June 12, 2013
Poor Samantha Power. The post of UN ambassador will be a glittering decoration on her resume, but the amount of her working hours she spends cosseting the Israel lobby is about to soar, with the result that she will sacrifice even more of her reputation as a defender of human rights by helping to cover up Israeli atrocities.
Consider the latest furor involving Richard Falk, the UN's special rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian territories. Last week Falk issued his annual report to the UN Human Rights Council on Palestinian conditions and dismissed American calls for negotiations, saying that "landswaps" are a fraud, and the playing field is tilted against Palestinians' basic rights.
The Special Rapporteur is sceptical of the value of direct negotiations at this time, especially in relation to the protection of the human rights of Palestinians, above all their right of self - determination. The political preconditions for effective negotiations do not seem to exist: for Israel, a pro - settler Government with a seeming expansionist vision of the territorial scope of Israel and annexationist policies in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, does not seem inclined to withdraw to 1967 lines or to address such other issues....
This did not go down well with the United States. The U.S. representative to the Human Rights Council, Eileen Chamberlain Donahoe, called on other member states of the council to "denounce Falk and his outrageous abuse of the position he holds," according to the Forward.
The report's other crimes were to urge boycott of businesses that work in the occupation, urge an investigation of Israel for its treatment of Palestinian prisoners, and argue that the Israel lobby group UN Watch has no business being accredited by the UN.
This last recommendation has enraged the Israel lobby. First, here's what Falk said:
Since the Special Rapporteur assumed this position, "UN Watch" – a "pro - Israel" lobbying organization accredited as an NGO to [Economic and Social Council], has issued a series of defamatory attacks demeaning his character, repeatedly distorting his views on potentially inflammatory issues. ... The lobby groups' smears have been sent to diplomats and United Nations officials, including the Secretary - General, who has apparently accepted the allegations at face value, issuing public criticism of the Special Rapporteur. It is disappointing that such irresponsible and dishonest attacks have been taken seriously, with no effort to seek the views of the Special Rapporteur or verify the accuracy of the allegations. To set the record straight, the Special Rapporteur proposes that UN Watch be investigated to determine whether it qualifies as a n independent organization that operates in accord with its name and stated objectives, and is not indirectly sponsored by the Government of Israel and/ or other "pro - Israel" lobbying groups affiliated with the Government, as well as whether its programme of work is of direct relevance to the aims and p urposes of the United Nations .
Once again, the United States is with the lobby. The ADL says that the United States stood up for UN Watch, and that Falk is guilty of propagating an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory:
Ambassador Eileen Chamberlain Donahoe, the U.S. Representative to the Human Rights Council, stated that the U.S. "completely rejects and condemns the irresponsible call" and denounced Mr. Falk’s assault on the credibility of U.N. Watch, an internationally respected U.N.-accredited NGO. Mr. Falk’s recommendation that the organization be investigated to ascertain that it is not controlled by the Israeli government was also condemned.
Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director, issued the following statement:
"We welcome U.S. Ambassador Donahoe’s strong rejection and condemnation of Richard Falk’s latest report on the human rights situation of the Palestinians, and call on Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, U.N. High Commissioner Navi Pillay and member states of the Human Rights Council to denounce Falk and his outrageous abuse of the position he holds.
"Mr. Falk’s attempt to paint himself as the victim of an Israeli government-sponsored defamation campaign, carried out by U.N. Watch, has echoes of classical anti-Semitic conspiracy theories."
In Ha'aretz's report on the charges of anti-Semitism, once again the report on Palestinian conditions is secondary.
"I don't intend to resign and there doesn't seem to be any formal initiative that is seeking my dismissal," [Falk] told a news briefing a day after addressing the UN Human Rights Council.
"My role of trying to speak honestly about the situation that Palestinians are facing under this condition of prolonged occupation generates this sort of reaction that tries to paint anti-Israeli criticism as a form of anti-Semitism," Falk said.
The latest controversy echoes a controversy that began after the Boston bombings, in April, when Falk wrote that the Israel lobby and the special relationship are generating terrorist rage toward the U.S. From the Forward:
"(A)s long as Tel Aviv has the compliant ear of the American political establishment, those who wish for peace and justice in the world should not rest easy," Falk, the council’s special rapporteur on the Palestinian territories, wrote in an Op-Ed posted to the online Foreign Policy Journal on Tuesday.
Falk... called the Boston attack "retribution" for the actions of the U.S. military in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan.
"The American global domination project is bound to generate all kinds of resistance in the post-colonial world," Falk wrote. "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."
The group UN Watch sprang on Falk's comments, and distorted them as justifying the bombing. It won a condemnation of Falk from the Secretary-General of the U.N. This is from the B'nai Brith, which also landed on Falk:
"A few days later, a U.N. spokesman said that Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon condemned the Boston Marathon bombing and that he 'strongly believed that nothing can justify such an attack,’" [B'nai Brith rep Klaus] Netter quoted the spokesman as saying. "He rejected Falk’s comments and indicated that…such public comments by special rapporteurs 'could undermine the U.N.’s credibility and the work of the United Nations.’"
Back to Falk's report. Here is the section dismissing the peace process. Notice the contempt for the idea of land swaps, in the revived Arab Peace Initiative:
The unlawful Israeli annexation and demographic manipulations in East Jerusalem have created fundamental threats to the Palestinian right of self - determination. It is the judgment of this Special Rapporteur that such issues bear directly on upholding the right of self - determination, and represent a flaw or insufficiency in the conventional conceptions of IHL [international humanitarian law] and international human rights law. This flaw or in sufficiency should be addressed by either the International Committee of the Red Cross by convening an international conference to draft a convention for Occupations that surpass five years, or the manifold issues related to prolonged occupation be examined by a commission of inquiry composed of relevant international law experts.
It has been widely accepted in commentary on the Israel/Palestine conflict that the only path to a sustainable and just peace, as well as the fulfilment of the Palestinian right of self - determination, is through direct negotiations. Strong efforts have been made in the last several months by the concerned Governments with the United States as the principal intermediary. The Arab Peace Initiative of 2002 has been revived and modified to allow for "land swaps," which appears to be a means of incorporating major settlement blocs into Israel and opening the door to territorial adjustments in response to Israel's security interests.
The Special Rapporteur is sceptical of the value of direct negotiations at this time, especially in relation to the protection of the human rights of Palestinian s , above all their right of self - determination. The political preconditions for effective negotiations do not seem to exist: for Israel, a pro - settler Government with a seeming expansionist vision of the territorial scope of Israel and annexationist policies in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, does not seem inclined to withdraw to 1967 lines or to address such other issues.
Source
|
