Brian The Empire
122
International Criminal Court uncovers targeted cybersecurity breach
The ICC stated that the event occurred ’late last week’ and described the attack as ’new, sophisticated, and targeted'
The International Criminal Court (ICC). AFP
Was this article helpful?
Yes0No0
Discover more from Now World View
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
2 comments
Marco Rubio Sanctions ICC Judges After They Target U.S. and Israel in Explosive Rulings
In a sweeping move, Senator Marco Rubio announced sanctions against four International Criminal Court justices.
________________________________________
________________________________________
Marco Rubio’s sanctions on ICC judges—in response to politically driven rulings targeting the U.S. and Israel—represent the first serious American pushback against the expanding overreach of international legal institutions. But these sanctions merely scratch the surface. If Israel were to bomb the International Criminal Court in The Hague for the crime of judicial overreach, it would unleash a shockwave through the foundations of the post-WWII European imperial legal order.
Such an act would shatter the illusion that the Rome Statute and its court represent binding global authority. In truth, the ICC is a political weapon wielded disproportionately against Western democracies and their allies, while shielding rogue regimes. Its authority rests on consensus, not enforcement. The Rome Treaty would be exposed as not worth the paper it’s written on.
Europe forfeited its moral right to judge the Jewish people the moment it orchestrated the Shoah. Any European claim to universal justice—especially when applied selectively against the Jewish state—is hypocrisy cloaked in humanitarianism. The ICC’s rulings against Israel are not about war crimes; they are ritual acts of expiation for Europe’s own genocidal guilt. But that guilt is not Israel’s burden to carry. To bomb the ICC would be to formally reject Europe’s post-Nazi pretensions to legal supremacy and declare: “You have no right to judge us.”
Bombing the ICC would have the same historical effect as the 1956 Suez Crisis: the end of European claims to independent geopolitical authority. Just as France and the UK’s failed bid to reclaim the Suez Canal revealed their imperial impotence, an Israeli destruction of the ICC would reveal the EU’s inability to project legal-moral power beyond its own borders.
What the EU has is not law, but a narrative infrastructure—paper treaties, postmodern guilt, and international NGOs wielding legal language as a substitute for lost religious and imperial confidence.
A targeted Israeli strike on the ICC would not trigger war. It would trigger disbelief, followed by narrative collapse, and finally a global reckoning with Western legal hypocrisy. The EU would be faced with the question: do we escalate to save face—or submit to an Israeli dictate which radically limits the EU authority in the balance of power in the Middle East and in Europe.
If Israel bombed the Court of the Hague for the crime of judicial over-reach. This would set a precedent that the establishment of the ICC through the Rome Treaty – not worth the paper the Rome Treaty written upon. Widespread EU condemnations Big Deal. England and France have already broken off diplomatic relations with Israel.
The Trump Government in Washington most likely would support Israel if Israel bombed the Court of the Hague for judicial over-reach. The Rome Treaty established Court would most likely dissolve. It would most definitely challenge the judicial jurisdiction of a European Court over Israel!
Post Shoah Europe lost its rights to judge Jews. The destruction of the Pie in the Sky Rome Treaty would establish a major political precedent that European imperialism stops at the borders of the EU member states alone.
The assertion that bombing the ICC in The Hague would lead to a collapse of the EU’s prestige is a strong viewpoint that reflects significant concerns about the authority and effectiveness of international institutions.
If a member state or a country with significant geopolitical influence, like Israel, were to attack an international institution such as the ICC, it could be perceived as a direct challenge to the authority of not only the ICC but also the broader framework of international law that the EU supports.
In short: bombing the Court of the Hague would radically change the balance of power in Europe. For the first time since the Muslim invasion of Western Europe a major disruption of European political autonomy would result.
The EU would either put up or shut up: either they would declare War against Israel or not. The Nato alliance, if the US backed Israel would unquestionably collapse. The EU’s credibility as a defender of international law would cease to exist – gone like a puff of smoke. Israel would have called the bluff of the EU, like as if bombing the ICC compares to a hand of stud poker! This could lead to a more fragmented international order, challenging the EU’s role as a global actor.
An attack on the ICC could set a precedent that undermines the enforcement of international law, leading to a situation where states feel empowered to act unilaterally without regard for international institutions.
The incident could complicate diplomatic relations not only between Israel and the EU but also between other countries and international organizations. It could lead to a reevaluation of how states engage with international legal frameworks.
The UN itself would most likely collapse like as did the League of Nations. If nothing else, the historical relationship between Europe and Israel, particularly in the context of the Shoah and post-war UN attempt to compare Israel to the European Nazi crimes against humanity, adds layers of complexity to this European projectionism of its own Nazi guilt and the moral bankruptcy of both Western and Eastern Roman church moral authority over European civilizations.
The implications of such an act would resonate deeply within the historical narrative of European-Jewish relations and radically shift the narrative reversing the role of Jews as dominant and the church as dhimmi slaves – utterly rejected and despised.
The entire European security architecture is underwritten by the United States, both financially and militarily. Without U.S. backing, NATO becomes functionally hollow. France and the UK retain nuclear capability, but their conventional power is insufficient to act independently against a U.S.-aligned state like Israel.
No EU state would risk confrontation with the U.S., their most vital ally, over a non-NATO event like an Israeli action against the ICC. EU states are deeply post-military in culture. Their battlefield is law, narrative, and diplomacy—not armed force.
Even in the face of Russian invasion (Ukraine), EU states have limited direct engagement, preferring economic sanctions, legal resolutions, and humanitarian aid. Against Israel, the EU’s instinct would be: denounce, sanction, isolate—not mobilize or fight.
Much of EU condemnation of Israel is a projection of its own unresolved guilt over colonialism and the Holocaust. This moral outrage stops at the threshold of real cost. That’s why you see relentless UN resolutions, ICC motions, and media warfare—but not realpolitik confrontation. Israel calling their bluff—if the U.S. holds firm—exposes their impotence. If Israel bombed the ICC in the Hague – No War. No boots. No tanks. NO Article 5 Nato involvement. The collapse of Nato as an alliance.
Symbolic institutions (like the ICC) to claim moral authority—but has no spine when force or geopolitical will counters that narrative. If Israel, backed by a U.S. administration, were to shatter a legal myth like the ICC’s authority … No war, but rather most likely the total collapse of EU imperialist Post WWII illusion of legal hegemony on par with England and France failure to capture and seize the Suez canal in the 1956 War. It would clearly reset the terms of European involvement in global legal power.
The Ripple Effect of Human Error
SA Examiner
Sandra Cruz·saexaminer.org·Mar 9, 2025
Mysticism for the Modern Seeker: A Review of ‘Embodied Kabbalah’ by Matthew Ponak
Matthew Ponak is a rabbi, a teacher of Jewish Mysticism, and a spiritual counselor. His book “Embodied Kabbalah: Jewish Mysticism for All” is a collection of 42 mystical texts with commentary that presents the essential teachings from Kabbalah and places them side-by-side with profound inspirations from our era and the world’s great wisdom traditions.
The never before translated texts shed light on unknown traditions of mystical enlightenment. Fascinating descriptions of the paradoxical nature of reality are placed next to cautionary guidance against travelling too quickly on the road to expanded consciousness. Spiritual practices for dealing with depression and sadness come along with illuminated poetry of what our world could look like if we all tried to be truly loving. Using the stunning visual layouts of traditional Torah commentary, Ponak opens the gateway for Judaism to add its much needed voice to the universal quest for meaning, inner knowing, and rooted transcendence. (Barnes & Noble, 2025)
________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
Historical Narrative: Timeline of Key Events and Figures
Tzeddukim (Sadducees): A Jewish sect active during the Second Temple period, known for their rejection of oral law and emphasis on the written Torah.
Karaites: Emerged in the 8th century, rejecting rabbinic authority and relying solely on the Hebrew Bible for religious practice.
Saadia Gaon (882–942 CE): A prominent Jewish philosopher and legal scholar who integrated Jewish thought with Islamic philosophy and emphasized rationalism.
Rambam (Maimonides, 1135–1204 CE): A key figure in Jewish law and philosophy, known for his works like the Mishneh Torah and Guide for the Perplexed.
Shlomo (Solomon): Often refers to King Solomon, known for his wisdom and contributions to Jewish thought, particularly in the context of the Hebrew Bible.
David: King David, a central figure in Jewish history, known for uniting the tribes of Israel and establishing Jerusalem as the capital.
Philosophical/Jurisprudential Argument: Key Concepts
Pardes vs Greek logic:
Pardes: A method of interpreting Jewish texts that includes four levels: Peshat (literal), Remez (hint), Drash (interpretative), and Sod (mystical).
Greek Logic: Refers to the rational and philosophical frameworks established by Greek philosophers, emphasizing deductive reasoning and empirical evidence.
Saadia Gaon and Rambam, though themselves deeply engaged with rediscovered Greek thought, fiercely opposed the Karaites and placed them under excommunication, just as the ancient P’rushim did to the Tzeddukim.
Common Law vs. Statute Law:
Common Law: A legal system based on judicial decisions and precedents rather than written Legislative statute decrees, allowing for flexibility and adaptation.
Statute Law: A legal system based on written government laws usually enacted by some legislative body, providing clear and codified rules. Both the Tzeddukim and Karaites denied the Sanhedrin’s legislative review. Both prioritized “belief systems” over the Torah’s demand for judicial justice—restoring damages, making peace between Jews.
The Karaim, while not as radical as Samaritans, still rejected the prophetic mussar of NaCH, as taught through Talmudic Aggadah – as binding mussar precedents which shape the k’vanna of mitzvot elevated to Av tohor time-oriented Torah commandments.
Theological Critique: Key Issues
Assimilation: The process by which Jewish communities adopt elements of surrounding alien Goyim cultures & customs; potentially leading to a dilution of Jewish Cohen-identity and practice.
Karaites, like the ancient Tzeddukim, rejected the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev; as as similarly does NT Xtians and Muslims. This rejection undermines the core of Jewish law – as a judicial common law system. Both movements embraced Greek deductive logic over Rabbi Akiva’s Pardes inductive sh’itta\methodology—the (so to speak) loom that weaves warp and weft into a common cultural fabric which shapes and defines the identity of the chosen Cohen people and equally separates Talmudic law from Avoda Zara.
(Idolatry): The worship of foreign gods or practices that contradict Jewish Oath brit alliance which continuously creates the chosen Cohen people through the dedication of tohor time-oriented Av commandments throughout the generations, often critiqued in the context of historical interactions with other cultures and religions.
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
First let’s address the Title of this piece. Karaites, like their predecessor Tzeddukim, they reject the revelation of the Oral Torah. The After meal blessing, remembers the Tzeddukim attempt to cause Israel to forget the Oral Torah. Both the ancient Tzeddukim — remembered through the mitzva of lighting the Lights of Hanukkah — their ignoble disgrace, of a pre-New Testament Civil War which also rejects the Oral Torah revelation of Horev, just as much as does the church today; and the later Dark Ages European Karaites – who relied upon Greek deductive logic to determine that a mezzuzza on the door post must include the 10 commandments – neither during in ancient times, nor the stupidity of the Middle Ages – from about 900 CE, which famously aroused the indignation of Saadia Gaon (882–942 CE), and the even more famous Maimonides (1135–1204).
These two influential “Orthodox Jewish scholars”, likewise erred and reached assimilated avoda zara ideas which, in their own unique ways, perverted the Horev revelation of the Oral Torah. Both these “Orthodox” men, raped the 2nd Sinai commandment – highly assimilated and wholeheartedly embraced the rediscovery of ancient Greek texts which had dominated the ancient world which witnessed the P’rushim/Tzeddukim Civil War remembered every year when Jews light the lights of Hanukkah. Assimilation to alien foreign cultures or customs fundamentally rejects the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev, and the Legislative Review Torah mandate of Sanhedrin common law courtrooms through the kabbalah of rabbi Akiva’s Pardes inductive logic reasoning.
Nonetheless both of the Gaonic and Reshonic “orthodox” Era scholars absolutely rejected the Karaite heretical theology belief system. None the less the error of personal belief in some theologically defined God, this foreign assimilated error trapped both “orthodox” scholars. Both men, similar to the Tzeddukim and Karaite errors, likewise rejected the Courtroom authority of Sanhedrin common law to rule the Jewish Republic through the mandate of Legislative Review, as established through the Talmud Oral Torah codification. Both these famous rabbinic authorities placed the Karaite Tweedle Dee Tweedle Dumb supporters into a charem excommunication, just as did the ancient P’rushim did to the Tzeddukim sons of Aaron.
Both Saadia and the Rambam violated the Torah commandment not to duplicate how the Goyim worship their Gods – no different than as did the kingdom of Shlomo, the pre Ezra Samaritans, the post Ezra Tzeddukim, the messiah crazies New Testament and the Dark Ages Karaites and modern Reform Judaism of the early 19th Century. This classic error traced through the generations, commonly referred to today as “ASSIMILATION”\”AVODA ZARA”.
The re-discovery of the ancient Greek texts consequent to the Muslim invasion of Spain, reopened the Tzeddukim Civil War can of worms – some thousand years after the P’rushim lit the Hanukkah lights … the Rambam embraced Roman statute law which effectively abandoned the study of Talmudic common law and the logic sh’itta of Pardes introduced by rabbi Akiva. Cults of personality, famous rabbinic personalities, like for example Yosef Karo author of the Shulkan Aruch, post the Rambam Civil War, they dominated the determination of halacha. This new “replacement theology” supplanted the Sanhedrin courts-room common law jurisprudence “faith”, which stands upon the foundation of judicial precedents rather than personalized belief systems in some theologically defined God as an act of “faith”.
The revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev, 40 days following the Sin of the Golden Calf, on Yom Kippur: rabbi Akiva’s kabbalah – known throughout the Talmudic and Gaonic Midrashim literature as “PARDES” p’shat, drosh; remiz, sod. This logic format radically differed from the ancient Greek deductive reasoning based upon the Aristotle model, his 3-Part syllogism format. The Talmudic codification of the kabbalah – rabbi Akiva’s 4-Part Pardes inductive logic. This Pardes system of logic – it manifests itself through the 6 Orders of the Mishna and its ensuing Gemara commentary, based upon the working model of a LOOM. Talmudic scholarship seeks to “cement” the culture and customs practiced by all generations of the chosen Cohen people. Herein defines the purpose & scope of the Horev Oral Torah revelation.
As a loom has warp & weft opposing threads. The codification of Oral Torah common law into the written Talmud and Gaonic Midrashim, seek to employ the kabbalah of rabbi Akiva and rabbi Yishmael’s Pardes inductive precedent based learning & 13 middot corollaries, as the basis to shape and determine the Jewish, chosen Cohen people, common law cultural identity which shapes and defines the Cohen people seed of Avraham, Yitzak and Yaacov.
The Talmud prioritized judicial common law as the basis of the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. Tzeddukim and Karaism, Samaritans and New Testament Xtians all universally reject this definition of faith, which commands the pursuit of judicial justice. The Book of D’varim expresses the comprehension: the righteous pursuit of judicial common law justice which dedicates, (think korban), the sanctification of common law courtrooms/Sanhedrins, which strive to make fair restoration of damages inflicted by Jews upon other Jews as the WAY to make shalom among the divided and conflicting Jewish people – throughout all the generations which the Chosen Cohen people experience a Torah blessing and govern the sworn oath brit lands.
Both the Tzeddukim and Karaim, instead embraced the Goyim assimilation which defines faith as belief in some theologically determined God personal I-believe- belief systems. The Rambam would write his ‘Mishna Torah’ statute law code based upon Greek and Roman statute law which organizes law into bureaucratic categories like farmers sell eggs by the dozen.
T’NaCH & Talmudic common law shaped rabbi Yechuda’s Sha’s common law Mishna; all based D’varim common law; consequent to its second explicit re-defining Name: Mishna Torah. The latter means “Common Law”. Rabbi Yechuda’s Mishna, (a common law judicial system) premised upon D’varim judicial Sanhedrin common law. The D’varim judicial mandate empowers the Sanhedrin Federal Court-room system to exert their Torah constitutional mandate of Legislative Review (A second interpretation of Mishna Torah) over all governments, kings, or Tribal Princes which rule governments as Judges. Like the T’NaCH Book of Judges portrays.
Both the ancient Tzeddukim and Middle Ages Karaim rejected the prioritization of common law Sanhedrin courtrooms as having the mandate power of Legislative Review. Hence small wonder that the new testament revolt likewise in this same vein rejects the revelation of Oral Torah pursuit of judicial common law justice. Both the Tzeddukim and Karaim rejected the common law basis of judicial justice-Faith; that later courtroom Judicial rulings stand upon prior Sanhedrin common law courts’ judicial rulings – as codified in the 6 Orders of rabbi Yechuda’s Mishna.
The later Karaim did not go as far as the ancient Samaritans. The latter replaced the 10 Tribal kingdom known as Israel. These ‘latter-day saints’, established their own Mormon like religion, they too rejected the Oral Torah prophetic mussar as codified throughout the NaCH prophets and Holy Writings! The later Karaim did not reject the masoret of the NaCH. They restricted their rejection of the Oral Torah only to their rejection of the authority of the Talmud and rabbinic Midrashim.
However, lacking the Pardes Kabbalah their “Torah wisdom” skills lacked the will to do mitzvot L’shma, a fundamental requirement to affix prophetic mussar precedents as the Aggadic basis to determine the k’vanna of tohor time-oriented commandments – the key revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev. The Mishna Torah common law re-interpretation of Written Torah based on positive/negative commandment toldoth precedents & T’NaCH prophetic mussar, their Mormon like new religion simply could not grasp. The public sanctification of the Name – only achieved when Jews elevate toldoth Torah commandments unto Av tohor time-oriented commandments by making precedent case/rule comparisons.
The much later Talmudic common law codification employs, so to speak, a 70 faces to the Torah — blue-print, diamond faceted, re-interpretation of the original Mishnaic language. Through employment of halacha contained within Gemara sugyot as the precedents by which to make a critical different perspective “view” of the language of the Mishna, based upon an all together different sugya of Gemara- halachic “facet” perspective.
Hence the Baali Tosafot common law commentary to the Talmud likewise jumps off the dof of any given Gemara, to re-interpret a given Gemara sugya, viewed from a wholly different sugya perspective. This common law commentary seeks to duplicate the sh’itta of how the Gemara learns the language of any given Mishna. Much like and similar to how a building contractor reads a blue-print, which contains front/top\side view perspectives. Ancient Greek deductive reasoning logic – basically flat or two-dimensional. Hence 19th Century Hyperbolic Geometry refuted Euclid’s 5th Axiom of plain geometry.
Both the Samaritans, the assimilated Tzeddukim, the NT Xtians, Dark Ages Karaim, and Middle Ages Rambam – One & all they rejected, or did not grasp the Pardes Kabbalah of logic taught by rabbi Akiva. The warp/weft loom, the Talmud’s most essential definition of Oral Torah, as judicial common law Mishna Torah – Legislative Review. However this most essential conflict, pre-dates itself back to kings David and Shlomo, and even to the Judges who ruled following the Yehoshua conquering of Canaan, long before the introduction of the Samaritans, after the fall of the kingdom of Samaria by the Assyrian empire!
The prophet Natan warns David not to copy the ways of the Goyim. Not to build a massive Cathedral like church/Temple. The Jerushalmi Talmud debates a 3 opposed by 3 Tannaim dispute. This famous Yerushalmi debate questions the central issue -Did king David, after conquering Damascus, established that city – as a City of Refuge with its own small Sanhedrin Federal Capital Crimes Courtroom. The pro opinions argue that Israel has a claim to Syria as part of the post Balfour/League of Nations Jewish state. The negative opinions reject the idea that Israel has a claim to nationalize Syria as part of the Jewish state.
Just as king Shlomo’s son at Sh’Cem rejected the advice given by the elder advisors to king Shlomo; so too young king Shlomo likewise rejected the prophetic mussar of the prophet Natan; king Shlomo decided to construct a grand duplication of how Goyim civilizations worship their Gods; king Shlomo worshipped avoda zara when he ordered the construction of the First Temple and failed to judge the Capital Crimes case of the two prostitutes – dead baby – before a Great Sanhedrin Federal court in Jerusalem.
The Talmud refers to this error as “Descending Generations”. This idea starkly contrasts with Calvin’s theology known as “Predestination”. The descending generations idea views downstream generations comparable to ripples consequent to a stone striking a pond. Once a powerful influential leader, such as either king Shlomo or the Rambam, made their respective decisions which rejected the revelaltion of the Oral Torah at Horev, all later generation followed the identical error.
King Shlomo prioritized duplicating how the goyim worshipped their Gods by constructing a grand Temple; while Rambam embraced the sh’itta of the T’zeddukim and sought to convert the Talmud (not into a polis city state) but rather into a statute law syllogism Greek logic belief system which perverted faith away from judicial justice — which strives to make fair restitution of damages. Unto a belief system theology which prioritizes the Ego ‘I believe’ avoda zarah and thereby perverts the God of Israel unto just another treif Av Tuma monotheistic god. Monotheism, by definition, profanes the 2nd Sinai commandment. Herein traces Human error made throughout the Ages where upon Man has walked the Face of this Earth.