25 Years Ago — Fate of 12-Year-Old Palestinian Led to 911 Attack and the Invention of the Word Pallywood: "If we ignore how images propagate and mutate, we hand the moral high ground to those who traffic in outrage"

Today’s rising tide of Jew-hatred from all directions – Right, Left, Muslim, Christian, secular, knowing and unknowing – started on September 30, 2000 
— Richard Landes

UPDATED: Tuesday marks the quarter-century anniversary of the beginning of one of the biggest scandals of the past 50 years, the Mohammed al-Dura affair, which saw French television video and photos of a 12-year-old Palestenian and his father being supposedly felled by Israeli bullets in Gaza, and which led to the creation of a new word — Pallywood.

Chief among those instrumental in debunking the hoax was a young free-thinker by the name of Philippe Karsenty, and so it was natural that, 25 years later, Alexandre Gilbert of the Times of Israel would wish to interview him.

In the interview, the man who has since become the spokesman for le Comité Trump France gave to the Isreali newspaper, he spoke about the media wars — regarding Daniel Pearl, etc, but most notably the al Durrah affair which had its start on September 30, 2000; which Karsenty himself was instrumental in helping to debunk; and whose lawsuits No Pasarán covered over the years. (Shookhran for the instalink, Sarah.)

Less than a year after the IDF's dastardly Jews' alleged murder of the 12-year-old Arab — not, as it turns out, at all inciden tally — the world witnessed the 911 attacks on New York and Washington.

Before we take a look at the Philippe Karsenty interview, a must-read is the piece that Richard Landes penned in The Jerusalem Post five years ago — as the Abrahamic accords were being signed — about the twentieth (20th) anniversary of "one of the most disastrous events in the year 2000". It's a hard, indeed a mind-boggling, read — check out RL's blog, The Augean Stables — especially coming three years before the October 7th massacre.

The image of Muhammad al-Dura via the narrative that the IDF had targeted him became the global symbol of Palestinian suffering at the hand of Israeli cruelty. It rapidly became an “icon of hatred” that had a greater immediate and long-term effect on the new century than any other such vehicle of incitement.

A cry arose, for some of pain, for some of rage, but for all a clear sign that the Infidel, led by the twin Satans Israel and USA, were making war on Muslims. Indeed, no single event so far has done more to arouse the spirit of jihad against the West than this footage, which, as Bin Laden quickly pointed out in his recruiting video for global jihad, demanded vengeance against al Yahud and their allies.

 … the Muhammad al-Dura icon fed an apocalyptic jihadi narrative: to #GenerationCaliphate Israel was the Dajjal (Antichrist).

The West followed suit. Lethal journalists like Robert Fisk quickly affirmed the charge of deliberate murder. Where before such comparisons were considered ugly if not worse, now comparing Israel to the Nazis became common. A prominent French news anchor, speaking for many, declared that al-Dura “erased, replaced the image of the boy in the Warsaw Ghetto.” It was a new, post-modern “replacement narrative.”

Instead of Christians or Muslims replacing Israel as the true Chosen People, it was the former chosen people replacing the Nazis, and the poor Palestinian victim suffering the fate of the Jews. The progressive refrain, “Israel has lost the moral high ground.” … 

 

 … Al-Dura justified terrorist attacks on Israel in the minds of both Muslims and non-Jews, especially Europeans. “What choice do they have?” progressives responded when Palestinians targeted Israel civilians. They were merely resisting …

 

 … At the height of the suicide terror campaign, siding with the Palestinians was a “litmus test of liberal credentials.” Suggesting this heinous violence was genocidal aspiration, not state-deprived desperation, was a ticket to cancellation.

 

 … ANGRY PROTESTS in the West accused Israel of genocide, and a large plurality of Europeans believed it.  … the Western legacy media constituted one of the most potent weapons in the cognitive war “Caliphaters” waged against the West. 

 

 … The icon of al-Dura was the first successful blood libel in the West since the Nazis rode their ecumenical Jew-hatred to mega-death for all in 1930s and ‘40s. Unlike earlier versions, this was spread by a Jew and carried by the professional news media, and its primary impact was on progressive, leftist circles, giving birth to a “new antisemitism” in its 21st-century avatar, eliminationist “anti-Zionism.” Today’s rising tide of Jew-hatred from all directions – Right, Left, Muslim, Christian, secular, knowing and unknowing – started on September 30, 2000. 

 

 … Whether we know it or not, those of us entering this very grim-looking third decade of the 21st century are the inheritors of this al-Durah-triggered new wave of Jew-hatred and its accompaniments: fake news, conspiracy theories and violence.

 

 … As some honest Arab journalists point out, #FakeNews is something of an Arab specialty, and for far too long public opinion has been manipulated by dishonest and malevolent actors masquerading as journalists. 

And this brings us, full circle, to Alexandre Gilbert's Times of Israel interview with Philippe Karsenty.

Alexandre Gilbert: Osama bin Laden explicitly cited the Al-Dura case as justification both for the assassination of Daniel Pearl, a journalist from the Washington Post, who was about to find him, in Abbottabad in 2002, and for the 9/11 2001 aircraft hijack and attacks on the United States. How do you interpret that?

Philippe Karsenty: Bin Laden invoked Al‑Dura very directly. He pointed to the footage as proof that Jews and the West were child‑killers. He then used that grievance as a pretext to justify Daniel Pearl’s murder — presenting it as vengeance for Al‑Dura. And he cited the same image again as moral cover for 9/11, claiming that the attacks on New York and Washington on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, were retaliation for the supposed killing of a Palestinian child. In his rhetoric, one short televised clip became the excuse both for executing a single journalist and for massacring thousands of civilians. 

That’s how far the reach of this image went: from Gaza, to Karachi, to the Twin Towers. Modern media ecosystems — from satellite networks to the social platforms that would come later — are accelerants. An emotionally charged image, broadcast without context, can spiral into a global narrative within days. Bin Laden’s invocation was not the origin of that mechanism, but it displayed how effectively extremists could harness it. That is why accountability, forensic analysis, and the willingness to pursue uncomfortable inquiries are vital. If we ignore how images propagate and mutate, we hand the moral high ground to those who traffic in outrage.

It’s crucial to understand that we moved from the notion of “deicide” to “genocide.” In Christian tradition, Jews were stigmatized as “Christ-killers.” With the Al-Dura case, the Jews were recast as child-killers, genocidal by nature. This image of Mohammed Al-Dura, supposedly shot by Israeli soldiers in 2000, became the ultimate weapon of demonization against the Jewish people. And honestly, if you search through every existing representation, you won’t find anything more powerful or more destructive than that image. Everyone knows it, even people completely detached from politics or the conflict.

 … You stress that you weren’t the first to discover the Al-Dura fabrication. Who was?

Philippe Karsenty: It was Nahum Shahaf, an Israeli researcher. He was the one who opened my eyes. When I saw his analysis, it struck me as obvious. So I approached France 2, expecting them to correct their mistake. Instead, they dismissed me. I went to the CRIF, to the Israeli ambassador—everyone brushed me off. Ambassador Daniel Shek even refused to shake my hand, calling me a “conspiracy theorist.” That was the environment I was up against.

Let’s talk about the legal battle. How did it begin?

Philippe Karsenty: Since I had no legal standing to sue, I published a deliberately provocative article, hoping France 2 would sue me for defamation. They did. In 2006, at my first trial, the prosecutor said I had presented convincing evidence of a staged event and should be acquitted. Yet I was convicted. On appeal, the court demanded France 2 release its raw footage. I had obtained 18 minutes of it. The footage exposed blatant inconsistencies. I was acquitted, and the case made global headlines—even appearing in US diplomatic cables later revealed by WikiLeaks.

But the story didn’t end there, did it?

Philippe Karsenty: No. France 2 appealed to the Court of Cassation. Despite the Attorney General’s conclusions in my favor, I lost—on a procedural point. The court ruled that I didn’t yet have the footage when I published my article, and therefore my claim was defamatory at the time, even if later proven correct. In 2013, at the retrial, I brought experts from around the world—architects, analysts. France 2 was demolished in court. But once again, the verdict went against me. I was ordered to pay €11,000. At that point, I decided to stop. The system was hopelessly politicized.

So where does that leave you today?

Philippe Karsenty: Today, I continue to say openly that the Al-Dura video was staged. France 2 can no longer sue me. Their only argument—that I lacked proof at the time of publication—has expired. I have the evidence, and I speak freely. The irony is that the more they tried to silence me, the more the affair spread—the Streisand effect in action.

How do you respond to being associated with conspiracy figures like Alex Jones, Steve Bannon, or Alain Soral?

Philippe Karsenty: I reject that completely. I have no connection to those people. In fact, they despise my work. Why? Because it disrupts their antisemitic narratives. I expose Palestinian propaganda as fraudulent, which doesn’t serve their agenda. Unlike others who were co-opted by conspiracy networks, I remained isolated—especially in the pre-social media era. That isolation made the fight very lonely. But it also kept me clean. 

 … The distorted vision of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is mostly in France a quarrel between Alsatian Ashkenazi and Algerian Berbers, isn’t it ? 

Philippe Karsenty: Yes. And a conflict suggests two equal sides fighting each other. That’s not the case. Israel never wakes up in the morning deciding to kill its neighbors. What exists is a war: the Arab attempt to destroy Israel, ongoing for 75 years. They tried conventional wars, terrorism, rockets—all failed. Where they succeeded was in waging media warfare. And in that realm, Israel doesn’t fight. The Al-Dura case was their greatest victory. That’s why I insist: this is not a conflict, it’s a war fought on a different battlefield—the media.