'GENEVA, July 6 – UN Watch, a Geneva-based monitoring group, today called on UN rights chief Navi Pillay to condemn the publication of an anti-semitic cartoon by Richard Falk, the UN Human Rights Council’s expert on Palestine.Moving on to this piecewhich includes Richard Falk's total denial:
“For the UN human rights system to be credible in the fight against racism, its own representatives must not be allowed to incite hatred and racial discrimination with impunity,” wrote UN Watch executive director Hillel Neuer, in a letter sent today to the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.
“Depicting Jews as dogs and bloodthirsty has a dark history,” said Neuer. “We urge Ms. Pillay to condemn this incitement to racism by a UN rights official, and to demand that Mr. Falk immediately remove the offending caricature and apologize.”'
'It is a complete lie. I know nothing about such a cartoon, and would never publish such a thing, ever.'This was promptly followed by his deletion of the offensive cartoon.
UN Watch then have two catch-up pieces - here and here before reporting the US Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtine's condemnation Richard Falk for reproducing the cartoon:
'“We should demand that the United Nations stop its relentless activities to demonize Israel and the Jewish people, and put our money where our mouth is. The most recent example of this bias is a cartoon posted by Richard Falk, which was apparently taken down just minutes ago, and the UN Human Rights Council has appointed Mr. Falk as an ‘expert’ to investigate and condemn Israel.
“And I’m sure that the viewers can see, or they can look it up on the internet, what this cartoon depicts. It depicts Americans and Jews as bloodthirsty dogs. And that is not the first time that Mr. Falk has spread such venom. He has compared Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians to the Holocaust and questioned the veracity of the 9/11 attacks. But he continues to work for the UN Human Rights Council, with over 20 percent of his expenses and staff paid for by U.S. taxpayers.
“And has the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights ever condemned Falk and demanded that he resign his UN post? Never. To the contrary, her office has published an attack by Falk on his critics. And, I understand that he says now that his account was hacked into, and he has taken that drawing down, but I say enough is enough.”'Finally UN Watch are able to report Richard Falk's very grudging 'apology' which is a master-class in weasel words:
'With apologies, I realize that the cartoon that originally appeared on my blog devoted to the arrest warrants for Qaddafi and two others issued by the ICC had strongly anti-semitic symbolism that I had not detected before it was pointed out to me. I posted the cartoon to express my view that double standards pertained to the American and ICC approach to international criminal accountability. As soon as I was made aware of the anti-semitic content of the cartoon I removed it from my blog, although initially I denied such a posting because I did not realize that it was anti-semitic and was mistaken as to what was being referred to. My intention has never been to demean in any way Jews as a people despite my strong criticisms of Israeli policies, and some versions of Zionist support. My interest and commitment has always been directed at finding a just and sustainable peace for both peoples, although I believe that this must be based on a belated recognition of Palestinian rights, and not on power relationships.So Richard Falk moved from denial that he posted the cartoon to, according to Committee Chair Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtine, claims of hacking, to removal and to grudging apology - all within a day.
To be clear, I oppose any denigration of a people based on ethnicity, race, religion, stage of development, and believe in the human dignity of all people in their individual and collective identity. Beyond this, if we are to have a sustainable human future we must also make peace with nature, and treat animals with as much respect as possible. This is both a sacred imperative of my idea of a spiritual life, but also an integral aspect of species survival on an increasingly crowded, overheated, and endangered planet.
Returning to the cartoon, I regret my carelessness, and apologize for any unintended hurt and outrage caused thereby. At the same time, I am quite aware that many of the messages were motivated to discredit me due to my views of Israeli policies and behavior.'
In fact Richard Falk has recently posted a final clarification and here it is:
'Because this unintentional posting of an anti-semitic cartoon has attracted such attention to my blog, and elicited a stream of venomous comments, I want to explain my mistake one last time. I do this without trying to excuse the carelessness involved, although I would point out that I removed the cartoon as soon as I became aware of its real content.
Even now I needed a magnifying glass to identify the anti-semitic character of the dog. My vision (at 80) is pretty good, but not good enough. It looked like a helmet to me, and the main visible symbol on the dog was the USA midriff covering. I found the cartoon through a Google image search on the page devoted to the International Criminal Court. Almost all the images there were about the Court or justice, and I assumed that this blindfolded goddess of justice was being led around by the USA. I am quite sure this cartoon would never have been allowed on the Google page if its true content had been realized, and it should be removed. Without a special effort, which admittedly I did not make, this true content is easy to overlook, and even when the initial objection to the cartoon was brought to my attention, and I looked at it, I did not appreciate the objectionable character of what was intended to be communicated.'
For my part I doubt Richard Falk's explaiantion mainly becasue of his initial denial and the weasel woirds of his apology.
Here I reproduce a comment on Richard Falk's blog which I think deserves wider reading:
'Ken July 6, 2011 at 7:00 pm #Sarcastic yes, but also right on the money.
Moderator: If you are willing to publish my comment at all, please publish this one. The first attempt was riddled with typos. I think your critics are being very hard on you. You were merely “careless.” You did not notice that the cartoon portraying a dog wearing a kippah devouring bones with blood dripping from its murderous lips was antisemitic. You undoubtedly also didn’t notice it was viciously antiamerican, portraying America as the modern incarnation of the blood dripping Jewish dog. No doubt you merely thought, in your “carelessness” that you were posting a benign feel-good image of Lady Justice taking her puppy for a walk in springtime.
Sarcasm aside, if anyone who worked for me brought embarrassment to my organization the way you’ve brought it to the UN they’d be looking for work before sundown.'
If you want an idea as to where Richard Falk is coming from in his world view, especially in relation to Israel and the Palestinians, then a perusal of his blog will make his standpoint on these issues abundantly clear.
Is calling Richard Falk 'a rat' offensive? I do not know, but what I do know is that if I am challenged it will apparently be perfectly acceptable to Richard Falk to first deny that I ever used such language, then edit the header to remove that description before finally apologising for any inadvertant offense to Richard Falk or rats.
Finally do note that in contrast to the BBC's wall-to-wall coverage of the Mohammed Cartoons affair they seem blissfully unconcerned with this reproduction of an anti-Semitic cartoon; I wonder why...
4 comments:
I think you and I are allowed to call scum like Falk a rat on this blog, as we are not being funded by the UN.
By the way, at his age shouldn't he be retired ?
not bein funny like but woznt he Collumbo?
No that was Peter Falk. As far as I aware they are not related. Whilst Peter Falk, aka Columbo, always had one final question, Richard Flak seems to be less quizzical about the real Middle Esat situation.
If this man really did play Columbo then the questions that raises about the liberal-left hegemony in the US are enormous. But people with glass eyes shouldn't throw stones.
Post a Comment