The altar area of Canterbury Cathedral in England. Photo: Peter K Burian / CC BY-SA 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0)

I was always interested in history — and being from England, especially English history. One of the most significant eras there was the 16th century. After years of disastrous infighting in the Wars of the Roses, Henry 7th and then Henry 8th began to stabilize English society and lay the foundations for the empire that was to follow. As we know, Henry 8th had six wives. As the saying went, “Divorced, beheaded, died, divorced, beheaded, survived.”

Henry was not only a cruel tyrant, but also horrible to his counselors. The two most significant after Cardinal Wolseley were Sir Thomas More (1478-1535) and Thomas Cromwell (1485-1540), both of whom were beheaded.

Martin Luther (1483-1546) initiated the Protestant split with Rome when he pinned his 95 articles on the gates of Wittenberg Cathedral. Sir Thomas More, loyal to the Pope, wrote a fierce rebuff and encouraged Henry to write a defense of the Catholic Church for which he was given the title “ Defender of the Faith” (abbreviated in its Latin to FidDef). This is still used by English monarchs.

When Henry wanted to get rid of his first wife, Katherine of Aragon, the Pope refused. Henry broke with Rome and set up the Church of England, and expected everyone else to follow him and accept him as the religious head of the Church (and thus defy the Catholic Church). To this day, the English Monarch is still head of the Church of England, which may explain why it has become such a pathetic disaster (although I think King Charles happens to be a good guy but certainly no saint).

Thomas More was a giant in English society — not just because of his political prowess and brilliance, but also because he had written a major work of English literature, Utopia, which described a mythical perfect world that was both a political satire and an aspirational dream of a perfect society. Sir Thomas was conflicted over whether to stand firm on his principles and face death or capitulate and obey his monarch. He refused to capitulate, and it cost him his life.

The unstable history of religious turmoil only ended when Henry’s daughter, Elizabeth, stabilized the country at home and survived the attempts of Catholic Spain to remove her. And by the way, there were no Jews allowed to live in England in those days, so you can’t blame them.

In 1960, the dramatist Robert Bolt produced a remarkable play called A Man for All Seasons, about Sir Thomas More as a brilliant, stable counterforce to the unpredictability of his master, King Henry, and his struggle, moral and religious. It was subsequently made into a very successful and award-winning feature film.

Much has been written about Thomas More. But in our days, he is known by most people from Hilary Mantel’s brilliant historical novel Wolf Hall, which was turned into a widely watched and praised television series that dramatizes the relationship between More and Thomas Cromwell, his pupil and then nemesis.

My interest in it is because I see so much of the present struggle between religious and political fanaticism and extremism not only in general, but also in Jewish religious life today. There are those who absolutely refuse to budge, see another point of view, and even resort to violence — although no one has been beheaded yet.

As for Martin Luther, he claimed he stood for a new open-minded version of Christianity in reaction to the corrupt Catholic authority of Rome, which only allowed the priesthood to determine what ideas and interpretations were acceptable. Luther wanted the Bible to be accessible to everyone, in a way to democratize religion. Initially he hoped the Jews would join him because we encouraged everyone to have access to our holy books. But when we politely refused, Luther turned into one of the most despicable antisemites.

That is one of the reasons why so many (not all of course) religions that sprang from us are uncomfortable with our independence, and end up being so antagonistic to Jews. Precisely because we are different and stand out in following our own paths. Most people don’t like those who disagree. There are many who die each year solely for their religion.

I wonder whether despite our technological and scientific advances, we are not as primitive, addicted to power, and as bloodthirsty as people were back then. In the end, we might say these religious upheavals laid the ground for a better world. Sadly, now it looks like we are being taken back to the Middle Ages.

The author is a rabbi based in New York.

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas addresses the 79th United Nations General Assembly at United Nations headquarters in New York, US, Sept. 26, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Brendan McDermid

In a rare moment of self-criticism, the official Palestinian Authority (PA) daily highlighted the Palestinian custom of forced marriages of young Palestinian girls to much older men. The cartoon chosen to accompany the article expressed the horror: a balding groom with a cane off to his wedding with a teary-eyed child bride who has just dropped her teddy bear.

The following are excerpts from the article:

Headline: “Girls in bridal clothes — from the wedding dress to the emergency rooms. Marrying off female minors in Palestine … A childhood stolen under the guise of exceptional cases.”

While R.K. was arranging her books for a school exam, her mother interrupted her with a sentence that changed the course of her life: ‘A groom is coming for you.’ Just months later, R.K. wore a white wedding dress, but she did not know that the white color was liable to conceal a deep pain that would accompany her for a long time. R.K. was forcibly married at the age of 14, after her father’s death. In words dripping with pain, R.K. tells [the official PA daily] Al-Hayat Al-Jadida about some of her tragedy:…

‘My husband was always violent towards me. He is addicted to Tramadol pills. I would run away to my family’s home, but the [clan’s] dignitaries returned me to him every time, following his false promises to stop the violence.’ She believes that the early marriage robbed her of her childhood and prevented her from getting an education. The last time, R.K. was beaten with a sharp object and fled barefoot with her children without any personal belongings. After suffering for two years, she received a divorce without alimony or support!

Despite the publication of [PA] Decision with Legislative Force No. 21 of 2019 to limit the marriage age to 18, the exceptional cases allowed by the law under the pretext of ‘necessity’ and ‘the interests of both parties’ have emptied the law of its content, and left the door open to the phenomenon. The exception due to a need that the judge deems appropriate continues to be an open window for child marriages, through which hundreds of cases pass each year, against the backdrop of a lack of effective supervision and differences in enforcement between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

Between 1995-2019, about 200,000 marriages were registered in Palestine, 95% of which were of girls under the age of 18…

In 2019, Decision with Legislative Force No. 21 of 2019 was published… [which] changes the marriage age to 18 for males and females alike. However, paragraph 2 of the same article states: ‘As an exception to what is stated in paragraph 1 of this clause, an authorized court is allowed – in special cases and if the marriage is a necessity required by the interests of both parties – to permit marriage for those who have not yet reached 18 years with the approval of the supreme Shari’ah judge of Palestine or the religious authorities of other groups.’ …

According to initial estimates and statistics from 2020-2021, more than 10,000 cases of marriages below the legal age, 18 years, were registered… Director of the Policy and Legislation Oversight Department at the Independent Commission for Human Rights lawyer Khadija] Zahran… said: ‘The amendment to the law did not reduce the marrying off of female minors, and the monitoring we conduct in cooperation with the women’s organizations indicates that the exceptional cases have become the rule that is relied upon to circumvent the law, instead of being rare cases.’ …

Despite repeated attempts to obtain an official response, the Shari’ah judicial system refrained from providing any response…

As for the reasons that cause some of the families to obtain a legal exception to marry off their daughters before they reach the legal age of 18, Chairwoman of the Women’s Studies Center in Jerusalem Sama Uweida… said: ‘The first reason is the social heritage, which views marrying off the girl early as a means of protecting her from getting entangled in socially unacceptable relationships, thereby preserving the family’s ‘good name.’ Marriages of girls are also perceived as a means to ease the financial burden on the family, especially in low-income families. There are also those who believe that a girl has a better chance of marrying at a young age, because there are men who prefer to marry young girls to ensure a longer period of physical ability and giving.’ …

Ministry of Women’s Affairs Legal Advisor Souna Nassar emphasized that a minimum age of at least 17 should be set for exceptional cases, and exceptions should be prohibited in cases of sexual assault. This is in accordance with the repeal of Article 308 of the Penal Code, which allowed the perpetrator to escape punishment by marrying the victim.

[Official PA daily Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, July 6, 2025]

The author is the founder and director of Palestinian Media Watch, where a version of this article first appeared.

Jewish visitors gesture as Israeli security forces secure the area at the compound that houses Al-Aqsa Mosque, known to Muslims as Noble Sanctuary and to Jews as Temple Mount, in Jerusalem’s Old City, Photo: May 5, 2022. REUTERS/Ammar Awad

On Sunday, August 3, major media outlets amplified a distorted Palestinian narrative about Jerusalem’s Temple Mount — Judaism’s holiest site — in a way that did more than just misinform. It helped legitimize the very rhetoric used by Hamas to justify its October 7, 2023 massacre.

From factual errors to sensationalism, the coverage of Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir’s brief visit to the Al-Aqsa compound on Tisha B’Av — the Jewish day of mourning for the destruction of the ancient Temples — was painted as a dangerous provocation, a spark threatening to ignite further regional instability.

This is more than bad reporting. It’s complicity in a lie that kills.

While Jewish prayer at the site — the third holiest for Muslims — is forbidden, any outlet that paints such a non-violent act as dangerous automatically adopts the point of view of the real extremists, forgetting that such coverage fuels terrorist propaganda.

1/
Here’s @guardian claiming Israeli minister Itamar Ben-Gvir prayed at the Al-Aqsa Mosque.
He didn’t.

Let’s talk about the Temple Mount, Judaism’s holiest site, which also houses Al-Aqsa, Islam’s third holiest.

A thread on media confusion – and misrepresentation.  pic.twitter.com/8uBF6H3y1o

— HonestReporting (@HonestReporting) August 4, 2025

Compound Vs. Mosque

Outlets like The Guardian and The Times of London suggested Ben-Gvir had literally entered the Al-Aqsa Mosque and prayed inside.

He didn’t.

He visited the broader Temple Mount compound, which includes the mosque, but also happens to be the site of the First and Second Jewish Temples. He said a short, silent prayer to mark the day Jews mourn the destruction of those temples. That’s it.

The International Business Times even suggested that the Al-Aqsa Mosque itself is sacred to Jews — a basic factual error that betrays either ignorance or ideological bias. Neither reflects well on a journalist.

Meanwhile, The Los Angeles Times and The Associated Press left out any context about the significance of the day for Jews, and instead used the opportunity to link Ben-Gvir’s visit to unrelated violence in Gaza.

The BBC avoided using the Hebrew term “Har HaBayit” (Temple Mount) altogether, referring to it only by the Arabic “Haram al-Sharif,” as though the Jewish connection to the site is some kind of fringe claim.

Fueling the Flames

Such coverage — whether through carelessness or design — frames Jews as the problem. And that’s exactly the kind of narrative that fuels genocidal violence, like the one launched on October 7, 2023.

As Hamas itself stated after slaughtering 1,200 Israelis and kidnapping hundreds into Gaza, operation “Al-Aqsa Flood” was a legitimate response against “the Israeli judaization plans of the blessed al-Aqsa Mosque” and “the intensification of the Israeli settlers’ incursions into the holy Mosque.”

By repeating this framing — that a Jew praying at his holiest site is a threat to Muslims — the media feed the propaganda machine that fuels antisemitic violence.

Let’s be clear: any outlet that claims Jewish prayer sparked “outrage” or “anger” is not reporting — it’s siding with the murderers. Men too fragile to hear Hebrew on the Temple Mount, yet brutal enough to slit Jewish throats.

The author is a contributor to HonestReporting, a Jerusalem-based media watchdog with a focus on antisemitism and anti-Israel bias — where a version of this article first appeared.