Future No Kings Protests: Weeping and Resisting in Global Solidarity with Imperial Victims Worldwide

7 Responses to “Future No Kings Protests: Weeping and Resisting in Global Solidarity with Imperial Victims Worldwide”

1. 

   mosckerr April 13, 2026 at 7:09 pm #

   An Israeli perspective of Arab dhimmi racism and its impact on the post Shoah guilty European bias which hates the continued existence of Jews

   Israel “recaptured” Samaria from Jordan in the 1967 Six-Day War. After 1948 “Palestine” ceased to exist. Jordan, named its illegal – according to the UN condemnation – “occupation” of its “West Bank”; only Pakistan and Britain recognized the Jordanian nationalization of its “West Bank”. Never once from 1948 – 67 did Jordan validate a “Palestine” of its illegally occupied “West Bank”. The UN did not pass a single resolution titled “Condemnation of Jordan,” it refused to recognize the annexation. Even Yasser Arafat’s PLO Charter did not view Jordan’s illegal occupation of its ’48 “West Bank” as “occupied Palestine”. In international law, non‑recognition of an annexation is the mechanism for declaring it invalid. No different from the UN rejection of Indonesia’s ‘East Timor’, Turkey’s ‘Northern Cyprus’, Russia’s ‘Crimea’. The PLO Charter of 1964 likewise did not view Egyptian rule over Gaza as “occupied Palestinian territory”. The collective UN position was unmistakably that Jordan had no sovereignty over the West Bank; but starting with the purposely vague language of 242 “territories occupied in the recent [1967] conflict”, perfectly clarified by 2334 the UN declares sovereignty to Palestine; despite the cold hard fact that Israel – not a protectorate mandate territory and that Arab Israeli wars determine its borders! Therefore, the post‑1967 terminology is a political invention, not a continuation of pre‑1967 legal reality.

   But post ’67, BBC propaganda screamed “occupied Palestinian territories” – inclusive of both Samaria and Gaza! Britain had no mandate, and therefore no legal claim to make this condemnation of Israel. The same equally applies to the UN through its 242 “all States” propaganda; which serve as the foundation for UN condemnations of Israeli “illegal” settlements of “Palestinian lands”; UN 2334 and the UN open recognition of the “Palestinian State” – proof of propaganda. Never in all human recorded history has their ever existed a “land of Palestine” – not under Ottoman or Arab empires.

   The characterization of land as “occupied Palestinian territories” by both the UN and BBC and French propaganda evokes strong reactions, particularly among those who view this language as delegitimizing Israel’s claims, primarily based upon the 1923 British establishment of Trans-Jordan bordering “Israel” at the Jordan river. The application and interpretation of resolutions, such as UN Resolution 242, initiated to “international claims”/”competing narratives” by foreign outside States regarding “land rights and statehood” with a pro Arab bias which fundamentally rejects dhimmi Jews equal rights to achieve self-determination in the Middle East post the 1917 Balfour Declaration which served as the basis for the League division of Lebanon and Syria awarded to France and Palestine, Trans-Jordan awarded to Britain – based upon the secret accords known today as Sykes-Picot.

   No Israeli-Palestinian “conflict” exists in reality because post the declaration of Jewish national Independence in 1948 the UN “protectorate” over “Palestine” ceased to exist. No different than this mandate ceased to exist as a “British mandate territory” officially ended after it turned that “mandate territory” back to the UN in 1948. From that moment on the British Crown had no more say in the determination of Israeli Independence than it does to determine the Capital of Austin Texas. This equally applies to the post WWII established UN.

   Post-1948, no separate national entity represented as “Palestine” in international law or governance, particularly under Jordanian control of its illegally occupied West Bank and Egyptian control of Gaza – until 1967. The phrase “recaptured” to describe Israel’s actions during the 1967 Six-Day War reflects a perspective that emphasizes a historical and religious connection to the land. This contrasts with views that describe the action as an occupation of land that was already controlled by Jordan — which the UN itself condemned as illegal in 1950.

   UN Resolution 242 and consecutive resolutions employed as Foreign State imperialism propaganda rhetoric which seeks peace. War the result of all British two state solutions! India/Pakistan, Iraq\Kuwait, and two Koreas and two Vietnams glaring examples of ‘great power’ foreign national interests imposed upon “conquered” lands. Great Power international “diplomacy” – the British labelled as “maintaining the balance of power” – which suited British [לאו דווקא] strategic interests.

   The UN’s later recognition of a Palestinian state a further attempt to rewrite historical claims and narratives that do not acknowledge the complexities of sovereignty and self-determination in the context of this region. The framing of successful Israel national Independence by media outlets – such as the BBC and other organizations – have promoted wars not peace. Shalom requires “trust”, peace simply a propaganda “label” of rhetoric. The success of Allied propaganda during WWI which unilaterally declared the Germans as “the Hun barbarians at the gates” produced profound effects on public perception. Critics argue – propaganda rhetoric language that injects “occupation”, aligns with Arab narratives which switched the term Nakba from Arab disastrous military defeat unto Arab stateless Palestinian refugees. No Arab country has yet to end or terminate the refugee status which UNWRA promotes and serves this particular political foreign ‘Great Power States’ imperialist agendas.

   Propaganda that Israel repeatedly violates “international law”, simply another gross example of UN Great Power manipulations expressed through BBC and MSM propaganda arms of foreign states attempts to ‘control the narrative’ through words. Israel as an independent nation – its international borders determined through wars and the diplomacy its establishes with regional state powers. Neither the Parliament of London or any other distant foreign power determines where Israel establishes its Capital much less its international borders with other nation states which share common borders.

   From 1948-67 no recognized sovereign “Palestine” in international law. Jordan and Egypt did not treat their respective areas as “Palestine,” and the UN did not recognize their sovereignty there. Therefore, the later phrase “occupied Palestinian territories” — not a continuation of pre‑1967 legal language, but a post‑1967 political construction.

   UN SC 242 (1967) inserts the phrase “withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict,” not “all the territories” and not “Palestinian territories”; UN SC 2334 (2016) morphs into “occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem,” and labels Israeli settlements there as having “no legal validity.” This effectively retrofits a Palestinian sovereignty claim onto areas that, pre‑1967, had no recognized Palestinian state and no recognized Jordanian/Egyptian sovereignty either. 2334 and the UN’s recognition of “Palestine” as a non‑member observer state (2012) represent a political re‑narration, not a neutral continuation of Mandate‑era law.

   Post‑1967 BBC usage of “occupied Palestinian territories” mirrors the UN’s later terminology, not the earlier legal reality. Britain, having ended its Mandate in 1948, has no legal standing to define Israel’s borders or capital, yet its media and diplomacy still act as if they are arbiters of legitimacy; a continuation of Great Power narrative control—the same mentality that carved up the region under Sykes–Picot and Mandate arrangements. Language like “occupation,” “illegal settlements,” “Palestinian territories” is not neutral description; it’s weaponized vocabulary that encodes a particular political and historical judgment.

   The Abraham Accords invalidates European Middle East politics. In strict legal terms, the Middle East and North African conflict, while ackowleging both terrorist violence with its consequential suffering consequence domino-effect/impact, in strict legal terms, the conflict is between Israel and neighboring Arab states / Arab national movements, not between Israel and a pre‑existing sovereign “Palestine” that the UN or Britain\French propaganda continuously retroactively resurrect – like Jesus on the 3rd day.

   UNRWA and refugee status employed as a deliberate political tool, not a humanitarian necessity—sustaining statelessness to maintain a grievance narrative whose evil intent exploded on Oct 7th 2023 when UNWRA officials participated together with Hamas and Islamic Jihad terrorists in the massacre of 1200 or more Israelis; coupled with the Red Cross refusal to visit for some two years the captured Israeli hostages held under barbaric conditions.

   Reply
   • 

     Kata Fisher April 14, 2026 at 4:45 pm #

     Dear Professor, Falks,

     Historical context:

     It is both the People and the Territories.

     Palestine, Holy Land, Judeah and Samaria, Kingdom of Israel (Tribal landmarks, JUDEAH). Bottom line, ecclesiastical people on the ecclesiastical territories in 2026 of this current calendar).

     That territory and those Landmark (including the people within those landmarks).

     Those who manipulated landmarks have manipulated them. The Landmarks are historical ecclesiastical items of the ingenious faiths and the peoples, and ingenious nationality/s.

     Moving or manipulating Ecclesiastical items, such as landmarks, is subject to major prohibitions. It shall not be done, ever.

     They have serval landmarks that are civilly and ecclesiastically illegal and are causing grave harms to everyone within and beyond the Territories.

     There are major shortfalls when comes to the understanding both civil and ecclesiastical items — such as International Law, Sacred Texts among contemporarily, modern populations.

     Can they all reverse what they have done with the historical People and Historical Landmarks?

     Can they all reverse what their ancestors have done within those Historical Landmarks?

     Will this generation among all of them understand what prior generations before them have not have had?

     It is an ecclesiastical Territory, and the Landmarks and ecclesiastical people within those territories, period.

     They all can yell at each other saying: “Wrong Landmarks of the Land” and “Wrong People in the Land.”

     It is unbelievably sad, and not laughable.

     That is what I understand in my capacity.

     K.F.

     The Name Palestine: A 2,500-Year Historical Journey – YouTube

     Reply
     • 

       mosckerr April 14, 2026 at 11:08 pm #

       Hi Kata
       
   • 

     mosckerr April 15, 2026 at 12:29 am #

     England, France, Germany & Spain – Guilty then and today. Eurovision bans “October Rain”. Why? Guilt for supporting the Arab/South African ‘blood libel’ “interpretation” of Genocide in the UN and European Courts! NEVER AGAIN shall post Shoah Jewish state of Israel permit Europeans to “decide” their racist “Jewish Problem” with their “Final Solution”. Bunk on the British French UN Security Council 242 … 2334 revisionist history that stands upon the grave of church substitute theology.

     Reply
     • 

       Kata Fisher April 16, 2026 at 12:43 pm #

       Hi, Rabbi

       Ancient Landmarks are Sovereign and hopefully there is soon rising understanding of the Grace of the Sovering Landmarks.

       I hope they can correct what has been done this far, and start having a better future within the Sovereign Landmarks of the Land, and beyond.

       They all need to be asked for the Ancient Landmarks and the Ancient Land for the Population within those Landmarks.

       The security and sovereignty of the People / Nations begin with the Legitimate Bordering of, and with the Ancient Land within and beyond those landmarks.

       They all killed innocent, ecclesiastical, and ingenious people within the Sovereign territories that are returned to the Ancient Land — regardless of what tribe, nation, or Faith they are. Thay are on the territories, and that is sovereign and indigenous existence.

       We all know and understand very well what the diabolical cults and sects have always done and have been doing. Eventually, they will have to stop, and start being humanity toward their neighbor.

       Judea needs to straighten out their vile lay people.

       K.F.
     • 

       mosckerr April 16, 2026 at 4:25 pm #

       England, France, Germany & Spain – Guilty – then and today. Guilt for their “partnership” that supports the Arab/South African ‘blood libel’ evil-eye spin-interpretation of the Oct7th massacre of over 1200 Israelis murdered on the last day of Chag Sukkot, slaughtered by Hamas, Islamic Jihad and UNWRA, which both the hateful UN and ICC thereafter make the spin interpretation which condemns Israel of Gaza Genocide!

       Why? Guilt not a black & white issue. Guilt perhaps linked to European “racial DNA” hatred of Jews; their judicial “partnership”, that generally resembles to a Par’o-like courtroom Inquisition injustice, down through the Ages; in particular, that supports the Arab/South African ‘blood libel’ evil-eye spin-interpretation of the Oct7th massacre of over 1200 Israelis murdered on the last day of Chag Sukkot. Slaughtered by Hamas, Islamic Jihad and UNWRA, which both the hateful UN and European ICC thereafter make the spin interpretation, grotesquely similar to dark ages blood libels employed by Goyim, in debt to Jewish money lenders, who promoted Easter pogroms – and thereby negated their debt owed to those Christ-killer Jews. The UN and ICC demand that Israel stand trial for war crimes! This genocide charge effectively shifts guilt onto scape-goat Jews, a form of Holocaust denial! Another example: In the ’67 War, Nasser publicly declared his intent to “throw the Jews into the Sea”. Egypt’s hostile actions and the failure of the UN to maintain forces in the Sinai, this paper argues, negates UN post war authority to impose UN 242 upon Israel, as further specified in all later UN Condemnations of Israel. Based upon 242 which serves as their foundation – they too have no legal validity anymore than General Assembly 3379. Why? Pre-war “neutral” London and Paris compare to whores sitting in church on Sundays.

       UN Chapter VI resolutions concerning a non existent “Palestine Mandate” learn from the negation of the British – to shape and determine the terms of its Palestine mandate of 1922 – AFTER it surrendered that mandate back to the UN. So too the UN surrendered the Palestine – 1922 mandate – the instant AFTER Ben Gurion declared Jewish National Independence, and AFTER Israel won its first Independence War.

       NEVER AGAIN shall the post Shoah Jewish state of Israel permit Europeans to “decide” that they have some ‘superior race’ moral platform to condemn Jews with their av tuma projectionsim – racist – “Jewish Problem” … “Final Solution”. Bunk on the British French UN Security Council 242 … 2334 revisionist history that stands upon the grave of church substitute theology. Bunk on the UN spin interpretation which switched the League “Palestine Mandate” based upon the Balfour Declaration, to a mandate dedicated to establish a Arab Palestinian state. The UN lost its League established Palestine mandate the instant that David Ben Gurion declared the name of the Jewish State as Israel. The spin lies of “international law” do not determine the international borders of the Jewish state post the collapse of the UN protectorate of Palestine.

       The League of Nations effectively ceased to function as a governing body before World War II, particularly during events like the Japanese invasion of Manchuria and the Italian invasion of Ethiopia exposed its inability to prevent aggression fundamentally undermined its credibility – no different from the immediate abandonment of its peace keeping forces in the Sinai. Despite UNWRA, who maintains the perversion of eternal Palestinian refugees to this very day. UNWRA guilt on Oct 7th 2023 directly compares to the Manchuria and Ethiopia League feebleness – UN peace keeping forces immediate withdrawal from Sinai, as if Nasser “determines” when the UN peace keeping forces, post the ’56 Israeli unilateral return of Sinai back to the Egyptians, the intent of the international compact obligations of the UN sent to the Sinai to guard against invasion by either state – Israel or Egypt! The collapse of the UN, on the day that it immediately withdrew its peace keeping forces from Sinai – terminated Israel’s vote of confidence in the UN as a whole. Because Nassar swore that Arabs would erase their Nakba ’48 disgrace, and throw the Jews into the Sea. Stand proud together with victorious Hitler who committed Europeans, specifically Pope Pius XII to exterminate the Jews in the West’s war against communism.

       April 26, 2026 remembers Yom Ha’atzmaut/Independence Day. From that day hence no UN protectorate mandate continued to exist, despite the purposely vague language of post ’67 UN SC 242! The language “all States” the spin evil eye UN interpretations switch their defunct “protectorate” over unto the imaginary Palestinian people, which the PLO Charter did not embrace till May 28, 1964. The day Egyptian born in Cairo – Yasser Arafat, Qatar born Mahmoud Abbas and others adopted that infamous terrorist charter.

       Jordanian illegally nationalized Samaria – according to the 1950 UN universal condemnation of its nationalization by the king of Jordan; excluding ’39 White Paper British, and their 2 State solution Pakistan who approved Jordan’s nationalization of Samaria. And DFLP Nayef Hawatmeh born in Jordan, while he did not author the PLO charter – that the Palestine National Council adapted – primarily under his leadership. After Jordan lost the June 6 1967 War, the UN to this day maintains the Jordanian imposed label “West Bank”, out of its perverted substitute theology agenda that these “occupied territories” exist as the designated part of “Palestinian lands” ie UN Resolution 446,452,465, 476, 478, 799, and the butt of Obama’s 2334 condemnation of Israel’s illegal settlements.

       The Fourth Geneva Convention – designed to protect civilian populations “during times of war and occupation”. Israel has raised reservations regarding certain articles of that convention, particularly in the context of the application of international law which 446 interprets as applicable to the ’67 “re-captured territories”. The Arab propaganda of ‘Greater Israel’ exposed as a ‘blood libel’ lie. The twice Israeli return of captured Sinai and the Sharon unilateral withdrawal from Gaza – as proof evidence otherwise. The spin made by UN 446, that Israel illegally occupies Samaria, stands upon the foundation of British/French imperialism lies – the language of 242 – which calls for withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent ’67 conflict and emphasizes the need for peace based on the withdrawal of these forces. Both England and France declared their “neutrality” prior to the expected Arab obliteration of the Jewish State! Post the Israeli victory, for these “neutral powers” to impose 242 upon Israel – utterly absurd. Comparable to a court who’s judge’s daughter raped by the criminal standing before the Father – judge – of the victim.

       This 446 spin interpretation negates Israeli claims to Samaria based upon 1. British separation of Trans-Jordan at the Jordan river. 2. The kingdom of the 10 Tribes of Israel with its Capital of Samaria pre-dates the post Muhammad claims to this land. 3. UN 338 (post Yom Kippur War) spins the assumption that UN 242 valid – despite its unilateral sweeping Israeli claims to Samaria “under the rug”; the assumption that Britain & France or any State not directly involved in that War have the legal authority to unilaterally dictate pro Arab terms to the victorious Israelis. Therefore UN 446, its spin interpretive precedent 4th Geneva Convention – wholly invalid; political rhetoric propaganda made by a UN that pretends it possesses an obligation to protect a Palestine mandate that no longer exists – utter nonsense. If for no other reason than the Universal Arab rejection of 1. The 1936 Peel Commission and 2. UN GA 181, written by the British no-less, which calls for and “suggests” a two state solution. Furthermore, no UN Resolution has ever condemned post ’67 – the famous ‘Three NO’s’. Arab absolute rejection of the Balfour-’22 League mandate, which defines Herzl’s political zionist agenda for Jews to achieve self determination in the Middle East, because of the genetic insanity of European hatred of Jews has no cure, other than that Jews re-establish our own Jewish state. UN 3379 denounced Zionism as Racism!

       Legally the Suez crisis revolves around the use of force by Security Council States with a veto — which violated the UN Charter. Yet both Britain and France continue to sit as ‘Great Power’ permanent Security Council “deciders”. With leadership comes accountability. President Truman called it: “The Buck Stops Here”. This Rule of Accountability, equally extends to the UN invalidation of its Charter when Nasser’s troops sent to the Sinai and the servile UN withdrawal. Therefore just and Britain and France demoted from ‘great power’ status so too the UN no different than the League of Nations. Both the Suez Crisis and Nasser’s actions illustrate how international law, particularly the UN Charter, can be interpreted in complex ways, which resemble church substitution theologies. The responses from the international community post ’67, highlight evolving power structures and the ongoing debate about sovereignty, the use of force, and the effectiveness of multilateral organizations like the UN. The fraud of 1701 stands as witness.

       Post WWI England and France only gave lip service to Wilson’s 13th point of ‘self-determination’; they prioritized their colonial ambitions. Wilson’s 14th point … Senator Lodge, the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, personally led the Senate revolt against the Treaty of Versailles in Washington. That America never joined the League of Nations serves as a strong precedent that the UN has no “mandate” to substitute itself for classic diplomatic alliances through shared embassies among allies – first developed by Italian City-State diplomacy, as the basis by which competing nation states “impose” international law as did the British navy after the Dutch lost their 3rd War that determined the dominance of the English navy on the High Seas, coupled with the 1588 defeat of the Spanish Armada.

       Political failure, in domestic politics creates legal invalidity. Ruling political parties, loss general elections, forces that Party to go into the opposition; this defines democracy. Why should the UN be any different, especially when it pretends that nations who don’t even recognize Israel, that these nations have the democratic right to publicly condemn Israel. The absurdity of this notion compares to people in America throwing hate upon Putin for invading the Ukraine. UN failure → loss of Charter authority stands upon the collapse of the League prior to WWII; based upon the fundamental objections raised by Henry Cabot Lodge which rejected the notion that the League could replace classic diplomatic relations cut between allies.

       Lincoln designated Confederate States akin to counties within a State. This degraded states to institutions within the larger Union. The Union of the Republic, according to Lincoln, despite the Articles of Confederation – where States voluntarily joined the Union on the pre-condition that those same States could later choose to leave the Union; Lincoln unilaterally negated this Jefferson mandated Constitutional agreement. Lincoln split hairs between States in rebellion from regions within the Union in insurrection. Thomas Jefferson and other Founding Fathers advocated for a compact theory of the Union, suggesting states had the right to withdraw. Lincoln’s stance effectively rejected this interpretation, viewing the Union as permanent and indivisible.

       Yet the UN substitute theology cause it to behave as it exists as a World Government, a utterly false idea of the purpose of the UN Charter. The collapse of the League constitutes as a “vote of no confidence” in the UN. International Law directly means “Law on the High Seas”, inclusive of treaties, conventions, and customs governing relations. But when the ICC formed, consequent to the Rome Agreement, attempts to judge Israel on genocide charges, its pretense of “international law” proved that court a legal fraud. This UN and ICC substitute theology of “international law” which serves key Great Power – Security member states with a veto (France lost WWII, just as did Germany and Japan.) a fraud perversion of the UN Charter – this negates the classic establishment of diplomatic relations between national alliances, first established by Italian City-State diplomacy. Just as 242 ignores the post WWII separation of Prussia divided between Russia and Poland, and the British “occupation” of Northern Ireland.

       Bottom line: Arabs States, including their “despised” refugee populations otherwise known as UNWRA Palestinians, lost the ’48 and ’67 Wars wherein Arabs made the public dedication to commit genocide, and throw the Jews into the Sea. Just as Jews lost their revolts against the Romans and endured exile till 1948, this same identical rule now applies to Arab stateless refugees scattered across the Middle East and North Africa – measure for measure, eye for an eye, justice applied equally to both Jews and Goyim.

       When Chief Justice Marshal ruled the forced transfer of Cherokee Nation from Florida to Oklahoma illegal, President Jackson made the famous quote: “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.” At stake in this stand-off, does the Supreme Court possess the Constitutional mandate of legislative review? Jackson won, the Supreme Court has never attempted to expand its Constitutional mandate to include legislative review. The 3rd Branch of the Federal Government limited to declaring laws passed by the other two Branches as “unconstitutional”. Legislative review the Court under Marshal attempted to impose how the other two Branches of government “interpret law”. In like manner the UN does not dictate how other nations interpret its Charter. Specifically the language of 242 does not invalidate the forced population transfer of Arab refugee populations based upon the ’48 Arab expulsion of Jewish populations which the UN categorically ignored in UN 3379. And all the many European expulsions of Jewish refugee populations after their governments imposed taxation without representation, plundered the Jews of their wealth and property and then ordered their expulsion.

       Law without enforcement – not truly binding, based upon the Torah שפטים ושתרים. Israel did not sign the Rome Treaty. Post Shoah oath “Never Again” – just as the court of Par’o unjust so to all Goyim courts unjust. Herein separates the Torah blessing/curse oath brit which defines the Sinai revelation. Goyim courts by definition not just, because Torah justice limited to the Cohen lands of conquered Canaan. No Goyim nation ever accepted the revelation of the Torah at Sinai which defines faith as righteous pursuit of judicial justice in the conquered lands of Canaan. The Talmud instructs that the floods in the days of Noach did not reach Canaan. Sanhedrin courts have no jurisdiction outside of the oath lands of Cohen inheritance and likewise justice demands that the ICC jurisdiction limited to parties who signed the Rome treaty. Therefore, this paper argues in favor of Henry Cabot Lodges raised objections to the US joining the League of Nations.

       This paper employs flaws which attempt to emphasize a talking-points rather than presume a false reality. 1. It erodes the UN legally, by weakening its authority politically. 2. “Racial DNA hatred” frames Goyim under the exact unjust Nazi hate-fires that burned Jews in the ovens – used as a language tool to emphasize historical institutional antisemitism, the theological legacy (replacement theology), and modern anti-Israel demonization employed by unethical yellow journalism to this very day. 3. Total invalidation of the UN rhetoric – does not up-root the UN treaties, recognized by most countries. The UN’s credibility and neutrality on Israel compares to used toilet paper flushed down the toilet; the UN itself did this with Resolution 3379. 4. The perception of UNWRA as corrupt erodes the reputation of the UN as a whole, as does UN 1701. 5. That modern international law (post-WWII) rejects population expulsion as a norm, does not change historical facts on the ground. But rather promotes great power strategic objectives which pretend that imperial colonial powers still dictate the rules of international politics. 6. International Law – by definition political. No different than intra-State domestic politics. International law regarding Israel is not neutral law—it is a politicized reinterpretation built on unstable foundations (Mandate collapse, 242 ambiguity, enforcement failure), and therefore lacks binding moral authority over a sovereign Jewish state formed through defensive war and historical right.

       Hitler’s strategic withdraw from the League, based upon his rejection of the Versailles peace imposed by Britain and France upon defeated Germany imposed arms restrictions and “victor states oversight”. In no way shape or form compares to Israel restricting diplomatic diplomacy through classic shared embassy alliance relationships. This classic form of diplomacy better serves Israeli strategic interests. Israel through its actions rejects and repudiates the Arafat propaganda of “Greater Israel”.

       Granted the UN Charter corrects the fundamental League flaw of enforcement power. But Israel challenges the moral authority of “Great Power colonial imperialism”. Granted today such past history – not the current fashion. But leaving the UN would not negate the strategic needs of the Jewish state to maintain a dense network of international coordination. The very term brit as found in בראשית-ברית אש understands that the physical geographic location of the Jewish state requires cutting alliances. Israeli diplomacy stands upon טוב מיעט ממיעט טוב. This fundamentally rejects the UN block-voting “democratic” condemnations of Israel which defines the UN as corrupt, in the opinion of this paper.

       Israel simply cannot afford an isolationist foreign policy which defined post WWI America. But neither does its strategic interests permits foreign nations – all of whom have their own strategic interests – to dictate terms to the Jewish State – like UN 242 and all ensuing UN condemnations of Israel attempts to impose – as if they qualified as Chapter VII decrees. Furthermore, that State representatives publicly walkout of the forum when an Israeli representative speaks, this insult requires a counter Israeli response. International discourse often runs on symbolism, not precision. Withdrawal from international institutions reflects a breakdown of political trust—not necessarily a rejection of law itself. International law regarding Israel is not neutral—it is shaped by political coalitions, selective enforcement, and historical inconsistencies. Therefore, its application should be critically examined rather than treated as morally binding by default.
     • 

       mosckerr April 17, 2026 at 12:23 am #

       The tribal local god of Sinai

       First Sinai commandment makes the הבדלה between the revelation of the Sinai פרט — שם השם לשמה from the כלל – שמות שנקראו Avram/ham Yitzak, Yaacov and his sons which “imply” the larger כלל of שמים וארץ.

       The stark contrast of Sinai – תורה לא בשמים היא to the Divine Names upon which the Avot called to their ברית אלהים comparable to shabbat to chol.

       Specifically as it applies to justice: צדק צדק תרדוף, the concept of אמונה לשמה which restricts the Torah revelation of faith to Sanhedrin common law Federal courts likewise restricted to an Independent Jewish state within the borders of conquered Canaan.

       Av tuma עבודה זרה\Jewish assimilation to the cultural practices and customs, how Goyim worship their Gods coupled with intermarriage with such Goyim – defined throughout both the Torah and NaCH literature, this fundamental “revelation” of the 2nd Sinai commandment rejects the Goyim “puke” of idolatry restricted to both “Universal monotheism” which perverts the word “ONE” in kre’a shma to either a tawhid Muslim universal monotheism or a Xtian Nicene Creed universal monotheism.

       After the fact, Universal monotheism theologies and creeds, hence rapes the 2nd Sinai commandment – comparable to Dina the daughter of Yaacov. If – for no other reason – than that both Yishmael and Esav rejected to the revelation of the Torah at Sinai – both historically and today; since only the 12 tribes of the Avot, (the chosen Cohen people) stood at Sinai and conquered Canaan – the sole inheritance of these chosen Cohen people, therefore as a consequence the revelation of the פרט שם השהם לשמה, confined to a local tribal god. Hence both bible and koran worship Golden Calf word translations, no deferent from Necromancy.

       Next Sinai revelation – the Mishkan. This “revelation” likewise teaches a משל\נמשל – כלל/פרט spirits of Oral Torah middot. Where the שם השם לשמה not only restricted to the land of Canaan, but according to how rabbi Yechuda taught בכל לבבך of קריא שמע, and the kabbalah of the Ari, to a tzimtzum contained within the Mishkan\Yatzir Ha-Tov tohor middot as clearly defined through the post Golden Calf משל\נמשל where the ערב רב – שאין להם יראת אלהים, according to how the Zohar learns the specific mitzva of Amalek/anti-semitism throughout the generations — how those “Amakek JUES” worshipped their Christ killing Golden Calf – word translations. No different from gospel of John’s opening verse.

       Next the Sinai revelation – Moshiach: Moshe anointed the House of Aaron to dedicate oath sworn brit korbanot, All Sinai korbanot dedicate Israel to keep the faith of justice, this oath brit alone – within the confines of conquered Canaan – to pursue this oath brit faith Cohen peoples’ alliance through the כלל — צדק צדק תרדוף as defined through its פרט — the failure of king David to pursue justice in the matter of Uriah.

       The Book of Shmuel repeatedly over and again repeats this one flaw of moshiach king David. Hence this פרט serves to define the כלל; Moshe anointed the House of Aaron Moshiach\korban. The Talmud refers to Pinchas – in the war against Midian – as משח מלחמה.

       The general term Moshiach, the prophet Isaiah likewise applied to the Persian king Cyrus. Hence this noun moshiach requires a verb. Specifically, a dedicated Sinai commandment korbon; to serve as the grammatic – required verb משח\anointed to complete the idea.

       The Torah Book ויקרא, hence distinguishes between tohor and tuma – to further clarify through verb spirits rather than noun words – the meaning of משח\anointing as the defining quality of the Oral Torah revelation of 13 tohor spirit/middot. The נמשל which defines the revelation of the 1st Sinai שם השם לשמה. The mitzva of Sinai tefillah – kre’a shma – acceptance of the yoke of the kingdom of heaven, as the revelation of tohor spirits – the verbs which affix the שם השם לשמה within the Yatzir Ha-Tov hearts of the Cohen people who rule the land of Canaan.

       Mesechta ברכות, rabbi Yochanon instructs: to “swear” a ברכה (apart from saying Tehillem prayers), requires שם ומלכות. The term מלכות – understood as tohor Oral Torah verb middot – revealed to Moshe 40 days after the sin of the Golden Calf on Yom Kippur.