This article contains three major flaws, one substantive and two formal or logical. First, on substantive issues, your article misquotes Arendt on her use of Walter Frank. The context of the quotation is Arendt complaining about the paucity of reliable source on anti-semitism at the time of writing, because these are dominated by partisans (anti-semites and Zionists) who typically distort the facts (see p. xiv of her Preface to Part One in Origins). In fn. 7 on that same page, she mentions the antisemitic Walter Frank as an exception to the general rule that anti-semitic sources are factually unreliable--indeed as "the only exception" (emphasis added). This is hardly evidence that she "internalized" the Nazi's anti-semitic views. On the contrary, Arendt explicitly takes responsibility for the use of a source and explains her motivation for it when she cites it later on--independent corroboration.

Second, you use her supposed "internalized" anti-semitism for making a further, logically fallacious guilty-by-association argument that because Heidegger and Arendt had a relationship, some of Heidegger's Nazi fervor from the early 1930's helped influence Arendt decades later, when she penned the Origins of Totalitarianism in the late 1940s, and much later, in the early 1960's, when she wrote the articles in the Eichmann book. Typical for arguments of its kind, yours does not a single philosophical claim that Heidegger makes, nor does it convincingly connected any such claim to his Nazi activities, which is what is required to show that the latter influence the former. How either of these are related to the actual contents of the Origins and Eichmann books is even more unclear, and similarly, completely unargued, other than some vague and unsupported suggestions about Arendt using the notion of the 'banality of evil" to exculpate Heidegger's Nazi activities (again, thirty years after the activities in question).

Finally, in a wild leap of logic, you connect Arendt's putative Jewish anti-semitism with Jews who do not support Israel and connect this, bizarrely, with a failure to be "tribal" enough. But you have not shown that Arendt is anti-semitic, for the reasons I've already shown, and the connection with contemporary views on Israel is simply a non-sequitur. Why you think an unreflective allegiance to one's own "tribe" is a good thing is also unclear, but again, is something simply unargued.

Have you actually read Arendt? Or Heidegger for that matter?