is more important than justice for the Palestinians.”

    Zionism fries the best brains:

    “… yet he [Beinhart] declared to Jeffrey Goldberg he opposes equal rights for Palestinian citizens of Israel because it contradicts his own political mission of maintaining a Jewish state — “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.” In addition, and more shocking considering his attack on us, Beinart was silent on the human rights of these very same women when Israel was bombing Gaza this past November.”

    Beinhart has reached his Goldstone conversion moment–from humanist to zionist. Shunning has power–ask any cult member.

  26. Annie Robbins
    March 11, 2013, 8:42 pm

    it occurs to me, maybe he’s just ready to have a conversation with us and this is his way of going about it.

    • Citizen
      March 11, 2013, 9:36 pm

      @Annie Robbins

      Maybe. Well, we will see what he does with the MW response today, yes? Will he ignore it? Or do a follow-up? Ball’s back in his court, don’t you think? Maybe he’s reading this right now.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 11, 2013, 9:56 pm

        maybe not right now, but he will be reading it. for sure he will be reading it. i’m ready for a conversation albiet it’s probably not me he’s aiming at. but we’ve written a lot about him (MW) including me. personally, i think there’s a lot to admire about the man, his honesty and foibles are very out front and he definitely tries. but this isn’t an example of his best thinking. if he wants to talk to us he can do it over something meatier than an unreported marathon.

      • American
        March 11, 2013, 10:34 pm

        @ annie

        Well obviously he’s been reading MW and doesn’t like what he sees.
        But if he tried to talk/lecture to us—-unless we were all threatened by MW with waterboarding or banishment unless we were ‘nice’—–he would probably have a Slater type meltdown and run home screaming for mommie.

      • Donald
        March 11, 2013, 11:13 pm

        “his honesty and foibles are very out front and he definitely tries.”

        That’s true and as evidence the best thing I can say about him is that he has opened up his website to contributors who are very much to his left.

      • Kathleen
        March 12, 2013, 8:18 am

        Bet he has been following Phil and team for awhile. He is part of the better late than never crowd. He has finally admitted what he has known for a long time only because he sees the two state door closing. This is about Israel not about the Palestinians for Beinart.

      • marc b.
        March 12, 2013, 8:51 am

        that’s my opinion as well, american. i understand that weiss, annie, et al are trying to expand the conversation, or more accurately include more people (particularly high profile people) in the conversation, but they also have to accept that some can’t/won’t be converted. beinart is a barely disguised trojan horse. he can’t even bear to don the whole costume, the ass-end of his racism hanging out for all to see. rather than wasting our time and energy spanking him and sending him back home to ma, i’d rather he just stay there. (he can continue to refer to MW on his site. that’s helpful.)

      • marc b.
        March 12, 2013, 8:58 am

        i think there’s a lot to admire about the man, his honesty …

        that’s not accurate. he may be candid about his racism, but the whole point of this post is his intellectual dishonesty (jewish racism and sexism is a sign of a vibrant, pluralistic community, but arab racism and sexism is a sign of backwardness). beinart’s goal is the preservation of an apartheid state. he just happens to believe that a revision of tactics is necessary at this time to protect that state.

      • marc b.
        March 12, 2013, 10:05 am

        wow. i just got to reading the beinart article itself. and this guy is supposed to be . . . you know . . . like smart. i don’t see much evidence of ‘it’ there. as an aside, while he whinges on about the treatment of women at the hands of the misogynists running hamas, the site where he publishes is printing articles normalizing pornography and linking to others with features on female college athletes posing in bikinis. That’s certainly one way to empower women, reducing them to tits and asses.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 12, 2013, 10:47 am

        the whole point of this post is his intellectual dishonesty…. he just happens to believe that a revision of tactics is necessary at this time to protect that state.

        i don’t think it’s that simple. not everyone is involved in a dishonest scheme. that’s too simple an explanation. i’m not advocating we treat anyone with kid gloves or pander to their sensibilities.

        i just find this article of his interesting from a different perspective. yes,i think it’s clear his priority is the protection of israel. but i also thinks he wants israel to be an enlightened place, a place that somewhat fits with his fantasies of what israel was, before he found out what it was. i think he’s in a growing process, and i don’t think he’s being dishonest with his readers, although i think he’s being less than honest with himself. but that’s a common thing, it’s very easy to see the obvious in other people, but not so much in oneself, the inner contradictions which adam and scott have pointed out.

        but the most important thing is the way he’s directly address mondoweiss. now, as anyone who’s honest about the online american discourse surrounding zionism knows, mondoweiss is an important site. it’s not hard to notice that many of the topics, the conversations, surrounding zionism and the american jewish community, are started here. but when all the bigwigs in the jewish discourse weigh in, phil isn’t invited. but everyone reads him and they know his voice is important. but people like goldberg, he ignores phil. anyway, so my theory is that beinart knows mondoweiss is an important place, and we lead the discourse. (!!) therefore he’s trying to engage and he’s doing it the only way he knows how, thru criticizing us. or something. beinart is likely moving/shifting. remember that happy zionist/sad zionist/legacy zionist post on his blog the other day? i think it’s harder for his generation to shift just like it’s harder for adults to learn foreign languages. let’s see where he takes this.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 12, 2013, 11:01 am

        Well obviously he’s been reading MW and doesn’t like what he sees.

        well that’s nothing new. it’s not like we haven’t been here for years. the question is, why now? and why over a relatively non event, like a marathon. frankly if i heard there was going to be a marathon in jerusalem and the ultra orthodox rabbis wanted two separate ones, one for men and one for women, i would consider it newsworthy by MW standards unless they took some action (like posting notices all over town). with so much going on why he chose this thing to querie us about is bizarre.

        i think the thing he sees he doesn’t like is that we’ve become mainstream, or the conversations were leading have seeped into the mainstream to the degree he’s addressing us. this could be seen as an invitation of sorts, on some level, and he wants to shape the boundaries, as opposed to exiling us to the neatherlands which has been the normal way with these guys. or something. it’s an acknowledgement of sorts. that they’re not leading the discourse.

      • American
        March 12, 2013, 12:16 pm

        “that they’re not leading the discourse.”…..annie

        Yea, that’s probably the crux of it for Beinart….he’s getting no where with his liberal zionism.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 12, 2013, 12:35 pm

        he probably senses it’s a sinking ship and there’s no way of fixing the discourse around it (ie: most commenters on blogs who self identify as ‘liberal zionists’ sound like raving racist bigots) therefore he’s engaging the ‘other side’ to moderate. not going to work. the challenge for ‘liberals’ such as himself, something i pointed out in my article here, ‘the trap’, is that their problem is not us, it’s the radical rightwingers, who btw, make up the bulk of paid hasbrats ferried out to the blogs and msm comment sections to reel in the discourse.

        one of the reasons zionism looks ugly (aside from the way it acts) is that the people representing it sound like radicals. and i guess he just can’t change them! so voila! change us instead. the talking pts defending zionism are so stale, hence the need to criticize the criticizers. the ad hominem crutch.

      • American
        March 12, 2013, 12:43 pm

        @annie..

        Actually I would welcome Beinart appearing here (doubt he will though).
        I would just say to him the same thing I say to every Zionist…that the zionist had “no right” to demand, and the US,UN, GB had no right to take others land and give it to the Jews.
        That’s the bottom line to zionism and Israel.
        And since that was WRONG by any people’s standards ….How is Israel going to make up for that? ..What is it willing to do to compensate for that original Wrong?
        Because that is the beginning and the end of the Israel problem and they will not admit to or recongize it as ‘the reason’ and the ‘problem’.

        They do the exceptionalism, victimhood entitlement excuses….’greater good of the Jews”…..’the necessity created by anti semitism”… …blah,blah,blah.
        It’s always the same circular argument because the exceptionalism and the entitlement and the exemptions from world norms for Jews are their rock bottom absolute core beliefs.

      • Shingo
        March 12, 2013, 12:48 pm

        so voila! change us instead. the talking pts defending zionism are so stale, hence the need to criticize the criticizers. the ad hominem crutch.

        Exactly my point too Annie. It just sounds like he’s preparing to go down with the sinking ship. His attack of the “left”, which one would assume would include him as a so called “liberal”, strikes me as an admission that by clinging to Zionism, he’s aligning himself with those on the right.

        As Jonathan Cooke observed not long ago, when liberal Zionists are faced with having to decide to decide between liberal values and Zionism, most will chose the latter – Beinart has signaled on numerous occasions that he is one of them.

      • Kathleen
        March 13, 2013, 8:08 am

        Annie I respect you and what you think but think you are being naive about PB.
        ” yet he declared to Jeffrey Goldberg he opposes equal rights for Palestinian citizens of Israel because it contradicts his own political mission of maintaining a Jewish state — “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.”

        This is flat out racism. He is honest about his racism. But that does not make it acceptable or just in any way shape form or excuses.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 13, 2013, 11:52 am

        my intention was not to excuse his racism kathleen. i mentioned before i don’t think he’s being dishonest with his readers, although i think he’s being less than honest with himself. but that’s a common thing, it’s very easy to see the obvious in other people, but not so much in oneself, the inner contradictions which adam and scott have pointed out.

        i don’t think beinart sees his own racism, hence..i don’t think he’s being ‘dishonest’ (intentionally) with his readers, he is being dishonest with himself (attempting to justify his own racism for the sake of zionism). he cannot let go of zionism (at this time) for it is probably too entrenched in his own self identity. self identity is not always, or doesn’t always feel like, a choice.

  27. RJL
    March 11, 2013, 8:52 pm

    Roth and Horowitz, so you don’t extend yourself to discuss Hamas, or the PA and its corruption problems, because American tax dollars don’t fund them. But they do-thru support of UNRWA, and funding and having trained the W.Bank military police, along with highway construction and other projects. Lots of money. So, feel free, proportionately, to dole out some useful criticism of Hamas and the PLO, especially the “uncomfortable” parts about the G-d given duty to kill Jews, etc. And my brothers, did the Nakba not include the occupation of Gaza and the W.bank under Egypt and Jordan, respectively, until the Israelis did them the favor of taking over, when it could have easily been driven into the sea, save G-d’s mercy on us? Please clarify your position, also, on the occupation dilemma, verses promoting no state of Israel, period. If you wise men endorse a one state (final) solution to the pesky Jewish problem in the M.E., how would you expect a minority of Jews to be treated (at least overnite, until they’re eliminated)under “liberal” Palestinian sovereignty? Hope your mothers kvell over your views.

    • Bumblebye
      March 12, 2013, 10:42 am

      RJL
      The argument has been had. As occupying power, Israel is responsible for the West Bank and Gaza, so the upshot was, that such donations were in actuality support for Israel. Indeed, much of it has been used to carry out Israel’s demands – especially the training of the police.

    • Shingo
      March 12, 2013, 12:31 pm

      But they do-thru support of UNRWA, and funding and having trained the W.Bank military police, along with highway construction and other projects. Lots of money.

      Less than a tiny fraction of the money Israel received. Secondly, the training of W.Bank military police is for Israel’s benefit and security you idiot.

      So, feel free, proportionately, to dole out some useful criticism of Hamas and the PLO, especially the “uncomfortable” parts about the G-d given duty to kill Jews, etc

      You must be confusing them with the leader of Shas, who is well known for his pronouncem­ents calling for the “annihilat­ion of Arabs”.

      did the Nakba not include the occupation of Gaza and the W.bank under Egypt and Jordan, respectively, until the Israelis did them the favor of taking over, when it could have easily been driven into the sea, save G-d’s mercy on us?

      There as never any threat of being driven into the sea, and it wasn’t for God’s mercy, so much as overwhelming military superiority and the fact there was never such a threat.

      how would you expect a minority of Jews to be treated

      Far better than Palestinians are treated. How about all being equal as opposed to privileged under the law? After all, it’s Jewish privilege you really can’t let go of isn’t it?

  28. American
    March 11, 2013, 10:23 pm

    Excellent, excellent answer, and right on every point Adam and Scott.

    No doubt what sticks in his craw most is that MW is primarily a Jewish run site—and features Jews opposed to zionist Israel on humanitarian grounds as well as Jewish principles……..the difference in content here “by Jews” as opposed to the content on Open Zion ‘by Jews’ sort of blows the ‘liberal’ right out of the whole Liberal Zionist shtick.
    He wouldn’t be that upset if is was just we gentiles talking, ….but Jews talking critical about Israel? … omg..that’s an ‘existential threat’ that has to be addressed!

    As someone here said before….scratch a lib zionist and the real zionist comes out.

    • hophmi
      March 13, 2013, 12:43 pm

      There is no evidence to support the view that Beinart dislikes MW because it is “Jewish-run.”

      It means little to me as well. Jews are certainly not immune from bad ideas.

      • eljay
        March 13, 2013, 1:14 pm

        >> There is no evidence to support the view that Beinart dislikes MW because it is “Jewish-run.”

        True. It’s more likely that he dislikes MW because it exposes the fundamental ugliness, injustice and immorality that is the supremacist “Jewish State”, which makes a guy like Beinart – who supports the existence of a supremacist “Jewish State” – look bad.

      • American
        March 13, 2013, 1:53 pm

        hophmi says:
        March 13, 2013 at 12:43 pm

        There is no evidence to support the view that Beinart dislikes MW because it is “Jewish-run.”
        >>>>

        Oh I think there is plenty to suggest Beinart went after MW because it is Jewish…..Liberal zionist are no different than Uber zionist in frequently dismissing gentile and non Jewish opinions as stemming from anti semitism and therefore don’t count, even when they aren’t as crude about it…I see that pretty regularly.
        The truth is much more threatening to them when it comes from fellow Jews.

  29. VickiV
    March 11, 2013, 10:50 pm

    I’ve been reading Beinart’s Open Zion for some time now, and I have the impression he’s still trying to find himself. He seems truly surprised that he’s termed a self-hating Jew for his actually quite centrist beliefs. He wants to think (I think) that he’s a liberal Zionist (whatever that is), when he’s actually a Zionist first and foremost — yet shunned by his fellow Zionists. Quite the kosher pickle he finds himself in. On the subject of Hamas and internal Palestinian human rights — I believe Che Guevara was correct, when turning down the Presidency after the Cuban revolution, he said that revolutionaries should never be a part of the government. I do believe that if there is ever normalcy in Gaza and the West Bank, civil society will develop democratically. It may not look the same as Western civil society — but it probably shouldn’t!

    • German Lefty
      March 12, 2013, 8:09 am

      He seems truly surprised that he’s termed a self-hating Jew for his actually quite centrist beliefs.

      Centrist beliefs? Don’t make me laugh! Ethnic nationalism on stolen land is definitely not centrist. It’s right-wing extremist. It was right-wing extremist when Aryans did it. It is right-wing extremist when Jews do it.

      • VickiV
        March 12, 2013, 12:29 pm

        My terminology was inaccurate. Apologies. I probably gave Beinart more credit than deserved because he doesn’t call for the outright expulsion of Palestinians, as do the far right Naftali Bennett cult, among others. Thanks for the correction.

      • German Lefty
        March 12, 2013, 5:47 pm

        I probably gave Beinart more credit than deserved because he doesn’t call for the outright expulsion of Palestinians, as do the far right Naftali Bennett cult, among others.
        Yes, that’s the problem. There are extremists who are so extremely extreme that the other extremists look like non-extremists. This distorts the political spectrum.

        My terminology was inaccurate. Apologies.
        No need to apologise. Beinart is the one who should apologise. For supporting injustice.

      • ritzl
        March 13, 2013, 1:15 pm

        @VickiV OT, but I just want to say thanks for what you do at Open Zion.

      • Citizen
        March 12, 2013, 3:12 pm

        @ German Lefty
        Yes, that is correct. Goering’s stance at Nuremberg was he was in a kangaroo court, and all the trials were just a mask for might-makes-right.
        And he took that stance to his grave, cheating the righteous victors of making an official example of him. If the principles addressing the limits on sovereign state power mean anything today, various top members and advocates of the Bush Administration should be tried as war criminals, and the same goes for various Israeli leaders, past and present. The travesty of Justice is that, in view of how many human lives were destroyed in WW1, directly leading up to WW2, and WW2, is that the US and Israel continue on just as if the Nuremberg (and Toyko) Trials never happened. And nobody can stop them. Goering must be laughing in his now less-than-fat grave, at this vindication of his deepest held belief and product of his considerable intellect and knowledge about human nature.

        The USSR sunk itself. America needs the help of Israel to do itself in, but it’s trying really hard.

      • Shingo
        March 13, 2013, 5:56 pm

        Ethnic nationalism on stolen land is definitely not centrist.

        It is by Zionist standards.

        I mean seriously, as Max Blumenthal has pointed out, even the lefties in Israel speak openly about maintaining a demographic Jewish majority.

        As Max points out, not even guys like Rush Limbaugh would dare suggest maintaining a demographic white demographic in the US.

      • James Canning
        March 14, 2013, 2:48 pm

        Let the “Lefties” strive to keep a Jewish majority in Israel, within its pre-1967 borders.

  30. American
    March 11, 2013, 10:51 pm

    link to yourlogicalfallacyis.com

    Would be nice if we could just reply to the zio arguments with the symbol for each of their various fallacies….we wouldn’t have to actually type out the same reply again and again.

  31. Donald
    March 11, 2013, 11:07 pm

    I fall somewhere in-between on this. (Haven’t read Beinart’s piece yet, actually, and am just going from the summary here.) On the one hand, yes, the US supports Israel, we are constantly told Israel “shares our values” (which in some ways might be true in a sense not intended) and that they’re wonderful and deserve all this support we give them. So because of that, we should spend most of our energies pointing out Israel’s crimes and exposing all the BS that Americans are showered with on this subject.

    But that said, Beinart also has a point. (Not that he is in any position to make it, but I’ll get to that.) If we want to be consistent defenders of human rights, we should also spend some time criticizing groups like Hamas. Not anything like 50 percent of our time–no false balance. But some time. We don’t like suicide bombing or attacks on civilians and we don’t like rule by fundamentalists and yes, there is a long history of “liberation movements” which won their battle against the colonialist oppressor, only to become the new set of tyrants. But we can say all this without backing away from where our main focus should be–our own crimes and the crimes of the people we support.

    As for Beinart and most liberal Zionists (with some exceptions), they’re in no position to be giving lectures on moral consistency to anyone because they pull their punches when they criticize Israel. I can’t recall ever seeing Beinart criticize Israeli actions as war crimes, but I can remember him talking about the difference between “them” and “us” when he spoke about the Bulgarian bus bombing. “We” are civilized and “they” are not–that was the great spokesman for moral consistency letting us know that it’s worse when those Others kill civilians.

    • American
      March 12, 2013, 1:36 pm

      “But that said, Beinart also has a point. (Not that he is in any position to make it, but I’ll get to that.) If we want to be consistent defenders of human rights, we should also spend some time criticizing groups like Hamas.”…Donald

      I think the lesser time spent here criticizing Hamas is mainly two things….
      1) Hamas doesn’t purport to be anything except what it is, doesn’t claim to be anything except a resistance fighter group, so there is no hypocrisy to be ‘exposed’ there.
      2) While there is plenty of Israeli hypocrisy to be exposed.

      I remember several times back when we got into discussion of suicide bombing and etc. in Israel and it was roundly condemned by everyone here just as the IDF killing of civilians is condemned. I don’t remember anyone not condemning the murder of the Jewish school children in France and no one here didn’t not condemn the murder of the Isr settler family either.
      But suicide bombing has been mostly stopped and attacks against Jews by Palestines are rare compared to the everyday assaults on Palestines.
      There’s not as much to talk about on the Hamas/Palestine side so the proportion of discussion is probably about right.

      • Donald
        March 12, 2013, 1:50 pm

        “There’s not as much to talk about on the Hamas/Palestine side so the proportion of discussion is probably about right.”

        That’s a defensible position. When there’s Palestinian terrorism and I’m participating in the discussion I usually make it a point to condemn it and think that’s what everyone should do, but the bulk of the blame for the conflict and suffering falls on Israel and secondarily on the US as Israel’s kneejerk supporter.

      • American
        March 12, 2013, 4:27 pm

        @ Donald

        yep, agreed.

  32. Inanna
    March 11, 2013, 11:47 pm

    Beinart is just showing himself to be a part of the establishment in this country, recycling the same colonial ‘feminist’ themes as other colonial feminists from the US about Iraq and Afghanistan.

    It’s not that Hamas isn’t wrong it what it’s doing, it is. But unless Beinart is also willing to see the way that women’s rights are violated in Israel (and indeed the US and very other country in the world) then I’d like to be spared from his intellectually lazy and morally bankrupt ‘concern’. If he had any concern for Palestinian women in Gaza, he’s make sure they had enough food and shelter, that they and their children could receive education and health care, that they had opportunities for work and travel, etc, all things that are either fully or partially denied by Israel’s treatment of Gazans.

  33. piotr
    March 12, 2013, 1:28 am

    The nature of the struggle…

    As the struggle continues on many planes, events have different impact on different levels.

    On one plane, Beinart struggles to maintain his position as “moderate” and “mainstream”. This requires that he exhibits Olympian impartiality, criticizing BOTH SIDES. That may necessitate to criticize Hamas every other week and Mondoweiss once a month. It also requires to stop the train of thought before it enters a non-moderate territory. Let me push the Beinart musing one step further:

    Beinart: Is the goal merely an end to Israeli control over Palestinian lives or is it individual liberty and accountable government. Piotr: Is the goal merely to end Asad dictatorship, or is it individual liberty etc. Is it such a hot idea to arm and train Islamists to be more effective in their car bombing and massacres? Or monumental stupidity? Or an effective but utterly cynical (not to mention hypocritical) piece of Realpolitik? At this point Eric Alterman, nice man but a moderate, stops reading realizing that piotr is a “Stalinist”.

    One the second plane we may have ambition to change something as Americans, hence search for reasons and means to improve American policy. It is hard to imagine what can be done about Hamas: increase sanctions? bomb them more often? more assassinations? Dialectically, one can try the opposite, engage them by offering lifting sanction and protection from bombing and assassinations conditional on some minimum “good behavior” while supporting democracy (which should include political rights of Hamas itself). Such a policy could quite possibly improve the “human rights” situation and surely would improve the lot of ca. 1.5 million people suffering from misery and terror. In the case of Syria it is easy to imagine an American policy less [expletive deleted] than the current one, so it may be worth advocating. But my inner Eric Alterman is already nose bleeding.

    The third plane is how the morality is used as politics by other means, but this sausage factory deserves more space, so let me make it a tale for another time.

    PS. For all my carping about moderation, I profoundly respect the hard work of our moderators. Please be gentle.

    • Donald
      March 12, 2013, 12:42 pm

      “r an effective but utterly cynical (not to mention hypocritical) piece of Realpolitik? At this point Eric Alterman, nice man but a moderate, stops reading realizing that piotr is a “Stalinist”.”

      Not sure if you’re mixing Beinart with Alterman, but that’s funny. And accurate–that’s exactly the way Alterman strikes me.

    • American
      March 12, 2013, 1:03 pm

      @piotr

      Let’s just keep todays I/P issue/conditions simple…..as a individual if you came across some gang robbing and terrorizing a homeowner, like an armed home invasion—–whose side would you take? Would you be for the robber gang or the home owner?
      Yea, it is that simple.

  34. dbroncos
    March 12, 2013, 1:28 am

    Adam and Scott – thanks for this great rebuke to Beinart!

  35. dbroncos
    March 12, 2013, 1:42 am

    @Annie Robbins
    “but this isn’t an example of his best thinking.”

    Exactly right. Beinart is smart enough to know that his Hamas/womens marathon critique in the face of American financed Israeli fascism is a cheap and frivolus argument.

  36. W.Jones
    March 12, 2013, 2:45 am

    His complaint is that Hamas did not let women run in a marathon. Putting aside the politics of the IP conflict (if possible), isn’t it true that ancient Judaism had a rule against men making contact with women? This would likely occur during such a race. This is somewhat like the ban on women from praying at the Wailing Wall, although considering the importance of the latter, perhaps the latter might be more controversial.

    My point is that perhaps on this particular issue Gaza’s Islamic government should not be singled at by folks like Maher’s “Religulous”critics, as if Islam is the backward, extremist, intolerant, sexist religion, etc. In other words, to say the least, there seems to be a small bit of “Islamophobic” irony in this portrayal.

    I disagree with the restriction on women in both cases, but I do not belong to either of those religious communities either. And I object to a government or society restricting women from a marathon. But I do think that the condemnation brought out from certain corners should be put in perspective with their own community’s background as well. What do you think?

    • piotr
      March 12, 2013, 11:37 am

      There was a discussion on the topic on +972mag, and it is of some independent interest, but clearly, not something that EVERY lefty web site should discuss.

      Apparently Hamas authorities did not want female runners to participate even though they wanted to run “covered”. I think it was weird from the point of Islamic jurisprudence, and an example how people can develop siege mentality. Being literally under siege may have something to do with it.

      Finding a religion that is not sexist may be hard, but Shinto seems a good candidate. Deity number one is a goddess (but there are also male gods, polytheism allows to strike a balance), shrines have priests and shrine maiden, the recommended dress for men and women is similar. And the religious festivals are adorable. link to visitbeautifuljapan.blogspot.com

  37. eGuard
    March 12, 2013, 6:26 am

    These are the labels Beinart uses:
    pro-Palestinian left (2),
    anti-Zionist left (2),
    anti-Zionist,
    far left,
    left,
    old left,
    New Left,
    leftists,
    the anti-globalization movement.

    That is nine names. After this, there is only liberals left on the left. As in: after Beinart rounded them up in one corral for an occasional reasoning, the liberal Zionists can claim that this empty land is theirs.

  38. eGuard
    March 12, 2013, 6:28 am

    The good news is: no one can call Beinart brave or smart any more.

    • piotr
      March 12, 2013, 8:11 am

      This is mean. :-) People can only partially control social forces that shape their worldview, in a way we are created by our families, social class and paymasters if we are lucky (or cursed) to have any.

      In particular, taboos are created for complex reasons and yet they may be very healthy for society. Why one should refrain from sexual affection shared with a sister or a brother? One can write or read a book on the subject, or just follow the prohibition out of fear. Moderate Zionists and Hamas in Gaza have their taboos too.

      So if Beinart exhibits his moderation in being moderately brave and smart we should eschew glee.

      Good catch with the labels! Labels allow us to have a systematic view on the word, but they can be also used to build a fence that separates us from reality (and it is scary beyond the fence).

    • Kathleen
      March 12, 2013, 8:26 am

      eGuard will continue to hear that from folks invested in promoting the “tribe”

  39. eljay
    March 12, 2013, 8:11 am

    Beinart is right: Hamas must be condemned when it acts immorally or unjustly toward the Palestinians it governs. I condemn Hamas’ behaviour.

    Similarly, I look forward to Beinart condeming supremacist “Jewish State”.

    But I won’t hold my breath.

  40. Kathleen
    March 12, 2013, 8:24 am

    This tells the story “yet he declared to Jeffrey Goldberg he opposes equal rights for Palestinian citizens of Israel because it contradicts his own political mission of maintaining a Jewish state — “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.”

    Beinart is not concerned about equal rights for Palestinian women. He is not concerned about equal rights for Palestinians in general. He is concerned about Israel being a Jewish state

  41. NickJOCW
    March 12, 2013, 8:51 am

    Is there evidence that Gazan women generally wanted to join a unisex marathon ? I don’t know if Beinart is being particularly Zionist but the blinkered view that your own, often abstract, ideas about human behavior should be adopted by others, or imposed on them by stricture or force, is peculiarly American.

    • W.Jones
      March 12, 2013, 11:50 am

      Is saying that supporters of Palestinians’ Rights fail to denounce a unisex marathon similar to complaining that Hagel’s supporters did not denounce him for his position on gays in the army?

  42. RJL
    March 12, 2013, 12:49 pm

    German Lefty-look who’s talking, with your country’s history! Stolen land, you say? First of all, ever heard of the League of Nations charter on ALL of Palestine, 75% of which the Brits ILLEGALLY gave over as Transjordan, as a homeland for the Jews. That was confirmed by the 1922 San Remo conference-this is international law, lefty guy. Jordan is on far shakier legal, let alone moral, grounds than Israel. The Brits convoluted their mandate, caving into arab demands-espec. to the Mufti, who lived in your Berlin for about 3 years during the war years- severely restricting Jewish immigration, starting in the 20s, and by 1939, they wouldn’t allow any Jews in, even those escaping from Europe. It was the Mufti who convinced Hitler to not allow refugees out to Palestine, which at first the latter evil man considered. Read about the Struma ship, as an example. You guys are so ignorant, full of yourselves, and outright hateful, you probably wish to repeat what those proceeding you did.

    • Annie Robbins
      March 13, 2013, 11:57 am

      san remo nutcase hasbrat #30215634

    • gamal
      March 13, 2013, 12:03 pm

      “severely restricting Jewish immigration,” thats what natives do you know they emigrate to their homelands.

    • Cliff
      March 13, 2013, 12:14 pm

      San Remo is b.s. and ‘the Jewish ppl ‘ had and have no right to Historic Palestine.

      • Shingo
        March 13, 2013, 6:04 pm

        Actually as Hostage has pointed out many times, San Remo was very equitable is many ways.

        The problem is that idiots like RJL have never read San Remo or Leahue of Nations. Their whole understanding of these resolutions is based on what some right wing Zionist nutcase told the to believe.

    • Hostage
      March 13, 2013, 3:38 pm

      First of all, ever heard of the League of Nations charter on ALL of Palestine, 75% of which the Brits ILLEGALLY gave over as Transjordan, as a homeland for the Jews. That was confirmed by the 1922 San Remo conference-this is international law, lefty guy. . . . You guys are so ignorant, full of yourselves, and outright hateful, you probably wish to repeat what those proceeding you did.

      In the 2005 Regional Council, Coast of Gaza v. Knesset of Israel case, H.C.J. 1661/05, the Israeli Supreme Court dismissed the arguments from the petitioners based upon the San Remo resolution and the Mandate. The Court ruled that there was no legal or constitutional “right” for Israelis to settle in the occupied Palestinian territory – and that Israelis are not protected persons there under the terms of the Fourth Geneva Convention. See for example the ICRC extract and synopsis of the report from the Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law on the case – or the discussion about it in the Epilogue of Gershom Gorenberg, The Accidental Empire: Israel and the Birth of the Settlements, 1967-1977, Henry Holt, 2006, pages 363-364. link to icrc.org

      You can read more about the San Remo resolution of April 1920 here: link to mondoweiss.net

      FYI, Transjordan was added to the original Palestine mandate after the San Remo conference. It had always been part of the Arab inhabited territory East of the line from Damascus, Homs, Hama, and Aleppo pledged to the Sharif of Mecca by both Sir Henry McMahon and the Sykes-Picot agreement. It was never part of the territory occupied by Great Britain, or “Palestine” as defined by the Allied Powers in the “Aide-memoire in regard to the occupation of Syria, Palestine and Mesopotamia pending the decision in regard to Mandates, 13 September 1919″. link to digicoll.library.wisc.edu

    • Woody Tanaka
      March 13, 2013, 4:28 pm

      “You guys are so ignorant, full of yourselves, and outright hateful, you probably wish to repeat what those proceeding you did.”

      Go f*ck yourself, troll.

    • sardelapasti
      March 13, 2013, 5:56 pm

      RJL “severely restricting Jewish immigration, starting in the 20s, and by 1939, they wouldn’t allow any Jews in, even those escaping from Europe.”

      Once more, and repeated everyday:
      The restrictions on the entry of Jewish refugees from Europe to US and UK were restricted as a result of the shrill lobbying by the Zionist organizations headed by Rabbi Wise.
      Goebbels disciples who continue repeating bullshit as if nothing had been said, look up Schleicher, Julius.

    • James Canning
      March 13, 2013, 7:02 pm

      RJL – – There was nothing “illegal” about Mandates created by the League of Nations aftter the First World War.

  43. MHughes976
    March 12, 2013, 1:40 pm

    We face in Zionism the proposition that Jewish people, and they only, have an inherited right to share in sovereignty over the Holy Land and others have a share only by the grace and generosity of the true heirs. I think that this proposition is false, indeed preposterous, and in conflict with all traditional and all reasonable political morality. I don’t consider this a left-wing view, ie logically linked with some form of demand for social-democratic reform. I would hope that many people who are conservative in their economics would disagree with Zionism as much as I do.
    BEINART: Is your aim in this discussion to oppose the Zionist proposition and to establish that it is preposterous or to oppose all preposterous ideas that are of a similar nature?
    ME: To oppose that one proposition. The whole idea of a discussion, Professor Beinart, is that it has a focus and a topic.
    BEINART: But your choice of focus implies support for those who oppose Zionism but whose ideas are just as totally mistaken as you say Zionism is – blinkered, thug-loving, anti-imperialist fanatic that you are.
    ME: Quite the contrary, B, my focus is chosen because I think that the truth about this topic should faced without distraction. You vary your focus and talk of Hamas, leftism, historical phenomena and this thing and that thing. The effect of you operating your moral kaleidoscope is to stop people facing up to the sheer falsehood of the Zionist claims, ie to distract them. Stop it!!

  44. jahan
    March 12, 2013, 1:44 pm

    Until 1970 women did not run in marathons in USA. Women covered their heads in church in the 50’s & 60’s in the US. They wore gloves and hats in public.

    My suggestion is to consider this problem in the future state. To many the one state is inevitable. Most potential problems including Gender equality ought to be identified. Write a constitution considering these projected problems, along with the desires of all segments. Form a consensus on it, at this site, then proselytize.

    Beinhart wants us to consider the problem. Why not propose a resolution?

    • Annie Robbins
      March 12, 2013, 3:25 pm

      proselytize? this reminds me of when i visited jerusalem for the first time, i have just come from gaza days before. i somehow was not expecting so many women to be covered in jerusalem. their hair, their arms. i thought wow, these cultures have a lot more in common than thought. but why should we proselytize to people about these kinds of cultural preferences? and if one were to Write a constitution considering these projected problems, along with the desires of all segments. i dare say the ‘segments’ with a lot in common are the religious folks from both sides and the secular folks from both sides. not sure i am qualified to proselytize.

  45. James Canning
    March 12, 2013, 2:41 pm

    Peter Beinart’s endorsement of Israeli government discrimination against Christians and Muslims is dismaying. But not surprising.

    • Jethro
      March 12, 2013, 6:36 pm

      No doubt Beinart would object to the US government discriminating against Jews in the same way. What’s the difference?
      I’m going to need a really good answer on this one.

      • Woody Tanaka
        March 13, 2013, 6:23 am

        “No doubt Beinart would object to the US government discriminating against Jews in the same way. What’s the difference?
        I’m going to need a really good answer on this one.”

        You work from a false premise that the principle at issue is: “It is illegitimate for a state to discriminate against people based on religion.” However, to zionists like Beinart, the only principle, if they have one, is “Support israel. In the end, support israel, no matter what.”

  46. yourstruly
    March 12, 2013, 5:40 pm

    is the goal merely an end to israeli control of palestinian lives?

    yes, since “there’s nothing so precious as freedom & independence’ – ho chi minh

    & after all isn’t it up to the newly independent to decide what sort of society there’s is to be?

  47. Rusty Pipes
    March 12, 2013, 6:10 pm

    Beinart constructs anti-Zionist strawmen of Electronic Intifada and Mondoweiss in juxtaposition to rightwing Zionists so that he can present himself as the rational Liberal Zionist choice in the center.

    Do my eyes deceive me, or is the hasbarist responsible for branding MW as “mondofront” for years on the orange site before he was finally banned for his trollery trying to push the “mondofront” meme in the comment section at Open Zion? Different name, but same tactics.

    Fascinating that Beinart is concerned about the policies of the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood — an organization that is on America’s list of terrorist organizations even though it has not targeted Americans, an organization that Arab Americans like Sami Al Arian and the Holy Land 5 have been persecuted by the American justice system just for the allegation that they might have some tenuous connection to it. It is illegal for Americans to provide any material support to that branch of the Muslim Brotherhood.

    So, has Beinart criticized American support for other branches of the Muslim Brotherhood, like the “freedom fighters” in Syria? The US State Department has supplied the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood with tens of millions of dollars in communications equipment and training, has coordinated with arms suppliers in Jordan and Turkey to make sure that arms are going to rebels affiliated with the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood (rather than with AQI) and now has pledged to provide tens of millions of dollars of humanitarian aid, including halal Meals Ready to Eat, to armed Syrian Muslim Brotherhood groups (and don’t delude yourself that there is any significant presence of secular activists fighting in the FSA at this point — it’s either AQI, Muslim Brotherhood or mercenaries.) Considering Beinart has expressed such concern about taking care about not feeding resistance groups who might bring blowback down the road, has he been spending a lot of time writing about the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria? Does he consider the occupied Golan Heights relevant to the 2 State Solution he supports?

    • K Renner
      March 21, 2013, 9:40 am

      Except that there are numerous representatives of the FSA and interviews with foot soldiers and others that all show that there is a strong secularist element within the opposition movement.
      Don’t get me wrong- I realize that there is a presence of AQ and foreign “Wahhabi” elements who want the revolution for their own purposes, as well as American meddling, but I think wholesale pissing on the FSA as “terrorists” is unfair.

  48. kalithea
    March 12, 2013, 7:41 pm

    The “Liberal” Zionist Savior Beinart will find a thousand excuses to disappoint, push back on bestowing freedom and rights to Palestinians and delay surrendering an inch of stolen land back to its Palestinian rightful owners. He’s as disingenuous and hypocritical a “Liberal” as you can get and he’s every bit a typical Zionist always fabricating wiggle room for prolonging the Occupation and oppression of millions of Palestinians.

    I fully agree that his argument is concern trolling and it’s also predictable, boring hasbara claptrap that isn’t worthy of discussion. In fact it’s a distraction mechanism meant to diminish credibility around here; a last-ditch effort to frustrate the momentum achieved here as opposed to his non-existant traction. Beinart wants to trap us in his quicksand discussion, but my answer to Beinart is: go free women in Saudi Arabia or even Egypt if that makes you feel better about still calling yourself a Zionist! Beinart wants to cleanse his guilty Zionist soul by laying the guilt-trip here. He wants Palestinian women to be free to run marathons on Zionist Apartheid dirt roads.

    Hamas doesn’t have a network of lobbies in the U.S. working against Palestinian freedom. But Zionism does and who’s checking Zionist runaway power that keeps Palestinians enslaved? All who support the Palestinian cause are putting Zionists on notice: THE WORLD IS WATCHING with increasing disapproval and it’s this intense scrutiny that really “concerns” Beinart.

  49. edwardm
    March 12, 2013, 10:02 pm

    The “white mans’ burden comment” was on point.
    link to fordham.edu

    there is even a certain irony to the last line.

    “Comes now, to search your manhood
    Through all the thankless years
    Cold, edged with dear-bought wisdom,
    The judgment of your peers!”

  50. yonah fredman
    March 13, 2013, 3:37 pm

    Peter Beinart aside for a moment, once this site comes out in favor of a one state solution and then mocks those who fear it as if their fear is as silly as the fear of Jim Crow opponents of school desegregation, this web site has a duty to cover the regressive, anti freedom attitudes which dominate Palestinian society or at least the attitudes of those who will likely govern Palestinian society (and to a lesser extent the nearby government and society of Egypt). To ignore the type of society that Hamas is building and advocates and then the next day to indulge in silly analogies, is a symptom not of a war of ideas, but a war of slogans of those not willing to show the true face of reality, which is thus propaganda and not ideas.

    • justicewillprevail
      March 13, 2013, 5:03 pm

      Yes, democracy must be a terrifying prospect for you. I don’t think this web site has any duty to follow your prejudices and propaganda, or sloganeering.

    • MHughes976
      March 13, 2013, 5:11 pm

      I don’t deny that things could go very wrong in liberated Palestine or in any situation where regimes are changed. Those are inherently unpredictable situations and injustice and suffering can result. Moreover, I don’t find the kind of regulation that many Muslims seem to favour particularly attractive. That said, I must say that I am inclined to mock, to a certain degree, Beinart’s list of bad things attributed to Hamas. I think of the injustice and daily, bitter humiliation inherent in Israel’s ‘control of Palestinian lives’ and imagine the horror of them, both for men and for women. I then think of a situation where female lawyers must wear headscarves in court and where male hairdressers have their livelihood threatened because they can’t work on female heads – even where women can’t take part in marathons. If that’s the sum of his fears he seems to me to be comparing mountains and molehills and that is a comic incongruity, to put it kindly. The use of force against protesters and the excessive resort to arbitrary imprisonment are more serious but they are not absent from the current Israel-dominated situation.
      I do note that Beinart often mentions ‘attempts’ by Hamas at petty tyranny as if there was resistance. I would think this rather a good sign in all the circumstances.
      Liberations can go comparatively well, after all.

    • ToivoS
      March 13, 2013, 5:59 pm

      Sorry Yonah, it is not us, the MW crowd, that is pushing for a one-state solution rather it is the policies of the the State of Israel that are making it inevitable. I agree with you that your fears are well founded. Quite frankly, I agree that in a truly democratic single binational state the Jewish State of Israel will disappear. It is your greed for more land that is driving this. You should reread “How Much Land Does a Man Need?” by Leo Tolstoy it is a fitting parable for Israel.

      This is not my choice, this is what your government has created. I know that Israelis believe that the apartheid solution is viable, but it is not. It might work for a few more decades, but eventually will fail.

    • eljay
      March 13, 2013, 6:16 pm

      I agree that proponents of a one-state solution must strive to ensure that that state is nothing less than a secular, democratic and egalitarian state of and for all its citizens, equally – a state built around its primary cultures and respectful of other cultures within it.

      Any deviation must be condemned.

      Jews do not have a right to a supremacist “Jewish State”, but Palestinians do not have a right to a supremacist “Arab State” or “Muslim State”.

    • Ellen
      March 13, 2013, 6:29 pm

      Yonah, please cite any “mocking” of fear. The fear is emotional and projection. Most of us have seen these same dynamics play out in Jim Crow. But even then, it is nothing new.

      As for your demands on the “duty” of this site. That again is fear and projection.

      Remember, Israel nurtured and finance Hamas for its own political ends. And here, with your post, we see Hamas continues to serve a political fear mongering purpose for Israel.

      If we non-Palestinians like Hamas or not is irrelevant. A reasoned speculation is that Hamas will become irrelevant with the end of an Occupation.

      It is, after all, a spawn of The Occupation and Israeli support.

    • Cliff
      March 13, 2013, 7:11 pm

      If that were the case WJ, I’d agree. Phil & Adam haven’t said they support 1SS though but I think that Hamas is obviously a concern for them.

      This site has covered Hamas and Gaza’s radicalization. It’s just not a Nonie Drawish lecture.

  51. RJL
    March 13, 2013, 5:38 pm

    Thank you, Yona. Need more comments like yours, to force this site to explain, rationally, exactly what, and how, a one state Palestine would provide full equality for Jews, and how, or why, they’d protect them from physical assault, given the type of Palestinian societies existing now in Gaza and the west bank.

    • Citizen
      March 14, 2013, 2:10 pm

      @ RJL
      The type of Palestinian societies existing now in Gaza and the West Bank exists so as they are controlled by the nuclear-armed state of Israel with full funding and backing diplomatically by the USA. The current and long-time fact is Israel does not provide any equality for those it “administers” or totally controls in the OT, and, in Israel behind the green line, Israel does the same regarding its Arab citizens, only with a fig leaf of democratic veneer. The current reality is that Palestinians are suffering this daily attack by Israel under color of law.

    • justicewillprevail
      March 14, 2013, 6:28 pm

      You need to explain rationally, exactly what, and how, the one state Israel that exists now will provide full equality for Palestinians, and how they will protect them from the incessant physical assaults they suffer now, given the type of Israeli society that exists now. You are worried about a hypothetical situation, Palestinians are worried about equality and protection from Israeli assault now, and have been for some time. Take out the mote in your own eye first.

    • K Renner
      March 21, 2013, 9:44 am

      “Any free Polish State must provide assurances that those German settlers living within must be given full protection under the law and must be awarded equal rights the same as any Polish citizen, regardless of past hostilities or violent events perpetuated by German settlers and the occupying German Army”.

  52. Hostage
    March 13, 2013, 7:46 pm

    Peter Beinart aside for a moment, once this site comes out in favor of a one state solution and then mocks those who fear it as if their fear is as silly as the fear of Jim Crow opponents of school desegregation, this web site has a duty to cover the regressive, anti freedom attitudes which dominate Palestinian society or at least the attitudes of those who will likely govern Palestinian society (and to a lesser extent the nearby government and society of Egypt).

    I’m old enough to have vivid memories of “White” and “Colored” drinking fountains, rest rooms, & listening to identical nonsense about the personal risk posed by giving Black Panthers, Nation of Islam, and other militant groups equal rights or allowing them to live in our neighborhoods and marry white spouses.

    My only obligation is to tell you that whatever your problem is, it isn’t caused by granting others the rights and duties of citizenship or equal human rights.

    • Citizen
      March 14, 2013, 2:13 pm

      Nobody likes to give up state-supported privileges based on his or her ethnic, racial, or religious birth. The point is, America did it, S Africa did it. Germany was forced to do it. And, now it’s belated time for Israel to do it.

  53. lysias
    March 21, 2013, 5:42 pm

    I am currently reading Richard Gott’s Britain’s Empire: Resistance, Repression and Revolt. It is full of examples of British imperialists justifying their conquests and tyranny by pointing to such objectionable practices of the “savages” as slavery.

  54. German Lefty
    March 21, 2013, 7:15 pm

    I just discovered this blog post by “The Progressive Zionist”:
    A hat tip to Peter Beinart, An answer to Mondofront… and anti-Zionists
    Of course, being “drilled” by Beinart did not sit well with the crew over at MondoFront (we call it MondoFront due to the fact that the articles and commentary mostly trade in anti-Semitic memes that are popular on the neo-Nazi site Stormfront, and Mondoweiss is quoted there freely), who sent Adam Horowitz and Seth Roth to write a “response”.
    link to progressivezionist.com

    • piotr
      March 21, 2013, 10:53 pm

      I was investigating the candidates for the list of top 10 oxymorons, and I got some novel proposals like “mature content” (for those unfamiliar with the term, it covers instances that are as immature as one can get). “People’s Democratic Republic” is a good entry, and “progressive Zionist” is very good too.

Leave a Reply