Statement in support of Professor Richard Falk, UN Special Rapporteur from the International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network (IJAN)
We join the National Lawyers Guild in expressing support for the UN Special Rapporteur, Richard Falk, in his statement on the need for the U.S. to examine its foreign policy.
Dr. Falk, in an editorial in Foreign Policy Journal titled “A Commentary on the Marathon Murders,” appealed for the U.S. to be self-critical and examine the effects of “irresponsible and unlawful warfare [as the] centerpiece of American foreign policy.” He lists some of the more egregious actions of the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, including Abu Ghraib, drone attacks, torture, and rendition and says: “The American global domination project is bound to generate all kinds of resistance in the post-colonial world. In some respects, the United States has been fortunate not to experience worse blowbacks…” Dr. Falk continues the essay with discussion of Barack Obama’s abandonment of the Palestinians and any involvement in bringing about a just peace. Obama’s recent visit to Israel, says Falk, was a “love letter to the Israeli public” and “obsequious diplomacy” rather than a serious attempt at achieving justice.
It is evident that American foreign policy is far from a force for global justice, and it is not seen as such by others around the world. The process of self-reflection will occur, says Dr. Falk, “either as a result of voluntary self-reflection or through the force of unpleasant events.”
Since the publication of his April 21, 2013 commentary, Dr. Falk has received thousands of comments claiming that he suggested that the U.S. is to blame for the Boston Marathon bombings, and even charging anti-Semitism. It is essential to remember that no motive for the bombings has yet been disclosed to the public and that no one, certainly not Richard Falk’s detractors, knows why the young bombers targeted civilians in Boston. Further, we reject the claim that criticizing either Israel or the relationship between Israel and the U.S. is anti-Jewish. Dr. Falk has always shown consistent respect for human rights for all people all over the world. It is also essential to understand that Dr. Falk said nothing to suggest U.S. blame. He was expressing what any humane and responsible individual should express: that the public in the U.S. must consider the impact of the foreign policy of its government when confronted with the mass violence it reigns on people across the globe, including the horrific ethnic cleansing of Palestinians by its close ally.
“evident that American foreign policy is far from a force for global justice, and it is not seen as such by others around the world.”
America is Israel’s lawyer. This policy is deluded. It is shortsighted. It brings danger to innocent US citizens. It forces the Jewish Diaspora to support Israeli militarism against its own long term interests. It damages US interests in the Middle East. It won’t save Israel from the consequences of its own madness. Only policies that offer justice to the Palestinian people can work. The rest is pointless and enough people have already died needlessly for the fantasy that Israel can colonise the West Bank and that the Palestinian people do not exist.
“Jew lover” was an epithet in Nazi Germany as “self-hating Jew” has become in our time. Leave it to defenders of Israel to turn “anti-Semite” into a mere epithet, used even against fellow Jews.
How can the US public, like the masses of any country, most concerned with getting daily bread & shelter & entertainment, confront the blowback from US foreign policy when they never get the details from our US mainstream media or government? All they get from those avenues is “they hate us for our freedom.” Not one player in the mainstream media has ever even presented a discussion for American public audience regarding the motives for 9/11 uncovered by the 9/11 Commission. It’s a farce, since in theory the US is to be governed by the informed consent of US citizens.
The IJAZN statement correctly says that no motive has been vouchsafed and that Falk’s critics should not assume too much. However, I’d say that Falk himself takes the view that it must all have something to do with ME or ME plus Afghanistan. The point of his remarks must be to classify the Boston crime in a dual way – he considers it to be wrong against personal innocence but also wrong against government wrong. Whereas we like to think that we are in the right in every respect. I share his view but with a stab of pain.
Bravo.