Our Zoom call this week, for paid subscribers, will be at our regular time: Noon EDT. Our guests will be Sami Adwan, a professor of education and member of the Board of Trustees at Al-Quds Open University, and Daniel Bar-Tal, professor emeritus at Tel Aviv University’s School of Education and author of
Peter, if I can speak about American Jews in generalities the way you are doing, I would say that American Jews are aware and not entirely comfortable with how the IDF treats the Palestinians. Going over there does show some on the ground injustices and inequalities.
However, most American Jews and American Jewish leaders are not you. They're not going to go over and read a story about a house being demolished or a civilian being accidentally shot, and suddenly believe that this means the Jewish people no longer have the right to sovereignty and statehood and should be driven from the region. They can acknowledge that their "side" can do wrong and still be on that "side."
You operate the same way. You wrote a column decrying the murder of nine Jews walking home from Shabbat services in Jerusalem, because that's an act that was horrible, despicable, and conducted and cheered by the Palestinians. Did witnessing that act suddenly make you pro-Israel? Pro-Likud? Of course not.
You are willing to separate individual bad acts by your "side" (although I'm sure you would fiercely deny you're on Palestine's side, no one is fooled), but you expect differently from American Jews. I wish I was surprised to see yet another double standard for Jews on Peter Beinart's Substack.
American Jews look at the conflict and they don't see a solution. They don't see a clear way to resolve the differences between the two sides. Unlike you, they're not willing to give up Jewish rights and lives on a pipe dream that will almost certainly will not work. They are aware of some of the injustices that occur over there. From both sides. They're just not arrogant enough to declare that they know what's best and put other people's children at risk in order to do what they think is right. This conflict has been intractable for decades. Numerous US Presidents have all tried and failed to resolve it. So why are you acting like American Jewish leaders could resolve the conflict any time they want, and just don't?
So why do they stay pro-Israel? Because the enemy is remorseless, immoral, and uncompromising. Every time anyone criticizes Israel, especially a Jewish person, no matter how mild, Palestine and its supporters take that criticism as an admittance that Israel is a genocidal apartheid Nazi state that should be wiped from the face of the Earth. Also, pro-Palestinians hate American Jews just as much as they hate Israeli Jews. They target American Jews with hate and violence and when individual American Jews criticize Israel, pro-Palestinians see this as evidence that American Jews as a whole are as you phrased it "complicit with injustice" as therefore legitimate targets for violence.
Your alleged encounter with the American Jewish leader who doesn't buy settlement goods rings true. And guess what? I don't support the settlements either! But just like this American Jewish leader, I don't go out and protest settlements, because every time pro-Israel people do, Palestine and its supporters make arguments like "See? Even Zionists know the settlements are bad! That's why it's OK for us to kill settlers!" Give Palestine an inch, it takes a mile. Every. Single. Time. Noam Chomsky said that before BDS existed, there was a somewhat successful boycotts of settlements, but then BDS demanded all of Israel be boycotted, and thus failed. Because BDS, like the Palestinian cause it represents, is about destroying Israel, not about opposing injustices or bad practices.
So maybe that's why the American Jewish party line is so strong. Because any derivation is seen as proof that Israel should be wiped out. Not because of the Elders of Zion silencing dissent. Think about it.
TL; DR If you're waiting for American Jews to react to the slaughter of their fellow Jews in cold blood with mealy mouth excuses and victim blaming the way you do, you're going to be waiting a while.
1. "Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and dismantling the Wall": How is this *not* about opposing injustices or bad practices?
2. "Recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality": How is this *not* about opposing injustices or bad practices?
3. "Respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN Resolution 194": How is this *not* about opposing injustices or bad practices?
Have you read Israel's declaration of independence? Here is the English translation on the Knesset website:
I don't see any contradiction between the principles in this declaration and the 3 official BDS demands. It seems to me that agreeing with the principles stated in Israel's founding document would lead one to *support* the BDS demands, not oppose them.
Now of course you might say that there's more to BDS than the 3 stated aims. You might say that supporters of BDS and leaders of the movement actually have a hidden agenda that you characterize as being "about destroying Israel". If that's true, does that mean you should oppose the 3 officially stated aims of the BDS movement? Of course not. If you find the BDS movement to be threatening and you want to take the wind out of its sails, then just acknowledge your support for its *stated* aims, while also making clear your opposition to its methods or its hidden agenda.
The BDS leadership has said explicitly BDS is about wiping out Israel and replacing it with a Palestinian supremacist state. I hope you won't deny that, Peter. As Norman Finkelstein famously said, you’re only clever in your cult.
But for the stated claims, I oppose the first. Why? Because "all Arab lands" is extremely and intentionally ambiguous. Most Palestinians consider all of Israel to be "Arab land". Can you show me where the BDS movement explicitly states what "Arab lands" they're referring to in that point? And that's assuming the concept of "Arab land" in and of itself isn't racist, which it is. Are you a blood and soil nationalist, Peter?
Second, "dismantling the Wall" isn't opposing injustice or a bad practice. The wall exists to prevent Palestinian terrorists and murderers from murdering Jewish children. Dismantling it would allow them to do so again. I know you and BDS want more Jewish children murdered, but from where I'm standing, more Jewish children being alive isn't injustice or a bad practice. And the American Jewish community agrees with me, not you.
I also oppose the third. Why? Because BDS is lying, UN Resolution 194 doesn't say Palestinian refugees have the right to return to their homes. Look it up. It's a non-binding recommendation, not a declaration of rights, and all it says is that refugees "should" be able to return to their homes. There are millions of refugees in the world today. Not a single one of them has a right to return to their home. Not one. So BDS is demanding rights and privileges for Palestinians that no other group has. That's not justice. That's injustice.
📃 #STATEMENT: “The global Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (#BDS) movement for freedom, justice and equality of the Palestinian people is an inclusive, nonviolent human rights movement that rejects all forms of racism and racial discrimination. The movement is led by the Palestinian BDS National Committee (#BNC), the largest coalition of Palestinian political parties, labor and professional unions, networks of refugees, popular committees and organizations.
The 2005 Palestinian civil society Call for BDS, which calls for ending Israel’s flagrant violations of international law and for safeguarding the human rights of the Palestinian people, is anchored in the principles set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. As the Declaration stipulates, “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights” and everyone is entitled to all fundamental rights and freedoms “without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.”
Based on this principled commitment of the BDS movement to the equal rights of every human being, irrespective of identity, we stand firmly against political ideologies, laws, policies and practices that promote racism. We reject Zionism, as it constitutes the racist and discriminatory ideological pillar of Israel’s regime of occupation, settler colonialism and apartheid that has deprived the Palestinian people of its fundamental human rights since 1948.
Adhering to the UN definition of racial discrimination, the BDS movement does not tolerate any act or discourse which adopts or promotes, among others, anti-Black racism, anti-Arab racism, Islamophobia, anti-Semitism, sexism, xenophobia, or homophobia.
We strongly condemn apartheid, genocide, slavery, colonial exploitation and ethnic cleansing, which are crimes against humanity that are founded on racism and racial supremacy, and we call for the right of their victims, including descendants, to full reparation. We equally condemn and stand in solidarity with the victims of other human rights violations including human trafficking, workers’ exploitation, and sexual exploitation.
Guided by the inclusive agenda of the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, held in 2001 in Durban, South Africa, the principles of the BDS movement include the values of cultural diversity, solidarity and mutual support among victims of racism and racial discrimination.
Based on these values, we stand in solidarity with people of African descent, indigenous peoples, landless people, refugees and migrants, people exploited and oppressed for the economic advancement of a few, and those discriminated against and persecuted for their beliefs or identity, including caste. We stand with their respective struggles for racial, economic, gender, environmental and social justice.
We extend our support to all marginalized communities, inter alia Arab, Black, indigenous, Muslim, Jewish, Asian, Latino, Roma and Dalit, who are targets of xenophobic and far-right racist movements that have risen or are rising to power, particularly in the US, Europe, South America, India and elsewhere.
We also stand in solidarity with the struggles of all minorities in the Arab world against racism and racial discrimination and for full equality and justice.
The principles of the BDS movement call for proactive solidarity with oppressed communities worldwide and with all the victims of racist acts and rhetoric, as ours is a common cause. We support their resistance, in harmony with international law, against bigotry, racist ideologies and practices.
Racism and racial discrimination are the antithesis of freedom, justice and equality.”
“BDS represents three words that will help bring about the defeat of Zionist Israel and victory for Palestine.”
–Ronnie Kasrils
——————————————————————————————-
“[Israel] was Palestine, and there is no reason why it should not be renamed Palestine.”
–Omar Barghouti, Founder, Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel
“If the refugees return to their homes [in Israel] as the BDS movement calls for, if we bring an end to Israel’s apartheid regime and if we end the occupation on lands occupied in 1967, including Jerusalem, what will be left of the Zionist regime? That’s the question. Meaning, what will the two states be based on?”
“International law and the right of return? There won’t be any Zionist state like the one we speak about [in present-day Israel]. There will be two states: One democratic for all its citizens here [Palestine] and one democratic for all its citizens there [Israel]. “The Palestinian minority will become a Palestinian majority of what is today called Israel.”
“Definitely, most definitely, we oppose a Jewish state in any part of Palestine. No Palestinian, rational Palestinian, not a sell out Palestinian, would ever accept a Jewish state in Palestine.”
–Omar Barghouti, (May 26, 2014)
“[Palestinians have a right to] resistance by any means, including armed resistance. [Jews] aren’t indigenous just because you say you are….”
–Omar Barghouti (January 15, 2014)
“Going back to the two-state solution, besides having passed its expiry date, it was never a moral solution to start with.We are witnessing the rapid demise of Zionism, and nothing can be done to save it, for Zionism is intent on killing itself.”
-Omar Bargouti
“Good riddance! The two-state solution for the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is finally dead. But someone has to issue an official death certificate before the rotting corpse is given a proper burial and we can all move on and explore the more just, moral and therefore enduring alternative for peaceful coexistence between Jews and Arabs in Mandate Palestine: the one-state solution.”
-Omar Bargouti
“(The one state solution means) a unitary state, where, by definition, Jews will be a minority.”
-Omar Bargouti
“I am completely and categorically against binationalism because it assumes that there are two nations with equal moral claims to the land.”
-Omar Bargouti
“If the refugees were to return, you would not have a two-state solution, you’d have a Palestine next to a Palestine.”
–Omar Barghouti quoting Sari Nusseibeh, President of Al Quds University. You can also hear him say this around 4:56 of this video.
“The ‘two state solution,’…as dictated by Israel, omits basic Palestinian rights…[and] would be yet another act of British complicity in bestowing legitimacy on Israel’s unjust order.”
–Omar Barghouti
“A Jewish state in Palestine in any shape or form cannot but contravene the basic rights of the indigenous Palestinian population and perpetuate a system of racial discrimination that ought to be opposed categorically….Definitely, most definitely we oppose a Jewish state in any part of Palestine. No Palestinian, rational Palestinian, not a sell-out Palestinian, will ever accept a Jewish state in Palestine.”
–Omar Barghouti
“You cannot reconcile the right of return for refugees with a two state solution….a return for refugees would end Israel’s existence as a Jewish state. A two-state solution was never moral and it’s no longer working.”
-Omar Barghouti
“The real aim of BDS is to bring down the state of Israel….That should be stated as an unambiguous goal. There should not be any equivocation on the subject. Justice and freedom for the Palestinians are incompatible with the existence of the state of Israel.”
–As’ad AbuKhalil
——————————————————————————————-
“Peace-or better yet, justice-cannot be achieved without a total decolonization (one can say de-Zionization) of the Israeli state.”
–Michael Warschawski, BDS activist
——————————————————————————————-
“I think the BDS movement will gain strength from forthrightly explaining why Israel has no right to exist.”
–John Spritzler, Pro-BDS Author
“BDS’s stated goals (ending the Occupation, equality for non-Jews and Jews, and the right of return of the Palestinian refugees) logically imply the end of Israel as a Jewish state….The “state of the Jews” is actually an instrument by which a Jewish elite ruling class of billionaires and generals and politicians secures its oppressive grip on ordinary Jews in Israel…This is why there should not be a Jewish state.”
–John Spritzler
——————————————————————————————-
“I mean we have to be honest, and I loathe the disingenuousness. They don’t want Israel. They think they are being very clever; they call it their three tier. We want the end of the occupation, the right of return, and we want equal rights for Arabs in Israel. And they think they are very clever because they know the result of implementing all three is what, what is the result? You know and I know what the result is. There’s no Israel!
“They say no they’re not really talking about rights. They’re talking about they want to destroy Israel. And in fact I think they’re right I think that’s true. I’m not going to lie. But this kind of duplicity and disingenuous, “oh we’re agnostic about Israel.” No you’re not agnostic! You don’t want it! Then just say it!
“The moment you go out there Israel will start to say ‘What about us?’ and ‘They won’t recognize our right’ and in fact that’s correct. You can’t answer the Israelis on that because they’re making a statement that’s factually correct. It’s not an accidental and unwitting omission that BDS does not mention Israel. You know that and I know that. It’s not like they’re ‘oh we forgot to mention it.’ They won’t mention it because they know it will split the movement. Cause there’s a large segment of the movement that wants to eliminate Israel.”
–Norman Finkelstein critiquing the BDS movement
“There’s no Israel. That’s what it’s really about.”
–Norman Finkelstein
——————————————————————————————-
“Our corporation boycotts all Israeli products and services, and encourages other institutions, companies and individuals to cease and avoid all economic, academic and cultural activity that supports the racist state of Israel until that state dissolves itself.”
–Paul Larudee, Co-founder, Free Palestine Movement
——————————————————————————————-
“Israel is the oppressor, not the settlements.”
-Hind Awwad
National Coordinator, BDS Committee
——————————————————————————————-
“The goal of #BDS is the full restoration of Palestinian rights, not an agreement to create an artificial mini-state in order to save Zionism”
–Ali Abunimah, BDS activist
——————————————————————————————-
“Zionists complain [BDS] demands spell the end of the “Jewish state.” They are correct. A “Jewish state” is by definition dedicated to the supremacy of Jews over non-Jews in Palestine, and is therefore irreconcilable with the justice advocated by BDS.”
–David Litwin, BDS activist
——————————————————————————————-
“Any call for boycott, divestment, or sanctions, for whatever motive (even on behalf of the settlers!) is seen, rightly, as a blow against the legitimacy of Israel… it will be rightly perceived by the pro-Israel crowd as a threat, even an “existential one,” to use Prime Minister Netanyahu’s characterization of all BDS.”
–Jeremiah Haber, BDS supporter
——————————————————————————————-
“[The two state solution] was a charade to begin with, and has played itself out.”
–Kumars Salehi, BDS supporter
——————————————————————————————-
“Bringing down Israel will really benefit everyone in the world and everyone in society, particularly workers,”
–Lara Kiswani, executive director of the Arab Resource and Organizing Center, BDS activist
“I think the end-all of BDS is to weaken Israel, to isolate Israel, and give the global community a role in the liberation of Palestine and support the resistance on the ground in Palestine.”
–Lara Kiswani
“We’re resisting colonialism in Palestine, and colonialism entails all of occupied Palestine, from Haifa, to Jerusalem, to Ramallah…”
–Lara Kiswani, [0:45]
——————————————————————————————-
“You can’t have coexistence with Zionists. Their purpose of Zionism is discrimination, elimination and ethnic cleansing of a group of people, so if you want to talk about coexistence, I’m not talking with you because you’re going to try to kill me. I’m Muslim.”
–Azka Fayyaz, BDS leader at UC Davis
——————————————————————————————-
“Last week, the Palestinian BDS National Committee called for a wave of actions and protests in solidarity with the Palestinian popular resistance…”
–BDS Movement Official Statement
——————————————————————————————-
“Are you angry? Well, we’ve been watching intifada in Palestine, we’ve been watching an uprising in Iraq, and the question is that what are we doing? How come we don’t have an intifada [armed struggle] in this country? …and it’s about time that we have an intifada in this country that change[s] fundamentally the political dynamics in here…They’re going to say [that] some Palestinian are being too radical; well, you haven’t seen radicalism yet!”
–Professor Hatem Bazian, founder of Students for Justice in Palestine
“[W]e in this movement [should] support the resistance against American imperialism by any means necessary.”
23 Arab states and zero Jewish states isn't equality or equal rights. It's literally racism and racial discrimination. BDS are the racists and the discriminators, not Israel.
### BDS aim #1: "Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and dismantling the Wall"
Anonymous: "I oppose the first. Why? Because "all Arab lands" is extremely and intentionally ambiguous. Most Palestinians consider all of Israel to be "Arab land". Can you show me where the BDS movement explicitly states what "Arab lands" they're referring to in that point?"
I already did: just follow the link I gave in the previous post. The longer description there of aim #1 says "International law recognises the West Bank including East Jerusalem, Gaza and the Syrian Golan Heights as occupied by Israel." Do you support or oppose Israel's ending its occupation of those particular lands -- even if you're convinced that the term "Arab lands" is really intended to include more? And would you say that the principles stated in Israel's declaration of independence would lead one to support or oppose this aim?
Anonymous: "Second, "dismantling the Wall" isn't opposing injustice or a bad practice. The wall exists to prevent Palestinian terrorists and murderers from murdering Jewish children. Dismantling it would allow them to do so again."
Wasn't 85% of it built outside Israeli territory -- outside the 1949 armistice lines?
### BDS aim #2: "Recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality"
Anonymous: [no mention]
Israeli declaration of independence: "The state of Israel ... will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex"
### BDS aim #3: "Respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN Resolution 194"
Anonymous: "I also oppose the third. Why? Because BDS is lying, UN Resolution 194 doesn't say Palestinian refugees have the right to return to their homes. Look it up. It's a non-binding recommendation, not a declaration of rights, and all it says is that refugees "should" be able to return to their homes."
Is there a difference between a "should" and a "right"? The real question here isn't about the existence of a "right" in some cosmic sense, but whether or not one agrees that the state of Israel should respect, protect, and promote what is a claimed right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties. Would you say that the principles stated in Israel's declaration of independence would lead one to support or oppose that?
Finally, you mention "Jewish rights". Are those the rights that Jews have by virtue of being Jews? What would you say those rights are?
If you believe BDS means those territories instead of "Arab lands," why didn't they just specify those territories? Answer: because they are using deliberately ambiguous language to hide their intentions. You can read the list of quotes I just sent to Josh to find out their intentions for yourself. Your second statement is literally unrelated to the first. BDS has to walk a fine line because they need in their movement both "from the river to the sea" types and naive two-staters, so they use language like that to make their true intentions ambiguous.
Furthermore, they're objectively wrong. East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights are not occupied, they're annexed, and Gaza isn't occupied either, it's blockaded.
The location of the security fence is irrelevant: it exists to prevent Palestinian terrorists and murderers from murdering Jewish children. Dismantling it would allow them to do so again. Do you contest this or not? If BDS's only issue is the location of the fence, not its existence, then they would say they want the Wall moved, not dismantled.
Claiming something is a "right" when it isn't is called lying. There's obviously a difference between a 'should' and a 'right.' This is basic stuff. And I don't know why you keep bringing up Israel's declaration of independence, it has nothing to do with the subject at hand.
You asked me my thoughts on BDS's principles and I answered, so now can we get back on topic? Do you have any comments on Beinart's article, and his false claims about the American Jewish community as being complicit in injustice?
I too have been wondering for decades how to produce a critical mass of conscience. Unfortunately I'm a playwright. I have been trying to get my play Abraham's Daughters into the consciousness of American Jewish theatregoers since I wrote it in 1995 about the first Intifada (I was there with the Palestinian Solidarity Committee and the Palestine Aid Society in 1993 to document human rights abuses) but theatres are too afraid/enmeshed in pro-Israeli funders to produce it. Thankfully, you can hear it here and share it: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/abrahams-daughters-by-emma-goldman-sherman/id1329778196?i=1000462709862
Yes of course we are! How can we not be? I have been trying to speak out against American policies and Jewish refusal to see the horrific human rights abuses that Israel perpetuates against the Palestinians since 1993 when I first became aware, and no one will listen. I have been ostracized from my family. And I have been unable to find a way forward. I couldn't even find an anti-zionist synagogue until last year. Thank goodness for Tzedek Chicago!
Gotta Sing Sing: I thought Peter explained pretty clearly why he views American Jews as a community that is actively complicit in an active injustice. Do you disagree with his analysis? Either because what he calls an "active injustice" is not really so, or because American Jews are not a community that is actively complicit in it? OR is your objection that he shouldn't have said this because it would be interpreted as being anti-Semitic, even if it might be true?
Yes, of course I disagree with his analysis. People can support a country or an entity without supporting every single thing that country does. You can be a proud American while not supporting drone strikes. You can be a proud Democrat without supporting Ted Kennedy. We don't hold any other group "complicit" for the bad acts of everyone they like or support. The concept is absurd.
Let me rephrase his argument so that it's about people you and he actually care about (aka not Jews). Would you say that the Arab community, including the Arab American community, because of their support for Palestine, is actively complicit in the rape and murder of innocent Jews? And if not, why not?
American Jews are not a hive mind. They are individuals. And you shouldn't talk about them like they all believe or all in support of the same thing. It's called stereotyping and bigotry. And in the case of Jews, it's anti-Semitism.
In general, if someone makes a claim that a particular community is complicit in some injustice, I don't understand it to mean that "they all believe or all in support of the same thing." I understand the claim to mean that the leaders of that community, the individuals who have influence because they are seen in the wider society as representing the interests and views of that community, are promoting the interests of a foreign government (say) that is doing some unjust things, without voicing objections to those unjust things.
In your example of Arab-Americans' "support for Palestine", I'm pretty sure you mean "support for Palestinian people". I don't think that's a very good example, because the Arab-American community is not powerful enough to get the U.S. government to back that support. And Palestinians in Palestine are subjected to the domination of the Israeli government in a way that Jews are not subjected to the domination of any Palestinian controlling power or individuals.
As for your example of being an American who doesn't support U.S. government drone strikes: If an American knows about it AND considers it to be a grave injustice AND is in some position to do something about it, then I would say the person is complicit in it if they don't do anything about it. That's essentially the situation Ellsberg found himself in with respect to the Vietnam War, and he felt that he would be complicit if he didn't do what he could to stop it.
An interesting piece. I suspect that the commenters who seem to have little to do other than endlessly tell the world how necessary a Jewish-supremacists state is and how justified the IDF is in killing Palestinian people will never visit the OPT, never spend time with Palestinian families, and will never open their minds to the possibilities of a free, democratic state. But if I could change my mind from being indifferent and uninterested in the justice of the Palestinian cause, as I did over the last few years, many others can too.
If Palestinians are allowed to believe that a Palestinian-"supremacist" state is necessary and that Hamas and Fatah are justified in killing Jews, then Jews can believe the same for a Jewish state and for the IDF's military actions. Surely, James, you don't have double standards for Jews and Palestinians, don't you?
"Reflecting on the latest UN speech of president Abbas in which he described the situation on the ground in the West Bank as “apartheid” and that the Palestinian people will demand equal rights in one state for two peoples, 21% say that they are in favor of such one state solution while 76% expressed opposition. "
The vast majority of Palestinians oppose equal rights in one state for two peoples, much less a "free, democratic state". How incredibly embarrassing for you and for Peter.
There are a lot of interesting polling results in that study you cite. Indeed there is not much support for binationalism, but neither is there much support for 2-states or the PA.
The most remarkable result of the poll in my view is that the majority (66%) seem to believe with approval that Israel won’t even exist in 25 years, although the poll doesn’t shed light on what they think will be the source of its destruction. So they seem to be starting from a different set of premises and assumptions of likely outcomes than Mr. Beinart bases his position on.
Furthermore, there is a lot of base Palestinian support for armed resistance against the IDF in the territories and “50% of the public believe that the Palestinian side emerged victorious” in the last flare up of hostilities in Gaza, in which very few Jews were killed.
If killing Jews was their primary motivation as you assert, why would so many hold the view that the Palestinian side was victorious? They should all consider it an utter failure.
In contrast, the model where Palestinians reflect the same kind of defiant sentiments against a perceived oppressor where violence can be justified (as opposed to being the end goal in itself) as every other national liberation movement in human history seems to fit those data better.
Yes, the poll results are very interesting, and bust a lot of the false narrative pushed by Palestine supporters.
Yes, there's no support for binationalism or 2-states or the PA. Palestinians want what they said they want, an Arab Muslim state of Palestine from the river to the sea.
I never said or asserted "killing Jews was their primary motivation", so I'm not sure what you're basing your question on.
Peter Beinart, you know anti-Semites read this Substack. Why are you giving them this kind of dog whistle justifications of anti-Semitic tropes?
"I'm Peter Beinart, and I'm not saying Jews control the US government. I'm just saying they're the foundation over a lobby that has extreme influence. Huge difference!"
"I'm Peter Beinart, and I'm not saying Jews are committing injustices. I'm just saying they're a community that is complicit in injustice. Huge difference!"
You must be misunderstanding or else you are trying to be inflammatory which is ridiculous. When I say we are all racist, I mean because we live in and contribute to a racist society with racist systems that serve our society by maintaining the status quo, yes, right here in the "land of the free." Racism is not only a white person using the N word - racism is part of how we live, in separate neighborhoods and with separate churches/synagogues, and separate and not equal opportunities and access. To allow this to continue and to go on paying taxes is cooperating with a racist system. So we (of the US) are all complicit. And to think of ourselves, white Jews I mean in this sentence, as just as oppressed as the Black people of the US is ridiculous at this point in time when we have so much white privilege in comparison. I hope this clears up your confusion.
Oh ok. So Jews are just as racist as everyone else, and just as complicit in active injustices as everyone else. They're equally bad as the other American communities, not any worse. Peter wrote a whole article about the American Jewish community needing to learn a lesson, so we can look forward to his next article about the American Black community or the American Muslim community needing to learn the same lesson, as those communities are equally racist and equally supportive of injustice.
"And to think of ourselves, white Jews I mean in this sentence, as just as oppressed as the Black people of the US is ridiculous at this point in time when we have so much white privilege in comparison. I hope this clears up your confusion."
Very well said. Zionist Jews are mainly white and loaded with $$$$$$$$.
Someday the Zionists will search their conscience see that Palestinians too have feeling like their ancestors who were discrimated against by the Christians because they killed their god.
Peter, Rebecca, Emma, Maxwell, peter2, any thoughts on the statement that "Zionist Jews are mainly white and loaded with $$$$$$$$"? Silence is complicity, after all.
I think it is not a useful statement. I'd say that even within families that fit this socio-economic category, you might find differing opinions and, hopefully, healthy debate.
I am Jewish too and can hold two thoughts and/or feelings at the same time. I am also racist - I live in a racist world. Is it too much to expect most white American Jews should be taking a serious look at themselves as racists? Because I don't think it's too much. I think this is exactly the sort of life work that Jews do. I certainly do. Should we coddle each other? Pretend injustice doesn't exist on our dimes?
This is such an informative thread! Not only is the American Jewish community complicit in active injustice, it is also a racist community! This kind of rhetoric would be right at home on Stormfront, but here it is, on Peter Beinart's Substack.
Once again, you prove my point about why people think Peter Beinart and his fans are anti-Semitic. Thank you so much for your contribution.
Yes, RIP Dan Ellsberg. And let's not forget that Julian Assange also let the American public know about things that the government refused to let us know about American war crimes. Ellsberg called for Assange to be freed. Let's all do that.
It’s time for a Jewish Kairos document. (A take on the Christian documents in Nazi Germany and Apartheid South Africa meant as a clarion call to the religious establishment institutions complicit—or worse—in the oppressive actions of the German & South African regimes, respectively.)
I am floored that, even now, when it’s so much easier to speak out, (relative to only a few years ago), and even when “the masks are off” we hardly even see criticism of *this* Israeli govt — let alone of the regime itself, 1948-present — from Jewish American religious leaders and orgs.
WHY even become a rabbi if you’re unwilling to LEAD?!! Nobody needs to hear hasbara from the pulpit. We need BDS from the bimah! Spiritual leaders need to lead!!
Ps- I’m extremely disheartened every time I hear a story about how difficult it is to be “out” as an anti-Zionist as a seminary student. …And about how difficult the seminaries are making it for openly anti-Zionist applicants to even have a prayer of getting accepted.
American Jews don't see Israelis trying to protect their children from genocidal murderers to be "oppressive," they recognize BDS as the hate movement that it is, and they know that BDS seeks to destroy Israel. Many of them have been the victims of BDS violence and harassment. So you can rant and rave and stomp your feet and scream until your face turns blue, there isn't going to be any "BDS from the bimah," any more than there's going to be white supremacy preached at mosques. Deal with it.
It's not about treating anyone any which way - it's about asking our community to look at the reality of the situation and to try to find ways to come together to understand new ways forward.
Yes, the key question is: "...what does it take to produce a critical mass of conscience so that you have not just one, two, three, many figures like Daniel Ellsberg,..." This recent review of Avi Shlaim's new book that "A shocking claim about the Baghdad bombings of 1950 and 1951" suggests he fits the description: https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-shocking-truth-behind-the-baghdad-bombings-of-1950-and-1951/
"After Ellsberg leaked the Pentagon Papers, Henry Kissinger dubbed him “the most dangerous man in America.” " - It would seem that some here wait for Peter Beinart's weekly missive to insinuate something similar vis à vis Israel by twisting his opinions attributing him with words he never spoke or wrote.
Yes, I made a top level comment above. You can go check it out. But while you're here, how about you answer my question as well? I'd be very interested in hearing your answer.
I believe that any given community is not simply a homogenous block. To put it humourously, if you've got two people you can have three differing opinions. I do believe that a growing proportion of American Jews - like Peter Beinart - are questioning human rights standards in Israel and, apart from that level of perceived injustice towards Palestinians, worry that this is also a marked slide towards an ethno-authoritarianism that will also end badly for Jews. The question is how to begin the careful journey towards equal civil rights for everyone in a nation or in a state.
If communities are not homogenous blocks, then you must agree with me that Peter's description of American Jews as a "community that is actively complicit in an active injustice" is inaccurate, unfair, and borderline anti-Semitic.
I think it's a mistake to try and narrow things down to simple phrases like that, especially when there is a danger that a person is taken out of context. I follow Peter Beinart's weekly free missive and I am aware of his journey. I admire his intellectual integrity. Like Ellsberg, I believe him to be a true mensch, someone who puts humanity before tribe. So, if you want to give the full context of that phrase, I might better respond to your question.
The phrase is from the Substack article above, in the last paragraph. You read the article, right? You can find the context above. It doesn't make the phrase any less bigoted, in my opinion. "Out of context" is always the cry of the cornered racist.
Ah, I see now where you got that phrase: "So, to me, one of the big questions is: in this case, as in any I think case of grave moral injustice and a community that is actively complicit in that active injustice, what does it take to produce a critical mass of conscience so that you have not just one, two, three, many figures like Daniel Ellsberg, and a kind of a dam can break."
I do think you're being selective in your interpretation - I don't think he's talking about all American Jews in this paragraph, we both know that many American Jews disapprove of Israely Human Rights violations, and I have no wish to enter a 'hair-spitting' debate.
Again, I admire Peter Beinart's effort to give platform to contrasting ideas on these questions.
More importantly, we are here honouring a great man, a historical figure, an American Jew. Do you know what his opinion was on this overall question or on the phrase you wish to question? I don't and I'd like to know.
Peter, if I can speak about American Jews in generalities the way you are doing, I would say that American Jews are aware and not entirely comfortable with how the IDF treats the Palestinians. Going over there does show some on the ground injustices and inequalities.
However, most American Jews and American Jewish leaders are not you. They're not going to go over and read a story about a house being demolished or a civilian being accidentally shot, and suddenly believe that this means the Jewish people no longer have the right to sovereignty and statehood and should be driven from the region. They can acknowledge that their "side" can do wrong and still be on that "side."
You operate the same way. You wrote a column decrying the murder of nine Jews walking home from Shabbat services in Jerusalem, because that's an act that was horrible, despicable, and conducted and cheered by the Palestinians. Did witnessing that act suddenly make you pro-Israel? Pro-Likud? Of course not.
You are willing to separate individual bad acts by your "side" (although I'm sure you would fiercely deny you're on Palestine's side, no one is fooled), but you expect differently from American Jews. I wish I was surprised to see yet another double standard for Jews on Peter Beinart's Substack.
American Jews look at the conflict and they don't see a solution. They don't see a clear way to resolve the differences between the two sides. Unlike you, they're not willing to give up Jewish rights and lives on a pipe dream that will almost certainly will not work. They are aware of some of the injustices that occur over there. From both sides. They're just not arrogant enough to declare that they know what's best and put other people's children at risk in order to do what they think is right. This conflict has been intractable for decades. Numerous US Presidents have all tried and failed to resolve it. So why are you acting like American Jewish leaders could resolve the conflict any time they want, and just don't?
So why do they stay pro-Israel? Because the enemy is remorseless, immoral, and uncompromising. Every time anyone criticizes Israel, especially a Jewish person, no matter how mild, Palestine and its supporters take that criticism as an admittance that Israel is a genocidal apartheid Nazi state that should be wiped from the face of the Earth. Also, pro-Palestinians hate American Jews just as much as they hate Israeli Jews. They target American Jews with hate and violence and when individual American Jews criticize Israel, pro-Palestinians see this as evidence that American Jews as a whole are as you phrased it "complicit with injustice" as therefore legitimate targets for violence.
Your alleged encounter with the American Jewish leader who doesn't buy settlement goods rings true. And guess what? I don't support the settlements either! But just like this American Jewish leader, I don't go out and protest settlements, because every time pro-Israel people do, Palestine and its supporters make arguments like "See? Even Zionists know the settlements are bad! That's why it's OK for us to kill settlers!" Give Palestine an inch, it takes a mile. Every. Single. Time. Noam Chomsky said that before BDS existed, there was a somewhat successful boycotts of settlements, but then BDS demanded all of Israel be boycotted, and thus failed. Because BDS, like the Palestinian cause it represents, is about destroying Israel, not about opposing injustices or bad practices.
So maybe that's why the American Jewish party line is so strong. Because any derivation is seen as proof that Israel should be wiped out. Not because of the Elders of Zion silencing dissent. Think about it.
TL; DR If you're waiting for American Jews to react to the slaughter of their fellow Jews in cold blood with mealy mouth excuses and victim blaming the way you do, you're going to be waiting a while.
"BDS, like the Palestinian cause it represents, is about destroying Israel, not about opposing injustices or bad practices."
Have you read the 3 stated aims of the BDS movement?
https://bdsmovement.net/what-is-bds
They call on Israel to do these things:
1. "Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and dismantling the Wall": How is this *not* about opposing injustices or bad practices?
2. "Recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality": How is this *not* about opposing injustices or bad practices?
3. "Respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN Resolution 194": How is this *not* about opposing injustices or bad practices?
Have you read Israel's declaration of independence? Here is the English translation on the Knesset website:
https://main.knesset.gov.il/en/about/pages/declaration.aspx
I don't see any contradiction between the principles in this declaration and the 3 official BDS demands. It seems to me that agreeing with the principles stated in Israel's founding document would lead one to *support* the BDS demands, not oppose them.
Now of course you might say that there's more to BDS than the 3 stated aims. You might say that supporters of BDS and leaders of the movement actually have a hidden agenda that you characterize as being "about destroying Israel". If that's true, does that mean you should oppose the 3 officially stated aims of the BDS movement? Of course not. If you find the BDS movement to be threatening and you want to take the wind out of its sails, then just acknowledge your support for its *stated* aims, while also making clear your opposition to its methods or its hidden agenda.
The BDS leadership has said explicitly BDS is about wiping out Israel and replacing it with a Palestinian supremacist state. I hope you won't deny that, Peter. As Norman Finkelstein famously said, you’re only clever in your cult.
But for the stated claims, I oppose the first. Why? Because "all Arab lands" is extremely and intentionally ambiguous. Most Palestinians consider all of Israel to be "Arab land". Can you show me where the BDS movement explicitly states what "Arab lands" they're referring to in that point? And that's assuming the concept of "Arab land" in and of itself isn't racist, which it is. Are you a blood and soil nationalist, Peter?
Second, "dismantling the Wall" isn't opposing injustice or a bad practice. The wall exists to prevent Palestinian terrorists and murderers from murdering Jewish children. Dismantling it would allow them to do so again. I know you and BDS want more Jewish children murdered, but from where I'm standing, more Jewish children being alive isn't injustice or a bad practice. And the American Jewish community agrees with me, not you.
I also oppose the third. Why? Because BDS is lying, UN Resolution 194 doesn't say Palestinian refugees have the right to return to their homes. Look it up. It's a non-binding recommendation, not a declaration of rights, and all it says is that refugees "should" be able to return to their homes. There are millions of refugees in the world today. Not a single one of them has a right to return to their home. Not one. So BDS is demanding rights and privileges for Palestinians that no other group has. That's not justice. That's injustice.
Can we get back on topic now?
07 MARCH 2017
Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) Movement: “𝐑𝐚𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐦 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐑𝐚𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐃𝐢𝐬𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐀𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐅𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐝𝐨𝐦, 𝐉𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐞 & 𝐄𝐪𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲”
https://bdsmovement.net/news/racism-and-racial-discrimination-are-antithesis-freedom-justice-equality
📃 #STATEMENT: “The global Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (#BDS) movement for freedom, justice and equality of the Palestinian people is an inclusive, nonviolent human rights movement that rejects all forms of racism and racial discrimination. The movement is led by the Palestinian BDS National Committee (#BNC), the largest coalition of Palestinian political parties, labor and professional unions, networks of refugees, popular committees and organizations.
The 2005 Palestinian civil society Call for BDS, which calls for ending Israel’s flagrant violations of international law and for safeguarding the human rights of the Palestinian people, is anchored in the principles set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. As the Declaration stipulates, “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights” and everyone is entitled to all fundamental rights and freedoms “without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.”
Based on this principled commitment of the BDS movement to the equal rights of every human being, irrespective of identity, we stand firmly against political ideologies, laws, policies and practices that promote racism. We reject Zionism, as it constitutes the racist and discriminatory ideological pillar of Israel’s regime of occupation, settler colonialism and apartheid that has deprived the Palestinian people of its fundamental human rights since 1948.
Adhering to the UN definition of racial discrimination, the BDS movement does not tolerate any act or discourse which adopts or promotes, among others, anti-Black racism, anti-Arab racism, Islamophobia, anti-Semitism, sexism, xenophobia, or homophobia.
We strongly condemn apartheid, genocide, slavery, colonial exploitation and ethnic cleansing, which are crimes against humanity that are founded on racism and racial supremacy, and we call for the right of their victims, including descendants, to full reparation. We equally condemn and stand in solidarity with the victims of other human rights violations including human trafficking, workers’ exploitation, and sexual exploitation.
Guided by the inclusive agenda of the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, held in 2001 in Durban, South Africa, the principles of the BDS movement include the values of cultural diversity, solidarity and mutual support among victims of racism and racial discrimination.
Based on these values, we stand in solidarity with people of African descent, indigenous peoples, landless people, refugees and migrants, people exploited and oppressed for the economic advancement of a few, and those discriminated against and persecuted for their beliefs or identity, including caste. We stand with their respective struggles for racial, economic, gender, environmental and social justice.
We extend our support to all marginalized communities, inter alia Arab, Black, indigenous, Muslim, Jewish, Asian, Latino, Roma and Dalit, who are targets of xenophobic and far-right racist movements that have risen or are rising to power, particularly in the US, Europe, South America, India and elsewhere.
We also stand in solidarity with the struggles of all minorities in the Arab world against racism and racial discrimination and for full equality and justice.
The principles of the BDS movement call for proactive solidarity with oppressed communities worldwide and with all the victims of racist acts and rhetoric, as ours is a common cause. We support their resistance, in harmony with international law, against bigotry, racist ideologies and practices.
Racism and racial discrimination are the antithesis of freedom, justice and equality.”
“BDS represents three words that will help bring about the defeat of Zionist Israel and victory for Palestine.”
–Ronnie Kasrils
——————————————————————————————-
“[Israel] was Palestine, and there is no reason why it should not be renamed Palestine.”
–Omar Barghouti, Founder, Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel
“If the refugees return to their homes [in Israel] as the BDS movement calls for, if we bring an end to Israel’s apartheid regime and if we end the occupation on lands occupied in 1967, including Jerusalem, what will be left of the Zionist regime? That’s the question. Meaning, what will the two states be based on?”
“International law and the right of return? There won’t be any Zionist state like the one we speak about [in present-day Israel]. There will be two states: One democratic for all its citizens here [Palestine] and one democratic for all its citizens there [Israel]. “The Palestinian minority will become a Palestinian majority of what is today called Israel.”
–Omar Barghouti, Gazan Voice podcast, (May 21, 2020)
“Definitely, most definitely, we oppose a Jewish state in any part of Palestine. No Palestinian, rational Palestinian, not a sell out Palestinian, would ever accept a Jewish state in Palestine.”
–Omar Barghouti, (May 26, 2014)
“[Palestinians have a right to] resistance by any means, including armed resistance. [Jews] aren’t indigenous just because you say you are….”
–Omar Barghouti (January 15, 2014)
“Going back to the two-state solution, besides having passed its expiry date, it was never a moral solution to start with.We are witnessing the rapid demise of Zionism, and nothing can be done to save it, for Zionism is intent on killing itself.”
-Omar Bargouti
“Good riddance! The two-state solution for the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is finally dead. But someone has to issue an official death certificate before the rotting corpse is given a proper burial and we can all move on and explore the more just, moral and therefore enduring alternative for peaceful coexistence between Jews and Arabs in Mandate Palestine: the one-state solution.”
-Omar Bargouti
“(The one state solution means) a unitary state, where, by definition, Jews will be a minority.”
-Omar Bargouti
“I am completely and categorically against binationalism because it assumes that there are two nations with equal moral claims to the land.”
-Omar Bargouti
“If the refugees were to return, you would not have a two-state solution, you’d have a Palestine next to a Palestine.”
–Omar Barghouti quoting Sari Nusseibeh, President of Al Quds University. You can also hear him say this around 4:56 of this video.
“The ‘two state solution,’…as dictated by Israel, omits basic Palestinian rights…[and] would be yet another act of British complicity in bestowing legitimacy on Israel’s unjust order.”
–Omar Barghouti
“A Jewish state in Palestine in any shape or form cannot but contravene the basic rights of the indigenous Palestinian population and perpetuate a system of racial discrimination that ought to be opposed categorically….Definitely, most definitely we oppose a Jewish state in any part of Palestine. No Palestinian, rational Palestinian, not a sell-out Palestinian, will ever accept a Jewish state in Palestine.”
–Omar Barghouti
“You cannot reconcile the right of return for refugees with a two state solution….a return for refugees would end Israel’s existence as a Jewish state. A two-state solution was never moral and it’s no longer working.”
-Omar Barghouti
“The real aim of BDS is to bring down the state of Israel….That should be stated as an unambiguous goal. There should not be any equivocation on the subject. Justice and freedom for the Palestinians are incompatible with the existence of the state of Israel.”
–As’ad AbuKhalil
——————————————————————————————-
“Peace-or better yet, justice-cannot be achieved without a total decolonization (one can say de-Zionization) of the Israeli state.”
–Michael Warschawski, BDS activist
——————————————————————————————-
“I think the BDS movement will gain strength from forthrightly explaining why Israel has no right to exist.”
–John Spritzler, Pro-BDS Author
“BDS’s stated goals (ending the Occupation, equality for non-Jews and Jews, and the right of return of the Palestinian refugees) logically imply the end of Israel as a Jewish state….The “state of the Jews” is actually an instrument by which a Jewish elite ruling class of billionaires and generals and politicians secures its oppressive grip on ordinary Jews in Israel…This is why there should not be a Jewish state.”
–John Spritzler
——————————————————————————————-
“I mean we have to be honest, and I loathe the disingenuousness. They don’t want Israel. They think they are being very clever; they call it their three tier. We want the end of the occupation, the right of return, and we want equal rights for Arabs in Israel. And they think they are very clever because they know the result of implementing all three is what, what is the result? You know and I know what the result is. There’s no Israel!
“They say no they’re not really talking about rights. They’re talking about they want to destroy Israel. And in fact I think they’re right I think that’s true. I’m not going to lie. But this kind of duplicity and disingenuous, “oh we’re agnostic about Israel.” No you’re not agnostic! You don’t want it! Then just say it!
“The moment you go out there Israel will start to say ‘What about us?’ and ‘They won’t recognize our right’ and in fact that’s correct. You can’t answer the Israelis on that because they’re making a statement that’s factually correct. It’s not an accidental and unwitting omission that BDS does not mention Israel. You know that and I know that. It’s not like they’re ‘oh we forgot to mention it.’ They won’t mention it because they know it will split the movement. Cause there’s a large segment of the movement that wants to eliminate Israel.”
–Norman Finkelstein critiquing the BDS movement
“There’s no Israel. That’s what it’s really about.”
–Norman Finkelstein
——————————————————————————————-
“Our corporation boycotts all Israeli products and services, and encourages other institutions, companies and individuals to cease and avoid all economic, academic and cultural activity that supports the racist state of Israel until that state dissolves itself.”
–Paul Larudee, Co-founder, Free Palestine Movement
——————————————————————————————-
“Israel is the oppressor, not the settlements.”
-Hind Awwad
National Coordinator, BDS Committee
——————————————————————————————-
“The goal of #BDS is the full restoration of Palestinian rights, not an agreement to create an artificial mini-state in order to save Zionism”
–Ali Abunimah, BDS activist
——————————————————————————————-
“Zionists complain [BDS] demands spell the end of the “Jewish state.” They are correct. A “Jewish state” is by definition dedicated to the supremacy of Jews over non-Jews in Palestine, and is therefore irreconcilable with the justice advocated by BDS.”
–David Litwin, BDS activist
——————————————————————————————-
“Any call for boycott, divestment, or sanctions, for whatever motive (even on behalf of the settlers!) is seen, rightly, as a blow against the legitimacy of Israel… it will be rightly perceived by the pro-Israel crowd as a threat, even an “existential one,” to use Prime Minister Netanyahu’s characterization of all BDS.”
–Jeremiah Haber, BDS supporter
——————————————————————————————-
“[The two state solution] was a charade to begin with, and has played itself out.”
–Kumars Salehi, BDS supporter
——————————————————————————————-
“Bringing down Israel will really benefit everyone in the world and everyone in society, particularly workers,”
–Lara Kiswani, executive director of the Arab Resource and Organizing Center, BDS activist
“I think the end-all of BDS is to weaken Israel, to isolate Israel, and give the global community a role in the liberation of Palestine and support the resistance on the ground in Palestine.”
–Lara Kiswani
“We’re resisting colonialism in Palestine, and colonialism entails all of occupied Palestine, from Haifa, to Jerusalem, to Ramallah…”
–Lara Kiswani, [0:45]
——————————————————————————————-
“You can’t have coexistence with Zionists. Their purpose of Zionism is discrimination, elimination and ethnic cleansing of a group of people, so if you want to talk about coexistence, I’m not talking with you because you’re going to try to kill me. I’m Muslim.”
–Azka Fayyaz, BDS leader at UC Davis
——————————————————————————————-
“Last week, the Palestinian BDS National Committee called for a wave of actions and protests in solidarity with the Palestinian popular resistance…”
–BDS Movement Official Statement
——————————————————————————————-
“Are you angry? Well, we’ve been watching intifada in Palestine, we’ve been watching an uprising in Iraq, and the question is that what are we doing? How come we don’t have an intifada [armed struggle] in this country? …and it’s about time that we have an intifada in this country that change[s] fundamentally the political dynamics in here…They’re going to say [that] some Palestinian are being too radical; well, you haven’t seen radicalism yet!”
–Professor Hatem Bazian, founder of Students for Justice in Palestine
“[W]e in this movement [should] support the resistance against American imperialism by any means necessary.”
–Professor Hatem Bazian
23 Arab states and zero Jewish states isn't equality or equal rights. It's literally racism and racial discrimination. BDS are the racists and the discriminators, not Israel.
### BDS aim #1: "Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and dismantling the Wall"
Anonymous: "I oppose the first. Why? Because "all Arab lands" is extremely and intentionally ambiguous. Most Palestinians consider all of Israel to be "Arab land". Can you show me where the BDS movement explicitly states what "Arab lands" they're referring to in that point?"
I already did: just follow the link I gave in the previous post. The longer description there of aim #1 says "International law recognises the West Bank including East Jerusalem, Gaza and the Syrian Golan Heights as occupied by Israel." Do you support or oppose Israel's ending its occupation of those particular lands -- even if you're convinced that the term "Arab lands" is really intended to include more? And would you say that the principles stated in Israel's declaration of independence would lead one to support or oppose this aim?
Anonymous: "Second, "dismantling the Wall" isn't opposing injustice or a bad practice. The wall exists to prevent Palestinian terrorists and murderers from murdering Jewish children. Dismantling it would allow them to do so again."
Wasn't 85% of it built outside Israeli territory -- outside the 1949 armistice lines?
### BDS aim #2: "Recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality"
Anonymous: [no mention]
Israeli declaration of independence: "The state of Israel ... will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex"
### BDS aim #3: "Respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN Resolution 194"
Anonymous: "I also oppose the third. Why? Because BDS is lying, UN Resolution 194 doesn't say Palestinian refugees have the right to return to their homes. Look it up. It's a non-binding recommendation, not a declaration of rights, and all it says is that refugees "should" be able to return to their homes."
Is there a difference between a "should" and a "right"? The real question here isn't about the existence of a "right" in some cosmic sense, but whether or not one agrees that the state of Israel should respect, protect, and promote what is a claimed right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties. Would you say that the principles stated in Israel's declaration of independence would lead one to support or oppose that?
Finally, you mention "Jewish rights". Are those the rights that Jews have by virtue of being Jews? What would you say those rights are?
If you believe BDS means those territories instead of "Arab lands," why didn't they just specify those territories? Answer: because they are using deliberately ambiguous language to hide their intentions. You can read the list of quotes I just sent to Josh to find out their intentions for yourself. Your second statement is literally unrelated to the first. BDS has to walk a fine line because they need in their movement both "from the river to the sea" types and naive two-staters, so they use language like that to make their true intentions ambiguous.
Furthermore, they're objectively wrong. East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights are not occupied, they're annexed, and Gaza isn't occupied either, it's blockaded.
The location of the security fence is irrelevant: it exists to prevent Palestinian terrorists and murderers from murdering Jewish children. Dismantling it would allow them to do so again. Do you contest this or not? If BDS's only issue is the location of the fence, not its existence, then they would say they want the Wall moved, not dismantled.
Claiming something is a "right" when it isn't is called lying. There's obviously a difference between a 'should' and a 'right.' This is basic stuff. And I don't know why you keep bringing up Israel's declaration of independence, it has nothing to do with the subject at hand.
You asked me my thoughts on BDS's principles and I answered, so now can we get back on topic? Do you have any comments on Beinart's article, and his false claims about the American Jewish community as being complicit in injustice?
I too have been wondering for decades how to produce a critical mass of conscience. Unfortunately I'm a playwright. I have been trying to get my play Abraham's Daughters into the consciousness of American Jewish theatregoers since I wrote it in 1995 about the first Intifada (I was there with the Palestinian Solidarity Committee and the Palestine Aid Society in 1993 to document human rights abuses) but theatres are too afraid/enmeshed in pro-Israeli funders to produce it. Thankfully, you can hear it here and share it: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/abrahams-daughters-by-emma-goldman-sherman/id1329778196?i=1000462709862
Emma, do you agree with Peter that American Jews are a "community that is actively complicit in an active injustice"?
Yes of course we are! How can we not be? I have been trying to speak out against American policies and Jewish refusal to see the horrific human rights abuses that Israel perpetuates against the Palestinians since 1993 when I first became aware, and no one will listen. I have been ostracized from my family. And I have been unable to find a way forward. I couldn't even find an anti-zionist synagogue until last year. Thank goodness for Tzedek Chicago!
Got it. And then you guys wonder why Peter and his fans are considered anti-Semitic.
How should we treat American Jews, who are complicit in an injustice? Ostracize them? Berate them? Boycott their businesses, perhaps?
Gotta Sing Sing: I thought Peter explained pretty clearly why he views American Jews as a community that is actively complicit in an active injustice. Do you disagree with his analysis? Either because what he calls an "active injustice" is not really so, or because American Jews are not a community that is actively complicit in it? OR is your objection that he shouldn't have said this because it would be interpreted as being anti-Semitic, even if it might be true?
Yes, of course I disagree with his analysis. People can support a country or an entity without supporting every single thing that country does. You can be a proud American while not supporting drone strikes. You can be a proud Democrat without supporting Ted Kennedy. We don't hold any other group "complicit" for the bad acts of everyone they like or support. The concept is absurd.
Let me rephrase his argument so that it's about people you and he actually care about (aka not Jews). Would you say that the Arab community, including the Arab American community, because of their support for Palestine, is actively complicit in the rape and murder of innocent Jews? And if not, why not?
American Jews are not a hive mind. They are individuals. And you shouldn't talk about them like they all believe or all in support of the same thing. It's called stereotyping and bigotry. And in the case of Jews, it's anti-Semitism.
In general, if someone makes a claim that a particular community is complicit in some injustice, I don't understand it to mean that "they all believe or all in support of the same thing." I understand the claim to mean that the leaders of that community, the individuals who have influence because they are seen in the wider society as representing the interests and views of that community, are promoting the interests of a foreign government (say) that is doing some unjust things, without voicing objections to those unjust things.
In your example of Arab-Americans' "support for Palestine", I'm pretty sure you mean "support for Palestinian people". I don't think that's a very good example, because the Arab-American community is not powerful enough to get the U.S. government to back that support. And Palestinians in Palestine are subjected to the domination of the Israeli government in a way that Jews are not subjected to the domination of any Palestinian controlling power or individuals.
As for your example of being an American who doesn't support U.S. government drone strikes: If an American knows about it AND considers it to be a grave injustice AND is in some position to do something about it, then I would say the person is complicit in it if they don't do anything about it. That's essentially the situation Ellsberg found himself in with respect to the Vietnam War, and he felt that he would be complicit if he didn't do what he could to stop it.
An interesting piece. I suspect that the commenters who seem to have little to do other than endlessly tell the world how necessary a Jewish-supremacists state is and how justified the IDF is in killing Palestinian people will never visit the OPT, never spend time with Palestinian families, and will never open their minds to the possibilities of a free, democratic state. But if I could change my mind from being indifferent and uninterested in the justice of the Palestinian cause, as I did over the last few years, many others can too.
If Palestinians are allowed to believe that a Palestinian-"supremacist" state is necessary and that Hamas and Fatah are justified in killing Jews, then Jews can believe the same for a Jewish state and for the IDF's military actions. Surely, James, you don't have double standards for Jews and Palestinians, don't you?
"Reflecting on the latest UN speech of president Abbas in which he described the situation on the ground in the West Bank as “apartheid” and that the Palestinian people will demand equal rights in one state for two peoples, 21% say that they are in favor of such one state solution while 76% expressed opposition. "
https://www.pcpsr.org/en/node/940
The vast majority of Palestinians oppose equal rights in one state for two peoples, much less a "free, democratic state". How incredibly embarrassing for you and for Peter.
There are a lot of interesting polling results in that study you cite. Indeed there is not much support for binationalism, but neither is there much support for 2-states or the PA.
The most remarkable result of the poll in my view is that the majority (66%) seem to believe with approval that Israel won’t even exist in 25 years, although the poll doesn’t shed light on what they think will be the source of its destruction. So they seem to be starting from a different set of premises and assumptions of likely outcomes than Mr. Beinart bases his position on.
Furthermore, there is a lot of base Palestinian support for armed resistance against the IDF in the territories and “50% of the public believe that the Palestinian side emerged victorious” in the last flare up of hostilities in Gaza, in which very few Jews were killed.
If killing Jews was their primary motivation as you assert, why would so many hold the view that the Palestinian side was victorious? They should all consider it an utter failure.
In contrast, the model where Palestinians reflect the same kind of defiant sentiments against a perceived oppressor where violence can be justified (as opposed to being the end goal in itself) as every other national liberation movement in human history seems to fit those data better.
Yes, the poll results are very interesting, and bust a lot of the false narrative pushed by Palestine supporters.
Yes, there's no support for binationalism or 2-states or the PA. Palestinians want what they said they want, an Arab Muslim state of Palestine from the river to the sea.
I never said or asserted "killing Jews was their primary motivation", so I'm not sure what you're basing your question on.
Peter Beinart, you know anti-Semites read this Substack. Why are you giving them this kind of dog whistle justifications of anti-Semitic tropes?
"I'm Peter Beinart, and I'm not saying Jews control the US government. I'm just saying they're the foundation over a lobby that has extreme influence. Huge difference!"
"I'm Peter Beinart, and I'm not saying Jews are committing injustices. I'm just saying they're a community that is complicit in injustice. Huge difference!"
You must be misunderstanding or else you are trying to be inflammatory which is ridiculous. When I say we are all racist, I mean because we live in and contribute to a racist society with racist systems that serve our society by maintaining the status quo, yes, right here in the "land of the free." Racism is not only a white person using the N word - racism is part of how we live, in separate neighborhoods and with separate churches/synagogues, and separate and not equal opportunities and access. To allow this to continue and to go on paying taxes is cooperating with a racist system. So we (of the US) are all complicit. And to think of ourselves, white Jews I mean in this sentence, as just as oppressed as the Black people of the US is ridiculous at this point in time when we have so much white privilege in comparison. I hope this clears up your confusion.
Oh ok. So Jews are just as racist as everyone else, and just as complicit in active injustices as everyone else. They're equally bad as the other American communities, not any worse. Peter wrote a whole article about the American Jewish community needing to learn a lesson, so we can look forward to his next article about the American Black community or the American Muslim community needing to learn the same lesson, as those communities are equally racist and equally supportive of injustice.
"And to think of ourselves, white Jews I mean in this sentence, as just as oppressed as the Black people of the US is ridiculous at this point in time when we have so much white privilege in comparison. I hope this clears up your confusion."
Very well said. Zionist Jews are mainly white and loaded with $$$$$$$$.
Someday the Zionists will search their conscience see that Palestinians too have feeling like their ancestors who were discrimated against by the Christians because they killed their god.
Peter, Rebecca, Emma, Maxwell, peter2, any thoughts on the statement that "Zionist Jews are mainly white and loaded with $$$$$$$$"? Silence is complicity, after all.
I think it is not a useful statement. I'd say that even within families that fit this socio-economic category, you might find differing opinions and, hopefully, healthy debate.
"Not useful", eh? Well, at least you said something. Kudos for that.
Thanks for sharing this, Emma
I am Jewish too and can hold two thoughts and/or feelings at the same time. I am also racist - I live in a racist world. Is it too much to expect most white American Jews should be taking a serious look at themselves as racists? Because I don't think it's too much. I think this is exactly the sort of life work that Jews do. I certainly do. Should we coddle each other? Pretend injustice doesn't exist on our dimes?
This is such an informative thread! Not only is the American Jewish community complicit in active injustice, it is also a racist community! This kind of rhetoric would be right at home on Stormfront, but here it is, on Peter Beinart's Substack.
Once again, you prove my point about why people think Peter Beinart and his fans are anti-Semitic. Thank you so much for your contribution.
Yes, RIP Dan Ellsberg. And let's not forget that Julian Assange also let the American public know about things that the government refused to let us know about American war crimes. Ellsberg called for Assange to be freed. Let's all do that.
It’s time for a Jewish Kairos document. (A take on the Christian documents in Nazi Germany and Apartheid South Africa meant as a clarion call to the religious establishment institutions complicit—or worse—in the oppressive actions of the German & South African regimes, respectively.)
I am floored that, even now, when it’s so much easier to speak out, (relative to only a few years ago), and even when “the masks are off” we hardly even see criticism of *this* Israeli govt — let alone of the regime itself, 1948-present — from Jewish American religious leaders and orgs.
WHY even become a rabbi if you’re unwilling to LEAD?!! Nobody needs to hear hasbara from the pulpit. We need BDS from the bimah! Spiritual leaders need to lead!!
Ps- I’m extremely disheartened every time I hear a story about how difficult it is to be “out” as an anti-Zionist as a seminary student. …And about how difficult the seminaries are making it for openly anti-Zionist applicants to even have a prayer of getting accepted.
American Jews don't see Israelis trying to protect their children from genocidal murderers to be "oppressive," they recognize BDS as the hate movement that it is, and they know that BDS seeks to destroy Israel. Many of them have been the victims of BDS violence and harassment. So you can rant and rave and stomp your feet and scream until your face turns blue, there isn't going to be any "BDS from the bimah," any more than there's going to be white supremacy preached at mosques. Deal with it.
It's not about treating anyone any which way - it's about asking our community to look at the reality of the situation and to try to find ways to come together to understand new ways forward.
RIP Daniel. May you be an example of courage rhat many Israelis and Jewish-Americans, among others, follow.
Sam, do you agree with Peter that American Jews are a "community that is actively complicit in an active injustice"?
He believes expulsion is in the Zionist Jewish DNA, so it wouldn't be very surprising.
Yes, the key question is: "...what does it take to produce a critical mass of conscience so that you have not just one, two, three, many figures like Daniel Ellsberg,..." This recent review of Avi Shlaim's new book that "A shocking claim about the Baghdad bombings of 1950 and 1951" suggests he fits the description: https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-shocking-truth-behind-the-baghdad-bombings-of-1950-and-1951/
"After Ellsberg leaked the Pentagon Papers, Henry Kissinger dubbed him “the most dangerous man in America.” " - It would seem that some here wait for Peter Beinart's weekly missive to insinuate something similar vis à vis Israel by twisting his opinions attributing him with words he never spoke or wrote.
Max, do you agree with Peter that American Jews are a "community that is actively complicit in an active injustice"?
Gotta Sing Sing, do you have any other - or, indeed, a sensible - comment to make on this thread?
Yes, I made a top level comment above. You can go check it out. But while you're here, how about you answer my question as well? I'd be very interested in hearing your answer.
EDIT: Can't answer, huh? That's what I thought.
I believe that any given community is not simply a homogenous block. To put it humourously, if you've got two people you can have three differing opinions. I do believe that a growing proportion of American Jews - like Peter Beinart - are questioning human rights standards in Israel and, apart from that level of perceived injustice towards Palestinians, worry that this is also a marked slide towards an ethno-authoritarianism that will also end badly for Jews. The question is how to begin the careful journey towards equal civil rights for everyone in a nation or in a state.
If communities are not homogenous blocks, then you must agree with me that Peter's description of American Jews as a "community that is actively complicit in an active injustice" is inaccurate, unfair, and borderline anti-Semitic.
I think it's a mistake to try and narrow things down to simple phrases like that, especially when there is a danger that a person is taken out of context. I follow Peter Beinart's weekly free missive and I am aware of his journey. I admire his intellectual integrity. Like Ellsberg, I believe him to be a true mensch, someone who puts humanity before tribe. So, if you want to give the full context of that phrase, I might better respond to your question.
The phrase is from the Substack article above, in the last paragraph. You read the article, right? You can find the context above. It doesn't make the phrase any less bigoted, in my opinion. "Out of context" is always the cry of the cornered racist.
Ah, I see now where you got that phrase: "So, to me, one of the big questions is: in this case, as in any I think case of grave moral injustice and a community that is actively complicit in that active injustice, what does it take to produce a critical mass of conscience so that you have not just one, two, three, many figures like Daniel Ellsberg, and a kind of a dam can break."
I do think you're being selective in your interpretation - I don't think he's talking about all American Jews in this paragraph, we both know that many American Jews disapprove of Israely Human Rights violations, and I have no wish to enter a 'hair-spitting' debate.
Again, I admire Peter Beinart's effort to give platform to contrasting ideas on these questions.
More importantly, we are here honouring a great man, a historical figure, an American Jew. Do you know what his opinion was on this overall question or on the phrase you wish to question? I don't and I'd like to know.
PS: What was Daniel Ellsberg's opinion on Israel-Palestine?