Eight seconds that changed the lives of 12 Israeli families forever
The soccer pitch, still very much in use by schoolchildren, has become a regular draw for international media visits and other fact-finding tours. The National Post was part of a group of Canadian journalists touring Israel under the sponsorship of the Exigent Foundation, one of three groups visiting at the time.
This is the Golan Heights, part of Syria until Israel seized the region in the 1967 War. The Druze, part of a breakaway sect of Islam, are largely intensely loyal to Israel.
Layth Absuleh, who lost his son and three other family members that day, stood by a billboard with heartbreaking photos of the 12 children killed, describing each of them as good students, strong athletes, loving family members.
He spoke of individual tragedy too: One boy was directly hit and essentially vaporized, so they thought he was missing until they found his jawbone, and only his jawbone, 17 hours later. A first responder found his daughter dead, and covered her with a blanket before going on to treat the children still living.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CTV News
4 hours ago
- CTV News
‘Russians at War' team on ‘shocking' backlash to film and direct-to-audience release
Anastasia Trofimova is seen the film "Russians at War" in this undated handout photo. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Handout - Anastasia Trofimova Anastasia Trofimova risked her life to make 'Russians at War' — and then spent the next year fighting to have the film shown. Now, after months of cancellations, protests and threats, the controversial documentary will bypass traditional channels and release directly to audiences on Tuesday. The film, which follows Russian soldiers on the front lines of the war in Ukraine, drew a standing ovation at its Venice world premiere in 2024 but quickly became a lightning rod. Its North American debut at TIFF last year was met with demonstrations from pro-Ukraine groups who called it Russian propaganda. Its screenings had to be rescheduled due to 'significant threats to festival operations and public safety.' The blowback continued throughout the year, with festivals including Athens and Zurich withdrawing the film due to mounting protests and security concerns. Meanwhile, TVO scrapped plans to air the documentary after the backlash, leaving it without a distributor. 'I was getting death threats and all sorts of abuse,' says Trofimova of the backlash. 'It was shocking. You go to the war against all odds, you bring back a story, you go deeper than other people because you're that much more obsessed about it, and you are getting attacked by people who have not been even close to the war, but they're telling you what it's like.' The Russian-Canadian director points out that many of the film's detractors said they hadn't seen the film and didn't intend to. 'They're refusing to see the film, but have very strong opinions on it. So that's been a bit surprising,' she says on a video call. In 'Russians at War,' Trofimova embeds herself with Russian troops on the front lines of the conflict in Ukraine, capturing their personal experiences and perspectives. While some have praised it for its unfiltered portrayal of soldiers' realities, others have criticized it for lacking historical and political context about the invasion, raising concerns that it might whitewash the actions of the Russian military. The film's producer Cornelia Principe says the direct-to-audience release is 'partly by design, partly by necessity.' 'It was important for us to get it out there so people can see it, because part of the controversy is coming from places where people haven't seen the film,' explains the Oscar-nominated producer behind 2022's 'To Kill a Tiger.' Principe says 'Russians at War' is still being shopped to European broadcasters and will air on British Columbia's Knowledge Network this fall as part of a series of films about the war in Ukraine. Lawyers representing the film threatened TVO with legal action last year for pulling the film, but Principe says both parties have since reached 'a mutually satisfactory settlement of our dispute and have agreed not to comment further.' She says her production company, Raja Pictures, has reclaimed the film's rights. The film is available to rent worldwide at except in Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus, where producers plan to offer it for free at a later date. Principe says they took inspiration from the Oscar-winning documentary 'No Other Land,' about the Israel-Palestine conflict, and 'Union,' which follows Amazon workers' fight to unionize — both titles faced distribution hurdles and ultimately went the direct-to-audience route. Trofimova says the intense backlash to 'Russians at War' revealed just how vulnerable films can be to organized attacks. 'It was shocking how easy it is to attack a film. If you are an interest group, if you're a state, if you're a corporation, it's not that hard to get screenings cancelled or to muddy the waters around what it's about,' she says. 'How do we make complex films and get them out there, despite the fact that they will most likely be attacked by some sort of interest group?' Principe worries about the chilling effect such pressure could have on creative freedom. 'Are we leading to situations where filmmakers will self-censor, where broadcasters will self-censor, where festivals will self-censor and not take on difficult things?' Still, Principe says she and Trofimova 'listened to what people were saying.' In response to criticism that 'Russians at War' lacked sufficient context on the Russian invasion of Ukraine, they added an introductory card to the direct-to-audience version noting that the invasion is 'the deadliest conflict on European soil since WWII' and that war crimes investigations by the International Criminal Court are underway. As for those still reluctant to watch the film, Trofimova says: 'Watch it when you're ready.' 'It's not a film where it's like 'gotcha.' It's not a film where I aimed to dehumanize someone. It's a document of history and this war is scary. And this war, it is a tragedy and it's still continuing. And when you watch it, just know that it's continuing,' she says. 'I hope, on the human part, we can see each other as people, and I hope that once you see what war looks like, anyone who has any illusions will understand a little bit more.' This report by The Canadian Press was first published Aug. 12, 2025. Alex Nino Gheciu, The Canadian Press
Edmonton Journal
4 hours ago
- Edmonton Journal
Conservatives aiming to amend Criminal Code so immigration status won't be a factor in sentencing
Article content The Crown sought a 90-day jail sentence. Ontario Court judge Paul O'Marra wrote that a criminal record would likely prevent the offender from sponsoring his wife to also become a permanent resident, as well as delay the offender's eligibility for Canadian citizenship and jeopardize his ability to become a licensed engineer. Article content O'Marra concluded that 'a custodial sentence would be unduly harsh' and instead handed down a conditional discharge with 12 months of probation, which included three months of house arrest. In establishing the basis for his reasoning, he wrote: 'The Pham decision stands for the principle that collateral consequences, while not determinative, can justify a lower sentence within the legal range to avoid disproportionate hardship,' Article content In an Alberta case cited by Rempel Garner, a man in Canada on a visitor's permit was accused of groping an 18-year-old woman in a nightclub twice. The judge ruled that 'in consideration of the devastating collateral immigration consequences to recording a conviction, I conclude that the appropriate sentence for Mr. Singh is a conditional discharge with a probation order of maximum duration, 3 years.' Article content Article content Rempel Garner insists that when 'it comes to sentencing non-citizens, Canada has essentially adopted a system of two-tier justice where judges can and have given lighter sentences to individuals who are non-citizens.' Article content The Conservatives are proposing a bill that would prohibit immigration discounts in sentencing. Great news! Courts have been more lenient on non-citizens since 2013, at times going light on sex offenders to help them remain in Canada. That can change if Parliament wills it. — Jamie Sarkonak (@sarkonakj) August 13, 2025 Article content Article content Rempel Garner said the Conservatives intend to introduce legislation to amend the Criminal Code. 'Our bill will add a section after Section 718.202 … which will expressly outline that any potential impact of a sentence on the immigration status of a convicted non-citizen offender, or … their family members, should not be taken into consideration by a judge when issuing a sentence.' Article content Acknowledging that the vast majority of immigrants and temporary residents in Canada abide by the law, she said 'removing non-citizens convicted of serious crimes is a no-brainer. Conservatives will always fight to protect Canadians, the value of our citizenship and the safety of every person who lives here. Becoming a Canadian is a privilege, not a right.'
Vancouver Sun
4 hours ago
- Vancouver Sun
Conservatives aiming to amend Criminal Code so immigration status won't be a factor in sentencing
When Parliament resumes this fall, a Conservative MP says her party will introduce legislation to end consideration of immigration status when a judge is sentencing a convicted criminal who is not a citizen. Michelle Rempel Garner, MP for Calgary Nose Hill and shadow minister for Immigration, said the practice has essentially resulted in a two-tier justice system that allows non-citizens to get lighter sentences than Canadians convicted of the same crime. 'This offends all principles of fairness that should be foundational to our justice system,' Rempel Garner said at a press conference in Ottawa on Wednesday. She pointed to a 2013 Supreme Court of Canada decision that she says has permitted judges to consider immigration status at the sentencing stage of a case. In that case, R. v. Pham , the accused was a non‑citizen, convicted of two drug‑related offences. The trial judge imposed a sentence of two years' imprisonment. However, the Supreme Court noted that under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, a non‑citizen sentenced to a term of imprisonment of at least two years loses the right to appeal a removal order against him or her. In reducing Pham's sentence, the Supreme Court ruled that 'collateral immigration consequences' are relevant factors that a sentencing judge may take into account in determining an appropriate sentence, but added that those consequences should not influence whether or not deportation occurs. Rempel Garner cited a few recent cases that relied on the Pham ruling in handing down a sentence. In the first example, a permanent resident was convicted of trying to buy sex from a police officer posing as a 15-year-old in an online sting operation. The Crown sought a 90-day jail sentence. Ontario Court judge Paul O'Marra wrote that a criminal record would likely prevent the offender from sponsoring his wife to also become a permanent resident, as well as delay the offender's eligibility for Canadian citizenship and jeopardize his ability to become a licensed engineer. O'Marra concluded that 'a custodial sentence would be unduly harsh' and instead handed down a conditional discharge with 12 months of probation, which included three months of house arrest. In establishing the basis for his reasoning, he wrote: 'The Pham decision stands for the principle that collateral consequences, while not determinative, can justify a lower sentence within the legal range to avoid disproportionate hardship,' In an Alberta case cited by Rempel Garner, a man in Canada on a visitor's permit was accused of groping an 18-year-old woman in a nightclub twice. The judge ruled that 'in consideration of the devastating collateral immigration consequences to recording a conviction, I conclude that the appropriate sentence for Mr. Singh is a conditional discharge with a probation order of maximum duration, 3 years.' Rempel Garner insists that when 'it comes to sentencing non-citizens, Canada has essentially adopted a system of two-tier justice where judges can and have given lighter sentences to individuals who are non-citizens.' The Conservatives are proposing a bill that would prohibit immigration discounts in sentencing. Great news! Courts have been more lenient on non-citizens since 2013, at times going light on sex offenders to help them remain in Canada. That can change if Parliament wills it. Rempel Garner said the Conservatives intend to introduce legislation to amend the Criminal Code. 'Our bill will add a section after Section 718.202 … which will expressly outline that any potential impact of a sentence on the immigration status of a convicted non-citizen offender, or … their family members, should not be taken into consideration by a judge when issuing a sentence.' Acknowledging that the vast majority of immigrants and temporary residents in Canada abide by the law, she said 'removing non-citizens convicted of serious crimes is a no-brainer. Conservatives will always fight to protect Canadians, the value of our citizenship and the safety of every person who lives here. Becoming a Canadian is a privilege, not a right.' Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here .
