RSS
Peter Beinart Bends Truth in New York Times Essay Accusing American Jews of Idolatry
Peter Beinart, a prominent anti-Israel writer, being interviewed in January 2025. Photo: Screenshot
Israel has no right to exist, New York Times “contributing opinion writer” Peter Beinart writes in a new opinion article accusing “mainstream American Jewish life” of being idolatrous.
The article appears under a general-purpose headline: “States Don’t Have a Right to Exist. People Do.” Yet after a bit of throat-clearing and hypothetical speculation about Scotland, Britain, Iran, and China, Beinart gets down to making his case for eliminating Israel, or, as he delicately puts it, “rethinking the character of the state” by replacing Israel with something else.
The one country that Beinart is really determined to rethink just happens to be the only one with a Jewish majority. The URL or web address that the Times team gives the article also exposes the game, “https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/27/opinion/israel-state-jewish.html.”
This isn’t some sort of abstract political theory philosophy project — it’s an effort by Beinart, platformed by the New York Times, to wipe the Jewish state off the map. At this point, it’s predictable and tired. Beinart had already announced in the New York Times back in 2020, “I no longer believe in a Jewish state,” part of what earned him the status of the New York Times‘ most favorite Jew.
So what, if anything, is new in this latest Beinart screed? Beinart has a new book to publicize, Being Jewish After the Destruction of Gaza: A Reckoning. It is issued by publisher Knopf, whose parent company, Bertelsmann AG, collaborated with the Nazis during World War II and subsequently covered it up.
As is often the case with hatred of Israel, Beinart’s article is marred by factual errors. He claims that “roughly half the people under Israeli control are Palestinian.” That’s simply false; Israel’s population is about 9.8 million, of which about 7.2 million, or 73 percent, are Jewish, according to Israel’s central bureau of statistics. Beinart’s math depends on defining people in Palestinian Authority-controlled Ramallah and Jenin, or in Hamas-controlled Gaza, as being “under Israeli control,” which is not accurate.
Beinart also falsely claims, “Even the minority of Palestinians under Israeli control who hold Israeli citizenship — sometimes called ‘Israeli Arabs’ — lack legal equality.” Just because a group suffers from discrimination or has lower achievement doesn’t mean it lacks legal equality. Israel’s Declaration of Independence states, “It will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race, or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education, and culture.” Israel’s Supreme Court has enforced that promise of equality. Israeli Arabs have the right to vote and serve in the Parliament. An Israeli Arab politician, Mansour Abbas, even recently served as a minister in an Israeli government.
Beinart also complains that “this form of idolatry — worship of the state — seems to suffuse mainstream American Jewish life.” That’s not true. Yes, most mainstream American Jews — unlike Beinart and, apparently, his New York Times editors — care deeply about Israel and oppose the enemies that hope to eradicate it. Yet the comparison to idolatry is inaccurate. It’s also inconsistent with Beinart’s previous claims. Already in his 2012 book The Crisis of Zionism, or even before that in his 2010 article “The Failure of the American Jewish Establishment” Beinart was predicting that American Jews would abandon Israel as it became, he claimed, more illiberal and right wing and undemocratic. Now, more than a decade later, he’s accusing American Jews not of abandoning Israel but of worshiping it. At least with his reference to “mainstream Jewish life” Beinart is defining himself clearly outside that. Given that, one wonders why the New York Times has chosen to rely so heavily for analysis of American Jewry and Israel on such an extremist, fringe figure.
I offered a couple of theories last year, including that “some portion of the Times online readership — alienated graduate students and other young, college educated liberals, along with increasing numbers of non-Americans — are looking for someone to give them a pass to hate Israel, basically to excuse their antisemitism. Beinart serves that function.”
In that regard, a Times colleague of Beinart’s offers some useful analysis. In a 2012 review for Tablet of a Beinart book, Bret Stephens, then still at the Wall Street Journal, paraphrased Leon Wieseltier’s observation “that characterizing antisemitic acts as a response to something Jews did doesn’t explain antisemitism. It reproduces it.”
From Beinart’s latest New York Times piece: “When you deny people basic rights, you subject them to tremendous violence. And, sooner or later, that violence endangers everyone. In 1956, a 3-year-old named Ziyad al-Nakhalah saw Israeli soldiers murder his father in the Gazan city of Khan Younis. Almost 70 years later, he heads Hamas’s smaller but equally militant rival, Islamic Jihad … The failure to protect the lives of Palestinians in Gaza ultimately endangers Jews. In this war, Israel has already killed more than one hundred times as many Palestinians in Gaza as it did in the massacre that took the life of Mr. al-Nakhalah’s father. How many 3-year-olds will still be seeking revenge seven decades from now?”
It’s amazing that Beinart blames “Israeli soldiers” for the “murder” of Ziyad al-Nakhalah’s father in 1956 in Khan Younis. In 1956, Egypt, led by Gamal Abdel Nasser, controlled Gaza. A Jerusalem Post article describes it more accurately: “Nakhalah’s father, Rushdi, was killed during the joint Israeli-British-French attack on Egypt in response to the nationalization of the Suez Canal by Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser in 1956. The Gaza Strip back then was under Egyptian control.”
The New York Times itself provides useful historical context: A dispatch from Gaza on Nov. 2, 1956 reported that “at the roadside weary Israeli soldiers sat beside their weapons waiting for vehicles to remove them to points in the Gaza Strip where diehard commandos were offering resistance … Talking through interpreters to correspondents, residents of the Strip in the outskirts of Gaza said life as stateless displaced persons under the Egyptian government in the last eight years had not been happy. Although they had been allowed to vote in Egyptian elections this year, they said they had had none of the rights that had been given Egyptians on the other side of the Suez Canal zone.”
Another Times dispatch from Gaza, on Nov. 6, 1956, reported, “Israeli army units were cleaning out the last pockets of fedayeen (commando) squads … All along the road were wrecked and burned out Egyptian military vehicles and mobile weapons … Israeli troops expressed surprise at the joyous welcome they had received from Palestinian Arabs who had spent eight years under Egyptian control. There was no fear shown by the people, who seemed thankful that the Israelis had taken over the territory.”
Ira Stoll was managing editor of The Forward and North American editor of The Jerusalem Post. His media critique, a regular Algemeiner feature, can be found here.
The post Peter Beinart Bends Truth in New York Times Essay Accusing American Jews of Idolatry first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
George Washington University Apologizes After Graduation Speaker Attacks Israel
Pro-Hamas George Washington University graduates walk out during President Ellen Granberg’s commencement address on the National Mall in Washington, D.C., on May 18, 2025. Photo: Probal Rashid via Reuters Connect.
George Washington University (GW) has apologized to its campus community over an incident in which a student delivering a graduation speech attacked Israel.
During the speech, a student accused Israel of targeting Palestinians “simply for [their] remaining in the country of their ancestors” and said that GW students are passive contributors to the “imperialist system.”
The student, an economics and statistics major, deceived administrators who selected her to address the Columbian College of the Arts and Sciences ceremony, the university said in a statement issued after the remark circulated on social media.
“The student speaker chose to stray from their prepared remarks, which were materially different when previously reviewed by school leadership,” the university said in a statement. “We are also aware that some students unfurled signs brought under their graduation gowns, despite clear guidance to the contrary. The students’ remarks and signs do not reflect the views of the university.”
It continued, “We apologize to the graduates and families in attendance that their time of special celebration was disrupted. We are investigating this matter immediately, including whether event protocols were followed property and whether the students’ actions violated the Code of Conduct.”
“I am ashamed to know my tuition is being used to fund genocide,” the student said during the speech. “Every year, the cost of attending this university increases without a corresponding improvement in the facilities and resources provided to students, staff, and faculty. Instead, our money is put into the pockets of those who unequivocally prove time and time again they do not care about the students and faculty that [sic] create this university’s prestigious university [sic].”
During the remarks, the master of ceremonies, gender and sexuality professor Dr. Kavita Daiya, appeared elated and thanked the student, Cecilia Culver, for “sharing your words and your views.”
GW student Sabrina Soffer, who also walked with her peers on Saturday to celebrate the completion of undergraduate study, told The Algemeiner on Monday that the graduation speaker should be sanctioned by the university for spreading antisemitic viewpoints that were once relegated to the darkest corners of the internet but have since become respectable in higher education.
“She spoke the rhetoric of a true antisemite, warranting the withholding of her degree as happened at [New York University], which unambiguously refused to confer a degree to a student who pulled a similar stunt,” Soffer said during an interview. “She should be forced to make a public apology as a condition of receiver her diploma.”
Soffer, who has spent the last four years leading the pro-Israel movement on GW’s campus, added that she believes the commencement incident is emblematic of a larger issue on campus.
“I’ve personally been trying to help the university address its antisemitism problem since I became a student here, and I’ve received much lip service and kind words that never translated into action. This was an example of that — a complete lack of accountability effectiveness in the enactment of policy.”
End Jew Hatred (EJH), a Jewish civil rights group based in New York City, added: “Culver’s speech devalues the diploma she and her classmates earned, giving the public reason to question whether George Washington’s degrees are worth the paper they are printed on, in light of its abject failure to teach basic facts and correct such blatantly false statements. It’s not just Culver, it’s the people who applauded her performance instead of condemning it. George Washington’s failure to educate, let alone enforce its policies, is enough to give both employers and prospective students pause.”
The conclusion of the 2024-2025 academic year has seen other attempts to place anti-Zionism at the center of the public’s attention.
On Wednesday, a New York University senior delivered a commencement speech teeming with antisemitic tropes after lying to the administration about its content, prompting it to withhold his degree and issue an apology.
“NYU strongly denounces the choice by a student at the Gallatin School’s graduation today — one of over 20 school graduation ceremonies across our campus — to misuse his role as student speaker to express his personal and one-sided political views,” university spokesman John Beckman said in a statement. “He lied about the speech he was going to deliver and violated the commitment he made to comply with our rules. The university is withholding his diploma while we pursue disciplinary actions.”
He continued, “NYU is deeply sorry that the audience was subjected to these remarks and this moment was stolen by someone who abused a privilege that was conferred upon him.”
A group of pro-Hamas students at Yale University recently vowed to starve themselves inside an administrative building until such time as officials agree to their demands that the university’s endowment be divested of any ties to Israel as well as companies that do business with it. However, Yale officials are refusing to meet with the students, who have been told that their demonstration is “in violation of university policy.”
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.
The post George Washington University Apologizes After Graduation Speaker Attacks Israel first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
‘Total B.S.’: US Lawmaker Brian Mast Rips Rumors of Trump-Netanyahu ‘Rift’
US President Donald Trump meets with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the Oval Office at the White House in Washington, US, April 7, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Kevin Mohatt
US Rep. Brian Mast (R-FL) asserted Monday that there was “no rift” between US President Donald Trump and Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
“Total BS,” Mast said, “There’s no rift. We’re having serious conversations to bring the world to a different place than where it’s been before.”
Mast continued, arguing that the current negotiations to include Syria—a country which Israel has long had negative relations with—in the Abraham accords exemplifies the Trump administration’s commitment to protecting Israel.
Former President Donald Trump has reportedly grown increasingly frustrated with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over the ongoing war in Gaza, adding tension to a once-close relationship. Reports say Trump has privately criticized Netanyahu’s handling of the conflict, expressing concern that the prolonged military campaign is damaging Israel’s global image and endangering the lives of the remaining hostages. .Trump, who has long prided himself on his strong support for Israel, is said to view the war as an unnecessary political liability, and has been privately urginging Netanyahu to cut a ceasefire and hostage deal with the Hamas terrorist group in Gaza.
Rumors of faltering relations between Israel and the US intensified after the White House declined to visit the Jewish state during Trump’s recent trip to the Middle East. Furthernore,, the Trump administration brokered an agreement with the Houthi terrorist group, bypassing Israel entirely. The move, aimed at de-escalating regional tensions and protecting Red Sea shipping lanes, has raised eyebrows among U.S. allies, with some viewing it as a sign of Trump’s growing impatience with Israeli leadership amid the ongoing war in Gaza.
Mast also dismissed notions that Israel has experienced a significant amount of support among conservatives, gesturing to the successful passage of an International Criminal Court (ICC) sanctions bill through the House of Representatives, touting “unanimous” support among Republicans. The bill ultimately failed on the Senate floor due to a lack of support from Democratic lawmakers.
Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL), one of the most strident supporters of Israel in Congress, also praised Trump’s support of Israel while in office.
“I don’t know if there’s a more pro-Israel president ever,” Scott said.
However, Scott expressed frustration over the president’s seeming embrace of Qatar—a Gulf state with an extensive history of supporting Jihadist terrorism.
“I think it’s despicable that they host Hamas leaders,” Scott said of Qatar.
The Congressman said that he believes Middle Eastern countries will eventually normalize relations with Israel, arguing that the benefits of enhanced economic ties with the United States will outweigh historical grievances.
“I think [Middle Eastern countries] are going to trade with us, and they’re going to be partners with Israel,” Scott said.
However, Scott cautioned supporters of Israel that growing isolationist sentiments within the Republican Party could weaken the bond between the US and the Jewish state. Scott urged Israel advocates to be much more clear with how the America-Israel relationship benefits America.
“Clearly we have to support Israel,” but it is “incumbent upon all of us” to be “clear about what we are doing. If you want to support Israel, be very vocal about why and how it benefits America.”
The post ‘Total B.S.’: US Lawmaker Brian Mast Rips Rumors of Trump-Netanyahu ‘Rift’ first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
US Rejects Uranium Enrichment in Iran Deal as Tehran Vows to Continue Nuclear Activities
USA and Iranian flags are seen in this illustration taken, Sept. 8, 2022. Photo: REUTERS/Dado Ruvic/Illustration
The United States insists it will not accept any deal with Tehran that allows uranium enrichment, while Iran asserts it will continue its enrichment activities under the country’s civilian nuclear program, with or without an agreement with Washington.
On Sunday, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi stated that Iran’s rights under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) are “crystal clear,” adding that “there is no scenario in which Iranians will allow any deviation from that.”
“Mastering enrichment technology is a hard-earned and homegrown scientific achievement; an outcome of great sacrifice of both blood and treasure,” the Iranian top diplomat said in a post on X, as nuclear negotiations between the two countries continue.
“If the US is interested in ensuring that Iran will not have nuclear weapons, a deal is within reach, and we are ready for a serious conversation to achieve a solution that will forever ensure that outcome. Enrichment in Iran, however, will continue with or without a deal,” Araghchi continued.
In addressing the talks regarding Iran’s peaceful nuclear program, our U.S. interlocutors are naturally free to publicly state whatever they deem fit to ward off Special Interest groups; malign actors which set the agendas of at least previous Administrations.
Iran can only…
— Seyed Abbas Araghchi (@araghchi) May 18, 2025
His comments came after US Special Envoy to the Middle East, Steve Witkoff, affirmed that Washington will not accept uranium enrichment under any agreement with the Islamic regime.
“We have one very, very clear red line, and that is enrichment. We cannot allow even 1% of an enrichment capability,” Witkoff said in an interview with ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday.
He emphasized that, from US President Donald Trump’s perspective, this condition is essential for any deal with Iran, warning that “enrichment enables weaponization.”
Araghchi dismissed Witkoff’s latest remarks, accusing Washington of contradictory actions amid their ongoing nuclear negotiations.
“Iran can only control what we Iranians do, and that is to avoid negotiating in public — particularly given the current dissonance we are seeing between what our US interlocutors say in public and in private, and from one week to the other,” the Iranian top diplomat said.
After concluding their fourth round of nuclear talks in Oman last weekend, US and Iranian officials will resume negotiations this week in Europe.
On Monday, Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson, Esmaeil Baghaei, described negotiations with the White House as “difficult,” accusing Washington of not adhering to any “conventional diplomatic norms.”
“Imposing sanctions while claiming to pursue a diplomatic path with the Islamic Republic of Iran is itself evidence of their lack of seriousness and goodwill,” the Iranian diplomat said in a statement.
“This reality proves that American policymakers maintain a hostile attitude toward the Iranian people, and their claims of commitment to dialogue and diplomacy should not be taken seriously,” Baghaei continued.
As part of the Trump administration’s “maximum pressure” campaign against Iran — which aims to cut the country’s crude exports to zero and prevent it from obtaining a nuclear weapon — Washington has been targeting Tehran’s oil industry with mounting sanctions.
In April, Tehran and Washington held their first official nuclear negotiation since the US withdrew from a now-defunct 2015 nuclear deal that had imposed temporary limits on Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for sanction relief.
On Sunday, US Ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, said that even if Iran agrees to a nuclear deal, it cannot be trusted to uphold it, claiming the regime hasn’t kept its word on anything since coming to power more than four decades ago.
Despite Iran’s claims that its nuclear program is solely for civilian purposes rather than weapons development, Western states have said there is no “credible civilian justification” for the country’s recent nuclear activity, arguing it “gives Iran the capability to rapidly produce sufficient fissile material for multiple nuclear weapons.”
The post US Rejects Uranium Enrichment in Iran Deal as Tehran Vows to Continue Nuclear Activities first appeared on Algemeiner.com.