Disgraced UN rep trying to meet anti-Semite for Christmas lunch in London

[shira]

Disgraced UN official Richard Falk, who was condemned last week by Canada, Australia and the U.S., recently provided the cover endorsement for a book denounced as anti-Semitic even by the most extreme anti-Israel activists.



Now Falk is trying to meet the anti-Semitic author for lunch in London:

Atzmon’s book asks whether ”Hitler might have been right after all.” The British Foreign Office last year condemned Falk for endorsing it.

more @ http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/disgraced-un-rep-trying-to-meet-anti-semite-for-christmas-lunch-in-london/

Tells you all you need to know about the UN's antisemitism (this is their top guy on Palestine) and anti-zionists peddling BDS who worship 911 truthers like Falk, who makes a living out of demonizing Israel at the UN.

[King_David]

1. Falk is a special Rappattor or sumthing official of the UNHRC nt

[shira]

2. US slams Richard Falk's 'despicable and deeply offensive comments'

Falk was asked about a past article he had written in which he said that Israel was “slouching toward nothing less than a Palestinian holocaust.”

Falk told RT, “When you target a group, an ethnic group and inflict this kind of punishment upon them, you are in effect nurturing a kind of criminal intention that is genocidal.”

Falk, who is a professor Emeritus of international law at Princeton University, was appointed in 2008 to a six-year position as the UN’s special rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories.

Psaki told reporters in Washington on Friday that Falk had made “deplorable” statements in the past on a range of topics.

“The Administration has repeatedly condemned in the strongest terms his despicable and deeply offensive comments, particularly his anti-Semitic blog postings, his endorsement of 9/11 conspiracy theories, and more recently, his deplorable statements with regard to the terrorist attacks in Boston,” said Psaki.

“We note that his term as Special Rapporteur ends in March 2014, and he cannot be reappointed to the role after that time,” Psaki said.

She explained that Falk could only be removed prior to the end of his term by a vote of the United Nations Human Rights Council, and the “the vast majority of HRC members do not agree on his stepping down.”

[shira]

3. Richard Falk's support for terror against Israeli civilians...

<snip>

The witness of unwelcome truths should always exhibit a posture of humility, not making judgments about the tactics of struggle employed by those fighting against oppression, and not supplying the solutions for those whose destinies are directly and daily affected by a deep political struggle. To do otherwise is to pretend to be a purveyor of greater wisdom and morality than those enduring victimization. In the Palestine/Israel conflict it is up to the parties, the peoples themselves and their authentic representatives, to find the path to a sustainable and just peace, although it seems permissible for outsiders to delineate the distribution of rights that follow from an application of international law and to question whether the respective peoples are being legitimately represented.

These comments reflect my reading of a passionate and provocative essay by Linah Alsaafin entitled “How obsession with ‘non-violence’ harms the Palestinian cause,” which was published online in the Electronic Intifada on July 11, 2012. The burden of her excellent article is the insistence that it is for the Palestinians, and only the Palestinians, to decide on the forms and nature of their resistance. She writes with high credibility as a recent graduate of Birzeit University who was born in Cardiff, Wales and lived in England and the United States, as well as Palestine. She persuasively insists that for sympathetic observers and allies to worship at the altar of Palestinian non-violence is to cede to the West the authority to determine what are acceptable and unacceptable forms of Palestinian struggle. This is grotesquely hypocritical considering the degree to which Western militarism is violently unleashed around the planet so as to maintain structures of oppression and exploitation, more benignly described as ‘national interests.’ In effect, the culturally sanctioned political morality of the West is indicative of an opportunistically split personality: nonviolence for your struggle, violence for ours. Well-meaning liberals, by broadcasting such an insidious message, are not to be welcomed as true allies.

<snip>

http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2012/07/14/pros-and-cons-of-solidarity-with-the-palestinian-struggle/