Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Israel/Palestine
Related: About this forumDisputed 2nd Intifada affair resurges in French court, HuffPost
Nearly 12 years later, the most indelible incident of the Second Intifada in which Muhammad al Dura died in his fathers arms is rehashed on the pages of the Huffington Post in an article that whitewashes the facts for the sake of saving Israel from bad publicity.By Rechavia Berman
Something strange is going on over at The Huffington Post. The quasi-liberal answer to sites like Town Hall and Little Green Footballs ran a piece this week by an Israeli writer, Lilac Sigan, who pretended to give her readers a lesson in critical thinking and strict adherence to actual facts, however inconvenient they may be to ones preconceived notions.
A laudable message, no doubt; its just a pity that Sigans actual words belied her purpose at every turn.
Sigan recounts a ruling by the French Supreme Court last week, and then proceeds to twist all but passing resemblance to the truth in order to paint Israels critics as fabricators of atrocities used to inflame passions against the country.
The facts, however the very ones that Ms. Sigan so sarcastically waves as a flag of virtue are in fact against her.
The erroneous facts Sigan was waving were based on a libel suit filed in France by Jamal al Dura, the father of 12-year old Muhammad Al-Dura, against an Israeli doctor, who called the said father a liar. The doctor was convicted in court of libel, but acquitted on appeal by the Supreme Court of France. Sigan took this acquittal to mean that the French court found Dr. David to be telling the truth and Mr. Al-Dura to be lying.
http://972mag.com/disputed-2nd-intifada-affair-resurges-in-french-court-huffpost/36721/
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
3 replies, 1445 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (2)
ReplyReply to this post
3 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Disputed 2nd Intifada affair resurges in French court, HuffPost (Original Post)
Violet_Crumble
Mar 2012
OP
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)1. the salient point is here
I trust the gentle reader will not be too shocked to learn that this, in fact, is not the case. In fact, Ms. Sigan and Dr. Davids version of events was refuted very convincingly that very day by a rather unimpeachable source an Israeli physician with higher standing than Dr. David, both medically and by Israeli security ratings. He is Dr. Rafi Walden, Deputy Director of the Sheba Medical Center and one of the personal physicians of a certain elder statesman named Shimon Peres (The First Citizen, aka President of the State of Israel).
So, on the one hand we have Dr. Walden, the second in command at Israels largest medical facility, and a man trusted enough by the establishment to treat the living embodiment of Israeli sovereignty. On the other hand we have Dr. David, who Im sure is a competent enough physician in his own right, but evidently not as prominent professionally, nor as senior security-wise.
Dr. Walden states flatly that Dr. Davids testimony according to which the injuries Mr. Al-Dura claimed to have sustained the day of his sons death were actually sustained some years before, at the hands of Palestinians, treated by Dr. David himself was false. Again: Dr. Davids statement, for which he was sued, was indeed false. The French Supreme Court did not contest this. It simply found that Dr. David wasnt criminally liable for his erroneous statement, because he had reasonable cause to be misled. In other words, Dr. David may not know what hes talking about, and may not have read the full Al-Dura medical file despite it being made available to him, a file which shows gunshot wounds which he did not treat back in 1992, and indications of surgery by doctors in Gaza and in Amman following the events of 2000. Dr. Walden, on the other hand, did read the 50-page file.
shira
(30,109 posts)2. The doctor was acquitted of slandering al Dura's father....
The doctor said that due to medical records he still had, Mr. al Dura was lying about his wounds being the result of the 2000 shooting.
The court judged that the doctor did not slander Jamal al-Dura.
Now what does that mean?
The logical conclusion is that Jamal al Dura lied. The court didn't make that ruling and neither did they say that the Doctor's claims were the truth, but the judgment certainly implies that. The doctor was also acquitted of violating patient confidentiality.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)3. perhaps you need to actually read the article
it does answer your assertions