Peter says in response to arguments that the Gazan military is embedded in the civilian populace that:
1) It doesn't matter, Israel is still responsible for civilian casualties
2) Israel does that too: There's a lot of schools within 1 km of Israeli military HQ
To #2. 1 km? Really? Being 1 km away from a school is the same as being *IN* a school, or *BENEATH* a school? Sorry, if you're UNDER a school and I hit the school, that's on YOU. If you're 1000 meters away and I hit the school, then that's on ME. And of course, Gazan forces do hit the school. They likely *target* the school.
To #1. I disagree. Not when the military target is deliberately shielded by the civilian target. See #2. (I'm not making a legal claim, perhaps according to the Geneva convention, Israel is legally responsible. I'm making a moral claim: No, Israel is NOT responsible.)
Peter claims that a single state would be safer for Jews. Tell that to all the Jews who were expelled from Arab states from 1948 onward. The idea that Jews would have any rights in a Palestinian-majority state of Israel is just absurd.
Tell that to the vanishing Christian population in Arab states. What is Peter's real motive here, he can't be that ignorant?
For that matter, tell liberals in this country that Donald Trump is fine because he was popularly elected and they have nothing to worry about. He claims there is a global assault on "liberal democracy", but of course that would *never* take root in Arab countries.
And crying "racism" is just a red herring. Not all *cultures* WANT Western style democracy. "Barbaric" (how would you describe the actions of October 7) -- no. Interested in sharing power with a religious minority -- I see no evidence of that in the Arab world.
There were a number of items I wish Glenn had brought up. For example, doesn’t Hamas maintain military offices IN hospitals? I also recall seeing weapons/bombs being stored in schools. I also believe the matter of hostages was never really discussed. That is a clear war crime yet I never hear anyone challenge Hamas on the issue. Not only is the taking of civilian hostages a war crime but Hamas shamelessly keeps them and kills a large portion of them? How can this be allowed.
There is also the matter that part of the Hamas charter is the destruction of Israel. I never heard this addressed. What is Beinart’s take on that matter. I know what happened in Gaza is horrific but poles following the October 7th attack show Gazans overwhelmingly support Hamas and this insane aspiration.
Finally, Mr Beinart was very critical of Israel’s control of Gaza’s boarders and what enters/exits the area. Yet the matter of what Hamas does with the international aid it receives was never broached. Apparently, Israel has reason to be quite concerned regarding goods entering Gaza. Hamas has built a network of tunnels to smuggle a wealth of weapons into Gaza to endlessly harass Israel. How much of the international humanitarian aid has been diverted by Hamas to conduct an endless war on Israel. What other country has to maintain bomb shelters throughout their population to deal with regular bombardment.
I was surprised Glenn didn’t challenge the analogy to South Africa. Mr Beinart presented it as an example of what happens when a government suppresses the population and how “healing” can occur if you bring oppressed groups into the political process. Are Glenn and Peter unaware of how whites are now being treated in South Africa? Is this an example they believe should be copied. White farmers are being murdered with impunity. Their farms are also being deeded to blacks that leave them fallow. I think all that has happened is the shoe is on the other foot.
My final uneducated opinion regards the Palestinians. My anecdotal knowledge of these peoples is that they are not content unless they are creating strife. Apparently, no one in the Middle East wants anything to do with them. Didn’t they try to overthrow the government of Jordan.
It seems the Israels want to keep close tabs on the Palestinian is because they can’t be trusted. Clearly I could be completely wrong, but this podcast did little to convince me otherwise
Thanks for having this conversation. I found it very interesting, and agreed with a lot that Peter Beinart had to say. I appreciated the way Glenn pushed back at times and at other times drew Beinart out as to his ideas and perspective. Hearing Beinart's ideas is rare, and it shouldn't be, as he's obviously well informed. He and people like him should be part of the national and international conversation. Treating him with contempt only reduces the value of that larger conversation.
All the deaths in all the wars between Israel and all the Arabs since 1948 add up to 6 months in Syria over a decade. Crickets. 85,000 children starved to death in Yemen. In 2018. Crickets. Christians are being slaughtered in the Congo. Crickets. Massive genocide against Christians in Sudan by jihadists. Crickets. And then there's the 144 MILLION girls who have faced genital mutilation in Africa.
I listen to the Fifth Column after this, I get a nuanced back and forth about some overreaches of the current administration, contrasting with the absolute intellectual bankruptcy of the “pro-Palestinian” activists. A lot of serious back and forth about principles and a lot of context. This episode here, I get no real back and forth, some bizarre hypocritical statements, and nothing that would convince me that there is any reason to be in any way concerned about the things this speaker wants us to be concerned about.
I used to watch the Glenn Show religiously every episode. You and John saved my sanity during the dark days of 2020 and beyond, and I thank you for that. I’ve been listening less and less since October 7, 2023, as your anti-Israel bias becomes more and more obvious. I’ve tried to keep an open mind, since I know you swim in the toxically anti-Semitic ocean of academia, and, having bought and read your brilliant memoir, better understand your social and family milieu. But, I can count: the number of anti-Israel guests on your show far outnumber the pro-Israel ones. Platforming Peter Beinart is the last straw. I used to be a paid subscriber at the highest level, whatever that’s called, but downgraded last year to a cheaper subscription, and will now cease paying altogether. I don’t want any of my funds going to anyone who even remotely sympathizes with jihadists. I think it was Douglas Murray who said October 7 was like a bright flare illuminating a dark battlefield, a flare which enabled one to clearly see the lines of the enemy troops. It’s pretty clear by now which side you’re on. You’ve been on Sam Harris’s podcast—perhaps you should have him as a guest on yours, and allow him to explain the moral difference between a group that uses their own women and children as human shields VS another that makes every effort to avoid civilian casualties. Or maybe you can have Douglas Murray himself on, or your fellow conservative John Podhoretz or anyone from Commentary Magazine. You and John are great on national political and racial topics, but out of your depth on foreign policy.
Isn't it ironic how the same individuals who would instantly denounce BDS as being anti-Semitic have been endlessly complaining about Glenn's views on Israel and threatening to boycott, divest and sanction The Glenn Show in the comments section here? It's almost like these anti-Glennites and Glenn haters harbor an obvious agenda of destroying TGS by repeatedly threatening to boycott, divest and sanction this Substack until Glenn falls on his knees and confesses to being reeducated.
The comments section of this Substack has a serious problem with anti-Glennitism!
Living in the First World West, surrounded and protected by Law, secure in our prosperity, content in our philosophies, far distant from any cross-the-fence Other who actively conspires to do us great harm, who would celebrate our demise, and dance upon our graves... we have forgotten -- it seems -- how the world really works. We have forgotten our own past; we have forgotten the Hobbesian truth of a life which is, still, for most, short, nasty, and exceedingly brutish.
Given 8.1B tribal peoples, crowded on a finite globe, with finite resources, finite opportunities, and vastly different priorities & capabilities... what else is there but War & more rivers of blood?
We all stand on the bones of those who came before us; we all inhabit territories that 'our people' (whichever group of people you care to name) successfully took from someone else. And -- if we are honest enough & clear-sighted enough -- we recognize and respect the fact that almost always 'our people' took it with force...and they held it with force...and will continue to hold it with force...until or unless someone else with greater force, takes it from them.
This is the way the world works.
This is why Russia is in the Ukraine. This is why Gaza is a wasteland. This is why Japan surrendered 6 days after Fat Man obliterated Nagasaki. That is why Berlin, by May 2nd, 1945, looked like Gaza. This is how Rome solved the Carthaginian problem....and how the Barbarians at the Gates solved the Roman problem.
Prof. Beinart suggests, with a certain self-satisfied naivete, that the Gazans "have a right to go to the place where they would like to live", meaning Israel. But he fails utterly to realize that there is no such right. Never has been...and probably never will be.
Certainly, within a society formed upon a Constitution, governed by Laws, enforced by the Judiciary.... when the Court declares that Bob has a right to the property occupied by Bill, that right is clear and unambiguous. Bill will have to move or be forced to move to accommodate Bob's rights.
But out here, on the Perimeter...there are no stars. Out here, in the Wilderness....we are naked, or we are dead. And for Israel, a nation of 10M, surrounded by 300M 'Others', most of whom have sworn themselves to its obliteration,...there is only the 'right' given voice by General Mattis: "I come in peace,” Mattis said, speaking to the Iraqui's in 2003, “I didn’t bring artillery. But I’m pleading with you, with tears in my eyes: If you f--- with me, I’ll kill you all.”
As abhorrent as we may find such sentiments to be....as crude, as violent, as distasteful, and uncivilized as they undoubtedly are: wait until our own homes are burned, our families butchered. Ask us then what we believe.
Glenn, why haven't you interviewed people who are Zionists or supporters of Israel other than Eli Lake. All the other people who you engage in dialogue are biased and, at best, very anti-Israel. There are many supporters of Israel who are articulate with excellent credentials. Other subscribers have provided lists. It's troubling that you don't seem interested in their point of view and allow them to rebut some of the arguments voiced by people like Peter Beinhart, Norman Finkelstein and others. You're usually excellent in trying to understand and present both sides of an issue but not, to date, about Israel/Zionism/Palestine. https://reason.com/volokh/2025/03/12/peter-beinart-has-gone-full-antisemite/
I suspect he doesn't have the courage. Or perhaps he is concerned that he will not represent the pro Palestinian side is good as he thinks they need to be supporting. Whatever his motivation is, he is obviously deliberately avoiding having articulate pro Israel guests on to discuss all the issues. Having Eli Lake debate someone regarding one particular issue in the conflict does not count as a comprehensive treatment of the issue from the Israeli side.
Although you have received a lot of shit from some for expressing and allowing to be expressed less-than-popular opinions about the war in Gaza and the reactions to it, you won't get any from me, even though I strongly disagree with this guest. I feel the conversation was revealing.
The good: the hypocrisy over free speech is certainly real. In my opinion the reason the three presidents had to go was not because of pro Palestinian, or even pro Hamas, protests, but because of the obvious, ideologically based double standards. If we are going to allow offensive speech, which we must, then we need to allow it all. Where "speech" becomes something else will, and should, be a continuing debate.
The One State solution is a principled position and is, perhaps, the clearest and best long-term solution -- in an ideal world.
This brings us to the bad. Your guest is an excellent example of the "Unconstrained Vision" in action. Humans cannot implement any good they can imagine, and besides our imagination is always sadly lacking the subtlety necessary to be implementable.
Ironically, he made a very strong argument for expelling all Palestinians from Gaza and the West Bank. If the Palestinians' fight against the Israelis is a justified and necessary response to the structural demands of an ethno-religious State which can never end until that State is "reformed", then the only way to have peace for those who are unwilling to abandon the State as it is now is to expel all of the Palestinians since peace with them is necessarily impossible as long as the State exists. It is a powerfully tragic argument.
Thank you, Glenn, for this most revealing conversation!
There are surely many contradictions and problems that stem directly from the conception of a democracy designed to be the Homeland of one ethno-religious group. Your guest, yourself, and I can point these out all we want, but the decision is not ours. We have no skin in the game. It is for the Israelis to determine the form of their State in all of it's necessary imperfection and it is for the Palestinians to adapt and negotiate to achieve a future that will also be necessarily imperfect. The Land of Make Believe in which a Palestinian Mandela and Bishop Tutu arise to "enlighten" the Israelis and free their souls from the weight of being oppressors is remarkably sophomoric.
I think in certain ways Mr. Beinart acquitted himself quite well. however, toward the end of the podcast he started sounding loopy (ok that's uncharitable, Glenn said utopian, which Beinart acknowledges). Here are some questions that I dearly wish Glenn had posed to Mr. Beinart toward the end. 1) Can Mr. Beinart name any place in the Islamic world where all the citizens posses full and equal rights under the law (some of their constitutions state so, for e.g. Egypt, but in practice it's nonsense. 2) When talking about "displaced" people, this is a serious question, at what point in time does a place or a land become "theirs"?? Germans were displaced out of Eastern Europe, but I can make a very easy argument that Germans had colonized or taken over by force many of these lands earlier (and this is prior to Hitler and prior to Bismarck, in many cases prior to Frederick the Great and Frederick the Elector. When does "ownership" begin? and under what circumstances? (I know this doesn't fully relate to Israeli/Jewish question, but it's an interesting one nonetheless, I mean if those are the historical lands of the Jews, they also massacred and ethnically cleaned the Caananites out of them, under :"God's" mandate/permission (lol). 3) Can Mr. Beinart name a single instance of where a dominant Islamic/Muslim state or society has allowed that land to be ruled by a non Muslim political entity, or returned to its pre Muslim status? I don't believe it has ever happened, there are still Muslims today who are angry about "their" loss of Andalusia (not many I will grant, but they exist) 4) given all the blood and anger that has been shed, why does Mr. Beinart insist in his utopia when grim reality tells us that only a India/Pakistan like split is possible? Why doesn't Mr. Beinart advocate a greater India today?? 5) Mr. Beinart makes many excellent points about the initial Zionist project, but give the fact that in today's Israel, I understand the majority of the population to be Mizrahi Jewish (MENA/Sephardic Jews) how does "settler colonialism" hold up?? 6) Mr. Beinart speaks of his contact with many Palestinians. I have had a lot of contact with Arabs and Muslims in the Middle East, amongst these Palestinians. Many of them are wonderful and cosmopolitan people with whom I would have no qualms sharing a society. But you also have more numerous heavily Islamicized and uneducated masses and I'm not so sure I'm willing to share a society with them. Anyways, I think in the end Mr. Beinart ignores the fact that Palestinian resentment (and violence) not only stems from legitimate anger at "oppression" (I agree 100% vis a vis West Bank for e.g. and especially the building of Jewish settlements there) but the simple fact is they refuse to live in a state rules by Jews, hence the 'right of return', which would automatically return to them political and social power, which is ultimately what they want and have always wanted in the first place. (and I don't begrudge them this feeling, on many levels it's legitimate.
Really enjoyed this podcast. I agree with almost everything Peter Beinart had to say. The exception was his view of Trump. Keep up the good work Glenn.
(Gur comments that the lived experience of Israelis for 40 years is of Hamas blowing up peace processes that would end with the left in power and is 100% right)
(I was encouraged by commenters here to tune in to Haviv Rettig Gur at the Burkle Center at UCLA and he has such a public radio voice and affect) (I was pleased that Peter Beinart was here)
I have essentially not consumed anything that Beinart has done to promote this book but happily went to 2-3 "Tablets Shattered" events and was excited that Yehudah Kurtzer has had Leifer on his podcast recently
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/why-israelis-are-happy
Glenn, I think you might appreciate this movie:
https://www.october8film.com/videos/
Peter says in response to arguments that the Gazan military is embedded in the civilian populace that:
1) It doesn't matter, Israel is still responsible for civilian casualties
2) Israel does that too: There's a lot of schools within 1 km of Israeli military HQ
To #2. 1 km? Really? Being 1 km away from a school is the same as being *IN* a school, or *BENEATH* a school? Sorry, if you're UNDER a school and I hit the school, that's on YOU. If you're 1000 meters away and I hit the school, then that's on ME. And of course, Gazan forces do hit the school. They likely *target* the school.
To #1. I disagree. Not when the military target is deliberately shielded by the civilian target. See #2. (I'm not making a legal claim, perhaps according to the Geneva convention, Israel is legally responsible. I'm making a moral claim: No, Israel is NOT responsible.)
Peter claims that a single state would be safer for Jews. Tell that to all the Jews who were expelled from Arab states from 1948 onward. The idea that Jews would have any rights in a Palestinian-majority state of Israel is just absurd.
Tell that to the vanishing Christian population in Arab states. What is Peter's real motive here, he can't be that ignorant?
For that matter, tell liberals in this country that Donald Trump is fine because he was popularly elected and they have nothing to worry about. He claims there is a global assault on "liberal democracy", but of course that would *never* take root in Arab countries.
And crying "racism" is just a red herring. Not all *cultures* WANT Western style democracy. "Barbaric" (how would you describe the actions of October 7) -- no. Interested in sharing power with a religious minority -- I see no evidence of that in the Arab world.
Great guest, hard to disagree on many of the characterisations. Not seeing many convincing counter arguments on here, it’s all ad hominem.
There were a number of items I wish Glenn had brought up. For example, doesn’t Hamas maintain military offices IN hospitals? I also recall seeing weapons/bombs being stored in schools. I also believe the matter of hostages was never really discussed. That is a clear war crime yet I never hear anyone challenge Hamas on the issue. Not only is the taking of civilian hostages a war crime but Hamas shamelessly keeps them and kills a large portion of them? How can this be allowed.
There is also the matter that part of the Hamas charter is the destruction of Israel. I never heard this addressed. What is Beinart’s take on that matter. I know what happened in Gaza is horrific but poles following the October 7th attack show Gazans overwhelmingly support Hamas and this insane aspiration.
Finally, Mr Beinart was very critical of Israel’s control of Gaza’s boarders and what enters/exits the area. Yet the matter of what Hamas does with the international aid it receives was never broached. Apparently, Israel has reason to be quite concerned regarding goods entering Gaza. Hamas has built a network of tunnels to smuggle a wealth of weapons into Gaza to endlessly harass Israel. How much of the international humanitarian aid has been diverted by Hamas to conduct an endless war on Israel. What other country has to maintain bomb shelters throughout their population to deal with regular bombardment.
I was surprised Glenn didn’t challenge the analogy to South Africa. Mr Beinart presented it as an example of what happens when a government suppresses the population and how “healing” can occur if you bring oppressed groups into the political process. Are Glenn and Peter unaware of how whites are now being treated in South Africa? Is this an example they believe should be copied. White farmers are being murdered with impunity. Their farms are also being deeded to blacks that leave them fallow. I think all that has happened is the shoe is on the other foot.
My final uneducated opinion regards the Palestinians. My anecdotal knowledge of these peoples is that they are not content unless they are creating strife. Apparently, no one in the Middle East wants anything to do with them. Didn’t they try to overthrow the government of Jordan.
It seems the Israels want to keep close tabs on the Palestinian is because they can’t be trusted. Clearly I could be completely wrong, but this podcast did little to convince me otherwise
Thanks for having this conversation. I found it very interesting, and agreed with a lot that Peter Beinart had to say. I appreciated the way Glenn pushed back at times and at other times drew Beinart out as to his ideas and perspective. Hearing Beinart's ideas is rare, and it shouldn't be, as he's obviously well informed. He and people like him should be part of the national and international conversation. Treating him with contempt only reduces the value of that larger conversation.
All the deaths in all the wars between Israel and all the Arabs since 1948 add up to 6 months in Syria over a decade. Crickets. 85,000 children starved to death in Yemen. In 2018. Crickets. Christians are being slaughtered in the Congo. Crickets. Massive genocide against Christians in Sudan by jihadists. Crickets. And then there's the 144 MILLION girls who have faced genital mutilation in Africa.
I listen to the Fifth Column after this, I get a nuanced back and forth about some overreaches of the current administration, contrasting with the absolute intellectual bankruptcy of the “pro-Palestinian” activists. A lot of serious back and forth about principles and a lot of context. This episode here, I get no real back and forth, some bizarre hypocritical statements, and nothing that would convince me that there is any reason to be in any way concerned about the things this speaker wants us to be concerned about.
I used to watch the Glenn Show religiously every episode. You and John saved my sanity during the dark days of 2020 and beyond, and I thank you for that. I’ve been listening less and less since October 7, 2023, as your anti-Israel bias becomes more and more obvious. I’ve tried to keep an open mind, since I know you swim in the toxically anti-Semitic ocean of academia, and, having bought and read your brilliant memoir, better understand your social and family milieu. But, I can count: the number of anti-Israel guests on your show far outnumber the pro-Israel ones. Platforming Peter Beinart is the last straw. I used to be a paid subscriber at the highest level, whatever that’s called, but downgraded last year to a cheaper subscription, and will now cease paying altogether. I don’t want any of my funds going to anyone who even remotely sympathizes with jihadists. I think it was Douglas Murray who said October 7 was like a bright flare illuminating a dark battlefield, a flare which enabled one to clearly see the lines of the enemy troops. It’s pretty clear by now which side you’re on. You’ve been on Sam Harris’s podcast—perhaps you should have him as a guest on yours, and allow him to explain the moral difference between a group that uses their own women and children as human shields VS another that makes every effort to avoid civilian casualties. Or maybe you can have Douglas Murray himself on, or your fellow conservative John Podhoretz or anyone from Commentary Magazine. You and John are great on national political and racial topics, but out of your depth on foreign policy.
Isn't it ironic how the same individuals who would instantly denounce BDS as being anti-Semitic have been endlessly complaining about Glenn's views on Israel and threatening to boycott, divest and sanction The Glenn Show in the comments section here? It's almost like these anti-Glennites and Glenn haters harbor an obvious agenda of destroying TGS by repeatedly threatening to boycott, divest and sanction this Substack until Glenn falls on his knees and confesses to being reeducated.
The comments section of this Substack has a serious problem with anti-Glennitism!
Living in the First World West, surrounded and protected by Law, secure in our prosperity, content in our philosophies, far distant from any cross-the-fence Other who actively conspires to do us great harm, who would celebrate our demise, and dance upon our graves... we have forgotten -- it seems -- how the world really works. We have forgotten our own past; we have forgotten the Hobbesian truth of a life which is, still, for most, short, nasty, and exceedingly brutish.
Given 8.1B tribal peoples, crowded on a finite globe, with finite resources, finite opportunities, and vastly different priorities & capabilities... what else is there but War & more rivers of blood?
We all stand on the bones of those who came before us; we all inhabit territories that 'our people' (whichever group of people you care to name) successfully took from someone else. And -- if we are honest enough & clear-sighted enough -- we recognize and respect the fact that almost always 'our people' took it with force...and they held it with force...and will continue to hold it with force...until or unless someone else with greater force, takes it from them.
This is the way the world works.
This is why Russia is in the Ukraine. This is why Gaza is a wasteland. This is why Japan surrendered 6 days after Fat Man obliterated Nagasaki. That is why Berlin, by May 2nd, 1945, looked like Gaza. This is how Rome solved the Carthaginian problem....and how the Barbarians at the Gates solved the Roman problem.
Prof. Beinart suggests, with a certain self-satisfied naivete, that the Gazans "have a right to go to the place where they would like to live", meaning Israel. But he fails utterly to realize that there is no such right. Never has been...and probably never will be.
Certainly, within a society formed upon a Constitution, governed by Laws, enforced by the Judiciary.... when the Court declares that Bob has a right to the property occupied by Bill, that right is clear and unambiguous. Bill will have to move or be forced to move to accommodate Bob's rights.
But out here, on the Perimeter...there are no stars. Out here, in the Wilderness....we are naked, or we are dead. And for Israel, a nation of 10M, surrounded by 300M 'Others', most of whom have sworn themselves to its obliteration,...there is only the 'right' given voice by General Mattis: "I come in peace,” Mattis said, speaking to the Iraqui's in 2003, “I didn’t bring artillery. But I’m pleading with you, with tears in my eyes: If you f--- with me, I’ll kill you all.”
As abhorrent as we may find such sentiments to be....as crude, as violent, as distasteful, and uncivilized as they undoubtedly are: wait until our own homes are burned, our families butchered. Ask us then what we believe.
Glenn, why haven't you interviewed people who are Zionists or supporters of Israel other than Eli Lake. All the other people who you engage in dialogue are biased and, at best, very anti-Israel. There are many supporters of Israel who are articulate with excellent credentials. Other subscribers have provided lists. It's troubling that you don't seem interested in their point of view and allow them to rebut some of the arguments voiced by people like Peter Beinhart, Norman Finkelstein and others. You're usually excellent in trying to understand and present both sides of an issue but not, to date, about Israel/Zionism/Palestine. https://reason.com/volokh/2025/03/12/peter-beinart-has-gone-full-antisemite/
I suspect he doesn't have the courage. Or perhaps he is concerned that he will not represent the pro Palestinian side is good as he thinks they need to be supporting. Whatever his motivation is, he is obviously deliberately avoiding having articulate pro Israel guests on to discuss all the issues. Having Eli Lake debate someone regarding one particular issue in the conflict does not count as a comprehensive treatment of the issue from the Israeli side.
Glenn,
Although you have received a lot of shit from some for expressing and allowing to be expressed less-than-popular opinions about the war in Gaza and the reactions to it, you won't get any from me, even though I strongly disagree with this guest. I feel the conversation was revealing.
The good: the hypocrisy over free speech is certainly real. In my opinion the reason the three presidents had to go was not because of pro Palestinian, or even pro Hamas, protests, but because of the obvious, ideologically based double standards. If we are going to allow offensive speech, which we must, then we need to allow it all. Where "speech" becomes something else will, and should, be a continuing debate.
The One State solution is a principled position and is, perhaps, the clearest and best long-term solution -- in an ideal world.
This brings us to the bad. Your guest is an excellent example of the "Unconstrained Vision" in action. Humans cannot implement any good they can imagine, and besides our imagination is always sadly lacking the subtlety necessary to be implementable.
Ironically, he made a very strong argument for expelling all Palestinians from Gaza and the West Bank. If the Palestinians' fight against the Israelis is a justified and necessary response to the structural demands of an ethno-religious State which can never end until that State is "reformed", then the only way to have peace for those who are unwilling to abandon the State as it is now is to expel all of the Palestinians since peace with them is necessarily impossible as long as the State exists. It is a powerfully tragic argument.
Thank you, Glenn, for this most revealing conversation!
There are surely many contradictions and problems that stem directly from the conception of a democracy designed to be the Homeland of one ethno-religious group. Your guest, yourself, and I can point these out all we want, but the decision is not ours. We have no skin in the game. It is for the Israelis to determine the form of their State in all of it's necessary imperfection and it is for the Palestinians to adapt and negotiate to achieve a future that will also be necessarily imperfect. The Land of Make Believe in which a Palestinian Mandela and Bishop Tutu arise to "enlighten" the Israelis and free their souls from the weight of being oppressors is remarkably sophomoric.
I think in certain ways Mr. Beinart acquitted himself quite well. however, toward the end of the podcast he started sounding loopy (ok that's uncharitable, Glenn said utopian, which Beinart acknowledges). Here are some questions that I dearly wish Glenn had posed to Mr. Beinart toward the end. 1) Can Mr. Beinart name any place in the Islamic world where all the citizens posses full and equal rights under the law (some of their constitutions state so, for e.g. Egypt, but in practice it's nonsense. 2) When talking about "displaced" people, this is a serious question, at what point in time does a place or a land become "theirs"?? Germans were displaced out of Eastern Europe, but I can make a very easy argument that Germans had colonized or taken over by force many of these lands earlier (and this is prior to Hitler and prior to Bismarck, in many cases prior to Frederick the Great and Frederick the Elector. When does "ownership" begin? and under what circumstances? (I know this doesn't fully relate to Israeli/Jewish question, but it's an interesting one nonetheless, I mean if those are the historical lands of the Jews, they also massacred and ethnically cleaned the Caananites out of them, under :"God's" mandate/permission (lol). 3) Can Mr. Beinart name a single instance of where a dominant Islamic/Muslim state or society has allowed that land to be ruled by a non Muslim political entity, or returned to its pre Muslim status? I don't believe it has ever happened, there are still Muslims today who are angry about "their" loss of Andalusia (not many I will grant, but they exist) 4) given all the blood and anger that has been shed, why does Mr. Beinart insist in his utopia when grim reality tells us that only a India/Pakistan like split is possible? Why doesn't Mr. Beinart advocate a greater India today?? 5) Mr. Beinart makes many excellent points about the initial Zionist project, but give the fact that in today's Israel, I understand the majority of the population to be Mizrahi Jewish (MENA/Sephardic Jews) how does "settler colonialism" hold up?? 6) Mr. Beinart speaks of his contact with many Palestinians. I have had a lot of contact with Arabs and Muslims in the Middle East, amongst these Palestinians. Many of them are wonderful and cosmopolitan people with whom I would have no qualms sharing a society. But you also have more numerous heavily Islamicized and uneducated masses and I'm not so sure I'm willing to share a society with them. Anyways, I think in the end Mr. Beinart ignores the fact that Palestinian resentment (and violence) not only stems from legitimate anger at "oppression" (I agree 100% vis a vis West Bank for e.g. and especially the building of Jewish settlements there) but the simple fact is they refuse to live in a state rules by Jews, hence the 'right of return', which would automatically return to them political and social power, which is ultimately what they want and have always wanted in the first place. (and I don't begrudge them this feeling, on many levels it's legitimate.
Really enjoyed this podcast. I agree with almost everything Peter Beinart had to say. The exception was his view of Trump. Keep up the good work Glenn.
(Gur comments that the lived experience of Israelis for 40 years is of Hamas blowing up peace processes that would end with the left in power and is 100% right)
(I was encouraged by commenters here to tune in to Haviv Rettig Gur at the Burkle Center at UCLA and he has such a public radio voice and affect) (I was pleased that Peter Beinart was here)
I have essentially not consumed anything that Beinart has done to promote this book but happily went to 2-3 "Tablets Shattered" events and was excited that Yehudah Kurtzer has had Leifer on his podcast recently