Thirteen years ago when France 2 and Charles Enderlin sent around the world their fake story about Muhammad al Dura, the video of the staged death of a little boy became the rallying cry of Islamist terrorists all around the world. Instead of investigating the story, the Mainstream media became the biggest supporters of the hoax, and became accomplices this deadly fraud.
But for those who looked at the video with an open mind there were plenty of questions about the video. Why is there no footage of the boy after he was shot? Why does he appear to move in his father’s lap, and to clasp a hand over his eyes after he is supposedly dead? Why is one Palestinian policeman wearing a Secret Service-style earpiece in one ear? Why is another Palestinian man shown waving his arms and yelling at others, as if ‘directing’ a dramatic scene? Why does the funeral appear — based on the length of shadows — to have occurred before the apparent time of the shooting? Why is there no blood on the father’s shirt just after they are shot? Why did a voice that seems to be that of the France 2 cameraman yell, in Arabic, ‘The boy is dead’ before he had been hit? Why do ambulances appear instantly for seemingly everyone else and not for al-Dura?”
Nevertheless Muhammad al Dura became a poster child for Islamist terror. Osama bin Laden referred to al-Dura in a post-9/11 video; the killers of Wall St. Journal reporter Daniel Pearl placed a picture of him in their beheading video; streets, squares and academies have been named after al-Dura.
Philippe Karsenty a French Jewish activist Identified the al Dura video as a hoax and was sued by the TV Station and reporter. In May 2008 a French Court of Appeals found in favor of Jewish activist Philippe Karsenty, overturning a lower court decision that he had libeled France 2 and its Jerusalem correspondent Charles Enderlin when he accused them of knowingly misleading the world about the death of the Palestinian child Mohammed al-Dura in the Gaza Strip in 2000.
He became a poster child for the Intifada. Osama bin Laden referred to al-Dura in a post-9/11 video; the killers of Wall St. Journal reporter Daniel Pearl placed a picture of him in their beheading video; streets, squares and academies have been named after al-Dura. He became a poster child for the Intifada.”
It took the Israeli government seven years to deny responsibility for the death of al Dura, and thirteen years to declare it a hoax–they were late on both counts.
Today the Israeli
government finally released a report telling the world something already
known–the Mohammed al-Dura story was a Hoax.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu received today the report of the Government Review Committee on “The France 2 Al-Durrah Report, its Consequences and Implications.” The report was presented by the Minister of International Affairs, Strategy and Intelligence Yuval Steinitz, in the presence of Director General of the Ministry of International Affairs and Strategy, Yossi Kuperwasser.
Prime Minister Netanyahu directed then Minister of Strategic Affairs Yaalon to set up the governmental review committee in September 2012. The purpose of the committee was to examine the Al-Durrah 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.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu: “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.”
Minister of International Affairs, Strategy and Intelligence Yuval Steinitz: ” The Al-Durrah affair is 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.”
Following an extensive review of materials related to the affair, the committee determines 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 of the report:
- 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.
- 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 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.
If you look at the pictures above you will see that there is no blood on the wall on the bottom picture, If the boy and/or the dad had been shot there would be blood.
- The report was edited and narrated in such a way as to create the misleading impression that it substantiated the claims made therein.
- Over time numerous additional inconsistencies and contradictions have come to light, and question marks have been raised regarding nearly every aspect of the report.
- The report relied entirely on the station’s local stringer, without additional evidence for his claims, and this despite the fact that there were numerous other media crews on the scene. The stringer’s various claims regarding the affair in the years since the incident have been characterized by repeated contradictions and falsehoods.
The Al-Durrah affair demonstrates the need for media outlets to implement the highest professional and ethical standards when covering asymmetric conflicts. There is a particular need for international media outlets to critically evaluate information provided by local stringers, especially in arenas in which repeated attempts to stage or fabricate media items have been documented.
The al-Dura hoax has long-since been outed. But there is one question that remains to be answered, WHY? Not necessarily why the hoax was started. Hell we all know that, Palestinian cameraman and a French reporter who wasn’t on the scene gets the feed an can’t wait to broadcast another “horror perpetuated by those horrible Jews.” That happens every day.
The real why is, “why did they hold on to the lie for so many years, why do they still hold on the lie?” The have seen the full tape, they probably saw it years ago, why does/did Enderlin and France2 hold on to the lie that has caused the death of so many? I think to say that there was Antisemitism involved is too easy–but I can’t think of another reason.