The Follies and Illusions of Peter Beinart
Monday’s New York Times ran an op-ed by none other than Peter Beinart, a man who is quickly becoming the poster boy for the anti-Israel movement. I have written about Beinart before. You can find my earlier columns here and here and finally here. So, in case you didn’t guess, I am not what you would call a fan.
But nothing so far exemplifies his hubris and the simplicity of his understanding of the Israeli-Palestinian issue than Monday’s article, excerpted from his forthcoming book, which obviously the New York Times hopes to make a super best-seller.
Beinart’s short essay reveals the heart of his argument, which is quickly endearing himself to the anti-Israeli American left in particular. Pretending to support a two-state solution, Beinart advances his thesis that Israel’s pro-settler policy is the reason that Palestinians have turned against the Jewish state. Of course, if the current settlements were the cause of their hatred of Israel, he would have to explain why throughout the decades they have consistently turned down every offer made by Israel that would have led to two states, one Jewish and one Palestinian. And he would have to explain why, from day one of Israel’s creation, the Arab states and the Palestinian residents, led by the Nazi ally Grand Mufti Haj Amin el-Husseini, pledged to oppose the Jewish state to the last drop of their blood. In their eyes, any amount of territory given to the Jews was a settlement that had to be destroyed.
To advance his agenda, Beinart now argues for a strategy of boycotts and disinvestment not in all of Israel, but just in products coming from Jewish settlers who live anywhere in the West Bank. Of course, such a boycott could never work, and no one but Beinart favors it. It would quickly become a boycott of anything made in Israel, since no one buying any Israeli products in fact knows where it is made in Israel and by whom. It also legitimizes the very idea of boycotting Israel, but this time to be carried out in the name of saving Israel from itself. This is, to use a Jewish term, a good example of chutzpah gone wild.
But because his piece was published in the Times and given its imprimatur, it has more importance than had he published it, for example, in the weekly Jewish liberal paper The Forward. That is why it immediately received an unprecedented response from Israel’s ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren. Writing on his Facebook page, Oren posted the following statement:
Peter Beinart’s call (“To Save Israel, Boycott the Settlements,” New York Times, 3.19.12) places him well beyond the Israeli mainstream, the moderate left, and the vast majority of Israelis who care about peace. The call for boycotting all products made by Israeli communities outside of Jerusalem and beyond the 1949 Armistice Lines is supported only by a marginal and highly radical fringe. Beinart’s position, moreover, absolves the Palestinians of any responsibility for the current situation, including their rejection of previous peace offers, their support for terror, and their refusal to negotiate with Israel for the past three years. By reducing the Palestinians to two-dimensional props in an Israeli drama, Beinart deprives them of agency and indeed undermines his own thesis. Without an active Palestinian commitment to a two-state solution–irrespective of boycotts–the peace Beinart seeks cannot be achieved.
Oren nails it, and is correct to point out that Beinart’s position is not that of “liberal” Jews, but in fact, the position of a “radical fringe.” And by putting all the blame on the lack of peace on Israel alone, as Beinart does, he reveals without seeming to realize it that in fact he is echoing the position of Palestinian opponents of Israel, not that of Israel’s friends.
Peter beinart is doing it because it pays well. Just as Thomas friedmann did well by plagiarizing white supremacist lit in the NYT when he said the US Congress was bought and sold by the Israel lobby. They are just high priced call girls
Another radical leftist (Bienart and New York Times), who thinks he is smarter than everyone else. How these people think is hilarious. Anyone believing his drivel need to realize they are a hack like he is. What a waste of copy space!
The problem of the Settlements is it shows the attitude of the leadership of Israel today. They do not consider Palestinians human beings. They look upon
the Palestinians, those that even acknowledge there is such a thing as a Palestinian people; as did Founders of the USA looked upon African slaves; only part human.
Cast Lead shows the hatred the Israeli Government has for all things not Israeli. They murdered innocents in another ‘first strike’. Israel has long demonstrated they have the ability to strategically eliminate Hamas leadership;
it was just easier to ‘kill them all’. They attacked and damaged the Baptist
Church in Gaza because Christians, Muslims, Atheists, Agnostics are all the same to the Government of Israel.
Many Israeli citizens are also feed up with many Israeli leaders.
Personally, I lost faith in Israel as a friend and ally of the USA when they murdered 34 American Marines & Sailors, wounded another 173 on the USS Liberty.
Much more efficient than the murdered of the crew of the USS Cole. Of course, Israel shows their contempt for the USA with the Pollard and Lavon Affairs.
Begging the USA to subsidize their lifestyle, IE, free health care for all Israeli citizens just shows they think they are ‘entitled’ to more than even their closest allies.
Just recently, Prime Minister Netanyahu insulted the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Dempsey, calling him an ‘Agent of Iran”; even though
many Israeli leaders agree Netanayu is not telling the truth about the eminent danger of Iran’s Nuclear Weapons program.
A start would be for the Government of Israel to control their citizens from damagine Christian Churches and Mosques in Israel; but you see leadership’s
attitude.
Ever get tired of that broken record??? Ever think for yourself???
Ron Loother: “Just recently, Prime Minister Netanyahu insulted the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Dempsey, calling him an ‘Agent of Iran”; even though
many Israeli leaders agree Netanayu is not telling the truth about the eminent danger of Iran’s Nuclear Weapons program.”
That’s very interesting. Could you give us a link to a video or reputable Media source on that one so we could see for ourselves? All I could find were reports that the Prime Minister said Dempsey was serving the interests of Iran because Dempsey was reported as saying he was against an attack on Iran’s nuclear sites.
Now let’s see. Are you saying Iran should be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon, Ron? If you are and someone important in our government or military said we should not try to prevent it with armed force if necessary, wouldn’t that person be serving your interests?
In addition…get lost.
Leaving aside Ron Luther’s ridiculous drivel about Israel, I note that he repeats the moronic canard that the “Founders of the USA looked upon African slaves; [as] only part human.”
What Luther is referencing here is the Constitutional provision which counts slaves (not “Africans” or even “blacks”; there was no racial reference whatsoever in this determination based upon economic status) as “3/5ths of a person” for the purposes of tabulating population when apportioning representatives. The ignoramus Left has been making a lot of noise about this provision lately. What they do not seem to realize—or, possibly, are laboring to obscure—is that this provision says nothing whatever about the “humanity” of anyone. It is a legal determination for the purpose of apportioning representation.
Had the slave states (mostly southern) been able to count slaves as full persons for the purpose of apportionment, the slave states would have had an overwhelming representational majority in the Congress. The 3/5ths rule was inserted into the Constitution as a compromise which recognized the greater population of slave states to a limited degree, but limited that recognition for the very purpose of making it possible to eventually settle the issue of slavery in the near rather than the far term. It was designed to ensure that the pro-slavery vote would not dominate the US government for the next hundred years.
In the event, of course, it still took a war to abolish slavery in the United States. But the 3/5ths rule, decried by Leftists and Democrats, was a good-faith effort by the Founders to lay the foundation for a peaceful settlement of the issue in the future. So far from being “racist” or “pro-slavery,” it was the opposite of both.
Very, very nicely put, Buzz. Superb analysis. Wasted, though, I am afraid, on the likes of Luther.
Buzzsawmonkey: Excellent reply I was thinking the exact same thing when I came on your post. Took the words out of my mind. God Bless.
Ron Luther:
There is greater recognition for the humanity of the Arabs in the midst of the Israelis than there is among their Arab brethren in other nations. How many other nations in the middle east extend the right to vote to ‘palestinians’? Does Jordan extend them the right to vote? Was it the Israelis or the Jordanian Hashemites who nearly effected a complete ethnic cleansing of ‘palestinians’ in their midst during Black September?
What respect for their humanity is received from their Saudi brothers, sisters and co-religionists when ‘palestinian’ migrant workers go to work in the Saudi kingdom? How about none?
A good maxim to keep in mind when you participate in any exchange is to think before you write.
You should cite Lebanon’s treatment of Palestinians in their midst.
At least the Jordanians permit Palestinians to own property and have professions.
Now take the Pa and its treatment of “refugees” in the Balata “camp” in Nablus and how it discriminates against them, their own brothers who supposedly belong in Israel.
There is much (unacknowledged) information in your post, Ron. For starters, see Rachel Hirshfield’s article of 11 March 2012 in which she quotes Israeli Ambassador to the USA, Michael Ordman, who refers to the 1000% increase in the Christian communities of Israel since 1948 including Catholics, Russian and Greek Orthodox, Armenians and Protestants. This is against the backdrop of 200,000 Coptic Christians who fled their homes in Egypt as a result of beatings and massacres. This is also (in comparison to your condemnation of Israel)the seventy churches burned down in Iraq and 1,000 Christians killed (Bagdad alone) since 2003 causing 500,000 Christians to flee. Since the Hamas takeover in Gaza in 2005, one-half the Christian community has fled whle Hamas has exhorted Muslims to slaughter Christians (broadcast 2010). No public display of crucifixes are allowed. Your anti-Israeli posting does display a virtual ignorance of the situation as many other Readers have pointed out.
I meant “disinformation” as opposed to “unacknowledged) information”. Apologies to the Readers.
When I see a church in Mecca and a temple I’ll take you seriously. And you are right, the Palestinians are animals, they behave like beasts.
Palestinians kill anyone they don’t like for any reason or no reason at all.
I know of no beast who does that. Not one.
Please take care disparaging our animal friends.
A thoughtful article by Mr. Radosh that effectively demolishes Mr. Beinart and his book The Crisis of Zionism. We observe that Beinart’s book feeds the Jewish conspiracy fantasies of the screw-loose flying-saucer crowd on the left. But even a tedious tome of trash like The Crisis of Zionism needs to be called out for what it is. We are living in a time of real existential threats. Distractions are dangerous.
I hope he does it because that street-rag pays him to do it. The publication stopped being a “paper of record” a long time ago. But if he does it because he thinks so – My GOD, what an idiot.
nothing new…
Leftists/Socialist usually are Antisemites and Islam-Friends.
Both ideologies (Islamism and Socialism) are insane and have uneducated and/or indoctrinated followers without any freedom and with only very few rights.
These ideologies use each other as useful idiots on their way to reaching their respective goal (worldwide caliphate/worldwide Socialism). In the same way Hitler (as a national SOCIALIST) had a close relationship to the Mufti of Jerusalem, the today’s Socialists cooperate with the Islam-leader.
Skydive
I hope he does it because that street-rag pays him to do it. The publication stopped being a “paper of record” a long time ago. But if he does it because he thinks so – My GOD, what an idiot.
what skydive said!
Beinart gives the game away when he tweeted:
If, as Amb Oren thinks, Zionist BDS is “highly radical fringe” position, why do Israel’s most famous writers back it.
Does he really not realize how fringy Israel’s literary community is?
Furthermore does he even realize how offensive this is?
For their part, American Jewish organizations might argue that it is unfair to punish Israeli settlements when there are worse human rights offenses in the world and when Palestinians still commit gruesome terrorist acts. But settlements need not constitute the world’s worst human rights abuse in order to be worth boycotting. After all, numerous American cities and organizations boycotted Arizona after it passed a draconian immigration law in 2010.
Israel last completed a major withdrawal in 2005, from Gaza. Now empowered by the lack of the IDF on the ground, Hamas, PIJ, PRC have been able to threaten hundreds of thousands of residents of southern Israel and Beinart says 1) Israel must withdraw from further territory and 2) there’s no criticizing Palestinian terror.
Beinart would be somewhat more convincing if he were as concerned for Israel’s body as he claims to be (but isn’t) for Israel’s soul.
You nailed it Ron! When I read Beinart’s op-ed in the NYTs this Sunday, I had steam coming out of my ears. What ignorance of history. Simply amazing for someone who claims to be a friend of Israel. As they say, with a friend like this who needs enemies?
While you’re at it, deny every economic import to Gaza/WB – no UN, no Egypt, no Jordan, no *Israel*.
Only desputable by liars
Ron,
As Dolly’s song goes, “glad to see you back where you belong”
Your articles are always so incisively polemical, that leaves little to knit-pic even by psudeo conseratives.
To this day, I don’t know why Israel has to give anything back to anybody. Israel is the only country that I know of in history that keeps getting attacked and is forced to fight wars, then after it wins those wars is expected to give back land to the people who attacked it. Doesn’t sound quite right, does it. If I were Israel, I would just keep whatever land the country had won throughout the years. Then I would say to the Palestinians, “Well, if you don’t like it, you can either stay here or go back to your real homeland, which is Jordan.” The whole idea of a “two-state solution” was dreamt up by the United Nations after World War II and nobody has really ever believed in it, let alone has tried to achieve it. The Israelis say they are negotiating, but do they really want to give the Palestinians anything that would endanger Israel’s fragile borders? And the Palestinians say they want the same two-state solution, yet have fought it at ever step of the way. And if you listen to Hamas, let alone Hezbollah in Lebanon, the only good Jew is a dead one. So I’m not sure either side has much interest in seeing peace between the two people. Ever.
Much is always said of Hamas’ refusal of acknowledging Israel’s right to exist. This is and always has been absurd. A country has a right to exist as long as it can militarily defend its borders. So long as it can do that, it exists. The Palestinians need to understand that. They need to not only deal with it, they need to accept it. And as long as Israel can defend its borders, nobody can take their right to exist away from them (unless there is a nuclear strike, but that’s another subject). So if the Palestinians have not been willing to make a deal after all these years, especially when Bill Clinton handed the best peace deal possible to them on a plate, then they really don’t want a deal. They want to win, and so long as Israel is militarily able to prevent the arabs from winning, then the Palestinians are out of luck. And if the Palestinians can’t accept that, then Israel should just reinforce its borders and sit tight. Israel’s land is Israel’s land, and they’ve fought enough wars to be able to finally say that.
What is problematic is making it part of Israel without giving the Palestinians same rights that Israeli Arabs have including the right to vote.
Oh dear!
Who do you think elected Hamas and the PA if not Palestinians?
Are you stupid or is English not your native language?
I meant that if you make West Bank a part of Israel you have to give them the vote in the Knesset, you can’t just treat them like a colony like Puerto Rico and not give them the vote. If you do that, then the analogy with Apartheid south africa really would be valid. In case you don’t know, Israeli Arabs have the right to elect members of the Knesset. If you say “the West Bank is part of Israel,” you would have to treat the Palestinians the same way.
It is remarkable to me that so many speak against the only real friend the USA has in the Middle East. Do you really think the Palestinians are our friends? Really???
Look, as long as we’re talking about borders and rolling back borders and settlements and all, let’s just cut to the chase and roll the borders of Israel back to where they were in biblical times, say under Solomon?
You see? Judea. Samaria. All of it goes back to Israel.
Let the Palestinians go live with Pharaoh.
Sounds like a plan!
Napoleon Beinart … aka ‘Little Peter Beinart’ (emphasis on little! As in “small” appendage). Pontificating out of ignorance does not bode well for a future in so-called “journalism”; don’t let the door hit you in the brain on your way out …
ignorant moron!!!
That about sums up Beinfart perfectly … the legend in his own rear-end!! Ha! Ha!! C’mon people!!! Press the “like” button for goodness sake!!! This is a non-story …. and worthy of all men to be ridiculed!!! Heh! Heh!!
Moderators … Ya know it’s true!!!!
The sad thing I see among my Jewish friends is that they cherish leftism above all else. Not all of them, of course; but overwhelmingly, leftism is the religion of Jews who don’t believe in God. And the New York Times is the daily bible of the secular Jew. So it doesn’t suprise me at all that Beinart would move to sacrifice Israel — yes, even Israel — on the altar of leftism. Is he doing it “consciously” or only “subconsciously”? Who cares? He’s responsible either way. Where does this kind of self-hatred come from? The basic leftist idea is that anyone who has anything must have stolen it from those who don’t. Therefore “the rich” are intrinsically evil, and the “99%” are justified in taking what they have by any means necessary. But that’s the exact narrative of the Palestinians; ultimately, they see themselves as the “dispossessed” victimized by the “rich” Jews. It’s no surprise at all that Beinart and other Jews would buy into this narrative, since it underlies their true religion: leftism.
You are right. The Jewish left has transferred their belief that everything wrong in the world is Amerika’s fault, to everything is Israel’s fault. If only these countries would mend their evil ways, the world would be healed. Only in the case of tiny Israel, they are playing around with the lives of 7 million people-most of them Jews.
I normally enjoy engaging with ideas with which I may disagree, but Bienart is such a “pisher” I can’t bring myself to do it.
He reminds me of the well-off, “Uriah Heep” kid in class, always eager to point the finger and turn in other kids for talking to teacher in hopes of getting a gold star.
Funny that Bienart disses Bibi (and by extension Labor Party Defense Minister and retired LTG Barak, the most decorated soldier in Israeli history). Does Bienart imagine that in the course of his pampered prep-school, Ivy, Upper West Side life, he has accumulated achievements equal to a single month in the life of either of those two men?
It’s true, Jewish settlements in the 1920s and ’30s turned the Palestinian Arabs against the idea of a Jewish state or Jewish anything for that matter and it’s never changed. Everything’s cool for Muslim’s as long as they are in charge but if someone else thinks the same way and wants a Jewish state then it’s apartheid, colonialism and the whole nine yards.
In other words Muslims attack the entirety of their own polities in the Middle East and don’t know it while philosophically putting their stamp of approval on Zionism. No surprise from a medieval culture with a thin spread of technology spread over it like delicious jam over stale bread and where a door knob is a Rubik’s Cube of endless delight – before video games I think people in Egypt used to ferret out the secrets of how to use a door knob properly or spin tops or whatever.
Beinart’s an idiot. Welcome to the wonderful world and concept of immigration, then and now. The Palestinian Arabs, now resting their house of canards on the U.N., had the chance to use the U.N. in 1947 and they rolled the dice for war. This is a perfect example of why one shouldn’t do so; sometimes you can lose everything.
This is not a game where one can have one’s poker chips back. The Arabs had a chance to make a state from 1948-1967 and once again opted to hold out for everything and once again got nothing.
The Palestinian Arabs are still holding out for everything and still have nothing. There is no cure for stupidity. Screw Hamas, crazy Muslims that hate even the birds and the bees and men like Beinart, who think this whole thing blew up last week.
Op-eds do not necessarily reflect a paper’s position (the Times has also run op-eds by Oren).
Being anti-settlements does not necessarily make one anti-Israel.
Being anti-Likud is not the same as being anti-Israel.
phantomorphan nailed it…Leftism is the religion of the radical jew…after some of the comments Patriot493 three lines reads like a weak attempt to engage phantomorphan in rebuttal.
“Op-eds do not necessarily reflect a paper’s position (the Times has also run op-eds by Oren).” Is he kidding. the Times is hopelessly in bed with Obama dreams. Who’s land are the settlements being built on. Is he opposed to building the Empire State building on Native Indian land? Why doesn’t Patriot 493 to Israel and run against the Likud?
“…Leftism is the religion of the radical jew….”
Well then, in November you’re going to find out that the overwhelming majority of American Jews are radical.
There is something missing from Peter Beinart’s Op-Ed. He doesn’t refer to Israel’s dismantling of the settlements in Gaza and its unilateral withdrawal from the territory. Israel’s concession led to a radical increase in anti-Israel hatred all over the world. In fact, whenever Israel makes a sacrifice for the sake of peace, hatred zooms up. It happened when Israel withdrew from southern Lebanon in 2000—a phenomenon that nobody noticed. Similarly, the Camp David Summit of July 2000, when Israel offered major concessions, was followed by the Second Intifada.
Why are there settlements? They were a response to the Three No’s of Khartoum, issued by the Arab nations after a meeting in Khartoum, Sudan, in 1967: No peace with Israel. No recognition of Israel. No negotiations with Israel. Has Peter Beinart ever heard of the Three No’s?
Try and convince a major institutional investor to sell off all shares in: Apple, Microsoft, Motorola, Cisco, Intel, Northrop Grumman, GE, Boeing, Raytheon, Caterpillar, Teva Pharmeceuticals, AOL Time Warner, Home Depot, Disney, Coca-Cola, Nokia, McDonalds, Danone, The Limited, and Johnson & Johnson. All companies with major ties to Israel.
The cultural boycott is also a total fail. This year Israel will host concerts by Madonna, Lady GaGa, Bruce Springstein, The Scorpions, Guns n Roses, and the Red Hot Chili Peppers. I think they can do without Elvis Costello. Wouldn’t it be a gas if Lady GaGa performed in Ramallah or Madonna in Gaza?
In agriculture the movement only hurts Palestinian farmers who often export under Israeli brands. That is a worthy area where greater cooperation with Israeli agricultural and water management technology would result in increased yields and profit. But these folks are not interested in helping the Palestinian economy.
Even the hateful Norman Finkelstien has denounced the BDS movement as a cult. It keeps the useless idiots busy helping nobody. If they wanted to help Palestinians they would encourage the Palestinian economy which certainly needs investment. How about putting money into a Palestinian software startup or in better energy and agricultural water systems? Nobody could object to that.
They do not want to help Palestinians. They feel better if they do not wear Victorias Secret underwear (The Limited) or drink Yarden or Barkan wine. The wine, by the way, is getting very good and competes well with many other brands in my local grocery.
There are many more people who want to support Israel than there are BDS idiots. It is not a sacrifice to buy Israeli products or invest in Israeli or Israel related companies.
(posted on another thread by mistake)
Israel will not be safe or really viable until Judea and Samaria are integrated into Israel. The locals? You buy them out, just as Roger Williams did in RI.
After WWII, ethnics who had caused trouble, Germans, were run out of Czecho, Poland and other places. The local Muslims, and Muslims in Europe were completely on board with the NAZIs. To the victors go the spoils.
Also note, that no matter what noise Islam makes, the general feeling about Palestinians is that there are useful pawns, who lost, and are not welcome elsewhere. There is no risk in offending them as they have done their absolute worst, which has come to naught.
As to Europe, well they certainly hate Jews and make the noises, but are very glad to have Israel around because it takes heat off them, at little or no cost.
“The locals? You buy them out….”
Ain’t gonna happen. If Israel maintains control of the West Bank (Judea and Samaria notwithstanding, the Bible is not a real estate deed), Israel will continue to lord it over millions of Palestinians. The much maligned Jimmy Carter predicted that such a situation would lead to Apartheid on the West Bank (he specifically excluded Israel within the Green Line), and, short of a peace settlement, he’ll be absolutely right, How could it be otherwise?