Peter Beinart attacks me unfairly

My last blog post, on a suggestion proposed by Professor Alan Dershowitz, with whom I disagreed, drew the attention of Open Zion''s Peter Beinart, of "Crisis" fame.  Attention?  He attacked me as well as Daniel Gordis.  Here is the main hit on me -

"Medad and Gordis’s claim that they will become more compliant if Israel eats away more of their future state is so absurd. One might even say that by claiming they support the two state solution while supporting policies that drive nails in its coffin, Medad and Gordis are playing us for suckers.".

While I cannot speak for Daniel, I, for one, don''t think I expressed an unreserved support for the Two State Solution.  In fact, I have expressed support for the Three State Solution which, of course, demands that the territory of Jordan must be included in the land mass to be re-subdivided (not that partition ever worked or ever will).  While I am not a progressive liberal - although I have bled in my lifetime - I do think myself a liberal democrat and one who desires fairness.

And it is grossly unfair for the territory of the former original Mandate for Palestine, which included TransJordan (see 1919 Versailles Peace Conference; 1920 San Remo Conference; and the 1922 League of Nations decision and in fact, the 1919 borders were truncated, then in 1922, we lost TransJordan.  In 1937, there was this partition plan. Peel.  In 1938, another partition plan. Woodhead - and here and here.  And another. In 1944, Churchill was mulling another. And in 1947, the UN recommended another. None of which the Arabs accepted) to evolve into three states.

Two of those states are Arab and they ban Jews owning property or residing in them - that''s apartheid, by the way, which should be decried - or perhaps even three Arabs states.  Those would be Jordan, a kingdom of sorts, whose first monarch basically fled Saudi Arabia in 1920 who came to assist the rethroning of his brother over Syria but ended up getting a Emirate from Winston Churchill while the brother was transferred to Iraq; Hamastan in Gaza and Fatahland in Judea and Samaria and one is Israel which must permit Arabs to reside therein (in "settlements"?), not pay full taxes, not serve in the Army or even a National Service program - all of which may contribute to the unjust, yes, discrimination they suffer, not to speak of Nakba Day festivities, rampant support for subversive Islamist elements, some stone throwing, et al.

Yisrael Medad took a shot: He called Dershowitz a “freyer” or sucker. “Would you play chess in that fashion? Gamble even?” Medad asked.

...naive and even irrational. And not clever at all...To be generous, this is fairly amusing and at the same time, disappointing. One would have presumed a true defender of Israel to be more imaginative and, at the same time, more cognizant of the political realities of the conflict.

QUESTION: Yeah. Can we talk about --MR. TONER: Yeah.QUESTION: -- the Palestinian issue?MR. TONER: Sure.QUESTION: Today, one of the staunchest supporters of the Likud, Alan Dershowitz, a great legal mind, American legal mind, suggested that settlements ought to be frozen while talks are ongoing. Would you support such a proposition?MR. TONER: Again, I think our focus remains on getting both sides back to the negotiating table as soon as possible. Again, we had this exchange of letters that was very positive.QUESTION: Right.MR. TONER: We want to see this back, but in terms of that specific proposal, what’s important for us is that both sides get back to the negotiating table where they can discuss all of these issues.

^