One of the major weaknesses of Westerners in the current cognitive war with Islamic imperialism is a seemingly boundless commitment to being fooled. It’s almost as if, on principle, we need to accept lies from the other side as true, lest we be accused of being racist. There are two aspects to this, one, an honor-shame reflex that worries primarily about what others think of us (i.e., we’re not racist, but we’re worried others will think us so), and another, that spending our time suspecting others of deception strikes many of us (justifiably) as a huge waste of time. First let me go over some key examples here, and then come back to these two points.

Exhibit A: Andrea Koppel and the “Jenin Massacre.” During the period that the Israeli army conducted Operation Defensive Shield, reports came from Palestinian sources, especially from Saeb Erakat, accusing Israel of massacring over 500 innocent civilians in “execution-style” murders and burying them in mass graves. It turns out that, not only were they exaggerated, they were invented out of whole cloth. In fact, Israel sacrificed 21 soldiers in an operation that went from door to door in order to avoid civilian casualties and, in the end, of the 56 Palestinian casualties, the great majority were combatants. In other words, the situation was precisely the opposite of what the Palestinians claimed and the press reported an inversion of reality. In the middle of these events and reports, David Bloomberg reported witnessing the following exchange in Tel Aviv between Andrea Koppel, daughter of Ted, and reporter for CNN, and Adam Ruskin, an American-born Israeli:

While we [Bloomberg and Koppel] were chatting, an American-born Israeli joined us to tell Andrea about his perception of media distortion in that the press that stresses moral equivalence between Israeli civilian deaths caused by Palestinian terror and Palestinian civilian deaths caused by Israeli military actions. He argued that Israel has tried to engage in a peace process since Camp David and has been double-crossed over and over by the Palestinian Authority. Further, he argued the civilian deaths caused by Palestinians are intentional, whereas the deaths caused by Israel are mostly the tragic, unintentional results caused by Israel trying to defend itself.

Andrea replied, “So when Israeli soldiers slaughter civilians in Jenin, that is not equivalent?”

Israeli: “What are your sources? Were you in Jenin? How exactly do you know there was a slaughter?”

Andrea: “I just spoke with my colleagues who were there, and they told me of the slaughter.”

Israeli: “Did they actually see the shooting, the bodies?”

Andrea: “Palestinians told us about the slaughter.”

Israeli: “And you believe them without evidence. Could they possibly be lying and distorting facts.”

Andrea: “Oh, so now they are all just lying??” [sic]

The Israeli became emotional in describing that his children are afraid, his friends have been murdered, and if this goes on, “We could lose our lives or we could lose our country.”

Andrea, “Yes, you will lose your country.”

At this point, I interrupted the two of them and asked Andrea Koppel, “Did I just hear you correctly– that you believe the current crisis will lead to the destruction of the State of Israel?”

Andrea: “Yes, I believe we are now seeing the beginning of the end of Israel.”

Koppel later denied this report, which led to reponses by both Bloomberg and Ruskin. I think the latter two are telling the accurate story for a number of reasons, including the nature of their recollections. I think, however, that it illustrates the huge gap between the kind of DurahJournalism that was already dominant among the media stationed in Israel, and the residual ethical commitments of the mainstream news media to proper journalistic procedure.

In an unguarded moment, Koppel spoke like so many of her colleagues on the scene, not merely adopting Palestinian lethal narratives uncritically, but adopting the Palestinian “moral” narrative aimed at the destruction of the state of Israel. Once reported to her superiors in the USA, not yet overcome by DurahJournalism, she quickly backtracked, trying to deny what she had said, forcing Bloomberg to reveal the name of his other protagonist for corroboration.

What interests me most in this exchange is the remark with which Koppel replied to the possibility Ruskin raised about whether her Palestinian sources might be lying: ”Oh, so now they are all just lying??” This reply exemplifies the politically-correct attitude that rejects accusations that Palestinians lie, with the implied (“they… all”) that somehow it’s prejudiced, even racist to accuse Palestinians of lying.

This is pure liberal cognitive egocentrism, in which we are not allowed to pay attention to cultural differences. There are cultures in which lying (especially to outsiders) is openly embraced as a virtue. Motivations range from the purely self-interested (giving directions when you don’t know just to save face and not admit ignorance), to malice (deliberately misleading an outsider because you don’t like outsiders) to waging war.

Taqiyya goes well beyond Shias protecting themselves from Sunni oppressors, and involves extensive disinformation to infidels, especially in cases of covert Jihad. Those among the shabab who play Pallywood would laugh at some Westerner’s rebuke that it’s “not right” to do such things.

So why do we, as a matter of principle, refuse to consider the possibility (high likelihood) that we’re being lied to by our “Palestinian sources”? Because it makes us feel like good, decent, honorable human beings who believe that everyone is like us? Or, more darkly, because it gives us narratives that make us feel emotions we welcome, moral superiority to and even revulsion at Israeli behavior? After all, the same journalists who are principled dupes to Palestinian lies have no problem accusing the Israelis are lying and propaganda.

Exhibit B: Muhammad al Durah One of the more fascinating aspects of the al Durah Affair concerns the attitude towards Talal’s testimony. It lies at the heart of the matter, since he’s the one to claim a) that the Israelis fired continuously for over 40 minutes, targeting the boy, and b) that the boy died before his camera.

Enderlin based his report on this testimony, and all subsequent accounts follow his narrative, if not in its extreme form – cold blooded murder – at the very minimum, in his claim that the boy died on camera. Indeed, the power of this footage, its riveting quality, and the inability of people to view it as anything but the scene of a boy dying under a hail of bullets, all traces back to Talal’s first claim.

The widespread reluctance of people who have seen the full evidence to go any farther than stating that the Israelis most likely did not kill him, stems from a double resistance to a) seeing Talal (and the Palestinian street) as deliberate liars, and b) seeing Charles Enderlin (and the journalist’s street) as dupes to so obvious a fake. I personally think the “conspiracy theory” is actually (in a addition to being Charles Enderlin’s only effective defense), an unconscious admission on the part of those who accept Enderlin’s version that only some massive conspiracy involving the staffs of both Shifa Hospital in Gaza City and the King Hussein Hospital in Jordan as well as even the king himself (who allegedly – in these matters one never knows – gave blood to Jamal), and all the journalists who stepped in line… ridiculous. Therefore it couldn’t be a fake. QED.

The alternative is to imagine the possibility that a) cooperation with the fake was widely received, even by people who hadn’t been brought in to start (e.g., the Jordanians), and b) the number of willing dupes was numberless, including so many of the journalists who didn’t bother to ask any hard questions.

Exhibit A: Susan Goldenberg, writing for the Guardian, comes to the site, observes a dozen bullet holes behind the barrel, some so close to the barrel they could not have come from the Israeli position, all with direct entry trajectories rather than the 30 degree angle they would have had coming from the Israelis, and not nearly enough to corroborate Talal’s claim that the Israelis were firing “bullets like rain” for over 40 minutes, and concludes:

[T]he 12-year-old boy and his father were deliberately targeted by Israeli soldiers.

Exhibit B: Robert Fisk, who didn’t even need to show up to conclude:

When I read the word “crossfire”, I reach for my pen. In the Middle East, it almost always means that the Israelis have killed an innocent person.

While I don’t think that the entire field of Middle-East journalism was committed to the kind of lethal journalism here illustrated, I think that after the al Durah story broke, the rest of the field either got in line, or, perhaps more depressingly, did not dare to say a word.

Rumors have it that Talal sent his footage to Mike Hannah at CNN (not sure of the timing here, since he was allegedly – I trust Enderlin on nothing in this story - on the phone to Enderlin during the day), and Hannah told him he wouldn’t run it. This story makes a great deal of sense: Hannah wouldn’t turn down a story as explosive as this unless he had strong suspicions it was faked (as was most footage of clashes between Israelis and Palestinians at that time: it’s one thing to run fake footage of minor injuries, another to run the on-camera death of a child). He, like I think anyone not under the spell of the desire to see a dead child would, looked at the footage and thought: “There’s no way I can run this footage. Way too many holes in this story, critics will tear it to pieces.”

Enderlin’s “genius” was to realize that if he packaged this right, gave everyone in the JCS building a copy of the footage, and warned everyone they were about to see something terrible, he could create a stampede in which, eventually, even CNN would run the story. And he was right. Shades of Charlie Sheen creating a run on Wall Street.

Maybe I’m missing something here, but I think the widespread belief that Muhammad al Durah died on camera is obviously false, and the fact that the Enderlin cut it from his news report, is virtually an open and shut case against the “boy died on camera” claim.

“Take 6″ in which the boy, rather than clutch his stomach wound, holds his hand over his eye, slowly lifts up his elbow, looks out and slowly lowers his elbow, lifting up his feet in counter-weight. Enderlin explained that he cut the footage because, as the boy’s death throes, it was too painful for the audience to see. The “audience” can judge whether this looks like the spasmodic death throes of a child, or deliberate and controlled actions.

When asked by Esther Schapira why he called the boy dead while showing earlier footage when he’s clearly not dead, Enderlin responded:

“I’m very sorry but the fact is the boy died. Maybe not at the precise moment I showed. But this is how I do a story. ‘The boy is dead’ is a statement. What’s your problem with that?”

And the fact that every news station that got the footage from Endlerlin did not find this final scene suspicious and use it to question Enderlin’s account, means that, far from a serious independent work, the Middle Eastern desks lined up behind their colleague, even though the damage caused by this footage was immediately evident. As Pierre Taguieff noted about the kind of anti-Zionism that emerged in the wake of al Durah and the Intifada he inspired: “When all the fishes swim in the same direction, it’s because they’re dead.”

All of this brings us back to the discussion of the process of auto-stupefaction I’ve referred to as rekaB Street. Rather than note the clues and the anomalies and pursue them fearlessly, most prefer not even to view the evidence, to dismiss it as a conspiracy theory, or, in some cases, to take a couple of fearless steps and then demur from reaching any further conclusions. Heaven forbid we call Talal a liar and Enderlin a(n apparently willing) dupe! Better we remain stupid.

On the contrary, I think that anyone who approaches the evidence not from the point of view in which “‘the boy is dead,’ and only 110% proof to the contrary will get me to change my mind,” but rather, “what’s going on in this tape? what are the odds it’s about a boy being killed by fire coming from the Israeli position, and what are the odds that it’s been staged?” will find the odds overwhelmingly favor staged (conservative estimate: 95-5?). If we thought about crimes the way most now think about this footage, we could close down our detective agencies and police departments.

A month ago, the NYT published a piece by another “as-a-Jew” singling out Israel for special (negative) treatment. It’s been addressed by at least four other commentators: Avi Bell at The Times of Israel, Elder of Ziyon at his blog, Jonathan Tobin at Commentary, and Vic Rosenthal at FresnoZionism. The outsider will consider this list a roundup of “right-wing” Israel-firsters, which is too bad because they’re responding to an Israel-laster, eager to curry favor with genuinely right-wing regressives, masquerading as a good progressive willing to be self-critical and to sacrifice his “own” interests (a “Jewish” state) for the sake of world peace.

On Questioning the Jewish State Joseph Levine, NYT Opinionator Blog, March 9. 2013 I was raised in a religious Jewish environment, and though we were not strongly Zionist, I always took it to be self-evident that “Israel has a right to exist.”

Levine presents himself in moderate terms, but he has a long paper trail of virulently anti-Zionist and pro-BDS writings: Here he is co-signing a letter calling for the boycott of “Apartheid Israel,”  one telling store owners, and another specifically telling Trader Joe’s not to stock Israeli goods, “History Matters,” in which he unthinkingly and unhistorically adopts the Palestinian narrative, cosigning a letter from the “Free Palestine Subcommittee” in support of an confessed spy for Hizbullah, Ameer Makhoul (a case that bears many of the tell-tale signs of demopaths and their dupes), and a piece arguing Israel’s rogue status on the basis of the Mavi Marmara incident. Each and all of these items illustrate a man who is radically opposed to the existence of the state of Israel, who supports and associates with people who are at most at one remove from openly genocidal hatreds of his own people. And the NYT thinks this kind of a “thinker” is an appropriate one to whom to give its platform.

Now anyone who has debated the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will have encountered this phrase often. Defenders of Israeli policies routinely accuse Israel’s critics of denying her right to exist, while the critics (outside of a small group on the left, where I now find myself) bend over backward to insist that, despite their criticisms, of course they affirm it.

Note the rhetorical sleight of hand – “defenders of Israel’s policies” – which puts anyone who objects to attacks on Israel that question her right to exist as supporters of the government’s policies, rather than her right to exist. It confounds two distinct (but related) issues, one existential, one policy-oriented. Since Levine is about to argue that Israel doesn’t have a right to exist, the effort to isolate those who do as supporters of “right-wing” Israeli politicians like Netanyahu makes sense tactically. Readers who want to understand the issues, however, should beware.

 The general mainstream consensus seems to be that to deny Israel’s right to exist is a clear indication of anti-Semitism (a charge Jews like myself are not immune to), and therefore not an option for people of conscience.

Well, there is an argument here for this case: given that both Christianity and Islam, from the very earliest years of their creation (almost 2000 years for Christians, over 1400 for Islam), have harbored, fostered, and occasionally incited violent hatred of Jews, have, indeed, asserted their identity on the invidious principle that the humiliation of the Jews was proof of their superiority, that with the advent of modernity, the anti-Jewish animus mutatated into even more monstrous genocidal forms, and that the last time those genocidal hatreds exploded on the European continent as an ecumenical movement that involved far more than Nazis, and that the liberal democracies that should have protected them and offered Jews fleeing the murderous wave of hatred did not, only the most sadistic observer would argue that the Jews did not deserve a state of their own where they did not have to depend on the good will of others to protect themselves. Hence, in the sobering wake of the Holocaust, the argument that denying the Jews a state of their own reveals a deep-seated animus against them held a great deal of weight.

There is now an argument (which Levine will tacitly appeal to) that things are different, and Jews (like him) can count on the benevolence of 21st century democracies (like the US and Europe), and that only a paranoid vision born of the Holocaust keeps Jews fearful of their gentile neighbors. I’d argue that, given that European nations are openly or tacitly telling Jews to leave because they cannot or will not protect them from the violent hatred of the Muslims in their midst, that Israel has become once again, in the 21st century [!], a refuge for Jews fleeing anti-Semitism, such an argument constitutes either a ludicrously naïve notion of the strength of liberal/progressive commitments, or another round of moral sadism.

Response to James Fallows on Al Durah

I have an ongoing debate with James Fallows about the Al Durah Affair (here, here, and here). Indeed, he and Gabriel Weimann (mentioned below) are the first people to whom I showed Pallywood. His unwillingness to pursue the Al Durah affair are obviously a great disappointment to me. He just posted a “Ten-years-after” thought on the matter in which he refuses to get dragged back in. I respond below.

Ten Years Ago: The al-Dura Case

What happened to a 12-year-old Palestinian boy? The controversy continues to rage.

JAMES FALLOWS APR 7 2013, 7:45 PM ET

I’ve been running a series of “Ten Years After” items on the political, financial, strategic, and moral ramifications of the American invasion of Iraq, which was in its early stages in April, 2003.

As for me ten years ago, when the war began I was in Israel rather than Iraq. I was there to do interviews for a story that ran in our June, 2003, issue about the controversial and inflammatory Mohammed al-Dura case. He was the 12-year-old Palestinian boy who, according to widespread international news coverage, had been shot to death in 2000 by Israeli Defense Force soldiers, even as he huddled in terror behind the father who was trying to protect him. The picture of the doomed boy and his frantic father became a notorious symbol of Israeli cruelty; the image above is from a Tunisian postage stamp issued in commemoration of the killing.

My story ten years ago said that exactly what happened to Mohammed al-Dura might never be known — but that the prevailing story, that IDF soldiers had shot him to death, was very likely not true, since it was so hard to square with known forensic and physical evidence. The details are too elaborate to go through now, but you can follow them in the original article.

The controversy over the case has continued to rage, but I’ll let you explore it on your own. If you search for the names Charles Enderlin, Philippe Karsenty, or Richard Landes, you’ll be on your way; I’m not getting back into this.

And thereby perpetuate the problem. I remember the first time I showed this to a class, one of the students said, “You’ve convinced me that this is a fake. But I’m reluctant to agree because I don’t want to be seen as ‘taking sides.’” Is that why you take this position?

I obviously find it regrettable you choose not to pronounce on one of the greatest journalistic hoaxes in history, and I think, retrospectively you’ll also regret this decision (on the wrong side of history and all that…). In the meantime, I think you owe yourself (and your readership) a moment of journalistic self-criticism, and ask yourself to what degree your reluctance to even identify malfeasance here is that your colleagues – not just Enderlin – are responsible for many of the problems here.

My 2003 article has come to occupy an awkward “false equivalence” middle ground in the dispute. Many people who believe the original story say that I’ve been duped by Israeli propaganda to exonerate the IDF. Many people who challenge the original story scoff at me for resisting their claim that the entire episode was faked for “Pallywood” propaganda purposes and that the boy was never shot.

That would be me at the end there.

The reader might be excused for reading about the “many people who believe the original story and say I’ve been duped by Israeli propaganda” and thinking “militant Palestinian advocates, BDS types, Islamists…”, but – correct me if I’m wrong here James – many of those “many” are your fellow journalists.

Often, as I’ve argued in the false-equivalence chronicles, taking the middle ground is a way to evade the hard work of finding the real truth. In this case, my agnosticism comes from the murkiness of the evidence and the asymmetrical burdens of proof and disproof. It is much easier to establish that one hypothesis is false — for instance, that IDF soldiers were in the wrong place to do the reported shooting — than to prove that some other one is true. Similarly: I find it hard to believe that Lee Harvey Oswald acted entirely on his own in killing John F. Kennedy, but I have no idea what the “real” story is.

These are all good points, but would benefit from analysis. Let’s take them point by point.

Often, as I’ve argued in the false-equivalence chronicles, taking the middle ground is a way to evade the hard work of finding the real truth.

Glad that’s a principle. I do think that short of calling the whole thing staged, there are fairly powerful and meaningful things you can say, and I urge you to do so.

In this case, my agnosticism comes from the murkiness of the evidence and the asymmetrical burdens of proof and disproof.

I think the only thing murky about the evidence comes from Talal’s awfully unfocused and remarkably short footage. (And to think he won awards for this work.) You can claim murkiness; I think the fact itself – lack of focus, six ten-second takes of an hour-long ordeal – is evidence.

As for asymmetrical burdens of proof, as I read that problem, the asymmetries operate strongly against the Israelis. Once viewers have been told that they are seeing a boy die before their very eyes, it becomes almost impossible for them to consider criticism. As Itamar Marcus said to me when I first spoke with him about this: “We need 110% proof before we can say anything.”

It is much easier to establish that one hypothesis is false — for instance, that IDF soldiers were in the wrong place to do the reported shooting — than to prove that some other one is true.

As you yourself know, the evidence is overwhelmingly against Talal’s and Charles’ narrative, that the Israeli soldiers shot him, much less that they did it, as Talal claimed under oath (and then silently retracted in a fax) “in cold blood.”

Where you refuse to go, is to pronounce on staging. Here too, anyone examining the evidence dispassionately, free of the riveting “boy is killed” narrative, should at least acknowledge that, if Muhammad were actually killed the way that the still “official version” holds – the boy is shot in the stomach, the boy is dead, the boy was evacuated forty minutes later - we would not expect what the video evidence in fact shows: no blood on the ground or wall, the boy moves slowly and deliberately in a final scene (after Enderlin has declared him dead), there is no footage from any of the numerous cameras present of either the scene or the evacuation, the boy in hospital with the gaping stomach wound is not Muhammad al Durah, etc., etc.).

Whether you want to come to the conclusion that this is staged or not, is your call, but mentioning that no other hypothesis has anywhere near the evidentiary support seems like an honest and decent thing to do.

Similarly: I find it hard to believe that Lee Harvey Oswald acted entirely on his own in killing John F. Kennedy, but I have no idea what the “real” story is.

This, of course, brings up the “conspiracy theory” trope which is used constantly to discredit those who say the footage was faked. The differences, however, are considerable. We have a dead body, a dead president in the former, we have dubious claims to a dead body, a martyr calling for suicide terror on the other. To say, I believe it was more than Oswald, but not sure who it was, is one thing. In this case, however, the minute you admit that the evidence suggests staging, then a) it’s a no brainer on who’s doing the staging – Talal and his colleagues, and b) who are the dupes – Enderlin and his colleagues… your colleagues. So I’m not sure it’s the evidence that has you so reluctant, and more likely the unwillingness to come out against your colleagues. I understand. The pressures to conform are powerful.

I mention all this because there is an interesting new update in the Times of Israel on one of the people I spent time with ten years ago in Tel Aviv. He is Nahum Shahaf, and you will learn about him from the story. For the record, this new account refers to my own article in positive rather than the now-familiar derogatory terms, but I’m mentioning the story because Shahaf was one of the genuinely engrossing figures I have met along the way. (Another, whom I should regularly thank, was professor Gabriel Weimann of the University of Haifa, who helped me in many ways with this story — but bears no responsibility for what I concluded or didn’t.) \

The reader should note how fastidious Fallows is here not to drag Weimann into the affair. He too would rather not pronounce. Reportedly, Steven Erlanger recently saw Karsenty’s presentation in Paris and when asked what he thought, remarked, “I’m still not convinced.”

I contend that it’s not about the evidence, it’s about the peer pressure, pressure that despite denials, Erlanger still apparently feels still makes Palestinian provocation and incitement off-limits.

See what you think.

At least, James, you could link to the site where all the evidence is available, and readers are invited precisely to make up their own mind on journalism’s “first draft” of History.

In what seems to be an interesting act of hesitation, the French court has delayed its decision on the Enderlin-Karsenty trial until May 22. For those arguing a politicized court which would naturally side with state-owned and politically-correct France2, this needs explanation. A kangaroo court does not hesitate. If it hesitates, it’s because the evidence is so “badly” in Karsenty’s favor that the judges hesitate to defy it. Whether for fear of contradiction, or some (significant but not decisive) remaining elements of intellectual integrity, this is good news.

The fact that they remain uncommitted, rather than deciding for Karsenty’s obvious right to criticize a journalist, however, means the weight of public honor (Charles’, France2′s, the Palestinians’) remains crucial to their calculations.

More to follow.

UPDATE: French article in Novel Observateur on the Court delay.

Affaire Enderlin: Philippe Karsenty sera fixé fin mai

Note the endless reprinting of the most convincing photo of the father and son, terrified under fire. The picture they should show is this:

A l’origine de cette affaire un reportage saisissant tourné le 30 septembre 2000 dans la bande de Gaza.

Philippe Karsenty, poursuivi en diffamation par le journaliste de France 2 Charles Enderlin pour avoir affirmé qu’un reportage sur la mort d’un enfant palestinien en 2000 à Gaza avait été truqué, sera fixé sur son sort le 22 mai. La cour d’appel de Paris devait initialement rendre sa décision mercredi, mais l’a finalement prorogée.

En 2004, Philippe Karsenty, directeur de Media Ratings, qui se présente comme une agence de notation des médias, avait qualifié de “supercherie” et de “série de scènes jouées” un reportage du correspondant permanent de France 2 en Israël, tourné dans la bande de Gaza le 30 septembre 2000 par son caméraman. Un Palestinien de 12 ans, Mohammed, protégé par son père, Jamal al-Doura, y était tué lors d’un échange de tirs entre l’armée israélienne et des activistes palestiniens.

Les images de l’enfant avaient été largement diffusées dans le monde et avaient donné lieu à une controverse sur l’origine des tirs ayant provoqué sa mort.

Condamné en première instance, Philippe Karsenty avait bénéficié d’une relaxe en appel. La décision avait été annulée par la Cour de cassation.

No mention of the harsh criticism of the court of the way Enderlin did his reporting. “Avait beneficié d’une relaxe” (benefited from an acquittal) suggests not that either got lucky or got a favor.

Lors du nouveau procès le 16 janvier devant la cour d’appel, Charles Enderlin avait affirmé que l’authenticité des images de faisait “absolument aucun doute”, tandis que M. Karsenty avait soutenu qu’il s’agissait d’une “mise en scène”.

No assessment of the arguments, or even a link to where to observe the evidence. Any “normal” reader, convinced that Enderlin and France2 would never be so incompetent as to have been fooled and so perverse as to not admit it, would find this account perfectly in consonance with their beliefs. This was written for a readership not interested in the actual evidence.

TéléObs avec Afp

AFP (Agence France Presse) is a major player in the scandal.

The Al Durah verdict is tomorrow. In the run-up several articles have been written discussing the issues and the stakes. Here’s Arnold Roth’s take:

Al-Durah: A lethal narrative and the innocent lives it continues to destroy…writes Arnold Roth

April 3, 2013

A court of appeal in Paris will hand down an important judgment today that serves as a kind of microcosm of how the media establishment can act in a co-ordinated way to protect its members’ perceived interests.  It also, by the way, throws a sharp light on the way Israel’s interests are under attack far from the physical battlefield – while the casualties are all too real.

The decision will be the latest episode in a legal saga pitting the state-controlled France2 television juggernaut along with one of its senior news producers, Charles Enderlin, on one side against a lone-wolf French media critic, Philippe Karsenty. Enderlin and France2 are seeking to have Karsenty convicted of criminal defamation.

The matter has gone through four separate rounds of legal hearings since the well-funded plaintiffs launched their attack in September 2006 – testament to the determination of both sides, and perhaps to the larger issues at stake. (See the timeline on the Aldurah.com website.)

Enderlin is a prominent French foreign correspondent based, and living, in Israel. A well-regarded veteran professional, he is the current head of the Foreign Press Association here and no innocent bystander when it comes to the powerful controversies that continually sweep over the media’s coverage of events in the Arab/Israel conflict.

The Enderlin/France2 legal action starts with an event that still reverberates mightily today. On September 30, 2000, at the start of the second ‘Intifada’, France2 broadcast footage of an episode that happened at Netzarim Junction in Gaza that day. It was captured on film by a Palestinian ‘stringer’ called Talal Abu Rahma who – perhaps oddly – was the only one out of the numerous cameramen filming at Netzarim that day to record the incident, which he claims occurred over the course of nearly an hour. Enderlin, France 2′s local correspondent, was not present and in fact was in another part of the country at the time.

France2 put the Abu Rahma footage to air the same days, accompanied by dramatic commentary supplied by Enderlin, and handed the clip to numerous other news agencies. It purported to show a scene both pathetic and horrifying: a father and his pre-teenage young son cowering behind a barrel as bullets are fired at them by (as the Enderlin commentary makes clear) IDF soldiers in a nearby emplacement. Eventually, the narrative became more concrete and accusatory: the Israeli soldiers had murdered the boy, Mohammed “in cold blood,” firing “hundreds of bullets”. Mohammed bled to death of a stomach wound.

Twelve and a half years have passed since the events depicted in the Al Durah video. That’s certainly a long time in terms of a news cycle. But along the way it morphed into something iconic and enduring, with devastating effect in terms of lives lost and ruined. It is at least as alive and potent today as it was in 2000.

People who view the video are usually convinced they are witnessing the horrible and cold-blooded killing of a child. That is what the voice-over tells them. Since it first appeared as a news report, the image of a dead boy beside his father has escalated into a plethora of posters, murals, online music videos and even postage stamps.

The problem, as Karsenty and others have repeatedly and publicly pointed out, is that the child is visibly alive at the end of the full clip, long after the audio track pronounces him shot dead. The frames capturing that startling final scene were ignored in some broadcasts, edited out of others, and are at the heart of the dispute. They can be seen here.)

Whatever actually happened that day, the Al Durah footage continues to be invoked over and again as justification for violent deeds and acts of terrorism.

• The organizers of the notorious 2000 anti-racism conference in Durban exploited the Al Durah footage to market Israel as the villain of the new, global century.
• The grotesque 2002 video released by Pakistani jihadists that shows American journalist Daniel Pearl being beheaded depicts the face of Mohammad Al Durah in a corner of the screen.
• The Al Durah narrative played a key role in Osama Bin Laden’s video sermons. It became an icon of hatred that fanned the winds of global religious and cultural hatred and warfare.
• Jihadi groups have used the imagery to reach students at Western universities.
• The French jihadist Mohamed Merah ascribed his killing spree in Montauban and Toulouse in March 2012 to a will to avenge the Palestinian boy’s death.

The 2012 Toulouse tragedy highlighted, perhaps more graphically than the other instances, how a society exposed to hate-mongering narratives of children deliberately killed by a hated ‘other’ (and perhaps it’s just coincidence that this happened in France again), will produce men like Merah who kill Jewish school-children to avenge these journalistic accounts. Beyond this, it will nourish deep resentments that engender support and admiration for the “avenger”, lionizing him as a martyr for the act of child-killing and for the blows he strikes against authority.

The matter of the Al Durah event – and in this sense it matters less whether it was accurately reported or wasa ‘Pallywood’ hoax – is at the heart of a serious debate about news reporting. Consider three points, from among numerous others:

1. Among the most disturbing of the many failures highlighted by the Al Durah affair has been the remarkable lack of evident desire among investigative journalists to critically examine the Charles Enderlin/France 2 version of the evidence. And in a striking inversion of the role journalists should be taking, France’s union of media professionals, the Syndicat national des journalistes, stands explicitly behind Enderlin, the video clip’s producer. It has actively supported France 2’s sustained attack on Karsenty and his pesky questions for eight years.
2. In some quarters, France 2′s defamation suit is perceived as a means to legally strait-jacket those who allege the video and the narrative it represents are a fraud.
3. Journalism that promotes toxic narratives by presenting them as news, feeds hatred and incites to violence has arguably become central to the harshening of European public culture in the 21st century. Jews are only the first victims of a metastasizing process that is coming to be recognized as cognitive warfare.

Notwithstanding the small degree of attention paid outside France to this criminal defamation case, there are serious and large issues here. Beyond the immediate facts of the events at Netzarim and in Paris, they concern the immensely important role played by those who report and analyze the news, and the mutual responsibility existing between them and the societies they serve. What is the appropriate response if it turns out that deadly consequences result from malfeasance on the part of those who package and market the news?

Perhaps the decision of the Paris court on Wednesday may help to bring the questions into a sharper focus. They are likely to accompany us for some time.

Arnold Roth made Aliya from Melbourne in 1988. In 2001, his 15-yr-old daughter died as a result of the suicide bombing of Jerusalem’s Sbarro Restaurant.

Al-Dura: a lethal narrative that just won’t die

MARCH 30, 2013, 8:40 PM 3

Elihu D Stone practiced law in Boston, Massachusetts and is currently a member of the Israeli Bar; He is involved in the Al Durah Project, an initiative dedicated to understanding and countering the dilemmas and vulnerabilities that face democratic cultures in this age of aggressive asymmetric and cognitive warfare… [More]

Elihu’s website

This Wednesday, April 3rd, The French Supreme Court will render its decision in a case pitting the state-owned France 2 News Agency and one of its senior news producers, Charles Enderlin against media critic Philippe Karsenty, a citizen media critic, whom they seek to convict of criminal defamation. The legal action, winding its way through the French legal system for eight years, involves an event that occurred 12 years ago but still reverberates mightily today.

On September 30, 2000, at the start of the second Intifada, France 2 broadcast approximately one minute’s edited footage of an episode filmed by its Palestinian stringer Talal Abu Rahma at Netzarim Junction in Gaza. Abu Rahma was the only one of the scores of cameramen filming at Netzarim that day to record the incident, which he claims occurred over the space of a full hour. Charles Enderlin, France 2′s Jerusalem correspondent – who did not witness the scene – broadcast the footage informing his viewers that 12-year-old Mohammed al-Dura and his father, Jamal were “the target of fire from the Israeli position” as they took cover behind a barrel near a wall at the Junction. In later interviews, Abu Rahma accused the Israeli soldiers of murdering Mohammed “in cold blood,” firing “hundreds of bullets” while the boy bled to death of a stomach wound.

The “lethal narrative” that Israeli troops wantonly killed Mohammed became a clarion call for Jihadists and other foes attacking Israel, Jews and Western democracies. Bin Laden featured images of al-Dura prominently in his recruiting videos; Pakistani jihadis beheaded Daniel Pearl on camera invoking the image of Mohammed al-Dura.

From the moment of broadcast, the scene raised troubling questions for Enderlin’s account, and many more surfaced during the years that followed: Why, although Abu Rahma and Enderlin alleged the Israelis hit Mohammed and his father a dozen times with bullets that tore through their bodies, does no blood whatsoever appear on the wall, the barrel, or the ground near the alleged victims? Why do the people around Abu Rahma shout the “the child is dead! The child is dead!” before he even shows signs of being hit. Why, two “takes” after Enderlin has declared him dead does the boy peek out from under his arm at the camera, showing no sign of a stomach injury? And why did Enderlin cut that final scene from his broadcast? Why did news photographers find red ‘blood’ the day after the incident on the ground near the barrel, under the father’s position, but not where the son allegedly bled to death of a stomach wound? Why did 45 minutes of continuous, targeted fire leave no more than 11 bullet holes in the wall by the al-Duras? Why – despite Abu Rahma’s varying claims to have collected or filmed bullets at the scene and Jamal’s alleged surgeries in Gaza and Jordan to have bullets removed – has not a single bullet or fragment ever been produced, in response to Israel’s repeated requests for such evidence?

The Al-Dura incident and the questions surrounding it raise matters extending far beyond the events of that day and the geographic boundaries of the Middle East. At issue are the bedrock rights and responsibilities of the media as it reports on events, especially in cases where it assigns motive and blame.

Too often, in the court of public opinion, the press simultaneously holds itself as judge and jury and advocate. The rules of evidence prevailing in the court of public opinion are far less defined than those in a court of law. Precisely for that reason, the press has a heightened responsibility to police itself, when determining what images and messages it injects into the public sphere it is meant to accurately inform.

It has been said that truth matters less than perception and belief in shaping world events. But that merely increases the journalists’ responsibility – if they can shape perceptions so powerfully, they must proceed scrupulously. Democracies give their press freedom to speak truth to power. Abusing this freedom to recycle false accusations designed to stoke war betrays the very profession itself.

Yet, on more than one occasion, members of the media have defended their choice of images purveyed, chosen precisely due to their emotional, rather than their probative, content. Patrick B. Pexton, Ombudsman of the Washington Post, in an opinion piece published November 23, 2012 entitled “Photo of dead baby in Gaza holds part of the ‘truth’ ” recalled MaryAnne Golon, the Post’s director of photography, explaining to him that the purpose of any front-page photo, regardless of subject, is to move the reader, whether through its beauty, sentiment or drama.” Apparently, the fact that the journalist mistakenly blamed Israel for the child’s death did not impede the search for emotional impact.

In the case of al Dura, France 2 failed to investigate basic questions of fact and causation before, during and after its passing on of poisonous images and allegations to the public relying on France 2 – and still remains in exclusive possession of materials crucial to properly answer those questions. Perhaps France 2 rushed because it did not want to be scooped by others filming the scene, but that hardly excuses its subsequent failure to investigate properly.

The utter refusal by France 2′s journalists and editors to examine evidence that contradicted their basic assumptions remains deeply disturbing. Enderlin not only conflated absence of proof with proof of absence, but justified willful blindness to certain facts as grounds to dismiss their very possibility. Even more disturbing, France 2 doubled down when confronted with its error, trying to legally straitjacket Karsenty for having the temerity to call out the al-Dura hoax for what it is. If the French court, for either political or technical reasons, sides with state-owned France 2 against a bold and correct critic, they strike a blow not only against press responsibility, but the very fabric of the civil society they ought to play such a key role in preserving. Such an abject failure on the part of both the media and the courts to correct this penchant for mainstreaming the enemy’s lethal narratives makes the world a much more dangerous place.

In usefully infidel “progressive” circles, it’s considered racist to call Palestinian leaders liars (part of the auto-stupefaction we impose upon ourselves). Of course, this isn’t about race, it’s about culture, and especially about an honor-shame culture where, if it’s legitimate, even required to shed blood for honor, how much the more is it okay to lie to save face.

Here’s an old and no longer easily available article by Bret Stephens from 2002 (when he worked at “Eye on the Media” at the JPost):

EYE ON THE MEDIA,
By BRET STEPHENS

Liar, liar

Jerusalem Post,  Dec. 26, 2002

“Every word she says is a lie, including ‘and,’ ‘but’ and ‘if’.” What Mary McCarthy said of Lillian Hellman, so one could say about Saeb Erekat. Among Palestinians, the 46-year-old Jericho boss and chief PA negotiator is the single most widely quoted person in the English-language press, with 11,382 citations since 1988. (By contrast, runner-up Hanan Ashrawi comes in at 8,062 for the same time period, and Sari Nusseibeh gets fewer than 2,000).

Erekat gets kid-glove treatment from ordinarily hard-fisted reporters: an admiring 1998 Wall Street Journal profile reads like a memo on why he should succeed Yasser Arafat. On TV, he remains the go-to man for all the major networks. That he was chief mouthpiece of the Jenin massacre myth, bandying about figures of 500 Palestinian deaths as though it were incontrovertible fact, hasn’t noticeably dimmed his credibility. Especially, it would seem, at The New York Times, where Erekat’s byline appeared last week under an op-ed called “Saving the Two-State Solution.”