Op-Ed: You Do Not Want Richard Falk's Justice
Dr. Phlip BrodieThe author worked at the University of Pittsburgh where he received his...
On April 24, 2013, Abraham Foxman, National Director of the American-Defamation League (ADL), denounced comments by Richard Falk, the UN’s ‘Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967’ (a long title that, for some, is more suggestive of political propaganda than any human ‘right’).
The ADL accused Falk of justifying the April 15, 2013 Boston Marathon bombing as a response to US and Israeli policies. United States ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, called for the dismissal of Richard Falk and said he has no place at the UN,
ADL's Foxman quoted Falk as saying that, ‘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 (emphasis mine)’.
Is this a warning?
At the very moment that authorities in America saw no serious connection between the Boston bombers and any ideological cause, Richard Falk elevated them to messengers for world peace—or, more precisely, to be the messengers for what will happen to world peace and justice if the US does not change its foreign policy.
He actually suggests that these bombings have occurred—and will continue--because the US is submissive to Israel. He infers that
(1) Israel policy alone is the reason there is no world peace; and
(2) if we want to see an end to these bombings—and a beginning to peace and justice--then the US should refuse to listen to Israel.
These words do not suggest peace. They do not suggest justice. They suggest something quite different: blackmail.
Innocent people around the world will die, he appears to tell us, if the US continues to lean towards Israel. People will stop dying if the US abandons Israel.
Is this justice—or threat?
Representing the United Nations, Richard Falk presents himself as one who promotes justice and morality. But these words do not advocate justice or morality. They threaten murder.
We know Richard Falk. As recently as 2012, he has described Israel as a brutal and immoral occupier that kills and oppresses innocent Arabs. He has even suggested that the Arab war against Israel is the great moral cause the world must support. He calls this war ‘moral’ and ‘just’. He had a despicable anti-Semitic cartoon on his website, called for a boycott of firms that deal with Jews in Judea and Samaria, compared Hamas to the Dutch and French resistance in WWII.
Now he turns to world peace and justice—and to blackmail? What moral advocate associates with blackmail? When does ‘justice’ justify the killing of an eight year-old boy standing in a crowd watching a public event?
Do you know what ‘justify’ means? It means something was, after all, right and correct. Richard Falk, according to the ADL, has declared that the Boston bombings were ‘a justified response to US policies in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq’. He is telling us, in other words, that killing an eight year-old in Boston was, after all, justified.
You do not want Richard Falk’s justice.
There is no moral advocate who would dare associate himself with blackmail. There is no just cause that accepts killing innocent children as a correct path to its goals.
How dare Richard Falk speak of justice? He doesn’t sip from the cup of justice. He drinks from moral swamp-water that is flavoured with innocent blood—and then blames the victim’s country for the victim’s death.
You do not want Rickard Falk’s justice. You do not want his morality.
At the beginning of November, 2012, Arabs from Gaza fired hundreds of rockets into Israeli civilian populations. As soon as Israel defended itself, Richard Falk accused Israel of being a brutal war criminal—while completely ignoring the horrific brutality of Arabs—on live TV, no less—dragging to death a fellow Arab because they suspected him of spying for Israel.
You do not want this man’s definition of morality.
How does a man who speaks of ‘justice’ justify blowing up a child? Think about what ‘justice’ means: it is an ideal closely related to moral ‘rightness’, which is connected to ‘fairness’.
Richard Falk is telling you that he has no problem linking the killing of an eight year-old boy to what he believes is ‘fair’.
You do not want this kind of ‘morality’.
Justice is also related to granting all citizens equal rights and protections so they can live safely. Richard Falk advocates for ‘justice’. What justice did he advocate for that eight year-old boy? Where was his right to safety in Mr Falk’s world?
That child was not, in Richard Falk’s world, killed by two killers who got their inspiration and bomb recipe from extremist Muslim websites. That child was killed by US Foreign policy; and until Mr Falk’s kind of justice is installed, he warns, no one will rest easy.
You do not want Richard Falk’s kind of justice either.
In the Middle East, meanwhile, we saw more of Richard Falk’s morality: Muslim clerics in Jordan and Egypt echoed his remarks, putting his ideology into a familiar context: death comes to those who reject what Richard Falk believes.
You absolutely do not want Richard Falk’s brand of justice.