The unbearable uselessness of liberal anti-zionism
A review of Peter Beinart's "Being Jewish After the Destruction of Gaza"
Abraham self-circumcising himself in accordance with God’s command. He had to do it to get the Holy Land.
I picked up Peter Beinart’s latest book — Being Jewish After the Destruction of Gaza — with a hopeful (well, not too hopeful) disposition. I’ve been very skeptical that progressive Jewish culture in America, which has long been in decline, can survive this newest end-phase of zionist culture. Peter’s book, though, promised to offer a way out…a way into something new and better. So I was interested in what he had to say.
Peter’s a weird guy…not someone I’d normally look to for answers. He’s a prog-lib American Orthodox Jew, which already is a bit of an oddity and a contradiction. And he also spent most of his adult life on the liberal neocon/zionist side of America’s public intellectual spectrum…cheerleading the Iraq War, penning essays that urged the Democratic Party to purge its ranks of peaceniks and anti-interventionists, and churning out content to convince American liberals that oppression and apartheid in Israel was necessary for Jewish survival.1 He only recently turned into a critic of Israel’s apartheid system and, as one of the big names behind Jewish Currents, has become a key figure in the movement for a left-liberal non-zionist Jewish revival, which has run the spectrum from trying to reestablish the Jewish Bund to coming up with an inclusive and progressive reimagining of a normally authoritarian Rabbinic Judaism.2 So I was open to being surprised.
“Sure you’re suspicious of this guy who’s been wrong about most things he’s written,” I thought to myself. “I mean, he was convinced that America could successfully use violence to turn Iraq into a thriving American-style capitalist democracy. But maybe Peter’s onto something these days? He’s steeped in Jewish religious texts, he’s been thinking about this stuff, he’s in with young non-zionist Jewish types, and he’s come from the other side…and he’s got degrees from Yale and Cambridge and his parents are respected members of the Jewish community. So…maybe he’s got a good idea or two about what Jewish identity separated out from zionism could look like? Why not give him a chance?”
Well, I did…
…and was rather disappointed.
If you’re hoping to read a book about building a Jewish culture and identity that doesn’t depend on embracing zionism — aka religious nationalism — you’ll be disappointed.
I think the book is important, though, in a way that Peter didn’t intend it to be. It gives us a window into the delusional thinking of a big chunk of left/progressive Jewish thought. As Peter’s book shows, a lot of left-liberal Jews like him still think they can convince their zionist friends and family members that genocide is bad and that Judaism is not a religion of supremacy and racial-theocratic exclusion, but is actually a religion of peace and universal tolerance and love. It’s almost funny, this delusion. Their zionist loved ones are posting genocide memes on Instagram and gloating over rotting Palestinian bodies and even now supporting the leveling of the West Bank…and they think that they can bring them back from this ethno-religious bloodlust by saying, “Hey, check out this old school non-zionist rabbi and isn’t he smart?” and “Look at his interpretation of this Torah passage. See? It shows that our Jewish God is not a God of supremacy and genocide but of peace and brotherly love! This is why you should love your Palestinian neighbor.” I don’t think that’s how things work.
The fact is, Israel and zionist Jews have won this war. They made Gaza unlivable, killed several hundred thousand Palestinians, orphaned tens of thousands of babies, and maimed countless people, and…they got away with it. On top of that, they have defeated their regional foes in both Lebanon and Syria and for now have neutralized any real regional opposition to zionist and American power in the region. Their primary and secondary sponsors — the US and the EU — are behind them 100 percent because they are the beneficiaries of Israel’s regional wrecking ball.
The lesson Israelis and zionist Jews got out of all of this is that their nationalist bloodlust has produced nothing but positive results. It has been so good, in fact, that Israel is using the Gaza ceasefire to take the same strategy to the West Bank, where a smaller-scale Gaza-style bombing and ethnic cleansing campaign is currently underway.3
Fanatical nationalism has won the day — not just on the field of battle but in the minds of the majority of American Jews, both secular and religious. That’s the reality that you have to face. And in the face of this, Peter Beinart thinks that penning a pedantic liberal lecture about Yeshayahu Leibowitz and the tradition of enlightened Judaism is the answer? That this will be enough to put nationalist meathead Jewish culture on a path to progressivism and universal values?
Put another way: It’s obvious anyone not in the grips of Jewish nationalism that the only way forward for Israel that doesn’t include apartheid and occupation and constant murder and ethnic cleansing and a spiraling towards a Final Solution to the Palestinian Problem is the creation of one state where everyone, no matter their religion or ethnic identity, can live as political equals. But going this route would mean zionist Jews would give up their political power. Why would they do it when they think it’s been such a success for them? Because…some distinguished rabbi wrote something about Judaism being a religion of tolerance? That’s Beinart’s argument and it’s hard not to laugh.
Anyway…for those interested, I wrote down a few thoughts and notes I had on the book while skimming through it.
One. As Peter Beinart makes clear in the introduction, he structures the book as a letter to an unnamed genocidal zionist friend of his — a friend who was so freaked out by Peter’s opposition to Israel’s assault in Gaza that he broke off all contact. Peter is sad and wants this genocidal friend to call him again. And so this book is his attempt at healing the divide…the start of a conversation at reconciliation. I’m not making it up:
I think about you often, and about the argument that has divided us. I know you believe that my public opposition to this war—and to the very idea of a state that favors Jews over Palestinians—constitutes a betrayal of our people. I know you think I am putting your family at risk. … By reading these words, you have agreed to walk with me. I hope to lure you beyond established boundaries. But wherever we part, I hope the rupture is not final, that our journey together is not done.
His zionist buddies don’t seem keen on having this conversation, though. Peter is now being targeted by a zionist paramilitary group for his views. Oooops.4
Two. The book is strange. Half of it is a sermon about the supposed progressive and universalist nature of Judaism, and half of it is a policy paper arguing for why Jews would be safer by giving Palestinians equal rights, a move that would also align Israel in line with this universalist nature of the Jewish faith. In short, the book is an appeal to the material self-interest of zionist Jews…while also dangling a bit of moralizing scripture and biblical analysis. It feels very strange, as it is directed at people who are having a blast being genocidal and enjoying their power to kill and crush the Palestinians with impunity. They don’t care!
Three. Peter does a big whitewash of Judaism as a religion of peace. A big chunk of his book lays out his argument that Judaism has been corrupted by zionism and has turned a religion that sanctifies human life into one that deifies a Jewish state above all else. He says this attachment to a Jewish state is essentially idol worship and that a true Judaism rejects this position and in fact is skeptical of state power. Reading these passages, I couldn’t help but recall that one of the most convincing theories on the emergence of the Hebrew Bible turns Peter’s wishy-washy assertion on its head. This theory, which relies on archeological and textual analysis, posits that Judaism (and the religious text that underpins it) was created to prop up state power. That objective was to support the rule of Josiah, the king of Judah in the 7th century BC. It was all about solidifying his court’s control over his kingdom and surrounding territory.5 So Judaism was originally about state power, going right back to the beginning of this religion. There’s nothing weird or corrupting about it.
And that’s also the sense I got when reading The Jewish War by Josephus, the Israelite-warrior-priest-turned-Roman-collaborator who participated in the Jewish revolt against the Roman Empire and got himself caught. Back then, Judaism was very much tied to state power and territorial control. In fact, that was what the revolt against Rome was all about: liberation of Palestine from Roman imperial control…liberation that would allow the Jewish elite to run their religious state without meddling from an outside heathen power that worshipped idols. Indeed, Josephus coined the term theocracy to describe this Jewish-Israelite society — a place where religion and the state were totally unified. Yes, the term describing a government in which priests are in power was coined to explain Jewish/Israelite society. And if you read the Torah for yourself, you will very quickly see that the text was obsessed with state power and control of territory. The religion is all about the land. In fact, it is obsessed with it.6
So regardless of what Peter says, merging Judaism with state power isn’t some immoral modern invention. It goes back to the root of the religion.
Four. In fact, I could argue that Rabbinic Judaism — the religion that emerged after Rome’s destruction the temple in Jerusalem in 70 CE — was the aberration…and plenty of religious zionists believe so, as I wrote in the essay above. But Rabbinic Judaism’s skeptical view of state power made sense before 1947: the rabbis who created this religion and who wielded ultimate authority in their communities had no Jewish state of their own but lived in other societies, under “foreign” goyim rule. That time is over.
Five. In this book and in interviews I’ve seen, Peter Beinart goes on and on about Judaism being a religion of peace and love. Sure people are free to interpret religious texts all they like. And that’s what everyone does, picking and choosing the bits that appeal to them and ignoring the rest. But I’ve read the Torah, too, and there is plenty in there pointing the Jewish religion caring very little about sanctity of human life. In fact, the Jewish holy book is filled with story upon story of Jews killing Jews and Jews killing non-Jews — all in the name of a theocratic state. And Josephus’ own description of the turmoil of the anti-Roman revolt has plenty of examples of Jews killing other Jews for power and for control and for personal enrichment. So…
Six. I get why Peter is so squishy on a lot of this stuff. He is surrounded by Jews who are fully onboard with Israel’s nationalistic brutality and murder. These are people who he loves and cares about, and he knows they are good people and wants to believe they can be brought back from this madness. I sympathize because like many Jews I am in a similar situation. I know a lot of people who are either ambivalent or 100 percent supportive of what Israel is doing. And I’ve thought about it quite a bit, too. How can people be reasoned with? How can they be brought back from their obsession with their nationalist identity? I’ve come to the conclusion that it is basically impossible to do on an individual basis. The structural forces that pull them in that direction are too strong, too one-sided. In PKD terms, the Black Iron Prison has grabbed them in totality. The only way they can be deprogrammed is on a structural level…on the level of society. One way it could happen is if Israel suffers total defeat, is occupied, and de-zionized. The other way is if America’s ruling elite begins to turn against Israel — if Israel becomes an enemy and anyone who supports Israel is seen as a traitor. At that point, American Jews will have to decide which identity is more important to them: their American identity or their Israeli/zionist identity? My guess is that most will choose their American identity, as they are Americans first and foremost…this is where their life is. But both of these options are unlikely to happen. As far as defeat, Israel has nukes and has plenty of religious zionists willing to ride this thing to the fiery end. And I don’t see America turning against Israel any time soon. Israel has been a great weapon in the region, leveling all opposition to American power. But this isn’t something that Peter Beinart is interested in exploring. As far as I know, he doesn’t even support boycotting Israeli products. All he does is offer a flaccid sermon. It’s all scripture and morality for him…directed at a culture that’s having a blast being genocidal and enjoying its power to kill and crush Palestinians with impunity.