Benjamin Netanyahu will meet with Donald Trump at the White House this week, raising hopes of a truce to end the 21 months of bloodshed in Gaza. Israel will send a
Israel to send delegation to Qatar for Gaza talks. Britain and France, Russia and China not invited. Which highlights the complex geopolitical dynamics surrounding the ongoing conflict. Specifically that Britain and France broke diplomatic relations with Israel after the failed UN Chapter VII dictate to force Israel out of Gaza, vetoed by President Trump 14-1. This veto, along with the subsequent diplomatic fallout, illustrates the divisions among major powers regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The breakdown of relations between Israel and these European nations reflects broader tensions and differing perspectives on how to address the ongoing violence and humanitarian issues in Gaza.
The idea of a tripartite alliance between the United States, India, and Israel reflects a strategic partnership that has been developing over recent years, focusing on shared interests in security, technology, and counterterrorism. Such an alliance could potentially reshape geopolitical dynamics, particularly in the context of U.S. foreign policy priorities.
The notion that the U.S. might withdraw from NATO in favor of strengthening ties with India and Israel is a significant shift in traditional U.S. foreign policy, which has historically emphasized collective defense through NATO. A clear statement from the Trump Administration regarding the Russian-Ukrainian conflict as “not a U.S. problem” would further indicate a pivot towards a more isolationist stance, prioritizing bilateral relationships over multilateral commitments.
Regarding Russia, the perception of its threat level has evolved since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. While Russia remains a significant global player, its military capabilities and geopolitical influence are viewed differently compared to the Cold War era. The current Russian government, under President Putin, is often seen as more focused on regional ambitions rather than the expansive ideology of the Soviet Union.
Russia stuck in the Ukraine much like the Johnson Administration stuck itself in Vietnam and the Bush Administration stuck itself in Afghanistan and Iraq. The European idea of a two-State solution a clear failure Foreign Policy of Great Power interventionism. It has Universally always failed from India and Pakistan, to the division of Korea and Vietnam into two hostile countries to the separation of Kuwait from Iraq to the UN SC Resolution 242 and 338 which “advise” the “international Community of Nations” to impose a two-State solution upon the Middle East.
In the case of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the two-state solution has been proposed as a way to address the aspirations of both Israelis and Palestinians for self-determination. An example of foreign great power propaganda. The UN Mandate of Palestine ceased to exist in 1948. All Arab countries Universally rejected British proposed UN 181. Arab countries lost their wars to throw the Jews into the Sea in both 1948 and again in 1967. Jordan attacked Israel and lost Samaria in that short June War. Palestine ceased to exist from 1948 to 1964, when Egyptian born Yasser Arafat opportunistically revived Palestine from the dead by naming his terrorist organization the Palestine Liberation Organization. Confusing foreign states propaganda concerning the non-state of Palestine ignores the simple fact that Mandate Palestine ceased to exist when Israel won its National Independence.
Equating the independent State of Israel as equal to the 1964 terrorist declaration of Palestine = complete and total propaganda half-truths that would make Joseph Goebbels proud. Stateless Arab refugees the consequence of Nakba defeated wars do not share equality with the Independent State of Israel. Arabs lost their wars and losing wars carries risks and consequences which the nation states which promote the Palestinian cause – completely and totally ignore.
The portrayal of the conflict as a simple struggle for Palestinian self-determination fails to account for the historical context of statehood, territorial disputes, and the outcomes of military engagements. And therefore it exists as most foul and base revisionist history. Proponents, such as Britain and France, of the two-state solution argue that it remains a viable framework for achieving peace and addressing the aspirations of both Israelis and Palestinians. Utter nonsense – the 2 state solution has always resulted in more wars. Therefore this “peace” noun serves only a great power propaganda – divide and rule – imperialism.
Peace as a noun does not resemble Shalom as a verb. The latter absolutely requires TRUST. The former has nothing to do with TRUST, and everything to do with propaganda sound bites on par with the anti-war song: “All we are saying is give Peace a chance”.
America thrives in the merit of its penny, which declares, “In God We Trust.” ~ R’ Yaakov Yosef Herman zt”l Click to receive Emuna Dailyhttps://linktr.ee/emunadaily _____________________________________________________________
פסוקי דזמרה built on the concept of סמוכים. It opens with ברוך שאמר which contains שם ומלכות. Hence through סמוכים all that follows thereafter till אל חי העולמים qualifies through סמוכים as a blessing\oath rather than a much lower praise like Tehillem. The kre’a shma too stands upon סמוכים as does the blessings of the Shemone Esrei b/c only the opening blessing contains שם ומלכות. His commentary failed to address this key concept and major k’vanna of the Siddur.
“Talmudic Insights” — his work here utterly failed to distinguish T’NaCH/Talmud as a פרדס common law legal system based upon rabbi Akiva’s kabbalah of inductive logic which treats teh Talmud as a Loom divided into its warp & weft threads; halacha vs. aggada. רמז\סוד affixed to the halachic portions and דרוש/פשט married to the Aggadic prophetic mussar portions. This error a fundamental error in learning.
His Mikra’ot Gedolot fundamentally flawed; he prioritized Rabbinic Reshonim commentaries over the most essential כלל\פרט sugyot which differentiate the Hebrew T’NaCH from the Xtian bible abominations which introduced chapters and verses! Dog vs God. By uprooting the masoret of sugyot and assimilating to chapter and verse Xtian organization his Mikra’ot Gedolot perverted the entire T’NaCH.
His “Midrashic Reflections” utterly failed to identify the purpose of Midrash as a common law precedent commentary by which to study Aggada within the Talmud. His gross error on this account represents a total disaster in Torah scholarship.
Francesca Albanese says Gaza has become laboratory for Israeli weapons, calling on states to suspend all trade, investment with Israel Beyza Binnur Donmez, AA.COM
Francesca Albanese’s latest statement represents not only a grotesque distortion of international law but a dangerous escalation of antisemitic propaganda masquerading as human rights discourse. Her accusation that Israel is committing “one of the cruelest genocides in modern history” is both morally obscene and legally baseless. It weaponizes Holocaust language to invert the identity of the victim and attacker, portraying the only Jewish state — recovering from the largest mass slaughter of Jews since 1945 — as a genocidal regime.
Albanese abuses the legal definition of genocide in the Genocide Convention (1948), which requires specific intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group as such. There is no credible evidence that Israel seeks the extermination of Palestinians as a people. Rather, Israel is responding to the October 7th massacre — a genocidal pogrom by Hamas, whose charter explicitly calls for the annihilation of Jews. Civilian casualties in Gaza are a tragic consequence of urban warfare against an enemy embedding itself in hospitals, mosques, and UNRWA schools — not a genocidal campaign.
Albanese’s claim that Gaza is a “laboratory for Israeli weapons” echoes classic antisemitic tropes of Jews as cold, inhuman schemers profiting off the suffering of others. This is blood libel dressed in bureaucratic language — she implies Jews test bombs on civilians for profit. This is dehumanization, not human rights analysis.
Economic Warfare Disguised as Humanitarian Concern… The call for mass boycotts and divestment, backed by a blacklist of 48 companies, goes far beyond proportional or constructive criticism. It mirrors the BDS (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions) movement, which has deep roots in antisemitic ideology — targeting Israeli academia, business, and even cultural institutions simply for existing. “One people enriched, one people erased” — This line is not legal analysis. It’s Marxist-infused antisemitic agitprop.
Open Advocacy of Lawfare and Collective Punishment… By urging states and companies to abstain from all economic contact with Israel, Albanese pushes for collective punishment of the entire Israeli population — a civilian population that includes Jews, Arabs, Druze, and more — for the defensive actions of its army. She advocates for a total embargo that would harm civilians, including Israeli hospitals, universities, and even joint Arab-Jewish institutions.
Hypocrisy and Double Standards… Albanese’s selective obsession with Israel — ignoring far deadlier conflicts such as Syria, Yemen, Sudan, or Chinese genocide against Uyghurs — is damning. Not once has she used this language against Hamas or Palestinian Islamic Jihad, who target civilians by design. Why does she never accuse Hamas of genocide, despite its charter and deliberate attacks on Jews?
Echoes of Classic Antisemitic Structures… Albanese’s narrative construction borrows from historic antisemitic patterns — Blood libel: Jews as killers of innocents; Economic conspiracy: Jews profit from war and suffering; World control narrative: A Jewish state as a global puppet-master; Deicide parallel: The state of Israel as the ultimate villain deserving erasure.
Israeli Mockery Is Justified… Israel’s mocking response isn’t diplomatic theater — it’s moral survival. When the UN Human Rights Council becomes a platform for blood libel, ridicule becomes the only sane response. Albanese deserves to be dismissed from her post. Her rhetoric doesn’t just undermine the UN’s credibility — it legitimizes antisemitic hatred, fuels terror, and threatens Jews worldwide.
Here’s a list of antisemitic tropes, falsehoods, and ideological tactics employed by Francesca Albanese, the UN special rapporteur, particularly in her July 2025 statement accusing Israel of genocide. This exposes both her rhetorical devices and the historical antisemitic patterns she recycles under the guise of human rights advocacy.
1. Blood Libel 2.0 – “Gaza as a Laboratory”… “Israel is weaponizing Gaza as a testing ground… unleashing 85,000 tons of explosives… Gaza is a laboratory for the Israeli military-industrial complex.” The charge that Jews deliberately harm civilians, particularly children, for their own sinister gain — a modern twist on the medieval blood libel. She accuses Jews of inhuman experimentation on others. This mirrors Nazi propaganda about Jewish doctors and moneylenders conducting immoral experiments.
2. “Jews Profit From Genocide” – Economic Conspiracy Myth… “Arms companies have turned near-record profits… One people enriched, one people erased.” Antisemitic Code: The idea that Jews become wealthy through the suffering of others — i.e., war profiteers who orchestrate violence to line their pockets. This echoes both Nazi-era and Soviet propaganda about “Jewish capitalists” controlling war and international finance.
3. “Global Jewish Control” – The Protocols Narrative… She names 48 companies and demands universal disengagement, calling for economic, diplomatic, and academic isolation of Israel and all its affiliates. The mass targeting of unrelated institutions — banks, tech firms, universities — insinuates a global network of control run through Israel. Protocols of Zion 2.0: This plays into the “Elders of Zion” narrative: that Jews manipulate global structures behind the scenes.
4. Moral Inversion – Holocaust Abuse… “One of the cruelest genocides in modern history”. She accuses the Jewish people — survivors of the Holocaust and their descendants — of becoming the new Nazis. IHRA working definition of antisemitism explicitly includes “drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.”
5. Denying Jewish Right to Self-Defense… Calls for total arms embargo, suspension of trade, and collective economic punishment. No similar treatment is recommended for Syria, China, Russia, Iran, or Turkey, despite mass atrocities far worse than anything claimed in Gaza. Applying uniquely harsh treatment only to the Jewish state, and denying it the right to defend itself from literal genocide (Hamas), is discriminatory.
6. Collective Guilt – Targeting All Israelis… “Economy of occupation… One people enriched”. Reducing all Israelis to a single guilty class — war profiteers, colonizers, criminals — erases the humanity and diversity of Israeli society. This mimics how antisemites historically blamed all Jews for financial manipulation, war, or alleged crimes of a few.
7. Silencing Jewish Grief – No Mention of October 7th… Nowhere in her speech or report is there acknowledgement of the rape, slaughter, torture, and kidnapping of 1,200 Jews on October 7, 2023. This is the classic antisemitic strategy of denying Jews empathy, pain, or victimhood. Antisemitism often begins with the refusal to see Jews as legitimate victims, and instead paints them only as oppressors.
8. “They Don’t Understand International Law” – Jews as Lawless… “They think international law is there to make excuses.” The suggestion that Israel (and by extension Jews) exploit or corrupt the law for their own ends. This echoes the stereotype that Jews manipulate legal, financial, or religious systems for personal or communal advantage.
9. BDS as “Resistance” – Economic Warfare Framed as Morality… “All corporate entities must immediately sever ties with Israel… civil society must push for boycotts, divestment, sanctions…”. The goal is not just to oppose policies, but to choke the Jewish state into dissolution — an antisemitic political goal masked as progressive. As per the IHRA definition, “denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination” is antisemitic. BDS campaigns regularly cross this line.
10. Performative Lawfare – UN Abuse as Platform for Demonization… “I conducted a case-by-case legal analysis… in some cases, complicity in genocide.”. Her pseudo-legal crusade against Israel isn’t about rights. It’s about building a narrative for delegitimization. Lawfare becomes antisemitic when it selectively targets Jews or the Jewish state while ignoring greater or equal crimes elsewhere.
In 2014 she wrote that America is “subjugated by the Jewish lobby” — a classic antisemitic claim of Jewish control over foreign policy. She has never condemned Hamas by name, nor has she acknowledged the Jewish right to self-defense. Her framing erases Israel’s Arab citizens, Mizrahi Jews, and refugees from Arab lands, flattening them all into “white colonizers.”
However, I do agree with you that the way John 1:1 was translated into Greek from Hebrew was confusing.
If the Van Rensburg’s are correct, then “Word” was originally “Son” in the original Hebrew version: https://www.hebrewgospels.com/john ________________________________________________________
Frank you continue to presume that the Roman forgery NT, originally written in Hebrew. Bunk. Its target audience ALWAYS Goyim and not Jews. This explains why the NT reflects none of the halachic, oath britot, or Constitutional foundations of the Written Torah first revealed at Sinai.
Dr. Janie van Rensburg and the notion of “Logos” in Xtian theology. This perspective aligns with traditional Xtian beliefs about the nature of the “Crisis” JeZeus – substitution theology. Several early church fathers likewise discussed this substitution theology. Justin Martyr (c. 100-165 CE), in both “First Apology” and “Dialogue with Trypho;” Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 130–202 CE), in “Against Heresies,” where he emphasized the role of “logos” in the creation and redemption of humanity. This falsely presumes that the local/tribal God of Israel lives as a Universal God. A key theme of both Xtian and Islamic substitute theology.
Dr. Janie van Rensburg’s claim that Logos in John 1:1 was originally “Son”—this is just another layer of Christian revisionism. The entire “Logos” theology was developed by Church fathers like Justin Martyr and Irenaeus to blend Greek metaphysics with Roman theology, ultimately inventing a universalist “Christ” divorced from the פרט, tribal brit at Sinai. This classic substitute theology—replacing Israel’s national oath brit-inheritance-as the chosen Cohen people, with a mythical “son of god” and imagining that Goyim inherit spiritual truths which bypasses Torah altogether. Even Paul’s grafting metaphor does not go this far! It falsely fuses Greek metaphysics with Roman theological imperialism.
Let’s be clear: the Torah revelation revealed at Sinai, simply not a Hellenistic abstraction or a Neoplatonic emanation. The revelation at Horev (Sinai) – concrete, national, legal, and exclusive—bound by brit to the seed of Avraham, Yitzḥak, and Ya‘aqov. The Oral Torah’s פרדס system—especially as laid out in the opening sugya of Avodah Zarah—explains that the nations of the world rejected HaShem’s authority long before Sinai. Xtianity’s invention of “Logos” does not replace the oath brit sworn to the Avot. The NT false idea: that the tribal, covenantal God of Israel could somehow morph into a universal, metaphysical abstraction. This expresses the core lie of both Christian and Islamic theologies. They both erase the specificity of the brit—the national oath between HaShem and the seed of Avraham, Yitzḥak, and Ya‘aqov—and replace it with theological fiction. NT Greek “Logos” translations, tits on a boar hog – worthless.
The Talmud, the codification of the Oral Torah פרדס logic system, teaches, as just mentioned, in the opening pages of mesechta Avoda Zarah that the generations of Adam prior to the birth of Noach utterly rejected the בראשית God. Only Israel accepted this בראשית God at Sinai. Your worthless bible Greek translations of “logos”, coupled with their later revised revisionist history/substitute theology, simply never accepted neither the first or second commandments of Sinai. Just that simple. The substitute theology of “logos” does not mean the Name revealed in the 1st Sinai commandment. The perversion of “son of god/messiah” – has no basis in the Oral Torah revelation at Horev. The church rejects the revelation of the Oral Torah 13 middot at Horev. Let’s be clear: the God of Israel revealed at Sinai – not a Hellenistic abstraction or a Neoplatonic emanation. The Divine Name revealed at Sinai is not “Jesus,” “Yeshua,” or “Logos.”
Origen (c. 185–253 CE), Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 296–373 CE), Cyril of Alexandria (c. 376–444 CE) – all these silly Goyim theologians have likewise promoted this avoda zara. The facts, as clear as the Sun on a cloudless Summer Day, “logos” has nothing to do with the First Commandment of Sinai. Nothing in the Heavens, Earth or Seas compares to the revelation of this Divine Presence Spirit Name which breathes within the Yatzir HaTov of the chosen Cohen people.
The substitute theology replacement of JeZeus as a mythical messiah for the oath brit sworn to Avraham Yitzak and Yaacov that they would father the chosen Cohen people – absolute narishkeit. Yom Kippur eternally remembers that HaShem made t’shuva and annulled the vow to make of the descendants of Moshe the chosen Cohen people instead of the seed of Avraham, Yitzak and Yaacov. The gospel abomination perverts the anointing of king David dedicated to pursue judicial justice within the borders of the oath sworn lands, as the intent and k’vanna of the mitzva of Moshiach. The specific פרט, of the husband of Bat Sheva, defines the כלל of the anointing of David as king by the prophet Shmuel.
This revisionist substitute theology represents just a simple continuation of the Golden Calf substitute theology wherein the ערב רב, assimilated and intermarried Israelites, substituted the word אלהים for the revelation of the First Commandment Name. Substitution theology defines the avoda zarah of the Golden Calf for all generations.
The early church fathers you mentioned engaged with the concept of “Logos” in ways that sought to bridge Greek philosophical thought and Xtian doctrine. The Mishna in Masechet Chagigah (Chapter 2, Mishnah 1). It states that anyone who contemplates the divine matters or the secrets of the universe—specifically what is above, below, or behind—should not have been born. Man simply incapable of comprehending the Divine; no more than an ant can grasp Human culture and civilizations. The Gospel Roman forgery of “logos” – simply a replacement theology revisionist history nonsense. Just that simple. Greek philosophy does not serve as the foundation upon which the Torah stands.
I have no interest in the Oral Torah, Moshe, except as historical documents of the opinions people had over time about what was in the Tanach (Old Testament). It is at the level of the Christian church fathers.
Now I do take the Old Testament more seriously than you do, because I see it as an historical document. What it says actually happened, but it is going to be difficult to construct a reasonable chronology from the Masoretic text because I believe the Genesis 5 and 11 genealogies were shortened by the rabbis in the 2nd century to discredit Jesus as the Messiah. Those genealogies should extend to about 5550 BC based on Septuagint readings of those genealogies.
I also see the Daniel 9:24-27 prophecies as having been fulfilled by the ministry of Jesus and the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD.
What I find interesting about the Van Rensburg’s translation of the Hebrew Gospel of John is that an argument can be made that the original autograph of John 1:1 could well have used the Hebrew word “ben” (son) rather than the Greek word “logos” (word).
I agree that the use of “logos” was done to bridge Greek philosophy with Christianity. However, I am more interested in the Hebrew Gospel of John than I am in the Greek translation of it.
I’ve mentioned these things before when you commented on my blog. Since we are on your blog, I am restating them. _____________________________________
Naturally Frank your a follower of classic Xtian substitute theology. Oral Torah as the definition of prophetic mussar as the k’vanna of mitzvot means nothing to Goyim who reject the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. Hence both the Pope & you pervert mussar and declare prophetic mussar as dogmatic history.
The T’NaCH has a completely different Order organization than does the Old Testament perversion. The T’NaCH for example does not have Chapters and verses like as does the Old Testament perversion. The T’NaCH organized into sugyot, a concept which the Xtian translators changed into a completely different order of Chapters. Despite the word DOG having the exact same letters as GOD, the two words convey completely different meanings.
Conservative and Reform Jews like you view the T’NaCH as historical documents. In the late 19th Century German Protestant ‘higher criticism’ actively promoted this Foo/narishkeit. A T’NaCH prophet commands mussar not history. Ya want history – then study it from a professor at a University.
You believe no different than Muslims who declare that the Jews changed their Bible! LOL Arabs declare, like you, that Avraham did not dedicate Yitzak but rather Yishmael on the altar. And like you the Koran does not bring the Sinai First Commandment Name just like your golden calf bible abomination. So the only people who perverted the T’NaCH – Xtians and Muslims.
Your pie in the sky slander against the Jewish people, does not fit with the mussar story of the Book Sh’muel which repeatedly states that king David profaned his anointing as Moshiach only in the matter of the death of the husband of Bat Sheva. Ooops Do you also declare that Jewish rabbis changed that Book too? Must have b/c otherwise your pie in the sky 2nd Coming floats like a lead balloon.
Your worn-out theory compares to a blood libel slander. A textbook example of theological projection disguised as historical analysis. It reflects both ignorance of Jewish tradition and a desperate retrojection of Hellenistic Xtianity onto a text and culture it never understood nor has it any connection there unto.
The Masoretic Text Is Not a 2nd-Century Rabbinic Invention. The idea that “rabbis in the 2nd century shortened Genesis 5 and 11” is complete historical fiction. The Masoretic tradition predates Xtianity’s revisionist history. Its textual lineage derives from the Second Temple period—Chag Hanukkah pre-dates JeZeus or the rise of the Church.
The Dead Sea Scrolls (3rd century BCE to 1st century CE)—which predate the “2nd-century rabbis”—show a textual tradition aligned more closely with the Masoretic Text than with the Septuagint. The Tannaim of the 2nd century, such as Rabbi Akiva, engaged in preserving and interpreting inherited Torah, not fabricating new texts to “counter Jesus”, as your blood libel slander promotes. The notion that these sages rewrote Torah to discredit Xtianity reflect the mirror of Xtian super-sessionist fantasy—not history.
The Septuagint written as a Greek Translation for Hellenized Jews. A Greek translation of parts of the Tanakh (mainly the Torah) done in Alexandria, Egypt, for Jews who no longer spoke Hebrew. Your claim that later Greek versions of Genesis, especially chapters 5 and 11, inflated lifespans and added generations—these deviations do not exist in any known Hebrew manuscript tradition. The Alexandrian scribes were influenced by Hellenistic numerology and cosmology, which sought to align world chronology with Platonic or Egyptian schemes.
Irony: It is far more likely that the Septuagint’s chronology was lengthened to harmonize with Greek cosmogonies than that the rabbis shortened the Masoretic text to “disprove” Xtianity, which did not yet exist, when the Masoretic tradition the Men of the Great Assembly sealed in the days of Ezra.
Xtianity has always promoted ‘Historical Revisionist’ propaganda. The accusation that Jews edited Genesis to disprove JeZeus represents classic Xtian ‘blood libel’ projectionism. The Church Fathers (Justin Martyr, Origen, Augustine etc), who reinterpreted or allegorized Tanakh to retroactively “prove” JeZeus as Messiah. The New Testament authors routinely misquote and mistranslate the Tanakh. Example: Matthew 1:23 quotes Isaiah 7:14, mistranslating “alma” (young woman) as “parthenos” (virgin) to manufacture a virgin birth prophecy.
The NT genealogies of Jesus (Matthew 1, Luke 3), internally contradict one another, and historically utterly implausible. Those corrupt gospels constructed with theological agendas, not historical precision. If anything, Xtianity invented its own substitute genealogies and projected messianic expectations backwards to build a false continuity.
The Tanakh Does Not Predict a “Crhisis”. The entire premise that Jewish texts should confirm JeZeus relies on the illegitimate Xtian hermeneutic of proof-texting and super-sessionism. Tanakh messianism centers on a national king of Israel—from David’s line, who will establish Torah justice, establish the Torah as the Constitution of the Republic, restore Judicial Review ie משנה תורה Common law courtrooms. State vertical courtrooms imposed by both Rome & Herod, which bribed both Justices and prosecutors through paid salaries, a direct Torah abomination of perverted justice. The idea of a crucified universal savior, as perverse as offering a maimed korban upon the altar. This utterly absurd idea carries the din of כרת.
The “genealogies” in Genesis 5 and 11 Jewish tradition treats them within the Oral Torah framework which depict the timeline of the chosen Cohen people, not literalist proof schemes.
Xtianity erased the Oral Torah—Then Accused Jews of Distortion. Based upon the premise that the victors right the history books. Post Shoah with Israeli Independence, and Rome on the dung heaps of ancient history, clearly Jews won our war against the Goyim barbarians of Europe. Xtians rot in exile waiting for the 2nd coming of their God.
Xtianity rejects the Oral Torah, as the crucial interpretive key to understand the k’vanna the Written Torah prophetic mussar. Xtianity, lacking the Oral tradition, they reconstructed their own readings, often Greek allegorical ones, like agape defines love, and now blame the Jewish tradition for not agreeing with their foreign and utterly alien artificial system. The Samaritans, Tzeddukim and Karaites – like Xtians today – rejected the revelation of rabbi Akiva’s kabbalah of פרדס logic. This too a totally worn out nonsense, forced the church of the Dark Ages to embrace Greek philosophers like Plato and Aristotles 3 part syllogism. Classic super-sessionism: erase the original 4 part Oral Torah פרדס inductive reasoning with Aristotle’s 3 part deductive reasoning, insert your own alien theologies and creed, and then claim the original the Jews corrupted. What you’re doing is projecting the Church’s own revisionist horse-radish onto a Torah tradition that never needed JeZeus—and never recognized him as fulfilling anything. Xtianity defines the sin of the Golden Calf revisionism, not Judaism.”
Daniel, not counted among the Nevi’im (Prophets) in the Jewish canon, but among the Ketuvim (Writings). This irrefutable classification reflects a common law prioritization and hermeneutic divide that permanently separates Judaism from Xtian avoda zarah. Your entire claim collapses the moment you treat the Book of Daniel as “prophetic” in the same vein as Isaiah or Jeremiah. Xtian revisionism avoda zarah, not Jewish tradition.
Torah Canonization Matters: the g’lut written Book of Daniel simply Not a Prophet any more than T’NaCH prophets compare to University History Professors. The T’NaKH—the authentic Jewish canon—codified as Torah (Common Law), Nevi’im (Prophets) serve as the basis for the Mishna, and Ketuvim (Writings) serve as the basis for the Gemara. A direct and clear Masoret of T’NaCH/Talmudic common law, Daniel not classified with the prophets because it serves as a Gemara-like commentary to the Books of the Prophets. Therefore the Men of the Great Assembly placed the Book of Daniel alongside Psalms, Job, and Ruth—and not with the Books written pre-galut – Isaiah, Ezekiel, or Amos.
G’lut Daniel simply not a navi who lived prior to Babylonian king conquering the kingdom of Judah. The visions Daniel, apocalyptic dreams, not prophetic mussar rebukes which defines the very essence of NaCH prophecy. The Talmud (Megillah 3a) even explicitly says: “Many were greater than Daniel, but they did not receive prophecy.” This distinction – not accidental. It represents a rejection of magical, mystical, or Hellenistic eschatology as a basis for the perversion of T’NaCH common law unto Greek statute law.
Xtian Misuse of Daniel 9: A Manufactured Messianism. Daniel 9 doesn’t mention JeZeus. It doesn’t describe an absurd crucified messiah. It doesn’t authorize the end of Torah or the dissolution of the brit of the Chosen Cohen people replaced by a Roman false messiah Universal God\monotheism. The post NT “scholars” timeline of the Book of Daniel utterly obtuse and obscure; Daniel not legal—because it’s written in Aramaic apocalyptic code, like the mystic work “The Zohar” of the Middle Ages. Neither mystical work qualifies as prophetic nevuah. Xtian use of Daniel 9—just another prooftext grab—an effort to force JeZeus into a text that neither names nor validates him, while ignoring the actual legal terms of the Torah oath brit alliance with HaShem and the chosen Cohen people.
You treat the destruction of Herod’s Temple\Cathedral abomination in 70 CE as a divine validation of Xtianity. But in Jewish memory, we remember the Roman crushing of our revolt as a tragedy which began our long 2000+ year exile that culminated in the Nazi Shoah. Xtian endorsement of Roman theology, seeks to return the genie back into its bottle. But the national Independence of the Jewish state forever repudiates the Xtian theology which proclaimed Jews and Cain Christ-Killers. The JeZeus gospel “prediction”, (all the books of the gospels, starting with Mark written in Rome, written AFTER the Romans burned Herod’s Cathedral abomination of assimilation to Goyim cultures and customs), of that destruction, neither unique nor accurate—Jeremiah and the Talmudic sages long before denounced the substitute theology which replaced Sanhedrin common law courtrooms as the basis of Legislative Review with the idol of building a House of Prostitution/Temple. Wood and Stone do not rule the oath sworn lands with judicial courtroom common law justice; any more than wood and stone idols compare to the revelation of the Torah at Sinai.
Judaism a common law Legal Tradition, Not some Pie in the Sky Eschatological Gnosticism. Daniel’s visions—fascinating as they serve as a commentary to NaCH prophetic mussar—never used by the sages to determine messianic timelines or national policy. The mitzva of Moshiach, no different than the mitzva of Shabbat. All generations of Jews have equal opportunities to “fulfill” this Torah commandment. Judaism simply not a religion. Faith defined as צדק צדק תרדוף, not end of days date-setting or speculative metaphysics. Torah a brit-based common law Judicial legal tradition. built on halachah and the oath brit which בראשית continuously creates the chosen Cohen people from nothing. Xtianity stands upon the foundation of Nazi racial theories. Hence it perverted the Book of Daniel into a mystical crystal ball. Precisely because it rejects Torah revelation of both Sinai and Horev, and therefore needed to fabricate its own absurd versions of prophecy – which the Torah defines as Av tuma witchcraft-mystically predicting the future.
Treating Daniel as a prophet, a perverse taboo distortion on par with declarations of JeZeus as a messiah. Both abominations, products of Rome’s theological imperialism, not Sinai’s revelation. The Jewish classification of Daniel within Ketuvim—not arbitrary—rather it rejects mystical replacement theology, including the false messianism you preach as Av tuma avoda zarah. The abomination which causes Jewish g’lut from ruling our homeland with Torah/Talmud common law judicial justice.
Frank, your represents a classic example of Xtian wish projection, masquerading as scholarship. Attempting to retroactively “Hebraicize” a document that never has anything Jewish – no connection whatsoever; in order to lend it a legitimacy it never had. You’re attempting to give a Hebrew Av tohor soul to a Roman Av tuma corpse. Isaiah referred to calling day – night and night – day as a direct Torah curse.
Greek philosophy exists as the soil in which Xtianity spouted therefrom. The gospel counterfeits themselves call it a “wolf dressed in Sheep clothing”. The NT – not Torah, not Talmud, and certainly not the oath alliance brit of Sinai which continuously creates from nothing the Chosen Cohen people. The gospel of John abomination, especially its opening verses, reflects a clear Greek metaphysical construct, directly influenced by perhaps Philo of Alexandria, Hellenistic Jewish allegory, and Neoplatonic emanationism. In no way does Hellenistic Alexandria over-rule the T’NaCH/Talmudic common law legal system. Hellenistic Alexandria assimilated ערב רב Jews had no more understanding of prophetic T’NaCH mussar, and its relationship to how the Aggadah of the Talmud servers to derive the k’vanna of doing halachic ritualisms, than does Xtianity.
Your fantasy projection: “””An argument can be made that the original autograph of John 1:1 could well have used the Hebrew word ‘ben’ (son).””” What original Hebrew autograph? No such manuscript exists. None. Not a shred. Not a fragment. Not even a whisper from antiquity.
Zero evidence that supports the Gospel of John ever written in Hebrew or even Aramaic. All existing ancient manuscripts are in Greek—because it was written by and for Hellenized gentiles. The idea of a Hebrew “original” is a theological revisionist history mirage, conjured witchcraft spells, centuries later by Xtians desperate to reconnect Hebraic roots to their post Shoah utterly disgraced reputation of church barbarity.
The Greek “Logos” = Greek Theology. John 1:1: ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος – “In the beginning was the Logos.” This has nothing to do with the Hebrew בראשית ברא אלהים. The text deliberately rewires Genesis 1 using Hellenistic terms. Logos here is not “word” in the Torah sense (as in “davar” of prophetic command), but a divine intermediary being—a metaphysical emanation that merges Platonic dualism with pseudo-Jewish messianism. That’s Hellenistic Alexandria Philo, not Moshe who commands the Written and Oral Torah revelations of judicial courtroom common law.
The Hebrew ben (son) in contrast, in Torah usage, never a mystical being co-equal with God. To imagine John 1:1 began with “Bereishit haya haBen” is laughable, and would be theologically alien—absolutely blasphemous—by even the most liberal Torah standards.
No Hebrew NT = No Jewish Origins. No Hebrew manuscript of John exists. No early Church Father refers to a Hebrew John. Your Apostle Paul opposed mixing T’NaCH with the new Xtian religion. No Jewish or Goyim community ever recognized, preserved, or even referenced such a text. All historical witnesses (Papias, Irenaeus, Origen, Eusebius) cite Greek texts. This modern “Hebrew Gospel of John” you’re referencing—by Janie van Rensburg—is a modern back-translation, no different than translating Shakespeare into Aramaic and then claiming it was written by a prophet.
Your fascination with a Hebrew Gospel of John is nothing but an attempt to baptize a Roman forgery with a Hebrew fig leaf. The “logos” theology of the Fourth Gospel—Greek at its core and Roman in its mission. It exists to replace the Torah—not to fulfill it. There never existed a “Hebrew John.” There never lived a Torah-true “JeZeus.” And Moshe never commanded a messiah who came to abolish the oath brit which continuously creates the Chosen Cohen People which only the Jewish people accepted this revelation at both Sinai and Horev.
“Open rebuke simply better than hidden love.” – Mishlei 27:5 The tone seeks only a cactus like external surface prick, in order to frame the spiritual interior meat of רחום; the rejection of sentimentalism, and the prioritization of a deep commitment to the collective soul of Am Yisrael, the chosen Cohen People. An impassion call for t’shuva. A warning that assimilation and intermarriage, this Av tuma avoda zarah, it opens our People to Torah curses, like the plagues which afflicted Par’o.
This tochacha/rebuke likewise calls upon the tohor midda of חנון, the כלל to the dedication of defined tohor middot. Rather than limit itself to the דיוק פרט of רחום. Which ironically embraces the philosophy of Rambam, who taught in his Moreh, that the more a Man can say that which a subject “is not”, the greater clarity that person gains to understand the positive aspects of an abstract undefinable idea.
“Tikkun Olam”, serves as a popular concept primarily associated with Reform Judaism and lacks influence in Israel. In the U.S. and other diaspora communities, Reform Judaism’s embrace of tikkun olam has become a cornerstone—seen through philanthropic work, social justice activism, and universalist values. This highlights the divide between Israelis and G’lut Jewry. David Friedman’s 2016 comment calling J Street members “far worse than kapos,” implies that liberal Jews are actively betraying their people
Many Israelis see Liberal Judaism as alien to Israeli reality, where Jewish identity and community structures provide intrinsic meaning (e.g., one commenter said Reform Judaism is “unnecessary in Israel” because secular Jewish life already satisfies that need) . Turning “tikkun olam” into a universalist, politically progressive doctrine, directly compares to the Xtian and Muslim Monotheism Universal God avoda zarah violation of the 2nd Sinai commandment.
American Reform leaders have repeatedly said that diaspora Jews must oppose “misguided” Israeli policies, including regarding ultra‑Orthodox influence and Arab‑Israeli democracy. They totally ignore the vision of political zionism which strives to achieve Jewish self-determination within the borders of a Jewish Middle East country. PM Sharon permitted Palestinian self-determination and free elections in 2005. He risks Jewish civil war to give Arabs a stake in the self-determination action.
Jews abroad who joined with Arab anti-Israel propaganda, protests, and violence post Oct7th have undermined Israel’s sovereignty and assisted the UN and ICC/ICJ efforts to dismantle the Jewish state or at the least impose a foreign cease-fire wherein Israel surrendered to the Gaza surprise attack of Oct 7th. The Israeli Chief Rabbinate maintains that Reform Judaism is “uprooting Judaism” and refuses to recognize its conversions, marriages, burials. Official discrimination and cultural marginalization casts g’lut assimilated Jewry unto the dhimmi gutter. Not because Israelis hate foreign Jewish devils. But because alien Jews living in exile suffer from a cultural gulf that far exceeds the span of the Atlantic Ocean.
Given Israel’s ongoing security crises and existential threats, public dissent by diaspora Jews—like U.S. Reform leaders urging “opposition to misguided policies”—perceived as political interference meant to weaken Israeli resolve . For many Israelis, it feels like these outsiders place themselves above or even undermining Israel’s sovereignty.
Zionist ideology historically devalued diaspora life—seeing true Jewish life as rooted in Israel, not scattered and assimilated abroad. Modern national‑Zionist Israelis often view diaspora liberalism as a cultural betrayal, a manifestation of exile that nationalist Zionism sought to overcome. Israelis live in a constant state of preparedness due to mandatory service, violence, and geopolitical precariousness. Diaspora Jews, especially in Western countries, often experience minority life in pluralistic democracies, focused on rights, social justice, and integration. When diaspora criticisms mirror Western progressive rhetoric, many Israelis see this as tone-deaf at best, and existential threat at worst.
Times of Israel reported Ambassador Friedman calling J Street members “far worse than kapos” for supporting a two-state solution—a sign he views their dissent as voluntary betrayal, darker than coerced collaboration. Kapo diaspora liberals have abandoned Israel’s endangered community during its darkest hours. This psychological echo of the Holocaust-era betrayal wherein g’lut Jews choose Western moral comfort over solidarity with a state under siege, causes Israelis to hold these kapo Jews in complete and utter contempt. Jews in foreign countries calling Israel a Nazi state, they expect that Israelis would not respond with utter revulsion?!
The gulf that separates two completely different cultures and peoples band-aids like Kotel arrangements, communal dialogues and religious inclusion amount to tits on a boar hog. G’lut Jews simply not part of the Israeli chosen Cohen people.
The Talmud functions as both a guide & model to establish legal systems within the Jewish state. G’lut Jewish racist prejudice limits the Talmud strictly and only as an archaic religion of out-dated and out-classed Orthodox fundamentalism. The Liberal “interpretation” of ancient texts which that alien liberal religion holds both T’NaCH and Talmud in disdain and contempt, emphasizes the cultural gap which separates Jews from non-Jewish Jews. Their gross declaratin: ‘Berlin as their Jerusalem’, that absolute abomination never forgotten nor forgiven; it perhaps best qualifies as Liberal Judaism’s distorted interpretation of Chesed. But such “chesed” qualifies merely as a tuma treif bird; an idea that does not fly with Israelis.
The term “kapo”, historically, a loaded term that refers to Jewish prisoners appointed by Nazis to oversee other Jewish prisoners in concentration camps. Such as removing the gold fillings of Jews slaughtered in the gas chambers. Using this term as a description of liberal Jews, suggests a deep-seated anger and repulsive reaction towards screaming liberal Jews shouting “Not in our Name”, following the Oct 7th abomination.
This utter detestation and complete revulsion of g’lut Jewry, it reflects a broader sentiment among many Israelis. We feel that liberal Jewish critiques of Israel, they joins hands with our enemies, and seek to undermine our country’s security and legitimacy. This makes Liberal g’lut Jews no different than Arab bomb makers. A huge and significant cultural and ideological divide, much larger than the Atlantic ocean separates Israelis and diaspora Jews like oil and water. Particularly, those Jews who identify with Liberal or Reform movements. This cultural divide stems from differing experiences, values, and interpretations of Jewish identity and responsibility. Reform Jewish mothers never have to bury their children after putting them on a school bus.
The Talmud, serves together with the T’NaCH and Siddur – as foundational texts which establish the working model for judicial common-law Federal courtrooms within the Israeli Republic. Israelis perceive the T’NaCH, aggadah, and midrashim as the basis to derive and interpret the ethical prophetic mussar frameworks foundations of our Republic/nation-state of Israel.
This fundamental difference of priority and emphasis, it underscores the huge gulf which divides and separates Israeli from g’lut Jewry. The latter tuma-Jews choose and prefer to live in foreign lands. Liberal Reform tuma-Jews prioritize modern interpretations and social justice concerns and practices expressed through alien Goyim cultures and customs. Their attempts to stamp those alien cultures and customs upon tohor-Israelis, directly compares to the Hanukkah Civil War where the corrupt tuma-Tzeddukim likewise attempted to turn Jerusalem into a Greek Polis and cause our people to forget the kabbalah of rabbi Akiva 4 part inductive reasoning Oral Torah Jewish genius … replaced by foreign ancient Greek philosophy, like Aristotle’s 3 part deductive logic/syllogism model.
Liberal Reform tuma-Judaism slandered both the T’NaCH and Talmud and referred to both as archaic. Therefore their attempt to impose their corrupt, alien ethical model-monopoly; their repeated attempts to dictate, as if liberal tuma-Jews compare to the Av-tuma UN, how foreign tuma-Jews in distant lands, assimilated cultures, and inter-married customs of avoda zarah; their repeated attempts to dictate how to interpret and understand, these not just these basic and fundamental Primary source Jewish texts — that serve to shape and form Jewish culture and custom as a unique chosen Cohen people.
The arrogance of their presumption seeks to forcibly impose a One State Arab-Jewish democracy upon Zionism as the best ideal! Liberal Jews abhorred Zionism during the closing window of opportunity in the 1920s before Hitler. The British White Paper and FDR’s closure of US ports to Jews sealed the fate of Shoah Jewry in Europe.
Liberal Judaism interpretations apply strictly and only to tuma-g’lut Jews. Their assimilated and intermarried debauchery, merits nothing but utter contempt within the borders of the “Jewish Torah Constitutional Republic”, which a new generation of political Zionist Israelis, seeks to achieve Jewish self-determination within the borders of Israel – and actualize the k’vanna of the Balfour Declaration which launched political Zionism in 1917.
Chaim Weizmann publicly said in 1906: “Any deflection from Palestine was—well, a form of idolatry.” He emphasized that only by building on the ground in Palestine could a Jewish homeland be born—and that Jews elsewhere must support colonization and immigration. The phrase “Jews of the world, where are you?” fits the tone of Weizmann’s broader rhetorical stance—an urgent summons to global Jewry to move beyond political promises and take tangible, on-the-ground action.
Weizmann repeatedly challenged Jews in the diaspora to support immigration and nation-building in Palestine—telling Balfour, “We had Jerusalem when London was a marsh,” and warning of waves of Jewish refugees seeking refuge.
Av tuma Rabbi Stephen S. Wise pressured President Franklin D. Roosevelt to maintain strict U.S. immigration quotas and opposed changing the laws to admit more Jewish refugees. Wise through the public voice of the American Jewish Congress, the World Jewish Congress, supported Roosevelt. He cowardly refused to publicly challenge FDR’s White Paper policy. Wise emphasized the need to fight antisemitism in America rather than offer American shores as a safety life-line to European Jewry. In 1938, under Wise’s influence, Jewish institutions decided not to back legislation that would have loosened immigration laws to allow more Jewish refugees into the U.S.—explicitly agreeing “no Jewish organization would… sponsor a bill which would… alter the immigration laws”.
Between 1933–1945, only a fraction of the allowed immigration quota for German and Axis countries was utilized. Estimates suggest nearly 200,000 quota spots remained unused—lives that could have been saved. Jewish Liberal Reform leaders like Wise directly compare to Pope Pius XII – both Av tuma corruption chose “quiet diplomacy” and maintaining alignment with the Roosevelt administration over public advocacy for Holocaust refugees.
Historians like Rafael Medoff emphasize that Wise’s cautious approach—supported by his close relationship with FDR—slowed or blocked rescue efforts during crucial years of the Holocaust. Wise also prioritized Zionist aims in Palestine, despite the 1939 British White Paper! He claimed to favor immigration only to Palestine, but Reform American Jews never made aliyah to Israel in large numbers. He discouraged Jewish groups from lobbying Congress or mounting public pressure to open U.S. borders to Jewish refugees.
Av tuma Abraham Geiger, often called the “father of Reform Judaism”—openly declared “Berlin is our Jerusalem”. This phrase expressed a sweeping theological and cultural perversion. It reflects a sentiment that debased liberal Jews prioritized foreign cultural or secular identities. Reform Judaism rejected the traditional Jewish longing for a return to Zion. Instead, it embraced the idea of Jewish integration into its host nation—here, Germany. Geiger’s declaration made clear that Germany was their spiritual and communal center, not Palestine. Reform Judaism worships the American and French revolutions as their Gods. This religion of avoda zarah established citizens rights rather than serfs as their ‘human rights’ Nicene Creed. Reform congregations were called “Temples”; services conducted in German; prayers toward Jerusalem omitted from their gutted prayer-books. As one Reform leader explained, their allegiance lay primarily with their birth nation, not an ancient homeland.
But Israel does not compare to the feudal Confederate South, with its agricultural based economy; dependent upon slave labor! Jews living abroad, their opinions have parity with Americans living in Russia! Rebuke accusations of inauthenticity or a lack of commitment to Jewish heritage immediately come to mind whenever Liberal Jews denounce Israel across University campuses across the US and Europe.
Liberal Jews abhor the sealing of the T’NaCH, Talmud, Siddur and Midrashim. These ignorant amaratzim preach a Xtianized morality from their assimilated pulpits and soap-boxes. Their pie in the sky Top-down moralism of the Arab-Israeli conflict utterly ignores and discounts the impact of terrorism on Israeli perceptions and responses. The possibility that the Talmud serves as the interpretive lens for understanding the Mishnah, reinforcing the importance of traditional common law פרדס scholarship, used to shape modern Jewish common-law and ethics – completely and totally alien to this liberal tuma-Jewish minority populations in foreign countries.
In the aftermath of the US attack on Iran’s nuclear plants, a debate rages about the extent of the post Trump’s Iran Charade appeared first on Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم
Liberal Kapo Jews. This stinking ערב רב assimilated and intermarried Jews who promote the hatred of Amalek – antisemitism. They simply have no fear of Heaven. The Torah described the original ערב רב that came out of Egypt as אין להם יראת אלהים. Sinat chinam equals spiritual Amalek.
Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم
Richard Silverstein·www.richardsilverstein.com
The Oct7th War which spread to a war against Lebanon, Syria, and Iran has radically changed the balance of power in the Middle East. The UN, completely discredited its objectivity with the ICC/ICJ attempts to declare Bibi a war-criminal. The UN-nations drinks this blood libel slander like Catholics drink their blood and body of Christ then go out and make a Easter pogrom against Jews based upon some blood libel slander! By their fruits you shall know them. Dante’s Inferno describes the nine circles of hell, an apt description of the Shoah crimes against Humanity.
Both England and France have broken off diplomatic relations with Israel, prior to the 12 Day War with Iran! Hence neither power has any influence in the Middle East negotiated peace process ie. the Coming Abraham expanded accords which will most likely see, ב”ה, a majority of Arab countries developing diplomatic relations with Israel. If a majority of Arab nations recognize the Jewish state, then and only then will Israel join the Middle East voting block of Nations within the UN. A totally unprecedented reality since Israel won its two Wars of national independence back in 1948 and again in 1967.
The latter Independence War, recall that Naser swore to throw the Jews into the Sea and correct the Nakba disgrace where 5 Arab Armies failed to throw the Jews into the Sea and complete the Nazi Shoah of the Jewish people! To date, except for Camp David and Abraham Accord Arab nations which currently have diplomatic relations with Israel, post the Israeli victory of 1967, all Arab countries reacted through the Khartoum Conference declaration of 3 No’s. No Peace with Israel. No Recognition of Israel. No Negotiations with Israel.
Arab countries which reject the Jewish state of Israel refer it as “the Zionist Entity”. General Assembly UN Resolution 3379 declared Zionism is Racism! Apparently your revisionist History over-looked these minor FACTS. All Arab countries absolutely reject the 1917 Balfour Declaration wherein Britain recognized Jewish equal rights to achieve self determination in the Middle East. The League of Nations “Palestine Mandate” awarded to victorious WWI Britain in 1922, based this Mandate upon the Balfour Declaration. Hence b/c Arabs rejected Jewish equal rights to achieve self-determination in the Middle East no Arab would ever refer to himself as a Palestinian.
Not till 1964, with the State of Israel as a 16 year old country did Egyptian born Yasser Arafat embrace the political opportunism and call his terrorist movement the Palestine Liberation Organization – PLO. That PLO Charter did not condemn Jordanian “occupation” of the Jordan declared “West Bank”. Nor did it condemn the Egyptian “occupation” of Gaza! Only ’48 Israel did the PLO Charter condemn and abhor!!!!
A 6 part Mishnaic mussar of this paper. Avodah Zarah in Our Generation: The Crisis of Jews Who Side With Amalek. In every generation, Amalek takes new forms. Today, it is no different. But what is shocking is not only the hatred of our enemies—it is the collaboration of Jews, raised within Torah civilization or its memory, who now partner with those seeking to dismantle the Jewish state.
When Jewish voices shout “From the River to the Sea,” they are not engaged in protest—they are echoing the genocidal goals of Hamas. When they equate Israel’s defense against a massacre to genocide, they join in blood libel, no different in kind from the medieval slanders that triggered Easter pogroms. When they ally with UN declarations and ICC/ICJ indictments meant to strip Jews of the right to self-defense, they violate the first commandment of Jewish history: “Never again shall Jewish blood be cheap.”
Sovereignty vs. Subjugation: Jews Ruling vs. Jews Ruled: A fundamental distinction separates Jews living as a sovereign nation in their own land versus Jews existing as a minority under non-Jewish rule (galut). Assimilated & intermarried Jews in the West, who function within dominant non-Jewish cultures, have lost connection with Jewish national identity and Torah sovereignty, resembling the biblical Erev Rav—those lacking fear of Heaven and loyalty to the Jewish nation.
Double Standards in Territorial Legitimacy: Prussia vs. Samaria & Gaza: The hypocrisy of the international community – emphasized. While the post-WWII redrawing of European borders—such as Poland and Russia’s annexation of Prussia—is accepted without condemnation, Israel is uniquely targeted for reasserting sovereignty over Samaria and Gaza after 1967. UN Resolutions 242 and 338 are cited as politically biased tools used to delegitimize Israel’s historical and military rights.
Western Imperialism and Regional Domination: Suez to Iran. The 1956 Suez Crisis serves as evidence of continued British and French imperial ambitions, cloaked in Cold War geopolitics and economic control (specifically over the Suez Canal). This is paralleled with U.S./British involvement in Iran—removing Mossadegh and reinstalling the Shah to prevent the nationalization of oil. The 1979 Iranian Revolution is framed as a reaction to this imperialism. Similarly, prior to the “12 Day War,” the UK and France withdrew diplomatic ties with Israel in protest of their exclusion from influencing a ceasefire in Gaza.
Rejection of the 242/338 Two-State Paradigm by the Abraham Accords. The Abraham Accords are seen as a major geopolitical shift, fundamentally rejecting the British- and French-backed vision of peace based on dividing Israel into two hostile entities—akin to India-Pakistan or North-South Korea. The Accords envision peace without territorial partition, and with increasing normalization between Israel and Arab states, signal the failure of the old colonial-era frameworks.
UN Bias and Historical Arab Rejectionism of the Balfour Declaration wherein a major Great Power recognized Jewish equal rights to achieve self-determination in the Middle East. The UN based its 1922 Palestinian Mandate upon the Balfour Treaty. The Khartoum Conference (1967) “Three No’s” serves as proof of Arab states’ refusal to accept Israel’s equal rights to self-determination. The UN, particularly via General Assembly Resolution 3379 (“Zionism is racism”), has been complicit in reinforcing this Arab rejectionism of Jewish equal rights to achieve self-determination. Meanwhile, the ICC and ICJ today continue the Zionism is Racism pattern, under the guise of international law, falsely accusing Israeli leaders of war crimes while ignoring the Oct7th pogrom and declaring the current conflict pre-dates Oct7th. This whitewashes the Oct7th surprise attack, comparable to the Pearl Harbor attack on Dec7th 1941.
The Manufactured Identity of “Palestinians” and PLO Opportunism. The identity of “Palestinians”, a modern invention, emerging only in 1964 with the formation of the PLO under Egyptian-born Yasser Arafat. The original PLO Charter made no objection to Jordanian control of the West Bank or Egyptian rule in Gaza, focusing only on dismantling Israel. This opportunistic narrative is framed as a political weapon rather than a legitimate national movement.
The Talmud (Yoma 9b) states:
מקדש שני שהיו עוסקים בתורה ובמצות וגמילות חסדים, מפני מה חרב? מפני שהיתה בו שנאת חנם. Then, the Midrash in Eikha Rabbah and various aggadot go further to compare sinat chinam with the worst transgressions—including idolatry, sexual immorality, and murder—suggesting that internal Jewish hatred is as destructive as idol worship.
G’lut Jews have lost the wisdom to keep and obey the Torah לשמה. Assimilated and intermarried Jews living under foreign alien cultures and customs have abandoned the T’NaCH, Talmud, Midrashim, and Siddur as the foundation which shapes and forms all Torah cultures and customs. As an ערב רב they cling to alien cultures and customs by which they form and shape their identities and values. These foreign cultures and customs which they embrace have become the Gods which they worship.
מידה כנגד מידה a core Torah principle, and that slogans like “From the river to the sea”—when chanted by Jews—do immense damage. Jews who equate the Gaza war with the Shoah genocide equals to the abhorrence to blood libel slanders which produced annual pogroms prior to Easter across Europe. Liberal Jews disgraceful alliance with South African declarations of genocide in Gaza and Apartheid a flat out public chilul Hashem. Such Jews have no portion in the world to Come. These Jews have broken faith with the brit Cohen people, just like as did the Erev Rav which aroused Amalek antisemites throughout the generations. The blood of hundreds of generations of Jews slaughtered cries out and denounces these stinking ערב רב Jews.
When Jews chant “From the River to the Sea,” they are not merely protesting policy—they are aligning themselves with those who dream of Israel’s destruction. This is not political dissent. It is covenantal treason. Like the Erev Rav, they emerge at times of national crisis to confuse the people, distort Torah, and drain morale. Their slogans, shouted from exile and college campuses, do more than harm Israel’s name abroad—they erode our internal unity and desecrate the mission entrusted to Israel at Sinai. These Jews have not merely lost political direction—they have forfeited spiritual clarity. They replace Torah with the gods of globalism, intersectionality, and postmodern guilt. The Torah calls this avodah zarah—not in metaphor, but in law.
The Torah commands the total destruction of Amalek—without mercy, without compromise. This commandment appears in multiple places. Devarim 25:17–19: “You shall blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven. Do not forget.”
Shemot 17:16: “Hashem will have war with Amalek from generation to generation.”
Shmuel I 15: Shmuel commands Shaul to annihilate Amalek totally, down to every man, woman, child, and animal. When Shaul shows mercy, he is rejected as king.
This as a Torah commandment targets Amalek’s existential war against Hashem and against the Jewish people. Amalek is not simply an enemy—it is a theological and civilizational antithesis to Torah, a force of evil that seeks to destroy the very brit between Hashem and Israel.
The statute law perversion of Hilchot Melachim 5:5 flat out wrong. The 7 laws of bnai noach apply strictly and only to gere toshav temporary residents living within the borders of Judea. Once those Goyim returned to their homelands the 7 laws no longer applied to them. The purpose of keeping those 7 laws: Unlike the refugee Na’Cree stranger who had no judicial rights to fair compensation of damages inflicted. Gere Toshav enjoyed the legal right to sue an Israel for damages and receive fair compensation. Not so the Canaani refugees. An Israel had no legal obligation to compensate them for damages they suffered from an Israel. The purpose of judicial justice – to restore Trust between bnai brit who inflict damages upon one another. The NaCree Canaani refugees never ever trusted during their entire temporary residence within the borders of Judea.
Today we can easily identify Amalek with absolute certainty because assimilation and intermarriage defines avoda zarah and Amalek promotes the worship of avoda zarah. The RambaN’s (Devarim 25) commentary applies today because the Torah defines faith as the pursuit of righteous judicial justice within the borders of the Constitutional 12 Tribe Republic. Sanhedrin 98a: “Moshiach ben David will not come until all judges are restored as of old.” Amalek is not a foreign invader, but a spiritual-political corruption that arises from within, where Torah is abandoned, brit is dissolved, and Jewish trust is betrayed. The king David model dedicates the mitzva of Moshiach upon justice based upon the פרט of the lack of justice served to the baal of Bat Sheva.
The ערב רב who left Egypt – Jews. Amalek attacked these Jews wherein they embraced the ways of Amalek ie assimilation and intermarriage. Amalek by definition: a nation that attacked Israel at its weakest from behind. From behind refers to Jews who have no fear of God.
Sinat chinam and betrayal while similar to precedent cases of mumar, tinok she’nishba, moser, and min, clearly the added blessing within the Shemone Esrei by Shmuel Ha’Katan condemns this ערב רב Amalek internal Jewish abomination no different than the Ben Sorer u’Moreh.
The term “Amalek”, applied to Jews perceived as betraying their people, rather than to alien Goyim people/strangers. This internal betrayal – viewed as particularly egregious because it comes from within the community, undermining the collective identity and mission of the Jewish people. The comparison to figures like Benedict Arnold highlights the seriousness of perceived betrayal during critical moments in Jewish history, such as the fight for independence and survival against external threats. Liberal Reform Jewish movements or individuals, who align themselves with foreign enemies who oppose Israel or Jewish sovereignty, their tuma actions constitute as most base betrayal, meaning Amalek.
Liberal Reform Judaism theology and Jewish political groups or individuals who embrace this Av tuma avoda zarah; who align themselves with anti-Israel sentiments or actions contribute to a form of betrayal which defines the Torah commandment to obliterate Amalek. The seriousness of internal divisions within the Jewish community and the implications of those divisions for Jewish identity and solidarity herein defines the k’vanna of remembering the Torah obligation to utterly obliterate Amalek without showing the slightest regard for mercy.
Hence its the precise mitzvot of killing the rebellious son or the mitzva of utterly obliterating the memory of Amalek betrayal among our people, these key Torah precedents serve to define the k’vanna of רחום revealed to Moshe at Horev 40 days after the sin of the Golden Calf.
Another precedent, the destruction of Korach and his children. The Torah commands: The sons does not die for the sins of his father. Yet the sons of Korach all died together with their father! The middah of רחום vetoes the negative Torah commandment. The revelation of Oral Torah tohor middot at Horev prioritizes the k’vanna of tohor middot dedicated to HaShem לשמה. Either when dedicating a korban on the altar or doing halachic mitzvot from the Talmud.
Regardless – doing time oriented tohor Av commandments raises toldot commandments and halachic mitzvot to primary Torah commandments which require prophetic mussar middot dedications לשמה as their k’vanna. Therefore the dedication of tohor middot have a veto power over doing secondary commandments which do not require k’vanna; such as the negative commandment not to put the son to death for the sins of the father. Yet in the case of Korach, the sons – put to death together with their father. Herein defines the k’vanna of רחום; the scape-goat, thrown off a cliff alive on Yom Kippur to serves as a דיוק reverse רחום Torah tohor middah.
An explanation how Farbrengen defines Jewish common law.
DOREEN DOTAN’S ARCHIVE
Correct. My first year in a Chabad Yeshiva the rabbi sang the praises of a farbrengen! Thought cool. So when he declared that he, the rabbi, would hold an all night farbrengen, I thought – Great. Came to that farbrengen ready to use vodka as my focus to listen the spoken words of ‘the rabbi’ as heard from the unique perspective of alcohol induced “”different perspective””. Seriously drank committed to focus upon the spoken words of ‘the rabbi’ all night till morning.
Then suddenly ‘the rabbi’ called the farbrengen over at 12 O’clock midnight!!!!! Drunk I returned back to my dorm and violently puked my guts out! That was my LAST farbrengen. So what did i gain from that wretched experience? When the Gemara brings precedents from the 6 Orders of Shas to interpret a specific Mishna these בניני אבות precedents permits the student of the Talmud to learn a shared גיזרה שוו idea from a different Mesechta of the Shas Bavli from a completely different “farbrengen-like” perspective. Like “the rabbi” advertised the up coming farbrengen wherein drinking vodka caused a Yid to see the Torah from a completely different and changed perspective!
Oral judicial common law simply does not compare to statute legislative laws. Any more than the 4 parts Pardes logic of inductive reasoning compares to Aristotle’s syllogism 3 part deductive reasoning. Torah scholarship requires that the reader of Oral Torah פרדס texts make the required הבדלה which separates the Front view, from the Side view, from the Top view, from the Bottom view 4 part פרדס perspective of dynamic inductive Oral Torah reasoning. And how much more so which separates inductive logic from foreign deductive Greek logic models.
The Rambam had a clear understanding of the Hebrew and Arabic languages and the shared similarities between the two languages. But he did not know shit about rabbi Akiva’s 4 part פרדס logic format and his Yad Chazaka and Moreh Nevukim both replaced פרדס logic with Greek deductive logic as the basis of the Order of his texts. Order plays a crucial role in logic. Hence the Jewish Prayer-book called siddur. Both GOD and DOG share the same exact three letters. But their order arrangement communicates two completely different ideas. All logic systems, whether פרדס or syllogism stand upon the foundation of Order. However just as DOG and GOD have a different Order of letters so too and how much more so the Order of פרדס logic does not compare to the Order of Greek syllogism logic.
Herein the best, most clear explanation, that expresses the wisdom of the Torah. Torah common law learns through the logic of comparing similar Case/Rule judicial rulings and NOT BY simply reading the words on a page of the T’NaCH or Talmud. Without active participation of פרדס logic skills, utterly impossible for any person to understand Torah common law. Much less discern the fundamental distinctions which separates T’NaCH/Talmudic judicial common law from Greek & Rome Legislative statute law. Making this fundamental distinction compares to observing the mitzva/commandment of shabbat which separates like as does t’rumah from chol, between forbidden מלאכה/work from forbidden עבודה\work. If a person fails to make this essential distinction between the two opposing sets of “work”, that person has never kept the mitzva of shabbat a single day in his entire life.
Conflict Resolution 