I Read Peter Beinart’s Book So You Don’t Have To

Watch and Listen

This past January, journalist, political commentator, and anti-Israel Jew,

Peter Byner wrote a book called Being Jewish After the Destruction of Gaza.

It's a New York Times bestseller with hundreds of wonderful

reviews and ratings on Amazon.

It's respectful, well written, and like most anti-Israel polemics sounds

exceedingly reasonable if you don't know what's very purposefully not being said.

Lucky for all of you.

I read it so you don't have to.

What the book gets right and what I find to be the key truth at the heart

of the Jewish anti-Israel argument writ large is that Israel and its supporters

have not done enough to reckon with the ugly parts of Israel's creation,

societal issues or decisions that have moved it further away from peace with

Palestinians rather than towards it.

I find that to be an objectively accurate and important observation.

It's true and deserves to be discussed openly.

However, this is essentially also true of every other country on planet Earth.

Hell, America's almost 250 years old and we've barely started

reckoning with our own history.

So despite it being the right call, it should not be surprising, nor a

unique blemish on Israel above all other countries that we've still got

some work to do when it comes to how it's passed, is examined and discussed.

The idea that Israel hasn't been fully honest with itself makes for a very hollow

foundation for the frenzied demonization that has become the defining pillar of

most anti-Israel Jews, Jewish identities.

Folks like Byard have no plans to leave their comfortable lives in

America out of moral righteousness over American atrocities.

Do not call for America's dissolution as a state, nor make their entire

personality as Americans about decrying historical missteps or even current ones.

This double standard brings me to what the book gets wrong in his urgency

to retti the Israel Palestine scale towards his definition of justice.

Byard falls victim to the very same method he decries.

He lays the blame for the conflict entirely at Israel's feet.

While de-emphasizing the culpability of the Palestinians at nearly every turn,

rather than balance the scales, he simply places his thumb on the other side and

pushes down, fundamentally undercutting his own argument in the process.

For instance, he attempts to ascribe the notion that Hamas uses

human shields as a disingenuous Israeli excuse for wanton violence.

Despite the fact that Hamas absolutely does use human shields and could

literally keep every single Palestinian safely underground in its 500 miles

of tunnels if it had any desire to, but of course, that's not addressed.

He uses the phrase international law so many times.

It could be a drinking game, but never wants to examine how Palestinians continue

to break it only by his accounting Israel.

Something the book gets right.

It asserts that Jews often gloss over parts of our ancient history where

the Israelites were the aggressors.

A prime example being the end of the Purim story, where the Jews saved by

Queen Esther's bravery then go out and slaughter a bunch of their enemies.

I find this to be a totally valid assertion as I'm betting.

Many of you had no idea that McGill ended that way until I just told you.

What I find invalid is the implication that what did or did not happen in

any biblical story or whether we pay attention to that story in 2025 or

not, has any bearing whatsoever on what is actually happening in Israel

today or in the mindset of Israel's supporters, what Jews view themselves

as became immaterial on October 7th.

They were victims of the most horrifying massacre of Jews in generations.

Similarly, what Israel did or did not do to Palestinians in 1948 has

no bearing on whether Israel did or did not do something to them in 2025.

If I stole an apple in 1993, that is neither an argument

for nor against the accusation.

I stole an apple in 2025.

Ultimately, I either stole the apple this time or I did not.

Every argument must be made on its own merits, which the book often fails to do.

Opting instead to blame actual events on a perceived Jewish mindset rather than on

how or why the events themselves unfolded.

I've seen Byard fall into this trap before when he appeared on The Daily

Show with vehemently anti-ISIS, Israel Pundit, John Stewart.

Stewart, and Byard agree that just because Jews have been victims

before doesn't mean they can't also be aggressors to which I say a duh.

They're right.

Any person can do anything, even if that thing was done to them.

There was nothing novel or revelatory or brave about that statement.

What's actually quite malevolent about this line of discourse is the implication

that a basic truth that anyone is capable of anything is somehow proof of Israel's

culpability in regards to the war in Gaza, that because Israel, like every

other country on earth, is capable of doing harm, they are indeed guilty in

this specific instance of having done it.

This is literally not an argument that guy hit me.

I am capable of hitting and you think I hit some other guy, are not

causal or even correlated ideas.

This is not logic.

Something the book also gets right is that Israel is deeply flawed.

This should be obvious to anyone who views Israel as what it is a

country run by people, all of whom by definition are deeply flawed.

The book rightly argues that Israel was born in conflict, which meant

bloodshed and displacement and anguish for thousands of people

with plenty of historical evidence.

But again, it deliberately only colors in part of the picture.

It neglects to acknowledge that Israel's creation mirrors that

of every other state birthed from nationalist interests, certainly in

the mid 20th century when this dynamic was playing out all over the globe.

Instead, it focuses purely on Israeli aggression, either downplaying

or outright excluding Palestinian culpability across the board.

And again, it attempts to use those past events as proof of guilt

regarding current ones, even though they are by nature disconnected.

Something else the book gets right is that Israel's control over

Palestinians and parts of Judea and Samaria is unjust and often cruel.

We know why checkpoints exists.

We know why there's no trust.

We know security is paramount, and yet none of that excuses the abuse

of power or needless agitation.

The book also rightly spotlights some of the inequalities for Arabs living

in Jerusalem, legitimate grievances that require calls for justice.

However, as you've likely guessed, the book makes no mention whatsoever

of the unmatched equality.

Israelis enjoy Jews, Muslims, Christians, Drews Palestinians alike

that is entirely absent from the Palestinian Territories, as well as every

neighboring country in the Middle East.

20% of Israelis are Arab Muslims who live and work at every level of society.

In America, the number is 1%.

Here they've never been on the Supreme Court or in a ruling

government as they have in Israel.

Why?

This is all seemingly unimportant information in a discussion about

Arabic quality in Israel is beyond me.

The book also makes the case for having an Israel with equal rights

for all and claims that to be anti the Jewish state is not to be anti-Jewish.

Yeah, okay.

There are billions, billions, more Arabs than Jews, and their

birth rates are quite high.

It would not be long at all before a quote.

Equal land became a Muslim majority country and one need only.

Look at literally every other Muslim country in the region to

know precisely what happens to Jews in Muslim majority countries.

They die or flee to Israel, which Oops no longer exists to suggest that an

entire ideology built around reaching this likely result is somehow not

anti-Jewish is the ultimate turd sandwich.

Something else.

The book gets right is the need for Jews to better listen to Palestinian

voices, even if it's hard, even if it's with a grain of salt, even if

it's infuriating, even if it's not reciprocal, it will either sharpen your

own ideas or poke holes in them, both of which are desirable outcomes that lead

you to a more complete understanding.

And if it leads to some shared humanity too, well, wouldn't that

be a good thing for everyone?

Lastly, the most important thing this book gets terribly wrong is that it absolves

Palestinians of all its impediments towards peace and refuses to acknowledge

the existence of jihadist ideology at the heart of Palestinian society.

By now's main framing is that if only Israel, this if only

Jews, that they would be peace.

And of course it is certainly true that there are plenty of if onlys Israel

should and must do if they want to pave the path towards truly lasting peace.

Yet, absolutely none of it matters if Hamas remains in charge of Gaza,

and the Palestinians who support them are not deradicalize from

wanting to exterminate all Jews.

The Israelis most desirous of peace with Gaza's, the most left-leaning and most

engaged in trying to uplift their Arab neighbors were the first ones raped,

beheaded, and burned alive on October 7th.

That is not hyperbole.

That was the plan.

To slaughter the peaceniks of these specific kibbutz in the most grotesque

and blood thirsty way imaginable.

It is completely disqualifying for any sort of argument to be made against

Israel without first contending with the immutable fact that Hamas seeks to

kill Jews, not because of persecution or occupation, but because they are alive.

I was taught a long time ago that to make a strong argument, you need to be able to

make the other side's argument for them.

I have yet to see an anti-Israel voice be able to do this probably

because if they could, they wouldn't be anti-Israel anymore.

Disappointingly, but not surprisingly, being Jewish after the

destruction of Gaza is no exception.

But hey, look on the bright side, at least now you don't have to read it.

This is the 49th episode of being Jewish with me, Jonah Platt.