Nidra Poller
The
fabricated murder of Mohamed al Dura has not lost its sting. Produced
and broadcast by state-owned France 2 TV on September 30, 2000, the
staged scene of the “death of a Palestinian child targeted by Israeli
gunfire” has replaced “Christ killer” as a founding myth for genocidal
Jew hatred.
The
latest act of revenge took place in Toulouse last March when the
French-Algerian jihadi, Mohamed Merah, slew a young rabbi, Jonathan
Sandler, his two sons Aryeh and Gavriel, and seven year-old Miriam
Monsonego. Merah, who had previously murdered three French paratroopers
and critically wounded a fourth, filmed his exploits with a camera
strapped to his chest. After shooting Jonathan Sandler and his sons
outside the school, Merah burst into the courtyard, chased after Miriam,
grabbed her by the hair, and shot her in the head. Reports of this
gesture, which provoked comparisons with Nazi killers, shocked decent
people in France and beyond.
Subsequently
we learned that Merah had concocted a video medley of dead Palestinian
children (everyone is a film maker today) that served as an introduction
and justification of his deed. According to my sources, the al Dura
blood libel is featured in Merha’s rogue’s gallery of Israeli (= Jewish)
crimes. A YouTube posting [i]
identified as a video Merah sent to al Jazeera is recognizable as the
original al Dura clip. The Dura-Merah connection is discussed in
countless articles, videos, and debates; some denounce the al Dura hoax
for incitement to genocidal Jew-hatred, others citing it as an
explanation of Merah’s distress.
Another
aspiring Jew-killer, Yann Nkusa, awaiting trial in the case of the
homegrown “Cannes” jihad cell dismantled in October, reportedly
treasured a medley of dead Palestinian children. For all we know, it
might be the same one Merah used. Global media, too, are hooked on the
child-killer drug. To illustrate Israeli atrocities during the Pillars
of Defense operation in Gaza they recycled dead Syrian children, victims
of domestic accidents and misfired Hamas rockets, and Hamas combatants
transformed into innocent babes… Yes but, reasonable people will argue,
children are killed in this war. True. Palestinians deliberately put
children in harm’s way, zealously teach them to seek death as shahids,
and use them as weapons in an aggressive war against Israel. Israeli
soldiers do not deliberately kill children. The al Dura myth was crafted
to prove they do.
Does
this explain why Charles Enderlin and France 2 relentlessly pursue
those who point out the obvious? The “news report” is a fake. Philippe
Karsenty, who has been going through the judicial wringer since 2005,
will be back in Appellate Court on the 16th of January after
his 2008 acquittal was overturned by the highest court. Why this
merciless pursuit of an honest citizen who, in the words of Enderlin
himself, was acquitted simply on the grounds of good faith? The court
did not rule that the “news report” was a fake but only that the
defendant had given proof of due diligence in criticizing a document
that is, in fact, subject to doubt.
As
Merah’s killing spree reminds us, the al Dura myth is fuel for
genocidal Jew hatred. Is that what they want? The courts that rule with
cockeyed values, the French journalists lined up like wooden soldiers in
defense of comrade Enderlin, the commentators worldwide who defend a
crudely staged report without ever bothering to delve into the facts?
Does it explain why, despite conclusive evidence that the scene was
staged, the al Dura myth stands its ground and continues to do its
heinous damage?
The
journalists, the judges, the commentators, and the variously duped
don’t have to be anti-Semites. Then, why would they cling to a tainted
object that repeatedly and verifiably provokes murderous attacks—that
they declare to be unacceptable—against Jews? The sole function of the
al Dura myth is to establish quintessential Jewish guilt… so that, when
the genocide gets under way, it will be the fault of the victims,
Israelis in particular and Jews in general… and, beyond that, our
Western world.
.
The France 2 cameraman Talal Abu Rahma, who won a slew of prizes for
his handiwork, reports that Mohamed al Dura and his father Jamal were
pinned down by Israeli gunfire for 45 minutes. No crossfire. Israeli
soldiers, he declares, mercilessly fired military weapons at an unarmed
sitting target for 45 minutes, critically wounding the father, until
they finally managed to kill the child. The incident was so
crucial for what would follow—in fact, a Palestinian jihad operation
peddled as an intifada—that the self-defined seasoned war reporter
testified the next day under oath to the Palestinian Center for Human
Rights: Israeli soldiers committed cold-blooded murder. Before his eyes.
Unfortunately he was not able to capture any of it on film.
There
is nothing about the al Dura scene that isn’t grotesque, ludicrous, and
slipshod. The 55-second video- shot heard round the world bears no
resemblance to news: six slivers of sloppily filmed and mounted footage
form the kernel of an enveloping narrative--too long and winding to be
summarized here-- that collapses from the first line. The cameraman, the
surviving “victim,” and the France 2 Jerusalem correspondent, Charles
Enderlin, who packaged the whole thing, alternatively show, hide, swear
on, withdraw and multiply details, adapting the truth to the
circumstances. And the slick card sharks have been getting away with it
for eleven years!
In
a feat of counter-engineering, the construction is sustained by the
weight of the accusation—Jews are merciless child-killers—not by any
concrete evidence. This is why the impossible 45-minutes of gunfire
aimed at the innocent victims is inextricably joined to the narrative
and why so many commentators choose to ignore it. One single detail
proves the whole thing is false. But if it is false, what else falls
apart? The intifada, for example. Just this week Suha Arafat calmly
explained how her late husband Yasser planned the intifada after the
failure of the Camp David talks that summer. So, the “intifada” wasn’t
triggered by Ariel Sharon’s “provocative” visit to the Temple Mount. But
it was deliberately sparked by the staged “death” of Mohamed al Dura.
Notice the resemblance with the September 11th anniversary
attack on the US outpost in Benghazi. There, too, a narrative of a
spontaneous popular protest against an insult to Islam was concocted to
cover for a jihad operation. And look how far we have come: it is the
U.S. government that peddled the narrative!
How is it possible to lie blatantly in full view of the information-flush 21st
century? How can Charles Enderlin persist in accusing Israeli soldiers
of concentrating their gunfire on a Palestinian boy for 45 minutes when
the al Dura video has been dissected millimeter by millimeter revealing
that it is full of faked sound and fury? Who sent Susan Rice
network-hopping to prattle about the disgraceful anti-Islamic video that
triggered the protests that degenerated into violence that led to the
unfortunate demise of Ambassador Stevens? The president put it clearly:
the future does not belong to those who diss’ the prophet. Videos of
the battered ambassador dragged through the streets were circulating
widely as Secretary Clinton puckered her dimples and thanked the
courageous Libyans who tried to rescue our ambassador.
From
Netzarim Junction in the Gaza Strip to Benghazi in an Arab Springtime’d
Libya we see the same stubborn determination to confuse our citizens
and disguise the nature of the war being waged against us. One year
after Israel was attacked by the fabricated child martyr, on 9/11/01,
the United States was attacked by civilian airplanes turned into
weapons.
What,
then, can we expect from the French judges convened to rule, once more,
on the narrow issue of defamation in the Karsenty case? One more show
trial? Or an honorable prise de conscience of their responsibility?
Nidra Poller
No comments:
Post a Comment