Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News: baseless hatred

Showing posts with label baseless hatred. Show all posts

Monday, July 24, 2023

Antisemites rooting for a Jewish civil war. (Then again, anyone rooting for a civil war is pretty much an antisemite.)

Palestinian news site Amad as well as other sites have an opinion piece by Jordanian Ibrahim Abu Atila that asks Arabs to stop being coy and admit that their enemy is Jews, not "Zionists."

Those of us who speak simply and who do not know theorizing and embellishment of speech and those who are not affected by what the media promotes say that those who are hostile to us are the Jews.. while those who assume in themselves culture and openness to the world say that those who are hostile to us are the Zionists... Both of these statements are true...

He then goes on to say that while Israel was founded by secular Zionists, now it is run by "Talmudists." And now the judicial reform debate in Israel is between the seculars and the "Talmudists."

And now, as we are on the verge of approving those laws that diminish the role of the judiciary and increase the control of religious Jews over the occupation entity, a major conflict has begun between the two currents.

Although the existence of the two currents depends on the Talmudic approach, and that both of them are considered a real enemy for us, our enemy is the Zionist in both its religious and secular forms. It is necessary and necessary for us to return to the conviction of the simple and elderly among us that the Jews are our enemies, no matter how hidden they are and whatever clothes they wear.

Then, somehow, he says that both sides are really Talmudists anyway.

Finally, he expresses his fervent wish for a civil war that will wipe out Israel and allow the Palestinians to take over.

We hope that the conflict will intensify and escalate openly so that we will reach advanced steps in it, leading them to a civil war that will help us get rid of both streams and liberate the entire Palestinian land from them....

This has been a popular theme, as the Palestinian and other Arab media have been closely following every Israeli news story that predicts doomsday is imminent. They just have to wait, they believe, and then allow the Jews to destroy themselves.

According to Jewish tradition, the major reason the Temples were destroyed was "sinat chinam," baseless hatred between Jews. It is saddening that we are seeing such baseless hatred today in Israel, and the judicial reform debate has been allowed by both sides to degenerate into an emotional fight between conservative and liberal, between religious and non-religious, and it is used as an excuse to widen fissures that have nothing or little to do with actual judicial reform.

Take away the rhetoric and absurd name calling, and thoughtful people on both sides have a lot they can agree on. But those voices are being drowned out.

I have my own opinions on the debate, but at this time judicial reform is not the debate anymore. Right now the enemies of Israel are the people who are eagerly widening the split between the two sides, and this is happening on both sides of the debate.

The way I see it, the two sides at this time are not the pro- and anti-judicial reform sides. The two sides are those who want to widen the split in Israeli society and those who want to narrow it: those who want to fuel sinat chinam and those who want to stop it.

The Israelis fueling the baseless hatred on either side of the debate are the allies of the Arab antisemites like Abu Atila who are cheering them on.

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.

Read all about it here!

A 1900 essay on the dangers of partisanship

Here is an editorial in the magazine "Civic and Social Problems," April 1, 1900:

Partisanship is narrow minded unreasonable adherence to a party or faction. That is its general significance. The man who clings to a party because it has a certain name, is, in these days, justly counted small minded and unthinking. He is not only unthinking and unprogressive. he is a dangerous man. There is no class in this country so dangerous as the partisan class. The partisan is the man who follows and fights for his party, "right or wrong." What safety has liberty in any land dominated by men of that stamp? Knaves and tyrants are wont to gain their ends by covertly substituting for partisanship the sacred name of patriotism. "Our country right or wrong", is as vicious as my "party right or wrong." What wars and endless infamies may not a people be led into under such a satanic slogan.

And yet there is such a thing as proper partisanship. There is what may be called partisanship for a principle. Such partisanship is the emphatic need of our time. We need men who are honest enough and brave enough to rally around a cause that is just and to stand together for that cause till it be won. Give such men a party name if you will, but when the principle is gained the party Ind the name should vanish together. While it lives the principle should rule the party. If the name and organization be perpetuated after their initial object is obtained they become a bond by which men are duped and led and ruled. Party then becomes a tyrant, its members tools and subjects. What power in the way of progress to-day is so potent as the power of party name that stands simply for party. The "party in power" arrogates to itself ownership of the nation. "Our country right or wrong" means in most cases but "our party right or wrong. ....

If not partisanship what then should we have? Each day, each year, brings its own rallying cry for concerted, organized action by the people. Evils that should be eradicated, good that should be attained, these furnish continually new questions of public concern that call for discussion and decision at the ballot-box. For the time being two parties will arise, one for, one against the question at issue. When the vote is cast the issue is settled. The opposing parties have no longer a reason for existence. Their occupation is gone. Their names should also go.

The partisan has always been the blind tool of despotism. He followed the king because be was the king, his king; followed him as a willing slave, even to the killing and plundering of his fellow-men, and the sacrificing of his own life. Today his king is the party name he swears by. Fortunately the number grows of those who have brains enough and manhood enough to cast off the shackles of partisanship.

I think that things have gotten worse - because the animating emotion does not seem to be "my party, right or wrong" but "opposing the other party, wrong or right."

The positions of the opposing camps in both the US and Israel seem to make decisions more on disgust for their political opponents than on their own deeply held beliefs. Slogans replace respectful debate, prejudices are justified as patriotism, words like "democracy" are used to justify undemocratic positions, political philosophies are subverted for petty politics, and the desire for power subsumes the what is best for the nation.

If anything is going to destroy either the United States or Israel, it is division and partisanship. And there aren't enough people sounding this alarm.

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.

Read all about it here!

Haaretz didn't report on Israel's high ranking in the World Happiness Report. Because it contradicts its own policy.

Israeli and Jewish media reported on Monday:

Israel is the fourth happiest country in the world, according to the 2023 World Happiness Report (WHR), which was released on Monday.

The publication ranks happiness on a national level each year. This year, Israel earned the fourth spot out of 109 ranked countries, an improvement over last year’s ranking of ninth.

Well, most of Israeli and Jewish media, that is.

Haaretz, which pretends to be Israel's leading newspaper to Western audiences, ignored the story.

You can argue that the World Happiness Report is a meaningless index, but surely a jump from ninth to fourth place is newsworthy, isn't it?

In previous years, Haaretz did cover the release of the report. And more than once it would go out of its way to disparage and ridicule the results - for example, this insane 2018 article by Rogel Alpher:

The only op-ed I could find that said anything positive about Israel's rankings in the annual poll was written in the wake of the Israeli election that Netanyahu lost, listing it as one of the positive signs that things are looking up in Israel. And that year, Israel was in 12th place!

Haaretz' pages are filled with how terrible Israel is and how miserable its far-Left bubble is. From just this week:

When Secular Israelis Stand Up to Their ultra-Orthodox Overlords
Is Germany and Israel's 'Special Relationship' About to Blow Up?
Netanyahu’s Insane Government Faces Crises on All Fronts
Israelis Know That True Democracy Will Spell the End of Zionism
Israel's Democracy Commandos Stand Up to the Despicable Destroyers in Power
Will Netanyahu Destroy the Israel I Left America For?
Israelis Who Moved to the UAE: 'The Smartest Decision I’ve Made'

Obviously, Haaretz can stress the bad and write op-eds about its perspective that Israel is unparalleled evil - bad news sells newspapers, after all. But to withhold news that contradicts its editorial policy is an entirely different matter.

Not reporting a story that Haaretz considered newsworthy every other year is trying to shape the news, not report it.

This is one reason why Haaretz cannot be considered a newspaper anymore. It is a propaganda outlet.

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.

Read all about it here!

The false choice for Jews on Israel, and the Jewish way to fix it

Thomas Friedman in The New York Times writes an op-ed with the headline, "American Jews, You Have to Choose Sides on Israel:"

Ever since Israel’s founding in 1948, supporting the country’s security and its economic development and cementing its diplomatic ties to the U.S. have been the “religion” of many nonobservant American Jews — rather than studying Torah or keeping kosher. That mission drove fund-raising and forged solidarity among Jewish communities across America.

Now, a lot of American Jews are going to need to find a new focus for their passion.

Because if Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu succeeds with his judicial putsch to crush the independence of the country’s judiciary, the subject of Israel could fracture every synagogue and Jewish communal organization in America. To put it simply: Israel is facing its biggest internal clash since its founding, and for every rabbi and every Jewish leader in America, to stay silent about this fight is to become irrelevant.

The Jewish Telegraphic Agency just ran an article that offered a revealing glimpse into this reality. It quoted Los Angeles Rabbi Sharon Brous as beginning her sermon on Israel last month with a content warning to her congregants: “I have to say some things today that I know will upset some of you.”

Every American rabbi knew what she meant: Israel has become such a hot-button issue that it cannot be discussed without taking sides for or against Netanyahu’s policies.

As Rabbi Brous told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, “You have a wonderful community, and you love them and they love you, until the moment you stand up and you give your Israel sermon.” She said the phenomenon has an informal name: “Death-by-Israel sermon.”

Death-by-Israel sermon. Never heard that before.

Unlike how Friedman portrays her, Rabbi Brous has not exactly been an "Israel right or wrong" leader before the current government. She wrote in the Los Angeles Times in 2018:

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s governing coalition continues to recklessly enforce its ideological absolutes, passing an anti-democratic nation-state law, denying surrogacy rights to LGBTQ Israelis, escalating personal attacks against the New Israel Fund and other progressive organizations [Brous is a leader in NIF - EoZ], and detaining American journalists at the border, interrogating them about their political beliefs and associations. As an American rabbi, I can’t ignore the message the Israeli government is sending to diaspora Jews: Stick to the playbook. Send Israel your money, your youth, your tourists and your unquestioning loyalty. Don’t talk about the occupation (now in its 51st year) or the millions of Palestinians denied equal protection, freedom of movement, the right to vote for the government that dictates their daily lives. Don’t visit Bethlehem or Ramallah, where you might hear a Palestinian narrative. Pay no attention to Breaking the Silence, Parents Circle or any other group where Israelis and Palestinians speak frankly about the challenges and the possibilities for a shared future

The maddening thing about Rabbi Brous is that she positions herself as a lover of Israel, and I have no doubt that she believes this. This op-ed started off with her description of a tour of Hebron that her family took with Breaking the Silence, and she wrote, "My daughter loves the miracle of Israel. It was time for her to see the other side." And, "We witnessed the harshest effects of the occupation: roadways forbidden to Palestinians, abandoned blocks, Jewish settlements the world deems illegal. We saw the once-thriving Casbah, dead quiet now. All of this, the direct result of Israeli military policy."

Why does her narrative go back only that far? Why doesn't she mention the attacks by Arabs on the Jews of Hebron before Baruch Goldstein that prompted the IDF to divide the old city?

This hints at the real issue.

The problem isn't that American Jews must choose to be either for or against Israel. The problem is not that one side wants debate about Israeli policy and the other doesn't.

The problem is that partisanship is poisoning any chance for a real debate to begin with.

The current discussion on judicial reform in Israel is a perfect example. Lahav Harkov described it very well from the Israeli perspective:

Reports of the demise of Israeli democracy are greatly exaggerated. The proposed changes relate to the balance of power between the judiciary, the legislative and the executive branches of government — a matter of usually staid debate among Israeli academics and wonks for nearly three decades. Today’s incendiary rhetoric on the issue says more about the vicious and polarised state of Israeli politics than the controversiality of the Supreme Court reforms.

People in Israel and Jews in America are looking for excuses to justify their politics and their hate for their political opponents. But the politics and partisanship is what drives the debate, not the facts.

When Tom Friedman describes the judicial reform proposal as a "judicial putsch to crush the independence of the country’s judiciary" he is not engaging in a debate, but in mudslinging. When Breaking the Silence makes up fake stories of IDF soldiers mistreating Palestinians for no reason, they are not engaging in debate but anti-Israel propaganda.

And when people like Sharon Brous claims that she is impartially weighing both sides and soberly informing her congregants that Israel is on the road to dictatorship, I somehow do not think she is giving them access to any articles that argue that the unelected Israeli High Court has been the side that has near absolute power over Israeli law.

Part of the reason for that is that such articles are not easy to find in the American press, which prefer the narrative of a criminal Bibi who wants absolute power to the detriment of the State of Israel.

Not that Bibi isn't a political animal as well - he absolutely is, and his conduct during this supposed debate has also been guided more by politics than by doing what is best for Israel.

So how can Jews - in Israel, America and Europe as well - act responsibly?

The answer is simultaneously simple, extraordinarily difficult and rooted in Jewish tradition.

The answer is to be dan l'chaf zechut - to judge our fellow Jews meritoriously.

This is a fundamental Jewish concept with multiple sources and extensive commentary.

We need to shed the partisanship and honestly believe that the other side is not evil, but that they want the best for Israel and the Jewish world. (This does not apply to those who are irredeemably evil, who in the case of Zionism I would define as anyone who never says anything positive about Israel. Those people, in my opinion, are not acting out of love but from hate. But that's me, and that is part of what makes this mitzvah difficult.)

How many people know that the supposed anti-Arab racist Netanyahu has done more to improve the Arab sector in Israel than any other prime minister, by far? How many American Jewish critics of Israel have spent more than two minutes seeking out the arguments for judicial reform? How many American Jews who have taken Breaking the Silence tours of Hebron have read the criticisms of that organization's methods?

We need to go beyond the reporting of mainstream media - whose entire business model is based on eyeballs that follow controversy and partisanship - and instead do our own research with the assumption that our fellow Jews want what is best for Israel. That they are not terrible people because they voted for Trump or live on the east side of an imaginary line drawn in 1949, and neither are they bad people because they chose not to report for reserve duty or spend hours every week protesting the Israeli government. Assume that they, too, want what is best for Israel and the Jewish people.

Thomas Friedman wants Jews in America to make a choice - love Israel or oppose Israel. That is a false choice, and one that is predicated on wanting to stoke division. The real alternative is to stop looking at everything through the primary lens of us vs. them, right vs. left, and assumptions of bad faith on the part of our fellow Jews who are of the "wrong" political party. Stop being defined by division and have an honest debate.

Moreover, if your political philosophy does not leave room for giving the other side the benefit of the doubt, than you should question that philosophy. (And look at the motivations of those who stoke division.)

"Tikkun Olam" as it is defined today is not a real Jewish tradition - but dan l'chaf zechut is.

People who take Judaism seriously, whether they are religious or not, must realize that dan l'chaf zechut is a fundamental part of Judaism that can and should be embraced by every Jew from the far-Right to the far-Left.

The future of the Jewish people is at stake.

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.

Read all about it here!

Huwara is a massive chilul Hashem - and a hint towards the biggest danger to Israel and world Jewry today

The riots of religious Jews in Huwara on Sunday night were unforgivable. Nothing justifies targeting innocents, burning down houses, and leaving one dead. The Huwara celebrations for murdering two Jewish brothers are not and cannot be an excuse for such behavior. The Jews were, in this case, terrorists by any definition of the term.

But it's even worse.

Perhaps the most disgusting part was this video showing these religious Jews praying towards the fires they set.

This perversion of Judaism is unbearable.

This is the definition of chilul Hashem - the desecration of G-d's name - making all Jews look bad because of the actions of a few.

We religious Jews cannot fall back on the "no true Scotsman" logical fallacy to say that these aren't real Jews. They are. And their immoral, gleeful actions represent a catastrophic failure on the part of religious Zionism, no matter how tiny a percentage of that community they represent. Not to mention their attacks on the IDF, putting them solidly on the same moral plane as Palestinian terrorists..

While I am not happy with the use of the word "pogrom" to describe the rampage, but it is understandable.

However, there is one word that some Jews (and Arab MKs) are using to describe the violence that is unconscionable. And that is "Kristallnacht."

That is the word used by Nachum Barnea at Yediot Aharonot, and by Yossi Melman of Haaretz.

As immoral and violent as the mass terror attack in Huwara was, calling it Kristallnacht is false, irresponsible and disgusting. Being rightly angry at the rampage cannot excuse using a Holocaust analogy. There is no comparison between this riot, as sickening as it was, and the day that Nazi Germany officially started their policy of genocide. It is not remotely similar in scale, in intent, in effect, nor in the complicity of the government.

And one must wonder if that last point was the real reason that Barnea and Melman used that term.

I do not believe Israel has ever been as divided as it is now, and instead of working towards solutions, both sides are playing political games - and they are not above comparing their political opponents to Nazis. There is almost a glee on the part of the Leftist media that the hated "settlers" finally "proved" how awful they are and now those people who hated them the entire time feel they can finally compare them and their allies in the government to Nazis.

MK Zvika Fogel's support for the rioters is beneath contempt. But Yair Lapid's using them as a weapon against the entire government is not a whole lot better. (And when Bibi led the opposition, he was just as bad and divisive as Lapid is now.)

Much of the objection to the proposed judicial reforms comes from honest concern, whether real or misplaced. There has been far more heat than light in the coverage and reactions to the proposals. A lot of it is the same political opportunism, and the over-the-top rhetoric makes it sound like reforms that most reasonable people agree must happen to some extent are the ultimate evil. And, again, the blame goes on both sides - Netanyahu should have done much more to make these reforms bipartisan, not demonizing the other side.

The political opportunists, like Israel's enemies, don't want solutions. They want to win at any cost, and even more so - they want to see the other side lose at any cost. That cost is very high, indeed - to the point of trying to get Jews in the Diaspora to publicly oppose Israel. This is the zero sum mentality that both sides of the political spectrum are happily borrowing from Israel's enemies.

The people stoking hate for their own selfish purposes are no better than J-Street or Jewish Voice for Peace.

This fragmentation that started in Israel is now normalized throughout the Jewish world. Mainstream non-religious Jewish organizations are now routinely publicly criticizing Israel. These irresponsible Huwara terrorists are even dividing up the religious Jewish community to an extent, although the vast majority of Orthodox organizations have condemned the violence.

These divisions are the biggest danger to Israel's future - more than Iran, more than Palestinian terror, more than the prospect of a US that might turn against it as so many antisemites want. And if anything can turn the US against Israel, it is Huwara-type activities. Antisemitism spreads by playing on unconscious bigotry and the scene of religious Jews on an orgy of destruction has a huge psychological impact. The damage wrought by these Jews is incalculable.

JVP poster

Palestinian and anti-Israel media and organizations are loving all of this. This op-ed from Al Quds (UK) uses Nachum Barnea's use of "Kristallnacht" as carte blanche for Arabs to compare Israel to Nazis without any guilt. The Guardian eagerly reports Barnea's words, which will justify future Holocaust analogies in that paper and other mainstream media.

Make no mistake - just as the antisemitic "apartheid" slur got normalized, the antisemites who have been using the Holocaust analogy just gained several years in their quest to make that normal as well..

All because of the contemptible Jews in Huwara and the Israelis who cannot resist using them to score political points, on both sides.

Even though there is still no comparison between the immorality of Palestinian society and the worst of Israeli society - Israelis raised money to compensate Huwara victims while Palestinians celebrate dead Jews - the rioters have given those who spread incessant anti-Israel propaganda a priceless gift.

Palestinian political cartoon

Israeli extremists and opportunists are doing more damage to Israel and world Jewry than the antisemites could ever dream of doing themselves.

The only winners are the world's antisemites. And they are very, very happy with what they are seeing.

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.

Read all about it here!

The hysteria over the Israeli government is far worse than anything the government is remotely likely to do

From Time, in a two page print story:

Israel is no longer a liberal democracy. As Benjamin Netanyahu’s new government took office on 29 December, its illiberalism was evident. No longer a matter for debate or polite embarrassment, the contempt for liberal ideas brings all the disparate factions together: against the media and intellectuals and increasingly against the old Western-inspired Israeli political system and the existing Israeli constitution, including its Basic Laws.

This is really getting crazy.

Nothing has happened.

The government is not going to reduce the rights of gay people. It is not going to impose a theocracy on Israel. It is not becoming a dictatorship.

Wikipedia defines a liberal democracy as:

Liberal democracy is the combination of a liberal political ideology that operates under a representative democratic form of government. It is characterized by elections between multiple distinct political parties, a separation of powers into different branches of government, the rule of law in everyday life as part of an open society, a market economy with private property, and the equal protection of human rights, civil rights, civil liberties and political freedoms for all people. To define the system in practice, liberal democracies often draw upon a constitution, either codified (such as in the United States) or uncodified (such as in the United Kingdom), to delineate the powers of government and enshrine the social contract.

Nothing is happening to remotely change Israel's status to anything other than a liberal democracy.

The only argument that critics can make is that the proposed judicial reforms give too much power to the legislative branch, but now most people recognize that the judicial branch - which can dismiss government officials for literally no reason except what it considers "reasonable" - has far too much power as an unelected branch of government. Perhaps the proposed reforms go too far in some specific ways, but the general idea of reforms is quite reasonable and hardly the earth shattering change that they are being portrayed as.

Everyone agrees there should be a balance of power. The only disagreement is where to draw the line. It is an important debate, but it is hardly a real crisis that threatens Israel's democratic character.

(In fact, one can argue that Israel is more of a liberal democracy than either the US or UK. Universal suffrage for citizens is a key component of any liberal democracy, but unlike Israel, the US and UK do not allow many or most citizens who are prisoners to vote. Is that a crisis? Where are the front page articles about this?)

It seems to me that the over the top reaction to the Israeli elections are more dangerous than anything the government itself is likely to do. Over the weekend, we saw direct, public incitement to violence from Israeli liberals.

Tel Aviv Mayor Ron Huldai spoke at a demonstration against the government and said: "This is the opportunity to reach broad agreements, and if the words end, the actions will begin. We will not stop at protests, we will not be indifferent, we will not react with resignation."

And:

David Hodek, a commercial lawyer who won a Medal of Courage, one of the Israeli military’s highest awards, for his conduct as a tank officer in the 1973 Yom Kippur War, told the Israel Bar Association’s annual conference in Eilat that “if someone forces me to live in a dictatorship and I have no choice, I won’t hesitate to use live fire.”

Hodek, who was speaking on a panel, appeared to make clear he was not talking metaphorically, saying: “People are willing to fight with weapons. Everyone is aghast [at such statements]. They say ‘How can you say such a thing?’ I’m saying it. If I’m forced to go there and they drag me there, that’s what I’ll do.”

And:

Ze'ev Raz, one of the leaders of the Balfour protest and a former fighter pilot, backtracked on what appeared to be a call to assassinate Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Saturday. Raz was a pilot who participated in a reactor bombing operation in Iraq in 1981, which is known as Operation Opera.

"If a sitting prime minister assumes dictatorial powers, this prime minister is bound to die, simply like that, along with his ministers and his followers.

He continued by arguing that Israel should integrate 'din rodef' (a concept in Jewish law that allows for the killing of an individual who intends to kill or harm others).

"My din rodef rules that if my country is taken over by a person, foreigner or Israeli, who leads it in an undemocratic manner, it is obligatory to kill him...it is better to kill the criminals first."

These threats and incitement are a far bigger danger to Israel's democracy than the most extreme things the government is proposing. They are normalizing violence as a means to change government policy. That is the definition of terrorism.

And they come from the constant incitement in world media.

Losers of elections should spend their time convincing voters to support them next time, not threatening to assassinate the elected leaders.

I have plenty of problems with Netanyahu, and some of the optics of judicial reform are less than ideal, but he is not a dictator. He is not a racist. He has (with next to no publicity) done more for Arabs in Israel than any previous prime minister, bar none.

Step back. Take a a breath. And if you care about Israel's future, fight for it using all legal means. Debate it using facts, not hyperbole.

When people demonize political opponents, to the point that prominent people literally threaten violence to get their way, everyone loses.

(h/t Yoel)

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.

Read all about it here!

On Tisha B'Av, a story of how Jews infighting in the seventh century has worldwide implications, today

When Mohammed was starting his new religion, the Arabian peninsula had many Jewish tribes. A 2012 Aish article by Sarah Yocheved Rigler explains:

According to Dr. Hagai Mazuz, an Orientalist specializing in Arabic language, Islam, and Islamic culture, “The Jewish community of northern Arabia was one of the largest ancient Jewish communities in the history of the Jewish people.”

They were powerful and wealthy. They were respected by the local Arabian tribes for their religion, culture, erudition, and literacy. They built castles on mountaintops and developed productive plantations. They had military prowess, horses, and advanced weaponry. And they were almost totally annihilated in the short span of a few years.

The Jews of Medina were divided into three groups: The Banu Qaynuqa were blacksmiths, weapon wrights, and goldsmiths. The Banu Nadir had date plantations. The Banu QurayUa were wine merchants. These groups often quarreled. Sometimes the hostility among them broke out into actual fighting.

When Mohammed fled from Mecca in 622, he went to Medina. At first, he entered into an alliance with the Jews. He studied in their study halls and adopted many of their customs into his incipient religion (e.g. not eating pork). But when, after two years, Mohammed could not convince the Jews to accept him as a prophet and convert to his religion, his attitude turned toward open hostility. He instructed his friends to murder and decapitate Ka’b Ibn al-Ashraf, a renowned Jewish poet and chief of the Banu Nadir (date farmers tribe), and ordered his followers, “Kill every Jew you can.”

I had never heard that quote before, and the article points to an article in a popular Jewish history magazine. But I researched this and it is indeed a true quote from an Islamic source, Ibn Hishām’s biography of Muḥammad, quoted in this academic paper:

Ibn Isḥāq said: The Apostle of Allāh said: “Kill every Jew you can lay your hands on (man ẓafirtum bihi min rijāl yahūd fa-qtulūhu).” Whereupon Muḥayṣṣa b. Masʿūd attacked and killed Ibn Sunayna, one of the Jewish merchants that used to associate and do business with them.

The Aish article continues:

Mohammed then besieged the Banu Qaynuqa (blacksmith tribe), knowing that the other two Jewish tribes would not come to their aid. Although the Banu Qaynuqa were proficient warriors, the lack of food and water due to the siege weakened them to the point of surrender.

The other two Jewish tribes did nothing to save the Jewish blacksmiths. After the surrender, Mohammed wanted to slaughter the vanquished tribe, but his ally Abdullah Ibn Ubayyy prevented the massacre, and instead they were exiled to Edri (now in Jordan).

Mohammed confiscated their considerable assets. Strengthened by captured Jewish wealth, one year later Mohammed turned his attention to the next Jewish tribe, the date growers. To ensure that the tribe of the wine merchants would not come to the rescue of their fellow Jews, Mohammed made an alliance with the wine merchants.

Mohammed’s forces laid siege to the strongholds of the Jewish date farmers in 625. Like the previous Jewish tribe, they succumbed to the siege. Again Abdullah Ibn Ubayyy intervened, and instead of slaughtering the vanquished Jews, Mohammed exiled them to the city of Khaybar, which, according to Muslim tradition, was inhabited by descendants of the Jewish priestly tribe.

Three years later Mohammed conquered Khaybar, the wealthiest city in northern Arabia. Because the Muslims did not know agriculture, Mohammed permitted most of the Jews to live as dhimmis, officially second-class citizens who had to pay exorbitant taxes. Eventually the second Caliph banished the Jews of Khaybar, in obedience to Mohammed’s policy that permitted no religion other than Islam to be practiced in Arabia.

Back in Medina, the wine merchant tribe had only two years to relish their position as the sole surviving Jews. Then, in 627, Mohammed, with 3,000 soldiers, laid siege to their fortress. The Jewish tribe had only 450 trained warriors. Because Abdullah Ibn Ubayyy had died a few months before, the Jews knew that no one would intercede on their behalf. The leader of the besieged Jews proposed that they either convert to Islam or, similar to Masada, kill their own women and children to prevent their being ravished and enslaved, and then fight the Muslims to the death. The Jews rejected both options and offered to surrender and leave Medina.

Mohammed rejected their offer. The vanquished wine merchants tribe, who had twice refused to help the other besieged Jewish tribes, suffered the worst fate. The children were sold as slaves; the women were given to the victorious soldiers “for the Muslims to use,” and the men (except for three who agreed to convert to Islam) were decapitated in the marketplace. According to Muslim tradition, the blood of the decapitated Jews flooded the marketplace of Medina.

A large, powerful, affluent Jewish community was destroyed in just three years. Was it destroyed by Mohammed’s forces or was it destroyed by its own divisiveness?

This is a stunning perspective. If the Jews of Medina had just put aside their differences, Mohammed would have been defeated and history would look quite different.

The traditional Jewish view is that the Temples were destroyed because of baseless hatred between Jews. How many lives could have been saved if it wasn't for the baseless hatred of the Jews in Arabia against each other?

May Jewish unity only get stronger so we will transform Tisha B'Av from a day of mourning to a holiday.

Illustration: Detail from miniature painting The Prophet, Ali, and the Companions at the Massacre of the Prisoners of the Jewish Tribe of Beni Qurayzah, illustration of a 19th century text by Muhammad Rafi Bazil.

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.

Read all about it here!