Wikipedia

Talk:Killing of Muhammad al-Durrah/sources

< Talk:Killing of Muhammad al-Durrah
(Redirected from Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah/sources)
Latest comment: 14 years ago by Sussmanbern in topic Discussion

Sources

edit

The following is a list of sources reporting or discussing the view that the France 2 version of events is not correct and/or that the incident was a hoax.

Court of Appeal decision

edit

With byline

edit
  1. Akerman, Piers. "Mohammed al-Durra footage may have been a hoax", The Daily Telegraph, May 29, 2008. Says the boy is seen to move, and even look "conspiratorially" at the camera after France 2 had declared him dead.
  2. Barnavi, Elie. L’honneur du journalisme - Marianne (magazine), June 7-13, 2008: Op-Ed - "the wounds that Muhammad’s father showed were due to blade wounds he got during a fight in Gaza and treated in an Israeli hospital. "
  3. Beckerman, Gal. The Unpeaceful Rest of Mohammed Al-Dura, Columbia Journalism Review, October 3, 2007: "both conspiracy theorists and honest researchers have questioned whether al-Dura really was killed by an Israeli bullet or even - and this, until recently, was mostly the provenance of conspiracy theorists - the whole event was staged as Palestinian propaganda ..."
  4. Benkin, Richard L. Al Dura Death a Fake!, The Blitz, Bangladesh, June 4, 2008.
  5. Carvajal, Doreen. The mysteries and passions of an iconic video frame, International Herald Tribune, February 7, 2005, reporting earlier doubts about the tape.
  6. Chesler, Phyllis. "The Al-Dura Myth and Media Silence", The Jewish Press, June 4, 2008.
  7. Denenberg, Herb. 'The Bulletin' Continues To Get It Right, Philadelphia Bulletin, June 25, 2008: "The mainstream media kept reporting the story of the al-Durah incident, in which a Palestinian boy was allegedly shot by the Israelis. It turns out a French court decided this was a hoax, and other evidence accumulated over the years that the story was staged for the benefit of the media."
  8. Derfner, Larry. Rattling the Cage: Get real about Muhammad al-Dura, The Jerusalem Post, June 18, 2008. Argues that the footage is misleading and that the IDF was probably not to blame, but that it was not a hoax.
  9. Fallows, James. Who Shot Mohammed al-Dura?, Atlantic Monthly, June 2003: "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." Discusses how some of the pre-shooting footage appears staged. Update of his story.
  10. Farhat-Holzman, Laina. "Media as political propaganda", Santa Cruz Sentinel, May 24, 2008. "However, the film showed no firing coming from the Israeli barracks at all; it also showed only seven small round bullet holes in the wall, and not a drop of blood -- quite impossible after 45 minutes of firing that would have dismantled the wall as well the father and son. A dead child's body was photographed in the morgue, but this child did not look like what we could see of Dura. Furthermore, the death of the child, his identification in the morgue, and the funeral, complete with printed posters, all took place an hour or two after the shooting. That efficiency should be bottled and sold. Karsenty, who was sued by French TV 2, has won his case in court, validating his accusations of fraudulent journalism."
  11. Frum, David. L' affaire al-Dura, The National Post, November 17, 2007. Calls the footage a "forgery."
  12. Gelernter, David. "When pictures lie", Los Angeles Times, September 2005, republished in the Jewish World Review, September 12, 2005.
  13. Ghitis, Frida. The dramatic killing that wasn't, Miami Herald, May 31, 2008.
  14. Goldberg, Vicki. "Seeing Isn't Believing", Reader's Digest, September 2004: "Disturbingly, there are many indications that the scene was staged — the boy may not have died at all. ... The local hospital did report that a dead boy was brought in at 1 pm that day — though evidence shows that the gun battle occurred two hours later. Also, in the video, the father's T-shirt remains white, without a spot of blood, after he was supposedly shot in the arm and hand, and after his son, shot in the belly, fell stomach down in his lap ... Tapes of the scene raise even more doubts..."
  15. Gross, Tom. French State TV Network Loses al-Dura Libel Case, National Review, May 21, 2008.
  16. Halkin, Hillel. "Changing History's Course", The New York Sun, September 25, 2008. "Mr. Karsenty and others have long claimed that if it were made public and studied, the hoax perpetrated by France 2 would be provable. For a hoax it most certainly was. Today, seven years after the event, it should be clear to anyone who has read the literature on the subject and viewed the available film clips that the entire episode of Mohammed el-Dura was staged by the Palestinian Authority. The evidence is overwhelming."
  17. Hartley, Wyndham. South Africa: Journalists Should Shoot for Understanding First, Business Day, July 2, 2008. Story related to the Global Media conference in Bonn. Compares the Al-Durrah story to that of South African icon, Hector Pieterson, noting the difference between the two was that the Pieterson story was true as reported. Hartley says, "It is unacceptable to ignore this fact simply because the image conveniently illustrates what you believe to be true."
  18. Huber, Daniel. Was the shooting of a child engineered?, Swiss 20 minuten, May 30, 2008.
  19. Huber, Gérard. Contre expertise d'une mise en scène (Re-evaluation of a Re-enactment) (book), March 2003: argues that the event was staged.
  20. Juffa, Stéphane. "The Al-Dura case: a dramatic conclusion", translated by Llewellyn Brown, November 3, 2003.
  21. Juffa, Stéphane. The Mythical Martyr, Wall Street Journal Europe, November 16, 2004 (reproduced by Isranet; scroll down to see it).
  22. Kaufmann, Tobias. Der Mord, den es vielleicht nie gab (The murder that perhaps never happened), Kölner Stadtanzeiger, June 16, 2008: says that Mohammed El Dura was almost certainly ("mit an Sicherheit grenzender Wahrscheinlichkeit") not hit by Israeli soldiers.
  23. Lauter, Dvora. French Jewry to Sarkozy: Investigate al-Dura incident "The call for a probe lent new legitimacy to concerns that the broadcast was staged and sparked a new debate in the French media over the issue...Taguieff, the research director at the National Center of Scientific Research, was stonewalled at first by much of the French media and intellectual elite for his early, vehement questioning of the Enderlin report. “We’re evolving now toward a real debate,” he said. “The CRIF is a serious organization; if they ask Sarkozy to create this committee, it means it is important,” said Stéphane Durand-Souffland, the journalist responsible for covering the al-Dura story for the French daily le Figaro, considered by many to be the most important paper in the country."
  24. Lord, Amnon. Who Killed Muhammad Al-Dura? Blood Libel --Model 2000 July 15, 2002. "The Palestinians, in cooperation with foreign journalists and the UN, arranged a well-staged production."
  25. Nizza, Mike. Critic of Palestinian Video Wins French Case, The New York Times - says of the iconic video "its authenticity was always in question"
  26. Netz, Dina. Führte eine Bildmanipulation zur zweiten Intifada? [Did image manipulation trigger the Second Intifada?" German public Radio. Interview with Esther Schapira, producer of "Three Bullets and a Child": "Philippe Karsenty has now managed, inter alia, to get the entire video material from the "alleged murder" shown as part of the legal the process. She adds that before we can determine whether the pictures are real, we need to see a body, which has not yet been produced: "One thing we can say with certainty, is that at the end of the video, the boy is still alive."
  27. Lungen, Paul. "Media critic wins Al-Dura case", The Canadian Jewish News, May 29, 2008.
  28. Moshelian, Michelle. "The Face that Launched a Thousand Suicide Bombers" American Chronicle, May 26, 2008.
  29. Oakland, Ross. Image of boy, father still inflames, Toronto Star, May 31, 2008. Reports that some sources say the incident was a hoax.
  30. Phillips, Melanie. Faking a Killing, Standpoint Online, July 2008.
  31. Poller, Nidra. French Public TV and the Perpetuation of a Scandal, New York Sun, November 26, 2004.
  32. Poller, Nidra. A Hoax?, Wall Street Journal Europe, May 27, 2008, opinion piece.
  33. Poller, Nidra. The Truth About Mohammed Al-Durra, The National Post, May 28, 2008: calls the incident a "lurid propaganda stunt."
  34. Poller, Nidra. Al-Dura: The Tide is Turning, The Jerusalem Post, June 22, 2008.
  35. Ravid, Barak. "Government Press Office: Al-Dura's death was staged by Gaza cameraman", Haaretz, October 2, 2007.
  36. Rohan, Brian. French court cancels libel in Intifada video case, Reuters, May 21, 2008. Says the court rejected claims that the "hoax" evidence was "neither complete nor serious."
  37. Ronneberg, Kristoffer. Was this video a bluff?, Aftenposten (Norway's newpaper of record), May 27, 2008: "the film was probably a bluff."
  38. Rosenblum, Jonathan. Think Again: For once, the good guys win, The Jerusalem Post, June 12, 2008, op-ed: "Not only is there no dead boy on the film. There is no sign of blood or wounds of any kind. In other footage from the scene, civilians are seen passing by the crouching man and boy - some running, some strolling but all apparently oblivious to any rifle fire." Also says explicitly, "Whether Charles Enderlin knew from the first that his voice-over was false is unclear. That he lies is certain."
  39. Schapira, Esther. Three Bullets and a Child: Who Killed the Young Muhammad al-Dura?, ARD television, Germany, 2002. Parts of Shapiro's interview with the general and the original cameraman (who laughs when asked whether any bullets were found; says that France 2 collected them, and adds "we have some secrets ourselves ...") are shown in Richard Landes's Al Durah: According to Palestinian sources II. Birth of an icon, 2005.
  40. Schapira, Esther and Hafner, Georg M. Das Kind, der Tod und die Wahrheit (The child, death and the truth), ARD television, Germany, March 4, 2009.
  41. Schwartz, Adl. Ballistics expert supports verdict in al-Dura libel case: Gaza child wasn't killed by Israeli gunfire, Haaretz, March 3, 2008.
  42. Seaman, Danny. Palestinian industry of lies, Ynet, May 29, 2008. Opinion piece by the director of the Israeli government's press office.
  43. Silver, Steve. The 21st-century version of the Dreyfus Affair, j., June 13, 2008: "the France 2 report was a lie."
  44. Sitbon, Shirli. "Al-Dura libel verdit U-Turn", The Jewish Chronicle, May 23, 2008.
  45. Thiel, Thomas. Was geschah mit Mohammed al-Dura? - an interview with Esther Shapira, FAZ.NET, March 4, 2009.
  46. Yemeni, Ben-Dror Just Don't Touch their Symbol, Maariv, June 20, 2008.
  47. Warren, David. All the Lies that are Fit to Print, Ottawa Citizen, 'May 24, 2008: opinion piece saying the footage was a lie.

Editorials/No byline

edit
  1. Interview with doctor who says Jamal Al-Durrah's injuries stem from 1994, Channel 10, Israel, December 13, 2007. Another version with a translation.
  2. A milestone victory, The Spectator, May 21, 2008.
  3. Al-Dura: The Atrocity That Never Was, The Brussels Journal, May 22, 2008.
  4. French TV loses Gaza footage case, BBC News, May 22, 2008: Reports the French court verdict; studiously avoids saying the boy is dead, which the BBC has always done in the past.
  5. Court backs claim that al-Dura killing was staged, Ha'aretz, May 23, 2008.
  6. The Power of Images: Was the death of the Palestinian boy Mohammad al-Durah staged [manipulation?], affiliate of German TV broadcaster ARD, May 25, 2008: "a French journalist commented: 'Mohammed is dead, his father seriously injured'. ... But was it really so?", and later: "In fact: In the pictures that allegedly show that Mohamed Al-Durah is seriously wounded, there's no blood."
  7. Ruling over 'fake' intifada footage, The Connexion, May 26, 2008.
  8. Al-Durra Case Revisited, Wall Street Journal Europe, May 27, 2008, in the "review and outlook" section. Reports that "Judge Laurence Trébucq did more than assert Mr. Karsenty's right to free speech. In overturning a lower court's ruling, she said the issues he raised about the original France 2 report were legitimate."
  9. Myth & Muhammad al-Dura, Jerusalem Post, May 30, 2008, editorial, reports that the video didn't show the killing, no bullets were recovered, and there was no blood where you'd expect to see it. Compares it to the myth of the Battle of Jenin.
  10. War das Sterben nur gestellt? (Was the death simply staged?), Focus Magazine, June 1, 2008.
  11. Al-Dura Judgment: More Reactions, Honest Reporting, June 8, 2008.
  12. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung explicitly calling Enderlin's report a fabrication: on May 26, 2008 ("Freispruch und Klage / Frankreich streitet um Bilder aus Palästina") and again on June 11, 2008 ("Blinde Solidarität / Frankreichs Journalisten stützen eine Fälschung"). You can either access these articles via the FAZ archive (and pay for them) or find one of them (May 26) here in this press review and the other one ( June 11) here in this blog.
  13. The Struggle for Truth, Boston Herald editorial, June 15, 2008 - calls the business a "sordid" affair, and says that the court case was "an important step in fighting the lie represented by the film."
  14. French Jews call for al-Dura probe, JTA, July 2, 2008: Reports that a French Jewish group has called on Nicolas Sarkozy to set up an independent investigation into France 2's coverage of the incident.
  15. ADL supports independent probe of France 2's report on Mohammed al-Dura, JPost, July 12, 2008: ADL's Lewy and Foxman support the probe and say that those who have seen the additional footage have "advanced serious arguments that the entire incident was staged."

News Reports

edit
  1. French court cancels libel in Intifada video case May 21, 2008 Reuters: "The court said in its ruling the new footage "did not allow to rule out the opinion of (France 2) professionals," but it also rejected claims by state prosecutor Antoine Bartoli that the new evidence was "neither complete nor serious."

Journalism conference

edit
  • "Reading between the Lies: perception and prejudice in the Middle East", Global Media Forum conference, Bonn, June 2008. Discussed the view that the incident was a hoax: "Propaganda outweighs journalism, prejudice defeats dialogue." Melinda Crane of Deutsche Welle said that the France 2 footage had been used to promote suicide attacks. She said that a French court had found that the images had been staged, and/or that the footage suggested the boy was killed by Palestinian bullets, not Israeli ones. She asked whether the new developments had been publicized with as much enthusiasm as the original images.

Part of Media Literacy Curriculum

edit

Part of the France 2 footage

edit
  • Some of the France2 raw footage The French courts heard that the correspondent/cameraman cut out a scene from the original footage, where the boy clearly moves after the point that France 2 declared him to have been killed. That they removed this final scene doesn't mean the boy isn't dead, but it does raise the serious question of why it was removed. Reporter Charles Enderlin says he removed it to avoid showing the boy's "death throes," but the footage does not show death throes. He later told a reporter that what he meant was that he wanted not to show the moments before death. [1] The other issue is why no footage exists showing that the boy had clearly died; there is nothing after the final scene of him moving — no ambulances, no attempts to save him, no retrieval of the body. [2]

Discussion

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago51 comments10 people in discussion

There is very useful information here, but the section is getting awfully large. What do people think about moving this entire section to a subpage, such as Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah/Sources? That way people could still add it to their watchlists and it would be easily accessible, but it wouldn't be taking up quite as much room on this rapidly-scrolling page. Any thoughts? Elonka 04:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

I would quite like to keep the list of sources handy, because the argument from some editors is that all the sources are tiny-minority/fringe, when some are quite mainstream. Maybe we could either keep just the list, minus the discussion, or move it all to a subpage, but keep a section on this page with a link to it. SlimVirgin talk|edits 04:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Sure, since it's primarily your work, go ahead and archive it or subpage it in whichever way you want. As long as it decreases the "footprint" on the talkpage, I'll be happy.  :) --Elonka 05:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

ChrisO's opinion

edit

(copied from above) I'm going to compile a list of sources here that discuss the view that the France 2 version of events is not correct and/or that the incident was a hoax. If anyone wants to add their comments about each source, please do that in a separate section so that this section can be used simply to compile a list. SlimVirgin talk|edits 22:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

You're pulling a bit of a fast one here, frankly, by conflating several different POVs. As I've said before on this page, there are three mainstream POVs. The first is that the Israelis killed al-Durrah. The second is that the Palestinians may have killed him. The third is that nobody really knows. Note that all three mainstream POVs accept that he is dead. Views 2 and 3 necessarily accept either that France 2 got it wrong or that it isn't clear. The conspiracy theory that the whole thing was a hoax and al-Durrah isn't dead is a separate POV altogether. There are a large number of sources suggesting that France 2 got it wrong and the Palestinians killed al-Durrah. There are a relatively small number of sources reporting on the conspiracy theory, and a very small number indeed that actually endorse that view.
Let's go through these sources (again, since we've already done this) and note (again, but it strangely seems to have gone missing) which are op-eds and which is original reporting:
  • BBC News, UK, May 22, 2008: Reports the French court verdict; studiously avoids saying the boy is dead, which they have always done in the past.
News report. "Studiously avoids saying the boy is dead, which they have always done in the past" is pure OR on your part; you can't make that kind of inference. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Ridiculous. All you have to do is read the article and it is obvious that the writer is leaving open the issue of whether the person is dead. 6SJ7 (talk) 00:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC
"All you have to do is read" typically prefaces an exhortation to do a bit of original research. This is the case here as well. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
News report. States explicitly "Note that the court did not say the images actually were a hoax, just that it is now acceptable to characterize them that way."
Op-ed, as you say. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Is that the rule now? Opinion articles can't be sources? I know a few articles that are about to disappear if that's the case. 6SJ7 (talk) 00:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Opinion articles by proponents of a fringe theory cannot be used to judge the fringiness of the theory. This is also well-understood practice in such areas. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
  • News.com.au, Australia, May 29: Says the boy is seen to move, and even look "conspiratorially" at the camera, after France 2 had declared him dead.
Op-ed. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
  • Ha'aretz, Israel, May 23: reports that the court has backed the claim that the death was staged.
News report. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Op-ed. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Blog post. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
  • A Reuters story reporting that a court has supported a critic who claims the French tape of the reported killing may have been doctored.
News report. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
I disagree with the characterisation "supported", which does not appear in the text. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
I've already pointed this out. Why am I having to repeat everything I say on this talk page over and over again? It's Groundhog Day here. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Chris refers to his comment of 22:50, 8 June 2008. Frequently having to repeat oneself is not uncommon when dealing with such theories. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
News report. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
About the theorists. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Op-ed. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Op-ed, as you say. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Op-ed by one of the conspiracy theorists who, I believe, was also one of the defendants in a separate libel case brought by France 2. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
  • Some of the France2 raw footage The French courts heard that the correspondent/cameraman cut out a scene from the original footage, where the boy clearly moves after the point that France 2 declared him to have been killed. That they removed this final scene doesn't mean the boy isn't dead, but it does raise the serious question of why it was removed.
Personal website of one of the leading conspiracy theorists. "Does raise the serious question of why it was removed" is your personal opinion and OR. Please don't bring OR into this discussion, it's not helpful.
  • Norway's newpaper of record, on May 27th: Headline asks: "Was this video a bluff?", and the subheading answers affirmatively: "the film was probably a bluff. "
While the article itself attributes those views to Karsenty, with no endorsement whatsoever. See, I'm repeating myself again. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Not in the headline, nor in th esubheading, which are not attributed to K, and are the paper's own view. Canadian Monkey (talk) 23:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Sigh. Directly contradicted by the image caption, which attributes it to mediekritikere. Note also that Aftenposten, like most Norwegian newspapers, dispenses with quotation marks. --Relata refero (disp.) 23:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Sigh indeed, please look up "contradiction". This is the paper's view, per the headline and sub, as well as K's view. Canadian Monkey (talk) 23:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Umm, if it was the paper's view, why would the paper attribute it? As I said, please note that Aftenposten, like most Norwegian papers, does not use quote marks, so claiming that it is the paper's view when the body and the image caption attribute it (except when quoting K, without quote marks) is indeed a trifle strong. --Relata refero (disp.) 23:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
umm, it didn't attribute it, not in the headline, and not in the subheading. Take your OR speculation elswhere, please Canadian Monkey (talk) 23:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Please demonstrate that it was the papers view and not a quote. --Relata refero (disp.) 23:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
I’m afraid you’re a little confused as to who has to prove things. This statement is not attributed, and does not appear in quotes. Thus, it is self-evidently not a quote. If you want to claim that despite the fact that it is not attributed to anyone and does not appear in quotes it is a quote – the onus is on you to provide some extraordinary support for such an extraordinary claim. Canadian Monkey (talk) 00:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
I have. Aftenposten, like most Norwegian newspapers, does not use quotes. Thus the premise "does not appear in quotes" is empty. --Relata refero (disp.) 00:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
This is untrue. Norwegian newspapers may not use quotation marks in headlines, but when the headline is a quote it is always preceded by a "-." The article simply references the issue without deciding whether it is a hoax or not, merely reporting that there are serious questions about its authenticity. This is not an argument between whether the boy was killed or not; it's an argument whether we for purposes of this article can definitely take the position that he was. --Leifern (talk) 02:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
No, I've checked up on this since. It is the case that in the body, quotes are on a different line, and indented with a "-". This is not the case in headlines or captions.

(Reset indent)Again, this is untrue. Here are some examples of headlines from today's Aftenposten:

- De blinde markedskreftene fortsetter å styre utbyggerne med kommunen på slep
- Ikke behov for gresk brannfly
«Jeg føler frykten, men gjør det allikevel!»
- Det er ikke greit når man prakker produkter på folk
- Mediene har litt av ansvaret

--Leifern (talk) 13:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

And nobody is yet to bring an article about the incident, rather than the conspiracy theory, that gives the conspiracy theory any leeway of the sort that various news-lovers here want. --Relata refero (disp.) 06:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
By this logic, every single Aftenposten headline must be assumed to be a quote, which is ridiculous. The claim that an unquoted, unattributed headline is in fact a quote is extraordinary, and requires extraordinary evidence, and "they never use quotes" is not enough. Canadian Monkey (talk) 00:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Every Aftenposten headline is, in fact, ambiguous - this one less so, because elsewhere the claim is always attributed. I rather believe that "they never use quote marks" is pretty extraordinary, and more than enough to demonstrate that we cannot make assumptions that they have the same practices we are familiar with. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
That's a very interesting point, Relata. If you take a random read through Aftenposten, it doesn't seem to use quote marks anywhere. This is another example of English-speakers using English conventions to interpret sources in foreign languages - a recipe for trouble if you don't know what the foreign languages' own conventions are. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
In this particular case, I am a native Norwegian speaker and have proven that Relata misrepresented - either deliberately or through neglect - Norwegian practices for quotes. As for your random reading of Aftenposten, it must have been limited to about two lines, as - of course - there are lots of quotes in the paper. In this article, an interview with Bill Richardson, every quote is prefaced with a dash, but there are also quotes, such as this one: «ny realisme» --Leifern (talk) 13:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
What explanation might there be for this endorsement of K's views, if such it be, not being in the article itself? Headlines and subheadings are the province of sub-editors, who are only charged with summarizing the content of the story in a brief, catchy way that fits with page layout. 86.44.27.243 (talk) 01:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
  • Title Thesen Temperamente, Affiliate of German TV broadcaster ARD - article states "a French journalist commented: "Mohammed is dead, his father seriously injured". ... But was it really so?", and later says "In fact: In the pictures that allegedly show that Mohamed Al-Durah is seriously wounded, there's no blood". Not the usage of "allegedly show that Mohamed Al-Durah is seriously wounded"
Fascinating. The second excerpt is taken out of context: the context places it between a direct quote of K's, and a sentence ending "will Karsenty wissen." The evidence piles up. --Relata refero (disp.) 23:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Not at all out of context. there's K's quote, then there's the broadcaster's summary of the situation, which concurs with K. Canadian Monkey (talk) 00:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
I've moved this one because it doesn't belong with the rest:
  • Shapiro, Esther. Three Bullets and a Child: Who Killed the Young Muhammad al-Dura?, ARD television, Germany, 2002. Parts of Shapiro's interview with the general and the original cameraman (who laughs when asked whether any bullets were found; says that France 2 collected them, and adds "we have some secrets ourselves ...") are shown in RIchard Landes's Al Durah: According to Palestinian sources II. Birth of an icon, 2005.
Shapiro's documentary, as I understand it (I haven't watched it) asserts that al-Durrah was killed by the Palestinians. It pre-dates the Karsenty-Landes conspiracy theory. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Note: Please read again the following points on how to handle conspiracy theories: "I see no, or vanishingly few, reliable sources discussing the incident that say the boy is not dead. I see several articles about the theory that the boy is not dead. I see the overwhelming, crushing majority of sources that discuss the incident saying the boy is dead. This is the canonical manner in which prominent conspiracy theories are discussed." Please, therefore, concentrate on discovering articles about the incident and not about the theory or theorists. (Not that the latter is going awfully well.) --Relata refero (disp.) 23:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

I think that collecting usable sources is an excellent idea. I'd especially like to focus on very reliable sources, especially since we seem to have many to choose from. If there are sources of questionable reliability, we can probably just pull them off the list for now. If there is dispute about whether a particular source is or isn't reliable, I recommend pulling those into a separate list, and then we can ask for opinions from the reliable source noticeboard. --Elonka 00:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Another highly informative article for our French readers -- --from Guysen News : La Cour d’appel de Paris a relaxé Philippe Karsenty dans l’affaire al-Dura Tundrabuggy (talk) 14:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Tundrabuggy (talk) 23:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

To the point that it is only op-ed's which claim that al-Durrah was not killed. That would be a matter of course unless there were further new irrefutable evidence, such as an autopsy. The sources that claim that al-Durrah was in fact killed, were merely parroting the news as they got it from France 2, the original source. They could not be faulted for reporting what seemed at the time to be factual. Now that the court has suggested in its verdict that France 2's evidence is sketchy, flawed, possibly manipulated and not incontrovertible, (a position that many have held for some time)--one can see that to claim he was killed is every bit as much of a 'conspiracy theory' as the claim that he was not. If the original news story is false, then all the other sources parroting it are false as well. And to repeat, there is no way that we can ever say with absolute certainty that he is either dead or not without DNA evidence. The chances we will ever get that are infinitely remote. The best we can say is "reportedly killed."Tundrabuggy (talk) 00:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Reliable sources retract news coverage they believe to be false, or print or broadcast a correction. The remainder of your statement requires us to second-guess the overwhelming majority of reliable sources, which we do not do. Please feel free to remove this duplicated response when the duplicated post to which it responds is removed. --Relata refero (disp.) 00:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
If we removed all the duplicated responses and duplicated posts this talk page would be a fraction of its current length... -- ChrisO (talk) 00:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Reliable sources or not, there is no further hard evidence one way or the other. There are no new witnesses. No reliable source for bullets. No hard evidence. Everything is now op-ed, wherever it comes from. The only "news" now is the latest verdict, and what people are saying now that more evidence has been evaluated by unbiased judges. Tundrabuggy (talk) 00:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Please see my remarks above on retractions, corrections and other methods by which reliable sources maintain their reliability. --Relata refero (disp.) 00:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

A few photographic details: THe boy is seen still moving - but not bleeding or even visibly in pain - when the videotape ends, even though the soundtrack has the cameraman or reporter yelling (in Arabic) "The boy is dead". A press conference held on the spot the next day by the Palestinian authorities showed various small bloodstains on the pavement - but none where the videotape shows the boy was lying. The very grainy (and very amateurish) "autopsy photo" printed in the Wikipedia article fails to show an indisputable bullethole but indicates bruises not consistent with the events on the videotape, including really severe marks (similar to rope burns) at the base of the neck - this raises the possibility that this photo is not of the same boy nor even made in the same year. Sussmanbern (talk) 19:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

CBS, 12th Nov 2001, JCSS say "damage is done"

edit
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

May belong straight in article with re-enactment? CBS news, published 12th November 2001 (12 days after the incident): Even if Samia could produce real evidence to support his belief, it would be useless anyway, said Goodman, a senior fellow at Israel's Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies. "The damage has been done. We are perceived as the guilty party here," he said. "All the charts and all the tables and all the explanations are not going to change the Tiananmen Square image of one man in front of a tank or one young boy of 12 years old being shot in crossfire."[3] PRtalk 11:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Selected sources for blood libel

edit

Note: bold added.

  1. Anthony Julius, lawyer, Engage. "The blood libel has acquired an anti-Zionist character ... It is now a commonplace for Zionists / Israelis to be characterised as child-murderers. The death of Mohammed al-Dura on 30 September 2000 in circumstances that are still unclear, but which almost certainly were not the consequence of deliberate action by Israeli forces, was represented as disclosing the criminal essence of Zionism. And Zionism in turn was represented as Judaism Unmasked. The Zionist does openly what his co-religionists hitherto did in secret." [4]
  2. Nitsana Darshan-Leitner, lawyer, Israel Law Center. "This modern-day blood libel resulted in hundreds of Jewish and Arab deaths, and ignited a still-flaming torch of international hatred, only for the saking of raising France 2's ratings." [5]
  3. Pierre-Andre Taguieff, philosopher, in the Jewish Telegraphic Agency: "The old anti-Jewish stereotype of the blood libel reappeared with the al-Dura affair, which is why it is extremely significant." [6]
    Taguieff again in Le Meilleur des Mondes. Google translation: "The legend of "Jewish ritual murder" reactivated by exploiting symbolic the "dead line" of the young al-Dura became a source of inspiration for all cultural forms of contemporary anti-Jewish propaganda, postage stamps and posters bearing the image of al-Dura in interactive television programs." Original: "La légende du « crime rituel juif », réactivée par l’exploitation symbolique de la « mort en direct » du jeune al-Dura, est devenue une source d’inspiration pour toutes les formes culturelles de la propagande antijuive contemporaine, des timbres-poste et des affiches à l’effigie d’al-Dura aux émissions interactives de télévision." [7]
  4. Stéphane Juffa, The Wall Street Journal: "What turned these images into a modern blood-libel against Israel was only Mr. Enderlin's voice-over."
  5. Amnon Lord, Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. "Who killed Muhammad al-Dura? Blood libel—model 2000 ... His death turned into a blood libel accompanying the terror and violence, and it became the altar upon which the good name of the people and the State of Israel was sacrificed during the last two years." [8]
  6. James Fallows, The Atlantic. "The harshest version of the al-Dura case from the Arab side is that it proves the ancient "blood libel"—Jews want to kill gentile children—and shows that Americans count Arab life so cheap that they will let the Israelis keep on killing." [9]
  7. Caroline Glick, The Jerusalem Post. "Yet, even as private individuals were dedicating their time and passion to proving that France 2 had purposely broadcast a blood libel against Israel that caused the death and injury of Israelis and Jews throughout the world and marred the honor of the IDF, official Israel remained silent." [10]
  8. Rudy Reichstadt, Le Meilleur des Mondes. Google translation: "This image, tragic, a father and son huddled against a wall; image erected in emblem of both the "martyrs" and "sadistic Israeli" image declined on all modes - in textbooks , on t-shirts, postage stamps - plastered along roads in the West Bank and to Mali; image reactualizing the old accusation of anti-Jewish "ritual murder" ... Original: "Cette image, tragique, d’un père et de son fils recroquevillés contre un muret ; cette image érigée en emblème à la fois du « martyre palestinien » et du « sadisme israélien » ; cette image déclinée sur tous les modes – dans les manuels scolaires, sur des tee-shirts, des timbres postes –, placardée le long des routes en Cisjordanie et jusqu’au Mali; cette image réactualisant l’antique accusation antijuive de « crime rituel » ..." [11]
  9. Ron Rosenbaum, Those who forget the past, 2004, p. 273. "This second Intifada also marked the emergence of the Al-Jazeera effect, with satellite television beaming brutal images of the conflict, such as the death of twelve-year-old Palestinian Muhammed al-Dura, into millions of homes worldwide. In Europe, Muslim extremists took out their furty on Jews and Jewish institutions. Some in the European Press ... used incendiary imagery that routinely drew comparisons between Israel and the Nazi regime. This crude caricature of Israelis as slaughterers of the innocent soon morphed into the age-old "blood libel," as when ... La Stampa published a cartoon depicting the infant Jesus threatened by Israeli tanks imploring, "Don't tell me they want to kill me again."
  10. Baruch Gordon, Israel National News. "The raw footage as presented to the court has increased suspicions that the original France-2 report which blamed Israeli soldiers for shooting the 12-year-old was a staged blood libel." [12]
  11. Melanie Philips, Standpoint. "It was, in short, a modern-day blood libel, an updated version of the medieval calumny that the Jews target gentile children for murder — which itself caused the murder of thousands of Jews over the centuries." [13]
    Philips again in The Spectator. "... even now certain representatives of the Israel government are playing a most ambiguous role in defending their country against this modern blood libel." [14]
  12. Nidra Poller, New York Sun. "Vindictive anger is aimed straight at Metula News Agency, a prickly French-language Israeli news service operating up in the Metula hills overlooking Lebanon, with an excellent track record and particular tenacity in denouncing the Al Dura blood libel. [15]
  13. Richard Landes. "The al-Dura story operated as a new mutation of one of the core motifs of anti-Semitism–blood libel." [16]
  14. Ed O'Loughlin, The Age. "According to Danny Seaman, director of Israel's Government Press Office, the France 2 television station "essentially staged" the footage seven years ago this week as a "blood libel" against the Jewish state. Although his remarks have not been formally endorsed by his superiors, Mr Seaman is the most senior official yet to express a view that is increasingly popular among supporters of Israeli policy." [17]
    BBC News, citing Daniel Seaman. ""This blood libel," Mr Seaman added, "inflamed the Arab world and led to many victims in Israel and across the world." [18]
    San Francisco Chronicle, citing Seaman. "In response, Daniel Seaman, director of the Israel Government Press Office, openly accused Enderlin and his cameraman, Talal Abu Rahma, of a "modern blood libel" against Israel." [19]
    Ali Waked, YNet News, citing Seaman. "The creation of the myth of Muhammad al-Dura has caused great damage to the State of Israel. This is an explicit blood libel against the state. And just as blood libels in the old days have led to pogroms, this one has also caused damage and dozens of dead," said Government Press Office director Daniel Seaman." [20]
    Seaman himself in Ynet News. "Members of the office must be willing to dedicate the required effort, while displaying public courage at times, in order to disprove and thwart the blood libels formulated by the Palestinians ..." [21]
  15. Alex Grobman "How the Arabs Manipulate the Media, Israelis and the West" at History News Network writes: "Historian Richard Landes began investigating the case as a blood libel after seeing this incident as “One Jew allegedly kills a gentile child in cold blood, and all Jews everywhere are responsible." He also provides reference to "Amnon Lord, “Who Killed Muhammad Al-Dura? Blood Libel-Model 2000” Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs No. 482. (July 15, 2002)"[22]
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Killing_of_Muhammad_al-Durrah/sources&oldid=1049243822"