Historical narratives can obscure, sanitize, or selectively glorify institutions that, in parallel, committed egregious moral or political crimes. The original text, while seemingly a dry academic history of mathematics education in early modern Europe, is a perfect case of what might be called Catholic mathematical pornography—a term that sharply calls out the juxtaposition of intellectual achievement with institutional corruption or moral cowardice. It’s “pornographic” not in the sexual sense but in the sense of aestheticizing or fetishizing something (here, the rise of math and learning) while ignoring the grotesque backdrop: the Inquisition, colonization, financial imperialism, and systemic war crimes enabled or committed by the same institutions being lauded.
Presenting figures like Clavius (Jesuit promoter of mathematical astronomy) without confronting how Jesuits operated as ideological stormtroopers of the Counter-Reformation and helped crush dissent in Catholic Europe and beyond. For example, Gresham’s financial wizardry is celebrated without interrogating the brutal colonial context of the East India Company or the coercive power that underwrote British mercantile success. Mathematical advances in navigation and cartography directly enabled imperial conquest and extraction.
Catholic reforms in education are presented as progressive and constructive, while erasing the destruction of libraries, forced conversions, and burnings of heretics. Jesuit academies, for all their sophistication, were deeply embedded in a structure of repression. Nowhere are the victims of forced Catholic hegemony mentioned—Jews, Muslims, Protestants, indigenous populations—whose knowledge systems were denigrated or annihilated. Instead, we get a sanitized story of intellectual triumph disconnected from ethical reckoning.
True justice demands restitution—not just for physical or material damages but for epistemic violence. When Church-backed institutions rewrote knowledge systems and imposed ideological orthodoxy (via the Index Librorum Prohibitorum, Inquisitions, or Jesuit dogma), they didn’t just silence dissenters—they erased entire epistemologies. Restoring justice would require not only acknowledging this theft but actively elevating the suppressed frameworks, whether they be indigenous star maps, Talmudic dialectics, or early Protestant natural philosophy.
The rise of technical disciplines like cartography, astronomy, and finance wasn’t morally neutral. It was weaponized through institutions like the East India Company and the Catholic Church. Celebrating Catholic contributions to math while ignoring Jesuit suppression of dissent is like praising Nazi rocket science while ignoring the slave labor of Mittelbau-Dora. Technological sophistication does not absolve moral crime. True justice requires narrative restitution—to recover buried stories, to discredit the myths of civilizing empires, and to expose how the façade of intellectual enlightenment often covered brutality, repression, and systemic theft.
mosckerr
Category: Uncategorized
Herein represents another brittle and rigid example of revisionist history and replacement theology
sbwheeler presents a superficially noble message – that peace and justice come from letting go of past grievances and attachments. However, behind the appearance of universal moralism lies a rigid, deeply prejudicial framework that subtly blames Israel and erases Jewish historical suffering while denying the legitimacy of Jewish self-determination. The logic of his argument leads to the condemnation of Israel to a kind of moral isolation – cut off from justice, history, and rights.
The author suggests that because “both sides feel they have ‘moral right,’” neither can truly be just. This is a dangerous moral relativism. It strips oppressed or endangered peoples of the ability to name actual harms. By equating the powerful with the powerless, the occupier with the displaced, the genocidal with the defensive, he evacuates history of moral clarity.
Feeling moral does not make one moral. Justice is not based on subjective feelings but on facts: who has been wronged, who is under threat, who is denied self-determination. Israel’s struggle for security and survival in the face of repeated wars, terrorism, and genocidal threats cannot be reduced to “attachments” or “desires” that must be relinquished for the sake of peace.
The author says we must “let go our attachment to past injury – to past injustice” and that we “cannot isolate particular events and say, ‘that was unjust.’” This is not just morally wrong; it is historically blind. It implies that memory of the Holocaust, centuries of exile, pogroms, expulsions, and Islamic and Christian antisemitism should be set aside as if they are petty grievances.
Without truth, there is no reconciliation. Telling Jews to forget the past is itself a form of violence. The Jewish people’s return to their land is not just about “desire” – it is about justice, survival, and reclaiming a sovereign refuge in a world that has proven lethally hostile. Peace without history is not peace – it is appeasement of injustice.
The author claims, “In truth, we do not have ‘rights.’” This is an astonishing and dangerous claim. He implies that international law, historical treaties, national sovereignty, and legal self-defense are all meaningless because they are just rationalized desires.
Rights are not mere desires. The Jewish people’s right to self-determination is grounded in international law (e.g., Balfour Declaration, San Remo, UN Partition Plan), historical continuity, and moral necessity. Erasing the concept of rights undermines every oppressed people’s pursuit of justice and opens the door to tyranny cloaked in pacifism.
The author misappropriates the language of “truth and reconciliation” but removes truth from the equation. Real reconciliation, as seen in South Africa or post-genocide Rwanda, begins with acknowledgment of harm, accountability, and restitution – not with mutual abdication of justice.
Jewish peace efforts – from Oslo to Camp David – have always involved recognition of Palestinian aspirations. But peace cannot come at the price of Jewish erasure. The author’s call for reconciliation demands Jewish surrender, not mutual understanding. That is not peace; that is soft political porn antisemitism posing as moral philosophy.
By suggesting that attachment to justice is what causes war, the author inverts reality. Those who resist annihilation are blamed for refusing to “let go.” This framework subtly but unmistakably condemns Israel for its very existence – for its refusal to commit national suicide in the name of a false peace.
Wanting to live safely in one’s ancestral homeland is not clinging to grievance. It is dignity. It is survival. The refusal to be exterminated again is not “attachment” – it is the most basic human right.
Finally, the author wraps his argument in lofty language about “being Human,” implying that only those who lay down arms and abandon identity are truly enlightened. This is condescending and hypocritical. It demands Jews disarm – physically, morally, and historically – while their enemies are never required to renounce genocidal aims or terror.
True humanity requires the defense of life, liberty, and justice. Jews are not less human because they refuse to be victims. A peace that demands Jewish self-abnegation is not peace – it is submission to injustice disguised as virtue.
This essay is not a call for universal peace – it is a polite sermon for Jewish disappearance. It demands that Jews renounce history, law, rights, memory, and moral clarity. It masks its prejudice in high-minded language but ultimately advances a cruel, supremacist vision in which the Jewish desire to live and defend itself is deemed the obstacle to peace. This is not moral wisdom – it is rhetorical poison.
True justice begins not with the erasure of history but with its honest reckoning. True peace comes not from abandoning rights but from affirming them for all peoples – including the Jewish people, in their land. And true justice requires fair compensation of damages inflicted upon victims. This justice ideal a bit complex when it involves nation states rather than single individuals because a nation state has a long continuous history.
True justice requires fair restitution of damages inflicted by the guilty because without restitution, justice is incomplete—it becomes abstract, performative, or punitive rather than transformative. Justice, especially in the biblical and legal traditions, is not merely about identifying wrongs—it’s about setting things right. When harm is done—whether through theft, violence, displacement, or oppression—justice demands not only that the wrongdoer be named but that the victim be restored as far as possible to the condition they would have been in had the harm not occurred.
In Torah law, for example, a thief does not just apologize—he pays back double (Exodus 22:3). A person who causes injury must compensate for lost wages and healing (Exodus 21:18–19). This reflects the foundational belief that repentance and accountability must be grounded in tangible restitution.
If those who inflict damage walk away without any responsibility to repair what they’ve destroyed, then justice is reduced to rhetoric. For victims, recognition without compensation can feel like a second violation—an acknowledgment of pain with no commitment to healing.
Reconciliation cannot occur merely by declaring peace or moving on. It requires a process in which the offender takes real responsibility. That includes acknowledging specific harms, making amends proportionate to the damage, allowing victims to speak and be heard. Without this, “peace” is a disguise for impunity. As in post-apartheid South Africa or post-genocide Rwanda, reconciliation efforts were only meaningful because they included truth-telling, reparations, and structural changes.
When the damage is inflicted by nation-states—over decades or centuries—restitution becomes more complex, but no less necessary. A nation is not a single person who can say “sorry” and move on. Nations inherit the benefits of past injustices—and justice demands they also inherit the responsibility. This is why land reparations, acknowledgment of ethnic cleansing, financial compensation, return of looted property, and legal recognition of sovereignty are essential elements of post-conflict justice.
The idea pawned off as political porn, that Israel post the Oct 7th 2023 abomination has an obligation to establish a Palestinian state. Following the collapse of the British “Palestine” Mandate, Palestine ceased to exist. Neither Jordan nor Egypt between 1948 to 1967 made any attempt to establish a Palestinian state. Yet soft political porn demands that Israel do what no Arab country as ever done. Yes Israel repatriated 850,000 expelled Jewish refugees while the 22 Arab states have adamantly refused to repatriate and give citizenship to the 600,000 1948 Arab refugees who fled on the orders of their own leaders!
Restitution is not just for the sake of the guilty—it affirms the dignity and rights of the harmed. It says: you matter enough to be restored. Your suffering is not an unfortunate side effect to be forgotten but a wrong that must be redressed. In Jewish theology and halakhah, this is part of the t’shuvah (repentance) process. There is no true atonement without making things right with the human being who was harmed. Any concept of “justice” that lacks restitution risks becoming a tool for the powerful to evade consequences while asking the wounded to forget.
The Oct 7th Abomination War has forced Israel to re-address its diplomatic relations with the UN and related courts which pretend they hold judicial jurisdiction over Israel like strings which guide the actions of a puppet.
Unlike every other nation, Israel is the only country subject to a standing agenda item (Item 7) at every session of the U.N. Human Rights Council. That means at each of the Council’s three annual sessions, a dedicated debate is held solely to condemn Israel’s actions. No other country—even Syria, North Korea, China, Russia, or Saudi Arabia—faces this perpetual, institutionalized scrutiny.
Item 7 guarantees a steady stream of resolutions and “fact‑finding” missions against Israel, long after any specific incident has faded. It absolves the Council of having to take up egregious abuses elsewhere, because Israel is always on the docket. Israel is demonized as a perpetual violator of human rights, while far more serious rights‑abuses by other states go largely unaddressed.
To participate fully in bodies like the General Assembly Bureau, Economic and Social Council, or Human Rights Council, member states join one of five regional groups. Israel was placed in the “Western Europe and Others Group” (WEOG)—an anomalous category that mixes Europe, North America, Australia, and a handful of others. Geographically and politically, Israel belongs in the Asia‑Pacific Group, alongside its neighbors. The Asia‑Pacific Group has refused to admit Israel, effectively ghettoizing it in WEOG and limiting its ability to stand for U.N. officers, host sessions, or be fairly represented on key committees.
By keeping Israel out of its proper regional bloc, the U.N. system segregates Israel rather than treating it as an equal Middle Eastern state. It reinforces the narrative that Israel is an “outsider” in its own neighborhood—making it easier for Arab and Muslim states to rally against it in U.N. forums.
On top of these mechanisms, the U.N. General Assembly routinely adopts more resolutions condemning Israel than against all other countries combined. This isn’t democracy—it’s a political majority wielding the U.N. system as an anti‑Israel megaphone. When the U.N. Single‑out one democracy for endless censure (Item 7), exiles that democracy from its geographic peer group, and floods the GA floor with disproportionate condemnations—it forfeits any claim to impartiality or moral authority.
What Israel Could—and Should—Do? Withdraw or Suspend Participation in bodies that institutionalize this bias (e.g., withhold delegates from Item 7 sessions). Press for Regional Admission to the Asia‑Pacific Group (perhaps via a U.N. Charter amendment or Security Council referral). Leverage Bilateral Forums (Abraham Accords, direct dialogues) and U.N. Reform Coalitions (like the “Uniting for Consensus” group) to push back against structural injustices. Until these systemic imbalances are corrected, the U.N. will remain a platform for political grandstanding—not genuine conflict resolution.
Xtian theology amounts to nothing more that tumah לשון הרע.
This article takes an ostensibly “spiritual” meditation on Psalm 119 and, much like replacing wheat with sawdust, substitutes Torah-based common law with vague emotive mysticism. It dismantles the legal integrity of Torah language—particularly the term ‘עדה’—and repackages it in a Xtianized, universalist, anti-halakhic form.
“The fourth word… is ‘edah, translated as ‘decrees’ or ‘testimonies.’ It is a legal term… meaning ‘witness’… repeat it as a mantra throughout the day…”. This statement contains a grain of accuracy—the root ‘uwd’ and noun ‘edah’ are legal—but what follows is a massive distortion. ‘Edah’ in Psalm 119 (and throughout Torah) refers to oath brit alliance legal witnesses—not subjective “testimonies” or inner emotional impressions.
In Torah, ‘edot’ are part of a triad: chukim, mishpatim, edot—each with precise legal-historical roles. Edot: public testimonies tied to national specific oath alliances cut upon the memory of all generations of the chosen Cohen people. (e.g., Shabbat, Pesach, Tefillin). Chukim: statutes beyond rational explanation (e.g., Parah Adumah); meaning they require עיין to grasp their k’vanna prophetic mussar intent. Mishpatim: civil law and social justice (e.g., tort law, contracts), commonly referred to as halacha in the Talmud. By turning ‘edah’ into a private mystical mantra, this article violates the very legal concept it claims to elevate.
“Consistent, repetitious true witness wins the case for the defendant…” This line rips witness-bearing out of the courtroom, and replaces halakhic case law (based on two kosher witnesses, cross-examination, and procedural law in Sanhedrin) with a poetic feeling of “truth.” Psalm 119 is not sentimental poetry. It’s a legal psalm—a meditation on Torah as brit, the legal covenant between HaShem and His chosen Cohen people. In Devarim 4:26, heaven and earth are called as edim—witnesses—to testify against Israel if the brit is violated.
Halachic witness testimony demands, b’dikat Edim (witness interrogation), hatra’ah (prior warning), and legal consistency—not just “repetition.” This article abolishes courtroom rigor, and replaces it with therapeutic mysticism.
“The Holy Spirit is your beloved friend who strokes the forehead of your soul…” This line introduces foreign theology. The Holy Spirit in this article simply not the Shekhinah, nor Ruach HaKodesh in the Tanakh sense—it reflects a Xtian Trinitarian Av tumah avoda zarah. Which violates the core of Psalm 119 that reaffirms Israel’s legal obligation under Torah, and frames suffering as a function of discipline and law, not sentimental closeness.
“I know, HaShem, that Your judgments are righteous, and that in faithfulness You have afflicted me.” This utterly not divine cuddling—but rather judicial justice which defines the concept of Faith, within the Torah. The article commits theological sawdusting: replacing Torah’s wheat of legal brit with spiritualized fluff.
“Join the suffering of the psalmist with yours and others…” Psalm 119, not about universal suffering. Rather this Tehillem expresses the faith that Jews accept both blessing and curse equally from the Torah. An utterly profound idea. Takes no faith to accept blessings. Faith the Torah defines as acceptance of the oaths sworn by the forefathers of the chosen Cohen nation. At the brit cut between the pieces Avram accepted that his future born (O’lam Ha’ba) children would endure horrific g’lut/exile – the ultimate definition of the Torah curse sworn to at the brit cut between the pieces.
“Rivers of water run down my eyes because they do not keep Your Torah.” (119:136) This verse isn’t about abstract emotion—it’s about national breach of Torah law. To flatten this into an emotional “Easter meditation” de-Judaizes the psalm and empties it of its legal and sworn oath alliances contract content.
Psalm 119 simply an acrostic structure organized around Torah synonyms such as: Torah, edut, mishpat, choq, mitzvah, derech, pekudim … each has a technical legal meaning in the system of Torah. This counterfeit treif presentation flattens them all into “the Word,” wraps them in Christian sentimentalism, and utterly fails to distinguish legal categories from one another. This is a classic move in supersessionist theology: take a robust legal system and reduce it to a single “spiritual principle”—usually “Jesus,” “grace,” or in this case, “the gentle Word.”
mosckerr
An example of completely off the דרך rabbinic traditional Judaism pawned off upon the Jewish people today. It sucks.
This article, its failure to integrate Torah common law, especially as it is preserved in the Talmud Yerushalmi, Talmud Bavli, and across Torah and NaCH precedents – as fundamental and basic required Torah education.
“The Torah is our moral guide book and our instruction manual as to how to achieve perfection…” This statement collapses Torah into mere moralism, erasing its fundamental nature as a brit-based legal system. The Torah is not a vague book of “values” or “morals as the Xtian church new testament avoda zarah preaches. The Torah a structured corpus of binding oath alliance common law, rooted in legal logic and adjudicated through common-law jurisprudence, especially in orah sh’Bikhtav positive and negative toldot precedents which derive Av tohor time oriented Torah commandments. By ignoring the legal frameworks of Yerushalmi and Bavli, the article severs Torah from its juridical continuity and its prosecutor/defense attorney machloket-based legal reasoning by comparing different briefs of precedents by which the court determines the judicial ruling for that specific Case of Sanhedrin court-room law.
“A moral code created by man… can so easily be dropped when ‘necessary’… A human being without a divinely instructed moral code is not that different from an animal…” This lazy binary reduces Torah to moral authoritarianism, and caricatures human intellect outside the Torah as animalistic.
It ignores the moral-legal complexity of halakhic deliberation—a system of legal inductive פרדס reasoning and precedent, and not blind obedience like as found in both Xtian and Islamic substitute theologies and historical revisionism. This rhetoric is not only theologically shallow—it actually undermines Torah authority by misrepresenting it as a fixed moral code rather than a living legal tradition.
“Barley is for animals, wheat is for humans… before Torah we were animals…” The use of this homiletic contrast completely divorces itself from legal precedent. The Korban haOmer (barley) and the Shtei haLechem (wheat) are not merely moral symbols—they are part of a legal-ritual system tied to agricultural halakhot (e.g., chadash vs. yashan), moadim (fixed times), Temple procedure and national calendar jurisdiction (Sanhedrin’s role in declaring months), and the halakhic processes outlined in Masekhet Menachot. In fact, the Yerushalmi in Rosh HaShanah explores how these offerings relate to national judgment and the division of agricultural responsibilities. Ignoring that removes the juridical backbone of the offering. This kind of parshanut, while poetic, has no grounding in the legal scaffolding that gives Torah its enduring force.
A proper common-law approach would have cited Ruth chapter 2–3, where barley and wheat harvests intersect with geulah (redemption) and yibbum-style marriage. Daniel 1, where the dietary distinction between “tohor” and “tumah” food is moral, political, and halakhic. Or Mishnah Menachot 10:1, which details how wheat and barley offerings differ not only in quality, but in halakhic implications and Temple service protocols. Even Midrash Rabba and Sifra offer deeper precedent-based readings. But none are invoked.
This article offers a one-dimensional take, with zero engagement in legal argument or dissent—which is central to Torah. “Eilu v’eilu divrei Elokim chayim” (“These and these are the words of the Living God”) is not just poetry—it’s the backbone of Jewish legal process. Without machloket, there is no halakhah. The statute law assimilated codes made famous by the Rambam Tur and Shulkan Aruch utterly distorted this key essential aspect of Talmudic common law. The Bavli models moral disagreement through law, not through simplistic wheat/barley metaphors. This piece essentially commits a kind of intellectual bitul Torah—nullifying the complexity and genius of the Oral Law tradition.
mosckerr
Xtianity has no t’shuva, it compares to a whore in church who eats her leavened wafer and wine, blessed by the priest/pastor to sell her sex trade for profit.
Another prime example of Xtian super-sessionist theology—deeply cloaked in pious, emotional language, but functionally erasing and replacing the Jewish people as the chosen Cohen nation and our oath alliance which continually and in all generations creates from nothing the Jewish people. Hence the Torah opens with the Creation story to teach tohor time oriented commandments which re-creates the world over and again for all eternity.
“Matthias brings the number of apostles back to twelve, symbolic of the twelve tribes of Israel who await the promises of God.” This a textbook replacement theology (aka supersessionism). The 12 Apostles are cast as symbolic stand-ins for the 12 tribes of Israel. This insinuates that the Church has inherited or replaced Israel as the rightful vessel of God’s promises. It reframes the historical Israel—Am Yisrael, bound by Sinai oath alliance, the “fulfillment” of the oath sworn to Avram at the brit cut between the pieces concerning the eternal inheritance of the chosen land, and Torah common law—as obsolete. That single line reveals the core ideology of Christian theology since the Church Fathers: that Israel’s role is completed, and the “New Israel” is now spiritual, universal, and Xtian.
The article is couched in warm, meditative tones: “Like Matthias, we’re called to be witnesses…We must move toward the wounds of our brothers and sisters…” But beneath that hides a theological coup: the theft of Jewish chosen Cohen people identity. It romanticizes betrayal of the Jewish people by presenting it as spiritual growth and divine progress.
This rhetorical move allows Xtians to appropriate the biblical story of Israel, the symbols (like “12 tribes”), the wounds (which in Jewish memory include centuries of pogroms, Inquisitions, ghettoizations, and the Shoah)—without taking responsibility for the Xtian theological roots of that suffering.
Note this section: “Matthias brings the number back to twelve… symbolic of the twelve tribes of Israel…” This is no accident. Judas Iscariot—who betrayed Jesus—is often symbolically linked in Christian tradition with the Jewish people. This goes back to the Gospel of John, which repeatedly paints “the Jews” as Christ’s enemies. Church Fathers openly taught that Judas was a stand-in for Israel’s rejection of Jesus. So when Matthias “replaces” Judas, it implies the Church replacing Israel as God’s faithful people. The theological core of super-sessionism replacement theology.
The article closes with “The wounds of Christ and the wounds of our brothers and sisters– we learn from both to see victory over death…” This sounds compassionate, but it’s morally bankrupt when the theology being promoted is the very one responsible for generating those wounds!
Xtian Europe inflicted 2000+ years of persecution on the Jewish people in the name of the crucified Christ. Blood libels, forced baptisms, Crusades, ghettos, inquisitions, expulsions, and eventually the Shoah—all justified by the claim that Jews were “Christ-killers” and had been “replaced” by the Church. The article offers no acknowledgment of this history, no repentance, and certainly no restitution. Instead, it spiritualizes suffering and invites readers to “see victory” in wounds it played a direct role in inflicting.
There’s no recognition that the Jewish people still live, still keep Torah, still affirm our brit sworn oath alliance through remembering the oaths sworn by our forefathers with HaShem. No mention of Mount Sinai, of mitzvot, of the Land of Israel, or of the ongoing national identity of Jews as the chosen Cohen people. The “Israel” in this theology is a ghost, an allegory, a “type” replaced by the “mystical body of Christ.” In this telling, Jews no longer matter—except as theological stepping stones.
This isn’t just an isolated devotional post. It reflects the core structure of Christian theology since the 2nd century; the mechanism by which Europe justified the Shoah, and the ongoing erasure of Jewish dignity, national identity, and oath alliance chosen Cohen people truth. What makes it so insidious is how gently it’s framed—how pastorally it speaks—while carrying out a replacement so total it denies even the memory of its theft.
mosckerr
Another example of Av tuma Xtian avoda zarah expressed through revisionist history propaganda.
The historical and theological distortion in this article, its central premise misrepresents both Zionism and the modern U.S.-Israel alliance. The article’s question—“Who will defeat Biblical Zionism?”—is a conceptual bait-and-switch. Zionism, a modern political movement that arose in the late 19th century—not an ancient or biblical ideology. It was a response to the Dreyfus Affair in France (1894–1906), Russian pogroms in the Pale of Settlement, and centuries of Jewish statelessness and persecution. Thus, to call the Abraham Accords or U.S. military alliances a result of “Biblical Zionism” is a misleading conflation—often used by conspiracy theorists or apocalyptic ideologues.
This article doesn’t offer real geopolitical critique. Instead, it traffics in apocalyptic Xtian language, doomsday prophecy (Daniel, Matthew), and thinly veiled antisemitic tropes of Zionism as world-dominating, Israel as a betrayer of nations, Jerusalem as the prize of a “One World Government – blood libel slanders. This is not serious analysis—it’s eschatological fear-mongering dressed up as commentary.
The claim that the Abraham Accords are a “pavement for the One World Government” is pure speculation with no factual basis. In reality the Abraham Accords were bilateral normalization agreements between Israel and Arab states (UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, etc.). They were driven by shared concerns about Iran, economic interests, and U.S. diplomacy—not some hidden theocratic agenda.
The author quotes Daniel 11 and Matthew 24 to paint Trump and Zionism as fulfilling “the age of betrayal” and honoring a “strange god.” This is classic eisegesis—reading one’s political bias into the biblical text. Daniel 11 was historically about the Seleucid king Antiochus IV Epiphanes, not modern U.S. presidents or Gulf arms deals. Matthew 24 refers to general apostasy and persecution, but tying it to Trump dancing in Saudi Arabia is just bad theology.
While there are legitimate concerns about U.S. arms sales to authoritarian regimes (e.g., Saudi Arabia), that is a matter of realpolitik, not eschatology. What this article does is flip the moral script. It treats military alliances and peace accords as signs of the end times, while subtly demonizing Jews, Israel, and any Christians who support Zionism as “lost souls.”
Zionism was a rational Jewish response to persecution, not a Biblically prophesied imperial plan. This article confuses theology, distorts history, and uses emotionally loaded religious texts to push a conspiratorial worldview. It’s not journalism or legitimate critique—it’s a Xtian apocalyptic polemic hiding behind geopolitical language.
mosckerr
Cowardly Arab revisionist history where Arab men hide behind the skirts of their women.
Two glaring omissions and distortions common in contemporary Arab and leftist discourse on regional history and victimhood narratives. The selective memory in Arab and pro-Palestinian discourse that glorifies victimhood while conveniently omitting or minimizing Yasser Arafat’s notorious alliance with Saddam Hussein during the 1990 Gulf War. His backing of Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait had devastating consequences for Palestinian communities living in Kuwait—over 400,000 Palestinians were expelled or fled, many of whom had lived there for decades. These expulsions were a direct backlash to Arafat’s support for Saddam and reveal a dark undercurrent in pan-Arab politics where ideological alignment often trumps the well-being of actual people.
Kuwait’s response, while harsh and arguably collective punishment, is inseparable from the historical reality that the Palestinian leadership—at that time—aligned itself with a brutal aggressor. This is rarely confronted by activists or intellectuals in postcolonial circles who romanticize the Palestinian cause while neglecting intra-Arab injustices, sectarian hypocrisy, and Arab-on-Arab violence.
Arab propaganda tends to amplify the Nakba—the displacement of roughly 700,000 Palestinians in 1948—while completely failing to acknowledge the far greater displacement of over 850,000 Jews from Arab countries following Israel’s establishment. These Jewish refugees—who were often stripped of property, rights, and citizenship—received no recognition, compensation, or international aid. They were absorbed into Israel without the luxury of UNRWA or a decades-long refugee status to preserve their victim identity.
Mona Kareem’s interview raises valid critiques of Western literary imperialism and the marginalization of diasporic Arab voices. But what’s conspicuously absent is the Arab imperialism and intra-Arab chauvinism—the expulsion of Bidun, the demonization of non-Arab minorities, or the internal collapse of solidarity when Arab regimes scapegoat their own stateless or peripheral peoples.
Kareem positions herself against “white innocence” in translation—but there’s a parallel “Arab innocence” that must also be challenged. The cultural industry across the Arab world, including literature, has often functioned as a gatekeeping mechanism for nationalist, patriarchal, and revisionist ideologies. The Bidun, Kurds, Jews, Amazigh, and others have been erased or demonized—not by the West, but by Arab regimes and cultural elites themselves.
This selective historical memory is not just a narrative flaw—it’s a political weapon. By fixating solely on the Nakba, Arab leaders and intellectuals erase their own culpability in fomenting war in 1948 and reject any responsibility for the outcome. Worse, they use it as a rallying cry to avoid self-reflection, democratic reform, or internal justice.
This selective amnesia is cowardice, as you put it—moral cowardice that avoids hard truths in favor of a simplified, Manichean story of oppressed and oppressor. It’s also an example of textual violence, ironically paralleling the very critiques made by Mona Kareem in the interview you posted, but weaponized in reverse.
Arab elites, intellectuals, and propagandists cry foul at Western colonialism while engaging in intra-Arab repression and historical revisionism. The Nakba narrative has become a shield, obscuring not only Arab responsibility for the 1948 war, but also the systemic expulsion of Jews from Arab lands. The silence around Arafat’s complicity in the Gulf War tragedy reveals a dangerous prioritization of political ideology over historical accountability. Until these contradictions are confronted, calls for “justice” or “liberation” from within Arab discourse will continue to ring hollow—selective in memory, cowardly in confession, and ultimately, compromised in integrity.
mosckerr
The Elephant in the Ashes: Job as Indictment of Supersessionist Theology and Exilic Gaslighting
The “Elephant in the China Closet” of the Book of Job — the national oath alliance theme of g’lut (exile, humiliation, disempowerment) — which conspicuously – rather obviously – absent in all Xtian mis-interpretations. The Xtianized white-wash reading typified by commentators like Mike Mason or Elmer Smick – commits a theological reductionism far more egregious than Elihu’s verbosity. It universalizes Job’s suffering into abstract moralism and individualized spiritual growth, severing it entirely from the Torah oath alliance brit faith, national chosen Cohen people who by accepting the Torah at Sinai accept the blessings together with the Torah curses. This fundamental Torah brit foundation, expressed through the legal contexts of T’NaCH and Talmudic common law, it determines how the Book of Job correctly interpreted and understood.
The mainstream Xtian framing — that Job’s suffering, a test of personal faith or a vehicle for mystical insight — deliberately ignores the central T’NaCH & Talmudic theme that g’lut/exile suffering and injustice the direct result from the failure of our leaders to rule the oath sworn lands through judicial Sanhedrin common law courtrooms who preserve and maintain justice. The Book of Job directly addresses its central theme of justice.
Elihu as a Mouthpiece of Pious Systemic Gaslighting. Its not the justice of God which requires defense but rather the justice on Earth. Why do the righteous suffer? Avraham pleaded with HaShem over the decree of destruction – if 10 men cling to judicial righteousness etc. Job only one man, no different than Lot. The similarity between the two men ceases when Lot had incest relationships with both his daughters. Elihu’s verbosity isn’t just annoying — it’s dangerous. He overcompensates with verbosity because he’s spiritually insecure. He’s trying to prop up a crumbling paradigm: a transactional view of suffering that doesn’t fit either Job or Israel.
The Book of Job should be read today as an anti-super-sessionist indictment of Xtian theologies that promised universal peace and moral triumph — while Jews endured blood libel slanders, vicious pogroms, repeated over and again mass population transfers, economically degraded, thrown into ghetto gulags for three Centuries and slaughtered in the Shoah genocide under the Xtian watch. After the Holocaust and the rebirth of Israel, Xtianity, not Judaism, that must explain the suffering and the disgrace of the Xtian good name in the eyes of all humanity.
Xtian readings (like Mason, Smick, Meyer) domesticate Job’s protest, betray the terms of the oath brit Torah alliance. Job’s story mirrors Israel in g’lut, just as Megillat Eicha (Lamentations) does on a national level, Sefer Iyov articulates the outrage of the tzaddik who is cast down without cause. The Book of Iyov calls for t’shuva, on par with Moshe reminding HaShem of the oaths sworn to Avraham Yitzak and Yaacov, which caused HaShem on Yom Kippur to make t’shuva Himself and annul the vow to make the Chosen Cohen seed of the House of Moshe! Sefer Iyov, when properly read, exposes the moral and theological bankruptcy of replacement theology. When read within the context of Torah and g’lut, Iyov becomes a prophetic rebuke of the very theological systems that sought to bury the Jewish people — and of the gaslighting defenders who spoke piously while Zion burned.
mosckerr
Assimilated Jews who have little or no knowledge a Torah curse.
What’s deeply unsettling about Jonathan Tobin’s article. While on the surface it appears to celebrate Jewish-Catholic rapprochement, it subtly reasserts a dangerous, patronizing frame: that the Church still has a moral oversight role in defining Jewish legitimacy, particularly regarding the State of Israel and its wars of survival. Post-Shoah and post-1948, the Church itself is in galut (exile) — is exactly the kind of theological and historical inversion that must be foregrounded in any serious Jewish response. The traditional roles have been reversed.
Jews now exercise national sovereignty in our ancestral homeland through our own military, judiciary, and government. The Church, once the persecuting power, is now a diasporic entity with no territorial authority and no theological supremacy over Jewish destiny. Arab Palestinians, including Christians, are not dhimmi under Jewish rule — they are in fact part of an irredentist movement rejecting Jewish sovereignty and acting as proxies for imperial and genocidal ideologies (both Islamist and post-Marxist).
Why Tobin’s framing utterly disturbing and unacceptable. The question, “will Pope Leo use his influence to fight antisemitism?” assumes that Jewish survival depends on Christian endorsement — a deeply un-Jewish, post-galut mindset. Instead of acknowledging that it is the Vatican that has been displaced by history, Tobin behaves as if Jewish sovereignty is still on probation and must be evaluated according to Catholic moral standards.
Instead of acknowledging that it is the Vatican that has been displaced by history, Tobin behaves as if Jewish sovereignty is still on probation and must be evaluated according to Catholic moral standards. Israel is not a vulnerable supplicant. The Jewish people, for the first time in two millennia, possess real political, military, and economic agency. The Church, by contrast, is struggling to remain relevant, especially in the Global South where its authority is being undermined both by Islam and secularism.
The claim that the Church is simply “balancing” concern for Gaza and concern for Jews is dishonest. The moral equivalency between a democratic Jewish state defending its citizens and genocidal terror organizations is itself a form of antisemitism. The Catholic Church is not a unified political body. It is splintered between progressive liberationists, conservative traditionalists, and a shrinking Western base. Tobin ignores this collapse and projects an illusion of coherent moral authority that the Church no longer possesses.
Actions have their consequences. Just as Oct 7th 2023 resulted in the destruction of Gaza, and hopefully the forced population transfer of all Gazans to Arab countries comparable to the 800,000 Jews expelled from Arab countries in 1948, the Shoah marked the utter moral failure of Christendom, specifically Pius XII, to prevent or resist antisemitism; this Church alliance with Nazi Hitler, specifically when the Pope failed to denounce the deportation of Rome’s Jews to death camps, the failure of Rome’s Catholics to wear the star of David, it permanently shattered the obliterated “Good Name” of the Xtian church, both Catholic and Protestant.
The establishment of the State of Israel reversed the power dynamic and ended the era of Jewish dependency on gentile protection. In this new world, the Church must ask how it will earn moral relevance—not how Jews can pass its tests of legitimacy. The post-Shoah, post-Independence world marks the exile of the Church—not of the Jewish people.
After 2,000 years of Christian persecution and theological supremacy, Jews have returned to sovereign rule in their ancestral homeland. The Vatican, once a global hegemon, is now struggling to remain coherent amidst internal fracture and geopolitical irrelevance. Any commentary that frames Jewish survival or Israeli sovereignty in terms of papal approval misunderstands the new reality. The Church no longer defines our borders, moral legitimacy, or destiny. It is the Church that must ask what role it plays in a Jewish century—not the other way around.
mosckerr
Conflict Resolution 