Peter Beinart, The Parody

Anonymous has read Mr. Beinart's smear of Israel in the New York Review of Books and offers Bad Rachel's readers a glimpse of the first draft. 

First, a few key grafs AS ACTUALLY PUBLISHED:

Most of the students, in other words, were liberals, broadly defined. They had imbibed some of the defining values of American Jewish political culture: a belief in open debate, a skepticism about military force, a commitment to human rights. And in their innocence, they did not realize that they were supposed to shed those values when it came to Israel. The only kind of Zionism they found attractive was a Zionism that recognized Palestinians as deserving of dignity and capable of peace, and they were quite willing to condemn an Israeli government that did not share those beliefs. Luntz did not grasp the irony. The only kind of Zionism they found attractive was the kind that the American Jewish establishment has been working against for most of their lives.

Among American Jews today, there are a great many Zionists, especially in the Orthodox world, people deeply devoted to the State of Israel. And there are a great many liberals, especially in the secular Jewish world, people deeply devoted to human rights for all people, Palestinians included. But the two groups are increasingly distinct. Particularly in the younger generations, fewer and fewer American Jewish liberals are Zionists; fewer and fewer American Jewish Zionists are liberal. One reason is that the leading institutions of American Jewry have refused to foster—indeed, have actively opposed—a Zionism that challenges Israel’s behavior in the West Bank and Gaza Strip and toward its own Arab citizens. For several decades, the Jewish establishment has asked American Jews to check their liberalism at Zionism’s door, and now, to their horror, they are finding that many young Jews have checked their Zionism instead.

Now, the DISCARDED FIRST DRAFT: 

Most of the students, in other words, were liberals, broadly defined, though an insufficient number were gay and too many were broads.  They had imbibed some of the defining values of the mindless knee-jerk liberalism their pony-tailed 62-year-old professors threw at them: a belief in open debate that of course excludes those who would advance anti-feminist or anti-gay or pro-Israel argument, a total hostility to the US military and for that matter to all military forces, a commitment to human rights but not in China or Cuba. And in their innocence, they did not realize that those “values” were being thrown at them by a bunch of superannuated former radicals who were mostly former Jews now embittered because their daughters were all joining some havurah. The only kind of Zionism they found attractive was a Zionism that recognized Palestinians as deserving Haifa and Jaffa and Tel Aviv, capable of peace if you just overlook 120 years of killing Jews, and they were quite willing to condemn an Israeli government that did not share those beliefs, which is to say, any Israeli government that could ever be elected outside of Berkeley. Luntz did not grasp the irony. The only kind of Zionism they found attractive was the kind that the American Jewish establishment has been working against for most of their lives, Chomskyite Zionism we might call it. Yet Luntz failed to see how amusing it is that this form of Zionism is Zionism without Israel, Zionism whose goal is purity of heart rather than the boring and repetitive calls to defend real living Jews.

Among American Jews today, there are a great many Zionists, especially in the Orthodox world, people deeply devoted to the State of Israel, but I don’t care for them.  They condemn gays, though I want to reassert that I have children, and they are not even liberals. And there are a great many liberals, especially in the secular Jewish world, people deeply devoted to human rights for almost all people, Palestinians included, except maybe Jews, you know, sort of like the position taken by the Human Rights Watch Jews and the Amnesty International Jews. But the two groups are increasingly distinct. Particularly in the younger generations, fewer and fewer American Jewish liberals are Zionists; fewer and fewer American Jewish Zionists are liberal. One reason is that the leading institutions of American Jewry have refused to foster—indeed, have actively opposed—a Zionism that challenges Israel’s behavior in the West Bank and Gaza Strip and toward its own Arab citizens. This is important because there is so little criticism of Israel, and so little of it from Jews; we need to get on the stick.  I mean, most university faculty are so pro-Zionist, there’s no room for open discussion of Israel frailties, anywhere, especially in the New York Times.  For several decades, the Jewish establishment has asked American Jews to check their liberalism at Zionism’s door, and now, to their horror, they are finding that many young Jews have checked their Zionism instead. Alternatively, the Jewish establishment has asked to check your Democratic Party membership card, but let’s not quibble; surely you all realize that no-one can rise to a leadership position in an American Jewish organization any more who is a liberal, despite the fact that they all appear to be headed now by key Obama supporters, but that’s by the way.  I have my children at the door, and having children changed my view of a lot, for example my view of having children, for the moment anyway, but I may write about that in the New York Times, which owes me one, and maybe I’ll do a piece about how to raise non-Zionist children, which begins by freeing yourself from the need to defend actual living Jews when you could focus instead on what really matters, which is what’s in your heart, as long as you live here and not there.  Being a liberal Jew means never having to say you’re sorry, or a Jew, or a Zionist, except to say you’re sorry about the Zionists.  Am I at 5,000 words yet?