https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_al-Durrah_incident
The Muhammad al-Durrah incident took place in the Gaza Strip on September 30, 2000, on the second day of the Second Intifada, amid widespread rioting throughout the Palestinian territories. Jamal al-Durrah and his 12-year-old son, Muhammad, were filmed by Talal Abu Rahma, a Palestinian cameraman freelancing for France 2, as they sought cover behind a concrete cylinder after being caught in crossfire between Israeli soldiers and Palestinian security forces. The footage, which lasts just over a minute, shows the pair holding onto each other, the boy crying and the father waving, then a burst of gunfire and dust, after which the boy is seen slumped across his father's legs.[1]
Fifty-nine seconds of the footage were initially broadcast in France with a voiceover from Charles Enderlin, France 2's bureau chief in Israel, who did not witness the incident himself but got all information by phone from the cameraman, telling viewers that the al-Durrahs had been the "target of fire from the Israeli positions," and that the boy had died.[2] After an emotional public funeral, Muhammad was hailed throughout the Arab and Muslim worlds as a martyr.
[...]
The footage of the father and son acquired what one writer called the power of a battle flag. According to James Fallows the "harshest version" of the case from the Arab side is that it proves the ancient blood libel, while the "harshest version" from the Israeli side is that it proves the Palestinians' willingness to deliberately sacrifice even their own children in an anti-Zionist war.[9] The scene was evoked in other deaths. It was blamed for the October 2000 lynching of two Israeli army reservists in Ramallah, and was seen in the background when Daniel Pearl, a Jewish-American journalist, was beheaded by al-Qaeda in 2002.[10] James Fallows writes that no version of the truth about the footage will ever emerge that all sides consider believable. Charles Enderlin has called it a cultural prism, its viewers seeing what they want to see.
http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/67349-mohammed-al-dura-israel-and-palestine-conflict-over-boys-death/
http://www.dreuz.info/2013/05/affaire-al-dura-la-france-va-t-elle-rester-bunkerisee-dans-une-attitude-honteuse/
Jamal and Muhammad al-Durrah filmed by Talal Abu Rahma for France 2
The Muhammad al-Durrah incident took place in the Gaza Strip on September 30, 2000, on the second day of the Second Intifada, amid widespread rioting throughout the Palestinian territories. Jamal al-Durrah and his 12-year-old son, Muhammad, were filmed by Talal Abu Rahma, a Palestinian cameraman freelancing for France 2, as they sought cover behind a concrete cylinder after being caught in crossfire between Israeli soldiers and Palestinian security forces. The footage, which lasts just over a minute, shows the pair holding onto each other, the boy crying and the father waving, then a burst of gunfire and dust, after which the boy is seen slumped across his father's legs.[1]
Fifty-nine seconds of the footage were initially broadcast in France with a voiceover from Charles Enderlin, France 2's bureau chief in Israel, who did not witness the incident himself but got all information by phone from the cameraman, telling viewers that the al-Durrahs had been the "target of fire from the Israeli positions," and that the boy had died.[2] After an emotional public funeral, Muhammad was hailed throughout the Arab and Muslim worlds as a martyr.
[...]
The footage of the father and son acquired what one writer called the power of a battle flag. According to James Fallows the "harshest version" of the case from the Arab side is that it proves the ancient blood libel, while the "harshest version" from the Israeli side is that it proves the Palestinians' willingness to deliberately sacrifice even their own children in an anti-Zionist war.[9] The scene was evoked in other deaths. It was blamed for the October 2000 lynching of two Israeli army reservists in Ramallah, and was seen in the background when Daniel Pearl, a Jewish-American journalist, was beheaded by al-Qaeda in 2002.[10] James Fallows writes that no version of the truth about the footage will ever emerge that all sides consider believable. Charles Enderlin has called it a cultural prism, its viewers seeing what they want to see.
- 1 al-Durrah family
- 2 Media figures
- 3 Netzarim junction
- 4 Report of attack
- 5 Controversy
- 6 Philippe Karsenty litigation
- 7 Impact of the footage
- 8 See also
- 9 Notes
- 10 References
- 11 Further reading
http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/67349-mohammed-al-dura-israel-and-palestine-conflict-over-boys-death/
http://www.dreuz.info/2013/05/affaire-al-dura-la-france-va-t-elle-rester-bunkerisee-dans-une-attitude-honteuse/
Jamal and Muhammad al-Durrah filmed by Talal Abu Rahma for France 2
L’affaire al Dura date de l’année 2000.
La pseudo mort du petit Mohamed Al Dura a servi à la propagande
anti-israélienne pendant plus de douze années. Le reportage de Charles
Enderlin a eu des conséquences effroyables qui devraient, au moins,
susciter des remords chez ceux qui l’ont fait, diffusé, entériné. Mais
non, il n’y a pas même de remords pour l’heure.
Le Ministre des affaires
internationales, Yuval Steinitz a dit en présentant le rapport que
c’était un « blood libel » contre Israël, une diffamation par le sang,
comme il y en a eu dans les pires moments de l’antisémitisme en Europe
et dans le monde musulman. Il a ajouté que le reportage de France 2 est
« absolument sans le moindre fondement ». On ne peut être plus clair.
Binyamin Netanyahou a dit, lui, que le
reportage faisait partie intégrnate d’une « campagne destinée à diffamer
Israël ». Il a ajouté qu’il n’y a qu’une façon de répondre au mensonge,
c’est de dire la vérité ». On ne saurait mieux dire.
Après que la vérité ait pu prévaloir
ailleurs sur la planète, dans l’ensemble du monde démocratique, la
vérité va-t-elle prévaloir en France, ou la France va-t-elle rester
bunkerisée dans une attitude honteuse ?
On va le savoir très vite. Je crains de connaître la réponse.
Le rapport ne sera pas diffusé par les
médias français, disons donc les points essentiels qu’il contient : non
seulement le petit Mohamed n’est pas mort, mais ni lui ni son père n’ont
même été blessés. Les impacts de balle à leur proximité ne venait pas
des positions israéliennes. Le reportage a été monté et accompagné d’une
narration destinée à diffuser une version fausse des faits.
Les faits étaient connus depuis le
commencement, ai-je écrit. Ils sont désormais établis officiellement par
le gouvernement israélien.
