Israel Matzav

Third al-Dura trial

• Excellent witnesses, who laid out a powerful case for the significance of al Durah, the dramatic lack of due diligence on the part of Enderlin, and the stonewalling that followed upon Enderlin’s and France2’s exposure to criticism.
• Mme Bénédicte Amblard repeated her previous preformances: no questions, no witnesses, a very long, whiney, concluding plea that included this gem: “these accustions may seem anodine, but they are all the more pernicious for seeming so…” She must have mentioned the Prix Goebbels a dozen times, even though they had nothing to do with the sentences in question.
• Mme. le Procureur Alimi-Uzan from the first trial was back. She once again expressed quiet astonishment that this had even reached the court, given how anodine the statements, how important the issue, how distant the insult (someone else’s words, on an aggregating website, stated in the conditional), how important for a free society that people be able to express criticism of such prominent figures as Enderlin.
• Aude Weill-Raynal was far and away the most eloquent and dynamic presence in these trials so far. In both tone and body language she dominated the scene from her opening salvo about the striking absence of Charles Enderlin from this courtroom (despite being in Paris only hours earlier), and the continued inability of the public to see the rushes. Repeatedly turning and even gesturing towards Maitre Amblard, she hammered away at the trivial and inappropriate nature of her colleague’s argument. (Amblard spent the entire hour of Weill-Raynal’s summation shuffling papers, constantly.) Towards the end of her remarks, Weill Raynal also noted that Charles Enderlin has been the permanent voice of France2 (and hence for the French public) on Middle Eastern issues for 20 years! No plurality of voices here. Just Charles and more Charles.
• I saw no MSM journalists. After the first trial, the MSM has lost interest. No rush to report the results of the Lurcat trial, no reporters from Figaro, Reuters, IHT, in the courtroom.
• Decision, January 18, 2007.
• Fashion note: Amblard did not flip her hair once that I noticed. Has she been reading Nidra?

What will happen? Interesting question. One informed observer thought he detected smirks on the face of one of the judges during Alimi-Uzan’s summation — as if to say, “on la connaît, la communautariste sioniste”). But the case itself is so risible that it would be hard to find for the plaintiff. And while that didn’t stop the judges in the Karsenty case from deciding for Enderlin, here the case is that much the more risible.

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 11:56 PM