The Knesset passes a highly discriminatory law
March 2026
The Israeli Knesset has just passed by a majority of 62 a bill which will allow the executions of Palestinians convicted of fatal attacks in the West Bank. The executions will take place by hanging and do so it is planned, 90 days after conviction or in some cases 180 days. The law is nakedly discriminatory and is a piece with the apartheid policy which exists in the country. No appeals will be allowed and legal contact with the convicted person is via video link only. The Knesset erupted into loud cheers and Ben Gvir was seen waving a champagne bottle in celebration. An illustration of the lapel badge he wears is below.
It has brought a wide range of condemnation from around the world. It will do nothing for Israel’s somewhat battered reputation internationally. A statement by Amnesty International said:
‘Today, Israel’s parliament, the Knesset, adopted the first in what threatens to be a series of laws facilitating the use of the death penalty, in a public display of cruelty, discrimination and utter contempt for human rights. The amendment added to Israel’s Penal Law, known as the ‘Death Penalty for Terrorists’, expands the scope and facilitates the use of capital punishment, at a time when there is a global trend towards abolishing it. It also dismantles fundamental safeguards to prevent the arbitrary deprivation of life and protect the right to a fair trial, and further empowers Israel’s system of apartheid, which is maintained by scores of discriminatory laws against Palestinians.’ Erika Guevara-Rosas, Amnesty International’s Senior Director of Research, Advocacy, Policy and Campaigns.
The Palestinian Prisoner’s Society called it a ‘historic escalation – a new phase of openly sanctioned [and] politically motivated executions of Palestinian prisoners’.
Torture and mistreatment
A particular problem is that Palestinians are imprisoned and subject to considerable mistreatment. This can include starvation, physical assaults of various kinds and lack of medical attention. The Times of Israel among others have reported on the inhuman conditions. Testimony and confessions therefore, produced under this system of abuse and torture, will have little credence. Some of the descriptions are horrific and there is a WARNING about the following link.
The problem here is that violence begets violence. An almost ceaseless tide of violence in Gaza, southern Lebanon, parts of Syria, the West Bank and now Iran, has bred into the society that yet more violence is the answer to the security of the state.
Large numbers of British MPs from all parties are members of the Friends of Israel groups, funded by the Israeli government, including the Trade Minister, Peter Kyle. The Salisbury MP, Mr John Glen is a member of this lobby group.
Amnesty is opposed to the death penalty in all circumstances. Mistakes cannot afterwards be corrected. It is not a deterrent and it imposes huge stresses on those who carry out the punishment. The local group publishes a report each month on its use around the world.
Sources: Times of Israel, BBC, Guardian, Palestine Prisoner’s Society, Al Jazeera
Amnesty in Salisbury & South Wiltshire 
Bull shit. Reactionary quack quack! Israel seeks the death penalty for the criminals who murdered 1200 Israelis on Oct 7th 2023.
LikeLike
If the NT fraud reduced to a single verse, how does that verse define the soul of the church to make ‘blood libel’ accusations that did not end with the shoah but continue with the Oct7th massacre on the last day of Chag Sukkot and UN ICJ and ICC blood libel slanders?
No evidence forgiveness works or is granted by belief. Promising forgiveness through belief alone undermines moral responsibility. Repentance has no connection with t’shuva. T’shuva directly affixed to the consequences of the Av tuma avoda zarah Golden Calf worshipped by the ערב רב שאין להם יראת שמים; Moshe forced HaShem to “remember” the oaths sworn to the Avot. Consequently on Yom Kippur HaShem made t’shuva and annulled the vow to make Moshe the father of the chosen Cohen people.
Mesechta Yoma rabbi Meir vs the sages who bring NaCH sources against the ודוי made by Moshe Rabbeinu in the Torah! How did the NaCH and even more so the majority of Tannaim sages rule against Moshe’s ודוי and the halacha follow their opinion? Answer – in all rabbinic matters the majority decides the halacha. Therefore the language of Moshe’s ודוי in the Torah – a rabbinic ודוי no different from the majority opinion of a different order of how to make a ודוי דרבנן. What then defines a ודוי דאורייתא? The dedication (מלכות) of Oral Torah middot (pronoun) רוח הקודש spirits within the Yatzir Ha’Tov within the heart. Hence the sages teach that tefillah ‘a matter of the heart’. The Oral Torah which Moshe heard on Yom Kippur defines the tohor middot: as ה’ ה’ אל רחום וחנון etc.
Xtian repentance in no wise remotely compares to t’shuva as defined by the Torah. Forgiveness, simply a pie in the sky feel good word substitute. No different than JeZeus is God or covenant means brit. ‘Believes in him’ and ‘forgiveness’ totally undefined terms of Xtian religious rhetoric. The definition of avoda zara perhaps best defined through theological belief systems. Torah defines faith as צדק צדק תרדוף. Justice requires objectivity. Belief – by definition subjective; it centers all around the Ego-I. Torah common law justice fundamentally NOT a belief system. Common law stands upon prior judicial courtroom precedents; not theological creed belief decrees like the Nicene Council. Acts 10:43 simply noise from the lower parts of the anatomy.
No evidence forgiveness works or is granted by belief. Promising forgiveness through belief alone undermines moral responsibility. Repentance has no connection with t’shuva. T’shuva directly affixed to the consequences of the Av tuma avoda zarah Golden Calf worshipped by the ערב רב שאין להם יראת שמים; Moshe forced HaShem to “remember” the oaths sworn to the Avot. Consequently on Yom Kippur HaShem made t’shuva and annulled the vow to make Moshe the father of the chosen Cohen people.
Mesechta Yoma rabbi Meir vs the sages who bring NaCH sources against the ודוי made by Moshe Rabbeinu in the Torah! How did the NaCH and even more so the majority of Tannaim sages rule against Moshe’s ודוי and the halacha follow their opinion? Answer – in all rabbinic matters the majority decides the halacha. Therefore the language of Moshe’s ודוי in the Torah – a rabbinic ודוי no different from the majority opinion of a different order of how to make a ודוי דרבנן. What then defines a ודוי דאורייתא? The dedication (מלכות) of Oral Torah middot (pronoun) רוח הקודש spirits within the Yatzir Ha’Tov within the heart. Hence the sages teach that tefillah ‘a matter of the heart’. The Oral Torah which Moshe heard on Yom Kippur defines the tohor middot: as ה’ ה’ אל רחום וחנון etc.
Xtian repentance in no wise remotely compares to t’shuva as defined by the Torah. Forgiveness, simply a pie in the sky feel good word substitute. No different than JeZeus is God or covenant means brit. ‘Believes in him’ and ‘forgiveness’ totally undefined terms of Xtian religious rhetoric. The definition of avoda zara perhaps best defined through theological belief systems. Torah defines faith as צדק צדק תרדוף. Justice requires objectivity. Belief – by definition subjective; it centers all around the Ego-I. Torah common law justice fundamentally NOT a belief system. Common law stands upon prior judicial courtroom precedents; not theological creed belief decrees like the Nicene Council. Acts 10:43 simply noise from the lower parts of the anatomy; if “all the prophets” really point to Jesus, then those who don’t accept that reading—Jews—can be cast as obstinate, blind, or guilty Christ-killers who bear the eternal mark of Cain. Acts 10:43 as the theological DNA that allows the church (and later, the mosque in its own way) to redefine Israel’s story, claim its prophets, and then accuse Israel of monstrous crimes when Jews refuse that redefinition.
Acts 10:43 defines the soul of the church, based upon how the Torah defines soul. The precedent – brit cut between the pieces wherein an oath alliance sworn between partners wherein the Torah defines the “soul of Avram” through all his future born chosen Cohen seed who eternally inherit the lands of Canaan. Soul does not refer to present tense because Avram at the time of that oath alliance brit – childless. Therefore it seems to me that Acts 10:43 defines the soul of the church and mosque abominations of av tuma avoda zarah because blood libels\לשון הרע define the behavior of the church in all generations.
This narrative involving Peter and Cornelius does not invoke the Avot in general or Avraham in particular. Its tumah soteriology theology, [“All the prophets testify about him” claims that the entire Tanakh in point of fact really all about Jesus. That’s a classic supersessionist move: Israel’s story is reinterpreted as prelude to the church.], completely and totally alien to the NaCH prophets. Hence its declaration utterly false on par with Muhammad another false prophet. Both abominations promote anti‑Jewish supersessionist theologies.
The Torah directly condemns false prophets, the gospel JeZeus converted by the Nicene Council into a God and unto a prophet by the Koran – both false books fail to define Prophet from the Torah. Neither Esav nor Yismael accept the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. Both employ “covenant” when that foreign term distorts brit as an oath alliance which requires שם ומלכות. The 1st commandment Sinai Name never once recognized not in the NT nor in the Koran. מלכות the code word for Oral Torah middot – which the church fathers throughout their history have publicly denied. Hence the confusion between t’shuva and repentance.
If brit is gutted, then t’shuva is gutted, and justice becomes secondary to belief. From there, it’s not a big leap to supersessionism: Esav and Yishmael claim the language of covenant while rejecting the actual revelation at Sinai and the Oral Torah that defines מלכות. Torah’s insistence on צדק צדק תרדוף and on t’shuva bound to brit – a direct challenge to any system that promises cheap grace while enabling deep injustice from generation to generation to generation.
The effectiveness of UN peacekeeping missions in the Middle East, specifically contrasting UNIFIL’s performance in Lebanon with the earlier UNEF mission in Sinai and its perceived similarities to UNRWA. UNIFIL, like the 1956 UNEF force, lacks the teeth to remain when a host nation or powerful actor demands its departure—touches on the fundamental limitations of UN mandates. UN Secretary-General at the time, U Thant, immediately withdrew UNEF I as if Abdel Nasser determined its mandate, and directly contributed to the outbreak of the June ’67 War; no different from the ’39 White Paper directly contributed to the Nazi Shoah.
UNIFIL’s Mandate and Limitations shares this vulnerability but operates under a different, yet equally constrained, mandate. UNIFIL has historically avoided direct confrontation with Hezbollah. UNIFIL has effectively allowed Hezbollah to build up its arsenal right under its nose, similar to how UNEF was seen as powerless to stop Egyptian rearmament or military movements before 1967. The comparison to UNRWA often made in political discourse because both are criticized for operating in areas where they are accused of enabling non-state armed groups (Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza).
That the UN through UNRWA allowed Hamas to operate within its facilities and has failed to prevent the group’s rise in Gaza, effectively becoming a substitute for governance that allows Hamas to focus on military buildup. UNIFIL likewise duplicated the disgrace of UNWRA in Gaza. Both allowed Hezbollah and Hamas to operate within its patrolled domains right under their noses. Hence the analogy to the 1956 Sinai withdrawal apt and relevant like comparing church blood libels to Oct7th UN blood libels of genocide!
LikeLike