The Beinart Notebook

Peter Beinart

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

  1. 1d ago

    The Pro-Israel Establishment’s Five Stages of Grief

    This week’s Zoom call will be at our regular time: Friday at 1 PM. Our guest will be Chris Van Hollen, Democratic Senator from Maryland. He’s been among the senators most vocal about changing US policy toward Israel. In May, he wrote a New York Times column calling for conditioning US arms sales to the Jewish state and suggested that “Democrats should pursue a last-gasp effort to salvage a two-state solution. If that effort fails, the United States will have to consider other options to secure equal political and legal rights for all.” We’ll talk about how the Democratic Party is changing and about what it will take to transform US policy toward Israel-Palestine. Please join us. Cited in Today’s Video The five stages of grief. Rahm Emanuel’s speech in Tel Aviv. 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!), Charlotte Ritz-Jack reports on how Israel’s withholding of tax revenues is undermining education in the West Bank. Ro Khanna gets a taste of Palestinian life in the West Bank. John Judis on what Democrats should learn from the Graham Platner fiasco. On August 23, I’ll be speaking in Sydney, Australia. See you on Friday, Peter VIDEO TRANSCRIPT: I’ve been thinking about the speech that Rahm Emanuel gave in Tel Aviv last week, and I think it could be understood as a form of bargaining. I’m taking that term from these famous five stages of grief from the psychiatrist Elizabeth Kubler-Ross. She says the five stages—I’m sure many of you have heard this before—are denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance. And I think if you look at the way that supporters of Israel have responded to this huge shift that we’re seeing in the United States, I think you can see it move through these stages. So, it wasn’t that long ago that the standard line from people who wanted to maintain unconditional U.S. support for Israel was denial that the public opinion had changed, that the United States was no longer an overwhelmingly pro-Israel country in the sense that it wanted America to give Israel unconditional military and diplomatic support. And I think more recently, you’ve seen the second stage, which is anger, which is kind of like, you know, fury that there’s this kind of new anti-Israel, even anti-Zionist politics, and of course, generally defined from within the pro-Israel space as a kind of a tsunami of antisemitism. But Rahm Emanuel’s speech, I think, is a third phase, which is bargaining. Now, Rahm Emanuel had always been, you know, a supporter of unconditional U.S. support for Israel, kind of on the liberal side, but certainly he had never supported the kind of sanctions that he’s talking about before. And I think Rahm Emanuel is now trying to essentially bargain with this new politics, which is emerging in the Democratic Party, and also among young Republicans, and trying to say, okay, the US is going to now pressure Israel more than it has, and especially put sanctions on the West Bank, and there can be a new bargain. I think the problem—and I think, by the way, that the fourth stage, depression, is something we may start to see evidence of in the years to come as well. By depression, I mean people kind of bemoaning the fact that they’ve lost the American public, maybe doing a version, a pro-Israel Jewish version, even of what was called the Benedictine option, which was something we saw among Christian conservatives during the Obama years, where they said, we’ve lost the country. It’s becoming irredeemably progressive and woke. We need to retreat from it into our own kind of enclaves where we can maintain our own virtues. But in this case, being pro-Israel, you know, create your own institutions, this kind of thing. But to go back to the nature of the bargain that Rahm Emanuel is suggesting. It is a significant step forward in that it is an end to unconditional U.S. support for Israel. It would be some form of pressure, although the devil is in the details, if you listen to the speech, that the United States would push Israel to be willing to negotiate towards the idea of a Palestinian state. The problem with the bargain is, I think, in the way that Rahm Emanuel thinks about Palestinians, or you could say doesn’t think that much about Palestinians. So, the first thing that Emanuel says in his speech is he repeats this old kind of chestnut that basically Israel has again and again offered Palestinians everything they should have wanted, and then they said no. This is just really historically inaccurate. I mean, it’s repeated so frequently. It’s like mother’s milk for those of us who kind of grew up in pro-Israel Jewish environments. But really, there are very few, if any, historians who actually believe that as a rendition of what actually happened. And it’s just also important to remember, you know, that Rahm Emanuel is saying that three times Israel offered Palestinian sovereignty. It’s really not true. Israel didn’t offer Palestinian sovereignty at all. When you say that Israel has to have, for instance, that the Palestinian state can’t have a military, and that Israel is going to have some control over its air flight, the airspace, the telecommunication spectrum, troops on part of Palestinian territory in the Jordan Valley, that is not actual sovereignty. There’s something inaccurate about Rahm Emanuel’s kind of precondition for this bargain that he’s suggesting. But then, if you notice the way he goes on to talk about Palestinian leadership in the speech, he has this line where he says the Arab world must assume ‘its rightful place as the adult in the room with the Palestinian leadership.’ So, the clear implication is that the Arabs, as the proxies—by probably means the Saudis and the Emiratis, and maybe the Qataris—as the proxies of the United States, are going to force the Palestinians into accepting things that maybe they weren’t willing to accept in the past. What’s totally missing is the idea that Palestinians should be able to choose their own leaders, and that Palestinians should have the space to actually define for themselves their vision of what they want their freedom to look like. Now, again, that doesn’t mean that there’s not going to be a negotiation process with the Israelis. But what Rahm Emanuel skips is taking seriously Palestinian politics and the right of Palestinians to actually choose a legitimate leadership for themselves. The implication is that essentially America and the Arabs will tell the Palestinians what to do, and then the US will move Israel aways, and then force the Palestinians to accept what Israel is now willing to offer. That actually is part of the reason, actually, I think that the Oslo process failed, right? And it’s especially problematic today when Palestinians have not for many, many years had the opportunity to have a legitimate democratic process to choose legitimate leaders who can offer a vision of Palestinian freedom. And the whole notion of the idea that Palestinian freedom is central to this conversation as opposed to simply, you know, saving Israel from itself is really missing from the bargain that Rahm Emanuel is offering. So, that’s why I think that, again, this represents a kind of progress, but the nature of the bargain that Rahm Emanuel is offering, I still think fundamentally doesn’t take seriously the notion that Palestinians have an inalienable right to freedom, and that they have the right to choose their own leaders, not have them chosen for themselves for them. That’s the part of the bargain that Rahm Emanuel, I think, is getting wrong, and it’s why we’re going to need people to come along who are going to revise that, and I think offer a new kind of formulation which centers the fact that this U.S. policy is not only about saving Israel from itself, that U.S. policy has to have at its center the belief that Palestinians deserve to be free. 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

    The Pro-Israel Establishment’s Five Stages of Grief
  2. Jul 6

    We Still Haven’t Said “Never Again”

    This week’s Zoom call will be at our regular time: Friday at 1 PM. Our guest will be Darializa Avila Chevalier, who last month won the Democratic nomination for Congress in New York’s 13th district. Avila Chevalier has attracted controversy for her views on Israel-Palestine, among other issues. But the interviews with her that I’ve seen haven’t probed those views in depth. I want to ask what she saw while living in the West Bank and as an activist at Columbia University’s Gaza encampment. I want to better understand her views about October 7, about Zionism and Zionists, and about what she believes would constitute a just future in Israel-Palestine. This conversation will be 45 minutes long, not the usual one hour. Please join us. I’ll also be recording a conversation this week with California State Senator and congressional candidate Scott Wiener about the harassment he recently experienced at San Francisco’s Trans march, and about his views about Gaza and US policy towards Israel-Palestine. That conversation won’t include a live audience, but subscribers will receive it in the coming days. Cited in Today’s Video Bryan Stevenson’s conversation with Ezra Klein. Donald Trump says the Smithsonian museums focus too much on slavery. Israel’s law penalizing municipalities that acknowledge the Nakba. Israel’s defense minister says his government wants Palestinians to leave 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!), I argued that Zohran Mamdani’s influence could help Democrats win back the presidency. In the London Review of Books, Muhammad Shehada wrote about Marwan Barghouti and the Palestinian future. In Politico, Steve Bannon says a democratic socialist could win the White House. On July 9, I’ll be speaking in New York to the Halachic Left, a group of anti-occupation observant Jews. On August 23, I’ll be speaking in Sydney, Australia. See you on Friday, Peter VIDEO TRANSCRIPT: There’s been a ton of political commentary recently about the 250th anniversary of the United States, which was celebrated this weekend. And one of the things that I found most powerful was a conversation that Ezra Klein did for the New York Times with Bryan Stevenson. And Bryan Stevenson leads something called the Equal Justice Initiative. It’s an initiative that defends Black Americans and others who are discriminated against in the criminal justice system. And also, Stevenson created this extraordinary monument and memorial in Montgomery, Alabama, that, among other things, lists the names of 4,000 Black Americans who were lynched in the United States. And Stevenson said something to Klein that really struck me. Stevenson said that he went to Holocaust museums, and that by the end of a Holocaust museum, the moral imperative is very clear: never again. But Stevenson said that there wasn’t the equivalent in the United States of these kind of museums that had the clear moral imperative—never again—which is why he created this monument and museum in Montgomery. And I think he’s right, you know, it’s quite astonishing when you just step back and realize that there is no monument on the National Mall in Washington, DC to either slavery or to the genocide of Native Americans. It is true there are these museums, fairly recently constructed, one for the American Indian and one for African American history and culture. But even those are now under attack in the Trump administration for, as Trump said in the fall of 2025, for focusing too much on slavery. So, even the very kind of modest degree of memorialization that we have—which is nothing like what you see in Germany and in other countries where the Holocaust was perpetrated—was considered too much for the current President of the United States. And I think there is a direct line between this refusal to look America’s history in the face, America’s history of genocide and white supremacy, and the fact that we now have this blatantly white supremacist politics that’s returned. And you can see something similar in Jewish discourse as well. Which is to say, if America has not had its kind of never-again moment, if the United States doesn’t have a public culture that asks people to say never again as it regards white supremacy and the genocide of Native Americans, that Israel and the broader Jewish world doesn’t have that never-again culture as well. That might sound very strange, of course, because Jews, most of us are raised to always think in terms of never again, as it relates to the Nazi Holocaust. So, we are accustomed to thinking, when we are the victims, of thinking about the importance of this idea of never again. But to even to suggest that Israeli Jews and Jews around the rest of the world might need to start having a public culture of saying never again about the mass expulsion of Palestinians in 1948 is in and of itself an extremely subversive and provocative claim. In fact, though, it is precisely the unwillingness to have this public expression of never again, that just as in the United States, makes the continuing expulsion of Palestinians possible. So, there’s a direct line between the fact that Israel literally penalizes municipalities that commemorate the Nakba of 1948, and the fact that Israel’s stated policy today in Gaza, as recently expressed by Israel’s defense minister, is ‘voluntary migration of Palestinians.’ You know, voluntary, right? I mean, you, you make the place catastrophically unlivable. You prevent any rebuilding that might allow people to have anything resembling a decent life in Gaza. And then you say, you know, our policy is that we think you’d be better off somewhere else, and we’re really willing to help facilitate you. You know, we’ll buy you a plane ride, a plane trip to Somaliland or Rwanda or something, and get you out of here. I think Stevenson’s point is this is the consequence of not having a culture of never again. In the United States, the consequence of not having this culture of never again is Donald Trump. In Israel and in the Jewish world, the consequence of not having a culture of never again, of the fact that whole entire generation after generation of Israeli Jews—but also American Jews, Jews in other parts of the world—grow up within institutions, synagogues, Jewish schools, camps, youth movements, et cetera, where there is no honest reckoning with the Nakba. There’s a direct line between that refusal to say never again when it comes to what a Jewish state did to Palestinians, and the fact that the Jewish state is continuing to do exactly that, to continue this process of mass expulsion. And if we’re ever going to have a fundamental change, both in the United States and in Israel, and more broadly in the Jewish world, it starts with looking hard in the eye these historical crimes and committing to then not allowing them to happen again. I think that the 250th anniversary of the founding of the United States is a good moment to remember that. 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

    We Still Haven’t Said “Never Again”
  3. Jun 29

    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

    Reckoning with Anti-Israel Rage

Ratings & Reviews

4.7
out of 5
25 Ratings

About

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

You Might Also Like