
Six Palestinians to stand trial in deadly 1982 attack on Jewish deli in Paris
PTI
Paris, Jul 31 (AP) A terrorism court in France has ordered six suspected Palestinian militants to go on trial for an attack 43 years ago at a Jewish restaurant and deli in Paris that killed six people, a lawyer said Thursday.
Attackers threw grenades and then sprayed machine-gun fire into the Jo Goldenberg restaurant on August 9, 1982 in the deadliest antisemitic attack in France since World War II, which also injured 22 people. Two of those killed were Americans.
Though four of the suspects remain abroad and likely would be tried in absentia, investigating judges have issued an order for a trial, which could begin early next year, said David Père, who represents victims. The Paris-based court does not publish its orders publicly, and generally does not respond to journalists.
The suspects are believed to have been members of the Palestinian militant Abu Nidal group at the time of the attack.
The alleged ringleader, Mohamed Souhair al-Abassi, also known as Amjad Atta, is in Jordan where authorities have refused to extradite him. Three other suspects are believed to be in either the Palestinian territories or in Jordan: Mahmoud Khader Abed Adra, also called Hicham Harb; Nabil Hassan Mahmoud Othmane, also known as Ibrahim Hamza, and Nizar Tawfiq Moussa Hamada, also known as Hani.
One of the defendants, Walid Abdulrahman Abu Zayed, had emigrated with his family to Norway and was extradited to France in 2020. The sixth defendant, Hazza Taha, was detained more recently in Paris.
Père, who represents dozens of relatives of the victims and one direct survivor, said the trial is 'historic" for them. 'For them, this is not about the past but the present. It's a trial they intend to follow day by day," Père told The Associated Press.
The one survivor represented by Père wasn't injured in the attack but remains traumatised by it. 'He wants to see the suspects and try to understand," Père said.
Jo Goldenberg, the owner of the Jewish restaurant and deli, recalled the horror of the lunchtime attack during an interview in 2002.
'They fired on everyone who was eating lunch – everyone," Goldenberg said at the time. The place, which has since closed, was a centrepiece tourist attraction in the Marais neighbourhood.
French authorities announced in 2015 — nearly 33 years after the attack — that international arrest warrants had been issued for the suspects.
The Abu Nidal faction, named after its leader, is considered responsible for nearly two dozen attacks that left at least 275 people dead, including assaults on El Al Israel Airlines ticket counters at the Rome and Vienna airports in 1985 in which 18 people were killed.
The notorious Abu Nidal himself was found dead in his Baghdad apartment in August 2002. Iraqi authorities said Abu Nidal, whose real name is Sabri al-Banna, died by suicide. (AP) GSP
view comments
First Published:
July 31, 2025, 22:15 IST
Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Time of India
42 minutes ago
- Time of India
Cops nab 48 in nationwide crackdown on online fraud
1 2 Hyderabad: In July, cybercrime sleuths conducted operations across India and arrested 48 people for their alleged involvement in a range of cybercrimes. Among those arrested were 21 people linked to investment fraud schemes. Additional commissioner of police (crimes), Viswa Prasad, said the accused were involved in 78 cybercrime cases registered in Telangana. Over the past month alone, refunds amounting to 2.2 crore were issued to several victims. You Can Also Check: Hyderabad AQI | Weather in Hyderabad | Bank Holidays in Hyderabad | Public Holidays in Hyderabad Detailing key cases cracked during the operations, Prasad described one incident in which a complainant fell victim to a fraudulent financial advisor named "Neha", who claimed to be an employee of a well-known multinational IT services company. Police said: "Over time, she befriended the complainant and gained his trust. Neha advised him to invest in trading via a website that promised high returns. The complainant invested 1.7 lakh, and the platform displayed an apparent profit of $20,100 (approx. 17 lakh). However, when he attempted to withdraw the funds, he was asked to pay 4.8 lakh as tax." The victim then paid 1.4 lakh and another 75,000 after being misled into believing these were necessary charges for withdrawal. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Why Are Houses In Dubai So Cheap? Villas In Dubai | Search Ads Undo When he was later asked to pay an additional $3,326 (2.9 lakh), he realised it was a scam. Based on his complaint after losing 8 lakh, the police arrested C Santosh Kumar, a resident of Warsiguda. In another case, a victim lost 1 crore, believing he was investing in a Hong Kong-based company. He was contacted by Lakshya Verma, who claimed to be from Delhi. "The victim realised he was defrauded when it became clear the company did not exist," ACP Prasad said. Probe revealed that Para Singla, also from Delhi, played a key role. He was arrested and found to be using 30 mobile phones to orchestrate the fraud. In a separate IPO fraud case, police arrested three persons from Maharashtra, who duped a victim by promising 890% return within three to six months. The accused persuaded the victim to register on an app, allowing initial withdrawals to build trust. They then convinced him to invest up to 79 lakh.


Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Second US appeals court open to blocking Trump's birthright citizenship order
By Nate Raymond Second US appeals court open to blocking Trump's birthright citizenship order -U.S. President Donald Trump's order restricting birthright citizenship appeared on Friday to be headed toward being declared unconstitutional by a second federal appeals court, as judges expressed deep skepticism about a key piece of his hardline immigration agenda. A three-judge panel of the Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sharply questioned a lawyer with the U.S. Department of Justice as to why they should overturn two lower-court judges who blocked the order from taking effect. Those lower-court judges include one in Boston who last week reaffirmed his prior decision to block the order's enforcement nationally, even after the U.S. Supreme Court in June curbed the power of judges to broadly enjoin that and other policies. The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last week became the first federal appeals court to hold Trump's order is unconstitutional. Its ultimate fate will likely be determined by the U.S. Supreme Court. Justice Department attorney Eric McArthur said on Friday that the citizenship clause of the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 after the U.S. Civil War, rightly extended citizenship to the children of newly-freed enslaved Black people. "It did not extend birthright citizenship as a matter of constitutional right to the children of aliens who are present in the country temporarily or unlawfully," he said. But the judges questioned how that argument was consistent with the Supreme Court's 1898 ruling interpreting the clause in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, long understood as guaranteeing American citizenship to children born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents. "We have an opinion by the Supreme Court that we aren't free to disregard," said Chief U.S. Circuit Judge David Barron, who like his two colleagues was appointed by a Democratic president. Trump's executive order, issued on his first day back in office on January 20, directs agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of U.S.-born children who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also known as a "green card" holder. Every court to consider the order's merits has declared it unconstitutional, including the three judges who halted the order's enforcement nationally. Those judges included U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin in Boston, who ruled in favor of 18 Democratic-led states and the District of Columbia, who had swiftly challenged Trump's policy in court. "The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized children born to individuals who are here unlawfully or who are here on a temporary basis are nonetheless birthright citizens," Shankar Duraiswamy, a lawyer for New Jersey, argued on Friday. The 6-3 conservative majority U.S. Supreme Court on June 27 sided with the administration in the litigation by restricting the ability of judges to issue so-called universal injunctions and directing lower courts that had blocked Trump's policy nationally to reconsider the scope of their orders. But the ruling contained exceptions, allowing federal judges in Massachusetts and New Hampshire and the 9th Circuit to issue new decisions stopping Trump's order from taking effect nationally. The rulings on appeal to the 1st Circuit were issued by Sorokin and the New Hampshire judge, who originally issued a narrow injunction but more recently issued a new decision in a recently-filed class action blocking Trump's order nationwide. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.


Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
India rejects UK report alleging ‘transnational repression'
India Friday categorically rejected as 'baseless' a British parliamentary report that named it among countries engaged in 'transnational repression' in the UK. The Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) said the allegations stemmed from 'unverified' and 'dubious sources' predominantly linked to proscribed entities and individuals. 'We have seen the references to India in the report and categorically reject these baseless allegations,' said MEA spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal. 'These claims stem from unverified and dubious sources, predominantly linked to proscribed entities and individuals with a clear, documented history of anti-India hostility,' he said. Jaiswal said the 'deliberate reliance on discredited sources calls into question the credibility of the report itself'. The report made by the British Parliament's Joint Committee on Human Rights listed India along with China, Egypt, Eritrea, Iran, Pakistan, Russia, Bahrain, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates as countries allegedly engaging in 'transnational repression' in the UK. The report titled 'Transnational repression in the UK' was made public on July 30. Some of the details related to India cited in the report were provided by Sikhs for Justice, a pro-Khalistan organisation banned in India under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, and other UK-based Sikh groups.