Palestine: Paris conference challenges UN Security Council Resolution 2334

[Published 11 January 2017]


Seventy countries flocking to Paris on January 15 seem set to challenge Security Council Resolution 2334 before the ink has hardly dried.

America’s House of Representatives voting 342-80 has already declared that it:

“opposes United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334 and will work to strengthen the United States-Israel relationship, and calls for United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334 to be repealed or fundamentally altered so that —

(A) it is no longer one-sided and anti-Israel; and

(B) it allows all final status issues toward a two-state solution to be resolved through direct bilateral negotiations between the parties.”

Now the Paris Conference seems set to blindside the Security Council’s vision expressed in the preamble to Resolution 2334:

“a region where two democratic States, Israel and Palestine, live side by side in peace within secure and recognized borders,”

Four indicators point to this Security Council “two democratic states solution” being deliberately abandoned at the Paris Conference:

1. A statement by France’s Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Development on 28 December 2016 welcomed:

”.. John Kerry’s clear, courageous, and engaged speech in support of peace in the Middle East and the two-state solution, with Israel and Palestine living side-by-side in peace and security.

France shares the US Secretary of State’s conviction that it is necessary and urgent to implement the two-state solution.”

Kerry’s speech mentioned “two states” 29 times without stipulating they must be “democratic.”

The Foreign Minister’s above statement does likewise twice.

2. An updated draft of the Paris Conference’s summary statement obtained in advance by Haaretz - indicates that the conference decisions are already a done deal before one glass of champagne or a canape have been enjoyed by the delegates and their entourages.

This summary statement mentions the term “two-state solution” eight times without highlighting they be “democratic” once.

3. The summary statement (Paragraph III) says that looking ahead the conference participants:

“expect both sides to restate their commitment to the two-state solution and to disavow official voices on their side that reject this solution”

This statement is the very antithesis of democracy - seeking to shame duly elected politicians from freely expressing their ideas and thoughts.

Paul Waldman asks what is the point of the “disavowal ritual” and answers as follows:

“its real purpose is to define the boundaries of the acceptable, both within each party and in politics as a whole. When someone gets disavowed, we all know that to be associated with them will lead to shame and reproach. That person and what they represent, it has been made clear, is out of bounds.”

Disavowal might appeal to those seven UN Security Council member-States that are not democracies and repress free speech — China, Russia, Angola, Egypt, Malaysia, Ukraine and Venezuela.

However the other eight democratic member-States on the Security Council — France, United Kingdom, America, Japan, New Zealand, Senegal, Spain and Uruguay should be appalled.

Demanding two democratic States envisioned by Security Council Resolution 2334 — and the disavowal of official voices on both sides that reject the Security Council’s solution - will not be embraced at this Conference.

4. Not one word in the summary statement says how and when democracy will be achieved and maintained in the “State of Palestine”

The “two-state solution” does not necessarily require:

(i) Mahmoud Abbas to terminate the thirteenth year of his four year Presidential term,

(ii) Gazan and West Bank Arabs being given the vote for the first time since 2006 and

(iii) two non-elected governing authorities making way for one elected Government.

Paris promises the sudden death of Resolution 2334 with the burial of the Security Council’s “two democratic states solution”.

Palestine - European Union Must End PLO Subjugation And Exploitation

[Published 1 June 2016]


The European Union (EU) possesses the financial levers to end 10 years of exploitative rule by the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) in not holding any elections in the West Bank during that period.

95% of the West Bank Arab population live in Areas “A” and “B” under the total administrative control of the PLO. That population has been subjugated into silence by the PLO and given no opportunity to freely express their support or otherwise for the political and economic decisions taken by the PLO since 2006.

The EU in February 2015 released €130 million in direct financial support to the Palestinian Authority (PA) and a further €82 million to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA).

Commissioner for Neighbourhood and Enlargement Negotiations, Johannes Hahn, commented at the time:

“The EU remains committed to the two-state solution and will therefore continue to support the Palestinian Authority in its state-building efforts and in delivering basic social services.”

Hahn’s statement ignored that the PA had:

1. frustrated state-building efforts to bring about the two-state solution during the previous twelve months by refusing to resume negotiations with Israel without preconditions.

2. ceased to exist as a legal entity after President Abbas had disbanded it by Presidential decree on 3 January 2013.

The stated purpose of EU funding — introduced in 2008 - included sustaining the now-defunct PA

“in its effort to pursue the fundamental values of human rights, democracy and the rule of law.”

The PLO spurns these values:

1. continuing to declare international law — the Mandate for Palestine and article 80 of the UN Charter - null and void and

2. denying its own citizens the right to free speech and free elections.

Yet despite another 12 months of no negotiations with Israel — the EU directly channelled another €170.5 million to the PA on 1 March 2016 and €82 million to UNRWA.

High Representative/ Vice-President - Federica Mogherini - said:

“The European Union renews its concrete commitment to the Palestinians. Through this package, the EU supports the daily lives of Palestinians in the fields of education and health, protecting the poorest families and also providing the Palestinian refugees with access to essential services. These are tangible steps on the ground that can improve the lives of Palestinian people. But these steps are not enough; Palestinian institutions must continue to grow stronger, become more transparent, more accountable and more democratic. Viable and inclusive institutions, based on respect for the rule of law and human rights, are crucial in view of the establishment of an independent and sovereign Palestinian State. Because what we want to achieve is the establishment of an independent and sovereign Palestinian State living side by side, in peace and security, with the State of Israel and other neighbours.”

Again we hear the same pious platitudes of democracy, respect for the rule of law and human rights uttered by the EU — but ignored by the PLO.

Surely it is time for the EU to demand that President Abbas:

1. Resign his office as President — an office he clings to seven years after his four year term expired — to end growing public perceptions of corruption now held by 81% of the population and curb his escalating autocratic tendencies¬†

2. Hold EU-supervised elections in the West Bank for the first time since 2006

3. End the radicalisation and Jew-hatred being taught in UNRWA schools beginning in Grade 1

4. Resume direct negotiations with Israel without preconditions

How long is the EU going to keep shelling out large sums of money — only to see the implementation of its noble objectives being continually subverted?

UN Security Council Moves To End Anonymity On Internet

[Published 15 May 2016]


Ending the plague of anonymity on the Internet seems closer to fruition following moves this week by the UN Security Council.

Re-affirming its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security the President of the Security Council re-iterated:

“the urgent need to globally counter the activities of ISIL (Da’esh), Al-Qaida and associated individuals, groups, undertakings and entities to incite and recruit to commit terrorist acts”

by a variety of measures including:

“developing the most effective means to counter terrorist propaganda, incitement and recruitment, including through the Internet, in compliance with international law, including international human rights law;”

The President called on its Counter-Terrorism Committee in close consultation with other relevant United Nations bodies and international and regional organizations as well as interested Member States to present a comprehensive international framework to the Security Council by 30 April 2017.

Steven A Crown, vice president and deputy general counsel of Microsoft told the Security Council:

“there is no silver bullet that will stop terrorist use of the Internet.”

Crown was quick to acknowledge:

“For the internet industry, the scale of the terrorist challenge is daunting. We know that there are tens of thousands terrorist internet accounts that refuse to die. As one is taken down, another quickly springs up in its place.”

Crown’s appearance marked the first time a representative of a technology company has addressed the U.N.‘s most powerful body.

Crown was surely being naïve in expressing this opinion.

The use of the Internet as a communications tool has been fuelled by the anonymity afforded to those who use it – enabling all kinds of hate and incitement to be spewed out daily without recourse to those who claim to have been legally affected by those who make their vile and outrageous statements.

Surely the first step in any move by the Security Council to combat this “Internet Intifada” is to insist that all member States impose laws in their jurisdictions compelling all Internet providers to insist on the names , addresses and contact phone numbers being provided by all registered users of their websites - including those seeking to post comments.

These details would be held by the Internet provider and could be subpoenaed in any proceedings brought in a competent court of law by persons claiming to have suffered as a result of any offending publication.

Large penalties would be prescribed for those providers who failed to check the bona fides of those using the internet.

U.S. Ambassador Samantha Power correctly said it was important to protect free speech.

"As we consider the task of countering violent ideologies we all must recognize that the common goal of countering terrorist ideology should never be used as an excuse to suppress political dissent. Legal action is a critical tool in the campaign against ISIL but it must not be wielded like a cudgel against those who voice unpopular speech or criticize authorities. Such behavior doesn’t prevent violent extremism, it fuels it.”

Ending anonymity on the Internet is not a threat to free speech. It does not prevent anyone saying whatever they want to say within the bounds of what is legally acceptable.

Anonymity has been widely rejected by most newsprint around the world.

Popular talk back radio shows have a seven second delete button to filter calls deemed to be outside what is legally permitted.

Ending anonymity on the Internet – if prosecuted by all UN member States - will lead to those tens of thousands of terrorist internet accounts currently in existence and their would-be successors being quickly and effectively eliminated.

If people are not prepared to reveal their identities – don’t publish.

Palestine - Internet Intifada On Free Speech Intensifies

[Published 14 April 2016]


An increasing number of anti-Jewish and anti-Israel websites are banning comments made by me in response to articles or readers’ comments published on their sites.

These websites have:

1. Simply not posted my comments or

2. Deleted all published comments – including mine - when factual errors pointed out by me cannot be successfully challenged or denied - thereby exposing the unquestionable venom and hate being spewed out on these websites

The latest novel attempt to blatantly silence me recently reared its ugly head when I attempted to respond to this reader’s offensive and unsubstantiated comment:

"Wow — “smug” is the perfect word for this effing Zionist.

Great post — thank you!

Go BDS! Go every other effort to expose and dispose of the criminally psychotic ideology Zionism and its every adherent! Viva Palestine!"

My response was not published.

Mysteriously however another even more offensive comment was posted by the same reader responding to my unpublished comment:

"David Singer, I found your:

RIP Palestine. All this nonsense could have been avoided had the Arabs accepted the 1947 UN Partition Plan or created a second Arab state in former Palestine – in addition to Jordan – between 1948 and 1967 after all the Jews living in the West Bank and Gaza had been driven out by six invading Arab armies.


The Arabs need to step up to the plate and accept the consequences of those decisions which have caused so much grief to Jews and Arabs since."

at my incoming e-mail site. Now, why should the already dispossessed, scattered Palestinian polity — you know the stats: at least 750,000 cleansed from their land, up to 500 villages razed by Zioterrorists by 1949 — have accepted an illegal move engineered by Zionist schemers (who bragged of “having it all” even then) and foisted on the fledgling UN (the GA at that) in November 1947? The Palestinians wanted justice and their own independent state then and they’ve steadfastly sought justice and fulfillment of their legitimate aspirations ever since. “nonsense,” bullxxxt!

Enough, already, of your “singing,” Singer."

Well might you ask - how did my unpublished comment make its way into this crude reader’s email box without it being published on-line first?

The saga does not end there.

I then endeavoured to post the following response:

"You state:

“The Palestinians wanted justice and their own independent state then and they’ve steadfastly sought justice and fulfillment of their legitimate aspirations ever since”

The Palestinian Arabs could have had their own independent State in 1947 in a much larger share of former Palestine than is available to them now under any negotiated settlement in 2016 - if they had not rejected the UN Partition Plan.

Do you agree?

You are also silent on the fact that they could have also had their own independent State in all the West Bank and Gaza and even East Jerusalem between 1948 and 1967 when not one Jew lived there and Jordan and Egypt were the occupiers. That could have happened with the stroke of an Arab League pen.

Do you agree?

Those golden opportunities will not return.

The Palestinian Arabs and their Arab brethren in the Arab League have blown it well and truly.

They will have to settle for a lot less than 100% of the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem if they want to make peace with Israel.

Do you agree?"

These comments have not been published.

Suppressing free speech on these insidious websites must be continually exposed and roundly condemned.

Deliberately manipulating these hate-filled websites perpetuates an unchallenged aura of lies and distortions that are misleadingly and deceptively influencing readers’ opinions on the Arab-Jewish conflict.

Palestine - Internet Manipulation Fuels Anti-Israel And Jew-hatred

[Published 6 April 2016]


Internet manipulation of readers’ comments in response to articles published on overtly anti-Israel and anti-Jewish web sites is allowing those web sites to spew out their venom unchecked and uncontrolled.

Freedom of speech on these web sites is non-existent - and its absence is playing a large part in influencing the opinions of those who visit these sites and see no readers’ comments that act as a counterbalance or rebuttal to the article published or readers’ comments supporting such articles.

Such manipulation has until now taken either of the following forms:

1. Simply not publishing a reader’s comment

2. The editor can claim to exercise editorial control of what appears on his web-site – and there is nothing you can really do about it.

I received this treatment when seeking to comment on the decision by McGraw Hill to trash the remaining copies of a text book “Global Politics: engaging a complex world “ – after four maps of “Palestine” in 1946, 1947, 1948-1967 and 2000 were subsequently determined by McGraw Hill to be inaccurate and misleading.

My comment detailing why McGraw Hill’s decision was justified was not published.

This rejection motivated me to write an article “Palestine – Internet Intifada Denies Free Speech” - which was published on many web sites - and subsequently went viral.

Publishing readers’ comments – overwhelmingly anonymous - that do not address the subject matter of the article but comprise general comments repeated over and over again - such as “ethnic cleansing”, apartheid” and “stealing Palestinian land” - denigrating and delegitimising both Israel and Jews.

A web site using both of these manipulative practices in tandem represents a web site where only the Arab narrative of the Jewish-Arab conflict is presented and the Jewish narrative is deliberately suppressed and excluded.

Now a far more serious form of manipulation to those outlined above has been exposed - involving the initial publication - but subsequent deletion - of readers’ comments some considerable time after they have first been published.

Again – I have been the recipient of this highly offensive and objectionable practice in relation to the identical comment posted by me supporting McGraw Hill’s decision on another anti-Israel and anti-Jewish web site.

Two comments were initially posted by two other people on this website criticising the McGraw Hill decision to trash – and were published on 20 March and 26 March. So far – no problem.

My comment was published on 29 March – no problem.

My comment drew a very virulent and hate-filled response from an anonymous third reader on 29 March – resulting in the exchange of a further seven published comments from each of us to the other - ending on 2 April with the following post by me:

“You seem intent on not wanting to answer this one simple question:

“Do you consider the maps withdrawn by McGraw Hill to be inaccurate and misleading because they did not show the Negev to be “desert bedouin land” as you yourself have claimed?

All you need do is answer “Yes” or “No”.

That is not too hard for you is it?”

Imagine my complete surprise - when I visited the site the following day to see if a response had been posted – to find that all eleven comments published between 20 March – 2 April had been deleted by the web editor and the comments section totally removed.

Luckily I had taken a photo shot of all eleven comments posted.

Otherwise you might not have believed it possible that hostility and antagonism towards Israel and Jews could stoop to such low levels.

Beware hate-filled Arab propagandists who want to conceal the truth at any cost.

Palestine - Internet Intifada Denies Free Speech

[Published 27 March 2016]


Many Palestinian websites are stifling free speech by refusing to publish comments answering anti-Israel articles published on their sites.

The latest example is an article written by Rania Khalek on Electronic Intifada

Responding to the decision by McGraw Hill Education to destroy all copies of its text book Global Politics: engaging a complex world - containing the accompanying maps - Khalek claimed:

“The maps, which appear in chronological succession on page 123, show Palestinian land loss from 1946, one year before Zionist militias initiated the displacement of more than 750,000 indigenous Palestinians from historic Palestine, to the year 2000, by which point Palestinian land had been reduced to a handful of tiny non-contiguous enclaves in the occupied West Bank and a sliver of Gaza.”

I endeavoured to post the following comment in response on 21 March pointing out the misleading nature of these maps:

“Map 1:
The heading - “Palestinian and Jewish Land 1946” - is misleading for the following reasons:
(i) The map excludes Transjordan which in 1946 still comprised 78% of the territory of the Mandate for Palestine until granted independence by Great Britain in May 1946.

(ii) The land described as “Palestinian land” misleadingly implies legal ownership by the Palestinian Arabs of that land when in fact about 90% of it was State land under British Mandatory control and legal power of disposition.

Map 2:
(i) The legend “Palestinian land” is misleading.

(ii) The legend should have said “proposed Jewish State” and “proposed Arab State” - the terms used in the UN Partition Plan.

Map 3:
The heading “1949-1967” is misleading.

The map should have shown the unification of the West Bank with Transjordan between 1949 and 1967 and the change of name of Transjordan to Jordan in 1950.

It should also have designated the Gaza Strip as being under Egyptian military administration between 1948-1967.

Map 4:
One can only wonder why the year 2000 was chosen. Why not 2015 after Israel had already withdrawn from Gaza and four settlements in the West Bank in 2005 and dismantled many illegal outposts?

In any event the legend “Palestinian land” and “Israeli land” is again wrong and misleading in so far as it relates to the West Bank. The land there should have been shown as Areas “A”, “B” and “C”

As maps designed to be taught to students they are totally lacking in accuracy and ignore basic facts in their compilation.

Designating land as “Palestinian land” in any event implies that such land belongs to the “Palestinians”. Since there were no persons designated as “Palestinians” until the 1964 PLO Charter defined that term—the use of the term in maps before then smacks of an attempt to re-write history.

Mc Graw Hill had no option but to discard these maps”

My comments have not yet been published - and comes at a particularly sensitive time as Electronic Intifada Editor Ali Abunimah - a US citizen - has recently received a visa from the Australian Government - after waiting two months - to speak at a four day Marxism Conference and at other venues in Australia.

Abunimah posted the following tweet thanking the thousands who had petitioned the Australian Government supporting the grant of his visa:

“I’m so grateful to every person who stood up for free speech. Delighted that I just received my visa for Australia. See you Down Under!”

4:44 AM - 16 Mar 2016

Perhaps my comment inadvertently slipped through the cracks as Mr Abunimah was busy packing his bags for his visit to Australia.

Free speech means free speech for all Mr Abunimah.

Stand up, be counted, publish my comment.

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.

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 - Tongue-tied and Terrified

[Published 15 February 2013]


“The State of Palestine” is not a place that encourages or tolerates freedom of speech - if recent events are any guide.

David Keyes has made this very clear in an article written by him in the New York Times:

“Last week, a 26-year-old Palestinian activist, Anas Awwad, was sentenced in absentia by a court in Nablus, the West Bank, to one year in prison for "extending his tongue” against the Palestinian Authority’s president, Mahmoud Abbas, on Facebook.Thousands have joined a Facebook group to show their solidarity with Mr. Awwad, but the damage has been done. Free speech has been set back, and a chill sent throughout Palestinian society.”

Awwad had uploaded a photo of Abbas on Facebook dubbing it with the caption “the new striker in “Real Madrid”. Perhaps he might have got a lighter sentence had the caption read “the new striker in Unreal Palestine“

Awwad’s “crime” appears to have been committed in the context of the PLO’s ongoing six year struggle for political dominance over its bitter rival Hamas.

In all likelihood Awwad is a Hamas-supporter and has become the latest victim among hundreds of Palestinians who are exposed to detention because of their political opinions.

The law used to convict Awwad was a 50-year-old Jordanian law still operative in the West Bank. The law became applicable in the West Bank when it was unified with Transjordan to form a new territorial entity called Jordan in 1950.

The law was intended to punish critics of Jordan’s monarchy.

Applying that law now to send someone to prison for criticising an unelected and unconstitutional President overstaying his term of office four years after his term has expired indicates the ingenious legal thinking that has permeated the legal system of the “State of Palestine”

The sentence highlights the questionable democratic credentials Mr. Abbas claims to possess when meeting Western leaders.

A suit and tie do not maketh the man.

Abbas has pledged to move Palestine towards a practising democracy as the final destination for creating the two-state solution.

Depriving his constituents of their right to freedom of expression and to hold political views contrary to him is the very antithesis of democracy.

The respected Israeli Arab journalist Khaled Abu Toameh has made it clear that this assault on individuals is also happening to journalists in both the West Bank and Gaza

“Over the past few weeks, several Palestinian journalists have been arrested in the West Bank and Gaza Strip for reportedly criticizing the policies and leaders of the Palestinian Authority and Hamas."

But this most recent assault on freedom of expression does not seem to bother the Western countries that fund the Palestinian Authority or Hamas supporters from all around the world.

As far as many Western governments and journalists are concerned, physical assaults on Palestinian reporters in the Gaza Strip are fine as long as they are not perpetrated by Israel.

The Palestinian Authority crackdown on Palestinian journalists in the West Bank is also fine as long as Israel is not involved.

Most of the assaults against journalists took place in the Gaza Strip, where Hamas continues to display zero tolerance towards critics or anyone who dares to say something “controversial.”

In the past few weeks, at least 16 journalists from the Gaza Strip were arrested or summoned for interrogation by Hamas authorities in the context of a campaign aimed at intimidating the local media.

Some of the journalists were released only after Hamas forced them to sign a document stating that they would refrain from attending press conferences or covering various activities unless they obtained permission in advance.”

Jillian Yorke- the director of international freedom of expression at the Electronic Frontier Foundation has noted that this not the first time Jordanian law has been used to prosecute online speech in the West Bank.

“In 2010, Walid Hasayin was arrested in Qalqiliya and accused of violating Article 273 of the Jordanian Penal Code, which deals with insults to “religious feelings of other persons or their religious faith”. And in 2011, another man was arrested under the same article."

Yorke further points out:

“... growing internet penetration has raised the spectre of unbridled freedom for the Palestinian Authority (PA) - (now defunct - ed).With nearly a quarter of the West Bank population on Facebook, new opportunities for online organising and sharing of news have arisen over the past few years… just the recipe to threaten an insecure government.

In 2012, at least 10 individuals were arrested for public criticism of the PA, online or off. In April, two journalists and a lecturer were arrested for comments on Facebook deemed critical of the PA, coinciding with the PA’s awarding of a press freedom prize to American journalist Helen Thomas. The arrests were condemned by watchdog groups, including the International Press Institute and the Committee to Protect Journalists. And Palestinian groups, such as the Independent Commission for Human Rights, have called for greater press freedom.”

One of the targeted journalists, Tariq Khamis, told the Electronic Intifada:

“The regime is very similar to other Arab regimes. If the Palestinian Authority had trust in themselves, they would let journalists get on with their work. But because of their mistakes and corruption, they fear the work of journalists.”

In April 2012 blogger Jamal Abu Rihan was arrested for launching a Facebook campaign demanding an end to corruption. Columnist Jihad Harb was later sentenced to two months in prison on charges of libel and slander for raising questions about cronyism within Abbas’ office.

Last year - according to Yorke:

” Ma’an News uncovered evidence of website blocking, a practice otherwise largely unheard of in the West Bank. The eight blocked websites were all news sites critical of President Abbas and were eventually unblocked after Communications Minister Mashour Abu Daka spoke out against the blocking as being “against the public interest”, resulting in the resignation of Attorney General Ahmad al-Mughni”

The PLO and Hamas are entitled to do whatever they like in their “State” to repress free speech, ban Facebook or Twitter and even harass and arrest journalists or individuals who dare to speak out or criticise those who govern them.

If they want to pursue self-extermination at the expense of self-determination - then that should be their prerogative.

That does not mean that the European Union and America should continue pouring billions of euros and dollars into trying to create a State in their own image that shows no sign of emerging after 20 years of extraordinary financial generosity and political support.

Hopefully those whose tongues are now tied can try throwing their shoes instead.