Des archives Al Durah: l’episode Daniel Leconte-Denis Jeambar.

The Leconte-Jeambar episode represents one of the key moments in the al Durah affair, and an index of how rapidly the gate-keepers closed ranks around Enderlin. It raises all kinds of ethical questions, most of which got crowded out by red herrings.

Apres avoir visionné les rushes de Talal abu Rahmah, deux journalistes français se sont embrouillés dans les guette-apens de l’affaire al Durah. Voici une échange dans le Figaro entre Leconte-Jeanbar et Enderlin, suivi d’une version anglaise de remarques faites sur une chaine de Radio juive.

N’ayant pas le temps de commenter en ce moment, j’invite les lecteurs a faire le commentaire.

Please leave analysis.

Le Figaro, no. 18809

Le Figaro, mardi 25 janvier 2005, p. 13

DEBATS ET OPINIONS

MÉDIAS Qui a tué le jeune Palestinien de Netzarim, le 30 septembre 2000 ?

Guet-apens dans la guerre des images

Denis JEAMBAR, Daniel LECONTE

Partis pour faire notre travail journalistique de façon honnête, nous voilà aujourd’hui accusés d’être les complices d’une manoeuvre malhonnête, voire conspirationniste, un comble. C’est dire l’état d’une certaine presse en France.

Résumons. Depuis plusieurs années, la Mena, une agence francophone de presse israélienne, et la rédaction de France 2 s’affrontent. A l’origine de cette bataille médiatique, la fusillade du carrefour de Netzarim, dans les Territoires, le 30 septembre 2000. Elle oppose des soldats israéliens à des soldats palestiniens. Entre les deux, des lanceurs de pierres. Et parmi eux, un enfant et son père, pris dans la fusillade. Charles Enderlin, le correspondant de France 2 en Israël, n’est pas sur place. Il récupère les images tournées par son cameraman palestinien, Talal Abou Rama. Il les monte. Et le soir, sur l’antenne de France 2, il les commente de la façon suivante : « Ici Djamal et son père. Ils sont la cible des tirs venus de la position israélienne. L’enfant fait des signes mais… une nouvelle rafale… l’enfant est mort et son père est blessé. »

Faux, rien ne permet de dire que l’enfant a été tué par des soldats israéliens, affirme très vite la Mena. Et pendant trois ans, l’agence de presse accumule des indices troublants qui mettent en cause la version donnée par Charles Enderlin. Plutôt que les tirs israéliens, elle évoque des tirs palestiniens et demande des explications. En guise de réponse, France 2 se retranche derrière des arguments juridiques et décide de ne plus bouger.

C’est dans ce contexte que nous sommes approchés, il y a six mois environ, par Luc Rozensweig, ancien du journal Le Monde. Nous savons les ravages causés par cette image, la haine qu’elle a entretenue et développée sur place, chez nous, dans les banlieues dites sensibles, et partout ailleurs dans le monde, où elle a été présentée sur la base du commentaire fourni par Charles Enderlin comme un exemple de la barbarie israélienne.

Après discussions, nous acceptons donc d’accompagner Luc Rozensweig dans son enquête pour tenter de savoir ce qui s’est vraiment passé ce jour-là au carrefour de Netzarim. Mais pour empêcher les manoeuvres médiatiques habituelles, nous demanderons à Luc Rozensweig de garder le secret jusqu’au bout. Nous entendons même nous réserver la possibilité de ne rien dire s’il n’y a rien à dire de plus que ce qu’on connaît déjà.

C’est ce que nous faisons. Luc Rozensweig enquête et nous présente des faits totalement contradictoires avec la version officielle donnée par Charles Enderlin et Talal Abou Rama. Rozensweig va même plus loin. Il reprend les thèses de la Mena et suggère que les images de l’enfant et de son père sous le feu des balles pourraient être le résultat d’une mise en scène organisée par les Palestiniens.

A ce stade de l’enquête, Arlette Chabot, directrice de l’information de France 2, accepte de nous rencontrer. Et de collaborer sincèrement et courageusement à la recherche de la vérité. Nous lui présentons les éléments en notre possession. Nous lui confions nos doutes sérieux sur la version fournie par Enderlin et Talal Abou Rama. Mais dans le même temps, nous ajoutons que nous sommes prêts à écarter les accusations de Rozensweig sur la mise en scène de la mort de l’enfant si le visionnage de l’ensemble des rushes tournés par Talal Abou Rama confirme ce que Charles Enderlin a déclaré à deux reprises au moins, dont à Télérama : « J’ai coupé l’agonie de l’enfant. C’était insupportable… Cela n’aurait rien apporté de plus. »

Arlette Chabot accepte sans réticence. Sauf que le visionnage des rushes ne nous apprend rien de plus sur « l’agonie de l’enfant ». Ou plutôt, si ! Cette fameuse « agonie », qu’Enderlin affirme avoir coupée au montage, n’existe pas.

En revanche, le visionnage permet de relever, avec l’approbation de nos confrères de France 2 présents autour de la table que, dans les minutes qui précèdent la fusillade, les Palestiniens semblent avoir organisé une mise en scène. Ils « jouent » à la guerre avec les Israéliens et simulent, dans la plupart des cas, des blessures imaginaires. Le visionnage intégral des rushes démontre aussi qu’au moment où Charles Enderlin donne le gamin pour mort, tué par les Israéliens, c’est-à-dire le soir même sur le journal de France 2, rien ne lui permet d’affirmer qu’il est vraiment mort et encore moins qu’il a été tué par des soldats israéliens. Tout, bien au contraire, à commencer par l’emplacement des uns et des autres sur le terrain, incriminerait plutôt une ou des balles palestiniennes.

Face à cette dernière remarque, nos confrères de France 2 reconnaissent que rien effectivement ne permet de dire que l’enfant a été touché par des tirs israéliens. Leurs experts ont même démontré, nous assurent-ils, que l’enfant a été touché par des éclats ( ?) ou par des balles qui auraient ricoché sur la chaussée, des balles qui en tout état de cause ne visaient ni l’enfant ni son père. « De toute façon, conclut l’un d’entre eux, on ne pourra jamais savoir d’où venaient les tirs. »

Autrement dit, en attribuant la mort de l’enfant à des tirs israéliens le soir même sur France 2, Charles Enderlin a extrapolé à partir des rushes et de la version des événements fournie par son cameraman. Pourquoi ? Pourquoi a-t-il privilégié cette interprétation ? Dans quel but ? Peu importe, le fait est là et suffit en soi à revisiter toute cette affaire de fond en comble pour trier le vrai du faux.

Alors que, de part et d’autre, nous nous sommes engagés dans ce travail, la Mena, informée sans que nous le sachions par Luc Rozensweig, rend public le lendemain, dans une longue dépêche, les détails de la rencontre entre France 2 et nous. Elle profite même des premières conclusions auxquelles nous sommes arrivés la veille avec France 2 pour pousser l’avantage et exposer la thèse de la mise en scène de la mort de l’enfant, thèse que, pour notre part, nous n’avons, faute de preuves sérieuses, jamais reprise à notre compte.

Sollicités par la presse, nous choisissons de nous taire. Nous savons en effet que dans le tintamarre orchestré par la Mena, nous ne pouvons plus être entendus. France 2, entre-temps, d’ailleurs, nous a présenté des éléments sérieux qui réfutent la thèse de la mise en scène de la mort de l’enfant. Nous décidons alors d’interrompre notre enquête comme le fait la presse sur bien des sujets tous les jours.

Aujourd’hui que le tintamarre est un peu retombé, il redevient possible de dire les choses et qui sait, peut-être, d’être enfin entendus. A ceux qui, comme la Mena, ont voulu nous instrumentaliser pour étayer la thèse de la mise en scène de la mort de l’enfant par des Palestiniens, nous disons qu’ils nous trompent et qu’ils trompent leurs lecteurs. Non seulement nous ne partageons pas ce point de vue, mais nous affirmons qu’en l’état actuel de notre connaissance du dossier, rien ne permet de l’affirmer, bien au contraire.

A certains journalistes « médias » qui ont tenté d’amalgamer notre point de vue à celui de la Mena pour mieux le discréditer, nous voulons dire qu’ils participent une fois de plus à rendre ce dossier opaque. Il n’en avait pas besoin. En tout cas, compte tenu de la valeur symbolique de ces images et de leurs effets ravageurs, c’est un devoir professionnel pour tous, nous semble-t-il, d’éviter les approximations et de dire exactement ce que l’on sait. Ni plus ni moins.

* journaliste ; ** journaliste, producteur et réalisateur.

Charles repond qu’on cherche à le censurer, ce que lui, brave journaliste, ne se laisserai pas faire:

 

Non à la censure à la source

Charles ENDERLIN

Longueur  : Moyen ( 502 mots )Je dois remercier Denis Jeambar et Daniel Leconte pour leur tribune publiée par Le Figaro (1). Evoquant la mort à Gaza du petit Mohammed al-Dura le 30 septembre 2000 et…

Le Figaro, no. 18811

Le Figaro, jeudi 27 janvier 2005, p. 12

DEBATS ET OPINIONS

MÉDIAS Qui a tué le jeune Palestinien de Netzarin, le 30 septembre 2000 ?
Non à la censure à la source

Charles ENDERLIN

Je dois remercier Denis Jeambar et Daniel Leconte pour leur tribune publiée par Le Figaro (1). Evoquant la mort à Gaza du petit Mohammed al-Dura le 30 septembre 2000 et filmée par Talal Abou Rahmeh de France 2, ils admettent qu’il ne s’agit pas d’une mise en scène. Le directeur de L’Express et mon excellent confrère, journaliste de télévision, considèrent que la Metula News Agency (NDLR : citée sous l’abréviation « Mena » dans leur article) a voulu les « instrumentaliser ». Ouf !

Pour en arriver là, il aura fallu que France 2 retourne dans le camp de réfugiés al-Boureij à Gaza chez le père, Jamal al-Dura, pour lui demander de montrer ses cicatrices devant la caméra. Il a répété sur la tombe de son fils qu’il était prêt à témoigner.

Les lecteurs du Figaro doivent savoir que cette « Agency » et d’autres sites Web mènent, depuis quatre ans, une campagne diffamatoire affirmant que toute cette histoire n’est que du cinéma tourné par les génies de la propagande palestinienne. Certains allant même jusqu’à affirmer que l’enfant serait encore vivant ! Bizarre ? Oui, mais cela a eu pour résultat que ma famille et moi-même avons reçu des menaces considérées comme sérieuses par la police israélienne.

Nous avons été obligés de prendre des mesures de sécurité avant de changer de domicile. Plusieurs plaintes en diffamation ont été déposées. En France, un individu qui m’a menacé de mort a été condamné et jugé.

Mais revenons à l’article de Denis Jeambar et Daniel Leconte. Ils posent la question suivante : pourquoi Enderlin a-t-il dit dans son reportage que les balles venaient de la position israélienne ? Voici les réponses :

D’abord, parce que, au moment de la diffusion, le correspondant de France 2 à Gaza, Talal, qui a filmé la scène, indiquait que tel était le cas. Là, je dois répéter que, journaliste reporteur d’images, Talal travaille en toute confiance pour notre chaîne depuis 1988. Dans les jours suivants, d’autres témoignages de journalistes et de certaines sources sont venus me confirmer les faits. Il en était de même pour les réactions des chefs de l’armée qui allaient dans le même sens tout en rejetant sur les Palestiniens la responsabilité des affrontements et, plus tard, en lançant un débat sur l’origine des tirs. Toutes choses dont j’ai rendu compte dans les journaux de France 2.

Mais, à aucun moment, l’armée ne nous a écrit pour nous proposer de collaborer à une enquête en bonne et due forme. Proposition que nous avons malgré tout faite par écrit auprès du porte-parole de Tsahal sans jamais recevoir de réponse. Sans cela, pour les uns et les autres, le débat ne sera jamais clos.

Ensuite, parce que, pour moi, l’image correspondait à la réalité de la situation non seulement à Gaza, mais aussi en Cisjordanie. L’armée israélienne ripostait au soulèvement palestinien par l’utilisation massive de tirs à balles réelles. D’ailleurs, Ben Kaspit du quotidien israélien Maariv révélera un secret militaire deux années plus tard : durant le premier mois de l’Intifada, Tsahal avait tiré un million de cartouches de calibre divers, 700 000 en Cisjordanie et 300 000 à Gaza (2). Des enfants palestiniens se sont retrouvés en première ligne. Du 29 septembre à la fin octobre 2000, 118 Palestiniens sont morts, parmi eux 33 avaient moins de 18 ans. Onze Israéliens ont été tués, tous adultes (3). Les envoyés spéciaux sur place et les reportages filmés sur le terrain peuvent le confirmer.

Dans ce contexte, Denis Jeambar et Daniel Leconte évoquent l’utilisation qui a été faite de l’image de la mort de l’enfant et posent ainsi un problème fondamental : lors de la réalisation de son reportage, un journaliste doit-il tenir compte de l’usage malhonnête qui pourrait en être fait ultérieurement par des groupes extrémistes ? Une telle exigence signifierait une inacceptable censure à la source.

Quant aux éléments de mon reportage qu’ils relèvent par ailleurs, je suis à leur disposition pour leur fournir toutes les explications nécessaires.

 

Catégorie : Éditorial et opinions
Sujet(s) uniforme(s) : Frontières et territoires
Sujets – Le Figaro : MEDIA; INFORMATION; DESINFORMATION; FRANCE 2; CHARLES ENDERLINType(s) d’article : ARTICLE
Taille : Moyen, 502 mots

© 2005 Le Figaro. Tous droits réservés.

Doc. : news·20050127·LF·20050127×2FIG0219





news·20050127·LF·20050127×2FIG0219

This is the transcript of an interview that LeConte and Jeambar subsequently gave to Radio de la Communauté  Juive interviewer Shlomo Malka that explains both the skirmishing in the pages of the Figaro and the subsequent (otherwise inexplicable) silence.

Verbatim interview RCJ 1er février 2005

Shlomo Malka: With us Denis Jeambar head of L’Express and Daniel Leconte producer and television director, welcome.

Daniel Leconte et Denis Jeambar : Hello.

RCJ: It’s an image that more than four years old that went around the world that had an important role in the spreading of the Intifada that brought out passions at the time. We had, in his time, Olivier Mazerolle with whom we debated on this for a long time. Today the affair has bounced back with an investigation done initially for your support and that did not give place to a publication [by Luc Rosenzweig for L’Express]. You explain the genesis and the development of this affair in an article that was published in the Figaro last week under the title “Trap in the war of images” and this sub-title “Who killed the young Palestinian of Netzarim the 30th of September 2000?” You went from the principle that you could conduct an honest investigation outside of the realm of passions. What have you arrived at Denis Jeambar?

Denis Jeambar : First we tried doing the work of a basic journalist that is to say look at the material that exists because we saw a couple minutes in the televised news programs but we did not see the totality of the sequence that is to say 27 or 28 minutes that were filmed by the cameraman. So the first task of the investigation, after having gathered information that posed a certain number of questions, gathered the totality of declarations of the different actors of this story and notably Charles Enderlin and his cameraman, was to try to see the reality of the initial material in regards to what was shown. And therefore we had access to the rushes we watched them and we asked a certain number of questions because we were extremely troubled by what we saw at that moment during the projection of the rushes in the office of Arlette Chabot, director of France 2, who, it has to be said, played perfectly the role. And that provoked a certain number of reactions. This meeting particularly this meeting was revealed.  We were doing a basic journalistic work that is, to go to the end of the investigation before publication. One does not publish the stages of an investigation.

An investigation you take it from point A and you try to lead it until its end there was no reason for us to explain ourselves and communicate during the investigation unless we had found things that were indubitable and definitive in the middle of the investigation but we wanted to go until the end of the investigation and in then in the middle of the investigation the La Mena agency brought out a certain number of information concerning these meetings and that perturbed our work a lot  nevertheless France 2 afer the questions we asked had the verifications made with its correspondent and we were ready to draw conclusions. All that was explained in the press without us neither Daniel Leconte nor I expressing ourselves. And there was a debate of the implications and we preferred to take the time that things fall back down and calm themselves to become audible again and give our conclusions at the moment when we stopped investigating.

SM : Daniel Leconte

DL : yes I think that Denis resumed the point of view very well, just to explain why effectively we did not wish although we were solicited at the moment to answer the questions of journalists because as Denis said we wanted to go all the way until the end of our investigation it wasn’t finished and we had the feeling in any case that for us it was impossible to make ourselves heard, to make our truths heard, on this affair that there was the usual face off of the past three years from positions of sides that weren’t ours therefore we wanted to wait and express ourselves at the moment where we would be heard which seems to be the case today.

DJ : we wanted to be prisoners of nobody

SM : so you explain in your article in the Figaro that reusing the thesis of la Mena according to which the shooting in Netzarim corresponded to a staging and that the child was not dead. But you’ve both revealed that a certain number of things are troubling especially when Charles Enderlain says in his commentary that Jamal and his son are the target of shooting coming from Israeli positions that is false and everyone agrees on this today.

DJ : everyone agrees on this so they oppose us saying that the Israeli army has never replied on this but the Israeli army basically never replies about anything so that’s a communications choice it has made. regardless before giving that precision one must also say that in there rushes during about 24 minutes we see only staging that is to say young Palestinians using the television as a means of communication, its the arm of the week I would say today that the image also simulates wounds etc' we see them fall when they have the impression that nothing is happening they get back up

SM : that is a totally new element you have discovered.

DJ : Naturally that we have totally discovered and the scene of the child and the father are totally taken out of context from the media’s point of view let’s say from a journalistic perspective that it was interesting to put all of this in perspective, to tell it. It’s a side of the decor that is never shown. Me I don’t bear judgment on the behavior of Palestinians as I said it’s the arm of the week but it’s a truth there is only one man we see wounded in the thigh here we see clearly that there is blood but for the rest you see boys who watch the camera who pretend to fall who fall and when nothing happens they leave running.

SM : And that simulate wounds

DJ : They simulate wounds totally, come and goes of ambulances where people who have strictly no wounds are being evacuated it’s also an important element in the movie by the way which has the effect that in the first screening we were extraordinarily troubled and the second element of trouble is the scene itself that is to say that we asked for verifications because the father wears a t-shirt on which we see no trace of blood and that was one of the elements that troubled us as well and behind the father was refilmed to show exactly the impact of the wounds in relation to the wounds we noticed a couple hours afterwards when it was refilmed in the hospital and then there is the last point that is to say that Charles Enderlin says I cut the agony scene it is unbearable

SM : He says it to Telerama and that’s false.

DJ : He declared it immediately and he restates it to Telerama and that listen to me unless they hid it from us but anyways we did not see it because we only saw what was showed on television and immediately after we see an ambulance and we don’t see any agony scene.

SM : Daniel Leconte?

DL : The same.  Denis perfectly summarized the situation.  I would add about the staging, that obviously the representatives of France2, as we sat around the table with them, were as obliged as we were to admit that is was staged  – which is pretty outrageous.   And when we said to them, “You can see it’s staged,” one of them said, smiling, “Yes, but you know well that it’s always like that.”  [We replied:] “You may know that, but your viewer doesn’t know it’s always like that.”

SM : So there was an answer I would like by the way your sentiment concerning it because there was an answer from Charles Enderlin to your own paper in the Figaro of the next day or the day after that and then on of these major arguments was to say that the image corresponded to the reality of the situation.

DL : I would like to say two things relating to this the first is that on the answer that Enderlain I would like to point out to you that he does not answer any of the points we have raised which is very important to us basically he ‘gives us right’ and does he does not cast doubt on what we have said which is very important anyways it would be very difficult to cast doubt on us because everything was found out everything can be verified but that being said he does not answer on these points which puts us in the clear on what we’ve said the second point when he says the image corresponds to the reality of the moment it’s what you say or of the moment me if you permit me not to be in agreement with this expression I find it by the way quite…

SM :No not from the moment he says that the image corresponds to the reality of the whole picture it may not be true concerning the particular event but it is probable because it corresponds to the reality of the situation in the West Bank and Gaza.

DL : Ok well listen I do not need of course to convince you that this sort of argument is an argument of great weakness when we are journalists we do not worry about knowing about the general [picture] but from where we are and what we are describing.

SM : And from where he was not by the way

DL : And from where he was not on top of it all he was not

SM : Since he was his cameraman

DL :And I would like to add if I can allow myself to do so, I would say it basically corresponds to what the French opinion globally wants to hear at that particular moment And I think that it seems to me that this is something that is basically more preoccupying. Basically I have the feeling that there is a whole frame of reading of what happens in the Middle East and that in the end the facts are called up to keep this frame up and I think you can agree with me it’s not the role of a journalist to do that. The role of a journalist is to try and relate a situation at a particular moment It seems to me that in this affair and I am not saying that to charge Charles Enderlin who is a friend whom I have known and worked with for a long time Nobody is sheltered from mistakes and me first of all but the minimum is that when we make mistakes like that one that are as serious with as many consequences it’s to try and recognize them that’s my point of view

SM : Denis Jeambar

DJ : Naturally I share completely the point of view of Daniel Leconte and what he has just observed. Personally I hate judging my colleagues because it is true one can always in the precipitation of the moment, make mistakes and in a certain way one must avoid them to the maximum. But the sentence he wrote in Le Figaro is still contrary to what is this job. We are not here to try and imagine images that will give the reflection of a situation, we are here to give facts and not to reinterpret them. The truth isn’t what we want, the truth is in reality. And therefore I think it’s a sentence that’s preoccupying from a journalistic point of view. From an another side it is true that none of us, as Daniel was saying, are sheltered from mistakes, but in this case still the images’ impact was considerable, they went around the world, they dumbfounded the world and in a situation that’s this delicate, we are not allowed in a way, not to admit when we are mistaken.

SM : So Daniel Jeambar Daniel Leconte I know how respected you both are you have a very high conception of your job I know how respected you are in your profession and there is rigour in what you do that everybody recognizes you but with the elements you have at your disposal why didn’t you publish the investigation in your two supports at the Express and Arte?

DJ : In regard to me, what you have to know is that I didn’t approach this investigation as the director of l’Express I did it like a simple journalist I took hold of the subject to exploit it. As Daniel was saying earlier when we were implicated publicly we hadn’t finished our work and in such a hubbub I do think as he says that we would have remained unheard, on another hand we were implicated you should still know both in Telerama and in an article in the newspaper Le Monde and the article we published as well we tried to obtain the right to answer from Le Monde which was denied to us, at least which was denied to me particularly and starting from that moment on we decided to publish elsewhere. If we’d been to the end of the investigation and nothing is stopping us from starting it up again or to have it taken up again had we been to its end

SM : That means you’re going to do it.

DJ: Why not, nothing at least is stopping us from doing it and there was a public debate so there was necessity to end it and I think it was difficult at least from my point of view to close things inside my newspaper that I would have used as means of closing personal accounts in quotes because in this case this is not what this is about, it is about explanations to clear things up and a search for truth. I found it relatively out of place to use the Express for this affair and from the moment we had the possibility to express ourselves elsewhere and I did it as a journalist and not as a director of the Express because I was implicated as a journalist and not as a director of the Express I found it legitimate to pass by another media.

SM : Daniel Leconte

DL : So I had basically the same view when Luc Rosenzweig came to solicit me on this affair it was first to hear him and to try to understand the elements in this affair while telling myself that that there are possibilities to make a movie behind it if needed we’ll do it and it would interest me to do it. So it’s like that, regarding me, that I entered this affair. From that moment on, we’ve been blocked in the enterprise that is ours, starting from that moment on, I gave myself the time to think. It is not excluded at all that there’ll be a movie behind it, it’ll depend in a large part, you know on the collaboration that France 2 will be ready to play the game for what concerns in any case the images and the audiovisual it is really determining. I’ll add that when Denis and I had the same steps when we were both solicited in this affair our objective was not to “close accounts” with Enderlain we did not have any dispute with him.

DJ : I don’t know him contrarily to Daniel.

DL : And I know him, and I sympathize with him. He always welcomed me well in Jerusalem, and I must say that he was a useful and close friend at work so I don’t have anything to personally reproach him, but the reason for which when I went into this affair our goal, at least Denis’s and mine afterwards was to tell ourselves it was France 2’s job to do this work. France 2, if we can arrive, by the elements we have at our disposition today to convince Arlette Chabot that there’s something that’s not quite right in this affair. It would be better that it be France 2.

SM : Arlette chabot at the same time,  she expressed herself on this and ontop of it she was not on the job at the time of these events.

DL : No but wait, I’m first to recognize, like Denis, the extremely important and efficacious role that Arlette played.

DJ : And transparent.

DL : And transparent. But at the same time it seems to me that Charles could exit this affair and it would be better for everybody, starting with him and for France 2 that France 2 would do this job if it isn’t done that we would do it but I think that it would be better on this missed occasion for France 2 to show an example of professionalism in coming back on the affair that seemed taken to take back its word and say well on this we made a mistake like it is done elsewhere like it was done on CBS recently hen the CBS staff felt instrumentalized by journalists at some point even if the affair is not similar. I think it would France 2’s honor to do this job.

SM : So what you say in any case in the Figaro is that light must be shed on this affair we must go to the end of this affair even if you don’t go as far as saying have the conviction that it is a case of manipulation

DJ : So listen, that I would really guard myself from saying so. After seeing what we’ve seen I will never say that conclusion. I say what I saw…

SM : There’s a paper of « Jeune Afrique » (« Young Africa ») this week call the horror of manipulation question mark signed by Jacques Bertoin.

DJ : Listen me, I think that it is us who have investigated the most seriously on this affair. We’ve been to the point when we could say a certain number of things, more than that you will not make me say. But I tell you we can start again the investigation.

SM : You say today there are no certainties there are doubts there are too many doubts in this affair

DJ : No, no, no

DL : We were telling ourselves first of all it’s pretty simple first of all Charles Enderlain wasn’t present at the moment of the occurrences second of all at the moment where Charles says that the child is targeted by the Israeli bullets that’s false

SM : That’s false

DL :  It’s false there are no means to say it and everything shows the opposite third of all when he says he filmed the scene of agony of the child that’s false so that makes three things really sufficiently important for

DJ : Images that went around the world

DL : Images that went around the world with and explanation to to them that stated that first of all this child was targeted that second of all he was well these were images of the Israeli barbarism so we are in a story that has nothing to do with that

SM : Fourthly which is really troubling is that at the moment where Talal Abou Rahma was supposedly filming the supposed agony of this child there is next to it there is staging

DL et DJ : Before, before, before, a couple minutes before

SM : Imaginary wounds

DL : So here there is staging except for one. So all of this came to light therefore if one day France 2 decides to show these rushes they will do the same realization by the way the people of France 2 who were around the table with us realized that without a problem. now to say that all of this is staged in the death of the child in the wounds of the father etc. me I do not know anything maybe la Mena… that la Mena would say that if they have elements we do not have let them give them to us let them tell them. We what we’ve seen has not at all brought us to say that and rather on the contrary.

 

DJ : We can even say the father was filmed again practically undressed and we can certify in any case wounds that corresponds exactly to the wounds and anyways to the bandages he has the next day when he was filmed in the hospital in Gaza. That is clear and therefore naturally it incites to the greatest caution and me I do not allow myself any conclusion on the manipulation concerning the child and the father

 

DL : And I will have you note that La Mena on those questions does not have any more things they put in contradiction  it is true elements that were given by the Palestinians by a certain number of people by Charles Enderlin himself but anyways that does not suffice it’s a process that is a little conspirationist that we could denounce when it is the case because there are a certain number of contradictions in the official version that is given by the White House on the September 11th affair with[out] it being said that a plane crashed into the pentagon we see to what that leads. Therefore we will not lend ourselves to this kind of analysis that does not enter anyways in the way that we have of seeing the information and that is denounced everywhere else when it is done in this way. Therefore we will not us in this affair lend us to this game.

SM : I’ll signal also that Luc Rosenzweig will give his version of facts in the article of the Figaro that will appear this week and that in the next days we are naturally completely disposed Arlette Chabot if she wishes to express herself on the subject even though as you’ve said Daniel Leconte she would be out of question since she was not on the job. Do you estimate anyways that France 2 gave all the explanations on this affair?

DJ : Anyways Arlette Chabot did everything she had to do there. In our place she was completely loyal and transparent. Now do we have the means to go farther we would have to re-investigate and I’m not so sure of it

SM : What manifestly you are about both do Daniel Leconte.

DL : We’ll see

DJ : We’ll see

SM : Thank you both of you, anyways i was receiving Denis Jeambar director of the Express and Daniel Leconte television producer.

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>