J’accuse: a case of libel, the blood libel, and the French press
There’s a case about to begin in France that–according to blogger Richard Landes–could rival the Dreyfus case in importance.
I’ve written previously about the underpinnings of the present case: the misleading media coverage of the alleged death of 12-year old Mohammed al Durah. Those of you who read Augean Stables and Second Draft are probably quite familiar with the fact that a deception was most likely perpetrated by the French media in broadcasting the story to the world.
But now there are new wrinkles to the tale.
If anyone isn’t familiar with the original incident, here’s a quick summary: in late September of 2000, the boy Mohammed al Durah and his father were taking cover from an exchange of gunfire between Palestinian and Israeli forces in Gaza. Mohammed was either (take your pick, depending on the source) purposely gunned downed by the Israelis, or “caught in the crossfire” and accidently killed by them, according to Talal abu Rahmeh, a Palestinian cameraman who filmed the only video that exists of the supposed death scene; French correspondent Charles Enderlin; and the TV station for which they both worked, France2.
The incendiary footage of al Durah and his father was beamed all over the world. It was viewed with rage and condemnation of Israel, especially in predominantly Moslem and Arab countries as well as in Europe. The al Durah incident and photos of it were prominently visible in propaganda justifying the bloody and horrific Second Intifada against Israel, with its repeated terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians, including many children.
But subsequent research and revelations have led those who have investigated the incident to the almost inescapable conclusion that the facts were not only not quite as reported (for example, the direction of the shots were such that Israeli forces could not have been responsible for hitting al Durah), but what is far worse–that it was bogus from start to finish. That is, that it was staged. The Second Draft site has a great deal of information on this subject; take a look for yourself.
Why am I bringing this up now? The first reason is that media misrepresentation in the recent war in Lebanon has highlighted possibly widespread media complicity in promulgating misinformation and propaganda favoring the Arab/Palestinian position in the Middle East. The al Durah case is an example from six years ago that makes one wonder just how long this has been going on, and how successful it has been in shaping anti-Israel opinions (the answer to both questions appears to be: very).
The second is the aforementioned trial about to begin in France over the al Durah case. The operative French law is one that was passed in 1881, aimed at protecting the press from defamation that “strikes at the honor and consideration (reputation) of ‘the individual or institution in question.'”
And who is France2 suing for defamation? Three French citizens who used their websites to publish internet critiques of the station’s coverage of the al Durah affair. As far as I can tell, this is the equivalent of the television station suing a blogger such as myself (who, fortunately, lives in the US rather than France) for pointing out that the France2 emperor has no clothes in this matter.
The hubris of France2 is astounding. What’s more, they might actually win, according to Landes, despite the fact that anyone viewing the video on which they based the al Durah story can only conclude that France2’s journalistic standards in airing the footage were abysmal and deplorable.
If one reviews the history of the coverage of al Durah by France2 with an open mind, it becomes clear that the TV station should be the defendant in a defamation trial, not the plaintiff. The truth appears to be that France2 has not just been duped, but that it has lied, especially in the persons of cameraman Tamal and Charles Enderlin, who asserted that they had respectively taken (Tamal) and personally viewed (Enderlin) twenty-seven minutes of corraboratory video showing the death throes of al Durah, footage that cannot be produced and that in fact never existed.
What does exist? A mere fifty-nine seconds of video, embedded in more minutes of other obviously staged material, filmed by a single Palestinian stringer (Tamal), and showing not al Durah’s death throes, but his voluntary movements after he had supposedly been killed by a strangely bloodless shot in the stomach. Take a look at the footage (click to download “Death of an Icon”) and see what you think. The egregiousness of the Big Lie must really be seen to be believed (or, rather, disbelieved).
Why does this matter? Al Durah has become both an icon and a rallying cry, a modern and non-Christian twist on an ancient deception, the blood libel. Both the old stories and the new are propaganda used for the same purposes, to ignite anti-Jewish feeling–or its modern-day incarnations, anti-Israeli and anti-Jewish feeling. The repercussions have been vast, especially in Europe, in which both anti-Israeli and anti-Jewish sentiment has risen since 2000, the year of the al Durah incident.
I find the very existence of the French law under which this lawsuit is being brought to be astounding. Why would the media, of all things, need a special stature to protect itself against criticism? Moreover, why is the media so accepting of evidence that anyone with a grain of critical thought would view as suspicious? And why are these fakes so badly done?
The latter question gnaws at me, as it did when the Rathergate memos were exposed as fakes. It wasn’t just that they were fakes, it’s that they were patently obvious fakes. The inescapable conclusion is that the media on which we rely so heavily to shape our view of the world is either stupid or lying. There’s no other possibility, and both alternatives are almost equally horrendous in their consequences.
My other supposition is that we only have uncovered these particular fakes because they are so very obvious. But we can’t assume that all the fakes that have been perpetrated on us over the years have been so poorly executed. Are there in fact many others that have passed muster because they are technically far more competently done?
For example, in the case of Rathergate, what if the forgers had actually gotten hold of an old typewriter from the proper era (duh–not so difficult to do, after all)? Would we have ever known such a document was fake? And, with al Durah, what if they’d actually staged these scenes more carefully? It seems to me that it wouldn’t have been so very difficult to have done so; moviemakers do it all the time, do they not?
Even so–even with the amateurish and slipshod nature of these forgeries–they still worked, for a while, and still work for many viewers. Al Durah has worked much better and longer than the memos. I fear that, in the future, the perpetrators of such fictions will become more skillful, having learned their lesson from these cases.
There is some cause for cautious–very cautious–optimism, however. I agree with Landes that if the present case in France receives wide coverage, and if the video of al Durah is ever released to the public and receives wide dissemination, it could be a turning point. I like to think that, with repetition (including new incidents such as Reutergate), distrust of media coverage in the area will reach some sort of critical mass. Then, if that happens, even if a lie continues to get halfway round the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on, maybe that lie won’t be so easily believed.
wow. exactly. especially your point about how cheap the fakes. i had a conversation during the lebanon war with an israeli who complained that the arabs were so good at PR and the israelis so poor. “no,” says i, “they are awful. what’s really appalling in all this is they don’t have to be good, because our MSM will run whatever they produce.” in some senses the wretched nature of the Pallywood product (Trigano calls it “camelote”), is testimony to the utter lack of standards that the MSM applies to Pallywood products. Why bother with a bag of blood under the boy when a red rag is enough so that the absence of blood won’t even be noticed.
on your other remark, about what happens if they get better, that really is a problem. there’s no reason on earth for them to stop producing pallywood material, and if they clean up their act, they can make it much harder to spot the fakes.
it’s a real dilemma.
thank you for the thoughtful and penetrating post.
One of the German public TV stations (WDR?) actually did a good debunking of this fraud. So there is a finished piece on it that could easily be purchased and broadcast by any station that wants to document Pallywood propaganda.
expat: Yes, a German TV station did exactly that. And there was a piece by Fallows a couple of years ago in the Atlantic.
But–and it’s a big “but”–it’s my impression that most people have not gotten the news. And here we have France2 going through with this lawsuit against those who have told the truth, rather than France2 being forced to fess up, eat crow, take it back, and broadcast a host of public apologies and documentaries on just where they went wrong and why.
The bottom line is that if one were to do a poll on the subject, the majority of people who have heard of the al Durah affair at all remain firmly convinced that the incident happened and that the Israelis were at fault. Somehow, the word of the correction hasn’t seemed to penetrate. At least, that’s true of the people I’ve asked.
Fake but accurate, or whatever the phrase is.
Unfortunately I think that to lots of people it doesn’t matter that the pictures are fake if what they illustrate is believed to be true. Israeli fire has killed children. So what if no one happened to get a good picture of it happening, the pictures can be staged afterward.
One of my most serious moments of disillusionment was when I explained to a devout Christian friend that I’d gone up to a pastor (he and I were *both* visitors at the church) and told him that the event he’d based his entire sermon on had never happened despite the fact that it was all over the internet and e-mail. It was the most socially terrifying thing I think I’d ever done but I didn’t blame him nearly as much for making that willing mistake as I did when my friend said, “So? That’s what they really think.”
It rocked my world because I believed that *of course* she understood that a lie was *wrong*.
And it is wrong. It’s wrong for someone to give false testimony “I saw him do it” when they only *believe* that a person is guilty. It’s wrong to make up proof or excuse lies.
Neo-Neocon, thank you for explaining what the trial is about. I knew from Richard that the trial starts next week, but I hadn’t figured who was suing who and on what basis.
Funny that we Americans really do have freedoms that other countries- even modern, industrialized ones- don’t. Freedom of speech as we know it doesn’t exist in France, England or Canada, and probably other European countries as well.
As an American citizen, I’ve never felt more free 😛
This post is informative, and gripping. There is no doubt – none – that this post will find it’s way to pairs of eyes which are ready to be opened. The groundswell will grow.
I also like Synova’s point: “fake but accurate” is enough justification for eyes which are closed, and are providing venue for fantasy.
Regarding concern about the stupidity and the bias of the media: Things go in cycles. This particular media bias will not pervade forever.
My son is a freshman in college. I have observed(admittedly, in Texas) a swell of conservatism amongst high school and college age students. This swell will grow. The current media will one day be overrun by it. The liberal teachers and professors(i.e. almost all teachers and professors) are derided by the students as old fogies and idiots. Their liberal classroom spew is dissected in dinner table conversation, and it’s illogic is laid bare, and laughed about. Some day these youngsters may be old fogies who spew conservative opinion, and their students will deride them.
Oh ,the poor oppressed and misunderstood Israelis,and what a cause of justice, to show the world how misunderstood they are.Such a champion of Truth you are.
Wow, Troutsky, what a penetrating and well-supported argument! I stand in awe.
gcotharn, through teaching and raising my own kids I’ve noticed the same thing you have about today’s students. I suspect that it makes an enormous difference when the formative event of your childhood is September 11, rather than Vietnam or Watergate.
When an ideology run amok, it step by step isolates itself from reality. I have seen this in case of communism in Russia. Denial of logic comes first, and then genuine thinking bit by bit is replaced by knee-jerk reactions. For older generation this gradual degradation of Weltanschauung into progressively depleting set of templates used more and more indiscriminately can pass unnoticeable, but youth simply refuses to accept this gibberish. At some point there is no “true believers” in sight any more, only ritual formulas sounding absurd. Neoliberal ideology seems to attaining this breaking point.
I saw the pictures some time ago, along with the lines of sight, etc. The conclusion I drew was that if that boy died, he was shot, on purpose, by the Palestinians themselves. The Israeli forces were not in any position to actually shoot him.
Thanks for the reminder. The MSM has much to answer for. I doubt they will be held to account. Ever.
fascinating discussion. i wish some of you would comment at my site.
in any case, i am counting on the internet as the venue by which this stuff makes it into the msm, a wave of intelligence that gathers strength in cyberspace and then overwhelms the silly discussion that, until now has dominated because the big players protect enderlin.
it’s an emperor’s new clothes story with TaLal as the tailor and charles enderlin as the chamberlain who comes back and tells the court/media what to think.
this is potentially very explosive material. up till now it’s blown up in israel’s face. and that is the key (NB troutsky) — this is a blood libel, and there is no independent evidence for israeli soldiers killing kids in cold blood, on the contrary they go to great lengths to avoid it.
worse, all of the evidence for killing kids deliberately is for palestinians doing that — not just israeli children, but their own.
so the media, by publishing pallywood and this particularly poisonous fruit of pallywood, don’t just distort, they invert reality.
and that’s what the original blood libels did: it claimed that the jews needed the blood of a christian for their matzah, but jews abhore not only cannibalism (duh), but eating any blood. nothing could misrepresent the jews more.
and so a media in the grip of this blood libel, could, by the end of lebanon, coach the world, esp europe, into saying… “boy those israelis are bloodthirsty.”
richard
richard
we used esther schapira’s 2002 movie Three Bullets and a Dead Child [sic] a great deal in making our short video essay on al durah, the making of an icon, especially since she caught talal lying about the bullets. great scene.
On “invert reality,” from richard’s comment:
I just saw Marvin Kalb on FoxNews. He ended with the opinion that the Bush Administration will be trying to “silence” critics of the Iraq War in the days leading up to the elections, which is typical of the hyperbole from Liberals anytime the subject has anything(even tangentially) to do with President Bush.
The Administration counters attacks from the Left with cogent arguments of their own, but that is not seen as a healthy exchange of open political debate in the marketplace of competing ideas. No, the Marvin Kalbs, which make up the majority of the MSM, it seems must always characterize defense as offense – just as they do in the current escalation in the Israeli/Hamas/Hezbollah fracas – which is probably just a coincidence. To offer a counter-argument is characterized ahead of time as an attempt to “silence.”
Kalb may be correct – in a way unintended by Kalb’s gravely offered distortion – in that when ridiculousness is exposed it might be expected and must be hoped that those ideas be given less credence in the general debate and lose some power to convince and assuage.
The Israelis were at fault.
That’s not really disputed except by far-right conspiracy theorists pointing to ridiculous bits of paranoia as ‘evidence’.
A bit like 9/11 conspiracy buffs.
The real thing to look at is the facts: Israel is illegally occupying Palestinian territorys killing large numbers of them, destroying their homes, imprisoning them and torturing them.
Lebanon – Israel did completely wipe out whole villages, did destroy civilian infrastruce, did target the Lebanese army, did target Lebanese civilians. Israel killed far more civilians than militants. Hezbollah killed far more IDF than Israeli citizens. Fact.
No cloudy mumbo jumbo will change that.
Stay on earth people…
The topsy-turvy world of the Left: They cling to the claim that Israel ‘targets’ civilians. The Israelis occupy no territories “illegally,” but they are always derided for doing so. Hezbollah hides behind civilians and UN ‘peacekeepers’(a term that would be humorous if it were not so sad) but this tactic is never acknowledged …
“The real thing to look at is the facts: Israel is illegally occupying Palestinian territorys killing large numbers of them, destroying their homes, imprisoning them and torturing them.”
According to who?
The joke known as the UN? Some ridiculous left-wing psychotic “Human Rights Organization”? Screw ’em.
Here’s the bottom line:
In 1967, Israel fought a war against overwhelming odds and they won some territory. It’s happened throughout history, heck it even happened here (see Indian Wars, Mexican Wars, etc.).
Deal with it, it’s life. Some people win, some lose. Israel won. So have we throughout history. Fine by me.
“Lebanon – Israel did completely wipe out whole villages, did destroy civilian infrastruce, did target the Lebanese army, did target Lebanese civilians. Israel killed far more civilians than militants. Hezbollah killed far more IDF than Israeli citizens. Fact.”
War does that. We did it in WWII. I have no problem with that. I also have no problem with Israel doing it while fighting against psychopaths “bravely” hiding amongst civilians.
If we had the so called “Human Rights” Clowns in past wars we’d probably still be fighting along the banks of the Rhine because we were afraid of bombing civilians. Only an idiot would think that makes sense.
“Stay on earth people…”
On Earth unfortunately wars are fought and unfortunately people die. Stay on Earth pal.
They are just facts, Mike. It’s got nothing to do with ‘human rights clowns’.
And they show that for all the attempts to discredit reality by a few choice controverseys – it really changes nothing.
Like your innane dribble.
Yep wars are fought and people die.
Whatdya’ want – a medal?
What they hell does that have to do with it?
grackle thinks oberving facts is ‘topsy-turvy’.
O.K Israel targeting civilians is a claim. Just as saying Israel doesn’t intentionally target civilians is a claim.
Then we go the facts – as I’ve spelled out for you.
Then we go back to the claims and we see quite clearly which claim has credibility and which is ‘topsy-turvy’.
It’s not rocket science – even you can do basic math, grackle….
Such is the quality of ‘debate’ from Stephen – lies, half-truths, distortions and unfounded assertions – nary a real ‘fact’ in sight. Hatred of Israel and America is the fuel that propels his “rocket science.”
grackle thinks oberving facts is ‘topsy-turvy’.
O.K Israel targeting civilians is a claim. Just as saying Israel doesn’t intentionally target civilians is a claim.
Then we go the facts – as I’ve spelled out for you.
Then we go back to the claims and we see quite clearly which claim has credibility and which is ‘topsy-turvy’.
It’s not rocket science – even you can do basic math, grackle….
Please try to write a bit more coherantly.
Do you not understand what I’m talking about, Justin?
What, exactly, is incoherent in what I’ve written?
Facts.
1)Israel killed mostly civilians during the war. 1200-1500 or so. Less than 100 Hezbollah fighters were killed during the month long war(around that many). Israel claimed this war was to weaken Hezbollah and get it’s captured soldiers back. They did neither(some would argue Hezbollah has been weakened – fair enough – I don’t think there’s much in that – but not a factual claim.)
2)Israel targeted schools, hospitals, ambulances, water supplies, electric stations, roads, and civilians fleeing Israeli bombs.
3)In the last 72 hours before the agreed upon cease fire, Israel dropped thousands of cluster bombs all over Southern Lebanon – anti-personel weapons(illegal too).
4)An estimated 100 000 homes were destroyed during Israel’s ‘surgerical’ bombing campaign – aimed at ‘weakening Hezbollah’. An estimated 250 000 Lebanese were rendered homeless after the war. Israel’s claim was they were only after Hezbollah. Hezbollah is estimated to have a fighting force of about 40 000 fighters.
5)Israel claimed Hezbollah was using civilians as human shield and hence the casuality figures. (There is no credible evidence that Hezbollah ‘purposely’did this. IDF offical prouncements are far from credible. There is ‘evidence’ that Israel purposely did not target Hezbollah missles sites so as to allow them to bombard northern Israel – providing the justification for the destruction of Lebanon. Interesting too, but not factual, or well supported by numerous sources(the claim I’ve offered was from a former U.S governmental offical who was told this by high ranking U.S military officals, apparently.)
6)IDF deaths by Hezbollah -116
Israeli civilans killed -21(most of which, I believe were Israeli arabs – for what it’s worth)
Those are facts.
And we wouldn’t make much of Hezbollah claiming that they aren’t targeting civilians by those figures, for obvious reasons(military equipment, Israeli bomb shelters). Which they haven’t.
And if we’re going to be honest, we’re going to reject Israeli claims about human shields and surgical strikes simply by observing the facts(targets with advanced military equipment, numbers of civilians killed, types of ammunitions used, timing etc).
grackle wrote:
“Such is the quality of ‘debate’ from Stephen – lies, half-truths, distortions and unfounded assertions – nary a real ‘fact’ in sight. Hatred of Israel and America is the fuel that propels his “rocket science.”
Well – I’m trying grackle. More than I can say for you. It appears to me, that you are ‘trolling’.
Which are the lies?
Which are the half-truths?
Which are the ‘unfounded assertions’?
Lets see your quality, grackle.
Here’s some more facts.
1)Israel invaded Lebanon – illegally. Under international law the crime is aggression.
2)Israel claimed the war was to free captured soldiers and to weaken Hezbollah.
3)Hezbollah’s missle attacks on Israel started after missle strikes on Gaza and on Lebanon.
4)Israel kidnapped two Palestinian civilians in Gaza(a doctor, I believe, and his son)currently held without charge. They did this before the Hezbollah attack on IDF troops.
ps – This isn’t addressed to the knuckle heads who dispute international law, or who think the U.S is ‘anti-semtic’, or who think that God gave Israel the right to kill and steal. I know what you think – and, frankly my dears – I don’t give a damn.
I’m addressing this to those who think Israel was justified in it’s action – or that think Israeli propaganda has any merit concerning the war in Lebanon.
Do you not understand what I’m talking about, Justin?
What, exactly, is incoherent in what I’ve written?
That particular post I had quoted sounded almost exactly like you took every third or fourth sentence from a stream of consciousness and typed it.
Well I’m not writing a book – I’m trying to get ideas across(quickly) so I apologize if it appears a little muddled at times…
1)Israel invaded Lebanon – illegally. Under international law the crime is aggression.
Israel attempted to stop the rockets that had been raining down on them from Lebanon for months. Israel, like any other nation, has a right to defend itself.
2)Israel claimed the war was to free captured soldiers and to weaken Hezbollah.
No argument here – the kidnapped soldiers were the straw that broke the camel’s back.
3)Hezbollah’s missile attacks on Israel started after missile strikes on Gaza and on Lebanon.
Definitely not true. The history of Israel’s neighbors is one of a constant barrage of terrorism and other acts of war. Since Israel’s creation the country has not been allowed to live in peace.
4)Israel kidnapped two Palestinian civilians in Gaza(a doctor, I believe, and his son)currently held without charge. They did this before the Hezbollah attack on IDF troops.
Israel detains terrorists and would-be suicide bombers that are allowed to freely roam by the so-called ‘governments’ in Palestine and Lebanon. Israel has a right to defend itself.
Stephen Britton – first of all, your “facts” as Pallywood “facts”. In other words, they are utter and complete rubbish.
Let’s see here:
1) “1)Israel killed mostly civilians during the war. 1200-1500 or so. Less than 100 Hezbollah fighters were killed during the month long war(around that many). Israel claimed this war was to weaken Hezbollah and get it’s captured soldiers back. They did neither(some would argue Hezbollah has been weakened – fair enough – I don’t think there’s much in that – but not a factual claim.)”
Bullshit, bullshit, and more bullshit. IDF has approx. 440 confirmed kills of Hizballah terrorists, with names and addresses. According to estimates, there are additional 200-300 unconfirmed kills. Your info comes from Al-Manar and co., I presume?
2) “2)Israel targeted schools, hospitals, ambulances, water supplies, electric stations, roads, and civilians fleeing Israeli bombs.”
Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit and bullshit. Israel targets Hizballah infrastructure and personnel. When a school is full of Hizballah fighters, it’s a military installation. The “fleeing civilians” is just plain bullshit.
3) “3)In the last 72 hours before the agreed upon cease fire, Israel dropped thousands of cluster bombs all over Southern Lebanon – anti-personel weapons(illegal too).”
When you’re fighting personnel, you’re going to use anti-personnel weapons. They are illegal under very specific circumstances which do not apply in this case.
4)”4)An estimated 100 000 homes were destroyed during Israel’s ‘surgerical’ bombing campaign – aimed at ‘weakening Hezbollah’. An estimated 250 000 Lebanese were rendered homeless after the war. Israel’s claim was they were only after Hezbollah. Hezbollah is estimated to have a fighting force of about 40 000 fighters.”
“Homes” in this case were military installations. I am not sure about the numbers, but I am sure they are as bogus as the rest of your claims. See #2 for further clarification.
5)”5)Israel claimed Hezbollah was using civilians as human shield and hence the casuality figures. (There is no credible evidence that Hezbollah ‘purposely’did this. IDF offical prouncements are far from credible. There is ‘evidence’ that Israel purposely did not target Hezbollah missles sites so as to allow them to bombard northern Israel – providing the justification for the destruction of Lebanon. Interesting too, but not factual, or well supported by numerous sources(the claim I’ve offered was from a former U.S governmental offical who was told this by high ranking U.S military officals, apparently.)”
Just plain bullshit.
6)”IDF deaths by Hezbollah -116
Israeli civilans killed -21(most of which, I believe were Israeli arabs – for what it’s worth)”
More bullshit, like the rest. IDF dead: 119, 400+ injured, 2 captured.
Israeli civilians 44 dead, 1,350+ injured. The relatively small amount of Israeli casualties is due to a developed system of siren
Awwww, bummer. Half of my post is gone – apparently it was too long. To be brief – the rest of your claims (every single one of them) are as spurious and slanderous as the ones I have addressed, Stephen Britton.
And the conclusion is:
You, Sir, are a liar, slanderer, bigot and a supporter of terrorists.