In April 2024, Guardian columnist Naomi Klein said that Zionism is a “project that commits genocide in” the name of the world’s Jews. We argued at the time that this op-ed was one of the most despicable pieces published at the outlet in the 15 years we’ve been monitoring their content.

Last week, they published an essay by Peter Beinart (adapted from his new book) that arguably has the potential to incite even more hatred against Jews than Klein’s screed.

Beinart, a Guardian columnist, is a former “Liberal Zionist” turned anti-Zionist, and now fancies himself one of the few Jewish voices brave enough to speak out about what he claims is the moral corruption at the core of Zionism — which he’s characterized as “supremacism” — and the Jewish community more broadly.

He also largely blamed the Oct. 7th massacre on Israel’s long “denial of Palestinian freedom,” and began describing the IDF’s early response to Hamas’ pogrom, including even the relocation of Palestinian civilians to keep them out of harm’s way, as “monstrous crime” and another potential “Nakba,” before even the ground invasion began.

He focuses his Guardian essay on the “dark side” of Purim, which he likens with Jewish support for the “slaughter in Gaza.”

What’s the “dark side” of Purim to Beinart?

Writing as if he’s the only Jew who’s ever read the Megillah — and then serving the role of a Jewish informer, “revealing” to non-Jews the sinister truth about this seemingly joyous Jewish festival — Beinart chides the Jewish community for “forgetting” that the book of Esther doesn’t end with Haman’s execution after his plan to annihilate the Jews was thwarted.

Since the genocidal edict couldn’t be annulled, Beinart recounts, Jews were allowed to defend themselves by striking, “slaying and destroying” their “enemies with the sword.”

The Jews, he adds, “killed 75,000 people” and then declare the 14th “a day of feasting and merrymaking.”

He then writes that “with the blood of their foes barely dry, the Jews feast and make merry” — before warning, in a sentence that “Purim isn’t only about the danger Gentiles pose to us. It’s also about the danger we pose to them.”  [emphasis added]

The Book of Esther, however, couldn’t be clearer that the Jews’ enemies prepared a genocide, and Jews fought back and killed their enemies, preventing the genocide.

Though this is indeed cause for celebration, antisemites through the ages have distorted and weaponized the text, claiming it shows that Jews are vengeful, bloodthirsty, and even genocidal.

Beinart’s agenda here in using rhetoric redolent of the ancient blood libel, about the “blood-soaked massacre” celebrated during Purim, is clear, as he begins pivoting to Israeli sins, and, eventually, to the Gaza war, moralizing that “today, these blood-soaked verses should unsettle us.”

Why should we be “unsettled”?

Beinart answers that by chiding contemporary Jews for a “false innocence” when discussing Israel. He criticizes Israelis and Jews who (correctly!) point out that “the Palestinian refugee issue originated in the 1948 Arab-Israeli war.” In Beinart’s telling, the attack by five Arab armies of the nascent Jewish State was justifiable — a war launched to protect the Palestinians from the Jews.

Turing to Gaza, he not only blames “establishment Jewish officials” for promoting what he suggests is a lie — or, at least, a huge exaggeration — that Hamas uses Palestinians civilians as human shields, which vastly increases the number of non-combatants killed, but seems to defend the terror group’s use of human shields, writing that this tactic is “typical of insurgent groups.”

Mocking those who would hold the terror group itself responsible for hiding fighters and weapons in homes, mosques, and hospitals, and using a tunnel system below civilian infrastructure, Beinart wonders what precisely Hamas should do, “put on brightly colored uniforms, walk into an open field, and take on a vastly more powerful conventional army?! ”

The answer is painfully obvious to all but the most extreme anti-Zionist ideologues: they shouldn’t have attacked Israel and slaughtered Jews in the first place.

To most Jews, Beinart continues in his complaint, the “human shield” argument is designed “to prove that Israel is always innocent“ — and that the state is never the author of Palestinian suffering. In this, we see the stunning moral obtuseness that informs his discourse on Judaism and Israel.

For anti-Zionist Jews like Beinart, it is Palestinians who are never assigned agency, but, instead, are infantilized, with their deep-seated antisemitic pathos framed as a legitimate grievance.

Whether we’re discussing the Palestinian leadership’s alliance with Hitler, their opposition to the 1947 UN Partition Plan, decades of terrorism, including the Second Intifada, which was launched during the peak of the peace process, or the rejection of several Israeli offers of Palestinian statehood, bad Palestinian decisions are inevitably framed in a way exculpating Palestinians, while imputing an Israeli root cause.

At his core, Beinart refuses to hold Palestinians morally culpable for participating in, supporting, or providing succor to, the death cult whose bloody pogromists murdered, raped, tortured and mutilated Jews with glee — and whose leaders knew full well that the response to their unprovoked attack would bring untold suffering to civilians.

Moreover, no lessons were learned by the pro-Palestinian movement on that dark Shabbat day. Instead of anything resembling self-reflection, most, as Beinart’s reaction in the days and months following the massacre showed, actually doubled down on their beliefs, intensifying their denunciations of Israel.

“Western activists for Palestinians,” Shany Mor wrote, “are dedicated to two nearly theological precepts: that Israel is evil, and that no Palestinian action is ever connected to any Palestinian outcome”. Hamas’s gruesome attack, he concluded, “poses a threat to this worldview, and the only way to resolve it is by heightening Israel’s imagined malevolence. The terrorist atrocities don’t trigger a recoiling from the cause in whose name they were carried out; they lead to an even greater revulsion at the victim.”

Finally, Peter Beinart is not a self-hating Jew.

Rather, he fancies himself a better Jew — in fact, one of the very few genuinely “good Jews.” In his book, Trials of the Diaspora, Anthony Julius calls Jews like Beinart “scourges” — a term which relates to their self-anointed role as prophets, whipping the wayward Jewish people into line. By indicting most Jews, and the Jewish State, he puts himself on the “right” side of the moral divide, proclaiming his own superiority to the ruck of his sinful fellow Jews.

What Beinart now peddles, Haviv Rettig Gur observed, “is an ideologically updated version of the same claim of deep-seated and defining criminality in the Jews” as Theobald of Cambridge, a Jewish convert to Christianity who leveled the first known accusation that Jews ritually murder Christian children. Beinart, a convert to anti-Zionism, confirms “to our tormentors that [Jews’] criminality is the distillation and apotheosis of the great evils of our age”.

The fact The Guardian employed Peter Beinart’s services as a Jewish informer, a modern-day Theobold, should surprise nobody.

Adam Levick serves as co-editor of CAMERA UK – an affiliate of the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting and Analysis (CAMERA), where a different version of this article appeared.

The post Peter Beinart Thinks He Is a ‘Good Jew’ — The Truth Is Anything But first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

If the unstoppable rise of social media defined the 2000s and 2010s, then the 2020s belong to the podcast. Audio talk formats have existed since the advent of radio, but for years, they struggled to hold younger audiences’ attention, eclipsed by television, streaming platforms, and social media.

But talking is back. And this time, the listeners aren’t just middle-aged commuters or retirees pottering around the garden. Today, young people are tuning in en masse, eager to hear podcast hosts discuss everything from politics to pop culture and self-improvement.

Social media’s meteoric rise inevitably led to intense scrutiny. In its early days — a digital Wild West — platforms like Facebook and Twitter (now X) hosted everything from hardcore pornography to snuff videos. But as these companies grew, so did their moderation efforts. Today, giants like Meta and TikTok employ large teams to monitor and remove illegal or inciteful content. Case in point: HonestReporting’s successful campaign to get pro-Hamas influencer Jackson Hinkle de-platformed from Meta.

Yet, despite these efforts, antisemitic hate speech remains rampant on social media, particularly since Meta followed X’s lead under Elon Musk in loosening content moderation policies. The result? A documented surge in violent rhetoric and conspiracy theories targeting Jews.

Still, social media platforms at least pretend to enforce some level of oversight. In January, Meta once again mimicked X by introducing its own Community Notes feature, allowing approved users to add context to misleading posts. It’s far from perfect, but at least it’s something.

Podcasting, on the other hand, operates with virtually no scrutiny. Part of this is due to its relatively recent rise in popularity. But there’s also a lingering — and patently inaccurate — perception that podcasts, like traditional broadcast media, adhere to some level of fact-checking and editorial standards.

Podcast platforms today are closer to a free-for-all, where anything goes so long as it attracts enough listeners to be profitable. And young people are listening — a lot. According to Pew Research, nearly half (48%) of Americans aged 18 to 29 tune in to podcasts multiple times a week. More importantly, they don’t just passively consume content — they actively engage with it.

Listeners under 50 are far more likely to follow podcast hosts on social media, adopt new habits based on what they hear, and participate in online discussions about their favorite shows. Around 40% of listeners aged 18 to 49 say they’ve made lifestyle changes because of something they heard on a podcast.

For younger audiences, podcasts aren’t just background noise. They shape conversations, influence personal choices, and, as growing evidence indicates, are increasingly pulling listeners toward more extreme ideologies.

Spotify’s Cash Cow: Joe Rogan

With over 14 million listeners and the title of Spotify’s top podcaster in 2024, Joe Rogan is the undisputed king of the podcasting world. His guest list includes everyone from Donald Trump to Mark Zuckerberg, Bernie Sanders, and Edward Snowden — proof of both his influence and his ability to play host to just about anyone.

Controversy has always been Rogan’s currency. His media empire thrives on the outrage his show generates, and at this point, what once shocked no longer has the same impact. That may, at least in part, explain his latest choice of guest: Ian Carroll, a self-proclaimed journalist who has spent years trafficking in virulent antisemitic conspiracy theories.

Carroll checks all the usual modern-day antisemite boxes: blaming 9/11 on Israel, ranting about a “Zionist mafia” controlling the US, and recycling every tired trope about Jewish financial and political influence. Over the course of his nearly three-hour appearance on The Joe Rogan Experience, he delivered an unfiltered torrent of conspiracy theories, offering little more than a jumble of well-worn antisemitic rhetoric.

Israel, he claimed, was founded by “organized crime figures in America” with ties to “the Jewish mob” and “the Rothschild banking family.” Jeffrey Epstein, he added in a particularly incoherent segment, “was clearly a Jewish organization working on behalf of Israel and other groups.”

And Rogan? He nodded along, offering words of encouragement, even musing at one point, “What’s interesting is you can talk about this now, post-Oct. 7, post-Gaza.”

It was a telling remark. The host who built his brand on “just asking questions” had stopped questioning entirely — and instead, provided a platform for undisguised Nazi propaganda.

Selling Holocaust Denial: Tucker Carlson & Candace Owens

Not only did Carlson give Cooper an unchallenged platform to spread these lies to an audience of millions, but he also lavished him with praise, calling him “the most important popular historian in the United States.”

Carlson’s interview with Cooper appeared to be an attempt to disguise his guest’s modern-day Nazi views with a veneer of intellectual credibility. It was only a slightly more sophisticated repackaging of antisemitism than that offered by Candace Owens — one of the most influential podcasters in the world, with nearly 4 million subscribers — who has used her platform to defend Adolf Hitler, accuse Israel of enforcing apartheid against Muslims, and push the ever-reliable conspiracy that Hollywood is secretly controlled by Jewish elites.

Owens, perhaps, lacks the intellectual prowess to attempt subtlety. When Kanye West praised Hitler, Owens brushed it off as merely his opinion while mocking Jews who criticized him as overly “emotional” and insisting they “can’t take a joke.” When confronted, her response followed the predictable script of the intellectually dishonest — first doubling down, then claiming victimhood, and, when that failed, falling back on the old “I was just asking questions” line.

With figures like Carlson and Owens normalizing and laundering these ideas, Holocaust denial and antisemitic conspiracies are no longer confined to the fringes — they’re being streamed to millions, dressed up as “alternative perspectives” in the name of free speech.

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by HonestReporting (@honestreporting)

Mainstreaming the “Manosphere”: Myron Gaines

The online ecosystem known as the manosphere was once the niche domain of pick-up artists, incels, and self-styled “alpha males.” But thanks to figures like Nick Fuentes and Myron Gaines, it has metastasized into a mainstream movement — one built on a foundation of misogyny, racism, and antisemitism.

Gaines, a former Homeland Security agent turned dating guru (real name: Amrou Fudl), co-hosts the Fresh & Fit podcast, a show that masquerades as a men’s self-improvement program but in reality serves as a breeding ground for conspiracy theories and open admiration for fascism.

Fresh & Fit has repeatedly hosted Holocaust deniers, white nationalists, and far-right propagandists, including Nick Fuentes — who has used his multiple appearances to justify Nazi book burnings and deny the Holocaust. Gaines himself has bragged, “We’re the biggest platform that’s talking about the JQ. No one else will do it” — a reference to the so-called “Jewish Question,” the same phrase the Nazis used to justify genocide.

Podcaster Myron Gaines with alleged sex trafficker Andrew Tate.

In another episode, Gaines defended Hitler, declaring, “Though he did things that were morally incorrect, he definitely did a bunch of things correct for his country. That’s a fact.” One of the show’s longest-running gags — if you can call it that — is playing a cash register sound effect whenever discussing Jewish people.

Despite this, Fresh & Fit remains wildly popular, drawing millions of views on Rumble and other platforms.

A Wall of Silence From Podcast Platforms

At the heart of all this are the podcast streaming platforms themselves: Spotify, Apple Podcasts, YouTube, and Rumble — giants that make a healthy profit off the hate spewed by their most popular stars.

YouTube, to its credit, has been marginally more proactive, demonetizing Gaines’s Fresh & Fit podcast and banning Nick Fuentes entirely. But these measures are ultimately futile. Without a unified approach across all major platforms, these creators can simply migrate elsewhere, continuing to rake in millions of views and sponsorship dollars.

And even outright bans mean little when controversial figures can just appear as guests on someone else’s show. Case in point: Candace Owens’ most popular YouTube video isn’t even her own — it’s an interview with alleged sex trafficker and influencer Andrew Tate. That single episode has racked up nearly 7 million views, more than twice as many as her channel’s entire subscriber base.

Podcasting’s near-total lack of oversight is no longer just a fringe problem — it’s a mainstream industry failure. Given the enormous reach of these platforms, the question isn’t whether they should be scrutinized, but why they haven’t been already.

And if the platforms won’t take responsibility, perhaps their advertisers should. Does Coca-Cola want its brand associated with Holocaust denial? Should Nike, Pepsi, and Amazon be comfortable sponsoring content that jokes about Jews being murdered? Are they certain their ads aren’t playing next to a discussion about how “Hitler was right”?

It’s easy to dismiss podcasting as mere shock talk. But talk influences action. And right now, podcast platforms — and the brands funding them — are profiting from hate. The only question is: how long can they pretend not to notice?

The author is a contributor to HonestReporting, a Jerusalem-based media watchdog with a focus on antisemitism and anti-Israel bias — where a version of this article first appeared.

The post How Podcasts, Joe Rogan & Tucker Carlson Stream Holocaust Denial, the ‘Jewish Question’ & 9/11 Conspiracies to Millions first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Right now, Hamas’ primary goal is to secure a ceasefire in order to survive the war, rebuild its terror army, and cement its political control of the Gaza Strip.

To accomplish this, Hamas has signaled its willingness to create a governance model in Gaza similar to Hezbollah’s pre-war control of Lebanon: an internationally recognized government providing a façade of authority, while Hamas retains full military-terrorist control on the ground and de facto political power.

This would allow the jihadist organization to regroup, rearm, and ultimately restart its war against Israel at a time of its choosing, with the added ability to claim to Palestinians that it was able to launch the worst mass murder of Jews since the Holocaust and live to walk away.

All proposals that have been floated in the region — that of Egypt, which suggests that the Palestinian Authority take political control through a government of technocrats; as well as ideas floated, including in Israel, of a Gaza ruled by a regional coalition — would result in this dangerous Lebanon-like situation. This is because Israel has not yet completed its military campaign against Hamas.

On March 4, during a summit in Cairo held to present an Arab alternative to President Trump’s plan for Gaza, Egyptian President Fateh El-Sisi stated, “Egypt objects to the eviction of Palestinians and supports their right to remain in their land. We will not take part in these plans. Egypt supports a continuation of the ceasefire and the setting up of an independent Palestinian state. Egypt supports setting up an administrative committee based on independent technocrats who will manage the Strip temporarily and supervise the aid — until the return of the Palestinian Authority.”

According to a Reuters report on March 3, Egypt has drawn up a roadmap for Gaza that proposes “an interim rule by a coalition of Arab, Muslim and Western states.” The plan does not provide details on how Hamas would be sidelined, who would pay for Gaza’s reconstruction, or how governance would be structured.

Most notably, Hamas has, according to multiple reports, already claimed that it accepts such arrangements. This is a clear indication that the terror group sees it as a means to maintain its grip on power.

On February 17, Arab media reports said that Hamas had allegedly agreed to transfer control of Gaza to the Palestinian Authority. Sky News Arabia reported that Hamas made this decision under Egyptian pressure, in the context of negotiations over a ceasefire and hostage deal with Israel. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s spokesman Omer Dostri rejected the notion outright, writing on X: “Not going to happen.”

Similarly, Anadolu Agency reported on December 5, 2024, that Hamas had “accepted an Egyptian proposal to form a joint Palestinian committee to run the Gaza Strip after the ongoing Israeli war.” Hamas stated that it had held talks with Fatah, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), and other Palestinian terror factions to discuss “implementing previously agreed frameworks to achieve Palestinian unity.”

Despite these vague formulations, the underlying reality is that Hamas has no intention of relinquishing its control over Gaza, and would obviously waste no time in exploiting fig leaf administrations in Gaza to reassert control and entrench itself militarily once again.

The Hezbollah model: A trap Israel cannot afford

The model for Gaza that Hamas appears willing to adopt is directly inspired by Hezbollah’s former status in Lebanon, where the terrorist group maintained absolute military control despite the existence of a nominally sovereign Lebanese government.

Before the current war, Hezbollah dictated Lebanon’s security policy, enjoyed de facto veto power over Lebanese governmental decisions, operated a shadow state for its Shiite Lebanese base, and was the strongest military force in the country by a wide margin, dwarfing the Lebanese Armed Forces, which it infiltrated via its Shiite officers and soldiers.

Despite the existence of a Lebanese government, Hezbollah operated its own military command structure and stockpiled monstrous quantities of weapons with the backing of Iran — all while the Lebanese government served as a powerless front for international legitimacy.

This arrangement ultimately collapsed when Hezbollah’s presence in Lebanon was smashed by Israel in a war that crippled its infrastructure and territorial control. Today, the Lebanese government is showing the first signs of actual sovereignty, confiscating terror-financing money flowing in through Beirut’s airport and banning suspicious Iranian flights. It still has a very long way to go.

Hamas would likely seek to replicate Hezbollah’s former setup in Gaza. If successful, this would allow it to rebuild its military capabilities while keeping Israel diplomatically constrained from taking decisive action.

Any attempt by Israel to neutralize Hamas in such a scenario would be met with international outcry over violating the sovereignty of the “recognized governing authority” of Gaza — even if that authority had no real power. Any international peacekeeping force would suffer the same fate as UNIFIL in Lebanon, and be reduced to a toothless observer that is used by terrorists as human shields in exchanges of fire with Israel.

The consequences of such an outcome would be disastrous. Hamas would use the time bought by a ceasefire to rearm with weapons from Iran, smuggle in military technology, and likely begin rebuilding its tunnel and rocket system. Under the cover of an internationally approved governing body, Hamas could enhance its military capabilities with impunity. This is precisely what Hezbollah did in Lebanon: amassing a vast arsenal while using the Lebanese government as a shield against Israeli action.

As a result, the only viable path forward is for Israel to, sooner or later, return to combat in Gaza, hold territory this time, and gain full military and political control over the Strip for several months at a minimum.

This is necessary to ensure:

1. The total destruction of Hamas’ military and political regime — Without completely dismantling Hamas’ command structure, leadership, and armed forces, any governing arrangement will be meaningless. As long as Hamas retains its weapons and operational capability, it will be the de facto ruler of Gaza, and Gazans will never cooperate with any post-Hamas vision.
2. A long-term Israeli security presence with full operational freedom — Any future governance arrangement must allow Israel to conduct counterterrorism operations inside Gaza anywhere, at any time, without restriction. This means full security oversight, with the IDF maintaining the ability to both strike Hamas remnants from the ground, air, and sea, and prevent the group’s rearmament. Gaza must become a version of Area A in Judea and Samaria, where the IDF operates nightly to prevent Iran and Hamas from building a terror army that would threaten central Israel.

Only after these conditions are met can a moderate autonomy — backed by Gulf states and the United States — be considered as a possible governance structure for Gaza. Even then, Israel must retain full security freedom of operation to prevent any resurgence of terrorism.

Yaakov Lappin is an Israel-based military affairs correspondent and analyst. He provides insight and analysis for a number of media outlets, including Jane’s Defense Weekly and JNS.org. A version of this article was originally published by The BESA Center.

The post Hamas Must Be Fully Defeated, or Gaza Will Become a Terror-State Like Lebanon first appeared on Algemeiner.com.