From the annals of an Israel hater: Richard Falk speaks

All of us are familiar with Richard Falk, professor of international law and self-styled “public intellectual,” as the former UN Human Rights Council Special Rapporteur on Palestinian Human Rights and author of a number of malicious reports slandering and defaming the State of Israel.

For what he is up to nowadays, the reader is invited to go to his blog and consider his 8 August entry: “Dreaming of Freedom: Palestinian Child Prisoners Speak” and the ensuing comments, including my own, though many were blocked by the Professor. Here is how the exchange ends:

Fred Skolnik, August 14, 2016 at 11:04 am #

As I wrote, Prof. Falk, the ploy of “depersonalizing” the most violent slander is unique to polemicists like yourself. No, you have not “replied in kind” to me, as you assert above, you have done much worse, because you do not seem to grasp that when you call Israelis Nazis and accuse them of genocide you are calling me a Nazi and accusing me of genocide. I served on active reserve duty in the Israeli army for nearly 20 years, searched Arab homes, arrested rock throwers, pursued terrorists, defended the country’s civilian population against barbaric attacks.

To suggest that any of this is Nazi-like is simply repulsive and indicates that you, and certainly your admirers, have lost every modicum of restraint in venting your vindictive hatred of Israel. Exactly how do you expect someone you call a Nazi to respond to you?

Richard Falk, August 17, 2016 at 5:00 am #

I have never on this blog made any comparison between Israel and Nazism or Nazi behavior. How dare you pretend that you are dealing with such inflammatory accusations when in reality Israel is being accused of a variety of crimes by reference to international law. To exaggerate the allegation, and then complain about it, is to evade the substance of criticism. And you wonder why allegations of hasbara and troll flow in your direction.

And here are my replies, which Prof. Falk chose not to post:

You have made those inflammatory accusations outside this blog and the creatures whom you are continually praising have made them time and again on this blog and you yourself have thrown around the word genocide a few times too many, even featuring the word in your Categories, where you are constantly pushing Israel up against it. How dare you make such suggestions?

I doubt very much if you will have the courage to print this, that is, show the courage of your “convictions,” but once again you are the one who has to live with yourself. Here are your own words:

From a BBC interview (2008):

“Is it an irresponsible overstatement to associate the treatment of Palestinians with this criminalized Nazi record of collective atrocity? I think not. The recent developments in Gaza are especially disturbing because they express so vividly a deliberate intention on the part of Israel and its allies to subject an entire human community to life-endangering conditions of utmost cruelty. The suggestion that this pattern of conduct is a holocaust-in-the-making represents a rather desperate appeal to the governments of the world and to international public opinion to act urgently to prevent these current genocidal tendencies from culminating in a collective tragedy.

“There were strong advance signals in 1994 of a genocide to come in Rwanda, and yet nothing was done to stop it; the UN and the world watched while the 1995 Srebrenica massacre of Bosnians took place, an incident that the World Court described as ‘genocide’ a few months ago; similarly, there have been repeated allegations of genocidal conduct in Darfur over the course of the last several years, and hardly an international finger has been raised, either to protect those threatened or to resolve the conflict in some manner that shares power and resources among the contending ethnic groups.

“But Gaza is morally far worse, although mass death has not yet resulted. It is far worse because the international community is watching the ugly spectacle unfold while some of its most influential members actively encourage and assist Israel in its approach to Gaza.”

From the BBC News (2008):

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

“If this kind of situation [Israel and Gaza] 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 [with the Nazis].” (said on BBC)

IF! Well, Prof. Falk, you are saying that “the manner in which … the Sudanese government was dealing with Darfur,” which resulted in hundreds of thousands dead and millions displaced, somehow didn’t measure up to the abominations of Israel and therefore was unworthy of any such comparison, unlike Israel. You are utterly shameless.

In fact what you said now is even worse: “a[n] [Israeli] mentality based on collective guilt that resembled how the Nazis viewed the Israelis [you mean how they viewed the Jews…confusing, isn’t it?].”

Collective “guilt” wasn’t precisely the issue. The Nazis viewed the Jews as subhuman and exterminated them in gas chambers. Are you sure you wish to stand by the comparison?:

And this too:

“The suggestion that this pattern of conduct [Israel and Gaza] is a holocaust-in-the-making represents a rather desperate appeal to the governments of the world and to international public opinion to act urgently to prevent these current genocidal tendencies from culminating in a collective tragedy.”

What you are implying is that “although mass death has not yet resulted” the Israelis (or perhaps you mean Jews…) are capable of bringing it about, that is, doing to the Palestinian Arabs what the Nazis did to the Jews, and this does in fact imply something very unsavory about the moral character of Israelis and/or Jews (that Jews are potential Nazis if not Nazis already).

As I said, exactly how do you expect someone you call a Nazi to respond to you?

(Ed. note: click here for cartoon Falk removed from his blog after protests)

Post script:

For the continuation of this encounter with Prof. Falk, see the comments to his 20 Aug. blog post. Here is my blocked reply to his little diatribe toward the end:

Prof. Falk

You are also being disingenuous. With regard to my blocked response to you, I did not of course say that you made the references on your blog site but pointed out explicitly that you made them “outside the blog.” And it is also clear from the BBC material that you made the comments before you became Rapporteur. Your readers can see for themselves exactly what it is you blocked.


I did, however, point out that your admirers have made these comparisons between Israelis and Nazis numerous times, most recently Mr. Schulman on Aug. 8, not to mention the endless references to genocide by yourself and others. In the light of your assertions that such language is “inflammatory” I would at least expect you to condemn those who make such a comparison and at least offer a formal apology for your own use of the term and the rest of the unfortunate language in the 2008 BBC material.

As for the antisemitism, I have pointed to what in my view constitutes its language as “disparaging generalizations about Jewish history, origins, morality, faith, character, money, greed and even genetic makeup, among other things,” all of which can be found in the comments on your website. If you disagree that this is the language of antisemitism, please say so.

I of course do not consider Mr. Schulman an anti-semite, however he characterizes himself, nor you for that matter. I have written about what I regard as the root of Israel hatred among Jews

and Mr. Schulman has described his own case himself (the preposterous sister’s-boyfriend-fighting-in-Israel business).


Mutually Reinforcing Fictions    

December 15, 2019.

Mutually Reinforcing Fictions

by Sheldon Schreter

Anti-Israel and anti-Zionist attitudes appear to be a standard component of political correctness among a growing number of western university students these days, or at least among their politically active elites. Of course, the assertion that there is no anti-Jewish animus involved is critical, for otherwise what would differentiate between a progressive anti-Zionist and an old-fashioned, reactionary Jew-hater? Being an explicit anti-Semite is still, at least for now, as unfashionable as being a racist, Islamophobe, homophobe, and all the other evil “phobes” of our time.

For many decades after the Second World War, the ominous shadow of the Holocaust seemed to moderate such views, but its influence has clearly waned with the passage of time and fading of memory. Some Jews still believe its message is potent and relevant, but hardly anyone else does anymore.

At the same time, animated by the anti-colonialist impetus of the post-war era and provoked by the rightward lurch of Israeli politics since the latter 1970s (with some short-lived interludes), academic and media elite opinions have gradually tilted in an anti-Israel direction. By now, for a growing number, viewing Israel as a European colonialist creation, actively occupying and oppressing a dispossessed native population by force of arms, is uncontroversial.

There is no consolation in the occasional blunders of transparent anti-Semites (whose motives, when not malicious, may charitably be attributed to ignorance), whose anti-Zionist façade is sometimes accidentally pierced by naked Jew-hatred. Such incidents might almost be amusing, if they were not so sad and alarming, especially (for me) when they occur at great Canadian universities.

In mid-November, 2019, the U. of Toronto Students’ Council refused to support an initiative to make kosher food available on campus, since doing so would be “pro-Israel” and counter to “the will of the membership”. Kosher food has become the enemy to be resisted!

More recently, the McGill student government censured a Jewish member for accepting a free trip to Israel from a Jewish student organization, which it was deemed would present a one-sided (read: pro-Israel) view of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But a revealing inconsistency marred this supposedly principled position when a non-Jewish student who had accepted the same free trip offer evoked no reaction from the same student body. The offense of the student who accepted the offer was apparently not only in agreeing to engage in an activity liable to enhance support for Israel, but also in being herself a Jew!

It wasn’t always this way. Israel’s birth and first decades enjoyed significant support from progressive countries and movements. I spent my four undergraduate years at McGill – 1965-69 – as an active New Leftist and as a Jewish student leader, serving both at Hillel and as an elected representative on Students’ Council. My friends and colleagues in that era included Charlie Krauthammer, Bernie Avishai, Morty Weinfeld and David Kaufman. We had no difficulty in simultaneously opposing the war in Vietnam and supporting Israel’s right to defend itself in the 1967 Six-Day War and Soviet Jewry’s right to freedom of emigration. The moral political stands we took on the issues of the day were derived consciously from our positive Jewish identity, as were our respect for and partnership with other progressive ethnic and religious groups.

Some of us even advocated partition as a formula for resolving the Israeli-Arab conflict, which the UN had approved in principle in 1947. This was not popular following the 1967 War, to put it mildly, for it meant Israel’s withdrawal from the West Bank and creation of a Palestinian state. Years went by, and that two-state solution became a widely-accepted commonplace. We had gone from being radicals to being centrists. I still adhere to that basic position, and now seem on my way to being radical again. I have lived in Israel since 1976.

I don’t doubt that you can oppose Israel’s actions without being anti-Semitic. I have no problem criticizing the policies of any government, certainly including my own. I do it myself – daily. My problems start when Israel is held to standards that no other country is expected to meet, leading to denial of its right to exist. When that happens, the familiar stench of an old hatred, merely re-packaged, becomes unmistakeable.

I am writing in the hope of communicating both to my fellow Jews, and to university students. My message is straightforward.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is complex and tragic, but certain basic truths need repeating. Most importantly: Neither the Jews nor the Palestinians are going away, despite the fantasies of banishing the other nurtured by the extremists of each side. These fictions play off each other, in an obscene interdependence. Fantasies can be fine, except when they feed killing and horror. The second truth is: Any attempt by either side to subjugate the other within one state – whether Greater Israel or the secular, democratic State of Palestine – is a formula for, actually a guarantee of endless suffering and gruesome civil war. No one who cares about either people should promote such a catastrophe.

There are many Israel-lovers who equate support of Israel with the encouragement of their West Bank settlements. Sometimes this shades over into endorsement of Israel’s annexation of all or part of the West Bank. And what then to do with all the inconvenient Palestinians residing there? With few exceptions, the Israeli Right’s answer is to maintain their status as quasi-foreign residents with limited rights and no vote. The underlying agenda is to “facilitate” their eventual departure, either through positive compensation packages or negative measures making their lives intolerable. This is delusional: They are not leaving.

Despite Israel’s flaws, it is not today an apartheid State. Any implementation of the annexationist impulse will turn it into exactly that, with two classes of citizens or residents and the same terminal trajectory as white South Africa. The Jewish State would be destroyed, by its own hand.

The Palestinian narrative sees Israel as the latest artificial Crusader kingdom, to be swept away eventually by the oppressed natives, exercising their right of return to their stolen land. Never mind that Israel’s 1948 borders were established in its successful war of defense against invading Arab armies determined to wipe it out, totally; that more than 50% of its Jewish population are descendants of refugees precisely from Muslim Arab countries; that the Palestinians have been grotesquely exploited by Arab regimes anxious to distract attention from their rotten rule, while stranded in abominable refugee camps for over 70 years; that the “cleansing” of the Jewish invaders from Palestine is an explicit program for genocide. Here’s the point: The Jews are not leaving.

Take a good look at the tremendous parallels between the fantasies infecting both sides. Part of their appeal depends on the ability to reference and heroically resist each other’s triumphalist narratives. The extremists of each side actually validate and therefore reinforce one another. “You see”, each can tell their own people and the world, “our struggle is for justice and liberation, while theirs is for evil and conquest.”

Western progressives who feel morally compelled to oppose Israel’s existence as a Jewish state are helping to perpetuate the fantasies and the continuous misery of the Palestinians they claim to support. They feel very virtuous, at a safe distance from the consequences of their actions.

Israel advocates who encourage the development of the West Bank settlements, even to the point of annexation, are not thereby strengthening the country, as they intend. They are rather propelling Israel further down a tragic path leading to its doom.

The best service foreigners can offer both Israelis and Palestinians is to oppose their respective extremists, to liberate them from their self-destructive, lethal delusions about each other, and to reinforce their moderates. Anything else serves only to prolong the agony, no matter what rationalizations are invented to justify it.


Sheldon (Shelly) Schreter is a Montreal-born Israeli who has directed educational and research institutions, worked in industry, and is a company director.

My reply to Richard Falk’s article

Read first:

Then my comments:

Your statements are false again.
There is no such thing as Israeli occupation of “Palestine”.
Israel occupies it’s own political borders legally irrespective of the various pronouncements by people such as yourself and those that don’t believe in our right to have our own country.
There is no such thing as a “Palestinian” people as that was created in 1964 by Yasser Arafat. The only “Palestinians that existed were those belonging to a mixed population of Jews, Christians, Muslims, Samaritans and Druze within an already occupied land (British, Ottoman etc) which had lost it’s nation status after the last Roman conquest. That land was primarily Jewish (Christianity and Islam did not exist yet) with a smattering of smaller populations of various groups such as Hellenists, Babylonians, Egyptians etc.
Judea and Samaria were illegally annexed by Jordan in 1948 while Egypt took Gaza.
Palestinians have continued to reject all of Israel’s peace offers so it is under no obligation to cease developing lands it controls (read the Oslo accords) if it can’t sue for peace. They are the architect of their own demise and given the dominance of Hamas, Iran and Hezbollah in the equation they will become cannon fodder for the next conflagration between Israel and Iran.
I assume you won’t publish this however at least you get to read it.


Aaron Remer

Making Peace: Israel/Palestine (my reply to Falk’s posting today)

Prof. Falk,

Every few months, when the world was finally getting used to not hearing your false narrative, you come up with these “interviews” making the appearance of an authentic inquiry into your state of mind. Of course it would have been easier for you to simply copy and paste one of your dozens of previous essays/interviews as in the end you continue to parrot the same material.

If you would simply find a way to disprove any of these points below you would at least add some minor credence to your arguments:

1. The Jewish people (nation) are the indigenous inheritors of the land of Israel, namely the area known as “greater Israel” from the Jordan (although the first mandate had both sides as being for the Jewish nation) to the Mediterranean. This is not only established in the 3 monotheistic religions and stated as such in the New and Old testaments as well as the Koran. Furthermore, if you just take non-religious writings such as historical manuscripts, scrolls, archaeological findings etc you have all the trappings of a vibrant Jewish Nation that lasted for over 2 millennium until the exile.

2. That hundreds of thousand of Jews were either expelled from Europe (or escaped) as well as Arab lands and had only the State of Israel ready with open arms to receive them.

3. The the so called “Palestinians” are not a nation, not a people and have no heritage prior to their creation by Yasser Arafat in 1964. Prior to that, newly arrived Jews and Arabs having migrated to the area known as the mandate for Palestine from the late 1800’s through the mid 20th century simply added to the small local indigenous population of Jews, Arabs, Druze, Bedouin and Christians. Prior to 1948, “Palestinians” were considered the Jews of the then mandated region of Palestine. The local Arabs in fact preferred to be known by their heritage either as Syrian, Egyptian or Arabian. There are hundreds of articles and interviews of local and international Arab leaders and politicians who fiercely deny any people known as Palestinians (I can cite if needed).

4. The current state of relations between Israel and the so called Palestinians is caused primarily because of the refusal of the Palestinian leadership to sit down and negotiate final status arguments. Abu Mazen knows that he will be assassinated for any concession he makes to Israel. Hamas holds the other card, while Iran and Turkey are dangling their influence in the background. In the interim Israel has no choice then to manage its affairs to the best of its ability. That means fences and walls to ward off terrorism, strict controls on movement of Arabs between Israel and the territories and a naval/land blockade on Gaza until they stop firing rockets and allow their economy to recover and stop using their citizens as sacrificial lambs to Israeli return fire. Israel left Sinai when the other side was supposed to negotiate for peace. Israel left disputed lands in the Arava and returned them to Jordan all in the context of a peace agreement. Israel tried to make peace with Syria and they refused to even acknowledge Israel’s right to exist let alone come to some sort of deal on the Golan (yes Israel could have traded the high ground with the lowlands near Kuneitra so that Syria can claim at least a partial victory.) With regard to Lebanon, Israel proved that if there is a safe and stable buffer of land south of the Litani river peaceful coexistence can occur (SLA and Christian Phalangists maintaining a buffer between the Shia Hezbollah, Palestinians and Israel) for almost 20 years.

With regard to the current state of affairs in the territories note:

1. Israel does have a legal right to allow the populating of public lands as it designated for new towns/villages. Having won these territories in a defensive war international law accepts the status quo as long as the inhabitants are provided human rights and dignity.

2. Jerusalem is the eternal capital of the Jewish people regardless of Mohammed’s steed etc. This has been established by all three faiths and historical fact.

3. “East” Jerusalem is irrelevant since it was simply a part of the city (that was not divided for thousands of years) illegally occupied by Jordan for 19 years while it de-judaized the city from its Hebrew history and culture until little was left. Tombstones were removed, synagogues were shut down and Jews were forbidden to visit their holy sites.

4. Each time you refer and quote UN resolutions you are simply painting yourself with a Guy Fawkes mask. You know damn well that UN is comprised of voting blocks and all these resolutions pass primarily because of one of 2 things:
A) The Arab/Muslim block.
B) The undeveloped non-aligned nations that are under the influence of A.

Put those 2 together, add a few abstentions from western countries that are too busy making money off the Iranians, Turks and Gulf states, and you have the perfect cocktail for Israel to always be condemned. The irony is that most of these nations are themselves brutal dictatorships and as the saying goes…. you scratch my back I’ll scratch yours.

The anti-Semitic BDS movement is a farce since it only wants to boycott Israel when it doesn’t hurt the boycotter. Try boycotting your iPhone, your Intel based PC, half the medical and technological and cyber products that come from Israel. If you do so you might as well go back to the stone age.

Whereas I know you probably won’t allow this to go to print as in the past you have stated that your reason for blocking is because of the tone or rudeness of the poster, I will nevertheless submit in the hope that instead of a blanket erasure you take the time to address each of my points and then allow for rebuttal. Doing so would make you more of a “mensch” and allow for honest discussion, something which in the past you have refrained to do.

Let us hope also that the recent elections in Israel will finally force all those holdouts to realize that it is better to negotiate for something then to wallow in misery for decades to come for nothing. The “Palestinians” have the chance of becoming a new Singapore, a new Hong Kong, a new beginning where coupled with Israeli and Arab capital and a willingness to accept the place of the Jew in Judea, Samaria and the rest of Israel a new era of peace and prosperity is quite possible.

Aaron Remer

The moral challenge of Gaza

THE BLOGS   >   Donniel Hartman

This post has been contributed by a third party.
The moral challenge of Gaza

MAY 15, 2018, 3:02 PM   Rabbi Dr. Donniel Hartman is President of the Shalom Hartman Institute and author of “Putting God Second: How to Save Religion from Itself”


• Mr. Netanyahu, tear down the wall dividing our people.

Late last night, as the death toll in Gaza neared 60 human beings, my daughter called me with one simple question.
“Abba, what are you writing about Gaza?”
Before her call, I hadn’t intended to write. Gaza paralyzes me into silence.When I read reports or hear discourse about Israeli Army use of lethal force against demonstrators, I cringe. To call what is happening at the Gaza border a demonstration, is a perversion of reality as I know it.
The inhabitants of Gaza have every right and reason to demonstrate against the tragedy which is their life. Not only do they live under unforgiveable and deplorable conditions, no one is taking responsibility either for their predicament or for the path to rectify it.What is happening on the Gaza border is not a protest against the reality of life in Gaza, but an attack against the sovereignty of Israel and its right to exist. Palestinians have every right to view and experience the formation of Israel as their Nakba (catastrophe). They have every right to view the Six Day War and Israel’s reunification of Jerusalem as a deepening of this Nakba. When tens of thousands of people, civilians interspersed with thousands of Hamas and Islamic Jihad terrorists, march on our border with the intent to destroy it, and penetrate into Israel, and allow the terrorists to murder Israelis, it is not only not a peace demonstration, it is not a demonstration at all. It is a battlefield, where anyone who approaches the fence is a combatant.
While Palestinians have every right to their narrative of Nakba, my people have every right to celebrate our independence and our victory in 1967, and to express joy at being home in our country, whose capital is Jerusalem. And we have every right to defend our rights.The challenge is that when it comes to Gaza, for Israelis our moral conscience is by and large, silent. We argue that our unilateral withdrawal from Gaza, including its setting of the precedent of dismantling Jewish settlements, should have inspired Gazans to embrace or at the very least explore, the possibility of peace, instead of the path of war. It should have inspired the trade of goods and the fostering of economic ties, and instead it led to missile fire and the resulting partial blockade.
We hold the Gaza population personally responsible for the choices they have made. We hold the leadership that they have chosen, a leadership that regularly declares its desire for my destruction and acts on it, as responsible both for the tragedy of Gaza and its rectification. And as a result, most Israelis believe that from this moment henceforth, our moral responsibilities are limited to our efforts at self-defense. The plight of Gazans is taken out of the equation of our moral discourse.
Gaza paralyzes me into silence, for I am like most Israelis. I am not only saddened by the choices they have made and by the paths that they have chosen not to take, I am angry. I am a devout two-statist, who believes in the right of the Palestinian people to sovereignty in their own state, living side-by-side with Israel in peace and security for both of us. I am angry, because I believe that the hatred and violence spewing out of Gaza has possibly buried Israelis’ belief in the viability of the two-state solution in our lifetime. Any discourse about a Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria is immediately rejected under the counter-argument: “It will just become another Gaza.” And this Gaza will be able to shut down all of Israel with mere mortar fire.
But as my daughter’s phone call reminded me, we cannot allow ourselves to be paralyzed, and to create a moral black hole in our society. I do not believe that Israel is principally responsible for the reality which is Gaza, but it does bear some responsibility. I do not believe that our soldiers on the border of Gaza are firing on demonstrators, but are engaged in a war. I do not believe that the Hamas-inspired action on the border poses an existential threat to the State of Israel. It does, however, pose a life-and-death danger for many Israelis. At the same time, 60 human beings were killed and thousands were injured in one day.
While 60 human beings lost their lives, and Israeli soldiers were engaged in the horrific challenge of protecting our border, tens of thousands of Israelis converged on Rabin Square in Tel Aviv to sing and rejoice with Netta Barzilai on her and our victory in the Eurovision contest.
When the Egyptians – a greater power and enemy than the Palestinians – were drowning in the Red Sea, our tradition recounts that the angels in heaven began to sing a song of praise to God. God silenced them with the words, “My creation is drowning in the sea, and you want to sing a song of praise?”
The Book of Esther recounts a particularly chilling moment. After Ahasuerus and Haman sent forth the pronouncement decreeing the murder and destruction of all Jews throughout the kingdom in one day, it states, “And the King and Haman sat down to drink and the city of Shushan was in chaos.”
We do not need to take moral responsibility for the reality which is Gaza, but at the same time we cannot allow our humanity and moral conscience to be so inert as to sit down and drink, not to speak of dancing in our city squares, when we are causing, justifiably or not, death and chaos.
We can believe that the events in Gaza are a war against Israel, support our soldiers, and still desire a public debate over the means necessary to win this war. I don’t value Monday morning moral philosophers, nor expressions of “concern” for loss of life. I do value serious moral reflection on how to ensure that we live up to our military moral code, which demands that even when force is used in self-defense, we only use the amount of force necessary and in proportion to the danger that we face, and that we do everything in our power to avoid civilian casualties. I do desire an Israeli society which welcomes and engages in this discourse.
I do not believe that our soldiers are violating international law, yet I am interested in a public discourse about what our soldiers on the front lines in Gaza are experiencing. I am interested in defending our soldiers from being placed in situations where their orders are not clear, and thus placing our soldiers in morally compromised situations.Gaza paralyzes me, because human beings are dying at my hands, and I do not know how to prevent it. Gaza frightens me, because it is so easy to forget it and sing, regardless of what is happening there. Gaza challenges us, for it is in Gaza that our commitment to the value of human life is and will be tested.
We may not be principally responsible for the reality which is Gaza, but like all moral human beings, we must constantly ask ourselves whether and how we can be part of the solution. As Jews, we are commanded to walk in the way of God, a God who declares, “My creation is drowning, and what are you doing about it?”

Falk’s attack on Jerusalem

I posted this today on Falk’s website. I doubt he will publish it:


Before providing a salient link lower down I will quote a recent commentary by a well known American Physician in New York who writes in his email blog and ties the Trump announcement and the yet to be passed Taylor Force Act:


“The next step for Trump prior to actually moving the embassy should be to sign into law the Taylor Force Act and stop sending $ 300 million/year of American taxpayer money to the corrupt Palestinian Authority to fund the monthly salaries of the Terrorists in Israeli prisons who are paid by ratio of how many Jews they have killed.

The amount is 700 million if you include what is paid to these families indirectly through UNWRA (these numbers are 2016 records). More dead Jews = higher monthly salary.

All 300 million goes to the families of these imprisoned killers.

If you don’t believe this then by all means look it up.

Fox News did a good piece on this recently and it is available for viewing on YouTube.

This 28 year old non-Jewish American marine was stabbed to death while on vacation in Israel by a Palestinian terrorist on the Tel Aviv ocean boardwalk last year, among with 10 other victims prior to being shot to death by Israeli police.

This terrorists body was returned to his village and received a heroes welcome/ funeral.

Taylor’s parents have spearheaded this act together with Republican Lindsey Graham.

Of course Israeli ambassador to the UN Danny Dannon is also much involved in the lobbying of this bill.

Sadly this bill has not landed on the Presidents desk for signature yet.

It recently passed the House of Representatives.

This took a lot of arm twisting as originally not one Democratic Congressman supported it (ongoing Obama influence).

It is now set to be debated in the Senate.

Any Democratic Senator who opposes this bill should be singled for public taxpayer opinion re their prior campaign funding records, in my opinion.

Such campaign funding investigation would truly shed light on the amount and extend of influence of the Muslim Brotherhood in the swamp known as Washington.

BTW, one of the highest recipients of such Arab lobbying money was Hillary Clinton’s Vice Presidential running mate.

Do not take my word for any of this.

Please do whatever research is required for you to realize that this is not Fake News.”

H. Novick MD


Here is the Jerusalem link:


The ESCWA Report: Guterres falls at the first hurdle.. my comments…

The original post was here by Julie Webb-Pullman:

They will probably never publish my comments so for those who are interested here they are:


Don’t expect Julie Webb-Pullman to state the truth. Her whole diatribe is one lie after another.

Lie #1: “UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres’s first big challenge has seen him falter, and fall”. Guterres has neither faltered nor fallen. If anything he has risen like a phoenix from the ashes, standing up against the bullying of the Arab states and non-aligned that for years been coerced by petro dollars and other bribes to vote against Israel.

Lie #2: “..if the UN is to retain any semblance of independence, impartiality and integrity.” The UN was rarely independent, impartial or with integrity. One of those rare occasions was in 1947 where they voted in favour of creating a Jewish State (not an Arab state) and a separate Arab state (not a Jewish State). The Jews accepted. The Arabs did not. After Israel declared independence (by the UN’s right to) in 1948, the Arab states attacked Israel…. and they lost. This newly independent “Palestinian” country changed it’s name to Israel as what it’s original was for thousands of years. The provinces of Judea and Samaria were lost in the cease-fire line to Jordan however was still part of the original mandate that was granted to the Jewish people….legally as in INTERNATIONAL LAW.

Lie #3: “..two highly qualified, experienced and respected scholars: Richard Falk, Albert G. Milbank Professor Emeritus of International Law at Princeton University, internationally recognized as one of the world’s finest, and Virginia Tilley, Professor of Political Science at Southern Illinois University-Carbondale.” They are hardly qualified, hardly experienced and hardly respected.. except by despotic regimes, purveyors of anti-Semitic porn and like minded endorsers of terrorist regimes such as Hamas and Iran. Even the PA tried to get Falk expelled from the UN for his support of Hamas. Tilley is not much better. She promotes the destruction of Israel in her “one state solution” essay and writings would rather see the Jews swallowed in a sea of Arab interlopers then 20 Arab countries take care of their own expats who’s settlements and occupations are visible throughout the Land of Israel especially during the last 120 years.

Lie #4: “The 80+ UN resolutions Israel is currently in breach of were passed simply and solely because Israel REPEATEDLY BREAKS INTERNATIONAL LAW.” Of course this lie has become practically universal by the Jew hating Israel bashers. They use this general term yet never state the statute or law that Israel has broken. UN resolutions are not laws. They are stated opinions by member states who by vote of majority in their own fiefdom of states aligned by agenda or coercion, gang up on Israel.

Lie #5: “These principles are that human rights are universal and inalienable; indivisible; interdependent and interrelated. (note to SG – Palestinians should have them too.)”.

Palestinians? Who are they? The Palestinians of 70 CE? 1929? 1936? 1947? 1948? 1964? 1967? 2002? It seems there are different Palestinian flavours for every occasion or political need. The only REAL Palestinians are the Jews who have a deed of sale, the purchase of the Tomb of the Patriarchs and Matriarchs from time immemorial. The Arabs who came later are missing the most important document…their own deed of sale enshrined not only in the Bible, not only in the annals of history but even in the Koran itself. The current “State” of Jordan is the only homeland for the current day Arab Palestinians or of course any of the other Arab states that refuse to give them citizenship.

She, Falk and Tilley are all cut from the same cloth… finish the job that the Romans, Persians, Greeks, Crusaders, Mameluke’s, Nazi’s and Muslim hordes failed to do. The only difference is they use the pen instead of the sword. I have news for them…. history is on the side of the Jews. Just wait and see.

The Enigma that was Shimon Peres

This is my response to Falk’s latest insulting diatribe against Peres which I included below since he probably won’t publish it. The so called “important newspaper” probably had the questions and answers delivered to them by Falk himself:


Your lies and insults are to be expected.
You don’t deserve the right to even utter the name of our 9th President.
May Shimon’s neshama rise and take its place among the righteous and mourners of Zion. Yehi Zichro Baruch.


[Prefatory Note: the text that follows is derived from an interview yesterday with an important Brazilian newspaper. I have retained the questions posed by the journalist, but expanded and reframed my responses. The death of Shimon Peres is the last surviving member of Israel’s founding figures, and in many ways a fascinating political personality, generating wildly contradictory appraisals. My own experience of the man was direct, although rather superficial, but it did give me greater confidence to trust my reservations about his impact and influence, which collides with the adulation that he has inspired among American liberals, in particular.]

  • 1) What is the main legacy of president Shimon Peres, in your point of view?

Shimon Peres leaves behind a legacy of a long public life of commitment to making Israel a success story, economically, politically, diplomatically, and even psychologically. He is being celebrated around the world for his intelligence, perseverance, and in recent decades for his public advocacy of a realistic peace with the Palestinians. I believe he lived an impressive and significant life, but one that was also flawed in many ways. He does not deserve, in my opinion, the unconditional admiration he is receiving, especially from the high and mighty in Europe and North America. Underneath his idealistic rhetoric was a tough-minded and mainstream commitment to Zionist goals coupled with an expectation that the Palestinians, if sensible, would submit graciously to this reality, and if not, deservedly suffer the consequences of abuse and harm. He was never, contrary to his image, a supporter of an idealistic peace based on recognizing the equality of the Palestinian people, acknowledging the wrongs of the nakba and the Palestinian ordeal that followed, and in creating a sustainable peace that included realizing Palestinian rights as defined by international law.

* 2) Do you believe Peres was ever close to obtaining a definitive peace deal with Palestinians? What did it get wrong?

In my view, Peres never even wanted to reach a sustainable peace agreement with the Palestinians, but he fooled many people, including the committee in Oslo that selects the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize. He was unyielding in his refusal to grant Palestinians dispossessed in 1948 any right of return. He early favored, in fact helped initiate, and never really confronted the settlement movement as it encroached upon the West Bank and East Jerusalem. He consistently pretended to be more peace-oriented than he was except when it served his purposes to seem war-like. I share the assessment made by Marc H. Ellis, the highly respected and influential dissident Jewish thinker, that aside from the exaggerated praise he is receiving, Peres will be more accurately remembered, especially by Palestinians, as an enabler of “a narrative of Jewish innocence and redemption that was always much more sinister from the beginning.” When Peres’ political ambitions made it opportune for him to be militarist, he had little difficulty putting ‘peace’ to one side and embarking on hawkish policies of destructive fury such as the infamous attack on Qana (Lebanon) in April 1996, apparently with the design of improving his electoral prospects, which in any event turned out badly. What seems generally accurate is the view that Peres believed the Israel would evolve in a more secure and tranquil manner if it achieved some kind of peace with Palestine, thereby the conflict to a negotiated end. Yet the peace that Peres favored was always filtered through a distorting Zionist optic, which meant that it was neither fair nor balanced, and was unlikely to last even if some such arrangement were to be swallowed in despair at some point by Palestinian leaders. To date, despite many attempted entrapments, the Palestinians have avoided political surrender beneath such banners of ‘false peace’ that have adorned the diplomatic stage from time to time. The Oslo diplomacy came close to achieving a diplomatic seduction, yet its ‘peace process’ while helpful for Israel’s expansionist designs never was able to deliver, as it promised, an end to the conflict in a form that met Israel’s unspoken priorities for territorial gains, a legitimated Jewish state, and a permanently subordinated Palestinian existence.

  • 3) Have you ever had chance of talking directly with him? If yes, what could you tell us on his personality?

I had small dinners with Peres on two separate occasions, and attended a couple of larger events where he was the guest of honor. Both of these dinners took place in New York City more than twenty years ago. I was impressed by Peres’ intelligence and social skills, but also by his arrogant and insensitive Israeli nationalism and his unanticipated interest at the time in promoting a strategic alignment with US global and regional policies in the Middle East, which he expressed in think tank militarist terms when he regarded himself as among friends. I remember, in particular, his advocacy, then way ahead of unfolding events, of the feasibility of achieving close strategic partnerships among Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the United States. His premise, which has proved correct, was that these three political actors shared common interests in regional security and the political established order that would take precedence over supposedly antagonistic ideological goals and ethical values. Peres believed that these countries were natural allies bound by mutual interests, an outlook that exhibited his geopolitically driven political mentality. Peres also seemed always to make it clear in private settings that he was not seen as naïve, and frequently made the point that the Middle East was not Scandinavia. I heard him speak in 1993 one time at Princeton shortly after the famed handshake on the White House lawn between Rabin and Arafat. On that occasion he made it clear that the ‘Palestinians’ were ‘Arabs,’ and accordingly it would be appropriate for the 22 Arab countries to absorb the Palestinian refugees rather than expect this burden to fall on Israel’s shoulders. Beyond this, he indicated his hopes for normalization in the Middle East that would benefit both Israel and the Arab countries, which he visualized by a metaphor I found racist at the time: Israel would supply the brains, while the Arab would supply the brawn, and the combination would be a productive regional body politic.

* 4) Do you think Shimon Peres was one of the most dedicated Israeli leaders to achieving a two state solution? Why?

I am not sure about the true nature of Peres’ commitment to a two state solution, although I felt his public offerings were often manipulative toward the Palestinians and were put forward in a disarming manner as if responsive to reasonable Palestinian expectations. Underneath the visionary rhetoric, Peres acted as if Israel’s diplomatic muscle gave it the opportunity to offer the Palestinians a constrained state that would end the conflict while leaving Israel with indirect and no longer contested control of a disproportionate share of historic Palestine. As is typical for political realists, Peres exaggerated the capacity of military might to prevail over political resolve. He has been so far wrong about attaining Israel’s goal of a controlled peace ever being achievable, underestimating Palestinian nationalism and its insistence that peace be based on the equality of the two peoples. Part of why Peres was so appreciated internationally is that his language and vision tended to be outwardly humanistic, and thus contrasted with the far blunter approaches associated with many recent politicians in Israel, and most notably with Bibi Netanyahu. Only by such a comparison can Peres be genuinely considered as ‘a man of peace.’ But this image, however much polished, does not capture the essence of this complicated, contradictory, and talented political personality. As suggested earlier, Peres is probably best understood as a geopolitical realist who believed in maximizing Israeli military power, and not only for defensive purposes, but to give the country the capacity to impose its will on the outcome of the conflict, and to exert unchallenged influence over the entire region. It should not be forgotten that Peres initially became prominent decades ago as a leading overseas procurer of weapons for Israel and later as the political entrepreneur of Israel’s nuclear weapons program, which included persuading France to give assistance that violated its commitments as a party to the Nonproliferation Treaty. As well, on occasion, for the sake of his political ambitions when in or aspiring to high office, Peres supported and was responsible for very aggressive military retaliatory strikes against Palestinian communities that caused heavy casualties among innocent civilians.

Peres was always very useful for the West: an ally and someone who presented a hopeful, moderate, and peace-oriented outer look that was presented as exhibiting the soul of Israel, a moral energy trying forever to free the country from the birth pains of its violent emergence. The Economist unintentionally illustrated Peres’ witty cynicism that also came across in personal encounters: “There are two things that cannot be made without closing your eyes, love and peace. If you try to make them with open eyes, you won’t get anywhere.” The august magazine offered this to show off Peres’ wisdom, but I take it as summarizing his deeply suspect view of real peace, or for that matter, of real love.

It is not surprising, yet still symbolically disappointing, that President Barack Obama unreservingly exalts Shimon Peres, and is making the symbolic pilgrimage to Israel to take part in the funeral service honoring his life. If Peres’ actual political impact is taken into account, his words of excessive tribute to Peres should haunt Obama if he were exposed to the other side of Peres, the so-called ‘father of the settlement movement,’ ‘the butcher of Qana,’ ‘the man behind Israeli nuclear weapons’: “A light has gone out, but the hope he gave us will burn forever. Shimon Peres was a soldier for Israel, for the Jewish people, for justice, for peace and for the belief that we can be true to our best selves – to the very end of our time on Earth and to the legacy that we leave to others.”

As with Obama’s recent disturbingly positive public statement of farewell to Netanyahu at the UN, the departing president seems overly eager to create a final, formal impression of unconditional solidarity with Israel, an attitude reinforced in these instances by showing only the most nominal concern for the ongoing Palestinian ordeal. One can only wonder what became of the outlook contained in Obama’s much heralded 2009 speech in Cairo that viewed Israel/Palestine in a more balanced way and promised to turn a new page in relations between the United States and the Middle East. It does not require a historian to remind ourselves that Israel wasted little time in mobilizing its lobbying forces to pour scorn on such a revisioning of policy inducing Obama to back down in an awkward and politically costly manner. Perhaps, this ‘reset’ can be justified as a practical move by Obama in the interest of governing, but why now when the tides of political pressure have relented and after so much experience of Netanyahu, does Obama want to be regarded more than ever as Israel’s staunch friend rather than as someone who was so often obstructed by the Israeli leadership?

Such a posture is distressing, in part, because it overlooks the outrageous and undisguised effort by Netanyahu to favor Romney for president in the 2012 American elections and his later belligerent circumvention of White House protocol by speaking directly to the U.S. Congress to register intense opposition to the Iran nuclear deal. If Obama behaves in this craven way, what might we expect from a Clinton presidency? Clinton has already committed her likely forthcoming administration to the absurd goal of raising even higher the level of friendship and solidarity between the two countries higher than it was during the Obama years. She has provided tangible evidence that this pledge is genuine by making gratuitous and unacceptable avowals of intense opposition to the BDS Campaign, and hence of subordinating the constitutional rights of American citizens to the whims of pro-Israeli extremists.

Why are there still Palestinian Refugees?

Initially posted on Richard Falk’s site. In case he deletes here it is:

At least my friend Howard chose to give a proper introduction to the video you guy’s chose to label “propaganda”:
This is so well done and worth the 4 minutes. For those of you who have known this for years, the exact numbers are still very interesting. Please pass this on.

I have always found it amazing that the wealthy Arab countries such as Saudi Arabia will spend billions each year building mosques in Germany (80 this year) and paying the Saudi trained Wahabist/ Salafist/ radical imams of these institutions but will not spend a penny resettling these Palestinian Professional refugees within their own borders. Just look at Jordan whose population is over 80% “Palestinian” and they have never been granted citizenship. OK to work in the Victoria Secret factory in Jordan but not Arab enough to be granted citizenship. Remember that in 1922 Sir Winston Churchill gave Transjordan to the Hashemites to guard Mecca and Medina. However, they were driven out by the Saudis. Chaim Weizmann, the first Israeli President agreed to give 80% of the mandate land of the 1917 Balfour Declaration to the Jordanians in return for a written agreement to take care of the displaced Palestinians. Today Jordan is 83% Palestinian but they are still refugees without citizenship status.

With the recent holiday of Passover, it is important to remember the nefarious Grand Mufti of Jerusalem whose hatred of Jews was the prime incitement of the 1920 Passover riots in Jerusalem where many Jews were slaughtered. On April 4, 1920 during Passover in Jerusalem an Arab mob was whipped into a frenzy in the Nebi Musa mosque east of Jerusalem and for four days terrorized the residents of the old city, killing six Jews and injuring 200 others. The British were aware in advance of the attacks and stood by doing nothing to protect the Jews. Ze’ev Jabotinsky, who organized the defense of the Jewish quarter was arrested by the British and sentenced to a long prison term (but was soon released). This attack in 1920 signaled the beginning of organized Palestinian terror with its epicenter in the mosques. The first such clandestine organization was the Black Hand led by Syrian born Al- Qassam advocating for violent struggle to oust the British and eliminate the Jews, making way for a Greater Syria. Qassam was finally killed by the Brits. However, his example served as a role model… terror under the cloak of religion and recruiting from the lower class. This formula was replicated 60 years later by Hamas ( charter of 1983) to kill in the name of god. His influence was so widespread hence the naming of the infamous rockets which rain down on Israelis to this day (Qassam rockets) and the Al-Qassam Brigades of Hamas.

To appease the Arabs in 1921 Amin Al-Husseini was appointed by the British to the highest Muslim position in the land (the British were financially strapped after WWI) . Churchill was the Colonial Minister at the time for British Mandate Palestine. When the newly appointed Mufti asked Churchill to nullify the 1917 Balfour Declaration advocating the creation of a Jewish state in BM Palestine, Churchill flatly refused, stating that the 3000 years of Jewish presence in Jerusalem and the surrounding area made it logical fro this to be the Jewish homeland. With these words he echoes the declaration of Napoleon Bonaparte who, in 1799, after conquering the region of Acre, stated that the entire should be administered by the Jews, citing their 3000 years of continuous presence in this region. And let us not forget that On June 30, 1922 a joint resolution of both Houses of Congress in Washington DC endorsed a “ mandate for Palestine”, confirming the right of Jews to settle anywhere they choose between the Jordan river and the Mediterranean sea. From the River to the Sea really meant something different back then. This is the core legacy of support which our current president somehow fails to recall but will hopefully be better upheld by the next administration.

Another interesting tidbit….

“ Peace for Israel means security, and we must stand with all our might to protect Israels right to exist, its territorial integrity. I see Israel as one of the greatest outposts of democracy in the world, and a marvelous example of what can be done, how desert land can be transformed into an oasis of brotherhood and democracy. Peace for Israel means security and that security must be a reality. I solemnly pledge to do my utmost to uphold the fair name of the Jews, because bigotry in any form is an affront to us all.”

Martin Luther King…. March 25, 1968 ( a few weeks before he was murdered at the Lorraine Hotel in Memphis)

Howard Novick MD
Lake Placid

Defeating Hamas in America


Activists from US coast to coast robotically parrot the same lies, employ the same tactics of bullying, intimidating and silencing pro-Israel activists and speakers on campus after campus.

To defeat the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign against Israel, it is first necessary to understand it.

The BDS campaign is an extraordinary phenomenon.

Activists from US coast to coast robotically parrot the same lies, employ the same tactics of bullying, intimidating and silencing pro-Israel activists and speakers on campus after campus.

Their goals are uniform. They seek to silence pro-Israel voices in US academia as a means to destroy general public support for Israel in America.

And they seek to make Jew-hatred socially acceptable in elite circles in America for the first time since the Holocaust.

This month it was leftist MK Tzipi Livni’s turn to fall victim to BDS bigotry and defamation. During a public appearance at Harvard Law School, one of the heads of BDS movement at the school, Husam el-Qoulaq, asked her why she is “smelly.”

Qoulaq is the head of Students for Justice in Palestine at Harvard Law School.

SJP is the central engine of the BDS movement.

Its members are the ones who organize the “divest from Israel” resolutions routinely passed by ignorant or intimidated student representatives on college councils.

SJP members are the ones who regularly harass pro-Israel students and riot or otherwise disrupt pro-Israel events on campuses.

They are the ones who willingly and purposely engage in rank anti-Semitic demonization of Jews and Israel to normalize Jew-hatred in America.

Given SJP’s lead role in the campaign against Israel and American Jewry on college campuses, students and Jewish groups trying to combat the racist movement focus their attention on SJP.

But it works out that SJP doesn’t formally exist.

There is no nonprofit group called Students for Justice in Palestine. SJP doesn’t file tax forms. It doesn’t have a paper trail. In other words, SJP is a ghost organization, an illusion.

To bring it down you need to find its controllers.

The Canary Mission ( is a website managed by students and activists. It was formed “to document people and groups that are promoting hatred of the USA, Israel and the Jewish people, particularly on college campuses in North America.”

According to the website, SJP was founded in 2001 by UC Berkeley Prof. Hatem Bazian. Bazian’s organizational pedigree reads like the who’s who of Hamas and Muslim Brotherhood front organizations in America.

Bazian fund-raised for a Hamas front group called KindHearts. In 2008, like a number of other Islamic groups that were found guilty of providing material support for terrorism in the framework of the Holy Land Foundation trial, KindHearts was forced to disband. KindHearts was found to have raised money for Hamas.

Another of Bazian’s former employers, the Islamic Association for Palestine, also disbanded after it was found guilty of funding Hamas.

According to the Canary Mission’s findings, Bazian founded SJP to distance the BDS movement from its Islamic masters. His idea was to brand it as a radical group that could easily collaborate with other radical groups on campus and so turn the radical establishment into an engine for anti-Israel activism.

Although Bazian went to great lengths to brand SJP as a non-Islamic movement, he had no intention of ceding control of the BDS movement to non-Islamic forces. To ensure control over SJP, and through it, the BDS movement as a whole, according to the Canary Mission, Bazian formed American Muslims for Palestine.

On April 19, during a hearing before the US House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee’s Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation and Trade and the Subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa, American Muslims for Palestine’s nature became clear.

Jonathan Schanzer served as a terrorism finance analyst for the Department of the Treasury from 2004 to 2007. He currently works as the vice president for research at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies in Washington. In testimony before the subcommittee, Schanzer revealed that the heads of AMP are alumni of three Islamist groups that were banned following their convictions for terrorism financing during the course of the Holy Land Foundation trial that ended in 2008.

AMP’s leadership held key positions at the Holy Land Foundation, KindHearts and the Islamic Association for Palestine. These groups and their employees transferred millions of dollars to al-Qaida, Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

Although Schanzer could find no indication that AMP is continuing its predecessors’ practice of sending funds to foreign terrorist groups, he demonstrated how the heir of Hamas-USA now direct the BDS movement. Through AMP, they control SJP.

In his words, “AMP is a Chicago-based organization that is a leading driver of the BDS campaign.

AMP is arguably the most important sponsor and organizer for Students for Justice in Palestine, which is the most visible arm of the BDS campaign on campuses in the United States. AMP provides speakers, training, printed materials, a so-called ‘Apartheid Wall,’ and grants to SJP activists.”

Schanzer added, “AMP even has a campus coordinator on staff whose job is to work directly with SJP and other pro-BDS campus groups across the country.”

The reason that SJP activists utilize the same tactics and rhetoric from sea to shining sea is because officials from the heir to disbanded terrorism funding groups tells them what to say and do. Everything from their “Apartheid Walls” and Die-Ins to their posters and slogans and tactic of shutting down pro-Israel events is dictated to them by AMP.

Whereas SJP doesn’t exist at all on paper, AMP’s existence is eyebrow-raising from a legal perspective.

AMP is not registered as a nonprofit so it is impossible to know its funding sources or the size of its donations, because it is not required to publicize them. As Schanzer explained, funds for AMP are raised through yet another organization called Americans for Justice in Palestine Education Foundation, or AJP, whose nature and behavior are also strange.

AJP’s chairman is Bazian. AJP and AMP share the same office in the Chicago suburb of Palos Hill.

Unlike AMP, AJP is a registered nonprofit. In its 2014 990 tax form, attached to Schanzer’s testimony, it reports raising in excess of $3.2 million between 2010 and 2014. But, in apparent breach of the law, AJP did not report how it spent the money or where it received the funds from.

Like AMP, AJP members worked in the past for the Holy Land Foundation, the Islamic Association for Palestine and KindHearts. Indeed, most of them are the same people.

Not only do AMP-AFP fail to divulge their financing sources or outlays, they revel in their practice of operating at the edges of the law. At AMP’s 2014 annual conference in Chicago, participants were invited to “come and navigate the fine line between legal activism and material support for terrorism.”

Given SJP’s raging success, it isn’t a surprise that Bazian isn’t the only one claiming to have founded it. For instance, Senan Shaqdeh claims that he founded SJP. As Schanzer testified, Shaqdeh, who also lives in Chicago, is listed as a terrorist from the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine by the PLO’s Ministry of Expatriate Affairs’ website.

Shaqdeh is also the coordinator of the Chicago- based US Coalition to Boycott Israel. In 2014, Shaqdeh traveled to Ramallah where he met with Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas and PA Prime Minister Rami Hamdallah.

The chairman of the US Coalition to Boycott Israel is Ghassan Barakat. According to Schanzer, Barakat is a PLO consular official in Chicago.

Like SJP, the Coalition is not a legal entity. It is not registered with state or local tax authorities. But given Barakat’s and Shaqdeh’s associations with the PLO and the PA, it is likely that it is funded by the US-funded PA.

Perhaps money from the PLO to SJP and other BDS outlets is transferred through an opaque New York state registered nonprofit called Wespac. Currently, a delegation of Palestinian students, organized by Bir Zeit University, paid for by Wespac and managed by SJP is traveling through the US lobbying students to boycott Israel.

Schanzer’s testimony should lead anti-BDS efforts in three directions. Two of them are legal, and one is political.

On the legal front, AMP and AJP’s commingling is curious, to say the least. Their failure to report the sources of their funding or how the funds are used appear, at a minimum, to be a breach of reporting requirements. These irregularities, along with the fact that officers of these organizations were in the past officers of organizations disbanded due to their provision of material support for terrorism, warrant criminal investigations by both tax authorities and counterterrorism investigators.

Unfortunately, shortly after he entered office in 2009, President Barack Obama’s then-attorney- general Eric Holder ordered the Department of Justice to stop investigating Islamist nonprofit groups. Accordingly, it is highly unlikely that any investigation will be conducted by federal agencies in the near future.

This leaves state, local and congressional authorities.

Since AMP and AJP are registered in Palos Hills, both Illinois tax authorities and law enforcement and Palos Hills authorities can open investigations into their operations. Moreover, Congress, which exposed the fact that both groups appear to be a natural continuation of banned terrorism-supporting organizations, is fully empowered to conduct congressional investigations of their operations, replete with the power to subpoena witnesses.

As for the operations of PLO officials in Chicago, their work is arguably in breach of the laws stipulating the permitted conduct of PLO officials in the US. Congress can investigate their behavior as well, and determine whether or not it constitutes a material breach of the PLO’s permitted actions in America, and so requires the US to cut off its relations with the terrorist group. Certainly the involvement of PA/PLO officials in an anti-Semitic hate campaign is grounds for a cut off of US aid to the PA.

On the political front, it is vital that Israel fight BDS as the most widespread form of Antisemitism in North America. Unlike the situation in Europe, where BDS is largely an economic warfare campaign, in the US its goal is political. Its leaders are not interested in harming the Israeli economy per se. They are interested in cultivating anti-Semitism and hatred of Israel to pave the way for economic warfare and actual war against Israel.

Government ministers involved with the fight against BDS need to provide anti-BDS activists with information about SJP’s links to Hamas and with the PA. American Jewish organizations and activists need to call out college administrators when they say since they refuse to carry out divestment resolutions that they oppose BDS, even as they allow SJP to operate on their campuses and even fund the Hamas front group directly.

Schanzer’s testimony makes clear that the BDS movement is part and parcel of the jihadist war against Israel whose goal is its annihilation.

Both legally and politically, it needs to be fought accordingly.