Violence against Jews in UK has generated a lot of anger, fear and anxiety
May 2026
The 126th peace vigil in Salisbury took place on Saturday 2 May with around 30 present. It passed without incident. A video of the event is available here courtesy of Peter Gloyns. It took place at the end of a week in which a man attacked two Jewish men in Golders Green* and has been charged with attempted murder. Jews living in the area are reported to be fearful and places like synagogues are surrounded by security fences to protect them against attack. It follows other attacks against people and property and has resulted in the threat level being raised to ‘severe’.
The attacks have generated a huge amount of comment. It is perhaps unfortunate that the attack took place only days away from local elections which has led politicians to jostle with one another to make statements and promises some of which are regrettable.
We should not need reminding that article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and article 9 of the Human Rights Act both of which say that everyone has freedom of thought, conscience and religion. In passing we might want to reflect on the fact that several of these self-same politicians are keen for us to leave the European Convention on Human Rights and modify or repeal the Human Rights Act. All of which legislation protects the rights of minorities, like Jews and Muslims, to live their lives free from violence, intimidation and attacks.
These events cannot be detached from what is happening in the Middle East. One of the problems is the conflation between criticism of Israel, anti-Semitism and Zionism. The Israeli government has been keen to label any and all criticism of their actions in Gaza, south Lebanon, and the violent actions of their settlers in the West Bank, as anti-Semitic. This policy appears to have been successful in curtailing comment and criticism by some media organisations most notably the BBC. The accusation has been misused and has begun to lose much of its potency. It’s overuse paradoxically, weakens the claim when something truly is anti-Semitic.
Ban on marches
Another response to the attacks in Golders Green is to call for a ban on marches. This was the argument of the Chief Rabbi, Ephraim Mirvis. Labelled by some as ‘hate marches’ they have for the most part been peaceful and are held to promote the idea of a Palestinian state. The forthcoming march on May 16th being organised by the Stop the War Coalition is to go ahead as planned unless government or police action intervenes. It has to be recognised that marches of this kind are upsetting for some. They are noisy and although the great majority attending are reasonable people who want to draw attention to their cause, there is always a minority who want to cause trouble, who shout or display anti-Semitic statements and sometimes engage in violent actions.
Protest is part of our national culture and article 20 of the UDHR protects freedom of assembly. Governments have sought to whittle away this right with a series of laws curtailing or restricting them. Jonathan Reith of the Stop the War Coalition was interviewed on the BBC radio programme the World at One arguing that they are infrequent with the forthcoming one being only the second this year. Wes Streeting, the Secretary of State for Health, was interviewed after Reith and described his interview as ‘nauseating’ for unexplained reasons. He is a member of Labour Friends of Israel.
An interesting event took place on the BBC Any Answers? programme on Saturday 2nd where members of the public can phone in and express their views following Any Questions? Two Jewish men phoned in. One said you cannot understand what we are seeing in this country away from the terrible events going on in the Middle East. The other said a problem was the conflation of Israel, anti-Semitism and Zionism. Too long one said the Israel government has claimed that any criticism of them was ‘anti-Semitic’. Many Jews were deeply upset by what’s happening in the Middle East.
…
Another event took place during the week on Thursday 30 April. This was the interdiction on the high seas of the flotilla attempting to take aid to Gaza. The boats were seized near Crete. Called the Global Sumad Flotilla, Israeli forces seized the vessels and destroyed the engines and communications equipment in what was almost certainly a criminal act. The action was supported by the US. We can find no condemnation of what happened from the UK government.
*Golders Green is a suburb of London with a high concentration of Jewish residents.
We shall have a stall at the forthcoming People in the Park event and would welcome enquiries. For anyone thinking of joining the local group it would be a good time to make contact.
Troubling Double Down News film about the role of the BBC and other media in distorting how we view Israel.
Previous posts:
Amnesty in Salisbury & South Wiltshire 
Jews do not mourn over dropped eggs or spilt milk! Impossible to write down the Oral Torah when the Israeli Republic of free 12 tribes ruled by Sanhedrin common law has yet to see the light of a working Yovel. To remember Pesach, does not require recalling the ancient days of the past but rather the FREEDOM which defines Yovel and judicial righteousness which absolutely requires Pesach FREEDOM.
The B’HaG, part of the last generation of the Gaonim scholars. Writes a chiddush that the lights of shabbat and Hanukkah a mitzva from the Torah. This chiddush, its what separates dynamic פרדס inductive logic from Rambam’s static deductive Greek assimilated logic. A 1000 years previous Jews fought a Civil War which pitted the assimilated Tzeddukim sons of Aaron against the P’rushim who passed down the Oral Torah/פרדס kabbalah to rabbi Akiva, Hillel, Yishmael, and Yossi HaGalilee. This rabbinic tradition separates how to learn the warp halachic sugyot of the Gemara precedent search/common law\ on how to interpret the language of the Home Mishna viewed from different “trial witness-like, but different” perspectives.
Common law a judicial legal system rather than a legislative statute law system of legal jurisprudence. משנה תורה means both common law and likewise ‘legislative review’. The weft Aggadic threads of Talmudic comman law make a drosh comparison of similar but different sugyot throughout the NaCH prophets to ascertain prophetic mussar k’vanna. The woven Talmudic garment “creates” wisdom/time-oriented Av commandments from the soil of positive commandments and Talmudic halachot which in and of themselves do not require k’vanna.
Contrast British common law courts. Statute laws imposed by the British Parliament in London – they define the Constitution of England. Hence the British common law court system cannot overrule a law passed by Parliament like the US Supreme Court can rule a law passed by Congress and the President as “unconstitutional”.
King David, the Tannaim in as recorded in the Yerushalmi Talmud, debated whether he established conquered Damascus as a ‘city of refuge’. Clearly king Shlomo rejected a Sanhedrin Federal Court system! All the kings thereafter both from Yechuda and Israel never once make reference to Sanhedrin common law courtrooms anywhere in the T’NaCH. The Yerushalmi in Makkot discusses the number and scope of cities of refuge and preserves tannaitic disputes not found in the same form in the Bavli. This debate concerning David’s conquest of Damascus connected to the broader sugya of כיבוש דוד and the status of סוריא (Syria conquered by David), touching the permissibility to expand the Cities of Refuge from the Torah established 6 to 9.
I asked this very question to the Rosh Yeshiva and he confirmed that the reading of the D’varim 19: ויספת לך עוד שלש ערים על השלש האלה, implies its permissible to expand the original Six cities to Nine cities. If Damascus became part of Israel through David’s conquest, would institutions dependent upon territorial sanctity—such as cities of refuge, tithes, shemittah, and courts—extend there? Pro–כיבוש דוד (David’s conquest has legal force): Rabbi Akiva Rabbi Yishmael (in some versions) Rabbi Meir. Anti–כיבוש דוד (Syria does not fully attain Land status): Rabbi Yose, Rabbi Yehudah, Rabbi Shimon.
What distinguishes the cities of refuge from the Great Sanhedrin\Mishkan Shiloh/Temple Yerushalim\, the later has jurisdiction only within the Torah established borders of ארץ ישראל whereas the Small Sanhedrin, by definition a place of exile for accidental deaths, stands on the borders of the conquered lands of Israel. The land dedicated to the chosen seed of Avraham expansive to include Iraq!
Under such a model, the city of refuge is not primarily a sanctuary; it is a frontier judicial institution; the spokes of the Merkabah wheel whose central hub Shiloh or the City of David – a Federal Sanhedrin Capital Crimes Court system. Many classical authorities distinguished between the promised borders in Bereishit (“from the river of Egypt to the Euphrates”) and the territory actually settled under Yehoshua. Hence the Yerushalmi debate concerning the status of Damascus. A debate about the relationship between central authority and frontier jurisdiction within the Torah’s legal system. The cities of refuge are uniquely positioned to reveal that distinction because they are the one institution whose number the Torah explicitly authorizes to increase when the borders increase.
Moshe Rabbeinu according to rabbi Meir imposed a תנאי כפול upon the 21/2 tribes in קידושין. Those 3 cities of refuge serve as a precedent to the issue of king David’s conquering Damascus. This famous interpretation by rabbi Meir included in קידושין due to this wisdom commandment. The קידושין\גט diode relationship where both mitzvot exist, like shabbat and Moshiach, as time-oriented commandments which require prophetic mussar as its ברית חדש k’vanna within the heart. All time-oriented av Torah commandments – a matter of the heart – like תפילה. All wisdom commandments (דאורייתא או דרבנן) require prophetic mussar as their definition of Oral Torah tohor middot (מלכות לשמה). Specifically wisdom commandments swear a Torah oath (שם ומלכות) based upon the תולדות relationship which ברכות have with Torah brit oaths.
The primary בנין אב/precedent – תמיד מעשה בראשית. The Aggada בראשית creation story not understood through a טיפש פשט literal reading of the words of the בראשית aggadah! Rather the Torah opens with the introduction of Av Torah commandments – by means of this aggadic story of creation – known as time-oriented commandments. תולדות קום ועשה ושב ולא תעשה מצוות do not require prophetic mussar as their k’vanna; they exist as “forms” or ritual observance of commandments. The aggadic story of Cain proves that the Torah rejects ritual commandments\barbeque to heaven/ – as the primary Torah commandments. Rather, these secondary Torah commandments serve as precedents (together with halachot in the Talmud) whereby the generations of the chosen Cohen people – through wisdom – can make an aliyah of תולדות מצוות unto אב טהור זמן גרמא מצות.
What stands Torah Constitutional common law apart from the av tumah avoda zarah “daughter religions” … the latter presented as historical facts; the former absolutely depends upon Israel keeping the Pesach Yovel as did Yehoshua when he crossed the Jordan river with Reuven Gad and Menashe as the tip of his invading spear! Contrast the next generation which abandoned the Torah as the Constitutional mandate of the land and worshipped avoda zarah. Clearly during the times of the בית שני the Talmud records that the Yovel never observed. The issue at hand, did king David throughout his reign keep the Yovel and establish the Federal Great/Small Sanhedrin Federal Common law court system?
What’s clear, that king Shlomo judged the Capital Crimes case of the two whores and dead new born child in his own court rather than before a Sanhedrin court! All the kings of rebellious Israel never kept not the Yovel nor the Sanhedrin Federal court system. Did any king of Yechuda, prior to the Bavil g’lut keep Yovel and a lopped of Sanhedrin court system? The avoda zara of king Shlomo did not occur at the end of his reign but at the beginning when he ignored the prophetic mussar Natan commanded David not to copy the ways of the Goyim and construct a Cathedral/Temple! From day one Israel warred against the nations of Canaan. Therefore “blood on his hands” directly refers to king David’s failure to judge Uriah before a Sanhedrin Capital Crimes court!
The chiddush offered here that the classic טיפש פשט literal understanding of pushing off building the Temple to David son, compares to a screen door on a submarine! Clearly by the time of Yermia the kingdom of Yechuda rebelled to keep the Yovel. What significant, Yovel/Pesach\Freedom the fundamental condition to establish Sanhedrin Federal courts over the 12 Tribe Republic. After the kingdom split into Civil War consequent to the Natan curse upon David and exemplified by Shlomo confusing building a Cathedral copy of how Goyim worship their Gods like later kings copied how Goyim constructed their altars, did king Shlomo keep the Yovel. IF king Shlomo did not keep the Yovel, prior to the permanent split that occurred in the reign of his son at Sh’Cem, THEN no king of Yechuda kept the Yovel. NO Yovel No Sanhedrin Courts, other than the korban of Cain like the Sanhedrin court Nepoleon established in Paris.
Therefore, what distinguishes both NaCH and Talmud as “PROPHETIC” … both this and that address all O’lam Ha’bah future born generations to re-conquer the homeland, establish the Yovel in the land, make the Written Torah the Constitution which mandates specifically the Federal Sanhedrin court system over the 12 Tribes of the Republic. This reality has yet to occur. The daughter religions of av tuma avoda zarah declare a revisionist history and seek to impose their substitute theologies upon all humanity. Torah has yet to function as the written Constitution of the chosen Cohen Peoples’ Republic.
The Core revelation of the Torah at Sinai לשמה – תורה לא בשמים היא. Who then constitutes as כה אמר אלהים? Justice לשמה not in the heavens but dependent upon righteous court justices – אלהים. Therefore the prophets command their mussar in the name of the Sanhedrin court. Tehillim 82: אלהים נצב בעדת אל. The prophetic language כה אמר השם, inseparable from the restoration of righteous lateral common law Sanhedrin courts. Did any Davidic king after David actually maintain a functioning Yovel-based constitutional order over all Israel? That evidence certainly supports the argument that the constitutional ideals of Torah were only partially realized in the monarchic period. Without the Written Torah as the Constitution, then no Torah mandate for the Yovel. No Yovel no Tribal Republic with משנה תורה Sanhedrin legislative review over statute law imposed by either tribal judge or later kings!
The form/substance – holy\most holy divide: Mishkan\Temple “FORM” vs. the נמשל “SUBSTANCE”, the kabbalah of Shekinah based upon: ועשו לי מקדש ושכנתי בתוכם. Which rabbi Yechuda Ha’Nasi interpreted the tefillah אורייתא – קריא שמע – בכל לבבך\כם as the Yaacov vs Esav spirits which wrestle within the heart of bnai brit Cohen Israel. Rabbi Yechuda employed the משל\נמשל of Yatzir Ha’Tov which eternally in all generations wrestles against the tuma spirit his Mishna refers to as Yatzir Ha-Ra. Herein defines the prophetic mussar of the prophet Yermia’s ברית חדש which stands upon the מעשה בראשית aggadic metaphor story of the wisdom time-oriented commandment – 6 days of Creation and one day of not doing מלאכה. Therefore impossible for cursed g’lut Jews to observe Torah mitzvot לשמה – based upon the 1st Sinai Commandment wherein Egypt – לאו דוקא.
LikeLike
Putting the current Iran war into context … Iran’s war today – not an isolated eruption; but the latest phase of a century‑long struggle over Jewish sovereignty in the Middle East. Zionism, not a romantic project; but rather a response to existential threat repeatedly exposed by church and mosque inherited racial criminal insanity. The UN today continues this tradition where external powers have long repeatedly attempted to engineer the demographic and political fate of Jews. Iran adopts and amplifies this narrative, positioning itself as the champion of “resistance” to Zionism. Tehran’s ideology fuses Shi’a revolutionary theology with the older Arab rejectionist line: Israel is a colonial imposition that must be undone. After the fall of Nasserism and the decline of pan‑Arabism, the Islamic Republic of Iran positioned itself as the central patron of anti‑Israel forces.
Theodor Herzl wrote in “Der Judenstaat”: “The Jewish question is a national question, and to solve it we must establish a home for the Jewish people.” … Jews have equal rights to achieve self determination in our own country. To do this Jews must partner with a great power who likewise endorse a Jewish state…”We shall need the patronage of a great power; and if we can secure that, we can realize our purpose. We must therefore appeal to the great powers of the world, and we must address ourselves to the Jewish question in these terms.”
The White Paper explicitly framed its goal as preventing Palestine from becoming a Jewish state and ensuring an Arab majority in any independent Palestine that would emerge post war. Its deliberate restrictions on Jewish immigration to mandate Palestine, based upon the European racism which directly and indirectly contributed to the slaughter of 75% of Western European Jewry proves Herzl’s estimation of Europe’s racial insanity toward Jews. The Iran–Israel war, to state it plainly: not new. Rather, simply the modern extension of the same struggle over Jewish self‑determination that Herzl identified in the 1890s and that the region has fought over ever since.
Chamberlain’s White Paper serves as the basis for the European attempt to declare and validate a Palestinian state today; the White Paper explicitly stated this goal: “the establishment within 10 years of an independent Palestine State”. London favored the establishment of an Arab majority, which would rule Palestine; Chamberlain repeated the Czech betrayal, and limited Jewish immigration capped at 75,000 over five years (April 1939–April 1944) and further immigration requiring Arab consent.
The White Paper’s restrictions deliberately imposed – at the moment when Nazi Germany and fascist Europe were carrying out the systematic murder of approximately six million Jews (75 % of Western European Jewry). The paper was issued while the Shoah – already under way, and while Britain itself – still neutral in the European war against the Jews. Its framers chose to freeze Jewish immigration at a level that would prevent the Jewish population from ever reaching majority status in a future independent Palestine.
The policy was rooted in the same 19th–20th-century European political and demographic anxieties that had already produced racial antisemitism (the “Jewish Question” as a perceived racial/cultural threat). The White Paper’s language of “absorptive capacity,” “economic conditions,” and constitutional guarantees of Arab majority rule echoed the same underlying worldview that had justified pogroms, expulsions, and later the Nuremberg Laws. It was not a sudden invention of the 1930s; it was the logical culmination of the Mandate’s earlier pro-immigration framework having produced the very demographic shift the White Paper now blocked. Herzl’s entire project rested on the recognition that European societies were racially and culturally “insane” toward Jews; Zionism represents his prescription for a rational exit from that European-Shoah-guilt insanity.
The post ’48 Nakba narrative, not a neutral “national trauma story”. Nakba bemoaned the Arab failed war of annihilation to destroy the Jewish community in the territory of the defunct British mandate. The term “Palestine” reintroduced consequent to the ‘Sick Man of Europe’s’ economic bankruptcy, did Sultans hire cheaper French cartographers in the 18th Century; that European ‘great power’ reintroduced Palestine upon Ottoman maps of the Middle East. Prior to that time no Ottoman map listed “Greater Syria” as Palestine nor Istanbul as Constantinople.
After the Battle of Yarmouk (636 CE) Arab forces defeated the Byzantine field army and took control of much of the Levant. The territory became part of the rapidly expanding Rashidun (and later Umayyad) Caliphate and administered as the Jund Dimashq, Jund Filastin, Jund al-Urdunn; “wilāya/walayāt” (provinces), a separate term used in different periods. Jund al-Urdunn: first instituted under the Rashidun Caliphate (reorganization under Caliph ʿUmar, c. 639). Jund Filastin: organized soon after the Muslim conquest in the 630s — established during the Rashidun period and continued under the Umayyads. Jund Dimashq: likewise created during the early (Rashidun) reorganizations after the conquest and continued under the Umayyad administration. Modern scholarly syntheses conclude the ajnad framework – established by the Rashidun reorganization (traditionally attributed to ʿUmar c. 18 AH / 639 CE) and consolidated under the Umayyads. Modern scholarly syntheses conclude the ajnad framework – established by the Rashidun reorganization and consolidated under the Umayyads.
Throughout the years of the British colonial-mandate, Arabs fundamentally rejected the Balfour Declaration to establish a Jewish national home in Palestine. The post ’48 Nakba narrative, not a neutral “national trauma story”. Nakba bemoaned the Arab failed war of annihilation to destroy the Jewish community in the territory of the defunct British colonial-mandate. No great power Ottoman map listed “Greater Syria” as Palestine nor Istanbul as Constantinople.
Throughout the years of the British mandate, Arabs fundamentally rejected the Balfour Declaration to establish a Jewish national home in Palestine. Nakba – not “we lost our homes” but “we lost the war which we launched to prevent Jewish self-determination in Palestine. Nakba not free-floating “national trauma” as UNWRA propaganda depicts.
Historically there exists a regional concept of Filastin in early Islamic and later periods. But never sovereign Arab “Palestinian nation-state” as UN propaganda votes which condemn Israeli violations of “international law” harp and sing as if the UN exists as a heavenly voice. European cartography re‑standardized “Palestine” as a territorial label, which later became the basis for post ’67 UN fart: which bemoans the crimes of Israeli “occupied territories”. While its Resolution 3379 ignores the PLO Charter of ’64 which denounces only ’48 Israel as “occupied territories”.
Herzl stated that the Jewish question – fundamentally a national one. He advocated for a homeland, based upon the inherited European racism; that only through Jewish self-determination can Jew overcome racial inherited European hatred.
He emphasized that achieving this goal requires the support of a great power. The term “Palestine” – reintroduced on Ottoman maps due to changes in regional governance and economic Ottoman bankruptcy, Ben Gurion rejected when he named the new nation Israel. Prior to WWI, the region – commonly referred to in the context of “Greater Syria” without the designation of “Palestine.” This change reflects the evolving geopolitical landscape of this region.
Throughout the British Mandate period, Arab opposition to the Balfour Declaration highlighted a rejection of the notion of a Jewish homeland, arguing that their struggle emphatically fought against Jewish self-determination. Therefore the term Nakba – not simply characterized through the UN propaganda distortion as – simply as a loss of homes. Rather, the fallout consequences of a failed war; specifically aimed at preventing Jewish self-determination. These facts fundamentally reject UN attempts to inject revisionist history which fundamentally denies the right of Israel as a nation state to determine its own international borders with other Arab states, specifically with Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon.
European permanent Security Council members repeatedly publicly declare: “That Israel has the right to self defense”. But they equally declare that the UN has the right to declare a “Palestinian State”; which they demand come from East Jerusalem, Samaria, and Gaza. Neither the Security Council members nor the General Assembly states possess the might of “international law” – despite their obtuse propaganda otherwise – to determine the borders of the Jewish State nor create the borders of a Palestinian state. Wars throughout history, Poland for example, shape and determine the borders of nation-states.
Consequent to the Bar Kochba Revolt (132-136 CE) the Romans forcibly expelled Jews from Judea and renamed the conquered territory Palaestina, a term derived from “Philistine” – to permanently destroy the Jewish nation state of Judea; which achieved national Independence celebrated and remembered through the mitzva of lighting the Hanukkah lights. The consequence of this Jewish defeat – Jews endured a stateless refugee status till post Shoah! Today Arab refugees who fled from Judea, and Arab refugee populations captured by the IDF post ’67, no different from post Bar Kochba Jews.
UN resolutions simply political, not some pie in the sky divine law decreed from Mt. Olympus. No GA vote or SC statement has the inherent power to fix Israel’s borders or magically conjure a Palestinian state. Attempts to do so, they directly compare to UN GA Resolution 3379 or UN SC Resolution 2334. UN moral theater does not determine the international borders of the Jewish State of Israel. The UN did not “create” Israel. Israel like the American Revolution won its national Independence against colonial British imperialism and French pre-’67 perfidy – through war. Attempts by the UN to recognize a “Palestinian State” simply the hallow echo chamber of Rome renaming Judea Palaestina.
Herzl’s answer to the Jewish question—a sovereign Jewish state backed by great‑power recognition—remains a legitimate national solution. Arab rejection of that solution, the 1948 war, the Nakba narrative, and all of subsequent UN/European condemnations which denounce Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestine. Such stinking backside noise directly smells like long, sophisticated UN attempt to undo Herzl’s solution; to re‑cast a war against Jewish self‑determination as pure victimhood, to retro‑invent a sovereign “Palestine” that never existed, and to deny Israel the same right every other nation has had—to let history, war, and nation-states treaty agreements determine its borders. Not by external powers repeating Rome’s old trick with new legal language, and pretending that Palestine as a UN Protectorate territory ceased to exist in 1948 – which categorizes the backside stench made by both the ICJ and the ICC.
Zionism a response to pogroms, exclusion, and the collapse of Jewish emancipation in Europe; a legitimate national movement grounded in Herzl’s analysis of Jewish self‑determination and inherited Goyim racism. “Palestine” as a sovereign Arab nation-state never existed. European cartographers standardized the term “Palestine” in the 18th-19th centuries which reflected European great power interests which later carved up the Ottoman empire between England and France. Despite Arab sources Filastin, never a sovereign Palestinian state ever in Arab and Muslim history. The Nakba narrative today stands as a politically constructed propaganda; no UN resolutions can dictate Israel’s borders or undo the outcome of any Israeli war victory – fought since the Independence war.
During colonial British mandate the 1936–39 Arab Revolt fought explicitly against the establishment of any Zionist-entity in colonial British Palestine. The popular Arab propaganda of Nakba today – simply propaganda lies – it fails to acknowledge the some 850,000 Jewish refugees forcibly expelled from all Arab countries after the Arab Nakba defeat in 1948. This UN propaganda which routinely catagorically slanders 3379 Israel – pretends that Chapter VI recommendations = to Chapter VII ultimatums like issued to North Korea.
The Israeli 1949 Armistice lines shaped by war, not by UN fiat. The push for a Palestinian state is political, not legal. The propaganda which condemns Israel breaking “international law” simple a fart and nothing more. The UN aint the Pope. Post Shoah the UN failed to try Pius XII for war crimes which include the post war rat-lines and pogroms in Catholic Poland. Furthermore the church criminal slanders which culminated in the Shoah totally undermine the church and the UN as vicar from heaven moral authorities.
The modern “Palestinian national identity” is a result of 20th-century political developments, particularly in response to Zionism and British rule. While not a pre-1948 sovereign state, the Arab population in the region developed a distinct national consciousness. Most international bodies and historians view the current conflict not as a fight over a lost ancient state, but as a clash between two national movements (Zionism and Palestinian nationalism) over the same land.
The problem with this smelly revisionist history, Arabs lost their repeated attempts to throw the Jews into the Sea. Actions have their consequences. The repeated Arab defeats to duplicate the ways of Hitler, Chamberlain and Pius XII definitively proves that Arafat’s ’64 PLO “Balestinians”, never merited the “mandate from heaven” to rule as an Independent nation – not in past Arab/Muslim Ages nor today. Just as Jews post Bar Kochba lost our national Independence following that disastrous “Nakba” defeat; how much more so Arab refugees who never ruled Muslim Ottoman Greater Syria as an independence nation – post ’48 lost all claims to self determination claims. No different than post WWI & WWII Germany who lost all claims to Prussia as Germanic self determination.
The attempt repeatedly made by post ’67 UN Resolutions (242, 338, 446, 2334) to make a טיפש פשט limitation to “the conflict as indeed a clash between two nationalist movements” what an utter farce! Iran some 1000 miles distant from Israel. Hezbollah Shiites in Lebanon have no connection what so ever with Arab Sunni refugee populations within the borders of the Jewish State. Post Shoah “NEVER AGAIN”, means that mentally deranged racists shall never again decide for the Jews their racist versions of their “FINAL SOLUTIONS”.
For nearly 2,000 years of exile (since the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE), this phrase L’shanah haba’ah b’Yerushalayim, spoken by Jews in every corner of the globe, from Spain to Persia to the Americas. It served as a constant reminder that the Jewish people had not abandoned their claim to the land, nor had they assimilated into the lands where they lived as minorities. The fact that this prayer survived the horrors of g’lut and recited every Pesach by millions who had never seen the city, proof that Jews never surrendered our Torah oath brit inheritance, which explicitly excluded both Yishmael and Esav. The 1948 establishment of the State of Israel and the reunification of Jerusalem in 1967, viewed by Jews as the historical fulfillment of this centuries-old Torah brit oath.
The post war Israeli victory starting in ’48 … after the fact couch potato quarterbacks … they do not determine Israeli identity. Britain returned the mandate after the Irgun blew up British headquarters in the King David Hotel. France lost WWII and thereafter its colonial empire in both Vietnam and Algeria disintegrated. The De Gaulle reversal of the French military alliance, just prior to the expected Nasser obliteration of the Jewish state definitively proved Herzl’s analysis as correct.
Trump 1.0 Abraham Accords rejects as hog-wash the notion of clash between two national movements with deep historical roots, both claiming legitimacy over the same land. Israeli strategic foreign policy seeks to integrate Israel into the community of nations of the Middle East and North Africa. Arab refugee populations and the failure of Arab and Muslim state to repatriate their refugee populations – an Arab/Muslim problem NOT an Israeli problem. Israel eventually gave ’48 Arabs Israeli citizenship. UN Resolution 194 does not apply across the board to as yet unfought Arab Israeli wars like 1967! That PA criticized the Accords does not amount to squat; that treaty cut with nation states and not minority populations scattered across the Planet Earth.
LikeLike
Sermon on the mount – establishes an entirely different vision of faith.
Matthew 5 sermon on the mount does not compare to T’NaCH prophetic mussar rebukes which plant within the Yatzir Ha-Tov the tohor middot expressed through social justice, direct admonition, corrective rebukes against national leaders and society in general. The religious rhetoric of the Gospels in general and the Sermon on the Mount in particular describes “the favor of God”, alas the Greek manuscript of God equally employed in avoda zarah!
The JeZeus sermon communicates a superficial concept of humility and mercy totally alien to Torah and NaCH prophets. The fourth Oral Torah middah of רחום\mercy learns from the Torah secondary commandments of slaughtering all the inhabitants of Canaan; putting to death a minor child known as stubborn and rebellious; uprooting the ערב רב assimilated and intermarried Jews which the Torah describes as “Amalek”. Based upon the prior metaphor of Yaacov and Esav wrestling in the womb of Rivka! The Mishna refers to this eternal conflict as בכל לבבך between the two opposing Yatzirot spirits within the heart. The humility of Moshe does not at all align with the JeZeus sermon on the Mount.
The moral cultivation & harvesting of defined tohor Sinai middot. Prophetic mussar directly addresses as the chief purpose of both Moshe and later prophets mussar. Social justice and accountability within the borders of the oath sworn land of conquered Canaan directly affixed to righteous Sanhedrin common law courtrooms.
The Sermon on the Mount has a completely different message; it focuses directly upon individual virtues applicable to all mankind rather than the Oral Torah tohor middot which the church publicly and openly repudiates and denies.
The T’NaCH prophets command, a stark dichotomy of blessings and curses – based on collective adherence to the contrast between the opening first two Sinai commandments. Righteous pursuit of justice (fair compensation of damages inflicted) among the bnai brit people the Torah Constitution mandates directly linked to keeping the Yovel/liberty in the conquered homeland.
The gospel language directly implies the worship of some Monotheistic Universal God. Only the 12 tribes of Israel accept the revelation of the Torah at Sinai; a tribal god revealed at Sinai who took Israel out of g’lut. All mankind never accept the revelation of the Torah at Sinai.
The word ONE in kre’a shma does not refer to some theological creed monotheistic God but rather that the “children of Israel” accept the oaths sworn by Avraham Yitzak and Yaacov by which they alone father the chosen Cohen people. Specific to the 12 tribes within the borders of Israel – blessings; specific to the 12 tribes in g’lut – cursed Egyptian like judicial oppression injustice.
The revelation of the Torah at Sinai does NOT mandate some specific theological framework as does the NT gospels. Middot defined both through spirit “substance” and commandment “forms”; a sort of ‘as above so below’ concept of time-oriented Torah wisdom commandments.
T’NaCH prophetic mussar specifically directed to all generations of Klal Yisrael. Herein the Torah itself strictly defines prophesy. Neither the NT nor Koran obey nor even resemble this fundamental criteria of nevuah.
Covenant a Goyim translation for ברית. To what does this translation – worship of words compare? To a brain surgeon cutting out a tumor while wearing 30 ounce boxing gloves. The NT Theos God applies only to the Gods of Mt. Olympus worshipped by both the ancient Greeks and Romans. Greek, Roman, NT ideas of justice directly compare to Assyrian, Babylonian, and Persian ideas.
Oral Torah רוח הקודש middot – spirits NOT words. Despite the fact that the Torah speaks in the language of Man. None the less, neither the language of NT or Koran validates the תורה לא בשמים היא מצוה לשמה. Which permanently distinguishes the revelation of the Torah from all counterfeit avoda zarah Gods. JeZeus prayed to his Zeus in Heaven!
Torah does not communicate any theological religious vision of faith in God above. Torah commands the burden of pursuing righteous courtroom justice within the borders of the oath sworn land inheritance of the chosen seed of the Avot.
T’NaCH prophets do NOT “preach” faith. Rather they serve as the police enforcers of Sanhedrin אלהים justices courtroom rulings. Prophets in this fact compare to Amoraim halachot brought as precedents to interpret a specific Misnaic language viewed from a fixed eye-witness perspective; akin to the witnesses who describe seeing the new Moon. Later NaCH prophets alway make a משנה תורה to interpret Torah commandments in order to ascertain the k’vanna of these commandments as wisdom mitzvot\time-oriented. Judicial enforcement within the jurisdiction of Sanhedrin common law courts does not remotely compare to spiritual preaching of morality; the latter directly compares to the UN and the post Shoah Popes of Rome.
LikeLike