Israeli lawsuit against al-Jazeera dismissed: did they expect AJ to admit anything?

June 9, 2011

I would like to see the lawyers video evidence. it would be very easy to prove based on context if there was any proof that was overlooked for political reasons

A lawsuit against al-Jazeera by Israeli victims of Hezbullah rocket attacks during the Second Lebanon War has been dismissed by a Manhattan Federal judge. Al-Jazeera has been accused by many in Israel of pinpointing the locations where rockets were hitting during the war in order to enable Hezbullah terrorists to improve their aim.

In her opinion dismissing the suit, Manhattan federal court Judge Kimba Wood said the victims had failed to show Al Jazeera had the specific intention of aiding Hezbollah.
“Plaintiffs have offered no facts suggesting that defendant even knew that it was providing anything to Hezbollah,” Wood said, adding the victims “have offered no facts suggesting that Hezbollah viewed defendant’s broadcasts.”
The plaintiffs in the case — American, Israeli and Canadian citizens who were injured or saw family members killed in the attacks — argued in court papers that Al Jazeera intentionally helped Hezbollah by broadcasting in real-time the precise locations and results of their rocket campaign.
One of the plaintiffs said in the original complaint that she had a miscarriage as a result of a rocket explosion near her home. Another said he “saw his wife torn to pieces.”
Their lawyer, Robert Joseph Tolchin, could not be immediately reached for comment. A lawyer for Al Jazeera declined to comment.
The plaintiffs also sought in court papers to establish that Al Jazeera was liable for “aiding and abetting terrorism” under the Alien Torts Claims Act. The judge, however, citing an appeals court decision, found “corporations cannot be held liable for violations of customary international law.”
The plaintiffs had sought $1.2 billion from Al Jazeera as well as punitive damages to be determined in court.

I would have to agree with the judges ruling… as distasteful as it is… if you can not prove intent then there is no case. AJ doesn’t come out and admit what they do.


No military option against Iran?

December 19, 2010
I live in America full time and I hate to tell my friends I don know if I ever will leave. With all the hate crimes against Jews in the U.S. I still see it as safer.

Leftist Gideon Levy argues that the Carmel forest fire shows why Israel has no military option against Iran.

Every cloud has a silver lining: Maybe lessons will be learned from the fire. Not only fire extinguishers, fire trucks and new planes, but also new thinking, and fire retardants that douse the really big fire.
The home front’s weakness should teach us that Israel apparently has no military option. This is a much more fateful lesson than all the fire’s other lessons, and it should be dealt with. The apocalyptic descriptions of a missile attack on the home front if Israel attacks Iran or Lebanon appear even more apocalyptic in light of Israel’s conduct when handling a medium-sized forest fire. Discussions on our future, therefore, should move to the arena that Israelis favor: the security arena.
Leave aside human rights and the occupation, don’t worry about morality and justice, forget about peace as a leftist delusion and ignore the Palestinian problem. The issue is Israel’s security interests, perhaps even existential interests.
The next wars will be home-front wars. This time the Israeli home front will be hit in a way we have never experienced. The first Gulf war and the Second Lebanon War were only the movie trailer for what could happen. An attack of thousands of missiles, as predicted by experts, will create a reality Israel will find hard to withstand. It isn’t equipped for it, as we saw on the Carmel, and it isn’t prepared for it, as we saw in the Lebanon war.
Any Israeli leader, even an adventurist and a former commando, should understand that the attack option is not really an option. It’s true that we succeeded in a few bombings in the past, but nothing lasts forever and the Scuds against us won’t always be hollow. A thousand new fire trucks and even the Iron Dome missile defense system will not provide protection. You can’t build a fortress for every citizen. This leads to the second, unavoidable conclusion, which should penetrate very deeply, not only among diplomats and commanders, but also among the many warmongers among us: the only existential option is integrating into the region (a term coined decades ago by Uri Avnery ).

Levy is one of Israel’s most extreme Leftist writers, and his article is obviously written with a note of glee. But he raises points that do need to be answered. First, the IDF has changed drastically since the debacle of the Second Lebanon War. It is no longer run by pacifists like Dan Halutz (who was the chief of staff) and Amir “Comrade” Peretz (who was Defense Minister). Even under the Olmert government, the IDF had changed, as was shown by the alleged destruction of the al-Kibar reactor in Syria, and more explicitly by Operation Cast Lead.
Second, there is no option of ‘integrating into the region.’ Levy and Uri Avnery and Israel’s other flaming Leftists willfully ignore the fact that Israel does not have and has never had an option of ‘integrating into the region.’ The Arab states – and particularly the ‘Palestinians’ – wish to extirpate our existence. No more and no less.
Third, yes the fire ought to raise fears in all Israelis that we are not equipped to cope with the fallout from Hezbullah and Hamas missiles. Hopefully, the Home Front will now deal with that situation. And given the havoc apparently wreaked by Stuxnet, we will apparently have more time than we expected to try to improve on that situation.

I saw many forums on facebook talking about the fires. I stayed out of them for the most part. I was thinking to myself… what could I say? “I’m sorry”? I hope Carl is right about Stuxnet’s effectiveness. Moving to Israel really is a leap of faith.