Short Addendum to the Open Letter to My Blog

6 Sep


            As I should have anticipated the responses to my effort to set some rules of the road for my blog produced considerable feedback, which was equally divided between those who welcomed such monitoring to sustain a civility of tone and useful substantive debate and those who believed that debate should go forth without such constraints, and that it was my moral failure, even alleged cowardice, to control the comment section in this way. Some contended that there were benefits from even uncivil exchanges, a position I understand, but do not share. Several of the responses were, as earlier, accusatory toward my character, repeating old charges, some demeaned the character of others who submitted comments, and some derisive in their attitude toward the Palestinian and/or Arab or the Jewish people.


            I want to restate ever so briefly that I will not in the future give my approval to comments that dwell on character failings of myself or other contributors to the blog or show no respect for the dignity of the Palestinian or Jewish people. Ethnic hatred and prejudice is the source of much suffering in our world and throughout history, and never heals wounds.


            I acknowledge a special interest in the quest for a sustainable peace in relation to the Palestine/Israel conflict, however remote its achievement currently appears to be. Let me also be forthright in admitting that I feel no responsibility to respond to comments that do not accept as a political premise the relevance of the structure of oppression and disparity of circumstance that separates the Israeli reality from that of Palestinians living under occupation, in refugee camps, in exile, or as second-class citizens in Israel. As well, I am not inclined to respond to those comment writers who question the inalienable and elemental Palestinian right of self-determination in the West Bank, Jerusalem, and Gaza, claiming that sovereignty is either ‘disputed’ or inheres by biblical or historical claim to Israel. Those who hold such position have many outlets for such views within the blogosphere and elsewhere, but for my purposes, such positions are outside the boundaries of responsible debate.


            Finally, I realize that many blogs and online media comment sections operate with much more permissive rules of the road, or virtually none. I tried this, but feel it engendered, especially recently, an atmosphere of acrimony.Such a tone and spirit of intemperance is the very opposite of my goal in establishing and continuing the blog. This new more constrictive approach is one more experiment of mine undertaken in the hope of finding a workable arrangement consistent with my values.


            With thanks and feelings of gratitude for all those who have participated in these discussions of my posts over the past couple of years in good faith whether in agreement or not with the positions being set forth. I hope to continue to discuss sensitive issues in ways that will undoubtedly infuriate some of those who visit the blog, but I hope if you choose to participate actively you will embrace this ethos of civility, which in my mind is inseparable from an affirmation of the dignity and sacredness of every person, as well as being a show of respect for the diversities of race, ethnicity, religion, nationality, and gender that currently constitute the human species.




60 Responses to “Short Addendum to the Open Letter to My Blog”

  1. Georgianne Matthews September 6, 2012 at 6:11 pm #

    Dear, honorable Richard Falk:

    The world is better with your every “Open Letter”, with your noble efforts you continue to express for the Palestinians and all oppressed people living. I admire you and you must not let harsh statements addressed to you to offend you and hurt your efforts to reach out and help those that need a kind heart, an understanding mind, a noble good man that you are. I love your mind and your goodness. You are a great man and will touch the hearts and minds of many throughout time.

    I feel for those that seek to hurt, hopefully one day they will understand and follow your great, wise, humanitarian foot prints.

    Thank you

    With my respect, Georgianne E. Matthews Pacific Grove, CA 93950


  2. A. clare Brandabur September 6, 2012 at 7:54 pm #

    Dear Dr. Falk,
    hank you for continuing your important work in articulating a humane position on the Middle East that demonstrates a respectful attitude to all the people involved. I am glad you plan to exclude hate speech from your blog and perhaps it would be well to allow each responder a limited number of entries per day. Keep up the good work.
    Clare Brandabur

  3. david singer September 6, 2012 at 9:35 pm #

    Mr Falk

    1. You state:

    “I want to restate ever so briefly that I will not in the future give my approval to comments that dwell on character failings of myself or other contributors to the blog or show no respect for the dignity of the Palestinian or Jewish people.”

    Does this mean:

    (a). you will continue to publish such comments and publicly express your personal disapproval where necessary?


    (b). you will not publish the comments at all?

    I hope you mean the former.

    2. You also state:

    “Let me also be forthright in admitting that I feel no responsibility to respond to comments that do not accept as a political premise the relevance of the structure of oppression and disparity of circumstance that separates the Israeli reality from that of Palestinians living under occupation, in refugee camps, in exile, or as second-class citizens in Israel.”

    You are entitled to do whatever you like – but aren’t you being presumptuous in assuming your stated political premise is factually accurate?

    For example:

    (a) How can you say a structure of oppression exists when the daily lives of 96% of the West Bank Arab population are under the full administration and civil control of the Palestinian Authority as prescribed by the Oslo Accords – endorsed by the United Nations for which you are an appointed Special Rapporteur?

    (b) Can you tell us why there should still be any refugee camps in the area under the control of the Palestinian Authority since 1993 and why their occupants have not been integrated and absorbed into the rest of the population living in the areas controlled by the Palestinian Authority. Aren’t these refugee camp occupants in fact being oppressed by the Palestinian Authority and UNRWA ?

    (c) On what basis do you claim that Israeli Arabs are second class citizens?

    3. You also state:

    “As well, I am not inclined to respond to those comment writers who question the inalienable and elemental Palestinian right of self-determination in the West Bank, Jerusalem, and Gaza, claiming that sovereignty is either ‘disputed’ or inheres by biblical or historical claim to Israel.

    Does this mean you will respond to comment writers who claim sovereignty inheres by legal claim to Israel?.

    Sorry to keep asking questions – but I guess your statements keep inviting such action.

    • Richard Falk September 7, 2012 at 7:01 am #

      Mr. Sanger:

      I tried to be clear. I will not publish comments they are civil and do not fall within
      my conception of responsible debate. This is not an official or informal UN blog or website.
      There are many other venues for the sort of views that you support.

      The issues pertaining to Palestinian refugee right of return is a matter of law and morality,
      and has nothing to do with the existence of 22 Arab countries or the administration of Occupied
      Palestine by the PA.

      The reality of ‘annexation’ is established by the prolonged nature of the occupation, by Israeli
      investments in an infrastructure that has the appearance of permanence, and by the orientation of
      the settler movement. The reality of ‘apartheid’ is established by the dual legal system that is
      applied in the West Bank for the past 45 years: for Israelis, the rule of law, for Palestinians,
      military administration, no rights, and frequent use of ‘administrative detention.’

      There are 26 laws in Israel that restrict the rights of Palestinian citizens, including family
      unification, property ownership restriction, employment restrictions. The essence of living in
      ‘a Jewish state’ for non-Jews is to be subject to discrimination, which I believe is the case.

      By disputed sovereignty on the WB, I meant to embrace the legal claim of Israel relating to Judea
      and Samaria, and do not want to enter that complex terrain at this time, but if you are really
      interested I can find the citation to my earlier co-authored law review articles.

      I have little confidence that these responses will satisfy you, and are likely to generate another
      round of questions, which is why I have been hesitant all along to enter such a process.

      • Fred Skolnik September 7, 2012 at 9:32 am #

        The prolonged occupation is a result of the unwillingness of the Arabs to reconcile themselves to the presence of a non-Muslim country in the Middle East, as enunciated in their Khartoum Declaration and their unremitting acts of terrorism as a means to achieve their aims. Reality is not established by the “appearance” of permanence, the settlers will not determine the final disposition of disputed territory, and the Palestinians are living under military law just as the Germans did after WWII. The status of the settlers as Israeli citizens is totally irrelevant to the status of the Palestinians in the West Bank. The security measures instituted by Israel – roadblocks, curfews, arrests and the security fence in the West Bank, the blockade in Gaza – exist solely to prevent acts of terrorism. Israel has no interest in oppressing the Palestinian population. Israel has called on Abu Mazen to resume negotiations with no preconditions. Abu Mazen has refused. The circumstances of Israeli Arabs, politically and economically, are far superior to the circumstances of Arabs living in Arab countries and you can be sure that not a single one of them would wish to live under the conditions that prevail in these Arab countries. If there is discrimination it is a natural and unfortunate outgrowth of a very problematic situation wherein the primary identity of Israeli Arabs is with an Arab world that is hostile to Israel. The problem is one that Israel itself will work out without the help of those who seek to delegitimize the Jewish state and compromise its existence.

      • david singer September 7, 2012 at 4:38 pm #

        Mr Falk

        I am pleased that at last you have answered my questions.

        Now no more questions – only comments

        1. You have not answered my question to justify your statement that there was “creeping annexation” – which is a different concept altogether to your new claim of “annexation”.

        I assumed your claim of “creeping annexation” referred to Israel establishing settlements on more West Bank Land to the detriment of any claims of the the Arab population to that land.

        I pointed out that Israel had already withdrawn from more than 90% of the land it occupied in the Six Day War, that the settlements in the West Bank occupied only 1% of the West Bank and that Israel has already offered on two occasions to withdraw from more than 90% of the West Bank.

        You have not acknowledged these facts or attempted to justify your claim of “creeping annexation”.

        It would be nice if you could justify your use of the term “creeping annexation”

        2. Your claim that “annexation ” has in fact already occurred has not been accepted by anyone to my knowledge but yourself,

        (a) If annexation has in fact occurred – then Oslo and the Bush Roadmap are dead and buried so far as the land that has been annexed – which area you do not clarify.

        You would find a lot of people cheering you for making such a call.

        (b) The facts relied on by you to establish “the reality of “annexation” ” are also vague and incapable of being understood or discussed.

        Being a lawyer – like me – you know that ambit claims have to be substantiated by detailed particulars when requested to substantiate those ambit claims.

        Unless you do so – your claim of “annexation” remains meaningless.

        (c) The reasons advanced by you in support of your claim of “annexation” are spurious for the following reasons:

        (i) “The prolonged nature of the occupation” is due to two sides not being able to agree – not the actions of one party alone. Additionally the PLO refused to negotiate until 1993 ending the three “No’s” of the Khartoum Conference in 1967.

        (ii) “Israeli investments in an infrastructure that has the appearance of permanence” did not prevent Israel from disengaging in Gaza where it had similarly invested in infrastructure. It won’t in the West Bank

        (iii) “The orientation of the settler movement” is meaningless and you require to be far more specific in what you mean.

        3. You appear to claim that the “reality of “apartheid”” exists in both Israel and the West Bank.

        A. In the West Bank

        (a) you claim there has been a dual legal system applied there for 45 years – one for Israelis and one for Arabs.. This is factually wrong.

        Since 1993 the Palestinian Authority has been administering its own legal system in relation to 95 % of the Arab population. Israel has nothing to do with its administration.
        This was agreed under the Oslo Accords.

        (b) If Israel applied anything other than military administration in relation to the 5% of the West Bank Arab population living in Area C – you would be the first to protest.

        (c) I don’t know what you mean by the words “no rights”. You might care to explain

        (d) The use of administrative detention is not restricted to Israel alone. It is used in a large number of countries and cannot seriously be taken to justify the heinous claim of “apartheid”.

        B. In Israel

        (a) you appear to be confusing “discrimination” with “apartheid” – which are two different concepts – as I am sure you are well aware.

        (b) Claims that Israel is an “apartheid state” is the most damaging and insulting allegation that can be made against the Jewish people. Its very existence in South Africa and its eventual eradication there bear no relationship to anything occurring in Israel.

        There are no separate buses for Arabs and separate buses for Jews. Shopping centers are frequented by both Arabs and Jews. 180000 West Bank Arabs were recently able to visit Israel and swim on non-segregated beaches. Israeli Arabs vote and have representatives in the Knesset. There are Arab judges and Arab diplomats. Thousands of Arab students attend universities and share lectures with Jewish students and actually eat in the same canteens.

        (c) There is discrimination in Israel among various groups including its Arab population and Israel is constantly working to reduce such discrimination. It would be fair to say that discrimination exists in most countries around the world.

        (d) Your use of the term “apartheid” is a defamatory slur based on the evidence you have provided and I would urge you to withdraw it.

        Coming from a person of your eminence is indeed surprising.

        “Discrimination” – yes. “Apartheid” – Not on what you have stated

        4. You state:

        “By disputed sovereignty on the WB, I meant to embrace the legal claim of Israel relating to Judea and Samaria, and do not want to enter that complex terrain at this time, but if you are really interested I can find the citation to my earlier co-authored law review articles.”

        In response might I comment:

        (a) Why you failed to embrace the legal claim of Israel relating to Judea and Samaria in the first place is beyond me.

        (b) I do not know why you don’t want to enter that “complex terrain ” since the claimed legal right of the Jewish people to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in the West Bank is an important element in resolving the final status of the West Bank – and indeed the Arab-Jewish conflict.

        It must be discussed and its relevance understood in relation to Israel’s claim for sovereignty in the West Bank.

        If you don’t want to discuss it then it is your prerogative. That would not be helpful in assisting the resolution of conflict – only exacerbate it.

        (c) I would appreciate the citations to your earlier articles – which I note are co-authored. I assume they are the same as the two Harvard Law Journals you referred to.

        Sorry for being so long in my reply. I guess on one sense that it is really short – having regard to the last 130 years that the conflict has been raging between Arabs and Jews.

        Resolving the conflict – not perpetuating it – should surely be your aim. It certainly is mine.

        I hope in that spirit that you will reply positively to this post and provide a detailed response to each of my points.

      • Miss Costello September 8, 2012 at 5:48 am #

        Forgive me for asking, is this a book by any chance? Beats finding a publisher.

      • Richard Falk September 8, 2012 at 7:23 am #

        Miss Costello:

        Who are asking?


      • Richard Falk September 8, 2012 at 7:40 am #

        Miss Costello:

        Forgive the slip. I meant of course ‘Who are you asking?’

        best wishes,


      • david singer September 8, 2012 at 2:55 pm #

        Again – snide remarks but no substance.

        What is your own response to my comments? Are they correct or not?

        One or two worders like “creeping annexation” or “apartheid” slip easily and glibly off the tongue.

        Trying to dismiss those who seek to understand what those words mean by the person uttering them should be welcomed – not disparaged.

      • Richard Falk September 8, 2012 at 3:15 pm #

        If you find no substance in my partial effort to respond, Mr. Sanger, it confirms my sense that our differences are so fundamental as to make communication not fruitful.

        True, I did not respond on the points about apartheid and annexation. Many credible South Africans who experienced the full burdens of SA apartheid have confirm the apartheid character of israeli apartheid, including Archbishop Tutu. And during the height of apartheid Israel and SA were cooperating in developing nuclear weapons. The international crime of apartheid since 2002 is not tied to the SA precedent, but involves systematic, prolonged, and severe discrimination.

      • david singer September 10, 2012 at 2:24 am #

        Mr Falk

        I replied to your post mentioning Desmond Tutu and one from Miss Costello suggesting I look up a dictionary to find out the meaning of “annexation” and “apartheid”. They do not appear to have been posted. Is this by accident or by design?

      • Miss Costello September 8, 2012 at 4:16 pm #

        David SInger; It is clear to all but a fool you are not “seeking to understand anything”; rather disrupting this thread and wasting Richards Falks valuable time with your endless waffle would be a more accurate analysis. If you really want to know what ‘annexation’ and ‘apartheid’ means, try a dictionary – and while you’re at it, look up hasbara. Yours is showing. Badly.

      • Richard Falk September 8, 2012 at 7:38 am #

        Dear Mr. Sanger:

        Due to my commitments and travels I am not in a position to engage in such detailed correspondence
        with anyone, and many of the issues that you raise perfectly legitimately, would require extraordinary
        effort to fashion a well-evidenced response. To avoid confusion, I know we disagree on most, if not all,
        the issues that you raise.

        Let me illustrate by reference to your mention of the settlements taking up 1% of the occupied WB. This
        is an extraordinarily misleading figure, excluding network of settler only roads, security zones, land set
        aside for future settlement expansion, and without reference to the unlawful encroachment on Palestinian
        land associated with the separation wall. The figures that I have seen are more like 14% to 20% of the WB,
        which itself is only 22% of historic Palestine.

        Similarly, suggesting the PA controls 95% of the population is hugely misleading. More than 60% of the WB
        is classified by Oslo as exclusively controlled by Israel, and in this area Palestinians are almost always
        denied construction permits; furthermore, by way of the numerous Israeli checkpoints throughout the WB it
        most misleading to talk about the territory being under Palestinian control even if one acknowledges, as I
        would not, that the PA is an independent actor, and not collaborationist with Tel Aviv when it comes to
        security issues.

        Finally, the citations to the two jointly authored articles (written together with Burns Weston of the Univ.
        of Iowa School of Law): Harvard International Law Journal, Vol 32, 129-157 (1991); Vol 33, 191-204 (1992).

      • david singer September 8, 2012 at 4:58 pm #

        Mr Falk

        Thank you for the courtesy of replying to my comments.

        However I note you have not even attempted to answer my comments in relation to your use of the term “apartheid”.

        You really need to do so if you want to continue using that heinous term in the future – and not be challenged for doing so.

        Nor do I believe you have successfully justified the use of your term “creeping annexation” for the following reasons:

        1. Even accepting your expansive claim that 14-20% of the West Bank is taken up with Israeli settlements (which I don’t) – that leaves 80-86% of the West Bank on your own calculations that isn’t.

        Israel offered to cede its claims to more than 90% of the West Bank on two occasions – 2000/2001 and 2008. Both offers were rejected.

        Is there any evidence that Israel now intends to settle in more than 20% of the West Bank?

        Surely you would need to have such evidence to support your claim of “creeping annexation”?

        Alternatively – since the actual settlements themselves are built on 1% of the West Bank – do you have any evidence that Israel intends to expand beyond this area – and if so – how much – to support your claim of “creeping annexation”?

        2. The West Bank is not 22% of historic Palestine. – it is 4%. Israel is 17%, Jordan 78% and Gaza 1%. The West Bank was part of Jordan between 1948-1967.

        Unless agreement is reached on these figures any attempt to solve the 130 years old conflict is doomed to fail. Jordan is part of the problem – it must be part of the solution.

        3. You are right – more than 60% of the West Bank (62%) is exclusively controlled by Israel under the Oslo Accords – but only 5% of the West Bank Arab population live there – estimated by the UN to be 150000 (why the UN does not bother to actually count them escapes me).

        Most of them are small herding communities scattered in remote areas, mainly on the eastern and southern slopes of the West Bank according to the UN.

        4. Palestinians in this area are not “almost always denied construction permits”. More than 100 have been granted in the last 10 years.

        5. Is there anything wrong with the Palestinian Authority being collaborationist with Tel Aviv when it comes to security issues? Shouldn’t co-operation be encouraged – rather than denigrated?

        6. Arguing that Areas A and B are not under Palestinian Authority control because there are Israeli checkpoints in Area B – where Israel is jointly responsible for security with the Palestinian Authority under Oslo – is fatuous.

        If you are right – the Palestinian Authority has no basis for unilaterally seeking recognition of statehood at the UN – since there is no area of land or population they control.

        7. Thank you for the citations to your co-authored articles. I hope i can locate them online.

        I will certainly read them.

      • Fred Skolnik September 8, 2012 at 9:30 am #

        You use the world “collaborationist” with reference to Palestinian-Israeli cooperation in security mattters as though it were a criminal acrivity, like that between the Nazis and the Vichy government, instead of an effort to prevent terrorist attacks that not only destroy innocent lives but also further disrupt the lives of the Palestinians themselves.

        Whatever the percentages involved, Israel is responsible for 100% of security in the West Bank and will continue be until a final settlement is reached. Security roads, security fences, checkpoints and all the rest, no matter how much land they take up, are there to prevent terrorist acts and for no other reason. There is no land set aside for future settlements, The last new settlement in the West Bank was established in 1991, if I am not mistaken, nor have the boundaries of existing settlements been expanded in years. These settlements occupy a barren landscape on public land. When ownership of land is disputed the claims are adjudicated in Israeli courts as in the recent cases of Ulpana and Migron, from which the settlers were forced to leave by the Israeli Supreme Court. The only way to end the Israeli occupation is to negotiate a settlement, whose general lines are clear to everyone and will involve, among other things, an exchange of land to compensate the Palestinians for the big settlement blocs that will remain part of Israel. All this involves around 5% of West Bank land. When Sharon and Netanyahu spoke of painful sacrifices, they meant the dismantlement of Jewish settlements in the West Bank. The unwillingness of the Palestinian leadership to seize the opportunity to create a Palestinian state can only make one think that the welfare of the Palestinian people is very far from their minds.

      • Fred Skolnik September 8, 2012 at 10:26 am #

        If I may add another comment: By noting that the West Bank constitutes only 22% of “historic Palestine” you seem to be suggesting that the Palestinians were somehow shortchanged by the UN Partition Plan (and by “historic Palestine” I assume you mean Mandatory Palestine because there in no other Palestine in history aside from the ancient Roman province). You might also note that half of the territory allotted to the Jews by the UN consisted of the then uninhabitable Negev desert.

  4. monalisa September 7, 2012 at 12:24 am #

    Dear Richard,

    I admire you for all your noble and humanitarian work and your withstanding against insidious personal attacks !

    I too admire you for your patience with some sort of individuals who don’t get the lesson or maybe better to say don’t want to get it how civilised discussions should run !

    Your humanitarian views are outstanding and your blog is a blessing for me in these difficult times where humanitarian actions have an extremely difficult stand against the financial and war machinery as well as the discredition of International law !

    Thank you for all you are doing on behalf of oppressed people and thank you for your thoughts/writings in this blog !

    Take care of yourself,


  5. deepaktripathi September 7, 2012 at 12:51 am #

    Dear Richard,

    I fully support your decision to monitor the comment section at your blog, which is your magazine after all. Most respectable publications strive to do this, and the editor or someone appointed to assist takes on the responsibility to make sure that comments remain focused on the topic being discussed. Some publications either thrive on unruly behaviour, or don’t have resources to monitor. There are always disruptive elements who will either be abusive, or use quite disingenuous, diversionary methods.

    A brief page by you at this blog (Comment Guidelines) would be useful. Something like: (1) comments should be brief, (2) should raise one or two specific points (3) ask a question or seek clarification (4) must refrain from abuse of a personal nature or misuse of what is actually a privilege to participate in the discussion in your territory (5) avoid long essays or personal reprimand, ideological or religious (6) multiple comments by one person on a single topic cannot be allowed and (7) only you as editor of your blog will decide when these Guidelines are broken.

    If someone feels like going beyond such Guidelines, they are free to go somewhere else, or better do it at their own blog. The scope on the Internet is unlimited.

    • david singer September 7, 2012 at 1:42 am #

      That is what I precisely did – asked a few questions and sought clarification.

      Mr Falk failed to answer.

    • Richard Falk September 7, 2012 at 6:39 am #

      Dear Deepak:

      A very sensible proposal, which I will try to implement, but I have been unable to figure out how to put such guidelines for the comment section on the initial page of the blog. When I do I will, but my schedule these days is difficult.


  6. Miss Costello September 7, 2012 at 3:09 am #

    Richard; it’s YOUR blog. No one has the right to tell you how to run it. If they don’t like it, they can quite easily go elsewhere. Furthermore, you didn’t HAVE to give such a detailed explanation of WHY you’re making changes, but you were good enogh to do so, as is your way. I for one value the fair and truthful manner in which you report. .Best of luck with the new ‘rules’. I”ll have to watch my lip in future!!

    • Richard Falk September 7, 2012 at 6:40 am #

      Thanks, Miss Costello, I know that your words would never trouble me! So
      feel as free as possible!

  7. Barry Meridian September 7, 2012 at 7:34 am #

    Who are the Palestinians?

    Contrary to political correctness, Palestinian Arabs have not been in the area west of the Jordan River from time immemorial; no Palestinian state ever existed, no Palestinian people was ever robbed of its land and there is no basis for the Palestinian “claim of return.”

    Most Palestinian Arabs are descendants of the Muslim migrants who came to the area between 1845 to 1947 from the Sudan, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, as well as from Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Yemen, Libya, Morocco, Bosnia, the Caucasus, Turkmenistan, Kurdistan, India, Afghanistan and Balochistan.

    Arab migrant workers were imported by the Ottoman Empire and by the British Mandate (which defeated the Ottomans in 1917) for infrastructure projects: The port of Haifa, the Haifa-Qantara, Haifa-Edrei, Haifa-Nablus and Jerusalem-Jaffa railroads, military installations, roads, quarries, reclamation of wetlands, etc. Illegal Arab laborers were also attracted by the relative economic boom in British Mandate Palestine, stimulated by Jewish immigration.

    Get the Israel Hayom newsletter sent to your mailbox!

    According to a 1937 report by the British Peel Commission (Palestine Betrayed, Prof. Efraim Karsh, Yale University Press, 2010, p. 12), “The increase in the Arab population is most marked in urban areas, affected by Jewish development. A comparison of the census returns in 1922 and 1931 shows that, six years ago, the increase percent in Haifa was 86, in Jaffa 62, in Jerusalem 37, while in purely Arab towns such as Nablus and Hebron it was only 7, and at Gaza there was a decrease of 2 percent.”

    As a result of the substantial Arab immigration between 1880 and 1947– and despite Arab emigration caused by domestic chaos and intra-Arab violence – the Arab population of Jaffa, Haifa and Ramla grew 17-, 12- and five-fold, respectively.

    The conquest by Egypt’s Mohammed Ali between the years of 1831 and 1840 was solidified by a flow of Egyptian migrants settling empty spaces between Gaza and Tulkarem up to the Hula Valley. They followed in the footsteps of thousands of Egyptian draft dodgers, who fled Egypt before 1831 and settled in Acre. The British traveler, H.B. Tristram, identified, in his 1865 “The Land of Israel: A journal of travels in Palestine” (p. 495), Egyptian migrants in the Beit Shean Valley, Acre, Hadera, Netanya and Jaffa.

    The British Palestine Exploration Fund documented that Egyptian neighborhoods proliferated in the Jaffa area: Saknet el-Mussariya, Abu Kebir, Abu Derwish, Sumeil, Sheikh Muwanis, Salame’, Fejja, etc. In 1917, the Arabs of Jaffa represented at least 25 ethnic groups, including Persians, Afghanis, Hindus and Balochis. Hundreds of Egyptian families settled in Ara’ Arara’, Kafer Qassem, Taiyiba and Qalansawa.

    Many of the Arabs who fled in 1948 reunited with their families in Egypt and other neighboring countries.

    “30,000-36,000 Syrian migrants (Huranis) entered Palestine during the last few months alone,” reported La Syrie daily on August 12, 1934. Izz ad-Din al-Qassam, the role model for Hamas’ terrorism, which plagued Jews as early as in the time of British Mandate Palestine, was Syrian, as were Said el-A’az, a leader of the 1936-38 anti-Jewish pogroms and Kaukji, the commander-in-chief of the Arab mercenaries who terrorized Jews in the 1930s and 1940s.

    Libyan migrants settled in Gedera, south of Tel Aviv. Algerian refugees (Mugrabis) escaped the French conquest of 1830 and settled in Safed (alongside Syrians and Jordanian Bedouins), Tiberias and other parts of the Galilee. Circassian refugees, fleeing Russian oppression (1878) and Muslims from Bosnia, Turkmenistan, and Yemen (1908) diversified the Arab demography west of the Jordan River.

    Mark Twain wrote in Innocents Abroad (American Publishing Company, 1969): “Of all the lands there are for dismal scenery, Palestine must be the prince…. Palestine is desolate and unlovely.” Analyzing Mark Twain’s book, John Haynes Holmes, the pacifist Unitarian priest, cofounder of the American Civil Liberties Union and the author of “Palestine Today and Tomorrow – a Gentile’s Survey of Zionism” (McMillan, 1929) wrote: “This is the country to which the Jews have come to rebuild their ancient homeland…. On all the surface of this earth there is no home for the Jew save in the mountains and the well-springs of his ancient kingdom…. Everywhere else the Jew is in exile…. But, Palestine is his…. Scratch Palestine anywhere and you’ll find Israel…. [There exists] not a road, a spring, a mountain, a village, which does not awaken the name of some great [Jewish] king, or echo with the voice of some great [Jewish] prophet…. [The Jew] has a higher, nobler motive in Palestine than the economic…. This mission is to restore Zion; and Zion is Palestine.”

    The Arab attempt to gain the moral high ground and to delegitimize the Jewish State – by employing the immoral reinvention of history and recreation of identity – was exposed by Arieh Avneri’s “The Claim of Dispossession” (Herzl Press, 1982) and Joan Peters’ “From Time Immemorial” (Harper & Row, 1986), which provide the aforementioned – and much more – data.

    • Miss Costello September 7, 2012 at 11:56 am #

      ” no Palestinian state ever existed, no Palestinian people was ever
      robbed of its land and there is no basis for the Palestinian “claim of return.”

      • Fred Skolnik September 7, 2012 at 2:32 pm #

        In this and the following you are quoting sources that you are unequiped to assess or verify.

        “No Palestinian state ever existed” is a statement of fact. The number of Arab refugees displaced in the 1948 war, as often as not at the urging of the invading Arab armies who assured them that they would be able to return to their homes after they finished massacring the Jews, is no greater than the number of Jews in Arab lands forced to flee their homes under vindictive Arab rule during the same period. Israel solved the Jewish refugee problem and the Arabs will have to solve the Palestinian refugee problem.

      • Miss Costello September 8, 2012 at 11:55 am #

        “you are unequiped to assess or verify”- but you are, I suppose?

        Btw; ‘equipped’ has two p’s, not one. And who exactly are you, to presume you know what I am or am not capable of? Such arrogance. Quite frankly, the rubbish you write is not to be taken seriously. Do you make it up as you go along? On the other hand, you could be a genius with your knowledge of Middle East history. Ilan Pappe had better watch out! I’d take your talents elsewhere, if I were you .You’re wasted here.

      • Fred Skolnik September 8, 2012 at 12:34 pm #

        You win at spelling. But I think I win at guessing that you are not familiar with any Middle Eastern language, have never been in a Middle Eastern country, and know whatever you think you know from watching television and reading material that shares your biases. If I’m wrong, please tell me how you went about verifying imaginary massacres. Is it via Ilan Pappe? Did you examine how he intentionally mistranslates archive material? And yes I am.

      • rehmat1 September 9, 2012 at 6:22 am #

        Bishop Tutu has long been declared an “anti-Semite” by the Zionazi thugs inside and outside Israel. In April 2012, 1200 rabbis sent a letter to Methodist Christian groups, warning them not to join BDS movement against Israeli companies. On May 1, 2012 – the Tampa Bay Times published Nobel Prize laureate South African Bishop Desmond Tutu’s response to these pro-Israel rabbis.

        “A quarter-century ago I barnstormed around the United States encouraging Americans, particularly students, to press for divestment from South Africa. Today, regrettably, the time has come for similar action to force an end to Israel’s long-standing occupation of Palestinian territory and refusal to extend equal rights to Palestinian citizens who suffer from some 35 discriminatory laws,” wrote Tutu.

      • Barry Meridian September 9, 2012 at 1:40 pm #

        To funny, we have a nutjob like Rehmat1 who claims 9/11 was an inside job by Bush.
        This is what Rehmat says on his site.
        The documentary is produced by the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth features dozens of credentialed experts in architecture, engineering, and other related fields who argue that the World Trade Center (WTC) Twin Towers and WTC Building 7 were not brought down on September 11, 2001, by the office fires ignited by the jetliner impacts, but rather by explosive controlled demolition.

        The hatemonger Rehmat who claims Jews control the media to control the world.

        Then we have Rehmat who says this about Turkey on his site this week.
        When the so-called ‘Islamist’ Justice and Development Party (AKP) came to power in 2002 – it sent waves of shocks in the Zionist-controlled world capitals.

        So now we have Rehmat saying Jews control other countries.

        I find this amazing, my posts and David Singer’s posts are not going on, but a lying Muslim like Rehmat has his posts go on.

    • Miss Costello September 7, 2012 at 12:03 pm #

      “no Palestinians people was ever robbed of its land and there is no basis for the Palestinian ‘claim of of return’ “.


  8. Terrell E. (Terry) Arnold September 7, 2012 at 10:06 am #

    Richard: Thank you for your comments on and effort to enforce civility. I was brought up in the Oxford school of debate in which personal references–aside from light and friendly joking ones–were never allowed. Over years of debate at national and international levels those rules repeatedly proved themselves. There is no room in civil discourse for insult of any kind.

    Terry Arnold

    • Richard Falk September 7, 2012 at 10:34 am #

      Thanks Terry: Your experience confirms my slow learning curve here in the novel terrain of the blogosphere. Richard

  9. monalisa September 8, 2012 at 1:29 am #

    To note for a proper history is relevant:

    Concerning Palestine and Transjordan those papers are of direct interest which deal with the British Mandate of both whereas the British handled its Mandate as a Crown Colony – according to historians.

    Concerning land ownerships a good and extremely reliable source based on facts are the documents recorded administrative by the British. Those documents show for example that by 1920 about 10 % of Palestine was inhabited by Jewish people, while the total population was about 700,000.
    By 1947 the total inhabited Palestine population counted was two millions and the Jewish represented nearly a third of it.
    Before 1948 less than 10% was owned and acquired by Jewish land purchasers.
    It is also noteworthy that:

    Religious idolatry is the same as political idolatry. Communism and Fascism have the same root with different direction. Both have the root of being acting superior to other groups/religious believers/race.
    Their superiority is usually shown by “outsourcing” (expelling, murdering) other groups/religious believers/race.

    Concerning Israel: Its inception started with the same rule. Superiority towards other believers: God gave this land to the Jewish people, God promised this land for the Jewish people etc. This is in its form a religious idolatry forming into a political one and therefore both are intertwined.

    Nothing new. If I look at the implementation of the Roman-Catholic Church/religion as the official religion of the Roman Empire, I get a very bad record. Also the Roman-Catholic Church is still alive and extremely rich the Roman Empire fell soon after the implementation of the Roman-Catholic Church and its religion.

    When it comes to Palestine and Israel I personally like to rely on documents of the British administrative body if available in books written by scholars of Law or History.

    I think these documents are enough to see what went wrong and how the Israel government “mended” some facts.

    Nothing more, nothing less. Facts are facts.


    • Fred Skolnik September 8, 2012 at 2:50 am #

      Dear Monalisa

      You are doing it again. “God gave this land to the Jewish people, etc.” has nothing to do with why the State of Israel exists. It exists because the Land of Israel is the historical homeland of the Jewish people, because the Jews were present in the Land of Israel for 2,000 years before the Arabs came out of the desert and conquered it, because the Jews were a sovereign nation there and created their culture and national consciousness there, and because the Jews continued to be present there after the Arab conquest. You might as well go and complain to Spain that they seized Arab land when they reestablished their sovereignty there.

  10. Björn Lindgren September 8, 2012 at 4:16 am #

    Dear Richard,

    Your thoughts, views, and analyses are indeed a source of inspiration and decency.

    In times of an extreme political middle, where the political scene is polarized, of course, it is necessary for you to defend and protect your valuable tribune.

    To express perfectly simple and humane views seem to be very provokative these days.

    Karl Popper was right when he said,

    “Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.”

    Over the years, I´ve noticed that in Israel/Palestine, young children tend to be very clear-eyed, and fully conscious that hate, violence, and oppression leads to – of course – more hate, violence, and oppression. Like all other children over the world. Then, when they reach the age of, say, 14, they are expected to be “grown-up,” i.e. take side: “either you are with us or against us”.

    Becoming “grown-up” or “realistic,” is the road to oppression, poverty, structural and manifest violence, war, and death:

    The legacy of “The Best of the Brightest” is telling: millions of dead in Vietnam, Cambodia, and the U.S. They were “grown-up”, “realistic,” and blind or indifferent to the consequences of their plans and actions.

    Many thanks, Richard.

    Cheers, Björn Lindgren

    • Richard Falk September 8, 2012 at 7:21 am #

      Dear Bjorn:

      Thanks for this wise set of reflections that articulate better than I can why I am struggling to maintain civility on this blog.

      Your comments about why ‘realism’ leads to extreme rejections of otherness, and is closely related to the dominance of those forces threatening the species with extinction, and at minimum, the destruction of modernity.

  11. Yassin Croes September 8, 2012 at 9:00 am #

    Dear mr Falk,

    I would like to thank you for your articles on the Israel/Palestine question which, in my opinion, show a deep respect to the rule of law. Being a lawyer myself, although not involved in international humanitarian law, I couldn’t agree more with such an approach. I look forward to your next posts.
    Kind regards.

  12. Miss Costello September 8, 2012 at 11:02 am #

    Richard; my comment “Forgive me for asking, is this a book by any chance? Beats finding a publisher”- was in reply to David Singers 2nd comment with its endless denunciation of just about every word you say. Sorry for the confusion, but not the comment.

  13. rehmat1 September 9, 2012 at 6:15 am #

    Fred Skolnik – I suggest you need to study Arab-Israeli history from some objective source to find out how are the terrorists – European Zionist Jewish militias which diplaced more the 700,000 native Muslim and Christian Palestinians – or the natives who’re trying to recover their land through both non-violence and violence?

    I’m not suggesting a Arab historian – but Niv Elis is a Breaking News Editor and blogger for the Israeli daily Jerusalem Post. He says, his grandfather Feivel Eliash (born 1921), a Polish Jew, was among the group of Jewish terrorists who blew-up Jerusalem’s King David Hotel on July 22, 1946.

    • Fred Skolnik September 9, 2012 at 7:06 am #

      The Jewish terrorists blew up a wing of the King David to displace the British not the Arabs. These splinter groups were denounced and ultimately dismantled by the Jewish leadership. The reason there was a partition plan was to give both the Jews and the Arabs a country of their own. That is called a compromise. A compromise was called for because the Jews had a valid claim to sovereignty in the Land of Israel. Not even an Arab historian can deny that the Jews were present in the Land of Israel before the Arabs and continued to be present there after the Arab conquest though he might try to obscure the facts. The Jewish leadership accepted the compromise. The Arabs rejected it and attacked Israel. You can rationalize this however you like but it will not alter the fact that the Palestinians are the cause of their own misery.

      Not only have I studied Arab-Israel history from objective sources, I also live here, so I have a very clear sense of the nature of the conflict, being exposed nearly every day to Arab terrorism and threats, which has nothing to do with what Israel does but with the fact of its existence as a non-Muslim nation in the MIddle East.

  14. Miss Costello September 9, 2012 at 2:42 pm #

    Fred wots his name. “The Jewish terrorists blew up a wing of the King David to displace the British, not the Arabs” -That’s alright then. As long as somebody got it.
    “These splinter groups were denounced and ultimately dismantled by the Jewish leadership” –
    No they weren’t. The same vile thugs, (Stern Gang), just two years later in 1948, were responsible for the brutal massacre of Deir Yassin, headed by Eitan Livni. No prizes for guessing whose Daddy he was. The mammy, Sara Rosenberg, wasn’t much better either. You could say – Tzipi Livni’s’s parents were the Adam and Eve of Terrorism. Except of course, you won’t. No doubt we’ll be ‘treated’ to yet another ‘Right said Fred’ version of events. Try this one first.

    • Fred Skolnik September 9, 2012 at 3:10 pm #

      But the Stern Gang and the others were condemned and ultimately disbanded. When you label Hamas and the other Palestinian terrorists as vile thugs, then I will buy the humanity that you are trying to peddle here.

      • Miss Costello September 9, 2012 at 3:40 pm #

        Fred; “stern gang condemned and disbanded”

        Is that why Netanyahu attended a memorial dinner in 2006, commemorating the King David bombings? Who are the REALTerrorists? Watch and find out.

      • Miss Costello September 10, 2012 at 2:17 pm #

        Fred Skolnik; Humanity cannot be ‘bought’. Disgusting thought.

        She is no fool who gives what she cannot keep in order to gain what she cannot lose. Jim Elliot

  15. monalisa September 10, 2012 at 2:16 am #

    Just to note:

    It is interesting to read that some comments in this blog repeat permanently Israel’s official governmental statements.
    While the Israel government is well known in omitting documented facts.
    I wonder why some individual comments don’t express personal opinions because even if some persons agree with some brutal actions to carried out against Palestinians it can hardly be that all actions are O.K. for them. No any critique at all !!

    When Israel’s government doesn’t ackowledge that settlers robbed possessions of Palestinians it is clear why. The amount to refund Palestinians would be extremely big.
    So denying seems for Israel’s government the “best way”.


  16. Fred Skolnik September 10, 2012 at 2:26 am #

    I cannot help noticing that your policy of excising comments is not really following any consistent logic and often has as its net effect a certain tilting of the argument and according of the last word to your followers.

    In any case, just as you have occasionally altered or amended your views in the wake of these comments, I would urge to do so further with regard to your regular use of the word “apartheid” to characterize the system under which Arabs live both in Israel and the occupied territories. I think David Singer has pointed out your error with regard to the State of Israel when he wrote: “There are no separate buses for Arabs and separate buses for Jews. Shopping centers are frequented by both Arabs and Jews. 180000 West Bank Arabs were recently able to visit Israel and swim on non-segregated beaches. Israeli Arabs vote and have representatives in the Knesset. There are Arab judges and Arab diplomats. Thousands of Arab students attend universities and share lectures with Jewish students and actually eat in the same canteens.” These are just a few of the differences between Israeli society and an apartheid society, and surely you must realize that the two are very far from being the same. On the other hand, no one would fault you for speaking of discrimination, though it exists, as I wrote, as “a natural and unfortunate outgrowth of a very problematic situation wherein the primary identity of Israeli Arabs is with an Arab world that is hostile to Israel.” I think, therefore, that you might revise your manner of characterizing Israeli society with regard to the status of its Arab citizens.

    With regard to the occupied territories, a word like “apartheid,” while it has a nice ring of condemnation to it, is entirely gratuitous and certainly inaccurate. As I wrote: The status of the settlers as Israeli citizens is totally irrelevant to the status of the Palestinians in the West Bank who are living under military law, regardless of how you view the legality of the settlements. In fact, all the restrictions that exist today would be in force even if there was not a single Jewish settlement there, as long as terrorist acts were being committed by the Palestinians. And the proof that they would be committed may be found in Gaza, where all the settlements were dismantled. I think it would clarify the issues considerably if they were characterized more accurately.

    • Richard Falk September 10, 2012 at 6:30 am #

      Mr Skolnik:

      I respectfully disagree. I have been to both South Africa during the height of apartheid and to the West Bank and Israel in recent years. It is true that the patterns of race-based discrimination are not the same, both involve deep structures of severe and systematic discrimination. It is deeply misleading to treat the settlements as isolate and minor intrusions; together with the checkpoints the presence of the settlement is completely interspersed with the reality of the daily lives of the Palestinian people. Many of the settlements occupy the best agricultural land, are on high ground, and look down upon poor
      Palestinian villages, not to mention ‘price-tag’ and other forms of settler violence toward Palestinians that goes largely unpunished, and often involves complicity by IOF.

      • Fred Skolnik September 10, 2012 at 7:12 am #

        I think you are further confusing the issue when you fail to recognize the fact that whatever official discrimination exists against Arab citizens of Israel is not based on race but on nationality and the recognition of the potential danger posed by a national minority that identifies with Israel’s enemies. There is no sense in Israel that the Arabs belong to another race, even if certain elements of the population occasionally borrow the vocabulary of Westerners in talking about them. Apartheid is an entirely inappropriate word to describe this reality, evoking associations that are completely foreign to it.

        As for the settlements, high ground is hardly the best agricultural land, the settlers are rarely farmers, and violence toward the Arabs is generated by a very small minority of the settlers. You can characterize them however you like but they certainly have not gone to the extremes of the Arab terrorists. The clashes between the settlers and the Palestinians are again national and not in any way social or racial while the Israeli army operates solely to prevent acts of terrorism. I have noted more than once that the only solution to this conflict is a negotiated settlement. That is what should be encouraged and everyone with a realistic view knows pretty much what it will look like. The Arabs will not get everything they want but neither will the Israelis.

      • david singer September 10, 2012 at 4:28 pm #

        Mr Falk

        You state:

        “I have been to both South Africa during the height of apartheid and to the West Bank and Israel in recent years. It is true that the patterns of race-based discrimination are not the same, both involve deep structures of severe and systematic discrimination.”

        “Apartheid” is defined in the Collins English Dictionary to mean -“(in South Africa) the official government policy of racial segregation”

        The key words are “racial segregation” – not “deep structures of severe and systematic discrimination”.

        There is a wide gap in the meaning of “apartheid” and “discrimination”

        Does this mean that you are no longer going to use the term “apartheid” to describe Israel’s policies in Israel and the West Bank?

        I know your schedule is very busy – so a “yes” or “no” answer will suffice.

        If you have the time you might point out what you claim to be “deep structures of severe and systematic discrimination” in Israel and the West Bank.

        Again might I respectfully say that the use of such vague and general terms is utterly meaningless and needs to be substantiated.

      • Richard Falk September 10, 2012 at 6:41 pm #

        Mr Sanger:

        The Rome Statute of the ICC establishes apartheid as a crime against humanity distinct from its South African origins. It is part of international law at this point. The only legitimate question is whether conditions on the West Bank are such as to fulfill the requirements of the crime.

      • Fred Skolnik September 11, 2012 at 12:51 am #

        I find it hard to understand why you are removing David Singer’s last comment, unless you find it superfluous and are therefore introducing a new criterion for the blog.

        I also think that if you find it permissible for your Miss Costello to characterize my comments as “disgusting” with reference to her unwillingness to label Arab terrorists as “vile thugs” in the same way that she characterizes the Stern Gang, and myself as “wot’s his name,” you might do me the courtesy of allowing me to reply in kind.

      • david singer September 11, 2012 at 3:27 am #


        Wow i think you are right!!

        My post has disappeared – like two others before it.

        This was my last post:

        “Mr Falk

        I asked you for a “yes” or “no” and instead received another vague, evasive and imprecise answer.

        You now state:

        “The only legitimate question is whether conditions on the West Bank are such as to fulfill the requirements of the crime.”

        But you have already accused Israel of that crime.

        Now you need to justify what I believe is a canard or cease using the term “apartheid”.

        It is you who has used the word “apartheid” in relation to the policies of Israel in both Israel and the West Bank – making it obvious that you believe that the conditions both in Israel and the West Bank are such as to fulfill the requirements of the crime.

        So I ask you again – what do you believe are those conditions which lead you to conclude that Israel has committed the crime of apartheid and justify your using that term as part of the political discourse.”

        Two questions:

        1. Why do you think Mr Falk deleted it?

        2. Is he unable to answer it and believe I will simply go away?

        Mr Falk made the claim of “apartheid”. He needs to justify it or withdraw the comment.

        Is that unreasonable?

  17. Miss Costello September 11, 2012 at 5:21 am #

    Fred Skolnik; ” also think that if you find it permissible for your Miss Costello to characterize my comments as “disgusting”

    Did you say you were a lawyer? If so, should you not pay m’ore attention to what has actually been said, rather than manipulate what was? I didnt say your comment was disgusting, I said the THOUGHT of ‘selling humanity’ was. If you are unable to grasp the concept of ‘selling humanity’ IS disgusting, then there really is nothing more to be said.

    • Fred Skolnik September 11, 2012 at 5:28 am #

      What on earth are you talking about? I was using the word “buy” figuratively. Look in the dictionary. I was saying that your pretensions of humanity strike me as bogus in the light of the fact that you are unwilling to condemn barbaric Arab terrorists.

  18. Fred Skolnik September 11, 2012 at 5:25 am #

    Dear David

    1) To make life easier for himself.

    2) Doesn’t want to answer it, wasn’t expecting hard, informed questions, prefers to be congratulated by his worshipful followers.

  19. Ray RayLil October 25, 2012 at 8:00 pm #


    Arabs/Muslims say because at some point in time (when Israel was under occupation and rule of Muslim countries) they were the majority, they should own all or a big chunk of Israel. This argument is useless for the following reasons:

    1. The last Muslim country that ruled and occupied Israel was Turkey. Turkey (the Ottoman Empire) imposed severe restrictions on Jewish immigration to Israel, but actively invited Muslims from other parts of the Ottoman Empire to settle in Israel, including Circassians and Bosnians.  As a result, Arabs/Muslims became the majority. However, even then the land was mostly empty as reported by 18th-century reports from the British archaeologist Thomas Shaw; French author and historian Count Constantine Volney (Travels through Syria and Egypt, 1798); the mid-19th-century writings of Alphonse de Lamartine (Recollections of the East, 1835); Mark Twain (Innocents Abroad, 1867); and reports from the British Consul in Jerusalem (1857); because of Turkey’s neglect of the land. Most Arabs entered Israel after Jews made the land prosperous.

    2. There is no universal right of citizenship by birth. People who are born in countries that are not based on common law, e.g. Japan, Germany, and France, do not become citizens of those countries. So because some Arabs are born in Israel, they do not get the automatic right of ownership and citizenship of Israel.

    3. Arabs caused the Holocaust. In 1920s and 1930s after Arabs rioted against Jews and murdered several hundred Jews, the British enacted the White Paper of 1939, which banned Jews from coming to Israel from 1939 to 1948. As a result, six million Jews were brutally murdered by Europeans because they could not come to Israel. Furthermore, Arabs collaborated with Nazis to massacre the Jews.

    4. In 1948, when Arabs attacked Israel and captured the West Bank from Israel, Arabs expelled all Jews from the West Bank. So Israel has the right to expel all Arabs from the West Bank.

    5. Before 1948, the West Bank and Gaza belonged to Jews, not Arabs, according to the Mandate for Palestine, which is a binding law, approved by the unanimous vote of all the 51 member countries of the League of Nations on July 24, 1922. The Mandate for Palestine gave the exclusive right of ownership (Article 25) and citizenship (Article 7) of the West Bank, Gaza, and the rest of Israel to Jews, not Arabs.

    6. After WWI the League of Nations in four other mandates gave to 17 million Arabs an area of 1,290,000 square miles, i.e. 99.9% of the land, including all the principal Arab and Muslim centers. However, the same League of Nations gave to Jews only 10,000 square miles, i.e. less than 0.1% of the land; yet Arabs want to get the little 0.1% land of Jews.

    7. Israel is the ancestral home of Jews. Israel is not the ancestral home of Arabs/Muslims. Israelites were indigenous Canaanites, and Hebrew is the only surviving Canaanite language. However, Arabic is not a Canaanite language because Arabs came from the Arabian Peninsula.

    8. Arabs say because of Resolution 181 they own the West Bank, Gaza, and Golan Heights. Resolution 181 was a non-binding recommendation to partition Israel, whose implementation hinged on acceptance by both parties – Arabs and Jews. Since Arabs did not accept the resolution, it became null and void ab initio.

    9. Philistines were Greeks who invaded the Gaza region of Israel more than 3,000 years ago, in 1100 BCE. Then after Jews’ revolt against the Roman occupation of Israel, the Romans changed the name Israel to “Provincia Palestina” in 135 CE. That name stuck to Israel since then. Now Arabs claim that they are Palestinians and native of Israel. They are not Philistines or Palestinians; they are simply Arabs.

    10. If Arabs/Muslims are permitted to stay in Israel, they will be a serious threat to Jews because Arabs breed like rabbits. Once they become majority, they will join their comrades in the Gaza, West Bank, and the rest of Arab/Muslim world and will slaughter Jews.

    For the above reasons Arabs/Muslims should be deported to their own country.

  20. mirena recall May 2, 2013 at 8:44 pm #

    Hi! I know this is somewhat off-topic however I had to
    ask. Does building a well-established blog like yours
    take a massive amount work? I am completely new to operating a blog however I do write in my journal on a daily basis.
    I’d like to start a blog so I will be able to share my experience and thoughts online. Please let me know if you have any suggestions or tips for new aspiring blog owners. Thankyou!

    • Richard Falk May 3, 2013 at 12:27 pm #

      Thanks, Mirena, for your inquiry. I didn’t do anything special to promote my blog, but just started writing posts. It was a present to me on my 80th birthday from my daughter, and I have learned on the job so to speak. Of course, because I deal with controversial issues, the posts attract some highly negative and hostile responses. At the same time, I have received enough encouragement from those I respect to put up with the negative feedback, and continue the process for now.

      Wishing you well, and hope that you will embark upon the journey!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: