The Human Rights Council: Wrong again
Score another international insult to the ignoble United Nations Human Rights Council, where a “special rapporteur” has called for a boycott of all companies, including those in the U.S., that do business in Israel.
In a report to the U.N. General Assembly, Richard Falk, an investigator on human rights in the Palestinian territories, posits that corporations, including Hewlett-Packard and Caterpillar Inc., should “be prepared to accept any consequences — reputation, financial or legal — of continuing operations” in Israel, The Washington Free Beacon reports.
It's more of the same Israel bashing that dominates the Human Rights Council, where Mr. Falk, a professor emeritus at Princeton University, fits right in. He once compared the Jewish state to Nazi Germany, The Associated Press reports.
Naturally, Falk's report drew a quick rebuke from U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice — the same foreign policy expert who falsely attributed the murderous attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi to an obscure anti-Muslim video. She toes the indefensible line that by working within the discredited Human Rights Council, the U.S. can redeem the irredeemable.
Not when several countries in the U.N. General Assembly already have defended Falk's report as fair and balanced, The AP reports.
Once and for all, the U.S. must cleanse itself of this fetid fertilizer and the world body that so ably shovels it.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.