[Prefatory Note: Ressponse of Richard Falk to Questions posed by the Iranian journalist Asgar Ghahramanpour, 9. February 2026]
1. **In light of the rise and consolidation of far-right and nationalist movements—such as the Trump phenomenon in the United States and similar trends in Europe and elsewhere—how do you assess the current status of international law within the emerging global order?**
Would you say that international law is increasingly retreating in the face of power politics?
International law is definitely being marginalized in contemporary international relations by the rise of ultra-nationalist political leaders and authoritarian governments. This negative trend is making a severe impact on political consciousness as a result of the adoption and revival of an imperial foreign policy by the U.S. under Trump, although the pragmatic use or neglect of international law in the management of global security preceded Trump, and can be traced back to 1945 when the winners of World War II became self-anointed as the architects of ‘a new world order,’ a role most prominently associated with the design and establishment of the United Nations.
It is notable that the UN Charter designated the Security Council as the only political organ of the new Organization that was provided with the legal authority to reach obligatory decisions binding on sovereign states. Most significantly it refused to allow international law or ensure democratic representation of the non-West to control outcomes in the Security Council in the face of opposition of even one of five winners of World War II given permanent representation while other member states were selected on a term basis. The role of international law was curtailed by according these five winners in 1945 not only permanent SC membership but more significantly a right of veto. This meant that if a breach of international law was to be dealt with even by a majority vote of 14-1, it would still fail, and have no legal effect if the lone dissenting vote was one the P5, which not only crippled the role of the SC in relation to geopolitical rivalry, as during the Cold War, but was highly undemocratic if evaluated from demographic perspectives. This absence of democracy also was present in the internal makeup of the P5 giving the US, France, and the UK great power status in the form of SC permanent membership and the veto, and excluding such Global South great powers as India, Indonesia, Nigeria, and Brazil, creating an everlasting Western dominance in the SC, including a right of each P5 member to block any effort to reform the SC because all amendments of the Charter were nullified unless the support of all five.
The net result of this extensive role of the SC in UN affairs has been to make the Organization submissive to the P5, and to confer geopolitical primacy with respect to the management of global security, including war prevention and resistance to genocide as well as subordinate to the strategic interests of the powerful rather than responsive to the regulative principles of law that should possess universal applicability, and governs the strong and weak alike.
It is a mistake to think that the whole enterprise of international law is failing. International law works effectively in any substantive setting in which there exists a mutual interest in its applicability. The routines of international life, including most commerce and trade relations, air and maritime safety, communications, tourism, and diplomatic representation are complied with because the logic of reciprocity is operative. This is not true in domains of behavior such as armed conflict in which differentials of hard power determine political outcomes and uphold strategic interests and reflect the ambitions of the powerful. In these latter contexts international law has long been marginalized by design leaving the management of global security to the discretion of the geopolitical actors for any given issue involving the implementation of international law as the disappointing UN response to the recent Gaza genocide illustrated.
2. **Do you believe that the era in which international law functioned as a normative framework capable of restraining state power is coming to an end?**
If so, what kind of alternative global order appears to be taking shape?
It is a fiction embraced by naïve legalists to suppose that international law ever controlled the management of global security or inhibited the strategic priorities of dominant states. There were eras of greater peacefulness when Great Powers acted prudently with respect to militarization and conflict resolution. The idea of a rule-governed international order applied selectively and within the limits set by those domains of international life where reciprocity prevailed, and differentials in power and wealth were minimized as in international trade and investment as compared to the colonial era.
The experience with nuclear weapons is illustrative of this pattern of marginalizing international law despite the risks of leaving the use of this apocalyptic weaponry of mass destruction entirely under the control of the most dangerous geopolitical actors. Rather than favoring denuclearization and disarmament, the same five winners in 1945 continued to leave this weaponry essentially unregulated except to the extent of seeking maximum control over the spread of the weapons to other states. The result has been costly arms races, dangerous crises, abetted by a scheme of deterrence + nonproliferation, with a resulting nuclear hegemony. If ever there was a basis for universal rule governance it was with respect to nuclear weaponry, but it could not overcome the ideology of ‘political realism’ that dominated the thinking of foreign policy elites of the major states, and was systemically opposed to accept any arrangements that restricted their hard power capabilities.
Whether this discouraging character of international relations will change in light of the Gaza Genocide, aggressive uses of forces, extreme violations of human rights, ecological instability is impossible to predict, although it seems unlikely in the present atmosphere. The antics of Trump’s narcissistic geopolitics are generating a tidal wave of anxiety about the human future, as well as bearing witness to the devastating consequences of unchecked lawlessness. We can only hope that civil society activism and more responsible political leadership will emerge to create a more viable international legal order than was framed in 1945.
3. **Based on your experience as the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, to what extent does this case illustrate the gap between the principles of international law and the political will of powerful states?**
What are the broader implications of this gap for the credibility of the international system?
There is no doubt that this gap between law and politics exists in relation to the management of global security, including war prevention, conflict resolution, genocide, apartheid, and ecocide. This should not confuse us about the reliance on compliance with international law by all sovereign states, including those most powerful, whether labeled as Great Powers or in the UN context as the five permanent members of the Security Council or P5. As suggested in my prior responses where the logic of reciprocity applies to the behavior of sovereign states, international law provides a stable and convenient basis for the myriad of interactions that make routine international interactions trustworthy. For the agenda of global security and strategic ambition the design of the UN itself recognized the lack of political will to close the gap between international law and its dependence for implementation on political will and capabilities, epitomized by the right of veto conferred upon the winners of World War II, arguably at the time the most dangerous political actors in the world.
At present, despite the widespread disappointment and tension arising from this gap, there is still the absence of political will among the leading geopolitical actors (U.S., Russia, and China) to close the gap. From a legal perspective, this gap is insulated from remedy by each of the P5 possessing an unrestricted right to veto any proposed amendment of the UN Charter. The most that can be realistically envisioned in the near future is more prudent or responsible behavior by these dominant geopolitical actors and by secondary geopolitical actors of limited geographic scope to restrict their lawlessness to the security agendas of. regional geopolitical configurations of power, although U.S. imperial geopolitics and Russian and Chinese spheres of influence geopolitics ensures that the harmful gap between what international law requires and what international politics determines will continue to cause immeasurable harm, especially to vulnerable peoples and nations, or states that have resources coveted by geopolitical actors.
4. **Some argue that international law has always been subordinate to politics rather than an independent constraint upon it.**
From your perspective, is the relationship between politics and international law inherently conflictual, or is there still room for a constructive and mutually reinforcing relationship?
To avoid confusion and repetition, please consider the relevance of my responses to earlier questions. In sum, with respect to all aspects of global security international law, in practice and design, has long been subordinated to politics, but only for regional and global political actors. And then only since the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 when Europe gave birth to a self-serving format for an international normative order that legitimated coercion in the course of colonizing projects in the Global South.
A deficient version of symbolic international law enforcement occurs at the conclusion of major wars ending in victory for one side. As in the aftermath of World War II the winners prosecuted the war crimes alleged to be committed by surviving German and Japanese individuals at Nuremberg and Tokyo, which critics persuasively derided as ‘victors’ justice.
As also suggested in previous responses, where reciprocal benefits result from compliance, international law has long provided a reliable framework guiding the behavior of individuals, corporations and financial institutions, and governments in many international interactions, although even here there are important subtle
encroachments by the rich and powerful on the rights of the poor that escape from the discipline of a legal order administered on the basis of equality of all
5. **At a time when powerful states increasingly disregard or actively undermine multilateral institutions such as the United Nations, the International Criminal Court, and the global human rights regime, how do you envision the future of multilateralism? **
There is little doubt that this is a bad time for internationalism, given global trends toward ultra-nationalism and xenophobia, which tend to devalue cooperative multinationalism. These trends are accentuated by the intense US hostility to internationalism given Trump’s diplomacy on behalf of the United States, which continues to be the most influential world state, although in danger of losing this status due to China’s continuing rising star. Early in 2026 the U.S. Government, by executive order, withdrew and stopped funding for no less that 66 international institutional arrangements, 31 of which were within the UN System.
The global scope of ecological challenges as well as the complexities of digital age communications, global migration flow, vulnerabilities to disease epidemics makes it likely that a new cycle of functional pressures will in the years ahead restore and even expand dependence upon multilateralism. This seems probable, although the signature reality of the present global setting is radical uncertainty, or put differently, the unknowability of the future.
6. **Can global civil society, academics, and human rights institutions play a meaningful role in restoring the legitimacy and effectiveness of international law, or are such efforts structurally constrained by the current global power configuration?**
In line with unknowability of the future, an initial response is to underscore unknowability, together with an awareness that there are many historical examples of surprising happenings in international life that were not anticipated by relevant experts or public opinion. Among notable recent examples is the victory of Vietnamese nationalism in opposing the militarily superior US intervention in the Vietnam War. Other important examples are the collapse of the Soviet Union, the peaceful transition of the apartheid regime in South Africa into a multiethnic constitutional democracy, and the Arab Spring attacking dictatorial rule in several Arab majority countries at least briefly. In light of this defining feature of unknowability, it is appropriate to struggle for a desirable future. This suggest that civil society activism is worth supporting as strongly as possible in the hope of both restoring and enhancing the role of legitimacy and withit, the effectiveness of international law in relation to global security and human rights priorities.
Of course, resistance from current geopolitical configurations, statism, and predatory capitalism is to be expected, and current prospects for a successful transformation of irresponsible patterns of geopolitics seem low, this may change over time in unpredictable ways. The struggle for law and justice is imperative, even without any assurance that it will be successful in the short term, but neither is it doomed to failure.
7. **Finally, what advice would you offer to the new generation of international lawyers and policymakers seeking to defend and advance international law in a world moving toward unilateralism, authoritarianism, and weakened global governance?**
My first advice would be directed at teachers and commentators on law and global politics to adopt a paradigm of international law pedagogy that emphasizes the importance of justice-driven law in relation to global security, human rights, and ecological policy agendas. My second advice would be to urge all students of international relations and law to be required to study international law within a framework that is less vocational and more humanistic as integral to engaged citizenship in democratic societies. This educational commitments needs to be supplemented by societal beliefs that such moral literacy is expect to be present in all phases of the professionalism of law, lawyers, and judges, as well as of foreign policy advisors.
This reorientation of pedagogy would also necessitate a prior critique of prevailing versions of ‘political realism’ that continue to dominate foreign policy decision-making, especially in the governments and ‘think tanks’ of geopolitical actors in a manner, which among elements would downgrade the historic agency of militarism. This would include studying the record of defeat of the militarily superior side in most anti-colonial wars since 1945. The link between international law and international legitimacy would also be stressed to make the key point that if international law is not implemented by governments and inter-governmental institutions it still legitimates civil society secondary enforcement capabilities in the form of solidarity initiatives and informal pressures by protests and boycotts, mounted to promote national and international sanctions.
Global Justice in the 21st Century 
Understand the fundamental difference between the revelation of the Torah at Sinai vs. theological creed “I believe” Ego-I driven av tuma avoda zara.
1. Xtians wait for the 2nd Coming. Therefore this God lives in heaven not Earth. Pantheism posits that God – synonymous with the universe and its processes, often lacking the personal, relational aspect. Such a God beyond Human grasp to understand. Similar to how Human civilizations incomprehensible to ants.
2. Can’t have it both ways, either God of Sinai on this earth, or waiting for the 2nd Coming. For example: Xtian theology rhetoric preaches belief in a Universal God; where was JeZeus during the Shoah? The Nicene Creed hence established the “Holy Spirit” as part of the Triune God-Head to address the open NT contradiction where Xtians wait for the 2nd coming. Yet, not till Vatican II did any religious Xtian branch invalidate their long bloody history of “Christ Killer” racial slanders repeated over and again throughout the Ages prior to the Shoah. The Church, universally – Catholic & Protestant & Orthodox etc. – preached all the same hate theology: that Jews cursed with the curse of Cain; as despised refugees they must forever walk the Earth. The 3 Century ghetto gulag war crime stands as proof. Yet in 1948 and ’67 Jews re-conquered their homeland. Proving the church hate rhetoric which justified Paro oppression feudalism and slavery racism as nothing other than a house of cards lie. If Jews never cursed as Cain, but rather our Torah oath brit faith contains both blessing and curse obligations, then where do the Xtian slander lies stop?
The Shema (Deut. 6:4) does not at all resemble to Muslim scholars like Al-Ghazali who critiqued pantheism (e.g., in Sufi excesses) for risking shirk (association), insisting on a personal God who is “closer than the jugular vein” (Quran 50:16) but not the universe itself. Why? The Shema serves as the Torah commandment known as tefillah. This wisdom commandment or time-oriented mitzva, a concept no where addressed in either the NT or Koran substitute revisionist history theologies, separates as does shabbat from chol the k’vanna to accept the 3 oaths sworn by the Avot to father the chosen Cohen people AND eternally accept the revelations of the Written Torah at Sinai/Oral Torah at Horev as ONE oath brit. Hence the tefillah mitzva requires either standing directly in front of a Sefer Torah or tefillen because both serve as an essential pre-condition to swear a Torah oath. Bottom line: Based upon the 2nd Sinai commandment, all theological creed constructs of “monotheism” violate this commandment; simply stated if only one tawhid God then no need or reason to justify the existence of the negative commandment not to worship other gods. Monotheism violates the 10 plagues of Egypt wherein HaShem judged the Gods of Egypt.
Chrysostom’s “deicide” label simply not negated by Vatican II’s Nostra Aetate (1965). Nor can the latter negate the post WWII Catholic ‘Rat-lines’ which assisted Nazi war criminals to flee to South America and escape standing before the Bar of justice. Xtian responses post-Holocaust, like those from Jürgen Moltmann, emphasize a “suffering God” who weeps with victims, reinterpreting the Trinity (from Nicene Creed) as divine solidarity, not contradiction. However, critics note this came late—pre-Vatican II theology often portrayed Jews as cursed wanderers, justifying ghettos (e.g., from 1555 papal bull) and feudal oppression.
Jewish tradition defines prophecy as mussar—reproof for justice, not fortune-telling (e.g., Amos 5:24). Muslims reject the Torah as corrupted totally invalidates the Akadah of Yitzak and the sworn oath addressing the threat of Shoah extermination. Three years after the Shoah arose the Jewish state. Jewish scholars like David Novak argue “Old Testament” implies supersessionism, a slander equating Jews with obsolescence. Fulfillment claims (e.g., Matthew’s use of Hosea 11:1) twist context—originally about Israel, not Jesus. Post-Holocaust, some like Rubenstein see all theodicies as “house of cards,” urging human responsibility.
3. The NT notions of prophesy just as false and corrupt as their eternal blood libel slanders! Prophets to not predict the future as the gospel fraud declares. Why? Because witchcraft predicts the future. For example: king Shaul and the witch of Endor. Another example: the false prophet Muhammad declared in his koran that prophets sent to all nations and speak the native tongues of all peoples as the false prophet Muhammad declares. Torah NaCH prophets all command mussar – which neither false religion instructs! Moshe sent to Egypt, he spoke Hebrew and his mussar applies only to the Jewish people alone. A challenge of the ערב רב serves as a fundamental Torah curse which defines the 2nd Sinai commandment of avoda zarah; Jewish assimilation and intermarriage brings the plague of Amalek/antisemitism in all generations. A NaCH example: king Shlomo married foreign wives and duplicated how Goyim worship their Gods through constructs of wood and stone Temple Cathedrals. The satire of the Book of Kings, it refers to king Shlomo as “the wisest of all men”.
4. No such thing as another ‘House of Cards’ lie: “Old Testament”. The false prophesy exposed in the fraud NT about “fulfillment” of “Old Testament” prophesies – a slander equal to “Christ Killers” or the Protocols of the Elders of Zion forgery! T’NaCH prophetic mussar applies straight across the board only to Jews in all generations unto today. Why only Jews? Simply because Goyim – not Esau nor Ishmael – ever accepted the revelation of the Torah at Sinai wherein the spirit of the First Commandment שם השם לשמה lives in this oath sworn land within the Yatzir Ha-Tov of the Chosen Cohen people; based upon the commandment of the 1st Sinai commandment. All lands and countries outside the eternal inheritance of the brit Cohen people – constitutes as Egyptian exile. Goyim, by definition excluded as part of the Chosen Cohen people, as mentioned above. Therefore Goyim worship other Universal theologies of new Gods – the 2nd Sinai commandment; the 30 years War serves as proof, where Catholics & Protestants slaughtered one another over “graven images”. Hence Goyim ignore their own bloody history in favor of “born again” pie in the sky religious empty rhetoric.
5. Both Xtian & Muslim avoda zara av tuma theology promotes “I believe” Creeds, such as the Nicene Creed or the Muslim Tawhid Creed. The Sinai revelation defines “faith” not as belief in God – because man cannot grasp the divine. Av tuma avoda zara universally commands – often at pain of death – personal belief in this or that theologically created “New God”. The Name revealed at Sinai in the first commandment never once recognized – not in the Xtian bible nor in the Muslim koran. Translating other “word” names for the Divine Presence “Holy Spirit” which the Torah defines through the revelation of the 13 tohor middot Spirits which Moshe heard at Horev 40 days after the sin of the Golden Calf; its not the calf metaphor, which compares to the dream of Par’o, but rather Yosef’s interpretation of that dream which defines the intent of the Golden Calf! Specifically translating, as does both the bible & koran, the first Commandment Name Spirits unto mere words which the lips of Man can easily pronounce. This critical interpretation – defines avoda zara as seen through the Golden Calf gospel John 1:1.
The Horev revelation of the “Oral Torah” serves as the revelation of the 1st Commandment Spirits Divine Presence permanently in the yatzir ha-tov hearts of the chosen Cohen people. This post Golden Calf revelation of the k’vanna of the first Sinai Commandment; the greatest Torah commandment because it weighs the hearts of all generations of the chosen Cohen people – do we or do we not accept the Torah לשמה. Clearly, like the Sun in the sky on a cloudless day, the av tuma Universal God theological creed belief system religions, corrupt both the revelation of this Name – Oral Torah Spirits Horev revelation and likewise the concept of faith – the righteous pursuit of justice: as fair compensation of damages inflicted upon Jews by other Jews. Replaced by personal “I believe” theological constructs totally alien to the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. Therefore, once the Church & Mosque exposed in one lie after another, where do both Xtians and Muslims draw the line to their religious house of cards?
The mitzva of Shema defines Torah faith in the pursuit of justice through remembering the oaths sworn by the Avot – this brit which eternally creates the chosen Cohen people from nothing – the interpretation of the k’vanna of מעשה בראשית twice repeated in the first blessing which precedes tefillat קריא שמע – תמיד מעשה בראשית. Jewish views interpret Shema not as strict monotheism, as a superficial reading of ONE implies. But as a declaration of exclusive oath brit loyalty amid henotheism; Goyim since they reject the revelation of the Torah at Sinai – by definition worship other Gods. Both Par’o and Egypt together with the oath brit sworn at Gilgal testifies that the kings of Canaan like Par’o worshipped other Gods.
The concept of Gods simply beyond the Human mind to grasp Chagigah 2:1. Fools who attempt to understand that which exists above, below or behind them – better never born at all. This Mishnaic idea utterly rejects any attempt by Man to define the Gods. Torah faith לא בשמים היא prioritizes the struggle between the opposing Yatzirot within the heart, based upon the struggle of Esau and Yaacov in the womb of Rivka.
The guilt of church support to both Adolf Eichmann and Josef Mengele, as just two examples to assist their escape to South America no after the fact declaration can blot out and remove. Pius XII permitted the Nazis to gather all the Jews of Rome, compares to the recent Red Cross refusal to demand to see the stolen Israeli hostages in Hamas torture tunnel captivity.
The contextual layers of Torah common law legalism. Opposed by the NT Protocols of the Elders of Zion substitute theologies.
The Torah apparent contradiction reflects different contexts and legal frameworks within the Torah common law legal system. Sh’mote 20:5 refers to a key concept of the oath brit accepted at Sinai; Torah curses based upon the 10 plagues Par’o and Egypt endured. A direct fundamental Torah commandment for all Jews to remember the judicial injustice which the Egyptian slavery eternally recalls within the hearts of the chosen people who alone accept the Torah revelation to this day.
The 2nd verse from משנה תורה which Goyim refer to as Deuteronomy, the Greek word meaning “second law,” utterly fails – perhaps purposely attempts to conceal – this Book as meaning “Common Law”. The Hebrew name, contained within the very language of this Book משנה תורה mandates powers of “Legislative Review” to the Great Sanhedrin Federal Court in Jerusalem.
In rabbinic literature, this issue – addressed extensively. For instance, the Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael (a midrash on Sh’mote) and later commentators like Rashi interpret Devarim 24:16 as applying specifically to human courts and judicial proceedings, where individual accountability, enforced without intergenerational punishment. This leaves room for divine judgment, as in Shmot 20:5, to operate on a broader, providential level—potentially through natural consequences of sin rippling across generations, or only when descendants continue in those sins. Targum Onkelos, explicitly qualifies the verse by adding that punishment falls on “rebellious children” who “follow their fathers in sinning,” a reading echoed in Rashi’s commentary to avoid grammatical or theological strain. Similarly, some rabbinic sources distinguish between intentional rebellion against G-d (where collective impact might apply) and other transgressions, viewing the texts as complementary rather than conflicting.
The Xtian framers of their “Old Testament” substitute theology and revisionist history prioritize belief in theology as religious faith rather than the Torah vision only for the chosen Cohen people who alone accept the revelation of the Torah; faith defined as the righteous pursuit of judicial Sanhedrin court room common law justice which has the power to not only veto laws imposed by Executive Authority/Powers such as a king, but re-write that statute law based upon precedents established court-room Common law.
A proof precedent gleaned from the separate Goyim NT which has no portion nor shared authority with the Hebrew T’NaCH, their Apostle Paul declared to Goyim: “they are not under the Law” in Galatians 3:24; he claimed that Goyim belief in the NT false messiah JeZeus had replaced the law. This declaration has no legal Torah precedent. In point of fact, halachic common law as codified in the Talmud, based upon the Torah mandate which establishes Sanhedrin Federal common law courtrooms has jurisdiction only when Jews rule the oath sworn lands with political Independence. This condition did not exist in the lifetime of the NT Apostle Paul who lived during Roman rule and occupation of Judea. Furthermore Paul’s writings fail to distinguish the day vs. night obvious differences – gulf – which separates Torah common law from Roman Statute Law.
Galatians 3:24: Paul’s distinction that Goyim are “not under the Law” introduces a theological shift that many believe undermines the continuity with Jewish law. His perspective arose during the tensions of Roman rule, impacting the context of his writings. By juxtaposing Galatians 3:24 against Romans 6:14: “not under the Law but under grace”, Paul switches the narrative away from Torah common law courts to a Xtian theology/religious belief system. Where the Church prioritizes “Grace” – the 5th Oral Torah revelation at Horev to Moshe on Yom Kippur 40 days after the sin of the Golden Calf where assimilated and intermarried Israelites “substituted” the word-name אלהים for the Holy Spirit Name revealed in the first Sinai Commandment.
The revelation of the Torah at Sinai forever separates the Divine Names earlier employed in the Book of בראשית/Genesis. Those Divine Names such as אל, האל, אלהים, אל שדי express a vision of God in the Heavens. Whereas the Sinai revelation permanently changes this narrative לא בשמים היא that the spirits of the Divine Presence revelation as further clarified and defined by the 13 Oral Torah middot revelation where Grace functions as the 5th attribute of the Holy Spirit Name revealed at Sinai! Acceptance of the revelation of the Torah caused these 13 tohor Divine Spirits to live within the Yatzir Tov hearts of the chosen Cohen people alone for all eternity.
The NT by stark contrast JeZeus instructs his disciples to pray to “their father in heaven”. While the Pauline theology’s substitute theology replaces Torah common law faith unto Grace & JeZeus as messiah. This substitution of religious theology for Torah common law courts radically shifts the narrative – on par with the Aramaic declaration “Abracadabra”, where a magician pulls a rabbit out of his hat! The later Church priests declared the Oral Torah as non existent while declaring Xtian believers under Grace and not under Law. An obviously absurd declaration seeing that all societies and civilizations without law fall into chaos anarchy Tower of Bavel like Civil War.
The Oral Torah 13 middot serve to define the Divine Presence Spirit Name revealed in the first Sinai commandment which affixes the life of this Holy Spirit within the Yatzir Ha-Tov of the chosen Cohen people living on this Earth and not in the Heavens as the prayer of JeZeus instructs his believers how to pray.
Heaven and Earth separates Torah judicial justice as faith where the middot Spirits of HaShem live within the Yatzir Ha-Tov hearts of the chosen Cohen people who live on this Earth, from church theological substitution beliefs that JeZeus sits on Mt Olympus together with his Father in Heaven. A gulf so huge that only Jefferson’s Constitutional First Amendment which separates Church from State – even remotely comparable! Jefferson’s principle emphasizes that governance should not be unduly influenced or dictated by religious doctrine, similar to how Jewish practice operates within its own legal and ethical framework, independent of external theologies.
Bottom line: Torah judicial common law only applicable to when Torah blessings cause Israel to stand as an Independent nation, such as the two Wars of Independence fought in 1948 and again in 1967 achieved. G’lut exiled Jewry – despised refugee populations scattered across the Middle East, North Africa, and Europe past Russia – Christ Killer Cain Jews – have no rights nor authority to impose judicial common law courts, and even less authority to have prophets enforce those judicial rulings through prophetic mussar in any foreign land where Goyim despise and abhor Jews as sub-humans only fit for Shoah extermination.
The Jewish legal tradition is built on din, middah k’neged middah judicial authority of justice. Xtianity historically framed Jews through theological polemic, supersessionism, and later political power. The brit at Sinai binds Israel, not humanity. Torah law not a NT revisionist history universal religion. Torah as Constitutional law draws a sharp border boundary beween theological av tuma avoda zarah.
Xtian theology, from its earliest layers, contains supersessionist ancient Greek static deductive logic and actually denies Talmudic inductive logic as existing at all! Their poemic “Old Covenant” portrayed as replaced and fulfilled. The Jewish people are reinterpreted as spiritually obsolete. The authority of Torah law, Xtian rhetoric propaganda frames as bondage or curse. The Church becomes the new Israel. This substitute replacement theology along with its false messiah JeZeus – embedded in the foundational texts of its foreign alien traditions – Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, Mormon etc. Enshrined through Roman imperial Xtianity, medieval canon law restrictions, accusations of deicide, forced disputations, expulsions, pogroms, public Talmudic book burnings, three Century Ghetto-gulag war crimes, all of which served as precedents for the Xtian Europe Shoah.
The gulf between Torah jurisprudence and Xtian theology is so vast that only a Jeffersonian separation of church and state is comparable. Xtianity – a universal salvific theology. A gross lie to declare this av tuma Torah abomination of avoda zara as “a daughter religion”. This same din equally applies to the av tuma Koran abomination of avoda zarah.
Torah = constitution, law, national identity, land, courts, sovereignty. The latter day Goyim religions = belief, salvation, universalism, metaphysics, grace, false prophesy. The latter exist on a completely different separate axis than does Constitutional law first established through the Torah and later through the current Constitution of the United States. Herein explains why Paul’s statements about “not being under the Law”, not merely theological disagreements — they represent a complete redefinition of what “common law,” “Torah brit which eternally creates through wisdom commandment/time oriented mitzvot,” and “faith” even mean.
Torah judicial common law only functions when Israel rules in sovereign national Independence. Xtian theology developed when the Romans had utterly destroyed and up rooted Jews living in Judea and scattered across the face of the Planet – starting with the non Jew Herod appointed as king over Judea.
Better to exist as Herod’s dog than be a violently murdered son or wife of that maniac. Post Shoah the power dynamic reversed, Xtianity wears the shoes of exile; the EU when it attempted to write a Constitution made not a single reference to the church which formed and shaped Xtiandom from Constatine till Pope Pius XII ally and partner of Hitler.
Justice in Torah simply and only juridical, Constitutional, and reciprocal—rooted in concrete obligations, not abstract theological Creed based belief systems. If justice – blind, a famous metaphor, then Judges who prioritize their “Ego I” over “eye witness testimony” directly “fulfill” to the Torah negative commandment against bribery.
False prophet attempts to include all Humanity in the Sinai revelation which all Goyim to this very day absolutely and most fundamentally reject – they define the k’vanna of the Golden Calf as it “Universally” applies to all Man Kind. Canon law as alien to Torah common law as the two false prophet based “Daughter Religions”. Both theological belief systems stand now in exile post Shoah.
UN blood libel slanders which unilaterally declare dhimmi Arab stateless refugees post the Arab defeats in 1948 and 1967; which attempt to determine the borders of the Jewish state as if it remained a League of Nations protectorate territory; nations who presume that they have the right to determine the Capital City of the Jewish state as well as a non existent Palestinian people and state as vile and corrupt as the blood libels and host desecrations slanders of the Middle Ages. Both the ’48 & ’67 Wars Arab leaders vowed to throw the Jews into the Sea and complete the Nazi Shoah!
The statement that classical Judaism does not assert that the Divine Presence dwells exclusively in Jews, but inclusive to Goyim as well. Ontologically (A branch of metaphysics philosophy which addresses the nature of being, existence, and the reality of entities.) Goyim excluded from the Torah oath-brit – simply because the Talmud instructs that both Esau and Yishmael refused to accept the Torah. The assimilated and addicted to Greek philosophy, no different from the Tzeddukim during the Hanukkah Civil War, the post sealing of the Sha’s Bavli, Spanish Reshonim – Rambam at their head – ruled that mesechta Sanhedrin aggadic portion 56–59, and Avodah Zarah 64b – Gere toshav operable only when the Yovel in force. The Sha’s Bavli written and compiled after the Roman destruction and exile of Jews from Judea. The Romans renamed that captured province “Palestine”. The Rambam statute law code by contrast ruled that the Talmudic language “bnai Noach” applied Universally to all Goyim – based upon his avoda zara belief that the revelation of HaShem at Sinai – an Allah Universal God. Consequently Rambam erroneously ruled that Jews could daven in Mosques!
Violation of the 7 mitzvot by “gere toshav” residents qualifies as a Talmudic Capital Crime which requires a Sanhedrin Court to impose the death penalty upon such a criminal. Obviously since the Sanhedrin court only has jurisdiction restricted to the borders of an Independent Jewish state in Judea, then the 7 mitzvot bnai noach cannot and do not apply Universally as the Rambam erroneously poskined.
An Israeli today, who commits a capital-offense: not bound by that Sanhedrin common law because the vision of Zionism has yet to mature and inspire a commitment to restoration of Sanhedrin common law courts as the “LAW” of the land. A Jew today can publicly chilul Shabbat without any legal obligations. The language of Rambam (Hil. Melakhim 8:11), resembles that of the Apostle Paul! Greek metaphysics concealed like a wolf dressed in sheep clothing.
Modern legal positivism – sovereignty based theories of law – closely resembles the vision of Talmudic common law courts; to serve as the model when Jews reconquer our homelands from the Goyim. G’lut beit din courts fail to delegate on of the three judges as prosecutor another as defence where both present opposing Talmudic common law precedents, a debates as which precedent qualify as closer to the current case heard before “this” ideal g’lut Torts court of damages. The aggadic story of Noach no more binding upon Goyim today than aggada determines halachah. Only the Rambam among Reshonim scholars held that aggadita determines halacha. The Rambam opinion which argues that Islam denies corporeality, & multiplicity in divinity – absolute narishkeit. Montheism violates the 2nd Sinai commandment based upon the 10 plagues which judged the Gods of Egypt and the sworn oath cut at Sh’Cem prior to the wars to conquer the kingdoms of Canaan who worshipped still other and different God like Baal.
The Ramban in his commentary to the Chumash, Vayikra 18:25 and related passages (also Devarim 11:18), ruled that g’lut Jews only do mitzvot to remember that Torah mitzvot once existed. The first Sinai commandment, the language of Egypt describes all g’lut – in all generations. Henceforth g’lut Jews cannot observe the Torah לשמה, because they remain yet in “Egypt”. Mitzvot in galut merely & only rehearsed, so as not to forget. Hence Judaism replacement theology prioritizes religion no different than does Xtian and Muslim theologies.
Only while living in the oath sworn brit lands can Jews achieve National Independence and dedicate to rule these lands with righteous judicial justice, policed by prophetic mussar לשמה. The brit of blessings opposed by the brit of curses serves as the obligatory “book-ends” of the revelation of the Torah at Sinai.
The slide unto assimilation and intermarriage defines the k’vanna of the 2nd Sinai commandment, based upon the NaCH Book of Kings and Book of Ezra. The Rambam Greek metaphysical claim, not only not jurisdictional which the Torah requires, but worse! The Zohar kabbalah language of Shechina, bases itself upon the משל\נמשל revelation of the Mishkan which separates forms from substance. The substance of the Mishkan, that the tohor Oral Torah spirits define the Spirit first Commandment Name, and that these tohor spirits live only within the hearts of the Chosen Cohen people. The Rambam’s spirituality which makes the 7 mitzvot bnai noach aggadah applicable to all Goyim duplicates the Pauline propaganda rhetoric which did the exact same thing.
Ramban holds mitzvot in galut are only rehearsal. כדי שלא יהיו עלינו חדשים כשנחזור לארץ Therefore they are not truly לשמה because the curse of g’lut slaves can neither own property or rules as independent judges. G’lut courtrooms exist as vertical courts rather than Torah horizontal courts.
G’lut-Judaism transformed into “religion”, consequent to the collapses of the Roman road system and fear from robbers. As a consequence, virtually all inter-state travel ceased. Scattered Jewish communities, required a simplified version which clearly defined Jewish culture and customs to prevent Jewish assimilation and intermarriage. The Ramban in his מלחמת השם challenges the Baal Ha-Maor precisely on this need which justified the Rif codification of halacha.
The Rambam statute halachic code utterly rejected the B’HaG and Rif common law halachic codes which mirrored the Talmud as common law judicial Gemara halacha as legal precedent to interpret the language of the Mishna based upon different perspectives of courtroom eyewitness testimony. Hence, his alien Greek/Roman statute law code embraced Pauline and Islamic Universalism of Monotheistic Gods and abandoned the local Sinai god, as well as the compound “SIN” – the Rambam’s philosophy as recorded in his Moreh embraced Greek metaphysics just as his legal statute law code totally abandoned T’NaCH and Talmudic common law.
In point of fact, the Rambam’s Sefer HaMitzvot limits Torah commandments to the טיפש פשט literal reading of the words of the Chumash as Torah commandments. This negates the revelation of the Oral Torah at Sinai on par with the Karaim and Tzeddukim. Wisdom commandments/time-oriented mitzvot clearly inclusive of Talmudic halachic mitzvot as דאורייתא. His Yad code abomination destroys the warp/weft fabric of halacha\aggada through his absolute failure to include his sources of where his Gemara halachic rulings re-interpret the language of a precise and specific Mishna. The common law codes by stark contrast ALWAYS include the Primary Source Mishna. The later down stream commentaries thereafter likewise showed how Gemara halachic rulings make a משנה תורה – changed witness perspective which views the language of the Home Mishna from a completely different “facet” viewpoint.
An example of the Rambam טיפש פשט narishkeit stupidity. The Rambam in his introduction 14 shorashim whereby he defines what defines mitzvot as דאורייתא, he rebukes the B’HaG ruling that tefillah a Torah commandment! Yet in his 5th positive commandment he contradicts himself and rules that the mitzva of tefillah qualifies as a mitzva from the Torah. The Ramban conclusively proves that the language of the Shemone Esrei “tefillah” as דרבנן. What both Reshonim failed to grasp, that the first Mishna of ברכות teaches that kre’a shma – the mitzva of tefilla דאורייתא.
Another example: the mitzva of tefillen required to swear the Torah oath of kre’a shma. Tefilla requires swearing a Torah oath just as does the mitzva of קידושין another rabbinic commandment that if elevated to a wisdom commandment time-oriented mitzva makes an aliya to דאורייתא. The Reshonim failed to explicitly validate kre’a shma as tefillah from the Torah as they equally failed to emphasize the k’vanna of the Rashi tefillen affixed to the מקום קבועה of the oath sworn at Gilgal; while the Order of the Rabbeinu Tam tefillen affixed remembering the oath sworn at Sh’Cem. T’shuva requires remembering and not repentance for sin as Xtian avoda zara declares. The precedent for the Torah commandment for t’shuva, on Yom Kippur Jews “remember” that Moshe reminded HaShem of his oaths sworn to the Avot that they and they alone would father the chosen Cohen people.
The Baali Tosafot ruled that wisdom commandments/time-oriented mitzvot acquire full de’oraita status when performed with proper k’vanna (e.g., tefillah as d’oraita via kavanah, on Berachot 13a). The Rambam largely erases this critical nuance with his flat static halachic rulings, such as tefillin and tefillah. His code destroyed the facet-shifting logic of Mishna → Gemara → Mishneh Torah that mirrors courtroom precedent, as seen from the statute law super commentaries written thereafter. The impact effect: Rambam “flattens” the warp/weft of halacha/aggadah, converting the oath brit sworn obligations, procedural Talmudic fabric into a linear statute-like Greek/Roman code.