Category Archives: Intimidation of MSM

CNN Defends their Pallywood Error. Let’s See Mr. Mashharawi’s Rushes

The CNN footage from the Gaza Hospital is still hotly contested. Follow the multiple postings at LGF and an update at Powerline. Here below, I deal with CNN’s defense of the footage in detail because it so resembles the kinds of arguments that Charles Enderlin made about his own monumental gaffe with Talal abu Rahmeh and his “Al Durah” story.

January 9, 2009 — Updated 0034 GMT (0834 HKT)

Gaza video genuine, journalists say

You wouldn’t know it from the title, but there’s only one “journalist” whose opinion is cited in the article (unless Mashharawi the cameraman under suspicion is also considered a journalist).

(CNN) — There’s no truth to accusations by bloggers that a Palestinian camera crew staged a video showing the death of the videographer’s brother after an Israeli rocket attack, said the team’s employer.

In the video, camerman Ashraf Mashharawi is seen holding his brother.

“It’s absolute nonsense,” Paul Martin, co-owner of World News and Features, said of accusations leveled by bloggers at videographer Ashraf Mashharawi.

“He’s a man of enormous integrity and would never get involved with any sort of manipulation of images, let alone when the person dying is his own brother,” Martin said. “I know the whole family. I know them very well. … [Mashharawi] is upset and angry that anyone would think of him having done anything like this. … This is ridiculous. He’s independent.”

I don’t know much about Paul Martin, but it’s clear he spends lots of time in Gaza, and manages to have considerable access to Hamas “militants” whose narrative he seems to feel the world needs to understand. In any case this remark is nothing short of breathtaking. Mashharawi’s about as “independent” as Diana Buttu. The idea that a cameraman working in Gaza is not a militant for the Palestinian cause (perhaps not Hamas, but even that’s unlikely in the last years), is close to preposterous. No genuine independent could survive there for any period of time.

But the rhetoric is crucial here. Just like Charles Enderlin defending Talal, the ploy here is to present Palestinian cameramen as living up to the highest Western standards of journalism. And of course, this is only for public consumption. As Charles told me off the record when I pointed out that Talal’s rushes were full of staged scenes, “Oh sure, they do this all the time.” But on the record, “Talal is a top journalist.”

As for the “I know the whole family…” that’s just what Charles told me that Talal would never lie to him because their families had shared meals together. The credulity of these Western journalists who think that because they’ve sat down with their Palestinian colleagues and broken bread that means that their newfound friends would break ranks with their people’s struggle, is somewhat breathtaking.

Raafat Hamdouna, administrative director at Shifa Hospital in Gaza City, said Friday that “Mahmoud Khalil Mashharawi, a 12-year-old, was brought to the hospital, and he was breathing, but he was hit in the head and all over his body by shrapnel. He died later in the hospital. He was treated by the Norwegian team. When he was brought in, he was breathing. The team did their best to save him. I am not really sure if they even tried to rush him to the surgery room, because he was badly hurt.”

Mashharawi’s video footage originally appeared on British television’s Channel 4 and later on CNN. It showed futile attempts by doctors to resuscitate Mashharawi’s 12-year-old brother, Mahmoud, after he and his 14-year-old cousin, Ahmed, had been wounded in what the family said was a rocket attack from a remote-controlled drone Sunday.

Ahmed also was taken to the hospital, but he had been fatally struck in the head and chest by shrapnel and had lost a foot, Hamdouna said. Hamdouna said the hospital records reported Ahmed’s age as 16, not 14, as the family said.

At the time of the attack, the family said, the two boys were playing on the rooftop of the family’s three-story house. The video showed a blood-splattered area where an explosion had taken place and where shrapnel had pierced the roof.

Mashharawi has regularly worked with World News and Features since 2004, Martin said. His multimedia company serves television, radio and newspapers.

Martin said accusations that Mashharawi owns a company that hosts Hamas Web sites were falsely based on Mashharawi having worked at a company that created the PS suffix to allow anyone of any political persuasion to create Palestinian Web sites.

The video footage appeared on CNN television networks and on CNN.com for 24 hours before CNN removed the material in the belief that it had no further right to use it. CNN, standing by the video, has since reposted it. Some bloggers had cited its removal as evidence that CNN did not stand by its reporting.

Responding to accusations that the resuscitation efforts of Mashharawi’s brother appeared inauthentic, Martin said that, based on his years of reporting from Gaza, doctors often go through such efforts even with little hope that a patient can be saved.

This is rich. Note that CNN did not consult a doctor on this one, but Martin’s experience in Gaza. I’ve consulted a doctor and a number of people with experience in CPR have commented both at my article at PJMedia and at LGF. But here it’s Martin’s long experience in Gaza that comes into play. There are two ways to explain this remark, neither of them working in the way Martin would like.

  • 1) Doctors in Gaza are so incompetent that what appears to Western experts as a joke, really is their best effort. The incompetence is doubled by Martin’s qualifying remark: as commenters have noted, if the patient is dying, the CPR should be more vigorous.
  • 2) Doctors “often go through such efforts even with little hope that a patient can be saved” as long as the cameras are rolling. Maybe Martin wasn’t paying attention to that detail.

In the video of the incident, the boy appears lifeless when brought to into the hospital.

In a brief conversation with CNN, Mashharawi said that doctors tried everything they could to save his brother and that he rejected suggestions that any of his work was inauthentic.

Before bloggers made their accusations, Mashharawi told CNN, “I believed at that moment if I didn’t record that nobody will believe what’s happened to my brother. Because it is unbelievable. Until now, I can’t believe what’s happened.”

It’s not clear what’s “unbelievable. That a child would be hit by rockets in a war zone and die in a hospital is hardly unbelievable. That one needed to film it for the sake of “proof” strikes me as pretty unconvincing. That he filmed it to arouse anger against Israel with the pathos of the scene, strikes me as more likely; and as I argued in the Gaza Beach tragedy documentary I made, this is “exploiting grief.”

To get a sense of the difference in cultures here, no Israeli cameraman would film the death of a family member (or anyone else) and then give it to Western media to show the world the plight of the Israelis. None.

What’s most appalling about this article — but will eventually, I suspect, redound to CNN’s discredit — is that they ran this article based on the denial of two already committed sources. CNN made no effort to corroborate any of this. It’s just “he said, she said.”

What we need is the rushes that Ahraf Mashharawi shot that day
, that we see in edited form. Like the rushes of Talal, we’ll be able to judge better what was going on that day if we could see them. And unlike Talal’s rushes, let’s see them uncensored. I suspect we won’t, because when it comes to the clash between Palestinian journalism, channeled through advocacy journalists, the clash between narrative and evidence is so great, they cannot afford to let us see.

I may be wrong. This may be genuine footage. I am open to being convinced so. But let us see the evidence.

Laugher of the Week: Ethan Bronner on Journalists on Intimidation in Gaza

Ethan Bronner has an article on the media warfront in which he cites — without any trace of irony or supressed guffaw, the following comment:

Foreign reporters deny that their work in Gaza has been subject to Hamas censorship or control. Unable to send foreign reporters into Gaza, the international news media have relied on Palestinian journalists based there for coverage.

I’ve written quite a bit on intimidation of the media in the Arab Israeli conflict, particularly in relationship to Bronner’s predecessor, Steven Erlanger (who, I’ve heard, had the courage to go to the Egyptian border and tried unsuccessfully to get into Gaza), but also Alan Johnston, the avidly pro-Palestinian BBC journalist who nonetheless got himself kidnapped for annoying somebody in Gaza.

This is a very bad joke.

Indeed, I’ve thought long and hard about this one, and I would say, briefly, the following.

  • Palestinian intimidation of Western journalists is pervasive.
  • Reporters can’t tell their audiences because it would undermine their credibility (hence the whopper above).
  • Reporters can’t admit their cowardice to themselves (hence Bronner’s lack of even a trace of irony).
  • They console themselves by saying that they are doing it not from intimidation but either for money, or, better yet, for ideological reasons: they’re siding with the underdog; they’re leveling the playing field; they’re supporting a freedom movement.

If anyone else has a good explanation for why so many reporters continue to support an underdog who behaves as repugnantly as the Palestinians, I’m all ears.

Empty Posturing: A Demopath Stands up for Press Freedom in “Occupied Palestine”

Muzzling press freedom in Occupied Palestine

Khalid Amayreh
Voices
08/21/08

To begin with, I would like to point out that I am writing this article at the risk of being arrested for “incitement” and “tarnishing” the Palestinian Authority (PA) image.

However, the cause of press freedom in Occupied Palestine is too important to be compromised by fears for one’s safety.

Sounds like a brave man. And he may be. But his opening sentence is packed with ludicrous notions: a) there is a cause of press freedom in “Occupied Palestine”; b) it’s only for “incitement” and “tarnishing” the PA image that he runs risks (try criticizing Hamas and see who shows up at your door); and c) it’s “Occupied Palestine” that’s the problem. On the contrary, the closest thing to press freedom Palestinians ever experienced was under Israeli “occupation.” It’s when the place was handed over first to Arafat, and then in Gaza to Hamas, that press freedoms — and freedom of speech — vanished.

As one Palestinian in “occupied Jerusalem” put it: “At least here I can speak my mind freely without being dumped in prison…” Another, from an area that rioted in 2000 against Israel, but balked ferociously at being “transferred” to Arafat’s Palestine in a land-exchange deal, said: “Here you can say whatever you like and do whatever you want — so long as you don’t touch the security of Israel. Over there, if you talk about Arafat, they can arrest you and beat you up.”

Pipes quotes Palestinians about “Freedom of Expression”:

    ‘Adnan Khatib, owner and editor of Al-Umma, a Jerusalem weekly whose printing plant was burned down by PA police in 1995, bemoaned the troubles he’d had since the Palestinian Authority’s heavy-handed leaders got power over him: “The measures they are taking against the Palestinian media, including the arrest of journalists and the closure of newspapers, are much worse than those taken by the Israelis against the Palestinian press.” In an ironic turn of events, Na‘im Salama, a lawyer living in Gaza, was arrested by the PA on charges he slandered it by writing that Palestinians should adopt Israeli standards of democracy. Specifically, he referred to charges of fraud and breach of trust against then-prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu. Salama noted how the system in Israel allowed police to investigate a sitting prime minister and wondered when the same might apply to the PA chieftain. For this audacity, he spent time in jail. Hanan Ashrawi, an obsessive anti-Israel critic, acknowledged (reluctantly) that the Jewish state has something to teach the nascent Palestinian polity: “freedom would have to be mentioned although it has only been implemented in a selective way, for example, the freedom of speech.” ‘Iyad as-Sarraj, a prominent psychiatrist and director of the Gaza Community Mental Health Program, confesses that “during the Israeli occupation, I was 100 times freer [than under the Palestinian Authority].”

So, granted, the PA are thugs and don’t allow freedom of expression, but alas for our intrepid journalist trying to stand up for freedom of the press in “occupied Palestine,” the only time there was anything like “freedom of the press” was when the Israelis really did occupy the land.

Hence, journalists and free-minded citizens must not allow themselves to be intimidated by a police-state apparatus that views itself as God’s vicegerent on earth.

In recent weeks and months, the American-backed and Israeli-favored regime in Ramallah has been systematically violating the human rights and civil liberties of the Palestinian people in ways unseen since the start of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip in 1967.

Muslims who Admire Israel: What Significance?

There are a tiny number of Arab and Muslim intellectuals who have expressed admiration for Israel. What does this admiration mean? Do we take its numerical percentage as a sign of its significance? Say a hundred pro-Israel Muslims out of 1.4 billion Muslims, so less than .00001% of the total, i.e., less than a fraction of a statistical error?

Or do we take it as the tip of an iceberg of an opinion that cannot express itself in an honor-shame culture where honor has been defined in terms of hating Israel, and therefore every expression of pro-Israel sentiment represents something far more significant, something that, just in order to exist, must fight heavy cross-winds. In other words, it’s the easiest thing to be pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel in the Muslim world; it takes great courage and intellectual integrity to fight that consensus. Just as we should weight Israeli self-criticism differently from Palestinian demonization in our efforts to assess the information we get from the Middle East, so should we weigh pro- and anti-Israel sentiments in the Muslim world.

The case of Salah Choudhury, the Bengladeshi journalist who is now fighting for his life against charges of sedition, treason, blasphemy and espionage, raises yet another dimension. In addition to the peer-pressure of an honor-shame culture — so strong it can drive mothers to kill their daughters — there is also the matter of violent intimidation, whether state-sponsored (as in Choudhury’s case) or supported by a fatwa that operates at the grass-roots level. Just as Islam considers that apostates deserve death, so does this religion exercise enormous threats of and execution of violence against those it considers guilty of betraying the cause.

When one considers the joint threat of social and economic ostracism on the one hand and threat of violence on the other, even the slightest expression of support or admiration for Israel in the Muslim world needs to be factored at, say, 100,000,000 times the significance of an anti-Israel sentiment that is so easy and so (seemingly) cost-free for Muslims to express.

In honor of Choudhury’s struggle — I urge everyone to sign the petition on his behalf — I post here the reflections of another courageous Muslim, exiled Iraqi writer Najem Wali, who followed her intellectual instincts and went to visit Israel.

A journey into the heart of the enemy
Sign and Sight
21/05/2008

Exiled Iraqi writer Najem Wali travelled to Israel to uncover some uncomfortable truths about the Arab leaders

When a child is born in Israel or to us in the Arab world, the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict is flowing in its umbilical cord. Since the declaration of the state of Israel on May 14 1948, Israel has been the official enemy number one for the Arab states.

But even as a child I found the rhetoric didn’t add up. How could this somehow “all-powerful” country so successfully “let the Arab nations sink into lethargy”, as the official speeches would have us believe? And why, at the same time, were they so confident that the “small state of Zionist gangs” would inevitably “disappear from the map”? I never found a convincing answer. Nor did I ever make the connection between the “Jew question” and the “Palestine question”, between the victims of the Holocaust and the victims of Israel’s foundation.

The Nouvel Obs Petition Signers: Study #1 – Jon Randal

Updated with additional material.

In my initial responses to the Nouvel Obs petition supporting Enderlin, I noted that in the future, PhD theses on the dysfunctions of the media in the late 20th early 21st century will begin by exploring the identity and journalistic record of those who signed. Ivan Rioufol already identified a number of signers as having behaved like Enderlin, guilty of the same journalistic offenses. And John Rosenthal identified a number of people who had not business signing so partisan a petition. I’d like to begin a series here on some of the signers and I welcome anyone who wants to prepare a dossier.

Jon Randal.

Anne-Elisabeth Moutet, in her devastating discussion of the petition signers, has this to say about Jon Randal of the Washington Post:

There was the noted Paris-based former Washington Post foreign correspondent, 75-year-old Jon Randal, a Middle East expert I’d looked up to for years as a cub reporter, who trenchantly explained that he was seeing in all this a dangerous American trend of “vindictive pressure groups interfering with news organizations,” now unfortunately crossing the Atlantic. (Having lived in Paris for over 40 years, Jon had become alarmingly French.)

“Americans have been under the gun of such people for some time, but France used to be free of this kind of thing. [These groups] are paranoid, they’re persistent, they never give up, they sap the energy of good reporters.

He’s speaking here of the Zionist zealots who have the nerve to criticize the media for their fast and loose accounts. (See below.)

I can’t imagine how much money France 2 has spent defending this case. Charles Enderlin is an excellent journalist! I don’t care if it’s the Virgin Birth affair, I would tend to believe him. Someone like Charles simply doesn’t make a story up.”

This is a common error that Enderlin supporters make, assuming that Enderlin is the object of the legal attack, intended to suck money from France2. In fact, Enderlin attacked, using France2′s deep pockets to harrass individuals who were far more seriously threatened financially. As for the credulity Randal expresses, one could hardly ask for a better articulation of the guild mentality.

But, I tried to interject, the absence of the boy’s “agony” from the tape?-

“Nonsense! Televisions don’t show extreme violence. You know that. Look, I don’t know what side you’re on in this?”

Another key revelation of the guild mentality. Bring up evidence and you reveal “what side you’re on.”

“I’m trying to make sense of it all.”

“I want you to call my friend at NPR, Loren Jenkins; call David Greenway at the Boston Globe; they’ll tell you about pressure groups.”

What he means by pressure groups are the Zionists who critique the gross inaccuracies of a media that seems incapable of getting a story straight. Actually Chafets has some remarks to make about Loren Jenkins, then a correspondent for the WaPo, that show exceptional continuity from 1982 to 2008:

Jenkins… published an article in Rolling Stone that made several comparisons between the Israelis and the Nazis and elegantly argued the Arab version of history — that Zionism is illegitimate because the Jews stole their land. Jenkins was expecially indignant about the Holocaust: “[The Israelis] think they’re owed something because of what happened [in World War II],” he fumed in an interview with the Aspen Times. (p. 306)

In other words, just as expressed by the indignant Nouvel Obs petition, to allow Zionist zealots to challenge their advocacy journalism was an impediment on the “freedom” [read: license] of the press.

I ran into similar sentiments at a conference in Budapest when I presented the al Durah case as a blood libel that had helped drive Global Jihad from the margins to the center of Muslim culture in the 21st century. One of the conference’s organizers responded:

    It’s not blood libel; it’s just simple murder of children, which we know for a fact Israelis are doing every day. And although the Jewish lobby has prevented the American press from reporting these things, we can be thankful that the European press, which is more objective, has remained independent.

So the fact that the European press, unpressured by Israeli advocacy groups with scrupulously acquired documentation — CAMERA is nothing if not extremely careful to document everything it claims — can report “freely” on what goes on in the Middle East on a regular basis… and that’s a preferable situation.

But let’s take a look at some of Randal’s earlier experiences and reporting from the Middle East to have a sense of what’s going on behind the curtain. Recently, in preparing my response to “David,” I took another look at Ze’ev Chafets’ Double Vision: How the Press Distorts America’s View of the Middle East, a fundamental text I recommend to everyone. (It is, by the way, in response to the same distorted coverage of the war in Lebanon that Chafets chronicles, that CAMERA was first formed in 1982, just as, in response to the stunningly inaccurate coverage of the second Intifada, Honest Reporting was founded.)

Illustrating the Problem: Thoughts on a comment by “David”

In response to my post on what we can learn from the barbarity in Gaza and the silence of the media/NGOs/progressive left, I got a particularly sharp rebuke from a certain “David.” A number of commenters at the blog responded equally sharply, with perhaps a bit more invective than I would have, but still, I think, within the parameters of a reasonably civil dialogue (e.g., speculating on the man’s sanity or drug consumption). I’d like to discuss his post and incorporate both the answers of commenters already posted here and others I solicited from various people who know more about Sabra and Shatilla than I do. I have asked David to provide the links or references to his comments, and have posted his answer below.

Let me begin by reposting “David”‘s comment.

A truly pathetic attempt to be funny through gross misrepresentation of history and demeaning the well documented suffering of Palestinians at the hands of Israel, a state that has been repeatedly accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, B’Tsellem (Israel’s human rights group) as well as the United Nations and other groups. I could go on and on. Suffice, however, to point out that it was Ariel Sharon (then defence minister) who ordered the IDF to surround the Sabra and Shatila Palestinians refugee camps in Lebanon in Sept. 1982. As per his instructions, the Phalange were then permitted to enter the camps, where for three days they slaughtered Palestinians, mainly women, children and old men. Not only did the Israelis not permit the Palestinians to leave, they watched the horrors from observation towers around the camps, supplied the Phalange with night time illumination (to see better as they murdered the defenceless Palestinians) as well as bulldozers to get rid of the bodies. The Israelis also suppled the Phalange with cokes during their “breaks” from their butchering. At least 2,000 Palestinians were murdered with Israel’s complicity.

Also, during their unprovoked invasion of Lebanon in 1982 (the PLO had adhered scrupulously to the cease-fire negotiated at the behest of Pres. Reagan), the Israeli invaders murdered over 18,000 Lebanese and other Palestinian civilians – as determined by the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee. All of this is well documented and common knowledge to those who actually know the history of region.

Now part of what I find so fascinating about this response is the ways that it illustrates precisely the problems I tried to discuss in my post — the unshakeable attachment to a narrative of “the well documented suffering of Palestinians at the hands of Israel,” the dependence for that narrative on the documentation provided by NGOs and media who are themselves major consumers and amplifiers of that narrative, the obsessive focus on the details of Israeli misdeeds with no attention to the behavior of their alleged “victims,” and the eagerness to present these “victims” in the most honorable light — evidence be damned.

So let’s go back over this text and fisk it systematically, all the while considering what the meta-message of such a comment conveys.

CNN’s Wedeman: I Black Heart Palestinian Children

Second Draft has sent out several alerts and Breath of the Beast has posted two analyses of Ben Wedeman’s coverage for CNN of Israel’s crackdown on Hamas organizations in the West Bank, including schools and a shopping mall. Several blogs have taken up the call to publicize this (see below).

First, view Wedeman’s handiwork.

It’s actually rare that we get a look inside the workshop of a journalist and see what he makes his report from. In this case we know that the Israeli army gave Wedeman exclusive footage, expected that he would do something focusing on the kind of hate-mongering that goes on in Hamas-run organizations.

This tape would strike any normal, “cognitively-egocentric liberal” as disturbing to say the least. Kindergarteners, dressed up in Hamas uniforms (with black masks) storm the stage and “kill” two kids dressed as Israeli soldiers and drag them across the stage; then they prance around the stage to martial music for at least 10 minutes. For those familiar with the workings of Palestinian schools, where ceremonies that emphasize the bloodthirsty are common, however, this is hardly surprising.

girl with bloody hands
A kindergarten girl shows her “bloody hands” at a graduation ceremony in Gaza. She is mimicking the behavior of one of the lynchers of two Israeli reservists, beaten to death in Ramallah on October 12, 2000.

ramallah lynching bloody hands
The model. Note that while the Palestinians did everything to prevent this footage from getting out to the West, this had nothing to do with their being genuinely ashamed of this savage behavior.

What it does constitute, however, is a valuable entryway into perhaps the single most serious cause of the Arab-Israeli conflict: Palestinian hate-mongering. The reason why “Oslo” logic fails is not because the Israelis don’t concede enough, not because they continue to expand settlements (any “normal” foe, seeing the land it wants for a future nation being eaten up so, would hurry negotiations, especially when the “settler” government has agreed in advance to clear settlements), not because they don’t get enough “dignity” in the land deal, but because Palestinian leaders think only in zero-sum terms, dream only of destroying their neighbors, and teach their children well. And thereby, a father’s hell will surely go on.

The “Public Secret” Dossier: Revelations about the MSM from the Al Durah Affair

This constitutes a longer version of the op-ed piece at the Jerusalem Post where I exercise my “right of reply” to respond to Larry Derfner’s most recent attack on my arguments. The essay contains links (more to be added), three additional documents, and a number of paragraphs dropped from the published piece.

The Self-Destruction of the Al Durah Faithful

When I first began work on the al Durah affair, I knew I was on to a story whose unraveling would reveal a wide range of cultural dynamics at the beginning of the 21st century –

    • the dramatic dysfunctions of the Mainstream media’s news reporting,
    • the resurgence of various forms of Judeophobia, from the paranoid anti-Semitism of the Muslim world to the joyous moral Schadenfreude of the European “left”,
    • the mainstreaming of an active-cataclysmic apocalyptic movement in global Jihad and its weapon of choice, suicide terrorism,
    • the cultural vulnerabilities of Western democracies faced with an asymmetrical war so lopsided they cannot take it seriously
    • the pathologies of Leftist and Jewish self-criticism,
    • the disorientation of liberals prisoner of their cognitive egocentrism, and
    • the moral failure of the “progressive left.”

By any standards this offers a fairly good scope of issues to illuminate with a “thick description” of one single incident, even if it strikes many as what one French friend classed as a “human interest story” (faits divers).

Part of what attracted me to the topic was its quality of “public secret.” Everywhere I looked there were public secrets: from the obvious staging of Pallywood and the stunning complacency in private of the Western media (“oh, they do that all the time”), to uncanny refusal of otherwise rational people to reconsider despite the deeply troubling evidence. Karsenty calls it the “so what” defense: No blood… so what; no bullets… so what; 55 seconds not 27 minutes filmed of an alleged 45 minutes of non-stop Israeli firing… so what; no “death agonies” that Enderlin cut to “spare the public”… so what; no ambulance evacuation scenes… so what; the kid moves after he’s supposed to be dead… so what; Talal lies… so what; Enderlin lies…

Indeed quite early on, in addition to seeing this story as having strong parallels to the Dreyfus Affair, I began to see it as a case of the Emperor’s New Clothes. Here the tailors are Talal and his friends who spin their story; Enderlin is the chamberlain who comes back from examining the evidence and announces that the tale is good and true, the MSM are the courtiers to whom he gave both the evidence and the talking points for announcing the great news in order to prepare the tale’s public exposure, the media launch of the icon of hatred, the martyr Muhammad al Durah. And a string of lonely individuals, from Shahaf, to Juffa, to Huber, to Poller, to Landes, to Karsenty, tried unsuccessfully to say, hey wait a minute, this martyr’s narrative robe is woven of wholesale deception. And each of us were told, as does the father of the child in Andersen’s tale, “Hush child.” Only whereas in the original tale, the “revelation” was that those who couldn’t see the magical cloth were “fools and unworthy to rule”, in this one, those who saw a fake were “far-right-wing Zionist conspiracy freaks.”

Like many such “public secrets,” this tale does not wear well over time. (The French call them secrets de Polichinelle, secrets like pregnancy that will, eventually, out.) What I did not expect, was how often the defenders of al Durah would reveal the nature of these dysfunctions I was trying to chronicle and explain. Now Larry Derfner has added his text to the dossier of self-revelatory texts that explain so much about the al Durah affair. He has, as a result, inspired the formal launching of the Al Durah Affair’s Public Secret Dossier. So in his honor, I propose to go over some of these extraordinarily revealing texts and compare and contrast them.

1) Letter of Ricardo Christiano to the Palestinian Authority, October 13, 2000.

2) News analysis of William Orme for the New York Times, October 24, 2000

3) Response of Adam to James Fallows’ Atlantic Monthly article June, 2003

4) Nouvel Obs Letter of Support to Charles Enderlin, May 27, 2008

5) Larry Derfner’s Second Column on Al Durah in Jerusalem Post, June 18, 2008

Letter of Ricardo Christiano to the Palestinian Authority, October 13, 2000

On October 12 (less than two weeks after the al Durah footage first aired and provoked rioting throughout Israel’s Arab population), two Russian-born reservists took a wrong turn and landed in Ramallah, Arafat’s “Oslo” capital. Palestinian police took them into custody, but the rumor of their presence spread rapidly. A lynch crowd soon stormed the police station, and in a frenzy, Palestinian men beat the soldiers to death with their bare hands, threw their bodies out the window, and a mob below literally tore apart their bodies, beaten to a pulp, dragging the parts through the street, shouting all the while, “Revenge for the blood of Muhammad al Durah.”

Rating Facts far below Reputation: Insights into the French Intellectual Scene and the al Durah Affair

Anne-Elisabeth Moutet is one of the people I have consulted with often in the course of working on al Durah. I cite her a number of times anonymously in my essays in France, including one of the most striking comments: “In France no one apologizes publicly for a mistake. It’s considered a sign of weakness.” Now she brings her formidable capacities to bear on the al Durah affair. Knowing two thirds of the people who signed the Nouvel Obs petition, she called them up and asked why they had done it. The result… a pathetic and hilarious insight into the corporatist mentality of the French intellectual elite — Jewish and non-Jewish. This may be the best piece on the French cultural context of the al Durah affair.

L’Affaire Enderlin
Being a French journalist means never having to say you’re sorry.

by Anne-Elisabeth Moutet
07/07/2008, Volume 013, Issue 41
Paris

To understand the al-Dura affair, it helps to keep one thing in mind: In France, you can’t own up to a mistake. This is a country where the law of the Circus Maximus still applies: Vae victis, Woe to the vanquished. Slip, and it’s thumbs-down. Not for nothing was Brennus a Gaul. His modern French heirs don’t do apologies well, or at all if they can possibly help it. Why should they? That would be an admission of weakness. Blink, and you become the fall guy.

So, in the case of Muhammad al-Dura-a 12-year-old Palestinian boy allegedly killed by Israeli fire during a skirmish in the Gaza strip on September 30, 2000-it was not really to be expected that the journalist who released the 59-second news report, Charles Enderlin, longtime Jerusalem correspondent for France 2 TV, would immediately admit having hastily slapped together sensational footage supplied by the channel’s regular Palestinian stringer, and not checked whose bullets had, in fact, killed, or perhaps even not killed, the boy.

[snip]

Meanwhile, Enderlin and his bosses at the state-run France 2, who had distributed their news item free worldwide, were refusing to answer questions. They flatly declined to provide the complete 27 minutes of footage taken that afternoon by the cameraman, or to concede any possible error, ping-ponging in the classical obfuscating pattern of bureaucracies everywhere. (“It’s not the crime, it’s the cover-up” hasn’t yet made it to France.) It took two years for Enderlin to give his first interview, to a friendly colleague, Elisabeth Schemla, the respected editor of the Proche-Orient.info website and a former L’Express associate editor, in the course of which he confused “protecting one’s sources” with not providing the tape. (Personal disclosure: I was at the time deputy editor of Proche-Orient.info.)

Omerta and the European MSM: Rosenthal on the Al Durah Case

John Rosenthal, one of the most astute journalists at work in Europe today, whose work I have featured a number of times here at the Augean Stables, has an excellent article up at PJMedia on the French media’s reaction to the Al Durah affair. For the first time in the history of this blog, not only has one of my posts been mentioned, but still more important, the commentators who contribute so much to the discussion with their learned and lively comments.

    Le Nouvel Observateur’s “Appeal for Charles Enderlin” positively exudes such a sense of corporate privilege, as Richard Landes and his commentators on Augean Stables were quick to point out.

Rosenthal examines a number of the signatories (the “List of ignominy”) of signers of the Nouvel Obs petition, including the head of “Reporters without borders” an organization, as Rosenthal points out, one would have expected to view Karsenty as a classic “cyber-dissident” taking on the “grands medias.” Alas, not really an NGO, it appears to be another PGO (para-governmental organizations). I suspect that this list will serve as the starting point for PhD theses in media studies (if civic polities survive).

Hattip to all of you who have contributed.

When it Comes to Al-Dura, Journalists Are Against Free Speech
Despite the Al-Dura ruling, reporter Charles Enderlin can still count on his colleagues to stand by his story.

June 20, 2008 – by John Rosenthal

Earlier this month, the French weekly Le Nouvel Observateur launched a surreal “Appeal for Charles Enderlin” in response to a French court judgment clearing media critic Philippe Karsenty of charges of having “defamed” Enderlin and his employer, France 2 public television. The court thus overturned the October 2006 condemnation of Karsenty by a lower court.

A full professional translation of the higher court’s judgment is available here on Richard Landes’s Augean Stables blog. (The complete judgment in French is here.) Richard Landes’s translation of the Nouvel Observateur’s “Appeal for Charles” is here. The “Appeal” has in the meanwhile been signed by hundreds of Enderlin’s colleagues in French journalism, plus several “personalities,” and even some simple “web surfers” [internautes].

I say that it is surreal, since it is by no means clear what the point of the appeal is supposed to be or what exactly the signatories want done “for Charles Enderlin.” It was not, after all, Enderlin who was on trial: he and France 2 were the plaintiffs. The “Appeal for Charles” identifies Karsenty as the “person mainly responsible” for an “obstinate and hateful campaign” against Enderlin. But, as PJM readers will know (and Nouvel Observateur readers might not), Karsenty is in fact just one of numerous critics who have challenged the authenticity of Enderlin’s September 2000 report allegedly showing the killing of the Palestinian boy Mohammed Al-Dura by Israeli troops.

It was indeed France 2’s legal strategy of singling out Karsenty and two other website owners for prosecution – as well as Karsenty’s “obstinate” refusal to be intimidated – that converted him into one of the chief protagonists of what has become the “Al-Dura affair.”

The authors of the “Appeal” – like Enderlin himself in a blog post published shortly after the rendering of the court’s decision – take heart in the fact that the higher court “recognized” that Karsenty’s litigious remarks regarding the Al-Dura report “unquestionably do damage to the honor and reputation of news professionals”: i.e. Enderlin and France 2 as a whole. But the court’s observation in this connection is in fact a mere tautology. In his November 2004 text – in which, incidentally, Karsenty called for the “immediate dismissal” of Enderlin and France 2 news director Arlette Chabot – Karsenty himself describes Enderlin’s Al-Dura report and, above all, France 2’s defense of it as “a masquerade that does dishonor [déshonore] to France and its public television.”

The real question, of course, is whether Karsenty’s criticisms of France 2 are well-founded and whether the underlying accusation that the Al-Dura report was a fake is true – or, in other words, whether it is not in fact, as Karsenty’s remarks suggested, Enderlin and France 2 that brought the “dishonor” upon themselves. The French court did not answer this question. Nor indeed did it have any need to do so.

Read the rest.

Esther Schapira’s Statement of the Question of Staging

No one can fault Larry Derfner for lack of effort. But his research skills seem to need honing. He called Charles Enderlin before writing his next contribution to the al Durah affair, but not Esther Schapira. He cites her, along with two other “highly respected, disinterested journalists” whom he trusts much more than the “right-wing Jewish writers continually piling up the ‘evidence’ for their conspiracy theories” (among whom he includes me). At one point he invokes Schapira to make the following point:

Furthermore, that each of these investigators [Schapira, Leconte, Jeambar, Weimann] also dismissed the possibility that the shooting was “staged” – I think that alone is reason enough to brush aside the idea that Abu Rahme, the al-Duras and a cast of helpers pulled off a colossal hoax to blacken Israel’s name by faking the death of a 12-year-old boy.

Esther Schapira, with whom I had a number of candid conversations over the years, wrote me the following for attribution:

    It has been said several times that I didn’t find any hints supporting the accusation that the famous scene at the Netzarim junction was a hoax and this was why I didn’t include it in my film. This is wrong. Indeed even in 2001 I already came across a number of interesting hints indicating that the so called „killing of Mohammed Al Durah“ might be a Palestinian propaganda fabrication. However, back then when I did my film, I focussed on the question who could have killed Mohammed Al Durah. This already came as a surprise to me, because initially I was sure that there was not doubt that it was the clear case of a Palestinian child getting killed by israeli soldiers. I wanted to do a film about the tragedy of a child getting killed in the conflict and about the unusal situation for soldiers to be confronted with children. I wanted to know how the soldiers cope with the feeling of having killed an innocent child.

    My findings, that it is most unlikely that he was killed by the Israeli soldiers for a number of reasons came as a surprise to me and already caused an outcry and I got life threats and needed police protections when I appeared in public. As I was aware of the emotional impact of that scene I stuck strictly to facts and findings and left out everything that seemed like speculation. Now, in retrospect with the knowledge of today, I know that it is very justified to question if he did get killed at all.

Now Derfner assumes that those who take the most “cautious” position are the “highly respected, disinterested” journalists, and those who go farther are zealots with an agenda. Here, Schapira notes the ferocious hostility she encountered just for suggesting the position Derfner adopts at the beginning of his article. Just because people aren’t committed to a cause doesn’t mean there isn’t pressure on them to scew their findings, and that, somehow, their conclusions are “disinterested.” Apparently Derfner makes no allowance for the kinds of pressures and intimidations that our MSM journalists endure — both death threats, and the more pervasive need to “line up with the pack.”

I am preparing an extensive fisking of Derfner which will be up soon.

JPost Publishes Our Response: Landes and Karsenty to Derfner

The Jerusalem Post just published our response to Larry Derfner’s potty-mouthed rant about Al Durah and conspiracy theories (fisked here). I publish below the original text which contains an additional paragraph (in italics) that the editors took out before publication.

Right of reply: Conspiracy theories and Al-Dura
Jun. 11, 2008
RICHARD LANDES and PHILIPPE KARSENTY

Weekly columnist Larry Derfner wrote a bizarre piece in the The Jerusalem Post on May 29. He railed against us as “conspiracy freaks” whose “pure paranoia” has us matching “Arab insanity with Jewish insanity,” all because we dare to claim that the footage that Charles Enderlin presented to the world as news of real events was actually staged by his cameraman, Talal abu Rahmah. For Derfner, such claims – he fails even to distinguish between our claim that Enderlin was the dupe of his cameraman, and his claim that we think Enderlin was involved in the hoax – constitute a “demonizing” of the Palestinians and the foreign press.

The piece is heavy on crude rhetoric and light on evidence to substantiate its intemperate claims. Little in his piece makes sense other than his vehement desire to tar us as paranoid conspiracy freaks. Indeed, Derfner’s only evidence comes from a five-year-old article by James Fallows that appeared long before the extensive evidence of Palestinian staging (Pallywood) and Enderlin’s prevarication (there are no “death throes” that he “cut”) had reached public awareness. Ultimately Derfner’s argument comes down to a misconceived straw man, the same argument used by Enderlin and France2 in court:

In other words, it’s a bunch of crap, all these theories that say journalist Charles Enderlin, his Palestinian cameraman, al-Dura’s father, a hospital in Gaza, a hospital in Amman, the Jordanian ambassador to Israel, the UN, the Palestinian people and/or any number of other anti-Semites conspired to stage the killing of that 11-year-old boy.

LET’S BEGIN by putting the errors in this description aside: we do not accuse Enderlin or the Jordanian ambassador, or the UN, or the rest of his inflated list, of participating in the conspiracy from the start. We consider them willing dupes who “ran with the story.”

Shorn of these auxiliaries, his list comes down to the following “co-conspirators”: Talal, his assistants on the scene (the ones yelling “The boy is dead!” before he’s even “hit”), the father and son, and the doctors in the hospital. This is hardly a difficult group to assemble; certainly nothing compared to the tens of thousands necessary for a 9-11 conspiracy or the “invention of the Holocaust.”

Bystanders at the scene needed only to keep silent. Arab ambassadors, King Abdullah, and other such figures need not even know it was a fake. As for the doctors in the Amman hospital, once this story had “taken,” who were they to blow the whistle on so powerful and successful a blow against Israel? Like Enderlin, even after realizing it was fake, they couldn’t admit it publicly.

Anyone familiar with the evidence in this case cannot take Derfner’s piece seriously, as one can see in the numerous and near-universally negative comments to his column. We invite him and the readers of the Post to visit our Web sites where we have put up the evidence and to judge for themselves. Philippe Karsenty’s site is Media-Ratings, Richard Landes’ two sites are The Second Draft (presentation of the evidence and argumentation), and The Augean Stables (blog with commentary and analysis).

Having viewed much of this evidence, the judges wrote:

    The accused [Karsenty]… qualifies the episode as pure fiction, which is also sustained by several important signatories from the press who viewed the rushes in October 2004; that he then exposes… the inexplicable inconsistencies and contradictions in the explanations on the agony of the child given by Charles ENDERLIN, [whom, Karsenty claims, tried to] “cover this imposture.” Philippe KARSENTY takes up the core of the issue with a vivacity of expression that the importance of the question under debate must, nonetheless, authorize…”

This is hardly what Derfner characterizes as “light years away” from our conclusion that Charles Enderlin initially got fooled and subsequently lied to cover his mistakes. And once one is familiar with the wide range of evidence, one has to wonder what would lead him to so intemperate and insubstantial an assault on people far more familiar with the dossier than he.

HERE WE enter strange terrain: the peculiar attachment that people who claim to empathize with the Palestinians have for this tale. Even when presented with evidence of staging, many respond, “So what if this is faked; we’ve killed over 800 kids in the Intifada,” or as in Gideon Levy’s inimitable formulation, “We’ve killed over 800 Muhammed al-Duras.”

Considering that Muhammed al-Dura was the first of the child-murder accusations that then made all subsequent claims believable, that he became an international symbol of Israeli viciousness, of Israeli soldiers killing an innocent unarmed child “in cold blood,” a modern blood libel which blamed Jews the world over, such statements are close to masochistic self-accusation.

And given that the Palestinian notion of “targeted assassination” is blowing up a place full of civilians, that their hatreds feed on such confected “lethal narratives” as al-Dura, that the world blames Israel for Palestinian hatreds on the basis of such libels, then such self-laceration seems somewhat inappropriate. As Ahad Ha’am once said in the context of late 19th-century blood libels, “It is extremely dangerous for an individual or a people to confess to crimes they have not committed.”

People who scream “paranoia” often partake of the fault they project. What might Derfner’s paranoia be? That if he – or anyone on the “Left” – should defend Israel by calling into question some part of the Palestinian hate/victim narrative, he would be immediately assaulted as a right-wing racist? Is that what just happened to us?

Al-Dura offers us the most extreme version of a marriage between pre-modern sadists and post-modern masochists, both of whom have less interest in what happened than in stories that justify their politics. It is testimony to a tragic post-modern development, in which the minds of “progressives” (especially Jewish ones) have been colonized by their enemy’s narratives, that the denunciation of Palestinian lies somehow means a victory for the “Right.” For the pre-modern imperialists, al Durah offers justification for their frustrated genocidal hatreds; for the post-moderns, it offers a moral stick with which to beat Israel into the kinds of concessions they, in their wisdom, believe will bring true peace to this troubled corner (center) of the global community.

And woe onto anyone, like us, who dare stand in their way.

Derfner owes his readers, and the many victims of Talal abu Rahmah’s vicious hoax and Charles Enderlin’s eager folly, a profound apology. (He need not apologize to us; we’ve been the object of far worse mudslinging over the last five years.)

In the Dreyfus Affair the term intellectual came to mean someone who, when confronted with the evidence, could change his mind. Hopefully, Derfner, and many more of those who claim to love peace, can step up to the status of intellectuals.

Philippe Karsenty, whose appeal against France2′s defamation suit was just upheld in a French court, is president of Media Ratings (www.m-r.fr). Richard Landes is a professor of history at Boston University and runs the Web site www.seconddraft.org and blogs at www.theaugeanstables.com

Le Monde s’intéresse enfin à la fauxtographie : faut-il s’étonner du résultat ?

[NDLR: Il y a presque deux ans que j'ai écrit une analyse sur la façon dont Le monde a parlé du scandale "fauxtographie" dans la guerre du Liban, été 2006. A la suite de la decision étonnante de la cour au sujet de la plainte de Charles Enderlin contre Philippe Karsenty, et la pétition révélatirice au Novel Obs je mets une traduction française en ligne pour mieux permettre au lecteur francophone de déceler l'attitude des "journalistes" des grands médias, et de mieux evaluer les renseignements qui lui parviennent de leurs parts au sujets des "faux" issus du proche orient.]

Stuart, l’un des participants de ce site, nous a fait parvenir une traduction d’un article du Monde sur le scandale fauxtographique. Cet article illustre bien à quel point les médias français sont mal informés de ce qui se passe dans leurs coulisses, et comme ils sont mal outillés pour simplement comprendre les défis de la blogosphère, et encore moins s’en accommoder.

L’auteur, Claire Guillot, ne parait pas mal intentionnée ; au contraire, elle semble vouloir s’essayer à l’impartialité. Cependant, le résultat est révélateur.

[NDLR : les citations de l'article du Monde sont en gras, les citations autres sont en italiques ; la fin de ce texte reprend, en la développant, une publication précédente sur ce site]

Guerre du Liban et “fauxtographies”

Le conflit a suscité une polémique sur le Net, des bloggeurs conservateurs soupçonnant les images d’être manipulées. C’est par Little Green Footballs que le scandale est arrivé : début août, ce blog américain conservateur accuse Adnan Hajj, photographe pigiste de l’agence Reuters, d’avoir manipulé par informatique une photo de Beyrouth pour épaissir la fumée après un bombardement israélien. Effectivement, la retouche est grossière. L’agence présente ses excuses et retire la photo incriminée. Mais le blog met ensuite en évidence une autre photo de M. Hajj, où il a dupliqué une fusée tirée par un avion israélien. Le photographe, qui ne maîtrise apparemment pas bien le logiciel de retouche Photoshop, est renvoyé, toutes ses archives effacées. « Il y a eu un enchaînement d’erreurs humaines, plaide Tom Szlukovenyi, directeur de la photographie chez Reuters. Cette histoire est contraire à tous nos principes et ne s’est jamais produite auparavant. »

Là, bien sûr, un journaliste futé pourrait se demander « comment Tom Szlukovenyi peut-il le savoir, surtout s’il a été abusé par le travail, pourtant si maladroit, de son pigiste… et comment vérifier cette affirmation, puisqu’il a retiré des archives la collection des photos de ce pigiste manifestement indélicat, empêchant ainsi un examen approfondi de son œuvre ? » Et, dernière minute, Tom Glocer, le patron de Reuters, est d’un avis strictement contraire, et pense que ces pratiques sont largement répandues.

Mais vous ne trouverez dans l’article du Monde aucune de ces remarques. On enchaîne sur le complot réactionnaire :


Le “reutergate” devient le point de départ d’une cabale sur Internet : des dizaines de bloggeurs, pour la plupart américains ou israéliens, de droite ou d’extrême droite, se proclament “citoyens journalistes” et se mettent à enquêter depuis leur salon. A les croire, les cas de “fauxtographie”, selon un néologisme typique d’Internet, éclaboussent l’ensemble de la profession au Liban : les photographes, manipulés ou manipulateurs, se livreraient à des retouches voire à des mises en scène pour donner une vision tronquée, pro-Hezbollah, voire antisémite, du conflit.

Diantre ! Il faut bien expliquer à vos lecteurs à qui ils ont affaire. On dirait Charles Enderlin muselant ses critiques en les qualifiant de “groupuscules d’extrême droite”. Et, comme pour Enderlin et le reste de la gauche bien-pensante, pure et dure, ce recours tout prêt à l’anathème de l’ensemble des critiques tombe en fait totalement à côté de la plaque. Beaucoup de ces gens actuellement étiquetés “de droite” sont en réalité des exilés, des réfugiés d’une “gauche” qui vit dans un univers imaginaire de déni. L’agence Menapress n’est pas de droite. Elle revendique des objectifs explicitement progressistes. Mais ses journalistes ne sont pas vos compagnons de route. Il en va de même pour les bloggeurs américains Charles Johnson, Roger Simon, et Neo-Neo-con et de nombreux acteurs de la blogosphère. Ils se sont réveillés du sommeil dogmatique.

Ces attaques sont reprises sans précaution par des milliers d’internautes, parfois même relayées par les médias traditionnels (la chaîne américaine Fox News, le tabloïd allemand Bild, le site du Wall Street Journal), voire par les politiques : le ministre des affaires étrangères australien, Alexander Downer, qualifie de “canular” une attaque israélienne visant deux ambulances de la Croix-Rouge, le 23 juillet, en se basant sur les allégations du site Zombieguide, qui trouve les impacts “suspects”.

Que voila un exemple judicieusement choisi ! Peu d’accusations de falsification sont aussi fondées. Claire Guillot a-t-elle seulement lu ce document ? Impacts suspects ? Dîtes plutôt que toute l’affaire est une supercherie grossière.

Thrash of Civilizations on “Freedom” of the Press

A six-member delegation from Pakistan comes to the West to demand that, where Islam is concerned, we curtail freedom of expression. Few issues illustrate better the clash between Western notions of free speech and Muslim desires to control the public sphere. This began back in 1989 with the Rushdie affair, and has not gotten a whole lot better since. This offers an occasion to draw the line. Only when we respect our own institutions (which are kryptonite to Muslim pretensions at a global Caliphate), can we hope to have them respect us. (Hattip LGF)

Pakistan to ask EU to amend laws on freedom of expression

By Tahir Niaz

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan will ask the European Union countries to amend laws regarding freedom of expression in order to prevent offensive incidents such as the printing of blasphemous caricatures of Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him) and the production of an anti-Islam film by a Dutch legislator, sources in the Interior Ministry told Daily Times on Saturday.

They said that a six-member high-level delegation comprising officials from the Ministry of Interior, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Law would leave Islamabad on Sunday (today) for the EU headquarters in Brussels, Belgium and explain to the EU leadership the backlash against the blasphemous campaign in the name of freedom of expression.

The delegation, headed by an additional secretary of the Interior Ministry, will meet the leaders of the EU countries in a bid to convince them that the recent attack on the Danish Embassy in Pakistan could be a reaction against the blasphemous campaign, sources said.

They said that the delegation would also tell the EU that if such acts against Islam are not controlled, more attacks on the EU diplomatic missions abroad could not be ruled out.

Sources said that the delegation would also hold discussions on inter-religious harmony during its meetings with the EU leaders.

Comments:

A commission of demopaths, come to denounce democratic institutions in the name of religious harmony and mutual respect. Alas, I suspect they’ll find a warm welcome. More global Jihad warming.

They want Fitna removed, despite the fact that most of it could be a recruiting film for Jihad.

The obvious response to the threat — that there may be more attacks on embassies, which they can’t prevent, i.e., blackmail — is to withdraw the embassies. But we don’t want to walk away from Pakistan, so they play on our unwillingness to let them go down the tubes in order to maneuver us into positions of weakness.

Already, institutions like the Chamber 17 in Paris and the Canadian Human Rights Commission enforce these gag orders.

What Checks and Balances to the Fourth Estate: Appeal for Charles Enderlin Poses the Question

In response to the court decision, some of the “friends of Charles” have come out in support of him with a petition posted at the Nouvel Observateur‘s website. [The Nouvel Obs is one of France's three major news weeklies run by Jean Daniel, who, along with his daughter Sara, are among the signatories.] I have translated and fisked the peition below.

The petition, which Luc Rosenzweig has denounced as a “petition of shame,” and it is a precious document. It reveals the degree of confusion sown in the minds of the French elite by their quasi aristocratic status, which results in a form of (unconscious?) demopathy. Menahem Macina shrewdly points out that it recalls the “patriotic forgery” of an anti-Dreyfussard, who tried to make the forger of the documents that incriminated Dreyfus into a hero and martyr of Jewish malevolence . Like the right-wing anti-Semites of the turn of the 20th century who paraded their hatreds under the banner of Libre Parole [Free Speech], the signers of this petition present their defense of Enderlin’s reputation and indifference to the evidence as a valorous deed in defense of democracy and a free press.

I have argued that one of the fundamental contributors to the progress of Eurabia is an inertial force of aristocracy among the European elite – what one commentator called their “Olympian complex.” This attitude, and the culture that promotes it, reflect the social dynamics not of modern society, but of prime-divider society, not of a sense of equality and solidarity throughout the society, but a sense of privilege and exceptional status among the elite.

In the context of Eurabia, this means that the professional elite – media and political – that pushes the agenda of the European Union has much more in common with other elites in other countries than it does with its own commoners. It can, therefore, easily countenance a massive demographic transfer of Muslim immigrants to do the manual labor – what difference between a Muslim, a Christian, a post-Christian working in a factory? And it can at the same time dismiss without qualms the complaints of commoners when such a transfer does not work. The fate of Brussels, a city where both the capital of the EU (and hence massive numbers of well-paid administrators live) on the one hand, and one of the largest and increasingly aggressive Muslim populations in Europe on the other, offers both a real and symbolic case in point.

This elitism in the case of Charles Enderlin produces a notion of the journalistic profession that rejects transparency, that considers criticism by the journalists’ audience (their reading and viewing public) as inadmissible attacks on their honor and reputation, which threaten one of the main pillars of democracy[!].

APPEAL
For Charles Enderlin
NOUVELOBS.COM | 04.06.2008 | 15:39

Seven years. It’s now seven years that a obstinate and hateful campaign has tried to tarnish the professional dignity of our colleague Charels Enderlin, correspondent for France2 in Jerusalem. For seven years the same individuals have attempted to present as a “hoax” and a “series of staged scenes” his report showing the death of Mohammed al-Doura, 12 years old, killed by fire coming from the Israeli position on the 30 of September 2000 in the Gaza Strip during a confrontation between the Israeli army and armed Palestinians.

As far as I can make out, they think Charles did no wrong in reporting as he did. Even Larry Derfner admits that Charles got it wrong. But the evidence appears nowhere in this manifesto. Charles is, by virtue of his position, above such suspicion, and any effort to criticism is, by definition, obstinate and hateful. Would it ever occur to these enlightened folk to consider the decades-long campaign of Pallywood — with Al Durah as a signal success — as a “hateful and obstinate campaign to tarnish” the international reputation of Israel?

Honor-Killings and Whistle-blowing: Why Media cannot be free in some cultures

A terrible and terribly revealing tale from Iraq. In reading it, keep in mind my working definition of an honor-shame culture: one in which it is permissable, expected, even required, that you shed someone else’s blood for the sake of your honor. Honor killings of women (daughters, sisters, wives) represent a particular (and I’d argue pathological) direction for this dynamic to take. It’s one thing to challenge another man who has impugned your honor to a duel, quite another to attack an unarmed and defenseless person.

In this case, the victim was one who shamed the family by disagreeing with a husband’s decision to kill his daughter, thus publicly criticizing the man, and publicizing (to the West!) the deed. In understanding the dynamics here, one can begin to realize both a) why there is no free news media in the Arab world, and b) why we cannot rely on information from the Arab world because intimidation is the name of the game for anything that might present that world in a negative light. Without understanding these issues, Western journalism in the Arab world is worse than useless.

It is noteworthy that the Guardian has covered this story extensively, and suggests that despite the built-in prejudice against our hearing about these phenomena, some of this does get through when the Western media shows courage. The Guardian is hardly my favorite newspaper, but I give them kudos when they deserve it.

Mother who defied the killers is gunned down

Five weeks ago Leila Hussein told The Observer the chilling story of how her husband had killed their 17-year-old daughter over her friendship with a British soldier in Basra. Now Leila, who had been in hiding, has been murdered – gunned down in cold blood. Afif Sarhan in Basra and Caroline Davies report on the final act of a brutal tragedy

Afif Sarhan and Caroline Davies

The Observer, Sunday June 1 2008

Leila Hassan
Leila Hussein, who was murdered in Iraq. Photograph: Observer

Leila Hussein lived her last few weeks in terror. Moving constantly from safe house to safe house, she dared to stay no longer than four days at each. It was the price she was forced to pay after denouncing and divorcing her husband – the man she witnessed suffocate, stamp on, then stab their young daughter Rand in a brutal ‘honour’ killing for which he has shown no remorse.

Now there’s a piece of liberal cognitive egocentrism. Why would he express remorse? Because it’s against our rules? Because his wife was unhappy with his behavior? Certainly not because his neighbors disapproved (which is the only likely way he might express remorse).

Though she feared reprisals for speaking out, she really believed that she would soon be safe. Arrangements were well under way to smuggle her to the Jordanian capital, Amman. In fact, she was on her way to meet the person who would help her escape when a car drew up alongside her and two other women who were walking her to a taxi. Five bullets were fired: three of them hit Leila, 41. She died in hospital after futile attempts to save her.

Her death, on 17 May, is the shocking denouement to a tragedy which had its origins in an innocent friendship between her student daughter, Rand Abdel-Qader, 17, and a blond, 22-year-old British soldier known only as Paul.

The two had met while Rand, an English student at Basra University, was working as a volunteer helping displaced families and he was distributing water. Although their friendship appears to have involved just brief, snatched conversations over four months, Rand had confided her romantic feelings for Paul to her best friend, Zeinab, 19.

She died, still a virgin, four months after she had last seen him when her father, Abdel-Qader Ali, 46, discovered that she had been seen talking ‘to the enemy’ in public. She had brought shame on his honour, was his defence, and he had to cleanse his family name. Despite openly admitting the murder, he has received no punishment.

Were the reporters to go into it (as they do below), they would probably discover that his peer group all approved, and the Iraqi authorities, even ones uncomfortable with the depiction of the Brits as “the enemy”, would not try and fight this kind of public opinion. Note that she died a virgin. In Jordan and other places, the fathers/brothers kill the daughter first, wait for the autopsy, and then, if she’s not a virgin, kill the man involved. Why not both right away? Because the man has a clan behind him, hence you need a good reason. The girl has no one behind her, since her own family is doing the murder… no fear of retaliation.

Daily Freep Article on My Work

I mentioned the article about my work on Pallywood and Al Durah. Here it is. Aside from some slight incoherences, it seems fair. I append the two comments by students.

A look at Mideast propaganda
Matt Kaplan

Issue date: 4/10/08 Section: News

A banner [shown in a power point presentation] at the Newton Public Library bore the Star of David, and equated the symbol of Judaism to a swastika and a slain Palestinian child to make a strong statement about the growing conflict in the Middle East and how some Westerners may be deceived by Palestinian propaganda.

Boston University College of Arts and Sciences professor Richard Landes spoke a week ago about symbolism in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and about Muhammad al-Durah, a Palestinian boy who was allegedly killed by Israeli troops in late 2000 to trigger anti-Israel sentiment in Europe. Landes said he does not think Israelis killed al-Durah – he said Palestinians staged the boy’s death for cameras through a medium known as “Pallywood.”

Landes coined the term “Pallywood” to mean systematic Palestinian attempt to stage scenes for Western cameras, effectively serving as anti-Israeli propaganda for the Western press, he said.

“This was run as news and seized upon by a world anxious for nasty stuff about Israel,” Landes told attendees.

Landes said after the speech that in two hours of propaganda footage, “the best we got is a fake ambulance scene.”

Landes founded the Center for Millennial Studies in 1996, a BU organization dedicated to studying the millennium and its impact on apocalyptic thought, which he said surrounds claims of radical Islam.

Jack Schuss, a member of the Boston Israel Action Committee, which sponsored the lecture, said he thinks Landes’s thoughts on the subject of Palestinian and Israeli conflict are noteworthy.

“On the subject he’s very knowledgeable” he said.

Andrew Gow, a University of Alberta history professor, said he met Landes at the first conference for millennial studies in 1996.

“This is a guy with enormous insight and intuition,” Gow said. “[His] eagle eye pierces to the core of the matter. His ideas are often utterly original. He’s willing to pursue a question because he’s curious about it.”

Landes goes against established precedent by asking new and oftentimes controversial questions using techniques shunned by tradition historians, Gow said.

“I think his work is controversial. I think the establishment doesn’t like it,” Gow said. “They’re objecting as much to the conclusions as to his methods.”

Although trained as a medieval historian, Landes uses skills honed as a historian in his analysis for Pallywood, Gow said. Historians need to detect abnormalities inside and outside a text to determine its authenticity, and Landes has applied this skill towards raw video footage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Gow said.

Landes has analyzed select, raw footage of clashes between Palestinians and Israelis and discovered that, as outlined in his 2003 movie Pallywood, Palestinians sometimes stage scenes in front of Western cameras to deceive Western audiences into being more sympathetic toward their cause, Landes said.

Landes said he thinks the mainstream media disseminates one-sided news coverage because of a fear of angering Palestinians and jihadist Muslims, and because they want to help people they feel are oppressed.

In his presentation at the Newton Library, Landes detailed his evidence and said he thinks the al-Durah incident was staged, and the incident sparked anti-Israel and anti-Semitic sentiments in France.

“There is no cost to saying nasty things about the Israelis,” Landes said. “You say something bad about the Palestinians and the best you can hope for is to not be let back in . . . You have this masochistic postmodern narrative where we are guilty.”

Here are the comments.

Aaron Larocque
posted 4/10/08 @ 12:35 PM EST
This is a bit biased. Israel seems to do the same thing when an Israeli boy gets killed, but they retaliate with great military force. Recently a prominent Rabbi in Israel has been quoted “The Talmud states that if gentiles rob Israel of silver they will pay it back in gold, and all that is taken will be paid back in folds, but in cases like these there is nothing to pay back, since as I said – the life of one yeshiva boy is worth more than the lives of 1,000 Arabs,” added Rabbi Eliyahu. Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert has also been quoted saying that if radicalists in Palestine continue attacking, they will face a “shoah,” which is the Hebrew word that refers to a holocaust. Israel’s deputy defence minister Matan Vilnai told Army Radio: “The more Qassam fire intensifies and the rockets reach a longer range, they will bring upon themselves a bigger ‘shoah’ because we will use all our might to defend ourselves.” The anti-Israel sentiment is not without basis, and westerners are deceived if they think that Israel is doing no wrong.

George Viglirolo
posted 4/13/08 @ 2:55 PM EST
According to Matt Kaplan’s narrow “Look at Mideast Propaganda” (DFP, 10 April 2008), Professor Landes “thinks the mainstream media disseminates one-sided news coverage because of a fear of angering Palestinians and jihadist Muslims.” Others would argue that one-sided news coverage is of quite a different sort — one that stems directly from the very legitimate fear of being labeled anti-Semitic.

The truth is that there has never been, in the U.S. at least, an open, honest, objective discussion–either in the political halls of power, or in the local and national press–of the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. It would surely be more than an academic exercise to examine scrupulously what each side has suffered.

Note that neither of them confront either my argument or the evidence.

The Supression of Mention of Palestinian Barbarism Part II: Ideology

I put up an earlier post on the role of intimidation in the reluctance of the Western media to publish material on hate-speech and other forms of unacceptable behavior (by progressive standards) of Palestinian groups. Some criticized me for emphasizing intimidation over ideology. Now we have an excellent example of how ideology — various forms of PCP — plays a key role in supressing any awareness of these problems in the American public. The American Jewish Committee tried to run an ad that would encourage American audiences to feel empathy for the citizens of Sderot under daily attack from Qassams shot from Gaza. A NYT-owned affiliate refused to run them. Their reasons give a fascinating insight into how some people think. Executive Director of the AJC, David Harris tells the tale and puts it in a larger framework:

What happens when the shoe’s on the other foot?
David A. Harris
Executive Director
American Jewish Committee
April 6, 2008

A small but influential chorus of American voices has made a mantra out of the notion that criticism of Israel is stifled by the pro-Israel community.

Indeed, when NYU professor Tony Judt’s lecture at the Polish Consulate in New York was canceled in 2006 by the consul general, because Poland did not subscribe to Judt’s view of a one-state solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a group of intellectuals rushed to his defense.

In a widely-publicized petition, they asserted that “We are united in believing that a climate of intimidation is inconsistent with fundamental principles of debate in a democracy. The Polish Consulate is not obliged to promote free speech. But the rules of the game in America oblige citizens to encourage rather than stifle debate.”

Let’s set aside the absurdity of the entire effort. After all, Judt had given countless lectures before that October date, not to mention his articles on the subject in the New York Review of Books and elsewhere. None of his defenders could cite a second instance of ”intimidation,” nor, for that matter, would they be able to cite an instance since then, either. In fact, Judt’s meeting was moved to a different venue in New York and that was that.

But there’s another side to the coin. While Judt and his erstwhile supporters, joined by Jimmy Carter, Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, have been making their case about their inability to be heard – ironically, in think tanks, universities and media outlets only too happy to have them speak out about how they cannot speak out – some are trying to silence a very different viewpoint.

On behalf of AJC, I do a weekly national 60-second radio spot. The time is purchased as any advertisement would be. For the past nearly seven years, it has been broadcast across the United States on the CBS radio network, on hundreds of stations, without incident.

Earlier this year, we expanded the reach by adding in the New York area WQXR, a popular classical music station owned by the New York Times.

For the week of March 31, here was the text to be aired:

    Fifteen seconds. Imagine you had fifteen seconds to find shelter from an incoming missile. Fifteen seconds to locate your children, help an elderly relative, assist a disabled person to find shelter.

    That’s all the residents of Sderot and neighboring Israeli towns have.

    Day or night, the sirens go on. Fifteen seconds later, the missiles, fired from Hamas-controlled Gaza, hit. They could hit a home, a school, a hospital. Their aim is to kill and wound and demoralize.

    Imagine yourself in that situation.

    The sirens blast. 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1. The time to seek shelter has ended. The missiles hit.

    This is what Israelis experience daily. But, amazingly, they refuse to be cowed. Help us help those Israelis. Visit ajc.org.

The spot was broadcast several times, as is customary, on the CBS radio network, but WQXR refused to do so.

Here’s the written explanation from Tom Bartunek, president of New York Times Radio and general manager of WQXR:

    ”In my judgement several elements of this spot are outside our bounds of acceptability. First, the opening line— `Imagine you had fifteen seconds to find shelter from an oncoming missile’ — does not make clear that the potential target of the missile is not our listening area, and as a consequence, runs the risk of raising anxiety in a misleading way.

I think that was the point of the ad: get people to realize what kind of anxiety people in Sderot feel. Heaven forbid that New Yorkers, who have had their experiences dealing with Islamists who target civilians, should realize that it’s happening in Israel on a daily basis.

    Second, the description of the missiles as arriving `day or night’ and `daily’ is also subject to challenge as being misleading, at least to the degree that reasonable people might be troubled by the absence of any acknowledgement of reciprocal Israeli military actions.

This is rich. Note the contorted syntax as well as the logic. Let’s deconstruct this passage, first merely by getting rid of the passive tense: “Reasonable people” — who? — might feel that the ad misleads by claiming that Sderot is bombed day and night, daily, because this claim does not mention that there are reciprocal Israeli military actions? Huh? How do the Israeli military actions affect whether this is happening day and night? Perhaps because it might unduly influence the audience into feeling sympathy for the citizens of Sderot without assuring that same audience that, because Israel is also bombing the Palestinians, they somehow “have it coming”?

Erlanger, Intimidation and the Western Ignorance of the Palestinian Hate Industry

Twelve days after the al Durah footage hit Arab TV screens, a mob of Palestinians shouting “Revenge for the blood of Muhammad al Durah” savagely lynched two Israeli reservists whom the PA Police had taken into custody, and dragged their body parts through the streets of Ramallah. The viciousness of the behavior stunned not only Israelis, but even the most sympathetic journalists then in Ramallah. Israel’s responses, all aimed at property not people, included bombing the transmitters of “Voice of Palestine” which, they claimed, were inciting the violence with their broadcasts.

On October 24, 2000, William Orme covered the issue with a piece entitled “A Parallel Mideast Battle: Is It News or Incitement?” in which he explored Israeli claims that Palestinian incitement was a major source of this sudden and terrible violence that swept away the “Peace process” that the NYT editorial board had so enthusiastically supported.

He quoted a Palestinian spokesman who dismissed these claims out of hand, and presented the Israeli objections as overblown and against free speech:

”This [radio station which the Israelis had bombed] was the voice of the intifada, and people could express their feelings without censorship,” said Ibrahim Milhem, the host of ”Good Morning Palestine,” a popular call-in talk show. ”The only way Israel could stop it was to bomb it… Every word the Israelis hear on the Voice of Palestine they think is incitement… But what they are hearing is Palestinians demanding our rights.”

Then turning to Israeli claims that they bombed the station in the same way that NATO had bombed stations in Yugoslavia where the official media incited violence, he presented the Israeli case:

Israelis cite as one egregious example a televised sermon that defended the killing of the two soldiers [at Ramallah on October 12, 2000]. “Whether Likud or Labor, Jews are Jews,” proclaimed Sheik Ahmad Abu Halabaya in a live broadcast from a Gaza City mosque the day after the killings.

“Huh?” the reader might reasonably exclaim. “This is what the Israelis are kvetching about? That’s the best they can do? Aren’t there Israelis who say, ‘Fatah, Hamas, what’s the difference?’”

To the uninformed reader, this passage seems to support Mihem and more: “any word the Israelis hear they think is incitement.”

But this is the full text of his speech:

“The Jews are the Jews. Whether Labor or Likud the Jews are Jews. They do not have any moderates or any advocates of peace. They are all liars. They must be butchered and must be killed… The Jews are like a spring as long as you step on it with your foot it doesn’t move. But if you lift your foot from the spring, it hurts you and punishes you… It is forbidden to have mercy in your hearts for the Jews in any place and in any land. Make war on them any place that you find yourself. Any place that you meet them, kill them.” PA TV, October 13, 2000

What has happened here? Did Orme think that these genocidal comments were unimportant? Or did he think that it would be better if his audience — Americans “back home” — didn’t know about such matters? Is this his judgment of what’s the “news that’s fit to print”? And if so, why such a bizarre judgment? Certainly as an historian, if a student offered me a paper with such a quotation, I’d give him back the draft and say, “what’s wrong with you?”

So what’s wrong with Orme, who is no freshman writing his first paper, but a professional journalist who had been writing for the NYT since 1985? There are many possible, overlapping explanations, including the problems this would pose for the “framing narrative” of the conflict to which the press — NYT included — subscribed quite profoundly.

But for now, I’d like to focus on one, perhaps the most insidious because of the heavy pressure not to mention it: intimidation.

News Flash: Liveleak takes down Fitna due to threats

Story at Atlas Shrugs and Little Green Footballs.

The movie is still available for viewing at YouTube: