Dead ends.. Dead ends A Poem by Coyote Poetry Time for all of us to think and do the right things. Before it is too late for us and nature. Please don’t allow Israel/ USA to erase a people ( Palestine.). Murder of cities and people. The greatest sin. Men can do. Dead ends.. Brothers told no-one […]
Palestine ceased to exist as a UN protectorate territory when Israel won its National Independence by the Nakba defeat of 5 Arab Armies by the IDF, all the while that Jewish European Shoah refugees entered settlements within the borders of the newly declared state of Israel. Arrogant Arabs invaded the newly declared Jewish state of Israel, the day after a 2/3rds UNGA majority recognized Jews equal rights to achieve self-determination in the Middle East. Based upon their false revisionist history foretold a Mohammedan prophesy that they would easily throw the Jews into the Sea and complete the Nazi Holocaust.
This pie in the sky song of revisionist history ignores that all Arab countries Universally rejected UN 181. Do you even know what that Resolution addressed? Arab rejected the Balfour Declaration by which the League of Nations carved up the defunct and defeated Ottoman Greater Syrian empire and awarded mandates to France in Syria and Lebanon and to Britain in present day Israel, Jordan, Iraq and Kuwait. The latter territories of the League of Nations, known as – “Palestine Mandate”. Palestine not an Arab word, Arabs cannot even pronounce the letter P in their language!
Arabs reject Jewish self-determination in the Middle East, even before Britain and France won WWI. Just that simple. No Arab individual and how much more so a country – ever would embrace the name Palestinian during the entire period of the League of Nations – British Mandate. Only in 1964 did the Egyptian born Yasser Arafat embrace the name Palestine with the establishment of his PLO terrorist organization. If for not other reason, other than the simple fact that David Ben Gurion named the new Jewish state Israel rather than Palestine in 1948. The Palestine Charter of Arafat’s PLO did not condemn the Jordanian rule over Samaria which it rebranded as “West Bank”. Nor did it denounce the Egyptian rule over Gaza! It openly condemned ’48 Israel.
You want to make the Palestinian issue into a religious belief system, that’s your choice. But this revisionist history compares to the Xtian and Muslim basic theologies of Monotheism. Which God do they worship? Such classic pie in the sky fairy tales of some Universal God… what a load of shit. On par with the lies which Goyim parents spew out to their young children about Santa Claus.
In similar vein Arab propaganda promotes the travesty of Israeli settlements in Samaria and Gaza today! America formed its original 13 colonies to the vast land from Sea to Shining Sea, built through settlements…American settlements perhaps the greatest success story in the last 250 years!
While studying Soviet foreign policy under Prof. Dunning at Texas A&M, I developed a theory of Trotsky’s “Permanent Revolution” as a mechanism for dismantling the ethical containment force of a civilization. This theory helped explain why Stalin, in 1939, invited Hitler to attack the USSR, enabling the Nazi military to mass troops along Soviet borders without triggering a Soviet mobilization. Stalin, fearing the precedent of WWI—where a prolonged war catalyzed the collapse of the Czarist regime—believed such a shock invasion could be politically survivable if it avoided prolonged internal dissent.
The Bolsheviks based their theory of revolution upon the French revolution where the King and the Church destroyed. The Bolsheviks destroyed both the Czar and the Greek Orthodox Church. The collapse of the Shah of Iran witnessed the overthrow of both the Shah and Western culture. Hitler did the same in Germany, he destroyed the post WWI Parliament and the Church.
Vladimir Lenin’s approach to revolution built around a tight knit and concealed cabal of revolutionaries. This idea separated from the Menshevik theories which embraced anarchist theories of revolution. Lenin rejected the anarchist and decentralist leanings of the Mensheviks, establishing a covert revolutionary elite to seize power. Trotsky, by contrast, remained more loyal to the original soviet model: workers’ councils governing through direct delegation. Lenin Marxist ideology emphasized the role of the proletariat in overthrowing capitalism and establishing a dictatorship of the proletariat. Whereas Troskii, being at heart a Menshevik supported “All Power to the Soviets” way to achieve political power and rule of government – at least till he sat as the Head of State. Lenin and Troskii used specific strategies, such as forming alliances with other revolutionary groups and leveraging the discontent of soldiers and workers, to successfully overthrow the Provisional Government. Stalin would employ intra-Bolshevik alliances to expel Troskii as the heir of Lenin.
The simplistic narrative of the Gospels – a story of Santa Claus coming to town lies told to children. Religious belief systems, no different than Stalin’s and Hitler’s propaganda lies told to their Party “believers”. The church persecution of “Xtian heretics” — no different than Stalin’s show trials of Bolshevik leaders whose opinions threatened the stability of Stalin’s One Man dictatorship.
Or Hitler’s, the “Night of the Long Knives,” purge which executed several leaders of the Sturmabteilung (SA), also known as the Brown Shirts, as well as other political adversaries. The SA, led by Ernst Röhm, instrumental in Hitler’s rise to power, but by 1934, their increasing power and Röhm’s ambitions posed a threat to Hitler and the more conservative elements of the Nazi Party, including the military (Reichswehr) and the SS (Schutzstaffel).
Hitler used a purge to consolidate his power, eliminate rivals, and gain the support of the military, which viewed the SA as a potential threat. The event resulted in the deaths of many SA leaders and other political opponents, solidifying Hitler’s control over the Nazi Party and the German state. The Night of the Long Knives, often seen as a turning point in the establishment of Hitler’s dictatorship.
During the Middle Ages the Pope instituted similar purges of all heretic gnostic and Protestant believers which challenged the dominance of the church monopoly over how to understand and interpret the NT\gospels. For example all church leaders have denounced to this very day the revelation of the Oral Torah as explained through the kabbalah of rabbi Akiva’s four part פרדס logic format.
Peter Lombard (c. 1100-1160), a significant figure in medieval theology, best known for his work “Sentences” (Sententiae), which became a cornerstone of Scholastic thought. His “Sentences” – a compilation of theological opinions and teachings from earlier Church Fathers and theologians, structured in a way that facilitated debate and discussion among scholars. The “Sentences” addressed various topics, including the nature of God, the sacraments, and the virtues. It provided a systematic approach to theology that encouraged critical thinking and analysis.
Gratian, who lived around 1140, a prominent medieval scholar and jurist, best known for his work in canon law. He often referred to by many catholics as the “Father of Canon Law”, due to his significant contributions to the development of ecclesiastical legal systems in the Catholic church. His most notable work – the “Decretum Gratiani.” A comprehensive compilation of canon law that organized and harmonized the various legal texts and decrees which accumulated over the years. This work, pivotal in establishing a systematic approach to canon law and served as a foundational text for later legal scholars and the development of church law.
Gratian’s “Decretum” addressed various topics, including the authority of the church, the nature of sin, and the administration of sacraments. Gratian’s ‘Decretum’ shaped the Church’s legal framework and remained a foundational text in canon law and theology for centuries. His work laid the groundwork for subsequent developments in both canon law and civil law.
Saint Albert the Great, another significant figure in the development of medieval philosophy and science. Albertus Magnus, a mentor to Thomas Aquinas at the University of Paris. His influence on Aquinas helped shape the latter’s integration of Aristotelian philosophy with Xtian theology. He played a crucial role in reintroducing Aristotelian philosophy to the Xtian intellectual tradition.
Albertus sought to reconcile Aristotle’s ideas with Xtian doctrine, emphasizing the compatibility of faith and reason. Often regarded as one of the first to systematically study the natural world. His integration of Aristotelian philosophy with Xtian theology influenced not only his students, like Aquinas, but also the broader development of Western philosophy and science. His work in biology, mineralogy, and metaphysics, all of which were deeply empirical for the time viewed as a bridge between the ancient philosophy and the rediscovered ancient Greek logic philosophies in the 10th Century.
Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274): Perhaps the most famous Scholastic philosopher and theologian, Aquinas – best known for his works “Summa Theologica” and “Summa Contra Gentiles.” He sought to reconcile faith and reason, drawing heavily on Aristotelian philosophy.
This is Aquinas’s most famous work, structured as a comprehensive guide to theology. It addresses various theological questions, including the existence of God, the nature of man, and moral principles. The work is notable for its systematic approach and use of Aristotelian logic.
Summa Contra Gentiles, Aquinas defends the Xtian faith against non-Xtian philosophies, particularly those of Islam and Judaism. It emphasizes the rational basis of faith and aims to demonstrate the compatibility of reason and revelation. Its failure to address the 4 part inductive reasoning logic of Oral Torah ultimately proves the propaganda half truths of church theology.
Aquinas, by stark contrast drew heavily on the works of Aristotle rather than rabbi Akiva. The latter views the Talmud compared to the warp/weft threads of a loom. Where דרוש ופשט interpret T’NaCH prophetic mussar and interpret the kvanna of Aggadic stories. While רמז וסוד conceal as the foundation of time oriented commandments express through both Torah commandments and Talmudic halachot. Aquinas consciously chose and integrated Aristotelian philosophy within the fabric of Xtian doctrine. He introduced concepts such as the “Five Ways” to demonstrate the existence of God, arguments based on observation and reason based upon Greek philosophy. And the Xtian Muslim dogma of Universal monotheism.
Aristotle’s static logic, ideal for constructing bridges. Hence Aquinas prioritized ancient Greek logic as ideal to support catholic dogmatism and Papal Bulls. Fluid\dynamic inductive reasoning/law where opposing prosecutor and defense lawyers rely exclusively upon previous judicial precedents to support pro & con opinions, hardly served the interests of a Vatican bible dictatorship. All three—Church, Stalin, Hitler—feared epistemological rivals: alternative systems of truth and authority. Like Stalinist “confessions” under torture, medieval inquisitions produced fabricated heresies to maintain a monopoly over “truth.”
Aquinas, known for his development of the concept of ancient Greek ‘natural law’. Which posits that moral principles best understood through human reason and inherent in the nature of human beings. His method involved posing Socratic-Plato questions, presenting objections, and then providing answers, which became a hallmark of Scholastic methodology.
Suppression of heretical beliefs and movements that challenged Vatican authority and interpretation of Xtian substitute theology doctrine included church denial of the Oral Torah revelation at Horev. Rabbi Akiva’s 4 part inductive logic system “replaced” by Aristotle’s 3 part syllogism of deductive logic. The latter shaped the church narrative. Logos (Greek abstraction) vs. Dibur or Torah SheB’al Peh (Oath alliance active remembrance of the oaths sworn by Avraham Yitzak and Yaacov.), which the church fathers violently denounce. In 1242 the Pope ordered the public burning of all Talmudic manuscripts within the whole of France.
The church defined heresy as beliefs or practices that deviated from established doctrine dogma and Vatican Bulls. Groups such as the Cathars and Waldensians, and of course Jews, labeled as cursed heretics for their stubborn stiff-necked alternative interpretations of Xtianity; Jews who viewed the NT as a Roman fraud, utterly despised by being impoverished through taxation without representation and thrown into ghetto gulags for multiple Centuries – פרדס inductive reasoning, compares to mentioning aloud the name of Lord Voldemort.
Established in the 12th century, the Inquisition formalized systematic oppression into a Nazi-like system – wherein the catholic thought police identified, prosecuted and slaughtered “heretics”. It involved pre-decided judicial investigations, trials, employed to conceal satanic human torture. The most infamous of these the notorious war-crimes: Spanish Inquisition. Begun in 1478, targeting Jews, Muslims, and Protestant reformers.
Suppression of heretical beliefs and movements that challenged Vatican authority and interpretation of Xtian doctrine, specifically included church denial of the Oral Torah revelation at Horev. Which also laid the foundation for Stalin’s later show trials in the 1930s.
Rabbi Akiva’s 4 part inductive logic system, Xtian replacement theology” prioritized and emphasized both Paul’s ‘original sin’ theology and later Aristotle’s 3 part syllogism of deductive logic, and denounced Jewish Oral Torah as non existent. This proverbial ostrich burying head in sand cowardice, such tuma pusillanimity shapes the church narratives to this very day.
The church classically defined heresy, prior to the French Revolution, as beliefs or practices that deviated and challenged the church dictate. Groups such as the Cathars and Waldensians, labeled as heretics for their alternative interpretations of both bible & Xtianity. Many groups other than these specific particulars utterly rejected the church Vatican monopoly – authority and power – to solely interpret the intent of both bible and church dogma. The Inquisition prosecution of heretics involved quasi-investigations, trials, and often torture punishments, resulting in execution.
The Gospel of John, written in Greek. The earliest known manuscripts of the Gospel of john include fragments such as the Rylands Library Papyrus P52, which dates to around 125 CE. This fragment, the oldest known manuscript of any part of the New Testament and contains a few verses from John 18. Other significant manuscripts, like Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, date from the 4th century CE and include the entire text of the Gospel.
The early Church Fathers, who were primarily Greek and Latin speakers, recognized the Greek text as the authoritative version. They often cited it in their writings, which supports the Rylands Library Papyrus P52, and contributes to the perception that the john gospel was originally composed in Greek. During this period of the Roman empire Greek served as the lingua franca – the medium of communication between peoples of different languages.
The Hellenistic themes of pre-existent divinity and hypostatic union present significant theological challenges when compared to the foundational principles of revelation as outlined in the Torah, particularly the events at Sinai. Pre-Existent Divinity, this concept suggests that certain divine beings or aspects of divinity existed before the creation of the world. In Hellenistic thought, this often refers to the idea of a divine Logos or intermediary that existed alongside God before the creation of the universe. In Xtian theology, this Greek concept, reflected in the belief in the pre-existence of Christ, seen as the divine Word (Logos) that was with God and was God (John 1:1).
While some early Church Fathers, like Papias, mentioned a possible ‘Hebrew Gospel’, they did not specifically attribute this to john. The notion of a Hebrew Gospel has been discussed in the context of the early Christian community’s use of different languages and texts. However, there no manuscript exists that definitively supports this revisionist history narrative. Most of the early references to such texts, compare to church blood libel slanders – indirect and often speculative. The lack of concrete manuscript evidence has led many scholars to view the idea of a Hebrew Gospel of John as most base revisionist history. The Greek Gospel of John, with no reliable Hebrew precedent, confirms the Roman-Hellenistic theological trajectory—not an indigenous Semitic prophecy.
The absence of a Hebrew manuscript or even substantial references to it in early Christian writings further proves this as just another blood libel lie. The theological themes in the Gospel of John, such as the Logos (Word) and the divinity of Christ, align more closely with Hellenistic thought than Hebrew thought which totally repudiate it. Attempts by Xtians in this Century to declare that Logos means “ben” or “JeZeus” amounts to creating their own ‘Oral Torah way’ to interpret the NT, while denying the existence of the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev.
The church’s persecution of heresy did not merely target political dissent—it waged wars against competing systems of legal and judicial reasoning vs. legislative statute law dictates made by tyrants or non elected bureaucrats. The Jewish Oral Torah, whose revelatory authority at Horev, rooted in inductive logic and oaths precedent active remembrance of the Avot; this judicial common law fundamentally threatened the Vatican’s imposed monopoly over its Pravda – truth. Replacing Rabbi Akiva’s פרדס framework with Aristotle’s deductive syllogism, the Church attempted to implode T’NaCH and Talmudic common law judicial legalism. That actively shapes and influences the cultures and customs which defines Jewish identity as a people of the chosen Cohen nation.
The battle over heresy, never merely about doctrine—rather, a battle over interpretive sovereignty. The church’s erasure of the Oral Torah, its violent rejection of the פרדס legal judicial legislative review, and its dogmatic substitution of Greek metaphysics, all point to a broader imperial strategy: the silencing of Sinai. Just as Stalin erased rivals and Hitler purged the SA, the Vatican constructed a theological police state—burning the Talmud, ghettoizing Jews, and replacing the oath alliance conscious remembrance of the Avot through the tefillah from the Torah kre’a shma, the church intentionally sought to implode Horev replaced by the empire of Rome. That war on revelation still echoes in every attempt to retranslate the Gospel into Hebrew, to resurrect ‘Logos’ as ‘Ben,’ and to pass fiction as prophecy.”
The Torah commandment to uproot Canaanite cultures reflects not cruelty but covenantal mercy (מידת רחום)—a national immunization against cultural apostasy and idolatry. The second commandment warns against assimilating into societies that reject the Horev revelation, whether ancient Canaanites or modern ideological empires like Rome and Mecca. Failure to uproot the ancient Canaanites directly threatened the 2nd Sinai commandment not to follow the cultures and customs of peoples who reject the revelation of the Torah at Sinai and Horev. The peoples of both Xtianity and Islam reject the revelation of the Torah at Sinai and Horev. Hence the church sought to implode and cause the People of Israel to forget the Oral Torah just as did the assimilated Tzeddukim who sought to transform Jerusalem into a Greek polis.
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.
Conflict Resolution 