Doc's Talk: Israeli government downs the al-Dura myth

Friday, May 31, 2013

Israeli government downs the al-Dura myth

Nidra Poller May 29, 2013

French court has again postponed verdict in scandalous case

PARIS. There is abundant concrete evidence that two men hacked a British soldier to death in Woolwich on May 22. There were eyewitnesses to the attempted beheading. The immediate aftermath was filmed from every angle by multiple devices. One of the perpetrators, Mujahid (ex-Michael) Adebelajo, starred in an on the spot amateur video produced at his demand. Waving his blood-soaked hands, still clutching a knife and a cleaver, he justified his act religiously – citing the Sura Al-Tawba, “we must fight them as they fight us” – followed by the usual jihadist political garbage. Most news media deleted the Koranic citation but the uncensored version is available at a click on the Net.[i]

The jihad murder of drummer Lee Rigby is an incident, not a baseless news report.

There were more people at Netzarim Junction in the Gaza Strip on September 30, 2000 than on Wellington Road in Woolwich on May 22 but no one saw the alleged al-Dura incident (the supposedly deliberate killing af a young boy by Israeli soldiers). A dozen professional cameramen had been filming scenes from early morning. Their raw footage shows Palestinians brazenly attacking the Israeli outpost with rocks, firebombs, and burning tires. Elsewhere, out of range of potential Israeli gunfire, they played mock battle scenes with fake injuries and comical ambulance evacuations. At one point armed Palestinians briefly fired live ammunition.

But the alleged victims, identified as Jamal al-Dura and his son Mohamed, were not caught in the crossfire. How do we know? Because Jamal and the France 2 cameraman Talal Abu Rahma, the only one who filmed the al-Dura scene, swore that gunfire coming solely from the Israeli position was deliberately aimed at the unarmed civilians for 45 minutes until they “finally” killed the boy and critically wounded his father. The cameraman claims he filmed 27 minutes of the incident. But all he has is a one-minute 6-strip patchwork video, broadcast by state-owned France 2 TV with a dramatic voice-over by Jerusalem correspondent Charles Enderlin. The so-called news report is so crude and clumsy, it defies description. The enveloping narrative, which deserves equal or more attention than the slapdash video, is adequate proof that Talal Abu Rahma, Jamal al-Dura, and Charles Enderlin are not trustworthy.

The sensational child-killer accusation triggered a wave of atrocities in Israel and attacks on Jews worldwide. It stands as an abiding indictment against the Jewish state, no less poisonous than the Christ-killer charge of olden days. Once a pretext for genocidal hatred takes hold, it is almost impossible to release its grip. The al-Dura myth – forged in the space of a few seconds, on television, in the 21st century – was swallowed by a worldwide supposedly media-savvy population.

Now, thirteen years after the fraudulent news report was first broadcast, an Israeli government commission named by then Vice Prime Minister Moshe Ya’alon, under the direction of Yossi Kuperwasser, director general of the Strategic Affairs Ministry, has examined the evidence and presented its conclusions in a 36-page report.[ii] As reluctant Israeli officials had warned in the past, this gesture opened the floodgates, releasing tons of the very filth that has fed and sustained the al-Dura myth to this day.

The nadir of journalistic skullduggery is exposed in a secret Facebook group, the Vulture Club, which reportedly has some 3,500 members.[iii] Their vicious outhouse reactions to the Kuperwasser report are but one step removed from the published articles where they clean up the language and claim to be objective. Journalists in high and lesser places – Haaretz, le Monde, UK Telegraph, rue 89, to mention a few – and their commenting readers have outdone themselves in ferocity, while the sincerely uninformed opt for polite skepticism. The defining feature of these reactions is virulent ignorance. Not daring to examine the evidence, they grab at one or two details and, with no contradictor in sight, present them as absolute confirmation that France 2’s al-Dura report is authentic and its critics are extremists. I challenge them to a public debate. They will come on like rabid dogs and slunk off with their tails between their legs.

Working since September 2012, the commission examined evidence from a wide array of investigators, analysts, specialists, journalists, military personnel, and simple citizens before concluding in measured terms that the al-Dura “news report” is baseless. There is nothing to support the claim that the man and youth were “targets of gunfire from the Israeli position” and, in fact, nothing in the video to supports the claim that they were hit by any gunfire at all[iv]. Further, the report measures the disastrous effects of the al-Dura incitement to hatred. The authors remind journalists of the importance of respecting their own professional codes that include due diligence, fact checking, correcting errors, and accepting criticism.

The al-Dura scene is a video, not an incident.

Where in the free world would a journalist and TV channel drag people into court for expressing doubts on the veracity of a news report? And then insist that only “an impartial international commission” can settle the issue? What should strike the alert mind is not the fact that the Israeli government took thirteen years to weigh in, but that French media and officials have been stubbornly defending a hoax for over a decade.

Skeptics should be reminded that a French Appellate Court acquitted Philippe Karsenty of defamation in a lawsuit brought by France 2 and Charles Enderlin. Dispatch International has learned from a reliable source that the presiding judge in that case thought France 2 would clinch a decisive victory if the raw footage were made available. After viewing the evidence the three-judge panel was honest enough to conclude that the defendant had grounds for publicly questioning the authenticity of the “news report”.

The latest bounce back of the case was heard in January, 2013.[v] The verdict, initially promised for April 3, then postponed to May 22,^,has now been set for June 26. What does this signify? Are the judges torn between the truth and the consequences (of condemning France 2 and Charles Enderlin)? Were the courts under pressure from the previous administration? From this administration? Either, both, or neither? Or has the al-Dura affair become une affaire d’Etat?

Mohamed Merah justified his execution of Jewish children in Toulouse as revenge for the killing of Palestinian children in Gaza. This is why the Israeli government decided that the al-Dura blood libel would not fade away; it must be countered. The instant blowback in all its smuggery will not have the last word. Intelligent voices are now coming forward to accredit the government report and the serious research on which it is based.

The bloody hands of the jihad killer in Woolwich are a logical extension of the bloody hands of the jihad killers in Ramallah who butchered two Israeli reservists in October 2000 – to avenge the “murder” of Mohamed al-Dura. In its evening newscast on May 22, when SkyNews was already showing Adebelajo’s hands dipped in blood, France 2 devoted 15 minutes of prime time “news” to a languid feature on 3 French converts to Islam, religion of peace, harmony, tranquility, spirituality, fulfillment. Three days later a bearded man came up behind a French soldier patrolling at La Défense in Paris, slit his throat, and got away, though two policemen were with the soldier. The killer missed the carotid artery. That soldier will survive.

And we too will survive – if we heed the voices of integrity, trust the clear-minded, and exercise due diligence.

[i] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4q4hNOKOWRs&feature=youtu.be

[ii] http://commentisfreewatch.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/the-france-2-al-durrah-report-its-consequences-and-implications-1905.pdf

[iii] http://freebeacon.com/vultures/

[iv] See, for example, Appendix 3: “Statement by Lieutenant-Colonel (res.) Nizar Fares, commander of the IDF position at Netzarim Junction on September 30, 2000”

[v] http://dev.d-intl.com/en/articles/international/2013-01-31/french-journalism-drowns-trying-save-charles-enderlin

Nidra Poller

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