What Peter Beinart misunderstands about Jewish values
Well-meaning debate is central to Judaism — which Israel’s critics sometimes forget
Those with strong opinions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict must remember that debate can be well-intentioned — and a good in its own right. Graphic by Forward Illustration/Canva
Re: “We don’t really have any moral redlines’: Peter Beinart’s quest to disrupt Jews’ relationship to Israel,” by Rob Eshman.
To the editor:
The publicity around Peter Beinart’s new book Being Jewish after the Destruction of Gaza: A Reckoning — including Rob Eshman’s recent Forward op-ed “We don’t really have any moral redlines’: Peter Beinart’s quest to disrupt Jews’ relationship to Israel” — is a reminder of how essential it is to nourish the great Jewish superpower: our ability to consider an argument from multiple perspectives.
That is a task at which, to my eyes, Beinart fails.
Judaism prizes argument, dissent and self-criticism. Famously, the Talmud records both majority and minority opinions, labeling any disagreements motivated by a pure heart as “disagreements in the service of heaven.” A rebellious leader may teach opinions that differ from the rulings of the Great Sanhedrin, although he may not instruct people to defy those rulings. Differences of opinion have been recorded about a staggering number of issues, ranging from prosaic — such as when the daytime Shema can be recited — to the grand — such as whether God’s presence fills the entire universe or whether God has deliberately diminished her/himself.
Beinart’s work, which is critical of Israel and the American Jewish attachment to the Jewish state, taps into one part of that tradition. The desire to perceive oneself accurately and, where necessary, to modify one’s behavior, practices and beliefs is a core Jewish trait, well-honed by both religious and secular Jewish communities.
But the invaluable traits of accurate self-appraisal and self-criticism must not extend to ignoring or failing to respect the holiness of well-meaning disagreement, which Beinart, in his interview with Eshman, does.
Beinart parrots the popular accusation that Israel is an apartheid state, but completely overlooks the long history of Israeli offers to agree to the establishment of a Palestinian state, as well as the fact that the Palestinians never deigned to respond to those offers diplomatically and, instead, instituted a wave of violence against Israel.
He ignores the reasons for the separate existence of Israelis and Palestinians in the West Bank, which are rooted in very real security concerns. His very use of the term “apartheid” is inaccurate and inflammatory, implying that no viewpoint opposing his own on the matter can, or should, be taken seriously.
In Beinart’s view, Israel lacks any “moral red lines” in its treatment of Palestinians, instead wallowing in a sense of its own victimhood and proclaiming a blind need to defeat “Palestinian savagery.” It is true that, after Oct. 7, Israel relaxed some of its rules of wartime engagement; that the civilian death toll in Gaza has been high; and that a desire for revenge, among some Israelis, appears to have increased.
But Beinart refuses to acknowledge the legitimate defense goals involved in Israel’s war, and its efforts to safeguard human life, including warning Palestinians to evacuate designated areas and adopting and enforcing guidelines governing aerial attacks. We can debate how well Israel has achieved these often-conflicting goals — but that debate is a far cry from asserting that Israel has abandoned any “moral red lines.”
That is the point that Beinart misses: There not only is room for debate over Israel and its conduct, but encouraging that debate — rather than portraying it as unjustifiable — is a crucial Jewish value. Israel is not a blameless or perfect country. For example, for years Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government pursued a policy of clandestinely supporting Hamas in Gaza while undermining the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank to drive a wedge between the two and prevent the creation of a Palestinian state. Those efforts helped lead to the devastating Oct. 7 attack.
But Beinart’s view of the world systematically oversimplifies a complex situation — always by minimizing Palestinian responsibility and exaggerating Jewish fault.
So, yes, Netanyahu is at fault. But the decision to channel huge amounts of international economic aid to building a subterranean military structure under civilian facilities; fund the manufacture of missiles and weapons; siphon off ample funds for a luxurious lifestyle of officials in Qatar and elsewhere; and not only eschew responsibility for civilian Gazan life, but use civilians as human shields — that is on Hamas.
The ability to appreciate a situation from another’s perspective lies at the heart of both Yiddishkeit and mentschlechkeit. The Torah commands that we treat the vulnerable fairly, but also directs us to show favoritism neither to the poor nor the rich. By cautioning us against a bias in favor of the poor, the Bible is admonishing us not to assume that the more powerful party is always wrong.
An honest debate about the behavior of all the parties to this conflict — Israelis Jews, Arabs, and world powers — is sorely needed. Beinart’s one-sided arguments do not advance that cause.
A message from our Publisher & CEO Rachel Fishman Feddersen
I hope you appreciated this article. Before you go, I’d like to ask you to please support the Forward’s award-winning, nonprofit journalism so that we can be prepared for whatever news 2025 brings.
At a time when other newsrooms are closing or cutting back, the Forward has removed its paywall and invested additional resources to report on the ground from Israel and around the U.S. on the impact of the war, rising antisemitism and polarized discourse.
Readers like you make it all possible. Support our work by becoming a Forward Member and connect with our journalism and your community.
— Rachel Fishman Feddersen, Publisher and CEO
