For many years, conventional wisdom held that North African Jews were beneficiaries of European colonialism, given a favored status by French rulers over their Arab compatriots. Lyn Julius notes that this version of events, which draws on the work of Arab nationalist historians, leads to the claim that, in her words, “Jews are responsible for their own plight.” More recently, a new generation of historians have argued that Maghrebi Jews were victims of colonialism. To Julius, neither approach comes close to capturing the truth:

Arab nationalist historiography says Jews were colonists or collaborators with colonists, but how then does one explain ambivalence to European citizenship in certain sections of the community? Take the case of Algeria, part of metropolitan France since 1830. It took until 1870 for [Algerian] Jews to attain French citizenship. The Jewish religious establishment resisted it for 40 years, fearing it would lead to secularization and assimilation. Then the Décret Crémieux imposed French citizenship on the entire community, [thus putting them in a different legal category than Algerian Muslims]. Incidentally, Muslims were also offered French citizenship [in] 1865. However, they overwhelmingly rejected it, as it would have meant compromising their personal status, which was governed by Muslim law.

More importantly, the “Jews-as-colonists” narrative cannot account for the fact that Jews were victims of European colonial anti-Semitism. Equal rights did not mitigate anti-Jewish abuse. Indeed, paradoxically, as Western influence increased, the tropes of European anti-Semitism were spread by local Christians. . . . The pieds noirs [French settlers] in Algeria, led by the notorious anti-Dreyfusard Edouard Drumont, parliamentary representative for Algiers, were a repository of European anti-Semitism. They resented the Jews for acquiring an equal status—French citizenship—they did not deserve. The pieds noirs even incited anti-Jewish riots.

However, if Jews were as anti-colonialist as [the newer group of historians] wants us to believe, why did they nevertheless work with the Europeans, seek European citizenship, or emigrate? If Jews resisted European encroachment, why did they actively seek Western consular protection? The answer is pretty clear: to offset their insecure dhimmi predicament.

The former Israeli chief justice Aharon Barak recently warned that the country could be headed toward civil war due to Benjamin Netanyahu’s decision to fire the head of the Shin Bet, and the opposition thereto. To Amichai Attali, such comments are both “out of touch with reality” and irresponsible—as are those of Barak’s political opponents:

Yes, there is tension and stress, but there is also the unique Israeli sense of solidarity. Who exactly would fight in this so-called civil war? Try finding a single battalion or military unit willing to go out and kill their own brothers and sisters—you won’t. They don’t exist. About 7 percent of the population represents the extremes of the political spectrum, making the most noise. But if we don’t come to our senses, that number might grow.

And what about you, leader of [the leftwing party] The Democrats and former deputy IDF chief, Yair Golan? You wrote that the soldiers fighting Hamas in Gaza are pawns in Netanyahu’s political survival game. Really? Is that what the tens of thousands of soldiers on the front lines need to hear? Or their mothers back home? Do you honestly believe Netanyahu would sacrifice hostages just to stay in power? Is that what the families of those hostages need right now?

Israeli democracy will not collapse if Netanyahu fires the head of the Shin Bet—so long as it’s done legally. Nor will it fall because demonstrators fill the streets to protest. They are not destroying democracy, nor are they terrorists working for Hamas.