The Beinart Notebook

Peter Beinart

A conversation about American foreign policy, Palestinian freedom and the Jewish people. peterbeinart.substack.com

  1. Reckoning with Anti-Israel Rage

    16 hrs ago

    Reckoning with Anti-Israel Rage

    This week’s Zoom call will be at our regular time: Friday at 1 PM. Our guest will be Brad Lander, who last week won the Democratic nomination for Congress in New York’s 10th district. Brad’s victory is a milestone: A Jewish congressman, running on his support for Palestinian rights, winning in one of the most Jewish districts in the country. Even a few years ago, it would have been unimaginable. We’ll talk about what Brad learned in his campaign, about where he agrees and disagrees with the other insurgents who won last week in New York City, about how he’ll deal with the AIPAC-aligned Jewish members of Congress he’ll meet in Washington, and about the 1920 congressional race in the Lower East Side, which he believes presaged the race he just won. This conversation will be co-sponsored by Jewish Currents. Please join us. Cited in Today’s Video Scott Wiener is forced to leave the San Francisco Trans march. The UN report on Israel’s targeting of Palestinian children. Things to Read (Maybe this should be obvious, but I link to articles and videos I find provocative and significant, not necessarily ones I entirely agree with.) In Jewish Currents (subscribe!), I wrote about how radically the Democratic debate over Israel has changed. In 972mag, Abed Abu Shehada wrote about power, purity and BDS. In her Substack, Jill Jacobs argued that one can oppose AIPAC without viewing it as uniquely malevolent. I spoke in Vienna about Being Jewish After the Destruction of Gaza. See you on Friday, Peter VIDEO TRANSCRIPT: So, there’s a video that’s been going around a lot of a Democratic state senator from San Francisco named Scott Wiener. He’s also running to succeed Nancy Pelosi in the House of Representatives, and he was at this trans march in San Francisco, and basically was kind of forced to leave the trans march by folks who really got in his face, and were really screaming at him, and are really, pretty nasty way about his policies on Gaza. Now, they didn’t physically attack him, but it’s a pretty uncomfortable video to watch. Clearly, it was pretty intimidating behavior. And there’s another video of someone also screaming in a really nasty way, really getting in Wiener’s face at a bar where Wiener was watching a World Cup game. And something about this video of Wiener, I think, has really triggered something in a lot of pro-Israel Jews in particular, and maybe Jews just more generally, because he looks really beleaguered and kind of haggard as he just silently takes all of this abuse. And I think it captured this sense that exists in some elements of the American Jewish community that this is kind of like torrent of hatred at Jews, and there’s kind of, like, nothing you can do about it. And I think it’s worth saying a couple of things about this video. The first is that the people who, in these videos, who are captured in these videos, are kind of behaving like a******s. You know, they’re not physically attacking, but they’re really, really acting in a very intimidating and really kind of nasty way, and I think it’s just worth saying that I think the people that we admire, most people would admire, that certainly I admire, are people who have deep moral conviction and moral passion and fervor and are unyielding in it about what they believe is right, but still, in their interpersonal relations, in the way they treat people, act with a certain level of dignity, a certain level of decency. And I think these folks just didn’t. And I don’t think there’s a justification for just treating people that way. I don’t think you should be an a*****e. Secondly, being an a*****e is not, I think, good politics. You know, Wiener is a classic liberal Zionist guy. He was far too late to recognize that what Israel is doing in Gaza is a genocide, far too late to support cutting off military aid to Israel. But now he actually has come to take those positions. He’s moving in his views in response to public opinion, in response to all the work that pro-Palestine activists have done. And it’s not effective in moving people even further—and I would like him to go further than he is now—by treating people this way. In fact, what you do, I think, is you just allow people to turn the attention in a different direction, and you just make it a lot easier for those people who want to claim that the pro-Palestinian activist movement is motivated by hatred and by, you know, that it’s a kind of mob of hooligans, whatever, that it’s antisemitic. You just make all that a lot easier with these kind of videos. So, I also think it’s counterproductive. And—I won’t say, not but—because I think what those folks did and the way they treated him was wrong. And, it’s really important that people who support Israel in the Jewish community try to understand where this rage is coming from because what’s so frustrating to me is that you have all of these people in my community who spend so much time looking at videos like this one with Wiener, in which people seem to be getting kind of accosted and victimized in some way because they support Israel. And those folks, in my experience, spend so little time trying to understand where this rage might actually be coming from by looking at what Israel is actually doing. And because they spend almost no time looking at what Israel is doing in a way that might help them understand why so many people are enraged, that allows them to then just chalk all of this up to, kind of, to Jew hatred, right? But imagine that these people who are watching this Scott Wiener video were also reading the new UN report that just came out about what Israel has done to Palestinian children. I’m just gonna quote a couple of things from this UN report, because I just think it reminds us, again, as if we need reminding, of the utter horror of what Israel has done, horror that normal people will understandably respond to with grave anger. Again, doesn’t mean they should be a******s about it, but anger is an understandable reaction to the kinds of things that this UN report finds. This UN report is based on a huge amount of evidence, of documentary evidence, of interviews with medical workers, with Palestinians themselves, with journalists, with lawyers, huge amount of documentation. By the way, it also does mention violence against Israeli children on October 7th. It also, the writers of this report gave Israel, I think 13 times they asked Israel to respond to some of the claims in this report, but Israel didn’t respond to any of them because Israel never responds to these things. It never actually engages with the evidence that the UN or human rights groups create. It basically just ignores them and then denounces these reports as kind of antisemitic blood libels, right? The report finds that Israel has killed at least 20,000 children in Gaza since October 7th, injured at least 44,000. Of the children it’s killed, at least 5,000 were under the age of 5. It’s killed more than 5,000 children under the age of 5, and more than 1,000 children under the age of 1. The report quotes an NGO, Save the Children, as suggesting that there may be even more than 5,000 children in Gaza who were buried under the rubble, whose bodies could not even be found by their families. It mentions that Israel dropped so many bombs in Gaza, and a percentage of these bombs don’t go off until, you know, at the time, right? So that 5-10% of them don’t go off, so that within the 61 million tons of debris that exist in Gaza, you have thousands and thousands of, maybe tens of thousands of unexploded ordinances that children in Gaza will be encountering for years and decades to come, especially because Israel isn’t allowing no reconstruction in Gaza, because it’s not allowing any heavy machinery in that would allow people to actually go through this debris and maybe make it a little bit less dangerous. They mention in this report that at least 10,000 children in Gaza have lost their hearing as a result of Israel’s attacks, that more than 1,000 children have had their limbs amputated. Many of those amputations were done without anesthesia because Israel so destroyed the medical system. That there’s more child amputees in Gaza per capita than any other place on the face of the earth. And this killing has not stopped. It’s continuing even after the so-called ceasefire, in part because Israel has established this yellow line and basically shoots people who cross onto the wrong side of the yellow line. But the report notes that the yellow line is not clearly demarcated. It’s often shifting. And so, you have a situation in which at least 100 children since just this January have been killed by Israeli forces in Gaza. And they also find real evidence of targeted killing of children. The commission interviews 17 medical practitioners in different hospitals, and they find that these medical practitioners reported ‘a consistent pattern of receiving children with single gunshot wounds either by quadcopters or snipers. The killing of a child from a single gunshot wound indicates a high degree of precision in the use of force, suggesting that the shot was carefully aimed rather than incidental or the result of indiscriminate fire.’ And I know Israel’s supporters would say, why would Israel ever do that, right? I think that’s the wrong way of looking at it. The point is that when you have mass dehumanization of a population, as you have had with Palestinians for decades, and especially after October 7th, and when you have virtual total impunity among soldiers, again, reared in that culture of dehumanization, also enraged by what Hamas and others did on October 7th, and they know that there’s going to be impunity, these kind of things happen. They happen in every army, but in particular, in this case, you have it at an extraordinary scale because of the degree of the dehumanization, and the

    13 min
  2. Israel’s Defenders Say Legal Equality Would Bring Repression and Bloodshed

    22 June

    Israel’s Defenders Say Legal Equality Would Bring Repression and Bloodshed

    This week’s Zoom call will be at our regular time: Friday at 1 PM. Our guests will be Aslı Bâli, professor international law at Yale, and Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute. When I imagine the people I’d want to advise the next Democratic president, Asli and Trita are near the top of my list. They care deeply about the United States but they’re not American exceptionalists, which helps them see past the mythology that prevents so many in Washington from understanding American foreign policy’s actual impact on the rest of the world. In a perfect illustration of the insanity of contemporary Washington, Trita— whose predictions about this criminal and catastrophic war have been proven entirely correct—is being threatened with deportation. We’ll talk about why this war happened, how it has changed the Middle East and world, and whether Washington will ever learn. Please join us. Ask Me Anything This Thursday, June 25, at 4 PM Eastern, we will hold an Ask Me Anything session, for PREMIUM SUBSCRIBERS ONLY. Things to Read (Maybe this should be obvious, but I link to articles and videos I find provocative and significant, not necessarily ones I entirely agree with.) In Jewish Currents (subscribe!), Zachary Jablow writes about why the US media still pretends that America’s Mideast wars are about democracy. The Jewish candidate for New York City comptroller who wants to divest from Israel bonds. On the Spiritually Incorrect podcast, I talked about American Christians, American Jews and the US debate over Israel. See you on Thursday and Friday, Peter VIDEO TRANSCRIPT: I’ve done a couple conversations recently with folks who argued that if there were equality under the law in Israel-Palestine—if Jews and Palestinians, were treated equally under the law wherever they lived, whether that was in one state or in two states where Jews and Palestinians both lived and were treated equally under the law, or in a confederation, you know, something in between—that liberal democracy would fail, that there would be some kind of dictatorship or authoritarianism, and also that there would be tremendous, tremendous violence, terrible bloodshed. This was really their primary rejoinder to my argument that, equality under the law would better serve the people who live in Israel-Palestine today than the system where you have now, where Jews enjoy legal rights, and Palestinians either hold no citizenship or a kind of second-class citizenship. And I think it’s just worth pausing on this argument that equality under the law would produce a dictatorship, you know, authoritarianism, and also tremendous bloodshed. What I find odd about the argument is that it’s imagining terrible things in the future that could happen if a true liberal democracy failed, without acknowledging that those same terrible things that folks are warning about exist now. It’s odd to say that an Israel-Palestine that treated everybody equally under the law might not succeed as a liberal democracy, without acknowledging that Israel is not a liberal democracy for Palestinians today. Most of the Palestinians who live under Israeli control, those in the West Bank and Gaza and East Jerusalem, don’t hold Israeli citizenship—a very small number in East Jerusalem, but generally, vast majority in the West Bank and Gaza and East Jerusalem live under the control of the State of Israel. It has life and death power over them, but they can’t be citizens of the state in which they live. They can’t vote for the government that has life and death decision-making power over them. In the West Bank, they live under military law, under a completely different legal system than their Jewish neighbors, right? So, this is not by anyone’s definition, I think, could be considered a liberal democracy. This is the situation in which most Palestinians live. A minority of Palestinians, so-called Arab-Israelis, have a kind of second-class citizenship where they can vote, but the structure of the state is designed to prioritize, in many, many, many ways, prioritize the needs of Israeli Jews over them, right? But when people say that liberal democracy might not succeed, they seem to be ignoring the fact that Israel is not a liberal democracy for Palestinians now. And then when they say, well, this situation, a situation in which people were treated equally under the law, might be tremendously violent, I wonder, are they paying attention to how violent the current situation is? Israel has killed maybe 100,000 Palestinians, based on the best estimates we have in Gaza alone, right? That’s maybe roughly, you know, 5% of the population not even counting the injured. And the killing continues. Israel’s continuing to kill Palestinians despite this ceasefire, not to mention the many who are dying because there’s been no rebuilding of the medical infrastructure because there’s no sewage system, right? This is a recipe for continued death in Gaza on a pretty significant scale. And in the West Bank, you have attacks and killings of Palestinians virtually constantly, right? So, when you say Israel-Palestine might succumb, might be a very, very violent place, you have to measure that against how extraordinarily violent it is for Palestinians today. And I think part of this move of saying Israel-Palestine might be very dangerous, might be very violent, is that it actually simply kind of ignores what the reality is for Palestinians today, and in a way, suggests that the only real question that we should be concerned about is, would it be more or less dangerous for Israeli Jews? But even there Israel is a very dangerous place for Israeli Jews, too. Not nearly as dangerous as for Palestinians, but when you compare it to the life situations of Jews in virtually every other large Jewish community in the world, living as an Israeli Jew is much more dangerous. Twelve hundred Israeli Jews were killed on October 7th. Israelis have continued to die and be wounded in the wars in Israel’s assault on Gaza, in fighting against Hezbollah. So, again, when one says this could be a dangerous place, one has to ask, compared to what Israel is currently an extraordinarily dangerous place for Palestinians. Really, probably being a Palestinian under Israeli control is one of the most dangerous situations you could possibly be in in the world, certainly in Gaza, and even in the West Bank, and even for Jews, despite their legal supremacy and their relative safety, this situation of domination and oppression, structural violence against Palestinians, produces this counter-violence, and also creates incentives for other groups, whether, like, Hezbollah or Iran, to come in on the Palestinian side, and also use violence against Israeli Jews. Which means that Israeli Jews are going into bomb shelters, right, all the time in a way that Jews in the United States, in France, in Australia, in Britain, in Canada, no matter what you think of the dangers of antisemitism, those places are simply not doing at all, right? So, it just seems to me, if we’re going to have an honest conversation about the potential perils of trying to move towards equality under the law in Israel-Palestine, which is a very, very frightening prospect for many, many Jews—I think much less frightening prospect for Palestinians, but a frightening prospect for Israeli Jews—we have to compare that against the baseline of how authoritarian and how extraordinarily violent Israel-Palestine is today. And unless you’re facing that squarely, it seems to me, you can’t have a productive conversation about the potential risks and the potential opportunities in trying to move from a situation that is now classified as apartheid by the world’s leading human rights organizations towards a legal reality in which people are treated equally under the law, regardless of whether they’re Palestinian or Jewish. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit peterbeinart.substack.com/subscribe

    7 min
  3. A Reply to Sam Harris

    8 June

    A Reply to Sam Harris

    This week’s Zoom call will be at our regular time: Friday at 1 PM. Our guest will be Munther Isaac, a Palestinian minister and theologian based in the West Bank. He gained international attention for his Christmas 2023 sermon, Christ in the Rubble. We’ll talk about Palestinian life in the West Bank, Munther’s critique of Christian Zionism, his views of Hamas and his interview with Tucker Carlson. Please join us. I also recorded a conversation with former US ambassador to Israel Daniel Shapiro, where we debated the reasons the Israeli-Palestinian “peace process” didn’t produce a Palestinian state, and whether a Jewish democracy is a contradiction in terms. We’ll send that conversation to subscribers this week as well. Cited in Today’s Video Sam Harris on why he won’t debate critics of Israel. B’Tselem on Military Order 101. Salam Fayyad’s exit interview with the New York Times. Neve Gordon on “human shields.” Yoav Gallant’s statement on October 9, 2023. Things to Read (Maybe this should be obvious, but I link to articles and videos I find provocative and significant, not necessarily ones I entirely agree with.) In Jewish Currents (subscribe!), Josh Nathan-Kazis writes about how the Israel Day Parade backfired. In the New York Times, I argued that America will keep launching disastrous wars until the people who champion them are held to account. Nikole Hannah-Jones on the end of the civil rights era. Israel’s new strategy for changing global opinion. See you on Friday, Peter VIDEO TRANSCRIPT: So, there’s a guy named Sam Harris, been a pretty prominent political commentator in the U.S. for quite a few years. He really kind of specializes a lot in what he claims is the kind of thread of jihadism or Islamism to the West. And he’s also a supporter, a defender of the state of Israel. And he wrote a post a couple days ago that’s been getting a lot of attention—I’ve seen it sent around a lot—about why he won’t debate critics of Israel. His argument is that he won’t debate critics of Israel because the things that he believes are so self-evidently true that it would be a waste of time to subject them to interchange with someone who holds a different point of view. And, because Sam Harris is a pretty kind of highbrow defender of Israel, I just think it’s worth looking at the statements that he considers to be self-evident statements of fact. And you can ask yourself whether, in fact, you think they are the case or not. The first thing he claims is that you should understand the conflict in Israel-Palestine as a struggle between a free society, Israel, and jihadism. So, let’s take the first part of that equation: the idea that Israel is a free society. Sam Harris offers no evidence for this. He doesn’t quote any human rights organizations, he doesn’t quote any laws, anything, he just asserts it, ex cathedra: Israel is a free society. Okay, well, imagine you’re reading that, you’re sitting there in the West Bank. The West Bank has been under Israeli control since 1967. You’re a Palestinian. You’ve lived your entire life without citizenship in the state in which you live. A government that has life and death control over you does not give you the right to vote. You live under military law, with a 99% prosecution rate, even though your Jewish neighbors enjoy full due process as Israeli citizens. You need military permission to travel, even though they can travel freely, and you’re also subject to something called Military Order 101, which says that you need military permission if you want to congregate with 10 or more people for a political purpose, even in a private home. Even in a private home, you can’t congregate for a political purpose with 10 or more people without military permission. This is what Sam Harris says, without any evidence, he describes as a free society. I suspect for that West Bank Palestinian, it doesn’t feel all that free. The second part is the idea that you can understand Palestinians and Palestinian politics in the Israel-Palestinian conflict through the prism of jihadism. This is what Sam Harris writes. ‘The problem in the Middle East’—actually not just Israel-Palestine, the entire Middle East—’is not, and never has been the existence of the state of Israel. The problem is jihadism, Islamism, Islamic extremism, Islamofascism, militant Islam, or whatever words you want to describe the belligerence and triumphal lunacy of those who take the most pernicious doctrines of Islam too seriously.’ So, for Sam Harris, Muslims and Palestinians are synonymous, and the problem is that too many of those Muslims are jihadis. There’s no evidence that Sam Harris has ever heard of a guy named George Habash, for instance. George Habash, the leader of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, one of the most radical Palestinian organizations in the 1970s. It was responsible for some of the most spectacular and terrible acts of violence, of armed resistance, including against civilians. Why am I mentioning George Habash? Because he was a Greek Orthodox Christian who grew up singing in a choir, right? The head also of the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, another Palestinian group that was more radical than Yasser Arafat’s Fatah, that denounced Arafat for accepting Israel’s existence in 1988, also a Christian. Edward Said, perhaps the most prominent English-language Palestinian intellectual in the world, a Christian. Azmi Bishara, perhaps the most important Palestinian politician in Israel proper at a certain period of time, a Christian. Hanan Ashrawi, famous as one of the key figures in the First Intifada and the early Oslo years, also a Christian. Sam Harris shows no evidence of any understanding whatsoever that there are Palestinian Christians, that many of the people who have been the harshest critics and activists against Zionism in Israel, even violently, have been Christian. And, not to mention the fact that even many Palestinian Muslims, for instance, in a party like Fatah, are not actually Islamists. So, all of this is considered not mentioned at all by Sam Harris, and it’s just self-evident for him that you can understand Palestinians and Palestinian politics through the prism of jihadism. And this is a guy who’s considered to be kind of like an intellectual defender of the state of Israel. Then he says, you may have heard this one before, he says, if the Palestinians laid down their arms, there would be peace. Now, it’s first worth noting, right, that peace can mean a lot of different things, right? I mean, peace just means the absence of conflict. You might say that the Native Americans got peace from the United States government in the 19th and then through the 20th century, because actually, there’s really no open-armed warfare between Native Americans and the United States anymore, because the Native population was largely destroyed in the United States. So, this category of peace says nothing about things like freedom and justice that we might think are also important values. But even on the question of peace, this idea that Sam Harris has, that Palestinians have never put down their weapons, and if they did, everything would be fine. He evidently is not aware that for the last 20 years since the end of the Second Intifada, the Palestinian Authority has put away its weapons. Not only has it not done any significant amount of armed resistance itself, it’s actually worked with the Israeli Defense Force to prevent other Palestinians from committing armed resistance. This, by the way, is something that the African National Congress in South Africa, or the Irish Republican Army in Northern Ireland never did—never would have thought of doing—because it would have been considered so wildly collaborationist. This has actually been the strategy of the Palestinian Authority for the last 20 years. And for several of those years, the Palestinian Prime Minister was a guy named Salam Fayyad, who was considered the most moderate Palestinian politician, the one who was most popular in Washington, the one who was most popular in Israel, right? The person who went furthest in essentially doing the test that Sam Harris is sure that could get the Palestinians everything they want: putting down their arms—not just putting down arms—but preventing other Palestinians from picking up their arms. When Salaam Fayyad left politics in 2013, he did a kind of exit interview with Roger Cohen of the New York Times. And he said that he could not get the Israelis to stop settlement growth in the West Bank for a single day through his strategy of renouncing armed conflict and preventing other Palestinians from using armed resistance. And he writes, ‘we have sustained a doctrinal defeat. We have not delivered. I represent the address for failure. I question whether the PA delivered. Meanwhile, Hamas gains recognition and is strengthened.’ Again, no evidence in Sam Harris’s writing that he knows who Salam Fayyad is, or has any understanding or familiarity with the experience of Salam Fayyad. He goes on to say, Sam Harris, that the Palestinians bear responsibility for this conflict because ‘Hamas is a death cult that uses its own civilian population as human shields.’ There’s something uniquely pathological about Hamas and Palestinians because they fight from within an urban territory. Evidently, Sam Harris is unfamiliar with the work, for instance, of the Israeli political scientist Neve Gordon, who’s written and co-authored an entire book about this idea of human shields. I’m going to quote from Neve Gordon here. He writes, ‘from the American Revolution and the Italian Risorgimento to anti-colonial struggles in Malaya, India, Sri Lanka, and Vietnam, as well as Algeria, Angola, and Palestine, militants have hidden among civilians. Hamas, in this sense, is no outlier,’ right? Sam Harris show

    18 min

Ratings & Reviews

5
out of 5
3 Ratings

About

A conversation about American foreign policy, Palestinian freedom and the Jewish people. peterbeinart.substack.com

You Might Also Like