UN Watch: Pressured by Nikki Haley, U.N. Pulls Richard Falk’s ‘Apartheid’ Israel Report, Head of Arab U.N. Agency Resigns
UN Watch welcomed today’s resignation by Rima Khalaf from her post as head of a Beirut-based UN agency, comprised of 18 Arab states, after what she described as pressure from secretary-general Antonió Guterres to withdraw a report accusing Israel of “apartheid.” The report appears to have been deleted today from the U.N. ESCWA agency’s website.Hillel Neuer: Why the UK should expel UN official Richard Falk
As revealed by UN Watch, the author of the report was disgraced ex-UN official Richard Falk, who had been denounced on repeated occasions by former UN chief Ban Ki-moon and other world leaders for espousing 9/11 conspiracy theories, blaming the U.S. and Israel for the Boston Marathon bombing, and spreading antisemitism.
Earlier this week, U.S. ambassador Nikki Haley welcomed remarks by Guterres’ spokesman distancing himself from the report, but she demanded that the UN “withdraw the report altogether.”
“When someone issues a false and defamatory report in the name of the UN,” said Haley today in reaction, “it is appropriate that the person resign. UN agencies must do a better job of eliminating false and biased work, and I applaud the Secretary-General’s decision to distance his good office from it.”
“Guterres deserves credit for doing the right thing,” said Hillel Neuer, who sparred with Falk repeatedly during the latter’s fraught 6-year term as the UN Human Rights Council’s investigator of alleged Israeli violations.
“But there is no question that the initial moral voice here was that of U.S. ambassador Nikki Haley, and that it was U.S. leverage which prompted the UN to act.”
This evening in Britain, Richard Falk – the UN official whose mandate is to investigate “Israel’s violations of the principles and bases of international law” – will speak at the University of East Anglia, at the invitation of a Green Party activist.Walter Russell Mead: The Grey Lady Soft Pedals Richard Falk
Months after Britain denied entry to two U.S. bloggers whom it accused of promoting anti-Islamic sentiment, it is far from clear why the government is now applying a double standard by welcoming Falk – a notorious Hamas supporter, 9/11 conspiracist, and promoter of anti-Semitic theories, cartoons, and books – whom the UK government itself has officially condemned on at least three separate occasions for promoting what it described as anti-Semitism.
In blocking the American bloggers, Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller, the UK government in June found that their presence in the country was “not conducive to the public good” because they made statements that “may foster hatred which might lead to inter-community violence in the UK.”
Are Falk’s actions and statements any less hateful?
Consider the facts
In no sense can Falk be called an impartial or fair minded writer. The Times can and should do better than paying lip service to unnamed “critics”.Ambassador Nikki Haley Blasted A U.N. Report That Accused Israel Of Being Guilty Of Apartheid
Here at Via Meadia, we’re used to this crazy UN stuff. Our core criticism isn’t of predictable haters commissioning a predictable hit job, but of the NYT for failing to give its readers a clear understanding of just who it was who produced this piece. The Times‘ incomplete account also makes top UN officials’ response to the apartheid accusation look weak and potentially irresponsible rather than principled:
The leadership of the United Nations, sensitive to accusations by Israel and the United States over what they have described as a deep anti-Israel bias, moved quickly to distance itself from the report and described it as a surprise.
“We just saw the report today,” Stéphane Dujarric, a spokesman for Secretary General António Guterres, said at a daily news briefing. “It was done without any prior consultation with the secretary general. The report as it stands does not reflect the stance of the secretary general.”
Falk’s bias and animus are well known at the UN, and UN officials—who know much more about this than the Times decided to share with its readers—understood that this report was an ugly piece of junk and had no desire to be associated with it in any way. This probably wasn’t about appeasing Trump or Israel, but about a sense of professionalism and due caution asserting themselves.
What the Grey Lady’s readers won’t know due to the horrible framing is that what we have here is actually a good news story about the UN: a number of people in the organization have wised up to Richard Falk and want nothing to do with him. Instances of integrity and objectivity at the UN aren’t so common that they should be passed over in silence; the Times’ readers deserve to know that the long process of reform at the UN actually shows some occasional signs of being successful.