This is a guest post by Doug Lieb of AJC, editor of the new blog Durban Countdown.

Richard Falk, the UN Special Rapporteur for human rights in the Palestinian territories - previously known for his doubts about what really happened on 9/11 - has just come out with another novel theory.

According to Falk, the Geneva Conventions require those fighting a war to differentiate between military and civilian targets. Fair enough.

Also according to Falk - and here’s where things get interesting - “If it is not possible to do so, then launching the attacks is inherently unlawful and would seem to constitute a war crime of the greatest magnitude.” In other words, if a warring party deeply integrates itself within the civilian population, any attack against it is ipso facto illegal.

This statement is not just monumentally stupid, but also willfully anti-humanitarian. It’s a perverse incentive for militant groups to conceal themselves deliberately among civilians to the maximum possible extent, since doing so would automatically criminalize any retaliation against them. Want to blow people up with impunity in Richard Falk’s world? Just do it from a hospital. Then, “inherently,” no one can touch you.

Could a UN official with a humanitarian mandate (let alone a plum Princeton professorship) really believe this kind of talk advances the cause of human rights? Under most circumstances, probably not. But hey, the guy’s trying to hang a war crime around Israel’s neck. Who cares if it means some dead bodies in Baghdad or Bilbao along the way?