Seeker Blog

Stephane Juffa, editor of Metula News Agency, wrote this English piece for WSJ Europe, Nov. 26, 2004. John Rosenthal provided the link to this Isranet.org copy of the article (emphasis added):

THE MYTHICAL MARTYR
Stephane Juffa
Wall Street Journal Europe, November 26, 2004
 
   The first thing that comes up when you google Mohammed al-Durra’s name is a poem written by Sheikh Mohammed of the United Arab Emirates called "To the soul of the child martyr." It gives an idea of the mythical proportions that the young boy has assumed in the Middle East. The images of Mohammed al-Durra hiding from Israeli fire behind his father’s back in the early days of the second intifada, only to be struck down by enemy bullets, shocked the whole world. For many Arabs and Muslims, the boy became the symbol of Palestinian suffering under Israeli occupation. On the Palestinian Authority’s TV channel, as well as in Palestinian school books, his example is used to encourage other children to emulate his spirit of sacrifice. Even in the West, the pictures that won so many journalism prizes have become the most recognizable symbol of Israeli aggression. When Ehud Barak, then Israel’s prime minister, visited Paris in the same year, French President Jacques Chirac wryly scolded him. "Killing children is no policy."
 
   And yet, it was nothing but a hoax… I will elaborate later how it has been proven that Israeli soldiers could not have killed the boy. Some might ask why it still matters…But French state-owned TV channel France 2, which produced and distributed the damning footage, refuses to release the facts.
 
The story began on Sept. 30, 2000, two months after Yasser Arafat walked out of the Camp David peace talks. The place was Netzarim junction in Gaza, where Israeli soldiers were posted to protect a nearby settlement. Palestinian rioters were throwing stones and Molotov cocktails at the Israelis while gunmen were shooting at them from amidst the crowd. It was during this fighting that the boy allegedly died. Claiming they didn’t want to make money on an innocent child’s death, France 2 distributed the dramatic coverage free of charge to the global media. The Israeli army hastily issued a statement saying that the boy may have accidentally been killed in Israeli cross-fire. Only later, maybe too late, did the army authorize a full investigation. It entrusted this mission to civilian physicist Nahum Shahaf, who scientifically proved that (given the angle of the Israeli position vis-a-vis Mohammed al-Durra) the soldiers could not have possibly killed the boy. Mr. Shahaf then uncovered an incredible plot: He demonstrated that since the shots must have come from directly behind or next to the cameraman, the whole scene of the supposed infanticide must have been staged, and that the boy seen in the film was not killed at all. Going through the film in slow motion, he could even see the cameraman’s finger making a "take two" sign, used by professionals to signal the repeat of a scene.
 
Three years ago I interviewed Mr. Shahaf, and after viewing all his evidence I realized that this might be one of the greatest media manipulations the world has ever seen. …
 
…What turned these images into a modern blood-libel against Israel was only Mr. Enderlin’s voice-over. Even though Mr. Enderlin was not in Gaza when the alleged killing happened, he tells the viewers with great confidence that the "shooting comes from the Israeli position. One more volley and the kid will be dead."
 
…Our friend delivered the sentence we had rehearsed so many times: "I came to watch the 27 minutes of the incident mentioned in Mr. Abu Rahma’s statement under oath."
 
A legal clerk for France 2 told Mr. Rosenzweig and his colleagues that they "will be disappointed." "Didn’t you know?" added Didier Epelbaum, an adviser to the president of France Television (the department presiding over all French state-operated TV networks) "that Talal has retracted his testimony?" No, they did not know. How could they since neither the French channel nor the Palestinian cameraman ever made that public? It is incredible how France 2 so nonchalantly admitted that their star witness, well, their only witness to the alleged killing, retracted his accusations. Without this testimony there is no story, and yet the channel refuses to make any of this public.
…
 
   So I keep asking France 2 three questions: How is it possible that, after having been caught giving false testimonies, Messrs. Abu Rahma and Enderlin are not only still working for the public TV channel but are still covering, often together, the Israeli-Arab conflict? How is it possible that France 2 has not yet informed the public of the significant new developments in the Mohammed al-Durra case? This would be standard behavior for any responsible media organization. By refusing to do so, France 2 is violating even its own ethical code. And most importantly, how is it possible that France 2 still stands by this story even though it knows it was filmed by someone who gave a false testimony and who, by retracting this testimony, effectively eliminated the whole basis of the report? For four years, France 2 has been holding the "27-minute footage," pretending it contained crucial evidence, knowing full well though that both of their journalists simply lied. France 2 must be held responsible for this manipulation, first for issuing this fabrication and then for not coming clean.