Razan al-Najjar Murdered By Apartheid Israel. Again.

By Jerry Alatalo

“Truth is not only violated by falsehood; it may be outraged by silence.”

– HENRI FREDERIC AMIEL (1821-1881) Swiss philosopher

Razan al-Najjar

alestinian paramedic Razan al-Najjar was 21-years old on June 1 when she was struck and killed by Israeli sniper fire in Gaza. She was giving emergency medical assistance/treatment to fellow Palestinian victims of Israeli gunfire at the moment of her death. Close to 120 Palestinians have lost their lives while 10,000 have suffered injuries, nearly all as the result of Israeli military snipers’ bullets.

Her murder sparked worldwide outrage and condemnation, adding to intensifying criticism of the Israeli government headed by Benjamin Netanyahu, as well as the Donald Trump administration in the United States for its disappointing failure to respond in an appropriate moral manner.

The Israeli defense authorities added insult to the fatal injury inflicted on Razan al-Najjar by quickly producing and publishing a video which took an interview given by Ms. al-Najjar and edited it, taking and displaying her words out of proper context, for the objectionable purpose of manipulating public opinion in apartheid Israel’s favor.

From a philosophical or spiritual perspective, one might rightly assert that Israeli defense authorities murdered Razan al-Najjar twice – once while living on Earth in Gaza and again after she passed away and left this physical world.

It is very difficult to imagine what drives the minds of those who would intentionally lower their moral standards to such an extreme, grotesque extent, and equally difficult to discern what allows others – namely those men and women serving under U.S. President Donald Trump – to stand by, turn away and remain silent in the face of Israel’s profoundly disturbing, immoral, propagandistic actions.

Whether one is atheistic, agnostic or believer in a variantly conceptualized higher spiritual power, the circumstances surrounding the brutal murder of benevolent Palestinian soul Razan al-Najjar – and Israel’s despicable, intentional attempt to achieve a covertly engineered propaganda “victory” afterward – meet any generally recognized human definitions of sin.

In loving memory of Razan al-Najjar (1997-2018)


(Thank you to RT America – YouTube)


39 thoughts on “Razan al-Najjar Murdered By Apartheid Israel. Again.

  1. Reblogged this on ~Burning Woman~ and commented:
    It’s Sunday morning here, in Williams Lake. A quiet morning in which, for a moment, to hide from the world at large. Then this post came into my email and I wanted to step outside and scream! I wanted to cry invectives against all of Earth’s so-called humanity for not caring; for not reacting; worse, for supporting such murderous activities and justifying them. Forgive my bile, this makes me sick at heart.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Thanks for ruining my peaceful Sunday morning Jerry… I mean that sincerely and compassionately. I don’t do news therefore I rely on you and others like yourself to provide me with such information. This sort of news makes me sick at heart but it isn’t a debilitating sickness, it is a raspy sharpening of a growing awareness: what it really  means to live on this world, at this time. What it means to grow into feeling the pain of such a twisted world through empathetic sorrow.

    I grieve deeply for Palestine; for the Palestinian people; for those who remain to provide fodder for sadistic Zionists, but I rejoice for Razan who is now free of the horror she had already endured. Yes, death is often the way out, but it is never an end. She will live, and she will shine… yet. A martyr, not a victim, as so many have been made by Apartheid Zionism, and taking the opportunity here to also mention another martyr of Zionism, Rachel Corrie. (https://desertpeace.wordpress.com/2008/03/16/rachel-corrie-remembered-with-love/)

    The list of martyrs from Zionism in Palestine is long, and growing longer. When will the world wake up to this spreading horror? When?

    Liked by 2 people

        1. Shera,

          Here’s your comment in English:

          The horrors of an endless war between two peoples who DO NOT want to find solutions.

          Why never?



          The issue has for decades always been about the illegal stealing of Palestinians’ land, extensive violence used to carry out the thefts, and the building of many thousands of settlements for strictly Israeli occupants. People who have studied the Israel-Palestine issue are well aware of historical maps showing the loss of Palestinian lands across the years from 1948 to 2018, along with apartheid-creating laws which have resulted in the most severe discrimination against the Palestinian people and loss of fundamental human and democratic rights.

          Thank you.

          Liked by 1 person

            1. Shera,

              Those in power in Israel wish to maintain the status-quo of apartheid instead of agreeing to a one-state option where true democracy is established, because doing so would result in the white Israeli racist group’s loss of political power, and the end of lands theft and settlement expansions. Imagine what the situation in the Middle East would look like were the elected leader of Israel a Palestinian. It’s likely in such a scenario U.S. military activity would greatly diminish, war in the Middle East would start coming to an end, Israel’s nuclear weapons would be abolished, the monarchies of Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait, etc. would become transformed through democratic revolutions, and the entire region changed for the better.

              Some feel the two-state solution has become an impossibility, while others hold two states is the only fair option to pursue. Either way or option, there is no possibility for mutually agreeable, successful-results negotiations until Israelis accept (what they stubbornly refuse to) the necessity for major compromise on their part. It’s about power and control.

              Liked by 1 person

    1. Aaron,

      Hello. Perhaps for the benefit of readers and peace efforts in Israel-Palestine you could fully elaborate on the meaning behind the reference that Razan al-Najjar “got what was coming to her”?

      Thank you.

      Liked by 2 people

            1. Aaron,

              If you have confidence in your position or perception of events there should be no need for anything but your own thoughts, so we would prefer only your writings. Short verifiable quotes from others in support of your argument would be acceptable, if you wish.

              Thank you.

              Liked by 2 people

            2. It’s typical of obedient, ignorant automatons who dogmatically accept religious doctrine to use the words of others as a cowardly way of hiding an inability to think for themselves or express an original idea. This person, Falk-Uncensored, is a pathetic hater who nonetheless deserves to exercise free speech accorded to all.


        1. rawgod

          Yup, she volunteered to be a shield. Yup, every 21 year-old woman’s dream. Since you believe everything you read and hear, why don’t you believe most of the world when they say that was fake news. You make me sick.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. Exactly rawgod.

            (Edited by Jerry: Aaron’s response was seven words “Exactly rawgod. Try this on for size: (link to YT video)”. Aaron’s response to rawgod included an edited YouTube video (which we edited out) similar to the post-murder propaganda video made by the IDF of Razan al-Najjar. Aaron, please articulate your position as suggested earlier (without links), including others’ verified quotes.)


            1. rawgod

              All I did was ask questions, if I remember correctly. But I do not believe everything I see, hear, or read just because I see, hear, or read it. First I put it to the test to see if it is believable. The assertion that she wanted to be a shield is not believable. Who or what would she be shielding, and who or what would she be shielding something from. Shielding one asshole from another asshole? Not believable.


              1. rawgod,

                We’ll assume the role of referee in any further back-and-forth between yourself and Aaron (Falk-Uncensored). Of course, it would be beneficial if comments during the discussion were more than 8-10 words in duration (“drive-by” commentary, similar to drive-by shootings), especially when considering the seriousness and magnitude of the issue.


                1. rawgod

                  My apologize, Jerry, I was not trying to make any kind of political point. I just thought Falk-Uncensored was asserting a ridiculous, totally inhuman and inhumane, proposition. I could have shut my mouth and passed it on by, but that is the coward’s way out. I believe in standing up for humanity, actually for all living beings, when I come across those who spout untruths, and then rely on others to prove their points. Falk-Uncensored could not go uncensured.


                  1. rawgod,

                    No apology is necessary. Thank you for sharing your honest views. We wait for an (un-linked to propaganda video) intelligent response from Falk-Uncensored … 🙂


                    1. I guess that now that you pulled a typical Falk censor maneuver you are no different then him!!!

                      That’s why you guys always crash when it comes to arguing on the merits. You parrot lies that sound convincing and you drown out all critical debate.

                      Way to go.


                    2. Aaron,

                      We have great respect for former professor of international law Richard Falk, co-author with fellow law Professor Virginia Tilley of the Israel Apartheid Report, which was posted then removed from the website of the United Nations. You’ll likely recall, Aaron, this is the report we respectfully asked you 3 times to refute (which you could not) by using actual text examples from the document – you know, “arguing on the merits” … “critical debate”, and such …

                      Liked by 1 person

    1. rawgod

      Dear Rosaline,
      Here is a poem I wrote in about 1975. perhaps you will enjoy it:
      When civilization
      to the end of its tether
      and SNAPS!
      the leather

      is our

      Liked by 2 people

  3. Is this commentary long enough?
    I will comment separately about Razan al Najjar


    Kuwaiti Columnist: ‘Great Return March,’ Organized By ‘Terroristic’ Hamas, Is Provocative And Violates The Islamic Shari’a

    In a March 31, 2018 article in the Kuwaiti government daily Al-Watan, columnist ‘Abdallah Al-Hadlaq harshly criticized the Hamas-led “Great Return March” initiative, stating that protests of this sort lead to chaos and are not accepted in Islam. Calling Hamas “terrorist” and “allied with Iran,” he accused it of using women and children as human shields and described the marches as “provocative.” He warned that the protests are likely to get out of hand and provoke violence by the Israeli Defense Forces, and that, like previous Palestinian protests, they will generate no international sympathy for the Palestinian cause. He also called U.S. President Trump’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and move the U.S. embassy there “courageous and correct.”

    This is not the first time Al-Hadlaq has castigated Hamas and Iran and praised Israel. In the past he was included on a “blacklist” of Arab writers who support Israel and oppose Hizbullah, Hamas and Iran.

    It should be noted that his March 31 article has been removed from Al-Watan’s website. The following are translated excerpts from it:

    The article as it appeared on the Al-Watan website:

    “Demonstrations and sit-ins are un-Islamic and are unknown in Muslim history. These are non-Muslim methods that Islam does not accept. Violent demonstrations and sit-ins are negative phenomena that lead to chaos. All this [is based on] religious rulings by qualified fatwa-issuing bodies, and they apply to the calls issued by the terrorist Hamas movement, Iran’s ally, to participate in a violent demonstration titled ‘the Great Return March’ and its call for women and children to lead the terrorists and inciters in breaching the Israeli border fence…

    “Despite the organizers’ promise to control the marches and demonstrations and keep them non-violent so as not to give the IDF an excuse to use force, [we can assume,] given the violent and aggressive character of the terrorist, pro-Iranian Hamas movement, and its habit of using civilians, [including] women and children, as human shields, [that] these demonstrations and marches will surely turn into violence, destruction and chaos, and will not manage to generate international sympathy for the ‘Palestinians’ or any support for what they call their rights, especially the ‘right of return.’

    “The terrorist Palestinian factions decided to organize marches and demonstrations they call ‘The Great Return March’ near the Gaza-Israel border on the 42nd anniversary of the so-called Land Day. The organizers of these provocative marches and demonstrations began to level [the ground] along the border in order to set up a permanent protest-camp for the demonstrators. The IDF will surely not allow the rabble to cross the security fence [between Israel and] the Gaza Strip, and will handle the events from the perspective of Israel’s might and national security. Accordingly, the IDF is making the necessary preparations and bringing in the reinforcements necessary to handle any possible development.

    “The Palestinians’ previous thuggish and violent marches and protests did not succeed, did not yield international solidarity with the Palestinians, and did not help [improve] the internal [Palestinian] situation by directing the Palestinian anger towards Israel… Israel’s concern is that these marches may target [its territory], leading to escalation [of the violence] and to the launching of a larger and more violent operation on May 15, when America’s ‘Deal of the Century’ [is to be revealed] and its decision to move its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem [is to be implemented].

    “The IDF may use protest-dispersal means, such as airdropping flyers, shooting in the air and shooting tear-gas canisters in order to keep the marchers from reaching the border zone. The use of force by the IDF cannot be ruled out if [the protesters] try to closely approach the Israel-Gaza border, and then every kind of response may ensue.

    “Any Palestinian proposal is doomed to fail, after President Trump took the courageous and correct decision to declare Jerusalem the capital of Israel and to transfer of the U.S. embassy there, and announced the Deal of the Century, to end the eternal conflict between the state of Israel and the unceasing Palestinian stubbornness… [He did this] because Israel-U.S. relations are strategic and have cultural depth, so the U.S. will never conceivably give up [its support for] Israel, which is its foremost ally. The occasional disagreements between them are short-lived and confined to specific opinions and views. Israel serves the broad American plan, and the disagreements between them are negligible.

    “Since December 6, 2017, when President Trump declared Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and launched [the process of] moving the U.S. Embassy there, the Palestinian protests have remained very minor, and, according to current assessments, are dwindling to nothing. The Palestinian Authority called for protests, but it does not want violent protests. Hamas, on the other hand, tried to exploit this call [for protests] to spark a third intifada, but its efforts were in vain.”

    However, the Palestinian authority in Ramalla continues to subsidize the terror industry to the tune of hundreds of millions per year. The irony is that they are considered the “peacemakers”. Wow!!


    1. “Columnist” Mr. Al-Hadlaq seems oblivious to the cause of the Palestinian people, glaringly obvious in his writing by the total absence of mention as to why Palestinians are protesting in the 1st place. It’s possible Mr. Al-Hadlaq doesn’t hail from the non-democratic monarchy state of Kuwait, but actually resides in Israel, or is (like many in the U.S. Congress) a dual citizen. The pro-Israel bias in his article is overwhelming, and suggests this “journalist” is really a propaganda practitioner hoping to stave off the overthrow of the royals in Kuwait, and likely well-compensated by said royals for his efforts.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Perhaps he is actually more aware of the facts then you are?
        No he is not Israeli nor a dual citizen.

        Since you brought up the subject I will cite a list of Arabs and Muslims who agree with him and who would find your original article incitement full of false statements, all refutable.

        Some Muslim clerics, such as Sheikh Prof. Abdul Hadi Palazzi, Director of the Cultural Institute of the Italian Islamic Community, (was actually a guest in my home 8 years ago) and Imam Dr Muhammad Al-Hussaini believe that the return of the Jews to the Holy Land, and the establishment of Israel, are in accordance with teachings of Islam.
        Some Muslim supporters of Israel consider themselves Muslim Zionists.
        Notable people with a Muslim background who publicly support Zionism include ex-Muslim Nemat Sadat, former radical Islamist Ed Husain, Dr. Tawfik Hamid, Tashbih Sayyed, a Pakistani-American scholar, journalist, and author, and the journalist Salah Choudhury.
        Additional Muslim people who voiced public support for Israel included figures such as Irshad Manji (a very active gay activist who I hosted at a fundraiser 5 years ago), Salim Mansur, Abdurrahman Wahid, Mithal al-Alusi, Kasim Hafeez, Abdullah Saad Al-Hadlaq, Zuhdi Jasser, Khaleel Mohammed, Nadiya Al-Noor, Noor Dahri and Farooq Haider Khan.

        In the Muslim world, support of Israel is a minority orientation, and supporters of Israel have faced opposition and violence.

        Notable Muslim supporters of Israel include Dr. Tawfik Hamid a former self-described member of a terror organization and current Islamic thinker and reformer, Tashbih Sayyed – a Muslim Pakistani-American scholar, journalist, author, and self-described Muslim Zionist, Prof. Khaleel Mohammed, Islamic Law scholar of the San Diego State University and Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury, a Bangladeshi journalist and publisher, and a self-proclaimed Muslim Zionist.

        This is just a few of hundreds of citations available online to show that your depiction of Muslim and Arab attitudes towards Israel are not homogeneous. Anyone who is prepared to open their eyes and allow the truth to infiltrate instead of the thousands of lies that circulate the fake news world you seem to believe in.

        Razan al Najjar was already an activist and swore to devote herself to martyrdom before going out on her mission (no, not from an edited video. I saw her original Facebook postings before it was replaced!). Furthermore, even Hamas admitted that most of those killed and injured were combatants intent on creating diversions while others tried to penetrate the border fence and fire sniper shots at the Israeli soldiers. Others sent mortars while others sent Molotov cocktails. An average of 12 missiles are shot at Israel every night. Thousands of dunams of agricultural land and forests have been destroyed by Palestinian fires.

        You stated: “..glaringly obvious in his writing by the total absence of mention as to why Palestinians are protesting in the 1st place.”

        I ask that you list in a simple list i.e.: 1,2,3,4 etc each point of “protest” and I will either agree with you or refute the evidence depending on what you right. I also guarantee to back up each of my refutations.

        Best regards


        1. Aaron,

          Apparently the Palestinian people engaged in non-violent protests in recent weeks, where 135 were shot dead and many thousands sustained injuries minor to life-altering, for no reason whatsoever … What are the casualty figures for Israels, how many Israelis were killed and how many injured, by comparison Aaron?

          Seeing you are evading the issue of the Falk-Tilley Israel Apartheid Report, we would offer you (again) the opportunity to refute any of the specific language of that report here and now.


          1. I will cite some of the data I have been able to glean online.

            1. Jacques De Maio, head of the International Committee of the Red Cross, rejected the claim that there is apartheid in Israel, saying there is “no regime of superiority of race, of denial of basic human rights to a group of people because of their alleged racial inferiority. There is a bloody national conflict, whose most prominent and tragic characteristic is its continuation over the years, decades-long, and there is a state of occupation. Not apartheid.

            2. South African Judge Richard Goldstone, writing in The New York Times in October 2011, said that while there exists a degree of separation between Israeli Jews and Arabs, “in Israel, there is no apartheid. Nothing there comes close to the definition of apartheid under the 1998 Rome Statute”. Concerning the West Bank, Goldstone wrote that the situation “is more complex. But here too there is no intent to maintain ‘an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group’.” Goldstone also wrote in The New York Times, “the charge that Israel is an apartheid state is a false and malicious one that precludes, rather than promotes, peace and harmony.”

            3. Ian Buruma has argued that even though there is social discrimination against Arabs in Israel and that “the ideal of a Jewish state smacks of racism”, the analogy is “intellectually lazy, morally questionable and possibly even mendacious”. Buruma argued that Arabs make up 20% of the Israeli population, and “enjoy full citizen’s rights” adding that there is no apartheid within the national territory of the State of Israel.

            Fifty-three faculty members from Stanford University signed a letter expressing the view that “the State of Israel has nothing in common with apartheid” within its national territory. They argued that Israel is a liberal democracy in which Arab citizens of Israel enjoy civil, religious, social, and political equality. They said that likening Israel to apartheid South Africa was a “smear” and part of a campaign of “malicious propaganda”.

            4. Land

            There has been a steady extension of Israeli Arab rights to lease or purchase land formerly restricted to Jewish applicants, such as that owned by the Jewish National Fund or the Jewish Agency. These groups, established by Jews during the Ottoman period to aid in building up a viable Jewish community in Ottoman Palestine, purchased land, including arid desert and swamps, that could be reclaimed, leased to and farmed by Jews, thus encouraging Jewish immigration. After the establishment of the state of Israel, the Israel Lands Authority oversaw the administration of these properties. On 8 March 2000, the Israeli Supreme Court ruled that Israeli Arabs, too, had an equal right to purchase long-term leases of such land, even inside previously solely Jewish communities and villages. The court ruled that the government may not allocate land based on religion or ethnicity and may not prevent Arab citizens from living wherever they choose: “The principle of equality prohibits the state from distinguishing between its citizens on the basis of religion or nationality,” Chief Justice Aharon Barak wrote. “The principle also applies to the allocation of state land…. The Jewish character of the state does not permit Israel to discriminate between its citizens.” Commenting on this ruling, the British philosopher Bernard Harrison has written, in a book chapter dealing with the “apartheid Israel” accusation: “No doubt much more needs to be done. But we are discussing, remember, the question of whether Israel is, or is not, an ‘apartheid state’. It is not merely hard, but impossible, to imagine the South African Supreme Court, under the premiership of Hendrik Verwoerd, say, delivering an analogous decision, because to have done so would have struck at the root of the entire system of apartheid, which was nothing if not a system for separating the races by separating the areas they were permitted to occupy.”

            5. Education

            Separate and unequal education systems were a central part of apartheid in South Africa, as part of a deliberate strategy designed to limit black children to a life of manual labor. Some disparities between Jews and Arabs in Israel’s education system exist, although they are not nearly so significant and the intent not so malign. The Israeli Pupils’ Rights Law of 2000 prohibits educators from establishing different rights, obligations and disciplinary standards for students of different religions. Educational institutions may not discriminate against religious minorities in admissions or expulsion decisions, or when developing curricula or assigning students to classes. Unlike apartheid South Africa, In Israel, education is free and compulsory for all citizens, from elementary school to the end of high school, and university access is based on uniform tuition for all citizens.

            Israel has Hebrew-language and Arabic-language schools, while some schools are bilingual. Most Arabs study in Arabic, while a small number of Arab parents choose to enroll their children in Hebrew schools. All of Israel’s eight universities use Hebrew. In 1992 a government report concluded that nearly twice as much money was allocated to each Jewish child as to each Arab pupil. Likewise, a 2004 Human Rights Watch report identified significant disparities in education spending and stated that discrimination against Arab children affects every aspect of the education system. Exam pass-rate for Arab pupils were about one-third lower than that for their Jewish compatriots. In 2007, Israeli Education Ministry announced a plan to increase funding for schools in Arab communities. According to a ministry official, “At the end of the process, a lot of money will be directed toward schools with students from families with low education and income levels, mainly in the Arab sector.” The Education Ministry prepared a five-year plan to close the gaps and raise the number of students eligible for high school matriculation.

            6. Movement

            Palestinians living in the non-annexed portions of the West Bank do not have Israeli citizenship or voting rights in Israel, but are subject to movement restrictions of the Israeli government. Israel has created roads and checkpoints in the West Bank with the stated purpose of preventing the uninhibited movement of suicide bombers and militants in the region.

            Marwan Bishara, a teacher of international relations at the American University of Paris, has claimed that the restrictions on the movement of goods between Israel and the West Bank are “a de facto apartheid system”. Michael Oren argues that none of this even remotely resembles apartheid, since “the vast majority of settlers and Palestinians choose to live apart because of cultural and historical differences, not segregation, though thousands of them do work side by side. The separate roads were created in response to terrorist attacks – not to segregate Palestinians but to save Jewish lives. And Israeli roads are used by Israeli Jews and Arabs alike.”

            In October 2005 the Israel Defense Forces stopped Palestinians from driving on Highway 60, as part of a plan for a separate Road Network for Palestinians and Israelis in the West Bank. The road had been sealed after the fatal shooting of three settlers near Bethlehem. As of 2005, no private Palestinian cars were permitted on the road although public transport was still allowed.

            7. Comparison to South Africa

            Gideon Shimoni, professor emeritus of Hebrew University, has said that the analogy to apartheid is defamatory and say it reflects a double standard when applied to Israel and not to neighboring Arab countries, whose policies towards their own Palestinian minorities have been described as discriminatory. He has said that while apartheid was characterized by racially based legal inequality and exploitation of Black Africans by the dominant Whites within a common society, the Israel–Palestinian conflict reflects “separate nationalisms,” in which Israel refuses exploitation of Palestinians and on the contrary seeks separation and “divorce” from Palestinians for legitimate self-defense reasons.

            Sasha Polakow-Suransky notes that Israel’s labour policies are very different from those of apartheid-era South Africa, and that Israel has never enacted miscegenation laws, and that liberation movements in South Africa and Palestine have had different “aspirations and tactics.” This notwithstanding, he argues that the apartheid analogy is likely to gain further legitimacy in coming years unless Israel moves to dismantle West Bank settlements and create a viable Palestinian state. Polakow-Suransky also writes that the response of Israel’s defenders to the analogy since 2007 has been “knee-jerk” and based on “vitriol and recycled propaganda” rather than an honest assessment of the situation.

            8. Delegitimization of Israel

            Irwin Cotler, personal friend of mine, a former lawyer for Nelson Mandela, said it was anti-Semitic to call Israel an apartheid state because “it involves a call for dismantling Israel.” He links this to efforts to delegitimize the Jewish State.

            Canadian political scientist Anne Bayefsky wrote that the apartheid label was used by Arab states at the Durban World Conference on Racism in 2001 was part of a campaign to delegitimize Israel and to legitimize violence against Israeli citizens.

            9. Government responses

            In 2014, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry warned that if Israel did not make peace soon, under a two-state solution, it could become an apartheid state. In response to Kerry’s statement, former South African state president F. W. de Klerk said: “You have Palestinians living in Israel with full political rights. You don’t have discriminatory laws against them, I mean not letting them swim on certain beaches or anything like that. I think it’s unfair to call Israel an apartheid state. If Kerry did so, I think he made a mistake.”

            In June 2012, the Toronto city council voted to condemn the phrase “Israeli apartheid”, as part of a resolution recognizing the gay Pride Toronto parade as a “significant cultural event that strongly promotes the ideals of tolerance and diversity”. The resolution said it slams the term Israel Apartheid for undermining the values of Pride and diminishing “the suffering experienced by individuals during the apartheid regime in South Africa”.

            Former US Ambassador to the United Nations (June 1975 – February 1976), Daniel Patrick Moynihan voiced the strong disagreement of the United States with the General Assembly’s resolution declaring that “Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination” in 1975 stated that unlike apartheid, Zionism is clearly not a racist ideology. He said that racist ideologies such as apartheid favor discrimination on the grounds of alleged biological differences, yet few people are as biologically heterogeneous as the Jews.

            10. Closing comments

            Whereas there are both clear accusations of Israel being so called apartheid there are an equal if not more claims to the contrary. The bottom line is what truth you want to believe in when it comes to the inherent facts and lies about the whole conflict.

            To sum things up, all these claims would be moot if the Palestinians chose to negotiate a peace and separation agreement with Israel. Instead they chose wars and terrorism which in turn pushed the parties apart and forced the Israelis to become more defensive, build barriers and bypass roads etc. They refuse to sit down and refuse to accept Israel as the Nation State of the Jewish people.

            Furthermore, the Palestinians know they live on shaky ground when it comes to historical rights to the land so instead they chose incitement and lies hopping that the old adage if you tell a lie long enough it becomes the truth.

            Of course I’m always ready to debate those claims of theirs however now we are dealing with the Falk report on Israeli “Apartheid”.

            Best regards


            1. Aaron,

              There is nothing in your response which addresses or debates the contents inside the Falk-Tilley Israel Apartheid Report, while your response only includes pre-Report writings and opinions, so your saying “however now we are dealing with the Falk report on Israeli “Apartheid” falls flat. The prime example of avoidance of the Falk-Tilley Report is referencing Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who left the Earthly realm many years before the Falk-Tilley Report was finalized. The variety of “examples” you bring forward have nothing to say with regard to the Falk-Tilley Report, all examples from a historical timeframe before the report was published.

              Not surprisingly your response does not include a response to our question regarding comparative death and injury figures of Palestinians and Israelis in recent weeks associated with the Palestinians’ March of Return. 135 Palestinians have perished, including 21-year-old medic Razan al-Hajjar, and near 10,000 have sustained injuries. What are the figures for Israelis, Aaron? It’s a simple question …


              1. I was trying to deal with the narrative of his report rather then specifics.
                If I have to go through point by point there are many counter reports out there that deal with it.
                If you wish I can review and cite the errors in his report.

                With regard to your trying to find moral equivalency between the number of Israeli dead and the number of Palestinian dead, I can’t believe you even tried to pull that one off. How many Israeli farmers do you see trying to break into Gaza, tear down the fence and attack civilians? Zero.
                The reverse is happening from Gaza, with violent protests, attempts to cross the border, sabotage farmers installations, launching of rockets and mortars, sniper fire etc. The fact that Israel has a better trained and disciplined army should not be used as its moral equivalency.
                Instead you should be holding Hamas accountable for:

                1. Paying people to protest
                2. Busing them to the front line
                3. Supplying them with incendiary materials such as rubber tires, medical helium for their balloons
                4. Mixing combatant terrorists among the civilians in order to draw Israeli fire
                5. Lying to public media
                6. Building terror tunnels with the financial aid supplied by Israel and donor nations.
                7. Murdering PLO officials
                8. Murdering gays and Lesbians


                1. Aaron,

                  Israeli farmers aren’t needed for killing and wounding over 10 thousand Palestinians, as the Israel Defense Forces “took care of that”. Just answer the question, Aaron … In the past weeks how many Israelis (civilian or soldier) were killed and how many injured? To repeat, and, yes, we will once more “try to pull that one off”. It’s a simple question … How many Israelis died, and how many suffered injury, from and/or by: 1. Paid protesters, 2. “Frontliners”, 3. Rubber tires or helium-filled balloons, 4. Terrorists, 5. Liars, 6. Terror tunnelers, 7. Murderers of PLO officials, gays, lesbians, etc. etc. etc..??


  4. rawgod

    I admit I know nothing about this conflict, other than Donald Trump does not have the authority or power to declare a capital of Israel. Only the Israelis can do that. But it just so happens that Palestinians also call Jerusalem their capital, and so debates and demonstrations rage.

    All I am looking at is the human mind, and what a person might sacrifice their lives for. IF Falk-Uncensored had said Ms al-Jazzar had sacrificed her life to protest her cause, that would make some sense, though it would be sad as well as tragic. But to say she gave up her life to “shield” someone can only make sense if she was brainwashed to do so. There could be no other reason that would allow a person to “shield” another person in the midst of chaos. However, it is very likely that she was trying to save someone’s life, and was murdered by an Israeli bullet while doing so. Whether the bullet was delibratelty aimed to kill her, no one but the shooter eill ever know, and that is something their conscience, if they have one, will have to deal with for the rest of their physical life.
    I am sorry to have to say, Mr Falk-Uncensored, but you sound like one of Trump’s Trump-Pets at best, and at worst a psychophant. I wish you a good life in your ivory-plated tower, with your rose-tinted glasses to look through. I find it very very hard to find anything humane in what you have to say.


    1. It’s too bad you don’t bother to listen to her own words.

      She died trying to be a martyr.

      To die as a human shield.

      She put herself in danger and as such expired.

      If only she wanted to help the injured then she shouldn’t have announced in advance that she was on the way to “defend” her nation against aggression.

      She should have kept her day job as a paramedic and stay away from the limelight.


Comments are closed.