French court postpones verdict in al-Dura libel trial

Muhammad Al-Dura: The boy who wasn’t really killed

Defense Minister formed secret investigative committee that concluded Al-Dura had not been hurt and the video was staged.
Media analyst Philippe Karsenty was sued by France 2 after he accused network of staging footage in iconic Second Intifada shooting

It is good to see that the GOI is finally backing Karsenty in this case. It took them long enough. Ted Belman

By  April 3, 2013,

The verdict in the libel case against French media analyst and critic Philippe Karsenty, sued by France 2 for accusing the network’s Jerusalem bureau chief Charles Enderlin of fabricating parts of a segment showing the reported death of 12-year-old Mohammed al-Dura from IDF fire in Gaza in September 2000, has been postponed to May 22.

The Paris Court of Appeal was expected to rule on the case on Wednesday but decided to postpone the verdict to study the matter further.

In 2004, Karsenty accused Enderlin and France 2 of misleading viewers on the second day of the Second Intifada in what has come to be known as the al-Dura affair. On September 30, 2000, al-Dura and his father Jamal sought cover behind concrete cylinders after being caught in crossfire between IDF troops and Palestinian gunmen in Gaza. The boy was said to have died in the exchange but the accuracy and credibility of the France 2 report was widely debated.

At the time, France 2 aired footage purporting to show how Israel “targeted” the 12-year-old and his father. Israel, while initially accepting responsibility, allowed that the boy may have been killed by Palestinian fire.

A screen capture of the video showing the Muhammad al-Dura incident.

A screen capture of the video showing the Muhammad al-Dura incident.

Karsenty was convicted of libel in 2006, a judgment that was overturned on appeal in 2008. France 2 subsequently appealed that appeal at the “Cour de cassation,” France’s highest court. Last year, the Cour de cassation annulled the ruling acquitting Karsenty of libel in 2008.

May 13, 2013 | 14 Comments »

Leave a Reply

14 Comments / 14 Comments

  1. An cognitive factor toward quitting smoking is watching both one’s parents die from lung cancer. Cured me. I smoked a little shortly after I was done boxing, then watched both my parents die, then quit cold turkey. Don’t think of yourself dying a horrible death; instead, think of your loved-ones, your children, watching you die a horrible death. After all, smoking is a selfish habit. No two ways about it.

  2. @ Bernard Ross:
    I had given it up myself for 6 months in the past, and had made numerous other attempts. I know what you are talking about the whole thing being psychological. But i have decided that i do not want to give it up completely, i like smoking ten a day. So i am using the attention-divertion procedure you mentioned only until the time comes that i have decreed beforehand that i can smoke one.

  3. dionissis mitropoulos Said:

    I have cut down the cigarettes a lot, but now comes the difficult part of maintaining it for a couple of weeks more.

    I used to smoke more than a pack a day and once quit for 3 years and started again. two things I learned in my case: 1- Only cold turkey works and cutting down prolongs the torture and the focus on desire. 2-Once quit never have even one cig even if the smell of smoke disgusts you, I did that after 3 years and started again. the one thing that really motivated me to go cold turkey was that I went to a “smoke enders clinic” at a local Miami hospital and in the first session they mentioned that the chemical dependency lasts only 48-72 hours and that the rest of the torture is purely psychological. After that first session I never went back to the hospital and went immediately cold turkey never to smoke cigarettes again. I decided that if it was purely psychological I would merely switch my focus to a different subject the moment I started desiring a smoke. Usually I switched my mind to something that was really troubling me so that it could command my focus. that was in 1985. good luck.

  4. Bernard Ross Said:

    He can’t help himself, its an addiction 🙂 welcome back.

    I am still not back yet! I have cut down the cigarettes a lot, but now comes the difficult part of maintaining it for a couple of weeks more. From then on it will be easy. I’ve also been very busy bookmarking links for the next expedition – you can’t imagine how time-consuming it is to try to organize the links into categories so that you will find them quickly when needed. Thanks for the welcome!

    Here is Dr Landes in Paris, making some very penetrating remarks on the French:

    http://www.theaugeanstables.com/essays-on-france/paris-notes-spring-2003/

    And here is a very promising link that explains the psychology of the public elites/bureaucracies in France, but i haven’t read it yet, so i can’t yet vouch for it:

    http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/d76b5fcc-b83f-11e2-bd62-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2SxTWMRlk

  5. “How did you manage to insert allegations against Israel in an article about the Al Durah libel?”

    “Cavil will enter at any hole, and if it find none it will make one.” But in the case of the Good Doctor, the “trivial objection” is Jew-baiting and anti-Semitism. He could find a place for anti-Jewish hatred in any conversation. Mr. Ross is right, the Good Doctor cannot help himself. Old habits cast long shadows.

  6. CuriousAmerican Said:

    Even the Israelis have corrupt government. Their former President is in jail.

    Wasn’t the christian deity criminally corrupt? Destroyed property caused physical injury and monetary loss to law-abiding Jews? Was arrested, tried and hung on a pole. I always wondered that if he was hung on a gallows would christians wear gold gallows around their necks?

  7. CuriousAmerican Said:

    Even the Israelis have corrupt government. Their former President is in jail.

    How did you manage to insert allegations against Israel in an article about the Al Durah libel? 😛

  8. Bernard Ross Said:

    Both [French and Arabs] are adept at overblown self portrayals.

    That is my long-held view about the French: pretentious like no other European. I find them disgusting.

  9. @ steven l:
    On this one, it’s more like the French don’t want to lose face, by admitting that a public and prestigious French TV channel fucked-up so badly. The French judges, being part of the French elite, are trying to preserve France’s “honor”.

  10. Any decision taken by the French gvt is always conditioned by their preferential relationship with the Maghreb. In other words, to their traditional antisemitism they add their economic interests. So it is very difficult for the French to be fair and objective towards Israel.

  11. @ Bernard Ross:
    It should be known as the Al Dura Fraud.

    It is indeed a fraud.

    @ Bernard Ross:
    The french perpetuation of this fraud is beyond redemption. The french are always the most corrupt hypocrites on the face of the globe.

    Not even close. You have the Italians, the Latins, the Muslims?! Even the Israelis have corrupt government. Their former President is in jail.

    @ Bernard Ross:
    the stink of sewage masked in french parfum but the parfum never completely masks the stink. A petty, provincial people masquerading as sophisticated. They are a good marriage with the arabs as they are both expert at deceit and false images. Both are adept at overblown self portrayals.

    They are not bad as the BBC. The French are covering their behinds. They know that story came out of French news. They do not want to be embarrassed or sued. Or attacked. The Muslims will turn on the French, if the Israelis are reported as innocent.

    The BBC is far more dishonest, but more polished and just harder to detect.

  12. what has come to be known as the al-Dura affair.

    It should be known as the Al Dura Fraud. The french perpetuation of this fraud is beyond redemption. The french are always the most corrupt hypocrites on the face of the globe. the stink of sewage masked in french parfum but the parfum never completely masks the stink. A petty, provincial people masquerading as sophisticated. They are a good marriage with the arabs as they are both expert at deceit and false images. Both are adept at overblown self portrayals.