Peter Beinart jumps on the bandwagon by not only repeating that Israel is guilty of apartheid - a position that he argued against not long ago - but he then goes on to say that all Zionists, and indeed anyone accusing haters of Israel of antisemitism, are in fact bigots - because they are "anti-Palestinian."
His argument is muddled, to put it mildly. He starts off by saying that the Republicans wanted to censure Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar, Ayanna Presley, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for “inciting anti-Semitic attacks across the United States.” with their scurrilous accusations of Israeli "apartheid" are in fact the real bigots:
Such accusations have dogged Tlaib, Omar, Pressley, and Ocasio-Cortez since they entered Congress. Search for articles alleging that they are antisemitic and Google generates a seemingly endless supply. But if you search for articles suggesting that their critics are “anti-Palestinian,” you’ll find next to nothing.
Let's ignore for now that the entire spike in antisemitism in the US, Canada and UK during the last two months has been clearly tied to pro-Palestinian attackers, and that the link between slandering Israel and attacking Jews is crystal clear.
Since only Tlaib has Palestinian ancestry, Beinart's claim that the politicians who criticize the"squad" are anti-Palestinian bigots means that he is saying that anyone who supports the only Jewish state (or points out the link between anti-Zionism and antisemitic attacks) is a bigot.
What, exactly, is "anti-Palestinianism" according to Peter Beinart? He doesn't define it, so it is unclear whether he thinks it is bigotry against Palestinian Arabs or simply being against Palestinian Arab nationalism.He brings examples that would indicate both of those, saying that anyone who is against a Palestinian state that would be a danger to Israel is guilty of the brand new crime of "anti-Palestinianism."
But if being against a Palestinian state is bigotry, that means that being against nationalism is bigotry.
And since Beinart has established himself in recent years as being the leading Jewish intellectual anti-Zionist, then by his own definition he is a bigot.
Beinart quotes one potential definition of "anti-Palestinianism" that is instructive:
In a tweet last fall, Mezna Qato, a historian of the Middle East at Cambridge University, defined “anti-Palestinianism” as “Prejudice, hostility or discrimination against Palestinians. Denial of the Nakba. Accusing a Palestinian of ‘latent’ racism(s) without cause. Allowing Palestinian exception to all other held liberal or left values/politics.”
If Beinart accepted that these are examples of bigotry, then Beinart and all anti-Zionists are bigots.
“Prejudice, hostility or discrimination against Zionists" - All of Beinart's writings at Jewish Currents are hostile to Zionists and Zionism.
"Denial of the Jewish history of the Land" - Beinart isn't guilty of this but there are countless examples of Palestinians denying the existence of the Temples in Jerusalem, taking over Jewish holy spots and claiming them as their own [there are literally no Jewish holy spots in Israel that Muslims do not claim themselves,) andclaiming
"Accusing a Zionist of ‘latent’ racism(s) without cause." That is the entire point of this essay!
"Allowing Zionist exception to all other held liberal or left values/politics." Palestinians do not hold liberal values by any definition. Zionists, generally, do, from equal rights for women and gays to sensitivity to animal rights to adherence to human rights standards. Israel's tolerance of Islam is far greater than what is found in Europe, where minarets, burkinis, hijabs and Muslim slaughter are all subject to restrictions that are unheard of in Israel.
The only exception to liberal/left politics is in fact their opposition to the most liberal state in the region.
Peter Beinart has defined himself and his allies as bigots, in black and white.
Beinart tries to thread the needle, by ridiculously claiming that what Palestinians (or, specifically, Tlaib) want is not a Palestinian state but a state where Palestinians are the vast majority (thanks to "return") and yet Jews will supposedly be granted equal rights. Anyone who follows even a little bit of the news, or the history of the Arab claim to want equal rights for Jews in an Arab majority state, knows that this is not at all what Palestinians want. Surveys, speeches, and history proves that Palestinians have always wanted to control the areas that Jews controlled, and nothing else.
The history of Palestinian nationalism is the history of Palestinian Arab antisemitism:
From the Mufti who considered Palestine to be southern Syria before the British Mandate,
to their insistence that Jews under the threat of annihilation be forbidden to immigrate to British Mandate Palestine while Arabs could enter freely,
to the 11th hour "binational state" that Arabs proposed in 1947 when it looked like they would lose the partition vote - a state where Jews would have full rights - a mere ten days before they started attacking Jews in Palestine and a mere year before Transjordan expelled all Jews from its portion of Palestine,
to the 1964 PLO Covenant that excluded the West Bank and Gaza from its desired "Palestine" because Jews didn't control those areas,
to Yasir Arafat's 1974 "phased" plan to destroy Israel (never renounced),
to the repeated Palestinian refusal to accept a state and permanent peace and their choice to kill Jews instead,
to surveys that show that Palestinians who say they want a two state solution see it as a stepping stone to taking over the entire area where Jews have no national rights - but Arabs do.
Just today, these enlightened, democratic Palestinian Arabs are denouncing Jews visiting the site of the Jewish Temples on the anniversary of their destruction. (They also demand that the Western Wall be considered Muslim so Jews would be limited from visiting there, just as they were before 1967 and 1948.)
Who is Peter Beinart trying to kid when he claims that an Arab majority state from the river to the sea would allow Jews to have equal rights?
When Beinart defends Palestinian nationalism, he is defending antisemitism.
I want to be clear: when Westerners talk about a Palestinian state, they do not mean a state that is antisemitic. But when Palestinians talk about a Palestinian state - whether it is side by side with or replacing Israel - they look at it as a means to end Jewish rights in the region. It is purely antisemitic. In fact, antisemitism is the very reason they have not accepted a state by now, because it would allow a viable Jewish state to still exist.
Beinart knows the truth. Zionists know the truth. Palestinians know the truth. But liberal Westerners are ignorant about the history, about the bigotry in daily Palestinian media, the antisemitism taught in Palestinian schools. Beinart wants to gaslight Western liberals into accepting his grand plan to destroy the Jewish state in the name of tolerance and human rights, fairness and justice.
They shouldn't believe him.
After all, he just proved he is a bigot.
