Haaretz 02:21 24/08/2004
By Aluf Benn
South African law professor Prof. John Dugard, the special rapporteur for the United Nations on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories, has written in a report to the UN General Assembly that there is "an apartheid regime" in the territories "worse than the one that existed in South Africa."
As an example, Dugard points to the roads only open to settlers, from which Palestinians are banned. In his report presented early this month, Dugard is highly critical of Israel for its "continuing violations of human rights in the territories." He said Israel is blatantly violating the International Court of Justice's ruling on the separation fence, and has declared it will not obey it. The report was disseminated among the member countries ahead of the September General Assembly session meant to discuss the fence. Dugard, a law professor from South Africa, was a member of a Truth Commission at the end of the apartheid regime, and was appointed by the UN in 2001 as special rapporteur for human rights in the West Bank and Gaza. He called for a general arms embargo against Israel in May, in response to the IDF operations in Rafah, similar to the arms embargo imposed on South Africa in 1977. According to government sources in Jerusalem, Israel is currently leaning toward cooperating with the various rapporteurs of the UN, and responding to their questions and requests.
But there are two exceptions to that rule: Dugard, and the special rapporteur for food, Jean Zigler. Israel refuses to cooperate with them because of the language of their mandates, and what it regards as their unfair approach. According to the sources, Dugard's assignment was phrased in a way that discriminates against Israel. But the government does not prevent Dugard from traveling in the territories and Israel, to meet people and to report as he wishes
mardi 24 août 2004
mardi 15 avril 2003
Supreme Court refuses to halt Channel One's screening of Jenin documentary
Haaretz 15.4.2003
By Moshe Reinfeld
Supreme Court Justice Ayala Procaccia yesterday rejected a petition filed by move director Mohammed Bakri, against the screening of "The Road to Jenin" on the Israel Broadcasting Authority's Channel One. Bakri, the director of "Jenin, Jenin," a controversial documentary on the IDF's operation in the West Bank refugee camp, had asked the court to prevent Channel One from airing its documentary until a ruling on his appeal against a censorship ban on his own documentary. Bakri's attorney, Avigdor Feldman, claimed in court that as long as his own documentary was banned, on the grounds that it falsified events in the refugee camp, the IBA should not be allowed to broadcast "The Road to Jenin," which portrays equally one-sided but opposing view of events. According to Bakri, "The Road to Jenin" was directed by a French-Jewish filmmaker who adopted a false identity and was known only as Pierre Rechov. Bakri argued that the IBA's film was "the crushing Jewish-Zionist answer" to "Jenin, Jenin." In her ruling, Justice Procaccia wrote that she was denying the petition since Bakri had not first approached the IBA over the film, nor had he contacted any of the other parties who would have been affected by any decision to bar screening. She added that, had the IBA considered the possibility of not screening the film, the lack of balance in the flow of opinions and viewpoints could have served as a legitimate basis for postponing the screening. Since the IBA did not consider this possibility, however, she ruled that the Supreme Court could not interfere to the detriment of the freedom of expression of the IBA. Procaccia was one member of the three-member panel that recently heard Bakri appeal against the ban on his documentary. A ruling is expected in that case within the coming days.
By Moshe Reinfeld
Supreme Court Justice Ayala Procaccia yesterday rejected a petition filed by move director Mohammed Bakri, against the screening of "The Road to Jenin" on the Israel Broadcasting Authority's Channel One. Bakri, the director of "Jenin, Jenin," a controversial documentary on the IDF's operation in the West Bank refugee camp, had asked the court to prevent Channel One from airing its documentary until a ruling on his appeal against a censorship ban on his own documentary. Bakri's attorney, Avigdor Feldman, claimed in court that as long as his own documentary was banned, on the grounds that it falsified events in the refugee camp, the IBA should not be allowed to broadcast "The Road to Jenin," which portrays equally one-sided but opposing view of events. According to Bakri, "The Road to Jenin" was directed by a French-Jewish filmmaker who adopted a false identity and was known only as Pierre Rechov. Bakri argued that the IBA's film was "the crushing Jewish-Zionist answer" to "Jenin, Jenin." In her ruling, Justice Procaccia wrote that she was denying the petition since Bakri had not first approached the IBA over the film, nor had he contacted any of the other parties who would have been affected by any decision to bar screening. She added that, had the IBA considered the possibility of not screening the film, the lack of balance in the flow of opinions and viewpoints could have served as a legitimate basis for postponing the screening. Since the IBA did not consider this possibility, however, she ruled that the Supreme Court could not interfere to the detriment of the freedom of expression of the IBA. Procaccia was one member of the three-member panel that recently heard Bakri appeal against the ban on his documentary. A ruling is expected in that case within the coming days.
lundi 10 mars 2003
State urges High Court to uphold ban on Bakri's film, `Jenin, Jenin'
Haaretz 10.3.2003
By Moshe Reinfeld
Prosecutor argues the movie `purports to be a documentary'
The State Prosecutor's Office, representing the film censorship board, yesterday asked the High Court of Justice to reject a petition by actor/director Mohammed Bakri and the Documentary Creators Forum to lift the censorship board's ban on the public showing of Bakri's movie, "Jenin, Jenin," and to revoke the Mandate-era law that empowers the panel. The petitioners claimed that the ban on the film was a violation of Bakri's freedom of speech and artistic expression and undermined the public's right to be exposed to the message of the film. The petitioners, represented by attorney Avigdor Feldman, argued theboard did not have the authority to issue the ban and was not in possession of all the facts when it made its decision. The state argued that the movie purported to be a documentary, but instead portrayed, in a distorted manner, Israel Defense Forces soldiers as brutal war criminals who are committing a genocide, depicting the battles in Jenin as acts of murderers against an innocent civilian population. It argued that the movie totally ignores the reasons the IDF entered Jenin. The movie, said the state, does not comment on the Palestinian terrorist organizations operating in the camp, their use of women and children, how they use suicide bombers, booby-trapped houses and bodies, and their cynical use of medical facilities and holy sites for their terrorist purposes. The state's attorney said the decision to ban the film was made after several meetings of the censorship board, including a session at which Bakri's lawyer presented his case
By Moshe Reinfeld
Prosecutor argues the movie `purports to be a documentary'
The State Prosecutor's Office, representing the film censorship board, yesterday asked the High Court of Justice to reject a petition by actor/director Mohammed Bakri and the Documentary Creators Forum to lift the censorship board's ban on the public showing of Bakri's movie, "Jenin, Jenin," and to revoke the Mandate-era law that empowers the panel. The petitioners claimed that the ban on the film was a violation of Bakri's freedom of speech and artistic expression and undermined the public's right to be exposed to the message of the film. The petitioners, represented by attorney Avigdor Feldman, argued theboard did not have the authority to issue the ban and was not in possession of all the facts when it made its decision. The state argued that the movie purported to be a documentary, but instead portrayed, in a distorted manner, Israel Defense Forces soldiers as brutal war criminals who are committing a genocide, depicting the battles in Jenin as acts of murderers against an innocent civilian population. It argued that the movie totally ignores the reasons the IDF entered Jenin. The movie, said the state, does not comment on the Palestinian terrorist organizations operating in the camp, their use of women and children, how they use suicide bombers, booby-trapped houses and bodies, and their cynical use of medical facilities and holy sites for their terrorist purposes. The state's attorney said the decision to ban the film was made after several meetings of the censorship board, including a session at which Bakri's lawyer presented his case
Inscription à :
Articles (Atom)