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 oof 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.
{Reposted from the author’s blog}
