Israel - Media Imbalance Incites Jew-hatred

[Published 5 September 2014]


The incessant media focus on Israel - compounded by misleading and factually incorrect reporting - has materially contributed to inciting the growth of Jew-hatred world-wide.

Organisations such as HonestReporting and CAMERA expose inaccurate reports appearing daily in the most widely read and supposedly reputable international newspapers, television stations, radio networks and on-line publications.

Corrections eventually made usually come too late to remedy the initial sensationalist reporting.

Matti Friedman sums up this phenomenon:

“Is there anything left to say about Israel and Gaza? Newspapers this summer have been full of little else. Television viewers see heaps of rubble and plumes of smoke in their sleep. A representative article from a recent issue of The New Yorker described the summer’s events by dedicating one sentence each to the horrors in Nigeria and Ukraine, four sentences to the crazed genocidaires of ISIS, and the rest of the article — 30 sentences—to Israel and Gaza.”

This pre-occupation with Israel at the expense of covering far more serious conflicts in the region prompted one concerned person to ask Professor Richard Falk - the former United Nations Special Rapporteur on “the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967” — the following questions:

“Nowhere on the face of the earth will you find a country that has been unremittingly attacked in the language used to attack Israel, or at all — not truly genocidal nations like Sudan, Rwanda, Nigeria, Serbia, Cambodia, Guatemala, Iraq, Syria, Pakistan and Turkey; not the world’s worst violators of human rights like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Somalia, Russia, China, North Korea and Cuba; not seizers and occupiers of land like Russia, Armenia, Turkey (Northern Cyprus), Morocco and Azerbaizhan. Where are the BDS movements, Prof. Falk? Where are the blogs? Where are the armies of blog crawlers? Where are the videos? Where are the links? What do you think it is that draws all these “critics” to Israel and nowhere else?”

Falk’s reply - designating Israel as a “special case” - is very disturbing.

“Israel is a special case for at least three reasons:
— its legitimacy was established by UN and League initiatives without any effort to take into account the views of the population physically present in the country;

— the US as the world’s self-appointed global leader has singled out Israel for the most massive financial assistance over a period of many years, and has lent controversial support to Israel to shield it from censure by the UN;

— Israel itself claims to be the only democracy in the Middle East and otherwise posits itself as a shining example even extending to the boast that the IDF is the most moral army in the world.

These three reasons explain and justify the attention given to Israel’s alleged wrongdoing. Beyond this, the fact that worse offenders are not scrutinized to the same extent as Israel is more an argument for according more attention to such offenders. It is not excuse for Israel’s behavior. Whether we like it or not the Israel-Palestine conflict has become the litmus test of international morality ever since the collapse of apartheid in South Africa.”

Falk’s reasons for assigning only Israel and none of the other nominated states “special case” status are outrageous and can be dismissed on the following grounds:

1. The “League initiatives” to which Falk refers is the Mandate for Palestine unanimously endorsed by the League of Nations in 1922. Syria, Lebanon and Iraq - products of the same Mandates system - are currently humanitarian and politically dysfunctional disaster areas. Yet Falk does not regard them as “special cases”.

2. The views of “the population physically present” were taken into account - being both politically and violently expressed from the moment Britain assumed its role as Mandatory. Arab riots in 1920, 1929 and between 1936-1939 expressed opposition to the Jewish National Home. The 1922 decision on Transjordan, the 1937 Peel Commission, the 1939 White Paper restricting Jewish emigration to Palestine, and the 1947 United Nations Special Committee on Palestine all recommended changes to the Mandate’s stated policy to the detriment of the Jewish people.

3. Israel’s legitimacy was not established by the United Nations — but by the League of Nations, seven decades of State building and defeating six invading Arab armies in 1948.

4. Since when did financial aid received from another country qualify the recipient to be classed as a “special case” because other countries received lesser aid or no aid from the same donor country?

5. America has not always vetoed resolutions against Israel in the Security Council. America has also vetoed resolutions affecting countries including Panama, Nicaragua, Namibia and South Africa — but never have they been regarded as “special cases”

6. Israel is indeed the only democracy in the Middle East and its army is certainly one of the most moral armies in the world — yet Falk has long advocated support for the PLO and Hamas whose stated objectives are to wipe Israel off the face of the earth.

Falk’s discredited assertion that Israel is a “special case” setting it apart from the world community for special treatment encourages

1. the media to keep focusing disproportionately on Israel

2. Arab and Islamic countries justifying their continuing non-recognition of Israel

3. Jew-haters and self-hating Jews world-wide maintaining their campaigns denigrating and delegitimising Israel.

“Jews are always good for news” needs an urgent media rethink and policy overhaul — if increasing Jew-hatred world-wide is to be effectively silenced.

Palestine - Unearthing Past Remains Key To Resolving Future

[Published 29 August 2014]


The cease fire agreement ending hostilities in the Fifty Day War between Israel and Hamas marks yet another milestone attesting to the failure of Jews and Arabs to peacefully resolve their claims to sovereignty and self-determination in the territory once called “Palestine”.

Amazingly - the continuing inability of the parties - and the international community — to reach consensus on identifying when this long running conflict actually commenced —ensures it will continue to remain unresolved.

Emeritus Professor Richard Falk — formerly United Nations Special Rapporteur on Palestinian human rights in the West Bank — still claims in his latest article that the conflict started in 1947.

“Israel was born in 1948. Resolution 181 of the United Nations General Assembly [dated 29 November 1947 — Ed] is widely regarded as the most convincing legal basis for founding the State of Israel.”

Falk gave the following reasons for his viewpoint on 1 August 2012:

“I regard the Balfour Declaration and the mandatory system as classic colonial moves that have lost whatever legitimacy that they possessed at the time of their utterance, and prefer to view the competing claims to land and rights on the basis either of the 1948 partition proposal or the 1967 boundaries, although if there was diplomatic parity, I would respect whatever accommodation the parties reached, but without such parity, it seems necessary to invoke the allocation of rights as per settled international law.”

Falk’s opinion mirrors article 20 of the Palestine Liberation Organization Charter:

”The Balfour Declaration [1917], the Mandate for Palestine [1922], and everything that has been based upon them, are deemed null and void.”

Falk’s opinion is not shared by Matti Friedman — who in his latest article identifies the starting date as being much earlier than 1947:

“The Israel story is framed in the same terms that have been in use since the early 1990s — the quest for a “two-state solution.” It is accepted that the conflict is “Israeli-Palestinian,” meaning that it is a conflict taking place on land that Israel controls — 0.2 percent of the Arab world — in which Jews are a majority and Arabs a minority. The conflict is more accurately described as “Israel-Arab,” or “Jewish-Arab” — that is, a conflict between the 6 million Jews of Israel and 300 million Arabs in surrounding countries. (Perhaps “Israel-Muslim” would be more accurate, to take into account the enmity of non-Arab states like Iran and Turkey, and, more broadly, 1 billion Muslims worldwide.) This is the conflict that has been playing out in different forms for a century, before Israel existed, before Israel captured the Palestinian territories of Gaza and the West Bank, and before the term “Palestinian” was in use.

The “Israeli-Palestinian” framing allows the Jews, a tiny minority in the Middle East, to be depicted as the stronger party. It also includes the implicit assumption that if the Palestinian problem is somehow solved the conflict will be over, though no informed person today believes this to be true. This definition also allows the Israeli settlement project, which I believe is a serious moral and strategic error on Israel’s part, to be described not as what it is — one more destructive symptom of the conflict — Sanbut rather as its cause.”

Adopting Friedman’s viewpoint over Falk’s - one can confidently nominate the 1920 San Remo Conference as the legal basis for founding the State of Israel — when England, France, Italy, and Japan agreed to divide the areas of the 400 years old Ottoman Empire conquered by them in World War 1 into three mandates — Mesopotamia (now Iraq), Syria/Lebanon and Palestine.

This carve up was intended to see Arab self-determination eventually achieved in 99.99% of the conquered Ottoman territory and Jewish self-determination in the remaining 0.01%.

These proposals were unanimously endorsed by all 51 member States of the League of Nations in 1922.

But they proved to be temporary only in relation to Palestine—because three months later the provisions of Article 25 of the Mandate for Palestine enabled Great Britain to restrict the reconstitution of the Jewish National Home to within 23% of the tiny area of land originally set aside to achieve that objective at San Remo — with the remaining 77% of Mandatory Palestine eventually becoming an independent Palestinian Arab state in 1946 — that is today called Jordan.

The period 1920-1947 without doubt covers a host of critically important legal and historical signposts that cannot be forgotten or buried.

Whilst the two-state solution ultimately created between 1946-1948 as a result of the San Remo Conference is ignored - attempts to resolve sovereignty in today’s highly volatile West Bank and Gaza are destined to certain failure and renewed conflict.

The two-state solution posited by the Oslo Accords and the Bush Roadmap creating a 22nd independent sovereign Arab State in the West Bank and Gaza between Jordan and Israel for the first time ever in recorded history has failed to materialize - despite twenty years of intensive political and diplomatic efforts by the international community.

The PLO (founded in 1964) and Hamas (founded in 1987) both seek to unravel the decisions made at San Remo in 1920.

They need to be replaced as Israel’s Arab negotiating partners by the two successor States to the Mandate for Palestine - Jordan and Israel - and possibly Egypt — to determine and allocate sovereignty of the West Bank and Gaza between their respective States.

Unearthing the past still remains the key to peacefully resolving the future.

Internet - Fertile Field Promoting Jew-hatred And Jew-bashing.

[Published 3 November 2013]


The Internet has become one of the major contributors to the growing spread of Jew-hatred and assaults on Jews world wide.

The senseless attack by eight hooligans in Bondi, Sydney last week bashing five Jewish people - one a 62 years old woman - as they were walking home after enjoying a Sabbath meal with friends - has resulted in an outpouring of world-wide condemnation by politicians, the media, the public and other religious groups.

Yet it is only one of an increasing number of such similar assaults on Jews world-wide.

Jewish communities have for decades been required to place their synagogues, communal schools and organizations under 24 hour security surveillance.

The propensity of the Internet to become an uncontrolled vehicle for racial incitement has been allowed to escape under the radar. It is time that its capacity to so influence the minds of its readers was diminished.

What has become particularly disturbing is the ability of people to make whatever comments they like on the Internet without disclosing their full names and addresses to web editors when submitting their comments.

Newspapers require such details to be supplied – and only in exceptional circumstances will anonymous letters be published.

Why do Internet sites not demand the same standard of compliance?

Failure to do so has seen the publication of anonymous comments such as the following:

“The Jews will still occupy the West Bank and blockade Gaza and continue with their brutal, genocidal occupation. If the world were to be rid of the U.S. and Israel, there would be a chance of peace in our chaotic, conflicted world. Surely, anyone with half a brain can see that!"

Freedom of speech should not mean that people should enjoy freedom from prosecution or legal action for comments they make that defame people or groups of people or incite or are capable of inciting violence.

Should the following comment have been allowed to be anonymously posted?

“Racist Israel is more than an abomination in the Middle East, it is a threat to the 7bn people it considers not to be racially “special”. Us. All the more reason to stop keeping it alive, and to target it with overwhelming nuclear might if it retaliates against civilisation for refusing to back its play. The Zionists may be blinded by their belief that God will protect them. Nobody and nothing will.”

No doubt apologists will argue that objections can be lodged to delete offending comments – but its implementation inevitably leads to strident cries claiming censorship.

Securing the deletion of an objectionable comment also ignores the damage caused during the time that such comment has remained online before its removal.

These vile viewpoints – if authoritatively sourced – should be exposed to public gaze so that readers can understand the level and intensity of the hatred that exists – as exemplified in the following comment:

“Why should we [love Jews] given what they do to the Palestinians and have done since 1948? I don’t think that Jews are capable of love. Their religion gets in the road. Their god is loveless and punitive and so are they!”

Jews are not on their own in being singled out for such incessant abuse and vilification on the Internet.

Protecting free speech – no matter how denigrating or defamatory – can be safeguarded on the Internet - if web sites make it clear that no comments will be considered for publication unless they are accompanied by the writer’s full name and address - and a phone number supplied for verification purposes that would allow the site administrator to confirm the identity and address of the person seeking to have his comments published on that web site.

The writer’s name and general area location should accompany the comment when published.

Compliance with these requirements should become the minimum norm demanded by the administrators of every web site.

It surely is time for such a voluntary code of conduct to be introduced to end comments being made under the cover of anonymity on the Internet by using false names or pseudonyms to conceal the writer’s true identity.

If such standards were applied – the following comments would not have appeared on “Citizen Pilgrimage” – the blog page of Emeritus Professor Richard Falk – “UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights on Palestinian territories occupied since 1967”:

1. “If Israel and the Jews hope to avoid the next shoah, they had better start learning a little empathy, because, while you are laughing now, things can change very rapidly, as we have seen in the last century (and the one before that, and the one before that….). Do you really want to be on the side that takes down our fragile civilization?”

2. “We can’t afford any more wars, especially ones to rescue Jews who have acted recklessly again and gotten themselves in trouble again with their big mouths and by flaunting their wealth in an unseemly manner.”

3. “The truth is that Jews have a terrible track record, and they seem to be obsessed with the (false) notion that people hate them for no reason. There are very good reasons for hating jews today, and that makes me sad. How can jews be acting this way so soon after the last catastrophe?"

Ending anonymous and unverified comments on the Internet is long overdue.

Paraphrasing Neil Armstrong’s immortal words – doing so would represent one small step for a man - but one giant leap for mankind.

Jordan/West Bank Bi-National State Under Discussion

[Published 12 July 2013]


Israeli and Palestinian negotiators have been discussing the creation of a bi-national State in the West Bank and Jordan according to Professor Richard Falk - United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian Territories occupied since 1967.

Professor Falk is revered by the Palestinians whilst simultaneously being targeted by many others - including United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay - for his controversial views on a range of matters including his suggestion that the Boston marathon bombing was a justifiable response to America’s interventionist US foreign policy and his posting of an anti-Semitic cartoon on his web site.

Writing in his blog “Citizen Pilgrimage” - Professor Falk disclosed discussions were taking place on a bi-national State during an exchange he and I were having - after he had written:

“I do agree with you about the ‘two state’ solution being a dead letter, and rather bad faith on all sides to pretend otherwise.

The question seems to me to be “What Next?” I think the Jordanian option is one answer, but not one I endorse. There is a need for this discussion, I agree to this extent.”

I then sent Professor Falk a recent article written by me arguing for the creation of a bi-national state in Jordan and the West Bank to embrace the aspirations of the Arab populations of both territories.

Professor Falk’s response on 8 July was unexpected and very encouraging:

“I have read your article with care, and it does provide a clear alternative to the two-state solution. It is also an approach that I know from my diplomatic contacts is being encouraged by Israeli negotiators in private meetings with the Palestinian Authority, and toward which the PA has not expressed outright rejection, but apparently a willingness to consider.”

Whilst expressing that he had several problems with this solution - which he enumerated - Professor Falk continued:

“Given the paucity of decent alternatives, if the legitimate representatives of the Palestinian people genuinely accepted such a solution without it being imposed, it might be better than nothing, and the best among bad options.”

I addressed Professor Falk’s concerns to which he made the following response:

“Without attempting to respond point by point because there are some underlying gaps separating our positions that cannot be bridged by reasoning or compromise, I will merely express my reservations about advocating a resumption of negotiations”

Two of Professor Falk’s reservations were:

1. “I do not discern any support among Palestinians for the Jordan bi-national option that you are proposing"

This was a surprising statement in view of the fact that he had earlier indicated that Palestinian negotiators had expressed a willingness to consider such a proposal and were in fact negotiating with Israeli negotiators on such a proposal.

2. "I find no interest in this approach among Jordanians, either those in government or those in leadership roles among the various ethnicities living in the country.”

Professor Falk was apparently unaware that the following statement had been recently made by Jordan’s Minister of Culture - Barakat Awajan:

“Jordan and Palestine are joined by one culture and connected by blood, geography and sacred ties”

My attempt to respond to Professor Falk has been met by an impenetrable fire wall. Three efforts to contact him using three different computers have not been successful. That is unfortunate.

Professor Falk is obviously well placed to know what is going on among the Palestinians.

I would regard his comments on discussions for a bi-national State being conducted between Israeli and Palestinian negotiators as well-sourced and authentic.

Jordanian knowledge and acquiescence in those negotiations can be gleaned from the above statement by Jordan’s Minister of Culture - which incidentally was made face to face to his Palestinian counterpart Anwar Abu Aisha in Amman.

US Secretary of State Kerry has not been travelling backwards and forwards between America and the Middle East merely to have his prestige and reputation trashed in a repeat of what has occurred to previous Secretaries of State over the past 20 years.

Creating a bi-national State in Jordan has always been the solution most likely to succeed in resolving the conflict between Jews and Arabs.

It is a solution which accords with the historic, geographic and demographic realities of the region and will result in the Jews ending up with sovereignty in about 20% of Mandate Palestine and the Arabs with sovereignty in about the remaining 80%.

There will be many Jews and Arabs not happy with an outcome that does not yield them 100% and the other nothing.

That however is not what a settlement is about. A good settlement is one which leaves both sides bemoaning what they have gained.

Professor Falk’s opinion that the bi-national state is the best of many bad options will surely resonate with the Palestinians. He has their confidence and their ear. I hope he is instrumental in helping them understand the wisdom of accepting such a resolution - if further conflict and suffering is to be avoided.

Maybe indeed we might at last just be seeing some light at the end of the tunnel after travelling for more than 95 years in the darkness - witnessing conflict after conflict with intolerable suffering for both Jews and Arabs.

After all - the right to breathe is the most fundamental human right we all have.

Palestine - UN Special Rapporteur Bans Free Speech

[Published 31 March 2013]


United Nations Special Rapporteur on “the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967” - Professor Richard Falk - has taken the extraordinary action to ban posts on his blog page “Citizen Pilgrimage”.

This has happened to myself and at least one other person when we attempted to post comments in response to an article written by Professor Falk titled ” What was wrong with Obama’s speech in Jerusalem”

My detailed comment sought to point out what was right with President Obama’s speech in Jerusalem. It had been published as an article on many Internet pages around the world and reproduced on the web sites of scores of others without editorial amendment.

I presented a considered and reasoned analysis of what President Obama had said. It was not couched in inflammatory or defamatory terms. It considered aspects of President Obama’s speech not referred to in Professor Falk’s article and came to an entirely different conclusion to the views expressed by Professor Falk.

To my amazement Professor Falk’s response to my post was:

“My blog is no longer open for this sort of polemics on the Israel/Palestine conflict. There are many other more important venues to carry on these discussions.”

My reply to Professor Falk - pointing out his decision amounted to the banning of free speech and requesting he reconsider his decision - went unanswered.

I subsequently sought to post an entirely different response to another contributor’s comment - but it was also not published.

One person who sought to post a comment to Professor Falk’s article received the following response:

“Mr. Skolnik: My blog is no longer open for this sort of polemical responses that insult either me or others who submit comments. There are many other venues for this sort of debate.”

Stangely Professor Falk had no similar qualms in publishing the following comment from one of his readers:

“I have been following events in Israel and Cyprus closely, and stand by my assertions. I find it both fascinating and terrifying that Germany is the force behind the Cypriot haircut, in which unscrupulous jewish industrialists, all of whom hold Israeli passports, are having their bank accounts seized and money transferred to Germany. Who would have predicted this turn of events, but really, once you spot the pattern, it becomes impossible to deny this jaw-dropping turn of events, and its ominous implications.”

It is clear that there are many readers of Professor Falk’s blog who would be grossly offended by this Jew-hating language - yet it was published.

I do not seek to silence these Jew-haters airing their views on Professor Falk’s blog. Better the world should be aware such views exist and are exposed to critical comment.

My articles sometimes attract such vile and repulsive comments. Never would I seek to have them expunged. I prefer to respond to such comments or let my readers do so.

But why should a UN Rapporteur concerned with human rights seek to ban the views of others like myself and Mr Skolnik - if he allows such a vile post as this to appear as a comment on the same blog page?

Intrigued by the Professor’s totally unexpected and unexplained reaction to my post - I contacted other sites where his article had been published.

One was a virulently Jew-hating web site called “Shoah - The Palestinian Holocaust” It had no problem posting the identical response that I attempted to post on Professor Falk’s web page

Another was “Ramy Abdeljabbar’s Palestine and World News” - not what one would call a pro-Israel site. It published my response to Professor Falk’s article without indulging in the histrionics and petulance displayed by Professor Falk.

A third site was “Transcend Media Service” - which describes itself in the following terms:

“TRANSCEND International is an experiment in promoting peace by peaceful means throughout the world. Traditionally, institutes have been centered around a building where the people who work together meet on a regular basis. Since many people who share common interests in helping transform conflicts nonviolently and creatively are geographically scattered and cannot usually be physically together, our solution is to create an electronic network of members. This, in addition, diminishes our carbon footprints and contributes to attenuate the global warming crisis.”

Professor Falk is a member of the Transcend Network.

Transcend saw nothing objectionable in posting my response to Professor Falk’s article

Professor Falk needs to understand that attempts by him to ban freedom of expression and free speech on his web site demean himself and his position as a UN Special Rapporteur.

Those in authority at the UN who repeatedly express their support for the protection of human rights must be prepared to act against one of their own by denouncing Professor Falk’s actions in the strongest terms with a view to ending his crass attempt to deny the inalienable right of every human being to speak out and be heard.

Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and members of the UN Human Rights Council - are you listening or do you endorse Professor Falk’s outrageous conduct?

Palestine - Creative Compromises Can Conquer Conflict

[Published 4 January 2013]


t has taken less than a month for the euphoria generated by the United Nations General Assembly Resolution conferring non-member observer status on the “State of Palestine” to dissolve into a farcical denouement.

Mahmoud Abbas’s folly in unilaterally approaching the United Nations in breach of the Oslo Accords has been neatly summed up by CBS News foreign affairs analyst Pamela Falk in her article “Is Palestine now a State?”

“In the end, the Resolution does not change the Palestinians lives on the ground, and it does not “recognize” Palestine as a state.”

UN Special Rapporteur for the West Bank - Professor Richard Falk - offered his own prognosis on 2 January on his blog page:

” At this point, I do not believe that the two-state consensus can be implemented, nor is the one-state alternative politically feasible.”

Demise of the two-state solution is confirmed by the following recent developments:

Firstly - Jamal Muheisen, a member of the Fatah Central Council, has reportedly told the Jerusalem Post that Hamas is conducting secret negotiations in an Arab country to reach agreement with Israel over the establishment of a Palestinian state with temporary borders in the Gaza Strip and Sinai.

Muheisen has claimed that the negotiations were being held under the auspices of the US claiming that:

“Hamas is seeking to establish its own emirate while leaving the West Bank as cantons that are separated by settlements. Hamas’s goal is to foil the establishment of a Palestinian state on all the territories that were occupied in 1967.”

Secondly - The 2003 United States Roadmap proposing a two- state solution has disappeared off the radar with State Department Spokeswoman Victoria Nuland only being able to offer this vision:

“As we turn the calendar to 2013… now is the time for leaders on both sides to display real leadership, to focus on the work that’s necessary to return to direct negotiations,”

That option is unlikely to happen.

Israel and the Palestinian Authority have not held direct high level talks since September 2010 - at the tail end of a 10- month Israeli settlement freeze to which Abbas failed to respond until the freeze had nearly expired.

The Palestinian Authority still demands that settlement construction stop once again before they engage in talks - which they have said should pick up where they left off with Israel’s then Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in 2008.

These demands will certainly not be met by Israel in the aftermath of November’s General Assembly Resolution.

Abbas has now become firmly stuck on his high horse with no way to get down without considerable loss of face and prestige.

Thirdly - Attempting to salvage something from the wreck - Abbas has let it be known that he would be prepared to consider a confederation with Jordan once a Palestinian State was recognised in the territory lost by Jordan to Israel in the 1967 Six Day War.

If the creation of such a state has not reached first base after twenty years of tortuous negotiations - then it certainly will not do so after Abbas’s foray at the United Nations.

Creative compromises are now urgently needed to determine the allocation of sovereignty in the West Bank and Gaza that do not involve the creation of a State between Jordan, Israel and Egypt for the first time in recorded history.

Seeds for some such compromises appear to be sprouting from two different sources.

Firstly - Reports emanating from Gaza suggest that discussions are underway with Egypt to supply electricity and natural gas to Gaza to reduce its dependency on Israel.

Egypt has also been permitting freer access and egress to and from the Gaza Strip.

Such moves would materially assist in restoring the close relationship Egypt had with Gaza when it occupied and administered Gaza from 1948-1967.

If this relationship can be creatively nurtured to enable Egypt to provide a sphere of influence that persuades Gaza to look to Egypt for its salvation - rather than targeting Israel in continuing conflict - then the prospects for an improved relationship between Israel and Gaza could well be the end result.

Secondly - Reunification of the West Bank with Jordan as existed between 1950-1967 has now been raised as a possibility by the well respected and well connected Palestinian Arab commentator Daoud Kuttab in his article published in the Atlantic on 26 December - “Are the Palestinians ready to share a State with Jordan?”

Kuttab recalls his exclusive interview in 1993 with Israel’s then Prime Minister Yitzchak Rabin - the first ever given to a reporter working for a leading Palestinian newspaper.

Kuttab writes:

“I asked Rabin for his vision as to the ultimate political status of the West Bank and Gaza in 15 or 20 years. Rabin, who at the time, we later discovered, had approved the Oslo back-channel, took a puff at a cigarette given to him by one of his aides, and answered that he envisions it being part of an entity with Jordan.”

Kuttab has also dismissed the confederation idea proposed by Abbas:

“Confederations are political systems that include two independent countries. For some time in the 1980s, this was the most talked-about term in the region. The late Salah Khalaf (Abu Iyyad), the former head of intelligence for the PLO, was quoted as saying that what Palestinians wanted was five minutes of independence and then they would happily agree to a confederation with Jordan. However, the issue became politically poisonous as soon as the late King Hussein of Jordan said publicly that he doesn’t want anyone to ever utter the term “confederation.” And so it has been for the past two decades.”

And so it will apparently continue - no matter what Abbas says.

Kuttab concludes:

“While it is unclear if Jordan will ever end up having any sovereign role in the West Bank, support for a greater role for Jordan in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict will no doubt increase in the coming months and years if the current decline of the PLO and the Palestinian Authority continues. The one determining factor in all of the discussions will have to come from the Israeli side, which has yet to decide whether it will relinquish sovereignty over the areas occupied in 1967 to any Arab party, whether it be Palestinian or Jordanian.”

Israel has already agreed to cede its claims to sovereignty in more than 90% of those areas in 2000 and 2008 and only needs a willing Arab partner to close the deal.

Jordan is rapidly readying itself to fill that role.

Creative compromises can indeed conquer conflict as a means of resolving even the most intractable and long running disputes.

Palestine - Falk's Failed Philosophy Guarantees Continuing Conflict

[Published 1 November 2012]


Professor Richard Falk - United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967 - has returned to world headlines with another controversial annual Report.

Falk this time round has encouraged a boycott of United States industry giants Caterpillar Inc., Hewlett Packard and Motorola, Israeli cosmetic firm Ahava, Cemex of Mexico, Veolia Environment of France, G4S of the United Kingdom and Volvo Group of Sweden, among others, and for civil society to join that effort.

His call amounts to a denial of the rights of people to choose who they deal with, where they establish their businesses and who they employ. The successful implementation of Falk’s call will lead to the loss of employment, loss of dignity and inability to provide food and shelter for those put out of work as a result - exacerbating rather than helping to resolve the Jewish-Arab conflict.

Professor Falk said the focus on the business community was partly an expression of frustration over the failure to persuade Israel to comply with its fundamental legal obligations.

Professor Falk’s notion of what Israel’s “fundamental legal obligations” are - can best be gleaned from the following comments made by him during an exchange with me on his personal blog site on 1 August 2012:

"I really do respect your concern with the historical background of the conflict, and how it bears on the merits of various lines of interpretation from the perspective of relative rights and international law. I hold two views, however, that make it seem to me not useful, in fact, the opposite to dwell on these concerns at this stage: first, a long political process ever since the UN was established that has settled the international law questions in favor of Palestinian claims on such matters as settlements, Jerusalem, self-determination, and even refugees, and I find that these outcomes accord with my sense of justice in determining the relations between the two peoples; I believe that Israel has itself generally, although indirectly, acknowledged this conclusion by using its leverage to avoid the intrusion of international law issues in ‘the peace process’ and by defying international law when it cannot avoid its relevance (wall advisory opinion of ICJ; Goldstone Report)

Secondly, I regard the Balfour Declaration and the mandatory system as classic colonial moves that have lost whatever legitimacy that they possessed at the time of their utterance, and prefer to view the competing claims to land and rights on the basis either of the 1948 partition proposal or the 1967 boundaries, although if there was diplomatic parity, I would respect whatever accommodation the parties reached, but without such parity, it seems necessary to invoke the allocation of rights as per settled international law."

Professor Falk’s peremptory dismissal of settled international law between 1919 and 1947 in relation to the former territory of Palestine - part of the former Ottoman Empire for 400 years until its capture by Great Britain in World War 1 - is puzzling.

The Treaty of Versailles, the San Remo Conference, the Treaty of Sevres, the Treaty of Lausanne, the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine and article 80 of the United Nations Charter are all dismissed as a“classic colonial moves” in what can only be displayed as a breathtaking display of arrogance by Professor Falk.

Indeed his rejectionist views are identicl to the views espoused by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in Article 20 of the PLO Covenant:-

"The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate for Palestine, and everything that has been based upon them, are deemed null and void"

Professor Falk - like the PLO - prefers to abandon these internationally sponsored legal building blocks in favour of:

“a long political process ever since the United Nations was established that has settled the international law questions in favour of Palestinian claims on such matters as settlements, Jerusalem, self-determination and even refugees.

With the greatest respect to Professor Falk - international law is not settled by pronouncements of the United Nations but by judgments and advisory opinions delivered by the International Court of Justice operating within the jurisdictional parameters conferred on it by the United Nations Charter.

There have been no binding resolutions by the United Nations in relation to settlements, Jerusalem, self determination or refugees that can be used as a basis for approaching the International Court of Justice to seek their enforcement against Israel.

If there were - Israel’s enemies would most certainly have been queuing up at the International Court seeking orders long ago.

Professor Falk sees as extant the League of Nations unanimous decision to recognise the right of the Jewish people to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in Palestine without prejudice to the civil and religious rights of the non-Jewish communities living there.

The preservation of that right as enshrined in Article 80 of the 1945 UN Charter is also irrelevant in Professor Falk’s blinkered view.

By some queer quirk of logic Professor Falk wants to take as his starting point in the Jewish-Arab conflict either the “1948 partition proposal” or the “1967 boundaries”.
Neither of Professor Falk’s starting points even exist.

There was a 1947 - not 1948 - partition proposal by the United Nations.

The Arabs regrettably rejected that proposal. The opportunity then afforded by the United Nations to end the Jewish-Arab conflict cannot possibly be replicated 64 years later.

There were no 1967 boundaries - but there were 1967 armistice lines. The difference between the two is critical and cannot be transposed as Professor Falk seeks to do.

Professor Falk’s claim that Israel is defying international law in relation to the wall advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice is equally without substance since that decision is non-binding according to the Court’s own constitution.

One would expect a Professor of Law to be precise and accurate in his choice of language and attention to factual detail. Professor Falk fails on both counts.

Professor Falk is certainly entitled to espouse the views he does.

However, his entitlement to continue in his role as a Special Rapporteur must surely be questioned when he seeks to ignore a whole body of settled international law created before 1948 - whilst continuing to act in this highly sensitive position.

A new appointment to replace Professor Falk should be a priority.

His use-by date has surely been reached.

Palestine - Burying The Past, Faking The Future

[Published 16 August 2012]


Richard Falk - United Nations Special Rapporteur on “the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967” - provides compelling proof of how successful the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) has been in its attempt to bury historical fact and international law regarding the former territory of Palestine.

Mr Falk is not on his own among the United Nations coterie of organizations and officials who seem ready to try and wrest the title deeds granted to the Jewish people to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in Palestine pursuant to the Mandate for Palestine and article 80 of the UN Charter - following the decisions of the San Remo Conference and the signing of the Treaty of Sevres.

Former Secretary General Kofi Annan amazingly failed to include any mention of the Mandate and article 80 in his brief delivered to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in 2003 when seeking its advisory opinion on the legality of part of Israel’s security fence being erected in the West Bank.

The ICJ’s subsequent failure to consider the effect of the Mandate and article 80 still needs to be explained - especially as one of the Presiding Judges warned that such an examination was necessary.

UNESCO maintains that Palestine is a State - when it clearly fails to comply with the requirements of the Montevideo Convention 1933.

Now Mr Falk - writing recently on his blog page - adds further fuel to the fire:

“I regard the Balfour Declaration and the mandatory system as classic colonial moves that have lost whatever legitimacy that they possessed at the time of their utterance, and prefer to view the competing claims to land and rights on the basis either of the 1948 partition proposal or the 1967 boundaries, although if there was diplomatic parity, I would respect whatever accommodation the parties reached, but without such parity, it seems necessary to invoke the allocation of rights as per settled international law.”

Mr Falk was parroting what had first appeared in Article 18 of the PLO Charter in 1964:

“The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate system and all that has been based on them are considered fraud.”

But even the PLO was forced to change that viewpoint just four years later - when it recognized that if the Mandate system was a fraud, then the Mandates for Syria and Lebanon and Mesopotamia - which had delivered self determination to the Arabs in 99.90% of the captured Ottoman territory - could also be subject to challenge.

With some crafty draughtsmanship - Article 18 was replaced in 1968 with the following Article 20 in the redrafted Charter:

“The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate for Palestine and everything that has been based on them is null and void”

In response to Mr Falk’s remarks - I asked him:

“The mandatory system delivered self determination to the Arabs as well as the Jews. When did the League of Nations mandate lose its legitimacy as settled international law?
Are both Jordan and Israel illegitimate?
Is article 80 of the UN Charter not settled international law?
The partition proposal was in 1947 — not 1948. It spoke of a Jewish state and an Arab state—not a Palestinian state. There were no 1967 boundaries. Do you agree? “

Mr Falk’s reply was very troubling:

“Churchill was a notorious advocate of colonialism and possessed a colonial mentality, persisting after World War II. I think it is not in Israel’s current interest to argue the historical case for its original claim of statehood.
A more compelling ground would be to work toward peace and reconciliation premised on the 1967 realities. To keep moving the goal posts, ‘fact on the ground’ after 1967, is equally doomed if a sustainable peace is our shared goal.”

Suddenly everything was to now be forgotten in Mr Falk’s opinion before “the 1967 realities”.

The penny dropped as I commented :

“I now am beginning to understand why you don’t want to have anything to do with the Mandate and article 80 of the UN Charter or what happened between 1920-1948.. The inconvenient truth of the Jewish people’s struggle to assert its legal claim to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in Palestine during those 28 years totally undercuts and dismisses those who would deny the Jews any legal or moral rights in their ancient and biblical homeland.

Now you even go further in wanting to forget 1948-1967 as well—when you state:
“I think it is not in Israel’s current interest to argue the historical case for its original claim of statehood. A more compelling ground would be to work toward peace and reconciliation premised on the 1967 realities.”

Israel’s case is not only historical—it is legal—sanctioned by the League of Nations and the United Nations. Why do you continually seek to deny the existence of these vested Jewish legal rights?"

Mr Falk then proceeded to change tack yet again in stating:

“Your reliance on the Balfour Declaration, UN partition proposals, etc., is one, but only one, construction of international law. There are competing constructions that do not regard as any longer valid all acts based on colonialist authority. My own view because of these contradictory lines of historical authority is to start from the present reality to sort out the respective claims of both peoples according to the logic of self-determination, an approach that will never satisfy extremists on either side, but has the best chance of achieving a sustainable peace.”

Suddenly the ”realities of 1967” mentioned as a starting point just a few days earlier had disappeared into the blue yonder to be replaced by “the present reality” as the new starting point.
Both puzzled and bemused I was motivated to ask Mr Falk:

“Which of the “contradictory lines of historical authority” do you personally accept?
1. the PLO position that regards the Balfour Declaration, the Mandate and everything that resulted from it to be null and void.
OR
2. The Zionist position that accepts the Mandate to have been a proper exercise of the League of Nations sovereign power to confer on Great Britain

With respect this is the third time you have changed your starting date:
1. You originally said 1948 or 1967

2. You then said 1967

3. You now state — “the present reality”

Won’t any of these starting points still involve sorting out the respective claims of both parties to self determination based on what happened between at least 1917-2012 and what happened to the territory once called Palestine during that period?”

I am still waiting for an answer from Mr Falk.

Turning historical facts and established international law on its head in favour of a fake and forged PLO narrative can only exacerbate - not help resolve - the 130 years old conflict between Arabs and Jews.

Palestine - UN Special Rapporteur Fostering Jew-hatred Again

[Published 3 August 2012]


Richard Falk - UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights on Palestinian territories occupied since 1967 - appears to have landed himself in hot water once again - as his web site “Citizen Pilgrimage” - has hosted a series of posts that contain comments that are highly offensive and insulting of Jews.

He apparently has not learned any lesson after having been rapped over the knuckles by UN Human Rights Commissioner Navi Pillay following his posting of an anti-Semitic cartoon on the same website last June - which drew the following admonition from Ms Pillay in a letter to UN Watch:

“Notwithstanding the fact that Mr. Falk is neither a representative nor an employee of my Office, thank you for drawing my attention to the anti-Semitic image that was posted on his personal website. I utterly deplore and condemn anti-Semitism, as I do any form of incitement to hatred and racial discrimination.

I also note Mr. Falk’s series of public apologies, in which he explained his inadvertent mistake and clearly acknowledged the anti-Semitic and objectionable nature of the cartoon. I welcome the fact that he swiftly removed the image from his website, and expressed his regrets at his own “carelessness” in not examining it more carefully before posting it in the first place.”

One of Mr Falk’s apologies contained the following statement::

“My intention has never been to demean in any way Jews as a people despite my strong criticisms of Israeli policies,and some versions of “Zionist support". To be clear, I oppose any denigration of a people based on ethnicity, race, religion, stage of development, and believe in the human dignity of all people in their individual and collective identity.”

Yet one year later Mr Falk has allowed the following views (and many more) to be openly espoused on his web site in a series of separate posts:

“If Israel and the Jews hope to avoid the next shoah, they had better start learning a little empathy, because, while you are laughing now, things can change very rapidly, as we have seen in the last century (and the one before that, and the one before that….). Do you really want to be on the side that takes down our fragile civilization?”

“We can’t afford any more wars, especially ones to rescue Jews who have acted recklessly again and gotten themselves in trouble again with their big mouths and by flaunting their wealth in an unseemly manner.”

“The truth is that Jews have a terrible track record, and they seem to be obsessed with the (false) notion that people hate them for no reason. There are very good reasons for hating jews today, and that makes me sad. How can jews be acting this way so soon after the last catastrophe?"

I have been witness to these vicious posts as I endeavoured to get some responses from Mr Falk to objections I had taken to an article he had written in which he maintained that the moral and legal premises of Jewish claims in the West Bank were “without substance”.

Mr Falk’s assertion - at the time of his cartoon apology - that he opposed the denigration of people based on ethnicity - could not be possibly squared with what he was allowing to be published on his web site just twelve months later.

Mr Falk supposedly realised the seriousness of his publishing similar comments by stating:

“Recently my blog posts have attracted some venomous comments. I have somewhat reluctantly ‘approved’ of most such comments unless blatantly anti-Arab, anti-Palestinian, anti-Semitic, racist, or personally defamatory, and even with such offending comments I have leaned toward inclusion. Recently, however, I have received several critical messages (one of which I assume was from me - author) suggesting that allowing such comments demeans the quality of the dialogue generated by the blog. These messages have prompted me to reconsider my way of filtering comments,and lead me to become somewhat more of a gatekeeper.”

In a further sign of his intent to forbid posts such as those set out above - Mr Falk stated:

“ I welcome dissent, I will exclude ‘Jew haters,’ but include all who seek discussion and debate carried on in a civil tone, without bashing those whose views they disagree with.”

However, Mr Falk actually published these remarks the day before the publication of the above offensive statements. It would appear that his protestations at ending the publication of Jew-hatred posts lasted less than 24 hours.

Mr Falk might show how serious his intentions are this third time around by immediately removing the above offensive statements and many more posts in similar vein still able to be read on his site.

Will it be a case of “three strikes and you’re out” as Special Rapporteur if he doesn‘t?

These inflammatory statements have no place on the web site of a Special Rapporteur.

Perhaps he also needs to rethink his stated opinion that the Jewish People have no legal right to reconstitute the Jewish National Home anywhere in former Palestine as expressed by him in the following post:

“I regard the Balfour Declaration and the mandatory system as classic colonial moves that have lost whatever legitimacy that they possessed at the time of their utterance, and prefer to view the competing claims to land and rights on the basis either of the 1948 partition proposal or the 1967 boundaries, although if there was diplomatic parity, I would respect whatever accommodation the parties reached, but without such parity, it seems necessary to invoke the allocation of rights as per settled international law.”

Of course the partition proposal was in 1947 - not 1948 and there were no 1967 boundaries - only armistice lines.

Denying the Jews have any legal rights under the 1917 Balfour Declaration, the 1922 Mandate for Palestine and article 80 of the UN Charter perhaps helps explain why so many vile comments were received on Mr Falk’s website such as this one:

“And give me a break with the nonsense about how there are 59 islamic countries but no jewish ones. Grow up, would you? Jews aren’t rich and powerful enough?“

The sooner Mr Falk acknowledges that his position requires him to uphold international law - not denigrate or demean it - the sooner he might be able to bring the prestige and influence of his office to bear in helping to end the 130 years old conflict between Jews and Arabs.

Has the leopard changed his spots or merely tried to camouflage his tracks?

I reserve my judgment.

United Nations Must Liberate Gazans - Not Gaza

[Published June 2010]

The statements issuing from senior United Nations officials following the two failed attempts by the Free Gaza Movement (FGM) to break Israel’s blockade of Gaza during the past week were strident and uncompromising - but entirely misdirected and unhelpful in seeking an end to the misery and suffering being endured by Gaza’s civilian population.

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon headed the protests condemning Israel’s failure to allow the blockade to be breached stating:

“The long-running closure imposed on the Gaza Strip is counter-productive, unsustainable and wrong. It punishes innocent civilians. It must be lifted by the Israeli authorities immediately.”

The Secretary General was supported by Assistant Secretary-General for Political Affairs Oscar Fernandez-Taranco who told the UN Security Council that :

“today’s bloodshed would have been avoided if repeated calls on Israel to end the counterproductive and unacceptable blockade of Gaza had been heeded…the blockade is unacceptable and counterproductive and must end.”

Not wishing to be left out on a limb - Richard Falk - the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the occupied Palestinian territory - characterized the blockade of Gaza as a

“massive form of collective punishment… Unless prompt and decisive action is taken to challenge the Israeli approach to Gaza all of us will be complicit in criminal policies that are challenging the survival of an entire beleaguered community,”

Strangely missing from all three statements was any mention or criticism of:

(i) Egypt - which had also been maintaining the blockade of Gaza for as long as Israel.

(ii)Hamas - which had assumed control of Gaza in 2007 after a bloody internecine struggle with the Palestinian Authority - leading to the joint blockade of Gaza by Israel and Egypt in an attempt to restrict the flow of arms, war materials and terrorists into Gaza.

(iii)The FGM - whose motives in organizing the attempted breaches of the blockade went far beyond those of a humanitarian organisation purely seeking to end the suffering of the Gazans.

The FGM’s end game is identical to that of Hamas - the destruction of Israel as the national homeland of the Jewish people. This is not a secret agenda but is made very clear in its mission statement which declares:

“6. We recognize the right of all Palestinian refugees and exiles and their heirs to return to their homes in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories; to recover their properties, and to receive compensation for damage, dispossession and unlawful use of such property. This is an individual and not a collective right, and cannot be negotiated except by the individual”

The FGM is perfectly entitled to espouse such views. However the insistence on this right of return has been one of the main stumbling blocks in arriving at the “two-state solution” over the last 17 years.

Israel will not accept this demand - whether it is sought to be enforced by individuals or by either Hamas or the Palestinian Authority. Compensating both Palestinian Arab refugees as well as Jews who fled Arab countries following the 1948 War through the establishment of an international claims tribunal offers a possible way forward.

However if return - rather than compensation - is to be pressed then it can only ever come about as a result of conflict - which will make the current humanitarian problem in Gaza pale into insignificance by comparison with the humanitarian crisis that would be created if force was employed to achieve this objective.

Breaking the blockade will greatly strengthen Hamas in pursuing the right of return that the FGM also openly calls for - by allowing Hamas the freedom to bring into Gaza whatever weapons and terrorists it wants.

The FGM does not seem to be too concerned that in seeking to end the suffering of the Gazans this might become the prelude to inflicting suffering on the Israelis as Hamas pursues its stated aim of liberating Palestine.

The Gazans therefore remain stuck between Israel and Hamas as human shields to deter any military efforts by Israel to defeat this Hamas end game. Their plight has become increasingly evident since Israel’s unsuccessful attempt to rid Gaza of Hamas control in January 2009.

The UN are being taken for fools and need to rethink their attitude to Gaza.

If the UN truly wishes to end the privation and suffering of the Gazans then there is only one way out of the current predicament - the evacuation of the Gazans from Gaza.

The Gazans are in a situation fraught with danger as they live between two combatants - Israel and Hamas . Gazans need to be offered the opportunity to evacuate Gaza to safer havens until it is safe for them to return to Gaza.

Evacuation through Egypt to those countries willing to accept the evacuees should not be beyond the capacity of the 191 countries that make up the UN. Certainly the 57 states that comprise the Organization of the Islamic Conference must play a leading role in accepting the evacuees.

Israel was able to absorb one million refugees from Russia. It should not be beyond a concerned world to accommodate a similar number of Gazan evacuees on a temporary basis until circumstances permit their return to Gaza.

Certainly many Gazans will not want to be evacuated - but all should at least be given the opportunity to do so by the UN.

Israel will not be ending its blockade though it may well ease it. However useless calls such as those emanating from the Secretary General and his minions calling for an end to the blockade will continue to be rejected - with good reason - by Israel.

Israel is entitled in its national interest to do everything in its power to blunt Hamas and secure the safety and security of all Israelis - both Jews and Arabs.

Instead of futilely continuing to challenge Israel’s approach to Gaza - the UN should try to do something positive to end the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

Failure to implement a policy of evacuation of Gaza’s civilian population will indeed make the UN complicit in failing Gaza’s beleagured community when it had the opportunity to end their current suffering - but did nothing constructively to do so.

The UN at the very least must follow the practice of its own High Commissioner for Human Rights — Navi Pillai - who at the height of the Sri Lanka conflict in 2009 called for the evacuation of the entire civilian population by land or sea.

Failure to similarly do so now in the case of Gaza will condemn the UN as a totally impotent, biased and irrelevant body.