The latest outburst from the dementedrapporteur representing the ironically-named United Nations Human Rights Council has brought about another call for his dismissal from Canada's Foreign Minister, John Baird:
December 17, 2013 - Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird today issued the following statement:
“Canada completely rejects and condemns the appalling remarks made by Richard Falk, United Nations Special Rapporteur for the Palestinian territories, in which he accused Israel of ‘genocidal’ intentions.
“Canada has previously called for Falk to be fired for his numerous outrageous and anti-Semitic statements, and these comments underscore once more the complete and total absurdity of his service as a UN Special Rapporteur.
“I call on the United Nations Human Rights Council—once again—to remove Falk from his position immediately.
“Not only do these comments undermine the fundamental values of the United Nations, they also belittle the terrible genocides that have tragically taken place throughout history and around the world.”
The UN's anti-Semitic, 9-11 conspiracy theorist Richard Falk continued to disgrace the world body by appearing on "Truth Jihad" a radio show hosted by a delusional, lunatic hatemonger named Kevin Barrett.
Barrett, who writes for the innocuously-named but virulently anti-Semitic,Holocaust-denying websiteVeterans Today, maintains the 9-11 al Qaida terror attacks are a "false flag operation" perpetrated as an excuse to wage a world war on all Muslims, among whom he numbers himself.
Richard Falk, the U.N. Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, is upset. Falk is demanding a full investigation of UN Watch. He wants the group stripped of its U.N. accreditation. Without that accreditation, which allows the organization to more freely attend and speak at U.N. meetings, UN Watch would find it much more difficult to fulfill its purpose.
The American global domination project is bound to generate all kinds of resistance in the post-colonial world. In some respects, the United States has been fortunate not to experience worse blowbacks, and these may yet happen, especially if there is no disposition to rethink US relations to others in the world, starting with the Middle East. Some of us naively hoped that Obama’s Cairo speech of 2009 was to be the beginning of such a process of renewal, and although timid in many ways, it was yet possessed of a tonality candidly acknowledged that relations with the Islamic world needed fundamental moves by the US Government for the sake of reconciliation, including the adoption of a far more balanced approach to the Palestine/Israel impasse. But as the months passed, what became evident, especially given the strong pushback by Israel and its belligerent leader, Bibi Netanyahu, were a series of disappointing reactions by Obama, which could be described as an accelerating backpedaling in relation to opening political space in the Middle East.
Seven decades later, how does the UN live up to the vision and resolve of its founders?
An event this evening at Stanford University is a sobering reminder that some of what is said and done today in the name of the UN would cause Roosevelt and Churchill to roll in their graves.
The human rights clinic of the law faculty, headed by Professor James Cavallaro, a former Human Rights Watch activist, has decided to give its platform, in the form of a public lecture and reception, to Richard Falk, a UN expert and former Princeton academic.
While he appears highly qualified and is well versed in the language of human rights, the reality is that Falk’s twisted moral vision negates the UN founders’ dream, recasting tyrants, terrorists and teachers of hatred as heroic victims resisting colonialist oppression.
As the world focuses on the Iranian government’s mad race for a nuclear bomb, and its brutal repression of peaceful student activists, Stanford’s human rights scholars ought to recall that Falk was a key promoter of this regime’s establishment.
Days after Ayatollah Khomeini seized power in 1979, Falk reassured the world, in a New York Times op-ed titled “Trusting Khomeini,” that “the depiction of him as fanatical, reactionary and the bearer of crude prejudices seems certainly and happily false.”
Khomeini’s entourage, wrote Falk, had “a notable record of concern for human rights.” Indeed, the ayatollah’s “new model of popular revolution” offered the world “a desperately-needed model of humane governance for a third-world country.”
After the al-Qaida bombings on 9/11, moral relativists like Noam Chomsky rushed to condemn, not the perpetrators of that horrific atrocity, but the United States of America, for ostensibly having done something to anger the terrorists enough to murder 2977 innocent people.
Rather than outright condemnation of the perpetrators of this abominable mass murder, Chomsky, on the very next day, before the bodies of the victims of Jihadi terror were cold, wrote:
"we can seek to understand what may have led to the crimes, which means making an effort to enter the minds of the likely perpetrators. If we choose the latter course, we can do no better, I think, than to listen to the words of Robert Fisk, whose direct knowledge and insight into affairs of the region is unmatched after many years of distinguished reporting. Describing "The wickedness and awesome cruelty of a crushed and humiliated people," he writes that "this is not the war of democracy versus terror that the world will be asked to believe in the coming days. It is also about American missiles smashing into Palestinian homes and US helicopters firing missiles into a Lebanese ambulance in 1996 and American shells crashing into a village called Qana and about a Lebanese militia - paid and uniformed by America's Israeli ally - hacking and raping and murdering their way through refugee camps." And much more. Again, we have a choice: we may try to understand, or refuse to do so, contributing to the likelihood that much worse lies ahead."
Chomsky was not alone is his morally relativistic justification of Jihad, or even worse, those like Robert Fisk, Richard Falk, Michael Keefer and a cast of irrational or malevolent anti-Capitalists and Jihad apologists who, like Holocaust deniers, strove to deny, and this defend the real perpetrators of the crime against humanity that was committed on September 11, 2001. In some cases, the 9-11 terrorists were even celebrated as heroes, as they were by throngs of Palestinians.
Now that an insane terrorist has murdered dozens of innocent people at a government building and a socialist youth indoctrination camp in Norway, no conservative or Christian of note has come forward to attempt to justify or attempt to mitigate or deflect blame from the depravity of Anders Behring Breivik.
Nor will they. Breivik is a terrorist and mass-murderer for whom there is no justification.
But it is interesting to observe that no anti-capitalist or socialist commentator who was so quick to find a moral justification for 9-11 has not leaped to assuage Breivik's crimes. The question is not why they should do so, for no decent human being possibly could. The question is why they are so anxious to defend and enable the murderers of innocents in the West when the murders are committed in the name of Jihad.
UPDATE: It didn't take long for the crazies to come out of the woodwork. Khaled Muammar, who until earlier this month was president of the Canadian Arab Federation, which was defunded by the federal government for expressing support for terrorist groups, is spreading anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. This one by conspiracy whack-job Stephen Lendman, who says the Breivik killings were a Mossad plot. Lendman is at least consistently crazy. He also says that Bobby Kennedy was killed by the CIA.
