Court overturns al-Dura libel judgment

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1211288137213&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

By HAVIV RETTIG

May 21, 2008 18:16 | Updated May 21, 2008 18:50

The French Court of Appeals on Wednesday found in favor of Philippe Karsenty, overturning a lower court decision that he had libeled France 2 and its Middle East correspondent Charles Enderlin when he accused them of knowingly misleading the world public about the death of the Palestinian child Mohammed al-Dura in the Gaza Strip in 2000.


Footage from the controversial Muhammed al-Dura video, aired by France 2, which "showed" a Palestinian boy "wounded" by the IDF.

"The verdict means we have the right to say France 2 broadcast a fake news report, that was a staged hoax and that they duped everybody - without being sued," Karsenty told The Jerusalem Post shortly after the verdict was issued at 1:30 p.m. Paris time.

Al-Dura was filmed cowering with his father Jalal behind a barrel at the Gaza Strip's Netzarim Junction on September 30, 2000, during an apparent gun battle between Palestinians and Israeli troops. 55 seconds of video were released to the world at the time, out of some 18 minutes that were shown in court and even more footage that France 2's detractors claim is not being shown to the public.

The video, taken by Palestinian cameraman and France 2 stringer Talal Abu Rahma, shows al-Dura hiding, and then cuts to footage of him lying, apparently dead, at the junction. It does not show the child killed.

<snip>

That's perhaps understandable. A good argument can be made that if it were not for this faked and cleverly edited footage shot by France II's Palestinian stringer, Talal abu Rahmah, and then spread throughout the world by an uncritical MSM with the imprimatur of France's state TV station - the Second Intifada could well have failed to expand so rapidly and viciously. Many the 5,800 deaths that have occurred as a direct result of that Intifada (82% of them Palestinian) might not have occurred and most significantly - the Palestinians could well be sitting in their own state today.

History will show that this hoax had far greater repercussions than it's defenders will ever admit.

One involves the credibility of the jounalists involved. Even those who aren't Palestinians have less allegiance to facts than to a cause or to ratings.

The second involves the confirmation bias on the part of those reading or watching the reports. Confirmation bias' great enemy is critical thinking, which it frequently has no problem defeating, esp. when thinking is held in check.

Often the best you can get from a disputant is willful "well, they both do it, so I accept neither", when it's obvious that for the most part they keep right on accepting the side they like and rejecting the side they don't like (at least underground). "I accept neither" usually is a euphemism for, "I have my mind made up, the other side is lying, and I want you to STFU because I don't have a good answer."

It makes discussion nearly impossible for the simple fact that the two sides can't agree on the facts, or on what the facts might mean.

But it's worse because the standards of evidence are flexible. In the interests of being fair and even-handed, one side has a nearly impossible burden of proof, while the other is taken at its word.

It is similar to what PhxDem said about the cognitive dissonance theory.

IMO these are both examples of the great emotional force of identity-beliefs. Our minds are directed by emotional forces. In this case they first filter perceptions so that any data that could pose a threat to one's identity beliefs is either ignored or molded (interpreted) to fit. If there is no way to avoid confronting the data - something that happens in this forum a lot when people are challenged to support their assertions - then either fantastic theories are invented using deceptive logic and argued with a straight face - or the poster simply moves on to other threads and does not respond. The logic is not important. What counts is the absolute certainty with which you can support a false claim and often, your ability to discredit and insult those challenging you.

It takes extreme effort and will power to overcome these facts of human nature. The enlightenment was a crucial step forward for mankind because it embraced the idea that overcoming those irrational forces would result in scientific progress and ultimately greater happiness for mankind. Functionally, what the enlightenment did is create beliefs and their accompanying emotional forces in opposition to the irrational beliefs of superstition and partisan ideology that consumed most of mankind at the time. Like all new beliefs, they are subject to the willingness of the holder to embrace and accept them and such anti-irrationality beliefs will be filtered out and opposed by many minds. Sadly, I always thought it would be easier to find willing patrons for these enlightenment beliefs on the left.

. . virtually all mainstream media in the US having used Palestinain stringers - either directly or secondhand - and uncritically published stories and photographs from AP and especially Reuters that were proven to be obvious fabrications and hoaxes - the purpose of which was to libel and defame Israel.

One reason that we won't hear much about this is that now people will start asking questions about how far this penetrates into America's newsrooms and news organizations. It will not be a pretty picture.

This is a typical example of someone reading an article in the foreign press, posting it on their blog, from where it then went to a lobby group, (CAMERA), then to a self-important talentless hack journalist (Melanie Philips) and then back to the same circuit of histrionic bloggers, who simply kept referring back to each other until the story was very much unlike what had actually happened.

The original coverage of the event is here:-

http://www.liberation.fr/actualite/ecrans/327461.FR.php

To wit:-

1) The Court found that Karsenty should not be found to have defamed France 2.
2) This was despite the fact that the Court was not persuaded of the truth of his allegations. Specifically, the Court was not convinced that the material was faked.
3) Apparently, this is because French defamation law is more akin to US defamation law than English - a person will not be found to have defamed a person, particularly a public figure, if he did not realise at the time that the remarks were untrue (sometimes called the malice test).
4) France 2 has indicated that it will appeal the matter further.

when he called bullshit on the al-Dura story and footage. He was convicted in the first trial. The appeals court just reversed his conviction. This is significant because the appeals court is required to find significant reason to reverse. This looks bad for France II. Maybe now the Western media will stop playing along so readily the Islamist game of takiyah.

The story is not bullshit. It is hopefully about the beginning of the end of Islamist bullshit in Western media.

"It is hopefully about the beginning of the end of Islamist bullshit in Western media."

Ain't never gonna happen.

celebrate terrorism groups and think we need to reason with terrorists.

There is no end to the Islamic bullshit that these people buy and peddle.

but your posts generally are.

Karentsky asserted that the events had been faked, that al-Dura had not been killed in front of the camera, and that the boy was in fact still alive (no doubt there was a sack of cement in the coffin).

In short, he was just a garden-variety conspiracy theorist, perhaps a bit fruitier than usual.

In the initial trial, the independent public prosecutor submitted that Karentsky should not be convicted even though he was clearly a nutter. I quite agree. It is not in the public interest for people to be sued for these kinds of beliefs, no matter how outlandish they are.

That is quite different from saying that because the appeal was upheld, that what he was saying can now be deemed to be true, and that is the fundamental distinction which I gather you're having a hard time grasping.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Enderlin did not assert that the killing of al Dura was intentional. Nor have I made any assertions to that effect.

OK then do you assert that he was killed by IDF fire at Nezarim Junction that day?

If you're answer is no or that you don't know then I have no need to argue with you because we agree.

If your answer is yes, then it's your claim to support with evidence and logic.

If you want to argue about something else please explain what it is. I might be interested.

BTW - My assertion is not that he was not killed at Nezarim Junction that day. My assertion is there is no proof that he was killed there. If there is no proof that he was killed there then there can be no proof that the IDF killed him there that day.

all that can be said at this point is that the French upheld that Mohammad al Dura was not killed on camera, which is a bit different from saying the whole story is BS.

What is your take on what you believe took place?

seeing as how all of the video footage is not available, if you have access please post it. My take was on the court decision and the way it is being trumpeted, as far as I know a translated version is not yet available.

The Al Dura blood-libel bears strong resemblance to the Dryfus Affair.

I suspect that there will not be much comment here from the supporters of Hamas and the PA. And will this get any play in the MSM. I suspect not.

You do realise that the journalist Charles Enderlin, who has accused Karsenty of defamation, is Jewish?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

a total rehash of Qana which was extensively covered at thr time by every right-wing blog with a ProIsrael tilt, the news agency responsible corrected the story, but is that good enough, nope not for some. But the article was by Stephan Cooper a sufficiently obscure collage professor from a West Virginia collage famed mostly for having its football team die in a plane crash.
The reason for posting this are not hard to imagine after all if one Arab does it........

. . those who lied and published doctored photographs and staged death scenes to create a false image of what actually happened in those events - thereby obscuring the truth and preventing the enlightenment of an educated electorate.

My reason for posting that is that I am outraged at the deception and lies that are fed to us by a corrupt media - and I am outraged that fellow liberals would defend those lies and not be suitably outraged themselves.

shucks huh, kinda makes continued bashing pointless, if they had retracted and apologized, it would be different, but anyone that can read the original story can also read the corrected one.
I missed the part where you acknowledge that.

It was to show a pattern of deception. I have seen nothing to indicate that this has stopped. And I have seen nothing from you indicating your disapproval of it continuing. I have seen recent posts from you justifying the propaganda, however.

so there was no need for cooper to seek a retraction, as it had already been made.

seems a bit mean spirited.

I'll just have to be content with my reputation as an anti-Muslim/Arab bigot. ;)

To answer your question, the importance of al-Dura affair (and Qana, and Beirut photos and all the lies) coming from the Palestinian media and published by the MSM is far greater than my accusing someone of lying. I'm sorry you and others here can't see this.

From Wikipedia:



The Islamic world is using the image of the al-Dura lie to sell everything from toilet paper to Mutual Funds - to say nothing of selling the al-Aqsa Intifada which was largely fueled by the story. Mohammad's picture was hung in the video footage of the beheading of Danial Pearl. They have even produced a video of Mohammad al-Dura calling young kids to martyrdom against the Jews. This video is shown constantly on Palestinian Hamas TV. In the dramatic last scene Mohammad is seen running along a beach - he says "I am not leaving you, I am calling for you to come with me".

5800 unnecessary deaths later with more being added every day - and the Palestinians further than ever from attaining their own state - and you are concerned that I am dwelling too much on a past mistake that was retracted. I guess we just see the world differently.

. . the source for the toilet paper reference was Jamal al-Dura, Mohammed's father - during an NPR interview.

. . great damage is done to mankind and the cause of peace in the world - something I used to think that those on the left valued highly.

One of the most recent examples if you have the stomach for it:

http://www.pmw.org.il/

The pattern of blood libels, such as al-Dura, Qana, etc. - the vicious and gross deception coming from Israel's enemies in the ME and supported by Israel's enemies in the West - continues unabated.

lost the anti free speech case against Richard Silverstein