Enderlin has responded to an article by Reuven Pedatzur which attacked his coverage of the Al Durah story. It’s not online, but here’s a PDF of the “deadwood” version (HT/Barry Nimat) and below a transcript (HT/CAMERA)
The claim that there was not a drop of blood at the scene [where Mohammed al-Dura allegedly was killed in 2000] is erroneous. Blood is clearly visible in the videos, and is mentioned in the reports prepared by the hospital that treated Jamal al-Dura, Mohammed’s father.
This is most interesting phrasing. Blood is clearly not visible in the videos. There’s a vague red spot where the boy was allegedly shot in the stomach, but that could (and probably is) a red rag that was previously on his thigh where he was allegedly first hit, and which “blood” in the later scene has miraculously vanished. For a gaping stomach wound from which the boy allegedly bled to death, the absence of blood at the scene is quite striking… even necessitating the adding of blood the next day. (All this evidence is discussed here.)
But what can this possibly mean:
[blood] is mentioned in the reports prepared by the hospital that treated Jamal al-Dura, Mohammed’s father.”
How can the hospital know what blood was at the site? But more pointedly, note that Enderlin refers to the doctors who treated Jamal, not Muhammad. Could this be caution on his part, since in Shapira’s movie the facial recognition expert makes it clear that the boy in the hospital is not Muhammad al Durah?
In any case, the father, in the final scene shot by Talal abu Rahmah, allegedly having been hit at that point by 8-9 bullets, still shows no sign of blood.
Scene 5: Note that there is no blood on Muhammad’s right thigh, where he allegedly took his first bullet. On the red near his stomach, see the above linked essay.
Jamal filed a libel suit in France against Dr. Yehua David and a French Jewish newspaper that published his argument that the father’s scars are from an operation conducted six years earlier. Dr. David was referring only to injuries to the limbs, and not to a serious injury to Jamal’s hip. An investigative judge in France accepted the suit, and the case will be heard in court.
I’d love to see this trial play out. It’s one of Enderlin’s favorite ploys to imply that because there’s a court case (sometimes non-existent), that his side will obviously win.
I would like to point out that no doctor in Shifa Hospital has claimed that the child was brought to the emergency room arrived at 10 A.M. The emergency room director said: “Mohammed al-Dura arrived around 1 P.M.” That was 2 P.M. Israel time, because the Palestinians had switched to winter time.
But according to Enderlin’s account, the firing started at 3PM.
Quinze heures (15:00), tout vient de basculer près de l’implantation de Netzarim dans la bande de Gaza…
Given that for the next forty minutes at least the boy was under fire and bleeding to death, the evacuation could have occurred only sometime shortly before 4, and arrival at the hospital only sometime after 4:30, so this is a distinction without a meaning. Clutching at thin straws, and typical for Enderlin, addressed to an audience of ignoramuses.
Pedatzur implies there was a conspiracy involving hundreds of Palestinian protesters, Shifa Hospital doctors and doctors from the military hospital in Jordan, where Jamal al-Dura was treated, and that Israeli security services did not find anything about it. Is this possible?
This is Enderlin’s favorite ploy. Extensive evidence supports the “conspiracy theory” that Enderlin scorns. The “hundreds of Palestinian protesters” are on record systematically staging scenes – it’s a public secret that only a fool or a knave would insist on not seeing. The Shifa hospital doctors presented another boy as Al Durah. The Jordanian doctors produced a document riddled with contradictions. The idea that Palestinians wouldn’t a) stage a scene like this, and b) show solidarity by not breaking cover, is an example of Western cognitive egocentrism that not only characterizes Enderlin’s dishonest mind, but James Fallows’ honest one.
As for the “surely the Israeli secret services” would have found something…” argument, it is alas, based on the idea that the Israeli secret services are “on the case.” I have no doubt that if they wanted to look, they’d find. But, alas, political correctness infests even intelligence services in our day, and why the Israeli military would be less subject to pressures (albeit different ones) than, say, the US Department of Defense, is a question that needs posing.
Talal Abu Rahma filmed the real time events as they occurred on September 20, 2000, at the Netzarim junction for the French station, France 2. This not a staged event [sic], but rather problematic events that led to Mohammed al-Dura being killed and his father being seriously injured. In order to review the incident, France 2 and Jamal have announced more than once that they are willing to have the boy’s remains exhumed. France 2 stated that it is willing to establish an investigative committee based on international standards.
Despite this, an official request from any Israeli entity to participate in a serious and official investigation has never been received.
Israel should take him up on this offer. And the first thing to ask for is the full tape of Talal’s work. As for the exhumation of the body, that would only prove that Muhammad was killed and buried there, not that the footage taken by Talal captures the killing on tape; nor that the Israelis did the killing. Of course the media circus would obscure all those issues, so, like his claim that he “cut the unbearable agony of the child (at #4)”, it’s a master bluff that the Israelis won’t call him on.
I would like to clarify that the legal battle against Philippe Karsenty is not yet over and is still pending before the High Court of Appeals in Paris. In addition, France 2’s management voiced sharp protest over Esther Shapira’s film.
I find no record of a formal protest (or even a press release). If anyone knows of one, please let me know. (I’ve sent Enderlin a request for clarification.) In any case, the Karsenty legal battle is only now a matter of procedural objections. If the Cour de Cassation overturns the appeals decision, then it goes back for another round. Hopefully, this time, Karsenty will ask his lawyers to demand the full tape from Enderlin.