I’ll be praising Peter Beinart a lot in days to come. I think he’s bravely broken a taboo inside establishment Jewish life. But something he said at J Street the other night left me very cold.
On Sunday night a questioner asked Beinart about his “journey” through establishment institutions (Yale, the New Republic) to publishing a book that attacks the American Jewish leadership over its stiffnecked policy about Israel. Beinart answered:
I struggled with some of this stuff privately, I didn’t really write about it very much [even as] I wrote about other aspects of foreign policy for a number of years. Because I was conflicted, because I was worried about perhaps the ways it would be received amongst people I care about.
And because I didn’t necessarily feel that I had the right to speak about this, given that I didn’t live in Israel, given that I hadn’t yet given my life to try to understand the issue.
Somewhere along the line a series of things happened…
And Beinart cited the failure of Avigdor Lieberman’s rise to rouse the American Jewish community. So he was stirred to speak out.
I can relate to Beinart’s silence. I’m not a Zionist, but I have an ethnocentric streak. And I deferred to Zionists in the Jewish community for years and stayed away from the Israel story– out of the feeling that pro-Israel Jews knew better than I did what was good for the Jews. Then the Iraq war ended my vow of silence.
And I could not help thinking about one of those foreign policy issues on which Beinart did not censor himself but offered himself as an expert: Beinart was a leading voice for the Iraq war. He pushed that invasion in The New Republic and wrote a whole book about the virtue of militant engagement, The Good Fight. Beinart endorsed a wholesale project of “spreading freedom in the Muslim world” by force:
Of all the things contemporary liberals can learn from their forbearers half a century ago, perhaps the most important is that national security can be a calling. If the struggles for gay marriage and universal health care lay rightful claim to liberal idealism, so does the struggle to protect the United States by spreading freedom in the Muslim world. It, too, can provide the moral purpose for which a new generation of liberals yearn.
The fact that Beinart had never lived in Iraq and had not devoted years of study to, say, Sunni-Shia divisions or Arab political culture– it didn’t stop Beinart for one second. And of course the invasion of Iraq destroyed an Arab society and caused over 100,000 deaths. Leave alone the huge damage in the U.S. and to so many young people here.
And when you think about the difference between speaking out boldly on Iraq and stopping himself from a squeak on Israel, the difference is not just ideological (Zionism), it is social and ethnic: Beinart lived and worked in the Jewish community. He identified with other Jews, he didn’t know Muslims. His sense of allegiance to Jews and fellow Zionists stopped him from issuing the mildest criticism of Israel. But when it came to a foreign country that coincidentally was considered the eastern threat to Israel, Beinart was for steel and cordite.
One reason I admire Beinart is he is a reflective man who has done penance for his Iraq mistake. But my point here involves the importance of ethnicity in journalism. The other day the New York Times said that black journalists played a key role in pushing the Trayvon Martin case, because they could relate to the Martins and explain the issues. And we all know that the Trayvon Martin story would have died without their energetic engagement. Bless those journalists; I would have walked on by.
And when people say that Jewishness in the media doesn’t matter, it’s absurd to me. All Jews have had to struggle with the call from their community to support Zionism, every one of us. All of us have had to come to terms with the Jewish ethnocentrism that Beinart was (unconsciously) expressing.
And so I find that I interrogate Jewish reporters on this basis, trying to take their internal temperature on Zionism. Max Frankel of the New York Times– well he later admitted he was fighting for Israel when he was editorial page editor of the New York Times. The late Daniel Schorr was a Zionist and endlessly espoused Israel on air. I wonder about Wolf Blitzer given his AIPAC past, I wonder about Robert Siegel at NPR due to his fondness for Jeffrey Goldberg and Amos Yadlin (and his ability to pronounce Amos in the Hebrew way, something I don’t know how to do). And though I think, giving them the benefit of the doubt, that they are not Zionists, still I wonder about Joe Klein, David Corn, Howard Fineman, and Mark Halperin (whose father is a mucketymuck at J Street); I wonder how ethnocentric they are, and what lien Zionism has on their opinions. Because Jews’ lives are at stake in this conflict and Jewish leaders have said it is Jews’ sacred mission to protect those lives.
I admire the late I.F. Stone for struggling openly with his ethnocentrism and often criticizing Israel, I respect Eric Alterman for being plain about his ethnocentrism. Just as I intuit based on her self-possession that Jodi Rudoren the new NYT correspondent is not a Zionist, and has come to a thoughtful self-understanding on this point. Just as I knew the moment I met him that Adam Horowitz cares only about human rights, not Jewish human rights– and on that basis I wanted to work with him and learn from him.
These interrogations– I realize they are a form of redbaiting. I’ve spent enough time moderating comments at this site to know that such explorations can give rise to vicious anti-Semitism. But Beinart’s admission upsets me. Zionism and the power of ethnic identification restrained him from saying a word on Israel and I am sure played a role in his support for that awful war.
I didn’t think I would be writing “in defence of Beinart” but here we go.
My main contention is that, as you noted, one part of the reason why the Trayvon Martin case was pushed so hard was because a lot of black (and probably hispanic, too, at least before Zimmerman’s photo became public) journalists felt that this had hit home.
On the other hand, 90 % or so of all deaths that happen to young black men by other perpetrators are by other black men. There was some kind of former NAACP director who spoke about this. But why was this case so hardly fought? Because it had the stirrings of the oldest of racial conflicts in America: White/black. Since then the case had been complicated by a lot.
But the fact is, in that moment, when facts were scarce, large sections of the (mostly progressive) media rushed to judgement and attacked Fox for holding back coverage before more facts were known(so now I’m even defending Fox, wow, this keeps getting better).
In an idealistic scenario, this case would have been followed but the tone which suggested that this was somehow an already set case was a disaster, and it was mostly the case on progressive media(where most black journalists are, except NPR which has almost no black journalists since Juan Williams was fired). So did the black journalists act more out of ethnocentrism rather than professionalism?
I would be tempted to say yes. Even if Zimmerman is found to be guilty, the due process should be observed.
What is the larger point made here? That ethnocentrism isn’t necessarily a good thing, regardless of who is doing it, but that it seems weird why you would attack Jewish ethnocentrism but praise black ethnocentrism. One of the points I’m making here is that this is something that is normal. White(as in non-Jewish/non-Hispanic) ethnocentrism in the media isn’t as pronounced, at least among liberals, but it’s probably a subtle factor too. You take an outsized interest in stories which are relevant to your upper middle-class life with mostly white friends and family.
So the devil’s advocate might counter: all points made are sound but there’s a difference here; scale of impact. Jewish ethnocentrism, because of Israel, and because of our(in my opinion, wonderful) rise to prominence has much more pronounced consequences in terms of bloodshed and war(now let me be precise, I am not saying that ‘Jews are behind the Iraq war!’ I think we were part of the more minor players but the thing to remember is that no matter how large or small part we were of the pro-war movement, either by silence or by tacit support, we have an obligation to clear our consciences regardless, as moral human beings and Jews. This is especially true because we have an outsized impact on the media and the political process. We cannot play victims forever and we have to take ownership of our privilege, which I think Beinart is in some sense saying too.)
But whatever the role of AIPAC in the run-up to Iraq, still a debated topic, nobody can argue on the case of Iran, which has basically no chance of producing any plausible deniability for the Israel Lobby(or, more precise, the AIPAC part of it) to hide behind; because everyone knows who is beating the drums of war. And AIPAC is still vastly more powerful than J Street is in terms of funding/congressional power etc.
And these counter-points are well-taken. And I think Beinart’s blind support for Iraq probably inspired him – in part, of course – to write about the ‘ethics of Jewish power’. He recently said on a Shalom TV interview that AIPAC celebrates Jewish power but neglects it’s responsibility.
That sounds about right. I don’t mind Jews in power; it thrills me. But I agree with Beinart that too often there is an outdated view of the Jew as this powerless, hapless and downtrodden victim. That hasn’t been the case for decades. And the fact that he has started this conversation from the inside means that it will be hard to acuse him of anti-Semitism or other dark motives(although the self-hating Jew is still available).
And that is a contribution, because as Israel is growing ever more militant, we need critical debate in the Jewish community. And whatever criticisms one might have with Beinart, the fact is that he has changed his positions and we are all better off by it.
The whole thing is far simpler than Phil makes it sound.
We have all heard of “situational ethics”. Well, as Phil points out, the COMMUNITY OF A REPORTER is part of the “situation” that defines his “ethics”.
“Speak no evil of Israel” appears to have been (anbd still to be) a great part of the “ethics” of an ENORMOUS part of the USA’s press.
And now for a word from our sponsor: can the black reporters who pushed the Trayvon Martin matter ALSO push Palestine? Or will the (Jewish?) editors stop them? Or (Jewish?) advertisers? Or (Jewish?) CEOs of the news-corporations stop them? (Or, of course, their own good sense of protective self-censorship?)
Cogent, smart, and honest article, Phil. Here’s the other side of your coin: Non-Jewish Americans who have studied both domestic and foreign policy of America, and deeply desire that their government do all it can to advance the importance of the individual human here and abroad, also struggle, for example when they are confronted with identity politics and influence. For example, my son is well aware of the killing of the black young man in Florida by a “white” guy named Zimmerman, who later became a “white Hispanic.” But when I asked him about the Mississippi State U white student recently killed on campus & the three “suspects,” who only now are being described as “black,” he had never heard of that recent killing case–should I just ignore media’s manipulation of what they feel we should know? How about when a regular here on Mondweiss listens to Obama and the GOP POTUS contenders (bar Ron Paul) parrot there’s no sky between Israel and USA, and Bibi says we are the same? It’s really annoying when nearly everyone you know and meet has no clue at all about the factual reality regarding those directly impacted by our post 2001 wars–whether Gentile or Jew. Nor do they know the facts of US “special relationship with Israel,” nor its impact to real human beings. And now it seems very much to me only a question of at most a year before we will be at war with Iran.
RE: “And Beinart cited the failure of Avigdor Lieberman’s rise to rouse the American Jewish community. So he was stirred to speak out.” ~ Weiss
SEE: Is Lieberman the New Israeli Mainstream? ~ by Mitchell Plitnick, 1/08/11
ENTIRE COMMENTARY – http://mitchellplitnick.com/2011/01/08/is-lieberman-the-new-israeli-mainstream/
Thank you Philip. In the intense pressure cooker that the global community has become with the internet, these questions of identity politics become vitally important. We must each check our own ethnocentrism in how we interpret events. The primary division in the world is the haves (the 1%) and the have nots (the 99%). It is in the interests of the one percent to encourage us to look at everyone else as “the Other” in relationship to our own group, when actually all human beings have the same hopes, fears, and needs.
In the case of Trayvon Martin, everyone should be outraged that a teenager could be murdered by a vigilante who projected his own racial stereotypes as an excuse to murder Trayvon. We should also be outraged that many in the media are now trying to destroy Trayvon’s reputation by the same stereotypes that got him murdered. His murder is not only an African-American cause, like equal rights for the Palestinians, it is a human rights cause.