The Beinart Notebook

A list of ways to help Palestinians in Gaza.This Friday’s Zoom call will be at 1 PM Eastern, our usual time. Our guests will be the former PLO negotiator Hussein Agha and the former Clinton, Obama and Biden administration official, Rob Malley. They’ll talk about their new book, Tomorrow is Yesterday: Life, Death, and the Pursuit of Peace in Israel/Palestine. I’ll ask what they’ve learned from decades of seeing Israeli, Palestinian and American policy from the inside.Cited in Today’s VideoYeshayahu Leibowitz’s essay on colonialism and terrorism.Mouin Rabbani on the Trump plan.Things to Read(Maybe this should be obvious, but I link to articles and videos I find provocative and significant, not necessarily ones I entirely agree with.)In Jewish Currents (subscribe!), Avigayil Halperin talks to Audrey Sasson about whether it’s possible to atone for genocide.39% of American Jews think Israel is committing genocide.Washington Democrats turn against AIPAC.See you on Friday,PeterVIDEO TRANSCRIPT:So, I have these two kind of contradictory feelings about the Trump plan on Gaza. The first is that I hope it goes through. I hope it’s implemented. I just desperately, desperately hope that these Israeli hostages are returned and can go back to their families. And I desperately hope that Palestinians can wake up one day in the coming days, and just not worry that they’ll be killed by an Israeli bomb, and that their children will be able to have more to eat. I mean, just at a basic human level, that would be a really just a blessing.It’s also, though, really important just to remember, because I think there’s a certain kind of discourse that tends to take place about these diplomatic negotiations, a kind of insider-y discourse about how it’s going to be implemented, and what the role the Palestinian Authority is going to play, and what different Arab governments are going to do, and all this stuff, which just can often, I just find, kind of, like, completely obscure, like, the basic foundational realities, which always need to be kept front and center, right?The basic foundational realities are that Palestinians in Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem live under the control of a state that does not grant them the most basic of rights, the right of citizenship. This state, the Israeli state, has life and death power over them, and yet they can’t vote for that government that controls their lives. This will be true after the Trump plan is implemented, if it’s implemented. It may be that the genocide ends, which would be a blessing, but before the genocide, there was apartheid, and there will be actually an even worse form of apartheid now because Israel’s blockade of Gaza is likely to be stricter, and Israel’s already said that it’s basically going to take more control over parts of the Gaza Strip, herding Palestinians even into an even smaller area of the Gaza Strip.So, remember, Gaza was deemed unlivable by the United Nations before October 7th. Human Rights Watch called it an open-air prison. My friend Mohammad Shehada has written about how everyone he knew in Gaza growing up contemplated suicide, because there was just no prospect for a better life. And when people say, well, this is gonna fundamentally change if Hamas is no longer in charge in Gaza, unfortunately, that’s just a complete illusion, because Hamas has not been in charge in the West Bank. To the contrary, the West Bank, for the last 20 years now, has been run by a Palestinian Authority, which essentially serves as Israel’s subcontractor, which is basically doing Israel’s bidding to prevent armed resistance.And what is life like for Palestinians in the West Bank? A form of apartheid that gets worse and worse and worse as Israel takes over more and more land, confines Palestinians into smaller and smaller ghettos, in which Palestinians are subjected to more and more violence by the Israeli military and also by settlers who, unlike them, have citizenship and are protected by an Israeli state that doesn’t protect them. That’s what Palestinian life looks like in the West Bank, where you don’t have Hamas running things, right?So, anyone who thinks that you’re solving the problem for Palestinians by not having Hamas be in charge in Gaza is fundamentally missing the point. It would be a good thing for Hamas to not be in charge in Gaza. I have no love lost for Hamas whatsoever. It killed a friend of mine in a bus bombing in the 1990s. It’s committed terrible war crimes even before October 7th, and then in a massive way on October 7th.But the fundamental problem is a system of brutal, brutal oppression. And the problem is that so much Western journalism and so much Jewish discourse just ignores that basic oppression. And that system of violent oppression produces violence in return. It doesn’t justify violence against civilians. Violence that targets civilians is never justified, regardless of the level of oppression. But it’s a system of oppression that produces violence in response, especially if you have shut down the avenues for nonviolent resistance, which Israel and the United States have done and continue to do, literally kind of making it a crime for the Palestinians to try to, you know, to promote boycotts, or to go to the International Criminal Court, or the Court of Justice, or these kind of things, right? So, this system of violence, which creates radical unsafety for Palestinians also creates unsafety for Israeli Jews. And that will be the case after the Trump plan, because the Trump plan doesn’t in any way whatsoever deal with that fundamental root cause of the problem.I was reading over Shabbat an essay by one of my heroes, Yeshayahu Leibowitz, the great Israeli Orthodox social critic. He wrote this in 1976, an essay that he starts by writing, ‘In our times of worldwide decolonization, a colonial regime necessarily gives birth to terrorism. In our times of worldwide decolonization, a colonial regime necessarily gives birth to terrorism.’ What I take to mean by colonial is a situation in which people are subjects of a state but cannot be citizens of a state. That is the circumstance that Palestinians in the occupied territories live under in Israel. Yet Leibovitz was not justifying terrorism. God knows he did not want violence to come to Israelis or to his family. But he was saying that a system of violent oppression will produce counter violence. And that violence will come again, even after this genocide ends, if the root grievance, the root problem, which is lack of Palestinian freedom, is not addressed.Hamas could cease to exist. It could disappear from the face of the Earth. And you know what would happen if Palestinians continued to live under apartheid, especially if their non-violent efforts are continually defeated by the world’s most powerful superpower in league with Israel, new Palestinian organizations, they might not be Islamists, they could be communists, Marxists, Maoists, God knows what ideology they will espouse. They will fight Israel, and Israeli Jews will die, which I desperately don’t want to happen.How do we know this? Because long before Hamas, there were Palestinian groups, mostly not Islamist groups—leftist groups, nationalist groups, all kinds of groups that fought Israel because they were fighting against a system of brutal oppression, as people do all over the world when they’re brutally oppressed. Unless you deal with that fundamental grievance, the grievance of people who deserve, like all human beings, to be free, and who have been denied that freedom, you will be subjecting Palestinians, perhaps not to genocide, but to a brutally inhumane system of oppression, a system that ultimately endangers everybody between the river and the sea. That’s what we need to remember even as we say the Trump plan is good because it means the killing stops for the moment. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit peterbeinart.substack.com/subscribe

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit peterbeinart.substack.comOur guest is the Palestinian journalist and activist Ahmed Abu Artema, a co-organizer of Gaza’s 2018 Great March of Return. In October 2023, Israel killed his eldest son, Abdullah, and five other relatives. A few weeks ago, he left Gaza for the Netherlands. He wrote about his departure in the Dutch newspaper, De Correspondent. He told us what it’s like to survive a genocide and live with the memory of those who did not.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit peterbeinart.substack.comOur guest is actor and comedian Hannah Einbinder. She recently used the huge platform of her Emmy acceptance speech to stand up for Palestinian freedom. Topics include:Her Zionist upbringing, and how she evolved away from itThe schism among Jews todayJewish fragility in the face of disagreement

A list of ways to help Palestinians in Gaza.This Friday’s Zoom call will be at 1 PM Eastern, our usual time. Our guest will be the Palestinian journalist and activist Ahmed Abu Artema, a co-organizer of Gaza’s 2018 Great March of Return. In October 2023, Israel killed his eldest son, Abdullah. A few weeks ago, he left Gaza for the Netherlands. He wrote about his departure in the Dutch newspaper, De Correspondent. I’ll ask what it’s like to survive a genocide and live with the memory of those who did not.Things to Read(Maybe this should be obvious, but I link to articles and videos I find provocative and significant, not necessarily ones I entirely agree with.)In Jewish Currents (subscribe!), Alex Kane and attorney Shayana Kadidal discuss new US sanctions on Palestinian human rights groups.In The Guardian, David Adler details his reasons for joining the flotilla to Gaza.Kyle’s mom from South Park confronts Benjamin Netanyahu.See you on Friday,PeterVIDEO TRANSCRIPT:So, at the heart of this period in the Jewish year, between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, what we call the Yamim Noraim, is the basic idea that human beings are judged, that we don’t know how that judgment manifests itself in the world, but there’s a faith, a fundamental belief that there is some kind of accounting, there is some kind of reckoning, ultimately. And that notion fills me this year with a sense of really tremendous fear because I know that I have been inadequate to the monstrous evil of this period: the genocide in Gaza and the destruction of liberal democracy in the United States.There are so many times when I’ve just decided to turn away because it was easier to not look at the images, or to not participate in actions of protest that I could have done, just because I had other things that I wanted to do more, that were easier for me, that were more fun for me, so I really tremble at my own accountability for this. But I guess I also take some kind of comfort in the notion that there may be some collective accounting, some collective reckoning.Again, many of the prayers that we say during these High Holidays are in the plural. And when I think about collectively, in the Jewish community, and more generally in the United States, I do take some kind of comfort in the sense that there will be some kind of accounting, because the level of cowardice that we see around us is just beyond my wildest imagination. It’s beyond my wildest imagination.I mean, Donald Trump is a fundamentally kind of deranged and deformed person, someone who just doesn’t seem, I think, to really, really understand very basic ideas like the rule of law, right? But many, many other people around him do. I mean, we know this because many of the people who are his most fanatical supporters now—J.D. Vance, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio—they said earlier on, when they weren’t so afraid of him, they said, this man is a pathological liar, this man wants to be a dictator. We know that they believe these things. We know that they can see these things. These things are obvious, right? They’re not subtle.I mean, I almost chuckle now at the idea that Donald Trump was really concerned about antisemitism when he used antisemitism as the pretext to try to cripple the independence of American universities. Because we now see that Donald Trump doesn’t need any pretext at all. I mean, when he says that we should shut down television networks just because they criticize him, or that the Justice Department should investigate people just because they’re his political opponents, he doesn’t even need any pretext, right? It’s just the fact that they are limiting his power, and he wants dictatorial powers. That’s really all he needs.And when I see virtually the entirety of the Republican Party going along with this—you know, the Republican Party has always, you know, for as long as I can remember, liked to talk about appeasement, liked to talk about cowardice, always imagining themselves as the kind of the Churchills, the manly men, the people who could be counted on in the moment of peril to stand up to the forces of evil. You know, I mean, what an utter irony that has turned to be, right?Because it turned out that there is no greater group of appeasers, no greater group of cowards, than the people in the modern Republican Party today, who, because they’re afraid of Donald Trump, afraid that he could get them to lose their job, or afraid that he might go after them personally. Because, after all, Donald Trump goes after Republicans too, right? He’s going after John Bolton because John Bolton had the temerity to criticize him. These people who constantly talk about how tough they are and how manly they are, how they hate appeasement, and how they accuse their opponents of appeasement because they support diplomatic deals with Iran or other countries, now actually turn out to be willing to appease Donald Trump, even when he’s systematically moving to destroy equality under the law, which is the foundation of a free society, right, by basically just using the organs of the state in whatever ways he can to punish his political opponents, to prevent the possibility that people will be able to openly criticize him, and that the other party might be able to beat him in an election.And beyond that, I look at the organized American Jewish community. I mean, just go to the websites of the most powerful American Jewish organizations: AIPAC, the Anti-Defamation League, the Conference of Presidents of American Jewish Organizations. Would you realize that American democracy is in peril? Would you realize that the Trump administration is trying to create an authoritarian state? No, you would see virtually nothing of that because these organizations care really only about one thing: about maintaining unconditional U.S. support for Israel. It’s much more important to them that America maintains unconditional support for Israel than that America remains a liberal democracy. They would actually prefer an authoritarian America that supports Israel unconditionally than a liberal democratic America that changes its policy on Israel.And the evidence is right in front of you. Just look at what outrages them. Look at what they focus their political attention on. It’s about maintaining unconditional support for Israel. It’s not fighting for liberal democracy. It’s not opposing Donald Trump’s obviously, nakedly obvious efforts at creating an authoritarian, tyrannical state. I take some comfort in the notion that those leaders in our community, as well as those Republicans in Congress, as well as those business leaders, and people in industry, and some of these university presidents, that all of them will be judged.I think we’re already in terrible, terrible times, and probably heading for worse. And so, I think there is a Jewish tradition, in moments of great pain and trauma, of taking refuge in the idea that we believe in a God who judges, and that there is some kind of cosmic justice, even if we can’t understand it, even if we may not live to see it. And from the depths of my being, I hope that there is an accounting, that there is a reckoning, there is a judgment for the profound moral cowardice that is allowing the evil that is taking place, both in the destruction of Palestinians in the genocide in Gaza, and the destruction of the basic principles of liberal democracy in the United States.And I feel grateful that I have some modicum of faith because it’s that faith that gives me the belief that there will be a judgment and also reminds me that I need to redouble my efforts. I need to make a much, much more concerted effort to be part of the struggle against these forms of evil, both in Israel and Palestine that my government is complicit in, and the evils that my government is complicit in in the United States. That, all of us need not give in to despair, to not look away, to look this in the eye, and do whatever possibly we can to fight against this evil, which most Americans don’t want. Most Americans don’t want. And just say to ourselves, are we really a country that could allow the likes of Donald Trump to destroy all the things that are most precious in the country, really? Are we that kind of people? I would think that we’re better than that. And it’s my hope that one day we will be worthy of having said that in this moment, conscious of the accounting and the reckoning that we believe will come, that we tried to acquit ourselves better in the year to come. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit peterbeinart.substack.com/subscribe

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit peterbeinart.substack.comOur guest is author and attorney Ken Stern, director of the Bard Center for the Study of Hate. Ken was an important figure in the drafting of the definition of antisemitism now taken up by the IHRA but has been outspoken against its current uses.

Please Help Palestinians in Gaza.There is no Zoom call this Friday. We’ll return on Friday, October 3.With the Jewish High Holidays approaching, I’m opening up for all readers my conversation with Rabbi Ismar Schorsch, former chancellor of the Jewish Theological Seminary, who argues that what Israel is doing in Gaza and the West Bank constitutes a stain on Judaism itself.Cited in Today’s VideoEzra Klein and Ta-Nehisi Coates on the murder of Charlie Kirk.Things to Read(Maybe this should be obvious, but I link to articles and videos I find provocative and significant, not necessarily ones I entirely agree with.)In Jewish Currents (subscribe!), Alex Kane writes about the aid group favored by pro-Israel organizations.Leonard Benardo interviews Rob Malley for the Ideas Letter.In The New York Times, I wrote about the Trump Administration’s use of Charlie Kirk’s murder to crack down on dissentFor the Foundation for Middle East Peace, I interviewed David Adler, who is aboard the Sumud flotilla heading to Gaza.On Monday September 22, I’ll be discussing the parallels between Israel’s response to 10/7 and America’s response to 9/11 for the Quincy Institute.See you a week from Friday,PeterVIDEO TRANSCRIPT:So, a really interesting debate broke out, last week between Ezra Klein and Ta-Nehisi Coates about the legacy of Charlie Kirk. Ezra Klein wrote a column in which he said that Charlie Kirk was practicing politics in the right way because he was trying to persuade people. He was going to college campuses where, you know, lefty students are around, and he was engaging them in argument. And he contrasted this persuasion with this rising political violence that we see in America.And Coates was challenging that binary, and I want to explain why I agree with Coates. As I understand it, I think the point that Coates is making is not just that the kind of persuasion that Charlie Kirk is engaged in isn’t really good faith discourse, that it’s more like demagoguery, right, in which he tries to kind of make his political opponents look like fools, especially through the kind of editing of these interactions he’s having on college campuses.But I think the point is actually deeper, which is to question what we mean when we use the term political violence. Generally, the way this is used is that we’re thinking about violence by non-state actors. So, a lot of people have been saying we’re in a rising era of political violence because of the murder of Kirk, and the attempted assassination of Donald Trump, and the attack on Paul Pelosi, and the killing of this Minnesota state representative, and that’s what we define as political violence.But it’s worth noting that what that leaves out is political violence by the state, right? Violence by the state for a political purpose. It’s a little like the way we use the term terrorism, which is also basically a synonym for political violence, but only gets applied, really, generally, to non-state actors. So, we generally don’t think of the things that states do as political violence or as terrorism, although sometimes we make an exception for states we really don’t like, like Iran, let’s say, right? But states commit lots and lots of political violence, and states create lots of terror, right? If terrorism is making people feel terrified for a political purpose, then states do that a lot. And I think what Coates is doing is he’s looking at the language that Charlie Kirk is employing, the way he’s talking about trans people, the way he’s talking about Muslim people. And, of course, Charlie Kirk is not directly using violence against anybody. And it should go without saying, it should be obvious, of course, that it was fundamentally, completely wrong for this person to murder him, and that person should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.But I think what Coates is getting at is that when we think about this binary between persuasion and violence, we have to think about the fact that Charlie Kirk was explicitly supporting a lot of violence by the state. Violence that now we’re seeing, particularly in the Trump era, right? Terrible, terrible violence that’s being used by the state against people who are claimed to be violating immigration laws, against people who are disfavored by the Trump administration in all kinds of ways. And to be fair, the definition of a state is that entity which has a monopoly on legitimate violence. But I think the question that Coates is raising is how we think about legitimate versus illegitimate political violence when it involves the state, rather than simply using the category of political violence to imply that all violence by the state is legitimate, and the only illegitimate political violence is used by non-state actors.And I think this, you know, this bears also on the question of Israel and Palestinians. As I’ve said many, many, many, many times, I think the terrorism that was used by Hamas on October 7th was fundamentally wrong. It targeted civilians and inflicted terrible, terrible violence and cruelty, and indeed, terror, right? But it’s also, it seems to me, pretty undeniable that the state of Israel is imposing a tremendous amount of terror on Palestinians. We think of just ordinary Palestinians in Gaza who don’t know, you know, whether they’ll be able to feed their children, or whether they’re going to be destroyed in a bus, you know, in a bombing tomorrow, right? It’s unbelievable amounts of terror being experienced by Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza.And so, I think what Coates is getting at here is to question the way in which we use terms like terrorism and political violence to excuse the unlawful violence, or the unlawful infliction of terror by states, whether it’s Israel or the United States, or for that matter, another state. Again, none of which is to justify the use of political violence, and indeed, the use of terror by non-state actors. But it suggests that this problem of violence, this problem of the infliction of terror on people for political means without legal justification is not only a problem that we see with non-state actors, it is also very, very much a problem of states especially in this age in which we’re seeing rising authoritarianism and very, very explicit and brutal racism—in the case of Israel, even genocide being inflicted on people.And I think this is where it’s really, really important to think carefully. Again, this is one of the points that George Orwell made so, so famously, to think carefully about the language we use, and whether it’s really being used honestly. And I think if we use the term political violence honestly, we have to remember that while we may be in an age of very dangerous political violence by non-state actors, we are also very, very profoundly in an age of very, very dangerous political violence by the state. And that should not be ignored in this conversation. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit peterbeinart.substack.com/subscribe

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit peterbeinart.substack.comOur guest is Avrum Burg, the former speaker of the Knesset, who has been using traditional Jewish religious forms in remarkable ways to challenge the genocide in Gaza. He has authored a poem entitled, “If God Were in the Heavens of Gaza” and a Kaddish “for the blessed memory of all innocent” victims. We read them during our call, and discuss, in these days leading up to Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, how Jews can repent for our complicity in the horror being committed in our name.

An Auction to Support the People of GazaWEDNESDAY Zoom CallThis week’s Zoom call will be at a special time, WEDNESDAY at 1 PM Eastern. Our guest will be Avrum Burg, the former speaker of the Knesset, who has been using traditional Jewish religious forms in remarkable ways to challenge the genocide in Gaza. He has authored a poem entitled, “If God Were in the Heavens of Gaza” and a Kaddish “for the blessed memory of all innocent” victims. He will read them during our Zoom call, and we will discuss, in these days leading up to Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, how Jews can repent for our complicity in the horror being committed in our name.Ask Me AnythingOur next Ask Me Anything session, for premium subscribers, will be this Tuesday, September 16, from 1-2 PM Eastern time.Cited in Today’s VideoBari Weiss on “Je Suis Charlie.”Bari Weiss on overcoming “Trump derangement syndrome.”Things to Read(Maybe this should be obvious, but I link to articles and videos I find provocative and significant, not necessarily ones I entirely agree with.)In Jewish Currents (subscribe!), Sean Pergola reflects on the Los Angeles Holocaust Museum’s apology for saying “’Never Again’ Can’t Only Mean Never Again For Jews.”Sam Adler-Bell on how former Biden officials are spinning their actions on Gaza.Nadine Apelian Dobbs on a story of Palestinian survival.Daniel Levy on how Israel’s disengagement from Gaza laid the foundation for the current genocide.How many Democrats does New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand know?I was the subject of a profile in Haaretz’s magazineSee you on WEDNESDAY,PeterVIDEO TRANSCRIPT:So, in the wake of the terrible murder of Charlie Kirk, I was struck by this tweet by Bari Weiss. And Bari Weiss writes, ‘whether you agree with him or not is completely, utterly, totally beside the point. We won’t do it. Je suis Charlie.’ That’s a kind of reference to the newspaper Charlie Hebdo, the French newspaper, where there were these terrible murders 10 years ago by people supposedly upset by the kind of the cartoons that the newspaper was doing of the prophet Muhammad. And Bari Weiss, as I understand it, is suggesting here that there’s something wrong with saying in the wake of Charlie Kirk’s murder that you think that some of his political views were reprehensible, that somehow that detracts from your opposition to his murder. This doesn’t seem to me to make any sense whatsoever.I think it’s obvious that the killing of Charlie Kirk was horrifying, that that person should be put in jail. They should be punished to the full extent of the law. No matter what someone’s political views, you absolutely have no right to resort to violence. It’s a horror for his family and all the people who cared about him. It’s just absolutely fundamentally wrong. But just because something that was fundamentally wrong was done to someone—a crime—doesn’t mean that when discussing that person’s legacy, you can’t talk about their political views. And the suggestion in this case, that Bari Weiss thinks that that conversation is illegitimate, I think is really quite revealing, right, about what she actually thinks about Charlie Kirk.Because let’s imagine, God forbid, that Rashida Tlaib were assassinated or Zohran Mamdani were assassinated. I think it’s really hard to imagine that Bari Weiss would be tweeting, you know, je suis Rashida, je suis Zohran. Of course, she wouldn’t. She would say that the murders were wrong, but she would not think it was illegitimate in any way to talk about the fact that their political views in her mind were ones that she fundamentally opposed, right?Or to take a different side of the ideological spectrum, let’s think about the assassination many years ago of the racist Israeli politician, Meir Kahane, who was assassinated, right? And that was wrong. He should not have been assassinated. That was a crime, right? But I think, I would hope no one would have responded to that by saying, je suis Meir, right? As if to say, I’m going to embrace everything about Meir Kahane simply because he was killed, right? You should be able to say, it’s wrong that he was killed. That person should be prosecuted under the law. And the man also had reprehensible racist views.And I don’t think Bari Weiss would have difficulty understanding that whatsoever if it was someone whose political views they really disagreed with. And here, I think, is really the critical point here, right, is that Charlie Kirk, among many other things, was someone who very actively supported Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election. He even organized to send buses of people to the rally that attacked the Capitol in trying to overthrow that democratic election. Charlie Kirk was therefore fundamentally an opponent of liberal democracy in the United States. When you try to overthrow free elections in the United States, you’re declaring war on American democracy.Again, to say it again and again and again, of course, it doesn’t mean that by any means he should have been killed. Of course not. The person who killed him should be punished. But the point is that what Bari Weiss is really saying when she says, je suis Charlie, is she’s saying that she doesn’t really think that’s important. She doesn’t think there’s anything about what Charlie Kirk believed that actually really bothers her.And this reflects, I think, a really chilling and fundamental shift. There was a time when Bari Weiss and many other people like Bari Weiss in the kind of political center, people who came out of the kind of, you know, kind of center-right, the kind of, you know, I think it was never Trump conservatives, recognized that Donald Trump and people who supported him were fundamentally their ideological antagonists, no matter what they might have agreed upon, because they were threatening liberal democracy in the United States. And now you have Bari Weiss, and she’s not the only one, but she’s, I think, one of the most significant of these people who said a few years ago that she’s gotten over her Trump derangement syndrome, right. Why? Because she said that she was impressed during his first time by his policies in the Middle East, and she thought the economy was good. And so now she’s not going to practice Trump derangement syndrome anymore.But it seems to me the truly deranged thing is to look at what Donald Trump is now doing and be less concerned than you were in his first term because his attack on the basic structure of liberal democracy in the United States is simply escalating. And Charlie Kirk was a part of that. And to say, je suis Charlie, is essentially to say, you don’t think that’s really important. It’s not important enough to be willing to speak about in assessing the legacy of Charlie Kirk. And I think this is really part of what’s so fundamentally terrifying about this moment is we have so many people in positions of real authority now who at one point were willing to say that even though they might agree with Donald Trump on certain things, they might have right-leaning ideas on certain things, that he was fundamentally illegitimate because he fundamentally did not respect the rules of the American democratic system as exhibited on January 20, 2021, and in so many ways since. Even to this day, he’s talking about how basically mail-in ballots are not legitimate, that that’s rigged, that he’s kind of laying the groundwork potentially for not respecting the results of the midterm elections in 2026.And you have people like Bari Weiss who are essentially saying that that’s no longer important to them in the way they make political judgments. And that’s why they can essentially say ideologically, there’s nothing so disturbing about Charlie Kirk that they think it’s worth talking about. If you don’t think it’s worth talking about Charlie Kirk’s support for the effort to overthrow a democratic election, you’re really saying that you don’t think the defense of liberal democracy in the United States is important. And I fear that a lot of powerful people have moved to that position as Donald Trump has emerged ascendant after his election victory last fall. And it makes me really terrified, really, about the future of liberal democracy in the country. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit peterbeinart.substack.com/subscribe

Our guest was Abdullah Awwad, a doctor in the orthopedic department of the Al Shifa Hospital in the northern Gaza Strip. In his Fundraising page, he writes that his “once-vibrant city has been reduced to rubble” and that “we are currently living in overcrowded shelters, struggling for basic necessities like food, clean water, and medical supplies.” Because of the difficulty of connecting to WiFi in Gaza, I was only able to speak with Dr. Awwad sporadically. We used the remaining time to speak with others with information about Gaza. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit peterbeinart.substack.com/subscribe

Friday Zoom CallThis Friday’s Zoom call will be at 1 PM Eastern, our usual time. Our guest will be Abdullah Awwad, a doctor in the orthopedic department of the Al Shifa Hospital in the northern Gaza Strip. In his Go Fund Me page, he writes that his “once-vibrant city has been reduced to rubble” and that “we are currently living in overcrowded shelters, struggling for basic necessities like food, clean water, and medical supplies.” I’ll ask him what it’s like to work as a doctor in Gaza today.The live call will be for paid subscribers only (due to capacity limits), but the full video will be made available Sunday to all subscribers, paid and unpaid. Please consider supporting Abdullah and other Palestinians.Cited in Today’s VideoMandla Mandela on why Israel’s version of apartheid is worse than South Africa’s.Things to Read(Maybe this should be obvious, but I link to articles and videos I find provocative and significant, not necessarily ones I entirely agree with.)On the Jewish Currents (subscribe!) podcast, Arielle Angel, Mari Cohen, Nathan Goldman, and I answered readers’ questions.In the Guardian, Ahmad Ibsais asks why no one believed Palestinians when they called Gaza a genocide.For the Foundation for Middle East Peace’s Occupied Thoughts podcast, Ahmed Moor talks to Marianne Hirsch, a scholar of Holocaust memory who withdrew from teaching at Columbia after it adopted the IHRA definition of antisemitism.On MSNBC, I debated whether there was a meaningful difference on Gaza between Trump and Biden.I’ll be speaking this Tuesday, September 9, at the University of Virginia.See you on Friday,PeterVIDEO TRANSCRIPT:It was an interesting interview last week with Mandla Mandela, the grandson of Nelson Mandela, in which Mandla Mandela says that what Israel’s doing to the Palestinians is far worse—those are his words—far worse than what apartheid South Africa did to Black South Africans. And I think he’s right, and I think it’s interesting to think about why that’s turned out to be the case. It’s kind of counterintuitive on its face, because there are some Palestinians under Israeli control who have the right to vote. Palestinian citizens, so-called Israeli Arabs, have the right to vote. They’re a minority of the Palestinians under Israeli control, because most of the Palestinians under Israeli control live in the West Bank and Gaza and East Jerusalem, and don’t vote, basically can’t vote.But the fact that any Palestinians under Israeli control can vote distinguishes Israel from apartheid South Africa in which no Black South Africans had the right to vote. There were, in the 1980s, two other groups, Indians and so-called Coloreds, who got certain kinds of voting rights, but Black South Africans never did. So, for that reason, one, I think, would naturally think that Israel’s domination is more benign, that Palestinians under Israeli control have more rights than Black South Africans did. But I think Mandla Mandela’s point was that modern-day South Africa, apartheid South Africa, didn’t commit a genocide against Black South Africans in the way that Israel is now doing in Gaza, and so for that fundamental reason that what Israel is doing is fundamentally worse.And I think the reason for this difference is that the apartheid regime in South Africa was dependent on Black labor. Black South Africans were the backbone of the economy, so Israel… so South Africa could not engage in mass expulsion or mass destruction of the Black population. It could certainly oppress them very brutally, but it needed their labor. Israel doesn’t need Palestinian labor nearly as much. In recent decades, Israel has moved away from relying on Palestinian labor from the occupied territories, brought in a lot of guest workers from Asia, and that has made the Palestinian population ‘disposable’ from Israel’s point of view, which is part of the reason I think you can see this widespread support now in Israel for mass expulsion of Palestinians from Gaza, and indeed, this just mass killing of Palestinians in Gaza, because Palestinians are not valuable to the state as a labor force.And beyond that, in apartheid South Africa, because Black South Africans had the power of their labor, that became a very important part of the anti-apartheid movement in the 1980s, when the Black South African trade unions went on strike and put a lot of pressure on the government. In fact, Cyril Romaphosa, the current president of South Africa, was the head of the National Union of Mine Workers, which is a critical ally of the African National Congress in the anti-apartheid struggle. Palestinians don’t have that kind of similar power, which makes them more vulnerable.The other reason that I think Mandla Medela is correct, that Israel’s version of apartheid, and Israel’s system has been declared an apartheid system by Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, B'Tselem, and many others, is that Israel’s version of apartheid simply lasted much longer. Apartheid in South Africa ended in 1994. Israel’s has continued now for three decades longer. And I think that’s not only because of the different balance of power internally, it’s also because of the different geopolitical situation. The only really powerful argument that South Africa’s apartheid leaders had for preserving the system was their claim that if it fell, that a Black South African government would be communist and would turn against the West because the ANC was close to the South African Communist Party and did get a lot of support from the Soviet Union. But as the Cold War began to wane in the mid to late 1980s, that argument started to fall apart. It became clear that the West didn’t have so much to worry about in terms of a Black South African government because it couldn’t be a Marxist government, because the Soviet Union was withdrawing from its global competition with the United States. And so, in some ways, South Africa had no argument to make to Europe and the United States for why apartheid should be sustained.Israel is much more powerful geopolitically. It’s much more economically and technologically influential. Many more countries rely on trade with it than they did with apartheid South Africa. Of course, it has the claim of antisemitism, which is a kind of just a cudgel to beat back pro-Palestinian activism in a way that, you know, White South Africans did not. But I think the other critical thing, and the thing which kind of worries me so profoundly about the system, the world, is that apartheid South Africa ended in a moment of this third wave of global democratization, in which there was this global movement for democracy against apartheid that helped to end American and European complicity and ultimately bring down that regime. There was a kind of triumph of a liberal democratic movement around the world over apartheid South Africa in a moment in which liberal democracy was on the ascent.Today, the situation is radically different. Liberal democracy around the world is very, very deeply in decline. And what’s happened is that Israel’s version of supremacist ethno-nationalism, even though there’s widespread revulsion to what it’s doing in much of the world, in many other powerful pockets of the West, has become a kind of a model of the ethno-nationalism that the Republican Party wants in the United States, that Viktor Orban wants, that the AFD wants in Germany, that Marine Le Pen wants in France, that Narendra Modi wants in India. And this is happening at a time in which ethno-nationalism is on the rise.And so, my geopolitical kind of nightmare is that apartheid South Africa is defeated in a moment when global democracy is rising. But that in Israel-Palestine, you potentially have the opposite, in which Israel contributes to the defeat of global democracy around the world, because it kind of serves as a kind of a vanguard for these movements that overthrow liberal democracy in the name of the supremacy of one group and a kind of ethno-nationalist vision of the state. You can see the way that’s playing out to some degree in the United States, in which the Trump administration uses the crackdown against a pro-Palestine solidarity movement as part of its effort to basically impose authoritarian control over American universities.So, I think, to me, the macro question that Mandla Mandela is getting at is not just, is Israel’s version of apartheid worse for Palestinians than South Africa’s version was for Black South Africans, but is potentially Israel’s version of apartheid part of a global system that’s much, much more dangerous for the entire world as the world lurches towards ethno-nationalism than apartheid South Africa’s was, because apartheid South Africa was basically overwhelmed by this global movement towards liberal democracy? I think that, to me, is really, the most frightening scenario from a global perspective. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit peterbeinart.substack.com/subscribe

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit peterbeinart.substack.comOur guest is Angela Davis. We discuss…her history with Jewish peoplehow the civil rights movement saw the Palestinian strugle, and what lessons it offers todaywhen resistance turns violenthow student activism today compares to the activism of the 1960show she comes by her optimism

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit peterbeinart.substack.comShabbos Kestenbaum was a student at the Harvard Divinity School and famously has sued Harvard, charging they failed to adequately deal with antisemitism on campus. He has been an outspoken defender of Israel and critic of Palestinians and their advocates, so, as you can imagine, we disagree strongly on many things. As frustrating as they can be, I think these conversations are important to have, so I’m grateful Shabbos agreed to this one.

A new way to donate to people in Gaza.Friday Zoom CallThis Friday’s Zoom call, for paid subscribers, will be at 1 PM Eastern, our usual time. Our guest will be the renowned activist and educator Angela Davis. We’ll talk about how the Palestinian freedom struggle resembles, and differs from, the struggles of other oppressed groups, and what US policy toward Israel-Palestine says about the United States. This call will be cosponsored by Jewish Currents.Cited in Today’s VideoAdam Friedland interviews Ritchie Torres.Israel moves closer to building settlements in E1.Things to Read(Maybe this should be obvious, but I link to articles and videos I find provocative and significant, not necessarily ones I entirely agree with.)In Jewish Currents (subscribe!), Simone Zimmerman asks why so many Jewish leaders took so long to condemn Israel’s assault on Gaza.The Economist offers an “anatomy of a famine” in Gaza.Why MAGA is turning against unconditional US support of Israel.For the Foundation for Middle East Peace, I interviewed Al Jazeera’s Laila Al-Arian about Israel’s targeting of journalists in Gaza.I talked to the Brave New Something Podcast about the need for a Jewish reckoning over Gaza.See you on Friday,PeterVIDEO TRANSCRIPT:So, there’s been a fair amount of attention, at least kind of that I’ve seen on social media, about an interview that a comedian named Adam Friedland did with Congressman Richie Torres that focused on the end of the interview a lot about Israel and Gaza. And it made me think about the role of comedians in often being able to say things that the mainstream media doesn’t say. You know, we think about people like Jon Stewart and John Oliver, and a lot of these folks. And I think that one of the reasons that these interviews with comedians often really break through, is that there is something fundamentally absurd about, especially about a lot of the American kind of establishment mainstream discourse about Israel and Palestine. And so often, the mainstream media, kind of takes this discourse as on the level, as credible, right, as sincere. And what comedians are more able to do is just recognize the absurdity of these things.And one particular area where I think it would be really valuable if this just became much more common is this claim that we hear all the time by American politicians, by Jewish leaders, that they support the two-state solution, right? That’s kind of so often the refuge, right? Israel’s doing something bad for Palestinians, and people say, well, I support the two-state solution. The truth is that the vast, vast majority of people in American public office, in public life, people who lead American Jewish organizations who say they support a two-state solution simply do not. They obviously do not support the idea of a sovereign, contiguous Palestinian state. And yet, their claim to support a two-state solution is taken as serious, sincere, when it’s self-evidently not, right?So, for instance, last week we heard news that Israel is kind of taking the final steps to build settlements in a territory called E1. Now, E1 basically would completely sever East Jerusalem, which is the largest Palestinian population center in the West Bank, from the rest of the West Bank, and also largely cut off the northern part of the West Bank from the southern part of the West Bank. So, it’s pretty obvious, right, that if you wanted a Palestinian state that was worth the name ‘state,’ right, which was a contiguous piece of territory, you could not possibly think it was a good idea to build Jewish settlements in E1. And yet, if you survey the vast, vast majority of politicians in Washington or Jewish leaders, or whoever, you know, who say they support a two-state solution, you will not hear them condemning what Israel’s doing in E1. And if you say to them, do you think the United States should condition military aid to try to stop Israel from building an E1? Should the US deploy sanctions to prevent this action that would clearly make a Palestinian state much, much more difficult, they would say no, right? And yet, they still say they support the two-state solution.The Israeli government, since Netanyahu, you know, returned to power with this constellation, with Smotrich and Ben-Gvir, has been passionately doing everything in its power to destroy the possibility of a Palestinian state by funding massive new settlement growth. And yet, the vast majority of people in Washington who say they support a two-state solution are not willing to support and would in fact actively resist any meaningful U.S. effort to stop that settlement growth that clearly makes a Palestinian state much, much harder—I would argue, at this point, actually, impossible.So, it’s an absurd position to take, and there’s something ridiculous. It’s a dereliction of duty for people in the media to take claims seriously when they’re confronted by a politician or a Jewish official whose own actions so obviously make it clear that they don’t actually hold the position they claim to hold, right? I mean, I often think when I hear these people saying they support the two-state solution, that it would be a little bit like me saying that my position is that I support running the New York Marathon, right? And if I said that, the next question I think that would be legitimate for someone to ask would be, well, do you do any running? Are you practicing for the New York Marathon? Do you run at all? And if the answer is, no, I don’t do any running. I mostly sit on my couch and eat chocolate cake, right? And I’m actively opposed to anyone who actually tries to get me to go running, then the right response to the claim that my position is that I’m going to run the New York Marathon would be laughter, right?And while I don’t believe in mocking people, being cruel to people, there should be an element of laughter when politicians, year after year, go and say they support a two-state solution, when what they’re doing effectively is to prevent the United States from stopping Israel from doing the things that manifestly make a Palestinian state more difficult or more impossible. And the fact that so often the mainstream media doesn’t do that, that it takes these claims as serious, as on the level when they’re manifestly not, I think is part of what’s created this space in which so many people are hungry for a kind of alternative discourse, in which people will simply say often in a kind of humorous way, that this the emperor has no clothes here. That the whole thing is a farce, right? And I think if politicians were forced to answer for that farce, and they had people who said that to them—this is a farce—we would make progress towards facing the real questions that I think exist in terms of our vision for Israel-Palestine.Which is: do we believe in the fundamental principle that Israelis and Palestinians should have equality under the law? Because if you believe in that fundamental principle, right, then, I actually think the question of whether you support one state or two states is not as important as the question of the nature of those states, right? Are they going to be states in which people are treated equally irrespective of their ethnicity or their religion or their race? But this claim that I support the two-state solution becomes a kind of a barrier to having that more fundamental, deeper question, and that it needs to be punctured first before we get to, I think, the meaningful question about principles, which will make it clear how many American politicians, when it comes to Israel and Palestine, actually support not the principle of equality under the law, but the principle of Jewish supremacy. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit peterbeinart.substack.com/subscribe

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit peterbeinart.substack.comOur guest is Mohsen Mahdawi, a Palestinian-American green card holder abducted by the Trump administration in retaliation for his activism at Columbia University— and later released. We discuss…Growing up in a refugee campHis conversion to BuddhismHis abduction and confinementColumbia’s abandonment and why he chose to return to Columbia despite it

Rabbi Dr. Ismar Schorsch is chancellor emeritus of The Jewish Theological Seminary (JTS) and the Rabbi Herman Abramovitz Distinguished Professor of Jewish history. He’s had a long, illustrious career of service to the Jewish community, so some where surprised by his recent essay, A Hard Tisha B’Av, which is critical of both Israel and the lack of response from Jewish leadership. I’m honored he agreed to discuss it with me. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit peterbeinart.substack.com/subscribe

A new way to donate to people in Gaza.Friday Zoom CallThis Friday’s Zoom call, for paid subscribers, will be at 1 PM Eastern, our usual time. Our guest will be Mohsen Mahdawi, a Palestinian-American green card holder abducted by the Trump administration in retaliation for his activism at Columbia University— and later released. We’ll talk about his childhood in the West Bank, his experience at Columbia, his detention, and what he’s learned from the experience.Ask Me AnythingOur next Ask Me Anything session, for premium subscribers, will be this Monday, August 25, from 2-3 PM Eastern time.Cited in Today’s VideoJonathan Greenblatt’s recent appearance on CNBC.Marwan Barghouti on the Second Intifada.The polls about Zohran Mamdani’s support among New York Jews.Things to Read(Maybe this should be obvious, but I link to articles and videos I find provocative and significant, not necessarily ones I entirely agree with.)In Jewish Currents (subscribe!), Maya Rosen and Erez Bleicher remember slain Palestinian activist Awdah Hathaleen.The Israeli military’s own data suggests that over 80% of the people it has killed in Gaza are civilians.How Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro influenced the University of Pennsylvania’s response to pro-Palestinian protest on campus.Omer Bartov predicts that the International Court of Justice will find Israel guilty of genocide.Eyal Press on Columbia’s disastrous decision to adopt the IHRA definition of antisemitism.I talked to Harrison Berger about Being Jewish After the Destruction of Gaza.“Home? A Palestinian Woman's Pursuit of Life, Liberty, & Happiness” is playing in San Francisco and New York this fall.See you on Monday and Friday,PeterVIDEO TRANSCRIPT:I think when this horror in Gaza is over—this destruction, this slaughter, starvation, which so many human rights organizations and legal scholars now call genocide—when it’s over, there’s gonna have to be a reckoning in the United States. Not just in the U.S. government providing the weapons and diplomatic support, but a kind of broader cultural reckoning. Because there’s so many institutions that I think are culpable in this, that will need to look themselves in the mirror. And one of them is the U.S. mainstream media. Because even now, even after almost 2 years into this, it’s still so easy for people who support unconditional support of what Israel’s doing to go on the U.S. media and say things that are palpably, obviously untrue, and not be challenged on these things, right?And so, one example is from last week. The ADL, Anti-Defamation League, head, Jonathan Greenblatt, goes on a show called ‘Squawk Box’ on CNBC, and just says one thing after another that are just obviously untrue, right? First, he says that Zohran Mamdani, the Democratic nominee for mayor of New York ‘has visited churches and mosques, not a single synagogue. Not once has he gone to a Jewish neighborhood.’ Immediately, people started tweeting pictures of Zohran Mamdani in his mayoral campaign having gone to synagogues, because he went to multiple synagogues, he went to multiple Jewish neighborhoods, he had multiple meetings with New York Jews and different Jewish officials, right?And then Greenblatt kind of incredibly, lamely says, I just meant that he hasn’t done so since he won the primary, which is not what he said at all. But the striking thing is that he wasn’t challenged on the show when he said that, right? And then he goes on to say in reference to the Intifada, this is how Greenblatt defines the Intifada. He says, ‘the Intifada was a violent uprising in the Palestinian territories where they murdered over 1,000 people simply because they were Jewish.’ Again, obviously, factually incorrect, right? First of all, there were two Intifadas since 1967. Intifada is an Arabic word that means, kind of, uprising or shaking off. But if one’s talking about in the West Bank and Gaza since 1967, there’s a First Intifada in the late 1980s, and a second in the early 2000s, right? Greenblatt is only referring to the second, probably because the first one was actually much, much more non-violent. So first of all, that’s dishonest, right, to begin with.Secondly, he says that they murdered over a thousand people, Israeli Jews. Greenblatt never mentions that at least three times as many Palestinians were murdered, right? So, these are really, I think, blatant dishonesties by omission. But then the last part is that these people were murdered simply because they were Jewish. I don’t think there’s a single scholar who has genuine academic credentials, who studied the Second Intifada, including in Israel, who, you know, or in Jewish scholars in the United States, who believe that, right? The Second Intifada was a violent uprising against Israeli oppression. Yes, it was an uprising that committed war crimes, that violated international law by targeting civilians. There were clearly civilians targeted to a significant degree, and that’s a violation of international law. You cannot, no matter what your circumstances, target civilians. It’s a war crime. It’s fundamentally immoral. That is totally legitimate to say.But to say that these people were targeted because they were Jewish, rather than because they were part of a state that’s committing oppression, it makes about as much sense as saying that people who were killed in Kenya in the Mau Mau Rebellion were killed because they were white or British. Or that people who were killed in Algeria were killed because they were French, right? Or people who were killed by Native Americans in the United States in the 19th century in violent uprisings that targeted civilians often were killed because they were white Americans. It’s nonsense. It just completely erases the structure of oppression that exists. Again, the structure of oppression, I want to be very clear, does not excuse legally or morally everything that’s done. Not at all. But to simply erase it and suggest—because again, Jonathan Greenblatt has one hammer, which is antisemitism. So, everything has to become a nail. So, essentially, everything the Palestinians do has to become antisemitism because he will never actually discuss the political, legal reality of oppression that is the context for what Palestinians do. It doesn’t justify everything that Palestinians do but is the crucial context to understand why there was an Intifada to begin with. That’s completely erased, right?Marwan Barghouti, who’s probably the most prominent leader of the Second Intifada, said—this is how Barghouti describes the Second Intifada, just compare it to what Jonathan Greenblatt says—Barghouti says, ‘how would you feel if on every hill in territory that belongs to you, a new settlement would spring up? If your best friends with whom you fought shoulder to shoulder continue to rot in jail. I reached a simple conclusion. You, Israel, don’t want to end the occupation, and you don’t want to stop the settlements, so the only way to convince you is by force.’ Now, one can critique Marwan Baghouti on strategic grounds. One can criticize him on moral grounds. But the idea that these uprisings, these attacks were done simply because they were Jews, it’s just nonsense, right? Again, and even among pro-Israel scholars, they would recognize that this is nonsense.And yet, Jonathan Greenblatt can say these things. He’s not challenged. And then, one of the interviewers, to their credit, when Jonathan Greenblatt is basically saying that he’s positing himself as the arbiter of how Jews feel about Zohran Mamdani, because evidently someone made Jonathan Greenblatt pope. I wasn’t around for that election, but evidently we made Jonathan Greenblatt our pope. And this one interviewer, to her credit, on CNBC’s ‘Squawk Box’ starts to quote polls to Jonathan Greenblatt. She quotes one poll suggesting that he won a third of the Jewish vote, which was a plurality in the primary, and a second one suggesting that among younger Jewish New Yorkers, I think under the age of 44, there was a poll that showed him with 67% of the vote.And what does Jonathan Greenblatt do? Right? Pope Greenblatt? Pope Greenblatt says repeatedly, I don’t believe those polls. I don’t believe those polls. And they just let him say this? I mean, this is nonsense, this is unbelievable. Why on earth would you allow Jonathan Greenblatt, who’s not got no expertise in polling, right, to basically say you should listen to me, you should believe me about what Jewish New Yorkers think, rather than actually several scientifically conducted polls about what Jewish New Yorkers think, which suggest that actually Zohran Mamdani has a lot of support among Jewish New Yorkers, which is something which is very uncomfortable for Jonathan Greenblatt to admit, and so he just dismisses it, and he says the polls are lies, right? And then he gets away with it, right?And if this were going to be Jonathan Greenblatt’s last interview on this show, or on any mainstream show, because there was a general understanding in the media that if you lie this blatantly, there should be some consequence, then we could be getting somewhere in terms of the discourse, right? I certainly think that if there was a Palestinian or a pro-Palestinian advocate who went on one of these shows and lied as blatantly as Jonathan Greenblatt did, that person would not be getting invited back, right? But all the evidence suggests that Jonathan Greenblatt will be get invited back to talk to interviewers who either don’t know enough to challenge him, or are ideologically so sympathetic that they don’t challenge him even when he’s saying falsehoods.This is emblematic of a broken mainstream media environment. And that broken mainstream media environment is absolutely connected to the fact that the United States continues to send the weapons that Slaughter and starve people in Gaza, and it is absolutely connected to the fact that the Trump administration, with the support of American universities, can blatantly in

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit peterbeinart.substack.comOur guest is Abdul El-Sayed, a child of Egyptian immigrants to the US, a Rhodes Scholar, a graduate of Columbia University Medical School and currently a Democratic candidate for the Senate in Michigan. I’m not endorsing Abdul’s candidacy (or anyone else’s), but I was keen to talk to him about being an Arab and Muslim American politician in the age of Trump and about the political debate over Israel’s destruction of Gaza.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit peterbeinart.substack.comLarry Summers, former US Treasury Secretary and Harvard President Emeritus, has been a strong defender of Israel and has been critical of what he sees as a lack of leadership from institutions like Harvard in condemning antisemitism on campus. We have some sharp disagreements on these issues, so I appreciate his willingness to hash them out with me.

A new way to donate to people in Gaza.Friday Zoom CallThis Friday’s Zoom call, for paid subscribers, will be at 1 PM Eastern, our usual time. Our guest will be Abdul El-Sayed, a child of Egyptian immigrants to the US, a Rhodes Scholar, a graduate of Columbia University Medical School and currently a Democratic candidate for the Senate in Michigan. I’m not endorsing Abdul’s candidacy (or anyone else’s), but I’m keen to talk to him about being an Arab and Muslim American politician in the age of Trump and about the political debate over Israel’s destruction of Gaza.Ask Me AnythingOur next Ask Me Anything session, for premium subscribers, will be a week from Monday, August 25, from 2-3 PM Eastern time.Cited in Today’s VideoHarvard’s decision to shut down programs that study Palestinians at the School of Public Health and Divinity School.The IHRA definition of antisemitism.Columbia historian Rashid Khalidi’s warning that enforcing the IHRA definition would make honest teaching and scholarship about Israel and Zionism impossible.Things to Read(Maybe this should be obvious, but I link to articles and videos I find provocative and significant, not necessarily ones I entirely agree with.)In Jewish Currents (subscribe!), Alex Kane details the role of the Department of Health and Human Services in Trump’s assault on free speech on campus.Mosab Abu Toha on the kinds of planes you see in Gaza.Trita Parsi on why Israel and Iran may soon be at war again.Adam Sticklor on Gaza as a Jewish story.A new poll shows Zohran Mamdani with a huge lead among young Jewish voters.Gaza’s average life expectancy has fallen by 35 years since October 7.I talked about Being Jewish After the Destruction with Piers MorganSee you Friday,PeterVIDEO TRANSCRIPT:So, there are reports that Harvard may soon settle with the Trump administration and reportedly pay $500 million and agree to some set of terms. This would follow, you know, deals by Colombia and Brown, and probably set in motion a whole series of additional kind of agreements by universities with the Trump administration. Harvard says that this agreement will not violate academic freedom.The harsh reality is that Harvard has already seriously infringed upon academic freedom. There’s already been a very serious imprint in violation of academic freedom, even before this agreement. It’s just that it doesn’t get noticed so much because it has to do with the rights of Palestinian scholars and Palestinian students, and people who want to study the fate of Palestinians. And there’s so little attention to the academic freedom and rights of Palestinian students and scholars, as opposed to Jewish students.And so, Harvard is already shut down two programs it had that worked on the question of the rights and livelihood of Palestinians: one at the School of Public Health, which was done in partnership with Birzeit University and the West Bank. The other at the Harvard Divinity School, which, led by Israeli and Palestinian scholars, used Israel and Palestine as a kind of case study in questions of religion, conflict, and oppression. Those have already both been shut down by Harvard, under pressure from Republican lawmakers, donors, establishment Jewish. Organizations. So, there’s already been a very serious infringement. There was no kind of real academic due process that led to the shutdown of this program. It was done nakedly in response to political pressure.But the deal would be much, much more dangerous because Harvard has already, to some degree, adopted the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism. But if it’s only adopted in name, the dangers are relatively limited. But if you make a deal with the Trump administration for some kind of enforcement mechanism in which the IHRE definition of antisemitism, which, by the way, has very little support from actual scholars of antisemitism. It’s been pushed for years, not by academics who study antisemitism, but by the Israeli government and pro-Israel organizations. If you enforce that definition, you make the teaching of Israel and Palestine basically an absurdity. You make genuine teaching and scholarship on the question of Israel-Palestine essentially impossible.Let me try to explain why. Two of the examples of antisemitism that are listed in the IHRA definition are first, denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a state of Israel is a racist endeavor. And secondly, drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis. So, let’s look at both of these. First of all, the language denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination is itself profoundly dishonest, right? Because Israel is not simply an exercise in Jewish self-determination. Self-determination is determination of the self. What Israel is doing is that it is determining, it is controlling the lives of millions of Palestinians, another people who lack individual and collective rights. So, that is not self-determination when you are controlling and denying basic rights to members of another people, right?But to say that you can’t claim that Israel is a racist endeavor on a college campus in your scholarship or teaching, or in a seminar, when Israel’s own leading human rights organizations, B’Tselem, and Yesh Din, have said Israel is practicing apartheid. That Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have said Israel is practicing apartheid. That Amnesty International has said that Israel is committing genocide, and B’Tselem, Israel’s human rights organization, has said it’s committing genocide, right?Given those circumstances, you can’t say that Israel is racist, and you can’t make any comparison between the actions of Israel, and the actions of the Nazis, even though one sees these comparisons in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz literally every day. This makes teaching on Israel and Palestine an absolute absurdity, right? Think about how could you teach about the United States in the era of Trump, right, without raising questions about comparisons of America to the Nazis and other periods in which liberal democracy slept, you know, fell into authoritarianism and into fascism.If Israel is classified as an apartheid state, right, can we imagine a situation in which you were not allowed to teach about apartheid South Africa, and call it racist, or make comparisons to the Nazis? That you couldn’t teach about the Jim Crow South if you made comparisons with the Nazis, given that the Nazis learned from the white supremacy of the segregated Jim Crow South? Or that you couldn’t call the Jim Crow South apartheid? Or that you couldn’t teach about China if you were to call China a racist system against non-Han Chinese? Or if you couldn’t teach about Myanmar, or country after country after country?Under these parameters, it makes an absolute absurdity of the idea of trying to teach honestly about the realities in Israel and Palestine. And this is happening because of this really unholy alliance of a Trump administration that couldn’t care less about Jews, and in fact is in league with all kinds of antisemitic white nationalists, but is just using antisemitism like it’s using trans, like it’s using crime, like it’s using whatever, to basically try to cripple independent institutions. And a set of establishment American Jewish actors, organizations, and also individual donors and others, who basically are desperate to try to prevent an open conversation in the United States about what’s actually happening on the ground to Palestinians.And this is a very good way of doing that, because you literally make it impossible to actually think about Israel in a comparative context. And you make it impossible to ask fundamental questions about the moral legitimacy of an enterprise, even though the moral legitimacy of the enterprise has been questioned profoundly by the world’s leading human rights organizations and Israel’s leading human rights organizations, and many, many scholars around the world.But those scholars literally now could not do that work at Harvard University, the most famous, prestigious university in America if the IHRA definition of antisemitism is enforced as part of a deal with the Trump administration. These are the stakes. This is the threat. And it is truly, truly appalling, appalling to see mainstream American Jewish leaders who claim to represent a community that has benefited so profoundly from independent, vibrant universities as a building block of American liberal democracy. So many of our own Jewish families, our life story is bound up with our ability to have upward mobility. And through these universities, that these mainstream Jewish organizations, whether they want to admit it or not, by pushing the IHRA definition for year after year after year will be complicit in the crippling, maybe even the destruction, of these universities. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit peterbeinart.substack.com/subscribe

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit peterbeinart.substack.comI was honored to speak with the Hungarian-Canadian physician Gabor Maté. We’ve never talked before, but I’ve long been struck by the psychological insight he brings to discussions of Israel-Palestine and the Jewish experience.