tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7014209.post7659576592802284693..comments2024-03-29T14:19:30.130+03:00Comments on My Right Word: Beinart Being Part of the Threat, Not Its PreventionYMedadhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14333122797414935958noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7014209.post-74554268434112191372012-03-20T08:55:14.942+02:002012-03-20T08:55:14.942+02:00Some Jews are still not comfortable with the idea ...Some Jews are still not comfortable with the idea of Jewish power - not with its exercise against Arabs but rather on behalf of the Jews themselves.<br /><br />They want a Zionism that is purged of political and moral dilemmas. They want to shrink Israel so they don't have to face the real world. If Israel got rid of every single Arab, it would still have to deal with the unpleasant fact they hate the Jews and Israel without their - that is the Arabs - ever having met a single Jew.<br /><br />That won't change no matter what Israel might do to make the Peter Beinarts of the world more comfortable with it. He can ignore certain realities from the safety of New York. Israelis can ill afford to casually dismiss them.<br /><br />Israel doesn't face a crisis. But some Jews do face a crisis when the Middle East hasn't turned out like they thought it would. And like it or not - ignoring the Arab half of the question is not going to make Israel want to help Beinart find out if the Arabs are prepared to accept Israel within the so-called "Green Line." There is no indication they are ever going to help him answer that question in the affirmative - at least not in our lifetime.NormanFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13617524186967828711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7014209.post-694389749580678932012-03-19T17:25:12.839+02:002012-03-19T17:25:12.839+02:00http://www.jewishreviewofbooks.com/publications/de...http://www.jewishreviewofbooks.com/publications/detail/diaspora-divided<br /><br /><br />In his attempt to offer young Jewish elites a Zionism that allows them to skip the "messy, frightening debate over Israel's future," he substitutes the old model of one-dimensional support with a new model of one-dimensional criticism. Having fled right-wing simplicity, Beinart loops directly back to its twin on the left. In doing so, he fails to establish the balance that American Jews so desperately need in their approach to Israel. And he alienates Israelis, who know and live a very different reality from the one he presents. That's why those who embrace The Crisis of Zionism—especially the young, liberal elites for whom it is intended—risk dooming themselves to irrelevancy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7014209.post-90224921004086849922012-03-19T15:33:29.206+02:002012-03-19T15:33:29.206+02:00cont'd...
Third, Beinart claims an imminent t...cont'd...<br /><br />Third, Beinart claims an imminent threat to Israel’s democracy and the belief that “Zionism [may] cease[] to be a democratic project” because of the “occupation,” by which I presume that he means the Israeli military governance part of the shared rule in the JS/WB territory. it is rather silly to argue that Israel’s democracy is at risk because the Israeli part of the shared rule in the JS/WB territory is military. Israel could replace its share of the governance with civilian rather than military governance and it would not significantly alter anything about Israeli democracy. <br />Which brings us fourthly, and lastly, to the central policy argument of the piece—one that is utterly belied by history: that the way to end the situation in which the JS/WB territory is “nondemocratic” is to boycott and sanction Israel. In fact, Israel has foolishly attempted to follow the prescription of Beinart’s colleagues in the J Street parallel universe for more than a decade and reach a peace deal with the PLO in which nearly all of the JS/WB territory would become Jew-free and the core of a new state of Palestine. The PLO has responded in 2000, 2001 and 2008 by spurning the Israeli offers. If Beinart is serious in believing the best solution to the failure to spin off the JS/WB territory into a state of Palestine is boycotts, divestments and sanctions, he should be sponsoring a BDS movement against the PLO and PA. Beinart is correct that the other way to end a situation is for Israel to fully apply its laws and sovereignty to the JS/WB territory the way it did in Jordanian-occupied Jerusalem (aka “East Jerusalem”). It’s fairly clear that any moves by Israel in this direction would be strongly opposed by the EU countries as well as the Obama Administration, Islamic countries and others. If Beinart is sincere in wanting this solution, and believes BDS is the best way to get there, he should be sponsoring a BDS movement against the EU countries, Obama Administration and others. No amount of sanctions against Israel, however directed, can get the PLO to say yes to Israeli peace offers or get the EU countries and Obama Administration to acknowledge that Israel has a right to sovereignty in the JS/WB territory.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7014209.post-61527496847218249912012-03-19T15:30:50.398+02:002012-03-19T15:30:50.398+02:00Beinart makes four arguments here, and everyone of...Beinart makes four arguments here, and everyone of them is wrong. One is a minor linguistic one. He correctly notes that West Bank is an anachronistic term, a holdover from the 19 year Jordanian occupation of the territory. He then calls Judea and Samaria biblical names that relate solely to its biblical lineage, erasing the more than two millennia after the closing of the Bible when everyone, including the UN, called the territory Judea and Samaria. it’s rather pathetic that Beinart can’t say the reason: the overwhelming consideration regarding the name is to delegitimize potential Jewish/Israeli claims to the land. And Beinart can’t say that, because he shares that agenda. <br />Second, he says that what Judea and Samaria/West Bank really is is “nondemocratic Israel.” This is remarkable statement for someone who has lived nearly his entire adult after the Oslo Accords. Since 1994, the territory has been jointly ruled by the PLO and by Israel. There is a functioning Palestinian Authority on the territory that has a US-trained military and what it claims is sufficient infrastructure for a functioning independent state. It has a legislature, a President, a budget, taxes, courts, and the ability to print passports and execute Palestinians who sell land to Jews. The PA is not an independent state, but it is not nothing either. The richest irony is that Beinart insists that it is a human rights violation and the centerpiece of the “nondemocracy” of the shared area for Israel to respect the rights of Jews to acquire property in the area and reside there if they want to. There are many arguments that can be made about settlements, but one cannot sincerely argue that it the principles of human rights that require Israel to bow to Palestinian demands to render the area Jew-free. ...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7014209.post-7075166647600590432012-03-19T12:55:00.322+02:002012-03-19T12:55:00.322+02:00"but only with Israel with Judea and Samaria ..."but only with Israel with Judea and Samaria can there be both security for Israel and hope for the Arab residents of those areas"<br /><br />Hypocrisy is the greatest luxuryAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com