Israel’s Politics of Fragmentation

10 Oct




If the politics of deflection exhibit the outward reach of Israel’s grand strategy of territorial expansionism and regional hegemony, the politics of fragmentation serves Israel’s inward moves designed to weaken Palestinian resistance, induce despair, and de facto surrender. In fundamental respects deflection is an unwitting enabler of fragmentation, but it is also its twin or complement.


The British were particularly adept in facilitating their colonial project all over the world by a variety of divide and rule tactics, which almost everywhere haunted anti-colonial movements, frequently producing lethal forms of post-colonial partition as in India, Cyprus, Ireland, Malaya, and of course, Palestine, and deadly ethnic strife elsewhere as in Nigeria, Kenya, Myanmar, Rwanda. Each of these national partitions and post-colonial traumas has produced severe tension and long lasting hostility and struggle, although each takes a distinctive form due to variations from country to country of power, vision, geography, resources, history, geopolitics, leadership.


An additional British colonial practice and legacy was embodied in a series of vicious settler colonial movements that succeeded in effectively eliminating or marginalizing resistance by indigenous populations as in Australia, Canada, the United States, and somewhat less so in New Zealand, and eventually failing politically in South Africa and Namibia, but only after decades of barbarous racism.


In Palestine the key move was the Balfour Declaration, which was a colonialist gesture of formal approval given to the Zionist Project in 1917 tendered at the end of Ottoman rule over Palestine. This was surely gross interference with the dynamics of Palestinian self-determination (at the time the estimated Arab population of Palestine was 747,685, 92.1% of the total, while the Jewish population was an estimate 58,728, which amounted to 7.9%) and a decisive stimulus for the Zionist undertaking to achieve supremacy over the land embraced by the British mandate to administer Palestine in accordance with a framework agreement with the League of Nation. The agreement repeated the language of the Balfour Declaration in its preamble: “Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country.”(emphasis added) To describe this encouragement of Zionism as merely ‘interference’ is a terribly misleading understatement of the British role in creating a situation of enduring tension in Palestine, which was supposedly being administered on the basis of the wellbeing of the existing indigenous population, what was called “a sacred trust of civilization” in Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, established for the “well-being and development” of peoples ”not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world.”  The relevance of the politics of fragmentation refers to a bundle of practices and overall approach that assumed the form of inter-ethnic and inter-religious strife during the almost three decades that the mandate arrangements were in effect.*


At the same time, the British was not the whole story by any means: the fanatical and effective exploitation of the opportunity to establish a Jewish homeland of unspecified dimensions manifested the dedication, skill, and great ambition of the Zionist movement; the lack of comparable sustained and competent resistance by the indigenous population abetted the transformation of historic Palestine; and then these  developments were strongly reinforced by the horrors of the Holocaust and the early complicity of the liberal democracies with Naziism that led the West to lend its support to the settler colonial reality that Zionism had become well before the 1948 War. The result was the tragic combination of statehood and UN membership for Israel and the nakba involving massive dispossession creating forced refugee and exile for most Palestinians, and leading after 1967 to occupation, discrimination, and oppression of those Palestinians who remained either in Israel or in the 22% of original Palestine.


It should be recalled that the UN solution of 1947, embodied in GA Resolution 181, after the British gave up their mandatory role was no more in keeping with the ethos of self-determination than the Balfour Declaration, decreeing partition and allocating 55% of Palestine to the Jewish population, 45% to the Palestinians without the slightest effort to assess the wishes of the population resident in Palestine at the time or to allocate the land in proportion to the demographic realities at the time. The UN solution was a new rendition of Western paternalism, opposed at the time by the Islamic and Middle Eastern members of the UN. Such a solution was not as overbearing as the mandates system that was devised to vest quasi-colonial rule in the victorious European powers after World War I, yet it was still an Orientalist initiative aimed at the control and exploitation of the destiny of an ethnic, political, and economic entity long governed by the Ottoman Empire.


The Palestinians (and their Arab neighbors) are often told in patronizing tones by latter day Zionists and their apologists that the Palestinians had their chance to become a state, squandered their opportunity, thereby forfeiting their rights to a state of their own by rejecting the UN partition plan. In effect, the Israeli contention is that Palestinians effectively relinquished their statehood claims by this refusal to accept what the UN had decreed, while Israel by nominally accepting the UN proposals validated their sovereign status, which was further confirmed by its early admission to full membership in the UN. Ever since, Israel has taken advantage of the fluidity of the legal situation by at once pretending to accept the UN approach of seeking a compromise by way of mutual agreement with the  Palestinians while doing everything in its power to prevent such an outcome by projecting its force throughout the entirety of Palestine, by establishing and expanding settlements, the ethnic cleansing of Jerusalem, and by advancing an array of maximalist security claims that have diminished Palestinian prospects.  That is, Israel has publicly endorsed conflict-resolving diplomacy but operationally has been constantly moving the goal posts by unlawfully creating facts on the ground, and then successfully insisting on their acceptance as valid points of departure. In effect, and with American help, Israel has seemingly given the Palestinians a hard choice, which is tacitly endorsed by the United States and Europe: accept the Bantustan destiny we offer or remain forever refugees and victims of annexation, exile, discrimination, statelessness.


Israel has used its media leverage and geopolitical clout to create an asymmetric understanding of identity politics as between Jews and Palestinians. Jews being defined as a people without borders who can gain Israeli nationality no matter where they live on the planet, while Palestinians are excluded from Israeli nationality regardless of how deep their indigenous roots in Palestine itself. This distinction between the two peoples exhibits the tangible significance of Israel as a ‘Jewish State,’ and why such a designation is morally and legally unacceptable in the 21st century even as it so zealously claimed by recent Israeli leaders, none more than Benyamin Netanyahu.  




Modalities of Fragmentation


The logic of fragmentation is to weaken, if not destroy, a political opposition configuration by destroying its unity of purpose and strategy, and fomenting to the extent possible conflicts between different tendencies within the adversary movement. It is an evolving strategy that is interactive, and by its nature becomes an important theme of conflict. The Palestinians in public constantly stress the essential role of unity, along with reconciliation to moderate the relevance of internal differences. In contrast, the Israelis fan the flames of disunity, stigmatizing elements of the Palestinian reality that are relevantly submissive, and accept the agenda and frameworks that are devised by Tel Aviv refusing priorities set by Palestinian leaders. Over the course of the conflict from 1948 to the present, there have been ebbs and flows in the course of Palestinian unity, with maximum unity achieved during the time when Yasir Arafat was the resistance leader and maximum fragmentation evident since Hamas was successful in the 2006 Gaza elections, and managed to seize governmental control from Fatah in Gaza a year later. Another way that Israel has promoted Palestinian disunity is to favor the so-called moderates operating under the governance of the Palestinian Authority while imposing inflicting various punishments on Palestinians adhering to Hamas.


Zionism, the Jewish State, and the Palestinian Minority. Perhaps, the most fundamental form of fragmentation is between Jews and Palestinians living within the state of Israel. This type of fragmentation has two principal dimensions: pervasive discrimination against the 20% Palestinian minority (about 1.5 million) affecting legal, social, political, cultural, and economic rights, and creating a Palestinian subjectivity of marginality, subordination, vulnerability. Although Palestinians in Israel are citizens they are excluded from many benefits and opportunities because they do not possess Jewish nationality. Israel may be the only state in the world that privileges nationality over citizenship in a series of contexts, including family reunification and access to residence. It is also worth observing that if demographic projections prove to be reliable Palestinians could be a majority in Israel as early as 2035, and would almost certainly outnumber Jews in the country by 2048. Not only does this pose the familiar choice for Israel between remaining an electoral democracy and retaining its self-proclaimed Jewish character, but it also shows how hegemonic it is to insist that the Palestinians and the international community accept Israel as a Jewish state.


This Palestinian entitlement, validated by the international law relating to fundamental human rights prohibiting all forms of discrimination, and especially structural forms embedded in law that discriminate on the basis of race and religion. The government of Israel, reinforced by its Supreme Court, endorses the view that only Jews can possess Israeli nationality that is the basis of a range of crucial rights under Israeli law. What is more Jews have Israeli nationality even if lacking any link to Israel and wherever they are located, while Palestinians (and other religious and ethnic minorities) are denied Israeli nationality (although given Israeli citizenship) even if indigenous to historic Palestine and to the territory under the sovereign control of the state of Israel.  


A secondary form of fragmentation is between this minority in Israel and the rest of the Palestinian corpus. The dominant international subjectivity relating to the conflict has so far erased this minority from its imaginary of peace for the two peoples, or from any sense that Palestinian human rights in Israel should be internationally implemented in whatever arrangements are eventually negotiated or emerges via struggle. As matters now stand, the Palestinian minority in Israel is unrepresented at the diplomatic level and lacks any vehicle for the expression of its grievances.


Occupied Palestine and the Palestinian Diaspora (refugees and enforced exile). Among the most debilitating forms of fragmentation is the effort by Israel and its supporters to deny Palestinian refugees and Palestinians living in the diaspora) their right of return as confirmed by GA Resolution 184? There are between 4.5 million and 5.5 million Palestinians who are either refugees or living in the diaspora, as well as about 1.4 million resident in the West Bank and 1.6 million in Gaza.


The diplomatic discourse has been long shaped by reference to the two state mantra. This includes the reductive belief that the essence of a peaceful future for the two peoples depends on working out the intricacies of ‘land for peace.’ In other words, the dispute is false categorized as almost exclusively about territory and borders (along with the future of Jerusalem), and not about people. There is a tacit understanding that seems to include the officials of the Palestinian Authority to the effect that Palestinians refugee rights will be ‘handled’ via compensation and the right of return, not to the place of original dispossession, but to territory eventually placed under Palestinian sovereignty.


Again the same disparity as between the two sides is encoded in the diplomacy of ‘the peace process,’ ever more so during the twenty years shaped by the Oslo framework. The Israel propaganda campaign was designed to make it appear to be a deal breaker for the Palestinian to insist on full rights of repatriation as it would allegedly entail the end of the promise of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Yet such a posture toward refugees and the Palestinian diaspora cruelly consigns several million Palestinians to a permanent limbo, in effect repudiating the idea that the Palestinians are a genuine ‘people’ while absolutizing the Jews as a people of global scope. Such a dismissal of the claims of Palestinian refugees also flies in the face of the right of return specifically affirmed in relation to Palestine by the UN General Assembly in Resolution 194, and more generally supported by Article 13 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights.


The Two Warring Realms of the Occupation of Palestine: the Palestine Authority versus Hamas. Again Israel and its supporters have been able to drive an ideological wedge between the Palestinians enduring occupation since 1967. With an initial effort to discredit the Palestine Liberation Organzation that had achieved control over a unified and robust Palestine national movement, Israel actually encouraged the initial emergence of Hamas as a radical and fragmenting alternative to the PLO when it was founded in the course of the First Intifada. Israel of course later strongly repudiated Hamas when it began to carry armed struggle to pre-1967 Israel, most notoriously engaging in suicide bombings in Israel that involved indiscriminate attacks on civilians, a tactic repudiated in recent years.


Despite Hamas entering into the political life of occupied Palestine with American, and winning an internationally supervised election in 2006, and taking control of Gaza in 2007, it has continued to be categorized as ‘a terrorist organization’ that is given no international status. This terrorist designation is also relied upon to impose a blockade on Gaza that is a flagrant form of collective punishment in direct violation of Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The Palestine Authority centered in Ramallah has also, despite occasional rhetoric to the contrary, refused to treat Hamas as a legitimate governing authority or to allow Hamas to operate as a legitimate political presence in the West Bank and Jerusalem or to insist on the inclusion of Hamas in international negotiations addressing the future of the Palestinian people. This refusal has persisted despite the more conciliatory tone of Hamas since 2009 when its leader, Khaled Meshaal, announced a shift in the organization’s goals: an acceptance of Israel as a state beside Palestine as a state provided a full withdrawal to 1967 borders and implementation of the right of return for refugees, and a discontinuation by Hamas of a movement based on armed struggle. Mashel also gave further reassurances of moderation by an indication that earlier goals of liberating the whole of historic Palestine, as proclaimed in its Charter, were a matter of history that was no longer descriptive of its political program.


In effect, the territorial fragmentation of occupied Palestine is reinforced by ideological fragmentation, seeking to somewhat authenticate and privilege the secular and accommodating leadership provided by the PA while repudiating the Islamic orientation of Hamas. In this regard, the polarization in such countries as Turkey and Egypt is cynically reproduced in Palestine as part of Israel’s overall occupation strategy. This includes a concerted effort by Israel to make it appear that material living conditions for Palestinians are much better if the Palestinian leadership cooperates with the Israeli occupiers than if it continues to rely on a national movement of liberation and refuses to play the Oslo game.


The Israeli propaganda position on Hamas has emphasized the rocket attacks on Israel launched from within Gaza. There is much ambiguity and manipulation of the timeline relating to the rockets in interaction with various forms of Israeli violent intrusion. We do know that the casualties during the period of Hamas control of Gaza have been exceedingly one-sided, with Israel doing most of the killing, and Palestinians almost all of the dying. We also know that when ceasefires have been established between Israel and Gaza, there was a good record of compliance on the Hamas side, and that it was Israel that provocatively broke the truce, and then launched major military operations in 2008-09 and 2012 on a defenseless and completely vulnerable population.


Cantonization and the Separation Wall: Fragmenting the West Bank. A further Israeli tactic of fragmentation is to make it difficult for Palestinians to sustain a normal and coherent life. The several hundred check points throughout the West Bank serious disrupt mobility for the Palestinians, and make it far easier for Palestinians to avoid delay and humiliation. It is better for them to remain contained within their villages, a restrictive life reinforced by periodic closures and curfews that are extremely disruptive. Vulnerability is accentuated by nighttime arrests, especially of young male Palestinians, 60% of whom have been detained in prisons before they reach the age of 25, and the sense that Israeli violence, whether issuing from the IDF or the settlers enjoys impunity, and often is jointly carried out.


The Oslo framework not only delegated to the PA the role of maintaining ‘security’ in Palestinian towns and cities, but bisected the West Bank into Areas A, B, and C, with Israeli retaining a residual security right throughout occupied Palestine. Area C, where most of the settlements are located, is over 60% of the West Bank, and is under exclusive control of Israel.

This fragmentation at the core of the Oslo framework has been a key element

in perpetuating Palestinian misery.


The fragmentation in administration is rigid and discriminatory, allowing Israeli settlers the benefits of Israel’s rule of law, while subjecting Palestinians to military administration with extremely limited rights, and even the denial of a right to enjoy the benefit of rights. Israel also insists that since it views the West Bank as disputed territory rather than ‘occupied’ it is not legally obliged to respect international humanitarian law, including the Geneva Conventions. This fragmentation between Israeli settlers and Palestinian residents is so severe that it has been increasingly understood in international circles as a form of apartheid, which the Rome Statute governing the International Criminal Court denominates as one type of ‘crime against humanity.’ 

The Separation Wall is an obvious means of separating Palestinians from each other and from their land. It was declared in 2004 to be a violation of international law by a super majority of 14-1 in the International Court of Justice, but to no avail, as Israel has defied this near unanimous reading of international law by the highest judicial body in the UN, and yet suffered no adverse consequences. In some West Bank communities Palestinians are surrounded by the wall and in others Palestinian farmers can only gain access to and from their land at appointed times when wall gates are opened.



Fragmentation and Self-Determination


The pervasiveness of fragmentation is one reason why there is so little belief that the recently revived peace process is anything more than one more turn of the wheel, allowing Israel to proceed with its policies designed to take as much of what remains of Palestine as it wants so as to realize its own conception of Jewish self-determination. Just as Israel refuses to restrict the Jewish right of return, so it also refuses to delimit its boundaries. When it negotiates internationally it insists on even more prerogatives under the banner of security and anti-terrorism. Israel approach such negotiations as a zero-sum dynamic of gain for itself, loss for Palestine, a process hidden from view by the politics of deflection and undermining the Palestinian capacity for coherent resistance by the politics of fragmentation.


* There are two issues posed, beyond the scope of this post, that bear on Palestinian self-determination emanating from the Balfour Declaration and the ensuing British mandatory role in Palestine: (1) to what extent does “a national home for the Jewish people” imply a valid right of self-determination, as implemented by the establishment of the state of Israel? Does the idea of ‘a national home’ encompass statehood? (2) to what extent does the colonialist nature of the Balfour Declaration and the League mandate system invalidate any actions taken?

34 Responses to “Israel’s Politics of Fragmentation”

  1. Sergey October 10, 2013 at 5:36 am #

    Dear Dr. Falk,

    Merhaba! Greetings from Istanbul!

    Thank you for your keen analysis of Israel’s policies that are designed to dispossess Palestinians from their land, erase their identity, and dismiss their legitimate claims of ownership of the land. This and other conflicts in the world makes one wonder about the notion of justice and its selective application in international affairs…

    • Richard Falk October 10, 2013 at 2:53 pm #

      Dear Sergey: Thanks once more for your message. I am actually coming to Istanbul Friday morning for a couple of days. If you are free, we could meet. I am staying at the Conrad Hotel in the Besiktas neighborhood, and you could reach by phone, or else send me an email message.

      • Sergey October 11, 2013 at 2:21 pm #

        I would love that!
        I will send you a message on your ucsb email address.

  2. Fred Skolnik October 10, 2013 at 8:53 am #

    No matter how many times you use the terms “historic Palestine” and “indigenous Palestinian population” you will not alter the fact that there is no historic Palestine and there is no indigenous Palestinian population there, and certainly not one that predates the Jewish population, which has been continuously present in the Land of Israel for at least 3,5000 years and forged its national consciousness and identity there, unlike the Arabs. Such a spurious argument is not even necessary since Israel recognizes the legitimacy of Palestinian national aspirations and is willing to negotiate a two-state solution. The argument therefore has no other purpose than to delegitimize Israel, which is a state like any other in the world and has the same right to exist.

    You also refuse to recognize the fact that the Arabs living in Israel are not an ethnic minority like the Jews, Latinos and blacks in America but a national minority like the Basques in Spain and the Kurds in Turkey, Iraq and Iran and that Israel is a Jewish state in the same way that Spain is a Spanish state and Turkey is a Turkish state and Iran is an Iranian state. Whatever discrimination Arabs experience in Israel is a direct result of the Arab-Israel conflict and the identification of Israel’s Arabs with an Arab world that is hostile to Israel and has refused to acknowledge the legitimacy of its existence. Under these circumstances, Israel’s Arabs nonetheless enjoy the highest degree of economic well-being and political and civil freedom in the Arab world.

    With regard to the refugee issue I replied to your previous post. As for the security fence I am sad to say that in a macabre twist to Justice Holmes’ famous remark that he would rather see a hundred guilty people go free that one innocent person imprisoned, you are in effect saying that you would rather see 100 dead Israelis murdered by terrorists than one Palestinian farmer kept from his land. The fence is there to keep terrorists out, and it has pretty much succeeded. Blame the terrorists and not Israel for Israel’s security measures. You do not cease to be a terrorist organization by winning an election. You cease to be a terrorist organization by refraining from acts of terror, which Hamas has not done.

    I will not reply to each of your arguments. You are falsifying more than you should, even in a polemical context. It hardly needs to be said that you have nothing really constructive to offer, which calls into question your entire stance as an advocate of justice. What “perpetuates Palestinian misery” is the wild dream that Israel will somehow vanish and all you are accomplishing is to encourage extremist elements in their refusal to come to terms with Israel’s existence.

    • Richard Falk October 11, 2013 at 9:56 am #

      Mr. Skolnik: We are miles apart on these issues. You seem to believe that you have access to historical truth. There are many overlapping historical truths, and we are
      really arguing about competing interpretations of complex social, historical, and legal issues. I believe my views are more in keeping with the contemporary realities. You accept Israel’s security arguments at face value, while I have enough evidence to suggest that there is much more to Israeli ‘security’ than ‘security,’ for example, land. And I don’t believe that the Israeli leadership is genuinely interested in a two-state solution unless the Palestinian ‘state’ is whittled down to become a bantustan. Why else would Israel persist in expanding settlements even in the most provocative places like Hebron? If Israel wanted peace based on a genuine compromise it would use
      its muscle and might to reassure rather than to intimidate. Gaza farmers have never posed a threat to Israel, but the Israeli buffer zone deprives Gaza of much needed agricultural land. I could go on but as I suggested at the outset our perceptions of
      facts and claims of right are too far apart to lead to any sort of agreement. I wish only that you would not attribute anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli attitudes to these disagreements as it makes civil discourse impossible.

      • Fred Skolnik October 11, 2013 at 2:58 pm #

        Dear Prof. Falk

        I have stated time and again that I do not regard criticism of Israel as antisemitism. If you are incapable of differentiating between the language of criticism and the language of hatred, that is truly a shame.

        Israel has not physically expanded the boundaries of its West Bank settlements or added new ones since 1991. All building has taken place within existing boundaries. The parameters of a settlement are clear. Israel’s maximalist opening position would probably be for a land swap involving 10% of West Bank land. The Palestinian position would probably involve zero percent. The compromise would probably be at five percent. Refugee return would probably amount to 30-40,000 Palestinians. I believe this was the number Olmert mentioned in his negotiations with Abu Mazen. The Jerusalem issue might have to be postponed if no imaginative compromise can be worked out. These are the parameters that would be acceptable to the majority of Israelis if they felt that the Palestinians were prepared to live in genuine peace with Israel and relinquish their dream of destroying it.

        There is very little interpretation involved in ascertaining where the current Palestinian population came from – there are numerous official reports and demographic surveys tracing the movement of Arabs into the region from the 19th century on. There is also no question that their Palestinian identity was only forged after Israeli statehood, with the exception of a small urban elite. I make this point because I detect an effort on your part to delegitimize Israel’s claims to its own national homeland by attempting to establish a prior Palestinian claim that is historically inaccurate.

    • oldguyincolorado October 11, 2013 at 8:34 pm #

      Fred, you are wasting your time. Prof. Falk has already said that he views the “facts” differently than do you. He has a “dreamer’s” view of the ultimate goal of the Arab position which has remained unaltered ever since they began to realize that this land might, in fact, be worth something. That was when the Jew began to do something with it, the Arab saw that and began to move into the Jewish areas hoping to get jobs (this started over 100 years ago). Perhaps he has forgotten that initially the Arabs (Efendi in Damascus for much of it) sold land to Jews thinking it was worthless. Has he forgotten that in Hebron the Arabs killed Jews and forced them out and now he wants to deny them their “right of return”. Has he forgotten that in some parts of the new state Arabs were asked to stay, but they left anyway? He has chosen his facts and argues from that selected pool. This is not scholarship. This is propaganda. He seems not to understand that the goal of the Arab was, has been, and will probably forever remain the same: get rid of all of the Jews in the land (at a minimum). Most of what he states is pure “bombast”. No Jew will ever be allowed to be a citizen of this wonderful “Palestinian State” he feels that the Arab is being denied :(ditto in Gaza and Jordan). He ignores the historical truth that Jews have a right to be here and if the Arab has his way none will remain. He seems to feel that the desire of Isreal to have security is a false position and that it should be flooded with Arabs who never set foot in it; that there should be no Jewish state, only Arab lands. I wonder how he would feel if the native Americans or Mexicans wanted to take back the land now occupied by him in his Santa Barbara home? What he espouses is that Isreal commit suicide.

      He seems to view these issues as political/legal issues. The Arab says it is not political; it is religious. If Prof. Falk can ever realize that, perhaps he will then begin to look at all of the “facts”, and not just those which support his tunnel vision of what is going on.

      I will not respond to any “drivel” from his adoring fan club. Let them first read and understand the Qu’oran, the Charter of Hamas, the Jordanian Constitution, the proposals for the “Palestinian” Constitution, the comments of Mark Twain when he traveled in this area, understand what really happened with Arafat in the 2000 efforts to resolve these questions, how much of the lands destined for the Jewish state were not privately owned but owned by the Ottoman empire and then administered by Brittan, see how well the Copts are doing in Egypt or Christians in Indonisia (and Prof. Faklk wants Jews to be a minority in an Arab land, even if that were possible?), etc. ad nauseum.

      As to the farmers in Gaza, they were warned not to allow Hamas to shoot rockets from their lands. What was Isreal to do? Nothing? What have the friendly Arab neighbors of the Palestinians ever done for them? Try looking in that direction for some immediate relief – that would better serve them.

      But Prof. Falk has heard this all before and none-the-less plunges on. To him, “civil discourse” seems to mean that you get to agree with his views or “you just don’t seem to understand the facts”. He seems to forget that the “facts” are supposed to lead to conclusions, and not the other way around. Not good scholarship, no matter how well articulated.

      Does this mean that I have fallen into the same trap he has, but on the other side? No. Isreal is not always correct. Injustices have taken place on it’s part. Does Prof. Falk feel that at least part of the initial and current fault is on the shoulders of the Arab and they should recognize that and work to correct it? If so, I would love to see an article by him, at least as expansive as this one, setting that all out? I would love to see this approach with every articlre blaming Isreal for something. Show both sides. That is scholarship. Any chances Professor?

      • Kata Fisher October 11, 2013 at 10:20 pm #

        I have a reflection:
        Paul also corrected the work of those who have come about their own business, being immature…mind your own business…

      • Richard Falk October 12, 2013 at 12:53 am #

        Oldguyin Colorado:

        It seems you wish to diminish my view of the situation by calling me a ‘dreamer’
        with no appreciation of the Israeli narrative. This is just not the case. I do my
        best to be accurate as to the competing narratives. Overall, you seem to forget that
        over the long sweep of modern history the Jews fared far, far better in the Arab world than in Europe; when last in Jordan meeting with a group of Palestinian elders lamenting the conflict, they commented ‘we have lived in peace with Jews for 2000 years, and there is no reason we cannot do it now.’

      • Fred Skolnik October 12, 2013 at 1:25 am #

        I don’t mean to butt in. Prof. Falk, but you are again doing what your critic accuses you of. It may be true that the situation of the Jews in Arab countries was on the whole better than in Europe, where it couldn’t have been worse, but citing a Jordanian remark that “we have lived in peace with Jews for 2000 years” as reflecting reality is simply to falsify that reality. The humiliating dhimmi laws under which Jews and Christians lived in Arab lands is the least of it. The entire period was marked by periodic anti-Jewish riots, pogroms and massacres. I will only list them if you wish me to. They will present a picture considerably different from the one you are trying to promote.

      • Richard Falk October 12, 2013 at 5:46 am #

        Perhaps, I didn’t express myself adequately or fully. I intended to suggest that
        among this group of Palestinians, who were dispossessed in some serious sense in
        1948 there was no detectable enmity toward Jews or the Jewish experience. Of course,
        there were tensions and wrongs on all sides for countless generations, but to portray the Arabs in such a demeaning and essentialist manner is not my experience at all.

  3. Gene Schulman October 10, 2013 at 12:04 pm #

    Thank you, Richard. This is a very powerful and accurate indictment of Israel’s policies to eventually rid Palestine of its indigenous people and fulfill its dream to build a Jewish state throughout all of Palestine.

    As to Fred’s discussion of the refugee issue, I would point out that the Jews were not ousted from Arab countries until after the Nakba. Actually, it was Israel who discouraged their remaining in places like Iraq and used devious means to get them to migrate to Israel, when most did not wish to. I will cite reference to this if I can find the book among the jumbled piles on my library floor.

    • Gene Schulman October 14, 2013 at 5:26 am #

      Here is the promised reference: “Ben-Gurian’s Scandals, How the Haganah and Mossad Eliminated Jews”, by Naeim Giladi.

      “I write this book to tell the American people, and especially American Jews, that Jews from Islamic lands did not emigrate willingly to Israel; that, to force them to leave, Jews killed Jews; and that, to buy time to confiscate ever more Arab lands, Jews on numerous occasions rejected genuine peace initiatives from their Arab neighbors. I write about what the first prime minister of Israel called ‘cruel Zionism.’ I write about it because I was a part of it.”

      When I first read this book, I discussed it with my upstairs neighbor who was an Iraqi-born Israeli, and before having emigrated to Switzerland, was a member of Mossad. He confirmed to me that what Giladi writes about the ‘expulsion’ of Jews from Iraq is true. He, too, was a ‘part of it.’

      • Fred Skolnik October 14, 2013 at 7:19 am #

        Gilad is a notorious anti-Zionist whose allegations about Jews killing Jews are totally unsubstantiated, and the rest is pure fiction. Nice that you have insider neighbors but this isn’t really how you go about verifying information in anyone’s world other than yours.

  4. Fred Skolnik October 10, 2013 at 1:34 pm #

    While you are looking: there were massacres in this period in Morocco, Algeria, Libya, Iraq (Farhud), Syria, Yemen, Egypt. Throwing around words like “devious” doesn’t change a thing. You ought to try learning your own history instead of frantically looking for incriminating evidence against Israel in your junk piles.

    • Gene Schulman October 10, 2013 at 2:31 pm #

      ‘Tis not my history, but Israel’s and yours that is in question. I look at all evidence with equal objectivity. The scales of justice don’t seem to weigh heavily on the Israeli end. And that’s all I have to say to you on this subject.

    • oldguyincolorado October 12, 2013 at 4:47 pm #

      Fred, the thrust of much of what the Prof. says in most of what I have read from him is demeaning to Isreal. Frankly, he selects his facts and ignores the hostility of the Arabs towards any Jewish efforts to find peace in this land. Arabs have frantically fought any Jewish immigration for over 100 years. They wanted to exclude it all. No Jew will be allowed to live in their “Palestine”.

      Perhaps he has fallen into a trap of speaking to a group of Palestinians who know him and tell him what they think he needs to hear so that he can continue writing as he does. Perhaps they are being truthful but are powerless to change the “mind-set” of their leadership. The “harsh fact” is that no Jew will be allowed to live in “peacefully” in an Arab dominated Isreal unless it is a Qu’oranic “peace”: first you must submit to Islam, pay a special tax aimed only at Christian and Jewish males and accept second class citizenship (folks, this explination is just part of what Fred was trying to say) . And then of course there is Hamas, etc.

      If he is “fair-minded and even-handed” as he proclaims, let the Prof. write an article about the improving health and life spans of the Arab while under Isreali administration and ponder why a young Palestinian woman, whose life was saved in an Isreali hospital would try to return to that facility, as a suicide bomber, and blow it up, etc. Write an article explaining that, economically, things were improving for the Arab under Isreali administration until Arafat started his intefada and stold hundreds of millions of dollars from the Palestinians, etc. Prolonging this conflict does not help Isreal. The arguements that it allows Isreal to acquire more land is a bogus one. Isreal has enough land to develope and it’s hands full doing that when it starts with the Negev. Give it a genuine peace and let it go about it’s business doing that. And the Palestinian will benefit because it will probably have jobs there for hundreds of years.

      I am sure that lots of Palestinians and Isrealis long for peace. Just remember that peace is a gamble for the Jew and not the Arab. The Arab risks nothing. Isreal risks everything. Understand the Isreali side with this reality in mind. Write an article about that and in the process do not ignore the real dangers that Isreal faces unless such a peace brings with it security on the ground. Security that the Arab is not willing to grant.

  5. Kata Fisher October 11, 2013 at 12:39 pm #

    I have a reflection:
    One time, I got in fierce argument with you…I strait out offended you. But here we are today, pulling things together..

    • oldguyincolorado October 14, 2013 at 5:31 pm #

      Kata, is your’s of 10/10 at 12.39 intended for me? I do recall butting heads with you in the past. I was not offended. I can only hope that you have taken the time to read some of the material I recall suggesting to you, starting with the Qu’oran. Unless you grasp the basics you really loose a sense of proportion.

      As far as I am concerned, Prof. Falk has been speaking to the wrong “Palestinians”. He also should be speaking to those Arab women who declare that they give birth as often as they can just to change the demographics in Isreal and in favor of the Arab; he should sit in a Medrasa and hear what little kids are taught about the Jew; he should try and wrap his arms around the statements of Arab leaders who have exerted influence in this arena for the past 100 years or so. Perhaps he should start with the Grand Mufti and move forward in time and not stop with Arafat. It is not “pretty”; frankly, not on either side. See Prof., I do recognize that there are two sides. Try it sometimes and please don’t be afraid to talk about it. It may not change your conclusions but it will ceretainly add to your credibility. Being Advocat for one side only and Judge at the same time is not the way to prove your points. Being so dismissive of Mr. Skolnik does not reflect well on you.

      Much of the 1948 demographic of which the Prof. speaks resulted from unrestricted Arab migration into Isreal and a severe restriction against Jews coming in. How does he account for such a great change in the proportion of Arabs vs. Jews in the Isreali population anticipated in the next few decades other than by Arabs having more kids than they can afford – shouldn’t it be the other way around with more Jews being born? If you can’t kill Isreal with guns you kill it by a high birth rate. That is what these ladies mean.This is a form of war, isn’t it? Bottom line with all of this “stuff”: it seems clear to me that Prof. Falk is just “fine” with “Arab only” countries (remember, no Jews allowed – him included), but G-D forbid if the Jew has a place to call it’s home. There are various words to describe his position (but I wont use them) and they are far more descriptive then the word “dreamer”, which seems to have offended him.

      Frankly, both sides seem to be “dug in”. This will not change. My fear is that we are headed towards a “resolution” used in another area of the world at about the same time Isreal was formed: India/Pakistan. That “divorce” still haunts us today, but most of the killing has stopped.

      • oldguyincolorado October 14, 2013 at 6:39 pm #

        By the way, Prof., in 1914 there were over 90,000 Jews in Palestine, then the Turks forced @ 12,000 to leave. Persecution of Jews in Palestine was a common practice back then. The numbers you rely upon (even if correct for 1917) demonstrate a suppression, pogrom, forced “draft” of Jews into the Turkish army, Jews trying to get the “hell out” of Turkish land, and not the “natural order of things” (unless one deems suppression of Jews “natural”). When Isreal was formed in 1948, there were about 500,000 Jews and less than 400,000 Arabs in the land designated for the Jew. Under the Brittish Mandate, overall the Arabs ended up with over 95% of the land previously owned by the Turkish Empire. Jews got the smaller portion of the land previously owned by the Turkish Empire and administered by the Brittish and French (as a result of the Turks having lost WWI). By the way, under the current concept of the U.N. that no land should be lost as a result of being a “loser” in a war, is Turkey entitled to all of this back? Oh, I forgot; this rule was designed just for the Jew – they must give back what they took as a result of winning a war that they did not start. Sorry, but I forgot that one. Much of what you say presupposes that Arabs had owned it all. They did not. The Turks did. The English and the French gave it away or just abandonded it. The “outrage” of the Arab in 1948 was that the Jew got “any part” of the land previously owned by the Turks.

        Let’s be honest here, both populations were, to some extent, nothing more than “squatters” sanctioned by Brittan. Now one squatter (the Arab) seems to be complainig that the other “squatter” got anything. How’s that for a different view of things? Perhaps food for another article? This is just a portion of the reasons why I (and perhaps Mr. Skolnik) take issue with your appearing to be “one-sided” with your “facts”. If you are going to “judge”, at least articulate both sides before you come to any conclusion. Perhaps your readers may come to different conclusions than do you once they see “everything”. Recognize that both sides have things to say and each is “less than Ceaser’s wife”. Neither is as “pure as the driven snow”.

      • Kata Fisher October 14, 2013 at 6:57 pm #

        @ oldguyincolorado
        Around that time (1914) there was Swastikas/Nazi-symbols all over the West-world (look at now day architecture dating back to/about before that time)…in Israel (and all over). They were luck-symbols under bad anointing, in a way…right?

        Can anyone else add to his knowledge about that, I feel ill to my belly to referee to all facts (Scriptual–or not)!

  6. Kata Fisher October 15, 2013 at 9:21 am #

    @ oldguyincolorado

    I have a reflection:

    At first I wanted to avoid you…but the Spirit moved me to say a thing…

    I avoid despitefully viscous ways of an old hag…

    I am baptized into the Church that rejects the Satan, and all his works. Am I called individually to reject Satan and all his works? I can be—or not. If all Christianity that is valid would work day and night (as we do, and I took a great part of that) we still will fall short correcting the evil works of church-wicked that is accused in the name of God, and is accused in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth according to their works against the Gospel—they repent not.
    I avoid mapping out spirits that come against me, but I will point this out: scornful obnoxiousness. I deal, and have dealt with a lot of that, and it does not bother me.
    It is like this: people go about removing speck in our sight…how about we remove the beam, instead…
    I am under the Law of Spirit, and you are not.
    Why would I read Quran when I even lack spiritual authority to go about New Testament? Right?
    By Spirit, I have no spiritual authority to read Quran. Meaning, I have no Spiritual authority of Quran over my head in order to even go about that: do that? No, I would violate Spirit of God and also the Faith of Islam.
    Second, I am a girl (it is foolishness for me to do that—that which Church has not done in the time-pass: discerning of prophesy—when it took place. Wicked-church failed big time—at that time (as it is now wicked, excommunicated, under judgment).
    Now certainly; it is an abomination for the Church to go about discerning of a sacred text that is not in their Spiritual Stewardship—you shall accept it by Faith—or leave it alone…YOU ARE NOT MUSLIM).
    Muhammad was a prophet (regardless all condition which under Quran was written—he was not a false-prophet, but he may have been under heavy spiritual attack. I say: he was unmerciful prophet trough whom the unmerciful judgment is.
    Paul Apostle was unmerciful when he gave wicked over to Satan.
    I do not think that wicked are worth dying over, but I can’t judge the Muslim Faith. I am not qualified to do that.
    Prophet Muhammad revived the Law and judgment against the wicked. Peace is upon him. Why? Because Peace of Christ of Nazareth is upon me and I have no need to sin against that.
    I did not grow up in the “wild, wild WEST, Ye-ha”- otherwise my conscience, too would be inadequate. (This is me in my personal mock…I do that).
    If not for Islam as Faith, hardly anyone would be safe and saved from church-wicked! At least, we have those who are under the Law, and they do well. We are either under the Law and judgment of the Law, including condemnation and death- or the Law of Spirit/Grace. (Hardly any of Christianity is under the Grace/the Law of the Spirit-so they are under judgment of God). Now they may—or may not be under the Law and Faith. (I really will not want to get into the theoretical/theological implications of that—Who is and who is not!)

    Consider me obnoxious Christian? You may do that…but I told you no lie by which you may be doomed.

    Whatever Arab women do in order to skew the birth scale will have to become a movement in order to make one wonder…What is to you what women decide to be women powerful in warfare-spiritual by “birthing babies” (fertile to cut-off…do you fear that, somewhat bothered by that?).
    Too bad they can’t be here in US, mixing with the lines of the wicked—to bless those who are accursed in the Land. Arab women are prophets—don’t you know that?

    YOU said: “Being so dismissive of Mr. Skolnik does not reflect well on you.”
    Me: THAT IS YOUR PERCEPTION…I am not shocked when people misinterpret me—we lack one mind.
    I am not dismissive of Mr. Skolnik, and his traditional approach to the problem at hand. However, he may not understand all things that are applicable to the issues: a systematic problem/condition to reflect upon over thousands of years? In fact, Mr. Skolnik is a dear person! However, lack of information can destroy people that are spiritual? One has to HEAR in spiritual. Certainly, I will not dismiss him if he heard less than I!
    One cannot believe a lie and remain in righteousness: Things concerning Israel (examining truth and lies/righteousness and unrighteousness it is not possible without presence of God). Professor Falk—why should he bend his standard based on skewed (or lack) in understanding of others?
    That which you are speaking of you do not understand.
    Righteous Jews say that state of Israel is against the Law: Abomination and mockery toward the Spirit of God (just as it is church-excommunicated that took part in that line establishment…and is still doing it).


    In spiritual I say: They spoiled blessings for returning exiles! The work of anti-Spirit of God, and church-wicked, as always is and was. Condemnation is upon them…

    Westerns are stuck in their works…what can we do about that? Repent. Pay countries for damages (due to the slave trades/stripping of lands from human capital). Pay for damages of war!
    Give back Diamond to India that was stolen, and is sitting on the English crown (abomination toward God).
    Yes, by Spirit of God we say: The one that comes to rob, kill and destroy shall do that no more. Gove back what was stolen from the lands—give it back. UNRIGHTEOUSNESS EARNS CONDEMNATION. Have that.
    Take Church-Charismatic understanding—or do not! (It is no benefit to me/Church-Charismatic if you do—or not).
    We can go back and forth…back and forth in arguments…but seriously: I have things to do. I do not like to play Philosopher, like you do! I am ordained, and for sure this all is mockery toward me. I have things to do…
    Just avoid me…how about that?
    Or go and see Pastor Jonathan @ Loveland, Colorado Church “Resurrection Fellowship”… he is the only individual (stand-alone/protestant) pastor that I know to be valid in the region, but he is under prophetic anointing and is Charismatic. He is relatively immature, but is sufficient in his appointed area of discerning/work. He may help you, and also your family line 😦

    • oldguyincolorado October 15, 2013 at 10:19 am #

      Kata, I find your comments “interesting”. Obviously you are zealous in your views. This often leads to a mind closed to the opinions of others and of “facts” not consistant to your views. This is, in part, the origin of many human misunderstandings and of wars based on religion. This is not a philosophical view but an historical one. Simply put: if you can not bring yourself to at least try and see what the other person sees, you will not be able to understand why that person does what he does. In essence, you blind yourself. What if your views are wrong? Do you continue to live a lie? I am not saying that you do, I am saying that to close yourself off could lead you down the wrong path.

      Some of what you say is correct: many injustices have taken place through-out the history of man.

      You asked about the Swastika in a prior posting. That symbol has been around since about the time of King David. It is a Buddahist symbol representing the pure heart of Buddah. It is found in areas where Buddahists live. It is a symbol of a good thing. The Nazi Hakenkruetz (sp?) reverses the arms and sits at an angle whereas the Buddahist symbol sits flat. The Hakenkreutz represents the “pure Aryian Race”. It is a symbol of evil – the exact opposit of the symbol for Buddah, and unfortunitaly , most fitting for the Nazi.

      Unlike you, I am open to the views of others; I do try and listen to what they have to say; I do point out where they may have their “facts” skewed; I do try and admit when I am wrong; I also read the books that seem to guide them. You should try it sometime.

      If you want to avoid me, that is O.K. I hope it brings you peace.

      • Kata Fisher October 15, 2013 at 11:24 am #

        I hold no grudges.
        My view is based on things of what Paul would say, and I know: In part we know, and in part we prophesy (Spiritual and Spiritual revelation): That which we know (is established)/facts—or that to be examined, if these things may so—are they applicable, and how?

        I do not mix Natural Revelation with Spiritual…

        For Example: In Church Catholic we stand by Special Revelation and Law of the Spirit; however, over the years things of natural revelation have slipped in…good to natural way of worship/revelation; however, extreme evil toward those who are in Special Revelation/Church. In Church itself it is condemnation and hindrance (past—or present)…outside the Church is to do whatever.

        But the Church itself is in Spirit-or not (meaning, in the Law of the Spirit—a grafted in Church!). Then, under the Law, and waiting that Faith takes place is also applicable. When we have witchcraft in Church it is hindrance to those who are under the Law; it is difficult, but not impossible to graft them in).

        In the blessings of bread and wine, under the Law of the Spirit- we do no mixing in of other spirits. Now, we have priesthood that is immature—or not valid, and they do whatever (as Church invalid—or immature had always done). When they are immature and under the Spirit they are fine; otherwise they are not fine.

        We see spirits in spiritual and natural (in natural appearance/manifest, and spiritual consequence/evil).

        Under the Law of Spirit, I would not accept anything that is applicable to natural revelation (as some form of good—in spirit of faith). We do not stand by any form of witchcraft in a way.

        Natural religion and ways of meditation can be a very demonic; in a way…regardless how good it may appear due to lacks of balance which is applicable to all types of witchcraft. Now when it slips into the Church—that is warfare spiritual against the Church-and a hindrance.

        That was the case with presence of symbols and false worships of ancient Jews that fell under judgment of God, and lost the Land…

        Now, those who are under Natural revelation, and fulfill the Law—that which their conscience witness against the law of sin—they stand by excuse, and under no condemnation.

        Since you are in Colorado, perhaps visit Jonathan’s congregation…when they ask people if they want to be saved—they usually referee to Baptism in God’s Spirit (just in the case that you may feel you are grafted out from Faith).


      • oldguyincolorado October 16, 2013 at 4:38 pm #

        Kata, I think your views of your religion serve you well and give you peace, and I am happy for you in that regard. You have probably spent years studying it. Your views of other religions seem not to be based on any real study of them, that is why I suggested that you read the Qu’oran. Once you can assure me that you have and can honestly say you understand it, perhaps I will re-engage with you. Until then, I will not respond to any of your comments, unless you seek knowledge on a particular point, such as your question about the Swastika, which by the way has also been depicted on the TeePees of native Americans long before the rise of the Nazis. I will help if I can – presuming that I ever visit this web again, which is highly doubtful.

        As to my seeking any “guidence” of a religious nature as you have recommended, I must discuss this with my rabbi. You see, I am at least as comfortable in my faith as you are in yours. I am at peace within it – this does not mean that I haven’t studied other religions, your’s included. Perhaps you might wish to study mine, as well. A study of all three will surely give you a broader view than a study of just one. This is similar to my issues with Prof. Falk: if all you choose to see or consider is just one view, you can ‘t really be very objective in any of your conclusions; you can be easily fooled as he was when he seems to have believed the old Jordanian Palestinians when they told him that they have lived at peace with the Jews for 2,000 years and don’t know why they should not return to that state now. Has he not read Josepheus? Has he forgotten the slaughter of two Jewish tribes in Medina by Mohammed? The past 2000 years has not been peaceful. Does he not understand the concept of “peace” with Christians and Jews according to the Qu’oran (see Repentance Ch. 9 .29 for an example).

        I again say that I wish you peace, but not the kind of peace the Qu’oran has in store for you. I don’t believe that most modern Muslims want that for you either, but their fundamentalist brethern appear to.

      • Gene Schulman October 17, 2013 at 12:32 am #

        @ oldguyincolorado

        There are so many faults and misunderstandings in your sermon to Kata that it would take too much time to point them all out. Your adherence to Judaism seems no less avid than Kata’s to her spiritualism.

        Why do you suggest reading the Koran? It is no more nor less relevant than the Old or New Testaments. Have you, yourself, read Josephus? What does he have to do with the Arabs? He was an officer in the Jewish wars against the Romans, then went to Rome to write his histories. You might profit from a recent biography: “A Jew Among Romans: The Life and Legacy of Flavius Josephus”, by Frederic Raphael. You might also profit from reading Prof. Falk more carefully.

      • Kata Fisher October 16, 2013 at 9:15 pm #


        I was not sure of your background that is religious in nature. As Jewish, you would be fine only to go by Law and Faith. Anything that is of natural religion would place you under hindrance and strong-hold. If you are at study of Christianity, I would be careful about that, since Christian theology (that is not under Canon of the New Testament) can be very, very heretical, and it can bewitch one. Unless, you are under prophetic anointing, traditionally, then you will be all right.

        I do not believe moving people from one congregation to another. However, I do believe in equipping all who are called and chosen to the service. With that, what I was telling you can be individual and corporate decision, under valid Spiritual authority.

        Priesthood from Rome by Rome/Vatican can always be appointed do that type of ministry for a corporate settings – they can and will appoint and send Charismatic and celibate priesthood with Spiritual gifts that are applicable to the ministry like that.

        Jonathan does not have Theology degree, but he teaches all by Spirit (he does not need theology under Spirit and accurate knowledge of the Scripture). He is very, very anointed, but he also suffered a lot as a child—the favor of God is with him, without question. Free fall of the Spirit happens—or not. Since you are not any Christian denomination, you definitely should be under valid Jewish Spiritual authority if you were to visit Pastor Jonathan over the time.

        Moving people from one congregation (Faith branch) to another can be illegitimate, according to the Law of the Church.

        I do not understand Islamic Hermeneutic and how Quran is read and Interpreted by Muslims.

        Woman has no Spiritual authority over the sacred text. She can prophesy, and all that is subject for discerning—as she is not responsible for doing that. But I understand this: Quran would have to be studied by Christians and Jews together with Muslims in exactly same Spirit and anointing in order understand it.

        Meaning, it has to be a study under Islamic spiritual authority. This would be a valid order by which the Scripture is approached.
        That verse that you are pointing to be very revealing and it is about the End Times. (I looked at the verse by Faith that we have Spiritual authority of Quran in our midst). For me the Quran is very overwhelming, and I usually have a very strong restriction by Spirit. I also have strong restriction by Spirit to go about New and Old Testament at times (in particular prophesy). For me, when I read the book, I get bombarded by insight—then I get quite ill afterwards, and then it comes to me back, and I understand. But I do no theology (not unless I really have to).

        I was able to read and understand the verse with a limited understanding: (it speaks of fighting against unbelief, now the word “fighting” would have to be interpreted in a valid way in order to have a valid understanding if this is speaking of spiritual or natural judgment/argument). According to the Old and New Testament both would be applicable (but I am not sure according to Quran what is here, in fact).

        My understanding of that verse is limited, and not complete. I see nothing wrong with the verse by Spirit of God. (Now, I am limited in my approach, other gifts-Spiritual have to be applied in order to have a complete understanding of the verse, and the whole context itself in which was written.

        Meaning, this is very; very demanding (I am not qualified to read and interpret Quran, and have a full understanding of the writing of that verse. But according to the instruction of Paul, I do know that Quran would be a prophesy.

        The Scripture itself cannot be read and interpreted without prophetic anointing; it can by rebellious/unyielding to the Spirit, and then they will have heresies/witchcraft (interpretation by natural man/doctrine of men, and influence of demonic spirits).

        According to the Scriptural Standard that was passed down in Word and Tradition—each prophesy has to be discerned (this is for Christianity). It is the Church Order.

        According to Paul Apostle and the Church Order, Quran would be a prophesy, and it would have to be discerned by Church Corporate—all gifts Spiritual that are applicable.

        During the Church age, the prophesy (Quarn) has to be accepted (as entire/whole); yet, it cannot be accepted as Church doctrine, without first to be discerned; it has to be accepted as prophesy; however, and then it has to be studied according to the Order of the Church —this is so due to nature of the Church age itself (Jews and Gentiles are grafted in). Not only that—we have charismatic issues that are counterfeit—a church in satanic practices that demonize men/women/children (spiritual abuse of members and non-members by church disorder). When you look at historical Christianity—they wrote all kind of doctrine, and accepted (and are still accepting wildest doctrine, ever…they accept it as doctrine, and then they go crazy discerning it). That is a wrong Church Order, in application.

        There is so, so much—so many detail that one has to think about (by Spirit).

        Paul was teaching and warning about that, and he gave the Church orders all over his writings about that. This is my best understanding of the Church Order when comes to the prophesy within age of the Church. (According to Paul, I would not read Quran individually—I would have to have all corporate gifts applicable). Usually when one approaches the Sacred text individually they are either qualified and will be under spiritual attack—or are disqualified and will be bewitched. In corporate, they are strong to throw off spiritual attacks.

        All Secret text has to be read and interpreted corporately in exactly Same Spirit that was written, and by exact same Spiritual gifts it has to be interpreted. This is the way to go about the Scripture and stronghold confusion and division.

        The doctrine of the Church is received by prophetic anointing, and in that anointing was discerned and validated, and also interpreted (by a corporate Church that was gift-Spiritual illuminated). Now, only disciples did that (made judgments on Secret texts/Gospel). Lay people could not do that.

        It has to be validated by those who are under prophetic anointing, in order for anything to be accepted (as the doctrine of the Church). Because the Quran is a prophesy, then, there is something that must be in there that is needed, but what and where? (One cannot just look at something if they do not have Spiritual authority over that). This means Corporate Church has to do it, in exactly same Spirit and Gifts of the Spirit—they have to look at that.

        Now that is my best understanding of those issues.

        I have heard about the presence of the symbol of Nazi with Native tribes. I also have heard that there was ice path passage to the North America, and that was the origin of the tribes. I am not sure of symbols (date existence).
        In general, here in US, the Church never goes about blessings/exorcism of grounds that they have spiritual strongholds (I never heard—or have seen that they were doing that).

        Westerns did a whole lot of false Gospel spreading—they went into different areas without Spiritual authority of the Church, and they stepped over the principalities in those geographically positioned areas. They are not breaking that off, in any way.


      • Kata Fisher October 17, 2013 at 2:59 pm #

        @Gene, as much as I would love to argue with you…I can’t (you are right!).

        In my hot state of mind, I think that cleaning of Rome takes place from a distance…
        My spiritualism is lazy and not willing; it is almost as spiritual hogging—without purpose 😦
        There is nothing to do…most of the Christianity is spiritualy excommunicated—one can only kick back and relax. There is no purpose…

        The Law of the Spirit/Grace (is not for them?). They fell of from Faith..


  7. moneetha November 16, 2013 at 1:04 pm #

    usually justice delayed is justice denied but Palestinian were refused justice on the very first hand , in India justice is also in an alarming condition not an international cause yet but your conclusive view on Palestinian farmers defines the political shortcoming


  1. Israel’s politics of fragmentation - NewsWorld365 - October 12, 2013

    […] Richard Falk  […]

  2. | Palestinians’ Right to Resist – “a legally protected right!” | | truthaholics - October 13, 2013

    […] Israel’s Politics of Fragmentation ( […]

  3. TRANSCEND MEDIA SERVICE » Israel’s Politics of Fragmentation - October 14, 2013

    […] In Palestine the key move was the Balfour Declaration, which was a colonialist gesture of formal approval given to the Zionist Project in 1917 tendered at the end of Ottoman rule over Palestine. This was surely gross interference with the dynamics of Palestinian self-determination (at the time the estimated Arab population of Palestine was 747,685, 92.1% of the total, while the Jewish population was an estimate 58,728, which amounted to 7.9%) and a decisive stimulus for the Zionist undertaking to achieve supremacy over the land embraced by the British mandate to administer Palestine in accordance with a framework agreement with the League of Nation. The agreement repeated the language of the Balfour Declaration in its preamble: “Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country.”(emphasis added) To describe this encouragement of Zionism as merely ‘interference’ is a terribly misleading understatement of the British role in creating a situation of enduring tension in Palestine, which was supposedly being administered on the basis of the wellbeing of the existing indigenous population, what was called “a sacred trust of civilization” in Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, established for the “well-being and development” of peoples ”not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world.”  The relevance of the politics of fragmentation refers to a bundle of practices and overall approach that assumed the form of inter-ethnic and inter-religious strife during the almost three decades that the mandate arrangements were in effect.* […]

  4. | What Comes Next: A secular democratic state in historic Palestine – a promising land! | | truthaholics - October 23, 2013

    […] Israel’s Politics of Fragmentation ( […]

  5. Israel’s politics of fragmentation | Kashmir Walla - March 10, 2015

    […] Richard Falk Blog […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: