The Dead End of Post-Oslo Diplomacy: What Next?

15 Dec

(Prefatory Note: A much modified version of this post was published in AlJazeera America, Dec. 13, 2014)

The Latest Diplomatic Gambit

 

There are reports that the Palestinian Authority will seek a vote in the Security Council on a resolution mandating Israel’s military withdrawal from Occupied Palestine no later than November 2016. Such a resolution has been condemned by the Israeli Prime Minister as bringing ‘terrorism’ to the outskirts of Tel Aviv, and this will never be allowed to happen. The United States is, as usual, maneuvering in such a way as to avoid seeming an outlier by vetoing such a resolution, even if it has less stringent language, and asks the PA to postpone the vote until after the Israeli elections scheduled for March 17, 2015. Supposedly, the delay is justified so that Netanyahu, seen as an obstacle by the American White House, would not be strengthened by any display of adverse pressure on Israel coming from outside, especially from the UN.

 

Embedded in this initiative are various diversionary moves to put the dying Oslo Approach (direct negotiations between Israel and the PA, with the U.S. as the intermediary). The French are promoting a resolution that includes a revival of these currently defunct negotiations, with a mandated goal of achieving a permanent peace within a period of two years based on the establishment of a Palestinian state, immediate full membership of Palestine in the UN, and language objecting to settlement activity as an obstruction to peace. Overall, European governments are exerting pressure to resume direct negotiations, exhibiting their concern about a deteriorating situation on the ground along with a growing hostility to Israeli behavior that has reached new heights since the merciless 51-day onslaught mounted by Israel against Gaza last summer. This seems to me to be ‘a politics of gesture’ as there is no indication of why resumed negotiations would enjoy any better prospect of success than the several past failed efforts, and would only give Israel additional time to move toward its increasingly obvious end game of imposed unilateralism.

 

A Post-Oslo Meditation

 

 

The horrendous events of the last several months in Jerusalem and Gaza have exhibited both the depths of enmity and tension between Jews and Palestinians and the utter irrelevance of American-led diplomacy as the path to a sustainable peace. This is not a time for people of good will, the UN, and governments to turn their backs on what seems on its surface either irreconcilable or on the verge of an Israeli victory. The challenge for all is to consider anew how these two peoples can manage to live together within the space of historic Palestine. We need fresh thinking that gets away from the sterile binary of one state/two states, and dares to ponder the future with fresh eyes that accept the guidance of a rights based approach shaped by international law. Israel will resist such an approach as long as it can, understanding that it has gained the upper hand by relying on its military prowess and realizing that if international law was allowed to play a role in demarcating the contours of a fair solution it would lose out on such crucial issues as borders, refugees, Jerusalem, settlements, and water.

 

A necessary step toward a sustainable peace is to overcome Washington’s blinkered conception of the conflict. There is no better sign that the Israel-Palestine peace process over which the United States has long presided is unraveling than the absurd brouhaha that followed the magazine article written by Jeffrey Goldberg in The Atlantic [“The Crisis in U.S.-Israel Relations is Officially Here,” Oct. 28, 2014] that referenced an unnamed senior White House official who called the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, ‘chickenshit’ because of his obstinate refusal to take risks for ‘peace.’ Supposedly, this refusal put Washington’s dogged adherence to the Oslo Approach of direct negotiations under American diplomatic supervision beneath a darkening sky, but since there is no alternative way to maintain the U.S. central role in the interaction between the governing elites of the two parties, there is an eyes closed resolve to keep the worse than futile process on ‘life support.’ It is worse than futile because Israeli land grabbing on the West Bank in relation to the settlements, the settler only roads, and the separation wall continuously deteriorate Palestinian territorial prospects.

 

The collapse of the Kerry talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority in April were unquestionably a negative watershed for the Obama presidency so far as its insistence that the Oslo Approach was the only viable roadmap that could resolve the conflict. Ever since the Oslo Declaration of Principles was sanctified by the infamous Rabin-Arafat handshake on the White House lawn in 1993, the U.S. Government has contended that only this diplomatic framework can end the conflict, and to this day it objects to any moves by governments to take steps on their own. [During the presidency of George W. Bush there was an interval during which ‘the roadmap’ was adopted as an elaboration of the Oslo approach in which a commitment to the idea of an independent Palestinian state was explicitly confirmed by Bush in a speech on June 24, 2002, and then formalized in a proposal made public on April 30, 2003; in this same period ‘the quartet’ was created at a Madrid Conference in 2002 that seemed to broaden diplomatic participation by adding the Russia, the EU, and the UN to the U.S., but in fact the quartet has been completely marginalized for the past decade] The Oslo Approach consists of direct negotiations between the parties and designated the United States, despite its undisguised partisan role, as the exclusive and permanent intermediary and go between. Without the slightest deference to Palestinian sensitivities, U.S. presidents have appointed as special envoys to these negotiations only officials with AIPAC credentials such as Dennis Ross and Martin Indyk, and have proceeded as if their blatant partisanship was not a problem. Evidently Israel would have it no other way, and the Palestinian Authority has meekly gone along either out of weakness or naiveté.

 

Not only was the Oslo framework itself flawed because it leaned so far to one side, but it was an unseemly tacit assumption of the process that the Palestinians would be willing to carry on negotiations without reserving a right to complain about the relevance of ongoing Israeli violations of international law, most conspicuously the continued unlawful settlement activity. When on several occasions the Palestinians complained that this settlement activity was incompatible with good faith negotiations, they were immediately slapped down, informed that such objections interfered with the peace process, and that issues pertaining to the settlements would be deferred until the ‘final status’ stage of the negotiations. The Palestinians were assured that these issues would be addressed at the very end of the peace process after the main elements of a solution had been agreed upon. This was very detrimental to Palestine’s bargaining position as their only advantage in relation to Israel was to have international law in their favor in relation to most of the outstanding issues. Besides to allow Israel to continue with settlement expansion, rather than freezing the status quo, was obviously disadvantageous to Palestine. If legal objections were excluded it is not surprising that diplomatic bargaining would tend to reflect ‘facts on the ground,’ which were completely in Israel’s favor, and would continue to accumulate month by month. Despite this, Israel at no point seemed responsive to proposals for accommodation in accordance with the stated objective of establishing an independent sovereign Palestinian state.

 

After more than 20 years of futility Washington’s continuing public stand that only by way of the Oslo Approach will a solution be found is beginning to fall on deaf ears, and new directions of approach are beginning to be articulated. Israel itself is moving ineluctably toward a unilaterally imposed one-state solution that incorporates the West Bank in whole or in large part. It has recently seized 1000 acres of strategically placed land to facilitate the largest spatial enlargement of a settlement since the early 1990s and it has given approval for 2,600 additional housing units to be built in various West Bank and East Jerusalem settlements that already have more 650,000 settlers. In addition, the current Israeli president, Reuven Rivlin, elected by the Knesset a few months ago is an avowed advocate of the maximalist version of the Zionist project involving the extension of Israel’s borders to encompass the whole of Palestine as delimited in the British mandate. Rivlin couples this rejection of any Palestinian right of self-determination with proposals for equality of treatment for both peoples within this enlarged Israel, offering the Palestinians human rights, the rule of law, and unrestricted economic and political opportunity within Israel in exchange for renouncing their political ambitions for either a state of their own or a power-sharing arrangement on the basis of equality with Israel. There is no prospect that the Palestinian people, or even their compromised leaders, would accept such a Faustian Bargain.

 

The Palestinians have their own version of a unilateral solution, although it is far more modest, and seems more fantasy than political project. It is essentially establishing a state of their own within 1967 borders, taking an ambiguous posture toward the settlement blocs and even East Jerusalem, and relying on political pressures to coerce an Israeli withdrawal. Such a state claims 22% or less of historic Palestine, and includes the somewhat confusing contention that Palestine is already a state in the eyes of the international community, having been recognized as such by 134 states and in a resolution of the General Assembly on 29 November 2012. It is currently reinforcing this position with this draft resolution that Jordan will submit on its behalf at some point to the Security Council proposing a resumed period of direct negotiations for a further nine months (accompanied by a freeze on settlement construction), followed by Israel’s mandatory withdrawal from the West Bank. On balance, this Palestinian approach seems ill-considered for a number of reasons. It appears to reduce the parameters of the conflict to the occupation of the West Bank, and leaves to one side the fate of Gaza and East Jerusalem, as well as what is to happen to the several million Palestinians living in refugee camps in neighboring countries or in exile. It also overlooks the structure of discrimination embedded in Israeli nationality laws that reduces the 20% Palestinian minority in Israel to a second class status in the self-proclaimed Jewish state.

 

Among the problems with these reactions to the breakdown of Oslo are the contradictory expectations. What the Netanyahu unilateralism is seeking is utterly inconsistent with any kind of viable Palestinian state constructed within the 1967 borders, and those opposition forces to his right are seeking an even more defiant unilateralism. Equally, what the Palestinian Authority is proposing would seem to require the elimination of most Israeli settlements, the dismantling of the security wall, and the abandonment of the Israeli-only network of roads, while ignoring those Palestinian grievances not directly associated with territorial issues. Each of these versions of a post-Oslo solution is doomed to failure as it proceeds as if the behavior of others need not be taken into account. The Israeli failure to do this is far more unacceptable as its claims are far more excessive than those of the Palestinians, which is really just a matter of wishing away the pattern of Israel’s unlawful encroachment on what is a minimalist Palestinian vision of a solution that it and the UN had long ago accepted in Security Council Resolution 242.

 

There is an evident unfortunate reluctance on the part of all sides to let go of the two-state conception of a solution. It is what Washington and even Tel Aviv and Ramallah continue to say they seek, although Netanyahu has been telling Israeli audiences that after its experience with Hamas rockets last July and August, it will never agree to allow the emergence of a neighboring Palestinian state in the West Bank that would bring Palestinian threats much closer to the Israeli heartland. Ever since the 1988 decision of the Palestinian National Council, the PLO has agreed to a solution framed in relation to a state within of its own within the 1967 borders, and even Hamas has signed on since 2006 to the extent of accepting a 50 year plan for peaceful coexistence with Israel providing it ends the occupation of Palestinian territories, and lifts the Gaza blockade. These are big concessions from the Palestinian side considering that the UN Partition Plan of 1947 awarded 45% of historic Palestine to the Palestinians and proposed the internationalization of the entire city of Jerusalem. The 2002 Arab Peace Initiative is built along the same lines as the PLO proposal, and includes a commitment to establish full diplomatic and economic relations with Israel on the part of the entire Islamic world. This proposal of the Arab League by a 56-0 vote of the Islamic Conference, with only Iran abstaining, and a year ago as a result of American pressure was modified to make it even more appealing to Israel by its acknowledgement of Israeli security concerns.

 

Most recently, a letter to Netanyahu by 106 high ranking retired Israeli military and security officials strongly urged this same two-state solution, implicitly condemning Israeli unilateralism and Zionist maximalism as leading to a future for Israel of periodic warfare of the sort that occurred this past summer in Gaza. These members of the Israeli security establishment argue that these expansionist policies are weakening security for the entire Israeli population. The letter emphasized Israel’s moral decline associated with keeping millions of Palestinians under prolonged occupation, which they argue is unnecessary from the perspective of security. Again there is a lack of clarity about whether such encouragement assumes that the settlements can be retained, the rights of Palestinian refugees can be ignored, and Jerusalem can be kept under unified Israel control. But what the initiative does express is this emergent consensus that Oslo style negotiations have consistently failed and something else must be tried. The letter appears to propose a unilateral partial withdrawal described as “an alternative option for resolving the conflict not based solely on bilateral negotiations with the Palestinians, which have failed time and again.”

 

Europe has also, at last, exhibited a limited unwillingness to accept any longer the Oslo Approach that keeps the United States alone in the driver’s seat. I interpret the recent Swedish recognition of Palestinian statehood, the House of Commons vote urging that the British government take a similar move, as well as similar moves by several other European countries as expressing both a loss of confidence in the Oslo Approach and a criticism of the manner in which Israel and the United States have dealt with the conflict. This is a desirable development in these respects, but it is coupled with some regressive features. Such initiatives are coupled with renewed faith in the two-state approach as the only solution, and call with a sense of urgency for a renewal of negotiations without giving the slightest indication as to why a further round of talks would yield any different results than past attempts. Such a prognosis seems more true at present than in the past given Israel’s moves toward a unilateral solution, which Netanyahu somewhat disguises so as not to affront the United States and Europe. It should be obvious to all who wish to look that Israel has created irreversible conditions that have all but ruled out the establishment of a viable Palestinian sovereign state.

 

The Way Forward

 

The expected controversy surrounding the PA initiative in the Security Council is a sideshow without any serious consequences however it is resolved. There needs to be a clear recognition by the PA that direct negotiations are pointless under present conditions, and a general understanding that unless Israel changes behavior and outlook there is no hope to resolve the conflict by a reliance on diplomacy. This will make recourse to nonviolent militancy via BDS, and such other tactics as blocking the unloading of Israeli cargo vessels, the best option for those seeking a just peace. [“Protesters Block Israel-Owned Ship from Unloading Cargo at Port of Oakland,” CBS St Bay Area, Aug. 18, 2014]

 

I believe the Oslo Approach is discredited, and of no present interest to the political leadership in Israel, which plays along with Washington by not openly repudiating direct negotiations. The European governments that have shown some initiative by advocating recognition of Palestine should be encouraged to take the further step of rejecting calls for resumed negotiations unless Israel demonstrates its sincerity by freezing settlement activity and affirming its readiness to withdraw to 1967 borders.

 

The best, and in my view, only realistic hope is to forget traditional interstate diplomacy for the present, and understand that the Palestinian future depends on a robust mobilization of global civil society in solidarity with the Palestinian national movement. The current BDS campaign is gaining momentum by the day, and is coupled with a sense that its political program is more in keeping with the wishes of the Palestinian people than are the proposals put forth by the formal representations of either the Palestinian Authority or Hamas. When neither governmental diplomacy nor the UN can produce a satisfactory solution to a conflict that has caused decades of suffering and dispossession, it is past time to endorse a people-oriented approach. This is the kind of populist politics that helped end apartheid in South Africa and win many anti-colonial struggles. We have reached a stage in global history in which it is people, not weapons nor international institutions, that have the resilience and patience to win the legitimacy struggle involving law and morality, and on such a basis eventually prevail in the political struggle despite being inferior militarily.

 

The challenge of living together on the basis of equality seems to be the only template that offers the parties a vision of sustainable peace. Concretely, this would seem to require Israel to all ethnocratic claims that Israel is a Jewish state as distinct from being a Jewish homeland. Israel’s leaders would also have to renounce the present unrestricted right of return for Jews throughout the world or create some equivalent right of return for the Palestinians, and possibly for the Druse minority. How such a conception of a sustainable peace is given concrete form is necessarily a subject for diplomacy by suitable representative of both sides and carried on under neutral auspices and by authentic representatives of the two peoples. We cannot foretell how much further suffering and bloodshed will occur before this kind of vision, seemingly a remote prospect at present, can be converted into a practical project, but do know that nothing that falls short of this deserves to be considered ‘a solution’ given the realities of the situation.

20 Responses to “The Dead End of Post-Oslo Diplomacy: What Next?”

  1. Gene Schulman December 15, 2014 at 12:00 pm #

    Richard,

    I haven’t had time to analyze the whole of the contents of this post, but after a quick run-through, what I can say is that it will bring back all of the usual hasbarists to the comment section that have gone missing since you have retired from your position as Special Rapporteur. Let the fireworks begin!

    • Richard Falk December 15, 2014 at 4:13 pm #

      Hopefully, not..

      • Gene Schulman December 16, 2014 at 3:14 am #

        Richard, I can’t but agree with everything you say in this post. This is what makes me so pessimistic about the future of this conflict. The Israelis seem to have no intention of letting up on the continued ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians, and no matter how much sympathy that has been generated for the Palestinians recently, so long as the U.S. continues to support Israeli intransigence for its own political exigencies, I can see no resolution. Until the “demographic bomb” becomes effective. And I’m afraid that is still a long way off. Alas.

      • Richard Falk December 16, 2014 at 9:08 am #

        Gene: I always say in response to such assessments, we are not smart enough to be pessimistic.
        It implies foreknowledge of the future, and many of the transformative events in recent history
        have seemed ‘impossible’ until they happened. Then people like me come along and explain why
        they were not only ‘possible’ but ‘inevitable.’ As long as the goal is desirable, I am willing
        to subscribe to ‘lost causes.’ I can send you my Said lecture on this theme if you are interested.

      • Gene Schulman December 16, 2014 at 9:29 am #

        Thanks, Richard. I’ve read the Said Lecture and remember having this type of exchange before about “hope” and “lost causes”. Nevertheless, pessimism is an emotion that invades me as I assess the facts. Certainly, the door is still ajar: a new US administration could always reverse the prevailing trend. I’d vote on it, but I wouldn’t bet on it.

  2. truthaholics December 15, 2014 at 12:25 pm #

    Reblogged this on | truthaholics and commented:
    Only the people can bring peace to Palestine via @AJAM http://alj.am/1uzfpnI AlJazeera America, Dec. 13, 2014

  3. Jerry "Peacemaker" December 15, 2014 at 8:54 pm #

    Just like a married couple who must divorce because the husband has violently abused her physically and mentally for too long, so Palestinians must have their own state – divorced from Israel. For that simple but undeniable fact, Americans must demand their government follow Sweden, Britain, France, Spain and others in calling for the State of Palestine. The conflict has gone on too long, irresolution results in continued threats to peace in the region and widely, and has been analyzed, sliced, and diced enough. Humanity must demand establishment of the State of Palestine. Now.

  4. Beau Oolayforos December 15, 2014 at 9:07 pm #

    Dear Professor Falk,
    Thanks again for bringing things into focus. It makes me wish that these issues could be brought front & center in the next presidential campaign, since the main problem here is Israeli intransigence backed by US myopia. Broaching the subject could be advertised as “The world’s fate depends on this…”, as well it might.

  5. Kata Fisher December 16, 2014 at 12:14 am #

    A note:

    I must disagree with you — that what you describe is not marriage; it is cohabitation. One is not married until their marriage is confirmed valid. Violent abuse annuls any type of a marriage–a marriage never took place. At its best it is Illicit marriage that took place / eccalisticaly invalid due to abuse. Civil marriages can be split by eccalisticaly Illicit rituals, and then there one may be split in all of that, as well…It can get interesting with evil, invalid churches, especially charismatics that are in disorder and abuse of Church Order. Which is just addition to evil members and invalid / not ordained priesthood.

    You really can chose to continue to be with a violent abuser, or two or three be in defilement of that and force it on someone else /another so to receive it — whatever that ” violent abuse” may be or entail. So not unbeliever only but an eccalistical evil (personal / generational/ eccalisticaly Illicit)…in some valid terms that define “violent abuser” — who is and is not often a part of cohabitation.

    No… Funny and not things to on — but hush, hush — do not tell Pope about it…or people in the land who are just in craze and haze…

    Palestinian state in Holy Land is morally and eccalisticaly wrong based on historical events that took place (if we include Arab and British colonialism, in addition to this what is going on right now). There were some rapes to the Holy Land and people in it that took place.

    Today, I have also seen some messages from Israeli Defense Forces about Gaza issues and some messages of some leaders among them in Arab Palestine and Gaza — I see no rights of the people promoted, I see rights of anarchy promoted against Holy Land. Arab-Palestinians are in exceptionally dangerous place without a vote and / or acting / interceding for them there is no progress for them.

    It is very dangerous religion that is promoted there, and no one restricting it — so that is just on a fine line of being irrevocably heretical and in fact be classified as something that is transitioning more and more into a branch of terrorism among existing population, and a population that is continuously growing and is in process of integration. There were significant shifts in Holy Land. One always has to watch those shifts in order to keep the focus on systematic appearance of everything.

    I do not believe that Israeli Defense Forces are giving a counterfeit message about these things — but maybe someone would like to post them here, as well, and those things can be evaluated. I would really hope to observe that.

    When comes to heretical and hostile religion and treats of it — the threats and coercion of Faith also take place. This has to be.

    I disagree that US should do anything when comes to Israel and Holy Land — they have their own anarchy to think about that is of their people’s origin, and is uncontainable right here in US and worldwide. US creates more chaos than good due to bipolar, paranoid and delusional members that they have had in the past and who have done eccalisticaly illegal things in a relationship to Holy Land.

    State of Palestine can not be part of eccalistical Holy Land Landmark and eccalistical Landmarks in it. Eccalistical Law does not allow for Palestine State. People in Holy Land have to overcome their generational sins and integrate peacefully — or leave (few generations too late) by the Law of the Spirit they may leave/migrate.

    We do not mix hostile religion and rights of the people with the Freedom of the Faith.

    That is what religion and freedom of it would do. We all may enjoy it. However, lo and behold try to do your freedom of Faith. You will be restricted, abused and killed.

    — you be beaten up like a mad dog and if you survive their wickedness since burning of the witch practice is illegal and if not observable they would even do that — you are the lucky as St. Patric was.

    No, we cannot have State of Palestine, unless it is a heretical kingdom along with Gaza with some evil kings among them — they can declare that for themselves with all existing things that they have. They broke off from the kingdom of Jordan, ironically. Now, they do not even head a vote to a people. ( I am not trying to mock — I am sincere about this). I am actually attempting to understand that what they are doing — and what all that entails from my perspective.

    Landmark of Holy Land is not to be touched or any other to be aded on to the Holy Land. People may integrate or leave/ immigrate or migrate. Eccalistical Law applies to Holy Land and it is not Islamic Law; it is Cannon /Old Testament Law by which. They only can have lines and no state landmarks that actually part the Land and Landmark of Holy Land.

    So it is way to much to go about without nuncios of Rome, and I only know one that is valid Fr. Vigano.

    • talknic December 16, 2014 at 6:21 am #

      @ Kata Fisher I can’t find anything about your “Eccalistical Law” in the UN Charter or in International Law or in any UNSC resolution, Ceasefire or Armistice Agreement or Peace Treaty. HELP!!

      • Kata Fisher December 16, 2014 at 2:07 pm #

        Dear friend,

        A note:

        I am not surprised that there is no reference to that.

        Canon Law:

        http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_INDEX.HTM

        You would not find the reference to it, and this is why:

        The Law of the Church / Canon Law is considered to be heretical / Legalistically heretical in application to someone who is “ saved by Faith and Grace alone”.

        So, there is confusion what legalism is. “Legalism” also translates as “lawlessness” and / or is same as that — in my mind. I do not know validity of my impression on that.

        The doctrine “saved by Faith and Grace alone” would, in fact, mean this: Saved by the Faith of the Church and by the Spirit of God (Spirt of God / merits of God): Grace trough Faith”. This is also can be a judicial and / or psychical position of a person that is under the Law of God’s Spirit. (The Law of the Gospel and the Law of the Church).

        With that, the main premise is that “a Christian” is not under the Law but the Grace. Meaning, not under the works of the Law of Old Testament, but Baptism in God’s Spirit (natural/psychical position).

        You may not understand all doctrinal errors (conduct of judgment and handling of the Scriptures) / all heresy and misinterpretation and missing of the Gospel under the Law of God’s Spirit, all together when one thinks that they are “saved by Grace”.

        — that what is clearly referenced in Cannon Law of the Church as a guide against heresy (within the Church and outside of the Church).

        Canon Law of the Church / Old Testament Law is handled in particular terms.

        Interpretation and application of the Law of the Church does not take place without juridic person. This is relevant, but I would verify this translation of the Canon text:

        Can. 120 §1. A juridic person is perpetual by its nature; nevertheless, it is extinguished if it is legitimately suppressed by competent authority or has ceased to act for a hundred years. A private juridic person, furthermore, is extinguished if the association is dissolved according to the norm of its statutes or if, in the judgment of competent authority, the foundation has ceased to exist according to the norm of its statutes.

        http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__PD.HTM

        In all, “A juridic person is perpetual by its nature” means not just a psychical person. This, person-juridic in “the priesthood” and the essence of “the priesthood” itself. The Priest, the Prophet and the King, and this is a specific order: order of Melchizedek. (This is what I understand).

        I do not know that there are or can be any exceptions to this. A civil /psychical person can not handle, interpret, and apply Cannon Law of the Church.

        The way and order how Canon Law of the Church is interpreted and enforced in order to interpret a particular situation and to be applied in a specific situation is in oversight of this order — the order of Melchizedek.

        Canon Law also addresses Psychical Person (Cann. 96 – 123) / position of a physical person — this, in fact, can guide all immigration / migration issues. (I believe according to my understanding).

        When comes to the things surrounding “Psychical Person” the Law of the Old / New Testament intercede (overlap).

        Old Testament Law (Law of Faith/ Law of the Spirit/Law of the Church) gives a reference to Psychical Person and Holy Land.

        “A juridic person is perpetual by its nature” has spiritual authority over the Old Testament Law and Also New Testament Law when comes to the Psychical Person and Holy Land. The Canon Law overlaps in Spiritual Authority with Old Testament Law, and it is Old Testament Law (that is applied according to the Gospel and the Law of the Spirit).

        Canon Law is applicable to International Law by “A juridic person [that which] is perpetual by its nature”. This means nuncios of Rome (first and foremost) as they are the one who are handling issues among the nations.

        But there is another thing: they drink and smoke way to much, and can also be delusional to enter in Lawless agreement that are civil in nature that has also stripped them of from spiritual authority over the Landmarks of Holy Land, and the Land itself. (For this rison we need specific/valid noncios: “A juridic person is perpetual by its nature”).  

        There can not be civil/public agreements for eccalistical things. Any civil/public agreement on eccalistical things has to overlap with the Canon Law and Old Testament Law — when comes to the Holy Land, especially.

        We have to note that Islam in essence is “undiscerned prophesy in age of the Church” and also falls under spiritual authority of Canon Law and Old Testament Law. It does not overlap with it, however. This is why: it is not discerned so that it can.

        For this reason, when in Holy Land Islam (and Muslims) are under spiritual authority of Old, and New Testament while have full Spiritual Authority to practice the Freedom of Islam Faith in Holy Land.

        Canon Law is applicable even against misinterpretation and misapplication of Holy Quran because it is undiscerned prophesy in the age of the Church.

        Likewise — this Cannon will penalize heretical Christianity in its spiritual and natural apperance / works. The Law of the Spirit is not limited to the written oracles of the Canon Law.

        I hope this is helpful.

      • Kata Fisher December 16, 2014 at 9:08 pm #

        Dear Friend,

        I left you a note.

        A beloved note … with interpretation about it.

        I have lost it…I am not sure if I can find it.

    • ray032 December 16, 2014 at 8:19 pm #

      I think there is a very narrow tunnel vision concerning the Old Testament ‘Holy Land.’

      Isaiah is my favourite Old Testament Prophet, and this is his opening vision when Israel had ceased to exist for some 600 years earlier. With that framework, he is addressing a “Future” Israel;

      Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth, for the Lord has spoken; Children I have raised and exalted, yet they have rebelled against Me. ב. שִׁמְעוּ שָׁמַיִם וְהַאֲזִינִי אֶרֶץ כִּי יְהֹוָה דִּבֵּר בָּנִים גִּדַּלְתִּי וְרוֹמַמְתִּי וְהֵם פָּשְׁעוּ בִי:
      An ox knows his owner and a donkey his master’s crib; Israel does not know, my people does not consider. ג. יָדַע שׁוֹר קֹנֵהוּ וַחֲמוֹר אֵבוּס בְּעָלָיו יִשְׂרָאֵל לֹא יָדַע עַמִּי לֹא הִתְבּוֹנָן:
      Woe to a sinful nation, a people heavy with iniquity, evildoing seed, corrupt children. They forsook the Lord; they provoked the Holy One of Israel; they drew backwards. ד. הוֹי | גּוֹי חֹטֵא עַם כֶּבֶד עָו‍ֹן זֶרַע מְרֵעִים בָּנִים מַשְׁחִיתִים עָזְבוּ אֶת יְהֹוָה נִאֲצוּ אֶת קְדוֹשׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל נָזֹרוּ אָחוֹר:
      Why are you beaten when you still continue to rebel? Every head is [afflicted] with illness and every heart with malaise. ה. עַל מֶה תֻכּוּ עוֹד תּוֹסִיפוּ סָרָה כָּל רֹאשׁ לָחֳלִי וְכָל לֵבָב דַּוָּי:
      From the sole of the foot until the head there is no soundness-wounds and contusions and lacerated sores; they have not sprinkled, neither have they been bandaged, nor was it softened with oil. ו. מִכַּף רֶגֶל וְעַד רֹאשׁ אֵין בּוֹ מְתֹם פֶּצַע וְחַבּוּרָה וּמַכָּה טְרִיָּה לֹא זֹרוּ וְלֹא חֻבָּשׁוּ וְלֹא רֻכְּכָה בַּשָּׁמֶן:

      The increasing number of Nations calling for recognition of a Palestinian State Today may be moved by the Spirit of God as Isaiah foretold so long ago.

      Summing up in the the last Chapter of his Book, Isaiah records God’s Vision of the “Holy Land.”

      So says the Lord, “The heavens are My throne, and the earth is My footstool; which is the house that you will build for Me, and which is the place of My rest? א. כֹּה אָמַר יְהֹוָה הַשָּׁמַיִם כִּסְאִי וְהָאָרֶץ הֲדֹם רַגְלָי אֵי זֶה בַיִת אֲשֶׁר תִּבְנוּ לִי וְאֵי זֶה מָקוֹם מְנוּחָתִי:
      And all these My hand made, and all these have become,” says the Lord. “But to this one will I look, to one poor and of crushed spirit, who hastens to do My bidding. ב. וְאֶת כָּל אֵלֶּה יָדִי עָשָׂתָה וַיִּהְיוּ כָל אֵלֶּה נְאֻם יְהֹוָה וְאֶל זֶה אַבִּיט אֶל עָנִי וּנְכֵה רוּחַ וְחָרֵד עַל דְּבָרִי:

      If the foot that touches the footstool is Holy, it makes the footstool Holy.

      This Blog records how I projected, long before Abbas, the EU and UN adopted the projection, this conflict has to be on the path to resolution in the time left between the 47 year Israeli Military Dictatorship in the occupied territories, and the 50 year time frame God demands for the proclamation of the Jubilee Year.

  6. Laurie Knightly December 18, 2014 at 5:39 pm #

    Seems like it would be better if we spoke in secular terms concerning issues of global justice/politics/law . It could be relevant when speaking of tribal theological claims regarding unlawful dispossession of peoples and land but prophetic theological promotion seems disrespectful to our diverse backgrounds.

    • Richard Falk December 18, 2014 at 6:40 pm #

      Laurie: I see you point, although I think if we wish to survive as a species very long we will need to learn to listen to diverse
      sensibilities articulating as they wish, which means above all that those who conceive of themselves as secular need to heed
      religiously framed messages and those who are religiously oriented toward the real need to be willing
      to be attentive to what secular folks are saying. Many like myself find themselves suspended in-between
      these two poles of sensibility that are defining the originality of our age for better and worse. Richard

    • Kata Fisher December 18, 2014 at 7:28 pm #

      Laurie,

      I often smile about your fun Q/A:

      I believe that you are confusing legal terms with my terms. I know my stuff.

      People do not do well in different Geographical Positions and feel restless in places where they should not be. You do not understand these things…and quite frankly I do not think that you need to know about it, either — so that I have to write about that. I find irrelevant to go about that and into detail on that topic.

      Immigration/migration is legal. Is it illegal?

      Understand this:

      Freedom of Choice is acceptable to those who are unwilling to live under spiritual authority of Old Testament — Or Law of it — just as it was freedom of Choice to break off from one, two, three, four… – over 30.000 different protestant denominations that claimed no Church Order and Teaching office fort them self — as they are by “right one” “writ” alone and also any spirit that they may have had..Why is that?

      – but why is not in force / allowed? The Spirit of the Law of God, the Spirit that does the Teaching, Interpretation, and all.

      When ever one is saved by Faith / actually Believes and are infilled and filled by Spirt of God (over the years) — that is a miracle in conditions of this day — as such that you have now. Meaning, this contemporarily time – of religious chaos / anarhy.

      Could be that laws of religion is in force is Law international, as well — so that there is no Law to anyone, at all?

      Further,

      Migration of terrorist is acceptable, is it that a legal right, as well?

      I do not know — I will suppose it is — but you tell me.

      Colonialism and conquering was always on roving. Who can stop it — lawless in the nations-ungrafted and in irrevocable sins?

      There is no such thing as “prophetic theologians” in Church Charismatic — we have “anointed and the prophetic anointing” in our Orderly Churches. We write by the gifts of the Spirit / Spirit of God — when we do, and not in oter spirits taht is not strong held by Spirit of God and eccalistical vows.

      “prophetic theologians” are false prophets, in fact.

      Church authentically adheres by Teaching Office of the Church and Apologetics of the Church — that is our order. Occasionally — you may get a letter. We do not do the Books. We do not force things to be on the false hooks!

      The Priest, The Prophet, and the King is “A Perpetual Person”. Don’t you know?

      I am not “the prophetess that teaches the men” — that would be evil in Biblical Terms.

      I just happened to be ordained by Church disorder — go figure and find out that I could and could not be a pastor. — “No call…I can’t hear it — or I must be deaf to it”

      I know my stuff, I wrote about Theology for more than seven years.

      With softness of the Spirit — I wrote this to you.

      I assure you that I am not into lawlessness by Spirit of God or my will-power. However, it is possible for me to be lawless.

  7. ray032 December 19, 2014 at 9:45 am #

    Richard, this is not relevant to this discussion, but I woke up this am remembering a scene from a dream last night.

    There is a new government building just occupied in old Hull where I live, and in the dream scene, it was named the Richard A. Falk Building!

    • Richard Falk December 19, 2014 at 11:11 am #

      Ray: How can I take issue with such a dream! I hope the building contributed to Hull’s architectural profile!
      Happy holidays, Richard

      • ray032 December 19, 2014 at 5:43 pm #

        Actually, it is a nice building that incorporated an old Heritage Building 100 years + called the Bank Hotel!

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. TRANSCEND MEDIA SERVICE » The Dead End of Post-Oslo Diplomacy: What Next? - December 22, 2014

    […] Go to Original – richardfalk.wordpress.com […]

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

%d bloggers like this: