Jeffrey Goldberg: It's been said this week that you are brave for writing what you
wrote. I think you're aware that I never consider criticism
of Israel to be brave -- after all, it's the thing to do. But ignore my
bias for a moment: Is there something inherently brave about
criticizing Israel (and AIPAC) that I'm missing? I imagine you yourself
reject the idea that what you did was brave, by the way.
Peter Beinart: Let's put this in context. We live in
the U.S., not Iran or Zimbabwe. There's very little threat of
physical--let alone state-sponsored--violence for anything you say
politically. So in a global context, it's hard to say anyone in the U.S.
is really brave no matter how unpopular their views. With that caveat,
I think there is something a little brave for a member of Congress or
an administration official to criticize AIPAC or criticize Israel
harshly because it could end their political career. Let's just imagine
that a Senator or Cabinet Member said what Barak and Olmert have said
about Israel being on its way to being an apartheid state if it doesn't
give back the West Bank. That would be a serious career-threatener. For
a journalist/pundit, however, it's completely different. In the press,
criticism--even harsh criticism--of Israel is common, and in fact, I
think in the blogosphere it is almost becoming the norm. In all
honesty, the thing I worried about most was the reaction of some of our
friends, because a lot of the people whose friendship I really value
are significantly to my right, which isn't surprising at an Orthodox
synagogue. But I mostly worried for nothing. There's been a lot of
disagreement, but nothing the least bit malicious. It's made me realize
how remarkable and unusual a community we live in, in fact. I think I
may even have smoked out one or two hidden doves.
JG: One of the critiques I've read
of my questions, as opposed to your answers, is that I'm obsessing
about the threat from Hezbollah and Hamas, and not focusing on your
concerns, the moral corruption that grows from occupation. One reason
I'm focused on Hezbollah and the rejectionist front is that we actually
agree that settlements are a disaster for Israel, and what's the fun of
agreeing in a blog conversation? But the other reason I'm focused on
these threats is that I think you've decontextualized Israel's
challenge. If Hamas and Hezbollah and Syria and Iran weren't posing
active threats to Israel, I would agree with you that Israel is
dragging its feet on the issue of territorial compromise. But how can
you actually claim that an Israeli pullback from the West Bank, either
a unilateral pullback, or one negotiated with a weak Palestinian
Authority, won't lead to more bloodshed? The rejectionist front facing
down Israel has seen every Israeli pullback as a victory not for the
principle of compromise, but a victory in their campaign to eradicate
Israel. I'm not sure you have the sequencing right: Perhaps the
Iranian-sponsored threats have to be neutralized before the Israeli
public will agree to potentially dangerous territorial withdrawals. And
perhaps these threats have to be neutralized so that they pose no
danger to the moderates of the P.A., which is the mortal enemy of
Hamas. My point is, this situation is more than just an Upper West Side
morality play. There are forces at work here that are impervious to the
charms of political compromise.
PB: I bet you're right that stopping Iran
from going nuclear would give the U.S. more leverage on the Palestinian
question, and perhaps shift Israeli public opinion a bit. (Though you'd
still have a government that is basically pro-settlement and a settler
movement that controls chunks of the Israeli bureaucracy, no matter
what the public or elected officials want). So yes, we should do
everything we can to stop Iran from getting a nuke--though I'm
pessimistic we'll succeed. And I think military action will have its
own dangerous consequences, including leading to Hezbollah attacks, so
war isn't likely to promote the peace process. I'm also not as
convinced as you that Israeli withdrawals lead to greater violence.
There were far more Hezbollah attacks into northern Israel before the
withdrawal from Southern Lebanon than after, though they still occur,
which is terrible. And I really think Israel and the U.S. botched the
Hamas election victory--i think they should have supported, not
torpedoed, a Palestinian national unity government even if it fudged
acceptance of past agreements a bit (after all, Israeli governments
haven't respected all past agreements--Netanyahu said explicitly that
he rejected Oslo when he was elected in 1996), and then dealt with the
non-Hamas ministers as we do with the Hezbollah presence in the
Lebanese government. That might have created an opportunity for calm,
economic growth, and perhaps eventually new negotiations with a strong
Palestinian government able to marginalize the rejectionists
politically and impose control on the ground. The problem I have with
the Gaza War is less that I think Israel used disproportionate force:
it may well have, but war is always hell. It's more that I think just
wars must be last resorts, you have to exhaust the alternatives, and I
think the Israelis and the Americans really didn't. That's not to
excuse Hamas--which is a nasty movement--but it's a way of saying that
with a group like Hamas, which has deep roots in the Palestinian
society, you can't eliminate it through military force alone. You have
to moderate at least elements of it by bringing them into the political
process and investing them in non-violence paths to statehood. I think
that was possible, or at least that more of an effort could have been
made. Besides, think how much more leverage it would give Fayyad if he
could show Palestinians that he got Israel to really stop settlement
growth (as opposed to this sham "partial freeze," which hasn't really
stopped actual construction at all), or even withdraw some far out
settlements. If you hate Hamas, nothing would hurt them more
politically.
JG:
Jon Chait writes that you cut intellectual corners when you are angry, and he provides the following example:
"For instance: Peter asserts, his 'basic point, which is that Human
Rights Watch is no tougher on the Israeli government than are a host of
Israeli human rights organizations.' Not true. HRW celebrated the
Goldstone Report, but as the New York Times reported in January: "[V]irtually no one in Israel, including the leaders of Breaking the
Silence and the human rights group B'Tselem, thinks that the Goldstone
accusation of an assault on civilians is correct. 'I do not accept the
Goldstone conclusion of a systematic attack on civilian
infrastructure,' said Yael Stein, research director of B'Tselem."
How do you respond to this? And do you in fact believe that Human
Rights Watch and other monitoring groups apply a single-standard to
their reporting about the Middle East?
PB: In fact, nine Israeli human rights groups
called for exactly what Human Rights Watch called for: An independent
Israeli investigation modeled on the commission that followed the
Sabra-Shatilla massacre, the Or commission that investigated Arab
Israeli killings during the second intifada and the Winograd
Commisssion into the 2006 Lebanon war. That had been the truly
admirable Israeli way to react when you have reports--as you did from
soldiers in the Breaking the Silence group--about serious abuses.
What's more, many Israeli human rights submitted reports to the
Goldstone Commission and were in turn accused by the Israeli right of
being the basis for the Goldstone charges. (By the way, I wrote nothing
about the Goldstone Commission in my piece but others keep bringing it
up).
I recognize that Human Rights Watch may make mistakes. But
it has done reports on Palestinian human rights abuses and lots of them
(many more than on Israel) on human rights issues in the Arab world.
Groups like AIPAC, which ONLY criticize Israel's neighbors and never
criticize Israel, are in a particularly bad position to charge
one-sidedness, it seems to me. And the argument that Human Rights Watch
should not investigate Israel because it is a democracy doesn't make
sense. I have no problem with them investigating torture in the United
States--I'm glad they did. What's more, and this is so obvious that
it's often ignored, Israel is NOT a democracy in the West Bank, which
is where a lot of the abuses occur.
Human Rights Watch and
Amnesty International, while not perfect, are the most reputable human
rights organizations in the world precisely because they piss off so
many governments of all ideological stripes. They're in that business. People who try to discredit them in what they believe is Israel's
interest do two very damaging things. First, they undermine the other
work they do. If Human Rights Watch gives an exception to Israel, it
will be much more likely to fold on say, Kashmir, another territory
occupied by a democracy where there are big human rights problems.
Second, as I said in the piece, if you convince Human Rights Watch to
stop criticizing Israel you dramatically undermine Israeli human rights
organizations that often do parallel work, which, of course, is exactly
what Netanyahu wants. His vice-prime minister is on record, after all,
as calling Peace Now a "virus."
