Between the straits: On Tisha B’Av, Israel must confront its own internal fanaticism - opinion

Lead

Each year, Tisha B'Av, a Jewish national day of mourning for the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, carries different messages for different readers. This year, two opinion pieces in the Jerusalem Post have reached markedly different conclusions about where Israel's greatest danger lies. One, by Yedidia Stern, argues that the threat is internal, rooted in how Israelis manage their disagreements. The other, by Steven Burg, describes an external, animosity-driven threat embodied by New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani's rhetoric.

The Internal Fire: Yedia Stern's Warning

Yedidia Stern opens his Jerusalem Post commentary with a folk tale about Napoleon. Hearing lamentation from a synagogue on Tisha B'Av, Napoleon is said to have marveled that a people capable of weeping so long for such an ancient loss would one day rebuild what they had lost. Stern warns that this year Israelis may have forgotten the deeper lesson of the day, which Jewish tradition ties to internal division.

Jewish tradition attributes the loss of sovereignty in the two previous Jewish commonwealths to internal hatred that weakened the people against their enemies, Stern writes. He cites the burning of Jerusalem's granaries during an enemy siege as the starkest symbol of the madness to which fraternal hatred can lead. In his view, modern Israel risks a similar fate by eroding the rule of law, undermining trust in state institutions, and weakening governance while the nation is at war with its enemies.

To support this argument, Stern cites a recent survey by the Jewish People Policy Institute (JPPI) finding that 55% of Israelis believe the greatest threat to their future lies not beyond the country's borders—in security threats or global antisemitism—but within the country's choices and actions. He acknowledges that this intuition is not unfounded but requires precision. Stern argues the real danger does not stem from disagreement itself but from the way Israelis manage it. Public life, he contends, has become a 'zero-sum game,' in which each camp is convinced that defeating the other's victory would make the shared home unlivable. Without a commitment to shared rules, Stern concludes, the country risks undermining the very sovereignty it has built.

The Enemy Without: Steven Burg's Attack

In a separate Jerusalem Post opinion, Steven Burg begins by recalling his annual viewing of a film about the Wannsee Conference, the 1942 meeting where Nazi officials agreed on the mechanics of annihilating the Jewish people. For Burg, the evil she had on display is staggering and accompanied by an arrogant trust in their own permanence. He uses this history to frame the current moment.

Burg turns his focus to Zohran Mamdani, mayor of New York City and a state with the largest Jewish population outside Israel. He writes that Mamdani has made a habit of accusing Israel's prime minister of crimes he has no authority to prosecute and no evidence to support. 'He surely knows how absurd it is,' Burg writes, 'What matters more is the signal to his followers: that the Jewish state, and by extension the Jewish people, are the villains of the story.'

Burg also criticises Mamdani's recent Tisha B'Av capstone to New York's Jews, in which, according to Burg's review, Mamdani did not mention Israel at all. On a day built entirely around Jewish longing for Jerusalem, the omission is a kind of denial. 'Justice and liberation are true—but only if you're not a Jew,' he concludes. Burg frames the larger lesson in history: the men who planned the annihilation of the Jews, however confident, were gone within years, while the Jewish people endured.

Coverage Comparison

The two pieces share a starting point—the historical gravity of Tisha B'Av—but diverge on the nature of the threat. Stern substitutes the JPPI survey and the erosion of state institutions as evidence of an internal crisis, whereas Burg brings the Wannsee Conference and anti-Semitic denial as evidence of an external one. Both are opinionated, but they draw on distinct historical and sociological reference points to advance their claims.

Key Claims

• Tisha B'Av is a Jewish national day of mourning for the destruction of the Temple.
• Jewish tradition ties the loss of sovereignty in the two ancient commonwealths to internal hatred (Stern).
• A JPPI survey indicates 55% of Israelis consider an internal threat the most dangerous (Stern).
• Stern proposes a 'thin constitution' to establish rules for managing public disputes.
• Burg asserts that Zohran Mamdani has accused Israel's prime minister of 'crimes he has no authority to prosecute and no evidence to support' (Burg).
• Burg references the Wannsee Conference as a Nazi meeting to annihilate the Jewish people, using it to illustrate the external threat and the eventual downfall of Israel's enemies.

Perspectives: Two Views of a Nation in Mourning

The first view, from Yedidia Stern, maintains that Israel's greatest danger comes from within. Stern argues that 'internal hatred' is historically the predetermined cause of the loss of sovereignty, and he points to the JPPI survey to show that most Israelis share his worry. He introduces the 'thin constitution' as a way to prevent public discord from becoming self-destructive, and he pleads for a shift in how the nation manages its internal differences.

The second, from Steven Burg, centers the danger outside the borders and within the rhetoric of political figures like Zohran Mamdani. Burg sees the Wannsee Conference as a prototype of the arrogance that leads to planned—but wasted—annihilation, and he views Mamdani's failure to mention Israel on Tisha B'Av as a neglectful signal. For Burg, the robust response to such animosity is to remember the lessons of a history that shows the fall of the enemies of the Jews.

Both writers press the importance of the past for Israel's future, but offer opposite prescriptions for the obstacles that lie ahead.