Peter Beinart cannot tell the difference between a "narrative" and a fact

Peter Beinart is certainly at home at Haaretz, where stupidity can be masked as serious opinion.

On Wednesday, Beinart made one of those dumb "substitute X for Y" analogies while going after Sheldon Adelson:

Imagine this. Hillary Clinton, Andrew Cuomo, Elizabeth Warren and multiple lesser Democratic notables travel halfway across the country to kiss the ring of a Palestinian-American billionaire who has shown himself willing to spend tens of millions of dollars subsidizing presidential campaigns.

The billionaire has some provocative views. Six months earlier, he suggested that if Israel does not end its nuclear weapons program, America should drop an “atomic weapon…in the middle of the [Negev] desert that doesn’t hurt a soul.” If that doesn’t work, America should drop “the next one…in the middle of” Tel Aviv.

The billionaire insists that there is no such thing as the Jewish people. It’s a hoax; the Jews “have fooled the world very successfully.” And he declares that “There isn’t a” Jew “alive who wasn’t raised on a curriculum of hatred and hostility toward the” Palestinians.

Change the words “Democrat” to “Republican,” “Israel” to “Iran” and “Palestinian” to “Jewish,” and that’s exactly what just happened. Leading contenders for the 2016 GOP presidential nomination spent last weekend wooing and feting a billionaire, Sheldon Adelson, whose views - if directed at Jews—would put him in the company of Louis Farrakhan and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

I am not thrilled with an election system that gives great power to any billionaire, whether it is Sheldon Adelson or George Soros, who has wooed Democrats just as Adelson woos Republican politicians.

Some of the stuff Adelson says is wrong. Some of it is even admittedly offensive.

But there is a huge difference between the thought experiment Beinart gives here and what Adelson actually said, a difference that shows that Beinart has fallen for one of the biggest fallacies in the Middle East: the fallacy that there is equal value in the Zionist and anti-Zionist narratives.

I am not a logician and do not know of a formal name for this fallacy, but let's call it the Assumed Symmetry Fallacy: the assumption that two sides - by virtue of their opposition - are falsely assumed to be symmetric.

In 2008, when Tel Aviv University’s Shlomo Sand published a book called “The Invention of the Jewish People,” he was widely called anti-Semitic. When Adelson says the same about Palestinians, he’s a Republican rock star.

The Palestinian Arabs are a recently invented people. They exist today, to be sure, but they were not a "people" before 1948 at the very earliest. Westerners who drew the borders after World War I created what today's Palestinian Arabs laughably call "historic Palestine" - arbitrary lines that surrounded a people who had as much in common with those across those lines as with those within them. Arabs in the Galilee had more in common with those in Damascus than those in Bethlehem. Tribes and families trumped geography (and they often still do.) They became a "people" because of how their Arab brethren refused to allow them to integrate into their countries, forcing them to suffer as a separate group that eventually did turn them into a people. Arabs themselves admit freely that they kept Palestinian Arabs in miserable conditions in order to foster their nascent "unity." (It was for their own good, in Arab logic.)

But any analogy between the brand new people now called Palestinians and the Jewish people is, simply, obscene. There is no comparison in terms of history, in terms of culture, in terms of faith or in terms of the depth of feelings that have been felt towards the land for millennia. (This doesn't negate the fact that some Palestinian Arabs do have ties to the land. But as a people, there is simply no comparison, especially since a majority of Palestinian Arabs do not trace their ancestry to the region but rather from Arabian tribes and elsewhere.)

The nuclear analogy is similarly obscene. While Adelson's suggestion can certainly be considered offensive, Beinart's comparison is sickening. Israel does not threaten other nations with its nuclear arsenal. In fact, Israel apparently has had the bomb since the 1960s and has gone through a few wars without using them. Iran, however, shows videos on its TV about the joys of nuking Israel. Israel's nuclear program is not a danger to the world, Iran's is.

And comparing Adelson with Farrakhan and Ahmadinejad is equally obscene. Adelson  clearly doesn't have a grasp of the nuances of the Middle East as those of us who are immersed in it all day do, but there have been plenty of US politicians and pundits and even "experts" who say stupid and ignorant things every day. Beinart would never compare them to Farrakhan or Ahmadinejad (unless they are Republican), just as he would never compare Adelson with Soros, the closest analogy, because Soros' politics are far more acceptable to Beinart.

Beinart further quotes Adelson:

“There isn’t a Palestinian alive who wasn’t raised on a curriculum of hatred and hostility toward the Jews,” he told the Jewish Press in 2011.

Adelson was not careful with his words the way a journalist would be, but if he would have said "Palestinians are routinely taught to hate Jews" - does Beinart disagree? He is more upset at Adelson's generalization, eagerly branding him as having a "culture of hate," without acknowledging the elephant in the room that Palestinians really do have a culture of hate. Not one person - an entire people. While there is racism on the Jewish side, there is nothing remotely similar to the pervasiveness of hate on the Palestinian Arab side. But Beinart doesn't care about that because an old rich Jewish man is unacceptably generalizing, oh, at least 95% of Palestinian Arabs to include the 5% that Beinart likes to pretend represents reality.

In other words, Beinart proves here with his Assumed Symmetry Fallacy  thought experiments that he is at least as biased as Adelson is.

Recently, Palestinian Arab politicians claimed that their police found a secret Israeli lab that turned marijuana into heroin to give to Palestinian Arab youths. Mahmoud Abbas' aides have said that the Temple never existed. Abbas himself accused Israeli Jews of raising wild boars just to attack Arab farmers.

This is part of the Palestinian Arab "narrative." Zionists (and any sane people) would say that these stories are nonsense.

Do the two sides of "narratives" have equal value? Apparently, in Beinart's universe, the truth is not as important as what people believe the truth to be. Both sides are the same! Feelings trump facts, and fake history is just as valid as real history because favoring truth over lies can make the liars upset.

 Beinart's fallacious thought experiments and use of false analogies are a lazy rhetorical method that good writers and thinkers know to avoid. Beinart is neither a good writer nor a thinker.

Read More

Peter Beinart, hypocrite

From Peter Beinart in Haaretz:

Last spring, some students at New York’s most prestigious Orthodox Jewish high school, Ramaz, eager for a greater diversity of perspectives on Israel, invited me to speak to their club. I did - and enjoyed it immensely - but told them I hadn’t solved their problem. If they wanted a truly open discussion of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I ventured, they needed to do more than hear from both hawkish and dovish Zionists. They needed to hear from Palestinians.

To my surprise, they asked me to help make it happen. I recommended Columbia Professor Rashid Khalidi, partly because he’s a world-renowned expert on Palestinian history and partly because I know Orthodox Jewish graduate students who consider him a mentor and friend. Khalidi agreed; the students were thrilled. He was set to speak on February 19.

Next thing I knew, the head of the Ramaz Upper School had canceled the talk and students had gathered a petition demanding “open dialogue” about Israel.

...What does it say about the administrators at Ramaz that after immersing their high school students in a passionately Zionist environment for years and years, they lack the self-confidence to expose them to one lecture from a Palestinian?

When Peter Beinart was the editor of the ill-fated "Open Zion" experiment, he did not seek to include a single Jewish resident of Judea and Samaria as a regular writer. (He had one token right winger, and people he claimed were right-wingers but who support a two-state solution.)

I have never seen a Jewish resident of Judea and Samaria invited to speak at any event at Amnesty International, at Human Rights Watch, at any non explicitly Zionist event at any university, at any "Jewish Voice for Peace" event, or at any "Peace Now" event.

Why isn't Beinart deriding all of these groups for being against "open dialogue?" Doesn't their failure to invite right-wing Zionists to speak prove their lack of self-confidence in their positions?

Oh, no. Only right wing Zionists and right wing Orthodox Jews are uninterested in dialogue.

The media is filled with anti-Zionism as a given. The idea that Jews have a right to live in their ancestral lands - even those legally purchased by their very grandfathers - is anathema in the press. Right-wing Zionists are far, far more exposed to leftist opinions than vice versa. The extent of leftist knowledge of right-wing Zionist positions is that they are all either religious fanatics or hell-bent on ethnic cleansing; they could not even fathom any arguments for Jews living in Judea and Samaria based on international law, human rights or basic ethics. I've seen their arguments, and they do not usually go beyond proof by assertion. Doesn't that betray a lack of self-confidence in their positions?

Beinart, supposedly so interested in openness, only advocates openness for one side.

High school students don't exactly have the most mature knowledge of subject matter, yet Beinart insists that Zionist students be exposed to positions that go against their upbringing and their parents' wishes. But right-wingers are not welcome by leftist groups meant for adults!

Who is lacking self confidence?

Are there any Catholic high schools that would invite an atheist to speak to their students? Are there any that would invite gay activists to speak to their students? For that matter, would any public high schools ask people who advocate open marriages to speak? Would they invite the people behind websites that encourage people to cheat on their spouses to discuss Internet entrepreneurship? Isn't everything fair game? Doesn't this show a lack of self-confidence?

Or is that only an issue for Zionist Orthodox Jewish high school students?

If Ramaz students want to hear from Khalidi, there is no shortage of ways for them to access his books and articles. No one is stopping them. But that doesn't mean that their private school must invite an entire gamut of opinion that is antithetical to what that school teaches. This is common sense - to all except Peter Beinart.

Even worse, Khalidi - who Beinart praises so highly and wants to speak to young Zionists - is a liar. He claims that the 1936 riots that killed hundreds in Palestine were "non-violent." He claims that Jews are not a people. He lies about Avigdor Lieberman's positions. His history is filled with inaccuracies.  And here we see that he pushes bizarre conspiracy theories.

So Beinart wants a lying, viciously anti-Israel activist who is against a two-state solution to spout propaganda  to impressionable young Jews, but he does not say a word about dedicated Zionists making a fair case to non- and anti-Zionists. (Of course, Beinart's brand of "Zionism" is the most right-wing that is acceptable for dialogue, everyone to the right of him must not be heard.)

Is that hypocritical? You bet.

(h/t Alex)

Read More

If Peter Beinart were around in 1929...

(A followup to my essay yesterday.)

Read More

Peter Beinart's cocoon

In the New York Review of Books, Peter Beinart is upset that the organized American Jewish community doesn't invite Palestinian Arabs to speak at their events. He believes that American Jews don't give enough empathy to Palestinian Arabs.

For the most part, Palestinians do not speak in American synagogues or write in the Jewish press. The organization Birthright, which since 1999 has taken almost 350,000 young Diaspora Jews—mostly Americans—to visit Israel, does not venture to Palestinian towns and cities in the West Bank. Of the more than two hundred advertised speakers at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s (AIPAC) 2013 Policy Conference, two were Palestinians. By American Jewish standards, that’s high. The American Jewish Committee’s Global Forum earlier this year, which advertised sixty-four speakers, did not include a single Palestinian.

...Guidelines like Hillel’s—which codify the de facto restrictions that exist in many establishment American Jewish groups—make the organized American Jewish community a closed intellectual space, isolated from the experiences and perspectives of roughly half the people under Israeli control. And the result is that American Jewish leaders, even those who harbor no animosity toward Palestinians, know little about the reality of their lives.

Beinart grudgingly admits:

This lack of familiarity with Palestinian life also inclines many in the organized American Jewish world to assume that Palestinian anger toward Israel must be a product solely of Palestinian pathology. Rare is the American Jewish discussion of Israel that does not include some reference to the textbooks and television programs that “teach Palestinians to hate.” These charges have some merit. Palestinian schools and media do traffic in anti-Semitism and promote violence.

But:

Still, what’s often glaringly absent from the American Jewish discussion of Palestinian hatred is any recognition that some of it might stem not from what Palestinians read or hear about the Jewish state, but from the way they interact with it in their daily lives.

Beinart is at least as guilty of willful blindness as the American Jewish establishment he is insulting. His "Open Zion" site all but ignores the Palestinian Arab hate and antisemitism, just as he attempts to minimize it and contextualize it here as a natural result of things Israelis did. He says that most terror attacks are the result of anger at Israeli actions from the first intifada, without mentioning who started the first intifada. No doubt Israel's initial reaction was more severe than would be acceptable today, but at the time Palestinian Arabs from the West Bank and Gaza would travel freely to pre-1967 Israel and Israelis would visit freely to Arab areas, without fear.

The restrictions that Beinart is so upset about today came because of Palestinian Arab terror, not the other way around.

Moreover, while Beinart talks about checkpoints that exist today, what does he think would happen if a two-state solution that he so passionately supports would occur? They wouldn't be checkpoints - there would be national borders. Try commuting to another country every day, let alone an enemy country, and see how painless it is.

American Jewish leaders have access to The New York Times, the BBC, the Guardian and, yes, Open Zion. Jewish Americans read Thomas Friedman and Roger Cohen. The idea that they somehow live in a pro-Likud bubble is ridiculous. They know far more about Palestinian Arab claims and grievances than readers of Open Zion know about the day to day incitement against Israel and Jews in Palestinian Arab lives - not just "textbooks and television programs" but virtually every newspaper, every school, every medium.

This is the stuff I expose along with MEMRI, Palestinian Media Watch and others.

Beinart would like to pretend that we cherry pick the worst examples. To an extent that is true. That's how the media works - to show the worst in order to illuminate the facts - something Beinart is doing in this very essay.

However, as someone who reads quite a bit of Arabic media daily, I can assure Beinart and my readers that the hate isn't an anomaly, while people like Salam Fayyad are the silent majority. No - within the "cocoon" of Palestinian Arab life, there is zero tolerance for any viewpoint that is the least bit conciliatory to real coexistence and peace. The hate is pervasive, not anomalous. Anyone who would speak to an American Jewish organization would, by that very fact, lose all legitimacy from their own people.

Beinart knows this, but he won't dare say it.

One need only look at this post from yesterday to see that this is true. Not only is there virtually no voice for true peace among Palestinian Arabs, but even the slightest attempts at coexistence are demonized and practitioners blacklisted.

How often does Open Zion report on this? For that matter, how much does the NYT, BBC and other mainstream media (the recent Forbes piece being a rare exception) report on this?

Where are the Palestinian Arab "Open Zions?" Where are the people who really want co-existence who can speak out without being tarred that worst of all insults - "collaborators"?  You will not find any Arab Beinarts writing for Palestinian Arabic media.

Beinart's own self-created cocoon where he pretends that most Palestinian Arabs want peace is even more bizarre. In his entire lengthy essay, he does not mention Islamic fundamentalism once. The reason is once again willful blindness - Beinart knows that there is no way that fundamentalist Muslims, represented by Hamas - winner in the last PA elections - would ever accept Israel's existence in any manner.

So Beinart chooses to ignore that problem and pretend that Salam Fayyad, an unelected former prime minister who barely scraped together 2.4% of the vote for his own party, is mainstream and Hamas is all but nonexistent.

Even though he admits that "Virtually every Palestinian I’ve ever met considers Zionism to be colonialist, imperialist, and racist. " Sure, let's invite them over to the Hadassah meeting so we can hear all about it!

That is willful blindness of a far worse kind than anything he can say about the American Jewish establishment.

The real cocoon is the one that looks at the Middle East and pretends that it is Jewish American leadership that is somehow more in denial than liberals like Beinart. The real cocoon is the place where the extent of Palestinian Arab intransigence and hate is downplayed and glossed over as simply a few TV programs and textbooks, with no mention of, say, Gaza being controlled by a separate party that considers all of Israel to be "occupied." The real cocoon is the place where, even in light of the Arab Spring, Muslim fundamentalism simply isn't worth mentioning as a problem.

Israel doesn't want to oppress anybody, but it has an obligation to protect its citizens - the supreme obligation of any nation. The line it needs to walk in order to do that is a thin and jagged one, and one that for the most part has been successful. Today there is less terror than ever before even as restrictions on Palestinian Arabs are being slowly lifted. This is what should be emphasized, highlighted and encouraged.

Beinart, though, is blind to the real facts - because he is the one who lives in a cocoon.

Read More

The "As-a-Jews" of the New York Times

Paul Krugman writes in his New York Times blog:

Something I’ve been meaning to do — and still don’t have the time to do properly — is say something about Peter Beinart’s brave book The Crisis of Zionism.

The truth is that like many liberal American Jews — and most American Jews are still liberal — I basically avoid thinking about where Israel is going. It seems obvious from here that the narrow-minded policies of the current government are basically a gradual, long-run form of national suicide — and that’s bad for Jews everywhere, not to mention the world. But I have other battles to fight, and to say anything to that effect is to bring yourself under intense attack from organized groups that try to make any criticism of Israeli policies tantamount to anti-Semitism.

But it’s only right to say something on behalf of Beinart, who has predictably run into that buzzsaw. As I said, a brave man, and he deserves better.

Also from the New York Times today, an op-ed from Stephen Robert:

How can a people persecuted for so long act so brutally when finally attaining power? Will we continuously see the world as 1938, or can we use the strength of our new power to forgive, while never forgetting the lessons of our past?

I guess he is "brave" too.

Last month, according to the monthly tally from Soccer Dad, the NYT printed 8 more "brave" anti-Israel op-eds, as opposed to 3 that were pro-Israel. Including one from that "brave" man, Peter Beinart.

In the last six months of 2011, the tally was even more lopsided: 39 anti-Israel op-eds, and 8 pro-Israel.

Any way you look at it, the New York Times doesn't seem to have any compunctions about publishing criticisms of Israel. But not only is the Times blatant about its anti-Israel bias, but its writers seem to feel that they are being remarkably bold by parroting the same arguments that have been published there scores of times in the past year.

Criticizing a tiny state surrounded by enemies hell-bent on its long-term destruction might not play in Peoria, but it plays very well in the salons of the Upper East Side. It is a false bravado, one where the people pushing their agendas know quite well that they have a large support group from the most influential ivory tower newspaper in the United States. Seriously, how have any of these critics been hurt by what they have written? They have been criticized to be sure, but they have also been praised. They are getting huge amounts of publicity and selling lots of books, giving lectures across the nation and having their faces plastered all over every Jewish periodical. Is that what NYT liberals consider "bravery" nowadays?

In fact, today's NYT op-ed is utterly boring. Stephen Robert rehashes the exact same arguments we have heard ad nauseum as he demands that Israel somehow overlook the fact that Palestinian Arabs keep demanding that it be destroyed demographically and politically. He is not an expert on Israel - a previous piece that he wrote for The Nation shows that he has gullibly believed outright lies from his Palestinian Arab friends. He has no real credentials, unless you believe heading a major mutual fund group makes one an expert on the Middle East.

So why did the New York Times choose to publish yet another op-ed bashing Israel when it breaks no new ground, makes no new arguments, and is quite tendentious to boot?

Because, like Krugman, the author is another "As-a-Jew." He says he grew up as a Zionist, coming from a family of committed Zionists, complete with experience with pogroms and fundraising for the UJA. He is pretending to be yet another recovering Zionist, someone who knows what is best for Israel far better than the people who live there and actually vote in elections. The only thing that makes his point of view interesting, to the NYT opinion editor, is that Robert is being "brave" by speaking out, as a Jew, just like the scores of other ignorant Jews who have been reading the New York Times' anti-Israel pieces over the years and believe them as the Jewish equivalent of gospel.

This is not bravery.

Bravery is to be an Arab and to criticize the PLO. Bravery is to be a Muslim woman and criticize how Muslims treat women. Bravery is to publicly protest in Syria. Bravery is to risk your life for your opinions.

It is not bravery to risk receiving some angry emails. And as awful as the Likud seems to be when you read these "brave" articles criticizing it, the authors aren't quite scared that the Mossad will come and take them out.

When someone like Krugman calls someone like Peter Beinart "brave" it illustrates how out of touch liberal New York Times "As-a-Jews" are. Their worldview is so skewed that they believe that Netanyahu - a man who accepts a two-state solution, who has all but said that he would throw tens of thousands of Jews out of their homes to make peace  - is somehow a warmonger. Meanwhile, they believe that Mahmoud Abbas, a man who honors the most notorious terrorists and anti-semites, who arrests journalists who criticize him,  and who would rather partner with Hamas terrorists than Israeli Jews, is perfectly reasonable and moderate.

How can such a complete reversal of reality even cross the mind of a sane person?

Well, it can easily happen, if your idea of reality comes from the op-ed pages of the New York Times.

(h/t Daniel)

UPDATE: To Beinart's credit, he doesn't consider himself brave. (h/t Martin Kramer)

Read More

A new "crisis of Zionism" every decade

1930s (Ben Gurion)
1940s (Hannah Arendt)
1950s (Mordechai Kaplan)
1960s (Life Magazine)
1970s (Moshe Davis)
1980s (Zvi Kasseh et. al.)
1990s (Zvi Sobel et. al.)
2000s (Shlomo Sharan et. al.)
2010s (Peter Beinart)

Amazing that Zionism is still alive and kicking, isn't it?

Read More

Ammiel Hirsch's response to Beinart (video/text)

Here is the video and text of Rabbi Ammiel Hirsch's sermon last Shabbat at the Stephen Wise Free Synagogue, discussing Peter Beinart's NYT op-ed last week I had written about, as sent to me by the synagogue.

Peter Beinart’s Offense Against Liberalism

By: Rabbi Ammiel Hirsch, Senior Rabbi, Stephen Wise Free Synagogue

Peter Beinart’s op-ed in The New York Times (March 19, 2012), entitled “To Save Israel, Boycott the Settlements,” crossed a red line. More than that: it is an offense against liberalism, itself.

1. Boycott

The call to boycott Israel – even the lame effort to distinguish between boycotting Israel within the Green Line and boycotting Israel beyond the Green Line – is troubling, in and of itself.

It is also hopelessly naïve. How one would actually mount such a boycott; how one could limit it to products beyond the Green Line; how it would end at the Green Line and not become a boycott of Israel – these are interesting questions for an academic thesis. It is hardly a serious political proposal.

But it is even worse than that: It is immoral because it gives aid and comfort to Israel’s worst enemies – those who seek to destroy the Jewish state. By using the word “boycott” Beinart has granted legitimacy to the delegitimizers of Israel. “Boycott” is the language of Israel’s enemies. “Boycott” means to most people: destroy Israel through international diplomacy and economic strangulation. It is an extreme position.

While thousands are being butchered by the Syrian dictator as the world stands by impotently; at a time when Americans should be devoting as much attention as possible to ensuring a democratic Egypt; at a time when Iran is rapidly developing nuclear capability; and at a time when the Palestinian national movement shows no interest or desire to engage in peace talks, and they are hopelessly divided amongst themselves – now – at this moment - American liberal Jews should be devoting our financial and political resources to boycotting democratic Israel? Really?!

Peter Beinart wrote in his op-ed: “It is time for a counter-offensive…and that counter-offensive must begin with language.” And his solution is to use the language of the BDS (Boycott, Divesment, Sanctions) crowd – a group of extremists, Israel-bashers (and some anti-Semites) who spend their lives trying to persuade the world to boycott, divest from, and sanction Israel?!

I much prefer George Orwell’s view on language to Peter Beinart’s. Orwell wrote: “If thought corrupts language, language also corrupts thought. Political language…is designed to make lies sound truthful…and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”

2. Settlements

Beinart is right to point out the risks to both Israeli democracy as well as its national security as long as the Israel-Palestinian dispute remains unresolved. But there are two grievous offenses in Beinart’s blanket “boycott-all-the-settlements” proposal:

First: What he calls a settlement – any Jewish apartment beyond the 1967 borders – is not understood as such by practically every Israeli and most fair-minded international observers. Many so-called settlements are considered neighborhoods of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. Most of the people who live beyond the Green Line live in proximity to the Green Line, and all two-state solutions that have been discussed assume that these areas will be within the new borders of Israel proper.

Second: There is not one word in Beinart’s piece about the role and responsibility of the Palestinians. Many Israeli settlements are still there because the Palestinians have still not demonstrated a politically-realistic willingness for peace.

Even if you were to concede that Israel has made mistakes, surely it is not Israel’s fault alone that there is no peace. After all, it takes at least two to make peace. You cannot make peace only with yourself. Often people talk about how Israel should do this and Israel should do that as if it is in Israel’s power alone to shape events.

Most Israelis are desperate for peace. Is it that Israelis like sending their children to fight and die in wars? Surely, there is some fault on the other side as well, no? Are the Palestinians potted plants – mere decoration – as the Jews argue amongst ourselves how we should entice the Palestinians to do what we believe is in their national interest?

Maybe they don’t believe it. Half of the Palestinian national movement makes no effort to hide the fact that they don’t believe it. They say they want to destroy Israel. The other half has rejected three Israeli peace proposals in the past twelve years, and, at present, refuses even to sit down with Israeli negotiators.

The West Bank is the West Bank. It is not, as Beinart describes, “non-democratic Israel.” It is not Palestine. It is disputed territory. In the past four decades Jordan, Egypt (Gaza), Israel and the Palestinian national movement have all claimed parts of it. If anything, during the past two decades, Israel has relinquished control over ever-larger tracts of the West Bank. If peace can be achieved, many of the settlements will be absorbed into democratic Israel; the rest will be dismantled.

3. Liberalism

I am a liberal. I worry about liberals. Some in our camp have become unhinged when it comes to Israel. I worry about Reform rabbis too. And I worry about our rabbinical students who represent the future leadership of much of American Jewry.

It is fashionable in some liberal quarters today to bash Israel as the latest litmus test of liberalism. We see it on campus as well. “We’ll let you into the club but show us your anti-Israel credentials first.”

It is actually the opposite: Israel is the ultimate test of liberalism; the testing grounds of theory and practice. Can we develop a liberalism that relates to the world as it is, not as we would want it to be? Do we offer a compelling vision of the future or just stale liberation theories? Are we prepared to make hard moral choices or shall we be satisfied with easy moralizing slogans?

In our new world, where democracies engage insurgents who hide among civilian populations and use them as shields; where terrorists store weapons in, and fire from, hospitals, houses of worship, ambulances and universities – can we develop a liberalism that fights injustice justly? That is the question.

Peter Beinart was once at the vanguard of this school of liberalism that is so desperately needed today. But observing his dash to the extremes of liberal theory over the last decade, I worry about us. If, in less than a decade, Peter Beinart moved from centrist liberalism to calling for a boycott of Israelis, what does that portend for so many others in our camp? And what does that say about the future of liberalism in the United States and in the Jewish community?

Peter Beinart’s counter-offensive is morally offensive. Israel is a noisy, argumentative, thrillingly pluralistic society, an oasis of liberty within the unrelenting desert of Middle East oppression. It is not a perfect democracy. There are many fissures and unresolved constitutional questions that need to be addressed. But Israel is a thriving democracy, conceived and developing under the most adversarial conditions of war.

Have we become so befuddled in liberal circles that of all the authoritarian regimes and brutally anti-democratic groups operating in the Middle East, we should single out the one Western democracy - Israel - as a target of economic boycott?

I am reminded of the poem of Natan Alterman, one of Israel’s greatest poets, who was troubled by our propensity for excessive self-criticism of Israel. He wrote:

Then Satan said: How can I subdue him?
For he has the courage and the ability,
The weapons, the resourcefulness and the wisdom.
And he said: I will not weaken him,
Nor curb nor bridle him,
Nor inspire fear in him,
Nor soften him as in days gone by.
I will only do this:
I will dull his mind,
And he will forget that his is the just cause.

Also worth reading is this review of Beinart's book, The Crisis of Zionism, at Tablet Magazine:

Beinart’s habit of what is either inexplicable sloppiness or extreme interpretative elasticity turns out to be one of the defining characteristics of The Crisis of Zionism. In fact, one of the challenges of reviewing the book is that it practically demands a typology. Consider a few examples:

Elasticity of attribution:

Describing the effects of Israel’s policy toward Gaza after Hamas’s election in 2006, Beinart writes that “the blockade shattered [Gaza’s] economy. By 2008, 90 percent of Gaza’s industrial complex had closed.” The source of this claim is a study conducted by the IMF—in 2003.

Of omission:

Beinart quotes former Israeli foreign minister Shlomo Ben-Ami telling Democracy Now’s Amy Goodman that “If I were a Palestinian, I would have rejected Camp David as well.” Yet Ben-Ami said in the same interview that Yasser Arafat “was morally, psychologically, physically incapable of accepting the moral legitimacy of a Jewish state, regardless of its borders or whatever.” This goes unquoted. I suspect that’s because Beinart found it in The Israel Lobby by political scientists John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, which also quotes the first part of Ben-Ami’s statement but not the second.

Of consistency:

Beinart acknowledges that “the populism sweeping the Middle East has unleashed frightening hostility against the Jewish state.” Yet in the same paragraph he writes: “The Egyptian leaders who have emerged in Hosni Mubarak’s wake are not calling for Israel’s destruction, let alone promising to take up arms in the cause.” Maybe Beinart should acquaint himself with the Muslim Brotherhood’s Essam El-Erian, currently head of the Foreign Affairs Committee in the Egyptian Parliament. “The earthquake of the Arab Spring will mark the end of the Zionist entity,” El-Erian said recently.

Of fact:

Returning to the subject of Gaza, Beinart writes that the Strip “remains a place of brutal suffering.” This, he adds, is the case even after Israel eased its blockade following the Turkish flotilla business in 2010.

Really? Here’s what New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof (whose politics track Beinart’s, but who also visits the places he writes about) had to say on that score in a July 2010 column: “Visiting Gaza persuaded me, to my surprise, that Israel is correct when it denies that there is any full-fledged humanitarian crisis in Gaza. The tunnels have so undermined the Israeli blockade that shops are filled and daily life is considerably easier than when I last visited here two years.”

There’s more of this. Much more. In fact, the errors in Beinart’s book pile up at such a rate that they become almost impossible to track.

Still, the deeper problem isn’t that there’s so much in Beinart’s book that is untrue, but rather so much that is half-true: the accurate quote used in a misleading way; the treatment of highly partisan sources as objective and unobjectionable; the settlement of ferocious debates among historians in a single, dismissive sentence; the one-sided giving—and withholding—of the benefit of the doubt; the “to be sure” and “of course” clauses that do more to erase balance than introduce it. It’s a cheap kind of slipperiness that’s hard to detect but leaves its stain on nearly every page.

Read More

US Jews' donations to Israel double in 12 years

From Ha'aretz:

Donations by U.S. Jews to Israeli nonprofits have doubled during the past 12 years, according to a first-of-its-kind study conducted by professors at Brandeis University.

The study, scheduled to be completed in late April, disproves the widely held view by many Israelis that philanthropic donations from the United States have dropped over time due to economic and political reasons. In fact, the study - previewed last week during a hearing by the Knesset Subcommittee for the Relations of Israel with World Jewish Communities - suggests quite the opposite.

In 2007, various Israeli organizations received $2.1 billion from U.S. donors through the Jewish Agency and various "friendship" associations, according to findings by professors Theodore Sasson and Eric Fleisch, of the Cohen Center of Modern Jewish Studies at Brandeis University in Massachusetts. This is double what U.S. donors contributed 12 years earlier, when only $1.08 billion was raised in the United States for Israeli organizations.

"Most of the income of the leading organizations in Israel increased also when adjusted for inflation," Professor Sasson said in an interview with Haaretz. There has also been an increase in the number of U.S. organizations supporting Israel, he said, with the emergence of some 150 new pro-Israel groups in the United States in the 1990s, and some 280 emerging during the past decade.

While the research indicates that there was a 10-25 percent drop in donations during 2008 and 2009 - during the period of severe economic crisis in the United States - it suggests there was a substantial rise in donations in 2010, when the crisis began to subside.

Because of a drop in contributions to the Jewish Agency in recent years, "It was thought that Jews care less about Israel, but the situation suggests that U.S. Jewry is deeply committed to Israel," he said.

One of Peter Beinart's major points is that US Jews are not as engaged with Israel as they used to be, especially young people. The proliferation of pro-Israel groups in America suggests the opposite.

Incongruously, Ha'aretz writes:

Sasson says the main reason for the increase in contributions is not necessarily linked with a rise in Zionism, but to the increase in the number of donor collectors and their improved professionalism over the years.

You can almost imagine how the Ha'aretz reporter asked that question in order to elicit that answer. While it is possible that professionalism increased the amount of donations, all charities in the US have become more professional at the same time. Unless one can prove that the amount given in donations doubled across the board, it is hard to interpret this in any way besides saying that American Jews are more engaged with, and emotionally connected with, Israel than they were in the past - the exact opposite of the conventional wisdom.

Read More

Peter Beinart's nonsensical NYT op-ed

Peter Beinart in the New York Times has another incredibly misleading article about - well, you know what its about.

TO believe in a democratic Jewish state today is to be caught between the jaws of a pincer.

On the one hand, the Israeli government is erasing the “green line” that separates Israel proper from the West Bank. In 1980, roughly 12,000 Jews lived in the West Bank (excluding East Jerusalem). Today, government subsidies have helped swell that number to more than 300,000. Indeed, many Israeli maps and textbooks no longer show the green line at all.

In 2010, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel called the settlement of Ariel, which stretches deep into the West Bank, “the heart of our country.” Through its pro-settler policies, Israel is forging one political entity between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea — an entity of dubious democratic legitimacy, given that millions of West Bank Palestinians are barred from citizenship and the right to vote in the state that controls their lives.

For Beinart's thesis to be correct, you must believe that the Palestinian Authority and the PLO has no political legitimacy, or power.

Yet it is recognized as a full state by 129 nations; its citizens vote (at least in theory) to elect their leaders, it has autonomy, a territory that all accept as controlled by its own security forces, a court system, an Olympic team, and its own passports. According to at least one distinguished legal scholar, it is considered a full state under international law. The World Bank is putting out reports about how ready the territories are for statehood. The entire Oslo process - that Israel still supports - was designed to give full self-determination to Palestinian Arabs in the territories, and (more recently) statehood. For Beinart to turn around and state that all of these don't exist, and that for some reason the territories are (as he tries to coin the term) "nondemocratic Israel," is nonsense. Israel has no intention of integrating Ramallah or Jericho into Israel. And as recently as January, Israel tried to hold negotiations with the PLO, and the other side refused.

Beinart, in his attempt to sound an alarm for Israeli democracy, chooses quite deliberately to ignore everything that happened to the Palestinian Arabs since 1994.

It is Palestinian Arab intransigence, not Israeli settlements, that has stopped a Palestinian Arab state. Beinart's willingness to blame only one side shows that he is not being as evenhanded and "pro-Israel" as he tirelessly claims to be.

But, you might counter, what about Area C? Israel does indeed control all aspects of the lives of Arabs who live there, and while they vote in PA elections, they do not have much say in their own political affairs. Doesn't Israel's presence there endanger Israeli democracy?

The number of Palestinian Arabs in Area C is about 150,000 (about 2.5% of all Palestinian Arabs.) Which means that the percentage of people living under Israeli sovereignty who do not have political rights is, today, about 1.9%.

By way of contrast, the percentage of people living in US territories who are not represented in Congress and who cannot vote in presidential elections - those in Puerto Rico, Guam, the US Virgin Islands and elsewhere - is about 1.3%.

So is Israel's control of Area C a danger to Israeli democracy? Not unless you think that US territories endanger US democracy too. The idea is ridiculous. It is an issue, it is not a death-blow to democracy.

To go further, if Israel would decide to annex Area C, wouldn't that solve all the problems? No demographic issue, giving the Arabs there full citizenship - and Beinart's argument is down the drain.

Somehow, I don't think that Beinart would support that solution, or even a modified version of that solution. Because he has bought into the Palestinian Arab narrative that the artificially constructed 1949 armistice lines - which were not considered international borders before 1967 and were always meant to be modified in a final peace agreement between Israel and the Arab world - are somehow special, and that no peace can possibly result from a change in those lines that would include, say, Ariel. (He sort of says that he agrees that some of the border settlements would end up in Israel, and then tells those "settlers" to throw the more "ideological" settlers under the bus. Yay for Jewish unity!)

But there is no proof that this is true. Is is simply an assertion on the part of Palestinian Arabs, who repeat it over and over again so much that people like Peter Beinart believe it. And, whether they realize it or not, "pro-Israel Jews" like Beinart - by writing op-eds that accept this false premise - end up increasing Palestinian intransigence.

They are not helping peace at all.

What does Beinart think about the Clinton parameters, or the Olmert offer? They were clearly sufficient to demolish all of his arguments about a threat to Israeli democracy. Yet instead of slamming the PLO for its rejection of those peace plans, he continues insistence on the 1967 lines. Beinart buys into the Palestinian Arab narrative.  Instead of telling them that they should compromise and bring a lasting peace, he is telling them implicitly that they should buckle down and wait for American Jews like himself to pressure Israel to accept all of their demands.

The eventual border between Israel and a Palestinian Arab state must be negotiated. Moving it a bit to the east does not endanger Israeli democracy nor does it endanger Palestinian statehood. It doesn't even endanger Palestinian Arab contiguity, as any glance at a map would prove. This is self-evident, but repeated Palestinian Arab assertions that it is not "acceptable" are swallowed whole by a lot of otherwise smart people who believe they are pro-Israel.

I'm sorry, but this is not a pro-Israel argument, and op-eds like this do not bring peace any closer. Quite the contrary.

(h/t Avi for some ideas)

Read More