Another example of praying to the God of Mars in heaven, James 1:5 in the new testament fraud.

Clearly the new testament forgery has a completely different take on the meaning of wisdom. Torah “wisdom”, based upon the four part inductive logic of rabbi Akiva’s פרדס logic system, bears absolutely no resemblance what so ever to Aristotles’ 3 part syllogism of deductive logic. The two systems of logic as different than a cat from a mouse.

According to the logic developed by rabbi Yishmael, to communicate something more that tuma religious rhetoric propaganda requires both כלל ופרט. The introduction of the idea of “wisdom”, clearly a general idea, based upon the night and day distinctions which separate פרדס inductive logic from syllogism deductive logic.

James religious rhetoric propaganda only introduces the general idea of “wisdom” but brings absolutely no qualifying particulars to define the k’vanna of its meaning. Lacking qualifying particulars the general term “wisdom” exists merely as eye-candy, like throwing in a baited hook into a pond hoping to catch a fish. James God, based upon the error of monotheism which violates the 2nd Sinai commandment, his rhetoric propaganda forces the fuzzy logic of the audience to assume that his God one in the same with the God of Sinai.

A cracked foundation from the get-go. New Testament propagandists and later church “authorities” failed to discern the Torah mitzvot precedents wherein the חכמה of Oral Torah defines the mitzva of Moshiach.

The church fathers deny this חכמה of Oral Torah yet claim that wisdom non brit Goyim can learn Oral Torah wisdom simply by asking for it?! If James’s epistle, read through a post-brit, Christianized lens—especially in light of his association with early Messianic sectarianism—then even this invitation to wisdom becomes subtly redirected; it prioritizes a pacifist Moshiach rather than a warrior Moshiach – like Moshe Rabbeinu in Egypt. Furthermore, Oral Torah wisdom not only abandoned and replaced by ancient Greek wisdom which sports a completely different sets of logic formats, the Gospels loses all bonds to the oath brit cut upon the soul of Israel at Sinai, the Sanhedrin, the beit midrash, or the korbanot dedications which serve as the foundational precedents for the Oral Torah mitzva of Moshiach.

Instead, the new testament forgery becomes a personal, internal, mystical endowment—part of a broader movement to dissolve the national Torah-halachic framework into some totally alien universal spiritualism. The wisdom of Torah logic (כלל – פרט) as defined by two great Torah scholars: rabbi Akiva and rabbi Yishmael, a non bnai brit Goy, who rejects the revelation of the Torah at Sinai, such a person could hope to acquire Oral Torah Horev revelation of wisdom? About as likely as a fish can sing an Opera! James 1:25 which attempts to frame “law of liberty”, a rhetoric non defined unknown term, hence forth also qualifies as yet another glaring example of new testament replacement theology.

Clearly the Epistle of James shares no grafted roots, a totally alien weed attempting to grow in the Garden of the Oral Torah Horev revelation of the 13 tohor middot. James religious Greek rhetoric promises only hazy and vague spiritual eye-candy promises, totally incapable of accomplishing. Hence the Epistle of James stands upon the foundations of a flat out lie.
The revelation of the Oral Torah logic system compares to the professional athlete acquires the wisdom of his skills as he hones trains for competition. During all the forced Xtian debates against Jews during the Middle Ages, the church fathers, cowards and frauds, limited any and all debates – basically demanding if Jews had sex with their mothers recently! A fat lazy over-weight couch-potato Monk could no more compete with an Olympic athlete than a fish could sing opera.

James 1:25’s so-called “law of liberty” (νόμον τῆς ἐλευθερίας), undefined and suspiciously rhetorical. It reads like Obama’s promise of “Change”! Liberty, as a Torah mitzva directly associated with the Yoval freeing of slaves. James foisted Pie in the Sky notion of liberty, far more akin to Hellenistic concepts of logos or Stoic ethics than to Torah mitzvot, halacha or Midrashic interpretation upon Talmudic aggadic stories which attempt to interpret T’NaCH prophetic mussar, with an eye to weave this prophetic mussar as the k’vanna of observing halachic mitzvot, as well as positive and negative commandments elevated and raised to Av tohor time oriented commandments from the Torah.

Hence James reflects a tits on a boar hog replacement theology! James has more nuance that the crude Pauline epistles. But both seek to drain the Torah of its oath brit-rooted Oral Torah time oriented revelation of Av tohor commandments … despite referring to HaShem as “father in heaven”. The oath sworn at this brit cut between the pieces by Avram, that the Spirit Name of HaShem breaths within the 7 menorah souls contained within the Yatzir Ha’Tov inside the heart of all chosen Cohen people. The foreign alien religious tripe of treif rhetoric from James compares to Jesus teaching his disciples to pray to some alien Mars God in Heaven!

How Hebrews 9:6-12 duplicates the Av Tuma sin of the Golden Calf

4th Day of the Omer, the dedication to remove the חמץ of Av tuma avoda zarah from within the tuma Yatzir Ha’Ra within our hearts. How new testament Paul’s – Hebrews 9: 6-12 duplicates the Sin of the Golden Calf

HaShem is not a man that He should lie (Numbers 23:19). The brit is not a metaphor. It is an oath-bound alliance, sealed with the Nefesh soul contained within living blood, upheld by divine t’shuva, and renewed in every korban offered by the sons of Aaron. To cancel that brit amounts to the denial of the character of HaShem Himself; to replace Moshe Rabbeinu with a foreign mediator, ultimately defines the Sin of the Golden Calf and Hebrews 9: 6-10 which repeats the sin of the Calf—not just in deed, but in theology.

Hebrews 9:6–10, traditionally read in Xtian theology as a critique of the korbanot system—framing it as ineffective, obsolete, and merely symbolic. In this interpretation, the daily offerings and Yom Kippur rituals, reduced to shadows, paving the way for a universalized, spiritual priesthood centered on Christ. This reading not only distorts the purpose of korbanot—it severs them from the oath brit framework that defines Israel’s unique Chosen Cohen identity. The Pauline religious rhetoric restricts korbanot relegated to making a barbeque unto Heaven.

The Pauline frameworks of guilt and substitution (e.g., Hebrews 9:12: “not by the blood of goats and calves, but by His own blood…”). This substitute theology expressed in Hebrews ignores HaShem’s own t’shuva which defines the k’vanna of every Yom Kippur. Paul’s Av tuma religious rhetoric replaced his Original Sin guilt and repentance thesis of the fall of Adam, which requires the Jesus resurrection from the dead to atone for the guilt of the Original Sin made by Adam. Yom Kippur testifies to the oath brit faithfulness of HaShem together with His chosen Cohen People. HaShem not a Man that he should lie. The Pauline Hebrews 9:10 seeks to superimpose a Church Christ-centered priesthood – effectively canceling Israel’s oath brit Cohen status established at the brit cut between the pieces; where Christ replaces Israel as the holy Moshiach.

The Golden Calf originally reflects this av tuma theme of substitute theology, wherein the ערב רב of Israel demanded to make the Golden Calf a visible mediator to replace Moshe. Both the sin of the Golden Calf and Hebrews 9:6-10 seek to install an abstract, foreign model of nearness. Thus Hebrews 9 attempts to repackage the Divine Cohen services which eternally dedicate the Cohen House of Moshiach into the image of this new replacement foreign God Jesus mediator.

Torah brit faith, simply not metaphor as the book of Hebrews pretends. Rather this oath-bound alliance, sealed with the nefesh—the soul contained within the living blood collected from the cut throat of a korban animal whose beating heart pumps this living blood, thrown upon the altar. Israel swears an oath which requires שם ומלכות\blowing the Divine Spirit Name from within the Yatzir Ha’Tov within the heart together with a dedicated Oral Torah Horev revelation middah/attribute, designated and sanctified to adjust how a Jew socially interacts with his people in the future—upheld not by guilt or appeasement, but by the Divine t’shuva of loyalty itself, as expressed every Yom Kippur; every Shabbat Jews remember the tohor time oriented commandment which forever distinguishes the difference between מלאכה from עבודה.

This Shabbat rededication of the righteous pursuit of justice, as expressed through every korban dedicated, herein serves as the foundation of the mitzva of Moshiach, by the sons of Aaron whom Moshe originally anointed with oil. Just as the sons of Aaron anoint all korbanot dedicated upon the altar with oil. This anointing dedication through oil, it affirms the consecrated role of Am Yisrael as HaShem’s chosen Cohen nation, the Moshiach in all generations. To annul this oath brit utterly profanes the halachot of Shevuot. Such av tuma behavior simply denies the very character of the Chosen Cohen nation and its avodat HaShem through all generations as the anointed Moshiach. To replace Moshe Rabbeinu—the appointed lawgiver and oath brit mediator—with a foreign figure – not a kosher innovation. Rather it exposes the tuma of repeating the sin of the Golden Calf, not just in deed but in theology.

How John 13:34 perverts and justifies homosexuality

Intermarriage with the specific of Canaanites – equally applies to all Goyim who do not accept the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. I bring the Book of Ezra as proof. Many early Church Fathers used John 13:34 to claim a supersessionist “new law”, replacing the Torah’s commandments with a simplified ethic of love. Yet ironically, the very idea of loving one’s neighbor—and even one’s enemy. An utter perversion of the oath brit alliance among the chosen Cohen people who accept the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. Ezra 9–10, post-exile, shows the seriousness of intermarriage with foreign women—because it represents a breach of kedushah and brit, meaning: spiritual allegiance and oath brit fidelity. The Church Fathers (e.g., Justin Martyr, Origen, Chrysostom) weaponized verses like John 13:34 to argue that a new “spiritual” law of love had replaced the “old legalistic” Torah—especially the halakhic boundaries that safeguarded Jewish identity and fidelity to the brit.

Jesus introduced, according to these vile animals, “Love is enough!” A Greek ideal—abstract, universal, de-politicized—divorced from the concrete legal-communal substitutional theology. Love, defined by Torah, defined through the Torah precedent of marriage requires that a man love his wife by acquiring title to her world to come souls. Meaning the children, the product of this union. Based upon the precedent of the brit cut between the pieces whereby Avram had no children and cut a brit over the first born chosen Cohen people. This concept of the chosen Cohen people understands the intent of the prohibition to marry with Goyim who do not accept the revelation of the Torah at Sinai.

Xtian supersessionist theology gutted the concept of brit: Shalom became personal inner peace, not oath alliance to pursue fair justice – compensation of damages inflicted by Party A to Party B among our chosen Cohen people within the borders of the oath sworn promised land.
The Xtian pervert theologians corrupted emunah unto belief in Jesus as the son of God and belief in God as a triune mystery of Monotheism. The Torah defines emunah as the righteous pursuit of justice among our people. The Xtian pervert theologians corrupted ‘ahavah’ unto generic love, rather than the Torah brit-bound hesed based upon the oath brit foundation precedent of the oath cut between the pieces.

The Xtian pervert theologians know absolutely nothing of Torah common law which stands upon the foundation of Torah precedents – both positive and negative commandments.
In doing so, the Church replaced the Torah’s vision of a holy people bound in legal, ethical, and national allegiance to Hashem, with a mystical, universalized ethic that denied the enduring chosenness of Israel and the centrality of Sinai. John 13:34, obliterated the Torah common law faith to pursue justice among and between the chosen Cohen people who accept the revelation of the Torah at Sinai in the face of the Goyim “darkness” who reject this light unto the nations.

The Xtian theologian perverts abhor the oath-bound brit alliance which forever discerns between emotional short term vows from remembering from generation to generation the oaths sworn by the Avot by which they cut the brit which permanently established the oath brit Cohen people. Hence the mitzva precedent of the captured woman through war. Whereby the Torah commands that she cut off all her hair and par her nails etc for no less than one month before the Israeli permitted to marry her! Why? Torah marriage cuts an oath brit alliance between man and wife and not a emotional vow which can be easily annulled based upon the Torah precedent which permits the Father or Husband to annul the vows made by either young daughters or wives!

John 13:34 not just evil theology, it perverts marriage unto the metaphor of permitted homosexuality. The chosen Am-segulah (treasured nation) refers directly to the Sinai first-born Cohen people. The Goyim reject to this day the revelation of Torah common law!

The Xtian theologian perverts sought power, hence they slept in the same bed as the Governments which ruled Xtian lands. The American and French Revolutions separated Church from State and cast these Xtian whores to the dogs to sleep with. All agricultural based economies require slave labor. This has absolutely nothing to do with the bankrupt theology of the church great whore of Babylon.

When categories established by Torah law—male/female, Israel/goy, slave/free—are collapsed by when new testament replacement theology which abhors Torah common law and specific Torah abominations such as homosexuality and men and women confusion of genders and clothes. Galatians 3:28 doesn’t just dissolve the legal structure of the Torah, but opens the door to ideological chaos—Same-sex marriage (“There is no male and female”); Gender fluidity and trans ideology; Erasure of Jewish national identity (e.g. no “Jew or Greek”); Social anarchy in place of legal status (no “slave or free”). In many liberal Christian and post-Christian circles, Galatians 3:28 has become the banner verse for LGBTQ+ inclusion, often cited directly to undermine Torah prohibitions in Leviticus 18 and 20. Paul’s statement is interpreted as saying: All categories are now irrelevant in Christ.

Paul’s doctrine, and the super-sessionist theology it spawned, does not merely disagree with Torah—it declares war on Torah categories. Shalom perverted into inner peace, not the righteous pursuit of judicial justice which strives to make fair restitution of damages inflicted by Party A upon Party B. His replacement theology abhors the post Gold Calf Day of Atonement where HaShem first revealed the revelation of the Oral Torah – which the church rejects. Galatians 3:28 is not just heresy—it is the theological root of modern moral collapse.

It dismantles the sacred distinctions that uphold holiness, family, justice, and national brit identity. It replaces Torah law with a boundaryless mysticism that justifies everything from homosexuality to gender nihilism to the erasure of Jewish nationhood.

This verse is often cited to support a universalist theology—that all human beings are one, created by God, and therefore equal and interchangeable. Viewed in the context of Paul’s theology, especially in Acts and Galatians, this verse becomes part of a larger Pauline strategy to undermine: Israel’s distinct chosen Cohen oath brit status, the chosenness of the Jewish people. The Torah’s territorial inheritance laws, and the culture and customs established by halakhic and the idea that only within the borders of the Promised lands to Jews possess the wisdom to keep and remember the oaths sworn by the Avot לשמה, from generation to generation.

Paul’s replacement theology perverts the oath brit alliance to that of a temporary vow, which his perverted theology attempts to annul through the new testament. The Torah establishes the vision that the nations inherit distinct national cultural and customs inheritances. Distinct languages, lands and destinies (Genesis 10-11). The essential concept of Israel’s national identity as a people relies upon and defined by the promised lands which Arab nationalism absolutely rejects. Deuteronomy 32:8 (LXX): “When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God.” Deuteronomy 7:6: “You are a people holy to Hashem… a chosen people from all the peoples on the face of the earth.” Paul’s replacement theology, like Arab hatred of Zionism which bases itself upon the 1917 Balfour Declaration wherein first Britain and later 2\3rd of all UN member states recognized Jewish equal rights to achieve self-determination within the borders of a distinct Middle Eastern nation.

His replacement theology abomination of shared human origin which collapses national distinctions cultures and customs, like modern Arab racist nationalism rejects Jewish national sanctity. Paul’s Acts 17:26 (universal origin) with Galatians 3:28 (category collapse) replacement theology destroys the chosen Cohen people of Israel; dissolves the laws of inheritance and land; undermines the Oral Torah halakhic requirements concerning intermarriage with Goyim and promotes modern Wokeism that emphasize awareness of social injustices and systemic inequalities, particularly related to race and identity. It is often viewed critically by some as being overly doctrinaire or insincere in its approach to social issues. Acts 17:26 is the philosophical foundation for Christian universalism.

It sounds innocent—but in Pauline context, it’s a soft prelude to the hard abolition of Israel’s unique brit. It paves the way for the erasure of identity, the rejection of Oral Torah Talmudic common law judicial lateral courts.

Paul’s 1 Corinthians 7:39 (KJV): Formula: “Only in the Lord” — Coded Supersessionist Halakhah? Paul doesn’t outright reject the binding nature of marriage—but it’s loaded with subtle replacement theology logic. Torah marriage flatly not just a temporary transitional vow–but rather an oath brit, contractual alliance with family generations and national implications. Governed by halakhic precedent, rooted in Exodus 22, Deuteronomy 24, and the Oral Torah. Validated by witnesses, contract (ketubah), and understood as part of a nation’s framework of kedushah and inheritance. Paul substitutes this with a subjective spiritual criterion: his “Only in the Lord.”, directly implies – Marry a fellow believer in Christ. It’s not about cutting an oath brit alliance—rather replaced by a shared belief in Xtian faith that declares Jesus as God.

This “Only in the Lord” phrase, exist as the key supersessionist pivot of Pauling propaganda. It nullifies the Torah -brit based marital framework model, replaces halakhic structure with doctrinal allegiance to the church abomination. And renders Torah marmital law as obsolete for “believers”. Ewwwwww! It detaches marriage from the promised land, nation, and halackhic authority. Sets the foundation for spiritual intermarriage theology – a direct violation of Torah common law; leading to full Goyim-Xtian identity formation apart from Israel. If one can marry “in the Lord”, then one need not marry “in the nation”. If faith in the belief of Jesus as God replaces Israel as the chosen Cohen nation, then the new covenant has replaced the oath brit cut between the pieces with Avram.

Paul’s “Only in the Lord” is not a neutral phrase. It functions as a Trojan horse for an entire redefinition of marriage: no longer a national covenant rooted in generational Torah obligations, but a private, spiritualized union under Church doctrine.

Xtianity, especially in its Pauline and post-Constantinian forms, intentionally dissolves ethnic, legal, and national distinctions. This is central to its theology. Galatians 3:28 – “There is neither Jew nor Greek… male and female… all are one in Christ.” This replacement theology erased halakhic distinctions, promotes spiritual unity over ethnic/national differences. Recasts marriage as a personal vow like sacrament, which replaces the oath sworn to remember dedication which any and all brit alliances fundamentally requires.

Liberal Protestant thoughts concerning marriage emphasize: romantic love and personal choice; Xtian values of inclusivity; detachment from ancestry, tribe, nation, or land. The Torah oath NOT vow, brit relationship cut between man and wife binds Jews to Torah Constitutional Law, tohorat ha’beit requirements for the woman to visit a mikveh prior to sexual activity; and the standards of keeping tohor & tuma distinctions like kosher foods etc. A man commits that he will educate his future born children in the oath brit faith – not to worship other Gods through intermarriage and assimilation which embraces Goyim cultures and customs.

Xtianity’s doctrine of spiritual unity and its deconstruction of Torah-based national distinctions directly laid the groundwork for both the theological legitimation and cultural normalization of interracial marriage. It treats distinctions—whether between Israel and the nations, or male and female—as obstacles to spiritual truth, not as sacred boundaries tied to divine law and oath brit consciously remembered dedications passed down from generation to generations just as DNA. From Augustine to modern liberal Protestants, modern issues like Wokeism and identity dissolution directly consequential to the Pauline doctrines of utter abomination.

“Only in the lard” totally unique to Xtianity. “Only in the lard” totally unique to Xtianity. It’s a theological phrase that doesn’t exist in Torah, halakhah, or any Jewish learning on the Torah. 1 Corinthians 7:39 a total Xtian new testament new religion of avoda zarah Av tuma. This phrase is nowhere in Tanakh. Paul creates a new criterion: shared belief in “the Lord” (i.e., Jesus).

The Xtian church does not define faith compliance any more than the Nicene Creed defines Monotheism. Monotheism rapes the 2nd Sinai commandment. This new testament perversion marks a supersessionist turn: marriage is no longer a national-legal act, but a spiritual-sacramental one. “Only in the Lord” = Trojan Horse. It reflects a super-sessionist marriage ethics; it perverts the negative commandment of “cross-dressing” between Males and Females; it lies totally outside of the customs and cultures of the Jewish people.

Furthermore, it establishes a faith-based “intermarriage” theology. A spiritual identity, which replaces ethnic-national boundaries as the Torah fundamentally and absolutely commands. Prior to the establishment of the Jewish Republic of the 12 Tribes the Torah commanded the negative commandment not to marry between Jewish Tribes! This horrid abomination serves as justification for assimilation unto universalist Xtian structures. From “Only in the Lord” to Modern Abominations … Xtian approval of interfaith/interracial marriages; same-sex marriage under the banner of “shared love in the Lord”; trans marriages and gender deconstruction as “inclusive theology”.

From ghetto walls to gas chambers, “By their fruits you shall know them”— Jesus’ own words condemns the tree that claimed to grow from the root of the chosen Cohen nation which Paul declared Xtians as a graft to this Tree. The fruit of Xtianity utter poison, the culmination of theological poison.

Germany was a Lutheran nation. The Vatican signed a Concordat with Hitler. The Catholic Church blessed Nazi flags, and baptized perpetrators. The Protestant churches in Germany developed a theology of “Dejudaizing” Xtianity. Xtian anti-Judaism became racial antisemitism—but it started in pulpits, not politics.

The British White Paper (1939): Effectively sealed Europe’s Jews into a death zone, blocking aliyah to Eretz Yisrael. Not one major church authority condemned it. FDR’s administration turned away ships carrying Jewish refugees. Where were the bishops? The pastors? The popes? Silent. No call to bomb Auschwitz or the railways…Xtian theology had already written the Jews out of the covenant.

Today’s South African legal attack on Israel at the Hague is a blood libel with a UN suit and tie. Yet again, the churches are silent, or worse—supportive of the lie. World Council of Churches? Silent. Mainline Protestantism? Often openly anti-Israel. Catholic voices? Muted or muddled, more concerned with interfaith optics than justice. This continues the same pattern: Christendom aligns with empires, betrays the Jews, and offers theological cover to the murderers. Revelation’s image of the Great Whore riding the beast—but this time it’s Rome on the back of political empire, intoxicated with the blood of the saints and martyrs of the Torah. Xtianity slept with kings—and their offspring were inquisitions, expulsions, and Auschwitz.

This Ephesians 5:25–28 passage—on the surface poetic, lofty, and seemingly elevating marriage—is in fact deeply super-sessionist, and functionally replaces the Torah mitzva of kiddushin. This worthless Xtological abstraction amounts to the value of tits on a boar hog when the piglets cry for milk! Torah mitzva of kiddushin rooted in precedent of the sworn oath made at the brit between the pieces which eternally established the chosen Cohen nation – born into the future/O’lam Ha’Bah!

Halakhic boundaries interpreted through the Oral Torah define and understand the mitzva of kiddushin within Mesechta Kiddushin of the Talmud. The Torah requires mikveh, which is about ritual purity in relation to the woman’s cycle and the marital household—a national law rooted in Genesis–Deuteronomy. Paul’s version? No mikveh, no Torah. The cleansing comes by “the word”—meaning his gospel, his doctrine—a mystical metaphor that supplants halakhah with belief. “…that he might present it to himself a glorious church… holy and without blemish.” … Temple language, stolen and re-applied to “the Church”, as if she were now the bride, the Temple, the chosen.

It uproots Jeremiah 31:31. Torah marriage simply not about emotion or romantic identification—this mitzva cuts a brit, a legal alliance with concrete halakhic duties, inheritance laws, and national continuation. Paul dilutes this into a private spiritual metaphor: love your wife because she is you—a move away from oath sworn alliance obligations that live on throughout the generations, perverted and change unto worthless abstract emotionalism. The Church now pictured as the bride, not Israel. Faith in Christ, not halakhic brit, serves as the glue. Love and purity merely symbolic, not legal categories tied to Torah. Just as Galatians 3:28 dissolves categories, and Acts 17:26 universalizes origin, so too does Ephesians 5:25–28 spiritualize and replace Torah marriage—making it subordinate to Christ, not the Torah Constitution of Israel.

Another example of European and ICC legal corruption and efforts to curse the Jewish people.

Jesus cursing the Fig Tree …

The Fig Tree as a Metaphor for Israel  Jeremiah 8:13 – “I will surely consume them, saith the Lord: there shall be no grapes on the vine, nor figs on the fig tree, and the leaf shall fade; and the things that I have given them shall pass away from them.”  Hosea 9:10 – “I found Israel like grapes in the wilderness; I saw your fathers as the firstripe in the fig tree at her first time: but they went to Baal-peor, and separated themselves unto that shame…”  Micah 7:1 –  “Woe is me! for I am as when they have gathered the summer fruits, as the grape gleanings of the vintage: there is no cluster to eat: my soul desired the first-ripe fruit.”
  
Second Temple Judaism, the rise of Pharisaic authority, and the Jewish origins of the Oral Torah tradition.  The Hasmonean Revolt (c. 167–160 BCE), celebrated during Hanukkah, began as a revolt against Seleucid Greek oppression and the forced Hellenization of Judea.  After driving out the Greeks, the Hasmoneans (Maccabees) established a priestly monarchy—but soon aligned with the Tzaddukim (Sadducees), the Temple priestly elite who rejected the Oral Torah and adhered strictly to written Torah (Torah shebikhtav). 

The P’rushim (Pharisees) taught the Oral Torah (Torah she-be’al peh)—a living tradition of interpretation, application, and legal debate, rooted in Moshe at Sinai but unfolding through generations of sages.  The Pharisees championed halakhic debate, legal flexibility, and ethics, and stood against the rigid, elitist, and Temple-centric Sadducees. After the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE, the Pharisaic tradition survived and became the foundation of Rabbinic Judaism—codified in the Mishnah, Talmud, and the entire halakhic tradition.  Therefore the Jesus curse of the fig tree as fruitless – a direct condemnation of rabbinic Judaism.

To interpret this passage as a direct condemnation of rabbinic Judaism clearly reflects later church polemics and slanders made against the Talmud, like the infamous burning of the Talmud in 1242 Paris France and the 1306 destruction of the Rashi/Tosafot common law school on the Talmud.  The gospels serve as the basis of later church war crimes and racism.  Christian polemics have added to Gospel interpretations—especially in how they’ve been weaponized against rabbinic Judaism and the Talmudic tradition.  Under the banner of a supersessionist Church, all manner of slander perversions and illegal ghetto imprisonments arbitrarily imposed upon the cursed wandering Jews.
                           
The fig tree curse (Matt. 21:19); the “brood of vipers” language, and John’s “the Jews” rhetoric (esp. in passion narratives), the church fathers continuously employed them as their weapons to vilify Pharisaic Judaism, later generalized to all Jews.  The church fathers sought to erase Jewish continuity through forced conversions and continuous acts of violent oppression.  The church utterly detested the existence of the Talmud.  Its revisionist history replacement theology continually declared the church as the ‘true Israel”.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Supersessionist theology\replacement theology—represents the ideological backbone of the Church’s effort to erase Jewish identity and delegitimize the halakhic tradition.  Church revisionist history proclaimed from the roof tops that – “The Church has replaced Israel as God’s chosen people.”   The fig tree curse (Matt. 21:19) the church fathers interpreted  as the symbolic destruction of the Jewish people.  Which the church fathers promoted by referring to Israel as Christ killer Caine.  “Brood of vipers”, used to paint all Pharisees (and later all Jews) as inherently deceitful or evil.   John’s Gospel, “the Jews”, made Jewish exiled refugees as the collective villain—laying the groundwork for the deicide charge, a central justification for anti-Jewish violence. 

John Chrysostom, in his Adversus Judaeos homilies, spewed hatred with phrases like:   “The synagogue is worse than a brothel… it is the den of scoundrels and the repair of wild beasts… the temple of demons devoted to idolatrous cults…”  The church fathers abhorred the Talmud,  because it embodied Jewish autonomy—an ongoing, vibrant dialogue with God outside of Church control. It was the living heartbeat of rabbinic resistance.   

Church biblical translations not only co-opted Jewish sacred texts while condemning their original interpreters, perverted BRIT unto covenant; and reduced the Jewish people to either tragic relics or enemies of God. This theft of narrative and identity allowed the Church to: cast Jews as “wandering witnesses” to Christian truth (see Augustine).  And also blame all generations of Jews as Christ killers, which justified almost annual pogroms and forced expulsions of Jewish refugee populations scattered across both West and Eastern Europe.

The deep hypocrisies and historical amnesia baked into so many institutions of power, including European courts and the modern international legal framework, remain staggering. European courts and institutions have long been shaped by Christian hegemony, and that hegemony protected the Church from accountability, even as it presided over centuries of religious violence, forced conversions, inquisitions, pogroms, book burnings, ghettoization, and expulsions—all directed at Jewish communities. The idea of charging the Church itself as a war criminal would have been unthinkable in a Europe where the Church was the ideological and legal center of power.

For most of European history, Church and State were not separate. In many cases, the Church was the state—wielding direct power or deeply entwined with monarchies. The legal apparatus wasn’t neutral—it was Catholic or later Protestant. So, when Jews were expelled from Spain (1492), forced into ghettos in Venice (1516), or burned in the Crusades, these were actions sanctified, not judged, by the powers of the time.

Another example of Gospel revisionist history which substitute the gospel for the T’NaCH narrative as primary.

VerseD: Luke 19:41-42

Another example of Gospel revisionist history which substitute the gospel for the T’NaCH narrative as primary: Luke 19:41-42

The noun peace does not correctly translate the verb shalom. Shalom stands upon the foundation of trust. Peace reflects ancient Greek philosophical rhetoric; where undefined key terms which require the listeners fuzzy logic to define – these essential undefined terms – like shalom, upon which all later ideas thereafter hang upon.

Herein defines the classic use of Greek rhetoric by which a person controls and directs the masses. The City of David represents the rule of fair and righteous Judicial common law justice. It has absolutely nothing what so ever to do with the revisionist history of the imaginary physical history of Jesus the imaginary myth Son of God – man.

“Shalom” carries far more than the modern Western notion of “peace.” In Hebrew, shalom implies completeness, wholeness, harmony, security, and a just, equitable social order rooted in mutual trust; deeply tied to emunah (faith/trust) and mishpat (justice).

By contrast, the Greek eirēnē—translated into English as “peace”—more passive, & static, whereas shalom utterly dynamic. And when the Gospel of Luke (originally written in Greek) uses eirēnē, translators historically rendered it as “peace” in English, which utterly obscures the Hebrew mindset behind Jesus’ (the Son of God character’s) lament over Jerusalem.

Greek rhetoric originally employed as a tool for crowd control. Rhetoric sophistry, and later Stoicism or Platonism, deeply shaped and influenced early Christian theology. These systems often pivot on undefined abstractions—”Logos”, “Peace”, “Salvation”, etc.—easily manipulated by rhetoric design, without grounding in lived experience or legal precedent (as Hebrew law absolutely demands).

Revisionist history and the mythologizing of Son of God Jesus. This aligns with the view that the Gospels understood as a allegorical political theology, where the imaginary mythical character of Son of God “Jesus” represents, not a literal historical figure but a narrative device or archetype for deeper sociopolitical critique—especially of Roman occupation and corrupt legal systems.

So if we read Luke 19:42 not as a personal lament by a mythological Son of God Jesus, but rather as a legal or prophetic indictment of Jerusalem’s Torah leadership and their collective failure to uphold mishpat (justice) and trust-based shalom, the entire tone and meaning of the text radically shifts, the Torah becomes demoted in priority – cast under the shadow of the Son of God narrative.

Torah, in point of fact, and not the gospel rhetoric narrative, less about emotion and more about the oath brit alliance, the prophetic mussar which rebukes the leaders of the chosen Cohen nation for their failure, sworn at Sinai, their conscious corruption which pursues opportunistic political power over the righteousness of enforced judicial justice.

Shalom functions as a legal-communal framework, rather than merely a trick of rhetoric where mood or emotion dominates the direction taken by the blind mob masses. It reflects a system of relationships rooted in fidelity to the oath brit alliance and reciprocal trust (emunah). In that sense, shalom simply not something felt, but something upheld—a real social order built on mishpat (justice) and righteousness (tzedek), as found in the Torah and enforced by judges (shofetim) and prophets (nevi’im).

When shalom becomes translated into Greek as eirēnē, the foundational juridical content gets lost in abstraction. Eirēnē leans more toward inner tranquility or absence of conflict—passive, internal, de-prioritized obligations to pursue fair compensation to those who suffer damages. Peace reflects a word that fits into a philosophical or imperial religious context, not a oath brit alliance by and through which the Torah defines the term brit; a Sinai commitment לשמה.

Greek thought, expressed in the new testament purposely neutralizes\whitewashes the legal and relational substance of Hebrew term Shalom, by absorbing Shalom into idealized peace categories. This Greek rhetoric technique then detached the gospels from historical accountability.

Greek rhetorical systems—especially sophistry and later Platonic-Christian syntheses—weaponized undefined key term peace. Love, for example: later the church authorities turned to Greek agape as its definition. Such critical abstractions create semantic fog, where critical abstract terms, their most essential intent meanings, they float above the replaced Hebrew verbs with meaningless noun names. The Torah defines the verb love as “ownership”. A man does not love that which he does not own. Hence the mitzva of kiddushin requires that the man acquires the Nefesh O’lam Ha’bah soul of his wife – meaning the children produced through this oath alliance brit union.

Whereas the writers of gospel and new testament narratives, those in power who chose to supplant the TNaCH with their New Testament/Old Testament religious rhetoric, like as did Muhammad’s koran replaced the new testament and the Book of Mormon replacement holy book of Mormon equally deprioritized the T’NaCH and new testament and koran forgeries.

These replacement holy books seized power, they edit and control the new moral gospel narrative through subtle re-defined definitions. “Salvation,” “grace,” “faith,” Yishmael replaced Yitzak at the Akadah, and even “God” become perverted into malleable terms. Monotheism rapes the 2nd Sinai commandment. Rather than precise sworn oaths which define intent of Judicial common law. The sworn oaths got totally whitewashed from the original T’NaCH prophetic mussar. Swept away in the new creed theologies which define how Man must believe in these New Gods dolled up as the T’NaCH God of Sinai.

This Greek rhetorical shift, makes room for imperial theology, where obedience to Rome’s version of peace (Pax Romana) wolf in sheep clothing, rebranded as the kosher spiritual obedience, and where Jerusalem’s failure totally ignores judicial justice in the oath sworn Cohen lands of inheritance replaced by theological belief systems in the messiah or strict monotheism.

This new testament justification for Jerusalem’s destruction consequent to the Jewish revolt in 66CE totally and completely ignores the prophetic mussar of the NaCH which warned of the destruction and exile of both Israel & Judah by the g’lut exile carried out through the Divine agents of both the Assyrian and Babylonian empires within the mussar of the T’NaCH itself.

Return the Gospel narrative to its roots of Hebrew common law jurisprudence, strip away the Greco-Roman mythologizing that turned the gospel narrative into its own separate religion, into an abstract religion of personal piety and internal peace. This new testament socio-legal drama, with its son of God figure lamenting the collapse of Jerusalem over its failure to recognize the Son of God true messiah. Greek replacements—eirēnē, pistis, charis, logos—introduce semantic drift. That drift allows imperial theology to abstract away historical responsibility, essentially laundering injustice through feel-good metaphysics.

The Case Luke 19:42 nstead of a legal rebuke grounded in prophetic precedent (like those of Yirmiyahu or Yeshayahu), it’s reframed as a personal emotional lament by a deified character, whose authority derives from myth rather than brit law. It bypasses the system of shofetim and nevi’im who were accountable to the Torah and for the community.

The gospel narrative replaces the oath sworn dedication to pursue justice within the borders of the chosen Cohen oath brit lands, replaced by a foreign idea of a passive messiah who brings peace to the Goyim people incorporated as part of the chosen Cohen people. This narrative totally ignores the teshuva made by HaShem where on Yom Kippur HaShem annulled the vow to make of Moshe’s seed the chosen Cohen people. This Divine t’shuva utterly rejects the later replacement theologies and holy books with violate the commandment — do not add or subtract from this Torah.

According to prophetic mussar, neither Babylon nor Rome destroyed Jerusalem. The failure of the chosen oath alliance brit, directly comparable to the sin of the Golden Calf, where the chosen Cohen people fail to obey the terms of the Sinai oath alliance. Herein defines the basis for the destruction of Jerusalem and the g’lut exile of the Jewish people by the Assyrian, Babylonian and Roman empires. And before these g’lut exiles the Egyptian exile, the cruel oppression of Israelite slaves – caused by the betrayal and sale of Yosef by his jealous brothers.

Pesach in only a couple of days! Let us remove the חמץ which assimilated and intermarried Jews daily consume. The Torah refers to such tuma Jews as the cursed ערב רב/mixed multitudes. Why cursed? Because assimilation to alien Goyim cultures and customs goes hand in glove with intermarriage with Goyim who reject the revelation of the Torah at Sinai.

The WordPress blog: The Bible Through the Seasons, Confrontation with Compassion:  Pastor Nick quotes James 5: 14-16 as if this religious jargon qualifies as holy scripture. The mussar Book of Avot teaches “Ein Am Ha’aretz chassid” — because chassidut requires halachic literacy and precision. James represents not just a theological fork, but an entirely unauthorized avodah.

The chosen Cohen people must do avodat HaShem, like for example obeying the commandment not to work on shabbat. The wisdom required most essentially entails making a distinction between guard Shabbat (שמור) and remember it (זכור). Without discernment, without halachic categories rooted in the middot revealed to Moshe after the Eigel, you can’t access avodat HaShem. You get a foreign fire—like Nadav and Avihu. Or worse, a foreign god.

Without the Oral Torah, impossible to differentiate between shabbat and yom tov, clean and tamei, kosher korban and pig fat. Muslims consume camel flesh and milk together. Xtians despise Torah mitzvot declaring its utterly impossible for man to keep “the law”. The Apostle Paul introduced the substitute theology of ‘Original Sin’ defeatism. This alien foreign theology corrupted the Central Torah theme of blessing/curse – life in the cohen eternal land inheritance/judicial oppression in exile as exemplified by the court of Par’o which justified beating Hebrew slaves after Par’o withheld the necessary straw required to make those bricks.

All generations of Israel have the Torah faith obligation to pursue righteous judicial justice which makes fair compensation of damages which Part A inflicts upon Party B, within the borders of the chosen Cohen homelands. Obviously no Goy can keep “the law” when they lack the skills to discern between TNaCH & Talmudic common law from Greek and Roman statute law. The church fathers, their avoda zarah did not concern themselves with justice as the definition of Torah faith. Their avoda zarah simply glossed over this key Torah concept like as did the Apostle Paul’s ‘Original Sin’ jellied over the key Torah theme of g’lut/exile. Jews in g’lut, just as in Egypt, they lacked the means to impose fair judicial justice among the Jewish people.

Xtian theology substitutes ritual precision with emotional or communal acts—which might feel “spiritual” but remain, nonetheless, completely disconnected from Sinai. In doing so, they’ve invented a new avodah with a new god—not HaShem of the Torah, but a concept filtered through Greek philosophy and Roman structure.

Torah avodah isn’t about feelings, confession, or community healing—it’s a halachic precision-bound path based on brit, oath, and revealed middot. Without Oral Torah, the brit alliance impossible to even articulate. So what’s going on in James, not just a misfire—it’s a completely unauthorized system, one devoid of the chosen Cohen structure. Hence the new testament declares that Goyim can not only become ”grafted” into the chosen Cohen people, but Jews can convert and become Xtians! This Av tuma avoda zarah utterly devoid of halachic shemirah, and outside the brit framework of Sinai/Horev.

James is writing within a Second Temple–era Jewish-Christian hybrid theology, influenced by:
Early Messianic communities Possibly Hellenistic ethical ideas (Stoicism, communal virtue): A shift from Temple-based service which fundamentally requires שם ומלכות, to internalized, communal spirituality, which does not remotely resemble cutting a Torah brit by means of swearing a Torah oath which dedicates Oral Torah middot revealed to Moshe Rabbeinu 40 days after the sin of the Golden Calf. The church denies the existence of the Oral Torah.

Hence, the idea of: “Confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed”…while it sounds “kosher”, in point of fact – utterly treif Av tuma avoda zarah. It completely misses the point – required halachic structure; like the observance of shabbat requires making the distinction between forbidden work from forbidden work ie מלאכה from עבודה. A Torah oath brit required in the chosen Cohen format known as “avodat HaShem”, requires the wisdom which discerns the k’vanna of שם ומלכות. Therefore these new testament verses worship some other unknown god(s).

Xtianity despises the revelation of Torah common law. It consequently simply glosses over and utterly perverts the meaning and intent of the Torah. Without Oral Torah, you can’t know how to make these critical distinctions, like what separates saying Tehillim from tefillah. Xtian avoda zarah glosses over these subtle nuances with the broad brush – prayer white wash. This second example adds to the previous example wherein Shabbat observance absolutely requires making the fundamental differentiation between מלאכה from עבודה. Lack of wisdom compares to the precedent of Avot which teaches that an Am Ha’aretz cannot be an Chassid. Without Oral Torah, the brit can’t even be articulated. So what’s going on in James, not just a misfire—it’s a completely unauthorized system, one devoid of the Cohen structure, devoid of halachic shemirah, and outside the brit framework of Sinai/Horev.

Without Oral Torah, a person has no tools to distinguish between: Saying a mizmor of Tehillim as a form of praise, vs.Tefillah, which requires: Shem u’Malchut (divine name and kingship); Zman (halachic time constraints); K’vanna (intention within halachic form which links to a life & death crisis crunch of faith); Sometimes a minyan or other communal structure, because a person can swear a Torah oath also with a minyan, based upon the precedent of the 10 spies in the days of Moshe.

This distinction, subtle to the untrained eye, yet it’s halachically massive. Tehillim quite beautiful and sacred to the Jewish people, but it’s not a substitute for Tefillah—and to equate the two (as Christianity always does) utterly blurs the kedushah-bound categories that Oral Torah establishes and preserves. A person who can see only with one eye – exempt from making the aliyah to Jerusalem on the Chag. Tefillah a matter of the dedication of tohor middot which define the depth of defined tohor middot which breath and live within Yatzir Ha’Tov spirit within the heart. JeZeus, by stark contrast, taught his disciples that their ”father” dwelled in Heaven!

In the Torah, HaShem never refers to the people as having a private, paternalistic relationship separate from brit obligations. Tefillah directly bound by the Akadat Yitzak cords of the oath brit alliance: ‘HaShem save my future born seed from Shoah and I dedicate their souls as a korban to keep and remember your commandments’. Hence a ‘burnt offering’ as the Goyim love to translate refers to a Shoah dedication! A claim to “Father in Heaven” that lacks Torah obedience, and denies Torah She’B’al Peh, does invoke Avinu She’bashamayim/Shekinah that lives within the Yatzir Tov of the chosen Cohen hearts—rather this av tuma avoda zara invokes a strange foreign concept deity god, detached from Sinai.

Xtianity erases distinctions. Torah She’B’al Peh creates, protects, and preserves distinctions. Torah avoda functions only within those boundaries which the Oral Torah defines. Without these distinctions, you don’t have Torah—you have a projection of human emotion dressed in biblical language.

Strategic Israeli Foreign Policies

UN Resolution 242, the Suez Crisis, and European diplomacy underscores a deep-rooted frustration with the historical and current role of Europe in the Middle East. For many Israelis, it’s not just about specific policies or actions—it’s about the broader political narrative in which Israel’s legitimacy and security, constantly questioned or undermined through EU diplomacy.

Whether or not Israel should break relations with European countries, a complex issue with serious implications. Israel’s global alliances simply crucial to its diplomatic and economic interests, and maintaining relationships with key European powers remains important. However, a valid essential Jewish concern, the European attitudes toward Israel too often reflect a legacy of imperialism or a one-sided approach, from forced ghetto imprisonment for 3 Centuries, to pogroms, to blood libels, to taxation without representation etc.  All these memory scares easily compounded every time the EU, Britain, and Russian diplomacy tilts in favor of hostile Arab states who adamantly refuse to recognize Jewish equality in self determination, this history European criminal behavior toward Jews fails to adequately acknowledge Israel’s security needs and right to exist.

The struggle for Israel’s sovereignty in a region full of external influences—including European powers, Arab states, and global organizations—remains one of the defining elements of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, specifically the strategic Arab policies to internationalize war in the Middle East. Whether Israel decides to break off relations with specific countries, such as Ireland, or continue to engage diplomatically, its primary focus will remain on securing its right to exist, ensuring its security, and maintaining Jewish state rule from Jerusalem.

Israel’s security and sovereignty from the moment Israel declared independence in 1948, has faced harsh external pressures, both from Arab states and international NGO’s and European imperialism, all of which seek to impose Israeli territorial and political concessions to Arabs who, like Hamas refuse, to recognize the Jewish state with Jerusalem as its Capital. The idea of a divided Jerusalem as repugnant as a divided Berlin.  The European Union and individual European states, at times, have pushed for Israeli concessions on issues such as settlements and Jerusalem, often siding with Palestinian demands in ways that Israel views as both insane and discriminatory.  Post Shoah the sanity of Europeans, always a concern of deep suspicion.

The fear that Israel once again finds itself trapped & caught in the historical cycle of European barbarism, imperialism; that the international community undermines the legitimacy Jews – a core grievance that burns deep for many Israelis. The secret Sykes-Picot Agreement (1916) basically determined the borders and political structure of the Middle East States.  The legacy of this abusive colonialism has permanently shaped attitudes as well as international borders across the Middle East. Many Israelis see the European attitude toward Israel as rooted in this imperialist barbaric and racist legacy, where European powers sought to impose ‘Final Solutions’ without understanding the consequences that the extermination of the Jewish people utterly implodes the good name reputations of the European people for ever after.  This abstract idea – known as ‘Fear of Heaven’.  Remains to this day an idea totally alien to both Europeans and Arabs.  

Breaking diplomatic relations with British and key EU countries, like as initiated with Ireland, would certainly make a dramatic slap in the face. Such a bold move would emphasize the isolation Israel feels toward key European players, potentially harming economic and political ties. However, it would also – express Israel’s deep seated frustrations, with the perceived anti-Israel bias in European diplomacy and its longstanding grievances with European interference in the Middle East, which began with both the Churchill and Chamberlain White Paper betrayal of the Jewish people.

Relations with Britain, France, and Rome, historically complex.  The memory of the Inquisition and forced expulsions stands in stark contrast with European horror and indignation of a mass Gazan population transfer post Oct 7th. First World European empires, once major colonial powers with interests across the world and specifically in the Middle East.  The post ’48 Jewish state often forced to navigate a delicate balance between maintaining diplomatic relations and protecting its sovereignty and security interests. Israel’s frustration with European nations often stems from the perception that they would betray Israel’s security concerns at the drop of a hat. Europe often sides with Palestinian narratives, especially in the context of UN resolutions and EU policies.  The Obama UN decree of 2334 makes Jerusalem forever suspicious that Europeans long for the day to plunge a dagger into Israel’s back.

Ireland’s stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, particularly its support for resolutions that criticize Israel’s actions, seen by many Israelis as beyond simply biased and unfair. This, along with growing European support for Palestinian positions, has contributed to Israel’s increasing sense of alienation from European countries who forever stand under the shadow of the Shoah.

The Suez Crisis serves as a powerful example. The 8 year old nation, treated as a political pawn by England and France. Israel found itself in an exceptionally weak position, manipulated by Britain and France into a broader imperialist agenda that ultimately undermined Israel’s sovereignty and long-term interests in the region.  The ’56 war introduced “Land for Peace”.  This event, often viewed as a moment of reckoning for European imperialism in the Middle East. The Suez Crisis symbolized the end of European powers’ dominance in the region and the rise of the United States and Soviet Union as the primary international players. Britain and France—which had both previously held colonial dominance in the region—collaborated with Israel to invade Egypt and secure the canal. However, the intervention met strong opposition from both the United States and the Soviet Union; leading to a ceasefire and a subsequent embarrassment for the European powers, who were forced to withdraw.  The ’56 War set the stage for the UN 242 demand for Israel to cede re-captured territory in a war initiated by Jordan!

The Suez Crisis (also known as the Second Arab-Israeli War), a clear example of European imperial powers, and their repeated attempts to assert their dominance & control over the Suez Canal and other regional matters, with a military intervention designed to bring down Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser, who had nationalized the canal.  The aftermath of the Suez Crisis also marked a turning point for Israel. While the event, seen as a failure for European powers, it also revealed a vulnerability in Israel’s geopolitical strategy: its reliance on former colonial powers like Britain and France, who had their own imperial interests in the region, fully willing and prepared to undermine Israel’s long-term security strategic interests. This greatly contributed to Israel’s wariness toward European diplomatic engagement and its sense that European policies toward the Middle East, utterly narcissistic,  simply influenced by historical baggage and global power visions of empires, rather than by making a fair assessment of the new state of Israel’s needs or security.

When it comes to UN Resolution 242, Israel’s interpretation and response also central to the interpretation of this narrative. Resolution 242, passed after the 1967 Six-Day War, calls for Israel to withdraw from territories occupied during the war, in exchange for peace with neighboring Arab states.  It promotes the Arab war agenda of internationalizing the conflict through the UN; it fails to address the Israeli re-capture of Jerusalem.  Israel’s frustration with this resolution also emphasizes the hostile fact that the Security Council – great powers – failed to demand that Arab states of the Middle East recognize the Israeli basic requirement – to recognize Israeli self-determination and united Jerusalem as the Israeli Capital.

Furthermore, that Middle East and African voting blocks invalidate Israel as a nation within the Middle East community of nations.   UN 242 does not adequately guarantee Israeli security, recognition of its right to exist as a sovereign state, or Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel.. The European Union, supports these hostile, pro-Arab resolutions, viewing them as a means to bring about a negotiated peace which favors the strategic interests of European imperialism and Arab internationalization of war in the Middle East. Israel perceives this imbalanced stance which fails to recognize the security challenges these multiple wars, by neighboring states and non-state actors threaten the existence of the Jewish state.

Many Israelis view European diplomacy through the lens of colonial history, especially the Sykes-Picot Agreement that carved up the Middle East and laid the groundwork for many of the region’s modern political challenges and border wars – like the Iraq invasion of Kuwait.  The EU refusal to recognize Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel, coupled with the demands to dismantle post ’67 Israel, burns within the hearts of Israelis.  There’s a persistent feeling that European powers, their repeated attempts to “solve” the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, smells a lot like the Nazi ‘Final Solution’.  This permanent scar tissue within the Jewish soul, totally overlooked in the deep-rooted complexities of the region, including Israel’s right to security and to exist as a Jewish state, which the Palestinian claim of Right to Return totally undermines.  The EU prioritization of the plight of Arab ’48 refugees which ignores the forced expulsion of Jews from Arab countries.  The corrupt UNWRA that perpetuates Arab refugee status and refuses to demand that the 22 Arab countries repatriate their refugee populations like Israel did the ’48 Jewish refugees!

Diplomatic relations with European powers, especially Britain, France, and Germany – these countries exert significant economic and political partnerships.  Israeli navy, for example, has bought multiple German submarines.  Severing diplomatic relations with them could lead to isolation at a time when global diplomacy, increasingly interconnected. However, the frustration with European diplomatic stances—particularly on issues like settlements, Jerusalem, and Palestinian statehood—does fuel a deep sense of alienation; the shadow of the Shoah and the betrayal of Europe never forgotten nor forgiven. The idea of breaking relations could serve as a form of protest, a way to challenge what Israel perceives as an unjust or biased approach to its security and sovereignty by European powers.

This lingering sense of betrayal, the misalignment of European policies means that the sense of distrust remains complex, with deep-seated frustration over past actions. The apple doesn’t fall far from the Tree. The historical context of European diplomacy in the region, especially with respect to the Suez Crisis and Israel’s post-1948 sovereignty struggles, continues to shape the Israeli view of European involvement in the Middle East. The shifting dynamics of global power—where the U.S. and, more recently, Russia and China have become dominant players—means that Israel may increasingly look beyond Europe for support.

In considering whether Israel should sever diplomatic relations with key European nations, the move would indeed carry significant weight—symbolically and practically.  This issue defined the political theatre of Israeli politics in the 50s which pitted Ben Gurion against Menachem Begin. While European relations remain vital for Israel’s global positioning, the act of breaking relations would signal a deep frustration and an expression of Israel’s commitment to defend its sovereignty and legitimacy against what it perceives as biased international pressures. Such a decision would not only reflect the disillusionment with European policies but also potentially shift Israel’s diplomatic orientation toward more neutral or supportive powers, including the U.S., Russia, and China.

Ultimately, Israel’s security, its right to exist, and its identity as a Jewish state remain at the core of its diplomatic concerns. The complexities of its relationship with European powers reflect the broader challenges of navigating a region rife with historical grievances, imperial legacies, and the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In this context, Israel will likely continue to weigh its strategic interests carefully, balancing the necessity of maintaining global alliances with the imperative of safeguarding its sovereignty and security.

The historical weight of Europe’s involvement in the Middle East—particularly its legacy of colonialism, the Sykes-Picot Agreement, and the aftermath of the Holocaust—remains deeply embedded in Israel’s diplomatic psyche. This ongoing tension between Israel’s historical experiences and the current European stance quite unlikely to dissipate without significant changes in how European diplomacy engages with Israel, the Middle East and Israel’s unique fundamental requirement that the UN recognize Israel as part of the Middle East voting block of nations.

Happy Pesach

Torah first and formost – not a belief system. Ya want to believe in God(s) become either Xtian or Muslim. Kosher – Jewish. Halal – Muslim. The latter worships other Gods. Arabs/Muslims eat treif camel flesh. Just as Xtians eat pork. Both sets of Goyim worship other Gods.

Pesach, almost precisely one month after Purim. The story of Amalek – as told through the specific of Haman (The numerical value of המלך and המן equal to one another.) – the story of the ערב רב who came out of Egyptian bondage. This so called mixed multitude – they had no fear of heaven. Assimilation and intermarriage with Goyim profanes the 2nd Sinai commandment – and defines ערב רב – assimilated and intermarried Jews.

Kashrut compares to a sofer writing a sefer Torah. Both this and that require fear of heaven. The Torah defines faith as: the righteous pursuit of judicial justice. Justice the Torah defines as: the obligation of lateral common law courtroom justices to compensate the damages inflicted by Party A upon Party B. Ruling the oath sworn Cohen land inheritance of ארץ ישראל has nothing to do with what a person personally believes or does not believe.

The court of Paro ruled oppression as just in the matter of straw withheld from Israelite slaves and thereafter beaten for their failure to meet their quota of brick production. Removing חמץ this משל, it teaches the נמשל to remove the ערב רב lack of fear of heaven, from within the Yatzir Ha’Rah within the heart. Fear of Heaven understood as a person who strives to protect and maintain his/her ‘good name’ reputation. Torah faith stands upon the יסוד/foundation of בעל שם טוב/Master of the Good Name.