Tibi says he will persist in his efforts to have the movie shown in the Knesset, but Rivlin says that the movie is offensive to both the families of the fallen soldiers and to many MKs. The movie features Arab residents of Jenin recounting their "experiences" during last year's fighting between the IDF and Arab terrorists, such as the massacre of hundreds of people and the destruction of a hospital. A U.N. committee, however, found that only 52 residents were killed, and the hospital was untouched throughout the battle.
Haggai Tal, whose brother Ro'i was one of the IDF soldiers who fell in the Jenin battles of April 2002, spoke with Arutz-7's Eshel Levine about yesterday's Supreme Court ruling overturning the censor's decision to ban the movie. "This ruling has hit us very hard," Haggai said bitterly. "I can't say that we were surprised, because from the beginning we saw how the wind was blowing - but we still hoped that the Court would stand up and defend the reputation of those who laid their lives on the line to protect the nation. But apparently there is no one to protect them; the Court chose instead to protect Bakri's right to make a film that slanders the state and those who fell."
Levine noted that the Court "said that according to the standards of a liberal and open society, the offense is not intolerable."
"This is precisely the point that is so infuriating," Haggai responded. "The 'liberal and open society' in which I live, the one that surrounds me both to the right and left, does *not* tolerate this blow to us. In fact, the people I am in contact with are quite incensed by it, and have registered their complaints over the internet and in other ways. They in fact relate to the ruling as if someone had sprayed graffiti on the gravestones of our loved ones. Apparently, Justice Dalia Dorner, who in her ruling did not once mention the concepts of 'respect for the dead' or one's reputation, simply mis-judged."
"You will admit, however," said Levine, "that by joining the court suit against the movie, you have helped the movie's public relations campaign."
"This was a consequence that was forced upon us," said Haggai Tal. "The minute the censor disqualified the movie, the die was cast for a court proceeding. We, the families, had the choice of either standing on the side and watching [director Muhammad] Bakri reap the fruits of his lies, or of gathering our strength and trying to defend our loved ones and their name. We couldn't stand by, so we joined the struggle."
Maariv journalist Ben-Dror Yemini, who has a background in law, explained his view of yesterday's ruling: "The limits of free speech are changing. What used to be forbidden is now permitted. I believe this comes from a new trend - stemming partially from the world of academia - which I call 'the death of truth.' What it means is that there is no such thing as truth, and the Court doesn't even take the trouble to clarify whether an item in question is true, because it's no longer relevant... The Court sees its job now as protecting freedom of speech, period... It could very well be that if the issue was libel and slander, and not censorship, the outcome would have been very different."
Ben-Yemini said he does not think that those who object to the movie should ask the Court for another session, as they are planning, as "it will change nothing. They should instead turn to the arena of libel and slander." It should be noted that five reserve soldiers who served in Jenin during Operation Defensive Shield have filed suit against Bakri and two theaters that screened the movie, demanding 2.5 million shekels because of the movie's "lies" and "slander" against them and their colleagues.
Ben-Yemini noted the fact that in many European countries, Holocaust denial is against the law - even though this would seem to be an abrogation of "freedom of speech." He scorned the Court's use of the phrase "liberal and open society," saying, "They don't use the phrase 'liberal and enlightened' any more because of the criticism it aroused, but it's the same thing."
Haggai Tal, whose brother Ro'i was one of the IDF soldiers who fell in the Jenin battles of April 2002, spoke with Arutz-7's Eshel Levine about yesterday's Supreme Court ruling overturning the censor's decision to ban the movie. "This ruling has hit us very hard," Haggai said bitterly. "I can't say that we were surprised, because from the beginning we saw how the wind was blowing - but we still hoped that the Court would stand up and defend the reputation of those who laid their lives on the line to protect the nation. But apparently there is no one to protect them; the Court chose instead to protect Bakri's right to make a film that slanders the state and those who fell."
Levine noted that the Court "said that according to the standards of a liberal and open society, the offense is not intolerable."
"This is precisely the point that is so infuriating," Haggai responded. "The 'liberal and open society' in which I live, the one that surrounds me both to the right and left, does *not* tolerate this blow to us. In fact, the people I am in contact with are quite incensed by it, and have registered their complaints over the internet and in other ways. They in fact relate to the ruling as if someone had sprayed graffiti on the gravestones of our loved ones. Apparently, Justice Dalia Dorner, who in her ruling did not once mention the concepts of 'respect for the dead' or one's reputation, simply mis-judged."
"You will admit, however," said Levine, "that by joining the court suit against the movie, you have helped the movie's public relations campaign."
"This was a consequence that was forced upon us," said Haggai Tal. "The minute the censor disqualified the movie, the die was cast for a court proceeding. We, the families, had the choice of either standing on the side and watching [director Muhammad] Bakri reap the fruits of his lies, or of gathering our strength and trying to defend our loved ones and their name. We couldn't stand by, so we joined the struggle."
Maariv journalist Ben-Dror Yemini, who has a background in law, explained his view of yesterday's ruling: "The limits of free speech are changing. What used to be forbidden is now permitted. I believe this comes from a new trend - stemming partially from the world of academia - which I call 'the death of truth.' What it means is that there is no such thing as truth, and the Court doesn't even take the trouble to clarify whether an item in question is true, because it's no longer relevant... The Court sees its job now as protecting freedom of speech, period... It could very well be that if the issue was libel and slander, and not censorship, the outcome would have been very different."
Ben-Yemini said he does not think that those who object to the movie should ask the Court for another session, as they are planning, as "it will change nothing. They should instead turn to the arena of libel and slander." It should be noted that five reserve soldiers who served in Jenin during Operation Defensive Shield have filed suit against Bakri and two theaters that screened the movie, demanding 2.5 million shekels because of the movie's "lies" and "slander" against them and their colleagues.
Ben-Yemini noted the fact that in many European countries, Holocaust denial is against the law - even though this would seem to be an abrogation of "freedom of speech." He scorned the Court's use of the phrase "liberal and open society," saying, "They don't use the phrase 'liberal and enlightened' any more because of the criticism it aroused, but it's the same thing."