Israeli ambassador Michael Oren: Beinart ‘beyond the Israeli mainstream,’ his call to boycott settlements ‘supported only by a marginal and highly radical fringe.’
I reported here yesterday on Peter Beinart’s op-ed in the New York Times, calling the American Jewish community to boycott Israel’s settlements in the West Bank, and for American administration to stop the indirect funding of settlements through tax breaks to settlement products and organizations raising money for the settlements (this is just the most obvious way in which the United States is supporting in practice a policy that it appears to oppose, at least on a rhetorical level).
As expected, there is considerable backlash from the American-Israeli rightwing – aka the Republikud party – and I guess there will be much more in the future, once Beinart’s book, from which this op-ed was taken, is published.
Michael Oren, Israel’s ambassador to Washington and a former researcher for the conservative Shalem center, posted the following message on his Facebook page:
Peter Beinart’s call (“To Save Israel, Boycott the Settlements,” New York Times, 3.19.12) places him well beyond the Israeli mainstream, the moderate left, and the vast majority of Israelis who care about peace. The call for boycotting all products made by Israeli communities outside of Jerusalem and beyond the 1949 Armistice Lines is supported only by a marginal and highly radical fringe. Beinart’s position, moreover, absolves the Palestinians of any responsibility for the current situation, including their rejection of previous peace offers, their support for terror, and their refusal to negotiate with Israel for the past three years. By reducing the Palestinians to two-dimensional props in an Israeli drama, Beinart deprives them of agency and indeed undermines his own thesis. Without an active Palestinian commitment to a two-state solution–irrespective of boycotts–the peace Beinart seeks cannot be achieved.
At Commentary – a magazine that views Jews as a mindless mass that needs to be shielded from dangerous ideas – Omri Ceren argues that Beinart’s partial boycott would inevitably lead to debate on BDS (the horror!), and finally, to a full boycott:
That’s why calls for so-called “targeted” BDS routinely metastasize into calls for total boycotts of the Jewish State. In Britain efforts to label products from settlements spurred greater efforts for full boycotts. Partisans inclined to hate Israel hijack not just the campaigns but also even the physical forums where partial vs. full BDS gets debated. The consistency with which that dynamic has played out raises questions about whether limited BDS advocates are merely naive.
David Frum accuses Beinart of “punishing Israel to change the Palestinians,” adding the strangest of arguments – that Palestinians are to blame for the settlements (emphasis in the original):
If the Israeli-Palestinian dispute were a dispute over borders, it would have been settled long ago. The dispute never has been about borders, and it is not about borders now. The spread of Jewish settlements in the West Bank is not a cause of Palestinian rejectionism. It is a consequence of Palestinian rejectionism. It’s tiresome to repeat the history. Peter knows it as well as I do. Has there been a moment since 1936 when a majority of Jewish opinion would have rejected a peace based on partition and mutual recognition by a Jewish and Arab state? Has there has been a moment since 1936 when the Palestinian political community would have accepted such a peace?
There is more, and there will be much more.
Trying to portray Beinart as a radical lefty is strange, also since most of the American left rejects Beinart’s liberal Zionism (particularly the Zionism part). Personally, I find the distinction Beinart makes between “good” and “bad” Israel to be highly problematic; I also see terminating the occupation as a goal in and of itself and not a means, as Beinart’s article might suggest. I will elaborate on these issues when I review Beinart’s book, “The Crisis of Zionism.”
Still, Beinart’s article and his book will probably tell us a lot about the potential appeal of liberal Zionism in America today (in Israel it’s a dead horse, at least politically). If Beinart is left standing alone, and successfully labeled as a radical and an outsider, then it will be clear that the Jewish American debate reflects the Israeli one, where neo-conservative and nationalistic elites control the entire field and dictate the rules of political activism. Judging by some responses to Beinart from what was supposed to be his own camp (Goldberg, Ben-Ami), the odds might not be in his favor.
For additional original analysis and breaking news, visit +972 Magazine's Facebook page or follow us on Twitter. Our newsletter features a comprehensive round-up of the week's events. Sign up here.
Bill Pearlman
Ok, I’ll bite. Beinart says boycott settlements, which in the minds of the Arab world includes all of Israel but lets go micro and say its the west bank, the Golan, and east Jerusalem. Then what Noam. What comes next? Serious question.
Bill Pearlman
Btw, this is basically going to be the spoiled brat brigade from the JVP who are only sorry that Hitler didn’t win. Wipe out the yishuv. And preclude the establishment of Israel. Which they see has satanic
Richard Witty
All liberal Zionists are verbally attacked (literally, more than criticized) from both their right and their left.
Peter Beinart is no exception.
The liberal Zionist perspective is the one that honors BOTH democracy and nationalism, a tension/balance.
The liberal Zionist perspective is the one that honors both the Jewish Israeli and the Palestinian person and law, a tension/balance.
To ignore one’s own experience and aspirations is to deny. To ignore others’ experience and aspirations is to deny.
The liberal Zionist perspective is a very rational, coherent, and optimally just perspective.
The healthy two-state approach is its application.
The only single-state approach that represents as just a solution as the two-state is the federal solution comprised of two very independent states.
But, that solution is closer to the two-state solution, than to the one.
Henry Quinn
Wow. Usually there have to be two people for an internet argument to devolve into someone playing the ‘nazi’ card. That, Bill Pearlman, is the very definition of self-sufficiency.
Anyway, this is simple:
“Beinart says boycott settlements”
is a statement about Beinart.
“which in the minds of the Arab world”
is a conflation with people who are not Beinart.
So that’s why this isn’t the top of a slippery slope. That’s without even getting into the offensiveness of the insinuation that there is one, monolithic ‘arab world’.
There. That was simple. And I didn’t even have to imply that people who disagreed with me love Hitler. Take a lesson.
Peter H
Noam,
Good piece.
Moderators,
If you preserve intelligent discusion on this site, you will ban Bill Pearlman ASAP.
Peter H
Sorry, last sentence got mangled:
If you WANT TO preserve intelligent discussion on this site, you will be ban Bill Pearlman ASAP.
Shaun
There is no “crisis of Zionism”. Zionism is doing fine, unless you are on the political left. Hence, the real crisis is with Liberal Zionism. The modern state of Israel doesn’t fit the liberal, utopian, neo-socialist, Jewish-in-name-only state that they hoped for.
Steve
Shaun: Completely agree.
.
Various antisemites, though, think that the Jewish state of Israel even existing is a “crisis.” They want it to be swallowed up by the Arab/Muslim world, which is why they push for a “one-state solution,” because they want to see Israeli Jews a minority and Israel cease to exist.
aristeides
I’ve concluded that “Bill Pearlman” is actually an antisemitic plant, here to foment disgust of Jews and Zionists with his constant Nazi comments.
.
I even wonder if he’s one of the staff on the site, given that his comments are not deleted, despite the site policy against Nazi namecalling.
Lauren
There seems to be a trend recently of debating the BDS movement in NY. In Brooklyn, a food coop is now fighting the same thing within the community. The blog forums are war zones.
Personally, I don’t care where the product is from as long as its quality. I think this whole arguement is just a diversion from reality. Have folks fighting about small things while bigger, more pressing issues like war with Iran are ignored.
Priorities…. if you are getting bombed, does it really matter what skin care products you are using?
Andrew
Oren is a fine one to talk about “beyond the mainstream”, what is “moderate”, and what is “a marginal and highly radical fringe”. The man hobknobs without apology with bigoted demagogues like Glenn Beck and John Hagee in order to gain fanatical support for a far-right government epitomized by racists like Avigdor Lieberman and Danny Danon.
Oren can’t even bring himself to use the word “settlement” in his status update. That shows the community that *he* caters too.
Oren is a far-right extremist who would be well outside the mainstream in any healthy democracy.
Yo Mo
Frum’s argument may be somewhat overstated but the dynamic of Palestinian rejectionism (real or perceived) pushing the Israeli mainstream to the right and the Israeli right into the crazy right has some merit
yo mo
Frum’s argument may be overstated but the notion that Palestinian rejectionism (real or perceived0 pushes the Israeli electorate to the right, and the Israeli right to the extreme is not without merit. Palestinians may plausibly play a role in setting the tone of the Israeli domestic agenda
pabelmont
Maybe Beinart’s mini-BDS (only on settlements, maybe only on settlements outside so-called Jerusalem) will be an entry-drug (like marijuana) leading to the stronger drug (like heroin) of full BDS of all Israeli products.
.
Be lovely if so, because what he recommends will have no effect on Israeli policy w.r.t. the settlements or the occupation or much of anything else.
.
But FULL BDS, especially if practiced NOISILY by lots and lots of American Jews will wake up the slumbering giant of the rest-remainder-and-residue of the American people, and a full boycott from them might change USA’s policies.
.
In that pie-in-the-sky case, USA would tell Israel to jump and Israel would ask, “How high?” instead of the other way around, as it is today.
.
And then USA could politely tell Israel to withdraw all the 650,000 settlers, tear down the wall, lift the siege, and remind it that it can, of course, build any walls it wants to INSIDE pre-1967 Israeli territory. And any IRON DOMES too.
.
Beinart cannot ask for THAT, but he has asked for the mini-BDS. It’s a start. Not much but a start.
Piotr Berman
Shaun: The modern state of Israel doesn’t fit the liberal, utopian, neo-socialist, Jewish-in-name-only state that they hoped for.
My observation from reading talk-backs in ynet and jpost is that healthily thinking patriots figured how to solve Israel’s problem: transfer Palestinians to Jordan and liberals to Gaza. Some anti-Semites may find it fascist, but you cannot please these types anyway.
Aaron the Fascist Troll
Not trying to tell anyone how to moderate this site, but I hope Pearlman doesn’t get banned. He says some worthwhile, substantive things mixed in with the over-the-top Nazi slurs. I’ve also been threatened with being banned by one of the +972 contributors (for being a fascist, racist troll), so maybe that’s why I’m on the permissive side here. But like I said, that’s just my opinion, I’m not trying to tell anyone how to moderate discussions.
*
I was also thinking about defending Frum’s comment, but I see that Yo Mo already did. It’s spin, but it’s also quite true on the facts, and would be even truer if it were more strongly stated: the *existence*, not just the *spread*, of post-1967 settlements today is due to Palestinian rejectionism. If Palestinians were to accept the post-1948 settlements (a.k.a. Israel) today, Israel would dismantle most of the post-1967 settlements in the blink of an eye.
*
Of course you could spin this differently: The spread of the settlements is due to the occupation, which is due to Israelis’ concern with security. So it’s due to Israel. That’s also factually true. Personally, I don’t like blaming any side for the lack of peace. It’s good polemics, but people tend to start believing their own PR.
daniel
First of all, ban the goodwins! These calls are deplorable. So much for defending free speech.
Secondly, why don’t you confront the idea that Palestinian rejectionism (what a clean word for the terror attacks they launched) had something to do with the “no partner” idea and contributing to the building of the settlements? Calling an idea “strange” really doesn’t cut it if your’e trying to do more than just convince the convinced.
Shaun
Piotr Berman, maybe you should expand your horizons beyond the talk back section on mainstream English speaking sites…
aristeides
Aaron – surely you don’t actually believe that “If Palestinians were to accept the post-1948 settlements (a.k.a. Israel) today, Israel would dismantle most of the post-1967 settlements in the blink of an eye.”
Aaron the Fascist Troll
Surely I do believe it. Israelis strongly supported withdrawal of settlements from Gaza and from large parts of Judea and Samaria even without any sign of non-belligerence, much less recognition, from the Palestinians. (Olmert’s election was basically a referendum on the Judea and Samaria withdrawals, which were mooted by events in Gaza.) So that’s what we had without any signs of recognition of Israel.
*
If there were true, unequivocal signs of Palestinian recognition and acceptance of a Jewish state inside of Palestine, then withdrawals would likely be significantly greater than those proposed by Olmert. That’s because security fears would be significantly less.
*
To repeat: Blaming the continued existence of the post-1967 settlements on the Palestinians is propaganda, despite the fact that it’s true. One could just as truthfully say that the Israelis are to blame.
aristeides
Well, I’m sorry to hear it, because I never thought you were a fool.
.
“Security fears” is what Israel uses as an excuse to justify its land confiscation, which is done entirely out of greed and fanaticism.
Steve
ARISTEIDES is a dishonest, biased Israel-basher.
Peter H
“Frum’s argument may be overstated but the notion that Palestinian rejectionism (real or perceived) pushes the Israeli electorate to the right, and the Israeli right to the extreme is not without merit. Palestinians may plausibly play a role in setting the tone of the Israeli domestic agenda”
This makes sense, but can’t the dynamic work the other way around? That is to say, that Palestinian support for rejectionists/terrorist groups is partially a function of the severity of the Occupation, settlements, closures, restrictions on movement, blockades, etc.?
Susan
No one has explained to me how boycotting the settlements will bring about the end of the settlements one day sooner. Will boycotting the settlements convince the average Israeli to get out of the settlements?
aristeides
The question is: what are Palestinian rejectionists rejecting? They are rejecting a total surrender of their rights, the alienation of their homes, the presence of a hostile population in their midst, the sentencing of millions to permanent stateless status in foreign lands. Why should they not reject such terms?
Carrie
Agree with the poster above that Beinart should’ve named the book “The Crisis of Liberal Zionism.” After all, what will his friends at the Park Slope co-op think of him if they see him purchasing Israeli couscous- the horror.
Piotr Berman
Shaun: Piotr Berman, maybe you should expand your horizons beyond the talk back section on mainstream English speaking sites…
I am keen to follow a more specific advise. Arutz Sheva?
Basically, “Israeli mainstream”, ably represented by Ambassador Oren, is a fairly toxic cesspool according to my observations on “mainstream English speaking sites.” Perhaps in Hebrew you do not observe streams of hatred heap on anyone who would but hint a criticism of Israel, like Baroness Ashton whose latest crime was to “remember the children and young people.” We need some anti-anti MEMRI that would fish out non-hateful comments from Israeli websites (and give some percentages, clearly, English language sites have a minority of commenters outside the mainstream).
Good for Beinart that he is “beyond Israeli mainstream”.
Mareli
The liberal, neo-socialist utopians were the ones who founded the state of Israel. These right-wingers are johnny-come-latelies who did little or no spadework for the state of Israel, and with their illusions of greater Israel they may be the biggest threat to the continuation of a democratic Jewish homeland.