I listened to the interview, and recommend everyone who reads you article to the same. Here's my take:
There is no doubt that Peter Beinart doesn't care about Israelis –based on his body of work and definitely reinforced by this conversation. He not only is unwilling to focus on the lives and needs of Israelis, he doesn’t seem to register at all the threats of annihilation that Israelis have been living under for decades. Israeli defense doesn't even seem to occupy one neuron in his brain.
And I would also say that he has a strange, caricatured perspective on Palestinians and other Arabs. To him they are a homogenous, indistinguishable group of people, without agency, responsibility or accountability.
Since his entire worldview is ahistorical, never digging beyond the superficial level of issues, this leaves him with some pretty hollow reasoning. He is unwilling to recognize/distinguish the situation of Arab/Palestinian Israelis from those in the West Bank. Not only is the situation different between those two populations, one has shown itself willing to live in peace with Israel and the other has demonstrated, sadly far too many times, that they are not willing to live in peace next to Israel, turning down multiple offers of peace and statehood, and often resorting to terrorism as a way to advance their cause. Beinart ignores this – He, you and I would all like to see the military occupation end, but he (like so many people) see this just as an issue of Israeli discretion, discounting the obvious dangers of leaving in a way that leads to Gaza x 50.
Same with the right of return – yes, it is painful, but he ignores the real threats to Israelis if that were to happen, and this is where his ahistorical nature really comes into play: Beyond acknowledging the way every other refugee crisis since WWII has been solved, he completely ignores that this problem of Palestinian displacement would not have happened if they had accepted the 1947 UN Partition Plan and if five Arab armies had not attacked Israel as soon as it was born, with the goal of destroying the country and killing all of its inhabitants. Aggressive, discretionary war has its costs. I feel tons of empathy for those Arabs who displaced, as I do for all other populations who were displaced in the middle of the last century. But there is a lot of historical context, and real-life threats, that Beinart ignores.
Israeli has much agency, and much to answer for, in this situation. But this pattern of ignoring Palestinian/Arab agency, responsibility and accountability, which leads to all blame falling to Israel, is a non-starter for any progress. Does Beinart even know about the multiple peace/statehood offers the Palestinians (or the Arabs on their behalf) have turned down? We’ve seen how this lopsided approach has empowered Israel’s jihadist enemies since October 7, making peace harder to achieve. Which is why this refusal to acknowledge Palestinians agency is bad for them ... it motivates them to continue avoiding peace, which hardens Israeli fear and resolve, leading to a negative, self-reinforcing cycle.
One other inaccurate point from Beinart: He talked about how unfair it is that the Jewish National Fund administers so much of the funding that goes into managing certain land and infrastructure projects, because that supposedly benefits one ethnic group, the Jews. JNF’s mission is focused on the peripheries of Israel, focused on the north and the south of the country, and much of their work benefits Arab communities. Many of the areas where they work and create positive impact in the north are majority Arab. Just one more example of Peter Beinart’s false sense of certainty, his dangerous naivete, and why nobody should listen to him.
Do you accept the reality that Israel is a binational country. 73% of Israel’s citizens s who live within the country’s legal boundaries are Jewish while 27% are indigenous Gentiles. Every single one of the is an Israeli. And every single one of these Israelis is a thousand more times important to Israel than random Jews and Gentiles who are Belgians, Americans, etc. Because they are Israelis and the foreigners aren’t.
Don’t fall in the trap of thinking that being Israeli equates to being Jewish, because that is bogus.
Dan, I agree that to be Israeli doesn't mean to be Jewish. Israel is a liberal democratic state, however imperfect it is, and non-Jews have full citizenship and participation. I don't understand your point however?
I really, really do not recommend engaging with Dan Nelson. I know you're trying to be open and reasonable and I respect it, but addressing him is like talking to a brick wall.
Perhaps Ariel is, to use your favorite phrase, just an “as a Jew”, Jill. He may not be comfortable trying to be an enforcer of consensus.
Meanwhile, just another day in the illegally occupied territory that Israel governs. Credit today’s Haaretz.
“After Two Days, IDF Announces It Will Probe Soldier Who Fatally Shot Palestinian Infant
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has not issued a public statement regarding the killing of seven-month-old Sam Fahed Abu Haykal in Hebron on Friday, nor the settler and soldier attack in Huwara the following day
The Israeli military announced on Sunday that it has opened an investigation into the fatal shooting of a seven-month-old Palestinian infant and the wounding of his parents by IDF troops near Hebron on Friday.
At the same time, military officials say they have been unable to identify the soldiers and settlers filmed beating residents in a separate incident that took place at a West Bank village on Saturday.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has not issued a public statement regarding the killing of the baby.
Citing medics dispatched to Hebron's Tel Rumeida neighborhood on Friday, the Palestinian Health Ministry said IDF soldiers opened fire on the Abu Haykal’s vehicle, critically wounding seven-month-old Sam Fahed. The infant was evacuated to a hospital, where he was later pronounced dead, according to the ministry.“
Amazing, isn’t it, that with all of its intelligence capabilities, Israel can’t identify the soldiers and squatters who were filmed beating indigenous squatters in the West Bank. Sadly, this is only typical and Zionists tolerate it.
One might ask if it would take Israel 2 days to begin an investigation into the killing of a 7 month old Jewish baby by a Gentile? And if the investigation would be as meaningless as it will be in the case of baby Sam?
Thanks for asking. My point is that accusing Peter of not caring about Israelis is absurd. Peter offers a badly needed humanistic voice in the wilderness where the status quo in Israel and all of the area extending from the river to the sea is concerned. More important, he asks the tough questions about what happens to the Jewish state when the inevitable one state outcome occurs and Jews are in a pronounced minority in that expanded country.
Peter is a devout Jew and he cares about ALL Israelis, whether they be Jews or Gentiles. It is always a mistake to conflate Jews with Israelis. First off, because 27% of those living within Israel’s legal boundaries aren’t Jews. And secondly, because Jews around the world who aren’t Israelis are a diverse group who have a wide range of views about Israel and Zionism. Peter is just an example of this diversity and, sadly, he is relentlessly attacked for expressing views that aren’t consistent with what the enforcers in the Hasbara echo chamber want to hear.
And yet Peter doesn't - in his entire book on Being Jewish he doesn't wrestle with Israeli interests, he flattens them to fit his narrative. In our conversation he not once cared about the stories of Israelis, their activism, their hopes and dreams. He doesn't address the mechanisms by which his vision would be imposed or it's implications. So no, Dan, as I wrote, he just doesn't care about Israelis.
Peter is concerned about the interests of all Israelis, whether they be Jews or indigenous Gentiles. An he recognizes the obvious fact that Israel now governs 100% of the territory, extending from the river to the sea in one way or the other. He states the obvious when he says that the behaviors of the squatters in the West Bank, the Israeli police (who all unbelievably report to the crazy Kahanist thug Ben-Gvir) and the IDF are inconsistent with Jewish character and beliefs.
Peter is well aware of the intractable conflicts confronting the financial Israel people. Israel cannot possibly continue on his current project. It’s obvious that the Wright winners who control Israel have a compulsion to expand the country to include all the area from the land to the sea. It’s also obvious that by 2040 Jews will be in a pronounced minority in that land.
Since you speak for the interest of “Israel’s”, by whom I am sure you mean the Jews of Israel, please tell me what you think. The outcome in 2040 will be. Will be minority of the people in the land of Israel (or more appropriately cholesterol) C2 dominate the majority, via, sustained ethnic preferences in a partake or, God forbid, ethnic clenching? Or will every person in the country have the same kind of equal rights that these years of Israel now claim are granted to the indigenous Gentiles who composed 27% of the population living within as legal boundaries?
Peter is concerned about the interests of all Israelis, whether they be Jews or indigenous Gentiles. And he recognizes the obvious fact that Israel now governs 100% of the territory extending from the river to the sea in one way or the other.
He states the obvious when he says that the behaviors of the squatters in the West Bank, the Israeli police (who all unbelievably report to the crazy Kahanist thug Ben-Gvir) and the IDF are inconsistent with Jewish character and beliefs.
Peter is well aware of the intractable conflicts confronting the Israeli people who are Jews. Israel cannot possibly continue on his current trajectory. It’s obvious that the right wingers who control Israel have a compulsion to expand the country to include all the area from the river to the sea. It’s also obvious that by 2040 Jews will be in a pronounced minority in that land.
Since you speak for the interests of “Israelis”, by whom I am sure you mean the Jews of Israel, please tell me what you think the outcome in 2040 will be. Will a minority of the people in the land of Israel (or more appropriately Palesrael, reflecting the country’s binational character) continue to dominate the majority, via sustained ethnic preferences and apartheid or, God forbid, more genocidal ethnic cleansing? Or will every person in the country have the same kind of equal rights that the Jews of Israel now claim are granted to the indigenous Gentiles who compose 27% of the population living within its legal boundaries?
The problem with post-Zionist fantasies such as Beinart’s is not only that they ask Israeli Jews to self-dissolve in a region where armed conflict is inevitable.
More deeply: once that conflict begins, where exactly is the political will to save Jews supposed to come from?
From international actors who do not believe Israel has a right to exist? From movements that treat Israel itself as the original sin? From institutions that see Israeli Jews not as a legitimate people, but as a colonial problem to be eliminated?
They are asking Jews to give up the only protection they actually have, and then depend on the very same world that has already decided their protection is illegitimate.
Thank you. The ignoring of Israelis, their experience and needs is ignored by these anti Zionist Jews. They use their Jewish identity as a weapon against Israeli Jews
Beinart is pretty difficult to listen to. I've sat through some of his other interviews in the past and he's quite irritating on the Israel issue in part because his delivery comes across as a hard pander to the far left.
To be clear, I'm consistently critical of the Israeli government under Netanyahu, but would I go so far as to question Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state? Nope -- the U.N. in 1947 put that issue to bed as I and many others are concerned.
And regardless of Beinart's exhaustive and exhausting "intellectual" argument to the contrary, Israel does exist and that's called reality. Hopefully, Netanyahu is voted out in the upcoming election, but in the meantime, this is apparently a great time for Beinart to continue his change what is reality campaign.
Even tho I didn't listen to the podcast my guess is you both needed a moderator and it sounds like there were missed opportunities for each of you to get the other to discuss the places each of you didn't want to go --- which is the most frustrating thing about this problem writ large.
You make some good points about Peter’s blind spots, which sometimes seem willful. However, he did ask you some good questions which you could have, but refused to answer in a straightforward manner. Doing so, instead of obfuscating, would have gone a long way to exposing the weak points in his stance. It was a missed opportunity.
Thank you for the feedback - yes, as with all interviews, there are things to learn from and do better next time. What would you have liked me to respond to more thoroughly?
Nothing. You were not obfuscating; he was. He brought you on his show to talk about YOUR book. Your book is about liberal Israelis’ reactions to the Israel-Hamas War, and he basically turned it into a courtroom where you got cross-examined for the mythical “Palestinians” of his fantasies whom he didn’t even characterize properly. When you ask “how could I have been more thorough?” or entertain the idea that you were the problem in this interaction, you have one foot in the trap.
By the way, I thought you addressed most of his dumb questions professionally and with grace. I would have used some, shall we say, stronger language towards that asshole.
For one thing, the argument that citizenship and belonging in the U.S and Europe are defined by religious exclusion in the same formal way as in Israel does not hold water. There are good historical reasons Israel wants to maintain a certain degree of explicit religious/ethnic identity; you should simply concede that fact. The U.S. is not a Christian country in the same way that Israel is a Jewish state (where minorities should, of course, have equal rights). This may not satisfy Peter Beinart, though in the not so distant past it would have.
You should also be clearer about what sort of ultimate settlement with the Palestinian population you would support. There are valid practical reasons for rejecting a one state for all citizens solution, but you should be clearer about supporting a political solution which does give Palestinians some form of true sovereignty, either within a two state or confederated context. If you don’t actually support that, say so, and why. I will be disappointed and strongly disagree with you, but so be it. You’ll have made your stance clear.
Hanlon's razor: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."
Ariel, I watched the "interview" in awe at your poise, patience, and skill in dismantling Beinart's arguments essentially on his own terms, astonished at Beinart's inability/unwillingness to address your basic points.
For exactly that reason, I was disturbed to return to your blog/substack and read your after-summary with the headline and top-line critique that "Peter Beinart does not care about Israelis."
Beinart cares about Israelis, Jews, etc., but suffers from misguided/incoherent/hypocritical/inconsistent first principles, as you so expertly demonstrates in the interview. How does it help (and who does it help?) to move the discussion from those underlying incorrect assumptions into the territory of gross and ultimately misleading approximations?
The approach in your after-summary does make for a simpler argument, a sharper accusation. But will it help reach the 14% of US Jews who identify as antizionist, or the probably large majority of US Jews who all care to one degree or another about Israelis, Palestinians, and all sorts of people, but have been battered by the world and liberalism writ large to believe that even if they support Israel as a Jewish state/homeland/polity, that view is ultimately "problematic," and that their "caring" should first and foremost be directed at those suffering "the most?"
You argue expertly in the "interview" that Beinart's argumentation fails to take into account and ultimately silences an important group in Israelis; I submit that any mischaracterization of Beinart's mistakes will end up simply alienating in return a potentially reachable group of non-Israelis.
Thank you - I hear you. And I should have been clearer in my article. It is not a conspiracy to say that Beinart does not consider Israeli Jews in his discussion of the future of the Land (in his book and his interview), and perhaps I should have used the term consider and not care. I wrote another piece today and hope to explain that further ...hope it came out clearer this time.
This was indeed a pretty frustrating interview and it wasn’t hard to discern how frustrating you must have found it.
You’re right that Peter harper on a bit too much on things that aren’t related to the book, but fwiw I think your characterisation here is still a bit unfair. Peter has no doubt been able to have good faith interviews with people of different views, his interview with Jonathan Friedland eg was very good imo.
And while he didn’t ask detailed questions about the book, which he should have, I thought he did give you a couple of openings were you could either have laid out your own views, or go into some detail on what those you interviewed actually think and that you see as worth highlighting. But you didn’t really use those opening and on the one hand aid you wouldn’t want to push your views over those in the book, but then also didn’t explain these either!
If you do another podcast, think about which views from the book you actually want to get across, and use any opening to do so perhaps?
Thank you - I agree with you; I learned a lot from the interview and hopefully to a better job of representing the people I interviewed in my book in the future.
Beinart is pretty difficult to listen to. I've sat through some of his other interviews in the past and he's quite irritating on the Israel issue in part because his delivery comes across as a hard pander to the far left.
To be clear, I'm consistently critical of the Israeli government under Netanyahu, but would I go so far as to question Israel right to exist as a Jewish state? Nope -- the U.N. in 1947 put that issue to bed as I and many others are concerned.
And regardless of Beinart's exhaustive and exhausting "intellectual" argument to the contrary, Israel does exist and that's called reality. Hopefully, Netanyahu is voted out in the upcoming election, but in the meantime, this is apparently a great time for Beinart to continue his change what is reality campaign.
I listened carefully and agree with your conclusion. You provided an object-lesson of answering every question calmly and authentically. My impression was that Beinart despises those that work hard and in practical ways for a liberal and democratic jewish national state in any part of today’s territory of Israel. Nothing short of its disappearance preferably preceded by joint recantation of Herzl’s vision by today’s Israeli Jews will satisfy his political appetites. His attitudes to the political corroborate Carl Schmitt rather than Karl Marx.
Thank you for this. Beinart will likely tell you this is all systemic racism on the part of Israelis and ignore the 1200 year of dhimmi law forced on Jews by Muslims.
In The Oslo Syndrome, Kenneth Levin wrote: "What motivates those Jews who are active in or align themselves with these various Israel-indicting bodies...?...a wish to believe, in the face of anti-Jewish pressures, that Jewish salvation can be obtained by the embrace of a wider identity of leftist acolyte and by Jewish self-reform and self-effacement in conformity with leftist tenets."
Kenneth Levin, The Oslo Syndrome, Delusions of a People Under Siege (2005), quoted in David Mamet's The Wicked Son (page 95).
It's very strange thinking about my relationship to Poland compared to the average zionist Jew's relationship to Israel (Israeli or otherwise.)
You say things like "we've suffered eleven billionty years at the hands of blah blah blah."
And I just can't understand this world view.
Yes, Poland was invaded, conquered, subjugated... many bad things.
But I wasn't there. None of that happened to me. And I would feel, frankly, disgusted if I tried to claim that suffering as my own. Because it isn't my own. Not remotely.
And I think maybe that is partly what is so disturbing about zionism, generally. Wearing the historical suffering of others to justify the suffering of actual people today.
You might feel differently if the only place you knew you could live as a human being was Poland, that the Poles had been murdered or dispossessed by almost every other country, and yet Poland was despised by the entire world, that it was surrounded by enemies, and claimed as truly belonging to Muslims. Fortunately for you, that is not the case, so you are free to be disdainful toward those who are in that situation.
If you think Jews can’t live in the US just as normally as I do you know nothing of the US.
And again, turning to a history that is not yours to justify settler-colonialism is preposterous.
There are places in the world where it might be dangerous for me to be a European atheist, just as there are some places that it might be dangerous to be Jewish, but those are the same places and for the same reason: European militarism.
Learn at least the basics of Jewish history before trying to join conversations about it. Askenazim are in Israel because the U.S., along with the rest of the world, closed their doors to Jewish refugees both during, and after, their annihilation by Nazis and their collaborators. Mizrahim (the majority of Israeli Jews) are in Israel because the entire Arab world ethnically cleansed their entire Jewish population in the 1940s.
I listened to the interview, and recommend everyone who reads you article to the same. Here's my take:
There is no doubt that Peter Beinart doesn't care about Israelis –based on his body of work and definitely reinforced by this conversation. He not only is unwilling to focus on the lives and needs of Israelis, he doesn’t seem to register at all the threats of annihilation that Israelis have been living under for decades. Israeli defense doesn't even seem to occupy one neuron in his brain.
And I would also say that he has a strange, caricatured perspective on Palestinians and other Arabs. To him they are a homogenous, indistinguishable group of people, without agency, responsibility or accountability.
Since his entire worldview is ahistorical, never digging beyond the superficial level of issues, this leaves him with some pretty hollow reasoning. He is unwilling to recognize/distinguish the situation of Arab/Palestinian Israelis from those in the West Bank. Not only is the situation different between those two populations, one has shown itself willing to live in peace with Israel and the other has demonstrated, sadly far too many times, that they are not willing to live in peace next to Israel, turning down multiple offers of peace and statehood, and often resorting to terrorism as a way to advance their cause. Beinart ignores this – He, you and I would all like to see the military occupation end, but he (like so many people) see this just as an issue of Israeli discretion, discounting the obvious dangers of leaving in a way that leads to Gaza x 50.
Same with the right of return – yes, it is painful, but he ignores the real threats to Israelis if that were to happen, and this is where his ahistorical nature really comes into play: Beyond acknowledging the way every other refugee crisis since WWII has been solved, he completely ignores that this problem of Palestinian displacement would not have happened if they had accepted the 1947 UN Partition Plan and if five Arab armies had not attacked Israel as soon as it was born, with the goal of destroying the country and killing all of its inhabitants. Aggressive, discretionary war has its costs. I feel tons of empathy for those Arabs who displaced, as I do for all other populations who were displaced in the middle of the last century. But there is a lot of historical context, and real-life threats, that Beinart ignores.
Israeli has much agency, and much to answer for, in this situation. But this pattern of ignoring Palestinian/Arab agency, responsibility and accountability, which leads to all blame falling to Israel, is a non-starter for any progress. Does Beinart even know about the multiple peace/statehood offers the Palestinians (or the Arabs on their behalf) have turned down? We’ve seen how this lopsided approach has empowered Israel’s jihadist enemies since October 7, making peace harder to achieve. Which is why this refusal to acknowledge Palestinians agency is bad for them ... it motivates them to continue avoiding peace, which hardens Israeli fear and resolve, leading to a negative, self-reinforcing cycle.
One other inaccurate point from Beinart: He talked about how unfair it is that the Jewish National Fund administers so much of the funding that goes into managing certain land and infrastructure projects, because that supposedly benefits one ethnic group, the Jews. JNF’s mission is focused on the peripheries of Israel, focused on the north and the south of the country, and much of their work benefits Arab communities. Many of the areas where they work and create positive impact in the north are majority Arab. Just one more example of Peter Beinart’s false sense of certainty, his dangerous naivete, and why nobody should listen to him.
Do you accept the reality that Israel is a binational country. 73% of Israel’s citizens s who live within the country’s legal boundaries are Jewish while 27% are indigenous Gentiles. Every single one of the is an Israeli. And every single one of these Israelis is a thousand more times important to Israel than random Jews and Gentiles who are Belgians, Americans, etc. Because they are Israelis and the foreigners aren’t.
Don’t fall in the trap of thinking that being Israeli equates to being Jewish, because that is bogus.
Dan, I agree that to be Israeli doesn't mean to be Jewish. Israel is a liberal democratic state, however imperfect it is, and non-Jews have full citizenship and participation. I don't understand your point however?
I really, really do not recommend engaging with Dan Nelson. I know you're trying to be open and reasonable and I respect it, but addressing him is like talking to a brick wall.
Perhaps Ariel is, to use your favorite phrase, just an “as a Jew”, Jill. He may not be comfortable trying to be an enforcer of consensus.
Meanwhile, just another day in the illegally occupied territory that Israel governs. Credit today’s Haaretz.
“After Two Days, IDF Announces It Will Probe Soldier Who Fatally Shot Palestinian Infant
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has not issued a public statement regarding the killing of seven-month-old Sam Fahed Abu Haykal in Hebron on Friday, nor the settler and soldier attack in Huwara the following day
The Israeli military announced on Sunday that it has opened an investigation into the fatal shooting of a seven-month-old Palestinian infant and the wounding of his parents by IDF troops near Hebron on Friday.
At the same time, military officials say they have been unable to identify the soldiers and settlers filmed beating residents in a separate incident that took place at a West Bank village on Saturday.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has not issued a public statement regarding the killing of the baby.
Citing medics dispatched to Hebron's Tel Rumeida neighborhood on Friday, the Palestinian Health Ministry said IDF soldiers opened fire on the Abu Haykal’s vehicle, critically wounding seven-month-old Sam Fahed. The infant was evacuated to a hospital, where he was later pronounced dead, according to the ministry.“
Amazing, isn’t it, that with all of its intelligence capabilities, Israel can’t identify the soldiers and squatters who were filmed beating indigenous squatters in the West Bank. Sadly, this is only typical and Zionists tolerate it.
One might ask if it would take Israel 2 days to begin an investigation into the killing of a 7 month old Jewish baby by a Gentile? And if the investigation would be as meaningless as it will be in the case of baby Sam?
Thanks for asking. My point is that accusing Peter of not caring about Israelis is absurd. Peter offers a badly needed humanistic voice in the wilderness where the status quo in Israel and all of the area extending from the river to the sea is concerned. More important, he asks the tough questions about what happens to the Jewish state when the inevitable one state outcome occurs and Jews are in a pronounced minority in that expanded country.
Peter is a devout Jew and he cares about ALL Israelis, whether they be Jews or Gentiles. It is always a mistake to conflate Jews with Israelis. First off, because 27% of those living within Israel’s legal boundaries aren’t Jews. And secondly, because Jews around the world who aren’t Israelis are a diverse group who have a wide range of views about Israel and Zionism. Peter is just an example of this diversity and, sadly, he is relentlessly attacked for expressing views that aren’t consistent with what the enforcers in the Hasbara echo chamber want to hear.
I’ll always appreciate the dialogue.
And yet Peter doesn't - in his entire book on Being Jewish he doesn't wrestle with Israeli interests, he flattens them to fit his narrative. In our conversation he not once cared about the stories of Israelis, their activism, their hopes and dreams. He doesn't address the mechanisms by which his vision would be imposed or it's implications. So no, Dan, as I wrote, he just doesn't care about Israelis.
Peter is concerned about the interests of all Israelis, whether they be Jews or indigenous Gentiles. An he recognizes the obvious fact that Israel now governs 100% of the territory, extending from the river to the sea in one way or the other. He states the obvious when he says that the behaviors of the squatters in the West Bank, the Israeli police (who all unbelievably report to the crazy Kahanist thug Ben-Gvir) and the IDF are inconsistent with Jewish character and beliefs.
Peter is well aware of the intractable conflicts confronting the financial Israel people. Israel cannot possibly continue on his current project. It’s obvious that the Wright winners who control Israel have a compulsion to expand the country to include all the area from the land to the sea. It’s also obvious that by 2040 Jews will be in a pronounced minority in that land.
Since you speak for the interest of “Israel’s”, by whom I am sure you mean the Jews of Israel, please tell me what you think. The outcome in 2040 will be. Will be minority of the people in the land of Israel (or more appropriately cholesterol) C2 dominate the majority, via, sustained ethnic preferences in a partake or, God forbid, ethnic clenching? Or will every person in the country have the same kind of equal rights that these years of Israel now claim are granted to the indigenous Gentiles who composed 27% of the population living within as legal boundaries?
Peter is concerned about the interests of all Israelis, whether they be Jews or indigenous Gentiles. And he recognizes the obvious fact that Israel now governs 100% of the territory extending from the river to the sea in one way or the other.
He states the obvious when he says that the behaviors of the squatters in the West Bank, the Israeli police (who all unbelievably report to the crazy Kahanist thug Ben-Gvir) and the IDF are inconsistent with Jewish character and beliefs.
Peter is well aware of the intractable conflicts confronting the Israeli people who are Jews. Israel cannot possibly continue on his current trajectory. It’s obvious that the right wingers who control Israel have a compulsion to expand the country to include all the area from the river to the sea. It’s also obvious that by 2040 Jews will be in a pronounced minority in that land.
Since you speak for the interests of “Israelis”, by whom I am sure you mean the Jews of Israel, please tell me what you think the outcome in 2040 will be. Will a minority of the people in the land of Israel (or more appropriately Palesrael, reflecting the country’s binational character) continue to dominate the majority, via sustained ethnic preferences and apartheid or, God forbid, more genocidal ethnic cleansing? Or will every person in the country have the same kind of equal rights that the Jews of Israel now claim are granted to the indigenous Gentiles who compose 27% of the population living within its legal boundaries?
The problem with post-Zionist fantasies such as Beinart’s is not only that they ask Israeli Jews to self-dissolve in a region where armed conflict is inevitable.
More deeply: once that conflict begins, where exactly is the political will to save Jews supposed to come from?
From international actors who do not believe Israel has a right to exist? From movements that treat Israel itself as the original sin? From institutions that see Israeli Jews not as a legitimate people, but as a colonial problem to be eliminated?
They are asking Jews to give up the only protection they actually have, and then depend on the very same world that has already decided their protection is illegitimate.
It is suicide.
I think much of this can be summarized by noting that he is unempathetic, self centered, and overall not a good person.
Just when I thought I couldn't think any less of Beinart....
Thank you. The ignoring of Israelis, their experience and needs is ignored by these anti Zionist Jews. They use their Jewish identity as a weapon against Israeli Jews
Beinart is pretty difficult to listen to. I've sat through some of his other interviews in the past and he's quite irritating on the Israel issue in part because his delivery comes across as a hard pander to the far left.
To be clear, I'm consistently critical of the Israeli government under Netanyahu, but would I go so far as to question Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state? Nope -- the U.N. in 1947 put that issue to bed as I and many others are concerned.
And regardless of Beinart's exhaustive and exhausting "intellectual" argument to the contrary, Israel does exist and that's called reality. Hopefully, Netanyahu is voted out in the upcoming election, but in the meantime, this is apparently a great time for Beinart to continue his change what is reality campaign.
Even tho I didn't listen to the podcast my guess is you both needed a moderator and it sounds like there were missed opportunities for each of you to get the other to discuss the places each of you didn't want to go --- which is the most frustrating thing about this problem writ large.
Maybe you should listen and then comment? Would love to hear what you think
Ariel
You make some good points about Peter’s blind spots, which sometimes seem willful. However, he did ask you some good questions which you could have, but refused to answer in a straightforward manner. Doing so, instead of obfuscating, would have gone a long way to exposing the weak points in his stance. It was a missed opportunity.
Thank you for the feedback - yes, as with all interviews, there are things to learn from and do better next time. What would you have liked me to respond to more thoroughly?
Nothing. You were not obfuscating; he was. He brought you on his show to talk about YOUR book. Your book is about liberal Israelis’ reactions to the Israel-Hamas War, and he basically turned it into a courtroom where you got cross-examined for the mythical “Palestinians” of his fantasies whom he didn’t even characterize properly. When you ask “how could I have been more thorough?” or entertain the idea that you were the problem in this interaction, you have one foot in the trap.
By the way, I thought you addressed most of his dumb questions professionally and with grace. I would have used some, shall we say, stronger language towards that asshole.
For one thing, the argument that citizenship and belonging in the U.S and Europe are defined by religious exclusion in the same formal way as in Israel does not hold water. There are good historical reasons Israel wants to maintain a certain degree of explicit religious/ethnic identity; you should simply concede that fact. The U.S. is not a Christian country in the same way that Israel is a Jewish state (where minorities should, of course, have equal rights). This may not satisfy Peter Beinart, though in the not so distant past it would have.
You should also be clearer about what sort of ultimate settlement with the Palestinian population you would support. There are valid practical reasons for rejecting a one state for all citizens solution, but you should be clearer about supporting a political solution which does give Palestinians some form of true sovereignty, either within a two state or confederated context. If you don’t actually support that, say so, and why. I will be disappointed and strongly disagree with you, but so be it. You’ll have made your stance clear.
Hanlon's razor: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."
Ariel, I watched the "interview" in awe at your poise, patience, and skill in dismantling Beinart's arguments essentially on his own terms, astonished at Beinart's inability/unwillingness to address your basic points.
For exactly that reason, I was disturbed to return to your blog/substack and read your after-summary with the headline and top-line critique that "Peter Beinart does not care about Israelis."
Beinart cares about Israelis, Jews, etc., but suffers from misguided/incoherent/hypocritical/inconsistent first principles, as you so expertly demonstrates in the interview. How does it help (and who does it help?) to move the discussion from those underlying incorrect assumptions into the territory of gross and ultimately misleading approximations?
The approach in your after-summary does make for a simpler argument, a sharper accusation. But will it help reach the 14% of US Jews who identify as antizionist, or the probably large majority of US Jews who all care to one degree or another about Israelis, Palestinians, and all sorts of people, but have been battered by the world and liberalism writ large to believe that even if they support Israel as a Jewish state/homeland/polity, that view is ultimately "problematic," and that their "caring" should first and foremost be directed at those suffering "the most?"
You argue expertly in the "interview" that Beinart's argumentation fails to take into account and ultimately silences an important group in Israelis; I submit that any mischaracterization of Beinart's mistakes will end up simply alienating in return a potentially reachable group of non-Israelis.
Thank you - I hear you. And I should have been clearer in my article. It is not a conspiracy to say that Beinart does not consider Israeli Jews in his discussion of the future of the Land (in his book and his interview), and perhaps I should have used the term consider and not care. I wrote another piece today and hope to explain that further ...hope it came out clearer this time.
This was indeed a pretty frustrating interview and it wasn’t hard to discern how frustrating you must have found it.
You’re right that Peter harper on a bit too much on things that aren’t related to the book, but fwiw I think your characterisation here is still a bit unfair. Peter has no doubt been able to have good faith interviews with people of different views, his interview with Jonathan Friedland eg was very good imo.
And while he didn’t ask detailed questions about the book, which he should have, I thought he did give you a couple of openings were you could either have laid out your own views, or go into some detail on what those you interviewed actually think and that you see as worth highlighting. But you didn’t really use those opening and on the one hand aid you wouldn’t want to push your views over those in the book, but then also didn’t explain these either!
If you do another podcast, think about which views from the book you actually want to get across, and use any opening to do so perhaps?
Thank you - I agree with you; I learned a lot from the interview and hopefully to a better job of representing the people I interviewed in my book in the future.
100% on point
Beinart is pretty difficult to listen to. I've sat through some of his other interviews in the past and he's quite irritating on the Israel issue in part because his delivery comes across as a hard pander to the far left.
To be clear, I'm consistently critical of the Israeli government under Netanyahu, but would I go so far as to question Israel right to exist as a Jewish state? Nope -- the U.N. in 1947 put that issue to bed as I and many others are concerned.
And regardless of Beinart's exhaustive and exhausting "intellectual" argument to the contrary, Israel does exist and that's called reality. Hopefully, Netanyahu is voted out in the upcoming election, but in the meantime, this is apparently a great time for Beinart to continue his change what is reality campaign.
I listened carefully and agree with your conclusion. You provided an object-lesson of answering every question calmly and authentically. My impression was that Beinart despises those that work hard and in practical ways for a liberal and democratic jewish national state in any part of today’s territory of Israel. Nothing short of its disappearance preferably preceded by joint recantation of Herzl’s vision by today’s Israeli Jews will satisfy his political appetites. His attitudes to the political corroborate Carl Schmitt rather than Karl Marx.
Thank you for this. Beinart will likely tell you this is all systemic racism on the part of Israelis and ignore the 1200 year of dhimmi law forced on Jews by Muslims.
https://substack.com/@thegoldenpill/note/p-171885952?r=31tulb&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action
In The Oslo Syndrome, Kenneth Levin wrote: "What motivates those Jews who are active in or align themselves with these various Israel-indicting bodies...?...a wish to believe, in the face of anti-Jewish pressures, that Jewish salvation can be obtained by the embrace of a wider identity of leftist acolyte and by Jewish self-reform and self-effacement in conformity with leftist tenets."
Kenneth Levin, The Oslo Syndrome, Delusions of a People Under Siege (2005), quoted in David Mamet's The Wicked Son (page 95).
https://substack.com/@thinktorah/note/c-76043773
It's very strange thinking about my relationship to Poland compared to the average zionist Jew's relationship to Israel (Israeli or otherwise.)
You say things like "we've suffered eleven billionty years at the hands of blah blah blah."
And I just can't understand this world view.
Yes, Poland was invaded, conquered, subjugated... many bad things.
But I wasn't there. None of that happened to me. And I would feel, frankly, disgusted if I tried to claim that suffering as my own. Because it isn't my own. Not remotely.
And I think maybe that is partly what is so disturbing about zionism, generally. Wearing the historical suffering of others to justify the suffering of actual people today.
What a disdainful thing.
You might feel differently if the only place you knew you could live as a human being was Poland, that the Poles had been murdered or dispossessed by almost every other country, and yet Poland was despised by the entire world, that it was surrounded by enemies, and claimed as truly belonging to Muslims. Fortunately for you, that is not the case, so you are free to be disdainful toward those who are in that situation.
If you think Jews can’t live in the US just as normally as I do you know nothing of the US.
And again, turning to a history that is not yours to justify settler-colonialism is preposterous.
There are places in the world where it might be dangerous for me to be a European atheist, just as there are some places that it might be dangerous to be Jewish, but those are the same places and for the same reason: European militarism.
Learn at least the basics of Jewish history before trying to join conversations about it. Askenazim are in Israel because the U.S., along with the rest of the world, closed their doors to Jewish refugees both during, and after, their annihilation by Nazis and their collaborators. Mizrahim (the majority of Israeli Jews) are in Israel because the entire Arab world ethnically cleansed their entire Jewish population in the 1940s.