Sunday, July 26, 2020

Responding to Peter Beinart's arguments

Sar Shalom

There have been many deservedly harsh reactions to Peter Beinart's column several weeks ago in the New York Times arguing to turn Israel into a binational state. Some of those attacks on Beinart's conclusions have turned into attacks on Beinart himself. However, understated in those responses (one exception is Elder's response to Beinart's assertion that Palestinians are excluded from the national dialog, but even that does not get at Beinart's case for why the Palestinians deserve to be heard) is any rebuttal to Beinart's case for why a binational state is an appropriate response. While Beinart's column in the Times does not provide much in the way of material to assess what his case is, his appearance on the Times podcast "The Argument" does provide such material.

First some background. "The Argument" is a joint liberal, conservative, moderate discussion series. The liberal position is represented by Michelle Goldberg, the conservative position by Ross Douthat, and the moderate position was originally represented by David Leonhart and is currently represented by Frank Bruni. For Beinart's appearance, Bruni stepped aside leaving Goldberg and Douthat to discuss Beinart's proposal with him.

Attacking Beinart's conclusion without refuting his arguments risks falling into the trap of presenting our case as one of "The nations of the world, including many of the Arab/Muslim nations, have brutally mistreated their Jews over the centuries. This gives us the right to do to the Palestinians what was done to us." Refuting Beinart's arguments would make the case that justifying Israel's actions does not depend on that premise. In order to refute those arguments, it is first necessary to identify them. For that reason, I list them here roughly in the order that I identified them in the transcript of Beinart's appearance. Unless otherwise noted, points listed were made by Beinart.

  • Israel is expanding settlements into land that the Palestinians need to build a separate state
  • Prior to the 1940s, Zionism did not focus on achieving an independent Jewish state, rather would have been content with a Jewish homeland that would have been a refuge for Jewish people around the world.
  • If we can escape the mindset of trauma and see the Palestinians as normal human beings “whose aspirations are not that different from most other peoples,” we will see that equality is not such an existential threat.
  • “A fair reading of Palestinian history over the last 100 years suggests that the Palestinian national movement has not been defined by a kind of genocidal intent towards Jews”
  • Israel is already a binational state. The only question going forward is whether Israel will be a binational state in which the bulk of one people is disenfranchised or one in which all subjects have a voice in the government.
  • White South Africans didn’t imagine prior to 1994 that they could live safely under a government that gave an equal voice to black citizens.
  • Palestinian desire to return to homes in internationally recognized Israel.
  • Why is it that American Jews see reading from a prayer book about returning to a place we left 2,000 years ago as perfectly normal but dismiss the desire of those who wish to return to a place they left less than 100 years ago.
  • 20% of Israel’s population are Palestinian who will never feel like equal citizens in a Jewish state.
  • Douthat: Jews have been oppressed and expelled from all parts of the world, including the surrounding Middle Eastern nations. The experience of Christians in the surrounding nations does not inspire confidence. Beinart: We must avoid the danger of ethnic/religious essentialism. Douthat: [No response]
  • The result of Israel’s current path will be intifadah after intifadah. Political science research teaches us that oppression breeds the violence that we see.
  • Israel was founded on an act of mass population expulsion in 1947 and 1948.
  • Christians are leaving Israel-Palestine as much as they are leaving other Middle Eastern states because Christian Palestinians face the same oppression as Muslim Palestinians.
  • The Joint List is the Left in Israel today.
  • The Palestinian Authority keeps Israel’s cost of occupation low by acting as Israel’s subcontractor.
  • First spent time with Palestinians in the early 2000s and was ashamed of what a society he felt so close to was doing to them.
  • Palestinians have no recourse because they are not citizens.
  • Beinart and Goldberg: American Jews should see the Palestinians’ situation firsthand for themselves.
  • Goldberg: Anti-Zionist speech is uniquely repressed suppressed, such as government sanction against the BDS movement. Beinart: When we talk about cancel-culture, we have to start in our own house.
Now to start to respond to those arguments.
  • Israel is expanding settlements into land that the Palestinians need to build a separate state
First, the footprint of land taken up by the settlements has not been expanding. Second, the land currently used by those settlements may or may not be necessary for the Palestinians to build a state. The Palestinians have not engaged in much effort to build a state in what has been allocated to them in prior agreements. Their actions are what one would expect their objective was to remove as much land as possible from Jewish control using their lack of a state as justification. If they were to make good faith efforts to build a state on Areas A and B and come up short, that argument would be worth discussing.
  • Prior to the 1940s, Zionism did not focus on achieving an independent Jewish state, rather would have been content with a Jewish homeland that would have been a refuge for Jewish people around the world.
Completely irrelevant to our current situation.
  • If we can escape the mindset of trauma and see the Palestinians as normal human beings “whose aspirations are not that different from most other peoples,” we will see that equality is not such an existential threat.
  • “A fair reading of Palestinian history over the last 100 years suggests that the Palestinian national movement has not been defined by a kind of genocidal intent towards Jews”
To what history of the Palestinian national movement is Beinart referring? Does the Mufti occur in Beinart's Palestinian history? How does Beinart explain Jews sitting down at the Western Wall triggering the Palestinians to go on a rampage in 1929? Does Beinart's Palestinian history include marches in the 1920's where they chanted “Filastin bladna w’al yahud klabna [Palestine is our land and the Jew is our dog?”

Remaining points to be covered in a future post.

7 comments:

  1. Excellent analysis. I look fwd to future posts!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Nicely done, Sar.

    Were it up to me, I would extend Israeli sovereignty throughout Judea and Samaria. The natural objection is that this would place Israel in an untenuous demographic position, but that not need to be the case. There is, after all, no reason to offer all non-Jews in the region automatic citizenship.

    You do not offer citizenship to those who want to kill your citizens and destroy your country.

    What I would do is offer a "pathway to citizenship." I would start with a series of interviews. Obviously, you cannot interview every non-Jewish, non-Israeli, non-citizen within Judea and Samaria, but you can interview a reasonable sampling. Those who express hatred toward either Israel or Jews would immediately be deported.

    {I kind of like the idea of Antarctica, but that is merely a fanciful whim.}

    Those who remain would be offered three years of national service. If after those three years they receive a good report then they would be offered citizenship. Those who do not receive a good report would not be offered citizenship.

    This should deal with the demographic issue quite nicely.

    Some suggest that this might be against international law, but international law is a chimera.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I would say, Beinart has now made it clear, just in case there is anyone who didn't yet realize it, that he is not a Zionist, at least not in any way pertaining to the real world. He can sit in his expensive office or in his expensive home made possible by large sums of money received from other elites for writing his nonsense, and redefine any terms he wants. He can redefine a "peckerwood" as someone with "white privilege," if he wants to, and most likely would. It just doesn't mean anything.

    "Beinart and Goldberg: American Jews should see the Palestinians’ situation firsthand for themselves."
    What makes them think that it would do anyone any good to have less knowing and aware people assess a situation none of them ever has to live with? It seems that at least Beinart is saying that American Jews are more perceptive and moral beings than Israeli Jews, and that Israelis are incapable of knowing what's in their own best interest and acting as responsible adults. And of course the same is assumed for the Arabs throughout the former mandate. Truly a man of the Left, and a fuckwit to boot. The stench is nauseating.

    "Beinart: When we talk about cancel-culture, we have to start in our own house."
    Peter Beinart wants cancel Israel.






    I think Benjamin Kerstein's peace summed up Peter Beinart's position quite nicely.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Arguing that there is something in and of itself in asking people to hear directly from the Palestinians is never going to convince anyone. What has a chance is to argue that for that first-hand knowledge to actually constitute knowledge requires zooming out in order to put what the Palestinians say in perspective. When hearing the Palestinians tell their story about the Nakba, also listen to Martin Kramer. When hearing their story about materials being denied, also listen to COGAT. When hearing their story about permits being denied, also listen to Regavim. Say to the Leftists, we'll listen to the Palestinians if you will listen to Kramer, COGAT, and Regavim.

      Delete
    2. That't an exercise in futility, as Beinart and the others repeatedly illustrate. At best they give lip service. They offer no context, but a one-sided narrative. Rather than try to argue with them, better to say they engage in deception, akin to the race hustlers described by Booker T. Washington. And further to call them out for enabling the degradation of women and others in their heroes.

      Delete
    3. To someone who knows nothing about the situation, what Beinart suggests sounds perfectly reasonable. Responding as you suggest sends the message that we're entitled, which is exactly how the Left wants to present our case.

      Responding to their call to openness to hearing the Palestinians' case with saying that they should be open to primary source history about the Independence War (as from Kramer), or primary source material about what is actually provided to the Palestinians (such as from COGAT) might not penetrate Beinart and his ilk. But anyone who hears the exchange and wants to be educated would at least know where to get the information that Beinart doesn't want them to know.

      Delete
    4. People that know nothing about the situation do not know who Beinart is. It is doubtful if they would seek out primary source material. Beinart basically preaches to the choir and the pro-Israel crowd, so they can argue among themselves. It's fair to say he presents a one-sided version of events that is deceptive and bone-headed without getting into his specifics. The uninitiated may get more benefit from "The Case for Israel" or something in that vein, than from playing Beinart's game.

      Delete