11 Jan


(Prefatory Note: Ghada Ageel’s expertly edited Israeli Apartheid in Palestine: Hard Laws and Harder Experiences has just been published by the University of Albert Press. It is an important contribution to Palestinian studies with an especially welcome linking of activism, scholarly analysis, and experiential narrative, each a vital perspective represented by excellent chapter writers. Publishing information can be found at the following:


I publish below my foreword to the volume as a further indication of why I encourage all those with an interest in this subject-matter to obtain the book]



Foreword (by Richard Falk)


From many points of view, the struggle between Jews and Arabs over historic Palestine that has gone on for almost a century, is at a critical juncture. For more than twenty years most hopes for a peaceful resolution of the conflict depended on a diplomatic framework agreed upon in Oslo and solemnized by the infamous 1993 White House handshake between Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat with a smiling Bill Clinton standing tall between these embattled leaders. More than a year has elapsed since the end of expectations that Oslo diplomacy is the solution given the collapse in April 2014 of the American attempt to induce the parties to negotiate directly that Secretary of John Kerry had dramatically declared to be ‘the last chance’ to realize the two-state solution.


This Oslo framework was so one-sided from the outset as to seem structurally incapable of ever producing a fair outcome, given the bisecting of Occupied Palestine, splitting the West Bank from Gaza, entrusting partisan United States with the honest broker role, failing even to affirm a Palestinian right of self-determination, and the exclusion of international law from the negotiations. This latter may have been most damaging bias of all, allowing the Israelis to continue their unlawful land grabbing encroachment on post-1967 Palestine (expanding settlements; building the separation barrier, and constructing a network of settler only roads) , with the U.S. using its geopolitical muscle to insulate Israel from any adverse consequences through the years.


So with Oslo in shambles, new tendencies on both sides are becoming evident.

Israeli internal politics that have been drifting further and further to the right, and seems on the verge of producing a consensus favoring a unilaterally imposed solution that will leave the Palestinians squeezed either into barren bantustans on the West Bank or incorporated into an Israeli one-state solution in which the best that they can hope for is to be treated decently as second-class citizens in a self-proclaimed Israeli ethnocracy. Beyond this, even these diminished democratic elements in the Israeli reality would be threatened by the prospects of a Palestinian majority, leading many prominent Israelis to throw their democratic pretensions under the bus of ethnic privilege. The Knesset signaled the adoption of such an approach when it elected Reuven Rivlin as President of Israel, a fierce advocate of a single Israeli state encompassing the entirety of Palestine. To be sure, liberal minded Israeli Zionists, among them Amos Oz, are worried by these developments, warning that however belatedly, Israel’s only hope for real peace is to accept

a viable Palestinian sovereign state on its borders, but it seems as if such concerns are politically irrelevant voices in the wilderness.


On the Palestinian side the relevant discussions are more in the realm of aspirations, pinning hopes on a renewed cycle of intensifying resistance by an array of nonviolent tactics and bolstered by a growing global solidarity movement that follows the tactics and guidance of Palestinian civil society leaders. If such an assessment is correct it represents something quite new, shifting the locus of expectations from the level of governments to that of people and popular mobilization. In these respects, the formal governmental actors have become marginalized, with the Palestinian Authority compromised due to its partially collaborative and dependent relationship with Israel and the United States and Hamas limited in its capacity to provide international leadership, although its leaders have repeatedly expressed their readiness for long-term peaceful coexistence with Israel. The question is whether such a globally based and populist Palestinian national movement can exert sufficient pressure on the Israeli established order to force a recalculation of interests in Tel Aviv, a process comparable to what occurred so dramatically in South Africa two decades ago, a drastic change by the governing white elite that was signaled there by the utterly surprising release from prison of Nelson Mandela, up until then alleged to be South Africa’s number one terrorist.


There are other post-Oslo developments of relevance as well. The European governments have been breaking ranks by announcing in different ways their recognition of Palestinian statehood and the desirability of admitting Palestine to full membership in the United Nations. Such steps, although entirely symbolic and likely unable to alter policies, are challenges to the notion that only the United States can speak to the conflict. These European initiatives contain some ambiguities, as well, because they still seem yoked to some variant of the Oslo two-state mantra, and even seem to call for resumed

direct negotiations. I can only ask ‘to what end?’ given past futility and Israel’s

undisguised moves toward imposing a unilaterally satisfying outcome without worrying as to whether the Palestinians like it or not. The Palestinian Authority has taken these steps in a different direction by urging the UN Security Council to adopt a resolution requiring Israeli withdrawal to 1967 borders by November 2016.


It is with these various considerations in mind that Ghada Ageel’s edited volume should be positively received as a timely and welcome addition to the vast literature addressing various facets of the Israel-Palestine unfolding reality. Its most striking feature is how well calibrated the various chapters that compose the whole are to this latest phase of struggle as depicted above. The book is built around the central organizing principle that there are three vital perspectives that enable an understanding and appreciation of both the suffering endured in the past by the Palestinian people and their moral, political, and legal entitlements when contemplating the future.


By distinguishing between those Palestinians whose life story is dominated by the traumatizing experience of a lost homeland, those whose engagement with the Palestinian struggle for justice is a matter of core political identity, and those who are scholars and activists that seek to interpret the conflict from the academic perspectives of international law and international relations Ageel has woven for readers a rich fabric of understanding. This understanding focuses on dispossession and displacement as the essential outcome of the nakba of 1948, the catastrophe that drove as many as 800,000 Palestinians from their cherished homeland, a story long at the core of the Palestinian experience, but only recently told to non-Palestinians in a persuasive manner as the Israeli Holocaust narrative of victimization had dominated public spheres of perception. The activists and scholars represented in this book are not neutral purveyors of knowledge, but individuals of diverse backgrounds who believe that peace will come to these two people if and only if justice is rendered by reference to Palestinian rights, which have been denied and encroached upon for so long.


What is worth noticing about this way of framing inquiry is that it gives scant attention to the conventional empowerment strategies of either armed struggle or diplomacy. The section reporting the lived memories of Palestinians are moving narratives about the past that give existential credibility to what it meant to uproot the Palestinian people, especially those from villages, from their homes and communities.


The section devoted to the tactics, strategies, and engagement of activists seeks to discern effective tactics to challenge an untenable status quo that the organized international community lacks the will and capability to overcome even though the whole tragedy of Palestine can be traced to colonialist policies (the Balfour Declaration and the League of Nations Mandate) after World War I and the attempted imposed UN partition plan after World War II.


The final section on morality, politics, and law reinforces the cries of anguish of the Palestinian witnesses and validates the work of the activists by providing well-documented and reasoned support for the main Palestinian grievances. Together, then, this volume without saying so directly speaks percetively to the new realities of the Palestinian national struggle.


There is no attempt made by editor or contributors to assess the current stage of Zionist thinking and that of the Israeli leadership. In one respect Ari Shavit’s book of two years ago, My Promised Land: The Triumph and Tragedy of Israel makes the best case for Israeli behavior, acknowledging the cruelty and violence of Palestinian dispossession, and its ugly sequels, but strains to justify everything done to the Palestinian people as ‘necessary,’ part of an ‘us’ or ‘them’ either/or reality. This kind of Israeli thinking is prevalent in several forms, being especially split on whether an Israeli imposed solution should seek to be humane in its treatment of the subjugated Palestinians or will need to continue to rely on an iron fist approach. If one puts aside propaganda disseminated for external consumption, Israel’s present conception of peace is preoccupied with fears, security requirements, and territorial ambitions, leaving no room for any serious attention given to Palestinian rights or what might make peace sustainable and just for both peoples.


In the end, I commend Ghada Ageel for so bravely sharing her own story while guiding us on a comprehensive journey that takes us up to the present historical moment. We cannot read these various contributions, each excellent on its own, without being both moved and instructed. What we come away with is a sense of both the victimization and empowering agency of the Palestinians as a people, with less interest and expectations associated with either the formal leadership representing Palestine in diplomatic venues or the relevance of either governmental diplomacy or the UN to move the conflict toward an acceptable outcome at this time.


Of course, if we are to hopeful in line with the vision encapsulated in this volume, then we need to get beyond the conventional thinking of political realism. This kind of thinking is bound to be defeatist at this time given the disparity in military capabilities and the degree to which Israel’s hard power seems to be calling the shots. Yet in the period since 1945 this kind of realism has consistently produced failed policies and surprising outcomes. From the great victory of Gandhi’s India over the British Empire to the unlikely defeat of the United States in the Vietnam War, almost all struggles involving political destiny of a country have been eventually won by the side that perseveres and gains control of world public opinion by winning the legitimacy struggle involving justice, law, and morality. There is little doubt that since the Lebanon War of 2006 the Palestinians have been winning this legitimacy struggle as a result of the intensely negative perceptions throughout the world in reaction to the merciless military operations carried out by Israel in Gaza in 2008-09, 2012, and 2014, as well as the 2010 attack on the Turkish led flotilla of humanitarian ships seeking to break the blockade of Gaza that has been punishing the entrapped civilian population for years.


In effect, quietly yet powerfully, Ghada Ageel and her band of collaborators, are telling us to reimagine the Palestinian national struggle, and even to relate to it in an effective and knowledgeable manner. This book gives us the pedagogic and activist tools we need to participate meaningfully and usefully in the greatest of all unresolved colonial era struggles. It should be of interest to anyone concerned with overcoming oppression, seeking justice, and exploring the outer limits of nonviolent struggle by a brave people who have

endured generations of collective suffering.


51 Responses to “On Ghada Ageel’s edited ISRAELI APARTHEID IN PALESTINE”

  1. Gene Schulman January 11, 2016 at 12:59 pm #

    I’ll order the book, Richard. Your foreword is spot on. I’ll ask you to sign my copy if we lunch together in March. Hope the weather in Geneva is better by then.

    Best, Gene

  2. wingsprd January 11, 2016 at 2:56 pm #

    I’ll try to get it , if not in Australia
    maybe Amazon. Thank you so much for your continued efforts to work and educate in the name of decency and justice. There are many who revile the use of ‘hard power’ as you say, especially in light of climate threats to our planet .

  3. Harvey Epstein January 11, 2016 at 4:09 pm #

    Now let me see: “occupied Palestine” is bisected? The most recent map I have seen shows a @ 10 kilometer wide space between Israel and the Med. sea at its narrowest point; about the same width as the narrowest part of any land the PA can reasonably expect to get in any settlement. This map shows the expansion most recently envisioned by Israel – an expansion into land that the PA claims, but so does Israel.

    I have never seen a map (except for a Palestinian map eliminating Israel) that ever showed that Gaza was connected to the West Bank. This problem of separation between the two parts of a Palestinian state is solvable, and I think that was done on the proposed map submitted to Abbas, in 2008, which he rejected. That proposed settlement gave him about everything he asked for, but, like Arafat, I guess he did not like the idea of “sipping tea with Sadat”.

    This “anguishment” over a divided land for the Palestinian should be revisited by some folks: what was Israel expected to look like just after the nakba? Do we forget that for the Muslim world, the “nakba” was intended to be a Holacaust for the Jews? On my scale, better a nakba and be alive than a Holacaust and be dead.

    Now we see the number 800,000 of “displaced Palestinians”. The most authoritive number is more like 724,000. One must question this number, as well, since those of the PA who already lived in the Jordanian West Bank might in fact be included therein, and never were in the land now occupied by Israel. And for the most part, no matter the number, they left expecting to return to occupy and own that which they previously had and also that which the Jews, who they expected to now all be dead, had owned. For the vast majority of the current PA, they were not even alive when their failed Holacaust was attempted. Do we not really speak of a group of people who were expecting to benefit from the murder of Jews? Those original PA ,still alive, probably number less than 100,000. The number of 60-70,000 is the most authoritive estimate of which I am aware, and did all of them originally live in Israel? The several hundred thousands of others never lived in Israel.

    A “long term period of peaceful coexistence” being sought by the PA/Hamas with Israel is NOT a peace accord. It is a Hudna. Why should Israel ever agree to this? To end up with another Gaza?

    Have you ever seen a photo of all of that ” humanitarian ” aid on the Turkish cruise ship involved in the effort to break the embargo? The photo I saw shows two boxes of anything which could have been considered “humanitarian aid”. I could put it all into a small pickup truck. If you have other photos, and they are from a source one could really rely upon, I would like to see them. We both know it was all very likely a provocation, colluded in by Turkey. Anything to give Israel a black eye.

    Now I do acknowledge that life in Israel is not perfect for the Arab Israeli, but try to imagine what life would be like for a Jew who tried to live in the West Bank, among the PA, from 1947-2016. Now you do have to imagine that because no Jew was/is actually allowed to do that, of whom I am aware.

    Richard, I am well aware of your apartheid view and your personal experience which leave you with your mindset. I recognize that you admit, but do not seem to specify, the crimes committed by the PA, etc. All I can do is to remind you of that which you do not wish to recognize: there is another side, facts which you choose to ignore, and this undermines your one sided position.

    I, for one, oppose the destruction of the homes of terrorists (except under certain circumstances), the delays in returning their bodies to grieving families, wage disparities within Israel, educational disparity within Israel, etc. Remember that Israel has just allocated a few billion dollars to try and redress some of the these disparities. It should spend more. I think a two state solution is the only reasonable solution. I do not forget that @ 800,000 plus Jews were forced out of Muslim lands with no rights of return or any hope of compensation. I do not agree that whatever the PA wants, it should get. I am sorry for their pain, but I do no appreciate their rewriting of some of the history of what took place. Short of a peace treaty and a recognition of Israel, as a Jewish State, why should Israel recognize or agree to the creation of another hostile, already ethnically cleased Muslim state? One thing they ignore is that, but for the Jew in Israel, there would not be so many Arab Muslims, Bedouin , etc. alive in that area.

    A final word for your consideration: in the absence of an Inundation via a Right of Return, the current birth rate of Jews in Israel is almost exactly the same as that of the Israeli Arab, etc. The “mix” is interesting, but the demographics seem no longer to be that adverse to the survivability of a Jewish majority, long into the future. At least according to the most recent data I just saw.

    Nakba vs Holacaust; Hudna vs genuine Peace. Failure to understand these is to not really understand what has or will happen; the rest is just so much “stuff”.

    • Kata Fisher January 11, 2016 at 6:36 pm #


      I do not think that you understand:

      Pedagogical activism is useful – it will keep your mind open to the truth, just as relative truth will.

      However, what you want to and need to have in order to solve the problems, effectively, in fact, would be Absolute Truth applied.

      I think in this case this is relevant to note that there are differences to Pedagogical and Andragogical approach to learning (acting) when comes to the effective development of some situations / settings.

      I personally do not like to mule around with Pedagogical and Andragogical models (in the application); still I do believe that they are a very nice guide to a learning/teaching approach.

      For some folks, it is so difficult to move properly in these learning/teaching models – they are just fixed in one (either the one or the other). Also, it becomes very difficult and very, very boring in an environment like that.

      For an effective way to the problem solving, you need adult learner / learning, and absolute truth (applied). But you can’t be without Pedagogical activism and relative truth because – you will get no where, as well. It is useful.

    • Richard Falk January 12, 2016 at 5:11 pm #

      I appreciate your care and clarity in providing this comprehensive presentation of your views. I am not able due to time
      constraints to give my understanding of each of these issues that you cover, and I am not in all cases 180 degrees in disagreement.
      Above all, I do not think we can wind the clock backwards, but must find a solution that is fair and sustainable for both peoples.
      One version of this has been outlined by the current Israeli president, R. Rivlin, which if I understand him correctly is a single
      Jewish state, but vesting full rights in the Palestinians, including even the hypothetical right to shape the government if it wins
      an election. I would think that to make such an approach politically palatable the state would have to be renamed, and the Israeli Jews
      would have to settle for ‘a homeland’ rather than a state, as would the Palestinians, with a grant of unconditional freedom of religion
      for both peoples.

      • Kata Fisher January 12, 2016 at 5:42 pm #

        Profesor Falk,

        I believe that more accurate wording to religion subject may be as follow:

        Unconditional Freedom of Worship, Unconditional Freedom to Worship = Unconditional Freedom of Religion/s. (In all its functions, operations, needs).

        Freedom of Faiths is Automatically Unlimited / unlimited as complete – and meaning that Faith/s have automatic unconditional freedoms to the free speech.

        This is important: Faith/s have automatic unconditional freedoms to the free speech.

        However, Jurisdiction of the Scripture/Spirit forbids hate speech to religion, and can be under laws that do not alow religious hate speech: Illegal religion. How do we know what’s what (the past, present, future?). We hope always to be able to know.

        Religion does not equals Faith.
        Religion equals misuse and misapplication of the Scripture: Misinterpretation of the Scripture that is under Jurisdiction of Living and Active Spirit.

      • Kata Fisher January 12, 2016 at 8:04 pm #

        Professor Falk,

        I did not want to go about this, but I have to.

        About Israeli president, R. Rivlin version/outline –

        this is what I understand:

        The “state” (as a term) is civil. Israel (as a term) is ecclesiastical.
        Homeland (as a term) can be both Palestinian-Israel / Israeli-Palestine, the Homeland itself (if we think undone names -or names that are irrevocable when given).

        Further, I understand this:

        The Name Israel is ecclesiastical, and it can be dangers to making changes to ecclesiastical part of any item.

        The state can be an ecclesiastical state (contemporary term)
        “Homeland” as a term can be ecclesiastical.

        The “state” term can be manipulated: changes to it, removal of it, or addition to it are legitimate. “Ecclesiastical state: Israel” or “Ecclesiastical Jewish state: Israel” or “Ecclesiastical Jewish Homeland: Israel.”

        However, governments can be independent Ecclesiastical state/s (as people / independent people: free people) under irrevocable as “Ecclesiastical Constitution of Israel” because it is set as Constitution, in Ecclesiastical terms.

        Constitution of Israel has to be 100% Ecclesiastical (error free). When you have “state” (as a term) this is an error (human error under spiritual attack), it can cause confusion and hindrance to a valid and legitimate outlines that are already there.

        Ecclesiastical Arab people in Israel are a reality. As I understand, they are already part of Israeli governing. It can only get better, and not worse. I believe.

        I do see that there is a problem with mixing up civil and ecclesiastical things/items, however.

      • Kata Fisher January 12, 2016 at 8:25 pm #

        Also, I just understood this: Is it possible that Isreal is becoming – or is moving toward a legitimate Ecclesialistical Democracy, but it is in embryonic stage – not visible?

      • Harvey Epstein January 14, 2016 at 10:30 am #


        Of course freedom of religion. Do you have any facts to demonstrate that this is not the existing policy of the Israeli government? Does this right exist for Jews, in the mind of the PA?

        Turning the clock backwards is more of a stumbling block for the PA than for Israel. In my mind, that’s the major problem which currently exists. It is this very lack of realism that has underminded the leadership of the PA. As each day goes by, it has less and less under its control. Apparently Israel is willing to unwind some of what it has done in order to achieve a genuine peace (and turn the clock back a bit) but the PA refuses to ” give up one rock or one stone ” (to use the words of Abbas, when he speaks in Arabic ).

        The PA does not want “just a homeland”, it already has a putative state, one with a Muslim nature. Israel already has a state, so why settle for a “homeland” which can loose its Jewish nature? Both already have what they want, except for finalizing their common border. Neither really wants to live ” inside” the other. As it is, they will have a hard enough time living side by side.

        It would appear to me that the approach of Rivlin, in the abstract, would make sense if we were all universal humanists. We are not. Religion seems to have been ignored by him. Can one really expect that Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, ISIS, Iran, etc. will agree to anything short of a full destruction of anything “Jewish” about the “unity” government? For most of those folks, such a “unity” approach would undermine the very reason for their own existence. Those folks are not universal humanists. And this has nothing to say about the Jewish ” crazies, those kids living off the grid in boxes and cars.

        We fool ourselves if we try to speak of the Israeli/PA conflict in a vacuum. In the ME, it is just a sideshow. The only practical solution is the status quo because outside influences will prevent any other thing from taking place at this time. Continued violence by the PA will not get them anything but more reaction by Israel. Israel knows that ,in the future, it must give up governence of the PA; this can not go on forever. The PA needs to stop hitting itself with a hammer. But it won’t. What we see playing out is another version of the Hatfields and the McCoys (sp): the cause for the conflict fades away and the fact of the fight is all that remains. For at least one side, reason is out the door.

        Only a two state solution will work, but since it must not take place in a vacuum, the time is not now. Outside influences will not allow it.



  4. Dr. Dayan Jayatilleka January 11, 2016 at 11:10 pm #

    Dear Richard, as always, a profound thank you. I would however, strike a note of caution on the south Africa analogy. At the level of the state, there is the parallel of settler-colonial apartheid, but beyond that there is a huge asymmetry in that the ANC represented a majority. The same goes for Gandhi’s struggle against colonialism. A more viable model for mass resistance which takes the moral high ground– occupies a moral ‘Golan heights’ if you will–may be the US Civil Rights movement and Dr. King. That would of course require the abandonment of violence or at least certain kinds of violence aimed at Jewish civilians.

    • Harvey Epstein January 12, 2016 at 12:10 pm #


      Respectfully, which kind of violence against Jewish civilians would you find permissible?

      The balance of your comments seem to be based on sound reasoning; but consider this: Jews are among the ” indigenous”, so the concept of “settler-colonial” is very suspect. More Jews just returned to the land (both European, but especially Mid Eastern and North African) and the other indigenous people (Arabs) objected because it upset their majority ( and factually, more of these folks also returned ). By way of an imperfect example: a Latino presence has always existed in the south west of the USA . Is the immigration of more Latinos into the south west (which will soon lead to the Anglo becoming a minority) a representation of settler-colonialism? A better example of settler- colonialism would be the Han Chinese takeover of Tibet.

      We could each cite instances to support opposing views as to what we think is happening. My point is that, as you point out to Richard, our categorization by use of “hostile triggering words” ( my term), is often very misleading. This does not mean that discrimination is not taking place (I presume that is why your reference to Dr. King was made).


    • Kata Fisher January 12, 2016 at 12:32 pm #

      Harvey, I think that you have misunderstood:

      It seems that US-civil movement (as a model) was most successful one after people begin merging out of slavery and oppression – there was a relativly fast, and successful integration after Dr. King’s leadership. Still, even today there is much more to be done.

      I think – what kind of type of models for activism can be sufficient for Holy Land?

      It definitely would have to strip off some or strip off all violence, first (in an application).

      • Harvey Epstein January 12, 2016 at 1:21 pm #


        As to the reference made by Dayan, and echoed by you, regarding Dr. King, is fairly spot on. I am also happy to see that we all agree that violence needs to be abandoned by all parties involved.

        Respectfully, I did not misunderstand. Kindly re-read what I wrote


      • Kata Fisher January 12, 2016 at 2:12 pm #

        Harvey, I am happy, too, that there is agreement that all violence has to be abandoned by all parties involved.

        I will re-read what you said. Thank you, Harvey.

      • Richard Falk January 12, 2016 at 4:44 pm #

        Let me clarify. I am in favor of principled nonviolence, but I am not prepared to say that
        people who live under sustained oppression or are victims of severe discrimination should be
        prohibited from violently resisting so long as they uphold the ethical principle of respect
        for the innocent. Should a slave in the South be condemned for using violence against his or her violent
        master? Or a Jew in Nazi Germany? Or the colonized peoples of Indochina or Algeria? And there are always
        blurred lines: is an armed settler on occupied Palestine a civilian? or the settlers in North America who
        disposed native Americans?

      • Kata Fisher January 12, 2016 at 4:52 pm #

        Professor Falk,

        I do know that.

        But what about vision? (past, present, future)

        What vision are you going to write down?

      • Fred Skolnik January 12, 2016 at 10:17 pm #

        Prof. Falk

        It is good to have principles but they shouldn’t be applied blindly at the expense of denying reality. The Palestinians have been living under a military occupation that is formally no different from the Allied occupation of Germany after World War II. Unlike the defeated Germans, however, their response, right from the start, was no to peace, no to recognotion, no to negotiations, yes to terror, yes to violence, yes to blowing up Israeli women and children in buses and restaurants. That is why the occupation became oppressive. As for the right to resist violently by legitimate means, that is, by fighting against the Israeli army, “adraba” as we say in Aramaic (“by all means”). You see what war has gotten them. You would be much wiser to counsel the Palestinians to dismantle the terrorist organizations and throw their rockets into the sea. That is the only way they are going to get a state.

      • Richard Falk January 13, 2016 at 8:37 am #

        Mr. Skolnik

        It is an utterly misleading comparison. The Israelis dispossessed the Palestinians from their homeland on the basis of
        colonialist and UN authority. Even then, the occupiers asserted claims on the basis of biblically rooted historic to the
        territory being occupied and encroached via settlements, while the occupiers of Germany were eager to restore its economy and sovereignty so as to deter
        the Soviet Union and avoid a new depression. For you to make such a comparison is such an extreme ideological comparison is at once misleading and discrediting.
        It makes me wonder not for the first time about your good faith. Or do you really think we could be that misinformed as to accept the logic
        behind the comparison?

      • Gene Schulman January 13, 2016 at 2:29 am #


        Your comparison of the occupation of Palestine to that of the US in Germany after the 2nd world war is so removed from the truth that I’m surprised you even have the guts to propose it. And I’m embarrassed that anyone even has to point out the differences.

        To begin with, Germany formally surrendered and signed a peace treaty with the US and the allied powers. The Americans and other allied forces were invited to remain in Germany to maintain order in the absence of a German government able to do so. Second, the US developed the Marshall Plan to finance the rebuilding of destroyed infrastructure in Germany and elsewhere. Nothing like that has happened in Palestine. I won’t bother to go on………..

      • Kata Fisher January 13, 2016 at 6:47 am #

        Fred, you write:

        “You would be much wiser to counsel the Palestinians to dismantle the terrorist organizations … [forces against Ecclesiastical Constitution (Democracy)].”

        “That is the only way they are going to get a state.”

        I just need to know that you are saying of this state within Israeli president, R. Rivlin framework/vision/outline.
        – that what Professor Falk was explaining and I understand:

        President, R. Rivlin framework for an Arab state-government, is only possible under Ecclesiastical Constitution (Democracy) of Israel (Two Ecclesiastical people (Ecclesiastical) state-governments: Jews and Arabs).

  5. Fred Skolnik January 13, 2016 at 3:03 am #

    Exactly, Gene, now you finally understand: Unlike the defeated Germans, who disavowed their leaders and wished to rebuild their lives and live in peace, the Arab response, right from the start, was no to peace, no to recognition, no to negotiations, yes to terror, yes to violence, yes to blowing up Israeli women and children in buses and restaurants. That is why the occupation became oppressive.

  6. ray032 January 13, 2016 at 8:38 am #

    This is a remarkable Preface, Richard, and I’ll have to buy the book. Sales will probably rocket like the book about Jewish-Palestinian Love Bennet banished from Israeli Schools recently. The intent to cover up has has the opposite effect in Israel as it has become a best seller. I see it kinda like the inverted pyramids in the Star of David in action.

    Reading this unleashed a flood of thoughts and images in my mind with which to comment. I’m sick of hearing Israel blame Palestinians for the failure of Oslo. I was going to post a YouTube video link of Netanyahu, between his 1st and 2nd terms as PM, boast in a private home, unaware he was being recorded, how it was he who destroyed Oslo, and how easy it was for Israel to move America. For those who haven’t seen it, search YouTube fast or it may not be there long. Israel is actively working on Google and YouTube to remove all links thar reflect negatively on Israel. Some Democracy!

    Just before I read this article, I followed a link in Jonathan Cook’s article leading to an interesting story in THE TORONTO STAR, on a Diaspora Jew leaving the comforts and wealth of his rich family, to take a Command position in the 1948 War. When he had control of Nazareth after the people surrendered without a fight, he did not obey Ben Gurion’s order ‘to drive them out’ and that’s why Nazareth, where Jesus grew up, is the largest Palestinian City in Israel Today.

    The Toronto man who saved Nazareth
    The little-known story of how Ben Dunkelman, a well-heeled Toronto warrior, rejected orders in 1948 and shielded the residents of the biblical city.


    PEACE will not come until humans accept and work together to bring into being the notion we are ALL the Children of God on this Planet. Then the Jewish prophecy of beating the swords into plow shares will be worked out.

  7. Fred Skolnik January 13, 2016 at 11:52 am #

    Prof. Falk

    You don’t seem to have understood what I wrote. I am referring to the 1967 occupation, which is the subject of your post. What on earth does this have to do with colonialist and UN authority or biblically rooted claims? Israel’s 1967 occupation of the West Bank is a result of the 1967 war and is formally no different from the Allied occupation of Germany, meaning that it entailed military rule and everything that goes with it. Had the Germans responded to the Allied occupation in the way the Arabs responded to the Israeli occupation, well, God help them.

    If your colonialist and UN authority and biblical basis refers to the establishment of the State of Israel, that is another topic. If you are going to cling to this “biblically rooted claims” business of yours you simply don’t get it. The claim is based on the HISTORICAL roots of the Jewish people in the Land of Israel, which gave birth to their culture, language and national consciousness. The Bible is a product of this culture, it is not the source of the claim. Have you really not understood how Zionism views the relation between the Jews and the Land of Israel? Furthermore, the issue of the settlements is irrelevant, as their final disposition will be determined in negotiations. You know perfectly well what the Israeli position is and it is perfectly reasonable. There is no reason on earth why the Palestinians shouldn’t exchange barren hilltops for barren hilltops, unless the residents of Wadi Ara agree to live under Palestinian sovereignty, and then the Palestinian Authority would be getting a big bonus. But of course the residents of Wadi Ara will never agree to such an arrangement, and you should try to understand why before you use the term apartheid again with reference to Israeli Arabs.

    As for colonialist and UN authority, I won’t comment on your disdain for UN authority and I assume that you are referring to France and England as your colonial powers. Yes, they were, but in the end they also gave the Arabs their sovereign states. I realize that it is pointless to remind you of this, but the Arabs do not own the Middle East. They conquered it and it was in turn conquered from them by a succession of powers and the Jews made a claim to a small part of the Land of Israel which was no less valid than the Arab claim.

    You should also understand that the Arab invasion of Israel in 1948 was not undertaken on behalf of the Palestinians. It was undertaken on behalf of Allah, as has been the case with all Arab invasions. In fact, if the invading Arab armies had realized their dream of conquering Israel and massacring its Jewish population, there is a good chance that Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon would each have taken a piece of it and then the “Palestinians” would have continued to be Arabs, just as they had always been, but would now all be living in four different countries and you would never have heard the word self-determination.

    • Kata Fisher January 13, 2016 at 12:41 pm #

      Fred you write:

      “The claim is based on the HISTORICAL roots of the Jewish people in the Land of Israel, which gave birth to their culture, language and national consciousness. The Bible is a product of this culture, it is not the source of the claim. Have you really not understood how Zionism views the relation between the Jews and the Land of Israel?”

      “HISTORICAL roots of the Jewish people in the Land of Israel,” = Hebrew people +/- “Hebrew Prophets”


      President, R. Rivlin framework for an Arab state-government, is only possible under Ecclesiastical Constitution (Democracy) of Israel (Two Ecclesiastical people (Ecclesiastical) state-governments: Jews and Arabs) +/- “Hebrew Prophets” (HISTORICAL roots).

      Contemporarily the “Hebrew Prophets” are both Arabs and Jews.

      What does Ecclesiastical Constitution (Democracy) of Israel say?

    • Harvey Epstein January 14, 2016 at 10:46 am #


      Are you sure that Richard knows about the story behind your reference to the “residents of the Wadi Ara”? Probably most on this blog do not. Ah yes, the joys of trading the horror of living under the oppressive occupation of Israel in exchange for the paradise of the PA.


  8. Fred Skolnik January 13, 2016 at 12:18 pm #

    I will also note your bland and euphemistic characterization of brutal terrorist acts of murder as somehow violating “the ethical principle of respect for the innocent.” Ethical principle? Respect? You sound as if you’re talking about cheating at cards. Can’t you even bring yourself to call acts of murder what they are?

  9. Gene Schulman January 14, 2016 at 2:36 am #

    I wasn’t going to respond to this, hoping someone else would call your attention to your biases. But since no one did, I can’t let it pass. Yes, Fred, let’s just conveniently ignore, neglect and deny the acts of murder committed by the occupiers, which number more by magnitudes than anything committed by those occupied, and who are merely attempting to defend themselves and their rights.

    Since all you can do is repeat your one-sided mantra, I’ll just ignore you from now on. Why this blog tolerates you I’ll never understand.

    • Fred Skolnik January 14, 2016 at 3:26 am #

      No, they are not attempting to defend themselves and their rights. They are engaging in barbaric acts of terrorism aimed at Israeli civilians, which are illegitimate and criminal even by your own admission, and Israel is responding as any other country would under such circumstances. You can be a hero with your own children. Don’t dare tell us how to protect ours.

    • Richard Falk January 14, 2016 at 8:47 am #

      Nor will I..there is no attempt to address real issues, just anger and self-righteousness, with
      an accompanying pretension of superior knowledge. Although the censor’s hat does sit comfortably,
      or remain in place very long, I will try again to limit comments to those that do engage with substance
      in credible ways.

      • Fred Skolnik January 14, 2016 at 9:09 am #

        You are misrepresenting the substance of my remarks, which address your assertions point by point. It is, I think, you who are angry that I do not accept your assumptions and point precisely to where they are in error. Do you really think you can get away with the malicious and unfounded accusations you are making in a public forum in which you invite comments without being challenged? Do you really expect balanced people to let you get away with calling Israelis Nazis and accusing them of genocide, or welcoming remarks that speak of Jewish genes and greed? Have you completely lost touch with reality, or does this come from inhabiting an insulated world of Israel haters where the most vicious assertions about Jews and Israel are applauded?

      • Gene Schulman January 14, 2016 at 9:44 am #

        Amen. Thank you, Richard.

      • Kata Fisher January 14, 2016 at 9:34 pm #

        Fred, if you are seeking apology for all that was done – you will not get one. Why? Apologies are irrelevant. Instead we all can say “no one has sinned” and ” no one should repent.” Now, now – just how ridicules is that? Is just as ridicules as forbidding, the Law of the Church – to go about Landmarks of Israel. You all involved neutered Spiritual Authority of Church, and Diplomats, and prophets. Why can’t Priest ordained or your diplomats or Jewish/Hebrew prophets do what they supose to do?

  10. rehmat1 January 15, 2016 at 4:52 pm #

    Dr. Falk – I’m disappointed by your very first sentence: “The struggle between Jews and Arabs over historic Palestine that has gone on for almost a century…”.

    Don’t you see, you’re comparing lemons with apples? The Europeans immigrants, who came to historic Palestine, were Zionist and atheists – not Jewish. The Natives, Palestinians were not ARABS, and furthermore, most of them practiced religion of Islam, Christianity and Judaism.

    Based of your above misunderstanding, you give your readers wrong impression that conflict in historic Palestine is religious. The truth is it’s has nothing to do with religions. It’s all to do with damn politics of the western powers that had been trying to solve their “Jewish Problem” for centuries – while Muslims, Christians and Jews co-existed in historic Palestine for over 1200 years.

    You should keep this historic aspect in mind in your future writings.

    • ray032 January 15, 2016 at 5:22 pm #

      rehmat1, I just posted my latest article, ‘KINGS OF THE EARTH’ going back some 3100 years ago, when the remnants of Jacob-Israel were demanding a “Secular State”


      • rehmat1 January 16, 2016 at 5:59 am #


        Elie Wiesel has his story, so does Benjamin Netanyahu, as how Jews have been building Palestine for the last 3500 years – even though Israeli historian Dr. Shlomo Sand has claimed in his book that JEWS were invented only a century ago.

        Prophet Yusuf’s (Jacob/Israel) eleventh son prophet Yusuf (Joseph) ruled part of ancient Egypt for a while – but he didn’t believe in so-called “secularism”, which created WWI and WWII in the recent history.

        Muslims, whose Arab ancestors recovered Jerusalem in 638 CE from Roman Christian rule, have their own story which naturally is not acceptable to the Zionist crowd.

        Jerusalem, though not mentioned by name in Holy Qur’an for some good reasons. However, its religious significance in Islam is that most of the prophets mentioned in Holy Qur’an lived in that part of the Middle East plus the city being the direction of Muslim daily prayers in the early days of the Faith and the ‘launching pad’ for the Prophet’s (pbuh) heavenly journey (Miraj) to meet the Creator (Allah) face-to-face.


      • Kata Fisher January 16, 2016 at 7:25 am #

        A Note:

        You write:

        “Elie Wiesel has his story, so does Benjamin Netanyahu, as how Jews have been building Palestine for the last 3500 years – even though Israeli historian Dr. Shlomo Sand has claimed in his book that JEWS were invented only a century ago.”

        Reflecting History + Faith will be the useful approach for Philosophy of Substance.
        If you combine History and Theology – it can throw-of from the substance, needed.

        If you have to use contemporary terms (not terms of Historical Faith, but Historical Religion), then you have to classify them according to their terms and just put them in compartments (strategically). Then, after that – you can look if they have any essence to Historical Faith, in their contemporary terminology.

        One Example: Jews – is this a contemporary term invention – or were Jews as people invented? Why? Is it the term itself Theology/Religion? Faith? What does this mean Historically about Jews?

        Another One: Zionist are not Jews because they are Zionist, Athiest. Still, that does that mean that they are none of the Hebrew prophets. However, the Zionist constitution is based on Faith, Reflecting History. This is and would be mind boggling. Can you figure this out, Historically – what do these things mean?

        Do you think that it is possible that Hebrew prophets may have dictated Zionist Constitution? Were the prophets among Zionist when they did what they did? How much did they mess up? Or was it that that was only thing that they can do?

      • ray032 January 17, 2016 at 10:31 am #

        rehmat1, I followed your link at the bottom of your comment addressed to me concerning mostly Jerusalem, but I do have to point out even if Dr. Shlomo Sand believes Jews are an invented people from 100 years ago, like many Jews think the Palestinians are an invented people, that is opinion, not fact

        The 1st mention of Jews in the KJV is in 2Kings 25:25, some 2600 years ago. In the Jewish Torah, the 1st mention of Jews is in Leviticus 25, some 3400 years ago.

        The reference in Leviticus concerns the commandment, not an “option’ of declaring a Jubilee Year every 50 years.

        It is recorded in this Blog I was calling for the necessity of Israel declaring this Jubilee concerning the occupation before the Palestinians and the world Community adopted the Time Line I advocated.

        As to your link concerning the Quran and Jersulam, while you mention the Quran honouring the Jewish Prophets you omit this view from the great Jewish Prophet Isaiah from the Jewish Tanakh, not the Christian KJV. It’s also related to the essence of Samuel’s prophecy some 600 years earlier re-posted in the article ‘KINGS OF THE EARTH’ that drives secular Gene up the wall. I believe Isaiah was prophesying about Israel and Jerusalem these days:

        The vision of Isaiah the son of Amoz, which he saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem, in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, [and] Hezekiah, kings of Judah.
        Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth, for the Lord has spoken; Children I have raised and exalted, yet they have rebelled against Me.
        An ox knows his owner and a donkey his master’s crib; Israel does not know, my people does not consider.
        Woe to a sinful nation, a people heavy with iniquity, evildoing seed, corrupt children. They forsook the Lord; they provoked the Holy One of Israel; they drew backwards.
        Why are you beaten when you still continue to rebel? Every head is [afflicted] with illness and every heart with malaise.
        From the sole of the foot until the head there is no soundness-wounds and contusions and lacerated sores; they have not sprinkled, neither have they been bandaged, nor was it softened with oil………………………………………………………….
        “Had not the Lord of Hosts left us a remnant, we would soon be like Sodom; we would resemble Gomorrah.”
        Hear the word of the Lord, O rulers of Sodom; give ear to the law of our God, O people of Gomorrah!
        Of what use are your many sacrifices to Me? says the Lord. I am sated with the burnt-offerings of rams and the fat of fattened cattle; and the blood of bulls and sheep and he goats I do not want…….
        (Temple organizations want to bring this back to Temple Mount)

        How has she become a harlot, a faithful city; full of justice, in which righteousness would lodge, but now murderers.
        Your silver has become dross; your wine is diluted with water.
        Your princes are rebellious and companions of thieves; everyone loves bribes and runs after payments; the orphan they do not judge, and the quarrel of the widow does not come to them.
        Isaiah 1

        And so it is to this very Day

    • Kata Fisher January 15, 2016 at 7:17 pm #

      You are confusing Professor. Do not do that.

      Also, I disagree just because Arabs speak Arabic. Jews speak Hebrew. So, legitimately by Languages – they are Hebrew-Jews by National Origin (People Origin). Arabs are Arabic-speaking-people. Arabs and / or Hebrews, genetic (People Origin). Study Historical Languages of Faith’s of Arabs and/ or Hebrews Religion/Faith’s, and see if Arabs are Arabs and Jews are Jews. It’s Spiritual and its natural people – lines – or both. (Language, Religion).

      If they are not religious and in faith they may be integrating into other nations (languages). This does not mean that they are not what they claim that they are.

      It is genetic, language, faith /religion – look and see it is all somewhat what.

      I do not think and believe that I am wrong, unless I am wrong.

    • Richard Falk January 15, 2016 at 11:34 pm #

      Ray, I think my phrasing was misleading for reasons that you make clear. Thanks for pointing this out.

      • Gene Schulman January 16, 2016 at 1:58 am #

        Richard, I think your thanks should rather be directed to rhemat1, who did point out your misleading phrasing. Ray’s piece was a typical non sequitur expected from him and/or Kata. The very opposite of rhemat1’s reasonable critique.

      • Richard Falk January 16, 2016 at 7:54 am #

        Yes, Gene, you are right. It is rehmat who deserves to receive my thanks, and I apologize for the slip.

  11. ray032 January 15, 2016 at 5:49 pm #

    Another interesting read from British Journalist Jonathan Cook living and reporting out of Nazareth. Western news media never give him space.

    Fury at Israeli plan to build town on historic Muslim village

    16 January 2016

    Netanyahu government agrees to first new Palestinian community in 68 years – exclusively for the Druze – on refugees’ land

    Middle East Eye – 15 January 2016

    An Israeli government plan to build hundreds of homes for the country’s Druze population faces stiff opposition after it was revealed that the new community would be located on the lands of Palestinian refugees.

    The town, due to be built west of the Sea of Galilee in northern Israel, would be the first new community for members of Israel’s Palestinian minority since the state’s founding 68 years ago.

    The country’s 1.6 million Palestinian citizens are a fifth of the population.

    Leaders of the Palestinian minority expressed outrage that officials had selected a site where two Palestinian villages were located until their destruction following the 1948 war that established Israel.

    Archival evidence shows that the Israeli military razed more than 500 Palestinian villages after the war to ensure their residents could not return………………………………………………


  12. QCPal January 17, 2016 at 1:52 pm #

    Reblogged this on QCpal.

    • Harvey Epstein January 17, 2016 at 5:09 pm #

      Some on this blog feel that the question at issue is primarily based upon scripture, so let me throw something into the mix, Based Soley On Scripture, this time on the Quo’ran :

      1. Khaleel Mohammed, asst. Prof of Religious Studies in San Diego State University stated in an interview in the Frontage Magazine just a few days ago that, from a faith based point of view, “..God has written for the Israelites” the Holy Land and man can’t change that. When Muslims entered that land they knew it belonged to the Jews and when Muslims act contrary to that, they aid and abett the crime of theft. All midievil Muslim scholars recognized that Israel belonged to the Jews. Any contrary view is based on the Middle East rejection of European colonialism, but not on the Quo’ran. Most Muslims do not read the Quo’ran, they just rely upon what imams and preachers say. He undoubtedly relied upon verses 5:21 and 26:59

      2. This is echoed by Shaykh Palazzi in the 1990’s: Allah gave Israel and Jerusalem, all of it, to the Jews and only God can take it away; God has not. Man can not pretend to understand Allah’s intent. He cites verses 17:100-104, 3:26 and 5:20-21. Nothing in the Quo’ran validates any Arab right to Israel.

      3. Nissan Dana reports the same material and adds that on his deathbed, the Prophet himself said that because God told Moses that Israel belonged to the Jews, it does.

      4. The above is echoed by Sheikh Ahmad Adwan of Jordan.

      Basically, the above Muslim scholars say that any Muslim claims on the land of Israel, based on their religion, is a pack of lies. In fact some of them call it just that: lies.

      To some extent, the right of the Jew to be in Jerusalem/Israel, based on the Quo’ran, was reinforced by Caliph Omar, who returned 70 Jews to Jerusalem after it had been ethnically cleaned by his forces. In addition, the great Kurdish warrior, Sal a Din, returned Jews to Jerusalem after the crusaders ethnically cleansed them, too. Both of these acts recognized what the Quo’ran intended.

      I note that some on this blog buy into the allegation that, up until Zionism took place, the Jews lived in peace with the Muslim in most of the Mid East and North Africa. Perhaps in Morocco. But here are just a few examples of what took place against the Jews in the ME and North Africa: Damascus affair, 1840, mass murder of Jews because of an alleged ritual murder of a Christian priest (Ottoman empire controlled this area at the time); pograms in Damascus , 1848,1890; pograms in Allepo, 1850, 1875; pograms in Beirut, 1862, 1890; pogram in Dayr al-Qamar 1847; pogram in Jerusalem, 1847; pograms in Cairo 1844, 1890,1901-02; pogram in Mansura, 1877; pograms in Alexandria 1870, 1882, 1901-1907; pograms in Port Said 1903, 1908; Damanhur, 1871, 1873, 1877,1879; Istanbul 1870, 1874; forced mass conversions in Meshed in 1839; etc. ad nauseum. And then we have Hebron in 1929 (thanks to the Grand Mufti?) and more killings of Jews thereafter. No wonder the Jews armed themselves to protect the lands they owned or had purchased from willing Muslims sellers.

      In 1898, Mark Twain published an article in Harper’s and postulated that the Christian world bases its antisemitism upon fear of the Jew. Other scholars say that the antisemitism of the Muslim world is based upon contempt of the Jew (founded on much of the teachings in the Quo’ran). Anyone who questions this latter view is encouraged to actually read the Quo’ran and not to rely on what I, or anyone else says.


  13. ray032 January 18, 2016 at 4:17 pm #

    Richard, my inbox had this link to a speech by Chris Hedges in which he refers to you extensively. It’s an older one because he also refers to President Mubarack.

    • Kata Fisher January 19, 2016 at 6:32 am #

      Look Ray,

      I watched Rev. King’s speech yesterday. This is so prophetic:

      • ray032 January 19, 2016 at 12:51 pm #

        Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

        And deliver them, who through fear of death, were all their lifetime subject to bondage.

        For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.
        Wherefore in all things it behooved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
        For in that he himself has suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.
        Hebrews 2:14-18

        Here is something really prophetic, and so much more applicable for our Times, than when President Kennedy gave the speech just before he was assassinated.

      • Kata Fisher January 19, 2016 at 1:41 pm #

        They did what they did.

        I take all warnings of John F. Kennedy, seriously – and as Church Mission – I guess.

        Other stuff made me laugh. I just went trough a lot with devilish things that nothing surprises me anymore – people do all kind of evil and satanic things – to some of the things they are entitled and some things they will not be.

        I am sure that court will be seated, and that the power will be taken away from them – but I am not sure when. (This is what the Scripture said).

        They can and should worship devil with all their minds and hearts! I pray their damnation in their devil’s – and I pray so in the gladness of my heart! I really do not care what people like to worship. If they are in satanic seals and blasphemy of God’s Spirit – they just are.

        Look, I am Church Charismatic – why to disturb folks from their worship and their damnation? No way! Let them be accursed and damned and in the pit of hell (Smile).

        If they ever wish to repent – we will Baptise them into the Church Roman-Catholic-Charismatic.

        We / I personally will ask them to enter communion with the Church-Charismatic under Baptism of God’s Spirit. I am sure that they read / snooped on Professors Falks writings.

        God can be good even to extremely wicked.

        Church Catholic takes salvations of the souls seriously – that is our Church Mission.

        The Hell is a terrible place to spend an eternity – they do not want to be there. Trust me. They must be a very miserable people – hell is miserable and loveless. There is not even one emotion of Love in hell. There is no love in devil – they should give themselves a break.

  14. ray032 January 29, 2016 at 5:53 pm #

    It’s not only a question of APARTHEID, it’s a more serious issue than that. I see it as the spirit of Nazism morphed into the Israeli mentality unawares.

    Fred thinks I spend my hours looking on the web for anything that would blemish Israel’s self-perception as being sinless, faultless and blameless in contributing to the tragic reality of the occupation for both Jew and Arab.

    There is something even more insidious developing in the Zionist-Fascist State where Jews are now being seen as the enemy within for even having sympathy for the Palestinian plight under the Israeli Military-Economic Dictatorship.

    I see this developing from reading The Jerusalem Post, Haaretz, and other Israeli news sites. This latest article sent to me from Jonathan Cook reporting from Nazareth, just ties all the dots together in understanding what’s really going on in Israel.

    Behind Israel’s campaign to vilify peace groups

    30 January 2016

    Middle East Eye – 29 January 2016

    Far-right activists spying on Israeli human rights community received hidden funds from Netanyahu government

    Israeli government funds have been secretly transferred to far-right organizations leading a smear campaign against groups opposed to the occupation, a series of investigations show.

    The rightwing groups have received tens of millions of dollars in state funding, either directly from the government or via Israeli local authorities representing the settlements in the West Bank.

    In three known cases, publicly funded far-right organizations launched spying operations on human rights groups.

    Other state money has gone towards ad campaigns claiming to expose peace activists as “moles”, planted by foreign governments to damage Israel.

    Human rights activists, the campaigns claim, are betraying their country by providing information that fuels criticism overseas of Israel and helps to bolster an international boycott movement.

    That message closely echoes the justifications offered by government ministers for new legislation to weaken Israeli organizations that monitor abuses of Palestinians in the occupied territories……………………………………………………………………………………….


    • Harvey Epstein January 30, 2016 at 9:08 am #


      Interesting citation. But in the interests of ” transparency” , what are the sources of the funding which led to all of this investigation into these far right activities? Please understand that I am not disputing what you say, it is just that I would like to know who the “real” protagonists are on each side.

      I want to use the correct prism of the “truth” to look through before I castigate Israel. By way of example: if the money being used to attack Israel comes from those who hate Israel ” just because”, then perhaps those funding entities are akin to the prisoner who seeks clemency because he is an orphan, he having killed his own parents. In essence, should I find that the funding comes from Muslim, European or diaspora theologin entities, perhaps underlying manipulation sources, how would one then view Israel?

      Should you believe that Israel is not, in part, being manipulated by “others”, then perhaps you need to rethink. Do you deny that the PA is, in part, being manipulated by non- Israeli entities? Should you believe that I am a ” conspiricy theorist” , let me remind you that we are not speaking about what is going on in a local PTA, we are talking about the ME, a Byzantine world.

      On the face of it, this does not look good for Israel. Even the greatest of nations sometime make grievous mistakes, a la our internment of our Japanese/American citizens during WWII.



  1. On Ghada Ageel’s edited ISRAELI APARTHEID IN PALESTINE « Noticias de Palestina - January 11, 2016

    […] On Ghada Ageel’s edited ISRAELI APARTHEID IN PALESTINE […]

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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: