Trending Topics:

Israel supporters use Boston bombing to call for firing of UN Rapporteur

on 90 Comments


In recent days, news reports have accused Richard Falk, the UN special rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian territories, of blaming the Boston marathon attack on Israel and the US. Some reports even claim that he had said the victims deserved it.

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon officially “reject[ed]” Falk’s alleged comments. The UK Mission to the UN “object[ed] strongly.” The Canadian foreign minister accused Falk of “mean-spirited, anti-Semitic rhetoric,” while the US Mission “completely reject[ed]” Falk’s “provocative and offensive commentary.”

US Ambassador Susan Rice even tweeted her views on the matter:

Falk Rice

Yet Richard Falk never even made the comments he was being accused of making.

UN Watch crafts the smoking gun

In the early morning of April 19, as Boston police continued to search for one of the prime suspects in the Boston bomber case, the Al Jazeera website published an opinion piece by Richard Falk entitled “Collective Self-Reflection in the Wake of a National Tragedy.” The article used the Boston bombing—specifically reactions to the bombing—as a starting point to talk about the trajectory of US foreign policy and the need for self-reflection on America’s role in the world.

That same day, Falk posted his piece—minus the light edits by Aljazeera editors—on his personal blog, with the title “A Commentary on the Marathon Murders.”

Neither site registered much of a reaction.

Two days later, however, Falk’s “Commentary” was reprinted in a small website called Foreign Policy Journal, which was then seen by UN Watch.

UN Watch is one of many overfunded watchdog-for-Israel organizations—like NGO Monitor—whose role is to target specific institutions and interpret every action by those institutions as a slight against Israel. UN Watch is affiliated with the American Jewish Committee (AJC), which has funded it to the tune of over a million dollars in 2010 and 2011 combined, according to IRS filings. Ever since Falk was appointed as the UN special rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian territories, UN Watch has waged a campaign to unseat Falk, an outspoken advocate for Palestinian human rights. (In 2009, on the most ridiculous grounds, UN Watch even questioned whether Falk was really Jewish.)

On April 22, UN Watch issued what it called an “exclusive report” under the headline “Exclusive: UN Official Blames America for Boston Marathon Terror Attacks.” The report itself was a three-sentence preface followed by an open letter to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon, cc’d to US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice, calling yet again for the denunciation of Falk.

The letter accused Falk, through his article, of

1. blaming the US for the Boston attack,

2. blaming Israel for the Boston attack, and

3. engaging in “9/11 conspiracies” by suggesting that the Bush administration had exploited 9/11 as a pretext to wage war on Iraq.

Never mind that the third argument is not controversial. Much of the UN Watch letter quoted from the Falk piece, though in disjointed and verbless fragments rather than complete sentences. For instance:

Terrorism will target Americans until they reflect upon and change their action, says Falk. Lamenting a “taboo” on “self-scrutiny,” he predicts “adjustments” that will come either from “a voluntary process of self-reflection” or “through the force of unpleasant events.” America’s “military prowess” and “hard power diplomacy” make the country “a menace to the world and to itself.” [emphasis mine]

In the preface to the letter, UN Watch even places the name Tel Aviv in quotes:

…Richard Falk is blaming the Boston terrorist attacks on U.S. foreign policy and “Tel Aviv.” [emphasis mine]

UN Watch found the word “retribution” so frightening that it quoted it twice:

[Falk] justifies the Boston terrorist attacks as due “retribution” for American sins …

And five sentences later:

Falk approvingly cites comments justifying the Boston Marathon bombings as “retribution” for the actions of the U.S.military in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan. [emphases mine]

Yet “retribution” appears once in Falk’s piece, only as a quote of something Falk had heard on a call-in radio program, and only in reference to Iraq—not Afghanistan or Pakistan. Moreover his “approval” of the quote was that it signaled a willingness from the public to be willing to talk about US foreign policy following a horrific attack.

In the entire UN Watch “exclusive report,” there are only two sentences quoted in full from the Falk piece—one of which is Falk quoting a line from a W.H. Auden poem, which UN Watch neglects to attribute.

The most damning quote—so damning that UN Watch placed it in bold and italics—is this:

Falk conjures up the sinister specter of another global menace by blaming the Boston bombings on the Jewish state: “[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.”

Yet the comment did not refer to the Boston bombing but rather to calls for war, and specifically a war on Iran. Here is the offending sentence in its actual context:

[I]t seems that for the present irresponsible and unlawful warfare are no longer the centerpiece of America’s foreign policy as had become the case in the first decade of the 21st century, although this is far from a certainty. The war drums are beating at this moment in relation to both North Korea and Iran, and as 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.

This was also the only reference in the Falk’s article to “Tel Aviv.”

Blaming Israel and/or the US

The accuracy of UN Watch’s interpretation was irrelevant. On April 23, the AJC issued a press release condemning Falk for his “Boston Terror Slander” and “for asserting … that U.S. and Israeli policies were responsible for the Boston Marathon terrorist bombings.”

The same day, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA) published an article titled “U.N. Official Pins Blame for Boston Marathon Bombing on ‘Tel Aviv,’” which was a rehash of the UN Watch “exclusive report.” For instance, where UN Watch falsely claimed that

Falk approvingly cites comments justifying the Boston Marathon bombings as “retribution” for the actions of the U.S. military in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan.

the JTA merely shortened it to

[Falk] called the Boston attack “retribution” for the actions of the U.S. military in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan.

As well, “Tel Aviv” appeared in quotes—both in the JTA headline and in the article—as was the case in the UN Watch “exclusive report,” which would appear in other articles about the Falk piece.

The Jewish Daily Forward reprinted the JTA article with its own headline: “Richard Falk, Controversial U.N. Official, Blames Boston Bombing on Israel Support: Human Rights Official Calls Marathon Terror ‘Retribution.’”

Fox News shifted the focus from blame-Israel to blame-America:

UN Official Blames Boston Marathon Bombings on American “Domination”

A United Nations official known for blaming the U.S. for unrest in the Middle East has angered critics again by blaming the Boston Marathon bombings on “American global domination.”

Wall Street Journal Assistant Books Editor Sohrab Ahmari—who also happened to have ties to the AJC—published a short piece online ingeniously titled “What the Falk?” in which he claimed Falk had

blamed the Boston Marathon bombings on the U.S. and Israel—or “American global domination” and “Tel Aviv,” as he put it in an online commentary.

The following day, the UK Mission to the UN issued a statement against Falk:

The UK objects strongly to recent remarks made by UN Special Rapporteur for the Palestinian Territories, Richard Falk, linking the Boston bombings to “American global domination” and “Tel Aviv”.

Note how the UK Mission’s only quotes to the Falk piece are the exact same quotes appearing in Ahmari’s Wall Street Journal piece. The terms “American global domination” and “Tel Aviv” appear in two separate locations in the Falk article, and neither quote relates directly to the Boston bombing.

Ahmari was then interviewed by Wall Street Journal editorial board member Mary Kissel for a video segment entitled “U.N’s Resident Anti-Semite,” which claimed to explain Falk’s “defense of jihad.” During the conversation, Kissel displayed a screen that purported to quote “Falk on the Boston Bombings,” but again quoted Falk on a potential war on Iran:

Falk WSJ

The Forward published a second piece about Falk, this time by Reuters, under the headline “Richard Falk Chided for Linking Boston Bombings to U.S. Support for Israel”even though the Reuters piece made no mention of Israel. Instead it claimed that Falk “suggested the Boston bombings were a response to U.S. foreign policy.”

Boston victims deserved it/Had it coming

Another common theme perpetrated in the media was that Falk believed that victims of the Boston bombing “deserved their fate” or “had it coming”:

The Times of Israel’s headline was “UN Official Says US Had Boston Attack Coming.”

On the Fox News website, Anne Bayefsky (an associate of UN Watch) claimed that Falk “announced that Boston had it coming.”

Another article by Bayefsky appearing in stated that “Richard Falk has published a statement saying Bostonians got what they deserved in last week’s terror attack.”

Michael Goodwin in the New York Post (fresh from smearing a random Saudi national and a Moroccan American teenager) claimed that Falk’s article “basically calls the Boston terror attack just deserts [sic].”

The website for CBS DC claimed that Falk believed “Boston Marathon Victims ‘Have to Die’ Because of American-Israeli Relations” and that “Bostonians who were injured or killed in the Boston Marathon bombing were deserving of their collective fate.”

Yet nowhere in Falk’s article did he state—explicitly or implicitly—that the bombing victims “deserved their fate” or “had it coming.” This did not deter Noga Gur-Arieh in the Jewish Journal, who wrote that

Richard Falk, a UN official, referred to the Boston Marathon in a column he wrote for the Foreign Policy Journal , saying the US “had it coming” because of its policy around the world and specifically in the Middle East, Iraq and Afghanistan.

The quotations around “had it coming” gave the impression that Falk actually wrote those words when he didn’t. Instead, he wrote that the bombing was “horrific,” that the “scale and drama of the Boston attack [was] great,” and that “each life is sacred.”

The bombing was justified

A similar theme was that Falk somehow justified the Boston attack.

A “UN Watch briefing” used the word “justify” four times. The headline claimed “UN Official Justifies Boston Bombings as ‘Retribution,’” followed by claims that Falk “justifies the Boston terrorist attacks as due ‘retribution,’” “Falk approvingly cites comments justifying the Boston Marathon bombings as ‘retribution,’” and “Crystallizing his justification of the terrorist attacks.”

A later UN Watch press release referred to Falk’s “April 21st article justifying the Boston atrocities” and quoted UN Watch Executive Director Hillel Neuer claiming that “here we have a UN-appointed human rights figure … blatantly justifying terrorism.”

Falk made no justifications—much less “blatantly.” Such charges evoke the reactions following the 9/11 attacks, in which asking why the attacks were committed (that is, beyond “They hate us for our freedoms,”) was perceived as justifying the attacks.

In contrast to President Obama’s statement following the capture of Dhokhar Tsarnaev that “the families of those killed so senselessly deserve answers,” these critics want us to believe that ignorance is not only a virtue—it’s the law. And the best way to honor the victims of the attack is to not ask why.

We’re doing it for the victims

It was only predictable, then, that those leading the campaign to smear Falk would claim that their concern was for the memories of bombing victims. UN Watch’s benefactor the AJC claimed that “Falk’s latest commentary demonstrates his total insensitivity to the victims of the terror attacks in Boston,” while UN Watch Executive Director Hillel Neuer claimed that Falk was “insulting the memory of Boston’s dead and wounded, insulting the American people, desecrating the founding values of the UN.”

Never mind that UN Watch had been working to unseat Falk ever since he was appointed to his UN position. Never mind that its mission is to undermine the UN, not consecrate it. And never mind that the entire case against Falk was based on a willful misreading of his article. We are supposed to believe that this entire smear campaign was done to honor the Boston victims.

Summaries—mine and theirs

Here is a summary of the points made in Falk’s article, numbered by paragraph:

1. Responses to the Boston bombing have been “generally benevolent, especially when compared to” the calls for war and revenge that followed the 9/11 attacks.

2. Then again, 9/11 was on a much larger scale and occurred during a time when the Bush administration was looking to start a war with Iraq. 9/11 gave Bush the pretext needed to go to war despite protests at the UN and around the world, and it allowed the neoconservatives to pursue their “American grand strategy.”

3. Circumstances are different in the current Obama administration, having come in on the heels of two failed wars. Whereas the 1990s saw a period of “quick victorious wars” in Iraq I and Kosovo and a “unipolar moment” for the US, the failures in Iraq II and Afghanistan have quelled this “geopolitical intoxication.” For now, at least, “irresponsible and unlawful warfare are no longer the centerpiece of America’s foreign policy.” However, this is not a sure thing, as there is increased hostility against North Korea and Iran. And we cannot take for granted this reprieve from war “as long as Tel Aviv has the compliant ear of the American political establishment.”

4. Following 9/11, it was taboo to question US foreign policy and to question US actions. We should not allow that to happen in the aftermath of the Boston attack. After the Boston attack, I tuned in to a PBS radio program and “was struck by the critical attitudes of several callers to the radio station.” The callers were openly criticizing US drone strikes and torture and drawing connections between how the US treats others, and how these others may want to treat the US. This willingness to talk about US actions appeared to be a “hopeful sign” of open-mindedness that was absent following 9/11. If everyday citizens can talk about this, why can’t politicians?

5. Aspiration for “American global domination…is bound to generate all kinds of resistance in the post-colonial world.” It is fortunate that the US has not “experienced worse blowbacks.” But it could still happen, especially if the US doesn’t reconfigure its foreign relations, particularly with the Middle East. “Some of us naively hoped that” such a reconfiguration would begin with Obama’s 2009 speech in Cairo. But instead Obama “backpedaled,” particularly in the face of “strong pushback by Israel and its belligerent leader, Bibi Netanyahu.”

6. For his second term, Obama has given up on a visionary foreign policy, “succumbing to the Beltway ethos of Israel First” and maintaining the status quo. Even his recent trip to Israel was no more than “a love letter to the Israeli public rather than” an effort to promote “a just peace.”

7. “Aside from the tensions of the moment,” self-reflection on “America’s global role is long overdue. Such a process is crucial both for the sake of the country’s own future security and also in consideration of the wellbeing of others.” A change of course will “come about either as a result of a voluntary process of self-reflection or through the force of unpleasant events.” Until then, “hard power diplomacy makes the United States a menace to the world and to itself.” We should ask, “How many canaries will have to die before we awaken from our geopolitical fantasy of global domination?”—a metaphor that suggests dying canaries in a coalmine is a signal not to continue on course, as it would be suicide.

And here is a summary of Falk’s article, numbered by paragraph, according to pundits and news reports:

1. Blah blah blah.

2. 9/11 was an inside job.

3. “Tel Aviv” is responsible for the Boston attack.

4. The Boston bombing was a response to drones and torture.

5. US actions incite “resistance,” which is code for justified terrorism. The Boston victims deserved to die because they had it coming.

6. Israel controls the US.

7. Bostonians “have to die.”

In Falk’s article, most of the references to the Boston attack occurred in Paragraph 1, and that’s the paragraph most ignored in the news reports. When he did refer to the Boston attack (much of Paragraph 1 and parts of Paragraphs 2 and 4) he often referred to reactions to the Boston attack and not to the attack itself. The bulk of the article used the reactions to the Boston bombing as a springboard to discuss US foreign relations and how Americans see themselves compared to how others might see them.

The article did not focus on blame.

Richard Falk—Truther?

Falk has received much criticism for his association with 9/11 Truther David Ray Griffin and his questioning of official narratives around the 9/11 attacks. Yet Falk has denied that he

had endorsed the conspiracy theory that the 9/11 terrorist attacks were orchestrated by the U.S. Government and not Al Qaeda terrorists … I wish to be absolutely clear … I do not endorse the theory that the U.S. government orchestrated the 9/11 attacks. What I did do, in my personal blog … was argue that investigations must be, and must be seen to be, transparent, exhaustive and honest.

What I stressed is the importance of carefully examining evidence before drawing conclusions about political and legal responsibility for highly tragic events, in particular those that have grave consequences for human rights.

As for how these allegations disseminated, Falk stated:

The pro-Israel group, UN Watch, that created this mess deliberately distorted comments I made, in my personal capacity, on my blog … Not only that, they then deliberately connected it to my UN mandate on the Palestinian territories, and on that basis started calling for me to be fired from that position.

Falk on Falk

The final word should go to Falk himself—because, after all, he did respond when someone actually bothered to ask him whether UN Watch’s interpretation was correct. On April 23, the following question was posed by a Jewish Chronicle reporter in the comments section below Falk’s piece:

Mr Falk – how do you respond to the claims of Hillel Neuer of the UN Watch group, who claims that your remarks above regarding Tel Aviv amount to a suggestion that Israel was responsible for the Boston bombings?

Marcus Dysch
Jewish Chronicle

Twenty minutes later, Falk responded:

I never suggested such a connection. My reflections were only a commentary on focusing all attention on the wrongdoing of the perpetrators, and avoiding self-scrutiny as to why the United States, more than elsewhere, was the target of such extremist behavior. This has been a national characteristic ever since the atomic bombs were dropped at the end of World War II, and before as well. It does not lead to any kind of learning experience that might make the world a less menacing place to inhabit.

Following Falk’s response, the Jewish Chronicle changed the headline of its own coverage from “Blame Boston on US-Israel Link, Says UN Man” to the less sensationalistic but still misrepresentative “US-Israel Ties Factor in Boston Bombing, Says UN Man.”

Phan Nguyen

Phan Nguyen lives in New York and has a Twitter account: @Phan_N

Other posts by .

Posted In:

90 Responses

  1. Citizen on April 25, 2013, 1:40 pm

    Thanks Mr Ngyen
    I emailed Phil and Adam with the url for Falk’s actual essay early today, trying to get MW to address it. While googling to find Falk’s essay, I came up with tons of articles dissing Falk, many directly or indirectly suggesting he’s an anti-semite, and very few defending his POV.

    • on April 26, 2013, 8:14 am

      The Israel uber alles crowd is desperate to prevent a large segment of the American public from understanding that all these wars in Muslim nations and all the terror attacks we face are directly due to the control the “lobby” (crime family is more like it) has over our politicians and our mainstream media.

      They are dragging us to ruin and when it comes, they will be furiously attempting to keep the Muslims as the scapegoat. But they know that once too many cracks appear in their dam of lies it is over for them. They will be swept away in a backlash like nothing we have ever seen. And the longer they reign, the more vicious and widespread the backlash.

      Anyway, on to Syria and Iran you American Boys

      • Citizen on April 26, 2013, 12:59 pm

        @ Joe Ed
        Yeah, the doughboys can sing “over there, over there.” Well, at least this time they’re not conscripted–except by our crappy jobless economy….

  2. gingershot on April 25, 2013, 1:47 pm

    MJ Rosenberg has an article up at Huffington Post which says much the same thing Falk is saying.

    This is the cardinal sin against the Israeli Lobby, Neocons, and Israel – to call out the very basis of their Big Lie. This is the Big Enchilada level

    ‘It’s Time to Reconsider U.S. Policies That Create Terrorists’

    Where would Zionism be if everybody saw it for what it is? – just like ethnic cleansing Palestine yet making the words ‘Palestinian’ synonymous with ‘terrorist’ in order to cover it all up.

    The reaction across the Zionosphere is most intense for exactly this kind of exposure – without keeping this covered up Zionism as we know it cannot exist

  3. ritzl on April 25, 2013, 1:53 pm

    Wow! Thanks.

    Time for Rice to go.

    • Shingo on April 25, 2013, 5:06 pm

      Good point Ritzl.

      After all, she admits she spends most if her time working for Israel anyway

      • ritzl on April 27, 2013, 1:39 am


        “Time for Rice to go.” was a bit glib on my part, but the fact that she fully, and publically, subscribed to complete fabrications by hasbaratchiks does, to me anyway, cast supreme doubt upon her ability to operate our UN mission.

        I mean is she this susceptible to obvious fabrications as a rule? That would suggest that she is grossly incompetent. Or maybe that’s just her role in the Obama admin, akin to Colin Powell on Iraq, but with suggestive and clarifying retrospect (She’s being intentionally obvious).

        If she is being obvious, and obviously careless, there does seem to be some counter-intuitive diplomacy going on now wrt Israel. Maybe of the reaffirming the obvious to get a reaction, sort (e.g. her statement that she spends most of her time on Israel). Kerry did it with the Mavi Marmara callout in Turkey. Obama got BN to modestly, yet publicly, apologize to Turkey. I don’t know, but there seems to be something “going on.” Subtly, but something.

        Who knows?

      • Shingo on April 27, 2013, 8:33 am

        “Time for Rice to go.” was a bit glib on my part…

        I think it was perfectly reasonable. Rice is a shameless liar and sadistically ruthless. I wouldn’t describe her as grossly incompetent, though she may well be.

        I tend to agree that this is the her role in the Obama admin.

  4. hophmi on April 25, 2013, 2:02 pm

    Richard Falk decided to use the Boston bombing as an excuse to complain about Obama’s trip to Israel, among a long, oft-repeated laundry list of grievances Falk repeats over and over again.

    Though I think it’s stretching things to say that Falk wrote that the US-Israel relationship was to blame for the bombing, it’s reasonable, given the general theme (to the extent that his screed has a theme) that the bombing is post-colonialist blowback for US policy in the Middle East.

    Listen, I have no problem with that theory. I’m sure Palestine is on the list of terrorist grievances. I just advocate a different response than you do, because there are Islamic fundamentalists all over the globe, and they are doing much more damage by destabilizing other states than they are by bombing the United States. See Nigeria, Sudan, Somalia, Pakistan, Iran.

    • annie on April 25, 2013, 2:26 pm

      it’s stretching things to say that Falk wrote that the US-Israel relationship was to blame for the bombing, it’s reasonable, given the general theme … that the bombing is post-colonialist blowback for US policy in the Middle East…I have no problem with that theory.

      ok. so what’s the ‘though’ about? as in ‘Though you think it’s stretching things to say Falk wrote what he didn’t write, you have no problem with Falk’s theory’?

    • talknic on April 26, 2013, 9:30 am


      “Richard Falk decided to use the Boston bombing as an excuse to complain about Obama’s trip to Israel”

      Quote… thx

      “.. among a long, oft-repeated laundry list of grievances Falk repeats over and over again”

      Uh huh. Well, the Jewish state has yet to comply with the law… It has been 65 years and apart from being given the territory for a state (completely gratis, didn’t cost one cent), it’s had more than enough rope to adhere to its VOLUNTARY legal obligations. Reminders are a polite way of saying you’re out of order. When the electricity bill isn’t paid, is the electricity company biased or is the defaulter a scumbag for not fulfilling their part of the bargain?

      “Though I think it’s stretching things to say that Falk wrote that the US-Israel relationship was to blame for the bombing”

      Well, that’s exactly what propagandists for the Jewish state are doing, “stretching things” to the point of blatantly lying again!

      “it’s reasonable, given the general theme (to the extent that his screed has a theme) that the bombing is post-colonialist blowback for US policy in the Middle East”

      His ‘screed’ has a definite, logical and rational theme. As for “post colonialist” Uh?

      Are you nuts? The US is STILL IN the M East screwing around in someone else’s backyard, making war based on false accusations, slaughtering the inhabitants to bring them freedumb when in fact it has been to further American interests.

      The US has been interfering, arming, pitching one state against the other for over 50 years in the M East in order to promote American interests and is currently in support of a state who has been in breach of laws, UN Charter and conventions ironically adopted in large part because of what befell Jews under Nazis.

      ” I just advocate a different response than you do”

      Would that be something that hasn’t worked in 50 odd years? Imagine the Gulf of Mexico swarming with warships from the M East. Shoe… other foot… Capisce?

      “there are Islamic fundamentalists all over the globe, and they are doing much more damage by destabilizing other states than they are by bombing the United States. See Nigeria, Sudan, Somalia, Pakistan, Iran”

      What do you think the predominantly christained ‘West’ has been doing for over a hundred years. The list is far longer than anything you could dream of concocting, with the where with all a terrorist could only dream of. The armies of several countries, with their tanks, fighter bombers, artillery, missiles, submarines, warships, depleted uranium weapons, drones, atom bombs and anything else they can invent to slaughter humans. Not exactly friendly. An occasional domestic pressure cooker is to be expected.

  5. Citizen on April 25, 2013, 2:05 pm

    Hasbara and its bribed US government and media career lackies never sleep for a moment. Nothing is ever lost from the internet no matter how anybody tries, so someday world history will include just how successive America regimes were fooled, and bribed by the Zionists and their big donor cash agents both here and abroad. It will be taught in future college classes around the world on the section of how paper democracies are easily lead in the post-direct dictatorship age. The beginning of the class will lead off from the last century, with Goering at Nuremberg telling the world how easily democracies such as the USA are easily led.

  6. lysias on April 25, 2013, 2:08 pm

    Whether 9/11 was or was not an inside job, people should be allowed to discuss the possibility. Where we don’t know what happened and where the government has manifestly been lying about what happened, as is the case with 9/11, no possibility should be ruled inadmissible a priori.

    If we allow the censors to suppress the discussion of the matter, they’ll use that to discredit people whom they can associate with the view that they want suppressed, like Falk.

    • piotr on April 25, 2013, 3:28 pm

      I personally think that attributing 9/11 attacks to “inside job” or to Saddam Hussein were equally unfounded, both stemming from a worldview that the evil in this world has a single source, or at least Evil, a grand demonic phenomenon.

      People somewhat sympathetic to that worldview tend to view such opinions as “perhaps wrong, but reasonable” or “perhaps stupid, but this person has his/her heart in the right place”.

      • Daniel Rich on April 25, 2013, 5:21 pm

        @ piotr,

        Q: People somewhat sympathetic to that worldview tend to view such opinions as “perhaps wrong, but reasonable” or “perhaps stupid, but this person has his/her heart in the right place”.

        R: provide next week’s powerball numbers, please…

      • lysias on April 25, 2013, 5:43 pm

        The case for the conclusion that the JFK assassination was an inside job seems overwhelming to me. Wouldn’t you say the same thing about that conclusion?

        Are you, by any chance, not familiar with Operation Northwoods?

        Anyway, far be it from me to say that someone believing or having believed that Saddam Hussein was connected with 9/11 — wrong as I believe that to be — automatically discredits everything else he has to say.

      • Daniel Rich on April 26, 2013, 2:46 am

        @ lysias,

        Totally off topic:

        I could not believe my eyes when I saw the footage of the two secret service men that were supposed to be/form JFK’s human shields [backside of the car], were order to stand down.

        “Watch as the two secret service men assigned to protect president Kennedy’s motorcade are ordered to stand down just minutes before entering Dealey Plaza.” Here’s the footage of that f/act.

        This means someone knew a stooge [Oswald] was about to be framed, because with those two men gone the claim that JFK had been shot from the back could be rolled out as the one and only ‘lone gunman’ theory.

        Bill Hicks on the JFK assassination

  7. seafoid on April 25, 2013, 2:18 pm

    Falk is a legend. No wonder the bots hate him.
    I think their day is passing.

    Susan Rice is a sad sham of a Democrat. I wonder what old school Dems think of her.
    She’s no better than Condi Rice.

    • K Renner on April 25, 2013, 2:40 pm

      Both parties in America are absolutely worthless because the people who actually want to talk rationally about the Middle East policy are either shouted down or otherwise encouraged to remain silent.

      Rice is a darling of the “Obama Democrats” and your typical young democrat supporter will like her solely because she’s mixed race and a woman.

    • marc b. on April 25, 2013, 2:42 pm

      I think their day is passing.

      regrettably I think that they’re actually at the height of their power. how long that lasts, I don’t know.

      • seafoid on April 25, 2013, 4:06 pm

        I don’t think they will be able to keep it going much longer.
        Israel is not stable. And I can’t see Yank Jews buying the hasbara for much longer. Maybe Phil’s mother and her buddies will but the younger ones grow up in a very different environment.

      • Daniel Rich on April 25, 2013, 6:20 pm

        @ marc b.,

        My sentiments exactly. This ‘dem’ [or should I say ‘damned?’] icing over the cake of democracy is heavily slated toward smothering descent, public knowledge.

    • annie on April 25, 2013, 2:47 pm

      your typical young democrat supporter will like her solely because she’s mixed race and a woman.

      oh please, the same could be said of condoleezza rice and typical dem supporters didn’t like her. besides, i don’t recall dems going crazy defending susan rice after she was attacked as sec of state nominee.

      • K Renner on April 25, 2013, 2:55 pm

        Fair enough.

        Condoleeza Rice was in the inner circle of the Bush administration, though. Susan Rice is a ObamaDem.
        That makes all the difference, provided that those swooning over Obama due to his stance on reproductive rights and homosexuality actually know where Palestine is on a map.

      • annie on April 25, 2013, 3:30 pm

        did you catch that jerusalem vote at the dem convention k? i think it’s fair to say lots of registered dems are hip to what’s going on with our little ‘best buddy/mini me’ israel. don’t fall for everything you read in the press. lots of people don’t swoon over everything obama and lots of people are disgusted with both rices.

      • K Renner on April 25, 2013, 3:56 pm

        I actually didn’t see the results of that vote. To be sure, I do exaggerate a little to the degree of fanboyism for Israel that the American public has, but sometimes it’s hard not to exaggerate.

      • seafoid on April 25, 2013, 3:58 pm

        Obama is great on the culture wars but they were just a republican smokescreen to ensure they got what they wanted where it really mattered- for the plutocrats. Get the rednecks into a tizzy on gay marriage while Congress strips them of their economic rights. Karl Rove was one slimeball.

        Obama is bought.

      • Citizen on April 25, 2013, 5:35 pm

        @ Annie Robbins
        Yes both rices were and are a major disgusting problem–just like the Obama regime and the former Shrub Jr regime. How about that Black Caucus? How about Collin Powell? I wish the American people would grown up and realize they, black, brown, white, yellow, and purple, jew, christian, muslim, male, female, gay or straight–realize none have a lock on being the “real” Americans. They are all, as Nietzsche said not long after he declared dog was dead long ago at the start of the last century, “human, all too human.” Nobody’s “special.”

      • ToivoS on April 25, 2013, 7:02 pm

        Exactly right annie. Susan Rice’s name was floated out there for SoS, the Republicans pounced and there was very little push back from Democrats.

        I know I wrote in opposition because of her advocating the Libyan war. Her withered effort at state is to be compared to the backing Hagel received who was attacked even more fervently that Rice had been.

      • lysias on April 27, 2013, 2:49 pm

        Obama is bought.

        But, with his power, why does he stay bought? He has the legal authority to do whatever he wants, and surely he shouldn’t feel any moral obligation to continue to do the bidding of the crooks who bought him.

      • James Canning on April 28, 2013, 1:40 pm

        lysias – – Do you actually think Obama could function well, if he turned his back on his core supporters who did so much to put him into the White House?

    • Shingo on April 25, 2013, 11:37 pm

      She’s no better than Condi Rice.

      She makes Condi look like a left wing pinko. At least Rice had a modicum of charm.

      Rice is just a rabbid attack dog.

  8. K Renner on April 25, 2013, 2:24 pm

    Objectively speaking, America does have it coming, although that doesn’t make it morally right.
    You can’t throw your weight around and kill as many people as the US government does without pissing a lot of people off, at least to the point that they don’t care about dead americans because americans don’t care about dead Iraqis/Afghanis/Yemenis, and so on.

    • Daniel Rich on April 25, 2013, 6:27 pm

      @ K Renner,

      Q: Objectively speaking, America does have it coming, although that doesn’t make it morally right.

      R: From a moral pov, you’re absolutely right. Unfortunately, in the courts of true justice, countries without it, will fall onto the swords of righteousness and die as a footnote on the pages of history.

  9. JohnAdamTurnbull on April 25, 2013, 2:28 pm

    Great work Phan!

    Once again, Canada’s bumbling Minister of Foreign Affairs, John Baird, falls right into line on command.

    • K Renner on April 25, 2013, 2:56 pm

      Baird is a knuckle dragging mouth breathing chimp.

      • Daniel Rich on April 25, 2013, 6:29 pm

        @ K. Renner.

        As a proud descendant of the apes, I find your remark quite insulting… :o)

  10. annie on April 25, 2013, 2:35 pm

    rice is a hypocritical attack dog. here she is bragging about marching in lockstep with israel at the UN and this falk episode is a perfect example of her washing american credibility down the drain “defending Israel’s legitimacy” by piling on/doubling down on lying pro israel hasbarists trying to eliminate a UN rapporteur. what a waste! and to think we could use our seat at the UN to do some good in the world but nooo. it’s disgusting!

    • lysias on April 25, 2013, 5:46 pm

      I heard Susan Rice deliver a defense of the Kosovo War at an Oxford alumni meeting in 2001. She repeated all the lies about Serbia having committed genocide before NATO entered the fighting.

    • Citizen on April 25, 2013, 5:48 pm

      @ Annie Robbins
      It’s been, in context here, disgusting since the inception of the self-declared state of Israel. Rice said she spends a great part of her time defending the “legitimacy” of the state of Israel at the UN when she is supposed to be representing America. Brown Rice is no better than White rice, politically speaking. And, like that old saw about Chinese food, it leaves us hungry. To the goy world at large, Israel says it’s legitimacy is based on the UN partition resolution (even as it had grown itself beyond those borders by military might against Palestinian right, when it established itself), yet we forget that UN partition resolution was never cemented by vote in the UN Security Council in the first place. (And it was instituted by a swing vote composed of a couple of flea-size states totally in economic thralldom to big guys like the US. )

      US pushed for, used its big leverage for, what Zionists wanted despite no UN SC vote, and now its doing the same by using its veto in the UN SC. Truman wouldn’t have Israel’s legitimacy in the UN SC because he didn’t want the US military to have to enforce support of the new self-declared Israel, and now the POTUS regime does all it can to deny Palestinian rights by keeping an historical hoard of resolutions to make Israel accountable like any other state for its rogue conduct and policies.
      In the end,

    • Citizen on April 25, 2013, 6:08 pm

      Israel claims legitimacy due to UN partition by general assembly vote (due to US big economic pressure on a few tiny, dependent, swing vote states & sans any Palestinian vote), but the issue never was validated by the UN SC. White rice, brown rice–it all leaves Justice hungry like Chinese food.

  11. marc b. on April 25, 2013, 2:40 pm

    a love letter to UN Watch and its creative editing:

    “blow[] . . . . me.”

    Moby Dick, pp. 133, 218, Herman Melville (Penguin Classics Edition)

  12. K Renner on April 25, 2013, 2:45 pm

    I don’t think it goes too far to say that Israelis wounded or killed in the West Bank deserve what they get. Soldiers always ought to be prepared for death, and doubly so when they actively abuse people for little to no reason, and the settlers are even worse.

    The general population of jews in Israel are more worried about the price of cheese or not being able to live on Rothshild Boulevard than they are about the treatment of Palestinians in and out of the Green Line.

  13. Keith on April 25, 2013, 2:58 pm

    A couple of comments. First, I think this shows the extent to which American Jewish Zionists and Zionist organizations function as attack dogs against critics of US foreign policy, particularly Middle East foreign policy. This is what Chomsky and Herman describe as “flack” in the manufacture of consent. And if Israel’s influence on US Middle East policy is mentioned (and how could it not?), the criticism is falsely labeled as “anti-Semitism,” an effective tactic for condemning the author while avoiding discussing his specific critique. And notice the libelous falsehoods made without conscience or fear of retribution.

    As for Falk’s specific comments, my main criticism would be that he is much too apologetic in regards to Obama, our much more effective war monger-in-chief. As for David Ray Griffin, in my opinion, he is to 911 Truth as Lyndon LaRouche is to American political economy in general. I might add that the LaRouchies are a core component of the 911 Truth movement.

    • MRW on April 25, 2013, 6:32 pm

      You diss the work of David Ray Griffin? You obviously haven’t read one word of his. I don’t know a sentient being in the US or in my circle who buys the official story of 911. You would have to be a scientific idiot to swallow the ‘jet fuel fire brought down the towers’ story. Truly a double-digit IQ. And Falk was right: “investigations must be, and must be seen to be, transparent, exhaustive and honest . . . the importance of carefully examining evidence before drawing conclusions about political and legal responsibility for highly tragic events.”

      There was no investigation of 911. The 911 Commission’s job was to determine how it should not happen in the future; it did not investigate the catastrophe. Senior counsel to the commission, John Farmer, laid that out in his book “The Ground Truth.”

      • marc b. on April 26, 2013, 9:34 am

        i’m with you on griffen, mrw. he has written some important stuff, even if I can’t agree with all of it. the basic problem is the cover up. when the government and media publish disinformation and do everything in their power to discourage legitimate inquiries, sincere people are bound to follow some unproductive paths. (as to damages control, see for example that creep Kenneth Feinberg, bag man in charge of doling out shut up money to victims of 9/11, the BP disaster and now boston. yeah marc ellis, what a decent human being.

      • Donald on April 26, 2013, 10:46 am

        “You would have to be a scientific idiot to swallow the ‘jet fuel fire brought down the towers’ story. ”

        I don’t agree.



      • ToivoS on April 26, 2013, 11:24 pm

        This the problem with Falk. Every time he shows up we get these crazed notions that the collapse of the trade towers were some kind of controlled demolitions.

        Sorry boobs, but the collapse of those towers was caused by jet airliners crashing into them. The physics and engineering principles are clear. Once a big building starts to fall down, the potential energy stored inside that structure begins to become kinetic energy and it overwhelms the strengthen of the building.

        Once those airliners hit the buildings they released hundreds of gallons of fuel. When that started to burn it released heat that then undermined the load bearing strength of the structural steal that supported the buildings. It did not require that the structural steel melt, it simply meant the the load bearing strength was undermined.

        In any case we are not going to repeat the arguments that have been going on for a decade now, it does mean that anytime this fool Falk appears that crazed 911 truthers come out in force.

        It is just too sad. There are many unanswered questions surrounding those events on 911 but they cannot be rationally discussed because of the insanity that the truthers bring and dominate any discussion. You who do this are nothing more than useful fools for those who wish to avoid the real discussion.

      • American on April 26, 2013, 12:43 pm

        ‘You would have to be a scientific idiot to swallow the ‘jet fuel fire brought down the towers’ story”..MRW

        Yep. Two of my closest friends, one a former Boeing 727 Captain, the other a former Navy pilot then an investigator for the FAA, buys it either. First words out of my Boeing friend when he called shortly after 911 was ” Dont’ believe it”.

      • Keith on April 26, 2013, 2:59 pm

        MRW- “You would have to be a scientific idiot to swallow the ‘jet fuel fire brought down the towers’ story.”

        This from the guy who thinks that global warming is a hoax, that Jim Hansen is incompetent and a NASA joke, that extra atmospheric CO2 is no big deal and may spur crop growth, and that Alberta tar sands are a safe, clean and cheap source of fuel with negligible environmental problems. And when it comes to the physics of building collapse, your source of scientific expertise is….a theologian? And, of course, numerous 911 truth websites that will tell you what you want to hear.

        Read David Ray Griffin? No need, I saw his movie. I was looking forward to it. I was aware of the statements made by members of the Bush administration regarding the benefits of a new Pearl Harbor, and of the long history of covert “black ops,” and of Operation Northwoods, etc. I was of the opinion that the administration either knew or should have known about the attack beforehand, at least in general terms, and was guilty of at least criminal negligence. I wanted to see them held to account. The movie started out okay, but went downhill fast. Three buildings loaded with tons of high explosives? A missile not a plane into the Pentagon? It was obvious to me that DRG was pulling a Lyndon LaRouche by tainting straightforward failure (or worse) by associating it with bizarre scenarios. And it worked! Bush was never held to account as the 911 cult lemmings went chasing after nano-thermite. That was the beginning of the end for what was left of the left.

        For those interested in the actual physics of the building collapses, go to Counterpunch website and search Manuel Garcia, Jr. for a scientifically valid discussion of this issue.

      • philweiss on April 27, 2013, 12:13 pm

        OK; enough of the 911 stuff for this thread. If you want to have the conversation, I think you should go elsewhere. We have bigger halibut to grill here

      • Daniel Rich on April 26, 2013, 5:33 pm

        @ MRW

        Way back in the day, during my 2 year stint as a student, I was led to believe that tampering with a crime scene was a crime in itself. The way and the speed in which all the 9/11 ‘evidence’ was shipped out off the country doesn’t correlate with a leading body willing to dig all the way to the bottom of the ‘why, what, where and when’ doctrine of rational thinking. WTC7’s perfect fall into its footprints will always remain the proverbial Achilles’ Heel of whatever is wrong with this country.

      • RoHa on April 26, 2013, 9:43 pm

        “whatever is wrong with this country.”

        Which country? We talk about a large number of countries on this site, so it is best to name them.

  14. American on April 25, 2013, 3:57 pm

    ”The same motive for anti-US ‘terrorism’ is cited over and over”

    Glen Greenwald

    ”In the last several years, there have been four other serious attempted
    or successful attacks on US soil by Muslims, and in every case, they
    emphatically all say the same thing: that they were motivated by the
    continuous, horrific violence brought by the US and its allies to the
    Muslim world – violence which routinely kills and oppresses innocent men,
    women and children:”
    ”There seems to be this pervasive belief in the US that we can invade,
    bomb, drone, kill, occupy, and tyrannize whomever we want, and that they
    will never respond. That isn’t how human affairs function and it never has
    been. If you believe all that militarism and aggression are justified,
    then fine: make that argument. But don’t walk around acting surprised and
    bewildered and confounded (why do they hate us??) when violence is brought
    to US soil as well. It’s the inevitable outcome of these choices, and
    that’s not because Islam is some sort of bizarre or intrinsically violent
    and uncivilized religion. It’s because no group in the world is willing to
    sit by and be targeted with violence and aggression of that sort without
    also engaging in it (just look at the massive and ongoing violence
    unleashed by the US in response to a single one-day attack on its soil 12
    years ago: imagine how Americans would react to a series of relentless
    attacks on US soil over the course of more than a decade, to say nothing
    of having their children put in prison indefinitely with no charges,
    tortured, kidnapped, and otherwise brutalized by a foreign power).

    ”Being targeted with violence is a major cost of war and aggression. It’s
    a reason not do it. If one consciously decides to incur that cost, then
    that’s one thing. But pretending that this is all due to some primitive
    and irrational religious response and not our own actions is dangerously
    self-flattering and self-delusional. Just listen to what the people who
    are doing these attacks are saying about why they are doing them. Or
    listen to the people who live in the places devastated by US violence
    about the results. None of it is unclear, and it’s long past time that we
    stop pretending that all this evidence does not exist. ”’>>>>

    Yea, do stop pretending– this is plain common sense.
    Kill civilians all over the world, then some are gonna hit you back.
    And Israel?..stop pretending there also….the militant Zionist and Israeli political influence on the US has made the US more like Israel re the Arab/Muslim world…aided of course by our own Neo’s.
    So what do we do?
    Considering there is no cure for the kind of stupid created in the public by the US media I guess we wait for that great clash of civilizations.
    I’m betting we lose that war.

    • MRW on April 26, 2013, 4:01 am

      That piece by Greenwald is a keeper and should be read aloud in every high school class across the country.

      I’m delighted that he called out Andrew Sullivan who, once again, is on the wrong side of the issue echoing Coulter and Geller. Sullivan was Bush’s biggest fanboy for years until he realized it was safe, and more career-benefitting, to object.

  15. American on April 25, 2013, 4:17 pm

    My advice again is for Falk and all others to quit apologzing and clarfying and over mincing on every little thing they said when attacked by the zios.
    All they need to do is explain why the zios are attacking them…what the zios are and why they do what they do.
    Quit playing freaking defense all the time and attack them back no holds barred.

    • seafoid on April 26, 2013, 3:40 am

      Goldstone used to operate in a similar space to Falk but then they took him out. now they want to do the same to Falk. He isn’t on hasbara message. Trouble is, very few people outside the Beltway and Israel are any more.

      The bots have also been campaigning to defund UNRWA. They are vicious.

      One of the most interesting insights of the last couple of weeks was in Ha’aretz- the Board of Deputies, the highest body of UK Judaism, lobbied thatcher in the early 80s not to recognise the PLO.

      “For example, during talks with representatives of Britain’s Board of Deputies of British Jews in November 1979, Thatcher refused to rule out dealings with the PLO. Thatcher stated that “she had an intellectual problem” when she spoke of no recognition of the PLO. ”

      Even the Board of Deputies was hijacked.

      It has ALWAYS been about thuggery and attempting to create an alternative reality.
      Reality will get them in the end. Zionism is just too much effort.

      • Justpassingby on April 26, 2013, 7:13 am

        Exactly no one cares about these non-issues. Just check who are furious with Falk this time: Israel, US, Canada. The usual bunch.
        3 states out of almost 200. I think that says alot.

      • American on April 26, 2013, 12:58 pm

        @ seafood

        There is this faulty notion that reason and civility and even handedness and not ‘attacking’ back when responding to the zios, US-Isr scheme and attacks on others is the way to win out in the end—it isn’t.
        You do not win a war or even a war of words by recruiting the reasonable and the pacifist to take on a murderous or unethical gang…. you have to inspire the same kind of fanaticism against them.
        Sorry but that’s the truth of it.

    • Cliff on April 26, 2013, 6:00 pm

      I agree completely.

      Jewish fanatics and extremists and the standard American jingoist/radical nationalist are always vicious and mendacious.

      There’s no need for civility with people who are pathological liars. And that is what Zionism is – a lie.

  16. DICKERSON3870 on April 25, 2013, 4:59 pm

    RE: “Yet Richard Falk never even made the comments he was being accused of making.” ~ Phan Nguyen

    MY QUESTION: How do you know that a supporter of Likudnik Israel is lying? [puts hands over ears to dull the roar of all the answers] OK! OK! OK! Enough already! I figured you guys would know the answer.

  17. Reds on April 25, 2013, 5:24 pm

    Onpoint radio which is part of WBUR a member station of NPR allowed Alan Dershowitz to do this as well.

  18. DaveS on April 25, 2013, 5:40 pm

    Brilliant and very thorough analysis, Phan. The smear machine is always hard at work, and has been aiming for Falk’s scalp for quite some time. Said, Ashrawi, anyone named Barghouti, Chomsky, Finkelstein, Tutu, Travers, Carter, Mearsheimer & Walt, Goldstone – there is no shortage to their list of targets, and absolutely no tactic is beneath their non-existent dignity. But as you can see, it takes a lot of time and research to fully expose their methods.

    Basically the only “safe” position to take is that we should never debate whether our military adventurism might result in very unpleasant blowback. We have the authority to react to inflict horrific violence against other countries on the usually bogus premise that those countries are aiding attacks against us, but it is not even permissible to question whether any of our victims might respond with a tiny fraction of that violence. Anyone who so much as suggests that we are creating more terrorists than we are killing will be branded a terrorist-lover/defender/excuser/enabler.

    • Citizen on April 25, 2013, 6:20 pm

      @ David Samel

      The 9/11 Commission’s first draft of its findings regarding motive of the terrorists was very specific both in the body of it and the conclusion, but the final version made public left the conclusion affirming blowback generic. No mainstream media to this day have ever discussed those findings, and that media is not discussing the foreign policy resentment motive of the Boston bombers now. All we get is a giant bursting flak attack on the messenger, Falk, and Hart’s Last Post, which is virtually invisible.

  19. Rusty Pipes on April 25, 2013, 6:14 pm

    I’m assuming that the UN Watch (and those that followed) put Tel Aviv in quotes, not because they think it should be called Jaffa, but because Falk used “Tel Aviv” as we would use “Washington” — shorthand for the leadership in our nation’s capital. For hardline Zionists, any suggestion that Israel’s capital is somewhere other than Jerusalem is treasonous (and possibly anti-Semitic, Holocaust Denying and Blood Libelous as well).

  20. Talkback on April 25, 2013, 6:15 pm

    “The Zionists in contrast are automatons. Wherever I speak they do always the same. They come to the audience without any arguments or just shout “lies!” … They are brainwashed to nothing.” (Hajo Meyer)

  21. MRW on April 25, 2013, 6:36 pm

    Truly OT.

    Has everyone seen Shadows of Liberty by a French-Canadian filmmaker? It features fearless leader Phil.

    Wait. You can watch the whole thing here for free for a bit:

    I think it was Dickerson who turned me onto this, maybe someone else here. Everyone should watch.

  22. ToivoS on April 25, 2013, 7:06 pm

    I find it tedious having to defend Richard Falk. He should write with a little more finesse. He sets himself up for these assaults. He displayed egregiously poor judgement defending the 911 truther David Ray Griffin. I look forward to his retirement.

  23. talknic on April 25, 2013, 7:25 pm

    Propagandists don’t care. As long as they get their smears published. There’ll always be someone stupid, or evil enough to knowingly, perpetuate them

    Let’s face it, smears, lies, it’s all Israel has….

  24. Blank State on April 25, 2013, 10:39 pm

    Again and again, non-stop, we see false narratives used by the advocates of Israel. What is truly astounding to me when considering the hasbarist trolls that post here, is that they apparently don’t recognize what these false narratives say about Israel, and themselves. What admirable act, policy, nation, people or agenda needs to be constantly defended by lies and exaggerations??? If admirable, would such prevarications be neccesary???

    Of course not, the truth would suffice.

    • Donald on April 26, 2013, 11:03 am

      “What is truly astounding to me when considering the hasbarist trolls that post here, is that they apparently don’t recognize what these false narratives say about Israel, and themselves. What admirable act, policy, nation, people or agenda needs to be constantly defended by lies and exaggerations?

      Exactly. The most devastating case against Israel comes from listening to its defenders. You don’t really have to read any anti-Zionist–you can get the basic facts from mainstream human rights groups (like HRW for current and relatively recent events) and for the past one could read Israeli writers like Tom Segev, Avi Shlaim and even Benny Morris in a non-racist mood. Then listen to what its defenders say (like that same Benny Morris when he’s venting his spleen). It’s so bad it’s embarrassing.

      Case closed.

    • American on April 26, 2013, 4:00 pm

      Yes, as Sullivan says about the double standard on the NRA gun lobby and the Israel lobby.

      ”Yes, language describing nefarious lobbies behind the scenes pulling strings to get their way has been used in the past by anti-Semites. But if that kind of language is barred with sole respect to the Greater Israel Lobby, then the debate is effectively crippled – which is, of course, the point. For so long, the anti-Semitism card has been disgracefully, cynically played so that we can be stopped from debating the undemocratic distortion of our politics by special interest groups – in this case arguing for a foreign country’s brutal pounding of a de facto refugee camp.

      Mercifully, the blogosphere has begun to break this double standard. Better late than never.
      One simple word of advice to bloggers writing about this: do not be bullied by threats. You will be smeared as a bigot, as I have been many times. But that says a whole lot more about them than it does about you.”

      He’s right – don’t be bullied by the thugs. Some of us need to be willing to play the bad cop role and verbally disembowel these creeps, smear for smear.

  25. Shingo on April 25, 2013, 10:43 pm

    US Ambassador Susan Rice even tweeted her views on the matter:

    Take a look at the comments in response to her Tweet. Hilarious.

  26. douglasreed on April 26, 2013, 4:54 am

    When is America going to re-embrace democracy and outlaw unelected, powerful, privately-financed, political lobbies that use their money to determine US foreign policy that should be the declared duty and domain of the elected government?

    Why does an elected American president have to check every foreign policy decision first with the American-Israel lobby ? Who elected that lobby to vet every legitimate representative of the American people and on behalf of which foreign state does this anti-democratic machination take place?

  27. Justpassingby on April 26, 2013, 7:03 am

    Having read the article by Falk I see that this attack is just nonsense, as usual. The lobby and Israel try to twist an article to say something it didnt.

    I prepared to find an article filled with racism, conspiracy theories and irrationality.

    I couldnt find it.

    When I reached the end of the article I wasnt sure I have read the correct article because the article wasnt controversial in any sense. I tried to drag the most far fetched ties to the claims of Israel/Lobby/Rice etc but with no prevail.

    Where were the racist sentences? Where were the claim that Boston bombings happend due Israel?

    And calling Falk an antisemite is of course ludicrous since Falk himself is a jew or having jewish ancestry.

    Susan Rice once coming out as a complete puppet to Israel, even admitting herself that Israel is no 1 subject for her, one thought that US were no 1 but no..apparently not, not to mention Ban-Ki Moon that do what his masters tells him. Pathetic.

  28. Citizen on April 26, 2013, 12:36 pm

    I guess Ralph Nader better start ducking his head too? Here’s his piece on the Boston Bombings:

    And here’s a related piece on the same web site that will have astute folks nodding yes here:

  29. Sibiriak on April 26, 2013, 11:15 pm

    UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon officially “reject[ed]” Falk’s alleged comments.

    Truly reprehensible statement by Ban Ki-Moon

    • Shingo on April 27, 2013, 3:46 am

      Truly reprehensible statement by Ban Ki-Moon

      But perfectly predictable. This jelly back has demonstrated time and again that he’s more interested in keeping his job than doing it.

      You might recall, he was opposed to the Palestibian membership bid.

  30. gingershot on April 27, 2013, 1:04 pm

    The Jewish/Israeli game is to steal and then call the victims of their thefts terrorists when they try to bring the Jews/Israelis to justice.

    It’s as simple as that and it has to stop. Zionism has repercussions

    That’s the history of Israel for the last 65 yrs

  31. James Canning on April 27, 2013, 2:32 pm

    Richard Falk will of course endure vicious attacks for his habit of speaking out in favor of fair treatment of the Palestinians.

  32. MRW on April 27, 2013, 6:21 pm

    Phan, I’m going to print this off and give to some high school kids I know who need to see and understand the vigilance required to combat media propaganda. Good job.

  33. W.Jones on April 27, 2013, 8:20 pm

    God Bless you, Richard Falk.

  34. James Canning on April 28, 2013, 1:34 pm

    Yes, God bless Richard Falk. More people like him are needed.

  35. Mayhem on April 29, 2013, 7:47 pm

    Come on moderators let me say it as it is.
    To suggest that America is to blame for having incited the Boston bombing with its supposedly imperialist, tendentious global policies overlooks the fact that radical Muslims carry out terrorist attacks almost daily all over the world – America is not a special target as such. In fact terrorist attacks are far more rife in Muslim countries than in Western countries.

Leave a Reply