The Beinart Notebook

Peter Beinart

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

  1. A Reply to Sam Harris

    4d ago

    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
  2. A Glimpse into The Horror in Gaza

    Jun 1

    A Glimpse into The Horror in Gaza

    This week’s Zoom call will be at a special time: Thursday at 1 PM. Our guest will be Francesca Albanese, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories and author of the new book, When the World Sleeps: Stories, Words and Wounds of Palestine. She has been sanctioned by the Trump administration, which has barred her from entering the United States and frozen her assets in the country. We’ll talk about her new book, her investigations into Israeli actions in Gaza and the West Bank, her views of US, European, and United Nations policy toward Israel, and about the criticisms of her. We’ll also talk about what it’s like to live under US sanctions. Cited in Today’s Video Muhammad Shehada’s comments about life in Gaza, in conversation with Jehad Abusalim and Adam Shatz for the London Review of Books podcast. The Israeli human rights group Gisha on Israel’s restrictions on the import of toilets—and other essential civilian goods—into Gaza. The World Health Organization on the surge of “ectoparasite infections and rodent-borne illnesses” in Gaza. 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!), Will Alden profiles Curt Mills, one of the intellectual architects of the anti-Israel right. See you on Thursday, Peter VIDEO TRANSCRIPT: So, there are a lot of Jews—I know some of them well myself—who are kind of both bewildered and enraged by this turn in American public opinion and in American politics against Israel, as reflected in my own city, New York, for instance, and the fact that Mayor Zohran Mamdani is the first mayor in many years not to march in the Israel Day parade, or that there’s this effort to boycott Israeli goods at this Brooklyn co-op. And there’s this sense that, kind of, why is it, people ask, many Jews ask, that there’s this fury against Israel, this rage? And the answer that’s so frequently given is that this is just an eruption of age-old antisemitism, right? A kind of return to the ancient art of Jew-hating. And of course, there is antisemitism. There is Jew-hating. Antisemitism is rising, but I just wish that some of those folks who are enraged and bewildered by this turn in public opinion, in American politics against Israel, would just spend a little bit of time looking at what Israel does, looking at what life is like for Palestinians under Israeli control. Because if you start to look even just a little, if you’re willing to open your eyes even just a little, then this anger at Israel, even this rage at Israel, and this desire to fundamentally change the way America interacts with Israel, it stops looking so pathological. It stops looking so antisemitic, because you can start to understand why people would be so upset, right? But so frequently, the people in our community who most need to look, just never look. And I just want to give one little example of what it looks like to take even a tiny peek at what it’s like to be a Palestinian under Israeli control, in this case, in Gaza. This is an extended quote from my friend Muhammad Shehada, who is from Gaza, and he was interviewed for the London Review of Books podcast by Adam Shatz in a recent episode. And I’m going to quote what Muhammad says about life in Gaza now. Muhammad says: The biggest struggle at the moment is basic shelter. Almost everyone I know is on the street. Every single member of my family, every friend that I have, every colleague, every neighbor had their homes either bombed, burned to the ground, bulldozed, detonated from the inside, or heavily damaged to the point that it cannot house any human habitation. The luckiest of my friends is Anas. Anas lives in a bombed-out building on the first floor. The building was bombed from the very top, so the last two floors are gone. The staircase connecting the multiple floors in that condominium is cut in half. The bottom floor was bombed repeatedly, so it’s also burned completely. In the apartment where Anas lives, it doesn’t have any windows, doesn’t have any doors, there’s no door to even enter the apartment. There’s a giant hole in the living room from an unexploded 2,000-pound bomb that Israel dropped on that tower that went right through it, and it landed on the ground floor, so he literally lives above that unexploded bomb. His daily occupation during the day is finding water or food. It has become one of the most insane struggles. Or just a place to relieve yourself. A restroom is becoming a dream. Israel is literally banning toilets from entering Gaza up until this moment, so you have to improvise, and the nighttime struggle is Anas sleeping with one eye open to protect his only daughter from mice, rats, scorpions, spiders, snakes, cockroaches, mosquitoes, flies that have had this sort of unprecedented nesting ground in either infinite piles of garbage that Israel does not allow to be collected, or disposed of, or in destroyed sewage systems, or in the rubble of homes where those rodents and insects have been feasting on the decomposing bodies of thousands of Palestinians under the rubble. Now, if you think Muhammad is being hyperbolic, I’ll link to the Gisha report—Gisha, an Israeli Human Rights Organization—which notes that portable toilets, along with sleeping bags, tarps, non-electric wheelchairs, and flashlights, and other items like that, have all been deemed dual-use items by Israel, which means it’s very, very difficult to bring them in to Gaza. And another report by the World Health Organization, which has recorded that since the beginning of 2026, there have been more than 70,000 cases of ectoparasitic infections and rodent-borne illnesses in Gaza. And health workers, according to the World Health Organization, say that, ‘the collapse of sanitation systems, mountains of rubble, overflowing sewage, and overcrowded displacement camps have created fertile conditions for disease to spread.’ So, the Israeli government will say, well, this is because Hamas has not disarmed. So, first of all, it’s fundamentally and profoundly immoral to deny people the basic necessities of life—toilets, toilets, basic sanitation systems—because you are upset that Hamas has not disarmed. Secondly, Hamas’ criteria for disarming is that they’re not willing to do so absent some horizon by which Israel’s control over Gaza and the Palestinian people will end, right? I have lots and lots of criticisms of Hamas, and I’ve registered them many, many, many times. But this basic idea that you don’t disarm absent any possibility that you are going to get your freedom is not a Hamas-only idea. Hamas didn’t invent this. Nelson Mandela vehemently refused to give up armed resistance in negotiations with the South African government when they tried to get him to foreswear armed resistance in the 1980s, and he said repeatedly, we will abandon armed resistance, we will turn over our guns when we have a date for a free election. The Irish Republican Army, similarly, was not willing to disarm until they knew that Catholics would get political equality. So, this demand that Hamas has to disarm, without any reason for Hamas whatsoever to believe that it would bring Palestinians closer to freedom, an end to the blockade, an end to occupation, is a very typical perspective of a group that’s representing a population that’s lacking basic rights. And Palestinians can also look at the West Bank and see the consequences of what happens when you do disarm without any guarantee that your occupation will end. They can look at the West Bank, where the Palestinian Authority has been for 20 years, not only not turning to armed resistance, but collaborating with Israel to stop armed resistance, and they can see what’s happening. Palestinians losing more and more and more land, more and more violence against Palestinians who are completely defenseless as Israel takes their land and often takes their lives, right? This is just completely indefensible at the most basic, gut, human level. And the problem in the Jewish community, the problem with so many of these peoples, many of whom I know who are otherwise really good people, is they’re just not willing to look at these things. What they do is they look at the people who are enraged at Israel, or they look at Zohran Mamdani, or they look at people who are boycotting, and they don’t understand where this anger comes from. But if they would just pay attention to what Israel is actually doing, they would understand where this anger comes from. They could see it as something other than pathological and antisemitic, and they themselves might actually start to feel that kind of anger themselves. Because the right human response to what Israel is doing to Muhammad Shehada’s family and Muhammad Shehada’s friends is anger. It is anger. And it is a demand that the United States should not be supporting this kind of behavior. But you have to see that. You have to see that in order to understand the actual dynamics of what’s happening in the shifting debate about America and America’s relationship with Israel. And if you systematically ignore it, you’re trapped in this bubble in which you can only understand this response as antisemitism because you’re not willing to look in the eye the very, very painful and very brutal truths that we as Jews have to face about what is being done in our name as Jews, and with our money as Americans, to people like Anas, and to millions of other people in the Gaza Strip and in the West Bank whose lives are being made hell. 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

    9 min
  3. Condemning Settler Violence is Not Enough

    May 25

    Condemning Settler Violence is Not Enough

    This week’s Zoom call will be at our regular time, Friday at 1 PM Eastern. We will talk about how progressives should respond to the anti-Israel right. Our first guest will be Ruwa Romman, a Palestinian-American State Representative from Georgia, who in a recent comment on X about former Republican Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene wrote, “I’m tired of Palestine being used to erase every other misdeed once someone with a platform says anything for us.” Our second guest will be Ben Lorber, co-author of Safety Through Solidarity: A Radical Guide to Fighting Antisemitism, and a senior research analyst at Political Research Associates, who writes frequently about the American right. Join us. Ask Me Anything This Tuesday, May 26, at 1 PM Eastern, we will hold an Ask Me Anything session, for PREMIUM SUBSCRIBERS ONLY. Cited in Today’s Video B’Tselem’s report, Settler Violence = State Violence. 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!), Mari Cohen reflects on the legacy of former ADL head Abe Foxman. In Current Affairs, Andrew Ancheta examines the similarities between defenses of apartheid South Africa and today’s defenses of Israel. In Equator, Eva Menasse discusses Germany’s warped debate about antisemitism. Reader Comment In response to my recent video criticizing Tucker Carlson, Mujahid Sarsur, author of the forthcoming book, Palestinians at the Holocaust Museum, writes: I believe the efforts of pro-Palestinian human rights liberal Jews (including you, Michelle Goldberg, and Naomi Klein) to contribute to the Democratic/Republican establishment goal of dismissing Carlson as a bigot are extremely harmful to the Palestinian cause, and I believe such efforts, although primarily justified by focusing on Carlson’s statements that may be perceived as bigoted, partly stem from a need to defend a construct of a “Jewish peoplehood”—a construct which has been substantially shaped not by traditional Jewish ethics, but by the Zionist movement’s ethnocentric influence on the Jewish community. My deeper point is illuminated by coining the term “anti-Zionist Zionist Jews”: a person who does not believe in the need for a Jewish state but still embraces the ideological structures underlying Zionism, wanting to defend and be part of a “Jewish peoplehood,” and unwilling to look at the link between that construct and the extermination of Palestinians. The Palestine issue cannot be understood without a deep exploration of Jewish identity; few questions are more relevant to the Palestinians than “Who is a Jew?” In my upcoming book, I rely on the writings of Jewish and Israeli authors who illustrate how Zionism is ideologically dependent on the construct of “Jewish peoplehood” and who argue that Jews are no more than a faith group, to show how this construct is existentially linked to the future of Palestinians: The concept of the Jewish people has been at the center of Zionist ideology and what it did to the Palestinians. Israeli intellectual Boaz Evron argues that “the problematic situation in which modern Israel finds itself is derived, inter alia, from assumptions and ideologies about the nature of the Jewish people and the Jewish state that have largely been refuted by historical developments.” Israeli historian Shlomo Sand writes that Israel’s attachment to an “unbridled ethnocracy that grossly discriminates against certain of its citizens, rests on the active myth of an eternal nation that must ultimately forgather in its ancestral land.” Professor of Jewish history, Yakov Rabkin, writes that what “underlies Zionist ideology” is “the concept of the Jewish people.” Israeli government policies vis-à-vis the Palestinians have always been about how to defend this “Jewish peoplehood” and whatever the definition of that peoplehood encompasses. Indeed, Jewish identity does not only concern the Palestinians, but it is also existentially relevant to them. The Nakba—the destruction of over 500 Palestinian towns and villages and the expulsion of 750,000 Palestinian refugees—was a direct result of this vision of Jewish peoplehood that needs to be preserved and protected. The Gaza genocide was rationalized and justified by Israel and its supporters by the need to protect the “Jewish people.” When Israel commenced its genocide, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken came to Israel and explicitly cited his Jewishness to explain why he feels personally required to support Israel and its military. By equating genocide with Jewishness, as the American Jewish establishment wants him to do, Carlson is challenging the essence of why Antony Blinken may not be a practicing Jew but feels part of a “Jewish peoplehood.” By extension, Carlson is also challenging you, Peter, and Goldberg and Klein to reflect on the essence of contemporary Jewishness. You are confronted with a choice: the easy route of dismissing him as a bigot or asking tough questions. What does it mean that the majority of synagogues and Jewish community centers have Israeli flags? What does the removal of these flags entail? How much of contemporary Jewishness is left without Zionism? Why do many American Jews insist on Jewishness as an “ethnicity” even though ample books have collapsed that idea? Why would 540 Columbia students feel a need to call themselves Zionists and defend Israel in the midst of the genocide? Many in the Palestinian community view the Carlson phenomenon as miraculous because, for the first time, they see in Carlson the possibility that the structures that have been leading to the expulsion and extermination of Palestinians are being fundamentally challenged. Carlson is holding a sledgehammer and is destroying these structures. Dismissing him as a bigot helps stop this sledgehammer and, from the vantage point of many Palestinians, feels like a deeply Zionist act. This is, of course, not to accept Carlson’s other views, but to focus on his impact on the Palestine issue. See you on Friday, Peter VIDEO TRANSCRIPT: Now and then, there’s an episode of settler violence in the West Bank that’s so grotesque that it kind of breaks through a little bit in American media. I mean, settler violence—again, especially under this government, especially since October 7th—is so pervasive that generally, it’s just kind of noise for the American media. It doesn’t really get picked up very much, or in the American Jewish community. But occasionally something is so terrible that it breaks through, and it’s interesting to watch the way that Israel’s defenders in the United States tend to respond to this. Generally, you find that there’s a kind of condemnation of settler violence, and people say this is really terrible. And this is not, you know, this is not who Israel is, this is not who Israel should be. That kind of thing. It’s a little bit similar sometimes to the way those same people talk about Itamar Ben-Gvir. When they have to talk about Itamar Ben-Gvir, they’ll say, Itamar Ben-Gvir is an extremist, he’s a radical, you know, he’s not a good guy, he’s not like those other mainstream Israeli politicians. I want to suggest that there’s something fundamentally incoherent about this response. That just as Itamar Ben-Gavir can’t be disassociated from Israeli politics as a whole, given that his rise was facilitated by Benjamin Netanyahu, who needed to help broker the deal with him and the other national religious parties in order to bring him into the government to create a coalition. So, he’s not a rogue actor. He’s actually a very critical ally, someone who’s been very critical to Benjamin Netanyahu’s continuing in power. Settler violence is also not a rogue activity. It’s not something that happens separate from the Israeli state, or the Israeli mainstream. And I want to quote from a report that B’Tselem, the Israeli human rights organization, did, which was called, Settler Violence = State Violence. And they write: ‘the state takes over land openly.’ They’re talking about Israeli state taking over land in the West Bank from Palestinian land. They’re saying: ‘The state takes over land openly using official methods sanctioned by legal advisors and judges, while the settlers, who are also interested in taking over land to further their agenda, initiate violence against Palestinians for their own reasons. Yet in truth, there is only one track. Settler violence against Palestinians is part of the strategy employed by Israel’s apartheid regime, which seeks to take over more and more West Bank land. The state fully supports and assists these acts of violence, and its agents sometimes participate in them directly. As such, settler violence is a form of government policy aided and abetted by official state authorities with their active participation.’ Now, that’s not to say there aren’t Israeli officials who might be genuinely upset or even appalled by things that settlers do. They may think it’s terrible PR. They may even think that they’re morally wrong. Again, to use a kind of crude analogy, we can imagine a situation in the Jim Crow South where there were things that the Ku Klux Klan did that segregationist leaders wished they hadn’t done. It was a bad reputation. It just wasn’t the way they wanted to do business. But the general thrust of the policy, right, in the Jim Crow South was to keep Black people down, to deny them their basic rights, their basic freedom, through a whole mechanism of violence, some state-sanctioned and some outside of the state, but which could not take place—the Ku Klux Klan could not have operated without the fact that the white-controlled judicial system gave them, you know, almost total impunity. Similarly, settlers can only do what they do, the settlemen

    6 min

Ratings & Reviews

4.7
out of 5
24 Ratings

About

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

You Might Also Like