How do you tell the difference between a Jewish pessimist and a Jewish optimist? 

Easy. The pessimist says, “Things just can’t get any worse. The optimist says, “Sure they can.”

Well, they have — as far as the fraught connection between Israel and liberal American Jews goes. 

The latest stressor is a predictably nasty media exchange over high-profile liberal commentator Peter Beinart’s recent declaration that he no longer backs a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

A single bi-national, or perhaps a confederated, state, said Beinart, is the best remaining equitable option. This, he concluded, is because of Israel’s deeply entrenched West Bank settlement project. Further undermining the two-state option, he said, is Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s threat to annex much of the occupied West Bank that Palestinians want to include in their own independent state.

Beinart detailed his thoughts in this New York Times oped and, in much greater detail, in this Jewish Currents essay.

For liberal Jews — who have long argued that two independent states coexisting side by side, one Jewish-run and one Palestinian, is the best and only realistic option — Beinart’s abandonment of full Jewish nationhood was nothing less than Zionist heresy. 

Naturally, given today’s insatiable 24/7 media universe — in which all who dare venture are but a tweet away from “woke” fame or “cancel culture” renunciation  — an immediate explosion of verbal warfare ensued.

Beinart’s, you may be wondering, is but one voice among a cacophony of voices claiming to know what’s best for Israel-Palestine, so why the fuss? Moreover, he lives in the United States, not Israel, so to what degree does his opinion even matter? 

The answer, of course, is his American media prominence. His frequent talking-head appearances, (he’s a CNN regular) and voluminous writings have won him a place in the liberal Zionist media firmament, where he’s long been a harsh critic of Netanyahu and Israel’s treatment of Palestinians. That’s not Hollywood famous, but it is considerable in the talking-head hierarchy of prominence.

Make no mistake. Despite the likes of Sheldon Adelson and the existence of American (often religious Orthodox) pro-Trump/Netanyahu Jewish supporters, the majority of American Jews are solidly liberal, both politically and religiously.

That’s particularly true for the younger generations — you know, the ones who will remain after the older generations die off, making the future less certain for strong American Jewish support for Israel.

They overwhelmingly reject both Donald Trump and Netanyahu — who they link because the two rightwing politicians have linked themselves. The ongoing Black Lives Matter demonstrations, combined with the still-uncontrolled coronavirus pandemic and it’s concurrent economic consequences, have only increased their disgust with the two governments.

That last sentence presupposes that most younger American Jews still give much thought to Israel these days, an increasingly questionable premise.

Moreover it’s also a given that without American political support, in Congress and in international forums such as the United Nations, Israeli’s security is weakened, all of which explains why Beinart’s shift struck such a sensitive nerve. If American Jewish support for Israel wanes, will America’n governmental support follow suit?

Doubt the newsworthiness of my analysis? Then read this Times of Israel column by a well-known (liberal, of course) Israeli journalist. 

A quick aside: This post is not meant to weigh the persuasiveness of Beinart’s essays or the competing points of the two-state versus or one-state option. You’re reading GetReligion, where we seek to dissect news media coverage, rather than dwell on the issue behind the coverage.

However since I believe that every writer’s personal bias impacts their analysis, in the interest of full disclosure let me say for the record that I disagree with Beinart. But rather than consume space here with my own verbiage, I’ll allow New York Times columnist Roger Cohen, who I generally agree with on this issue, to speak for me.

Now back to the coverage angle, as it played out in American Jewish and Israeli media.

For every Beinart-bashing opinion piece I came across, and there were many, I came across an equal number of pro-Beinart columns. Here are just two polar-opposite examples.

This one from the far-left, anti-Zionist American website Mondoweiss lauds Beinart’s words as a “cultural breakthrough,” a genuine game-changer in the American Jewish discussion about Israel.

This one — published by the English-language center-right daily The Jerusalem Post, but penned by a writer way to the right of center — dismisses Beinart as someone who “hates” Israel and ignores its enemies’ threats of annihilation. It also claims that Beinart is wont to make “outlandish” statements to maintain his mainstream media “relevance.”

Both, however, agree — if they agree on anything — that Beinart is an honest-to-goodness media celebrity; a brand, a dependable content provider who warrants attention thanks to his ability to articulate strong opinions about Israel.

He is, in short, the sort of renewable energy source that fuels much of today’s news business; a possessor of newsroom star power who stirs the opinions of friends and foes alike. And isn’t that the core of today’s opinion-dominated news biz, not to mention the assumption that propels what we benignly label social media — today’s virulent, head-spinning advance on the yellow journalism of old?

If your interest in Israel opinions is more than just passing, in addition to Beinart you probably also heard that the comedic  actor Seth Rogen has also been in the news of late because of his own critical comments about Israel.

Beinart, at least, has worked to gain his commentator status. He is not ignorant on the subject.

Rogen, on the other hand, has not, and comes across as largely underinformed on the subject. No matter. He is Hollywood famous, which decidedly trumps newsroom fame.

Rogen was a guest on the popular Marc Maron podcast, where he said some critical things about Israel contrary to the milk-and-honey Zionist idealism he was fed growing up Jewish, as did Maron.

So what? Why link the qualified Beinart with the unqualified Rogen?

Because they’re examples of how celebrity and outrage — the twin tent poles of today’s rapier media environment — rule the roost. And why even the top-rung of American Jewish and Israeli publications jumped on the Rogen story, offering up a slew of dueling opinion screeds to a degree similar to their coverage of Beinart’s change of mind. (As of this writing, both the Beinart and Rogen spats continue to generate more copy than ordinary mortals are advised to consume.)

Witness The Forward, until recent years the intellectual cream of weekly American Jewish newspapers, but now an online-only shadow of it former dead wood self. At the end of each week, it suggests a roundup of stories it’s editors think are its most compelling weekend reads.

Last week it tagged four responses to Rogen. All, of course, in the interest of fair and complete coverage of this gossamer media reality.

So it goes, in the Darwinian scramble for eyeballs.