(Prefatory Note: Rabbi Youdovin has written a lengthy response in the form of a comment, which I now append here so that readers of the post can judge for themselves the nature of our disagreements, and reach their own conclusions.)
An Open Letter to Rabbi Ira Youdovin:
We have exchanged views frequently in the last few years, most often by way of adversary comments written in reaction to posts published on this website. I write now a post in the form of an ‘open letter’ because I think your most recent comment objecting to my support for Steven Salaita in his campaign to have his tenure faculty appointment reinstated in the American Indian Studies Department at the Urbana-Champaign campus of the University of Illinois. Phyllis Wise, the Chancellor, now with the formal approval of the Board of Trustees, refused to forward the appointment to Board, because of private tweets highly critical of Israel that she relied upon for making a unilateral decision that Salaita would be a disruptive presence on campus and that someone holding such strong views would likely make Jewish students in courses he offered uncomfortable. She later clarified her decision as prompted by the realization that the Board under pressure from university donors would have rejected the appointment in any event and admitted that she should have consulted further before reaching her decision. I indicated my view that not only should Salaita be reinstated, but also he deserved a formal apology from the chancellor and reimbursement for damages sustained, including to his academic reputation.
Our most fundamental disagreement is exhibited by the opening sentences of your comment responding to my earlier post suggesting that the dehiring of Salaita amounted to an assault on academic freedom and freedom of expression. You start your comment this way: “The Salaita case is not about free speech. It’s about hate speech. The examples of Salaita’s comments cited by Prof. Falk constitute a carefully collected and unrepresentative sample of the dozens on record.” You go on to choose tweets that you find more offensive than those contained in my post:
“More typical of his “body of work” are:
“Fuck you, Israel. And while I’m at it, fuck you, too, PA, Sisi –
“The IDF spokesperson is a lying motherfucker.”
“If you’re defending Israel right now you’re an awful human being.”
“If Netanyahu appeared on TV wearing a necklace made from the teeth of Palestinian children, would anyone be surprised?”
Actually, the last of your examples was among those that I included in my post, but this is a minor quibble. My real disagreement centers on your insistence that the Salaita case “is not about free speech. It’s about hate speech.” There is no doubt that these tweets are instances of extreme invective, making use of profane language, but are they properly construed as ‘hate speech’? I would hope not. These tweets, which were not expressed in the language of the dinner table or polite parlor conversation, are directed at Israel, not Jews as a people or Jews as individuals. Israel is a state. The state is an abstraction. You cannot hate an abstraction except as a language trope. If I shout “I hate the color brown” or “fuck all brown cars” it would be absurd to consider this kind of emotive language as hate speech. The same distinction should hold in speech on matters of political opinion.
It is here where the essential controversy between us lies. Israel’s first defenders seek to make everyone feel that Israel as a self-proclaimed Jewish state is, in effect, the personification of the Jewish people, and that using profane language of criticism about the state amounts to hate speech. Such efforts to personify the state are themselves destructive of democratic discourse, and do impact upon academic freedom as well as muddy the waters as to the character of anti-Semitism. To be angry at a state may reveal an intemperate personality, perhaps even extreme alienation, but by itself has not ventured into the forbidden domain of hate. And many of us, including Steven Salaita, draw a sharp line separating our attitudes toward Israel as a state and the Jewish people as a people.
Let us choose a clear example to highlight the point. To hate Nazi Germany became not only an accepted attitude, but surely the politically correct position during and after World War II. To extend that hate, however, to the German people crosses the dangerous line, and to treat a particular German as automatically of Nazi persuasion would similarly be hateful. There has been useful debate as to what extent the German people went along with Hitler’s Nazi program, especially occasioned by Daniel Goldhagen’s challenge directed at the claim that ordinary Germans were unawares of the fate befalling the Jewish people. [See his Hitler’s Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust (1997)].
I recall my own experience in North Vietnam in June 1968, in the midst of the Vietnam War, when person after person, whether a peasant in the countryside or a high official in Hanoi, told me that they hated the American government but had positive feelings toward the American people. They attributed this sentiment to the teaching of Ho Chi Minh, the revered Communist leader of their national movement, but it was said with such heartfelt sincerity by the people I met in Vietnam as to make me aware of the deficiencies of American political culture that routinely conflates an enemy state with the citizenry of the country. Such a lethal confusion may reflect the survival of racialism, and be one of the continuing costs imposed by the terrible heritage of slavery, which was also accentuated by the genocidal treatment of the indigenous population of North America by the early generations of settler colonialists. The Zionist conflation works in the opposite direction, insisting that those who challenge Israel beyond a certain moderate point are racists, a species of anti-Semite, however much they protest against the derogatory label.
More to the point, expressing anger toward Israel seems well within the protected boundaries of free speech, and so the only reasonable question is one of tone, including the use of profanity to express such anger, and its relevance to academic performance. As Salaita himself explained, his tweets were mainly written in the context of the recent Israeli massacre of Palestinian civilians, including over 500 children, during a period of acute frustration undoubtedly heightened by the sense that his own government here in the United States was mindlessly supportive of what Israel was doing to a vulnerable and entrapped civilian population.
It is also relevant to know whether the tweets should be taken as an ominous indicator of how Salaita would behave in the classroom and within the university community. On the basis of abundant testimony from colleagues and former students, as well as Salaita own very clearly articulated views, there is every reason to be confident that he would welcome and treat fairly diverse viewpoints with respect and sensitivity, including those supportive of Israel’s behavior. It is also is helpful to know that in the course of his six published books on a variety of topics involving the abuses experienced by marginalized peoples, including Palestinians, there is no hint of racism or indulgence in hate speech as an acceptable response. Quite the contrary, there is a rejection of all forms of profiling whether of the oppressor or the oppressed.
Of course, an accusation of hate speech in the context of criticizing Israel has as its objecting the implication that the speaker is guilty of genuine anti-Semitism. As I have tried to argue in a recent post [Sept. 1, 2014], Zionist propaganda seeks to merge anti-Israelism, denominated as a form of racial bigotry, with anti-Semitism as hatred of Jews and the Jewish people. The widespread deliberate use of this technique by organized Zionist forces in the United States is convincingly documented in The Battle for Justice in Palestine (Chicago: Haymarket, 2014), 125-225 by Ali Abunimah. It forms part of the wider Israeli effort to defend a rising tide of anti-Israeli student activism on American university campuses, and more broadly what Israeli think tanks call ‘the delegitimation project’ associated with such initiatives as the BDS campaign.
I found your gratuitous swipe at the Palestinian quest for national heroes particularly nasty and unjustified. You make this strange assertion: “The Palestinians and their supporters are woefully short on heroes. The five most often mentioned—Arafat, Saladin, Gandhi, Mandela, and Martin Luther King are dead. Moreover, three weren’t Arabs and only one was a Palestinian.”
I have been around Palestinians for a long time and I find this statement out of touch. Aside from Arafat, who is controversial even among Palestinians, and Mandela, who is invoked quite often as an inspirational figure, the other three are only rarely, if at all, mentioned. Much more appreciated as heroes by Palestinians is Archbishop Tutu of South Africa, and to a lesser extent, Jimmy Carter, both of whom are very much alive and remain engaged. Most surprisingly your list omits Edward Said and Mahmoud Darwish, both Palestinians and by far the most influential members of the Palestinian pantheon of heroes, and among the most eloquent of anti-colonial resistance voices who have ever set foot on planet earth.
Yes, Steven Salaita is a casualty of the long struggle to achieve Palestinian rights, and a victim of what I have called Zionist McCarthyism, but hopefully never a martyr to the cause. When you mock his passion with the demeaning words, “what kind of honest discussion could emerge from his obscene adolescent ranting?” Rabbi Youdovin, Salaita was certainly not seeking ‘honest discussion’ by sending these tweets to friends and followers, but expressing his righteous disgust about what was happening to the people of a shared ethnicity, and what you dismiss as “obscene adolescent ranting” others, including myself, hear as screams of pain and anguish. There are times and places for honest discussion, and there are times and places for screams of pain and anguish.
If we yearn for a world more dedicated to peace and justice, and more focused on human survival, we all need to learn to listen with our hearts as well as our heads. I find that both modes of communication have their role, and we harm our civic life as a country if we reject the relevance of screams of discontent and insist that only reasoned discourse has value.
.
Sincerely,
Richard Falk
*******************************
In his “Open Letter to Rabbi Ira Youdovin”, Prof Falk brands me as being among the viscous Zionists determined to ruin Steven Salaita’s career. As night follows day, the Blog Faithful pile on. One writes, “Rabbi Ira Youdovin’s views and behaviours are identical to some “mullahs” inside Iran, whose “morality” is: “The end justifies the means.” I feel sorry for Judaism.” Kata Fisher, in one of her “Reflections”, denounces me as being tunder the power of Satan and warns that I’ll be Judged, (In this and other matters, Ms. Fisher fancies herself as having a direct line to the mind of the Almighty.) But she also provides an unintentional dose of humor. Noting my frequent exchanges with Prof. Falk, she condemns me for inflicting “psychological abuse toward elderly person like that.” I’m not sure that the professor delights in being characterized as an emotionally fragile old geezer.
This is pretty scary stuff, being accused of trying to destroy a promising young scholar’s career, compared unfavorably to the Iranian mullahs and condemned to eternal damnation. The blogosphere is not always friendly place. But Prof. Falk’s blog is an especially rough neighborhood. So before I’m consumed in the fires of hell, please join me in talking a look (or second look) \at what I actually wrote.
I made a total of two posts regarding Prof. Salaita. They can be found in the two threads preceding this one. For those who don’t want to do the scrolling, here are the relevant
excerpts:
1/
“The Salaita case is not about free speech….This was not a one-time temper tantrum that might be dismissed as a momentary lapse. This is a university professor who repeatedly sounds like a potty-mouthed teenage punk. And unlike the teenager who likely is content to walk down the street muttering to himself until his anger subsides, Salaita wanted to share his animus with anybody within tweeting range.”
“I can’t make a judgment on the Salaita episode because I don’t know the inside story.”
2/
“As I posted yesterday, I won’t get into the controversy over whether Salaita’s firing is justified. I know little about the rules governing academic freedom. And, truth be told, I have more than a little sympathy for the plight of his family with neither income nor health insurance. Were it up to me, a simple apology—one that would focus on his tactics and not demanding that he renounce his underlying convictions—would have sufficed to merit reinstatement. “
“Please note that I take no position on the propriety of the university withdrawing its job offer. But although it has no relevance to the case, I am appalled by Salaita’s language. Standards on social media may not be the same as in the classroom. (Apparently, civility in their public statements is no longer expected from college teachers.) But to my mind, someone capable of an extended and profane rant of this nature directed at anything or anyone is a questionable candidate for any faculty.”
That doesn’t sound all that bad, does it? My focus is on Prof. Salaita’s language, not his ideas. I plead guilty to being committed to linguistic civility. But so was Prof. Falk until he ran into an obscenity tweeting Palestinian and changed the rules governing civility on this blog. Moreover, I clearly state that my has no relevance to his dispute with the U of Illinois. In other words, I’m not advocating anything in regard to Prof. Salaita’s job, other than saying that he merits re-instatement , and expressing my regret over the mutual failure to work things out, which likely could have been done with a little flexibility on both sides. Prof. Falk and his cohorts got their martyr, and Prof. Salaita lost his job. Doesn’t seem like a fair trade, but that’s not my decision to make.
So how do I wind up in Prof. Falk’s doghouse? The answer entails a wild adventure in sophistry and demagoguery.
Prof. Falk begins by disputing my assessment of Prof. Salaita’s tweets as hate speech. Full disclosure: having served for several years on the Illinois Governor’s Commission on Discrimination and Hate Crime, I’m aware that there are a variety of legal definitions of what constitutes hate speech, and that Prof. Salaita’s tweets do not cross the threshold prescribed by some of them. Had this been Prof. Falks objection, I would have acknowledged the error and adjusted my statement accordingly.
But Prof. Falk had something else in mind. His thesis is that Prof. Salaita’s anger not is directed at human beings—Jewish, Israeli or otherwise—but at the State of Israel. States, he argues, are abstractions, like the color brown; and nobody would construe the statement “fuck the color brown” as hate speech. Consequently, Prof. Salaita’s tweeting obscenities like “fuck you” and calling someone a “motherfucker” cannot be hate speech because he’s addressing an abstraction, like the color brown. I suspect this arcane theory comes as a surprise to Prof. Salita who personalized his tweets by specifically calling out the IDF’s spokesman a “motherfucker”, and imaging Israel’s prime minister as appearing on television wearing a necklace of a Palestinian children’s teeth.
Not being a lawyer, I’ll accept Prof. Falk’s word that the state is regarded as an abstraction in the rarefied circles of international law faculties . But in the real world—the world in which Steven Salaita and the rest of us live—the state is not in the same category as the color brown . For one thing, the color brown is not engaged in an often violent conflict with Prof. Salaita’s people. His hatred may be understandable, but it is hatred nevertheless. As a non-lawyer, I base this conclusion on the prosaic, but familiar “Duck Test”: if it quacks like a duck, waddles like a duck and looks like a duck, etc…”
This is another of those inconvenient truths that rise up to bedevil Prof. Falk in his determination to delete, deny or explain away every Palestinian failing. Regrettably, the way he handles this one is pure, unadulterated sophistry.
I won’t deal with Prof. Falk’s allusion to Nazi Germany because, frankly, I don’t understand it. I agree that it was/is wrong to blame all Germans for the Nazi atrocities. But that’s not because Germany is an abstraction. It’s because the German wartime population encompassed a diversity of opinions on, and knowledge of what was happening. This is precisely what Prof. Falk demonstrates in citing Goldhagen’s book (although I don’t understand why he chose to cite a controversial book to prove a self-evident point, particularly at a time when Hannah Arendt’s theory about the ”banality of evil” is again under serious attack.)
But more importantly, at whom is Prof. Falk’s rebuke directed? All I did was criticize Prof. Salaita’s use of profanity. That’s one person, not a population. According to Prof. Falk’s theory, Prof. Salaita would be a more appropriate target. He’s cursing an abstraction called Israel, which includes many Israelis who dissent from the Likud government’s policies. But that can’t be. Hate speech hurled at a state cannot be hate speech, just as hate speech hurled at the color brown cannot be hare speech. So we go round and round. Prof. Falk often accuses me of misrepresenting or misconstruing his positions. So I’ll leave this one with a big question mark.
Now we come to a great leap of illogic which takes us from the realm of sophistry to the realm of demagoguery. Having (erroneously!) concluded that Prof. Salaita’s remarks could not constitute hate speech, Prof. Falk proceeds to roll out his theory of why I think it does: “Israel’s first defenders [that’s me!] seek to make everyone feel that Israel as a self-proclaimed Jewish state is, in effect, the personification of the Jewish people, and that using profane language of criticism about the state amounts to hate speech…Of course, an accusation of hate speech in the context of criticizing Israel has as its objecting the implication that the speaker is guilty of genuine anti-Semitism.”
Where does this come from? I make no mention of anti-Semitism. Nor do I imply that any is a factor. To the contrary, I’ve repeatedly stated on this blog and elsewhere that criticism of Israel, even harsh criticism, does not necessarily reflect anti-Semitism. I have no idea of Prof. Salaita’s attitudes toward Jews And I did say that he merits reinstatement. But Prof. Falk deliberately ignores these not incidental realities. In his view, all criticism of Israel’s critics implies an accusation of anti-Semitism. This is outrageous stereotyping. Indeed, it’s demagogic. Faced with a set of problematic tweets, Prof. Falk asserts an elaborate and totally inaccurate rendition of my beliefs as a ploy to deflect attention from the evidence at hand. As they say in (American) football: a good offense is the best defense.
But to those of us smeared by Prof. Falk’s evasive tactics, his offense is offensive.
The saddest part of this episode is that when the dust clears, it will become apparent that the melee was not over free speech, but over the propriety of a professor’s use of obscenity which added nothing to his message but cost him his job, while his cheerleaders returned to their secure jobs and comfortable homes. Yes, Prof. Falk, those undeleted expletive were screams of pain and anguish. But aren’t there better, indeed more effective ways of expressing these same emotions, ways that do not draw attention away from the thoughts and emotions being expressed by making the words, themselves, the main attraction…ways that do not drive people apart by demonizing one side or the other? And shouldn’t we look to our intellectuals, young and old, to lead the way in developing this more civilized language?
Rabbi Ira Youdovin
Global Justice in the 21st Century 
Rabbi Ira Youdovin’s views and behaviours are identical to some “mullahs” inside Iran, whose “morality” is: “The end justifies the means.” I feel sorry for Judaism.
No Iranian “Mullah” has claimed that “Jews are created to serve Muslims” as late Chief Rabbi of Israel claimed.
You say, “The state is an abstraction. You cannot hate an abstraction except as a language trope,” and then you immediately contradict yourself: “To hate Nazi Germany became not only an accepted attitude, but surely the politically correct position during and after World War II.” The reason you are working so hard to get around the hate problem is because you refuse to acknowledge that there is such a thing as hatred of Israel, as opposed to criticism of Israel, and that it most often derives from hatred of Jews, except in the case of Israel-hating Jews, who are a special category. Since you yourself acknowledge that there is such a thing as antisemitism in this world (which you label “Type I”), surely you understand that a great many if not all of these antisemites will hate Israel too, and some of them show up on your website and all the other anti-Israel websites.
As to “hate language,” that is now a legal concept that should be ironed out in courts of law. The question of whether language of this kind, whatever its legal definition, is appropriate in a member of an academic institution and how a university should respond to it, is not one that I feel inclined to get involved in. I will only repeat that the efforts to boycott Israeli academic institutions and Israeli academics on the part of the anti-Israel crowd belies this entire posture of defending academic freedom
Not for the first time, you miss my point. It was fine to hate Nazi Germany, and it was not hate speech; it was in the same linguistic
category as hating brown cars. What would have been wrong was to stereotype the German people or any given German other than an official
of the state or a member of the Nazi Party or someone that proclaimed their allegiance to Naziism. And as for your second point, I also
disagree. Christian Zionist affirm Israel unconditionally while favoring the expulsion of diaspora Jews so as to make way for the Second
Coming, a duality that illustrates my distinction between two types of anti-Semitism.
No, I don’t miss your point, you yourself tripped over it when you stated that you cannot hate a state because it is an abstraction (a remark meant to apply to Israel and get around the accusations of antisemitism) and in the same breath speak of legitimate hatred of Nazi Germany, which by your definition is also an abstraction. Of course hating Germany does not legitimize hating Germans as such, but in Israel’s case the hatred is not the cause of antisemitism but the process is reversed: the antisemitism is the cause of the hatred of Israel, and that is a very important distinction, because in the case of Germany it is what Germany did that may have caused people to hate Germans as such, whereas in Israel’s case it is the antisemitism that may cause people to vilify Israel and not necessarily what Israel has or has not done.
But do tell me this at least. Do you agree that antisemites may hate Israel for no other reason than that they hate Jews?
I am afraid you do miss my point. I was using the extreme case of Nazi Germany to say that even hating it was not hate speech unless it was a spillover
from hating Germans as a people, and not the other way around. Yes, of course, real anti-Semites do generally disparage Israel, but such disparagement is
not itself hate speech unless one make the claim that I and many other Jews reject that Israel and the Jewish people are indistinguishable because it has
declared itself to be the state of the Jewish people. Such a move is what semantically inclined experts call ‘reification,’ investing an abstraction with
the characteristics of a person.
You are beginning to lose me in what looks to me like double-talk. In declaring itself the state of the Jewish people though many Jews live abroad, Israel is no different from Italy and Germany, which are the declared states of the Italian and German people though many Italians and Germans also live abroad.
Hate speech isn’t the issue here. That is a legal concept. The issue is antisemitism or Jew hatred as such. Since you acknowledge that antisemitism exists and determines what the antisemite thinks and feels about Israel, let us leave it at that and let each of us rely on his own understanding, of how language expresses feelings to determine when attacks on Israel are or are not purely the product of such antisemitism.
To smear critics of Israel as haters of Jews is the real issue, and you persist in doing so.
Israel is different than Germany and Italy as it emerged in mid-20th century by dispossessing a major portion of the indigenous population,
destroying their villages, denying them a right of return, while creating an unlimited right of return for Jews anywhere in the world. Any
of these states is subject to criticism without the implication that the critic hates persons of a given ethnicity. To the extent Germans discriminate
against ethnic minorities as a state it deserves criticism from a human rights perspective, but that does not mean the critic is motivated by hatred
of Germans. Yours is rhetorical move to intimidate and insult those who do not agree with the policies and practices of the Israeli state.
We are really going around in circles. I have stated repeatedly that I do not regard criticism of Israel as necessarily involving Jew hatred. You have acknowledged that Jew haters will naturally be prone to hate Israel as such. I have suggested that each of us rely on his own understanding to determine when the criticism spills over into what can be identified as Jew hatred, There is nothing intimidating or insulting in what I am saying but you are now recapitulating your grievances against Israel, which is a debate in itself. In any case, to close the circle once again, since you have mentioned Germany and acknowleddge that there are people who illegitimately hate Germans as such, surely you can also envisage a situation where views about how Germany treats its minorities can in certain cases be colored by this hatred of Germans and not necessarily by the facts of the matter.
You constantly are misinterpreting my responses. My view is that only when you show INDEPENDENTLY that a person harbors hatred for Jews can
you be justified in construing sharp criticism of Israel as an extension of their anti-Semitism. It doesn’t work the other way around. In other
words claiming that because Salaita or I are very critical of Israel we can be by that evidence alone be categorized as anti-Semites. It is this latter move
that you and others who are trying so hard to shield Israel from legitimate criticism are so intent on making with the apparent purpose of intimidation.
No, it is not the criticism as such that reveals the antisemitism but the language of the criticism. You may take as an example the following:
“Looking what the descendents of the Patriarchs are doing Today, it must be part of the genetic makeup of the Chosen People”
with the Patriarchs gratuitously characterized as liars, thieves and murderers. You may also take as an example the habitual remarks of your Walker Percy, whose wisdom you often praised.
As for the other signs, I have indicated them often enough. You will find them on all the anti-Israel sights, accompanied by language so vehement – like your own “Nazis” – that there can be no doubt about the inherent animosity at work, especially in view of the fact that this kind of language is never used with reference to the world’s real criminals – murderers of tens and hundreds of thousands of people.
A TEST corrected version, so to say to rehmat1:
Did you ever read the Book of Judges? What does it say about who was responsible for wiping out tribe of Benjamin?
What happened, and what happened after all women and children of Benjamin were killed? Was it not as same as something that priest /Levite did?
Can you recall trouble of Gideon? How about hilarious drinking waters by tongues? How many of them were so strong; forget about Samson and his handsome hair-cut.
Now, I too will hide in the wine press of the threshing floor…lol.
Is it not like Russia’s Gestapo who rules in the state of Israel? How comes?
What do you need? The angel of the “LORD” – and behave like Gideon on his own?
Geographical Position of Germany — I would love to oversee? By what means – from space? Issshhh…
I almost feel I’m just babbling…
Did anyone else have the feeling that Bibi wanted to wind up his latest pogrom before the campuses reopened this fall? Classes starting, and Gaza still burning? Very bad for hasbara – remember Vietnam?
Bravo, Professor Falk! And mazel tov in bringing reasoned reflection to a subject matter (broadly construed) that seems to short-circuit rational thought among so many stakeholders.
I am not an Arab or a Palestinian, and having gratefully been educated in a Jewish-sponsored university, I do have many, some very dear and close Jewish friends. But I do strongly deplore the arrogance of the leaders of Israel, the state discrimination against Israel’s own Arab citizens, the continuing expansion of the settlements expropriating Palestinian land, and, particularly, the recent most brutal destruction of Gaza and masacre of innocent Gazans. And I, too, deplore the tacit opportunism of the PA and the complicit attitude of its principal supporters, self-righteous Saudi Arabia and the brutal Sisi government.
I have a reflection:
At first I wanted to say nothing – but I really feel I should give a reference of an example of happenings:
I was at Webster where the culture itself is not puffed up – but in the context they would say—or give reference to individuals as “SOB” and would say similar things that did Mr. Salaita.
I could only laugh in that context; it can’t bother me.
However, say that someone flips me off as I drive–and not in capacity of power that they may have; it can bother me.
What Steven Salaita has said is culturally, situation, and institutionally acceptable toward Israel; meaning, their works deserve nothing less. Profanity they deserve? Yes!
Look and see what Professor Falk has received toward him– all kinds of profanity..Did he deserve that? No. When I read some of the posts, I could not believe Psychological abuse toward elderly person like that.
Further,
In 2008 and under direction of the Spirit of God, during spiritual exercises and in virtual presence of two other people I was moved to give over to Satan woman/girl that falsely ministered to me. She experienced profanity in her mind and spirit, and in her womb lawless fruit she experienced by 2009, and grave to the fruit after her womb, she has experienced as well in 2010. This is why: she called me in 2008 and told me about how she needs to minister to Lutheran girl, and I warned her– I did not hear back from her until she was under judgment.
I gave another woman over to Satan that was unrepentant disputing with me about tattoos and spiritual authority over the Scripture. The wrath of the Spirit rested with me, and I cursed her by Spirit of God in the presence of few– it did not go well with her and her family because there, too, was death.
So it is with Israel and their leaders & all supporters of evil things and their works: profanity.
I do not think that Steven Salaita is SOB, and I do not believe that profanity rules him; unlike Israel and their leaders.
People that are ruled by dessert of their bellies – such as these who can’t choose between donors (value in cash) and value of their education that they can offer—that—in fact becomes authentic stench over the time.
US universities look more and more like organizational bundles of cults – where human or spiritual nature is just abhorred, while not abhorring, at all. What’s abhorring is this: wicked scales—measures by which some measure.
Israel and their leader need laws appointed over their heads to discern and restrict the devils in them—and/or prophets to curse them to death according to their works.
I have no doubt in my mind that the unjust harm toward Steven Salaita will be under condemnation and judgment upon those who did craft evil things.
I am not wrong about this.
I have another reflection:
Perhaps, for Rabbi’s is not all to be discerning what people do but what Scripture says.
And perhaps, Rabbi Ira Youdovin is to catch up with Gene on his way to vacation, and see the same Rabbi, as well.
I think this is an intelligent analysis of the situation. I am sure the courts will agree. Criticizing the Zionists policy in Israel, is not the same as hate speech toward Jewish people. Every black is not a thug, every bald white guy is not a skinhead, every German isn’t a Nazi, and every Jewish brother isn’t Zionist. There are millions of people in Israel who are angrily protesting the genocide in Palestine.
Prof Falk, If you took the quoted statements of Steven Salaita and substituted the rabbi’s name as comments from you, where would that leave us as your supporters? Instead you wrote in a language consistent with rational effective discourse. Considering the emotional battering you endure with this issue, it would be little wonder if you flew into a rage – but Confucius said that people learn better by example than rhetoric. If one hates the color brown, I hear/learn nothing and am unaffected. If you say the color brown reminds me of the Brown Shirts, I do understand. The university, however, is concerned about single issue donors and did not react on principle. It would be very useful if Salaita would be hired at some institution and could use his experience as a learning tool for those who aspire to effective leadership.The advantage of tribunals of ethical learned participants is the calibre of testimony one can experience. I am still affected by an involvement with the International Progress Organization in Vienna. There was real substance in the proceedings on Palestine and I still refer to their publications on the injustice done to the people who were uprooted from their land and another people invited to shamelessly loot and possess the area.
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2014/09/12/Pope-to-marry-couples-living-in-sin/1161410544188/
I have a reflection:
I hope he baptized them in God’s Spirit prior to the Church marriage—or they had confession with a Charismatic priest who only can legitimately by the Order of the Church-Catholic-Charismatic take on someone’s confession and forgive the sins on behave of the Church-Catholic. Otherwise, the Pope has/is about to preformed and/or has taken part in blessing of the illicit marriage/s in the Church-Catholic.
If you have spiritually excommunicated /un-churched church —they cannot be grafted in just by any means back into the Church-fellowship. Certainly, they will be in invalid/illicit Church marriage if Charismatic priest did not do the marriage of the Church, and they will not bring up or produce holy offspring.
I have watched on Pope Francis messing up on the Church Order –as a Catholic I am so obediently loyal to the Pope to let myself know “my truth”…
There is nothing like witchcraft spirit in the priesthood that is not ordained/not in a valid ordination of the Church-Charismatic-Catholic, and they would be just best of to Charismatic-ordain the women, instead…I am just kidding, and this is a religious mock?
If the priest is not in all Sacraments-valid of the Church — he cannot perform valid sacraments of the Church.
When comes to the Church Order and the Teaching office of the Church — the Church is not a democratic fellowship of the priest; it is a dictatorship of the prophets..
I am not wrong about this.
Prof. Falkk,
This comment may be off message on the instant Post but is nonetheless rellevant.
If the United States and its Allies (not to say Poodles) cannot or will no stop Israel’s inexorable march towards an Apartheid State, then what moral, ethical and legal bases do they have to stop IS.
It is not fashionable now but VI Lenin advised that one must always be Morally Superior to the Enemy.
After what the World witnessed in Gaza for over 50. Days, how can Israel and the West be morally superior to the convoluted logic of IS; for whom present action is a continuation of 3,600 -3 ,700 years of War
In the meantime the Average Agnostic suffers. The Average Muslim suffers, the Average Jew suffers and the Average Christian or. Other Religious Minorities. suffer.
As the King of Jordan repotredly told John Kerry: the central conradiction in the Middle East is the Struggle of Palestine to recover some of whatt was robbed from it in the. Balfour Declaration.
A greater piece of infamy cannot be imagined.
Regards.
Loyal Reader
Sent from my BlackBerry® device from Digicel
In his “Open Letter to Rabbi Ira Youdovin”, Prof Falk brands me as being among the viscous Zionists determined to ruin Steven Salaita’s career. As night follows day, the Blog Faithful pile on. One writes, “Rabbi Ira Youdovin’s views and behaviours are identical to some “mullahs” inside Iran, whose “morality” is: “The end justifies the means.” I feel sorry for Judaism.” Kata Fisher, in one of her “Reflections”, denounces me as being tunder the power of Satan and warns that I’ll be Judged, (In this and other matters, Ms. Fisher fancies herself as having a direct line to the mind of the Almighty.) But she also provides an unintentional dose of humor. Noting my frequent exchanges with Prof. Falk, she condemns me for inflicting “psychological abuse toward elderly person like that.” I’m not sure that the professor delights in being characterized as an emotionally fragile old geezer.
This is pretty scary stuff, being accused of trying to destroy a promising young scholar’s career, compared unfavorably to the Iranian mullahs and condemned to eternal damnation. The blogosphere is not always friendly place. But Prof. Falk’s blog is an especially rough neighborhood. So before I’m consumed in the fires of hell, please join me in talking a look (or second look) \at what I actually wrote.
I made a total of two posts regarding Prof. Salaita. They can be found in the two threads preceding this one. For those who don’t want to do the scrolling, here are the relevant
excerpts:
1/
“The Salaita case is not about free speech….This was not a one-time temper tantrum that might be dismissed as a momentary lapse. This is a university professor who repeatedly sounds like a potty-mouthed teenage punk. And unlike the teenager who likely is content to walk down the street muttering to himself until his anger subsides, Salaita wanted to share his animus with anybody within tweeting range.”
“I can’t make a judgment on the Salaita episode because I don’t know the inside story.”
2/
“As I posted yesterday, I won’t get into the controversy over whether Salaita’s firing is justified. I know little about the rules governing academic freedom. And, truth be told, I have more than a little sympathy for the plight of his family with neither income nor health insurance. Were it up to me, a simple apology—one that would focus on his tactics and not demanding that he renounce his underlying convictions—would have sufficed to merit reinstatement. “
“Please note that I take no position on the propriety of the university withdrawing its job offer. But although it has no relevance to the case, I am appalled by Salaita’s language. Standards on social media may not be the same as in the classroom. (Apparently, civility in their public statements is no longer expected from college teachers.) But to my mind, someone capable of an extended and profane rant of this nature directed at anything or anyone is a questionable candidate for any faculty.”
That doesn’t sound all that bad, does it? My focus is on Prof. Salaita’s language, not his ideas. I plead guilty to being committed to linguistic civility. But so was Prof. Falk until he ran into an obscenity tweeting Palestinian and changed the rules governing civility on this blog. Moreover, I clearly state that my has no relevance to his dispute with the U of Illinois. In other words, I’m not advocating anything in regard to Prof. Salaita’s job, other than saying that he merits re-instatement , and expressing my regret over the mutual failure to work things out, which likely could have been done with a little flexibility on both sides. Prof. Falk and his cohorts got their martyr, and Prof. Salaita lost his job. Doesn’t seem like a fair trade, but that’s not my decision to make.
So how do I wind up in Prof. Falk’s doghouse? The answer entails a wild adventure in sophistry and demagoguery.
Prof. Falk begins by disputing my assessment of Prof. Salaita’s tweets as hate speech. Full disclosure: having served for several years on the Illinois Governor’s Commission on Discrimination and Hate Crime, I’m aware that there are a variety of legal definitions of what constitutes hate speech, and that Prof. Salaita’s tweets do not cross the threshold prescribed by some of them. Had this been Prof. Falks objection, I would have acknowledged the error and adjusted my statement accordingly.
But Prof. Falk had something else in mind. His thesis is that Prof. Salaita’s anger not is directed at human beings—Jewish, Israeli or otherwise—but at the State of Israel. States, he argues, are abstractions, like the color brown; and nobody would construe the statement “fuck the color brown” as hate speech. Consequently, Prof. Salaita’s tweeting obscenities like “fuck you” and calling someone a “motherfucker” cannot be hate speech because he’s addressing an abstraction, like the color brown. I suspect this arcane theory comes as a surprise to Prof. Salita who personalized his tweets by specifically calling out the IDF’s spokesman a “motherfucker”, and imaging Israel’s prime minister as appearing on television wearing a necklace of a Palestinian children’s teeth.
Not being a lawyer, I’ll accept Prof. Falk’s word that the state is regarded as an abstraction in the rarefied circles of international law faculties . But in the real world—the world in which Steven Salaita and the rest of us live—the state is not in the same category as the color brown . For one thing, the color brown is not engaged in an often violent conflict with Prof. Salaita’s people. His hatred may be understandable, but it is hatred nevertheless. As a non-lawyer, I base this conclusion on the prosaic, but familiar “Duck Test”: if it quacks like a duck, waddles like a duck and looks like a duck, etc…”
This is another of those inconvenient truths that rise up to bedevil Prof. Falk in his determination to delete, deny or explain away every Palestinian failing. Regrettably, the way he handles this one is pure, unadulterated sophistry.
I won’t deal with Prof. Falk’s allusion to Nazi Germany because, frankly, I don’t understand it. I agree that it was/is wrong to blame all Germans for the Nazi atrocities. But that’s not because Germany is an abstraction. It’s because the German wartime population encompassed a diversity of opinions on, and knowledge of what was happening. This is precisely what Prof. Falk demonstrates in citing Goldhagen’s book (although I don’t understand why he chose to cite a controversial book to prove a self-evident point, particularly at a time when Hannah Arendt’s theory about the ”banality of evil” is again under serious attack.)
But more importantly, at whom is Prof. Falk’s rebuke directed? All I did was criticize Prof. Salaita’s use of profanity. That’s one person, not a population. According to Prof. Falk’s theory, Prof. Salaita would be a more appropriate target. He’s cursing an abstraction called Israel, which includes many Israelis who dissent from the Likud government’s policies. But that can’t be. Hate speech hurled at a state cannot be hate speech, just as hate speech hurled at the color brown cannot be hare speech. So we go round and round. Prof. Falk often accuses me of misrepresenting or misconstruing his positions. So I’ll leave this one with a big question mark.
Now we come to a great leap of illogic which takes us from the realm of sophistry to the realm of demagoguery. Having (erroneously!) concluded that Prof. Salaita’s remarks could not constitute hate speech, Prof. Falk proceeds to roll out his theory of why I think it does: “Israel’s first defenders [that’s me!] seek to make everyone feel that Israel as a self-proclaimed Jewish state is, in effect, the personification of the Jewish people, and that using profane language of criticism about the state amounts to hate speech…Of course, an accusation of hate speech in the context of criticizing Israel has as its objecting the implication that the speaker is guilty of genuine anti-Semitism.”
Where does this come from? I make no mention of anti-Semitism. Nor do I imply that any is a factor. To the contrary, I’ve repeatedly stated on this blog and elsewhere that criticism of Israel, even harsh criticism, does not necessarily reflect anti-Semitism. I have no idea of Prof. Salaita’s attitudes toward Jews And I did say that he merits reinstatement. But Prof. Falk deliberately ignores these not incidental realities. In his view, all criticism of Israel’s critics implies an accusation of anti-Semitism. This is outrageous stereotyping. Indeed, it’s demagogic. Faced with a set of problematic tweets, Prof. Falk asserts an elaborate and totally inaccurate rendition of my beliefs as a ploy to deflect attention from the evidence at hand. As they say in (American) football: a good offense is the best defense.
But to those of us smeared by Prof. Falk’s evasive tactics, his offense is offensive.
The saddest part of this episode is that when the dust clears, it will become apparent that the melee was not over free speech, but over the propriety of a professor’s use of obscenity which added nothing to his message but cost him his job, while his cheerleaders returned to their secure jobs and comfortable homes. Yes, Prof. Falk, those undeleted expletive were screams of pain and anguish. But aren’t there better, indeed more effective ways of expressing these same emotions, ways that do not draw attention away from the thoughts and emotions being expressed by making the words, themselves, the main attraction…ways that do not drive people apart by demonizing one side or the other? And shouldn’t we look to our intellectuals, young and old, to lead the way in developing this more civilized language?
Rabbi Ira Youdovin
Dear Rabbi Ira Youdovin,
What I have written was not in any direction toward you—I had no single thought about you in my first post.
My second post was directly in a reflection that I had after that—and yes, I said things about you just as I believe.
It seems that you over-judge what people do/say and not what the Scripture has said– that which you should. You should join Gene on his way to vacation.
Clarification:
I only had reflection about what a woman did to Prof. Salaita in my reflection, and I understand what women do on their own, in general.
Since I am relatively young — not even 40–I do like to say mocks?:
I am certainly ordained, but no–too much study has not made me mad.
When my daughter tells me to find her Ipod–while whining–do you think I’ll do that? No.
Her whining is irrelevant to me– but why? She does not need Ipod to hear or call me…
I am Church-Charismatic’s and my spiritual state, and natural experiences are in not all in the natural sphere.
I certainly do not claim to have nor do have “direct line to the mind of the Almighty”—how can I be in that condition? I first must be in One Mind by Spirit of God, alone. I certainly never have heard from “Holy Mary” to my mind and spirit. My mind is however just infused with brain-storming by Spirit – you can call what-ever you will that condition. It is irrelevant to me – the definition of whatever you wish to have.
However, this is a difficult Church-Charismatic Truth/Doctrine, in fact, and I do not expect Jewish Rabbi to understand this Church-Doctrine because you are not Church-Charismatic—for that reason I see nothing toward you but spiritual excuse – you are not the Church-or claim to be the Church.
I do not do this as you say that I do: “denounces me as being tunder the power of Satan and warns that I’ll be Judged…” I was talking about “women” that do whatever.
Also, Rabbi, I certainly do not do this as you say: “she condemns me for inflicting ‘psychological abuse toward elderly person like that.’ ”
I was giving reference about things that I read under the link “ABOUT” professor Falk, specifically— there was some awful profanity.
On the contrary what you said that I think about you:
I believe that you are much anointed (but in anointing limited to you as individual).
I also believe that your abilities and appointing are in specific areas, and not that others are not. Your limitations are not something that can be placed under condemnation as you assumed that I was doing.
You have totally misinterpreted what I did write/say.
A note:
As I was writing this—I had another reflection apart from writing to Rabbi:
Institute for Religion and Democracy (IRD) is a household of heretics and are the one who give counterfeit council to those who are appointed in laws and ruling among the nations. In addition to that — they are just as it is the accursed state of Israel, in all their works.
And Rabbi– this had nothing to do whit you — or what I wrote in this specific post to you.
When Prof. Salaita condemns Hamas for using civilians as human shields, i’ll take him seriously.
http://www.thewire.com/global/2014/09/hamas-quietly-admits-it-fired-rockets-from-civilian-areas/380149/
Hamas Quietly Admits It Fired Rockets from Civilian Areas
Adam Chandler
9/12/2014
Just two weeks after the end of the latest round of fighting between Israel and Hamas in Gaza, the Associated Press ran this story on Friday, revealing more evidence about Hamas’s use of residential areas as launching grounds for their rockets.
Throughout the seven-week conflict, Israel frequently charged that Hamas had been using schools, hospitals, and homes to fire rockets into Israel. The public line uttered by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his surrogates was that Hamas was committing “double war crimes” by firing from heavily populated civilian centers (using human shields) into Israeli towns (to attack other civilians.)
What eventually became the story’s slightly buried lede was the peculiar admission by Hamas itself that it had indeed fired from population centers, only by “mistake.” As a senior Hamas official Ghazi Hamad told the Associated Press:
The Israelis kept saying rockets were fired from schools or hospitals when in fact they were fired 200 or 300 meters (yards) away. Still, there were some mistakes made and they were quickly dealt with.”
He added, inaccurately, that Gaza is “one uninterrupted urban chain.”
Israel, by and large, bore the public relations brunt of the conflict’s high death tolls, amid numerous reports that schools and apartment buildings were leveled by Israeli airstrikes, in some instances killing multiple generations of Palestinian families. Even as this happened, Israeli officials maintained that they were responding to the source of Palestinian rocket fire and it was Hamas who was truly endangering Gazans.
The admission that Hamas had, in the AP’s words, “at least at times” fired from places that endangered Palestinians does little to retroactively blanche Israel’s blackened image.
During the war itself, India’s NDTV captured a rare sight: the entire launch process of a Hamas rocket, from the setting up of a cover tent to the assembly of the platform to the firing of the rocket from beside a hotel in what appeared to be a crowded Gaza neighborhood. The video caused some stirs, but nothing that roused tens of thousands of demonstrators into the streets of European capitals.
Also on Friday, the Jerusalem Post, citing “credible sources,” greatly upped the ante with a report that workers at the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) in Gaza had their lives threatened by members of Hamas during the 50-day conflict with Israel.
In a number of incidents, Hamas terrorists threatened to kill UNRWA personnel if they revealed that the Islamist group was using the UN facilities for purposes of war, to ensure that they would not speak out about Hamas’s activities.
Details have also emerged of the fate of medical supplies and food that were intended to be distributed by UNRWA to residents of Gaza in need of humanitarian aid. On a number of occasions, armed Hamas operatives forcefully confiscated the supplies, taking them for their own use.
As we noted at the time, UNRWA admitted (twice) that Hamas rockets had been found in UNRWA facilities that the group claimed were not being used as shelters. The disclosures caused a considerable stir, but ultimately didn’t shift the perception of the war. And neither will Hamas’ new admissions.
There’s considerable info on the net about Salaito. I started with Inside Higher Ed – an analysis by Cary Nelson who was head of the AAUP from 2006 to 20012. Starting from there, are many links and endless comments on the subject. It does seem that the U of I was too late in the process and has a responsibility to compensate him. It’s also interesting to read what Salaito has to say in his own defense. And alas, Ira Youdovin, I’m without connections in the cosmos, unlike others, so cannot provide any suggestions there. I find the Semitic religions lacking a worthy frame of moral reference and know little about the others. Also the quote Richard Falk made from Vietnamese individuals sounds either pandering or naive. US Government bad and American people good……..
I found it a case of wise naiveté, simplistic yet functioning to keep a nation being victimized from hatred of the perpetrator. It appears
that Ho Chi Minh himself kept the text of the American Declaration of Independence framed on his office wall for the same reason. Yes, it was
a kind of Communist propaganda, but it seemed relevant to my effort to distinguish hatred of a state and its official behavior and hatred of a
people, which is fundamental to understanding Steven Salaita as a person, and why it is such a challenge to academic freedom to reject him as
a faculty member.
“Christian Zionist affirm Israel unconditionally while favoring the expulsion of diaspora Jews so as to make way for the Second
Coming,”—-Richard Falk
Richard,
It appears that your supply of misinformation is bottomless. Where did you find this nugget? Better, would you be good enough to cite examples and sources to substantiate your claim? I don’t know of any. There may be a few. But not many and none major.
Unless you can substantiate the accusation with verifiable documentation, accusing religious groups of seeking the ethnic cleansing of Jews is irresponsible and reckless.
Regards,
Ira
–
This is a good to watch.
A corrected version that I wanted to post right here, so to say to rehmat1:
Did you ever read the Book of Judges? What does it say about who was responsible for wiping out tribe of Benjamin?
What happened, and what happened after all women and children of Benjamin were killed? Was it not as same as something that priest /Levite did?
Can you recall trouble of Gideon? How about hilarious drinking waters by tongues? How many of them were so strong; forget about Samson and his handsome hair-cut.
Now, I too will hide in the wine press of the threshing floor…lol.
Is it not like Russia’s Gestapo who rules in the state of Israel? How comes?
What do you need? The angel of the “LORD” – and behave like Gideon on his own?
Geographical Position of Germany — I would love to oversee? By what means – from space? Issshhh…
I almost feel I’m just babbling…
You do seem to think that your flattery will me over, but I am able to resist even such gratuitous compliments!
Actually, I have seen several Chistian Zionist promotional films and heard lectures that make precisely this point,
and it accords with the prophesy as well. Jesus definitely will not return until the Jews are ingathered in Israel..
And so if this is misinformation it can only add to my high esteem in your eyes!
Prof. Falk
There is a very great difference between Christian Zionist support of Isrrael and the view that the ingathering of the exiles is part of an historical messianic process and “favoring the expulsion of diaspora Jews.”
Here’s another example, from the present round of comments, of how your “critics” of Israel occasionally expose themselves:
“Ira, Just do a search for Cristian Zionists and Second Coming. The ingathering of Jews is vital to each of the Jewish and Christian plans for the destruction of others and religious/ethnic triumph of themselves.”
Prof. Falk
You seem to think that some external, “independent” evidence is required to establish that a writer is antisemitic, perhaps a photo of him in a Neo-Nazi demonstration. I believe that his language condemns him and you don’t have to look any further.
There is nothing unusual about scrutinizing the language used in an argument. That is precisely what historians do, among other things, to evaluate the quality of a source, including its biases and reliability. The historian wants to know if the writer had a score to settle, some simmering resentment that colored his perception. The historian also wants to know how the writer obtained his information, at first or at second hand. In the end the historian is able to present a profile of a writer and tell you who and what he is.
This applies equally as well to blogs and blog comments and other polemical writings. It doesn’t take a genius to discern where such writers are coming from, what motivates them, their sincerity, their biases, their postures, their resentments. If their language, their choice of words, their references, their authorities, the kind of evidence they present doesn’t tell you who they are, you simply don’t know how to read a text or people. You would like us to believe that the vehement language used in attacking Israel expresses anger and not inherent hate that is linked, among non-Jews, to animosity toward Jews as such. You would have us believe that you and dozens of other bloggers whose sites are devoted almost entirely to attacking Israel have attracted an elite group of caring human beings who are brought to tears by the suffereing of the Palestinian people. That is not my sense of the people commenting on your site. They simply do not come across as caring people and I suspect that they do not have the records of caring people. In fact, they strike me as being indifferent to real genocides around the world and far more interested in Israel as culprits than in Palestinians or anyone else as victims.
Ira, Just do a search for Cristian Zionists and Second Coming. The ingathering of Jews is vital to each of the Jewish and Christian plans for the destruction of others and religious/ethnic triumph of themselves. Nothing to worry about till the messiah shows up.
Also, I spelled Salaita’s name wrong earlier – tried to make him an Italian with ‘Salaito’.
I have a reflection:
We can note that Jews/Judaism does not all equal all to Jewish Exiles –Jewish-Exiles which is what should be coming all back to the Holy Land, primarily, (Dispersion of Jewish tribes/Tribes of Israel, as Kingdom/Nation). This, in fact, will not be only Arab-Israel/Muslims, Jews/Judaism or Christians.
The Laws have to be changed in order to be Jewish-exiles friendly.
That what Israel as a state is doing is aginst the Scripture—if that is what they think is what they should be doing for Second Return–so to say. They have to be corrected by the Scriptures in their works; it is not about the Return of Messiah because it is about Return of the Exiles, first.
By the Law’s valid people who seek exile in Holy Land / whether refugees and /or asylum seekers or tourists who decide they need to stay, or these who believe they should be immigrating into the Holy Land for valid reasons – these people have to be let in. You cannot restrict the move of the Spirit when comes to the returning Exiles into the Holy Land.
Likewise, Arabs in Holy Land have to get their ideas of “possession of Holy Land” for themselves straighten out. They will have to co-share and allow for strangers/returning Jewish exiles in any form into any part of Holy Land that those Exiles or Jews are seeking.
This is how it is, and there is no room to even budge about it.
Second coming is totally irrelevant when comes to these issues – whether connected to it or not.
What is relevant is people that are coming back into the Holy Land (as Exiles-Jewish and are restricted or forbidden to possess that what is written down according to the Old Testament is theirs- whosoever they may be).
It is relevant to look at the Scripture when we deal with criticism of Israel as a state, and what Arabs are doing /thinking about themselves / their relationship in Holy Land and relationship of Jews in Holy Land–or others, as well. We can discern by the Scripture how valid they are in their ideas.
We can decide to dismiss the Scriptures (all) and just go by International Laws.
As I said before trickery and cheating are over, and tribes will just have to learn to adapt to each other and with each other—but I am sure that they all individually want their way.
If people really want to be religious — let’s look at all Scriptures and validity of their context– because we can’t just say “Your Scriptures should not be valid for you because mine only are valid for me.”
Let’s look and see what Jewish Rabbis in corporate (and as well as these who are appointed in the Laws) can tell those tribes what they can expect. I feel that this would be appropriate because Holy Land is under Spiritual authority of the Old Testament, and Laws that are appointed– and that alone can uphold religious dictates—when need to be; however, only by valid means.
Jews were EXILED by several European nations for 108 times, but not from Palestine. Israel has already collected more than US$93 billion from former West Germany for the crime it never committed.
The Canadian-born Arab-hating Zionist author and blogger, Barry Chamish, in a recent article has claimed that Zionism was created by Frankist Jews to destroy the Jews who follow Moses Law (Torah) instead of Jewish Talmud. Chamish lived in Israel for many years. However, in 1998 he left Israel for United States as result of death threats from Israel’s internal security service for accusing Shin Bet for murdering country’s prime minister Yitzhak Rabin in his book ‘Who Murdered Yitzhak Rabin‘.
http://rehmat1.com/2014/03/04/zionist-author-zionist-jews-committed-holocaust/
Did you ever read the Book of Judges? What does it say about who was responsible for wiping out tribe of Benjamin?
What happened, and what happened after all women and children of Benjamin were killed? Was it not as same as something that priest /Levite did?
Can you recall trouble of Gideon? How about hilarious drinking waters by tongues? How many of them were so strong; forget about Samson and his handsome hair-cut.
Now, I too will hide in the wine press of the threshing floor…lol.
Is it not like Russia’s Gestapo who rules in the state of Israel? How comes?
What do you need? The angel of the Yahweh – and behave like Gideon on his own?
Geographical Position of Germany — I would love to oversee? By what means – from space? Issshhh…
I almost feel I’m just babbling…
Professor Steven Salaita should count his blessing for not being an Arab Muslim, otherwise he could have met the fate of Mr. Steele at the hands of the organized Jewry.
Over 1200 American scholars have pledged to boycott UIUC until professor Salaita is reinstated.
http://rehmat1.com/2014/08/28/uiuc-fires-professor-for-insulting-netanyahu/
A corrected version, so to say to rehmat1:
Did you ever read the Book of Judges? What does it say about who was responsible for wiping out tribe of Benjamin?
What happened, and what happened after all women and children of Benjamin were killed? Was it not as same as something that priest /Levite did?
Can you recall trouble of Gideon? How about hilarious drinking waters by tongues? How many of them were so strong; forget about Samson and his handsome hair-cut.
Now, I too will hide in the wine press of the threshing floor…lol.
Is it not like Russia’s Gestapo who rules in the state of Israel? How comes?
What do you need? The angel of the “LORD” – and behave like Gideon on his own?
Geographical Position of Germany — I would love to oversee? By what means – from space? Issshhh…
I almost feel I’m just babbling…
ayon_mc@yahoo.com
Your facts are laughable about the Balfour Declaration.
The Balfour Declaration has nothing to do with creating Israel.
Between 1917 and 1948 the British did not give one inch of land to the Jews.
All the British did was give a white paper in 39 out barring all Jewish immigration while letting thousands of Arabs immigrate.
The British on the other hand gave 78% of the British Mandate borders to the Arabs.
Jordan or the East Bank was part of the British Mandate borders of 1917.
The British gave the entire East Bank to the Arabs in 1922 and named the country after the Jordan River.
Jordan is 78% of the land and also Jordan has a law stating the country must be Jew Free.
The only plan Israel can offer that is acceptable to the Palestinians is one in which Israel becomes a Palestinian Muslim Majority and Palestinian Muslim ruled.
They will never agree to any agreement as long as Israel remains a Jewish state.
That is just a fact.
Richard Falk supports this plan.
Falk opposes the Jewish state of Israel.
Maybe 22 Arabs countries aren’t enough for Mr Falk.
Kelso you write:
“Jordan is 78% of the land and also Jordan has a law stating the country must be Jew Free.”
A note and not exactly a reflection:
Jordan is not immune from destruction — the way they govern will come upon them. State of Israel is just as that.,
Perhaps, it is not in this point of time that Arab-Jewish conflict will be settled. Perhaps 20-50 years from now everyone in the region will be very well wearied…by what ever they do unto each other..
Few more generations of Israelite that are possessing Middle East can do what ever they want. Really.
When ever they decide that they want to pay attention to Holy Land requirements and requirements of Jewish-exiles coming back — whenever, whenever…
Church Charismatic says: do what ever and whenever. Who cares?
Kelso:
I have a reflection:
It was written in the Scripture that there was point in time that even prophets of Judeah lied.
A corrected version, so to say to Kata Fisher.
Have you read Yehezkel Kaufman’s “The Ruin of Soul”? If not, I suggest every Zionist Jew should read it to see their faces in the “antisemitism” mirror.
http://rehmat1.com/2010/11/21/anti-semitic-roots-of-zionism/
Two weeks ago (9/1/2014) Prof. Falk posted “Two Types of Anti-Semitism” in which he accuses pro-Israel Jews of fabricating a new, and false, anti-Semitism which they attribute to Israel’s critics as a defense for nullifying their legitimate criticism. The piece was clearly self-serving. Prof. Falk is widely perceived as a anti-Semite (or self-hating Jew) by both Jews and non-Jews.
The professor has subsequently expanded on this theme by arguing that obscenities hurled at Israel cannot be hate speech because Israel is an abstract, like the color brown; and that the Jewish response to anti-Israel criticism is rooted in the Jews’ misperceiving criticism of the abstract state as hatred for the Jewish people. His defense of this position in response to challenges from Fred Skolnick approaches academic absurdity. US Supreme Court associate justice Potter Stewart’s definition of pornography is more relevant: “I know it when I see it.”
I twice made unsuccessful attempts to post a response to “Two Types of Anti-Semitism”. Prof. Falk claims he never saw them. It’s happened before. I then gave up. The shelf life of posts on this and most other blogs is notoriously short.
But as Prof. Falk persists, a response remains appropriate. So I’ll make a third try. Please note that part of my comment responds to autobiographical material in Prof. Falk’s post. Interested readers may want to read (or re-read) “Two Types of Anti-Semitism.
Rabbi Ira Youdovin
September 2, 2014
It’s assuredly true that some Jews condemn all criticism of Israel as anti-Semitism and use the accusation as a shield to defend against addressing the criticism. But Prof. Falk’s portraying himself as a martyr to false allegations being hurled at him by Jews cannot go unchallenged. I’ve avoided addressing this issue for the past three years, because it entails a frank examination of the nature of his criticism. Not all criticism of Israel, even harsh criticism, reflects anti-Semitism. But some does. Had he remained silent on the issue, I would have honored his silence by remaining silent. But as he continues to raise it himself, with his familiar litany of accusations against Jewish individuals and organizations, I have no choice but to respond.
Prof. Falk sees the Palestinian-Israeli conflict through a filter he grandly calls “constructive imbalance.” The narrative emerging from this process eliminates everything good about Israel and everything bad about the Palestinians. I mean that literally. Readers are invited to scroll through the nearly four years of this blog’s archive in search of anything good Prof. Falk had to say about Israel. Moreover, this was the approach he used during his six year tenure at Special Rapporteur for the UN Commission of Human Rights. (n.b. Prof. Falk maintains that this approach was mandated by the Commission. This may be true. But Judge Richard Goldstone insisted on being allowed to report violations on both sides before agreeing to head the Commission’s investigation of Operation Cast Lead; and the Commission acceded to his demand. Besides, Prof. Falk pursues his totally one-sided approach on this blog and in his other writings, where no restrictions apply. The bias is not imposed from without. It comes entirely from within himself.)
The Israel in Prof. Falk’s narrative is bereft of any virtue. His is a cynical and unreal caricature designed to demonize Israel much in the same way as medieval anti-Semites portrayed Jews as having satanic horns and tails, and fabricated rumors of Jews killing Christian children to use their blood in baking matzahs for Passover. There is much to criticize about Israeli policy and practice, especially toward the Palestinians. But Prof. Falk’s approach goes well beyond harsh criticism. It crosses the line separating legitimate criticism from anti-Semitism.
Prof, Falk’s overly dramatic self-portrait of his martyrdom at the hands of viscous Jewish “defamers” is vastly overdrawn. It, too, follows a traditional anti-Semitic trope: blaming the Jews for things they didn’t do. I’m sure that Jewish pressure accounts for some of the cancelled speaking dates and academic appointments he reports. But the presence on his list includes one from the American University in Beirut which suggests that the list may not be entirely valid.
Prof. Falk’s difficulties on the lecture circuit stem from a variety of factors, many of them unrelated to Israel. Indeed, he had already acquired a reputation as a biased and unreliable observer long before Israel came onto his radar screen.
On Feb. 16, 1979, the New York Times published his lengthy op-ed under the headline “Trusting Khomeini.” He assured readers that “the depiction of [Khomeini] as fanatical, reactionary and the bearer of crude prejudices seems certainly and happily false. What is also encouraging is that his entourage of close advisers is uniformly composed of moderate, progressive individuals.” The piece concluded: “Having created a new model of popular revolution based, for the most part, on nonviolent tactics, Iran may yet provide us with a desperately needed model of humane governance for a third-world country.” Six months later, pro-Khoumeini militants stormed the US Embassy in Teheran and held its occupants hostage for 444 days.
Then came 9/11 with Prof. Falk’s endorsing the slurs of conspiracy theorists who alleged that the attacks were perpetrated and then covered up by the U.S. government and media. He wrote the introduction and provided a book jacket endorsement for David Ray Griffin’s “The New Pearl Harbor,” which is widely known as the Bible of 9/11 conspiratorial theorists. Prof. Falk persists in denying that he subscribes to a conspiratorial theory. If so, he may be the first person in history to write an introduction and jacket blurb for a book whose central thesis he does not endorse.
The rebukes from top diplomats, political leaders and scholars these opinions elicited, a stern reprimand from UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, and his ouster from Human Rights Watch, despite its record of frequently voicing strong criticism of Israel, likely contribute more to Prof. Falk’s difficulties than criticism from Jews. Even most of the groups supporting BDS keep their distance from him.
Nevertheless, Prof. Falk persists in blaming Jews for his troubles, thus following a familiar pattern in the Jewish historical experience. Several years ago, he posted an anti-Semitic cartoon on his website. He claims that this was unintentional. Perhaps it was. But the account he gives earlier in this thread—that he immediately removed the cartoon and apologized for posting it when its anti-Semitism was called to his attention—is simply untrue. In fact, approximately eight hours passed before an apology was issued, during which time Prof. Falk accused an officer of a Jewish organization of fabricating a hoax. And even while apologizing, he could not resist taking a swipe at Israel and its supporters: “I am quite aware that many of the [protesting] messages were motivated to discredit me due to my views of Israeli policies and behavior.”
The leading culprit in Prof. Falk’s self-portrait as a victim of Jewish influence is UN Watch, a tiny Geneva based NGO which has been praised by former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, and the Director General of the UN Office in Geneva, Sergei Ordzhonikidze, who acknowledged “the valuable work of UN Watch in support of the just application of values and principles of the United Nations Charter and support for human rights for all.”
According to the professor, UNW’s mighty staff of six has succeeded in having its “defamatory attacks accepted as valid by public officials who never bothered to check with me or examine my actual views on such controversial topics. As a result, I was attacked by such luminaries as the UN Secretary General, two U.S. ambassadors to the UN (Susan Rice, Samantha Powers), Foreign Minister of Canada.” This is a reckless statement that insults the integrity and professional competence of leading diplomats. But the professor doesn’t stop without seeking some pay-back. He recently joined with a consortium of Palestinian organizations in demanding Ban Ki-moon’s resignation for being even-handed in his statements on Gaza.
Before concluding this post, I want to return to the fact that not all criticism of Israel reflects anti-Semitism. Indeed, one could argue that Prof. Falk may be anti-Israel while not being anti-Semitic, were it not for the omnipresence of blatant anti-Semitic material on this blog. Admittedly, no blog moderator can be expected to block every objectionable comment submitted. But a disturbing number of them somehow get by Prof. Falk’s claimed standard of decency. These are often welcomed and praised by him, and remain posted even after their character is pointed out to him. The aforementioned UN Watch has posted a compilation of anti-Semitic posts by Walker Percy, along with words of welcome and praise from Prof. Falk. And there are other offenders.
By and large, Prof. Falk stays clear of making anti-Semitic remarks. But not always. He sometimes refers to “Jewish arrogance” and once wrote that driving the Jews out of Palestine would be as welcome as driving the moneychangers out of the Temple.
Finally, and most significantly, Prof. Falk advocates removing the State of Israel from the map, which is precisely what the One State solution he advocates would do. His disciples may not see this as being anything out of the ordinary. But how many times has a state been the target of a campaign to delegitimize it, so as to drive it out of the family of nations? Not Nazi Germany. Not Imperial Japan. Not North Korea. Or Syria. Or Sudan, But Israel? Yes!
This, too, has unpleasant antecedents in Jewish history. Just as earlier generations of anti-Semites sought to eradicate individual Jews and Jewish communities, today’s would-be delegitimizers seek to eradicate an entire national entity, a member state of the United Nations. This is not to suggest that Israel is beyond criticism and immune from international legal strictures. But deligitimization is a punishment reserved uniquely for a Jewish state.
Prof. Falk has long denied that this was his intention. Not long ago, he posted an assurance that he didn’t intend to harm Israel. But at approximately the same time, he castigated the Presbyterian Church (USA) for not calling for Israel’s demise when it endorsed divestment. And the screed, “Israel as An Outlaw State and U.S. Complicity” he co-authored specifically demands action leading to delegitimization. Prof. Falk complains that his critics do not ask him what are his true intentions. I’ve asked him several times to explain the apparent disconnect here. But he has refused to respond.
This is sadly typical of Prof. Falk’s game plan. After complaining that Jews use allegations of anti-Semitism to evade having to address difficult questions, he uses what he calls Type 2 anti-Semitism for the same purpose.
I started following this blog at the suggestion of a mutual friend here in Santa Barbara who insisted that Prof. Falk was largely misunderstood by his critics. Much to my regret, he’s not.
Rabbi Ira Youdovin
s
I find this personally insulting diatribe far more uncivil than Steven Salaita’s tweets that were at least written from
the depths of passion and anguish, while what you have to say here seems devoid of feeling, spiritually barren, and quite
unworthy of someone who claims a life dedicated to truth and the higher aspirations of humanity. To dredge up whatever dirt
you could find, pull it out of context, and then pronounce judgments is a shameful display of invective, a perfect illustration
of anti-Semitism Type II.
You may respond to personal criticism as you see fit, Prof. Falk, but to get back to the subject of antisemitism on your site and among many of Israel’s critics, take a good look at your last post about Syria, on June 5: “Prosecuting Syria for War Crimes Now.” You got a total of 11 comments and 42 likes, the gist of which was that it is America’s fault. Nothing about genocide, nothing about Nazis, nothing about oppression, not a single tear shed. No links to anti-Assad blogs, articles, books, videos. No references to how Syria was created and how the Assad family came to power. Now take a look at your July 28 post: “Joint Declaration by International Law Experts on Israel’s Gaza Offensive.” 319 comments, 5,800 likes! with this as a pretty typical remark among the haters: “Everybody knows that Israel is a state of tribalists with a tribal religion in the 21st century. Now this may have been acceptable 500 years ago, but not in the 21st century. Israel is an apartheid racist state that is genocidal on third world people.” This from a “reverend” no less. Must have been traveling during your Syria posts. Must have been at the seminary during the Sudan and Rwanda genocides. Tells a defender of Israel to “please seek mental health treatment soon.”
The accusation that too many of Israel’s critics are coming from a very familiar and very bad place is one that cannot be ignored. It is simply not credible that in the world such as it is, Israel should be singled out as mankind’s great transgressor. There is a lot of hatred there, and we know where it is coming from. I will say it one more time: If Israel was not Jewish, it wouldn’t be hated.
And this is your reply to what appears to be an emotional and researched posting by the rabbi? That your feelings are hurt? No denial that his facts are wrong? What thought have you given to the feelings of those you attack and the contrary facts they present to the arguments you present? The marbles are mine and I am going home now so the game is over? Outrageous !
I prayed about this and I understand that you all are falling under spiritual attacks, and are just hindering each other.
When you deal with issues such as Holy Land issues—you automatically open the doors for spiritual attacks (especially Rabbi).
Rabbi can fall under spiritual attacks, and likewise, you all have had.
However, you have to drive line when you are under spiritual attack yourself, and when are you imposing that on others.
I am praying for Rabbi and all of you, as well because you all need prayer.
Important note:
About Israel, a state of Israel for Jewish Nation: It is not Biblical existence of Jewish Homeland, and it has to be corrected to fit Biblical existence in appropriate point in time.
The Scripture has to be searched, and things have to be corrected according to the Scripture—whatever that may be. Zionist will do it – they will do what the Scripture has said – they will have to correct it by the Scripture their works prior to now. Yes, they will have to repent and amend their wrong-doing to the Holy Land.
A note:
Restoring Kingdom to Israel does not equal to return of Jesus Christ according to the New Testament. I do not believe that it does.
With that, I must say that End Times have nothing to do with “Restoring the Kingdom to Israel” and “Restoring the Kingdom to Israel” have nothing to do with “Returning of Jesus Christ” at the time of Expiration of Grace to the human race.
I do not believe that Scripture is describing such thing as “Second” and “Third” coming of Jesus Christ as people talk about. In fact, I do not think and believe that there is such thing as “Third coming of Jesus Christ” that Scripture is accounting for.
Restoring the Kingdom is written down in the Scripture – but that does not equal to “Return of Jesus Christ,” as Messiah. I did not see such thing in the Scripture.
Restoring of the Kingdom to Israel equals then to the age of Grace specific after that; that is, Messianic age.
Messianic age would not be “person of Jesus Christ” on earth His “physical presence.”
The Scripture is describing both natural and Heavenly realm – they are not separating these appearances of things/Last things (Eschatology) in the Scriptures, and they come up with wild doctrines about Last things.
Do not say “she is misinterpreting the Scriptures – or she is mocking us here…” This is why:
I may be off somewhat by a fraction, and only for the fact that other gifts Spiritual of the same kind are not applied to this– this is just an outline “in form” — for this is just a brain-storming in essence.
About Messianic age: A particular rule that the prophets wrote about it, and I believe it is establishing and almost visible in this time to the age. However, it can take many generations to realize it.
I have a reflection:
The age of the Church can end in the exactly same way that is, have started?
Meaning, there can be a sign that is taken away, just as was there a sigh that was given @ beginning of the Church age.
It is possible that “Speaking in other Languages” will be over for the Church, and this can signify “actual end times.” Not necessarily signifying beginning of the Messianic age because Messianic age can be going in parallel with the Church age–or at least overlap with it — there was overlap before Christ and After Christ (in time/age). If you can follow that overlap in “times”, and continuation of Judaism during the age of the Church.
I was just thinking on that, and I do not understand specifics — just some details in reflection.
Thank you, Old Guy. You said it perfectly.
Ira
Rebbe, the last line of Prof. Falk’s response is what he does, not you. And unfortunately the last line of Fred’s response is the underlying truth behind all of this attention to Israel
Author Janet C. Phelan has this reflection: “Israel was created to solve Europe’s ‘Jewish Problem’.
http://rehmat1.com/2014/09/17/israel-was-created-to-solve-europes-jewish-problem/
Rehmat:
I do not understand. What is the ‘Jewish Problem’? Poor in Spirit for the age? I do not understand…
I do understand twisted gospels and heresies; however. They are in a craze and haze about “Second coming of Jesus Christ, as Jewish Messiah.” The Scripture does not indicate to that, at all.
Their doctrine on Second and Third coming of Jesus Christ is best of to be trashed, and for this reason: it is Theological Garbage.
Converting Jews to “false Christianity” would be the very work that will end up in the garbage, as well.
There is no valid conversion to the Church Faith and Practice without Baptism in Gods Spirit, and into the Church-Charismatic by free fall of God’s Spirit.
Anything else wills to spiritually excommunicate Jews that are under Judaism, and impose delusions to any healthy conscience, as well.
Contemporary Christianity is not all in valid Faith and Practice of the Church of the first generation of Christianity Church-Charismatic and why would they want Jews be converting to that, as well?
When you are converting one in the Church — you do not want converts to follow heresies that may be integrated into the Teaching of the Church — what you want them to is to be more Christ-like by Spirit of God and that in their own timing and Grace of God and His Spirit.
I certainly would not be Christian in Faith and Practice under this Baptism in this point in time.
I do not believe what Christian- Church teaches because the source of My Faith is by the Teaching of Paul who explains the Law according to the Gospel and by Spirit of God; he (Paul) remains the Father to me by the Gospel. I do not receive what heretics have said historically and what they have to say now in the Church.
I am in Faith and Practice of the first Generation of Christianity and Apostolic Teaching (Apostles of 1-st generation of Christianity) by Spirit alone.
Churches after “Solo-Scripture” are in heresies “by Scripture alone, and suppose the Faith of the Church.”
Church Roman-Catholic is in the cult of Holy Mary — they hear and see witchcraft spirit of “Jezebel” and think that is Holy Mary. It is not Holy Mary it is Jezebel spirit. False prophets delude Catholics.
They do not need sign, wonder and miracles of Holy Mary to believe in the Gospel of God and Gospel of the Son of Man, Jesus Christ of Nazareth, who is received by the Church-Charismatic as Messiah (the first Messiah).
I thought I saw something like Holy Mary (when I was under spiritual attack, so to say) — but no it was a wicked spirit, and I would not know the difference without the Spirit of God.
Christianity of this point in time is households of cults– in corporate they reject nothing of hell, nor do them do reject Satan — but they reject Gospel of God by their works alone– their works. Church Charismatic can only watch on and not even wonder about their paganism because we know what is in Spirit of God and what is not.
Who has bewitched them? It was not God, but God has allowed strong delusions upon them.
What is the ‘Jewish Problem’ then?
I would say this: too many books and no Substance of God. Jewish people in this point in time need God’s Spirit in order to usher that “Messianic age.”
Church Charismatic hopes that Jews are Baptized in Spirit of God and for the sake of Judaism in this point in time and times that are appointed to them. But no– not for the reason of conversion to the Church Faith and Practice — there is nothing that Jews should be doing in the Church for their purpose is elsewhere.
Church says, “if God does not give you purpose, no one can.”
The point in time is different then what it was when Church started.
What is your plan?
I certainly have no plans nor do need one, and I do not have a Jewish Problem, at all.
Kelso,
You wrote this on September 15, 2014 at 6:04 am:
“The Balfour Declaration has nothing to do with creating Israel.
The British on the other hand gave 78% of the British Mandate borders to the Arabs.
Jordan or the East Bank was part of the British Mandate borders of 1917.
The British gave the entire East Bank to the Arabs in 1922 and named the country after the Jordan River.
Jordan is 78% of the land and also Jordan has a law stating the country must be Jew Free.
The only plan Israel can offer that is acceptable to the Palestinians is one in which Israel becomes a Palestinian Muslim Majority and Palestinian Muslim ruled.
They will never agree to any agreement as long as Israel remains a Jewish state.”
Explain this please, line by line. Alternatively, can anyone else do the same. I believe this is of importance to clarify.
This is what happened? :
“Between 1917 and 1948 the British did not give one inch of land to the Jews.
All the British did was give a white paper in 39 out barring all Jewish immigration while letting thousands of Arabs immigrate.”
How?
Kata, Ken gave you only a rough outline of this part of the history of the Middle East. When you give a “rough outline” you can’t get into a lot of detail. Edges need to be smoothed out. In order to give you a “less than a rough outline” Ken would have to present a graduate level, multiyear course to you. He would discuss the Ottoman Empire, the philosophy of various religious and political leaders of the western world, the conflicting promises made by the British to both the Arab and the Jew, how antisemitism in the world plays a role, how the Quo’ran plays a role, what the landscape of this area was before the Western Jew started to buy land from the Arab, Zionism in it’s evolution, population levels at various points of history from roughly 1870 to this date, the effect of the world wide depression of the 1920’s – 1940s, WWII and I, the relationship between the Nazis and the Muslim Brotherhood (along with the Grand Mufti al Hussaini), Arafat ( and his relationship with the Mufti), the League of Nations, the Saudi takeover from the Hashamites and the need to give the Hashimites a new country (originally they got 3), the activities of the UN, the Jewish Immigration level limitation of 75,000 over a 5 year term with no limits on Arab immigration, and so many other things that my continuing with making up this list of items alone would consume more time than I have to devote.
The problem with most of the subject matter on this blog is that most of those who express extreme positions here have yet to take the time to gain any understanding of very much of the above; they grab one tiny issue and think that it explains it all. Then they pontificate. They remind me of my eldest grandson who at the age of 4 told me he knew everything. I then asked him who Phew Sononicany (phonetic) was and he said he did not know, but that he knew everything else.
Let me suggest to you that you get a list of books from those who follow the theme of Prof. Falk and also get a list from either the Rabbi or Fred. Read them all. My list to you would commence with the Quo’ran as it forms the bedrock of the outlook of the Muslim.
Good luck with your studies.
Oldguyincolorado:
I totally agree with you: discussing of planning literature is important because adding on some historical perspective, can explain things well enough. Interpretation of the Law can get into Philosophy, at times.
I would say History and Religion is useful to achieve some reflections.
Whenever these things deviate from substance things become difficult.
When you preach—you preach by Spirit; otherwise people get thrown off with unnecessary stuff, and they get confused – like in the Books—skip the Books you on hocks (we say), and just tell us plainly about general knowledge/natural revelation.
Likewise, what is the well-organized Middle East History/Eastern civilization Book that describes specifics that we can scan for items of importance?
I feel intoxicated that I never did study world-civilization (West and East/ North and South) as a pontificate would have had, for sure.
I was dropping off my daughter for her Symphony practice yesterday, and there was a book that just could not fit her schoolbag that just did catch my attention: A World-History high-school book.
Ahhh…I am about to feel gypped and intoxicated by anger that I did not study any of that…but then again even if I have had (or suppose that I do) I am not sure that I would be qualified to sort out my facts.
So, if I would be to choose on a hobby betwixt adding on general knowledge to my knowledge base or smoking some pot…I am not sure what I would choose, now.
Do you get the idea? I do not have time to study general knowledge, at all. I would not do it unless I really, really have to.
I give you an example: I have friends that are all into the books, and they really make me get some at the time…I start scanning/reading, and I get understanding that is it waste of my time. I am severe about that fact.
The fact is, I need facts, and I need those facts right now. Do you expect me to sort out the facts? Why? I do not believe that I need to do that—history and historical facts are delusional?
How do we get to the Truth that is objective / authentic is this: give me general facts? No. I want to know about substances that make facts (historical facts) valid. That what Kelso said?
I certainly do not want to be in the study of some History as “Historical Philosophy” when I want to have the Truth that is objective.
You need truth that is objective in order to deal with issues in Holy Land. What is the truth that is objective: I have too much to do and reading too many books is irrelevant knowledge to me personally, and it is time consuming / destructive force, unless you can give me reference of the books that will address actual happenings and no theory in the context of the base. The substance is the base.
When comes to Quran: 1) it should be read and interpreted in Arabic, as base-language for specific people tribes. 2) It is prophesied by a prophet that did not write down Quran…during the Church age (that writing has to be read and be discerned by prophetic anointing).
In overall Quran would be sufficient to train in righteousness when one has a base of righteousness that can excuse and justify that very one. The context of the order of Quran in which was given is specific to the Church age and judgments of it.
However, no, I would not read and interpret Holy Quran on my own. I am not authorized to do that based on the Church Order that Apostle Paul gives in his writing. I would first understand the Traditions of Faith, and then read the Book. Alternatively, I would read the Book and then learn the Traditions. I just have no base knowledge in order to get into specific readings of Quran.
I cannot just read / study whatever I want; I have to understand base consequence for the outcomes of that. Also, I am someone who absolutely will not waste my time on things that are useless and distracting.
In order for me to go about all of that would definitely make me feel neurotic. I just feel like that. However, more than anything I enjoy fun as Church-Charismatic–there is nothing else to do in the world for Church-Charismatic. We just watch on feeling fabulous!, and lacking much knowledge…
Would not be that why steward of Encyclopedia (Fred) would hang out here to tell us about knowledge/general knowledge…but then, again — who can sort out his facts?
Lol, now I am laughing…do I really have to read pile of some Books?
When comes to the incredible sin, incredible truth-searching, and Grace of God’s Spirit; one may like to watch this and may be able to understand the severity of spiritual attacks that people can get under while at study of any specific revelation of the Scripture — or hidden things of the Scripture.
For that reason, one may like to refrain from advising/forcing people to do study the Scriptures in their own will-power.
If you can not understand or accept this testimony of this man speaking what took place in the age of the Church, Church-Charismatic really does not care. When you understand — you do, and when you do not, then it will not be specific to you to understand.
Moreover, this is why: all wisdom, and understanding comes from God for your thoughts are not His thought.