We've already seen how the UN's Richard Falk, the supposed "expert" in international law, twists the law itself to serve his anti-Israel agenda.
We've already seen how he has lied about verifiable facts to bash Israel and support Hamas.
More than once.
Falk has also asked the UN explicitly to ignore any Palestinian violations of human rights within their own areas.
And, of course, he has compared Israelis to Nazis.
Today, this self-righteous hypocritical windbag pretended to echo a man he almost certainly disagreed with and said "Tear down that wall, Mr. Netanyahu."
I wondered what this legal expert thought of Palestinian terrorism.
Well, not surprisingly, he not only downplays it, but he justifies it.
His history of the second Intifada puts the entire onus on Israel, claiming that only Israel was escalating it, exonerating Arafat completely, ignoring Israel's security needs and implying that Sharon was responsible for the intifada even though he was elected as a result of it. This 2003 article also ends with his statement that "we should at least be clear that Sharon is a much bigger obstacle to real peace than Arafat is or ever was" - an amazing statement given Arafat's history, and one that shows that his status as an expert on anything must be questioned.
More relevantly, Falk has argued that Palestinian Arabs have the legal right to violent resistance. He wrote a paper justifying the legality of the first intifada, and at the outset of the second - after a crowd of Palestinian Arabs had already lynched two Israeli soldiers and murdered them in cold blood - he wrote"Though the Israeli government and the US media persist in describing the second Palestinian intifada as a security crisis or a disruption to the 'peace process,'in international law, Palestinian resistance to occupation is a legally protected right."
Based on this other articles, he allows not only stone throwing but also "light arms" as seemingly legitimate and legal reactions to the "occupation."
Whether or not he has meant to, Falk has given legal cover for Palestinian Arabs to justify their terror as his analysis looks only at the proportion of the damage caused by each side's weapons, not the goals of using those weapons. Falk's thinking is that as long as Israel has better weapons, no one can condemn Palestinian Arab terror. (And he certainly has never done that, as far as I can tell.)
