users online counter
Interesting


Image: Antisemitic cartoon published by Human Rights Watch committee member Richard Falk on his website.


Human Rights Watch Should Remove Antisemitic U.N. Official Richard Falk from Its Board
The following letter was sent today to Human Rights Watch executive director Kenneth Roth.




Kenneth RothExecutive DirectorHuman Rights Watch350 Fifth Avenue, 34th FloorNew York, NY 10118-3299United States of America
December 17, 2012
Dear Mr. Roth,
We are shocked to discover that Richard Falk—the U.N. official whose antisemitic remarks and 9/11 conspiracy theories have been condemned by British Prime Minister David Cameron, U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay—is a board member of your organization.
By legitimizing this racist and enemy of human rights, your organization undermines its own founding principles. We urge you to remove him immediately.
According to your website, Mr. Falk is a member of Human Rights Watch’s prestigious Santa Barbara Committee, composed of prominent citizens who play a key role in your organization’s global work.
We find it astonishing that Mr. Falk would be rewarded by such an eminent position with Human Rights Watch, one of the world’s largest human rights organizations.
As a keen follower of the U.N. and its Human Rights Council, you surely know the following:
•  That Falk is so extreme in his support for the Hamas terrorist organization that even the Palestinian Authority—as revealed in a Wikleaks cable, and which Falk himself admits—has sought to remove him, on grounds that he is a “partisan of Hamas“;
• That Falk last week published an article attempting to downplay, reinterpret and justify the latest call by Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal to destroy Israel;
•  That Falk last year published on his website an antisemitic cartoonshowing a dog wearing a Jewish head covering, and with “USA” written on its body, urinating on a depiction of justice and devouring a bloody skeleton;
•  That Falk was condemned for this antisemitic act by British Prime Minister Cameron;
•  That UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay also condemned Falk’s cartoon as “antisemitic”;
• That Falk now provides the cover endorsement of a virulently antisemitic book, “The Wandering Who,” whose author, as documented by Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz in The New Republic, boasts about drawing “insights from a man who… was an anti-Semite as well as a radical misogynist,” a hater of “almost everything that fails to be Aryan masculinity,” declares himself a “proud, self-hating Jew,” writes with “contempt” of “the Jew in me,” and describes himself as “a strong opponent” of “Jewish-ness”;
•  That, only two months ago, Falk was condemned for endorsing this antisemitic book by the British Foreign Office, which protested to the U.N. and expressed its “serious concerns”;

Human Rights Watch committee member Richard Falk has been condemned for antisemitism, supporting Hamas, and spreading the 9/11 conspiracy theory.
•  That Falk accused Israel of planning a “Palestinian Holocaust,” prompting a bloc of dictatorships, including Bashar al-Assad’s Syria and Muammar Gaddafi’s Libya, to successfully nominate him as the UN Human Rights Council’s expert on Palestine;
•  That his UNHRC mission is so biased that Falk tries to obscure it, calling himself the Special Rapporteur on “the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories,” implying a regional jurisdiction that objectively treats all actions and parties, whereas in fact his mandate is to investigate only “Israel’s violations”;
•  That Falk is one of the world’s most high-profile 9/11 conspiracy theorists, lending his name to those who accuse the U.S. government of orchestrating the destruction of the Twin Towers as a pretext to launch wars in Iraq and Afghanistan;
•  That Falk actively promotes the writings of David Ray Griffin, a disciple and close friend of Falk who has produced 12 books describing the World Trade Center attack as “an inside job”;
•  That Falk not only contributed the Foreword to Griffin’s 2004 “The New Pearl Harbor”—praising the author’s “patience,” “fortitude,” “courage,” and “intelligence”—but Griffin credits Falk for getting the book published, and also specially thanks Falk’s wife, Hilal Elver, someone who is also a member of Human Rights Watch’s Santa Barbara Committee;
•  That Falk has repeatedly appeared on the “TruthJihad.com” show of Kevin Barrett, a 9/11 conspiracy theorist and Holocaust skeptic who rails against the “ethnic Jews” who he says run Washington and the media, a show on which Falk has endorsed Barrett’s “good work” while also praising Iranian tyrant Mahmoud Ahmadinejad;
•  That UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon took the floor of the Human Rights Council to issue an unprecedented condemnation of Falk’s 9/11 remarks, saying they were “preposterous” and “an affront to the memory of the more than 3,000 people who died in that tragic terrorist attack”;
•  That U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice denounced Falk’s comments as“despicable and deeply offensive,” and condemned Falk’s “one-sided and politicized approach,” saying his words were “so noxious that it should finally be plain to all that he should no longer continue in his position,” and that “the cause of human rights will be better advanced without Mr. Falk and the distasteful sideshow he has chosen to create.”
I am sure that all of this is already known to you, but we include this evidentiary record for the benefit of your board members, whom we trust will act swiftly to remove Mr. Falk from your organization. The cause of human rights, including the struggle against all forms of racism and antisemitism, requires no less.
Thank you for your urgent attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Hillel C. NeuerExecutive DirectorUN Watch



1 Response to “Human Rights Watch Should Remove Antisemitic U.N. Official Richard Falk from Its Board
SANJAY DIXIT
Dec 18th, 2012 at 7:18 am

Mr Richard Falk is an eminent lawyer of international repute. It is really unfortunate that his sense of justice has degenerated beyond his own recognition. He is no longer able to take a judicious position on the Israel-Palestine conflict. This is because of his extreme anti-Semitic position. Mr Richard Falk needs to introspect his personal reasons for taking this sort of an extreme anti-Semitic position since it is only a self-destructive position vis-a-vis his own profession. His current position contravenes the principles of Human Rights for which UN Watch and Human Rights Watch exist and work. His current extreme anti-Semitic position is not justified because it does not stand the test of reason and justice. Dear Mr Richard Flak kindly note and set right as soon as possible – this will be good for you.

Image: Antisemitic cartoon published by Human Rights Watch committee member Richard Falk on his website.

Human Rights Watch Should Remove Antisemitic U.N. Official Richard Falk from Its Board

Kenneth Roth
Executive Director
Human Rights Watch
350 Fifth Avenue, 34th Floor
New York, NY 10118-3299
United States of America

December 17, 2012

Dear Mr. Roth,

We are shocked to discover that Richard Falk—the U.N. official whose antisemitic remarks and 9/11 conspiracy theories have been condemned by British Prime Minister David Cameron, U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay—is a board member of your organization.

By legitimizing this racist and enemy of human rights, your organization undermines its own founding principles. We urge you to remove him immediately.

According to your website, Mr. Falk is a member of Human Rights Watch’s prestigious Santa Barbara Committee, composed of prominent citizens who play a key role in your organization’s global work.

We find it astonishing that Mr. Falk would be rewarded by such an eminent position with Human Rights Watch, one of the world’s largest human rights organizations.

As a keen follower of the U.N. and its Human Rights Council, you surely know the following:

•  That Falk is so extreme in his support for the Hamas terrorist organization that even the Palestinian Authority—as revealed in a Wikleaks cable, and which Falk himself admits—has sought to remove him, on grounds that he is a “partisan of Hamas“;

• That Falk last week published an article attempting to downplay, reinterpret and justify the latest call by Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal to destroy Israel;

•  That Falk last year published on his website an antisemitic cartoonshowing a dog wearing a Jewish head covering, and with “USA” written on its body, urinating on a depiction of justice and devouring a bloody skeleton;


•  That Falk was condemned for this antisemitic act by British Prime Minister Cameron;

•  That UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay also condemned Falk’s cartoon as “antisemitic”;

• That Falk now provides the cover endorsement of a virulently antisemitic book, “The Wandering Who,” whose author, as documented by Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz in The New Republic, boasts about drawing “insights from a man who… was an anti-Semite as well as a radical misogynist,” a hater of “almost everything that fails to be Aryan masculinity,” declares himself a “proud, self-hating Jew,” writes with “contempt” of “the Jew in me,” and describes himself as “a strong opponent” of “Jewish-ness”;

•  That, only two months ago, Falk was condemned for endorsing this antisemitic book by the British Foreign Office, which protested to the U.N. and expressed its “serious concerns”;

Human Rights Watch committee member Richard Falk has been condemned for antisemitism, supporting Hamas, and spreading the 9/11 conspiracy theory.

•  That Falk accused Israel of planning a Palestinian Holocaust,” prompting a bloc of dictatorships, including Bashar al-Assad’s Syria and Muammar Gaddafi’s Libya, to successfully nominate him as the UN Human Rights Council’s expert on Palestine;

•  That his UNHRC mission is so biased that Falk tries to obscure it, calling himself the Special Rapporteur on “the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories,” implying a regional jurisdiction that objectively treats all actions and parties, whereas in fact his mandate is to investigate only “Israel’s violations”;

•  That Falk is one of the world’s most high-profile 9/11 conspiracy theorists, lending his name to those who accuse the U.S. government of orchestrating the destruction of the Twin Towers as a pretext to launch wars in Iraq and Afghanistan;

•  That Falk actively promotes the writings of David Ray Griffin, a disciple and close friend of Falk who has produced 12 books describing the World Trade Center attack as “an inside job”;

•  That Falk not only contributed the Foreword to Griffin’s 2004 “The New Pearl Harbor”—praising the author’s “patience,” “fortitude,” “courage,” and “intelligence”—but Griffin credits Falk for getting the book published, and also specially thanks Falk’s wife, Hilal Elver, someone who is also a member of Human Rights Watch’s Santa Barbara Committee;

•  That Falk has repeatedly appeared on the “TruthJihad.com” show of Kevin Barrett, a 9/11 conspiracy theorist and Holocaust skeptic who rails against the “ethnic Jews” who he says run Washington and the media, a show on which Falk has endorsed Barrett’s “good work” while also praising Iranian tyrant Mahmoud Ahmadinejad;

•  That UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon took the floor of the Human Rights Council to issue an unprecedented condemnation of Falk’s 9/11 remarks, saying they were “preposterous” and “an affront to the memory of the more than 3,000 people who died in that tragic terrorist attack”;

•  That U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice denounced Falk’s comments as“despicable and deeply offensive,” and condemned Falk’s “one-sided and politicized approach,” saying his words were “so noxious that it should finally be plain to all that he should no longer continue in his position,” and that “the cause of human rights will be better advanced without Mr. Falk and the distasteful sideshow he has chosen to create.”

I am sure that all of this is already known to you, but we include this evidentiary record for the benefit of your board members, whom we trust will act swiftly to remove Mr. Falk from your organization. The cause of human rights, including the struggle against all forms of racism and antisemitism, requires no less.

Thank you for your urgent attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Hillel C. Neuer
Executive Director
UN Watch

1 Response to “Human Rights Watch Should Remove Antisemitic U.N. Official Richard Falk from Its Board

  1. SANJAY DIXIT

    Mr Richard Falk is an eminent lawyer of international repute. It is really unfortunate that his sense of justice has degenerated beyond his own recognition. He is no longer able to take a judicious position on the Israel-Palestine conflict. This is because of his extreme anti-Semitic position. Mr Richard Falk needs to introspect his personal reasons for taking this sort of an extreme anti-Semitic position since it is only a self-destructive position vis-a-vis his own profession. His current position contravenes the principles of Human Rights for which UN Watch and Human Rights Watch exist and work. His current extreme anti-Semitic position is not justified because it does not stand the test of reason and justice. Dear Mr Richard Flak kindly note and set right as soon as possible – this will be good for you.

Humour: railroad lawyer

A big-city lawyer was representing the railroad in a lawsuit filed by an old rancher. The rancher’s prize bull was missing from the section through which the railroad passed.  The rancher only wanted to be paid the fair value of the bull. The case was scheduled to be tried before the justice of the peace, in the back room of the general store. The attorney for the railroad immediately cornered the rancher and tried to get him to settle out of court. The lawyer did his best selling job and finally the rancher agreed to take half of what he was asking.

After the rancher had signed the release and took the check, the young lawyer couldn’t resist gloating a little over his success, telling the rancher, “You know, I hate to tell you this old man, but I’m one lucky
fella today and I put one over on you in there. I couldn’t have won the case. The engineer was asleep and the fireman was in the caboose when the train went through your ranch that morning. I didn’t have one witness to put on the stand. I bluffed you!”

The old rancher replied, “Well, I’ll tell you young feller, I’m feeling pretty lucky myself today too. I was really worried about winning that case … especially since that darn bull came home this morning.”

Oldie: Poor Bessie

An old farmer named Clyde had a car accident. In court, the trucking company’s fancy lawyer was questioning Clyde. “Didn’t you say at the scene of the accident, ‘I’m fine,’?” asked the lawyer.

Clyde responded, “Well, I’ll tell you what happened. I had just loaded my favorite mule, Bessie, into the……”

“I didn’t ask for any details,” the lawyer interrupted. “Just answer the question. Did you not say, at the scene of the accident, “I’m fine!’?”

Clyde said, “Well, I had just got Bessie into the trailer and was driving down the road….”

The lawyer interrupted again and said, “Judge, I am trying to establish the fact that at the scene of the accident, this man told the Highway Patrolman on the scene that he was just fine. Now several weeks after the accident he is trying to sue my client. I believe he is a fraud. Please tell him to simply answer the question.”

By this time, the Judge was fairly interested in Clyde’s answer and said to the lawyer, “I’d like to hear what he has to say about his favorite mule, Bessie.”

Clyde thanked the Judge and proceeded, “Well… as I was sayin’, I had just loaded Bessie, my favorite mule, into the trailer and was drivin’ her down the highway when this huge semi ran the stop sign and smacked my truck right in the side. I was thrown into one ditch and Bessie was thrown into the other. I was hurtin’ real bad and didn’t want to move. However, I could hear ole Bessie moanin’ and groanin’. I knew she was in terrible shape just by her groans.

“Real soon a Highway Patrolman came on the scene. He could hear Bessie moanin’ and groanin’, too. So, he went over to her. After he looked at her, he took out his gun and shot her between the eyes. Then the Patrolman came across the road, gun in hand, looked at me, and said, ‘How are YOU feeling?’

“Now what the heck would you say?”

Bad joke

A rabbi, a lawyer, Queen Elizabeth and a cat walk into a bar. The bartender says, “Come on guys, this is a bad joke, right?”

Humour: The Lawyer and the Car Accident

A very successful lawyer was parking his brand-new Lexus in front of his office, ready to show it off to his colleagues.

As he got out, a truck passed too close and completely tore off the door on the driver’s side of the Lexus.

The counselor immediately grabbed his cell phone, dialed 911, and within minutes a policeman pulled up.

Before the officer had a chance to ask any questions, the lawyer started screaming hysterically. His Lexus, which he had just picked up the day before, was now completely ruined and would never be the same, no matter what the body shop did to it.

When the lawyer finally wound down from his ranting and raving, the officer shook his head in disgust and disbelief. “I can’t believe how materialistic you lawyers are,” he said. “You are so focused on your possessions that you don’t notice anything else.”

“How can you say such a thing?” asked the lawyer.

The cop replied, “Don’t you know that your left arm is missing from the elbow down? It must have been torn off when the truck hit you.”

“My God!” screamed the lawyer. “Where’s my Rolex?!”

Humour: a good jury

A farmer asked a friend to recommend an attorney to defend him against a charge of bestiality. “I know a great trial lawyer,” the fellow said, ”but he’s expensive and doesn’t know how to pick a jury. I know another lawyer,” he continued, “who’s not a great trial lawyer, but he’s cheap
and really knows how to pick a jury.”

The farmer settled on the cheap attorney, but immediately had second thoughts when the key witness, a neighbor, began his testimony. “I saw jed mount his sheep from behind,” he said, “and when he was finished, I saw the sheep turn around and lick Jed’s pecker.”

The accused farmer was devastated and had all but given up hope of acquittal when a juror in overalls whispered to the fellow next to him, “You know, a good sheep will do that.”

free counters