"He’s also been unfairly accused of antisemitism himself merely for using the phrase “free Palestine from the river to the sea”—even though Marc has never remotely suggested that Israeli Jews don’t deserve freedom, equality, and safety themselves"
Peter, I know you and your readers will never understand this, but most people and certainly most Jews see calling for the destruction of the one Jewish state in existence anti-Jewish, in part because the state is of great benefit and secures the rights of millions of Jews.
Calling for Jews to be stripped of their state and their right of self-determination does in fact indicate Marc doesn't think they deserve equality. This is completely obvious to anyone who is not blinded ideologically.
But that’s not really how people on the western left think, very generally speaking.
In modern usage, “…from the River to the Sea” is unmoored from its 100-year old Arab rejectionist roots to be just a slogan an outsider repeats to show solidarity and sympathy with the Palestinians using their own voice and language. That’s almost certainly what a left-liberal like Marc Lamont Hill intended and I suspect even his critics know this. It’s the open sympathy for Palestinians which is problematic to his critics and is what they endeavor to publicly stigmatize.
And even if it were a sincerely held position, its hard to get too worked up over Arab rejectionist sloganeering when it’s Likudnik equivalent—that no Arab-majority Palestine, even in the context of a 2SS, has any right to exist nor will it ever be allowed to exist—is now such a common uncontroversial position on the Israeli and Jewish Diaspora Right. They’re kind of morally-equivalent positions in the context of the Israel-Palestine conflict.
When we see "from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free", we don't really MEAN "from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free." Thanks for mansplaining Hill's position for us, but he's a pretty smart guy and I think he knows what his words means. Nice damage control, though, a really good attempt. The whataboutery is a nice touch too, never hurts to throw that in.
Do you think he meant these words he also said? You don’t bring those up.
“My reference to “river to the sea” was not a call to destroy anything or anyone. It was a call for justice, both in Israel and in the West Bank/Gaza. The speech very clearly and specifically said those things. No amount of debate will change what I actually said or what I meant.”
A "call for justice", another dog whistle to the Palestine supporters he's speaking to. The phrase means what it means, it doesn't change meaning when it's inconvenient. Hill got caught spreading hate, he tried to walk it back, but it's too late. Much, much too late.
The origin of the official American consensus position on Israel-Palestine for the last 5 decades was laid out by LBJ in the aftermath of the 6-Day War in June of 1967.
He explicitly frames the concern for Palestinian refugees as a matter of humanitarianism and justice. This was also the basis for the “Just Peace” language in the US-sponsored UN Security Council Resolution 242 of that year. That's the way American liberals and--until recently--conservatives have always thought about the conflict. There’s no dog-whistle here:
“The first and greatest principle is that every nation in the area has a fundamental right to live and to have this right respected by its neighbors.
"For the people of the Middle East the path to hope does not lie in threats to end the life of any nation. Such threats have become a burden to the peace, not only of that region but a burden to the peace of the entire world.
[PR: In these last two paragraphs he confirms Israel’s right to exist and to security]
"In the same way, no nation would be true to the United Nations Charter or to its own true interests if it should permit military success to blind it to the fact that its neighbors have rights and its neighbors have interests of their own. Each nation, therefore, must accept the right of others to live.
[PR: He confirms that Arab states, such as Syria, Egypt, and Jordan, have the same rights as Israel]
"This last month [PR: the events of the 6-Day War and aftermath in June 1967], I think, shows us another basic requirement for settlement. It is a human requirement: justice for the refugees. [PR: In this context, he refers to whom we now call the Palestinians]
"A new conflict has brought new homelessness. The nations of the Middle East must at last address themselves to the plight of those who have been displaced by wars. In the past, both sides have resisted the best efforts of outside mediators to restore the victims of conflict to their homes or to find them other proper places to live and work. There will be no peace for any party in the Middle East unless this problem is attacked with new energy by all and, certainly, primarily by those who are immediately concerned.”
-President Johnson, Speech on Five Principles of Peace in the Middle East
Just out of curiosity, are there any other nationalities that you believe deserve harassment on the basis of their identity? Would Israelis be justified in harassing Palestinians at the World Cup, as revenge for all the mass murder and terrorism?
"the power disparities that exist between Black Americans and white American Jews"... between, say, Clarence Thomas/Barack Obama/NYC Mayor Adams and, say, low-income American Jewish people. Are those the power disparities you meant? To stereotype Jewish people as powerful and wealthy, and Black people as poor and powerless, is to ignore the defining and founding feature of America: class power relations with their inherent inequalities between the working class of any description and the ruling class of employers and political elite. It is also, obviously, to accept the anti-semitic stereotype as true.
There is no antisemitic stereotype. The people who claim they are victims of antisemitism are not Semites. The term "anti-Semitism" should be replaced with the term "AntiZionism" since it's the Zionist movement that created the term "anti-Semitism" in order to usurp a pseudo Semitic/Hebraic/Jewish identity which is the foundation of the Zionist Colonial project in Palaestine and the root cause of the plight of Palaestinians and the lack of attention by the Zionist controlled mainstream media and their controlled politicians and corporations...
This is bigoted nonsense. I don't know what you mean by a pseudo-Jewish identity but there are real people called Jews who have a deep historical connection to the land of Israel-Palestine and who face bigotry, which in the past has even been genocidal. And no, Zionists don't control the media, polticians and corporations--they have influence, but so do other organized lobbies and talking in these conspiratorial terms crosses the line into anti-Jewish bigotry.
Peter, just so you know, when you have anti-Semitic comments like these up on your blog, and you don't even bother to say you disagree with them, you are proving your critics right and helping to platform hate. We both know you are capable and willing of leaving comments, as you have responded to me many times, so any choosing not to address Science Cathedral's rant above is illustrative of your priorities. Why should anyone trust your views on what anti-Semitism is and isn't when you have anti-Semites posting on your blog and you don't seem to care in the slightest? How do you think this reflects on the pro-Palestine movement you so often speak for, when one of its big representatives has anti-Semites posting away on their Substack?
I'm responding to these comments now because I just saw them. Winters--of course I will condemn antisemitism when I see it. I've been doing so my entire life because my principles, not to mention my self-interest, require me to. Not because I need to prove something to people who can't see the basic justice in the Palestine right to equality and freedom.
I've seen numerous anti-Semitic comments on your substack that you haven't responded to, but of course you can't respond to everything. I'm glad you've condemned these comments. Keep it up.
I hope Marc Lamont Hill addresses black antisemitism: Black Israelites, Ye, black vs Jewish violence (over 60% of physical violence against Jews), the hypocrisy of black leaders in failing to condemn Kyrie Irving, the unfair singling out of Israel at the UN, his cozying up to Farrakhan, and his lame attempt to excuse his deliberate use of “from the River to the Sea” knowing it was specifically the phrase used to call for wiping out Israel.
You have a problem with the Palestinians being excluded from the American Dream?
Packer aside, the more than half dozen number of times the US and the Western powers have tried to get the Palestinians and Israelis to the table is part of the reason I suspect Packer is not bothering with the Palestinians. The other should be obvious, what democratic institutions do the Palestinians espouse? Where are they? Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Palestinian Authority?
I am not suggesting this is a one-sided problem, but it is a fact, that Palestinians have been to the table, have been offered all kinds of deals and have tended to negotiate them in earnest but in the end always said No. It is a truism that the Palestinians have never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity (Abba Eban).
There is also no question that the way Palestinian entities, and there are multiple entities seeking to speak for the Palestinians, interact with each other and with Israel is solely via violence driving Israelis to their own guns. After all, there is no single entity with which to negotiate.
In such climate few diplomats are interested in entering yet again. Thus, leaving the Palestinians to currently interact with possibly the worst Israeli government tin Israel’s history. This government is totally committed to the destruction of the Palestinian State.
The idea espoused here and by some others that the US can force Israel to create a Palestinian state by withdrawing military aid is ludicrous. It did not work in the past when Israel was truly dependent on the US. In fact, the juggernaut that is Israel’s military industrial complex was created as a result of such attempts. Today Israel is pretty much independent economically. The military aid Israel gets is mostly going to the American military industrial complex, they are the ones who would feel the pain the most.
I don’t know how Palestine will come to be, but I am confident it will not be as a result of attacks from Hamas, or teenagers oppressed or otherwise in the West Bank. It's time for more sober minds to reassess their condition and look for another way.
Re: Packer’s blind spot on Palestinians. Peter… have you commented on Arc of a Covenant? (Or invited Walter Russell Mead for a chat?). To me it explains America’s blind spot. The question is how do America Jews push back against the restorationism that’s baked into our foreign policy…
Years ago, during a New Yorker Festival, George Packer hosted a panel discussion in which he called three prominent Muslim intellectuals, including Azar Nafisi, to account for the fact that "the Muslim World," as he called it, had never undergone a period comparable to the European Enlightenment. In other words, to paraphrase Chevy Chase, "We're white, and you're not." That told me all I needed to know about George Packer. I haven't paid any attention to him since.
Wow, Tony Greenstein? Your blog attracts some real charmers, Beinart. Still, it’s nice to see Tony’s taking his grift dollars at an unemployment center. Sic semper antisemites.
Hello, if you disagree that’s fine but at least give a reasoned argument to support your position. Margaret Thatcher reportedly said “if they start to call you names [real charmers] then they’ve lost the argument”. Maybe the “anonymous “ label says it all?
Tell you what, why don’t you tell me what specifically in that diatribe you think is correct in your own words and then we can have a conversation about it?
Regarding George Packer, except for helping places which have had natural disasters and fighting world wars, it's difficult to think of a country where the USA has been a benign influence politically. They are certainly in the minority.
It is interesting that the 2 comments so far start from different perspectives but end up with same conclusion. The conclusion is that antisemitism is the reason for all criticism of Jews and Israel. They remind me of my mother and her friends. Anything bad that happened to them was attributed to antisemitism. They had good reasons to think that way given what has happened to Jews. My mother, like so many others, lost her own extended family in Poland. However, that can't can't justify abusing others. When we bought our first house in Toronto in early 50's, my parents wanted to rent a room to help pay the mortgage. The first person who came was black. I heard my mother tell him that the room was already rented. If a streetcar did not stop for my mother because it was full, she said that the streetcar driver was an antisemite. Yes, sometimes there is good reason to be paranoid but it can hinder clear thinking.
I also didn't find it convincing at all
"He’s also been unfairly accused of antisemitism himself merely for using the phrase “free Palestine from the river to the sea”—even though Marc has never remotely suggested that Israeli Jews don’t deserve freedom, equality, and safety themselves"
Peter, I know you and your readers will never understand this, but most people and certainly most Jews see calling for the destruction of the one Jewish state in existence anti-Jewish, in part because the state is of great benefit and secures the rights of millions of Jews.
Calling for Jews to be stripped of their state and their right of self-determination does in fact indicate Marc doesn't think they deserve equality. This is completely obvious to anyone who is not blinded ideologically.
But that’s not really how people on the western left think, very generally speaking.
In modern usage, “…from the River to the Sea” is unmoored from its 100-year old Arab rejectionist roots to be just a slogan an outsider repeats to show solidarity and sympathy with the Palestinians using their own voice and language. That’s almost certainly what a left-liberal like Marc Lamont Hill intended and I suspect even his critics know this. It’s the open sympathy for Palestinians which is problematic to his critics and is what they endeavor to publicly stigmatize.
And even if it were a sincerely held position, its hard to get too worked up over Arab rejectionist sloganeering when it’s Likudnik equivalent—that no Arab-majority Palestine, even in the context of a 2SS, has any right to exist nor will it ever be allowed to exist—is now such a common uncontroversial position on the Israeli and Jewish Diaspora Right. They’re kind of morally-equivalent positions in the context of the Israel-Palestine conflict.
When we see "from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free", we don't really MEAN "from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free." Thanks for mansplaining Hill's position for us, but he's a pretty smart guy and I think he knows what his words means. Nice damage control, though, a really good attempt. The whataboutery is a nice touch too, never hurts to throw that in.
Do you think he meant these words he also said? You don’t bring those up.
“My reference to “river to the sea” was not a call to destroy anything or anyone. It was a call for justice, both in Israel and in the West Bank/Gaza. The speech very clearly and specifically said those things. No amount of debate will change what I actually said or what I meant.”
- Marc Lamont Hill
A "call for justice", another dog whistle to the Palestine supporters he's speaking to. The phrase means what it means, it doesn't change meaning when it's inconvenient. Hill got caught spreading hate, he tried to walk it back, but it's too late. Much, much too late.
The origin of the official American consensus position on Israel-Palestine for the last 5 decades was laid out by LBJ in the aftermath of the 6-Day War in June of 1967.
He explicitly frames the concern for Palestinian refugees as a matter of humanitarianism and justice. This was also the basis for the “Just Peace” language in the US-sponsored UN Security Council Resolution 242 of that year. That's the way American liberals and--until recently--conservatives have always thought about the conflict. There’s no dog-whistle here:
“The first and greatest principle is that every nation in the area has a fundamental right to live and to have this right respected by its neighbors.
"For the people of the Middle East the path to hope does not lie in threats to end the life of any nation. Such threats have become a burden to the peace, not only of that region but a burden to the peace of the entire world.
[PR: In these last two paragraphs he confirms Israel’s right to exist and to security]
"In the same way, no nation would be true to the United Nations Charter or to its own true interests if it should permit military success to blind it to the fact that its neighbors have rights and its neighbors have interests of their own. Each nation, therefore, must accept the right of others to live.
[PR: He confirms that Arab states, such as Syria, Egypt, and Jordan, have the same rights as Israel]
"This last month [PR: the events of the 6-Day War and aftermath in June 1967], I think, shows us another basic requirement for settlement. It is a human requirement: justice for the refugees. [PR: In this context, he refers to whom we now call the Palestinians]
"A new conflict has brought new homelessness. The nations of the Middle East must at last address themselves to the plight of those who have been displaced by wars. In the past, both sides have resisted the best efforts of outside mediators to restore the victims of conflict to their homes or to find them other proper places to live and work. There will be no peace for any party in the Middle East unless this problem is attacked with new energy by all and, certainly, primarily by those who are immediately concerned.”
-President Johnson, Speech on Five Principles of Peace in the Middle East
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/president-johnson-speech-on-five-principles-for-peace-in-the-middle-east-june-1967
Beinart, I noticed you retweeted Daoud Kuttab who said that Israelis deserve to be harassed at the World Cup:
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhB7nEFSdK3LNhuVvOeK1ExiEbrNK-0GcbiYgTGpCAds_3S7x0pL314URzPjK7Pv1oovI5hKsCIPByb4hkqqiomHik6FzvIKlL2-mq2_dQAC36fKlPMcDfgRcBUwoOqutkCPOBwOXvJutJnaHas85J01OhmUVE6Gh2xRSTmjzipEEIZiLI-5E0/s632/kuttab.png
Just out of curiosity, are there any other nationalities that you believe deserve harassment on the basis of their identity? Would Israelis be justified in harassing Palestinians at the World Cup, as revenge for all the mass murder and terrorism?
"the power disparities that exist between Black Americans and white American Jews"... between, say, Clarence Thomas/Barack Obama/NYC Mayor Adams and, say, low-income American Jewish people. Are those the power disparities you meant? To stereotype Jewish people as powerful and wealthy, and Black people as poor and powerless, is to ignore the defining and founding feature of America: class power relations with their inherent inequalities between the working class of any description and the ruling class of employers and political elite. It is also, obviously, to accept the anti-semitic stereotype as true.
There is no antisemitic stereotype. The people who claim they are victims of antisemitism are not Semites. The term "anti-Semitism" should be replaced with the term "AntiZionism" since it's the Zionist movement that created the term "anti-Semitism" in order to usurp a pseudo Semitic/Hebraic/Jewish identity which is the foundation of the Zionist Colonial project in Palaestine and the root cause of the plight of Palaestinians and the lack of attention by the Zionist controlled mainstream media and their controlled politicians and corporations...
This is bigoted nonsense. I don't know what you mean by a pseudo-Jewish identity but there are real people called Jews who have a deep historical connection to the land of Israel-Palestine and who face bigotry, which in the past has even been genocidal. And no, Zionists don't control the media, polticians and corporations--they have influence, but so do other organized lobbies and talking in these conspiratorial terms crosses the line into anti-Jewish bigotry.
Peter, just so you know, when you have anti-Semitic comments like these up on your blog, and you don't even bother to say you disagree with them, you are proving your critics right and helping to platform hate. We both know you are capable and willing of leaving comments, as you have responded to me many times, so any choosing not to address Science Cathedral's rant above is illustrative of your priorities. Why should anyone trust your views on what anti-Semitism is and isn't when you have anti-Semites posting on your blog and you don't seem to care in the slightest? How do you think this reflects on the pro-Palestine movement you so often speak for, when one of its big representatives has anti-Semites posting away on their Substack?
I'm responding to these comments now because I just saw them. Winters--of course I will condemn antisemitism when I see it. I've been doing so my entire life because my principles, not to mention my self-interest, require me to. Not because I need to prove something to people who can't see the basic justice in the Palestine right to equality and freedom.
I've seen numerous anti-Semitic comments on your substack that you haven't responded to, but of course you can't respond to everything. I'm glad you've condemned these comments. Keep it up.
I need to speak with you privately asap.
I hope Marc Lamont Hill addresses black antisemitism: Black Israelites, Ye, black vs Jewish violence (over 60% of physical violence against Jews), the hypocrisy of black leaders in failing to condemn Kyrie Irving, the unfair singling out of Israel at the UN, his cozying up to Farrakhan, and his lame attempt to excuse his deliberate use of “from the River to the Sea” knowing it was specifically the phrase used to call for wiping out Israel.
You have a problem with the Palestinians being excluded from the American Dream?
Packer aside, the more than half dozen number of times the US and the Western powers have tried to get the Palestinians and Israelis to the table is part of the reason I suspect Packer is not bothering with the Palestinians. The other should be obvious, what democratic institutions do the Palestinians espouse? Where are they? Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Palestinian Authority?
I am not suggesting this is a one-sided problem, but it is a fact, that Palestinians have been to the table, have been offered all kinds of deals and have tended to negotiate them in earnest but in the end always said No. It is a truism that the Palestinians have never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity (Abba Eban).
There is also no question that the way Palestinian entities, and there are multiple entities seeking to speak for the Palestinians, interact with each other and with Israel is solely via violence driving Israelis to their own guns. After all, there is no single entity with which to negotiate.
In such climate few diplomats are interested in entering yet again. Thus, leaving the Palestinians to currently interact with possibly the worst Israeli government tin Israel’s history. This government is totally committed to the destruction of the Palestinian State.
The idea espoused here and by some others that the US can force Israel to create a Palestinian state by withdrawing military aid is ludicrous. It did not work in the past when Israel was truly dependent on the US. In fact, the juggernaut that is Israel’s military industrial complex was created as a result of such attempts. Today Israel is pretty much independent economically. The military aid Israel gets is mostly going to the American military industrial complex, they are the ones who would feel the pain the most.
I don’t know how Palestine will come to be, but I am confident it will not be as a result of attacks from Hamas, or teenagers oppressed or otherwise in the West Bank. It's time for more sober minds to reassess their condition and look for another way.
Re: Packer’s blind spot on Palestinians. Peter… have you commented on Arc of a Covenant? (Or invited Walter Russell Mead for a chat?). To me it explains America’s blind spot. The question is how do America Jews push back against the restorationism that’s baked into our foreign policy…
i've read part of it and am talking to him. thanks for the suggestion
Years ago, during a New Yorker Festival, George Packer hosted a panel discussion in which he called three prominent Muslim intellectuals, including Azar Nafisi, to account for the fact that "the Muslim World," as he called it, had never undergone a period comparable to the European Enlightenment. In other words, to paraphrase Chevy Chase, "We're white, and you're not." That told me all I needed to know about George Packer. I haven't paid any attention to him since.
America is not in the right on Ukraine. Please read "How the West Brought War to Ukraine" by Benjamin Abelow.
You are responding so please respond to me. I cannot speak openly.
I need to speak with you immediately. Please! I'm begging you.You do not understand what's flying here. You must contact me.
Hello, I enjoy reading your blog, it gives me a perspective on these issues I might otherwise be ignorant of. I wondered if you might be interested in the following https://azvsas.blogspot.com/2022/11/why-ken-livingstone-was-right-when-he.html
Wow, Tony Greenstein? Your blog attracts some real charmers, Beinart. Still, it’s nice to see Tony’s taking his grift dollars at an unemployment center. Sic semper antisemites.
Hello, if you disagree that’s fine but at least give a reasoned argument to support your position. Margaret Thatcher reportedly said “if they start to call you names [real charmers] then they’ve lost the argument”. Maybe the “anonymous “ label says it all?
Tell you what, why don’t you tell me what specifically in that diatribe you think is correct in your own words and then we can have a conversation about it?
So you can’t give a reasoned argument.
Sounds to me like you’re the one who can’t do so.
Regarding George Packer, except for helping places which have had natural disasters and fighting world wars, it's difficult to think of a country where the USA has been a benign influence politically. They are certainly in the minority.
It is interesting that the 2 comments so far start from different perspectives but end up with same conclusion. The conclusion is that antisemitism is the reason for all criticism of Jews and Israel. They remind me of my mother and her friends. Anything bad that happened to them was attributed to antisemitism. They had good reasons to think that way given what has happened to Jews. My mother, like so many others, lost her own extended family in Poland. However, that can't can't justify abusing others. When we bought our first house in Toronto in early 50's, my parents wanted to rent a room to help pay the mortgage. The first person who came was black. I heard my mother tell him that the room was already rented. If a streetcar did not stop for my mother because it was full, she said that the streetcar driver was an antisemite. Yes, sometimes there is good reason to be paranoid but it can hinder clear thinking.
Palestine is the exception that disproves the rule.
But actually are the Palestinians all that unique in questioning the benevolence of American hegemonic striving? Don’t think so.
Amen! Not only does the U.S. block our emancipation, the U.S. is an active co-partner with Israel in oppressing Palestinians.