Muhammad Al-Dura: The boy who wasn't really killed

[shira]

Not only was 12-year-old Gazan Muhammad al-Dura not killed by IDF fire in 2000 – he was not even hurt.

That was the preliminary finding of a special commit- tee formed several years ago by Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon and headed by Brig.- Gen. (res.) Yossi Kuperwasser, the former head of the Research and Analysis Division of the IDF Military Intelligence Directorate, and the current director-general of the Strategic Affairs Ministry.

Dura was allegedly killed by IDF fire during the second intifada as he crouched behind his father, Jamal, crying. He became the most potent symbol of the Palestinian struggle; his name can still be heard around the world as a symbol of the Palestinian struggle.

At first, Israel did not deny that its forces had hit Dura, who had been caught in the crossfire between Palestinian and IDF forces at the Netzarim junction on September 30, 2000. The IDF admitted that it had hit and killed the boy. Following an investigation, however, the official army version changed: the IDF did not actually hit the boy.

But it was too late – the narrative had already gone viral.

more...
http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Muhammad-Al-Dura-The-boy-who-was-not-really-killed-312930

=====

Video footage:

Note, starting @ 8:20 in there is no blood to be seen (the father was supposedly shot in the stomach but his shirt is clean) and the boy peeks to see whether the staged scene is over. This is the end of the incident, after the France2 reporter claims the boy is dead.

One of the greatest hoaxes and coverups of all time.

[King_David]

1. Another Hoax,

There have been so many , it's hard to keep up.

And they get minimal press or coverage when uncovered.

[shira]

13. The hoax couldn't be more obvious, but note the denial. My favorite staged scene....

The dead come to life!

[Scootaloo]

2. So, just to make sure I have this all lined up right.

Moshe Ya'aron - Israeli Defense minister

Yossi Kuperwasser - Research and Analysis Division of the Israel Defense Forces Military Intelligence Directorate

Nachman Shai - Israel Defense Forces spokesman

Nahum Shahaf - Physicist, on the Israel Defense Forces payroll for his work with unmanned aerial drones. Core of this hoax theory. Also believes that Yigal Amir shooting Rabin was a hoax.

PJ (Pajamas) Media - Hard neo-conservative, anti-liberal 'media' site (i.e., blog aggregator / ad generator) famed (?) for it's elevation of "Joe the Plumber" to 'journalist' during the War on Gaza in 2009 (favorite quote; "I think media should be abolished from reporting.&quot

Charles Johnson - Jazz Guitarist and Co-Founder of PJ Media (and of the blog, Little Green Footballs) - Misogynistic, homophobic, Islamophobic asshole known for creating utterly fake stories to push his own agenda. Has 'renounced' his right-wing positions, but not enough that he won't accept awards from the Heritage Foundation and Young American's Foundation. Described as "the epitome of the pro-Israel neocon" by Richard Silverstein, and a "Righteous Gentile" by Arutz Sheva.

Roger L. Simon - Author (the Moses Wine series) and screenwriter (Bustin' Loose, among others), and co-founder of Pajamas Media. Converted from liberalims because OJ got off (no, really) and believes that gay marriage and the war on terror are intrinsically linked (he supports both.)
(appears to be more aptly described as off-center than right-of-center - ed)

Lionel Chetwynd - Screenwriter / Director / Producer, works alongside Roger Simon on PJ Media's "PJTV" section, specifically the 'poliwood' section ('investigating' how Hollywood is corrupted by liberal politics.) Staunch supporter of Reagan even prior to 1980, graduated to become appointed to the President's Committee on the Arts and Humanities by George W. Bush. And why not? This is the guy who wrote screenplays such as "Kissinger and Nixon," " Ruby Ridge: An American Tragedy," "DC 9/11: Time of Crisis," and produced the documentary "Celsius 41.11" (funded fully by Citizens United.)

Have I got all that right? I mean I could dig in a little more, and we could learn all about the other people promulgating this particular conspiracy theory, such as Yosef Duriel, General Yom Tov Samia, Esther Shapira, Jacques Tarnero and Philippe Bensoussan, MENA, and so on down the list of people pushing this particular conspiracy, all the way down to the bottom of the barrel with the Jewish defense league.

But really, all you need to know is that Philippe Karsenty, founder of anti-islam, neoconservative "media watchdog" group Media-Ratings, was successfully sued for libel by France 2 over his accusations of hoaxing by Charles Enderlin, France 2's Jerusalem bureau chief.

[aranthus]

5. Do you know

if the decision in Karsenty's January, 2013 appeal hearing has come out, and what it was?

[shira]

16. Delayed until next week. n/t

[aranthus]

69. Exactly my point.

Karsenty has not lost yet. And he's back in the same court (though not necessarily with the same judges) where he won last time.

[King_David]

18. Karsenty awaits verdict in latest al-Dura ‘hoax’ case

Philippe Karsenty admits to being a little pessimistic.

A month ago, he appeared before the Paris Appeals Court in a case that arose out of the Muhammad al-Dura shooting hoax. The case has dragged on for years, and most recently he’s had to again show how the French national broadcaster, France 2 TV, misled its viewers by wrongly claiming Israeli soldiers shot and killed the 12-year-old al-Dura at the Netzirim junction on the second day of the Palestinian intifadah in 2000.

Karsenty is upset because he feels the French establishment is arrayed against him, protecting one of its golden boys, France 2’s Israel bureau chief, Charles Enderlin. “The whole French establishment is against the truth and against Israel,” he said.


http://www.cjnews.com/?q=node/104038

[shira]

7. Look at the video rushes of that day's events. Speaks for itself. n/t

[Scootaloo]

24. Shira, my friend, my bosom buddy, my favorite li'l goofball...

Prior to joining DU, I spent a great deal of time over on this other wacky li'l forum called Above TOp secret. As it name might suggest, it's a conspiracy-oriented place. I fell firmly in the camp of "skeptic" over there, until getting banned for shit-talking Ron Paul (ahhh, fun times.) I've seen this "damning evidence" before. I've also seen "damning evidence" of everything else you could imagine someone might want there to be damning evidence of. Do you want to learn how Daniel Pearl was executed by the CIA? there's "damning evidence" for that. Want to learn how the Jews totally faked the Holocaust? There's "damning evidence" for that. Want to learn that the Kennedy assassination was actually a setup by Kennedy himself to make the nation fall to communism? There's "damning evidence" of that. Faked moon landing? Alien coverups? Nazis in the hollow earth? More "damning evidence" than you could possibly imagine.

What you've got here is a video. A video that's been selectively edited, altered, and voiced-over not once, not twice, but THREE times; the original is by Esther Schapira, "Three bullets and a Dead Child," which was later re-edited by CAMERA to produce "Decoded," and the version here is "Decoded," but with further editing by PJTV. Each layer of editing is performed by a heavily-interested party intent on creating and reinforcing a story of not just Israeli innocence, but of Arab monstrosity and deceitfulness. An agenda you can find embedded with each of the people I mentioned in my post, even the ones I did not go into detail on. All of whom are deeply involved in this particular conspiracy theory. Many of whom are directly connected to the foremost interested party, the Israeli Defense Force.

Yes, the video speaks for itself. And it tells the story of a well-funded neoconservative / anti-Palestinian effort to engage in history denialism of the crudest sort. And you, being a neoconservative anti-Palestinian yourself, aren't the most likely person to sit back and think about the sources and agendas at work here.

[King_David]

26. Denying the hoax is all over the ultra right wing ,neo nazi websites,

That can not be linked here on DU.

[Scootaloo]

30. Is it?

I admit you might have me beat; I don' really frequent such sites as much as I suppose you do. But out of curiosity, I fired up my old lurker account on Stormfront and hit up their search feature. Didn't find anything between now and Dec. 31 2005 (cutoff because this hoax claim originates from 2006). If it's in there, it's hidden well. Tried about a different search strings. Describing it as being "all over" when it's impossible to find on the web's premier "ultra-right-wing neo-nazi website" seems a little like creative license on your part.

I DID manage to find something from JDL-UK, though... though they have better taste than you or Shira do and at least cede that the boy died. Damn shame when the Kahanists are better people than either of you, huh?

[shira]

32. The final scene shows the boy peeking at the camera...

Does he look dead to you in that video? Charles Enderlin reports the boy is dead while those shenanegins are going on.

[Scootaloo]

39. Do you think people die instantly?

If you want to argue about who was shooting, go for it. You want to say the incident got hyperbolic media treatment, go for it.

But the direction you choose to go instead is fucking repugnant. It's simply the anti-Palestinian version of "Otto Frank edited his daughter's diary, so Jews are lying about the holocaust."

[shira]

42. 3 senior french journalists, Jeambar, Leconte, Rosenzweig....

They viewed the raw footage in 2004 and concluded there were no scenes there showing the boy had died and that Enderlin could not have determined that based on the rushes. They admitted that the agony or death throes of the boy didn't exist.

Are they kahanist likudnik freaks too?

[Scootaloo]

48. Fun question!

This panel of three also stated they did not believe the scene to have been staged. So you might want to re-think running behind them to defend your argument that it was staged. I didn't call anyone a kahanist likudnik freak... I did point out that the JDL is a Kahanist organization, and that even they have the good taste to not pretend a death was all staged and faked, and that you and Dave lack even that much basic decency.

[shira]

52. Check out what the 3 really said here...

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_article=855&x_context=3#claim

You're wrong.

[Scootaloo]

56. I did, thanks

"…In his commentary, Charles Enderlin asserts without proof that the bullets came from the Israeli side and explains that the shooting took place at 3 pm whereas the doctors at the Gaza hospital remember that the body of the child arrived between 11 am and 1 pm."

Jeambar and Leconte do not claim that the whole affair is a hoax. They believe that there is insufficient evident to draw such a conclusion. They believe that Charles Enderlin should not have claimed the boy was shot dead by Israeli soldiers, and that this error should be remedied.

I'm not wrong; you're just lying.

Also, might I again point out the sourcing? CAMERA, a neoconservative anti-Palestinian "media watchdog," which links back to Augean Stables, a far-right anti-Palestinain hate site which is run by Richard Lances, The Second Draft, an anti-Islam, ultra-Israeli media site also run by Landes, and Metula, a pro-Israel "activist media" organization (i.e., propaganda outlet) posed as a "news agency."

This conspiracy theory of yours is looking more and more incestuous as you go, Shira. It's the same cluster of people, repeating each other's claims and sourcing back to one another, often through the use of multiple websites and blogs. This is a strategy called megaphoning, whereby a small handful of people amplify their propaganda through multiple "sources" and self-references. It's a good sign of bullshit, because if it weren't, there would be no need for the use of this tactic, the story could carry itself.

[shira]

71. Rosenzweig said it was a hoax. The other 2 wouldn't say either way...

That doesn't mean they don't believe it's a hoax.

They all admitted much of the tape looked stage. That's their words, and they all harshly criticize Enderlin for the report.

I don't think they want to be quoted as believing in some hoax conspiracy. They say most of the rushes (the first 24 of 27 minutes) are staged, but not the shooting of the al-Duras. They say there's no evidence in the tapes that the boy dies. They say the Israelis couldn't have done it - only the Palestinians. They accuse Enderlin of lying. Put that together, they may as well be admitting they believe it's all a hoax (except for the real bullets around the al-Duras). I don't blame them for not admitting it's all a hoax. Look at the bullshit attacks against "rightwing conspiracy mongers" and it's easy to see why they don't want to be considered the same way.

[Scootaloo]

77. More special pleading.

You're getting pathetic here, Shira. More than usual.

Mohammad al-Dura is dead, and he's been buried. Twelve and a half years ago.

Your effort to ignore - erase, rather - that fact involves, requires so much special pleading, such a convoluted backstory, and the assumption that Palestinians are magical elves with powers of seeing the future, that even if it were more than just a cluster of heavily-interested individuals megaphining each other, all you'd be doing is making it look silly.

Mohammad and Jamal al-Dura were shot in the crossfire at that crossing in September of 2000. The strongest evidence points towards the dangerous fire and lethal shots coming from the Palestinian position (the "pita" position). if you want to exonerate Israel, there you go. Hell, like I said, I'd even be willing to give Israel the benefit of the doubt if it WAS them, 'cause a dude poking his head around a barrel and gesturing during a firefight probably looks like a gunman giving directions.

You don't need this convoluted, complicated nonsense that hinges on making special assumptions just for this in order to clear Israel, Shira. Nor do you need to claim that without France 2's reporting, Daniel Peal would be alive, or any of the other stupid shit you've come up with here.

Even if you refuse to have standards, you could at least have some self-respect.

[shira]

78. Do you believe Enderlin lied? n/t

[Scootaloo]

104. I believe his conclusion was probably inaccurate

"Lie" requires malicious intent. I don't know enough about Enderlin to judge intent, it could be he just honestly thinks he's seeing the child die on-screen. He may even be right. My conclusion - shared by the experts who you are leaning on - is that this conclusion is unlikely. it's an agnostic position, leaning to skepticism on Enderlin's specific claim. I reach this conclusion, because of my understanding of biology. In point, the fact I've been presenting to you, that people do not instantly die when hit with bullets. neither I nor your experts share hte conclusions you're jumping for, that it was all fake and Mohammad is just fine.

Do you believe Yitzhak Rabin was murdered via hitman, by Shimon Peres?

[shira]

110. Enderlin viewed those rushes first, saw all the staged events....

...and decided to edit out the last scene where the boy peeks at the camera.

He lied.

And you're just being dishonest.

[Scootaloo]

112. Do you believe Shimon Peres took a hit out on Yitzhak Rabin?

Do you believe that, despite photo evidence, video evidence, countless eyewitness testimonies, confessions by Yigal Amir and his brothers, including details about previous, failed attempts at Rabin's life, that Yigal Amir was in no way involved with the murder of Yitzhak Rabin, and that instead it was an unknown, unseen gunman who nobody has any evidence of, yet who is assuredly paid by Shimon Peres?

Is this what you believe Shira? Because the man behind the conspiracy theory you are pimping like a twenty-dollar whore here, Nahum Shahaf, does believe this. He believes that Shimon Peres hired an assassin - the ultimate assassin, untraceable, undetectable - to murder Yitzhak Rabin, and that the accusations against Yigal Amir - including his confessions and those of his brothers - are completely made-up in order to cover for Peres' "takeover."

To bolster the claims of this man, you have been circulating bullshit by ultra-right, neofascist, racist-as-all-hell bullshit artists that, I would like to think, you would put no faith in in any circumstance that did not involve the denigration of Palestinians. Unless perhaps I'm wrong, and you're you're going to tell me that Richard Landes is your go-to guy for economics, European history, and American presidential politics?

In your own efforts, your personal, one-lemur crusade to hammer this into our heads with all the persuasiveness of a chain email from that one aunt we all have that we try never to talk to, you've made the argument that the footage is too blurry to tell anything, except for all the things you want it to tell, that the boy was never shot, except when the Palestinians shot him, and that experts say it's fake, when in their own words, they say they do not believe it is, wherein they cease to become experts and instead are poor souls burdened by "not wanting to look like conspiracy freaks" - even though again, you argue this isn't a freakish conspiracy theory.

Your bullshit is no different from some dumb motherfucker who is arguing that Obama's birth certificate is fake, because - lo and behold - he knows a guy who writes a right-wing blog who also happens to be an expert in the typeface used by Hawaiian hospitals in 1965. How kowinkydinkal!

[shira]

114. James Fallows report on this - from 2003

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2003/06/who-shot-mohammed-al-dura/302735/

Is he a rightwing nut too?

[Scootaloo]

120. Did you read the article?

Fallows does not push the conspiracy theory. He does give it exposure - as the pet project of Nahum Shahaf. Who is, yes, a fucking nut.

The rest of the article revolves around the dispute over who shot Mohammad. Fallows seems to conclude - not in so many words - that whoever it was, it wasn't the Israelis (the Flemish, perhaps?) And for the - what, fourth? - time in this thread, allow me to reiterate that I find that believable and in fact likely.

If it makes you feel better, I can take a turn as the wacky dumbfuck conspiracy theorist, by arguing the Israelis have magical curving bullets they brought out just for this. Can't be any crazier than Shimon Peres having a personal T-100, right? But my heart won't be in it, so I don't k now if it'll be as fun for you.

[shira]

121. FTR, I don't have a problem with you or anyone else....

...reluctant to call the the incident a completely staged hoax. If you want to simply say it's unlikely the IDF shot the boy and/or there are many things reported from that day that can be seriously questioned, that's fine by me. I actually agree. I can't say definitely that the boy didn't die that day. How the hell would I know? It looks highly unlikely given the evidence.

My big problem with all this is France 2 & Enderlin's reaction. Rather than admit error, they've dug their heels in and perpetuated the lie. And they're not being held to account.

You keep bringing up racism and Islamophobia, but when you admit Israel couldn't have done it, it begs the question who did and WHY. If you believe al-Dura is dead, you think the Palestinians deliberately mowed him down? Why? Because that's like what they do? That seems more Islamophobic than anything else. If the Palestinians did it unintentionally, how did that happen? The IDF was positioned 90 degrees to the right. If you're going to say it's unlikely the IDF did it, then how do you explain the rushes? I'm being serious.

[Scootaloo]

122. Don't go backing up now, Shira

This whole thread is full of you arguing, with spit flying and all, that it was all a complete hoax, a total setup, and that not only was Mohammad al-Dura not shot by Israeli forces, he was in fact completely unharmed in any way at all. That's been your argument from the start, it's the first line of your OP. You've been backing it without question and attacking everyone who points out the weirdness and bad logic and shitty sources you're using.

You keep bringing up racism and Islamophobia, but when you admit Israel couldn't have done it, it begs the question who did and WHY. If you believe al-Dura is dead, you think the Palestinians deliberately mowed him down b/c that's like...what they do? That seems more Islamophobic than anything else.

We're done here. Have a good night, Shira.

[shira]

124. Look up the definition of hoax. I realize this may be hard for you...

Merriam Webster:

to trick into believing or accepting as genuine something false and often preposterous

Free Dictionary:

1. An act intended to deceive or trick.
2. Something that has been established or accepted by fraudulent means.

That's what happened here, whether it was the Palestinians, France2, or both...

You're not honest enough to admit it.

[shira]

117. So Enderlin's conclusion was inaccurate but ever since...

....he has dug his heels in & never admitted wrongdoing.

What do you make of that?

[King_David]

34. .

[Scootaloo]

40. Best argument I've seen from you yet. You should stick with it. n/t

[shira]

31. It's just not possible to watch the France2 rushes...

...and not conclude that the footage was scripted.

There's so much staged footage from that day, it's comical.

It's so bad, you can't defend any of it. There were 3 French Journalists who did see all the footage, all 27 minutes. They concluded it was staged. Google the wiki page on al dura and the part about in 2004 three french journalists view the footage.

Pretty damning.

[Scootaloo]

37. I simply consider the sources, Shira

Every single person involved here - right down to yourself - has a vested and clear interest. Not in "the truth," but in casting Palestinian as subhuman monstrosities against whom all actions are always justified. End result? A heavily-edited video with a voiceover that could be Glenn Beck on Valium "I'm just asking questions" that (of course) casts the Arabs as deceitful monsters.

[shira]

43. Then explain Jeambar, Rosenzweig, and Leconte

All 3 senior journalists who viewed the raw footage. Find them on wikipedia and elsewhere WRT what they reported about the footage.

Explain.

Be honest.

[azurnoir]

47. I think when I Google their names the first page is the Augean Stables a Righwing Islamophobic

website

[Scootaloo]

49. You spelled "Liberal Zionist" wrong.

[King_David]

54. Yes you've made it clear your thoughts on Zionists,

Of all stripes.

[Scootaloo]

55. And I will continue to do so. Thanks for noticing, though.

[King_David]

85. I'm just surprised such bigotry exists here on DU. nt

[Scootaloo]

86. You keep that up, and you'll grow fur on your palm. n/t

[King_David]

88. Well I'm pretty sure that the Democratic Party

Would not tolerate antiZionist bigotry within their ranks and most of its leaders would consider it antisrmitism so its surprising anyone would feel at home on a website that is self proclaimed to support that party's ideals.

Just observing , I will try get clarification in the ask the admins if Anti Zionism is allowed at DU ( of course it won't be the part open to interpretation , ill ask about self confessed antiZionist bigots)

[Scootaloo]

101. You're adorable.

You keep wagging your little finger at me and warning that the party would not be pleased. I could just pinch your cheeks and feed you oreos.

[King_David]

123. Adorable yes and not lost,

If I was an antiZionist/antisemite I wouldn't be posting on a forum supporting the USA Democratic Party , who's policies are incompatible with "antiZionism "
( or whatever you code it as)

[Scootaloo]

126. Just irresistable

[delrem]

50. Yes, that's fact.

I hadn't seen that site before, but nevertheless a quick look through the articles was deja vu.
It seems that someone is intent on mirroring that rightwing Islamophobic extremism on DU.

[shira]

90. So outing Pallywood is Islamophobic? There are 2 videos...

....on this page. Both are examples of Pallywood.

One shows the fake blackout and candles used by Hamas, children in Gaza, etc.

The other shows a fake funeral.

The al-Dura rushes prove beyond any question everything that happened that day was staged.

======

The Palestinians engage in war propaganda against their hated enemies. Other tyrannies do the same. However, in this case the Western media laps it up w/o question, time after time...in essence doing Palestinian propaganda free of charge. You'd think they'd learn by now that all this tends to do is incite more hatred and terror vs. Jews.

But merely exposing this strategy is Islamophobic?

Why should anyone take you seriously? Do you even take yourself seriously?

[delrem]

93. You're a war crimes denier, and you're using "paliwood" as tool.

If someone was foolish enough to get into a one-on-one with Zundel, Zundel could almost certainly provide "evidence" of a (I'll use the abhorrent term anyway!) "Jewishwood" full of faked evidence, stats, whatever. It's what Zundel is *known for*. And Zundel is part of an industry that can throw that shit at the wall all day, day after day and year after year.

The reason a person would be a fool to engage Zundel is because even were this item or that in Zundel's presentation to have some apparent empirical rationale, cooked up over plenty of time, it's much much easier to see that Zundel's entire project is one of denial and deceit, is one of subscribing to atrocities that he hasn't the courage to admit to, and that his is not so much an academic exercise as an exercise in sociopathy.

[shira]

97. Fascinating. You viewed the rushes, read the testimony of 3 experts...

...and you believe what's going on here is a denial of war crimes?

That you actually believe Israelis shot al-Dura in cold blood is beyond belief, given the evidence.

The denial is all yours.

Imagine Israel pulling this one off against the Palestinians, falsely claiming the worst of motives and actions from them. Getting the Western media to lap it up. Imagine the roles are reversed in the 27 minutes of rushes.

You'd be SCREAMING Islamophobia while being merciless against the 'Zionist' bigots.

[delrem]

99. I've never screamed or even mentioned such thing as "Islamophobia"

In any post to DU, or, in fact, at any time of my life.

So why you'd be saying such things about me is a mystery, though I wouldn't advise anyone to try to plumb your mind for cause.

[delrem]

100. Where did I say that I "actually believe that..."

"actually believe Israelis shot al-Dura in cold blood"
I never said that.
That's you projecting, on me, your rabid right wing mind-set

[azurnoir]

94. "Pallywood" was coined by Itamar Marcus a major figure in producing a film distributed by the GOP

during the 2008 Presidential campaign called Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West

one must really wonder here you seem to use Rightwing to support so much here including Pajamas Media, Second Wind Productions, PMW, and use terminology coined by antiDemocratic figures like Marcus to support and promote your views

It strikes me as rather curious on a Democratic Party website

[shira]

96. Pallywood was coined by Richard Landes. n/t

[azurnoir]

98. Your right about that Landes writes for Pajama's Media and the Augean Stables eta

I get Rightwingers confused thanks for pointing that out

he also writes for the "Torygraph" too

[Scootaloo]

102. He's also the "brains" behind Little Green Footballs

Which prior to his "seeing the light" (losing ad revenue in 2008) was one of the most islamophobic fucking places I've ever seen on the internet, outside of dedicated hate sites. That he continues that trend in his non-LGF endeavors (and as I noted, accepts honors from the Heritage Foundation) kinda put the lie to his "conversion."

[shira]

109. Landes has nothing to do with LGF. n/t

[Scootaloo]

111. Oof! You're completely right

Sorry, got my right-wing fuck-knuckle bloggers crossed.

[azurnoir]

127. I thought LGF was Charles Johnson however he has been a featured writer there

here's a couple of his contributions

Richard Landes: Romney Is Right on Culture and the Wealth of Nations

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/page/282250_


Richard Landes: Use the Blogosphere to Expose “PaliWood

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/page/30173_Richard_Landes-_Use_the_Blogo

[Scootaloo]

128. Yeah, that was my mistake

They collaborate together for PJ Media, and I got 'em crossed. Like I said to Shira, sometimes it's hard to tell all the right-wing racist bloggers she frequents apart from one another.

[delrem]

105. holy shit! shira !!

But are these guys that're so far out there actually taken as credible sources?
You're actually *proud* of this??
wiki the name:
"Landes now blogs at the Daily Telegraph, where his main theme is that the same people - journalists, academics, and politicians - who have misinformed the West on the dangers of Islam have also misinformed them on the nature of the Arab-Israeli conflict, and that mistaking these conflicts puts modern democratic culture at risk."

cool, shira. too cool.

[Scootaloo]

113. See my many posts on this thread about the sources involved here

Not a single person involved in this - not one is a neutral party. Only two - two of the panel of three journalists mentioned - are not ardent and prolific demonizers of Palestinians and anyone who supports them. The third, Luc Rosenzweig, is a Zionist "convert" who penned "Lettre à mes amis propalestiniens," essentially a diatribe about how anyone who is pro-Palestinian - palestinophile, to use his actual term - is a militant freak "living on another planet." Imagine a French Daniel Pipes. Oh, and he leaked to Metula News agency (MENA) who he now works for, which is a propaganda organ, plain and simple.

Hell, it all traces back to the commander of the unit involved in the incident, commissioning a hand-selected secret panel to engage in inquiry about "his boys." Would this obvious conflict of interest be tolerated from any other armed force in the fucking world? Syrian general says "Nope, my secret panel of experts I selected with no oversight says we're not doing anything bad at all!" would we buy that?

Even that evidently did not go into this conspiracy theory; for that we need the guy who thinks Shimon Peres hired ninjas to take out Rabin or something.

Not a single source in this story is anything resembling credible. Not one. All of them are neofascist fuckheads - all of them. All to pound on about a sad little conspiracy theory that exists solely to denigrate Palestinians.

But remember. We're the desperate ones who are violating hte ToS by disagreeing with this and pointing out that it's bullshit

[shira]

115. So Jeambar and Leconte are neofascist knuckle dragging fucks too? n/t

[Scootaloo]

118. Well, they're not pushing this dumbassed conspiracy theory

But nice to see you don't contest the statement about the sources at work here.

G'wan. Tell me how awesome Charles Johnson is, Shira. Give me a lavish account of how he is the most trustworthy, unbiased person ever, and how I'm a fool for not regarding him as a mouthpiece for god itself. Extrapolate to me how Stéphane Juffa has no bias worth note at all, and I'm just an evil little dink for not regarding her "news agency" as a flawless revealer of indisputable fact. Tell me, oh tell me, how that insipid Ruby Ridge movie was not only excellent filmmaking, but told the story in a totally neutral way, and its writer can be trusted to tell me all about other controversial subjects without any intrusion of personal bias. Explain to me, if you will, how a man who believes evil invisible robots under the control of Shimon fucking Peres, magically gave Rabin a terminal case of lead poisoning, is a trustworthy conveyor of reality. PJTV, Little Green Footballs, Augean Stables, Second Take, MENA, CAMERA, explain to me how these are neutral and wholly unbiased organizations who I can trust to give me the truthful scoop with regards to Arabs, Palestinians, and Muslims.

These are your sources Shira, and you've stood by them like some whacked-out version of Tammy Wynette, without even a bat of an eyelash, a momentary concession of doubt, or even any display of interest in what all this might point towards. To you, these people and organizations seem to be infallible, because they are telling you something nasty about Palestinians.

Bottom line? You are DU's Greta Berlin. You'll believe- and regurgitate - any nasty shit about the people you hate, regardless of the sourcing of it, or the logic or agenda involved. So congratulations on that.

[shira]

119. If it's not a conspiracy, why hasn't Enderlin admitted error in his reporting? n/t

[Scootaloo]

51. You know, you can ask a question in one part of the thread

I'm acquainted. And as I point out upthread, they think your position - that it was all fake and staged - is horseshit. They note that it does not appear that Mohammad dies on-camera, but this is a vastly, vastly different thing from what you are claiming.

I kinda wonder how you've been engaging in this runaround for the last 13 years. Here's what I imagine you've been doing, in chronomlogical order.

IDF admits responsibility for killing the boy:
"Israeli forces were completely right to shoot him, he was probably throwing rocks!"
IDF revises stance:
"Israeli forces didn't mean to shoot him, how dare you demonize them by claiming it was intentional!"
IDF commissions a video coder to perform ballistics tests in the Negev:
"Israelis didn't shoot him at all, it was Palestinians!"
Media-Ratings claims that it was all staged:
"he was never shot at all! it was all staged!"
French court finds Philippe Karsenty culpable for libel:
"French courts are anti-semitic!"
Another court accepts appeal by Philippe Karsenty:
"French courts know what they're talking about!
Another french court annuls the appeal:
"French courts are anti-semitic!"

Myself? I don't regard it as being of critical importance who shot Mohammad. if Israel did it, he's just one more kid they've killed; if Palestinian gunmen shot him, again, just one more kid they've killed. Hell, I'm even willing to give Israel the benefit of the doubt on this one, regardless of who shot him - the impact puffs certainly do look as if they were coming from the "Palestinian" position; if rather it was the Israelis shooting, what they were seeing was an adult man peeking around a concrete barrel and making gestures. Either way, my takeaway then, and now is "poor bastards caught in a bad place."

But to dream up this drek of it all being smoke and mirrors is kinda fucking low, even for you.

[shira]

53. Those 3 say Israel didn't do it. Here's the link again....

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_article=855&x_context=3#claim

Now we can go through their claims if you'd like, but the MILLION dollar question is:

If the Palestinians did it, then what explains the rushes? Or the accusation that Israel did it in cold blood?

This still appears quite clearly to be one giant hoax.

Do you NOT understand why this is still a big deal?

[Scootaloo]

57. I know that the three say Israel did not do it.

That's not what this thread is about though. The three experts you are leaning on here, are the same experts who are saying there is no evidence that Mohammed al-Dura's death was hoaxed. What is this, one minute they're experts, the next minute they're dumbasses who can't be trusted?

Do you NOT understand why this is still a big deal?

It's not. As far as I can tell, the only hoax here, is the conspiracy theory you're promulgating. I've been explaining to you why this is, and so far, I'm afraid it seems to be beyond your grasp. It seems to me that you're so deeply invested in hating Palestinains that you will believe literally anything said against them, and refuse anything that even moderates that stuff... as you are now rejecting the opinion of the very experts you ran behind in the first place.

[shira]

72. The 3 are saying there's no reason to believe the child was killed.

From wikipedia:

Having viewed the footage, Jeambar and Leconte wrote in Le Figaro on January 25, 2005, that there was no scene in it that showed the boy had died.[83] When Enderlin said Muhammad was dead, they wrote "he had no possibility of determining that he was in fact dead, and even less so, that he had been shot by IDF soldiers."[25] While they did not believe the scene was staged, they said the footage did not show the boy's death throes. "This famous 'agony' that Enderlin insisted was cut from the montage," they wrote, "does not exist."[84]

The first 23 minutes of the footage showed Palestinians playing at war for the cameras, they said, falling down as if wounded, then getting up and walking away. A France 2 official told them, "You know it's always like that,"[36] a comment that Leconte said he found disturbing. "I think that if there is a part of this event that was staged, they have to say it," he said, "that there was a part that was staged, that it can happen often in that region for a thousand reasons."[84] Leconte did not conclude that the shooting was faked. He said, "At the moment of the shooting, it's no longer acting, there's really shooting, there's no doubt about that."[36] In an interview with Cybercast News, he said he believed the Palestinians had shot the boy. "The only ones who could hit the child were the Palestinians from their position," he said. "If they had been Israeli bullets, they would be very strange bullets because they would have needed to go around the corner." He dismissed France 2's explanation—that perhaps the bullets that hit the boy had ricocheted off the ground. "It could happen once, but that there should be eight or nine of them, which go around a corner? They're just saying anything."[36]

In other words, they're calling Enderlin and France 2 liars. Of course, you don't see any ethical problem whatsoever.

The third journalist to view the raw footage, Luc Rosenzweig—who had previously written material about the incident for the Metula News Agency (Mena; see above)—disagreed with Jeambar and Leconte. He concluded that the shooting had been staged, calling it "an almost perfect media crime."[85] Jeambar and Leconte say they and Rosenzweig had agreed not to discuss what they saw on the footage until all had agreed on a response, but Rosenzweig spoke to Mena about it, and Mena published his account, concluding that it supported the allegation of staging. Jeambar and Leconte distanced themselves from that conclusion. They wrote in Le Figaro: "To those who, like Mena, tried to use us to support the theory that the child's death was staged by the Palestinians, we say they are misleading us and their readers. Not only do we not share this point of view, but we attest that, given our present knowledge of the case, nothing supports that conclusion. In fact, the reverse is true."[43]

[Scootaloo]

75. Shira, are you bad at English? Is it your first language?

The 3 are saying there's no reason to believe the child was killed.

Is a very different statement from

Having viewed the footage, Jeambar and Leconte wrote in Le Figaro on January 25, 2005, that there was no scene in it that showed the boy had died. When Enderlin said Muhammad was dead, they wrote "he had no possibility of determining that he was in fact dead, and even less so, that he had been shot by IDF soldiers." While they did not believe the scene was staged, they said the footage did not show the boy's death throes. "This famous 'agony' that Enderlin insisted was cut from the montage," they wrote, "does not exist."

What's the difference?

Your claim is that the boy was not only not killed, but never harmed at all, and the whole thing was a stage set, and Mohammad al-Dura is alive, completely unharmed.

The statement by this panel is that the child was not dead by the last frame and Enderlin's claim that he was, was unreasonable. Not that he did not die, and certainly not that he was not shot, just that the footage does not show on-camera death. As I pointed out upthread, being shot does not kill you instantly. There's a reason "gut wound" is synonymous with "long and unpleasant way to die." And unlike video games, there is no "death screen" to tell the people watching when the person on the screen has passed from the mortal coil anyway.

Again. The experts you are relying on stated they do not believe the incident was staged. The official IDF report makes no such claim, even as obfuscated as it was. The conspiracy theory you are pimping here traces back to two men, primarily Nahum Shahaf, who increasingly appears to be an Israeli Alex Jones.

[shira]

79. There's no evidence the boy died.

It's not in the rushes of the incident. There's no blood at the scene. No autopsy results. No bullets retrieved. A biometric facial recognition examination was performed by one Kurt Kindermann and he concluded the boy in the video is not the boy who was brought to the hospital in the morning prior to the al-Dura incident, in which the boy and his father were taken to the hospital later in the afternoon.

[Scootaloo]

87. You really don't realize how much you sound like a Birther, do you? n/t

[shira]

89. Do u think Enderlin lied in the original France2 report? n/t

[oberliner]

59. Except this is a government report making the claim

Not a "wacky forum" of conspiracy theorists.

Maybe once the government report is concluded and made public you will be able to take the time to read through it and possibly reconsider your opinion.

[Scootaloo]

73. Well, it's a little more specific than that.

It's not just a government report, it's an IDF report. Sort of. See, it was a report compiled by a secret (at the time) committee of experts under employ by the IDF. Their appointment to the inquiry did not come from the IDF general staff, but by word of General Yom-Tov Samia, who held command over the IDF unit involved in the incident. Essentially the inquiry was his project. Some members of this committee are known now, but the full list is still secret, 13 years later. Oh yeah, this inquiry was concluded in 2000.

Two of the IDF experts included were Joseph Doriel and Nahum Shahaf. They were the primary minds behind the Negev reconstruction of the incident (Gen. Samia had had the original wall and barrel destroyed, so there needed to be a "spare.&quot here's where the wacky comes in - These two had worked together in the past... to "prove" (with "damning evidence," I'm sure) that Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated not by Yigal Amir, but by some other gunman under employ of Shimon Peres. Let that roll around in your head for a moment, if you will. So these two guys invite the press out to the desert to give a demonstration at their own set. And Doriel tells the CBS correspondent that the Palestinians "staged it all," though he does believe the boy was shot and killed. That is, he holds that, just to demonize Israel, Palestinians shot a kid in hte stomach to die. Now, to the general's credit, this resulted in Doriel being removed from the inquiry panel.

At any rate, the inquiry concluded in November of 2000. To no one's surprise, the internal inquiry by the IDF into accusations against the IDF, specifically units under the command of the general who single-handedly commissioned the panel, made up of secret list of experts who all seem to be on the IDF payroll, found the IDF had no culpability in the incident. Whether you think this conclusion is correct or incorrect, can't argue that it's even remotely transparent or unbiased in nature.

While the report's full findings were not released publicly, enough "salient points" were delivered to the media, who operated as dutiful government mouthpieces (investigative journalism died nine years before, apparently un-mourned and with no heirs).

Maj. Gen. Yom Tov Samia, who commands Israeli forces in the West Bank, said the army had concluded after a reconstruction of the incident that the shots could have been fired by a Palestinian policeman who, he said, was shooting at an Israeli Army post from a position behind the boy, Muhammad al-Durrah.

By contrast, preliminary findings of the investigation, reported in the Israeli press, were more forthright in assigning blame to the Palestinians. That followed an initial assumption that the Israeli Army was responsible.

Today the army did not rule out the possibility that one of its soldiers had killed the boy. But General Samia said the army had "great doubt" that it was responsible and believed that the evidence indicated "a very reasonable possibility" that the boy "was hit by Palestinian gunfire."

The report received slight attention today in Israel, where the press was focused on the possibility that the opposition could muster a majority for its planned motion in Parliament on Tuesday to oust the government of Prime Minister Ehud Barak and call new elections.

http://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/28/world/28MIDE.html

As you can see, nowhere is it claimed that the scene was "staged," much less that Mohammad al-Dura was "never even hurt." So goes the "government report."

Now, enter Nahum Shahaf again. For the next five years he basically went on tour trying to drum up acceptance for his own - apparently personal - beliefs that the whole thing was a complete sham. I guess he didn't have an Oberliner wagging a finger and telling him to consider the government report. Some of his claims:
- it was impossible for the IDF to have shot the two; the Palestinian shot htem instead (this is in line with the inquiry findings)
- Palestinians shot the father and son intentionally, for the cameras (shared with Joseph Doriel)
- The bullets seen in the footage were from Palestinian marksmen who were "in on it."
- the blood on Mohammad's short was not blood but a red cloth that 'popped out on cue.'
- The dead boy who looked exactly like Mohammad was a planted body double
- the blood on Mohammad's corpse was inconsistent with the injuries sustained
- Neither Mohammad and his father were ever shot anyway!

To hear Shahaf tell the story, Mohammad al-Dura was a boy who was never harmed after begin shot by Palestinian, and you can tell because the blood covering him from the wounds he never sustained in the first place was actually a magical red cloth and we know this because the dead boy who looks just like him but was not him never arrived at the hospital, and did so earlier than expected.

Again, allow me to remind you that he also thinks Yizhak Rabin was not murdered by Yigal Amir, as countless reams of evidence and witness testimony point to - including testimony by Amir and his brothers, who admit to failed previous attempts - but instead by an unknown gunman in an unknown location with an unknown weapon, who was 100% surely under the employ of Shimon Peres.

This is the guy providing the framework for this bullshit story. Luckily for him, he finally found takers in 2006 with Media-Ratings, and so the megaphoning of the story within a small group of career anti-Palestinian C-list web celebrities was born.

Which leads us to this thread, where an ignorant person, eager to believe absolutely anything said against Palestinians, no matter the source, no matter how ludicrous, has presented this tripe to us... apparently with the full and uncritical support of "serious thinkers" such as yourself and King David.

Maybe, just maybe, you're the one whose opinion needs some reevaluation.

[oberliner]

84. Not at all

The report is to be released by the Israeli government. As I said, after reading it, perhaps you will re-evalulate your position. Perhaps I will as well. I always try to keep an open mind.

[parkia00]

3. So it was a staged set....

In the middle of a live fire fight and the Frenchies were in on it. Thank you for posting this to remind us how some people spoon feed you shit calling it Belgium chocolate and can't get it why people spit it out.

[shira]

8. You obviuosly didn't watch the OP video, did you? n/t

[parkia00]

38. Let me ask you this...

Would you consider the members of this special committee to be unbiased in their views and arguments? If this was a credible court of law, (and not a Shira court of law) and these same committee members are defense witnesses called to the stand, do you think they would hold up under scrutiny against conflict of interest? Or should the jury expect to eat Belgium chocolate?

[shira]

91. Are you asking about the 3 senior french journalists?

Jeambar, Laconte, and Rosenzweig?

If so, they're definitely credible witnesses in a court of law.

[Scurrilous]

4. LOL

"Today, Dura should be about 25-years-old, alive and kicking somewhere (unless he was killed later in a separate incident)."

That's the best they've got on his whereabouts (if the whole hoax thing is true)? He's alive and kicking somewhere? You mean the vaunted Israeli security apparatus cannot locate one guy. In freakin' Gaza? Thirteen years go by and they've got nothing? Pffffft.

[shira]

9. Did you see the video? They said he was dead. Didn't look dead, did he? n/t

[King_David]

20. LOL indeed,

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

The French Court of Appeals this week will render its decision in a case pitting state-owned France 2 television and one of its senior news producers, Charles Enderlin, against media critic Philippe Karsenty 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 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.

http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/al-dura-a-lethal-narrative-that-just-wont-die/

[shira]

21. Remember the power-outage, candle-light hoaxes?

How many media outlets fell for this? It's not even well staged....

[azurnoir]

6. Thanks for the video reminder from Pajama's Media

so now it was all staged, wasn't a theory floated one upon a time that al Dura never existed at all?

[shira]

10. The video in the OP speaks for itself. n/t

[azurnoir]

11. yes it certainly does

one must wonder about the need for so many Rightwing sources to make a point though

[shira]

12. Can't explain the France2 rushes showing it was obviously staged, can you? n/t

[azurnoir]

14. sure when you explain away the 'other' 1270 Palestinian kids Israel has killed since then

and really I could not stomach that rightwing garbage you CHOOSE to post on this website

[King_David]

15. LOL

It is good to see all the Right wing and some Uber Left squirming at the truth.



How's this source?

Israel Claims Muhammad Al-Dura Was Not Killed by IOF Fire
http://english.pnn.ps/index.php/politics/4677-israel-claims-muhammad-al-dura-was-not-killed-by-iof-fire

[shira]

19. All they have is ad hominem, as though it's a substitute for debate. n/t

[azurnoir]

45. possibly because the debate much like the child died long ago n/t

[azurnoir]

22. Lol is about it too

so you blow off the deaths of 1270 Palestinian kids but then again didn't you refer a video about the death of a Palestinian baby as an oldie but goodie?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=37608

the OP was hidden your comment was not

[King_David]

25. Anything about the Hoax?

Or just more desperate deflection ?

LOL

[azurnoir]

29. Not desparate at all unless u consider whining over a decade old incident desperate

myself as I told another poster William Shakespeare had a line about such protests albeit Karsenty is not a lady

[azurnoir]

46. I think the claim or claimed on the part of Israel particualry Ya'alon is prominent

BTW JPost and Pajamas's Media are very Rightwing, you seem to have a hard time identifying that at least in this case

here's a snip from article
Israeli newspaper The Jerusalem Post, published Sunday statements of the Israel's Defense Minister, Moshe Ya'alon, saying that the 12-year-old Gazan boy who was murdered in a cold blood by the Israeli army forces in 2000, was not killed and that he's still alive.

Ya'alon claimed that the video featuring the Israeli army firing towards Mohammed al-Dura during the second intifada as he crouched behind his father, Jamal, crying, was within the media war against Israel.

In 2000, the Israeli army confessed that its forces had shot Dura, who had been caught in the IOF fire at the Netzarim junction in the Gaza Strip on September 30, 2000. The IOF admitted that it had shot and killed the boy.

The newspaper added that Ya'alon formed a secret committee several years ago, to investigate whether Mohammed Dura, who became the most potent symbol of the Palestinian struggle and whose name can still be heard around the world as a symbol of the Palestinian struggle, was really killed by the IOF fire or the video was fabricated and Israel hadn't committed the crime.

[shira]

17. If Israel's so murderous, why the need to stage a piss poor hoax like Al Dura?

The video isn't rightwing. It's the actual France2 rushes of the Al Dura incident being analyzed.

Can't handle that, can you?

[azurnoir]

23. really I think it happened over a decade ago and the

obsession with it is rather well William Shakespeare had a saying about stuff like that

the world has forgotten about al Dura but thankfully Karsenty keeps reminding us

[oberliner]

27. Where does your "1270 Palestinian kids" stat come from?

Can you provide a link?

[azurnoir]

28. B'tselem look it up

http://www.btselem.org/statistics

fatalities are divided into 3 groups before after and during Operation Cast Lead so have a calculator handy I did

[oberliner]

60. There is no such number there

Did you just make it up?

[azurnoir]

61. actually I was wrong the number is 1373

here are the numbers with link to B'tselems tables

29 September 2000 - 26 December 2008-951

http://www.btselem.org/statistics/fatalities/before-cast-lead/by-date-of-event

27 December 2008 - 18 January 2009-345

http://www.btselem.org/statistics/fatalities/during-cast-lead/by-date-of-event

19 January 2009 - 30 April 2013-77

http://www.btselem.org/statistics/fatalities/after-cast-lead/by-date-of-event

I read 951 as 851 the first time around thanks for pointing it out

anything else?

[oberliner]

62. Those numbers include Palestinian fighters

Many of whom are minors but still "participated in hostilities" to use B'tselem's terminology.

[azurnoir]

63. I made no distictions but please feel free to justify however you wish

it works for me just fine

[oberliner]

64. B'tselem does

Minors and kids are not synonyms.

[azurnoir]

65. you imply that B'tselem is separating the numbers of kids (minors)

killed by whether or not they were combatants, B'tselem does not do that though they do however give raw numbers for combants and non-combatants killed, albeit not separated by age

but the attempt at whitewashing is again noted

[oberliner]

66. Yes they do

Nothing is being whitewashed. Read the B'tselem report. They painstakingly indicate who participated in the hostilities and who did not. The use the term minors, not "kids" - as you do. They also list the ages of each minor (Israeli and Palestinian) killed in the conflict and the circumstances of their deaths. Perhaps a more nuanced understanding would help you. I know it's easier to throw out round numbers and coded language, but I encourage you to take a cue from B'tselem.

[azurnoir]

68. give us a link to the table where they do that in hard exact numbers

they do list each one separately and if you wish to go through all 1373 names and give us the results, be my guest you are the one who seems bent on justifying these deaths no worry that is what this thread is all about isn't it?

eta my guess is that after a suitable amount of time has passed, some numbers will be pitched at us as facts

[shira]

33. The only journalist taking on the "rightwing" conspiracy freaks....

.....was Larry Derfner, who wrote 2 articles about the al Dura hoax back in May and June 2008. Give him some credit for actually watching the France2 footage...

His conclusion?

Palestinians accidentally killed al Dura, not the Israelis.

Which BEGS the question(s)....how the hell did that happen? And why? Of course, Larry doesn't dare touch that one with a 10 foot pole.

And that's it. Other than Larry, silence...

[parkia00]

41. Wait... the OP said the boy was not killed in the firefight.

Maybe still kicking around. But you just indicated he was killed in the incident. SO who is wrong?

[shira]

44. I said that Derfner wrote that the boy died...

At least he could admit, like the 3 french journalists who viewed all the raw footage, that it could not have been the Israelis who killed the boy.

He realizes there was a false report.

Of course, if the Palestinians did it - the question is how and why? The Israeli position was 90 to 120 degrees over to the right. Now view the rushes and you'll see all the staged imagery.

This isn't rocket science. The footage speaks for itself.

[Scootaloo]

58. This is the first line of your OP, Shira...

Not only was 12-year-old Gazan Muhammad al-Dura not killed by IDF fire in 2000 – he was not even hurt.

Now you're running back to arguing "whodunnit." Wasn't your thesis that the answer to that question was "nobody dunnit"? That not only was Mohammed not killed, but that he wasn't so much as scratched?

You can't have it both ways, Shira, you can't say both "nobody shot him, the evil nasty Palestinian faked it" and claim "He was shot by the evil nasty Palestinians!"

This isn't rocket science.

[shira]

74. I'm just quoting Derfner, that's all. He says Israel didn't do it. France 2 & Enderlin....

...still claim it was Israel in cold blood. See the problem?

Enderlin lied. The France 2 report is bullshit and France 2 won't admit they fucked up. They are allowing this blood libel to perpetuate. A libel that began 3 days into the 2nd Intifada and fueled more fighting. Daniel Pearl was beheaded when al Dura's name was invoked. Another reporter actually wrote that this death annuls the death of this child....




This is mass produced hate speech. Lethal narrative journalism at its lowest...

[Scootaloo]

76. I'm sure the Palestinians would have never blamed Israel without France 2's reporting...

really, Shira? You're going to tell me that without the reporting by France 2, the second intifada woulda just vanished, and Daniel Pearl would still be alive, and so on and so forth? If so, you're more full of shit than I thought possible. Also, if you're buying this conspiracy, you might as well buy the conspiracy that Pearl was beheaded by Mossad. I mean really, conspiracy theories are like Pokémon, gotta catch 'em all.

Also I can't find a source for Kay's quote that does not disappear back into... wait for it... Media-Ratings. Really, I can't, I've looked all over for a primary source, and all I'm finding, whether using the English or the French ("La mort de Mohamed annule, efface celle de l'enfant juif, les mains en l’air devant les SS, dans le Ghetto de Varsovie&quot are the same cluster of sources I've already pointed out as being recyclers of this particular compost. I'm not going to say it's a false quote, just that I can't find it being cited by anyone who's not deeply invested in this conspiracy theory. Think you can help me out?

[shira]

81. It's called war propaganda. You don't think the Palestinians do it?

What Enderlin and France 2 did was incite and provoke more violence.

As to Catherine Nay:
http://www.lefigaro.fr/debats/2008/06/10/01005-20080610ARTFIG00634-les-mediaspouvoir-intouchable.php

[Ken Burch]

35. Ok, this incident didn't happen. Fine. That's all we need to say about it.

It doesn't discredit anything else or anyone else. And it doesn't mean that the Palestinian position is totally wrong(or the Israeli position morally superior). Both sides are still equally responsible for the suffering and the stupidity.

It doesn't mean that there were or are no innocent Palestinian victims, or even not many, which is what shira wants it to mean.

And this thread doesn't do anything to help bring this conflict to an end-because obsessing on trying to force everyone into backing the Israeli side unquestioningly again(as the West pretty much did up to 1967)isn't a worthwhile thing to do, since it isn't possible to end this conflict with a total Israeli victory OR a total Palestinian victory, and since nothing good would come of either side getting such a "victory".

Please stop making every single one of your threads an "everyone who disagrees with me is an evil liar" thread. It's never been true and it's tiresome and useless that you keep doing that.

[shira]

36. What makes you think the incident didn't happen? n/t

[Ken Burch]

67. I meant the killing of the child...that's what I was referring to.

And nothing else. And you knew it.

[shira]

70. So you don't believe Israel killed the child? Or that the child died at all? n/t

[Ken Burch]

83. The OP said the child didn't die, right?

n/t.

[shira]

92. So France2 lied, didn't they? And all other news agencies....

..that have the same 27 minutes of rushes showing this farce for what it is - they lied too when they reported the same thing?

[Ken Burch]

95. Not necessarily lied...you don't know that they knew the child wasn't dead

You're assuming a conspiracy here. It could just as easily have simply been an inaccurate report being picked up and repeated.

Why are you always in "denounce" mode?

[shira]

125. You think they know better now? They're still claiming the same thing.

Why not just admit error, apologize, and move on rather than deny?

You don't see the problem?

Seriously?

[delrem]

80. This is professional denialism.

It's a production of the extremist "Augean Stables" blog,
http://www.seconddraft.org/

These people are quite literally cooking up fiction. Their watchword is to call Palestinian video evidence of killings "paliwood". And by that means they can piss on Palestinian graves.

Shame!

[shira]

82. The rushes prove you're the one in denial. It's clumsily staged. n/t

[Half-Century Man]

106. Shira, do not play......

There are a very few certain people visiting DU, who know the righteousness of their arguments based on the Jewishness of their opponents. They can never be convinced nor are they convincing. For whatever reason the Jews of the world are seen as an enemy. I think if their was only one Jew left, that Jew would be oppressing someone in their eyes.
No history (biblical or otherwise), UN Mandate, Newspaper record of attempted peace accords rejected by the PLO, suicide bombing, bus ambush, ambulance fired upon, murder of Peace seeking Palestinian, or overwhelming testimony of disillusioned mideast peace seekers, will alter the fact that the Jews are somehow evil and deserve any mistreatment launched against them.
And I'm sure those people will think I'm being prejudiced.

[delrem]

107. Yes, I think you're prejudiced.

[shira]

108. +1 Post.Of.The.Month. n/t

[Scootaloo]

116. The sad thing is, you might believe all that.

I don;'t think you're being prejudiced here. I just think you're being very unintelligent.

Weird how the answer to everything for both antisemites and Zionists is "THE JOOZ! THE JOOOOOZ!"

[Warpy]

103. War propaganda

ALWAYS mistrust it. ALWAYS.

I'm not surprised by this.

[shira]

129. State of Israel Report of the Government Review Committee

Released 3 days before May 22 court ruling in France:

http://commentisfreewatch.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/the-france-2-al-durrah-report-its-consequences-and-implications-1905.pdf