The NYT Jonathan Rosen review of The Crisis of Zionism attained a kind of Platonic ideal of the response of the American Jewish Establishment. The first and most important principle of that Establishment is that the settlements are not to be discussed, mentioned, debated or wrangled over at any length. I cannot count the number of friends who over the years have quickly conceded that they do not support the settlements, and then move briskly on to another distraction. Rosen follows this party line exactly – even when reviewing a book focused precisely on such settlements, and even as half a million settlers now sit on illegally occupied land. Peter makes the obvious counter-point:
Most fundamentally of all, Rosen ignores my contention that by holding millions of West Bank Palestinians as non-citizens, and building settlements that eat away at the possibility of a viable Palestinian state, Israel is imperiling its democratic character. That simple, and unoriginal, fear lies at heart of The Crisis of Zionism. Does Rosen share it? He never lets on because in addition to persistently ignoring the specific factual claims in my book, he ignores the book’s central argument.
And then lards up the review with smears, untruths and a complete absence of any quotations. The notion that Beinart ignores the standard and fair criticisms of past Palestinian leaders is simply wrong, as any reader will see. Yes, he presses the case that the Israelis and their American patrons have recently led the Jewish state into a dead end – but his book is an argument, not a history. He lacerates one side – persuasively, I might add – but doesn't excuse the other.
I have to say it was great to have a break from all of this for a few days. Because when you step back a little from the fray, you see, I think, how pointless it is close to becoming. I simply cannot see a two-state solution any longer, given what we have learned about where Israeli and US politics are heading. Obama was the last train from the station. He may push again if he gets a second term, but he knows he cannot win. The Christianists, neocons and Democratic Israel fanatics are far stronger than any president. Romney, for his part, would put the settlements on steroids, and re-open a hot religious global war by attacking Iran. The real shift in US policy toward Israel has been the embrace of the settlements by the Christianist base of the GOP over the last decade and their continuing power. The real development is the fusion of Jewish and Christian fundamentalism around the cause of Greater Israel.
Which means to say that a democratic Israel is living on borrowed time. And Peter's book will one day be seen as one lone protest, a marker that not everyone acquiesced in Israel's degeneration, not everyone put blinders on. Just most.
The Dish 