J.L. Wall deems Beinart's thoughts on Israel unoriginal:
I suspect that if there is a movement to "Ignore. Peter. Beinart." it comes not from fear of his words than from the perception that he generates loud headlines and loud debates while contributing little of new substance to the discussion of what to do. As perplexed as I was about why his 2010 essay was such a big deal, I was pleased that it seemed to open avenues for discussing the future of Zionism as practiced by American Jews. I still find his passionate insistence that American Jews must do something, that the status quo is not sustainable, relevant and inspiring. Nevertheless, two years later, I can’t help but feel that it has done little more than add to the polarization of the debate — in part because those on the right have grown more defensive. But an equal measure of the blame falls on those who, like Andrew Sullivan, insist that any refusal to unquestioningly accept Beinart’s generally lackluster proposals indicates that one is on Bibi’s payroll.