Comments on: Peter Beinart calls on U.S. Jews, government to boycott settlements

By: Piotr Berman

Piotr Berman — Fri, 23 Mar 2012 15:44:42 +0000

XYZ: “What is this supposed “Egypt-Iran-Turkey” alliance supposed to do?”

I will not play strategist, but one can easily see what can be done to decrease the level of comfort and confidence on the side of Israel. Number one, stop of cooperation between intelligence services of Jordan, Israel and Egypt. Number two, open border of Gaza and allow them to import EVERYTHING they want. Number three, “wall of missiles” can make a full circle around Israel, in numbers meant to overwhelm Iron Dome. Or prepare some other tactic, like clouds of mini-drones. Number four, the most prestigious pasttime of states, humanitarian intervention.

By: Cortez

Cortez — Fri, 23 Mar 2012 00:10:55 +0000

“It is not clear, to me at least, whether the BDS campaign can yield the results desired by its adherents. Neither is it clear whether the resulting back-lash stirring a large portion of American and European Jewry exacts to heavy a price as against any possible positive results.
However, given the present Israeli government, can anyone think of useful alternatives?”
.
None really exist. The U.S. government generally does not intervene in impactful ways (Condoleeza Rice and E1 are an exception). No one listens to UN reports, despite facts they presented from both Israeli and Palestinian sources. European governments are also in a similar bind to the U.S. government. Non-jews are generally powerless unless they are at the highest level of government and even then the power they exercise to intervenue is rather limited. American and European Jewry either don’t care or care but feel powerless or are generally ignorant about what is going on and what they can do. Arab nations are….well…in a state of flux that makes their utility rather small.
.
Its unfortunate because this will probably end badly for Israelis and Palestinians and it didn’t have to be that way. There could have been a two-state, there could’ve have been a one-state with a Jewish majority(with Palestinians included in that majority), there could have been so many other possibilities but another direction was chosen. I’m not sure what will work.

By: Arieh Zimmerman

Arieh Zimmerman — Thu, 22 Mar 2012 21:00:02 +0000

It is not clear, to me at least, whether the BDS campaign can yield the results desired by its adherents. Neither is it clear whether the resulting back-lash stirring a large portion of American and European Jewry exacts to heavy a price as against any possible positive results.
However, given the present Israeli government, can anyone think of useful alternatives?

By: Tal

Tal — Wed, 21 Mar 2012 13:51:51 +0000

@SINJIM, Lets assume that Beinart and other liberal jews change their minds and decide to call for BDS against the entire state of Israel. Lets assume that it works and Israel evacuates/freezes all its settlements and starts talking seriously with Hamas / Fatah / Whoever the Palestinians elect. As usual, the Palestinians refuse to sign an agreement witch does not fully recognize the ROR to ISrael proper, The Israelis will never consent to that. BDS looses support.

The Palestinians should change their slogan to “Its the ROR, Stupid”.

By: Bill Pearlman

Bill Pearlman — Tue, 20 Mar 2012 11:28:22 +0000

Richard Silverstein was a champion of Samir Kuntar, loves the guy. Kuntar bashed a 4 year old Jewish girl in the head with a rock and killed her. Is that progressive on Israel. I guess it is.

By: Aaron the Fascist Troll

Aaron the Fascist Troll — Tue, 20 Mar 2012 04:46:49 +0000

Has Beinart ever come up with a good idea in his life? His plan for a Zionist BDS movement is logically coherent, I”ll give it that, but it’s politically naive. Protest movements don’t always follow the path laid out by their founders. All the internal political forces will drive Beinart’s proposed protest movement towards a one-state movement, exactly the position that he’s against.
*
Beinart says that the “counteroffensive must begin with language,” but as others have noted, he suggests calling the West Bank “nondemocratic Israel.” That’s a stupid argument when it’s made by the one-staters (as cited at +972 recently, for instance), but for a two-stater to suggest that terminology is beyond stupid and bordering on the insane.
*
Regarding comments: Sinjim, as usual I agree with a lot of what you say, especially about the systemic nature of the post-1967 settlements. I think you’re missing something about Beinart’s “good for the Jews” approach, though. That’s just Rhetoric 101, to appeal to your audience’s existing beliefs and interests. Similarly when Palestinians argue against the armed struggle on the grounds that it’s bad for the Palestinians, not on the grounds that targeting non-combatants is wrong. That’s good rhetoric. Also, regarding Beinart’s proposal, read the column again. He does give some specific examples in the paragraph beginning, “Having made that rhetorical distinction….”

By: zayzafuna

zayzafuna — Tue, 20 Mar 2012 04:34:12 +0000

I am disappointed that Beinart did not call for a boycott of all israeli products. He is as Richard Sillverstein would say, progressive except for Palestine

By: XYZ

XYZ — Tue, 20 Mar 2012 03:43:22 +0000

What is this supposed “Egypt-Iran-Turkey” alliance supposed to do? There currently is a Iran-Syria-Lebanon alliance, although it is in trouble at the moment. Israel has some difficulties with it, but we are managing.
Turkey and Iran are not Arab countries…will Egypt, who views themselves as leaders of the Arab world want to play second fiddle to them? Iran is Shi’ite, Turkey is Sunni–will they get along? Turkey a year ago was trumpeting its new alliance with Alawite Syria-now that alliance is in tatters.
Neither Turkey or Iran have borders with Israel…are they going to send troops to the Sinai or Lebanon to confront Israel?
For the last 60+ years the anti-Israel front has been saying that some magic reformulation will turn things around….replace the old monarchs with charismatic secular Pan-Arab military officers like in the 1950′s? That failed. Then, instead of massed armies which failed in 1967 and 1973 we will try, localized mass Palestinian terrorism. That failed. Then they tried mass rocket attacks from Lebanon and Gaza. That failed. Now the dream is Piot’r dream Egypt-Iran-Turkey alliance, or alternatively, a new alliance of the Muslim Brotherhood-controlled states, assuming that Syria goest that way. Dream on.

By: Piotr Berman

Piotr Berman — Tue, 20 Mar 2012 02:56:53 +0000

“Most Israelis now realize that the “2-state” solution is dead, the only option is maintaining the status quo and that Beinart’s quixotic suggestions have no relevance.”

Maintaining status quo is less easy than it sounds. It requires a steady stream of oppression and various little atrocities like the latest attack of Gaza. In the same time a new game fascinates masses and elites: humanitarian intervention. Moreover, there is a vast slot machine in the Middle East with three wheels rotating: Egypt, Turkey and Iran. If they stop at the same position, a triple alliance will join the fascinating game.

The formula of humanitarian intervention was developed by NATO: bomb for the sake of humanity after a humanitarian ultimatum. Technology already exists to deliver bombs without the bother of having an airforce: missiles. Humanitarian diplomacy can disarm opposition in Europe and neutralize USA — which cannot attack all three countries, especially without allies.

This is what may happen in two years or in ten. Or never, but the trend is not good. There was a time when Iranian and Turkish wheels were firmly in place, displaying favorable disposition to Israel. Then Iranian wheel started to spin, but Egypt and Iran were firmly opposed to each other. Then the Turkish wheel started to spin. And now the Egyptian wheel joined the game of slots. Clearly, opposition of Iran and Egypt is no more the thing you can rely upon, it became a thin reed.

By: Cortez

Cortez — Mon, 19 Mar 2012 21:18:17 +0000

“I think the piece is important but has a lot of weaknesses, among is the ease with which Beinart argues that the boycott should not include East Jerusalem “since Palestinians there at least have the ability to gain citizenship, even if they are not granted it by birth.”
.
Yeah I thought that point was weak too. I’m not sure why special protection should be afford to East Jerusalem.
.
“You have to understand that to Beinart the Jews in Israel are a bunch of idiots who really don’t understand the middle east. What really counts are a bunch of spoiled college children from the JVP or j-street who have never had a tough day in their lives.”
.
But they clearly don’t understand the Middle East. Its been evident since the nation’s establishment. Israel’s relationship with its neighboring countries at most amounts to realpolitik relations of security, money or faux diplomacy, which are largely related to U.S. involvement.
.
People don’t seem to understand that ongoing colonial actions, to detriment of human rights for Palestinians and others, without any effort to allow Palestinians to have a state or conversely include them in Israel prosper, or the dreams of Zionism or a historical Jewish framework, is damaging to Israel’s moral standing, image and future as a legitimate state.
.
If they did understand…the Middle East would still be a mess, to some extent, but the political problems would be vastly differently and maybe less in some regards.
.
…saying they haven’t had a tough day in their lives means nothing. These J-streets and JVP aren’t advancing ideologically movements to detriment of human rights and to the detriment a nation’s future. They are trying to protect their cultural and religious heritage’s future and legitimacy.