Progressive Jews as the New Apostles

A friend recently attended a Shabbat dinner in New York City and came away shaken by the politics. Somewhere between the challah and the halva, she realized that nearly everyone at the table planned to vote for Zohran Mamdani for mayor. The same Democratic Socialist Mamdani who whitewashes slogans like “Globalize the Intifada,” who supports defunding the police, who has floated ideas about taxing “white neighborhoods” and redistributing wealth based on racial and ideological lines.

She was dumbfounded. How could fellow Jews support someone so openly hostile to the Jewish state, so enamored with radical ideologies, and so completely without experience?

Poll showing a majority of non-Orthodox and younger Jews supporting Zohran Mamdani

I pointed her to the recent conversation between Peter Beinart and Jon Stewart on The Daily Show. Two progressive Jews—one secular (Stewart), the other traditional (Beinart)—discussed Beinart’s new book Being Jewish After the Destruction of Gaza: A Reckoning. The 18-minute segment is deeply revealing. The entire interview should be watched here, but allow me to share some essential lessons—before and after viewing—that help explain why so many Jews, especially young urban progressives, are drawn to voices like Mamdani and Beinart.


Lesson 1: Empathy Above All

To understand the progressive worldview, you must begin with its North Star: empathy.

Numerous studies (one in Israel, from Pew Research and the Cato Institute) have shown that liberal parents prioritize teaching their children empathy far more than rules or tradition. In contrast, conservative parents emphasize justice, law, and the preservation of custom (hence more prevalent among Orthodox and older Jews.)

This foundational difference creates radically divergent outlooks on society. A progressive might prefer to risk letting many guilty people roam free than to wrongly incarcerate one innocent person. A conservative accepts that, tragically, some mistakes happen but that a functioning justice system must deliver accountability and deterrence.

That lens helps understand how different people see the Hamas War from Gaza. The progressive Jewish instinct is not to ask how such barbarism could happen on October 7, but to imagine what life must feel like under Israeli rule, or how starvation affects a child in Khan Younis.

So when Hamas raped and tortured Israelis, when they slaughtered entire families and burned babies alive, Stewart and Beinart give it a passing nod… then quickly pivot to the suffering of Palestinians in Gaza, who—in their view—are the true victims, regardless of what many of them supported or elected.

Lesson 2: Virtue Signaling as Moral Currency

Empathy doesn’t just sit as a value; it becomes a performance.

Among progressive Jews, virtue signaling is a sort of social currency. The more you publicly condemn your “privilege,” the more you highlight your efforts to engage the suffering, and the more elevated you become to your audience.

Beinart models this in the interview. He talks about how well his family is doing, how comfortable his life is in New York, and then contrasts that by expressing concern for Gazans. The clear message: Look how aware I am of my privilege, and how much I care about the “Other.” He is not just the model of progressive Jewry, but a self-anointed saint of Tikkun Olam, “repairing the world.”

But this empathy becomes hollow when it’s divorced from context. Where is his concern for the Israeli mothers whose sons are still buried beneath Gaza? Where is the recognition that Gazans elected Hamas and would do so again today? Where is the acknowledgment that Israel lives under constant threat from genocidal neighbors, that Israeli civilians are routinely targeted, and that Hamas has vowed to repeat October 7 “again and again”?

This isn’t empathy—it’s performative pity, practiced in the safety of a Manhattan studio. And it is toxic.

Peter Beinart and Jon Stewart on The Daily Show

The Problem of Projection

Beinart and Stewart approach Israel through the lens of American liberalism. They treat it as if it should behave like the U.S.—a country of immigrants with separation of church and state, with no ethnic identity at its core. A massive country with only two neighbors, each of which is no threat.

But Israel was not created to be an echo of America. It is the reestablished homeland of the Jewish people, in a region dominated by theocratic regimes. It’s not just a democracy—it’s an ethnic democracy, forged out of centuries of persecution and built in response to repeated extermination campaigns. It is a small country surrounded by hostile neighbors with ever-present security threats.

Israel cannot survive if it mimics U.S. norms. It has different rules because IT IS DIFFERENT and faces existential threats the U.S. does not. Yet Beinart and Stewart project their own experiences as comfortable, wealthy New York Jews onto a situation they cannot fully grasp—and then fault Israelis for not aligning with their fantasy of liberalism. It is an impossible liberal standard in the Middle East, and they fault the Jewish State for coming up short.


Progressive Jews Are Winning the Narrative—But At What Cost?

Beinart wants to be the prophet of the next generation of Jews—disillusioned, skeptical of Israel, obsessed with universal empathy. He’s the aspiring Grand Rebbe of Tikkun Olam. Stewart plays the court jester to the progressive tribe on his popular show, delivering cathartic lines that avoid hard truths.

Together, they are shaping a Jewish worldview in which Israel is an embarrassment to be shunned, and October 7 is a short footnote to be ignored. The primary directive is to lead with empathy, which is always directed away from oneself, and towards those perceived as underdogs. Whether those weaker individuals intend to do harm can ideally be rationalized. Better still, the AsAJew credentials provide a get-out-of-jail free card, absolving the sin and sinner by the highest authorities. If Hamas cannot or will not change, then Jewish victims must forgive the wicked party, grant their wishes, and risk their lives again as the pathway towards peace and coexistence. They are modern-day Jesuses delivering the sermon on the Mount – via cable TV.

That’s why voting for someone like Mamdani doesn’t feel like a betrayal—it feels like moral progress ensconced in a Jewish-like religion. Accept abuse as the toxic cleanse of particularism and embrace the abuser in the spiritual bath of universalism.

In the name of empathy, they abandon solidarity. In the name of justice, they ignore murder. In the name of virtue, they vote for those who vilify their own.

That’s not progressive. That’s perverse.


Final Thoughts

People should have empathy for children suffering. Every child is inherently innocent, born and raised as a product of their environment. But understand that for twenty-five years – a generation – two-thirds of Gazans have wanted to see Jewish civilians in Israel murdered. Gaza’s children have been victims for a long time, of a perverse society.

“Being Jewish after Gaza,” for progressives is a swamp of guilt, seeing Gaza as a killing field by right-wing Israeli Islamophobes. For conservatives, “after Gaza” means freedom, recognizing Gaza as a terrorist enclave steeped in a profound moral “deformity.” Both may have elements of truth, but neither side can imagine the validity of the other.

In the Middle East, progressive like Peter Beinart see Jews as supremacists. In New York, progressives like teacher union boss Randi Weingarten see city Jews as the “ownership class,” and WESPAC’s Howard Horowitz visualizes Jewish Zionists as racists. These progressives portray Jews around the world as rich, capitalist victimizers who cannot claim the mantle of victimhood, even after the October 7 massacre.

They are teaching young, progressive and non-Orthodox Jews to lead with select and projected empathy. In New York City, they can create a manifest destiny with votes for the alt-left, far more tangible than prancing with placards about something thousands of miles away.

Young New York Jews are picking up the “intifada” chant – Arabic for “shaking off” – of the Jewish State and pro-Israel Jews. At this moment, they may not recognize the jihad they have joined. Time will tell whether they will care when it inevitably turns violent on the most persecuted minority-minority.

And that’s how the show is supposed to end anyway, right? Jesus on the cross. But the epilogue has a pivot, seeking empathy-squared: Jesus was a Jew. Now the Jews are Jesus.

The grand rebbes of Tikkun Olam are the new apostles for Zohran Mamdani.

Related:

The Empathy Swamp (January 2024)

Anti-Semites Don’t Ride In Cattle Cars (September 2022)

When Only Republicans Trust the Police (July 2018)

The United Nations’ Adoption of Palestinians, Enables It to Only Find Fault With Israel (March 2016)

Rashida Tlaib Moves From Hitler To Beinart

Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) has made her career out of demonizing Jews. Sometimes she paraphrases demonic antisemites like Adolf Hitler, and sometimes she comes up with her own invective.

When she stood in Congress on Israel’s May 14 Independence Day to introduce an “Ongoing Nakba” resolution because the State of Israel continues to exist, she decided to open by quoting Peter “AsAJew” Beinart.

Rep. Tlaib introducing the “Ongoing Nakba” resolution on May 14, 2025

Beinart is not a famous diplomat or philosopher. He’s not a celebrity or TikTok star. He’s not a Palestinian or Muslim. Most of the people in Congress never heard of him.

Yet Tlaib chose to quote him as a comrade in the effort to destroy the modern Jewish State.

Most left-wing Jews left their socialist-jihadi colleagues in the wake of the October 7, 2023 massacre, like rats fleeing a sinking ship. They were appalled at the moral depravity of people shouting to “Globalize the Intifada” and “Glory to the martyrs” after the savage killing of 1,200 people in Israel. Only the most radical fringe of the fringe remained; those who could bury their being a Jew and a human being far below the thrill of being beatified as a living saint by jihadists.

Those seeking the destruction of Israel have migrated from quoting the forgery Protocols of the Elders of Zion to Amnesty International to “AsAJew”s. The anti-Israel antisemitism has transmogrified from niche raw Jew hatred to generally accepted at the United Nations to Jewish-endorsed with a kosher seal of approval.

The crucification of the Jewish State may not have started with Jews, but the jihadi gospels being written now are putting AsAJews front-and-center nailing it to the cross.

Marc Chagall’s “White Crucifixion” (1938)

Related articles:

Shai Davidai And Peter Beinart Circus And Views (May 2025)

The Zone Of Jew Hatred Interest (March 2024)

An Open Letter To Progressive Diaspora Jews (October 2023)

Jewish Anti-Zionists’ Confession, Absolution And Fratricide (April 2023)

Anti-Semites Don’t Ride In Cattle Cars (September 2022)

Tlaib Shields Anti-Semitic Murderers, If Not White (June 2021)

Peter Beinart is an Apologist for Anti-Semites (December 2020)

The Calming Feeling of Palestinian Refugees: Rashida Tlaib in Her Own Words (May 2019)

Shai Davidai And Peter Beinart Circus And Views

Gideon Askowitz, the 22-year old student at Macaulay Hunter who is President of Jewish Students for America, hosted a podcast on Seven Minute Expert with Shai Davidai and Peter Beinart on April 28, 2025. It was a circus of antics for the casual viewer, and a disturbing vision for those who ventured into the panelists’ views.

Shai Davidai is the Israeli Columbia professor who became famous for flagging the university’s gross failures in protecting Jewish students and faculty on campus after the October 7, 2023 brutal massacre by Gazan jihadists inside Israel. Peter Beinart is a left-wing Jewish journalist who used to be editor of The New Republic and now heads Jewish Currents. The gap between the two people would be insignificant for pro-Hamas viewers, but the pro-Israel audience was ready for a confrontation.

Framing Various “Anti-s”

Askowitz was not able to get through the introductions without Davidai jumping in. Shai objected to Gideon’s characterization of him being a “strong pro-Israel voice” and noted that he is Israeli but not “pro-Israel” in the sense that some might believe him to be “anti-Palestinian Arab.” Davidai’s interruptions would continue throughout the hour-long talk.

Continuing the “anti-” theme, Askowitz decided to start the discussion by asking both panelists why so many people in the Jewish community objected to their views. Bret Stephens, a journalist with The New York Times, recently penned an article in the Winter 2025 edition of Sapir where he sits as Editor-in-Chief, that Beinart’s views had migrated to “far left anti-Zionism” and he would no longer appear on panels with him. Ronn Torossian, a public relations specialist was removed from the World Zionist Congress election slate because of his personal attacks on Davidai.

Davidai declined to speculate about why people object to his stances and shared that he personally debated whether to appear with Beinart on the podcast because he views the format as falsely projecting equivalency of their views of Israel, when Beinart’s views are considered on the extreme fringe of world Jewry.

Beinart strongly disagreed and said that his views may be viewed on the fringe in Israel but that recent polling of Jews in the United States suggested 30% think Israel is committing a genocide in Gaza.

That set off Davidai (8:50) and he was never able to regain his composure. While Davidai was talking about Beinart’s fringe opinion to dissolve Israel as a Jewish State, Beinart moved the conversation to the current war from Gaza. Davidai would not let Beinart continue from his alternative soapbox, and despite Askowitz’s best efforts to allow Beinart to speak, Davidai abruptly left the podcast at 10:00.

Beinart used the open floor to quote a number of polls of American Jews which showed a decent percentage believing Israel was practicing apartheid which undermined any legitimacy of the country.

Davidai had been listening to the livestream and jumped back on at 12:12.

Askowitz tried to unpack Beinart’s “anti-Zionism” as well as American polls to consider where the “fringe” begins. He asked the panelists to weigh in about negative sentiment regarding Israel’s prosecution of the war (perhaps more mainstream) as opposed to ending the Jewish State (a fringe unpopular view). As Beinart started to respond, Davidai flew off the handle again and persistently talked over Beinart, causing Beinart to threaten to leave the podcast.

It was a Zionism catfight, and the only losers were those who cared about Israel.

Reframing “Zionism”

Askowitz got the cats back in a bag by 18:30 but the mudslinging would continue.

Beinart quoted a Canadian poll which asked if people were in favor of Zionism if Zionism meant Jewish supremacy, a bogus definition, which Davidai retorted with a sheet of paper that read “LIE.” While correct, it made Davidai appear foolish.

When Davidai took the mic at 20:30, he made several important points but unfortunately, many people were probably already tuned out because of his theatrics. He correctly pointed out that Beinart’s definition of Zionism was fictitious and inflammatory, and using the views of a cohort of young American Jews to be the baseline of global Jewry opinion distorts reality.

Beinart started to define Zionism again at 23:05 using the term “cultural Zionism” which he framed as seeking a binational state, and that “political Zionism” meant Jewish supremacy over non-Jews, at least since 1948. Askowitz stepped in at 25:20 to use the actual definition of Zionism as the right of Jews to self determination in their ancient homeland. Beinart said that it’s not his definition, which is not just a fringe view but a wildly incorrect one.

Political Islamic Extremism Directed Towards Terrorism Or One State

Askowitz moved the conversation at 26:30 to the nature of Islamism and whether the deeply religious nature of Hamas made peace with Israel impossible. Beinart stated that the Palestinian terrorists of the 1970s were leftists and secular nationalists, not Islamic extremists. He also pointed to the Ra’am Party, an Islamist Israeli political party which joined the Naftali Bennett coalition a few years ago, arguing that the problem is “armed resistance” against civilians (Beinart refuses to use the term terrorism regarding Palestinian Arabs), not political Islam inherently. Beinart continued that armed resistance will go down once all Arabs have a voice in government, which could happen in a one state solution.

Davidai strongly disagreed and pointed to the expulsion of 850,000 Jews from several Arab countries and their status as inferior “dhimmis” before being ethnically cleansed. He saw a one state solution as putting nearly half of world Jewry at existential risk. Further proof was in the current Arabic chants at demonstrations which are not for democracy but the eradication of Jews from the land. He hopes for a two state solution slowly evolving with a deradicalization of local Arabs which might provide a pathway for a new country of Palestine in a generation.

Beinart’s response that Jews living in the “West Bank” / east of the 1949 Armistice Lines (E49AL) made a two state solution impossible, didn’t seem to make any sense, even though Davidai nodded in agreement. If Jews and Arabs can live peacefully in a one state solution as Beinart contends, why couldn’t they live together in an Arab-majority country of Palestine? Does Beinart actually believe that defenseless Jews would get slaughtered, and if so, why won’t he see such threat in his one state proposition?

Antisemitism In the United States

The conversation pivoted to antisemitism at 41:20 when Askowitz shared his group’s involvement in the DETERRENT ACT and the influence of foreign countries (monies and students) at universities and the impact on antisemitism on campuses. While neither Beinart nor Davidai had read the bill, they were in favor of providing transparency of all university funding by countries or companies.

When it came to voiding visas of foreign students, Davidai was against punishing students who only engaged in matters of free speech, however, once engaged in problematic conduct, they should be penalized. Beinart went further and said that people should be allowed to protest and even call for a “genocide or terrorism” as long as they did not physically harm someone (50:35).

Conclusion

The optics of the debate gave Beinart the win even while his content was problematic. Beinart’s definition of Zionism is ridiculous and his ambivalence about the safety and rights of Jews in Israel as well as Jews on American campuses being barred from buildings by people calling for their genocide is chilling.

On video, it appears that a wolf in sheep’s clothing only needs to retain composure.

Related articles:

Context For “Intifada” (Mach 2025)

Hey Beinart! Arabs In Jerusalem Can Apply For Israeli Citizenship (May 2022)

A Core Tenet of Zionism Is Combatting Anti-Semitism (January 2022)

Peter Beinart is an Apologist for Anti-Semites (December 2020)

Hey Beinart! Arabs In Jerusalem Can Apply For Israeli Citizenship

The disinformation campaign from the left is torrential when it comes to Israel.

Peter Beinart, an apologist for anti-Semites, wrote in the New York Times on May 9, 2022 about a number of things that President Joe Biden should do to reverse the actions of former President Trump to make the world a safer place. The basic premise of his editorial is curious at the start, as the Obama/Biden presidencies watched the disintegration of a sovereign Ukraine, first in a seizure of Ukraine by Russia, and then an all-out war.

In regards to Israel, the Abraham Accords that Israel struck with several Arab countries under Trump, the lowest level of Israeli deaths form terrorism and the lack of an all-out war from Gaza for the first time since Hamas took control of the area were similarly ignored. Beinart measures “peace” by his perception of what Palestinian Arabs desire.

Section of Peter Beinart editorial in The New York Times May 9, 2022

Beinart took aim at the actions of Trump and Israel as it related to Jerusalem. He mentioned:

  1. Biden’s desire to “reopen the U.S. Consulate in East Jerusalem” which Trump had closed;
  2. That “Palestinians” live as noncitizens under Israeli control in Jerusalem;
  3. That the U.S. needs to take “an interest in their plight”

As The New York Times does not fact-check its editorials when published by left-wing writers, here are some facts:

The U.S. Consulate in East Jerusalem was in western Jerusalem. Not only is the building west of the 1949 Armistice Line, the Obama Administration weaponized the consulate in 2015 when it decided to post armed Palestinian Arabs inside the building. When Trump recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital in accordance with Congress’s Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995, he folded the consulate offices into the new embassy building. Palestinian Arab concerns continued to be addressed, contrary to Beinart’s implication, it simply lacked the symbolism of a stand-alone building.

Further, Arabs in Jerusalem can apply for Israeli citizenship, and thousands have done so. Beinart wrote that Palestinians suffer from “Israeli control in Jerusalem” when Arabs have been afforded the opportunity to become citizens for decades.

What is the “plight” of Palestinians in Jerusalem that Beinart calls out? The Arab population has skyrocketed (+3.4 times compared to +1.9 times for Jews between 1990 and 2019) as well as the number of households (+188% versus +64% for Jews between 1990 and 2019). The Arabs in Jerusalem are much the same as the ultra-Orthodox Jewish population, with similar fertility rates, age demographics, employment and poverty rates. What does Beinart think of the “plight” of Charedi Jews in Jerusalem? How does he feel about the Jews who were ethnically-cleansed from the Old City of Jerusalem by Arabs in 1949 and banned from the city, even for prayer, until 1967?

Beinart’s overall contention in his tightly-worded and factually-incorrect paragraph seems to be that Trump sided with Israel in regards to Jerusalem and left the Palestinians to suffer under the racist Israeli regime, leaving the region much more unsafe. It is an inversion of the truth, as the region was much safer under the Trump years and it is the Arabs who made the Jews suffer under their control of the eastern portion of Jerusalem.

The New York Times is manufacturing a narrative that “East Jerusalem” still exists and that it’s Palestinian. Beinart added his voice to that fiction, that the Biden administration needs to show the Palestinians that he has “an interest in their plight,” by reversing Trump’s pro-Israel actions. And even more than gestures to Palestinian Arabs (on an unmentioned murdering spree), Beinart wants Biden to give the Islamic Republic of Iran, the leading state sponsor of terrorism which has threatened the destruction of Israel, a legal pathway to nuclear weapons. Again.

Have an interest in a topic? Email firstonethough@gmail.com

Peter Beinart is an Apologist for Anti-Semites

Peter Beinart writes for the New York Times, is a contributor to CNN and serves as the Jewish mouthpiece to mask anti-Semitism as something less than anti-Semitism to the world.

In attempting to defend Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) of the accusation that she promotes the destruction of Israel when she says “From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be free,” Beinart offered the following:

“I get why many Jews find slogan “Palestine from River to Sea” frightening. Some have used it to disregard Jewish rights (1st Hamas charter, for instance). But @RashidaTlaib has been clear that Jews + Palestinians deserve equality. Suggesting otherwise is a smear

Peter Beinart defends Hamas and Rashida Tlaib

The founding Hamas Charter in 1988 did not simply “disregard Jewish rights” as Beinart claims. It is a screed against Jews as evil creatures who have taken over Muslim land.

  • Opening: The text makes clear the problem is Jews: “they who have received the scriptures [Jews]… the greater part of them are transgressorssmitten with vileness wheresoever they are found.” The solution to the problem of Palestine is found in a religious war: “Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it.
  • Preamble: The preamble lays out the enemy and charge: “Our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious. [Hamas] is but one squadron that should be supported by more and more squadrons from this vast Arab and Islamic world, until the enemy is vanquished and Allah’s victory is realised.”
  • Articles 1 & 2: Makes clear that the fight is a religious one: “The Movement’s programme is Islamone of the wings of Moslem Brotherhood.”
  • Articles 3 & 4: Is a call to “raise the banner of Jihad in the face of the oppressors, so that they would rid the land and the people of their uncleanliness, vileness and evils.” A call to expel all non-Muslims.
  • Articles 5 & 6: Hamas seeks to “raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestinein the absence of Islam, strife will be rife, oppression spreads, evil prevails and schisms and wars will break out.”
  • Articles 7 & 8: States that the “struggle against the Zionist invadersgoes back to 1939,” well before the Six Day War in 1967, and should be fought by killing Jews: “Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews).”
  • Articles 9 & 10: Declared that evil arises wherever Islam is not in charge
  • Articles 11 & 12: Declare that “the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations,” and “Nothing in nationalism is more significant or deeper than in the case when an enemy should tread Moslem land” making non-Jews a national and religious offense and threat
  • Articles 13 & 14: Call for a religious war as there “is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad,” because diplomacy and “conferences are only ways of setting the infidels in the land of the Moslems.”
  • Articles 15 & 16: Declare that this is a religious war: “In face of the Jews’ usurpation of Palestine, it is compulsory that the banner of Jihad be raised…. the Palestinian problem is a religious problem, and should be dealt with on this basis.”
  • Articles 17 & 18: Call for every Muslim man, woman and child to fight to “liberate” the land from Zionists who are “hostile to humanity and Islam
  • Articles 19 & 20: Actually calls Jews by the names of the people who had slaughtered them: Jews are a “vicious enemy which acts in a way similar to NazismIn their Nazi treatment, the Jews made no exception for women or children… [Jews] attack people where their breadwinning is concerned, extorting their money,” repeating an antisemitic canard.
  • Articles 21 & 22: Tout conspiracy theories which combine Hitler’s Mein Kampf and the forgery ‘Protocols of the Elders of Zion’- “With their money, they took control of the world media, news agencies, the press, publishing houses, broadcasting stations, and others. With their money they stirred revolutions in various parts of the world with the purpose of achieving their interests and reaping the fruit therein…. They obtained the Balfour Declaration, formed the League of Nations through which they could rule the world. They were behind World War II, through which they made huge financial gains by trading in armaments, and paved the way for the establishment of their state. It was they who instigated the replacement of the League of Nations with the United Nations and the Security Council to enable them to rule the world through them. There is no war going on anywhere, without having their finger in it.
  • Articles 23 & 24: call for Muslim unity to fight their enemies.
  • Articles 25, 26 & 27: Call for Arab and Muslim unity in the “the liberation of Palestineour fate is one and the enemy is a joint enemy to all of us... Islamic Resistance Movement is a fighting movement.”
  • Article 28: Continues to label Zionists as contemptible: “The Zionist invasion is a vicious invasionusing all evil and contemptible waysinfiltration and espionage operations on the secret organizationsaim at undermining societies, destroying values, corrupting consciences, deteriorating character and annihilating Islam. It is behind the drug trade and alcoholism in all its kinds so as to facilitate its control and expansion…. Israel, Judaism and Jews challenge Islam and the Moslem people.
  • Articles 29 & 30: Call for the Islamic world to fight “the ferocity of the Zionist offensive and the Zionist influence in many countries exercised through financial and media control.”
  • Article 31: Calls for the supremacy of Islam, “Peace and quiet would not be possible except under the wing of IslamIt is the duty of the followers of other religions to stop disputing the sovereignty of Islam in this regionThe Zionist Nazi activities against our people will not last for long.
  • Article 32: Continues to build on the conspiracy theories found in Articles 21 & 22: “The Zionist plan is limitless. After Palestine, the Zionists aspire to expand from the Nile to the Euphrates. When they will have digested the region they overtook, they will aspire to further expansion, and so on. Their plan is embodied in the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion”, and their present conduct is the best proof of what we are saying.here is no way out except by concentrating all powers and energies to face this Nazi, vicious Tatar invasion. The alternative is loss of one’s country, the dispersion of citizens, the spread of vice on earth and the destruction of religious valuesfight with the warmongering Jews.”
  • Article 33: A call to global jihad against the Jews, “everywhere in the Islamic world will come forward in response to the call of duty while loudly proclaiming: Hail to Jihad. Their cry will reach the heavens and will go on being resounded until liberation is achieved, the invaders vanquished.”
  • Articles 34 & 35: Are calls for a religious war, “Moslems were able to retrieve the land only when they stood under the wing of their religious bannerThis is the only way to liberate PalestineNothing can overcome iron except iron.confront the Zionist invasion and defeat itrid themselves of the effects of ideological invasion.”
  • Article 36: Hamas are the “soldiers… against the Zionist enemy and its lackeys.”

That is the Hamas Charter which Beinart said simply “disregards Jewish rights.”

The United Nations disregards Jewish rights when it opposes Jews – and only Jews – praying in their holiest location. It disregards Jewish rights when it declares that Jews – and only Jews – cannot live in parts of their holy land.

Hamas doesn’t “disregard Jewish rights” as Beinart states; it denies the basic humanity and dignity of Jews and Judaism with vast conspiracy theories and calls to kill Jews and destroy Israel. To voluntarily and publicly defend the Hamas Charter in such way is outrageous and appalling. Beinart is as likely to defend the Nazi regime with such heinous sentiments, and underscores why he is so comfortable defending Tlaib.


Related First One Through articles:

Too Many and Too Few Charges of ‘Nazi’

WHY The Progressive Assault on Israel

The War Against Israel and Jewish Civilians

I See Dead People

The Insidious Jihad in America

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: Israel Analysis and FirstOneThrough