Saturday, November 7, 2015

Judenrat: Beinart (Updated)

Michael L.

{Cross-posted at Jews Down Under.}

judenratPeter Beinart is a Judenrat.

This is to say, he acts as an agent and intermediary of the enemies of the Jewish people while claiming to be a friend to the Jewish people.  This is not to say that Beinart is disingenuous.  I have no reason to doubt that he believes every word he says.

Recently, at the rather non-traditional Beth Chayim Chadashim Progressive synagogue in Los Angeles, he said this:
While we condemn Palestinian violence, we must recognize this painful truth: that Israeli policy has encouraged it," Beinart told his audience. "Israel has encouraged it by penalizing Palestinian nonviolence, by responding to that nonviolence by deportations, teargas, imprisonment, and the confiscation of Palestinian lands. Hard as it is to say, the Israeli government is reaping what it has sowed.
Can we agree that anyone who justifies violence against the Jewish people in the Middle East by the much larger hostile Muslim majority is not a friend to either Israel or the Jewish people?  And why do I get the sense that of all the peoples on the planet, it is only Jewish people who are forced to even ask the question?

There is no other people, or nationality, who, if under attack by a long-standing enemy, gives the benefit of the doubt to those within that nation who justify, and thereby encourage, the violence against his or her own people.

What Marty Peretz must have done to Peter Beinart when he worked for him as managing editor of the New Republic, between 1995 and 1997, is hard to fathom.  What could the experience of working under Peretz as an editorial wunderkinder have done to the poor guy to turn him into what we see today?  Or, more likely than not, Beinart kept his anti-Semitic anti-Israelism under his kippa before, and during, his tenure at the New Republic.  It was only when he was in a position to profit from his hostility toward Israel that he came out of the closet.

Beinart argues, hysterically enough, that Israel has encouraged Arab-Muslim Jihadi violence against Jews by "penalizing Palestinian nonviolence."

Palestinian non-violence?  Have I missed something?  Did a Palestinian-Arab Gandhi or Martin Luther King, Jr., ever emerge out of their culture of grievance and hatred?  I do not think so.  Beinart seems to have gotten lost in the alleys and byways of his own imagination and hard-left ideology.  Where is this movement for non-violence among the Palestinian-Arabs?

I do not see it.  Do you?

On the contrary, what I see is year after year, decade after decade, century after century, of violent Arab-Muslim incitement against the Jewish minority in the Middle East.  They have already driven Jews out every country in the region and now they want to drive us out of our tiny national homeland by inscribing malice into the souls of their children and encouraging them to use the knife, if not the auto, as the expression of that malice. responding to that nonviolence by deportations, teargas, imprisonment, and the confiscation of Palestinian lands.
I have to assume that Beinart understands that Israel does not deport Arabs, teargas Arabs, imprison Arabs, or confiscate "Palestinian lands" for the crime of being non-violent, although this is the irrational and obvious implication of his words.  This is only the implication, however, among those who know nothing of the conflict.  I assume what he means is that some Palestinian-Arabs, who do not throw rocks or pipe bombs or Molotov cocktails, have been deported for political reasons.  I wonder just what those political reasons might be?  Could incitement to violence or, even, incitement to genocide have something to do with it?
Hard as it is to say, the Israeli government is reaping what it has sowed.
Well, the Israeli government is a democracy and, thus, represents the will of the people.  When Beinart claims that the Israeli government is responsible for violence against Jews in Israel, by obvious extension he means that the Jewish people of Israel are the cause of the violence against them.

The only way to spread such vile and physically dangerous innuendos against the Jewish people, one's own people, is by completely ignoring the long history of Jews under the boot of Muslim imperial rule from the seventh-century until the fall of the Ottoman empire in the beginning of the twentieth.  Furthermore, he must also ignore the exceedingly vicious efforts of the local Arabs to restore their domination over Jews prior to the international recognition of Israel as the national homeland of the Jewish people in 1948.

According to historian Edwin Black, in The Farhood: Roots of the Arab Nazi Alliance in the Holocaust, prior to the Arab anti-Jewish pogroms in Hevron resulting in the massacre of 67 Jews, including 47 Yeshiva students in 1920, the Arab chant on the street was:
Palestine is our land, the Jew is our dog!
But the 1929 massacre of the Jews was a bit more extensive and a bit more creative on the part of the Arab enemies of the Jewish people at that time.  According to Black:
Not a single victim was simply killed.  Each was mutilated and tortured in accordance with their identities, the specific information provided by the local Arabs.  The Jewish man who lent money to Arabs was sliced open and the IOUs burned in his body.  The Jewish baker's head was tied to the stove and then baked.  A Jewish scholar who had studied Koranic philosophy for years was seized, is cranium cut open, and his brain extracted.  Another man was nailed to a door.
(Edwin Black, The Farhud, Dialog Press, Washington D.C., 2010, pg. 206.)
I do not pass this along to incite against Arabs.

I pass it along so that people who think like Beinart might get it through their thick skulls that the problem in Israel is not the Jews, nor even the Israeli government.  The problem is 1,300 years of continual Arab and Muslim political dominance of a people that they - much to my amazement - consider inferior and worthy of persecution for religious reasons, no less.

Any honest observer understands that Israel treats its Arabs far, far better than do the 22 Arab-Muslim countries, yet it is constantly Israel that takes a beating in the press and in the UN and in the White House under Barack Obama for being unjust to Arabs.

{Shocking, I know.}

Within living memory of the Holocaust the international community, with the assistance of Judenrats like Beinart, is again twisting the screws on the Jewish people... this time with Barack Obama leading from behind.

Update:  I made a mistake.  The term "Judenrat" is not appropriate.  I should have gone with "Kapo," instead.


  1. I doubt anybody can name two Palestinian "peace," organizations let alone one. As a matter of fact, almost every Palestinian organization I can think of is terror friendly; Jew killing friendly; intifada friendly etc. Beinart and everyone like him are morans.

    1. I don't think I'd revealing any secret by saying I absolutely despise Peter Beinart. He gave his balls to his grandmother as a gift.

  2. Marty Peretz on Peter Beinart's book " The Crisis of Zionism" : A narcissistic book, and the narcissism of privileged and haughty people is never particularly attractive .

    There is a danger of trying to analyse people like Beinart from an intellectual and rational perspective. Once you allow for the possibility that they are driven by some kind of personal pathology, it becomes much easier to understand them. There are a whole bunch of people who fall into a similar category. As such - although they cannot be ignored due to their influence - it is better to deal with them by grasping what they are.

    Related to the post:


    1. The Benny Morris interview is fascinating. And covers a lot of ground.

    2. Here we go again. Blank page. I'll try and google it.

      Anyways...I'd love to see Peretz spank Beinart in a debate. Actually I'd love to see Peretz just spank him. ;0)

    3. I intend to go through this interview long and slow.

      My sense is that Peretz was absolutely disgusted by the time he made aliyah and, unless I am just missing him, has pretty much kept his head down since.

      Beinart was thought of, briefly, as the Boy Wonder, but people also tend to forget that he supported the second war in Iraq.

      I was considered to his Left not all that long ago.

    4. Awfully sorry if I've got the link wrong.
      I can see I put a semi-colon instead of a colon after http but I'm not sure what else I got wrong. Obviously something.
      Apologies to all.
      You can access whole interview by going to article at Mick Hartley's place. It is about the third article down from the top at the moment.
      Again, apologies!

    5. I googled "fathom" and it came right up. No problem k. Keep 'em coming.

    6. Jeff, glad you found it!
      Sorry for problem with link.

  3. Also of interest, and really alarming:

    Lee Smith in the Weekly Standard.
    Re Obama, Hezbollah, Israel and Iran.

  4. For anyone who is reading the interview in Fathom, it is also well worth reading ( in the same issue) the article by David Hirsh on the Jeremy Corbyn Left. It is really good on the relationship between the left and anti-Semitism and Israel hatred. It's a really good piece.
    I'm too frightened to provide the link in case it goes wrong! But if you've already accessed the journal it should be no problem.

    I'll get my link-providing courage back ASAP.

  5. Alexi, over at EOZ, recommended "Kapo."

  6. The paradox of American Jews like Beinart is that while allegedly standing for an "assimilationist," universalist outlook, they practice the complete opposite by shoving Jews in a moral shtetl. And given that the majority of his co-citizens are not anti-Israel and not anti-Semitic, you really have to wonder what's going on psychologically...what/whom exactly are they "assimilating" to?

    1. He probably wouldn't want to "assimilate" to the majority of his fellow citizens. The usual point - Jewish or not Jewish - is to belong to the enlightened elite. The intelligentsia etc. The professional " virtue signallers". It's how you prove you're morally superior to the majority. In this day and age, wearing your support for the Palestinians and hating Israel is a quick code to showing your moral enlightenment. It's like a badge.

      Good article on exactly that by David Hirsh in "Fathom." It's in the Autumn issue, available online now.

  7. Beinart is blinded by his moral superiority and intellect, but stripped away he is no more than an ignorant who brings harm to Jews.

    1. Correction: ....his perceived moral superiority and intellect.

  8. Kapo's were prisoner functionaries which official German Nazi gov't referred to as FUNKTIONSHAFTLING. The Nazi's created this system to create division and hostility between Jewish victims in the camps. The Kapo's were selected imprisoned gang members known for their brutality to other prisoners. They were rewarded 'special treatment' for doing the job that otherwise would have had to of been carried out by an SS personnel.

    In the case of Jewish people like Beinart the term is somewhat apologetic and personally a mischaracterization. Apologetic b/c the Kapo's were at the mercy of the Nazi's where their lives were at risk if they didn't perform their jobs properly or they would become regular prisoners. Mischaracterization b/c they were street thugs and mentally maladjusted. Beinart is neither a maladjusted street thug nor a controlled puppet under duress. He is acting on his own free will believing in the LIES that he

    "While we condemn Palestinian violence, we must recognize this painful truth.."
    Yet Beinart omits the painful truth which you addressed here. Instead he parrots the easy cowardly popular canard propagated by Israel haters by solely placing the whole reason for the on going conflict at Israel's doorstep.


    Things probably going to get a lot worse.

  10. The question, to my mind, is will the next American administration carry forward the same mistaken policies toward Israel and the Middle East as the current one?

    The foremost cognitive failure of the Obama administration, concerning Israel, is in not recognizing that Israel cannot conjure a viable Palestinian-Arab state in Judea and Samaria, in peace with Israel, if this is not what the greater Arab nation wants.

    The second cognitive failure is in not recognizing the essential racism or bigotry in denying Jews the right to live in Judea.

    So, what would Hillary likely do.

    It is my bet that Hillary will be somewhat less harsh on Israel than Obama, but will stay upon the same trajectory. She wants to "help" Israel sit down at the table with dictator Abbas. That, in and of itself, is enough for me to know that it will be more of the same Oslo mierde and it will have the same results.

    Like Obama she will pressure Israel about settlements and like Obama she will give the lion's share of the blame for the predictable failure at the feet of the Jews in Israel.

  11. "At a time when elements of the American Left embraced the Palestinian cause and condemned Israel, Hillary was telling friends that she was “sympathetic” to the terrorist organization and admired its flamboyant leader, Yasser Arafat. When Arafat made his famous appearance before the UN General Assembly in November 1974 wearing his revolutionary uniform and his holster on his hip, Bill “was outraged like everybody else,” said a Yale Law School classmate. But not Hillary, who tried to convince Bill that Arafat was a “freedom fighter” trying to free his people from their Israeli “oppressors.”

  12. Hillary Clinton would say anything to get elected. Anything.
    I don't imagine her views re I/P are any different than Obama's. Even if they were ( which they're not) she would be a hostage to the progressive flank of her party. The Democratic Party of today is light years away from the Democratic Party as it was under Bill Clinton. I can't see how that could change. Everything about the prevailing culture on the American Left indicates that it won't.
    Having said that, it looks highly unlikely that anyone will stop her being the next president.
    Although, they're obviously a little bit worried about one or two of the opposition's candidates, judging by the nitpicking going on in the U.S. media.


    It would be interesting to know what the *good* bits of his foreign policy there are to mar.
    Editorials in the Post have a history of being rather at odds with the paper's usual positions. Which is interesting.