GAZA STRIP: The Mohammed Omer case lives on

A story in today's L.A. Times examines the controversies surrounding the case of Gaza-based journalist and activist Mohammed Omer.

Omer, whose work earned him the Martha Gellhorn Prize for Journalism, claims he was sexually humiliated and physically assaulted by Israeli security officials in June while crossing from Jordan into the Israeli-controlled West Bank.

Omer is now in Holland receiving medical treatment and psychological counseling. But the Israeli government, after an internal investigation, pronounced his complaints to be "without foundation" and expressed "doubts as to the sincerity" of his claims.

Omer and his supporters charge that the Israeli investigation was a nonexistent rubber stamp, citing the fact that neither Omer nor the paramedic who treated him was ever interviewed.

Check out the  story and let us know what you think.

-- Ashraf Khalil in Jerusalem

Comments

[Larry Schecker]

Why have you decided to revisit Mohammed Omer's torture claims of more than four months ago and why has the LA Times published your questionable work?

You give Omer’s allegations a boost by obscuring key information about the latter's original diagnosis, while referring to a "medical report" which was previously unmentioned in previous interviews and articles about Omer’s alleged torture and injury.

You make no mention of the fact that Dr. Diaa Husseini, who examined Omer shortly after the alleged incident, stated that there were no signs of physical injury. Instead, youl suggest that while the doctor could not determine the cause of Omer's collapse, "the medical report" provides more information.

Where did this "medical report" come from? It is not, as youl imply, a report from the Jericho hospital doctors, but an ambulance report, curiously written in English—not in Arabic as one might expect—supposedly by the Palestinian EMT's who picked him up. (In addition to "severe pain" and "finger signs," the report also mentions "vomiting," "sweating," "hyperthermia"--i.e. fever, which would seem more indicative of an infectious process or of food poisoning than of physical abuse, as well as "neurosis.")

Moreover, the doctor, the articles and the interviews at the time made no mention of an ambulance record that showed any visible signs of injury. In fact, after leaving the hospital and arriving back in Gaza, Omer gave several interviews from his home in which he said that the doctors in the Jericho hospital assured him he was fine and never mentioned any report that might shed light on his allegations. Instead, he complained of stomach and chest pains.

In a face-to-face interview on June 28 with Swedish journalist Jan Andersson, Omer recounted his tale with large gesticulations (which would be extremely difficult and painful if he had indeed broken his ribs, as was later reported), showing no bruises or obvious signs of physical injury. Only two days after returning to Gaza did Omer check himself into the hospital.

You attempt to explain away the obvious weakness of Omer's allegations by saying that "no one thought to take any pictures of [Omer's] bruises until six days later — at which point the marks had faded." In fact, neither the doctor who examined him within hours of the alleged abuse, nor the journalist who saw him two days later witnessed any marks or bruises on Omer. The only notes of marks or "signs" of abuse is in the medical report that Khalil has managed to produce.

This raises questions about 1) how the "medical report" mysteriously materialized in clearly written English, 2) where and when Khalil obtained it, 3) why it includes symptoms that were not previously reported, and 4) why it contradicts the findings of the examining doctor.

Adapted from http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=6&x_article=1512

[LD]

Why the hell is everything anti-Israel bias? When someone gets shot or abused or killed in any country, do we say it's anti-ThatCountry bias?

The Israel government and it's policies have been condemned time and time again by the international community. The only nation that stands with Israel is the US and it has nothing to do with right or wrong. It has to do w/ strategic interests.

Israel is a failed state; a rogue state.

Even if there was a bias, the statistics do NOT lie. Are the statistics biased? Are the disproportionate amount of civilian casualties (mostly women and children) of the Palestinians BIASED?

It's sick how human beings can overlook the horrors of the world so selfishly when it suits them.

You make me sick. God have mercy on your soul.

[Elliott Alhadeff]

I note the issue is the credibility of the Israeli authorities. Is there any issue of the credibility of the UN and its investigative team? Is there any issue about the bias of Mr. Omer and the agenda he pursues in his articles - critical of Israel? Is there any indication that other persons entering Israel at that area are similarly "abused?"
Did you interview the officers involved? Did you ask Mr. Omer why photos of his alleged injuries were not taken soon after the incident? Did you interview the paramedic?

Do you have an agenda, Mr. Khalil?

This is another graphic reason I am so grateful for my decision to terminate my subscription to the L.A. Times. It's agenda journalism is now beyond dispute. You, sir, are a powerful item of evidence of Mr. Hannity's conclusion that responsiblie journalism (now an oxymoron) is dead.

Elliott Alhadeff

[Elliott Alhadeff]

Dear Mr. Khalil:

Again, you display your anti-Israeli bias and you have no reservations about doing so, notwithstanding you add to the now disreputable standing of the L.A. Times.

What has become obvious is that you are prepared to write anything that is apparently critical of Israel, but few, if any articles of the inhumane and unjust treatment of Palestinians living in the West Bank and especially in Gaza. Actually, I'm speaking from a position of ignorance because I've seen no articles about the living conditions under these Palestinian authorities that describe the conditions of the people living there, their political orientation for or against Israel, their educational agenda regarding efforts at peace, their ability to view and criticize their government, their standards of justice, their economy (before and after the intifada) and their desire to join the international community and tolerate and abide by its legal, economic and cultural standards. Why is that?

Regarding to your reference to the anti-Israeli decision of the International Court of Justice - you should be ashamed of yourself if you call yourself a journalist. This reference to this anti-Israeli court without disclosing its anti-Israeli bias is dispicable. If you actions were not so dangerous to being able to negotiate a realistic peace treaty with an adversary intent on eliminating Israel and Jews, it would be not only easy to ignore, it would be mandated.

If you have not already been advised of the anti-Israeli bias of this "court" I suggest you read the commentary by Mr. Dershowitz regading its composition and legitimacy at http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0704/dershowitz_hague_ruling.php3?printer_friendly

Moreover, the land was legally seized by Israel as a result of its international legal right to defend itself against wrongful aggression. This conclusion results from no greater authority than former State Department Legal Advisor Stephen Schwebel, who later headed the International Court of Justice in the Hague, before it had become a pawn of tyranny. Writing in 1970 regarding Israel's case, Justice Schwebel states: "Where the prior holder of territory had seized that territory unlawfully, the state which subsequently takes that territory in the lawful exercise of self-defense has, against that prior holder, better title."

Do not believe that your disgraceful actions will go unnoticed or that you may continue to engage in such outrageous propaganda with impunity. Be assured, you will be criticized and called upon to explain your malice and hopefully others will realize who you are, what you stand for and the liklihood you and your kind will end up in the trash can of irresponsible advocacy.

Elliott Alhadeff, Laguna Woods, California