|
About all this, it can be said, that DP attributes to the rector deeds he had never done, such as inviting advocate Erdinest and ignoring Mr. Katz, while in reality, Mr. Erdinest came by his own accord and Mr. Katz was indeed invited to the press conference, and not only that he sat at the head of the table, and talked to the press, and also appeared in photographs in pictures form that event
DP brings unsubstantiated facts, defames and insults the rector and the university as a whole, and by that violated the basic ethical codes in an academic system in particular and among individuals in particular.
In this email, he also insults rudely the members of the inquiry committee, and especially Professor Baram and Professor Nevo. He is not only fabricating the conclusions of their committee and dwarfs Mr. Katz's deficiencies, he moreover throws at them concept such as 'the nonsense of their methodological remarks' and determines that the main failure is not with the Katz's thesis by with their remarks in the issues of theory and methodology.
d. A severe damage in the professional reputation and integrity of the inquiry commission, as well personal defamation and insults in some of its members, included in DP's email from 01/07/2001. This was intended to the 'Israeli Media' in a demand for a fair coverage on the 'Katz Affair'.
In his relation to the inquiry commission of the Katz's tapes, DP directed at them the following things:
One of them (Professor Baram - Yossi Ben Artzi explains] had already made up his opinion and published it in 'Maariv'.
And the second (Professor Talmon) sowed in his report the accept Israeli security service discourse, where he served and still serves as a reservist…
Another (Dr. Jiris) is en expert on pre-Islamic poetry but was brought because there was a need for an Arab as fig leaf (Ben Artzi: this is who it appears in the original !!!)
As for Professor Baram, it transpires as always that DP was again inaccurate in describing the facts, by attributing to Professor Baram a position he allegedly has taken before reading the work, in Maariv. It turned out, that Professor Baram was never interviewed in Maariv in the case of Mr. Katz, and DP never supplied proofs for it. Moreover, Professor Baram was appointed a member of the inquiry commission in January 2001, and the interview in Yeidot Haifa, which DP attributes to him in his emai of July 2, 2001 never occurred.
DP, as is his rule, wrote there that indeed he was wrong by attributing to Professor Baram an interview in Maariv on 21 January 2001, and the right place is Yediot Haifa of April 9, 2001, and he was not wrong by saying the Baram had a sister, he only got her hair color wrong.
Indeed this can tell us on his methods of the DP's non-collegial rudeness. Not only did he not find an interview in Maariv in January 2001, he also misled by saying it was in April the same year. But if Professor Baram was appointed to the committee in January 2001, hence in April he was already well acquainted with Mr. Katz's thesis, so the allegation 'he expressed an opinion before reading the thesis' is a wild, rude, and an abominable lie!
Professor Talmon is accused of sowing the common Israeli Security service discourse , and by that it was hinted to the press as a whole that he is not but a security person in the guise of an academic in order to stain him in the eyes of those who have a negative opinion on the Israeli security services.
Far more severe is the rudeness and degradation is the attitude DP takes against Dr. Ibrahim Jiris, by calling him an Arab 'fig leaf' to the committee's work. This is a disgrace that one academic would call a colleague belonging to a minority in such a way; a colleague who has manifested public courage by agreeing to participate as a member in the committee, not to say expose him to revenge or any other kind of violence, in the eyes of his own people. Only for that remark one should have called DP to order and warn him of the gravity of his deeds.
Slander, personal and collective defamation against Professor Yoav
|
|
