Monday, June 25, 2012
The Peter Paradox Cont’d
That’s the Peter Beinart Paradox. The Peter Pernicious Paradox is here, where I wrote:
Not only will Israel suffer but so will the Arabs and all because Beinart is a liberal. Therein lies the paradox. Not only will Jews in Israel suffer more terror, more death, more suffering - all the name of problems that can and need be addressed and solved without the measures Beinart proposes and in contradistinction to the real facts, - not only does he assist anti-Jewish sentiment and fly in the face of Jewish history but his main achievement, if gained, as regards the Arab side of the equation, will be to create a very illiberal and undemocratic regime.That is Peter’s pernicious paradox.
That was Paradox I. Now, the continuation.
I was present at Mr. Beinart’s meet-up with the bloggers invited to the Tomorrow 2012 President Peres’ conference. I just observed because I really do want to read his book first and hopefully, the person who promised to send a review copy will do so soon. First, the good news.
Beinart’s sons are more right-wing than he is. They’re still young but there’s hope he’ll learn something from them. He’s fairly sure they’ll rebel against his outlook. Also, his grandmother does not hold his opinions. And she comes from an Arab country. He also noted that the argument about his suggestions should be based on whether or not his facts and insights are wrong, not about the quality of the ideology he pushes. In answer to my wife’s question about his qualitativeness to pass judgment, being from abroad, he took the easy way out and said, and I agree, all he is doing is expressing himself. Supporters of nationalist ideology in America do so. Moreover, in protesting human rights violations in countries like Turkey, China or even the Russian Jewry, those involved were not fully acquainted with all the facts and probably had no close knowledge and still their input was important and not rejected.
And that leads me to the bad news. He really doesn’t have adequate facts, data, knowledge of history. I have been leafing through his book and have found disturbing content. But standing in Steimatzky is not the way to devote proper attention to the book (you don’t expect me to purchase it, do you?).
Adam Levick did ask the the question stemming from my “Paradox” frame – how can the establishment of a state of “Palestine”, which will be taken over by Hamas (not that the Fatah regime is any better), and will repress its citizens, encourage honor killings, ill-treat homosexuals, incarcerate journalists, censor online media and much more, and continue the terror against Jews, assist an American Jewish liberal agenda?
But there is another side. Every single construct that Beinart proposes, as far as I am acquainted with, has been tried, in one way or another, over the past century. And none have worked. He refuses to acknowledge the experience that has been. Liberals can be border-line hallucinators, especially where Islamic fundamentalism is involved. That is so because they are ‘conversing’ on two different levels, two separate tracks and there is no real communication. The conflict is not territorial but existential.
The “Peter Paradox Continued”, seems to point to, despite his claims to be primarily concerned for Jewish security and future, a ‘higher’ commitment to his liberal values, not to any Jewish responsibility.