A previous post correcting a pastor associated with Levant Ministries regarding the historical case for “Palestinians” is worth exploring in combination with this post.
This is just some quick hits on Fares Abraham and his distorted views of his belief and the Islamic “friends” he has in Palestine.
The claim that Palestinian children are not taught hatred, jihad, or violence against Jews is contradicted by the documented contents of Palestinian Authority schoolbooks. A November 2025 investigation by IMPACT-se found that antisemitism remains embedded in the curriculum, including Islamic-law textbooks teaching that the Bible was corrupted through Jewish plots and portraying Paul the Jew as having introduced false beliefs to corrupt Christianity. Other materials manipulate Scripture to portray Paul as endorsing jihad, glorify terrorist figures such as Dalal al-Mughrabi, romanticize martyrdom and violent struggle, and even incorporate the glorification of so-called martyrs into elementary mathematics and language lessons. The indoctrination extends beyond textbooks into school ceremonies, where children have reportedly chanted about igniting the Intifada with stones and knives while mimicking throat-slitting gestures. Against this evidence, Fares Abraham’s personal recollection that he was not taught to kill as a five-year-old proves remarkably little about what Palestinian educational institutions teach across generations. Anecdote is not curriculum analysis, and sentimental appeals to childhood experience cannot erase documented evidence of systematic indoctrination. The issue is not whether Palestinian children deserve education, dignity, and peace—they unquestionably do. It is whether those responsible for educating them are teaching tolerance or perpetuating the very hatred and violence that make peace so elusive.
SOURCE: Jules Gomes, “Review of Palestinian Schoolbooks Debunks Tucker Carlson’s ‘No Hate’ Narrative,” Middle East Forum, February 26, 2026. The article draws on IMPACT-se’s 2025–2026 curriculum research.
Notice Fares single articles get into mainstream sites/publications… but also note who he is a regular contributor to:
Fares Abraham’s interview with Tucker Carlson is a case study in how selective history, questionable biblical interpretation, and sweeping generalizations can be packaged as Christian advocacy. In a detailed examination, CAMERA’s David Orenstein challenges Abraham’s assertions that Israel prevents Messianic Jews from immigrating, prohibits Christians from preaching about Jesus, and is driving its Christian population toward extinction—a claim contradicted by Israeli demographic figures showing substantial Christian population growth. Abraham and Carlson also advance a misleading account of Jewish indigeneity, dismissing the historical connection between contemporary Jews and ancient Israel while presenting Palestinians as the land’s exclusive indigenous people. Their treatment of Zionism is similarly selective: the famous “land without a people” expression is stripped of its nineteenth-century historical context, Christian Zionists are caricatured as seeking an exclusively Jewish homeland, and support for Israel is inaccurately reduced to an obsession with rebuilding a Third Temple. But the most consequential disagreements are theological. Abraham portrays the Abrahamic land covenant as conditional, suggests Jesus repudiated Jewish national and territorial expectations, and argues that the New Testament transformed Israel’s physical land promises into something exclusively spiritual. CAMERA counters with extensive biblical, historical, and patristic evidence challenging those interpretations, including the writings of Irenaeus and Tertullian and New Testament passages in Acts, Romans, and Hebrews. The article also challenges Abraham’s sweeping portrayal of Palestinian Christians as uniformly committed to nonviolence, citing Palestinian Christian leaders who have praised suicide bombers and glorified jihad. Finally, it questions his presentation of incidents involving the Church of Saint Porphyrius and the Taybeh Church, as well as his promotion of Breaking the Silence. The larger problem is not that Abraham criticizes Israeli policies or advocates Palestinian rights; it is that his presentation repeatedly omits historical context, overlooks inconvenient evidence, and advances theological conclusions as though they were uncontested Christian orthodoxy. That is precisely why his claims deserve scrutiny rather than unquestioning acceptance simply because they come wrapped in the language of Christian compassion and peace.
The author identifies several areas of disagreement:
| SUBJECT | CAMERA’S CRITICISM |
|---|---|
| Messianic Jews | Abraham allegedly misrepresents Israel’s immigration rules. |
| Christian evangelism | Claims that Israel prohibits preaching about Jesus are challenged. |
| Christian population | The suggestion that Israeli Christians are approaching extinction is challenged with demographic data. |
| Jewish ancestry | Abraham’s comments about Palestinian and Jewish ancestry are challenged. |
| Indigenous identity | The assertion that Palestinians alone are indigenous is challenged. |
| Zionist history | Abraham and Carlson’s treatment of the phrase “A land without a people for a people without a land” is challenged. |
| Christian Zionism | The article disputes Abraham’s characterization of Christian Zionism as inherently opposed to Palestinian sovereignty. |
| Biblical interpretation | It challenges his interpretation of Galatians 4 and the Abrahamic covenant. |
| Third Temple | It disputes the suggestion that rebuilding a Third Temple is a central motivation for Christian support of Israel. |
And yes, Abraham Fares promotes genetic testing (CAMERA):
Misrepresenting the Connection of Contemporary Jews to Ancient Jews in the Land of Israel
Tucker Carlson asks his guest: “If you were to say, ‘Who lived in first-century Palestine, current-day Israel,’ are you more closely related to those people, or is Benjamin Netanyahu more closely related to those people?” Abraham responds: “They should do a DNA test and see. I did my DNA test. Palestinian Christians are [of] Levantine origin.” In response to Abraham’s statement, Carlson states: “So it’s likely that you have more Jewish ancestors than Benjamin Netanyahu, whose family’s from Europe.” Abraham responds to Carlson by stating, “Probably.”
In critiquing a similar claim made by the Dar al-Kalima University President Dr. Mitri Raheb, the New Testament scholar Malcolm Lowe stated:
Even if Raheb’s claims about the ancestry of himself and Binyamin Netanyahu were true, he would be putting them at the service of a shameless racism. But, of course, he also has not the slightest evidence to support those claims. He knows nothing of Netanyahu’s ancestry […] As for DNA, had he taken the trouble, Raheb could have found that genetic studies on Jews have shown that European Jews are genetically much more closely related to Jews in the Middle East and even to some non-Jews there, than to non-Jewish Europeans.
The insinuation that most Jews are not descended from Jews historically, but rather are Khazar descendants who converted to Judaism has been discredited. In a similar vein, Abraham suggests that Palestinians are “the indigenous people of the land,” not Jews: “We’re [Palestinians are] not from neighboring countries. We’re not converts. We’re not newcomers. We’re not immigrants. We are the indigenous people of the land.” In fact, the Middle East historian Daniel Pipes has observed that the majority of those who identify as Palestinians today are, in fact, immigrants from other locations:
[N]on-Jewish immigra[nts] to Palestine […] and their descendants probably make up a majority of the population now called Palestinian. Palestinians, in other words, are not an aboriginal, autochthonous, first, indigenous, or native people; most of them are as recently arrived as Zionists.
To suggest, as Abraham does, that Palestinians alone are indigenous to the land is, therefore, misleading. Given this view, it is not surprising that, in discussing various rulers of the territory, Carlson omits periods in antiquity when Jewish biblical kings and Hasmonean rulers exercised sovereignty over the land.
Fares Abraham’s argument turns Jewish indigeneity into a genetic competition rather than applying a consistent standard of ancestral continuity. During his Tucker Carlson interview, Abraham suggested that DNA testing should determine whether he or Benjamin Netanyahu was more closely related to the Jewish population of first-century Judea. When Carlson suggested that Abraham probably had more Jewish ancestors than Netanyahu because Netanyahu’s family came from Europe, Abraham agreed: “Probably.”
No comparative genetic evidence was presented in the interview to support that assertion. The comparison also raises a separate issue: treating European family origins as grounds to discount a Jewish ancestral connection to the land. Population-genetics research demonstrating substantial shared Middle Eastern ancestry among Jewish populations challenges that implication, but does not establish which of these two individuals is more closely related to first-century Judeans. The objection is therefore not that the interview proves Netanyahu has greater ancestral ties, but that it offers no evidence for the comparison while casting doubt on the continuity of European Jewish ancestry.
Abraham asserts Palestinian indigeneity while questioning the ancestral connection of Jews from elsewhere. To the extent that his argument accepts ancestral continuity as evidence for Palestinians but discounts it for Jews because of their diaspora origins, it applies a double standard. Historical identity, ancestral continuity, and indigeneity require consistent treatment, not a ranking of individuals by presumed genetic proximity. Centuries of diaspora and the development of Jewish communities throughout Europe and elsewhere do not, by themselves, negate the Jewish people’s documented historical connection to their ancestral homeland.
