Doc's Talk: Al Dura Show Trials End Badly

Thursday, July 04, 2013

Al Dura Show Trials End Badly

Nidra Poller
An apparent victory for state-owned France Télévisions network and Jerusalem correspondent Charles Enderlin in the long legal battle they initiated against French citizen Philippe Karsenty may turn out to be the last stage in a cascade of strategic errors... by the broadcaster. On June 26^th the 11^th Chamber of the Appellate Court convicted citizen Karsenty of slander and ordered him to pay €7000 in damages for publicly declaring that the al Dura news report broadcast from Netzarim Junction in the Gaza Strip on September 30, 2000 was a hoax.
The video at the heart of the controversy was said to depict in real time the killing of a Palestinian youth, identified as Mohamed al Dura, and the wounding of his father Jamal, "targets of gunfire from the Israeli position." None of this is visible in the video shot by cameraman Talal Abu Rahmah--less than one minute of an essentially static scene. The action and the accusation are superimposed by Enderlin's voice-over commentary and elaborated in an enveloping narrative constantly repeated over the years. The incendiary effects of the broadcast were instant and long-lasting while, in other quarters, doubts were immediately raised about its authenticity.

In 2004, ignoring a substantial body of critical analysis published worldwide, France 2 and Charles Enderlin pressed charges against three seemingly defenseless bloggers, with the announced intention of silencing all doubters once and for all. The persistent line of attack pursued in the courtroom as in the media has been to portray those who question the reliability of the al Dura broadcast as far-right crackpot conspiracy theorists with axes to grind. Additional adjectives are added according to circumstances. By suing for libel, the plaintiffs avoided a serious probe of the controversial news report while playing on the ambiguity of libel law to claim, with each small legal victory, that its authenticity was validated. In fact, the Court was not called to judge the facts but, rather, to judge the competence and good faith of citizen Karsenty: did he, at the time he denounced the report as a hoax, perform due diligence, accumulate adequate proof, and express himself in measured terms without personal animosity against Charles Enderlin and France 2.
Utterly disregarding this distinction, al Jazeera's [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xu_Qw7rQq98] on the spot courthouse report opened with a banner: "French court rules intifada video was authentic." Briefly interviewed, Philippe Karsenty said he is confident that the truth will not be silenced. "What happened here was outrageous...obnoxious." Counsel for the plaintiffs, Maître Bénédicte Amblard, announced with a smile: "My client is satisfied with this condemnation that will bring an end to years and years of trials." As if Charles Enderlin had been dragged through the courts for 7 years by grumpy crackpots!
A France Télévisions communiqué reiterates her client's satisfaction that Philippe Karsenty was punished for "baseless accusations against the news report of the death of Mohamed Al Durah." In sanctioning a "grave insult to the honor of a journalist" the court recognizes the merits of all journalists who practice their vocation with professionalism.
Having attended 99% of the hearings in this case I can testify that citizen Karsenty became increasingly professional while France Télévisions and Charles Enderlin fumbled and mumbled, endlessly repeating the same weak arguments, producing no evidence to substantiate their case. Convicted in the court of first resort despite the avocat général's [public advocate] eloquent plea for acquittal, Karsenty won on appeal... because the court viewed raw footage shot at Netzarim Junction that day by Abu Rahmah. The plaintiffs took the case to the highest court ["Cassation," which cannot be compared to the Supreme Court] where it was remanded to the appeals court on the grounds that the Appellate judge had improperly assisted the defendant by ordering France 2 to hand over the raw footage. In plain terms this means that the concrete evidence sustains Karsenty's claim that the scene was staged. But he didn't have the footage in 2004.
Given this bizarre judicial logic, the Appellate Court reached its guilty verdict on June26th. Case closed? On the contrary, the accumulated evidence produced by the defense in the course of this stubborn litigation has visibly strengthened the case against the broadcaster. Elsewhere, Al Dura demythifiers have pursued and refined their investigations, reaching and convincing an ever wider public. Forces determined to erase the al Dura blood libel are emboldened, not intimidated. In the space of a few short days since the verdict was pronounced, new information has been made public, new voices are raised. Several books-in French and in English-- are slated for publication this fall.
And what will France Télévisions and Charles Enderlin do about it? If the al Dura news report met the standards of professional journalism, if the broadcaster had responded to challenges by providing corroboration instead of suing bloggers, the affair would have been honorably settled long ago. The problem is that the news report cannot be corroborated and the endless lamentation of its producer cannot substitute for concrete evidence.
The al Dura broadcast is not a mixed grill that can be served to each according to his taste; it is an indivisible whole. The France 2 cameraman who shot the alleged incident testified under oath: Israeli soldiers fired on their sitting target for 45 minutes until they "finally" killed the Palestinian "child" ... deliberately... in cold blood. The crossfire dear to hearsay commentary does not exist. The 45 minutes of uninterrupted gunfire "solely from the Israeli position" are necessary to establish the heartless cruelty of Israeli soldiers.
The blood libel triggered the 21^st century version of pogroms in Israel-shahid operations misnamed as "suicide bombings" --and vicious attacks on Jews worldwide. Why would the targets of the blood libel stand by in silence today, when a French court managed to recognize legitimate doubts about its authenticity? Jews are not defenseless!
Overcoming deep-seated reluctance to impinge on press freedom or conduct what could look like a whitewash, the Israeli government formed a commission under the direction of General Yossi Kuperwasser, appointed by General Moshe Ya'alon, to investigate the affair. The findings are published in a 36-page document that is a model of clarity. After months of thorough examination of the evidence, the commission concludes that Jamal and Mohamed al Dura were not hit by Israeli gunfire and, moreover, as far as the video is concerned, were not hit or wounded at all. Countless discrepancies, anomalies, inaccuracies and outright falsehoods support the claim that the scene was staged. Charles Enderlin, who is wont to dismiss critics who have never set foot in Gaza and know nothing about war, had to find other ways to deflect the findings of the top brass commission composed of a solid roster of specialists. He claims France Télévisions was not invited to participate. Our sources report that the invitation, relayed by the French ambassador to Israel, was declined.
Convicted but not beaten, Philippe Karsenty deplores the unhealthy collusion between the executive, the courts, and the media to stifle the truth. "If President Hollande is serious about his promise to combat anti-Semitism, he should demand that France Télévisions withdraw the falsified news report." The al Dura affair is not a mano a mano between Charles Enderlin and Philippe Karsenty in the French judicial arena; it is a burning international issue that must be addressed-- the perversion of Western journalism in the service of forces opposed to civilized values, including the very press freedom enjoyed by those journalists. The al Dura news broadcast with its enveloping narrative not only incites to murderous hatred, it undermines the rational thinking that is our safeguard against tyranny.
Revised 09:37 EDT

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2013/07/al_dura_show_trials_end_badly.html at July 03, 2013 - 08:55:22 AM CDT

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