Two Interviews on Palestine

14 Nov

(Prefatory Note: Two recent interviews seek to assess the Palestinian national movement as it is unfolding at this critical time.)



Interview with R. Falk by Chronis Polychroniou, published Truth Out, Nov 6, 2014


  1. With the collapse of direct talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority in April there is increasing doubts about the diplomatic approach to resolving the conflict that is associated with the Oslo Approach. What is the Oslo Approach? Do these doubts lead us to believe that the Oslo approach is dead?


The Oslo Approach was initiated in 1993 when both Israel and the PLO accepted the Oslo Declaration of Principles as the diplomatic basis of resolving the conflict between the two peoples. It was iconically endorsed by the famous handshake between Rabin and Arafat on the White House Lawn. It was a flawed approach from the Palestinian perspective for several main reasons: it never confirmed the existence of the Palestinian right of self-determination; it excluded the relevance of international law from what came to be known as ‘the peace process,’ it designated the United States despite its alignment with Israel as the exclusive intermediary, and it fragmented the Palestinian territory under occupation in ways that made the day to day life of Palestinians an ordeal.


From the Israeli perspective Oslo was highly advantageous: it gave Israel over 20 years to continue the unlawful settlement building and expansion process; by excluding international law, it produced a diplomacy based on bargaining and power disparities in which Israel possessed decisive advantages; it delegated to the Palestinian Authority responsibility for many of the security functions previously the responsibility of Israel; and it contained no commitment to respect Palestinian rights under international law; as time never neutral, it allowed Israel to create abundant ‘facts on the ground’ (better interpreted as a series of unlawful acts) that could be later validated by diplomatic ratification.


Doubts about the Oslo Approach have grown in recent years, and have been reflected in indications that even the patience of the Palestinian Authority has begun to be exhausted. The last effort at direct negotiations within the Oslo framework collapsed last April despite strong American efforts to seek some progress toward an agreement. Israel’s behavior indicated a disinterest in negotiations, and a disposition toward imposing a unilateral solution to the conflict. The PA has introduced the text of a propose Security Council resolution that calls for Israel’s withdrawal from the West Bank by November 2016, and although it is expected to be blocked by the United States, it suggests a new direction of Palestinian diplomacy. The flaws of the Oslo Approach are becoming more widely recognized in Europe and by world public opinion.


  1. After the 50 day Israel military operation in Gaza of this past summer, given           the name Protective Edge by the IDF, has anything changed in relation to the       underlying conflict?


The fundamentals on the ground remain the same, although some of the psycho-political dimensions have changed in important ways. On the Israeli side, there were contradictory indications of both incitements to genocide, destroying the civilian population of Gaza in the belief that this was the only way to overcome the resistance of Hamas, and a sense that Israel had lost its way in the world by engaging in such a military campaign that had devastating impacts upon both the civilian population and its infrastructure. The new Israeli president, Reuven Rivlin, spoke of Israel ‘as a sick society’ that needed to recover a willingness to treat diverse ethnicities and religions with dignity.


From a Palestinian point of view, Protective Edge also had important effects. From the Palestinian activist public mounting pressure to join the International Criminal Court and press charges against Israel. Also, the effect of the military operation was the opposite of what was intended as it increased the popularity of Hamas, at least temporarily, especially in the West Bank, and to a lesser extent in Gaza. In effect, the resistance and resilience of Hamas was contrasted with the quasi-collaborationist postures so often struck by the Palestinian Authority. The casualties on both sides also destabilized the notion of ‘terrorism’ as solely attributable to Hamas: of the 70 Israelis killed, 65 were IDF soldiers, while of the more than 2100 Palestinians killed, more than 70% were civilians. It would seemthat ‘state terrorism’ is the main culprit in such a conflict.


At the same time more informed commentators recognized that Hamas wanted to perform as a political actor rather than to act as an armed resistance group treated by Israel and the United States as a terrorist entity excluded from diplomatic venues. Hamas has been making it clear ever since it won elections in 2006 that it was prepared to co-exist peacefully with Israel on a long-term basis, and has observed ceasefire agreements along its border, which were on each occasion broken by Israeli violent provocations. There was formed a few months ago a technocratic unity government that overcame the divisions between the Fatah and Hamas, and was bitterly opposed by Israel, perhaps the real explanation of the July attacks on Gaza as an expression of this opposition.


  1. There has been discussion as to whether the Palestinian Authority, now recognized as a state by the UN, should seek to join the International Criminal Court, and bring its grievances before this tribunal. Is this a good idea? What will it accomplish?


There is much discussion as to the pros and cons of seeking to adhere to the Rome Statute that underpins the International Criminal Court by Palestine now that its statehood has been confirmed by the UN General Assembly in 2012. Palestine now has the UN status of being ‘a non-member observer state.’ It has joined UNESCO as a member and adhered to several international treaties.


The ‘cons’ of recourse to the ICC can be summarized: provoking hostile reactions from Israel, and possibly the United States; threatening the fragile unity arrangements between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority, especially if the ICC chooses to focus on allegations of war crimes against Hamas; inability to secure Israeli cooperation with the proceedings, and hence an absence of any way to make those accused accountable due to the absence of enforcement capabilities.


The ‘pros’ of going to the ICC are the effects on world public opinion, raising the morale of the Palestinians seeking to make use of their soft power advantages in the conflict, and above all the opportunity to reinforce the Palestinian narrative that challenges Israel’s occupation policies (especially reliance on excessive force and the settlement phenomenon) as violations of international criminal law.


On balance, it would seem advantageous for Palestine to seek an investigation of allegations by recourse to the ICC, and the failure to do so would confirm those who attack the PA as lacking credibility to represent the Palestinian people in their quest for a just and sustainable peace.


  1. Recently Sweden pledged to recognize Palestinian statehood and the British House of Commons also urged the government to extend recognition. Are such diplomatic gestures of any importance and relevance to the Palestinian struggle?


It is too soon to assess the importance of these diplomatic gestures, which I would interpret as an indication of dissatisfaction with any further reliance on the Oslo Approach, especially its reliance on the role of the United States as exclusively entitled to serve as a diplomatic third party. The Swedish pledge to recognize Palestinian statehood is also important because it is accompanied by a call for resumed negotiations in accord with international law. To inject international law into the diplomatic process would be of utmost significance, offsetting Israeli hard power dominance, and allowing for Palestine to press forward in asserting their rights under international law.


If additional countries follow Sweden and the House of Commons, it will create a trend that might produce a greater role for Europe or the EU to act as a successor intermediary to the U.S. in the search for a solution. In this sense these European moves, which were greeted antagonistically in Tel Aviv and Washington, exhibit an impatience with the evident futility of pretending that Oslo still provided the best path to peace.


  1. If armed struggle has failed the Palestinians, international law has been ignored, and diplomacy has not worked, what is left for the Palestinians to do so as to carry on their struggle?


For several years, the Palestinian national movement has moved its center from the formal leadership provided by the PA and Hamas, to Palestinian civil society initiatives that seem to represent the real aspirations of the Palestinian people. The call for a BDS (boycott, divestment, and sanctions) campaign in 2005 by 170 Palestinian civil society actors has been gaining momentum throughout the world, including the United States, in recent years. This civil society coalition also puts forward a three-part political program of greater relevance to a solution than anything that has emerged from the Oslo Approach: 1) withdrawal of Israel from all occupied Arab lands (including Golan Heights, fragment of Lebanon); 2) human rights based on full equality for the Palestinian minority living within Israel; 3) right of return of Palestinian refugees to their homes in accordance with international law as set forth in General Assembly Resolution 194 .


In this period of international relations, increasingly it is evident that states can no longer monopolize diplomacy. Not only are non-state actors such as the Taliban, Hamas, and others formidable participants indispensable to overcome conflict, but also civil society initiatives provide ways to achieve justice and peace with greater flexibility and legitimacy than state actors in a growing number of conflict situations.


  1. Some analysts have noted a change in public opinion on the conflict in the United States, but not reflected in Congress or U.S. policy of unconditional support. Why is this?


This mismatch between an American public that would welcome a more balanced approach to Israel and the conflict and the U.S. Congress that is uncritically and unconditionally supportive of Israel has become a dark shadow cast over the democratic process in the United States. It reflects in part the strength of the Israeli lobby and also the military prowess of Israel both as a strategic partner in the region but also as a valued arms supplier of an increasing number of countries. It also results from the inability of Palestinian constituencies in the United States to mobilize support sufficient to create countervailing influence in Washington. This one-sided political atmosphere makes members of Congress realize that any lessening of support for Israel will be disastrous for the political career and of no real policy significance in relation to the government approach. Despite this unfortunate mismatch, an upsurge of civil society activism, especially on university campuses and among mainstream religious organizations, is again an indication that politics is being made informally within civil society, and is more expressive of democratic sentiments and ethical principles, than are the activities of formal governmental institutions.


  1. In light of developments can Europe play a bigger role in shifting the balance of diplomatic forces bearing on the conflict?


Europe has an opportunity to play a much more active role in resolving the Israel-Palestine conflict, and has begun to do so by way of its recent moves to recognize Palestinian statehood and by governmental pronouncements that remind corporations and financial institutions that commercial dealings with Israeli settlements is ‘problematic under international law.’


Israel seems to be moving toward a unilateral resolution of the conflict by taking substantial control over the West Bank and Jerusalem, and leaving Gaza as a hostile alien territory, which may make international diplomacy useless at this stage. In any event, Israel and the United States will use all the leverage at their disposal to prevent any move away from the Oslo Approach that continues to serve their somewhat divergent purposes. The US Government is primarily interested in keeping ‘the game’ of Oslo going to uphold their claim that a viable peace process continues to exist. For Israel, retaining Oslo is also helpful as part of a favorable scenario of delay that serves expansionist purposes until Tel Aviv explicitly declares ‘game over,’ and converts the occupation of Palestine into a full-scale or partial annexation of what is called by Israeli law experts ‘disputed sovereignty.’


  1. Why did the Arab neighbors of Israel, especially Saudi Arabia, seem to support Israel during the recent attack on Gaza?


The regional situation in the Arab world has changed dramatically since the American invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the Arab Spring upheavals of 2011. The Iraqi occupation tactics of the United States rested on regime change with a sectarian orientation, shifting leadership of the country from its Sunni identity in the Saddam Hussein period to that of Shiite dominance. This shift, including the purge of the Iraqi armed forces of its Sunni corps, leading indirectly also to Islamic extremism in the region, especially the emergence in 2014 of the Islamic State (IS) in Iraq and Syria that is partially staffed by former Iraqi military officers dismissed as a result of American occupation policy.


The Arab Spring upheavals had a second effect, which was to overthrow authoritarian leadership that had long suppressed political Islam as powerful domestic presences. Especially in Egypt, but also in several other countries, the anti-authoritarian movements, resulted in a political situation where in the new political setting, the strongest national political presence was associated with the Muslim Brotherhood. The Gulf monarchies, led by Saudi Arabia, were deeply threatened by these changes, and despite their own Islamic orientation, preferred secular leadership in the region to political Islam that emerged democratically. In this sense, Israel’s effort to crush Hamas, viewed by the threatened monarchies as an offshoot of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, corresponded with the priorities of most Arab governments in the region. Israel was the enemy of their primary enemy, and hence ‘a friend,’ at least temporarily.


Whether this situation persists is uncertain. What seems clear at present is that two separate strands of transnational tension exist in the region: first, the Sunni-Shiite divide; and secondly, the tensions between established governments and political Islam that is based on a societal movement. Surprisingly, the second concerns outweighs the first. Saudi Arabia supported strongly the 2013 coup led by General Sisi against the elected Sunni oriented leadership of Mohammed Morsi.



Süreç Analiz (Süreç Research Centter in Istanbul)

In Dubious Battle: Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Interview Questions for R. Falk


  • How do you assess the essential dynamics of Israeli-Palestinian Conflict? Which forces of internal and external nature did make the conflict more problematic and enigmatic?

I think it is important to appreciate that the conflict has reached a new stage with two important developments. First, the Oslo Approach based on direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, with the United States as the exclusive intermediary, after more than 20 years of futile diplomacy has lost its relevance; secondly, both sides are taking unilateral steps to attain their goals, Israel by continuing to expand the settlements and consolidating control over the whole of Jerusalem, and the PA by moving toward establishing Palestinian statehood in the West Bank, with the symbolic endorsement of the international community.


  • Do you think a great opportunity for the resolution of Palestinian- Israeli conflict was missed as the Oslo peace process remained inconclusive?

Israel for some years uses the Oslo peace process as a delaying tactic while it pursues the maximal version of the Zionist Project. As such, it harms the Palestinians, and helps the Israelis. Time is not neutral. Israel poses unrealistic demands that if accepted would leave the Palestinians with a Bantustan that would not satisfy even minimal claims for Palestinian self-determination, which depend on a viable sovereign state with 1967 borders and some acknowledgement the right of refugees to return to their homes.


  • After the end of Oslo peace process, we see greater influence of Hamas in Palestinian politics. How do you explain the growing influence of Hamas in the Palestinian political scene?

The surge of Hamas popularity is partly a reflection of the failures of PA quasi-collaborationist diplomacy and partly an expression of solidarity with Hamas because of their impressive posture of resistance during the Israeli attacks of July and August. In actuality, the leadership of the Palestinian national struggle has been moving toward recognition of Palestinian civil society, and building support for the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) campaign.


  • This summer’s war between Israel and Hamas is the third violent conflict between them since 2008. How do you explain these frequent cycles of violent conflict between Israel and Hamas?

Israel has provoked tensions in relation to each of these three military operations, and has maintained for the past seven years a regime of sustained collective punishment that has cruelly locked the civilian population of Gaza into the combat zone. When the periodic massacres of the sort that occurred this past summer take place even women and children are denied the default option of becoming refugees or seeking a sanctuary outside the combat zone. When they took shelter in UN buildings these structures were attacked. Israeli justifications for such action purport to be ‘defensive,’ but such claims overlook the refusal of Israel to abide by ceasefire arrangements or to offer responses to Hamas proposals for long-term peaceful coexistence. Israel relies on keeping its own people in a constant state of fear and of projecting their force disproportionately as a deterrent to other political actors that might at some future time contemplate an attack.






  • Around 75% of the casualties of the latest conflict were civilians according to UN data. As Hamas blames Israel for directly targeting civilians, Israel blames Hamas for using civilians as human shields. What is your opinion about this issue?

The facts are difficult to obtain as there are conflicting contentions. As far as I can tell both sides made some use of human shields in combat situations, but Israel did so more frequently. The casualty ratio of civilians to military personnel is more objective, and illuminating. Not only were 75% of Palestinian casualties civilians, with over 500 children killed, but Israeli casualties of 70 killed were composed of 65 IDF soldiers and 5 Israeli civilians. If the essence of terrorism is violence against civilians, then it raises the question as to why Israeli state terrorism receives so little attention. In this recent military confrontation the terrorist tactics of Israel were far more lethal than those of Hamas.


  • After the ceasefire was achieved via the mediation of Egypt, both Israel and Hamas declared that they were ‘victorious’. Who do you think has won the war and what do you think the reason is behind both sides declaring victory?

Each side uses different measures to evaluate the outcome. Israel uses its capability to inflict death and destruction, and stop Hamas from firing rockets. Hamas uses more symbolic criteria such as world public opinion and its own political stature associated with refusing to give in and obtaining a ceasefire agreement that appears to be favorable to its claims, and avoids Israel’s demands for the demilitarization of Hamas.


  • How do you evaluate the ceasefire conditions?

Israel is supposed to lift the blockade and loosen restrictions on fishing off the Gaza coast, as well as shrink the buffer zone on the Gazan side of the border. Whether it will comply is doubtful, given its failure to uphold similar commitments after the 2012 ceasefire. It seems that Israeli policy continues to be based on ‘mowing the lawn’ every couple of years, a grotesque metaphor to describe military massacres inflicted on a totally vulnerable population.

  • Do you think the unity government formed by Hamas and Fatah will be successful and sustainable? Why?

It is difficult to tell. It seemed to withstand Israeli pressure. One interpretation of the Protective Edge attack is as a reprisal for the PA defiance of Israel’s opposition to such a unity government and all moves to incorporate Hamas into the Palestinian governing process. At the same time, strains persist. Hamas leadership neither trust nor agree with the American oriented approach favored by Ramallah, and reject passivity in the face of Israeli provocations.


  • How do you evaluate the response of the international organizations and Arab and Muslim countries response towards the latest round of conflict?

This realignment of the Arab world is problematic from the Palestinian perspective. It expresses the political priority given by the Gulf monarchies and Egypt, in particular, to the destruction of the Muslim Brotherhood as a political force. In this sense, Arab countries seem to make regime stability for themselves a higher policy priority than solidarity with the Palestinian struggle or the wellbeing of Muslim political entities. The monarchies, although Islamic in orientation, are deeply opposed to political Islam that bases its claims on grassroots or popular support. Only Islam from above is acceptable.


  • Do you think a just and peaceful solution can be achieved for the Palestinian- Israeli conflict in the future? What kind of a solution do you think can be accepted by the both sides?

A political solution is not presently apparent on the political horizon. Both sides are moving in unilateral and contradictory directions, especially in relation to territory, with Israel seeking to annex substantial portions of the West Bank and the PA seeking to expel Israel from the West Bank and establish a state of their own. It may be that the best solution will be fashioned by Palestinian civil society activism that is leaning toward the establishment of a bi-national secular state based on the equality of the two peoples. I have outlined my belief that the only solution that can be envisioned must be preceded by a recalculation of interests on the part of the Israeli leadership, a dynamic that took place unexpectedly in South Africa to make possible a peaceful transformation from apartheid to constitutional democracy. Each situation is different, but it would appear that Israel will not budge until the global solidarity movement together with Palestinian resilience imposes unacceptable costs on Zionist maximalism. In the end, the Zionist insistence on ‘a Jewish state’ will have to be abandoned, and replaced by homelands of equal receptivity to Jews and Palestinians wherever they may fine themselves.




135 Responses to “Two Interviews on Palestine”

  1. Gene Schulman November 15, 2014 at 1:56 am #

    As usual, you lay out the picture very well, Richard. Unfortunately, it is still very bleak for the Palestinians. No matter how many moral victories they win on the international scene, they will remain the victims until circumstances bring about a bi national state. They will get no help from Israel or the US on that score.

    • Gene Schulman November 15, 2014 at 4:32 am #

      Bizarre goings on still barring me from receiving Richard’s blog. I tried re-signing up, but Word Press doesn’t recognize my e-mail address as valid. So I signed up again under my alternate gmail address which they accepted, but haven’t received anything yet – probably have to wait for Richard to send out a new post before I will know for sure.

      Finally! Received the new post this A.M. Can’t imagine why I was removed in the first place.

  2. Laurie Knightly November 15, 2014 at 11:08 am #

    What I would favor is Truth and Reconciliation Commission groups set up to review the crimes perpetrated, and continued, by the UK, US, and UN against the indigenous population of Palestine. As to right of return, Jews owned 6% of the land, 12% was public land and the other 82% was privately owned by Palestinians. Little wonder why Israel would be very opposed to this solution. It would help to get honest about what happened. The hypocrisy regarding this issue is unconscionable.

    • Richard Falk November 15, 2014 at 1:13 pm #

      Laurie: Agreed! Some such commission organized by civil society, perhaps in Europe, would be an excellent initiative. I think ‘reconciliation’
      is not part of the present landscape of expectations, but maybe ‘Truth and Justice Commission’ would be the right label. And you are so right
      to focus on the sinister hypocrisy that has turned a blind eye for so long to Palestinian suffering and unjust treatment.

      • Laurie Knightly November 15, 2014 at 1:38 pm #

        Definitely – ‘justice’ is my favorite word. Unfortunately, law and justice are not always synonymous. And before someone says whose justice – let me add that the UK, US, and UN have been consistent in definition and much the converse in practice.

  3. Brewer November 15, 2014 at 10:34 pm #

    Enjoyed your interview on Radio New Zealand Richard.
    Always the quiet voice of reason. Rather you than me – I tend to feel the bile rising upon reference to rockets and suicide bombers and would never be able to display the restraint you showed on this occasion.

  4. david singer November 15, 2014 at 11:12 pm #

    Professor Falk:

    1. You state in your first interview:

    “There is much discussion as to the pros and cons of seeking to adhere to the Rome Statute that underpins the International Criminal Court by Palestine now that its statehood has been confirmed by the UN General Assembly in 2012. Palestine now has the UN status of being ‘a non-member observer state.’ It has joined UNESCO as a member and adhered to several international treaties.”

    Has such statehood been confirmed by the UN General Assembly and UNESCO in accordance with the principles of international law that apply to the recognition of States – specifically the Montevideo Convention?

    If indeed there is such a State – where is it presently located?

    2. Why did you fail to mention the Bush Roadmap in either interview? Is it and the Quartet – Russia, European Union, America and the United Nations – no longer relevant? When did the Roadmap cease to be applicable to the negotiations commenced under the Oslo Accords? Please explain why you are of that opinion.

    3. You state in the second interview:

    “In the end, the Zionist insistence on ‘a Jewish state’ will have to be abandoned, and replaced by homelands of equal receptivity to Jews and Palestinians wherever they may fine [sic] themselves.”

    In what circumstances do you see “a Jewish State” being abandoned since this was the rationale for the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine and the inclusion of article 80 in the UN Charter?

    You claim (without giving any reasons) that the Oslo Accords ” excluded the relevance of international law from what came to be known as ‘the peace process,’”

    Are you advocating the overthrow of international law as embodied in the Mandate and article 80 of the UN Charter in order to enable the Jewish State to be abandoned?

    • Laurie Knightly November 16, 2014 at 12:24 pm #

      The Montevideo Convention refers to American States – North and South America.. Both the League and the UN grant sovereignty to the indigenous populations as a ‘sacred trust of civilization’. Article 80 has no reference to a Jewish State. UN Admission of 1949 recognizes Israel – not a designated Jewish State. Jordan was not Palestine and the mandate clearly designates it as a separate territory. San Remo 1920 designated Class A Mandates – those areas developed enough to function independently. Palestine was designated a Class A Mandate at this time. There does not seem to be an area of international law that legitimates the removal of an indigenous population to be replaced by an alien sectarian group, with some religious ties, living in disparate global residence. This has no precedent in recent history.

      • Richard Falk November 16, 2014 at 12:28 pm #

        I share this assessment of the essential facts, leaving aside legalistic quibbles here and there. Besides, the
        international community, as such, has no authority to override the inalienable right of self-determination that belongs to the Palestinian people.

      • david singer November 19, 2014 at 4:21 am #

        Ms Knightly

        1. The Montevideo Convention embodies customary international law which prescribes the conditions precedent necessary for the declaration of statehood anywhere in the world.

        The “State of Palestine” admitted to UNESCO and granted observer status at the UN does not meet those legal requirements.

        2. UN admission of Israel in 1949 did not amount to recognition of Israel..

        “The recognition of a new State or Government is an act that only other States and Governments may grant or withhold. It generally implies readiness to assume diplomatic relations. The United Nations is neither a State nor a Government, and therefore does not possess any authority to recognize either a State or a Government. As an organization of independent States, it may admit a new State to its membership or accept the credentials of the representatives of a new Government.”

        3. Article 80 preserved the rights whatsoever of any States or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments to which Members of the United Nations may respectively be parties. This includes the right of the Jewish people to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in Palestine as laid down by the League of Nations in the Mandate for Palestine – which includes the West Bank and Gaza – the areas of the Mandate where sovereignty still remains unallocated between Jews and Arabs.

        4. Palestine was not a Class A Mandate as the Palestine Royal Commission in 1937 made clear (and as the International Court also fell into error in its advisory opinion in 2004):

        ” The Mandate [for Palestine] is of a different type from the Mandate for Syria and the Lebanon and the draft Mandate for Iraq. These latter, which were called for convenience “A” Mandates, accorded with the fourth paragraph of Article 22. Thus the Syrian Mandate provided that the government should be based on an organic law which should take into account the rights, interests and wishes of all the inhabitants, and that measures should be enacted ‘to facilitate the progressive development of Syria and the Lebanon as independent States.’ The corresponding sentences of the draft Mandate for Iraq were the same. In compliance with them National Legislatures were established in due course on an elective basis.

        Article 1 of the Palestine Mandate, on the other hand, vests ‘full powers of legislation and of administration,’ within the limits of the Mandate, in the Mandatory.”

        The Palestine Royal Report also highlighted additional differences between the Mandates:

        “Unquestionably, however, the primary purpose of the Mandate, as
        expressed in its preamble and its articles, is to promote the establishment of the Jewish National Home.”

        “… Articles 4, 6 and 11 provide for the recognition of a Jewish Agency ‘as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration’ on matters affecting Jewish interests. No such body is envisaged for dealing with Arab interests.”

        “… But Palestine was different from the other ex-Turkish provinces. It was, indeed, unique both as the Holy Land of three world-religions and as the old historic national home of the Jews. The Arabs had lived in it for centuries, but they had long ceased to rule it, and in view of its peculiar character they could not now claim to possess it in the same way as they could claim possession of Syria or Iraq.”

        5. The Palestinian Arabs were not an indigenous population as you claim.

        In 1922 they were designated by the League of Nations as being part of the ” existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine.”

        Even in 1947 the UN Partition Plan only spoke of a “Jewish State” and an “Arab State” not a “Palestinian State”

        It was not until 1964 that the Palestinian Arabs claimed to be exclusively entitled to the ownership of former Palestine (which they claimed also included Jordan).

        6. The “alien sectarian group, with some religious ties, living in disparate global residence” to which you refer were given the legal right by the unanimous decision of all 51 member states of the League of Nations to “reconstitute” the Jewish National Home in Palestine without prejudice to the civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine.

        The Mandate, the San Remo Conference, the Treaty of Sevres and the Treaty of Lausanne are the areas of international law that somehow appear to have escaped your notice.

  5. divadtoff November 16, 2014 at 1:14 am #

    Reblogged this on The Peoples' Right to Self-determination Project.

  6. david singer November 16, 2014 at 10:16 pm #

    Professor Falk

    My last post was incorrect and should have read:

    “Professor Falk

    I find it outrageous that you have not axed Laurie Knightly’s claims re land ownership in Palestine in 1948 but axed my reply to Laurie Knightly – a copy of which follows. Can you please explain why you took this extraordinary action?”

    • Richard Falk November 16, 2014 at 11:57 pm #

      Mr. Singer: This blog site is no longer open for argumentative and pro-Israeli lawfare. You have
      other venues to carry on such campaigns. I am not interested in encouraging the sorts of bickering
      debates that you encourage here, while carrying on nasty and personal derogatory denunciations of me
      and others elsewhere.

      • david singer November 17, 2014 at 3:38 am #

        Professor Falk

        With the greatest respect – land ownership in 1948 has nothing to do with lawfare.

        As a lawyer you surely should be interested in establishing facts and correcting wrongly stated facts.

        Laurie Knightly stated that 12% of the land in Palestine in 1948 was public land and 82% was “privately owned by Palestinians”

        I sought to correct these factual inaccuracies by quoting sources which substantiated that “the Jews owned 8.6% of the land, the Arabs 3.3% whilst 16.9% was abandoned by Arab owners who left Palestine. The remaining 70% was public land.”

        You will agree there is a vast difference in the figures as presented by Mr Knightly and myself.

        Are you seriously calling the difference between 12% and 70% as “bickering” ?

        What I cannot understand is how you can allow Mr Knightly’s unsubstantiated and distorted figures to stand and not allow my substantiated figures to be published.

        Can anyone say what they like – and not be corrected when they are clearly in error?

  7. Laurie Knightly November 17, 2014 at 10:10 am #

    The difference in figures is less than 1% regarding the illegal Jewish confiscation of land. The Ottomans and Brit Mandate kept land under their control to stop foreign takeover. Today the Israeli Land Administration, Jewish Agency JNF etc does the same with 93% of the land in their domain in order to stop transfer to non Jews. As to ‘absentee’ etc, the Civil Defense Authorities ordered evacuation of my former waterfront property during flooding on three occasions. My home was not ‘redeemed’ during my understandable absence. People naturally fled during the bombardment and they still do so in war zones. They do not lose their property rights. Glad we agreed that Jews dispossessed Arabs of 93% of their land – give or take a fraction of 1%. If a caliphate one day takes over Eretz israel, they can claim that 93% of the area was public land under the aegis of the Israeli Land Administration. And maybe use use a land of Canaan sacred redemption claim plus the will of Allah, the Nakba, and some Koran references.

    It would be interesting to know how many people in the US actually ‘own’ their homes outright. And if they don’t belong to the banking industry, the taxing authorities and regulatory agencies still have them in subjection.

    Also reference was made earlier to the ICC. Neither the US nor Israel are part of that statute. They voted no to the Rome Statute, signed then failed to ratify, and now along with Sudan have withdrawn altogether. Last I checked the ICC hadn’t done much in this area…but I haven’t checked this lately.

    • david singer November 17, 2014 at 2:00 pm #

      Your attempt to obfuscate and gild the lily is rejected.

      I repeat:

      1. 70% of the land in Palestine in 1948 was State land – not 12% as stated by you.

      2. 20.2% of the land in Palestine in 1948 was land privately owned by Palestinian Arabs – not 82% as stated by you.

      My source: Moshe Aumann quoting Government of Palestine : Survey of Palestine 1946 page 257.

      What is the source for your claim that only 12% was State land and that 82% was “privately owned by Palestinians”?

      Establishing these facts are very important because of the provisions of Article 6 of the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine which stated:

      “The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency. referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews, on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.”

      Your sources please.

      • Kata Fisher November 17, 2014 at 7:56 pm #


        I know that you are looking at natural instances / natural revelation (by the implementation of the Law as a discipline). Still I would like indicate to you that mixing the Law, and Religious Freedom can be highly dangerous, even destructive in approach.

        When Freedom of Faith is confused and mixed up along with all of that? I do wonder?

        You need to focus on Freedom of the Faith and the Law (in terms of a discipline).

        Mixing up Law with religious freedom (issues that are lawless, eccalisticaly) with the Freedom of Faith is (in the forms itself) is destructive and fruitless.

        The Law (natural form /revelation) in essence cannot cover issues concerning “religious lawlessness”. “Religious Lawlessness” can be allowed; it is not lawful, however.

        I do find your arguments accurate and at time misdirected simply because of things that I explained to you. Can you please correct that? This is why. I believe that you have a clear perspective, however, religious issues are of craze and haze of a maze/labyrinth is almost in a dead-end. Still, not quite so always.

        What I mean is this: There has to be a sense of the direction when in all that confusion.

        Further, seeking some percentage is awkward since populations should be integrating under spiritual authority of Old Testament.

        Does mandate and provision of the mandate means also (in a valid interpretation) that Jews, as people — people of indigenous Faith and origin– people in relationship to Holy Land have right to Freedom of Faith, and also the right to self-determination?

        Is this what the Administration of Palestine itself would have to secure for immigrating Jews) by legit laws that existed and were pursued without any violation?

        However, right to a “Hebrew/Jewish state” in Holy Land was never the “Freedom of the Faith” or the Freedom of Jewish national identity, as you know that by historical documents (natural and Special Revelation / history recorded in terms of Special Revelation terms: Old/New Testament.

        We know that Jews as people of Faith and as nation itself can’t require to obtain things beyond kingdom of Judah and Samaria / the Israeli kingdom in Holy Land itself, as we can’t move on any “ancient landmarks” (as Church-valid) by the Old and New Testament instruction and tradition of that. Neither can any other Faith of the Book.

        Current Landmarks are lawless/invalid, as we cannot change that what is written in the Scriptures and attempt else what. We can only attempt to correct under inspired instruction — or do nothing at all.

        Old Testament tells us about Hebrew people, Hebrew language, and Hebrew national origin. With that a Hebrew entity in the Holy Land is unacceptable by the order of the Faith, and in corporately terms Jewish/Hebrew people (Arabs or Jews) have to reconsider.

        I would say that obfuscated lily is Holy Land when considering all in all against Freedom of Faith/s and right of indigenous population/a specific tribes (if not people in danger of extinction) in Holy Land for self-determination (rights of any peoples under universal/international law Jews or Arabs).

      • Gene Schulman November 18, 2014 at 12:25 am #

        Mr. Singer,

        Does it really matter how much land was state land, or how much was offered to the disputing parties? I don’t know whether your or Ms Knightly’s sources are correct. The fact is, all were ignored in 1948 when the Zionists pushed out the Palestinians under the Plan Dalet, which was the master plan for the expulsion of the Palestinian Arabs. So all this bickering about numbers and percentages is rather irrelevant. I think you can find all this in Victor Kattan’s magisterial book “From Coexistence to Conquest: International Law and the Origins of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 1891-1949”. (Forward by Richard Falk ;-)). or any number of other sources.

        Frankly, your niggling on this subject is rather boring, and suggests that you are another troll, here only to harass Professor Falk and others who wish to have normal discussions about serious issues. You are a distraction.

      • david singer November 18, 2014 at 2:17 am #


        I know the truth is hard to swallow but you cannot paper it over and call me a distraction because I point out the factual inaccuracies that constitute part of an an Arab narrative that are without substance.

        Let me repeat – 70% of the land in Palestine in 1948 was State owned land that had been vested in the Ottoman Empire for 400 years until 1919 when it then vested in Great Britain until 1948 to then come under Israel’s control.

        To keep calling these State lands – 70% of Palestine – “Palestinian land” belonging to the “Palestinians” is simply not correct.

        Mr Knightly goes even further and erroneously says only 12% was State land – claiming that 82% was privately owned Arab land. Of course that connotes most of the land in Palestine was in private Arab hands – when it was not.

        I have asked him to provide the source of his information and so far he has not done so.

        He has also not responded to my claim that there is a Custodian of Absentee Owners Property in Israel that deals with claims by anyone claiming to own land in former Palestine.

        You then propagate the furphy that “the Zionists pushed out the Palestinians under the Plan Dalet, which was the master plan for the expulsion of the Palestinian Arabs.”

        Should I also allow this distorted and inaccurate comment to go unchallenged?

        Six Arab armies invaded Palestine in an attempt to destroy the newly declared Jewish State. That is what principally caused the Palestinian Arabs to leave Palestine as the overwhelming majority of them were told to leave their homes by these Arab States to enable their armies to destroy the Jews.

        Listen to this interview with one such refugee

        For you to assert my comments are irrelevant and boring is utterly offensive.

      • Gene Schulman November 18, 2014 at 6:13 am #


        I hesitate to respond to your hasbara at the risk of offending you once again. But if you find the truth offensive, too bad for you.

        It seems you don’t read well. I specifically referred to Ms Knightly to show that she is a woman, and you continue to refer her as Mr. Knightly, as though she were a man. If you can’t even grasp that, why should we expect you to grasp the facts under discussion? You are repetitive and seem to have a one track mind. That is what is boring about you.

        The video you offer is just more hasbara. How do we know what the alleged Arab is saying is what is being translated? Keep posting stuff like this and you will continue to be ignored.

      • david singer November 18, 2014 at 1:51 pm #


        Thank you for pointing out that Laurie Knightly is a female and my apologies to Ms Knightly. I had previously referred to her twice as a male in an earlier comment addressed to Professor Falk and he did not correct my error. Maybe Professor Falk was also unaware of her gender.

        So you can now see how discussion can bring agreement on facts. Well done Gene.

        Can we – you, Ms Knightly and myself – now reach some agreement on these facts – that 70% of the land in Palestine in 1948 was State land and had been so for the previous 430 years?

        You obviously know Ms Knightly. Why don’t you get her to help you establish the correctness or otherwise of my claim?

        She has so far refused to produce the sources for her claim that only 12% of Palestine was State land in 1948. She may respond more willingly to your request that she supply her sources.

        No doubt you also have some Arab friends who can listen to the video I posted and verify whether the translation is accurate or not. I find your response to that video to be surprising and quite mischievous.

      • Brewer November 22, 2014 at 11:41 pm #

        “My source: Moshe Aumann quoting Government of Palestine : Survey of Palestine 1946 page 257.”

        I must confess I cannot fathom how Mr Aumann found something on this page to support “70% of the land in Palestine in 1948 was State land” and “20.2% of the land in Palestine in 1948 was land privately owned by Palestinian Arabs “.

      • david singer November 23, 2014 at 7:29 pm #

        The calculation of State land being 70% of the total is calculated from page 257 as follows:

        Total area of Palestine: 26320 sq kms

        Identified State land : 15137 sq kms (10577+3000+660+990)

        Percentage State land: 57.5%

        This was the apparently the position at the time of the Peel Commission in 1937.

        If you go to page 258 you can read the following:

        “When the settlement of rights is complete there is no doubt that this figure of 1560 sq kms (ie 660 + 900) will be considerably increased particularly as it includes land set aside for communal use and development of the hill villages”

        Certainly my reliance on Aumann’s claim of 70% is far more reliable than Ms Knightly’s still unsubstantiated 12% and your still unsubstantiated 9.8%

      • Brewer November 23, 2014 at 9:53 pm #

        This document, which is speculative, establishes nothing in the way of percentages of ownership and even says so. Until the categories of title to State land (miri, mewat, tassuruf etc.) are agreed upon, no-one could know “how the land lies”. This is what I have been trying to help you understand. Aumann could not be ignorant of this fact therefore his tract is mischievous to say the least.

        There is a work in progress towards that end but it is far from complete. I have seen a draft but there is still a lot of work to be done.

        David, this is a very old argument. It arises out of the confusion over the meaning of “Jewish National Home” during the period of Mandate and before. Now I think, given that Churchill and the first President of Israel (and many more incidentally) have cleared that matter up, the title to lands becomes of interest in matters of compensation only. If it is your intention to try to breathe life into the thesis that Jews were offered anything more than the opportunity to integrate into the social and political structure of Palestine your quest is hopeless, the documents make that very clear.

      • david singer November 24, 2014 at 1:11 am #


        Sorry to disappoint you – but you have got it wrong yet again.

        This extract from the Palestine Royal Commission Report 1937 exposes the falseness of your claim:

        “This definition of the National Home (as made by Churchill in the 1922 White Paper – my comment) has sometimes been taken to preclude the establishment of a Jewish State. But, though the phraseology was clearly intended to conciliate, as far as might be, Arab antagonism to the National Home, there is nothing in it to prohibit the ultimate establishment of a Jewish State, and Mr. Churchill himself has told us in evidence that
        no such prohibition was intended. This view was naturally shared by the Zionist Organisation, whose Executive, after examining the Statement of Policy, declared that “ the activities of the Zionist Organisation wiil be conducted in conformity with the policy therein set forth “. One reason why no public allusion to a State was made in 1922 was the same reason why no such allusion had been made in 1917. The National Home was
        still no more than an experiment. Some 16,000 Jews had entered Palestine in I920 and 1921. The Arab population was about 600,000. It would be a very long time, it seemed, before the Jews could become a majority in the country. Indeed, as late as 1926, a leading Zionist stated that there was ” still little prospect of the Arabs being overtaken in a numerical sense within a measurable period of time ” ,* It was not till the great rise in the volume of Jewish immigration in the last few years, that the prospect of a Jewish State came wlthin the horizon. In 1922 it lay far beyond it.”

        Sorry Brewer – I prefer to accept Winston Churchill’s sworn evidence to the Royal Commission and the Commission’s acceptance of that evidence rather than your fanciful unsubstantiated conclusions.

      • david singer November 24, 2014 at 1:52 am #

        You state:
        “This document, which is speculative, establishes nothing in the way of percentages of ownership and even says so.”

        Wow – the official research prepared by Government of Palestine for the United
        Nation Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP) in 1946 is “speculative” in your unsubstantiated opinion.

        As I pointed out this report substantiates that at least 57.5% of Palestine was State land and that would be certain to be increased.

        This is also confirmed by the map you posted.

        So you now claim there is a “work in progress that is far from complete” – 66 years after the event.

        Who is undertaking this work in progress? When will it be finished?

        Obviously whoever is preparing it is anxious to try and rebut the claim that 70% of Palestine comprised State land in 1948. Wonder why after all this time?

      • Gene Schulman November 24, 2014 at 5:53 am #

        Mr Singer, how can you keep niggling and nit picking about percentages and maps of years ago when this kind of stuff is going on today:

        Isn’t it time, as Avram Burg told us in another context (Holocaust), it is time to move on?

        Your history is irrelevant to the horrors being committed by the Zionists and fundamentalist nuts on the scene today.

      • david singer November 24, 2014 at 1:57 pm #


        You call the difference between 9% and 70% “nitpicking and niggling”?

        You call “nitpicking and niggling” the attempt by Brewer to discredit the map he himself posted as supposed evidence to support his claim and his labelling as “speculative” the Survey of Palestine prepared by the the British Mandate Government for the UN prior to proposing the 1947 UN Partition Plan?

        Sweeping the facts under the carpet has been going on for too long.

        I will continue to expose any attempts by anyone to mislead and deceive.

      • Brewer November 24, 2014 at 10:42 am #



        What part of “the Royal Commission in 1937 found that a final and really reliable statement of the Government domains and wastelands would not be possible until the operations of the Land (Settlement of Title) ordinance are concluded over the whole country” – do you have difficulty with?

        The Peel Commision (an investigation initiated by and rejected by the British Government) was also rejected by the Zionists, thereby becoming just more waste-paper with which zealots endeavour to ignite debate. Even if it did possess some status, no-where in it does it contemplate the transfer of property rights. Partition referred to the administration of the country, not individual title to land

        It is now obvious that you are intent on flaying this horse long after it is dead. I have no interest in furthering that pursuit.

        Cherry-picking a pastiche of out of context quotes in order to prove a position to which you are already wedded does not reveal History, it merely demonstrates your bias.

        A note to other readers.

        My apologies for taking up so much of this thread. I had thought that the respondent was amenable to reason. It seems, in this, I was wrong.

      • Richard Falk November 24, 2014 at 11:40 am #

        Brewer: thanks for all of your efforts to elaborate and clarify. I share your assessment of ‘the respondent.’ Richard

      • david singer November 24, 2014 at 2:34 pm #

        Professor Falk

        Brewer’s attempt to clarify and elaborate proved no more than a fiction of Brewer’s imagination.

        I don’t really care what you or Brewer think of me.

        I care about establishing facts and correcting misleading and deceptive statements such as those made by Brewer and Ms Knightly.

        As you are a Professor of Law I believe you should have the same interest too.

      • david singer November 24, 2014 at 2:24 pm #


        Glad to see you have now abandoned trying to substantiate your ridiculous claim that only 9% – not 70% – of the land in Palestine was State-owned in 1948.

        Can’t understand why you did not bow out graciously long before now nor why you sought to intervene to support Ms Knightly’s initial claim of 12% which she has been unable to substantiate.

      • Kata Fisher November 24, 2014 at 3:11 pm #

        A note:

        Jordan Landmark in Land of Israel:

        Any form of colonialnazism just prior to that within Land of Israel / Palestine?

        What is Jordan, in essence, and its landmarks? Whos self-determination was Jordan?

        Was it, in fact, self-determination of Jews / Faith of Jews violated by that landmark and whose self-determination was violating it?

        Was it British or Palestinians / Jordanians who implemented that Landmark.

        Were Jews mulled around, then killed, and then tricked on into the midst of colonialnazisam — just after they survived Holocaust? I am really thinking on this.

        Alternatively, was it Jews who were tricked around and about — before and after Azusa street disorder? (A recent one, as I do not even have to mention First and Second Awakenings and their charismatic-church disorder that sealed many in satanic seals and blasphemy of God’s Spirit — that what is active in generational lines among the wicked, right now).

        Who can yank Satan out by his tale alone? I am praying on for that work to be done.

        I find important to look at each instance of colonionazisam / coloniofashisam (when of Jews and/or Non-Jews).

        Which one, specifically and at what point in time? What took place in that time –all around? What were they up to?

        Let’s look at this specifically: What has colonialnazisam done in Holy Land, each point in time — but is it necessary to be stopping just before destruction of the Temple (which took place sometime within close time of AD 70.

        Was this in fact of Greco-Romans or not?

        This is quite a bit to go about. I get sick reading Church-history, and I can’t do that.

      • david singer November 24, 2014 at 5:09 pm #


        Jordan (then called Transjordan) comprises 78% of Mandatory Palestine within which the Jewish National Home was also initially intended to be reconstituted pursuant to the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine as determined at the San Remo Conference and by the Treaty of Sevres in 1920.

        Under those arrangements 99.99% of the captured Ottoman territories were allocated for Arab self determination under the Mandate for Syria and Lebanon and the Mandate for Mesopotamia – whilst the remaining 0.01% was set aside for Jewish self-determination under the Mandate for Palestine – which included what is today called Israel, Jordan, the West Bank and Gaza..

        This position was subsequently altered as a result of political developments in Syria when the French sought to oust Feisal from power. Feisal’s brother Abdullah was on his way from the Hejaz with 300 armed men to help Feisal when the British stopped him in Transjordan at the behest of the French – persuading Abdullah to stay in Transjordan by offering him an Emirate there for a period of six months – which quickly became permanent after Feisal was ousted from Syria and installed in Mesopotamia – ultimately leading to Transjordan gaining its independence in 1946.

        These political events resulted in the provisions of the Mandate relating to the Jewish National Home no longer being applicable in Transjordan by virtue of the introduction of article 25 into the Mandate -which was subsequently confirmed in a Note by the Secretary General of the League of Nations on 23 September 1922.

        This was in essence when the division of Mandatory Palestine was first proposed – An exclusive Arabs only Emirate in 78% of Mandatory Palestine and a Jewish National Home in the remaining 22% subject to the civil and religious rights of the non-Jewish communities living there not being prejudiced.

        What is happening at the moment is the attempt to create a second Arab State – in addition to Jordan – in the area of Mandatory Palestine – but excluding any part of that third State being located within Jordan.

        Negotiations over the last 20 years have failed to create such a third state – and any hope of doing so is dead and buried.

        As I have made clear on many occasions – in my opinion the only peaceful way to resolve sovereignty in the West Bank – where no one is presently acknowledged as the sovereign power – is by direct negotiations between Jordan and Israel – the two successor States to the Mandate for Palestine presently exercising sovereignty in 95% of Mandatory Palestine – Jordan in 78% and Israel in 17%.

        Hope this potted version answers your queries.

      • Kata Fisher November 24, 2014 at 6:18 pm #


        you write:

        “What is happening at the moment is the attempt to create a second Arab State – in addition to Jordan – in the area of Mandatory Palestine – but excluding any part of that third State being located within Jordan.
        Negotiations over the last 20 years have failed to create such a third state – and any hope of doing so is dead and buried.”

        I agree with you.

        Another Arab state in Holy Land is a dead hope, in fact. It should remain so.

        “99.99% “ was interesting undertaking and a form of a formal pledge that has not stood the Test of Times or Faith – and how much of that pledge can be corrected?

        Could it be 99.99% correction to wrongdoings?

        As you understand – just by outline of some facts Palestinians cannot accomplish what they are asking for.

        It is Between Jordan and British, first, as Arabs they can not keep on initiating unnecessary blood – that which was implemented by British (on behave of Arabs, and then Jews) .

        Arabs had Arab State that they were part of — they can go back to it or be content with Immigrating Jews to the Holy Land, and that by the claim of Faith — a claim of a pure Faith.

        Arabs have fulfilled all their self-determinations in Holy Land. Their self-determination of Faith/religion is over in Holy Land.

        Jordan and Israel should negotiate as they have a problem of lay-people of Palestine/Jordan, who are clenched between Jordan and Israel and who are discontent in Holy Land Territory that is under spiritual authority of Old Testament and also under protection of Faith-Laws of Old Testament / Canon Law of the Church.

        Any grave harm has to be prevented. When will Jordan and Israel go to British and say “We have to and should negotiate.”

        Further, things of Faith are not negotiated — they are discerned and are done. Everyone has to do their generational reversals to annul everlasting consequences on their part.

        Potted version has answered all my questions.

      • david singer November 24, 2014 at 7:58 pm #

        You’re welcome Kata

      • Kata Fisher November 25, 2014 at 7:52 am #


        I thank my God for you.

        Do you understand this:

        What is Gaza?

        Is Egypt a province in Land of Israel — or is Israel a province in Egypt?

        Positioning of Gaza has to be resolved.

        Was / is Gaza a province of Jordan or not? Alternatively, Gaza does not belong to Jordan but Egypt?

        There has to be a corrected landmark with Gaza and Israel — a valid one has to be. Who is responsible for that? Is it Egypt and British?

        Alternatively, will Jordan have to give landmarks to Egypt, Gaza, and Israel?

        We can look at this in another way: How much of Gaza is hoarded on by Israelis and how much Land of Israel is hoarded on by Egypt? Did British implement and allowed this hoarding?

        Is Gaza independent from Egypt, Jordan and Israel, and what are their landmarks?

        We must look as far as ancient History / ancient landmark — the position of Gaza is where?

      • david singer November 25, 2014 at 6:39 pm #


        In response to your queries:

        1.Gaza was part of Mandatory Palestine under the Mandate for Palestine – part of the captured Ottoman Empire territories within which the Jewish National Home was to be reconstituted subject to the civil and religious rights of the non-existing Jewish communities living there not being prejudiced.

        2. The government of Palestine estimated a population of 3,540 Jews living in the Gaza sub-district at the end of 1946.

        2. Gaza was administered by Great Britain under the Mandate from 1920 until 1948 when it handed the Mandate back to the United Nations at midnight on 14 May 1948. Israel declared its independence on 14 May 1948 to take effect from midnight within the area that had been allocated to the Jewish State by the 1947 UN Partition Plan..

        3.On 15 May 1948 six Arab armies invaded Palestine resulting in the Gazan Jews leaving or being driven out of Gaza which then came under the administration of Egypt between 1948-1967 until it was conquered by Israel in the 1967 Six Day War.

        4. Jews began to return and settle in Gaza after 1967 until 2005 when Israel made the decision to unilaterally disengage from Gaza by evacuating all 8000 Jews then living there as well as withdrawing its army.

        5. Gaza belongs to no State at the present time. It represents about 1 % of the territory originally included in the Mandate for Palestine. Gaza’s sovereignty is yet to be determined. Israel’s withdrawal in 2005 has not amounted to Israel’s claim to sovereignty in Gaza being abandoned.

        6. Not sure what you mean by “hoarding”. Please elaborate

        7. Going back to ancient times It was captured and conquered by the men of the tribe of Judah (Judges 1:18) and was included in the allotment given to that tribe (Josh. 15:47).

        Hope this is all clear and adequately answers your questions. Happy to answer any further queries.

      • Kata Fisher November 25, 2014 at 11:31 pm #


        I understand that contemporary Gaza is nothing else but the Gaza of Old Testament – which became Holy Land / Land of Israel that after that was claimed by Ottoman Empire (most recently), and then the part of Mandatory Palestine from which present day Gaza is – a part that is not Egypt within the Holy Land Territory, as Holy Land Territory is part of Egypt.

        Is this correct? When so / based on this I understand this:

        With that Gaza of Holy Land territory is not negotiated with anyone else but Egypt – not Gaza’s peoples as they are either Jews that were forced into Islam conversions or are offspring of tribes that were conquering as Ottoman Empire and converting Jewish Diasporas and /or Jewish population that was not recent Diasporas as that in Holy Land.

        Then after at the end of 1946 Jews were uprooted from Holy Land / contemporary Gaza. (I understood that, as well).

        Contemporary Gaza is not something like a province of Egypt or Israel, but it is Holy Land.

        Dear David,

        You write: “Not sure what you mean by “hoarding”. Please elaborate”

        The best elaboration I can think on is this: “a tall fence used to screen off a construction site” due to inclinations to “hoard” on things that are not needed or owned.

        Territory of Egypt can be allocated for Gaza’s population that refuses to live under spiritual authority of Old Testament just as Jordan can be allocated for Palestinians who refuse to accept spiritual authority of Old Testament in Holy Land and Faith Laws according to the order of.

        Negotiating peace in Holy Land will be dead-end to anyone without Egypt repentance and repentance of Jordan based on issues with British and Ottoman Empire and the landmarks of Holy Land.

        With that, they can not give them self’s to many choices around that.

        Still they can have any way they want or think should have.

        However, if you or anyone are to achieve sustainable peace — you have to focus on all significant sins (generational) of others concerning Landmarks and each generation that keeps Landmark and Holy Land in a lawless existence.

        Landmarks of theirs — but still is up to their free will to correct wrongdoings over things that are in their ability and/or spiritual authority.

        We can only ask for Landmarks of Holy Land by the claim of Faith and by the spiritual authority of Old Testament (not ours).

        We can give them many options, as well, as they can do whatever as we can not force them to accept the Faith in our will-power. Still, God Himself can – and His ways are beyond anything we can imagine or think on it over generations and generational times.

      • david singer November 26, 2014 at 3:24 am #


        You are right. The best solution for Gaza would be for sovereignty to be vested in Egypt.

        However Egypt till now has not been interested in any such arrangement. Given the actions of Hamas recently in the Sinai resulting in 31 Egyptian soldiers being killed – Egypt is going to be even less inclined to take over Gaza. In fact Egypt is presently destroying 800 houses within one kilometer of the Egypt-Gaza border to create a buffer zone as a deterrent to Hamas sending death squads into Egypt or smuggling goods into Gaza..

        Ideas have been floated for an underground highway passing beneath Israeli sovereign territory and connecting Gaza to the West Bank or Jordan as part of any “two-state solution” but this again is extremely unlikely to occur unless there are direct negotiations between Israel and Jordan..

        Gaza is a basket case that currently must be put in the too hard basket.

        What is desperately needed in Gaza are elections – since the last elections were held on 25 January 2006.

        That too seems unlikely to occur. Gazans have paid a heavy price over those 9 years in choosing a Hamas Government whose aim is to destroy Israel – not live in peace with it.

        There are many options now and there were many options in the past that could have seen Gaza blossom as a virtual paradise for its residents.

        Firing 11000 rockets indiscriminately into Israeli population centers since 2005 as a “thank you” for Israel’s disengagement from Gaza seems to have ensured that those options will not return soon.

      • Kata Fisher December 3, 2014 at 10:12 pm #

        Dear David,

        I agree with you.

        You write, “The best solution for Gaza would be for sovereignty to be vested in Egypt.” I am in an absolute agreement with you about this.

        Things just have to be made known, and made clear. There is the time to say things as sometimes things just need to be said.

        What must be said: The sooner there are negotiations with Egypt about Gaza’s condition, and directly with legit representatives of Arabs in Holy Land — the better is for everyone concerned.

        Also, I have a nagging feeling that Arabs that are in Israel are not in the ability to deal with these issues so to uproot them — if they are to be one doing uprooting of Arab-Lawlessness in Holy Land?

        I do not understand too much of the structure of Israeli governing and all that is going on with that, so that I can understand why am I reflecting on that for few days now. What is it that they should do and are not? I do not know – you may well know and understand. ( I hope I am not confusing you by this, as I do not know what exactly I am reflecting on, in reality).

        I do know by the order of Scripture that Israel is in a bad position that paralyses them when comes to the law of Faith, and any Faith claim to the Holy Land – all this has to be corrected in a valid way, so that things are not in labyrinth again.

        Things that are in Order of the Faith have to be in spiritual authority of the order of the Faith. People have to be in valid spiritual authority, as well or things will go off the cliff over and over again (especially with Arab people in Holy Land due to generational consequences – they have to be placed in conditions that will initiate removal of those consequences).

        Concerning Palestine and Gaza:

        There is no legitimacy to Palestine and Gaza, as their governing is in vote / elections-denied. Legitimacy was dead as soon as people who ask for or demand a new vote are killed / executed by radical residents of Gaza or Palestine.

        Legitimacy of current governing in Gaza and Palestine has expired, and with that there is no one to negotiate with from within Gaza or Palestine, itself (just my assumption valid / not valid one). Not on the part of Israel, and not on the part of Arab peoples in Holy Land.

        One has to listen to the people by the means of their vote — when applicable. This fact is just a harsh reality. I do not understand anymore why anyone even bothers about conflict, and negotiating with not legit representatives to people / lay-people.

        Whoever has restricted new vote in Arab part of Holy Land is surely in consequence, as well. I do not believe in partiality as Gaza could have had reelected Hamas and dealt with another term under effects of a curse or blessings of their free will. However, their self-determination and impact of it should reflect the vote that they implemented. There is no vote. Now what? One cannot hold population hostage forever without vote available to them.

        I believe that is the best to get the things moving for the legit voting that is available for the peoples in Gaza and Palestine. Otherwise, it will be necessary to take those people outside the grip of the present time, illegitimate rule, and invalid spiritual authority over them. However, also to put them in spiritual authority of Egypt itself and spiritual authority of Jordan, as lay-people of these territories.

        To do so at least until there are some conditions that they can be brought back into the valid standing between themselves (independently as lay-people) in Holy Land and others in Holy Land. (That what is valid in relationship to their self-determination, legit laws, and legit vote.)

        I believe you can understand and discern what these things mean from legit / legal perspective. I am just reflecting on my impressions and not telling you and anyone what to do.

        Gaza, as ‘Gaza’, is the name that was given, and they as Gaza may have been a case basket for a appointed time. However, for another appointed time may have to “be put in the too hard basket,” as you said. However, that firmly structured basket may just have to be Egypt and Jordan, all together. Meaning, lay-people have to be under some non-lay people rule and order to a governing. If Egyptians want to be in Gaza and rule the Gaza – they may well also have the option to take their ancient tribes (Jews and Non-Jew ancient tribes) out of Gaza, as well.

        People should have free will to be where ever they want unless are under consequence that grafts them in not in places (Holy Places) that declared a curse upon them due to generational sins / works. Thise things have to be balanced out – I see no other way that is best for people in Holy Land.

        Arabs in Holy Land are turned upside down because they have try to take spiritual authority over people and Holy things that they just did not have. They did it in the past, and they are doing it now. The only hope is to take Arab lay-people out of that chaos and consequence when possible and as soon as possible.

        I believe all people of Faith and conscience must be brought together into a dialog to do something that is valid and lasting – or at least to be at start working on that.

        They must have new and a correct direction. Hoping that no-vote condition will bring about just outcome is a dead-end, unless there is a radical repentance in Gaza, and Palestinian leadership, which is not legit anymore, with certainty it is not. They have to be confirmed legit or removed as not valid by the legit vote.

        Arab-Israel has and could have spiritual authority over Arab people in Holy Land. Israel alone has no spiritual authority over Arab lay-people under Islam (Invalid / forced conversions) in Holy Land. Not unless the Arab people are Jews that were forced into Islamic conversions from Islamic tribes from nations other than Jews and Non-Jews in Holy Land. (Arabs in Holy Land that were ancient Jews or non-Jews are under consequence if they practiced forced conversions over Jews under Old Testament Faith and Judaic order of it).

        Therefore, there is no difference. This is why: they are under consequence and cannot be in Holy Land without consequence. ( Not as ancient Jews or Non-Jews who practiced lawlessness against Faith and order of the Faith in Holy Land that is under spiritual authority of Old Testament).

        We understand lasing anarchy and illegitimacy of lay-people that is never corrected without specific order of the Faith and doctrine of the Faith.

        Likewise, there are many particles to all of this, and there is also a real doom when people try to tell other people if they cannot have new voting.

        One thing that belongs to all lay-people is a vote – if they will to have one, need or want one.

        Newly structured elections under legit supervision, and oversight is the only Grace available for all that hindered and still hinder any course of will of the people in Gaza, as well as Palestine.

        As long as there is no legit vote in Palestine and Gaza; I do not see another valid approach to peace negotiations. With Egypt and Jordan, it is possible I believe. They are the one who have act and annul on behave of their lay-people and with that secure self-determination for lay-people in Holy Land that are Arabs.

        Lawlessness against Faith order cannot be allowed for extended periods (not as some form of right to self-determination of lay-people who are outside law of Faith.) To claim self-determination to a stream of people under denying of the vote to the same individuals is just not right, and not possible without rapid consequence.

        Unless, Arab – Israeli (Arab population in Israel can regulate what Gaza and Palestine do/need) I see no hope for Arabs in Holy Land except trough spiritual authority of Egypt and Jordan.

        There has to be a new structure of Gaza and Palestine in their rule –if they are willing to have one apart from Egypt and Jordan.

        Otherwise, Egypt and Jordan should take on the responsibility for their lay-people and their works as well. As far as I understand no one actually is doing that, as it is not clear (from all perspectives) what is valid and / or just and right to be done.

        When we deal with religions and requirements of it — there is no dialog or agreement to it. impossible. (Issues of religions are dead-end issues and may be trashed). The only hope is that people who are of Faith would be in more direct dialog and so try to clarify what people in Holy Land need and are entitled to. However, also what they do not need and are not entitled to. Likewise, as their needs and entitlement may be vested elsewhere for an accurate reason. I am sure that other who are more spiritual and more mature then I can know about these things without error, as I may be in error (as an individual).

        With assurance lay-people, as well as, non-lay people can rest on their limitations. So this, in fact, is any self-determination in resting and no consequence. The problem is when self-determination of the people is cut off at the will of the people that is vested in very vote of these peoples. (Conditions and consequences of those conditions have to be made clear).

        There is confidence in limitations of diplomatic force. Likewise, there is assurance in limitations of the ecclesiastical power – in forms of any of the Faith – when any.

        People of Faith recognize self-determination of lay-people as well as non-laypeople and not only that one must understand the self-determination – one must understand types of self-determination; the consequences and benefits of each particle to them. One can be analytically and decide to go about that, in detail based on their resources and ability – this, however, may not be an individual task.

        Concerning Egypt demolishing property that is in Egypt’s /Gaza border indicates that the self-determination of lay-people (Hamas has reached its limitations). I just understand that.

        In general, self-determination of lay-people has its limitations.

        Egypt has to and should do more, as well as Jordan as their lay-people, are on their own in Palestine and Gaza (Arab districts of Holy Land).

        I believe I see this in a valid way.

        I do not not know what else to tell you, David. I think that as long as there is a delay to legit vote in Gaza and Palestine they are in a denied right to negotiations to the peaceful resolutions, and correction of any evil doing. Their leaders blindly allow themselves are one who are taking away the rights to self-determination in Holy Land.

        Egypt and Jordan should correct that for an appointed time.

        We can repeat same things over and over – just to get the glimpse of further understanding. I see no other purpose thinking on these things anymore. When is an acceptable time for a step toward a legitimate change? The time is always “right now.”

        With that Jordan and Egypt should make themselves available for negotiations with Israel as soon as possible. Jordan and Egypt they just have to take on spiritual authority over their lay-people and self-determination of those people, as well as their spiritual and natural well-being they must reconsider, in all.

        World community should support them by all means and also charity that is reflected in love that is enduring.

        Sustainable peace is possible — when people claim what is in their spiritual authority and get out of claims / things that are not in their spiritual authority. Everyone takes part, but first from accountability on their part and part of their lay-people. This is a fact, and whosoever will to balance out on this fact can do so. Whenever unable — they will be enabled if only they will. I myself will to do nothing, my limitations are credible to me.

        First, I am faithful to I/me and I hate to be frustrated above my ability — as by that point God Himself is invoked to wrath to destroy and to judge (but this is try for all of us, not just I). However, Church Charismatic that is valid can be unmerciful by Spirit of God.

        With that, I say when God Himself does not frustrate it is not valid to accept any frustration. (This was a note for other who may have other ideas on limitations and frustrations to human will).

        I only hope what is best for Arab people in Holy Land, as they are the one who need Spirit of God to annul evil things over them (in natural and spiritual). However, the Spiritual Authority of Old Testament remains, and it does not change in Holy Land and Immigration of Judaism / Jews in Holy Land is and will be by the Order and claim of the Faith.

      • David Singer December 3, 2014 at 11:13 pm #


        You have hit the nail on the head.

        The Gazan and West Bank Arab populations need to be given a say in their own future after having spent eight years under the same rulers without elections.

        Until this happens there is no real prospect of a resolution of the Jewish-Arab conflict because those presently governing the Gazan and West Bank Arabs have one common objective.clearly expressed in both their Constitutions – wiping Israel off the face of the map.

        Ultimately the future of Gaza and the West Bank will have to be decided in direct negotiations involving Israel, Jordan and Egypt which will involve redrawing the international boundaries between their respective States.

        It will need strong leaders like the late Yitzchak Rabin, President Sadat and King Hussein to create the groundwork for this to happen – but it is the only way forward.

        The two state solution is dead. The bi-national state or the one-state solution can only work if Jordan regains control over an agreed part of the West Bank as determined in negotiations between Israel and Jordan and such territory is once again unified with Jordan as happened between 1950-1967.

        Similarly the same would have to happen with Gaza as determined in negotiations between Israel and Egypt.

        Properly handled – not one Arab or Jew would have to leave his current home or place of business in Gaza or the West Bank..

        In a Middle East plagued by the homelessness and displacement of millions of people and the deaths, suffering and trauma experienced by millions of others in countries like Syria, Iraq, and Libya – such a solution would engender some hope for the future of peace in the region.

      • Richard Falk December 4, 2014 at 4:35 am #

        I should make clear that on these issues I am in complete disagreement with both Mr. Singer and Kata. To think that
        conflicts can be resolved in a sustainable and just manner without deference to the wishes of the people affected
        and without consideration of such inalienable rights as that of self-determination is both a species of post-colonial
        colonialism and a political pipe dream that will backfire if ever attempted. I am surprised, Kata, that you would
        assent to such an approach, which Mr. Singer has consistently advocated in such comments as this one.

      • david singer December 4, 2014 at 5:48 pm #

        Professor Falk

        Your viewpoint has not led to the peaceful resolution of the 100 years long Jewish-Arab conflict – nor will it or can it – as negotiations conducted on and off over the last 20 years have made painfully obvious.

        Trying to establish two Arab States in Mandatory Palestine – “Jordan” and “Palestine” – is the real political pipe dream that has been destined to failure ever since it was proposed by the Oslo Accords in 1993 and the Bush Roadmap in 2002 – after it had already been rejected by the Arabs in 1922, 1937 and 1947.

        My suggestion – first proposed in 1976 – to return to the status quo existing at 5 June 1967 as far as was possible given the changed circumstances on the ground – still in my opinion offers the best possible way to potentially resolve the conflict.

        That status quo in 1967 had existed since 1950 and would still be in operation today had Jordan not entered the Six Day War.

        Just imagine the number of Jewish and Arab lives spared as well as the injuries and trauma that would not have been sustained if my 1976 proposal had been taken up.

        Just imagine how much easier it would have been to return to the 1967 status quo had Israeli and Jordanian negotiators been looking at the circumstances on the ground that existed in 1976 as compared to those in 2014.

        I would remind you of your following post:

        “Richard Falk
        August 12, 2014 at 12:01 am #

        David Singer: I would like to see whether it is possible to explore this Jordan option in a way that seemed more sensitive to Palestinian rights as understood from the time of the GA 181. Your way of phrasing the Jordan option resembles the Sharon approach to a solution, and is a version of Zionist maximalism. This is as unlikely to happen as is Jeff Halper’s conception. I would agree that unlikeliness at this point should not be a criterion. We want to work toward something that is perceived as sufficiently fair to both sides to be sustainable over time, and this would mean some important Israeli reformulations of their positions on Jerusalem, settlements, demilitarization, and mutual security. There has to be a sense of equality and a regional peace framework, as well as some sort of vision that Palestinians would be prepared to endorse as their own preferred outcome.
        Are you willing to approach the Jordan Option in this spirit? I know you have done a lot of thinking and are knowledgeable about the history, but I also believe that you have consistently tried to support Israel’s partisan, and to me unconvincing, narrative. Can we find common ground?”

        My response to you was:

        “david singer
        August 12, 2014 at 3:45 am #

        Professor Falk

        I appreciate your co-operative approach.

        I do not think it is appropriate for us to try and preempt the outcome of negotiations or to predetermine the agenda for those negotiations

        I see our role as trying to get Israel and Jordan to enter into direct negotiations to resolve the allocation of sovereignty in the West Bank (and hopefully Gaza) on terms mutually acceptable to them

        Each party will have its own demands and preferred outcomes that they will bring to the negotiating table which they will have to iron out and finalize face to face.

        The Jordan-Israel Peace Treaty 1994 already sets out negotiating parameters on issues such as Jerusalem, water, refugees, terrorism, and freedom of navigation and access to ports

        The void left by the breakdown in negotiations between Israel and the PLO, the war in Gaza during the past month and the instability in Syria, Iraq and Libya make it imperative that serious attempts be made to restore the status quo existing at 4 June 1967 – taking into account changes on the ground since then and Security Council Resolution 242.

        If we can get Jordan and Israel to sit down together – that will be an important first step in trying to end the Jewish-Arab conflict that has so far proved insoluble.”

        Professor Falk:

        We did not get very far at that time.

        Perhaps we might do better now in focusing on how to get Israel and Jordan to the negotiating table.

        Would you be prepared to give it a go?

      • Kata Fisher December 4, 2014 at 8:05 pm #

        Dear Professor Falk,

        I adore you just as I adore very holy fathers in the Church. I do not disagree with you; however, I reflect from many different perspectives. Mainly, my understanding is based on the harsh reality of some dynamics of spiritual forces.

        There are definitly some cautions that are to be reconsidered, as you were pointing out.

        I understood what you were saying, and you are right from your anchored position. You are absolutely not wrong.

        I will give you explanations about these things — with assurance that you should not be distressed about my agreement with David. I have my reasons why I agree with David, and those reasons are based on valid and holy things – by Spirit I understand that he is just in his position that is inflexible in main things — just as you are and should be.

        I have very good understanding around issues and matters concerning colonialism, and I have good understanding about “deference to the wishes of the people affected
        and without consideration of such inalienable rights as that of self-determination.”

        I will hope to explain this to you. I have unstructured brainstorming about it that I could write forever about it but without structre. I cannot write it down until I have to (when I am not moved in a specific order then I just cannot write).


        You wrote this: “Properly handled – not one Arab or Jew would have to leave his current home or place of business in Gaza or the West Bank..”

        Do you understand what needs to be done so that “not one Arab or Jew would have to leave his current home or place of business in Gaza or the West Bank”?

        Also, would you be able to be in Israel with Professor Falk, as soon as needed and as long as you would have to? You also understand that there were restriction to Professor Falk and his staying in Israel, and that needs and should be corrected. He needs to be there, and I believe that time for that is very soon.

      • david singer December 7, 2014 at 3:01 am #


        Redrawing the boundaries between Israel, Jordan and Egypt in direct negotiations will result in no one – Jew or Arab – having to leave his current home or business.

        I do not know why you think Professor Falk and I would have to meet in Israel or anywhere else to strategize how it would best be possible to get Israel, Jordan and Egypt to engage in direct negotiations on the allocation of sovereignty in the West Bank and Gaza.

        We can do that privately by email.

        My address is

        I am ready to respond to Professor Falk or initiate the correspondence if he posts his email address.

      • Richard Falk December 7, 2014 at 7:19 am #

        David Singer: Despite your earlier personal attacks on me at other websites, I have become gradually convinced
        of your sincerity and good faith (unlike some of my other adversaries on this site that have given up their role
        as harsh critics as soon as my UN term expired). Nevertheless, as I have tried to explain in the past, I am unwilling
        to take part in any discussion of the future of Israel/Palestine that does not include Palestinian representation on
        the basis of equality with Israeli representation. To exclude the Palestinians is a step back from even the flawed
        framework of Oslo, which was biased against the Palestinians from the beginning. Best wishes, Richard

      • david singer December 7, 2014 at 3:06 pm #

        Professor Falk

        I see negotiations between Israel and Jordan as a necessary circuit breaker to allocate the issue of sovereignty in the West Bank between the competing claims of Arabs and Jews which legally has remained unresolved since Britain handed back the Mandate to the UN in 1948.

        Attempts by Israel to do so with the Palestinian Authority have failed to achieve any tangible results over the last 20 years because neither side has been prepared to accede to the conditions imposed by the other – such as.
        1. demilitarisation of any such new state
        2. recognition of Israel as the nation State of the Jews
        3. every very square kilometer of the West Bank being ceded by Israel
        4. All Jews being relocated to Israel from the West Bank
        5. An unspecified number of Palestinian Arabs being allowed to emigrate to Israel.

        Negotiations between Israel and Jordan would take place within the framework of the existing 1994 peace treaty between Israel and Jordan.

        What in effect would be taking place was redrawing the recognised international boundaries between two states already at peace with one another for the last 20 years – an entirely different scenario that plagued the doomed Israel-Palestinian Authority negotiations.

        Having said that – there is no certainty that such Israel-Jordan negotiations will fare any better than what we have seen over the last 20 years under Oslo and the Roadmap.

        However if Israel-Jordan negotiations can be successfully concluded then the field will be opened up for Jordan-PLO negotiations with far better prospects of success than Israel-PLO negotiations.

        The only alternative to my proposal in my opinion is continued conflict and confrontation.

        You have my email address if you wish to take up this offer.

      • Richard Falk December 7, 2014 at 11:23 pm #

        David Singer:

        I do not share your explanation of why negotiations have failed, or the implication that Israel’s demands are somehow reasonable.
        I see no basis for a diplomacy that does not accord Palestinians equality with Israel from the outset. Any other approach that imposes
        from above a solution will not bring peace, nor justice. I know that alternative prospects are not good, but for me that does not make
        the case for adopting a colonialist formula for resolving the conflict.


      • david singer December 8, 2014 at 1:09 am #

        Then let the fighting and killing continue. A strange position indeed for you to adopt…

      • Gene Schulman December 8, 2014 at 1:39 am #

        “Then let the fighting and killing continue. A strange position indeed for you to adopt…”

        Mr. Singer, it is only your intransigence, which is a reflection of the Israeli position, that allows the fighting and killing to continue. Until Israel, and its defenders like you, recognize the rights of the Palestinians, as Richard Falk advises, there will be no, nor should there be, peace. It is Israel that perpetuates these injustices, not the Palestinians.

      • david singer December 8, 2014 at 2:07 am #


        Playing the blame game will not save lives. I can equally blame the Palestinian Arabs for their intransigence over the last 94 years. It gets you nowhere.

        I know – and so should you – that the attempt to create a new State between Israel and Jordan has failed after 20 years of trying to make it happen under the Oslo Accords and the Bush Roadmap.

        Where do we go from here…?

        My suggestion is direct negotiations between Israel and Jordan to try and allocate sovereignty of the West Bank between their respective States.

        If you or Professor Falk have a better suggestion – then put it up.

      • Richard Falk December 8, 2014 at 9:45 am #


        Yes, I believe I have a better approach. First, to think of the two peoples not the governments. Second, to consider how they
        might live together peacefully and in dignity on the basis of equality. Such an approach would have to be accompanied by an end of the Zionist effort to
        privilege the Jewish people above the Palestinians, which means the abandonment of Zionism. It would also mean that any Palestinian efforts to dispossess
        Jews now living in Israel or Palestine would be unacceptable. The flaws in your approach from my perspective ate two-fold: privileging the Jewish narrative about
        the land and history; placing your hopes upon peace imposed from above and without by governments rather than from below and from within by peoples. Richard

      • david singer December 8, 2014 at 4:13 pm #

        Professor Falk

        It takes two to tango and clearly we are not destined to take to the floor.

        Realistically it takes Governments to make peace and enforce and respect it – as has occurred with the peace treaties between Israel and Jordan in 1994 and Israel and Egypt in 1979..

        Regrettably your two prescriptions:
        1.the abandonment of Zionism.
        2.that any Palestinian efforts to dispossess Jews now living in Israel or Palestine would be unacceptable
        are never going to happen unless as the result of a war that will have devastating consequences for both Jews and Arabs..

        My two stage process:
        1. Direct negotiations between Israel and Jordan
        2. Direct negotiations between Jordan and the PLO
        offers some hope that at least a modus vivendi can be worked out between the Jews and Arabs living in former Mandatory Palestine.

        As the deaths and casualties among Jews and Arabs grow, I trust that you might reflect on your decision and perhaps have a rethink about resolving – rather than prolonging – the Jewish-Arab conflict – which is fast approaching its 100 year anniversary.

      • Richard Falk December 8, 2014 at 8:26 pm #

        We disagree. The exclusion of the Palestinians from the fundamental negotiation of the lands
        where many had lived for generations is morally and politically unacceptable. It is not possible
        to find a solution by proceeding on such a path. Israel has continuously increased its demands
        and has consistently rejected my major premise that diplomacy must proceed from the equality of the
        two peoples if a just and sustainable solution is to be achieved.

      • david singer December 22, 2014 at 2:06 am #

        Professor Falk

        You state:
        “The exclusion of the Palestinians from the fundamental negotiation of the lands
        where many had lived for generations is morally and politically unacceptable. It is not possible to find a solution by proceeding on such a path.”

        Yet such a solution was found in 1950 and existed until 1967 – the unification of the West Bank with Transjordan to create the State of Jordan.. It would still have been in existence for the last 47 years had Jordan not chosen to enter the Six Day War against the advice of Israel.

        Why you appear so averse to going back to the 1967 position – as far as is now possible given the changes on the ground since then – is indeed very perplexing and troubling.

      • Richard Falk December 22, 2014 at 2:08 pm #

        Mr. Singer:

        Jordanian occupation of Palestinian territories of the West Bank and East Jerusalem was never a solution, but a festering wound.
        Palestinians were caught between two unacceptable occupations of their homeland, first by Jordan in the aftermath of the 1948 War and
        then Israel after the 1967 War.

        The old chestnut of solving Israel’s Palestinian problem by way of Jordan has always appealed to segments of the Israeli right-wing, being
        particularly associated with Ariel Sharon’s ‘anti-Arab’ ideas about resolving the conflict. I can understand why Israeli extremists would be
        attracted to such an approach, but I cannot understand why an intelligent student of the conflict such as yourself would suppose that I would
        go along. Point me to one credible Palestinian who is favorable to your way of proceeding.

      • david singer December 22, 2014 at 6:08 pm #

        Professor Falk

        Your unsubstantiated claim that “Jordanian occupation of Palestinian territories of the West Bank and East Jerusalem was never a solution, but a festering wound” is misleading and inaccurate.

        You choose to deliberately overlook:
        1. the Jericho Conference held on 1 December 1948,
        2. the dissolution of the Chamber of Deputies of the Transjordanian Parliament on 1 January 1950,
        3. the elections held on 11 April 1950 with 20 of the 40 seats being reserved for West Bank Arabs and
        4. the meeting of the new Chamber of Deputies held on 24 April 1950 which confirmed the union of the West Bank with Transjordan and passed the following resolution:

        “In the expression of the people’s faith in the efforts spent by His Majesty, Abdullah, toward attainment of natural aspirations, and basing itself on the right of self-determination and on the existing de facto position between Jordan and Palestine and their national, natural and geographic unity and their common interests and living space, Parliament, which represents both sides of the Jordan, resolves this day and declares:

        First, its support for complete unity between the two sides of the Jordan and their union into one State, which is the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, at whose head reigns King Abdullah Ibn al Husain, on a basis of constitutional representative government and equality of the rights and duties of all citizens….”

        Identical citizenship rights were conferred on the population of this newly created entity.

        As far as elections go this probably represented the most progressive attempt to embrace democracy ever seen in any Arab country.

        Compare what happened between 1948-1950 to what is happening in the West Bank and Gaza today – where no elections have been held since 2006.

        This “festering wound” festered for 17 years and the sky did not fall in. Indeed West Bank Arabs remained Jordanian citizens until 1988.

        As for your request to “point me to one credible Palestinian who is favorable to your way of proceeding” – how about the following:

        1. The late PLO leader Yasser Arafat who told Der Spiegel in 1986:

        “Jordanians and Palestinians are indeed one people. No one can divide us. We have the same fate.”

        2. Abu Iyad – deputy chief and head of intelligence for the PLO – ranking second after Yasser Arafat in Fatah – the major faction within the PLO – told the Kuwaiti News Agency on 15 December 1989:

        “You cannot make a distinction between a Jordanian and a Palestinian. It is true that we encourage unity between Arab peoples, but the relationship between Jordan and Palestine in particular is clearly distinctive; all those who tried in the past and are still trying to create divisions between the Jordanian and Palestinian people have failed. We indeed constitute one people … When the Palestinian state and unity is established…the Jordanian will be a Palestinian and the Palestinian a Jordanian”

        3. The PLO Covenant itself expressly states in Article 2:

        “Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit.”

        British Mandate Palestine included what is today called Israel, Jordan, the West Bank and Gaza.

        4. The PLO’s stated position was reinforced at the 8th Palestinian National Council meeting in February-March 1971 – which declared:

        “Jordan is linked to Palestine by a national relationship and a national unity forged by history and culture from the earliest times. The creation of one political entity in Transjordan and another in Palestine would have no basis either in legality or as to the elements universally accepted as fundamental to a political entity. .. In raising the slogan of the liberation of Palestine and presenting the problem of the Palestine revolution, it was not the intention of the Palestine revolution to separate the east of the River from the West, nor did it believe the struggle of the Palestinian people can be separated from the struggle of the masses in Jordan…”

        Thank you for describing me as “an intelligent student of the conflict”

        Your attempt to conflate resolving the conflict by the reunification of the West Bank with Jordan as appealing “to segments of the Israeli right-wing, being particularly associated with Ariel Sharon’s ‘anti-Arab’ ideas about resolving the conflict.” is totally misconceived.

        This was also the view of Shimon Peres and Yitzchak Rabin – of Abba Eban, Yigal Allon and Chaim Herzog.

        It was also the viewpoint of King Abdullah of Jordan, King Hussein of Jordan, Prince Hassan of Jordan and President Bourguiba of Tunisia.

        We need to build on what has happened in the past – not pretend or try to ignore or render null and void milestones in this long running conflict extending over almost a 100 years – including:
        1. The Balfour Declaration,
        2. The Sykes Picot Agreement,
        3. The McMahon Letters,
        4. The San Remo Conference,
        5. The Treaty of Sevres,
        6. The Treaty of Lausanne,
        7. The Mandate for Palestine,
        8. The Peel Commission,
        9. Article 80 of the UN Charter,
        10.The UN Partition Plan,
        11. The abovementioned unification of the West Bank with Transjordan between 1950-1967
        12. Security Council Resolution 242.
        13. The Oslo Accords
        14. The Bush Roadmap

        You don’t have to go along with my proposal if you don’t want to. But surely you need to have some alternative proposal that has some chance of working if further bloodshed is to be avoided between Jews and Arabs.

        You have made it clear that you don’t support the idea of direct Israel-Jordan negotiations. What counter-proposal have you to offer in view of the total collapse of Oslo and the Roadmap?

      • Kata Fisher December 6, 2014 at 1:53 pm #

        I understand this: 

        The current Israeli territory can be all in some neutral armistice lines with Jordan and Egypt. 

        While Egypt and Jordan can be in Holy Land Territory to secure the stability and peace. Landmarks with Jordan and Egypt are null and void in Holy Land Territory and should likewise be armistice lines. So there would be overlapping of armistice lines and spiritual authorities / diplomatic conditions.

        I believe that these conditions are possible based on Law of the Spirit.
        Israeli can transition into repentance, and also renounce ways of colonialism, and Arabs can as well.

        The state of Israel can be in the process of repentance and transition to legit Jewish Homeland Establishment in Holy Land.

        The current state of Israel will also renounce way of the colonial evil.

        With that, the state of Israel can and will peacefully integrate Jewish population according to the valid Rabbinic instructions (concerning the number of Jewish people that will immigrate into the Holy Land Territory). No one can just demand / restrict some numbers according to their mind / will.

        The Territory of Holy Land has to be in neutral / diplomatic in status of some overlapping armistice lines.

        No one can put another “state landmark” in Holy Land from this point on to another. They have to reverse what Arab and British’s colonialism has done with their lewless agreements and iligal landmarks in Holy Land.

        Ecclesiastically illegal landmarks in Holy Land are never without consequence.

        When false Christianity rejects the Faith of the Gospel and when they rejects obedience to the Faith of the Gospel that Church Charismatic wrote down and gave them by the Spirit of God and still gives them by the same Spirit by which Gospel was received and written down — they continuously reject and remain “not saves from judgement” of God but are judged imminently by the same Gospel and same Spirit of God.

        They are not saved by Faith in the Gospel as they have none of the Faith / no abiding in the same Faith of the Church-Charismatic by the obedience to the Law of the Gospel / the Law of the Church, the Law of God’s Spirit.

        Then that same Christianity stays not saved, becomes heretical, is also cut off, is accused, is excommunicated from the Church (spiritual and/or naturally). That is; it is cut off just as any dead branch is cut off from that which is the healthy branch of the Wine of God: Jesus Christ and Spirit of God that flows through the Wine of God: Jesus Christ. It certainly there is no Grace in Jesus Christ and His Church for cut of branches — they are burned in fire/ fire of hell.

        There is nothing else to say about British colonialism. I do not even want to get into the issues about Arab colonialism.

        Holy Land Territory between Spiritual authority of Old Testament /Jews has to overlap with Spiritual authority of repentant Arabs / valid Islam. With that peoples/exsiles can be integrated peacfuly where ever they have to integrate within Holy Land.

        I do agree with David that Arab states are to take over security and spiritual authority of Arab population. However, only by neural / diplomatic armistice lines that are on / between Arab territory and Holy Land Territory.

        Any other state presence in Holy Land is under condition to preserve natural and spiritual existence of Arabs in Holy Land.

        Israeli cannot allow any party of Holy Land Territory to be unavalable to exiles that are under Judaism — not by the Law of the Spirit.

        I would not trust this and all generations of Arabs to be repentant at this point to the next point in time to secure immigration and citizenship to Jews in Holy Land on their own, as Israel has to be burdened to be in spiritual and natural authority of Holy Land and forced / coerced into the spiritual authority of Old Testament.

        This is the reason: we have some undiscerned texts that are part of Holy Quran, concerning all Jews (contemporary and ancient).

        Let’s look and see if Jews can be coerced into obedience to the Old Testament claims of Faith and not coerced into the false Christianity wishes and submission to undiscerned Islamic texts (heresy) and Arab constitutions after these heresies (demands of false Christianity and false Islam).

        We can ask Jewish Rabbis — we do not even have to ask lawyers of any Laws.

        This is what Rabbi would tell us — yes they may be coerced into obedience — but no they can not be coerced into disobedience or forced to abandon and any claim of Faith by Old Testament Scriptures. I am sure of that is what they would say.

        Church Charismatic is in spiritual authority of any undiscerned text prophesy in the age of the Church, including the texts of Holy Quran.

        Arab constitutions in Holy Land are null and void: of Jordan, of Palestine and Gaza (I understand this far).

        Anything that restrict Law of Faith / Spirit of God may be made null and void, and may be rearranged at any given time for repentance.

        (International Law may be annulled as well if interfere with the Law of the Faith/Law of the Spirit.) Heretical Christianity may have written down these hindering and evil parts to the Law International in order to hinder and to annul the claim of Faith / restrict the work of God’s Spirt.

        We understand that the validity of Old Testament is passed on to us by prophets, trough Judaism / Rabbis and also by Church.

        With that, we have two legit lines who preserved authentic writings of prophets.

        Holy Quran was not written down by prophet Muhammed, and with that fact, all discernment must apply in specific orders that are given by the Church / first Generation of Chrsitianity. The Scripture must be read and interpreted in the exactly same Spirit that was written /given in order to be applied as Faith-valid.

        The Word of the Spirit “is written / given” means much different than that which is “passed down” — that which is written by the prophets is given and / or passed down by the prophets.

        That what prophets did write down and what was also passed down by authentic preservation until the time of Jesus Christ. We know that it was wholly authentic at least by then as it was confirmed authentic by Jesus Christ, and then after Jesus Christ was also passed down by the Church and Rabbis. (Ancient Rabbis were very humble in their process of Sacred text preservation).

        We have two sources of preservation, therefore of authentic revelation that was written down by the prophets, and passed down by the prophets. (Yes, Church Charismatic has contained the prophets during firs generationa and after, and Judisam has contained the prophets as well).

        With that one can be in confused spirit of their mind and dismiss valid Faith-claims. Holy Land Territory and claims of the Jewish Faith can not be dismissed on the base of some undiscerned texts within Holy Quran and /or “mouth to mouth” myths — but then also reduced to myths and wishes of some false Christianity along with some Arabs that practice witchcraft by undiscerned religion of their text that is not part of Sacred Revelation in Holy Quran to prophet Muhamed.

        If the truth / authenticity of Old and New Testament is rejected how it is dismissed? In this way can and would be:

        a) “Old and New Testament are written down by heretics?”
        b) “Old and New Testament are passed down by heretics?”
        c) ” “Old and New Testament are misread, misinterpreted by heretics and misapplied? = Religion.”

        These are huge diffractions to these things.

        The correct answer is: c) “Old and New Testament are misread. misinterpreted by heretics?” that create “Religion” by spirit of their evil minds.

        There is no error in Old and New Testament (there are grammatical errors; however, and it is only a human error / spiritual attack during preservation of the Secrets Texts.

        Once again, ecclesiastically illegal landmarks in Holy Land are never without consequence.

        Church crimes are visibly manifested in heretical Christianity of the past and present.

        Ecclesiastically Illegal landmarks are dangerous ecclesiastical crimes.

        They are equally dangerous ecclesiastical crimes as dangerous and was ecclesiastically Illegal to change “things that the evil one, the Satan-devils did sown in the past of the Church.”

        With that when an individual is demanding any change to any part of that and doing that without corporate approval under prophetic anointing in the Church is of Antichrist spirit and not of God and His Spirit. (Acts that are illegal by the order of the Gospel).

        The Gospel does not allow for any change — not at any point in time just to anyone. This just would not be so in the Body of Christ that is at work in the Church when comes to the Order of the Church, Teaching Ofice of the Church, and the Law of the Church.

        There are specific orders that are not heretical, but heretics call those orders of the Church heretical.

        With that, forbidden heresies were sweets / the pleasant taste and aromas that was wanted by lawless — and always wanted, while thinking that they were doing themselves a favor of their own will’s behave covered up as good deed in the will of God — such as a divorce of Church marriage without just reason against a woman that was in a marriage with a sexual immoral pagan king that was never in Faith of the Church but in blasphemy of God’s Spirit and Satanic seal.

        Just as English king, Martin Luther was a sexual immoral heretic as well who has fallen off from Faith of the Church by sexual immoral relationship and generational sin irrevocable. He demanded and has implemented changes that were illigal for Church: Lawlesness.
        Protestant and Catholic wars were manifestation of evil in Catholics and Protestants who did not abide by the Gospel in that time.

        When people practice sexual immorality the Church is not required to give them divorce or to even hear what they have to say unless they are in confession with Charismatic priest, and unless spouse in the Church gives them a divorce / leaves them — the spouse is not willing to live with unrepentant sexually immoral person and / or is also unbeliever as spouse and who does the same sexual immorality — a Church divorces that was initiated my ongoing sexual immorality within a marriage (open will of a marriage in satanic power / spirit of that).

        Unless a marriage was disrupted and/ or defiled by wickedness of the marriage breaking witchcraft-spirit in the evil-Church-members who aim to frustrate and destroy the children of the Church and who were / are of Satan and who worked / work against any marriage within the Church — not two married individuals against each other is the case always.

        All this evil British monarchs have done in the past and are certainly a line under satanic seals and blasphemy of God’s Spirit, and do not graft in without full Baptism in God’s Spirit or rejection of their way of rule by “common grace” and by that “common grace” may be grafted in back into the Church Charismatic and Faith of the Church that is under teaching office, order and Law of the Spirit.

        I certainly denounce false Christianity that is outside the Order, the Teaching and Law of the Spirit / Canon Law — when is not Charismatic (under Grace / Baptism of God’s Spirit) individually.

        Once again, I repeat that the territory of Holy Land has to be in neutral /diplomatic in status of some overlapping armistice lines between Egypt Jordan and Israel. (I would not worry with other Arab nations that are in Holy Land Teritory or Israel outside Holy Land Territory).

        We have two majority of peoples in Holy Land Jews and Arabs.

        Two primary spiritual authority (Isalm and Judaism) it is as well, and not only can and should but also need to overlap in work for certain period of time until Jews and Arabs are able to be tolerant and live as two nations of people in Holy Land well enough along each other and along with other exiles that will integrate/Immigrants into the Holy Land.

      • david singer December 7, 2014 at 3:32 am #


        The Mandate for Palestine granted to Great Britain to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in Palestine was not the result of “British colonialism” but in fact was the result of the unanimous decision of all 51 member States of the League of Nations.

        Those 51 nations were:
        “Albania,Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, British India, Bulgaria, Canada,Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, El Salvador, Estonia,Finland, France, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Italy, Japan, Kingdom of Serbs,Croats, and Slovenes, Latvia, Liberia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New
        Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Persia, Peru, Poland, Portugal,
        Republic of China, Romania, Siam, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Union of South Africa, United Kingdom, Uruguay, and Venezuela.”

        That League of Nations decision created the legal grounds for Jews to return to their ancient and historic homeland and has not been superseded by the United Nations Charter as a result of article 80 being inserted in the United Nations Charter at the time of its establishment in 1945.

        Attempting to overturn a decision that is binding in international law some 90 years after the event has been the basic reason that peace has not been possible during all that time.

        Accepting the unanimous verdict of the international community in 1922 will go a long way to reaching that elusive peace.

        Trying to attribute what happened in 1922 as being due to “British colonialism” will only ensure the Jewish-Arab conflict will continue unabated and unresolved.

      • Kata Fisher December 7, 2014 at 7:20 pm #


        I read what you said about mandate of Palestine and it was just as ringing heard. I wondered before if all that was initiated under some prophetic direction.

        I am starting to believe that all that took place in 1922 was, in fact, initiated under some prophetic anointing – if you look pattern of things that took place after that. There was a huge attack (in spiritual and natural) over Jewish people just hindering and destroying force that I believe was not allowed by God. That is, it was not from God and it was not allowed by God.

        I do not have full understanding and each point of time to understand all of that fully.

        I only have few details on all of this, and I can only hope to understand when exactly colonialism took on grip in Holy Land. (By the Jews or was it against the Jews?) Moreover, then also spiritual and natural attacks were manifested in Holy Land and outside, as well.

        I do not know what point in time exactly was each and how all of them looked like in order to see and understand who did what and why.

        I am thinking that the colonialism never was with Jews, and was self-defense – but from what?

        There was first spiritual thing: Landmark in Joran (spiritual manifestation against Holy Land).

        Then it was Holocaust.

        I do wonder when British colonialism did stop (before or after Landmark in Jordan?)

        Was it after Holocaust that it did stop? Was it after initiation of Israel as a state?

        Did German nazism start just after British colonialism has stopped?

        Has British colonialism come to a stop?

        those patterns — I do not understand this

        What were the patterns? What are disruption of them and how do they look like?

        Look at all Arab and Western colonialism patterns, and then see how and if Jewish colonialism fits in. Is not any part of it?

        I have no insight in any of this. I can not think on this any further.

        Still, I believe the way things are done matters (what comes first and what comes last?)

        What was the first is the last option or the first option is the solution? The problem it self is the solution?
        I have many questions and no answers.

        I have to tell you something:

        Today I was out, and as I was walking when youth distracted and has stopped me — so we got to talk, and I find out that he was from Israel.

        Last time this happened it was probably about three years ago, and it was an Israeli girl that stopped me. This time was a lad — just past adolescent age. Also, there was another young adult with him who also was just about same age.

        As a young adult was showing me things, he was going about, and as we were talking I asked him “Do you know how to fix Palestine-Israeli issues?”… “Do you have any ideas?” He said, “No, I do not know.” He just started telling me how things are just not going nowhere with all of that, and was not knowing what to say about it, and started telling me other things.

        While telling me some other things; he just turned toward other young adult that was with him. I heard him saying something in Hebrew, and that pretty loudly — as this young adult was just a bit further from us and actually could not hear from all noise around.

        So he was turned toward us, and he said, “Negotiations.”

      • david singer December 7, 2014 at 11:41 pm #


        I guess one could say there have been many miracles during the centuries long yearning of the Jews expressed in their daily prayers to once again be granted the privilege to reconstitute their national home in their ancient biblical and historical homeland.

        Certainly the unanimous decision of the League of Nations establishing the Mandate for Palestine could be interpreted as one such miracle.

        As Article 6 declared:

        “The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.”

        This solemn internationally binding legal imprimatur has never been accepted by an Arab world which at the very same time received 99.99% of the conquered Ottoman Empire territories as the site for Arab self-determination.

        This non-acceptance of the Jewish right to self determination in an area of land the size of New Jersey has been and still remains the crux of the conflict between Arabs and Jews.

        That the Jews have overcome such resentment and hatred for the last 94 years in doing what was legally sanctioned in 1920 also can only be possibly explained as further evidence of a lot of more miracles

      • Kata Fisher December 8, 2014 at 10:19 am #


        I have to tell you that I have realised that I was corrected by you on serval occasions — as my conscience has witnessed to me those corrections by Spirit of God alone.

        I believe in humble submission to God when in submission to another trough Faith — I find no other submission toward God.

        When we limit our self to limitations of others — there is unlimited power and authority that is invoked trough Spirit of God — who has always moved as ever existing and ever sustaining force over creation.

        Now, these things are a miracle and miracles, in fact. We do not understand it — but have a revelation that there is such force that holds all elements in their place. How does this take place we do not know — we just know some types of sustaining power manifested in things that are visible.

        I think that I have to post a video link about a miracle that I came across a while ago – still, I am not moved to do so, at this point.

        Another thing that moves me:

        A Note – but this is not personal note to you; it is for all:

        It was either late 2010 or early 2011 when I wrote this piece/fraction of the study on Romans ch 13 as a part of correspondence with a person while @ LU.

        Then, after that — I was online with some ugly Irish in August 2011, and I passed this on to him, as well.

        I find it so relevant, and also appropriate to offer as an explanation to all of you who can accept my explanation and excuse:

        (So you get a sense of a joke when comes to the ordination of a woman in the Church Catholic – that which we reject by the Faith of Church and teaching that is Apostolic. Still, occasionally we will say, “Oh, Whatever!”)

        (c.f. Romans 13)?

        In Roman’s chapter 12, Apostle Paul gives servile instructions to the Church in Rome. When we come to chapter 13, part of that instruction is to submit to governing authorities. Douglass Moo writes that there are two reasons why to submit: Because of ordinance of God and justice.[1] Thomas Schreiner adds, “Believers express their commitment to God in how they relate to rulers and the law of the state.[2] He is affirming to the Roman Church that all authorities that exist are appointed by God, because God himself is the only valid authority, so it is He who appointed those authorities in the first place. When there is a rebellion against God appointed authorities, there is a direct rebellion against God, and that rebellion against the authority of God will be met with an appropriate judgment of God (v. 1-2).

        Then, Paul is teaching about the function of authorities that are appointed by God, which includes an arrangement of social order and social justice. Nevertheless, throughout the Scripture, whether God was using the Nation of Israel to accomplish His will in the world, He was equally using the pagan governments to accomplish His will on the earth. While God used different nations for different purposes, He still was in full authority over them, because all humanity is His creation, whether Jews or Gentiles. Paul instructs both Jews and Gentiles in the Church of Rome to submit to authorities, because they are appointed to administer both good and evil (v.3-4). Paul instructs the Church in Rome to be obedient to the will of God, and submit to authorities, not only because of the fear of judgment, but also because of retaining a healthy conscience. Paul teaches that appointed authorities are there to continuously meet the needs of society; that is, its social order and social justice, and because their work is parallel with will of God, they shall receive God’s providence for their work in society (v.5—6). In verse 7 Paul summarizes Christian responsibility to the civil authority: “Render therefore to all their due: taxes whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor whom honor.” Nevertheless, Paul is teaching that you do not owe anything, but you do it out of love for another. With that, Paul starts teaching the commandments of God, according to the Old Testament.

        Compare to Jesus’ statements regarding one’s responsibility to government.

        In the Gospel’s we read that Christ Jesus was challenged by Pharisees who sent their disciples with Herodians to test Christ and ask him if is lawful to pay taxes to Cesar. They wanted to know if it is lawful to pay the taxes to the Gentile-ruler over them. Christ understanding their way of hypocrisy, asks them to show him the money with which they pay taxes. When they did, He asks them, “Whose image and inscription is this?” They said, “Caesar’s.” Then he said to them, “Render therefore to the Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s” (Matthew 22.16—21; Mark 12.13—17; Luke 20. 20—26).

        According to Paul’s summary, therefore we see that, both Christ Jesus and Paul are teaching the Gospel according to Revelation in the Old Testament. If there are taxes to pay, it is to be paid according to the laws of the governments, to King or to the rulers. If there are customs, what kind of customs is there to be observed? Even fear those who are to be feared. Honor who is to be honored; therefore, Christ is teaching, to the disciples of Pharisees and Herodians, pretty much to figure out that which belongs to Caesar and must be given to him, and that which belongs to God and must be rendered unto Him. Disciples of Pharisees and Herodians would be familiar with Old Testament teaching and would know what is written.

        What is the precedent of the early church in the book of Acts in regard to obedience to government?

        According to the Book of Acts, disciples ware called to fulfill the requirements of their Commissions, and so they preached the Gospel as the Spirit moved them, both to Jews and to the Gentiles. Therefore, disciples were consistently dealing with Jewish Leadership and Gentile governments, as they preached the Gospels. Paul, however, gives an example of a submitted life when he was dealing with the Roman government. Paul also claimed his Roman citizenship (by birth) when he was about to receive lashes; but only to inform Romans solders (who acquired Roman citizenship with a large sum) that it may be illegal for Romans to flog a man who is a Roman citizen and has not been brought to a trial. Nevertheless, when Paul was brought in front of Ananias (who was a high priest, and Paul did not know that) has also harshly rebuked Ananias for breaking the Law, but he likewise was rebuked by Ananias because Paul started to curse Ananias, for Paul found him braking the Law. Nevertheless, when the Jewish conspiracy continued against him, that pushed Paul to deal with Roman government, Paul also appealed to Caesar (Acts 22-24). But in Philippians we learn that Paul also was converting the household of Caesar, (Paul was in Rome when he wrote the letter to the Philippians), and while he was submitted to the Cesar’s government (ch.4 v. 22). Nevertheless, Paul turned and judged the Elymas, the false prophet, Jewish magician Bar-Jesus, who interfered with Paul’s teaching of the Gospel to the Roman proconsul Sergius Paulus, when he was on his first missionary journey (Acts 13. 4—12). Paul instructed young Timothy to pray and give thanks to God for rulers and others in authority, so that there is a quiet and peaceful living (1 Timothy 2.1—2).

        How do we apply these biblical principles today?

        “Render therefore to the Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s,” according to the Gospel.

        Paul teaches submission in his letters. Submission is a powerful spiritual warfare against evil forces, because Christ Himself was submitted, and His submission had the power to crush Satan’s power for all ages. When we think about that which Apostle Paul is teaching, it is clear that Paul himself was one according to Christ, giving an example of Christ. Nevertheless, submission is a humbling for human nature, and it is not welcomed at all, because human nature rebels against ordinance of God. When one is not submitted to will of God, that person was not humbled and that person’s faith is built on a shaking grounds.

        Paul in general teaches submission, simply because the submission is an ordinance that God requires. God Himself is a God of order, in fact a perfect order. God in His creative design has established an orderly humanity and it was good; however, when humanity fell under sin, that governing order that was established was violated and was lost among humanity. With that, God has used few individuals to partially direct social orders, which was lost. Because His supreme governance included different accomplishments in the world, He then (according to His will and plan), allowed for different functions of the governments which He established, for rule over the humanity. While Christianity is only required to obey God, the same Christianity will submit to even evil government by faith, or will be delivered from evil governments, by faith.

        What Paul is referring to in Roman’s 13 is more for sake of keeping the social order (according to the will of God and purpose). Christianity, in general does not fall under any earthly laws or governments, nor does owe, nor is to owe anything to anyone but love, but is there to assist governments in their dealings within societies, for it is ultimately God’s dealing which are being accomplished, according to His plans.

        According to the Gospel teaching and the teaching of Paul, the submission to the government as a ruler of society primarily honors God, because He Himself appointed those rulers to administrate both good and evil. Now, when Paul is speaking about responsibility to pay taxes, he is referring to the submission to the social order within the society; that is, recognizing appointed governments for their work in society. And if we carful read Romans chapter 13, Paul connects love and the commandments in the context of tax-dues. Christians owe nor are to owe nothing including (taxes) to anyone, but only love; therefore, out of charity and keeping God’s commandments, taxes are paid without complaints and foremost out of love. While Christianity out of love will give abundantly to the governments in order for them to administer without lacking resources, the same Christianity may not consider a government much effective in their administration and providence or wordy of any respect. So it is only God whom we honor when we give for others to receive, as citizens, as rulers; it is always a way of charity, for Christianity. Because it is irrelevant for Christianity what government does when comes to their earthly social order and justice; it is no doubt that God is in full authority over that. God uses governments to deal with people, and trough the governments he can allow both good and evil upon a society. So, “Render therefore to all their due: taxes whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor whom honor,” as Paul said in Romans.

        Almost at finishing line 🙂
        It has been a rocky for me this semester, but I am pressing on :)! Without Joy and Peace; it is impossible to keep up.

        Blessings 😉

        Moo, Douglas J. Encountering the Book of Romans: A Theological Survey. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2002
        Schreiner, Thomas R. Romans: Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1998.
        [1] Moo, Douglas J. Encountering the Book of Romans: A Theological Survey. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2002
        [2] Schreiner, Thomas R. Romans: Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1998.

      • Kata Fisher December 9, 2014 at 9:34 am #

        A note:

        Zionism contains “Freedom of Faith” constituent. It has to be singled out as so.

        It also contains some directed and also unclear patterns that really has to be discerned, at some point in time.

        For right now I see nothing else in dire need to be discerned. Going about dicerning / correcting (in whole) can take months and weeks, and even more than few of decades.

        Going about discerning of Zionism would be as discerning of Holy Quran — or fixing up generational delusions of Christianity and works after that. I would say something like “good luck” to those who are outside prophetic anointing and oversight trough it.

        Zionism is not too old of a heresy if it is. With that, there are good outlooks to correct it without century-long hindering and difficulty. I believe there can be few natural corrections to it / main things.

        This is Spiritual Law / Law of the Spirit requirement: Neutrality of Holy Land Landmark and Freedom of Faith in Holy Land are inflexible items. This is key issue to all of this.

        Anything around that can be rearranged: the people, the landmarks, any territory (all that is right now and is going on right now?) or just some any invalid / heretical laws.

        Let’s deal with heretical laws/parts of it, if you will. Or do we not touch hostilely heretical religion in governmental implementations — we just can’t?

        I am obligated by the Law of the Spirit to point out grave consequences that are in my sight or understanding, and to restrict those grave consequences over any population in question (in natural and spiritual terms).

        For something such as Zionism “to be discerned” is often not in anyone natural will-power. You really can’t even go about it, unless, there are specific conditions for that (and this conditions are not civil, only — but are eccalistical).

        I would say that to abandon Zionism will not be possible. Some changes to the approach have to, and can be be made.

        Still, those changes are full correction by Old Testament instruction with regards to Old Testament Faith. Integrating Jewish exiles and /or Judaism into the territories in Holy Land is an irrevocable condition.

        Again, and again Zionisam whatever it looks in its condition is also anchored in some irrevocable demand based on the Freedom of Faith Law.

        Regardless its condition Zionism has to be waited out / corrected and see how it prevails. (These are some requirements by the Law of the Spirit to things such as Zionism, in Church age). One can not deny any part of self-determination based on Faith to anyone. Freedom of Faith can take on destructive forms when hindered. Any delay or obstruction to it is of consequence and often irrevocable consequence.

        It is more appropriate to annul and to abandon constitutions of Gaza and of Palestine Authority — an authority that has not transition to a legit government, nor it can based on its condition and demands in Holy Land. It is rather a lay-people movement based on hostile religious reading, misinterpreting and misapplying of the text that is within Holy Quran. (I already have explained conditions of the order of the writings in Holy Quran and order in which it was and was not passed on).

        Freedom of religion that is hostile is illegal even to natural laws — just as any freedom of religion is Hostile to the Spiritual Laws and Freedom of Faith.

        Spiritual Laws, however do not govern “freedom of religion” requirements. Spiritual Laws govern handling of Secret Texts (as Holy Quran, and that regardless Holy Quran’s conditions). Spiritual Laws will single out Freedom of Faith and will put religion at side.

        With that, Zionism (in whole ) can be put aside just as religion part of Islam can be put aside.

        You really do not even go about it — as you just look at instances of Faith issues, and that was already done. Why should you be cycled around with dead-end matters that are outside anyone power to correct or appointing over that? — not in this point in time. I see no valid appointing to overturn all claims of Zionism that is present.

        You really can not go about that without an appropriate way.

        However, Freedom of Faith in all will be singled out in all of that.

        About negotiations:

        I say and also believe that Love never fails and is most excellent to go about during those negotiations.

        The negotiations can take place; ( be in Israel). So to be cheerful and be generous, as this things must be, as it was announced that there will be Solidarity to Palestinian people.

        Everyone can at least try to put all individual obligations and differences within that framework: solidarity.

        It is possible and acceptable to generously love Palestinian people when they cannot love themselves or others.

        They get Withe Stone — they get Yes, regardless who negotiates.

        Can they negotiate for themselves? Absolutely they can, as they can for others? When they can, they can; otherwise others will have to negotiate for them.

        This not only that is fair; it is love perfected. It is just and right, and it is relevant time.

        After 2014, 2015 should be when all negotiations are accomplished — and there shall be no rockets bursting outside accountability and consequence to that accountability in Holy Land.

        I hope this is this acceptable, as my limitations are self-evident.

      • Kata Fisher December 22, 2014 at 8:19 pm #

        A Note:

        I do not believe there is another option for Israeli but the Jordan option.

        There is and it was way to much that was going on.

        No Jew policy in the Holy Land Territory will not be possible for the future generetions. Arab attitude toward Jewish presence in Holy Land can not ignored, as well as other things past / present. (That which is not of people with reason and conscience).

        We can go weary in correcting what British did. Why are we not?

        First, Palestinian people have to attain full knowledge what British and Jordan did. Do they have to do that, and how long will take for Palastenians to understand what is going on?

        They do not need to know iminently. Is it that the only thing they need to know is “right now /present time” — that — what Jews did and are doing now?

        Alternatively, they have to forget, and not even learn what British and Jordan did, just as they need to forget what their ancestors did?

        We can cycle on generational issues, and that is all what can be done until enough people in Holy Land understand their History books — when any available to them.

        Well, do Palestinian, and Jewish people /majority have to study all these things in order to understand what are their conditions and rights in Holy Land? Not imminently.

        Well, someone can get a course curriculum ready to go for the next semesters in Palastenisns / Jewish University about the Historical Facts.

        However, no more than 3% will be of understanding. Kids often are brain-washed, so that they can’t dicern their right hand from the left one. But how can they? As long as few of some with understanding does not toil day and night for them — there will be no better future that one in their will-power can prepare.

        It is satanic cycle that they are dealing with, and it is not by Jews implemented. It was Jordan and British — when Jordan was established, first.

        May God have some protective force and Grace toward trapped people in Holy Land. All things are works of vanity, except saving few lives.

        Those who are in Satanic seals and blasphemy of God’s Spirit only do evil, and no imminent consequence to them selfs. They bring condemnation and scandal to their seed, and their seeds seed.

        What I understand is this; Jordan’s negotiations with Israel would not mean that Palestinian people would be robbed in Holy Land. (Not by anyone who will go about bringing Israel and Jordan to their senses).

        There are few things that need to be addressed to Israel and Jordan.

        Holy Land has to be given back to the population in Holy Land.

        Palestinian people do not understand — or do understand but do not acknowledge that it was British and Jordan who have cut into the territory in Holy Land on their own. Do even Jews recognize and say that is so? What are the consequences of that bondage to evil of the past things?

        What I understood is that British was into their evil strategic games with Arabs, and this is what happened: their evil will did so — so that exiles are cut off from the Holy Land. Likewise, who so ever supported them in this vile work is responsible, as well, for all the bloodshed between Arabs and Jews.

        We have majority of two people in Holy Land that are terribly tripped into the curse and also condemnation that can be everlasting, if unbroken… while those who are responsible for the guilt of the blood enjoy their accursed things that they perceive to be Holy to them in the guilt of blood — roasted chestnuts for an example.

        People can enjoy their manners (as their ancestors did) and enjoy it while doing evil things — but that counts for nothing to them not now, and not everlastingly. (I do not mean to be vicious saying this; it is exactly how it is with these matters, and acknowledge condemnation and judgment of their spiritual excommunication).

        They did evil things to the Holy Land – they did eccalistical lawlessness to the Holy Land and people in Holy Land. However, the people are the one who have fell under curse of generational sins and also unjust suffering, as well as all exiles in the Land.

        Jordan has to give things back what was stolen between Jordan and British when Jordan was established. They have to get out their evil contract with British. It is eccalistical evil contract to remain with descendants in Holy Land, and on descendants of those who have done such evil.

        Bristish works of the past /present /future have to be cut off along with all their evil works to the Holy Land — as the next generations of theirs can only repent of all evil that ancestors of those people did.

        It was Jordan along wit British that did robbing in Holy Land. Holy Land is eccalistical kingdom, as are the Landmarks because of that it deserves to be neutral, and Jordan has to annul their Landmark in Holy Land.

        I believe less and less that Israel is the wrong position / place demanding to presevere in Holy Land — as people of Jewish Faith and / or sects / religions are to be integrating.

        However, they can not, nor they should do that by warfare in natural terms.

        No one except prophets and anointed grafts in and is justified by Faith or works of Righteousness of Law by Faith among Jews and Arabs as long as Holy Land is mess of British and others making.

        Church is only here to point put few facts. This is why: Medieval haun (plus few other haun’s) did much-lasting evil — they were devil directed, and in that power were much effective.

        I believe that Israel nd Jordan have to seek solutions that will correct conditions in Holy Land. I believe that lay-people /majority of the population in Holy Land did not enter evil agreements with British, and lay-people will not be able to correct it.

        Lay people can be in a consistent guilt of blood works and that without one single generation to be grafted in (spiritually).

        Guilt of blood is devil directed, and it is the devil directed for this reason: to cut off spiritually as many as possible. Satanic seals and Blasphemy of God’s Spirit does that — and the host of those things is devil-blinded to any of that — they are just in spirit of evil for generations.

        People in Holy Land need no evil such as that to themselves to go on — the cycle satanic has to be broken off.

        I believe that Rome’s Charismatic and ordained nuncios have to oversee things between Israel and Jordan. Israel’s agreement with Rome / Vatican is null and void by the Law of the Church. It is to be annulled. They were not in their right minds — they acted in schizophrenic way and order of that / things of the air /evil spirits of their minds.

    • Kata Fisher November 26, 2014 at 2:23 pm #


      I read this. I ‘ll get back to you about this next week.


  8. ICC IS a Fraud November 17, 2014 at 8:35 pm #

    The zionist liars and terrorists have NO right to stay in Palestine. These Zionists who came from Europe and America have no right to land of Palestine because these people were living around black sea and adopted Judaism in 9th century. To adopt a religion does not give you the right to kill indigenous population of Palestine and steal their land, then with the help of criminal west and Rottenchild family who controlled British empire set the stage to steal the land by committing WAR CRIMES against humanity where the stooges at the ICC say they are ‘not able to prosecute’ a terrorist state. If US and Israel are not part of ICC, then why they dare to force others to do so, and DARE TO GO AFTER Al Bashir in Sudan knowing that SUDAN IS NOT PART OF ICC and it is victim of criminal Israel and US terror plot to partition the country. We know what happened. “Save Darfur” – a Jewish organization – used propaganda based on lies to demonize President Al-Bashir, a zionist victim, using people in the South as pawns to partition the country for the interest of Israel. Now, Sudan like Libya is in the state of chaos, a situation desired by US/Israel to implement their vicious plan. A Zionist stooge pose as a ‘lawyer’, Payam Akhavan, was complicit in this war crime against humanity using ICC, a whore house, to issue a warrant for the President Al Bashir, a victim of imperialism and Zionism.

    {Neither the US nor Israel are part of that statute. They voted no to the Rome Statute, signed then failed to ratify}

    SUDAN IS NOT PART OF THE ROME STATUTE, yet, Payam Akhavan, an empire’s servant who has been SILENT all these years against numerous war crimes committed by US/Israel/Britain/Canada, goes after President Al-Bashir and Dr. Al-Assad in Syria, the victims of zionism. He is a fraud. Payam Akhavan and Jewish organization pro Israel”save Darfur” staged a campagin based on lies and deception to demonise Al Bashir and Sudan to partition the country for the interest of Israel/US. They use ICC to issue a warrent for Al Bashir, a victim of zionism. This shows that ICC is a Western tool for regime change in the interest of war criminals and zionist bankers including George Soros, Rothchild family, and theri stooges who are selected as ‘president’ to be seated at the Western capitals.

    George Soros has asked Payam Akhavan to pose as a lawyer , use the western TOOL, ICC, to set Saif al-Islam Gaddafi free so George Soros can use him in Libya to erect ‘world government’, AN IRON CAGE. Apparently Saif Al-Islam is one of the George Soros’ SLAVE.
    Now, Obama regime, pentagon, MI6, Mossad are after Dr. Bashar al-Assad. To topple an elected president, according to former French FM, a plan was designed in Britain before the riot of 2011,to destabilize Syria using ‘ constructed ‘rebels’, The ISIS/ISIL like in Libya , to to topple the government and take over to set the stage for ‘New world order’ directed by Rothschild family, George Soros, Rockefeller, Kissinger and other criminal Zionists.

  9. Kata Fisher November 18, 2014 at 6:10 am #

    You may like to watch this, Gene.

    • Gene Schulman November 18, 2014 at 6:30 am #

      Yes, very interesting Kata, but what is your point.? No one disputes the admixture of Palestinians and Jews. Even Shlomo Sand writes about it in his book, “The Invention of the Jewish People.” I dispute the theory on the grounds that Judaism is a religion and not a race. So it makes no difference if they share the same DNA. It is Zionism that tries to prove otherwise, and uses this kind of kind of information to justify their political claims to the land.

      • Kata Fisher November 18, 2014 at 8:39 am #


        I have no point to make. I do like to indicate this: there were some forced conversions of Jews in Holy Land.

        Concerning the theory; I do not feel or think that there is any theory, at all. Theory is not applicable to the issues of the Faith. It just is not, but we all can judge things ourselves, and see what fits where, if at all there is individual judgment that is applicable, so to say.

        This is what I understand:

        It is both religion and the race. However, the lineage itself can be thrown off when women that intermarried with Hebrews apart from Hebrew Faith (illegitimate religious marriages).

        By that then the race / tribes do no carry “inheritance line or gene of Hebrews” (of Faith or of race) by and trough the “spirit of religion” in essence, plus to that the “works of death/dead works” of that “spirit” become effective, in all just by that.

        I do not dwell too much on the right or wrongs, but rather what makes things to be right or wrong.

        I am looking at this from the perspective of the Old Testament and the Law of the Spirit, as well as New Testament and Law of the Spirit — all warnings by the Scripture when comes to no intermarry illegitimately / marriages that are illegitimate with unbelievers (but not any race, itself).

        This was always so since we now that even David, the King, who was anointed by Samuel, and then anointed by the elders of Judeah, in fact, was also offspring of the linage that came from other tribe / race (a Moab female) that was in faith of Old Testament.

        With that, it is both religion and the race. The other race / linage was only legitimate under provision of the Faith / Old Testament.

        Are we thinking same thing, only from the another perspective?

        I do not accept any “religion” in essence, as has nothing to do with the Faith that is authentic, and order of the Faith.

        I already have indicated that Zionism needs correction, still I do not think or believe that all Zionist are up to some hasbarish rubbish, in all, but there are plenty facts that need to be sorted out.

        One fact is that Arabs were practicing forced conversions and acquired land in the ways that were an ecclesiastical illegal, and are illegitimately settlers / offspring of another tribe / residence: Egypt and defilement of it? (Just as Western tribes are to New World/US)? And was/is there Grace in all of that?

        One fact is that Arabs were practicing forced conversions in Holy Land.

        Is this why “state of Israel” is in their back yard, so to say? Egypt and harlot of Gaza may be a problem for the Samson of this day in Holy Land? Alternatively, it could be that Sara’s sin that is with her and her offspring for all generation? We know that Children of Abraham are a great nation, by and trough Faith and Spirit of the Faith alone –as there is no difference between Jew or Non-Jew.

        It was always just as that.

        I do not know since there is more than one Biblical fact that is observable in these times. I do not understand anything, without understanding sins / generational sins. I do not know – that is just somewhat like a standardized way, in general.

        I am Church-Charismatic, and I will say things as such as for long now I am not fed with milk of spiritual bottle, in a way. But you understand that yourself.

      • Gene Schulman November 18, 2014 at 9:18 am #

        Sometimes it is very difficult to understand what you’re saying, Kata. All I know is that I don’t put any credence in the bible; new or old testaments. So such arguments do not move me. I do know that there are no variations of race. There is just one, the human race, of which all of us alive today and who preceded us are of a kind, biologically. The divisions come from “tribe” and preferred religions. Hence, ethnicity and culture. Once that gets through to understanding, perhaps tolerance of the “other” will prevail.

        I don’t see any difference between what you call Church-Charismatic or any other religion. They all carry the same smell of Jesus/God, and dusty churches, synagogues and mosques, which is offensive to my sensibilities. So, if you wish to carry on these discussions, let us do so on rational grounds, rather than biblical hocus pocus. No offense intended.

      • Kata Fisher November 18, 2014 at 10:44 am #


        I cant add to your faith, and you cant add to my reason, I believe.

        My Father (as well as my mother) were Charismatic-Church long before I fell under harsh spiritual attack. It had nothing to do with generational curse or sin on anything my family line has done or I.

        I made a decision to not know anything, except Jesus Christ and Him crucified. (A rational and historical fact).

        Once I made the decision, understanding followed by Spirit of God.

        The Book to Colossians is a Church letter of correction. In this epistle, you will find poetic lines (1.15-20) concerning who Christ of Nazareth was / is and what He represents in comparison to “Creation” and “Redemption.”

        In Philippians you will understand the work of God’s Spirit – who alone has and bears significance in the Name, and by the Name as “Emanuel” which is interpreted as “God with us” – according to the Gospel of Matthew.

        To suffer in the Name of Jesus Christ was always a privilege, according to the writings of Paul to Philippians, who made known that Christian joy is independent from outward conditions, as the joy itself is vested in fellowship with the risen and glorified Jesus Christ.

        In the Church letter to Colossians we read that there is no reason to fear “hocus-pocus” / reason to fear demonic spirit-powers or to seek (by superstitions) for some sort of protection from them because Jesus Christ has neutralized their power at the Cross of Calvary (2.5).

        To nail a sin to the Cross of Christ and trade it for the joy that comes from God (the Spirit of God) is not possible for everyone.

        Christ of Nazareth by Spirit of God is supreme over all evil, and in Him all man-made judgments /distinction fade away and barriers man-made fall.

        He is a Life and Leadership of the Church, and to Him alone may Church submit trough Spirit of God. Who is sufficient for these things?

        It is impossible to submit Spirit of God that is in Church-Charismatic to anything else, except to the finished work of Cross, that is Jesus Christ.

        I am telling you that in rational I do not know anything except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified.

        This, in fact, will be a stench of death or fragrance of Life. What I say is in demonstration of God’s Spirit, and no wisdom in rational terms.

        Is this what you do not understand? Or do you not understand baptism in God’s Spirit and blessing to / grafting in of all tribes / families of the earth / mankind?

        The Church can add The Spirit and Life of God (joy of God) to anyone who accepts free Gift of the Spirit who was sent into the world. The Spirit of truth, the Spirit of wisdom and understanding by which Faith multiples.

      • Gene Schulman November 18, 2014 at 11:07 am #

        Amen? Not from this corner.

      • Kata Fisher November 18, 2014 at 11:26 am #

        “So be it?” Not from this corner.

        You are hilarious Gene, as you see I can’t submit you to my Faith and reason, and you can’t submit me to your reason – we can enjoy the same day and not the season?

        This, too, is a civil and acceptable in a way? I believe.

      • Gene Schulman November 18, 2014 at 11:46 am #

        That was a pun, Hon. You know, Amen Corner?

        My objection is that you rely ONLY on faith, without reason.

        I accept your civility, and am willing to share the season, with everyone. What other choice do we have?

      • Kata Fisher November 18, 2014 at 1:14 pm #

        Gene, you are right.

        Church that is valid has never made a claim against reason and conscience and freedom of conscience in relationship to Faith and reason.

        First generation of Christianity exsamined, everything, concerning the claims of Faith–they looked at manifestation/reason of the Faith and works of it. They applied sound judgment by and trough Spirit of their minds.

        Faith without reason is as same as Faith without Spirit and conscience, in a way.

        As humans we certanly have concance that will be impresed by Spirit, and also infused by dictates of Gods Spirit when something very wrong is going on spiritually or naturaly — or against the Spirit of Faith. Then, we can reason what it may be that is not in agreement with our conscience and Spirit.

        Violating someone’s conscience is not as same as reasoning with someone and telling them about truth that is objective.

        Truth in Spirit is simple, and not complicated, and does not impose against free will or conscience, and it does not any vile. Still, we all are just humans.

        We only have few options, and It’s best to pick the best.

      • Richard Falk November 18, 2014 at 7:35 pm #

        I find myself listening to the conversation between yourself and Gene, and in a broad sense feeling in the middle. I believe
        that the spiritual foundations of our reality are beyond rational comprehension but I do not feel that projecting metaphysical
        explanation of a divine being that assesses and judges and acts in history is wishful thinking. Yet the secular/religious divide
        has brought a lethal form of polarization into the civic life of many societies. As Auden put in his fine poem “We must love one
        another or die.”

      • Gene Schulman November 19, 2014 at 1:45 am #

        Gene apologizes to Richard for occupying so much space discussing what is actually off topic from the original post. However, when some commenters go so far off I feel it is necessary to remind them. Richard did well with his response to David Singer, and I hope I’ve heard the last of him. As for Kata, she has every right to her faith and her beliefs based on that faith, but I do not believe that when discussing secular issues such as those brought up in the two interviews comprising this blog post, there is room to consider what God would offer as solutions. Spirituality may bring comfort to some, but it solves no problems in the secular world.

      • david singer November 19, 2014 at 3:22 am #


        You have not heard the last of me.

        I am still waiting to hear from you to see if you have contacted Ms Knightly to provide you with her sources to support her claim that only 12% of the land in Palestine in 1948 was State land – not 70% as I have claimed.

        I do not accept that Professor Falk did well with his response to me. He obviously relented from his decision to axe my post – which is welcomed.

        The Professor has still failed to answer this post by me:

        “Professor Falk:

        1. You state in your first interview:

        “There is much discussion as to the pros and cons of seeking to adhere to the Rome Statute that underpins the International Criminal Court by Palestine now that its statehood has been confirmed by the UN General Assembly in 2012. Palestine now has the UN status of being ‘a non-member observer state.’ It has joined UNESCO as a member and adhered to several international treaties.”

        Has such statehood been confirmed by the UN General Assembly and UNESCO in accordance with the principles of international law that apply to the recognition of States – specifically the Montevideo Convention?

        If indeed there is such a State – where is it presently located?

        2. Why did you fail to mention the Bush Roadmap in either interview? Is it and the Quartet – Russia, European Union, America and the United Nations – no longer relevant? When did the Roadmap cease to be applicable to the negotiations commenced under the Oslo Accords? Please explain why you are of that opinion.

        3. You state in the second interview:

        “In the end, the Zionist insistence on ‘a Jewish state’ will have to be abandoned, and replaced by homelands of equal receptivity to Jews and Palestinians wherever they may fine [sic] themselves.”

        In what circumstances do you see “a Jewish State” being abandoned since this was the rationale for the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine and the inclusion of article 80 in the UN Charter?

        You claim (without giving any reasons) that the Oslo Accords ” excluded the relevance of international law from what came to be known as ‘the peace process,’”

        Are you advocating the overthrow of international law as embodied in the Mandate and article 80 of the UN Charter in order to enable the Jewish State to be abandoned?”

        Of course Professor Falk – and you Gene as well – can continue to ignore my comments – but in doing so you both create the impression that you both don’t have answers.

      • Kata Fisher November 19, 2014 at 8:56 am #

        Professor Falk,

        I understand what you are saying, and I agree with that.

        I never have dwelled on anything of importance, as I was only observing evil things during enormous spiritual attack and spiritual warfare.

        This is what I have understood over some time:

        Love is not anything that is acquired by the spirit of religion. There has to be Faith and Spirit of the Faith in order to love another person, as we would love God that may or may not be present with them.

        Concerning secular and religious issues I find this fact relevant: if we are in pursuit of secular issues trough religious dictates that become destructive. This destructive can have its roots in our personal inclinations (personal bewitchment – or bewitchment of our day) or generational patterns.

        I like to use word “bewitchment.”

        This is the reason for that: I know that Apostle Paul clearly distinguishes unrighteousness just by that tiny little word, in his application. (We find that word once in New Testament, and is used by Apostle Paul in the letter to the Church in Galatia).

        Whatever thing against the Faith and Spirit of Faith in the body of any believers (or even secular society) — we know whether Muslim, Christians or Jews become unrighteousness that is, in fact, based on bewitchment and spirit of that.

        Now, often it is so that the secular society cannot stomach “spirit of religion” due to healthy conscience – or just can’t stomach Law of the Spirit because it is more then what their conscience can bear. This is different.

        If we look at the Secret text (Special Revelation) and claim something by that text – we can also look what Natural Revelation tells us, as well. Natural Revelation, in fact, tells us that there were and is generational sin in the line of Arabs that were conquering the people and tribes in Holy Land, but not only Holy Land.

        We do focus on Holy Land issues, in all here, however.

        Those ancient generational sins are judicially active from the spiritual perspective.

        How do you tell anyone about their generational sins—or personal for matter of fact? Well, you do not tell them, unless, they must know. Why would they need to reflect on that? They need to reflect on that because it is stronghold that keeps them captive in the very works that they are naturally and also spiritually: “We have no Faith, and we have no Love—we behave as uncultivated barbarians always have had.”

        Is this truth hoped for now for people in Holy Land and future truth to the Holy Land?

        Every generation must repent of their generational sin — or those sins are inheritance passed on just to the next generation. What sins — we wonder? If I said that I do not know sins of humans, I would lie.

        Sin-broken lives in Holy Land, generational sins-broken lives in Holy Land.

        That is not life that God has intended for humans (when we dare to claim to know about His existence and His nature).

        God will allow evil and sin he will let be, but will also stop evil and will annul sin. Anyone who accepts warning of God’s Spirit and baptism in God’s Spirit is the one stops and stops evil by their free will and on behave of God’s will, and good of all.

        We are in no wishful thinking but Hope that Holy Land is the epicenter from which God will roar up waves of His Spirit and restoration of the world and human existence in natural, as we believe it will be in Spiritual.

        We only believe that others are submitted to this same hope.

        However, what is it that they hope for? That which is written? Much is written. That which is written down by the prophets? That which even natural revelation is asking for? To that alone is the hope to which the Spirit of God that is in the Church can submit to anyone.

        We certainly do not submit anyone to hope in undiscerned text / misinterpretation of the text and spirit of religion, that is and would be bewitchment / witchcraft. But let’s ask our self’s this: are they given over to that? Well, the prophets and anointed never are or will be — they will discern their things.

        By Spirit of God, we can both reveal and retain sins – to forgive and not forgive. The sins are revealed to others so that they may repent as children of Faith and love for another.

        Irrevocable sins are not in relationship of Faith or love by which children of Faith live, and God Himself has to intervene in order to annul irrevocable sins, as they are only in judgment of God /condemnation that is everlasting.

        Judgment by the Gospel of God will reveal and retains sins and does not forgive them in their will-power or love for another. Women that are ordained just do not; it will be Charismatic celibate and an ordained priesthood who will forgive sins and annual irrevocable sins by Spirit of God that is in Church-Charismatic.

        For the fact, we know that when they lay their holy lands on anyone they will not nor can transfer witchcraft spirits onto anyone. Church-Charismatic is not in the same condition that was during the first generation of Christianity, and for that reasons our priesthood is that is Charismatic, ordained and is celibate.

        The doctrine of the Faith is systematic, and it does not move because it is anchored in Law of the Spirit.

        What I say is certainly subject to discerning and correction, even annulment/removal.

        If something is removed of the Spirit and without valid prompting of the Spirit, against the will of the Spirit; it will not be sustained as removed or annulled, and for this reason: the move of the Spirit will correct that.

        What Gene has said can be also added on to.

        Religion does not fix secular issues; it can inane it, in fact. The Spirit of Faith will only empower others to imagine impossible accomplished.

        Secular issues cannot fix things of religion and spirits of it, as the Faith, the Spirit of Faith, the Law of Spirit and the Law of Faith must be active to expose and remove that.

        Professor Falk, I believe that the Faith, the Spirit of Faith, the Law of Spirit and the Law of Faith must be active — we have to let it be active.

        I am amazed that David is here and is it just impossible that he is just babbling? It looks to me that he is not going anywhere. What does he want? An anew Landmarks to the Holy Land?

      • Richard Falk November 19, 2014 at 9:05 am #

        Thanks, Kata, for this meditation and commentary. You find a path by way of religious markings, which because done under the aegis of
        the spirit and faith, is illuminating for all of us, whether we identify as religious or secular. If we listen with love we can learn
        from you; if without love, we will never learn! I thank you for your dedication, and willingness to heed those who do not share your
        ways of seeing and knowing. With admiration, Richard

      • Kata Fisher November 19, 2014 at 11:19 am #

        Professor Falk, you are much loved, and your undertaking is blessed and is multiplied.

  10. Brewer November 19, 2014 at 12:20 pm #

    Singer confuses the concepts of privatised land and indigenous rights – even then he gets it wrong as this map, prepared for the UN Ad Hoc Committee on the Palestine Question makes clear.

    To understand the system of land tenure under the Ottomans requires knowledge of “miri”, “mulk”, “mewat”, “jiftlik”, “mewat”, “mudarrwara”, “miri mahlul”, “matruka” and many other types of title unknown to the Western materialist mind.

    Indigenous rights however, have nothing to do with these labels and to endeavour to alienate those rights by reference to title deeds is risible – akin to telling a Maori, Aboriginal or Native American to produce a notarized piece of paper or be expelled. Here are the bare bones of the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples :

    Indigenous peoples have the right to:
    1. All human rights, including collective rights
    2. Equality and non-discrimination
    3. Self-determination
    4. Autonomy or self-government
    5. Their own institutions
    6. A nationality
    7. Life, liberty and security
    8. Protection from cultural destruction or assimilation
    9. Belong to indigenous communities or nations
    10. Freedom from forced removal from their lands
    11. Their culture and cultural property
    12. Their spiritual and religious customs
    13. Their languages, stories and names
    14. Education, including in their own language
    15. The dignity and diversity of their culture
    16. Their own media and equal access to all other media

    Any attempt to alienate Public land from indigenous custody offends against several of these provisions.

    • Richard Falk November 19, 2014 at 1:21 pm #

      I agree completely with this cogent assessment of the proper understanding of rights to land, which
      cannot be reduced to mere proprietary categories.

    • David Singer November 19, 2014 at 7:08 pm #

      Bravo Brewer for posting the 1945 Map of Land Ownership in Palestine.

      I did not get it wrong as you allege. I got it right, You,and Ms Knightly got it wrong. No wonder she has refused to produce her sources.I would imagine there are none.

      The total land area of Palestine (excluding Transjordan) was indeed 26230 sq kms of which 12577 sq kms was comprised in the District of Beersheba.

      The map shows that 85% of the district of Beersheba was State land ie 10690 sq kms. This equates to 40.75% of the total land area of Palestine – a far cry from the 12% claimed by Ms Knightly.

      To that you must add the other areas of State land shown on the map in Gaza,Hebron,Jerusalem,Ramla,Ramallah,Jaffa,Nablus,Tulkarm,Jenin,Beisan,Haifa,
      Nazareth,Tiberias, Acre and Safed.

      This will bring you to the figure of 70% as claimed by Aumann,

      Attempting to label the Palestinian Arabs as the “indigenous people” is a load of codswallop as I have previously pointed out.

      Neither the League of Nations nor the UN ever recognised this claim in 1922 or 1947.

      The UN Declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples was only passed by the General Assembly in 2007 and has no binding legal effect anyway.

      The Declaration did not even define the meaning of the term “indigenous people”

      This deficiency was explained as follows:
      “Considering the diversity of indigenous peoples, an official definition of “indigenous” has not been adopted by any UN-system body. Instead the system has developed a modern understanding of this term based on the following:
      • Self- identification as indigenous peoples at the individual level and accepted by the community as their member.
      • Historical continuity with pre-colonial and/or pre-settler societies
      • Strong link to territories and surrounding natural resources
      • Distinct social, economic or political systems
      • Distinct language, culture and beliefs
      • Form non-dominant groups of society
      • Resolve to maintain and reproduce their ancestral environments and systems as distinctive peoples and communities”

      Click to access 5session_factsheet1.pdf

      Jews never ceased to live in the Land of Israel after its conquest by Rome – which changed the name of the country from the Land of Israel (Eretz Yisrael) to Palestina in a vain attempt to wipe out the memory of Jews and the Jewish State that had a King and its capital in Jerusalem.

      That is why the League of Nations unanimously spoke of recognising the right of the Jewish people to “reconstitute” the Jewish National Home.

      If anyone can claim the mantle of “indigenous people” it is the Jews.

      • Brewer November 19, 2014 at 11:58 pm #

        So. You accept the land map. Good. Let us take this piece by piece.
        The first question that then presents itself is – are you ready to concede ownership of the green bits ?

      • david singer November 20, 2014 at 2:10 am #

        Yes – as I am prepared to concede ownership in the percentages of the red bits and the buff colored bits as shown on the map.

      • Brewer November 20, 2014 at 2:18 am #

        So you accept right of return?

      • david singer November 20, 2014 at 4:08 am #

        No I don’t accept the right of return.

        The American viewpoint on the right of return expressed in the Bush-Congress endorsed commitments made to Israel on 14 April 2004 states:

        “The United States is strongly committed to Israel’s security and well-being as a Jewish state. It seems clear that an agreed, just, fair, and realistic framework for a solution to the Palestinian refugee issue as part of any final status agreement will need to be found through the establishment of a Palestinian state, and the settling of Palestinian refugees there, rather than in Israel.”

        There is a Custodian of Absentee Property in Israel who is empowered to deal with claims by persons who privately owned and abandoned land there.

        Do you accept that Israel is the National Home of the Jewish people?

      • Brewer November 20, 2014 at 1:22 pm #

        So you advocate for the right of return for a polyglot people who may or may not have a slim two thousand year old connection to the land which they cannot prove but deny that same right to indigenes who you admit have title to the land and were expelled within living memory. This places you in a category of of folks with whom it is senseless to debate.

        For there was never a general expulsion by the Romans:
        “Although the myth of an exile from the Jewish homeland (Palestine) does exist in popular Israeli culture, it is negligible in serious Jewish historical discussions. Important groups in the Jewish national movement expressed reservations regarding this myth or denied it completely.”
        – Prof. Israel Bartal, dean of the humanities faculty of the Hebrew University.

        In 70 CE, Rabban Yochanan Ben Zakkai moved the Sanhedrin to Yavne, after the siege of Jerusalem. Thus the highest Jewish court in the land continued throughout the period the Jews were supposedly exiled.

        200 years before Christ, the Jewish author of the Sibylline Oracles wrote (of the Jews) that “Every land is full of thee and every sea”, a century later, Strabo, Philo, Seneca and Josephus, bore testimony to the fact that the Jewish race was disseminated over the whole civilized world on their own initiative. There were about 10,000 Jews in Rome itself when Augustus took over in 63B.C., not to mention the thousands absorbed by the Greeks after Alexander the Great Hellenised the neighbourhood.
        Great little travellers those early Jews. None of the above forced out. We also know that there were large conversions to Judaism.

        Now you tell me that the descendants of these people have property rights in Palestine 2,000 years later yet those who never left but converted to Christianity and Islam have no such rights – even though, according to Israeli Geneticist Ariella Oppenheim, they are “descendants of a core population that lived in the area since prehistoric times’, albeit religiously first Christianized then largely Islamized, and all eventually culturally Arabized”.

        There is only one way you can make that argument work – by invoking Jewish exceptionalism. That is another term for either racism or religious bigotry, depending on which side of that thorny fence you opt to reside. Arguments of that nature belong in forums where the prejudices of the participants are taken as first principles, not in forums such as this which are dedicated to the principle of the universality of human rights.

        “… in general international law, the principle holds true that no citizen loses his property or his rights of citizenship; and the citizenship right is de facto a right to which the Arabs in Israel have much more legitimacy than the [European] Jews. Just because the Arabs fled? Since when is that punishable by confiscation of property and by being barred from returning to the land on which a people’s forefathers have lived for generations? Thus, the claim of the Jews to the land of Israel cannot be a realistic political claim. If all nations would suddenly claim territories in which their forefathers had lived two thousand years ago, this world would be a madhouse. … I believe that, politically speaking, there is only one solution for Israel, namely, the unilateral acknowledgement of the obligation of the State towards the Arabs — not to use it as a bargaining point, but to acknowledge the complete moral obligation of the Israeli State to its former inhabitants of Palestine.”
        – Erich Fromm

      • Gene Schulman November 20, 2014 at 2:02 pm #

        Thanks for this background Brewer. Much to chew on here, especially the Erich Fromm quote. I also like your writing style. Keep it up.

      • david singer November 20, 2014 at 4:54 pm #


        I advocate for the legal right given to Jews by the League of Nations – which recognized the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country – to exercise their right to self determination by establishing the Jewish National Home in Palestine without prejudice to the civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish communities – in an area comprising 0.01% of the captured Ottoman Empire territories conquered in World War 1 – as laid out in the Mandate for Palestine and unanimously endorsed by all 51 member States of the League..

        At the same time I accept that the Arabs were similarly given the right to self determination in the remaining 99.99% of the conquered Ottoman Empire territories as laid out in the Mandate for Syria and Lebanon and the Mandate for Mesopotamia by the same League of Nations at the same time as the Mandate for Palestine.

        That the Arabs have never accepted this generous disposition of the conquered Ottoman Empire territories has led to much suffering by both Arabs and Jews over the last 90 years – and is set to continue whilst people like you with the similar views to yours parrot the rubbish that has appeared during the course of the comments posted to this article by Professor Falk

        Isn’t it time the Jewish State – now in the 66th year of its existence – was accepted by the Arabs and by people like yourself, Gene, Ms Knightly and Professor Falk?

        57 Islamic States in this world including 21 Arab States is OK – but one Jewish State is apparently an anathema for all of you.

        Having raised this red herring of the right of return to this miniscule area set aside for Jewish self-determination – can we now get back to my original claim:

        Was 70% of the land in Palestine in 1948 State land – as I claimed – or was it 12% – as Ms Knightly and you claimed?

        I have answered your questions. Please now answer this one from me.

      • Kata Fisher November 20, 2014 at 1:42 pm #

        A Note to you both:

        I believe that discerning of the sources will be appropriate –as you can’t apply just any source.

        What are criteria to achieve any valid sources to your application?

      • Kata Fisher November 20, 2014 at 1:59 pm #

        Another note:

        Having Land of Israel under spiritual authority of Old Testament (not Church, not Islam, not UN–so to say) means not that all in Holy Land can’t be democratic and welcome all to simply to enjoy a Jewish national claim?… by Faith to Holy Land and right of Jews to do whatever there, just as Christians and Muslims do by their Faith, as well as all other on their stolen/claimed lands?

        I do not mean to be disrespectful to any of the Faiths (if any at all as we almost only can observe “religions” in a way). If there were some Faiths that are active — we would not have these human problem.

      • Brewer November 21, 2014 at 2:52 am #

        I will let Sir Winston Churchill answer the first part of your question.

        British White Paper of June 1922

        Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become “as Jewish as England is English.” His Majesty’s Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated, as appears to be feared by the Arab delegation, the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language, or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded `in Palestine.’ In this connection it has been observed with satisfaction that at a meeting of the Zionist Congress, the supreme governing body of the Zionist Organization, held at Carlsbad in September, 1921, a resolution was passed expressing as the official statement of Zionist aims “the determination of the Jewish people to live with the Arab people on terms of unity and mutual respect, and together with them to make the common home into a flourishing community, the upbuilding of which may assure to each of its peoples an undisturbed national development.
        It is also necessary to point out that the Zionist Commission in Palestine, now termed the Palestine Zionist Executive, has not desired to possess, and does not possess, any share in the general administration of the country. Nor does the special position assigned to the Zionist Organization in Article IV of the Draft Mandate for Palestine imply any such functions. That special position relates to the measures to be taken in Palestine affecting the Jewish population, and contemplates that the organization may assist in the general development of the country, but does not entitle it to share in any degree in its government.

        Supported by Chaim Weitzman in 1936:

        ” ……we want a Jewish National Home in Palestine independently of whether the number of citizens in this National Home eventually forms a minority or a majority and even if they were a majority Palestine would not become a Jewish National State.”

        The Letters and Papers of Chaim Weizmann: series B, paper 25.

        So let us have done with this endeavour to conflate “Jewish National Home” and “Jewish state”. With that out of the way, your question becomes irrelevant – at no time did the League of Nations contemplate the transfer of real estate under anything other than civil transactions involving a willing buyer and a willing vendor – and then only under very narrow and strict conditions should the transaction involve a non-Arab. In 1941, Commissioner MacMichael made it very clear that public land would not be sold to the Jewish Agency unless the transaction complied with those strict conditions. This is perfectly compatible with Article 6 of the Mandate document which, while authorising Jewish settlement on Public lands, carries the rider “not required for public purposes.” It should be noted that the very next Article directs ” enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine” – yet another proof that a “Jewish State” was not intended.

        In passing I shall comment of the oft-expressed whine “why can’t the Jews have just a little of Arab lands?”

        Firstly, we must define what is meant by “the Jews”. We have seen that it is not a cohesive racial group besides which allocating privilege or punishment by virtue of race smacks of something rather nasty. That leaves us with the religious definition which is also problematic for there are many sects and many non-religious folk claiming Jewish identity and their little piece of Arab land. I confess I find this task of establishing entitlement a bit beyond my powers of analysis so let’s assume it makes some kind of sense to someone such as yourself and move on.

        Exactly how was this transfer of land to be effected?
        What is very clear in every League document is what was not intended – that one population would be replaced by another. This notion is found only in Zionist literature and discussion. I therefore reiterate that you confuse the intent of allowing assimilation with a fantasy of free acreage, something that was simply not within the League’s gift and certainly could not have been achieved “without prejudice to the civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish communities”.

        I suggest that you come to terms with the well-established fact that the “Jewish State” came into being through the conquest of a poorly armed largely peasant population and that close to a million people were dispossessed. Then we can discuss whether there is a legal or moral justification for this or the on-going dispossessions and transfer of Israel’s population into occupied territory in breach of Geneva IV and a war crime according to the International Law Commission.

      • Richard Falk November 21, 2014 at 7:46 am #

        Thanks for this illuminating and useful confirmation of my own understanding of what was conferred by the British, which
        in my view should be further discounted by its colonialist taint. I would distinguish between the historical arguments as
        to the scope of what was conferred and the reality of the Jewish presence in Israel in working toward a better conception
        of what under these circumstances would be a sustainable and just outcome of the struggle.

      • david singer November 22, 2014 at 6:50 pm #


        Such a long response that provides no answer.

        Here is the question once again:

        Did State land in 1948 comprise
        1. 70% of Palestine or
        2. 12% of Palestine?

        Please answer “1” or “2”.

      • Kata Fisher November 21, 2014 at 7:30 am #

        Brewer & David,

        I have to make a note to both of you:

        What Jews seek in Holy Land is not of “religion” or wishful thinking of some sect – groups, but it is of Faith.

        This fact can not be annulled. There is ecclesiastical laws that protect the claims of Faith.

        Secular order (or Law) can’t strike down / annul any claim of Faith.

        We have ecclesiastical Laws. Code of Canon Law of Catholic Church, not only protects the right of Roman Catholics and Church in Rome; it also protects the Jews and their rights. It protects the rights of all people of Faith as well as all humans.

        I would hope that you all very well understand that that what Jews are seeking in Holy Land is of Faith and is under protection of Canon Law / Law of the Church.

        Law of the Church protects the claims of Faith, in fact. It cannot protect any claim of religion or sect, but it can protect members of any religions and sect due to abuse, unless there is extraordinary power and hindrance of Satan — which also works trough humans (within the Church itself and outside of the Church) so that there is nothing Church-valid can do on behave of abused.

        Now, the Laws that are ecclesiastical have power and authority over Satanic powers, as these special provisions of Church can be used in combination with civil Laws. However, application of these Laws is not in my spiritual authority – I can only apply them to myself (as an individual).

        The Church has spiritual authority to apply those Laws on behave of every member of the human family, and on behave of any Faith claim.

        We can have a group of people that practice Faith, and they practice religious disorder, as well. The Law of the Church does not nor it can protect “religious behaviors and patterns” it has however to protect the claim of Faith of those members regardless their religious patterns or behaviors. This is a fact, and this is significant.

        This is the Faith of the Church, and there is no partiality in it.

        For example, ecclesiastical laws can be applied in order to discern sources that are used in order to solve a problem.

        The Church under Law of the Spirit with or without spiritual authority over Church Law / Code of Canon Law ( by eccalistical law) can tell you what is myth, what is distorted history—what are lies of Satan and his bride “spirit of witchcraft” that works in all children of disobedience. Rome kept some accurate records that all of you can look at, if you must.

        Now, this too is of Church Faith.

        Application of Eccalistical Law / Code of Canon Law (in whole/systematically) will be sufficient to help you solve disputes and claims of Faith because civil Laws not always can due to “satanic works” implemented by the means of civil agreements and Laws against Living-Faith and against rights of people of Faith.

        Laurie mentioned something that she did study while in Vienna — that what boggled her mind is in fact subject to discerning, correcting and striking down/annulment by Application of Eccalistical Law / Code of Canon Law, unless, it is a part of Islamic Law that is Law of God’s Spirit and it can not be touched because it is Law of Islam Faith and/or order of it.

        I am making clear to all of you that violating anything of Faith, in fact, can bring us all under condemnation as well as spiritual excommunication, even I am not immune to end up in hell doing anything against Faith and Spirit of Faith, and for this reason we all submit to each other, without exception, in order to discern what is perfect will of God when comes to Land of Israel and any claim of Faith.

        If you are not in religious issues and issues of Faith and/ or God — that, too, is fine. Still, you make all resources available for yourself in order to do your problem solving.

      • Brewer November 22, 2014 at 10:08 pm #

        David, you’re flogging a dead horse here. It is very clear from the Mandate documents that “the buff areas” were never gifted to Europeans. That argument “est finis”.

        If you wish to mount some other argument based on the exact percentage of “State Land” existed at the time I will help you but you are in for some considerable work for, as I have stated above, “the buff areas” are, for the convenience of the map-makers, labelled “Public Lands”. Now this can mean “miri khali” (vacant State Land), “miri taht et tassarruf” (private usufruct State land) “miri matruka mahmiya” (easements), “waqfs” (publicly administered lands dedicated to religious or other institutions), “mahlul” (escheated land), “khali” (vacant land – probably the only classification available for purchase by European Jews under Mandate 6) …and a host of others. A great part of it is “tassuruf” – owned by the State but the tenant and his heirs have inalienable right of occupation provided taxes are paid. In order to ascertain the exact percentage of the type of land you require for your argument you will have to visit the Ottoman records (I believe they still exist) for the Mandate was interrupted in that task in 1947/8.

        As to which of you is correct I can say with some assurance that you are both wrong. According to a work in progress based on Mandate figures that I have seen, Ms Knightly is far closer than you. In one version it reads:
        Arab 81.23% Jew 9.39% Public 9.38%
        ….but I have some misgivings about these figures.

      • david singer November 23, 2014 at 2:38 pm #

        You state:
        ““the buff areas” are, for the convenience of the map-makers, labelled “Public Lands”.

        “Convenience of the mapmakers”? – what do you base this ridiculous and unsubstantiated claim on?

        This map was prepared for Subcommittee 2 of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Palestinian question.

        It required to accurately set out what was Arab owned, Jewish owned and State land.

        I repeat for your benefit:

        The total land area of Palestine (excluding Transjordan) was 26230 sq kms of which 12577 sq kms was comprised in the District of Beersheba.

        The map shows that 85% of the district of Beersheba was State land ie 10690 sq kms. This equates to 40.75% of the total land area of Palestine – a far cry from the 12% claimed by Ms Knightly or the 9.38% now claimed by you.

        To that you must add the other areas of State land shown on the map in Gaza,Hebron,Jerusalem,Ramla,Ramallah,Jaffa,Nablus,Tulkarm,Jenin,Beisan,Haifa,
        Nazareth,Tiberias, Acre and Safed.

        This will bring you to the figure of 70% as claimed by Aumann,

        Now you also state:

        “According to a work in progress based on Mandate figures that I have seen, Ms Knightly is far closer than you. In one version it reads:
        Arab 81.23% Jew 9.39% Public 9.38%
        ….but I have some misgivings about these figures.”

        Care to share with us:

        1. The work in progress and the figures you have seen
        2. The misgivings you have about those figures.

  11. Kata Fisher November 19, 2014 at 2:49 pm #

    David wrote this:

    “Are you advocating the overthrow of international law as embodied in the Mandate and article 80 of the UN Charter in order to enable the ‘Jewish State to be abandoned?’ ”

    I understand this:

    There is no Jewish state, but there are Arab landmarks that need to be dismantled. We can look at this in another way: there is Jewish state, and there are Arab Landmarks. Why are Arab landmarks and why is a Jewish state?
    Why are Landmarks given to Arabs under undiscerned prophesy and a “state” to Jews who should seek an order of Old Testament?

    Landmarks are in spiritual authority of Old Testament, and Holy Land is just so, as well.

    I believe I see this in a valid way.

    Further, what can restore that what occult has robed and has stolen in a consistent pattern?

    Those chart pies are marvels…and that what is written — what all that does represent? I do wonder as I do not understand all of that. Can someone can please explain?

  12. Laurie Knightly November 19, 2014 at 3:13 pm #

    Brewer: Would add that the British added a sixth category to the Ottoman Code – which is a religious tenure system, and categorized this as Public Land. My records show this as being 1,500 sq km out of 26,320 sq km as so designated. The increase in Jewish land ownership during the Mandate period, 1923 to 1948, is shown in my records to have increased from 2% to 5.66%. This was done by the British Mandatory Government in violation of the terms of the Mandate and the Declaration of Human Rights. Do these figures sync with your findings? Public Lands are areas held in trust, free of private claims, for the regional inhabitants – like my neighborhood park.
    Following the seizure of Palestine in 1948, the documentation for the ‘transfer’ of the indigenous people is mind boggling. I spent months with a study group in Vienna, early 1980’s, tracing this evil plan back to the end of the 19th century. It baffles me that if one realizes that Jews owned such a small percentage of the land and seized the rest by force – what else is there to discuss? The US, UK, UN et al are not honest brokers.

    As to references regarding ‘spirit’ in terms of this issue, many of us feel considerable unease. The Rev John Hagee has checked with his spirit and tells us that Ebola is the result of attempts to divide Jerusalem. The man has a following in the millions. At least this may give the homosexuals a rest. Also, people who ‘love’ each other would not be considered disinterested third parties regarding the administration of justice.

    • Richard Falk November 19, 2014 at 5:37 pm #

      Laurie: helpful further clarification, and avoidance of legalistic obscurantism.

      On the ‘spirit,’ we all need to listen to the vocabulary of choice of others if we have any chance to avert species catastrophe. Deep pluralism is
      the best hope for species survival..


      • Gene Schulman November 20, 2014 at 1:51 am #

        Richard: I am perfectly willing to listen to other voices (opinions), but it’s difficult when they are buried in the obscurantism of Church Charismatic jargon. I’ve been around this site long enough to realize that Kata is a very nice and sincere person, but I’d much rather see concrete discussions of the issues rather than spiritual feathers floating about.

      • Kata Fisher November 20, 2014 at 7:18 am #


        I agree with you.

        I do not see the need for spiritual feathers to be flying around, either. So again, when there is a need, I will not be supplying it. It is not I or of me. Are you talking about a harmless dove feathers?

        I understand this:

        There were by Arabs forced conversions of Jews (“indigenous people” of Holy Land) to Islam in Land of Israel /Holy Land — with that when now there is a claim of the Arab offspring to the right to return, in fact, there is no right to return. This is why: they really do not have one. “No right o return” seems very radical consideration; it is not, however, due to spiritual consequences.

        You do not even negotiate about. It’s just so. (I am not ignorant to say that, I am really humbled about this).

        Do you understand “forced conversions” and do you understand the past/the present/and the future?

        About forced conversions: It is a grave consequence on those who practiced them, as well as their offspring. However, why is this so? I can go into detail and explain that to you, but I do not see the need for spiritual feathers, and I do not feel moved to do it, either.

        I do not understand the past /present /future, not really I do.

    • Brewer November 22, 2014 at 10:19 pm #

      Sorry Laurie, I didn’t see your post until just now. I think I might have gone some way towards a reply in my post to David above.
      I think you are referring to “waqfs” which were given special status under article 9 of the Mandate document:
      “In particular, the control and administration of Wakfs* shall be exercised in accordance with religious law and the dispositions of the founders.”

      • Kata Fisher November 23, 2014 at 8:00 am #

        A note: I find this significant:

        “I think you are referring to “waqfs” which were given special status under article 9 of the Mandate document:
        ‘In particular, the control and administration of Wakfs* shall be exercised in accordance with religious law and the dispositions of the founders.'”

        How can this be interpreted in combination with religious Laws / based on Faith-Laws, only?

        I believe that “the control and administration of Wakfs” application can fall under serval categories.

        What is a valid order /structure to our applications?

        I would say that a systematic Faith-Doctrine based on (Islam-valid/ Judaism-valid/ the Church-valid) will protect self-determination rights of any Faith-claim but not claims of any religion and / or undiscerned text within Secrets Texts: tradition of Faith-invalid behavioral patterns.

        As I noted before Holy Quran falls under order of secret revelations in oversee and spiritual authority of the Church-Charismatic under prophetic anointing because it is a prophesy in Church age that has to be discerned (in the exactly same way that was given / prophetic anointing — that which handles prophetic revealtions). It is a literal order that is given in reference to Church-order and practice of Church-Faith ( doctrine of Church Faith).

        Any application of undiscerned prophesy / text of Holy Quran to other Faiths / claim of Faiths, in fact, it is null and void (as discerned prophesy it can not be applied / imposed) to other Faiths without discernment.

        Islam, as Faith can apply to them self the all / whole text of Holy Quran just as it is written / passed down (undiscerned).

        Applications of the texts that are written down by prophets / or not (discerned or not) are ultimately a reflection of Faith communities and Leadership of it.

      • Kata Fisher November 23, 2014 at 8:27 am #

        A CORRECTION on this part:

        Any application of undiscerned prophesy / text of Holy Quran to other Faiths / claim of Faiths, in fact, it is null and void (as discerned prophesy it can not be applied / imposed) to other Faiths without discernment.

        The accurate meaning is this:

        Any application of undiscerned prophesy / text of Holy Quran to other Faiths / claim of Faiths, in fact, it is null and void (as NOT discerned prophesy it can not be applied / imposed) to other Faiths without discernment.

  13. rehmat1 November 22, 2014 at 5:00 am #

    All this Hasbara diversion reminds me two Jewish writers and authors, Roger Tucker (US) and Gilad Atzmon (UK), who support ONE PALESTINE, less foreign Jews, especially the ones from the West.

    • Gene Schulman November 22, 2014 at 5:56 am #

      @ rehmat1

      Thanks for posting these versions (Tucker and Atzmon) of the one-state solution. I would be the first to agree with Helen Thomas. However, pity the poor Germans. There already seems to be a trend for the youth in Israel emigrating to Germany. If all Israelis were to follow, there is a good chance that Germany would become a Jewish state itself. That, among other things, is what the Nazis were trying to prevent as the indigenous Jews in Germany were assimilating and imposing themselves in high positions of German culture and government, law and banking and education. True, the Nazi solution was repugnant, to say the least. But after all ……

      • rehmat1 November 22, 2014 at 9:50 am #

        @Gene Schulman.

        India’s envoy at United Nations, Krishna Menon, was the first diplomat who suggested that the WW II victors should have given German state of Bavaria to European Jews to establish state of Israel during his speech in 1948.

        His argument was the same that was repeated by former Iranian president Dr. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in 2oo6: “Why Palestinians are made to pay for the crimes of Germans against the Jews.”

      • Kata Fisher November 22, 2014 at 10:33 am #

        A note:

        I do not think or believe that they are. They are paying for the crimes of their generational lines and / or individual (now) — Dr. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad does not understand much about generational sins and curses / strongholds. Whatever we would hope this things are not — we do not have
        in our will or power to annul them. Still, God is faithful to gives us understanding what generational lines have done, and we all can repent of that.

        One Palestine / Land of Israel sounds right and just to me.

        It sounds as repentance, and it sounds as issues of Faith resolved.
        It solves many problems…

        It gives a way to the “right to immigration of Jews throughout Holy Land.”

        The numbers are negotiable and can be with approved spiritually Jewish Rabbis, and Church Charismatic (that are just in any land — not necessarily in Holy Land, but in Spirit and instruction of God’s presence).

        Ans they would also guarantee to the offsprings of Palestinians a “right to return but to the third and to the fourth generations of some point in time of repentance — or any time of personal / individual repentance” — as there can be opportunity to request back what was lost trough some alternative options to selected families / individuals.

        “One Palestine” is a concern when comes to security issues — but that is nothing that Palestinians and Israeli, in a joint endeavor cannot resolve with the help of other nations.

        For example, administrative detentions (of Israel) and / or spiritual retreats / rehabilitation in places like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar (for Muslims) and US (for Jews) that are radical in Holy Lad — along with their Families will be nothing unacceptable and not human — they can freely pick where they wold like to go and stay for three or four of generations.

        Spiritual needs of spiritual excommunicated family lines have to be addressed and resolved – or not.

        One option is Church in Rome and Baptism in God’s Spirit (but that would be as same as ‘forced conversion’ in a way ( as explained) — otherwise just let them go and integrate with other nations under spiritual supervision and oversight, as eventually, among the nations they will be grafted in into the spiritual line either of Muslims, of Jews or Church.

        As Gene indicates when there is a hoot, the hoot may be just for a valid reason.

  14. rehmat1 November 22, 2014 at 4:30 pm #

    I have a reflection on “The Last of the Semites“, written by Professor Joseph Massad (Columbia University) and Middle East scholar.

    As soon as the article hit the internet, Israel Hasbara Committee goons started a smear campaign against Joseph Massad and the Columbia University. Ex-Israeli security guard, Jeffrey Goldberg (The Atlantic), wrote: “One of the most anti-Jewish screeds in recent memory“. Liam Hoare blogged at Tumblr: “Massad’s view boiled down to a total perversion of Jewish history and what Herzl actually thought and wrote“. Lyn Julius (The Daily Beast) spewed his Jewish hatred toward Palestinians, Massad and Columbia University. Israeli daily, The Jerusalem Post called the article “Massad’s obsession with Israel“. The Jewish CIF Watch and algemeiner blasted both Massad and Jewish journalist and author, Glenn Greenwald (UK’s Guardian) for supporting Massad, calling the article “an ugly disgusting rant“.

    • david singer November 22, 2014 at 10:34 pm #

      rehmati 1

      I have a reflection that you are a Jew-hater extraordinaire.

      I have a further reflection that Professor Falk allows your Jew-hating posts to remain posted on-line so that readers can understand that Jew-hatred exists, is not the figment of one’s imagination and it is vile and despicable.

      “The Last of the Semites” was removed from Al Jazeera English with this explanation:

      “Note from the Editor: Recently there has been much give and take about a column published on our website, and the decision to remove that column. During the past few days, people have speculated that Al Jazeera succumbed to various pressures, and censored its own pages.

      Al Jazeera has always demanded transparency from the centres of power around the world, and we demand it from ourselves as well.

      After publication, many questions arose about the article’s content. In addition, the article was deemed to be similar in argument to Massad’s previous column, “Zionism, anti-Semitism and colonialism”, published on these pages in December.

      We should have handled this better, and we have learned lessons that will enable us to maintain the highest standards of journalistic integrity.

      Our guiding principle has always been “the opinion and other opinion”. Our pages have always been – and will always be – open to the most thought-provoking thinkers and writers from across the globe.

      Al Jazeera does not submit to pressure regardless of circumstance, and our history is full of examples where we were faced with extremely tough choices but never gave in. This is the secret to our success.

      As always, we welcome your thoughts and comments.

      Imad Musa, Head of Online”

      You allege in your linked article that Al Jazzera English is controlled by the Jewish-Zionist Mafia basing your claims on an article appearing on Radio Islam

      Radio Islam made this claim:
      “When Al Jazeera English was launched many people had expectations that at last there would be an English language media outlet that wasn´t just a mouthpiece of the Jewish agenda. But lo – were they wrong.

      Just a quick check on the opinionmakers employed by this “Arab” TV channel’s Internet pages gives an astounding high percentage of people of the Jewish mafia, delivering their analysis and perspectives on how to interpret the world. A world very much affected by the actions of their Jewish co-mafiosi in worldEconomics,US/French/British/Russian politics, and so forth…”

      Among those “Jewish Mafia” listed by Radio Islam is guess who?…Professor Richard Falk

      One in …all in. That is the hallmark of the Jew-hater. In the end it makes no difference who you are or what you do.

      Well done rehmati 1

      • rehmat1 November 23, 2014 at 5:23 am #

        David Singer – let us see who are the real Jew haters – shall we….

        The justification of Anti-Semitism is a cardinal theme in Theodor Herzl’s book The Jewish State. Herzl poses the question asked by all anti-Zionists: “Will not Zionism provide weapons for the anti-Semites?” He answers: “How so? Because I admit the truth? Because I do not maintain that there are none but excellent men among us.” Then Patai quotes Herzl’s Diaries: “They (Goyim) could not have let themselves be subjected by us in the army, in government, in all of commerce”. However, Zionists have proven Herzl to be wrong. The Jews now do control all those three sectors of the Western world plus the world media.

        Yehezkel Kaufman in article, titled “The Ruin of Soul” collected quotes from some of the Zionist writers (Frishman, Lenni Brenner, Berdichevsky, AD. Gordon, Schawadron, Klatzkin, Pinsker, Israel Joshua Singer, Chaim Kaplan, etc.), which if repeated on air – would get you fired from CNN, BBC, CBS, etc.

        Chaim Kaplan, who kept a diary during the Warsaw ghetto uprising, wrote his Jew-hating observation: “Every nation, in its time of misfortune, has conspirators who do their work in secret. In our case an entire nation has been raised on conspiracy. With others the conspiracy is political; with us it is religious and national”.

        The Israel TV documentary ‘The Anti-Semitic Side of Zionism’ has explored the hidden Jewish hatred of the Zionist movement. The Zionist leaders distorted biblical texts and Muslim-Jewish history of tolerance and love – and adopted Jewish religious symbols to fool the non-Zionist Jewish majority and the Christian extreme.

      • Richard Falk November 23, 2014 at 9:50 am #

        Although I do not know this literature very well, I share your general interpretation of the interplay
        between Zionism and Anti-Semitism, and I resent very much the kind of defamatory labeling that David Singer
        resorts to when he is not raising legalistic quibbles to paper over deep layers of injustice done unto the
        Palestinian people.

      • david singer November 24, 2014 at 2:13 am #

        Professor Falk

        I did not label you as a member of the Jewish mafia.

        That resulted from Rehmati 1 who coined the phrase “Jewish-Zionist Mafia” on his website and in justification linked it to an article in Radio Islam in which you were identified with other Jewish contributors to Al Jazzera English as being part of the “Jewish Mafia”.

        Hopefully Rehmati 1 will write to Radio Islam and confirm you are not part of the Jewish Mafia.

        I respectfully suggest you should too.

      • Richard Falk November 23, 2014 at 9:52 am #

        And I might have added, ‘undisguised colonialist authority” to “legalistic quibbles.”

  15. Kata Fisher November 23, 2014 at 4:52 pm #

    A note:

    I like to add that one layer of injustice against Muslims in Holy Land is not only what was done by colonist regimes in the past, but also now the condition of all refugees as well as Palestinians prisoners in Holy Land convict all to sin.

    Adding on sins to others is a really deep evil that was active in the past and so visible now — we all can just why we all have to put up with all of that. Why are we not smarter then that?

    When comes to the refugees, they ignore refugees spiritually, and by that as well natural needs of those people are not meet, but refugees are mocked, as their conditions look more as conditions of people that are designated for areas that allows for exclusion and discrimination. Refugees are not integrated with the local population and are not fully allowed for self-determination.

    It is a form of a softer Nazi-system because refugee camps that are allowed for many years, in fact, is not taking care of specific people/tribes — unwanted people their presence and integration.

    If anyone is to start any correction with issues concerning Palestinian-Israeli conditions — they should take on wellbeing of prisoners, and their natural and spiritual needs, as Muslim-faith members.

    Israeli can not meet the needs of prisoners — they can not meet their spiritual needs and can not guarantee their natural well-being (while in prisons and after releasing).

    There has to be spiritual and natural rehabilitation.

    Muslims are not doing their part when comes to integrating their Faith-members and restoring them to acceptable standards (naturally and spiritually).

    Is this because they may perceive that refugees and / or Palestinian prisoners are lesser than themselves, and they do not deserve to be integrated naturally with the local population and be taken care spiritually, as well? Alternatively, is it that refugees just can’t integrate with the local population, for some wild reason?

    In a specific positioning — one never apply’s Black stone nor it can. Why are Muslims leaders giving refugees in the middle east and prisoners in Palestine Black stones? Do they understand what they do and do not?

    In this point in time: rejecting services natural and spiritual to refugees in Middle East and prisoners in Holy Land is as same as rejecting message of Islam and social justice of Islam.

    What are Muslim Faith leaders up and do they understand that much of “false Gospel message” are in those refuge camps? Can someone figure that out and address that?

    When Muslims are converted to Christianity they have to be in a Church that is under the Church Law and is both traditional and also Charismatic — unless they are under prophetic anointing and on their own as Charismatic-Individuals.

    We have to ask this: what is purpose of those Nazi-camps? To dump false Gospels on Muslim refugees? I would not allow so.

  16. Kata Fisher November 24, 2014 at 7:50 am #

    I read Genes last post, and I was stunned by the events that took place in Israel, and then I had some brainstorming that gave me clarity over my astonishment of both-sided report.

    Then, I came across this article:

    History is relevant. It was always colonial-nazism: colonionazism and coloniofashisam, as indicated by one of my family members; he was really sharp but did not understand Church of Satan, and has not said anything about that.

    I was reading this article about Jesuit priests, and one thing struck my understanding: “Why are not post-communist countries like “prosperous China?” In my natural understanding, China is not prosperous — but US is in debt to them.

    What Satan robs that Satan keeps. Check out American communism that has choked the virtue of the virtues and uncooked hocus focus along with that.

    They just did not mind their own business as lay-people without Church Law and Law of Gods Spirit should have had. They did else what.

    As they were killing other nationality (for devil known reasons) God allowed for illegitimate children upon them.

    It is impossible to separate “religion” from governments — as they cannot just abide in Faith.

    The skirt of religion has dead-end blind them. Who? Household of Satan that always was and one that really can’t provide for their children.

    But no worries! No worries they will be swamped with nationals of the countries they abused for many many years — and they may be able for provide for illegitimate children, as they marry the sons and daughters of spiritual harlot of the next generations — a real blessing to accursed!

    When everything is accursed in the Name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth and in the name of God, it is just cursed in the death, and to the of the dry bone that remains dust of the earth and condemnation in hell.

    Killing of Jesuit prints is just awful — who ever has breathed those works and have accomplished them? They met way well be Baptized into the Church that is under the Law of the Church by Jesuit priest who is Charismatic like our hazed Francisco. Some charismatic are really crazy – you have to minister to them day and night by eucharistic ministry so that they may snap out of it.

    We say Law of the Church for the Lawless, and condemnation for the wicked and the Lawless by the accusation of the Law of the Spirit.

    • Kata Fisher November 24, 2014 at 7:53 am #


      Killing of Jesuit prints is just awful — who ever has breathed those works and have accomplished them? They met way well be Baptized into the Church that is under the Law of the Church by Jesuit priest who is Charismatic like our hazed Francisco. Some charismatic are really crazy – you have to minister to them day and night by eucharistic ministry so that they may snap out of it.

      It should read:

      Killing of Jesuit PRIEST is just awful — who ever has breathed those works and have accomplished them? They met way well be Baptized into the Church that is under the Law of the Church by Jesuit priest who is Charismatic like our hazed Francisco. Some charismatic are really crazy – you have to minister to them day and night by eucharistic ministry so that they may snap out of it.

    • Gene Schulman November 24, 2014 at 8:01 am #

      Strange, I don’t see my last post here – the one to Mr. Singer. Maybe Richard thought it not relevant, and quashed it?

      Anyhow, it’s not a nice world out there, Kata, and hiding behind religious spiritualism is not going to make it a safer one.

      • Gene Schulman November 24, 2014 at 8:22 am #

        Oops. I found my last post, way up near the top of these comments, under Mr. Singer’s response to Brewer.

        Sorry for doubting you, Richard 😉

      • Kata Fisher November 24, 2014 at 8:31 am #

        It is still there, but I posted here.

        The only purpose for the spiritual presence (when any) is to expose fake and the wicked one. There is no other purpose to it, Gene.
        When comes to squishing it, I become disinterested.

        Hiding would not be definition I was hoping for.

        However, I can’t be flogged without consequence.. Whatever that “I” was /is /and will be.

      • Richard Falk November 24, 2014 at 10:27 am #

        Kata: I trust your authenticity, and the value of your discourse. Richard

      • Gene Schulman November 24, 2014 at 10:33 am #

        Gene has no doubts about Kata’s authenticity or sincerity. My apologies if anyone thinks otherwise.

  17. Kata Fisher December 13, 2014 at 11:04 am #

    I read this and this made me furious by Spirit. Pope is in no spiritual authority to decline a request from a guest. His Holiness Dalai Lama may love to hear about Baptism in God’s Spirit from our priest Francisco (Pope Francis) — who is Charismatic.

    This is a sandal to the Church Catholic Charismatic that Pope shall do such thing. He is violating Gospel teaching because he is declining a visiting stranger to the Church – Catholic. This is a scandal.

    Relationships between Vatican and China are in a dead and and can be given over to Satan just because of a bad judgment of some invalid and evil priesthood that are roving against Apostolic teaching instruction in our day. Meaning, the entire Catholic Church in China can fall under fierce prosecution in some future point in time because of this.

    Who will correct this obnoxiousness by Vatican state?

    • Gene Schulman December 13, 2014 at 11:37 am #

      Kata, with all due respect, you are way off topic. Why don’t you start your own blog. Most of us log on to Richard’s blog to read what HE has to say and to comment on that. We aren’t interested in your Church Charisma. At least I’m not. You seem to have taken control and your long meanderings about the church are driving us away.

      • Kata Fisher December 13, 2014 at 3:50 pm #

        A note:

        I had brainstorming, and I understand this:

        Is it possible to have pre-negotiation meetings with all representatives that are stuck in the conflict?

        — but in Israel, and maybe somewhere in Haifa and around that area (in the form of fellowship and social gettering) prior to actual negotiations with Israel. ( I am not sure what exactly).

        It does not have to be direct negotiations, first. It can be some getting together, and I belive that David and Richard have to be there and harmonize / direct that seting.


        I just read this, but I was in the mountains where I had no reception.

        You are making issue out of no issues. Do you suppose I am to waste all my education and understanding? Look, I have no use for either of it.

        This is Professors Falk Blog, and it is all about what he was restricted and could not move at some particular time. I am not into Blogging; I do not need one.

        Be cheerful!

      • David singer December 13, 2014 at 10:21 pm #


        Professor Falk is not interested in direct negotiations between Jordan and Israel on the allocation of sovereignty in the West Bank.

        So there is no purpose in pursuing this proposed solution with Professor Falk any further.

        Maybe when the killing and bloodshed increases this option will become increasingly more attractive to Professor Falk

        You can add this missed opportunity to all the previous missed opportunities in 1922, 1937,1947, 1948-1967, 1993, 2000 and 2007.

        Seems a little like the Pope refusing to meet the Dalai Lama for fear of upsetting China.

        Professor Falk seems to be anti Jordan-Israel talks for fear of upsetting PLO.

      • Richard Falk December 13, 2014 at 10:33 pm #

        I wonder why, Mr. Singer, you so provocatively misstate my views, and seems so self-satisfied with your approach.

        My objection to your approach has nothing whatsoever to do with the PLO, Hamas, neither of which are very adequate representatives of the Palestinian people.

        And might you not consider Israeli moves toward peace by such means as renouncing the one-sided right of return or the retention of the only nuclear weapons
        arsenal in the region. Are not these also potential moves toward accommodation and reconciliation that are at least worth mention?

        I will not stoop to your tactic of suggesting that my views are ones responsible for ‘the killing and bloodshed’ while yours alone are dedicated to the attainment of peace! But at least consider your arrogance by so suggesting..

      • David Singer December 13, 2014 at 10:59 pm #

        Professor Falk

        You seem to misunderstand that there should be only one item on the agenda of the Israel – Jordan talks: the allocation of sovereignty in the West Bank between Jordan and Israel to restore the status quo existing at 5 June 1967 so far as can now be achieved given the changed circumstances on the ground since then.

        No other issues – just this one issue.

        Put simply – negotiating to withdraw the internationally recognised boundaries between Israel and Jordan.

        Israeli moves towards peace are irrelevant. Israel already enjoys a signed peace treaty with Jordan. That is why direct negotiations between Israel and Jordan on dividing the territory between them stands a real chance of success.

        More importantly one could expect these negotiations to only take a matter of no more than three months – not the 20 years that have been wasted going nowhere in negotiations between Israel and the now defunct Palestinian Authority.

      • Kata Fisher December 14, 2014 at 2:07 pm #

        Dear David,

        We have too many items that are on a “to do list” that does not exist.

        I would suggest to be open to some mature decisions making and pass them on to mature in mind individuals.

        We can say “who has to do what” and how does the reality look to all of that?

        Really, who can do what?

        Nuclear disarmament is possible, but then we have to bring Iran to the negotiations, as well — they are the one who are saying / teaching that Nuclear Weaponry is eccalisticaly illegal for Muslims to pursue, to obtain, and to retain.

        We, in fact, can get rid of Israeli Nuclear weaponry, all together — when Iran gets their teaching / message trough to other Muslims in the region, so that there are works after that in force. However, we do not want nor can receive / have mixed messages among Muslims when comes to the Nuclear substance in the Middle East.

        Wiping of Israel out from the map is an excellent thing, in fact, it can be replaced then with Eccalistical State of Israel mapping out. We certainly need Landmarks of Holy Land back in the authority of its rightful owner (Household of David).

        Let is not misunderstand each other.

        The reality is that we cannot do more (individually or corporately) than what is appointed for us.

        I have strong conviction / impression that there has to be a transition of responsibility — as things for negotiations have to be prepared.

        Things can fall apart in five days and things can be resolved in a week. Then next negotiations can be at hand, planed / scheduled or broken off. Whatever takes place.

        I believe that Israeli Arabs, as well as Palestinian Arabs can get together in Israel with Profesor Falk and you, David, as well — with only few in question and to prepare for Israel and Jordan to get together and do / correct the will of the people. Renewed will we need to see at work, only. No more old things — or allow for old wine to turn out to be just way too saure for everyone.

        Whenever our will is changeable; it is also flexible in a relationship with our conscience and conscience of others — so that we will see the progress of that time.

        The Landmark of Holy Land has to be resolved. I trust that you David have full understanding what and how it has to be done — so that it may not be fragmented and reduced to broken pottery at some point in time upon everyone’s descendants.

        A note:

        I do not believe that I have to tell David what he will have to do. This is why: if I were had to tell David what he must do, I would have to go and see Fr. Bill — who will have to take me to one of the silly Bishops / Archbishops, who then would have to take me to see Fr. Carlo Maria Vigano. — who actually oversees Church Catholic in US, and who would have to take me where he (and not I) actually would have to be — just in order to tell David “Do that what she has told you & and has told me.” Alternatively, he would have to say, “The girl is just babbling in the spirit of her female mind…just forget about it as we have some delicious new and old wine to focus on, enjoy our day and do whatever we know is just and right!”

        In fact, this would be just ridicules for me to go about, or even to place myself in unreasonable inconvenience and just ridicules requirement of this obnoxious ordination.

        I need no scandal to myself as this or to behave like “pious-theos while actually ‘he, he, he’ ”.
        Why scandal to me such as this? But I say “Whatever!”

        However, there was eccalisticaly illegal agreement between the state of Israel and Vatican state. Just as there was eccalisticaly illegal agreement between Jordan and British when comes to the Landmarks of Holy Land. So here we are to correct whatever, and whatever.

        I believe that there is an enormous to-do list at this point, and we all can get weary writing it down and going about it. If there is no valid way to go about these things — we, all can just forget about it.

        It is really important to be connected to our environment, to our conscience, as well as conscience of others. When we cannot do that — we are not part of reality and are not rational people, at all.

        We have to stay down at earthly level while looking for heavenly things, rational about it as well as spiritual. Rational spirituality is vested in the power in others and their abilities that add to other abilities. Where does equality come from if not from these principles? This is applicable in order to solve the problems, in fact.

        A note to Gene:

        Say that Gene impress my conscience and my mind by Spirit — I would certainly do as he wills. However, if my conscience is not in it, and me to obey by some requirements — I am either irrational in spirit, unyielding to my conscience or just plainly rebellious in order to be in conditions such as that…as long as that condition is not imposed by others.

        To be rebellious is immaturity and taking pleasure in it can also be unrighteousness — to be in will and way of recklessness is just plain wickedness.

        I agree with Gene al lot. I wish I can remove myself from this setting.

        I would not suggest that anyone disobeys their conscience (that would be wickedness on my part) — but rather to transfer responsibility and power to others while observe them so that they met be corrected — if teachable / correction is applicable to them.

        I ask you all — let us do this and lets hope for the move of Gifts Spiritual / moral and or spiritual laws in the midst of that setting (without any of hindrance on our part).

        Like I said that it can be resolved very quickly, and doors will be opened for more responsibility / works or things will crash down for everyone — as there has to be another period of waiting while anyone does as they see right or appropriate.

        There are certainly conditions, but what comes first may or may not be debatable.

        The item of importance is to transfer responsibility to others while having in mind their limitations, in order to be harmonizing their shortfall and directing them. When this is done — things can even end up @ UN once again or not — we do not know. It is between Household of Israel and Household of David and thise issues may or may not be involved with UN.

        A note to David:

        With that, I am asking you David — “what do you want to do about these things?” Tell us what you want to be done right now, and we can see if anyone is moved to these things in any way: to correct or to annul it. I believe this.

        I cannot annul anything that you say because my mind/conscience witnesses no error to it, only addition to it —, and that, not in my ability or will-power.

        While at the same time my mind/conscience does not witness error in that what, Professor Falk is saying.

        I am in a neutral state and have nothing in mind about that what you and Richard are saying to each other. I see neither right or wrong in it. I cannot explain it in any other way, except, that I am not in a position to judge you or him against each other. Alternatively, it can be that I do not nor can judge anyone that is spiritual — that — in fact, is between you two and yours responsibility as grown up men.

        I am here only because I was moved to be here and remain so.

        Is there is a sufficient approach as of right now to go about Israel and Jordan and the correction of the Landmark in Holy Land?


  1. TRANSCEND MEDIA SERVICE » Two Interviews [of mine] on Palestine - November 17, 2014

    […] Go to Original – […]

Leave a Reply

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

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

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

%d bloggers like this: