Richard A. Falk is an American professor emeritus of international law at Princeton University, writer (the author or co-author of 20 books), speaker, activist on world affairs, and an appointee to two United Nations positions on the Palestinian territories (From Wikipedia).
Recommend this post
Richard A. Falk was barred from entering Israel for his blatant lies and deceit in his public comments on the situation in the Palestinian Territories.
ReplyDeleteHe is an unreliable and discredited figure.
The Palestinians could agree to stop all actions against Israel and recognize Israel as a sovereign state. In return, they could be lucky to get a few bantustans within Gaza and the West Bank.
ReplyDeleteIs it time to boycott international performers who play in Sun City, Israel?
C-Nuck, is that all you could offer for an argument? Nelson Mandela protested against apartheid. He was arrested, beaten, discredited and put in jail for 27 years. So did that make apartheid leaders exonerated? Of course not.
ReplyDeleteIf Israel bars a person of Falk's calibre it apparently shows how big a rogue government it is and how hard it tries to silence voices of protest. Something you and your buddies are trying to do here.
SD, yes we should boycott such performers.
The Israeli Government barred Falk for good reason.
ReplyDeleteHad Falk wanted to he could have appealed his ban to the Israeli Supreme Court - you see LeDaro, unlike Hamas which throws its opponents off rooftops, Israel is not a rogue state or entity. The rule of law prevails.
C-Nuck, I have fair amount of knowledge of this barring because I did some research after your comment. It was a staged event by Israel and very shameful act I should say. I may post on it later. Mr. Falk is a Jew himself so you cannot accuse him of being Muslim and biased. Too bad for you.
ReplyDeleteNot sure why Mr. Falk's religion has anything to do with this. The fact that Israel would bar a Jew probably just demostrates that it is not a rogue state.
ReplyDeleteNot sure what you mean that the ban was "staged". Mr. Falk was told ahead of time that he would be denied entry into Israel yet he attemnpted to enter anyways. Israeli officials stopped him at the airport upon arrival and sent him away on the next plane.
"Staged"??
In an earlier comment under a different post you did not waste anytime to point to out that certain Congressman was Muslim who accompanied John Kerry to Gaza implying that he was biased.
ReplyDeleteOh really, Dr. Falk was aware of ban ahead of time and he was turned back on the airport. I think you should wait for my next post.
LeDaro:
ReplyDeleteAnd in an earlier post you chastized me for referring tio the Congressman's religion.
So I guess with you its "do as I say, not as I do".
FALK WAS INFORMED BY ISRAEL BEFOREHAND THAT HE WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED ENTRY INTO THE COUNTRY.
ReplyDeleteHere's the story and background:
In keeping with UN exceptionalism on Israeli and Palestinian issues, the Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in the Occupied Territories is a one-of-a-kind appointment - no other Rapporteurs are dedicated to single countries. Falk has a biased remit which involves reporting on Israel’s behaviour as occupier while ignoring the human rights abuses enacted by Palestinians against Israelis and each other. In response to criticism on this count, Falk’s predecessor John Dugard has written:
“Terrorism is a scourge, a serious violation of human rights and international humanitarian law. No attempt is made in the reports to minimize the pain and suffering it causes to victims, their families and the broader community. Palestinians are guilty of terrorizing innocent Israeli civilians by means of suicide bombs and Qassam rockets. Likewise the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) are guilty of terrorizing innocent Palestinian civilians by military incursions, targeted killings and sonic booms that fail to distinguish between military targets and civilians. All these acts must be condemned and have been condemned. Common sense, however, dictates that a distinction must be drawn between acts of mindless terror, such as acts committed by Al Qaeda, and acts committed in the course of a war of national liberation against colonialism, apartheid or military occupation. While such acts cannot be justified, they must be understood as being a painful but inevitable consequence of colonialism, apartheid or occupation.”
In order to defend his remit, he had to resort to conflating the terrifying experience of a nearby Israeli targeted strike with the deliberate terrorism against civilians perpetrated by a Palestinian bomber. He also resorted to excusing Palestinian acts of terror as inevitable responses to colonialism. This determination to identify with and make excuses for only one side of a conflict is commonly known as bias. Without question this kind of cod analysis prolongs and even fuels conflict - but I understand Dugard was never banned from Israel.
Falk, on the other hand, is more than critical of Israel, compares Israelis to Nazis and the blockade of Gaza to a Holocaust, and, after being appointed as Special Rapporteur, reaffirmed these earlier analogies. It was on the day of this reaffirmation that Israel announced that Falk would be barred from entering Israel in his official capacity. Presumably it is in Falk’s hands to qualify what he said - after all he implies that the analogy was only a publicity stunt:
“He said he understood that it was a provocative thing to say, but at the time, last summer, he had wanted to shake the American public from its torpor.”
However, he stands by it - and in doing so as David Hirsh observes, he provides excellent cover for antisemites. As well as this, he was part of investigations that determined Palestinian suicide bombings were a valid method of resistance, warmly supported the Islamic revolution in Iran, and speculated that the U.S. government was involved in the 9-11 attacks. Although Falk had addressed charges of bias his predecessor ignored by seeking an expansion of his remit to include violations of human rights by Palestinians against Israel, he continues to apply double standards to Israel, calling its embargo of Gaza a “crime against humanity” and calling for the indictment of Israeli leaders by the International Criminal Court. Moreover, it seems that the Human Rights Council has been slow to respond to his request. The HRC this year has (with the exception of Switzerland and Germany) an abjectly bad human rights record.
Yesterday Israel expelled Falk when he arrived at Ben Gurion, as he had been informed they planned to. Another publicity stunt - and I think this one reflects badly on him too. Visa bans are not enacted lightly. For example, Al Qaradawi was refused entry to the UK earlier in the year on the grounds that “The UK will not tolerate the presence of those who seek to justify any acts of terrorist violence or express views that could foster inter-community violence.” Falk also fits this bill - and he’s a UN official.
There is always other side of the story. You do not give any reference where you got this report. Must be written by an Israeli propaganda organ of some kind.
ReplyDeleteI brought up his religion because of your past comments. You needed to be reminded. Dr. Falk is a highly respected academician and human rights activist. What do you think he has against Israel other than that he is a fair man and he calls an atrocity, an atrocity, when he sees one.
He is neither respected nor fair minded.
ReplyDeleteHe was barred from Israel and did not even challenge it to Israel's courts, knowing full well that his words and actions had crssed the line of objectivity and fairmindedness.
The Israelis courts are well known for defending and upholding the rights of those who disagree with the Israeli Government.
Falk's talk and actions have no redeeming qualities.
My post is easy to find with a simple google search. You can label it propoganda or whatever else you want. You do that so often with any post that does fit into your narrow mindset.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteTalking about emphasis. Any special reason for posting your comment twice. Now you have gone into name-calling game. Typical approach when there is no argument left. Anyone who disagrees with the apartheid of Israel is either narrow-minded or cannot be trusted according to you and other fanatics who support Israel's atrocities unconditionally.
ReplyDeleteGoogle search always has a source. This is a new excuse which I have not heard before.
Israel is a western-style democracy being pressured to make peace with a neighbor that has attacked it over and over and over.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, people forget that the entire reason that the Palestinian people are displaced is that the entire Arab world declared war on Israel long before it was a nation.
How would we react if a large aboriginal group started launching frequent attacks? Would we react by peacefully letting them form their own nation where they would be free to continue to launch attacks?
It would go a long way if people stopped seeing Israelis as so different from themselves. Regardless of their religion, Israel is a nation of modern Western-style life, and until people (like the other commenters here) see them as such, it will continue to be an ignorance dump for the masses.