There will no Zoom call this Friday, December 23 or the following Friday, December 30. We’ll resume on Friday, January 6. The Beinart Notebook makes a great holiday gift! Sources Cited in this Video The Times of Israel article that launched the attack on UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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/
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/
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/
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/
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.
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
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.