"The left-leaning daily Liberation buried a small story on page 13 with a headline, "Jewish organizations call for a new trial." "Only the maximum sentence for Fofana satisfies them..." the story reads. The implication was clear. While the rest of France wanted to put this story to rest, the Jews wanted their pound of flesh. This is France, and the French are polite. Nobody would ever say that face-to-face. But that is how it read between the lines."
Source: article by Brett Kline in JPost
"Rafy Abitbol was the only member of the family to attend the verdict in the Paris court last Friday evening that brought an end to the brutal trial for the torture and murder of his brother-in-law Ilan Halimi in February 2006. He left his wife and Halimi's other sister and their mother at the dinner table and headed over to the Palais de la Justice on the Ile de la Cité almost reluctantly, leaving the others to observe Shabbat, something he has never been keen on. Wearing a blue blazer and sitting motionless and expressionless in the plaintiffs' box, Abitbol listened as Youssouf Fofana, the leader of the gang who kidnapped and tortured Halimi, 23, was handed a life sentence with a mandatory 22 years to serve, the maximum sentence applicable under French law.
Fofana clapped his hands softly upon hearing the verdict, which had been expected. The gesture was noted by the press and public on hand for the first and only day that the trial had been opened to the public. But 25 other names and verdicts followed, ranging from 18 years to six months suspended sentences. Two people were acquitted. What must be explained is that in France, after three years already served, plus good behavior and other factors, a sentence of 18 years can mean nine years or less, and nine years can mean as little as 18 months.
This means that the superintendent of the building where Halimi was held captive and tortured will walk after perhaps five years and the girl used as bait will go free after only 18 months in prison. Eight people are being released now, including those who served their three years for not calling in a vicious kidnapping that led to a murder.
Obsessed with obtaining money by any means necessary, they might soon bump into Halimi's mother on the street as Ruth Halimi wanders through life, mourning her son. At his reburial in Jerusalem's Har Hamenuhot cemetery in 2007, a representative of the American Jewish community, speaking at the ceremony, said that Halimi had died a martyr for the Jewish people. The American Jew did not know what he was talking about. Halimi did not die a martyr; he died for nothing - a nice, good-looking ordinary Jewish guy from a modest Sephardi family of Moroccan and Tunisian origin, who liked Israel but was really crazy about the United States. The debate in his family was not about making aliya; it was about whether to head for New York or Miami.
WHAT THE press labeled the "Gang of Barbarians," picking up on Fofana's own glib words when he was arrested after fleeing to the Ivory Coast and being brought back to France, was really a loose association of marginal characters.
They ranged from small-time criminals with prison time under their belts to local tough guys and girls, many of black African and North African Arab backgrounds, but also Gallic French. Their spotty educations fit their general level of intelligence. Like many in France, they thought all Jews were rich, and like marginalized people everywhere, they hated the police. This was also not their first kidnapping.
As they hung out in the hallway and mostly abandoned basement of the building on Rue Prokofiev in Bagneux, a fairly nice working-class suburb just south of Paris, like the disenfranchised all over the world, they dreamed of how to get their hands on other people's money.
Fofana, a charismatic man who prayed in the local mosque regularly, and who had been doing shady deals with the building superintendent, Gilles Serrurier, 42, had the answer: kidnap a Jew and hold him for ransom. Using pretty, buxom, dark-haired 17-year-old Yalda, of Iranian origin, to visit Halimi's store as bait with the promise of sexual adventures, they got Halimi to Bagneux on January 21, 2006.
The rest is history: a brutal 24 days of cutting, burning and beating Halimi, who was tied up in the basement room that the superintendent had turned over to the gang after he was promised money. How much? Fofana offered him 1,500 euros, about $2,300. After the ransom deal went bad, Fofana and three or four other guys went especially berserk on Halimi, for one reason only - because he was Jewish. No one ever saw a penny.
The police, who had botched the case badly by telling the family to cut off contact with Fofana, found Halimi brutally beaten, bloody, with his head shaven, naked and staggering in a suburban railway station. He died on the way to the hospital, unable to utter a word.
The story, when it finally reached the French press, shocked the nation, but most Gallic French did not care for the accusations of anti-Semitism from the Jewish community. "This is not the extreme Right, nor the extreme Left, so how can it be anti-Semitic?" said one TV journalist, in an example of classic French inductive logic. "It's just a sick, violent story." [...]
What Jewish community officials had been hoping for happened. Justice Minister Michele Alliot-Marie has asked the high court in Paris to hold a new trial for 14 of the 25 defendants, because of the light sentences handed down last Friday. [...]
Abitbol [Gil Taieb, vice president of the Jewish Social Fund] had always thought that holding the trial in public would have changed something, would have made more French people interested in it. He looked around at the army of journalists in the courtroom and at the TV cameras lighting up the hall downstairs as lawyers gave statements, but the next day noted that the stories were short and focused on Fofana, with little on the short sentences for the accomplices. It was the facts, nothing but the facts.
"The jury reduced the sentences demanded by the prosecutor because I think they felt sorry for the defendants," said Prasquier. "They are young, not very intelligent and have faced tough circumstances in their lives. And I think the role of anti-Semitism in this was downplayed by the prosecutor. In a sense, these young people have become the victims of the French systems, the great losers. Their passive complicity was considered normal."
What that means is that while four or five guys did the actual beating and burning, everyone else played a role and knew what was going on, and said nothing, and the jurors decided that was less bad. Maybe they were afraid to talk, to call the police, afraid of repercussions in the projects or on the street, where nobody likes the police, anyway.
And the closed-door trial?
"The courts could have made this a learning experience for the French public," said Prasquier, "to learn about how evil anti-Semitism can get in modern France, to learn what it means for French values and what is going on in some of the suburbs."
Taieb was not so diplomatic. "This is an embarrassment for the French court system and for France, because it shows that collaboration is possible," he said. "These guys can participate in a brutal crime and get away with murder."
Prasquier and Taieb were present in court on Friday night, but most of the Jewish community was not, including the French Jewish radio stations and print outlets, which were totally absent. The obvious excuse would be Shabbat, but not everyone is observant. So how is it that the editors, who had made a big deal of the case before the verdict and are still doing so with daily interviews, were not present for the action, in front of the box full of defendants guilty of the most horrific act of anti-Semitism in France since World War II?
"Frankly, I don't understand where all the Jewish press was," said Taieb. "I know all the editors; they should have been there. This is not good. And the fact that the verdict fell on a Friday evening, on Shabbat... well, did the court plan this, so the family wouldn't show [up], or the press? It is hard to imagine this in France, but in Judaism we say there are no coincidences. I was very disappointed to see the hall and courtroom packed with the French press, and no French Jewish press." [...]
The press has not bothered going over the details. Radio, TV and print accounts gave factual accounts of the verdicts, quoted the prosecutor saying the sentences were correct and interviewed the defense attorneys and then Francis Szpiner, the Halimis' lawyer.
Since then, the story has once again exploded, following the Justice Ministry's decision to hold another trial. The decision almost appears to have come on cue. Defense lawyers say the trial was fair, prosecutors say the light sentences brought dishonor to the country, and on Monday the retrial was announced. [...]
"Certain Gallic French and Arabs felt strongly about this affair from the very beginning when Ilan was killed and have expressed their anger, but I believe you really have two different visions and ideals of France being formed around the trial, for the little people know about it," said Michael Sebban, an author and former public high school philosophy teacher in Saint Denis, a tough suburb north of Paris. Sebban, an Orthodox Jew, now divides his time between Paris-Bordeaux and Jerusalem.
"For most French, this is a reality show killing, and for the Jews, it is a tragedy," he said. "The French do not feel concerned on a personal level, while Jews feel like it was the boy next door. As if they were not living in the same country." [...]
Ih the hall of the courtroom, Myriam and a small group of friends appeared to be some of the very few Jews among the public, and they were looking around as if they were about to be attacked.
"I really feel uneasy here," she said, unwilling to give her last name. "They have killed so many Jews, they have killed..." Her jaw drops, and her friends offer only blank stares. One of them goes off and insults the defense lawyer, who was busy making statements in front of all the TV cameras. Instead of ignoring him, the lawyer, well-spoken and sure of himself, exploded in anger.
"Who the hell are you, what are you doing here?" he yelled right in the face of the short, swarthy young man, who was not expecting such a strong response, and who backed off, stammering. The cameramen loved it and moved in, filming every moment. "I am defending my clients and the French legal system, and you are calling me a jerk and an anti-Semite? You are an idiot. Get out of here," the lawyer yelled. The threat of violence was there, but the altercation had no value, except for the cameras, and the lawyer knew it. That night and the next day, the hallway clash between the lawyer and the not-too-bright, frustrated young Jewish guy was prominently featured on every TV report in France. It looked good.
The light sentences for the accomplices have been reported only in the written press, and only because the Jewish community has made statements saying that justice was not done. In other words, this was a Jewish affair, and only a Jewish affair.
The left-leaning daily Liberation buried a small story on page 13 with a headline, "Jewish organizations call for a new trial." "Only the maximum sentence for Fofana satisfies them..." the story reads. The implication was clear. While the rest of France wanted to put this story to rest, the Jews wanted their pound of flesh. This is France, and the French are polite. Nobody would ever say that face-to-face. But that is how it read between the lines. [...]
While a new trial may be good for justice for the Halimi family and good for the justice system in France, it might not be good for France's Jews, especially the young people living in touch-and-go areas. Have community leaders really thought of that?"
- Ilan Halimi's murderer sentenced to life in prison
- Trial of Ilan Halimi’s barbarian murderers opens in Paris
- The murder of Ilan Halimi in Paris three years ago
- Echoes in the beating of Rudy Haddad
Thursday, 23 July 2009
Tuesday, 21 July 2009
New era as British hostility reaches crescendo
"In a country whose opinion formers still fulminate about the invasion of Iraq - sometimes portrayed as a venture inspired by Israel and Zionist neoconservatives in America - the Netanyahu government's hard line stance on Iran has got the alarm bells ringing again. Are we going to get sucked in to yet another war in the Middle East for the benefit of Israel, they ask."
It has been a terrible month for Israel's reputation in Great Britain. The government has announced a partial arms embargo in protest of Operation Cast Lead. The Charity War on Want has held a launch event for a new book entitled Israeli Apartheid: A Beginners Guide. The Guardian has featured commentaries promoting the apartheid analogy as well as accusing Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu of using Nazi language to defend settlement policy. The BBC and other media outlets have given massive coverage to the recent Breaking the Silence report slamming the IDF for committing "war crimes." Barely a day goes by without a new front being opened against the Jewish state.
Those of us who follow such matters are always in danger of getting too close to our subject. But, given that the IDF is not involved in combat operations, I for one have never seen a period like it. On Friday, the Guardian ran two anti-Israel opinion pieces on one and the same day.
There's something in the air. The Israel-haters smell blood, and they're going in for the kill. It could be that we are on the threshold of a new era. But why now?
The simplest explanation is that the relentless, unremitting stream of anti-Israeli invective that has been pumped into the public mind in Britain over the last decade or so was always going to reach critical mass at some point. There is nothing particularly significant about the timing. The clock has been ticking for years. Israel's time has simply come.
Ultimately, the simple explanation may be the best explanation. But there are a number of other factors now at play which may have helped bring the situation to a head.
First, the election of Barack Obama is perceived by many British opinion formers as heralding a refreshing new approach to Israel from the United States. For linguistic and historical reasons, political change in America is keenly felt in Britain. Obama's comments calling for a freeze on the settlements have provided the pretext for a renewed assault on Israel in general using the American president's huge popularity as cover.
Second, the election of Netanyahu combined with the appointment of Avigdor Lieberman as foreign minister have offered new opportunities to make the attack personal. Even for Israel's most virulent detractors, it was not easy to mount a hate campaign against Ehud Olmert and Tzipi Livni. Netanyahu has been demonized in Britain for years. Lieberman is portrayed as little better than a skinhead. The wolves have been thrown fresh meat.
Third, Foreign Secretary David Miliband has recently recast the tone of British pronouncements on the Middle East and relations with the Islamic world in a way that serves the broader agenda of Israel's opponents. For example, in a speech in Oxford in May and reported in the Guardian, he spoke of abjuring distinctions between "moderates and extremists" - a line that, despite Foreign Office denials, was widely interpreted as potentially paving the way for talks with Hamas and other militant groups. He also referred to "ruined crusader castles," "lines drawn on maps by colonial powers" and to the failure "to establish two states in Palestine." Miliband cannot be held entirely responsible for the way his words are interpreted. But it is precisely in such guilty, post-colonial terms that Israel's opponents in Britain have always talked. To hear their own kind of language echoing back at them from the leading figure in the UK foreign policy establishment is likely to embolden them further.
Fourth, in a country whose opinion formers still fulminate about the invasion of Iraq - sometimes portrayed as a venture inspired by Israel and Zionist neoconservatives in America - the Netanyahu government's hard line stance on Iran has got the alarm bells ringing again. Are we going to get sucked in to yet another war in the Middle East for the benefit of Israel, they ask.
Fifth, Netanyahu's new emphasis on insisting that the Palestinians recognize Israel as a specifically Jewish state is pushing Israel's opponents against the wall and forcing them to declare themselves with greater clarity. Of course, this does not just apply to Britain. But as a country whose opinion forming classes rank among the most hostile to Israel in the Western world, the move has provoked a particularly hysterical reaction. Since the Palestinians have made it clear that they have no intention of recognizing Israel as a Jewish state, British opponents of Israel have been forced to choose between accepting that Palestinian rejectionism forms the real root cause of the conflict or themselves rejecting the Jewish character of Israel and the whole Zionist enterprise to boot.
Put all of these factors together and it becomes easier to understand why a situation which was awful to begin with has deteriorated so rapidly. The obvious question now is where next. With the partial arms embargo in mind, we should obviously be watching for an extension of formal sanctions. Outside the governmental sphere, it is a racing certainty that unions will renew efforts for trade and academic boycotts. Media hysteria will grow as each new assault on Israel's integrity helps legitimize and validate the next. For the Jews of Britain, the prospect of increasing anti-Semitism against this backdrop is all too real.
The darkness is closing in.
Source: article by Robin Shepherd in TJP
The writer is director of international affairs at the Henry Jackson Society in London. His book, A State Beyond the Pale: Europe's Problem with Israel, will be published in September.
It has been a terrible month for Israel's reputation in Great Britain. The government has announced a partial arms embargo in protest of Operation Cast Lead. The Charity War on Want has held a launch event for a new book entitled Israeli Apartheid: A Beginners Guide. The Guardian has featured commentaries promoting the apartheid analogy as well as accusing Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu of using Nazi language to defend settlement policy. The BBC and other media outlets have given massive coverage to the recent Breaking the Silence report slamming the IDF for committing "war crimes." Barely a day goes by without a new front being opened against the Jewish state.
Those of us who follow such matters are always in danger of getting too close to our subject. But, given that the IDF is not involved in combat operations, I for one have never seen a period like it. On Friday, the Guardian ran two anti-Israel opinion pieces on one and the same day.
There's something in the air. The Israel-haters smell blood, and they're going in for the kill. It could be that we are on the threshold of a new era. But why now?
The simplest explanation is that the relentless, unremitting stream of anti-Israeli invective that has been pumped into the public mind in Britain over the last decade or so was always going to reach critical mass at some point. There is nothing particularly significant about the timing. The clock has been ticking for years. Israel's time has simply come.
Ultimately, the simple explanation may be the best explanation. But there are a number of other factors now at play which may have helped bring the situation to a head.
First, the election of Barack Obama is perceived by many British opinion formers as heralding a refreshing new approach to Israel from the United States. For linguistic and historical reasons, political change in America is keenly felt in Britain. Obama's comments calling for a freeze on the settlements have provided the pretext for a renewed assault on Israel in general using the American president's huge popularity as cover.
Second, the election of Netanyahu combined with the appointment of Avigdor Lieberman as foreign minister have offered new opportunities to make the attack personal. Even for Israel's most virulent detractors, it was not easy to mount a hate campaign against Ehud Olmert and Tzipi Livni. Netanyahu has been demonized in Britain for years. Lieberman is portrayed as little better than a skinhead. The wolves have been thrown fresh meat.
Third, Foreign Secretary David Miliband has recently recast the tone of British pronouncements on the Middle East and relations with the Islamic world in a way that serves the broader agenda of Israel's opponents. For example, in a speech in Oxford in May and reported in the Guardian, he spoke of abjuring distinctions between "moderates and extremists" - a line that, despite Foreign Office denials, was widely interpreted as potentially paving the way for talks with Hamas and other militant groups. He also referred to "ruined crusader castles," "lines drawn on maps by colonial powers" and to the failure "to establish two states in Palestine." Miliband cannot be held entirely responsible for the way his words are interpreted. But it is precisely in such guilty, post-colonial terms that Israel's opponents in Britain have always talked. To hear their own kind of language echoing back at them from the leading figure in the UK foreign policy establishment is likely to embolden them further.
Fourth, in a country whose opinion formers still fulminate about the invasion of Iraq - sometimes portrayed as a venture inspired by Israel and Zionist neoconservatives in America - the Netanyahu government's hard line stance on Iran has got the alarm bells ringing again. Are we going to get sucked in to yet another war in the Middle East for the benefit of Israel, they ask.
Fifth, Netanyahu's new emphasis on insisting that the Palestinians recognize Israel as a specifically Jewish state is pushing Israel's opponents against the wall and forcing them to declare themselves with greater clarity. Of course, this does not just apply to Britain. But as a country whose opinion forming classes rank among the most hostile to Israel in the Western world, the move has provoked a particularly hysterical reaction. Since the Palestinians have made it clear that they have no intention of recognizing Israel as a Jewish state, British opponents of Israel have been forced to choose between accepting that Palestinian rejectionism forms the real root cause of the conflict or themselves rejecting the Jewish character of Israel and the whole Zionist enterprise to boot.
Put all of these factors together and it becomes easier to understand why a situation which was awful to begin with has deteriorated so rapidly. The obvious question now is where next. With the partial arms embargo in mind, we should obviously be watching for an extension of formal sanctions. Outside the governmental sphere, it is a racing certainty that unions will renew efforts for trade and academic boycotts. Media hysteria will grow as each new assault on Israel's integrity helps legitimize and validate the next. For the Jews of Britain, the prospect of increasing anti-Semitism against this backdrop is all too real.
The darkness is closing in.
Source: article by Robin Shepherd in TJP
The writer is director of international affairs at the Henry Jackson Society in London. His book, A State Beyond the Pale: Europe's Problem with Israel, will be published in September.
Sunday, 19 July 2009
Germany honors Israeli 'Israel hater'
Only in Europe ... and in Germany of all places. The obvious difference between the US and Europe is here for all to see. President Barack Obama, unlike President Horst Köhler, would never award the highest national honour to someone who hates Israel and admires Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
"Langer, 79, who left Israel in 1990, frequently compares Israel with apartheid in South Africa, and praised the speech of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at the Durban II UN conference on racism in Geneva in April."
""An aggressive verbal attack on the Jewish state is rewarded for the first time by the German state. Is that really the intention?" (Dr. Dieter Graumann, vice president of the Central Council of Jews in Germany)
"Critics in Austria and Germany assert that Langer's efforts to delegitimize Israel meet the criteria outlined in the European Union's working definition of anti-Semitism."
German President Horst Köhler issued on Thursday the Federal Cross of Merit, first class - the country's most prestigious award - to Israeli attorney Felicia Langer, a vociferous critic of Israel who lives in Tübingen, Baden-Württemberg.
Langer, 79, who left Israel in 1990, frequently compares Israel with apartheid in South Africa, and praised the speech of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at the Durban II UN conference on racism in Geneva in April.
When asked about the award and the parallels she has drawn between Israel and South African apartheid, she told The Jerusalem Post that the Federal Cross of Merit was a "recognition of my work," and "what Israel is practicing in the occupied territories is apartheid." In an interview with the Junge Welt, a Berlin-based Stalinist daily, she termed Israel "the apartheid of the present" and "the Israeli regime."
Asked about her interview with the Muslim Markt Web site, in which she argued that Defense Minister Ehud Barak, as well as other leading Israeli politicians and generals, should be convicted of war crimes at the International Criminal Court in The Hague, Langer told the Post that she considered Israeli officials "war criminals" and stood by her comments. She also said the "official translation" of Ahmadinejad's threat to "wipe Israel off the map" did not contain a statement advocating the obliteration of Israel.
When asked why Köhler had awarded Langer with Germany's highest distinction, his press spokesman, Stefan Schulze, declined to comment and deferred the matter to the State Ministry in Baden-Württemberg.
In an e-mail to the Post, Uwe Köhn, a spokesman for the state of Baden-Württemberg, wrote, "The honor bestowed on Felicia Langer recognizes her humanitarian service, independent of political, ideological or religious motivation. Most important is her dedication to people in need, regardless of nationality or religion, given her own background as massively affected by the Holocaust. The decision to present the Order of Merit was made on the recommendation of the lord mayor of Tübingen, where Ms. Langer lives, with confirmation from all the usual departments involved in bestowing such honors, including the Foreign Ministry. The honor will be conferred by President Köhler and presented by Undersecretary [Hubert] Wicker."
Read the full piece here
Source: article by Benjamin Weinthal in JPost
"Langer, 79, who left Israel in 1990, frequently compares Israel with apartheid in South Africa, and praised the speech of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at the Durban II UN conference on racism in Geneva in April."
""An aggressive verbal attack on the Jewish state is rewarded for the first time by the German state. Is that really the intention?" (Dr. Dieter Graumann, vice president of the Central Council of Jews in Germany)
"Critics in Austria and Germany assert that Langer's efforts to delegitimize Israel meet the criteria outlined in the European Union's working definition of anti-Semitism."
German President Horst Köhler issued on Thursday the Federal Cross of Merit, first class - the country's most prestigious award - to Israeli attorney Felicia Langer, a vociferous critic of Israel who lives in Tübingen, Baden-Württemberg.
Langer, 79, who left Israel in 1990, frequently compares Israel with apartheid in South Africa, and praised the speech of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at the Durban II UN conference on racism in Geneva in April.
When asked about the award and the parallels she has drawn between Israel and South African apartheid, she told The Jerusalem Post that the Federal Cross of Merit was a "recognition of my work," and "what Israel is practicing in the occupied territories is apartheid." In an interview with the Junge Welt, a Berlin-based Stalinist daily, she termed Israel "the apartheid of the present" and "the Israeli regime."
Asked about her interview with the Muslim Markt Web site, in which she argued that Defense Minister Ehud Barak, as well as other leading Israeli politicians and generals, should be convicted of war crimes at the International Criminal Court in The Hague, Langer told the Post that she considered Israeli officials "war criminals" and stood by her comments. She also said the "official translation" of Ahmadinejad's threat to "wipe Israel off the map" did not contain a statement advocating the obliteration of Israel.
When asked why Köhler had awarded Langer with Germany's highest distinction, his press spokesman, Stefan Schulze, declined to comment and deferred the matter to the State Ministry in Baden-Württemberg.
In an e-mail to the Post, Uwe Köhn, a spokesman for the state of Baden-Württemberg, wrote, "The honor bestowed on Felicia Langer recognizes her humanitarian service, independent of political, ideological or religious motivation. Most important is her dedication to people in need, regardless of nationality or religion, given her own background as massively affected by the Holocaust. The decision to present the Order of Merit was made on the recommendation of the lord mayor of Tübingen, where Ms. Langer lives, with confirmation from all the usual departments involved in bestowing such honors, including the Foreign Ministry. The honor will be conferred by President Köhler and presented by Undersecretary [Hubert] Wicker."
Read the full piece here
Source: article by Benjamin Weinthal in JPost
Friday, 17 July 2009
Norwegian newspaper believes NGO report on IDF transgressions during “Cast Lead”
"So alas, no critical perspective on the NGO "Breaking the Silence", not a single critical comment on their report, nothing but same criticism of the IDF and the Israeli authorities which Aftenposten has treated her readers to since before the Gaza war."Yesterday several newspapers, among them Norway’s largest daily Verdens Gang, published paper - and internet articles on a recently published report from the Israeli NGO "Breaking The Silence". Today Aftenposten, Norway’s second largest newspaper, follows up on the NGO report with an article by journalist John Harb, as well as an editorial (see below for unauthorized translation). Both VG and Aftenposten repeat the salient features of the NGO report, without confronting the shortcomings and inadequaties of the report. Neither newspaper makes much of an attempt at producing a balanced story.
If Norwegian newspapers had wanted to, they could have identified a number of aspects both of the NGO and the report, which are relevant to how much weight the NGO’s report can be estimated to carry. On methodological issues alone the following have been pointed out, among others by NGO monitor:
"Methodological Flaws:
* The report focuses narrowly on the testimonies of around thirty combatants(out of hundreds of thousands in the IDF) and even Breaking the Silence admits thereport does not claim to provide a broad, comprehensive review.
* All testimonies recorded in the report are anonymous and therefore entirely unverifiable. It is also impossible to know whether the soldiers who are quoted had thenecessary knowledge to distinguish between different types of weapons and the circumstances in which they were used.
* Testimonies are further compromised by the absence of any details of where and when alleged incidents occurred.
* The report frequently relies upon second hand evidence and hearsay. E.g. Testimony 44: "As for looting I can say I heard but didn’t actually see anything. I can’t really prove anything…again, I wasn’t witness to such cases but I heard peopletalking, that soldiers shot at people here and there." [...]
So alas, no critical perspective on the NGO "Breaking the Silence", not a single critical comment on their report, nothing but same criticism of the IDF and the Israeli authorities which Aftenposten has treated her readers to since before the Gaza war. All this while Norway finances Hamas, Hezbollah, Fatah and a host of Israeli-critical NGOs, all this while Norwegian newspapers write more about Israel than they do about Afghanistan, where Norway does not count the dead.
If there is antyhing which will not stand, it is the state of Norwegian journalism.
Read the full piece here (Norway, Israel and the Jews)
- Europeans funding 'Breaking the Silence'
- Shimon Peres: EU sympathy for Hamas diminishes chances of peace
- Norwegian NGO Funding: Boycotts and Apartheid Rhetoric instead of Peace and Coexistence
- The "riddle" of Knut Hamsun
- Norway does not count Afghan casualties
- Mads Gilbert: 80-90% of Cast Lead casualties were civilian
- Sri Lanka not as interesting as Gaza
Thursday, 16 July 2009
Israel blocks French diplomats from Bastille Day celebration in Gaza
"To celebrate the holiday marking freedom in a place where French-Israeli citizen Gilad Shalit is detained since 3 years is an insult to the symbol of this national holiday and a provocation towards his family." The umbrella group of Jewish organizations in France, CRIF, said Wednesday it was "stunned" to learn that French diplomats at the Consulate in Jerusalem have planned to take part in a Bastille Day celebration, France’s national holiday, in Gaza.
"To celebrate the holiday marking freedom in a place where French-Israeli citizen Gilad Shalit is detained since 3 years is an insult to the symbol of this national holiday and a provocation towards his family," CRIF said in a statement.
Israel objected to France's plan to hold a Bastille Day celebration in Gaza particularly in light of the fact that Shalit, who was abducted in a 2006 cross-border raid, has dual French-Israeli citizenship. During a Bastille Day celebration at the French embassy in Tel Aviv, France’s ambassador Jean Michel Casa declared that Shalit must immediately be freed, a sentiment shared by President Nicolas Sarkozy. The French Consulate in East Jerusalem serves as liaison with the West Bank and has a small delegation in the Gaza Strip.
Source: article by Joseph Byron in EJP
Wednesday, 15 July 2009
In Switzerland, Hamas is not considered a terrorist organization
"In Switzerland, Hamas is not considered a terrorist organization." (Swiss foreign ministry)
Israel furious over Hamas leader's trip to Switzerland
The Foreign Ministry is furious over news that Mahmoud al-Zahar, a senior Hamas official based in the Gaza Strip, recently headed a Hamas delegation to Switzerland for talks with Swiss diplomats. A senior Foreign Ministry official said the visit will further destabilize already shaky relations between Jerusalem and Bern, after Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad visited Switzerland in April for the "Durban 2" United Nations anti-racism conference.
China's news agency broke the story of Zahar's visit nearly two weeks ago.
Officials at the Israeli Embassy in Bern were surprised by the report, since they knew nothing about the June visit. The embassy has requested clarifications from the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, but Israeli officials say the responses have not been satisfactory. One Jerusalem officials said it was many days before the Swiss confirmed the Hamas visit to the embassy. Swiss officials told Israel's ambassador in Bern, Ilan Elgar, that the Hamas delegation was invited to Geneva by a nongovernmental research institute. The Foreign Ministry source, however, noted that Swiss diplomats, including the Swiss envoy to the Middle East, met with the delegation during a conference at the institute.
When Elgar requested official clarification regarding the visa issued to the delegation, he was told by the Swiss foreign ministry, "In Switzerland, Hamas is not considered a terrorist organization."
Tensions between Jerusalem and Bern began to build about a year and a half ago, when the Swiss foreign minister went to Iran to sign a major gas purchase contract. In May, in the wake of Ahmadinejad's visit to Geneva and the official working meeting with him held by Swiss President Hans-Rudolf Merz, Israel recalled Elgar to Jerusalem for consultations in protest.
Source: article Barak Ravid by in Haaretz
- Hamas statements on Israel (2006-2007)
- Nonie Darwish and Tawfik Hamid discuss Hamas at European Parliament
- France halts Hamas broadcasts to Europe
- Nizar Rayyan: Hamas "Human Shield" strategist succumbs to his own stratagem, by Ely Karmon
- Proportionality: international law and practice, Hamas' behavior, Israeli conduct
- EU says Gaza reconstruction won't happen under Hamas rule
- Different values: Israeli soldier and Hamas/Hezbollah 'soldier'
Israel furious over Hamas leader's trip to Switzerland
The Foreign Ministry is furious over news that Mahmoud al-Zahar, a senior Hamas official based in the Gaza Strip, recently headed a Hamas delegation to Switzerland for talks with Swiss diplomats. A senior Foreign Ministry official said the visit will further destabilize already shaky relations between Jerusalem and Bern, after Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad visited Switzerland in April for the "Durban 2" United Nations anti-racism conference.
China's news agency broke the story of Zahar's visit nearly two weeks ago.
Officials at the Israeli Embassy in Bern were surprised by the report, since they knew nothing about the June visit. The embassy has requested clarifications from the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, but Israeli officials say the responses have not been satisfactory. One Jerusalem officials said it was many days before the Swiss confirmed the Hamas visit to the embassy. Swiss officials told Israel's ambassador in Bern, Ilan Elgar, that the Hamas delegation was invited to Geneva by a nongovernmental research institute. The Foreign Ministry source, however, noted that Swiss diplomats, including the Swiss envoy to the Middle East, met with the delegation during a conference at the institute.
When Elgar requested official clarification regarding the visa issued to the delegation, he was told by the Swiss foreign ministry, "In Switzerland, Hamas is not considered a terrorist organization."
Tensions between Jerusalem and Bern began to build about a year and a half ago, when the Swiss foreign minister went to Iran to sign a major gas purchase contract. In May, in the wake of Ahmadinejad's visit to Geneva and the official working meeting with him held by Swiss President Hans-Rudolf Merz, Israel recalled Elgar to Jerusalem for consultations in protest.
Source: article Barak Ravid by in Haaretz
- Hamas statements on Israel (2006-2007) - Nonie Darwish and Tawfik Hamid discuss Hamas at European Parliament
- France halts Hamas broadcasts to Europe
- Nizar Rayyan: Hamas "Human Shield" strategist succumbs to his own stratagem, by Ely Karmon
- Proportionality: international law and practice, Hamas' behavior, Israeli conduct
- EU says Gaza reconstruction won't happen under Hamas rule
- Different values: Israeli soldier and Hamas/Hezbollah 'soldier'
Monday, 13 July 2009
Israeli journalists ousted from International Federation of Journalists
""He [Aidan White] is kicking out the most free and fighting press corps in the region."
""We find them biased and one sided." Haim Shibi feels that the International Federation's recent actions represent "a popular mood of pushing Israel into the corner." He said it reflects the European sentiment to portray Israel as an aggressor and support the Arab world. He recalled many efforts made by the NJIF that were not supported by the international union that is supposed to fostered unity between journalists from across the world, including NFIJ's proposal to build a media club for Israeli and Palestinian journalists to work together."
Though the National Federation of Israeli Journalists was expelled last month from an international union for not paying dues, the Israeli federation suspects it was due to more than just finances.
The 800-member National Federation of Israeli Journalists was dismissed by the International Federation of Journalists, in a unanimous vote conducted at an executive conference meeting in Oslo on June 7. Based in Belgium, the International Federation represents 600,000 journalists in 123 countries.
According to a June 11 letter from International Federation General Secretary Aidan White, the union "plans to continue to support Israeli journalists despite its decision at the weekend to expel the National Federation of Israel Journalists (NFIJ) from membership of the International Federation of Journalists for nonpayment of fees. This difficult decision was taken after the NFIJ rejected an International Federation offer to waive three years of debt."
Haim Shibi, an active member of a journalists' union in Jerusalem who is involved with both the international and national journalists' unions, told The Jerusalem Post on Sunday the tensions between the Israeli union and the international organization began to grow during the Second Lebanon War in 2006.
The National Federation of Israeli Journalists temporarily suspended the Israeli group's membership shortly after the war. The Jerusalem union soon began repaying its dues, while the Tel Aviv union did not, Shibi said. "I thought at that time we should not quit or walk out," he said.
In January, the International Federation began issuing a series of letters condemning Israel for refusing to allow journalists to enter Gaza to cover Operation Cast Lead. The International Federation also published a report criticizing Israel's actions in Gaza and urging International Federation members and affiliated organizations to speak out against Israel's treatment of foreign journalists during the war. According to Shibi, the International Federation report about Gaza was compiled without any Israeli input.
"No one called us to hear what we had to say," he said. Israeli journalists had things to say about the balance of rights of journalists to cover the war and the pressures coming from the army and the state, but the report was compiled without consulting a single Israeli source, he said.
"They are an organization fighting for ethics in journalism," he said. "Whoever may be the offended party, [everyone] has a right to say his piece; we were left out of the discussion completely."
"He [White] is kicking out the most free and fighting press corps in the region."
Shibi also mentioned that the International Federation had hosted a series of conferences in Europe about current media issues, but the Israeli unions were not invited.
The International Federation focused on the question of payments and how much the Israeli union should pay for membership. According to an International Federation document, the Israeli union was offered a special reduced fee extended to countries facing economic hardships.
Shibi said the Israeli union felt that it was not being accepted in the international framework. The National Federation of Israeli Journalists felt it should not pay "until we are full and equal members," he said. "No taxation without representation."
"The action against the NFIJ, which brings together autonomous groups in Tel Aviv, Jerusalem and Haifa, was taken after numerous actions over the past three years to try to resolve disputes with some NFIJ leaders who have criticized the IFJ [International Federation] for its condemnation of actions by Israeli military and government over attacks on media in Lebanon and Gaza," White explained, in the letter announcing that the National Federation of Israeli Journalists would no longer be a part of the international union. Though the NFIJ has been given the opportunity to appeal at the international organization's general assembly in Spain in May 2010, Shibi said he does not think the national Israeli union is in a rush to do so.
"We don't feel guilty,' he said. "We find them biased and one sided." Shibi feels that the International Federation's recent actions represent "a popular mood of pushing Israel into the corner."
He said it reflects the European sentiment to portray Israel as an aggressor and support the Arab world. He recalled many efforts made by the NJIF that were not supported by the international union that is supposed to fostered unity between journalists from across the world, including NFIJ's proposal to build a media club for Israeli and Palestinian journalists to work together.
In response to the notice that Israel will no longer participate in International Federation programming, Shibi, along with four of his colleagues, issued a letter to the international union on June 8.
"We see this step as biased - unfair - and one sided. The opposite of what we expect from an organization dedicated to ethics in journalism... It became clear that the IFJ did not wish to lead the two sides, Arabs and Israelis, into a carefully planned and jointly made regional media club but rather opted to slowly push the Israeli members out. Yes this was not only about money. It was about full and equal membership which we were denied. And no - there was no lack of respect to the IFJ on our part," they wrote.
Source: article by Daniela Feldman in JPost
""We find them biased and one sided." Haim Shibi feels that the International Federation's recent actions represent "a popular mood of pushing Israel into the corner." He said it reflects the European sentiment to portray Israel as an aggressor and support the Arab world. He recalled many efforts made by the NJIF that were not supported by the international union that is supposed to fostered unity between journalists from across the world, including NFIJ's proposal to build a media club for Israeli and Palestinian journalists to work together."
Though the National Federation of Israeli Journalists was expelled last month from an international union for not paying dues, the Israeli federation suspects it was due to more than just finances.
The 800-member National Federation of Israeli Journalists was dismissed by the International Federation of Journalists, in a unanimous vote conducted at an executive conference meeting in Oslo on June 7. Based in Belgium, the International Federation represents 600,000 journalists in 123 countries.
According to a June 11 letter from International Federation General Secretary Aidan White, the union "plans to continue to support Israeli journalists despite its decision at the weekend to expel the National Federation of Israel Journalists (NFIJ) from membership of the International Federation of Journalists for nonpayment of fees. This difficult decision was taken after the NFIJ rejected an International Federation offer to waive three years of debt."
Haim Shibi, an active member of a journalists' union in Jerusalem who is involved with both the international and national journalists' unions, told The Jerusalem Post on Sunday the tensions between the Israeli union and the international organization began to grow during the Second Lebanon War in 2006.
The National Federation of Israeli Journalists temporarily suspended the Israeli group's membership shortly after the war. The Jerusalem union soon began repaying its dues, while the Tel Aviv union did not, Shibi said. "I thought at that time we should not quit or walk out," he said.
In January, the International Federation began issuing a series of letters condemning Israel for refusing to allow journalists to enter Gaza to cover Operation Cast Lead. The International Federation also published a report criticizing Israel's actions in Gaza and urging International Federation members and affiliated organizations to speak out against Israel's treatment of foreign journalists during the war. According to Shibi, the International Federation report about Gaza was compiled without any Israeli input.
"No one called us to hear what we had to say," he said. Israeli journalists had things to say about the balance of rights of journalists to cover the war and the pressures coming from the army and the state, but the report was compiled without consulting a single Israeli source, he said.
"They are an organization fighting for ethics in journalism," he said. "Whoever may be the offended party, [everyone] has a right to say his piece; we were left out of the discussion completely."
"He [White] is kicking out the most free and fighting press corps in the region."
Shibi also mentioned that the International Federation had hosted a series of conferences in Europe about current media issues, but the Israeli unions were not invited.
The International Federation focused on the question of payments and how much the Israeli union should pay for membership. According to an International Federation document, the Israeli union was offered a special reduced fee extended to countries facing economic hardships.
Shibi said the Israeli union felt that it was not being accepted in the international framework. The National Federation of Israeli Journalists felt it should not pay "until we are full and equal members," he said. "No taxation without representation."
"The action against the NFIJ, which brings together autonomous groups in Tel Aviv, Jerusalem and Haifa, was taken after numerous actions over the past three years to try to resolve disputes with some NFIJ leaders who have criticized the IFJ [International Federation] for its condemnation of actions by Israeli military and government over attacks on media in Lebanon and Gaza," White explained, in the letter announcing that the National Federation of Israeli Journalists would no longer be a part of the international union. Though the NFIJ has been given the opportunity to appeal at the international organization's general assembly in Spain in May 2010, Shibi said he does not think the national Israeli union is in a rush to do so.
"We don't feel guilty,' he said. "We find them biased and one sided." Shibi feels that the International Federation's recent actions represent "a popular mood of pushing Israel into the corner."
He said it reflects the European sentiment to portray Israel as an aggressor and support the Arab world. He recalled many efforts made by the NJIF that were not supported by the international union that is supposed to fostered unity between journalists from across the world, including NFIJ's proposal to build a media club for Israeli and Palestinian journalists to work together.
In response to the notice that Israel will no longer participate in International Federation programming, Shibi, along with four of his colleagues, issued a letter to the international union on June 8.
"We see this step as biased - unfair - and one sided. The opposite of what we expect from an organization dedicated to ethics in journalism... It became clear that the IFJ did not wish to lead the two sides, Arabs and Israelis, into a carefully planned and jointly made regional media club but rather opted to slowly push the Israeli members out. Yes this was not only about money. It was about full and equal membership which we were denied. And no - there was no lack of respect to the IFJ on our part," they wrote.
Source: article by Daniela Feldman in JPost
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
