RSS
The Long History of Blaming Jews for Anti-Jewish Violence
Mehdi Hasan. Photo: Screenshot
“History,” Mark Twain famously said, “doesn’t repeat itself, but it often rhymes.” The echoes of history were heavy on November 7, when a pogrom unfolded in Amsterdam, once home to Anne Frank, arguably the Holocaust’s most famous victim. Eight decades after the genocide of European Jewry, dozens of Jews were attacked and forced to hide.
In the aftermath of the assault, press and policymakers indulged in another long-running staple of antisemitism: blaming Jews for the violence perpetrated against them.
Mehdi Hasan, a former MSNBC host, claimed that the attacks were a “natural response” to the war between Israel and Iranian proxies in Gaza. Worse still, he alleged that the Israeli tourists — fans of visiting soccer team Maccabi — were guilty of “provoking” the mass assault. Others, from local Amsterdam officials to BBC reporters, put the onus for the violence on the victims.
The incident and its aftermath speak to something dark. There’s a long history of blaming Jews for anti-Jewish violence.
Kristallnacht, the “Night of Broken Glass,” is arguably the most infamous example. On November 9-10 1938, Nazis vandalized Jewish-owned shops, looted and burned synagogues, and attacked and murdered Jews throughout Germany, Austria and the Sudetenland. German officials claimed that the death toll was 91, but recent scholarship “suggests that there were hundreds of deaths, especially if one counts those who died of their injuries in the days and weeks that followed the pogrom,” the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum (USHMM) notes.
In the aftermath of Kristallnacht, scores of Jews, many of them victims of the mass rape that accompanied the violence, committed suicide. And the Nazis rounded up 30,000 Jewish males, placing them into concentration camps, marking the “first instance in which the Nazi regime incarcerated Jews on a massive scale simply on the basis of their ethnicity,” USHMM observes. The violence also spurred even greater emigration, with thousands of Jews attempting to flee Hitler’s grasp.
Many Holocaust scholars consider Kristallnacht to be a watershed moment, a point of no return where Nazi Germany and its supplicants embraced a murderous antisemitism which, in less than a decade, would culminate in the genocide of European Jewry. It opened the door to what the late historian Paul Johnson would call “the end of old Europe,” and it set the stage for the industrialized slaughter that was World War II. Then as now, what starts with the Jews never ends with the Jews. Kristallnacht was the prelude to more murder and tragedy.
The pogrom sparked condemnation and boycotts of German goods throughout the West. The Nazis, however, blamed the Jews.
On November 7, 1938, a Polish Jew named Herschel Grynszpan shot and killed a German embassy official named Ernst vom Rath in Paris. Grynszpan’s parents, Jews of Polish citizenship residing in Germany, had recently been expelled, along with thousands of others, and were stranded in a refugee camp. The Nazi regime used vom Rath’s murder as a pretext to launch Kristallnacht, an event whose scale and organization made it clear that it was preplanned and had state backing. Indeed, as the historian Thomas Childers observed, in the aftermath of vom Rath’s death, Hitler and his propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels had a “lengthy discussion about some sort of nationwide action against the Jews,” and it was decided that Goebbel’s “propaganda network would initiate the action” and that it should “appear to be a spontaneous action of an enraged nation.” Police and fire departments were not to interfere save to prevent fires from spreading to “Aryan” homes and businesses.
The Nazis blamed Jews for Kristallnacht, imposing a one-billion-mark indemnity on the Jews and “forcing them to pay for the destruction visited on them during that terrible night,” Childers noted in his 2017 book The Third Reich. Many of the pogrom’s victims held insurance policies that would have covered much of the property damage, but these were voided by the regime. Subsequent economic decrees aimed at further punishing the Jews and driving them from German life. Jews were forced to sell their retail businesses and were prevented from working as independent craftsmen, managers of businesses, or members of consumers’ cooperatives. Jewish children were expelled from public schools, had limited access to public sites like parks and movie theaters, were denied driver’s licenses and radios, and were excluded from the welfare system.
Regrettably, Kristallnacht is only part of a broader pattern in antisemitism.
In 1920, a pogrom unfolded in Jerusalem, formerly a part of the Ottoman Empire and then under British rule. Arab mobs murdered five and injured hundreds more. The riots were instigated by Arab leaders like Amin al-Husseini, who hoped to sway the British from supporting the establishment of a Jewish state in the Jewish people’s ancestral homeland. Rioters attacked Jews, yelling “the Jews are our dogs.” Prior to the violence, Arabic-language notices began circulating in Jerusalem stating: “The Government is with us, [the British General Edmund] Allenby is with us, kill the Jews; there is no punishment for killing the Jews.” Speakers whipped the crowd into a frenzy, leading to shouts of “We will drink the blood of the Jews.”
Zionist leaders like Ze’ev Jabotinsky had tried to get British officials to act, and failing that, had tried to get arms to besieged Jewish communities. For his efforts, Jabotinsky, a veteran of the British Jewish Legion, was imprisoned and, some years later, expelled from British-ruled Mandate Palestine. By contrast, Husseini, a future Nazi collaborator, was pardoned and made the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and given vast powers of patronage via the creation of the office of the Supreme Muslim Council, which he controlled. Worse still, the Palin Commission, the British investigation into the riots, placed the lion’s share of the blame for the pogrom on its victims, the Jews.
Unsurprisingly, Husseini wasn’t deterred from his goals and orchestrated another pogrom in 1929. Arab rioters murdered Jews en masse in Jerusalem, Hebron, Safed, and elsewhere, with many, including women and children, mutilated and tortured in the most barbaric ways imaginable. Yet again, a British inquiry, the Shaw Commission faulted the Jews. Ditto for the subsequent Hope-Simpson Report, which, among other things, recommended imposing severe limits on Jewish immigration. In the eyes of many, including Jabotinsky and other Zionist leaders, the British authorities were appeasing and rewarding anti-Jewish violence.
Throughout the long history of pogroms, the message, if implicit, is clear: the Jews had it coming. It’s their fault for existing. As Paul Knabenshue, an American diplomat serving in the Middle East during the 1920s and 1930s, put it: “The Jews are always responsible, for they generally bring their troubles upon themselves.” To Knabenshue, the pogroms in Jerusalem and Hebron were justified: “provocative acts” by the Jews, he asserted, had incited “ordinary, law-abiding Arabs.”
A century later, little has changed. From college campuses to newsrooms, justifications for anti-Jewish violence take many forms: “settlements” — that is, Jewish homes in Judea — are blamed for Palestinian “resistance” (terrorism) or, perversely, Israeli counterterrorist operations — that is, Jews defending themselves against terrorists — are a “war crime.” All of these excuses have one thing as their common denominator: the need to blame Jews. The eagerness by some press and policymakers to excuse a pogrom in 2024 Amsterdam is but the latest iteration.
But history offers a warning: if Europe and the West fail to curb rising antisemitism, their future will be as ignominious as the past.
The writer is a Senior Research Analyst for CAMERA, the 65,000-member, Boston-based Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting and Analysis.
The post The Long History of Blaming Jews for Anti-Jewish Violence first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Israel Declares Start of Gaza Ground Operations, No Progress Seen in Talks
Palestinians inspect the damage at the site of an Israeli strike on a tent camp sheltering displaced people, in Khan Younis, southern Gaza Strip, May 18, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Hatem Khaled
The Israeli military said on Sunday it had begun “extensive ground operations” in northern and southern Gaza, stepping up a new campaign in the enclave.
Israel made its announcement after sources on both sides said there had been no progress in a new round of indirect talks between Israel and the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas in Qatar.
The office of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the latest Doha talks included discussions on a truce and hostage deal as well as a proposal to end the war in return for the exile of Hamas militants and the demilitarization of the enclave – terms Hamas has previously rejected.
The substance of the statement was in line with previous declarations from Israel, but the timing, as negotiators meet, offered some prospect of flexibility in Israel’s position. A senior Israeli official said there had been no progress in the talks so far.
Israel’s military said it conducted a preliminary wave of strikes on more than 670 Hamas targets in Gaza over the past week to support its ground operation, dubbed “Gideon’s Chariots.”
It said it killed dozens of Hamas fighters. Palestinian health authorities say hundreds of people have been killed including many women and children.
Asked about the Doha talks, a Hamas official told Reuters: “Israel’s position remains unchanged, they want to release the prisoners (hostages) without a commitment to end the war.”
He reiterated that Hamas was proposing releasing all Israeli hostages in return for an end to the war, the pull-out of Israeli troops, an end to a blockade on aid for Gaza, and the release of Palestinian prisoners.
Israel’s declared goal in Gaza is the elimination of the military and governmental capabilities of Hamas, which attacked Israeli communities on October 7, 2023, killing about 1,200 people and seizing about 250 hostages.
The Israeli military campaign has devastated the enclave, pushing nearly all residents from their homes and killing more than 53,000 people, according to Gaza health authorities.
The post Israel Declares Start of Gaza Ground Operations, No Progress Seen in Talks first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Pope Leo Urges Unity for Divided Church, Vows Not To Be ‘Autocrat’
Pope Leo XIV waves to the faithful from the popemobile ahead of his inaugural Mass in Saint Peter’s Square, at the Vatican, May 18, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Alessandro Garofalo
Pope Leo XIV formally began his reign on Sunday by reaching out to conservatives who felt orphaned under his predecessor, calling for unity, vowing to preserve the Catholic Church’s heritage and not rule like “an autocrat.”
After a first ride in the popemobile through an estimated crowd of up to 200,000 in St. Peter’s Square and surrounding streets, Leo was officially installed as the 267th pontiff of the Roman Catholic Church at an outdoor Mass.
Well-wishers waved US and Peruvian flags, with people from both countries claiming him as the first pope from their nations. Born in Chicago, the 69-year-old pontiff spent many years as a missionary in Peru and also has Peruvian citizenship.
Robert Prevost, a relative unknown on the world stage who only became a cardinal two years ago, was elected pope on May 8 after a short conclave of cardinals that lasted barely 24 hours.
He succeeded Francis, an Argentine, who died on April 21 after leading the Church for 12 often turbulent years during which he battled with traditionalists and championed the poor and marginalized.
In his sermon, read in fluent Italian, Leo said that as leader of the world’s 1.4 billion Roman Catholics, he would continue Francis’ legacy on social issues such as combating poverty and protecting the environment.
He vowed to face up to “the questions, concerns and challenges of today’s world” and, in a nod to conservatives, he promised to preserve “the rich heritage of the Christian faith,” repeatedly calling for unity.
Crowds chanted “Viva il Papa” (Long Live the Pope) and “Papa Leone,” his name in Italian, as he waved from the open-topped popemobile ahead of his inaugural Mass, which was attended by dozens of world leaders.
US Vice President JD Vance, a Catholic convert who clashed with Francis over the White House’s hardline immigration policies, led a US delegation alongside Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who is also Catholic.
Vance briefly shook hands with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky at the start of the ceremony. The two men last met in February in the White House, when they clashed fiercely in front of the world’s media.
Zelensky and Leo were to have a private meeting later on Sunday, while Vance was expected to see the pope on Monday.
In a brief appeal at the end of the Mass, Leo addressed several global conflicts. He said Ukraine was being “martyred,” a phrase often used by Francis, and called for a “just and lasting peace” there.
He also mentioned the humanitarian situation in Gaza, saying people in the Palestinian enclave were being “reduced to starvation.”
Among those in the crowds on Sunday were many pilgrims from the US and Peru.
Dominic Venditti, from Seattle, said he was “extremely excited” by the new pope. “I like how emotional and kind he is,” he said. “I love his background.”
APPEAL FOR UNITY
Since becoming pope, Leo has already signaled some key priorities for his papacy, including a warning about the dangers posed by artificial intelligence and the importance of bringing peace to the world and to the Church itself.
Francis’ papacy left a divided Church, with conservatives accusing him of sowing confusion, particularly with his extemporaneous remarks on issues of sexual morality such as same-sex unions.
Saying he was taking up his mission “with fear and trembling,” Leo used the words “unity” or “united” seven times on Sunday and the word “harmony” four times.
“It is never a question of capturing others by force, by religious propaganda or by means of power. Instead, it is always and only a question of loving, as Jesus did,” he said, in apparent reference to a war of words between Catholics who define themselves as conservative or progressive.
Conservatives also accused Francis of ruling in a heavy-handed way and lamented that he belittled their concerns and did not consult widely before making decisions.
Referring to St. Peter, the 1st century Christian apostle from whom popes derive their authority, Leo said: “Peter must shepherd the flock without ever yielding to the temptation to be an autocrat, lording it over those entrusted to him. On the contrary, he is called to serve the faith of his brothers and sisters, and to walk alongside them.”
Many world leaders attended the ceremony, including the presidents of Israel, Peru and Nigeria, the prime ministers of Italy, Canada and Australia, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen.
European royals also took their place in the VIP seats near the main altar, including Spanish King Felipe and Queen Letizia.
Leo shook many of their hands at the end of the ceremony, and hugged his brother Louis, who had traveled from Florida.
As part of the ceremony, Leo received two symbolic items: a liturgical vestment known as a pallium, a sash of lambswool representing his role as a shepherd, and the “fisherman’s ring,” recalling St. Peter, who was a fisherman.
The ceremonial gold signet ring is specially cast for each new pope and can be used by Leo to seal documents, although this purpose has fallen out of use in modern times.
It shows St. Peter holding the keys to Heaven and will be broken after his death or resignation.
The post Pope Leo Urges Unity for Divided Church, Vows Not To Be ‘Autocrat’ first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
The ‘Nakba’ Is Not Our Problem
Pro-Palestinian demonstrators during a protest against Israel to mark the 77th anniversary of the “Nakba” or catastrophe, in Berlin, Germany, May 15, 2025. REUTERS/Axel Schmidt
JNS.org – A smattering of Arabic words has entered the English language in recent years, the direct result of more than a century of conflict between the Zionist movement and Arab regimes determined to prevent the Jews from exercising self-determination in their historic homeland.
These words include fedayeen, which refers to the armed Palestinian factions; intifada, which denotes successive violent Palestinian uprisings against Israel; and naksa, which pertains to the defeat sustained by the Arab armies in their failed bid to destroy Israel during the June 1967 war.
At the top of this list, however, is nakba, the word in Arabic for “disaster” or “catastrophe.” The emergence of the Palestinian refugee question following Israel’s 1948-49 War of Independence is now widely described as “The Nakba,” and the term has become a stick wielded by anti-Zionists to beat Israel and, increasingly, Jews outside.
Last Thursday, a date which the U.N. General Assembly has named for an annual “Nakba Day,” workers at a cluster of Jewish-owned businesses in the English city of Manchester arrived at the building housing their offices to find that it had been badly vandalized overnight. The front of the building, located in a neighborhood with a significant Jewish community, was splattered with red paint. An external wall displayed the crudely painted words “Happy Nakba Day.”
The culprits were a group called Palestine Action, a pro-Hamas collective of activists whose sole mission is to intimidate the Jewish community in the United Kingdom in much the same way as Sir Oswald Mosley’s British Union of Fascists did back in the 1930s. Its equivalents in the United States are groups like Within Our Lifetime and Students for Justice in Palestine, who have shown themselves equally enthused when it comes to intimidating Jewish communities by conducting loud, sometimes violent, demonstrations outside synagogues and other communal facilities, all too frequently showering Jews with the kind of abuse that was once the preserve of neo-Nazis. These thugs, cosplaying with keffiyehs instead of swastika armbands, can reasonably be described as the neo-neo-Nazis.
The overarching point here is that ideological constructs like nakba play a key role in enabling the intimidation they practice. It allows them to diminish the historic victimhood of the Jews, born of centuries of stateless disempowerment, with dimwitted formulas equating the nakba with the Nazi Holocaust. It also enables them to camouflage hate speech and hate crimes as human-rights advocacy—a key reason why law enforcement, in the United States as well as in Canada, Australia and most of Europe, has been found sorely wanting when it comes to dealing with the surge of antisemitism globally.
Part of the response needs to be legislative. That means clamping down on both sides of the Atlantic on groups that glorify designated terrorist organizations by preventing them from fundraising; policing their access to social media; and restricting their demonstrations to static events in a specific location with a predetermined limit on attendees, rather than a march that anyone can join, along with an outright ban on any such events in the environs of Jewish community buildings.
These are not independent civil society organizations, as they pretend to be, but rather extensions of terrorist organizations like Hamas and—in the case of Samidoun, another group describing itself as a “solidarity” organization—the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. If we cannot ban them outright, we need to contain them much more effectively. We can start by framing the issue as a national security challenge and worry less about their “freedom of speech.”
But this is also a fight that takes us into the realm of ideas and arguments. We need to stop thinking about the nakba as a Palestinian narrative of pain deserving of empathy by exposing it for what it is—another tool in the arsenal of groups whose goal is to bring about the elimination of Israel as a Jewish state.
When it was originally introduced in the late 1940s, the word nakba had nothing to do with the plight of the Palestinian refugees or their dubious claim to be the uninterrupted, indigenous inhabitants of a land seized by dispossessing foreign colonists. Popularized by the late Syrian writer Constantine Zureik in a 1948 book titled The Meaning of Disaster, the nakba described therein was, as the Israeli scholar Shany Mor has crisply pointed out, simply “the failure of the Arabs to defeat the Jews.”
Zureik was agonized by this defeat, calling it “one of the harshest of the trials and tribulations with which the Arabs have been inflicted throughout their long history.” His story is fundamentally a story of national humiliation and wounded pride. Yet there is absolutely no reason why Jews should be remotely troubled by the neurosis it projects. Their defeat was our victory and our liberation, and we should unreservedly rejoice in that fact.
The only aspect of the nakba that we should worry about is the impact it has on us as a community, as well as on the status of Israel as a sovereign member of the international society of states. As Mizrahi Jews know well (my own family among them), the nakba assembled in Zureik’s imagination really was a “catastrophe”— for us. Resoundingly defeated on the battlefield by the superior courage and tactical nous of the nascent Israeli Defense Forces, the Arabs compensated by turning on the defenseless Jews in their midst. From Libya to Iraq, ancient and established Jewish communities were the victims of a cowardly, spiteful policy of expropriation, mob violence and expulsion.
The inheritors of that policy are the various groups that compose the Palestinian solidarity movement today. Apoplectic at the realization that they have been unable to dislodge the “Zionists”—and knowing now that the main consequence of the Oct. 7, 2023 pogrom in Israel has been the destruction of Gaza—they, too, have turned on the Jews in their midst.
They have done so with one major advantage that the original neo-Nazis never had: sympathy and endorsement from academics, celebrities, politicians and even the United Nations. Indeed, the world body hosted a two-day seminar on “Ending the Nakba” at its New York headquarters at the same time that pro-Hamas fanatics were causing havoc just a few blocks downtown. Even so, we should take heart at the knowledge that nakba is not so much a symbol of resistance as it is defeat. Just as the rejectionists and eliminationists have lost previous wars through a combination of political stupidity, diplomatic ineptitude and military flimsiness, so, too, can they lose this one.
The post The ‘Nakba’ Is Not Our Problem first appeared on Algemeiner.com.