Saturday, May 31, 2008

Pallywood Agitprop: More On France2's Al-Dura Hoax

Karsenty Won! - That is very good news, in fact it is a reason for freedom loving people to celebrate and a symbolic victory to our ethical rights and to be presented with facts instead of staged propaganda to which Joseph Göebbles would be jealous - The mainstream media's credibilty in reporting from the Middle East is virtually more or less nil - The same media which is silent and ignores this Al-Dura Hoax to which they were all screaming to the public with an almost hysteria and shaped the Hoax into an iconic symbol - A lie!

This lie is being repeated again and again - One can only conclude that the rest of the mainstream medias are in compliance through silence or simply fear that if they do tell the story their will be riots, that is anyone's guess - The silence however speaks for itself.

I recommend to read Nidra Poller on the France2 Hoax.

It is not over - The public has been taken for fools through manipulation, there have been death and suffering as a result of France2's Hoax, Endelin still run his weekly Pallywood propaganda on France2.

This is an extract from a mail sent by Karsenty:

"The most serious damage to our cause was done by certain members of the American Jewish Committee
, notably the AJCommittee's representative in Paris, Valérie Hoffenberg, who for the past three and a half years has worked actively against our efforts to reveal the truth. She functioned as the gate-keeper at the Elysee Palace (the French White House), discouraging serious discussion of the al Dura hoax among decision makers, and blocking access to me and others who were capable of providing evidence of the hoax. Her role was crucial and destructive."


"Within the past year, the Elysee Palace received many letters and faxes in support of our position on the al Dura hoax. Almost everyone in the government was aware of the case and of the support my position was receiving. However, it was assumed, at the Elysee, that my position did not have the support of American Jewish organizations--that the American Jewish community, in fact, supported France 2's version of the story. This impression was created by Valerie Hoffenberg who actually advised French politicians to "keep their hands off the case." Hoffenberg was working behind the scenes to discredit me and to assist France 2 in covering up its lie."

"On September 2007, the AJCommittee leadership realized that it was on the wrong side of the issue--protecting the worst anti-Semitic blood libel of modern times. They then chose to mask the behaviour of their Paris representative by issuing a congratulatory press release that contradicted their actual position. The press
release was designated for an American and English speaking audience. When its Paris representative was asked to issue a public statement about the case in French , she refused. Even after our recent, major victory this May, she has steadfastly refused to comment in French: she doesn’t want to jeopardize her relationship with the French establishment." "Over the past year, in an effort to prevent the AJCommittee from undermining our efforts, I personally alerted AJCommittee President David Harris several times. I also met with people from his organization to inform them of the problem. He has also been contacted by numerous donors demanding that he instruct Valerie Hoffenberg to withdraw her opposition to my efforts in the case. To no avail."

"Nicolas Sarkozy has got the power on the state-owned TV channel to admit that the al Dura news report was a fraud and issue a public apology for broadcasting a staged "killing" and, therefore, an apology for being the party to a colossal historical hoax."

France 2 is still denying the truth and French media, if and when they even mention the case, are still covering France 2's lies.
France 2 has been lying about the al Dura affair for seven and a half years.
They are still lying today.


From: Wall Street Journal

It's hard to exaggerate the significance of Mohammed al-Durra, the 12-year-old Palestinian boy allegedly killed by Israeli bullets on Sept. 30, 2000. The iconic image of the terrified child crouching behind his father helped sway world opinion against the Jewish state and fueled the last Intifada.

It's equally hard, then, to exaggerate the significance of last week's French court ruling that called the story into doubt. Not just whether the Israeli military shot the boy, but whether the whole incident may have been staged for propaganda purposes. If so, it would be one of the most harmful put-up jobs in media history.

You probably didn't hear this news. International media lapped up the televised report of al-Durra's shooting on France's main state-owned network, France 2. Barely a peep was heard, however, when the Paris Court of Appeal ruled in a suit brought by the network against the founder of a media watchdog group. The judge's verdict, released Thursday, said that Philippe Karsenty was within his rights to call the France 2

report a "hoax," overturning a 2006 decision that found him guilty of defaming the network and its Mideast correspondent, Charles Enderlin. France 2 has appealed to the country's highest court.

Judge Laurence Trébucq did more than assert Mr. Karsenty's right to free speech. In overturning a lower court's ruling, she said the issues he raised about the original France 2 report were legitimate. While Mr. Karsenty couldn't provide absolute proof of his claims, the court ruled that he marshalled a "coherent mass of evidence" and "exercised in good faith his right to free criticism." The court also found that Talal Abu Rahma, the Palestinian cameraman for France 2 who was the only journalist to capture the scene and the network's crown witness in this case, can't be considered "perfectly credible."

The ruling at the very least opens the way for honest discussion of the al-Durra case, and coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in general. French media could stand some self-examination. The same holds for journalists elsewhere.

On that Saturday in 2000, Palestinians faced off against Israeli troops at Gaza's Netzarim junction. Two months before, Yasser Arafat had walked out of the Camp David peace talks. Two days before, Ariel Sharon had visited Jerusalem's Temple Mount. The second Intifada was brewing. The French network's cameraman, Mr. Abu Rahma, filmed the skirmishes and got the footage to the France 2 bureau in Israel. Mr. Enderlin edited the film and, relying only on his cameraman's account, provided the voice-over for the report. He suggested Israeli soldiers killed the boy. He didn't say he wasn't there.

Along with the Temple Mount incident, the al-Durra shooting was the seminal event behind the second Intifada. Israel apologized. But nagging doubts soon emerged, as Nidra Poller recounts here. An Israeli military probe found that its soldiers couldn't have shot the father and son, given where the two were crouching.

Others including Mr. Karsenty asked, among various questions, Why the lack of any blood on the boy or his father? Or why did France 2 claim to have 27 minutes of footage but refuse to show any but the 57 seconds on its original broadcast? Mr. Enderlin said, "I cut the images of the child's agony, they were unbearable."

Under pressure from media watchdogs, and after years of stonewalling, France 2 eventually shared the additional film. It turns out that no footage of the child's alleged death throes seems to exist. The extra material shows what appears to be staged scenes of gun battles before the al-Durra killing. For a sample, check out www.seconddraft.org, a site run by Richard Landes, a Boston University professor and one of Mr. Karsenty's witnesses.

Judge Trébucq said that Mr. Karsenty "observed inexplicable inconsistencies and contradictions in the explanations by Charles Enderlin."

We don't know exactly what happened to Mohammed al-Durra. Perhaps we never will. But the Paris court ruling shows that France 2 wasn't completely open about what it knew about that day. It suggests the Israelis may not have been to blame. It makes it plausible to consider -- without being dismissed as an unhinged conspiracy theorist -- the possibility that the al-Durra story was a hoax.

To this day, Islamic militants use the al-Durra case to incite violence and hatred against Israel. They are well aware of the power of images. Mr. Karsenty is, too, which is why he and others have tried to hold France 2 accountable for its reporting.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

If Mohammed Al-Dura is still alive (http://israelmatzav.blogspot.com/2007/11/mohameds-wedding.html), then why has no one attempted to get a photo or even video footage of him now to further discredit this hoax?

Epaminondas said...

This whole stupid thing IS Dreyfus in every way.

Look, the real battle over this was fought and lost in the days just after this happened.

The truth is that the world simply couldn't wait to believe ill, in complete falsehood (certainly in this case) about the jews, and ran to believe it faster than Dan Rather did of George Bush. Why this is a fact is beyond me, that it IS a fact is now...HISTORY.

The IDF purposefully killing kids in their Dad's arms is a perfect modern reflection of 1840's libel.

THAT is the real story