+972 Magazine's Stories of the Week

Directly In Your Inbox

Analysis News
Visit our Hebrew site, "Local Call" , in partnership with Just Vision.

When it comes to Israel, the political is personal: Review of 'Crisis of Zionism'

The author of a new book describing a crisis in Zionism may not be telling us anything we didn’t already know – but in tracing his own personal journey of his anguished relationship to Israel, Peter Beinart has touched a nerve no one in the American Jewish community can ignore. 

At a recent lecture in New York City about his new book The Crisis of Zionism, Peter Beinart was asked, among other things, what all the fuss  – and specifically the vituperative fuss –  about him and the subject of his writing. Indeed, the month of March was Beinart-madness, as the former-New-Republic-editor-turned-liberal-Zionist-hero conquered the American Jewish blogosphere with a trifecta production comprised of his new Daily Beast blog “Open Zion,” his New York Times oped calling for a boycott of settlements and finally, the launch of his new book. All of which reaffirm and expand on his 2010 New York Review of Books article arguing that the American Jewish establishment has supported Israeli policies at the expense of its own liberal values. Whether respected or ridiculed, liked or dismissed, everyone has an opinion on Beinart.

So what is the big deal? After all, calling out American Jewish leaders for their bull-headedness on Israel is not new or radical; saying the occupation is unjust, damaging to Israel and incongruent with Jewish values is not new or radical; pointing out that Jews are no longer victims but rather quite powerful is not new or radical; even calling for a boycott of settlements is not new or that radical. So what is it?

According to Beinart, it is the firmly ingrained notion in the American Jewish community that “a nice Jewish boy shouldn’t say bad things about Israel.” As simple as that sounds, it is true and in this book, Beinart – who attends an Orthodox synagogue and once advocated for America’s war in Iraq –  certainly says some “bad” things. He unequivocally affirms that Netanyahu and his government have absolutely no intention whatsoever of reaching a two-state solution, thereby holding Israel largely responsible for the non-existence of the peace process. This undermines the backbone of American Jewish support for Israel, since the organized community defends Israel under the assumption that its leadership actually seeks a two-state solution, but just can’t “find” it. In Beinart’s book, Netanyahu isn’t even looking.

He argues that Israel draws its legitimacy from claiming to be at once a Jewish and a democratic, peace-seeking state, and it certainly cannot do that if it continues to deepen an occupation that precludes the establishment of a Palestinian state. As Beinart writes in his book, “Israel’s legitimacy is bound up in its democratic character.” For him, the legitimacy is waning.

The book traces this unraveling of the bond that Beinart sees between Zionism and democracy in both Israeli policies and in the American Jewish community’s relationship to Israel since the Oslo process. He calls America Jewish organizations’ usage of anti-Semitism and victimhood as “moral promiscuity”, before devoting an entire chapter to the question of whether the occupation is Israel’s fault – but does not respond with a resounding yes, so much as highlighting the “ethical responsibilities of power” that come with military control over millions of people and why it is impractical to Israel’s interests.

From the communities he moves his concentration to their leaders – the personalities of Netanyahu and Obama. Beinart presents the Israeli Prime Minister as a “monist” responsible for upholding a violent and intolerant Revisionist form of Zionism that sees a Palestinian state as anathema, and President Obama as the first “Jewish president,” aligned with progressive Jews determined to see a two-state solution. Beinart’s working assumption is simple: the deeper the occupation, the less democratic Zionism is, and the less democratic Zionism is, the less legitimate Israel is, certainly in the eyes of the younger generation of American Jews. This is what leads him to call for a boycott of settlements – but one that is firmly anchored in his love for Israel, defined clearly as a means to securing it as a Jewish and democratic state.

Beinart’s positioning within the pro-Israel debate

For Beinart, there is no inherent conflict between liberalism and Zionism, rather only conflicts caused by bad policies and choices. His entire argument is framed around his personal commitment to the fulfillment of liberal Zionism. This is what makes his positioning so hard to dismiss – certainly for those to the right of him, at which the book seems mostly directed. Beinart airs out Israel’s dirty laundry– but without going anywhere near beyond the pale of what is considered “pro-Israel,” since he insists on the preservation of a Jewish state. While he demonstrates just how disdainful Israel’s actions are to the establishment of a viable Palestinian state and a two-state solution, he nonetheless unabashedly endorses one, since he is absolutely committed to the idea that Israel can and should be a homeland and refuge for Jews that simultaneously fosters tolerance and provides equal rights. He sees no contradiction in terms between the two ideas, which frustrates and stumps everyone on the left and the right who does.

Beinart has thus positioned himself perfectly in the center of the “pro-Israel” community, with his combination of tribalism/Zionism and universalim/liberalism. He is openly and genuinely dedicated to Jewish self-determination and nationalism in the Land of Israel, but believes it must be enshrined in democracy and equal rights, as envisioned by the pioneers who wrote Israel’s Declaration of Independence. In this sense Beinart can be seen as a philosemite, holding the Jews on a pedestal and seeing them as a unique and extraordinary people who rose up out of the ashes of the Holocaust and were able to establish a state that granted equal rights to Arabs and insist on freedoms of religion, race and sex. And now that it hasn’t lived up to that, he is deeply disappointed, guilt-ridden and determined to rectify it.

Beinart pines for 1948 Israel, a nascent country fighting for its life, still humble. Indeed, although Beinart identifies himself as an “anti-utopian liberal,” he is in fact a diehard utopian when it comes to Israel, to the point where he’s confusing his dreams and ideals with the state’s reality as a powerful and power-hungry state. He invokes the importance of Israel’s Declaration of Independence, but does not sufficiently explain why Israeli leaders have not been able to live up to those edicts or what will make them do it now. This idealism is most exemplified in his book in the ways in which he refers to the occupation, as something that may become “permanent” and that will eventually “recede” – as if 45 years isn’t enough time to deem something permanent and endemic, and as if something so permanent could simply “recede,” like a hairline.

Beinart’s personal journey 

This idyllic, unabashedly utopian and highly personal conception of the Israel he wishes to see is consistent with his working assumption that Israel is a test of how Jews operate now that they have been enjoying power for the first time in history. It is also representative of the American Jewish organizational relationship to Israel: since the Holocaust and the State of Israel are the two dominant anchors of American Jewish identity, they naturally take on a idealistic, mythical proportions as entities that are physically far away, but should remain close to your heart. Thus, no matter how abhorrent Israeli actions become or how far the place has deviated from (or never even met) the ideal of a Jewish homeland that is a socially just and humane place to be, its role in American Jewish identity remains ever-powerful as the dream for something better.

For engaged Jews in America like Peter Beinart, the inability to dream about a better Israel leads to the inability to have a relationship with Israel at all. And he is certainly not willing to give up on that. He openly states that when his children grow up, and ask him how it is that he inherited a Jewish democratic state from his parents, but failed to pass it on to them, he will be able to say that he stood up and said something, and didn’t just sit around and let it happen. Beinart’s fervent ideological fight for liberal Zionism may be somewhat out of touch with the reality on the ground, as critics from both sides have argued. But what makes it so compelling is that he takes us through his own personal journey and struggle with it.

Beinart’s writing does not shed new light on the situation, but the fact that he is making such waves reflects just how hard it is for American Jews to figure out their identity vis-à-vis Israel – and how, after 64 years trying to figure it out, it continues to be the mainstay of American Jewish discourse. The allure of Beinart is therefore not as much what he is saying, but the fact that he is standing up and saying it loudly and unambiguously. His personal story is the story of so many others in the American Jewish community who have an ambivalent relationship with Israel, and with Judaism that they wish to resolve.

Before you go...

A lot of work goes into creating articles like the one you just read. And while we don’t do this for the money, even our model of non-profit, independent journalism has bills to pay.

+972 Magazine is owned by our bloggers and journalists, who are driven by passion and dedication to the causes we cover. But we still need to pay for editing, photography, translation, web design and servers, legal services, and more.

As an independent journalism outlet we aren’t beholden to any outside interests. In order to safeguard that independence voice, we are proud to count you, our readers, as our most important supporters. If each of our readers becomes a supporter of our work, +972 Magazine will remain a strong, independent, and sustainable force helping drive the discourse on Israel/Palestine in the right direction.

Support independent journalism in Israel/Palestine Donate to +972 Magazine today
View article: AAA
Share article
Print article

    * Required


    1. caden

      I don’t know how often you get back to the United States but believe me. There is no lack of Jewish critics of Israel.

      I don’t care what Beinart says, he isn’t exactly being censored. What bothers me is his arrogance. If there was an easy solution it would be done. The real world is a little more complicated than his academic perch. If the problem is the moronic people of Israel who don’t understand the situation. Then why not go on a speaking tour of Israel to bring them the truth.

      Reply to Comment
    2. Anthony

      Caden: Beinart isn’t primarily trying to persuade the people of Israel to end the Occupation, rather he is trying to persuade the US Jewish population to stop supporting the Israeli Occupation through its particular lobbying of the US Government. There’s only so much that we Jews in the diaspora can do if the Israelis insist on expanding outposts in the West Bank – but we can at least stop cheerleading the current Israeli government and apologising for its Occupation.

      Reply to Comment
    3. caden

      I think your wrong on his motivation. His premise is that by heinous behavior Israel is somehow turning off Jewish college students and the rest of their ilk. Fine, I’ll stipulate to that. But let me ask you this. What do you want to happen here. Should the United States abandon Israel. Should we align with Hamas. Is the Moslem brotherhood the good guys, and Netanayahu is the bad guy. Basically, I don’t have an easy answer to the conflict, Beinart feels he does. Perhaps he should make aliyah and stand for election so he could share his plan.

      Reply to Comment
    4. Rainer

      Caden, you’re saying that things are complicated, and you ask what ‘you’ want to see happen in the U.S. Personally and politically, I believe that the U.S. should use its power and influence, including carrots and sticks, to back up Israel and the Palestinians in achieving a viable 2-state solution. Yes, there would be a huge uproar and ‘pain’ for all sides, but the outcome would make the world a safer and more stable place for Israel, Palestine, the U.S. and plenty of others. That’s our job as American citizens, and plenty of us Jews are involved. What I don’t get is how you can talk ‘complicated,’ and then imply that the choices are between the status quo and the U.S. abandoning Israel and embracing Hamas. Come on, how simplistic!! Do you really think those are the only choices?!

      Reply to Comment
    5. aristeides

      Better he should run for Congress.

      Reply to Comment
    6. Richard Witty

      Beinart has got a real lot right.

      I’m also a “foreigner” and cannot possibly know what is really going on, intimately.

      It interesting that Mairav states that, that Yehoshua states that, and that also Lieberman states that. “You can’t possibly understand what we are experiencing. Don’t intervene, even comment.”

      An Israeli common attitude.

      Beinart is likely open to reasonable approaches, including long-term a federation of two states. Ask him.

      He’s not open to erasing his personal or shared cultural memory. He is open to discussing the plausible and hopeful current response.

      Good things. Not dismissable as utopian.

      He should run for Congress, though Israel is such a secondary issue in American politics these days, he’d have to develop alternative bona-fides.

      Reply to Comment
    7. phlegmatico

      The same crowd that would spend daddy’s money on a graduate degree on “the changing definition of being “pro-Israel” in American Jewry”, thinks that Peter Beinart is alluring. That might be about 1500 people in the whole world.

      Everyone else thinks that he couldn’t pass Calculus 101, so therefore he got washed out of a respectable college career. And he’s too ADHD to be trusted near a welding machine, so the kibbutz metal factories don’t want him. And he’s nowhere near as hardworking as Thailander ovdim zarim, so even the kibbutz fieldcrops managers don’t want him on their team.

      Apparently he’s a perfect fit for the “American Jewish Blogosphere”.

      Reply to Comment
    8. In his book and op-ed, Beinart is speaking generally — and not only to the Jewish community. That’s obviously necessary if there is to be change.
      However, he is speaking his criticisms in a muted fashion and does not call for REAL TOUGH LOVE for Israel from the community of nations, only for a (IMO) ridiculous civil-society BDS-lite of commercial products made in O/T, possibly not even Syrian Golan.
      What might be a lot more helpful — and his books and so forth hint in this direction — is for Jews less worried about Jewish-community-acceptability to go to their national publics seeking to “give permission” to their nations to perform BDS-heavy — such as withdrawal of ambassadors and cessation of commercial air-traffic — until Israel complies with I/L to the extent (for example) of removing all 650,000 settlers, dismantling the wall and the settlements (per UNSC-465 (1980)), removing internal check-points, and ending the siege of Gaza.
      Holocaust-consciousness (guilt, pity) on the part of “the nations” has tended to prevent them from holding Israel to the standard of compliance with UNSC resolutions and I/L — at great cost, including money wasted on PA, the threat of more-and-more war, and the plight of the Palestinians.
      The nations need a lot of urging (to overcome their own natural inertia and the USA’s pressures toward inaction). Jews should lead that urging, not oppose it.

      Reply to Comment
    9. Arieh Zimmerman

      Allow me a comment from Israel regarding American Jews and Israel.
      It is easy, all too easy, to castigate the current Israeli government and its supporters, and I have no interest in seeing that curtailed.
      However, a more productive approach might entail support, political, professional and monetary support for Israel’s parties of the Left which have been sadly orphaned by much of liberal American Jewry.

      Reply to Comment
    10. ish yehudi

      the author seems to have lost the channel of dreaming– and also the possibility of change… another fallen leftist, something so sad in my eyes…
      aren’t myths the place that inspire vision and potentially (if utilized, like Beinart seems to want to inspire) create new realities?
      why does the left (or so many of the progressive movements- environmentalists for eg?) languish? is it perhaps because they’ve forgotten the “shabbat”? that space where dreams can enter and affect?
      In our call to expose the emperor to the masses of backwards racist believers of this world, so many throw out the baby with the bathwater. Utopian dreaming is not to be faulted…
      it’s true that there is great need to shatter the delusions and illusions and myths that are blinding us to the suffering and sufferers. But those cold analytical “facts” are nowhere near as imploring or inspiring as real vision and hope.
      “This idyllic, unabashedly utopian and highly personal conception of the Israel he wishes to see is consistent with his working assumption that Israel is a test of how Jews operate now that they have been enjoying power for the first time in history.”
      somebody saying progressive things in a way the right can’t write him off for and you wanna knock him for continuing to be a member of his tribe? I don’t know your complete writings, but is there a double standard about critiquing Palestinian national aspirations also being based on myths? ( by me, myths is just an academic word for what we believe and live our life for- not denigrating any beyond the towers of human pride in which it was conceived).
      the tziniut is so pervasive and the language of despair allows you to deflate what is potentially a real modus for change.
      And you critique him for his contradiction? The fact that he is straddling paradox in the current realities relegates him to narishkeit? In my book, thats a reason to at least listen to what he’s saying
      didnt this whole balagan begin with people who said things like im tirtzu? are we supposed to be ubra rationals now who will act according to the cold facts and revealed justice that our objective bloggers give us and that will make the change? G-d forbid we should acknowledge we have a heart and a peoplehood and work from there!

      Reply to Comment
    11. Sol

      “It interesting that Mairav states that, that Yehoshua states that, and that also Lieberman states that. ‘You can’t possibly understand what we are experiencing. Don’t intervene, even comment.’ ”

      Incorrect. Lieberman states: “You can’t possibly understand what we are experiencing. So shut up. Never criticize us. Just follow Yisrael Beiteinu and Likud blindly.”

      Reply to Comment
    12. delia

      “He openly states that when his children grow up, and ask him how it is that he inherited a Jewish democratic state from his parents, but failed to pass it on to them, he will be able to say that he stood up and said something, and didn’t just sit around and let it happen.”

      This is what makes me believe that his target audience is the silent majority — those liberal American Jews who still think of themselves as Zionists but who refuse to speak out because they’re scared of the brutal politics of it. He is presenting himself as an example of what those liberal Jews should be doing — smearmeisters, be damned.

      Reply to Comment
    13. phlegmatico

      Delia –
      The American Jewish Liberals will end up where the Kaifeng Jewish Liberals did…. in the dustbin of history. So why should feed them? Give the effort to the Hebrew Charter schools, which is the only part of American Jewry which will be remembered 500 years from now.

      Reply to Comment