Donald Trump has articulated clearly, if somewhat vaguely and incoherently, his anti-globalist, anti-UN approach on foreign policy. For instance, in late February he told a right-wing audience at the Conservative Political Action Conference that “there is no such thing as a global anthem, a global currency, or a global flag. This is the United States that I am representing. I am not representing the globe.” A similar sentiment was expressed to Congress a few days later in a tone of voice and choice of words praised by media wonks as ‘presidential.’ On this occasion Trump said, “[m]y job is not to represent the world. My job is to represent the United States of America.” Such rhetoric coming from a normal American leader would probably be interpreted as an expression of geopolitical humility, implicitly rejecting the standard insistence on American exceptionalism, exemplified in recent times by the project to create and maintain the first global state in human history.
This potentially self-limiting language might even be understood as renouncing earlier claims to assert American global leadership as the keystone of world order. George W. Bush in 2002 gave this bold leadership claim a sharp edge when he insisted the that only the US model of market-based constitutionalism was a legitimate form of governance for sovereign states in the 21st century. Or even more grandiosely, in the spirit of Michael Mandelbaum and Thomas Friedman, that the United States as a consequence of its martial strength, technological prowess, democratic values and institutions, and skills of leadership provides the world with the benevolent reality of virtual ‘world government.’ Let’s face it, Donald Trump is not a normal political leader, nor is he someone disposed to embrace humility in any form, so we should take his pledge to represent American interests while leaving the world to fend for itself with many grains of salt, especially if we consider the specifics of the Trump worldview. What Trump seems to be offering is maximum disengagement from international and global arrangements designed to institutionalize cooperation among sovereign states, and that is where the UN figures in Trump’s unfolding game plan.
Even before being sworn in as president Trump engaged in UN-bashing on behalf of, and in concert with the Israeli Prime Minister, Netanyahu. His dismissive comment contained in a tweet is rather revealing: “The UN has great potential, but right now it is just a club for people to get together, talk, and have a good time. So sad!” Of course, we are not told what Trump thinks might bring into being this ‘great potential’ of the UN. Also not surprisingly, the tweet was provoked by Security Resolution 2334, adopted December 23rd by a 14-0 vote, which sharply criticized Israeli settlement expansion as unlawful and as creating a major obstacles to establishing peace with the Palestinians. The Obama presidency was sharply criticized by Trump and others, including many Democrats, for allowing passage of this resolution at the UN by failing to do what it had consistently done for the prior eight years, shield Israel from often fully deserved, and long overdue, UN censure by casting a veto. It seems that Trump, a bipartisan consensus in Congress, and the new US Representative at the UN, Nikki Haley evaluate the usefulness of the UN through an ‘Israel first’ optic, that is, the significance of UN is actually reduced to its attitude toward Israel, which is viewed through Israeli eyes, and is unmindful toward the wide spectrum of UN activities and contributions to human wellbeing.
It must be acknowledged that the Obama presidency did only slightly better when it comes to both the UN and Israel. True, Barack Obama in his annual addresses to the General Assembly affirmed the importance and contributions of the UN by concrete reference to achievements, and used these occasions to set forth his vision of a better world that included a major role for the UN. Also, Obama recognized the importance of the UN in dealing with the challenge of climate change, and joined with China to ensure a multilateralist triumph under UN auspices by having the 194 assembled government successfully conclude the 2015 Paris Agreement on Climate Change. However, when it came to war/peace issues such as drone warfare, threats of war directed at Iran, modernization of nuclear weapons, and the defense of Israel, the Obama Administration flexed its geopolitical muscles with disdain for the constraining limits imposed by international law and international morality. In this core respect, Trump’s approach, while blunter and oblivious to the etiquette of global diplomacy, appears to maintain fundamental continuity with the Obama approach.
With respect to defending Israel even when it faces responsible criticism, I can report from my own experience while serving as UN Special Rapporteur on Occupied Palestine, that the defense of Israel’s unlawful behavior within the UN during the Obama years was unconditional, and deeply irresponsible toward respect for international legal obligations, especially in relation to upholding international humanitarian law and norms governing recourse to non-defensive force. American chief representatives at the UN, Susan Rice and Samantha Power, both called for my dismissal from my unpaid post in vitriolic language without ever confronting the substance of my criticisms of Israel’s murderous periodic attacks on Gaza, its excessive use of force in sustaining the occupation, its expansion of unlawful settlements, and its discriminatory administration of the West Bank and East Jerusalem. I mention this personal experience to underscore the willingness of the Obama presidency to go all in with Israel despite the awkward fact that Obama was being harshly attacked in Israel, including by government leasers, and hence also in the US. Obama was being wrongly accused of being unfriendly to Israel as compared to earlier American presidents. Israel has high expectations that Trump will sway with the wind from Tel Aviv.
More to the point, Trump’s view of foreign policy at this stage appears to be a primitive mixture of state-centrism, militarism, nationalism, overall what had qualified until World War I as realpolitik. There was back then no UN, few international institutions, no international law prohibition on aggressive war, no Nuremberg Principles imposing criminal accountability on political and military leaders, no tradition of protection for international human rights, and no affirmation of the inalienable right of all peoples to self-determination. It was a Eurocentric state system that combined the interaction of sovereign states in the West with colonial rule extended directly and indirectly to most of Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Of course, now the colonial system has formally collapsed, China, Russia, and India have risen, Europe has declined, nuclear weapons continue to shadow human existence, and the specter of global warming dangles a sword of Damocles over the human condition. Trump seeks to restore a simpler world with his raucous rally cries of ‘America First.’ This is to be accomplished by carrying out a series of promises: to renegotiate trade arrangements, build walls, crush terrorism, terrorize undocumented immigrants, liberate police from accountability, bar Muslim immigration, and develop the world’s most feared nuclear arsenal. It is not a pretty picture, but also it involves a reckless disregard of the fragility of our interconnected and networked world order that mandates a globalizing framework for common problem-solving rather that a retreat to a glorious past that never was.
Of course, it would be misleading to leave the impression that the Trump worldview is bereft of any constructive thoughts about how to engage with the world. Trump’s controversial connections with Putin and Russia impart a contradictory impression: what is favorable is an evident interest in exploring prospects for a cooperative relationship, which goes against the grain of the American national security establishment, including several Republican heavyweights, which seemed likely in an expected Clinton presidency to be readying the country for a dangerous plunge into a second cold war. It would be ignited with reckless bravado by confronting Russia along its borders; in contrast, what is dubious about the Trump overtures to the Kremlin are the backdoor dealings with Russian officials during the presidential campaign and subsequently, reinforced by the ‘golden shower’ innuendo and unresolved concerns that Trump’s withheld tax returns might reveal awkward information about indebtedness or business dealings or both.
Whether Trump is going to abandon this effort to smooth things with Moscow under this pressure from the US intelligence and security bureaucracy will be a defining feature of whether his foreign policy gets early stuck in the Washington swamp, or risks the governmentally unsettling effects of discontinuity with the past. There are some cynical interpretations of Trump’s opening to Russia as primarily intended to set the stage for intensified confrontations with China. If this view is even partially correct it could easily generate a cold war of its own, although with new alignments. It might quickly lead to hot battlefield incidents that could further escalate, giving rise to renewed fears of nuclear war.
Trump occasionally expresses an appreciation of international cooperation for mutual benefit with other states, as well as recognizing the benefits of keeping traditional alliances (NATO, Japan, South Korea) alive and threatening those countries that menace the global or regional status quo (North Korea). What is totally absent is any acknowledgement of global challenges that cannot be met by states acting on their own or cooperatively through bilateral arrangements. It is here where the erasure of the UN from political consciousness is so troublesome substantively as well as symbolically. To some degree this erasure preceded Trump and is widespread. It has not been challenged as yet by even the Sanders’ end of the political spectrum in the US. I found it telling that Obama made no reference to the UN in his Chicago farewell speech, which can be most accurately understood as a more positive and polite version of Trump’s ‘America First’ engagement with the world.
Even better, on an abstract level, Trump expressed some sentiments that if concretized could overcome some of the forebodings being voiced here. In his speech to Congress on February 28th Trump said “[w]e want harmony and stability, not war and conflict. We want peace wherever peace can be found.” He went on to point out that “America is friends today with former enemies. Some of our closest allies, decades ago, fought on the opposite sides of these World Wars. This history should give us all faith in the possibilities for a better world.” If this outlook ever comes to inform the actual policies of the Trump presidency it would give grounds for hope, but as of now, any such hopes are mere indulgences of wishful thinking, and as such, diversions from the one true progressive imperative of this historic moment–political resistance to Trumpism in all its manifestations.
Dark lines of policy have also been set forth by Trump. The angry defiance of his Inaugural Address, the belligerence toward China, threats toward North Korea, exterminist language in references to ‘radical Islamic’ extremism and ISIS. Trump’s belligerence toward the world is reinforced by lauding military virtues and militarism, by appointing generals and civilian advisors to top positions, and by boosting the military budget at a time when the United States already spends almost as much on its military machine as is the total of military expenditures by all other countries, and has only a string of political defeats to show for it.
These contrasting Trump imaginaries create an atmosphere of foreboding and uncertainty. Such a future can unfold in contradictory ways. At present, the forebodings clearly outweigh the hopes. Although Trump speaks of fixing the decaying infrastructure of the United States and not wasting trillions on futile wars, especially in the Middle East, his inclinations so far suggest continuity in such brutal war theaters as Syria, Yemen, and Libya.
We have reached a stage of human development where future prospects are tied to finding institutional mechanisms that can serve human and global interests in addition to national interests, whether pursued singly or in aggregate. In this central respect, Trump’s ardent embrace of American nationalism is an anachronistic dead end.
What I find particularly discouraging about the present bipartisan political mood is its near total erasure of the United Nations and international law. These earlier efforts to modify and ameliorate international anarchy have virtually disappeared from the political horizons of American leaders. This reflects a loss of the kind of idealism that earlier energized the political imagination of those who spoke for the United States ever since the American Revolution. There was admittedly always much hypocrisy and self-deception attached to this rhetoric, which conveniently overlooked American geopolitical ambitions, slavery, and devastation visited on native Americans. It also overlooked imperial maneuvers in the Western Hemisphere and the ideologically driven foreign policy of the Cold War era that brought death, destruction, and despair to many distant lands, while keeping a dying European colonialism alive for many years by deferring to the warped logic of the Cold War.
Finally, I believe that the agenda of resistance to Trumpism includes a defense of the United Nations, and what its Charter proposes for the peoples of the world. We need a greatly empowered UN, not an erased UN.
Global Justice in the 21st Century 
Foreboding is the word as I read your intelligent posts Richard. I cannot but help thinking that the Zionists in their crazy pursuit of revenge for the Holocaust (which had nothing to do with the Palestinians) have lobbied gullible Americans, infiltrated the halls of power and the UN which was laudable in its conception. Trump seems to be bumbling his way, but being skeptical, I wonder, what power hungry ruthless sods are behind him. How we need just decent intelligent leaders.
A UN Human Rights Council in which the world’s greatest violators of human rights call the shots turns the UN into a farce and anyone associating himself with such a Council instead of boycotting it is diminishing his own moral stature.
As for Israel’s “murderous attacks,” you of course neglect to mention the fact that they are provoked by indiscriminate rocket attacks against Israel’s civilian population, emanating from inside Gaza’s residential neighborhoods and specifically from in and around schools, playgrounds, hospitals, clinics, mosques and apartment buildings. If Israel had really wished to be murderous there would have been 100,000 dead civilians in Gaza the last time around, just as there were in Dresden. Israel is going to continue to defend itself no matter what kind of spin you put on its actions so if you really have the interests of the Palestinians at heart you will be advising them to disavow terrorism and negotiate a settlement with Israel.
“Wars are not always begun by shots. They are often begun by action and the action which really created the state of war in an acute sense was the imposition of the blockade. To try to murder somebody by strangulation is just as much attempted murder as if you tried to murder him by a shot, and therefore the act of strangulation was the first violent, physical act which had its part in the sequence.”
Abba Eban Israeli Foreign Minister June 14, 1967
A blockade in time of war is legal. A blockade in the absence of war is a casus belli. Egypt and Israel were not at war when Egypt closed the Straits of Tiran in violation of the 1956 agreements. Hamas had been firing rockets at Israel’s civilian population for years before the blockade of Gaza was instituted – 850 in 2005, 1,300 in 2006 and nearly 3,000 in 2007. That is war. If you don’t mind having your children shot at while you’re working out sequences, that’s fine. We do.
Fred,
The examination and vindication of Israel’s Naval Blockade of Gaza during wartime by the U.N.’s “Palmer Committee” can be found here:
graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/palmer-committee-final-report.pdf
or at:
http://www.un.org/news/dh/middle_east/gaza_flotilla_panel_report.pdf
Insightful quote, Ray! That illustrates the first Egyptian action which provoked the 1967 “Six Day War.” It was followed by a threat of a “War of Annihilation” against the Jews to drive them into the sea. But also see the Palmer Committee Report on the legitimacy of the naval blockade of Gaza at:
graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/palmer-committee-final-report.pdf
or at:
http://www.un.org/news/dh/middle-east/gaza_flotilla_panel_report.pdf
Richard, we like what you are expressing; however, the UN’s time has come and gone; international law is feudal law; and, the G7 is the UN; they are the lords of war and together have 100 times more nukes than the rest of the nations; they subject peaceful nations by force of law; when, in truth law-of-war is subject to law-of-peace;
We as Southern Africans despise the imperial feudal system; it claims to bring progress, but predatory capitalism is destroying the earth and our hope for a better future; and, it is their plundering of our gold and minerals that made them rich and us dirt poor; we should be billionares each, but our pensioners must survive on less than $2/day?
If, the G7 had to restore what was fraudulently taken; restore their damage to the earth; and, dismantle their weapons of mass destruction then where would they be? in peace
Thank you, Richard, for this astute summing up of the situation in the face of Trump and Trumpism. You hit all the right buttons. But they are the same buttons, as you point out, that were there under the Obama administration. It seems to me, except for the obnoxious style of Trump and his gang, that nothing has really changed. The UN under American hegemony remains as neutered as always. Yes, there is a wide spectrum of UN activities that contribute to human well-being which most people who criticize the UN overlook. And we should all be mindful of that. But it is also true that Trump, nor any other leader, does not represent the UN. He doesn’t even represent the US as he claims. He only ‘presides’ over the US government.
For all his faults and negative characteristics, Trump is actually no worse than his predecessors, Bush and Obama. They were under the same restraints and had no more room to move, given that all worked for the same oligarchy of power that prevails in the US. Trump changes nothing. His presence only makes the US seem even more belligerent toward the world, than was heretofore evident.
Last night, I met the second-generation of Roman Catholic Charismatic, who is a descendant of Jews from Poland — who were prosecuted and killed during the Holocaust. She said when her father died he was Screaming “Nooooo” — and he saw something in the room. She kept asking me if I knew what it was. And she told us that her Father was a bad, and she kept bringing him Holy Eucharistical Species / Communion from the Priest. And she told me: “Do you know that you can do that? Do you think you can do that? You can do that!”
She has a very fragile mental state because she keeps repeating things — but she is just Spirit-sharp because I knew that all that she was telling me she was prophesying to me. But she was just having a conversation. I can imagine that she was in a severe PTSD due to the historical war-PTSD in her family — or in a serious aftereffect of charismatic-disorder and its abuse of Apostolic Church Order.
Lets not be foolish about UN and all wickedness of wicked Israelites among nations — which is rotting evil, and full of dead bones upon them and before the wicked — while the world in wickedness is blindly watching on. And Jews have no hope (or should we specifically say Hebrew to be speaking Jews), because of the wicked and illegitimate Israelites among them that will do nothing but to continue in wickedness and to wipe them out, more spiritually then they ever could naturally.
You have wall/stock market which is the global currency of the devil — and of course, it is racist and evil, and it will attempt to completely strip of peoples of the Church, and all in good will in Africa — they do not want humans in Africa. They want to starve them to death so that they can hold off all natural resources area to area — the same in the Middle East. Let’s not folks be blind to the satanic seals of devils in his spirits of the witchcraft.
They are so evil, and deceptive unless God Himself moves and points that works in satanic seals out — no one would even have any perception of it — a mere human would not have a single reflection in their mind about it.
They Illegitimately took and killed by the wicked self-appointed sword. So, let them be accursed in the Name of God whom Jesus Christ of Nazareth said, and have confirmed that have sent Him — The God whom King David worshipped. Let them be accursed in the Name of That God who said “I AM that I AM” — and let them be accursed in the Name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth.
There will be no Church to bring them Holy Eucharistical Species / Communion from the Priest — and war off the Devil that comes to get them in the hour of their Death! Both the devil and the death of hell will come upon them, and there will be no escape for them — they will be cornered in by the eternity in hell. Unless in the work of the penitence — they repay to the smallest particle of the currency which they stole from the poor in an evil way of injustice. That would translate like this: “Trillions and Trillions in Gold Currency back-given to Africa, and everywhere else.” Can they do that? Do you think they can do that! Yes, they can do that.
Those who were wicked, and have done evil, have mocked and abused Holy Things will be in Hell — in that hour of their death. Unless, the Church of Jesus Christ of Nazareth — brings them something that they can not even receive — and not without exposing mockery of devils among them and upon them — unless they are excused, and redeemed of hell. But the excuse does not happen without the work of the penitence — they have to repay, and they have to repay to the smallest particle.
The Church Roman Catholic Charismatic shows up to judge and to condemn. The Church Roman Catholic Charismatic will always show up to judge and condemn.
Yes, they have to die to the evil which they did and do and have to do a reversal of it. That alone it kills them. So they hate the Church! We assure you that there is no forgiveness for the sins for the wicked — without works of penitence! Otherwise, they can do repenting in hell, and they would wish to be in purgatory and could have repented from that state of existence before their very death. There is the unconditional judgment of Jesus Christ of Nazareth in the Church Roman Catholic Charismatic that will judge and condemn to the death and eternity in hell because of One Triune Perpetual Presence, in Juridic Person-Perpetual (which is not natural, not mere human alone).
In Perpetual Priesthood order David Wilkerson said that Church comes to kill the wicked — that is how they feel when Church comes to tell them which fruit is not to be touched — or there will be in the death and condemnation.
When you are not authentic Church, not only that you will not want to hear what In Perpetual Priesthood order David Wilkerson said — it will put self-hate, and hate against authentic Church into bones. Because it will be stripping you off the ways of the devil — restoring your mind to true understanding.
A Note:
UN along with its laws and charters is a dead household, ancient problem of self-hating and another hating of the uncultivated tribes, in contemporary it is Hitlerism / Political diplomacy of hate.
Wicked self-determination of tribes is noting else then Nazism. Diplomacy of UN is a sorry-word for reality that does not exists — the reality that does not exist because it was never created by those who thought they be doing something outside their satanic seals.
I am sure that humanity could get actual human rights when entire UN is turned up-side down, and trashed just as League of the Nation should have been trashed — Instead it became UN.
They do not keep human rights, and with that alone it’s a dead body just as League of the Nations.
If anyone would like to realize about legitimate global-order they may like to copy the Body of Roman Catholic Church Charismatic along with Perpetual Church that is not Catholic — while trashing opinions of wickedness including of Popes.
As long as legitimate human rights are not communicated, understood, and implemented — we, as Church let everything be accursed according to the satanic seals followed, and in devil.
One Additional Note to a completely separate subject:
There is something that I have to say in my personal understanding — I am not really moved to say it, and I will say it in full understanding of it, and in the absolute conviction of the conscience.
I understand that I am not saying the lie about it.
Mondoweiss has a serious civil-ecclesiastical problem — the one that brings on the sword and death, and they are not in maturity to understand all what is being said there, and are not qualified to censor-legitimately what is being said there. They censor illegitimately.
They need to be boycotted, or they have to have mature folks added on to their censoring pursuits — to do censoring itself.
I do belive that folks have legitimate right to say/write what they have learned and in the miners they have learned — but, I would hate to see them leading folks into Gestapo-like patterns of delusional lies. Their censoring is in manners of Gestapo-like.
“She has a very fragile mental state because she keeps repeating things —”
After reading the above, one wonders who has the ‘fragile mental state’?
Exactly!
And this kind of antisemitic ranting does not of course get moderated. And it doesn’t occur to you that when other mentally disturbed people read it they may be inspired to act in the name of Christ Our Lord and take things into their own hands, just as they have been inspired to do across America in recent weeks. Don;t you have even the most elementary sense of responsibility?
You refusal to print this comment of mine says more about your character and integrity than any insult ever will.
Only you would not call such a defamatory comment ‘an insult.’ Actually, I intended to allow your comment to appear, although
I found your advice about ‘responsibility’ a bit over the top. I you wish to be ‘responsible’ you might try reading Tom Suarez’s
meticulously researched STATE OF TERROR that abundantly documents Zionist terrorism over the decades, including directed at non-Zionist
Jews, including even Holocaust survivors. The mirror may be the best cure for your ‘irresponsibility.’
Why call it terrorism when you are calling the barbaric acts of Hamas “freedom fighting” and comparing them to French and Dutch partisans? And why the eagerness to embrace a book that attacks Israel? Have you really studied the history of the period in all its aspects to the extent that you can evaluate a book of this kind? And what does this have to do with your providing a platform for Jew haters?
You continually conflate what you call ‘Jew hatred’ with the State of Israel, and the latter with Zionism.
Israel as a state among states has done and is doing terrible things to the Palestinian people, Zionism has
also been unscrupulous throughout its history in its embrace of an ‘end justifying the means’ethos and its relentless campaign
to make Jews affirm Zionism or find themselves dumped into a hate group category actually contributes to anti-Semitism. Israel is a State, Zionism is
a movement with a project of state-building and expansionist ambition, and the Jews are a people, a religion,
and an ethnic tradition with many variations including anti-Zionist beliefs and values, as well as the wish of some to have
an identity that is not so defined.
I am not conflating anything. I am pointing to Kata Fisher’s remarks as an example of pure and simple antisemitism, in the worst tradition of the Medieval Church. Pretending that accusations of Jew hatred are a Zionist cover to delegitimize valid criticism when you have the language of Jew hatred staring you in the face isn’t going to fool anyone.
No, Israel is not doing terrible things to the Palstinian people. It is defending itself against terrorist organizations whose declared aim is its destruction.
There was nothing less scrupulous in the Jewish national movement than in any other national movement and Zionism certainly wasn’t an expansionist movement but one that was perfectly willing to live in peace with the Arabs within the borders proposed by the UN.
There are enormous holes in your understanding of Zionist thinking. I would suggest that your read Ben-Gurion’s war diaries, which I believe have been translated into English, to get some real insight into what the Jewish leadership was actually thinking at the time.
I will read Kata Fisher’s comments more carefully. I find them obscure, and
generally not relevant to what is being discussed, but because she is dealing with
substance from her perspective, and unlike some others, does not engage in personal
insults and defamatory language, I may have missed some material that should not
be published here.
I think that back in Catholic grade school Kata flunked Catechism. Her “Catholicism” is the rabid, bigoted form, dominated by the Jew Hatred/anti-Semitism of Mel Gibson, rather than that of the modern enlightened Church, which followed Vatican II. I suggest that she study the writings and speeches of Pope Francis to educate herself on the Church’s current stance on this topic.
“To attack Jews is anti-Semitism, but an outright attack on the State of Israel is also anti-Semitism.” –Pope Francis
A remedial course on the Just War portion of Catechism can be found here:
http://www.catholic.com/documents/just-war-doctrine/
Another resource on Just War Theory, long a doctrine of the Church, can be found here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/justwar/
I commend them to Kata!
Dear Gene, and dear Fred:
Fred,
We all know that Wrath of wickedness in the direct wrath of God. I can not help it that I am Ordained women in Roman Church Charismatic – Catholic. As we all know that those who are in generational Perpetual Church and or Spirit do not get sealed in satanic seals of the devil’s witchcraft, so to Blaspheme God’s Spirit and do all evil in the Name of God. Instead, we only get to be ordained with abuse of Apostolic Church Order is imposed onto us. Then, the wicked fall under the wrath of God and Judgment of the Church, directly.
I tell you the Truth: anyone who practices Abuse of Apostolic Church Order:
in the manners that are shown above — in public and secret (as cults of the devils) is accursed in the name of God whom King David Worshipped and in the Name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth. The Church Roman Catholic judges them and condemns them, legitimately — they are in satanic seals, and they Blaspheme the Spirit of God among all, and we surely let them be accursed according to the satanic-seals that work in them, and they follow.
I do not recognise any Lord and any name of Lord or a master. I do not slave to any of that. I do not see any devils that are worth a while.
The only name that I am sure of is Name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth and God whom King David worshipped — I in the body and blood of Jesus Christi of Nazareth.
I am never exactly sure what mental evil comes up upon the wicked — when they have their wicked way. I never know unless God Himself and His Wrath is with me.
By the way Gene,
I will tell you about fragile minds.
The mentally ill women that are put up like snotty donkeys in wickedness, the dancing whores and prostitutes on public media everywhere by the wicked — so shamefully in their devilish neckedness — would have the weakest mind in the devil among all human-femen — and their pimps are even weaker in their minds then that.
I wish to hope they would have a fragile mental state — then there would be some hope for them, and their children.
I believe — Instead, the elderly and certainly, some of the elderlies that can’t settle in Truth of Jesus Christ in their old age and they suppose to — and little children — who need someone to close their eyes from all that evil upon them — and be creating a better future for them.
The evil will not have any other way — but in hell — as long as they do not do penitence. They will be wiped out among them selfs, self-hating and hating of another. It’s global hate among the wicked — that is the reality — but the Church will not lie to them and tell the that is otherwise.
The Church has no other Way, but sight and let cursed in their evil be accursed, and their next generation, unless we stop seeing the wrath of the wicked and works of penitence. The more wrath comes from them in evil upon the Church and the world — the more wrath of the devil is loosed by the Church upon the wicked. We say: Look and see the glory of the devil’s in Holy Land — start repenting right there whenever you can.
We will see the good repenting in penitence when things are returned that are stolen among the nations. I will take that jewels in English crown that is accursed and given over to the devil — back to the India — just because I can. And I also will let loose Trillions and Trillions in material substance of Gold back to the Africas and other nations whom the wicked who have robbed things / the tithings of the nations for themselves.
And I will do so in my joy of mental state, that is incredibly greedy to give the wicked invalid excuses and acknowledging forgivness of the sins that does not exsist for the wicked. However, the wrath of God and his curse do exist for the evil- corrupted-wicked. All good of devil and his hopes are upon the wicked. Let them be accursed in the name of God whom King David worshipped and in the Name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, the Wrath of God is upon them.
Whenever Church serves the wicked — we only cure ourself! But we know that..
Fred, you often say unless someone lives in Israel they cannot comment. because they don’t know the reality on the ground. That is a false supposition to begin with.
In a rare, candid conversation, Abby Martin interviews a former Israeli Army combat soldier who served as an occupier in Palestine’s Hebron City.
Eran Efrati spent years as a sergeant and combat soldier in the Israeli military, but has since become an outspoken critic of the occupation of Palestine and Israeli apartheid.
Efrati gives explosive testimony on the reality of his service and explains how war crimes are institutionalized, as well as how systematic the oppression against Palestinians really is in a war of conquest.
If you have half the conscience of this ex soldier, you might change your tune.
‘Israeli Army Vet’s Exposé – “I Was the Terrorist’
But I also served in the West Bank as an Israeli soldier and I wasn’t the terrorist, nor was anyone else who served with me, so exactly how do you go about determining which of us is telling things the way the really were? Do you see what your problem is. But my guess is that you’ll believe anyone who gives you what you’re looking for.
Fred, let me repeat; If you have half the conscience of this ex soldier, you might change your tune.
And Fred, if you did serve in the West Bank with the IDF, this was probably your attitude with all you saw and heard
Prof. Falk
Why are tou censoring my reply to your ray with his skeletons and readings of my “attitude” and conscience?
My answer: Because of your seeming inability and unwillingness to refrain from personal
insults, and one-sided hate language directed at an oppressed people. There is no sign
of any interest on your part in a genuine conversation or dialogue, listening to the
voice and opinions of the other. You are quick to denounce, slow to listen.
Professor,
Aren’t the Israelis, subjected to three failed “wars of aggression” an “oppressed people?” Let Fred post his comment and then only if it is insulting, delete it.
Isn’t this supposed to be an open forum amenable to contentious debate?
Mike:
This is an open forum for constructive debate, which means that strong personal attacks as distinct from
disagreements, are not welcome or acceptable. I have tried not to block comments that contain milder versions
of such attacks, but not ones that question the motives and motivations of others.
I do not agree with your interpretation of the three wars, but I appreciate that there are different views and complex facts surrounding all three.
Like Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin and Xi-Jinping reject the “one world” panacea in favor of pursuing national interests, a force not to be denied in the U.S., Russia, or Israel. Both the U.S. and Israel are “BDS-ing” the U.N. for its hypocrisy in violating Article 2, Section 4 of the U.N. Charter and its anti-Israel bigotry.
A growing number of U.S. State Legislatures (currently 15) and the Federal government are banning contracts with and investment in boycotting entities.
The reintroduced “Taylor Force Act,” named for an American veteran murdered by a Palestinian terrorist while visiting Israel, would end U.S. funding of P.A. subsidies for imprisoned or deceased terrorists and their families.
Patriotic Americans support “BDS-ing” the U.N. from UNICEF TO UNESCO for denying the ancient Jewish nexis to Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria (West Bank). There are alternatives, such as “Heifer International,” which do not discriminate on the basis of race, religion, or national origin. “BDS-ing” the U.N. would reduce its budget by 22%.
Boycotting bigotry, whether racist, anti-Semitic, homophobic, or otherwise is an American tradition dating from Rosa Parks, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and the Montgomery Bus Boycott, to the NCAA Boycott of homophobic North Carolina. “BDS-ing” the U.N. is another strike against bigotry!
Unlike Iran and “rejectionist” entities, such as Hamas and Hezbollah,, Israel only invokes its “inherent right to individual, or collective self-defense,” as recognized under Article 51 of the U.N. Charter. Israeli application of defensive military force is no more “excessive” that that of terrorist entities which deliberately target Israeli civilians in violation of the 1949 Geneva Conventions. As terrorist entities may define their own “Rules of Engagement,” when Israel adopts those same “Rules,” as occurred in Gaza in 2014, terrorists have no right to complain. There is an old Marine Corps adage about “Payback,” which cannot be repeated in its entirety in polite circles, but in essence but “what goes around, comes around.” In the next Gaza war, for which Hamas is currently preparing, Israel may invoke its iteration of the “Powell Doctrine (overwhelming force)” to obtain either “unconditional surrender,” or total obliteration, whichever occurs first. As Thucydides, Historian of the Peloponnesian War phrased it in the Melian Dialogue, “the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.” There will be no Egyptian mediated “cease-fire,” as Hamas cooperates with al-Qaida terrorism in the Sinai.
The so-called “occupation” of disputed land persists as Palestinians refuse to engage in direct negotiations with Israel to establish “secure and recognized boundaries” for two states per UNSCR 242 and 338. Such “rejectionism” is driven by an arrogant, greedy, self-centered sense of entitlement to “all the land between the river (Jordan) and the sea (Mediterranean).” Peaceful resolution of the conflict will require compromises terminating all claims and the state of belligerency against Israel, which Palestinians are not yet ready to accept.
Professor Falk criticizes U.S. U.N. Ambassadors Susan Rice and Samantha Power for demanding his resignation as “Special Rappoerteur” on the Middle-East. Their reasons are more than adequately set forth on Professor Falk’s Wikipedia Page!
Mike, every US Senator, Congressman and State politicians get all expenses paid trips to Israel by Israeli Lobbyists. They’re bought by Israel to pass laws against the BDS movement.
The hypocrisy and double standards are appalling with the economic warfare Israel imposed on Gaza for the last 10 years and the ongoing US economic sanctions on Iran.
Ray,
The civilized world has its own “BDS” movement against Hamas in Gaza. As Hamas, per Article 13 of its Covenant, explicitly rejects all forms of non-violent conflict resolution in favor of perpetual war against Israel, Israel, per Article 51 of the U.N. Charter, may invoke its “inherent right to individual, or collective self-defense.”
See: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp
Furthermore, the U.N.’s “Palmer Committee (Secretary General’s Panel of Inquiry on the 31 May 2010 Flotilla Incident),” ruled that the Naval Blockade of Gaza was legitimate, citing the 1994 “San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts At Sea.”
See:
graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/palmer-committee-final-report.pdf
or
http://www.un.org/news/dh/middle_east/gaza_flotilla_panel_report.pdf
Negotiated compromise has never been part of the Palestinian playbook, thus in any “one to the exclusion of the other scenario,” Israel is as much entitled to be the resulting “single state,” by right of conquest as the Palestinians.
See:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp
and
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/plocov
Note that under the 1964 iteration of the PLO Covenant, Article 24 differed in excluding Gaza and the West Bank (Judea and Samaria), occupied by Egypt and Jordan, from the proposed Palestinian state, showing that the PLO did not intended to bring all Palestinians under a single government, but rather to eradicate Israel.
See: http://www.palwatch.com/main.aspx?fi=640&doc_id+8210
Finally, note the exposure by the late Zuhir Moshen of the pro-Syrian as-Sa’Iqa faction of the PLO, of the fraud of a distinct Palestinian people in 1977:
“The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing the struggle against the State of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism.
For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment e reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait for even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan.”
See:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/12/the_frightening_real_goals_ of_an_invented_people
Ray,
Why the “double standard?” If boycotting religious bigotry, racism, or any other type of bigotry is acceptable, why can’t U.S. State Legislatures boycott anti-Semites who would deny Israeli Jews the right to self-determination and majority rule in their own country, where in fact they are the majority? Boycotting bigotry is a long accepted American tradition, dating from Rosa Parks, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and the 1956 Montgomery Bus Boycott to the current NCAA boycott of homophobic North Carolina. Supporting boycotts for some, but not for others is a prime example of “do as I say, not as I do hypocrisy!”
Dear Professor Falk,
You give us perspective, context. Bush’s 2002 speech, along with the hubris of Mandelbaum, Friedman, and their ilk, paved the way for Wolfowitz and the PNAC’s “democracy promotion”, aka attacking a poor country, with the GDP of maybe Idaho, all to make the world safe for Chevron & Halliburton. We all know where that kind of “leadership” has taken us.
Trump & friends are much too stupid to understand anything about diplomacy, let alone the UN. Hence their retreat to America First, xenophobia, militarism.
When you speak of the “fragility of our interconnected and networked world order”, it calls to mind Keynes’ warnings, in 1920, concerning the fragility of the German economy, and the far-reaching harm that the Versailles treaty would do. It beggared Germany, so they turned to… The consequences of such “reckless disregard” could be far worse this time.
Thanks, Beau Oolayforos, for this characteristically thoughtful and illuminating comment. I especially appreciated
recalling Keynes’ prescient critique of Versailles diplomacy with regard to Germany. The disasters of Versailles were
not limited to Europe, but also played their part in the horrifying conditions now afflicting the Middle East, implementing
the substance of the Sykes-Picot colonial takeover of Ottoman rule in the Arab world and ratifying the Balfour diplomacy that
validated the Zionist project.
Beau, the US has attacked only poor, 3rd world Nations since WWII and Americans don’t see anything wrong with that picture.
The Fact the US couldn’t win any of them is Divine Justice as I see it.
Richard,
Some brief responses to recent posts/comments:
1. It’s specious to equate Tom Suarez and Kata Fisher. I haven’t read Suarez and don’t know what motivates him. But if, as you say, his criticism is limited to (alleged) Israeli violations, as one would critique any other nation state, it would certainly be appropriate on this website. Kata Fisher’s is of an entirely different genre. She damns the Jews, not only Israelis, and does so using theological language drawing heavily on traditional anti-Semitic tropes. Moreover, as other participants on your blog have noted, Jews aren’t the only target of her vitriol, but virtually any ideology or group outside her own.
It’s unfair to hold moderators responsible for everything that pops up on their blog. But as you’ve undertaken to eliminate offensive material, and Kata Fisher is hardly an occasional drop-in, you are burdened by some measure of ownership for what she posts.
2. You write that the US evaluates “the usefulness of the UN through an ‘Israel first’ optic, that is, the significance of UN is actually reduced to its attitude toward Israel, which is viewed through Israeli eyes, and is unmindful toward the wide spectrum of UN activities and contributions to human wellbeing.”
With all due respect, that’s absurd. The US is a super power with global concerns, including threats, that far outweigh its relationship to Israel, a country of 8 million people living in an area no larger than several smaller American states.
3. As we’ve exchanged views of the criticism you received during your stint with the UN on several occasions, there’s no point in doing so again. But as you cite it as a significant element of your post, I again point out that you weren’t merely noting Israeli violations, as one would expect of a Special Rapporteur. The issue was the utter one-sidedness of your reporting. During your six years in that position, you systematically ignored Palestinian violations—like someone refereeing a football game but calling penalties on only one side. This created an anti-Israel alternative reality that corresponded 100 percent with the Palestinian narrative.
Rabbi Ira Youdovin
Ira:
I would be very interested in your reaction to the Suarez book. It strikes me as
well-researched and without a vindictive agenda, although it does offer a strong indictment
of Zionist tactics in Israel’s state-building process.
I agree with you about Kata Fisher and will read her future comments more carefully. I have
found them generally so esoteric as to be not relevant to normal discourse, but since she does
make personal attacks and insults my inclination has been mostly to refrain from blocking her
submissions, although I have in the past on a few occasions.
On my role as SR, I am aware of your opinion. I was not given the job of criticizing Palestinian
violations, although I did formally request that my mandate be enlarged to enable this. Despite this,
I did criticize rocket fire from Gaza from the perspective of IHL on several occasions.
with greetings,
Richard
I was in the Church, and I just came back — and the little kid had to get a signature from the Priest! As we were standing there he said:
“Oh, it is the time for the signature!”
“Let’s make a bubble!”
“Say, ‘Fr. Mark was here!'”
“Who ever assists you — he better have a good sense of humour.”
I was scratching my head — but my ears were all up and running! He was just prophesying.
Lets keep things true and pure among all!
Professor Falk,
I find your response to Rabbi Ira Youdovin to be rather disingenuous. The U.N. mandate granting you the self-appointed position of “Special Rapporteur” did not bar you from any criticism of Palestinian terrorism against Israeli civilians, a violation of the 1949 Geneva Conventions.
An honest evaluation of your performance in that position, as outlined in your Wikipedia Page, shows that you conceived that position exclusively as “Special Provocateur!”
It should be apparent that my Wikipedia page has been tampered with by hostile elements dealing
only with my activities pertaining to Israel, and do not represent an accurate portrayal of my role as Special Rapporteur.
Professor Falk,
I have to tell you something:
“It may be that ineffective censoring will only curb a Way to be effective repentance, in penitence.”
I know that you are placed in a difficult position about all of this — but I have to assure you that ineffective censoring — of complaints that are absolutely not personal / (personal: insignificant/ not relevant)
and would be like invalid accusations that are just over the *top* that personal insults are so incredible.
But Unreasonable demands and unreasonable accusations are just incredible.
I would write more on this topic — but I think that I am in absolute will in Spirit not willing to do that.
But I have to tell you the truth: All those who are wicked are at least “loved” to learn the truth about their true-wickedness. Otherwise, we let a love of devils and right/good of the Devils remain upon that which is irrevocably wicked?
Eiter way you chose — the way you censor we can kick back and relax to all of that. I know that your will and conscience is sharp-end.
Given your discussion of Tom Suarz’s book, I can’t resist posting this exchange which appears on Amazons description of the book:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R11AO8LD1H351V/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_viewpnt?ie=UTF8&ASIN=1566560683#R11AO8LD1H351V
The customer reviewing the book sounds as prejudiced as the hasbarists who pop up on this blog. While the author’s response is as clearheaded and polite as Richard is here.
While I’m here I also wish to thank Kata for her latest extremely relevant contribution to the discussion. What would we do without Carrie Underwoods ‘Dirty Laundry’?
In reading the cited Amazon review of the Saurez book, I noted the following:
“In an incestuous mockery of scholarship, these anti-Israeli authors quote and feed off each other incessantly.”
Although I read this for the first time on Amazon, it sounds rather familiar!
For every Suarez book there is a book that argues the precise opposite. Why choose one over the other? I haven’t read it but I am assuming that it was written out of a very strong a priori anti-Israel bias. The writer knew where he wished to go before he began looking for the damning evidence. That is the hallmark of polemical writing. It is not history, no matter how much carefully selected evidence is presented. Historians start with demonstrable facts and seek to arrive at an objective conclusion. Polemicists start with a conclusion and look for facts that support it, ignoring whatever doesn’t. It’s like rigging an experiment to get a desired result.
But here is something in a similar polemical vein, coming from the opposite direction. I myself do not read this kind of thing. It was sent to me. As I said, if you wish to study the period objectively, there is no shortage of real historical sources.
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/9906/failed-two-state-solution
Fred Skolnik raises an important point here, and for once, does not connect his
concerns with personal insults, comments way below normal thresholds of civility.
With regard to Tom Suarez book, I believe it imparts a generally accurate picture based on deep scholarly research
and a non-polemical tone. In this sense, it is not a matter of weighing equally narratives and counter-narratives.
There are ways to choose on the basis of a search for the overall realities of what transpired historically. Such views
can be critiqued, of course, but polemics that hide portions of the truth to reinforce a political viewpoint are in
the domain of positive or negative apologetics and are not in the domain of scholarship. Suarez’s book is so impressive to
be because it reaches strong conclusions while remaining within the scholarly domain. I urge that the book be read rather
than dismissed out of hand as anti-Israeli or a polemic. In this era of Trumpism we need to make choices about truth and
falsity with greater care than ever, but resist the temptation to call everything fake news.
This is the typical Israeli MO. Provoke to get a Palestinian reaction, and then blame it on the Palestinians with a co-operative US MSM.
Israel provoked Operation Cast Lead, Operation Pillar of Defence and Operation Protective Edge.
‘Israeli bulldozers, tanks cross into Gaza, level Palestinian lands’
A fleet of Israeli bulldozers and military vehicles has crossed the border fence into the besieged Gaza Strip and flattened private Palestinian lands, as the Tel Aviv regime’s illegal construction activities continue in the occupied Palestinian territories.
At least four Israeli armored Caterpillar D9 bulldozers, accompanied by a number of tanks, entered eastern part of the town of Fukhari in Gaza’s southern governorate of Khan Yunis during the early hours of Sunday.
According to local sources, the invading convoy, dispatched from Israel’s Sofa military post, advanced scores of meters into the Palestinian territory along the separation fence, relying on potential support from the artillery unit being on alert inside the base.
From another source;
From the Israeli leadership perspective, a Palestinian state in any true capacity has always been a ‘Never-Never Land’ that should remain in the realms of fiction. When Israel and the Palestinians embarked upon the famous ‘peace process’ in Madrid in 1991, Prime Minister Itzhak Shamir coined the ‘teaspoon policy’: endless negotiating sessions at which countless teaspoons amounting to mountains of sugar would be stirred into oceans of tea and coffee, but no agreement would ever be reached. For Israel, with or without a ‘peace process’, this continues to be policy: the more it draws out the time, the more opportunity it gets to annex, the more it shrinks Palestinian enclaves into Bantustans and open air prisons.
Israel has no intention of realising a real Palestinian state, and it never had.
Let me review the history. Israel took over four-fifths of historical Palestine in 1948 and ethnically cleansed five-sixths of the Palestinian population therein, and then 19 years later it ‘completed the job’ territorially, ethnically cleansing another roughly 250,000 Palestinians as well as over 100,000 Syrians. So in 1967, Israel was left with a ‘greater Israel’ territorially – yet it had now further taken under its control roughly the same number of Palestinians it had expelled in 1948.
Thus the ‘Palestinian demographic problem’ was not solved.
The preferred option for Israelis was to forget Palestine altogether. Prime Minister Golda Meir said that Palestinians didn’t exist, and Defense Minister Moshe Dayan said that “there is no more Palestine – finished.” But that was wishful thinking on behalf of the Zionists. Palestinians were not completely ‘finished off’, and even if Israel wanted to provide itself the genocidal prospect of erasing them conceptually, it had to continue its campaigns to make them shrink demographically.
So this time, 1967, Israel would be cautious not to annex the conquered territory, as it would entail a large Palestinian population. While saving the option for slow-motion ethnic cleansing, Israel had to make sure that the ‘limbo’ territory under the status of ‘belligerent occupation’ would not be claimed by anyone, to challenge Israel’s effective sovereignty. In the 1948 paradigm, the ‘existential threat’ to the Jewish State was related to the demographic issue of the refugees, and denial of their return was essential to avert this ‘threat’. In 1967 nonetheless, the ‘existential threat’ tripled: not just the refugees, but the new ‘demographic problem’, as well as the need to avoid future ‘foreign’ claim to the territory.
Israel sought to solve the territorial issue by settlement – creating ‘facts on the ground’. Such ‘facts’ also facilitate the eviction of the population, on claims of ‘security’ (although nowadays outright theft of Palestinian land via Israeli law does not seem to require the ‘security’ alibi at all).
Good, ray, I’m glad to see that you have “sources.” Here’s a real one:
“The Arab world is not in a compromising mood. It’s likely, Mr. Horowitz that your plan is rational and logical, but the fate of nations is not decided by rational logic. Nations never concede; they fight. You won’t get anything by peaceful means or compromise. You can, perhaps, get something, but only by the force of your arms. We shall try to defeat you. I am not sure we’ll succeed, but we’ll try. We were able to drive out the Crusaders, but on the other hand we lost Spain and Persia. It may be that we shall lose Palestine. But it’s too late to talk of peaceful solutions.”
(Azzam Pasha, Arab League Secretary-General, Sept. 1947)
Why don’t you quote him too along with dozens of other Arab statements telling you exactly what they had in mind?
Ray,
Your and Kata’s perverted pre-Vatican II iteration of “Hate Catholicism” no longer flies.
The modern Catholic Church and most Protestant Denominations explicitly reject anti-Semitism.The great majority Christians support the right of the State of Israel to defend itself per Article 51 of the U.N. Charter, recognizing an “inherent right to individual, or collective self-defense.”
See: Christians United For Israel, http://www.cufi.org
“To attack Jews is anti-Semitism, but an outright attack on the State of Israel is also anti-Semitism.” –Pope Francis
Negotiation toward a two-state solution directly contravenes Articles 6, 9, 15, 19, 20 and 21 of the Palestinian National Covenant, thus the Palestinians have painted themselves into a corner from which there is no escape. See:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/plocov.asp
Direct negotiations also directly contravene Articles 13 and 32 of the Hamas Covenant, which explicitly rejects all forms of non-violent forms of conflict resolution and brand any Palestinian who negotiates with Israel as a traitor to their cause. See:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp
You have a rather virulent case of “projection,” which clouds your vision. You attribute to Israel the Palestinian “rejectionist” position. The Palestinians have confined themselves to a perpetual “state of war,” in which they have lost support of most of the civilized world and have ultimately doomed themselves to statelessness.
The primary job of any nation-state is to protect its population.
“If somebody was sending rockets into my house where my two daughters sleep at night,
I am going to do everything in my power to stop that. And I would expect Israelis to do
the same thing.”
Senator Barack Obama, 23 July 2008, Sderot, Israel
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/23/us/politics/23text-obama.html
Hamas is currently preparing for the next war. They ignore Einstein’s admonition against repeating the same failed actions while expecting a different result, at their peril. In the next war, Israel will pummel Gaza to the point of either “Unconditional Surrender,” or total obliteration, whichever occurs first. As Hamas cooperates with ISIS/Daesh terrorists in the Egyptian Sinai, there will be no Egyptian mediated “ease-fire.” “Operation Defensive Edge” is an example and a prelude to what will happen in the next war!
Mike, I embedded the video you see downstream of the original Francis of Assisi in front of Pope Innocent III after returning from the 5th Crusade against Islam in 1210 in my Blog article ‘The Imperial Pope’ when I posted it on February 26, 2011.
https://ray032.com/2011/02/26/the-imperial-pope/
Because of that FACT, I was more surprised and pleased than anyone else in this world, to see Pope Francis I became Pope on March 13, 2013. The #13 is my trademark according to some newspapers.
I like and pray for this Pope, but on this point, I respectfully disagree with him. Criticizing Israel’s sins is totally legitimate, or else many of the Jewish Prophets and the God of the Jews would be considered anti-Semitic.
The only words that are mine in my post above are these,
“This is the typical Israeli MO. Provoke to get a Palestinian reaction, and then blame it on the Palestinians with a co-operative US MSM.
Israel provoked Operation Cast Lead, Operation Pillar of Defence and Operation Protective Edge.
I don’t doubt these words of yours, “Israel will pummel Gaza to the point of either “Unconditional Surrender,” or total obliteration, whichever occurs first.” Hamas knows it too, but the MO of Israel is to provoke a reaction and I stand by that.
You may not see Israeli bulldozers and tanks crossing into Gaza, levelling Palestinian lands as a provocation, and Hamas did not react as it did with the provocations mentioned in my original comment.
If you follow the link to read ‘The Imperial Pope’ be assured everything I wrote in it is FACTUAL in my life experience without exaggeration or embellishment.
Also, the RCMP VIP Security protecting Prime Minister Trudeau Sr. recorded the incidents in their official reports.
It was interesting for me to learn after PM Trudeau Sr. quit his job 2 weeks after emissaries on his behalf questioned me at length about my attitude toward him, he moved into the Cormier House in Montreal built by a member of my family tree, who also designed The Supreme Court of CanaDa.
After you read the article, click on the ‘About’ link at the top and read the part about ‘Lunch with the Pope’s Ambassador.’ I’m sure there is a record of that lunch in the Vatican somewhere.
To make it even more interesting for me, after the lunch with the Apostolic Nuncio, the Man for all Seasons and Reasons living in the big Gatehouse to the Nunciature with his wife, and driving me home, told me his wife is a Cormier.
What a co-incidental connection to the Political and Spiritual! I’m still trying to make sense of it all.
Ray,
You make no mention of the numerous Hamas rockets fired from Gaza into Israeli civilian communities (provocations) which preceded all three Gaza wars, nor the kidnapping and murder of three Israeli students, which preceded “Operation Defensive Edge,” nor Article 13 of the Hamas Covenant, which explicitly rejects all forms of non-violent conflict resolution in favor of war, nor Article 32, which brands any Palestinian who negotiates with Israel as a traitor to the cause. See: http;//avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp
See also: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/plocov.asp
Given the “no compromise”/”one to the exclusion of the other” position of Hamas and the P.L.O., rather than a negotiated two-state solution, providing “two states for two peoples,” Israel has no alternative but to engage in “defensive wars of necessity” to preserve its national existence and right to self-determination. Note that when “cease fires” have been in effect, Israel has always honored them, and when they break down, it is most often the result of Hamas provocations. If South Africans can, and should, have majority rule in their nation, why shouldn’t Israelis enjoy that same right? Your position is a prime example of “do as I say, not as I do” hypocrisy.
I see no current relevance to what Pope Innocent III did during the Fifth Crusade in 1210, St. Francis of Assisi, nor your threats to the security of the late Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau, which involved the RCMP. Such threats suggest a propensity toward violence, as do the current threats against Donald Trump. If the RCMP keeps a close watch on you, it is probably for good reason.
On the question of the “invention of the Palestinian people,” read the quotation of the late Zuhir Moshen in my post of March 8, 2017 at 6:31 P.M. Also see my discussion, March 13, 2017 at 03:35 A.M. of “Just War Theory,” originally developed by St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, now incorporated into International Law, and particularly the link to the Catechism at:
http://www.catholic.com/documents/just-war-doctrine/
A negotiated two-state solution would be immensely preferable to continuation of the current conflict, however, as Palestinian doctrine expressly precludes that option, Israel must engage in “defensive wars of necessity,” consistent with “Just War Theory!”
Some of us are unwilling to participate in a comment section which allows, and has encouraged, the yards of cryptotheological hate infested ramblings once again juxtaposed within subject matter of serious consequences. Popes began to recognize ‘charisms’ in 1971 and were subsequently reaffirmed by John Paul II, Benedict XVI and now Francis. This includes speaking in tongues, healing, incomprehensible sentence fragments, rolling around in spastic movement etc. There is discord, however, between the cessasionists who attribute this type of divine signage only to the apostles and the continuationists who differ. The RC church is losing members to the Evangelicals and hopes the recognition of their brand of out of control emotionalism as divine intervention will help stop the membership loss. The endless self serving and irrelevant biblical quotes are also inappropriate here. The contrast between what is an embarrassing attempt at proselytizing and the impressive scholarship of the essays is beyond understanding.
This type of expression degrades the laws and powers of the intellect and a large number of religions – especially mainline Protestant Churches. Also, the !st Amendment to the Constitution suggests that scripture is not a reliable framework for a system of justice albeit some draw moral inspiration from selected passages of the teachings.
As to the UN, we could consider the US/Obama veto in 2011 of the resolution regarding the Palestine National Authority condemnation of settlements. The other 14 SC members and over 120 member states voted in favor. One permanent member of the SC can veto the world. Is this global justice? Has Palestine ever been afforded a generalized due process of law regarding the entire heinous miscarriage of commonly agreed upon codes of decency? The UK, US, and UN should answer for their endless sponsorship of the destruction of a legally recognized territory and people. As an American of British parents, I cringe in shame. An organization of WW2 victors is outdated. If one lauds the UN, it is usually the humanitarian components – not the SC.
Finally, Hamas did not exist till 1987 and the rockets began in 2001. Hamas is result not cause. It’s as though I steal your car and offer to return the goods in the trunk provided that you legally affirm my ‘right’ to the theft of the car and swear not to oppose my continued acts of plunder. These deeds are regarded as ‘unhelpful’ by the US but subsidies will be increased and critics regarded as egregiously biased. Why would there not be a bias?
Adieu….
Laurie:
I have missed your perceptive and challenging commentary.
I understand, and indeed share, your frustration with the rants and obscure ramblings. At the same time I have struggled
with how to keep open this venue for this who disagree with me and those with similar views. I do block quite a few messages
that seem insulting or filled with venom, but it is to difficult to draw the line, and I do not always have the time to be
a dutiful monitor. I do appreciate your concerns, and wish I had some easy way to address them.
warm greetings, Richard
Charismatics in the RC Church should not minister outside their own group. They do it to be seen according to their spokesperson Peter Kreeft ,and others. One possibility is that those commenters who value the preachifying of Kata and Ray, could be in direct contact with them. This could be easily arranged. Ray has his own blog and Kata could make her contact info available. I think God wants them to do this or he wouldn’t have suggested it to me.
Also, do people realize that all of our comments are delayed for moderation? This terminology is a general WordPress notice and can refer to a check on being logged in as well as other clearances. Mine always have this notice. Is this not generally so?
Yes, it’s nice to have Laurie’s thoughts back among us. As usual, she brings a bit of sanity to the discussions. Let us hope her ‘adieu’ doesn’t mean goodbye, but only ‘au revoir’!
Hamas began carrying out its suicide bombings in the early 1990s. Of course they are not the cause; the cause is the inability of the Muslim world to accept the existence of a sovereign non-Muslim state in the Middle East, and that goes back a long way.
The West Bank was occupied because Jordan attacked Israel and was defeated in the ensuing war. The occupation was prolonged because the Arabs declared at Khartoum: no peace, no negotiations, no recognition.– and for the next 25 years couldn’t even bring themselves to pronounce Israel’s name. The occupation became oppressive because the Arabs engaged in terrorist acts against Israel’s civilian population. The occupation continues because the Palestinians refuse to sit down with Israel and negotiate a settlement based on mutial recognition and an end to all claims on either side.
And again, what are you moderating? Venom? Insults? Reread the remarks of some of your admirers.
I am incapable of satisfying you, and never will. Please do yourself a favor, and take your anger and dogmatic smugness to another website.
You would be welcome at many venues available throughout cyberspace.
I am not looking for satisfaction from you but fairness. Anger and smugness don’t go together. Certainly I am angry when Jews and the State of Israel are slandered and, unlike you, feel obligated to respond.
Laurie,
I will just point out to you that Roman Catholic Church along with any other Church that is Protestant, and Perpetual in nature (individually and collectively) does not give right / recognize vandalizing of humans / Church Members by the abuse of the Church Order that is Charismatic-Apostolic in Nature.
In fact, and Biblically — there are at leat 50 rules of the Church Laws from Both Testaments (New and Old Law) that rule and guide Apostolic Church Order that included Charismatic Church Order.
It certainly includes ecclesiastical penalties and condemnation. Not only that clergy can and should practice penalties and condemnation in the Name of God — lay-people and not qulified may practice penalties and condemnation, just as well in the Name of God.
However, there are strict sanctions when comes to the use of Apostolic Church Order in invalid, and in reality evil way. Meaning, lay-people will never abuse (in another spirit) Apostolic Church Order, cause evil with that — and get away with that without penalties and condemnation. I in free will would not write Theology and Church Doctrine for anyone and anywhere, except in an authentic Church College setting, and with Pope’s Cardinals.
That does not mean I I can not generate, the same Theology and Church Doctrine that they can. And of course, I do not even agree with a good part of their Theology and Church Doctrine that they pop out recently at any occasion. It’s just opinions — not reliable.
Meaning, that actual Church doctrine is only generated and popped in a collective setting, in a collective Juridic Person. For me being Roman Catholic — that is the only option of getting rich while writing Church Doctrine and Theology. That was just a slight and true joke, of course.
Protestants may just be due to deserve a collective Protestant Church Order and Teaching office — and they may just like to get it! Who knows — I may be just the (in Person Juridic) who will impose Protestant Church Order and Teaching office onto them. I certainly could do that with David Wilkerson.
By the way — this is a valid, and not abused in practice Church Order. It is in the actual apostolic Church Spirit, and is practice by the priest — who has been separated for that specific purpose:
Further
US Constitution is not the same as Constitution of Israel — or Constitution of Vatican.
In a matter of fact, I do not even think that you are interpreting the constitution of US in valid and a systematic way. I am also sure that it can be quoted effectively and not effectively — but there is just so much more to that then just a quote to the interpretation of different constitutions.
I do not think that US constitution is subject to individual interpretations.
But individuals can use it.
It’s taken 800 years, but Pope Francis I is doing his best to walk in the foot steps of his Papal namesake
According to Authentic Charismatic Roman-Catholic Church Doctrine — Pope Francis and his opinions are almost identical — if not the same with smug-heretics. He is not genuinely all in Juridic Person, and he is not the part of Juridic Person — he does not have Authority in Juridic Person that is in the Roman-Catholic-Charismatic Church Body. He is more in another spirit/s of another body.
I find him that he is more a smug-heretic and gravely irresponsible. But so where those who were Anti-Apostolic successors — those who wrote Theology and Broke away from the Apologetics of the Church Doctrine and Authority in Juridic Person. They were not saints — they were smug-heretic.
Both Vatican I And Vatican II are/are in spiritual authority of Anti-Apostolic successors. Vatican I and Vatican II hold no power and authority over Roman-Catholic Church. It was not in Juridic Person that is in the Roman-Catholic-Charismatic Church Body.
However, they came up with useful Theology only for those who may able to discern it. Others will only be judged and condemned. Juridic Person that is in the Roman-Catholic-Charismatic Church Body — that is in Law of the Spirit / The Law of the Church/The Law of the Gospel/The Law of Jesus Christ of Nazaret.
Pope Francis only pretends The Law of Jesus Christ of Nazaret. He is in the spirit of false humility, and false holiness. I am sure that he will try as much as he can in his own will-power — that is how he stared out as a priest, and then he became charismatic.
We do not recognise all charismatic baptisms to be authentic, and his sure does not add up to be an authentic one. In addition to that, he may have been defiled with the women before he became the priest, exercising the office of the celibate priesthood, violating preferred Way by the Gospel that was written down by the Successors as one irrevocable change of the Order of the Priesthood. Anyone who falsifies that way of the celibate order will fall under condemnation and judgement.
Who knows, that may just be what has come up over wicked in heart Roman-Catholics.
Only Perpetual Roman-Catholics with authentic Church Roman-Catholic Charismatic is accounted as a valid Church. Anything else is a fall of from the Faith and Spirit / in other Gospels and False, heretical Teaching.
Ray,
Wicked always have dome wickedly in their hearts, and their condemnation is visible to all — it is beyond a spectacle! Just look and see. It is impossible to live among the wicked at this point, and make it outside the valid BAptisam in Spirit — the Authentic Apostolic Spirit that was and is in Perpetual Church — dependence of Perpetual Church are absolutely primary targets of the Devil, and they lack strength.
You may not know that large part of Jews of WWII Holacaused was the dependence of Perpetual Church, and that is why they were unmercifully neglected, prosecuted and killed. The Antichrist, the Devil, the evil one that is relished by charismatic-occult is no joke, at all.
I am disappointed that contemporary Jews are so Anti-Christ and Antisemitic. That Antichrist, the Devil, the evil one that is relished by charismatic-occult is no joke. The heresy of Pope Francis is no joke. We saw such patterns back in History, right after charismatic-cult disorders of Azuza Street.
It’s best for righteous and authentic Jews and Rabbis to WAKE UP to the things that are going on!
I am not in Antichrist spirit’s baptism/Antisemitic. Look at Pope Francis — he may just be! And I do not intend any jokes and to be kidding.
In contemporary Jews of Remenet — can and will find the way out this time.
My only observation to all invalid accusations is this:
This crowd has been civilly-eccalisticaly disrespectful and very rude, and that has not changed?
If it has not changed, it will not be in power to change anything.
I only have to make correction:
I ment to write: “In contemporary Jews of Remnant — can and will find the way out this time.”
and offspring / desendance of Perpetual Church — not dependance of Perpetual Church
Kata,
St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas started an intellectual trend recognizing the right to self-defense, later incorporated into the Catechism as the “Just War Doctrine.” You can find it here at: http://www.catholic.com/documents/just-war-doctrine/
Since then, it has been incorporated into International Law and Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, recognizing an “inherent right to individual, or collective self-defense.”
See also: http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/war/
The “Jewish Remnant (survivors of the World War II Extermination Camps and others),” have acted by restoring their ancient homeland and preserving its right to existence and self-determination through maintaining military superiority. The Arabs have initiated three major wars to eradicate Israel, all of which they lost. Egypt and Jordan have reached peace agreements with Israel and even become allies against a common threat. The Palestinians have refused to negotiate a two-state solution, ensuring that the so-called “occupation” of disputed land will continue. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uti_possidetis
(Latin: As you possess, you may continue to possess.)
As the victorious belligerent of the 1967 “Six Day War,” Israel may retain captured land until possession is modified by peace treaty. Egypt regained the Sinai, comprising 91% of the land captured in 1967, as a consequence of its peace treaty with Israel, thus fulfilling Israel’s responsibility under UNSCR 242 and 338.
Mike:
These are very partisan interpretations that are reasoning from an angle that is not widely accepted in the contemporary
world: namely, just war doctrine as articulated by theological heavyweights. The Jewish claim to ‘land of Israel’ by way
of tradition ‘ancient homeland’ is not acknowledged by either international law or international morality as a sufficient
basis to sustain claims of self-defense or self-determination.
Professor,
In your March 10, 2017, 8:41 P.M. response to Fred Skolnik, you stated that you were “not competent to monitor various religious texts.” Perhaps, it is presumptuous to expect an apostate Jew to be familiar with the Catechism, but “Just War” concepts, which you should be familiar with, have been incorporated into International Law. A seminal work is Michael Walzer’s “Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument With Historical Illustrations.(2007)”
If you do not accept Walzer’s thesis, one I’m certain you are familiar with is the Marxist concept of “Armed Struggle,” which you supported in Vietnam’s “American War (1965-1975).” Look at Israel’s “Armed Struggle” against “Arab Imperialism” since 1947, as a continuing struggle for national independence, as was the case for the Vietnamese. The Arabs could have accepted the 1947 U.N. Partition and had their own Palestinian state, but rejected that option, initiating a “war of aggression” and losing a considerable amount of land. Afterwords, they could have accepted the 1949 “Green Line,” not internationally accepted as an national boundary, but initiated yet another “war of aggression,” losing all control of the West Bank (Judea and Samaria), East Jerusalem and Gaza. Following that war, they enacted the infamous “Three No’s (No negotiation, recognition, or peace with Israel)” of the 1967 Khartoum Conference, ensuring continuation of the so-called “occupation” of disputed land. Since, the 1973 war, Egypt, (without which Palestinians cannot hope to prevail in war) and Jordan have reached peace agreements with Israel and even become allies against a common threat.
As the defense concerns of Saudi Arabia, the Gulf Cooperation Council and Israel converge, the Palestinians have become an ideological backwater, attracting little attention in regional defense concerns. Mr. Abbas, like his predecessor Arafat, prefered to maintain the status quo, rather than engage in direct negotiations to obtain peace and independent statehood. Their avarice, driven by an arrogant, greedy self-centered sense of entitlement to “all the land between the river (Jordan) and the sea (Mediterranean),” precludes peace and statehood.
Perhaps, it will be up to a future generation of Palestinian leaders to make the necessary compromises to obtain peace and statehood. Neither will happen during Abbas’ lifetime, as
was the case in Arafat’s lifetime!
But the international community did acknowledge the Jewish claim, by passing the partition resolution and recognizing the State of Israel. I agree that you don’t need theories to justify self-defense. It goes without saying, Egypt, Jordan and Syria all committed acts of war in 1948,1967 and 1973, by any standard of law, custom or common sense, and Israel responded as all countries since time immemorial have responded when they are attacked.
And needless to say, your assertion that “ancient homeland” does not “sustain the claim of … self-determination” undermines your own argument, as you are continually using this argument to sustain the Palestinian claim of self-determination! You see how quickly your logic breaks down when you enter your rhetorical mode. I think that it is I who am being reasonable and conciliatory when I acknowledge that there were two claims, one no less valid than the other, and accept the idea of compromise while you are being dogmatic and doctrinaire in trying to deny the basis and validity of Israel’s very existence.
You still seem incapable of making your substantive comments without impugning the motives of others. I
block not because I disagree, but because I want to do all I can do to keep open channels for good faith
discussion and disagreement. I do not pretend to monitor ideological viewpoints unless avowed espousing
ethnic hatred for Jews or Palestine. In this respect, I am not competent to monitor various religious texts
alleged to provide the underpinning of Christian forms of anti-semitesm. I welcome efforts to show this to be
so if they do not defame those who rely on such texts to make their arguments. These comments apply not only
to Fred, but also to Ira.
Can 250 Israeli generals be wrong?
The Jerusalem Post, March 4
My reply to this comment was not well received as I expected.
This line of argument is not strong. Being a general doesn’t mean your path is the correct one. Just look at the results of the Gaza and Lebanon withdrawals and the Camp David fiasco in 2000 and Oslo in 1993. All were led by ex-generals! Also, remember the Yom Kippur War disaster, where hubris played a role.
A General could be wrong, but 250 people including Mossad and Shin Bet Heads should be listened to because of their combined experience. It is the Jubilee Year of the brutal Israeli Military Dictatorship ruling over Palestinian lives.
“Son of man, the dwellers of these ruins on the soil of Israel speak, saying: Abraham was one, and he inherited the land, and we are many-the land has [surely] been given to us for an inheritance.
בֶּן אָדָם יֹשְׁבֵי הֶחֳרָבוֹת הָאֵלֶּה עַל אַדְמַת יִשְׂרָאֵל אֹמְרִים לֵאמֹר אֶחָד הָיָה אַבְרָהָם וַיִּירַשׁ אֶת הָאָרֶץ וַאֲנַחְנוּ רַבִּים לָנוּ נִתְּנָה הָאָרֶץ לְמוֹרָשָׁה:
Therefore, say to them: So said the Lord God, You eat on the blood and you raise your eyes to your pagan deities, and you shed blood-and you should inherit the land?
לָכֵן אֱמֹר אֲלֵהֶם כֹּה אָמַר | אֲדֹנָי יֱהֹוִה עַל הַדָּם | תֹּאכֵלוּ וְעֵינֵכֶם תִּשְׂאוּ אֶל גִּלּוּלֵיכֶם וְדָם תִּשְׁפֹּכוּ וְהָאָרֶץ תִּירָשׁוּ:
You stood on your sword, you committed abominations, and you contaminated each man his neighbour’s wife, and you should inherit the land?
עֲמַדְתֶּם עַל חַרְבְּכֶם עֲשִׂיתֶן תּוֹעֵבָה וְאִישׁ אֶת אֵשֶׁת רֵעֵהוּ טִמֵּאתֶם וְהָאָרֶץ תִּירָשׁוּ:
Even though in The Jerusalem Post and Russia Today I am the only one labelled “Influencer” the disparaging comments following mine did not influence anyone.
“But the lookout-should he see the army coming and not sound the shofar, and the people did not take heed, and an army came and took a soul from them-he was taken for his iniquity, but I shall require his blood from the hand of the lookout.”
Since 1976 I believe I’ve been afflicted with Cassandra’s Curse anyway!
Ray, you are a well read intelligent man. Could you not separate your biblical references as a link on your blog? Your observations and moral objectives can stand alone and have no need for a veil of ancient scripture which is subject to many varied belief systems. By your fruits we shall know you.
Laurie, the Bible is the 1st book I read cover to cover when I learned to read in grade 1 so long ago.
There is nothing people do in this world Today, that is not mentioned somewhere between it’s covers. It’s a good book.
People have not changed much Spiritually, even though the material “economy” has radically changed around us with the extrapolation described in Revelation 18.
The temporal State of Israel is a re-creation from the Bible after an absence of some 2800 years. Should that be ignored?
There is no doubt different people have different interpretations of what the Bible says and it has been used to advance political agendas as is currently seen in modern day Israel, and why the citations above from the Jewish Tanach were not appreciated by Jerusalem Post readers.
Personally, my belief is this world is still operating under the terms and conditions of the Old Testament.
It is only the Individuals who believe in Christ by Faith, and not by the Law, learning to live and practice the terms of the New Testament that are partakers of the New Deal.
To this Day, in the Time of Christ Omega, this perception Christ Alpha saw 2000 years ago, applies to many. He was speaking to Jews in Judea and Samaria of occupied Palestine before Christians were identified as another Sect of Judaism 2000 years ago. Israel did not exist as a kingdom then.
You hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,
This people draws close to me with their mouth, and honours me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
In vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
Any literate person will recognize those words are not addressed to Gentiles, Atheists, Infidels, or Unsaved Sinners, but to those who profess a Faith in the living, Resurrected Christ/Messiah.
Search the scriptures; for in them you think you have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
And you will not come to me, that you might have life.
John 5
Lauri,
I do not doubt that that would be exactly what God has told you. Because I know what God told me when he told me: “My ears are full of the cry of the Children whom they demonise.”
You would not belive the rage of the God’s Spirit coming over me when I was learning from Spirit about evil-charismatic disorder — how Church Order that is apostolic is abused — and how the wicked in their occult-charismatic null anyone’s conciance. I have no doubt that wrath of God is with me just because of that, alone.
I would not have any other calling in my life than social justice. All women in their right mind that are ordained go about that.
It comes down to children and elderly. My calling can wait, after all, there is a trail-blase of war-booty! I definitely think that Fr. Carlo Maria Vigano and David Wilkerson Church can be called to all of that with Ray — God sends His disciples and anoited to all of them. I am very sure that that just could me so.
I can wait because there is someone else first due to get things straighten out.
I do not think and believe that Professor Falk’s calling can wait, and I think that his calling is due first. That noble prize that he was nominated for last year is for sure something interesting. I think that we better make sure that he gets that. To make sure that he gets what he deserves while he is still alive. : )
I started to write about this to the Professor — I have the difficult time that that he is blocking Fred. Last night, I still do not know that I should tell professor about my reflection:
It is difficult to understand what exactly it is going on here. Perhaps, it is difficult to understand that all national and international sins are revealed, and all consequence that is being written out about that.
I know that Roman-Catholic Priest would be in an irrevocable ecclesiastical penalty if he would reveal someone’s sins that were revealed to him. His vows would be imminently annulled, and void — and I understand that those vows would be irrevocably annulled and void.
Sins and wrongs along with consequence are only revealed, so that repentance and penitence take place. It is nothing personal, and I am almost 100% sure of that.
We do not have penitence for the will in occult/cult and its practices. For Church, it is illegal to impose penance on anyone that is in will in occult/cult and its practices. In general, they fall under the irrevocable judgement of the Church. In reality, they fall under judgement according to the Gospel. They may receive baptism in God’s Sprit from authentic Church and baptism in water. Then, penitence is appropriated by the individual purpose/call.
However, for all others — who are in the good will of conscience the repentance and penitence take place. Those who are in the will in occult/cult and its practices and annulled conscience do not repent and do penance by their free will that is imposed by the Church (collectively) and the Priest.
I think that reason why Fred may be very upset is that we are going about the revelation of the wrongs, sins and all its consequence.
But at least they may know what they can do to correct all of that. Would they all be the Hebrew prophets? I do wonder.
Richard,
I haven’t read Suarez’ book and probably won’t. My thinking was well expressed by Fred. I don’t read one-sided books by either pro-Israel or pro-Palestinian authors (unless I have to for review or citation purposes.) Having not read it, I can’t assess your judgment of its not being polemical. However, the title “State of Terror” is provocative, at the very least. And that Suarez apparently did most of his research in British government archives suggests something far short of a desire to grasp the full picture.
I would also ask what’s new in this book that wasn’t already discovered and reported by the Israeli “new historians” three decades ago? Benny Morris’ scholarly journey is significant. Beginning like others—Segev, Pappe et al—he first sought to destroy the Israeli narrative of blameless Zionists being attacked by bloodthirsty Arabs by reversing their roles. Then, realizing that the anti-Zionist narrative he had created was as inaccurate as the original, he arrived at one in which both sides had done both good and bad things.
Finally, I must question the contemporary relevance of a book that ends (except for one chapter) with Israel’s birth seven decades ago? There’s a saying: “Nothing changes in the Middle East except the past.” The challenge today is changing the future, a subject that draws little attention on this blog while participants wage verbal warfare over who did what to whom at a time before Israel became a state and the Palestinians acquired a national identity.
But the issue here is more than relevance. However they got there, Israelis and Palestinians are two peoples making valid claims to a single piece of land. It appears that the best, perhaps the only, way of satisfying both claims is a negotiated division of the land into two independent states living side-by-side in peaceful co-exisitence. Achieving this goal depends on the parties reconciling their mutual animosity and distrust. Playing the blame game and bickering over past moves us further and further away from this goal.
Ira
“I haven’t read Suarez’ book and probably won’t. My thinking was well expressed by Fred.” What else do we need to know? Here is the Zionist case in a nutshell. Suarez does differentiate between Zionists and Jews. But you’ll have to read the book to find out how.
As to the differentiation between Jews and Zionists, I believe mainline US Christianity will soon wake up to see what is happening in temporal Israel with the unfolding Revelation which they don’t see yet.
I know your works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but you are rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.
Revelation 2:9
Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before your feet, and to know that I have loved you.
Revelation 3:9
Israeli Court Asked Palestinian Parents to Prove Jailed Boy Is an Amputee
After undergoing lengthy rehabilitation in Israel and the United States, a West Bank boy who lost a leg after being shot by Israeli troops returned to school. Last week he was arrested and thrown into jail – and was beaten during his interrogation.
A boy amputee arrested by soldiers in the dead of night in the refugee camp where his grandmother lives. A boy amputee beaten during his interrogation on the back and leg, until his prosthesis is wrenched out of place. A boy amputee in military prison.
The interrogators recoiled in horror at the sight of the prosthesis, his mother says now, relating what her son told her when she met him in a military court during his remand hearing on Sunday; he had been held at that point for four days in a military prison.
Two days ago, on Wednesday, he was finally released without bail and arrived home in the evening.
The boy amputee had been sent once again to military prison 18 months after being shot in both legs by Israeli soldiers. After he’d been hospitalized for two-and-a-half months in Hadassah Medical Center in Ein Karem, Jerusalem, the physicians had had no choice but to amputate one leg. Following a protracted rehabilitation period, he was fitted with a prostheses in Detroit, where he was sent on his own. The boy amputee who was 12 years old when he was wounded and is now 14.
A boy amputee with a prosthetic leg, in Ofer Prison, near Ramallah. Words fail.
Issa al-Mouati should be in ninth grade but he’s in sixth – at least in part because he missed so much school due to his hospitalization and rehabilitation. His parents, Rada and Ahmed, both 35, live in Bethlehem, but Issa was arrested last Thursday in the nearby Deheisheh refugee camp, outside the home of his ailing grandmother, where he and Rada were spending the night. For the past few months, the daughters of 80-year-old bedridden Grandmother Amina have been taking turns sleeping there.
It is there that we met Rada this week. Her mother lies unmoving in an iron bed next to the living room wall. From time to time the perspiration is wiped from her face, occasionally she whispers something. She’s suffering from elephantiasis, a condition that causes the legs to swell enormously.
This week, Rada was constantly on the move between her young children at home, her sick mother and the military court to which her son was brought twice for remand. Issa is her eldest; she has two other sons and a daughter. The ordeals of the past few years have exhausted her.
Deheisheh, south of Bethlehem, is a crowded, hardscrabble refugee camp. The grandmother’s home is on the second floor of a house next to the camp’s great mosque. At midday the narrow alleys are packed with children and many young people who have nowhere to be. The walls everywhere are covered with militant graffiti. Every stranger elicits instant suspicion and hostile glances.
Issa was originally wounded in September 2015. It was a Friday, and Issa and his younger (by one year) brother, Adnan, were on the way to a small park next to the security barrier around the city. Hearing that clashes were underway next to Rachel’s Tomb, they hurried there. Toward evening, Issa was hit in both legs with live fire from Israeli soldiers. The wound in his right leg was very serious. Issa was arrested and, according to his mother, was held for half an hour before an Israeli ambulance took him to Hadassah.
For the first 28 days of his hospitalization, Issa was in detention, both hands shackled to his bed, his legs wounded. In a rare move, his mother was permitted to stay with him, possibly because of the seriousness of the injury and his young age. During the second week, the soldiers even let her sleep in the bed next to his – something not permitted during the first week. She did not leave Issa’s bedside during that period. Her husband, who is a worker in a nearby settlement, looked after the other children, including a 10-week-old infant, together with his mother. After four weeks, Issa, who still needed to be hospitalized, was released from detention on bail of 2,000 shekels (about $500).
During his hospitalization, his right leg was amputated in stages, beginning with the foot. The physicians apparently made every effort to save the leg, but gangrene forced them to cut it off below the knee. Issa was discharged from the hospital on December 1, 2015.
Musa Abu Hashhash, a field researcher for B’Tselem, who has worked for the Israeli human rights organization for 17 years and has seen a thing or two of the occupation’s horrors, says he never met a boy as forlorn as Issa was when he left the hospital, crippled for life. “He was the saddest boy I ever saw in my life. I will never forget the sight,” Abu Hashhash said this week.
Two weeks after returning home, Issa slipped in the shower, injuring his stump. His mother was unable to obtain a permit for him to go to Hadassah; he was treated at Al-Hussein Hospital in Beit Jala, near Bethlehem, and in the rehabilitation hospital in the same town. Last August, it was decided to send him to a rehabilitation hospital in Detroit, Michigan, for a prosthetic leg, with expenses covered by charity.
At 13, Issa was sent to the United States all by himself. A Palestinian family in Detroit helped him in the hospital. A photo taken in America shows him with a bashful smile, his new leg not yet fitted. He returned about a month later with the prostheses, which he found very difficult to adjust to at first. It also broke twice, his mother relates, and then he had to go back to crutches.
This year, Issa went back to school. Life gradually resumed a semblance of normality for this disabled Palestinian boy from an impoverished family. According to Rada, however, he’s become a tense, irritable boy who quarrels with everyone and then closets himself for hours in his room. Does he cry there? She doesn’t know.
At about 2 A.M. last Thursday, Rada woke up in her mother’s house to the sounds of stun grenades being fired and the acrid odor of tear gas that entered the house from the street. Special forces raided the refugee camp that night in one of the Israel Defense Force’s frequent operations to arrest local residents. As always, clashes erupted between young people and the soldiers.
After a time, it seemed to Rada that the soldiers had left, and she went outside with Issa, who had of course woken up, like the whole camp. But the special forces were still there. Rada has no idea what transpired in the dark of the night, but very quickly it became clear that Issa had at some point been arrested along with six other youngsters. Her son was the youngest of the group. In the morning, she learned that he had been taken for interrogation to the Etzion facility and from there to Ofer Prison.
The IDF Spokesperson’s Unit was asked to reply to the following questions this week:
1. Why was Issa al-Mouati arrested?
2. Did the soldiers who arrested him know that he’s an amputee in the wake of being shot by the IDF?
3. Were his interrogators aware of this?
4. He told his lawyer that he was struck on the back and kicked in his prosthetic leg, dislodging it. Your response?
5. Did the court that remanded him in custody at Ofer Prison on Sunday not know that he’s an amputee?
The IDF Spokesperson’s Unit provided the following reply: “At 3 A.M. on March 2, 2017, during operational activity by security forces in the Deheisheh refugee camp, a violent disturbance of the peace erupted with the participation of Palestinians, who threw stones, Molotov cocktails and improvised grenades at the soldiers. The forces arrested a number of individuals, among them Issa al-Mouati, who was one of the active participants in the disruption. Issa’s medical situation was not known to the forces and he was transferred for continued interrogation to the police.”
On Sunday, Issa’s lawyer, Tareq Barghout, requested that the boy be released, because of his disability. The prosecution objected. It was agreed that the family would submit medical documentation to the court proving that he is an amputee. On Tuesday, the court convened again to discuss his case. The following day, after six days in jail, he was finally sent home.
The Israel Police said in response that “the suspect was arrested for throwing stones and violent disturbances during a riot in which firebombs, grenades and makeshift explosive devices were thrown at the fighters. The suspect took an active part in that activity despite his disability.
“Following his arrest, he was taken in for questioning by the police, and the court extended his remand. A few days ago he was released with restrictions. An inquiry found that no force was used during questioning, and we aren’t familiar with such a claim being raised during the questioning or the court hearings. Due to a claim he raised regarding his medical condition, he was asked to provide medical documents that would allow for treatment during his detention. The case will soon be transferred to the prosecution for the purpose of indictment.”
read more: http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.776180?utm_source=smartfocus&utm_medium=email&utm_content=israel-news/.premium-1.776180&utm_campaign=Gideon+Levy&utm_term=20170310-12:22&writerAlerts=true
As Israel prepares to release 26 more terrorist prisoners [Oct. 2013] as a “gesture” to the Palestinian Authority, Arutz Sheva presents a partial list of those slated for freedom.
It reveals a catalogue of atrocities, the majority of which involved the murder of civilians carried out at close range. Each of the crimes shook Israel at the time it happened, and was the front page headline of Israel’s newspapers at the time it happened.
Kassem Hazem Shabir murdered Holocaust survivor Yitzhak Rotenberg Hy”d. Rotenberg, a Polish Jew, was sent to the Sobibor concentration camp with his family when he was a teenager but managed to escape from the camp and to fight in the ranks of the Partisan underground. He was also interred by the British in Cyprus before reaching Palestine. He joined the IDF and took part in the War of independence. He worked in construction.
At age 67, as he was fixing a floor in Petach Tikva, Hazem and another terrorist attacked him from behind with axe blows to the back of his head. He died two days later. Hazem’s accomplice was released in the previous batch of terror prisoners. Rotenberg was survived by his wife and son.
Alabed Hilmi Amawi murdered Yigal Vaknin Hy”d, 22, in 1993, just before the Yom Kippur fast. Vaknin’s body was found in an orchard near Moshav Basra, where he lived and worked. He was survived by his parents and eight brothers and sisters.
Awad Masalkha took part in the murder of Yigal Vaknin Hy”d and also murdered another Jew, David Reuven Hy”d, an Iraqi-born father of three who ran a mini-market in Petach Tikva. In 1991, Awad and other terrorists entered the mini-market, attacked Reuven, tied him up and beat him to death. He was 59.
Ahmed Damuni murdered reservist soldier Amnon Pomerantz Hy”d in 1970. Pomerantz was on his way to reserve service in Gaza when he entered the Al Burej neighborhood by mistake. He was pummeled with rocks, murdered, and his body was burned inside his car. He was 46. He was survived by his wife and three children.
Sharif Abu-Dahila murdered his employer of 15 years, Avi Osher Hy”d, in 1991. Osher, who was 40, managed the date grove at Moshav Masua. Sharif stabbed Osher to death and hid his body in a vineyard. Osher was survived by his wife and two children.
Mustafa Ganimat and Ziyad Ganimat gunned down Meir Ben Yair, 33, and Michal Cohen, 32, Hy”d, at the Masu’a Forest, in 1985. Ben Yair was survived a wife and two children. Cohen was survived by a husband, two children, parents, a brother and a sister.
Al-Afu Shakir murdered IDF soldier Akiva Shaltiel Hy”d, 21, in April of 1985. Shakir and other terrorists abducted Shaltiel as he was making his way from his base in Samaria to Rosh Haayin. His body was discovered near Beit Aryeh. He was survived by his parents and five brothers and sisters.
Mahmoud Haga murdered Yosef Shirazi Hy”d. Haga and another terrorist managed to swim from Aqaba, Jordan, to Eilat, in May, 1992. Shirazi, who was employed as a security guard for the Hebrew Unversity’s marine biology research center, received word of suspicious movements outisde the research center and went out to check the premises. The terrorists gunned him down at short range.
Muhammad Mukabal murdered Yaakov Shalom Hy”d, 40, in 1990. Mukabal and his accomplice in the stabbing murder were both employed by Shalom at the kitchen of the Ein Kerem Inn, which Shalom owned. He was survived by his mother, two daughters, and three siblings.
Haza Yusef and Abdullah Bani-Hassan murdered Yosef Eliyahu and Leah Elmakayes Hy”d, two teachers, in 1985. The teachers were preparing a field trip for their pupils in the Gilboa area, when they were accosted by the terrorists. Eliyahu, 35, married and a father of five, was shot at close range, and Elmakayis, 19, was strangled to death. She had been a National Service volunteer. She left behind her parents and three siblings.
Yousef Abdel Hajj murdered Genia Friedman Hy”d, 41 years old when, in 1992. He stabbed her to death as she walked down a main street in Kfar Saba. Abdel Hajj also stabbed and injured her father and two other people.
Ahmed Abdel Aziz, Usama Abu Hanana and Muhammad Turkeman murdered Motti Bitton Hy”d, 32, in 1992. Biton, who lived in Ganim, was buying items in an Arab-owned store in northern Samaria when the terrorists came in, shot him and blew up an explosive charge. His wife, Molly, fired at the terrorists and they escaped.
Issa Abed Rabbo murdered Ron Levy, 23, and his girlfriend Revital Seri, 22, who were hiking in northern Mount Hevron in 1984, near the Cremisan monastery. Issa tied them with ropes, put sacks on their heads and shot them.
Massoud Amar murdered Ian Feinberg Hy”d, 30, a lawyer involved with economic development in Gaza. In 1993, he was conducting a business meeting in Gaza when terrorists burst into the room and told the other Arabs there to leave. They murdered Feinberg with axe blows and gunshots. He was survived by his wife and three children.
At last night’s demonstration protesting the prisoner release, Feinberg’s sister gave an emotional address to the crowd, in which she decried the “sale” of Israeli and Jewish blood “as a gesture.”.
Asrar Samarian and Musa Kara’an Musa murdered Tzvi Klein, 44, a mathematician and educator, who lived in Ofra. In 1991, they fired on his vehicle when he was travelling from Jerusalem to Ofra, fatally injuring him. He was survived by his wife and three children.
Ali Hader Razak killed IDF soldier Guy Friedman Hy”d in Bethlehem in 1990, in a terror attack that involved explosive charges planted at the entrance to the military governor’s building. Guy was 19. He was survived by his parents and two brothers.
Ibrahim Muhammad Nasser and Muhammad Rafaa Karaja murdered reservist soldier Aharon Avidar Hy”d in 1985, as he guarded the customs building in Ramallah. Avidar was 29, married, with one daughter.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/173345
As noted, the above is only a partial list of the murderers being set free by Israel in the second batch of terrorists to be released as “a gesture” to the PA.
I am bewildered by what you are trying to convey by this comment. Are you wanting us to believe that Palestinians
are murderers and Israelis are compassionate to the point of forgiving heinous crimes?
Such selective memory Fred, not wanting to see, hear or speak of Israeli terrorists.
On February 25, 1994, Baruch Goldstein walked into the Ibrahim Mosque at the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron in his IDF reserve uniform with his army-issued Galil assault rifle slung over his shoulder, carrying at least three full magazines of ammunition. The mosque was packed for early-morning Ramadan prayers. As he entered, Goldstein opened fire at the kneeling worshipers, killing 29 and wounding at least 125 unarmed Palestinians. After finally running out of ammunition, he was hit over the head with a fire extinguisher and beaten to death by survivors of the massacre.
Riots broke out across the West Bank after the massacre and continue for two days. More than 20 more Palestinians and nearly 10 Jews were killed in the unrest following the initial murders. In the months after, Hamas carried out two terror attacks, which it said were a response to the massacre in Hebron.
Ray,
Throwing rocks and Molotov Cocktails, which are dangerous missiles capable of causing death or serious bodily injury, at armed soldiers or police officers, will very often get you shot. Whether this boy is guilty of the offenses charged will be determined at trial, but whether he is proven guilty, or not, actions do have consequences. The first incident cost him his leg, but the next one could cost him his life. Palestinians who live peaceably with their Israeli neighbors are much less likely to suffer such injuries!
There is no mention in this article the youth did anything other than to wake up at 2am to the sound of stun grenades and tear gas.during a routine IDF raid to harass Palestinians in their own land.
I pay for a subscription to Haaretz. For those who don’t, this is FYI:
‘My Parents Founded a Settlement, Now Trump Could Make Their Dream Come True’
The expansion of Jewish settlements has followed a consistent pattern for about 100 years – the replacement of Palestinians by Jews. The new U.S. president provides a historical opportunity to accelerate the process.
U.S. President Donald Trump’s “two-state and one-state” pronouncement last month effectively signaled the demise of the Oslo Agreements – a significant reversal of the long-established U.S. position, now in contrast with a near-universal international consensus. It also supports the continuation of Israel’s colonization of the territories it has occupied since 1967.
Indeed, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu confirmed the spirit of occupation-as-usual by demanding “security control” over the entire area west of the Jordan River, proclaiming, in the words of The Nation’s Rashid Khalidi, “A permanent regime of occupation and colonization, ruling out a sovereign independent Palestinian state, whatever fictions of ‘statehood’ or ‘autonomy’ are dreamed up to conceal this brutal reality. Trump’s subsequent silence amounts to the blessing of the U.S. government for this grotesque vision of enduring subjugation and dispossession for the Palestinians.”
The expansion of Jewish settlement in, and control of, Palestine has followed a consistent pattern for about 100 years: people replacement – the replacement of Palestinians by Jews. It is crucial to understand the timing of such expansion: whenever the opportunity arises. And, for Israel, Donald J. Trump is a historical opportunity on a grand scale.
In 1907, the leadership of the World Zionist Organization sent Dr. Arthur Ruppin on a fact-finding mission to Ottoman Palestine. Ruppin, a German-Jewish economist and lawyer, subsequently developed a plan with the ultimate goal of establishing Jewish self-rule in Ottoman Palestine, where Jews were a small minority (between 6 and 9 percent).
The plan included establishing new settlements in such a way that over time they would form a mass of settlements – Israel’s first settlement bloc – to be used, much like today, as a geopolitical leveraging tool.
In the following three decades, prior to the Holocaust and before anyone could imagine the horrific fate awaiting European Jews, the foundation of the State of Israel was set in place via the creation of elaborate pre-state institutions, buttressed by small waves of immigrants whose political orientation ranged from Zionist socialists to right-wing ultra-nationalists.
Among the latter were my parents, Moshe and Tova Svorai, arriving as children from Eastern Europe in the early 1920s and belonging to the most far-right elements of the Zionist movement – Betar and Brit Habirionim, followed by the Irgun, and then the Lehi (Stern Gang); both of these were pre-state Jewish terrorist organizations.
In the big-picture sense, left-wing and right-wing Zionists wanted the same thing – a Jewish state in Palestine. The differences among them were largely semantic: a matter of political style, timing and competing approaches on how to reach that goal.
The elephant-in-the-room facing Zionism was – then, as now – ignored: the land was already populated by Palestinian Arabs, who had been there for centuries. Ignoring the physical reality, from early on Zionist terminology was designed to perpetuate the myth of an empty land awaiting its lost people: “A land without a people for a people without a land.”
A dunam here and a dunam there
Following the original Ruppin Plan, the expansion of Jewish settlement started with land acquisitions from absentee Arab landlords, culminating in a military campaign to drive the native population off its land. As the old Zionist saying goes, “A dunam here and a dunam there” (a dunam is approximately equal to a quarter of an acre), whenever the opportunity arises.
The same opportunistic vigor was used to remove the Palestinian people from what was soon to become Israel.
The best known milestone in the removal of the Arab population was the Deir Yassin massacre of April 9, 1948, conducted by Irgun and Lehi forces, designed to scare Palestinians and cause them to flee their homes, towns and villages.
Israel’s War of Independence consisted of other massacres, too. The war itself followed Plan Dalet (Plan D), carefully developed by the “moderate,” mainstream Haganah leadership to expand the territory of the future state beyond the UN Partition Plan and to remove as much of Palestine’s Arab population as possible. Then, as now, the goal of the Jewish state has been to maximize its land area and to minimize the Palestinian-Arab population residing in it.
This was the Nakba, the catastrophe – a term used by the Palestinian people to describe the loss of their homeland: the disappearance of entire communities totaling some 750,000 people, who were forced out of their country. Post-1948 Palestine was a drastically changed land: about 500 Palestinian towns and villages had been emptied of their inhabitants, their homes mostly razed and their lands divided among the Jewish kibbutzim (communal farms) and villages.
The term Nakba, which is central to Palestinian nationhood as much as the Holocaust is for Jews and slavery is for African-Americans, is shunned by most Israeli Jews for obvious reasons: Even the mere implication of responsibility for the Nakba war crimes is unacceptable.
Those Palestinians who managed to remain, now known as “1948 Palestinians,” were placed under military rule, with their basic civil rights – such as the freedom to assemble, travel and claim their properties – removed. In addition, most of their lands were confiscated by the newly created Jewish state and transferred to kibbutzim and villages.
Military rule lasted until 1966 and assured that the dispossession of the Palestinians could be carried out in a well-organized and highly controlled manner – “a dunam here and a dunam there” – with the remnants of the subject population confined to specific territories, in many cases restricted to their villages, homes or jail cells.
‘This will belong to us’
The Green Line – the 1949 armistice line separating Israel from the West Bank of Jordan – followed the line of Jewish settlements put in place during the 1920s-’40s, in close adherence to the Ruppin Plan. It is probably the first example of how “facts on the ground” proved to be crucial for the success of the Zionist project, something that Ruppin appreciated possibly before anyone else.
But the old Green Line was irregular and left a great deal of fertile, hilly land on the other side. And then there was Jerusalem, whose eastern parts, including Temple Mount, were also on the other side of that border. Standing with my parents near the Montefiore Windmill in the early ’60s, looking at the Old City on the other side of the then-border, I vividly remember my astonished reaction to hearing my mother say, “One day, this too will belong to us.” She was soon to be proved right.
The swift military victory of the 1967 war offered an unprecedented opportunity for Israel to expand in all directions. Jerusalem was the nationalist-religious pinnacle; even more importantly, the last remaining parts of old Palestine were now there for the taking – the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, totaling 22 percent of historic Palestine. Ditto the Syrian territory of the Golan Heights, and Sinai (which was subsequently returned to Egypt under a separate “peace agreement” following the 1973 war).
Since 1967, under the so-called “moderate” and “extreme” Israeli governments led by the Labor and Likud parties, some 130 settlements and 100 outposts have been established in the West Bank, with a population of some 400,000 Jewish settlers. Additionally, some 200,000 Israelis live in East Jerusalem.
Any relocation of the occupier’s population into occupied territories, whether into government-established settlements or so-called “rogue” outposts, is considered illegal according to international law and conventions.
When they were in their 60s, my own parents were among the founders of a settlement in the northern West Bank, where they spent the rest of their days. They were firm believers in the absolute and exclusive right of the Jewish people to its biblical homeland, and remained committed to making their personal contribution to their cause to the very end.
They were guided by Lehi’s “18 Principles of Rebirth” essay, which defined biblical Israel as starting at the Nile and reaching to the Euphrates River – a vast territory that includes parts of Egypt and Saudi Arabia, most of Jordan and Syria, and all of Lebanon. Incidentally, a large number of Israeli right-wingers, among them Netanyahu and members of his government, admire Lehi and its principles – including, at least in spirit, its territorial desires.
Immediately after the 1967 war, the Syrian population of the Golan Heights (some 130,000 people) was forced out by Israel, 1948-style, leaving the territory largely empty for Israeli colonization to take root. Israel’s annexation of the Golan Heights followed in 1981. (Netanyahu is now seeking U.S. recognition from Trump of Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights.)
Erasing the past
And the Nakba continued. The initial period after the 1967 war included a number of known cases where West Bank villagers were expelled from their homes by an Israeli military command attributed to Gen. Yitzhak Rabin. Among them were the villages of Imwas, Yalo and Bayt Nuba in the Latrun area, which were subsequently razed. (I visited the three destroyed villages in August 1967. There was very little left other than broken stones and fruit trees bursting with fruit left unpicked by villagers, now turned refugees.) In an attempt to eradicate the villages from history and erase them from public memory, the victors attempted to conceal their crimes by planting a recreational forest, named Canada Park, on the land formerly owned and cultivated by these villagers – a concealment method that had been used before.
As for the rest of the West Bank, in a slow process that has lasted nearly 50 years – and which continues to this day – the Palestinian population has been stripped of much of its land and pushed into Bantustan-like areas surrounded by Jewish settlements. The territory is now dissected into enclaves designed by Israel to assure a discontinuity of Palestinian land, thereby guaranteeing that a viable Palestinian state cannot be established.
“Facts on the ground” work in both directions: the presence of one population (Jewish) and the absence of another (Palestinian). Now, most of the Jordan Valley has been cleared of the Palestinian population; in hamlets of the poorest population – the Hebron Hills Bedouin – families are routinely uprooted and forced out of their shacks.
And throughout the West Bank, bit by bit, “a dunam here and a dunam there,” Palestinians are forced out by Jews. Houses are demolished, land is taken or its cultivation is prevented; olive groves are uprooted by settler thugs with full impunity, under the watchful gaze of Israel’s occupation army – euphemistically called the Israel Defense Forces. And Israeli government policy greatly restricts Palestinians in the West Bank from using their land and natural resources, especially water required to cultivate crops.
Thus, while Israeli settlements enjoy unrestricted water usage with lawn sprinklers galore, Palestinian farmers who dig out a 10-foot-long (3-meter) trench to collect and divert rainwater into a field or vegetable garden risk punishment and the destruction of their fields and gardens.
And the Nakba continues. A similar crackdown on Israel’s Palestinian citizens takes place with predictable regularity along similar patterns – as witnessed most recently by the destruction of the Bedouin village of Umm al-Hiran, whose population is to be corralled elsewhere in the Negev and its lands designated for a new Jewish settlement. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
This is a very short list of the evils of Israel’s occupation – all of this, and much more, has been widely reported over the past five decades, and documented in great detail by UN agencies, multiple international aid organizations, foreign consulate staff and local civic organizations, both Palestinian and Israeli. (The death and destruction in Gaza, its collapsed infrastructure, economy, essential public health facilities, child nutrition and basic resources of livelihood require separate coverage.)
The Oslo II (“Taba”) Agreement divided the West Bank into Areas A, B and C – a division that is used by Israel to divide and rule, confine and control the local Palestinian population.
The experience of 1948 and the early years of statehood have proven most beneficial to Zionist colonialism. A slow and methodical acquisition of land, this time by means that are entirely illegal, coupled with strategic removal and confinement of the Palestinian population, resulted in settlement blocs – vast land areas that are largely Arab-free and a network of highways, other infrastructure projects and state institutions serving the Jewish-only settlements.
This is nothing short of new-age apartheid, where the indigenous population is not only of no value to its colonial masters – not even as a source of cheap labor – but it is essential for the success of the colonial project that it be removed: the more of “them” that are gone, the better off “we” are. That people-removal process is called ethnic cleansing, which is a crime against humanity under the statute of the International Criminal Court.
All of this has been carried out mostly in plain view, under the world’s watchful eye. It has also been made possible and indirectly funded by the United States, under Democratic and Republican administrations alike – notwithstanding outgoing President Barack Obama’s lame-duck UN Security Council non-veto move, and various U.S. declarations about Israeli settlements being “a threat to peace,” or making it “almost impossible … to create a contiguous, functioning Palestinian state.” Both true, but meaningless.
Despite the rhetoric, the United States has been the primary enabler of Israel’s occupation: military aid (currently $38 billion over the next 10 years), including the very latest technologies, and close military coordination; tax exemptions for donations to Israel, including to organizations that fund settlements; global diplomatic protection; and the lending of legitimacy to a state whose actions would have otherwise made it a global pariah long ago.
Thus, under the guise of a never-ending “peace process,” the United States has acted as a dishonest broker and purveyor of broken promises, e.g., a “two-state solution” where the territory of the imagined state is eaten up by the other, already existing regional-superpower state while “peace talks” continue. It’s like the pizza analogy where two parties engage in lengthy negotiations over the splitting of a pie, while one of them keeps eating the slices. Over these past 50 years, the United States has facilitated the replacement of the Palestinian people, bit by bit, one dunam and one person at a time, as Israel grabs every opportunity that arises, paid for by Uncle Sam.
For Israel, the election of Trump to the highest office in the land presents a historical opportunity on a grand scale to accelerate both settlement expansion and the process of people replacement.
Never before has a U.S. president expressed such unbridled support for an Israeli government – especially one that is widely seen as the most right-wing, aggressive Israeli government ever.
In light of the new opportunity, the Israeli government has unleashed a wave of settlement construction permits in the West Bank and East Jerusalem – so far totaling about 6,000 homes for Jewish settlers – and announced the creation of a new settlement.
In addition, a new law allowing the confiscation of privately held Palestinian land for the benefit of Jewish settlements was recently passed. As journalist Jonathan Cook explained in The National, “In practice, there has never been a serious limit on theft of Palestinian land. But now Israeli government support for the plunder will be explicit in law.” The Nakba continues, vigorously.
Reality could not be much uglier and the future could not look much bleaker – most especially for Palestinians, but also for Israeli Jews. As Haaretz writer and occupation expert Amira Hass noted, “It’s hard to admit that the Zionist ideology and its product – Israel – have created a thieving, racist, arrogant monster that robs water and land and history, that has blood on its hands under the excuse of security, that for decades has been deliberately planning today’s dangerous Bantustan reality, on both sides of the Green Line.”
Perhaps hard to admit, but crucially important to recognize.
The writer, a former Israeli, has lived in the United States for 45 years.
http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.776450
Getting back to the main title of your article, Professor Falk, where is the UN Secretary-General? He is silent with the US violating International Law and UN Principles not only with impunity, but without critique. I believe Gene when he said The UN under American hegemony remains as neutered as always.
Undeterred by the disastrous commando raid on Yemen in the first days of his Administration, where plenty of civilians were killed but the target got away, President Donald Trump has escalated US military involvement in the tragic Yemen conflict to an unprecedented level. In fact as Foreign Policy reports, the US President has bombed Yemen more in the past week than President Obama (no peacenik) has bombed in a year.
But although the US escalation in Yemen is sold back home as another aggressive front in the war against al-Qaeda, in fact US operations in Yemen are actually helping al-Qaeda as well as its chief sponsor, Saudi Arabia.
The problem is that because his advisors are increasingly drawn from the neocon camp, the advice he is given is filtered through the “noble lie” that the neocons view as the central tenet of their faith. Thus even though the main enemies of al-Qaeda in Yemen are the Houthis, because Trump has been sold the neocon lie that the Houthis are Iranian proxies Trump is droning Yemen back to the stone age to the advantage of al-Qaeda and Saudi Arabia, who are on the same side.
While it is arguable that the President has authority under the authorization for the use of military force against those attacked us on 9/11 to attack al-Qaeda in Yemen, very few would argue that such authorization extends to actually helping al-Qaeda in Yemen.
Meanwhile, US drone attacks are killing civilians in Yemen and contributing to the genocide of the Yemeni people whose only crime is to have rejected a president who ran unopposed — a US-backed “Arab Spring” candidate — and who immediately approved US drone strikes on his own country.
The Trump State Department is going all in. A sale of anti-Houthi weapons to Saudi Arabia that even the Obama administration rejected was hastily approved by the new Administration and soon will be deployed in Saudi Arabia’s war of aggression against its neighbor.
The Trump Administration is doubling down on all of President Obama’s mistakes. Siding with al-Qaeda in Yemen on the false notion that it is fighting a proxy war against Iran.
The neocons are running circles around the new US President. Deal-maker? On foreign affairs, he’s more like a vulnerable rube walking into a used car lot populated by shark car salesmen.
By the way, the Pentagon just finished investigating the Pentagon over the disastrous Yemen raid — where scores of civilians were gunned down by the US military in cold blood but they missed the claimed target. It may shock you, but the Pentagon found that the Pentagon had done nothing wrong. Investigation complete!
The original source of this article is http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/peace-and-prosperity/2017/march/09/bomb-the-shstart-out-of-them-trump-drones-yemen-more-in-one-week-than-obama-in-a-year/
Ray, plenty of good study info in your last contributions. Would add that there was never any intention on the part of the UK or Zionists to be concerned about the Palestinians – now or then. Plenty of documents regarding intent on that note.The opposition to Zionism was because it might affect the status of Jews living successfully in other countries.
What kind of people can destroy over 500 villages and drive out 750,000 inhabitants, unceasingly expropriate more of their land/homes/agriculture, and encircle them in holding pens like Area A and Gaza?? What kind of people can slur Richard Falk for unrelentingly calling them to account for this injustice? The answer is known but best to blame the Arabs and falsify history.
The Arabs attacked the State of Israel in 1948 with the declared aim of destroying it. As a result of this war a de facto exchange of populations occurred. To a certain extent Jews expelled Arabs and to a certain extent Arabs expelled Jews. To a certain extent Jews fled from Arab countries and to a certain extent Arabs fled from the Jewish state. Each side took up positions behind armistice lines and remained there in an unresolved conflict and continuing state of war which had created new demographic realities. The Arabs then initiated a new war in 1967, as a result of which the West Bank was occupied, specifically after an unprovoked and indiscriminate attack on Israel by Jordan. There is not a word of the above that you will not find confirmed by the Arabs themselves, from their motives and intentions in 1948 to Hussein’s explanation of his attack in 1967. This is the real history, as is the Khartoum Declaration of no peace, no negotiations, no recognition. Certainly the Arabs are to blame. They could have had a flourishing state in the West Bank if they hadn’t been thirsty for Jewish blood.
Laurie,
As the Palestinians are unconcerned with engaging in direct negotiations leading to a two state solution, there is no urgency in resolving the conflict on the part of Mahmoud Abbas. How long will the so-called “occupation” of disputed land continue? That is strictly up to Mr. Abbas. As Palestinians are driven by an arrogant, greedy, self-centered sense of entitlement to “all the land between the river (Jordan) and the sea (Mediterranean),” there is unlikely to be any negotiations during Mr. Abbas’ lifetime, much less that of his successors.
In 2000, Yassir Arafat was offered over 90% of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza, in exchange for peace; he rejected the offer and died with dreams of Palestinian statehood unfulfilled. In 2008, Mahmoud Abbas was offered essentially the same, if not more generous offer; he ignored it, thus forfeiting Palestinian claims to any part of Jerusalem.
What kind of people would drive out the 80% Jewish majority of Israel? Hamas and Fatah, both of which in their founding documents reject any concept of peaceful coexistence.
See:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/plocov.asp
and
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp
As the Palestinian-Israeli conflict remains static, Israeli, Saudi-Arabian and the Gulf Cooperation Council interests are converging against a more potent common enemy, Iran, which funds and supports terrorist organizations, such as Hezbollah and Hamas. As Article 51 of the United Nations Charter recognizes Israel’s exercise of its “inherent right to individual, or collective self-defense,” there will certainly be further wars. “Operation Defensive Edge” is a prelude of what is to come and both Fatah and Hamas remain willing to pay the price in terms of lives lost and infrastructure destroyed.
Mike, Yes, it’s worthwhile to read once again the Palestine National Charter – especially the links in Article 19 and 20. Albeit there are many subsequent documents, this is a good history of the combined UK and Zionist duplicity involved.
The Hamas documents aren’t worth reading except as an example of more theological fascism.
Laurie,
The documents I cited were drafted and adopted by the Palestinians themselves, not by the British, or Israelis. The Arabs initiated two wars in 1948 and 1967, both of which they lost, and as you should be well aware, initiating wars which are lost will have adverse consequences. The Palestinians have painted themselves into a corner from which there is no escape, other than direct negotiations with Israel as required under UNSCR 242:
“Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement
of the sovereignty, territorial integrity, and political independence of every state in the area
and the right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or
acts of force.”
In the 23 years since the enactment of the Oslo Accords, the Palestinians have had and squandered the opportunity to diplomatically resolve the conflict, and thus end the “occupation.” The “occupation” persists with the express acquiescence and cooperation of Mahmoud Abbas, as was the case with his predecessor, Yasser Arafat. Arafat died with his aspirations for independent statehood unfulfilled, as Abbas is intent on doing and as most likely, will the next generation of Palestinian leadership. While a negotiated two-state solution would be the most expeditious means of resolving the conflict and providing Palestinians a state of their own, yet they refuse that option in favor of further wars, in which the outcome is most likely poor, based on the outcomes of previous wars. Occupations end with peace treaties, as with the case of the post World War II occupations of the defeated Axis powers. This occupation will end when the Palestinians are ready to negotiate its end, not before!
Mike, Perhaps you need to look at the document you referenced once again. Palestinian Charter and Articles 19 and 20 refer to the illegal impediments which justifies their rejection. The UN and UK cannot do what they did legally/morally/honestly – Balfour and Partition Plan.
I don’t play Hasbara frisbee; I mistook you for being legit.
Laurie,
The Balfour Declaration and the Partition of the British Mandate were legitimate at the time that the Mandate was in effect (During the League of Nations and then under Article 80 of the U.N. Charter, incorporated by the U.N.). If UNGAR 181 is not binding on the Palestinians, neither is it binding on the Israelis, who may then assert a right to the entire territory of the former Mandate.
Palestinians taking that perspective will only ensure that there will be further wars and that the so-called “occupation” of disputed land will continue. As Thucydides, Historian of the Peloponnesian War, phrased it in the Melian Dialogue: “The strong do what they will and the weak suffer what they must.” While a negotiated resolution of the conflict may be the preferred means of resolving the conflict, and the Israelis have a significant military edge, the Palestinians prefer to “suffer what they must.”
Richard, on the subject of Erasing the UN, I expect you will have a comment on the UN wanting to erase your joint report with professor of political science at Southern Illinois University at Carbondale Virginia Tilley, “Israeli Practices towards the Palestinian, People and the Question of Apartheid.”
Independent of your report, what I have read in The Jerusalem Post, Haaretz, Times of Israel, and other online news sources over many years, has me convinced this is the unfolding reality in Israel.
My question upstream, “where is the UN Secretary-General” has been answered.
Unlike the Head of the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia who hosted the report, and resigned on Principle when instructed by the UNSG to remove it, shows he’s in the pocket of the US-Israel who claim to believes in Democratic Free speech that is favourable to them, but has no tolerance for Democratic dissent.
Richard, it rare enough for anyone to resign from a high profile public position on Principle, but Rima Khalaf, unnamed in my comment above, was also Under-Secretary-General of the UN, saying, “I resigned because it is my duty not to conceal a clear crime, and I stand by all the conclusions of the report.”
Jonathan Ofir wrote an excellent synopsis of your banned report titled ‘Apartheid wears a veil’ in Mondoweiss yesterday.
One could summate and analyze much more, but the report is available for all to read. The report concludes (final page),
“on the basis of overwhelming evidence, that Israel is guilty of the crime of apartheid”.
This is no light notion. Apartheid is a crime against humanity – as mentioned, second only to Genocide.
If the scholarly integrity of this conclusion is to be criticized, it should follow a serious, detailed and scholarly review. The tarnish campaign by Israel and USA has so far not even addressed the critical issues brought forth by the report. It would appear that the intent is to bury it altogether, and avoid the discussion.
While the report reads cogently like a book, it was not meant as a book. It was meant as a tool for political action. Although its official path through the UN appears to have been blocked, it should serve as an important tool for study, appraisal and activism.
The discussion is now in the open, whether Israel and its patrons like it or not.
http://mondoweiss.net/2017/03/apartheid-wears-veil/
IF only the UN Secretary-General would resign for not doing his job. He sold his soul in a Faustian bargain for prestige and an Apartment in NYC?
The US was in violation of International Law and UN Principles for invading Iraq without UN permission. The whole world knows the UNSG denied the US Legal cover to do it, and continues it’s undermining of the World Order with it’s illegal armed forces in Syria, Yemen, and so many other places in this world.
It appears the US and Israel are the only ‘exceptional’ Nations, and International Law doesn’t apply to them, but to others.
The UNSG certainly doesn’t have the Integrity of this man, described in these circumstances:
Again, the devil takes him up into an exceeding high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;
And said to him, All these things will I give you, if you will fall down and worship me.
Then Jesus said to him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, You shall worship the Lord your God, and him only shall you serve.
THE NATION
The Inside Story on Our UN Report Calling Israel an Apartheid State
A people cannot be permanently repressed in all these ways without viewing the structure that has emerged as an apartheid regime.
By Richard Falk
March 22, 2017
https://www.thenation.com/article/the-inside-story-on-our-un-report-calling-israel-an-apartheid-state/
MIDDLE EAST EYE
March 24, 2017
UN Israel ‘apartheid’ report: Richard Falk’s UK talks are cancelled
Princeton professor says Zionist NGOs are attacking his character rather than debating content of UN report after two universities cancel talks
http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/uk-universities-cancel-talks-professor-after-co-authoring-israeli-apartheid-report-1398069373