On What the Pope Taught

30 May

 

 

            I am not surprised that there are such contradictory reactions to Pope Francis’ recent visit to Palestine and Israel. To begin with, there are sharply divergent views about the Catholic Church, and the papacy itself. Understandably for some, the complicity of the Catholic hierarchy with the shocking prevalence of sexual abuse by priests of young boys seems institutionally discrediting in the extreme. The anti-modern cult of celibacy and a failure to allow women to participate equally in the life of the Catholic Church furthers undermine its moral authority given the changing realities of the 21st century.

 

            Beyond this there are questions raised about Pope Francis’s own past, whether he was far too passive during the time of the ‘dirty war’ in Argentina, and too slow to favor the humane treatment of homosexuality. He has always chosen a simple life for himself, dedicating his pastoral efforts to benefit the poor, and being active as a leader in inter-faith activities. Since becoming Pope these virtues have been the signatures of his leadership, earning him praise and love from around the world, and helping us understand why his acts of devotion have been so widely seen, and an inspirational alternative to what is passed off as ‘global leadership’ in Washington.

 

            Unavoidably, his visit itself has been parsed in many ways and spun in all directions. Some insist that he should never have crossed the line separating religion and politics as he did when he made it clear he was visiting ‘the state of Palestine’ and not the ‘Occupied Palestinian Territories.’ Others complained that in such a situation of oppression and inequality, his carefully orchestrated efforts to acknowledge both sides equally actually gave rise to a false impression. In this respect, it was not acceptable and politically misleading to pay homage at the grave of Theodore Herzl, the founder of Zionism, or to treat Shimon Peres as a man of peace. Still others fault the Pope for not calling attention to the plight of Gaza or the threats confronting Bedouin communities.

 

            In my view, perhaps overstated, such carping misses the point, and manifests a disabling form of blindness. What was worth seeing, and only this, was the Pope bowed in prayer at the Bethlehem apartheid wall. It was this electrifying image, and the related story about how young Palestinian boys dared defy Israeli soldiers by writing welcoming graffiti behind where the Pope stood that makes the visit an unforgettable, even if unintended, affirmation of the Palestinian struggle against multiple forms of injustice. What will allow us to see better in the senses meant here is to appreciate why this image was and is so electrifying, will endure, and why the various commentaries, criticisms, and calumnies will soon to be forgotten.

 

            What we need to realize, whether we like it or not, is that the Catholic Church by its sheer presence, persistence, and resilience occupies a distinctively deep place in the thinking and feeling of people throughout the world, including tens of millions of non-Catholics. And the pope as the leader of Catholicism, in ritual and doctrine, enjoys a spiritual power of pronouncement without needing to utter a single word. And when that power is used charismatically, as at the wall, no cascade of words can suffice to offset the impact of such a potent image and metaphor. The Israeli Prime Minister vainly informed the world that the wall was there to prevent suicide bombing and had contributed to Israeli security since its partial construction more than a decade ago. It is equally irrelevant to refute this claim or to argue in opposition that the World Court had declared a wall built deep in Palestine amounted to an unlawful confiscation of land, imposing hardships, and should be dismantled and compensation paid for harm done.

 

            The Pope is not a lawyer nor is it a time to engage the controversy about the security functions of the wall. What counts, and all that counts, is that the wall has become a devastating image and metaphor of injustice and oppression, with Israelis as the perpetrators and Palestinians as the victims. Hany Abu-Assad’s fine film, Omar, a finalist for best foreign film at this year’s Academy Awards ceremony, also used the wall as the dominant wordless metaphor of what it meant for Palestinian lives to endure oppression day by day, showing its reality for all those with eyes that see.

 

            Reacting to injustice is above all a visual and visceral experience. This is what Pope Francis has taught us. But first we must open our eyes, and keep them open. The greatest writers also perform their magic with language mostly by redirecting our line of vision.

About these ads

62 Responses to “On What the Pope Taught”

  1. Kata Fisher May 30, 2014 at 10:04 am #

    I have a reflection:

    Celibacy of priesthood and not ordaining the women in the Church Catholic are inflexible items for the modern Catholic Church.

    This is why as I understand:

    In the beginning, the Church was Charismatic, and God’s Spirit converted Jews and non-Jews: teaching, preaching and ministry of Church Charismatic were primarily Church order and practice. They took husbands and wife’s who were in God’s Spirit baptized by free Fall of God’s Sprit/ Church Charismatic and/or they were in a valid and confirmed Faith. They did not allow sexual immorality – they applied judgment according to the Gospel on their Church members. They produced holy offspring.

    Meaning, at the beginning it has made no difference if the Church Charismatic Leader/s was married – or not. In Church Catholic contemporarily – we do not forbid priest to marry –but we refuse to marry the priest. Neither women nor the priest in the Church Catholic contemporarily is Charismatic in every single parish/ diocese in order to have a valid Church marriage that can really serve the Church and order of it.

    Just recently, there was a report, in summary: Twenty and some (sexually abused by priest) grown up women from Italy (in illicit sexual relationships with the priest) wrote petition letter to the Pope Francis to allow marriages for the priest. Their argument is that their suffering “being in love” is in a direct correlation with Church inflexibility on “married priest.” These women are not in love as they claim, and actually are the victims of sexually immoral man and /or very own bewitchments. Their illicit sexual relationships act as spiritual defilement and spiritual attack against the Church.

    The Church is flexible when comes to a celibate / married priest – priest can marry when tempted against his spiritual vows, and can also move to any other religious order within Catholic Church/branch and outside of the Catholic Church. They cannot practice a priesthood order of the Church Catholic contemporarily. They are fall of from Faith/order of the Faith.

    In order for Church to marry a priest, and allow for not celibate priesthood order in the Church Catholic would have to be met with a deep redefining what Church practices and believes are. Meaning, every single priest would have to be in a valid Charismatic order before they take on priestly ordination, and their wives/wives to become as well would have to be Charismatic – in order to practice a Biblical “married priest/pastor order.”

    Celebrity order is most beloved order according to the Gospel. It is not inflexible command in Church Catholic Charismatic, but it is an inflexible rule that is based on the condition of the Church and the order of the Church.

    If they start marring the priest and ordain the women, we as Catholics will look one day as chaotic protestant denominations- without any set institutional Church structure! Historic church splits took place because of sexual immorality and abuse of the Church orders.

    When comes to allowing women deeper role in Church – this does not mean that women Biblically can be ordained. Ordaining women is a church crime. It is heretical practice and a church-crime against the Church and the Gospel. First, it takes woman outside her appointed calling/purpose and also places both her as woman and the Church under Spiritual attack and judgment of God upon those who practice this heretical evil against women and the Church, and sacramental order of the Church. If women practices this evil by her own will-power she is under jugment of God/given over to will of Satan.

    If woman has any appointed purpose in the Church – for any reason, and occasionally lay-women will – this cannot be hindered, nor will it be hindered. With that, there is no need for lay-women having any role in the Church, unless she is God-directed and purpose that she may have would be God accomplished anyhow. Involving of woman with the Church issues should be very low, and in addition to that, she would never be on her own, but always in oversee of a Bishop/priest, who is Charismatic, at least.

    Nuns in Church Catholic are as a valid religious order of women and their role is enormous, apart from any need to ordain any lay-woman.

    All problems with sexual abuse in the Church Catholic and any other problems is because they do not ordain the priest in a valid way, rather their version what valid ordination is.
    They do not practice same order of Faith that was practiced with first few generations of the Church institution.

  2. david singer May 30, 2014 at 5:27 pm #

    Professor Falk

    You admit the Pope crossed the line separating religion and politics.

    What you didn’t acknowledge is that Pope’s action in so doing breached Clause 11(2) of the 1993 Fundamental Agreement between the Holy See and the State of Israel which provides:
    “The Holy See, while maintaining in every case the right to exercise its moral and spiritual teaching-office, deems it opportune to recall that owing to its own character, it is solemnly committed to remaining a stranger to all merely temporal conflicts, which principle applies specifically to disputed territories and unsettled borders.”

    The Pope – as Head of the Holy See – has certainly sent a clear signal to Israel that it can no longer rely on any written agreement made by it with the Holy See.

    If Israel can’t trust the Pope to honour a written agreement – then can Israel trust the PLO or Hamas to honour any written agreements – if they ever got to that point?

    Your passing comment that the “Pope is not a lawyer” ignores the maxim that “ignorance of the law is no defence” – especially so when that law specifically applies to the Pope..

    You call this “carping”

    No wonder there is so much conflict in the world today.

    Law, the rule of law and respect for the rule of law should be the sole determinants in resolving differences between people and States.

    You are an Emeritus Professor of Law and I would expect you to agree.

    Do you?

    • Kata Fisher May 30, 2014 at 6:04 pm #

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlo_Maria_Vigan%C3%B2

      Dear David Singer:

      Yes, the rule of the Law…unless the Law of the Spirit overlaps with the rule of the Law.
      Yes, the Pope would not be a Lawyer according to his calling in Holy See. Pope is a Jesuits order.
      I doubt that Pope Francis can see and understand all spiritual realities that are legal strongholds of evil in the past, and present, and that can be in near/far away future when comes to the Holy Land and landmarks of it.
      The Law of Spirit applies in order to clarify all that, and make no additional mistakes with establishing any landmark in the area of Holy Land.

      Fr. Vigano would be a Lawyer of the Holy See.

      • David Singer May 30, 2014 at 10:47 pm #

        Kata

        I am not sure what you mean by the Law of the Spirit.

        What I do know is that hundreds of millions of human beings have no regard for any religion – but every human being must obey and be bound by the rule of law.

        The Pope is no exception.

        Fr Vigano will hopefully let the Pope know what damage his intrusion into the temporal conflict has caused as a result of his breaching a written agreement made by the Holy See with Israel.

      • Kata Fisher May 31, 2014 at 7:10 am #

        I believe that Fr.Vigano understands the Law of the Spirit; he is equipped and qualified.

        Yes, the Pope has had difficulty balancing out his formal obligations with the purpose of his calling. One good thing was that he has spontaneously managed his calling and has invited leaders so that they may pray together. He should just focus on that – reconciliation.
        His purpose is grounded on interfaith fellowship and service to the poor. He should just focus on that – reconciliation and Palastenians in prison issue.

        It is very loss for the Church that Popes Francis formal itinerary was not based on his calling and purpose, and has not included a visit to the imprisoned Palestinians.

        I believe that the reconciliation and whole person ministry/service to imprisoned Palatines, prior to their release, are key items in a valid direction. All other things that can and/or should take place will be just added on.

      • David Singer May 31, 2014 at 3:13 pm #

        Kata

        The Pope should just stick to what he agreed. By departing from that principle, events are set in train that should not occur if there had been no breach of that agreement in the first instance. Such behaviour is the genesis of conflict.

    • Gene Schulman May 31, 2014 at 8:38 am #

      @ David Singer:

      If Israel followed the rule of law it would still be honoring the borders established in 1948. These were set by international law, and so far as I know, the law has not changed. The Pope is a human being just like other and has no jurisdiction over anything but his own faithful followers. His actions or statements have no meaning for me, except as they hinder, by nature of exclusivity, universal brotherhood. To be fair, I believe the same about Judaism, Islam, and all other organized religions.

      • Kata Fisher May 31, 2014 at 10:02 am #

        Dear Gene,
        Faiths and different religions that are organized and disorganized in the world are a reality.
        The Landmark that was given is not valid based on the 1948 marks because it violated will of the people in the Holy Land.
        It was imputed onto the people by the will of few individuals and a foreign land, and push on to as will against few foreign lands to accept the rule of the Landmark for the Holy Land that they came up with in their group-think.
        The rule of that typo for /of that landmark has violated the will of the people in Holy Land.
        Let’s look a back further then 1948 – who stole and/or has manipulated the Holy Land territory, and when? Who and when? So, what must exactly be given back?
        In 1948, UN was not a fully established and a valid world-governing at that time, and is still a govrening by major shortfall.

        Now this is debatable…

      • David Singer May 31, 2014 at 5:20 pm #

        Kata

        I agree with you.

        We need to go back beyond 1948 – but to where?

        I believe it should be 1917 when the current temporal conflict began with the Balfour Declaration.

        The problem is that the PLO – Israel’s current negotiating partner – says everything decided in international law since the Balfour declaration is “null and void”

        That means the Mandate for Palestine unanimously endorsed by all 51 member States of the League of Nations can be ignored and trashed.

        The law is not always fair or just in the eyes of many – but we ignore or break it at our peril.

        What regulates our relationships with each other is the law.

        The PLO ‘ s failure to observe the law – encouraged by an overwhelming number of UN member States – is fuelling a conflict that should have been resolved long ago.

        The Pope has now apparently decided to abandon temporal law by breaking a written agreement with Israel binding on him

        Regretfully this can only be a recipe for encouraging the PLO to do likewise and ensure future conflict.

      • Kata Fisher May 31, 2014 at 10:23 am #

        I have a reflection:

        The group-think typo has violated the UN charter, and, therefore, has also violated the governing by the UN charter and with that it was possible to violate the will of the people in Holy Land, as well.

        Meaning, 1948 landmarks for Holy Land were against the Law by which it was established, and are totally invalid.

        Where else can you see anything like that?

      • Kata Fisher May 31, 2014 at 10:39 am #

        I have another reflection:

        If there would be a two state solution – would this then mean that “Partition Plan” would be fully accomplished, against the will of people in Holy Land, but not in 1948 yet in another year upon offspring on those who have rejected original lawlessness based on false requirement of it…and even so a two state solution would be still violating that original UN charter by which this “Partition Plan” was established?

        Thinking on this what was done in 1948 was irrational, and really how far that irrationality will continue in its way – from one point in time, yet to another point in time?

        It created an apartheid state of existence/existence of a state, just in anoter package?

      • David Singer May 31, 2014 at 4:27 pm #

        Gene

        No borders were established in 1948

        No borders were set or have been set by international law to this day.

        An armistice line was established between Israel and Jordan in 1949 under the Jordanian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, April 3, 1949

        The following clause is included:

        “It is also recognized that no provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims and positions of either Party hereto in the ultimate peaceful settlement of the Palestine question, the provisions of this Agreement being dictated exclusively by military considerations.”

        That Armistice Line still exists in 2014.

        Ignoring this Agreement and referring instead to the “1949 armistice line” as the “1967 border” has been a major cause of the ongoing conflict since 1967.

        Another Agreement – like that with the Holy See – that has not been honoured – causing disastrous consequences for both Arabs and Jews.

        The Pope’s actions or statements may have no meaning for you. They certainly did for Professor Falk and I am sure hundreds of millions like him who are not Catholics.

        The Pope is a person of inestimable influence.

        It is incumbent that he lead by example and not breach legal agreements that bind him.

      • Kata Fisher May 31, 2014 at 7:06 pm #

        Dear David,

        I am in a total agreement with you about this, and Fr. Vigano should help you manage what it is not managed. I am limited.

        Professor Falk will understand what you understand.

        Fr. Vigano is my diplomatic oversee, as I fall under his oversee and area of appointing. Fr. Vigano can manage the Pope and this.

    • pointblanc1231 May 31, 2014 at 5:54 pm #

      “The greatest writers also perform their magic with language mostly by redirecting our line of vision.”

      I am not going to hold my breath waiting for these guys to do anything meaningful or effective.

      They are an unholy and unreliable lot, no better than the rest of the politicians and Corporate heads, hopelessly enslaved by jewish money and jewish power who prey on the little boys’ parents, and big and small brothers and sisters as well!

      Israel is on the road to self-destruction from within. The Catholic Church did it to themselves long ago. Both of them suffer the same malady, that of maintaining appearances, painting the house, while the termites devour it with impunity, until there is nothing left but the pretty, painted shell of a whore, which eventually collapses under the weight of layers upon layers of makeup and paint.

      Similarly,and tragically each of them will die, holding all of the money, if not the cards, and leaving no beneficiaries in their wills.

      • Kata Fisher June 1, 2014 at 9:39 am #

        This has cut through the realm of the spirit, and it was in a sound:

        “The Pope should just stick to what he agreed. By departing from that principle, events are set in train that should not occur if there had been no breach of that agreement in the first instance. Such behaviour is the genesis of conflict.”

  3. Gene Schulman June 1, 2014 at 4:34 am #

    David, I stand corrected: Armistice line. But even that is not respected. Israel refuses to establish borders because it assumes the ultimate border will be all of Palestine, and until that is accomplished will continue its ethnic cleansing. All of the Pope’s inestimable influence doesn’t make him, or those who follow him, correct. The burden is on Israel and its backer, the USA, which do not seem to be at all influenced by the Pope’s moral expressions.

    • David Singer June 1, 2014 at 5:37 pm #

      Gene

      I am glad that you now acknowledge there are no “1967 boundaries” – only a 1949 Armistice Line drawn up on the basis of an Armistice Agreement in 1949.

      That Armistice Agreement was breached in 1967 when Jordan crossed the Armistice Line to attack Israel – after first having being warned to stay out of the Six Day War by Israel.

      The breach of the Armistice Agreement ultimately resulted in another cease fire with the passing of Security Council Resolution 242 – which recognized that Israel was entitled to secure and recognized boundaries in any final settlement with its Arab neighbours.

      Israel was certainly not going to withdraw to the Armistice Line for a second time after Jordan had breached it.

      Therefore the uncompromising and unyielding demand by the PLO for the last 47 years that Israel withdraw to the Armistice Line (which it misleadingly calls “the 1967 boundaries”) – thus rewarding those who breached it – is not required by any law whatsoever.

      Israel is entitled to take the view that the Armistice Line is not the basis to become a secure and recognized border.

      But if the PLO continues to ignore Resolution 242 and continue to demand Israel return to the 1949 Armistice Line – we are only setting the stage for further conflict.

      The PLO is a serial lawbreaker making it clear that everything that happened in international law since 1917 is null and void.

      With that attitude it is no wonder the 130 years old Jewish- Arab conflict remains unresolved.

      • Gene Schulman June 2, 2014 at 12:34 am #

        David, please don’t put words in my mouth. I admitted that the 1948 boundary was the armistice line. I said nothing about the 1967 lines. I do not agree with your description of what followed, because according to many sources what you say is just not true. The 1967 war was begun by Israel, and is still the bone of contention in the ongoing crisis.

      • Richard Falk June 2, 2014 at 6:58 am #

        Yes, Gene, your understanding is increasingly shared, especially
        in light of John Quigley’s authoritative book on the 1967 War based
        on archival research, published a few years ago by Cambridge University
        Press.

      • Gene Schulman June 2, 2014 at 7:22 am #

        Thanks for the tip, Richard.

        I haven’t read Quigley’s book, but among others, I find Tom Segev’s “1967” to be very authoritative. I am now waiting for Jeremy Hammond’s new book. He kindly sent me a PDF of the first chapter, and it looks very interesting.

      • Gene Schulman June 3, 2014 at 12:04 am #

        Gideon Levy seems to be one of the few voices of reason left in Israel: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article38678.htm

      • david singer June 3, 2014 at 1:48 am #

        Gene

        The 1949 armistice line still remained the armistice line separating Israel and Jordan at the beginning of the 1967 Six Day War

        As to Jordan breaching the armistice line and ignoring Israel’s request to stay out of the war – the following is extracted from Shlaim – The Iron Wall Israel and Arab World pp 243-244;

        “On June 5, Jordan started shelling the Israeli side in Jerusalem. This could have been interpreted either as a salvo to uphold Jordanian honour or as a declaration of war. Eshkol decided to give King Hussein the benefit of the doubt. Through General Odd Bull, the Norwegian commander of UNTSO, he sent the following message the morning of June 5: “We shall not initiate any action whatsoever against Jordan. However, should Jordan open hostilities, we shall react with all our might, and the king will have to bear the full responsibility of the consequences.” King Hussein told General Bull that it was too late”

      • Dan Livni June 2, 2014 at 7:26 am #

        John Quigley left out this info.

        Egypt’s Nasser, May, 30, 1967 after signing a defense pact with Jordan’s King Hussein
        “The armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are poised on the borders of Israel . . . . to face the challenge, while standing behind us are the armies of Iraq, Algeria, Kuwait, Sudan and the whole Arab nation. This act will astound the world. Today they will know that the Arabs are arranged for battle, the critical hour has arrived. We have reached the stage of serious action and not declarations.” –

        “We are now ready to confront Israel …. The issue now at hand is not the Gulf of Aqaba, the Straits of Tiran, or the withdrawal of UNEF, but the … aggression which took place in Palestine … with the collaboration of Britain and the United States.” – Nasser, June 2, 1967

        “Under terms of the military agreement signed with Jordan, Jordanian artillery co-ordinated with the forces of Egypt and Syria is in a position to cut Israel in two at Kalkilya, where Israeli territory between the Jordan armistice line and the Mediterranean Sea is only twelve kilometers wide … .” – El Akhbar newspaper, Cairo, May 31, 1967

        Cairo Radio Statements:

        May 19, 1967: “This is our chance Arabs, to deal Israel a mortal blow of annihilation, to blot out its entire presence in our holy land”

        May 22, 1967: “The Arab people is firmly resolved to wipe Israel off the map”

        May 25, 1967: “The Gulf of Aqaba, by the dictum of history and the protection of our soldiers, is Arab, Arab, Arab.”

        May 25, 1967: “Millions of Arabs are … preparing to blow up all of America’s interests, all of America’s installations, and your entire existence, America.”

        May 27, 1967: “We challenge you, Eshkol, to try all your weapons. Put them to the test; they will spell Israel’s death and annihilation.”

        May 30, 1967: “With the closing of the Gulf of Akaba, Israel is faced with two alternatives either of which will destroy it; it will either be strangled to death by the Arab military and economic boycott, or it will perish by the fire of the Arab forces encompassing it from the South from the North and from the East.”

        May 30, 1967: “The world will know that the Arabs are girded for battle as the fateful hour approaches.”

        Jordan

        “All of the Arab armies now surround Israel. The UAR, Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Yemen, Lebanon, Algeria, Sudan, and Kuwait. … There is no difference between one Arab people and another, no difference between one Arab army and another.” – King Hussein of Jordan, after signing the pact with Egypt May 30, 1967

        Iraq

        “The existence of Israel is an error which must be rectified. This is our opportunity to wipe out the ignominy which has been with us since 1948. Our goal is clear – to wipe Israel off the map. We shall, God willing, meet in Tel Aviv and Haifa.” – President Abdel Rahman Aref of Iraq, May 31, 1967

        Palestinians

        “D-Day is approaching. The Arabs have waited 19 years for this and will not flinch from the war of liberation.” – Ahmed Shukairy, Chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization, May 27, 1967

        “This is a fight for the homeland – it is either us or the Israelis. There is no middle road. The Jews of Palestine will have to leave. We will facilitate their departure to their former homes. Any of the old Palestine Jewish population who survive may stay, but it is my impression that none of them will survive.” – Shukairy, June 1, 1967

        “We shall destroy Israel and its inhabitants and as for the survivors – if there are any – the boats are ready to deport them.” – Shukairy, June 1, 1967, speaking at a Friday sermon in Jerusalem

        Syria

        Syria’s forces are “ready not only to repulse the aggression, but to initiate the act of liberation itself, and to explode the Zionist presence in the Arab homeland. The Syrian army, with its finger on the trigger, is united…. I as a military man, believe that the time has come to enter into a battle of annihilation.” – Syrian Defense Minister Hafez Assad, May 20, 1967

        “Our two brotherly countries have turned into one mobilized force. The withdrawal of the UN forces … means ‘make way, our forces are on their way to battle.'” – Foreign Minister Makhous on his return from Cairo

        Others

        “The freedom of the homeland will be completed by the destruction of the Zionist entity and the expulsion of the Americans and the British from the region.” – Algerian Prime Minister Houari Boumedienne

        “We want war. War is the only way to settle the problem of Israel. The Arabs are ready.” – Yemeni Foreign Minister Salam

      • Kata Fisher June 2, 2014 at 8:08 am #

        Dear David and Gene:

        Having a clear perspective is based on reality, managing our perspective in a valid way acts as a key that achieves solutions.

        In order to active reality – you have to stick to reality.

        The Law is the reality, stick to the Law, and valid application and interpretation of the Law by which you achieve reality.

        Ideas, while helpful can distract from goal-oriented actions…
        Ideas can act as a labyrinth/a maze in which we are lost! Lost in a cycle of a labyrinth of ideas…

        Ideas are not reality and do not become reality unless is/are grounded in natural and spiritual law/substance.

        Ideas, while helpful are unless when depart from the Law/s as reality.

        In summary: interpretation of events and instances will be based on the Law, and no ideas.

        Who can explain 1967 conflict from the perspective of the Law — what took place based on literal and historical context, within boundaries of the law / “lawfulness” of that context.

        1967 conflict needs to be evaluated separately and also in the context of other instances and “lawfulness” of them. I believe anything else will lead to “unless idea’s and invalid perceptions”/interpretation of that very event.

        An anecdote: I came up with a load of theology…I just know my stuff! (Smile).

        An example: In order to have any valid interpretation of Christian Theology the point of the start is the first generation of Christianity in literal and historical context of their existence..

        Law: the point of start.

        Ideas: anything that you have to sort out trough all and/or a waste of our time.

        I hope this is helpful…

      • Dan Livni June 2, 2014 at 9:07 am #

        2 years ago John Quigley wrote an article saying Israel must bring down its wall.
        As someone posted about Quigley.

        Bizarrely, John Quigley does not even mention WHY Israel built the barrier. The reason was to STOP suicide bombers from driving into Israel and KILLING Israeli civilians!

        The barrier – almost all of it is a metal fence, not a wall – has been very successful in saving the lives of Israeli men, women and children.

        The author is so hopelessly partial that he cannot even bring himself to MENTION that the defense barrier was built as a result of hundreds of Israeli deaths, perpetrated by Palestinian terrorists. Perhaps the author could explain why he failed to mention this?
        Thankfully, such barbaric attacks are now almost non-existent.
        The barrier works.

        BTW, many other countries have built and are building barriers to protect their citizens.
        See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/world/2009/walls_around_the_world/default.stm

      • Richard Falk June 2, 2014 at 9:29 am #

        It is doubtful that the wall is responsible for the decline in suicide bombing. There
        are many ways for determined Palestinians to circumvent the wall as large segments remain unfinished. Palestinian resistance activities wisely chose a different path than suicide bombing and the like, mainly for tactical reasons.

        Also, you fail to mention that the International Court of Justice by a 14-1 vote determined that the
        wall as located on occupied Palestinian territory was unlawful, should be dismantled, and Palestinian
        compensated for harm incurred. As usual, Israel defied this verdict by the highest judicial body in
        the world.

  4. Kata Fisher June 2, 2014 at 9:27 am #

    Livni:

    You said this: “The barrier works.”

    The barrier works not!
    The barrier cannot work!
    Barrier has a purpose! Yes, a purpose that is based on what?
    It is based on a valid purpose! At least, a purpose that is made to become a valid one…based on an invalid requirement of the Law that took place in a time-pass…

    I enjoy fun like this all the time!

  5. Kata Fisher June 2, 2014 at 10:30 am #

    I have a reflection:

    Requirement that is based on the Law: valid.
    Requirement that is based on the Faith: valid.
    Requirement that is based on an invalid requirement of the Law: Invalid.
    Requirement that is based on invalid /bad faith: Invalid.
    Requirement of the Faith due to the invalid requirement of the Law: Valid.
    Requirement of the Law, due to invalid/bad requirement of Faith: Valid.
    Requirement of bad faith and the invalid requirement of the law is not valid.

    This outline is an example how I sort my stuff out.

  6. Kata Fisher June 2, 2014 at 9:13 pm #

    I have a reflection:

    Since 2012 Palestine is a “non-member observer state.”

    What does this mean? a) Based on their relationship to UN b) to the world?
    A Neutral state?
    A Null and void state?
    A Null and a valid state?(A neutral state).

    In a null and a valid agreement and/or in a null and a void agreement?

    Now, Gaza has joined in that “neutrality,” too? I just came across that news…
    There are too many of lines/Armistice Agreement and/or lines within Holy Land…I just cannot keep up with everything. What do they mean?

    Someone has to explain those instances and lines and meaning of them, based on the Law/s (all Laws that are appointed). My understanding / perception are limited when comes to the Law.

    Rome is not in agreement with Holy Land when comes to the Israel lines. Specifically, the agreement is with Israel. Based on that, Rome can look specifically at Palestinian /Gaza Landmarks, and else where instead? …in order to understand what is going on.

    David wrote: ” 11(2) of the 1993 Fundamental Agreement between the Holy See and the State of Israel which provides:

    ‘The Holy See, while maintaining in every case the right to exercise its moral and spiritual teaching-office, deems it opportune to recall that owing to its own character, it is solemnly committed to remaining a stranger to all merely temporal conflicts, which principle applies specifically to disputed territories and unsettled borders. ‘ ”

    Are there any other recent for Church in Rome and Holy Land or any other agreements? What kind?

    Church in Rome is an observer state. It can not cross over itself and also cross that UN-condition and become to be a non-observing state. It is an ANull and a valid. (A neutral state).

    Church in Rome/Israel agreement it also interferes with Canon Law based on the judicial position of a person.

    It makes Church in the Rome restricted that can not look and see what is going on — otherwise act as a spy? like a spy based on the “11(2) of the 1993 Fundamental Agreement between the Holy See and” What? A non-existing state based on international Law.

    I may be wrong; I do not understand all of this – I just have ongoing brain-storming about all of this and a instruction in this:

    “Ho una riflessione: Vaticano e altamente irrazionale. Cose con la Santa sede non sono abbastanza di destra. Bastone solo per la Roma e che e accettabile. Questa riflessione ha ho provato la mia mente!”

    Rome is not in agreement with Holy Land when comes to the Lines, God is. I am getting tired of all of this with church issues; it is becoming way to bizarre

    • David Singer June 3, 2014 at 6:44 am #

      Kata

      Palestine is not a State and the Pope with the greatest respect made a fool of himself in suggesting there is such a State.

      Simple test – answer the following questions

      1. What is the capital of Palestine?

      2. What is the population of Palestine?

      3. What are the boundaries of Palestine?

      4. What is the area of Palestine?

      5. What is the currency of Palestine?

      Kata – I bet neither you nor the Pope can answer ” Yes” to all these questions. If you can’t then the State of Palestine is a fiction of the imagination.

      Again the law – the Montevideo Convention – prescribes the conditions necessary for a State

      Just another law ignored by the Pope – but to be fair – by hundreds of millions and the States they live in.

      Talk about being duped….

      • Gene Schulman June 3, 2014 at 7:10 am #

        David,

        I am happy to respond to your questionaire (which is not a yes/no quiz):

        1. The capital of Palestine is Jerusalem.

        2. The population is the combined total of Jews and Arabs living within the borders of Palestine, plus those who wish to return.

        3. The borders are those same borders Israel wishes to cleanse of its Arab population.

        4. The area is the same as within those above mentioned borders.

        5. Currency is probably shekels.

      • david singer June 3, 2014 at 9:40 pm #

        Gene

        Sorry but I will have to fail you on the State of Palestine quiz.

        This State you described simply does not exist. It is a fiction of your imagination.

        Abbas signs his mail “President – State of Palestine”

        He certainly doesn’t exercise control over anything like the area you claim is the State of Palestine.

        He might like to dream of running such a State – but the dream needs to be translated into reality.

        He certainly doesn’t want Jews or Israelis living there as this racist and offensive remark by him on 28 JUNE 2010 made clear

        “I’m willing to agree to a third party that would supervise the agreement, such as NATO forces, but I would not agree to having Jews among the NATO forces, or that there will live among us even a single Israeli on Palestinian land.”

        International law has something to say on this subject – article 1 of the Montevideo Convention – which declares:

        “The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a ) a permanent population; b ) a defined territory; c ) government; and d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.”

        Your State of Palestine fails to meet these requirements.

        Seems as though you and the Pope need to go to the bottom of the class.

      • Kata Fisher June 3, 2014 at 8:02 am #

        Dear Gene and David,

        This is what I understand: a) Palestine is not a state; b) Israel is not a state.

        David is looking from the perspective of the Law: “Yes or No.”
        There is no room to budge when comes to the Law.

        For example, Church Order can be bugged without oversee of the prophets in the Church, but Church cannot budge on any correction of the Canon Law of the Church (Law of the Church/Law of the Spirit) when comes to any changes.

        The Order of the Church overlaps with the Canon Law of the Church – any Church Order that is part of the Canon Law is inflexible item – you have rather to rearrange anything else around it before you can even see if you can budge on it.

        If there is something that should not be in the Canon Law – Church Charismatic under prophetic anointing can pick it up, like a magnet.

        Still, no one can touch anything unless the Spirit of God instructs specific changes. Meaning, you touch nothing without a valid spiritual authority (judicial person in the Church) that is specifically appointed to make any changes – and that in overseeing of the prophetic /teaching office of the Church. Same anointing/same gifts-spiritual that are of God’s Spirit (individualy and in corporate in the Church).

        So, you cannot add or take anything away from the structure of the Church Law.

        I do not know Gene, but the facts are facts. You cannot ignore a single jot or a line to any Laws that are appointed.
        This is just how I feel. These are some realities…

        Dear David: Pope is not in the Order of the teaching office of the Church Charismatic, but we will look and see if he does not stick to the Law of the Spirit.

      • david singer June 3, 2014 at 9:48 pm #

        Kata

        You have got it half right

        Palestine is not a State

        Israel is a State.

        This conclusion is based on Article 1 of the Montevideo Convention which provides:
        “The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a ) a permanent population; b ) a defined territory; c ) government; and d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.”

        Sticking to the law is the best way to regulate international relations. Trying anything else is doomed to fail.

      • Kata Fisher June 3, 2014 at 10:37 pm #

        Dear David,

        I have a reflection:

        Israel is a state. Alternatively Israel has requirements of the state?
        What is the capital of Israel?
        Jerusalem is not the Capital of Israel. If it is, how is it?
        It is, and it is not based on its Israeli/Palestinian conflict because of the Holy sites?
        Holy sites are a neutral / Ecclesiastical and are not item for negotiations.
        Third temple will not be built – the Temple is standing, Jews are worshiping in it, and Jews have built that Temple.
        The 1948 Landmarks of Israel are null and void.
        What is Palestine based on their self-determined achievement/UN recognised? What exactly is that based on International Law.

        The wall/berrier’s line looks like a landmark…(I just realised that).

      • david singer June 4, 2014 at 2:30 am #

        Kata

        “In 1950, the Israeli government changed their capital city to Jerusalem. Jerusalem has been the center of major political battles for many years, and it has been seized and re-seized multiple times by a number of different countries, the most recent being Jordan between 1948-1967 when they controlled the Jerusalem West Bank. Despite this occupation, the city has never been the capital of any other sovereign nation. The entire city was eventually reclaimed in 1967. Then, in 1980, the “Basic Law – Jerusalem” was passed and all diplomatic rights and obligations of the city being designated as the capital were reinstated”
        .http://geography.answers.com/history/israel-capital-city-controversy

        Israel has had total and effective control of of all of Jerusalem since 1967 and being a sovereign state has the right to declare where its capital is located.

      • Kata Fisher June 3, 2014 at 10:54 pm #

        Dear Gene and David:

        A priest told me that a nun that always wrote to Pope had a nickname for Pope: “Baboon.”

        I could not believe that…

        Now every time I see Pope I say, “Baboon.”

      • Kata Fisher June 4, 2014 at 9:04 am #

        Dear David,

        I understand this:

        The Law gives then position of the Jerusalem, meaning it is positioned in the state of Israel. Is this requirement if the law legitimate / valid? It is valid based on freedom and requirements of the Faith (not bad faith). Likewise, Islam has its requirements of the Faith and in a valid standing/relationship with Jerusalem.

        From my perspective, eccalistical law/law of faith overlaps with that law and makes Jerusalem as city critical item. Because it is religiously sensitive; it has to be neutral. The temple that is built is an inflexible item. Meaning, all things have to be rearranged around it.

        The temple cannot be touched, not even by intention of the mind. This is why: divine judgment and basic fairness.

        Freedom of the Faith/s are a reality in Holy Land, and religious freedom of Judaism cannot annul religious freedom of Islam, and vice versa. Their religious freedom of Faiths’ overlap and spiritual stewardship overlaps with that as well. Jerusalem is a neutral city, and it has to be that by the Law in order to achieve a fundamental fairness for all in question, and city itself.

        …from previous blog-post I came to understand this based on what QCPal has written down:

        “It could even mean a “Brussels like” special status for Jérusalem administered by a triumviarte of Muslim, Jews & Christian clerics for the religious aspect of the city and its landmarks …”

        In Jerusalem people should be free to visit and to pray at any location, and should not be restricted – this can be achieved by inter-faith stewardship of the city.

        I believe that the city landmarks would have to be neutral in essence.

        The Law is inflexible, and the Temple is inflexible item, now the International Law has legal power and stewardship of some religious rights and can rearrange things around Israeli Law and the Temple.

      • david singer June 4, 2014 at 4:23 pm #

        Kata

        The United Nations recommended in 1947 that Jerusalem be a “corpus separatum” under international control

        The Jews accepted this proposal and the Arabs rejected it.

        The Arab response was to send six Arab armies into Palestine to wipe out the Jews.

        They failed – but they ended up capturing Jerusalem and the West Bank driving out all the Jews living in those territories – which Jordan then annexed – a decision which was only recognised by Great Britain and Pakistan.

        For 19 years there was no attempt to declare Jerusalem as the capital of Jordan or to create a Palestinian Arab State with Jerusalem as its capital – when Jordan could have done so with the stroke of a pen.

        Whilst any such decisions may have also been illegal – the fact is they were never even attempted nor indeed did the international community ever suggest any such action as a means of resolving the Jewish-Arab conflict.

        When the PLO was created in 1964 its Charter expressly provided::

        “This Organization does not exercise any regional sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, on the Gaza Strip or the Himmah Area.”

        So why now – in 2014 – should the PLO – ably supported by Gene Schulman – be claiming an independent state with sovereignty in all of the West Bank with its capital in Jerusalem – only after these areas were lost by Jordan to Israel in the Six Day War and the PLO Charter was amended in 1968 to delete this provision?

        Why is it that what was thought entirely unnecessary between 1948-1967 is now deemed so fundamental in 2014 that it impedes any effort to resolve the Jewish-Arab conflict?

        They say that opportunity only knocks once.

        For the Palestinian Arabs it has knocked on many more occasions – 1922,1937,1947, between 1948-1967, 1993, 2000/1, 2008, 2013/2014.

        I think it is time to close the door and direct international attempts to try and end the conflict by getting Jordan and Israel to enter into direct negotiations to allocate sovereignty in the West Bank and Jerusalem between their respective sovereign states as the two successor States to the Mandate for Palestine and in accordance with Security Council Resolution 242 and the 1994 Peace Treaty signed between them.

        Any such settlement would be in accord with determined international law specifically made in regard to the West Bank and Jerusalem – The 1922 Mandate for Palestine and article 80 of the United Nations Charter

        The attempt by the Oslo Accords and the Bush Roadmap to create a second Arab State in Mandatory Palestine – in addition to Jordan – has clearly failed after 20 years of fruitless negotiations.

        The concept of three states in Mandatory Palestine was always flawed and involved the creation of many fictions that had no basis in international law. I do not mean that international law is not susceptible to change – but in this case any attempt to do so by claiming that Palestine is the homeland of the Arab Palestinian people; it is an indivisible part of the Arab homeland, and the Palestinian people are an integral part of the Arab nation – has failed.

        Clearly direct negotiations between Israel and Jordan will involve a lot of countries admitting that their championing of a second Arab State in Mandatory Palestine has failed – but they certainly cannot be accused of having done everything possible to make that failed solution happen.

        You can lead two horses to water but you can’t make them drink. Israel and the PLO are unwilling horses whose demands are not going to be met by the other.Perhaps Jordan and Israel will find this much easier to do – since they start from a 20 years old signed peace treaty which has stood the test of time engendering trust between two sovereign states which is totally absent in relations between the so called “State of Palestine” and Israel.

        The alternative is further conflict and suffering for both Jews and Arabs.

        The UN will not be able to shirk responsibility if it allows this to happen.

      • Kata Fisher June 4, 2014 at 7:56 pm #

        Dear David,

        I am in total agreement with you that direct talks with Jordan are the best decision for well being of Palestinian people in Holy Land.

        This is what I understand: Jordan has not kept up with their responsibility (spiritual and natural) to the people in Palestine.

        When comes to the updates of any Law’s that are appointed; it is done so to keep up with the current and/or future needs when comes to the general sustainability (natural and /or spiritual).

  7. Rabbi Ira Youdovin June 3, 2014 at 4:50 pm #

    Prof. Falk on the Pope’s visit to what some call Israel’s security barrier and others call the wall:

    “The Israeli Prime Minister vainly informed the world that the wall was there to prevent suicide bombing and had contributed to Israeli security since its partial construction more than a decade ago. It is doubtful that the wall is responsible for the decline in suicide bombing. There are many ways for determined Palestinians to circumvent the wall as large segments remain unfinished. Palestinian resistance activities wisely chose a different path than suicide bombing and the like, mainly for tactical reasons.”

    In my many years of closely following the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I’ve rarely if ever, heard that claim. There are numerous complaints from both Arabs and Jews about the wall’s deleterious impact on Palestinian life. Those making the complaints most often ignore the security issue. But Prof. Falk goes farther. He claims that the wall is irrelevant to the decline in Palestinian terror, which he attributes to a unilateral Palestinians decision to switch from terrorism to non-violent resistance. If so, the wall would be nothing more than a cruel device for adding misery to the Palestinians’ existence as Israel moves inexorably toward a Palestinian holocaust (an accusation Prof. Falk made several months ago during an interview for Russian television that’s available on You Tube.) That’s a very serious charge. So let’s look at the historical record.

    During the 34 months from the beginning of the Second Intifada in September 2000 until the construction of the first continuous segment of the security fence at the end of July 2003, West Bank-based terrorists carried out 73 attacks in which 293 Israelis were killed and 1950 wounded. In the 11 months between the erection of the first segment at the beginning of August 2003 and the end of June 2004, only three attacks were successful, and all three occurred in the first half of 2003. During the subsequent decade until the present, Palestinian terrorist attacks have decreased by 90 percent.

    Applying Prof. Falk’s thesis, one would have to conclude that sometime during late 2002-early 2003, the Palestinians unilaterally and spontaneously decided to radically reverse an upswing in terrorism that had increased over the prior two years, and that this decision was entirely unrelated to the newly-constructed security barrier.

    One would also have to account for what happened in 2007-2008i in Gaza, which did not have an effective deterrent to terrorism. Hamas fired, or allowed others to fire hundreds of rockets at Israel civilians—men, women and children—living in neighboring towns, primarily Sderot. Evidently, the Hamas leaders hadn’t received the memo about abandoning violence.

    Finally, Prof. Falk’s timing is more than a little off. Beginning 2-3 years ago, he began hailing what he described as a new direction in Palestinian strategy, eschewing violence for non-violence. A new direction? According to his thesis, the change would have occurred a decade earlier.

    Exaggerations like this one make it difficult to engage Prof. Falk in serious discussion that moves beyond polemics. It’s assuredly true that some Palestinian individuals and factions are moving away from violence. That’s a very positive development. But isn’t it more than a little farfetched to claim that the security barrier has no influence on their decision, or that it’s not a factor in deterring extremists who seek to thwart reconciliation. Seen in this regard, the wall is making a positive contribution to the cause of peace and the Palestinians’ pursuit of their legitimate national aspirations.

    Terrorism is disruptive, which is why rejectionists use it. In 1995 following the assassination of Prime Minister Rabin by a right-wing Jewish extremist, polls indicated that a large majority of Israelis, shaken by what had happened, favored the dovish Shimon Peres in the election for his successor. An outbreak of Palestinian terrorism—four bombings in nine days—drove a frightened Israeli electorate away from the far-reaching concessions Peres was prepared to make, and into the arms of the risk-averse security-conscious Binyamin Netanyahu. It was a lost opportunity for peace, which was precisely what the terrorists wanted. It’s precisely what extremists on both sides want today…and will want tomorrow.

    The wall imposes some terrible hardhips on the Palestinians. But as it also serves a constructive purpose, the discussion should focus on ways to minimize and eventually eliminate the negative consequences, while not exposing both Israelis and Palestinians to the dangers posed when terrorism is not effectively checked.

    That discussion cannot take place if provable facts are ignored or distorted in pursuit of political gain.

    Rabbi Ira Youdovin

  8. Kata Fisher June 3, 2014 at 7:10 pm #

    I have a reflection:

    I totally agree with Rabbi Ira Youdovin on wall issue. Meaning, we have to understand what took place in the past – but we cannot change the past. We have to make sure that mistakes/items observable in this point in time can be evaluated on the base to that what they are now and what they can become in the future, minimize all negative consequences, all around it.

    For example, the wall is a definite problem in this point in time based to the requirements of the Law international, but the point of the removal for that wall will have to be in a very right point in time: not too soon, and no too late. For example, it has its purpose now, regardless while unlawful (due to circumstances / the time-pass). Removal itself should be implemented in the point in time that wall itself loses its purpose: when conflict is completely gone, people feel safe, and people in Holy Land figure out for themselves that the wall is a hindrance to the area, and is there without a valid purpose.

    One has to reflect in well-being of the whole person /individually and corporately before changes can be regulated, implemented by the Law. One cannot impose nightmares on Israeli population because someone decided that it the right time to yank the wall out.

    Population within areas by areas has to be transitioned into that with some valid planning process…or some areas/communities may not want to remove it, at all due to historical importance of the wall. Maybe some parts of areas/population may want to keep the wall as historical remembrance – we do not know that, but it may be possible that those walls can become historical monuments in some areas…I am not suggesting entire wall that is a complete hindrance to the Palestinian population and their life hood. Some areas are more critical and more time-sensitive while other are not.

    I do not know, but the wall/barrier can be actual /historically sensitive item.

    • david singer June 3, 2014 at 10:02 pm #

      Kata

      Your claim that the wall is “unlawful” is no doubt based on this earlier comment by Professor Falk;

      “Also, you fail to mention that the International Court of Justice by a 14-1 vote determined that the wall as located on occupied Palestinian territory was unlawful, should be dismantled, and Palestinian compensated for harm incurred. As usual, Israel defied this verdict by the highest judicial body in the world.’

      What Professor Falk failed to mention is that this decision was an Advisory Opinion only and is not binding on Israel in international law.

      There are many reasons why that is so but I really do not think they need to be discussed here.

      Perhaps to set your mind at rest you should ask Professor Falk to confirm my viewpoint.

      I would be most surprised if he disagreed.

      • Kata Fisher June 3, 2014 at 10:42 pm #

        Dear David,

        I belive that the wall/berrier’s line looks and acts as a landmark. It has become a landmark that Israel has built.

      • Richard Falk June 3, 2014 at 11:02 pm #

        Mr. Singer & Kata:

        To clarify an issue that I have addressed as a scholar independent of the AO addressing
        the lawfulness of the wall. It is correct that because it is an AO is not binding as such on Israel,
        but it is as authoritative a determination of the relevant international law as it is possible
        to obtain on an international level. Further the 14-1 vote suggests that these jurists were in
        unusual agreement as to the proper disposition under international law, and even the one dissenting
        judge, the American member of the Court, substantially supported the other 14 on the main substantive
        issues. Also, the General Assembly in a one-sided vote accepted the finding and recommendations of
        the AO. For Israel to defy such a rendering of international law seems clearly unacceptable, even though
        the AO is not a binding decision. In my view, the use of the word ‘advisory’ is misleading and is inconsistent
        with the real purpose of this adjudicative option, which is precisely to clarify the relevance of international
        law in contexts of uncertainty.

      • david singer June 4, 2014 at 4:41 pm #

        Professor Falk

        Thank you for confirming the International Court’s Advisory opinion on the security barrier is not legally binding on Israel.

        I know this can be very perplexing for the layman to understand as your explanation underlines..

        Nevertheless if there is going to be any meaningful discussion towards resolving this long running conflict – unequivocal claims of actions being “illegal” or “unlawful” need to be avoided if there is nothing to back that claim.

        One may well have an opinion – but until that opinion is confirmed by a Court decision – it remains an opinion only.

        Hope you agree

      • Kata Fisher June 6, 2014 at 11:15 am #

        I have a reflection:

        http://www.bible-knowledge.com/how-to-handle-a-jezebel-spirit/

      • Kata Fisher June 6, 2014 at 11:40 am #

        I have another reflection:
        See what is against spiritual things:against spiritual grafting and promise.

  9. Lorna L Presswood June 3, 2014 at 8:15 pm #

    The bottom line is, who cares…who cares if the Pope visits the wall and who cares what the Pope of Rome thinks about Palestinians and Israel. Do you? No one should. This war, this wall, all of it is a debate based on land and the post WWII initiative that gave certain land to Israel. Negotiating and re-negotiating is political, not religious. The Pope?..not needed, not even appropriate. Don’t make this issue bigger than it is.

    • david singer June 4, 2014 at 2:38 am #

      Lorna

      The issue is big because the Pope broke an agreement to stay out of this temporal conflict. Had he done so Professor Falk’s article and these comments responding to it would have been unnecessary.

      You cannot underestimate the power of the Pope to influence the thinking of those who follow the Catholic faith.

      He should have made his trip solely a spiritual pilgrimage -but regrettably he chose to do otherwise.

    • Kata Fisher June 4, 2014 at 8:46 am #

      I disagree with you Lorna,

      1) People do care, and what religious figure does matters, too. Pope should worry what people think about him, and how legitimate his acts are – He is representing institution of the Church/reality.

      2) You can not dismiss the freedom of Faith/s and/or religion in a conflict just because it does not feel right to you.

      You are free to have ideas, but your ideas have no legitimate substance.

      People of Faith are under a legitimate substance / eccalistical law/s: reality.

    • Kata Fisher June 6, 2014 at 12:00 pm #

      Church-Charismatic has spiritual authority over this little moppet!

  10. Gene Schulman June 4, 2014 at 8:20 am #

    David,

    The only thing preventing my Palestinian state from realizing those requirements is the force of Israeli occupation. That occupation would lose its force if the US didn’t support it with military and financial aid, and its veto power in the UN. Both Israel and the US are twin evils keeping the Middle East in chaos and depriving it of peace. Though the Pope has no official authority, his moral authority was rightly used to point his out, and the value of Richard’s essay is to emphasize this point.

    • Kata Fisher June 4, 2014 at 10:13 am #

      Dear Gene,

      I have a reflection:

      I believe that “occupation status” can be neutralized by the means of the Laws that are appointed. The reality: Holy Land has an ancient and / or integrated population that has to be managed based on valid / legitimate principles of Law/s and Law of the Faith/s.

      Those who have acted and still act against fundamental principles of the Law, and the Law of Faith/s in the Holy Land itself, and outside the Holy Land have to be submitted to the Laws, and /or the principles of Faith/s.

      They are hindering force and a cause for waste of our time — not to count all outside influence and powers that implemented war crimes and genocide in Holy Land, who hinder the way by which is possible to resolve what needs to be done.

      I do not like jokes of Vatican/Holy See, either. They need to redefine who they are and what they do, all together.

      • Rabbi Ira Youdovin June 5, 2014 at 8:32 am #

        Mr. Schulman:

        Although the accusation appears frequently on this blog and the electronic intifada, the notion that “Israel and the US are twin evils keeping the Middle East in chaos and depriving it of peace” is not supported by history or current realities.

        The Middle East has never been peaceful. To the contrary, it has been, and continues to be torn apart by mutual hostilities rooted in religious (primarily intra-Muslim), geographic, economic, and ethnic rivalries. Most are ancient. For example, the bitter and often bloody conflict between Shiite and Sunni Muslims dates back to the first generation after Mohammed.

        One would have thought that the Arab Spring, in which Israel and the United States were hardly ever mentioned, would have put an end to blaming everything on factors outside the Arab-Muslim world. Regrettably, it has not.

        Rabbi Ira Youodovin

      • Gene Schulman June 5, 2014 at 9:04 am #

        Rabbi Youdovin,

        You may not have heard any mention of Israel or US involvement in the Arab Spring, but any denial of their involvement cannot be made by anyone with a straight face. Just witness Egypt, Libya, Syria; and though it is not considered the Middle East, now the Ukraine. I would go so far as to say all were instigated by the US/NATO/Israel.

        Also, your knowledge of the history of the Arab/Muslim world seems to be in need of refreshment. Long periods of peace prevailed, and thanks to it, Greek knowledge, as well as its own mathematics and science were handed down to us in the West. Not to forget the long period of the Turkish Empire which was more amenable to Jews than the West itself!!!

      • Kata Fisher June 5, 2014 at 9:00 am #

        I agree with Rabbi Ira Youdovin on a relevant point:

        Now, we do understand who is bearing consequences for King Hussein actions that have surrounded 1967 Six Day War, according to the historical facts that David mentioned earlier in one of his posts.

        Things get started in weak minds that should not, and it does not get better with these things, just worse as time goes on unless it has to be a cut to it.

  11. Kata Fisher June 6, 2014 at 11:58 am #

    I have another reflection:

    Earlier/few weeks ago I was moved by spirit to clarify things with an religious person that is in invalid Church position:

    (I now add this: Pope Emiritus would appreciate to know this – he keeps the tap on Church doctrine).

    According to teaching of Paul, what prophet Mohamed has received, in fact, would be a prophesy that again according to Apostle Paul would have to be discerned.

    It is not a ‘false Gospel’ which we have, in fact, over some 30.000 different Gospels/denominations due to disorderly counterfeit church and/or charismatic practices that split congregations and lead astray in accordance to ‘different spirits.‘ People end up in sins such as “satanic seals” and/or “blaspheming God’s Spirit.” Yes, the churches counterfeit are in those sins (personal and generational). Counterfeit Jews and Muslims are in the same sins as counterfeit Christians – and all of them can only be grafted in by the Baptism in God’s Spirit/free fall of the Spirit by the ministry of an evangelist. Free fall of the Spirit is the only way that yields a valid Baptism in God’s Spirit – all other ways is abuse of the orders of the Church-Charismatic. Irrevocable personal sin may not be annulled by Spirit of God. One cannot blaspheme God’s spirit in their will-power and be forgiven.
    However Islam is based on a prophesy (for Church it remains a not discerned prophesy, and it cannot be applied as doctrine of the Church) and yet it would be a prophesy given in the age of the Church. Holy Quran is given to ancient Jews (contemporary Muslims, primarily) and not to Gentiles. Now this is mysteriously odd enough to ask “Why?” I do not understand it. Perhaps someone more mature then I could know why.
    Now, prophet Mohamed was under a heavy spiritual attack, and he did not write things down. These are two solid facts.

    You have to handle Islam based on Fact who reads and interpret the sacred texts – when exile Jews under God’s Spirit, and prophetic anointing read/interpret Holy Quran they can discern gap between Spirit and the text. Meaning, they automatically understand what should not be there.

    In general people’s are grafted in by the Law/valid Judaism, by the prophesy, and by God’s Spirit (specifically free fall of the Spirit/Baptism in God’s Spirit). Faith without substance/Spirit will be invalid.

    We have to base our believes based on the Gospel: past, present, and future, and teaching of Apostles; otherwise our ‘believes’ can be foreshadowed of unrighteousness.

    Someone said something like this in argument against me: “Paul said that LAW does not graft in”….

    So I said:

    I can challenge that and say this: The Law and the Prophesy have never spiritually excommunicated no one, but heresy has.
    Judah is not broken off by Spirit…but is spiritually excommunicated by the false Gospel. Obedience to the Law /Righteousness of the Law can graft in, in fact as always have had by Faith in God.

    You can be under the Law until the realization of Faith takes place…
    If you are under the heresy/False Gospel — you are excommunicated spiritually. You follow that what is null and void. The Law is never made null and void but is fulfilled by the sufficiency of God’s Spirit.

    When Paul was teaching salvation by Grace — he was Charismatic, and he was speaking the Gospel into human hearts by fully activated anointing of the essence of God’s Spirit.
    The Law and the prophesy, in fact, grafts in /keeps grafted in that what is obedient to the Old Testament, and not some neo-Judean and/or church-counterfeit heresy.
    Law and Faith grafts in! Prophesy and Faith grafts in! The Sprit grafts in all that cannot believe in the Scripture, any of it. They do not need Obedience to the Law and Prophesy in order to realize their Faith. All they need to do is to be present when the Spirit of God falls on a congregation, in fact.

    There is so much teaching of the Scripture that you see not. “Some are broken off…So that those that are wild may be grafted in?” – Or am I misreading / misinterpreting Paul, and his intended teaching?

    Christianity in this point in time is hardly valid; it is in false Gospel, without Spirit. Their approach to their Faith is not valid. They are in strong delusions. It is an abomination to give Jews and Muslims a false Gospel, and spiritually excommunicate them with that.
    Meaning, only valid Gospel we know will be by Baptism in God’s Spirit and/or under valid teaching office of the Church that is based on prophetic, living teaching of the Spirit (all this as the first generation of Christians has done, in corporate). They practiced Baptism in Water, but main Baptism was Baptism in God’s Spirit. You learn that when Paul meets Apollo’s who was Jew, and was not baptized in God’s Spirit. In the end, it is not what yu think, but what Church of Jesus Christ of Nazareth tells you and what Spirit of God Himself does.

    You can look at this in another way: Law and prophesy will not spiritually excommunicate no one and the Gospel-false will in fact do.

    In fact, Christianity over-preaches the Grace that Paul was preaching / teaching, and do not have that Grace that Paul has received and was teaching about. In the context, Paul was Church Charismatic, and he wrote to the Church that was Charismatic, and/or under a mature, charismatic ministry/oversight. He strongly excommunicated (spiritually and naturally) and corrected those who were in power of counterfeit charismatic anointing/spirit and/or disorder of it.

    Their Grace was based on God’s Spirit that is possible to attain trough Faith in Jesus Christ of Nazareth – not another Jesus and not another Gospel, and not another spirit, except in God’s Spirit and Baptism in Jesus Christ of Nazareth by which one can receive the Spirit of God.

    I can challenge that and say this: The Law and the Prophesy have never spiritually excommunicated no one, but heresy has.
    Judah is not broken off by Spirit…but is spiritually excommunicated by the false Gospel. Obedience to the Law /Righteousness of the Law can graft in, in fact as always have had by Faith in God.

    You can be under the Law until the realization of Faith takes place…
    If you are under the heresy/False Gospel — you are excommunicated spiritually. You follow that what is null and void. The Law is never made null and void but is fulfilled by the sufficiency of God’s Spirit.

    When Paul was teaching salvation by Grace — he was Charismatic, and he was speaking the Gospel into human hearts by fully activated anointing of the essence of God’s Spirit.
    The Law and the prophesy, in fact, grafts in /keeps grafted in that what is obedient to the Old Testament, and not some neo-Judean and/or church-counterfeit heresy.
    Law and Faith grafts in! Prophesy and Faith grafts in! The Sprit grafts in all that cannot believe in the Scripture, any of it. They do not need Obedience to the Law and Prophesy in order to realize their Faith. All they need to do is to be present when the Spirit of God falls on a congregation, in fact.

    There is so much teaching of the Scripture that you see not. “Some are broken off…So that those that are wild may be grafted in?” – Or am I misreading / misinterpreting Paul, and his intended teaching?

    Christianity in this point in time is hardly valid; it is in false Gospel, without Spirit. Their approach to their Faith is not valid. They are in strong delusions. It is an abomination to give Jews and Muslims a false Gospel, and spiritually excommunicate them with that.
    Meaning, only valid Gospel we know will be by Baptism in God’s Spirit and/or under valid teaching office of the Church that is based on prophetic, living teaching of the Spirit (all this as the first generation of Christians has done, in corporate). They practiced Baptism in Water, but main Baptism was Baptism in God’s Spirit. You learn that when Paul meets Apollo’s who was Jew, and was not baptized in God’s Spirit. In the end, it is not what you think, but what Church of Jesus Christ of Nazareth tells you and what Spirit of God Himself does.

    You can look at this in another way: Law and prophesy will not spiritually excommunicate no one and the Gospel-false will in fact do.
    In fact, Christianity over-preaches the Grace that Paul was preaching / teaching, and do not have that Grace that Paul has received and was teaching about. In the context, Paul was Church Charismatic, and he wrote to the Church that was Charismatic, and/or under a mature, charismatic ministry/oversight. He strongly excommunicated (spiritually and naturally) and corrected those who were in power of counterfeit charismatic anointing/spirit and/or disorder of it.

    Their Grace was based on God’s Spirit that is possible to attain trough Faith in Jesus Christ of Nazareth – not another Jesus and not another Gospel, and not another spirit, except in God’s Spirit and Baptism in Jesus Christ of Nazareth by which one can receive the Spirit of God.

  12. Kata Fisher June 6, 2014 at 2:44 pm #

    I have another reflection:

    Way are these women complaining?
    The Saudi king has misapplied the Scripture of Holy Quran to himself.

    The king has done ecclesiastically illegitimate things in a marriage that was under prophetic anointing. He has not looked to see when he was having harlots and a prophet.

    Have we gotten harlots, then from a marriage – or prophets locked up? The kingdom is shaking not because of the illegitimate prophets, but because of illegitimate things that kings applied to them self’s.

    The girls that are locked up are under a prophetic anointing, but they are not ordained to strait him and his kingdom out.

  13. Kata Fisher June 6, 2014 at 5:51 pm #

    I am in a heavy spiritual warfare and attack…I feel my flesh just aching, and brain just hurts, and I feel catatonic. Saudi princesses must get out, now.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. On What the Pope Taught | Palestine Chronicle - May 30, 2014

    […] – Richard Falk is an international law and international relations scholar who taught at Princeton University for forty years. In 2008 he was also appointed by the UN to serve a six-year term as the Special Rapporteur on Palestinian human rights. (This article was originally published in his blog.) […]

  2. Obama’s Legacy: “Don’t Do Stupid Stuff” | Palestine Chronicle - June 7, 2014

    […] – Richard Falk is an international law and international relations scholar who taught at Princeton University for forty years. In 2008 he was also appointed by the UN to serve a six-year term as the Special Rapporteur on Palestinian human rights. (This article was originally published in his blog.) […]

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 10,122 other followers

%d bloggers like this: