The Bizarre Story Behind Muhammed al Dura

The New York Times has a must-read report on the bizarre story behind the death of Muhammed al Dura. The photo of the 12 year old boy, shielded in vain by his father has become the central image of the Palestinian intifada. The image has been leveraged for maximum propaganda value, inciting thousands to hatred and violence. It has even appeared on postage stamps in Egypt and Tunisia.

Today a rally of questions has pounded the French Television station that aired the footage asking whether the footage was genuine, misinterpreted, or "artfully staged Pallywood theatre".

A 2002 German documentary, "Three Bullets and a Child: Who Killed the Young Muhammad al-Dura?" tried to address lingering questions about whether the boy was killed by Israelis or Palestinians. Last week, the debate gained fresh momentum after a prominent French editor and an independent television producer broke ranks in the country's media circles and wrote a cautious article in the newspaper Le Figaro, expressing some doubt about the photo's authenticity. "That image has had great influence," said Daniel Leconte, a former correspondent for France 2. "If this image does not mean what we were told, it is necessary to find the truth." Mr. Leconte wrote the article in Figaro with Denis Jeambar, editor in chief of the newsmagazine L'Express, weeks after station executives at France 2 allowed the two men in October to see all 27 minutes of the footage shot. But their commentary did not emerge publicly until after they had offered it to Le Monde, which rejected it, according to its new opinion page editor, Sylvain Cypel. He called the entire debate "bizarre" and said it had been propelled by a tiny French-Israeli news agency. When the report was first broadcast, France 2 offered its exclusive footage free to the world's television networks, saying it did not want to profit from the images. The scenes were filmed by its Palestinian cameraman, Talal Abu Rahma, who was the only one to capture images of what Mr. Enderlin characterized then as the killing of a child by gunfire from an Israeli position. Mr. Enderlin was not present during the shooting. Esther Schapira, a German producer in Frankfurt, said she tried unsuccessfully in preparation for her 2002 documentary to see a master copy of the tape and was astonished when France 2 did not share it because European stations commonly exchange material. "If there is nothing to hide," she said of France 2's initial reluctance, "what are they afraid of?" When critical articles started appearing in publications like The Atlantic Monthly in the United States, Mr. Enderlin wrote letters insisting: "We do not transform reality. But in view of the fact that some parts of the scene are unbearable, France 2 was obliged to cut a few seconds from the scene." (Ed - Yeah Right!) In many ways, Mr. Enderlin argues, the video has become a cultural prism, with viewers seeing what they want to see. "It's a campaign," he said, "because the video was used as a symbol by the Palestinians as a propaganda tool." Richard Landes, a Boston University professor specializing in medieval cultures, studied full footage from other Western news outlets that day, including the pictures of the boy. "We could argue about every frame," he said. But after watching the scenes involving Muhammad al-Dura three times, he concluded that it had probably been faked, along with footage on the same tape of separate street clashes and ambulance rescues. "I came to the realization that Palestinian cameramen, especially when there are no Westerners around, engage in the systematic staging of action scenes," he said, calling the footage Pallywood cinema.

More on this is available at this HR communique. It includes a link to an important article by James Fallows, published in The Atlantic, which investigates the incident in-depth and concludes that "it now appears that the boy cannot have died in the way reported by most of the world's media and fervently believed throughout the Islamic world."

Comments

[Francis]

This manipulation involves french medias, french institution, french government.

See www.truthnow.org and you will notice that there is a whole omerta on this affair.

Then ask yourself about all what you have heard during the intifada, when you know that the medias keep on defending drastically this lie, even when it is now well known that it has been completely staged.
You must keep on mind that french public medias decided to keep on lying on the origin of the shoot on Mohammed Al Dura during years, while they knew it was staged, and while antisemitism was exploding worldwide.

Regards

[zaBlogger]

I understand the importance of the image and why this new debate has come out.

But what we must never forget is that what we're actually debating is a dead child, the worst horror for any family.

[Steve]

100% correct Zab.

Its tough to debate these issues because of the reason you mention. As you acknowledge the image has been immensely powerful and has contributed to the incitement of hundreds of youngsters, further harming prospects of compromise, tolerance, and eventually peace.