US: Lebanon war victims sue al-Jazeera

[Andalublue]

The misunderstanding: I was actually saying that Israel has no international courts, hence they cannot take legal actions against al-Jazeera as a network due to the fact that it has no office in Israel.
If Israel has had an international court, they could take this to that international court.

Well, I'm still not sure what you mean by 'international court' in this context. No existing international court (ICHR, ECHR, ICJ etc) would rule on this kind of a case. They are appealing to a US domestic court. I perfectly understand that they cannot sue AJ in an Israeli domestic court as AJ has no establishment in Israel. That's why I raised the issue of Litigation Tourism. The case has nothing to do with AJ's operations in the US and someone (was it you?) stated that it was doubtful that any of the plaintiffs were American citizens.

I don't get you, but I guess the source of this misunderstanding is the wa each of us understand the word "based".
Simply switch based with "Having an office at" and save me the headache.

That's my point really. The fact that AJ has just a bureau and studio in the US means that even if the US court found in their favour for the $1.2 billion ($13.1 million per plaintiff) the AJ establishment (what they own in the US) doesn't have that value, hence they would not and could not pay. A US court would not have any jurisdiction to seize funds or property from AJ anywhere except in the US. All it could do would be to shut down AJ's US operation.

What I think they are doing is more about propaganda. AJ is an internationally respected news broadcaster (well, not in Israel and perhaps not widely in the US, but across large swathes of the globe) and this action seems designed to undermine its claim to objectivity within the US and beyond. The Israeli government could have taken action against AJ when they detained its crews, but clearly didn't have the evidence that would stand up, even in an Israeli court. I have no doubt that AJ will use this fact to some effect in court.

Of course the standards of proof are lower in a civil court than in a criminal court and the plaintiffs will be relying on this in their submissions. I don't know if US civil cases use the same standards of proof as in UK courts (the only ones with which I'm familiar) but there a civil suit only has to prove guilt 'on the balance of evidence', rather than 'beyond reasonable doubt', hence many cases are won in civil suits when they are lost in criminal cases. This must bolster the plaintiffs' confidence. I'm sure it will be a long and drawn out, but very interesting case.

Never used the term "only". That makes it a whole different statement.
I did however say that it is true that in the US they have the best chances at winning this, mainly due to the objectivity of the courts.

But you believe that is the reason they chose the US? Forgive me if I'm a bit more sceptical about the objectivity of the US judicial system, especially in an Israeli vs. Arab context.

 

[Gardener]

Forgive me if I'm a bit more sceptical about the objectivity of the US judicial system, especially in an Israeli vs. Arab context.

Because it isn't Eurabian in nature?

 

[Shayah]

I don't know, I had understood the same thing like you had and then she said she hadn't or wha' eva' I really don't know.

You didn't seem to have a difficult time saying that Fox is biased. And I didn't say boo to you about your Fox comment. But when the bias shoe is on the Al-Jazeera foot, you get all butt hurt and reach out for wiggle room. All this after you had already agreed that AJ can be both objective and biased.

I don't ask for much. Just some basic honesty concerning the simple stuff.

 

[MKULTRABOY]

Aljazeera - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Samir Kuntar is a Lebanese terrorist that has murdered 3 Israelis; murdered a police officer, murdered a father in front of his 4 years old daughter, and then murdered the daughter by bashing her head on a rock four times with the back of his rifle.

Are you going to keep posting that same thing over and over? It gets old.

 

[MKULTRABOY]

I don't ask for much. Just some basic honesty concerning the simple stuff.

Speaking of honesty... False analogy, you're just squirming out of the fact you said al-jazeera has a bias towards terrorists. I'm sure it has a huge terrorist viewership. :roll:

 

[MKULTRABOY]

Samir Kuntar is a Lebanese terrorist that has murdered 3 Israelis; murdered a police officer, murdered a father in front of his 4 years old daughter, and then murdered the daughter by bashing her head on a rock four times with the back of his rifle.

These are obviously manufactured lies out of anti-semi... I mean islamophobia. What else would drive people to make such things up such as the murder of children.eace

 

[CJ 2.0]

Of course the standards of proof are lower in a civil court than in a criminal court and the plaintiffs will be relying on this in their submissions. I don't know if US civil cases use the same standards of proof as in UK courts (the only ones with which I'm familiar) but there a civil suit only has to prove guilt 'on the balance of evidence', rather than 'beyond reasonable doubt', hence many cases are won in civil suits when they are lost in criminal cases. This must bolster the plaintiffs' confidence. I'm sure it will be a long and drawn out, but very interesting case.

that's right - balance of probabilities, rather than proof beyond reasonable doubt.

But you believe that is the reason they chose the US? Forgive me if I'm a bit more sceptical about the objectivity of the US judicial system, especially in an Israeli vs. Arab context.

This sort of thing is not atypical. People suing for slander/libel will gravitate towards UK courts because of the ridiculous standards you have adopted making it extremely difficult to defend against those sorts of actions.

The UK gets jurisdiction there because of the global nature of written works and media (which generally allows for one or more components to touch the UK), while the Americans seem to really like extra-territorial reach on a lot of its laws.

As for your general statement about al-J as a respected news organization, my personal view is that it, at its core, has that distorted reality world-view that has poisoned the Arab world and relegated it to a prolonged period of stagnation and backwardness.

Not so much propaganda like Chinese news agencies, but just a completely broken paradigm for understanding the world.

Just my opinion.

 

[CJ 2.0]

Speaking of honesty... False analogy, you're just squirming out of the fact you said al-jazeera has a bias towards terrorists. I'm sure it has a huge terrorist viewership. :roll:

come now. Be honest. It isn't about terrorist viewership, its the proportion of viewers that are sympathetic to the narrative advocated by terrorists. Which, in the Arab world, is rather high.

 

[CJ 2.0]

These are obviously manufactured lies out of anti-semi... I mean islamophobia. What else would drive people to make such things up such as the murder of children.eace

Sorry, can you please expalin what you mean. Are you implying he didn't do those things which he did?

or something else?

Seriously, can't quite decipher it.

 

[Apocalypse]

Are you going to keep posting that same thing over and over? It gets old.

A funny reaction to the exposure of a proof from a person who was a moment ago asking for that proof.

 

[Apocalypse]

These are obviously manufactured lies out of anti-semi... I mean islamophobia. What else would drive people to make such things up such as the murder of children.eace

That's disgusting. Your attempts to cover up the murders of three innocent people are sickening and inhuman.

 

[Shayah]

Speaking of honesty... False analogy, you're just squirming out of the fact you said al-jazeera has a bias towards terrorists. I'm sure it has a huge terrorist viewership. :roll:

I never said "terrorists". I said "indigenous and foreign insurgents"...

It's not always non-partisan. It's internal coverage of Fallujah II was heavily biased towards the indigenous and foreign insurgents.

You should perhaps learn how to read English before pooping all over yourself again.

 

[Apocalypse]

Well, I'm still not sure what you mean by 'international court' in this context. No existing international court (ICHR, ECHR, ICJ etc) would rule on this kind of a case. They are appealing to a US domestic court. I perfectly understand that they cannot sue AJ in an Israeli domestic court as AJ has no establishment in Israel. That's why I raised the issue of Litigation Tourism. The case has nothing to do with AJ's operations in the US and someone (was it you?) stated that it was doubtful that any of the plaintiffs were American citizens.

I was making the cynical remark in reply to your question, "why didn't they sue them in Israel", with the explaining that they can only launch a lawsuit against al-Jazeera in a place where they have an office at, such as the US.

That's my point really. The fact that AJ has just a bureau and studio in the US means that even if the US court found in their favour for the $1.2 billion ($13.1 million per plaintiff) the AJ establishment (what they own in the US) doesn't have that value, hence they would not and could not pay.

The suing of al-Jazeera is the suing of al-Jazeera. Its office in the US is not a separataed body, it's a form of an embassy. If the case is won al-Jazeera will have to pay $1.2 billion to the victims, and if they won't yes actions will be taken against them through their office, and it would probably be closed.

A US court would not have any jurisdiction to seize funds or property from AJ anywhere except in the US. All it could do would be to shut down AJ's US operation.

No, but it has the right to demand it from AJ, and if it doesn't cooperate, take necessary measures against its office in the country.

What I think they are doing is more about propaganda.

It's saddening to know that you think the victims' demand for justice is an attempt at "propaganda".

AJ is an internationally respected news broadcaster (well, not in Israel and perhaps not widely in the US, but across large swathes of the globe)

I think it's more about pro-West and pro-Islamism opinions rather than the person's location.

The Israeli government could have taken action against AJ when they detained its crews, but clearly didn't have the evidence that would stand up, even in an Israeli court.

That's false, you're drawing a baseless assumption here that is based purely on anti-Israeli and pro-Islamic sentiments.

I have no doubt that AJ will use this fact to some effect in court.

By all means, they should use whatever helps them, justice will be sought out and if the victim's case is legit as it appears to be then again, by all means, let justice out.

But you believe that is the reason they chose the US? Forgive me if I'm a bit more sceptical about the objectivity of the US judicial system, especially in an Israeli vs. Arab context.

Your suggestion that the US courts (not politicians, courts, judges, people who are being given the responsibility to blindly seek out justice) will be biased towards Israelis is absolutely a self-ridiculing notion.

 

[Andalublue]

I was making the cynical remark in reply to your question, "why didn't they sue them in Israel", with the explaining that they can only launch a lawsuit against al-Jazeera in a place where they have an office at, such as the US.

...or the UK, or Singapore. Why the US?

The suing of al-Jazeera is the suing of al-Jazeera. Its office in the US is not a separataed body, it's a form of an embassy. If the case is won al-Jazeera will have to pay $1.2 billion to the victims, and if they won't yes actions will be taken against them through their office, and it would probably be closed.

Symbolic and damaging, but hardly a fatal blow.

No, but it has the right to demand it from AJ, and if it doesn't cooperate, take necessary measures against its office in the country.

True that.

It's saddening to know that you think the victims' demand for justice is an attempt at "propaganda".

Sorry to sadden you, but wasn't that your take on the deaths of the 9 Turks on the flotilla vessel last month?

Please understand, I am not denigrating the injury of the victims of those rocket attacks, not at all. If those victims and/or their families were able to bring the commanders of those artillery batteries into a civil court and sue their asses off, I'd be out there with the placards and showing the same zeal with which I'd like to support the families of the Lebanese families similarly decimated by Israeli rocket and artillery attacks during the 18 years of the South Lebanese Conflict, and the people of Sarajevo during their barrage, and the Cambodians during the Kissinger raids and... well, you get the picture; innocent people caught up in murderous situations not of their own making.

My problem here is that, in their impotence in being able to lay a hand on the real culprits, they (or rather the shyster lawyers advising them) are seeking to blame AJ for the conflict that they merely reported upon.

That's false, you're drawing a baseless assumption here that is based purely on anti-Israeli and pro-Islamic sentiments.

Then why did the Israeli government take no action? They didn't need to have an AJ base on Israeli soil to prosecute the crews they believed were "spotting" for Hezbollah. They didn't need to allow such behaviour from foreign media if they believed that media was breaking their laws. No internatonal agreement or treaty on the freedom of the press permits foreign media crews to flout local laws.

By all means, they should use whatever helps them, justice will be sought out and if the victim's case is (deemed in a US court to be) legit as it appears to be then again, by all means, let (de facto) justice out.

(My parenthesis, btw)

Your suggestion that the US courts (not politicians, courts, judges, people who are being given the responsibility to blindly seek out justice) will be biased towards Israelis is absolutely a self-ridiculing notion.

Your idea that the decisions and verdicts arrived at by a US court are somehow likely to reflect an objective judgement on the matter are perhaps as naive as my suggestion that the plaintiffs should seek to sue AJ in a Qatari court. Your response to that suggestion was...

Listen to yourself, a bunch of Israeli Jewish victims of a war between Israel and Lebanon, an Arab country, suing an Arab international network in an Arab court in an Arab country.

My response to your idea of US judicial impartiality would be...
"Listen to yourself, an Arabic, non-partisan news channel defending itself against the charges of a group of Israeli victims of terrorist attacks, supported by the US pro-Israeli lobby, with the financial and diplomatic support of the US's No.1 Middle Eastern ally and the entire Neo-Con alliance." What are the chances?

 

[Apocalypse]

...or the UK, or Singapore. Why the US?

Why not in the US?

Symbolic and damaging, but hardly a fatal blow.

This is not about "laying a fatal blow", this is about getting justice.

Sorry to sadden you, but wasn't that your take on the deaths of the 9 Turks on the flotilla vessel last month?

That's even more saddening now, you place the victims of the Lebanon war at the same shoes of the perpetrators of the Mavi Marmara lynch attempt at soldiers.
Those victims were not involved in violence.

My problem here is that, in their impotence in being able to lay a hand on the real culprits, they (or rather the shyster lawyers advising them) are seeking to blame AJ for the conflict that they merely reported upon.

You don't expect them to be able to find out who is the low-life terrorist that has launched the rockets at them, do you?
Those folks are like rats crawling the suburbs of southern Lebanon, you can't know who they are or what's their name and somehow bring them to justice.
Nevertheless al-Jazeera is an international network and it needs to be held up for its actions if found guilty.

Then why did the Israeli government take no action? They didn't need to have an AJ base on Israeli soil to prosecute the crews they believed were "spotting" for Hezbollah.

I don't know, and I'm not intending on drawing baseless assumptions.
I've already given my guess that they didn't want to invite more international bashing.

Your idea that the decisions and verdicts arrived at by a US court are somehow likely to reflect an objective judgement on the matter are perhaps as naive as my suggestion that the plaintiffs should seek to sue AJ in a Qatari court.

Give me a break, I trust the court to reach an objective decision and let justice out, you may choose to take the far-left standard procedure and curse the system.

Your response to that suggestion was...

My response to your idea of US judicial impartiality would be...
"Listen to yourself, an Arabic, non-partisan news channel defending itself against the charges of a group of Israeli victims of terrorist attacks, supported by the US pro-Israeli lobby, with the financial and diplomatic support of the US's No.1 Middle Eastern ally and the entire Neo-Con alliance." What are the chances?

The US is an actual democracy, and its courts are free from such bias.
Besides that I can't see the US judge being found to out to be such a famous pro-Israeli person with a rich past of lobbying for Israel and supporting its fight against the terrorist organizations.

 

[Gardener]

My response to your idea of US judicial impartiality would be...
"Listen to yourself, an Arabic, non-partisan news channel defending itself against the charges of a group of Israeli victims of terrorist attacks, supported by the US pro-Israeli lobby, with the financial and diplomatic support of the US's No.1 Middle Eastern ally and the entire Neo-Con alliance." What are the chances?

I started laughing so hard when you used the term "non partisan" that coffee shot up my nose. Al J is about as non partisan as your average British soccer fan.

But congratulations on your use of the time-honored canard involving those scheming Jews manipulating others into doing their bidding, though. Always a classic.

 

[Andalublue]

I started laughing so hard when you used the term "non partisan" that coffee shot up my nose. Al J is about as non partisan as your average British soccer fan.

But congratulations on your use of the time-honored canard involving those scheming Jews manipulating others into doing their bidding, though. Always a classic.

I think I can safely say that I have never used the expression, "scheming Jews" in my life, and the fact that you attempt to put words in my mouth that I neither said, believe, nor implied is pretty typical of your pointless and contentless "contributions" to these debates.

At least with Apo, though we agree on virtually nothing (occasional opinions on football excepted), at least he has the decency and intellect to engage in debate. I respect him for that, if not his values and opinions.

 

[Gardener]

I think I can safely say that I have never used the expression, "scheming Jews" in my life, and the fact that you attempt to put words in my mouth that I neither said, believe, nor implied is pretty typical of your pointless and contentless "contributions" to these debates.

At least with Apo, though we agree on virtually nothing (occasional opinions on football excepted), at least he has the decency and intellect to engage in debate. I respect him for that, if not his values and opinions.

Yet you referred to that much fabled Jewish lobby, towards which you cast aspersions of malfeasance.

 

[Andalublue]

Yet you referred to that much fabled Jewish lobby, towards which you cast aspersions of malfeasance.

No, I did not at any point refer to the Jewish lobby. I referred to the pro-Israeli lobby, i.e. AIPAC, Stand for Israel, CPMAJO et al. I don't think these organisations are merely fables. I also referred quite specifically to that lobby because it comprises religious and secular Jewish organisations AND non-Jewish organisations. That you can't tell the difference between Jews in general and pro-Israelis in particular is not my failing, it's yours.

From Wiki: "In his controversial book, The Case for Peace, Alan Dershowitz argues that the most right-leaning pro-Israel groups in the United States are not Jews at all, but Evangelical Christians." So, in brief, you are conflating the "Jewish lobby", whatever that is, with the Pro-Israeli lobby, which clearly and vociferously exists and will no doubt be using its power on the Hill to support the plaintiffs.

 

[Gardener]

No, I did not at any point refer to the Jewish lobby. I referred to the pro-Israeli lobby, i.e. AIPAC, Stand for Israel, CPMAJO et al. I don't think these organisations are merely fables. I also referred quite specifically to that lobby because it comprises religious and secular Jewish organisations AND non-Jewish organisations.

From Wiki: "In his controversial book, The Case for Peace, Alan Dershowitz argues that the most right-leaning pro-Israel groups in the United States are not Jews at all, but Evangelical Christians." So, in brief, you are conflating the "Jewish lobby", whatever that is, with the Pro-Israeli lobby, which clearly and vociferously exists and will no doubt be using its power on the Hill to support the plaintiffs.

Ah, so you took the old canard, replaced the word "Israel" for "Jew", found a way to include non Jews as part of the canard to try to obfuscate its nature, and went with it. Got it.

Meanwhile, you actually attempt to portray Al J as neutral, somehow, and NOT part of any Arabist lobby, and this despite the overwhelming evidence provided by the near unanimous European opinion on the subject as to ITS effectiveness.

If this Jewish lobby is so influential, why is it that nearly all of the Europeans in this forum hate Israel with such a passion? The proof is in the pudding as they say, and the proof as to which lobby is actually effective lies in the Arabization of European opinions on world politics.

 

[Andalublue]

Ah, so you took the old canard, replaced the word "Israel" for "Jew", found a way to include non Jews as part of the canard to try to obfuscate its nature, and went with it. Got it.

Meanwhile, you actually attempt to portray Al J as neutral, somehow, and NOT part of any Arabist lobby, and this despite the overwhelming evidence provided by the near unanimous European opinion on the subject as to ITS effectiveness.

If this Jewish lobby is so influential, why is it that nearly all of the Europeans in this forum hate Israel with such a passion? The proof is in the pudding as they say, and the proof as to which lobby is actually effective lies in the Arabization of European opinions on world politics.

Non sequitur after non sequitur. Oof!

You seem to be the one unable to distinguish between some ephemeral "scheming Jewish" (your term, not mine) lobby and the multi-faith, religious and secular US pro-Israeli lobby. Obfuscation seems to be your forté.

Again, you put words into my mouth that I never uttered, or indeed wrote. I described AJ as non-partisan, i.e. not prejudiced in support of one party or cause. I would never describe a news organisation as neutral or objective, as such terms are value judgements in themselves. One person's objectivity is another's bias. AJ is certainly not part of any Arabist lobby, whatever that is. Perhaps, as I did in describing the concrete elements of the US Pro-Israeli lobby in the previous post, you could explain the organisational structure of this putative, European-based Arabist lobby?

I'm not reading any hatred for Israel, but I read a lot of hatred in your posts for Moslems, Arabs and Europeans.

 

[Apocalypse]

I described AJ as non-partisan, i.e. not prejudiced in support of one party or cause.

I agree with Gardener that this is quite laughable.
It is like an American conservative coming up and saying that FOX news is not biased. Actually it's even worse.

I've been watching al-Jazeera a lot to see the Arab world's reaction to one event or another, since it really does describe their vision in the way it reports on events, just like the Guardian describes the far-left's vision and just like FOX news describes the conservative vision.

 

[Gardener]

Non sequitur after non sequitur. Oof!

You seem to be the one unable to distinguish between some ephemeral "scheming Jewish" (your term, not mine) lobby and the multi-faith, religious and secular US pro-Israeli lobby. Obfuscation seems to be your forté.

Again, you put words into my mouth that I never uttered, or indeed wrote. I described AJ as non-partisan, i.e. not prejudiced in support of one party or cause. I would never describe a news organisation as neutral or objective, as such terms are value judgements in themselves. One person's objectivity is another's bias. AJ is certainly not part of any Arabist lobby, whatever that is. Perhaps, as I did in describing the concrete elements of the US Pro-Israeli lobby in the previous post, you could explain the organisational structure of this putative, European-based Arabist lobby?

I'm not reading any hatred for Israel, but I read a lot of hatred in your posts for Moslems, Arabs and Europeans.

You are quite adept at turnspeak.

Here, you take a time-honored canard, dress it up in such a way as to try to distract from its true and very persistant nature, try to create the impression that the constant venting of the collective spleen demonizing Israel at every turn is not hatred , but rejecting it is, and try to whip up the impression that only Jews .......oops, I mean "Israel lobby" are partisan, but those promoting an Arab agenda aren't, and all while sputtering away denying that what you are doing is what you are doing.

classic.

 

[Andalublue]

I agree with Gardener that this is quite laughable.
It is like an American conservative coming up and saying that FOX news is not biased. Actually it's even worse.

I've been watching al-Jazeera a lot to see the Arab world's reaction to one event or another, since it really does describe their vision in the way it reports on events, just like the Guardian describes the far-left's vision and just like FOX news describes the conservative vision.

There's a big difference between leaning in a particular direction, which ALL news organisations do, without exception, and being prejudiced (i.e. having a pre-conceived opinion that is not based on reason). AJ leans in the direction of an Arab world view, but is not prejudiced in a partisan manner. Your last sentence sums it up quite well I think, and contradicts your first two sentences. Apart from the bit about The (Liberal Democrat-supporting) Guardian being far-left. Ha! You should check out some real leftist newspapers like The Morning Star or even The Independent.

 

[Gardener]

T AJ leans in the direction of an Arab world view, but is not prejudiced in a partisan manner.

Al J promotes an Arab world view, but does not promote an Arab world view. Got it.

That makes such perfect sense, I'm glad you explained it.