Reflections from news and commentary of the day
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments
Wednesday, September 23, 2026
Fr. Bob's Reflection for the Twenty-Fifth Sunday in Ordinary Time - micheletkearney@gmail.com - Gmail
Many people find today's parable unsettling. It doesn't seem fair. Imagine paying someone who worked only one hour the same wage as someone who labored for 12. By our standards, it simply doesn't make sense.
But then again, many of Jesus' parables don't make sense at first glance.
Think of the unforgiving servant, whose enormous debt is completely forgiven. No king in the first century would have cancelled such a debt, any more than Visa or Master Card would erase a person's credit card debt today.
Or, consider the shepherd who leaves 99 sheep to search for one that wandered away. What shepherd would risk the entire flock for a single sheep?
Or the woman who turns her house upside down to find one small coin. Or the father who joyfully welcomes home the wayward son instead of putting him on probation to prove his repentance.
Each of these stories surprises us, because each reveals something extraordinary about God. His ways are not our ways. His mercy is greater than our expectations and His generosity goes far beyond what we think is fair.
The same is true in today's Gospel. The workers who labored all day in the scorching heat felt cheated when those hired only an hour before quitting time received the very same wage.
But Jesus isn't teaching a lesson about fair wages or labor relations. He's teaching us about grace.
The landowner represents God, whose generosity cannot be measured by human standards. Whether someone has served Him for a lifetime or comes to Him at the very end, His mercy is freely given. None of us earn God's love. Every one of us receives it as a gift.
This parable is meant to leave us asking, "What kind of God is this?"
The answer is simple: He is a God who never stops seeking the lost, never tires of forgiving and never measures His love according to what we deserve.
As the Prophet Isaiah reminds us, "My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways my ways."
God is not bound by our calculations of fairness, or our notions of who deserves what. His defining characteristic is love. And for that, we should all be grateful.
Yours in Christ,
Fr. Robert Warren, S.A.
Spiritual Director
Tuesday, September 22, 2026
aftale_eng.pdf - Denmark, Greenland, and US Agreement
aftale_eng.pdf
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE KINGDOM OF DENMARK
TOGETHER WITH THE GOVERNMENT OF GREENLAND AND THE GOVERNMENT OF
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TO AMEND AND SUPPLEMENT THE AGREEMENT OF
27 APRIL 1951 PURSUANT TO THE NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY BETWEEN THE
GOVERNMENT OF THE KINGDOM OF DENMARK AND THE GOVERNMENT OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ON THE DEFENSE OF GREENLAND (1951 DEFENSE
AGREEMENT), INCLUDING ALL RELEVANT SUBSEQUENT AGREEMENTS RELATED
THERETO
Monday, September 21, 2026
Sunday, September 20, 2026
Saturday, September 19, 2026
Friday, September 18, 2026
The Decline & Fall Of Brussels | Armstrong Economics
The Decline & Fall Of Brussels | Armstrong Economics
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/uncategorized/the-decline-fall-of-brussels/?awt_a=1JPVU&awt_l=1yd7E&awt_m=8.cUTzVDeS4vxrVU
Thursday, September 17, 2026
Wednesday, September 16, 2026
[Salon] Trump was ‘shocked’ that Iran fought back. He shouldn’t have been - Guest Post by Stephen Kinzer, Boston Globe
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2026/09/16/opinion/trump-iran-history-pressure-resistance/
Trump was ‘shocked’ that Iran fought back. He shouldn’t have been.
A deep history of Persian resistance presaged the pushback.
By Stephen Kinzer – Boston Globe - September 16, 2026
Future historians may tell the story of the Iran war through a quote from President Trump that perfectly encapsulates it. “We were shocked,” Trump said after the first US-Israeli attack failed to destroy Iran’s government. “They fought back.”
The president, fresh from an easy triumph in Venezuela, thought Iran would fall just as easily. But instead of success, he hit a brick wall.
Only by ignoring every serious scholar and intelligence analyst was it possible for Trump to delude himself into thinking that Iran was a soft target. In fact, the opposite is true. History, religious tradition, and political culture combine to give Iranians extraordinary resilience.
Iran has one of the richest histories of any country on earth. It is 10 times as old as the United States, tracing its roots back to Persian emperors like Cyrus, Darius, and Xerxes. Iranians consider themselves part of something that is grand and magnificent. Their attachment to their country is profoundly emotional.
One reason Iranians resist foreign intervention so fiercely is that they have had so much practice. Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, and Tamerlane ravaged their land. Arabs invaded and imposed Islam. In the 19th century, Russia seized large swaths of Iran’s territory.
The name of one of the treaties by which Iran lost that territory — Turkmenchay — has become a curse word in Iran. Any Iranian who supports a deal with the United States risks being accused of accepting “another Turkmenchay.” That is the equivalent of banishment from Iranian politics. This intense historical sensitivity makes any US-Iran accord difficult.
Another obstacle is the sorry record of relations between the two countries. Iran was an incipient democracy after World War II, but its government challenged the economic order imposed by the United States and Britain by nationalizing its oil industry. In 1953 President Dwight Eisenhower used the CIA to depose Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh, who had led the drive for oil nationalization. That led to a quarter-century of royal dictatorship, followed by the 1978-9 hostage crisis and nearly a half-century of religious rule. The one seeming breakthrough, President Obama’s 2015 nuclear deal, evaporated after Trump withdrew from it. Americans may see Iran as malign and untrustworthy, but the feeling is mutual.
The binding effect of Shia Islam, which most Iranians profess, also gives them inspiration to resist. Its two most revered figures, Ali and Hussein, were 7th-century martyrs who the Shia believe died defending justice against tyranny. This legacy, enriched over centuries, has given Iranians a sense that suffering oppression at the hands of evildoers is pleasing to God. Even many unbelievers have absorbed the Shia principle that it is morally wrong to capitulate to iniquitous power.
Shia believers do not have a “martyr complex,” as is sometimes asserted, but neither do they succumb easily. Trump’s recently announced economic sanctions — a “crushing economic operation,” he called it — will undoubtedly hurt many Iranians. It is unlikely, however, to drive them to demand that their leaders make a deal with Americans or Israelis.
Domestic Iranian politics combines with history and tradition to stiffen the country’s resistance. The country’s new leaders are decidedly more militant than those who were killed in the first wave of US-Israeli attacks. They see this war as a gift because it gives them a historic chance to kick the United States out of the Middle East. That gives them an incentive to fight on and to reject compromise or cease-fire.
Iranians do not cheer for their government. Many and perhaps most of them wish for a different kind of society. At this moment, though, the Revolutionary Guard and its allies are the ones defending Iran against an enemy that seems to want to end its existence as a sovereign nation. People naturally support their leaders when their country is attacked. President George W. Bush’s popularity rating soared to 90 percent after the 9/11 bombings. Iran’s government is benefiting from that same rally-round-the-flag impulse.
For years the United States has pursued a policy of “maximum pressure” on Iran. Its defenders have a simple explanation for why it has failed: It hasn’t been maximum enough. Just keep turning up the pressure, they insist, and at some point Iran will collapse into America’s lap. Trump’s new sanctions, which he called “an economic D-Day” for Iran, are the latest iteration of “maximum pressure.”
Iran’s great weapon in this war is its resilience and ability to absorb pain. Americans are unhappy to read that more than a dozen US service members have been killed since this war began. Iran, by contrast, absorbed hundreds of thousands of casualties in its war with Iraq in the 1980s. While Americans grumble about rising gas prices, Iranians have endured economic devastation wrought by decades of US-sponsored sanctions. It’s clear which country is better girded for a long conflict.
Trump launched this war with the same combination of arrogance and ignorance that shaped his predecessors’ interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. All of his tactical gambits have foundered on the shoals of Iranian resistance. This war has shown the world more than tragedy. It is also a reminder that 25 centuries of Iranian history have forged a remarkably tenacious nation.
Stephen Kinzer is a senior fellow at the Watson School of International and Public Affairs at Brown University.
Fr. Bob's Reflection for the Twenty-Second Sunday in Ordinary Time - Guest Post
Corrie ten Boom lived in Amsterdam during World War II. Her family owned a watch repair shop, and when the Nazis occupied the Netherlands, they risked their lives by hiding Jewish people in their home.
Eventually, the family was betrayed. They were arrested and sent to concentration camps, where only Corrie survived.
After the war, Corrie traveled throughout Europe speaking about forgiveness and reconciliation. Following one of her talks in Germany, a man approached her to thank her for her message. To her horror, she recognized him immediately. He had been one of the Nazi guards at the concentration camp where she and her sister had suffered.
The former guard extended his hand.
Corrie froze.
In an instant, the painful memories returned: the cruelty of the camp, the humiliation and the death of her beloved sister. She had just spoken about forgiveness, yet she found herself unable to forgive the man standing before her.
Have you ever felt that way? Most of us have. Someone wounds us so deeply that forgiveness seems impossible. So how do we respond to Jesus' command to forgive in today's Gospel?
Standing there, unable to move, Corrie silently prayed, "Jesus, I cannot forgive this man. Please give me Your forgiveness."
Later, she wrote that her hand seemed to move as though strengthened by Another. She reached out and shook the guard's hand.
In that moment, Corrie discovered a powerful truth: the power to forgive does not come from us alone. It comes from God. Jesus not only commands us to forgive; He gives us the grace to do what seems impossible.
When forgiveness feels beyond our reach, the first step is to ask Christ for that grace. Another is to remember how often God has forgiven us. Jesus has forgiven us far more than He asks us to forgive others.
A third step is to begin seeing those who have hurt us in a different light; not simply as enemies, but as human beings who are wounded and loved by God.
This is illustrated beautifully in the novel, “All Quiet on the Western Front.” A German soldier fatally wounds a French soldier during battle. As the man slowly dies, the German is overwhelmed with remorse. He offers him water and stays by his side. Later, he finds photographs of the man's wife and children in his wallet.
Suddenly, the French soldier is no longer just "the enemy." He is a husband. A father. A fellow human being. Seeing him through that lens changes everything.
Jesus did the same. As He hung on the cross, He looked upon those who crucified Him and prayed, "Father, forgive them."
My friends, when forgiveness seems impossible, remember Corrie ten Boom. Ask Jesus for the grace to forgive. Recall the mercy He has shown you. Then ask Him to help you see the other person through His eyes – not simply as someone who has hurt you, but as a child of God who, like all of us, has lost the way.
Take a quiet inventory of your relationships. Is there someone you need to forgive? Is there a wound that still needs healing?
Take the first step. You do not have to walk the path of forgiveness alone. Christ walks it with you, giving you the grace to do what your heart cannot do by itself.
Yours in Christ,
Fr. Robert Warren, S.A.
Spiritual Director
Tuesday, September 15, 2026
[Salon] The Board of Peace: an unprecedented, unconstitutional and illegal subversion of US and international law - ArabDigest.org Guest Post
[Salon] The Board of Peace: an unprecedented, unconstitutional and illegal subversion of US and international law - micheletkearney@gmail.com - Gmail
The Board of Peace: an unprecedented, unconstitutional and illegal subversion of US and international law
Summary: it has been nearly a year since the Gaza ‘ceasefire’ and the announcement of a 20 point peace plan to be carried out by an entity called the Board of Peace which to date has implemented very little of its mandate and is fundamentally illegal under both US and international law.
In a comprehensive legal analysis delivered during a 30 July 2026 conference streamed by the Arab Center Washington DC, Professor Susan M. Akram, Non-Resident Senior Fellow at the Arab Center and Clinical Professor of Law at Boston University, offered a scathing critique of the “Board of Peace” for Gaza. Drawing on her extensive background as Director of BU Law’s International Human Rights Clinic, Professor Akram meticulously dismantled the legal claims surrounding the entity, demonstrating why it stands as an unconstitutional, unprecedented, and fundamentally illegal construct designed to sidestep international law and domestic oversight.
Professor Akram emphasised that the Board of Peace possesses zero legitimate standing under international public law, standing entirely distinct from recognised international structures. The Board is not a UN subsidiary body, as it was not created by a United Nations Security Council resolution under Chapter VII or Chapter VI, nor was it authorised by the UN General Assembly. It operates completely outside the UN system and lacks any UN charter mandate. Furthermore, it is not an intergovernmental organisation established by an international treaty among sovereign states. It has no founding treaty ratified by state legislatures, meaning it lacks international legal personality, privileges, immunities, or formal diplomatic recognition under international law. Because it is neither a multilateral UN organ nor a treaty-created body, Akram highlights that the Board of Peace operates essentially as a private or ad-hoc political construct stripped of sovereign legitimacy.
The political and operational structure of the Board centres around Donald Trump, raising severe constitutional and statutory alarms within the United States. Akram detailed how the architecture of the Board represents an attempt by the executive branch to sidestep both Congressional oversight and UN multilateral frameworks. By creating a foreign policy and governance mechanism outside established diplomatic channels, the executive avoids the need for Senate treaty approval, Congressional appropriations control, or UN Security Council consensus.
As foreign actors propose private mechanisms to manage post-war Gaza, legal experts emphasize that true reconstruction requires upholding binding ICJ rulings and the Palestinian right to self-determination.
One of the most glaring legal and constitutional violations Akram highlighted is the proposal to assign active-duty US military officers to serve under or report to this non-governmental, private entity. Under the US Constitution and Federal statutory law, including the Posse Comitatus Act and Title 10 of the US Code, US military personnel cannot be placed under the command authority of an unconstitutional, non-state private body without explicit statutory authorisation from Congress, as doing so subverts the constitutional chain of command. Moreover, the Board’s funding mechanisms bypass standard government accounting and Congressional appropriation processes, known as the Power of the Purse. Operating on private, foreign, or off-the-books financing, it creates a massive black box free from statutory auditing, Foreign Assistance Act restrictions or public accountability.
This off-the-books structure creates alarming vulnerabilities regarding foreign leverage. Because the Board relies on discretionary financial contributions and private arrangements with foreign entities, including Gulf actors and private commercial interests, it exposes US foreign policy to unprecedented conflicts of interest and external manipulation. Without Congressional ethics rules, public disclosure requirements or anti-corruption oversight, the Board opens the door for foreign states to buy influence over governance decisions in Gaza and US military assets.
A particularly problematic aspect of the Board of Peace is the inclusion of Israel as a key decision-making participant, especially given that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is the subject of an active arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC) for war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza. Professor Akram explained that integrating a government whose leadership faces ICC arrest warrants into a governing body over the very population subject to those alleged atrocities flouts international criminal justice. Furthermore, states parties to the Rome Statute are under a strict legal obligation to execute ICC arrest warrants. Cooperating with or sitting on a governing board alongside an individual subject to an ICC warrant directly undermines the enforcement duties of international criminal law and aids in shielding individuals from accountability.
For Palestinians and the residents of Gaza, the Board of Peace represents a complete denial of their fundamental rights under international law. International law guarantees the Palestinian people the inalienable right to self-determination and sovereign governance over their territory, meaning that imposing an external, non-representative, unconstitutional board over Gaza without the consent of the Palestinian people violates peremptory norms, or jus cogens, of international law.
This construct also directly contradicts key international rulings. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has repeatedly affirmed the illegality of the occupation and the requirement that Israel cease its unlawful presence in occupied Palestinian territory. The ICJ also issued binding provisional measures ordering the unhindered flow of humanitarian aid and the prevention of genocidal acts. By institutionalising external control and treating Gaza as a territory to be managed by a private board rather than ending the illegal occupation, the Board directly defies the ICJ’s rulings and advisory opinions.
Since the Board of Peace is not a treaty-based intergovernmental organisation or a recognised sovereign entity, it does not possess sovereign immunity or international organisational immunity, such as that granted under the US International Organisations Immunities Act or the UN Convention on Privileges and Immunities. Professor Akram pointed out that this lack of legal status leaves the Board and its individual members acutely exposed to legal action.
As it operates as a private entity, the Board and its officers can be sued in domestic courts worldwide for torts, human rights violations, complicity in war crimes, or breaches of contract. US military officers or officials participating in the Board’s activities cannot claim official state immunity or military immunity if they are acting on behalf of an unauthorised, non-governmental entity. They face potential civil liability under the Alien Tort Statute, the Torture Victim Protection Act, or universal jurisdiction laws in foreign domestic courts.
In her concluding assessment, Professor Akram underscored that the Board of Peace is fundamentally illegal at both the domestic and international levels. Domestically, it violates the US Constitution by bypassing Congressional authority over treaties, military command and foreign commerce, while unlawfully assigning military personnel to a private body. Internationally, it lacks any basis in the UN Charter, flouts binding ICJ rulings, undermines the ICC's criminal jurisdiction, and tramples upon the peremptory right of the Palestinian people to self-determination. Far from a viable framework for governance or reconstruction, the Board of Peace stands as an unconstitutional and legally void attempt to replace international law with unbridled executive and private power.
More than 1300 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza by the IDF since the 10 October 2025 ‘ceasefire’. The IDF has shrunk the yellow line that the ceasefire was supposed to uphold, with Israel now controlling more than 60% of the Strip, leaving 2 million people trapped in a constantly shrinking and nearly unlivable space.
Members can leave comments about this newsletter on the Arab Digest website.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)