How about this:
“it is especially painful for me, as an American Jew, to feel compelled to portray the ongoing and intensifying abuse of the Palestinian people by Israel through a reliance on such an inflammatory metaphor as ‘holocaust.’”
…
“Is it an irresponsible overstatement to associate the treatment of Palestinians with this criminalized Nazi record of collective atrocity? I think not. The recent developments in Gaza are especially disturbing because they express so vividly a deliberate intention on the part of Israel and its allies to subject an entire human community to life-endangering conditions of utmost cruelty. The suggestion that this pattern of conduct is a holocaust-in-the-making represents a rather desperate appeal to the governments of the world and to international public opinion to act urgently to prevent these current genocidal tendencies from culminating in a collective tragedy.”

http://www.transnational.org/Area_MiddleEast/2007/Falk_PalestineGenocide.html

1. “They had received visas ensuring them entry, which were honored when we arrived at Ben Gurion Airport, and because they received visas and knew that I was coming, we assumed there’d be no problem with my entry”

Why would he assume that? Why didn’t he secure a visa BEFORE embarking on a flight, as any law-abiding humanitarian visitor to any country, anxious to do his job, would do, unless he acted under some misguided assumption that his mere UN connection would coerce the Israelis into opening its doors to him, even without permission, or, deliberately sought a provocation?

2. “and placed me in this detention facility prior to being expelled on the plane that took me back here to California.

AMY GOODMAN: And in that twenty-hour period, were they questioning you?

RICHARD FALK: No, they didn’t—oddly, again, they didn’t seem particularly interested in either exploring my views or objecting to them or doing anything substantive.”

Why is this odd? There was a very good, legal reason to disallow his entry. He was in breach of a routine legal immigration procedure. If some shin-bet officer came to interrogate him about his VIEWS, he would be screaming “INQUISITION”!

What he complains about, I suspect, is the fact that the law requiring a visa was not overruled in his honour. He thought he deserved special consideration, being a UN SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR!

3. “They just put me in this detention facility, which is located, I think, on the periphery of the airport area and is a very coercive little experience, because I was in with five other people in a tiny room where there was barely space to stand, and it was—we were locked in this room and treated not terribly, but unpleasantly. I would put it that way.”

Here is how Norman Finkelstein described his ordeal (in an interview with the same DM!) at the hands of the Israelis:

“And then after several rounds of questioning, I was told that…I would not be allowed in… then I was taken to a holding cell at the airport where I was kept until about eighteen hours, and then I was sent on a KLM airline back to Amsterdam.

JUAN GONZALEZ: And the reason for holding you for eighteen hours?

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: The next flight out. The rule is they send you back on the plane you came in or the airline you came in, and the next flight out on KLM was the next morning. “
Falk does not deign to explain is why he was “detained” for 20 hours.

Please note that Finkelstein did not complain about the room in which he was detained, nor did he suggest he was treated unpleasantly.

So my question is this: in view of the fact that Falk compares the Gaza blockade to Nazi concentration camps, does anyone even begin to believe him when he describes his twenty hours wait in an Israeli airport waiting room for those who do not have visas, as “a very coercive little experience”?