A French appeal court has thrown out the libel conviction of Phillipe Karsenty who accused France 2 of doctoring footage of the apparent killing of Mohammed al-Dura. France 2 ran the report, filmed by a Palestinian cameraman, with the editorial comment that the IDF were responsible for killing 12 year old Mohammed al-Dura. The boy became a poster-child of the second intifada, his 'martyrdom' spread across the Islamic world, hundreds of schools were named after him. The death of this young boy severely damaged the image of Israel and the IDF, serving as a great propaganda victory for arabs and anti-Zionist Western liberals as well as other anti-Semites. For those with only a passing interest, who watch the evening news, they are left with the impression that it really was as simple as that, the IDF indiscriminately fired into a crowd in response to teens throwing stones and killed a young boy.
However, for those who were not satisfied with the 'official' verdict (packaged and sold to the Western media by the arabs) there is significant evidence to question the veracity of the claims. Many argue that the footage was staged (a common arab practice, see here or a particularly good set of examples here) and that Mohammed al-Durah did not die on that day at Netzarim, pointing to quite convincing evidence here. You can see quite a lot of footage from that day for yourself, as it is posted on the seconddraft.org website. Whether Mohammed al-Dura was killed is a matter of debate. However, if the child was indeed shot and killed, it was certainly not by the IDF. From their position the ballistic evidence is clear, Israeli soldiers were physically unable of firing the shots that killed the young boy. The conclusion of the Doriel investigation, amongst others, was that considering the ballistic evidence, the child can only have been shot from directly behind the camera, a position from where Palestinian gunmen were firing. If the boy is dead, then Arab terrorists killed the him for propaganda purposes knowing that they could serve their lies to the unquestioning servile Western media agencies desperate for some dirt they can use to smear the name of Israel.
I don't presume the France 2 deliberately doctored the footage, or that they deliberately lied, but Western journalists bought into this lie for several important reasons. Firstly, part of the reason is lurid sensationalism; a young boy being killed by soldiers, on tape, is so attractive to the modern media mind that they don't bother asking questions about the truth of the situaton. As Mark Twain said, a lie travels half way around the world before the truth can put its shoes on. But why did journalists not question the facts of such an emotive, explosive and dangerous accusation that is certain to have very real and damaging consequences? Simply because it plays into their pre-existing narrative about the evil, oppressive IDF brutalising and indiscriminately killing poor, defenceless Palestinians. There is a strong stream of anti-Semitism, anti-Zionism and anti-Israelism running through the elite, Western, liberal circles from where most journalists derive their ideology. They didn't question it because they assumed it was true, it confirmed their own prejudice and stereotypes, and because they wanted it to be true. They knew the political impact it would have, they knew perfectly well that this terrible case would be immensely damaging to Israel, portraying them in a horrific light - that is exactly what they wanted. This was a propaganda victory for the arabs and Western liberals, so why would they question it?
Now that it has proven to be a lie, will the media retract their insidious, anti-Semitic, libelous accusations? Will they run full page spreads apologising for their 'error'? Somehow, I doubt it.
However, for those who were not satisfied with the 'official' verdict (packaged and sold to the Western media by the arabs) there is significant evidence to question the veracity of the claims. Many argue that the footage was staged (a common arab practice, see here or a particularly good set of examples here) and that Mohammed al-Durah did not die on that day at Netzarim, pointing to quite convincing evidence here. You can see quite a lot of footage from that day for yourself, as it is posted on the seconddraft.org website. Whether Mohammed al-Dura was killed is a matter of debate. However, if the child was indeed shot and killed, it was certainly not by the IDF. From their position the ballistic evidence is clear, Israeli soldiers were physically unable of firing the shots that killed the young boy. The conclusion of the Doriel investigation, amongst others, was that considering the ballistic evidence, the child can only have been shot from directly behind the camera, a position from where Palestinian gunmen were firing. If the boy is dead, then Arab terrorists killed the him for propaganda purposes knowing that they could serve their lies to the unquestioning servile Western media agencies desperate for some dirt they can use to smear the name of Israel.
I don't presume the France 2 deliberately doctored the footage, or that they deliberately lied, but Western journalists bought into this lie for several important reasons. Firstly, part of the reason is lurid sensationalism; a young boy being killed by soldiers, on tape, is so attractive to the modern media mind that they don't bother asking questions about the truth of the situaton. As Mark Twain said, a lie travels half way around the world before the truth can put its shoes on. But why did journalists not question the facts of such an emotive, explosive and dangerous accusation that is certain to have very real and damaging consequences? Simply because it plays into their pre-existing narrative about the evil, oppressive IDF brutalising and indiscriminately killing poor, defenceless Palestinians. There is a strong stream of anti-Semitism, anti-Zionism and anti-Israelism running through the elite, Western, liberal circles from where most journalists derive their ideology. They didn't question it because they assumed it was true, it confirmed their own prejudice and stereotypes, and because they wanted it to be true. They knew the political impact it would have, they knew perfectly well that this terrible case would be immensely damaging to Israel, portraying them in a horrific light - that is exactly what they wanted. This was a propaganda victory for the arabs and Western liberals, so why would they question it?
Now that it has proven to be a lie, will the media retract their insidious, anti-Semitic, libelous accusations? Will they run full page spreads apologising for their 'error'? Somehow, I doubt it.
For more on the ways in which the Arab-Israeli conflict is covered in the media, honestreporting.com, palestinefacts.org, and CAMERA all do a fantastic job of deciphering liberal myths, and elucidating truth. Finally, this short video shows many of the ways in which media reporting is horribly biased against Israel, critically examining photographs taken during the recent Lebanon war and circulated in the West.
0 comments:
Post a Comment