Jewish Persecution throughout History Redefined

26 thoughts on “Jewish Persecution throughout History Redefined”

1. Was Mark’s Gospel an intentional tool of Roman psychological warfare, or was it a Jewish counter-narrative meant to influence how different Jewish communities engaged with Rome?

   Pie in the sky speculations attempt to foist as actual history propaganda stories of an imaginary Man-God & a zealous convert to Xtianity. Despite the clear language of the Torah that nothing in the Heavens, Earth, or Seas compares to the image of God or the prophet Bil’am’s explicit vision – God is not a Man.

   Coptic revisionist history does not change speculative books of propaganda into actual history. The earliest surviving manuscripts of the Gospel of Mark written in Greek. Papias’s claim that Mark, originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic simply never substantiated by any physical evidence. This discrepancy highlights the challenges in relying solely on early testimonies. Simply due to the fact that no known agenda defines the purpose of those early works!

   News travelled slowly in ancient times. Writing a detailed account like the Gospel of Mark would require more time than the immediate aftermath of the Temple’s destruction. The process of dating ancient texts often involves interpretations based on incomplete evidence. The News of the destruction of Herod’s Temple would by far have out shined the News of the Roman torture of a common criminal!

   The floated speculation made by Xtian scholars that the Mark gospel written between AD 65 – 75 has no physical evidence – anymore. This revisionist history of the life and death of a Harry Potter – imaginary Jesus. Furthermore, the Roman war to put down the Jewish revolt, like the destruction of Herod’s Temple in AD 66 would have swamped the News Headlines!

   Historians and scholars often work with incomplete evidence, leading to various theories and interpretations. The dating of ancient texts involves analyzing historical, literary, and contextual clues, which can result in differing scholarly opinions. Revisionist history perverts speculation and biased beliefs in God as the basis for truth! But this religious speculative interpretation, not the only kid on the playground.

   What evidence we have does suggest that Mark’s Gospel – written in Greek, and the claim that it was originally in Hebrew or Aramaic is one of those early testimonies (like Papias’s) that has not been substantiated by physical evidence. The lack of an original manuscript in Hebrew or Aramaic definitely complicates the matter. To point out the flimsy argument to its face.

   From a historical perspective, the fall of the Temple, a monumental event, and indeed. It would have garnered more attention from contemporary sources than the death of a single man—especially if that man was seen as a marginal figure at the time. A fine line between interpretation and assertion.

   History and religious narratives can sometimes become entangled with belief systems, and how that can distort our understanding of past events. History, at its core, should strive toward objective and evidence-based possibilities. The reliability of early Christian sources like Irenaeus (c. AD 180) and Clement of Alexandria (c. AD 200) depends on how one evaluates historical testimony. While some of the earliest known religious Goyim voices commenting on the origins of the Gospels, reliability – debated due to their biased views toward Xtianity. Traditional church dating of the gospels serves Xtian narratives. Irenaeus wrote around AD 180, more than a century after mythical Jesus’ time. Clement of Alexandria is even later, writing closer to AD 200.

   Both writers were engaged in theological battles, especially against Gnosticism. Some argue that their emphasis on apostolic authorship simply driven by the need to defend orthodoxy rather than strict historical accuracy. We do not have direct writings from Mark himself or from first-century figures confirming his authorship, only second-hand traditions which no courtroom would accept such hearsay evidence!

   Courts reject hearsay because the person who originally made the claim, unavailable for cross-examination. Ancient history, much of what we know comes from later accounts. If we dismissed all second-hand testimony, we’d lose most of ancient history, including figures like Socrates, whose teachings come from Plato and Xenophon. Mythology defines the ancient Greek writings.

   Challenging the idea that Mark’s Gospel was originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic—and even questioning its authenticity altogether—comes from different camps within biblical scholarship. The Greek syntax and grammar do not suggest a translation from Semitic languages. Mark’s Gospel includes Latinisms (Roman loanwords), such as centurion (kenturion in Greek) and denarius, indicating it was written for a Greek-speaking Roman audience. The use of Aramaic phrases (e.g., Talitha koum in Mark 5:41) suggests that the author was translating occasional words rather than the entire text being a translation.

   Eusebius (4th century) quotes Papias, affirming that Mark wrote his Gospel based on Peter’s preaching, but he makes no reference to a Hebrew or Aramaic version which Papias (AD 110-140) claims. Some reasonable skeptics argue that Mark’s Gospel simply not based on historical events but rather a theological narrative invented by early Christians. They suggest Mark created a fictionalized Jesus, using Jewish scriptures (like Isaiah and the Psalms) as a template rather than actual historical events.

   Figures like Richard Carrier argue that Jesus, originally understood as a celestial being and that Mark later invented a biography for him, shaping the Gospel as an allegory rather than historical record. Many accept that Mark contains some historical elements but argue that miraculous accounts, predictive prophecy, and resurrection narratives, simple later embellishments made by Xtians who loved fairy tail stories.

   Paul as an Agent Provocateur: Instigating Civil War in Rome? Having lived in Rome he understood Roman weaknesses and political undercurrents. Like for example: Caesar worshipped himself as the son of God. Paul’s writings qualify also as political satire. Like Nigger Jim in Mark Finn who mocks King Solomon as the wisest of all men! The idea that the kingdom of God is not of this world fits precisely within Greek and Roman mythologies! Jewish religious authorities, specifically over the specific debate of an oven, where rabbi Eleazer got place into harem. Rabbi Eleazer called on a bat-kol, and the rabbis declared: the Torah does not come from heaven!

   Mark’s ‘Rome written’ Gospel aimed to promote disharmony between the Jews of Alexandria Egypt and the Jews of Judea. During the Bar Kakhba revolt the Jews of Axelandria did not join that revolt. This permitted the Roman legions to destroy both revolts piecemeal.

   Chaos and anarchy defined the state of Judea during the first revolt against Rome. The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls conclusively proves these historical facts. If Mark were inciting Jewish-on-Jewish conflict, it would align with historical accounts that factions within Jerusalem were already fighting among themselves before Rome even breached the city walls.

   Why does Mark’s gopels have Jesus say, “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s” (Mark 12:17)? This supports the premise that the gospel writings of Mark supported Jewish Civil War. The messiah narrative did emphatically split into strongly opposed Jewish factions! Jewish appeasers compare to post WWI British supporters of Chamberlain! Clearly the writings of Mark’s gospels opposed the war prone Zealots!

   Divide and Conquer an old idea. Roman interests as well as Jewish interested preferred fighting one another while their enemies fought their own internal Civil War. The Maccabees conducted this strategy successfully against the Syrian Greeks 150 years previous.

   Roman emperors (especially Augustus) were deified as Divi Filius (Son of God). Paul’s reinterpretation of “Son of God” into a Jewish-messianic sense, could have been perceived by Rome as an indirect attack on Roman religious authority. If Paul mocked Caesar’s claim to divinity, it would qualify as political subversion—though disguised as religious teaching.

   The comparison of Paul to Mark Twain’s Jim in Huckleberry Finn, that his theology contained coded humor and irony meant to subvert authority. Some scholars note parallels between Greek/Roman mythology and Paul’s spiritual kingdom concept, suggesting he tailored his message to resonate with Roman audiences.

   Paul’s conflicts with Jewish religious leaders (especially over Torah authority) certainly widened the divide between Hellenistic Jews and traditional Pharisees. His message of a Torah-free Gospel was highly inflammatory—not only did it anger Judean Pharisees, but it also alienated Jewish nationalists who wanted a political Messiah. This played into Roman interests, whether Paul intended it or not.

   Mark’s Gospel exacerbated Jewish factionalism, particularly between Alexandrian Jews and Judean Jews. Did Alexandrian Jews Refuse to Join the Bar Kokhba Revolt Because of Mark’s Influence? There is no direct evidence linking Mark’s Gospel to Alexandrian Jewish neutrality, but the timing remains intriguing. Alexandrian Jews far more assimilated & Hellenized, and less likely to support a militant Jewish messianic movement. If Mark’s Gospel circulated among them, emphasizing a suffering, non-political Messiah, it could have dissuaded them from joining the rebellion.

   Josephus records that Jews in Jerusalem already experienced in killing each other before the Romans even arrived (Zealots vs. Priests vs. Sicarii). Mark’s Gospel portrays Jewish leaders as divided and corrupt, reinforcing Roman narratives that Jews were ungovernable. If Mark’s intention was to drive a wedge between Jewish factions, it would align with the Roman “divide and conquer” strategy.

   Mark 12:17 (“Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s”) suggests support for Roman rule and opposition to Zealot resistance. Jesus’ statement could be read as a message of appeasement. Encouraging Jews to cooperate with Rome, undermining Zealot ideology, and reinforcing the idea that the Messiah was not meant to be a political revolutionary.

   The Maccabees used this Divide-and-Conquer Strategy against the Greeks—turning different Hellenistic factions against each other. Rome, a master of this strategy, pitting Jewish factions against each other: Sadducees vs. Pharisees, Zealots vs. Hellenized Jews, Priests who denied the Oral Torah vs. rabbis who taught the Oral Torah. If Mark’s Gospel helped weaken Jewish unity, it ultimately benefited Rome.

   Paul’s personal motives remain unclear—was he a true believer, or a savvy political manipulator? Mark’s Gospel certainly reinforced factional divisions, whether by design or accident. The idea that Paul may have been an agent provocateur, knowingly exacerbating divisions within the Roman world to the benefit of Jerusalem, a compelling angle that aligns with historical Greek & Roman strategies of divide and conquer. Equally well known and embraced by Jewish Sanhedrin leadership which sent Paul to Rome to promote Roman Civil War prior to the outbreak of the great Jewish revolt.

   The connection between Mark’s Gospel and Jewish factionalism—especially its potential impact on Alexandrian Jews’ neutrality during the Bar Kokhba revolt—also quite interesting. If the Mark gospel, indeed written to undermine Jewish resistance by promoting a passive, non-political Messiah, it would fit neatly within the broader Roman strategy of controlling subject populations by weakening internal unity. The historical backdrop of intra-Jewish conflict before the fall of the Temple, as recorded by Josephus, provides further support for the idea that Mark’s Gospel likely designed (or at least functioned) as a tool of division rather than unity.

   If the Sanhedrin saw Rome’s internal divisions as a potential advantage—especially in the lead-up to the Jewish revolt—Paul’s role as an instigator could have been strategic. Given his Roman citizenship, education in Greek rhetoric, and ability to move between Jewish and Roman circles, he served as a well-positioned Sanhedrin asset, who introduced subversive ideas that could destabilize Roman unity.

   This would parallel with other historical examples where Jewish leadership attempted to manipulate larger imperial powers to their own advantage—much like the Hasmoneans did with Seleucid factions during their earlier revolt. If the Sanhedrin sent Paul to Rome as a spy, with the purpose: to promote theological and ideological rifts, it would explain why his teachings so totally disruptive—not just among Jews but within the Roman elite as well.

   Mark’s Gospel, then, could be seen as part of this broader game of influence, to pacify Jewish resistance (if pacifist pro-Roman) or to create ideological splits that kept Jews distracted among themselves (if it served as a deeper Roman war-time strategy). The fact that Alexandrian Jews stayed out of the Bar Kokhba revolt, while Judean Jews fought Rome head-on, could suggest that differing religious narratives—possibly shaped by Mark—helped fragment Jewish unity.

   This interpretation pits the writings of Mark against those of Paul. Neither not as a merely religious thinkers, but as active political partisans, in the geopolitical struggle between Rome and Judea. If the Sanhedrin had the foresight to recognize Rome’s internal tensions and employed Paul as the tip of their spear, it would entirely redefine his original mission. A political kabbalah concealed from shallow Goyim who simply read his letters at face value. Rather than being a rogue preacher or a sincere evangelist, Paul served the Sanhedrin Court in Jerusalem as an early example of ideological subversion—using theology to create divisions within Roman society.

   This would mean his emphasis concerning a “kingdom not of this world”, a concealed way to undercut Roman religious authority, while his rejection of strict Torah observance like circumcision, could have been a means to fracture Jewish support for the messianic Jesus nonsense. It also fits with his constant conflicts—both with Jewish traditionalists and with factions within early Christianity. His letters reveal a figure constantly navigating and exacerbating divisions, whether intentionally or as a by-product of his ideological agenda.

   Mark’s Gospel, also exposed as a second layer of Roman counter-disruption. Written in Rome, Mark’s gospel could have expressed Roman strategic interests (to pacify Jewish resistance by promoting a passive Messiah) or to define Jewish messianism in a way that created discord between Hellenized Jews and their Judean counterparts. The simple fact stands: The church behaves as if it has a lock and key monopoly over the mitzva of Moshiach; despite the Pauline declaration that Goyim not under Jewish common law.

   The fact that Alexandrian Jews sat out the Bar Kokhba revolt while Judean Jews were crushed, strongly suggests that competing messianic narratives—such as influenced by texts like Mark—which totally ignores the Torah Moshiach precedent of Moshe anointing Aaron with oil, which served as the basis of Shmuel who anointed both Shaul and David as Moshiach with oil. The gospel narratives all ignore the precedent of anointing all korbanot placed upon the altar with oil. It does not weigh the dedication through oil wherein the Moshiach sanctified to rule the oath brit chosen Cohen lands with righteous judicial justice as the faith of the Torah. Hence the gospel writers, not just Mark, instrumental in keeping Jewish factions divided. If true, this would mean early Christianity simply never just a mere religious movement, but part of a larger strategic game—a subversive ideological front in the struggle between Rome vs. Judea.

   Now if the letters of Paul and the gospel of Mark bogus? Then so too and how much more so, the gospels of Matthew and Luke and the much later John likewise get flushed down the toilet.

   Loading...

   Reply

2. How do you judge and weigh post sealing of the Talmud secondary commentators like Saadia Gaon, Ibn Ezra, and the Rambam as famous luminaries among Geonim and Reshonim Talmudic scholarship?

   The lights of Hanukkah, as a mitzva דאורייתא, separates substance from shadows. Gaonim and Reshonim scholarship which embraces Greek and Roman statute law and ancient Greek philosophies of logic, best represents the perverted tuma middot interests of the resurrected from the dead – Tzeddukim.

   Before their defeat during the Hanukkah Civil War, these רשעים encouraged Israel to abandon & forget the Oral Torah revelation at Horev, forty days after the sin of the Golden Calf; a portion of Israel attempted to translate the רוח הקודש שם השם to the word אלהים. The revelation of the Oral Torah 13 tohor middot spirits, as explained through the much later kabbala chiddush of rabbi Akiva’s פרדס logic system, the Tzeddukim, Karaites, and Goyim Xtian churches to this very day absolutely and categorically denies the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev. Similar the Arabs states which abhor the idea that Jews have equal rights to achieve self determination in the Middle East; hence Arab enemies refer to Israel as the Zionist Entity.

   The disgraceful history of Xtian substitutional theology, long antedated by the ancient Tzeddukim equal abomination, their attempts to cause Israel to forget the Oral Torah. Hence all post Talmudic scholarship which relies heavily, or primarily upon the structure and organization of Jewish religious Law “converted” into frumkeit religious legalism categories. Turned to the re-discovered ancient Greek philosophers, which organizational logical thought, as their primary tools to interpret and understand the Torah.

   Such post Talmudic commentaries qualify as self-hating Jews within the “camp” of the Tzeddukim counter-revolutionaries, in the days of the Hashmonaim. Saadia Gaon, despite his authorship of “The Book of Beliefs and Opinions,” his repeated attempts to address the challenges from pre-נידוי Karaite Jews likewise floated. He blended Torah topics together with Greek philosophy, but failed to teach the Torah as a common law judicial legal system. Herein serves as key evidence to the contention that g’lut Jewry even by the tail end of the Gaonim scholarship had lost the wisdom to obey and observe the Torah commandments לשמה.

   Ibn Ezra throughout his Chumash commentary introduced Greek philosophical ideas. The Rambam relied upon Aristotelian logic as his main tool by which he organized halacha into Greek and Roman codes of statute law. The obtuse assimilation of the “Golden Age” Spanish rabbis, who uprooted T’NaCH & Talmudic common law, based upon the kabbala of rabbi Akiva’s פרדס logic system, in their rush to express their glee approval of the rediscovered ancient Greek philosophical works. As such these assimilated rabbis undermined Jewish legal traditions of common law, which their scholarship replaced with Greek philosophies and box thinking, rigid statute law models.

   Absurd, the notion that embracing hostile foreign cultures and customs as a key strategy to reinforce Jewish identity and intellectual resilience. These assimilated Jewish heretics served as the forerunners of the Reform abomination of the early 19th Century. The contributions of Saadia Gaon, Ibn Ezra, and Rambam, while viewed critically in this context, without any doubt part of broader context of Jewish attempts to address the challenges faced by g’lut Jewish communities, such as the collapse of the Roman road network.

   This assimilation took Orthodox Jews off the path, just as did secularism did and does to post American and French revolution Jewry today. Saadia Gaon addressed the sudden rediscovery of the four Centuries concealed, ancient Greek writings, entombed by Xtian church fathers.

   Rambam, like his Tzeddukim forefathers, sought to impose a sort of Greek polis city state(s) upon Jews through his statute law “ghetto halachic walls”. Through systematic order & classification of Talmudic subjects into easily assessable standardized religious judicial common law courts.,

   The Rambam caused Jews to forget the Oral Torah revelation at Horev of משנה תורה common law. The revelation of the Torah at Sinai, contained amazingly within the first two Sinai commandments. Only after the revelation of Oral Torah common law did Israel receive the rest of the Torah. The famous 10 Commandments serves as a precedent to remember the 10 plagues of Egypt wherein HaShem judged the Gods of Par’o, according to Moshe’s Torah common law.

   Ibn Ezra’s son converted to Islam. His Chumash commentary proves that he too, just like his fellow Spanish peer, made a deep assimilated study of ancient Greek philosophical thought. Torah common law, a judicial system by which the courts make fair compensations for damages inflicted; this judicial common law shares nothing, has absolutely no common ground, with theological religious belief systems, imported from non-Jewish cultures and alien sources.

   The Torah, fundamentally a legal and ethical guide whose faith seeks judicial righteous justice within the borders of the Torah oath sworn lands, the eternal inheritance of the chosen Cohen people. Goyim reject the revelation of the Written and Oral Torah at Sinai and Horev. Hence their counterfeit wisdom lack the power to transform Goyim into the chosen Cohen people.

   Torah common law serves as the basis for a comprehensive judicial system that emphasizes justice, fairness, and compensatory lateral sanhedrin judicial rulings, as the definition of faith. The Torah’s Talmudic focus, stands solely upon precedents which shape and determine Mishnaic common law. This legal system, simply distinct from any philosophical or theological systems imported from non-Jewish cultures. Like Cohonim separated from Goyim, something like the difference between t’rumah vs. chol first fruits.

   The importance of maintaining the tohor purity of Torah-based common law, (rooted in the Oral Torah and the kabbala of Rabbi Akiva’s פרדס logic system), functions as the basis of Mishnaic and Gemara common law. This approach emphasizes the unique and self-contained nature of the Jewish legal tradition – without reliance on external philosophies, or religious false messiah beliefs.

   Hence the k’vanna of lighting the Hanukkah lights contains the dedication to never rely upon foreign cultures, customs, philosophies, or cathedral grand structures to serve as any kind replacement basis to interpret the k’vanna Will of the Written Torah Constitution of the Torah Cohen Republic.

   The k’vanna (מלך tohor middot dedications) of lighting the Hanukkah lights serves as a powerful reminder of the dedication to preserve Jewish tradition and identity. The lights symbolize the triumph of the P’rushim over the assimilated Tzeddukim רשעים who embraced Greek culture and customs. The k’vanna of lighting the Hanukkah lights serves as a powerful reminder of the dedication to preserve Jewish tradition and identity through the dedication of tohor middot as instructed through prophetic mussar (Aggada). The lights symbolize the triumph of the P’rushim over the assimilated Tzeddukim רשעים who embraced Greek culture and customs.

   The challenge of the new testament notions of Messiah represents a similar assimilationist trend that compares to the plagues in the days of Paró and Moshe. Goyim declare themselves ‘not under the Law’, yet Goyim assume they possess the lock and keys to the Oral Torah mitzva of Moshiach.

   Torah common law stands upon the foundation by which prophetic mussar defines the k’vanna of mitzvot time oriented Av commandments. Never once does the new testament forgery ever attempt to learn the prophets through Common Law precedents. Why? Statute law does not depend upon, nor does it require precedents.

   For 2000+ years g’lut Jewry has felt the cursed whip and wincing pain of Jewish assimilation and inter-marriage. Goyim cultures and customs which do not accept the revelation of the chosen Cohen people consequent to our acceptance of the Torah at Sinai and Horev. These alien cultures and logic formats have dominated the Jewish people, just as similarly have Goyim barbarians. Jews survived the furnaces of the Shoah based upon the אלהינו Name within the קריא שמע tefillah דאורייתא, which remembers the oath sworn by Yitzak at the Akadah; as the chosen Cohen son of Avraham, save my future born seed, my Olam Ha’Ba, from Shoah and I dedicate to walk in justice before you, as did my father. Hence HaShem replaced Yitzak as a korban with a ram dedication to have this k’vanna.

   Loading...

   Reply

3. Is the “Dreyfus Affair”, just a cheap publicity stunt? Why should Israel presume that a political alliance with Australia ever existed?

   Australia maintained a neutral stance during the 1967 Six-Day War and the 1973 Yom Kippur War. Australia supported post wars UN Resolutions 242 and 338 written by British and French imperialism in the Middle East! Demands that Israel return to its ’48 Armistice battle lines amounts to revisionist history and supports EU imperialism in the Middle East which seeks to force Israel to return to a weak political pawn controlled by Great Power strategic interests; as if Israel exists as a UN pre-Independence War protectorate territory of the UN-nations.

   UN – Nations political rhetoric propaganda that its interference in determination of Israeli strategic national interests, waving its bogus flag “promote peace”, simply conceals foreign great power efforts which reject the radical change in the balance of power in the Middle East, the result of Israeli military victories.

   Calls for withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from “territories occupied during the wars” – an utter fraud great power hat trick deception! The so called UN – Nations “efforts to find a peaceful solution” amounts to excuses by thieves to rob the Jewish state of its national security having defendable international borders.

   Australia has never condemned the UN – Nations. Israel accuses the UN – Nations of establishing their own policy Apartheid against Israel; which singles out Israel as the only member which the UN – Nations flatly refuses to recognize as a nation state within the region of the Middle East. This Apartheid racism has forced Israel to piggy-back as a temporary EU member in order that Israel might chair UN – Nations committees.

   Israel’s unique Apartheid status within the United Nations, its ghetto treatment as a “contentious” member state, more than simply “highly problematic”. It exemplifies a racist policy of apartheid — at least in a political and diplomatic sense. This issue isn’t about the exclusive separation of Israel as the only state to face ‘contentious relationships’ in the UN, but about the specific, consistent, and highly political manner in which Israel forced to endure unjust and unequal abuse from other states, particularly in terms of its right to participate in key roles as a full member of the Middle Eastern community, and have its sovereign status respected. No other nation has the so called “International Community” challenged the validity of its National Capital.

   Israel’s treatment since it joined the UN as a member nation in 1949, forced to stomach the disgrace within this biased organization; its consistent exclusion from certain roles and responsibilities. From the beginning of its existence, Israel has faced opposition from a large portion of the Arab world and Muslim-majority countries that have refused to recognize it as a legitimate state. These states, both in the UN General Assembly and in other UN bodies, have blocked Israel’s participation in various forums, committees, and initiatives. While other countries with controversial political situations still find ways to take leadership positions, Israel has had to fight for recognition and equality in the system.

   In the UN system, countries – grouped by regions – when it comes to selecting committee chairs or positions of power, like seats in the Security Council or the Human Rights Council. The Middle East the only region in the World which excludes Israel as country of that region, as part of that region. Arab states reject the Zionist entity as a Crusader State. Not because of Israel’s geographic location or lack of a right to participate, but due to their political opposition, their refusal to accept a permanent Jewish dhimmi status, and refuse to surrender as absurd that Jews have equal rights to achieve self-determination in the Middle East. Hence Arab and Muslim voting blocks in the UN refer to Israel as the Zionist entity! This kind of Apartheid exclusion doesn’t happen with any other member state. Even states with complex geopolitical situations, like North Korea or Syria, are still granted the right to participate in committees, vote, and hold leadership positions within UN frameworks.

   Israel a “full member” of the UN. Regardless of this fact, Israel banned to chair any UN committees, until it became more formally associated with European Union bloc. This exclusion, not based on performance or any objective criteria of competence, but solely rooted in the persistent political and ideological Apartheid policy of opposition by Arab and Muslim voting blocks that dominate the UN. No other country in the UN endures such political Apartheid exclusion from leadership roles, so blatant and consistent. Yet no ally of the Jewish state has denounced this obvious UN, Dreyfus Affair racism.

   Israel flat-out rejects post its 2 Wars of Independence, ’48 and ’67 to establish the “Green Line” as its permanent international borders. Israel simply not a UN protectorate territory. The Quartet 2-State solution stinks of Nazi ‘Final Solution’. Post Shoah Europe does not shape nor influence Israeli strategic interests; Israel condemns to this day the British cowardly 1939 White Paper betrayal which influenced FDR to close the borders of America to Jews attempting to escape from Hitler’s genocide.

   Diplomacy involves finding common ground, and Israel shares no common ground not with the EU nor with Australia. Imposition of political revisionism favors returning Israel to indefensible borders and the Quartet powers dominating the Middle East. Twice Arab leaders threatened, both in ’48 and ’67, to complete the Nazi genocide and throw the Jews into the Sea. Failure by UN – Nations Resolutions to address this cold-hard fact invalidates the neutrality of the UN, just as pre-Wars British and French neutrality but post-Wars British and French overbearing attempts to dictate peace terms based upon the presumption that Arab states won both wars.

   The term “apartheid” has been used by some critics of Israel to describe its treatment of Palestinians, especially in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. However, Israel vehemently rejects this characterization, arguing that it provides full civil rights to its Arab citizens (who make up about 20% of the population).

   Guilty European and Arab states have forged an alliance which projects and promotes and attempts to foist their repeated attempts of Jewish genocide upon the Jews themselves. This trash propaganda directly compares to the slander “the Jews poisoned the wells”, and Church “Blood Libels” repeated prior to every Easter for a millennium or more! Jews carry the scares and trauma of European and Arab barbarism whereby dhimmi Jewish refugee populations had no political or social rights.

   The propaganda of “apartheid” in the context of Israel’s treatment of Palestinians is part of a broader international debate on the legitimacy of the occupation and the viability of a two-state solution. This trash-talk compares to the WWI Allies slander of Germany, calling the German People “The Huns”. These criminal lies produced the fruits of Adolf Hitler!

   The British ’39 White Paper betrayed the Balfour Declaration. Just that simple. Israel’s refusal to accept the international community’s proposed solutions (such as the two-state solution or pre-1967 borders) perceived as a rejection of the same international forces that failed to protect the Jewish people throughout 2000+ years, which culminated in the Shoah and the Allies refusal to bomb the rail-lines leading to Auschwitz!

   That Australia recognizes Jerusalem as the Capital of the Jewish state, only exposes the pimp/whore relationship between it and the US. President Trump exercised tremendous leadership and moral courage to move the US embassy to Jerusalem. That PM Morrison basks in the huge shadow cast by President Trump, while much appreciated, Australia has shown no national backbone in forging a political and economic alliance with Israel.

   Calls for Israel to return to pre-1967 borders or to accept a two-state solution an abomination to Israelis. Given the repeated existential Arab threats/wars, such biased posturing by “friendly nations”, with friends like these, who needs enemies. Israel’s rejection of the Green Line as its permanent border expresses Israeli diplomacy which requires security, not dependent on international guarantees but on realities which its military strength achieved.

   Mandate Palestine ceased to exist in 1948. The UN condemned Jordan’s annexation of Samaria as illegal in 1950. Jordan never established a Palestinian state between 1950 to 1967. The propaganda of post war ’67 of the “West Bank” as bogus as the 1964 Arafat call for the Palestinian State!

   Loading...

   Reply

4. Halacha does not stand upon its own two feet any more than positive and negative Torah commandments

   Halacha does not stand upon its own two feet, as the assimilated to Greek/Roman cultures which dominated Arab society in Spain following the Muslim re-discovery of the concealed ancient Greek philosophies and mathematic books by the foolish church – in the 5th Century CE.

   Halacha compares to positive and negative commandments in the Written Torah! Both this and that serve & function as precedents to understand the k’vanna of the prophetic mussar, as expressed through observance of יסוד יסודי time oriented Torah commandments; precedents to understand the k’vanna of the depth (front, top, side view) of the language also of the Mishna.

   The assimilated halachic codifications, made famous during the dark ages of Xtian barbarism in Europe, they addressed the crushing-issue of the g’lut catastrophe of Jews living as specks of Humanity scattered across the face of the Earth who continually contended with Goyim hatred and demands that Jews convert to the Xtian or Muslim religions! The son of Ibn Ezra converted to Islam. Medieval Europe witness the total collapse of the ancient Roman road system. People rarely travelled to distant lands due to the violent anarchy and chaos of those dark ages of barbarism. Robin Hood bandits murdered and plundered as did pirates on the High Seas.

   Therefore, the assimilated Jews of the Spanish ‘Golden Age’ attempted to address the growing crisis which Jewish communities, besieged by armed Priests, Monks, and Sheiks – by writing codes of halachot which completely abandoned the פרדס logic system/kabbala which learned both T’NaCH & Talmud as a common law legalism. Common law stands upon the יסוד of learning/interpreting the multifaceted language of Av tohor time oriented Commandments which require prophetic mussar as their k’vanna; the depth of the Mishna language – whose terms likewise multifaceted – both this and that, engaged Torah scholarship through בנין אב/precedents.

   By stark contrast assimilated Jewish “scholars” of this chaotic period disgrace of Human history, they abandoned T’NaCH Talmud common law. The relationship between the warp/weft loom of T’NaCH and Mishnaic opposing threads weaves the fabric of Talmudic common law scholarship. G’lut Jewry did not have the luxury to invest in deep, subtle interpretations of intent/k’vanna of time oriented Av מלך Torah commandments!

   All the codifications of Torah commandments, other than that written by the B’HaG, ignored the elephant in the China Closet completely! Torah commandment codifications such as the Sefer Ha’Mitzvot, Sefer HaChinukh, or even the Smag’s halachic codification which orbited the organization of a statute law halachic religious-code around Torah commandments all these major works took medieval Jewry down the road of assimilation to Goyim statue law practices and cultures. They attempted to dress up a pig by clothing it with tzitzit and a kippa.

   The B’Hag code of קום ועשה ושב ולא תעשה מצוות rejected this Jewish false choice of copying the culture and customs of Goyim societies which reject the revelation of the Torah at Sinai and Horev – another warp/weft loom fabric relationship. Hence the Talmud constructed by the Framers with a Halacha/Aggada warp/weft loom fabric relationship! The B’HaG writes a slew of מצוות דרבנן as מצוות דאורייתא. Rav Saadia ben Yosef Gaon (c. 892 – 942), one of the earliest Jewish scholars who struggled and contended with the dramatic re-discovery of ancient Greek philosophies which seduced the assimilated Tzeddukim — a millennium earlier triggered the Hanukkah Civil War.

   The Rambam marvelled at how the B’HaG could make such an obvious error. Alas the dunce cap of טיפש פשט rests squarely on the Rambam head. Forced to sit in the corner of the school room wearing such a hat for all eternity! All the rabbinic “Torah” commandments as expressed through the B’HaG’s introduction to his common law code of halachic interpretations. He based his posok halacha upon precedents/בנין אב\ — tohor time oriented Av מלך Torah commandments!

   The B’HaG rejected the assimilated perversion of the שב ולא תעשה מצוה of do not pursue or copy the ways practiced by the Goyim as did the טיפש פשט egg-crate simplification of Torah commandments into ice trays of positive and negative commandments! The Av tumah avoda zarah to pursue and copy the culture and customs developed by the rediscovered ancient Greek dead civilization enticed scholars starting with Saadia ben Yosef Gaon and most definitely not limited to the man sitting in the corner wearing the Dunce cap.

   In similar vein, the B’HaG common law codification of halacha accepted the Jewish needs and requirements for a simplified codification of halachic common law – based upon the rebuke received by the RambaN’s מלחמת השם. Despite the fact that the RambaN’s rebuke written after the B’HaG had already passed from this Earth. The B’HaG, also known as Rabbi Isaac ben Joseph of Corbeil, lived in the 11th century. He authored the Sefer Mitzvot Katan (ספר מצוות קטן), a concise work that categorizes the mitzvot into 3 distinct sets of categories: Av time oriented, and positive & negative toldot commandments. The RambaN lived in the 13th Century.

   The RambaN famously challenged the Rambam ruling, tefillah – the 5th positive commandment of Sefer Ha’Mitzvot. Alas the RambaN critique failed to address that tefillah-kre’a shma, a mitva from the Torah! The language of the Rambam equally vague, he failed to differentiate between a ודוי דרבנן מן הודוי דאורייתא. The language of the Shemone Esrei סלח לנו does not qualify as a ודוי because its permissible to bring the rabbinic ודוי added to the blessing of שמע קולינו.

   The the Maharsha (Rabbi Shmuel Eliezer Edels) attempted to scratch his ear with his elbow in mesechta Yoma, the famous debate between Rabbi Meir vs. the Sages; Rabbi Meir rejected the idea that NaCh sources and how much more so Tannaim scholars could dispute the ודוי made by Moshe Rabbeinu. But the dispute really quite simple: the ודוי made by Moshe, a rabbinic ודוי.
   Hence the כלל, יחיד ורבים – הלכה כרבים; this general rule applies only in cases of mitzvot דרבנן. The oversimplifications made by Reshonim sticklers to learn the simple p’shat has made a tremendous erosion of downstream generations Torah learning.

   The tohor 7th Oral Torah middah of רב חסד stands upon the k’vanna of making the required מאי נפקא מינא\תמיד מעשה בראשית time oriented Av מלך Torah יסוד יסודי commandments, differentiated from rabbinic mitzvot which do not require k’vanna,, any more than do positive and negative Torah commandments! Time oriented Av מלך Torah commandments, they continually create from nothing the chosen Cohen people in all generations that the chosen Cohen seed of Avraham Yitzak and Yaacov walks upon the face of the Earth. This oath brit shares no common ground with the notion of some Universal non oath new covenant God for all Humanity.

   To swear a Torah blessing requires sanctification of some Torah defined tohor יסוד יסודי midda. As the previous paragraph, troubled myself, to define the יסוד יסודי seventh tohor midda of רב חסד. Hence a Torah blessing/oath requires שם ומלכות. Translating this complex abstract term to “Name and Kingship”, wears the Rambam Mishna Torah dunce cap! Mishna Torah means “common law”, not the Rambam’s statute halachic codification, based upon Greek & Roman cultural and legal-logical practices.

   The former dedicates a defined יסוד יסודי tohor Torah midda in the Spirit Name blown from within the heart NOT through the lungs – another מאי נפקא מינא fundamental distinction of הבדלה. Blowing hot air of religious narishkeit does not make a קידוש השם any more than blowing air from ones’ lungs dedicates the Spirit Name of HaShem which lives within the hearts of the chosen Cohen people; based upon the precedent of Avram swearing a Torah oath that the Spirit Name of HaShem would forever live within the Yatzir Ha’Tov hearts of the chosen Cohen people.

   The mitzva of pronouncing the Name learns from the Torah precedent of blowing the Shofar on Rosh HaShana. Framing words with our lips and tongues does not require Torah k’vanna of prophetic mussar יסוד יסודי middot! Any more than learning Talmud simply does not compare to reading the fictional works of Harry Potter, new testament, or koran. Allah-Voldemort – dead. Xtianity, with its Father/Dudley Dursley issues and Islam, both need to find some other books of fiction to base their avoda zarah mythology upon. The Greek Gods of Mount Olympus just as dead as Allah-Voldemort.

   Loading...

   Reply

5. Should everyone be an Islamophobic Zionist? Zionism, the Jewish vision fathered by Herzl, of Jewish self determination in the Middle East. Just that simple: the Jewish idea of Israeli nationalism.

   Jews reject Goyim avoda zarah in all generations and times. Prior to seeing your demand I responded to another Arab Goy over the demerits of the koran.

   Fajim greetings to you as well. The Avraham faith stands on the revelation of the Torah at Sinai which your false prophet Muhammad and yourself reject. The Book of בראשית introduces Av tohor time oriented commandments which create from nothing the chosen Cohen people throughout all generations. Your false prophet Muhammad declared that the sons of Yaacov had “past”, this lie denies another key Torah idea: the resurrection from the dead, based upon the Divine oath that the chosen seed of Avraham – ie the chosen Cohen nation – would live in all generations.

   Muhammad the lying tumah prophet knows nothing of the oaths sworn wherein HaShem and his chosen first-born Cohen seed live forever. The tumah false God Allah prioritizes the human theology called Monotheism over the oath brit faith which establishes the chosen Cohen people through good times and bad, blessing and curse life and death. The story taught in the Book of Job teaches this central spirituality of the Jewish people which your lying false prophet of tumah gods so despises.

   Rava a Amoraim sage of the Gemarah of the Talmud teaches that Job lived as an imaginary man. Another central tenet of Torah Faith: the T’NaCH commands prophetic mussar. The T’NaCH does not teach actual history. Why? Prophetic mussar applies equally, across the board to all living generations of the chosen Cohen nation. Your lying false prophet did not discern – he had no real understanding of the Torah vision of faith.

   A sworn oath has absolutely no value at all if the person swearing the oath lacks integrity and has no shame. What caused the floods to destroy the Earth in the days of Noach? People swearing false oaths. A fundamental tenet of Torah faith which the tumah koran denies.

   Surah Al-Ikhlas, the 112th chapter of the Quran, indeed encapsulates a concise declaration of monotheism. Its verses emphasize the absolute oneness of Allah, devoid of any partners or equals.

   This theological platitude has no knowledge that a Torah brit requires swearing a Torah oath which requires שם ומלכות, that which the false prophet Muhammad did not know. The ancient Egyptian Akhenaten likewise preached the theological bull shit of Monotheism.

   The tension between transcendence (God beyond all comprehension) and immanence (God present in creation) fuels theological discussions identifies all theological creed belief systems of avoda zarah. The Torah defines avoda zarah not as the worship of idols which the prophets of the NaCH utterly mock as bat shit crazy, but rather assimilation and intermarriage with peoples, like Arabs and Muslims, who reject the revelation of the Torah at Sinai – as did Muhammad the false lying prophet of shame.

   The koran falsehood has absolutely no impact upon the establishment of righteous judicial courtrooms which dedicate as holy the commitment – like a korban – of the pursuit of justice: fair compensation of damages which the Court imposes upon the criminal to compensate the victim. All the platitude narishkeit within the koran, comparable to a smelly fart in a crowded elevator.

   The acknowledgment of God’s sovereignty/justice—the central to Jewish spirituality and faith. Theological platitudes which defines the noise of the koran abomination of avoda zarah, compares to smelly diarrea soiling a Man’s pants and running down his legs. What an absolute disgrace and dishonor.

   Akhenaten challenged Egypt’s polytheistic norms just as did Muhammad in his day in Arabia! His devotion to the Aten (the Sun disk) just if not more sincere than Muhammad’s rants about Allah. Avoda zarah theologies all share the same tumah. The debate over transcendence vs. immanence – God beyond our grasp vs. God present in creation.

   The prophet Moshe very much aware of this debate among theological scholars in the ancient Egypt of his day. The revelation of the Torah defines faith not as some absurd “belief in God or Gods” but rather as the honest pursuit of righteous justice among and between the chosen Cohen nation. Failure to rule the land with justice – the vision of the mitzva of Moshiach – results in g’lut/exile.

   Torah faith simple. Torah law – a common law system which stands upon positive and negative mitzvot precedents; the wisdom of how to pursue understanding through a unique logic system known through the kabbalah of rabbi Akiva as פרדס.

   Only the chosen Cohen people pursue this spirituality and faith. Just that simple. The pursuit of justice—compensating victims, holding criminals accountable—is a noble legal system upon which Israel strives to build our civilization out of the sands of the Middle East.

   The tawhid of Muhammad the false prophet holds water like a broken vase! Avoda zarah only secondarily addresses physical/historical idols! The disaster of the 30 year War that culminated in 1648 which obliterated almost the entire population of the kingdoms of Germany, (As many died in that war as did in WWI when the population of Europe was almost 10 times larger!), debated whether the Catholic crucifix of JeZeus qualified as a graven image! What a load of shit!

   [[[“Do not ascribe purity to yourselves. He knows best who is righteous.” (An-Najm 53:32).]]]

   Surah An-Najm (53:32) reminds us not to claim absolute purity for ourselves. Bunk. The Torah commands that the Cohen serve in a tohor state. The wisdom which discerns tohor from tumah defines Avodat HaShem. Whether it’s the mikveh (ritual bath), the ashes of the red heifer, or the priestly garments, these practices define sacred space and time. Muhammad failed to discern a tumah camel from a tumah pig.

   The dietary laws (kashrut) in Judaism meticulously classify animals as tahor (pure) or tamei (impure). While the Quran does address dietary restrictions, it doesn’t mirror the same system. Hence, the camel (which is impure in Jewish law) doesn’t carry the same connotation in Islamic tradition.

   “None of you truly believes until he loves for his brother what he loves for himself” (Bukhari & Muslim). Worthless platitude bull shit. Xtianity must turn to the Greeks to define love as agape! The koran abomination absolutely no different. The word “love” in both new testament and koran avoda zarah – empty platitudes; the failure to translate lofty ideals into tangible actions.

   The Torah defines love as “ownership”. A man does not love that which he does not own; the difference between borrowed goods and cherished possessions.

   The thief pawns his stolen goods, sold pennies upon the dollar! The mitzva of קידושין a man acquires Title to the soul of his wife, ie the future born children – the result of this union. Hence the concept of the mitzvot of mamzerim and the mitzva of get – returning the O’lam Ha’bah soul of the ex-wife which permits her to do קידושין with some other more worthy man. The return of the O’lam Ha’bah soul—the ex-wife’s chance at a new beginning— a profound act of compassion and justice.

   [[[Do you, Moshe, love justice for all? If so, then why erect barriers between the children of Adam? You speak of Torah’s law at Sinai, yet limit its wisdom to your chosen tribe, denying the universality of divine justice.]]]

   The vision of Zionism as taught by Hertzl, the father of the modern Jewish state which your false prophet declared had past! In effect HaShem made a false oath. You respect this blasphemy, we the Jewish people emphatically repudiate its as witchcraft false.

   Hertzl’s vision of Jewish equal rights to self determination to rule our homeland in the Middle East fits hand in glove with the vision of the Torah. Why did Israel receive the Torah in g’lut -outside the land of Israel and not on Mount Zion, currently polluted by the filth of the Dome of the Rock?

   The Torah commands Israel to uproot and totally destroy the cultures and customs practiced by all the kingdoms of Canaan. The Canaanite civilization: a City State society similar to the ancient Greeks-Rome, Athens, Sparta, Thebes etc. city states. The Torah serves as the Written Constitution of the Jewish Republic of 12 Tribes. The Talmud functions as the working model to establish lateral Sanhedrin common law courts across all the Tribes of the Jewish Republic.

   The 1787 American Constitution with Jeffersons 10 Bill of Rights applies only to US citizens. The French Revolution with its Constitution “The Rights of Man” equally only applied to France and the countries conquered by Napoleon’s empire.

   Arab and Muslim societies remain stuck in barbaric feudalism, which defined Western European history till the people expelled the Church as utterly corrupt and an abomination of Mankind or par with the koran itself.

   We Jews argue that Goyim, by definition worship other Gods be it JeZeus or Allah or the Gods of Mount Olympus, its all one and the same avoda zarah. The Torah commands the chosen Cohen people not to assimilate and intermarry with Goyim, as the sin of avoda zarah. We Jews do not hate nor despise Goyim for being Goyim. We merely seek to rule our homeland free from the pollution of Goyim customs and manners of avoda zarah. Just that simple.

   Loading...

   Reply

6. What is a religious Zionist response to Kesuvos 111a? As a religious Zionists, strongly support the state of Israel. While ultra Orthodox often oppose the Jewish state ie Jewish self-determination to rule our Homeland in the Middle East. How should Zionist Jews respond to Haredim who quote this passage?

   Hasidim and Lithuanian Haredim anti-Zionist Haredim believe that the existence of a Jewish state prior to the Messianic era is a violation of the Three Oaths. They believe that voting in Israeli elections causes one to become a “partner” in all the sins committed by the government, which includes enabling it to violate the Three Oaths.

   The overarching motive behind many Haredim’s opposition to Zionism stems from a traditional and religious view of Jewish identity and peoplehood which runs counter to Zionism’s nationalist ideology. Haredim often cite the 10th-century rabbinic sage Rav Saadia Goan as spelling out their national identity in terms irreconcilable with modern nationalism. The opposition extends to ancillary parts of Zionist ideology, such as militarism and organic nationalism, which they hold are incongruous with Jewish religious teachings.

   Historically, many dynasties in Hasidism have expressed anti-Zionist opinions because of the “Three Oaths”. The Talmud, in Ketubot 111a, mentions that the Jewish people have been bound by three oaths: 1) not to ascend to Eretz Yisrael (the Land of Israel) as a group using force; 2) not to rebel against the nations of the world; and 3) that the nations of the world would not persecute the nation of Israel excessively. Some consider the establishment of the State of Israel to be a violation of these oaths. The first Haredi anti-Zionist movement was Agudath Israel, established in Poland in 1912. Haredi groups and people actively and publicly opposing Zionism are Satmar, Toldos Aharon, Neturei Karta.

   Lithuanian Haredim, sometimes called mitnagdim, take a different approach to their beliefs from their Hassidic counterparts. Lithuanian religious Jews oppose the state not because of the three oaths midrash but because they feel that Zionism epitomizes secularity and Jewish desire to be void of Torah.

   Amongst the Ashkenazi Orthodox rabbinical leadership, religious Zionists form a minority. Generally speaking, most Sephardi Haredi authorities have never shared the anti-Zionism of their Ashkenazi counterparts, and some (such as the late Rabbi Mordechai Eliyahu) are strongly affiliated with Religious Zionism, taking a similar stance to the Hardal movements. (The Religious Zionist Jewish community in Israel. These individuals combine elements of Haredi (ultra-Orthodox) ideology with a strong commitment to Zionism and the State of Israel). However, there are anti-Zionist elements in the Sephardi communities as well. It is known that the late Baba Sali supported and celebrated the anti-Zionist views of the Satmar Rebbe.

   The relationship between Haredim and Zionism became more complex after the founding of the State of Israel in 1948. Some Haredi groups “with great reluctance permitted” being involved in the political process of the state by voting in elections and accepting state funding. They maintained that since the government is not an ideological Zionist organization (as is the WZO, for example), and also they are not voluntarily choosing to join the Zionists, but rather it is like a partnership that already exists – “and if one wouldn’t participate, the other partner would take over his rights as well.” Others have maintained a more hardline rejectionist position, refusing all funding from the Israeli state and abstaining from taking part in the political process.

   The Agudat Israel is an international organization (with an Israeli association) of various Haredi groups, mainly from the Lithuanian yeshiva communities and Hasidic groups such as Ger and Belz. The Agudah was initially created as an umbrella organization of Orthodox Jews who were united to fight against the Zionist movement. Out of necessity and “to save from the mouth of the lion” they permitted participating in national elections and sending their representatives to the Israeli Knesset, “to actively protect what is holy to us.” They did not take full part in it by not serving in its military, and do not celebrate any of the State’s official holidays. They are adamantly opposed to serving in the military, because of the gilui arayos, shfichus damim (Shfichus Damim is one of the Three Cardinal Sins (Avirot HaMitzvot), along with Gilui Arayot (sexual immorality) and Avodah Zarah), and avodah zarah that exists. The Agudat Israel party in the Knesset is represented as United Torah Judaism, a collective party of Agudat Israel and Degel HaTorah. It tries to influence the Knesset with a pro-Judaism outlook, by mainly focusing on funding for Jewish education (yeshivas), exemption from military service for Haredi yeshiva students, and trying to safeguard basic rights such as freedom to practice their religion. In general, the Agudath Israel position is supportive of Israel.

   A number of Lithuanian (non-Hasidic) leaders, like the Chazon Ish (1878–1953), Rav Shach (1898–2001), and Rabbi Yosef Sholom Elyashiv (1910-2012), have expressed strongly anti-Zionist views. Examples of this are found in lectures and letters of Rav Shach. One of the newspapers of the Litvish world, the Yated Neeman, regularly publishes articles strongly criticizing Zionism, naming it a “heretical movement”. The main Litvish community does vote, as per what many say were the instructions of the Chazon Ish. However, some of the Chazon Ish’s disciples dispute this claim. Rabbi Elyashiv would urge his followers to vote for the Degel HaTorah list. Rabbi Shimshon Dovid Pincus, quoted in the book of his speeches about Purim, explains that in each generation, the Yetzer Hara appears in different forms. Examples he gives are the Enlightenment and communism. He goes on to explain that nowadays, Zionism is a form of the Yetzer Hara.

   Rabbi Moshe Feinstein (1895–1986), one of the American leaders of the Lithuanian Jewish world, writes in a responsum to a question whether it is permissible to pray in a synagogue which displays an Israeli flag: “Even though it is improper to bring the flags into shul, and all the more so not to keep them there permanently, and all the more so, not near the Aron Kodesh, and one should try to remove it peacefully. However, to make a fight over this is forbidden.”

   The Soloveitchik dynasty of Lithuanian Haredi Judaism is known as one of the most elite scholastic dynasties in all of Orthodox Judaism. The dynasty split into two groups in the 20th century, as parts of the Soloveitchik Rabbinical family veered away from their anti-Zionist tradition set by Rabbi Chaim Soloveitchik of Brisk, and adopted views aligned with Modern Orthodox Judaism and Religious Zionism. Ironically, the Zionist faction of the Brisker dynasty is centered in the United States, and the anti-Zionist faction was, and continues to be, centered in Israel. Rabbi Meir Soloveitchik and Rabbi Dovid Soloveitchik, who lead two of the Brisker yeshivas in Jerusalem, continue to be outspoken opponents of Zionism.

   While ideologically opposed to Zionism, the moderate Hasidic groups of Ger, Breslov, Vizhnitz, Belz, and Klausenberg do vote in the Israeli elections, and accept Israeli government funding. Ger and Belz are two of the most influential movements behind the Israeli political party Agudat Yisrael, which, together with the Lithuanian Degel HaTorah, forms the United Torah Judaism party. Prominent Gerrer rabbi, Yitzhak-Meir Levin, was a signatory to the Israeli Declaration of Independence. He also served as Minister of Welfare, though today, members of Agudat Israel prefer to serve as Deputy Ministers, or in Knesset Committees. These groups do not observe any days associated with the state, and neither do they recite the Prayer for the State of Israel.

   The fifth Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Sholom Dovber Schneersohn (1860–1920), also known as the RaShaB, published Kuntres Uma’ayan, the beginning of which contains a strong polemic against secular Zionism. He was deeply concerned that secular nationalism would replace Judaism as the foundation of Jewish identity.

   Post Shoah, the Goyim profaned the 3 vows. Furthermore, possible to annul a vow. In the case of Rabbi Zeira’s interpretation, the concept of not ascending as a wall until the appointed time could indeed be seen as a vow—an individual commitment to patience and waiting for the right moment.

   The pursuit of justice is a fundamental theme in Judaism. The Moshiach is often associated with the establishment of a just and righteous society. Post-Holocaust (Shoah), the need for justice and healing became even more pronounced. The horrors of the Holocaust underscored the urgency of seeking justice, both for the victims and for humanity as a whole.

   The return to the Land of Israel after the Babylonian exile serves as a historical precedent—a reminder that even in the darkest times, redemption is possible. Discussions about the Moshiach, justice, and redemption are multifaceted and often evoke deep emotions. The 40 year Wilderness g’lut of the Wilderness generation, which according to Rabbi Akiva: has no portion in the world to come, for its failure to rise up: invade and conquer Canaan mirrors the Orthodox rabbanut of the pre-WWII Europe who denounced Zionism and refused to rise up to move in mass to British Palestine prior to the window of opportunity closed with the passages of the second White Paper in 1939.

   Rabbi Akiva’s perspective on the Wilderness generation’s lack of faith echoes the debate within European Jewry about the role of Zionism and the balance between spiritual and national aspirations. The pursuit of justice is a moral imperative in Judaism. The horrors of the Holocaust underscored the urgency of seeking justice for the victims, their families, and humanity as a whole. Rabbi Akiva’s perspective on the Wilderness generation’s lack of faith resonates with the debates within European Jewry about Zionism. The balance between spiritual aspirations and national identity was indeed a complex struggle.

   The refusal to rise up and move en masse to British Palestine before the window closed with the Second White Paper in 1939 reflects the tension between pragmatic considerations and spiritual yearning. The mitzva of Moshiach, defined as the dedication to pursue justice: ie fair judicial compensation of damages inflicted upon victimes by the wicked, within the borders of the oath sworn lands of Israel. The confusion how rabbinic Judaism learns Kesuvos 111a as oaths rather than vows stands in stark contrast to the 3 oaths whereby Avraham Yitzak and Yaacov swore to cut an eternal brit with HaShem for the chosen Cohen seed to eternally inherit the oath sworn by HaShem to the Avot for this chosen Cohen seed to eternally inherit the lands of Canaan.

   The three oaths mentioned in the Gemara are fundamentally different from the oaths that are sworn before a Torah scroll. The distinction between a Torah oath (which carries specific legal and moral implications) and a vow (which may be more personal or situational) is indeed significant. Understanding the context in which these oaths were taken is essential. These oaths reflect a commitment to restraint and patience during exile rather than a formal legal obligation that would accompany a Torah oath. This nuance is critical to avoiding confusion between the two. This matter highlights the importance of precise language and context in Talmudic study, ensuring a deeper and more accurate understanding of these foundational concepts.

   The text primarily refers to three oaths that a husband may take regarding his financial obligations or claims against his wife. These oaths relate to different aspects of marital obligations, particularly concerning the husband’s claims about the ketubah (marriage contract) and other financial matters. The distinction between oaths and vows is significant in Jewish law, as they carry different implications and requirements.

   In Kesuvos 111a, the discussion revolves around the concept of oaths (shevuos) and vows (nedarim). The text addresses the different circumstances under which a husband may be required to take oaths regarding his wife’s ketubah, particularly concerning the financial obligations he has towards her. In Kesuvos 111a, the discussion revolves around the oaths (sh’vuos) that a husband may take regarding his wife’s claims. The text typically refers to three oaths that the husband swears: An oath regarding the claims she has made against him. An oath that he has not withheld her ketubah (marriage contract). An oath that he has not committed any sin that would affect her rights.

   The distinction is important because oaths generally pertain to affirmations of truthfulness or commitments, while vows involve specific prohibitions or commitments to perform certain actions. In this context, it is significant to understand the implications of each in terms of marital obligations and the legal framework governing them. The strongest proof that Kesuvos 111a refers to vows and not oaths – Yom Kippur. On Yom Kippur HaShem annulled his vow to make of the seed of Moshe the chosen Cohen nation. Moshe cause HaShem to remember the oaths HaShem swore to the Avot, which cause HaShem on Yom Kippur to do t’shuva and annul the Divine Vow to obliterate the people of Israel following the sin of the Golden Calf.

   The oaths of the Patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob) and the oaths in Kesuvos 111a is also problematic. These are vastly different contexts. The Patriarchal oaths concern a oath brit cut between the HaShem and the Avot regarding land inheritance and the chosen Cohen people. The oaths in Kesuvos 111a concern marital financial disputes. They simply do not compare to the oaths which the Avot each swore to cut a brit concerning the eternal inheritance of the lands of Canaan to the chosen Cohen nation.

   Same equally applies to the argument touching Yom Kippur. HaShem annulled a vow (to destroy the Israelites after the Golden Calf). This, however, does not directly prove Kesuvos 111a’s oaths qualify in fact as vows. God’s actions utterly Big Picture unique. They do not automatically set a precedent for all lessor types of oaths not sworn while holding a Sefer Torah. The “oaths” issue which Kesuvos 111a addresses – specific to marital disputes and their annulment would have different implications. The context of the oaths within a legal framework of marital obligations strongly suggests they are oaths concerning truthfulness and financial responsibility, not vows concerning future actions.

   Hence the mitzva of קידושין a Man acquires the O’lam Ha’Bah soul of his wife. Meaning the Man acquires Title to the future born seed this marital union shall produce in the future. Based upon the precedent of the oath brit cut between the pieces where HaShem swore an oath to Avram that his future born seed would number the stars of the Heavens for multitude. Avram, at the time of this Divine oath, childless.

   Get/divorce aligns with mamzerim. Where a foreign man through adultery causes that woman to conceive a child. Therefore the mitzva of Get reverses the oath sworn at קידושין, by which a man acquires Title to all future born seed born consequent to this marital union. Based upon the Torah mitzva: fruitful and multiply. Hence, based upon this בנין אב/precedent the oath sworn on dof 111a of Kesuvos resembles a vow that a beit din can later annul.

   A key understanding in point of law. A wicked man who refuses to give his ex-wife her get, therein profaning the oath sworn during the mitzva of קידושין, later a beit din and place this man into נידוי, based upon making a דיוק upon the precedent of ger tzedek as a new creation. Retroactively, at the moment of קידושין that Jew would not in point of fact be Jewish! Therefore the beit din could issue the get to the chained ex wife – based upon the precedent of 7th year fruit prozbul.

   The oaths in Kesuvos 111a primarily pertain to marital financial obligations. They are serious commitments regarding truthfulness and accountability between spouses. If understood as legal oaths rather than personal vows, their negation would require a significant shift in legal interpretation. In Jewish eschatology, Moshiach, often associated with the redemption of Israel and the establishment of justice. The idea of Moshiach bringing about a new era could suggest a transformation of existing laws or obligations. However, whether this entails negating specific oaths equally debatable.

   Theological discussions often involve divine intervention, redefining norms, and transcending human limitations. In this context, one might argue that the Moshiach’s arrival could indeed alter our understanding of obligations. From a legal standpoint, clear authority or prophetic mandate is necessary to annul Torah oaths. This aligns with the meticulous approach of halacha.

   Indeed, discussions about the Messianic age often blend theology, hope, and imagination. Some envision a transformative era where the very fabric of reality shifts, rendering old norms obsolete. It’s like a cosmic remix—a spiritual remix, if you will. The legal mechanisms, the fine print. Torah oaths, like stubborn knots, don’t unravel easily. They’re woven into the fabric of our tradition, and untangling them requires more than mystical musings. Sometimes, the mystical and the practical collide, and we’re left with a delightful mishmash of tradition, hope, and a dash of skepticism.

   While a mystical Moshiach might be envisioned as having the ability to change the dynamics of spiritual and legal commitments, the practical annulment of the oaths in Kesuvos 111a would depend on a broader consensus within the Jewish legal tradition. The interplay between law, theology, and mysticism creates a complex landscape for this discussion.

   Religious Zionists emphasize the importance of the Land of Israel as integral to Jewish identity and destiny. When discussing Kesuvos 111a, it’s crucial to recognize that the oaths mentioned pertain to marital obligations rather than national aspirations. This distinction underscores a broader understanding of Jewish law that can coexist with the Zionist vision.

   When Haredim cite Kesuvos 111a in opposition to Zionism, a religious Zionist response: Emphasize the distinction between the oaths in the Talmud, which address individual marital obligations, and the collective national aspirations of the Jewish people. Argue that the establishment of Israel, not a violation of the oaths but rather the fulfillment of the Jewish people’s oath brit with HaShem. The return to the land a crucial step towards the eventual coming of Moshiach and the restoration of justice. Articulate a vision where religious Zionism emphasizes the importance of spiritual and national identities coalescing. This vision includes advocating for a just society that embodies the Written Torah as the Constitution of the Republic and the Talmud as the working model to restore lateral Sanhedrin common law Courts in the Cities of Refuge within the border cities of the Jewish State.

   What is a religious Zionist response to Kesuvos 111a? As a religious Zionists, strongly support the state of Israel. While ultra Orthodox often oppose the Jewish state ie Jewish self-determination to rule our Homeland in the Middle East. How should Zionist Jews respond to Haredim who quote this passage? Answer: This argument represents self-hating kapo Jews who make a dog chasing its tail circular argument of absolute narishkeit.

   Loading...

   Reply

7. Israeli War Objectives in Lebanon: Trump foreign Policy in the Middle East

   Hezbollah recently released a video titled “Our Mountains, Our Treasures.” What war aims, propaganda does this psycho arms display seek to negotiate?

   Hezbollah’s Tunnels and Weapons Video: Hezbollah, the Lebanese armed group, recently released a video titled “Our Mountains, Our Treasures.” In this slickly produced video, they unveil an extensive tunnel network used for storing and launching missiles. What purpose does this achieve? Hezbollah seeks to influence the negotiations for a Cease Fire favorable to their terms.

   Prior to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon Hezbollah declared they would stop firing missiles when Israel withdrew from Gaza. But seeing that Hezbollah attacked Israel on Oct 8th, before Israeli IDF entered Gaza, this Hezbollah demand rings hollow. Why did Hezbollah attack on Oct 8th? Did it make a strategic error?

   On October 7, 2023, Hamas and other Palestinian militant groups launched a coordinated armed incursion from the Gaza Strip into southern Israel. This attack marked the first invasion of Israeli territory since the 1948 Arab–Israeli War. Hamas together with UNRWA forces attacked Israeli border settlements near Gaza. Currently Hamas still holds 97 stolen hostages whom remain in Gaza. The Red Cross Double Cross has never visited these Israeli prisoners since the Oct 7th attack; which involved multiple elements: a barrage of over 4,300 rockets launched into Israel, vehicle-transported incursions, and powered paraglider infiltrations. This Hamas surprise attack compares to the Dec 7th Pearl Harbor 1941 surprise attack. Also the attack on September 11th 2001 World Trade Center.

   Mount Dov, also known as Shebaa Farms, from the early 1950s until Israel’s occupation of the Golan Heights in the Six-Day War, Syria was the de facto ruling power. Documents from the 1920s and 1930s, during the French mandate, they indicate that inhabitants paid taxes to the French government, Lebanon a French mandate territory at that time. Maps issued by France placed the Mount Dov within Syrian territory.

   Mount Dov lie along the border between Lebanon and the Golan Heights. During the French Mandate for Syria and Lebanon (1920s and 1930s), the border between Lebanon and Syria wasn’t officially demarcated. So, Mount Dov, its status, Hezbollah propaganda unilaterally declared this Golan territory as “occupied territory”.

   After the French mandate ended in 1946, Syria administered the land. Mount Dov appeared on maps—both Syrian and Lebanese military ones as Golan territory. This strongly supports the Israeli opinion that Mount Dov in the post 2000 dispute, constitutes as part of the territory of the Golan Heights which Syria lost in the 1967 War.

   No evidence exists or supports that the abandoned farmlands ever Lebanese. League of Nations mandate (1923-1946), only thereafter did either Syria or Lebanon cease being a protectorate mandate! The UN “graciously” proposed maintaining the existing boundaries of the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force in Syria (which included Mount Dov) “without prejudice” to any future agreement between Syria and Lebanon. However based upon the one sided UN bias of repeated condemnations which pervert Chapter VI “suggestions” to Chapter VII “Korean Ultimatums”, plus UNRWA war crimes, and UNIFIL criminal incompetence – Israel rejects the “objectivity/neutrality” of the UN-nations

   After Israel withdrew from Lebanon in May 2000, Hezbollah propaganda claimed that the withdrawal notcomplete because Mount Dov mysteriously Lebanese—not Syrian Golan—territory. Only empty J’Accuse antisemitic Arab Nazi-like racism. Post the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000, Hezbollah propaganda declared, as if they were God, the “Shebaa Farms” as occupied territory.

   The unprovoked Oct 8th Hezbollah attack upon Israel requires that Lebanon surrender any and all claims to Mount Dov Golan.

   Loading...

   Reply

8. The New Balance of Power

   PVV’s leader, Geert Wilders, has called for a ‘Nexit,’ but this position does not currently reflect the broader majority sentiment within Dutch society. However, other far-right leaders across Europe have congratulated Geert Wilders on his victory, emphasizing their shared anti-EU sentiments.

   The Dutch political landscape has buzzed like a beehive with discussions about Nexit. After all, Brexit set a precedent, and now everyone’s eyeing the Netherlands. Geert Wilders, the far-right leader of the Party for Freedom (PVV), has been waving the Nexit banner. The Netherlands thrives on trade. Rotterdam—their colossal port—anchors their economy. A Nexit compares to the risks of unplugging the espresso machine at a busy café—it’d hurt. Unlike the UK, the Dutch love the euro. But the Dutch absolutely want less of the Brussels bureaucracy and allot fewer red tape tangles. Even the pro-European crowd agrees: EU reform way overdue.

   The coronavirus pandemic and EU’s vaccination strategy has aroused a strong minority opposition lead by Geert Wilders PVV Party for Nexit. Some individuals and Opposition groups condemn the long-term effects and societal impacts of the Covid-19 mass vaccinations! Nexit opposes the box thinking of EU bureaucracies like those of the World Health Organization (WHO) bureaucrats, who lavish praise and awe for the Covid-19 mass injections of the EU populace.

   Nexit taps into a broader sentiment of frustration with perceived bureaucratic overreach, both within the EU and organizations like the WHO. Geert Wilders and his supporters argue that the EU’s centralized socialist decision-making stifles national sovereignty and imposes unnecessary bureaucratic regulations. This perspective resonates with those who feel that the EU’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, including its vaccination strategy, a Corporate monopoly-greed-betrayal of the European peoples!

   The pogroms of the early 20th century were part of a larger pattern of antisemitism in Europe, which the Amsterdam pogrom and Kristallnacht directly remembers! Understanding this context helps illuminate the long-standing vulnerabilities of Jewish communities and the historical roots of conflicts involving Israel and its anti-semitic racist enemies. The rise of groups like Hamas and Hezbollah often includes deeply antisemitic rhetoric. All Arab Israeli wars starting with the ’48 Independence War fought over the racist Nazi like Arab absolute rejection of Jews equal rights to self-determination in the Middle East. Their ideologies viewed as a continuation of historical antisemitic attitudes, which can lead to violence against Jewish communities globally.

   The conflicts involving Hamas and Hezbollah, also rooted in territorial, political, and religious disputes in the Middle East. But Arab racism which categorically rejects Jewish self determination, this defines the Arab Israeli wars fought in the 20th and 21st Centuries. The historical context of antisemitism, including events like the recent Amsterdam pogrom, reflect old long standing motivations and narratives used by Nazi-like racists. The actions and ideologies of groups like Hamas and Hezbollah can significantly impact Jewish communities worldwide, influencing perceptions and experiences of Jewish safety and belonging.

   Consider the connection between PM of Israel wanting to break of diplomatic relations with the UN, using UNRWA and UNIFIL as justification; coupled with the UN distortion of Israeli condemnations which perverts Chapter VI suggestions unto Chapter VII ultimatums like as found in the last UNGA condemnation of Israel, serves as the foundation of Israel’s desire to break off all diplomatic relations with the UN-nations in particular due to Israel’s rejection of the Wilson/FDR\Truman notions of a World Government by which nation states conduct international diplomacy.

   PVV’s leader, Geert Wilders strongly favors and supports Nexit! Could a secret alliance between Israel and the Netherlands use the Amsterdam pogrom and the corruption of UNRWA and UNIFIL on Oct 7th, for the Netherlands to leave the EU and Israel leave the UN?

   Geert Wilders, leader of the Party for Freedom (PVV), advocates for the Netherlands to exit the EU. His stance is largely driven by concerns over national sovereignty and immigration policy. If Wilders were to gain significant political power, a shift towards a more Israel-friendly foreign policy could coincide with his Nexit agenda, potentially framing it as a way to assert Dutch sovereignty against perceived international biases.

   A hypothetical alliance between Israel and the Netherlands could focus on mutual interests, including security and economic cooperation, especially if both nations feel marginalized by the EU and UN. Both countries could leverage historical narratives, including the recent Amsterdam pogrom, to rally domestic support for their respective political agendas, framing their actions as protecting national interests and historical legacies.

   Breaking ties with international organizations carries significant risks & repercussions for both Israel and the Netherlands, affecting trade, diplomacy, and security arrangements. Combine this with the possibility of Trump deciding to “bring the boys home” from Europe; the US leaving NATO in exchange for Russia to leave the Ukraine including Crimea. Furthermore, in light of the rise of the BRICS currency competition against the dominance of the international dollar. Trump potentially negating the Wilson establishment of the Federal Reserve and returning America to the pre-1913 gold standard commodity based currency. Thus the alignment of a US/Israel\Netherlands economic alliance replaces the 20th Century NATO/Allied alliance.

   The Dutch and the British have a strong history of competition and wars. In the 17th Century, the Dutch, with their innovative joint-stock companies and merchant fleets, sailed to distant shores. They founded colonies in North America, India, and Indonesia. Their ships—those sleek fluyts—dominated the seas. The British and Dutch fought four wars; in the the Second Anglo-Dutch War in June 1667, the Dutch pulled off a daring raid on the English fleet in its home port—the Medway, a river in South East England. This humiliation of the British. One of the worst defeats in the Royal Navy’s history, and one of the worst suffered by the British military.- a never forgotten Dutch victory.

   If Trump advocates in negotiations with Putin, for a withdrawal of US troops from Europe, it could signal a major pivot away from traditional US commitments, including the WWI/WWII\NATO Allied alliance. This move might frame the a way to refocus & prioritize upon domestic issues and reduce military expenditures abroad. The idea of the US leaving NATO in exchange for Russia’s withdrawal from Ukraine, including Crimea, suggests a willingness to reshape the security landscape in Europe. This could lead to a re-evaluation of military alliances and security commitments. Both the US, Israel, & the Netherlands share concerns about Iran, regional instability, and terrorism, which could serve as a foundation for a more formalized alliance.

   The rise of BRICS as a counter to the US dollar could significantly alter global economic dynamics. If countries within BRICS establish a competitive currency system, it could challenge the dollar’s dominance and influence in international trade. With Saudi Arabia’s withdrawal from the Nixon era’s petro-dollar monopoly and joining BRICS, the US dollar as the world currency directly threatened and challenged.

   The petrodollar system, established in the early 1970s, tied the US dollar to oil sales, requiring countries to use dollars for oil transactions. This arrangement bolstered the dollar’s status as the world’s primary reserve currency. As one of the largest oil producers, Saudi Arabia’s decision to move away from the petrodollar could undermine the dollar’s dominance. Especially if the rest of OPEC followed the Saudi leadership.

   By joining BRICS, Saudi Arabia aligns itself with a coalition of emerging economies seeking to challenge Western economic hegemony. This move could facilitate trade in alternative currencies, reducing reliance on the dollar. Saudi Arabia’s membership could enhance BRICS’ credibility and economic weight, potentially leading to a more coordinated effort to create a new currency system that competes with the dollar.

   A significant shift away from the dollar in global oil markets could threaten its status as the world’s primary reserve currency. This would have profound impact upon the US economy, including potential inflation and increased borrowing costs. A diminished role for the dollar could lead to a rebalancing of global power dynamics, allowing countries within BRICS to exert more influence on international affairs. The US may need to re-evaluate its foreign policy and economic strategies in response to these shifts. This could include the prioritization of the US/Israel\Netherlands alliance. Both the US and Israel both reject the model of fiat currencies which currently domination world money markets!

   Saudi Arabia’s withdrawal from the petrodollar system and its alignment with BRICS represent a significant challenge to the US dollar’s status as the world’s primary reserve currency. This shift could have wide-ranging implications for global trade, economic stability, and international relations. The evolving dynamics compel\require strategic adaptations from the US and its Primary allies Israel and the Netherlands to navigate this changing landscape.

   A stronger US-Israel alliance could emerge as the US scales back its commitments to NATO. This partnership might focus on shared interests in security, counterterrorism, and geopolitical stability in the Middle East. Proposals to return unto a gold standard mark a radical departure from modern monetary policy. This shift could appeal to some constituencies seeking stability and predictability in economic values but would face significant challenges in implementation. Any dramatic changes in foreign policy, especially regarding NATO and economic systems, would likely face substantial domestic and international opposition. The interplay of these factors—US foreign policy shifts, the potential realignment of alliances, economic competition from BRICS, and radical changes to the monetary system—could reshape the geopolitical landscape in profound ways.

   Wilders’ advocacy for a Nexit reflects a broader wave of populism and nationalism in Europe. His focus on national sovereignty resonates with constituents frustrated by EU bureaucracy and immigration policies. The Netherlands has a strong trade-oriented economy, particularly through Rotterdam’s port. Exiting the EU could jeopardize trade agreements and economic stability, drawing parallels to the challenges faced by the UK post-Brexit.

   President Trump seeks to restore States rights to bureaucratically regulate all trade and commerce within the States as defined by the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution as the basis for dismantling the corrupt Federal post Civil War bureaucracies in Washington. This “tune” enjoyed by the musical ears of both Netanyahu and Wilders’ detestation of a huge Big Brother bureaucratic socialist domination of governance. President Trump has indeed emphasized states’ rights and deregulation as key components of his policy agenda, since the Supreme Court reversed Roe vs. Wade. His approach aligns with Netanyahu and Wilders; both men harshly critical of what they perceive as overreach by corrupt bureaucratic monstrosities.

   This perspective resonates with those who advocate for more localized governance and less centralized control. The common thread among these leaders, their push for greater national sovereignty and a reduction in the influence of supranational organizations and bureaucracies, like the UN. This stance particularly evident in Wilders opposition to the EU’s centralized decision-making and regulatory frameworks.

   During his tenure as Finance Minister under Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, Benjamin Netanyahu likewise implemented significant economic reforms aimed at reducing the power of state bureaucratic monopolies and promoting free-market principles. His policies included privatizing state-owned companies, cutting taxes, and reducing government spending. President Trump’s Make America Great defined by sharing an identical nation strategic interest. These measures part of all three leaders broader strategy to modernize the economy and encourage private sector growth in America, the Netherlands, and Israel.

   Loading...

   Reply

9. Cultural Zionism

   Treating my Type II Diabetes

   Prior to this huge election started a 10 day fast. Did a 10 day fast with my daughter last year to treat her cystic fibrosis. This year i test my theory that type II diabetes primarily concerns the glucose addiction of the brain. Type II eventually can become Type III diabetes, commonly known as Alzheimer’s disease. My great grand mother Dunno, grand father Judge Bill, and father all died from Alzheimer’s.

   Not a big fan of Western pharmaceutical corporate medicine where the latter writes the medical books studied by Med students at the Universities. Obozo Care an utter abomination on the Order of Roe vs. Wade in my book. The notion that America won the Cold War against the USSR only to become a Socialist nation totally repugnant to my way of thinking. States Rights Washington Bites – my motto. But what can I do being a die-hard Confederate who rejects the disgraceful defeat of 1865!

   My wife and I kibbitz with one another. Married a damned Yankee from Chicago! She mocks me and repeats “Save the Dixie cups the South shall rise again!” To which I respond: “I only agreed to marry you because your grandmother who came from the Ukraine to the Golden Medina entered through the mikva of Galveston”! (Mikva a key concept of k’ddushin – the mitzva of Jewish ritual marriage.)

   Have developed and employing the 10 day fast this year to test my diabetes Type II theory. According to Western witchcraft diabetes occurs as a result of insulin resistance. This delves into the mitochondrion organelle sub-cells within the muscles. Western witchcraft reminds me of Church dogmatism! But post Shoah Pius XII, the dogma of the “Infallibility of the Poop” flushed down the toilet.

   My counter theory of type II diabetes learns from my Grand-fathers addiction to alcoholism. Both alcohol and high blood glucose impact the liver. Into Eastern schools of meditation as medicine. Eastern medicine does not assign a meridian to the pancreas! Therefore my theory argues that Type II diabetes represents a sugar like alcoholism addiction between the brain & the liver.

   Consistently, when measuring my waking blood sugar, its the highest of the entire day thereafter. This supports my theory that my liver produces glucose to feed my addicted brain. The brain cannot access glucose from the digestion of fats as can the rest of the body.

   My blood suger in these first 4 days of the fast: 156, 148, 135, & 128. Previously the two shabbat to shabbat fasts where I drank no water – exceptionally difficult. Day four I have cotton mouth. The last 10 day fast, lived in denial that I was a sugaholic, did not test my glucose levels daily.

   The objective of this 2nd 10 day or more fast, thinking about going shabbat to shabbat without water twice over, my intention to train and regulate my brain/liver to function below 90 when at each waking morning glucose blood sugar test. Once I can achieve this recalibration of my brain/liver glucose production I hope to maintain it thereafter by employing my kidneys by drinking copious amounts of water.

   The liver/kidney Yin/Yan battery defines my meditation technique. Employ these to meridians in both Japanese Shiatsu and Jin Shin Jyutsu Is (know myself it is) healing wisdom techniques. Employed the latter on my daughter at age 5 and raise her lung efficiency up to 91%. The quacks at the hospital expressed utter amazement!

   The body has employs an intricate mechanism to regulate blood sugar levels. When you drink water, it stimulates the kidneys to produce more urine, which can help remove excess glucose from the bloodstream. This process connected to the kidneys’ ability to filter waste products, including glucose.

   Ongoing research suggesting that fasting and dietary interventions may help manage or even reverse type II diabetes by improving insulin sensitivity, reducing liver fat, and breaking the cycle of sugar addiction. Alzheimer’s disease, nicknamed “type III diabetes”, due to its link to insulin resistance in the brain. Emerging research shows that excess glucose can affect brain cells over time, impairing memory and cognitive function, leading to neuro-degeneration Blood Sugar Spike. The “dawn phenomenon” explains elevated morning glucose levels. The liver releases glucose in the early morning to prepare the body for waking, but in people with type II diabetes, the liver overcompensates. This supports my idea of a feedback loop between the brain demand, and liver glucose production.

   The gradual decrease in your glucose levels (156 → 128) suggests your liver is starting to produce less glucose as your body adapts to the fast. Many fasting practitioners report a reduction in fasting blood glucose after a few days. Meditation and Breathwork in Diabetes techniques like Jin Shin Jyutsu, which target meridians, could help reduce stress, which plays a role in insulin resistance and blood sugar dysregulation. Stress management is increasingly recognized as a key factor in diabetes care.

   When I dav’en my k’vanna differentiates between אדוני as opposed to יהוה. The former a word which the lips of Man can frame and pronounce. The latter a Spirit that only blown from the heart, rather than physically from the lungs. Tefillah a matter of the heart NOT the lungs. The precedent for this interpretation: Rabbi Yechuda’s challenges why the Torah misspelled heart as לבב? In the Mishna of ברכות Rabbi Yechuda projected that two Yatzirot live within the heart.

   The construction of the Mishkan the Torah states “that I may dwell within you”. Hence Rabbi Yechuda’s Yatzir Ha’Tov the Spirit breath of יהוה from within our hearts. The Ego I, breaths as the spirit of the Yatzir Ha’Rah. Tefillah therefore dedicates שם ומלכות. The latter understood as the pronouns of the Horev revelation of the 13 middot spirits. This revelation defines the understanding as explained through the kabballah taught by Rabbi Akiva known as פרדס. The 13 middot revealed at Horev, 40 days after the sin of the Golden Calf where Israel translated יהוה to words like אלהים, Jesus or Allah, these middot pronouns of the Spirit Name – they compare to the meditation techniques developed through Eastern medicine which makes a focus upon concentrated breathing as the basis of meditation.

   This interpretation brings out profound themes of havdalah (separation or discernment) between the two modes of expression— words that the mouth and lips can articulate, versus what kavanah (intention) a Torah scholar expresses from within his heart’s breath.

   The ability to pronounce Adonai introduces the element of discernment, known as תחיית המיתים—the Spirit that breaths life unto the Avot – this same life breathes within all bnai brit Israel. This compares to the precedent of Shabbat which fundamentally requires making a havdalah: distinguishing between two realms, such as sacred and profane, light and dark, holy time and mundane time, מלאכה מן עבודה, at the beginning and termination of the mitzva of shabbat. The latter distinction defines the Mishkan precedent which separates holy from most holy. The verb עבודה: the mesechta of Baba Kama defines as אב עבודות: חמס גזל ערוה ושחד במשפט. Man always viewed as מועד as opposed to תם. The classification of מועד: crimes committed with intent to do damage. Hence the mitzva of Shabbat dedicates not to do act of מלאכה on the day of Shabbat, so as not to do act of עבודה on the week of shabbat. This הבדלה defines both shabbat as a mitzva and pronouncing the Name יהוה in tefillah.

   The דאורייתא תפילה קריא שמע makes a הבדלה between the heart from the soul. The latter understood through the mitzva of קידושין as a man acquires the ”soul” of his wife; meaning Title to the future born children based upon the precedent of the Brit cut between the pieces wherein Avram cut a brit upon his future born seed which currently only lived in the future world to come.

   The phrase דרך ארץ (derech eretz) encompasses a profound principle in Jewish thought, reflecting a foundational value for both Torah and ethical living. It is often translated as “the way of the land,” meaning proper behavior, good manners, or worldly conduct. In essence, derech eretz precedes Torah—it forms the groundwork upon which Torah observance is built. This idea emphasizes the necessity of moral and ethical behavior as a prerequisite to religious practice.

   The Talmudic adage “derech eretz kadma laTorah” (Vayikra Rabbah 9:3) suggests that proper interpersonal conduct and ethical behavior must come before Torah study and religious obligations. This emphasizes that spirituality cannot exist in isolation from decency, respect, and the practice of kindness. It ties into the notion that the Torah was given to shape individuals already living within a framework of moral responsibility.

   The revelation of the Torah at Mount Sinai (Matan Torah) stands on the foundation of derech eretz in multiple ways:

   Oath Brit Responsibility: The Torah’s commandments are understood as a means of sanctifying human interaction and promoting justice—ensuring that divine worship is always paired with mishpat (justice)[judicial fair compensation of damages inflicted upon others] and chesed (loving-kindness), core aspects of derech eretz.

   Preparation for Revelation: Before receiving the Torah, the Israelites are instructed to purify themselves (Exodus 19:10-15), indicating that an internal and external refinement—consistent with derech eretz—is necessary for divine encounter. Israel only received the first two commandments due to their failure to not approach their wives 3 days prior to the revelation.

   Interpersonal Obligations: The prophetic mussar as expressed through the repetition of the Ten Commandments, in Sh’mot and D’varim, serves as precedents to remember how HaShem judged the Gods of Egypt and Paro. This remembering the judgment against other Gods directly understood through the comparative precedent rulings of (honor parents, refrain from theft, murder, and falsehood etc). This Torah common law which learns through comparison of Case/Rule to similar Case/Rule defines T’NaCH and Talmudic Common law/משנה תורה. Common law underscores the essential priority that Torah observance NOT purely ritualistic like the halachot found in the Shulkan Aruch, but hinges on ethical prophetic mussar dedications of k’vanna.

   The sages elaborate that derech eretz applies to various aspects of life, from business ethics to social interaction. For example, Pirkei Avot (2:2) teaches that Torah study must accompany work, highlighting the balance between spiritual pursuits and practical living. This balance reflects the idea that religious observance detached from reality or from ethical behavior is incomplete.

   Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch elaborates that derech eretz represents a lifestyle of responsibility, professionalism, and respect that gives meaning to Torah observance. Similarly, the Maharal of Prague emphasizes that derech eretz relates to personal discipline, showing how the individual becomes a vessel capable of receiving Torah.

   In summary, derech eretz frames Torah as a way to elevate and refine human existence, but it starts with how individuals conduct themselves in the mundane world. Thus, the revelation at Sinai did not impose divine commandments on people divorced from ethical behavior; instead, it built upon a foundation that was already rooted in respect, justice, and decency—hallmarks of derech eretz.

   Fasting may also lead to ketone production, providing an alternative energy source for the brain. The ability to switch between glucose and ketones efficiently is called metabolic flexibility. When we fast, our body adapts to the absence of incoming nutrients. As glycogen levels drop, our body starts breaking down stored fats (triglycerides) into fatty acids. These fatty acids are then converted into ketone bodies (such as beta-hydroxybutyrate or BHB) in the liver. Ketones serve as an alternative fuel source for our brain, heart, and other tissues.

   Jin Shin Jyutsu/Shiatsu seeks to increase insulin acceptance and blood sugar dysregulation. Normal fasting blood sugar levels range below 100 mg/dL. My theory concerning glucose addiction of the brain, supported by research that suggest insulin levels affects the brain’s dopamine systems, involved in drug addiction and many neuropsychiatric conditions. Fatty liver and lack of exercise two main contributing factors of insulin resistance.

   Excess cortisol, known as Cushing’s syndrome, can counteract the effects of insulin and consequent insulin resistance. Hypothyroidism, underactive thyroid another consideration. The thyroid plays a large function in regulating metabolism. Have experienced a much slower metabolism when digesting food. The thyroid influences glucose metabolism. Have started a physical exercise program of running stairs and 100 sit-ups. Some argue that a moderate-intensity exercise can increase glucose uptake by at least 40%.

   The transition from glucose to ketones typically takes around 24 to 36 hours, as you mentioned. However, individual variations exist—some people adapt faster, while others take a bit longer. Ketones may improve insulin sensitivity, which is beneficial for managing blood sugar levels. Ketones may improve insulin sensitivity, which is beneficial for managing blood sugar levels. Some people report increased mental clarity and focus during ketosis. Fasting triggers autophagy—a cellular process that cleans up damaged components and promotes longevity. Longer fasts (24 hours or more) can lead to deeper ketosis and more pronounced metabolic adaptations.

   Loading...

   Reply

10. Israeli foreign policy: The fundamental distinction which separates strategic from tactical conflicts.

    French influence, like UNSCR 242 and UN Resolution 1701 which established UNIFIL, does this qualify as great power imperialism which seeks to dominate the balance of power in the Middle East at the expense of Israel?

    France has long sought to mediate in the Arab-Israeli conflict, attempting to maintain ties with both Israel and Arab states while promoting regional stability. However, critics argue that France’s policies often tilt toward Arab interests, especially concerning Palestinian statehood and Lebanese sovereignty, which creates friction with Israel.

    UNSCR 242, authored in part by France after the Six-Day War, reflects this balancing effort. Its wording—calling for Israel’s withdrawal from “territories occupied,” without specifying “all” territories—invites differing interpretations. France has used this ambiguity to push for diplomatic solutions, but Israeli officials often view it as undermining their sovereignty.

    Israel also criticizes the inconsistent enforcement of the resolution, as some UN actions treat it as though it carries the force of Chapter VII (which authorizes military or economic sanctions) rather than Chapter VI (which only encourages peaceful negotiations). This discrepancy fosters a perception that international powers limit Israel’s autonomy, forcing it into unwanted compromises.

    Similarly, Israel views UNIFIL (the UN peacekeeping force in southern Lebanon) as an ineffective presence, unable to contain Hezbollah’s growing influence and military buildup. France’s support for UNIFIL aligns with its broader diplomatic strategy of de-escalation through dialogue rather than military action. Yet Israel interprets these efforts as prioritizing Lebanese sovereignty at the expense of its own security. For example, Hezbollah’s access to southern Lebanon, despite UNIFIL’s mandate, illustrates the mission’s inability to enforce its terms effectively, frustrating Israeli defense efforts.

    Israel makes similar critiques of UNRWA, the UN agency responsible for Palestinian refugees, arguing that it perpetuates refugee status rather than seeking durable solutions. Critics accuse France and other European nations of supporting these UN frameworks to maintain regional influence while side-lining Israeli security concerns.

    Both UNIFIL and UNRWA, from Israel’s perspective, reflect international mechanisms that constrain Israel’s ability to act decisively, leaving perceived threats unaddressed. France’s Middle East policies, including UNSCR 242 and UNIFIL, aim to bolster diplomatic influence by creating cooperative structures. However, Israeli officials interpret these frameworks as limiting their sovereignty, shaping a regional power balance that favors Arab interests.

    This tension underscores the complex nature of French-Israeli relations, where France’s pursuit of diplomacy clashes with Israel’s need for security autonomy. Therefore, after the latest UNGA condemnation of Israel based upon the fraud of Chapter VII, Israel shall issue its own ultimatum against the UN.

    Either the UN 1) recognizes Israel as a country in the region of the Middle East 2) Annuls UNSCR 242 and 3) Expels France as a permanent member of the UN Security Council; based upon the reality that France lost WWII. If the UN fails to obey this Israeli ultimatum, then Israel breaks off all diplomatic relations with the UN and expels it from Lebanon, Gaza, Samaria, and Israel.

    This tension between Israel’s security needs and the international community’s diplomatic efforts underscores the complexities of the Arab-Israeli conflict. France’s role, while aimed at fostering stability, is often viewed by Israel as an impediment to its sovereignty and security. The proposed ultimatum illustrates the frustration and urgency felt by Israel in navigating its diplomatic relations amidst ongoing challenges. As the situation continues to evolve, these dynamics will play a crucial role in shaping future interactions between Israel, France, and the broader international community.

    Post UNSCR 242, the UN has grossly failed to acknowledge and address the First Cause of all Arab Israeli Wars: Arab racism which continues to view Israel as a dhimmi Crusader colony imposed upon the Middle East after the Ottoman defeat in WWI. Arab racism which absolutely rejects Jewish equal rights to self determination in the Middle East.

    The interplay between French diplomatic efforts and Israeli security concerns encapsulates the broader challenges of the Arab-Israeli conflict. As Israel navigates its diplomatic relations amidst perceived international pressures, the call for recognition of its sovereignty and security needs reflects a profound frustration with the current state of affairs. The complexities of racism, historical narratives, and geopolitical interests will continue to shape the dialogue and actions of all parties involved in this enduring conflict.

    France was one of the first countries to recognise the new State and establish diplomatic relations as early as 1949. However, France is also the friend of the Palestinian people and supports the creation of a Palestinian State, living within secure and recognised borders alongside Israel, with Jerusalem as the capital of both States.

    In 2010, France raised the status of the General Delegation of Palestine in France, which became the Mission of Palestine and is led by an ambassador. In November 2012, France voted in favour of the status of non-member observer State at the United Nations, and in September 2015 for the placing of the Palestinian flag at the UN.

    France calls for compliance with international law, in particular the relevant United Nations resolutions. Since when did the 242 Chapter VI suggestion switch to “international law”?

    Therefore, France promotes a two-state solution, which duplicates the two-state solution imposed upon defeated Nazi Germany. Furthermore France promotes a fair solution regarding ’48 & ’67 Arab refugees with the demand for a forced population transfer of Israeli settler populations living within Samaria and E. Jerusalem. France also calls on Israel to fully comply with “international humanitarian law”, yet never troubles the UN to define this political rhetoric propaganda jargon! France supports the creation of an independent, viable, and sovereign Palestinian State and is supporting the Palestinian Authority on the path to establishing a future Palestinian State.

    Oblivious to the central fact that Israel won the ’48 and ’67 wars; that the PLO and Hamas constitutions call for genocide of the Jewish state. Despite these obvious facts, France remains particularly concerned about the living conditions of Palestinians, which Paris intrinsically links to the resolution of the conflict between an Independent nation vs. Arab refugee populations who have no country of their own. Trump’s Abraham Accords fundamentally rejects this box-thinking which limits peace to the Middle East to resolving the Israel Palestine conflict.

    France had no such humanitarian concerns for the living conditions of Jews forced to live in European ghetto dungeons for 3 Centuries. The political rhetoric propaganda jargon: “France is committed to stability in the region and condemns all acts of violence and terrorism. France is unwaveringly committed to Israel’s security, which remains a key principle of its regional policy. Israel simply does not accept these Paris propaganda lies.

    This message presents a strong critique of French diplomacy in the Middle East, arguing that France’s efforts—especially concerning UNSCR 242, UNWRA, UNIFIL, and its support for Palestinian statehood—undermine Israel’s sovereignty and security. It reflects frustration over perceived French bias, calling attention to Israel’s dissatisfaction with how the UN and certain international actors address key issues in the conflict.

    The text also frames UNSCR 242 as deliberately ambiguous, suggesting that the resolution’s wording has allowed international powers to pressure Israel while ignoring Israel’s victories in 1948 and 1967. The message ties France’s diplomatic stance to deeper historical grievances, emphasizing that France’s support for Palestinian sovereignty echoes post-WWII policies but neglects Israel’s wartime triumphs and security needs.

    In addition, the critique targets the UN’s handling of resolutions under Chapter VI versus Chapter VII and accuses France of applying inconsistent standards. The message contends that these frameworks restrict Israel’s freedom of action, promoting Arab interests at Israel’s expense. Furthermore, it highlights frustration with the portrayal of “international humanitarian law,” arguing that these terms lack clarity and function as political rhetoric.

    The argument culminates with an ultimatum demanding changes from the UN, including recognition of Israel’s sovereignty as a country of the Middle East, the annulment of UNSCR 242, and the expulsion of France as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, based upon the precedent of the expulsion of Taiwan. If unmet, it suggests Israel should sever ties with the UN and expel its presence from key areas within the Middle East. This ultimatum reflects a broader critique of how international diplomacy, as seen from this perspective, hampers Israel’s right to self-defence and autonomy.

    Loading...

    Reply

11. Does France view Israel as a strategic threat to French strategic interests to dominate all states in the Middle East, and Israel in particular based upon UN Resolution 242?

    The 1956 Suez Crisis, where Israel’s military success caught Paris and London off guard, marked a significant shift in power dynamics. The crisis demonstrated that colonial powers could no longer unilaterally dictate outcomes in the region, leading to a reassessment of their strategies. This event forced both Paris and London to reassess their strategies and acknowledge the rising influence of local and regional actors.

    Israel’s victory in 1967 further solidified its position in the region, complicating French and British ambitions. The changing geopolitical landscape necessitated a more nuanced approach from these countries, particularly as emerging Arab nationalism began to reshape alliances. The complexities of French interests and the historical legacies that influence current policies. The interplay between colonial legacies, strategic interests, and regional power dynamics is indeed critical for a comprehensive understanding of France’s role in the Middle East.

    The interplay between colonial legacies, strategic interests, and regional power dynamics remains critical for understanding France’s current policies in the Middle East. France’s historical ties, economic interests, and political strategies continue to be shaped by these complex factors.

    France’s colonial history and ambitions in the Middle East, particularly post-World War I, shaped its initial support for Israel. However, as regional dynamics evolved, especially with the rise of Arab nationalism and the influence of local actors, France’s policies had to adapt. UN Resolution 242’s calls for withdrawal from territories “occupied in the 1967 war” conveniently ignores the UN condemnation of Jordan in 1950 for its illegal annexation of Samaria which Jordan re-named “West Bank”. Withdrawal from territories occupied in the 1967 war, simply political rhetoric propaganda and nothing more. Simply not the place of either France, Britain or any UN Security Council Country to unilaterally determine that the land of Samaria constitutes as “occupied territories”!

    France’s support for this UN SCR promotes the propaganda rhetoric that demands a return to the pre-war status quo. Again simply not the place of any country sitting in the UN Security Council to behave as if Israel existed as a Mandate Protectorate of the UN! Regarding UN Resolution 242, it calls for the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the 1967 war and emphasizes the need for a just and lasting peace – absolute Great Power rubbish. The UNSC Resolution treats Israel as a defeated inferior race which must submit to the Will of the Great Powers who decide the international borders of the Jewish State!

    The notion: [The designation of territories as “occupied” continues to spark debate, particularly regarding the historical context of Jordan’s annexation of the West Bank.], utter and absolute rubbish. Jordan attacked Israel in the June 1967 War. Jordan illegally annexed Samaria following the 1948 War. These simple facts not subject to debate!

    The UN SCR 242 abomination of UN Great Power imperialism compares to the Oct 7th Hamas invasion of Israel in 2023 and the condemnations by the ICC in support of S. Africa’s slander of Genocide. A slander that compares to: the Jews poisoned the wells, or the Jews murdered Xtian babies to make matza bread which lead to bloody pogroms! European demands for Israel not to capture Rafah and the Philadelphia Corridor based upon pie in the sky speculation that Israel would slaughter 10s of thousands of Gaza civilians! Complete and utter rubbish political trash which caused student riots in major Universities across Europe and the United States.

    UN Resolution 242 as a product of “Great Power imperialism” highlights a common viewpoint that sees the resolution as undermining Israel’s legitimacy and sovereignty. The framing of territories as “occupied” can be interpreted as a politicization of historical realities, particularly regarding Jordan’s actions before 1967. Parallels between historical injustices and current events, like the actions of Hamas and international responses, reflects a broader sentiment of frustration with perceived double standards in international law and diplomacy. This perspective argues that the historical mistreatment of Jews has often been ignored or minimized in contemporary discourse.

    Goyim lynch mobs have a long bloody history guilty of countless war-crimes committed against the Jewish people. Hundreds of years after Spain expelled all Jews and thereafter instituted the barbaric Inquisition followed by belated apologies by current Spanish governments today does not amount to squat! Fact: On Oct 7th 2023 Hamas invaded and murdered over 1200 Israelis and stole some 250 hostages, many of whom have since died under Hamas cruel oppression. Fact: the Red Cross has never visited any of these stolen Israeli hostages. Fact: International demands for an immediate Cease Fire totally ignore the plight of the remaining stolen Israeli hostages cruelly tortured by Hamas today!

    The critique of UN Resolution 242 as a manifestation of “Great Power imperialism” stems from the perception that the resolution undermines Israel’s legitimacy and sovereignty. This viewpoint emphasizes the politicization of historical realities, particularly regarding Jordan’s annexation of the West Bank prior to 1967. The characterization of territories as “occupied” is seen as an attempt to manipulate the historical narrative.

    The parallels drawn between historical injustices and current events, such as the actions of Hamas and international responses, reflect a broader sentiment of frustration with perceived double standards in international law and diplomacy. This perspective contends that the historical mistreatment of Jewish people has often been disregarded or trivialized in contemporary discourse. Specific incidents, such as the Hamas invasion on Oct 7th, 2023, resulting in the murder of over 1200 Israelis and the theft of 250 hostages, are pointed out to emphasize the ongoing challenges faced by Jewish communities. The Red Cross’s failure to visit these stolen Israeli hostages and international demands for an immediate cease-fire without addressing the plight of the remaining hostages serve to illustrate the perceived disregard for Jewish suffering.

    Loading...

    Reply

12. The phrase: From the River to the Sea Palestine will be free. In Arabic its: From water to water Palestine will be Arab. [[[[من الماء إلى الماء، فلسطين ستكون عربية.]]] Some argue that it rhymes better and is linguistically more elegant. Arab racism absolutely rejects as absurd the idea that dhimmi Jewish slaves have equal rights to self determination. This Arab racism does not limit itself to Arabs. Britain France and Germans too. This racism flows in the blood of European barbarians guilty of the Shoah. Europeans reject the Jewish state just as emphatically as do racist Arabs. Not limited to Nazis, the British White Paper and French UNSCR242 absolutely rejects the Israeli victory in the June 1967 War.

    Einat Wilf on Israel, Antisemitism and a New Middle East / The Macdonald-Laurier Institute (youtube.com)

    While some argue that the conflict is primarily cultural or political, others recognize the importance of religious components. Israel’s process of “rejudaization” since 1967 exemplifies this paradox. Zionism, initially a secularized messianic movement, has grappled with its religious undercurrents and conflicts throughout its history. The use of religious ideas remains psychologically and ideologically consistent with political strategic objectives.

    The cultural differences between Arabs and Jews are substantial. These communities differ in religion, language, culture, nation, and identity. The Arab minority (approximately 18% of Israel’s population) maintains its distinct identity, language (Arabic), and cultural practices. They are subdivided into Muslims, Christians, and Druze. Arabic is the mother tongue of most Arab citizens, while Hebrew serves as the state’s language for Jews. Respective communities remain separate, with distinct schools, civil society organizations, and social classes.

    Historical grievances, territorial disputes, and conflicting national narratives have fueled animosity between Arabs and Jews. The contested nature of religious sites, such as the Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif in Jerusalem, adds another layer of complexity. These sites hold immense religious significance for both communities.

    Both Arab and Jewish nationalist movements have sought self-determination and sovereignty, often at the expense of the other. Within each society, political factions and leaders have shaped public opinion, sometimes exacerbating tensions. Radical elements on both sides have perpetuated hatred and mistrust.

    The involvement of external powers (such as Britain during the Mandate period and the United States today) has further complicated the conflict. Geopolitical interests intersect with religious and nationalist dynamics. Media narratives, historical revisionism, and propaganda have contributed to negative stereotypes and mutual distrust. The Arab-Jewish conflict is deeply rooted in historical, cultural, and religious factors. Acknowledging these complexities is essential for any meaningful path toward a negotiated face to face direct negotiations.

    The presentation of a theory which explains the Arab/Israeli wars, it seems to me, requires a simplification of an overly complex conflict. The conflict basically began with post WWI the French and British mandates which carved up Ottoman Greater Syria. The strategic interests of the victors of WWI held the Arab and Jewish populations of the Middle East in very low regard. The Foreign policies of both these triumvirate European empires viewed the ruled subject peoples comparable to the relationship of feudal lords to their peasant serf populations. Divide and conquer, pitting one set of conquered serfs against an opposing set of conquered slaves. Better that racial conflicts prevail that active organized revolts against the ruling empires.

    The British employed this policy throughout post WWI Indian rule. Britain actively pitted Hindus against Muslim populations. The Great War had slaughtered an entire generation of European youth. Together with the wealth and resources of both empires. In this context, African political movements seized the opportunity to assert their demands and shape their futures.

    The French developed strong settler populations, known as pieds-noirs. Just as had the British in Northern Ireland. African political parties demanded universal suffrage and an end to reserved seats for settlers in territorial legislatures. Real power sharing in matters of legislation, directly compares to revolutionary American condemnation of “taxation without representations” made against the British Crown. These historical events highlight the intricate dance between colonial powers and the aspiration of colonized peoples. The struggle for independence, citizenship, and representation shaped the destinies of these regions.

    Greater Syria particularly focuses upon the secret Sykes-Picot Agreement which President Wilson refused to either recognize nor validate in his post war peace proposals. The Sykes-Picot Agreement did not limit itself to Britain and France but enjoyed the imperialist assent of both Russia and Italy. Its purpose: to define the respective empires mutually agreed-upon spheres of influence and control in the eventual partition of the Ottoman Empire. It effectively divided the Ottoman provinces outside the Arabian Peninsula into areas of British and French control, consequent to the fall of Czar imperial Russia to Germany.

    Had Russia not fallen in defeat, Russia would have seized as their spoils of war Istanbul and renamed it Constantinople. The victory of the Bolshevik revolution antagonized huge Western bigotry and racism against Communism. McCarthyism serves as a powerful example of this Western racism and bigotry.

    The French pitted Muslim and Xtian hatred and distrust against one another like the British did with the Arabs and the Jews in mandate Palestine. The imposition of colonial rule by British and France oftern exacerrbated existing ethnic and religious tensions, leading to unrest and resistance. The legacy of these decisions continues to impact the Middle East today with ongoing conflicts rooted in historical divisions and power struggles.

    French colonial policy in Vietnam, marked by several key factors that deeply affected the Vietnamese population. The native population, especially the educated minority, had no civil liberties under French oppressive rule. Their political freedoms, the French secret police severely restricted. The Vietnamese the ruling French feudal aristocrats excluded the subject feudal serf Vietnamese from the modern sector of the economy, including industry and trade. This economic Apartheid fueled resentment and hatred.

    Historian Shawn McHale notes that while reace shaped French attitudes toward the vietnamese, there existed little or no evidence of Vietnamese notions of race superiority and bigotry during the First Indochina War. But racist ideas of social Darwinism did infiltrate Vietnamese intellectuals before WWII. This influence shaped their discourse on race, adding complexity to the racial dynamics in Vietnam.

    The rise of Nazism and the crimes of the Shoah conclusively proves beyond any shadow of doubt that racism dominates European 20th Century societies. To assume that racism played but a minimal role in the current Middle East conflicts utterly juvenile.

    Throughout the 20th century, great power rivalries significantly shaped the fate of the Middle East. Colonial competition between Britain and France after World War I led to the creation of modern borders and nation-states in the region. These historical events set the stage for the complex relationships we see today. The Arab-Israeli conflict, with its roots in the British Mandate for Palestine, involved not only Jews and Arabs but also Christians. The arrival of Jewish immigrants and land purchases by Jewish organizations led to tensions and evictions of Arab peasants.

    Racism and bigotry, whether overt or subtle, impact how great powers interact with different communities in the Middle East. Arab, Christian, and Jewish populations experience varying degrees of influence, protection, and marginalization based on historical legacies and current geopolitical interests. The complexities of identity, religion, and ethnicity intersect with power dynamics, shaping alliances, conflicts, and economic ties.

    The Middle East is a mosaic of cultures, faiths, and histories. Great power involvement—whether driven by racism, strategic interests, or economic opportunities—adds layers of nuance to this intricate tapestry.

    The lastest Korean War Chapter VII UNGA ultimatum of war that dictates the revisionist history, “the defeat” of Israel in the June 1967 War. The 5 Security Council Members all voted unanimously for the 242 revisionist history of that encompassing Arab nations defeat.

    After Oct7th “Hamas does not represent the Palestinians” the statement by Biden when he visited Israel after this massacre. Hamas does represent the Palestinians. Oct 7th led to a wave of Gazan euphoria! Hamas not some “new” phenomenon! The 1972 slaughter of Israeli Olympic athletes in Munich Germany definitively serves as proof that Arab racism which absolutely rejects Jewish equal rights to self determination shapes the entire history of the Arab Israeli wars.

    All Arab Israeli wars that has witnessed the defeat of Arab Armies draws immediate EU, Russian, American cease fire interventions which prevents Israel winning a war by forcing Arab countries to unconditionally surrender. UN demands for a Cease-Fire, French demands for an arms boycott of Israel, antisemitic attack across France all seeks to prevent the earthquake like balance of power shift in the Middle East.

    Russia today compares to LBJ’s war in Vietnam after the June 1967 war. Pelosi’s criminal attempt to impeach President Trump, her trip to Taiwan an attempt to seize the reign of US Foreign Policy from President Trump; President Trump rejected the Ukraine joining NATO. Hence the criminal Pelosi attempted to impeach President Trump.

    The rigged 2020 US Presidential elections brought Joe Biden to power. Almost immediately thereafter Russia invaded the Ukraine. Why this war? Putin absolutely rejected the notion after Napoleon and Hitlers’ Armies invaded Russia through the Ukraine plains, that NATO put its troops on the Russian Ukraine border. President Kennedy rejected for the same exact reason Soviet nuclear missiles positioned in Cuba.

    Assuming (tefillat that the enemies of Israel in this more than 7 front war that Israel does not fall before the combined efforts of our enemies) that Israel WINS these wars and compels the signed unconditional surrender of Hezbollah in Lebanon, UNWRA, together with the Red Cross, ceases to exist across Gaza, Samaria and Israel. The eternal days of Palestinian refugees established by UNWRA have ended. An Arab government in Gaza can never again use Foreign Humanitarian Aid to enrich the 1% Arab militarist elite, who feels they have absolutely no responsibility to pay the salaries of school teachers across Gaza etc. That the common Arab feudal peasants exist as the wards of the United Nations humanitarian aid. UNRWA a Palestinian fraud.

    The “Not in our Name” assimilated kapo G’lut Jews, who dwell abroad and who oppose the Jewish state. They directly compare to the Torah story of Jewish cowards who demanded to return to Egypt in the days of Moshe; Jewish cowards who condemned the call of pre-Shoah Zionist leaders pleading to the Jews of the world to make aliyah to British Mandate Palestine. The Wilderness Generation has no portion in the world to come.

    The UN-nations only united in matters of Israel. The latest Chapter 7 UNGA ultimatum that Israel must pretend that it lost the June 1967, this ‘smug’ racism resembles racism that infiltrated and eventually collapsed the Weimar Republic. Anti-Zionism attacks where Jews live. Canada, the US, French, Britain the primary g’lut locations where Jews dwell. The word de-escalation has replaced Chamberlain’s “appeasement”! Israel resembles the ’38 Czech Republic that collapsed consequent to that coward PM’s 2-State Solution with Hitler!

    Hamas Oct7th attack seeks to dismantle the Jewish State in the Middle East. The latest UNGA Resolution/ultimatum too seeks to dismantle the Jewish State. The pogrom atrocities traumatized Israelis to re-experience the Shoah. Hamas refusal to return the stolen hostages and the no-strings attached international support for the establishment of a Palestinian state duplicates the intent of Security Council nations 242! Israel post the current War must issue its own ultimatum to the UN-nations: 1) Annul 242. 2) Recognize Israel as a State in the Middle East. Israel rejects the UN racism of pursuit of Arab racism which refuses to recognize Jewish equality to self determination.

    Loading...

    Reply

13. What diplomatic consequences of Israel breaking off all diplomatic relations with the United Nations and expelling the UN from all post 1967 lands and territories?

    Profile photo for Moshe Kerr
    Moshe Kerr

    Breaking off all diplomatic relations with the UN would drastically reduce European powers to dominate the balance of power in the Middle East.

    In the 1956 and post 1967 War, Britain and France attempted to treat Israel as a political pawn on the international chess board of Great Power domination of the Middle East states. Essential to grasp British and French strategic interests to seize the Suez canal in 1956. Had their plans succeeded Britain and France would have shared a domination in the balance of power in the Middle East as equals together with the US and USSR!!!

    Now weigh upon the opposing scales French strategic interests which caused that loser of WWII to assume it possessed the authority to write the UN 242 revisionist history, which coined the political rhetoric propaganda of land for peace, occupied territories, and the absurd notion that territory – not acquired through war. This revisionist history negates the whole of French and British imperialism throughout the Ages.

    Just and lasting peace … simple political rhetoric word salad propaganda. UN 242 attempts to force Israel to return to its 1948 Auschwitz-Birkenau borders. Just and lasting peace rhetoric word salad.

    Shalom a verb, while peace a noun. Big difference. Shalom requires trust. No trust No Shalom. Just that simple. In 1967 Arab States with their famous Three NOS to Israel clearly Israel and Arab countries did not trust one another.

    Therefore the peace in the Middle East propaganda rhetoric word salad … just propaganda and nothing more than propaganda which seeks to radically change the post 1967 balance of Power in the Middle East away from Israel as a great power in the region, back to being a political pawn. As prevailed in 1948, 1956, and before the June war in 1967.

    Just and lasting peace rhetoric word salad: Shalom a verb, while peace a noun. Big difference. Shalom requires trust. No trust No Shalom. Just that simple. In 1967 Arab States with their famous Three NOS to Israel, clearly Israel and Arab countries did not trust one another.

    Therefore the peace in the Middle East propaganda rhetoric word salad, just International great power propaganda. And nothing more than propaganda which seeks to radically change the post 1967 balance of Power in the Middle East away from Israel as a great power in the region back to it being a political pawn, as in 1948, 1956, and before the June war in 1967.

    If Israel broke off all diplomatic relations with the UN all UN Resolutions 242,, 338, 446, 2334 etc would become null and void. Would Britain or France or both break off diplomatic relations with Israel?

    Why? Because by Israel expelling the UN from the Middle East this would relegate France and Britain as minor pawns in the balance of power-sharing in the Middle East.

    By expelling the UN, Israel could undermine the legitimacy of multiple UN resolutions that have sought to address the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, potentially leading to a vacuum in international law and norms. The absence of UN presence could exacerbate humanitarian issues in the region, as the UN plays a crucial role in delivering aid and monitoring human rights.

    Egypt and Israel have a longstanding peace treaty (Camp David Accords of 1979), which has maintained a level of stability in their relationship. The expulsion of the UN could be seen as a provocative act, potentially heightening tensions in the region. Egypt might respond by reassessing its diplomatic stance, particularly if it feels that Israel is undermining regional stability. Egypt has strategic interests in maintaining a relationship with Israel, particularly regarding security cooperation and economic benefits. Breaking off relations could have significant repercussions for Egypt’s security and economic situation.

    While Egypt might not immediately break off diplomatic relations with Israel, the expulsion of the UN could strain their relationship. The decision would ultimately depend on a complex interplay of domestic pressures, regional dynamics, and strategic interests. While Egypt might strongly condemn Israel’s actions, it is unlikely to break off diplomatic relations. The peace treaty with Israel is too important to Egypt’s security and regional interests, and the consequences of breaking off relations would be significant.

    Britain and France have not taken such drastic measures, as have Jordan, Bahrain, Turkey, Bolivia, Colombia, Honduras, Chile, Belize, Brazil, South Africa and Chad have recalled their ambassadors to Israel or severed ties altogether in response to the conflict. Unlikely that either Britain or France will do likewise in the future.

    Britain and France have diplomatic relations with Israel, and both countries have strong economic ties with the country. Annual bilateral trade between Israel and the UK exceeds £6.1 billion, and over 300 known Israeli companies are operating in Britain. France is Israel’s 11th-greatest supplier of goods and represents Israel’s ninth-largest market.

    In April 2024, at least 130 British lawmakers wrote to Foreign Secretary David Cameron and Business Secretary Kemi Badenoch calling on the British government to halt arms sales to Israel. Pressure for an arms embargo has increased after an attack on a World Food Center convoy in Gaza, which killed seven aid workers, including three British nationals.

    Britain’s readiness to impose a ban is partly linked to Israel’s refusal to allow the International Committee of the Red Cross to visit the Sde Teiman detention center, where Palestinian prisoners are held. The Red Cross has yet to visit stolen Israeli Oct 7th hostages in accordance with its mandate obligations. Britain’s readiness to impose a partial arms ban upon Israel, partly linked to Israel’s refusal to allow the International Committee of the Red Cross to visit the Sde Teiman detention center, where Palestinian prisoners are held.

    Combining the possibility of Israel expelling the UN from the Middle East with the US terminating its NATO alliance in return for Russia withdrawing from Ukraine and Crimea presents a complex scenario with far-reaching consequences for global politics.

    European countries would face heightened security concerns without the US security guarantee provided by NATO, potentially leading to increased defence spending and a more assertive foreign policy. The US America First withdrawal from NATO would weaken Western unity and could lead to a more fragmented international order.

    The combination of these events could lead to increased regional instability in the Middle East and Eastern Europe, as power vacuums emerge and actors seek to exploit new opportunities. The global order could see the formation of new alliances, potentially shifting away from the traditional US-led system. While it could potentially lead to a resolution of the conflict in Ukraine, it also carries significant risks for global stability and security. The interplay of these events could have profound and long-lasting consequences for the international order.

    The US withdrawal from NATO and Israel’s expulsion of the UN could create a vacuum in the region, potentially leading to a closer alliance between Iran and some Arab states. This could be driven by shared resentment towards the US and Israel, along with economic and political interests.

    The US withdrawal from NATO could push the EU to seek closer ties with Russia, particularly in areas like trade and energy cooperation. This could be driven by the EU’s desire to maintain stability in its neighborhood and its dependence on Russian energy resources.

    Eastern European countries, feeling vulnerable without US security guarantees, could form a new security bloc, potentially including Turkey and Israel. This could be driven by shared concerns about Russian expansionism and a desire to maintain their independence.

    China, with its growing economic and political influence, could potentially mediate between Russia and the EU, forming a trilateral alliance. This could be driven by China’s desire to expand its global influence and its interest in securing its own economic interests.

    The scenario presented could lead to a complex and dynamic realignment of alliances in the Middle East and Eastern Europe. The formation of new alliances would be driven by a combination of factors, including shared interests, strategic concerns, and the shifting balance of power. The outcome of this realignment would have significant implications for global security and stability.

    Britain and France would likely struggle to maintain their traditional roles as power brokers in the Middle East. Their economic ties with Israel might not be enough to counterbalance the strategic shifts resulting from Israel’s actions. The US withdrawal from NATO could result in a fragmented approach to global security, with individual countries pursuing their interests, leading to potential conflicts and instability.

    This scenario suggests a highly complex and volatile geopolitical landscape, where the expulsion of the UN by Israel and the US’s withdrawal from NATO could catalyze significant shifts in alliances and power dynamics. The interplay of these events would likely lead to increased instability, necessitating careful navigation by all involved parties to mitigate potential conflicts and foster new forms of cooperation.

    If significant geopolitical shifts occur—such as a major power like the US withdrawing from its commitments or if member states begin to disregard UN resolutions en masse—this could erode the UN’s authority and operational capacity. The UN’s ability to effectively respond to global crises is crucial for its legitimacy. Continued failures to address major conflicts or humanitarian issues could lead to calls for reform or alternatives to the UN system.

    By removing the UN, Israel would effectively remove the international framework that allowed Britain and France to exert influence in the region. This would reduce their ability to act as power brokers and leave them as minor players in the Middle East.

    Before the Six-Day War in 1967, Israel was indeed in a vulnerable position. It was surrounded by hostile Arab states, and its security was precarious. The 1956 Suez Crisis, where Britain and France attempted to use Israel as a pawn, is a prime example of this vulnerability.

    The 1967 war significantly shifted the balance of power in the Middle East. Israel emerged victorious, gaining control of the Sinai Peninsula, the West Bank, and the Golan Heights. This victory significantly strengthened Israel’s military position and regional influence. Therefore, the expulsion of the UN would likely strengthen Israel’s position, not weaken it. It would remove a significant source of international pressure and allow Israel to operate with greater autonomy.

    Loading...

    Reply

14. Why do all the super commentaries written on the common law halachic codifications of the B’hag, Rif, Rosh, fail to learn these halachic codes as common law but rather pervert it, into a religious code which determines halachic ritual practices?

    Profile photo for Moshe Kerr
    The transformation in Jewish scholarship reflects a complex interplay of historical, cultural, and methodological factors. The shift from a common law perspective to a more dogmatic interpretation has had profound implications for how halacha is understood and applied today. A deeper engagement with the Talmud’s inherent common law characteristics could potentially restore the dynamism and adaptability that once defined Jewish legal thought.

    This perspective underscores the need for renewed scholarship that appreciates the historical context and the original methodologies of earlier thinkers.

    Rabbi Isaac ben Melchizedek of Siponto, author of his famous common law halachic codification, like the Rif, Rosh, and the Baali Tosafot all learned the Talmud as Common law. The Raavan, by stark contrast, focused primarily on Talmudic commentary. His expertise lay in dissecting and explaining the intricate legal discussions found in the Talmud.

    Avignon, one of the key cities in Provence where the Raavan lived, a hub for scholarly discourse and legal thought. Avignon’s strategic location on the trade route between Italy and Spain contributed to its prosperity. The city benefited from heavy river traffic, and craftsmen’s guilds thrived. Enriched noblemen, knights, and ombudsmen gained prominence, and the city experienced a resurgence of Gallo-Roman dimensions.

    During the 12th century, Scholasticism gained prominence. It was characterized by a systematic and rational approach to theology. Scholars engaged in rigorous debate, often using dialectical methods to explore theological questions.

    The Raavan’s pilpul sh’itta of learning strove to elucidate Talmudic passages, often based upon subtle legal technicalities. The contrast with the sh’itta practiced by T’NaCH and Talmudic common law scholarship, simply day vs. night, from one another.

    Rabbi Moses ben Nachman (Ramban): Born in 1194 and died in 1270. The Rosh born in 1250 in Cologne, Holy Roman Empire. He died in 1327 in Toledo. The Rosh a direct descendant of the Raavan and a student of the Maharam (Rabbi Meir of Rothenburg).

    The MaHaRaM (Reb Meir) born in Worms Germany around the year 1220. Rabbi Meir an important Baali Tosafot scholar. He witnessed the burning of the Talmud in Paris in 1242. The Rosh a disciple of Rabbi Meir who died illegally imprisoned in a Xtian dungeon.

    Rabbi Meir, known as “Maharam on the Sanhedrin”, weighed interpretations made by Rashi and the Tosafists.

    Talmudic law was rooted in communal norms, legal reasoning, and interpretations of biblical texts. Halacha, serves as a precedent for interpreting the Mishnah. Some scholars have argued that halacha bridges the gap between the Mishna’s brevity and real-world application.

    The Gemara’s dialectical method—question and answer, challenge and response—duplicates a Three man Torts court where one judge appointed as the prosecutor and an opposing judge appointed as the defense attorney. The opposing court justices both argue the case before the court based upon how they learn opposing judicial legal precedents.

    Rabbi Meir’s methodology may have been more focused on the textual and Greek philosophical aspects of Talmudic law, emphasizing interpretations rather than the dynamic common law prophetic mussar framework. He might have been more inclined to engage with assimilated philosophical underpinnings of law rather than the pragmatic aspects of legal reasoning.

    Rabbi Meir’s analysis involved weighing interpretations of previous authorities, which may have led him to prioritize established rulings instead of exploring the fluidity and adaptability typical of common law halachic משנה תורה. The historical context in which Rabbi Meir operated, including the socio-political environment and the pressures faced by Jewish communities, may have shaped his legal perspective, leading him to adopt a more rigid interpretation.

    While Rabbi Meir engaged deeply with textual interpretation, the Rosh’s codification efforts exemplified a practical application of Talmudic common law, highlighting the evolving nature of halachic thought.

    The Raavan, Rabbi Avraham ben Nathan, a medieval Jewish scholar. He lived in Provence (southern France) during the 12th century. His work primarily focused on Talmudic commentary. Jewish courts (beit din), prior to the mass expulsion of Jews from Judea by the Romans, applied Talmudic principles to resolve disputes, emphasizing judicial fairness and equity. Talmudic Sages engaged in legal reasoning, interpreting existing laws and adapting them to specific cases. Why didn’t Maharam approach the Talmud as a common law legal system?

    The Ramban, his Torah commentary: renowned for weaving law, Greek philosophy, and mysticism as a esoteric understanding of how to read the Chumash. When it comes to the Talmud, the Ramban’s approach differs. Unlike Rashi, who meticulously elucidated individual words and phrases by means of comparing other Talmudic – Bavli or Yerushalmi source precedents, and also Midrashic source precedents to define his common law p’shat of the Chumash. Rashi p’shat on the Talmud more compares to a dictionary of definitions.

    The Ramban, contrasts, he primarily focused on explaining entire biblical passages, their context, and general issues connected to the text. A addiction to p’shat explanation of Torah verses which makes his sh’itta methodology more akin to the literalist p’shat school of Ibn Ezra.

    While he engaged with the commentaries of his predecessors (including Rashi, Ibn Ezra, and others), his Talmudic commentary doesn’t necessarily teach “common law” in the same way that the Piskei HaRosh does. Unlike Rashi, who often focused on linguistic details, the Ramban aimed to explain the broader meaning of verses. His commentary touches on law, philosophy, and mystical concepts.

    His commentary delved into context, historical background, and broader themes. When it comes to the Talmud, he doesn’t meticulously dissect individual words like Rashi does. While Rashi draws from Talmudic and Midrashic precedents, the Ramban’s approach is more holistic, akin to the literalist p’shat school of Ibn Ezra.

    In 1232, during the נידוי polemics about Rambam’s (Maimonides’) works, Ramban attempted a compromise. While Rambam’s writings wouldn’t be banned, there would be a minimum age for studying philosophy and science. His attempt didn’t succeed.

    Unlike Rashi, who meticulously dissected individual words and phrases by comparing Talmudic and Midrashic precedents, the Ramban primarily focused on explaining entire biblical passages and their context. His Talmudic commentary doesn’t necessarily teach “common law” in the same way as the Rif codification.

    The Ramban resembles the bi-polar p’shat which separated Rashi Common law p’shat on the Chumash from Rashi Talmudic dictionary of words. The Ramban Talmudic commentary so esoteric and terse, its virtually undecipherable.

    The Ramban wrote his monumental commentary on the Chumash while living in Jerusalem. The bi-polar Talmudic commentary gap day and night different from one another. Unlike some other commentators who meticulously dissect individual words or phrases, Ramban takes a broader approach. His focus lies in explaining entire passages, their context, and overarching themes.

    The Rashba (Rabbi Shlomo ben Aderet): Among the later Rishonim (medieval Jewish scholars), the Rashba engaged deeply with Ramban’s commentary. His own Talmudic works were heavily influenced by Ramban’s writings. The Rashba was known for his sharp intellect and legal acumen, and he sought to unravel the layers of Ramban’s mystical language.

    The Burning of Talmudic Manuscripts: In 1242, King Louis IX of France ordered the burning of 24 cartloads, virtually all Talmudic manuscripts in France. This act, part of a broader pattern of anti-Jewish sentiment and persecution in medieval Europe. The Church viewed the Talmud as a threat. And its destruction in Paris 1242, was meant to suppress Jewish religious and legal teachings.

    The loss of these manuscripts was devastating for Jewish scholarship. Many texts were lost forever, and surviving scholars faced challenges in reconstructing and preserving Jewish knowledge. Some scholars, including Ramban, had to rely on memory and oral transmission to continue their work.

    Ramban’s esoteric language wasn’t unique to the Talmudic commentary alone. His commentary on the Torah (especially the Book of Exodus) also exhibits this style. He often began with Rashi’s explanation (a more straightforward approach) and then delved deeper into Kabbalah and Oral Tradition. His respectful criticism of other commentators, including Rashi, Ibn Ezra, and the Rambam, reflects his independent thinking.

    Ramban’s esoteric commentary isn’t solely a reaction to persecution, but it’s undoubtedly intertwined with the tumultuous times he lived in. His mystical insights remain a testament to the resilience of Jewish scholarship even in the face of adversity.

    Aristotle’s school of logic, his ideas on natural law, and ethical framework left an indelible mark on Rambam’s thought. Rambam’s exposure to Roman jurisprudence likely occurred during his time in Egypt, where Roman and Islamic legal systems coexisted. Roman law fascinated him, especially its systematic organization and clarity. The Roman legal tradition emphasized codification—arranging laws into comprehensive codes. Rambam admired this approach and sought to apply it to Jewish law.

    The Mishneh Torah, Rambam’s magnum opus, embodies this Roman-inspired vision. He aimed to create a comprehensive legal code covering all aspects of Jewish life. Like Roman statutes, the Mishneh Torah is organized thematically, with clear divisions and subdivisions. The intent of his Mishna Torah, to provide a single authoritative source for Jewish law, akin to the Roman legal codes!

    Rambam’s fusion of Aristotelian logic and Roman legal structure served a purpose: unity and accessibility. In his introduction to the Mishneh Torah, Rambam boldly claimed that if one studied the Scriptures and then read his work, they would grasp the entire oral law. His Mishneh Torah was meant to be a companion to the Written Torah, a second pillar of knowledge. This echoes the Roman legal tradition of codifications which provide a single reference for legal matters.

    Rambam deeply engaged with Aristotelian philosophy. Aristotle’s logical framework captivated him, especially the Organon, which provided tools for systematic analysis and deduction. Rambam admired the rigor of Aristotelian reasoning. Rambam’s embrace of Aristotle’s logic and Roman legal principles a deliberate choice to create a coherent, accessible legal code.

    Assimilated Rambam likewise embraced Aristotle’s concept of natural law. Aristotle believed that certain ethical principles were inherent in human nature—universal moral truths transcending cultural boundaries. He organized his statute law code, akin to Roman legal codes. He accepted the Islamic monotheistic premise of a Universal God.

    Clearly the Reshonim scholars, specifically of Golden Age Spain, directly influenced by the rediscovery of the Hannukka Civil War, some 1000 years previous. That earlier Jewish Civil War pitted the assimilated Tzeddukim against the P’rushim/rabbis who favored the logic system taught by Rabbi Akiva. But Ramban did not “convert”, he rejected the Rambam’s avoda zara embrace the “Trinity” of Aristotle’s natural law/Universal one God monotheism.

    Both men failed to learn the world view of the T’NaCH as prophetic mussar common law. Rashi’s focus on פשוטו של מקרא – the plain sense of Scripture – serves to conceal that fact that most of Rashi’s precedents on Torah p’sukim come from Talmudic and Midrashic sources!

    Rashi like the Ramban and the Rosh witnessed the destruction of entire Jewish communities. Toward the end of his life, Rashi witnessed the horrors and massacres of the First Crusade (1096). His mentors and colleagues in Speyer, Worms, and Mainz were slaughtered. The great yeshiva of Rabbenu Gershom disappeared. This disaster directly compares to the burning of the Talmud in Paris 1242 which so impacted scholarship produced by the Ramban and Rosh.

    All Jewish scholarship had to overcome the censorship of hostile Goyim among both Xtian and Muslim societies, which dominated Europe and the Middle East. The historical context of this time of political anarchy and turmoil —a context marked by upheaval, loss of life in Jewish communities across Europe and the Middle East, clearly caused all Reshonim scholars to conceal their scholarship through writing in esoteric methodologies.

    During the medieval period, Xstian and Muslim societies often viewed Jews with suspicion, leading to censorship, persecution, blood libels, pogroms, and forced mass population transfers. This forced Reshonim scholars (950 to 1450 CE) to develop esoteric writing methods. There different techniques of esoteric writng, allowed them to convey deeper insights while navigating the violent and corrosive constraints of living as scattered Jewish refugee populations which had no political or social rights.

    To shield ordinary people from radical ideas that challenged societal norms, scholars sometimes encoded their writings. This protective layer allowed them to communicate subtly without causing upheaval.

    The Reshonim employed esoteric methodologies to circumvent hostile Goyim censorship. Much like as did the Russian revolutionaries during the late 19th Century, who employed cryptic language so as not arouse the wrath of the Czar’s secret police bureaucracy. All Reshonim scholars employed esoteric sh’ittot to by-pass the direct threat of arousing a pogrom or expulsion of Jews from a country.

    Why do all the super commentaries written on the common law halachic codifications of the B’hag, Rif, Rosh, fail to learn these halachic codes as common law but rather pervert it, by treating courtroom precedent based law into a religious code which determines halachic ritual practices?

    The distinction between viewing halachic codifications, such as those of the B’hag, Rif, and Rosh, and Baali Tosafot commentaries as “common law” versus “religious law” not simply rooted in differing interpretations and methodologies within Jewish legal scholarship.

    The Talmud indeed functions as a common law system, where legal principles evolve through debate, precedent, and case law. This dynamic aspect allows for flexibility and adaptation over time. The rise of authoritative legal codes (e.g., the Shulchan Aruch) in the medieval period created a framework that emphasized fixed rules over the dynamic nature of common law reasoning\פרדס logic. The consolidation of rabbinic authority and the establishment of standardized practices led to a focus on uniformity and adherence to established rulings rather than the fluidity of debate found in the Talmud.

    The traditional method of studying Talmud through chevruta (partner study) and dialectical reasoning diminished in some circles, replaced by a more didactic approach that prioritized rote learning of legal rulings. Coupled and compounded by the fact that the invention of the printing press allowed for widespread dissemination of texts, which sometimes led to a preference for the printed word as definitive, limiting interpretative engagement.

    The influence of legal formalism in broader legal systems may have impacted Jewish scholarship, promoting a more rigid approach to law that mirrors statutory frameworks. The development of systematic theological frameworks within Judaism often emphasized adherence to doctrine over the interpretive flexibility inherent in common law.

    These factors combined to create a significant shift in Jewish scholarship, leading to a more rigid, dogmatic interpretation of Talmudic texts. This transformation has had lasting implications for how halacha is understood and applied in contemporary Jewish life, moving away from the dynamic, common law characteristics that were once central to Talmudic study.

    The distinction between viewing halachic codes as common law versus religious law highlights a critical misunderstanding in contemporary scholarship. The Talmud’s common law characteristics, including debate and precedent, are often overshadowed by rigid interpretations that treat these laws as static rituals. Assimilation to the formalism of Christian and Islamic legal traditions directly influenced Jewish scholarship. Promoting a more rigid approach that mirrors Creed-like statutory dogmatism frameworks rather than the fluidity inherent in Talmudic discourse.

    The complex interplay of historical, cultural, and methodological factors that shaped Jewish legal thought. By demanding Jewish t’shuva back to the common law characteristics of Talmudic discourse, future scholars can potentially restore the dynamism that once defined halachic interpretation, fostering a more adaptable and relevant approach to Jewish law today. This perspective invites a deeper exploration of how the rich legacy of earlier scholars can inform contemporary understandings of halacha.

    The transition from a common law approach, as exemplified by Rabbi Isaac ben Melchizedek of Siponto, the B’HaG, and the Baali Tosafot, to a focus on Talmudic commentary, as seen in the Raavan, reflects the complexity of Jewish legal thought. The socio-political context of Avignon, a hub for scholarly discourse and legal thought, and the emergence of Scholasticism during the 12th century, characterized by systematic and rational theological approaches, further influenced this shift.

    Rabbi Moses ben Nachman (Ramban) and the Rosh, both descendants of the Raavan, adopted different methodologies in their scholarship. The Ramban, known for weaving law, Greek philosophy, and mysticism in his Torah commentary, contrasts with Rashi’s meticulous dissection of individual words and phrases. The Rosh, on the other hand, focused on practical applications of Talmudic common law, highlighting the evolving nature of halachic thought.

    The MaHaRaM, Rabbi Meir, a prominent Baali Tosafot scholar, engaged with interpretations made by Rashi and the Tosafists, possibly emphasizing textual and philosophical aspects over the dynamic common law framework. The historical context, including the socio-political environment and pressures faced by Jewish communities, may have shaped his legal perspective, leading to a more rigid interpretation.

    The loss of Talmudic manuscripts in the burning of 1242 in Paris and the challenges faced by Jewish scholars in preserving Jewish פרדס Oral Torah knowledge further influenced the development of esoteric and terse commentaries, such as those by the Ramban.

    The rise of authoritative legal codes, like the Shulchan Aruch, and the influence of legal formalism in broader legal systems promoted a more rigid approach to law, emphasizing fixed rules over the dynamic nature of common law reasoning. The shift from dialectical reasoning in chevruta study to a more didactic approach also contributed to the transformation of Jewish legal thought.

    With the rise of the Jewish state in 1948 Independence War, the cream has returned and floated to the top. Can the Jewish people restore the Written Torah as the Constitution of the Jewish Republic of Israel. Can the Jewish people restore the judicial pursuit of justice as the faith of Torah observant Jews? Can the Jewish people re-establish lateral common law Sanhedrin courts as the basis of Israeli jurisprudence?

    Loading...

    Reply

15. Can we say that Jewish revisionist history/replacement theology is an utter abomination on the order of the Av Tumah Avoda Zarah 2nd Sinai Commandment?

    The commandment to avoid adopting the customs of non-Jews (Goyim) underscores a commitment to maintaining the unique identity of the Jewish people, as the chosen Cohen Nation. This perspective argues that incorporating external philosophies, like those expressed by Plato and Aristotle, could dilute or distort the essence of Jewish teachings.

    The emergence of Kabbalistic thought, particularly with texts like the Zohar and teachings from figures like the Ari (Isaac Luria), marked a shift towards more mystical interpretations of Judaism. This was not universally accepted and led to significant debates within the Jewish community. The rise of figures like Sabbatai Zevi and Jacob Frank, who claimed messianic status, illustrates the potential dangers of mystical interpretations when taken to extremes. Their movements often challenged traditional Jewish beliefs and practices, leading to schisms and the development of new movements, including Reform Judaism.

    Reform Judaism emerged partly as a reaction to the mysticism and rigidities of Rambam/Shulkan Aruch statute law robotic ritual Judaism as a religion. This perversion of Sanhedrin courtroom common law legalsim aimed, like as does Reform Judaism theology, to modernize Jewish practices and belief. The switch to Roman statute law reflects a broader struggle within Judaism to balance “tradition” with modern contemporary values. The tension between mystical interpretations and traditional practices has likewise also shaped the evolution of Jewish identity and community. Engaging with these historical narratives can deepen understanding of contemporary Jewish movements and their roots.

    The influence of Greek rationalism and the distinction between it and later Kabbalistic mystical theological interpretations – Day and Night – different from one another. Maimonides and other prominent Jewish thinkers of the medieval period indeed embraced Greek rationalism, prioritizing logical analysis and philosophical inquiry. This approach often emphasized Greek logic parameters over, above, and in point of fact replaced, the Common law logic taught by Rabbi Akiva’s PARDES logic format.

    The stark contrast between earlier Kabbalistic teachings of rabbi Akiva’s PARDES logic explanation of Oral Torah and the later mystical interpretations that emerged during the medieval period, particularly in relation to the influence of Greek rationalism, produced an Earth-quake-like destruction. Maimonides and other medieval thinkers indeed prioritized Greek rationalism, often placing philosophical inquiry above traditional Jewish teachings. This shift can be seen as a departure from the Common Law logic that Rabbi Akiva emphasized through his Pardes framework, replaced with Roman statue law organized based upon Greek logic and a simplified religious halachic rigid/static parameters.

    Significant, but subtle shifts in Jewish thought and practice, particularly regarding the influence of Greek rationalism and its impact on later mystic Kabbalistic teachings. Earlier Kabbalistic teachings, such as those attributed to Rabbi Akiva, focused on ethical and rational interpretations of the Torah. In contrast, later mystical interpretations, particularly those found in the Zohar and other medieval texts, often embraced more abstract and esoteric ideas, which can seem disconnected from the foundational principles of Jewish law.

    Maimonides and his contemporaries integrated Greek philosophical concepts into Jewish thought, prioritizing Greek rational inquiry. This integration often led to a framework that emphasized philosophical reasoning over the traditional interpretive methods that Rabbi Akiva promoted. The Pardes method of interpretation seeks to balance various layers of understanding within both the T’NaCH and Talmudic texts. Rooted in Jewish legal and ethical traditions which prioritize the faith of the rigorous pursuit of judicial common law imposed justice which makes a fair compensation of damages inflicted by party A upon party B. The shift towards Greek rationalism and Roman statute religious law, a clear departure from this justice approach; which emphasizes judicial reasoning based on precedents and ethical considerations and not religious ritualism/dogmatism. Simple fact: Judicial courts of law. It simply does not compare to religious theological belief systems which preach a dogma of how to believe in the Gods.

    This article seeks to articulate a critical evaluation of the shifts in Jewish thought, especially concerning the impact of Greek rationalism and the evolution of ancient prophetic mussar & משנה תורה common law with the much later mystic Kabbalistic teachings viewed in comparison to the rational Greek logic which dominated the rabbis during the Golden Age of Spain.

    Title: The Evolution of Jewish Thought: From Ancient Prophetic Mussar to Greek Rationalism and Mystic Kabbalah.

    The significance of the Golden Age of Spain as a period where Greek philosophical revolutionary ideas intersected and overthrew Jewish legal and ethical traditions. The Primary priority concept of prophetic mussar as a foundation for ethical behavior and personal conduct expressed by and through Talmudic common law.

    The Golden Age of Spain served as a pivotal period in Jewish history, where Greek philosophical revolutionary ideas significantly influenced Jewish legal and ethical traditions. Much like the Industrial revolution overthrew and replaced feudal agricultural based economies in the 19th and 20th Centuries. This era marks a transformation in Jewish thought, shifting from the foundational principles of prophetic mussar to the rationalist frameworks introduced by Greek philosophy. Understanding this evolution utterly crucial for appreciating the complexities of Jewish ethics and law.

    The Golden Age of Spain (8th to 12th centuries) was characterized by cultural and intellectual Jewish avoda zara among all g’lut Jewish communities, not just limited to Spain. This period witnessed tumah pollination of Goyim cultures and ideas which infected and dominated, something like a cancer, Jewish scholars and their Muslim and Christian counterparts. Goyim often refer to this shift as the Dark Ages as opposed to the Renaissance.

    This Era represents a transformation in Jewish thought, shifting from the foundational principles of prophetic mussar, which both defines and interprets the “k’vanna” of Talmudic and Midrashic Aggadah. The Era defiled and raped the virgin daughter of Zion (T’NaCH and Talmudic common law) with the tumah Greek rationalist frameworks introduced by Plato’s and Aristotle’s philosophy, which first introduced its revolution in the Hanukkah Civil War. This shift raises important questions about the integrity and essence of Jewish ethics and law.

    Prophetic mussar serves as a guiding force in Jewish ethics, emphasizing mussar dedicated social behavior by which a Jew conducts himself with both his family and his community. Utterly integral to understanding the “k’vanna” of the Av commandment tohor time oriented commandments and the relationship of this most essential and important type of Torah commandment to both the positive and negative secondary commandments found in the Books of שמות, ויקרא, ובמדבר; and also with Talmudic halachot potentially observed as equal tohor time oriented commandments from the Torah itself! The B’HaG teaches this critical idea of tohor time oriented commandments possessing the תמיד מעשה בראשית power to raise rabbinic halachot to דאורייתא commandments.

    Prophetic mussar emphasizes ethical social behavior and the responsibilities a Jew has towards family and community. It serves as a moral compass that guides personal conduct in all aspects of life. This ethical framework, integral to understanding the “k’vanna” of this Av commandment, particularly in relation to all other Av time-oriented commandments. These commandments highlight the importance of intention and mindfulness in fulfilling one’s social obligations. Based upon the Torah precedent: Love your neighbour as yourself.

    This ethical framework simply integral to understanding the “k’vanna” of these Av commandments, particularly in relation to all time-oriented commandments, both from the Torah and from the Talmud. These commandments underscore the importance of intention and mindfulness in fulfilling one’s social obligations. The relationship between Primary time-oriented commandments and Secondary positive and negative commandments, or rabbinic halachot underscores the Primary/Secondary roles of the time oriented Book of בראשית, contrasted by the Positive and Negative commandment addressed in the next three Books of the Written Torah, and the rabbinic halachot throughout the Talmud.

    Prophetic mussar common law which requires the wisdom to know how to compare a sugya of prophetic mussar with other but different sugyot of prophetic mussar; compares to the Talmudic common law whose PARDES logic compares Case/Din halachot with other but different Case/Din halachot in order to re-interpret the diamond like facets of the language employed in any particular Mishna.

    Tohor time oriented commandments, they define the whole of the Book of Bereshit (Genesis), these Primary commandments serve and establish a foundational תמיד מעשה בראשית tone of Jewish life as expressed through the Siddur/the mitzva of tefillah. Tohor time oriented commandments emphasize the wisdom of public leadership during a national life and death crisis, such as facing a far more powerful and numerous enemy army. As did Yaacov when he confronted Esau’s 400 Officer lead army.

    This Av/toldoth relationship which defines tohor time oriented commandments with positive and negative commandments in the Torah AND halachot in the Talmud defines the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev. It illustrates how the foundational principles laid out in the Written Torah are expanded and interpreted through the Oral Torah, creating a dynamic legal and ethical framework.

    The relationship between primary time-oriented commandments and secondary commandments highlights their distinct yet interconnected roles, reinforcing the importance of k’vanna in Jewish practice, observance of both Torah commandments and Halachic ritual Judaism. This relationship underscores the significance of the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev (Mount Sinai), illustrating how foundational principles laid out in the Written Torah, expanded and interpreted; through which the Oral Talmudic halachic Torah refutes and negates the Reform blood libel slander which declared that Halachic Judaism applied only in a dead by-gone Age.

    This dynamic interplay illustrates that Halachic Judaism remains a living tradition, continuously evolving while rooted in the foundational teachings of the Torah. The B’HaG (Baalei HaGadah) teaches that tohor time-oriented commandments possess the power to elevate rabbinic halachot to the status of דאורייתא (divine commandments). This underscores the significance of these commandments within the broader framework of Jewish law.

    The integration of revolutionary Greek philosophical ideas during the Golden Age led to a significant departure from these foundational principles. Philosophers like Plato and Aristotle introduced frameworks that, while intellectually rich, often deflected attention from the ethical imperatives of prophetic mussar instruction. This revolutionary philosophical tuma shift unto avoda zarah, viewed as the defilement of earlier teachings, as it prioritized abstract reasoning over the ethical and moral dimensions central to Jewish law. Assimilation to revolutionary Greek philosophy directly compares to the Sin of the Golden Calf.

    The transformation during the Golden Age of Spain illustrates the complex interplay between prophetic mussar and Greek rationalism. By recognizing the challenges posed by cultural and philosophical influences, we can better understand the evolution of Jewish thought and its implications for modern identity and practice. This historical context remains essential for engaging with the foundational principles of Judaism today.

    Loading...

    Reply

16. Most people believe the lies told for centuries,and do not question persons who always play the victim act, to get money and sympathy from their victims. what a web they weave,old as time.People who whine and want money unearned and sympathy undeserved should be shunned

    Loading...

    Reply

17. The idea that history has been distorted in the ways you claim is persuasive. It fits into other observations on how our corrupt society works.

    Whenever a group screams too loud and too often about being mistreated, I am suspicious, especially when, they have such disproportionate power.

    I grew up in a bad area in a bad city. We were driven out by crime, and we did not get protection. That is another group of people who claim persistent historical mistreatment, but we were the mistreated.

    Notice that, as the Jews complain about mistreatment, they obtain more power. There is a contradiction there.

    And in war, Israel complains about aggression, as it seizes more land.

    Loading...

    Reply

    • Their power mostly comes from blackmail –

      Loading...

      Reply

    • Prisoner: Truthbeknown! I agree.

      Loading...

      Reply

18. Have no idea if this just happened but it’s worth a serious look.

    https://halturnerradioshow.com/index.php/news-selections/world-news/breaking-news-israel-seizes-crypto-currencies-of-all-palestinians-terrorism

    Loading...

    Reply

    • I did hear some time ago that Israel was withholding Palestine’s monthly funding – that may have come in the form of crypto given it was mostly from Qatar.

      Loading...

      Reply

19. You’re writing here reminds me of David Irving and his writings. They said that he denied many things from history but from what I read he didn’t deny anything he just put it in the proper order with the truth. It looks as if you’re doing the same thing and it’s a good work. So what will that change in the way we think or and how we live or how we look at the truth compared to what the narrative is. When speaking to others with facts it always seems to me that it’s like throwing a rubber ball off the wall it just bounces back. So I’ve learned to be patient and sit quietly and wait for my opening to speak when I know the ears will be able to hear. I never hear anyone say that they are glad that they have received the facts of Truth. I never see where truth has ever changed anyone in the matter of the context of what you have written here. Though I must say you must continue to say it, the truth.

    Loading...

    Reply

    • Truth changed me. Truth keeps us a step ahead of all out slavery. Truth grows and expands into the universe. Truth may show us the time loop we are playing out. Truth keeps the cobwebs from taking over your brain.

      Loading...

      Reply

20. I recently saw a comparison of the % Jews in the US government compared to the amount in the total population. They are WAY overrepresented in the government ! (I include the double nationals, which in fact is very much abhorred when you are an immigrant – they want you to drop your old nationality because one can not serve 2 masters. Obviously parliamentarians can – or as seen, they serve israel and not the US)

    Loading...

    Reply

    • Notice that the bean counters and the so-called “affected class” people never cite the disproportionate participation by Jews in the power structure. That says so much. They are all on the same team. They all want special privileges and power.

      Loading...

      Reply

      • If you want to know who is REALLY in charge, ask yourself who we are forbidden to criticize or question their narrative.

        Loading...

        Reply