Media Analysis

Beinart is latest liberal Zionist to abandon two-state solution

In the last day everyone has been talking about Peter Beinart’s article abandoning the two-state solution in Jewish Currents. Beinart says the effort to create a Palestinian state has failed, and it’s time for liberal Zionists to endorse equality between Jews and Palestinians. Beinart went further on Twitter, praising Ali Abunimah’s groundbreaking book of 2006, One Country, (which treated the two-state solution as apartheid), and in an op-ed in the New York Times today, in which Beinart deplores the idea of “separation” of Palestinians and Jews.

The goal of equality is now more realistic than the goal of separation. The reason is that changing the status quo requires a vision powerful enough to create a mass movement. A fragmented Palestinian state under Israeli control does not offer that vision. Equality can. Increasingly, one equal state is not only the preference of young Palestinians. It is the preference of young Americans, too.

Beinart pointedly abandons an argument that he had made on numerous occasions, that a binational state doesn’t work. Now he says what Yousef Munayyer said in his 2015 debate with Beinart, it won’t be easy but one democratic state has to be the vision.

Any discussion of Beinart’s shift must acknowledge his status and sincerity. This is a writer of establishment prominence. He was once Martin Peretz’s righthand man at The New Republic–so he had to be an ultra-Zionist. He gave private talks at AIPAC, the rightwing Israel lobby group. He wrote a book supporting the Iraq war, and later renounced his own position. His 2010 piece in The New York Review of Books on the failure of the American Jewish establishment, itemizing its moral collapse in enabling the occupation, was hugely significant in that Beinart was importing ideas from Walt and Mearsheimer and B’Tselem too into the mainstream. He followed that up with a book, “The Crisis of Zionism”, that opened with the author’s horror at Israeli human rights violations and later skewered DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz for leading standing ovations for Netanyahu. Beinart became a hero at liberal Zionist gatherings. Young people wore t-shirts that said, Beinart’s Army, at J Street conferences.

Beinart’s stature in liberal Jewish communal life means that his new opinion represents a potential Walter Cronkite moment, as Robert Herbst puts it. The moment when America’s leading broadcaster came back from Vietnam in 1968 and said that America was not winning the war, it was a “bloody… stalemate;” and Lyndon Johnson famously said, he’d lost the country.

A lot of people will tell you that Beinart’s political revelations are not original, and while I agree, I would respond that he is charismatic and a gifted writer. I won’t forget him telling a large hall at J Street some years ago that if Israel/Zionism fails, Jews will be walking through the rubble of that error for generations… And here is a fine passage from the Jewish Currents piece:

For generations, Jews have seen a Jewish state as a tikkun, a repair, a way of overcoming the legacy of the Holocaust. But it hasn’t worked. To justify our oppression of Palestinians, Jewish statehood has required us to see them as Nazis. And, in that way, it has kept the Holocaust’s legacy alive. The real tikkun is equality, a Jewish home that is also a Palestinian home.

Beinart joins a list of liberal Zionists who have abandoned the two-state solution, and his joining that list means it is only going to grow. Some of the liberal Zionists who have preceded him are… Gershon Baskin in the Jerusalem Post last year:

Those of us in Israel who have supported and struggled to bring about a two-state solution are now forced to accept the new reality that [Netanyahu] will create, and we will have to join the ranks of the Palestinian people who will fight for democracy and equality in a non-nation-non-ethnic-secular state.

Ian Lustick in his book of last year, Paradigm Lost-– Lustick who had once been a two-state activist, now calling for a struggle for equal rights.

Or Eric Alterman saying that liberal Zionism is a contradiction in terms, in the Nation… Lara Friedman of Foundation for Middle East Peace, formerly of Americans for Peace Now, calling for sanctions… Larry Derfner publishing his book “No Country for Jewish Liberals” and supporting BDS…. or decades ago, anti-occupation legend Jeff Halper abandoning his Zionism…

Beinart’s defection from the two-state/separation camp puts huge pressure on the leading liberal-centrist Zionist organizations J Street, Americans for Peace Now, New Israel Fund, and Israel Policy Forum, to stop the beastly talk of “separation” and demographics and move further to the left. J Street is already under a ton of pressure. Its opposition to annexation has been lip service and ineffective, in the view of the alumni of its own youth branch, and these young people, many of them communal Jews, are surely exulting in Beinart’s new opinions– and trying to outdo him. I bet that IfNotNow endorses BDS before long…

Conservative Zionist David Harris lately complained that both the Jewish donors and Jewish bleachers are pressuring him to take a “macho” stand against Israel. Donors and bleachers both! The organized Jewish community is plainly in flux on Israel and the left can take credit for driving this discussion. Beinart’s endorsement of Ali Abunimah shows that the Palestinian narrative of Zionism is now in the Jewish tent, and it’s never leaving.

39 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

“Beinart’s endorsement of Ali Abunimah shows that the Palestinian narrative of Zionism is now in the Jewish tent, and it’s never leaving.”

Kudos to Peter Beinart and Ali Abunimah!!

As reality on the ground and common sense have long since dictated, one state is inevitable!!

In checking out the links in Beinarts article I thought two things were interesting:

A picture of the Dec 8, 1988 New York Times with the headline “ARAFAT SAYS P.L.O. ACCEPTED ISRAEL”

https://www.nytimes.com/1988/12/08/world/arafat-says-plo-accepted-israel.html

The other is https://mondediplo.com/2007/01/05hamas , “What Hamas Really Wants”:

“The international community,” writes Guigue, “must finally show that its resolutions are serious, after 40 years of conniving with Israel”.

When Hamas and Abbas endorse annexation and full rights in the one state for all, now that would be a game changer. But that’s not on the horizon. The comatose two state solution has been dealt its worst blow by netanyahu, but creating the dynamic of one state is still in its embryonic phase.

Phil Weiss uses the term “binational state” as if it’s synonymous with “one state”. Are there any Palestinians who support the concept of a binational state? If so, that’s a sensational new development. As of now the Palestinian’s intention is to establish an Islamic State.

It’s gratifying when a superstar finally draws the conclusions many of us did years ago, and I truly hope it will open the minds of many more diehard two-staters to their delusion. Recognizing reality and envisioning a better future are great, but a few things are bothersome:

  1. The only mention of the Nakba in the long piece is at the very end, when he envisions a joint memorial ceremony at Deir Yassin, with a museum to remember one of the worst, game-changing massacres in 1948. He mentions the “750,000 Palestinians who fled or were expelled during Israel’s founding,” but a “Museum of the Nakba” does not restorative justice make. To Beinart’s telling, only the cemetery has been restored at the village that was the site of . How about the village itself? And will the descendants of those 750,000 be welcome in the new binational state? There’s some talking around the edges, mention of what others have said. But the closest thing to a proposal says the new state should be a haven for any Palestinian (and Jew) “in distress.” The effort at equivalence is problematic.
  2. The contrast between “Yavneh” and what Beinart considers a distortion of Zionism into statism is highly strained on both counts. He doesn’t quite equate the former with or endorse the more modern concept “Diasporism,” which in various forms (Bolshevik, Bundist, Orthodox, liberal compartmentalization of religion/national identity) embraced Jewish life among the nations, rejected Zionism and dominated world Jewry until 1948-ish. How to embrace Yavneh and remain a Zionist, which requires a belief in the centrality of the Land of Israel to Jewish life, even if shared. It doesn’t add up to a coherent ideological framework. My reading of Zionist history tells me he vastly overstates its non-statist factions, cherry picking quotations that were geared toward winning colonial allies (Ottoman rulers) in a very different world. The humanists/binationalists were a tiny minority; the effort to say otherwise rings false.