NationStates Jolt Archive

The next UN investigator into Israel conduct in the occupied territories has stood by comments comparing Israeli actions in Gaza to those of the Nazis.

Speaking to the BBC, Professor Richard Falk said he believed that up to now Israel had been successful in avoiding the criticism that it was due.

Professor Falk is scheduled to take up his post for the UN Human Rights Council later in the year.

But Israel wants his mandate changed to probe Palestinian actions as well.

Professor Falk said he drew the comparison between the treatment of Palestinians with the Nazi record of collective atrocity, because of what he described as the massive Israeli punishment directed at the entire population of Gaza.

He said he understood that it was a provocative thing to say, but at the time, last summer, he had wanted to shake the American public from its torpor.

Israel tanks near border with Gaza
Israeli actions in Gaza are collective punishment, says Falk

"If this kind of situation had existed for instance in the manner in which China was dealing with Tibet or the Sudanese government was dealing with Darfur, I think there would be no reluctance to make that comparison," he said.

That reluctance was, he argued, based on the particular historical sensitivity of the Jewish people, and Israel's ability to avoid having their policies held up to international law and morality.

These and other comments from Professor Falk comments are, if anything, even harsher than the current UN investigator, John Dugard, who himself has been withering about Israel's actions.

A spokesman for the Israeli Foreign Ministry said that Israel wanted the UN investigator's mandate changed, so that he could look into human rights violations by the Palestinians as well as Israel.

If that were not to happen, the Israeli government may consider barring entry to the new UN investigator.


linky (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7335875.stm)


Ouch! It's hard to think how you could make a more controversial statement. Expect this one to run ... and run.

Personally, I think the UN expert's got a point.

In before the obligatory rants about how the UN is irrelevant and should be dissolved and is full of anti-Semites, Palestinians are a culture of murder and the poor defenseless Israelis are only defending themselves, yada yada yada...

Israel is an apartheid state and this is just a deeper stab to the same conclusion.

That reluctance was, he argued, based on the particular historical sensitivity of the Jewish people, and Israel's ability to avoid having their policies held up to international law and morality.

He makes a point. Anytime Israel does something and some one thinks about criticizing them people are all like "ohh, Holocaust, 6 days war!" And everyone has to shutup or be called an antisemite.

The significant difference being, of course, the Jews of Europe had not carried out a massive insurgency, killed a significant portion of the German population, and wrought collective terror throughout Germany.

While the Israeli's are doing bad things, calling them "like Nazis" is stupid and wrong.

Speaking to the BBC, Professor Richard Falk said he believed that up to now Israel had been successful in avoiding the criticism that it was due.

Thats a rather dumb statement, considering Israel is (if I recall) the ONLY nation the United Nations has specifically condemned. Havent something like 150-ish 'stop harassing the arabs' resolutions been passed already?

My cheap unelaborated opinion: Is this even news? I mean everybody knows Israel does act like Nazis (including the whole racial superiority whooha) even if most of the US chooses to be in denial about it.

Thats a rather dumb statement, considering Israel is (if I recall) the ONLY nation the United Nations has specifically condemned. Havent something like 150-ish 'stop harassing the arabs' resolutions been passed already?

With the U.S. Veto, not even one's been passed.

With the U.S. Veto, not even one's been passed.

What on Earth are you talking about? The US has voted for an awful lot of UN resolutions condemning Israel.

http://www.actionforunrenew.ndo.co.uk/pages/isreal_un_resolutions.htm

But hey, it hurts your image of the US as the ultimate evil if the reality of the fact is that they don't always support the Israelis.

What on Earth are you talking about? The US has voted for an awful lot of UN resolutions condemning Israel.

http://www.actionforunrenew.ndo.co.uk/pages/isreal_un_resolutions.htm

But hey, it hurts your image of the US as the ultimate evil if the reality of the fact is that they don't always support the Israelis.

Yeah, and of course those resolutions have been acted on and haven't been dismissed as irrelevant by the U.S. and Israel. I forgot.

With the U.S. Veto, not even one's been passed.

Not according to Wikipedia, but meh. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Nations_resolutions_concerning_Israel)
In my opinion, there are nations far more worthy of condemnation than Israel. This is, of course, purely my opinion.

Yeah, and of course those resolutions have been acted on and haven't been dismissed as irrelevant by the U.S. and Israel. I forgot.

Even that ones that bilaterally condemn both parties?

The significant difference being, of course, the Jews of Europe had not carried out a massive insurgency, killed a significant portion of the German population, and wrought collective terror throughout Germany.

While the Israeli's are doing bad things, calling them "like Nazis" is stupid and wrong.

Yes, well, it was the Palestinians' land first, and the Palestinians haven't killed a "significant portion" of the Israeli population, they've killed a few. Way more Palestinians have been killed by Israelis than the other way round, including the family of 7 who were killed by a rocket attack the ear before last. The Israelis just slaughter Muslims then pretend they were terrorists.

He makes a point, but in doing so cheapens his own argument.

Has Israel conducted multiple instances of deliberate attempted Genocide? Reasonably, no. Likewise, they have not promoted vilification of a single ethnicity as the font of all evil, nor have they invaded any nation that did not first attack them.

I personally also find the term "Apartheid" to be seriously erroneous. Given the Arab minority who actually live in Israel are treated as well as anyone else, Israel's policies are clearly not racially based.

Even that ones that bilaterally condemn both parties?

Has one been passed that would have consquences if Israel didn't abide by it?

I personally also find the term "Apartheid" to be seriously erroneous. Given the Arab minority who actually live in Israel are treated as well as anyone else, Israel's policies are clearly not racially based.

Firstly, the Arab population within Israel is subject to discrimination. Given the number of times we've been through this, I find it hard to see why you even bring it up.

Secondly the term "apartheid" usually and primarily refers to the conditions within the OT.

Yes, well, it was the Palestinians' land first, and the Palestinians haven't killed a "significant portion" of the Israeli population, they've killed a few. Way more Palestinians have been killed by Israelis than the other way round, including the family of 7 who were killed by a rocket attack the ear before last. The Israelis just slaughter Muslims then pretend they were terrorists.

While a significantly fewer number of Israelis have been killed by the Palestinians (including a significant number of Arab Israelis) than vice-versa, it remains that it is not a number to sneeze at, especially in a country the size of Israel.

More than that, I'm not arguing that such a case absolves Israel of its misdeeds, merely that to say that one side is peaceful, innocent little lambs being led off to the slaughter, and one gluttons of death seeking to totally exterminate the other is just plain ridiculous. Both sides fight, do awful things and die. The Palestinians are merely nowhere near as successful as the Israelis are.

Firstly, the Arab population within Israel is subject to discrimination. Given the number of times we've been through this, I find it hard to see why you even bring it up.

Isn't it obvious? To try and convince NSG that Israel does not practice apartheid. Don't pay attention to Desmond Tutu, he doesn't know shit about apartheid!

Firstly, the Arab population within Israel is subject to discrimination. Given the number of times we've been through this, I find it hard to see why you even bring it up.

Because being subject to discrimination is entirely different from being subjected to deliberate discrimination by policy of the government. Which is what Apartheid would mean.

Secondly the term "apartheid" usually and primarily refers to the conditions within the OT.

And is still quite inaccurate. Apartheid was discrimination against a part of your own populace. The Palestinians, largely by their own choice, are not citizens of Israel.

As for Desmond Tutu, I cannot help but be reminded that, to a Carpenter, every problem looks like it requires a hammer.

Has Israel conducted multiple instances of deliberate attempted Genocide?
The amount of damage they have caused to the culture of the previous inhabitant of Israel, can be called Genocide. I think we'll agree to disagree on that one though. Not worth having a semantic argument.

Reasonably, no. Likewise, they have not promoted vilification of a single ethnicity as the font of all evil, nor have they invaded any nation that did not first attack them.
An interesting perspective. There actions, especially towards rock throwing children make me think otherwise. Also, an interesting distinction. The word nation. It means you don't have to include any of the nastiness that was involved in the founding of Israel.

I personally also find the term "Apartheid" to be seriously erroneous. Given the Arab minority who actually live in Israel are treated as well as anyone else, Israel's policies are clearly not racially based.
I'd be interested as to whose standards they are treated as well as anyone else?

the UN is irrelevant and should be dissolved and is full of anti-Semites, Palestinians are a culture of murder
Well said.

Har har. Calling Israelis "Nazis". It's the most original insult there is.

so, I hardly agree with all the things Israel does, but calling them nazis is sorta pushing it, as is calling israel an apartheid state.

When the IDF pulled out of Gaza and even forcibly removed many Israeli settlers, who got elected? Hamas.
http://www.mideastweb.org/hamas.htm
this is the hamas charter, which is pretty much a whole lot of hate in a bundle of big words with "allah" and "islam" repeated alot. When Hamas started firing rockets at Israeli civilians, what was going to happen? If Israel does nothing, it fails as a nation-a governments number one job is protecting its people. but if it moves in to stop the attacks, oh no! its a violation of human rights!
double standard?

again, I don't agree with everything Israel does. But it is an entirely reasonable request that the UN looks at both sides of the conflict, cus it takes two to tango (or kill eachother).

With the U.S. Veto, not even one's been passed.
Simply untrue. The US vetoes condemnations which don't also condemn the Arabs, but it doesn't veto every single condemnation of Israel, no.

All constantly rehashed arguments that involve both sides exaggerating their side's plight and the other's vileness and malice (seriously...if you think either side of the Israel-Palestine conflict is undeserving of harsh criticism, we live in separate realities and I'd rather not dissect your particular fantasy, feel free to enjoy it) aside, I don't see why Israel's request that the investigation cover Palestinian offenses as well be at all controversial? Surely, at the very least, everyone can agree that both sides' actions are very much intertwined with each other and both sides' actions are deserving of being put into context with respect to each other?

The next UN investigator into Israel conduct in the occupied territories has stood by comments comparing Israeli actions in Gaza to those of the Nazis.

Speaking to the BBC, Professor Richard Falk said he believed that up to now Israel had been successful in avoiding the criticism that it was due.

Professor Falk is scheduled to take up his post for the UN Human Rights Council later in the year.

But Israel wants his mandate changed to probe Palestinian actions as well.

Professor Falk said he drew the comparison between the treatment of Palestinians with the Nazi record of collective atrocity, because of what he described as the massive Israeli punishment directed at the entire population of Gaza.

He said he understood that it was a provocative thing to say, but at the time, last summer, he had wanted to shake the American public from its torpor.

Israel tanks near border with Gaza
Israeli actions in Gaza are collective punishment, says Falk

"If this kind of situation had existed for instance in the manner in which China was dealing with Tibet or the Sudanese government was dealing with Darfur, I think there would be no reluctance to make that comparison," he said.

If the guy was a poster on this forum he'd be classed as a flamebaiter or a troll. Yes, there are plenty of legitimate criticisms to be made of Israel's human rights record but, unless they're herding people into gas chambers, screaming "Nazi" is childish and innaccurate. He may claim that, since Nazis practised collective punishment, any nation which uses collective punishment can be said to be 'acting like the Nazis', but he knows damn well what most people first think of when someone says Nazi: genocide.

That said, I hardly see how this is significant: the UN Human Rights Council has long been dominated by some of the world's worst offenders and its criticism of Israel is absurdly disproportionate (take 2005 for example, when Israel was subject to half of the eight resolutions, with Sudan getting none).

How anyone can honestly support a 'Human Rights' body which recently attacked freedom of speech is beyond me...

EDIT: for anyone who's interested in the current make-up of the UN Human Rights Council, it includes those noted bastions of liberty: Egypt, Saudi Arabia, China, Pakistan, Cuba and the US. All it needs now is North Korea...

I like Israel. A uniquely ballsy and strong state.

Equally, I have little time for anybody who deems a Nazi reference anything other than crude and morally reprehensible; take Ken Livingstone as an example, twat that he is.

In before the obligatory rants about how the UN is irrelevant and should be dissolved and is full of anti-Semites, Palestinians are a culture of murder and the poor defenseless Israelis are only defending themselves, yada yada yada...

Israel is an apartheid state and this is just a deeper stab to the same conclusion.

The area is just some nowhere no-care backwater. I don't care either way.

Way more Palestinians have been killed by Israelis than the other way round
In recent years this has been true, but for most of the history the violence was very one-sided in the other direction.
The total number of non-combatant Palestinians who have been killed by the Israelis over the entire history amounts to less than one day's toll at Auschwitz, and of course, most Palestinians do have some family members who are still alive, unlike those who came out of Auschwitz. The comparison is obscene. If Israel really did want to commit "genocide" on the Palestinians, there wouldn't be any, or very few.

Well said.

Wow, what a lame distortion. This is the kind of crap you'd expect from Andaras or Oceandrive.

Speaking to the BBC, Professor Richard Falk said he believed that up to now Israel had been successful in avoiding the criticism that it was due.



This.

The whole "OMG we got genocided!!!" excuse for being sociopathic pricks only goes so far.

I recently re-read the history of Israel on Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_State_of_Israel

They were assholes. They were always assholes. They weren't the only assholes, of course. The Polish were assholes, the Russians were assholes, the French were assholes and sorry to say this, but the British of the time were major assholes. Wow were they assholes! The palestinians? Well I'm not prepared to give them a free pass, but compared to these assholes, they were merely rectums. *nod*

In the framework of comparing Israel to the Nazis, and Israel wanting the UN to condemn the acts of the Palestinians as well, I have a thought. Would Israel then be supportive of condemning the acts of those few Jewish insurgent groups who fought the Nazis as well? Not the ones who fought the actual armed forces like in Warsaw, but those who took it upon themselves to take on the civillian population. It was surely small, but happening even if very isolated. Likewise would Israel openly condemn the acts of Irgun against civillians? If you want it to be a two way street, it has to stay a two way street. I would have much more respect for Israel as a state if it would openly condemn those acts, and might actuallky respect Hamas if it would do the same towards the acts perpetrated against civillians by itself. Out of those two I personally see Israel as having the moral high ground to do this, but their lack of willingness to do it degenerates them to the same leel of Hamas in my eyes.

As for criticisim. Israel needs to be told what it's doing wrong, how, and told in a way that hits home. All countries do. It might be better of Israel was more open to this, and it would be far betterif Israel was at the forefront of deciding what it was doing wrong. Nothing pisses off anti-semites more then Israel beating them to saying they did something wrong and were trying to fix it. Fix it doesn't nessecarily mean peace with Hamas, but right now Israel is certianly losing the battle with the Palestinian people, and Hamas is making away with it because of that. Win the people, win the war.

Not the ones who fought the actual armed forces like in Warsaw, but those who took it upon themselves to take on the civillian population. It was surely small, but happening even if very isolated.
Never heard of such a thing. Source?
Likewise would Israel openly condemn the acts of Irgun against civillians?
This certainly they should do, but won't.
might actuallky respect Hamas if it would do the same towards the acts perpetrated against civillians by itself.
That's the whole purpose for Hamas to exist.
right now Israel is certianly losing the battle with the Palestinian people
How do you figure that?

Is this the same UN Human Rights Council with such distinguished bastions of personal and social freedom as Saudi Arabia, China, Pakistan and Cuba? I mean, I'm all for taking Israel to task for any abuses it might commit during its actions in the region, but thinking the UN will ever actually manage to change anything is kind of a joke.

Never heard of such a thing. Source?

You deny that in France and Poland civillains were killed, women raped, and run out of town for "collaborating" with the enemy? By both Jews and non-Jews alike?

This certainly they should do, but won't.
And that would be one of their major stepping stones to solving their issue. Not the act itself, but the principle behind it.

That's the whole purpose for Hamas to exist.
Then Israel could remove Hamas quite easily if it actually worked for it instead of just responding to viloence with viloence and let it be.

How do you figure that?
When was the last time you saw a rally of Palestinians supporting Israel? I never have. To the Palestinians, Hamas provides services, support, and protection, the food, water, and electricity. Israel takes this away and kills them. This is how they see it. And so, Israel has lost their potential support. I believe Israel could change things around over the course of a decade if it decided to beat Hamas at their own game, provide support, services, infastructure, and make it known to the Palestinians they are doing so. Redistribute their viloent reprisals, they're already starting that (The destroying of families homes was a bad move). Israel has to be willing to act to convince the Palestinians they are here for good, not to kill, and Hamas will lose their support.

Ouch! It's hard to think how you could make a more controversial statement.

Controversy kicks arse.

This.

The whole "OMG we got genocided!!!" excuse for being sociopathic pricks only goes so far.
I still don't understand where people are getting this. I've heard a large number of people argue for the existence of Israel because of the Holocaust but I rarely see Israel's policies against the Palestinians defended by invoking the Holocaust by anyone respectable. This whole hyperbole by both sides only goes so far. It's what I would call intellectual amateurism.

That said, I hardly see how this is significant: the UN Human Rights Council has long been dominated by some of the world's worst offenders and its criticism of Israel is absurdly disproportionate (take 2005 for example, when Israel was subject to half of the eight resolutions, with Sudan getting none).

*cough*
The United Nations General Assembly established the Human Rights Council on 15 March 2006.
*cough* (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_Council)

Just nitpicking ;)

The Israelis just slaughter Muslims then pretend they were terrorists.
That's simply not true.

You deny that in France and Poland civillains were killed, women raped, and run out of town for "collaborating" with the enemy? By both Jews and non-Jews alike?
By Jews??? The Jews in France and Poland were rounded up and killed, remember? What are you talking about?
And that would be one of their major stepping stones to solving their issue. Not the act itself, but the principle behind it.
Here, we can agree.

Then Israel could remove Hamas quite easily if it actually worked for it instead of just responding to viloence with viloence and let it be.
I am having difficulty understanding what you are trying to say. If Hamas remains dedicated to the purpose of killing Israelis, but Israel stops responding, then there will be a lot of dead Israelis.
And so, Israel has lost their potential support.
I do not believe there is any "potential" for Palestinians to "support" Israel, and did not realize that was what you were believing. All that I see as realistic to hope for is a divorce, with both sides agreeing not to bother each other anymore.

This.

The whole "OMG we got genocided!!!" excuse for being sociopathic pricks only goes so far.

Avoiding criticism? Seriously? Israel is criticized all the damn time. Maybe not so much in America, but doesn't the UN try to pass tons of resolutions against them?

Statements like those in the bold trivialize the Holocaust. I find that sad. No, the Holocaust isn't an excuse to treat Palestinians poorly, but there's no need to trivialize it.

Avoiding criticism? Seriously? Israel is criticized all the damn time. Maybe not so much in America, but doesn't the UN try to pass tons of resolutions against them?



The Human Rights Council does so nearly constantly, but given their membership, their positions seems slightly lackluster.

The amount of damage they have caused to the culture of the previous inhabitant of Israel, can be called Genocide. I think we'll agree to disagree on that one though. Not worth having a semantic argument.

Likewise.


An interesting perspective. There actions, especially towards rock throwing children make me think otherwise. Also, an interesting distinction. The word nation. It means you don't have to include any of the nastiness that was involved in the founding of Israel.

True, and my use of the term 'nation' was a deliberate one. The situation of the founding of Israel was quite complex, involvingthe UN, Britain, and atrocities on both sides, as well as amazing actions of good will on both sides. More importantly, I didn't consider it germaine to the question at hand, which deals with Israel's current and recent acts.

As to rock throwing, I have seen a thrown rock kill a man. I have no problem with lethal force used against lethal force.


I'd be interested as to whose standards they are treated as well as anyone else?

The standards of law. Governments cannot control social discrimination, but they can treat everyone equally under the law, and they do with regard to Israeli nationals of all faiths and races.

Avoiding criticism? Seriously? Israel is criticized all the damn time. Maybe not so much in America, but doesn't the UN try to pass tons of resolutions against them?

Statements like those in the bold trivialize the Holocaust. I find that sad. No, the Holocaust isn't an excuse to treat Palestinians poorly, but there's no need to trivialize it.

The people who criticize Israel most are the leaders of Arab countries. There has never been a European country which said 'enough, we boycot them'. The tone is always: ''That's not very peaceful, Israel'', and they restore today's order. You forget the fact that many UN resolutions against Israel's policy are often mild and lenient, and, in case the resolution is a bit harsh, it is vetoed by the US. UN resolutions or slight criticism don't mean anything to Israel.

It's a pity this UN dude used that stupid comparison. If he, or the UN really want to do something about the violent actions, they'd better use more formal language to build a constructive solution. There are already enough hardliners in the Arab world and the US. Real solutions are needed, instead of polarisation. The Israeli-Palestine question should be handled with more competence. His criticism should be formed by real arguments.

It's a bit sad to see how people overgeneralize this UN person's statement.
He didn't say 'Isrealies are like Nazis'
He merely said that the way Isreal is taking the whole of Gaza responsible for a few Palestines' action is the same as the Nazis' way to hold a whole family, party or religion responsible for whatever an individual did.

This doesn't belittle the Holocaust one bit, because it doesn't even mention the Holocaust.
He merely points out this specific atrocity. Admittedly, by clumsily invoking godwin's law, but that doesn't make his statement any less true. It just stops people from actually listening to him instead of doing their own assumptions about what he meant.

*cough*

*cough* (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_Council)

Just nitpicking ;)

"...and I would have gotten away with it too if it wasn't for you pesky pedants!"

:p

It's a bit sad to see how people overgeneralize this UN person's statement.
He didn't say 'Isrealies are like Nazis'
He merely said that the way Isreal is taking the whole of Gaza responsible for a few Palestines' action is the same as the Nazis' way to hold a whole family, party or religion responsible for whatever an individual did.

This doesn't belittle the Holocaust one bit, because it doesn't even mention the Holocaust.
He merely points out this specific atrocity. Admittedly, by clumsily invoking godwin's law, but that doesn't make his statement any less true. It just stops people from actually listening to him instead of doing their own assumptions about what he meant.

Oh please. If all he wanted was to make a point about collective punishment he had the whole of human history to choose from, ranging from before the Roman empire to the present day: it's not as if we're short of examples. He chose the Nazis, and lost any opportunity he might have had to make legitimate criticisms and encourage improvements.

Exactly what I said. Clumsy and only hurting his on argument.
It doesn't make it any less true however.

Oh please. If all he wanted was to make a point about collective punishment he had the whole of human history to choose from, ranging from before the Roman empire to the present day: it's not as if we're short of examples. He chose the Nazis, and lost any opportunity he might have had to make legitimate criticisms and encourage improvements.Maybe he chose the Nazi comparison because it fits best. And there is also the common racial superiority background.

It's a pity this UN dude used that stupid comparison. If he, or the UN really want to do something about the violent actions, they'd better use more formal language to build a constructive solution.
The "UN dude" was a professor of International Law and Practice, Emeritus at Princeton University, a Visiting Distinguished Professor in Global and International Studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and a member of the World Federalist Institute when he made the comments. However, he was not in the UN organization at the time. (June 2007)

And if you want to see his arguments, you can find them here (http://www.transnational.org/Area_MiddleEast/2007/Falk_PalestineGenocide.html).

Also, this should be added if you don't go and read them:
"I am not suggesting that the comparison should be viewed as literal, but to insist that a pattern of criminality associated with Israeli policies in Gaza has actually been supported by the leading democracies of the 21st century."

So there you go.

The "UN dude" was a professor of International Law and Practice, Emeritus at Princeton University, a Visiting Distinguished Professor in Global and International Studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and a member of the World Federalist Institute when he made the comments. However, he was not in the UN organization at the time. (June 2007)

And if you want to see his arguments, you can find them here (http://www.transnational.org/Area_MiddleEast/2007/Falk_PalestineGenocide.html).

Also, this should be added if you don't go and read them:
"I am not suggesting that the comparison should be viewed as literal, but to insist that a pattern of criminality associated with Israeli policies in Gaza has actually been supported by the leading democracies of the 21st century."

So there you go.

Thanks for link :)

So, the BBC report at the first page of this thread seems to be a gross misinterpretation ?

Frankly, Falk has some real good points.

Way to go BBC......

Thanks for link :)

So, the BBC report at the first page of this thread seems to be a gross misinterpretation ?
Is it? Isn't it just an article on a guy that now will take over as special envoy to Israel and the OT, and they note that a year ago he said the following things?

And you're welcome ;)