Report: IDF had full al-Dura video the entire time, left defenders to fight France 2 on their own
Who decided to let the IDF shoot the country in the foot? This is simply beyond belief.
It turns out that while Phillippe Karsenty, Dr. Yehuda David and others were defending the IDF against charges that it shot Mohamed al-Dura, the IDF
had the full video that proved the death was staged and didn't bother to tell anyone.
Now [Israel Police Weapons Lab director Elliot Springer] has revealed that just weeks after the alleged shooting,
senior IDF officials met and watched the entire video, rather than the
edited version presented by France’s Channel 2 that sparked the
accusations against Israel.
"Despite the media reports based on edited and doctored video
footage, we watched the original, and all sounds of IDF fire was muffled
- far away in the background. When the barrage fired at al-Dura was
fired, the audio was suddenly close by - in other words Arab gumen right
beside the camera near al-Dura fired them, not the IDF,” he reported.
Springer’s testimony strengthens those of other witnesses and experts
who have declared the IDF innocent of shooting Al-Dura. However, it has
also raised a disturbing new question: if the IDF had the original,
full footage of the shooting, why did it not share it with Dr. Yehuda David, French media analyst Philippe Karsenty, or others who attempted to advocate on Israel’s behalf?
Both David and Karsenty fought in court to force France’s Channel 2
to reveal the full footage. Both needed it to help their own cases:
Karsenty was sued for accusing French media of deliberately staging the
video, while David was sued by Al-Dura’s father, Jamal, for revealing
that scars Jamal had claimed were the result of bullet wounds sustained
in the shooting were in fact from an incident years earlier in which Jamal had been attacked by an Arab gang.
Both men fought lengthy legal battles over their attempts to defend
the IDF from libel – and yet the IDF apparently did not offer them help
when it could, by making the full video available to them.
It is also not clear why the IDF did not make the whole video public
in order to boost the growing body of evidence showing the IDF did not
cause Al-Dura’s death.
Who were
Israel's Defense Ministers since 2000? I'm so glad you asked:
Yes, you guessed it. With the exception of Yaalon, who took over three months ago, every single one of them belongs to the Left (don't let the Likud next to Mofaz's name fool you - he's belong to Kadima since late 2005). In fact, Ehud Barak's two terms add up to nearly 8 of the 13 years in question. Do you think he knew about this? I would bet on it. So why didn't he tell anyone?
I leave speculation about that question to the reader rather than making my blood boil.
Labels: Amir Peretz, Binyamin Ben Eliezer, Ehud Barak, France 2, Mohamed al-Dura, Moshe Yaalon, Pallywood, Phillippe Karsenty, Shaul Mofaz
Why the French court convicted Karsenty of libel in the al-Dura case
Incredibly, the reason that a French court found
Philippe Karsenty guilty of libel for calling the al-Dura case 'faked' is that the French Supreme Court
ordered the lower court not to consider any exculpatory evidence.
This week the Paris Court of Appeals disgraced itself and revealed the
dark side of France’s arcane laws of defamation, elevating the principle
of French honor above the value of truth-telling for French
journalists. The appellate court’s sentencing of Philippe Karsenty to a fine of 7,000 Euros
for the “crime” of speaking truth to power telegraphs how France has
decided to treat whistle-blowers who have the temerity to demand that
state-sponsored media outlets differentiate between theater and news.
Perhaps this second panel of the appellate court was not entirely at
fault for its misstep. It operated with blinders, since the French
Supreme Court forbade it from viewing the relevant evidence that led the
first panel of the court to acquit Karsenty. For the French legal
system, the facts of what happened at Netzarim were and are essentially
irrelevant. This case was not about getting at the truth, but about
protecting the honor of French institutions.
Read the whole thing. Simply incredible.
Labels: France, France 2, libel and slander, mainstream media, Mohamed al-Dura, Phillippe Karsenty
Karsenty, accountablility lose
Here's Soccer Dad's Middle East Media Sampler for Thursday, June 27.
Karsenty, Accountability lose
A few weeks ago Israel's government
released a critique
of the Al Dura case. During the so-called "Aqsa intifada," Mohammed
al-Dura was allegedly killed by the IDF during a shootout at the
Netzarim Junction in Gaza. Or so it was reported by France's Channel 2
and its reporter Charles Enderlin. Al-Dura became a cause in the Arab
world. His image was put
on postage stamps to inflame the "Arab street" against Israel. The Palestinian Authority released a
video starring "Al-Dura" encouraging other children to become martyrs.
When the report was released, the Jerusalem Post's diplomatic correspondent
Herb Keinon wondered:
But still. Israel, by releasing this report 13 years on, has put this
picture back into people’s minds, and it is not entirely clear whose
interests are served by resurrecting this potent image.
Richard Landes responded:
What I’m afraid Keinon and the many others like him might be saying
here is, in addition to our enemies, who will never drop that bone as
long as there’s the most remote trace of the taste of blood on it – al
Durah as symbol of Israeli evil – they also fear that the should-be
rational people in the West, the liberals who should care about the
truth, the journalists whose job it is to care about the truth – who
won’t listen either.
But it’s these folks who are our target audience. They are the people –
especially the journalists – who need to learn, when they see that
image, that it is a symbol not of Israeli desire to kill children as
Osama bin Laden and other blood libelers interpreted it, but a symbol
of the incompetence of the media and the devastating impact of that
incompetence, fortified with a stubborn, honor-shame reflex to deny any
fault. Because we – and here I speak on behalf of democracies around
the world, indeed all peoples who wish to live in peace and tolerance
of the “other,” – we cannot afford the destructive impact of lethal
journalism. We cannot afford to have our public sphere become the
sewage dump of toxic, hate- and war-mongering lies, especially those of
our enemies.
I agree. It wasn't simply about setting the record straight, but about
holding the media accountable. Israel's decision to take a look at the
case was a sign that Israel wasn't going to let the media get away with
broadcasting straight propaganda anymore.
Yesterday, however, a French court disagreed. In 2008 media critic,
Philippe Karsenty was vindicated
of the charge that he had libeled Enderlin and France 2. Apparently a
major factor in that verdict, was the Enderline was ordered to release
the all the footage of the incident, but refused. But the case was
appealed and yesterday Karsenty was found guilty of defamation.
The AP reports:
In a report issued in 2004, Philippe Karsenty said the footage was
orchestrated and there was no proof that the boy had been killed.
France-2 sued for defamation, and after a long legal battle, a Paris
court fined Karsenty 7,000 euros Wednesday. He called the verdict
“outrageous.”
Over the past decade Karsenty has amassed hours of video about the day
of the shooting. At the heart of his claim is the fact that, according
to the reporting by France-2, father and son received a total of 15
high-velocity bullets but in the video, neither appears to be bleeding.
He says the firefight is real, but the shooting of the man and boy was
staged for the camera.
At the end of the article, the AP gets reactions. Here's one:
Gaza’s militant Hamas rulers said the ruling confirmed that Israel and
their supporters lied about the military’s practices in the coastal
territory.
“They deceive and cover their crimes in front of the media and the world,” said spokesman Fawzi Barhoum.
A spokesman for Hamas?!?!!?
Hamas is a terrorist group committed to Israel's destruction and that's who the AP gets a reaction from! Jonathan Tobin
addressed statements like this that is encouraged all too often in the media:
The al-Dura myth is significant not so much because it annoys Israelis
and their friends but because it reinforces the way Palestinians think
of themselves and gives them carte blanche to commit any outrage.
Debunking it is not pointless. It is the starting point for any effort
to answer the lies about Israel that have become the foundation for
efforts to isolate and boycott the Jewish state. Friends of Israel
ignore it at their peril.
There is no libel against Israel that is too outrageous not to be published uncritically.
Perhaps the best debunking of the report comes from James Fallows who wrote
Who Shot Mohammed al-Dura? in the Atlantic ten years ago.
The footage of the shooting is unforgettable, and it illustrates the
way in which television transforms reality. I have seen it replayed at
least a hundred times now, and on each repetition I can't help hoping
that this time the boy will get himself down low enough, this time the
shots will miss. Through the compression involved in editing the
footage for a news report, the scene acquired a clear story line by the
time European, American, and Middle Eastern audiences saw it on
television: Palestinians throw rocks. Israeli soldiers, from the slits
in their outpost, shoot back. A little boy is murdered.
What is known about the rest of the day is fragmentary and additionally
confusing. A report from a nearby hospital says that a dead boy was
admitted on September 30, with two gun wounds to the left side of his
torso. But according to the photocopy I saw, the report also says that
the boy was admitted at 1:00 P.M.; the tape shows that Mohammed was
shot later in the afternoon. The doctor's report also notes, without
further explanation, that the dead boy had a cut down his belly about
eight inches long. A boy's body, wrapped in a Palestinian flag but with
his face exposed, was later carried through the streets to a burial
site (the exact timing is in dispute). The face looks very much like
Mohammed's in the video footage. Thousands of mourners lined the route.
A BBC TV report on the funeral began, "A Palestinian boy has been
martyred." Many of the major U.S. news organizations reported that the
funeral was held on the evening of September 30, a few hours after the
shooting. Oddly, on film the procession appears to take place in full
sunlight, with shadows indicative of midday.
Fallows critique is important. He is not, in any way pro-Israel. He
also refuses to believe that Mohammed al-Dura is alive. Still he
carefully reviewed all the available evidence and concluded that
Enderlin didn't tell the correct story.
That is what any reasonable critic should have concluded. Unfortunately
many in the media simply don't care.
They would rather see their
preconceived narratives confirmed rather than examining their
prejudices, premises or procedsses. Yeterday's verdict was a victory for
continued media malpractice.
The Algemeiner carried a
brief interview with Karsenty yesterday.
Labels: France 2, Middle East Media Sampler, Mohamed al-Dura, Pallywood, Phillippe Karsenty, Soccer Dad
France 2 critic convicted of defamation, fined
Philippe Karsenty has been convicted of defamation by a French court for claiming that France 2's Charles Enderlin
fabricated at least part of the 'death' of Muhammad al-Dura.
A Paris court fined Philippe Karsenty 7,000
euros (NIS 33,000) in the defamation case filed by network France
2. Karsenty accused the network’s Jerusalem bureau chief, Charles
Enderlin, of fabricating parts of the segment.
The 55 seconds of edited footage, broadcast on
September 30, 2000, showed the terrified boy, Mohammed al-Dura, and his
father amid a furious exchange of fire in the Gaza Strip. It then cut
to the boy slumped in his father’s lap. The report blamed Israeli forces
for the death.
Karsenty called the verdict “outrageous.” A lawyer for France 2 said it was a victory for journalists.
Karsenty was convicted of libel in 2006, a
judgment that was overturned on appeal in 2008.
France 2 subsequently
appealed that appeal at the “Cour de cassation,” France’s highest court.
Last year, the Cour de cassation annulled the ruling acquitting
Karsenty of libel in 2008.
Last month, an official Israeli government report concluded that al-Dura was not harmed by Israeli forces and did not die in the exchange of fire.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who
commissioned the report in 2012, said the accusations aired on France 2
were “a manifestation of the ongoing, mendacious campaign to
delegitimize Israel.”
I sure hope this can be appealed. The fine is small but it's outrageous.
Labels: France 2, Mohamed al-Dura, Phillippe Karsenty
'Human rights watch' official, AP and AFP reporters, trash Israel in private Facebook group
A 'human rights watch' official, and several foreign correspondents for AP and AFP,
trashed Israel in a private Facebook group after the Israeli government released a report exposing Muhammad al-Dura's 'death' as a fraud.
A “secret” Facebook group of foreign correspondents and human rights
activists quickly devolved into an anti-Israel hate-fest on Tuesday
following the release of a new Israeli government report that cleared
the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) of wrongdoing in the 2000 death of a
Palestinian boy.
The Israeli government report
contests the claim that the IDF killed a Palestinian boy, Muhammad
al-Durrah, in a famous 2000 incident in Gaza that helped ignite the
Second Intifada.
Journalists and activists mocked the report, attacked the IDF, and
claimed pro-Israel lobbyists were influencing the media coverage, in a
private Facebook group for foreign correspondents known as the “Vulture
Club.”
Peter Bouckaert, a senior official at Human Rights Watch, dismissed the report as “typical IDF lies.”
“As usual, it takes them a long time to really build up the falsehood,” wrote Bouckaert.
Bouckaert also blasted the New York Times for its coverage of the report.
“It really isn’t good journalism to write this up as if these are credible allegations when it is a pack of lies,” he wrote.
Correspondents from numerous outlets, including the Associated Press and the Agence France-Presse, also piled on.
According to my sources, Bouckaert was the direct supervisor of Marc Garlasco at 'human rights watch.' Garlasco was the organization's senior military analyst until he was
suspended in September 2009 after his hobby of
collecting Nazi memorabilia was uncovered by bloggers.
Read the whole thing. It includes a screen cap of the Facebook page in question.
The Vulture Club has about 3,500 members. It's not a small group.
Labels: France 2, Human Rights Watch, Marc Garlasco, Mohamed al-Dura, Pallywood, Phillippe Karsenty
It's official: Government inquiry finds al-Dura 'killing' was a hoax
As I reported
last week, a government commission of inquiry has concluded that the Mohammed al-Dura 'killing' was a hoax. The
official report has now been released.
The
government review committee of the incident and its implications found
that "the France 2 report's central claims and accusations had no basis
in the material which the station had in its possession at the
time…There is no evidence that the IDF was in any way responsible for
causing any of the alleged injuries to Jamal or the boy."
Prime
Minister Netanyahu directed then-minister of strategic affairs Moshe
Ya'alon to set up the governmental review committee in September 2012.
According to the Prime Minister's Office "the purpose of the committee
was to examine the al-Dura affair in light of the continued damage it
has caused to Israel, and to formulate the Government of Israel's
position with regards to it."
Upon receiving the report on
Sunday, Netanyau stated that "It is important to focus on this incident –
which has slandered Israel's reputation. This is a manifestation of
the ongoing, mendacious campaign to delegitimize Israel. There is only
one way to counter lies, and that is through the truth. Only the truth
can prevail over lies."
International Affairs Minister Yuval
Steinitz, who presented the report to Netanyahu, called the al-Dura
affair "a modern-day blood libel against the State of Israel, alongside
other blood libels like the claims of an alleged massacre in Jenin. The
France 2 report was utterly baseless."
The committee determined
that, " Contrary to the report's claim that the boy is killed, the
committee's review of the raw footage showed that in the final scenes,
which were not broadcast by France 2, the boy is seen to be alive."
In
addition, the review revealed that "there is no evidence that Jamal or
the boy were wounded in the manner claimed in the report, and that the
footage does not depict Jamal as having been badly injured. In contrast,
there are numerous indications that the two were not struck by bullets
at all."
The committee added: "The review showed that it
is highly-doubtful that bullet holes in the vicinity of the two could
have had their source in fire from the Israeli position, as implied in
the France 2 report."
The review committee criticized France 2,
stating that the television station's report was "edited and narrated in
such a way as to create the misleading impression that it substantiated
the claims made therein."
I'm sure you're all shocked.
But 13 years later, with Israel having already 'confessed,' who is going to believe it?
UPDATE 8:04 PM
The government report (in English) is
here. The evidence that was before the government commission may be found
here.
Labels: France 2, Jamal al-Dura, Mohamed al-Dura, Pallywood
13 years too late Defense Ministry concludes Mohammed al-Dura's 'death' was a hoax
In 2007, I reported on
Mohammed al-Dura's wedding and made the then-speculative claim that Mohammed al-Dura had not been killed - by the IDF or by anyone else. Now, a secret commission (secret because even our own Leftists would have been outraged by the thought) in the Defense Ministry has concluded that
Mohammed al-Dura did not die. In fact, he wasn't even hurt.
A few days ago, MK Nachman Shai met with Ya’alon to give him a copy
of his new book, Media War Reaching for Hearts and Minds , which deals
with the role of media in cur- rent military conflicts, including the
Dura affair. Ya’alon then surprised Shai by saying that an investigation
carried out by Israel shows that Dura was never hurt.
This theory
has been circulating on the Internet for a few years already, but this
was the first time that an Israeli defense minister was stating so
publicly.
Today, Dura should be about 25-years-old, alive and kicking somewhere (unless he was killed later in a separate incident).
Kuperwasser
confirmed the committee’s conclusion that that Dura had not been hurt
at all and that the video clip, which was filmed by France 2 TV and
aired around the world, had indeed been staged. This means that the
France 2 TV channel report was erroneous, perhaps even knowingly.
Kuperwasser
added that the full results of the investigation would be ready in the
near future, and that most of the work had already been completed.
The
committee was comprised of numerous specialists from the
Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, as well as other academic
institutions. The committee also collected information from physicist
Nahum Shahaf, who used angles and rate of fire to prove that the scene
had been staged. Kuperwasser met with Shahaf a number of times.
Hopefully the lesson has been learned: The IDF doesn't race to take responsibility so quickly for these incidents.
Labels: France 2, Mohamed al-Dura, Palestinian lies, Pallywood, Phillippe Karsenty, Richard Landes, Yossi Kuperwasser
Soccer Dad's Middle East Media Sampler
Here's Soccer Dad's Middle East Media Sampler for Friday, April 12.
1) How to fight asymmetric warfare
Charles Enderlein and Philipe Karsenty are back in court. Enderlein was
the reporter who created the story of Mohammed al-Dura. Karsenty is the
media critic who had the temerity to question the much honored
"journalist." Back in 2008 Karsenty successfully fended off a libel suit brought by Enderlein. For reasons, I don't understand the case is back in court with a verdict due May 22.
Richard Landes has explained the case in terms of asymmetric warfare:
All asymmetrical wars take place primarily in the cognitive arena, with
the major theater of war the enemy’s public sphere. The goal is to
convince your far more powerful enemy not to fight. In defensive cases,
from the Maccabees to the Vietnamese, this has meant getting imperial
powers to “go home.” But Islamists who want to spread Dar al Islam
conduct an offensive campaign: how to get your targets to surrender on
their own home ground? In this seemingly absurd venture, they have had
remarkable success.
The mainstream news media – their journalists, editors, producers –
constitute a central front of this cognitive war: the “weak” but
aggressive side cannot have success without the witting or unwitting
cooperation of the enemy’s journalists. The success of global Jihad in
eliciting our media’s cooperation with their goals
This is correct though it isn't new.
Back in 2007, Marvin Kalb wrote THE ISRAELI-HEZBOLLAH WAR OF 2006:The Media as a Weapon in Asymmetrical Conflict in which he observed:
If we are to collect lessons from this war, one of them would have to be
that a closed society can control the image and the message that it
wishes
to convey to the rest of the world far more effectively than can an open
society, especially one engaged in an existential struggle for
survival.
An open society becomes the victim of its own openness.
During the war, no Hezbollah secrets were disclosed, but in Israel
secrets were leaked, rumors
spread like wildfire, leaders felt obliged to issue hortatory appeals
often based on in complete knowledge, a nd journalists were driven by
the fire of
competition to publish and broadcast unsubstantiated information. A
closed society conveys the impression of order and discipline; an open
society, buffeted by the crosswinds of reality and rumor, criticism and
revelation, conveys the impression of disorder, chaos and uncertainty,
but this
impression can be misleading.
It was hardly an accident that Hezbollah, in this circumstance,
projected a very special narrative for the world beyond its kin—a
narrative that depicted a selfless movement touched by God and blessed
by a religious fervor and determination to resist the enemy, the
infidel, and ultimately achieve a “divine victory,” no matter the cost
in life and treasure. The narrative contained no mention of Hezbollah’s
dependence upon Iran and Syria for a steady flow of arms and financial
resources.
For Hezbollah, the 2006 summertime war was more than a battle against a
mortal enemy; it was a crucial battle in a broader, ongoing war, linking
religious fundamentalism to Arab nationalism. Will victory be defined
as an open door to modernity or to a new caliphate? That is a key
question. The
whole Arab world is often framed as a “politically traumatized region,”
wrote Washington Post columnist Jim Hoagland, caught in the “morbid
interim between the dying of an exhausted political and social order and
the birth of a still-unknown way of life.” Hezbollah saw itself as a
resolute leader in shaping the Arab future.
In addition to changing perceptions about the region, cognitive warfare also had an effect on the battlefield.
A year later, Irwin Mansdorf and Mordechai Kedar concluded in The Psychological Asymmetry of Islamist Warfare (h/t Daled Amos):
How to balance military needs, international humanitarian law, and the
reality of facing an enemy whose tactics are not restrained by accepted
conventions are challenges to which Israel and other Western nations
need to devote serious thought. The asymmetry of battle that Israel
faces requires a rethinking of strategy to deal with threats from forces
whose ideologies allow them not just to frustrate many Western military
advantages but to use the openness of Western societies—especially
their print and image media, and the organizations through which the
Western penchant for self-criticism is expressed—to their own advantage.
Ideology, including the perception of right versus wrong, becomes part
of the discussion. Ultimately, non-Islamists, such as Israel, need to
win the ideological war as well as the military one.
In the short-term, Israel can take the lead by repeatedly and forcefully
asserting the moral high ground by pointing out that civilian
causalities are never intentional but, given the cynical tactics of the
enemies it must fight, are regrettably inevitable. Israeli spokespersons
must further assert that the culpability for civilian casualties lies
with the terrorists who have deliberately chosen to wage war against
Israel from within civilian populations precisely because of the
propaganda benefits of such tactics. While this is not likely to appease
those who seek to paint Israel as a serial violator of human rights,
the evidence will show that, given Israel's military arsenal, any
premeditated policy of targeting civilians would most certainly have
resulted in massively higher death tolls than have actually taken place.
From a human rights perspective, the tables need to be turned by
arguing that states such as Israel are victims of a capricious and
cynical policy of civilian exploitation and that militant Islamists are
intentional violators of international conventions that seek to protect
civilian lives.
In the long term, though, defeating an ideologically-based movement may
not be possible without defeating the ideology itself. For Islamists,
any move toward moderation will be a political tactic or a forced
concession rather than an actual political or ideological reform or
accommodation. What should Western societies do when fighting Islamist
groups? In order to defeat the political ideology behind Islamism,
Muslim civilians must develop a viable and practical alternative to the
Islamist organizations that claim to represent the broader Muslim
community.[56] While the ideology is immutable, if the civilian
population withdraws its support, Islamist movements will be rendered
impotent.
Their conclusion is correct but it appears to be easier said than done.
Whether at a time of war or not asymmetric warfare is going on,
especially against Israel. Whether or not they're aware, much of the
media assist in this war against Israel. Vigilance against manufactured
and false narratives remains an important check on this warfare.
If you doubt the effectiveness of the cognitive warfare being waged against Israel, ask yourself how many of Barry Rubin's snapshots have you read about in your local paper or seen on the nightly news?
2) The spillover into Lebanon
In Sects and the city Nadine Elali writes how the Syrian civil affects Lebanon (h/t Lee Smith):
Since the outbreak of hostilities in Syria between the Assad regime and
opposition forces, the war has spilled over into Lebanon. Sunnis in the
Bab al-Tabbaneh neighborhood support the rebels trying to oust Syrian
President Bashar al-Assad while the Alawites of Jabal Mohsen stand
loyally by him. It is fitting that the street which forms one of the
major frontlines between both is called Syria Street.
This division dates back to the early 1980s when the Syrian Army
attacked Tripoli’s Bab al-Tabbaneh during the Lebanese Civil War. Since
then, the fighting between residents has been directly related to Syrian
affairs. Both neighborhoods being among Tripoli’s poorest and most
densely populated areas, the high number of unemployed men also means a
glut of ready and willing fighters each time the clashes erupt.
Tony Badran's analysis of Iran and Hezbollah shows that the conflict in Tripoli is a microcosm of the primary conflict in the Middle East.
In the 1990s, there was an attempt to cover up the overt sectarianism of
the previous decade. Hezbollah posed as the ultimate banner carrier of
Palestine and of ‘resistance’ against Israel. It crafted and perfected
an image of itself as a pan-Islamic and pan-Arab resistance movement and
as big brother to other – Sunni – ‘resistance’ movements. While this
was important image management, one that conferred more legitimacy on
the group and its Iranian patron, it also opened the door operationally
to spread Iranian influence to other militant groups in the region.
Hezbollah’s training of Iraqi Shiite groups, to say nothing of Hamas, is
one example.
By 2005, this image had already begun to fade and by 2008 it was, for
all intents and purposes, finished. However, while the heyday of
‘resistance’ stardom is now gone, the operational infrastructure built
over the last two decades is not.
The difference is that the sectarian underpinnings are once again clear.
As analyst Jonathan Spyer put it, “a Sunni-Shiite arc of conflict,
centered on the rival interests of Tehran and Riyadh is now bisecting
the Middle East.” It’s now recognized that Hezbollah is actively on the
ground on all these fronts, advancing Iran’s strategic interests. Aside
from its combat role in Syria, Hezbollah/Quds Force cells have been
active in the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, and probably Bahrain, in
addition to cases such as the busted cell in Saudi Arabia. In fact, the
Saudi cell appears to resemble another cell disrupted in Kuwait in 2010,
where a Lebanese man was the key liaison between the locals and the
Iranians. But the case of Yemen perhaps best illustrates the original
conception Iran had for Hezbollah’s role.
Labels: France 2, Hezbullah, Lebanon, Middle East Media Sampler, Mohamed al-Dura, Phillippe Karsenty, Second Lebanon War, Soccer Dad, Syrian uprising
It starts again
Yet another trial gets underway in a French court on Wednesday with French maverick Phillipe Karsenty facing trial for allegedly libeling France 2 newscaster Charles Enderlin by disclosing that the Mohamed al-Dura 'killing' was an elaborate fraud. Richard Landes reports that the French chattering classes are
circling the wagons to defend Enderlin and France 2.
For the sixth time in as many years, the courts will hear accusations by
France2 against citizen Philippe Karsenty for accusing them of having
run “staged” footage as news in the case of Muhammad al-Dura. To his
devotees, “le petit Mohamed,” as he’s known in France, is “martyr of the
world” because, thanks to France2, “the whole world saw” him shot dead,
the “target of fire from the Israeli position,” dying in his father’s
arms. Except that no one saw him die on film, much less in his father’s
arms. On the contrary the overwhelming evidence suggests that it was a
scene staged by France2’s cameraman, Talal abu Rahmah, which Charles
“Scoop” Enderlin, unknowingly or not, turned into sensational news.
Indeed, few stories better embody the lethal secret de Polichinelle
that haunts France today. France2 (and everyone else, as Enderlin is
quick to point out), runs staged footage – Pallywood – all the time:
it’s a public secret that they openly admit in private but deny in
public. “They do it all the time,” Enderlin and his bosses confided
privately when confronted with the extensive evidence of staging in his
cameraman’s work. But publicly Enderlin insists, especially when
confronted with claims that he staged the al-Dura footage, “I have 100
percent confidence in my cameraman, so much that I wouldn’t even think
of questioning him.” And yet, when the judges in the last trial saw the
footage shot by the key “witness,” France2’s Palestinian cameraman, they
dramatically reversed the lower court’s finding, with harsh criticism
of Enderlin’s journalistic standards. “And to think I asked for that
footage as a favor to France2,” one of the judges later remarked off the record.
Rather than provoke an “aha” moment among the
broader profession, however, this decision inspired Enderlin’s
colleagues to close ranks. The prestigious Nouvel Obs sponsored
a petition in defense of both his honor, and of journalistic right to
report freely, without the “chilling” criticism of lay citizens “sapping
the energies of good journalists.” The reactions combined medieval
honor-driven guild solidarities with medieval credulity: “I don’t care
if it’s the Virgin Birth affair, I would tend to believe him. Someone
like Charles [Enderlin] simply doesn’t make a story up.”
Meanwhile Charles’ employer, the state-owned
media giant France2, appealed to the highest court, which, despite a
strong opinion against from the “Parquet,” (which vigorously defended
the value to civil society of allowing such criticisms), ruled that the
appeals court had no right to demand the footage, nullified their
opinion, and sent the case back to appeals court where it arrives today,
same room, same “Palace of Justice” in Paris.
Read the whole thing.
Labels: France 2, Mohamed al-Dura, Pallywood, Phillippe Karsenty
When the government interferes with the phones
The Wall Street Journal tells the fascinating story of how Egypt's
mobile phone carriers were forced this past week to shut down and then to send out pro-government SMS's.
Vodafone entered Egypt in the late 1990s and India in 2007, pleasing many investors by seeking growth opportunities outside the European market.Now, the political risks in both countries have turned ugly: Vodafone has taken billions in write-downs on its India investment, in part due to regulatory issues and a costly tax dispute with the government. In Egypt, the company is scrambling to protect its infrastructure and employees—while delivering the Egyptian army's messages.
"When armed police arrive at your offices there is not much one can do," France Télécom Chief Executive Stephane Richard said on the sidelines of a press conference Thursday, when asked about last week's decision to sever access to all of its services. Mr. Richard said a clause in the company's Egyptian mobile-phone license allows the government to shut down mobile services in the country.
Earlier this week, Vodafone said in a statement that there were "no legal or practical options" open but to comply with the demand to shut off its mobile services.
Both carriers registered their dissatisfaction with the pro-government texts on Thursday. "France Télécom strongly disapproves of any message of a political nature that runs against the neutrality principle which defines our role as a network operator," the company said in a statement. Vodafone said it had "protested to the authorities that the current situation regarding these messages is unacceptable."
...
Research In Motion Ltd. has been under pressure from several governments, especially in the Middle East and Asia, to provide access to the secure networks used by its popular Blackberry device. Last year's decision by Google Inc. to leave China because of search-engine censorship marked a rare case of a multinational company forsaking a business opportunity because of political factors.
Telecom companies face particularly acute risks when dealing with governments in countries where they rely on state-owned infrastructure or state-awarded spectrum contracts for their business.In Egypt, operators often depend on Telecom Egypt's fixed-line infrastructure to carry their mobile services. They also usually employ hundreds of people.
"What is happening in Egypt just goes to show the leverage that governments have over telecom providers," said Cynthia Wong, the director of the Global Internet Freedom project at the Center of Democracy and Technology in Washington. "They can get these companies to do what they want because of the number of employees in the country and the amount of infrastructure in place."
Paradoxically, Google was able to shut down in China because it dominates the World market. Were Vodaphone and France 2 to leave Egypt, there are too many other countries who would be willing to take their place. That and the need for infrastructure allows local governments to dictate their own terms in these matters.
Labels: Egyptian riots, France 2, Mobile phone service, Vodaphone
Philippe Karsenty's battle to expose the truth about al-Dura
The video images of al-Durrah galvanized European & Middle Eastern opinion against Israel. Philippe Karsenty stood up to the media and declared the video a complete hoax. Now Karsenty is paying the price for his skepticism. Will the European media ever present the truth about the al-Durrah incident? Find out as Karsenty speaks to Roger L. Simon about the French video footage of al-Durrah and the blood libel that followed.
Watch the videotape
here.
Labels: France 2, Mohamed al-Dura, Pallywood, Phillippe Karsenty
The al-Dura hoax
It's been a while since I've written about the Mohamed al-Dura hoax, but I've just finished watching a fascinating debate on the Michael Coren show out of Canada. I wasn't able to embed it, but you can find the show (it's about 47 minutes long)
here. It features Phillippe Karsenty, the French media analyst who has won two court cases against France 2 and Jonathan Dahoah HaLevi of Israel's foreign ministry on the Israeli side, and 'Palestinian' activist Elias Hazineh and photo-journalist Jon Elmer on the 'Palestinian' side.
The highlight is undoubtedly a claim by Hazineh that the reason we see no blood on Mohamed al-Dura's supposedly dead body is that little boys don't have much blood so it all dried up!
CAMERA has more about the show
here, which is where I got it.
Labels: France 2, Jonathan Dahoah HaLevi, Mohamed al-Dura, Phillippe Karsenty
