All the lies that are fit to print

[Behind the Aegis]

My column today will be about just one incident in the Middle East, that happened nearly eight years ago. It was a significant incident in its own right, with repercussions to the present day. It is more broadly significant, because it provides a clear example of the way malicious dishonesty in media reporting costs lives, inflames conflicts, feeds ignorance, and spreads murderous racial hatred.

The incident was the alleged shooting of a little boy by Israeli troops in Gaza, in September 2000. His name was Muhammad Al-Dura, and if my reader has been watching any television over the last eight years, he will have seen the clip, probably many times. A Palestinian man and boy are shown cowering by a wall. Then suddenly the boy is shown dead in his father's arms. The voice-over explains that he was picked off by an Israeli marksman.

The clip was produced for the French state television channel, France-2. After assembly in Paris, it was immediately aired, and also distributed free of charge to media the world over. It received huge play everywhere, and in most Muslim countries it continues to be shown, endlessly. The Arab League declared Oct. 1 to be "Al-Dura Day" to commemorate all Arab children "victimized by Zionists." Hundreds of schools have been named after the child throughout that world, where depictions of his dead body have become iconic. Orchestrated demonstrations of rage over this have cost additional lives.

The film for the clip was shot by a Palestinian cameraman, the honesty of whose work has been repeatedly challenged. Charles Enderlin, the French news correspondent who vouched for the accuracy of the clip, and provided the voice-over, was not in Gaza at the time. When a formal Israeli investigation showed that it had not been physically possible for any Israeli soldier to have shot the boy, it was hardly reported. Several independent investigations confirming the Israeli finding were similarly ignored.

more...

[pocoloco]

1. Got any vids of murder by bulldozer??

[Behind the Aegis]

2. As it never happened. No. n/t

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Behind the Aegis]

4. Got to love doctored photos.

:eyes:

[notfullofit]

5. Peace with Realism

These pictures have been shown to be a hoax. The "before" picture shows Rachel standing in front of the bulldozer with a megaphone, some distance away and foreshortened by perspective, making her appear to be in clear sight of the bulldozer. The presentation also makes it appear that this took place immediately before the incident. However, the photographer himself later admitted that no one with a camera had been present at the site just before Rachel's accident, that the picture with the megaphone had actually been taken hours earlier, and that at the time of the accident Rachel was not in sight of the driver. An examination of the pictures themselves, noting, for example, the difference in the color of the sky, shows they could not have been taken close to the same point in time.(1) In addition, the bulldozers shown in these supposed "before" and "after" pictures are not the same.(2)

Indeed both CNN, which ran the two pictures, and the New York Times, which ran the first one, published the following corrections:

CNN, March 25, 2003:

Caption clarification: Photos by an International Solidarity Movement eyewitness show Rachel Corrie protesting earlier, and then later, after she was hit by an Israeli bulldozer in Gaza on Sunday.(3)
The New York Times, March 26, 2003:

A picture caption on March 17 with an article about an American protester who was crushed by an Israeli Army bulldozer in Gaza referred incorrectly to the bulldozer shown. It was one that the protester, Rachel Corrie, had earlier tried to stop from destroying a Palestinian home. It was not the one that killed her.(4)
Nevertheless pro-Palestinian web sites, including the International Solidarity Movement's own web site, continue to present the two pictures with incorrect and misleading labels.


Rachel Corrie and the bulldozer (International Solidarity Movement)

Another photo in the photographer's own report, posted on pro-Palestinian web sites, shows Rachel's true proportion in relation to the enormous size of the bulldozer, making it clear how the driver could easily have missed seeing her.

Furthermore, what those who accuse Israel never mention is that the bulldozer's task was to eliminate tunnels the Palestinian terrorists were using to smuggle weapons illegally from Egypt into Gaza.(5)(6)

Who are these "international peace protesters" to whom Rachel Corrie belonged?

The group calls itself the International Solidarity Movement. They are a group of European and American activists founded and led by Palestinians. Their agenda is not peace but the Palestinian cause.

They are enablers of terrorism. Because they know that Israel, unlike the Palestinian terrorists, cares about civilian casualties, they present themselves as "human shields," entering combat zones against orders and hindering Israeli efforts to restrain terrorism. And so the previous May members of the group entered the Church of the Nativity, where known Palestinian terrorists were taking a stand against Israeli forces.

They describe themselves as a "peace army." They claim to use only nonviolent tactics. But how nonviolent can one claim to be if one's actions help those who do resort to violence to continue doing their work?

They say they are trying to stop Israel from destroying Palestinian homes. They do not mention that these are buildings that Palestinian gunmen use as cover, or that these buildings hide tunnels used for arms smuggling. They do not mention that Gaza is the center of operations for Hamas, where terrorists are trained, where attacks are launched, and where terrorists hide. They do not mention that Israeli troops entered Gaza after a series of increasingly bloody attacks on civilians planned and executed by Hamas.

http://www.peacewithrealism.org/corrie.htm

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[notfullofit]

8. There is

a big difference between accidental death and murder.

[azurnoir]

9. Respectfully sir

the site you link is part of a pro Israeli "web ring" if one clicks on the Israeli flag at the bottom of the home page which does not include an "about us" section you get this page linking to other articles the first of which is an article about "The Real Barak Obama"

http://w.webring.com/t/Truth-in-the-Middle-East?sid=9

[notfullofit]

10. Does that

disqualify CNN and The NY Times?

This is the first time I have ever seen that site, thanks for the heads up re Obama.

[notfullofit]

11. The article

to Obama is a Google advertisement and not a link from that site.

[azurnoir]

13. This is a mere Google ad?

http://www.humanevents.com/offers/offer.php?id=bho101

I will be going back and getting the e-mail

[notfullofit]

14. This is the web page I referred to

http://www.peacewithrealism.org/corrie.htm

and not

http://www.humanevents.com/offers/offer.php?id=bho101
I did not visit this site.

[azurnoir]

15. I did visit the site and got the email

it is a PDF document with no address so I do not know what to do to post it but I did manage to save the table of contents which should be enough

Amanda B. Carpenter Obama More Pro-Choice Than NARAL 5
Ann Coulter Jonathan Livingston Obama 6
Tom Fitton Barack Obama’s Whitewater? 8
Amanda B. Carpenter Obama’s Voting Record Belies Moderate Image 9
Steve Chapman Barack Obama and the Pertinent Precedents 11
D.R. Tucker Will GOP Be Ready for Obama Onslaught? 13
Amanda B. Carpenter Barack Obama Is Just Another Liberal 14
L. Brent Bozell III Youth Double Standard: Obama vs. Dubya 16
Robert Spencer Our First Muslim President? 18
Bill O’Reilly The Perils of Obama 19
Mac Johnson Barack Obama: The Human Rorschach Blot 20
Ben Shapiro Iran: Praying for Obama 22
Monica Crowley Who The Liberals Really Are 24
Erica Anderson The Liberal Egotism of Barack Obama 26
Dan Proft Reality of Obama Taking Hold 27
Robert J. Caldwell Obama in Perspective 28
Human Events Top 10 Contributors to Both the Clinton and Obama Campaigns 30
Erick Erickson Quid Pro QuObama? 31
Michael Reagan The Emperor Has No Clothes

[notfullofit]

16. I'm still

not sure I follow your reasoning?

I don't recognise any names on the list except Coulter, Reagan and O'Reilly

[azurnoir]

17. L.Brent Bozell and Robert Spencer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L._Brent_Bozell_III

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Spencer

Spencer has a web site called Jihad Watch. I will not post a link here as I think it is a hate site.

and Ben Shapiro

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Shapiro

[notfullofit]

19. Thanks for the info. nt

[aranthus]

12. So what? n/t

[ProgressiveMuslim]

18. Consider the source. I think the point is that BTA's OP seems to be part of a hate-network.

[notfullofit]

20. The Truth Is Out There.................nt

[Behind the Aegis]

21. Care to substantiate that slur? n/t

[ProgressiveMuslim]

23. Posted on a site that advertises hate networks... read the above posts!

There is certainly a range of opinion on I/P.

I frequently post stuff from the electronic intifadah. Clearly, there are those here who hate the site. But it's not full of ads for anti-semitic, anti-black or misogynist sites or organizations.

Can one judge a site by the ads it displays? Interesting question!

[Behind the Aegis]

25. And where do you see these ads?

I didn't find a single ad on canada.com that would remotely be considered a "hate" site.

[azurnoir]

27. disingenuous much n/t

[Behind the Aegis]

29. So I take it you couldn't find anything. Seems you'd be the disingenous one.

[azurnoir]

31. Daxid Warren the author of the article

who writes both for the Ottawa newspaper inyour OP and Real Clear Politics a very conservative website.

http://www.davidwarrenonline.com/

[Behind the Aegis]

34. Conservative or not...

...it still doesn't substantiate PM's claim "I think the point is that BTA's OP seems to be part of a hate-network."

[azurnoir]

32. The ads were on a another site

linked to by another poster concerning Rachel Corrie so I was wrong, however the author of your article is not exactly a "progressive" either, a bit more on him below

[azurnoir]

26. Are you sure you want that?

Because I would be more than glad to post a link, oops I can already see finger on alert button if I do but.........

[Behind the Aegis]

28. so break it up so it is not a direct link....

I am very interested to know where these hate links are on canada.com.

[azurnoir]

30. Where do you get this Canada .com from? n/t

[Behind the Aegis]

33. Canada.com is the link in my OP. n/t

[leftynyc]

7. Has there been an apology

by the papers and stations that repeated this as truth? As I recall, there were questions from the beginning as to the truth of this. Though I'm sure there will be plenty of "yeah, well, but what about XXXX" or "look over here instead" posts. Very predictable.

[shaayecanaan]

22. What a brave editorial...

and what utter bullshit. Completely opportunistic, wet-finger-in-the-wind rubbish made by the suggestible for the impressionable and the gullible. If they had any courage as journalists, why didnt they publish this editorial before the Court ruling, instead of simply following in their wake?

malicious dishonesty in media reporting costs lives

Originally, whether al-Dura was shot by Israel wasn't an issue, as Israel apologised and admitted responsibility for the event. It seems a bit rich to accuse media outlets of dishonesty as they were simply reporting, in good faith, the account which all sides agreed on at the time.

It is worth noting that Israel has not revised or revoked this apology or admission, probably an indication that they remain unconvinced.

the honesty of whose work has been repeatedly challenged.

...by the media. The German and French media, to be precise, were the initial sceptics. Again, when accusing media of malicious dishonesty, one should give credit where credit is due.

When a formal Israeli investigation showed that it had not been physically possible for any Israeli soldier to have shot the boy, it was hardly reported.

There was no formal Israeli investigation. There was an informal investigation conducted by a physicist and an army general. Israel has never publicly committed to this investigation, because of the dubious reputation of the two persons involved - they were both associated with conspiracy theories concerning the Rabin assasination.

http://www.ajds.org.au/intifada/netzarim.htm

It is worth noting that no properly-conducted ballistic analysis has been carried out. Admittedly, this is largely because the IDF demolished the wall near the Netzirim Junction where al-Dura was holed up against.

[Phx_Dem]

24. It's also worth noting

That an autopsy was never performed on al-Dura nor were any bullets recovered.