[Prefatory Note: The short assessment of Israel’s strategic objectives that are not addressed in the Trump Twenty-Point Plan was initially written in response to a question put to by a Brazilian journalist with a special interest in the Middle East.]
Reading Israel Katz’s comments on Annexation of WB, permanent presence in Gaza, and Policies of Disproportionate Reprisal
Israel Katz, Israel’s Minister of Defense, used blunt language to express his version of ‘Greater Israel’ that is alone an acceptable outcome of this long struggle culminating in the Gaza Genocide. What Katz proposes is at minimum the de facto annexation of the West Bank and Israel’s permanent presence in the 53% of Gaza that Israel now occupies, made irreversible by the establishment of Jewish settlements in Northern Gaza. Katz can be read as implicitly recognizing Israel’s inability to reach these goals de jure, which can be understood as an expression of Zionist realism as to the limits of Israel’s influence at any given time. Such remarks may have been unscripted, and not indicative of how Netanyahu proposes to handle this interaction between the Trump Plan and the Zionist Endgame.
This controversial language of Katz should be interpreted both as trouble ahead for the Trump diplomacy, an exhibition of Israel’s growing awareness that the contradictions between the further implementation of remaining fundamental tenets of the Zionist vision and the Trump diplomacy may collide in the future. In the past this gap between what geopolitical managers were willing to grant Israel and what Israel insists upon as the price of peace meant a frozen diplomacy. Before Katz spoke this acceptance of a de facto version of realizing Israeli goals had rarely openly acknowledged by a public official in relation to these expansionist and hegemonic ambitions.
This official silence in relation to Israel’s unattained strategic objectives may have been intended as a temporary expression of deference to the international consensus on an endgame for the struggle between Jews and Palestinians, which has been the case since the General Assembly 1947 Partition Resolution of 181, continues to support a ‘two-state solution.’ Such solution is not favored by a wide spectrum of opinion among the political elites and citizenry of Israel that currently affirm a commitment to a single Israeli state, often known as ‘Greater Israel’, but seemingly excluded from the Trump Plan. This helps explain why Netanyahu and other prominent Israelis have in recent months made their determined opposition to Palestinian statehood in any form. Also relevant is that criticism directed at Israel’s tactics of starvation and civilian targeting has been made by the governments most complicit with the genocide (except the US), including France, the UK, and Canada, that pointedly and stubbornly support the establishment of a Palestinian state. [See French-backed New York Declaration:United Nations High-Level International Conference – New York Declaration on the Peaceful Settlement of the Question of Palestine and the Implementation of the Two-State solution (29 July 2025)]
A previous signal of Israeli one-statism was the refusal to declare existing territorial borders as final.
Katz has made other disturbing comments in his official response to a deadly stabbing attack in the West Bank a few days ago. Katz declared that he has “ordered a military action against the home village” of the Palestinian attacker, a measure of reprisal contrary to international law in two respects: openly attacking a civilian village and inflicting collective punishment on an innocent community. Israel newspapers reports more measured Israeli responses to the incident of course labeled as ‘terrorism’ that may suggest that Katz’s provocative words should be partially discounted given his reputation as a stand-alone ‘hothead.’
All along Israel has opted for disproportionate and indiscriminate responses to any signs of armed Palestinian resistance. Israel formulated the so-called Dahiya Doctrine, first enunciated in 2006 as an articulation of Israel’s response to Hezbollah operating out of Lebanon in solidarity with the Palestinian struggle. As Dahiya was long understood it was nothing new. It made explicit what Israel had been doing all along in the name of national security.
What may be noteworthy with respect to these utterances by Katz is their relevance to territorial sovereignty ambitions and the future of Gaza. It has long been agreed upon by expert observers of Israel that the current leadership of Israel to varying degrees adhered to Zionist ideology that included the prospect of West Bank annexation and further Judaification by way of the settlement movement as well as the partial annexation of Gaza reinforced by Jewish settlements situated in northern Gaza. That Zionist ambitions along these lines existed in Tel Aviv should not have come as a surprise in informed circles, although its open acknowledgement at this time is unexpected, especially as it rubs against the grain of US efforts to build wide international support for the Trump 20 Point Plan, which is strongly weighted in favor of Israel and dismissive of Palestinian grievances.
The timing of Katz’s utterances may reflect Israeli concern about the nature of Trump’s regional approach that seemed to preclude such territorial expansion. This might slow down Israel’s timetable, but would not likely inhibit the Israeli leadership, that Israel will move forward with its ‘day after’ diplomacy while paying lip service to the Trump Plan. Trump’s diplomacy has major benefits for Israel. It masks accountability issues, thereby ensuring impunity for Israel’s engagement with the criminality of genocide and apartheid, and possibly ecocide, exhibited daily in the past two plus years to the entire world. The Miami meeting scheduled for Monday, December 29 between Netanyahu and Trump may cast light on whether Katz’s comments touched on points of tension between Washington and Tel Aviv or were just a way of reminding the world of a major tenet of Zionist ideology at a critical moment when the non-Israelis were formulating the future of what has become known as Occupied Palestinian Territories. Time will tell us more about the relative leverage of Israel and the United States in crafting a post-genocide future for the two peoples. In this sense, it is most unfortunate that no modality of Palestinian participation could be agreed upon during this period of Trump diplomacy.
As such thoughts linger, the people of Gaza have not been treated with dignity but mostly left homeless amid the rubble to cope with fierce Winter without heat, adequate food, and a conscientious Israel effort to abide by the ceasefire that it has consistently violated in ways that overcome any uncertainty. There is little reason to doubt that Israel’s annexationist and expansionist goals retain their position at the top of Israel’s policy agenda.
Global Justice in the 21st Century 
Greetings Richard! I’m so disappointed I only learned of the Canadian Border Service detaining you the Day after your address in Ottawa last month. If I knew in advance I would have registered to listen to you.
I posted this to several Zionists on X lately.
The Balfour Declaration: A Wartime Expediency that Doomed a Region
Issued on All Souls’ Day, 1917, the Balfour Declaration was a 67-word letter from the British Foreign Secretary to a Zionist banker. It pledged British support for “a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine,” with a crucial caveat: it must not harm the rights of the “existing non-Jewish communities” (over 90% of the population).
Its core truths are:
A War Weapon, Not a Moral Vision: It was issued to secure wartime loans from American Jews, keep Russia fighting, and lock in British control of Jerusalem as troops advanced.
A Triple Betrayal: It directly contradicted two other secret British promises: the Sykes-Picot Agreement (to split the region with France) and the McMahon-Hussein Correspondence (promising Arab independence).
The Seed of Endless Conflict: It provided the legal foundation for the state of Israel and is simultaneously remembered by Palestinians as the foundational document of the Nakba (Catastrophe).
A Deliberate Contradiction: It promised a Jewish homeland in a land where Jews were 8% of the population, while vowing to protect the majority’s rights—an impossible, knowingly dishonest formula.
In essence, the Balfour Declaration was a cynical, imperial act that mortgaged one people’s homeland to secure another empire’s victory, creating a century of conflict from its very first, contradictory words.
With Peace and Blessing,
Ray
Ray:
Sending you holiday blessings for Christmas and the New Year, hopefully with
brighter glimmers of light.
Your comment clarifying the legacy of the Balfour Declaration is helpful for an
understanionading of current events.
Our Canadian incident was peculiar, allegedly concerned with whether we should be
excluded as ‘risks to Canadian national security.’
May 2026 treat you benevolently,
Richard
Richard, you’re an inspiration to others that at your advanced Years, but still a babe in Eternity, you are still engaged in the struggle to have people come alive and active understanding our Common Humanity in this Common Era of Christ.
Between you and I we’re a 1 – 2 punch! You to the Israeli Defence Minister, and me speaking Truth to Power on X to Israeli Foreign Minister Sa’ar and other World Leaders. They’re all on X!
I had to reply, seeing Sa’ar’s comment in my X news feed; Gideon Sa’ar | גדעון סער @gidonsaar
Israel strongly rejects the statement issued by foreign countries regarding the Cabinet decision on settlements in Judea and Samaria. Foreign governments will not restrict the right of Jews to live in the Land of Israel, and any such call is morally wrong and discriminatory against Jews. The Cabinet decision to establish 11 new settlements and to formalize eight additional settlements is intended, among other things, to help address the security threats Israel is facing. All of the settlements are located in Area C and are situated on state land. Israel acts in accordance with International Law. The incorporation of the 1917 Balfour Declaration into the Mandate was explicitly agreed upon at the San Remo Conference in 1920. According to the Mandate, the right of the Jewish people to establish its national home extends over the entire territory of “Mandatory Palestine.” These rights were preserved in Article 80 of the Charter of the United Nations. In the aforementioned statement, the blatant silence of foreign states regarding the Palestinian Authority’s illegal construction in Area C is extremely striking. My reply:
Ray Joseph Cormier @RayJC_Com
The Promised Land is a promise. It can’t be taken by force! ‘Not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit, says the LORD of hosts’ Zechariah 4:6
The Israeli Foreign Minister is ignorant of the Commandment of the God of the Jews in the Torah and the Prophets:
‘And if a stranger sojourn with you in your land, you shall not vex him. But the stranger that dwells with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and you shall love him as yourself; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God. Leviticus 19: 33-34
And it shall come to pass, that you shall divide it by lot for an inheritance unto you, and to the strangers that sojourn among you, which shall beget children among you: and they shall be to you as born in the country among the children of Israel; they shall have inheritance with you among the tribes of Israel. And it shall come to pass, that in what tribe the stranger sojourns, there shall you give him his inheritance, say the Lord GOD.” Ezekiel 47: 32-33
Continuing our study of the Gemara of Kiddushin. משנה תורה אב משנה, סוגיה ב’ — מניינא דף ג
Understanding the basics of Oral Torah a fundamentally required absolute. Wrote of rabbi Akiva’s רבוי מיעט compared to rabbi Yishmael’s כלל – פרט, פרט – כלל middot by which both men interpreted through different sh’ittot the kabbalah of פרדס inductive logic reasoning. Clearly neither Boris Badenov, nor his boot licking sidekick Natasha Fatale (Rambam & Yosef Karo) understood the distinctions which separate Torah common law from Roman statute law.
ולרב הונא דאמר חופה קונה מק”ו. למעוטי מאי? למעוטי חליפין. ס”ד אמינא הואיל וגמר קיחה קיחה משדה עפרון, מה שדה מקניא בחליפין, אף אשה נמי מקניא בחליפין. קמ”ל. This “משל” term “קמ”ל”, what defines its נמשל interpretation? The Gemara asks: למעוטי מאי? Hence, our Gemara contrasts rabbi Yishmael’s midda of ק”ו against rabbi Akiva’s midda of רבוי מיעט. When ever encountering a קמ”ל, this משל teaches the נמשל of either a רבוי מיעט. A fundamental chiddush, how to correctly read the Talmud with an understanding discerning eye – comparable to the tongue of a wine bibber. The Talmud defines understanding as: discernment like from like.
The פרט of בראשית כד:ב requires research. Let’s open by making a מדרש רבה analysis. Midrash functions as a reference resource for Talmudic study. The flat assimilated Yeshiva education system totally ignores learning Talmud together with Midrash, a clumsy yet cunning schemer basic Snidely Whiplash error. Which utterly backfires in a pathetic shallow addiction to the Rambam error of literal word translation Orthodox Judaism religious stupidity.
בראשית רבה נט:ח – Midrash Rabbah connects this verse through the midda of גזירה שוה to כי יקח איש אשה. Avraham & servant Eliezer cut an oath alliance Torah common law legal precedent prototype. The hand-under-thigh Torah language refers to an oath sworn obligation through which the גזירה שוה equally applies to the קידושין oath brit obligation which obligates a Man to give a get to his ex-wife if he divorces her. What does the mitzva of קידושין acquire? The Nefesh O’lam Ha’Ba of the woman’s soul! Specifically learned from the Torah precedent בכל נפשך repeated twice in the opening first two paragraphs of the ק”ש. Bereishit Rabbah learns this critical גזרה שוה, as a critical proto–common law precedent; a foundational legal principles or decisions that define the development of Oral Torah common law as we know it today.
The רבוי מיעט – The acquired “wife” does not lose her independent da’at. Kiddushin-betrothal does not confer ownership over the woman, her various aspect: such as her body, labor or personhood. She exits marital status through get, not resale. Never does she qualify as ממון: money, valuable possessions, and property. Herein interprets the k’vanna of the language of our Av Mishna, which does not say: האשה נקנית לאיש, but האשה נקנית בשלש דרכים — the mitzva of קידושין separates this woman from all other women. Herein understand how the gospel Av tuma avoda zara touching the vile story of virgin birth follows Greek mythology of Hercules rather than Oral Torah common law.
The precedent of Avraham and his servant sworn oath, this Torah brit alliance obligates. Hence this Torah precedent critical in understanding the mitzva of קידושין as an oath alliance brit obligation which obligates both Man and Woman equally. קידושין acquires exclusive – מיעט – over the woman’s nefesh-standing vis-à-vis other men. Herein explains why adultery qualifies as a Capital Crime case which only a Sanhedrin court can adjudicate. Hence no Goyim court qualifies as having authority to issue a divorce. This fundamental recognition that only Torah courts shall determine “the Jewish Problem”, as expressed through the post Shoah oath: NEVER AGAIN.
Oral Torah does not function as a תולדות commentary on the Written Torah —Oral Torah common law derived from precedent תולדות positive and negative Torah commandments. קידושין acquires a brit-level oath obligation as a Av Torah time-oriented commandment. This oath alliance obligation establishes enforceable duties such as כתובה, גט, & fidelity. This mitzva does not treat the acquisition of a wife comparable to how a man acquires ownership of a עבד כנעני; the concept of “soul” understood as title acquired to all future born children fathered consequent to this קידושין. This Torah mitzva serves to amplify the k’vanna of swearing an oath alliance לשמה – the first Sinai commandment; the greatest commandment in the revelation of the Torah at Sinai.
ולרב הונא דאמר חופה קונה מק״ו
למעוטי מאי
למעוטי חליפין
This question cannot be asked within Rabbi Yishmael’s כלל–פרט system alone, because: A pure ק״ו would expand; a pure גזירה שוה from שדה עפרון would import all kinyanim. Hence the danger: ס״ד אמינא:
הואיל וגמר קיחה קיחה משדה עפרון
מה שדה מקניא בחליפין
אף אשה נמי מקניא בחליפין
This while logically correct under Rabbi Yishmael’s sh’itta. But rabbi Akiva’s קמ״ל = רבוי מיעט, not כלל–פרט. So קמ״ל here teaches the negative boundary of the רבוי, just as it likewise understands the relationship between Shabbat to Chol! A very important precedent since the mitzva of shabbat critically defines: HOLY; just as korbanot dedications define the kingship mitzva of Moshiach. Moshe anointed the House of Aaron to dedicate the nation to pursue righteous judicial justice. The prophet Natan cursed the House of David with eternal Civil War after he failed to rule with justice in the matter of the baal of Bat Sheva. Just as Aaron did not offer up barbeques to Heaven through korbanot, so to the Moshiach does not rule as king if he fails to establish righteous common law Federal Sanhedrin courts!
Acquisition to the “title” Nefesh O’lam Ha’ba of the woman’s soul does not compare to buying or selling chattel. Reading the Talmud as if it compares to the novel of a Harry Potter NT false messiah – Protocols of the Elders of Zion fraud-literalism, destroys and uproots precedent-based Oral Torah common law/משנה תורה. Rabbi Akiva’s kabbalah of פרדס inductive logic, ancient Greek syllogism deductive logic simply does not work any more than does the Yad, Tur, or Shulkan Aruch assists students to correctly understand how to study and learn the Talmud. Hence the sages codified in the Talmud referred to as “Oral Torah”, whereas the Rambam Yad in no way, shape, manner, or form qualifies as Oral Torah. The two systems compare to the Planets of Mars and Venus.
The קמ”ל always signals רבוי–מיעט. In this particular case: it excludes chalipin, despite the valid ק״ו logic. Because the acquired object – a brit obligation over the “nefesh” soul. Which likewise the Oral Torah differs from the Yad, Tur, Shulkan Aruch counterfeits, the acquisition of “nefesh” simply not ממון, but rather the future born children – the definition of the first Torah commandment: be fruitful and multiply. The רבוי מיעט of the קידושין acquisition of “soul”, separates Goyim from the chosen מיעט Cohen people created through the Av tohor time-oriented Torah commandment of קידושין. Which aligns perfectly with Bereishit Rabbah’s oath-alliance precedent.
The concluding statement of מדרש רבה נט:ח — א”ר יצחק חטיא דקרתך זונין זרע מנהון. Rabbi Yitzhak stated: ‘The wrongdoing of your actions prevents their sustenance from coming;’ restated: “produces continuity only when obligation is preserved.” This closing statement of Midrash Rabbah נט:ח functions as a juridical boundary marker – informing how legal drosh “borders”; the Tosafists reasoning perhaps qualifies it as הלכה למעשה. My sh’itta of inductive reasoning argues the comparison between the case of our Gemara — to the case introduced by Midrash Rabba (the definition of inductive vs deductive reasoning) – do not interpret the קידושין oath brit alliance as the acquisition of an object but rather as the very definition of creating the chosen cohen people through tohor time-oriented commandments.
Torah common law draws category boundaries, such as Sanhedrin courts only have legal jurisdiction within the borders of Judea. Or prophets serve as the police enforcers of judicial common law legal rulings; if no Sanhedrin courts then likewise no prophets. Despite the koran narishkeit which declares that prophets sent to all peoples across the Planet and the Arabs the last people on Earth to receive their “chosen” prophet; hence their absurd declaration that Muhammad was the last of the prophets!
חליפין has the legal meaning which presumes חפץ – a thing. ‘Fungible goods items’ qualify as horse-trading, interchangeable goods. Fungibility facilitates easy transactions and exchanges. Representative by contrast refers to something or someone who stands in for or symbolizes someone or something else. Like Representatives voted into the Federal Congress, they serve as proxies for the voting electorate within any given US State. In basic horse-trading, money functions as a representative of legal trade instead of barter. A common custom practiced by Goyim societies: wife swapping.
Torah law never universalizes categories without jurisdiction. This fundamental מאי נפקא מינא – רב חסד middah forever separates Torah common law from Islamic (and Christian) universal-prophetic claims, which erase jurisdictional boundaries entirely.
Kiddushin cannot tolerate representation … wife swapping. A nefesh cannot be substituted; brit cannot be “grafted” to Goyim who do not and never have accepted the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. Fidelity cannot be symbolically reassigned; the Torah oath brit which creates the chosen Cohen people defined to Talmudic established culture and customs, personal, exclusive, & non-fungible. The Torah phrase “והיו לבשר אחד” — not metaphysics — rather anti-fungibility common law. Therefore חליפין utterly treif in the matter of קידושין because it baptizes brit into a substitute theology exchange which replaces the pursuit of justice as faith for belief in some theologically created new God as faith.
The mitzva of קידושין rejects the Goyim custom which perceives marital bonds as transferable; persons as interchangeable units; relationships as revocable exchanges which defines the legal concept of fungibility in human marital relations. Therefore our Gemara blocks that endpoint at the root by excluding חליפין. Herein our Gemara separate kiddushin from market place logic of acquisition of goods and property.
Therefore, קמ״ל in Kiddushin functions as a רבוי–מיעט marker: it affirms that Kiddushin functions as a true kinyan, while excluding any kinyan whose logic presumes fungible object-ownership; therefore חליפין – excluded because brit over nefesh cannot be represented, substituted, or exchanged.
Why Jews view both the NT and Koran as av tuma avoda zara – a Torah abomination.
The Codex Sinaiticus is significant in biblical scholarship, but it does not explicitly include the Nicene Creed itself. However, its contents reflect early Christian theology, which aligns with the Nicene understanding of the Trinity. The Nicene Creed was formulated in AD 325 at the First Council of Nicaea to address debates over the nature of Christ and the Trinity. It affirms the divinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The text within Codex Sinaiticus, including various New Testament writings (like Philippians), supports the core concepts of the Trinity as expressed in the Nicene Creed. Passages affirming the divinity and humanity of Christ—such as Philippians 2:5-11—align with Nicene teachings. The theological sentiments present in the manuscript reflect a developing understanding of beliefs that would be formalized in creeds like the Nicene.
Philippians 2:5-11 aligns with Nicene teachings which violate the First and Second Commandments of Sinai – a complex theological assertion. First Commandment: I am HaShem who brought you out of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. The Nicene Creed makes absolutely no reference to the revelation of this first Commandment Divine Name. Translating the Divine Name into other words duplicates the Sin of the Golden calf wherein the mixed multitudes, which the Torah describes as people who had no fear of “Elohim”.
Why did the Torah refer to the very error of the mixed multitudes who translated the Spirit Name revelation – first Sinai commandment with the word “Elohim”. The Torah directly commands not to compare the revelation of the Spirit Name not to anything in the Earth, Heavens, or Seas –yet would permit word translations which ignore the revelation of the Sinai Divine Spirit which so horrified Israel that they thought they would die after hearing only the first two commandments; therefore Israel demanded from Moshe that he rise up upon Sinai and receive the rest of the Torah!
The Second Commandment does not say You shall not make for yourself an idol; as if avoda zarah – the Av tuma negative commandment of Sinai – limit itself to physical graven images. The T’NaCH defines the intent of the 2nd Sinai commandment to A) Do not follow the cultures and customs/practices of peoples who rejected the revelation at Sinai. B) Do not marry any man or woman of these alien foreign peoples who rejected the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. Both the New Testament and Koran – no different than the worship of Baal. Only the 12 Tribes of Israel accepted the Sinai revelation. The revelation of this local god differs totally and completely from the Monotheistic theological creed creation of new Gods as expressed by both the authors of the New Testament and Koran.
Furthermore Philippians 2:5-11 likewise perverts the Torah mitzva of Moshiach unto some “Savior of death”, in accordance with the Apostle Paul’s perversion of the exile of Adam from the Garden (A major Torah theme likewise expressed in the stories of Noach, Israel in Egypt, and the 40 years in the Wilderness.), as the fall of all Man Kind condemned to eternal death till the NT theology of messiah created a new Universal God which defeats Satan and frees Man kind from the prison of Hell.
The theology of Monotheism, this creed subverts the revelation of the Divine Spirit Presence revealed in the First Sinai commandment. This Spirit not a word which Human lips can pronounce. Hence the theology of monotheism utterly and totally rejects the revelation of the Divine Spirit Name revealed in the first Sinai commandment. Furthermore, the theology creeds which pervert the 2nd Sinai commandment limited strictly and only to physical idols (a fundamental dispute which separates Catholic and Protestant theology to this very day), utterly ignores the Torah commandment as interpreted by the stories of King Shlomo’s foreign wives and Ezra’s commandment for Israel to divorce their foreign wives.
The First Commandment states, “I am HaShem your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt.” It focuses on HaShem’s identity and His relationship with Israel, rather than explicitly declaring monotheism as understood in later avoda zarah theological frameworks. HaShem judging the Egyptian gods implies that the existence of other deities reject the avoda zarah simplistic theology as defined by the established creeds of both religious belief systems. Torah defines the pursuit of judicial justice as FAITH, not believe in some Trinity or Allah as faith. This distinction highlights a relationship based on an oath brit alliance rather than a theological religious “covenant”. The Hebrew term brit does not correctly translate as “covenant”.
Implications for Worship: known as the mitzva of Avodat HaShem refers to doing time oriented commandments during the 6 days of the week and ceasing to do time oriented commandments on the day of Shabbat. Based upon the creation story of בראשית/Genesis. Neither the NT nor Koran accepted the revelation of the first two Sinai commandments; therefore both fraudulent religions reject the revelation of the Torah at Sinai.
The Xtian creed of Holy Spirit has no connection what so ever with the Divine Presence Spirit Name revealed in the first Sinai commandment. The koran replacement theology of Allah no different than the error of the Nicene creed Holy Spirit. Only Israel accepted the Torah at Sinai, HaShem by definition a local tribal god and not some grand Universal Monotheistic God as both Xtianity and Islam dictates. Peoples around the world throughout the span of Human history worship and believe in other Gods. To negate the existence of other Gods therefore constitutes as revisionist history.
Time oriented commandments express a Torah wisdom not bound by some child-like rote understanding which limits “time” as some linear event. Torah wisdom, such as required to build the Mishkan, herein serves as the strongest Torah common law precedent wherein the Torah itself defines time oriented commandments. Neither the NT nor Koran have the least bit of a clue concerning Torah wisdom as the definition of all time oriented Torah commandments. Therefore neither the NT nor Koran qualify as valid continuation of the Divine Revelation at Sinai which only Israel accepts to this very day.
Torah common law shares no common ground with av tuma NT & Koran theology/creed belief systems. A judge who hears a case before his court having strong “beliefs” pro or con concerning the details of the case argued before his court – righteousness demands that he recuse and excuse himself as a judge in that current case debated by both prosecutor and defense justices of the 3 man Torts common law court.
mosckerr
Read your 1979 article. You are the real definition of a “useful idiot.”