The motto of the Houthi rebels in Yemen, who last night launched three attack drones at Israel, includes both “death to Israel” and “curse the Jews,” providing some clarity about their intentions. These can also be seen in their treatment of Levi Marhabi, who is likely Yemen’s last Jew, and whom the Houthis have imprisoned since 2018. Before telling his story, Thasanya Jayasumana provides some historical background on the local Jewish community, which predates the destruction of the Second Temple and the rise of Islam. Once, Jayasumana writes, Muslim rulers guaranteed Yemenite Jewish protections. (Free registration required.)

[T]his security came with stringent social rules aimed at ensuring their visible separation from the Muslim populace. Among the many conditions, Jews were required to walk on the left side of Muslims, forbidden from constructing homes taller than those of their Muslim neighbors, and barred from riding camels or horses. Instead, they were limited to mules and donkeys, which they initially rode sidesaddle. Over time, even this modest privilege was rescinded, relegating them to making their journeys on foot.

Despite these restrictions, the Jewish community in Yemen managed to attain economic prosperity, thriving as merchants, artisans, and peddlers. . . . Starting in 1881 and continuing until 1914, a significant exodus unfolded as around 10 percent of Yemen’s Jewish population migrated to the then-Ottoman territory of Palestine.

The situation took a dire turn in 2007 when the Houthis issued direct threats against the Jewish community. . . . Marhabi is kept in inhumane prison conditions, where his health continues to deteriorate. He allegedly suffers from kidney and lung issues and has lost all his teeth from repeated torture. Other accounts indicate that he may also be partially paralyzed. Houthi officials have reportedly deprived him of food, and subjected him to physical beatings, electrical shocks, and lengthy interrogations.

Last week, the New York Times reported, based on unnamed sources within the Trump administration, that the president had asked Israel not to carry out a planned strike on Iranian nuclear facilities. That is, somebody deliberately gave this information to the press, which later tried to confirm it by speaking with other officials. Amit Segal writes that, “according to figures in Israel’s security establishment,” this is “the most serious leak in Israel’s history.” He explains:

As Israel is reportedly planning what may well be one of its most consequential military operations ever, the New York Times lays out for the Iranians what Israel will target, when it will carry out the operation, and how. That’s not just any other leak.

Seth Mandel looks into the leaker’s logic:

The primary purpose of the [Times] article is not as a record of internal deliberations but as an instrument of policy itself. Namely, to obstruct future U.S. and Israeli foreign policy by divulging enough details of Israel’s plans in order to protect Iran’s nuclear sites. The idea is to force Israeli planners back to the drawing board, thus delaying a possible future strike on Iran until Iranian air defenses have been rebuilt.

The leak is the point. It’s a tactical play, more or less, to help Iran torpedo American action.

The leaker, Mandel explains—and the Times itself implies—is likely aligned with the faction in the administration that wants to see the U.S. retreat from the world stage and from its alliance with Israel, a faction that includes Vice-President J.D. Vance, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, and the president’s own chief of staff Susie Wiles.

Yet it’s also possible, if less likely, that the plans were leaked in support of administration policy rather than out of factional infighting. Eliezer Marom argues that the leak was “part of the negotiations and serves to clarify to the Iranians that there is a real attack plan that Trump stopped at the last moment to conduct negotiations.”