Karsenty fined 7000 Euro for Defamation

This is a victory of a state owned press using its immense financial and political resources to bully independent critics. in principle, this is bad news for freedom of speech (which as Brandeis famously pointed out demands that we have a thick skin, and which Charles Enderlin famously does not have). Given the terrible damage that Al Durah did – a poster-boy for the linked phenomena of virulent anti-Semitism and global Jihad – this decision is nothing short of suicidal for a Western democracy.

For further details see posts at www.aldurah.com

56 Responses to Karsenty fined 7000 Euro for Defamation

  1. Martin J. Malliet says:

    http://geopolis.francetvinfo.fr/charles-enderlin/2013/06/26/la-diffamation-de-p-karsenty.html
    http://www.franceinter.fr/blog-main-courante-lhonneur-sauf-de-charles-enderlin

    Charles Enderlin se félicitant du jugement de la Cour d’appel de Paris en sa faveur: “Par-delà la reconnaissance apportée à un journaliste et à une entreprise, c’est aussi celle de tous ceux qui font le métier d’informer avec professionnalisme.” Une drôle de phrase, à mon avis: “c’est aussi celle de tous ceux …” veut dire quoi au juste? La reconnaissance des autres professionnels? La reconnaissance apportée à ces autres professionnels?

    Je suppose que c’est l’inversion de la charge de la preuve propre à un procès en diffamation qui a conduit à cette décision judiciaire étonnante: celui accusé de diffamation doit en effet prouver son innocence, c.à.d. prouver que ses propos ne sont pas diffamatoires mais fondés. Mais dans le cas présent les propos ‘diffamatoires’ contiennent une accusation de non-respect des règles journalistiques adressée à un journaliste. Un journaliste qui est censé respecter ces règles et pouvoir le prouver. La position de Charles Enderlin a toujours été de dire que tant que Philippe Karsenty ne soit pas en mesure de prouver que l’information diffusée par France 2 est fausse, France 2 et Charles Enderlin sont habilités à diffuser des informations insuffisamment vérifiées. La Cour d’appel de Paris l’a maintenant suivi dans ce raisonnement. Je n’y vois aucune raison pour un journaliste de s’en féliciter.

    • Martin J. Malliet says:

      http://geopolis.francetvinfo.fr/charles-enderlin/2013/06/26/la-diffamation-de-p-karsenty.html
      http://www.franceinter.fr/blog-main-courante-lhonneur-sauf-de-charles-enderlin

      Charles Enderlin welcoming the judgment in his favor by the Court of Appeal in Paris: “Beyond the recognition given to a journalist and a news agency, it is also that of all those who do their work with professionalism in journalism. “A funny phrase, in my opinion: “it is also that of all those …” what does that mean exactly? Recognition by the other professionals? The recognition given to these other professionals?

      I guess it is the reversal of the burden of proof typical of a libel suit that has led to this amazing court decision: the accused of defamation must indeed prove his innocence, i.e. prove that his words are not defamatory but founded. But in this case the ‘defamatory’ words contain a charge of breach of journalistic rules addressed at a journalist. A journalist who is supposed to follow these rules and to be able to prove it. Charles Enderlin position has always been that as long as Philippe Karsenty is not able to prove that the information broadcast by France 2 is false, France 2 and Charles Enderlin are entitled to broadcast information that is insufficiently verified. The Court of Appeal in Paris has now followed him in this reasoning. I see no reason at all for a journalist to welcome that.

  2. mika says:

    Why isn’t Charles Enderlin brought to trial in Israel by the Israeli government? By the Israeli government’s own investigation, Charles Enderlin’s reporting is a lie and a fabrication. This makes Charles Enderlin a criminal conspirator and instigator to mass murder, and a war criminal. Why not give this war criminal and his criminal lies a little publicity and due justice?

    Of-course, the answer to the ‘why not’ is that the Israeli gov mafia — the Vatican/Mossad/Shabbak mafia — is part of this conspiracy. They always have been. They’ve been setting up these kinds of propaganda sting operations for decades, as part of the “Peace Process”, so as to manufacture the political capital towards ceding Israeli/Jewish land to the Vatican/CIA and its Jihadistani proxies.

  3. Martin J. Malliet says:

    On pourrait aussi penser qu’une autre raison plus ‘politique’ pour cette décision judiciaire étonnante était la crainte des juges des conséquences que pourrait avoir une décision en faveur de Philippe Karsenty. Car une décision en faveur de Philippe Karsenty aurait établi comme vérité judiciaire que les procès en diffamation intentés par France 2/Enderlin durant toutes ces années n’avaient été rien d’autre qu’une tentative injustifiée de réduire Philippe Karsenty au silence. En d’autres mots, une campagne de harcèlement et d’intimidation contre un observateur critique des médias ayant prouvé sa bonne foi. Une vérité judiciaire que Philippe Karsenty aurait pu retourner contre France 2/Enderlin en leur intentant un procès à son tour, un procès (en diffamation?) portant cette fois-ci sur le fond du problème: la résistance à la critique démontrée par France 2/Enderlin dans une affaire qui normalement aurait dû les inciter à faire leur auto-critique. Mais cette opportunité est donc perdue, en effet, et ce n’est pas une défaite judiciaire que l’on peut prendre à la légère.

    Voir déjà mon commentaire en janvier:

    http://www.theaugeanstables.com/2013/01/17/karsenty-vs-enderlin-baker-vs-rekab-street-in-action/#comment-611586

    • Cynic says:

      A pity there is no translation to English.
      While I’m able to converse in some other languages French is not one of them.

    • Martin J. Malliet says:

      One may also think that another more ‘political’ reason for this amazing court decision was the fear of the judges of the consequences a decision in favor of Philippe Karsenty could have. Because a decision in favor of Karsenty would have established as legal truth that the libel suits by France 2/Enderlin during all these years had been nothing but a wrongful attempt to reduce Karsenty to silence. In other words, a campaign of harassment and intimidation against a critical media observer who has proven his good faith. A legal truth that Karsenty could have used against France 2/Enderlin by filing a (libel?) lawsuit in his turn, a lawsuit that this time would have been about the actual problem: the resistance to criticism shown by France 2/Enderlin in a case that normally should have motivated them to do their self-criticism. But this opportunity is lost, indeed, and it is not a legal defeat that can be taken lightly.

      See my comment already in January:

      http://www.theaugeanstables.com/2013/01/17/karsenty-vs-enderlin-baker-vs-rekab-street-in-action/#comment-611586

      • Cynic says:

        Thank you for the translation.
        Apparently the evidence that Karsenty used in the first trial, in which he was found not guilty of defamation, was not permitted the second time around.
        What reasoning accomplished this?
        It seems that the justice systems are not devoid of the sins of the populace and are just as hypocritical and lacking an ethical stance at getting at the truth.

    • Martin J. Malliet says:

      As I understand it now (after reading it in its entirety), the verdict by the court of appeals simply is a prudent verdict confirming the verdict in the first instance because the court cannot find any reason to overturn it. And the major arguments for the verdict in the first instance were: (1) Philippe Karsenty’s excessive wording suggesting that France2/Charles Enderlin willingly and knowingly had broadcast a hoax (2) while having insufficient proof that it was indeed a hoax.

      What is therefore disappointing is that the court of appeals didn’t have the courage to take into the account that this was a case between a news agency and a media critic, and that (1) the media critic using excessive wording was in fact accusing the news agency of bad journalism , and that (2) having strong suspicions of a hoax can count as sufficient proof of bad journalism; so that the excessive wording cannot be used as an excuse for condemning the media criticism as defamatory. (This was more or less the reasonable stance taken by the Public Ministry in the first instance, which however was not adopted by the court, wasting a great opportunity to put a quick end to this inappropriate libel suit by a news agency against a media critic.) Especially as the position of France 2/Charles Enderlin, either before this final verdict or after, never was: we broadcast an insufficiently verified report that should never have been broadcast the way it was, but we didn’t make that mistake intentionally to mislead the public. Quite to the contrary, they continue to maintain, using this final verdict, that the report was and is above professional criticism.

      • Martin J. Malliet says:

        I must add that it isn’t the job of judges in a court of appeals to show their courage: their job is to examine whether the judges of the first court made a mistake in reaching their verdict. And they didn’t. So the fact that Philippe Karsenty lost in the first trial is the bad thing: because those judges did have the latitude to show courage by putting an end to this inappropriate libel suit. But they didn’t.

    • Richard Landes says:

      je suis entièrement d’accord. minable pour la france, qui en ce moment est parmi les premiers dans la cours a Absurdistan.

  4. Aleia says:

    Richard
    I have just spent several hours reading lots of your blogs and articles from several sources.
    I am Israeli, and I just want to thank you for your amazing clarity, truth-telling and brilliant analysis of the dynamics of the Israeli – Arab conflict, and the role of lethal journalism. It was such a pleasure for me to read your articles – it is so rare to find someone with such honesty and intellectual integrity concerning Israel.
    Thank you.
    God bless you.

  5. Rami says:

    The French court ordered France 2, to reveal the whole uncensored film of the Al – Dura incident. The network refused and this was interpreted by the court, at first, against them, thus allowing the Kartsenty win in round 1. The highest court in France decided a few months ago, that this wasn’t in the lower court’s authority, allowing France 2 to hide the truth without any concequences, thus, by a procedural trick giving France 2 the victory on a golden plate.

    • Ben Alofs says:

      France 2 DID provide the court with all of the raw footage. I don’t think it had anything to hide.
      By the way, long before this became an issue, Richard Landes asked Palestinian cameraman Talal abu Rahmeh if he could see the tape with the unedited rushes. Abu Rahmeh did give him the tape, so there is no cover up here.
      I had a good look at all the rushes. I studied the claims of Landes, of Georg Haffner and Esther Schapira of the German ARD, who made the documentary “Das Kind, Der Tod und Die Wahrheit” (“The Child, The Death and The Truth”), and the claims of Karsenty (which you can see at his own website).
      I am a medical doctor, who works in Emergency Departments. I have also worked in war situations and have seen and dealth with a lot of injured who were brought in badly injured. I haven seen people die in front of my eyes of bullit- and shrapnel injuries. Landes and Karsenty manage not to see the large bloodstain in Mohammed al-Dura’s abdominal area. People who are shot in the abdomen and are exsanguinating, are able to move until their shock renders them unconscious.
      The German documentary shows footage of the lifeless body of Mohammed al-Dura on a hospital trolley in al-Shifa Hospital. Some medics are giving half hearted external chest compressions, because they know that the boy is dead. A large abdominal wound is hazed over by the camera. We know that this is Mohammed. The boy not only looks like the boy at Netzarim crossing, he also wears the same very distinctively patterned green and blue sweater. It is incredible that Schapira, who sympathises with Karsenty, does not recognise it.
      Landes and Karsenty are not medically trained and are only speculating. The footage of the boy getting shot is in my opinion very real.
      The theories of angles being too narrow for the boy to get shot by Israeli soldiers also does not stand up to scrutiny. The soldiers were firing from two concrete towers and the footage of the Reuters cameraman, who was situated right behind the al-Dura’s for a while, and was filming the Israeli army position, shows that the angle was wide enough for them to get hit.
      The fact is that in my medical opinion the boy’s death was not faked at all, but very real.
      The likelihood is that he was shot by Israeli soldiers. Common things are common after all and Mohammed al-Dura was only one of many Palestinian children killed by the Israeli army. Whether the killing was deliberate or not, is a different matter. I think it was more a case of just carelessness/indifference on the part of the Israeli soldiers than a deliberate attempt to kill a Palestinian child.
      The French Court was right to find Karsenty guilty of libel. Karsenty claimed that Mohammed al-Dura’s death was staged and that France 2 was involved in the staging. The judges ruled that it was not staged and I agree with them.
      I find Mr Landes’s claim that this was a “victory for the state owned press” reek of sour grapes.

      • Richard Landes says:

        this is a most curious comment which i will respond to in more detail later on. in the meantime, can you please tell me where you get this?

        France 2 DID provide the court with all of the raw footage. I don’t think it had anything to hide.
        By the way, long before this became an issue, Richard Landes asked Palestinian cameraman Talal abu Rahmeh if he could see the tape with the unedited rushes. Abu Rahmeh did give him the tape, so there is no cover up here.

        anyone who has studied the issue knows:

        1) France2 did not show the court all the raw footage, but cut key embarrassing scenes. (ie it has much to hide)

        2) Abu Rahmeh never gave me any rushes, and France2 has refused to release them to this day.

        how can you expect us to have confidence in your assertions when you start off with such weird and wildly inaccurate ones?

        on the medical material more later.

        r

        • @ Dr Landes

          Mr Alofs is not a fan of yours. I quote him:

          http://972mag.com/on-the-al-dura-affair-israel-officially-drank-the-kool-aid/71812/

          What I am beginning to think after analysing all the bits of footage, where Landes sees Palestinians faking things, is that Landes is engaged in disgusting libellous behaviour. Khaled Diab, a columnist for Ha’aretz, calls it “blood libel” in reverse. Landes,… who has no primary knowledge about the Palestinians and their culture, has come up with the “Pallywood” theory. He basically calls Palestinian liars and sees them almost daily engaged in libellous activity. What Landes does is not that much different from the anti-Semites, who engineered the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion”!!

          He is saying all this after having seen your Pallywood video – so now we know that his postal code is the one of Rekab street

          He believes that your claiming that Palestinians stage events is a “blood libel”, as if you have accused the Palestinians of intentional killings (that’s what blood libels were about, intentional killings). Isn’t that a moral inversion?

          He insinuates that it is impossible that Palestinians would do such a thing as lying – after all, don’t we westerners value honesty? Suggesting that other cultures are indoctrinated not to value honesty (especially against infidels) must be racist, and i am sure Mr Alofs would rather die than be called racist.

          And he also thinks you are not much different from the inventors of the Protocols of the Elders – the fact that you are not pandering to the extermination of the Palestinians (as the inventors of the Protocols did towards the Jews) is a mere detail. Yes, you are morally equivalent to them, Dr Landes.

          I am not a medical doctor but here is my diagnosis:

          Chronic liberal cognitive egocentrism, and acute Human Rights Complex coupled with Masochistic Omnipotence Syndrome.

          http://www.theaugeanstables.com/reflections-from-second-draft/cognitive-egocentrism/

          http://www.theaugeanstables.com/reflections-from-second-draft/self-criticism/

          http://www.theaugeanstables.com/2008/08/08/from-the-archives-dr-jacobs-argument-on-msm-coverage-of-human-rights-abuses/

          http://www.theaugeanstables.com/reflections-from-second-draft/q/

          http://www.theaugeanstables.com/2007/05/30/moral-equivalence-as-moral-inversion-a-mediation-of-the-yawning-chasm/

        • Ben Alofs says:

          Reply to Richard Landes
          Ad 1. The French Appeal Court ordered France 2 to show all of the raw footage and France 2 complied. See also the statement by Arlette Chabot of France 2 made to Esther Chapira in the ARD documentary. Chabot is pertinent that all of the raw footage has been shown.
          Anyway. France 2 showed of all the rushes long before that. It had always claimed protection of its sources as the reason why it refused to just publish the whole unedited tape. A solution for this problem was found by organising an international conference for media professionals. It was organised by Didier Epelbaum, a respected journalist, who teaches journalism. The conference took place in Paris on 23 April 2001. Talal abu Rahma presented all of his rushes to the 48 participants there, most of whom came from the USA. The Israeli press was represented by Israel Rosenblatt from the daily Maariv. This information is from Charles Enderlin’s book “Un Enfant est Mort”.

          Ad 2. A correction is due here. It was not Talal abu Rahma, but Charles Enderlin himself, who showed you all the rushes at the France 2 offices in Jerusalem. In his book “Un Enfant est Mort” Enderlin writes on page 83 that you telephoned him in October or November 2003. You came recommended by former ambassador Elie Barnavi, so Charles Enderlin trusted you and authorised you to watch the whole tape with all the rushes. He tells how he answered your questions for three days “until the moment he pointed at an image taken the day after the drama at Netzarim of the famous concrete barrel and announced: there is no trace of blood! An Israeli cameraman who was present, answered him, that he was wrong, and that one could clearly see a dark spot on the floor. Landes insisted and I decided there and then, that I had enough. He did not return to the offices of France 2″.
          I just use this extended quote to illustrate how far Enderlin went to accommodate you, Mr Landes.
          If you claim that France 2 did not show all the rushes, which ones were they? If you are in the position to claim that France 2 did not show all the rushes, does that mean that you saw all of the rushes? That is the implication. Tell us which rushes were not shown. I am looking forward to your answer.
          I want to make one final point. I claim to be knowledgeable about this whole issue, because I did work and live with my surgeon wife and child in the Gaza Strip in 1989/90. We worked in Ahli Arab hospital in Gaza City together with American colleagues and I know al-Shifa Hospital well.
          I also know Palestinian culture very well. You should have listened to Charles Enderlin, who is knowledgeable as opposed to you and Karsenty. Charles Enderlin explained that some Palestinians are conscious of tv cameras being around and will show off in front of the camera. During the Intifadas many young kids wanted to be filmed throwing stones at Israeli occupation soldiers and their armoured vehicles and they exposed themselves to the danger of being shot with rubber coated metal cylinders or live fire.
          The claim by you, Karsenty, Schapira, Huber and other conspiracy theorists that the Palestinians somehow literally engineer a “mis en scene”, like the tragic Mohammed al-Dura episode at Netazrim crossing beggars belief. And this claim is made by people, who have never set a foot in the Gaza Strip, who never have witnessed, as I have, confrontations between the Israeli occupation army and the Palestinian population. They have never felt the atmosphere during these violent confrontations and the different mix of emotions.
          I welcome your attempt to try and refute my medical evidence that I put forward. At the same time I will be back also to explain to other people how wrong your interpretation is of the different scenes at Netzarim crossing on 30 September 2000. Where you see “Pallywood” I see reality.
          The problem with you and Karsenty is that both of you have watched too many Hollywood movies. Brian de Palma’s “Scarface” with Al Pacino comes to mind. A lot of blood and gore, but so very different from the real war and mayhem, I witnessed in the Gaza Strip and Lebanon in the 1980s.

  6. When Karsenty won, Prof. Landes wrote:

    “At the moment, French justice just lit a beacon to show the way.”

    When Karsenty lost, Landes wrote:

    “This is a victory of a state owned press using its immense financial and political resources to bully independent critics.”

    Or to put it another way: The umpire was great when we won, but when we lost, the umpire was lousy.

    One wonders whether his scholarship is of the same quality as his punditry.

    • Charlie in NY says:

      When Karsenty won, it was due to the fact that the French court demanded the production of the unused film footage which established to its satisfaction that Karsenty’s criticism of Enderlin and France2′s account of what happened to al-Durah was made in good faith and therefore that he could not be held liable for defamation. This verdict was overturned by this court, apparently, on the grounds that the lower court erred in requiring the out-takes to be produced and affirmed the lowest court’s initial verdict that Karsenty was guilty of defamation because, in its view, what was broadcast could withstand the criticism.
      If we use the First Amendment jurisprudence as a benchmark, quite clearly the French legal system is to be found wanting. Among other things, the burden of proof is backwards – once Karsenty had established his criticism based on what he had viewed, it should have been up to France2 to show that it was correct or that Karsenty’s criticism was so unfounded as to be malicious. The other oddity in the French system is apparently the lack of what we consider discovery – which appears to be the grounds on which the out-takes were not considered, even though they clearly established the validity of Karsenty’s criticism.
      It is, therefore, a fair statement to say that when the out-takes were reviewed and Karsenty’s position was supported, that a beacon of justice was light. It is also a fair statement to say that when the court sanctions the denial of evidence that is obviously critical to a just decision, thereby changing the lawsuit from one of a search for the truth to a minefield of technicalities, the result is the chilling of lawful dissent.
      To suggest, as you do, that it is only a case of “the umpire was great when we won” suggests either a lack of seriousness on your part or a complete misunderstanding of what transpired – in other words, you preferred to comment before educating yourself on what happened. Either way, you comment does not speak well of you.

    • Ari says:

      Uh, no. First note that upon the loss he didn’t say anything about the umpire; he only wrote about the result being bad in terms of its consequences. As I understand this case, Karsenty lost by law, which is not the same as justice, and can be completely divorced from what is good for society at large. If you’ve read anything Prof. Landes has been writing, you’ll know he’s mostly interested in the results and consequences of the verdict, not whether it was justified by the legal technicalities. (I’m not sure he even has an opinion on that; I know I don’t.) Finally, even if it were criticism of the umpire, it is perfectly legitimate to criticize the umpire if you think he judged poorly. Nothing wrong with that. (And of course in this case there were multiple umpires, weren’t there?) If you understand the words “At the moment, French justice just lit a beacon to show the way” to be some sort of unqualified positive assesment of the French justice system in the abstract, subsequently withdrawn upon Karsebty’s loss, then you have missed the whole point of the coverage of this case.

  7. Richard Landes says:

    thank you, Ari, I couldn’t have said it better. and while i do have an opinion on the court’s reasoning (which i’ll save till i’ve seen the decision in full), it is certainly secondary. the impact of this decision is to strengthen all the forces weakening the civic fabric in france today. it’s catastrophic.

    for another example, which i saw last friday and am writing about now, see http://www.jeudepaume.org/index.php?page=article&idArt=1774&lieu=1
    r

  8. Mr Jeremiah Haber is (or was, i didn’t read the whole thing, it was very dull and uninformed) a supporter of the BDS:

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/03/11/who-is-a-liberal-zionist.html

    When I appealed to liberal Zionists to support the global BDS movement,

    In the very same article of his, i caught a glimpse of this:

    Can anyone call herself [emphasis mine] “liberal” and support Israel’s annexation of the Golan Heights, which in addition to being a contravention of international law and the Fourth Geneva convention involved the expulsion of many of its inhabitants, and the continual exploitation of its resources? (Like all illegal annexationists, Israel doesn’t consider its annexation illegal.)

    I will leave aside the suicidal complacency of talking like this about the Golan Heights when Syria is on fire and no one knows whether Islamism will finally rule this country. Would Mr Haber had no problem with rockets fired from the Golan? Then again, having heard what Gideon Levy has to say, i have learned never to underestimate the hold that moral narcissism exercises on certain types of personalities – “i feel so great in my open-mindedness”.

    But i would like to concentrate on the reflexive pronoun, the “herself” that i emphasized in Mr Haber’s quote.

    I do the same thing, i always choose “herself” instead of “himself” and i believe that there are good reasons to do so – why not reversely discriminate in a way that can force our brains to expel patriarchy even in its mildest form?

    But, having assumed that Mr Haber is tending to women’s rights, i was perplexed by his words:

    Many liberal Zionists support a so-called “two-state” solution that doesn’t provide the Palestinians with anything remotely resembling a state, certainly not one whose mandate is to provide security to its inhabitants. Ask any Israeli, no, ask any Zionist, no, ask most human beings whether they would accept a state on 22 percent of their homeland, in land patches connected by bridges and tunnels, without the means to protect themselves from a militarily powerful state on its border with powerful and proven irredentist tendencies.

    Once again i will refrain from commenting on the obvious blunder of his sentence (namely that the Palestinians are already in a position of not being able to stand up militarily to Israel and, yet, have not suffered as a result) and i will note that he pretends to be so concerned with the welfare of the Palestinians that he even considers the driving delays that the bridges and tunnels would create for them in a hypothetical two-state solution.

    But then, such a sensitive creature like Mr Haber, who takes the time to ponder the inconvenience of driving delays, how can he be so insensitive to the suffering of the Palestinian women in the hands of the Palestinian alpha males? How can he be so oblivious to so much more intense suffering (such as FGM, honor killings, forced marriages, religiously sanctioned wife-beating, a general culture of submission of women to masculine bullies)?

    Let me paraphrase Mr Haber and offer my musing on him:

    One wonders whether his scholarship is of the same magnitude as his hypocrisy.

  9. @ Ben Alofs

    Landes and Karsenty are not medically trained and are only speculating.

    Yes, but as i told you in our discussion at Mr Derfner’s site, i asked my pathologist, who is medically trained, and she said that in no way do the deliberate moves of the boy (after it had been already declared dead by the Charles-the-Great-slanderer)can be considered death throes.

    Here is what we had been talking about in the Facebook section of Mr Derfner’s site:

    http://972mag.com/on-the-al-dura-affair-israel-officially-drank-the-kool-aid/71812/

    Dionissis said:

    The death throes that were supposed to be explaining the boy’s moving his hand after he had been declared dead by Enderlin (the very scene that he cut) were slow and deliberate. I am not a medical doctor but I have been told by my pathologist that all the movements in such cases are rapid and reflexive. Does the boy really look to you as moving his hand reflexively, and not deliberately?

    Besides, you have still not answered my question concerning the positioning of the boy. How can someone shot at the stomach lie stretched and not crouched? The very abdominal pains cause us to crouch, to shrink, not to expand.

    Please look again at the raw Al Durah footage, the footage incuding the scene with the boy moving, the scene that Enderlin has admitted that he cut:

    http://aldurah.com/raw-al-durah-footage/

    Ben Alofs responded:

    He had just been shot in the abdomen and was going into shock. That can cause restless and confused behaviour. What we agree on that he was still alive at that time. You see a deliberate movement. I see a boy in shock and exsanguinating, who is still sort of conscious.

    Dionissis responded again:

    If the boy is still sort of conscious as as you say (and I agree that it is conscious, whatever variety of consciousness you have in mind) then it is inexplicable that he is stretched, instead of having assumed a fetal position. This doesn’t make any sense at all, abdominal pains much less severe than gunshots make as cringe like babies in the womb, make us shrink so to speak. Yet the boy is extended, stretched, as if he feels no pain at all in the abdomen where he is purportedly shot and his intestines are allegedly coming out.

    This anomaly of the boy’s bodily stance, coupled with the deliberate (to me) and “sort of conscious” (to you) movement of his hand at the scene that Enderlin cut, makes it extremely likely to me that the boy was not shot at the abdomen up until that time, despite Enderlin’s claims.

    I thought we had this issue settled, that it is kind of obvious that the boy was not behaving like normal dead people do (dead people tend to stay immobile, i hear, but on this i haven’t asked my pathologist).

    PS. Maybe the boy was member of the herd of the undead? I haven’t seen yet the movie World War Z, but it would have been more likely that the boy was infected by zombies and came back from the dead, than that Enderlin is speaking the truth.

  10. @ Ben Alofs

    I had a good look at all the rushes.

    Yes, but when we were discussing the issue in Mr Derfner’s site you left unanswered my claim that it is obvious that a particular ambulance scene i insisted on was staged:

    http://972mag.com/on-the-al-dura-affair-israel-officially-drank-the-kool-aid/71812/

    Here is what i have been saying:

    I started by asking :”How do you explain the fact that the ambulances seem to arrive in milliseconds? It looks as if they already know who the “victim” is going to be.”

    You responded that this was “because it [the ambulance] was already there! Netzarim crossing had been a flashpoint during the whole of 30 September 2000…”

    And i responded the following:

    Excuse me, but my point was that the ambulance that stands by cannot show up in THREE seconds after a Palestinian is allegedly shot. The ambulance driver obviously will not have the engine running as he is waiting in case someone gets shot, because he will want to preserve gasoline. As soon as someone is injured, the driver of the ambulance has to ignite the engine and move the vehicle to where the injured person is. Can this happen in THREE seconds? Yet, this is what we are supposed to believe:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uL8ANySuSuk

    (this is footage shot by Palestinians)

    The injury occurs on minute 2:23 in the video, the ambulance arrives on minute 2:26. Even if it so happened that the driver perceived the injury at the second it happened, surely it would have taken him at least 3 seconds just to ignite the engine and push the accelerator, yet there he is already next to the allegedly shot Palestinian, as if the ambulance was teleported. Looks more like the ambulance driver knew already who would got “shot”, and was just standing by with the engine running.

    And later on i pressed the point by saying:

    You [Mr Ben Alofs] claim that your analysis of the footage where Landes “sees Palestinians faking things” shows that Landes is libelous. Then why don’t you say what is in the Pallywood footage (that Landes analyzed) that is not fake, despite Landes’ analysis? Asserting that Landes is libelous does not show HIM to be libelous, it shows YOU to be inexplicably eager to libel Landes.

    Besides, I have already mentioned an ambulance evacuation scene in our discussion (the three-second duration for the ambulance to show up) which I claimed was a clear Pallywood case in the footage, and you have not yet countered my claim (how can an ambulance driver who perceives a shooting, and who needs more or less one second for his brain to issue a command-neural signal to his hands and legs, manages to ignite the engine, release the handbreak of the ambulance, and reach the position of the injured man, all this in just three seconds. Assuming of course that the driver perceived the injury at precisely the second it happened (how likely is that?). My estimate is that he would need at least 10 seconds, even if he was situated a few meters away from the particular crowd.

    Do you now have an explanation for the ambulance’s uncannily quick arrival – short of teleporting?

    • Ben Alofs says:

      The confrontations at the Netzarim crossing on 30 September 2000 took place 2 days after Sharon’s provocative invasion of the Haram al-Sharif on 28 September, in the wake of which dozens of young Palestinians were killed. The whole of the Westbank and the Gaza Strip was about to blow up. This set the scene for the confrontations at the Netzarim crossing on 30 September 2000.
      I have worked in Gaza Hospitals and I am very familiar with the emergency services there. Where confrontations between the occupation army and the Palestinians break out ambulances are at the ready at the place of confrontation to pick up injured. This was the case at Netzarim crossing. The footage shows a lot of ambulances and vehicles ready at the crossing.
      Karsenty uses the episode where a man falls over after apparently being hit in the right knee, to explain how this scene is faked. He appears to be just as obsessed with blood as Landes. He sees no blood and thinks therefore the scene is “staged”. Right after the man falls, grabbing his right knee, an ambulance rides into view. Karsenty thinks that this is too early and therefore it must be a hoax. The reason the ambulance rides into view, is because the ambulance was there, just outside the view of the camera with engines running. There were a number of ambulances present at the crossing near where many Palestinians were gathered. The emergency services in the Gaza Strip are experienced.
      That the scene of the man falling on the street grabbing his right knee is real, becomes obvious when we see the same incident filmed by another cameraman from a different angle. Here we not only hear gunfire, but see bullits hitting the road a meter from where the man has fallen!
      Karsenty is such an amateur. He is not medically qualified. The absence of blood spurting does not exclude a serious high velocity injury to the knee. A bullit can shatter the knee without necessarily destroying the popliteal artery.
      That the immediate appearance of an ambulance on the scene is deemed by him to be proof of fakery, is for me a demonstration of his ignorance. He does not have a clue how emergency services in the Gaza Strip are organised and working.
      His only mission is to try and make people believe that the death of Mohammed al-Dura was faked, not for the sake of truth, but for the sake of Israel.
      Isn’t it typical that the episodes that reflect most badly on the Israeli army, are those episodes that the conspiracy theorists focus on. They want people to believe that here there is a deliberate conspiracy by the Palestinians to tell lies in order to make Israel look bad. These are not fighters for truth, but apologists for the State of Israel.

  11. @ Ben Alofs:

    The theories of angles being too narrow for the boy to get shot by Israeli soldiers also does not stand up to scrutiny. The soldiers were firing from two concrete towers and the footage of the Reuters cameraman, who was situated right behind the al-Dura’s for a while, and was filming the Israeli army position, shows that the angle was wide enough for them to get hit.

    Yes, but you never answered my point that it is kind of impossible for trained Israeli marksmen not to be able to kill stationary targets after shooting at them for several minutes. And if this is the case, then the Palestinian cameraman is definitely lying about the duration of the firing. Here is what i told you:

    1) How could trained Israeli marksmen need at least 28 minutes (one of Talal’s claims about the duration of the firing) to manage to kill a stationary target (the boy) and fail to kill the other stationary target (the father)? Trained marksmen could have done both killings in less than a minute.

    I still await an answer from you.

    • Ben Alofs says:

      Israeli marksmen? The burst of gunfire, throwing up a cloud of dust, which hits Mohammed and his father, is obviously not a single shot from a marksman. It appears to be a wild burst of gunfire. I have explained before that I do not know if the Israeli shooting was deliberate or not. It probably wasn’t.
      What I do know is that many Palestinians get killed because of carelessness or indifference on the part of Israeli soldiers. Shooting carelessly in the direction of Palestians has led to the death of many innocent children.
      It is the same carelessness with which Israeli soldiers lobbed tear gas grenades, expressly designed for outdoor use, into houses, that killed the very young, the very old and the chronic airway disease sufferers, because of the lethal concentrations of gas that were being produced. The latter happened with alarming frequency during the first Intifada.
      The same carelessness was used when Sharon allowed the Phalangist militiamen into Sabra and Shatila camps, even when he knew very well the state of mind of the killers just after their charismatic leader Bashir Gemayel had been assassinated. For good measure Sharon had made it known that the PLO was responsible for that. And still he gave the green light for the Phalangists to go into Shatila!
      Carelessness and indifference is shown by too many Israeli soldiers and officers. Of course there are honourable exceptions, but they are definitely a minority.

  12. @ Ben Alofs

    The likelihood is that he was shot by Israeli soldiers.

    I thought it was pretty clear from our past discussion that it has been conclusively proved that the shots we see during the footage cannot have been fired from the Israeli position. Here is our exchange.

    Dionissis:

    Yes, the Israelis could have killed the boy, if they wanted to. The claim of people in my camp is that the shot we saw fired in Enderlin’s footage did not come from the Israeli position, but came from the Palestinian position (probably the “Pita”, Landes says, see the diagram of the Netzarim Junction I posted earlier). And this invites the question why the Palestinians were shooting at the Al Durah wall, when the Israeli position was at a totally different position. This would seem to indicate that the Palestinians were shooting the wall for the benefit of the cameraman.

    Anyway, the angle is immaterial to whether the Israeli marksmen killed the boy. Yes, they could have done it from a 30 degree angle, but the dust cloud we saw in Enderlin’s footage did not come from the Israeli marksmen (as ballistic analysis shows) but from someone positioned at a 90 degree angle to the wall – and this one must have been a Palestinian, because the Israelis never left their positions that day.

    Mr Alofs:

    The claim by conspiracy theorist Nahum Shahaf, that the size of the dust clouds points to fire from a wide angle, is explained by this. Even in Israel not many people believe his theories, but I am willing to play along with them.

    Dionissis:

    I don’t know how many people in Israel believe that, and I don’t care. What counts is how many non-biased ballistic experts believe this claim or not. Don’t you think that, if the scientific claims of Nahum Shahaf were indefensible, France 2 would have got experts of their own to say so publicly?

    Ben Alofs:

    He [Nahum Sahaf] claims that a more oblique angle causes a larger dust cloud. But the footage with the burst of gunfire during which Mohammed and his father are hit show a large dust cloud made by bullits hitting. Following Shahaf’s theory, this points to the fire having come from the Israeli position!

    Dioinissis:

    This was the DEFINITION OF A CHEAP SHOT, a shot coming from you, not from the Israeli marksmen. You are totally misrepresenting what he said. Here is what Shahaf said:

    http://aldurah.com/what-can-we-conclude-from-the-shooting-dust-cloud/

    He says that the dust cloud we see in the footage is 30 centimeters in diameter. And from ballistic tests he conducted by shooting at the wall from a 90 degree angle this was the diameter that one would see (i.e. a 30 centimeters diameter). But when he tested by shooting from a diagonal position (i.e. a position like the Israeli one) the dust cloud was 150 CENTIMITERS IN DIAMETER, MUCH BIGGER THAN THE ONE WE SAW ON TV. In other words, if the Israelis had fired that shot, we would have seen a 4-5 times bigger in diameter dust cloud than the dust cloud we saw on TV.

    And he concludes that the Israeli marksmen did not fire that shot, the shot we saw came from the Palestinian direction.

    Are you deliberately misrepresenting Shahaf’s words, or is it that you just can’t accept the truth that is staring you in the face? And if the latter, can you realize that if YOU have a problem reconsidering, how much of a problem the journalistic clique will have to reconsider, especially now that they are invested in a narrative that casts the other side as conspiracists? Do you think Enderlin or other public figures will admit publicly that they were slandering people like Landes?

    So why are we having now this discussion again? Do you know of any ballistics expert that says the shot we saw in the footage was coming from the Israeli position?

    • Ben Alofs says:

      Nahum Shahaf is NOT a ballistics expert, that is clear.
      I would be in favour of having the opinion of independent experts who are not involved politically.
      Charles Enderlin knows that the Mohammed al-Dura matter is not settled with the conviction of Karsenty.
      I agree with him, that there should be an independent international investigation by professionals who have no interests to declare.

  13. @ Ben Alofs

    Landes and Karsenty are not medically trained and are only speculating.

    You don’t need medical expertise to know that if someone is moving deliberately then she is not dead.

    And, anyway, my pathologist insists that the scene that Enderlin cut, where we see the boy moving deliberately (a scene that obviously Enderlin did not want us to see, because it falsified his claim that the boy died during the footage), does not show a boy that is either dead or dying.

    The footage of the boy getting shot is in my opinion very real.

    I know where you live: 666 Rekab street:

    http://www.theaugeanstables.com/2012/11/28/hangin-on-rekab-street-the-stupefaction-of-the-west/

    I quote Dr Landes:

    In a sense, Thomas Kuhn’s book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, focuses on the problem, in particular, on the resistance to anomalies that contradict the paradigm. He cites a study by Bruner and Postman about how the resistance to anomalies that violate expectations can be so strong that people can literally not see that a deck has some playing cards with red spades and black hearts. The authors note the psychological discomfort felt by people confronting these anomalies (which their minds literally do not want to see).

    And the paradigm in our case casts the conflict as an inhuman Israeli Goliath who intentionally kills the children of a poor Palestinian David.

    But ubderdoggism does not spur the quest for truth – in fact, it suppresses it, even inverts it, so as to fit the data in our politically correct preconceptions that the Palestinian terrorists are somehow the victim in the conflict.

  14. @ Ben Alofs

    It is incredible that Schapira, who sympathises with Karsenty, does not recognise it.

    What is incredible is that in our previous discussion you presented yourself as spmeone that has faith in Schapira’s credibility. You even suggested to your readers to have a look at her documentary. Here is what you said:

    Mr. Landes, I followed your arguments at Second Draft and also studied Esther Schapira’s German documentary “Das Kind, der Tod und die Wahrheit”. For the purpose of this discussion I refer to a version with French subtitles “L’Enfant, La Mort et La Verite” at vimeo.com/5947501. I advise readers to have a look at it.

    So, why are you now insinuating that she is partisan?

    Feeling that a litlle mud might make up for the lack of arguments?

    • Ben Alofs says:

      You should have read the rest of my post.
      I did find the documentary interesting because of the footage shown in it. Footage of Mohammed dead on a trolley in al-Shifa hospital, which confirms that he died. As Talal abu Rahma said, it took at least 17 minutes before Mohammed and his father could be evacuated. Which is the reason why he arrived dead in hospital. He exsanguinated.
      What is also interesting is footage of the Reuters cameraman behind Mohammed and his father showing that the angle was more than adequate for both to be hit by Israeli bullits.
      The interview with the hospital pathologist is interesting too, because it confirms that two of the three bullits hit vital arteries in his abdomen and groin and were fatal.
      The value of the documentary is in its footage, not the extremely implausible theory Schapira constructs of there being two boys of the same age, looking a bit like each other and having identical injuries (abdominal). The footage tells its own story and confirms what rational people know: that the boy was fatally injured in the abdomen by two of three bullits and exsanguinated. I think that even if he would have been rushed to hospital without the delay of 17 minutes it is unlikely he would have survived.

  15. @ Ben Alofs

    Common things are common after all and Mohammed al-Dura was only one of many Palestinian children killed by the Israeli army.

    Only because Hamas is using them as human shields, so as to increase the cost of the IDF’s anti-terrorist operations and win the international sympathy:

    http://www.theaugeanstables.com/2012/11/19/humiliating-slip-in-hamas-cannibalistic-cognitive-war-strategy-haniyah-and-kandil-kiss-baby-hamas-killed/

    I quote Dr Landes:

    Here is the head of Hamas, whose boys systematically fire from the midst of civilians, in order create civilian casualties they can then blame on Israeli counter-strikes, exploiting a death directly caused by his men, in order to appeal to western sympathy. It would be hard to imagine a more stunning portrait of the most depraved hypocrisy (and contempt for viewers who believe this display of compassion). If hypocrisy is the compliment that vice pays to virtue, then this brazen hypocrisy is the contempt vice shows for the pathetic stupidity of the supposedly virtuous.

    After all, it is hard to imagine a more grotesque expression of a mutual corruption: trying to demonize your enemy before an outside audience whom you expect to side with you in the name of empathy for the very children you victimize. How disordered must the emotional and moral world of someone subject to this kind of manipulation?

    You don’t need to take Dr Landes’ word for the use of human shields by the Palestinian monsters, you may just listen to Hamas themselves bragging about it:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTu-AUE9ycs

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=giJlG3KXq8c

    Ben Alofs said:

    Whether the killing was deliberate or not, is a different matter.

    Complacently passing over the accusation of malicious intent on the part of the IDF, an accusation that is the 21st century’s biggest blood libel, misses the point. As i told you the other time, the meme that Enderlin helped spread, i.e. that the IDF targets children intentionally, completely distorted the picture of the conflict and of the moral standing of the Israelis in the minds of the western audience. And the misconception of the conflict means that the suffering on both sides will be perpetuated.

    If you really care about the Palestinian kids that die as a result of Hamas’ cannibalistic strategy, then you have to want the truth to come out, so that people can realize that Palestinian children are dying because of Hamas, and so that they can point the finger to Hamas and make it stop sacrificing its children so as to salvage a misconstrued alpha-Male conception of Arab/Muslim “honor”.

    But i told you those things in our previous discussion, didn’t’t i?

    I think it was more a case of just carelessness/indifference on the part of the Israeli soldiers than a deliberate attempt to kill a Palestinian child.

    This does not explain why the IDF would shoot at a position (i.e. the position of the Al durahs) that did not pose a threat to it.

  16. @ Ben Alofs

    The French Court was right to find Karsenty guilty of libel.

    I thought you said you were a medical doctor, not a a lawyer.

    Anyway, the thing is that the courts in France are very politicized, and the French elites stand by each other, so it is understandable that the French judges would cover up for the France2 TV channel.

    This doesn’t make their attitude any more moral, of course, but we can do nothing more than acquiesce to the fact that honor-shame mindsets are not necessarily always of the Palestinian violent hyper-testosteronic variety, they can be of a non-violent form, the French way. Here are some indications to the French mindset:

    http://aldurah.com/being-a-french-journalist-means-never-having-to-say-youre-sorry-moutet-2008/

    http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/d76b5fcc-b83f-11e2-bd62-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2SxTWMRlk

    Ben Alofs said:

    Karsenty claimed that Mohammed al-Dura’s death was staged and that France 2 was involved in the staging. The judges ruled that it was not staged and I agree with them.

    Your agreeing with the judges does not turn a politicized, honor-shame motivated court decision into truth.

    I find Mr Landes’s claim that this was a “victory for the state owned press” reek of sour grapes.

    Even sour grapes smell better than blood. And the cognitive stance you have towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will contribute to more and more blood, from both sides.

    Didn’t you imply that you care for the Palestinians? If you still do, i urge you side with the sour-grapes side.

  17. @ Ben Alofs

    I just saw you also said this about Dr Landes:

    Landes and Karsenty manage not to see the large bloodstain in Mohammed al-Dura’s abdominal area.

    Well, Dr Landes must have seen it, because he usually links to this site which has an analysis about the bloodstain you mention:

    http://aldurah.com/segment-5-muhammad-down-stretched-out-father-swaying/

    This is the fifth segment of the Al Durah footage, the part which shows the bloodstain. Here is the commentary:

    The boy is now lying outstretched, with his right hand covering his eyes. Such a position undermines the narrative whereby he has died of a stomach wound, since, were that the case, he would have remained in a fetal position clutching the wound.
    There is red around his shirt near his stomach, but no blood on the ground in front of him, despite, according to Talal, his having bled out on the ground for twenty minutes before dying.

    So, Dr Landes is fully aware of the bloodstain, but the inconsistency is that there is no blood on the ground in front of the boy. The bloodstain is explained away as a fake, because if it were for real we would have seen blood on the ground too.

    But you were quick to slander Dr Landes as a sloppy investigator.

    Somehow, you manage not to see that someone like Dr Landes who has devoted 10 years investigating the Al Durah blood libel is in a far more informed position to make claims than his opponents are, opponents that (to my knowledge) dare not debate him in public.

    • Ben Alofs says:

      I would love to have the occasion to debate both Karsenty, Landes and Schapira together in public. They can bring their case and I will bring mine. What about it? Just say where and when! I am serious about this.
      I will come to Paris, if I have to, although I prefer London. I am living in North Wales, so London would be a compromise.

    • Ben Alofs says:

      Landes talks about “red around his shirt near his stomach”. He is not talking about a blood stain. As a matter of fact, Landes denies that there is blood!! He claims that there is no blood on the floor.

  18. Nahum Shahaf is NOT a ballistics expert, that is clear.
    I would be in favour of having the opinion of independent experts who are not involved politically.

    That can be arranged. Here you go:

    http://aldurah.com/judging-by-the-position-of-the-israeli-and-palestinian-gunmen-at-the-time/

    I quote from the video link:

    Jean- Claude Schlinger, France’s leading ballistic expert reviewed the evidence and produced a detailed report. In this clip from Esther Schapira’s documentary Das Kind Der Tod Und Die Warheit, Schlinger sums up his conclusion that “ the shots can only have come from the Palestinian post “Pita, behind the photographers at a right angle to the Al Durahs”.

    And i repeat my point: if there was the slightest chance that the shot came from the Israeli position, surely France2 would have presented a ballistics expert who would make this point. The fact that they didn’t shows that the view that the shot came from the Israeli position is a scientifically indefensible view, and no scientist is willing to destroy his credibility by asserting scientific falsehoods that the Israelis could have fired that shot.

    Charles Enderlin knows that the Mohammed al-Dura matter is not settled with the conviction of Karsenty.
    I agree with him, that there should be an independent international investigation by professionals who have no interests to declare.

    I don’t believe Enderlin, and i am sure that he will back off once one such independent investigation is arranged. If he was honest, why is he not giving to publicity all the footage that was shot that day?

    Because he is a liar, that’s why. And we know that he has already lied once by declaring the boy dead at some point in the footage, and then cut the final scene so that we won’t see the boy moving after he declared it dead. Here is the video, for the benefit of any reader. The original broadcast that Enderlin put on the screen and poisoned the western minds with his blood libel:

    http://aldurah.com/france-2s-broadcast/

    And here is the raw footage, which includes the final scene with the boy moving deliberately, a scene that Enderlin cut so that he would mislead the audience to believe that the child died on camera:

    http://aldurah.com/raw-al-durah-footage/

  19. @ Ben Alofs

    Ben Alofs said to Dr Landes:

    Ad 2. A correction is due here. It was not Talal abu Rahma, but Charles Enderlin himself, who showed you all the rushes at the France 2 offices in Jerusalem.

    Which means that your initial statement in this blog that it was Talal abu Rahmeh who showed the footage with the rushes to Dr Landes was false. Here is what you said to Dr Landes in your first address to him in this blog:

    By the way, long before this became an issue, Richard Landes asked Palestinian cameraman Talal abu Rahmeh if he could see the tape with the unedited rushes. Abu Rahmeh did give him the tape, so there is no cover up here.

    And Dr Landes responded to you:

    2) Abu Rahmeh never gave me any rushes, and France2 has refused to release them to this day. how can you expect us to have confidence in your assertions when you start off with such weird and wildly inaccurate ones?

    I am mentioning it because the way you made the correction was kind of impersonal, “a correction is due here” you said. This leaves it kind of unclear that you are correcting your own first false claim.

    • Ben Alofs says:

      This is getting pathetic. If I say: a correction is due, then it obviously means a correction of an earlier statement made by me. So let me repeat this: I was not correct in saying that Talal abu Rahma showed Landes the unedited rushes. The correction I made is that it was Charles Enderlin himself who authorised Landis to watch the unedited tape at the latter’s request.
      This does not change anything in the central fact: that Richard Landes did get to see the unedited tapes long before this became an issue and that Charles Enderlin trusted Landes and authorised him to watch all of the rushes.

  20. @ Ben Alofs

    Ben Alofs said:

    Landes talks about “red around his shirt near his stomach”. He is not talking about a blood stain. As a matter of fact, Landes denies that there is blood!! He claims that there is no blood on the floor.

    If Dr Landes says there is no blood on the ground, it is because unlike you he believes his own eyes. Look at the screenshot from the France2 footage:

    http://www.theaugeanstables.com/2013/05/24/derfners-brand-of-kool-aid-you-gonna-believe-me-or-your-lying-eyes/

    Not a trace of blood on the boy’s position the next day after the alleged killing of the boy. Not a trace of blood where the boy was lying allegedly (by you) bleeding for 17 minutes.

    And of course, we can see no blood in the footage during the shooting. I posted the video already for you, why are we discussing the same thing which is obvious to anyone who trusts her eyes? Let me repost the video:

    http://aldurah.com/segment-5-muhammad-down-stretched-out-father-swaying/

    Incidentally, i had also posted for you during our discussion in Mr Derfner’s site the first link with the screenshot of France2 of the ground the day after the incident.

    You seem to be impervious to any conclusive evidence, and you repeat your points as if you have seen nothing of the data provided to you.

    How difficult is it for you to grasp that, if there is no blood on the ground where the boy was lying allegedly bleeding for 17 minutes, then it can’t have been bleeding seriously or at all?

    I suggest your reluctance to digest what your vision tells you is because of your inability to cope with the cognitive dissonance of having to accept that the Israeli Army is not monstrous, and those who defend Israel are not fanatics, as you have chosen to believe for (i am guessing) a long time.

  21. @ Ben Alofs

    Ben said:

    I would love to have the occasion to debate both Karsenty, Landes and Schapira together in public. They can bring their case and I will bring mine.

    Oh my.

    Ben, you do understand i hope that Dr Landes is a public figure, who i guess would enter only a public debate, because it is only if the debate attracts publicity that some of the misconceptions in the minds of the western public might be replaced with truths.

    If Dr Landes talks to me and you, all he will achieve is persuade me and you, but i guess he is not in this whole issue just so as to persuade a couple of lads that disagree with him. He is not trying to boost his ego through this affair.

    The Al Dura hoax has poisoned a whole generation of westerners into thinking that the Israelis target children. As a result, the West has been pointing the finger to the Israelis, instead of pointing it to the real culprits in the Israeli-Arab conflict, i.e. the Arabs.

    So, as you understand, Dr Landes is trying to correct some misconceptions that have a huge cost in terms of blood, both Israeli and Arab. He can’t have the time to answer questions and explain the issues to some of us who might be looking for 15 minutes of associating with a public figure such as Dr landes is. What i guess he would want is a debate that could attract the attention of the media, so that some of the undue damage that has been done to both the Israeli image (and to western civilization in general) can be repaired.

    Sadly, neither i nor you are the sort of opponents of Dr landes that could attract the media attention.

    Ben said:

    What about it?

    I predict Dr landes will not come to Paris or to London just to debate you. And i am sure you have started to realize why not.

    Just say where and when!

    He won’t say, i predict!!!

    I am serious about this.

    It has become abundantly clear. Maybe too serious?

    I will come to Paris, if I have to, although I prefer London. I am living in North Wales, so London would be a compromise.

    Very generous of yours.

  22. @ Ben Alofs

    I claim to be knowledgeable about this whole issue, because I did work and live with my surgeon wife and child in the Gaza Strip in 1989/90. We worked in Ahli Arab hospital in Gaza City together with American colleagues and I know al-Shifa Hospital well.
    I also know Palestinian culture very well.

    Well, since you are a supporter of the Palestinians, and also claim to know their culture well, i can only conclude that you are over-optimistic about your grasp of cultures. I mean, you obviously have missed the part where the Palestinians are brainwashing their children to hate the Jews and to crave for martyrdom. We are talking about the most morally depraved culture of the 21st century, the Palestinian culture, so i suppose you were too busy spotting the misdemeanors of Israelis to have the time to observe the crimes of the Palestinians, the crime of turning their own kids into a death cult:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyRLyXCj3Lg&feature=player_embedded

    Jews are the “most evil among creations, barbaric monkeys, wretched pigs” says the 6-7 year old palestinian girl on Palestinian TV. Not the sort of show that is supposed to be playing on TV, don’t you agree?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=1ScBUVkvjFs

    Jews are “Allah’s enemies, the sons of pigs” – in poem recited by child on PA TV

    I have one more million such videos to show you, they are all broadcasted on Palestinian TV, they do it every day to their kids, they are brainwashing them to hate the jews and crave for martyrdom.

    Even Hilary Clinto acknowledged the phenomenon of the monstrous Palestinian incitement:

    http://www.palwatch.org/SITE/MODULES/videos/pmw/videos.aspx?fld_id=142&doc_id=2358

    See, you don’t know Palestinian culture that well. And a very big part of why westerners don’t know the monstrosity in Palestinian culture that makes parents turn their kids into haters with a death-wish and a genocidal anti-Semitic impulse is because such videos are never broadcasted by our mainstrean media (MSM).

    How can the West know how repugnant the Palestinian moral status is if the MSM are dominated by the likes of Enderlin?

  23. @ Ben Alofs

    This is getting pathetic. If I say: a correction is due, then it obviously means a correction of an earlier statement made by me. So let me repeat this: I was not correct in saying that Talal abu Rahma showed Landes the unedited rushes. The correction I made is that it was Charles Enderlin himself who authorised Landis to watch the unedited tape at the latter’s request.

    I beg to disagree. It was not pathetic for me to spot the issue, because a reader who comes upon this thread, and is presented with the material for the first time, might be flooded with more info than her brain can digest, and she might not realize that you are retracting your own claim.

    This does not change anything in the central fact

    It does change something.

    Your initial claim that it was Abu Rahmeh that willingly obliged and gave Dr Landes the footage creates the impression that Abu Rahmeh is an honest man that has nothing to hide. But look at the following video:

    http://www.theaugeanstables.com/2013/05/24/derfners-brand-of-kool-aid-you-gonna-believe-me-or-your-lying-eyes/

    (It is the video which is second from the bottom-up)

    Abu Rahmeh is saying during the video-interview that “we [Palestinians] have some secrets, you know, for ourself…”.

    So he might have kept some secrets from Dr Landes and others too, he is not that upfront as your initial (before you retracted it) statement implied.

    His facial expressions and tone of voice and his whole demeanor are the definition of someone who lies, so much so that Dr landes added the caption below the video: “Would you buy a used car from this man? Why would you buy a blood libel?”

    Ben, what car are you driving?

  24. @ Ben Alofs

    Ben said to Dr Landes:

    The problem with you and Karsenty is that both of you have watched too many Hollywood movies. Brian de Palma’s “Scarface” with Al Pacino comes to mind. A lot of blood and gore, but so very different from the real war and mayhem, I witnessed in the Gaza Strip and Lebanon in the 1980s.

    There is no way one can interpret your statement other than as projection.

    I mean, it is Dr Landes and Karsenty that deny that there were actually blood and gore in the scene. They claim that in all probability the scene was staged, and there can’t have been real blood.

    Have you ever witnessed in the Gaza Strip and Lebanon in the 80s people bleeding from the abdomen for 17 minutes and having their intestines spread on the ground and all the blood trace they left on the ground was a tiny dark spot?

    I urge you, in the unforgettable words of Tony Montana the drug-dealer (aka Al Pacino) in the movie you mentioned:

    “Don’t get high on your own supply”.

  25. Ben Alofs says:

    This is my last post to you, because my patience with you has been spent. I don’t suffer fools lightly.
    You are obviously a follower of Landis, and an unfortunately very servile one. That is your choice. I can’t help you with that.
    Landis may be an authority in your eyes, but his claims in the al-Dura case has shown his serious lack of basic knowledge on Gaza, Palestinians and medical matters. And that is putting it mildly.
    I hope other people read these exchanges and make their own conclusions.

    You claim that “The Al Dura hoax has poisoned a whole generation of westerners into thinking that the Israelis target children. As a result, the West has been pointing the finger to the Israelis, instead of pointing it to the real culprits in the Israeli-Arab conflict, i.e. the Arabs.”

    The world has seen since 1982 the war crimes Israel commits against Palestinian and Lebanese civilians. As a health worker, who began work in Palestinian refugee communities in 1982 I personally witnessed Israel’s war crimes, like the criminal bombardment of West-Beirut by Sharon on the 12th of August that killed hundreds of innocent civilians. I witnessed the massacre of Sabra and Shatila, during which I and other European health workers were taken prisoner by the Phalangists in Gaza Hospital in Sabra. Their Israeli bosses commanded them to hand us over to them. I know exactly the role Israeli soldiers like Sharon, Eitan and others played in this. I have seen too many Israeli war crimes. The shooting of Mohammed al-Dura was just one small part of the whole picture.
    It is not a coincidence that Israel nowadays finds itself amongst the most negatively viewed countries on earth, together with North-Korea, Pakistan and Iran.
    I had to laugh when you accused me of “cognitive dissonance”. At least my assertions of bad Israeli behaviour are based in factual experiences.
    You are just a servile follower of a pro-Israel propagandist, who has never set foot in Gaza, but claims he knows the Palestinians through and through. Now that is hubris of the first order.
    Adieu.

  26. @ Ben Alofs

    That the immediate appearance of an ambulance on the scene is deemed by him [Karsenty] to be proof of fakery, is for me a demonstration of his ignorance. He does not have a clue how emergency services in the Gaza Strip are organised and working.

    I am afraid that you do not want to answer my points. The only point of mine you gave a response to was that the ambulance had its engine running.

    Question: how do you know? Were you present?

    I deduced that it could not have its engine running because the driver is living in Gaza, and although there never were a humanitarian crisis there (as the Enderlins of this world try to persuade us, contra even the Red Cross’ admission to the opposite), still the Gazans are not filthy rich, so they would want to preserve gasoline by having the engine dead, and ignite it only when they saw an injury.

    But that was just a rational deduction of mine. How did you come up with a claim that the engine was running?

    And you just refuse to reply to my other points, namely:

    1) it is unlikely that the driver will perceive the alleged injury of a Palestinian exactly the second it happened. It might take the driver 3-4 seconds to notice the commotion of people gathering around an allegedly injured Palestinian, it might even take him 6 seconds.

    2) The brain, as soon as it perceives the injury, needs more or less a second to issue a neural signal to the hands and legs and make them move.

    3)The hand of the driver releasing the hand-break and then igniting the engine, together with pressing the accelerator takes some seconds. Shall we say it takes two seconds?

    4) Unless the Palestinian driver is a relative of Teresias (ancient Greek oracle)and knows exactly where the next injury will happen, then he must be situated at least a few meters away from the alleged injury. It takes some seconds for the ambulance to traverse this distance.

    Add all those seconds up and tell me how it is possible for the ambulance to arrive in just three seconds after we see the Palestinian shot.

    You just dismiss me and Karsenty and Dr Landes, but you only respond with generalizations and accusations, but no substance.

  27. @ Ben Alofs

    This is my last post to you, because my patience with you has been spent.

    This means you are very impatient.

    I don’t suffer fools lightly.

    May i suggest that it might be the case that you just can’t take a debate that exposes as a hoax your long-held beliefs about unjustly suffering Palestinians in the hands of cruel Israelis?

    You are obviously a follower of Landis,

    I had told you so in our first exchange.

    and an unfortunately very servile one.

    I peg it on my acting out a need for a paternal substitute. Nothing pathological, and i am conscious of it, so don’t worry on my behalf.

    That is your choice. I can’t help you with that.

    Hey, i didn’t ask for your help, i wouldn’t want to impose.

    Landis may be an authority in your eyes,

    He is the most psychologically penetrating thinker i have come across, both on the Israeli-Arab conflict and on the more general cultural confrontation of the liberal values with Islamism.

    but his claims in the al-Dura case has shown his serious lack of basic knowledge on Gaza, Palestinians and medical matters. And that is putting it mildly.

    These are mere assertions, which you have been unable to demonstrate.

    I hope other people read these exchanges and make their own conclusions.

    Watch it, your wish might come true! Are you sure you want people to read this exchange? They will be left with the same questions that i posed to you and that you did not answer.

    Continuing…

  28. continuing, part 2

    @ Ben Alofs

    Ben Alofs said:

    You [dionissis] claim that “The Al Dura hoax has poisoned a whole generation of westerners into thinking that the Israelis target children. As a result, the West has been pointing the finger to the Israelis, instead of pointing it to the real culprits in the Israeli-Arab conflict, i.e. the Arabs.”

    Yes, i claimed it.

    The world has seen since 1982 the war crimes Israel commits against Palestinian and Lebanese civilians. As a health worker, who began work in Palestinian refugee communities in 1982 I personally witnessed Israel’s war crimes, like the criminal bombardment of West-Beirut by Sharon on the 12th of August that killed hundreds of innocent civilians.

    I am not aware of the incident, but if there is something i have learned about the Israeli-Arab conflict is never to take at face value allegations of Israeli war crimes. Should i remind you the Jenin “massacre” hoax? The Gaza Beach incident? The pictures of Palestinian children killed inadvertently by Hamas which are later presented as Israel’s victims?

    It is against this phenomenon, i.e. the mis-reporting on the conflict by the MSM, that Dr Landes has waged cognitive war. If you value liberal values and truth, you should too.

    I witnessed the massacre of Sabra and Shatila, during which I and other European health workers were taken prisoner by the Phalangists in Gaza Hospital in Sabra.

    This was not a crime by Israelis.

    Their Israeli bosses commanded them to hand us over to them. I know exactly the role Israeli soldiers like Sharon, Eitan and others played in this.

    Then why don’t you share it with us?

    I have seen too many Israeli war crimes.

    Up to now you have only mentioned one, the one with Sharon, which i will research and come back to you and i will either acknowledge it, or disagree with you, depending on the results of my research.

    The shooting of Mohammed al-Dura was just one small part of the whole picture.

    No, the Al Dura hoax is not part of a hypothetical picture of Israeli war crimes, because you yourself in this thread said that you don’t believe that the Israelis did it on purpose. Ergo, it can’t have been an Israeli crime, because inadvertent killings (which is the scenario you want to stick to) do not count as crimes, we need malicious intent so as to call someone a criminal – i am speaking from a moral point of view, not from a legal one.

    It is not a coincidence that Israel nowadays finds itself amongst the most negatively viewed countries on earth, together with North-Korea, Pakistan and Iran.

    With journalists like Enderlin, indeed, it is no coincidence at all.

    Now that you mentioned North Korea, do the Israelis have a dictatorship, like the North Koreans? Do they commit honor-killings, like the Pakistanis do? Do they hang gays and stone adulteresses, like Iran?

    If not, why are you attributing moral equivalence between the Israelis and the alpha-male barbarians of the other countries you mentioned?

    Let me guess, because you have swallowed wholesale everything anti-Israel the media feed you.

    I had to laugh when you accused me of “cognitive dissonance”.

    Self-sarcasm is a gem. I hope it was this that motivated your laughter – otherwise you still live in your “bad-Israel” bubble, and no matter how virtuous it makes you feel to accuse your own people, it is based on lies about the motivations of the Israelis.

    At least my assertions of bad Israeli behaviour are based in factual experiences.

    You have only mentioned a bombing by Sharon. Even if it were a war crime (i haven’t researched it yet) you cannot blame the Israelis for just one atrocious act.

    The Palestinians, on the other hand, are emotionally killing their own children every day, immersing them in Jew-hatred, implanting in them a wish to exterminate and be exterminated – “martyrdom” they call it and they say it is for the sake of Allah.

    I say it is because they are socialized to become spoiled masculine bullies, whose fragile alpha-male egos cannot swallow that the Jewish former infidel dhimmis were not the weaklings they thought they were, and beat them in war. The Palestinians,in their quest to salvage their misconstrued honor, they prefer to die and kill their own children too, along with the children of the Israelis.

    You have no clue what the Palestinians feel. And that’s why you refrained from responding to the videos i posted, videos which depict the child abuse the Palestinians are perpetrating every day against their own children.

    You are just a servile follower of a pro-Israel propagandist

    Well, it’s better than supporting those who psychologically cripple their own kids.

    And Dr Landes is not a propagandist, you just accuse him with no evidence.

    who [Landes] has never set foot in Gaza, but claims he knows the Palestinians through and through.

    I don’t know if he has been to Gaza, but certainly it is not a necessary condition to have been in Gaza to know the mentality of the Palestinians. He might have met with Palestinians in Israel.

    But having spent time in Gaza is neither a sufficient condition for understanding the Palestinian honor-shame mindset. You are a case in point.

    Now that [i.e. Dr Landes claiming to know the Palestinian mentality without allegedly having been to Gaza] is hubris of the first order.

    You mean it is a hubris of a greater magnitude than your smearing Landes, who is trying to point to those truths that might lead to a solution to the conflict, thus eliminating the suffering? And smearing him just out of a morally narcissistic whim? While all along you stay mum on the Palestinian treatment of their own progeny?

    If Zeus existed, he would have thrown a thunder upon you by now.

    Adieu.

    Take care – no hard feelings, i hope.

  29. Cynic says:

    I don’t know why the most obvious clue to the angle the shots fired at the wall came from was not mentioned.
    At 30 degrees there would not have been round holes but oblong gouges in the wall.

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>