If you look here you’ll find the latest statement from Richard Falk, the UN’s “Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights on Palestinian territories occupied since 1967″. I’ll start with the bit where he comes over all reasonable.

It is a criminal violation of international law for elements of Hamas or anyone else to fire rockets at Israeli towns regardless of provocation…

I´m glad that Falk is able to recognize this, even if it’s from between gritted teeth. Earlier in the text he says,

And still Israel maintains its Gaza siege in its full fury, allowing only barely enough food and fuel to enter to stave off mass famine and disease.

The idea of a siege in full fury that allows in enough food and fuel to stave off mass famine and disease is a truly exquisite construction. The raging, slavering Israeli monster is stamping its feet and spewing flames from its mouth just the other side of the fence but somehow, in spite of its bestial fury, it finds it in its heart to let in enough supplies to keep the inhabitants of Gaza fed.

He later says,

Protective action must be taken immediately to offset the persisting and wide-ranging violations of the fundamental human right to life, and in view of the emergency situation that is producing a humanitarian catastrophe that is unfolding day by day.

Hang on, what humanitarian catastrophe? What persisting and wide - ranging violations of the fundamental human right to life? He says himself, only a couple of lines before, that there is no question of mass starvation or disease in Gaza.

And then there’s this,

It should be noted that the situation worsened in recent days due to the breakdown of a truce between Hamas and Israel that had been observed for several months by both sides. The truce was maintained by Hamas despite the failure of Israel to fulfill its obligation under the agreement to improve the living conditions of the people of Gaza.

This is false. Rocket fire into Israel sharply declined during the truce but never stopped entirely. Furthermore, doesn’t Hamas have any responsibilities with regard to the welfare of the population of Gaza?

And finally,

The recent upsurge of violence occurred after an Israeli incursion that killed several alleged Palestinian militants within Gaza.

The militants - nothing “alleged” about them - were killed when Israeli forces crossed the border to destroy a tunnel that was being constructed with the aim of launching armed actions within Israeli territory. Perhaps Falk doesn’t believe this or he doesn’t think that it matters, but he might at least have had the decency to mention the Israeli version of events.

It’s also noticeable that while Falk calls for the International Criminal Court to investigate possible crimes committed by Israelis in Gaza he makes no similar call with regard to members of Hamas, in spite of acknowledging the criminal nature of its rocket attacks against Israel.

And by the way, this Richard Falk, who has a sensitive and important UN job watching over the human rights of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank, he couldn’t possibly be the same one who has written a glowing foreword to a book by 9/11 conspiracy theorist David Ray Griffin, could  he? He could and he is. Check out the foreword here. And while you are at it, take a look at this fascinating recent article by the distinguished professor on the same topic. A choice quote:

From this perspective, and given the dark cloud of doubt that lingers over the official 9/11 narrative, why was the issue not even discussed during the many months of presidential campaigning? As far as I know it was never mentioned. And the explanation is not the urgency associated with the widening economic crisis or the tactical interest of the Democrats to avoid offending Republicans in their search for support across party lines. The truth is deeper, and far more disturbing. As far as I can tell, the real explanation is a widely shared fear of what sinister forces might lay beneath the unturned stones of a full and honest investigation of 9/11. Ever since the assassinations in the 1960s of John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King, and Malcolm X there has been waged a powerful campaign against “conspiracy theory” that has made anyone who dares question the official story to be branded as a kook or some kind of unhinged troublemaker. In this climate of opinion, any political candidate for high office who dared raise doubts about the official version of 9/11 would immediately be branded as unfit, and would lose all political credibility. It is impossible to compete in any public arena in the United States if a person comes across as a “9/11 doubter.”

Falk is right about one thing, the truth is sometimes very disturbing indeed.