Peter Beinart Calls Terrorist Attacks on Jews "Violent Resistance"
The roots of what you believe can be found in the words you use. Take the Democrats who keep calling the Nation of Islam leader, "Minister Farrakhan".
Peter Beinart has spent a long time playing this game of attacking Israel while claiming to be pro-Israel, defending terrorists while claiming to oppose them, ditto for BDS. But here's a telling slip that happened when debating Rich Lowry on CNN.
The topic was Miftah, the pro-terrorist and anti-Semitic hate group behind the Rep. Tlaib and Rep. Omar trip.
LOWRY: Then why does the organization publish things supporting terrorism?
BEINART: Rich, I disagree with violent resistance —
LOWRY: Yeah, but why do they —
BEINART: — because a lot of Palestinians believe that because they are subject to daily violence of a system which denies them basic rights, they have the right to respond violently. I disagree with them —
LOWRY: By killing innocent people.
Using the term "violent resistance" for terrorism is both damning and telling. The term is an attempt at whitewashing and normalizing terrorism.
Normal people describe terrorist attacks as terrorism. Using "violent resistance" reframes terrorism as an act of resistance, legitimizing it, while reducing what it actually is, shooting families from passing cars, to technical and legalistic language, violent rather than terroristic.
Beinart has been playing this game for a long time. But the disguise has been coming off over the years.
And moments like this make it very clear that when you give Beinart a forum, you're giving a forum to an anti-Israel activist trying to normalize the murder of Jews.
When you describe the murder of Jewish men, women and children as "violent resistance", you have no place in the Jewish community.