« Freed prisoner returned to terror |
| Israeli popularity in US »
New Dura video questions raised
When France 2 invited two independent journalists to view previously unreleased, raw footage of the death of Mohammed al-Dura, the network sought to bolster the credibility of the controversial video. Instead, the veracity of the original France 2 report -- blaming the IDF for al Dura's death -- continues to crumble.
CNSNews reports that the two journalists said that IDF fire could not have killed the 12-year-old boy during a fierce firefight at Gaza’s Netzarim Junction.
What’s more, the two -- Denis Jeambar, editor-in-chief of the French news weekly l'Express, and filmmaker Daniel Leconte, of the film company Doc en Stock -- also indicated that many Palestinian casualties appeared to be staged:
"The only ones who could hit the child were the Palestinians from their position," Leconte told Cybercast News Service. "If they had been Israeli bullets, they would be very strange bullets because they would have needed to go around the corner."
France 2 earlier tried to explain the situation by claiming that the gunshots that struck al-Durra were bullets that ricocheted off the ground, but Leconte dismissed the argument.
"It could happen once, but that there should be eight or nine of them, which go around a corner? They're just saying anything," Leconte said….
They also found that the first 20 minutes or so of the cassette showed scenes of young Palestinians "playing at war" in front of the camera, falling as if wounded and then getting up and walking away.
The two go on to note that they were surprised that the unedited video contained no footage of the child's death throes. Charles Enderlin, the France 2 reporter who provided voice over for the video (he wasn't present at Netzarim) had previously claimed that images of Dura's "agony" were too unbearable for viewers.
Questions about the video’s veracity have lingered ever since the fateful September 30, 2000 shootout.
* First, Esther Shapira produced on German TV "Three Bullets and a Child: Who Killed Mohammed Dura?" The hour-long documentary was the first media investigation. Shapira found that it wasn't possible that Dura was killed by IDF fire. James Fallows in The Atlantic subsequently came to the same conclusion.
* Later reports in Readers Digest and the Wall Street Journal suggested that much of the footage was faked.
France 2 continues to maintain that the footage, for which cameraman Talal Abu Rahma received an award, is genuine. But one French MP is calling for a government inquiry into the affair.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference New Dura video questions raised:
» More on al-Dura from Solomonia
More from the "it is so if you think it's so" department: Also via Backspin, here is more at CNSNews about the two French journalists (see the entry about the NYTimes story here) who stepped forward to question France 2's... [Read More]
» Update on Bizarre Story of Al-Dura from It's Almost Supernatural
MediaBackspin have the latest on the new questions raised from the Muhammed al-Dura video. Whilst it is important to bear in mind that at the centre of this mess is a the life of a real boy, I still think [Read More]
What a pity this evidence was not forthcoming at the time, but better late than never. It all goes to show that if the Palestinian case is so strong why should they need to resort to distortions such as this one and Jenin. One can only hope that fair minded people will come to see these histrionics for what they are.
That is not to say that Palestinians do not deserve justice. Of course they do. What they do not deserve are these kind of machinations which do nobody any good.
Come now, Robert. These lies and distortions are the bread and butter of pro-Palestinian sympathy and anti-Israeli hatred.
Without them, everyone would see the truth and see how victimised the Palestinians really are since Truth itself is against them...
Hoooray for Pallywood-[gag]
The invention of a "Palestinian" people is the biggest fraud in the history of the world. How can anyone believe anything they say?
Oh, that's a softball question, Malia. People believe what they say because they deperately want it to be true. Especially in Europe, where finding evidence that the Jews are genocidal Nazis will help salve their conscious over the Shoah.
Malia, I'd say that nations are formed.
The "Palestinian nation" certainly didn't exist until recently but they do have a national consciousness now. For that matter, the American nation did not exist once but it undoubtedly exists today. Whether this national consciousness would dissolve and merge with the more global Arab consciousness were Israel to be destroyed is another matter. For now, there's not much point in saying "You aren't a nation" when they believe they are. Even if their 'nationhood' is only skin deep.
The Palestinians have been treated so badly by their fellow Arabs that in a way they are analogous to the "untouchables" of India.
They were forced into a group conciousness against their will and just looking at Lebanon, Syria or Iraq should indicate their fractious state.
"..were Israel to be destroyed."
Would see the portioning up of the area between Syria and Egypt with maybe something for Jordan.
While not discussed there is a heirarchy in place with the considered betters coming from Ramallah. Those in Gaza the commoners.
Hmmmm. I've heard that the Ramallah residents consider themselves superior to the Gaza populace. That would be a matter of custom and culture tho, not of inherent nationality, right?
By the way, its interesting to see how the Lebanese can't stand the Syrians. Of course, this isn't surprising given the way the Syrians have exercised their control. However, the Lebanese national consciousness was probably not quite so seperate from the Syrian. Somebody who knows history better than me would be in a better position to talk about this. I do know that once it was considered (by Arabs) impossible for a an Arab country to be "occupied" by an Arab country. This is no longer the case.
I believe the continued revision of history of this group to "prove" they "own" the land of Israel is reason enough to publically announce that prior to Israels creation there was no country of palestine, that the "palestinians" who fought for the British in WWII were Jewish, and that they should stop creating a past that is conflict with historical fact.
Alvin, I usually agree with you, but just because they now have a "national consciousness" is no reason to validate any of their fabrications about where they come from and who they are. To do is is to offer credence to they web of lies about Jews and Israel, and I am not willing to do that.
Well put & of course I agree with you!
However, there's not much point in saying that currently there's no "Palestinian people/nation" .
semantics, semantics. . .vexing me again! If you are saying that a notion of palestinian personhood has been socially constructed, I agree. Since many social constructions are salient, that doesn't eliminate them from acknowledgement.
However, I would hasten to add that in order for me to accept such a construction, society at large, the Arab world in particular, would have to acknowledge that it, the "palestinian nation" was created in response to the creation of the Jewish state, and was formed in order to destroy Israel.
I will just hold my breath until then. . .;)
I have to go be difficult somewhere else now.
be difficult here.
If you take a group of people, semi-isolate them and work with them - they will develop a group consciousness. It's not so odd that the Palestinians developed one as well.
The fact that it was politically convenient for them to do so - and that it was therefore encouraged (some would say "manufactured") doesn't change much. This 'baby' was born and now it's alive and kicking (mostly kicking).
By the way, is "Jane YIS" the same as the "Jane" that came to this blog around the time of Saeed (or whatever his name was)?
Yep, that is me:)
While what you say is true, ANY kicking babies who are calling for the destruction of Israel should be identified as such.
Sigh, as a sociologist on a camous full of Israel haters, I come here to be difficult among friends. I know what you say is valid, but the missing piece is the machinations that went into the "conception" of this particular baby and the ambiguous and misleading public consesus about what and who they they are.
To say that these arabs now have an identity in the minds of the general public may be a valid observation-the fundamental problem with that identity is that it is largely based on lies and is dependent on the demonization of Israel's Jews in order to survive as a social fact. It was homicidal antisemitism that created this "nation" and it remains to be seen if such an identity will survive any peace agreement that allows Jews to live in peace.
What will these arabs do with themselves if the "zionist entity" becomes a legitimized, recognized Jewish state? Will they survive as a nation without their common hatred of Jews and their shared goal of destroying Israel?
Questions for the ages. . . .
So it's you...
Why did you add "YIS"?
Do you miss Saeed as I do? (Note: Saeed, if u read this - you r missed! All is forgiven!)
Whether they'd survive as a nation or not thereafter is an interesting question.
It seems that residents of Arab countries that were simply crudely carved up and created have begun developing a seperate identity.
I read a Lebanese joke: In a hospital a Lebanese man and his wife are told that three women gave birth that day. A Lebanese (his wife), a Syrian and an African. Now the hospital isn't sure which baby is theirs. The man goes to the room, sees the 3 babies, grabs the African baby and rushes out! The Doctor says "Hey, but now u have the wrong one!" and he answers "Yes, I know, but one of the other two is Syrian and I just can't take the risk!!!":)
Once, the common pan-Arab nationality was stronger. Being in different states has a way of changing things. Sometimes I even think there'll be peace and sport games between the two sides.
It's so difficult to predict the future. Every few years things take an unexepcted sharp turn. Daniel Pipes has an article about Syria in which he says a car accident changed Lebanese and Syrian history. Who can begin to guess what will be in 5 years, in 30 years... Maybe Europe will become Fascist again to push the Muslims out, maybe Islam will take over Europe. As for Israel...(?)
Actually, YIS made Jane less plain!
I laughed a lot at your joke, it is very telling of the lack of support for the perception of a unified arab population. Do not forget the past Iran/Iraq conflicts, including a bloody 10 year war, Kurds and Iraqis, Kurds and Turks(which should be included in any discussion about this region), Syria and everyone else :)
I do not know about you, but I think the late King of Jordan, his wife's book notwithstanding, was the closest thing to an ally the arab and Jewish states had. While not perfect, he could have done much-Ross writes as much in "The Missing Peace".
We need to keep that in mind, there is always hope-even me, the cynic!!
Alvin, ever wonder where Saeed went after he left here? Maybe the BBC?
All theories of modernity aside, I simply do not believe that the myth of nationhood will survive a peace agreement-and the different factions will war with one another over everything.
i hope you all burn in the fires of hell