In a recent video essay, Peter Beinart—editor of Jewish Currents—delivers a crucial message for those following the ongoing debate over Israel’s war in Gaza. Beinart argues that, while it is emotionally tempting to scold politicians and pundits who belatedly distance themselves from Israel’s conduct, doing so is politically counter-productive. Instead, he insists, we must engage these voices, hold them to account, and encourage them to publicly explain why they initially supported the war and what changed their minds. Such public reckoning, Beinart contends, is vital—not only for historical clarity but also for shaping future policy and accountability as international legal judgments loom
.
“Over the last week or two the debate over Israel's assault on Gaza in the kind of mainstream western circles...has in some fundamental sense ended...It's now very rare to find people with any credibility in kind of mainstream circles vocally arguing that Israel...can a) destroy Hamas, b) free the hostages, and c) do so without committing massive war crimes, including perhaps genocide...The voices that were arguing those three propositions...have really, really faded.”
The Temptation to Scold—and Why to Resist It
Beinart acknowledges the understandable anger on the pro-Palestinian left, who watched as previously supportive public figures now quietly abandon their earlier positions. He notes:
“One of the reasons that people don't publicly go out and say that they were wrong is because people have a tendency to pillory them when they do...There's a bit of a tendency to kick people when they're down...I really understand that sentiment, especially when it's coming from people on the left...who are so used to getting kind of beaten up rhetorically and marginalized themselves...But I think...it's important to resist that tendency and...encourage people to come out and say that they were wrong.”
Rather than shaming these “defectors” from the Israeli government’s narrative, Beinart urges activists and commentators to create space for public admissions of error. This, he argues, is not about absolution, but about creating a record and fostering accountability.
Why Public Reckoning Matters
Beinart draws on historical analogies to illustrate the dangers of letting debates end in silence rather than reckoning. He points to the Iraq War, where many of its most prominent supporters simply “crept away from the scene of the catastrophe,” only to later resurface in influential roles without ever having to explain or learn from their mistakes. He warns:
“One of the problems with America's foreign policy debate...has been that many people who supported military interventions that were disasters like Iraq were able to kind of resurface...and not be actually...really forced...to publicly reckon with why they got this first military intervention wrong...So it didn't have an impact on how they saw things in the future.”
Beinart names figures like John Bolton and, by implication, others such as Fred and Robert Kagan and Victoria Nuland—individuals who, despite their roles in previous foreign policy blunders, continued to shape U.S. policy in subsequent administrations.
The Stakes: Legal and Political
As the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and International Criminal Court (ICC) prepare to issue rulings on Gaza, Beinart stresses the importance of having public statements on record. Only by compelling former supporters to articulate their reasoning can we ensure that future policymakers are held to account, and that the historical record reflects not just a change in consensus, but the reasons for that change.
“It's especially important that Biden administration officials...be invited and encouraged to come out publicly and say that they were wrong...as opposed to basically do what I think they're doing now, which is...try to avoid the subject...I think it's much better for people to say, 'We would rather you publicly come out and reckon and say why you're wrong,' than...just pretend this didn't happen, because I think that will have an impact on the next Democratic administration...”
A Call for Constructive Engagement
Beinart closes with a reference to Jewish tradition, emphasizing that the opportunity for repentance and public reckoning is a virtue, not a weakness:
“In the Talmud...Rab Abahu...says that in the place where penitents stand, even the most righteous do not stand...One of the reasons that human beings are considered better than angels is because angels don't sin, but human beings do and therefore have the opportunity to do repentance...We are much better off if people are encouraged to publicly come out and say they're wrong and grapple with why they're wrong so that it influences how they think in the future than if people...just quietly slink away from this debate altogether because they realize that their position has been disproven but they don't want to say so out loud.”
Conclusion
Beinart’s message is clear: the end of the Gaza debate in mainstream Western discourse should not be marked by silence and evasion. Instead, it must be an opportunity for public reckoning—a moment when those who once defended the war are pressed to explain themselves, to account for their change of heart, and to help ensure that the lessons of this catastrophe are not lost to history. Only then can there be hope for meaningful accountability and a future less prone to repeating the same tragic mistakes.