The Why Project
← Zionism

Peter Beinart

Journalist; former liberal-Zionist voice, now editor-at-large of Jewish Currents

Genuinely contested2 incidents

The clearest documented evolution: a self-described liberal Zionist who argued for two states (2010), who in 2020 renounced support for a Jewish state in favor of one equal binational state — while claiming to keep a Zionism understood as a “Jewish home.”

Liberal-Zionist stage (2010)

2010Self-identified Zionist

What happened

Beinart argued that mainstream American Jewish organizations were driving young liberal Jews away by demanding uncritical support for Israeli government policy — writing explicitly as a committed Zionist trying to save liberal Zionism.

For several decades, the Jewish establishment has asked American Jews to check their liberalism at Zionism’s door, and now… many young Jews have checked their Zionism instead. (NYRB, 2010)

Under each definition

In 2010: self-ID, self-determination, settler-colonial all “yes”; religious “no.”
Self-IDDo they call themselves a Zionist?
A Zionist

Self-described “liberal Zionist.”

Self-determinationSupport a Jewish state?
A Zionist

Supported a Jewish state alongside a Palestinian one (two states).

Settler-colonialBacks the Jewish-state project?
A Zionist

A supporter of the Jewish-state project (a two-state, occupation-critical one).

ReligiousA religious/return conception?
Not a Zionist

A secular-liberal, rights-based framing.

The case that they're a Zionist

At this stage he self-described as a “liberal Zionist” and supported a Jewish state alongside a Palestinian one.

The case against / their own view

Even then his Zionism was occupation-critical and rights-based, not religious.

Renunciation (2020)

2020Genuinely contested

What happened

Declaring the two-state solution dead, Beinart called on liberal Zionists to give up Jewish–Palestinian separation and a Jewish state in favor of equality in a single binational or confederated state — arguing this abandoned Zionism’s “form,” not its “essence.”

It’s time to abandon the traditional two-state solution… It’s time to imagine a Jewish home that is not a Jewish state. (NYT, 2020)

Under each definition

By 2020 the same person reads self-ID “contested,” self-determination “no,” settler-colonial “no,” religious “no” — the “self-ID” line is exactly where he and his critics disagree.
Self-IDDo they call themselves a Zionist?
Contested

He no longer supports a Jewish state yet claims to keep “Zionism” as a “Jewish home.”

Self-determinationSupport a Jewish state?
Not a Zionist

He explicitly no longer believes in a Jewish state; favors a binational/one-state arrangement.

Settler-colonialBacks the Jewish-state project?
Not a Zionist

He opposes the Jewish-state project as currently understood.

ReligiousA religious/return conception?
Not a Zionist

Secular-liberal framing throughout.

The case that they're a Zionist

He claims to retain Zionism, reconceived as a “Jewish home”: “The essence of Zionism is not a Jewish state… it is a Jewish home in the land of Israel.”

The case against / their own view

He explicitly no longer supports a Jewish state — the usual Zionist marker — so critics say abandoning the state is abandoning Zionism; he is described both as “renouncing” and “redefining” it.

In their words

Critic / opponent
Beinart is calling for the elimination of the Jewish state itself. His contortions to argue that Zionism does not require an independent Jewish state are transparently false.
Anti-Defamation LeagueJewish civil-rights organizationADL

The verdicts above are how each definition would most likely classify this person — illustrative guidance, not official rulings. The lenses diverge most on the difference between a self-label and a substantive commitment, and between “Zionism” meaning a Jewish homeland versus a Jewish state. See the Definition tab for each definition’s full text. Inclusion is documentation, not a finding.