Bernard--ideas that are considered extremist at one moment in time (women's suffrage, for instance) become conventional at another. "Extremist" is not a moral category. It simply denotes ideological unpopularity. I've not endorsed the excesses of any group that would use violence against Israeli civilians or discriminate against Jews. I hope you're right that one day the occupation will end--but right now trying to do anything to make it end (for instance, conditioning US military aid or supporting holding Israel accountable under intl law) is considered an extremist position. The moderate position in both Israeli and US politics (Lapid, Biden) is unconditional support for the denial of basic human rights. So both those standards I'll accept being an extremist.
"right now trying to do anything to make it end (for instance, conditioning US military aid or supporting holding Israel accountable under intl law) is considered an extremist position"
You're so right, since for Palestine and its supporters, making peace with Israel is indeed considered an extremist position. Very, very, sad state of affairs.
Professor Beinart, “ideas that are considered extremist at one moment in time (women's suffrage, for instance) become conventional at another. 'Extremist' is not a moral category. It simply denotes ideological unpopularity.“ Really, how about another example. Hitler’s ideas were extreme in the 1920s and became the norm a few years later. It cuts both ways.
I have looked through Ms. Albanese writings I don’t see her as an anti-Semite, she could be, but she is in the main an eloquent advocate for the Palestinian cause. In my view she relies on the new narrative that Israel is merely the latest “European colonial settler regime” and the “indigeneity of the Palestinians” and relies on the myth that all Palestinians who left as Israel was established were forcibly removed.
The famed colonial enterprise? Just which colonial power sent the Jews to harvest the wealth of Palestine to send home to the colonial power? That is the definition of colonial enterprise at its core! Of course, there was no wealth to send “home” from basically impoverished Palestine. As for the concept of indigeneity, it is by far the shakiest concept (and genetically idiotic); after all, at what point are you indigenous? 50 years, 100, 1000 and what about the people slaughtered as the Arabs first entered the country (or forced to convert or flee)? Regardless, the source of the people who are today Palestinians is an amalgam not from Canaan but from Arabia, Algeria, Bosnia, Circassia and other places, many were from next door Syria and Trans Jordan all of whom entered the land at different times. Finally, what would we call Israel’s Arab Jews? What countries are they indigenous to? Of course, they are not willing to return to the Arab countries from where they had to depart let alone go to Europe.
By far the most extreme idea that is promoted today is “Palestine from the River to the Sea”. As that would essentially remove Jewish Israeli sovereignty from the map. That would be and is truly an anti-Semitic concept. Professor Beinart and others are talking about putting Palestinians and Jews together even while these two peoples are killing each other. And yet Professor Beinart is living in a country that can’t stomach cross border illegal entry to the US of people of color who are not harboring any ill will towards anyone. How ludicrous these two contrasting concepts are.
First, it is not easy for me to criticize you because I still see you as a mentor. However, I beg to differ regarding extremism. Raymond Aron argued with good reason that during the May 1968 student riots, young French far-left activists tried to "ape Great History” by making preposterous claims (comparing the French police to the Waffen-SS for example). Dismantling Israel has nothing to do with equality (unless one believes that the Arabs who have colonized much of the Middle East, North Africa, and enslaved millions of Blacks should also be stripped of their independence to atone for the crimes of their ancestors - as if it were fair to punish people for crimes that took place before they were born).
Isaiah Berlin once said that if one is willing to sacrifice all moral competing values to make sure that the dearest one to his eyes prevails, he inescapably falls into tyranny. I happen to believe that the life of an animal is worth just as much as that of a human being. This is both unpopular and radical, but not extremist. Extremism is a lack of nuance. Anti-Israeli extremists do not look for a creative way to reconcile the competing rights of both Israelis and Palestinians. You guys opt for an easy solution: Israelis must have fewer national rights than Palestinians and be stripped of their sovereignty (which is illegal).
If you can’t make a distinction between Jean Valjean and Al Capone, you do not advocate radical justice or equality. You just happen to be blinded by ideology (like Inspector Javert). If you keep blaming Israel alone for the absence of peace, you are not fighting oppression, you hammer facts so they can fit your narrow ideological worldview.
Wanting to dismantle Israel comes from a different place. Nathan Weinstock told me that as far as he is concerned, his past anti-Zionism stems from a desire to please what used to be called the Third World, as the left came to see postcolonial peoples as an extension of the working class. Most of your friends on the far left have confessed that they focus so much on Israel because given the West’s colonial sins, they have a special obligation to fight the last embodiment of European imperialism. This might not be antisemitic, but once again it is irrational.
I think the problem of the 60s far left wasn't "extremism." When it came to nonviolence, King was an extremist. The problem of the far left was its flirtation with left-wing tyrannies and its dismissal of liberal democracy as bourgeois and oppressive. I've never suggested anything like that. I don't romanticize Hezbollah, Hamas, Iran, or any other anti-Israel movement with theocratic or autocratic tendencies. And I think Israeli Jews should have exactly the same individual and national rights as Palestinians in a binational equal state. I've been very clear about that. And don't worry about criticizing me. I don't mind at all.
So why don't you advocate a one state solution between Mexico and the US, Morocco and Spain, Turkey and Greece, or between the US and English-speaking Canadians ? You guys look alike to the rest of the world! We still live in a world of nation states. There is no such thing as civic nationalism. Most scholars of nationalism ceased to subscribe to Kohn's dichotomy more than two decades ago. Even the US is not really culturally neutral. Most Americans states have proclaimed English as their sole official language in the 1980s and 90s. That was no coincidence. They did so in response to the demographic growth of Hispanic communities. Canada has only one bilingual province, New Brunswick (and the Quebec government which identifies as a French state, refers to its English-speaking minority and immigrants who anglicize as a demographic threat). As Amos Oz used to say, once Hungarians and Romanians merge into one state should Jews and Palestinians do the same.
In a one state setting, there won't be communal equality. The federal government would be controlled by the Palestinians. The Israeli right too has its own version of the one-state solution (without Gaza). This is unacceptable to the Palestinians. Canada is a pretty good example. In 1982, English-Canada imposed on Quebec a constitution that it still rejects. This is largely why 49.4% of Quebecers voted "yes" to the independence referendum of 1995.
One possibility is the "parity" system advocated by Ben Gurion and Weizmann back in the 1930s, whereby both communities would share power 50-50 even after Jews become the majority. At the time, those who refused were the Palestinians, as they knew that once Jews would outnumber them, they could repeal this system with no one standing in their way. Now that the Palestinians have won the demographic war, Israelis are those who refuse to hear about binationalism, with good reason. For how long would the Palestinians accept to give veto power to the Jews who would become a minority? In the early 1990s, Czechoslovakia too had a parity system, and it crumbled very fast.
A confederation would give both peoples all the benefits of a binational state without depriving any people of its independence. It would neither dismantle any state, nor violate international law. The late Herb Kelman proposed a model of confederation that would give both peoples ownership over the entire land. Why should this be a zero-sum game when there are creative ways of reconciling the competing rights of both peoples? https://scholar.harvard.edu/hckelman/publications/one-country-two-state-solution-israeli-palestinian-conflict
I don't exclude the option of a binational state forever. In 100 years from now, the world will be completely different. But only once both peoples have developed a common identity can this solution work. A forced marriage cannot work.
By the way, most Palestinians, especially in the diaspora, oppose the idea of "parity," which you seem to advocate. Their "binationalism" encompasses only the Palestinians who live in the area of the former British Mandate, those who live in the diaspora, and Israeli-Jews (whom they see as a new "settler society"). They exclude diaspora Jews, and keep denying the existence of the Jewish people. It's pretty clear, from their point of view, that bi-nationalism is a scheme that seeks to turn Jews into a minority. This is a non-starter, even for the Israeli far left. Alas, while Israeli elites are much more moderate than average Israelis, average Palestinians are much more moderate than their elites.
I keep believing that only a "cosmological change" in both societies can end the conflict. Stephen Van Evera was right to call for a new overarching narrative based on noncontroversial facts (or "events" for those who don't believe in factual truth): Jews did not go to Palestine on vacation. This land was the life raft of a people in distress. However, the Palestinians are the victims' victim. People don't refuse to make some compromise when they feel that the other side is not a 100% wrong. Unfortunately, instead of promoting this "third way," Western elites strengthen Palestinian irredentists.
racism is sometimes interpreted as bigotry against a given race. since Jews and Palestinians aren't a "race" (an artificial concept but one that's used nonetheless) i use bigotry instead.
That charge sheet you have against Corbyn has been debunked over and again. Elementary factchecking you did not do. Please talk to us (Jews on the left) before you repeat this and if I were you I'd publish corrections to that article.
Dave, excellent comment. Beinhart has made a shoddy comment about Jeremy Corbyn and he should retract it. In no way has Corbyn ever made antiSemitic remarks even on purpose or inadvertantly. He has however cast doubt on Zionist mentality, which is certainly NOT antiSemitic.
Not sure I see much of a distinction. The comments were offensive because they played into antisemitic tropes about Jews controlling governments. I don't see any evidence that Albanese has a pattern of fomenting such conspiracy theories but her words in 2014 did unfortunately play on such tropes, whether she recognized that or not.
I'm really glad to see Peter is condemning Albanese' "Jewish lobby" remarks, most of the Israel haters I've seen are busy trying to minimize her statement or chalk it up to 'mere criticism of the Israel lobby.'
But he doesn't present the full picture. That one statement was hardly the only offensive statement she made. She made multiple references comparing Israelis to Nazis, for example.
I don't know about the "people" Peter is referring to who don't like cancel culture under different circumstances, but I personally haven't seen any demands that Albanese's career be ruined. I HAVE seen demands that she not be assigned to Israel/Palestine, since she clearly has an established bias and prejudices (and I do mean prejudices). I don't see any reason why she can't be assigned to a different human rights situation, like the Uighurs in China, where she hasn't made bigoted remarks in the past about one of the sides.
Lastly, I don't know where this idea that the Israeli occupation is "institutionalized, anti-Palestinian bigotry" came from. When two countries are at war, they treat each other as enemies. The occupation is a structure put in place because of Palestine's war to destroy Israel and the tactics it has used to in the fight, such as child suicide bombers and indiscriminate murderous attacks on civilian targets. When Ukraine bombs Russian military targets, does Russia whine that the bombings are because Ukraine is racist against Russians? The entire concept is absurd.
It is unconsidered Peter. If you had considered the charges against Jeremy Corbyn with fact checking you would have found they are false charges. it isn't a matter of disagreement - this is the difference between fact and fiction.
I posted this after your other link to your article. You really are wrong multiple times about Corbyn and Labour Party left.
----------------------
That charge sheet you have against Corbyn has been debunked over and again. Elementary factchecking you did not do. Please talk to us (Jews on the left) before you repeat this and if I were you I'd publish corrections to that article.
For example, the Zionists/irony episode was about some hardline disruptive Zionists who shout down people at meetings. They have been ejected from parliament buildings and two of them have criminal records for threatening behaviour. I have been a witness to their thuggery. Corbyn's comment was mild in the extreme.
Peace is achievable when Palestinians 1) accept Israel’s right to exist; 2) agree to a demilitarized state of their own next to Israel; and 3) acknowledge that the descendants of 1948 refugees are themselves not refugees and have no “right of return” to Israel, but only to a new state of Palestine.
For over 70 years there have been numerous formal and informal efforts to achieve a two state peace, but all have ended with Palestinian rejection. But times are changing as Arab countries refuse to be held hostage by Palestinian intransigence and are normalizing relations with Israel.
When the corrupt, criminal Palestinian leaders stop teaching children that one day they will ‘drive the Jews into the sea’, and instead choose to live side by side in peace, then both peoples can thrive.
I think you can bring this point up after the checkpoints are taken down, Palestinian children are not arrested or accompanied by IDF soldiers with semi-automatic rifles to school, when Palestinian homes and schools aren't bulldozed for not having permits that the Israeli gvt has sat on for years, when illegal settlers stop throwing trash at the neighbors below them and using violence on a daily basis to threaten people in their own homes and businesses, when there is access to water and electricity on Palestinian's own terms (and it's enough), when Palestinians can freely travel, etc. The list goes on. Be honest about who is in power and how it is abused..THEN you can talk about these points you bring up.
Talk to the families of innocent Israeli citizens who were blown up on busses, sitting in cafes, going to nightclubs, or stabbed while walking down the street — about the need for checkpoints. And protest against the corrupt Palestinian govt for paying lifetime pensions to the families of murderers who perpetrate these crimes as incentives to other terrorists before criticizing Israel for blowing up the houses of these terrorists as a disincentive for others to consider.
When Palestinians realize that living in peace next to Israel is a better option, then Palestinians will freely travel, go to school, and build a wonderful life for themselves.
How hard is it for you to understand that if you oppress a people and deny them human rights, they will resist.
Talk to the families of Palestinians who were blown up by the Israeli Air Force in the besieged Gaza Strip. The families of Palestinians shot in the street and left to bleed to death.
When Israelis realise that living in peace next to Palestine is a better option, then everyone will have a wonderful life.
Topsy turvy logic. Israel defends itself against incoming missiles and terror attacks -- never the aggressor. When the Palestinians stop teaching their children to kill Jews and instead accept living in peace their own country, the region will become safe for all.
Israel was attacked in 1948 and has been attacked continually since. The cartoon of yesteryear is still on point today. It shows an Israeli soldier standing in front of a baby stroller facing off against a Palestinian terrorist standing behind a baby stroller. The caption reads, “if the Palestinians put down their weapons there would be peace; if the Israelis put down their weapons there would be no more Israel.”
It is all awful. A tragic cycle. I'm so sorry for all of innocent Israelis and Palestinians on BOTH sides because they both exist and neither should. It's horrible.
However, your stance does not help end this horrific cycle because it only sees one side. Mr. Beinart has given a nuanced perspective here, and your response in this context rings a bit like the police response to BLM by saying All Lives Matter instead of trying to hold themselves accountable for killing innocent black people. Not an untrue response..but helpful? Harmful? The cycle continues.
You may know about them already, but one group of Israelis who've needlessly and horrifically lost innocent lives of family members (usually their own children) that I do get to talk to are in The Parent Circle. This group also happens to also have Palestinians who've lost innocent family members (again, usually children). All of these parents have had the worst thing happen to them, perpetuated by the cycle of needless violence that The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict has catalyzed. I had the chance to hear two of them this weekend, Rob Damelin and Laila Alsheikh. Robi's son was killed by a Palestinian sniper while serving in The IDF. Laila's 3 year old son was killed from effects of IDF tear gas and the inability to get to hospital because the IDF wouldn't let her through three different checkpoints and she could not get to hospital in time to save him. Both of these women have cause to hate the other side, yet they have united for peace and mutual flourishing of all sides. Same with Bassam and Rami.. two Israeli and Palestinian friends whose daughters were both murdered by the other side. These are the people breaking the cycle, despite bearing the greatest cost.
You can find out more about The Parent Circle here:
To hear Bassam and Rami's story or Robi's (I don't think Laila's is on here), you can go here. There's also lots of other great personal interviews of radical peacemakers. These are the cycle breakers. We have to get out of one sided narratives that keep us "okay" at the expense of others. We have to lay down our power and listen in order for ALL of us to flourish.
I never have blamed the Palestinian people. I blame the corrupt leaders. Whether in Gaza, or in the West Bank, they live protected lives in luxurious compounds. They are the ones preventing their people from having peace by pushing a false narrative that one day they will get all of the land back. They know it’s not true, but it keeps them in power. If, and when they choose peace for their people, Israel is ready and always has been. 
Well, we can agree on bad leadership.. I’d say in both sides. But for the Palestinian people to see that Israelis and The Israeli government are serious about peace, I think the people need to see action. Right now it’s the opposite. It’s not just the Palestinian leadership that’s selling them a false narrative. Every single day, they see Israeli soldiers and settlers oppressing them.. often through violence and, always with infrastructure. That fundamentally has to change. It really is the first step. Otherwise, they have no reason to make peace.. it’s just more submission to their (literal everyday) oppressor.
The misleading press doesn’t tell the real story. Radical terror groups are growing in the West Bank, much to the concern of Israel and the PA. They attack innocent people. The IDF has been forced to step up their efforts.
1. the PLO accepted Israel in 1987 and the PA emerged from Oslo always in acceptance of Israel—both with reservations.. This seems to get forgotten. At the conclusion of a 2SS final status agreement, all Arab and likely all Muslim-majority states, including Palestine, would offer unreserved normalized relations with Israel. This is the key bargaining chip—really the only one with teeth—that the Palestinian side has. No one seriously thinks this is a showstopper to a peace agreement. To demand that the Palestinians just give away their key asset as a pre-condition just shows bad-faith and insincerity to peace negotiations.
2. A demilitarized state would be suicide—Israel would just invade, launch attacks, or impose blockades whenever the urge suited them or a right-wing government needed votes or Knesset seats without consequence or fear of reprisal. It would be in effect occupation-light. Just as Israel has a right to self-defense, so would Palestine. In 2000, this might have been considered a reasonable request but not after the last 20 years of ever increasing right-wing belligerent Israeli governments.
3. I don’t think this is an unreasonable position by the pro-Israel side, but the right of return issue is complicated and thorny. That no one seemed to anticipate this was one of the main reasons Camp David/Taba failed. No Palestinian leader has or had the political clout to negotiate away this major concern of the diaspora over empty promises. There needs to be some kind of just compensation or repatriation plan and broad regional support and major international investment inside of Palestine, likely with major direct gulf state funding. Until such a plan was in place and guarantees given, the Palestinians would be stupid to agree to any empty paper bags offered by the Israelis. In my opinion, this plan and all the details should be in made public before anyone even sits down to negotiate.
If a child throws temper tantrums to get something, but doesn’t get their way because that’s not how one behaves, should they continue down that path? Should parents give in and finally give it to them?
The horrific and corrupt Palestinian leaders refuse to negotiate in good faith. They tell Westerners one thing and their own people something completely different. Rather than accepting their own country next to Israel, which they could have had for 75 years, they continue to push the false narrative that one day the land from the river to the sea will be theirs. Imagine how things would have been, and still could be, if instead of deceiving their people and pushing hatred, they decided on peace. Israel and other Arab countries understand their rejectionism and intransigence and are moving on. Sad for the citizens who would thrive if given be chance.
Who are the ones who will never accept an independent Palestine?
It’s essentially illegal to display a Palestinian flag in Israel now. The PA is literally begging western nations to bring the Israelis to the negotiating table. Even
Trump came to see the truth of who the intransigent party was.
The outgoing PM Lapid made the most milquetoast of sentiments about supporting the 2SS and was panned by all opponents and even some allies and he was subsequently shown to the door by Israeli voters. Who is his replacement? The same guy who committed his career to opposing Oslo and the 2SS. He showed that Israel no longer has to pretend to want a “just and lasting peace” with the Palestinians. An acceptable peace can be imposed from the cockpit of an F-15 and by the authoritarian jackboot of occupation without any sacrifice or compromise.
In the aftermath of disappointment of Camp David and of the horrors of the second intifada, I would have agreed with you. But in the 15-20 years since I’ve come to see that the Israeli public by and large was never going to support and commit to anything else. It was a lie; it was always a lie.
The onus is on the Palestinians. Following Camp David and Taba, following the Intifadas, following the continued murder of Israelis with stabbings, car rammings, et.al., following the incitement to violence by Palestinian leaders. The Palestinians have shown NO interest in a 2SS. But if they truly are ready, they need to state so clearly along the lines of what I previously posted.
The Israelis took the land in 1967 and inherited its inhabitants and previously dispossessed beginning the paradigm of “land for peace” as well as the call for a just settlement with “the refugees.” From that point forward, the onus was always on Israel as we can all see in retrospect that they never had any intention of relinquishing that territory.
Whatever sympathy and patience the world had for Israel living with enemies on its borders or having to negotiate with Arafat has long evaporated. It is not Abbas or the ghost of Arafat driving settlement expansion beyond the green line, killing of American journalists, evictions in East Jerusalem and Area C, or voting booth levers to fall for the extreme right-wing Zionist parties.
There hasn’t been a coordinated suicide bomber campaign in 15 years and Israel has taken every opportunity to discredit non-violent means of pursuing Palestinian self-determination, namely economic boycotts and pursing claims at the UN and ICC/ICJ. It is the very idea of a Palestine on land that they covet that they oppose; Palestinian violence and historic miscalculations and ineptitude by its leadership just obscured this basic truth.
The 3rd Intifada is coming and my heart goes out to all the Israelis and Palestinians who will suffer and grieve over lost loved-ones. But Israel has chosen the path of the international pariah and doubled-down on the cycle of violence willfully and has no one else to blame.
Israel won the war in 1967 against Jordan after pleading with Jordan to stay out of it. They didn’t “take” the land. They then called on the Palestinians to negotiate two states, time after time. Rejected every time with increasing levels of murder against Israelis. Israel made offers to return nearly all of the West Bank. But it was never enough for the Palestinians — not when they brainwash their children that one day all of the land will be theirs. That they are refugees.
They are not refugees, they are descendants of refugees, much as most people around the world. Yet this nonstarter “right of return” has been the kill button on every negotiation. At Camp David, after both the Israeli and Palestinian teams had reached an agreement with Clinton and Barak ready to sign, Arafat refused, walked away and launched the Intifada. The Saudis called him a criminal for doing so.
So while you look to cast blame on the Israelis, it has been and continues to be the rejectionist Palestinians who have prevented peace.
You can repeat your anti-Palestinian manifesto ad nauseam but it will always be based on hatred for the people and a refusal to accept the criminal nature of the Israeli regime and its history of murder of the Palestinians.
As for "Arab countries refuse to be held hostage by Palestinian intransigence", you are presumably referring to the corrupt and repressive regimes that apartheid Israel naturally gets along well with. The thoughts and beliefs of the Arab peoples on those countries - as well as of many ordinary people from the West - were on display during the World Cup in Qatar. The overriding theme was solidarity with the Palestinians, hostility to apartheid Israel. As for your words about 'both peoples': there are humans, there are not 'peoples'. Jewish people are inherently identical to all other humans and cannot demand to live separately with their own privileges at the expense of other humans.
"Multiple studies have been conducted to gauge Arab public opinion in recent years about the importance of Palestine, most notably the Arab Opinion Index survey conducted by the Arab Centre for Research and Policy Studies in 2020. This poll found that 85 percent of respondents opposed normalization with Israel. Indeed, the Arab people remain clear in their allegiance to the Palestinian struggle for freedom. No Arab country deviated from this rule, from the Arabian Peninsula to North Africa."
So long as you blindly and naïvely continue to push this false narrative, the people you are hurting are the Palestinian people. Israel and its neighbors will move forward and the Palestinians will continue to be left behind because of their own corrupt leadership and enablers like you. Shame on you.
That may well be my last comment about this topic. I understand now why Camus decided to retreat into silence when he realized that he just could not get his message across (I would never dare to compare myself to Camus, but I'm tired of preaching in the desert).
Extremist ideas don’t age well. The 20th century was full of extremist ideas, and none of them lasted. One can oppose oppression without closing ranks with fanatics. Wasn’t possible to oppose the War in Vietnam without endorsing the Vietcong or chanting, “Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Minh”? Wasn’t it possible to oppose the oppression of the Algerians without endorsing the excesses of the FLN?
I really like Peter Beinart, and “The Icarus Syndrome” remains one of my formative books. However, I just don’t understand this flirt with the regressive left (not that I don’t understand where this drive comes from, I used to be a Trot in my teenage years about 15-20 years ago).
I really believe that down the road, moderates on both sides will prevail. The occupation will end one way or another, and future generations of Israelis will feel guilty about it. Palestinians will acknowledge that Zionism cannot just be depicted as a mere colonialist endeavour. (By the way, it’s not true that Israel’s founders identified with European colonialism; even Ilan Pappe acknowledges that while early Zionists did so, by the time of the second Aliyah, Zionism depicted itself as a colonization movement without colonialism. This, of course, does not contradict the fact that the Palestinians suffered an injustice.) The Western intelligentsia too will stop transposing its post-colonial guilt onto Israel and find it odd that within the same Century Jews went from being massacred for being nonwhites to becoming the embodiment of “White privilege” (this is what happens when symbols take over reality). And perhaps right-wingers will stop being supportive of Israel merely because they happen to see it as the West’s defence line against a so-called expansionist Islamic world (while less than a Century ago, they saw Jews as aliens to the Christian West).
When people move beyond their ideological frenzy (that have a lot in common with religious delusion), they can finally see this conflict for what it is: a clash of rights. Zionism was a necessity, even in the late 1940s, as Jews were still persecuted or rejected everywhere, and there was no way of predicting that their condition would improve so much during the second part of the 20th century. Those who claim that a Jewish state should have been established in Germany fail to understand that the Israeli society had already existed for decades. Whatever one thinks about Zionists, it is undeniable that they were right to argue that Western societies, which were predominantly antisemitic, would not welcome an unlimited number of Jews. They turned out to be right, as by the 1920s, Palestine really became the only haven left for Jews. Hence, they were in a state of necessity that totally justifies the conquest of (only) part of Palestine. A distinction needs to be made between conquest based on greed and one based on necessity (unless one believes that there is no significant difference between Jean Valjean and Al Capone). Radical anti-Zionists may not be antisemites, but they are guilty of subscribing to Inspector Javert’s ruthless ethics
.
That said, the Palestinians suffered an injustice, and instead of trying to repair it, Israel refuses to renounce its irredentist madness. However, the Palestinians too are unable to accept a peace agreement that would not leave the door open for additional claims in the future (virtually all Palestinian negotiators acknowledge now that they oppose Clinton’s parameters, especially regarding the refugee issue).
But instead of strengthening the handful of Palestinian Liberals and the remnants of the Israeli left, Peter Beinart add fuel to fire by endorsing Palestinian irredentism. This is just meaningless. What do you want, Mr. Beinart, Palestinian ownership over the whole land? This is feasible in a confederal framework with open borders, a joint foreign policy, a joint currency, and even a joint confederal army (or gendarmerie). Such an entity would have all the trappings/paraphernalia of a federal state without depriving both peoples of their sovereignty. Just five years ago, you found this idea too radical!
I’m pretty sure that ultimately, both sides will come to their senses and reach an agreement along these lines. Israeli irredentists will then become a dying breed (just like the supporters of French rule in Algeria or those who believe that the US should have stayed in Vietnam) and Palestinian irredentists (especially their leftist fellow travellers in the West) will be remembered with a mix of derision and indulgence – pretty much like former Maos and Trots nowadays.
How do I know all this? I speculate, but I’m confident. After all, it took half a Century to rehabilitate "Algerian Liberals" (anti-colonialist settlers and moderate Algerian nationalists) who opposed the diehard logic of French settlers and Algerian radical nationalists. They were isolated and beleaguered at the time, but they have won the battle of posterity (as opposed to the likes of Jean-Paul Sartre whose radical chic extremism did not age well).
Most of these left-wing liberals called for a sovereign Algeria associated with France (Albert Camus was slightly more “right-wing,” as he called for a more centralized confederation). By the way, left-wing intellectuals loved to depict Camus as a poor White colonist who refused to renounce his privilege (Sartre, Said, Beauvoir). These allegations were, of course, preposterous, and they now ring hollow. It took half a Century for moderates to prevail in Algeria. They will ultimately prevail in Israel and Palestine as well! Alas, I won’t be there to celebrate my triumph! Fortunately, Beinart won’t be there to lament his loss!
No matter what, Beinart remains the author of “The Icarus Syndrome.” I will remain eternally grateful for this beautiful book!
Ah, the old "moderates on both sides will prevail" canard. Was it 'extreme' for the US and UK to launch a military invasion of France in June 1944? It certainly wasn't a 'moderate' action, causing as it did many deaths and injuries in order to eliminate fascism from Europe. Zionism is as fascist as anything promoted by Mussolini or Hitler. It can never be anything else; it is a racist ideology that positions one ethno-religious group above other human beings which it openly regards as lesser. Apartheid Israel was, and is, a settler-colonialist endeavour that its Zionist leaders fully admitted required the ethnic cleansing of the existing inhabitants of the land the Zionists stole.
“Zionism is as fascist as anything promoted by Mussolini or Hitler. It can never be anything else; it is a racist ideology that positions one ethno-religious group above other human beings which it openly regards as lesser.”
Whenever someone stoops to comparing anything to Nazi Germany it becomes a commentary on who they are. The Nazis rounded up people and exterminated them. They invaded surrounding countries. They promoted a racial purity doctrine. They personified evil.
The more I read your comments, Rebecca, the more you come across as a rabid antisemite and one who has lost any sense of objectivity. Shame, shame, shame…
Your constant harping on the treatment of the poor Palestinians is tiresome. Maybe they should attempt to meet the needs of Israel (accept a Jewish state, agree that the refugees will not resettle in Israel, and possibly accept that their state would be demilitarized for a certain amount of time) instead of constantly bemoaning that they are victims. I guess Mr. Beinart would not get invited to so many conferences or interviews if these steps were taken, but at least we would be free of his tendentious drivel!
Your comments about Jeremy Corbyn appear to be based on the lies about him published in the UK media. There is no free and unbiased mainstream media in the UK. To get any kind of unbiased view in the UK you must get online and visit sites such as Byline times, Novaramedia and the London Economic to name but a few. Very recent polling concerning the current strike action by workers in the UK has people’s trust in the mainstream media down to %12 believing what they print, I think this includes tv. As to the Jewish lobby in the US, is there one or isn’t there one? If there is one then what does it do? Is it racist to be critical?
Bernard--ideas that are considered extremist at one moment in time (women's suffrage, for instance) become conventional at another. "Extremist" is not a moral category. It simply denotes ideological unpopularity. I've not endorsed the excesses of any group that would use violence against Israeli civilians or discriminate against Jews. I hope you're right that one day the occupation will end--but right now trying to do anything to make it end (for instance, conditioning US military aid or supporting holding Israel accountable under intl law) is considered an extremist position. The moderate position in both Israeli and US politics (Lapid, Biden) is unconditional support for the denial of basic human rights. So both those standards I'll accept being an extremist.
"right now trying to do anything to make it end (for instance, conditioning US military aid or supporting holding Israel accountable under intl law) is considered an extremist position"
You're so right, since for Palestine and its supporters, making peace with Israel is indeed considered an extremist position. Very, very, sad state of affairs.
Professor Beinart, “ideas that are considered extremist at one moment in time (women's suffrage, for instance) become conventional at another. 'Extremist' is not a moral category. It simply denotes ideological unpopularity.“ Really, how about another example. Hitler’s ideas were extreme in the 1920s and became the norm a few years later. It cuts both ways.
I have looked through Ms. Albanese writings I don’t see her as an anti-Semite, she could be, but she is in the main an eloquent advocate for the Palestinian cause. In my view she relies on the new narrative that Israel is merely the latest “European colonial settler regime” and the “indigeneity of the Palestinians” and relies on the myth that all Palestinians who left as Israel was established were forcibly removed.
The famed colonial enterprise? Just which colonial power sent the Jews to harvest the wealth of Palestine to send home to the colonial power? That is the definition of colonial enterprise at its core! Of course, there was no wealth to send “home” from basically impoverished Palestine. As for the concept of indigeneity, it is by far the shakiest concept (and genetically idiotic); after all, at what point are you indigenous? 50 years, 100, 1000 and what about the people slaughtered as the Arabs first entered the country (or forced to convert or flee)? Regardless, the source of the people who are today Palestinians is an amalgam not from Canaan but from Arabia, Algeria, Bosnia, Circassia and other places, many were from next door Syria and Trans Jordan all of whom entered the land at different times. Finally, what would we call Israel’s Arab Jews? What countries are they indigenous to? Of course, they are not willing to return to the Arab countries from where they had to depart let alone go to Europe.
By far the most extreme idea that is promoted today is “Palestine from the River to the Sea”. As that would essentially remove Jewish Israeli sovereignty from the map. That would be and is truly an anti-Semitic concept. Professor Beinart and others are talking about putting Palestinians and Jews together even while these two peoples are killing each other. And yet Professor Beinart is living in a country that can’t stomach cross border illegal entry to the US of people of color who are not harboring any ill will towards anyone. How ludicrous these two contrasting concepts are.
Talk about extreme!
Dear Mr. Beinart,
First, it is not easy for me to criticize you because I still see you as a mentor. However, I beg to differ regarding extremism. Raymond Aron argued with good reason that during the May 1968 student riots, young French far-left activists tried to "ape Great History” by making preposterous claims (comparing the French police to the Waffen-SS for example). Dismantling Israel has nothing to do with equality (unless one believes that the Arabs who have colonized much of the Middle East, North Africa, and enslaved millions of Blacks should also be stripped of their independence to atone for the crimes of their ancestors - as if it were fair to punish people for crimes that took place before they were born).
Isaiah Berlin once said that if one is willing to sacrifice all moral competing values to make sure that the dearest one to his eyes prevails, he inescapably falls into tyranny. I happen to believe that the life of an animal is worth just as much as that of a human being. This is both unpopular and radical, but not extremist. Extremism is a lack of nuance. Anti-Israeli extremists do not look for a creative way to reconcile the competing rights of both Israelis and Palestinians. You guys opt for an easy solution: Israelis must have fewer national rights than Palestinians and be stripped of their sovereignty (which is illegal).
If you can’t make a distinction between Jean Valjean and Al Capone, you do not advocate radical justice or equality. You just happen to be blinded by ideology (like Inspector Javert). If you keep blaming Israel alone for the absence of peace, you are not fighting oppression, you hammer facts so they can fit your narrow ideological worldview.
Wanting to dismantle Israel comes from a different place. Nathan Weinstock told me that as far as he is concerned, his past anti-Zionism stems from a desire to please what used to be called the Third World, as the left came to see postcolonial peoples as an extension of the working class. Most of your friends on the far left have confessed that they focus so much on Israel because given the West’s colonial sins, they have a special obligation to fight the last embodiment of European imperialism. This might not be antisemitic, but once again it is irrational.
Sincerely,
Bernard
I think the problem of the 60s far left wasn't "extremism." When it came to nonviolence, King was an extremist. The problem of the far left was its flirtation with left-wing tyrannies and its dismissal of liberal democracy as bourgeois and oppressive. I've never suggested anything like that. I don't romanticize Hezbollah, Hamas, Iran, or any other anti-Israel movement with theocratic or autocratic tendencies. And I think Israeli Jews should have exactly the same individual and national rights as Palestinians in a binational equal state. I've been very clear about that. And don't worry about criticizing me. I don't mind at all.
So why don't you advocate a one state solution between Mexico and the US, Morocco and Spain, Turkey and Greece, or between the US and English-speaking Canadians ? You guys look alike to the rest of the world! We still live in a world of nation states. There is no such thing as civic nationalism. Most scholars of nationalism ceased to subscribe to Kohn's dichotomy more than two decades ago. Even the US is not really culturally neutral. Most Americans states have proclaimed English as their sole official language in the 1980s and 90s. That was no coincidence. They did so in response to the demographic growth of Hispanic communities. Canada has only one bilingual province, New Brunswick (and the Quebec government which identifies as a French state, refers to its English-speaking minority and immigrants who anglicize as a demographic threat). As Amos Oz used to say, once Hungarians and Romanians merge into one state should Jews and Palestinians do the same.
In a one state setting, there won't be communal equality. The federal government would be controlled by the Palestinians. The Israeli right too has its own version of the one-state solution (without Gaza). This is unacceptable to the Palestinians. Canada is a pretty good example. In 1982, English-Canada imposed on Quebec a constitution that it still rejects. This is largely why 49.4% of Quebecers voted "yes" to the independence referendum of 1995.
One possibility is the "parity" system advocated by Ben Gurion and Weizmann back in the 1930s, whereby both communities would share power 50-50 even after Jews become the majority. At the time, those who refused were the Palestinians, as they knew that once Jews would outnumber them, they could repeal this system with no one standing in their way. Now that the Palestinians have won the demographic war, Israelis are those who refuse to hear about binationalism, with good reason. For how long would the Palestinians accept to give veto power to the Jews who would become a minority? In the early 1990s, Czechoslovakia too had a parity system, and it crumbled very fast.
A confederation would give both peoples all the benefits of a binational state without depriving any people of its independence. It would neither dismantle any state, nor violate international law. The late Herb Kelman proposed a model of confederation that would give both peoples ownership over the entire land. Why should this be a zero-sum game when there are creative ways of reconciling the competing rights of both peoples? https://scholar.harvard.edu/hckelman/publications/one-country-two-state-solution-israeli-palestinian-conflict
I don't exclude the option of a binational state forever. In 100 years from now, the world will be completely different. But only once both peoples have developed a common identity can this solution work. A forced marriage cannot work.
By the way, most Palestinians, especially in the diaspora, oppose the idea of "parity," which you seem to advocate. Their "binationalism" encompasses only the Palestinians who live in the area of the former British Mandate, those who live in the diaspora, and Israeli-Jews (whom they see as a new "settler society"). They exclude diaspora Jews, and keep denying the existence of the Jewish people. It's pretty clear, from their point of view, that bi-nationalism is a scheme that seeks to turn Jews into a minority. This is a non-starter, even for the Israeli far left. Alas, while Israeli elites are much more moderate than average Israelis, average Palestinians are much more moderate than their elites.
I keep believing that only a "cosmological change" in both societies can end the conflict. Stephen Van Evera was right to call for a new overarching narrative based on noncontroversial facts (or "events" for those who don't believe in factual truth): Jews did not go to Palestine on vacation. This land was the life raft of a people in distress. However, the Palestinians are the victims' victim. People don't refuse to make some compromise when they feel that the other side is not a 100% wrong. Unfortunately, instead of promoting this "third way," Western elites strengthen Palestinian irredentists.
racism is sometimes interpreted as bigotry against a given race. since Jews and Palestinians aren't a "race" (an artificial concept but one that's used nonetheless) i use bigotry instead.
I wrote at some length about the charges against Corbyn. As i said "Jewish lobby" is incorrect and suggesting that it subjugates the US govt plays into stereotypes about Jews controlling the governments of the world https://forward.com/opinion/436159/yes-jeremy-corbyns-record-on-anti-semitism-is-bad-but-his-critics-are/
That charge sheet you have against Corbyn has been debunked over and again. Elementary factchecking you did not do. Please talk to us (Jews on the left) before you repeat this and if I were you I'd publish corrections to that article.
Dave, excellent comment. Beinhart has made a shoddy comment about Jeremy Corbyn and he should retract it. In no way has Corbyn ever made antiSemitic remarks even on purpose or inadvertantly. He has however cast doubt on Zionist mentality, which is certainly NOT antiSemitic.
Not sure I see much of a distinction. The comments were offensive because they played into antisemitic tropes about Jews controlling governments. I don't see any evidence that Albanese has a pattern of fomenting such conspiracy theories but her words in 2014 did unfortunately play on such tropes, whether she recognized that or not.
Thanks Adam. I appreciate it
I'm really glad to see Peter is condemning Albanese' "Jewish lobby" remarks, most of the Israel haters I've seen are busy trying to minimize her statement or chalk it up to 'mere criticism of the Israel lobby.'
But he doesn't present the full picture. That one statement was hardly the only offensive statement she made. She made multiple references comparing Israelis to Nazis, for example.
I don't know about the "people" Peter is referring to who don't like cancel culture under different circumstances, but I personally haven't seen any demands that Albanese's career be ruined. I HAVE seen demands that she not be assigned to Israel/Palestine, since she clearly has an established bias and prejudices (and I do mean prejudices). I don't see any reason why she can't be assigned to a different human rights situation, like the Uighurs in China, where she hasn't made bigoted remarks in the past about one of the sides.
Lastly, I don't know where this idea that the Israeli occupation is "institutionalized, anti-Palestinian bigotry" came from. When two countries are at war, they treat each other as enemies. The occupation is a structure put in place because of Palestine's war to destroy Israel and the tactics it has used to in the fight, such as child suicide bombers and indiscriminate murderous attacks on civilian targets. When Ukraine bombs Russian military targets, does Russia whine that the bombings are because Ukraine is racist against Russians? The entire concept is absurd.
As I told Dave, this is the essay that develops my view on Corbyn and his critics. You're welcome to disagree but it's not an unconsidered position. https://forward.com/opinion/436159/yes-jeremy-corbyns-record-on-anti-semitism-is-bad-but-his-critics-are/
It is unconsidered Peter. If you had considered the charges against Jeremy Corbyn with fact checking you would have found they are false charges. it isn't a matter of disagreement - this is the difference between fact and fiction.
1) The misspelling is a result of the transcription software
2) I've not only read Lerman's book--I've blurbed it.
3) Here's what I've written about Corbyn and antisemitism https://forward.com/opinion/436159/yes-jeremy-corbyns-record-on-anti-semitism-is-bad-but-his-critics-are/
I posted this after your other link to your article. You really are wrong multiple times about Corbyn and Labour Party left.
----------------------
That charge sheet you have against Corbyn has been debunked over and again. Elementary factchecking you did not do. Please talk to us (Jews on the left) before you repeat this and if I were you I'd publish corrections to that article.
For example, the Zionists/irony episode was about some hardline disruptive Zionists who shout down people at meetings. They have been ejected from parliament buildings and two of them have criminal records for threatening behaviour. I have been a witness to their thuggery. Corbyn's comment was mild in the extreme.
Read the materials at https://www.jewishvoiceforlabour.org.uk
Here are 10 'scams' debunked:
https://simonmaginn.medium.com/top-ten-labour-antisemitism-smears-f729646378e6
And watch the Al Jazeera Labour Files broadcasts (on Youtube) for truly shocking things about how the labour right operates.
not sure if you watched it at the time but if not you might enjoy the debate I hosted a while back on settler-colonialism https://fathomjournal.org/is-israel-a-settler-colonial-state-a-debate-between-alan-johnson-and-leila-farsakh/
I never saw this quite good. Thank you.
yes, sorry about these
Peace is achievable when Palestinians 1) accept Israel’s right to exist; 2) agree to a demilitarized state of their own next to Israel; and 3) acknowledge that the descendants of 1948 refugees are themselves not refugees and have no “right of return” to Israel, but only to a new state of Palestine.
For over 70 years there have been numerous formal and informal efforts to achieve a two state peace, but all have ended with Palestinian rejection. But times are changing as Arab countries refuse to be held hostage by Palestinian intransigence and are normalizing relations with Israel.
When the corrupt, criminal Palestinian leaders stop teaching children that one day they will ‘drive the Jews into the sea’, and instead choose to live side by side in peace, then both peoples can thrive.
I think you can bring this point up after the checkpoints are taken down, Palestinian children are not arrested or accompanied by IDF soldiers with semi-automatic rifles to school, when Palestinian homes and schools aren't bulldozed for not having permits that the Israeli gvt has sat on for years, when illegal settlers stop throwing trash at the neighbors below them and using violence on a daily basis to threaten people in their own homes and businesses, when there is access to water and electricity on Palestinian's own terms (and it's enough), when Palestinians can freely travel, etc. The list goes on. Be honest about who is in power and how it is abused..THEN you can talk about these points you bring up.
Wow, sounds like things are bad for Palestinians. Maybe they should make peace already instead of continuing their pointless war to wipe out the Jews.
You have it backwards, dear Winters. It is Israel that is trying to wipe out the Palestinians & steal their land. Have you not looked at the data?
If Israel is trying to wipe out the Palestinians, they must really suck at it. Go back to Mondoweiss.
To Winters.
Why are you in these comments? You must feel that Peter Beinart's words threaten to shed light on the evil that is settler colonialism.
Sounds like you're happy talking to yourself, no reason for me to take part.
Breathnach with another Breathless false statement
Will the real Richard Jaffee please stand up.
Talk to the families of innocent Israeli citizens who were blown up on busses, sitting in cafes, going to nightclubs, or stabbed while walking down the street — about the need for checkpoints. And protest against the corrupt Palestinian govt for paying lifetime pensions to the families of murderers who perpetrate these crimes as incentives to other terrorists before criticizing Israel for blowing up the houses of these terrorists as a disincentive for others to consider.
When Palestinians realize that living in peace next to Israel is a better option, then Palestinians will freely travel, go to school, and build a wonderful life for themselves.
How hard is it for you to understand that if you oppress a people and deny them human rights, they will resist.
Talk to the families of Palestinians who were blown up by the Israeli Air Force in the besieged Gaza Strip. The families of Palestinians shot in the street and left to bleed to death.
When Israelis realise that living in peace next to Palestine is a better option, then everyone will have a wonderful life.
Topsy turvy logic. Israel defends itself against incoming missiles and terror attacks -- never the aggressor. When the Palestinians stop teaching their children to kill Jews and instead accept living in peace their own country, the region will become safe for all.
"Never the aggressor"
75 years of Israeli aggression.
Obviously you never have read Gideon Levy & Amira Hass's articles in Haaretz.
Israel was attacked in 1948 and has been attacked continually since. The cartoon of yesteryear is still on point today. It shows an Israeli soldier standing in front of a baby stroller facing off against a Palestinian terrorist standing behind a baby stroller. The caption reads, “if the Palestinians put down their weapons there would be peace; if the Israelis put down their weapons there would be no more Israel.”
It is all awful. A tragic cycle. I'm so sorry for all of innocent Israelis and Palestinians on BOTH sides because they both exist and neither should. It's horrible.
However, your stance does not help end this horrific cycle because it only sees one side. Mr. Beinart has given a nuanced perspective here, and your response in this context rings a bit like the police response to BLM by saying All Lives Matter instead of trying to hold themselves accountable for killing innocent black people. Not an untrue response..but helpful? Harmful? The cycle continues.
You may know about them already, but one group of Israelis who've needlessly and horrifically lost innocent lives of family members (usually their own children) that I do get to talk to are in The Parent Circle. This group also happens to also have Palestinians who've lost innocent family members (again, usually children). All of these parents have had the worst thing happen to them, perpetuated by the cycle of needless violence that The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict has catalyzed. I had the chance to hear two of them this weekend, Rob Damelin and Laila Alsheikh. Robi's son was killed by a Palestinian sniper while serving in The IDF. Laila's 3 year old son was killed from effects of IDF tear gas and the inability to get to hospital because the IDF wouldn't let her through three different checkpoints and she could not get to hospital in time to save him. Both of these women have cause to hate the other side, yet they have united for peace and mutual flourishing of all sides. Same with Bassam and Rami.. two Israeli and Palestinian friends whose daughters were both murdered by the other side. These are the people breaking the cycle, despite bearing the greatest cost.
You can find out more about The Parent Circle here:
https://www.theparentscircle.org/en/pcff-home-page-en/
To hear Bassam and Rami's story or Robi's (I don't think Laila's is on here), you can go here. There's also lots of other great personal interviews of radical peacemakers. These are the cycle breakers. We have to get out of one sided narratives that keep us "okay" at the expense of others. We have to lay down our power and listen in order for ALL of us to flourish.
https://www.telosgroup.org/what-we-do/immerse/theteloschannel/undauntedpod/
I never have blamed the Palestinian people. I blame the corrupt leaders. Whether in Gaza, or in the West Bank, they live protected lives in luxurious compounds. They are the ones preventing their people from having peace by pushing a false narrative that one day they will get all of the land back. They know it’s not true, but it keeps them in power. If, and when they choose peace for their people, Israel is ready and always has been. 
Well, we can agree on bad leadership.. I’d say in both sides. But for the Palestinian people to see that Israelis and The Israeli government are serious about peace, I think the people need to see action. Right now it’s the opposite. It’s not just the Palestinian leadership that’s selling them a false narrative. Every single day, they see Israeli soldiers and settlers oppressing them.. often through violence and, always with infrastructure. That fundamentally has to change. It really is the first step. Otherwise, they have no reason to make peace.. it’s just more submission to their (literal everyday) oppressor.
The misleading press doesn’t tell the real story. Radical terror groups are growing in the West Bank, much to the concern of Israel and the PA. They attack innocent people. The IDF has been forced to step up their efforts.
1. the PLO accepted Israel in 1987 and the PA emerged from Oslo always in acceptance of Israel—both with reservations.. This seems to get forgotten. At the conclusion of a 2SS final status agreement, all Arab and likely all Muslim-majority states, including Palestine, would offer unreserved normalized relations with Israel. This is the key bargaining chip—really the only one with teeth—that the Palestinian side has. No one seriously thinks this is a showstopper to a peace agreement. To demand that the Palestinians just give away their key asset as a pre-condition just shows bad-faith and insincerity to peace negotiations.
2. A demilitarized state would be suicide—Israel would just invade, launch attacks, or impose blockades whenever the urge suited them or a right-wing government needed votes or Knesset seats without consequence or fear of reprisal. It would be in effect occupation-light. Just as Israel has a right to self-defense, so would Palestine. In 2000, this might have been considered a reasonable request but not after the last 20 years of ever increasing right-wing belligerent Israeli governments.
3. I don’t think this is an unreasonable position by the pro-Israel side, but the right of return issue is complicated and thorny. That no one seemed to anticipate this was one of the main reasons Camp David/Taba failed. No Palestinian leader has or had the political clout to negotiate away this major concern of the diaspora over empty promises. There needs to be some kind of just compensation or repatriation plan and broad regional support and major international investment inside of Palestine, likely with major direct gulf state funding. Until such a plan was in place and guarantees given, the Palestinians would be stupid to agree to any empty paper bags offered by the Israelis. In my opinion, this plan and all the details should be in made public before anyone even sits down to negotiate.
If a child throws temper tantrums to get something, but doesn’t get their way because that’s not how one behaves, should they continue down that path? Should parents give in and finally give it to them?
The horrific and corrupt Palestinian leaders refuse to negotiate in good faith. They tell Westerners one thing and their own people something completely different. Rather than accepting their own country next to Israel, which they could have had for 75 years, they continue to push the false narrative that one day the land from the river to the sea will be theirs. Imagine how things would have been, and still could be, if instead of deceiving their people and pushing hatred, they decided on peace. Israel and other Arab countries understand their rejectionism and intransigence and are moving on. Sad for the citizens who would thrive if given be chance.
“Rather than accepting their own country”
Who are the ones who will never accept an independent Palestine?
It’s essentially illegal to display a Palestinian flag in Israel now. The PA is literally begging western nations to bring the Israelis to the negotiating table. Even
Trump came to see the truth of who the intransigent party was.
The outgoing PM Lapid made the most milquetoast of sentiments about supporting the 2SS and was panned by all opponents and even some allies and he was subsequently shown to the door by Israeli voters. Who is his replacement? The same guy who committed his career to opposing Oslo and the 2SS. He showed that Israel no longer has to pretend to want a “just and lasting peace” with the Palestinians. An acceptable peace can be imposed from the cockpit of an F-15 and by the authoritarian jackboot of occupation without any sacrifice or compromise.
In the aftermath of disappointment of Camp David and of the horrors of the second intifada, I would have agreed with you. But in the 15-20 years since I’ve come to see that the Israeli public by and large was never going to support and commit to anything else. It was a lie; it was always a lie.
The onus is on the Palestinians. Following Camp David and Taba, following the Intifadas, following the continued murder of Israelis with stabbings, car rammings, et.al., following the incitement to violence by Palestinian leaders. The Palestinians have shown NO interest in a 2SS. But if they truly are ready, they need to state so clearly along the lines of what I previously posted.
The Israelis took the land in 1967 and inherited its inhabitants and previously dispossessed beginning the paradigm of “land for peace” as well as the call for a just settlement with “the refugees.” From that point forward, the onus was always on Israel as we can all see in retrospect that they never had any intention of relinquishing that territory.
Whatever sympathy and patience the world had for Israel living with enemies on its borders or having to negotiate with Arafat has long evaporated. It is not Abbas or the ghost of Arafat driving settlement expansion beyond the green line, killing of American journalists, evictions in East Jerusalem and Area C, or voting booth levers to fall for the extreme right-wing Zionist parties.
There hasn’t been a coordinated suicide bomber campaign in 15 years and Israel has taken every opportunity to discredit non-violent means of pursuing Palestinian self-determination, namely economic boycotts and pursing claims at the UN and ICC/ICJ. It is the very idea of a Palestine on land that they covet that they oppose; Palestinian violence and historic miscalculations and ineptitude by its leadership just obscured this basic truth.
The 3rd Intifada is coming and my heart goes out to all the Israelis and Palestinians who will suffer and grieve over lost loved-ones. But Israel has chosen the path of the international pariah and doubled-down on the cycle of violence willfully and has no one else to blame.
Israel won the war in 1967 against Jordan after pleading with Jordan to stay out of it. They didn’t “take” the land. They then called on the Palestinians to negotiate two states, time after time. Rejected every time with increasing levels of murder against Israelis. Israel made offers to return nearly all of the West Bank. But it was never enough for the Palestinians — not when they brainwash their children that one day all of the land will be theirs. That they are refugees.
They are not refugees, they are descendants of refugees, much as most people around the world. Yet this nonstarter “right of return” has been the kill button on every negotiation. At Camp David, after both the Israeli and Palestinian teams had reached an agreement with Clinton and Barak ready to sign, Arafat refused, walked away and launched the Intifada. The Saudis called him a criminal for doing so.
So while you look to cast blame on the Israelis, it has been and continues to be the rejectionist Palestinians who have prevented peace.
You can repeat your anti-Palestinian manifesto ad nauseam but it will always be based on hatred for the people and a refusal to accept the criminal nature of the Israeli regime and its history of murder of the Palestinians.
As for "Arab countries refuse to be held hostage by Palestinian intransigence", you are presumably referring to the corrupt and repressive regimes that apartheid Israel naturally gets along well with. The thoughts and beliefs of the Arab peoples on those countries - as well as of many ordinary people from the West - were on display during the World Cup in Qatar. The overriding theme was solidarity with the Palestinians, hostility to apartheid Israel. As for your words about 'both peoples': there are humans, there are not 'peoples'. Jewish people are inherently identical to all other humans and cannot demand to live separately with their own privileges at the expense of other humans.
"Multiple studies have been conducted to gauge Arab public opinion in recent years about the importance of Palestine, most notably the Arab Opinion Index survey conducted by the Arab Centre for Research and Policy Studies in 2020. This poll found that 85 percent of respondents opposed normalization with Israel. Indeed, the Arab people remain clear in their allegiance to the Palestinian struggle for freedom. No Arab country deviated from this rule, from the Arabian Peninsula to North Africa."
https://popularresistance.org/on-hate-and-love-at-the-world-cup-palestine-is-more-than-an-arab-cause/
So long as you blindly and naïvely continue to push this false narrative, the people you are hurting are the Palestinian people. Israel and its neighbors will move forward and the Palestinians will continue to be left behind because of their own corrupt leadership and enablers like you. Shame on you.
That may well be my last comment about this topic. I understand now why Camus decided to retreat into silence when he realized that he just could not get his message across (I would never dare to compare myself to Camus, but I'm tired of preaching in the desert).
Extremist ideas don’t age well. The 20th century was full of extremist ideas, and none of them lasted. One can oppose oppression without closing ranks with fanatics. Wasn’t possible to oppose the War in Vietnam without endorsing the Vietcong or chanting, “Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Minh”? Wasn’t it possible to oppose the oppression of the Algerians without endorsing the excesses of the FLN?
I really like Peter Beinart, and “The Icarus Syndrome” remains one of my formative books. However, I just don’t understand this flirt with the regressive left (not that I don’t understand where this drive comes from, I used to be a Trot in my teenage years about 15-20 years ago).
I really believe that down the road, moderates on both sides will prevail. The occupation will end one way or another, and future generations of Israelis will feel guilty about it. Palestinians will acknowledge that Zionism cannot just be depicted as a mere colonialist endeavour. (By the way, it’s not true that Israel’s founders identified with European colonialism; even Ilan Pappe acknowledges that while early Zionists did so, by the time of the second Aliyah, Zionism depicted itself as a colonization movement without colonialism. This, of course, does not contradict the fact that the Palestinians suffered an injustice.) The Western intelligentsia too will stop transposing its post-colonial guilt onto Israel and find it odd that within the same Century Jews went from being massacred for being nonwhites to becoming the embodiment of “White privilege” (this is what happens when symbols take over reality). And perhaps right-wingers will stop being supportive of Israel merely because they happen to see it as the West’s defence line against a so-called expansionist Islamic world (while less than a Century ago, they saw Jews as aliens to the Christian West).
When people move beyond their ideological frenzy (that have a lot in common with religious delusion), they can finally see this conflict for what it is: a clash of rights. Zionism was a necessity, even in the late 1940s, as Jews were still persecuted or rejected everywhere, and there was no way of predicting that their condition would improve so much during the second part of the 20th century. Those who claim that a Jewish state should have been established in Germany fail to understand that the Israeli society had already existed for decades. Whatever one thinks about Zionists, it is undeniable that they were right to argue that Western societies, which were predominantly antisemitic, would not welcome an unlimited number of Jews. They turned out to be right, as by the 1920s, Palestine really became the only haven left for Jews. Hence, they were in a state of necessity that totally justifies the conquest of (only) part of Palestine. A distinction needs to be made between conquest based on greed and one based on necessity (unless one believes that there is no significant difference between Jean Valjean and Al Capone). Radical anti-Zionists may not be antisemites, but they are guilty of subscribing to Inspector Javert’s ruthless ethics
.
That said, the Palestinians suffered an injustice, and instead of trying to repair it, Israel refuses to renounce its irredentist madness. However, the Palestinians too are unable to accept a peace agreement that would not leave the door open for additional claims in the future (virtually all Palestinian negotiators acknowledge now that they oppose Clinton’s parameters, especially regarding the refugee issue).
But instead of strengthening the handful of Palestinian Liberals and the remnants of the Israeli left, Peter Beinart add fuel to fire by endorsing Palestinian irredentism. This is just meaningless. What do you want, Mr. Beinart, Palestinian ownership over the whole land? This is feasible in a confederal framework with open borders, a joint foreign policy, a joint currency, and even a joint confederal army (or gendarmerie). Such an entity would have all the trappings/paraphernalia of a federal state without depriving both peoples of their sovereignty. Just five years ago, you found this idea too radical!
I’m pretty sure that ultimately, both sides will come to their senses and reach an agreement along these lines. Israeli irredentists will then become a dying breed (just like the supporters of French rule in Algeria or those who believe that the US should have stayed in Vietnam) and Palestinian irredentists (especially their leftist fellow travellers in the West) will be remembered with a mix of derision and indulgence – pretty much like former Maos and Trots nowadays.
How do I know all this? I speculate, but I’m confident. After all, it took half a Century to rehabilitate "Algerian Liberals" (anti-colonialist settlers and moderate Algerian nationalists) who opposed the diehard logic of French settlers and Algerian radical nationalists. They were isolated and beleaguered at the time, but they have won the battle of posterity (as opposed to the likes of Jean-Paul Sartre whose radical chic extremism did not age well).
Most of these left-wing liberals called for a sovereign Algeria associated with France (Albert Camus was slightly more “right-wing,” as he called for a more centralized confederation). By the way, left-wing intellectuals loved to depict Camus as a poor White colonist who refused to renounce his privilege (Sartre, Said, Beauvoir). These allegations were, of course, preposterous, and they now ring hollow. It took half a Century for moderates to prevail in Algeria. They will ultimately prevail in Israel and Palestine as well! Alas, I won’t be there to celebrate my triumph! Fortunately, Beinart won’t be there to lament his loss!
No matter what, Beinart remains the author of “The Icarus Syndrome.” I will remain eternally grateful for this beautiful book!
Sincerely,
B. Bohbot
Ah, the old "moderates on both sides will prevail" canard. Was it 'extreme' for the US and UK to launch a military invasion of France in June 1944? It certainly wasn't a 'moderate' action, causing as it did many deaths and injuries in order to eliminate fascism from Europe. Zionism is as fascist as anything promoted by Mussolini or Hitler. It can never be anything else; it is a racist ideology that positions one ethno-religious group above other human beings which it openly regards as lesser. Apartheid Israel was, and is, a settler-colonialist endeavour that its Zionist leaders fully admitted required the ethnic cleansing of the existing inhabitants of the land the Zionists stole.
Ease off on the rabid hatred, James. Jews have the same rights of self-determination as every other indigenous nation. Happy Hanukkah.
“Zionism is as fascist as anything promoted by Mussolini or Hitler. It can never be anything else; it is a racist ideology that positions one ethno-religious group above other human beings which it openly regards as lesser.”
Whenever someone stoops to comparing anything to Nazi Germany it becomes a commentary on who they are. The Nazis rounded up people and exterminated them. They invaded surrounding countries. They promoted a racial purity doctrine. They personified evil.
The more I read your comments, Rebecca, the more you come across as a rabid antisemite and one who has lost any sense of objectivity. Shame, shame, shame…
Your constant harping on the treatment of the poor Palestinians is tiresome. Maybe they should attempt to meet the needs of Israel (accept a Jewish state, agree that the refugees will not resettle in Israel, and possibly accept that their state would be demilitarized for a certain amount of time) instead of constantly bemoaning that they are victims. I guess Mr. Beinart would not get invited to so many conferences or interviews if these steps were taken, but at least we would be free of his tendentious drivel!
Your comments about Jeremy Corbyn appear to be based on the lies about him published in the UK media. There is no free and unbiased mainstream media in the UK. To get any kind of unbiased view in the UK you must get online and visit sites such as Byline times, Novaramedia and the London Economic to name but a few. Very recent polling concerning the current strike action by workers in the UK has people’s trust in the mainstream media down to %12 believing what they print, I think this includes tv. As to the Jewish lobby in the US, is there one or isn’t there one? If there is one then what does it do? Is it racist to be critical?
Thanks you so much. This is so incredibly well put, as always.