On the upcoming holiday of Tisha b’Av, which begins this evening, Jews mourn not only the destruction of the First and Second Temples but all instances of persecution throughout the ages. Thus, one of the liturgical poems traditionally recited by Ashkenazim commemorates the burning of the Talmud by church authorities in Paris in 1242. Lawrence Schiffman explains why medieval churchmen came to view the Talmud with such hostility:

The earliest person to polemicize against the Talmud directly was probably Petrus Alphonsi, a Jewish physician and scholar who converted to Christianity in 1106 and was formerly known as Moses Sephardi. . . . The first sections of his Dialogue against the Jews attacks Judaism to a great extent by challenging the Talmud and the ancient rabbis. Whereas previous claims had been that the Jews continued to practice biblical law [while] refusing to accept Christianity, Petrus now claimed that the Jews were following what he said was a new and false law—that of the Talmud.

Somewhat different was Peter the Venerable, the Benedictine Abbot of Cluny (ca. 1092-1156). [Although] hostile to Jews and Judaism, he [nonetheless] wanted to see Jews spared from violence. . . . Peter composed a lengthy polemic against the Jews that included an attack on the Talmud. Peter [was] the first [influential author to make] an attack of this nature, although those who followed him had much more thorough familiarity with the [text itself, at a time] when European Christendom was crystallizing a new spirited opposition to Jews and Judaism. . . .

By the 13th century, Jewish converts to Christianity began to provide much greater [access to] talmudic learning to increasingly anti-talmudic Christian authorities. The first of these converts was Nicholas Donin, who lived in the first half of the 13th century. He argued that the Talmud was intolerable to Christians and that Christian society should destroy it. He set in motion the process that would lead to the burning of the Talmud in France in the 1240s.

For some time, opponents of U.S support for Israel have been urging the White House to end the war in Gaza, or simply calling for a ceasefire. Douglas Feith and Lewis Libby consider what such a result would actually entail:

Ending the war immediately would allow Hamas to survive and retain military and governing power. Leaving it in the area containing the Sinai-Gaza smuggling routes would ensure that Hamas can rearm. This is why Hamas leaders now plead for a ceasefire. A ceasefire will provide some relief for Gazans today, but a prolonged ceasefire will preserve Hamas’s bloody oppression of Gaza and make future wars with Israel inevitable.

For most Gazans, even when there is no hot war, Hamas’s dictatorship is a nightmarish tyranny. Hamas rule features the torture and murder of regime opponents, official corruption, extremist indoctrination of children, and misery for the population in general. Hamas diverts foreign aid and other resources from proper uses; instead of improving life for the mass of the people, it uses the funds to fight against Palestinians and Israelis.

Moreover, a Hamas-affiliated website warned Gazans last month against cooperating with Israel in securing and delivering the truckloads of aid flowing into the Strip. It promised to deal with those who do with “an iron fist.” In other words, if Hamas remains in power, it will begin torturing, imprisoning, or murdering those it deems collaborators the moment the war ends. Thereafter, Hamas will begin planning its next attack on Israel:

Hamas’s goals are to overshadow the Palestinian Authority, win control of the West Bank, and establish Hamas leadership over the Palestinian revolution. Hamas’s ultimate aim is to spark a regional war to obliterate Israel and, as Hamas leaders steadfastly maintain, fulfill a Quranic vision of killing all Jews.

Hamas planned for corpses of Palestinian babies and mothers to serve as the mainspring of its October 7 war plan. Hamas calculated it could survive a war against a superior Israeli force and energize enemies of Israel around the world. The key to both aims was arranging for grievous Palestinian civilian losses. . . . That element of Hamas’s war plan is working impressively.