My Expulsion from Israel

[IndianaGreen]

Published on Friday, December 19, 2008 by The Guardian/UK

My Expulsion from Israel

by Richard Falk

After being denied entry, I was put in a holding room with about 20 others experiencing entry problems. At this point, I was treated not as a UN representative, but as some sort of security threat, subjected to an inch-by-inch body search and the most meticulous luggage inspection I have ever witnessed.

I was separated from my two UN companions who were allowed to enter Israel and taken to the airport detention facility a mile or so away. I was required to put all my bags and cell phone in a room and taken to a locked tiny room that smelled of urine and filth. It contained five other detainees and was an unwelcome invitation to claustrophobia. I spent the next 15 hours so confined, which amounted to a cram course on the miseries of prison life, including dirty sheets, inedible food and lights that were too bright or darkness controlled from the guard office.

Of course, my disappointment and harsh confinement were trivial matters, not by themselves worthy of notice, given the sorts of serious hardships that millions around the world daily endure. Their importance is largely symbolic. I am an individual who had done nothing wrong beyond express strong disapproval of policies of a sovereign state. More importantly, the obvious intention was to humble me as a UN representative and thereby send a message of defiance to the United Nations.

Israel had all along accused me of bias and of making inflammatory charges relating to the occupation of Palestinian territories. I deny that I am biased, but rather insist that I have tried to be truthful in assessing the facts and relevant law. It is the character of the occupation that gives rise to sharp criticism of Israel's approach, especially its harsh blockade of Gaza, resulting in the collective punishment of the 1.5 million inhabitants. By attacking the observer rather than what is observed, Israel plays a clever mind game. It directs attention away from the realities of the occupation, practising effectively a politics of distraction.

The blockade of Gaza serves no legitimate Israeli function. It is supposedly imposed in retaliation for some Hamas and Islamic Jihad rockets that have been fired across the border at the Israeli town of Sderot. The wrongfulness of firing such rockets is unquestionable, yet this in no way justifies indiscriminate Israeli retaliation against the entire civilian population of Gaza.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/12/19-8

[Hydra]

1. Heh

Let's subject the guy who has questions regarding your behavior to humiliating treatment- that'll change his mind and ours!

[sellitman]

2. Wanna know what really pisses me off?

People have the right to be critical of sovereign countries, but if they are to do that they should play fair.

If this guy is so pissed at Israel's blockage of Gaza then why the fuck isn't he just as pissed at Egypt?


The hypocrisy for most who champion the Palestinians is amazing.


It's always one sided here on DU so I guess I should just stay the fuck out of this area for my own health.

[BunkerHill24]

4. Your point is mute and stupid...n/t

[sellitman]

6. Glad you cleared that up.

Your argument and your points are very persuasive.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

15. Just because you received the "Egypt is equally responsible" talking points memo

doesn't mean it's true.

[sellitman]

16. They are partially at fault.

There is enough blame to go around on all sides.

Here it's only placed on one side. That is what I was trying to point out.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

18. The heart of the memo: equalize blame.

The blame is hardly equal. That's absurd.

How much aid do you reckon Egypt would lose if they opened that border?

[shira]

19. aid lost?

for Egypt to open the border to UN convoys?

I predict $0 lost.

Lame excuse.

[LeftishBrit]

20. I don't think they'd lose any aid.

In fact, I don't think the blame is *equal*. I think that Israel *do* have more responsibility, as long as Gaza is still under their jurisdiction. I think many pro-Israel people here are using essentially the argument, "Gaza are pursuing hostilities against Israel, so they don't deserve to have Israel provide them with foreign aid." This would be a valid argument if they were indeed a foreign country, or part of one - but at present they are not. When there are two states, the situation will be different.

However, this doesn't mean that Egypt is free from blame; especially as much of Gaza *was* once under their jurisdiction, and as they criticize Israel for closing the border and not providing aid. If they want to be isolationist here, they have a right to be (Gaza isn't linked to Egypt); but then it's hypocritical when they don't put their money (or here, their border) where their mouth is.

And I doubt that Egypt's refusal to open its borders has anything to do with concerns about American aid. If anything, I would guess that America might prefer it if they did open their borders, and thus let Israel somewhat off the hook. In any case, I doubt that it's a big issue to the American government.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

25. You seriously don't think US aid to Egypt depends upon their towing the line?

You don't believe the US shares Israel's objective of punishing 1.5 million civilians for their choice during free and fair elections?

[shira]

31. punished for allowing the UN through?

nope.

The very fact that a "concerned" UN doesn't ask Egypt for passage, and a "concerned" Egypt doesn't invite the UN through Rafah just goes to show how phony their "concern" is for Palestinians they say are being punished by starvation. ANYONE who is bent out of shape at the way Palestinians suffer should be incensed at both the UN and Egypt for their faux outrage and concern.

[shira]

37. Egypt afraid of not towing the line to starve 1.5 million?

They're already allowing Saudi Arabian aid through Rafah. Egypt knows damned well of the hundreds of tunnels. And you think they fear the repurcussions?

As someone concerned over Palestinian welfare, why aren't you more pissed at Egypt and the UN for not coordinating UN trucks in and out of the Rafah border? There's no good reason they cannot do this if they're both so concerned for 1.5 million people, as they claim to be in all their indignation and outrage at the situation.

[Shaktimaan]

49. Of course not.

You don't believe the US shares Israel's objective of punishing 1.5 million civilians for their choice during free and fair elections?

I don't even think that Israel has an objective like that... "punishing" people for their election choice? No, I think that electing Hamas has a direct correlation to the current situation, but I don't believe that it has anything to do with punishing the Palestinians for choosing "wrong."

Hamas is an avowed enemy of Israel and their election to office can only be expected to carry consequences. More specifically, Hamas' subsequent POLICY choices, public remarks and (above all) their ACTIONS since being elected to power have determined Israel's reaction. Following the election Israel did not hold Hamas to any different criteria than they held Fatah to. The difference was Hamas' reluctance to meet the same criteria as Fatah. This is obviously their right. But it is foolish to think that Israel is obligated to enact identical policies with every Palestinian government, regardless of how that government acts.

Supporting Democracy does not require anyone to support every democratically elected government... particularly if that government is hostile to them. Getting elected is a badge of support from the populace, not a permit that exempts one from the rules. If anything, it is indicative of MORE responsibility, not less.

Now, US aid to Egypt is dependent on their peace treaty with Israel. What makes you suspect that it has anything to do with keeping the border to Rafah closed? Why would the US take such extreme action over the border being opened to the UN while being totally complacent over tunnels that are run by Hamas?

[cali]

7. lol. that would be MOOT.

funny to see someone making such a stupid error, calling others stupid.

[BunkerHill24]

11. AAh! there you are Mr.Professor

I will explain it, and you can go about dissecting as you like:

Here's my take on> Moot vs. Mute

"Moot" means obsolete, irrelevant, something that doesn't apply anymore. (that applies to you)

"Mute" means silent, without sound....Nothing to hear.

Hence my comment meant Mute, silent and stupid…...in my ear. That meant I heard nothing of him.


that's all.

Cheers!

[Dorian Gray]

24. But is it

moot?

[azurnoir]

12. First off Mr Falk is not just speaking of the past 6 weeks

or 18 months the Israeli blockade of Gaza never really ended, it was continued both with the blockade of Gaza's ports and airspace, and oops Egypt has opened its borders for both aid and medical purposes it just has not taken over Israel's agreed to role completely.

"The hypocrisy for most who champion the Palestinians is amazing."

you mean that we just will not ignore Israels role and blame Egypt for the entire problem? I am told that the unwillingness to do this is proof positive that the left does not really care about Palestinians but instead wishes to play politics, however just what does Israel gain by punishing the civilian population of Gaza? Is that not "playing politics" or is it something else? We're told that it is an attempt to stop the rockets but that does not seem to be working does it? And yes perhaps Egypt should open its borders if it feels that it can safely do that, and wishes to do that, however Egypt is in no way obligated to open its borders

But be of cheer Hamas handed your side a major victory today by refusing to continue the cease fire.

[shira]

23. why isn't Egypt obligated to open its borders

to the UN and its food convoys?

[azurnoir]

27. Has the UN asked Egypt to do this?

Perhaps then Egypt would open its borders or is it up to Egypt to invite them?

As far as Egypt's responsibility did Egypt sign any agreements saying that they would open their borders to Gaza for aid?

[shira]

28. good question

I doubt whether the UN has asked Egypt, and I also doubt whether Egypt has volunteered. In both cases, the UN and Egypt show their blatant disregard for the Palestinians they pretend to care so much for.

Here's my one question to you I hope you answer - and that I hope I will not have to repeat many times before you answer:

Would you at least agree with me that this is strong evidence of the fact that both the UN and Egypt, for all their "criticism" of Israel, are showing that they'll happily use Palestinians as pawns in order to play politics so that they can continue with their 'faux outrage' against Israel?

[azurnoir]

29. An answer to your very predictable question

Would you at least agree with me that this is strong evidence of the fact that both the UN and Egypt, for all their "criticism" of Israel, are showing that they'll happily use Palestinians as pawns in order to play politics so that they can continue with their 'faux outrage' against Israel?

The UN may have asked Egypt to do this except last January when the border was open for a few days Israel was less than happy

Israel's Foreign Ministry said the open border posed a security risk. "When the exit is open, so is the entrance," ministry spokesman Aryeh Mekel said. "Hamas and other terrorist groups may use this opportunity to smuggle weapons and terrorists into Gaza."

Mindful of its diplomatic pact with Egypt, Israel's Foreign Ministry issued a tersely worded call for Egypt to "ensure that the border operates properly, in accordance with the signed agreements" and "Israel expects the Egyptians to solve the problem."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/01/23/israel.gaza/index.html

It seems Egypt has "solved" the problem, but perhaps if Israel were willing to give up or better yet hand over to Egypt it's "privileges" along with agreed to responsibilities you know little things like blockades withholding money you little things like that there might be more cooperation.

[shira]

32. oh come on!

We're not talking about Egypt opening the border to EVERYONE, just the UN. Just as Israel doesn't allow ANYONE to come in or out when the UN convoys pass back and forth through the border crossing.

So I pose the question to you again. Hope your answer is better this time around.

[azurnoir]

34. LOL you got your answer you just do not like it

but I was about to edit to add this rather interesting snippet from JTA

Also on Monday, Israel allowed humanitarian aid including flour, oil and medical supplies to be delivered by the Egyptian Red Crescent to the Gaza Strip, after reaching an agreement with Egypt.

http://jta.org/news/article/2008/12/22/1001726/hamas-st...

[shira]

36. so you pretty much agree with me then

there's no good reason Egypt and the UN aren't volunteering either way to allow UN aid trucks through, in order to feed the Palestinians in Gaza they both supposedly care so much for.

And you seemingly have no problem with their faux outrage at how Palestinians are treated.

With friends like you, Egypt, and the UN, the Palestinians don't need enemies.

[azurnoir]

40. LOL n/t

[shira]

48. what's funny is that when this is turned around....

....it's your side that does whatever is possible to defend and create apologetics for very vocal organizations or neighboring states who don't lift a finger to help out the people you say you care a lot about.

How ironic.

You and others mock your opponents for being unable to accept and join in on criticism of Israel (which is really more defamation and demonization than legit criticism) but it's your side who won't or cannot acknowledge reasoned, legitimate criticism of organizations or neighboring countries that act in FAR more hateful and uncaring ways than Israel can possibly be accused of.

The definition of chutzpah.

Accuse your opponents of not being able to handle criticism.....try hard to label their legit criticisms as hate-speech and show by example that the reality is the complete opposite - in that it's your side which cannot or will not handle criticisms and is steeped in irrational hate speech against Israel.

And people wonder what some of the barriers to peace are in the mideast.

[BunkerHill24]

3. Amazing! Thanks for sharing with us.

[azurnoir]

5. A question about Mr Falk and his Nazi comparison

there have been several threads on the subject however what I can not find here or elsewhere is exactly what he said, I am curious about that.

However his expulsion much like Norman Finkelsteins only makes Israel appear vindictive and paranoid.


edited to change a most unfortunate typo

[shira]

8. Falk writes: "The blockade of Gaza serves no legitimate Israeli function."

Well, what do you expect from a 911 conspiracist nutjob? Like Hamas won't stockpile on imported Iranian weapons as soon as the blockade is ever lifted, imperil thousands, and inevitably bring far more death to the region.

Who takes this clown seriously?

By allowing Hamas to stockpile on Iranian imported weapons, Palestinian suffering and death will only increase exponentially. I thought Falk really cared about Palestinians and doesn't want that to happen. :sarcasm:

[shira]

9. Israel, Falk, and the UN today

http://fleshisgrass.wordpress.com/2008/12/17/israel-and-the-un-today/

<snip>

"The ban on Falk has dismayed Palestinian NGOs. But anybody who has to resort to lies about planned Holocausts to make his argument is missing the point about what is actually happening in Gaza. For the Israelis, allowing this person to go about his business is manifestly against Israel’s interests. The Palestinians, as an occupied people, need an advocacy which will maintain impetus of the flagging peace process. Falk is probably worse than nothing because his publicity-seeking exaggerations and falsehoods give the strong impression that the facts don’t speak for themselves. He is a walking excuse to ignore the Palestinians. But even so, no amount of popular outrage could resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Calling Jews Nazis hasn’t got anything to do with the promising US-Russian draft peace plan soon, it looks likely, to be adopted by the UN Security Council, its first resolution on the conflict in five years."

[aranthus]

10. Who believes this stuff?

Neither Falk, nor the wretched organization that employs him have the slightest shred of credibility. Not biased? Like Tokyo Rose wasn't biased.

[Violet_Crumble]

13. The UN is a 'wretched organisation' with no credibility??

Gosh, maybe we should dismantle the UN and replace it with something that just has Israel and the US as its members. That way no-one will ever criticise Israel and all those other issues in the world that the UN deals with won't need to be ignored because they won't be dealt with any longer.

How can you say the UN has no credibility and is wretched when it's done so much good in the world since it was formed? While I strongly support a restructure, particularly of the Security Council, I do think those who carry on that the UN is biased and wretched etc aren't without their own bias and lack of credibility...

[oberliner]

14. The poster may have meant the UN Human Rights Council not the entire UN

The UN Human Rights Council has been fairly widely criticized for a number of reasons, and its credibility has been called into question even by former Secretary General of the UN, Kofi Annan, who has specifically made reference to its declining credibility.

[shira]

17. also, from 1975 zionism = racism to Durban 2001 and upcoming Durban 2

The UNHRC is not only a fraudulent org criticized by Kofi Annan, it still has some sway and pull when it comes to UNGA resolutions.

I would say the 1975 zionism = racism declaration along with Durban 1 disqualifies the UN from being considered an objective organization that merely "criticizes" Israel. It demonizes Israel to the virtual exclusion (not total exclusion) of far more urgent situations elsewhere around the globe.

Remember, according to the UN and the NGO's human rights orgs they rely on, the civil rights of Palestinians (only when suffering under Israel, not Hamas/PA) takes more precedence than the civil rights of others worldwide.

This is the legacy of the current UN. Those whose civil rights are trampled around the rest of the world should understand that if they had the "right" persecutors or oppressors, as the Palestinians have (Israel, not Hamas/PA), they would merit more consideration from the UN for their welfare. The UN is clearly not as concerned about the civil rights of those who suffer, but rather, they are more focused on WHO is causing others to suffer. Caucasians (not Russians), Christians, and Jews who are seen as persecutors make for better shock and entertainment value and therefore the UN's focus is on them and their crimes, not so much on who is suffering worldwide. When it comes to Arab/Muslim human rights abuses on their own, or black on black, Arab/Muslim on black, this is virtually ignored by the UN. Rwanda, Sudan, Mauritania, Zimbabwe, and the Congo combined do not receive as much attention as Israel from the UN. The civil rights of the suffering don't count as much. It's just "those" people and they can't help themselves. It's racism.

[azurnoir]

21. well maybe but I am not so sure

about America being wholly uncritical of Israel anymore or at least shortly. Richard Falk is not just a UN official he is also American and I am not sure that Israel's "message" was entirely aimed at the UN, we have a new administration taking office very soon, one that reputedly makes Israel "nervous"

[aranthus]

26. There's nothing wrong with the US criticizing or pressuring Israel.

I don't think that the US has been totally uncritical of Israel, and I know that various US Presidents have pressured the Israeli government when they thought it was necessary.

Also, don't be so quick to draw a connection between Falk and Obama. Falk is a nut job who was appointed to be a mouthpiece for governments hostile to Israel. Obama is not a nut job. The Israelis can see the difference.

[azurnoir]

30. Yes if I remember George the first was pretty critical

of Israel called Israel a rogue nation worked out quite well for him too led directly to his second term, oops wait a minute and the same with Carter

Also, don't be so quick to draw a connection between Falk and Obama. Falk is a nut job who was appointed to be a mouthpiece for governments hostile to Israel. Obama is not a nut job. The Israelis can see the difference.

regardless of your opinion of Falk he is an American citizen who was treated quite capriciously by the Israeli government, who it seems OKed his visa to set a trap of sorts.

[aranthus]

33. George was booted because of the economy.

"Read my lips. No new taxes." Sound familiar? That was the promise George Bush made during the campaign. He broke that promise. That and his perceived indifference to the economic plight of ordinary Americans cost him the election, not his positions on Israel. Carter, on the other hand, was perceived as a friend of Israel until after he left the White House. He was turned out because he was thought to be a weak fool, and generally incompetent.

Falk is certainly and American citizen, but he was not treated in the manner he was because he was an American. Nor was he treated capriciously. The Israelis have always been sensitive to official nut jobs hired by the UN to smear them.

[azurnoir]

35. George the first did lose because of the economy

but calling Israel a "rogue nation" did not help him out much either, in fact he was talking a different tune by convention time, as for Carter a friend of Israel my how times change.

But this part

Falk is certainly and American citizen, but he was not treated in the manner he was because he was an American. Nor was he treated capriciously. The Israelis have always been sensitive to official nut jobs hired by the UN to smear them.

So it is your contention that Mr Falk was hired by the UN expressly to smear Israel? And he was most certainly treated capriciously and with malice a forethought explain why else the Israeli government OKed his visa and then detained him when he entered the country? I would expect a responsible government to protest one of it;s citizens being treated in such a manner, no matter what country did it.

[aranthus]

38. To be precise

Falk was hired by the UNHRC because he is a Jew who would smear Israel.

[oberliner]

39. They did not OK his visa

In fact, the Israeli Foreign Ministry specifically told Falk that he would not be recognized as a UN official nor would he be allowed access to the country in that capacity.

Where did you get the idea that the Israeli government OK'd his visa?

[azurnoir]

41. The OP

now please explain why no public outrage about his statement until 6 months after the fact and then only after Israel makes a "clumsy" move. As I pointed not a peep on DU until October and then only as part of a post by an "Israel Hater", some of the most outraged here posted in reply to this person but not a peep about Falk's statement at all, which was one sentence in an 8 or more paragraph statement just the typical semantics war over the word "genocide".

[oberliner]

42. The OP does not say that Israel OK'd Falk's visa

The OP does say that the Israeli Foreign Ministry issued a statement saying it would bar Falk from entering Israel as a UN representative.

Here is that citation:

"Israel had strongly opposed my appointment a few months earlier and its foreign ministry had issued a statement that it would bar my entry if I came to Israel in my capacity as a UN representative."

Can you direct me to the sentence in the OP gave you the idea that Israel OK'd Falk's visa? Maybe I am missing something.

[azurnoir]

43. No your right but you did leave out the next

paragraph

{i}At the same time, I would not have made the long journey from California, where I live, had I not been reasonably optimistic about my chances of getting in. Israel was informed that I would lead the mission and given a copy of my itinerary, and issued visas to the two people assisting me: a staff security person and an assistant, both of whom work at the office of the high commissioner of human rights in Geneva.

So I concede on that point, but could you please answer my question

[oberliner]

45. As for the outrage

As for the outrage, Falk is free to say whatever he wants, I'm only outraged when he is presented as some sort of unbiased arbiter of truth (as evidenced from the October link you provided). That he was selected for this position by the UNHRC is not surprising considering the way this council has conducted itself since its inception. That Israel refused to allow him to enter the country in this capacity is also not particularly surprising.

[aranthus]

44. Of course there was public outrage.

There may not have been as much because his statements may not have been as widely published in the mainstream press. At least, I don't remember seeing them on the front page of the LA times. In any event, there was discussion about Falk months ago. Back in April, Scurrious posted an article about the fact that the Israeli government intended to bar him from Israel. This was not a sudden decision by Israel. Nor was it a "clumsy move." Everyone knew this was coming, including Falk.

[azurnoir]

46. Slouching toward a Palestinian Holocaust

That is the title we're talking about here right? Seems there was a thread about that piece last year, it was written in June of 2007 I am sure you'll find the thread quite interesting, I certainly did, both for what the commentators said and also for they did not

Slouching toward a Palestinian Holocaust

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=124&topic_id=179566

[oberliner]

47. I don't understand your point

Do you believe that people are pretending to be upset at Falk now while they were not in 2007 when the piece was published?

If you believe this to be the case, what would be the reasoning behind that?

I'm seriously not sure what you are getting at.

[azurnoir]

50. To clarify

of the Nazi comparison on the the thread about article in question, there
are only 2 comments even mentioning it and one as offensive, which is why I find the outrage now that Israels actions need defending to be propaganda and the the claim as to why Falk was chosen by UNHRC I also found the source for that. As for my or anyone trying to pretend that Falk is somehow impartial that is false. Also Mr Falk has some rather interesting supporters not to mention a proposal made by Falk himself.

Former US ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, criticized Falk's appointment to the United Nations Human Rights Council, stating that "This is exactly why we voted against the new human rights council" and that "He was picked for a reason, and the reason is not to have an objective assessment — the objective is to find more ammunition to go after Israel."<12><13>\

<snip>

In May 2008 the National Lawyers Guild urged Israel to permit Falk entry, stating "Falk made no claims any different from those made by John Dugard, the man he was to replace, in several reports on conditions in the Occupied Territories."<14> In a July 2008 interview Falk stated the constraints would "limit my exposure to the direct realities. But I think it's quite possible to perform this role without that exposure. Barring my entry complicates my task but doesn't make it undoable."<15>

could the following be at least in part reason for Israels move, can't have anything like this happening I do hope Mr Falk continues with this mission

In June 2008, Falk proposed to the Human Rights Council that his mandate to investigate violations of international humanitarian law in the Palestinian territories be extended to include possible Palestinian infringements. He stated his goal was to "insulate" the Council, which is dominated by Muslim and African states, "from those who contend that its work is tainted by partisan politics."<16>

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

[oberliner]

51. Thanks

My take is that he is a poor choice for this position, and that the council itself needs to be seriously reformed, and that the need for the mission is dubious.

There are several organizations that document human rights violations in the West Bank and Gaza on the part of both Israelis and Palestinians.

There are numerous countries around the world, however, that do not have such organizations actively monitoring human rights violations.

This council, as has been pointed out by Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and the Secretary General of the UN itself, is severely flawed.

Look at the way they have treated the situation in the Congo in comparison to the way they have treated the situation in the West Bank and Gaza.

[azurnoir]

52. thank you and Happy Hanukkah n/t

[LeftishBrit]

53. There have been a number of threads here about Falk, including this from 8 months ago

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=124&topic_id=207844

I don't think Falk's remarks in June led to this latest move. It's been building up for a long time; it isn't sudden.

[Vegasaurus]

54. There is no Palestinian "holocaust", "genocide" or "apartheid"

No matter how many times people use this idiotic and ridiculous hyperbole, it doesn't make it any more true.

In fact, it is so silly that most people don't even listen.

[aranthus]

22. I was referring to the UNHRC

However, let's be clear. There is a big difference between the UN as a political organization and whether it has any moral credibility. As I have said in several other posts, the UN is about politics, not morality. It's does its job as political forum and clearing house just fine, so I see no reason for a restructuring, let alone dismantling of the UN as a whole.

Nor do I think that Israel is above criticism. However, I have yet to hear a rational explanation for why UN pronouncements are relevant to whether Israel is doing something wrong or not (or any other country for that matter). UN resolutions tell us about the balance of power, and where state interests lie. I have yet to be told why the represent moral truth.

By the way. I don't think that the UN is biased against Israel, or in favor of the Arabs. It would have to be otherwise fair and impartial for it to be biased.