RSS
Jews Faced Massive Antisemitism in Ancient England; Can That Inspire Us Now?
Anti-Judaism was often driven by two agents, religion and politics, and the same applies today. It was the same story in England with different actors long ago.
The Jews were expelled from England by Edward the First in 1290. During the reign of Elizabeth the First, some Jews had come to England, but virtually all the English knew about Jews was from the plays of Christopher Marlowe and William Shakespeare, both of whom portrayed Jews negatively.
It was not until the civil war which led to the execution of King Charles First and the appointment of Oliver Cromwell as Lord Protector in 1653, that a serious effort was made to officially readmit Jews to England. Two factors played a part in this development. One of them was theological. The rise of Protestantism emphasized the Bible and an interest in Judaism. The other had to do with the financial success of the Jews expelled first from Spain and then Portugal, moving to Amsterdam, Hamburg, the Caribbean, and South America.
One of the most prominent Jews of Amsterdam at the time was Menashe Ben Israel, the rabbi of the Spanish and Portuguese synagogue in Amsterdam. He was so popular that even Queen Henrietta Maria (the wife of King Charles the First) visited his synagogue in 1642. In 1650, he wrote a book called Spes Israelis, in which he argued that the Jews were condemned to be scattered across the world as a punishment for not accepting Christianity and that there would be no second coming until they were scattered everywhere. It was necessary, therefore, for Jews to be readmitted to England to usher in a new Christian messianic era.
Although a strongly committed Protestant, Oliver Cromwell was not a mystical man, but a very practical one, and he saw the commercial advantages of welcoming Jews to England. He took advice from two of the major legal authorities of the time, Sir John Glynn and William Steele, and they said there was no law forbidding Jews to return. The original expulsion had not been a law, but a royal decree. The matter was debated over five sessions, and then opened to the public. Both the clergy and the merchants were strongly opposed, and reacted in the most prejudiced manner, claiming the Jews would convert St. Paul’s Cathedral into a synagogue, forcibly convert the English to Judaism, and steal their businesses. Cromwell spoke eloquently in favor of the proposal, but seeing the strength of the opposition, suspended the council with the matter unresolved.
Nevertheless, he turned a blind eye to the arrival of Jews in public, and in 1656, a small synagogue was opened in Cree Church Lane and a cemetery was acquired in Mile End, East London. A rabbi named Nathan Shapiro from Jerusalem was welcomed, and all cases against Jews as unwanted illegal interlopers were dropped or overturned. The settlement of Jews was tacitly condoned, though it continued to be opposed and constant attempts were made to incite or remove them.
When Cromwell died, attempts were redoubled to deny the Jews settlement. But the new King Charles the Second, who came to the throne in 1660, had dealings with Jews on the continent while in exile. Like Cromwell, he saw the value of a Jewish community and supported them. During 1663, there were four petitions to Parliament to expel the Jews. But in 1664 ,Parliament officially recognized Jewish residence (not citizenship ), although there was no formal invitation to return. Antisemitism continued to fester at all levels of society, and yet the Jewish community flourished and began to play an important part in English life.
Succeeding monarchs continued to support Jewish life. Queen Anne donated material towards the new synagogue of Bevis Marks. But the masses remained opposed. As I wrote a few months ago, in 1753, a bill granting Jews all civil rights passed the Lords 95-16 and then the Commons and was signed by King George. But the outcry from the mercantile and clerical communities was so full of hate and lies that the bill was repealed six months later. And it would take another 100 years (long after the United States did so) before Jews were granted complete equality.
The readmission of Jews was not the noble act of tolerance that it is often made out to be. It was a practical accommodation. We now live at a time when “Kill the Jews” reverberates again. Anti-Judaism is as common and insidious as it was in those days. We managed to survive hatred and prejudice then. This, if anything, gives us some comfort that however uncomfortable we may be feeling at the moment, in the long run, we will survive.
The author is a writer and rabbi, currently based in New York.
The post Jews Faced Massive Antisemitism in Ancient England; Can That Inspire Us Now? first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Striking Hamas Leaders in Qatar Is 100% Legal Under International Law
Vehicles stop at a red traffic light, a day after an Israeli attack on Hamas leaders, in Doha, Qatar, Sept. 10, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Ibraheem Abu Mustafa
Here are just a few of the absurd reactions from world leaders in the wake of Israel’s stunning strike on Hamas leadership in Doha, Qatar, last week:
- A “blatant violation of international law.”
- A “violation of sovereignty.”
- A “flagrant breach of international law.”
France, Spain, the UK, the Qataris themselves, and others have joined in the hysterics.
Yet all these sloganizing leaders have one thing in common: an astonishing and total ignorance of actual, international law.
In future articles, I will dive into the far reaching implications and consequences of this stunning operation, but for now, here’s a quick review of international law.
- Qatar is not technically at war with Israel, therefore the country could be considered a “neutral power” under the Hague Convention V and thus immune from attack.
- However, under articles 2, 3 and 4 of Hague Convention V, a “neutral power” may not allow anyone on its territory to direct combat operations, run command and control centers, or even to communicate electronically with combatants.
- For years, the Hamas leadership has been carrying out exactly those prohibited acts from within Qatar — with sustained and integral Qatari support. In other words, Qatar has been violating international law for years — before, during, and after the October 7 massacre.
- Hamas is the internationally-designated terror organization that carried out the October 7 massacre of Israelis in 2023, and continues holding Israeli hostages in Gaza to this day. Though the Hamas leadership in Qatar claims the moniker “political wing,” it is consistently involved in directing combat operations against Israel.
- Qatar cannot claim to be a “neutral power” under the Hague Conventions, because it provides sustained and integral support for Hamas — which aids Hamas combat operations against Israel — from Qatari soil.
- Furthermore, Israel has an inviolate right to self defense under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, and Hamas may not undermine that right simply by directing its combat operations from inside a third-party country.
In summary: Qatar has been providing sustained and integral support for Hamas combat operations — from Qatari soil — in violation of The Hague conventions.
These acts give Israel the inviolate right, under both the Hague Conventions and the UN Charter’s Article 51, to defend itself and its citizens by targeting Hamas leadership inside Qatar.
Daniel Pomerantz is the CEO of RealityCheck, an organization dedicated to deepening public conversation through robust research studies and public speaking. He has been a lawyer for more than 25 years.
RSS
No, Mahmoud Abbas Did Not Condemn Jerusalem Terror Attack
People inspect a bus with bullet holes at the scene where a shooting terrorist attack took place at the outskirts of Jerusalem, Sept. 8, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Ammar Awad
Last week, terrorists opened fire in Jerusalem, murdering six and injuring 12 innocent Israelis.
Palestinian Authority (PA) leader Mahmoud Abbas — the man the international community insists is a “peace partner” — then put out a statement that was labeled by much of the international media as a condemnation. In reality, it was anything but.
Abbas never once mentioned the terror attack. He never referred to the murders, never acknowledged the victims, and never expressed a word of sympathy for their families. His statement spoke in vague terms about rejecting “any targeting of Palestinian and Israeli civilians,” a formula carefully crafted to sound balanced while deliberately blurring the reality that it was Palestinians who carried out the terror attack, and Israelis who were its victims.
Worse still, 98% of Abbas’ statement was condemnation of Israel, the “occupation,” “genocide,” and “colonist terrorism.” Instead of using the attack to speak out against Palestinian terror, Abbas used it to criticize Israel without even actually mentioning the attack, and while portraying Palestinians as the victims.
Abbas’ remark is not a condemnation of terrorism. It is a cover-up. He is once again confirming the PA’s ideology that sees Palestinian attacks against Israeli civilians as justified.
The emptiness of Abbas’s words becomes glaring when compared to the response of the United Arab Emirates.
The UAE condemned the “terrorist shooting incident … in the strongest terms,” offered condolences to the victims and their families, and wished a speedy recovery to the wounded.
The UAE’s statement was clear, moral, and human. Abbas’ was political and self-serving, designed to enable gullible Westerners to delude themselves that Abbas was actually condemning terrorism. The UAE and Abbas’ statements follow. The difference speaks volumes.
| UAE condemnation of terror | Mahmoud Abbas’ sham |
| “The United Arab Emirates has condemned in the strongest terms the terrorist shooting incident which occurred near Jerusalem, and resulted in a number of deaths and injuries.
In a statement, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MoFA) reaffirmed the UAE’s strong condemnation of these terrorist acts and its permanent rejection of all forms of violence and terrorism aimed at undermining security and stability. The Ministry expressed its sincere condolences and sympathy to the families of the victims, and to the State of Israel and its people, as well as its wishes for a speedy recovery for all the injured.” [United Arab Emirates Ministry of Foreign Affairs, website, September 8, 2025] |
“The Palestinian Presidency reiterated its firm stance rejecting and condemning any targeting of Palestinian and Israel civilians, and denouced all forms of violence and terrorism, regardless of their source.
The Presidency stressed that security and stability in the region cannot be achieved without ending the occupation, halting acts of genocide in the Gaza Strip, and stopping colonist terrorism across the West Bank, including occupied Jerusalem. It emphasized the Palestinian people’s attainment of their legitimate rights to an independent and sovereign state with East Jerusalem as its capital, and the achievement of security and peace for all, is what wil end the cycle of violence in the region. This came in the wake of today’s events in occupied Jerusalem.” [WAFA, official PA news agency, September 8, 2025] |
Ephraim D. Tepler is a contributor to Palestinian Media Watch (PMW). Itamar Marcus is the Founder and Director of PMW, where a version of this article first appeared.
RSS
Carrying Charlie Kirk’s Torch: Why the West Must Not Retreat
A memorial is held for Charlie Kirk, who was shot and killed in Utah, at the Turning Point USA headquarters in Phoenix, Arizona, US, Sept. 10, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Caitlin O’Hara
Charlie Kirk’s sudden death leaves more than grief; it leaves a void in a moment of profound civilizational danger. He was not just a political organizer or cultural commentator. He was a voice that gave the next generation permission to reject the lies of relativism, to reclaim confidence in the West, and to stand against the forces — both ideological and violent — that seek to dismantle it. To honor his life means refusing to let that mission fade.
Kirk understood that the greatest threats to freedom were not hidden in obscure policy debates, but in the cultural and spiritual health of the West. He saw that when a society abandons faith, mocks tradition, and treats national identity as a shameful relic, it becomes easy prey for movements that thrive on weakness and self-doubt. His genius was to frame this not as nostalgia, but as survival.
For him, defending family, faith, and moral order was not a luxury — it was the only path by which free societies could endure.
One challenge Kirk named very clearly was the rise of radical Islamism and terrorism. He warned that this was not merely a foreign problem, but an internal one. Radical ideologies, cloaked in the language of grievance, have found fertile ground in Western cities, universities, and political discourse. Under the cover of tolerance, they have grown bolder. Under the silence of elites, they have become entrenched. Kirk refused to bend to the false equivalence that excuses extremism as cultural difference. He understood that those who despise freedom should not be empowered to weaponize it.
His critics often called him polarizing, but what they truly feared was his clarity. He reminded audiences that not all values are equal, not all ideas are harmless, and not every ideology deserves space in a free society. In a climate where cowardice is praised as moderation, his directness was seen as dangerous. But the true danger lies in the refusal to speak plainly about the threats that face us. Civilizations do not collapse overnight; they are eroded when their defenders lose the courage to distinguish between what is worth preserving and what must be rejected.
Kirk never lost that courage. He confronted progressive elites who undermined confidence in the West from within, and he confronted radical Islamist sympathizers who justified violence against it from without. He saw that both positions, though different in form, worked toward the same end: a weakening of Western resolve, an erosion of shared identity, and the creation of a generation uncertain of its own inheritance. His refusal to allow that message to go unchallenged gave hope to millions of young people who might otherwise have drifted into cynicism or despair.
Now his death presents a stark choice. The forces he warned against are not pausing to mourn. They are pressing forward, eager to fill the space that was already under siege. If his legacy is not actively continued, it will not simply fade — it will be replaced by movements hostile to everything he fought to defend. To preserve his mission, the West must double down on the truths he carried: that strength is not arrogance, that tradition is not oppression, and that freedom without moral order is an illusion that collapses into chaos.
The stakes are high. If these principles are allowed to wither, we risk a generation unmoored from history, unprepared for the battles ahead, and unwilling to confront the ideological threats at our doorstep. But if Kirk’s legacy is embraced and advanced, his death will be the beginning of a renewal.
The West cannot retreat. It cannot afford the luxury of silence or the temptation of compromise with those who seek its undoing. The path forward requires the clarity and courage that Charlie Kirk embodied. To carry his torch is not simply to honor his memory. It is to safeguard the survival of the civilization he loved and defended. The question is not whether we should continue his work. The question is whether we can endure if we do not.
Amine Ayoub, a fellow at the Middle East Forum, is a policy analyst and writer based in Morocco. Follow him on X: @amineayoubx