| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Melanie Phillips explores a modern-day blood libel that has caused innumerable actual deaths. "Faking a Killing," in Standpoint, July 2008 (thanks to Dave):
On September 30 2000, two days after Ariel Sharon, then the leader of Israel's opposition Likud Party, went for a walk on Temple Mount, Palestinians mounted a demonstration at Gaza's Netzarim Junction. A 55-second piece of video footage of that demonstration, transmitted that day by the French TV station France 2, was to cause unprecedented violence in the Middle East and throughout the world.The footage, with a voice-over by France 2's Jerusalem correspondent, Charles Enderlin, showed what was said to be the killing of 12-year-old Mohammed al-Dura by Israeli marksmen. Viewers saw the child crouching in terror behind his father, Jamal, as they sheltered next to a barrel under what Enderlin said was Israeli gunfire, and then slumping to the ground as Enderlin pronounced that he was dead.
That image of the boy screaming in terror before being killed was uniquely incendiary. It portrayed the Israelis as diabolically gunning down a child in cold blood, even as he cowered for his life. It ignited the Arab and Muslim world with apparent proof that the Israelis were deliberately killing their children, inciting a murderous frenzy.
Al-Dura became a poster boy for the Palestinian and Islamist war against Israel and the West. The day after the France 2 broadcast, the second intifada erupted in its full fury; according to the 2001 Mitchell report, the two events were directly connected. Twelve days later, a mob of Palestinians shouting, “Revenge for the blood of Mohammed al-Dura” lynched two Israeli army reservists and dragged their mutilated bodies through the streets of Ramallah.
When al-Qaeda decapitated the journalist Daniel Pearl, the video of this atrocity was punctuated with references to al-Dura. After -September 11 2001, Osama bin Laden said: “Bush must not forget the -image of Mohammed al-Dura.” Several Arab countries issued postage stamps with his picture. On Palestinian Authority TV and in its school books, al-Dura’s example is used to encourage other children to emulate his spirit of “sacrifice”.
But we now know that this whole fiesta of violence and incitement was based on a lie. For whatever people think they saw in those 55 -seconds, it was not the death of that boy. He was not killed by Israeli bullets; he was not killed at all. At the end of France 2’s famous footage, he was still alive and unharmed. The whole thing was staged, a fantastic piece of play-acting, an elaborate fabrication designed to blacken Israel’s name, and incite the Arab and Muslim mobs to mass murder.
It was, in short, a modern-day blood libel, an updated version of the medieval calumny that the Jews target gentile children for murder — which itself caused the murder of thousands of Jews over the centuries.
How do we know the footage was a lie? Because many of us have seen the evidence for ourselves in a French courtroom. Ironically, this blood libel was only exposed to public view because France 2 and its correspondent Enderlin brought a libel suit against a French media watchdog, Philippe Karsenty, for saying that the “killing” was “pure fiction” and that al-Dura wasn’t dead at all.
To begin with, a Paris court ruled in favour of the TV station. But in May this year, the appeal court ruled that Karsenty had every right to say what he said in the light of the evidence. This included the “inexplicable incoherence” of footage, whose images did not correspond to Enderlin’s commentary; the “inexplicable inconsistencies and contradictions” in Enderlin’s explanation; and the lack of credibility of France 2’s Palestinian cameraman Talal Abu Rahma, upon whose -account of the events at Netzarim Enderlin — who was in Jerusalem at the time — had depended.
Read it all.
Posted by Robert at June 27, 2008 6:19 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
This news should be breaking news all over Europe and the rest of the ME and world! but no the MSM makes sure the truth does not go out when it does not agree with their "play book" of anti Israel,US!! all the killings and destruction from this one film clip cannot be hidden too long!
Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at June 27, 2008 7:37 AM
The incident took place in 2000, not 2003. I have e-mailed Ms. Phillips notifying her of the typo, which should not be allowed to mar so important a piece.
It is a thundering irony that after years of such egregious behavior the media of the West should find themselves under attack by the Muslim world for so-called "Islamophobia" -- but that is part and parcel of the asymmetric warfare Phillips describes.
Posted by: Papa Whiskey at June 27, 2008 7:40 AM
Must see:
The Death of Muhammad Al Dura -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzsCBFhCsyY
(or visit http://www.seconddraft.org/)
Posted by: DJM at June 27, 2008 7:59 AM
Let me assume for a moment that Mohammed al-Dura really was killed by Israeli bullets and that the claim is true.
What happened to the body of the child?
Who took the body away and where exactly is he buried? I presume in that culture the dead are buried are they not?
Let's look at the forensic evidence then and resolve the issue.
If this is a lie and Mohammed al-Dura is not dead, then where is he now and what exactly is he doing?
Actually, I never believed this story to begin with and have always believed that the thing was staged just like many of the "Serb atrocities" were staged -- or at least, set-up to make it appear the Serbs committed atrocities.
The muslims are masters at theater and I have seen situations where as few as ten albanians walking passed cameras would appear to be "tens of thousands of refugees fleeing the murderous Serbian forces."
All fake and phoney BS that clinton (spit!) siezed upon to convince the American people that it was okay to bomb civilian targets in Belgrade.
The Mohammed al-Dura murder is another example of theater just as the article dipicts, in my view.
Posted by: witness at June 27, 2008 8:42 AM
What did the Nazi's teach us? A big lie repeated enough times becomes the truth.
Posted by: tanstaafl at June 27, 2008 9:28 AM
Western journalists know that if they cross Hamas, their lives will be in danger — and British journalists, Seaman says, are the most compliant of all.
Palestinian stringers in general, he says — who all see their role as propagandists for the Palestinian cause — have virtually taken over foreign media offices. The result is that footage from Gaza has long been routinely fabricated or doctored, to which practices Western media organisations turn a blind eye.
-from the article
So why should we ever believe any reporting that comes out of Palestinian-controlled areas? This is the proverbial story of the boy who cried wolf. Someday there will be an atrocity committed by someone against the Palestinians - and the rest of the world will hear their cries for help and the people will simply shrug and go about their business.
Meanwhile, we have to continually respond to charges that the US government "faked" 9/11, that the planes were directed by remote control and that no one was aboard, that it was a missile that hit the Pentagon, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. If the Western media had challenged Palestinians with even one tenth the vigor with which they routinely question the US and President George W. Bush, this might have come out within two days.
Posted by: PMK at June 27, 2008 10:09 AM
Not only was Mohamed Al-Dura not killed, he got married in November 2007.
Posted by: Carl in Jerusalem at June 27, 2008 10:09 AM
Thanks Carl...If 'this' Al-Dura claims title to fame, as indicated by the statements quoted, then he is most likely 'that' Al-Dura...
Theater and acting jihad. Jihad is fighting in Allah's cause(s), using every strategy of war'...
Melanie Phillips is right that his is a good example of a psy-ops operation. It had it's desired effect. The damage is done. There are many muslims who will choose to believe it to be true. As much as possible those involved should be arrested and charged.
The authorities probably could not get to the Pallywood producers, but westerners in complicity are vulnerable. I suppose it would be up to France to do this, so I won't hold my breath...
at June 27, 2008 10:53 AM
You have to play along half-way for any media pysops attack to work.
You have to be half-hearted, already (self-loathing, historically vapid, strategically naive), in defense of your survival.
We need to oppose these propaganda slanders with the same fervor and cunning as the jihadists display while they promote their despotic dystopia.
Somehow the West continues to overlook the agenda of the Jihad.
And its stealth techniques.
(Even if the Palestinians had shot Al-Dura, themselves, they could have religiously rationalized it as a "martyrdom operation", and for the greater good.)
It's not as if they haven't sucker punched us before.
Posted by: profitsbeard at June 27, 2008 12:34 PM
J'Accuse...
Posted by: special_guest at June 27, 2008 1:54 PM
Maybe someone could do a documentary on the situation. Here are some suggested titles.
Mohammed al-Dura Was an Inside Job
Mohammed al-Dura: The Big Lie
Loose (Palestinian Money)
Use their own arguments against them
Posted by: Balrog at June 27, 2008 2:58 PM
This is huge.
Will 60 minutes do a documentary? No. They wished that Israelis killed that boy. They hoped and prayed that an Arab boy was murdered by Jews. They want him to be dead. So they wont' do any investigation or follow up to the episode they did several years ago.
Posted by: Jimmy the Dhimmi at June 27, 2008 3:25 PM
PMK said: 'Meanwhile, we have to continually respond to charges that the US government "faked" 9/11, that the planes were directed by remote control and that no one was aboard, that it was a missile that hit the Pentagon, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. If the Western media had challenged Palestinians with even one tenth the vigor with which they routinely question the US and President George W. Bush, this might have come out within two days.'
The two situations are very different.
Re 911: WTC7 is the smoking gun it seems to me you can't go past.
Next up is the collapse of the Towers.
With none of the buildings, their structures did not slow the rate of collapse at all. How come?
Posted by: Sonshine at June 28, 2008 2:24 AM
Why drag 60 Minutes into this? Correspondent Bob Simon would do this one in a heartbeat. And I hope he does.
Posted by: Bingo at June 28, 2008 4:16 AM
Still no coverage on mainstream media!
Posted by: DaveMate at June 28, 2008 5:36 AM
Sonshine:
Since you ask, here goes:
Is "Loose Change", the work of an ignorant teenager, all you know about 9/11? You do realize its creator has continually "updated" his film as each and every charge has been refuted.
"WTC7 is the smoking gun it seems to me you can't go past."
What smoking gun? WTC3, 5 and 6 were also destroyed. WTC7 was damaged by the collapse of the North Tower. It took off a huge part of the south wall. There is evidence that diesel fuel tanks stored within WTC7 fed the fire. WTC7 wasn't built like the other towers and so it was more vulnerable.
Next comes the Twin Towers.
You think there was a controlled demolition, don't you? Do you realize how many people and how much time would be required to bring that about? Would this be accomplished with no one finding out about it? Get real!
Controlled demolitions are done from the ground.
The towers failed at the point where the planes hit the building. The fireproofing was blown off by the planes, leaving them vulnerable to the fire. They were steel buildings The fire weakened the steel. The buildings fell.
Lastly, I was saying that it would be nice if the press devoted as much energy to combatting the lies of Islam as you seem to use trying to manufacture conspiracies where none exist.
Posted by: PMK at June 28, 2008 11:24 AM
In reply to PMK:
1. I have never seen 'Loose Change'.
2. Yes, 3,5,and 6 were destroyed but even though they had the rubble from the towers fall on them, then did not completely collapse, in fact parts of them did not collapse at all.
3. WTC was virtually untouched by the collapse of the towers. And even though there were diesel tanks in WTC7, the fires were not all that intense. Further, no high rise steel framed building had ever collapsed before as a result of fire no matter how intense - there had been a number of 'towering infernos' but none of them produced collapses. Further, for WTC7 to collapse the way it did, every column had to be taken out at the same time (or in precise sequence). Further the structure of the building did not impeded the collapse in any way. The collapse took 6.5 seconds which is essential free fall speed.
RE the Towers:
4. The fires in the towers were not very intense. Fire men had got to where they were and had said by radio that they could quite easily be contained.
5. No high rise steel framed building had ever before collapsed due to fire (see above).
6. Both collapses were straight down the line of greatest resistance. The massive structures of the building (47 vertical columns in the core alone) did not slow the collapse in anyway.
7. They both fell in about 14 secs, only a couple of secs over free fall speed.
8. Both collapses were explosive, with debris blasted a great distance out from the buildings.
9 WTC2 had the top 30 or so floors rotate off centre about 15 degrees and then fell straight down into the rising dust cloud and totally disappeared (was shreaded).
10 Even though there were thousands of tons of concrete in the buildings, there were no slabs of concrete in the rubble, just steel effectively cut into lengths. The concrete was pulverised by some means, and disappated as dust clouds.
11. The testimony of rescue workers was that there was no furniture in the rubble, the biggest bits of anything like that were about the size of a phone dial plate.
12. With WTC2, virtually all the fuel from the plane burnt up outside the building in the fire ball, so there was not store of jet fuel to supply fires.
13. The plane that hit WTC2 (second hit by 17 mins) did not hit the core, so the core was not damage by the impact. Yet WTC2 fell first, within an hour.
I have said before, I am as opposed to Islam as anyone. I am reading Bostroms book on Islamic anti-semitism at the moment, which is about the 40th book on Islam I have read in the past three years. But I do not believe 911 was a jihadist attack.
Posted by: Sonshine at June 29, 2008 3:53 AM
I have said before, I am as opposed to Islam as anyone. I am reading Bostroms book on Islamic anti-semitism at the moment, which is about the 40th book on Islam I have read in the past three years. But I do not believe 911 was a jihadist attack.
I do believe you are a lying troll, and another of those 911 conspiracy theory nutcases who openly sides with the Jihadis. You are nothing more than a willing accomplice whio shrills for Bin Laden.
at June 29, 2008 5:44 AM
Spirit Of 1683:
"I do believe you are a lying troll, and another of those 911 conspiracy theory nutcases who openly sides with the Jihadis. You are nothing more than a willing accomplice whio shrills for Bin Laden."
With all due respect 1683, you are wrong. But given your willingness to abuse as you have, I doubt I will be believed. So be it.
Rather than abuse, it would have been better if you had provided an explanation of:
1. Why WTC7 collapsed, when it wasn't hit by a plane, had only limited fires in it, and given no steel framed building had ever collapsed as the result of fire, no matter how intense.
2. How in what you claim was a random collapse, it fell vertically without any deviation at all onto its footprint at essentially free fall speed (its structure offering no resistance whatsoever).
Three videos are readily available of the collapse. I suggest you check them out. I would far prefer to believe that 911 was a simple straight-forward jihadist attack. The world would be a far simpler place if that was the case. However I do not believe that the planes were the cause of the collapse of either the towers or WTC7, nor that the collapses were essentially random events, which they must have been if the official story is true. The collapses have fingerprints all over them.
I accepted the official story without question for three years. I watched the collapses of the towers repeatedly on one of the biggest screens you could buy at the time. I never heard a whisper of WTC7. But when I was pointed to a WTC7 collapse video online without even being told what it was, it took the 6.5 seconds of that video for me to say there was more to this than met the eye.
I still don't have a grip on everything, and the implications of the official story not being true I admit are not at all nice. But if that is the world we live so be it. It just means that jihadists are not the only people in the world bent wreaking havoc, though with differing motives and aims in view.
Posted by: Sonshine at June 29, 2008 7:18 AM
Spirit of 1683 accused me of being a lying troll.
I said I was reading Andrew Bostom's book 'The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism'. My copy is very likely one of the first in this country.
To estabish the truthfulness of my statement, anyone with this book can check out the following. The last two lines of the second column of page 93 says the following:
'Arab community. Their campaign of terror and the indiscriminate murders they committed contributed'.
at June 29, 2008 7:56 AM
Back on topic, why are we still allowing good-looking journalists to walk around being filmed in ghetto's etc, and doing sad music and voice-overs and letting everyone pretend that it's real news? I mean other than the US (whose founders had the foresight to memorialize pre-existing, God given freedoms into the Constitution, such as the freedom of speech -- interestingly bundled with the freedom of religious concience, freedom of assembly, freedom of press, freedom to apply to the government for the redress of grievances) can't the rest of you just shut these morons up, a la Mark Steyn?
Posted by: Lt. Presley O'Bannon at June 30, 2008 3:13 AM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)