Peter Beinart, aspirant to the pedestal of liberal Zionism and prospective successor to Tony Judt, is witnessing the unravelling of his carefully choreographed arrangement. It was going so well: on the heels of his infamous article in the New York Review of Books came the commission to expand the thesis into a book, and, with the assistance of an army of interns and researchers, The Crisis of Zionism was released at the annual J Street conference and with an article in the New York Times, and, to accompany this momentous event, with the inauguration of a new blog, Zion Square, which would alter the discourse on Zionism in the American Jewish community. And he, with a righteous cause and the reward of royalties, would be at the forefront.
So far, so bold.
Unfortunately for Beinart, however, even the blueprint, much less the execution, was ill-conceived. To begin with, the book itself has received scathing reviews (see for instance, Sol Stern’s take in this month’s COMMENTARY, as well as here, here, here, and here). There is no need to rehearse their salient criticisms, except to note that between the article and the book, Beinart altered one of his key theses, namely, that it was not Israeli policies which were alienating American Jews, as he had earlier claimed, but rather intermarriage among the latter which was alienating them from the Jewish community, and consequently from Israel.
Next, the J Street conference itself was something of a sham, and the first Israeli diplomat to attend in two years – Israel’s deputy ambassador to the United States – slammed the group, calling on it to change its ways and ‘‘stand with us.’’ A harsher critique of a self-described ‘‘pro-Israel’’ group would be hard to find; perhaps that’s why J Street removed the speech from the group’s official record. Beinart, though, still had his backers, including one Lara Friedman, an activist with Americans for Peace Now, who recently discovered (to no effect) the Arabs do not reciprocate her goodwill.
Beinart’s accompanying op-ed at the New York Times calling for a ‘‘Zionist BDS’’ to save Israel’s democracy from the ‘‘nondemocratic’’ Israeli presence in Judea and Samaria was also panned – immediately by the Israeli ambassador, Michael Oren, and then by everyone else in the Jewish community, including J Street! Apparently, Beinart missed the BDS memo: even sympathizers now see its faults, and examples abound of the failure to do precisely what Beinart prescribes: differentiate boycotts of Judea and Samaria from those of the rest of Israel.
Finally, Zion Square, barely a month old, has (a bit embarrassingly) become Open Zion, in response to a similar blog of the same name launched somewhat pre-emptively. And now one of its few moderate, best credentialed, and less outspoken bloggers, Dr Yoel Finkelman, has, with a public letter at Jewish Ideas Daily, resigned his charge as a regular contributor, in protest of the blog’s content, style, and agenda.
And so, the crisis of Zionism emerges as comparatively chimerical, and the crisis of Beinart – and of Beinart Inc. – is unfolding before us. Like Zion’s many other critics, perhaps he’ll go on to blame the Israel Lobby. Alternatively – and hopefully – he’ll revise his viewpoint and finish this farce.
Couldn't have happened to a nicer shameless opportunist.
Three hundred years ago, this putz would have been a red gowned Converso Inquisitor, extracting confessions from his brothers so as to speed their way to the flames, and his own way to a table laden with delicacies. n
Neumann's opening sentence describing Beinart as a "prospective successor to Tony Judt" is ill-considered and unfair. Judt favored a one state solution. In contrast, Beinart's is doing everything he can to prevent it. He may be unrealistic. But he is also a strong advocate for two states and a firm believer in Israel's fundamental legitimacy. Neumann may disagree with him, but I'd much prefer Beinart as a principled voice on the left than those with far less sympathy for the Zionist cause.
Ira, the one state solution was a loonie fringe position, a ludicrous red herring no one of any consequence believed in. He cannot heroically "prevent" something that wasn't going to happen anyway. He knows this. The two state solution has been dead for a while too…just thought you might want to know. It's a Potempkin village everyone waves at in passing, an official default position good for diplo-babble. With the rapidly changing geopolitical realities it will collapse when someone finally's had enough and points out that the emperor has no clothes. He should know this, but wants to pretend with the rest of the leftie-sphere that we're still in the 80s. But in backing a boycott against the Jews of Judea and Samaria, Beinart has aligned himself with the enemies of Israel and deserves to be treated accordingly. He is not a Zionist or a "principled voice" of any kind; he is an enemy of Israel and as Andog222 pointed out, a shameless opportunist.
LOL watching you guys debate this topic is amusing. My question for all things Israel has always been, why the hell should I care? How does this affect me? And before I get the inevitable anti-Semitic nonsense, do you care what's happening in Sudan or Haiti? Are you racist because you don't? Beinart's major point is that the settlements are counterproductive in the long run. WHY CONTINUE TO BUILD THE SETTLEMENTS?