Our Zoom call this week, for paid subscribers, will be at our regular time: Noon EDT. Our guest will be Abdelnasser Rashid. Abdelnasser is a member of the Illinois House of Representatives, the first Palestinian-American ever to serve in that body. He grew up in the West Bank town of Turmus Ayya, 25 miles north of Jerusalem. And he
These are good points, Tano. I should have acknowledged that the court can't outlaw legacy admissions, so far as I know. And you're right that it ruled on free speech grounds in the website designer case. But there's a larger political context: decades of conservatives using the language of anti-bigotry to oppose affirmative action in the name of meritocracy while ignoring legacy admissions--which they could pressure colleges to change on their own. And the recent obsession with the idea that conservative Christians are an oppressed class. Without those political efforts, neither of these decisions take place.
Peter, I'm really quite surprised you didn't agree with the Supreme Court's decision on affirmative action.
You claim to oppose the Supreme Court's opposition to "the one element that’s designed to help Black and Hispanic Americans, groups that have historically been discriminated against in the United States" and that "all these other privileges that help white people are kind of left in place". But that is exactly what you want when it comes to Jews!
You oppose the one element (Israel) that designed to help Jews, a group that has been historically discriminated against worldwide, while having nothing to say about all the other privileges that help Arab people. You call Israel/Jewish statehood "racist" and "discriminatory".
You can't have it both ways. You can't call an institution that favors Jewish people (Israel) "racist" and "discriminatory" and then turn around and demand affirmative action, which is an institution that favors Black people, be considered A-OK.
You either support positive discrimination and unequal treatment of people based on whether or not they're historically oppressed, or you don't. You either support true, full equality of the law, regardless of what that means for minority groups, or you don't.
In this column Beinart opposes Hindu nationalism, because it allegedly opposes equal rights for Muslims in India. But in the past Beinart has made it clear he supports Ukrainian nationalism, to the point where it is worth killing and dying for. He apparently doesn’t care that Ukrainian nationalism opposes equal rights for Russians in Ukraine. And of course he has little criticism of Palestinian nationalism despite its institutional oppression of non Arabs and non Muslims.
Is there some kind of guide or criteria which can help us understand which groups are allowed to have their own states and which groups are? A skin color chart, perhaps? Or is this more of a case by case however Beinart feels like it basis?
To S. Breathnach -- and to a lesser extent -- Winters: Jewish history and Jewish fears and the Jewish obsession with and instrumentalising of being the eternal victim, more so than all others, are not and cannot be justification for oppressing others -- which is what the state of Israel does and means.
Blatant anti-Semitism posted and liked on Peter Beinart's Substack. How unsurprising. Surely all of the fine upstanding human rights loving merely anti-Zionists will be rushing to condemn this comment. Any minute now...
Nice try, but I've never said anything racist against Palestinians, and even if I had, that's not a defense of Michael's anti-Semitism, it's just whataboutery. Do you actually agree with Michael that Jews are obsessed with and instrumentalize being the eternal victim? See if you can respond to the actual topic at hand this time.
Winters, self appointed Antisemitism Tzar for this blog, always defending the indefensible, while endeavouring to smear critics of Israeli atrocities against Palestinians. Beyond Chutzpah.
I didn't realize "critics of Israeli atrocities" complain and whine about "Jewish obsession with and instrumentalising of being the eternal victim". Clearly, I need to be more like you and read more Mondoweiss and Stormfront.
Peter, would you care to weigh in on this conversation? Two of your biggest fans have no problem with Michael's statement. Shall we assume you do not either?
It depends on what you mean by "Jewish." If you mean all Jews, then that's obviously a gross and unfair exaggeration about a diverse group of people. If by "Jewish" you mean the American Jewish establishment, the leaders who claim to speak for American Jews, then it's correct. That's a major theme of my book, The Crisis of Zionism.
Seriously, Peter? He literally didn't say "the American Jewish establishment", he said "Jewish"! I think Michael said what he meant. This kind of "well he meant something else" is more at home at MAGA HQ than an allegedly progressive Substack.
You present yourself as this moral authority, looking down in judgement on Israel and Trump. But when one of your own commenters posts something blatantly anti-Semitic, your reaction is "It depends on what you mean by 'Jewish'"?
This was a softball, Peter. A nice, slow pitch right across the plate for you to knock out of the park and show people that you're still able to tell what is anti-Semitism and condemn it accordingly. And you still struck out.
But, actually, this is reassuring. Because now when Trump says "I have a great relationship with the blacks," he's not racist, because he could mean Black leadership. When David Duke says "Jewish people have put the interests of race over the interests of the American people.... Jews are filled with more hatred and rage for our race, for our heritage, for our blood than perhaps you can imagine", he's not anti-Semitic either, because he's probably talking about American Jewish leadership, and that's just legitimate criticism of them. I feel so much better now, knowing that these guys aren't actually racist and anti-Semitic. Phew!
Peter, any thoughts on Michael's comment about "the Jewish obsession with and instrumentalising of being the eternal victim"? Agreement or disagreement?
Israel’s notion, more properly Netanyahu’s, that they are cleaning out a hornet’s nest is a fallacious policy. It goes back to the 1950s when Israel responded to “Fedayeen” cross border raids by counting a certain number of such Fedayeen raids and then responding overwhelmingly. That didn’t stop them from happening again although it achieved quiet for a brief period.
Israel has come to rely on this approach exclusively and is quite willing to let the Palestinians languish in nothingness while hoping they will melt away. It was certainly the case that Israel hoped that the Palestinians would melt away in the aftermath of 1948 after all the West Bank was quiescent until after the 1967 war.
But once Israel took over the West Bank from Jordan in 67 a new Palestinian consciousness developed soon thereafter. And Israel has been slow accepting this new reality. It can no longer rely on the concept of Palestine melting away. Israel needs a completely different doctrine but unfortunately the current Netanyahu government is in bed with the equally undemocratic and equally religiously based Islamic Jihad and Hamas. Islamic Jihad, Hamas and frankly all the Palestinian resistance groups, without exception, are inherently undemocratic, theocratic Islamists and anti-Semitic organizations and they provide all the proof the Israeli public needs to accept the continuance of the current policies. In fact, they are playing right into the hands of the Netanyahu government (and prior Israeli governments).
The underlying philosophy of both Israel's current government and the Radical Arab groups are very similar. Israel’s current government believes its aggressive posture will deter Palestinians indefinitely. And Islamic Jihad, Hamas and their ilk believe that if they create enough trouble, the Jews will leave. Israel’s government has no faith in a Palestinian historicity and the Arab radicals believe similarly that the Jews are interlopers and that they will go back to where they came from if only life is made hellish for them.
No one in Israel believes that the current IDF incursion in Jenin will quiet the neighborhood or change anything. It is true that military confrontation between Israel and the neighboring Arab states have led the Arab states to disengage from war with Israel but there is no record or history of such events leading to quiet between Palestinians and Jews. Thus, each side currently plays into the false narrative they each hold believe in. And this is where we are today.
Sorry Peter, but these were two very weak arguments.
Briefly - the Supreme Court was not in a position to rule on legacy admissions, preferences for donor's kids, or any of the other non-merit based criteria used in the admissions process. The case was about race-based criteria. The Court is not a super-legislature than can simply decide to re-write all of the admissions standards for the country.
Also, as an aside, I don't think that athletic scholarships necessarily tilt the field in favor of whites.
Your argument in the other case is even worse. The court was very explicit that this was not an antidiscrimination case, it was a free-speech case. The web designer made no argument for a right to discriminate against LGBT people. She never refused to serve them with regular products or services. She only refused to create custom websites that express things that she finds religiously improper.
Nothing in the decision gives anyone the right to discriminate against LGBT people in general, it only allows vendors to refuse to create artistic expressions that they find to be immoral.
I noticed some people appropriating progressive language for these sorts of conservative ends a while ago, and call it 'fauxgressive inversion'. So maybe that's a term some people might want to adopt, I don't know.
Somewhat off-topic but there are Muslims in Pakistan (my country) who accuse people of Islamophobia when they criticize Islamic or Muslim supremacism in Pakistan. I just laugh out loud when they do that. Thankfully there's enough civil society in Pakistan that many people recognize such claims as ridiculous.
Apparently we should be looking to residents of Pakistan, a country that has Islam as its official religion and bears an atrocious human rights record, and Ireland, a country that has basically no Jews in it, as the authorities on what anti-Semitism is and what it isn't. You really can't make this stuff up.
I'm not even going to bother explaining how yours and 'Anonymous's comments are extremely stupid and fallacious, because you'd have to have a functioning brain to understand it.
"2022: Grave human rights violations continued, including enforced disappearances, torture, crackdowns on peaceful protests, attacks against journalists and violence against religious minorities and other marginalized groups. A backlash against legal gains in transgender rights led to growing violence against transgender people. The senate passed an act which would criminalize torture by state officials for the first time. Political upheaval led to major uncertainty. An economic crisis severely hampered people’s economic rights."
Even if you somehow believe Pakistan is better than Israel, it's still hardly a paragon of human rights and is in no position to point fingers at anyone else.
All of that pales in comparison to just what the Zionist militias did to Palestinians in 1948, let alone everything after that.
Ok I'll make sure to tell Pakistan not to point fingers at anyone else. Just as soon as it grows fingers and I can have a conversation with this person called 'Pakistan' I'll send the message along.
Oh PLEASE. Pakistan was formed through the ethnic cleansing of TWENTY. MILLION. PEOPLE. That makes "what the Zionist militias did to Palestinians" look like stubbing a toe.
Jinnah, "the founder of Pakistan": " "Muslims and Hindus...were irreconcilably opposed monolithic religious communities and as such, no settlement could be imposed that did not satisfy the aspirations of the former."
And you point fingers at Jews for having a state. Seriously, you guys are just too much.
"Accusing those who organize around or speak about Hinduphobia (including the persecution of Hindus) of being agents or pawns of violent, oppressive political agendas. "
Sorry but intolerance of the intolerant is not intolerance.
Aparna does not speak for Hindus who advocate for pluralism and freedom from threat of violence. Why should we endlessly tolerate the intolerant? You are silent on the genocide of Hindus and actively vilify those who fight for the rights of the downtrodden? You gas light those who have legitimate concerns BEYOND the Indian state, as pawns of the BJP.
What about the Hindu child who was jailed for blasphemy for pissing on a Madrasa in Pakistan? Or the Srilankan manager who was mobbed to death in Pakistan for taking down posters? What about Harsha, a Hindu activist shanked in broad daylight for his work? What about the thousands of RSS workers lynched in haryana, Bihar, UP? What about Kannaiyah Lal, a poor tailor, who was for his beheading after his son posted to social media that he doesn't support blasphemy laws? What about Bangladeshi Hindus who cried on a podcast after their community was attacked in a riot on Durga puja in 2021, which was banned in 2022 for fears of similar riots?
What about the caste-oppressed who are too poor to move and continue to live in fear in these states? Why did Aparna oppose CAA which aimed to give them refugee to citizen status?
What about the vandalism of Hindu temples in the UK, US, Canada and Australia? These are all issues independent of the Indian state and concern Hindus.
Advocating for one's self poltiically is the most basic right given to Americans in this beautiful country and everyone is entitled to it.
Khalid, an Indian muslim, routinely speaks out against this media bias, which hurts the Indian economy and by extension Indian Muslims.
Hi Professor Beinart, Saw, you this AM on MSNBC I thought you were highly effective. Also agree with your NY Tiimes Op. Ed. . Even though you know I disagree completely with the characterization of Isarel as apartheid.
HRW report on Apartheid April 2021. A Threshold Crossed: Israeli Authorities and the Crimes ...Human Rights Watchhttps://www.hrw.org › 2021/04/27 › threshold-crossed
Amnesty report on Apartheid Feb 21st, 2022. Israel's apartheid against Palestinians
Michael Lynk Report on Apartheid March 2022. Israel’s 55-year occupation of Palestinian Territory is apartheid – UN human rights expert | OHCHR
Its tiresome to point out to people that the word Apartheid was invented by the South African regime in 1948 to proudly convey their policies versus blacks in South Africa. The basic tenets of South African apartheid was: establishment of residential and business sections in urban areas for each race, and members of other races were barred from living, operating businesses, or owning land in them. Intermarriage was forbidden and blacks had no citizenship rights.(There were others but this is bad enough).
By the 1948 definition of Apartheid Israel does not qualify period and I am tired of pointing this out: there are no racial rules in Israel; Palestinians vote in Israel and are represented in the government often in direct proportion to their population. And you may recall the prior government had an Islamic party as part of the coalition. From a business perspective the president of Israel’s largest bank is a Palestinian Arab and just to show this is not an exception to the rule be advised 20% of Israel’s healthcare industry: doctors, pharmacists, hospital administrators and nurse are Palestinian. Not to mention most elite Israeli universities have considerable number of Arab students (almost 50% in Haifa U).
Enough, let’s get to the modern definition of apartheid. That’s right they needed a new one so in 1982 they changed the definition to mean inhumane acts of a character similar to other crimes against humanity “committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime”.
The last I checked this intentionally vague definition which has no relation to the past usage of the word apartheid, that most people identify with South Africa, also does not apply to Israel. Neither in Israel behind the green line nor the West Bank. Last I heard Arabs and Jews were cousins not different races. SO obviously the central tenet of the new definition does not apply unless you want to skip the race part.
OK so you want to ignore the race issue. Clearly will not apply within Israel and in the West Bank there is a war and the civilian Arab population is suffering. I won’t point out that both sides are doing an excellent job of making life miserable to each other. But if you want to call that apartheid then please extend it to Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria. Why? They have Palestinian refugee camps on their land within their recognized borders (Israel does not!) and they do not extend citizenship nor voting rights to Palestinian refugees.
Finally, the new definition is so wishy-washy that obviously we could call China Apartheid for its treatment of Uighurs, Iran for its treatment of gay and trans communities and of course Syria for its oppression of its own population and Turkey for its oppression of Kurds, India in Kashmir etc. Finally, in the United States here too we have apartheid. Certainly, how Black people have been treated for hundreds of years and if that does not qualify, how about Puerto Rico. Puerto Ricans get to vote in America’s presidential elections, but it doesn’t count (they have no electoral representatives). I would say that is prima facia evidence of apartheid.
Fair enough Ran, I accept what you say. At the end of the day, however, no matter what word we use to describe Israel’s actions, the truth is that Israel is holding millions of Palestinians under a brutal military occupation for over half a century. Dispossession, ethnic cleansing, stealing land etc. If Palestinians resist that occupation, well who could blame them.
I have pointed out in another thread that both Israel and its Palestinian opponents are fighting a false paradigm. Israel refuses to accept that there is a Palestinian consciousness, they think that the concept of Palestine will wash away in time. The Palestinians believe that the Jews are interlopers and merely hating them and creating a hellish time for them will drive them away from the land.
This is where we are today, and the reality now is that the primary movers on both sides of the argument are theocrats and as you well know they respond only to their maker. We are stuck in a holy war of their making until wiser folks take control away from them.
At the Twentieth Zionist Congress, in 1937, Ben Gurion advocated for the ethnic cleansing of Palestine to address what has come to be known as the “demographic threat” and to make way for a Jewish state because “growing Jewish strength in Palestine will increase our possibilities for conducting a large scale transfer.
Speaking before tens of thousands of supporters to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the founding of Hamas, Mr. Meshal said the Jewish state would be wiped away through “resistance,” or military action. “The state will come from resistance, not negotiation,” he said. “Liberation first, then statehood.”
His voice rising to a shout, Mr. Meshal said: “Palestine is ours from the river to the sea and from the south to the north. There will be no concession on any inch of the land.”
If you would like to make your own argument about why Palestinians aren't capable of making peace with Israel, do so. Spamming links from fringe personalities who agree with you isn't an argument.
Reporter Sabrina Siddiqui has come under a barrage of attacks on social media since she asked Modi on Thursday what steps his government would take to uphold free speech and to improve the rights of Muslims and other minorities in India. The harassment has included threats, slurs and baseless accusations that Siddiqui asked the question out of political bias. The critics and attackers have ranged from anonymous trolls to at least one Indian government official with ties to Modi’s Hindu nationalist party.
Modi, who represents the right-wing Hindu nationalist party in India, has served as India’s prime minister since 2014, winning reelection in 2019. India does not have term limits for its prime ministers, and Modi is gearing up to run for reelection to a third term next year.
Under his tenure, Modi has been criticized for eroding India’s democracy, suppressing criticism of his Bharatiya Janata Party and trying to impose Hindu nationalism across the country. A report by Human Rights Watch last year warned that Indian states ruled by his right-wing party have had increased incidents of discrimination and abuse against Muslims, including the illegal bulldozing of Muslim homes and businesses.
Against this backdrop, human rights groups had expressed concern over Modi’s state visit, particularly given that Biden has been outspoken about the importance of democracy prevailing over autocracy.
Siddiqui was one of only two reporters called on at the news conference with Biden and Modi — one that was shorter than Biden’s previous news conferences with state leaders.
Siddiqui first asked Biden about his comments at a recent fundraiser where he had called Chinese President Xi Jinping a dictator, and about what his message was to those who argued his administration was overlooking the targeting of religious minorities and crackdown on dissent in India under Modi.
She then asked a similar question of Modi.
“India has long prided itself as the world’s largest democracy, but there are many human rights groups who say that your government has discriminated against religious minorities and sought to silence its critics,” Siddiqui said to the prime minister. “As you stand here in the East Room of the White House, where so many world leaders have made commitments to protecting democracy, what steps are you and your government willing to take to improve the rights of Muslims and other minorities in your country and to uphold free speech?”
Modi expressed surprise at the question, emphasizing repeatedly in a lengthy response that democracy was in India’s “DNA.”
“Democracy is our spirit. Democracy runs in our veins,” Modi said. “We have always proved that democracy can deliver, and when I say deliver, this is regardless of caste, creed, religion, gender. There is absolutely no space for discrimination.”
According to a review of posts on Twitter, the harassment of Siddiqui began shortly after clips of the news conference surfaced. Many hailed Modi’s answer as satisfactory, while hurling insults — or worse — at Siddiqui. The longtime political reporter has since changed her Twitter account settings to private, and she directed questions to the Wall Street Journal on Wednesday.
“Sabrina Siddiqui is a respected journalist known for her integrity and unbiased reporting,” the Wall Street Journal said in a statement. “This harassment of our reporter is unacceptable, and we strongly condemn it.”
Jews have a long history of being the victims of discrimination and persecution. From biblical times to today, examples abound from repeated pogroms to the mass killing of Jews during the Holocaust. Therefore, it seems to many Jews that the only way to be safe is to have their own country. For that reason, many Jews will never let Israel become a state with a Jewish minority; political control is a necessity. To lose control would be to put their lives into the hands of others, to again risk persecution and even genocide. This fear of being discriminated against—or worse, getting wiped out—is rooted deep within Jewish culture. Numerous holidays remind Jews of this discrimination;”
“Passover, Hanukkah, and Purim are but a few examples. This existential threat to security is confirmed every time rockets fly from Gaza or a Jew is killed in a hate crime. There are a number of justifications for a Jewish state. Some believe that Jews have a right to Israel because of the UN Partition Plan of 1947, which divided Palestine into a Jewish state and an Arab state. Some believe that Jews have a right to that land because God gave it to them. Others claim that the Balfour Declaration or League of Nations documents entitle Jews to all of Mandatory Palestine. Many Jews have considered historical Palestine as the perfect Jewish homeland; it has Jewish historical and religious significance and was “a land without a people for a people without a land.” 2 Finally, Jews have made Israel flourish economically and culturally; as the “only democracy in the Middle East,” Israel is the regional example of Western civilization. The Jewish need for safety is reinforced by the continual conflicts that Israel faces. The state has been defensive since its inception, having to protect itself from both domestic and foreign aggression. Jews are regularly attacked by Palestinians within Israel and from nearby countries in the Middle East. Arab armies invaded on May 15, 1948, only one day after Israel declared its independence. After the armistice agreements in 1949, Arab countries expelled over 700,000 Jews from their countries. Israel’s much larger neighbors attacked again during the 1967 Six-Day War and the 1973 Yom Kippur War. The Yom Kippur War was so devastating that the US had to come to Israel’s aid.”
“Some considered it a miracle that Israel won these wars; it was as if it were a blessing from God for God’s Chosen People in their Promised Land. Israel has participated in numerous efforts to reach peace with its neighbors and the Palestinians; yet in 2005, the Iranian president declared his will to “wipe Israel off the map.” 3 While Israel successfully reached peace agreements with Jordan and with Egypt, the country has never had a reasonable Palestinian negotiating partner for attaining peace. Despite Israel reaching out and wanting peace, the Palestinians have rejected offers that many Israelis considered generous. Israel even pulled out of Gaza in 2005 and left it to the Palestinians. The terrorist organization Hamas has controlled Gaza since then, showering rockets into Israel. 4 In the eyes of Israeli Jews, the Palestinians “never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity” for peace. 5, 6 Many Jews believe that people who oppose a Jewish state are anti-Semitic—that is, they are racist against Jews. By extension, some even believe that those who oppose Israel as a Jewish state want the destruction of the Jewish people. In contrast, Israel has treated its Arab citizens equally; they are even represented in the Knesset (the Israeli parliament). In fact, Israel treats its Palestinians better than either the Palestinian Authority or the Arab countries treat their Palestinians. Israel’s supporters claim that the Palestinian demand for their “Right of Return” is a ruse for destroying the Jewish state, since a return of Palestinian refugees would make Jews a minority in their own land. Some Jewish Israelis believe”
“that children of Palestinian refugees should not be considered refugees themselves because that would give Palestinians special privileges over other refugees. Finally, many Jews say that non-Jews need to be pragmatic in bringing peace to the region. The reality is that Jews want peace, but many will never give up Israel as a Jewish state.”
— How I Learned to Speak Israel: An American's Guide to a Foreign Policy Language by Alex McDonald
These are good points, Tano. I should have acknowledged that the court can't outlaw legacy admissions, so far as I know. And you're right that it ruled on free speech grounds in the website designer case. But there's a larger political context: decades of conservatives using the language of anti-bigotry to oppose affirmative action in the name of meritocracy while ignoring legacy admissions--which they could pressure colleges to change on their own. And the recent obsession with the idea that conservative Christians are an oppressed class. Without those political efforts, neither of these decisions take place.
Peter, do you consider affirmative action to be "racist" and "discriminatory", and if not, why not?
Peter, I'm really quite surprised you didn't agree with the Supreme Court's decision on affirmative action.
You claim to oppose the Supreme Court's opposition to "the one element that’s designed to help Black and Hispanic Americans, groups that have historically been discriminated against in the United States" and that "all these other privileges that help white people are kind of left in place". But that is exactly what you want when it comes to Jews!
You oppose the one element (Israel) that designed to help Jews, a group that has been historically discriminated against worldwide, while having nothing to say about all the other privileges that help Arab people. You call Israel/Jewish statehood "racist" and "discriminatory".
You can't have it both ways. You can't call an institution that favors Jewish people (Israel) "racist" and "discriminatory" and then turn around and demand affirmative action, which is an institution that favors Black people, be considered A-OK.
You either support positive discrimination and unequal treatment of people based on whether or not they're historically oppressed, or you don't. You either support true, full equality of the law, regardless of what that means for minority groups, or you don't.
Interesting discussion here on Israel, India, the US and the EU. More home truths.
https://youtu.be/6eYVjWwOVC4
Anything to say in response to my actual comment, Sean?
Pretzel logic
How so?
In this column Beinart opposes Hindu nationalism, because it allegedly opposes equal rights for Muslims in India. But in the past Beinart has made it clear he supports Ukrainian nationalism, to the point where it is worth killing and dying for. He apparently doesn’t care that Ukrainian nationalism opposes equal rights for Russians in Ukraine. And of course he has little criticism of Palestinian nationalism despite its institutional oppression of non Arabs and non Muslims.
Is there some kind of guide or criteria which can help us understand which groups are allowed to have their own states and which groups are? A skin color chart, perhaps? Or is this more of a case by case however Beinart feels like it basis?
Some groups aren't allowed to advocate for themselves. You need to be the right sort of victim
To S. Breathnach -- and to a lesser extent -- Winters: Jewish history and Jewish fears and the Jewish obsession with and instrumentalising of being the eternal victim, more so than all others, are not and cannot be justification for oppressing others -- which is what the state of Israel does and means.
Blatant anti-Semitism posted and liked on Peter Beinart's Substack. How unsurprising. Surely all of the fine upstanding human rights loving merely anti-Zionists will be rushing to condemn this comment. Any minute now...
Your even more blatant anti-Palestinian racism and downright propaganda gets more likes.
Nice try, but I've never said anything racist against Palestinians, and even if I had, that's not a defense of Michael's anti-Semitism, it's just whataboutery. Do you actually agree with Michael that Jews are obsessed with and instrumentalize being the eternal victim? See if you can respond to the actual topic at hand this time.
Winters, self appointed Antisemitism Tzar for this blog, always defending the indefensible, while endeavouring to smear critics of Israeli atrocities against Palestinians. Beyond Chutzpah.
I didn't realize "critics of Israeli atrocities" complain and whine about "Jewish obsession with and instrumentalising of being the eternal victim". Clearly, I need to be more like you and read more Mondoweiss and Stormfront.
Peter, would you care to weigh in on this conversation? Two of your biggest fans have no problem with Michael's statement. Shall we assume you do not either?
It depends on what you mean by "Jewish." If you mean all Jews, then that's obviously a gross and unfair exaggeration about a diverse group of people. If by "Jewish" you mean the American Jewish establishment, the leaders who claim to speak for American Jews, then it's correct. That's a major theme of my book, The Crisis of Zionism.
Seriously, Peter? He literally didn't say "the American Jewish establishment", he said "Jewish"! I think Michael said what he meant. This kind of "well he meant something else" is more at home at MAGA HQ than an allegedly progressive Substack.
You present yourself as this moral authority, looking down in judgement on Israel and Trump. But when one of your own commenters posts something blatantly anti-Semitic, your reaction is "It depends on what you mean by 'Jewish'"?
This was a softball, Peter. A nice, slow pitch right across the plate for you to knock out of the park and show people that you're still able to tell what is anti-Semitism and condemn it accordingly. And you still struck out.
But, actually, this is reassuring. Because now when Trump says "I have a great relationship with the blacks," he's not racist, because he could mean Black leadership. When David Duke says "Jewish people have put the interests of race over the interests of the American people.... Jews are filled with more hatred and rage for our race, for our heritage, for our blood than perhaps you can imagine", he's not anti-Semitic either, because he's probably talking about American Jewish leadership, and that's just legitimate criticism of them. I feel so much better now, knowing that these guys aren't actually racist and anti-Semitic. Phew!
Thanks Ran. I appreciate it.
Peter, any thoughts on Michael's comment about "the Jewish obsession with and instrumentalising of being the eternal victim"? Agreement or disagreement?
Israel’s notion, more properly Netanyahu’s, that they are cleaning out a hornet’s nest is a fallacious policy. It goes back to the 1950s when Israel responded to “Fedayeen” cross border raids by counting a certain number of such Fedayeen raids and then responding overwhelmingly. That didn’t stop them from happening again although it achieved quiet for a brief period.
Israel has come to rely on this approach exclusively and is quite willing to let the Palestinians languish in nothingness while hoping they will melt away. It was certainly the case that Israel hoped that the Palestinians would melt away in the aftermath of 1948 after all the West Bank was quiescent until after the 1967 war.
But once Israel took over the West Bank from Jordan in 67 a new Palestinian consciousness developed soon thereafter. And Israel has been slow accepting this new reality. It can no longer rely on the concept of Palestine melting away. Israel needs a completely different doctrine but unfortunately the current Netanyahu government is in bed with the equally undemocratic and equally religiously based Islamic Jihad and Hamas. Islamic Jihad, Hamas and frankly all the Palestinian resistance groups, without exception, are inherently undemocratic, theocratic Islamists and anti-Semitic organizations and they provide all the proof the Israeli public needs to accept the continuance of the current policies. In fact, they are playing right into the hands of the Netanyahu government (and prior Israeli governments).
The underlying philosophy of both Israel's current government and the Radical Arab groups are very similar. Israel’s current government believes its aggressive posture will deter Palestinians indefinitely. And Islamic Jihad, Hamas and their ilk believe that if they create enough trouble, the Jews will leave. Israel’s government has no faith in a Palestinian historicity and the Arab radicals believe similarly that the Jews are interlopers and that they will go back to where they came from if only life is made hellish for them.
No one in Israel believes that the current IDF incursion in Jenin will quiet the neighborhood or change anything. It is true that military confrontation between Israel and the neighboring Arab states have led the Arab states to disengage from war with Israel but there is no record or history of such events leading to quiet between Palestinians and Jews. Thus, each side currently plays into the false narrative they each hold believe in. And this is where we are today.
Sorry Peter, but these were two very weak arguments.
Briefly - the Supreme Court was not in a position to rule on legacy admissions, preferences for donor's kids, or any of the other non-merit based criteria used in the admissions process. The case was about race-based criteria. The Court is not a super-legislature than can simply decide to re-write all of the admissions standards for the country.
Also, as an aside, I don't think that athletic scholarships necessarily tilt the field in favor of whites.
Your argument in the other case is even worse. The court was very explicit that this was not an antidiscrimination case, it was a free-speech case. The web designer made no argument for a right to discriminate against LGBT people. She never refused to serve them with regular products or services. She only refused to create custom websites that express things that she finds religiously improper.
Nothing in the decision gives anyone the right to discriminate against LGBT people in general, it only allows vendors to refuse to create artistic expressions that they find to be immoral.
I noticed some people appropriating progressive language for these sorts of conservative ends a while ago, and call it 'fauxgressive inversion'. So maybe that's a term some people might want to adopt, I don't know.
Language is always a weapon, and a sharp one at that. In our struggle's context see:
https://sbahour.medium.com/israels-linguistic-acrobatics-book-review-fef9cf79991d
Israel & India vs. Palestine & Kashmir.
Clip from Democracy Now!, full interview here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6eYVjWwOVC4
Somewhat off-topic but there are Muslims in Pakistan (my country) who accuse people of Islamophobia when they criticize Islamic or Muslim supremacism in Pakistan. I just laugh out loud when they do that. Thankfully there's enough civil society in Pakistan that many people recognize such claims as ridiculous.
I’m sorry, you’re from PAKISTAN and yet you look down your nose at Israel? LMFAO!
Apparently we should be looking to residents of Pakistan, a country that has Islam as its official religion and bears an atrocious human rights record, and Ireland, a country that has basically no Jews in it, as the authorities on what anti-Semitism is and what it isn't. You really can't make this stuff up.
I'm not even going to bother explaining how yours and 'Anonymous's comments are extremely stupid and fallacious, because you'd have to have a functioning brain to understand it.
Pakistan has a better human rights record than Israel.
LOL sure it does.
https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/asia-and-the-pacific/south-asia/pakistan/report-pakistan/
"2022: Grave human rights violations continued, including enforced disappearances, torture, crackdowns on peaceful protests, attacks against journalists and violence against religious minorities and other marginalized groups. A backlash against legal gains in transgender rights led to growing violence against transgender people. The senate passed an act which would criminalize torture by state officials for the first time. Political upheaval led to major uncertainty. An economic crisis severely hampered people’s economic rights."
Even if you somehow believe Pakistan is better than Israel, it's still hardly a paragon of human rights and is in no position to point fingers at anyone else.
All of that pales in comparison to just what the Zionist militias did to Palestinians in 1948, let alone everything after that.
Ok I'll make sure to tell Pakistan not to point fingers at anyone else. Just as soon as it grows fingers and I can have a conversation with this person called 'Pakistan' I'll send the message along.
Oh PLEASE. Pakistan was formed through the ethnic cleansing of TWENTY. MILLION. PEOPLE. That makes "what the Zionist militias did to Palestinians" look like stubbing a toe.
Jinnah, "the founder of Pakistan": " "Muslims and Hindus...were irreconcilably opposed monolithic religious communities and as such, no settlement could be imposed that did not satisfy the aspirations of the former."
And you point fingers at Jews for having a state. Seriously, you guys are just too much.
You should review the definition of Hinduphobia.
"Accusing those who organize around or speak about Hinduphobia (including the persecution of Hindus) of being agents or pawns of violent, oppressive political agendas. "
Sorry but intolerance of the intolerant is not intolerance.
Aparna does not speak for Hindus who advocate for pluralism and freedom from threat of violence. Why should we endlessly tolerate the intolerant? You are silent on the genocide of Hindus and actively vilify those who fight for the rights of the downtrodden? You gas light those who have legitimate concerns BEYOND the Indian state, as pawns of the BJP.
What about the Hindu child who was jailed for blasphemy for pissing on a Madrasa in Pakistan? Or the Srilankan manager who was mobbed to death in Pakistan for taking down posters? What about Harsha, a Hindu activist shanked in broad daylight for his work? What about the thousands of RSS workers lynched in haryana, Bihar, UP? What about Kannaiyah Lal, a poor tailor, who was for his beheading after his son posted to social media that he doesn't support blasphemy laws? What about Bangladeshi Hindus who cried on a podcast after their community was attacked in a riot on Durga puja in 2021, which was banned in 2022 for fears of similar riots?
What about the caste-oppressed who are too poor to move and continue to live in fear in these states? Why did Aparna oppose CAA which aimed to give them refugee to citizen status?
What about the vandalism of Hindu temples in the UK, US, Canada and Australia? These are all issues independent of the Indian state and concern Hindus.
Advocating for one's self poltiically is the most basic right given to Americans in this beautiful country and everyone is entitled to it.
Khalid, an Indian muslim, routinely speaks out against this media bias, which hurts the Indian economy and by extension Indian Muslims.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVk16S2MYFM&ab_channel=IndiaThisWeekByAmana%26Khalid
Hi Professor Beinart, Saw, you this AM on MSNBC I thought you were highly effective. Also agree with your NY Tiimes Op. Ed. . Even though you know I disagree completely with the characterization of Isarel as apartheid.
Ran, the evidence is overwhelming.
Apartheid Reports
ESCWA report on Apartheid 2017
https://oldwebsite.palestine-studies.org/sites/default/files/ESCWA%202017%20%28Richard%20Falk%29%2C%20Apartheid.pdf
B’Tselem report on Apartheid January 2021
http://www.btselem.org/publications/fulltext/202101_this_is_apartheid
HRW report on Apartheid April 2021. A Threshold Crossed: Israeli Authorities and the Crimes ...Human Rights Watchhttps://www.hrw.org › 2021/04/27 › threshold-crossed
Amnesty report on Apartheid Feb 21st, 2022. Israel's apartheid against Palestinians
Michael Lynk Report on Apartheid March 2022. Israel’s 55-year occupation of Palestinian Territory is apartheid – UN human rights expert | OHCHR
Its tiresome to point out to people that the word Apartheid was invented by the South African regime in 1948 to proudly convey their policies versus blacks in South Africa. The basic tenets of South African apartheid was: establishment of residential and business sections in urban areas for each race, and members of other races were barred from living, operating businesses, or owning land in them. Intermarriage was forbidden and blacks had no citizenship rights.(There were others but this is bad enough).
By the 1948 definition of Apartheid Israel does not qualify period and I am tired of pointing this out: there are no racial rules in Israel; Palestinians vote in Israel and are represented in the government often in direct proportion to their population. And you may recall the prior government had an Islamic party as part of the coalition. From a business perspective the president of Israel’s largest bank is a Palestinian Arab and just to show this is not an exception to the rule be advised 20% of Israel’s healthcare industry: doctors, pharmacists, hospital administrators and nurse are Palestinian. Not to mention most elite Israeli universities have considerable number of Arab students (almost 50% in Haifa U).
Enough, let’s get to the modern definition of apartheid. That’s right they needed a new one so in 1982 they changed the definition to mean inhumane acts of a character similar to other crimes against humanity “committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime”.
The last I checked this intentionally vague definition which has no relation to the past usage of the word apartheid, that most people identify with South Africa, also does not apply to Israel. Neither in Israel behind the green line nor the West Bank. Last I heard Arabs and Jews were cousins not different races. SO obviously the central tenet of the new definition does not apply unless you want to skip the race part.
OK so you want to ignore the race issue. Clearly will not apply within Israel and in the West Bank there is a war and the civilian Arab population is suffering. I won’t point out that both sides are doing an excellent job of making life miserable to each other. But if you want to call that apartheid then please extend it to Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria. Why? They have Palestinian refugee camps on their land within their recognized borders (Israel does not!) and they do not extend citizenship nor voting rights to Palestinian refugees.
Finally, the new definition is so wishy-washy that obviously we could call China Apartheid for its treatment of Uighurs, Iran for its treatment of gay and trans communities and of course Syria for its oppression of its own population and Turkey for its oppression of Kurds, India in Kashmir etc. Finally, in the United States here too we have apartheid. Certainly, how Black people have been treated for hundreds of years and if that does not qualify, how about Puerto Rico. Puerto Ricans get to vote in America’s presidential elections, but it doesn’t count (they have no electoral representatives). I would say that is prima facia evidence of apartheid.
Fair enough Ran, I accept what you say. At the end of the day, however, no matter what word we use to describe Israel’s actions, the truth is that Israel is holding millions of Palestinians under a brutal military occupation for over half a century. Dispossession, ethnic cleansing, stealing land etc. If Palestinians resist that occupation, well who could blame them.
I have pointed out in another thread that both Israel and its Palestinian opponents are fighting a false paradigm. Israel refuses to accept that there is a Palestinian consciousness, they think that the concept of Palestine will wash away in time. The Palestinians believe that the Jews are interlopers and merely hating them and creating a hellish time for them will drive them away from the land.
This is where we are today, and the reality now is that the primary movers on both sides of the argument are theocrats and as you well know they respond only to their maker. We are stuck in a holy war of their making until wiser folks take control away from them.
Sounds like the Palestinians should make peace. Accept one of Israel's many, MANY offers.
At the Twentieth Zionist Congress, in 1937, Ben Gurion advocated for the ethnic cleansing of Palestine to address what has come to be known as the “demographic threat” and to make way for a Jewish state because “growing Jewish strength in Palestine will increase our possibilities for conducting a large scale transfer.
Speaking before tens of thousands of supporters to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the founding of Hamas, Mr. Meshal said the Jewish state would be wiped away through “resistance,” or military action. “The state will come from resistance, not negotiation,” he said. “Liberation first, then statehood.”
His voice rising to a shout, Mr. Meshal said: “Palestine is ours from the river to the sea and from the south to the north. There will be no concession on any inch of the land.”
This was in 2012, not 1937.
I've long ago told you what Avi Shlaim thinks of Israel's peace offers. Henry Siegman too..
The Great Middle East Peace Process Scam. https://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n16/henry-siegman/the-great-middle-east-peace-process-scam
'Peace process Israeli scam to steal Palestine' https://www.presstv.com/DetailFr/2017/07/24/529486/Palestine-Israel-alAqsa-Peace
As Trump-Netanyahu Crush Palestinians, was “Oslo Peace Process” always a Scam? SANDY TOLAN https://www.juancole.com/2018/09/netanyahu-palestinians-process.html
Israel accused of turning peace process into a sham, backed by US https://www.irishtimes.com/news/israel-accused-of-turning-peace-process-into-a-sham-backed-by-us-1.1113795
If you would like to make your own argument about why Palestinians aren't capable of making peace with Israel, do so. Spamming links from fringe personalities who agree with you isn't an argument.
Reporter Sabrina Siddiqui has come under a barrage of attacks on social media since she asked Modi on Thursday what steps his government would take to uphold free speech and to improve the rights of Muslims and other minorities in India. The harassment has included threats, slurs and baseless accusations that Siddiqui asked the question out of political bias. The critics and attackers have ranged from anonymous trolls to at least one Indian government official with ties to Modi’s Hindu nationalist party.
Modi, who represents the right-wing Hindu nationalist party in India, has served as India’s prime minister since 2014, winning reelection in 2019. India does not have term limits for its prime ministers, and Modi is gearing up to run for reelection to a third term next year.
Under his tenure, Modi has been criticized for eroding India’s democracy, suppressing criticism of his Bharatiya Janata Party and trying to impose Hindu nationalism across the country. A report by Human Rights Watch last year warned that Indian states ruled by his right-wing party have had increased incidents of discrimination and abuse against Muslims, including the illegal bulldozing of Muslim homes and businesses.
Against this backdrop, human rights groups had expressed concern over Modi’s state visit, particularly given that Biden has been outspoken about the importance of democracy prevailing over autocracy.
Siddiqui was one of only two reporters called on at the news conference with Biden and Modi — one that was shorter than Biden’s previous news conferences with state leaders.
Siddiqui first asked Biden about his comments at a recent fundraiser where he had called Chinese President Xi Jinping a dictator, and about what his message was to those who argued his administration was overlooking the targeting of religious minorities and crackdown on dissent in India under Modi.
She then asked a similar question of Modi.
“India has long prided itself as the world’s largest democracy, but there are many human rights groups who say that your government has discriminated against religious minorities and sought to silence its critics,” Siddiqui said to the prime minister. “As you stand here in the East Room of the White House, where so many world leaders have made commitments to protecting democracy, what steps are you and your government willing to take to improve the rights of Muslims and other minorities in your country and to uphold free speech?”
Modi expressed surprise at the question, emphasizing repeatedly in a lengthy response that democracy was in India’s “DNA.”
“Democracy is our spirit. Democracy runs in our veins,” Modi said. “We have always proved that democracy can deliver, and when I say deliver, this is regardless of caste, creed, religion, gender. There is absolutely no space for discrimination.”
According to a review of posts on Twitter, the harassment of Siddiqui began shortly after clips of the news conference surfaced. Many hailed Modi’s answer as satisfactory, while hurling insults — or worse — at Siddiqui. The longtime political reporter has since changed her Twitter account settings to private, and she directed questions to the Wall Street Journal on Wednesday.
“Sabrina Siddiqui is a respected journalist known for her integrity and unbiased reporting,” the Wall Street Journal said in a statement. “This harassment of our reporter is unacceptable, and we strongly condemn it.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/06/28/white-house-modi-reporter-wall-street-journal/
Israeli narrative or Israeli hasbara?
Jews have a long history of being the victims of discrimination and persecution. From biblical times to today, examples abound from repeated pogroms to the mass killing of Jews during the Holocaust. Therefore, it seems to many Jews that the only way to be safe is to have their own country. For that reason, many Jews will never let Israel become a state with a Jewish minority; political control is a necessity. To lose control would be to put their lives into the hands of others, to again risk persecution and even genocide. This fear of being discriminated against—or worse, getting wiped out—is rooted deep within Jewish culture. Numerous holidays remind Jews of this discrimination;”
“Passover, Hanukkah, and Purim are but a few examples. This existential threat to security is confirmed every time rockets fly from Gaza or a Jew is killed in a hate crime. There are a number of justifications for a Jewish state. Some believe that Jews have a right to Israel because of the UN Partition Plan of 1947, which divided Palestine into a Jewish state and an Arab state. Some believe that Jews have a right to that land because God gave it to them. Others claim that the Balfour Declaration or League of Nations documents entitle Jews to all of Mandatory Palestine. Many Jews have considered historical Palestine as the perfect Jewish homeland; it has Jewish historical and religious significance and was “a land without a people for a people without a land.” 2 Finally, Jews have made Israel flourish economically and culturally; as the “only democracy in the Middle East,” Israel is the regional example of Western civilization. The Jewish need for safety is reinforced by the continual conflicts that Israel faces. The state has been defensive since its inception, having to protect itself from both domestic and foreign aggression. Jews are regularly attacked by Palestinians within Israel and from nearby countries in the Middle East. Arab armies invaded on May 15, 1948, only one day after Israel declared its independence. After the armistice agreements in 1949, Arab countries expelled over 700,000 Jews from their countries. Israel’s much larger neighbors attacked again during the 1967 Six-Day War and the 1973 Yom Kippur War. The Yom Kippur War was so devastating that the US had to come to Israel’s aid.”
“Some considered it a miracle that Israel won these wars; it was as if it were a blessing from God for God’s Chosen People in their Promised Land. Israel has participated in numerous efforts to reach peace with its neighbors and the Palestinians; yet in 2005, the Iranian president declared his will to “wipe Israel off the map.” 3 While Israel successfully reached peace agreements with Jordan and with Egypt, the country has never had a reasonable Palestinian negotiating partner for attaining peace. Despite Israel reaching out and wanting peace, the Palestinians have rejected offers that many Israelis considered generous. Israel even pulled out of Gaza in 2005 and left it to the Palestinians. The terrorist organization Hamas has controlled Gaza since then, showering rockets into Israel. 4 In the eyes of Israeli Jews, the Palestinians “never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity” for peace. 5, 6 Many Jews believe that people who oppose a Jewish state are anti-Semitic—that is, they are racist against Jews. By extension, some even believe that those who oppose Israel as a Jewish state want the destruction of the Jewish people. In contrast, Israel has treated its Arab citizens equally; they are even represented in the Knesset (the Israeli parliament). In fact, Israel treats its Palestinians better than either the Palestinian Authority or the Arab countries treat their Palestinians. Israel’s supporters claim that the Palestinian demand for their “Right of Return” is a ruse for destroying the Jewish state, since a return of Palestinian refugees would make Jews a minority in their own land. Some Jewish Israelis believe”
“that children of Palestinian refugees should not be considered refugees themselves because that would give Palestinians special privileges over other refugees. Finally, many Jews say that non-Jews need to be pragmatic in bringing peace to the region. The reality is that Jews want peace, but many will never give up Israel as a Jewish state.”
— How I Learned to Speak Israel: An American's Guide to a Foreign Policy Language by Alex McDonald
Is there a point you’re trying to make?
See Michael Alan Ingber’s comment.
Not one original thought in your head? Color me unsurprised.