Talk:Richard A. Falk/Archive 3

Secretary-General of the United Nations]] Ban Ki-moon condemned Falk
to Monochrome Monitor: Your recent edit results in: -Mr. Falk is so extreme in his support for the Hamas terrorist organization that even the Palestinian Authority has sought to remove him, on grounds that he is a “partisan of Hamas”, -deploring Falk’s cover endorsement of a virulently antisemitic book, -concerned that Mr. Falk has become one of the world’s most high-profile supporters of 9/11 conspiracy theorists -Falk article that is seeking to downplay, reinterpret and justify the latest call by Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal to destroy Israel, -disturbed that Mr. Falk has falsely and absurdly accused Israel of planning a “Palestinian Holocaust -Mr. Falk has repeatedly appeared on an internet site which promotes a 9/11 conspiracy theory and Holocaust skeptic who rails against the “ethnic Jews” who he says run Washington and the media and praising Iranian tyrant Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
 * Softening this criticism:
 * Removing this criticism:

=** It is not clear what is the reason for those modification. It is very unusual that the The Secretary-General of the United Nations is criticizing an U.N official and suggest to fire him. His harsh condemnation might be accepted by people who do not trust Fox news or "UNblog web site, the previous sources. Hence it is suggested to to present all of Ban Ki moon points. BTW Thank you for improving my English. Ykantor (talk) 20:17, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Ykantor
please stop it. You simply opened a new section 'Criticism' to drop the text of a letter to the UN which is already covered in the preceding section. What's the point in repeating what is the view twice>?Nishidani (talk) 17:35, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry. The criticism section is my mistake. But why did you deleted the references ? Ykantor (talk) 00:11, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The remarks are covered in the preceding section. The UN Watch's smear, demonstrably a violent series of allegations and distortions of Falk's remarks, is given more than WP:due space, as are the remarks of those who, without reading attentively, merely recycled the crap. By the way, UN WATCH is quite good on the third world, and apparently silent on Israel's abuse of Palestinian rights. Do you know of any document from them that, rather than accuse anyone of noting those abuses of being an anti-Semite, actually analyses Israel's record in the occupied territories. Self-evidently, if it is really committed to human rights, at least some constant monitoring of Palestinian rights should form part of their brief?Nishidani (talk) 12:06, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Why should genocidal Arab colonist-settlers get rights? That is akin to giving rights to Nazis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.39.19.156 (talk) 11:06, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I am not familiar with UN Watch and I looked at Wikipedia UN_Watch. A crititism of a Journalist says: that the main objective of UN Watch "is to attack the United Nations in general, and its human rights council in particular, for alleged bias against Israel". Williams supported UN Watch's condemnation of the UN Human Rights Council as a hypocritical organization, but also accused UN Watch itself of hypocrisy for failing to denounce what he called "manifest Israeli transgressions against the human rights of Palestinians." It seems that the organization is indeed biased and not denouncing Israel. However the organization is doing a valuable job related to African problems. Also, a biased organization is not necessarily lying. As I read this specific UN Watch paper, it seems to be correct. BTW There are plenty of biased people ( e.g. Gideon Levy ) and organization who fiercely attack Israel, sometimes without a justification while ignoring any wrong doing by the Arab side. Ykantor (talk) 14:09, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that UN Watch is useful for information about abuses in other countries. But in the normal world, few people listen to folks who complain about crimes everyone else commits, esp. among the poor beyond their doors, while remaining silent about their own failings at home. We have plenty of organizations that strive for neutrality, Amnesty, Human Rights Watch etc., who are obliged to cover all bases. UN Watch has zero credibility in its criticisms of Falk et al. They falsified documentation to smear a man of great integrity.Nishidani (talk) 22:22, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Nishidani -- this is not the place to debate the matter, but some would claim that the Palestinians already receive vastly disproportionate attention from the UN (compared to many other situations around the world), and therefore are beyond the remit of an organization focused on exposing institutional flaws in the UN, and crises which aren't yet receiving appropriate attention. I have no interest in defending UN Watch in detail, but it would appear to be too sweeping to claim that they have "zero credibility"... AnonMoos (talk) 13:59, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry I'm a bit late... I think UN Watch took some "creative liberty" in interpreting some of Falk's arguably "eccentric" positions, but they did not smear him. He's really not in my opinion, nor in Samantha Powers opinion, a "man of integrity". He's extreme, and certainly not unbiased. I don't think I meant to delete the reference, I just didn't like how you quoted it in full. It seemed an excessive list of grievances that were mostly touched on in the critical section. If anyone impartial does some research they should take Falk with a grain of salt. I should say that regardless of my opinion on Falk, I try to be a moderating voice. Keep polemics, even those you find fair, concise. Right now this article is on the soft side though, ie in it calling his arguable 9/11 "truther" opinions "comments". --Monochrome  _ Monitor  17:24, 6 December 2014 (UTC)