Video Mohammed Al Dura in rechtszaal getoond

Gisteren werd dan eindelijk het ruwe filmmateriaal van de dood van het Palestijnse jongetje Mohammed Al Dura getoond in de rechtszaal. Al Dura kwam om in het begin van de tweede intifada, volgens de Palestijnse cameraman was hij in koelen bloede door Israëlische soldaten doodgeschoten terwijl hij in de armen van zijn vader lag. Dit werd echter betwist, aangezien zijn dood niet te zien was, en volgens het IDF het leger hem vanuit hun positie niet had kunnen raken. Een onderzoek van de IDF leidde niet tot een duidelijke conclusie, maar het is zeer verdacht dat France 2, dat de beelden uitzond, altijd heeft geweigerd de volledige film van 27 minuten vrij te geven. Onlangs besloot een rechter dat France 2 alsnog de volledige beelden moet tonen, hetgeen gisteren gebeurde. Vreemd genoeg is nog steeds niet alles getoond, er mist nog 9 minuten. Helaas brachten de gisteren getoonde beelden volgens onderstaande blog nog steeds geen duidelijkheid:

 

We can definitely say that nobody can say who was shooting at who. Charles Enderlin said in court that the Palestinians started shooting first, but in the end, there's no way we can say what happened that day. You can't tell who did what. The assertion from Charles Enderlin, that the Israeli army killed the boy, is totally wrong. The least he could've said was that the boy was killed--but we don't know by who.

 

 

Waarom zetten ze dat materiaal niet gewoon op YouTube? Laat iedereen zelf maar oordelen. Wat is er zo vreselijk geheimzinnig aan het materiaal, dat maar een beperkt aantal mensen het gisteren in de rechtszaal mocht bekijken? De dood van Al Dura heeft indertijd een groot aantal mensen 'geinspireerd' tot het plannen van aanslagen, hij werd genoemd in een video boodschap van Osama Bin Laden en in het boek van Arjan Erkel over Samir A.. Er zijn postzegels gemaakt met Al Dura en straten naar hem vernoemd. Hij is het symbool van Palestijnse onschuld en Israëlische agressie geworden. We hebben er recht op het materiaal te zien op grond waarvan France 2 hierover berichtte. Het is belangrijk erachter te komen of er is gemanipuleerd. Als dit daadwerkelijk het geval is, kan France 2 voor onaangename verrassingen komen te staan. En dat wil men natuurlijk koste wat het kost voorkomen.

 

 

Ratna

--------------------

Wednesday, November 14 2007

Dura Discredited

http://backspin.typepad.com/backspin/2007/11/dura-discredite.html

 

HonestReporting together with Take-A-Pen covered this afternoon's hearing in France where raw footage of the Mohammed Dura was publicly screened for the first time. HonestReporting/Take-A-Pen's Alain Benjamin, who saw the video in court, discussed by phone the proceedings with MediaBackspin editor Pesach Benson.

What did the raw footage show?

We can definitely say that nobody can say who was shooting at who. Charles Enderlin said in court that the Palestinians started shooting first, but in the end, there's no way we can say what happened that day. You can't tell who did what. The assertion from Charles Enderlin, that the Israeli army killed the boy, is totally wrong. The least he could've said was that the boy was killed--but we don't know by who.

There was a dispute over how much footage was to be screened. Was the full video shown?

Charles Enderlin submitted 18 minutes of footage. The judge, without any prompting from Philippe's lawyers, asked what happened to the 27 minutes. Enderlin said on record in court that he had to manipulate some footage that was not relevant to that day. He said he transferred the footage onto DVD for the court. That was amazing.

So she asked if anyone in attendance had seen the full footage. Luc Rosenzweig was there, stood up , and said he saw a tape that was more than 20 minutes long. Richard Landes also stood up. He saw the footage at Enderlin's office. He said the timer he saw was at least 21 minutes long. The judge basically let that issue rest, but there was serious doubt hanging over the room that the footage was tampered or doctored.

After the hearing ended, how did people react to what they saw?

Not one person believed that the version of France 2 was right. Some people maintained that the footage was staged. Others think the footage was real. Clearly, nobody believed that anybody died.

Does the footage vindicate Karsenty?

Everyone was going, "Wow" and talking about whether he'll take action against France 2 for trying to swindle the court. He can wait for the verdict, or sue France 2 for tampering with the tape. He has quite a few options. Clearly, the judge wasn't convinced by France 2's version. The judge's verdict is to be given on February 27.

How did the France 2 people react after the hearing?

France 2 left immediately. They just ran out and left. They didn't want to speak to anyone.

Some people were concerned that reviving the footage would harm Israel's image.

There's absolutely no reason to be concerned for that now.

How was the media turnout?

Very large. There were four or five TV crews, 30 journalists from TV, radio and print. Only a third of the journalists and public could get in to the courtroom to see the footage. The whole thing was delayed because of the crowd. They came from all over. At one point, I saw Philippe being interviewed by Kuwaiti TV.

What's the most important lesson to take from today?

One guy stood his ground for four years. It's a lesson in perseverance.

Israel should take a cue from this trying to pursue the truth rather than put what they can under the carpet quickly. If Israel's P.R. people had pursued all these different things that showed this wasn't Israel's fault, things would've turned out differently.

The other lesson sheds a light on a process very wide spread in the region. People don't realize that Palestinians get their jobs as journalists because they're sympathetic to the Palestinian cause. They're out to push an agenda. It's up to the news services to disclose that they're using local TV personnel to capture breaking news.

 

Stay tuned for Alain's video coverage outside the courthouse.

.

__,_._,___