Jose Andres Bogado retweeted
Yes, I am saying the Nakba never happened.
Palestinians tried to kill their Jewish neighbors. They lost. They were not invited back.
That’s not a tragedy. It’s the consequences of Jew hate.
Jose Andres Bogado retweeted
This woman would make an incredible world leader. I hope she takes another shot next time.
The vote count is complete. The Reservists and Economic Party received the support of approximately 152,000 voters, who appear to have come in roughly equal numbers from both political “blocs,” and from socioeconomic clusters reflecting the full political, economic, and identity spectrum of those who rushed to the front lines to defend the country on October 7. In doing so, we became the only party in these elections whose agenda and voters alike transcended the division into political “blocs.”
But it is possible that, despite not being represented in the Knesset, the election results will nevertheless allow us to achieve the very thing for which we sought to enter it. The results hold enormous political potential. Precisely because neither side got what it wanted, an opportunity has opened up to form the government Israel needs: a broad, centrist Zionist government that will finally begin confronting the country's fundamental challenges.
What do the results tell us?
Netanyahu's coalition does not have a majority to return in its current composition. That is over.
The change bloc does not have a majority to form a government without relying on parties and members of Knesset who hold explicitly antizionist and Palestinianist positions.
And it seems it will take time to fully grasp the significance of the scale of political support for anti-Zionist Arab and ultra-Orthodox parties, especially in a scenario of their full voter mobilization. The possibility of political cooperation between anti-Zionist Arab and ultra-Orthodox parties, and the emergence of an “antizionist bloc” that increasingly places the interests of these two groups above the shared Zionist interest, represents a strategic threat to the future of the State of Israel. For Zionist parties to rely on anti-Zionist parties in order to defeat a Zionist political rival is dangerous behavior.
And here lies the paradox: an outcome that makes almost nobody happy individually could turn out to be an excellent result for the State of Israel and Zionism. Precisely because neither side can get everything it wants, the necessity of working together has emerged.
The right government for Israel at this moment is a government of Likud, Yashar, Lieberman, and Bennett. A broad, centrist Zionist government, without the ultra-Orthodox and Arab parties, and also without the less centrist Zionist parties.
Such a government could, if it chose to, commit to preserving the existing legal situation, under which there are no longer any arrangements granting exemptions from service and the law currently in force is the Defense Service Law. It could ensure that state services and public-sector positions are reserved for those who serve and defend the country. It could guarantee state Zionist education, in Hebrew, for all Israeli children. And it could put an end to the economic mechanisms through which Israel's welfare state has, for decades, encouraged draft evasion and separation from the Zionist enterprise. (And it certainly wouldn't hurt to lower the electoral threshold to encourage Zionist Arab and Zionist ultra-Orthodox political representation.)
Such a government could confront the enormous diplomatic and security challenges ahead, finally begin working to dismantle Palestinianism at home and abroad, and return Israel to a Zionist and productive path.
There are no serious security or economic differences between the parties of Netanyahu, Eisenkot, Bennett, and Lieberman that justify continued paralysis or another election. They have far more in common than our political discourse allows us to see. If they wanted to, they could form an excellent government.
But for that to happen, both sides would have to give something up.
Netanyahu cannot insist on preserving every component of his current coalition and expect everyone else simply to join it. The election results neither allow nor justify that.
Conversely, the change bloc cannot insist on boycotting Netanyahu at the price of relying on antizionist and Palestinianist forces.
The danger now is that, instead of seizing the opportunity, both sides will choose escalation, which could look like this:
Netanyahu will entrench himself in a coalition that lacks a majority, while the other side will use its parliamentary majority to pass confrontational legislation and paralyze the government. Each side will respond with further escalation, and Israel will find itself in a prolonged political and institutional crisis, precisely when it needs a functioning government more than ever.
This is exactly where we wanted to play a political role.
We did not seek to be the kingmaker who determines who becomes prime minister. We sought to be the spearhead for establishing a broad, centrist Zionist government. A political force capable of standing up to either side that refused to compromise, and making it clear that refusal carries a price.
This was our message throughout the campaign: What, not who.
Israel is a parliamentary, coalition-based democracy. The prime minister, as the English name suggests, is the first among ministers, not a president and not a king. The identity of the prime minister matters, but the composition of the coalition and the policies it advances matter far more.
Therefore, the question of who will be prime minister is secondary to the question of what kind of governing coalition we will have.
Will it be a government that continues subsidizing draft evasion and separation from the rest of society, or one that restores service, Zionist education, and shared responsibility to the center of Israeli life? Will we continue postponing the confrontation with our fundamental problems, or will we seize the opportunity to halt processes that have been endangering our future for decades? These are the questions that truly matter. And if we fail to confront them now, the future price will be far higher — and the damage may not even be reversible.
We ran in these elections to change the direction in which Israel is heading. We had hoped to do so from within the Knesset, and we are disappointed that we will not be able to. But the results have created a genuine opportunity to achieve the very goal for which we embarked on this journey.
The responsibility now lies with the leaders who were elected. They can continue to entrench in political blocs that have led Israel into repeated election cycles and governments dominated by the extremes, or they can recognize that the new political reality requires them to do something different.
If a broad, centrist Zionist government is formed here, without the ultra-Orthodox and Arab parties, and finally begins confronting the fundamental questions facing the State of Israel, that will be the achievement we sought.
And that will be reward enough for us.
Jose Andres Bogado retweeted
36 years since his passing. Time and time again, history has proven this man right.
Jose Andres Bogado retweeted
I’ve read a lot of post-election takes. Most of them are just people explaining why their side still won or why the other side is finished. @EinatWilf’s is different.
She’s not scoring points. She is looking at the result and saying, clearly, what almost no one else will. Neither bloc can form a government that actually works without relying on parties that reject the basic idea of a shared Zionist state. And then she spells out what a real government would have to do, which is to end the draft exemptions, stop funding the separation, and put the country’s long-term survival ahead of the next coalition deal.
It’s rare to see someone in Israeli politics state the problem this plainly and then describe the only realistic way out of it. Most people are still arguing about who gets to be prime minister. Einat is talking about whether the country will still be able to defend itself and hold together a decade from now. That’s the conversation that actually matters, and almost no one else is having it.
The vote count is complete. The Reservists and Economic Party received the support of approximately 152,000 voters, who appear to have come in roughly equal numbers from both political “blocs,” and from socioeconomic clusters reflecting the full political, economic, and identity spectrum of those who rushed to the front lines to defend the country on October 7. In doing so, we became the only party in these elections whose agenda and voters alike transcended the division into political “blocs.”
But it is possible that, despite not being represented in the Knesset, the election results will nevertheless allow us to achieve the very thing for which we sought to enter it. The results hold enormous political potential. Precisely because neither side got what it wanted, an opportunity has opened up to form the government Israel needs: a broad, centrist Zionist government that will finally begin confronting the country's fundamental challenges.
What do the results tell us?
Netanyahu's coalition does not have a majority to return in its current composition. That is over.
The change bloc does not have a majority to form a government without relying on parties and members of Knesset who hold explicitly antizionist and Palestinianist positions.
And it seems it will take time to fully grasp the significance of the scale of political support for anti-Zionist Arab and ultra-Orthodox parties, especially in a scenario of their full voter mobilization. The possibility of political cooperation between anti-Zionist Arab and ultra-Orthodox parties, and the emergence of an “antizionist bloc” that increasingly places the interests of these two groups above the shared Zionist interest, represents a strategic threat to the future of the State of Israel. For Zionist parties to rely on anti-Zionist parties in order to defeat a Zionist political rival is dangerous behavior.
And here lies the paradox: an outcome that makes almost nobody happy individually could turn out to be an excellent result for the State of Israel and Zionism. Precisely because neither side can get everything it wants, the necessity of working together has emerged.
The right government for Israel at this moment is a government of Likud, Yashar, Lieberman, and Bennett. A broad, centrist Zionist government, without the ultra-Orthodox and Arab parties, and also without the less centrist Zionist parties.
Such a government could, if it chose to, commit to preserving the existing legal situation, under which there are no longer any arrangements granting exemptions from service and the law currently in force is the Defense Service Law. It could ensure that state services and public-sector positions are reserved for those who serve and defend the country. It could guarantee state Zionist education, in Hebrew, for all Israeli children. And it could put an end to the economic mechanisms through which Israel's welfare state has, for decades, encouraged draft evasion and separation from the Zionist enterprise. (And it certainly wouldn't hurt to lower the electoral threshold to encourage Zionist Arab and Zionist ultra-Orthodox political representation.)
Such a government could confront the enormous diplomatic and security challenges ahead, finally begin working to dismantle Palestinianism at home and abroad, and return Israel to a Zionist and productive path.
There are no serious security or economic differences between the parties of Netanyahu, Eisenkot, Bennett, and Lieberman that justify continued paralysis or another election. They have far more in common than our political discourse allows us to see. If they wanted to, they could form an excellent government.
But for that to happen, both sides would have to give something up.
Netanyahu cannot insist on preserving every component of his current coalition and expect everyone else simply to join it. The election results neither allow nor justify that.
Conversely, the change bloc cannot insist on boycotting Netanyahu at the price of relying on antizionist and Palestinianist forces.
The danger now is that, instead of seizing the opportunity, both sides will choose escalation, which could look like this:
Netanyahu will entrench himself in a coalition that lacks a majority, while the other side will use its parliamentary majority to pass confrontational legislation and paralyze the government. Each side will respond with further escalation, and Israel will find itself in a prolonged political and institutional crisis, precisely when it needs a functioning government more than ever.
This is exactly where we wanted to play a political role.
We did not seek to be the kingmaker who determines who becomes prime minister. We sought to be the spearhead for establishing a broad, centrist Zionist government. A political force capable of standing up to either side that refused to compromise, and making it clear that refusal carries a price.
This was our message throughout the campaign: What, not who.
Israel is a parliamentary, coalition-based democracy. The prime minister, as the English name suggests, is the first among ministers, not a president and not a king. The identity of the prime minister matters, but the composition of the coalition and the policies it advances matter far more.
Therefore, the question of who will be prime minister is secondary to the question of what kind of governing coalition we will have.
Will it be a government that continues subsidizing draft evasion and separation from the rest of society, or one that restores service, Zionist education, and shared responsibility to the center of Israeli life? Will we continue postponing the confrontation with our fundamental problems, or will we seize the opportunity to halt processes that have been endangering our future for decades? These are the questions that truly matter. And if we fail to confront them now, the future price will be far higher — and the damage may not even be reversible.
We ran in these elections to change the direction in which Israel is heading. We had hoped to do so from within the Knesset, and we are disappointed that we will not be able to. But the results have created a genuine opportunity to achieve the very goal for which we embarked on this journey.
The responsibility now lies with the leaders who were elected. They can continue to entrench in political blocs that have led Israel into repeated election cycles and governments dominated by the extremes, or they can recognize that the new political reality requires them to do something different.
If a broad, centrist Zionist government is formed here, without the ultra-Orthodox and Arab parties, and finally begins confronting the fundamental questions facing the State of Israel, that will be the achievement we sought.
And that will be reward enough for us.
Jose Andres Bogado retweeted
The Guardian has called Israel an apartheid state. Now it’s telling us Israel’s Arab parties are the ‘new kingmakers’. Make your mind up, says Brendan O’Neill
buff.ly/nJEpzZ4
Jose Andres Bogado retweeted
Apparently, being cited by someone on the ‘hard right’ is now enough to make you guilty by association.
That is the Guardian’s case against me. It has published an article about my opposition to the Church of England’s £100 million slavery reparations scheme, smearing me through supposed links with Restore Britain and associating our campaign with wealthy financiers.
Yet its evidence of my ‘hard right’ connections amounts to a Restore Britain paper citing my work. As for Paul Marshall, he has never funded our campaign.
What about my arguments against reparations? What opposing reasons and evidence did the Guardian offer? None whatsoever.
Read my response to the Guardian at The Biggar Picture: nigelbiggar.co.uk/p/my-answe…
Jose Andres Bogado retweeted
I bought a hat with some Hebrew text on it.
In thirty minutes of wearing it in public, I've had two people come up and challenge me about the hat, asking what language it was and then glaring at me when I said Hebrew.
I'm not Jewish.
I don't like living in a world with ethnic hatred. This is bullshit, and it has to be pushed back against. You can have whatever feelings you want about a war on the other side of the world, but hating someone here because of what language you think they speak is disgusting.
Jose Andres Bogado retweeted
No @mehdirhasan, Israel is not in the grip of “genocidal mania.” And that’s an ugly accusation to make. Here’s the deal: Israel ain’t going back to Oct 6th. And you got Hamas to blame for that. But you are correct, that since Oct 7th, it’s not “only Netanyahu.” It’s ALL of Israel. Again, Israel ain’t going back to Oct 6th. No matter who the prime minister is. Israel will no longer live next door to people who want to exterminate them. Those days are done. And that’s a good thing. And, again, who’s to blame for this? Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, and all the other Islamist orgs & states in the region who want to exterminate Israel. Thanks Mehdi.
"Israel’s Election Destroyed the ‘It’s Only Netanyahu’ Lie"
The country is in the grip of genocidal mania and any hope that change will come from within Israeli society is now extinguished. It is Netanyahu who will emerge victorious from the ‘deadlock’.
zeteo.uk/p/israels-election-…
Jose Andres Bogado retweeted
Israel skipped the chance to elect its finest brain. I live and work in the academic space, I know of no finer thinker than Einat; she’s a personal hero of mine.
Next Israeli PM: pick a non-MK to your cabinet.
The vote count is complete. The Reservists and Economic Party received the support of approximately 152,000 voters, who appear to have come in roughly equal numbers from both political “blocs,” and from socioeconomic clusters reflecting the full political, economic, and identity spectrum of those who rushed to the front lines to defend the country on October 7. In doing so, we became the only party in these elections whose agenda and voters alike transcended the division into political “blocs.”
But it is possible that, despite not being represented in the Knesset, the election results will nevertheless allow us to achieve the very thing for which we sought to enter it. The results hold enormous political potential. Precisely because neither side got what it wanted, an opportunity has opened up to form the government Israel needs: a broad, centrist Zionist government that will finally begin confronting the country's fundamental challenges.
What do the results tell us?
Netanyahu's coalition does not have a majority to return in its current composition. That is over.
The change bloc does not have a majority to form a government without relying on parties and members of Knesset who hold explicitly antizionist and Palestinianist positions.
And it seems it will take time to fully grasp the significance of the scale of political support for anti-Zionist Arab and ultra-Orthodox parties, especially in a scenario of their full voter mobilization. The possibility of political cooperation between anti-Zionist Arab and ultra-Orthodox parties, and the emergence of an “antizionist bloc” that increasingly places the interests of these two groups above the shared Zionist interest, represents a strategic threat to the future of the State of Israel. For Zionist parties to rely on anti-Zionist parties in order to defeat a Zionist political rival is dangerous behavior.
And here lies the paradox: an outcome that makes almost nobody happy individually could turn out to be an excellent result for the State of Israel and Zionism. Precisely because neither side can get everything it wants, the necessity of working together has emerged.
The right government for Israel at this moment is a government of Likud, Yashar, Lieberman, and Bennett. A broad, centrist Zionist government, without the ultra-Orthodox and Arab parties, and also without the less centrist Zionist parties.
Such a government could, if it chose to, commit to preserving the existing legal situation, under which there are no longer any arrangements granting exemptions from service and the law currently in force is the Defense Service Law. It could ensure that state services and public-sector positions are reserved for those who serve and defend the country. It could guarantee state Zionist education, in Hebrew, for all Israeli children. And it could put an end to the economic mechanisms through which Israel's welfare state has, for decades, encouraged draft evasion and separation from the Zionist enterprise. (And it certainly wouldn't hurt to lower the electoral threshold to encourage Zionist Arab and Zionist ultra-Orthodox political representation.)
Such a government could confront the enormous diplomatic and security challenges ahead, finally begin working to dismantle Palestinianism at home and abroad, and return Israel to a Zionist and productive path.
There are no serious security or economic differences between the parties of Netanyahu, Eisenkot, Bennett, and Lieberman that justify continued paralysis or another election. They have far more in common than our political discourse allows us to see. If they wanted to, they could form an excellent government.
But for that to happen, both sides would have to give something up.
Netanyahu cannot insist on preserving every component of his current coalition and expect everyone else simply to join it. The election results neither allow nor justify that.
Conversely, the change bloc cannot insist on boycotting Netanyahu at the price of relying on antizionist and Palestinianist forces.
The danger now is that, instead of seizing the opportunity, both sides will choose escalation, which could look like this:
Netanyahu will entrench himself in a coalition that lacks a majority, while the other side will use its parliamentary majority to pass confrontational legislation and paralyze the government. Each side will respond with further escalation, and Israel will find itself in a prolonged political and institutional crisis, precisely when it needs a functioning government more than ever.
This is exactly where we wanted to play a political role.
We did not seek to be the kingmaker who determines who becomes prime minister. We sought to be the spearhead for establishing a broad, centrist Zionist government. A political force capable of standing up to either side that refused to compromise, and making it clear that refusal carries a price.
This was our message throughout the campaign: What, not who.
Israel is a parliamentary, coalition-based democracy. The prime minister, as the English name suggests, is the first among ministers, not a president and not a king. The identity of the prime minister matters, but the composition of the coalition and the policies it advances matter far more.
Therefore, the question of who will be prime minister is secondary to the question of what kind of governing coalition we will have.
Will it be a government that continues subsidizing draft evasion and separation from the rest of society, or one that restores service, Zionist education, and shared responsibility to the center of Israeli life? Will we continue postponing the confrontation with our fundamental problems, or will we seize the opportunity to halt processes that have been endangering our future for decades? These are the questions that truly matter. And if we fail to confront them now, the future price will be far higher — and the damage may not even be reversible.
We ran in these elections to change the direction in which Israel is heading. We had hoped to do so from within the Knesset, and we are disappointed that we will not be able to. But the results have created a genuine opportunity to achieve the very goal for which we embarked on this journey.
The responsibility now lies with the leaders who were elected. They can continue to entrench in political blocs that have led Israel into repeated election cycles and governments dominated by the extremes, or they can recognize that the new political reality requires them to do something different.
If a broad, centrist Zionist government is formed here, without the ultra-Orthodox and Arab parties, and finally begins confronting the fundamental questions facing the State of Israel, that will be the achievement we sought.
And that will be reward enough for us.
Jose Andres Bogado retweeted
@SenatorWong was among those I called out for falsehoods at the United Nations, for her lie about the displacement of Palestinian children.
@SenPaterson recently challenged her on this point, as covered by @SharriMarkson. youtube.com/watch?v=DRWqTb_8…
Wong’s now-altered account remains false. Arguing about the time frame fails to grapple with the fundamental blood libel she promoted: that children have been displaced by the canard of “settler violence”.
The false statistic in fact alleged “displacement” from refugee camps in the northern West Bank (Jenin, Tulkarem, and Nur al-Shams) in early 2025, which arose from operations against Hamas in these locations. Counter-terror operations, not “settler violence”. Operations necessitated by Hamas violence. Hamas, the internationally proscribed organisation that these contemptible positions ultimately support.
In a truly twisted fashion, these world leaders' false statements feed into one another. Macron’s laughable proposition that Hamas does not operate in Gaza facilitates Wong’s lie by removing Hamas from the picture. That is the ongoing assault on truth, and it is a tragedy.
A welcome opportunity to counter world leaders' outrageous lies with @UNWatch.
Those who abuse the UN to promote falsehoods about Israel and subvert international law must be held to account.
Jose Andres Bogado retweeted
That is what they cannot accept. It’s not about inequality for the Arab. It’s about equality for the Jew.
The accusations reveal more about the accusers than the accused.
The charges are the smokescreen. Jewish sovereignty is the target. Resist Arab and Muslim supremacy.
Jose Andres Bogado retweeted
I don’t know what’s more upsetting, watching antisemitism increase or watching normal people stay silent.
Jose Andres Bogado retweeted
The history of this conflict didn't begin in 1967.
Jews were massacred in Hebron in 1929.
The PLO was founded in 1964.
I believe we need to confront the full history, not just the parts that fit a narrative.
History matters. Facts matter.
#Israel #IsraelPalestine #MiddleEast #JewishHistory #IsraeliHistory
Jose Andres Bogado retweeted
Israelis speak Hebrew- a language we kept for more than 2000 years across the diaspora. In the meantime- the Irish barely speak Gaeilge. Nobody stopping them or forcing English today. They just dropping the ball on their own culture while fetishing Palestinians
Jose Andres Bogado retweeted
Let's be clear: Christianity built Western civilization.
Not as a vague cultural backdrop. As the actual engine.
It all comes down to one sentence: "You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free."
Think about what that implies. Truth exists. Truth is one. Truth is knowable. And seeking it isn't rebellion against God. It's worship.
"In the beginning was the Logos." Reason. If the universe was created by a rational mind, then the universe is rational. It follows laws. And those laws can be discovered.
Most civilizations never made that leap. Nature was a battlefield of capricious gods to appease, or an eternal cycle going nowhere, or an illusion to escape. Why would you study the laws of something you don't believe has laws?
Christians believed otherwise. So monks preserved ancient knowledge for a thousand years. The Church gave birth to the university. The Benedictines said "pray and work," turned labor into something sacred, and spread water mills across Europe. Monasteries built some of the first mechanical clocks.
Then came the scientists. Copernicus was a church canon. Kepler said he was thinking God's thoughts after Him. Newton wrote more about theology than physics. Mendel was a friar. Lemaître, the father of the Big Bang theory, was a Catholic priest.
They weren't scientists despite their faith. They were scientists because of it.
Add two more ideas. Time is linear: history has a beginning and is going somewhere, so progress becomes thinkable. And every human is made in the image of God: individual dignity, individual conscience, the worth of the craftsman and the worker.
Put it all together. An intelligible universe. A sacred duty to seek truth. The belief that tomorrow can be better than today. The dignity of work and of every single person.
That's the recipe. Science, then technology, then the Industrial Revolution. It happened in Christian Europe. Not by accident.
We are still living off the interest of that capital. The real question is what happens when we stop believing in the things that produced it.
Elon Musk: I'm a big believer in the principles of Christianity.
“While I'm not a particularly religious person, I do believe that the teachings of Jesus are good and wise and that there's tremendous wisdom in Turn the other cheek.
For a while, when I was young, I thought that's really a weak thing to do.
With respect to bullies at school, I think you shouldn't turn the other cheek. You should punch them on the nose and then thereafter make peace with them. They need to stop bullying you, and a punch in the nose will stop that.
This notion of forgiveness is important. I think it's essential because if you don't forgive, then an eye for an eye makes everyone blind. If you're going to seek vengeance, you have this never-ending cycle of vengeance.
So, I'm actually a big believer in the principles of Christianity. I think they're very good.”
Interview with Jordan Peterson, July 22, 2024
Jose Andres Bogado retweeted
If you are a Republican who won't say that Tucker Carlson is antisemitic, you are a coward.
If you are a Democrat who won't say that Abdul El-Sayed is antisemitic, you are a coward.
Jose Andres Bogado retweeted
Can you imagine, Israel is sanctioned, but money is flowing to Palestine? Jewish teams are blocked from playing sports games, supposedly because they present a threat to safety, but Muslim teams who intimidate Jews and chant genocidal threats, can play with impunity? Jews are told they can’t participate in public life because Muslim mobs have overtaken the streets? If you express support for Israel, you may be treated as insane or incapacitated at a hospital?
This is already happening in the UK. It can easy happen here, if our country is ruled by an army of Mamdani’s and Abdul El Sayeds.
Jose Andres Bogado retweeted
Who was Maimonides? And why is he still so influential until today?
Short post for X.
Moses ben Maimon (Moshe ben Maimon) better known as Maimonides or by the Hebrew acronym Rambam, was the towering Jewish thinker of the Middle Ages: rabbi, legal codifier, Aristotelian philosopher, physician, and communal leader. Born in Córdoba, Spain (al-Andalus) around 1135–1138, he lived through the Almohad conquest that forced his family into exile for refusing conversion. They wandered through Spain and Morocco (including Fez), spent time in the Land of Israel (Acre and Jerusalem), and settled in Fustat (Old Cairo), Egypt, by the late 1160s. There he rose to become head of the Jewish community (Nagid) and court physician connected to Saladin’s circle. He died in 1204; tradition places his burial in Tiberias.
He is often called “the second Moses” or “the Great Eagle.” The saying goes: from Moses (the prophet) to Moses (Maimonides), there was none like Moses.
Major works
Commentary on the Mishnah (Arabic, finished ~1168): A foundational commentary that includes his famous Thirteen Principles of Faith, which shaped later Jewish creed and liturgy.
Mishneh Torah (Hebrew, completed ~1178–1180): His massive, systematic code of all Jewish law (halakha). Written in clear Hebrew so ordinary people could follow the law without needing to master the entire Talmudic corpus. Fourteen volumes covering belief, ethics, ritual, civil, and criminal law. Still a central reference in Jewish legal study.
Guide for the Perplexed (Moreh Nevukhim / Dalālat al-ḥāʾirīn, Judeo-Arabic, ~1190): His philosophical masterpiece, written for an advanced student torn between Torah and Aristotelian science. It treats biblical anthropomorphisms as non-literal, develops negative theology (we can only truly say what God is not), and seeks to show that reason and revelation do not ultimately conflict. Controversial in its time and still debated for its guarded, multi-level writing style.
He also wrote medical treatises, a book on the commandments, logic works, and important letters (such as the one to the Jews of Yemen).
Thought and influence
Maimonides was a rationalist deeply shaped by Aristotle (via Arabic philosophers like Al-Farabi and Avicenna). He insisted on God’s absolute unity and incorporeality, rejected astrology, and saw intellectual perfection as central to human purpose. Prophecy, for him, involved the highest development of the intellect and imagination. His Guide influenced medieval Christian scholastics, including Thomas Aquinas. Within Judaism he remains both a supreme legal authority and a lightning rod for debates over philosophy and tradition.
In short: a polymath who codified Jewish law, reconciled faith with philosophy for the perplexed, practiced medicine at the highest level, and led a community under difficult conditions, all while producing works that still shape Jewish life and Western thought more than eight centuries later.
Jewish history is full of fascinating figures.
Hit the follow button.
