Why uncensored?

There is nothing worse then the so called intellectuals using both the power of the pen as well as the eraser at the same time.

It’s one thing to erase one’s own comments it’s quite another to erase someone else’s just because you disagree with his opinion.

In this blog I will only censor hate and personal attacks. Not opinion.

27 thoughts on “Why uncensored?

  1. Aaron, I am by far the worst speller and grammarian, but I do note that under your Why uncensored? you have a typo on line one, fifth word ” the”. I only point this out because your were kind enough to point out to me, months ago, that my spelling of the word ” Israel ” was in error. I also appreciate how carefully you seem to research some of your posts as they appear on Richards blog. I don’t always agree with everything you say, but I believe you only say what you do in the firm belief that you have carefully researched the subject matter.

    Must I now go to both your posts as well as Richard’s or will I expect to find everything here which appears on Richard’s?



    • Mea Culpa.
      The truth is I actually caught this before however my “edit” of “then the” never got saved.

      It’s fixed now….thanks

      With regard to visiting my posts, let me assure you that I will never delete or edit any posts if I don’t agree with your opinion.

      Falk is so weak, he has to resort to his editing in order to gain brownie points in his failed narrative.
      I promise not to delete or edit, even if my narrative fails.
      I want the facts to speak for themselves.


  2. Aaron

    May I make a few suggestions.

    First, you ought to consult with someone who understands search engines to find the best way to make sure that your site will come up near the top when someone googles “falk” or “richard falk”

    Second, I think you should reproduce Falk’s blog entries and the comments on his page and then invite further “uncensored” comments on your page.

    To make this effective you might also have to post some innocuous comment (to avoid censorship) on his page with a link to your page saying something like “For further discussion, see …” (if he’ll let you),

    All the best



  3. I applaud Aaron for creating this blog, although I’m far from certain that it’s necessary, or even a good idea. These two caveats are inter-related.

    Falk’s blog is exceedingly small potatoes. It used to publish the number of “subscribers” but has now switched to listing “followers”, which indicates the total number of hits (11,294) over a given period. That statistic jibes with the double-digit number of readers posting comments, and the single-digit number who post with any regularity. None of the names is recognizable outside the small circle of devotees, and few if any have anything reasonable to say. The blog is not referenced in the mainstream press and media unless Falk does or says something downright offensive. If the purpose of falkuncensored is to counter the impact of Falk’s views on influentials, we can find better things to do with our time. There is little or no impact.

    Which brings me to my second caveat: are there unintended negative consequences to falkuncensored? What Falk wants most is attention. Over the course of a long career in academic and public life, he has acquired a Jekyll and Hyde reputation. The Jekyll part is decades of occupying a named chair at a prestigious law school, during which time he trained many students who have gone on to become leading lawyers, judges and legal scholars; wrote numerous scholarly books and articles; and earned international renown as a brilliant and fair-minded educator. It must also be noted that as a political activist, he’s been on the right side of issues such as climate control and South African apartheid.

    The Mr. Hyde segment of his persona is reflected in the recklessness of his views on a list of enemies headed by the United States government and Israel, as well as a fondness for the enemies of his enemies, such as Hamas. Some examples: In 1979, he wrote an op ed assuring the American people that they had nothing to fear from Ayatollah Khomeini. Several months later, Khomeini’s people invaded the U.S. embassy in Teheran. He wrote the introduction and a book jacket endorsement for what is often characterized as the “Bible of 9/11 Deniers” (who allege that it was a black flag operation engineered by the CIA.) In 2007, he wrote an op ed entitled “Slouching Toward a Palestinian Holocaust” in which he compared Israelis with Nazis (a charge he repeated to a Russian television reporter several years later.)

    The transparency and ruthlessness of his prejudices have been denounced by UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon and ranking diplomatic officials of the United States, England and Canada. He stands today on the outer margins of the academic community and the larger world outside. His access to the UN’s bully pulpit ended when his term as Special Rapporteur expired, and when his effort to have his wife succeed him failed. His material is published only by a handful of small-readership platforms, many of them part of the Electronic Intifada; and by
    the English language edition of Al Jazeera. Nobody in the mainstream will touch him.

    To overcome his isolation, Falk’s children gifted him with a blog to celebrate his 80th birthday so that he would have a safe haven from which to voice his views without having to deal with criticism. But things have not gone according to plan. A blog is not private space unless it’s password protected, a format Falk refuses to adopt because it keeps him locked into his tight little world. The consequences for him have been catastrophic. Several years ago, he kicked up a firestorm of condemnation by publishing an anti-Semitic cartoon (which he claimed was not anti-Semitic until forced to dissemble by claiming that he hadn’t noticed it was anti-Semitic.) And when he wrote a blog post blaming Israel for the Boston Marathon bombing, his friends at Human Rights Watch voted to expel him from the organization’s board, despite its history of subjecting Israel to sharp criticism.

    To make matters worse for him, the blog has attracted a small cadre of well-informed dissenters whose effectiveness stands in stark contrast to the embarrassing ineffectiveness of the equally small group of his supporters who hurl insults but not much more. So Falk, the eloquent advocate of free speech, has resorted to censorship, keeping a heavy finger on the delete button to banish anyone who does not embrace his views. This could be the beginning of the end for the blog. Fred Skolnik may be right when he predicts that after banishing dissenters, Falk will be left with a shopworn handful of Blog Faithful who will produce nothing worthwhile, or even mildly interesting, and eventually dissolve.

    Do we want to impede this much-desired process? A blog created specifically to counter another blog inevitably gives some measure of credibility to its target. Falk understands this. He recently posted wishes for the new blog’s success because it will increase his blog’s visibility. Do we want that? What Falk wants and needs more than anything else is attention. Do we want to give that to him? It’s something to consider.

    Meanwhile, as long as falkuncensored exists, I hope it’s OK for me, and others, may use it as a fact checker to expose some of the nonsense that passes as fact on Falk’s blog.

    To close where I began: many thanks to you, Aaron, for taking this initiative. It will be interesting to see what happens.

    Ira Youdovin


    • Ira

      Your comments are correct. This is Aaron’s blog, but I would like to follow up on your earlier recommendation that we try to turn it into something more positive. Thus my prior 3 suggestions of ways to defuse some of the tensions in the Israeli/Palestinian arena.

      To retain a ” just responding to Falk’s nonsense” limits dialogue. It also plays into his plans ( as you indicate): making this dialogue all about him. Not very inspiring.

      I will have to learn how to navigate thru this blog so I get it right.



    • Ira shalom

      What you say makes sense. Since Falk has called a moratorium on the subject of Israel till the end of April (though I don’t know if this still applies after he banished us), the process of attrition in the comments section is sure to set in. Look now for a few choice words from him about the Brussels attack, with the West as the culprit and maybe something from rehmet or Schulman about Israel’s part in it. When he gets back to Israel the question of whether to quote the outrageous or malicious remarks and respond to them will again be actual. If we do respond, either our comments will be ignored or responded to on Falk’ blog instead of Aaron’s as no one over there will wish to legitimize Aaron’s blog. If our comments are ignored the question of whether they are worthwhile making depends on how many outside readers we get. If few or none, then the enterprise really will be a waste of time. If the Falk crowd responds on Falk’ blog, then we will truly be having an uncensored dialogue but the questin will remain how many outside readers are attracted to Aaron’s blog for our side of the story. All this for everyone’s consideration..


      • Fred, Ira, Aaron

        Fred, the use of Aaron’s blog only to counter what is on Richards blog, with no posting on Richards; and with those on Richards blog using only his, sounds very cumbersome to me. No ears, only voices. No dialogue ( your point). And it is still all about Richard. Waste of time if Aaron’s blog is not expanded to some additional use.

        If you find that Richards lemmings respond on Aaron’s blog, we are back to where we started; just without Richards censorship. I realize that this is what Aaron intended, but does this really move anyone anywhere? We will be “same old, same old”.

        The three of you greatly increase my knowledge on these issues, and for that, I am most grateful. But Richards lemmings are deaf to everything except their own voices. On additional reflection, the increase in my knowledge is most helpful, so I guess Aaron’s blog is more likely to be all about me than Richard. That works ( for me).

        Perhaps Aaron can help us with this.



        • Actually not completely correct. Yes it was Falk’s actions on his blog that motivated me. However, the intent as stated in my first opening statement has to do with a complete open forum where my biases (and there are) will not stop me from allowing dissent and opinion. Even if Falk wants to comment I will not do to him what he does to others.

          Note, I’ve created a website to this blog so all you have to type is “Falkuncensored.com” without the “WordPress” before it.

          Regards to all


    • Ira,

      You state: “If the purpose of falkuncensored is to counter the impact of Falk’s views on influentials, we can find better things to do with our time. There is little or no impact.”

      You don’t get the point. Nowhere have I ever said the intent was to counter Falk. He’s welcome to his opinion. Even on my blog.
      The purpose of the name of this blog is to remind myself and others that freedom of opinion is the goal. If you recall, the BSR’s main goal (just listen to Dershowitz vs BDS on YouTube) is to shout you down, shut you out, prevent you to say what you want, shame professors, intimidate students etc. This is what Falk does with his pen. And believe me he’s not alone.
      Well my pen will only redact or delete what I stated from the outset, which is almost nothing.
      And on a closing note to your gracious statement of gratitude to me let it be known that there is a lot I disagree with you as well. But you are welcome to argue even a “gishrai” if you want. Just be polite!!

      Hag Purim Samaech


  4. Ira,

    Your comments are correct. This is, in part, why I followed your suggestion of trying to do something positive by going beyond the “stuff” found on Richards blog: commencing a discussion on what actions Isreal, and others, could engage in to help “defuse” some of the angst in the WB. I offered 3 initial suggestions. Poor as they may seem, at least trying to get a conversation started.

    We all recognize that this is Aaron’s blog, so the formate is his to dictate. Earlier, I left him an email asking him what he might like to see regarding a positive thrust to his blog, rather than just bifurcating what was going on in Richards. Aaron is currently occupied and promises to contact me in a short while.

    I hope that Fred monitors this blog so that we can get the benefit of his fine mind.

    Who knows what this blog may morph into? It will be interesting to watch.




      • Aaron,

        My head is already ” light”. My snowblower is not strong enough to cut thru 16 inches of wet snow, so I just spent 3 hours hand digging us out while my wife kept me well supplied with hot chocolate. Haman should have had such a job!

        Hag Samaech!


  5. Aaron, Fred, Ira and whoever else is now viewing this blog:

    Professor Falk is at it again, but this time not pointedly against Isreal. He seems to have as his target the entirety of western civilization. His latest utterance is, as usual, wordy ( a character trait I also suffer from), as he tries to devine the cause of the recent attack against Belgium. What is missing from his thought process is that which is fundamental to all discussions regarding the extremist Islamic views. He makes the FATAL MISTAKE of assuming that a political solution is possible, or that politics is even involved. It is not. There will be no ” …restoration of….normatively acceptable political order…that renounce all forms of terror…”

    ISIS, Hamas and other extremists have told us, and continue to tell us, that the confrontation is not a clash of political systems (see comments below on the extremist Islamic views), but a clash of religions/ civilizations. It is a war of religions/civilizations, now renewed. It is in the Charter of Hamas; in the foundation of the Muslim Brotherhood and the Quo’ran ( as is set forth by the writings of Sayyid Qut’b ); in the words of the leaders of Hizbollah, and Iranian leadership. Many seem not to be listening, including the EU and similar organizations which mouth the words of political correctness. They are among the Legion of the Deaf. The speech of the Islamic extremist goes far beyond vilifying the tiny nation of Israel or the 1/500 th of humanity which calls itself Jews. It is anti- Christian and anti- every other religion which does not follow its particular brand of Islam.

    The extremism we see is based on a religious thought process which does include a political element.
    The Quo’ran, itself, contains elements of political thought, as do other religious tracts including the Torah, etc. But what was acceptable in 2500 BC, or 325 AD, or 632 AD is not necessarily how we would like to see politics practiced today. Extremist Islam combines both politics and religion. When King Salman, of Saudi Arabia, recently said that his country would be governed by the Quo’ran, he meant that 7 th century politics governing civil society would continue to be the rule. ISIS tells us that the same basic rules will be, and apparently are, that which governs their Caliphate. Sayyid Qut’b explained it all very carefully in his “In The Shade Of The Quo’ran”. Please recall that his thought process was, and likely still remains, the fundamentals behind all organizations based on the Muslim Brotherhood. This is generally what is taught, world wide, through the Madrasses funded by the Saudi’s to the tune of billions of dollars each year.

    Simply put, Qut’b said that all Western thought must be rejected; nothing really worthwhile ever came from the west; democracy is an anathema to Islam ; the Quo’ran contains everything that is needed by way of rules governing civil society and anyone saying anything to the contrary is not to be allowed in Islam.

    This situation certainly makes life difficult for a western oriented person. Those Muslims who would love to distance themselves from this religious theology are going to have a bitter road to follow. In fact, they must be in the forefront, as western leaders have pointed out. They must do far more than what they have done so far. They must speak out loudly, whether the victim of Islamic extremism is another Muslim, Christian, Jew or anyone else, no matter where the vile act is perpetrated. Thus far, those moderate Muslims have failed. The rest of the world must not allow them to remain in the shadows. If they choose to so remain, their fate is likely to become part of what we call ” collateral damage”.


      • To which I just commented to him but will probably get deleted also:

        “Did you know incest is not only a sin but it also works against natural selection?

        If you keep this up too much longer Richard, you are liable to spawn a mutant shortly that will shock even your expectations.

        Your lack of opinion diversity is no different then all the “rapporteurs” of that fakestinian place.”


  6. Harvey

    You are absolutely right that religion is the moving force in radical Islam. Political circumstances are only an operative factor. Resentment of the West for past or present sins only fuels the basic hostility; it does not create it.

    Fighting radical Islam can only mean fighting it militarily. If the West, including the United Stares, were to close up shop and leave the Muslim world to its own devices, it may well be that there would be no bombings in Western cities but there would be horrendous civil war throughout the Middle East until radical Islam prevailed, and then the turn of the West would come.

    As for Prof. Falk, the only way he can bring himself to condemn terrorism is by blaming the West, the United States or Israel for its existence. There is nothing rational or scholarly in his reading of events. I have always maintained that the kind of hostility to the West displayed by the Left has more to do with pathology than with ideology, namely, a deep-seated resentment of any form of authority necessarily going all the way back to childhood. But the world certainly needs a policeman. The natural candidate would be the United Nations, but unfortunately all too many of its members are criminals themselves. This leaves the United States, by default, but to be a policeman it will have to learn how to use the tools of the trade.


    • Fred,

      Your assessment is, as usual, dead on. The only thing the extremist will ever understand is an opposition which is willing to go with it, “toe to toe”. Like a typical bully, the extremist resorts to intimidation, brutality and an uncompromising attitude. None of these traits can be countered with the use of gentle words, or acts, which would appear to be a form of appeasement. Only the use of power will get their attention. Our Special Forces has just given the extremist another sample of the “reach” of American military power. But underusing overwhelming military power is not enough. America learned this in Vietnam. The use of a war machine must be very convincing.

      The above being said, in any war between civilizations/religions, there are additional factors which must be taken into account. The factors are many. One is the messianic drive of the Islamist and their actually seeking death/paradise. This type of war expresses itself with the end goal of not just subduing your opponent, but with the death of each and every one of them, either physically or by conversion. In essence, the battle of Kaybar: there can be no surrender without there first being a massacre. This is clearly stated in the Quo’ran.

      The only practical way of defeating the Islamic extremist is to cut off his ability to obtain new recruits. We all recognize this. In this sense, it is not just Richard, but many others who tell us that the lives of the average Muslim must hold out hope for a better future. Richard tends to blame the West for this lack of hope. The better reasoned view, in my opinion, is that the bulk of the blame for a lack of hope lies within the bosom of Islam, itself.

      The more enlighten Muslim recognizes that it is Islam which must be reformed and thus brought into the 21st century. Until this reformation takes place, and until the Muslim manipulators of the various Muslim countries change their ways of “doing business”, the Islamic extremist will find nothing but a road “wide open” on which to drive.

      Most people function based upon self interest. Muslims are no different. If there is enough to loose, most Muslims will reject the Quo’ranic verses which call for expending all of ones property, and even one’s life, in the defense of any perceived slight to their religion. But there must be hope of a better life. This is why I wanted to follow Ira’s lead in trying to see if there is “something” which could be done to change the dynamic, vis a vie the WB and Gaza, at little or no real risk to Israel. I recognize that Israel is just one “raindrop” in the middle of the Islamic typhoon, but perhaps it could constitute a change of direction. Short of a change (which I recognize is undoubtedly very wishful thinking), all I can see in the future is another Kaybar ( which our side must and will win) and lots of collateral damage.



  7. Fred,

    Was it you who wondered how long it would take before Israel got blamed for the Brussels attack? Not very long. According to the Honest Reporting website, MEMRI reported that Muwaffaq Martar of the PA Daily, Al-Hayat Al-Jadid, blamed Israel for both the Brussels and the French attacks.

    Weirdness personified.



  8. Fred, Ira, Aaron and others,

    Please take a look at http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/7716/methodist-conference-israel-bds, dated 03/29/16. About 3 or 4 screens down, the author, Susan Warner, makes the very same recommendations Ira and I were discussing a couple of weeks ago while on Richards blog. NGO’s could take positive actions rather than negative ones; a water project would be a good start; etc. Seems that this approach should be one which should get “pressed”. A win-win if folks got their heads screwed on straight.

    The rest of the article is an excellent outline for a “push back” on the concept that the land is “occupied”.

    Richards folks will probably never see any of this. I never intend to post on his blog.



    • Fred,

      I appreciate your citation. I am generally familiar with the subject matter of this article. That is why one of my recommendatios was “water”. The specific info regarding the surrounding countries is new to me. My point is: get the NGOs and/or EU on board with a specific plan and confront the PA with it. Let the local population know of such a proposal. Would the PA or Hamas be in a position to reject it without creating a major problem with their civilian population?

      The article cited by you is replete with projects which would be benign to Isreal, and very helpful to the civilian populations of the WB and Gaza. If Isreal would propose one or more of them and offer to help with technology and ” on site expertise ” , perhaps one of the many barriers to peace might fall.

      The best project(s) for Israel is likely the sewage issue.

      And yes, I am familiar with the thought process that there is absolutely nothing Israel will ever be able to do to change the mind set of those who hate her. But there are others who don’t hate her and such a project being recommended should validate with the “non hater” that Israel is not the evil entity its detractors contend she is.

      As to a future major water problem, I would keep an eye on Egypt and her southern neighbors. The dams proposed by the southern neighbors are a ticking bomb for Egypt.



Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google+ photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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


Connecting to %s