French Court Convicts Israeli Doctor of Slander

French Court Convicts Israeli Doctor of Slander

www.allvoices.com

In 2000, the television station France 2 reported that Israeli soldiers shot dead Mohammad Ad-Durra, 12, in GazaGaza City. The killing was filmed by French reporters and the channel broadcast footage of the incident, in which Ad-Durra's father Jamal was also shot and injured as he tried to take cover with his son.

French Version

(visit the link for the full news article)

English Version

In 2000, the Israeli army conducted an internal investigation and admitted responsibility for the killing but in 2007 the Israeli government officially denied involvement.

Israeli Strategic Affairs Minister Moshe Ya'alon and Minister of Public Diplomacy and Diaspora Affairs Yuli Edelstein notified Yehuda Friday that the state of Israel would continue to fund Yehuda's defense and appeal,Haaretz site said.

As you obviously have viewed the video and the website, its crystal clear what has happened. What i would like to point out that if the shoe fits, then wear it. I guess, we all can see a double standard here and its right there for the public to view. But sadly the world was more interested in the Royal Wedding rather than murder of child captured and presented to the world.

www.allvoices.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by tristar



Tristar, this looks interesting. But you presume too much when you say that we can watch the video. Would you please summarize so I am at least clued in?

reply to post by tristar


This event happened 11 years ago, what has that got to do with people watching a wedding 2 days ago? I really don't see your point.

Does it prove the atrocities that happen in Palestine yes, but it is old news now, just another leaf out of the miserable history of the region, it didn't make any difference then and it wont make any difference now, the Israeli will keep on repressing the Palestinians lots of people will complain but nothing will be done

Originally posted by PrinceDreamer
reply to post by tristar

 

This event happened 11 years ago, what has that got to do with people watching a wedding 2 days ago? I really don't see your point.

Does it prove the atrocities that happen in Palestine yes, but it is old news now, just another leaf out of the miserable history of the region, it didn't make any difference then and it wont make any difference now, the Israeli will keep on repressing the Palestinians lots of people will complain but nothing will be done

Indeed it was in 2000 as it points out, but the court ruiling was handed out 1/4/2011, I was merely making aware to those who might like being informed.

You see, i on the hand follow many topics and articles regardless of its chronological date, its simply something i do. Then again, it does show how much of a consumer the whole planet has evolved into. Buy now , pay later...? As you can see or perhaps have felt, everyone is being asked to pay up. No matter if you reside in the U.S. or in the E.U. zone or the Middle East or Asia, everyone is being called upon to pay up.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by tristar

 

Tristar, this looks interesting. But you presume too much when you say that we can watch the video. Would you please summarize so I am at least clued in?

Oh, i thought you were able to view the youtube i linked in. Well in short, shots being fired from one direction that the IDF was holding, the two in question were caught in the crossfire, moments later the boy falls dead and his farther wounded. Some assume that the farther and the death of the boy was a result of Palestine shots being fired, but the footage shows otherwise. The bullets trajectories indicate that its multiple shots were infact coming from the point origin as to were the IDF. was.

A Paris court on Friday convicted the doctor, a reporter and the editor of Jewish News Weekly, of defaming Jamal Ad-Durra. The three were fined 1,000 euros each and ordered to pay 5,000 euros in damages.

MK Ahmad Tibi urged the Israeli Medical Association and the Ministry of Health to prosecute the doctor, noting that misusing and distorting confidential medical files is a criminal offense.

David has previously claimed that the video footage of Mohammad's killing was fabricated, and that the boy was killed by Palestinian fire.

Because there are many many tentacles to this story and many tentacles being used to manipulate the obvious, one needs to have followed this story. I guess being funded by a country regardless of the fact thats its Military used extreme force, well outright murder and then suddenly a doctor was injected into the whole story with obvious and dubious methods to deflect what and who is to blame, otherwise, why would the country openly finance his defense. ? . One could openly say this whole story is similar to the Apache helo that opened fire and killed civilians in Iraq that went viral across the news....Remember that one ? . Lifes a bitch,

I applaud the French Court’s decision to penalize the Israeli Doctor for slander. It’s a pretty serious breech of Doctor/patient confidentiality that the Doctor broke in order to aide Israeli propagandists in there ongoing effort to distort and alter history.

This is also a great find in that we can see the chronology of how things get so distorted.

In 2000 when the incident occurs an Israeli Army Internal Review claims responsibility for the murder of the boy.

Fast forward a half a dozen years and then the Zionist propagandists go to work.

This should have been here, that should have been there, that should have happened like that, all according to unnamed anonymous experts, bolstered by unnamed anonymous witnesses that have now come forward etc., etc.

Throw in one named source, in this case an Israeli Doctor to tell a few more lies, and give that a few more years to circulate, and now you have yet one more incident where half the people discussing it will call heads, and the other half will call tales.

It’s refreshing to see someone involved in these unseemly propaganda efforts pay a price in reputation and Euros.

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


Hi there,

Yes this story has was and is one the best ways show a person how reality is twisted. On the other hand, September is coming up and September is going to be a very interesting year for M.E. Lets not forget, the E.U. will need to finally decide to either recognize Palestine or will it deflate upon the threat of Israel. Then again, all this shuffling of the cards.




I have compressed the time line for ats members.





Quick Timeline ( Random News Sources)


Israel threatens to end EU diplomatic role
euobserver.com... - 30.04.2009 @ 09:28 CET


EU threatens Israel with trade ties
israelmatzav.blogspot.com... - Saturday, March 13, 2010


Europe threatens to recognise Palestinian state - 9:30PM GMT 13 Dec 2010
news.antiwar.com...


Israel threatens to take action if UN recognizes Palestinian statehood
abna.ir... - Date: 2011/03/29


'Egypt to permanently open Rafah border crossing
www.jpost.com... - 04/28/2011 22:53


Hamas won’t oppose EU presence at border, official says
www.jpost.com... - 05/01/2011 18:09


Egypt calls on US to recognise Palestinian state
news.yahoo.com... - – 2 hrs 1 min ago

reply to post by tristar


A very significant topic being brought to light here tristar. Seeing this will make you wonder what countless other events have been manipulated for the mass's consumption. The entire mess itself is barely discernible for many by design.

The entire state seems dependent upon the machinations of obscurity and induced indecisiveness. Influencing the logical reasoning abilities and fomenting absolutes and insatiable dogmas meant to distort the very reality that they maintain control of unhindered.

The undisputed overlord of communique and the ever growing consistency in the messages work to over throw the diminishing cry of truth in favor of a fabricated existence that manifests itself as the proverbial path of least resistance. Dangerous times for sure and great work bringing this to every ones attention!

Err.. When has the IDF ever admitted to doing this?

Where is the source on this?

What are the details of the trial?

Are you aware that he was sued for breaking doctor patient confidentiality and not for lying?

Are you also aware that a previous slender case by French 2 for claiming the Al Dura incident was staged has failed?

debriefing.org...

Do you realize that calls of conspiracy have risen since the airing of this report?

Why do you come in here and present speculation as fact? Why do you come here and present a biased one sided view of an event?

This is not the spirit of ATS.

With respect,
Eliad.

EDIT:

Here-
samsonblinded.org...

The court found the evidence covered by doctor-patient confidentiality, thus inadmissible. The doctor’s words were accordingly proclaimed a libel.

Got to confirm this somehow.

The doctor WAS convicted of "slander" HOWEVER, on appeal a higher court OVERTURNED the conviction. The doctor then sued the production company for "slander" and WON. Case closed! If you accepted the original conviction you must also accept the decision of the Appeals Court.

Originally posted by Eliad
Err.. When has the IDF ever admitted to doing this?

Where is the source on this?

What are the details of the trial?

Are you aware that he was sued for breaking doctor patient confidentiality and not for lying?

Are you also aware that a previous slender case by French 2 for claiming the Al Dura incident was staged has failed?

debriefing.org...

Do you realize that calls of conspiracy have risen since the airing of this report?

Why do you come in here and present speculation as fact? Why do you come here and present a biased one sided view of an event?

This is not the spirit of ATS.

With respect,
Eliad.

EDIT:

Here-
samsonblinded.org...

The court found the evidence covered by doctor-patient confidentiality, thus inadmissible. The doctor’s words were accordingly proclaimed a libel.

Got to confirm this somehow.

edit on 1-5-2011 by Eliad because: (no reason given)

Just so were both on the same page here,

The Israel Defense Forces accepted responsibility at first, a position they formally withdrew in September 2007. It's what always happens. You see, i am not pro or anti, i although am a person who see's things as they are without being caught up in the diplomatic side of events. One must understand that if they had not withdrew their acceptance then it more than likely would have involved the open involvement of Syria into the then unstable region. This explains the fixation within today's events upon syria. Oh and do not even attempt to mention that was is going on in N.Arfica is all about democracy or revolution.

Originally posted by gem_man
The doctor WAS convicted of "slander" HOWEVER, on appeal a higher court OVERTURNED the conviction. The doctor then sued the production company for "slander" and WON. Case closed! If you accepted the original conviction you must also accept the decision of the Appeals Court.

I would not be too ready to cast my vote on the case closed yet. As i have said, everyone is paying up and there is no exclusions. Be patient.

reply to post by tristar

The Israel Defense Forces accepted responsibility at first

No they didn't...

The day after the shooting, the IDF issued a statement saying it was impossible to determine the origin of the fire.[41] On October 3, the Israeli army's chief of operations, Major-General Giora Eiland, said the shots had apparently been fired by Israeli soldiers; the soldiers had been shooting from small slits in the wall, he said, and had not had a clear field of vision.[51] Second Lieutenant Idan Quris, who was at the time in command of an engineering platoon at the Israeli outpost, and Lieutenant-Colonel Nizar Fares of the Herev Battalion, at the time acting commander of the outpost, said they did not know who killed the boy, and that no one had seen him from the Israeli position.

en.wikipedia.org...

This is probably what they're referring to.. The Israeli army never had the clear notion that it did do it, quite the opposite, the more they looked into it the more they found evidence that counter the narrative French 2 presented.

www.nytimes.com...


If you're really neither pro nor anti perhaps you should watch the English video you've posted.

With respect,
Eliad.

reply to post by Eliad


First Wikipedia is hardly a definitive source as it's a user generated encyclopedia that many people who follow it have seen stories dissapear, and be reedited to suit the politics of powerful interests.

So citing them is a bit absurd especially where it plays to the benefit of a powerful interest.

I did watch the English Video, all of it, even though I found it tedious, repititious and aimed at morons.

However the video made no mention of a Palestinian Policeman firing from behind the boy, but alluded to Palestinian forces firing directly accross from the boy. In the video they had other cameramen behind the boy.

So your New York Times article which is slightly more credible than Wikipedia, dated within weeks of the incident contradicts the English Video in that regard, as it simply says Israeli Authorities believe it's 'possible' that a Palestinian Policeman firing from behind the boy could have been responsible, while conceeding it's entirely plausible that it was actually an Israeli soldier(s) that killed the boy.

The problem with the Times versus the video, is that a Palestinian Policeman firing from behind the boy would have basically created the same kind of trajectory puffs as someone firing from in front of the boy.

It would have also been a very terrible marksman aiming high and to the left consistently that would have struck the wall so many times.

So it's much more likely then that A. the trajectory puff argument is pure Zionwood, and B. That the Israelis were deliberately firing on the father and son's position.

Either way the Israeli Doctor violating doctor/patient privelage to play politics is a tragic ethical breach that speaks very poorly of the man's moral fibre and dedication to his profession.

Here we see the danger(s) in people who have a greater allegiance to their religion and or state than their own oaths of conduct.

Shameful, trully shameful.

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

So citing them is a bit absurd especially where it plays to the benefit of a powerful interest.

Ah, and where do you think the claim that Israel took responsibility came from?

Furthermore have I mentioned that the article posted by the OP is a blog post by a Gaza resident? Anyone surprised?

So, you know, take a good look at your sources before you call anything I say absurd..

contradicts the English Video in that regard

The times article was from when they were still investigating the event, the video is from, what, 2008? I'd assume that by then the investigation had some kind of definitive result?

It would have also been a very terrible marksman aiming high and to the left consistently that would have struck the wall so many times.

Because you were there, right? You know the lay of land, you've seen it all with your own eyes, and you know exactly where people aimed and for what reasons, right?

I'm sure the only explanation is that they were bad marksmen..

Besides doesn't the video assert that the report was faked? So they might have shot at the wall to create the illusion that they were shot at...

If that is the case then they're probably very good marksmen

Either way the Israeli Doctor violating doctor/patient privelage to play politics is a tragic ethical breach that speaks very poorly of the man's moral fibre and dedication to his profession.

Uh huh, and the reporter fabricating a story is just fine and dandy

Here we see the danger(s) in people who have a greater allegiance to their religion and or state than their own oaths of conduct. Shameful, trully shameful.

I'll be fair here, it is morally questionable. But what if the information is correct? What if these scars *are* knife cuts?

The court seems to have been convinced that the information was correct, why won't you?

With respect,
Eliad.

reply to post by Eliad


Honestly I find Israeli Propaganda to be the least credible of anything put out.

Funny though how you can concede it can take 8 years to investigate the direction a bullet comes from but want a suspicious missile attack on a school bus concluded within days.

But the truth is that the English Video claims that the bullet scars indicate being fired directly across from the boy as opposed to behind (where the Palestnian Policeman is alleged to be) or in front (where the Israelis are alleged to be).

Here is a source for you, a boy is dead.

A boy is dead needlessly.

Why is a boy dead needlessly?

Would said boy be dead needlessly if massive immigration of European Jews into Palestine would not have occured?

Isreal has failed to make peace and honor it's agreements it has no credibility and it certainly has no moral high ground.

The truth is Israeli Propaganda is so bad, without people actively saying they believe it, too many people would in fact question it.

Great that you believe it.

All I see is a needless death of a young boy, and while yes, the Palestinians could have 'manufactured' evidence at the scene 'later' so too could the Israelis.

Who has a greater motive, it's not like the rest of the world hasn't noticed Palestinians losing their lands and lives at an alarming rate since Zionist immigration began.

You would like the world to believe in every specific stated case that can simply never be the fault of a Zionist, Israeli or Jew.

That's simply numerically and statistically impossible.

Sorry.

Originally posted by Eliad
[


If you're really neither pro nor anti perhaps you should watch the English video you've posted.

With respect,
Eliad.]

What i post on these issues is not by chance or by internet availability. Perhaps one should question its ideology and not its sporadic assumption on individuals who have no ability either academic or within a sanctioned expense that you obviously do not, assume that your claims upon my profile as person are made available to the public so as to manipulate the outcome.

Make no mistake, we are invited..okay !

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

Honestly I find Israeli Propaganda to be the least credible of anything put out.

What, you mean, like, our side of the story, it's not worth hearing because it doesn't fit your political inclination? Do you realize how narrow minded you're being right now?

And where do you draw the line? Where does it stop being the truth, or fact, or even mere assumptions and start being Israeli propaganda?

Does everything pro Israeli immediately get dubbed "propaganda"?

What's the point of even coming here if you're not going to consider anything that deviates even slightly from your narrow perspective?

The truth is Israeli Propaganda is so bad, without people actively saying they believe it, too many people would in fact question it.

You have got to be kidding me..

You know what really blows me away though? Some of you people are thrown (by websites like if only americans knew, who encourage this thought process) into a fantasy world where you're some kind of internet information revolutionaries, as if you're the only ones who know "the truth", and your goal is to spread it to the numb unaware masses.

Give me a freaking break.

All that's really happening is that you're being fed politically biased information and told that "you're special! Now go spread the word", I mean for #'s sake, and then next thing that happens you come up with the notion that people only believe "Israeli propaganda" because other people believe it (!!!!), and that's the only reason why they do.

God forbid you believe any of it, it's all lies anyway.

The fact that you get stars for these kinds of comments is simply depressing, no offence.

All I see is a needless death of a young boy, and while yes, the Palestinians could have 'manufactured' evidence at the scene 'later' so too could the Israelis.

Oh, and what is that supposed to mean?

A few hours ago none of you gave a # about this boy's life, all you cared about is what it means for your political narrative, neither do you seem to give a # for anyone that's hurt by anything Hamas does (it's all Israeli propaganda, right?), and now you suddenly come to me with this fake pretentious higher moral ground #?

Well excuse me, no! All I see is my people and their people dying for no apparent reason other than the same politics which seem to drive you and others in this forum to actively hate Israel (maybe not you specifically). This is the same kind of intolerant bull# that got us in this situation in the first place.

Oh, hey, you want to know how I get to see our peoples dying?

I #ing live here. I know this conflict better than you'll ever know it. Come live a day in Israel, see how your opinion changes, try your whole life..

That's simply numerically and statistically impossible.

When will you finally realize that everything you say always, always goes both ways?

With respect (It's just an opinion, and it's not like I can't see why you'd get the impressions you have),
Eliad.

reply to post by Eliad


Actually based on your posts you have no idea how I arrive at my opinions. The great news is that here on ATS what matters is the quality of the information.

Israeli propaganda efforts like the English Video are not quality information efforts. They are simple repititious forms of talking points aimed at the weak minded and undiscerning.

Let me give you an example of what I am talking about.

Let's take the contention that the bullets being fired from a certain direction would create a certain visual pattern in the puff of debris being hewn from the wall by the force of the striking bullet.

Quality information would go something like this.

The Israeli army uses a standard 3.62 Nato Round fired through M-16 Colt Automatic Rifles.

Today we have (Insert military legend here) at (insert rifle range here) with the same weapon and rounds who will now fire on a cinder block wall of the same type of cinder blocks used in the building that was involved in this event.

They would film the bullets striking the wall from all the alleged possible positions, then they would measure the scar left from each bullet from each different position.

Then we could actually see a real scientific experiment that would either back up the contention that the puffs and scars would look a certain way or it wouldn't.

When the effort isn't made to do that kind of thorough and honest presentation but instead relies on, take our word for it, it should have happened like this, then you have what is basically not just a suspect effort, but an effort that imparts only the information that the creator of the message wants you to think and believe.

That's why it's cheesie and hokey, and third rate, and made for morons.

The reality is that no the Palestinian Police aren't at war with little boys, while Israel has decades of murdering children in cold blood to it's credit.

It's not the Palestinians who display that, it's unbiased news accounts from sources such as the New York Times, Los Angeles Times and others that have their own correspondents in the field.

As a business person if someone was trying to sell me on something, and this English Video above was trying to sell me something, I would require a lot more hard data and background to make a informed purchasing decision.

If in a 10 plus minute video they have the time to basically repeat the same old political talking points and things that they claim are science without backing up with science, then they really had the time to deliver quality information backed up with science.

No intelligent self respecting person would make a decision based on such a flimsy piece of unsubtantiated crap.

It simply tells a message you like, and therefore it's an easy sale.

Selling hymnals to the choir is easy friend, try selling them at a strip club in South Beach at 3:30 AM when monique is on the Stage.

You better have something worth buying, and you better be selling it like it is.

Zionwood propaganda is some of the worst there is, mainly because it's made for a market that is predisposed to believe it no matter how rediculously it's presented.

Thanks.