Good points. I agree fairly often with Beinart’s criticisms of Israel. But I’m really put off by his unquestioning valorization of the Palestinians, based, apparently, on the simple belief that lack of might makes right. The abject apology was disturbing but predictable, I guess, given this valorization.
I found Beinart deeply frustrating even before his apology, but now I have pretty much written him off as someone worth engaging with.
On the hand, I appreciated his willingness to call out when Israel has behaved immorally and to challenge Jews to live their values. I believe both things are important. At the same time, his proposed "solutions" to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict were so fanciful and far from even being considered within Israel (much less implemented) that I wasn't sure what he even thought he was trying to accomplish. I just found him unmoored from reality. And now this latest post really does start to give Kapo vibes.
Ultimately, I think Peter is just the archetype of a personality that is unsuited to be engaged in politics. He was an Iraq war hawk because he believed in the ability for the U.S. to do good in the world through military action, and I think he has seen his role since as trying to make restitution for what he got wrong then and this is all somehow part of that restitution. But politics isn't about these kinds of moral absolutes; it's the slow boring of hard boards that includes a recognition of what people are and are not capable of and a willingness to look honestly at all sides.
Peter, I think, is so consumed by his own guilt that he is only capable of looking for flaws in the Jewish people (which he sees as an extension of himself ). For him, I think, the Palestinians don't really exist as an independent people who are capable of moral actions. They exist simply as a moral challenge for the Jews.
I get that it's hard to do in your mid-50s, but Peter would really be better off shifting careers. He is doing nobody, including himself, any good on his current path.
Peter Beinert supports BDS. He broke the boycott to speak at Tel Aviv University. BDS people were upset that a prominent intellectual who purportedly supports their boycott broke it. Beinert apologizes, making clear he had other options to engage with Israelis.
Beinert only apologized for venue. He stands by what he said.
There is no "implication" that Beinert no longer speaks for himself. The balance of Millman's paragraph is nonsensical since the content of his speech is not the issue at hand. Observing a boycott is different from becoming a hack. Side-stepping something so obvious indicates how deeply loathed Beinert has become. If you loath him argue his content, don't take an apology for breaking a boycott as proof his arguments are no longer sincere.
Millman makes much of tone "The rhetoric, reminiscent of Maoist self-criticism, should be familiar from the “peak woke” era.". Really? He did not apologize for what he said! At all! Reread it if you think otherwise. Anlogizing to peak woke or the Cultural Revolution is analytically weak because those movements required people to disavow their words. Analogizing to war criminal / murderer (take your pick) Pete Hegsmith is worse that analytically weak, it is low trolling.
Peter Beinert is sincere above all else, painfully sincere at times. Do you honestly think apologizing for venue means he will become a slavish mouth piece for pro-Palestinian groups? Or are you clutching your pearls in overwrought umbrage because you do not like his arguments and are tired of defending him as a good faith inerlocutor?
I am not suggesting Millman is not arguing in good faith. I do suspect his distaste for Beinert and his arguments has lead him to weak arguments and an offensive analogy.
I have mixed feelings about Peter. His early hawkishness was a big mistake, but now his dovishness bothers me. He's right to condemn the carpet bombing of Gaza, but I see little evidence of liberalism among the Palestinians that can support a successful peace process.
I too have mixed feelings about Beinert, but I do not doubt his sincerity. He is not a shill, he is a sensitive and decent man who does not deserve to be compared to wife beater/drunkard/murderer/war criminal/thug Pete Hegsmith.
Regarding your note, as a matter of symmetry, do you see much evidence of liberalism among Israelis that can support a peace process? I am not arguing your point so much as expressing my belief that in fairness requires accepting that neither Palestinian or Israeli society currently show broad-based support for a peace process that necessarily involves compromise.
In such a predicament we should support the elements in each society that support non-violent solutions. That includes the vestigial (but still existent!) Israeli left, out-of-power folks like Ohmert and various other ex-officials and, yes, BDS.
You're right that liberalism in Israel is much diminished; but among Palestinians _open_ liberalism seems to be close to non-existent. I think it's time to reduce our assistance to Israel and put pressure on the Israelis regarding settlements and Palestinian self-governance. But I do not see Hamas as able to fill a constructive role in any of this.
Israel lacks "liberalism that can support a peace process". That type of liberalism is diminished to the vanishing point, witness how little support a peace process that involves compromise has within Israel. It is politically almost unimaginable.
It is not clear to me that the Palestinian population is more resistant to a peace process that involves compromise, is there evidence I might be unaware of? A good cse can be made the Palestinian population has less of a demonstrated committment to liberal democracy, at the same time the Palestinians are almost powerless and may be more amenable to compromise.
I think both sides' notions of what constitutes a workable compromise are wildly incompatible. All the way back in 2000, at the start of the Second Intifada, both Israelis and Palestinians felt they had already made enormous compromises and now were being asked to make even more. Barak's peace offer was extremely unpopular in Israel, but that offer was generally seen by Palestinians as obviously unacceptable. Similar situation in 2008 between Olmert and the most pragmatic leadership the Palestinians have ever had; the maps and other terms that the negotiators were working on were quite close by the end, but neither side had popular support behind the kind of deal being contemplated. The situation now is much worse; I think there is essentially no support for a peace process in Israel, but Palestinian opinion (admittedly harder to measure reliably) has been substantially radicalized by the events of the last decade and especially the last two years. Plus there's no legitimate leadership on the Palestinian side; the Palestinian Authority is widely loathed as corrupt and collaborationist, and Hamas, well, we all know about Hamas.
Good points. I agree fairly often with Beinart’s criticisms of Israel. But I’m really put off by his unquestioning valorization of the Palestinians, based, apparently, on the simple belief that lack of might makes right. The abject apology was disturbing but predictable, I guess, given this valorization.
I found Beinart deeply frustrating even before his apology, but now I have pretty much written him off as someone worth engaging with.
On the hand, I appreciated his willingness to call out when Israel has behaved immorally and to challenge Jews to live their values. I believe both things are important. At the same time, his proposed "solutions" to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict were so fanciful and far from even being considered within Israel (much less implemented) that I wasn't sure what he even thought he was trying to accomplish. I just found him unmoored from reality. And now this latest post really does start to give Kapo vibes.
Ultimately, I think Peter is just the archetype of a personality that is unsuited to be engaged in politics. He was an Iraq war hawk because he believed in the ability for the U.S. to do good in the world through military action, and I think he has seen his role since as trying to make restitution for what he got wrong then and this is all somehow part of that restitution. But politics isn't about these kinds of moral absolutes; it's the slow boring of hard boards that includes a recognition of what people are and are not capable of and a willingness to look honestly at all sides.
Peter, I think, is so consumed by his own guilt that he is only capable of looking for flaws in the Jewish people (which he sees as an extension of himself ). For him, I think, the Palestinians don't really exist as an independent people who are capable of moral actions. They exist simply as a moral challenge for the Jews.
I get that it's hard to do in your mid-50s, but Peter would really be better off shifting careers. He is doing nobody, including himself, any good on his current path.
Peter Beinert supports BDS. He broke the boycott to speak at Tel Aviv University. BDS people were upset that a prominent intellectual who purportedly supports their boycott broke it. Beinert apologizes, making clear he had other options to engage with Israelis.
Beinert only apologized for venue. He stands by what he said.
There is no "implication" that Beinert no longer speaks for himself. The balance of Millman's paragraph is nonsensical since the content of his speech is not the issue at hand. Observing a boycott is different from becoming a hack. Side-stepping something so obvious indicates how deeply loathed Beinert has become. If you loath him argue his content, don't take an apology for breaking a boycott as proof his arguments are no longer sincere.
Millman makes much of tone "The rhetoric, reminiscent of Maoist self-criticism, should be familiar from the “peak woke” era.". Really? He did not apologize for what he said! At all! Reread it if you think otherwise. Anlogizing to peak woke or the Cultural Revolution is analytically weak because those movements required people to disavow their words. Analogizing to war criminal / murderer (take your pick) Pete Hegsmith is worse that analytically weak, it is low trolling.
Peter Beinert is sincere above all else, painfully sincere at times. Do you honestly think apologizing for venue means he will become a slavish mouth piece for pro-Palestinian groups? Or are you clutching your pearls in overwrought umbrage because you do not like his arguments and are tired of defending him as a good faith inerlocutor?
I am not suggesting Millman is not arguing in good faith. I do suspect his distaste for Beinert and his arguments has lead him to weak arguments and an offensive analogy.
I have mixed feelings about Peter. His early hawkishness was a big mistake, but now his dovishness bothers me. He's right to condemn the carpet bombing of Gaza, but I see little evidence of liberalism among the Palestinians that can support a successful peace process.
I too have mixed feelings about Beinert, but I do not doubt his sincerity. He is not a shill, he is a sensitive and decent man who does not deserve to be compared to wife beater/drunkard/murderer/war criminal/thug Pete Hegsmith.
Regarding your note, as a matter of symmetry, do you see much evidence of liberalism among Israelis that can support a peace process? I am not arguing your point so much as expressing my belief that in fairness requires accepting that neither Palestinian or Israeli society currently show broad-based support for a peace process that necessarily involves compromise.
In such a predicament we should support the elements in each society that support non-violent solutions. That includes the vestigial (but still existent!) Israeli left, out-of-power folks like Ohmert and various other ex-officials and, yes, BDS.
You're right that liberalism in Israel is much diminished; but among Palestinians _open_ liberalism seems to be close to non-existent. I think it's time to reduce our assistance to Israel and put pressure on the Israelis regarding settlements and Palestinian self-governance. But I do not see Hamas as able to fill a constructive role in any of this.
Israel lacks "liberalism that can support a peace process". That type of liberalism is diminished to the vanishing point, witness how little support a peace process that involves compromise has within Israel. It is politically almost unimaginable.
It is not clear to me that the Palestinian population is more resistant to a peace process that involves compromise, is there evidence I might be unaware of? A good cse can be made the Palestinian population has less of a demonstrated committment to liberal democracy, at the same time the Palestinians are almost powerless and may be more amenable to compromise.
I think both sides' notions of what constitutes a workable compromise are wildly incompatible. All the way back in 2000, at the start of the Second Intifada, both Israelis and Palestinians felt they had already made enormous compromises and now were being asked to make even more. Barak's peace offer was extremely unpopular in Israel, but that offer was generally seen by Palestinians as obviously unacceptable. Similar situation in 2008 between Olmert and the most pragmatic leadership the Palestinians have ever had; the maps and other terms that the negotiators were working on were quite close by the end, but neither side had popular support behind the kind of deal being contemplated. The situation now is much worse; I think there is essentially no support for a peace process in Israel, but Palestinian opinion (admittedly harder to measure reliably) has been substantially radicalized by the events of the last decade and especially the last two years. Plus there's no legitimate leadership on the Palestinian side; the Palestinian Authority is widely loathed as corrupt and collaborationist, and Hamas, well, we all know about Hamas.
Sounds about right to me.