I look forward to reading your new book. You have always exhibited wisdom and nuance and provided insight on the most intractable conflict of multiple generations.
I could say a lot more, but I'll settle for this: you give me hope at a time when the idea of extending the idea of equal human value to all seems farther and farther away.
Ditto on the previous comments! Many of us, your fellow tribespeople, could have co-wrote this with you, as we all watch in horror the attempted destruction of one nation in favor of another more powerful and the heartbreaking consequences of 100+ years of this failing oppressive approach. It’s been painful to helplessly watch the degree of suffering of all the victims. We look forward to your words that have always served us well, spoken truth to the disastrous conflict and provide comfort and light on these darkest of times. Peace to you & yours!
There is no doubt that this war went too far. But there is also no doubt that is war is not a genocide (the title of your book seems to argue in favor of this accusation). The proportion of civilians killed during this war is similar to that of other wars (more or less 50%). Of the 40,000 who died since 10/7 in Gaza, 17,000 were fighters, at least 6,000 died of natural causes (Gaza is the only place in the world where there has been no natural death for almost a year according to public health authorities), and around 1,000 died of rockets fired by Hamas that landed in Gaza.
Moreover, Hamas is using the people of Gaza as human shields. Those who claim that Hamas has no choice to do so because of the high density of population don't know what they are talking about. Paris has a density of population that is four times higher than that of Gaza.
All this does not justify Israel's disproportionate strikes. But this is not a genocide, by any stretch of the imagination (I've never seen a genocide in which 50% of casualties are fighters).
Finally, Mr. Beinart. You identify as a "cultural Zionist". You claim now that liberal (political) Zionism is a contradiction in terms. Fair enough, but if you want to be dialectical, you need to go all the way. Cultural Zionists were willing to halt Jewish immigration to Palestine to avoid a conflict with the Arabs. Ben Gurion who endorsed the idea of a federal state until 1936 (he used the term "parity state" rather than "binational state"), told once Judah Magnes that the only real difference between them is that Ben Gurion was not willing to halt Jewish immigration. He added that Polish and German Jews too (who had nowhere else to go) would not allow it. Even Martin Buber acknowledged at some point that accepting to impose restrictions on Jewish immigration while European Jews were on the edge of a volcano had become morally indefensible.
So here is my question for you: if you really believe that Jewish immigration to Palestine should have been capped back in the 1930s, can you tell me what should have been done to rescue these people?
Anti-Zionism may not be antisemitic but it certainly anachronistic (Tony Judt was wrong to claim the opposite). Arguing that Jews who had nowhere else to go should have refrained from going to Palestine because nowadays Jews are no longer persecuted makes absolutely nonsense. Nonsensical may be fashionable (think of Maoism in the 1970s) but sooner or later they fade.
I can't help but think that while far-left may not be antisemitic per se, it is projecting its postcolonial guilt onto Israel. Once again, a Jewish symbol is used as a scapegoat to channel the problems of the European civilization. As long as the West felt threatened by the "Orient", Jews were seen as the embodiment of the Asian, the Semitic, and the Oriental threat in the West. The descendants of these Asian/Semitic/Oriental Jews who were forced to flee Europe are now seen as the embodiment of "White supremacy". Here is another "inbuilt contradiction" to left-wing anti-Zionism.
The premise of this comment is very racist on its face. 40,000 didn’t “die”, the real number is 150,000 “killed” if not even more. I highly suggest reading and listening to Arab Americans in the late 1930 being already called out as anti-semites for debating the ongoing displacement of Palestinians. There are many of these conversations on the WNYC archives.
I know it’s very hard to accept, but Palestinians are people like you and me and anyone else. Someday perhaps you will understand it.
150,000 is a baseless number. I don’t know why you claim that I deny that the Palestinians are human beings who deserve dignity. I always referred to this conflict as a clash of rights, as moderates on both sides base their claims on universal values. Zionism was a necessity for the Jews but an injustice for the Palestinians.
I look forward to reading your new book. You have always exhibited wisdom and nuance and provided insight on the most intractable conflict of multiple generations.
I could say a lot more, but I'll settle for this: you give me hope at a time when the idea of extending the idea of equal human value to all seems farther and farther away.
I can't wait to get a copy.
I admire your bravery and sense of justice.
Ditto on the previous comments! Many of us, your fellow tribespeople, could have co-wrote this with you, as we all watch in horror the attempted destruction of one nation in favor of another more powerful and the heartbreaking consequences of 100+ years of this failing oppressive approach. It’s been painful to helplessly watch the degree of suffering of all the victims. We look forward to your words that have always served us well, spoken truth to the disastrous conflict and provide comfort and light on these darkest of times. Peace to you & yours!
I need this book so desperately
Dear Mr. Beinart,
There is no doubt that this war went too far. But there is also no doubt that is war is not a genocide (the title of your book seems to argue in favor of this accusation). The proportion of civilians killed during this war is similar to that of other wars (more or less 50%). Of the 40,000 who died since 10/7 in Gaza, 17,000 were fighters, at least 6,000 died of natural causes (Gaza is the only place in the world where there has been no natural death for almost a year according to public health authorities), and around 1,000 died of rockets fired by Hamas that landed in Gaza.
Moreover, Hamas is using the people of Gaza as human shields. Those who claim that Hamas has no choice to do so because of the high density of population don't know what they are talking about. Paris has a density of population that is four times higher than that of Gaza.
All this does not justify Israel's disproportionate strikes. But this is not a genocide, by any stretch of the imagination (I've never seen a genocide in which 50% of casualties are fighters).
Finally, Mr. Beinart. You identify as a "cultural Zionist". You claim now that liberal (political) Zionism is a contradiction in terms. Fair enough, but if you want to be dialectical, you need to go all the way. Cultural Zionists were willing to halt Jewish immigration to Palestine to avoid a conflict with the Arabs. Ben Gurion who endorsed the idea of a federal state until 1936 (he used the term "parity state" rather than "binational state"), told once Judah Magnes that the only real difference between them is that Ben Gurion was not willing to halt Jewish immigration. He added that Polish and German Jews too (who had nowhere else to go) would not allow it. Even Martin Buber acknowledged at some point that accepting to impose restrictions on Jewish immigration while European Jews were on the edge of a volcano had become morally indefensible.
So here is my question for you: if you really believe that Jewish immigration to Palestine should have been capped back in the 1930s, can you tell me what should have been done to rescue these people?
Anti-Zionism may not be antisemitic but it certainly anachronistic (Tony Judt was wrong to claim the opposite). Arguing that Jews who had nowhere else to go should have refrained from going to Palestine because nowadays Jews are no longer persecuted makes absolutely nonsense. Nonsensical may be fashionable (think of Maoism in the 1970s) but sooner or later they fade.
I can't help but think that while far-left may not be antisemitic per se, it is projecting its postcolonial guilt onto Israel. Once again, a Jewish symbol is used as a scapegoat to channel the problems of the European civilization. As long as the West felt threatened by the "Orient", Jews were seen as the embodiment of the Asian, the Semitic, and the Oriental threat in the West. The descendants of these Asian/Semitic/Oriental Jews who were forced to flee Europe are now seen as the embodiment of "White supremacy". Here is another "inbuilt contradiction" to left-wing anti-Zionism.
Best regards,
Bernard Bohbot (one of your former fans)
The premise of this comment is very racist on its face. 40,000 didn’t “die”, the real number is 150,000 “killed” if not even more. I highly suggest reading and listening to Arab Americans in the late 1930 being already called out as anti-semites for debating the ongoing displacement of Palestinians. There are many of these conversations on the WNYC archives.
I know it’s very hard to accept, but Palestinians are people like you and me and anyone else. Someday perhaps you will understand it.
150,000 is a baseless number. I don’t know why you claim that I deny that the Palestinians are human beings who deserve dignity. I always referred to this conflict as a clash of rights, as moderates on both sides base their claims on universal values. Zionism was a necessity for the Jews but an injustice for the Palestinians.
You have always lied.
So much wrong and dishonest in that comment.
HURRAY! Pre-ordered on Kindle!