Tuesday
08Apr2008
HIGHEST MORAL AUTHORITY?
Tuesday, April 8, 2008 at 07:22AM 
The United Nations is the worlds' "highest moral authority" according to many on the political left. So, what to make of the news that the United Nations Human Rights Council has appointed Richard A. Falk - who has compared Israel to the Nazis - as special investigator on Israeli actions in the Disputed Territories for a six-year term? This is the man who has accused Israel of carrying out genocidal crimes against the Palestinians and who also believes suicide-bombings are a legitimate means of struggle. He also claims that a Palestinian Holocaust is in the making by those evil Israeli Nazis. So you can just imagine why he was selected to "investigate" Israel! The UN is a parody of what it claims to be; it is a moral sewer and Falk is typical of what one would expect to find in such. And yet there is little international outcry at this MOST BIASED of appointments - the war against Israel carries top priority for the UN and we can be certain that Falk will now use this soap-box to further blacken the name of Israel. An utter disgrace.
in UN
UN 
View Printer Friendly Version
Reader Comments (47)
As Israel never tires of citing the Holocaust and the Nazis in attempts to garner support, it's inevitable that others cite it back at them.
In fact, I often think some Israeli leaders are still living out a horrible trauma on their hapless neighbours. Tragic for all concerned.
Did you see who was recently appointed as a special adviser to the UN Human Rights Council, a failed Swiss politician called Jean Ziegler whose career highlights include:
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/alan_johnson/2008/04/appointment_with_farce.html
"In 1989 - four months after Libya bombed Pan Am flight 103, killing 270 people from 21 countries - Ziegler launched the annual Muammar Qaddafi Human Rights Prize in Tripoli, boasting it was the "Anti-Nobel prize of the third world". Winners have included Fidel Castro, Louis Farrakhan, and a leader of a Ba'ath party women's organisation in Saddam's Iraq. In 2002, the recipients included the convicted French Holocaust denier Roger Garaudy, and Ziegler himself.
In 1986, Ziegler acted as an adviser to the Ethiopian dictator Mengistu, helping draft his one-party constitution. In 1993, Le Monde reported on "Jean Ziegler's trip to visit Saddam Hussein and Kim Il-sung."
Ziegler proclaimed "total support for the Cuban revolution" shortly after Fidel Castro had imprisoned many journalists. While visiting Cuba as a UN official he refused to meet Cuban dissidents but lavished praise on Castro.
In 2002, he praised the Zimbabwean dictator, saying, "Mugabe has history and morality with him."
In 2006, Ziegler said, "I refuse to describe Hezbollah as a terrorist organisation. It is a national resistance movement. I can understand Hezbollah when they kidnap soldiers ..." "
The appointments at the UN have always struck me that they were a skit written for either Saturday Night Live, or Monty Python.....
David,
So Israel cannot do any wrong in your book, that right?
That's the impression you continually give.
The UN is a sham, and its appointments cease to amaze.
Mahons,
Here are some of Professor Falk's credentials:
And to top it all, he's Jewish. Don't you think that would make him more of an expert on the Israel-Palestine situation than, say, you or me?
Dawkins: A professor who is published and happens to be Jewish? Are you asking me if one of the three make him more of an expert?
He was selected for an allegedly objective post for his subjective views -which conform to the UN's predisposition, and one does not need a PhD, a book contract or to be Jewish to figure that out.
I don't mind an independent observor of any government's action, including Israel's, but lets not stack the deck.
Everyone knows that the highest moral authority in the world is the Pope!
(ducks out, heads for El Dorado compound)
Mahons,
I listed only some of his accomplishments/expertise. Here are more:
Now, I don't have sight into your own qualifications, Mahons, but I assure you he's slightly more qualified than my good self to do the job at the UN.
Whom would you have recommended in his stead?
Dawkins: Nice try, but the issue isn't whether you or I are more qualified, it is whether he is an appropriate appointee given his clearlry documented bias in the matter. You may agree with that bias but to not acknowledge it is disingenuous.
It is akin to nominating Jeb Bush to investigate the US role in Iraq or Martin McGuiness to investigate the British Government in NI. The fact that the appointee is so biased undermines the findings. First, it is clearly no independent or unbiased investigator and thus the UN can't possibly be given fair or accurate conclusions. Second - any real conclusions he might draw would be undermined by his own history.
The best type of investigator would be an unbiased one so that any findings would have objective legitimacy.
Why an investigator at all, since the premise of the job is clearly wrong? Israel and the PA are the most watched enties in the world. How about Tibet, Nepal, zimbabwe, Cuba, ect, ect.
Mahons,
From an historical viewpoint, do you think that Senator Mitchell was a sufficiently unbiased intervenor in Northern Ireland?
Mahons,
I did acknowledge his bias. I just posted some stuff that seems to indicate it.
But you can't deny that someone of his background—international law, war investigation, etc—knows what he's talking about.
And again, he's Jewish FFS. Would you appoint a Muslim in his place? Or a Christian? A secularist?
And no, you can't parallel Martin McGuinness. Professor Falk to the best of my knowledge never carried out an armed attack on Israel.
Dawkins: You acknowledged some of his bias, and inadvertently a bit of your own. But he's a known hysteric on Israel and clearly a biased advocate agains them.
There are plenty of people with backgrounds in international law and "war investigation" that do not have a clue what they are talking about.
I don't think his being Jewish is a qualifying or disqualifying factor, but it does give the UN a little cover.
McGuniness was a quick example, substitute any member of SF who doesn't have his personal history.
Alan: Yes, I think Mitchell was sufficiently unbiased as an envoy.
Mahons,
I agree re Mitchell, but our host will say otherwise. Point of view trumps reality every time.
Our host isn't unbiased.
Which of us is?
Colm.
You mean Mr. Splinter Butt?
it is whether he is an appropriate appointee given his clearlry documented bias in the matter.
and if he reports that such grim actions are infact true, does his bias delegitimise his findings or does it bolster the case for his position?
if theres one thing the israel state hates more than anything it is a critical jew.
Daytripper: That isn't true, otherwise it would be empty. What it rightly detests, as would any people, is someone who sells out his own kind with falsehoods and exaggerations, as Prof. Falk has done.
What would make more sense is an unbiased observor who could point to legitimate grievances and not someone who needs to create them or overplay them.
I leave aside the fact that many member nations couldn't stand the same scrutiny.
Can I confirm I am VERY biased. Against terrorists. Against tyrants. Against the UN hypocrites. The list is a long one.
As for Senator Mitchell, he has very strong glasses. I watched his eyes swivel while he was lectured on democracy by me and my party leader! He never writes, he never phones!!
>>someone who sells out his own kind<<
How is Falk "selling out his own kind"?
Can you not imagine a Jew who sees his "kind" as his countrymen and whose first allegience is to his nation or - gosh - even to his principles?
Noel - I didn't raise his Jewishness as a pro or con. Dawkins seemed to think the designation makes him better able to serve in the particular post, I don't think in and of itself that it does or does not.
In response to Daytripper's statment that Israel hates a critical Jew I disagreed. I think they correctly detest anyone who would sell out their own people, as Falk has done, his genocidal language is hysteria and of course calculated to gain attention. There is an identity component to the state of Israel with all Jews, by necessity. That is not to say an American, British or Irish Jewish person could not have primary loyalty to their own countrymen.
mahons,
I agree with Daytripper here and I think you're wrong.
Obviously Israel would like to think - as you do - that "there is an identity component to the state of Israel with all Jews, by necessity", but it is not true, not fair and, I imagine, something that gets under many Jews' skin. Why should a Jew in, say, Argentina feel some "identity" with the state of Israel? Jews can identify with Israel or with their home country or with the local football team or with none of these. The assumption that they by their nature are and act like some kind of group is wrong and very dangerous.
Let them be as they want. Falk is no less a true Jew than any patriotic Israeli or foreign Zionist.
The whole debate is stupid the UN hates Israel. They ahve condemned Israel more than any nation that has ever existed and if you can't see the ridiculness of such an appointment than your opinion of what color the sky is isn;t even valid
David,
You didn't answer my question at 2.45pm.
Is it Israel warts and all?
Noel: That isn't what I am saying. Please. There is an identity with the land of Israel based on common heritage and historical experience. In no sense have I said that Jews must all act as a group or hold a particular allegiance, I've written the opposite.
Jews can hold any opinion they so chose (and they do). They can love, hate or ignore Israel (and they do).
Falk himself has held out his Jewishness (one of those "it pains me as a Jew to say this" type statements) in his writings on Israel.
He is a well known radical leftist, his writings on Israel and the Middle East are truly biased (a point you seem uncomfotable discussing) and wildly inappropriate for the position. His views on Spetember 11th seem to be of the truther variety, and he seems to advocate suicide bombings on behalf of terrorists against Israel as legitimate. Any accurate criticism of Israel is lost in the flood. Anyone who wants a constructive criticism or monitoring of Israel should see this, but we all know that isn't want the UN wants.
Troll - the debate is important because it is important to demonstrate why Falk is inappropirate (and characteristic of the UN).
I think they correctly detest anyone who would sell out their own people, as Falk has done,
He has no more an obligation to 'stand by his people' than you or i. and frankly its a pretty grim attitude when laid bare.
There is an identity component to the state of Israel with all Jews, by necessity.
there is no such thing, and you are leaning towards the true essence of anti-semitism. ie jewish people can never truely be part of any other nation other than their own.
That is not to say an American, British or Irish Jewish person could not have primary loyalty to their own countrymen.
then why the crap above?
The assumption that they by their nature are and act like some kind of group is wrong and very dangerous.
exactly noel, well said, all of it.
Let them be as they want. Falk is no less a true Jew than any patriotic Israeli or foreign Zionist.
thats the problem, zionism (racist/supremacist nationalism) has managed to entangle itself with jewishness, and as such has managed to fool millions into thinking criticism of zionism is criticism of judaism or jewish people or simply anti-semitism. it is not. it is a political ideology.
Daytripper,
Agree on the Zionism question.
The fact is that Israel does not have clean hands. Few nations do; nations embroiled in protracted conflict hardly ever do.
Falk has criticized Israel in the past. Does that make him an unsuitable watchdog? I don't think so.
Those who pan the UN on ATW usually do so because of its perceived ineffectuality or pussyfooting. Now the criticism is that a UN appointee may be too robust.
You can't win.
Perhaps one should acquaint oneself better with the man and his words and deeds before passing judgement. Hint: the Jerusalem Post may not be the most suitable medium on earth to find the truth on this one.
Those who pan the UN on ATW usually do so because of its perceived ineffectuality or pussyfooting. Now the criticism is that a UN appointee may be too robust.
the UN is only as effective as the member states want it to be. it like most institutions is imperfect, but behind the scenes there is great work done by many people in the UN, most of whom could get more money elswhere.
Daytripper,
Shhh! Now you've gone and spoiled it all.
And I thought you were just not understanding or reading what I wrote. Now I get it, it doesn't fall within the anti-Zionist substitution for anti-semitism.
A Jewish person can perfectly be content and happy and productive an loyal as a citizen of many nations. However, all Jewish people have a connection to Israel that is historical and cultural. They are free to ignore it, revel in it, celebrate it or hate it, but it is a fact.
I didn't say Falk has an obligation to stand by his people so kindly stop lying.
However, all Jewish people have a connection to Israel that is historical and cultural.
no they dont. infact very few have any actual historical or cultural connections with the region at all. which is a big part of the problem, especially when it comes to the settlers, who in effect mimic the nazi policy of lebensraum, right down to the racist attitude towards the local population.
I didn't say Falk has an obligation to stand by his people so kindly stop lying.
but he is not allowed to 'sell them out'? not much wiggle room there.
Daytripper: You wrote Israel hates most a critical Jew, which I correctly pointed out was false. Vigorous debate is a hallmark of Israel's society.
What I wrote in reponse to your false statement was that Israel like anyone else hates someone who would sell out their own kind with falsehoods and exaggerations, as Falk has done. Falk himself claims the connection, if you'd stop to read his work.
He is a terrible selection, unless like the UN, you already have an agenda. Then he is perfect.
You wrote Israel hates most a critical Jew
because they cant shut such people up with accusations of anti-semitism. they best they have come up with is the notion of a "self hating jew".
What I wrote in reponse to your false statement was that Israel like anyone else hates someone who would sell out their own kind with falsehoods and exaggerations
your assuming that his claims are false or exaggerated.
He is a terrible selection, unless like the UN, you already have an agenda.
indeed he is, if you are against the truth of israels behavior being exposed to the world. the video i linked is, i have no doubt, merely a snapshot of what many palestinians put up with daily. its also quite obviously state policy, if you listen to the soldiers and observe their unwillingness to stop any of the actions.
Google Video also has the full version of "Occupation 101" available. which is tailored specifically for americans who dont get anything remotely balanced from their news when it comes to the israel/palestine conflict.
I know his claims are exaggerated. He's essentially written so himself (in a weird way as he has tried to explain his rhetoric).
I am happy to have any wrongful behavior of Israel exposed to the world. Rightly so. Unlike you and the UN I think the wrongful behavior of any nation should be so exposed and of course evaluated fairly. Falk doesn't, he's singled out Israel, a democracy in a sea of dictatorships.
"If this kind of situation had existed for instance in the manner in which China was dealing with Tibet or the Sudanese government was dealing with Darfur, I think there would be no reluctance to make that comparison," he said.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7335875.stm
i dont know if this is what you are referring to, but he seems more than happy to stand by his position.
I am happy to have any wrongful behavior of Israel exposed to the world.
only up to the point when somebody actually does. after that, they are 'selling out their own'.
Unlike you and the UN I think the wrongful behavior of any nation should be so exposed and of course evaluated fairly.
excluding the USA and Israel of course.
Falk doesn't, he's singled out Israel, a democracy in a sea of dictatorships.
democracy doesnt necessarily equal liberty. as pre-civil rights USA, apartheid South Africa and Israel clearly demonstrate.
False again DT. I have criticised Israel and the U.S. on this site quite often. Try the truth it will set you free.
I have criticised Israel and the U.S. on this site quite often.
i know, but seemingly when someone else does it its beyond the pale. infact so far beyond as to be considered lies.
Try the truth it will set you free.
but not the palestinians.
DT - No. I find Falk's criticisms to be beyond the pale. And of course the United Nations is as hysterical.
There are plenty of valid critics and criticisms of Israel. The palestianians sadly are their own worst enemies. Truth is one of the things they need the most and have least. There will be no peace in the region while we have each side deciding to merely list their grievances, instead of really trying to find a workable peace arrangement.
There are plenty of valid critics and criticisms of Israel.
well, just keep the world informed as to your ratings of each criticism.
The palestianians sadly are their own worst enemies.
they have few friends in any part of the world.
Truth is one of the things they need the most and have least.
Your vetted truth or the truth of their own daily experiences?
There will be no peace in the region while we have each side deciding to merely list their grievances, instead of really trying to find a workable peace arrangement.
there will be no peace until the local population is broken to the point of insignificance.
DT: I can't help it if you are too politically tied to one side of the conflict to distinguish between what is true and what is not. But the truth isn't part of your agenda here, and it gets in the way.
By the way, your last line reads like a statement from Hamas, referring of course to the local Jewish population.
>>I can't help it if you are too politically tied to one side of the conflict to distinguish between what is true and what is not.<<
I'm afraid it's you, mahons, who is, for whatever reason, so blinded by emotionalism as not to recognise reality in this case.
The fact that you said Falk is wrong not to stand by "his people" and then shortly later denied that you ever did just reveals the problem you - uncharacteristically - have with reality in this regard.
It's also nonsense to suggest that "all Jewish people have a connection to Israel", and, especially coming from a citizen of New York, it again shows how dense the clouds of wishful thinking can be.
Finally, your statement that the Palestinians are their own worst enemies is nothing short of sick. Try to imagine for a minute someone stealing your people's land, banishing them into ghettos and treating them as 2nd class citizens in their own country and then tell us who you'd think your people's worst enemies are.
That Israel is a democracy is in itself admirable; it is also a really great country in many other ways. But democracy doesn't absolve any country for the crimes it has committed and continues to commit. In fact, from a moral point of view in a way it makes it worse.
Well done Daytripper for posting that video link, by the way. Tho I think you're too pessimistic about the opportunities for peace. Peace will come when justice comes, and that will come when the US adopts a neutral and fair policy towards the two peoples.
I can't help it if you are too politically tied to one side of the conflict to distinguish between what is true and what is not. But the truth isn't part of your agenda here, and it gets in the way.
im not tied to any side nor have i any agenda. and i dont think the same can be said of you either. though it has to be said that your nation quite clearly does. infact its one of those interesting keyholes through which you can veiw the workings of the american state. where national policy permeates everywhere including the so-called free media. that they are all willing to take bias to such levels is almost proof enough that there is obviously something worth hiding.
............
noel, i used to be optimistic about peace in the region, not anymore. infact im of the opinion that it is likely to get worse across the whole region.
i agree with the rest though. well said.
More on Falk, apparently he is a full blown truther.