I appreciated this conversation between Ahmed Moor and Peter Beinart over Beinart’s decision to speak at Tel Aviv University, in violation of BDS, and then, in the face of a lot of public and private criticism, including from people who are close to Beinart, his very public reconsideration and apology for having done so—and then the backlash to his apology. That backlash to his apology is coming from two different sides, from people who are anti-Zionist, who claim that Beinart is just doing damage control to preserve his brand, and people who are Zionist, who say he was forced to grovel before a political inquisition of the left.

I have to say that Beinart does an extremely good job of explaining his initial decision and then his apology and rebutting the claims of both sets of critics. To me, he offers here a model of how someone can be in a movement, and remain tied and committed to that movement, yet also, in some situations of doubt or conflict with the movement, make their own decisions about what to do. And the responsibility, mistakes, humility, and obligations that come from all of that, the “that” being the simultaneity of the claims of solidarity, on the one hand, and the obligation to genuine belief in the principles that follow from that solidarity—as opposed to mere obeisance to reputation- and status-preservation or self-enthrallment and self-aggrandizement. Beinart is honest about the hubris that accompanied or occasioned his initial decision to go to Tel Aviv, and the substance of the reconsideration that followed.

Though I don’t personally know Beinart—despite our being professors at CUNY, I don’t think I’ve ever met him in my life—I have a lot more respect and patience for him than others do. Unlike most of us, he is willing to confront and engage with his opponents, not in the bullshit way that passes for civility, but with genuine argument, passion, and a refusal to tolerate anything less than the highest standards of reason and political ethics. Unlike many of us, he’s not someone who silos himself off in a safe space of agreement or cheerleading. He’s not someone who preaches to the choir. He is someone who has broken in a fundamental way not once but twice with his immediate circles, when the much easier and much more lucrative path of conformity and complacency was available to him. He’s done this without becoming a serial contrarian or sociopath of reinvention.

I don’t have a problem with people criticizing him for his decision to break the boycott, at all, or even with some critics of his apology. I’ll admit to having a little less patience when the criticism of that apology comes from people who only came to their anti-Zionism once it became the dominant norm or position in their own social circles. I’m old enough to have watched the changing status of this conflict around Zionism in this country among three of the circles I know best—among Jews, among academics, and on the left—and old enough to remember when many people in those circles kept their heads down because it was unfashionable to do otherwise or because they just didn’t want to think about it. I’m not saying it’s more fashionable today; in many ways, it’s riskier. But within certain circles (again, among Jews, academics, and the left), it’s obvious that the norms have changed, and Beinart was moving in these directions far in advance of many, including some of his critics today. That doesn’t get him a pass but it does make me skeptical of some, though not all, of his critics. Particularly on social media.

Anyway, I hope people listen to this full conversation before rushing to judgment. Ahmed Moor pushes Beinart pretty hard, and fairly, and the results are illuminating.