Showing posts with label Pallywood. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Pallywood. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 20, 2014
Tuesday, July 29, 2014
Monday, June 15, 2009
Pallywood - Mohammad Badwan
The amazing life and deeds of Mohammed Badwan - The Human Shield
Imagine a Palestinian boy who, as any other boy, liked football, playing in the yard, taunting his sisters, catching flies, running away from the boring lessons at school, etc. All was well with Mohammed Badwan until the the black magic of the Israeli military drastically changed the life of the lad. Here is his picture - during the first encounter with IDF:
The first time the name of the youngster comes up in the Palestinian chronicles is an article (_adalah.org/eng/pressreleases/04_05_03nl.php_) on the Adalah site:
Most recently, on 15 April 2004, the Israeli military used Mohammed Badwan, a 12-year-old Palestinian boy from Biddo, West Bank as a human shield. Mohammed was taking part in a demonstration against the construction of The Wall in Biddo.Not nice, agreed. But obviously the boy made a lasting impression on the Zionist aggressors, because a week barely passed, and he is used again - and in the same capacity (but now he is an year older). Electronic Intifada (_electronicintifada.net/v2/article2614.shtml_) knows the details:
According to the same sources, on 22nd April 2004, a 13 year old boy called Mohammed Said Essa Badwan/Badran was used as a human shield. Mohammed was peacefully taking part in spontaneous demonstration...It becomes a habit with IDF (or with young Mohammed) apparently. Or, you can say, an innocent mistake in the date - nothing special.
But the amazing career of young Muhammad is only budding, just wait a bit. He is used again, now, according to Amnesty International (_amnestyusa.org/annualreport.php?id=ar&yr=2005&c=ISR_) report for 2005:
In April, Israeli soldiers used 13-year-old Muhammed Badwan as a "human shield" during a demonstration in the West Bank village of Biddu. The soldiers placed the boy on the hood of their jeep and tied him to the front windscreen to discourage Palestinian demonstrators from throwing stones in their direction.Notice that he is still 13 years old. Again, it could be a clerical mistake, but the boy shows resilience and is highly reusable in his role of a human shield. This is probably why the Zionists decided to put him in some (hitherto secret) suspended animation machine. Apparently his age plays a critical role in their nefarious plans, since the next record of his appearance relates to 2007 (_lists.resist.ca/pipermail/onthebarricades/2008-April/000480.html_):
Palestinain children as young as 11 were used as human shields during an Israeli military invasion of Nablus in March 2007. 13 year-old Mohammad Badwan was tied by the arm to an Israeli military jeep...It is Nablus now and three years later, but he is still 13 years old! And March of 2007 sees his return to Bidou in the same role. According to the Live Leak (_liveleak.com/view?i=76d_1173007758_)
Israeli human rights activists have accused border police of using a 13-year-old Palestinian as a human shield. Rabbis for Human Rights say that Mohammed Badwan was tied by police to a jeep during a recent demonstration in the West Bank village of Bidou.This was posted in March 2007 too. Surely our boy gets around. Besides, is it possible that he's developed some affinity for a specific border police jeep? Because the picture used is usually the same, sometimes cropped and sometimes not.
And if you thought for a moment that the wretched semi-existence of Mohammad, which could be described as frozen - woken up - tied to a jeep - frozen again, has a happy end, you are mistaken, because he was activated again recently - in 2009, according to Pakistani Scandals (_pakistaniscandals.wordpress.com/2009/01/07/palestinian-child-used-as-human-shield-by-israel_):
This is what happened to a Palestinian child who joined Teenagers throwing stones at Israeli border police. Muhammad Badwan was grabbed by officers and tied by an arm to the grille covering the windscreen of their security vehicle. Last night the 13 year olds father said the police had illegally used his son as a human Shield to try to stop the demonstrators throwing stones at them.There are more events with different dates where Muhammad participated, but I hope you have got the picture by now.
Monday, April 6, 2009
Muhammad al-Dura: Theater of the Absurd?
Original article
Was the "killing" of a Palestinian boy in Gaza by the Israeli army in 2000 staged?
April 6, 2009 - by Stephanie L. Freid
Was the "killing" of a Palestinian boy in Gaza by the Israeli army in 2000 staged?
April 6, 2009 - by Stephanie L. Freid
When ARDdocumentary filmmaker Esther Schapira viewed the now iconic images of Muhammad al-Dura and his father Jamal back in 2000 she felt there was more of a story to tell. So she set out to produce a film called How Soldiers Live with the Knowledge of Killing a Young Child. But during her research it emerged that this wasn’t simply the story of a Palestinian boy killed by Israeli soldiers. “It wasn’t clear who killed him,” Schapira said. “But ultimately it appeared highly unlikely that he was killed by Israel.”
So she ditched the original idea and instead made the documentary Three Bullets and a Dead Child, which shows the nearly impossible likelihood that the boy was shot and killed by the Israeli army. Schapira admitted that while she was researching the documentary, evidence also surfaced suggesting the incident was staged. But she left that aside.
When the documentary aired nationally in Germany, public reaction was tremendous. Schapira was accused of whitewashing the Israeli army’s actions and she received death threats. She hired security guards and chose to part ways with the al-Dura affair. Busy working on other documentaries, she said she “didn’t want to get too involved with one specific story.” But in 2008, French mediaanalyst Philippe Karsenty used some of her footage in French courts to hammer home his theory that France 2 Television’s al-Dura report was staged. The courts ruled in Karsenty’s favor, prompting Schapira to roll up her sleeves and go back in for another round.
Her latest work — The Child, the Death and the Truth: The Mystery of the Palestinian Boy Mohammed Al-Dura — aired in Germany this month. This time Schapira and crew went back to ask follow-up questions about issues that had surfaced the first time around. “Why don’t we see blood in the images?” Schapira asks. “That didn’t make sense to me back then. There was a claim of three bullets to the child — 15 fired on him and his father altogether — but no blood.”
And then there was the issue of missing video. France 2’s cameraman claimed to have shot six minutes of video but only 52 seconds were ever aired. That remained a sticking point. The decisive “moment of death” appears non-existent. Schapira said her professional background told her there might be a cover-up underway.
“There was a lie,” Schapira said by phone from Germany. “It was clear there must’ve been something else going on because from my professional background and from working in news for quite a while, I found it highly unlikely that an experienced cameraman with tape in his camera — 15 minutes worth and battery life — would film less than a minute when confronted with such strong images. It went against all my professional experience.”
What wasn’t being shown to the public? Was it a clear view of bullets coming from the Palestinian side? Or a sequence showing how the child is killed?
Schapira procured images from Mohammed al-Dura’s Gazan autopsy and hired German biometric facial imaging expert Kurt Kindermann to compare the autopsy, the funeral, and the France 2 images. Kindermann concluded that the boy at the funeral and in the morgue were most likely one and the same. They were not, however, the same boy seen crouching beside his father in the famous video sequence. “We tried to investigate if he died shortly after [the shooting], but the only proof was always the funeral scene,” Schapira said “It seemed to be clear that a boy was killed, but with this new evidence it is not clear anymore.”
Schapira presents these findings in her latest documentary along with an impossible timeline sequence: Mohammed al-Dura was shot at 2 p.m., but the Gaza morgue says he was brought in at 10 a.m. “I think it’s strong evidence that there is no proof that Mohammed al-Dura is dead,” Schapira concluded. “There’s no proof he’s alive but no proof either that he’s dead.”
But the issue of al-Dura’s mortality wasn’t the focal point in producing the latest piece. For Schapira, this was about the ongoing battle between viewers, the media, and truth. She said:
People view footage and believe they are eyewitnesses to an event when in fact they are not. I knew this before but never realized it so acutely until working on this documentary. The problem usually lies with a correspondent who didn’t see an event with his own eyes. Information is delivered by fixers at the spot who may not be free of their own political agenda, and we journalists report it but have no way of validating. And if the images fit a theory or idea we already have in our minds, they are the most dangerous of all because we don’t question them.
A hoax? The entire al-Dura event completely staged? I have a tough time with that. The footage is too grainy and the shot too long to see blood. I haven’t seen close-ups, but I don’t believe the expressions of terror seen on the faces of father and son could have been faked. And an awful lot of people would have had to have been in collusion to pull off that kind of hoax. I’ve spoken with journalists who were in Gaza the day after the incident, people who met with al-Dura family members and traveled to Jordan to speak with Jamal as he recovered in hospital from gunshot wounds. They don’t believe it’s a hoax.
Regardless, after talking with Esther I was troubled. So I telephoned Israeli journalist Adi Schwartz, who has covered al-Dura extensively. “Talk to me about the hoax theory; I’m struggling with it,” I said.
“Leave that aside and I’ll give you a different angle to think about,” Adi countered. “Usually in journalism and life, when a claim is brought forward, the burden of proof is on the claimant not the other way around. In the al-Dura story it is the other way around. Charles Enderlin and France 2 claimed the IDF killed a boy, but I interviewed Enderlin and he has no proof it’s true. His line is that Israel has killed a lot of children. It’s like if the sun comes up in the East, then the IDF kills children. That attitude is flawed. It’s been nine years and still there’s no absolute proof. And yet Enderlin stands firm. It’s flawed.”
Saturday, February 7, 2009
Australian in Palestine account of children suicide bombers
Daryl Jones is an australian volunteer aid worker duped by Palestinian propaganda propaganda to come to their aid but later realized that they were engaged in a bloodlust game to destroy the lives of children.
She recounts how Palestinians displayed photos of bodies, "gouged and pitted, torn. We were told this is from torture from the Israelis." Later, when she saw a Palestinian child blow up in front of her face, she realized that the ripped apart bodies were the result of human booby traps that the Palestinians used against the Israelis.
She was featured in "The Road to Jenin" film by French director Pierre Rehov.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Palestinians Booby Trap Zoo, Blame Israel
Original article
VIDEO | Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 7:13:40 pm PST
Hamas is trying to wring some sympathy out of the world’s animal lovers, with a propaganda video accusing the Israelis of targeting the Gaza Zoo for a heinous massacre:
It might be more believable if the IDF hadn’t already taken their own video, showing the same zoo wired up with explosives by Hamas:
Here’s a look at what life was like for animals in the Gaza Zoo under Hamas’ tender loving care:
VIDEO | Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 7:13:40 pm PST
Hamas is trying to wring some sympathy out of the world’s animal lovers, with a propaganda video accusing the Israelis of targeting the Gaza Zoo for a heinous massacre:
It might be more believable if the IDF hadn’t already taken their own video, showing the same zoo wired up with explosives by Hamas:
Here’s a look at what life was like for animals in the Gaza Zoo under Hamas’ tender loving care:
Sunday, January 25, 2009
We Need to Expose the Muhammad al-Dura Hoax
by Philippe Karsenty
Middle East Quarterly
Fall 2008, pp. 57-65
Middle East Quarterly
Fall 2008, pp. 57-65
Editors' preface:
Philippe Karsenty is the founder and president of Media-Ratings (www.M-R.fr), an online media watchdog. In November 2004, he published an article entitled "Arlette Chabot and Charles Enderlin Must Be Fired Immediately,"[1] alleging that France 2, the television news station for which Chabot and Enderlin worked, violated journalistic standards by airing footage depicting as fact the alleged shooting of Muhammad al-Dura, a 12-year-old Palestinian boy, by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF). The Dura tapes showed a 12-year-old boy crouching behind his father while only one bullet whistles and pops in the background; it is clear now that during the fifty-five seconds of aired footage, the boy was not fired at and that, at the end of the film, he remained alive. Karsenty claimed the footage was staged by Palestinian cameraman Talal Abu Rahma, who staged similar scenes elsewhere in the eighteen minutes of the tape that Karsenty viewed.
After France 2 aired the clip as fact and then distributed the footage for free, other networks rebroadcast it. The death of Dura at the hands of the IDF became a cause célèbre throughout the Muslim world, inspiring violence and anti-Semitism.[2]
In the article, Karsenty also announced his readiness to defend his claims in court.[3] Chabot and Enderlin subsequently sued Karsenty for defamation in a French court of law.[4]
The French court, against the recommendation of the public prosecutor who had argued in favor of Karsenty's free speech rights, initially ruled in favor of Chabot and Enderlin and ordered Karsenty to pay a symbolic fine of one euro to each plaintiff, as well as a 1,000 euro fine and 3,000 euros in court costs.[5]
In September 2007, the Eleventh Chamber of the Appeals Court of Paris heard Karsenty's appeal. The judge demanded that France 2 turn over the twenty-seven minutes of raw footage. Enderlin, however, claimed he was not in possession of the rest of the tape. Three French journalists who were invited by France 2 to see the footage testified to seeing twenty-four minutes of film preceding the footage of Dura, in which young Palestinians are performing for the television cameras, falling and getting up when they think that no one is watching.[6] In the end, only eighteen minutes of the entire tape were shown in court, and none depicted Dura being killed. In fact, at the end of the footage shown in court, the boy is still clearly alive.[7]
Karsenty won his appeal on May 21, 2008.[8]
Brooke Goldstein conducted this interview with Karsenty in two parts, the first in New York City on October 4, 2007, and the second, by telephone on May 27, 2008, after Karsenty's victory.
The Lawsuit
Middle East Quarterly: What specifically led France 2 television to sue you for defamation?
Philippe Karsenty: The defamatory words were that the Muhammad al-Dura tapes are fakes, a hoax, that Charles Enderlin was misled, that he misled people, and that he should resign.
MEQ: What is defamation under French law?
Karsenty: Under French law, defamation is the inability to prove the truth of a statement at the time the statement was made. This means that even if France 2 apologizes now and admits fault, I could still not win my case because the court could determine that when I published my statements, I didn't have enough evidence to assert that what I was saying was true. This is an absurd system of law.
MEQ: So truth is not a defense to defamation?
Karsenty: Yes, truth is a defense to defamation, but it has to be a truth known and proven at the time the claim was made. The burden of proof is on the defendant's shoulders. If the Israeli government had sued France 2 for defamation, for example, the situation would have been reversed: France 2 would have had to defend its slander rather than accuse me of defamation.
MEQ: Why don't you sue France 2 for defamation or fraud? Why are you on the defensive?
Karsenty: That case had to be undertaken by the Israeli state, which did not take this opportunity. Shurat Hadin, an Israeli public interest law firm, tried to take away the press credentials of France 2, but the Israeli government refused, and the Israeli Supreme Court has yet to deliver a verdict on that case.
MEQ: Why?
Karsenty: Because the Israeli government, apparently, would rather appease its enemies than fight back.
MEQ: Could you file a lawsuit against France 2 for defamation against you and against the State of Israel?
Karsenty: Under French law, I wouldn't have standing since I was not the one who was defamed.
MEQ: In your first trial, the judge felt that there was no need to enter the Muhammad al-Dura tapes into evidence. What does this say about the right to discovery in French courts and their due process rules? How is the judge supposed to determine anything about the tapes if he does not care to see them?
Karsenty: The court said that since I hadn't seen the tapes at the time, the court should not take them into account. True, I didn't see the tapes, but I knew people who did and who told me of their content, which is why I felt comfortable coming to the conclusion that I did.
MEQ: Your conclusion, however, was based on hearsay.
Karsenty: My first conclusion was based on what I saw from the France 2 news report on Muhammad al-Dura, on allegations by Nahum Shahaf [an Israeli physicist and reservist with the optical intelligence unit of the IDF],[9] and on my subsequent investigation. What they aired to the public was ridiculous. In those minutes, Muhammad al-Dura showed no agony, and none of the actors were hit by any bullet.
MEQ: You said that the majority of the twenty-seven minutes not initially shown to the public are rushes and staged scenes. Laurence Trebucq, the new judge on appeal, ordered the tapes released but only within the court. Why doesn't she release the images to the general public?
Karsenty: We don't know yet.
MEQ: In the ruling against you in the lower court, the judge went against the recommendation of the public prosecutor who said there was no evidence that you acted with personal animosity, but the judge also seemed upset when he read the judgment against you, and he awarded the plaintiff very little. What does this say to you?
Karsenty: That the judge may have felt uncomfortable, received orders, and was not proud of what he was doing.
MEQ: Received orders from whom?
Karsenty: Perhaps instructions or advice from the justice minister or the people around him. By the way, the judges have no expertise in forensic science or ballistics, nor did they draw on any such expertise.
MEQ: Are you saying that the French courts are not independent judiciaries?
Karsenty: I am not saying that all judges are not so independent. All I am saying is that if you read the verdict that was published two years ago, it seems that it is not really an independent judgment.
MEQ: Was there corruption in your case?
Karsenty: Not at all. You don't need to buy people who are completely brainwashed. Charles Enderlin is like the capo di tutti capi; he is a godfather: he is a moral authority. I went against a case defended by the biggest guy in the Middle East journalism corporate world. Enderlin even used to give advice to diplomats. Let me give you an example: A French journalist told me that when Dominique de Villepin was foreign minister and went to Jerusalem, he gathered all the French correspondents at the embassy, and before his speech, he said, "What does Charles think?" It's unbelievable.
MEQ: So Charles Enderlin is the conscience of France when it comes to the Middle East, and you offended their conscience?
Karsenty: You said it, not me.
MEQ: Who is funding your case?
Karsenty: I funded it myself. I used to be a stockbroker, and then I began doing financial consulting with companies. I have also received honoraria for speeches in the United States.
MEQ: Other people have also said that the Muhammad al-Dura tapes are forgeries. Why did France 2 target you and only you?
Karsenty: Yes, Gerard Huber has said that;[10] James Fallows said that the boy was not killed by the IDF, but he did not say that the incident was staged.[11] The reason they targeted me is because at the time I published it, I had credibility through Media-Ratings [the media watchdog group Karsenty founded in 2004], and I had been invited to give comments about all sorts of topics and media inaccuracies.
What Happened to Muhammad al-Dura?
MEQ: There are different theories about the fate of Muhammad al-Dura. Some say he was killed by the Palestinians, and others say he is alive at the end of the tape but are not clear if he is alive now. What is your version of the incident?
Karsenty: We shouldn't talk about theories but about facts and evidence. At the end of the France 2 film, the boy is not dead. He is raising his elbow and looking at the cameraman. These images are available on Richard Landes' website and on Youtube.[12] If you look at the images, you will see that the boy is clearly not dead. There are no bullet wounds or blood. Those images were never broadcast in France, but they were shown in England on the BBC and in Arab countries. What amazes me is that nobody said, "Wait a minute. There is a problem here." It doesn't make sense. In a news report done one year after his son's alleged death, Dura's father says the first bullet hit his son on the right knee,[13] but the tape shows not a single drop of blood there; it is ridiculous. Nothing makes sense in his version, but nobody wanted to look at the images.
Israel's Silence
MEQ: Circumstantial evidence tends to support your case that the Muhammad al-Dura incident was a staged blood libel. For example, CNN refused cameraman Talal Abu Rahma's initial offer to sell the tapes because he would not guarantee them as real. The twenty-seven minutes of rushes looked staged and rehearsed. A Reuters cameraman recorded Rahma filming other staged events. On what basis did the lower court decide against you?
Karsenty: The Israeli government's refusal to question the tapes was important. The court had a letter from [then-]French president Jacques Chirac praising the journalistic integrity of Charles Enderlin. We both had witness testimony, but the plaintiffs brought Palestinians who testified that the Israelis shot at the father and son with planes, helicopters, and antitank missiles although there was no evidence of any of this on the tapes. Although the plaintiffs' witnesses sounded ridiculous, the judge said, "They testified, and we shouldn't dismiss it because they are Palestinian. They were there, and you were not."
MEQ: Why did Chirac write a letter to the court on behalf of Charles Enderlin?
Karsenty: Chirac wrote a letter commending Charles Enderlin and his attention to accuracy[14] in his latest book. Chirac's team knew this letter would be used at the trial, but the letter was not directly about the Muhammad al-Dura footage. Chirac did this to further his idea of France's politique-arabe.
MEQ: After the lower court ruled against you—in part because the Israeli government did not come to your defense—the IDF wrote to Charles Enderlin requesting that he hand over the footage and saying that the court's statement was not an accurate reflection of the IDF position, and that they wanted to see the tapes.[15] Was this a reaction to the court's decision or a 180-degree shift in Israel's public relations position?
Karsenty: We had been working desperately to get this letter from the IDF.
MEQ: What contributed to the change in Israeli governmental policy towards you?
Karsenty: When the government was fighting such a difficult campaign on the ground, it just wanted to put the Muhammad al-Dura affair behind it. But lies endure. If the good name of Israel is besmirched in this case, it will haunt the country for generations. Note that millions of people continue to believe in the anti-Semitic forgery The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Muhammad al-Dura postage stamps already exist in Tunisia, Egypt, Iran, and Jordan. Squares in Morocco and Mali and streets in many cities are named for Dura. Daniel Pearl was beheaded with the image of Muhammad al-Dura behind him. We need to expose the Dura hoax now so our children needn't suffer for this lie.
MEQ: It's obvious that Jerusalem should respond. Why doesn't the Israeli government do something now?
Karsenty: Some people who weren't in the Israeli government at the time the mistake was made used their absence as an excuse: "Since we didn't do it, it's not our responsibility to fix it." For others, it's a question of ego. They don't want to admit that they made a mistake in the first place.
MEQ: Why is Daniel Seaman, director of the Israeli government press office, not listening to the public interest law firm Shurat Hadin and stripping France 2 of its press credentials?
Karsenty: Seaman is a great guy; ask him. You can imagine how much pressure the Israeli establishment has put on him.
MEQ: Do you think Israel and the United States are losing the information war?
Karsenty: What war? They've already lost because they didn't even bother to fight.
The French Media
MEQ: Is there any media accountability in France? Is there any independent monitoring?
Karsenty: They have a mediateur [ombudsman] working between France television and the public. When I called him, he covered up the lie but was then replaced four years later. I called his replacement, who at first was excited to meet me but later called to say his boss forbade the meeting. I met perhaps twenty people at France 2, from the very bottom to the very top, before the case came to court.
MEQ: What prevents someone at France 2 from destroying the tape?
Karsenty: I don't know if anyone besides France 2 has copies. Someone from Fox News compared this to the Nixon tapes. The odd thing is the Nixon tapes also had an eighteen-minute gap. It is going to be huge when we confirm that international media used staged and fake footage. When the truth comes out, it will be devastating—that is, if the truth really does come out. Rather than accept responsibility, France 2 may say that I did make my statements in good faith but that I didn't prove the tapes were staged. This may be how they sweep this episode under the rug.
MEQ: Do you think that the French media seek to appease the local Muslim population?
Karsenty: The media go well beyond appeasement to incitement.
MEQ: You are saying France 2 actually sought to incite violence against the Jewish population by airing the Muhammad al-Dura tapes?
Karsenty: Yes, it used this as a form of pressure on Israel. Chirac used the French Jews as hostages. He seemed to say to the State of Israel, "I have 600,000 Jews in France, and if you don't behave correctly towards the Palestinians, we will show this footage and the Jews of France will be assaulted."
MEQ: Do the French people think that this is just your issue or just a Jewish problem? Do they see the larger implications? Are they not insulted that their media is lying to them?
Karsenty: For the French, if it's in the newspaper or on television, it's true. But thanks to this story, things are changing.
MEQ: The French media consistently ignores your case. Why?
Karsenty: I call France the "little U.S.S.R." The difference between the Soviet Union and France, however, is that the Soviets knew they were being lied to while the French think they know the truth.
MEQ: Will Nicolas Sarkozy's presidency change the situation?
Karsenty: He is now responsible. France 2 is state-owned television, which makes Sarkozy its owner. He should have France 2 apologize to the world. I brought him all the documents in 2005. I met two of his advisers in April 2008, who agreed that the incident was fully staged. But Sarkozy hasn't responded to date.
MEQ: How independent is the French media?
Karsenty: Everyone in the private media depends on the state in one way or another, which explains why they refused to report on my trial, even after foreign media began to cover it. When it comes to foreign policy, there is no independence in either public or private media.
MEQ: Do you think the broader press knows they are guilty of over-reliance on Palestinian fixers?
Karsenty: Yes. But it would be revolutionary for them to admit that they are dealing with fixers who are liars. It is the same thing in Iraq and in most Middle East countries.
MEQ: Was there any variation in how the French press covered the case, in what little they did cover?
Karsenty: Most of the media have been against me. The biggest weekly in France, the Nouvel Observateur, issued a petition to support Enderlin's lies. Guess what? Hundreds of journalists, personalities, and simple people signed it.[16]
MEQ: Why does the French media have not only an anti-Israel and anti-U.S. agenda but also a pro-Arab agenda?
Karsenty: The French don't like Arabs at all. The proof? They mistreat them in France, but they feel guilty for the way they treated them in the colonies.
MEQ: Do you sense hostility to Jews?
Karsenty: Yes, the French will never forgive Jews for exposing French collaboration in the Holocaust. This is one motivation for depicting Israel as a Nazi state. It is the French way of saying "We behaved no worse than the Jews do now." It helps the French feel less responsible for their collaboration with the Nazis.
MEQ: What do you think is the future of French news reporting now that France is launching a CNN-like 24-hour news service? Will this network improve French journalism?
Karsenty: No. That would require a major cultural change. It is ironic that the French media complain about U.S. journalists embedding with the U.S. military in Iraq but don't recognize that they themselves have been embedded with the French government in Paris. There is certainly an incestuous relationship between the media and political individuals in Paris.
Victory
MEQ: You recently won your appeal?
Karsenty: Yes, we won the case completely; the court decision was clear. The court, however, did not have to rule that the tapes were staged but, rather, said that I could publish what I wanted because I had evidence that it was staged. The written arguments say that I am right, yet all of what the court said intrinsically supported my statement that the incident was staged.
MEQ: Did you get any award for damages, costs, or attorney's fees?
Karsenty: No. The whole process cost me money.
MEQ: Why?
Karsenty: Under the French system, I had to pay success fees to the lawyers, and I liked that. But because of the Israeli government's horrible reaction and attitude, I decided this will be my last fight for Israel. France 2 is even now appealing the verdict to the Supreme Court.
MEQ: What reaction?
Karsenty: The Israeli ambassador and other diplomats don't want this victory. The spokesman for the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs said that I was a private individual and that the Israeli government didn't ask me to take on this battle, and so I had no right to ask that Israel come to my aid.[17]
MEQ: Has any French media covered your success?
Karsenty: At the beginning, no, of course not, but The Wall Street Journal had a huge piece on it.[18] There was also a short article in Le Monde.[19] Le Monde said that France 2 had lost but not that I had won. There is a difference. And now, Le Figaro published one editorial piece and a confidential note.[20] And we're expecting more to come.
MEQ: What do you think the effect of this decision will be on France 2 and French reporting on the Middle East?
Karsenty: Very little, because the French media is still covering up the lie and because the Israeli government doesn't want to use this victory to take a stand against the lies of the Western media. Things could change if Israeli diplomats were doing their job and if Sarkozy was doing his. He should force France 2 to admit to the fraud and apologize to the whole world.
MEQ: What are the implications of your case for French Jews and Muslims?
Karsenty: People who really care about the Arabs see that I am pro-Arab. Who suffers most in this war with Israel? Arabs. Incitement creates hatred. Chirac was not a friend of the Arab people; rather, he was their worst enemy. He was the best friend of Arab dictators because of business and political deals. Telling Arabs to stop wanting to die for lies helps them to have a better life, and this is also what I tried to do. The Muhammad al-Dura tapes were a lie that created much hatred and violence, contrary to the interests of Arab peoples.
MEQ: Do you see your suit helping to guarantee freedom of speech in France?
Karsenty: No. The French people don't care about this. They think they have freedom of speech because they live in a country where they are allowed to say Chirac is silly. They don't realize how uniform acceptable speech is on foreign issues.
MEQ: Have you considered a defamation suit against Charles Enderlin?
Karsenty: Many people and media outlets defamed me in order to influence the course of justice. I was thinking of suing them, but what is the point? The bottom line is that when I won the trial, instead of winning compensation, I was saddled with legal bills from my lawyers. For these past six years, I have taken physical risks, and it has been exhausting. If I sue them, it will just consume more time. I want to go back to business. And I also respect my adversaries' freedom of speech even when it means they're defaming me. We shouldn't fight defamation through lawsuits but with the truth.
MEQ: What next?
Karsenty: Ultimately, the case will not be solved in a court; it will be solved politically.
MEQ: In the court of public opinion?
Karsenty: No, by Sarkozy. He has to do something. Otherwise, I may have to undertake a campaign to show that Sarkozy doesn't want to reverse the state-sponsored anti-Semitism that Chirac initiated.
____________________________________________
[1] "France 2: Arlette Chabot et Charles Enderlin doivent être démis de leurs fonctions immédiatement," Media-Ratings, Nov. 22, 2004.
[2] The Jerusalem Post, May 21, 2008.
[3] "Arlette Chabot et Charles Enderlin," Media-Ratings, Nov. 22, 2004.
[4] "France 2 Counters Accusations with Lawsuits," Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA), Boston, Jan. 18, 2007.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Denis Jeambar and Daniel Leconte, interview on French radio station RCJ, Feb. 1, 2005, in "Backgrounder: Mohammed al-Dura, Anatomy of a French Media Scandal," CAMERA, May 21, 2008.
[7] JTA News Service, Nov. 15, 2007; Israel News Agency, Nov. 21, 2007; "Backgrounder: Mohammed al-Dura."
[8] Associated Press, May 21, 2008; The Jerusalem Post, May 21, 2008.
[9] "Backgrounder: Mohammed al-Dura."
[10] Gerard Huber, "Misère de journalistes, misère de républicains," June 14, 2008, accessed June 24, 2008.
[11] James Fallows, "Who Shot Mohammed al-Dura?" Atlantic Monthly, June 2003.
[12] Richard Landes, Al Durah: The Birth of an Icon. What Happened? accessed June 24, 2008; "Al Dura Affair: The 10 Seconds Never Shown by France 2," Youtube, accessed June 24, 2008.
[13] "Personal Testimonies, Jamal Al Durra," transcript of online discussion on Arabia.com, Oct. 30, 2000, Addameer.org.
[14] Chirac to Enderlin, Media-Ratings, Feb. 25, 2004, accessed June 11, 2008.
[15] The Jerusalem Post, Sept. 17, 2007.
[16] "Appel: Pour Charles Enderlin," Nouvel Observateur (Paris), June 23, 2008.
[17] The Media Line (New York), May 29, 2008.
[18] Nidra Poller, "A Hoax?" The Wall Street Journal, Europe, May 27, 2008; "Al-Durra Case Revisited," The Wall Street Journal, Europe, May 27, 2008.
[19] Le Monde (Paris), May 24, 2008.
[20] Ivan Rioufol, "Les médias, pouvoir intouchable?" Le Figaro (Paris), June 13, 2008.
Also see:
Pallywood II - Fake News Al Dura
Philippe Karsenty is the founder and president of Media-Ratings (www.M-R.fr), an online media watchdog. In November 2004, he published an article entitled "Arlette Chabot and Charles Enderlin Must Be Fired Immediately,"[1] alleging that France 2, the television news station for which Chabot and Enderlin worked, violated journalistic standards by airing footage depicting as fact the alleged shooting of Muhammad al-Dura, a 12-year-old Palestinian boy, by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF). The Dura tapes showed a 12-year-old boy crouching behind his father while only one bullet whistles and pops in the background; it is clear now that during the fifty-five seconds of aired footage, the boy was not fired at and that, at the end of the film, he remained alive. Karsenty claimed the footage was staged by Palestinian cameraman Talal Abu Rahma, who staged similar scenes elsewhere in the eighteen minutes of the tape that Karsenty viewed.
After France 2 aired the clip as fact and then distributed the footage for free, other networks rebroadcast it. The death of Dura at the hands of the IDF became a cause célèbre throughout the Muslim world, inspiring violence and anti-Semitism.[2]
In the article, Karsenty also announced his readiness to defend his claims in court.[3] Chabot and Enderlin subsequently sued Karsenty for defamation in a French court of law.[4]
The French court, against the recommendation of the public prosecutor who had argued in favor of Karsenty's free speech rights, initially ruled in favor of Chabot and Enderlin and ordered Karsenty to pay a symbolic fine of one euro to each plaintiff, as well as a 1,000 euro fine and 3,000 euros in court costs.[5]
In September 2007, the Eleventh Chamber of the Appeals Court of Paris heard Karsenty's appeal. The judge demanded that France 2 turn over the twenty-seven minutes of raw footage. Enderlin, however, claimed he was not in possession of the rest of the tape. Three French journalists who were invited by France 2 to see the footage testified to seeing twenty-four minutes of film preceding the footage of Dura, in which young Palestinians are performing for the television cameras, falling and getting up when they think that no one is watching.[6] In the end, only eighteen minutes of the entire tape were shown in court, and none depicted Dura being killed. In fact, at the end of the footage shown in court, the boy is still clearly alive.[7]
Karsenty won his appeal on May 21, 2008.[8]
Brooke Goldstein conducted this interview with Karsenty in two parts, the first in New York City on October 4, 2007, and the second, by telephone on May 27, 2008, after Karsenty's victory.
The Lawsuit
Middle East Quarterly: What specifically led France 2 television to sue you for defamation?
Philippe Karsenty: The defamatory words were that the Muhammad al-Dura tapes are fakes, a hoax, that Charles Enderlin was misled, that he misled people, and that he should resign.
MEQ: What is defamation under French law?
Karsenty: Under French law, defamation is the inability to prove the truth of a statement at the time the statement was made. This means that even if France 2 apologizes now and admits fault, I could still not win my case because the court could determine that when I published my statements, I didn't have enough evidence to assert that what I was saying was true. This is an absurd system of law.
MEQ: So truth is not a defense to defamation?
Karsenty: Yes, truth is a defense to defamation, but it has to be a truth known and proven at the time the claim was made. The burden of proof is on the defendant's shoulders. If the Israeli government had sued France 2 for defamation, for example, the situation would have been reversed: France 2 would have had to defend its slander rather than accuse me of defamation.
MEQ: Why don't you sue France 2 for defamation or fraud? Why are you on the defensive?
Karsenty: That case had to be undertaken by the Israeli state, which did not take this opportunity. Shurat Hadin, an Israeli public interest law firm, tried to take away the press credentials of France 2, but the Israeli government refused, and the Israeli Supreme Court has yet to deliver a verdict on that case.
MEQ: Why?
Karsenty: Because the Israeli government, apparently, would rather appease its enemies than fight back.
MEQ: Could you file a lawsuit against France 2 for defamation against you and against the State of Israel?
Karsenty: Under French law, I wouldn't have standing since I was not the one who was defamed.
MEQ: In your first trial, the judge felt that there was no need to enter the Muhammad al-Dura tapes into evidence. What does this say about the right to discovery in French courts and their due process rules? How is the judge supposed to determine anything about the tapes if he does not care to see them?
Karsenty: The court said that since I hadn't seen the tapes at the time, the court should not take them into account. True, I didn't see the tapes, but I knew people who did and who told me of their content, which is why I felt comfortable coming to the conclusion that I did.
MEQ: Your conclusion, however, was based on hearsay.
Karsenty: My first conclusion was based on what I saw from the France 2 news report on Muhammad al-Dura, on allegations by Nahum Shahaf [an Israeli physicist and reservist with the optical intelligence unit of the IDF],[9] and on my subsequent investigation. What they aired to the public was ridiculous. In those minutes, Muhammad al-Dura showed no agony, and none of the actors were hit by any bullet.
MEQ: You said that the majority of the twenty-seven minutes not initially shown to the public are rushes and staged scenes. Laurence Trebucq, the new judge on appeal, ordered the tapes released but only within the court. Why doesn't she release the images to the general public?
Karsenty: We don't know yet.
MEQ: In the ruling against you in the lower court, the judge went against the recommendation of the public prosecutor who said there was no evidence that you acted with personal animosity, but the judge also seemed upset when he read the judgment against you, and he awarded the plaintiff very little. What does this say to you?
Karsenty: That the judge may have felt uncomfortable, received orders, and was not proud of what he was doing.
MEQ: Received orders from whom?
Karsenty: Perhaps instructions or advice from the justice minister or the people around him. By the way, the judges have no expertise in forensic science or ballistics, nor did they draw on any such expertise.
MEQ: Are you saying that the French courts are not independent judiciaries?
Karsenty: I am not saying that all judges are not so independent. All I am saying is that if you read the verdict that was published two years ago, it seems that it is not really an independent judgment.
MEQ: Was there corruption in your case?
Karsenty: Not at all. You don't need to buy people who are completely brainwashed. Charles Enderlin is like the capo di tutti capi; he is a godfather: he is a moral authority. I went against a case defended by the biggest guy in the Middle East journalism corporate world. Enderlin even used to give advice to diplomats. Let me give you an example: A French journalist told me that when Dominique de Villepin was foreign minister and went to Jerusalem, he gathered all the French correspondents at the embassy, and before his speech, he said, "What does Charles think?" It's unbelievable.
MEQ: So Charles Enderlin is the conscience of France when it comes to the Middle East, and you offended their conscience?
Karsenty: You said it, not me.
MEQ: Who is funding your case?
Karsenty: I funded it myself. I used to be a stockbroker, and then I began doing financial consulting with companies. I have also received honoraria for speeches in the United States.
MEQ: Other people have also said that the Muhammad al-Dura tapes are forgeries. Why did France 2 target you and only you?
Karsenty: Yes, Gerard Huber has said that;[10] James Fallows said that the boy was not killed by the IDF, but he did not say that the incident was staged.[11] The reason they targeted me is because at the time I published it, I had credibility through Media-Ratings [the media watchdog group Karsenty founded in 2004], and I had been invited to give comments about all sorts of topics and media inaccuracies.
What Happened to Muhammad al-Dura?
MEQ: There are different theories about the fate of Muhammad al-Dura. Some say he was killed by the Palestinians, and others say he is alive at the end of the tape but are not clear if he is alive now. What is your version of the incident?
Karsenty: We shouldn't talk about theories but about facts and evidence. At the end of the France 2 film, the boy is not dead. He is raising his elbow and looking at the cameraman. These images are available on Richard Landes' website and on Youtube.[12] If you look at the images, you will see that the boy is clearly not dead. There are no bullet wounds or blood. Those images were never broadcast in France, but they were shown in England on the BBC and in Arab countries. What amazes me is that nobody said, "Wait a minute. There is a problem here." It doesn't make sense. In a news report done one year after his son's alleged death, Dura's father says the first bullet hit his son on the right knee,[13] but the tape shows not a single drop of blood there; it is ridiculous. Nothing makes sense in his version, but nobody wanted to look at the images.
Israel's Silence
MEQ: Circumstantial evidence tends to support your case that the Muhammad al-Dura incident was a staged blood libel. For example, CNN refused cameraman Talal Abu Rahma's initial offer to sell the tapes because he would not guarantee them as real. The twenty-seven minutes of rushes looked staged and rehearsed. A Reuters cameraman recorded Rahma filming other staged events. On what basis did the lower court decide against you?
Karsenty: The Israeli government's refusal to question the tapes was important. The court had a letter from [then-]French president Jacques Chirac praising the journalistic integrity of Charles Enderlin. We both had witness testimony, but the plaintiffs brought Palestinians who testified that the Israelis shot at the father and son with planes, helicopters, and antitank missiles although there was no evidence of any of this on the tapes. Although the plaintiffs' witnesses sounded ridiculous, the judge said, "They testified, and we shouldn't dismiss it because they are Palestinian. They were there, and you were not."
MEQ: Why did Chirac write a letter to the court on behalf of Charles Enderlin?
Karsenty: Chirac wrote a letter commending Charles Enderlin and his attention to accuracy[14] in his latest book. Chirac's team knew this letter would be used at the trial, but the letter was not directly about the Muhammad al-Dura footage. Chirac did this to further his idea of France's politique-arabe.
MEQ: After the lower court ruled against you—in part because the Israeli government did not come to your defense—the IDF wrote to Charles Enderlin requesting that he hand over the footage and saying that the court's statement was not an accurate reflection of the IDF position, and that they wanted to see the tapes.[15] Was this a reaction to the court's decision or a 180-degree shift in Israel's public relations position?
Karsenty: We had been working desperately to get this letter from the IDF.
MEQ: What contributed to the change in Israeli governmental policy towards you?
Karsenty: When the government was fighting such a difficult campaign on the ground, it just wanted to put the Muhammad al-Dura affair behind it. But lies endure. If the good name of Israel is besmirched in this case, it will haunt the country for generations. Note that millions of people continue to believe in the anti-Semitic forgery The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Muhammad al-Dura postage stamps already exist in Tunisia, Egypt, Iran, and Jordan. Squares in Morocco and Mali and streets in many cities are named for Dura. Daniel Pearl was beheaded with the image of Muhammad al-Dura behind him. We need to expose the Dura hoax now so our children needn't suffer for this lie.
MEQ: It's obvious that Jerusalem should respond. Why doesn't the Israeli government do something now?
Karsenty: Some people who weren't in the Israeli government at the time the mistake was made used their absence as an excuse: "Since we didn't do it, it's not our responsibility to fix it." For others, it's a question of ego. They don't want to admit that they made a mistake in the first place.
MEQ: Why is Daniel Seaman, director of the Israeli government press office, not listening to the public interest law firm Shurat Hadin and stripping France 2 of its press credentials?
Karsenty: Seaman is a great guy; ask him. You can imagine how much pressure the Israeli establishment has put on him.
MEQ: Do you think Israel and the United States are losing the information war?
Karsenty: What war? They've already lost because they didn't even bother to fight.
The French Media
MEQ: Is there any media accountability in France? Is there any independent monitoring?
Karsenty: They have a mediateur [ombudsman] working between France television and the public. When I called him, he covered up the lie but was then replaced four years later. I called his replacement, who at first was excited to meet me but later called to say his boss forbade the meeting. I met perhaps twenty people at France 2, from the very bottom to the very top, before the case came to court.
MEQ: What prevents someone at France 2 from destroying the tape?
Karsenty: I don't know if anyone besides France 2 has copies. Someone from Fox News compared this to the Nixon tapes. The odd thing is the Nixon tapes also had an eighteen-minute gap. It is going to be huge when we confirm that international media used staged and fake footage. When the truth comes out, it will be devastating—that is, if the truth really does come out. Rather than accept responsibility, France 2 may say that I did make my statements in good faith but that I didn't prove the tapes were staged. This may be how they sweep this episode under the rug.
MEQ: Do you think that the French media seek to appease the local Muslim population?
Karsenty: The media go well beyond appeasement to incitement.
MEQ: You are saying France 2 actually sought to incite violence against the Jewish population by airing the Muhammad al-Dura tapes?
Karsenty: Yes, it used this as a form of pressure on Israel. Chirac used the French Jews as hostages. He seemed to say to the State of Israel, "I have 600,000 Jews in France, and if you don't behave correctly towards the Palestinians, we will show this footage and the Jews of France will be assaulted."
MEQ: Do the French people think that this is just your issue or just a Jewish problem? Do they see the larger implications? Are they not insulted that their media is lying to them?
Karsenty: For the French, if it's in the newspaper or on television, it's true. But thanks to this story, things are changing.
MEQ: The French media consistently ignores your case. Why?
Karsenty: I call France the "little U.S.S.R." The difference between the Soviet Union and France, however, is that the Soviets knew they were being lied to while the French think they know the truth.
MEQ: Will Nicolas Sarkozy's presidency change the situation?
Karsenty: He is now responsible. France 2 is state-owned television, which makes Sarkozy its owner. He should have France 2 apologize to the world. I brought him all the documents in 2005. I met two of his advisers in April 2008, who agreed that the incident was fully staged. But Sarkozy hasn't responded to date.
MEQ: How independent is the French media?
Karsenty: Everyone in the private media depends on the state in one way or another, which explains why they refused to report on my trial, even after foreign media began to cover it. When it comes to foreign policy, there is no independence in either public or private media.
MEQ: Do you think the broader press knows they are guilty of over-reliance on Palestinian fixers?
Karsenty: Yes. But it would be revolutionary for them to admit that they are dealing with fixers who are liars. It is the same thing in Iraq and in most Middle East countries.
MEQ: Was there any variation in how the French press covered the case, in what little they did cover?
Karsenty: Most of the media have been against me. The biggest weekly in France, the Nouvel Observateur, issued a petition to support Enderlin's lies. Guess what? Hundreds of journalists, personalities, and simple people signed it.[16]
MEQ: Why does the French media have not only an anti-Israel and anti-U.S. agenda but also a pro-Arab agenda?
Karsenty: The French don't like Arabs at all. The proof? They mistreat them in France, but they feel guilty for the way they treated them in the colonies.
MEQ: Do you sense hostility to Jews?
Karsenty: Yes, the French will never forgive Jews for exposing French collaboration in the Holocaust. This is one motivation for depicting Israel as a Nazi state. It is the French way of saying "We behaved no worse than the Jews do now." It helps the French feel less responsible for their collaboration with the Nazis.
MEQ: What do you think is the future of French news reporting now that France is launching a CNN-like 24-hour news service? Will this network improve French journalism?
Karsenty: No. That would require a major cultural change. It is ironic that the French media complain about U.S. journalists embedding with the U.S. military in Iraq but don't recognize that they themselves have been embedded with the French government in Paris. There is certainly an incestuous relationship between the media and political individuals in Paris.
Victory
MEQ: You recently won your appeal?
Karsenty: Yes, we won the case completely; the court decision was clear. The court, however, did not have to rule that the tapes were staged but, rather, said that I could publish what I wanted because I had evidence that it was staged. The written arguments say that I am right, yet all of what the court said intrinsically supported my statement that the incident was staged.
MEQ: Did you get any award for damages, costs, or attorney's fees?
Karsenty: No. The whole process cost me money.
MEQ: Why?
Karsenty: Under the French system, I had to pay success fees to the lawyers, and I liked that. But because of the Israeli government's horrible reaction and attitude, I decided this will be my last fight for Israel. France 2 is even now appealing the verdict to the Supreme Court.
MEQ: What reaction?
Karsenty: The Israeli ambassador and other diplomats don't want this victory. The spokesman for the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs said that I was a private individual and that the Israeli government didn't ask me to take on this battle, and so I had no right to ask that Israel come to my aid.[17]
MEQ: Has any French media covered your success?
Karsenty: At the beginning, no, of course not, but The Wall Street Journal had a huge piece on it.[18] There was also a short article in Le Monde.[19] Le Monde said that France 2 had lost but not that I had won. There is a difference. And now, Le Figaro published one editorial piece and a confidential note.[20] And we're expecting more to come.
MEQ: What do you think the effect of this decision will be on France 2 and French reporting on the Middle East?
Karsenty: Very little, because the French media is still covering up the lie and because the Israeli government doesn't want to use this victory to take a stand against the lies of the Western media. Things could change if Israeli diplomats were doing their job and if Sarkozy was doing his. He should force France 2 to admit to the fraud and apologize to the whole world.
MEQ: What are the implications of your case for French Jews and Muslims?
Karsenty: People who really care about the Arabs see that I am pro-Arab. Who suffers most in this war with Israel? Arabs. Incitement creates hatred. Chirac was not a friend of the Arab people; rather, he was their worst enemy. He was the best friend of Arab dictators because of business and political deals. Telling Arabs to stop wanting to die for lies helps them to have a better life, and this is also what I tried to do. The Muhammad al-Dura tapes were a lie that created much hatred and violence, contrary to the interests of Arab peoples.
MEQ: Do you see your suit helping to guarantee freedom of speech in France?
Karsenty: No. The French people don't care about this. They think they have freedom of speech because they live in a country where they are allowed to say Chirac is silly. They don't realize how uniform acceptable speech is on foreign issues.
MEQ: Have you considered a defamation suit against Charles Enderlin?
Karsenty: Many people and media outlets defamed me in order to influence the course of justice. I was thinking of suing them, but what is the point? The bottom line is that when I won the trial, instead of winning compensation, I was saddled with legal bills from my lawyers. For these past six years, I have taken physical risks, and it has been exhausting. If I sue them, it will just consume more time. I want to go back to business. And I also respect my adversaries' freedom of speech even when it means they're defaming me. We shouldn't fight defamation through lawsuits but with the truth.
MEQ: What next?
Karsenty: Ultimately, the case will not be solved in a court; it will be solved politically.
MEQ: In the court of public opinion?
Karsenty: No, by Sarkozy. He has to do something. Otherwise, I may have to undertake a campaign to show that Sarkozy doesn't want to reverse the state-sponsored anti-Semitism that Chirac initiated.
____________________________________________
[1] "France 2: Arlette Chabot et Charles Enderlin doivent être démis de leurs fonctions immédiatement," Media-Ratings, Nov. 22, 2004.
[2] The Jerusalem Post, May 21, 2008.
[3] "Arlette Chabot et Charles Enderlin," Media-Ratings, Nov. 22, 2004.
[4] "France 2 Counters Accusations with Lawsuits," Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA), Boston, Jan. 18, 2007.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Denis Jeambar and Daniel Leconte, interview on French radio station RCJ, Feb. 1, 2005, in "Backgrounder: Mohammed al-Dura, Anatomy of a French Media Scandal," CAMERA, May 21, 2008.
[7] JTA News Service, Nov. 15, 2007; Israel News Agency, Nov. 21, 2007; "Backgrounder: Mohammed al-Dura."
[8] Associated Press, May 21, 2008; The Jerusalem Post, May 21, 2008.
[9] "Backgrounder: Mohammed al-Dura."
[10] Gerard Huber, "Misère de journalistes, misère de républicains," June 14, 2008, accessed June 24, 2008.
[11] James Fallows, "Who Shot Mohammed al-Dura?" Atlantic Monthly, June 2003.
[12] Richard Landes, Al Durah: The Birth of an Icon. What Happened? accessed June 24, 2008; "Al Dura Affair: The 10 Seconds Never Shown by France 2," Youtube, accessed June 24, 2008.
[13] "Personal Testimonies, Jamal Al Durra," transcript of online discussion on Arabia.com, Oct. 30, 2000, Addameer.org.
[14] Chirac to Enderlin, Media-Ratings, Feb. 25, 2004, accessed June 11, 2008.
[15] The Jerusalem Post, Sept. 17, 2007.
[16] "Appel: Pour Charles Enderlin," Nouvel Observateur (Paris), June 23, 2008.
[17] The Media Line (New York), May 29, 2008.
[18] Nidra Poller, "A Hoax?" The Wall Street Journal, Europe, May 27, 2008; "Al-Durra Case Revisited," The Wall Street Journal, Europe, May 27, 2008.
[19] Le Monde (Paris), May 24, 2008.
[20] Ivan Rioufol, "Les médias, pouvoir intouchable?" Le Figaro (Paris), June 13, 2008.
Also see:
Pallywood II - Fake News Al Dura
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Monday, January 19, 2009
A Staged Scene in a Gaza Hospital? - Update: CNN Yanks Video
Original article
MIDDLE EAST | Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 10:46:05 am PST
Norwegian doctor Mads Gilbert, a radical Marxist who openly supports Hamas and the 9/11 hijackers, is seen once again in this CNN video about the death of a “freelance cameraman’s” brother in Gaza — and the footage in the hospital room was very likely staged for propaganda effect.
A closer view of the scene in the hospital room is here at CNN: Toll of conflict strikes home as cameraman finds brother dead - CNN.com.
LGF reader “Last Mohican,” a doctor, makes a strong case that this is an obvious fake.
UPDATE at 1/8/09 12:43:55 pm:
Well, well. CNN has removed the video from the page linked above, with no explanation or retraction.
UPDATE at 1/8/09 1:09:14 pm:
Here’s another version of the suspect footage at the UK’s Channel 4. (Whose coverage is horrifically biased against Israel.)
The scene in question starts at about 1:40.
And meanwhile, LGF reader “Killgore Trout” has discovered that the “freelance photographer,” Ashraf Mashharawi, also runs a business in Gaza called Nepras For Media & IT, which hosts websites. And according to Internet Haganah, in 2004 they were listed as the operator of at least two websites for ... Hamas.
I know you’re as shocked as I am.
MIDDLE EAST | Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 10:46:05 am PST
Norwegian doctor Mads Gilbert, a radical Marxist who openly supports Hamas and the 9/11 hijackers, is seen once again in this CNN video about the death of a “freelance cameraman’s” brother in Gaza — and the footage in the hospital room was very likely staged for propaganda effect.
A closer view of the scene in the hospital room is here at CNN: Toll of conflict strikes home as cameraman finds brother dead - CNN.com.
LGF reader “Last Mohican,” a doctor, makes a strong case that this is an obvious fake.
I’m no military expert, but I am a doctor, and this video is bullsh-t. The chest compressions that were being performed at the beginning of this video were absolutely, positively fake. The large man in the white coat was NOT performing CPR on that child. He was just sort of tapping on the child’s sternum a little bit with his fingers. You can’t make blood flow like that. Furthermore, there’s no point in doing chest compressions if you’re not also ventilating the patient somehow. In this video, I can’t tell for sure if the patient has an endotracheal tube in place, but you can see that there is nobody bag-ventilating him (a bag is actually hanging by the head of the bed), and there is no ventilator attached to the patient. In a hospital, during a code on a ventilated patient, somebody would probably be bagging the patient during the chest compressions. And they also would have moved the bed away from the wall, so that somebody could get back there to intubate the patient and/or bag him. In short, the “resuscitation scene” at the beginning is fake, and it’s a pretty lame fake at that.
So the question is, were they re-enacting the resuscitation scene by repeating their actions on a corpse, because the child had died earlier? It’s likely that the answer is no, that child is still alive, and is just an actor pretending to be a child who was killed. Why do I say that? Because the big guy in the white coat, if he’s really a doctor, nurse, nurse’s aid, EMT, or any sort of health care provider at all would be entirely aware that tickling the boy’s sternum doesn’t really look like actual chest compressions. If the boy was dead, the man would have done a more convincing job in compressing the chest. The taps on the chest that he’s doing are the sort of thing you see in bad TV dramas, when you don’t want to make the poor actor playing the victim uncomfortable by really pushing on his chest. I think the man in the white coat knows this child is actually alive, and is making the simulated chest compressions gentle so as not to hurt the child. My guess is that he assumed the videographer, like those on better TV shows, would have been smart enough not to film as far down as the man’s hands on the chest.
UPDATE at 1/8/09 12:43:55 pm:
Well, well. CNN has removed the video from the page linked above, with no explanation or retraction.
UPDATE at 1/8/09 1:09:14 pm:
Here’s another version of the suspect footage at the UK’s Channel 4. (Whose coverage is horrifically biased against Israel.)
The scene in question starts at about 1:40.
And meanwhile, LGF reader “Killgore Trout” has discovered that the “freelance photographer,” Ashraf Mashharawi, also runs a business in Gaza called Nepras For Media & IT, which hosts websites. And according to Internet Haganah, in 2004 they were listed as the operator of at least two websites for ... Hamas.
I know you’re as shocked as I am.
The Return of Pallywood?
Original article
Posted by Scott at 7:04 AM
January 10, 2009
On Thursday CNN ran a tragic story of death at an early age resulting from Israel's offensive in Gaza:
CNN also broadcast the video (below) shot by "freelance cameraman Ashraf Mashharawi." Charles Johnson notes that the video includes a cameo by Norwegian doctor Mads Gilbert, a radical Marxist who openly supports Hamas and the 9/11 hijackers. That's strike one against its authenticity.
A reader of Charles's site calls strike two, observing in part:
Richard Landes notes other factors suggestive of a staged production, among them CNN's quiet removal of the video from its site. Following Landes's post, however, CNN restored the video and, as Roger Simon reports, is "now insisting it is genuine, despite giving no specific response to any of the criticisms." CNN vouches for the authenticity of the video, quoting Paul Martin of World News & Features on the bona fides of Ashraf Mashharawi:
Charles Johnson responds, adding a note regarding Mashharawi:
If true, that would be strike three. In an update, Charles links to the Web site of World News & Features, cited by CNN as a reliable source for news from Gaza. Charles comments, ringing up strike four: "Please excuse me while I laugh."
JOHN adds: As others have noted, CNN on-air personnel openly ridiculed the idea of sending Joe the Plumber to Israel as a "reporter." They think he's unqualified for the job. I'm not sure what qualifies a person to be a reporter, but unwillingness to make s*** up would seem to be at the top of the list.
Posted by Scott at 7:04 AM
January 10, 2009
On Thursday CNN ran a tragic story of death at an early age resulting from Israel's offensive in Gaza:
At a Gaza hospital, doctors tried to revive a 12-year-old victim of the violence, but their efforts were in vain. Mahmoud died.
Recording the tragedy at the hospital was his brother, freelance cameraman Ashraf Mashharawi.
Just a short time earlier, Mashharawi had been filming other, less personal images of the war -- scenes like incoming missiles and the damage they do. Then, he got a phone call. Mashharawi was told the family home had been hit by a rocket.
His brother, Mahmoud and his 14-year-old cousin Ahmad, had been allowed to play on the roof after days of being cooped up inside as Israel continued its assault on Gaza.
Both boys died after the rocket hit.
CNN also broadcast the video (below) shot by "freelance cameraman Ashraf Mashharawi." Charles Johnson notes that the video includes a cameo by Norwegian doctor Mads Gilbert, a radical Marxist who openly supports Hamas and the 9/11 hijackers. That's strike one against its authenticity.
A reader of Charles's site calls strike two, observing in part:
I'm no military expert, but I am a doctor, and this video is bullsh-t. The chest compressions that were being performed at the beginning of this video were absolutely, positively fake. The large man in the white coat was NOT performing CPR on that child. He was just sort of tapping on the child's sternum a little bit with his fingers. You can't make blood flow like that. Furthermore, there's no point in doing chest compressions if you're not also ventilating the patient somehow.
Richard Landes notes other factors suggestive of a staged production, among them CNN's quiet removal of the video from its site. Following Landes's post, however, CNN restored the video and, as Roger Simon reports, is "now insisting it is genuine, despite giving no specific response to any of the criticisms." CNN vouches for the authenticity of the video, quoting Paul Martin of World News & Features on the bona fides of Ashraf Mashharawi:
"He's a man of enormous integrity and would never get involved with any sort of manipulation of images, let alone when the person dying is his own brother," Martin said. "I know the whole family. I know them very well. ... [Mashharawi] is upset and angry that anyone would think of him having done anything like this. ... This is ridiculous. He's independent."
Charles Johnson responds, adding a note regarding Mashharawi:
According to Internet Haganah's database of terror website hosts, in 2004 nepras.net, which lists Mashharawi as general manager, was the operator of the main Hamas website and the website of Hamas' radio station Voice of Al Aqsa.
If true, that would be strike three. In an update, Charles links to the Web site of World News & Features, cited by CNN as a reliable source for news from Gaza. Charles comments, ringing up strike four: "Please excuse me while I laugh."
JOHN adds: As others have noted, CNN on-air personnel openly ridiculed the idea of sending Joe the Plumber to Israel as a "reporter." They think he's unqualified for the job. I'm not sure what qualifies a person to be a reporter, but unwillingness to make s*** up would seem to be at the top of the list.
Monday, January 12, 2009
The CNN strategy
Original article
Alan M. Dershowitz, National Post
Published: Wednesday, January 07, 2009
As Israel persists in its military efforts -- by ground, air and sea -- to protect its citizens from deadly Hamas rockets, and as protests against Israel increase around the world, the success of the abominable Hamas double war crime strategy becomes evident. The strategy is as simple as it is cynical: Provoke Israel by playing Russian roulette with its children, firing rockets at kindergartens, playgrounds and hospitals; hide behind its own civilians when firing at Israeli civilians; refuse to build bunkers for its own civilians; have TV cameras ready to transmit every image of dead Palestinians, especially children; exaggerate the number of civilians killed by including as "children" Hamas fighters who are 16 or 17 years old and as "women," female terrorists.
Hamas itself has a name for this. They call it "the CNN strategy" (this is not to criticize CNN or any other objective news source for doing its job; it is to criticize Hamas for exploiting the freedom of press which it forbids in Gaza). The CNN strategy is working because decent people all over the world are naturally sickened by images of dead and injured children. When they see such images repeatedly flashed across TV screens, they tend to react emotionally. Rather than asking why these children are dying and who is to blame for putting them in harm's way, average viewers, regardless of their political or ideological perspective, want to see the killing stopped. They blame those whose weapons directly caused the deaths, rather than those who provoked the violence by deliberately targeting civilians.
They forget the usual rules of morality and law. For example, when a murderer takes a hostage and fires from behind his human shield, and a policeman, in an effort to stop the shooting accidentally kills the hostage, the law of every country holds the hostage taker guilty of murder even though the policeman fired the fatal shot.
The same is true of the law of war. The use of human shields, in the way Hamas uses the civilian population of Gaza, is a war crime -- as is its firing of rockets at Israeli civilians. Every human shield that is killed by Israeli self-defence measures is the responsibility of Hamas, but you wouldn't know that from watching the media coverage.
The CNN strategy seems to work better, at least in some parts of the world, against Israel that it would against other nations. There is much more protest -- and fury -- directed against Israel when it inadvertently kills approximately 100 civilians in a just war of self-defence, than against Arab and Muslim nations and groups that deliberately kill far more civilians for no legitimate reason.
It isn't the nature of the victims, since more Arabs and Muslim civilians are killed every day in Africa and the Middle East by Arab and Muslim governments and groups with little or no protests. (For example, on the first day of Israel's ground attack, approximately 30 Palestinians, almost all Hamas combatants, were killed. On the same day an Islamic suicide bomber blew herself up in a mosque in Iraq, killing 40 innocent Muslims. No protests. Little media coverage.) It isn't the nature of the killings, since Israel goes to extraordinary lengths to avoid killing civilians -- if for no other reason than that it hurts its cause -- while Hamas does everything in its power to force Israel to kill Palestinian civilians by firing its missiles from densely populated civilian areas and refusing to build shelters for its civilians.
It isn't the nature of the conflict, either, because Israel is fighting a limited war of self-defence designed to protect its own civilians from rocket attacks, while most of those killed by Arabs and Muslims are killed in genocidal and tribal warfare with no legitimate aim.
The world simply doesn't seem to care when Arabs and Muslims kill large numbers of other Arabs and Muslims, but a qualitatively different standard applies when the Jewish state kills even a relatively small number of Muslims and Arabs in a war of self-defence.
The international community doesn't even seem to care when Palestinian children are killed by rocket fire -- unless it is from Israeli rockets. The day before the recent outbreak, Hamas fired an anti-personnel rocket at Israeli civilians, but the rocket fell short of its target and killed two Palestinian girls. Yet there was virtually no coverage and absolutely no protests against these "collateral" civilian deaths. Hamas refused to allow TV cameras to show these dead Palestinian children.
Nor have there been protests against the cold-blooded murders by Hamas and its supporters of dozens of Palestinian civilians who allegedly "collaborated" with Israel. Indeed, Hamas and Fatah have killed far more Palestinian civilians over the past several years than have the Israelis, but you wouldn't know that from the media, the United Nations or protesters who focus selectively on only those deaths caused by Israeli military actions.
The protesters who filled the streets of London, Paris and San Francisco were nowhere to be seen when hundreds of Jewish children were murdered by Palestinian terrorists over the years.
Moreover, the number of civilians killed by Israel is almost always exaggerated. First, it is widely assumed that if a victim is a "child" or a "woman," he or she is necessarily a civilian. Consider the following report in Thursday's New York Times: "Hospital officials in Gaza said that of the more than 390 people killed by Israeli fighter planes since Saturday, 38 were children and 25 women." Some of these children and women were certainly civilians, but others were equally certainly combatants:
Hamas often uses 14-, 15-, 16-and 17-year-olds, as well as women, as terrorists. Israel is entitled under international law to treat these children and women as the combatants they have become. Hamas cannot, out of one side of its mouth, boast that it recruits children and women to become terrorists, and then, out of the other side of its mouth, complain when Israel takes it at its word. The media should look closely and critically at the number of claimed civilian victims before accepting self-serving and self-contradictory exaggerations.
By any objective count, the number of genuinely innocent civilians killed by the Israeli Air Force in Gaza is lower than the collateral deaths caused by any nation in a comparable situation. Hamas does everything in its power to provoke Israel into killing as many Palestinian civilians as possible, in order to generate condemnation against the Jewish state. It has gone so far as firing rockets from Palestinian schoolyards and hiding its terrorists in Palestinian maternity wards.
Lest there be any doubt about the willingness of Hamas officials to expose their families to martyrdom, remember that the Hamas terrorist leader recently killed in an Israeli air attack sent his own son to be a suicide bomber. He also refused to allow his family to leave the house, even after learning that he and his house has been placed on the a of Israeli military targets.
The reality is that the elected and de facto government of Gaza has declared war against Israel. Under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, it has committed an "armed attack" against the Jewish state. The Hamas charter calls for Israel's total destruction. Under international law, Israel is entitled to take whatever military action is necessary to repel that attack and stop the rockets.
It must seek to minimize civilian deaths consistent with the legitimate military goal, and it is doing precisely that, despite Hamas's efforts to maximize civilian deaths on both sides.
________________________________________________
Alan M. Dershowitz is a law professor at Harvard. His latest book is The Case Against Israel's Enemies (Wiley, 2008).
Alan M. Dershowitz, National Post
Published: Wednesday, January 07, 2009
As Israel persists in its military efforts -- by ground, air and sea -- to protect its citizens from deadly Hamas rockets, and as protests against Israel increase around the world, the success of the abominable Hamas double war crime strategy becomes evident. The strategy is as simple as it is cynical: Provoke Israel by playing Russian roulette with its children, firing rockets at kindergartens, playgrounds and hospitals; hide behind its own civilians when firing at Israeli civilians; refuse to build bunkers for its own civilians; have TV cameras ready to transmit every image of dead Palestinians, especially children; exaggerate the number of civilians killed by including as "children" Hamas fighters who are 16 or 17 years old and as "women," female terrorists.
Hamas itself has a name for this. They call it "the CNN strategy" (this is not to criticize CNN or any other objective news source for doing its job; it is to criticize Hamas for exploiting the freedom of press which it forbids in Gaza). The CNN strategy is working because decent people all over the world are naturally sickened by images of dead and injured children. When they see such images repeatedly flashed across TV screens, they tend to react emotionally. Rather than asking why these children are dying and who is to blame for putting them in harm's way, average viewers, regardless of their political or ideological perspective, want to see the killing stopped. They blame those whose weapons directly caused the deaths, rather than those who provoked the violence by deliberately targeting civilians.
They forget the usual rules of morality and law. For example, when a murderer takes a hostage and fires from behind his human shield, and a policeman, in an effort to stop the shooting accidentally kills the hostage, the law of every country holds the hostage taker guilty of murder even though the policeman fired the fatal shot.
The same is true of the law of war. The use of human shields, in the way Hamas uses the civilian population of Gaza, is a war crime -- as is its firing of rockets at Israeli civilians. Every human shield that is killed by Israeli self-defence measures is the responsibility of Hamas, but you wouldn't know that from watching the media coverage.
The CNN strategy seems to work better, at least in some parts of the world, against Israel that it would against other nations. There is much more protest -- and fury -- directed against Israel when it inadvertently kills approximately 100 civilians in a just war of self-defence, than against Arab and Muslim nations and groups that deliberately kill far more civilians for no legitimate reason.
It isn't the nature of the victims, since more Arabs and Muslim civilians are killed every day in Africa and the Middle East by Arab and Muslim governments and groups with little or no protests. (For example, on the first day of Israel's ground attack, approximately 30 Palestinians, almost all Hamas combatants, were killed. On the same day an Islamic suicide bomber blew herself up in a mosque in Iraq, killing 40 innocent Muslims. No protests. Little media coverage.) It isn't the nature of the killings, since Israel goes to extraordinary lengths to avoid killing civilians -- if for no other reason than that it hurts its cause -- while Hamas does everything in its power to force Israel to kill Palestinian civilians by firing its missiles from densely populated civilian areas and refusing to build shelters for its civilians.
It isn't the nature of the conflict, either, because Israel is fighting a limited war of self-defence designed to protect its own civilians from rocket attacks, while most of those killed by Arabs and Muslims are killed in genocidal and tribal warfare with no legitimate aim.
The world simply doesn't seem to care when Arabs and Muslims kill large numbers of other Arabs and Muslims, but a qualitatively different standard applies when the Jewish state kills even a relatively small number of Muslims and Arabs in a war of self-defence.
The international community doesn't even seem to care when Palestinian children are killed by rocket fire -- unless it is from Israeli rockets. The day before the recent outbreak, Hamas fired an anti-personnel rocket at Israeli civilians, but the rocket fell short of its target and killed two Palestinian girls. Yet there was virtually no coverage and absolutely no protests against these "collateral" civilian deaths. Hamas refused to allow TV cameras to show these dead Palestinian children.
Nor have there been protests against the cold-blooded murders by Hamas and its supporters of dozens of Palestinian civilians who allegedly "collaborated" with Israel. Indeed, Hamas and Fatah have killed far more Palestinian civilians over the past several years than have the Israelis, but you wouldn't know that from the media, the United Nations or protesters who focus selectively on only those deaths caused by Israeli military actions.
The protesters who filled the streets of London, Paris and San Francisco were nowhere to be seen when hundreds of Jewish children were murdered by Palestinian terrorists over the years.
Moreover, the number of civilians killed by Israel is almost always exaggerated. First, it is widely assumed that if a victim is a "child" or a "woman," he or she is necessarily a civilian. Consider the following report in Thursday's New York Times: "Hospital officials in Gaza said that of the more than 390 people killed by Israeli fighter planes since Saturday, 38 were children and 25 women." Some of these children and women were certainly civilians, but others were equally certainly combatants:
Hamas often uses 14-, 15-, 16-and 17-year-olds, as well as women, as terrorists. Israel is entitled under international law to treat these children and women as the combatants they have become. Hamas cannot, out of one side of its mouth, boast that it recruits children and women to become terrorists, and then, out of the other side of its mouth, complain when Israel takes it at its word. The media should look closely and critically at the number of claimed civilian victims before accepting self-serving and self-contradictory exaggerations.
By any objective count, the number of genuinely innocent civilians killed by the Israeli Air Force in Gaza is lower than the collateral deaths caused by any nation in a comparable situation. Hamas does everything in its power to provoke Israel into killing as many Palestinian civilians as possible, in order to generate condemnation against the Jewish state. It has gone so far as firing rockets from Palestinian schoolyards and hiding its terrorists in Palestinian maternity wards.
Lest there be any doubt about the willingness of Hamas officials to expose their families to martyrdom, remember that the Hamas terrorist leader recently killed in an Israeli air attack sent his own son to be a suicide bomber. He also refused to allow his family to leave the house, even after learning that he and his house has been placed on the a of Israeli military targets.
The reality is that the elected and de facto government of Gaza has declared war against Israel. Under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, it has committed an "armed attack" against the Jewish state. The Hamas charter calls for Israel's total destruction. Under international law, Israel is entitled to take whatever military action is necessary to repel that attack and stop the rockets.
It must seek to minimize civilian deaths consistent with the legitimate military goal, and it is doing precisely that, despite Hamas's efforts to maximize civilian deaths on both sides.
________________________________________________
Alan M. Dershowitz is a law professor at Harvard. His latest book is The Case Against Israel's Enemies (Wiley, 2008).
Monday, January 5, 2009
Pallywood II - Fake News Al Dura
More on Al Dura
by Middle East and Media Expert Tom Gross
Al-Dura Trial (France 2 defamation suit after claims its Al-Dura footage is fake): Exclusive Reaction From the Paris Courtroom
Raw Video from the day Mohamed al-Dura was "Killed"
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
