On a Train, Crazily (video)

Atzmon's April Fool's Day video,  what a meshugge mix!

 

In making this curious video, using footage by pro-Israel investigative journalist/blogger David Collier of a recent meeting at the London School of Economics addressed by Richard Falk and Chris Doyle of CAABU, antisemitic Jew and Israel-hater Gilad Atzmon succeeds only in scoring an own goal.

In attempting to discredit the doughty British campaigner against antisemitism, Jonathan Hoffman (who with a Jewish fellow protester was ejected from the lecture theatre), he demonstrates only that Mr Hoffman (whose courage and dedication in exposing and confronting antisemites on British campuses and elsewhere is legendary) is a hero.

Professor Mary Kaldor, who's Jewish by parentage, is the charming chairperson in Atzmon's (oops, Collier's) footage. 

The woman who appears at the end of the video, called a "witch" by a distraught Jewish student, is the unabashedly antisemitic Pamela Hardiment/Arnold.

As you were, Mr Hoffman.  Carry on, sir!

The Chamber Goes Silent (video)

Splendid stuff from UN Watch's Hillel Neuer in the UN Human Rights Council on 20 March in response to the slanderous denunciation of Israel by the usual suspects:

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35eEljsSQfc

Inter alia:

 Mr. President, let me begin by putting the following on the record: Everything we just heard — from the world’s worst abusers of human rights, of women’s rights, of freedom of religion, of the press, of assembly, of speech — is absolutely false; and, indeed, Orwellian.

Today’s report does not consider Israelis to be deserving of human rights — consistent with the approach of this council, where today’s notorious agenda item against Israel completely ignores their human rights.

Over the weekend, President Abbas announced he was giving his highest medal to Rima Khalaf, who resigned from the Economic and Social Commission of Western Asia, a Beirut-based UN agency of 18 Arab states, after Secretary General Guterres rightly instructed her to remove an absurd report which accused Israel of “apartheid.”

Mr. President, why is Mr. Abbas celebrating a report written by the notorious Richard Falk, after his own Palestinian Mission here, tried in 2010, to remove Mr. Falk on the basis that he was “a partisan of Hamas,” as we know from WikiLeaks?

The accusation against Israel is absurd. Israel’s 1.5 million Arabs…

[Interruption with objections by Palestinians, Egypt, and Pakistan.]

Israel’s 1.5 million Arabs, whatever challenges they face, enjoy full rights to vote and to be elected in the Knesset, they work as doctors and lawyers, they serve on the Supreme Court.

Now I’d like to ask the members of that commission, that commissioned that report, the Arab states from which we just heard. Egypt, Iraq, and the others:

How many Jews live in your countries? How many Jews live in Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco?

Once upon a time, the Middle East was full of Jews.

Algeria had 140,000 Jews. Algeria, where are your Jews?

Egypt used to have 75,000 Jews. Where are your Jews?

Syria, you had tens of thousands of Jews. Where are your Jews?

Iraq, you had over 135,000 Jews. Where are your Jews?

Mr. President, where is the apartheid?

Why is there a U.N. commission on the Middle East that does not include Israel? From the 1960s and the ‘70s they refuse to include Israel. Where is the apartheid, Mr. President?

Mr. President, why are we meeting today on an agenda item singling out only one state, the Jewish state, for targeting.

Where is the apartheid, Mr. President?
UNHRC chamber goes silent.

Full transcript here

Meanwhile, the odious fork-tongued author of the report in question, who's been defaming Israel in Edinburgh and London, to the exultation of the Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign and other Israel-haters, whines about his richly-deserved come-uppance:

To read Falk's whine click here

Media Most Foul: David Singer demolishes Richard Falk's attempt to justify Israel's status as "a special case" for obloquy

In this, his latest article ("Israel – Media Imbalance Incites Jew-hatred"), Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer brings his own perspective  to the chorus of condemnation by Israel's friends over the way in which an irresponsible western media has stoked the flames of antisemitism in recent weeks.  He proceeds to focus on Richard Falk's "very disturbing" insistence that Israel constitutes "a special case" as a target for press and public opprobrium.

Writes David Singer:

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 génocidaires 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 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

* the media to keep focusing disproportionately on Israel

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

* 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.

David Singer: The Key to Peace Lies in the Past

Entitled "Palestine – Unearthing Past Remains Key To Resolving Future", this is the latest article by Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer.

He writes:

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 peacefully to 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—but 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 per cent of the conquered Ottoman territory and Jewish self-determination in the remaining 0.01 per cent.

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 per cent of the tiny area of land originally set aside to achieve that objective at San Remo – with the remaining 77 per cent 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.

Noxious Visitor Richard Falk Provokes Protests From Jewish Melburnians

Australia's multicultural public broadcasting channel SBS has covered Richard Falk's controversial visit Down Under.

This evening Israel-demonising Falk, who as I've already noted, had on Erev Yom Kippur  addressed the International Law Association's Australia branch at the Melbourne University Law School, gave a free talk entitled "Human Rights in Occupied Palestinian Territories" in a theatrette at the State Library of Victoria in central Melbourne,.

Melbourne's infamous weather ("four seasons in one day") was not kind to those arriving for the event, nor to the demonstrators who gathered outside to protest the talk,sponsored by the Swinburne University of Technology in addition to the Australian University, for rain pelted down.

See also: http://washingtonnote.com/richard_falk_go/

Here is a video report of the event by SBS (hat tip: reader Ian) in which the odious Falk claims to the reporter  that his infamous remarks regarding the Boston bombing were "taken out of context". 


If I obtain anymore information I'll post or link to it here.

How One Not So Nice Jewish Boy Will Spend Erev Yom Kippur

A question on many minds

Fresh from his Israel-bashing appearances in Sydney, Professor Richard Falk  will be in Australia's "Shtetl On The Yarra, " where the holiest day in the Jewish calendar commences at around 5.50 p.m.

Between 5.30 and 6.30 p.m. the UN Special Rapporteur (who's due to give a free talk on Monday evening co-sponsored by the Australian National University and the Swinburne University of Technology entitled "Human Rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territories") will be not in shul for Kol Nidrei but in school, on the premises of the prestigious Melbourne University Law School to be precise.

And what will he be doing there?

Why, giving a talk to the Australian Branch of the International Law Association on the subject "Failures of US Self Scrutiny for War Crimes under Obama".

See more here

"A Conference That Features Fringe Conspiracy Theorists & Ideologues": Australian National University Slammed For Hosting Anti-Israel Event

As I noted here, the British Academy has already copped flak for co-hosting a conference in Canberra, due to take place today and tomorrow, featuring Richard Falk as a keynote speaker.

It's reported  in The Australian newspaper that the conference's co-sponsor the Australian National University (ANU), is facing a backlash, one that in my view (I'm an alumna of the that particular seat of learning, by the way) is richly deserved.

The Australian's Christian Kerr reports:

"[ANU] officials have gone to ground in the face of Jewish community outrage for hosting Middle East hardliners at a Human Rights in Palestine conference this week [which] has led to questions being asked about the university's academic credibility.

Keynote speakers at the conference, which begins today, include Richard Falk, the UN's special rapporteur for human rights in the occupied Palestinian territories, who was publicly rebuked by UN secretary-general Ban Ki-moon in 2011 for "preposterous" remarks questioning whether the September 11 terror attacks were orchestrated by the US government.

Another is Hanan Ashrawi, who was among a few Palestine Liberation Organisation members who in 1996 voted not to remove clauses in the PLO charter calling for Israel's destruction.

A third, Jeff Halper, claimed in 2011 that Israel has developed a "spectral dust" it could spray over wide areas of land, every grain of which was a sensor programmed with a person's DNA to track, locate and kill that individual...."

The report quotes Peter Wertheim, executive director of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, thus:

"A conference that features fringe conspiracy theorists and ideologues and omits recognised scholars in the field has no academic credibility.

It is appalling that one of our top universities, the ANU, seems no longer to understand the difference between genuine scholarship and political advocacy."

And it also quotes Dean Sherr, director of political affairs for the Australian Union of Jewish Students:

 "It is highly concerning to see someone with such a history of anti-Semitic slurs invited on to Australian university campuses.

 We repeatedly come up against extreme anti-Israel groups on campus that blur the line between attacking Israel and attacking Jews. Our fear is Falk will only inflame this. It would belittle the importance of student welfare to ignore his history of offensive conduct and links to anti-Semitism to welcome him with open arms."'

Read more here

As one Jewish Aussie academic (no rightwinger, by the way) has observed in response to the report:

"It is concerning that an Australian university is hosting a conference on Palestine which may promote the racial or ethnic stereotying of all Israeli Jews as an alleged oppressor people.

Any serious academic analysis would have to acknowledge that the Palestinians are not solely defenceless and innocent victims, and that there are moderates and extremists on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian divide.

Conflict resolution requires both sides to make fundamental concessions. Attempts to label all Israelis as a guilty people only serve to remind many people of the Fascistic ideologies that dominated Germany and Italy in the 1930s."

More joy is on the way: Richard Falk is heading to Melbourne to work his black magic there in a talk co-sponsored by the ANU and the Swinburne University of Technology.
Update:  And see this too for his activities in Melbourne.

Falk Down Under: A Stern Warning

The Israel-bashing crowd Down Under are evidently delighted at the prospect of having the notorious Israel-demonising Richard Falk among them.

As this page shows, Professor Falk is coming to Canberra as a keynote speaker at the "Human Rights in Palestine" conference scheduled for 11-12 September, which is sponsored by the Australian National University and the British Academy.

Also set to address the conference are Professors Hanan Ashrawi and Jeff Halper, and Dr Sara Roy.  Master of ceremoniies will be Sydney Morning Herald journalist Paul McGeogh, foe whose anti-Israel credentials see here and here.

Appalled at the British Academy's association with a conference that includes Professor Falk, the executive director of the Geneva-based NGO UN Watch, Hillel Neuer, has written as follows to Lord Stern of Brentwood, the distinguished economist who's president of the British Academy:

'UN Watch is shocked that the British Academy, whose purpose is to support excellence in the humanities, is funding a September 11th platform for Mr. Richard Falk, a 9/11 conspiracy theorist who was just condemned by your own government for racism, and who was denounced by the Secretary-General of the United Nations and world leaders for his vile comments blaming the Boston terrorist attack on “the American global domination project” and “Tel Aviv.”

According to a website called Human Rights in Palestine, the Australian National University in Canberra will soon host a "groundbreaking conference" on Palestinian human rights, on September 11. Mr. Falk is listed as a keynote speaker at this event.

This highly problematic event prominently displays a large British Academy logo throughout the website.

Notwithstanding a barely legible footnote on one of the pages containing a disclaimer written in tiny, faded grey letters, the website clearly implies the endorsement and support of the British Academy on its "Home", "Program", "Speakers", "Exhibition" and other pages.

We understand that this British Academy endorsement may be related to your 2009 grant of £29,836 to Dr. Victoria Mason -- a convener of the Canberra conference whose avowed specialties include "Israeli State Terror" -- in order to study "Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in the West Bank."

In that regard, please note that while the conference program claims to address human rights, Mr. Falk is like a wolf in sheep’s clothing who uses the language of human rights to absolve terrorists of culpability. He is the only UN expert in history to have been condemned for racism by Britain, or any other member state of the European Union.

We are sending a copy of this complaint letter to the attention of UK Ambassador to the UN Mark Lyall Grant -- and to Ms. Philippa Thompson, Deputy Team Leader of the Equality and Non-Discrimination Team within the Human Rights & Democracy Department of the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office, who recently examined and addressed Mr. Falk's racism.

The UK Non-Discrimination Team determined that Falk's recent writings are “resonant of the longstanding antisemitic practice of blaming Jews (through the State of Israel by proxy) for all that is wrong in the world.”

As the British Academy, you may also wish to take note that:

1. British Prime Minister David Cameron “strongly condemned” Falk's 2011 publication of an antisemitic cartoon, showing a dog wearing a Jewish head-covering urinating on a depiction of justice and devouring a bloody skeleton. Falk was also condemned by British MPs David Burrowes and Theresa Villiers.

2. The British Foreign Office last year condemned Falk for providing the cover endorsement of a book that asks whether "Hitler might have been right after all." The UK Mission in Geneva protested to the UN human rights office, expressing London's “serious concerns.” The book endorsed by Falk, “The Wandering Who,” also accuses "the Jews" of being "the only people who managed to maintain and sustain a racially orientated, expansionist and genocidal national identity that is not at all different from Nazi ethnic ideology."

3. The British Mission to the United Nations condemned Mr. Falk’s April 19, 2013 remarks on the Boston bombing as “anti-Semitic,” highlighting it was the third time the British Government had to do so.

In addition we note:

•  That Falk is so extreme in his support for the Hamas terrorist organization that even the Palestinian Authority—as revealed in a Wikleaks cable, and which Falk himself admits—has sought to remove him, on grounds that he is a "partisan of Hamas";

•  That Falk recently published an article attempting to downplay, reinterpret and justify the latest call by Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal to destroy Israel;

•  That Falk accused Israel of planning a "Palestinian Holocaust,"prompting a bloc of dictatorships, including Bashar al-Assad's Syria and Muammar Gaddafi's Libya, to sucessfully nominate him as the UN Human Rights Council's expert on Palestine;

•  That Falk is one of the world's most high-profile supporters of the leading 9/11 conspiracy theorists, lending his name to those who accuse the U.S. government of orchestrating the destruction of the Twin Towers as a pretext to launch wars in Iraq and Afghanistan;

•  That Falk actively promotes the writings of David Ray Griffin, a disciple and close friend of Falk who has produced 12 books describing the World Trade Center attack as "an inside job";

•  That Falk not only contributed the Foreword to Griffin's 2004 "The New Pearl Harbor"—praising the author's "patience," "fortitude," "courage," and "intelligence"—but Griffin credits Falk for getting the book published, and also specially thanks Falk's wife, Hilal Elver, someone who remains a member of Human Rights Watch's Santa Barbara Committee, and who is also speaking at the upcoming Canberra conference

•  That Falk has repeatedly appeared on the "TruthJihad.com" show of Kevin Barrett, a 9/11 conspiracy theorist and Holocaust skeptic who rails against the "ethnic Jews" who he says run Washington and the media, a show on which Falk has endorsed Barrett's "good work" while also praising Iranian tyrant Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

•  That in 2011 UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon took the floor of the Human Rights Council to issue an unprecedented condemnation of Falk's 9/11 remarks, saying they were "preposterous" and "an affront to the memory of the more than 3,000 people who died in that tragic terrorist attack";

•  That U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice in 2011 denounced Falk's comments as "despicable and deeply offensive," and condemned Falk's "one-sided and politicized approach," saying his words were "so noxious that it should finally be plain to all that he should no longer continue in his position," and that "the cause of human rights will be better advanced without Mr. Falk and the distasteful sideshow he has chosen to create";

•  That in reaction to Falk's April 19, 2013 justification of the Boston Marathon terrorist attacks UN chief Ban Ki-moon's spokesman said: “The Secretary-General rejects Mr. Falk’s comments" which “undermine the credibility and the work of the United Nations”

•  That U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice stated that “Someone who spews such vitriol has no place at the UN.” The U.S. Mission to the United Nations condemned Falk’s “provocative and offensive” remarks, and the “absurdity” of his service as a UN human rights expert;

•  That Canadian Foreign Minister John Baird slammed Falk’s “mean-spirited, anti-Semitic rhetoric” and called for him to be kicked out of the UN, saying “The United Nations should be ashamed to even be associated with such an individual”; and

•  That U.S. Senator Robert Menendez, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and numerous members of the U.S. Congress condemned Falk's remarks.

We urge you to act swiftly to remove the good name of the British Academy from any association with Mr. Falk, and to deny such a promoter of hatred and racism this undeserved honor and legitimacy. The cause of human rights requires no less.

Thank you for your urgent attention to this matter.'

Read and see more here

Falk & Singer On A Jordanian Solution

As regular readers of this blog will be aware, frequent guest blogger David Singer, a Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst, has in the past been deeply critical of Professor Richard Falk, but this new article, entitled "Palestine:  Jordan/West Bank Bi-National State Under Discussion," indicates that the two might now be in agreement.

Writes David Singer:

'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 antisemitic 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 the fact 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:

"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.

"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 per cent of Mandate Palestine and the Arabs with sovereignty in about the remaining 80 per cent.

There will be many Jews and Arabs not happy with an outcome that does not yield them 100 per cent 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.'

"Indescribably Sad": Falk's Foetid Fan

From Facebook a week ago (hat tip: reader P)

How indescribably sad it should be for  Richard Falk that he's so desperate for validation that he has to scrape the bottom of a little wood barrel in order to acknowledge the support of a crusader who writes in an online magazine that's eschewed, publicly at least, by the hierarchy of the UK's Palestine Solidarity Campaign owing to its reputation for antisemitism.


In the long article cited in the Facebook link pictured, British anti-Israel ranter Stuart Littlewood, whose absurd ravings not infrequently find ventilation in that rabid publication, observes inter alia:

"Vengeful Zio-schemers sharpen their knives....

And there are millions of us out here who are right behind Richard Falk because he stands for justice. We are not amused by indications that the official explanation of 9/11 doesn’t add up. Nor are we happy that it was used to sucker our own governments into sacrificing troops and treasure in unlawful, unwinnable wars that have caused mega-deaths and endless suffering to innocent civilians, trashed our good name abroad and made us vulnerable to reprisals at home.

And for what? Simply to advance the crazed ambitions of the US-Israeli Axis of Greed...."

Littlewood is on record as making such foetid statements as this:

"Jews and Judaism survived 1800 years without the land of Israel, and most of today’s Jews, I’m told, have no ancestral links to that land at all. And Jews seem to like it here in the UK. They are allowed to occupy the highest positions and even make our laws. They are not leaving in droves for a squatter home on stolen Palestinian land."

And this, which was apparently picked up by a neo-Nazi British organisation and which at least one Palestine Solidarity Campaign branch linked to on its website:

"The Jewish population in the UK is 280,000 or 0.46 per cent. There are 650 seats in the House of Commons so, as a proportion, Jewish entitlement is only three seats.

With 24 seats they are eight times over-represented. Which means, of course, that other groups must be under-represented, including Muslims.

The UK's Muslim population is 2.4 million or 3.93 per cent. Their proportional entitlement is 25 seats but they have only eight – a serious shortfall. If Muslims were over-represented to the same extent as the Jews (i.e. eight times) they’d have 200 seats.

Jewish over-representation is only part of our problem. An even bigger worry is the huge number of non-Jew Zionists that have stealthily infiltrated every level of political and institutional life.

....Too many pro-Israel MPs speak and act as if they would rather wave the Israeli flag than the Union Jack....

It is business as usual between Britain and the rogue state’s amoral thugs, as Sir Gerald Kaufman calls them.”

Sadly for Falk, however, Littlewood is a marginal figure, as ineffectual as veteran anti-Israel campaigner Alan Hart, whose recent tail-between-the-legs withdrawal from the active anti-Zionist fray has left Littlewood "indescribably sad".

"A One-Sided Mandate That Finds Israel Guilty In Advance": UN Double Standards & Richard Falk (video)

A typically great video by the marvellous Geneva-based UN Watch:

'Top UN Human Rights Council official Richard Fak is furiously lobbying the 47-nation body to "investigate" UN Watch in retaliation for what he calls a "smear campaign" that sparked a firestorm of world leaders condemning the anti-Israel oficial. Falk's new report to the Council opens with a scathing and unprecedented attack on UN Watch, which he accuses of "demeaning" and "defaming" his character, and of "diverting attention" from his message.'

  Hat tip: reader Ian

Richard Falk Bans Free Speech (For Some), Reveals David Singer

A reminder that Falk posted this antisemitic cartoon on his blog in 2011

Here's the latest article by Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer.  It's entitled "Palestine: UN Special Rapporteur Bans Free Speech"

Writes David Singer:

'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."

Strangely, 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?'

Richard Falk Fired From Human Rights Watch (video)

Another notch in the belt of UN Watch's superb Hillel Neuer.  The hope is that the Israel-demonising Falk will ultimately be dismisssed from his UN post too.

David Singer On Richard Falk's Faux-Pas & Fallacies

In his latest article (which is entitled "Palestine: Falk's Failed Philosophy Guarantees Continuing Conflict"), Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer offers a searing criticism of Professor Falk's  attitude, and maintains that it is time for the professor to forsake his UN post.

Writes David Singer:

'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 cosmetics 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 –  excerbating 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 One – 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 "classic colonial moves" in what can only be displayed as a breathtaking display of arrogance by Professor Falk.

 Indeed his rejectionist views are identical 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 judgements 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.'. 

David Singer On Talking About Palestine With Falked Tongue

The focus of the latest article, via the antipodean J-Wire service, by Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer, who entitles the article "Palestine – Burying The Past – Faking The Future," is the attitude of the controversial (some would say notorious) Richard Falk.

Writes David Singer:

'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 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 99.999 per cent 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 suddenly 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.'

Cross-posted from here

Pumping Out Anti-Israel Poison – BBC-Style

Well-known British Middle East specialist Robin Shepherd has a pungent not-to-be-missed article here regarding the latest round of bias against Israel from the loathsome BBC. Entitled "More shameful BBC propaganda against Israel," it points out that "The BBC has now sunk to pinning its stories against Israel on people who refer to the Jewish state in terms of Nazism and Apartheid" and cites 9/11 truther Richard Falk as a case in point:

'In a nutshell, Falk is so hostile to Israel that he’s a de facto anti-Israel activist. But even that fails to do justice to the sheer viciousness of his diatribes against the Jewish state. Here’s just a smattering of examples of his approach. First there are the suggested comparisons with Nazi Germany. He has sometimes claimed that he doesn’t quite mean it literally. On others he has talked of Israeli policies as "genocidal".

He’s ambivalent about Hamas as a terrorist outfit. His language about Israel is peppered with references to "apartheid", "criminality", "collective punishment" and so on. The picture is clear enough.

I can't see how he can be described as anything other than an obsessive, anti-Israeli fanatic.'

Shepherd continues:

'Which brings us back to the BBC and its decision to hang an entire story on the testimony of a man with a record like that. I find it difficult to believe it was pure ignorance. Falk has been on the scene for years, and his attacks against Israel are legendary. The BBC’s story did not even include a single line informing the reader of his anti-Israeli reputation.

And this is how the propaganda against Israel is spread: a mainstream media outlet feeds an unsuspecting public with a story purporting to hang on an objective source, all the while knowing that 95 percent of the readers will swallow it because they don’t know Richard Falk from Adam.'

Abdel Bari Atwan, Gaza-born editor of the London-based Al Quds Al Arabi, is also such a man, one of Al Beeb's honoured studio guests in programmes about international affairs and news bulletins about the Middle East.  In fact, as so often, he was a panellist on "Dateline London" this weekend, along with France24 correspondent Benedicte Paviot, John Fisher Burns of the New York Times, and Sir Simon Jenkins of The Guardian.
 
(A nice politically balanced panel, no? Er, no. But at least yesterday they didn't focus on Israel, the nearest that they got to it in the time allotted being towards the end, when Burns announced that to defeat Islamic extremism the West must change both its foreign policy and its treatment of its "domestic" Muslim populations... Nobody demurred, by the way.)


That the BBC frequently trots out Abdel Bari Atwan as a commentator on the Middle East, despite his proven pattern of vilification of Israel, and as in the case of Richard Falk, with no mention or even hint of it, is disturbing, to say the least. (You may recall this post of mine regarding how fond Al Beeb is of him.)

Indeed, it is shameful in the extreme that the national broadcaster appears to lionise the man who boasted  on Lebanese television that if Iran nuked Israel he'd dance for joy in Trafalgar Square.

Can you imagine the BBC welcoming back time and again a commentator who had contemplated the annihilation of any other Middle East country with such gloating anticipation?  No, neither can I.

Although his manner on television is genial and gentlemanly, Mr Bari Atwan has very strong, indeed embittered, opinions, and seems to want the eventual eradication of Israel altogether; however, his goal is sometimes unclear

Here's a taste of his views on and vilification of Israel, via English-language editorials in his newspaper.

[Sorry about the black font in some of the extracts - I didn't choose it.  I blame Blogger!]
 
 On David Cameron's characterision of Gaza as an open-air prison camp:

'The Western world has started to run out of patience with Israel and its genocidal policies. Israel has become an economic, moral, and security burden on the west and the countdown to get rid of it gradually has started. Cameron is totally right when he talks about the Gaza Strip as a large prison. We wish he had compared it to the Nazi detention camps, that he had condemned Israel's war on the Strip and the war crimes the Israelis committed during it, particularly the use of white phosphorus. But at least the days when Israel can carry out war crimes and lay seige to an entire, innocent, people are now numbered, or so we would like to believe.'

On the Mavi Marmara incident:

'The world is losing patience with this pariah state run by racist war criminals, and the tired excuses of history, the Holocaust and persecution, no longer weave their magic. If the blood of the martyrs and heroes of the flotilla marks the countdown to the end of the Apartheid Israeli regime then it has not been spilt in vain.'

and:

'We thank God that the Freedom Flotilla ships sailed from Turkish ports and thank Him more that one of them (Marmara) was sailing under the Turkish flag. We thank Him a third time that Turkish martyrs were killed by the bullets of the Israeli soldiers who raided the ship and opened fire deliberately at the activists aboard it with the murderous intent....

Israel has lost its strategic ally Turkey and moved it from the corner of friend to that of the enemy.... Israel is increasingly hated as it faces the threat of Iran's growing regional power and stands on the verge of losing its Western allies whom it is embarrassing and threatening their security with its massacres.

The only friend left for Israel, and we say it with bitterness and sorrow, are the official Arab order or those still committed to the peace process and moving in the American orbit. We say it sincerely and with satisfaction: Congratulations to Israel for these friends. They might be helpful to it when they have not been helpful to their nation, creed, peoples, and fair causes.'

 On religious strife in post-Mubarak Egypt:

'Israeli fingers never stopped playing with fire in the internal affairs of Egypt, as it did in Iraq, Lebanon and the occupied Palestinian territories, and churches always been one of its goals, in order to incite Christians against their Muslim brothers, and to give the impression that peaceful Islamic-Christian coexistence is impossible. The Israeli lobby plays the same game against Muslim minorities in the West, smearing them with allegations of terrorism and presenting them as a security risk and source of great danger. From the same source come all the unfounded opinions about the incompatibility of Islam and democracy.'

On direct peace talks:

'A former Arab foreign minister, who did not want to be named, confided to me that President Husni Mubarak told him one day that if he wanted something from the United States, he would turn to Sharon, and the US response would be quick to come, meeting his request. Is it reasonable for a state with the standing of Egypt, its history, and civilization to deal with the United States through Israel? Yes, everything is possible these days. After all, have the Arab regimes not fought all Israel's wars through the United States - in Iraq and Afghanistan - and against Hezbollah in Lebanon, and against Hamas in Palestine? And these regimes are now getting ready to fight a new war against Iran.'

On visits by Muslim dignitaries to the disputed territories:

'We in Al-Quds al-Arabi back Dr Yusuf al-Qaradawi's fatwa which incriminates all calls for and all forms of normalization of ties with Israel as long as the territories remain under occupation and face continued grabbing by the successive Israeli governments, which reject peace and continue to commit war crimes in the Gaza Strip and in south Lebanon.

Visits to the occupied territories by Muslim religious clerics and senior officials will only serve to legitimize the Israeli occupation and give a misleading picture to the world about Israel's tolerance towards other religions at a time when it Judiazes Arab mosques and churches in the holy city, undermines the foundations of the Al-Aqsa Mosque, and implements plans to partition it, if not, in fact, it is seeking to demolish it by the excavations under its foundations.'

 and:

'[I]t is necessary to warn of this dangerous kind of normalisation with an enemy that totally ruins the Arab and Islamic identity of Jerusalem....

High profile Muslim scholars should convene and face Sheikh Goma with clear religious evidence proving the wrongness of his ruling. They also have to call for his sacking if they are convinced he is "committing the crime of normalisation" with an enemy that occupies the holy lands, Judaises it and kills thousands of Muslims in wars which haven't stopped since the occupation of Palestine.“the occupation state”....'

On Bibi Netanyahu:

'Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu practices lies as a profession, like all Israeli officials ...'

and:

'Netanyahu considers himself more powerful than the US President because of the support he enjoys within Congress and from the Jewish lobby, AIPAC [American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee]....'

 and:

'When Netanyahu demands that the Palestinian [National] Authority abandons the Palestinian refugees' right to return, accepts a disarmed state, and recognizes Israel as a Jewish state, then what is left for the Palestinians in terms of rights or aspirations?' 

On Operation Cast Lead and its aftermath:

'[T]he Israeli army's rabbi issued a fatwa sanctioning the merciless killing of Arabs....

The legislation used in the application for Livni to be arrested was the same mechanism used by Jewish Nazi hunters in many countries, including Britain, in their quest to bring those responsible for the Holocaust to justice.

It did not cross their minds or those of the Israeli State's leaders that they would drink from the same cup and face the same justice, the same charges, for their own barbaric crimes, equal to the Nazi ones, against an innocent and unarmed people whose lands they robbed and whom they dispersed in the diasporas and refugee camps and then chased them with white phosphorous bombs after imposing on them a blockade of starvation with the approval and support of the 'civilized world'.

The Israeli Foreign Ministry, which represents the only democratic state in the region according to the classification of the British Government and its European counterparts, summoned the British ambassador in Tel Aviv to protest a purely judicial measure and issued a statement rejecting the 'tendentious' procedures in a British court against Tzipi Livni instigated by 'extremist' elements.

....This foreign ministry of an outlaw state no more than 60 years old is casting doubts on the British legal system dating back at least 600 years and refusing to comply with it although Israel benefited from it and its measures even before its establishment.... We do not know of any terrorism that is fiercer and bloodier than Israel's own....

The Israelis, whether war criminals or ordinary people, believe they are the descendants of gods....

Israeli generals - whose chests are crammed with the medals and badges they received for killing the innocent and unarmed and using children and old people as human shields in front of their tanks - are in a state of panic. They can no longer freely wander the Capital cities of Europe and the credit for this goes to a group of Arab and Muslim activists who decided to deal with the West in its own language and laws and without the help of corrupt and dictatorial Arab regimes....

The Israeli lobby will use all its weapons against the British Government to make it amend the judicial system and stop the pursuit and arrest of Israeli war criminals. This amendment requires the House of Commons' approval first and then that of the House of Lords, which means we are facing a long and complicated political and judicial battle that requires counter moves by the Arabs, Muslims, and all supporters of human rights in the world.

 We are pinning much hope on the sons of the Arab and Muslim communities and humanitarians in general to continue to confront the Israeli lobby. In the British universities they succeeded in imposing an academic boycott on Israeli universities and another campaign ensured that produce from illegal Israeli settlements would be clearly labelled as such so that the British consumer can exercise his or her conscience while shopping....'

and:

'The whole world supported the victims of Nazism and took the necessary measures for taking revenge against the war criminals by bringing them to justice and punishing them to ensure that their crimes and mass holocausts are not repeated. Why then is the world conniving with the Israeli war criminals just because their victims are Arabs and Muslims? It is an ugly revenge which exposes the UK's present moral collapse.

Britain, which is planning to amend its laws ...  [since done - D.A.] to protect the Israeli criminals, bears moral and legal responsibility towards the Palestinian people whose blood is allowed to be shed by the Israeli war criminals and gives them a green light to continue their massacres. With this step, Britain is repeating, and even confirming, its hostility to the Palestinian people and its insistence on chasing them even in their exiles by its shameful bias towards their butchers whose state Britain had established at their expense.

Instead of atoning for its big crime against the Palestinian people, as it is responsible for their tragedy and all the catastrophes caused by it, Britain is continuing this crime even after more than 60 years of committing it by providing the legal and political protection for those who stole their land and dispersed them all over the world with its connivance.'

and

'[T]he crimes in Gaza were committed by the grandsons of the victims of the holocaust against innocent, unarmed peoples whose only guilt was that they were Palestinians, not Jews. This discriminatory view of British laws, based as it is on ethnicity, religion, and nationality, is a great insult to the victims of the holocaust themselves. Were the holocaust victims to express their view on this issue, they would have resisted any alteration to these laws, stood on the side of the victims in the Gaza Strip, and demanded the trial of the war criminals for tearing apart those victims' bodies, destroying their homes, and forcing more than 60,000 of them to live in the open air without shelter!'

On Israel and nuclear weapons:

'If the material for making dirty nuclear bombs must not reach terrorist organizations, which pay no attention to international law and do not hesitate to use any weapon of mass destruction which falls into their hands against their enemies, let us not forget that there are still official parties that pose as much danger to the world's security and stability and the lives of their people.

We are referring here of course to Israel which is considered above the international law, its articles, and its treaties. It is a "rogue state" which succeeded in developing nuclear weapons away from the eyes of international supervision or despite it with the encouragement of the Western world and in particular the United States of America.

The presence of nuclear weapons in Israel's hands is as dangerous as if they were in the hands of extremist organizations like al-Qa'ida. victims of al-Qa'ida are modest in number compared with those killed in Israeli massacres of Arabs and Palestinians...'

and:

'The German novelist and Nobel laureate Günter Grass bravely published a poem entitled “What Must Be Said,” in the Süddeutsche Zeitung daily newspaper in which he condemned Israel, the guardian of a nuclear facility, for threatening Iran which does not yet have one. He said it (Israel) is a source of danger to the fragile international peace and criticised his country for providing it with another nuclear submarine in the coming days. He also appealed for an international authority to inspect both Israeli and Iranian nuclear facilities.'

On Sheikh Salah, and 'Zionist lobbies':

'The arrest of Shaykh Ra'id Salah [leader of the Islamic Movement in Israel] by British security forces after he had entered the country legally in response to an invitation by British parliamentarians to take part in a political forum is the ugliest form of McCarthyism and a revival of the tyrannical European inquisition courts that belong to the Dark Ages and intellectual backwardness....

British Home Secretary Theresa May, whose government took the decision to arrest and then deport him, does not have any legal basis for her action - but has clearly demonstrated that she is giving in to the blackmail of Zionist Jewish pressure groups that want to turn Britain into a banana republic and deface the image of democratic institutions and its age old parliament where Shaykh Ra'id Salah was to lecture in one of its halls in the presence of several of its members.

How can the Conservatives Party's coalition government justify banning a peaceful man who has not been convicted in the most racist country in the world whose nationality he carries and was allowed to travel when this government is intervening militarily in Libya and its missiles and aircraft are killing dozens of civilians under the slogan of freedom, human rights, and consolidation of the values of justice and democracy?....

Shaykh Ra'id Salah speaks on behalf of the legal owners of the land which the Jews fleeing from European repression and holocausts usurped, expelling and displacing the majority of them while those who remained - representing a fifth of the new racist state's population -are facing the harshest kinds of discrimination and treated as 10th class citizens in a state boasting falsely it is the only democracy in the region.

We wish the British Government had arrested Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak who committed war crimes in the Gaza Strip and issued orders to use white phosphorous bombs against its unarmed and blockaded sons or Binyamin Netanyahu and members of his government who committed the Marmara ship massacre in the Mediterranean Sea's international waters. But it did not do this and will not do it because these represent a country that the civilized democratic West is treating as if it is above all laws and its terrorists enjoy immunity regardless of the crimes or massacres they commit.

How can Shaykh Ra'id Salah be anti-Semite when he and all the Palestinian people's sons are the biggest victims of anti-Semitism?....

 This venerable man coming from the bowels of suffering who believes in his faith, defends his creed, and is the model of patience and fortitude does not deserve this racist and exclusionary way and from a government that represents the state which caused the Palestinian people's catastrophe, deprived them of their land and homeland, and dispersed them all over the world even though they had not committed any crime and did this to atone for its sins of keeping silent over the Jews' holocaust in Nazi Germany....

We blame ourselves as Arabs and Muslims before blaming Britain, France, and all the governments of the civilized West for treating us scornfully and for yielding totally to the Israeli blackmail. We are the ones who have the oil and assets. We are the ones investing more than 3 trillion dollars and buying arms costing hundreds of billions of dollars to save Western economies from bankruptcy and yet do not have an iota of influence to stop this humiliation and ignominy to which we are subjected at the hands of Western governments and the Zionist lobbies controlling them....'

Mr Bari Atwan is, of course, entitled to his views.  However, the BBC, which is bound to objectivity by the terms of its (much-flouted) Charter is surely not entitled, morally at any rate, to its unconscionable duplicity in presenting him as a credible commentator with no axe to grind.

It is high time that the BBC demonstrates some integrity by lettiing its audience know that Mr Bari Atwan is a partisan commentator on the subject of Israel.  Either that, or ceasing altogether to invite him to comment on matters pertaining to Israel and its neighbours.