Enderlin hits bottom, keeps digging

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)

Regarding “Mohammed is not dead,” January 24, by Reuven Pedatzur

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.

9 Responses to Enderlin hits bottom, keeps digging

  1. E.G. says:

    What, Haaretz didn’t let Charlie have a “right to reply” space?
    I guess France-2 is going to air a particularly venomous report soon…

  2. E.G. says:

    Interestingly, Luc Rosenzweig published a paper on the affair on the French JPost edition a few weeks ago. Never saw a reaction there.

  3. Solomonia says:

    Charles Enderlin Takes Up The Shovel Again…

    France 2′s execrable Enderlin keeps digging and digging, this time with a response to a critical Haaretz op-ed. Who better to dig through Enderlin’s many obfuscations than Richard Landes: Enderlin hits bottom, keeps digging…….

  4. Stan says:

    The accusation that the entire Al Dura was staged seems to be well developed and factually established.

    How come there is no way to bring this out into the “main stream” debate ? Could someone please explain to me.

    Surely this can be made to become “main stream” by the correct political forces ?

    As the case for the accusations is by now well developed should’t the thrust now be to go for the “main stream” – protests, petitions etc. – in multiple countries to get this into court ? Can’t Enderlin be sued – charged with libel elsewhere other than France ?

    It’s never too late.

    Please help me understand.

  5. Soccer Dad says:

    Jewish blogging this week…

    On my recent trip to Israel, I had the pleasure of meeting Snoopy the Goon who took me to the stalactite cave near Bet Shemesh. This week he hosts the latest edition of Haveil Havalim. He included two of my posts and lots of great stuff from Fresno Zio…

  6. Eliyahu says:

    This is meant to be a response to Comment # 186 on the Coke Lite thread. It was inadvertently eaten by the software. So I post it here.

    EG, everything can be explained indeed, rightly or wrongly. But when I see the deliberate manipulation and organization of masses of enthusiasts to Save the Planet, which is done through the instrumentality of the MSM, small group organizing, etc., then I have to be skeptical.

    I have also heard a French specialist who called himself a socialist, argue that there was global warming but it was minimal and was not manmade. Consider, in view of your knowledge of how the MSM work, the possibility that the most articulate expert skeptics about GW & AGW may be deliberately kept off the media so that they cannot persuade the public to think against the Authorized Version.

  7. Eliyahu says:

    in response to #186 on Coke Lite thread:

    EG, everything can be explained indeed, rightly or wrongly. But when I see the deliberate manipulation and organization of masses of enthusiasts to Save the Planet, which is done through the instrumentality of the MSM, small group organizing, etc., then I have to be skeptical.

    I have also heard a French specialist who called himself a socialist, argue that there was global warming but it was minimal and was not manmade. Consider, in view of your knowledge of how the MSM work, the possibility that the most articulate expert skeptics about GW & AGW may be deliberately kept off the media so that they cannot persuade the public to think against the Authorized Version.

  8. Cynic says:

    Eliyahu,

    With regard to the MSM here’s something for what it’s worth
    £8BN BBC ECO-BIAS

    Concerns are growing that BBC journalists and their bosses regard disputed scientific theory that climate change is caused by mankind as “mainstream” while huge sums of employees’ money is invested in companies whose success depends on the theory being widely accepted.
    …………….
    Veteran journalist and former BBC newsreader Peter Sissons is unhappy with the corporation’s coverage.
    He said recently: “The corporation’s most famous interrogators invariably begin by accepting that ‘the science is settled’ when there are countless reputable scientists and climatologists producing work that says it isn’t. It is, in effect, BBC policy, enthusiastically carried out by the BBC’s environment correspondents, that those views should not be heard.

    “I was not proud to be working for an organisation with a corporate mind so closed on such an important issue.”

  9. Phil says:

    Didn’t know where else I should post this, but there’s a new (most likely) Pallywood story you’d be interested in:
    http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/201710.php

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>