As Peter Beinart leaves Open Zion to pursue writing about other subjects of interest, he has taken an uncompromising stance against Liz Cheney’s grudging tolerance of her sister’s sexual orientation. He doesn’t buy Liz’s declaration of “compassion” for Mary, a word that connotes “pity for the morally diseased.” Beinart condemns those who “avoid open expressions of contempt” but “merely insist that gays and lesbians live as second-class citizens, denied the fundamental rights that Liz, Dick, and Lynne Cheney take for granted.”
It’s nice to see Peter Beinart take such a strong stand on equality. Too bad he does not feel it should be a universal principle. Here is what he has to say about Palestinian citizens of Israel: “I’m not asking Israel to be Utopian. I’m not asking it to allow Palestinians who were forced out (or fled) in 1948 to return to their homes. I’m not even asking it to allow full, equal citizenship to Arab Israelis, since that would require Israel no longer being a Jewish state. I’m actually pretty willing to compromise my liberalism for Israel’s security and for its status as a Jewish state.”
So while it is unacceptable for anyone to insist that gay citizens be relegated to second-class status, Beinart has no difficulty insisting that Palestinian-Israelis live as second-class citizens, denied the fundamental rights that Israeli Jews take for granted.
How does Beinart’s view differ from the one he condemns when expressed by Liz Cheney? Cheney values adherence to her religious principles over equality for all; Beinart values adherence to the notion of a Jewish State over equality. If anything, Beinart is more hypocritical, because he professes to place such importance in his liberal principles, in particular an insistence on equality under the law. Indeed it would be difficult to imagine any other circumstances in which a good liberal like Beinart would tolerate inequality: for gays in the US, Muslims in Western Europe, Tamils in Sri Lanka, Hungarians in Slovakia, indigenous people in Bolivia and Peru. Apparently his sole exception to the otherwise inviolable rule demanding equality for all applies to Palestinian citizens of Israel.
Note that Beinart appears to be a sincere liberal Zionist, one who truly opposes the occupation, supports a Palestinian State, and frets about those laws and policies within Israel that he sees as unnecessarily discriminatory. He presumably would favor true freedom and self-determination for the millions of Palestinians suffering under Israeli military occupation. Still, he understands that a Jewish State will inherently require some government-imposed discrimination in favor of Jews, even American Jews such as himself, over indigenous non-Jewish people. And he is OK with that.
Beinart lectures the Cheneys: “you cannot lovingly or respectfully or compassionately tell one group of Americans that they must accept legal inferiority just because of who they are.” But he says exactly the opposite thing about Palestinian citizens of Israel: you can tell them that they must accept legal inferiority just because of who they are.
This is the inherent contradiction in liberal Zionism. No principle is more hallowed in liberalism than equality under the law, which cannot co-exist with the system of ethnic privilege promised by the Jewish State. In fact, supporters of such a transformation to an egalitarian society are routinely and falsely depicted as calling for the “destruction” of Israel. Even Norman Finkelstein has adopted such language. Beinart might never use that word, but how can he be so clueless as to mouth platitudes about second-class citizenship, denial of fundamental rights, and legal inferiority when Zionism is such a fundamental part of his makeup?
Beinart closes his essay with an excerpt from Martin Luther King’s letter from Birmingham jail: “Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection…We will have to repent in this generation, not merely for the hateful words and actions of the bad people, but for the appalling silence of the good people.” How would Beinart respond if a Palestinian wrote the same words to him?
Give Beinart some credit.
At least he doesn’t defend ethnic cleansing(as Ari Shavit) and then proceed with patronizing victimbashing by telling that the people who survived these repeated campaigns “are better off because of it”.
I’m glad that Beinart defends gay rights in America. I’m not surprised, given the low bar we’ve set for liberal Zionists, that he manages to succeed in surpassing these expectations by not defending ethnic cleansing but merely accepting an Apartheid regime.
Hey, they may be occupied and Beinart may cut them enormous amount of slack, but at least he doesn’t advocate their forceful removal! Gotta give him credit for something!
I’m looking forward to reading his articles defending Yair Lapid as a new columnist for Ha’aretz, the guy who is BFF with Bennett who has advocated annexation of 60% of the West Bank or how he pinches Lieberman in the cheek as a friendly gesture, who has advocated another round of ethnic cleansing and demanded that “illoyal” Arabs be shot.
Or not to mention when he announced his campaign – in Ariel.
These are all imperfect liberal things that Yair has done, and while there is that famous “tension” we all know of between Zionism and liberalism, it can be resolved! Just ask Beinart: suspend your liberalism at the door. It’s very easy.
this is no reflection on the author, but I couldn’t make it through this post. even with a ‘hyper’ coffee in hand. there is so-called ‘compassion fatigue’. I am suffering from ‘beinart fatigue’. now that he has flashed us with his hypocrisy, having squeezed every bit of promotional sales potential out of ‘open zion’, can we move on? I sometimes think that there is an unhealthy fixation with the minutia of false liberals’ bleating. absent an epiphany, a re-birth of beinart, I presume that everything beinart has to say publicly is corrupted by his writerly ambition to be ‘relevant’. and to be compensated accordingly.
Be careful here. Mondoweiss believes that Beinart will break the entrenched US Zionism open and that a fruitful discussion will follow. The belief is strong, already over two and a half years.
This is where theory runs up against reality.
In theory, every one should be treated equally and fair and rightly.
But what do you do when your opposition wants to create an Islamic state, in a region of the world where Islamic states and/or principles prevail? Such states make non-Muslims dhimmis. In Egypt for example: A Muslim, by law, is NOT allowed to convert to Christianity.
A Muslim woman may not marry a Christian man, again by law; even if she wants to. For ex: Omar Sharif was born Christian; but was not allowed to marry his first wife until he converted to Islam, even though the Muslim woman was agreeable.
Now imagine you are a Jew whose ancestors were slaughtered in Europe in living memory. Do you think you are going to trust majority rule to be the guiding principle of the state?
Don’t kid yourself. Islamic extremism is a force in Palestine. It may have weakened in Gaza, but it is growing in the West Bank.
The Jews will never surrender that point.
========
BTW: HOW COME MY COMMENTS ARE NOT BEING ARCHIVED?
Beinart: “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.”
A lot of people say stuff like this. But what do they mean by it? Do they in fact mean anything by it, other than magically to substitute these words for another set of words: “I do not wish to tick off the Jewish citizens of Israel and my Zionist friends in the USA”?
Could they conceivably mean that a “Jewish State” necessarily denies equality to non-Jewish citizens? Necessarily? Non-Jews MUST HAVE poor garbage collection, bad roads, less electricity, and NO BUILDING PERMITS, or else (GASP!) Israel will no longer be “Jewish”. Not “be” “Jewish”. Do they really mean that to be “Jewish” a state must, necessarily, discriminate, deny equal civil rights and human rights to non-majority folks? this is “necessary”?
Hunh?
I guess this formulation is a stop-gap for the day — may it come soon! — when non-Jews in Israel constitute such a large voting block that Israel (forget about OPTs and Golan) must decide between discriminatory-democracy and out-and-out-apartheid.
One question for Beinart and others on Israeli “democracy”: UNDER TODAY’S LAWS AND JUDICIAL OPINIONS, if a non-Jewish political party (call it a Palestinian political party) forms under a declared program of Zionism and fealty to Israel as a Jewish and Democratic state — can the MKs of the party (assuming they have any) vote to repeal the Law of Jewish Return?
Any lawyers out there?