Showing posts with label Richard Falk. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Richard Falk. Show all posts

Thursday, October 25, 2018



In a talk that former UN special rapporteur on human rights in the occupied Palestinian territories, Richard Falk, gave last February, he proved yet again that facts are not relevant to him.

He said that the Jewish state should still be destroyed demographically even if a Palestinian state were to be created today because of the "right of return."\

He also said that Palestinians have the "right to resist" and his context made it clear he meant with violence.

If that wasn't bad enough, afterwards he revealed how truly antisemitic he is:

Following Prof. Falk’s formal remarks, a questioner asked if in the case of Israel “apartheid” would be the correct term to apply, since the Jewish population of Israel it itself multi-ethnic and multi-racial, comprising not only Ashkenazic Jews from Northern and Eastern Europe, but Sephardic and Mizrahi Jews from the Mediterranean and Muslim lands, as well as Ethiopian and Indian Jews. Falk responded that Israeli law treats all these Jews the same, entitling them to the same rights and privileges that are denied to Palestinians, such as the sacred “right of return” to Israel by Jews, most of whose ancestors never inhabited Biblical Israel. “The whole rationale of Israel is to be a Jewish state, and they don’t fragment their own identity.”

Falk, by saying that most Jews do not descend from the Jews of the Bible, is apparently a  believer of the discredited and ludicrous Khazar myth - the myth that is so convenient for other antisemites to delegitimize the right of Jews to define themselves as a people.







We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

Saturday, March 18, 2017



If you single out Israel as an apartheid state, the only one in the world with that appellation, you are an antisemite.

After UN ESCWA head Rima Khalaf resigned, she has been praised as "brave" for her stand. Of course, her term was up within two weeks, so there was no bravery involved whatsoever.

Who has praised the report and Rima Khalaf?

Mahmoud Abbas, who says he will give Khalaf the Palestinians'  highest honor. (Maybe a bronzed suicide belt?)

Hanan Ashrawi, whose NGO website has included numerous examples of naked antisemitism.

The Euro-Mediterranian Human Rights Monitor, which has engaged in antisemitic tropes numerous times.

Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah.

Ben White, hypocritical "pro-Palestinian" activist.

Islamic Jihad.

Ali Abunimah and Electronic Intifada.

Hamas.

The BDS movement.

David Duke.

By the criteria of the report, we can safely declare most nations on the planet to be "apartheid states"  where all people under the regimes are denied equal rights. But only one seems to get that label. And that proves, as well as anything can, that the critics of Israel are not interested in "human rights" but they simply cannot stomach the idea of the Jewish people having any national rights.

Yes, this is a list of antisemites.




We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

Wednesday, March 04, 2015

Yesterday, the UN released its latest Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, by Makarim Wibisono (Richard Falks' replacement.)

Wibisono is known to have made anti-Israel statements in the past.

The report is not nearly as over the top as Falk's reports had been, to be sure. It is pretty much a repeat of things said at the UN and by the OCHA-OPT, relying on Palestinian Arab NGOs for some information.

Twice the report quotes the UN's OCHA-OPT as saying that "The information recorded and provided by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) showed that 2,256 Palestinians were killed, of whom 1,563 were civilians, including 538 children." with a small footnote saying "Verification continues." Yet those numbers have not changed since the war, indicating that no one at OCHA-OPT really cares to revisit the false statistics that have been widely quoted worldwide as fact.

Even though many of those same "civilians" were shown to be terrorists by the Meir Amit Center.

But, surprisingly, the report does mention that!

According to OHCHR, some 69 per cent of the Palestinians killed during the hostilities in Gaza were civilians. An Israeli organization compiling its own statistics on Palestinian fatalities has so far found the Palestinian civilian to combatant casualty ratio to be somewhat lower, at 48 per cent*.

*This ratio is based on 54 per cent of verified fatalities. See Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, “Examination of the names of the Palestinians killed in Operation Protective Edge”, 1 December 2014.
That in itself is a marked contrast to the bilious, one sided reports from Richard Falk, who would parrot the most absurd anti-Israel accusations by the most unreliable NGOs without even bothering to find out Israel's side of the story.

This is not to say that the report is unbiased. It is very biased. It doesn't mention Hamas' tunnels once, even though they were the main target of Israeli operations - and they were built under many of the homes that the IDF destroyed, unfortunately killing civilians. In fact, it barely mentions Hamas. It makes false assumptions about international law.

It is not quite sure if Hamas even fired rockets to begin with, saying only that "thousands of indiscriminate rockets were reportedly fired by Palestinian armed groups from Gaza."

The report that supposedly looks at human rights in the territories doesn't mention Hamas' use of human shields, of public executions, of booby-trapping civilian buildings, of placing military targets in medical facilities, or any of the many Hamas actions that directly violated Gaza civilians' human rights and international law.

While the UNHRC remains implacably anti-Israel, and this report shows that, it seems that it has been clearly stung by many of the criticisms that have been leveled against it so it is making some cosmetic changes to soften its reports.

Tuesday, June 04, 2013

Richard Falk, the terror-supporting and constantly lying UN special rapporteur who used to support Ayatollah Khomeini, who believes in bizarre 9/11 conspiracy theories and who has justified the Boston bombings as "retribution" has written the latest of his regular anti-Israel reports for the UN.

Hilariously, he goes way off topic in a crazed rant in the introduction to the document to attack UN Watch, which has meticulously documented his unsuitability for his position.
The Special Rapporteur wishes to raise another concern regarding the independence, credibility, and effectiveness of this mandate. Since the Special Rapporteur assumed this position, “UN Watch” – a “pro-Israel” lobbying organization accredited as an NGO to ECOSOC, has issued a series of defamatory attacks demeaning his character, repeatedly distorting his views on potentially inflammatory issues. This smear campaign has been carried out in numerous settings, including at the Human Rights Council, as well as university venues where the Special Rapporteur gives lectures in his personal capacity on subjects unrelated to the mandate. The lobby groups' smears have been sent to diplomats and United Nations officials, including the Secretary-General, who has apparently accepted the allegations at face value, issuing public criticism of the Special Rapporteur. It is disappointing that such irresponsible and dishonest attacks have been taken seriously, with no effort to seek the views of the Special Rapporteur or verify the accuracy of the allegations. To set the record straight, the Special Rapporteur proposes that UN Watch be investigated to determine whether it qualifies as an independent organization that operates in accord with its name and stated objectives, and is not indirectly sponsored by the Government of Israel and/or other “pro-Israel” lobbying groups affiliated with the Government, as well as whether its programme of work is of direct relevance to the aims and purposes of the United Nations.1 Even a superficial review of their website confirms their preoccupation with character assassination, and the absence of an organizational agenda that corresponds to its claim to exercise oversight over United Nations activities. Despite its efforts to discredit the Special Rapporteur, UN Watch has never offered substantive criticisms or entered into any serious discussion of the Special Rapporteur's reports. Such defamation of a special rapporteur is detrimental to the independence and substantive intention of any mandate. It diverts attention from the message to the messenger, and shifts public interest away from the need to protect human rights in contexts that have been identified by the Human Rights Council as of particular concern. The Special Rapporteur recommends that this issue be viewed in relation not only to his mandate, but also as a matter of principle relating to ensuring a responsible role for NGOs within the United Nations system. In like manner, it seems important to encourage a greater willingness on the part of senior United Nations officials to defend special rapporteurs subject to such diversionary attacks, or at the least, not to be complicit.
It looks like Falk is feeling the heat for his outrageous statements and he is lashing out. His crazed viewpoints on justifying even the most horrific terror acts are finally seeing the light of day, and Falk can no longer hide his ugliness from the very organization that gives him legitimacy. (Notably, even Human Rights Watch recently expelled Falk from one of its committees because of the embarrassment of being associated with him.)

He is a despicable man and it is nice to see that his world is crashing down around him.

(h/t Gidon Shaviv)

UPDATE: To give an idea of Falk's sick mentality, in this very report he seems to care as much about the fate of rocket launchers meant to target Israeli civilians as is does about human beings:
[During Pillar of Defense,] on the Gazan side, casualties to police and militants were greatly reduced by avoiding targeted facilities and taking secure shelter, and damage to rocket launchers was reduced by greater mobility and use of underground launching sites. 
While it many be possible Falk was trying to say that Israel's stated aim of destroying the rocket infrastructure failed, it still sure looks as though Falk is praising Hamas for saving part of its weapons aimed at civilians! While this may be consistent with Falk's oft-stated claim that Hamas rockets are simply "resistance," it is hardly consistent with his standing as a human rights expert.

Unless, of course, he considers Israelis to be a little less human.

(h/t Bebe)

Sunday, February 03, 2013

I had missed this essay from December by Richard Falk.

It is always interesting to see a special rapporteur of the UN justify targeting Jews - and for a supposed expert on international law to say that the laws themselves are insufficient in allowing the right of Hamas to shoot rockets at Jewish civilians:

There is no doubt that Hamas’s reliance on rockets fired in the direction of Israeli civilian population centers are violations of international humanitarian law, and should be condemned as such, but even this condemnation is not without its problematic aspects. The Goldstone Report did condemn the reliance of these rockets in a typically decontextualized manner, that is, without reference to the unlawfulness of the occupation, including its pronounced reliance on collective punishment in the form of the blockade as well as arbitrary violent incursions, frequent military overflights, and a terrifying regime of subjugation that imparts on Palestinians a sense of total vulnerability and helplessness. The Goldstone Report also was silent as to the nature and extent of a Palestinian right of resistance. Such unconditional condemnations of Hamas as ‘a terrorist organization’ are unreasonably one-sided to the extent that Palestinian moral, political, and legal rights of resistance are ignored and Israel’s unlawful policies are not considered. This issue also reveals a serious deficiency in international humanitarian law, especially, as here, in the context of a prolonged occupation that includes many violations of the most fundamental and inalienable rights of an occupied people. The prerogatives of states are upheld, while those of peoples are overlooked or treated as non-existent.

It is also relevant to take note of the absence of alternative means available to the Palestinians to uphold their rights under international law and to challenge the abuses embedded in Israeli occupation policies. Israel with its drones, Apache helicopters, F-16 fighter aircraft, Iron Dome, and so forth enjoys the luxury of choosing its targets at will, but Palestinians have no such option. For them it is either using the primitive and indiscriminate weaponry at their disposal or essentially giving in to an intolerable status quo. To repeat, this does not make Hamas rockets lawful, but does it make such reliance wrong, given the overall context of violence that includes absolute impunity for Israeli violations of international criminal law? What are we to do with international law when it is invoked only to control the behavior of the weaker party?

It gives perspective to imagine the situation being reversed as it was during the Nazi occupation of France or the Netherlands during World War II. Resistance fighters were uniformly perceived in the liberal West as unconditional heroes, and no critical attention was given as to whether the tactics used unduly imperiled innocent civilian lives. Those who lost their lives in such a resistance were honored as martyrs. Mashaal and other Hamas leaders have made similar arguments on several occasions, in effect asking what Palestinians are supposed to do in the exercise of resistance given their circumstances, which have persisted for so long, given the failures of traditional diplomacy and the UN to secure their rights under international law.
Falk is admitting that Hamas terror rockets aimed at Israeli civilians are unlawful - but he cannot say that they are wrong! You see, Hamas is just like the French and Dutch resistance fighters!

The major argument Falk advances is that Khaled Meshal's statements in Arabic flatly stating his desire to destroy Israel should also be "contextualized" and his ambiguous statements to the Western media being misinterpreted as showing flexibility should be what we believe.

Oh, and he is again not above lying with statistics:

Although not the whole story, the one-sided ratio of deaths as between Israel and Palestine is a good first approximation of comparative responsibility over the period of Hamas ascendancy in Gaza, and it is striking. For instance, between the ceasefire in 2009 and the Israeli attack in November 2012, 271 Palestinians were killed and not a single Israeli. [B’Teselm [sic] report]
Actually, B'tzelem counts 4 Israeli fatalities from Gaza in that time period.

But moreover, looking at the details of B'Tselem's statistics for that time period, we see that the vast majority of Gazans killed were terrorists! 200 of them were either actively engaged in hostilities against Israel (165) or targeted as leaders of terror groups (35)! Of the remainder, a large percentage were either smugglers in tunnels killed during air raids, Arabs trying to sneak into Israel or found directly next to the perimeter fence, or rock-throwing protesters. (Also, 45 Gazans killed by other Gazans, and 14 executed by Hamas.)

Then again, why should anyone be surprised when someone who clearly supports terrorism as legitimate "resistance" is also a liar?

(h/t Missing Peace)


Thursday, November 29, 2012

During the past week I noted that both Robert Serry, the UN's envoy to the Middle East, and Richard Falk, United Nations Special Rapporteur, claimed that Hamas was ready to recognize Israel after a Palestinian Arab state was established.

They follow in the footsteps of Ethan Bronner of the NYT, Karl Vick of Time magazine, and a host of so-called Middle East "experts" who refuse to believe Hamas' leaders clear statements they speak in Arabic, and instead overlay their own biases and hopes on top of purposefully ambiguous statements made in English - specifically to fool the West.

Here are three clear statements from Hamas, today, that they have never - and never will - compromise on the existence of Israel:

Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh confirmed his support for any political achievement earned by the Palestinian people "on the road to grab the state." Haniyeh stressed in a statement received by "Palestine Today" on Thursday evening, 29/11/2012, that any political achievement must be "on the basis of lack of recognition of the occupier or compromise of our strategy and our principles, first and foremost the right of return."

Haniyeh's words correspond with what Hamas Political Bureau head Khaled Meshaal said previously, as he stressed the "need to be a move in the context of a vision and a national strategy keeps the principles and national rights, and based on the strength of our Palestinian people, especially the resistance."

Member of the political bureau of Hamas Ezzat Rishq earlier said that [the PLO should] go to the United Nations to get the label of observer State, but without giving up or compromising any inch of Palestinian land from the sea to the river. Rishq said: "We support any achievement won by our people and our Palestinian national cause in all forums so as to maintain the rights of our people."
It is really hard to misinterpret such clear statements. Yet clueless Westerners do it every single day. (And the people interviewing them are equally clueless to challenge them when they spew their nonsense.)

It's not like it is news that Palestinian Arabs talk deceptively in English and tell the truth in Arabic. Arafat did it for decades. But some people refuse to believe it - because they would prefer to bet Israel's existence on Arab lies.

Wednesday, November 28, 2012

Richard Falk outdoes himself again with his embrace of terrorists and seething hatred for the Jewish state.

In a November 18th article he wrote for - where else? - Al Jazeera, Falk liberally sprinkles lies on top of a serving of half-truths to come up with conclusions that would be universally considered the ranting of a lunatic if the object of his vitriol would be anything besides Israel.

It is too tedious to fisk completely - I've done that many times, and life is way too short to spend on someone as already thoroughly discredited as Falk - but for those late to the game of exposing this United Nations Special Rapporteur, here are some quickies:

Referring to Israel's attack on Ahmad Jaabari, Falk writes:
Such an extra-judicial killing...remains an unlawful tactic of conflict, denying adversary political leaders separated from combat any opportunity to defend themselves against accusations...
Yes, Falk is saying that the leader of Hamas' terror wing, the Al Qassam brigades, is a "political leader." Falk knows this and lies.
Gaza, which is one of the most crowded and impoverished communities on the planet...
People living in Egypt, only a few miles away, are far more impoverished. As are large swaths of Africa, Asia, and South America. Gazans have malls, supermarkets, luxury hotels, plenty of food, tons of goods, nice cars and more. Not to mention that the "refugees" get free medical care and education. Falk knows this and lies.
Israeli removal of troops and settlements [in 2005] was little more than a mere redeployment to the borders of Gaza, with absolute control over what goes in and what leaves...
Two words: Egypt and tunnels. Falk knows this and lies.
From an international law point of view, Israel's purported "disengagement" from Gaza didn't end its responsibility as an Occupying Power under the Geneva Conventions...
Wrong. Very wrong. Falk knows this, and lies.
600,000 armed settlers
Really? every man, woman and child in Judea and Samaria and Jerusalem is armed? Falk knows this is a lie, and lies anyway.
The top Hamas leaders have made it abundantly clear over and over again that they are open to permanent peace with Israel if there is a total withdrawal to the 1967 borders and the arrangement is supported by a referendum of all Palestinians living under occupation.
Hamas has never, not once, even implied a permanent peace with Israel. Ever. And its terms for a truce include the destruction of Israel by allowing millions of fake "refugees" to flood it and become citizens.

Falk knows this, and lies.

But even if you can excuse a UN representative for his constant lies, his anti-semitism, his embrace of Hamas terrorists - just check out how he describes medium range Iranian rockets, with 100 kg. of explosives, being fired at population centers of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem:
It is truly alarming that now even the holiest of cities, Jerusalem, is threatened with attacks, but the continuation of oppressive conditions for the people of Gaza, inevitably leads to increasing levels of frustration, in effect, cries of help that world has ignored at its peril for decades. These are survival screams! To realise this is not to exaggerate!
Yes. Shooting rockets at women and children aren't mere war crimes, but they should be understood to be survival screams. 

What a reprehensible excuse for a human being Richard Falk is.

He fits right in to the UN.

(h/t Real Jerusalem Streets)

Sunday, November 06, 2011

From Alan Dershowitz in The New Republic:

As the discourse about Israel on university campuses continues to degenerate, there is growing concern that some of Israel’s most vocal detractors are crossing a red line between acceptable criticism of Israel and legitimizing anti-Semitism. The recent endorsements by several internationally prominent academics—including John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Richard Falk of Princeton—of an overtly anti-Semitic book written by a notorious Jew-hater illustrate this dangerous trend. 
The book in question is entitled The Wandering Who? and was written by Gilad Atzmon, a British jazz musician. Lest there be any doubt about Atzmon’s anti-Semitic credentials, listen to his self-description in the book itself. He boasts about “drawing many of my insights from a man who … was an anti-Semite as well as a radical misogynist” and a hater of “almost everything that fails to be Aryan masculinity” (89-90). He declares himself a “proud, self-hating Jew” (54), writes with “contempt” of “the Jew in me” (94), and describes himself as “a strong opponent of … Jewish-ness” (186). His writings, both online and in his new book, brim with classic anti-Semitic motifs that are borrowed from Nazi publications:
Throughout his writings, Atzmon argues that Jews seek to control the world:
·     “[W]e must begin to take the accusation that the Jewish people are trying to control the world very seriously.”
·     “American Jewry makes any debate on whether the ‘Protocols of the elder of Zion’ [sic] are an authentic document or rather a forgery irrelevant. American Jews do try to control the world, by proxy.” 
...Atzmon rehearses many of these ideas in The Wandering Who?:
·     “[T]o be a Jew is a deep commitment that goes far beyond any legal or moral order” (20) and this commitment “pulls more and more Jews into an obscure, dangerous and unethical fellowship” (21).
·     If Iran and Israel fight a nuclear war that kills tens of millions of people, “some may be bold enough to argue that ‘Hitler might have been right after all’” (179). 
...·     Children should be allowed to question, as he did, “how the teacher could know that these accusations of Jews making Matza out of young Goyim’s blood were indeed empty or groundless” (185).
·      “The Holocaust religion is probably as old as the Jews themselves” (153).
·       The history of Jewish persecution is a myth, and if there was any persecution the Jews brought it on themselves (175, 182). 
In light of this Der Stürmer-like bigotry against Jews, it should come as no surprise that even some of the most hard-core anti-Israel activists have shunned Atzmon out of fear that his anti-Semitism will discredit their cause. ....
Hard-core neo-Nazis, racists, anti-Semites and Holocaust deniers, on the other hand, have happily counted Atzmon as one of their own. David Duke, America’s premier white supremacist, has posted more than a dozen of Atzmon’s articles on his website over the past five years and recently praised Atzmon for “writ[ing] such fine articles exposing the evil of Zionism and Jewish supremacism.” Kevin MacDonald, a professor at Cal State Long Beach whose colleagues formally disassociated themselves from his “anti-Semitic and white ethnocentric views,” called Atzmon’s book “an invaluable account by someone who clearly understands the main symptoms of Jewish pathology.” Israel Shamir, a Holocaust denier (“We must deny the concept of Holocaust without doubt and hesitation”) who argues that Jews ritually murdered Christian children for their blood and that “The rule of the Elders of Zion is already upon us,” refers to Atzmon as a “good friend” and calls Atzmon one of “the shining stars of the battle” against “the Jewish alliance.”
But neither Atzmon’s well-established reputation for anti-Semitism nor the copious anti-Semitic filth that fills The Wandering Who? has deterred Professors John Mearsheimer and Richard Falk from actively endorsing Atzmon’s work. Mearsheimer, the Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago and a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, calls The Wandering Who? a “fascinating” book that “should be read widely by Jews and non-Jews alike.” Falk, Milibank Professor of International Law Emeritus at Princeton University and United Nations Special Rapporteur on “human rights in the Palestinian territories,” calls The Wandering Who? an “absorbing and moving” book that everyone who “care[s] about real peace” should “not only read, but reflect upon and discuss widely.” Falk’s endorsement appears prominently on the cover of Atzmon’s book. Mearsheimer’s endorsement is featured on its first page. These professors are not merely defending Atzmon’s right to publish such a book; they are endorsing its content and urging their colleagues, students, and others to read and “reflect upon” the views expressed by Atzmon. One wonders which portions of this bigoted screed Professors Mearsheimer and Falk believe their students and others “should” read and “discuss widely.”
Mearsheimer has defended his endorsement (on Stephen Walt’s blog) by questioning whether his critics have even read Atzmon’s book. Well, I’ve read every word of it, as well as many of Atzmon’s blogs. No one who has read this material could escape the conclusion—which Atzmon freely admits—that many of his “insights” are borrowed directly from classic anti-Semitic writings. Mearsheimer claims, however, that he has endorsed only Atzmon’s book and not his other writings. But the book itself is filled with crass neo-Nazi rants against the “Jew,” “World Jewry,” and “Jewish bankers.” He claims that “robbery and hatred is imbued in Jewish modern political ideology on both the left and the right” (123). And like other anti-Semites, Atzmon is obsessed in the book with Jewish names. It was Jews, such as Wolfowitz and Libby, who pushed the United States into war against Iraq in the “interests” of “their beloved Jewish state” (26). “How is it that America failed to restrain its Wolfowitzes?” Atzmon asks (27).
Likewise, according to Atzmon’s book, it was “Jewish bankers,” financiers, economists, writers, and politicians such as Greenspan, Levy, Aaronovitch, Saban, Friedman, Schiff, and Rothschild who have caused the economic and political problems of the world, ranging from the Bolshevik revolution to the wars of the 20th century to the current economic troubles (27,194). And like other classic anti-Semites, Atzmon doesn’t simply fault the individual Jews he names; he concocts a worldwide Jewish conspiracy motivated by a “ruthless Zio-driven” (27) “Jewish ideology” (69) that finds its source in “the lethal spirit” (122) of the Hebrew Bible. This sort of conspiratorial drivel is borrowed almost word for word from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion—the Czarist forgery that became a staple of Nazi propaganda.  
I'm glad Dershowitz actually read the vile book, because it is clear that most of Atzmon's defenders did not.

Wednesday, September 14, 2011

From Reuters:
Israel's naval blockade of the Gaza Strip violates international law, a panel of human rights experts reporting to a U.N. body said on Tuesday, disputing a conclusion reached by a separate U.N. probe into Israel's raid on a Gaza-bound aid ship.

The so-called Palmer Report on the Israeli raid of May 2010 that killed nine Turkish activists said earlier this month that Israel had used unreasonable force in last year's raid, but its naval blockade of the Hamas-ruled strip was legal.

A panel of five independent U.N. rights experts reporting to the U.N. Human Rights Council rejected that conclusion, saying the blockade had subjected Gazans to collective punishment in "flagrant contravention of international human rights and humanitarian law."
It is not until paragraph 10 that we find out the name of one of these "experts" - Richard Falk!

Richard Falk, U.N. special rapporteur on human rights in the occupied Palestinian territories and one of the five experts who issued Tuesday's statement, said the Palmer report's conclusions were influenced by a desire to salve Turkish-Israeli ties.
Ah, Richard Falk. A man who is a  the proven liar and twister of international law who explicitly supports terror against Israel and compares Israel to Nazis is opining about the impartiality of someone else's report. 


But let's look at the legal arguments of his team. Their press release says:



“In pronouncing itself on the legality of the naval blockade, the Palmer Report does not recognize the naval blockade as an integral part of Israel’s closure policy towards Gaza which has a disproportionate impact on the human rights of civilians,” stressed the experts.
“As a result of more than four years of Israeli blockade, 1.6 million Palestinian women, men and children are deprived of their fundamental human rights and subjected to collective punishment, in flagrant contravention of international human rights and humanitarian law,” they said. “Israel’s siege of Gaza is extracting a human price that disproportionately harms Palestinian civilians.”
Their main argument in this press release is that Israel's naval blockade cannot be separated from its closure of Gaza. Yet Palmer addresses this issue head-on, in paragraph 70:
At this juncture, a word of clarification is necessary. The naval blockade is often discussed in tandem with the Israeli restrictions on the land crossings to Gaza. However, in the Panel’s view, these are in fact two distinct concepts which require different treatment and analysis. First, we note that the land crossings policy has been in place since long before the naval blockade was instituted. 239 In particular, the tightening of border controls between Gaza and Israel came about after the take-over of Hamas in Gaza in June 2007. 240 On the other hand, the naval blockade was imposed more than a year later, in January 2009. 241 Second, Israel has always kept its policies on the land crossings separate from the naval blockade. The land restrictions have fluctuated in intensity over time 242 but the naval blockade has not been altered since its imposition. Third, the naval blockade as a distinct legal measure was imposed primarily to enable a legally sound basis for Israel to exert control over ships attempting to reach Gaza with weapons and related goods. 243 This was in reaction to certain incidents when vessels had reached Gaza via sea. 244 We therefore treat the naval blockade as separate and distinct from the controls at the land crossings. This is not to overlook that there may be potential overlaps in the effects of the naval blockade and the land crossings policy. 245 They will be addressed when appropriate. Likewise, the restrictions on the land crossings to Gaza are part of the context of our investigation, and our recommendations in Chapter 6 address the situation there. 246 But the legal elements of the naval blockade are analyzed on their own.
As usual, Israel bashers ignore the substance of the argument and just use repeated assertions as proof. These "international law experts" cannot marshal a single argument against Palmer so they resort to calling themselves experts and assuming that people are too stupid to actually compare the arguments.

But Falk himself is even more deceptive. He just co-wrote an article that also attacks Palmer and pretends to address the legality of Israel's naval blockade.

The most significant finding of the report is its most dangerous and legally dubious: the conclusion that Israel’s blockade of Gaza, in effect since mid-2007, was somehow, despite being severely harmful to the 1.5 million Palestinians living in Gaza, a legitimate act of self-defense.
The word "blockade" has a very specific legal meaning, and almost always refers specifically to a naval blockade (sometimes air.) When Falk says that Israel's "blockade" started in 2007 he knows he is lying - it started in 2009, during the Gaza war.

 Falk then says something that would be considered incredible if he already hadn't made a career of trampling on international law to demonize Israel:
The report gives considerable attention to the illegal rockets fired into Israel by Palestinian militants mainly associated with Hamas, and notes, appropriately, that “stopping these violent acts was a necessary step for Israel to take in order to protect its people.” But while that justifies protective action, it does not make the case for a valid claim of self-defense under international law.
Yes, Falk is making another argument that Israel is not allowed to do anything in self-defense beyond sitting there and trying to shoot rockets out of the sky.

Palmer disagrees:
74. Israel was entitled to take reasonable steps to prevent the influx of weapons into Gaza. With that objective, Israel established a series of restrictions on vessels entering the waters of Gaza. These measures culminated in the declaration of the naval blockade on 3 January 2009. There were a number of reasons why the previous restrictions were inadequate, primary among them being the need for the measures to be legally watertight. 
Falk, characteristically, is silent in responding to the actual legal arguments and instead makes up lies about the naval blockade - which is, in the end, not preventing a single shipment of humanitarian supplies from getting to Gaza.

Palmer has the last word:
80. As a final point, the Panel emphasizes that if necessary, the civilian population in Gaza must be allowed to receive food and other objects essential to its survival. However, it does not follow from this obligation that the naval blockade is per se unlawful or that Israel as the blockading power is required to simply let vessels carrying aid through the blockade. On the contrary, humanitarian missions must respect the security arrangements put in place by Israel. They must seek prior approval from Israel and make the necessary arrangements with it. This includes meeting certain conditions such as permitting Israel to search the humanitarian vessels in question. The Panel notes provision was made for any essential humanitarian supplies on board the vessels to enter Gaza via the adjacent Israeli port of Ashdod, 281 and such an offer was expressly made in relation to the goods carried on the flotilla. 282

81. The Panel therefore concludes that Israel’s naval blockade was legal.

Tuesday, March 22, 2011

Richard Falk has outdone himself again in his never ending quest to demonize Israel.

His latest report to the UN Human Rights Council includes this passage:

The continued reports of inhumane and degrading treatment, including sexual assault, of children in detention is further deplorable....In the Ariel settlement in the occupied West Bank, children reported that they had been given electric shocks by Israeli interrogators in the settlement. The children, one as young as 14 years of age, were each accused of throwing stones at a settler bypass road in the occupied West Bank. Following the electric shocks, the boys provided their interrogators with confessions, although they maintained their innocence. In May 2010, a 14-year-old boy reported that his interrogator in the Israeli settlement block of Gush Etzion, in the occupied West Bank, attached car battery jump leads to the boy’s genitals and threatened to electrify the cable. After further abuse, the boy confessed to throwing stones, although he maintains his innocence.

The footnotes for these accusations come from DCI-International Palestine where they simply ask children who were detained by Israeli authorities whether they were abused, and the kids happily answer with what the Israel-haters want to hear.

The accusations are so ridiculously lurid and absurd that only people who are already convinced of Israel's pre-determined guilt could possibly believe them.

Hence, Richard Falk quotes them approvingly.

DCI-PS counted some 40 more children killed in Cast Lead than PCHR did. Invariably, any of the children who were known to have been killed while fighting (and even those that PCHR admitted were combatants) their deaths were described by DCI-PS this way: “Despite DCI-Palestine’s best endeavours to collect affidavits from eyewitnesses to [the child’s] death, no reliable evidence could be gathered.”

More evidence of DCI-PS's disregard for the truth comes from their descriptions of the fictional "massacre" in Jenin in 2002, from April 12th and 16th, the second being copied in a separate report to the UN on the 19th after it was already becoming obvious that there was no massacre:
Reports emanating from residents of the Jenin refugee camp indicate hundreds of dead, a significant percentage undoubtedly children, as well as mass destruction of homes, businesses, and vital infrastructure.

With a limited number of journalists finally allowed entry into Jenin refugee camp, the picture of the massacre that occurred there has become increasingly clear. Testimony from survivors of this massacre present a harrowing picture of a bloody military offensive designed to destroy a civilian population and raze Jenin refugee camp to the ground. Survivors estimate that 1/3 of the camp has been completely destroyed. Moreover, eyewitnesses from the camp describe how Israeli soldiers dug mass graves for those killed in an attempt to hide evidence of the massacre. Thousands of residents have been made homeless and are now seeking refuge in neigbouring villages while desperately trying to seek missing family members.

It is estimated that several hundred residents of the camp were killed during the Israeli attack, including a large proportion of children. Video documentation and photographs from the camp are images of horror that no words can ever describe. They overwhelming illustrate the mass destruction wreaked on the camp and its residents. Journalists in the camp are describing that the air is filled with a noxious stench of rotting bodies that remain lying in the street or buried under rubble. There are also reports of summary executions carried out by Israeli soldiers in the centre of the camp.

As far as I can see, DCI-PS never retracted their lurid claims of a massacre in Jenin that killed possibly hundreds of children. And this report also shows how DCI will happily swallow any lies being given to them by "eyewitnesses" who make up stories.

Just like the kids who claimed to be given electric shocks by Israel.

In other words, the group has no compunction about lying, and they certainly would have no hesitation to ask kids released by Israel leading questions to indicate abuse when there was none. It is no surprise that they support BDS and that they do not say a word about Hamas' abuse of children and use of child soldiers.

So DCS-PS is a really great fit for Richard Falk, for whom facts that contradict his beliefs are ignored and for whom absurd rumors that confirm his beliefs are God-given truth.

Wednesday, February 16, 2011

I blogged about the execrable Richard Falk's essay about Jewish identity, where he concluded that Jews who care about the welfare of their fellow Jews are pretty much doomed to be racists, last month.

Falk gets lots of adoring comments on his blog, as well as some explicitly anti-semitic comments that he does not respond to.

A reform rabbi, Ira Youdovin, writes a thoughtful response that is too good to be relegated to an almost dead comment thread on a little-read blog. While I do not agree with everything in the comment, it shows quite well what a sick self-hating quasi-Jew Falk is:

Despite his annoying habit of calling Israelis Nazis, I have never accused Prof. Falk of being a self-hating Jew. While his animus toward Israel is apparent, I have no way of determining if it stems from an animus toward Judaism and the Jewish tradition, which is the defining characteristic of a “self-hating Jew,” of from something else. But now that he has revealed his thoughts about Jewish identity, I may have to revise my assessment.

Prof. Falk’s problem is not only with Judaism. He disdains faith communities per se, defaming them as “tribes,” whose doctrine “unconsciously and indirectly gives rise to the murderous mentality of warfare and gives a moral and religious edge to many forms of persecution, culminating in a variety of inquisitions.” Had he been born an Episcopalian, he might be beating up on the Archbishop of Canterbury. But as his essay is entitled On Jewish Identity, we must explore the evidence he brings in applying these sweeping generalizations to Judaism.

Astonishingly for a scholar of Prof. Falk’s stature and reputation, he cites precious little evidence. He mentions the “often bloody exploits of the ancient Israelites.” But those atrocities occurred in the ancient middle east, where “bloody exploits” was standard operating procedure for almost everyone. This doesn’t excuse the atrocities reported in Scripture, but it does make them unexceptionable. Some balance is achieved through praise for the “moral clarity of Old Testament prophets,” and Rabbi Hillel’s version of the Golden Rule—a forerunner of Jesus’ more famous version. The historical screen then goes dark until we are propelled into Prof. Falk’s familiar riff on the evils of contemporary Israel.

In the process, he ignores a formative period of two millennia during which Judaism evolved from a temple-based sacrificial cult to a prayer and study-centered religion. If one wants to learn about Jewish identity, that’s where one has to look. But Prof. Falk doesn’t. Although I’m not an academician, I think that a student submitting a paper entitled “On Jewish Identity” with so little supporting material would, or should, receive a failing mark, even in this era of grade inflation.

My hunch is the omission of Jewish references stems from the inconvenient truth that Prof. Falk knows very little about his subject. Perhaps he doesn’t want to know. Even a cursory study of Jewish history discredits many of the sweeping generalizations he employs to dismiss and defame Jewish identity.

Exhibit A: Prof. Falk maintains that being committed to one faith precludes “being open and receptive to the insight and wisdom of other traditions.” In fact, Jewish history demonstrates precisely the opposite. Early biblical books, including Genesis, reflect the theology and symbolism of the Akkadians and other peoples of the ancient middle east. Later books, such as Ecclesiastes, are clearly influenced by Greek philosophy. The Mishna, which was completed around 225 CE, organizes biblical legislation into categories, a format learned from the Romans. Recent scholarship has discovered an on-going dialogue between the rabbis and church fathers covering several centuries. Both sides shared ideas which each adopted and built into its separate theology. Maimonides, perhaps the greatest of all rabbis, was an Aristotelian who sought to reconcile traditional Jewish teaching with wisdom he learned from Muslim scholars during the era of Convivencia in Medieval Spain. Reform Judaism is a product of the Enlightenment. Zionism was nurtured in the intellectual soil of Romanticism. Walk into many synagogues today and you’ll find classes and spiritual exercises in yoga, meditation and other practices taken from eastern religions. The list of things borrowed and things lent is endless.

Exhibit B: Prof. Falk dismisses as “benevolent and temporary” the Jewish self-understanding that being a Chosen People bestows no privileged status, but is a mandate to pursue social justice. The historical record refutes the “benevolent and temporary” caveat. Jews have always pursued social justice, following a commandment articulated in the Book of Deuteronomy. Here inAmerica, where Jews at long last have the opportunity to participate in the larger society as full citizens, we have been leaders and workers in the pursuit of equal rights and freedom for all. And Israel, despite its flaws, remains the one democracy in the Middle East, albeit an imperfect one.

To be sure, there are Jews in Israel, the United States and everywhere who are guilty as charged. They are especially visible in certain West Bank settlements where a desire to subjugate the Palestinians prevails. But they constitute a small minority. To extrapolate a community-wide character from their aberrant (and abhorrent) behavior is polemic, not scholarship.

A word must be said about Prof. Falk’s self-aggrandizement as one who has succeeded in putting his being human ahead of his being Jewish, so that unfettered by xenophobia, he is able to savor the rites, practices and wisdom of all religions. That’s gratifying, but during my forty years as a rabbi, which should make me a Super Xenophobe, I bet I’ve attended, witnessed and participated in more Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, et al worship services than Prof. Falk, along with a slew of interfaith worship experiences. I have marched, rallied and demonstrated alongside interfaith colleagues for a long list of causes. Several years ago, my partner and I joined with a group drawn from our synagogue and a local Methodist church to rebuild an African American church in rural Alabama that had been destroyed by arson. Contrary to what Prof. Falk believes possible, being a Jew enables me and many others to be better human beings. I can say the same thing about friends who are strongly committed members of other faith communities, but frequently enjoy one another’s rituals, practices and teachings.

Most disturbing is the flagrant disconnect between Prof. Falk’s claim to an “ecumenical and inclusive spiritual identity, and associated ethical and political commitments,” and his work for the United Nations. “Ecumenical” and “inclusive” strongly suggest a deep commitment to even-handedness in addressing ethical and political issues. But the mandate he accepted when becoming Special Rapporteur of the of outrageously misnamed United Nations Human Rights Council is to report only on perceived Israeli violations on the West Bank, while turning a blind eye on Palestinian suicide bombers and the like. That’s akin to refereeing a football game while calling penalties on one side only, especially when there’s no counterpart Rapporteur to monitor the Palestinians.

You read that correctly. In a conflict fraught with extraordinary complexities, where right and wrong exists on both sides, Prof. Falk choose to play an utterly one-sided, prejudicial and destructive role. On the one hand, he tars Judaism with the accusation that its doctrine “unconsciously and indirectly gives rise to the murderous mentality of warfare.” And on the other, he is indifferent to radical Islam as it drives Hamas and HIzbollah. I can’t believe that he’s unaware of this cruel absurdity. Somehow, he manages to live with it, and also with the knowledge that the UN’s interest in him is enhanced by his being Jewish.

As one who has argued frequently and fervently that criticism of Israel is not necessarily anti-Semitism, I am appalled by the damage Prof. Falk’s essay does to my case by alleging that perceived Israeli injustices are a natural, even inevitable consequence of what he condemns as an age-old Jewish religious tradition and identity. It’s a straw man on both sides of the equation, but red meat for those who delight in believing the worst about Jews. It’s no accident that the piece has been reprinted by the Intifada-Voice of Palestine website, as well by an e-screed called Foreign Policy Journal whose publisher, Jeremy R. Hammond, recently wrote a piece entitled “The Myth of the United Nations’ Creation of Israel. “

One final thought. Did anyone blanch at Prof. Falk’s proclamation that he is a proud Jew? Huh? Proud of what? Proud of belonging to a “tribe whose religious doctrine gives rise to the murderous mentality of warfare and gives a moral and religious edge to many forms of persecution, culminating in a variety of inquisitions?”

My question as a rabbi is not whether anybody else believes him, but whether he, himself, does. A little soul searching might help him appreciate the toxicity of the things he says about Jewish identity. These insights, in turn, might help him to recognize and understand the prejudice that fuels the toxicity of what he says about Israel.

Rabbi Ira Youdovin
Santa Barbara, CA
Falk gives his typical evasive response:
Dear Rabbi Ira Youdovin:

As you are probably aware, we have common friends here in Santa Barbara, making me particularly sad that you chose to insult me so intensely and unfairly. To begin with I have never equated Israelis with Nazis, and find the accusation odious. Further, I never purported to be doing more than express my sense of my own identity as a Jew in response to allegations that I was self-hating. Further still, I received several communications from rabbis that were much kinder than yours, and even supportive of what I was trying to express. And finally, on the substance of the Israel/Palestine conflict my effort and UN mandate is not to be ‘balanced’ but to be truthful; given the structure of the occupation this is what I have tried to do. Even Richard Goldstone, with lifetime Zionist credentials, fared no better than I have when he entered the no man’s land of responsible criticism of the Israeli occupation policies.

Again, I am disappointed that you did not see fit to attempt even a civil discourse on these matters of obviously deep personal concern to you.
I'll ignore most of Falk's whining but will answer his laughable assertion that I highlighted above. Here is what Falk wrote in 2007:
[I]t is especially painful for me, as an American Jew, to feel compelled to portray the ongoing and intensifying abuse of the Palestinian people by Israel through a reliance on such an inflammatory metaphor as ‘holocaust.’ ...

Is it an irresponsible overstatement to associate the treatment of Palestinians with this criminalized Nazi record of collective atrocity? I think not.
Falk defended the comparison in this BBC interview the following year.

As far as his assertion that he is simply trying to be "truthful" in reporting on human rights violations, he requested that the UNHRC ignore any Palestinian Arab violations of their own people's human rights.

Thursday, January 20, 2011

On the topic thread on Richard Falk's blog, he wrote:

Palestinians have been living in intolerable conditions in refugee camps and under occupation for decades. In contrast, Israelis live under conditions of relative prosperity, freedom of movement, the rule of law, while Israeli settlements daily encroach upon the 22% of historic Palestine set aside after the 1967 War for an eventual Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital.

Who exactly "set aside" the territories for a Palestinian Arab state after 1967? Certainly not Jordan - at least not until some 21 years later. Just more misinformation from a world-renowned "expert."

I won't even go into his ridiculous use of "historic Palestine," as if the Jordan River was ever a border of any representation of Palestine before 1921. It's just another lie. Move along.

But since he mentioned how Palestinian Arabs are suffering in "refugee" camps, I asked him:
Have you ever publicly called for Arab countries and the PA to dismantle these camps and move their residents into normal housing? You do realize that it is not Israel that keeps anyone in camps, but their Arab hosts, do you not?

Would you say that Palestinian Arabs should have the right, if they choose, to become full citizens of their host Arab countries (Lebanon, Syria, Saudi Arabia, etc.) as any other Arabs can? If you do, have you ever publicly called for the Arab nations to rescind their laws, on the books today, that specifically discriminate against Palestinian Arabs in areas such as naturalization?

His answer:
I have not, and do not know too much about the Arab discriminatory laws against Palestinian refugees that you mention. I have had a good deal of contact with the refugees themselves, and I can honestly say that I have yet to meet a Palestinian refugee that wants to resolve the issue via the Arab governments. At the same time I have in the past and will continue to criticize Arab governments for abuses toward refugees living within their territories.
So Falk admits he never called for Arab countries to dismantle the camps. He obviously knows that it is the Arab nations and the PA and Hamas that keep the Palestinian Arabs in camps to begin with. Yet he trots out the camps on every possible occasion as proof of Israel's bigotry against Palestinian Arabs. A slight problem, no?

And this person who has studied the topic of Palestinian Arabs for decades never heard of the Arab League Council resolution 1547, adopted March 9, 1959, that Arab nations do not give citizenship to Palestinians "to avoid dissolution of their identity and protect their right to return to their homeland"? He is surely aware that West Bank Arabs only became citizens of Jordan and no other Arab country allows them to become citizens. he is certainly aware of hundreds of thousands of Palestinian Arabs, many quite well off, living in Gulf states but still stateless. And no doubt he is aware of the current Jordanian policy to strip Palestinians of their Jordanian nationality if Jordan suspects that they have family in the West Bank. I have a feeling he knows about the expulsion of hundreds of thousands of PalArabs from Kuwait, or the murder of thousands by Jordan a bit further back.

Falk disingenuously says that he has never met a Palestinian Arab "refugee" who wants to resolve the issue that way (who would ever admit to that?), but he neatly sidesteps the real questions: how many of them would choose the benefits of citizenship in their host countries if it was available? And isn't their forced statelessness at the hands of the Arab League massively depriving them of their rights to a nationality?

There is no way Falk is not aware of systematic discrimination against Palestinian Arabs by their hosts. He just chooses to ignore them in his zeal to demonize Israel. Which proves that he is yet another hypocrite who pretends to care about human rights for Palestinian Arabs but really uses that as a bludgeon against Israel while he cares little about the "refugees" who, in his mind, would rather retain that refugee status forever.

Finally, perhaps he has occasionally criticized Arab governments for abuses towards refugees, but he sure hasn't done it very much. I'can't find a single criticism amongst the avalanche of his anti-Israel statements and articles that span the Internet.

Tuesday, January 18, 2011

Another insufferably self-righteous rant from a lying, terror supporting Israel-hater Richard Falk:
As someone who is both Jewish and supportive of the Palestinian struggle for a just and sustainable peace, I am often asked about my identity. The harshest critics of my understanding of the Israel/Palestine conflict contend that I am a self-hating Jew, which implies that sharp criticism of Israel and Zionism are somehow incompatible with affirming a Jewish identity. Of course, I deny this. For me to be Jewish is, above all, to be preoccupied with overcoming injustice and thirsting for justice in the world, and that means being respectful toward other peoples regardless of their nationality or religion, and empathetic in the face of human suffering whoever and wherever victimization is encountered.
And what makes this "Jewish"?
As the great Rabbi Hilal teaches, “[T]hat which is hateful to you do not do to another. The rest (of the Torah) is all commentary, now go study.” Not hateful only to another Jew, but clearly meant to encompass every human being.
Falk, whose Jewishness is so pronounced that he cannot figure out how to spell "Hillel," wildly misinterprets Hillel's words. Hillel in no way meant that every human being has veto power over what every other human being can do, which is what Falk pretends he is saying. Falk's Hillel would be against freedom of speech if it hurts someone's feelings, the real Hillel wouldn't.

The real Hillel simply inverted "love your neighbor as you love yourself." Falk is clueless.
But in a more fundamental respect my own evolution has always been suspicious of those who give priority to tribalist or sectarian identities. In other words, it is fine to affirm being Jewish, but it should not take precedence over being human or being open and receptive to the insight and wisdom of other traditions. We have reached a point in the political and cultural evolution that our future flourishing as a species vitally depends upon the spread of a more ecumenical ethos. We have expressed this embrace of otherness in relation to food, with the rise of ‘fusion’ cuisines, and with regard to popular culture, particularly music, where all kinds of borrowing and synthesis are perceived as exciting, authentic, valuable.

Falk is here slyly accusing most Jews of racism by simply wanting to prioritize the security of their people. Of course, he would never say similar words in terms of the racial and religious superiority endemic in Arab or Muslim culture.

Prioritizing your own people - family, tribe, religion, nation - is not in itself racism. It is often necessary for survival. Should native Americans not fight for their right to maintain their culture?

If Falk would take his self-righteous words seriously, that means that he would not accept a kidney transplant for his own daughter if someone across the world might be a better candidate. I somehow doubt that his fake morality would withstand that test.

Yet by his accusing Jews of giving priorities to their own, he is charging them - and them alone, because that is the topic of this essay - with bigotry. If he would ever say anything remotely similar about Islam, I'll eat my words. The next time he sees a Saudi leader, let's see him demand that the Gulf Arabs be more amenable to accepting Hindu, Buddhist and Christian culture as being equal to their own.

There is of course no contradiction between giving priority to one's own people and learning from, and borrowing from, other cultures, and Falk's implication that (in this case) Jews resist that is ridiculous. Ever hear of Yiddish and Ladino? Ever listen to Jewish music from Arab lands? Ever notice the difference of Jewish cuisines depending on where one's ancestors came from? Jews are hardly the poster children for intolerance of other cultures. I can think of some people who might fit that criticism a bit better, but Falk would be loathe to go there.
For me this rejection of tribalism takes two forms, one negative, the other positive. I do not feel exclusively Jewish. Also, even if I did, I would never claim the superiority of the Jewish religion over other religions. I have felt uncomfortable since childhood with biblical claims, often repeated in contemporary social settings, that Jews are ‘the chosen people’ of God, even if this is understood benevolently and temporally as a special destiny associated with doing justice rather than as a matter of societal achievement via wealth and professional success. As soon as exclusivity or superiority is claimed for any ethnic or religious fraction of the human whole, there is implicitly posited a belief in the inferiority of ‘the other,’ which unconsciously and indirectly gives rise to the murderous mentality of warfare and gives a moral and religious edge to many forms of persecution, culminating in a variety of inquisitions.
Hey, Richard, do you admit that most people are either exclusively male or exclusively female?  If so, are you not using "exclusivist" terminology that will inevitably go down the slippery slope to murder of the "other"?

Judaism sees different roles for different groups of people. That brings with it a host of concomitant obligations. Within Judaism, descendants of Aaron have a different role than others, but that does not make them "superior" in any sense. Falk's lie about this basic concept of Judaism shows that his knowledge of the religion he pretends to take pride in is virtually nil.

He then makes his hatred for Jews more explicit:
And, of course, the historical climax of inverted exclusivity was the Holocaust, a process in which Jews (along with the Roma and others) were chosen for extermination. Claims of exclusivity often usually pretend to possess privileged access to truth that helps disguise monstrous intentions and behavior. To have such access, whether from a divine or secular source, treats all those outside the select circle as tainted by falsehood, the logic of which generates a societal license to kill, even to exterminate. Extreme tribalism is genocidal at its core given material scarcities and inequalities that exist in the world, which would otherwise be indefensible.
Again, Falk's only example of this "extreme tribalism" is the Jews. Is there any real difference between what he is saying here and what one can find at neo-Nazi sites?
...In my case I have at various times been inspired and enlightened by the practices and wisdom of Christian, Buddhist, Islamic, Hindu, Taoist, and indigenous peoples. And in a more mundane sense, I think that the future of humanity will be greatly enhanced if these various religious and wisdom traditions are ecumenically and inclusively embraced by more and more people throughout the world, providing a thickening societal and civilizational fiber for human solidarity....In this sense, I want to say, yes I am Jewish, and proud of it, but I am equally indigenous, Sufi, Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, and Christian to the extent that I allow myself to participate in their rituals, partake of their sacred texts, and seek and avail myself of the opportunity to sit at the feet of their masters.
Falk says he is proud to be Jewish, yet he cannot point to a single example of Jewishness that he admires. On the contrary, he only has terrible things to say about most Jews that he dismisses as tribalist and exclusivist, and any parts of the religion that treat Jews differently from non-Jews are evil.

Falk's Judaism has no room for proud Jews, nor for Jewish tradition, nor for Jewish history, nor for the Judaism practiced for thousands of years. For Falk to be "proud" of his Jewishness he must demonize the entire religion and all of its adherents.

How is that not anti-semitism?

I have criticized Falk many times in the past, but have never called him a self-hating Jew because of his anti-Israel positions. This essay, however, proves that he really is. And it can hardly be a coincidence that this anti-Zionist is also anti-semitic.

(The same post is on his blog. Feel free to comment there - he clearly reads all the comments.)

Sunday, December 26, 2010

Richard Falk, the proven liar and twister of international law who explicitly supports terror against Israel yet still holds the position of "UN Rapporteur for Palestine," has written an article that make clear that the purpose of BDS is not to change Israeli behavior but to delegitimize Israel altogether in the international community.

The article in Al Jazeera - a fitting venue for his hate - refers to the current wave of efforts to demonize Israel in the international arena by BDS advocates and lawfare supports as a "Legitimacy War."

And although the headline in Al Jazeera makes it appear that he means a war for the legitimacy of the Palestinian Arab cause, the article says no such thing. In fact, an earlier article by Falk in a far-left journal that introduced the same expression makes it very clear what he means:

The essence of this legitimacy war is to cast doubt on several dimensions of Israeli legitimacy: its status as a moral and law abiding actor, as an occupying power in relation to the Palestinian people, and with respect to its willingness to respect the United Nations and abide by international law. Those that wage such a legitimacy war seek to seize the high moral ground in relation to the underlying conflict, and on this basis, gain support for a variety of coercive, but non-violent initiatives designed to put pressure on Israel, on governments throughout the world and on the United Nations to deny normal participatory rights to Israel as a member of international society.
Although he speaks in third person in this paragraph, it is obvious that he is a leading member of this very movement to eject Israel - and only Israel - from the community of nations.

Not Syria. Not Iran. Not China. Not Sudan.

No, in Falk's twisted mind, only the Jewish state is uniquely evil enough to be shunned and expelled from the international community.

And in that original article he makes it very clear that his desired goal is to destroy the Jewish character of the state!
Even if the Palestinians win the legitimacy war there is no guarantee that this victory will produce the desired political results. It requires Palestinian patience, resolve, leadership and vision, as well as sufficient pressure to force a change of heart in Israel, and probably in Washington as well. In this instance, it would seem to require an Israeli willingness to abandon the core Zionist project to establish a Jewish state, and that does not appear likely from the vantage point of the present.
One wonders why Richard Falk is so against a Jewish (nationality and/or religion) state and has nothing bad to say against states that define themselves as Arab (nationality) or Muslim (religion.)

(h/t Zach and Womble)

Wednesday, December 23, 2009

From YNet:
In Geneva, the UN Special Rapporteur for the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Richard Falk, urged Israel's European and North American allies to press for the immediate end of the blockade "backed up by a credible threat of economic sanctions."
Isn't that "collective punishment" against the entire population of Israel, something that Falk considers unacceptable in the extreme?

(Links to other examples of Falk's lies, hypocrisy, support for terror and purposeful twisting of international law can be seen here.)

Friday, July 10, 2009

We've already seen how the UN's Richard Falk, the supposed "expert" in international law, twists the law itself to serve his anti-Israel agenda.

We've already seen how he has lied about verifiable facts to bash Israel and support Hamas.

More than once.

Falk has also asked the UN explicitly to ignore any Palestinian violations of human rights within their own areas.

And, of course, he has compared Israelis to Nazis.

Today, this self-righteous hypocritical windbag pretended to echo a man he almost certainly disagreed with and said "Tear down that wall, Mr. Netanyahu."

I wondered what this legal expert thought of Palestinian terrorism.

Well, not surprisingly, he not only downplays it, but he justifies it.

His history of the second Intifada puts the entire onus on Israel, claiming that only Israel was escalating it, exonerating Arafat completely, ignoring Israel's security needs and implying that Sharon was responsible for the intifada even though he was elected as a result of it. This 2003 article also ends with his statement that "we should at least be clear that Sharon is a much bigger obstacle to real peace than Arafat is or ever was" - an amazing statement given Arafat's history, and one that shows that his status as an expert on anything must be questioned.

More relevantly, Falk has argued that Palestinian Arabs have the legal right to violent resistance. He wrote a paper justifying the legality of the first intifada, and at the outset of the second - after a crowd of Palestinian Arabs had already lynched two Israeli soldiers and murdered them in cold blood - he wrote"Though the Israeli government and the US media persist in describing the second Palestinian intifada as a security crisis or a disruption to the 'peace process,'in international law, Palestinian resistance to occupation is a legally protected right."

Based on this other articles, he allows not only stone throwing but also "light arms" as seemingly legitimate and legal reactions to the "occupation."

Whether or not he has meant to, Falk has given legal cover for Palestinian Arabs to justify their terror as his analysis looks only at the proportion of the damage caused by each side's weapons, not the goals of using those weapons. Falk's thinking is that as long as Israel has better weapons, no one can condemn Palestinian Arab terror. (And he certainly has never done that, as far as I can tell.)

Thursday, April 30, 2009

A rare moment of diplomatic candor and truth:
Britain criticised Wednesday a report by a UN human rights investigator on Israel's Gaza offensive as "unbalanced", but insisted it was extremely concerned by the situation in Gaza and the West Bank.

Last month, the UN special rapporteur on the Palestinian territories, Richard Falk, said in a report that there was "reason" to conclude that Israel's massive military offensive on Gaza in December and January was a war crime, but the Jewish state slammed the report as "one-sided".

"The report of the UN Human Rights Council's Special Rapporteur is unbalanced and contributes little," junior foreign minister Bill Rammell said in a written reply to a parliamentary question published Wednesday.

Of course we already knew that. Nevertheless, this is a very good step towards discrediting the UN's serial liar and inveterate Israel hater Richard Falk.

Thursday, March 19, 2009

Richard Falk, the serial liar who leaves no stone unturned in his relentless quest to demonize Israel, has a new report for the UN:
A United Nations human rights investigator said on Thursday that Israel's military assault on densely populated Gaza appeared to constitute a grave war crime.

Richard Falk, UN special rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian territories, said the Geneva Conventions required warring forces to distinguish between military targets and surrounding civilians.

"If it is not possible to do so, then launching the attacks is inherently unlawful and would seem to constitute a war crime of the greatest magnitude under international law," Falk said.
Let's be clear. The IDF went above and beyond in its attempts to minimize hurting the civilians of Gaza - phone calls warning civilians [and terrorists] to leave, dropping leaflets, rerouting rockets in mid-air to avoid innocents, risking soldiers' lives to avoid civilian deaths, the use of drones to watch where civilians were. No army in history has worked harder to avoid civilian deaths. The death of Gazans served the purpose of only one party: Hamas, which worked hard to endanger the people that Israel worked to save.

For now, though, let us take Falk's statement at face value. He says that if it is impossible to distinguish between militants and civilians, then it is not only illegal to attack the terrorists to begin with - it is a "war crime of the greatest magnitude."

The Geneva Conventions, of course, say no such thing. They are clear that military targets within civilian areas are lawful to attack as long as the damage to civilians is minimized. It disallows:
an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.
Geneva allows for a nation to do what is necessary to defend itself as long as it minimizes civilian casualties. One can argue over the definition of "excessive" but the basic legality of attacking legitimate military targets, even in civilian areas, is unquestioned. Falk, however, the supposed expert in international law, has now declared illegal what Geneva explicitly allows. Not only that, but he has given Hamas and other terror groups a formula to be able to operate against civilians at will.

According to Falk, Hamas can fire rockets and send suicide bombers into Israel with impunity and Israel is legally barred from defending herself as long as Hamas hides among civilians. To be sure, he would consider terror activity to be illegal as well, but terrorists by definition don't sign nor care about international agreements, so there is no legal recourse against terrorists as there is against nations being attacked by terrorists.

Falk, in his insatiable hatred for Israel, twists the law that he pretends to uphold, to transform it into an ugly club that is meant to bash a single target.

AddToAny

Printfriendly

EoZTV Podcast

Podcast URL

Subscribe in podnovaSubscribe with FeedlyAdd to netvibes
addtomyyahoo4Subscribe with SubToMe

search eoz

comments

Speaking

translate

E-Book

For $18 donation








Sample Text

EoZ's Most Popular Posts in recent years

Hasbys!

Elder of Ziyon - حـكـيـم صـهـيـون



This blog may be a labor of love for me, but it takes a lot of effort, time and money. For 20 years and 40,000 articles I have been providing accurate, original news that would have remained unnoticed. I've written hundreds of scoops and sometimes my reporting ends up making a real difference. I appreciate any donations you can give to keep this blog going.

Donate!

Donate to fight for Israel!

Monthly subscription:
Payment options


One time donation:

Follow EoZ on Twitter!

Interesting Blogs

Blog Archive