Posted: Tue May 27, 2008 11:51 am Post subject: French Court Vindicates Al-Dura Hoax Critic
Hopefully France 2 and Charles Enderlin will apologise to the world for fabricating the lie of Israelis being responsible for the death of Mohammed Al Durah, which was the main excuse to start the Intifada.
Will they apologise to Israel and compensate the families of the thousands of people murdered during the Intifada because of their faux photography???
In a stunning reversal, a French appeals court today dismissed France 2's defamation charges against Philippe Karsenty in the controversial Mohammed al-Dura case.
Today a French court ruled that I did not defame France 2 when I said that its news report was a staged hoax. Because I refused to be brainwashed, I was sued for defamation.
Our victory today was a victory for freedom — the freedom to think and to speak one’s mind; the freedom to question what one is told; and the freedom to disbelieve the solemn pronouncements of others when the individual concludes that his reasoning is correct and that the state and the state-run media — and all of the institutions they represent — are wrong.
The al-Dura lie is an assault on our ability to think, to criticize, to evaluate, and finally to reject information — especially the right to reject information on which we base our most cherished assumptions. One of Europe’s most cherished assumptions is that Israel is a vicious Nazi-like entity that deliberately murders Palestinian Arab children. Moreover, polls conducted in Europe have identified Israel as the greatest threat to world peace, greater than Iran and North Korea, Pakistan and Syria. The al-Dura hoax is one of the pillars on which these assumptions rely.
It is ironic that I, a private individual, had to lecture one of France’s most influential TV stations in order to demonstrate that a child cannot move; lift his head, arm, and leg; stare at the camera; and still be considered “dead” a good 10 seconds after the newscaster tells us “the child is dead.” One need only look at France 2’s own footage to realize that the “death” scene was faked.
My only objective was to correct this error. However, on the part of the French media, it turned into a titanic battle against critical thinking and freedom of thought and expression. On my part, it became a battle for the right not to be brainwashed by the French media. Only a few weeks ago, a French television station produced a documentary “proving” that the al-Dura story is authentic. First, I was compared to a Holocaust denier, and then to the fringe elements that insist that 9/11 was an inside job. I, and others who share my opinion about the story, including Richard Landes, were labeled dangerous extremists and fanatics. All the while, viewers observed the “dead” boy move exactly as I just described it. I can only conclude that, in France, it is critical thinking that is either dead or dying. Every French citizen should be complaining about this insult to our intelligence. In fact, very few complain because mass brainwashing works. Where are the angry letters to the station for its absurd documentary? Do the citizens of France now believe that a “dead” boy can move? Or have they merely forgotten how to think and draw their own conclusions?
The right to think, to speak, to evaluate, to accept, and to reject the conclusions of others goes to the very heart of what it means to be free.
Now it is time for France 2 to acknowledge that it created and is continuing to perpetuate the worst anti-Semitic libel of our era. It’s the responsibility of the French government and, ultimately, the responsibility of the French president, Nicolas Sarkozy — who is, for all practical purposes, the chief executive of French public television — to finally reveal the truth.
Philippe Karsenty is the founder and president of Media-Ratings, an agency that closely monitors French media outlets for anti-American and anti-Israeli bias.
This is a raw video of the events at Netzarim on September 30, 2000. You won't see Mohamed al-Dura and his father Jamal until about 7:30 into the film - about a minute and a half before it ends. You will see two other 'youths' lying 'dead' in the street and you will see them pick their heads up and move.
You also will not see Mohamed al-Dura shot and you won't see him die. Some of you may recall that in the past I have shown video of him moving and looking towards the camera after he is 'dead.' [PLEASE WATCH THE VIDEO LINKED ABOVE BEFORE YOU WATCH THE ONE BELOW. THE VIDEO ABOVE WILL EXPLAIN WHAT THE AL-DURA CASE IS ALL ABOUT. CiJ]
The French Court of Appeals on Wednesday found in favor of Philippe Karsenty, overturning a lower court decision that he had libeled France 2 and its Middle East correspondent Charles Enderlin when he accused them of knowingly misleading the world public about the death of the Palestinian child Mohammed al-Dura in the Gaza Strip in 2000.
"The verdict means we have the right to say France 2 broadcast a fake news report, that [al-Dura's shooting] was a staged hoax and that they duped everybody - without being sued," Karsenty told The Jerusalem Post shortly after the verdict was issued at 1:30 p.m. Paris time.
Al-Dura was filmed cowering with his father Jalal behind a barrel at the Gaza Strip's Netzarim Junction on September 30, 2000, during an apparent gun battle between Palestinians and Israeli troops. 55 seconds of video were released to the world at the time, out of some 18 minutes that were shown in court and even more footage that France 2's detractors claim is not being shown to the public.
The video, taken by Palestinian cameraman and France 2 stringer Talal Abu Rahma, shows al-Dura hiding, and then cuts to footage of him lying, apparently dead, at the junction. It does not show the child killed.
The death-footage of al-Dura, 12, became a cause célèbre in the Muslim world. According to Middle East and media expert Tom Gross, "Osama bin Laden referred to al-Dura in a post-9/11 video; the killers of Daniel Pearl placed a picture of him in their beheading video; streets, squares and academies have been named after al-Dura throughout the Muslim world. He became a poster child for the Intifada."
Karsenty, the head of the media watchdog Media Ratings, was sued for libel after calling for Enderlin's and France 2 news director Arlette Chabot's dismissal, saying the footage was "a hoax." Enderlin has vehemently denied the charge, expressing confidence in cameraman Abu Rahma's honesty.
A statement forwarded to The Jerusalem Post from Enderlin noted that "the appeals court ruled that Karsenty's words were, in fact, libelous, and that Karsenty failed to prove that the news was staged and/or false." The statement added that the case was nevertheless overturned because "the court believed Karsenty had the right to stridently criticize the [France 2] report, since it dealt with an emotional topic, and that Karsenty's investigation into the matter convinced the court he was bring sincere."
A source close to Enderlin's side of the case explained that "you can get out of a libel suit either by proving you're right, or by showing you were sincere and had some research. The court found the latter to be the case."
The source also said Enderlin and France 2 would appeal the verdict, noting that they had won three out of four instances of judgment in the matter.
But, replied Karsenty, the only appeal left would be to France's Supreme Court.
"If they continue to insist they are correct," added Karsenty, "we will have victims of terror attacks that directly resulted from the [al-Dura] footage sue France 2."
Karsenty also called on French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who Karsenty sees as "ultimately responsible" for the public-owned television station, "to take responsibility for the French state's defense of the worst anti-Semitic lie around. It's time to apologize to the world for broadcasting a fake news report that has inflamed the Muslim world and endangered world peace."
Karsenty's claims are based on inconsistencies in the footage, including a publically-available video-taped admission by Abu Rahma that there are untold secrets related to the case, the fact that only seven bullet holes are seen behind al-Dura despite Abu Rahma's repeated statements that the child survived 45 minutes of continuous shooting by Israeli forces at the boy, footage clearly showing pretend gun battles and faked ambulance runs at the junction that day, testimony of the IDF soldiers stationed at the junction who said they did not participate in any firefight that day, and the lack of footage of al-Dura's actual shooting.
The JTA published a report following one of the appeal hearings with the headline "Raw footage in al-Dura case shows boy may not be dead." It noted that "many of those who saw it in court ... said the footage showed that seconds after al-Dura was seen lying motionless and apparently dead in the arms of his father after supposedly being shot, the boy lifted his arm and peered through his fingers at the camera."
According to the JTA: "Witnesses said they were taken aback when they saw al-Dura lift his head up after allegedly being shot."
"Enderlin had cut that scene from the report that was originally broadcast in September 2000," said the former editor of Le Monde, Luc Rosensweig. "But when everyone in the courtroom saw it, you could feel the tension and the surprise. I believe that this screening of the raw footage in court was very damaging for France 2 officials and Enderlin, largely because of that last scene."
Several months ago, the deputy commander of the IDF Spokesman's Office, Col. Shlomi Am-Shalom, wrote to France 2 asking for the entire unedited 27-minute film shot by France 2's Palestinian cameraman on September 30, 2000, as well as footage the cameraman filmed on October 1, 2000. Am-Shalom stressed that the IDF had "ruled out" the notion that al-Dura was killed by Israeli fire.
Citing the findings of the IDF's probe into the incident, ordered by then-OC Southern Command Maj.-Gen. Yom Tov Samia, Am-Shalom wrote, "The general has made clear that from an analysis of all the data from the scene, including the location of the IDF position, the trajectory of the bullets, the location of the father [Jamal al-Dura] and the son behind an obstacle, the cadence of the bullet fire, the angle at which the bullets penetrated the wall behind the father and his son, and the hours of the events, we can rule out with the greatest certainty the possibility that the gunfire that apparently harmed the boy and his father was fired by IDF soldiers, who were at the time located only inside their fixed position [at the junction]."
After a previous court hearing in the case, last September, France 2 communications director Christine de la Vena told JTA these "hearings are of little importance." "Enderlin is a top professional journalist and the images are real," she said. "Everyone has forgotten about this case except this man in the hearing and a couple of others who refuse to give it up. Only in France could a couple of individuals cause so much trouble."
According to reports, French media did not cover the verdict's delivery on Wednesday. The final verdict has not yet been released to the media.
More details to follow. But word from Paris is that the court dismissed charges against Philippe Karsenty today. Now we get to see how the French (and Western) MSM handle this. It’s a stunning victory for Karsenty and loss for Enderlin and France2 who initiated this case when they didn’t have to.
In order for an appeals court to reverse a decision, they must have strong evidence to the contrary.
The fact that they did indicates that their written decision will be very critical of France2. The implications of this decision are immense. We’ll be following up in the days, weeks and months to come.
In the Emperor’s New Clothes when the boy (Shahaf, Juffa, Poller, me, Karsenty) said the emperor (France2, MSM) is naked, the father turned on his son and tried to hush him. But someone else then says, “Listen to the boy!” That happened today in Paris.
Franceinfo in which Maitre Amblard, the lawyer for France2 suggests that her clients are seriously considering appealing the decision to the "cour de cassation." Those whom the gods would destroy, first they drive mad.
Breath of the Beast: brilliant analysis by a man I'm proud to call my associate.
Haviv Rettig at the Jerusalem Post: Rettig's is the most informative item out so far, with responses from both Karsenty and Enderlin/France2 (who seem like they'll take this to the supreme court).
AP, typically about six steps behind the curve (still discussing who killed the boy).
Liberation: which has some of the language of the court decision including the observation that, athough the claims of Karsenty were indeed defamatory in that they struck at the honor and reputation of the "information professionals", given the impact of the images, it was nonetheless legitimate for an agency of media critique to to call into question the manner in which the footage was filmed and diffused, and that the court's close examination of the rushes has led it to believe that they cannot dismiss the claims of professionals heard in the course of the hearings who had put the original report in doubt. Promising.
Le Point: good article, extremely interesting comments including one from someone who started out supporting Enderlin and then saw the evidence... shades of Dreyfus.
IsraelValley: French, short, refers to Karsenty's interview on Radio J.
Enderlin's blog: where he promises to take this to the highest court.
Véronique Chemla at Guysen: the most extensive and annotated discussion (as usual).
Gérard Huber on his own blog: characteristically enigmatic (he refers to the "Al Durah Enigma" rather than "Affair"). I'll try my hand at translating one passage:
Cette fuite devant le traumatisme de la réalité qui a été préalablement remplacée par un cauchemar éveillé est un des phénomènes les plus inquiétants de la morale civilisée dans une société de culture mondialisée comme la nôtre.
[This flight from the trauma of reality which had been previously replaced by a waking nightmare is one of the most disquieting phenomena of civilized morality in a society of globalized culture like ours.]
A new French committee will investigate the death of the Palestinian boy Mohammed al-Dura, who, according to a French television report, was killed by IDF gunfire on Sep. 30, 2000, the first day of the second intifada.
The committee, set up by the French public broadcasting authority, will examine the validity of the original television report in light of repeated accusations that it was deliberately falsified.
Doctor accused of slandering Palestinian who claimed he was injured by IDF acquitted by French Supreme Court
The French Supreme Court on Wednesday acquitted an Israeli doctor accused of slandering a Palestinian man who claimed he was injured by the IDF during the second intifada.
The Palestinian man, Jamal al-Dura, and his 12-year-old son Muhammad, became the symbol of the Al-Aqsa Intifada, when the two were caught in a fire exchange in the Netzarim Junction. The boy was killed in the incident, triggering a blame game: The Palestinians accused Israel for Muhammad's death, while Israeli officials claimed he was hit by Palestinian fire.
The father, who survived the ordeal, relayed his version before the media, showing the scars that he incurred in the incident. The claim prompted Dr. Yehuda David of Tel Hashomer Hospital to reveal that the scars were actually a result of a surgery the father had performed years earlier, after al-Dura was attacked by Hamas operatives who suspected him of collaborating with Israel.
Al-Dura decided to sue David, and last year a Paris court ruled against the doctor due to the fact he released information from al-Dura's medical records. He was ordered to compensate al-Dura with €13,000, but decided to appeal the ruling at the French Supreme Court.
"It couldn't have turned out better," David told Ynet after the ruling was overturned. "It means that I spoke the truth, and the father just lied.
"We managed to deconstruct their false statements. All the scientific evidence that we collected for the past 12 years proves that the incident was staged and fake. They made up the father's injury, and the IDF troops never shot the boy."
David has recently begun raising funds to fight what he calls the "Palestinian's false anti-Israel propaganda," and said that Deputy Prime Minister Moshe Ya'alon has joined the effort.
"I recently opened a Facebook page in order to collect funding for the fight against the Palestinians' mendacious propaganda," David said. "I got a phone call from Ya'alon, and on Sunday he will put a proposal on the justice minister's desk to allocate funds, and then we will take this venture on the road… This will put an end to the lies." _________________ He who is merciful with the cruel, will end-up being cruel to the merciful
- Kohelet Rabba 7:16
Of course... but that would never happen! _________________ He who is merciful with the cruel, will end-up being cruel to the merciful
- Kohelet Rabba 7:16
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Favorites
Profile
Log in
