And why not, one might ask. Falk is, after all, a very tempting target for those of us not already committed to Israel being irredeemably evil. Furthermore, Apfel (in The Commentator) does it very well. His article is entitled "The UN's bad cop for Israel", and he mounts a persuasive case (of which we here are already aware of course, but it's nice to know that others have noticed) that the job description of Middle East Rapporteur for the UN Human Rights Council (now there's an oxymoron, if ever I read one) demands someone who's going to find Israel guilty before the charge is ever even made.
I have only one cavil with the article: it's when Apfel says that " Members of the UN Human Rights Council, including the member for the US, receive and debate Falk’s indictments of Israel, and see in their appointed cop nothing to render him unfit for the job. So he gets to keep the grandiloquent title: ‘Special Rapporteur" (emphasis added). As one member, the US is going to be (and regularly is) outvoted by the those paragons of human rights Syria, Algeria, Cuba...
The reason for the article (and the boot kicking) is that Apfel has just caught up with the rather surprising news (given its usual stance on all things Israeli) that Human Rights Watch has just kicked Falk off its Council.
Slow learners, but at least they do, some of the time, learn!
By: Brian Goldfarb
27 minutes ago
5 comments:
I would like to point out that Falk's title is, UN Special Rapporteur on "the situation of human rights in the Palestinian Territories occupied since 1967. This is a title that even he has suggested gives the job a very specific focus, one that fits in well with his view of the situation. Also, anyone who has known Professor Falk personally knows him to be a very warm, thoughtful and considerate human being. I would recommend that you read his recent blog postings to get a sense of Falk as a person. Sincerely, Michael
http://richardfalk.wordpress.com/2013/01/
Hmm...special pleading, methinks. His remit may be highly specific but, given his academic background and professional qualification as a lawyer, that doesn't excuse sloppy thinking. We all know that if he wasn't prepared to condemn Israel, sight unseen, the magnificently pro-human rights countries like that make up the UN Human Rights Council, such as Egypt, Syria, Cuba, etc, etc, would never have given him the job.
"Michael" must think that we are real innocents on this site if he thinks we are going to buy any view that Ricard Falk is actually some sort of objective reporter, given his published comments.
Or does Michael think he's knows something we don't? If so, do tell.
Dear Michael: and how does your info on Mr Falk being a very warm, thoughtful and considerate human being change the fact that he is an obsessed anti-Israeli "activist", conspiracy theorist of the worst kind and generally a PITA?
So many scumbags have been identified as warm, thoughtful and considerate. Why, even mass murderers. They are always the quiet, polite kind, who may have been a trifle eccentric (pulling the wings off baby birds, for instance) but otherwise no one in the neighborhood ever suspected they... would... someday.... Although when you shoot with your mouth, in the company of mass-murdering dictators or their, ahem, diplomatic stooges, few can ever again be overcome by the warm, thoughtful, etc. claim.
Bingo.
Post a Comment