Following my post yesterday on Richard Falk’s posting of an antisemitic cartoon on his blog – followed by his quite unbelievable excuse – Falk has decided to now change his story and invoke the geriatric defence.
Because this unintentional posting of an anti-semitic cartoon has attracted such attention to my blog, and elicited a stream of venomous comments, I want to explain my mistake one last time. I do this without trying to excuse the carelessness involved, although I would point out that I removed the cartoon as soon as I became aware of its real content.
Even now I needed a magnifying glass to identify the anti-semitic character of the dog. My vision (at 80) is pretty good, but not good enough. It looked like a helmet to me, and the main visible symbol on the dog was the USA midriff covering. I found the cartoon through a Google image search on the page devoted to the International Criminal Court. Almost all the images there were about the Court or justice, and I assumed that this blindfolded goddess of justice was being led around by the USA. I am quite sure this cartoon would never have been allowed on the Google page if its true content had been realized, and it should be removed. Without a special effort, which admittedly I did not make, this true content is easy to overlook, and even when the initial objection to the cartoon was brought to my attention, and I looked at it, I did not appreciate the objectionable character of what was intended to be communicated.
I call BS. Falk reacted to this objection, which clearly details the offensive nature of the cartoon. His supposed poor eyesight is not relevant, since the cartoon was explained to him. His initial excuse – that he did not realize it could be viewed as antisemitic – was proffered with full knowledge that what was depicted was a bloodthirsty dog wearing a Jewish skullcap, whether he actually saw it or not.
Regarding his claim of only (!) “pretty good” eyesight, here’s another look at the cartoon. You would have to be pretty blind to not notice the Jewish skullcap on the dog.
But for argument’s sake, just say he is that blind, doesn’t this raise questions about his ability to make value judgments like this?
“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,” he said in a statement to the UN Human Rights Council.
In fact, this is what Falk had to say in the wake of his expulsion from Israel a few years ago:
By attacking the observer rather than what is observed, Israel plays a clever mind game
Falk can’t have it both ways. He can’t claim to be a valid “observer” on one hand, yet unable to see what is rather clear to the naked eye on the other.
