The Subtext of the Muhammad al-Dura Affair: Understanding Its Unstated Background, Joel Fishman
01/12/2007
Voir la traduction française.
30 November 2007
Makor Rishon
On November 22, 2004, Philippe Karsenty, a self-employed French-Jewish intellectual, accused Charles Enderlin, the Bureau Chief of France-
2 television service in Jerusalem, of staging and fraudulently misrepresenting the alleged murder of a Palestinian boy, Muhammad al-Dura,on September 30, 2000, at the Netzarim junction in Gaza. In an article which he posted on his website, Media Ratings, Karsenty demanded the resignation of Charles Enderlin and Arlette Chabot, the news director of France-2. In response, France 2 opened a defamation lawsuit against Karsenty. This step brought the issue before the courts. At this critical moment, Philippe Karsenty discovered that he was on his own and that official Israel left him to fend for himself. Subsequently, an unexpected "reversal of fortune" took place at the court session of September 19, 2007 when the judges demanded to see Enderlin’s uncut footage. The issue now became the veracity of France-2’s reporting.
Originally, the proceedings in the French courts did not receive coverage in the mainstream media. They were first reported in the blogs, particularly in the posts of Professor Richard Landes of Boston and journalist Nidra Poller of Paris. Lately, the subject is beginning to receive serious coverage in the Israeli press and more recently in England. The French media, however, have largely ignored it. The next court session will take place in February 2008, when both sides will have the opportunity to present evidence. Because of the nature of the interested parties and the high stakes of a win or a loss, the issue has assumed a transcending significance. Accordingly, this affair and the personalities involved are important.
There is a modern parallel to this case: the libel case of 2000 which Holocaust denier, David Irving, brought against Penguin Books Ltd. and Professor Deborah Lipstadt which was heard in London’s High Court of Justice. Here, the situation was easier to grasp, because the sides were easily identifiable. Irving was the villain, and Deborah Lipstadt, an identified Jewish historian, the heroine. The State of Israel supported Lipstadt and declassified Adolph Eichman’s deposition especially for her defense. The contrasting attitude of the Foreign Ministry of Israel in the two cases may be understood by the fact that while its website still displays excerpts from the Judgment of the High Court of Justice in Deborah Lipstadt’s trial (April 11, 2000), Israel’s ambassador to France, a friend of Enderlin, snubs Karsenty.
The case before the Paris court is more complicated, because some of the main adversaries of a thorough investigation which would reveal the truth are Jews, several of whom are members in good standing of the Israel’s political class. They include civil servants, communications experts, and politicians. Not the least, another type of interested party began to speak out, intellectuals and opinion-makers, who do not view themselves as part of the collectivity of the Jewish people and do not consider that Israel, the Jewish State, represents them or has any claim to their loyalty. In France, a new term describing such people has become current: les alterjuifs, or the "other-Jews."
On September 30, 2000, in a dramatic television broadcast, containing compelling images accompanied by his voice commentary, Charles Enderlin claimed to be showing documentary evidence of the murder of a young Palestinian boy at the hands of the Israel Defense Forces. In turn, France – 2 distributed this scoop widely and gratis. Its global impact was enormous. For the Muslim world, these images validated their feelings of victimization. For a wider public, they provided a pretext for violence against Jews, Israel, and the West. For example, the murderers of Daniel Pearl interspersed pictures of Muhammad al-Dura with their documentary video of Pearl’s execution. Not the least, the al-Dura video seriously harmed the moral legitimacy of the Jewish State. In a recent essay, the eminent French scholar of antisemitism, Pierre-André Taguieff, described the al-Dura affair as a "contemporary adaptation of the legend of the ’ritual Jewish crimes,’" that is to say, of the medieval blood libels (1).
When the al-Dura tapes were first broadcast and the affair broke in the media, Israeli officials failed to appreciate their importance. In retrospect, they made a number of blunders. Before the official investigation was completed, Israel apologized and took responsibility for the deed. Also, General Yom-Tov Samiah, who was in charge of the investigation and at the same time responsible for the security at Netzarim, ordered the destruction of the wall and other structures at the scene of the alleged murder. Israeli officials who dealt with the press hoped that with an apology, they could close the issue, write it off like a business loss, and move on. A problem arose when outside researchers, particularly the physicist, Nachum Shachack and the veteran newspaper editor and movie critic Amnon Lord of Israel and Esther Schapira, a German documentary film producer, began to discover inconsistencies in the claims of France-2 and convincingly raised the possibility that the IDF could not have fired the bullets which allegedly killed "the little Muhammad." Despite this new information, official Israel stubbornly took the view that, right or wrong, the case was closed, and for some time it became policy to discourage and to discredit those who raised questions. Some thought that if mistakes had been made, it would be preferable not to draw attention to them which would result in the attribution of responsibility. At the same time, France-2 did not want the veracity of their report closely investigated. Very simply, there were two powerful interested parties who favored silence: France-2 (and indirectly the government of France) and those members of the Israeli establishment who mismanaged this information crisis.
Philippe Karsenty is an articulate, formidable player with a sense of honor and an understanding of strategy. He also has the ability to hold the loyalty of his supporters. Determined and uncompromisingly devoted to this cause, he is paying the price for this act of personal heroism. His family life and livelihood have suffered, but it is clear that he is prepared to make whatever personal sacrifices necessary in order to win. One can better understand the man by knowing his views of the Israeli bureaucrats, because they embody the antithesis of his idea of public virtue. According to Karsenty, they are incompetent; they see themselves as civil servants; they have no sense of history; they are badly paid (but are not worth the salaries they get); they just want to be with their children. Indeed, he is not the type who would go to work with a full lunch box and come home with it empty.
In principle, one does not know how the judges will rule, but there is the question whether a French court would be prepared to rule against France -2, an official governmental institution. It should be noted that in his time, Jacques Chirac presented the court with a positive character recommendation in favor of Charles Enderlin. Similarly, the attitude of President Sarkozy could be of potential importance, if only in the form of a change of climate. Interestingly, Philippe Karsenty reported that in 2005, a ranking representative of the Ministry of Culture and Communications made him a remarkable offer: if he dropped his accusation, France-2 would report more objectively about Israel. Whatever the judges will find, it is possible that this affair may not be decided definitively and the public debate will continue.
© Makor Rishon
Mis en ligne le 1er décembre 2007, par M. Macina, sur le site upjf.org
