Nick Welsh is correct that Richard Falk’s most recent diatribe against U.S. and Israeli policy in the aftermath of the Boston Marathon bombings was not quite as egregious and offensive as his past anti-Semitic and maliciously anti-Israel comments.
The reaction against Falk’s comments, however, was not, as Welsh alleged, a knee-jerk response to any criticism of Israel. The Anti-Defamation League, for one, denounced Falk’s comments in an effort to draw attention to the absurdity of his continuing to hold the position of “Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967,” for the United Nations Human Rights Council. This position requires that the person reporting on Israeli policies in the West Bank and Gaza Strip have a modicum of objectivity. Yet with every report he files with the U.N., with each op-ed he pens, with every blog he posts, Richard Falk reveals his bias and extremism.
What Mr. Welsh fails to understand is that this most recent example of a public reaction to Richard Falk’s airing of opinion is not an example of “critics of Israel being stifled.” Rather, it is a case of standing up and asserting that pathological critics of Israel should not hold official positions at the U.N. in which they report on Israeli policy. – Cyndi Silverman, regional director of the Anti-Defamation League, S.B./Tri-Counties
Great article regarding Richard Falk, his statement, and the problem of saying anything critical of Israeli’s policy. You will no doubt be labeled as anti-Semitic just for broaching the subject of questioning Israel. Thank you for writing this article. I wish Americans would understand that there are many Israelis who are critical of their own government’s policies and actions re Palestinians. – Lee Beckom