Ten years after Mohammad Bakri released his documentary style film Jenin, Jenin on the battles that were fought in the refugee camps in Operation Defensive Shield, the attorney general is considering launching a criminal prosecution against the director – and for good reason.

The justification is that on the basis of paragraph 6 of the law prohibiting slander and libel, “someone who publishes libel intentionally to harm goes to jail for a year.”

Until now, in brief, this film is completely based on “testimony” from Jenin residents – testimony that all the international bodies for human rights that investigated the matter in depth already rejected as “unreliable.”

“Unreliable”, or in other words, complete lies.

Bakri simply produced a film on the basis of the lies of the residents of Jenin and released it as a “documentary.” Even he himself knows there is no truth in this “documentary.” Until now Bakri and his Israeli attorneys have succeeded in exploiting the fine print in the law and also the reluctance of the judges to convict an Arab Israeli filmmaker.

Freedom of speech?

Even the judges, who had strong reservations about the film and its lies, like other supporters of Bakri, repeated the “freedom of speech” mantra. For whatever reason I have a feeling that “freedom of speech” – when speaking of Israel – always applies to cases in which the Jewish state is attacked.

“Israel is again trying to strangle freedom of speech,” the champions of justice declare. As if Israel does not have the right to defend itself against libelous statements, lies, and wild and frivolous inventions from the Muslim side and its supporters.

Recently, German author Günter Grass published an anti-Israeli poem, a bluntly deceitful piece of work, and in light of the criticism against this writer immediately the champions of freedom of speech got up to defend him. But when angry reactions arose against these champions, they started shouting and called this criticism a lie.

It is the same with Bakri. As long as he disseminates lies this is freedom of speech. But when the injured parties seek justice according to the law, this is a blow to the same mantra. Strange. (Copyright 2012 © Yedioth Internet 05/14/12)