[Prefatory Note: this text is based on my presentation at the conference listed below, which brought together a wide array of scholars, media people, and persons concerned with the future of Palestine]
Second Annual Conference of Research Centers in the Arab World, Doha, Qatar, 7-9 December 2013, THE PALESTINIAN CAUSE AND THE FUTURE OF THE PALESTINIAN NATIONAL MOVEMENT
A PRELIMINARY REMARK
It is a welcome development that the theme of such a major conference as this one should have as its theme ‘the future of the Palestinian movement,’ so well articulated in the opening address by Azmi Bishara.
It is often overlooked that as early as 1988, and possibly earlier, the unified Palestinian leadership has decisively opted for what I would call a ‘sacrificial’ peace. By sacrificial I mean an acceptance of peace and normalization with Israel that is premised upon the relinquishment of significant Palestinian rights under international law. The contours of this image of a resolved conflict consist of two principal elements: a Palestinian sovereign state within the 1967 ‘green line’ borders and a just resolution of the refugee problem. This conception of a durable peace is essentially an application of Security Council Resolution 242, 338, and is the foundation of the initiative formally endorsed by the Palestine National Council is 1988.
It is sacrificial in both dimensions of what was declared in advance to be acceptable: a territorial delimitation that was less than half of what the UN partition plan had offered in 1947 by way of GA Resolution 181, which was reasonably rejected by the Palestinian leadership at the time as well as by the neighboring Arab governments on the grounds that it was imposed in defiance of the will of the Palestinian people and offered the Jewish residents of Palestine 55% of the territory even though its land ownership was only 6% of the total (and its population share estimated to be 31-33% of the total). In effect, the Palestinian acceptance of the 1967 borders overlooked the unlawful acquisition by Israel of territory by forcible means in the 1948 War. It also seemed to signal a readiness to negotiate a solution for the dispossessed Palestinians that fell short of the right of return affirmed by the General Assembly in Resolution 194. From an international law or global justice perspective it can be argued that the rights of the Palestinian people were severely violated in 1917 by the Balfour Declaration promising a Jewish homeland in Palestine to the Zionist Movement without the slightest effort to consult the people then living in Palestine and by the British policies throughout the mandatory period. It would seem that the full implementation of the Palestinian right of self-determination would involve a questioning of this colonialist origin of the state of Israel. For political and prudential reasons, and in view of the acceptance of Israel as a member of the United Nations, these legal and moral arguments have not been officially insisted upon in Palestinian diplomacy. Also ignored, are the rights of the Palestinian minority of 20%, now numbering about 1.7 million, living within pre-1967 Israel, that have not received equal treatment, nor had their human dignity respected, especially to the extent that Israel not only grants Jews throughout the world an unlimited right of return but also insists on being ‘a Jewish state,’ what the Jewish leader, Henry Seigman, has labeled ‘an ethnocracy,’ and no longer entitled to claim to be ‘a democratic state.’
The Arab Peace Initiative of 2002 reaffirms this regional acceptance of such a solution, and the Palestinian Authority in recent years has exhibited a willingness to compromise still further in relation to the Israeli settlement blocs and even the prospect of having the capital of Palestine in East Jerusalem. Israel on its side has never clearly signaled a similar readiness to establish peace on a sustainable basis that included an acknowledgement of Palestinian rights despite the strong indications that such a solution would produce security for the state of Israel, which was always invoked as the primary demand by the governing authorities in Tel Aviv. In effect, over the years, by a series of inter-linked policies, especially the settlement movement,
the separation wall, the annexation and enlargement of the city of Jerusalem, Israel has been unwilling to reach peace on the basis of the 1988 Palestinian offer, and enlarged the concept of security to include its various strategic and national goals. These extravagant security demands that have continuously escalated, and are reinforced by occupation policies in violation of the 4th Geneva Convention that sets forth minimal international humanitarian law, which imposes apartheid structures of administration, illegal interferences with mobility via checkpoints and closures, ethnic cleansing in East Jerusalem, house demolitions, and various devices to subvert Palestinian residence rights.
It is notable and revealing that neither Israel, nor the United States, have never even acknowledged this unilateral expression of willingness on the part of Palestine to accept peace on terms that fall far short of the legal and moral entitlements embedded in international law. What is more, there has no direct or indirect Israeli moves that could qualify as reciprocal gestures. Instead, Israel has persisted with its relentless establishment of ‘facts on the ground’ in violation of international humanitarian law, and has even persuaded the United States, most formally in the 2004 exchange of letters between Ariel Sharon and George W. Bush to accept the core of these facts as establishing a new baseline for devising a formula to fulfill the promise of ‘land for peace.’
Overall, it is best to view this background as constituted by Israel’s continuous inflation of security expectations to be realized by the steady diminution of Palestinian rights. In effect, the nakba associated with the dispossession and dispersal of Palestinians in 1948 should be regarded as a process and not just a catastrophic event. Such a national trauma as has been inflicted on the Palestinian people over such a long interval is unprecedented during this historical era of decolonization and the privileging of the right of self-determination.
THREE PALESTINIAN DISILLUSIONMENTS
For the more than 65 years that Palestinian hopes have languished, there have many efforts to constitute, sustain, and build a national movement with the capacity to achieve liberation and realize fundamental Palestinian rights. The present period is one in which there is a clear effort to find a viable post-Oslo strategy and vision that will help restore Palestinian collective identity, which has been shattered ever since the Oslo framework was adopted in 1993, as reinscribed as the Roadmap of the Quartet in 200? The consensus among Palestinians that the Oslo approach is dead is rejected by governmental actors, above all the United States, which pushed successfully for the resumption of direct negotiations between the Government of Israel and the Palestinian Authority. In contrast, undertaking a reformulation of the Palestinian national movement proceeds from the experience of three disillusionments:
(1) International Law and the Authority of the United Nations
Especially in the early years after the end of the 1948 War, Palestinians put hopes in the authority of international law, and the support that their struggle seemed to gain at the United Nations, especially in the General Assembly. This support is remains important in identifying the contours of a just and sustainable outcome, which needs to reflect a balancing of rights rather than a bargaining mechanism as promoted by Oslo and the Quartet that depends on a balancing of power, including ‘facts on the ground.’ The disillusionment arises because having international law on the side of Palestinian grievances relating to the occupation, borders, Jerusalem, refugees, water, settlements has yielded no results on the level of practice. On the contrary, despite the backing of international law and the organized international society, the position of Palestine in relation to overcoming their grievance has continuously deteriorated, especially with respect to the underlying goal of exercising the inalienable right of self-determination.
(2) Armed Struggle
The Palestinian National Movement, despite its current fragmentation, has for the past seven years or so become generally disillusioned with reliance upon armed struggle as the basis for attaining primary goals of an emancipatory character. Such an abandonment has not involved a principled shift to a politics of nonviolence, and continues to claim the prerogative of relying on force for defensive purposes, as when Israel launches an attack on Gaza or settlers violently attack Palestinians in the West Bank. As Nelson Mandela made so clear in the South African struggle against apartheid, the commitment to nonviolent forms of resistance to an oppressive order allows the oppressed to use whatever instruments they find useful, including violence, although limited by an ethos of respect for civilian innocence. Most of the anti-colonial struggles, legitimated as ‘wars of national liberation,’ relied on violence, but achieved their victories by the effective reliance on soft power means of social mobilization and the unconditional commitment to sustained opposition by popular forces. In effect, this disillusionment is related with an appreciation that recent historical transformations of an emancipatory kind have happened as a result of ‘people power’ rather than through superiority in ‘hard power.’ This historical interpretation of recent trends in relation to conflict has profound tactical and strategic implications for the Palestinian struggle.
(3) Traditional Diplomacy
The learning experience for those supporters of the Palestinian struggle of the last 20 years is that inter-governmental diplomacy is not a pathway to a just peace, but rather a sinkhole for Palestinian rights. The Oslo/Quartet process has facilitated Israeli expansionist designs, confiscating land, building and expanding settlements, changing the demographics of the occupation, especially in East Jerusalem. Periodic breakdowns of this diplomatic charade helps the Israelis realize their goals at the expense of Palestinian prospects. Time is not neutral under these circumstances, and the long period of gridlock has lowered Palestinian expectations as articulated by its formal representatives in Ramallah. From the outset the process was one-sided and flawed, fragmenting the Palestinian remnant of historic Palestine into areas A, B, and C, relying on the United States as the intermediary despite its undisguised alignment behind Israel, and deeply responsive to inflated Israel security claims while ignoring Palestinian grievances and claims based on international law, not even mentioning the right of self-determination.
Those who insist on special ‘security’ arrangements usually fear losing what is possessed, while those who call for ‘rights’ are normally seeking what is their
entitlement from a position of deprivation and dispossession. From a Palestinian perspective, the framework and process has been biased in Israel’s favor, the substantive promises have been unfulfilled, and despite such disappointments, it is the Palestinians who are given the lion’s share of the blame when the diplomatic negotiations break down periodically.
This disillusionment means that the Palestinian outlook should be by now clearly post-Oslo, that is, what to do given the failure of direct negotiations to produce positive results. This contrasts with the inter-governmental consensus of the United States, Israel, and the Palestinian Authority that insists that such diplomacy is the only road to peace despite its record of failure. This spirit of ‘Oslo is dead, long live Oslo’ is clearly defeatist, and manifests the deficiencies of Palestinian representation via Ramallah.
Israel’s Strategic Posture and Regional Developments
In part, Palestinian disillusionment has been prompted by Israel’s hard power dominance recently reinforced by regional developments. To the extent that such disillusionment is interpreted in a defeatist spirit it ignores Palestinian opportunities to pursue a soft power approach to realize self-determination and other rights so long denied. In effect, interpreting the conflict from a hard power perspective is to indulge in false political consciousness, given recent historical trends, and leads to an unwarranted pessimism about Palestinian prospects. Of course, this is a time to take stock, and reformulate a vision and strategy to guide the Palestinian struggle. As the future is unknowable, such a call for strategic reset is not an occasion for optimism, it is rather a time for the renewal of struggle and for a deepening of solidarity on the part of those of us who seek justice for the Palestinian people. Yet this taking of stock must be as realistic as possible about the elements in the national, regional, and global context that pose challenges to the Palestine National Movement.
Several adverse developments need to be noted. First and foremost, Israel has successfully maintained, perhaps extended, its hard power dominance, including the acquisition of the latest weapons systems (e.g. Iron Dome), and become an arms supplier for many countries around the world ensuring a measure of political spillover. Secondly, Palestinian fragmentation and vulnerability have been accentuated by a series of policies: the split between Fatah and Hamas; the Oslo bisecting of the West Bank; the various divisions between refugees and persons living under occupation; between West Bank and Gaza, between East Jerusalem and West Bank; between those dispossessed in 1948, 1967, and subsequently; between the Palestinian minority within 1967 ‘green line’ and those living either under occupation or in exile. Thirdly, the perpetuation of unconditional support by the U.S. Government, especially Congress, which gives Israel little reason to feel bound by international law, UN authority, and international morality, and has resulted in impunity in relation to Israeli refusals to abide by international criminal law.
In effect, Israel has been able to rely on its capacity to contain Palestinian resistance by employing a mix of hard power capabilities backed up by a range of soft power instruments of control. Such an Israeli approach has included reliance on state terror to crush Palestinian resistance and a sophisticated hasbara campaign of disinformation and propaganda to obscure the structures of violence and oppression that have been constructed to weaken, and if possible destroy, the Palestinian National Movement.
This Israeli approach has been also extended to its relations with the Middle East in general, especially with respect to neighboring countries. Israel has used its hard power dominance and diplomatic skills to encourage fragmentation and to impart a disabling sense of utter vulnerability to any
Leadership in the region that dares challenge or threaten Israel. Iran has been the principal target of this Israeli projection of a tendency to punish disproportionately and violently those that stand in the way or exhibit hostility to the Israeli National Project. Syria is illustrative of the sort of fragmentation that weakens a neighboring country that has been hostile or in a conflictual relationship with Israel. A welcoming of the Egyptian coup that displaced the democratically elected government with an oppressive military leadership is a further disclosure of Israel’s conception of its security interests.
Taking these various elements into account, as understand from a realist perspective that deems hard power as the main agent of history, Israel has achieved a strong sense of security, with little incentive to make concessions relating to Palestinian goals, grievances, and rights. It is the inadequacy of such realism to comprehend the failures of hard power superiority to sustain national security that is the foundation of a hopeful future for the Palestinian people. Hope rests on the commitment to struggle for what is right, not the assurance of victory, which is to embrace an unwarranted optimism about the future.
The Palestinian Shift to Legitimacy War: Acknowledgement and Affirmation
I believe a crucial shift in Palestinian understanding about how to progress toward their goals has been taking place during the last several years, and is being implemented in a variety of venues around the world. Indeed, I view the tenor of contributions at this conference to reflect this shift in the direction of what I call a ‘Legitimacy War’ being waged by the Palestinian people so as to secure their fundamental rights. The essence of this war, waged on a global battlefield, is to gain control over the discourse relating to international law, international morality, and human rights as it relates to the Israel/Palestine conflict. The discourse is embedded also in a revised tactical agenda that relies on two main elements: reliance on nonviolent initiatives of a militant character and the social mobilization of a global solidarity movement committed to achieving self-determination for the Palestinian people. Such tactics range widely from hunger strikes in Israeli prisons to efforts to break the blockade on Gaza to pressures brought to bear from various constituencies on corporations and banks to break commercial connections with unlawful Israeli settlements.
In effect, the Legitimacy War being waged is seeking to rely on soft power instrument to exert mounting pressure on the Israeli government, creating incentives to reassess Israeli interests and policy alternatives. Such a reassessment would include an acknowledgement that past over-reliance on hard power superiority has brought about new threats to Israel wellbeing, and even to security as understood in a wider sense as encompassing the ingredients of a peaceful and productive life.
Legitimacy Wars shift the emphasis from governments and governing elites to people and civil society as the principal agents of historical change, and at the same time, in this instance, subordinate hard power forms of resistance to soft power tactics. There is no inherent commitment to nonviolence, but rather a matter of seeking an effective strategy in a particular context. This follows the guidance of Nelson Mandela and others that liberation movements should select their tactics on the basis of their perceived effectiveness. Of course, even if it would seem that violence has a part to play, as was certainly the case for the Israeli movement against the British mandate, there is still the legal/ethical questions associated with the selection of appropriate targets and the avoidance of operations directed at civilians, especially women and children. What appears to be the case in relation to Palestine is a definite move toward the adoption of a Legitimacy War conception of how to interpret the Palestinian National Movement at the present time.
It seems important to understand, especially for non-Palestinians, that it is the Palestinians who should retain control over the discourse on their struggle and projection of vision and strategy. It is up to the rest of use, those who side with the Palestinians in the struggle to uphold their rights, that we not encroach on this political space, and appreciate that our role is secondary, to aid and abet, to accept a responsibility to act in solidarity. It is this kind of activist solidarity that will move a victorious trend in the Legitimacy War into the behavioral domain wherein change takes place. This important distinction between resistance and solidarity is a key to a successful embodiment of this shift by the National Palestinian Movement.
In this regard it should be remembered that ever since this encounter originated the Palestinian people have been victimized by outsiders deciding what was in their best interest. If we go back to the Balfour Declaration, the British Mandate, the UN commission that devised the Partition Plan, and the various American formulations of how to resolve the conflict, the Palestinians are the objects not the subjects of the peace process. Beyond this, such parternalism, whether well meaning or not, has contributed to, rather than overcome, or even mitigated, the Palestinian tragedy.
Inter-governmental solidarity is also important for turning success in Legitimacy Wars into appropriate political outcomes. In this regard, it is regrettable that so few governments in the Middle East have exhibited solidarity in concrete and relevant forms in relation to this latest phase of the Palestinian National Movement. It is not in the Palestinian interest to act as
if the Oslo Framework or the Roadmap are any longer credible paths to a sustainable and just peace. The Palestinian people are entitled at this stage to more relevant forms of support in their struggle, and especially the people of Gaza should not be left to languish in an unfolding humanitarian catastrophe while diplomats dither in luxurious venues.
Finally, it is worth noting the historical trends since the end of World War II.
By and large, the militarily superior side has not prevailed. This is true of the major anti-colonial wars. It is also true in the state/society struggles in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, and most of all in South Africa where a Legitimacy War strategy was largely responsible for the remarkable outcome that defied all expectations. America military dominance in Vietnam over the course of a decade did not produce victory, but a humiliating political defeat. True in the First Gulf War of 1991, military superiority of coalition forces overwhelmed Saddam Hussein, and produced a political surrender, but that was a conflict in which the defensive response was wrongly rooted in contesting these vastly superior Western and regional forces on a desert battlefield where popular forms of resistance were irrelevant. It is when the people become centrally engaged in a struggle that the political potency of soft power instruments is exhibited. Even when this involvement is centrally present is does guarantee victory in the political struggle as such cases as Tibet, Chechnya, Kashmir, among many others, illustrate. What the turn toward Legitimacy Wars does achieve is a significant neutralization of hard power advantages in a political struggle involving such fundamental rights as that of self-determination. In this sense, it is most relevant to a reinterpretation of the vision and strategy of the Palestinian National Movement.
This relevance is increasingly acknowledged by Israel itself, which has shifted its concerns from Palestinian armed resistance to what it calls ‘the Delegitimation Project’ or ‘lawfare,’ terms that are given a negative spin as efforts to destroy Israel by relying on law and such challenges to Israeli legitimacy as mounted by the BDS Campaign. In effect, Israel contends that it is being victimized by an illegitimate Legitimacy War, an argument American political leaders have seemed to accept.
There are likely to be many developments in coming years as to the viability and effectiveness of the Palestinian engagement in a Legitimacy War against Israel. As of the end of 2013, it appears to be the one vision capable of restoring collective unity to the Palestinian National Movement, and by doing, bring hope for a brighter Palestinian future.
Conclusion
A line taken from Mahmoud Darwish’s poem, ‘Mahmoud Darwish Bids Edward Said Farewell,’ (translated by Mona Anis) expresses my central intention:
“There is no tomorrow in yesterday,
so let us advance”
Global Justice in the 21st Century 
Thanks, Richard, for this excellent assessment of the Palestinian struggle for existence. In the face of Israeli and US intransigence, it is hard to see a fair outcome. Your work as Special Rapporteur will be greatly missed when your mandate comes to end in March. Thank you for all you have done to keep hope alive.
Dear, dear Richard: I think you are a wonderful humanitarian and I love the last words and your every effort.
Conclusion A line taken from Mahmoud Darwish’s poem, ‘Mahmoud Darwish Bids Edward Said Farewell,’ (translated by Mona Anis) expresses my central intention: “There is no tomorrow in yesterday, so let us advance”
I hope you will come soon to visit me. With my love, Georgianne
________________________________
Thank you res Sir. Thanks and Regards,
Founder President of The Global Trust,
Deepak Vyas,
+919825076107
http://www.globalharmony.info
Seeing this video is so discouraging, leaving the impression there will never, ever be a genuine Peace between Jews and Arabs, but Armageddon.
This current generation of Jews in Israel see themselves as faultless, blameless and more righteousness that their Jewish forefathers of ancient history.
Israeli Settlers in Hebron (Al Khalil)
A discussion in The Jerusalem Post this week
murkyskies > Ray Joseph Cormier
Hebron is a Jewish city for over 4,000 years until every single last Jew was killed or ethnically cleansed from Hebron in 1929 by bloodthirsty Arabs. The Arabs have squatted in Hebron long enough and it is time the second holiest city of Judaism be returned to the Jews. It would be as if Israel decided to kick out every last Muslim out of Medina. Oh wait, Medina used to be a Jewish city too and Mohammed decided he din’t like Jews and he exterminated them there as well.
Ray Joseph Cormier > murkyskies
Get your facts straight instead of perverting the Truth with your ideological bias.
This Week in History: The 1929 Hebron Massacre
Spurred by rumors of an impending takeover of Al-Aksa Mosque, a mob slaughtered 63 Jews WHILE OVER 400 WERE SAVED BY LOCAL ARAB FAMILIES
—————————————————————————————–
This Week in History: The second Hebron massacre
On February 25, 1994, Baruch Goldstein walked into the Ibrahim Mosque at the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron in his IDF reserve uniform with his army issued Galil assault rifle slung over his shoulder, carrying at least three full magazines of ammunition. The mosque was packed for early-morning Ramadan prayers. As he entered, Goldstein opened fire at the kneeling worshipers, killing 29 and wounding at least 125 unarmed Palestinians.
Arabs have no monopoly on hatred as comments here and elsewhers in this JP prove.
murkyskies > Ray Joseph Cormier
You are a pitiful old geezer whose obsession with Jews says it all. I hope you take your bitterness and putrid existence with you to grave soon. You waste valuable oxygen.
Ray Joseph Cormier > murkyskies
Can’t respond with any Intelligence to Facts and Truth?
More discussion in The Jerusalem Post
av1922 > Ray Joseph Cormier
when your ancestors deified my brother was it out of stupidity or did they recognize the superiority of our culture.
Ray Joseph Cormier > av1922
You must be talking about your brother, the great Jewish Prophet Isaiah? Was he a Jew hating antisemite too?
He was sent by God to let the Jewish ancestors know they are not as superior as they think they are.
And this was some 600 years before Christ!
Now will I sing to my wellbeloved a song of my beloved touching his vineyard.
My wellbeloved has a vineyard in a very fruitful hill:
And he fenced it, and gathered out the stones thereof, and planted it with the choicest vine, and built a tower in the midst of it, and also made a winepress therein: and he looked that it should bring forth grapes, and it brought forth wild grapes.
And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem, and men of Judah, judge, I pray you, betwixt me and my vineyard.
What could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it? wherefore, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought it forth wild grapes?
And now go to; I will tell you what I will do to my vineyard: I will take away the hedge thereof, and it shall be eaten up; and break down the wall thereof, and it shall be trodden down:
And I will lay it waste: it shall not be pruned, nor digged; but there shall come up briers and thorns: I will also command the clouds that they rain no rain upon it.
For the vineyard of the LORD of hosts is the house of Israel, and the men of Judah his pleasant plant: and he looked for Judgment, but behold oppression; for righteousness, but behold a cry.
Woe unto them that join house to house, that lay field to field, till there be no place, that they may be placed alone in the midst of the earth!
ray032, why do you bother paying attention to the Jewish Post? They are so brainwashed, they will never listen to any reasonable argument you may give. It took me a while to learn that when I used to debate with David Harris. A waste of breath.
It’s a tough job, but somebody has to do it.
What the Israeli Jews hate more than Christian scripture being quoted is their own Jewish scriptures being used to moderate the one line they do believe from their Book, that God gave the land to them exclusively 3000 years ago and the realities of Today are irelevant in going back to the Past.
I have a reflection about this:
It was written that Job was exceedingly righteous before God.
The Faith of Job—that Faith in God was visibly greater/more mature then the Faith that Abraham had in God. God chose Abraham, over Job, He chose him—Job who was living about same times that was Abraham. Abraham, the Father of our Faith, and His God who can raise children to Abraham out of the Stones (as John the Baptist pointed to some stones laying around in ancient Holy Land, and in the fullness of times).
It is written, “Before Abraham, I was.” In past God spoke to us trough the prophets, but today he speaks trough His Son.”
Also, Paul Apostle, Father to our Faith by the Gospel wrote that there is no difference between Jew and non-Jew. In Roman’s he clearly indicated to Church in Rome that Natural Revelation is sufficient to excuse one – even the humanity natural, which may not be under the Law, that is not in the Law of the Spirit, is also excused, and receives no harsh punishment – just excused of all. Not as those who are entrusted with the Scripture. Now, if someone is to take the Scripture/entrust them self’s with the Scripture—they better be in will of God! Natural man, in fact, can fulfill righteousness of the Law (NOT by their self-righteousness/their works that satisfies their ‘ego’); yet, by a healthy conscience (that excuses him/her on standing of their heart with God). In fact, when natural man demonstrates the Law that is written in their human heart (moral/ and/or the Law of the Spirit). Paul also wrote about the ‘law of sin’ that keeps ‘ego’ kicking of self-righteous, in a way.
Jew and Christians have no excuse when they violate the Law and the Law of Spirit/Gospel. (They have no excuse for what they are doing to the Holy Land and people in the Land). Not only in the Land of Canaan ancient/Holy Land, – but also the entire WORLD, all nations. The Faithfull can and shall claim authority over the entire world, as it is given—we take it back—take back that which is stolen by vile of devils.
We know that to “rob, to kill, and to destroy” is in nature of devil, and children of Satan. Commandments of God never change; in fact, they are the anchor of the Law of the Gospel and the Church – by Spirit to fulfill that Law that is Spiritual and it is good. By the Grace of God/God’s Spirit (the Spirit of Christ/sufficiently of Christ/Grace of God) that Church is under, and has to fulfill the Law by; otherwise they are false Christians, and in spirit of Satan.
The Law was always good and it was Spiritual, the Law cannot be annulled in nothing—not even single letter, or – a single jot, as it must be fulfilled, in all. That is why people under Spirit know, without doubt that there is no “Spiritual error”, meaning, no error to the work of the Word and the Spirit – no, not in the Scripture–not any error to be located there, nor can it be. Humans may have been under spiritual attack, and there are and may be “human error” at some instances, as writings were preserved, and past down. (Theologians are busting their heads over this, and I laugh with God).
All that God created is perfect, even free will given is perfect creation of God (who gave free will, and a right to do evil, and to rebel). Those who are tripped and their will is manipulated by evil are in God’s care because all His children are, and there are no lasting legal-binding to evil/lasting condemnations to that.
Noah was a prophet and a friend of God. But ecclesiastical covenant begins with Abraham, and all of his children come under ecclesiastical covenant. Sufficiency of Holy Quran is more than sufficient to excuse one, as a written down prophesy (that Church has not sufficiently discerned in the time pass, and has not accepted Quran in their Church doctrine as it is prophesy given (in nature) and not a false-Gospel in age of the Church. Why to wonder why false-Christians can’t accept that (that which is good) —they do not have to accept that to their Faith…not now, nor they really can; it would rip the Churches apart (in spiritual as it is doing in natural) – but to only accept existence and validity of other Faiths of the Book.
They are hyper to convert Jews and Muslims to False Gospels when they themselves have no valid faith, and also would never mention Baptism of God Sprit by free Fall of Spirit (the way of the valid Gospel) to anyone in the world.
False Christians debate if the Way of first generation of Christianity is for this time—for them? Yes. They apply the Gospel to them self in accordance to Paul Apostle while they misinterpret the Gospel of God, and also misinterpret Paul Apostle (who was Church Charismatic, and who also wrote to Church Charismatic). Now, not all were Gentiles (Non-Jews) and Jews that needed the Gospel of God, and Baptism in Sprit (Like Apollo who was authentic Jew, and was teaching accurately according to the Scripture). We learn this from Paul. (Apollo was under prophetic anointing, and was in valid understanding of the Scripture when Paul did see him).
It was always like this: when spiritual gifts were not sufficient, or hindered – then, this was not that any spiritual gifts were not present—or really needed, but only in full effect needed/corporately, and corporately activated. According to Paul we are to strive to receive the gift/anointing prophetic/the gift to prophesy (that which Hebrews and Jews that were/are righteous have always had, even before the Law was given, and also before the Law of Gospel was given – these gifts were present, and even now they are). It is true that most Christian denominations have not a valid Church Order and a valid teaching office, under prophetic anointing.
It is not necessary to move people from one congregation just to another—this immature and false Christians can’t stop to do. Often, God sends them destructions and judgment, and just because of that – just that. If God wants any conversions to Christianity, he wants that under God’s Spirit, meaning “Free Fall of the Spirit” in power and will of His Spirit, apart from man-kind. Or a valid teaching office and Church Order (but where is to find one). Church that is valid says, “Stick with the first generation of Christians and their Way – that we know is sufficient and is valid.”
God himself is Sufficient to convert – speak to one (even by dreams). Valid Christians will always speak by the Gospel and Sprit, and that is heard and understood, and cannot be hindered—no one hinders that (not Jew, not Muslim, not Christians…Jew or Non-Jew)—no one, neither they will, or can.
Now, what made Paul Apostle efficient to convert one (he spoke by Spirit the Gospel of God and it was heard and accepted). The sound of Spirit that moved trough Paul Apostle moved on human hearts.
Apart from Gospel of Paul that was entrusted to him, by God, and that Gospel by which all in Spirit can and always will judge human hearts— there is also the human’s conscience.
Also we can note, even in this point in time the entire human race is able to respond to their healthy human conscience, unless they do not have one. In that case, the Law of the Spirit has to take place over them, so that they may be fully restored in conscience (regardless of prior condition of their conscience).
People make truth complicated, and are unable to move from elementary things to things that are more excellent.
We say: ”Just be able to answer to your conscience: to rob, kill, and destroy? Now, this is NOT SPIRITUAL.”
What Israelites do to people in Palestine it is NOT SPIRITUAL, and it is anti-Semitic, and it is in Nazi-spirit.
They can’t except the truth, even when scientific reports tell us that most of Jews in Israel have no genetically pattern that links them to authentic Jews (both Arabs/Palestinian and Jews that are authentic, in this point in time).
It is Nazi-spirit of offspring that is destroying Israel—they hate authentic Jews (in spiritual and natural) are enemy’s to authentic Jews and Hebrews, regardless what race Jews authentic are.
People that are permanently sealed in satanic seals and are under blasphemy of God’s Sprit are humans not to be considered to be mere humans. They are just in Satan. When they are personally under blasphemy of God Spirit (in their own will-power) —they are then a complete fall of, and cannot be restored in any spiritual way. For anything else (any other sin, generational of generational binding) Baptism and the Law of Gospel is sufficient.
Sometimes, a single prayer is sufficient: “O’ God, I am a sinner,” and sometimes is, “They must be baptized in God’s Spirit for forgiveness of sins.”
These are some fundamental understandings of the Church in God’s Spirit.
Maybe, just being psychically present @Jerusalem post would be more effective (They can’t ‘hear by their mind’/spiritual ears?) Maybe not all?
I cannot think of an adjective sufficiently hyperbolic to praise this analysis. Should be required reading for every person on the planet.
Thanks for this encouragement. It is greatly appreciated!
Richard, I have finally gotten around to reading your latest book “(Re)Imagining Humane Global Government”. I take the liberty of mentioning it here because I believe your blog readers should be aware of it and not miss reading it themselves. The book is, of course, classic Falk; well written and informative. The chapters on Israel and WOMP are especially useful. I have loaned it to one of our mutual friends and he is raving about it.
I also thank you for recommending the Howard Friel book on Chomsky and Dershowitz. There is much about you in it, and I hadn’t realized that you were so active back in the Vietnam days. Enlightening!
Thanks, Gene. As always your words of appreciation are greatly appreciated! I am
not skilled at self-promotion, and so hesitate to call attention to my publications beyond what I post here.
I agree with Huda JWP’s assessment. In the face of so much bad news you have unearthered, dusted off and polished up the map of the way forward.
As those of us in the United States begin to register the illegitimacy of our own government … with its now shameless embrace of totalitarianism and the senate’s willingness to turn over the US Wehrmacht to Israel via S.1881, aka the “Wag the dog act”, this call to wage the ‘Legitimacy War’ has relevance and resonance beyond Palestine.
We need to realize that we are all in the same boat and that … as they are said to have said during the American revolution … we must all hang together, or we will certainly all hang separately.
The Israeli and the US governments are partners and together they are acting against the interests of Palestinians and Americans alike. Certainly there is no percentage in attempting hard power against these brutal titans … our only hope is to realize, worldwide, that it is the Transnational Corporations which own our governments that are in the end the dynamos behind colonialism and empire and that is their rule that must be called out as illegitimate worldwide.
Corporations have no rights, governments have no rights, on people have rights. Any call for defense of corporate and/or governmental ‘rights’ and the suppression of the real rights of the people is illegitimate.
The people, united, can never be defeated.
Thank you for this analysis that shows just what is what, and what is to be done about it.
I agree with the widening of the scope of Legitimacy Wars, and it may be that
the most basic struggle is being waged against the US project of global domination.
I hadn’t been to Lawrence Davidson’s sit in a while and found Israel: Legitimacy and Behavior – an Analysis
The article is very good … and so is the graphic …
Dear Mr. John Francis Lee and Professor Falk,
I have some reflections:
First, a note: You do not have to reply on this. This is why: 1) I write about my precepts, which may and may not be reality-perceptive, in fact, (I often brainstorm and save that for myself – that controversial/abstract/unclear tough-process. That which is irrelevant). 2) I say this because I do not want my approach to be a stumbling block for anyone; meaning, I do not want to create a conflict-situation toward you (my aim is to avoid giving an opportunity for people in another spirit to misinterpret and misapply your words.)
Church-Charismatic brain-storms a lot.
I understand/perceive this, however:
US policies/approaches are reflecting (in works) the same ideology of Hitler and Nazi-Germany (fascism) have had.
When I was growing up, I overheard elderly people saying different things that reflected similar perception; but I really never paid attention to it – I guess because of my age (inability to see/recognize that) and also irrelevancy of conversations that were taking place (politics).
Before I was in US, permanently at age 30 (prior to that I just had short vacation-time with my family to US), and I never was interested in any religious or political subjects. However, just being here, within in US these things are kind of automatically inputted on to one. How one handles that vast diversity of issues, is yet another topic and reflection.
Just recently I started to think more on those precepts of elderly. I am starting to see the picture of the works that are taking place, more clearly. Never before I really did perceive that in all.
And I perceive this:
I understand that US with their policies, along with their allies is in pursuit of the “Hitler’s Third Reich”; however, by different ideology/approach in action. Meaning, the works are same, but ideology (by which they manipulate/rail in individuals and masses) is not exactly the same.
Is it possible that Hitler was in the same cult-politic (of that age) that are these who drive/are behind US policies — that same cult-politic (of this age)?
One thing that I am bothered by is the thought: “US is feeding fascism to their population and allies.”
Usually my tough is crisp-clear, not abstract.
Likewise, when I think on communism (in its works) I see a linkage to capitalism (of this age).
Capitalism that is taking place is not original in concept (a unique work accomplishment/ability of an individual, and also that productivity rewarded of that individual). Capitalism of this time – this looks more and more as communism, however. With the premise that it does rob individuals of good part of their labor, and not necessarily – but it also strips off masses of their just labor — for benefit of individuals, and also the masses. Yet, not for the poor (aims) toward sustanable social justice. Who does that? This is who: Corporations and/or governments, toward achievements of some exclusive benefit – not the valid individuals toward achieving their just entitlements. This almost is humorous and it is not — if we understand that corporations strip of their workers, while government strips of people/not always corporations (achieving underpaid population/poor social balance, and high-tax-government entitlement that actually aids war-crimes, in the end of journey to all that). It looks as a fun-system!
Humorous, and not humorous to see that – further, one can see, that especially in the way of theirs, that there is the pursuit of some corporate sustainability act (policies/rights); that is, hording on power/finances (never enough).
It is good that businesses and company’s crash down – they do not have to remain in operations. It is good when they go out of business, and are gone–or whatever! This would be democratic way of social order, I believe.
A note: It is funny to see that communism, in essence, was never an intent to be socially just/balancing the social order (aiding/providing for the poor); however, to benefit individuals and self-interests it was effective (as those in power who always manage/are effective to be corrupt and to reward themselves by that work).
Further, stamping out/sanctioning war-attempts of US would serve the security of the American public, by that alone.
It is important to understand that US-war-policies are not necessary for US security (and for world security) and are actually “genocidal inclinations” (in spiritual and in natural). US and world security can be achieved by means of soft power. Adding on to further wars is not necessary; still this is just for them, and only to sustain their disturbing concept of capitalism and security. That is, unjust warfare and development of Western cultures (in desrtuction of all). This they do, however, would not be Americanism. Not for US, not for the world, and it has to be gone.
Also, I came across this video-link – I do not know what to perceive about this –nothing other then concealed war crimes/genocide over population by Israel-state.
Oops, the trolls are back.
I just read this, and I have to laugh…I am so moved to write. In few minutes I will post – but when I become serious.
Church Charismatic takes seriously that lay-people people can’t distinguish their right hand from the left one.
I just saw this article on an Arab website.
I know what your all thinking, where are the Flotilla’s, Richard Falk, Uri Avnery, Sarah Roy, Roger Waters etc.
These people are only obsessed with Israel being destroyed by the Arabs and Muslims. Muslims starving each other to death don’t bother them.
http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2014/01/12/Hunger-kills-48-Palestinian-refugees-in-besieged-camp-in-Syria-.html
Hunger kills 48 Palestinian refugees in besieged camp in Syria
January 12, 2014
Mr. Meridian,
We have all things in mind, and we know about things.
There was reports that servile billion dollars from EU aid vanished –did not reach the people of Palestine (someone stole the aid-money).
These things are to be evaluated separately; however, are also the part of the problem that is to be solved. Palestinian government can be charged with violation of human rights and corruption, as well. There are all options…Not that ALL can and cannot be charged before international courts, in limits/ within issues regarding the Holy Land situation.
I agree with you that Muslims do practice vast violation of Human Rights. Likewise, all that are not in their right mind/spirit do, and in fact need Baptism in God’s Spirit – even as Muslims-false, in fact!).
Now, this is not to practice pushing Christianity on to Muslims-valid –or anything like that (I spiritually reject false-Christian practices).
These are hard truth spiritual facts – who can handle it? Some people cannot be atoned without Baptism in God’s Spirit – regardless what they sacred text says/how they interpret the texts of the Scriptures. There are exceptional conditions of personal and/or generational sin.
Also,
I just came across this report (just few hours earlier). I believe that it is exactly why the aid-money to Palestine people is gone (in Billions over few last years); just gone/vanishes. What Edwin Black is saying implies that may be the case.
I believe based on this report:
http://blogs.cbn.com/stakelbeckonterror/archive/2014/01/08/the-watchman-show-financing-the-flames-of-terror.aspx
I do not think that he would write down a lie in the Book – but would give a best account of that what he has observed/perceived.
It would be good to make money-aid to Palestine illegal: transfer/receive of cash/currency from government to government to be sanctioned (because it funds illegal activities–that which violates human rights/Law international–that–which also provokes Israeli soldiers to unwanted actions: to violate Laws appointed by trickery of terrorists over Palestinian children/youth. They are not man of Islamic Faith by doing that. They are false-Muslims.
In order to restrict radical activity; Palestine may only receives goods and services (toward people needs/aid).
Regardless their perception of self-determination/illegal activity…all illegal activity against civilians and Israeli soldiers by using children/adolescence/ youth cannot go on; is punishable, as so. They may be entitled to legitimate warfare/self-defense and self-determination-but they cannot manipulate the events that are to take place while manipulating/coercing civilians to unlawful actions.
This would be war-crime against Palestinian-civilians, first. Second, against Israeli forces: a terrorist activity, in fact. For that they would be held liable under all Laws that are appointed.
They may immediately redirect and change their ways. The peace process in Palestine and Israel is a hoped undertaking of 2014, and so was said, and so be it.
I just came across this report:
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/01/11/344911/us-charity-facing-investigation-for-supporting-palestine/
Ms. Gail Walker, the co-director of IFCO (The Interreligious Foundation for Community Organization), who said that their organization was falsely accused by some official government individuals/members of US congress — who reported that IFCO is linked with support of terrorism by their effort to send/deliver medical aid to Gaza.
The organization itself has had roots in traditional interfaith background as was established by leaders of civil moment that worked closely with Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
What Ms. Walker has said; it is very interesting, and is worth reflecting with sincerity. But also in the context of that which was already said by Mr. Edwin Black.
What do these things mean? Is it discrimination of both IFCO, as supporting organization, and also discrimination against Gaza citizens? I do not have understanding to this in a full precept. IFCO would not deliver aid for war and warfare.
Gail, you realize Presstv is the Ayatollah state controlled Iranian TV.
You do realize no criticism is allowed of the Ayatollah’s who run Iran.
Question for Kata Fisher and Richard Falk.
Do you support or oppose a state for Tibet and a state for the Kurds in Iraqi Kurdistan? Or you oppose them having a state?
Dear Mr. Levini,
When we do not say anything it is either the specific order -or it is not in or appointed area to go about that (specific focus/ability to solve the problem), as all small parts have to be evaluated in the exactly same order and the Spirit (neutrality). Otherwise, it remains as it is – if not corrected and annulled.
I only know what woman (co-director) has said—that alone I heard and have understood, as well.
I do not care what media-channel it is—to me that is irrelevant…based on the freedom of the press. If I had something against the press/(channel of information…then personally, I correct them…individually).
I just hear what people (witnesses to a conditions have to say). That alone I interpret – but in the context of the facts/along with the facts that are given by media.
The people are not neutral, necessary. Masses will not be neutral, but those who direct the masses will have to be.
If you need me to clarify this, please ask so, and I will do that—this in specific order to avoid misunderstanding and not be necessary evolving a conflict.
Please explain “Ayatollah.”(What is that…I never herad that word).
Thank you,
K.F.
Kata, Iran is a police state.
What do you think happens to Iranians who criticize Ayatollah Khamenei?
Do you know how many gays Ayatollah Khamenei has ordered executed?
Dear Mr. Levini,
Thank you–that what you note, in fact, has nothing to do with what Ms. Walker has said and explained.
Kata, Ms. Walker is a well known supporter of the Castro dictators in Cuba.
You do know that both Castro’s also ran and run a police state in Cuba.
Kata Fischer and Richard Falk, why aren’t you speaking out on the crimes done by Assad in Syria. Is their a reason Prof Falk that you won’t criticize Assad?
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/20/evidence-industrial-scale-killing-syria-war-crimes
Evidence of ‘industrial-scale killing’ by Syria spurs call for war crimes charges
Senior war crimes prosecutors say photographs and documents provide ‘clear evidence’ of systematic killing of 11,000 detainees
Read the Syria report in full
Ian Black Middle East editor
The Guardian, Monday 20 January 2014
A picture of Bashar al-Assad riddled with holes
Calls for Assad or other officials to face justice at the international criminal court in The Hague have foundered on the problem that Syria is not a member of the court. Photograph: Reuters
Syrian government officials could face war crimes charges in the light of a huge cache of evidence smuggled out of the country showing the “systematic killing” of about 11,000 detainees, according to three eminent international lawyers.
The three, former prosecutors at the criminal tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Sierra Leone, examined thousands of Syrian government photographs and files recording deaths in the custody of regime security forces from March 2011 to last August.
Most of the victims were young men and many corpses were emaciated, bloodstained and bore signs of torture. Some had no eyes; others showed signs of strangulation or electrocution.
The UN and independent human rights groups have documented abuses by both Bashar al-Assad’s government and rebels, but experts say this evidence is more detailed and on a far larger scale than anything else that has yet emerged from the 34-month crisis.
One of the images contained in the Syria report
One of the images contained in the report, purpotedly showing ligature marks across the neck of a prisoner. Photograph: The report
The three lawyers interviewed the source, a military policeman who worked secretly with a Syrian opposition group and later defected and fled the country. In three sessions in the last 10 days they found him credible and truthful and his account “most compelling”.
They subjected all evidence to rigorous scrutiny, according to their report, which has been obtained by the Guardian and CNN.
The authors are Sir Desmond de Silva QC, former chief prosecutor of the special court for Sierra Leone, Sir Geoffrey Nice QC, the former lead prosecutor of former Yugoslavian president Slobodan Milosevic, and Professor David Crane, who indicted President Charles Taylor of Liberia at the Sierra Leone court.
The defector, who for security reasons is identified only as Caesar, was a photographer with the Syrian military police. He smuggled the images out of the country on memory sticks to a contact in the Syrian National Movement, which is supported by the Gulf state of Qatar. Qatar, which has financed and armed rebel groups, has called for the overthrow of Assad and demanded his prosecution for war crimes.
The 31-page report, which was commissioned by a leading firm of London solicitors acting for Qatar, is being made available to the UN, governments and human rights groups. Its publication appears deliberately timed to coincide with this week’s UN-organised Geneva II peace conference, which is designed to negotiate a way out of the Syrian crisis by creating a transitional government.
Caesar told the investigators his job was “taking pictures of killed detainees”. He did not claim to have witnessed executions or torture. But he did describe a highly bureaucratic system.
“The procedure was that when detainees were killed at their places of detention their bodies would be taken to a military hospital to which he would be sent with a doctor and a member of the judiciary, Caesar’s function being to photograph the corpses … There could be as many as 50 bodies a day to photograph which require 15 to 30 minutes of work per corpse,” the report says.
“The reason for photographing executed persons was twofold. First to permit a death certificate to be produced without families requiring to see the body, thereby avoiding the authorities having to give a truthful account of their deaths; second to confirm that orders to execute individuals had been carried out.”
Families were told that the cause of death was either a “heart attack” or “breathing problems”, it added.
“The procedure for documentation was that when a detainee was killed each body was given a reference number which related to that branch of the security service responsible for his detention and death.
“When the corpse was taken to the military hospital it was given a further number so as to document, falsely, that death had occurred in the hospital. Once the bodies were photographed they were taken for burial in a rural area.”
Three experienced forensic science experts examined and authenticated samples of 55,000 digital images, comprising about 11,000 victims.
“Overall there was evidence that a significant number of the deceased were emaciated and a significant minority had been bound and/or beaten with rod-like objects,” the report says. “In only a minority of the cases … could a convincing injury that would account for death be seen, but any fatal injury to the back of the body would not be represented in the images … The forensics team make clear that there are many ways in which an individual may be killed with minimal or even absent external evidence of the mechanism.”
The inquiry team said it was satisfied there was “clear evidence, capable of being believed by a tribunal of fact in a court of law, of systematic torture and killing of detained persons by the agents of the Syrian government. It would support findings of crimes against humanity and could also support findings of war crimes against the current Syrian regime.”
De Silva told the Guardian that the evidence “documented industrial-scale killing”.
He added: “This is a smoking gun of a kind we didn’t have before. It makes a very strong case indeed.”
Calls for Assad or others to face justice at the international criminal court in The Hague have foundered on the problems that Syria is not a member of the court, and that the required referral by the UN security council might not be supported by the US and UK or would be blocked by Russia, Syria’s close ally.
Nice said: “It would not necessarily be possible to track back with any degree of certainty to the head of state. Ultimately, in any war crimes trial you can imagine a prosecutor arguing that the overall quantity of evidence meant that the pattern of behaviour would have been approved at a high level.
“But whether you can go beyond that and say it must be head of state-approved is rather more difficult. But ‘widespread and systematic’ does betoken government control.”
Crane said: “Now we have direct evidence of what was happening to people who had disappeared. This is the first provable, direct evidence of what has happened to at least 11,000 human beings who have been tortured and executed and apparently disposed of.
“This is just amazing. This is the type of evidence that a prosecutor looks for and hopes for.
“We have pictures, with numbers that marry up with papers with identical numbers – official government documents. We have the person who took those pictures. That’s beyond-reasonable-doubt-type evidence.”
Nadim Houry of Human Rights Watch said his organisation had not had the opportunity to authenticate the images. But he added: “We have documented repeatedly how Syria’s security services regularly torture – sometimes to death – detainees in their custody.
“These photos – if authentic – suggest that we may have only scratched the surface of the horrific extent of torture in Syria’s notorious dungeons. There is only one way to get to the bottom of this and that is for the negotiating parties at Geneva II to grant unhindered access to Syria’s detention facilities to independent monitors.”
For what it is worth, I have criticized the Assad regime in Syria on several occasions on this blog,
and alos contributed a chapter to the anti-Assad edited volume of Nader Hashemi & Danny Posterl.
Prof Falk you didn’t answer the question i asked of you.
Do you support or oppose a state for Tibet and the Kurds in Iraqi Kurdistan
I have a reflection:
In 21 century the focus is unification of people and tribes (doing that)while preserving unique structure/culture of each people/tribal background.
Separation/ apartheid would not be the focus; however, people can chose and have that, as well.
Yes, for Tibet; I am not informed enough about Iraqi Kurdistan to venture an opinion.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/who_truly_deserves_a_state_the_kurds_or_the_palestinians.html
Who Truly Deserves a State? The Kurds or the Palestinians?
Victor Sharpe
February 19, 2012
I have a reflection:
It seems that Kurds are possibly ancient Jews (Diaspora) in a far of Land.
Is apartheid necessary? (From Biblical view)as presented?
Kata Fisher, whats your obsession with this apartheid term.
Can Jews live in the Arab Gulf Countries?
They could before Zion came along and not only drove the Palestinians out, but pressured Jews to leave their homes and emigrate to Israel.
Gene, what do you think were the Arabs plans when they attacked Israel in 48? To bring them flowers.
Here’s a good article about the Jews from the Arab countries.
http://jcpa.org/article/the-expulsion-of-the-jews-from-muslim-countries-1920-1970-a-history-of-ongoing-cruelty-and-discrimination/
The Expulsion of the Jews from Muslim Countries, 1920-1970: A History of Ongoing Cruelty and Discrimination
Prof. Shmuel Trigano
November 4, 2010
–
Dan, my answer to your question is that the Arabs didn’t attack Israel in 1948, but were trying arrest the evacuation of Palestinians from their own lands. It was the Israelis who began the shooting. I’m sure you’ve read enough revisionist historians like Pappe and others to know that.
Very interesting article by Trigano but considering the source I can’t put much faith in its veracity. You should read Koestler’s books on Israel which tell a different story. Or even Amos Oz’ autobiography.
I would also recommend this:
http://www.bintjbeil.com/E/occupation/ameu_iraqjews.html
Interesting link, Gene. Thank you.
Searched Google for ‘Israel’s Black Panthers 1971’ and there is a lot of information on the period, and the book Naeim Giladi wrote. It appears to be reliable 1st person testimony in your link.
You may find a link I found Today just as interesting. It was on Jonathan Cook’s Facebook page, the Independent British Journalist living and reporting on the ground from the original Nazareth, not Upper Nazareth, the Jewish settlement.
It is a collection of clever, great satirical short videos from spoof Israeli travel agency Apartheid Adventures. They highlight very simply how preposterous the peace process charade is.
http://apartheidadventures.com/tours/Special_Video_Offers.html
Thanks, rayo32, your link is even better. At least it’s not morose. I read Cook all the time when he appears at Counterpunch, but I’ve never seen this. But then I’m not a facebook kinda guy 😉
As far as the Giladi book is concerned, I discussed it at length with my neighbor and former colleague who was an Iraqi Israel Jew (died last year at age 90),and he confirmed what Giladi says.
Gene Schulman, then you lie by saying, the Arabs didn’t attack Israel in 1948, but were trying arrest the evacuation of Palestinians from their own lands. It was the Israelis who began the shooting.
My response.
After the 5 Arab armies attacked Israel in 48, Haj Amin Al Husseini stated:
I declare a holy war, my muslim brothers! Murder the Jews! Murder them all!
The Arab League Secretary, General Azzam Pasha declared “a holy war. He said, “This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades.
Gene on Naeim Giladi, he was a well known anti Zionist who opposed the existence of the state of Israel.
His facts that the Mossad caused the exodus of Jews from Iraq is laughable.
Naeim Giladi also fabricated that the British were responsible for the Farhud pogrom in 1941 in Iraq against the Jewish population there
The riots against the Jews were ordered by Rashid Ali, who led the Pro Nazi government in Iraq led to 175 Jews being killed and 1,000 injured. Looting of Jewish property took place and 900 Jewish homes were destroyed.
Regarding the Farhud, Giladi alleges that the British bear the bulk of responsibility as they instigated the event to blacken the image of the Rashid Ali government.
This is laughable considering that Rashid Ali was an ally of Hitler.
So here is Giladi supporting a Pro Nazi government led by Arabs who murdered Jews.
Here is a great article that rebukes Giladi’s fabrications.
http://jewishrefugees.blogspot.com/2010/06/challenging-naieem-giladis-farrago-of.html
I take exception to your calling me a liar. Considering the hasbara sources you get your information from, I stand by my statements. As for Morris, he was included in my “others” that followed my citation of Pappé. At one time he wrote the truth about ethnic cleansing, then reversed himself when he joined the right wing nuts. I won’t bother responding to you again.
I found an excellent rap music video called ‘Checkpoint’ with images of IDF excess in the 47 year Military Dictatorship in occupied Palestine today.
Thanks, ray032. First time I ever appreciated a rap song.
G
1) Israel has equality under law regardless of race, religion or gender. Arabic and Hebrew are dual official languages.
2) The PA has a law giving the death penalty for selling land to Jews
3) The PA and Hamas both say no Jews are allowed to be in “their” nation
4) Christians are fleeing Muslim persecution under both PA and Hamas rule
5) Jordan says it’s illegal for Jews to be citizens
6) Saudi Arabia says non-Muslims are barred from citizenship
7) Every Muslim nation has at least partial Sharia law, implementing discrimination against non-Muslims.
8) Copts in Egypt, Maronites and other Christians, animists, Berbers, Chaldeans and other non-Muslims, regularly document religious discrimination in their countries.
9) The fifty-seven member nations of the Organization of the Islamic Conferences openly reject the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights because equality is against the core tenants of Islam.
From Joseph Puder this week on the describing the Israel hating U.N.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/joseph-puder/the-international-holocaust-remembrance-day-charade/
If aliens stumbled upon the U.N. debates, read its resolutions, or walked the U.N. halls, they would clearly conclude that the sole purpose of this world body is to censure a tiny Jewish state called Israel. The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), which is a non-voting observer to the U.N., is the second largest intergovernmental organization after the U.N, and can count on the votes of 57 Islamic states as its members. Along with the Third World member states, the OIC is almost guaranteed to master an “automatic majority.” Until the fall of the Soviet Union, that majority could add the Soviet Bloc, and in 1975, following a steady drumbeat of anti-Israel declarations, the U.N. General Assembly adopted the resolution that “Zionism is Racism.”
This January, a few days before UNESCO was to launch a landmark exhibit at its Paris headquarters on The 3,500 Year Relationship of the Jewish People and the Land of Israel, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) reneged due to Arab League pressure. UNESCO chief Irina Bokova shamefully surrendered to the Arab demands. Hillel Neuer of the U.N. Watch revealed that “if the notorious UN Human Rights Council dedicates a full 50% of its resolutions to demonizing the Jewish state, at UNESCO the numbers are 100%.” Neuer added, “Despite the repeated claims by the Obama administration that UNESCO is God’s gift to the Jews, and to humanity, the opposite is true; it is arguably the most anti-Jewish body in the entire U.N.”
With remarkable cynicism, the same Ms. Bokova, UNESCO’s chief, who canceled The 3,500 Year Relationship of the Jewish People and the Land of Israel exhibit, attending the International Holocaust Remembrance Day at Paris Shoah Memorial stated, “The future cannot be built on a forgotten past. The history of the Jewish genocide is the history of the Jewish people and it is also the history of humanity as a whole.”
The Guardian piece by Alexander Ryvchin (November 26, 2013) exposes the anti-Israel bias in the U.N. He wrote, “The need for greater balance in the U.N. treatment of the Arab-Israeli conflict recently came to light in the most unexpected of circumstances. Earlier this month the U.N. General Assembly convened to engage in its annual ritual of passing a series of resolutions condemning Israel. Not a single resolution critical of the Palestinian leadership, or concerning any other global issue for that matter, was adopted during the meeting. The point of interest was the candid reaction of a Spanish-speaking U.N. interpreter, oblivious to the fact that her microphone remained on as she addressed her colleague.” The interpreter complained about 10 anti-Israel resolutions while there’s other really bad things happening around the world, but no one says anything about the other problems. Ryvchin concluded, “Through her frank admission, the interpreter, unencumbered by rank or protocol, was perhaps the only person in the room who had nothing to be embarrassed about. She had spoken an inconvenient truth, and the delegates in the chamber knew it.”
The inconvenient truth is that the U.N. is a major purveyor of anti-Semitism today. Through its deliberate bias against the Jewish state it has also fostered anti-Jewish bigotry. The only Jews the U.N. undemocratic majority loves are dead Jews, hence the annual lip service to the Holocaust, and condemnation of anti-Semitism. Ambassador Prosor summed it up best when he said “The State of Israel is the only guarantee that the future fate of the Jewish people will be held in our own hands.”
As long as the cabals of undemocratic states hold sway at the U.N. and its affiliated institutions, and President Obama facilitates a stronger and more dangerous Iran, the International Holocaust Remembrance Day must be seen for what it is; lip service to murdered Jews and a charade.
Lip service is what people get from majority their leaders, not just in Israel, but also elsewhere. I read from Israeli student how bad they have in the Land, in all.
If not for valid Diplomats that strive to do that which is right, then, the whole/entire peoples/tribes of world would be in destruction/destroyed by their and other world-governments.
You really need to see more then what is visible to you: what is really different between the East and West regimes/govrements when comes to violation of a human and/or violation of International Law.
That is your standard by which you should make your judgments. Anything else is waste of human conscience – just to begin with. In reality.
Khaled Abu Toameh who is an Arab Israeli journalist.
Khaled said this.
“If israel were an apartheid state, i,for example,would not be allowed to work for a Jewish news paper
or live in a Jewish neighborhood and own a home.
supreme judge George Karra would not be allowed to send president Katsav to jail,
Rana Raslan couldn’t possibly been nominated to Miss Israel.
The real apartheid is in Lebanon ,where there is a law that bans Palestinians from working in over 50 professions.
Can you imagine if the knesset passed a law banning Arabs from working in even one profession ???
The real apartheid is also in many Arab and Muslim nations, like Kuwait,where my Palestinian uncle,who has been living there for 35 years is banned from buying a house.
or Saudi Arabia where no other religion but Islam is permitted
the law of israel DOES NOT distinguish between a Jew and an Arab”.
common sense • 2 hours ago −
I keep thinking: How is it possible for anyone to sit and plan a such an evil crime of mass murder of innocent people they never met – especially on such a festive occasion? The simple fact is that there is only one entity that encourages such behavior and is currently involved in nearly all the murders, mayhem and misogyny around this planet – the cult of Islam. However, what is even more revolting are those who somehow try to rationalize/justify such evil…
http://www.jpost.com/National-News/East-Jerusalem-terror-cell-charged-with-planning-attack-on-wedding-hall-340432
East Jerusalem terror cell charged with planning attack on wedding hall
YONAH JEREMY BOB
02/05/2014
Men planned to enter Bayit Vagan wedding hall in haredi dress, carry out shooting attack with mini Uzi guns. wedding hall
Nof Wedding Hall that was target of terror plot
The Jerusalem District Attorney’s Office on Wednesday filed an indictment with the Jerusalem District Court against an alleged terror cell of four east Jerusalem residents for planning to attack the “Nof” wedding hall in Bayit Vagan, Jerusalem.
The cell included Anas Ouisat, Basel Abidat, Ahmed Sarur and Amru Abado of the Jabal Muchbar neighborhood all between the ages of 19-21, said the indictment.
The indictment’s details were as follows: Ouisat and Abidat decided in December 2013, based on nationalistic motivations, that they would carry out an attack against Israeli civilians in Jerusalem and in coordination with terror groups.
Ouisat suggested a shooting attack on the Nof hall both because there would be a large number of casualties, between 800-1500 attendees, and because he had previously worked there.
They planned to enter the hall in haredi dress in which they would conceal mini Uzi guns and they got an estimate of NIS 50,000 from a weapons dealer.
At some point, Sarur joined the group, including performing surveillance of the hall to plan the attack.
However, he had a dispute with the original two, eventually dropped out and was eventually replaced by Abado.
The head of the wedding hall, Gilad Pinchas, expressed his immense relief and gratitude in an interview with The Jerusalem Post.
“Nof is a place of celebration,” said Pinchas, “the indictment is a gift from God. Nof has top security conditions, and we will continue to consider security a top priority at our hall for all our events and all our guests.”
The prosecution has requested to remand all four to police custody until the end of the proceedings.
All that reads as being so familiar? O Yes! Remote controlled American drones do that to Islamic wedding parties. The US arms Israel. The lines become blurred in a 30 second sound byte society with Attention Deficit Disorder!
Mr. Livni: I was close to blocking this comment because of its blatent attitude of hatred toward
Islam. If you wish me to approve your future comments please stick to substance, and
avoid insults to religions and persons. Disagreement is fine as long as within the confines
of civility.
Look Lavini,
Your attitude allows for further conflict that bears no fruit/problem-solving. If you are going to deliver arguments – then apply your best skills and abilities to aid that.
Some conflict is OK, as it aids brain-storming; however, be central to the point without viciousness. We can be vicious, as well – when appropriate. That is, getting to the root of problem and cut it right there.
If you disagree with all that is said here, all together – then go and argue in all confusing elsewhere.
Keep clarity..
🙂
Livni: I misspelled your name, just earlier. It must be my attention deficit.
My apologies for sloppiness…
😀 😀 😀
Kata Fisher.
This article sums up everything.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/israel-may-pay-for-tolerance-it-shows-to-killers/story-fni0ffut-1226821934023
Israel may pay for tolerance it shows to killers
ALAN HOWE HERALD SUN
FEBRUARY 10, 2014
IF most Palestinians thought like most Israelis, peace would come to their lands.
If most Israelis thought like so many Palestinians — from its leader Mahmoud Abbas down to the shiftless youths seeking to meet Allah via Semtex and Jewish blood — there would be many fewer than the 4.3 million of them.
The tolerance of Israel, as its neighbours bait it, bomb it and demand its destruction, surprises me. Three rockets were fired from Gaza in to southern Israel as I wrote this piece.
The United Nations — a corrupted farce that entertains the destructiveness of Arab self-loathing as if it had the gravitas of fully formed democracy — often condemns Israel.
A wry smile at such absurdities should be allowed. But recent events prove that Israel seeks peace and the Palestinian leadership does not.
To make progress with talks to find a solution to the region’s problems that I am not sure the Palestinians even want, Israel has been releasing from its jails some of the Middle East’s worst killers.
A third tranche walked free on New Year’s Eve; a fourth will do so soon.
It’s a brave decision orchestrated by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who is usually portrayed as a hawk. And it has excited much opposition from the people who elected him: perhaps up to 70 per cent of Israelis disagree that Palestinian terrorists should be released early from jail.
At least in jail, they can’t kill more innocents.
Rest assured, now that they have been freed and welcomed home as heroes, they will kill again.
Among the murderers released so far have been Yacub Ramaddan, Muhammad Mahmoud and Afana Muhammad who slashed the throat of mother of seven Sara Sharon and left a note on her body that read “We will continue killing Jews … ”.
Also freed have been Muammar Mahmoud and Salah Ibrahim who stabbed to death an acclaimed history professor, the elderly Menahem Stern, as he walked to the library of his university.
Not long before Stern’s murder, another young Palestinian grabbed the wheel of a bus travelling between Tel Aviv and Jerusalem and forced it off a cliff.
It caught fire and passengers were burned alive. Sixteen were killed.
That was Abed Ghaneim’s handiwork. He’s been freed, too.
But what should deeply concern us is that these barbarians are feted at home as living saints.
Take Issa Abd Rabbo. When he was released recently, he was welcomed home personally by the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, who raised Rabbo’s hand in victory and referred to the double killer as a hero.
He calls men like Rabbo “the best of the Palestinian people”.
Rabbo killed two university students, Revital Seri, 22, and her friend Ron Levi, 23.
The murderer was interviewed on television the other day. I’ll let him describe what happened:
“There was supposed to be a military operation shooting at a bus transporting Israeli soldiers … I was surprised when on my way to the area, I waited, waited and waited and the bus didn’t come.
“I was forced to carry out an operation on my own, an improvisation, I took it upon myself.
“An Israeli car approached, with two in it. I said, here’s a chance and I don’t want to return empty-handed. They left the car … and sat down under a pine tree.
“I went down to them. Of course I was masked and was carrying a rifle. He asked me: ‘Are you a guard here?’ I told him: ‘No, I’m in my home.’
“I told him: ‘You are not allowed here. This is our land and our country. You stole it and occupied our land and I’m going to act against you.’ They were surprised by what I told them. I tied them up, of course, and then sentenced them to death by shooting, in the name of the revolution.
“I shot them, one bullet each, and went [hiding] in the mountains … I went to my aunt and told her: ‘We have avenged Muhammad’s blood.’
“I told her: ‘Instead of one, we got two!’ She cried out in joy.”
The bloodlust of these insane young Arab men and the manner in which their leaders promote the carnage against their neighbours is endlessly depressing.
Less than 200km north of the site of Rabbo’s grotesque act of terror lies a hill just west of the Sea of Galilee.
Long ago a modest young man ascended it and spoke to a group of people he had impressed with his ideas of peace and goodwill towards others.
“Blessed are the peacemakers,” he famously uttered.
I guess you know who he was talking about.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/175924#.UsmJy_RDvls
Shaked: ‘How Can We Make Peace With These People?’
In letter to MKs, Ambassadors, Jewish Home Chairwoman Ayelet Shaked calls for end to anti-Semitic incitement in the PA.
Tova Dvorin
1/5/2014
MK Ayelet Shaked (Jewish Home) dispatched a letter to Knesset members and ambassadors in Israel Sunday, following reports of violent and anti-Semitic content featured on the Gaza radio station “Sawt Al-Quds”, broadcasted on FM 102.7.
The program, named “Arva Vanet” (lit. “no homeland”), airs several times a week and profiles a “martyr” for the “Palestinian people,” according to the letter. The program glorifies that murder of civilians – especially Religious Zionists.
Each story details a different terror attack and is accompanied by a soundtrack full of pathos. The show airs in the afternoon and evening – a prime time to reach the ears of children and teenagers returning home from school.
Shaked gives one example of programming by the station, citing an episode which aired on January 1. “The broadcaster talked about the “martyr” from the city of Nablus, born in 1977, who blew himself up in Netanya, killing large numbers of Jews ‘by the Grace of G-d,'” she stated.
Shaked responded, “We are trying to make peace with these people? They incite to murder and praise terrorist atrocities! They educate their children to murder innocent people! They have no regard for morals or human life!”
Shaked noted that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu promised peace only in the event that incitement against Jews and Israeli stopped. Now that the incitement continues, “why do we continue the deception [of negotiations]? Why do we stand blind to reality?” she asked.
Shaked concluded her letter with a statement calling on the international community to recognize the incitement against Israel from the Palestinian Authority (PA) and Gaza.
Israel’s Security Agency (ISA or the Shin Bet) statistics in 2013 revealed that terror attacks have been on the rise since peace talks resumed.
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu remarked Friday that incitement – not just from the Hamas, but from the PA as well – is “a major factor behind the attacks.”
“To glorify the murders of innocent women and men as heroes is an outrage,” he added. “How can President Abbas say that he stands against terrorism when he embraces the perpetrators of terrorism and glorifies them as heroes? He can’t stand against terrorists and stand with the terrorists.”
Netanyahu told US Secretary of State John Kerry that it is “not surprising that in recent weeks Israel has been subjected to a growing wave of terrorist attacks. President Abbas didn’t see fit to condemn these attacks even after we learned that at least in one case, I stress at least in one case, those who served and are serving in the Palestinian security forces took part in them.”
http://truthaholics.wordpress.com/2014/02/15/bds-ethnic-cleansing-the-forbidden-truth-about-ashkenazis/
Dear Mr. Livni: Can you reflect on this above?
Yes Kata.
The article you posted used Benjamin Freedman as a source.
He wanted Israel destroyed.
Here’s my response.
http://bluwiki.com/go/The_Benjamin_Freedman_Speech
Twenty Five Lies of Benjamin Freedman
(1) Christian boys are going to be yanked out of their homes, away from their families, and sent abroad to fight in Palestine against the Christian and Moslem Arabs who merely want to return to their homes.”
In the forty-six years since this speech was delivered, not one U.S. soldier has fought in Israel or the Palestinian territories.
(2) “The United States will trigger World War III.”
Hasn’t happened yet.
(3) “[T]he Arab nations called a meeting in Lebanon and there they decided to resurrect, or reactivate, the government of Palestine, which has been dormant more or less, since the 1948 armed insurrection by the Zionists.”
There was never a Palestinian government to resurrect. Nominal political control over the Palestinian people had been exercised by Amin Al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, but this was during the period that Palestine was still a British colony. That mandate expired on May 15, 1948, and the same day, Israel declared its statehood. The Palestinians, by contrast, when the war was over, were occupied by either Egypt (in the Gaza strip) or Jordan (in the West Bank and East Jerusalem). Neither power offerered the Palestinians autonomy, much less statehoof. King Abdullah of Jordan never even entertained the idea. Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt made moves toward an “All-Palestine Government,” but didn’t act against Israel militarily until 1967 — six years after Freedman gave this speech.
(4) “Within two years Germany had won that war [World War I]: not alone won it nominally, but won it actually.”
Freedman claims that before August 1, 1916, Germany had won the World War I. This is simply not true.
Germany was fighting a two-front war during World War I. Plus it had soldiers deployed in the Middle East to assist the Ottoman Turks, who were losing badly and would continue to lose until all their territory was gone. During the period that Freedman is discussing, Germany was fighting the combined forces of France and the British Empire (Canadian, Indian, South African, and ANZAC troops were there also) at the Battle of the Somme. The battle went from July 1, 1916, to November 18, 1916, and was declared a stalemate. Losses for both sides were about equal, which means Germany actually lost more troops because it was fighting alone on its own side. At the same time, beginning before the Battle of the Somme and ending afterwards, the Germans lost to the French at Verdun, though they sustained fewer casualties. The losses for Germany were so severe that she changed her position on the Western front from offensive to defensive, which remained the case until surrender in November 1918.
Germany did rather better on the Eastern Front, driving into Poland and ultimately leading to the tsar’s overthrow in March 1917. But Germany was still fighting Russia in the summer of 1916, as well as in the Middle East with the Turks.
(5) “At that time, the French army had mutinied. They lost 600,000 of the flower of French youth in the defense of Verdun on the Somme. The Russian army was defecting. They were picking up their toys and going home, they didn’t want to play war anymore, they didn’t like the Czar. And the Italian army had collapsed.”
Neither the French troops nor the Russian troops had mutinied at the time Freedman says they did. French losses at Verdun were around 150,000 — not 600,000, as Freedman claims. If the Italian army had collapses, that would be a surprise to the Italian soldiers at the Battle or Gorizia, where the Italians defeated Austria-Hungary in eleven days.
(6) “[T]he Zionists in London went to the British war cabinet and they said: ‘Look here. You can yet win this war. You don’t have to give up. You don’t have to accept the negotiated peace offered to you now by Germany. You can win this war if the United States will come in as your ally.'”
There’s a staggering amount of disinformation in here. First, there was no German peace offer, and if there were, it would have been coming from a position of weakness to better fight on their Eastern Front.
(7) “They [Zionists] told England: ‘We will guarantee to bring the United States into the war as your ally, to fight with you on your side, if you will promise us Palestine after you win the war.'”
This is very interesting given the actual state of affairs in the Middle East at that time. England and France had already divided up the Ottoman holdings in the Middle East. In fact, they had done so the previous year — with the Sykes-Picot Agreement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes-Picot_Agreement). It hadn’t promised Palestine to anyone — it had left it an issue to be decided in the future.
(8) “However, they [the British] made that promise, in October of 1916”
I have no idea where Freedman gets this date, given that the Sykes-Picot Agreement had been signed in May 1916, and it contravened the only other possible offer on the table at the time, which was the promise by Henry McMahon, British High Commissioner in Egypt, to Sharif Hussein of Mecca (father of Abdullah I of Jordan) that Arab nationalism would be realized with the defeat of the Turks. However, none of McMahon’s correspondence ever promises him Palestine.
(9) “Well, shortly after that, Mr. Wilson declared war on Germany.”
Actually it was six months later, on April 6, 1917, and it was Congress that declared war, the President not being allowed by the Constitution of the United States to do so. The U.S. declared war on Austria-Hungary in December, with less than a year left in the war. Notably, the U.S. never declared war on the Ottomans? Why not? Because they were finished by then. Given that it was the Ottomans who controlled Palestine up to this point, how could U.S. entry have secured this if it came so late?
The answer is that it couldn’t.
Moreover, Freedman completely ignores the importance of the Zimmermann Telegram, a communique sent by the German Foreign Minister, Arthur Zimmermann, to Mexico, urging it to form an alliance against the U.S. This was the smoking gun that led the U.S. into the war. Interventionism was the result of the fear of the Germans (who, remember, were not winning the war — the telegram dates from January 1917) that the U.S. would enter to stake territory for its Allies. There was, after all, already an Allied Expeditionary Force of American soldiers fighting in Europe.
(10) “After we got into the war, the Zionists went to Great Britain and they said: â??Well, we performed our part of the agreement. Let’s have something in writing that shows that you are going to keep your bargain and give us Palestine after you win the war.â?? Because they didn’t know whether the war would last another year or another ten years. So they started to work out a receipt. The receipt took the form of a letter, and it was worded in very cryptic language so that the world at large wouldn’t know what it was all about. And that was called the Balfour Declaration.”
So according to Freedman’s chronology, in October 1916, the British promise the Zionists Palestine, it takes them six months to get us into the war, but the Balfour Declaration still wasn’t issued until seven months after we declared war on Germany. This doesn’t add up.
(11) “Now, when the war was ended, and the Germans went to Paris, to the Paris Peace Conference in 1919, there were 117 Jews there, as a delegation representing the Jews, headed by Bernard Baruch. I was there: I ought to know.”
Well, Bernard Baruch was certainly at the Paris Peace Conference, but where this figure of 116 other Jews as a separate delegation (Baruch was with the American delegation; after all, he was head of the War Industries Board). As for Freedman being there, I have yet to see a single independent source that verifies he was there. Not one.
(12) “The Jews at that peace conference, when they were cutting up Germany and parceling out Europe to all these nations that claimed a right to a certain part of European territory, the Jews said, ‘How about Palestine for us?'”
Well, first of all, the land that was cut out of Germany was land that was, with very few exceptions, populated by non-German people, e.g., Poland. Austria ceded Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia, these being Slavic nations whereas Austria was and is a Germanic nation.
But the real kicker is that the “Jewish delegation” demanded Palestine at this point. While it is true that an important agreement on Palestine was made at this point, it was not made between Bernard Baruch and the British government, as Freedman would have us believe. Rather, the agreement was made between Chaim Weizmann and the leader of the Arab delegation. Weizmann was of course a Zionist but a British citizen — not one of these virtually nonexistent German Zionists that we’re told about.
Freedman doesn’t tell us about the Arab delegation, but it was led by Sharif Hussein’s other son, Faisal, who would become the first King of Iraq. You can read the agreement here: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/faisaltext.html
So Britain didn’t hand Palestine over to the Zionists. Ultimately, it was Faisal that did.
(13) “And they produced, for the first time to the knowledge of the Germans, this Balfour Declaration. So the Germans, for the first time realized, ‘Oh, that was the game! That’s why the United States came into the war.’ And the Germans for the first time realized that they were defeated, they suffered this terrific reparation that was slapped onto them, because the Zionists wanted Palestine and they were determined to get it at any cost.”
Given that the New York Times published news of the Balfour Declaration a mere twelve days after the declaration was issued, it was a known agreement by the time of the Paris Peace Conference. (There were two more stories in the Times alone before the Peace Conference began.) In other words, Freedman was lying.
Notably, it is on the basis of this lie that Freedman then argues that the Germans were justified in their hatred of Jews. He ignores all evidence of German anti-Semitism between 1871 and 1919.
(14) “When Germany realized that the Jews were responsible for her defeat, they naturally resented it. But not a hair on the head of any Jew was harmed. Not a single hair. Professor Tansill, of Georgetown University, who had access to all the secret papers of the State Department, wrote in his book, and quoted from a State Department document written by Hugo Schoenfelt, a Jew who Cordell Hull sent to Europe in 1933 to investigate the so-called camps of political prisoners. And he wrote back that he found them in very fine condition.”
In 1933, the only people in concentration camps were political prisoners and not Jews. More on this below.
(15) “They were in excellent shape; everybody treated well. And they were filled with Communists. Well, a lot of them were Jews, because the Jews happened to be maybe 98 per cent of the Communists in Europe at that time.”
That’s an exaggeration obviously, but even more so for 1933 in Germany. The KPD (Communist Party) in Germany was led by Ernst Thaelmann, a Gentile. He was arrested and put in Dachau in 1933 and kept in solitary confinement until Hitler had him shot in 1944. But Jews in Germany tended not to vote for the KPD, despite its quite excellent returns in the elections between 1929 and 1932 (it always polled in the top three parties). Most Jews in Germany voted instead for the SPD, the Social-Democratic Party of Germany. This was not a communist party.
An illustrative example can be made with the situation in the Soviet Union, where far more leaders of the Communist Party there were Jews. Even conceding that this is the case, the vast majority of Jews in Russia between March 1917 and November 1917, when the Bolsheviks seized power, were not in communist parties. They tended to be either in Zionist parties or in the Jewish Bund or the PSR (social democrats). These latter two parties were the only parties in the USSR condemn the Bolshevik coup in the Congress of Deputies that had been established after the tsar had been overthrown.
Germany had even fewer Jews and, given the explanation already given that their living standard was better in Germany and that they fled there from Russia in 1905, it is not unreasonable to conclude that fewer Jews were communists in Germany than in Russia, particularly in 1933.
(16) “Well, I don’t want to go by what they were called. We’re now using English words, and what they were called in Germany is not very material. . . but they were Communists, because in 1917, the Communists took over Germany for a few days.”
As already demonstrated, the KPD existed in Germany, as did the SPD, and their platforms were so different, in fact, that the KPD refused to join SPD-led governments.
(17) “Nevertheless, the Jews of the world declared a boycott against Germany, and it was so effective that you couldn’t find one thing in any store anywhere in the world with the words ‘made in Germany’ on it.”
The Untermeyer boycott was so incredibly ineffective that Germany had experienced complete economic recovery by 1937.
(18) “The Jews — I call them Jews to you, because they are known as Jews. I don’t call them Jews. I refer to them as so-called Jews, because I know what they are. If Jesus was a Jew, there isn’t a Jew in the world today, and if those people are Jews, certainly our Lord and Savior was not one of them, and I can prove that.”
The largest Christian organization in the world is the Roman Catholic Church. In his 1965 encyclical Nostra Aetate , Pope Paul VI wrote, “The Church keeps ever in mind the words of the Apostle about his kinsmen: “theirs is the sonship and the glory and the covenants and the law and the worship and the promises; theirs are the fathers and from them is the Christ according to the flesh” (Rom. 9:4-5), the Son of the Virgin Mary. She also recalls that the Apostles, the Church’s main-stay and pillars, as well as most of the early disciples who proclaimed Christ’s Gospel to the world, sprang from the Jewish people.”
I think the Pope probably can speak on greater authority on these matters than Freedman.
(19) “The eastern European Jews, who form 92 per cent of the world’s population of those people who call themselves Jews, were originally Khazars.”
While there is no doubt that the Khazarian Empire adopted Judaism as its official religion and that this empire stretched into parts of Eastern Europe, there was still a settlement of Jews along the Rhine Valley that pre-dated the Khazars. They did not emigrate to Poland and points east of there until the 16th century, long after the Khazars were gone. These Jews spoke Yiddish, which is based on German, whereas the Khazars spoke a Turkish language.
Furthermore, genetic tests conducted in the last two years indicate that the vast majority of Jews derive from only four women, and that the priestly tribe of Jews, the kohenim, share a Middle Eastern common ancestor.
(20) “When, on the Day of Atonement, you walk into a synagogue, the very first prayer that you recite, you stand — and it’s the only prayer for which you stand — and you repeat three times a short prayer. The Kol Nidre. In that prayer, you enter into an agreement with God Almighty that any oath, vow, or pledge that you may make during the next twelve months — any oath, vow or pledge that you may take during the next twelve months shall be null and void.”
The Kol Nidrey nullifies only vows made to God. This is one of the oldest libels against Judaism and has been disproven repeatedly.
(21) “And further than that, the Talmud teaches: ‘Don’t forget — whenever you take an oath, vow, and pledge — remember the Kol Nidre prayer that you recited on the Day of Atonement, and that exempts you from fulfilling that.'”
The Talmud says no such thing and I challenge any person to prove otherwise.
(22) “There was no English word because Judea had passed out of existence. There was no Judea. People had long ago forgotten that. So in the first translation he used the word, in referring to Jesus, as ‘gyu’, ‘jew’. At the time, there was no printing press.”
Freedman’s linguistic analysis of the word “Jew” is so terrible it would make a real linguist laugh in hysterics. Suffice it to say that, yes, there was no letter J in the Roman alphabet, but they did not pronounce their word for Jew (Iudean) with the /j/ phoneme at the beginning.
(23) “Just like ‘anti-Semitic’. The Arab is a Semite. And the Christians talk about people who don’t like Jews as anti-Semites, and they call all the Arabs anti-Semites. The only Semites in the world are the Arabs. There isn’t one Jew who’s a Semite. They’re all Turkothean Mongoloids. The Eastern european Jews.”
Well, Jews are Semites, but that’s beside the point. The word coined by Wilhelm Marr nearly a century before Freedman’s speech was Antisemitismus and it was coined to apply to Jews only — not to Arabs.
(24) “They’ve never been persecuted for their religion. And I wish I had two rows of Rabbis here to challenge me. Never once, in all of history, have they been persecuted for their religion.”
Jews were consistently persecuted only on religious grounds until the 19th century. Before then, the charge was “Christ-killer.” That is a religious basis.
(25) “But Benjamin Franklin observed, and by hearsay understood, what was happening in Europe.”
Freedman is referring to a hoax of an anti-Semitic quote attributed to Ben Franklin that was actually created by William Dudley Pelley in 1933
Yes there’s an article in detail which responds to those false claims by Freedman.
http://bluwiki.com/go/The_Benjamin_Freedman_Speech
Twenty Five Lies of Benjamin Freedman
(1) Christian boys are going to be yanked out of their homes, away from their families, and sent abroad to fight in Palestine against the Christian and Moslem Arabs who merely want to return to their homes.”
In the forty-six years since this speech was delivered, not one U.S. soldier has fought in Israel or the Palestinian territories.
(2) “The United States will trigger World War III.”
Hasn’t happened yet.
(3) “[T]he Arab nations called a meeting in Lebanon and there they decided to resurrect, or reactivate, the government of Palestine, which has been dormant more or less, since the 1948 armed insurrection by the Zionists.”
There was never a Palestinian government to resurrect. Nominal political control over the Palestinian people had been exercised by Amin Al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, but this was during the period that Palestine was still a British colony. That mandate expired on May 15, 1948, and the same day, Israel declared its statehood. The Palestinians, by contrast, when the war was over, were occupied by either Egypt (in the Gaza strip) or Jordan (in the West Bank and East Jerusalem). Neither power offerered the Palestinians autonomy, much less statehoof. King Abdullah of Jordan never even entertained the idea. Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt made moves toward an “All-Palestine Government,” but didn’t act against Israel militarily until 1967 — six years after Freedman gave this speech.
(4) “Within two years Germany had won that war [World War I]: not alone won it nominally, but won it actually.”
Freedman claims that before August 1, 1916, Germany had won the World War I. This is simply not true.
Germany was fighting a two-front war during World War I. Plus it had soldiers deployed in the Middle East to assist the Ottoman Turks, who were losing badly and would continue to lose until all their territory was gone. During the period that Freedman is discussing, Germany was fighting the combined forces of France and the British Empire (Canadian, Indian, South African, and ANZAC troops were there also) at the Battle of the Somme. The battle went from July 1, 1916, to November 18, 1916, and was declared a stalemate. Losses for both sides were about equal, which means Germany actually lost more troops because it was fighting alone on its own side. At the same time, beginning before the Battle of the Somme and ending afterwards, the Germans lost to the French at Verdun, though they sustained fewer casualties. The losses for Germany were so severe that she changed her position on the Western front from offensive to defensive, which remained the case until surrender in November 1918.
Germany did rather better on the Eastern Front, driving into Poland and ultimately leading to the tsar’s overthrow in March 1917. But Germany was still fighting Russia in the summer of 1916, as well as in the Middle East with the Turks.
(5) “At that time, the French army had mutinied. They lost 600,000 of the flower of French youth in the defense of Verdun on the Somme. The Russian army was defecting. They were picking up their toys and going home, they didn’t want to play war anymore, they didn’t like the Czar. And the Italian army had collapsed.”
Neither the French troops nor the Russian troops had mutinied at the time Freedman says they did. French losses at Verdun were around 150,000 — not 600,000, as Freedman claims. If the Italian army had collapses, that would be a surprise to the Italian soldiers at the Battle or Gorizia, where the Italians defeated Austria-Hungary in eleven days.
(6) “[T]he Zionists in London went to the British war cabinet and they said: ‘Look here. You can yet win this war. You don’t have to give up. You don’t have to accept the negotiated peace offered to you now by Germany. You can win this war if the United States will come in as your ally.'”
There’s a staggering amount of disinformation in here. First, there was no German peace offer, and if there were, it would have been coming from a position of weakness to better fight on their Eastern Front.
(7) “They [Zionists] told England: ‘We will guarantee to bring the United States into the war as your ally, to fight with you on your side, if you will promise us Palestine after you win the war.'”
This is very interesting given the actual state of affairs in the Middle East at that time. England and France had already divided up the Ottoman holdings in the Middle East. In fact, they had done so the previous year — with the Sykes-Picot Agreement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes-Picot_Agreement). It hadn’t promised Palestine to anyone — it had left it an issue to be decided in the future.
(8) “However, they [the British] made that promise, in October of 1916”
I have no idea where Freedman gets this date, given that the Sykes-Picot Agreement had been signed in May 1916, and it contravened the only other possible offer on the table at the time, which was the promise by Henry McMahon, British High Commissioner in Egypt, to Sharif Hussein of Mecca (father of Abdullah I of Jordan) that Arab nationalism would be realized with the defeat of the Turks. However, none of McMahon’s correspondence ever promises him Palestine.
(9) “Well, shortly after that, Mr. Wilson declared war on Germany.”
Actually it was six months later, on April 6, 1917, and it was Congress that declared war, the President not being allowed by the Constitution of the United States to do so. The U.S. declared war on Austria-Hungary in December, with less than a year left in the war. Notably, the U.S. never declared war on the Ottomans? Why not? Because they were finished by then. Given that it was the Ottomans who controlled Palestine up to this point, how could U.S. entry have secured this if it came so late?
The answer is that it couldn’t.
Moreover, Freedman completely ignores the importance of the Zimmermann Telegram, a communique sent by the German Foreign Minister, Arthur Zimmermann, to Mexico, urging it to form an alliance against the U.S. This was the smoking gun that led the U.S. into the war. Interventionism was the result of the fear of the Germans (who, remember, were not winning the war — the telegram dates from January 1917) that the U.S. would enter to stake territory for its Allies. There was, after all, already an Allied Expeditionary Force of American soldiers fighting in Europe.
(10) “After we got into the war, the Zionists went to Great Britain and they said: â??Well, we performed our part of the agreement. Let’s have something in writing that shows that you are going to keep your bargain and give us Palestine after you win the war.â?? Because they didn’t know whether the war would last another year or another ten years. So they started to work out a receipt. The receipt took the form of a letter, and it was worded in very cryptic language so that the world at large wouldn’t know what it was all about. And that was called the Balfour Declaration.”
So according to Freedman’s chronology, in October 1916, the British promise the Zionists Palestine, it takes them six months to get us into the war, but the Balfour Declaration still wasn’t issued until seven months after we declared war on Germany. This doesn’t add up.
(11) “Now, when the war was ended, and the Germans went to Paris, to the Paris Peace Conference in 1919, there were 117 Jews there, as a delegation representing the Jews, headed by Bernard Baruch. I was there: I ought to know.”
Well, Bernard Baruch was certainly at the Paris Peace Conference, but where this figure of 116 other Jews as a separate delegation (Baruch was with the American delegation; after all, he was head of the War Industries Board). As for Freedman being there, I have yet to see a single independent source that verifies he was there. Not one.
(12) “The Jews at that peace conference, when they were cutting up Germany and parceling out Europe to all these nations that claimed a right to a certain part of European territory, the Jews said, ‘How about Palestine for us?'”
Well, first of all, the land that was cut out of Germany was land that was, with very few exceptions, populated by non-German people, e.g., Poland. Austria ceded Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia, these being Slavic nations whereas Austria was and is a Germanic nation.
But the real kicker is that the “Jewish delegation” demanded Palestine at this point. While it is true that an important agreement on Palestine was made at this point, it was not made between Bernard Baruch and the British government, as Freedman would have us believe. Rather, the agreement was made between Chaim Weizmann and the leader of the Arab delegation. Weizmann was of course a Zionist but a British citizen — not one of these virtually nonexistent German Zionists that we’re told about.
Freedman doesn’t tell us about the Arab delegation, but it was led by Sharif Hussein’s other son, Faisal, who would become the first King of Iraq. You can read the agreement here: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/faisaltext.html
So Britain didn’t hand Palestine over to the Zionists. Ultimately, it was Faisal that did.
(13) “And they produced, for the first time to the knowledge of the Germans, this Balfour Declaration. So the Germans, for the first time realized, ‘Oh, that was the game! That’s why the United States came into the war.’ And the Germans for the first time realized that they were defeated, they suffered this terrific reparation that was slapped onto them, because the Zionists wanted Palestine and they were determined to get it at any cost.”
Given that the New York Times published news of the Balfour Declaration a mere twelve days after the declaration was issued, it was a known agreement by the time of the Paris Peace Conference. (There were two more stories in the Times alone before the Peace Conference began.) In other words, Freedman was lying.
Notably, it is on the basis of this lie that Freedman then argues that the Germans were justified in their hatred of Jews. He ignores all evidence of German anti-Semitism between 1871 and 1919.
(14) “When Germany realized that the Jews were responsible for her defeat, they naturally resented it. But not a hair on the head of any Jew was harmed. Not a single hair. Professor Tansill, of Georgetown University, who had access to all the secret papers of the State Department, wrote in his book, and quoted from a State Department document written by Hugo Schoenfelt, a Jew who Cordell Hull sent to Europe in 1933 to investigate the so-called camps of political prisoners. And he wrote back that he found them in very fine condition.”
In 1933, the only people in concentration camps were political prisoners and not Jews. More on this below.
(15) “They were in excellent shape; everybody treated well. And they were filled with Communists. Well, a lot of them were Jews, because the Jews happened to be maybe 98 per cent of the Communists in Europe at that time.”
That’s an exaggeration obviously, but even more so for 1933 in Germany. The KPD (Communist Party) in Germany was led by Ernst Thaelmann, a Gentile. He was arrested and put in Dachau in 1933 and kept in solitary confinement until Hitler had him shot in 1944. But Jews in Germany tended not to vote for the KPD, despite its quite excellent returns in the elections between 1929 and 1932 (it always polled in the top three parties). Most Jews in Germany voted instead for the SPD, the Social-Democratic Party of Germany. This was not a communist party.
An illustrative example can be made with the situation in the Soviet Union, where far more leaders of the Communist Party there were Jews. Even conceding that this is the case, the vast majority of Jews in Russia between March 1917 and November 1917, when the Bolsheviks seized power, were not in communist parties. They tended to be either in Zionist parties or in the Jewish Bund or the PSR (social democrats). These latter two parties were the only parties in the USSR condemn the Bolshevik coup in the Congress of Deputies that had been established after the tsar had been overthrown.
Germany had even fewer Jews and, given the explanation already given that their living standard was better in Germany and that they fled there from Russia in 1905, it is not unreasonable to conclude that fewer Jews were communists in Germany than in Russia, particularly in 1933.
(16) “Well, I don’t want to go by what they were called. We’re now using English words, and what they were called in Germany is not very material. . . but they were Communists, because in 1917, the Communists took over Germany for a few days.”
As already demonstrated, the KPD existed in Germany, as did the SPD, and their platforms were so different, in fact, that the KPD refused to join SPD-led governments.
(17) “Nevertheless, the Jews of the world declared a boycott against Germany, and it was so effective that you couldn’t find one thing in any store anywhere in the world with the words ‘made in Germany’ on it.”
The Untermeyer boycott was so incredibly ineffective that Germany had experienced complete economic recovery by 1937.
(18) “The Jews — I call them Jews to you, because they are known as Jews. I don’t call them Jews. I refer to them as so-called Jews, because I know what they are. If Jesus was a Jew, there isn’t a Jew in the world today, and if those people are Jews, certainly our Lord and Savior was not one of them, and I can prove that.”
The largest Christian organization in the world is the Roman Catholic Church. In his 1965 encyclical Nostra Aetate , Pope Paul VI wrote, “The Church keeps ever in mind the words of the Apostle about his kinsmen: “theirs is the sonship and the glory and the covenants and the law and the worship and the promises; theirs are the fathers and from them is the Christ according to the flesh” (Rom. 9:4-5), the Son of the Virgin Mary. She also recalls that the Apostles, the Church’s main-stay and pillars, as well as most of the early disciples who proclaimed Christ’s Gospel to the world, sprang from the Jewish people.”
I think the Pope probably can speak on greater authority on these matters than Freedman.
(19) “The eastern European Jews, who form 92 per cent of the world’s population of those people who call themselves Jews, were originally Khazars.”
While there is no doubt that the Khazarian Empire adopted Judaism as its official religion and that this empire stretched into parts of Eastern Europe, there was still a settlement of Jews along the Rhine Valley that pre-dated the Khazars. They did not emigrate to Poland and points east of there until the 16th century, long after the Khazars were gone. These Jews spoke Yiddish, which is based on German, whereas the Khazars spoke a Turkish language.
Furthermore, genetic tests conducted in the last two years indicate that the vast majority of Jews derive from only four women, and that the priestly tribe of Jews, the kohenim, share a Middle Eastern common ancestor.
(20) “When, on the Day of Atonement, you walk into a synagogue, the very first prayer that you recite, you stand — and it’s the only prayer for which you stand — and you repeat three times a short prayer. The Kol Nidre. In that prayer, you enter into an agreement with God Almighty that any oath, vow, or pledge that you may make during the next twelve months — any oath, vow or pledge that you may take during the next twelve months shall be null and void.”
The Kol Nidrey nullifies only vows made to God. This is one of the oldest libels against Judaism and has been disproven repeatedly.
(21) “And further than that, the Talmud teaches: ‘Don’t forget — whenever you take an oath, vow, and pledge — remember the Kol Nidre prayer that you recited on the Day of Atonement, and that exempts you from fulfilling that.'”
The Talmud says no such thing and I challenge any person to prove otherwise.
(22) “There was no English word because Judea had passed out of existence. There was no Judea. People had long ago forgotten that. So in the first translation he used the word, in referring to Jesus, as ‘gyu’, ‘jew’. At the time, there was no printing press.”
Freedman’s linguistic analysis of the word “Jew” is so terrible it would make a real linguist laugh in hysterics. Suffice it to say that, yes, there was no letter J in the Roman alphabet, but they did not pronounce their word for Jew (Iudean) with the /j/ phoneme at the beginning.
(23) “Just like ‘anti-Semitic’. The Arab is a Semite. And the Christians talk about people who don’t like Jews as anti-Semites, and they call all the Arabs anti-Semites. The only Semites in the world are the Arabs. There isn’t one Jew who’s a Semite. They’re all Turkothean Mongoloids. The Eastern european Jews.”
Well, Jews are Semites, but that’s beside the point. The word coined by Wilhelm Marr nearly a century before Freedman’s speech was Antisemitismus and it was coined to apply to Jews only — not to Arabs.
(24) “They’ve never been persecuted for their religion. And I wish I had two rows of Rabbis here to challenge me. Never once, in all of history, have they been persecuted for their religion.”
Jews were consistently persecuted only on religious grounds until the 19th century. Before then, the charge was “Christ-killer.” That is a religious basis.
(25) “But Benjamin Franklin observed, and by hearsay understood, what was happening in Europe.”
Freedman is referring to a hoax of an anti-Semitic quote attributed to Ben Franklin that was actually created by William Dudley Pelley in 1933
I read your link, and it appears to me you are splitting hairs repudiating all of Giladi’s assertions because of the difference of 1950 and 1951.
I did independent research on the claim the Israeli terrorists, Haganah, poisoned the Arab water and there are independent sources confirming the allegations. I also found independent confirmation about Israel’s Black Panthers.
I read the Trigano piece and, as I suspected, it is nothing but BS, regurgitated hasbara – historical distortions and outright lies. How anyone could be fooled by it is beyond me.
What does that mean –if she was supporter of Castor? By what and how…why? Think why. Has that anything to do with her organization intending to be sending medical aid to Gaza (and being accused of terrorism support? Why and how? Think why. What does Mr. Edwin Black may ring a bell, for all.) Look, I do not know…is it relevant? How and what?
Mr. Livini,
Now, these are some separate issues – not focus of the intentions in this point in time-maybe at some other. Who knows what is next after Israeli/Palestinian condition is on World’s and UN – radar, finished and done.
Why would I write about international conflict in Syria? I am not moved by Spirit to go about that in this point in time…also; I have very limited area of facts that I can see what exactly is going on. – Not so when comes with other issues that were point of focus.
I have studied many subjects – but my focus (appointed by Spirit) was US Church and charismatic disorder that caused world-wide chaos, and still is by US Churches in Church disorder (regardless if charismatic-or not). That is/was my appointed area of study…even when I was done with study of religion and moved on to different area of focus/study…
Obviously, you have more facts and ability then I when comes to Syria – or Professor Falk… any other person in this setting? — Go on, and do the study and research on those things and drop it (as report/observation/research) – that will short-cut even their undertaking when they are ready (called) to do something about Syria.
Do you want to do something about Syria – then do it? Come back with reports and research.
Thank you,
I do not share the view that Cuba should be delegitimized as ‘a police state.’ It has
serious problems in relation to human rights and democracy, but also it has endured decades
of crippling sanctions, destabilizing violence from its American-based adversaries, and
yet has managed to do many positive things for its people.
Mr. Kelso,
This is what I understand: There are no facts on the truth Rebels in Syria are. We have different reports. Who would know the facts? UN? Someone as Robert Fisk would know…I do not consider Robert Fisk to be unable to distinguish a thing, as it would be possible for him to know-or to come up with the facts.
One (US/West) calls fighting rebels the liberators of Syria – while other says that is radical group called al-Qa’ida –or– Muslim-world liberators would not be that, in fact.
I mean, US and their allies have some destructive pattern toward Muslim people. People that had background in England’s CIA (English secret-service) have said that terrorist groups (like al-Qa’ida are planted by England) I ask by western’s/England to serve their objectives? Now these are facts – that they say that – that which they say? I am sure they have truthful testimony about that.
STILL, Who do Syrian people say that fighting rebels in Syria are?
Also, I understand that Assad family has had issues with violation of international Law – but so have US and its Allies. Neither is capable to do that which is the best for Syrian people.
Likewise, US–they are just NOT appointed to do that which is best for the people in Syria, and region of the middle east…UN is, at other hands. If UN needs US- effort…I am sure that they will be called by UN in reference to establish peace and security; meaning, to rebuild and restore, implementing the world-sustainability.
I say that war/destruction efforts of US are an option to be of the tables that are negotiating, in all times…unless there is a oppressor as US/West and Israel to war/destruct against (now this feels to me like a mockery, but is not).
Just consider the needs of Africa; instead of needs of Syria…UN can manage the needs of Syria without US!
It’s like ‘let’s appropriate accountability.” Do that, and you will do that which is right.
K.F.
Kelso: HELL O! Can you hear me? HEAR,Hear, Hear :
The Jews that you are referring to and defending are NOT AUTHENTIC JEWS! They are Jews-false (even by conversion to Judaism from pagan-roots–they are/have managed not to be Jews-valid – grafted in by Judaism – which would be valid, acceptable).
Palestinian People are JEWS AUTHENTIC – this known is by scientific evidence/genetic study that is done by a Jew-valid.
The Jews-fake (in Israel), in fact, are the government of Antichrist/ as wicked Israelites and Gentiles that are Church/in the Church/False Christians– and are practicing “The Third Rich of Hitler”, in fact.
All this–while using people of USA? Are you idiotically blind? I understand your concerns in another spirit.
My general perception is this: You do not reason with satanic realities, nor you can. Would you be in spirit of Satan-or just deceived? I have a pastor that can meet all your needs!
TEXE Marrs & FACTS, FACTS, FACTS!!!!
Kelso: I guess that Kelso will learn from background 😀 😀 😀
What is wrong with you, Kelso? Just have some reflections before you write ALL BY ERROR!
What you say about Professor Falk is false-not true. FACT.
Kelso:
You can see that in another way: You were kicked out (for a while) from the class. Lol, lol…
Kelso,
You are misinterpreting Professor Falk and his arguments/approach.
Hillel Neuer does exactly the same thing. (I do not understand his motives).
You have to distinguish all legitimate warfare from illegitimate (terrorism/genocide). Who does what and in what capability and power?
To do this—you have to evaluate all small details. This is very difficult and almost impossible to not qualified (as Hillel) and other youth. (You).
I am sure that at occasion Fatah and Hamas have violated International Law, and maybe perhaps not (I am not expert in that). However, I know this: They are self-organized group of peoples that have had strived for self-determination, as well as self-defense against a government (s) – or/and on behave of People in Palestine. You have to look at all details and facts (all that is applicable).
Keep thinking, Dan. Maybe you will reach enlightenment one day. Meanwhile, please keep the Jerusalem Post fairy tales to yourself. They don’t interest me.
This is on my mind, as posted in The Jerusalem Post this morning on the discussion of an article reporting an open letter by a group of Israeli rabbis accusing US Secretary of State John Kerry of “declaring a war against God” for his efforts to broker an Israeli- Palestinian peace.
The “Chosen People” of G-d’ from thousands of years ago are dead and gone. They served G_d’s Purposes and Plans then, but obviously, it was part of G_d’s evolving Plan, Israel should disappear from among the kingdoms of this world for 3000 years until it was recreated from the Bible in the aftermath of the fresh horrors of WWII in 1948.
G_d is G_d and Creator to the Gentiles as well as to Jews.
Today, G-d is calling new “Chosen People” to do the works of G_d TODAY, in Today’s world, not the world of 3800 years ago.
WWII discredited for all TIME, the Evil that is born from the notion of a Master Race or a People considering themselves “Superior” and justifiable in their own minds, in allowing abusing the other people they considered inferior living in their midst.
They say History repeats itself and some people God created have forgotten that most important lesson of WWII.
Thus says the LORD, The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool: where is the house that you build for me? and where is the place of my rest?
For all those things have my hand made, and those things have been, says the LORD: but to this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembles at my word.
I also posted a new article to my blog on my Birthday February 1. It is my Born Again of the Spirit Birthday as I’m living my 70th flesh year going on 40.
http://ray032.com/2014/02/01/i-am-that-i-am/
Dear Richard,
There is a typically unflattering report on the end of your tenure in the Jerusalem Post Today. I have to admire your strength of character to have withstood so many assaults on your persona all these years. You do have others that supported and encouraged you.
I was called a spawn of Satan in a Jerusalem Post discussion last week.
Terra Incognita: Extremely UNnecessary: Falk’s big fat waste of time
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Terra-Incognita-Extremely-UNnecessary-Falks-big-fat-waste-of-time-341945
Do you have a preference on who should replace you, and why?