The New York Times memorable headline on the falsified documents relating to George W. Bush’s military service — “Fake but Accurate” — has almost been matched by a Haaretz columnist’s description of Peter Beinart’s theory on Barack Obama and Benjamin Netanyahu: he writes that the theory “may not be accurate but is nonetheless spectacularly original.”
Beinart’s theory — that what Netanyahu supposedly dislikes about Jews is what Vladimir Jabotinsky supposedly disliked about them — is not supported by the Jabotinsky essay Beinart cited as evidence for it. “Spectacularly original” does not seem quite the right phrase for what Beinart did.
What is perhaps most remarkable about Beinart’s book, whose publication date is not until this coming Tuesday, is how quickly the new media was able to analyze his March 19 New York Times op-ed that excerpted part of the book’s conclusion. Before the end of the day, not only had COMMENTARY posted three stellar analyses (by Omri Ceren, Seth Mandel, and Sol Stern), but there were more than 20 other critical pieces — from the left, right, and center – elsewhere the same day. It used to take truth a long time to get its boots on; these days it can get dressed almost simultaneously.
The debate regarding Beinart’s op-ed and book continued after March 19 – the contributions later in the week by Gary Rosenblatt, David Wolpe, Naftali Moses, and Ruthie Blum are particularly noteworthy. Your best 20 minutes today might be spent watching the video of the impassioned sermon by Rabbi Ammiel Hirsch (a self-described liberal) at Stephen Wise Free Synagogue, entitled “Peter Beinart’s Offense Against Liberalism.”
After that, you might look at the list of Jabotinsky essays posted today at Boker tov, Boulder! His 1911 Passover essay, “The Four Sons,” could facilitate an interesting discussion at this year’s seder, recognizing the essay was written 37 years before the re-creation of the Jewish state for which Jabotinsky worked his entire adult life, including his final day.
Bless you for linking to the powerful rebuttal to Beinart by Rabbi Stephen Wise.
My mistake: the sermon is by Rabbi Ammiel Hirsch.
I haven't listened to a Rabbi speak at length in decades, but Hirsch held my attention throughout. He asks about the state of American Jewry in that Beinart, a leading voice of Leftist Jewish thought, could be so radicalized, ostensibly to maintain his Liberal credentials. n nTo Rabbi Hirsch I say: "You should have seen it coming, it was inevitable at least 15 years ago." It began with the acceptance of the balancing of Israeli-Arab rights and wrongs, as if there were no real moral cause on either side. With the question of immediate justice out of the way, the issue began to clarify, for the Left, in the standard Marxist classist position: the powerful and wealthy vs. the weak and poor. Once the question of local and immediate justice is dispensed with it was only a matter of time before any Jew preferring his Liberal credentials would become embarrassed about supporting Israel. n nIndeed, the issue is difficult for anyone with a conscience, but it comes down to the question: Does Israel have a right to exist? The Arab position is clearly, if not politically, no, and with the righteousness of Marxist philosophy supporting their cause they will garner increasing support as they attempt to approach their goal.
The rabbi needs to get back on his meds.