Gaza media battle in French court

[Aptrgangr]

Gaza media battle in French court

At the start of the second intifada, pictures of Muhammad al-Durrah and his father seeking shelter from gunfire were seen everywhere as a powerful symbol of Palestinian suffering and the brutality of the Israeli occupation.

Seven years on, a Paris court is set to look at the footage on Wednesday, as part of a libel case that could in turn become a cause celebre.
For both sides, the stakes could hardly be higher.

Defendant Philippe Karsenty, who runs a French media watchdog website, says he wants to expose a forgery that he says could be every bit as damaging as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion - the notorious forged document that alleges a Jewish plot to rule the world.

"The report is a fake that has fuelled hatred of Israel, the Jews and the West around the world," he told the BBC News website.
The plaintiff, state-owned TV channel France 2, says it is both fighting a smear campaign by conspiracy theorists and standing up for honest reporting.
"The arguments of the people we have sued run counter to the values and practice of journalism," the author of the original report, France 2's Jerusalem correspondent Charles Enderlin, told the BBC News website.

'Targeted'
The incident occurred on 30 September 2000 at the Netzarim junction in the central Gaza Strip, and was filmed by Gaza cameraman Talal Abu-Rahma.
The report shows Jamal al-Durrah and Muhammad, 12, cowering in front of a wall marked with seven bullet holes. In his comment, Mr Enderlin says the pair was being targeted from Israeli positions.

When Muhammad slumps to the ground, the reporter's script says the boy is dead and the father wounded.
The Israeli army first said there was a "high probability" its soldiers had killed Muhammad and apologised. But amid the international outcry that the footage caused, a second inquiry revised the findings, concluding - it said from the angle of the shots - that it was unlikely to have been Israeli fire.
Muhammad was most probably shot dead by Palestinian gunmen, the Israeli army suggested.
But Mr Enderlin stuck to his story and expressed full confidence in Mr Abu-Rahma, a veteran cameraman who has worked for France 2 since 1988.

'Staged'
In an effort to quell the doubts, the journalist released an edited three-minute version of the footage - not the full raw footage, which he said was too distressing.
However sceptics continued to investigate, examining every frame.

Eventually a third version of events began to circulate on the internet - Muhammad was struck by neither Israeli nor Palestinian bullets. The whole scene, it was said, had been staged.
Some observers were allowed to see the full recording, which they said also contained scenes of boys pretending to be injured by Israeli fire.
Mr Karsenty was among those who concluded that France 2 had been tricked into broadcasting a fake.
In November 2004 he wrote on his Media-Ratings website that the channel's decision to stand by its story had "disgraced France and its public broadcasting system".
France 2 and Mr Enderlin sued him for libel - and won.
In late 2006, Mr Karsenty was required to pay a symbolic Euro in compensation, as well as 3,000 euros in costs. He immediately filed an appeal.

Burden of proof
When the case returned to court in September, Mr Karsenty claimed a significant victory when France 2 was ordered to show the raw footage to the court on 14 November.
He is convinced he will be vindicated by the full 27-minute recording.
"The burden of the proof is on France 2 now," he says. "Where is their evidence of the brutal murder?"
The footage contains several features which Mr Karsenty says supports his allegation of fraud:

• The cameraman spoke of 45 minutes of continuous Israeli gunfire aimed at the pair, yet there are only seven bullet impacts on the wall
• No blood is seen
• At one point, an ambulance apparently rushes to rescue a wounded Palestinian before he falls down
• At the end of the recording, Muhammad, who is said to have already been killed, moves his arm.

Mr Enderlin, for his part, expresses equal confidence ahead of the viewing.
"There's nothing suspicious about the raw footage - you see stones being thrown, shots being fired by Palestinians, kids running for cover," he says.
"Nothing is staged. Footage of the same events filmed by other news organisations confirms this."

'Intimidation'
Mr Enderlin says Israeli soldiers were metres away from the scene, and it would have been impossible for anyone to fake a shooting incident there.
"We are ready to take part in any official inquiry with legal safeguards that conform to international standards," he says.
"We were never asked to be part or to testify before such a commission. There was never any official or other complaint against our crews."
He concedes the actual moment of Muhammad's death may not have been caught on film, but he is convinced that the boy was killed on that day.
Mr Enderlin insists he is the victim of a "campaign of intimidation" that has already had a chilling effect in some French newsrooms, where he says coverage of Israel's treatment in Palestinians in the occupied territories is being toned down.
"I can't imagine that a court can vindicate people who say that Muhammad al-Durrah's death was staged. That would mean that you can cast doubt on any report," he adds.
The Paris appeals court will decide on Mr Karsenty's appeal next February.

BBC NEWS | World | Europe | Gaza media battle in French court

Dura Discredited



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.
UPDATE: Watch Alain Benjamin\'s video coverage.

Media Backspin

[Carnyx]

FYI, Mr Charles Enderlin is an Israeli citizen.