I would like you to investigate with your colleagues in the FCO what they intend to do over the untenable nature of the position of Richard Falk as Special Rapporteur to the UNHRC for Israel & the "Disputed" Palestinian Territories.
As I'm sure that you are aware, the UNHRC was set up in 2006 to replace the UNCHR which was widely agreed to not be fit for purpose. However, it is pretty clear that the new body is making the same mistakes in admitting countries undertaking horrendous human rights abuses to positions of power, and refusing to take a strong stand against other long-standing human rights issues for political reasons. These same political reasons have ensured that of all the countries in the world, Israel is the only one to have a permanent review at every single plenary meeting, as opposed to the approximately 4 year cycle that all other countries are on. No other nation - not Libya, Syria, China, Burma, Sri Lanka or Sudan have been singled out in this way, regardless of the fact that by any objective or even, subjective measure, their crimes are significantly greater than those of Israel towards the Palestinians (although I do not mean to paint the picture that all is rosy with Israel, merely that the degree of scrutiny is disproportionate in the grand scheme of things).
The position of Special Rapporteur was created to provide these regular reports to the Council and this mandate was highly controversial at the time. John Dugard had performed a similar role in the predecessor body, and in 2008, Richard Falk was elected on a 6 year mandate. He had previously held a similar position and produced a report into the level of resistance permitted to the Palestinians, determining that suicide bombers were acceptable, and referring to the Israeli government's actions as "state sponsored terrorism"and has previously claimed that Israel are performing "genocide" on the Palestinians and labelled the situation "apartheid". For a Professor of International Law not to understand what those two words mean is atrocious and begs the question on whether he is seeking the truth or publicity for a cause. Falk was on record as stating that it was not " an irresponsible overstatement to associate the treatment of Palestinians with the criminalised Nazi record of collective atrocity" and these comments gave grave concerns to his independence, impartiality and objectiveness - crucial attributes to carry out valid work. The British government have, in 2009, previously commented that Falk's work is "unbalanced and contributes little". It is important to state that Falk has been denied access to the Palestinian territories since he started working, and therefore has produced all his work from afar. A similar approach was taken by Judge Goldstone in his report into the 2008-2009 war in Gaza, and who has recently acknowledged that he got it very wrong. Whilst I do not condone the Israeli government's stance in isolating themselves by not cooperating with the International community, it is reasonable to understand why, in their view, the body is biased against them, and the notion of a "fair trial" does not exist for them at the UNHRC.
All these reasons however, explain Israel's antipathy towards Falk, who has a flexible (at best) view of his own Jewish heritage. However, whilst they reduce the credibility of his position, it is arguable that they do not constitute a reason for him to be removed as he is technically within the bounds of his extremely poorly worded, polemical mandate. However, last week, on his personal blog (http://richardfalk.wordpress.com/) , he posted a cartoon (http://hurryupharry.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/falktoday.jpg - the only link with a large picture I could find) which is riddled with Antisemitic imagery. The message is a simple one: the USA's blatant disregard for justice whilst feasting on the deaths of Arabs. Standard fare in much of the Arabic world, but in this instance, the dog is wearing a skullcap with the Star of David on it. Note, there is no Israeli flag, or even Israeli colours. This is a "Jewish dog", without question. A Jewish dog, "pissing" on Justice whilst devouring dead Arabs. This is blatantly Antisemitic, and there is no other way to read it.
"It is a complete lie. I know nothing about such a cartoon and would never publish such a thing, ever."He then removed the cartoon from his blog, and has issued the following statements:
"Maybe I do not understand the cartoon, and if it offends in this way I have removed it from the blog. It may be in bad taste to an extent I had not earlier appreciated, but I certainly didn’t realize that it could be viewed as anti-semitic, and still do not realize."
Upon examing the cartoon, he still can't ascertain why it may be Antisemitic?
My intention has never been to demean in any way Jews as a people despite my strong criticisms of Israeli policies, and some versions of Zionist support. My interest and commitment has always been directed at finding a just and sustainable peace for both peoples, although I believe that this must be based on a belated recognition of Palestinian rights, and not on power relationships."With apologies, I realize that the cartoon that originally appeared on my blog devoted to the arrest warrants for Qaddafi and two others issued by the ICC had strongly anti-semitic symbolism that I had not detected before it was pointed out to me. I posted the cartoon to express my view that double standards pertained to the American and ICC approach to international criminal accountability. As soon as I was made aware of the anti-semitic content of the cartoon I removed it from my blog, although initially I denied such a posting because (This line ruins any hopes of impartiality for his UNHRC work - why not both people's rights?)
To be clear, I oppose any denigration of a people based on ethnicity, race, religion, stage of development, and believe in the human dignity of all people in their individual and collective identity. Beyond this, if we are to have a sustainable human future we must also make peace with nature, and treat animals with as much respect as possible. This is both a sacred imperative of my idea of a spiritual life, but also an integral aspect of species survival on an increasingly crowded, overheated, and endangered planet.Returning to the cartoon, I regret my carelessness, and apologize for any unintended hurt and outrage caused thereby. At the same time, I am quite aware that many of the messages were motivated to discredit me due to my views of Israeli policies and behavior."
and finally, an excuse on age, and trying to shift the blame to Google:
"Even now I needed a magnifying glass to identify the anti-semitic character of the dog. My vision (at 80) is pretty good, but not good enough. It looked like a helmet to me, and the main visible symbol on the dog was the USA midriff covering. I found the cartoon through a Google image search on the page devoted to the International Criminal Court. Almost all the images there were about the Court or justice, and I assumed that this blindfolded goddess of justice was being led around by the USA. I am quite sure this cartoon would never have been allowed on the Google page if its true content had been realized, and it should be removed.Without a special effort, which admittedly I did not make, this true content is easy to overlook, and even when the initial objection to the cartoon was brought to my attention, and I looked at it, I did not appreciate the objectionable character of what was intended to be communicated."
Professor Falk is clearly a highly intelligent man. There is a chance that he published the cartoon without fully looking at it, although it questions his thoroughness in all aspects of life, including his academia and his UNHRC reports. However, there is no conceivable way that once the cartoon is subject to even the most cursory of examination, it is possible to "not appreciate the [Antisemitic] character" of the cartoon. His apologies are insincere and a case of shutting the door after the horse has bolted.
With his history, and now his present, there can be no way in which the UNHRC can be confident in his abilities to perform his role as Special Rappoteur. He should be removed from his post, and there should be a genuinely impartial investigation into whether such a role is needed, ahead of other conflict zones around the world. It is important to mention that the last 2 reports produced by the UN into Israeli actions have either been disowned by the author (Goldstone) or found Israel to have acted within International law (the Flotilla report). The UK have the opportunity to press for these results and try and restore some credit to the noble vision of a UN Human Rights body as dreamed up by Rene Cassin, Eleanor Roosevelt et al nearly 65 years ago.
I await your response, Sir.
Yours faithfully
