TED talk slurs Israel
I'm not into watching
TED talks, but many people I know - mostly brilliant people - including Mrs. Carl, are very much into watching them. This week, media watchdog CAMERA
took TED to task for airing a talk by one of its fellows, Gaza photojournalist Eman Mohammed, which
accused Israel of maximizing casualties during Operation Cast Lead in 2008-09. This is from the second link.
CAMERA wrote: “During Operation Cast Lead, Israel dropped over 2.5 million leaflets throughout Gaza and phoned residents in order to warn them of impending attacks. Israel likewise dropped warning fliers during the 2002 Operation Defensive Shield in the West Bank.”
The watchdog quoted testimony from Colonel Richard Kemp, former commander of the British forces in Afghanistan, who addressed the United Nations Human Rights Council in 2009, praising the “extraordinary measures” that Israel took in Cast Lead to avoid civilian casualties.
Kemp said, that “based on my knowledge and experience, I can say this: During Operation Cast Lead, the Israeli Defense Forces did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in a combat zone than any other army in the history of warfare.”
“Israel did so while facing an enemy that deliberately positioned its military capability behind the human shield of the civilian population,” Kemp said. “Hamas, like Hezbollah, are expert at driving the media agenda. Both will always have people ready to give interviews condemning Israeli forces for war crimes. They are adept at staging and distorting incidents.”
“The truth is that the IDF took extraordinary measures to give Gaza civilians notice of targeted areas, dropping over 2 million leaflets, and making over 100,000 phone calls,” the former British commander said. “Many missions that could have taken out Hamas military capability were aborted to prevent civilian casualties. During the conflict, the IDF allowed huge amounts of humanitarian aid into Gaza. To deliver aid virtually into your enemy’s hands is, to the military tactician, normally quite unthinkable. But the IDF took on those risks.”
An Israel Defense Forces investigation into the army’s conduct during Cast Lead discussed the precautions that Israel took in this particular strike to safeguard civilian lives. The investigation noted “the unfortunate deaths” of four civilians in the Al Saraya strike, but it also maintained that the strikes were in accordance with international law.
Mohammed said she was injured during the strike, breaking her nose. It was not from IDF fire or shrapnel, but from her own camera.
Read the whole thing. I thought TED got their facts straight....
Labels: blood libel, Gaza, Hamas, IDF, libel and slander, Operation Cast Lead, Richard Kemp
Peace Now forced to apologize after slandering rights activist
Peace Now was forced to apologize and to take down a Facebook campaign against the human rights group (note - no scare quotes this time) Honenu, after it called one of the people Honenu assisted a
terrorist. The person in question was acquitted on all charges ten years ago.
Extreme leftist group Peace Now was forced to delete its Facebook page campaigning against rights group Honenu Wednesday, after it falsely accused a man of being a "terrorist."
Honenu is a legal rights group which campaigns for the legal rights of Jews from Judea and Samaria, including the right to see a lawyer and the right not to face punishment without trial under “administrative orders.” On several occasions, the NGO has represented young men accused of so-called “price tag” vandalism in court.
Peace Now founder Yariv Oppenheimer accused the group of defending
"murderers and 'Price Tag' criminals" Tuesday. An attached advertisement
accused Honenu of assisting “terrorists.”
The list of “terrorists”
Honenu was alleged to have helped included Yossi Ben-Baruch.
According
to the ad, Ben-Baruch was part of the Bat Ayin Underground group; in
fact, he was found innocent of any involvement with the group over a
decade ago.
Channel 2 journalist Amnon Abramovich also slammed the
rights group on the weekly program "Friday News" on Friday evening,
prompting the organization to submit a complaint.
"In the 'Friday News' program which aired last Friday night, Mr.
Abramovich used the title 'Breaking the Law and Receiving Benefits' in
his broadcast and on the internet about our organization," Attorney
Doron Nir Zvi, legal representative for Honenu, noted in the letter to
both Abramovich and the Channel 2 news corporation. "This
header is not only false, but as indicated from the final words of
Abramovich in the article, portray our group as participating in illegal
activities."
"This organization has proper administrative approval and has never
acted without the full accordance of the law," the letter stressed. The
attorney then asked in the name of Honenu to issue an official apology
and change the false headline.
For the record, the picture at the top of this post is not Peace Now director general Yariv Oppenheimer, but rather LATMA's Yariv Googleheimer, a caricature of Oppenheimer.
Labels: Facebook, libel and slander, Peace Now
Women of the Wall threatens Matzav.com
Women of the Wall is apparently unfamiliar with
Google Cache and the
Way Back Machine. Otherwise, they would not be issuing threats like
this one, issued to Matzav.com, which also published the
Rachel Avraham piece.
The information is out there. It's time for Women of the Wall to either issue an answer refuting the charges or to stop threatening
people who have posted them.
Labels: Adalah, blogosphere, Google, libel and slander, New Israel Fund, Palestinian state RIGHT NOW syndrome, Women of the Wall
Why the French court convicted Karsenty of libel in the al-Dura case
Incredibly, the reason that a French court found
Philippe Karsenty guilty of libel for calling the al-Dura case 'faked' is that the French Supreme Court
ordered the lower court not to consider any exculpatory evidence.
This week the Paris Court of Appeals disgraced itself and revealed the
dark side of France’s arcane laws of defamation, elevating the principle
of French honor above the value of truth-telling for French
journalists. The appellate court’s sentencing of Philippe Karsenty to a fine of 7,000 Euros
for the “crime” of speaking truth to power telegraphs how France has
decided to treat whistle-blowers who have the temerity to demand that
state-sponsored media outlets differentiate between theater and news.
Perhaps this second panel of the appellate court was not entirely at
fault for its misstep. It operated with blinders, since the French
Supreme Court forbade it from viewing the relevant evidence that led the
first panel of the court to acquit Karsenty. For the French legal
system, the facts of what happened at Netzarim were and are essentially
irrelevant. This case was not about getting at the truth, but about
protecting the honor of French institutions.
Read the whole thing. Simply incredible.
Labels: France, France 2, libel and slander, mainstream media, Mohamed al-Dura, Phillippe Karsenty
Adelson sues Jewish Democrats for defamation
Republican donor Sheldon Adelson has
sued the National Jewish Democratic Council for defamation due to its refusal to withdraw an accusation that Adelson personally approved of and profited from prostitution.
The suit specifically charges that the NJDC “conveyed to the public that Mr. Adelson personally approved of and profited from prostitution” in resorts that he owned. It further accuses the NJDC of seeking “to advance their perceived political interests by assassinating Mr. Adelson’s character, punishing him for exercising his right to make monetary contributions to political causes and candidates of his choice, and demeaning him within the Jewish community.”
He is seeking $60 million dollars in compensatory and punitive damages.
I hope Adelson wins and puts the NJDC out of business. It's long overdue.
Labels: libel and slander, National Jewish Democratic Council, Sheldon Adelson
Like father-in-law, like son-in-law
You will recall that last week, a French appeals court
dismissed a libel lawsuit by Jamal al-Dura, father of the fake 'Palestinian martyr' Mohamed al-Dura, against Dr. David Yehuda, a doctor at Sheba Tel HaShomer Hospital who treated the father in 1994. At Sunday's cabinet meeting, Prime Minister Netanyahu hailed Dr. Yehuda's victory as
a victory over 'Palestinian' propaganda, and declared Dr. Yehuda an '
Israeli hero.' It should be noted that the government did not - at least until now - pay Dr. Yehuda's legal expenses.
Enter Haaretz, which on Sunday afternoon published an op-ed by one Rafi Walden, who is, according to Haaretz deputy director of Sheba Medical Center, a member of the board of directors of the Physicians for Human Rights, and a lieutenant colonel in the IDF reserves. According to my sources, he is also a
son-in-law of Israel's moonbat President, Shimon Peres. This one was so bad that Haaretz actually took it down. I got it first as an email, and eventually someone supplied me with the Google cached page, which is
here. Here's the key part:
My sole intention is to address testimony provided by Dr. David, who has been praised by the prime minister for having acted with integrity and persistence to defend the reputation of the state of Israel. The facts are completely different. After the incident in 2000, Jamal al-Dura was treated in Gaza, and transported the next day to Amman's King Hussein Hospital. His entire medical file has been relayed to me; it is 50 pages in length, and features pictures of the wounds and x-rays.
Dr. David claimed it was indisputable that the wounds were identical to ones treated eight years previously. The fact is that the medical documentation compiled in Amman shows completely different wounds: there is a gunshot wound in the right wrist, a shattered forearm bone, multiple fragment wounds in a palm, gunshot wounds in the right thigh, a fractured pelvis, an exit wound in the buttocks, a tear in the main nerve of the right thigh, tears in the main groin arteries and veins, and two gunshot wounds in the left lower leg.
Diagnoses in this file also provide detailed documentation of the 1992 wounds, including a paralyzed nerve in the right hand which was, in fact, treated by Dr. David. Photographs, x-rays, surgery reports, expert consultation reports and the rest of the data compiled in this medical file corroborate the diagnoses. I regretfully state that the statements made by my colleague, formulated as though "there isn't a shadow of doubt," are not well founded.
It apparently never occurred to the brilliant Dr. Walden that a hospital in Amman might have substituted different records for those of Jamal al-Dura circa 2000. As far as we can tell, Dr. Walden never saw al-Dura and had no way of knowing whether the records supplied to him from Amman were al-Dura's or someone else's. Dr. Yehuda, on the other hand, treated al-Dura in 1994 and knew exactly what wounds he had suffered in 1992.
Even Haaretz apparently recognized that Dr. Walden was taking the Amman hospital records on faith and took the article down. That's why I had to get it from Google cache. Perhaps Dr. Walden owes Dr. Yehuda an apology.
But then, taking everything one is told on faith runs in Dr. Walden's extended family, doesn't it? Think how we got into the Oslo mess in the first place....
Labels: Jamal al-Dura, libel and slander, Physicians for Human Rights, Shimon Peres
Fake 'martyr's father loses libel lawsuit in France
In 2007, I reported on a story that claimed that the scars that Jamal al-Dura - fake martyr Mohamed's father - claims that he received during the same incident in which Mohamed was killed - were in fact
the results of an attack by a gang of 'Palestinians' in 1992 and subsequent surgery from 1994 which grafted a tendon from his foot into his right arm. The story included an interview with the Israeli surgeon who treated al-Dura in 1994, and who says that there is no way those scars game from gunshots.
Here's more from Nidra Poller at PJM:
According to the Metula release (link in French), Jamal al Dura declared on medical records in 1992 that Palestinian militia had attacked him with axes. Doctors at Gaza’s Shifa Hospital* were able to save his life but he lost the use of his right hand because they could not repair a ruptured tendon in the forearm. Palestinian doctors referred Jamal to Tal Hashomer [should be Tel Hashomer. CiJ] hospital in Tel Aviv in March 1994. Dr. Yehuda performed reconstructive surgery, grafting a tendon taken from the foot, and restoring almost normal use of the hand. The medical record of that operation also refers to the removal of “foreign bodies,” suggesting that other instruments besides axes were used in the 1992 attack.
Alerted by the Ména [Metula News Agency] to the film of Jamal’s wounds produced in 2004 by Talal Abu Rahma at the demand of France 2 news director Arlette Chabot, to silence investigators, Dr. Yehuda and his colleagues declare that the scars shown in that film were incurred in 1992 and result from axe blade wounds and definitely not from gunshot. They are ready and willing to testify to this in any court.
The Metula release promises further revelations in the near future.
You will note in the picture above that Jamal is cradling his son with his right hand - the same one restored by Israeli surgeons. Probably free of charge.
Fast forward a bit more than three years. In March 2011, Jamal
sued Dr. Yehuda for libel in a French court. The lower court in France found for al-Dura, but on Wednesday, a French Appeals Court
overturned the conviction and acquitted Dr. Yehuda.
A French appeals court yesterday overturned the libel conviction of an Israeli physician who was sued by the father of Mohammed al-Dura, the boy whose shooting death in September 2000 became a powerful symbol of the second intifada.
Jamal al-Dura had displayed to international media outlets scars on his body he claimed were caused by bullets fired by Israel Defense Forces soldiers.
In a 2008 interview with a French Jewish weekly an Israeli orthopedic surgeon, Dr. David Yehuda disputed the elder Dura's claim. Yehuda said the scars were not related to the incident in which Mohammed al-Dura, who was 12 years old, died.
Rather, Yehuda said, they were the result of an assault on Dura by Hamas militants who accused him of collaborating with Israel, as well as subsequent surgery performed by Yehuda himself in 1994.
Yehuda, together with the reporter and editor of the French publication, were convicted of libel by a French court in April and ordered to pay thousands of euros in compensation.
Yesterday's ruling was the result of Yehuda's appeal of his conviction.
It's interesting that Haaretz continues to treat Mohamed al-Dura as if he is dead. I don't believe he is dead at all. In fact,
he got married seven years after the 'shooting' at the age of 19 or 20 (and no, I can't confirm that, but I'd bet on it).
Labels: France, Jamal al-Dura, libel and slander, Mohamed al-Dura
Bwahahaha: 'Palestinian Authority' to sue al-Jazeera for libel and slander
ROTFL! The 'Palestinian Authority' says it wants to sue
al-Jazeera for libel and slander in connection with the release of the Palileaks documents.
The PA said it was also studying the possibility of suing Al-Jazeera for libel and slander.
But while some PA officials claimed that the documents exposed by Al-Jazeera were forged, others admitted that they were genuine.
Abbas, who was in Cairo when Al-Jazeera announced that it had obtained hundreds of secret documents related to the Israeli- Palestinian peace talks, reaffirmed that the PA had nothing to hide and said Arab leaders had been briefed about the details of the talks with Israel. He said the documents published by the Qatari network were forged.
“We will expose the forgery in your station,” Abbas said, addressing Al-Jazeera. “We know how to confront your programs.”
He said that all the documents leaked to Al-Jazeera had been presented to the Arab League Abbas added that the station’s allegations “coincided with the Israeli campaign against the Palestinian Authority and its diplomatic efforts to expose Israeli intransigence.”
Well, are they true or aren't they true? And if they're not true, why were they presentd to the Arab League before they were outed by al-Jazeera? And by the way, where do you guys think you can sue al-Jazeera other than in Qatar and what do you think the chances are of you winning a court case there?
Idiots.
Labels: al-Jazeera, libel and slander, Mahmoud Abbas, Palileaks, Politics, Qatar, World Politics
