Doc's Talk: A Child Is Dead: We’re Not Invited to Toast Charles Enderlin’s Definitive al Dura Production

Sunday, October 10, 2010

A Child Is Dead: We’re Not Invited to Toast Charles Enderlin’s Definitive al Dura Production

Nidra Poller (October 2010)

Ten years after the blockbuster “Killing of Mohamed al Dura” film was brought to the world by Charles Enderlin under the aegis of state-owned France 2 TV, the book version, Un enfant est mort, is about to hit the shelves…with a whimper. Why? No one can forget the dramatic “news broadcast” that placed the “dead child” at the feet of viewers worldwide, unleashing waves of Jew hatred on a scale not seen since the Shoah. “A las cinco de la tarde”… 3 PM… shootout at Netzarim Junction… Mohamed is twelve years old… on last burst of gunfire…the child is dead… Blood libel on a planetary scale [link Makor Rishon 2005]. The brief—under one minute—video shot at Netzarim junction in the Gaza Strip on a day of anger organized by Israel’s enemies and dutifully relayed by Western media, has been astutely analyzed, exposed as a fake, dragged into the French courts, defended by Enderlin’s hierarchy and the majority of his French colleagues… What is left to be said?

My email request for a review copy left unrequited, I phoned the don Quichotte (French for Don Quixote) publishing house to ask if I could stop by and pick up a copy. The receptionist--who is apparently also press attaché, editor, publisher, and Enderlin’s bodyguard—replied that it would be impossible. Might I be on a blacklist, guilty of having written extensively about the al Dura hoax? Declining her offer to mail a copy that would arrive, if ever, a week after the October 7 release, I inquired about the launch. Not that I expected an invitation…

There will be no launch, no book party, no press conference, no pride and joy. After all, a child is dead.

I jokingly remarked that I was a jealous of Pierre Haski who has already reviewed the book for the Rue89 website. “We made a very restricted distribution of review copies. I don’t know why you think you should have received one.” I defend my reputation: “I’m one of the few journalists based in France writing for English-speaking media.”

True. I’ve written about the al Dura affair for, among others, Commentary and the Wall Street Journal. Which is why I didn’t get a review copy and find myself in even hotter water as this curious conversation comes to a boil. “Will you be posting information,” I ask, “about public appearances, TV and radio broadcasts…”

“No we will not! I know very well why you ask me for that information! No! We are not going to publicize his public appearances!”

Phew. The phone is burning. I honestly don’t know why she thinks I should know why she knows I want to know. It’s only later that I realize she thinks I might turn up to assault monsieur journalist Charles Enderlin… with a legitimate question. In a world hooked on PR where writers and publishers will die for a bit of high profile publicity, this quixotic publisher seems to be terrified that some uncontrollable element might dare to express an opinion about the untouchable book.

“Actually, I would just like to know so I won’t miss the programs.

“He was on Les 4 vérités [France 2 TV] this morning.”

“Très bien. I’ll catch it online.”

Quatre vérités means more than “4 truths”; it’s the whole truth. On this episode of the whole truth show, Roland Sicard serves Charles Enderlin like an impeccably polite waiter in a posh restaurant. Sicard swallows whole whatever his colleague Enderlin offers to plug the holes in the al Dura story. It’s worth watching, even if you don’t understand a word of French.
http://www.pluzz.fr/les-4-verites-2010-10-05-07h45.html

They actually begin with a rerun of the al Dura “death scene” originally aired at prime time on that fateful September 30, 2000. Sicard innocently asks how the report became controversial. Monsieur journalist Charles Enderlin calmly explains how, two months after the incident, Israeli army officials concluded that the gunfire more likely came from the Palestinian position. Curiously enough, says Enderlin, one of the two experts on that commission had declared only two days after the broadcast that it was a staged scene.

In urbane tones--several levels below the dramatic voice-over that convinced the world of the deliberate murder of a Palestinian child by Israeli soldiers--Charles Enderlin tells how the absurd notion that the killing was a staged scene became internet buzz, eventually picked up by—unnamed-- personalities, and finally blossomed into a full blown conspiracy theory. Upon which, with a paradoxical dose of mockery, France 2’s eternal Jerusalem correspondent unwittingly describes what happened that day:

Conspiracy theorists would have us believe that 24 hours after the start of the Intifada, Palestinians brought together hundreds of people to play act; the boy and his father play acted; the scene in the Jordanian hospital was faked and the blood seeping from the father’s wounds was ketchup. “Francis Ford Coppola in Gaza! Harumph.”

It’s true: Dozens if not hundreds of Palestinians were organized to play act combat scenes -- totally out of firing range of Israeli soldiers, complete with fake injuries and comical ambulance evacuations. All of this was captured on raw footage from Reuters and other agencies whose Palestinian fixers, including Talal Abu Rahma, can be seen filming these vignettes.

Did Enderlin ever doubt the sincerity of his cameraman? Of course not. Talal has worked with France 2 for years. He won several prizes for this reportage. Following a request for clarifications from monsieur Enderlin, the Shin Beth cleared the cameraman of all suspicion: “He’s white as the driven snow. He doesn’t belong to any anti-Israel organization.”

Timidly taking the initiative (perhaps he was told to ask one tricky question) Sicard wonders if the al Dura controversy is more intense in Israel or France. Enderlin replies with a yes, no, yes, no, adding that there is also a campaign against him in the United States. Then, waxing philosophical, he sums up the “war of images” theme: “When an image makes trouble for Israel, Israel makes trouble for the image.”

The strategy is transparent. We can expect to see it employed in Enderlin’s book and reflected in forthcoming friendly reviews and interviews. It requires an iron grip on all elements of this staged debate in which every detail must be kept slightly out of focus. Counting on the real or feigned ignorance of the journalistic class and the impossibility of making dissenting voices heard in mainstream French media, every question will be placed just far enough beside the point to maintain the overall blur. No precise detail of the meticulous investigations that have exposed the al Dura hoax will ever be mentioned. No precise objection will ever be answered. Questioned about the authenticity of the video, Enderlin and his handmaidens will always reply with attacks on those who question it. He will lump them together as conspiracy theorists even as he weaves them into his very own conspiracy theory.

Falsehoods about the falsified killing of a young man portrayed as a child, the better to accuse Jews of blood libel, will be smoothed like butter on Enderlin’s bread. Any one equipped to call him on these falsehoods will be pushed aside and dismissed. In a debate on RSS [link] Elisabeth Lévy [causeur.fr] asks when Charles is going to explain himself on the “death throes.” “He said he edited out the death throes, it was too horrible to show. But in fact there is no footage of death throes.” Journalist François Gross snaps back: “They don’t save all the raw footage.”

False, of course. They did save the raw footage. Enderlin testified, under oath, that it was kept in a safe. He turned over (some of it) in compliance with a court order. Lo and behold, there is no raw footage of the al Dura death scene. Nothing more than the snippet aired on September 30th and forever after. Everyone knows by now that the so-called death throes are in fact the few seconds where the boy, allegedly dead, moves and looks at the camera. Further, Enderlin claimed some years later that the “death throes” are the whole incident from beginning to end (allegedly 45 minutes), the complete footage (allegedly 27 minutes). But why should François Gross possess such useless information?

Officially there will be no launch of “Un enfant est mort.” For all we know, a lovely cocktail party will be held behind closed doors, in the presence of a smiling Talal Abu Rahma and an aggrieved Jamal al Dura. Champagne and petits-fours, knowing winks and pats on the back. Worldly smiles and blasé sighs. But I’m not invited and neither are you.

What surprises me, actually, is that the book will be sold on the open market. Knowing the methods of the al Dura affair, I would expect it to be restricted to True Believers. Will I have to prove my good faith when I walk into a bookstore tomorrow and fork up 18 euros for the ultimate smokescreen?

[Original version of an article published Oct. 6, 2010 in Hebrew translation in Makor Rishon]

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk