Tuesday, July 03, 2012

Richard Falk Unable To Respond To UN Watch's Hillel Neuer's Rebuttal

At the UN Human Rights Council, Hillel Neuer Challenged UN Palestine Expert Richard Falk, who:
complained that Israel refuses to cooperate with his mandate. He blamed Israel for provoking violence, emphasizing that Hamas generally does not retaliate. He called for the council to condemn Israel and commission a “study” on prolonged occupation. He also called for another World Court advisory opinion, this time on Israel’s treatment of Palestinian prisoners.
Here is a video of Hillel Neuer's debunking of Richard Falk, followed by a transcript:

The video ends with the conclusion of Neuer's challenge.
So did Falk respond?

I emailed Hillel Neuer, who wrote back:
His response, after all the speakers had finished, indeed omitted any reference to our questions. Since we were the only one in the whole debate to disagree with him, his failure to respond was cowardly.
Then again, what could Richard Falk have possibly said in his own defense?

Here is the UN's full summary of the UN Human Rights Council dialogue with Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in Occupied Palestinian Territories Richard Falk

Here is a transcript of Hillel Neuer skewering of Richard Falk at the UN
Thank you, Madam President.

Mr. Falk, your report states that Israel has refused to cooperate with your mandate, and urges this council to pay attention to how this harms the United Nations.

Given that during this time, Israel has invited and received numerous experts of this council, as well as the High Commissioner, on country visits, we wish to ask: Is it possible that the problem lies in your mandate?

The title of your mandate—Special Rapporteur on "the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories" —implies a regional jurisdiction that objectively treats all sides. Yet the actual mandate is to investigate only “Israel’s violations.”

Indeed, speaking here on 16 June 2008, you admitted your mandate was open to challenges over its “bias and one-sidedness.” You added: “Such complaints have considerable merit.

Similarly, has the impartiality of your mandate been helped by your actions to grant standing to Hamas—which takes credit for terrorism against civilians, and whose charter attacks Jews and the United Nations?

Indeed, as reported in the Ma’an newspaper, the Palestinian Authority itself asked you to resign, on grounds that—as you stated—they consider you a “partisan of Hamas.”

Last summer, you published a cartoon showing a bloodthirsty dog wearing a Jewish religious head-covering. The High Commissioner called this “anti-Semitic” and “objectionable.” British Prime Minister David Cameron also condemned it.

Speaking in this chamber last year, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said: “For this Human Rights Council to fulfil its mandate, it must be seen as impartial and fair. It cannot be seen as a place ruled by bias or special interests.”

Referring to you, he stated:
“Recently, there was a Special Rapporteur who suggested there was an apparent cover-up in the 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States. I want to tell you, clearly and directly. I condemn this sort of inflammatory rhetoric. It is preposterous – an affront to the memory of the more than 3,000 people who died in that tragic terrorist attack.”
Finally, you give the cover endorsement to this book which I hold in my hands, “The Wandering Who,” which is replete with attacks not only against Israel, but against Jews and Judaism. The material is so severe that 20 Palestinian activists, including Omar Barghouti and Ali Abunimah, founder of the Electronic Intifada, denounced the book and its author for racism and anti-Semitism.

Mr. Falk, are these actions consistent with the principles of the United Nations? Do they contribute to the objectivity of your mandate, and of this council?

Thank you, Madam President
Thank you, Mr. Neuer.

Technorati Tag: and and .
Post a Comment