In 1095, Pope Urban II called for the First Crusade to wrest Jerusalem from Muslim rule. To some Christians, it seemed unnecessary to travel great distances to fight infidels when there were infidels to attack in their own towns and villages. Thus in 1096 brutal mob violence was unleashed on the Jews of northwestern Europe, and especially the Rhineland. Leading rabbis among the survivors later composed kinot, or dirges, replete with complex biblical and talmudic allusions, to commemorate the resulting destruction. These have since been incorporated into the liturgy of the Ninth of Av—observed this coming Sunday—on which Jews mourn the destruction of the two temples and other national calamities.

In conversation with Nachi Weinstein, the historian Ephraim Kanarfogel explains the context and background of the massacres of 1096, how rabbis addressed the halakhic and moral predicaments they created, the kinot literature they gave rise to, and the ways they were interpreted through the theological lens of the binding of Isaac. He also dismantles the myth that European Jews went like proverbial lambs to the slaughter; in fact, there were instances where Jews—sometimes led by their rabbis—took up arms against their oppressors. (Audio, 62 minutes.)

Yesterday, President Biden reportedly met with his advisers to discuss how to achieve a breakthrough in hostage negotiations. Meir Ben Shabbat takes a closer look at what the terrorists themselves are saying:

Khalil al-Hayya, Hamas’s deputy chief in Gaza, reiterated that this issue is merely one of several demands his group has put forward as conditions for a deal. “We stress that any agreement must encompass a full cessation of hostilities, complete withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, including the Philadelphi Corridor and the Rafah crossing [which allow Hamas to smuggle weapons and supplies from Egypt], unimpeded return of displaced persons to their homes, aid and relief for Palestinians, Gaza’s reconstruction, and a prisoner exchange,” al-Hayya stated.

This stance isn’t new. What stood out in its presentation was the self-assurance displayed by the senior Hamas official, during a week when he and his associates were expected to be on edge, fearing repercussions for the killing of six hostages. However, the reaction to this in Israel and the United States prompted an opposite response from them. From their perspective, not only did they avoid consequences for the heinous act, but through it, they managed to escalate tensions and internal disagreements in Israel, while also prompting Washington to consider presenting a framework defined as a “final offer, without room for negotiation.

Hamas assumes that a final American proposal will inevitably come at Israel’s expense. The primary pressure to reach an agreement is already being applied to Israeli leadership. Hamas faces no consequences for prolonging the process, and so long as it holds hostages, it can always resume negotiations from where they left off.