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 incidentally — 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.

France 2 and the death of Mohammed Al-Dura revisited

John Rosenthal writes The Trans-Atlantic Intelligencer. He works so hard, I get tired just watching him. He’s been on the Al-Dura story for quite some time and has a great deal of interest to report.

“As the famous images are shown, the voice-over of France 2 reporter Dominique Derda explains: “symbol of the Intifada, the image of the death throws of Mohammed Al-Dura was broadcast around the world.” In French, Derda speaks of the “agonie” of Mohammed Al-Dura. In such a context, the French word agonie clearly means death throws.”

Contrary to (segment producer) Enderlin’s declarations, however, Luc Rosenzweig, Denis Jeambar, and Denis Leconte – the three French journalists who were recently permitted to view the complete rushes in the presence of France2 news director Arlette Chabot – have revealed that the rushes do not contain any such scene of the boy’s death. To quote again Jeambar and Leconte: “These famous ‘death throws’ [agonie], which Enderlin claims to have cut from the report, do not exist.”

The absence of any scene documenting the child’s death in the rushes represents one of the major grounds that have emerged from the three journalists’ viewing of the rushes in support of the hypothesis that the alleged killing of Mohammed Al-Dura was staged. The other major revelation supporting this hypothesis is, of course, the presence in the remainder of the rushes of what Rosenzweig, Jeambar, and Leconte all concur were obviously staged episodes – or “mise-en-scène” – of other Palestinians being wounded.

In other words, France 2 personnel did not report on news, they ginned it up. That story became evidentiary rocket fuel for the like of the International Solidarity Movement to further fuel their hatred, and their role in widening the gulf between the Israelis and Palestinians. When one observes the actions, and not the statements of these groups, victory means no Israel. Bear in mind that ISM also harbored Palestinian insurgants, and has hid and stored weapons for them. They have been caught doing this on more than one occasion. It’s the complete opposite of their stated goal of aiding in a mediated peace.

Why does this matter? The France 2 construction is “evidence” to groups of this sort.

They are the lies which are used to seduce young Europeans and North-Americans into redirecting their lives into anger and hatred for Israel and the U.S., and getting them killed. More to the point, making impossible a safe, peaceful world that the svengalis of these groups purport to want.

Without misery these group leaders do not prosper, nor do they get to fill the empty cavity in their souls with this war they’re waging on their own nations of citizenship.
Without misery the France 2 personnel and stringer did have no reason invent news, and effectively get a child killed for their by-line.

Without the likes of malicious groups who call themselves “Peace” organizations, and the ideologically driven press hacks tossing them red meat, their victims, the Palestinians and the Israelis would be far better off if they were free of this meddling. Likewise the involvement of Jihadist which makes for even stranger company for "the peace collectives."

Fire them up. Send them off. They go and get another one killed. Then let her fellow concerned young leftist make her into a martyr, in effect pushing them one step closer to strapping on a bomb-vest themselves, and join the middle-eastern dealt cult.

As Enderlin Publishes His Book on the Mohamed Al Dura Affair, Le Monde Praises His Integrity While Demonizing His "Hateful" Critics

Il est des livres que l'on écrit pour se défendre contre la diffamation, tenter de rétablir sa vérité et laver son honneur. Tel est l'objet d'Un enfant est mort. C'est peu dire que Charles Enderlin, correspondant permanent de France 2 à Jérusalem depuis 1981, a été meurtri par la campagne de dénigrement qui le poursuit depuis dix ans à propos de l'affaire du petit Mohammed Al-Dura.

In his Le Monde review of Charles Enderlin's Un enfant est mort (A Child Is Dead), Laurent Zecchini serves out the same ol' defense of the Mohamed Al Dura affair based on praise for Charles Enderlin (as a poor martyred victim, trying innocently to carry out his journalists' job in good faith) coupled with demonization of his critics (as shameless, treacherous, envious, and virulent members of the "powerful pro-Israeli lobby")…

Among the people of unimaginable bad faith in "the heart of France's Jewish community", engaged in concocting a diabolical plot and creating a "hateful, insulting, sometimes threatening" campaign "of calumnies" against "a journalist" ("whose professional reputation is undeniable" but who has "been bruised by the denigration campaign which has been following him for ten years") are a filthily rich Jewish lawyer and other unsavory characters from France's "powerful pro-Israeli lobby". The review ends by praising the book as symbolic of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, in that "it illustrates the intensity of the hatreds which the latter feeds on."

…un puissant lobby pro-israélien s'est mis en branle, visant à délégitimer le journaliste (il n'était pas présent sur les lieux du tournage), et instrumentaliser une théorie du complot : le film serait un "montage", une "mise en scène", une "manipulation" et une "imposture".

La campagne contre Charles Enderlin, en Israël et au sein de la communauté juive de France, va devenir haineuse, insultante, parfois menaçante. … La mécanique de la diffamation est en marche, elle ne s'arrêtera plus. Elle dispose d'avocats déterminés et influents. A sa tête, Philippe Karsenty, pour qui l'affaire Al-Dura est devenue, depuis dix ans, un véritable fonds de commerce. …

Le livre de Charles Enderlin n'est pas un règlement de comptes, mais une démonstration : il décrit minutieusement, faits et citations à l'appui, la trame et la progression d'une campagne de calomnies. Si Un enfant est mort est d'abord le récit de l'acharnement contre un journaliste, c'est aussi un livre sur le conflit israélo-palestinien, en ce sens qu'il illustre l'intensité des haines dont celui-ci se nourrit.

"Vous avez dit acharnement?" demande JC Durbant, incrédule :

Démasquage par la TV publique allemande, perte de ses procès en diffamation, condamnation de Canal plus, interview-fleuve de Karsenty dans Médias, limogeage de Chabot, deconstruction minutieuse de Taguieff …

A l’heure ou 10 ans tout juste après la tristement fameuse imposture de la pretendue mort en direct du petit Mohammed qui lancait la 2e infifada et contribuait largement à mettre a feu et à sang le Moyen-Orient et une bonne partie du monde …

Le Quotidien de révérence, qui ne rechigne pas lui meme à l’occasion à recourir au bidonnage d’infos, ressort l’artillerie lourde (« opinion arabe et musulmane », « assassiné un enfant », « puissant lobby pro-israélien », « théorie du complot », « mécanique de la diffamation », « acharnement ») …

Pour lancer l’apparemment ultime baroud d’honneur (« Un enfant est mort », Charles Enderlin) censé « rétablir la vérité et laver l’honneur » du tristement fameux faussaire et jusqu’ici indéboulonnable correspondant permanent de France 2 à Jérusalem (bientôt 30 ans au compteur !) …

The great France 2 gin-up

Like John Rosenthal, Melanie Phillips discusses Nidra Poller’s authoritative summation of the Al-Dura affair, where a France 2 TV news-crew was found to be complicit in constructing inthifada “oppression video” – the set up of which got a child killed, and not by the IDF, but by a Palestinian combatant.

Poller:

«The rest, as we say in French, is literature. There can be no further attempts to reconstruct the incident by adding to those 55 seconds since, as France-2 has now revealed, there is no additional footage.»

It needs to be understood how difficult is was for this story and it's investigation to get out. For nearly a year the segment’s producer as well as their news executives stonewalled. At its’ core is the very worst of journalism – making the news that you’re supposed to report. It’s beyond unethical, it’s an empirious abuse of one’s position, especially when the employer is a state funded broadcaster.

Poller again:

« It was later on that same day that a cameraman for France-2, a channel of the state-owned French television network, captured the death of a twelve-year-old Palestinian boy, allegedly shot in front of his helpless father by Israeli soldiers in the Gaza Strip. A news report, dramatically narrated by France-2’s Jerusalem correspondent, was instantly aired and was offered free of charge to the world’s media.

The effect was immediate, electrifying, and global. Overnight, Muhammad al-Dura became the poster child of the incipient Palestinian “struggle” against Israeli “occupation” and a potent symbol of the genocidal intentions of Israel’s government. A doctored photomontage was soon produced for Arab-Muslim viewers, featuring an imported image of an Israeli soldier apparently shooting the boy at close range.»

And it isn’t without larger consequences:

« That the death of Muhammad al-Dura was the real emotional pretext for the ensuing avalanche of Palestinian violence—and a far more potent trigger than Sharon’s “provocative” visit to the Temple Mount—is attested by the immediate and widespread dissemination of his story and of the pietà-like image of his body lying at his father’s feet. Streets, squares, and schools have since been named for the young Islamic shahid. His death scene has been replicated on murals, posters, and postage stamps, even making an iconic appearance in the video of Daniel Pearl’s beheading. His story, perhaps the single most powerful force behind the Palestinian cult of child sacrifice over the last years, has been dramatized in spots on Palestinian television urging others to follow in his path, retold in a recruitment video for al Qaeda, and immortalized in epic verse by the Palestinian poet Mahmoud Darwish.»

That avalanche has led many to their deaths in Israel, the West Bank, Gaza, and everywhere a Jihadist was inspired by France 2’s staged footage.

« Within days, an elaborate narrative was being disseminated to flesh out the elusive details of the 55-second video. On October 3, 2000, testifying under oath before the Palestinian Center for Human Rights, the cameraman Talal Abu Rahmeh alleged that Israeli soldiers had intentionally, in cold blood, murdered the boy and wounded the father. Abu Rahmeh’s testimony was precise and vivid. There had been, he said, a five-minute exchange of fire between Palestinian policemen and Israeli soldiers. This was followed by fully 45 minutes of gunfire coming exclusively from the Israeli position and aimed directly at the man and the boy crouching desperately behind a concrete barrel. According to the cameraman, he had captured on film a total of 27 minutes of this fusillade, risking his own life in the process. As an experienced war photographer, he could attest without hesitation that the Israeli outpost was the only position from which the boy and the man could be hit.
[ … ]
But we do have extensive evidence of what was occurring at Netzarim junction on September 30, 2000. More than a dozen cameramen were at the junction filming the action that day. They were all Palestinian, but they were working for Reuters, AP, NHK, France-2, and other prestigious networks. Aside from Abu Rahmeh’s footage, brief excerpts from what they shot have appeared in news broadcasts. But hours of outtakes also exist, and their eloquence is astounding. I cannot claim they show everything that happened, but enough raw footage exists to substantiate what follows.»

Jeambar was lauded by the media and the ‘high society’ of France’s political and social life. Under scrutiny, Jeambar’s story fell to pieces.

«But the bubble of tolerance protecting the French media had begun to stretch and tear. Three months after their October 2004 meeting with France-2, Denis Jeambar and Daniel Leconte came forward with their side of the story. The gist of their essay, published in Le Figaro after being rejected by Le Monde, confirmed the MENA release while chastising both Rosenzweig and MENA for jumping to the unwarranted conclusion that the death scene had been staged. Jeambar and Leconte also enjoined France-2 to make a full disclosure, withdraw its unjustified accusations, and recognize the incalculably damaging effects of its report in inciting violence and blackening Israel’s name.»

Immediately, someone needed to save his hyde.

« The very next day, Enderlin responded with an article in Le Figaro suggesting that his distinguished colleagues join him in a sort of gentleman’s agreement to lay the affair to rest. His broadcast may have been hasty, he wrote, but it was justified on the grounds that the public had to know the truth, because so many children were being killed. He should have said, “were going to be killed,” because Muhammad al-Dura, as his father proudly proclaimed, was the first shahid, and Enderlin’s broadcast itself was instrumental in much of what followed. But, more than four years later, Enderlin was still trying to defend his report as an accurate reflection of the situation on the ground.»

It’s a fascinating look into the ugly world of news-making, and another kind of post-mortem for an ‘activist’ press which would like to think it owns its’ own facts, and the right to get a child killed for THEIR flavor-of-the-week cause.

Duck and Cover!

When it Comes to Al-Dura, Journalists Are Against Free Speech, writes John Rosenthal in Pajamas Media. French journalists falsifies story. French media supports liar, sues party trying to keep them honest. First court rules in favor of the best connected.

It is this insight — an insight that one would expect to be entirely banal in a democratic society — that underlies the higher court’s ruling. The court did not find that the fraudulence of the Al-Dura report had been “proven,” but it found that Karsenty offered sufficient and sufficiently serious grounds for the claim of fraudulence to make it a legitimate matter of public debate.

To have ruled otherwise — as the lower court did in its original ruling — would be, in effect, to institute a sort of crime of lèse majesté protecting journalists and news organizations from criticism: placing them above society and the mere “lay persons” who are then supposed to accept the claims of the “news professionals” without question. Le Nouvel Observateur’s “Appeal for Charles Enderlin” positively exudes such a sense of corporate privilege, as Richard Landes and his commentators on Augean Stables were quick to point out.

And of free speech:

It is on account of this massive funding by France and the European institutions that I have suggested that RSF be referred to not as a “non-governmental organization” (NGO), but rather as a “para-governmental organization”: a “PGO” whose supposedly objective assessments of the situation of press freedoms around the world are in fact largely and obviously influenced by the political agendas of its principal state sponsors. (See part II of my exposé here.)

Robert Ménard’s attitude to the Al-Dura affair is just further confirmation of the “PGO” status of Reporters Without Borders. By breaking his silence and signing the Nouvel Observateur “Appeal,” Ménard has now explicitly come out in favor of suppressing Philippe Karsenty’s right to criticize Enderlin and France 2. He has thereby pulled off the remarkable feat of outing himself and the “press freedoms” organization he heads as, in effect, enemies of free speech.

It’s just another day in paradise.

Court Rules in Favor of Enderlin: In Press, Al Dura Affair Journalist (Again) Described as a Poor Martyred Victim (Simply) Trying to Clear His Honor

A French court has just ruled in favor of Charles Enderlin, writes Le Monde's War or Peace blog, by nullifying the 2008 acquittal (for "good faith") of his accuser in the Mohamed Al Dura affair, Philippe Karsenty. Did you notice the "finally" in the headline of the (entirely objective and the strictly neutral) reporter, Gilles Paris? Justice [i.e., a Court] (Finally) Vindicates Charles Enderlin!

Throughout the years, the narrative on Charles Enderlin has been: poor, innocent, well-meaning, martyred victim…

That's the message one gets from the very first paragraph in Le Monde article by Laurent Zecchini.

Parfois l'envie vous prend de lui dire amicalement : " Charles, tu devrais arrêter de penser à tes guerres ; et laisser tomber l'affaire Al-Doura ! "

After all, what self-respecting journalist (especially of Enderlin's caliber) would not want to "wash his honor" in the same circumstances as the Mohamed Al Dura affair?!

Quant à la récurrente affaire Al-Doura, quel journaliste peut affirmer que, confronté à la même expérience traumatisante, il aurait réagi avec détachement ? Détaché, à coup sûr, Charles Enderlin ne l'est pas, même s'il affirme qu'aujourd'hui, " ce n'est plus une nuisance personnelle ".

Follows a long article — by Laurent Zecchini who already a year and a half ago praised Enderlin's integrity while demonizing his "hateful" critics — on adversity, on the vindictiveness of France's Jews, on never-ceasing lawsuits and visits to the tribunal, and on "the solitary quest" to a man to "wipe a spot on his honor as a journalist", a quest by a poor "journalist whose professionalism is not put in doubt" (except that precisely, yes, his professionalism is put into doubt).

Des années de reportages et d'analyses vont peu à peu bâtir la réputation d'un journaliste sérieux et pondéré, dont le professionnalisme n'est pas contesté.

Here is Laurent Zecchini's article in full which, because it appears in Le Monde's TV section, is behind the daily's firewall.

Charles Enderlin

AU CŒUR DE L'ADVERSITÉ

Parfois l'envie vous prend de lui dire amicalement : " Charles, tu devrais arrêter de penser à tes guerres ; et laisser tomber l'affaire Al-Doura ! " Mais on s'abstient, pour deux raisons : Charles Enderlin, correspondant permanent de France 2 en Israël depuis 1988, est une mémoire encyclopédique du Proche-Orient. L'écouter, c'est entrevoir un éclairage, apprendre une anecdote sur les acteurs du conflit israélo-palestinien, qu'il a illustré de ses innombrables reportages et livres.

Et puis, il a un argument imparable : " Un chimiste, il parle de chimie ; un correspondant en Israël, il parle du conflit, avec ses conséquences sur la société israélienne, c'est normal. " Quant à la récurrente affaire Al-Doura, quel journaliste peut affirmer que, confronté à la même expérience traumatisante, il aurait réagi avec détachement ? Détaché, à coup sûr, Charles Enderlin ne l'est pas, même s'il affirme qu'aujourd'hui, " ce n'est plus une nuisance personnelle ".

Rappel des faits : les images de la mort du petit Mohammed Al-Doura, âgé de 12 ans, filmées le 30 septembre 2000, au début de la seconde Intifada, au centre de la bande de Gaza, par le cameraman de France 2, Talal Abou Rahmeh, ont fait le tour du monde. La thèse de Charles Enderlin est que l'enfant a été tué par des tirs israéliens. Philippe Karsenty, de l'agence Media Ratings, affirme, lui, qu'il s'agit d'une " simple mise en scène " (pour nuire à l'image d'Israël).

LAVER SON IMAGE DE JOURNALISTE

Charles Enderlin récuse cette " théorie du complot ", mais les péripéties judiciaires perdurent (la Cour de cassation se prononcera le 28 février), et il estime qu'il n'a pas le choix : il doit réfuter les accusations, afin d'obtenir in fine une réparation morale. Laver son honneur de journaliste, n'est-ce pas, à 66 ans, le seul combat qui vaille ?

" Pendant trois ans, reconnaît-il, cela m'a plombé : les menaces, contre moi, contre ma femme, les problèmes rencontrés par les enfants à l'école. " Aujourd'hui, cela va mieux, quitte à faire preuve d'une sérénité un peu forcée : " Ma réputation professionnelle n'a pas été atteinte, mes livres se vendent, je suis toujours invité à des conférences, la réponse de la profession a été extraordinaire, de même que le soutien de France 2. " Mais il ne se fait pas d'illusions : " Ils vont continuer jusqu'à temps que je prenne ma retraite... "

L'adversité, il connaît, ne serait-ce que par l'histoire de sa famille, qui avait quitté l'Autriche en 1938, au moment de l'Anschluss, et par ses débuts en Israël, où il arrive en 1968, après avoir fait partie du comité de grève de la fac de médecine de Paris. Une expérience dans le kibboutz Dafna, qui lui laisse un sentiment mitigé, et un premier emploi de journaliste, en 1971, à Kol Israel, la radio nationale. Commence ensuite, en 1981, le début de sa collaboration à Antenne 2.

Des années de reportages et d'analyses vont peu à peu bâtir la réputation d'un journaliste sérieux et pondéré, dont le professionnalisme n'est pas contesté. Jusqu'à cet échange incertain de tirs israéliens et palestiniens, à Gaza, qui va engendrer une âpre vindicte, instrumentalisée par une partie de la communauté juive française. Pourquoi un tel acharnement ? Bien avant l'" affaire ", dit-il de sa voix rocailleuse, " il y avait déjà une campagne permanente d'intimidation contre moi, comme à l'encontre de tous ceux qui font mine de critiquer Israël ". Charles Enderlin a des amis qui respectent ses choix, même s'ils ne les comprennent pas toujours. Daniel Ben-Simon, député travailliste à la Knesset, ancien journaliste, estime qu'il est difficile de " faire la distinction entre Charles le journaliste et Charles l'homme politique ".

L'" homme politique " ? " Oui, dans la mesure où c'est un journaliste impliqué pour la paix et la création d'un Etat palestinien. En ce sens, il n'est pas complètement neutre, parce qu'il veut changer les choses. " Comme d'autres, lui aussi regrette que l'affaire Al-Doura " lui empoisonne la vie, devenant obsessionnelle ". C'est aussi l'avis de l'historien Zeev Sternhell : " Le prix moral et humain qu'il a payé est exorbitant, mais je respecte sa décision d'aller jusqu'au bout. " Et le professeur Sternhell d'ajouter une nuance : " S'il y a eu une erreur dans cette affaire, elle n'était pas préméditée, parce que je ne peux pas imaginer Charles, qui est un journaliste honnête, fabriquer un film. " Qu'en pense un homme qui ne fait pas partie de ses amis ? " Je considère qu'il a été piégé par son cameraman, nous indique Richard Prasquier, président du Conseil représentatif des institutions juives de France. Par orgueil, il n'a pas voulu l'admettre, et les conséquences ont été extrêmement graves. Et ses confrères ont réagi par solidarité affective, plutôt que par une analyse des faits. "

Claude Kandiyoti, autre ami de Charles Enderlin, est l'un des responsables de JCall, cet " Appel à la raison " de juifs européens qui se réclament du camp de la paix. " Quand j'écoute Charles, observe-t-il, je suis convaincu ; quand j'écoute certains Israéliens, le doute s'installe. Dans cette histoire, il me semble qu'il y a encore des zones d'ombre. " Tout porte à croire que tant que celles-ci n'auront pas été complètement dissipées, la quête solitaire de Charles Enderlin pour effacer ce qu'il estime être une tâche à son honneur de journaliste ne prendra pas fin.

Laurent Zecchini

Al-Dura Affair: France 2 Still Weaseling

The Blogs Extreme-Center and the Augean Stables continue to monitor the al-Dura affair, more to the point – monitoring the very typical “social management” of the deliberate lie’s effect on the reputation of a public institution.

To Patrick de Carolis, France2 Television
France2: Release the Secret Muhammad al Durah Tapes!

People around the world who depend on the media for reliability, accuracy, and transparency in reporting, demand that France2 release the unedited video tapes (”rushes”) that its Palestinian cameraman, Talal abu Rahmah, sent them on September 30 and October 1, 2000 from Gaza.
On September 30, 2000, your Middle East correspondent Charles Enderlin, broadcast a story about Muhammad al-Durah, a 12-year old Palestinian boy. Using the footage and the testimony from his cameraman, Talal abu Rahmah, Enderlin reported that Israeli soldiers had targeted and killed the boy. That allegation of deliberate murder spread instantaneously around the world.

Click here to sign the petition.The Fuse is Lit (No Pasaran!)

Aimed at "Demonizing Israel and the Jews", it was "the biggest anti-Semitic hoax of our generation": 25 Years Later, a French Magazine Re-Opens the Wounds of the Al-Durah Scandal

In a special issue on the Al-Durah hoax a quarter of a century years ago, the monthly Causeur reexamines the affair that caused widespread hatred of the Jewish state and Jews themselves.

Last Fall, No Pasarán published an in-depth post on the al Durrah affair which had its start on September 30, 2000 and which the blog has covered over the years: 25 Years Ago — Fate of 12-Year-Old Palestinian Led to 911 Attack and the Invention of the Word Pallywood, 

along with a quote by Philippe Karsenty, who was instrumental in helping to debunk the hoax ("If we ignore how images propagate and mutate, we hand the moral high ground to those who traffic in outrage"). (The post proved to be exactly the 14,000th since the beginning of the blog No Pasarán 21 years earlier.) 

In the current issue of Causeur (Conversationalist), Elisabeth Lévy presents the dossier under the title L’heure des pro-pal (although Karsenty himself would rather elect to call the legions of "Pro-Palestine" protesters the legions of "pro-Hamas" protesters) and Gilles-William Goldnadel & Aude Weill-Raynal revisit the history of the many lawsuits that France 2 brought against Karsenty, while Editor Jeremy Stubbs charges that the France 2 television station broadcast antisemitic disinformation, asking Who Killed the Truth? (Affaire Al-Durah, 25 ans après: qui a tué la vérité?).

Notably, Elisabeth Lévy makes some historical comparisons, saying that on

That September 30th [2000], the cameraman also offered his footage to CNN, which declined—out of caution? As for [France 2's Charles] Enderlin, he had no doubt whatsoever. Why would they, given that the child's death lent credence to the mainstream narrative of progressive media: heavily armed soldiers massacring defenseless civilians? If it wasn't true, it was a clever fabrication.

 … It is a scoop of a global nature. "Little Mohamed" is the face of innocence destroyed by Israeli-Jewish barbarity. On October 12, two Israeli soldiers who had strayed into Ramallah were lynched to cries of "Revenge for Al-Durah!" In the Arab world [as in places like university campuses and Hollywood], the bloodied hands that their killer presented to the cheering crowd becomes a symbol of glory.

 … Catherine Nay [states] that the image of Mohamed "erases, cancels out" that of the Jewish child in the Warsaw ghetto held at gunpoint by SS officers. At least that's clarity for you.

 … The Al-Durah affair, which has by now become known as the Enderlin affair, is also a textbook example of how the media party operates, rising up as one against anyone who threatens its best interests. The anti-Dreyfusards and the communists thought no differently.

Naturally, Karsenty is interviewed in the magazine — by Gil Mihaely — as he is on Radio Shalom (94.8FM), where it transpires that he is demanding to testify before France's Assemblée Nationale (video below).

Aimed at "Demonizing Israel and the Jews", he says, the Al-Durra affair was "the biggest anti-Semitic hoax of our generation." (More Karsenty quotes at the No Pasarán post from September 30.)

Presenting the dossier, Jeremy Stubbs writes: 

On September 30, 2000, France 2 broadcast a report showing the death of young Mohamed Al-Durah at the hands of the IDF in Gaza. This global scoop was a boon for Israel's enemies, who have exploited it ad nauseam for 25 years for their antisemitic propaganda. But incoherent and incomplete, it also raised doubts among many observers. While one of them, Philippe Karsenty, was convicted of defamation, the public broadcaster has still not proven the veracity of its footage. As Élisabeth Lévy stated when introducing our special report: "The Al-Durah affair is also a textbook example of how the media establishment operates, rising up as one against anyone who threatens its interests. The anti-Dreyfusards and the communists thought no differently." Karsenty's well-documented investigation showed that the image of Mohamed Al-Durah killed in his father's arms, which became an icon of the Palestinian cause and a justification for "anti-Zionism," was a staged event. 

Interviewed by Gil Mihaely, Philippe Karsenty called this report "the biggest anti-Semitic hoax of our generation." Michaël Prazan, speaking with Élisabeth Lévy and Jean-Baptiste Roques, pointed out that the accusation of ritual murder against Jews appeared in antiquity before becoming, in every era and across the globe, the pretext for horrific pogroms. Lawyers Gilles-William Goldnadel and Aude Weill-Raynal recounted the nine-year trial that ended with Philippe Karsenty's conviction. The court did not question its methodical analysis of the France 2 footage but applied defamation law to the letter, a "technical" judgment that does not serve historical truth. A left-wing Jew and wounded Zionist, Claude Askolovitch continues to believe that little Mohamed died under the bullets of the IDF. But rather than making him a symbol or the banner of a cause, he wants to restore his individuality. For Pierre-André Taguieff, the misleading images of "little Mohamed," with their antisemitic undertones, are akin to "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" and the Dreyfus Affair. As for the numerous journalists who chose to broadcast them without critical distance, they reveal the devastating corporatism of their profession. 

The editor of Causeur goes on to present the rest of issue # 142:

In her monthly editorial, Elisabeth Lévy comments on the operations of ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) in the United States, which, on this side of the Atlantic, are provoking opposing reactions: praise from the right, condemnation from the left. Moreover, the left is seizing the opportunity to use the N-word (N for Nazi) and demonize President Trump. Certainly, no one wants to see innocent people die at the hands of a trigger-happy police force, but France has proven incapable of reducing migration flows, so that "our borders are like sieves." Her conclusion: "If force without law is a tyrant's fantasy, law without force is a child's dream."

Jeremy Stubbs : 

Le 30 septembre 2000, France 2 diffuse un reportage présentant la mort du petit Mohamed Al-Durah sous les balles de Tsahal à Gaza. Ce scoop mondial est une aubaine pour les ennemis d’Israël, qui l’exploitent ad nauseam depuis 25 ans pour leur propagande antisémite. Mais incohérent et tronqué, il a aussi suscité les doutes de nombreux observateurs. Si l’un d’eux, Philippe Karsenty, a été condamné pour diffamation, la chaîne publique n’a toujours pas prouvé la véracité de ses images. Comme le dit Élisabeth Lévy en présentant notre dossier spécial : « L’affaire Al-Durah est aussi un cas d’école du fonctionnement du parti des Médias qui se dresse comme un seul homme contre quiconque menace l’intérêt supérieur du Parti. Les antidreyfusards et les communistes ne pensaient pas différemment ». L’enquête étayée de Karsenty montrait que l’image de Mohamed Al-Durah tué dans les bras de son père, qui est devenue une icône de la cause palestinienne et une justification de l’« antisionisme », était une mise en scène.

Interviewé par Gil Mihaely, Philippe Karsenty qualifie ce reportage de « plus grand faux antisémite de notre génération ». Michaël Prazan, se confiant à Élisabeth Lévy et Jean-Baptiste Roques, rappelle que l’accusation contre les Juifs de crime rituel apparaît dans l’Antiquité avant d’être à toutes les époques et sous tous les cieux lle prétexte d’effroyables pogromes. Les avocats Gilles-William Goldnadel et Aude Weill-Raynal reviennent sur les neuf ans de procès qui se sont terminés par la condamnation de Philippe Karsenty. La Justice n’a pas remis en cause son analyse méthodique des images de France 2 mais a appliqué à la lettre le droit de la diffamation, un jugement « technique » qui ne sert pas la vérité historique. Juif de gauche et sioniste blessé, Claude Askolovitch continue de penser que le petit Mohamed est mort sous les balles de Tsahal. Mais plutôt qu’en faire un symbole ou l’étendard d’une cause, il veut lui rendre sa singularité. Pour Pierre-André Taguieff, les images trompeuses du « petit Mohamed » s’apparentent, par leur charge antisémite, aux « Protocoles des sages de Sion » et à l’affaire Dreyfus. Quant aux nombreux journalistes qui ont préféré les relayer sans distance critique, ils nous informent sur le corporatisme dévastateur de leur profession.

Dans son édito du mois, Elisabeth Lévy commente les opérations de l’ICE (la police de l’Immigration et des Douanes) aux États-Unis qui, de ce côté de l’Atlantique, suscitent des réactions opposées : louanges à droite, condamnation à gauche. De surcroît, la gauche en profite pour sortir le N-word (N comme nazi) et diaboliser le président Trump. Certes, personne ne souhaite voir des innocents mourir sous les balles d’une police à la gâchette facile, mais la France s’est montrée incapable de réduire les flux migratoires, de sorte que « nos frontières sont des passoires ». Conclusion : « si la force sans le droit est un fantasme de tyran, le droit sans la force est un rêve d’enfant ».

Lire votre magazine

 … Certes, les mauvaises manières de Donald Trump scandalisent les Européens mais, selon mon analyse, il ne fait que perpétuer la vieille tradition américaine d’ingérences qui s’inscrit désormais dans une mondialisation des conflits. Les grandes puissances sont en concurrence sur tout et partout sur terre.

  Gaza : affaire AI Dura, Philippe Karsenty veut être auditionné par l'assemblée nationale  

 

Radio Shalom 94.8

Feb 6, 2026

Porte-parole du comité Trump France, Philippe Karsenty est l'homme qui a porté l'affaire Al Dura pendant des années. Aujourd'hui, il demande à être auditionné par la commission d'enquête sur l'audiovisuel public de l'Assemblée nationale pour dénoncer France Télévision.

 

Ice crime par Elisabeth Lévy 

Après les drames survenus à Minneapolis, la police de l’Immigration et des Douanes est comparée à la Gestapo. Qu’il est bon de résister sans danger.

---

Quel est le point commun entre une nonagénaire niçoise effroyablement violée par un Tunisien sous OQTF et un infirmier américain tué par la police de l’Immigration et des Douanes [ICE]

Muslim Toulouse Killer: I Dressed and Acted Western to "Fool the Enemy"

"War amounts to ruse" declared a Muslim terrorist to the French police as he was besieged in his apartment during the last hours of his life. According to the transcript of negotiations between Mohamed Merah and the French police (illegally) obtained by TF1 (to the anger of the victims' scandalized families), the Toulouse killer said that his decision to act western, by going to nightclubs and by dying his hair (or part of his hair) blond one day and red the next, was a trick to "fool the enemy" and make them "think that I am not … on the path of Allah."

Besides faking the role of "a non-serious Muslim", his brother Abdelkader Merah adds in the page-long Le Monde article by Laurent Borredon and Emeline Cazi, Mohamed also pretended to act like a tourist. As his handler, "H", tells the Toulouse killer, "you really pulled one over me" (tu m'as bien roulé dans la farine).

Muslim deception and deceit should hardly be an uninteresting subject in the West, for while all Muslims do admittedly not belong in the scooter killer's category (or in a terrorist category or in any violent category at all), the Left's excusing, ho-hum viewpoint on the matter of integration (either Muslims are obviously integrated — and can't you see so for yourself?! — or else their failure to integrate is of no concern to anybody, indeed they should be respected for remaining true to their faith and culture) can be dangerous for us all…

Mohamed Merah admitted that his primary target were members of the military, in view of the fact that the French army is deployed in Afghanistan. When a plot to kill a fourth soldier went awry, he fell back on the secondary target on his list of "enemies" — the Jews. (Somewhere down the list came people such as diplomats, notably the ambassador of India.) The Toulouse terrorist never had a kind word or a word of regret for any of his victims.

COQUETTERIES CAPILAIRES ET SORTIES EN BOÎTE POUR "TROMPER L'ENNEMI"

Est-ce au Pakistan qu'on lui apprend à se fondre dans la masse pour mieux tromper l'ennemi ? A ne pas attirer l'attention avec des tenues trop connotées ? Hizia, la jeune fille qu'il avait épousée religieusement en décembre 2011 -l'union dura deux semaines - s'était étonnée de le voir enfiler des jeans et des New Balance plutôt que la robe traditionnelle. Elle avait trouvé curieux qu'il ne fréquente pas la mosquée, ne porte pas la barbe, lui qui se disait si religieux. Son mari avait rétorqué "avoir 'ses' raisons, sans les préciser."

A son "ami" du renseignement, Merah daigne s'expliquer: "La guerre est une ruse." Ses coquetteries capillaires - la nuque longue et blonde un matin, une crête rouge le lendemain - ses sorties en boîte de nuit? C'était pour "tromper l'ennemi" et "faire croire que je suis pas (...) dans le chemin d'Allah".

"Mohamed se faisait passer pour un touriste et c'est comme cela qu'il a trompé son monde, exposera Abdelkader aux policiers lors de sa garde à vue. Il a même réussi à tromper votre service [en donnant de lui] une image de musulman pas sérieux."

… Tuer n'était pas son seul but. Diffuser les images de ses crimes et s'assurer qu'elles soient vues par le plus grand nombre, semer la terreur fait partie intégrante de son entreprise funeste.

Merah a acheté "la meilleure" caméra, une "full HD", dans un magasin spécialisé. "J'ai fait un excellent montage vidéo avec des versets, (...) on voit toutes les exécutions, crâne-t-il. Elle va être mise sur le Net. (...) Elle sera prise par les moudjahidines. Elle sera prise par certaines chaînes télé. (...) Je sais que quand elle va être vue inch'allah ça va mettre l'effroi (...) dans vos cœurs et ça va motiver d'autres frères."

JUSQU'AU BOUT LES NÉGOCIATEURS ONT PENSÉ OBTENIR SA REDDITION

Jamais Merah n'aura de mot pour les victimes. Avec une précision clinique, il liste toutes les autres cibles qu'il envisageait d'abattre. Ses "frères" lui auraient soufflé quelques idées: des "diplomates", l'ambassadeur d'Inde notamment. Mais l'enfant du quartier des Izards avait son propre programme. Les militaires d'abord, parce qu'ils "sont engagés en Afghanistan". Le 19 mars, c'est à nouveau l'un d'eux qu'il visait. Mais il a raté sa cible, et a décidé de passer à la catégorie suivante sur la liste de ses "ennemis", les juifs. Ce sera l'école Ozar Hatorah.

Il avait également "repéré une maison juive où il y a beaucoup d'habitants dedans", et la "synagogue à Bagatelle", une cité de Toulouse. Il avait aussi noté l'adresse d'un gendarme, celles de policiers.

"Même tu veux que j'te dise une chose, H.?

- J'espère que tu m'avais pas ciblé quand même?

- Si, crois-moi que j't'avais ciblé. (...) Mon but c'était de t'appeler, de te dire que j'avais le nom [du tueur] pour que tu viennes à moi et t'en aurais pris une en pleine tête."

As for Mohamed Merah's handler, "H" says:

"On reprend la discussion qu'on a eue en novembre, et là bon, sur de bonnes bases, quoi, avec un peu plus de sincérité, résume le policier. Parce que bon, tu m'as bien roulé dans la farine, hein, avoue-le. T'as été bon sur ce coup-là." Derrière les mots destinés à mettre Merah en confiance, on sent poindre le désarroi du policier qui découvre l'ampleur de ce qui lui a échappé. Il lui avoue : "On va se faire engueuler. (...) On savait pas grand-chose de toi."

Update: Michel Garroté adds:

La diffusion des conversations de Merah aura au moins eu un mérite : tordre le coup à ces « analyses » qui, au moment des assassinats de Toulouse et de Montauban, ont fleuri dans la presse, nous présentant l’homme comme un pauvre garçon des cités un peu perdu, sans repères familiaux, une sorte de victime d’une société qui n’aura pas su l’écouter, le comprendre et le remettre à temps dans le droit chemin. Le cynisme de Merah, sa froideur, son arrogance, sa haine de la France, sa détestation des Juifs, cette « ruse » dont il se prévaut : peut-être les plus obtus, les plus inconscients vont-ils enfin ouvrir les yeux sur ce qu’ils ne veulent pas voir, sur cette haine de l’Occident et des Juifs qui habite une partie de la jeunesse musulmane de nos banlieues. Un aveuglement qui explique, peut-être, comment, pourtant entendu par les services de renseignement, Merah a pu passer entre les mailles du filet, conclut Robert Ménard.

Further About the Palestinian Boy Killed for the Exploitation of Political Radicals

An excerpt from the conclusions of an independent ballistics report concerning the death of Muhammad al Dura, a Palestinian boy who has, since 2000 become a lionized figure due to a report with footage showing his and his father’s death by France 2’s Charles Enderlin. A great deal of controversy has risen over that report. He was said to have been shot by Israeli troops, which made the child a poster image of the Palestinians and the western radical left. Technical analysis of their relative positions done shortly after the event, and reports those on the scene have demonstrated that the report was a fabrication using the local stringers working for the world press as a means of fabricating this event for political purposes. Since France 2 wanted to indulge its’ audience and sell the footage worldwide, it practiced as it often has a sort of transparent side-taking in reporting news that it thinks it can conceal, even when it contains fabrications.

From the ballistics report:

The protesters, mostly adolescents and children, threw stones at the Israeli checkpoint. The general atmosphere was good-natured, people walk quietly and vehicles drove along the road from Gaza. Some young and people and a man near a jeep appear injured, but they are simulations, with several subjects identified. Many shots were fired, but it is not possible to identify their source. Many journalists covered the event.

The one minute long report by France 2 was titled “the death of Mohamed AL DOURA” and was aired on September 30, 2000. We found a shot the wall above and Mohammed Jamal. A total of eight Impacts are present on this wall, after which the AL DOURA child is seen lying motionless, and not through an impact on the barrel (behind which they were shown taking cover). The sequence matching the moment when Mohamed was injured is unclear. Many factors are likely create doubt that the father and son were hit by projectiles.

According to the statements, Mohamed was injured in his right knee and his stomach, but no trace of impact or blood was visible on his clothes. Although France 2 photographer Talal Abu Rhama said that the child had bled for ten to fifteen minutes, no trace of blood was visible on the ground.
A doctor indicated that if the wound in the stomach was from a bullet that fully entered him, projections of blood and flesh would be visible on the wall (which they were up against), which does not appear on the Photographs of the BBC covering the ten seconds after the France 2 report.
It was said that Jamal was hit on the right arm, abdomen, and legs, while no trace of impact or blood was visible on his clothes. In addition, the location of these indicated injuries was hidden either by the barrel and by the body of his son, who were between him and the direction of the rounds.

Therefore he could not be in the condition described by France 2’s report. Talal Abu Rhama said that gunshots were directed at Jamal and Mohamed AL DOURA for at least forty minutes. Had that been the case, and assuming that a single shooter has concentrated his fire in their direction during the entire time, more that eight impacts that would have been shown to be on the wall above them, but a minimum of two thousand.

While many other cameramen were present at the scene, only France 2 filmed the episode of the "death" of the child. The Israeli police post is located 80 yards from where Jamal and Mohamed AL DOURA took cover. Depending on the plan which we have been provided, the angle of fire is about 36 degrees to the wall behind them. In this situation, the father and the child could not be fired on by the Israeli post for the following reasons:
Jamal Mohamed AL DOURA and were protected by the barrel they used for cover, and it shows no trace of shots through it. In this position, they certainly could not been hit in the lower limbs [as France 2 stated].

The test firing conducted with the weapons used at the time by the Israeli army showed that the impact characteristics of allegedly oblique gunfire have been substantially elongated and are almost horizontal. Those visible on the wall are generally circular, which corresponds to shots fired
Perpendicular to the plane of the wall [not at the oblique angle].
Talal Abu Rhama said that fire came from behind him, while the Israeli checkpoint was sharply to his right and slightly behind his camera location.
It is not likely that the cameraman from Reuters and another journalist would be located next to Mohamed AL DOURA before his death because they would have left them open to the direction of the Israeli fire [not covered as the al Duras were].

The boy was killed for the exploitation of political radicals with the aid of partisans in the press who are too dihonest to state their political motives, and are willing to fabricate news stories that advance causes that fit in with their own opinions.

The al-Durah affair is the greatest media manipulation of modern times: "There is nothing more dangerous for the Jewish people and Israel than left-wing Jews"

To a question by Valeurs Actuelles magazine's Pauline Darrieus, Philippe Karsenty answers why the al-Durah affair is so important. Valeurs Actuelles:

The al-Durah affair is the greatest media manipulation of modern times; it had a global impact and acquired historical significance. Since the broadcast of the France 2 report on September 30, 2000, a worldwide jihad has been launched against the Judeo-Christian West. 

The Second Intifada was ignited by these images; Bin Laden used Muhammad al-Durah to incite hatred before 9/11; Wall Street Journal journalist Daniel Pearl was murdered in Pakistan in 2002 in front of a screenshot of the France 2 report. The entire Arab and Muslim world commemorates the "martyrdom of little Muhammad" with streets, schools, monuments, and stamps bearing his image. 

Until France 2 admits to having staged the broadcast on September 30, 2000, this affair will have to be revisited to uncover the truth. This must be done for history, in the same way that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion were demystified or the innocence of Captain Dreyfus was established; this is what Pierre-André Taguieff explains in the dossier of the magazine Causeur of February 2026. 

When asked by the Epoch Times newspaper's Etienne Fauchaire why so many famous Jews in France rallied to the defense of the state government television's hoaxers (merci à Sarah pour l'Instalien), Philippe Karsenty gives an answer that Dennis Prager has mentioned in the past about Jewish non-believers through the centuries and through the millennia: 

As for these Jewish figures, they are first and foremost left-wing before they are Jewish. And there is nothing more dangerous for the Jewish people and Israel than left-wing Jews. They are the ones who have led Israel to its worst defeats, to its worst compromises. They are the ones who got one of the worst American presidents toward Israel elected: Barack Obama. They are the ones who got the Islamist Zohran Mamdani elected mayor of New York… Left-wing Jews are narcissistic masochists, corrupt financially or intellectually.

 … This affair illustrates the profound bad faith of the left and its conspiracy-minded cronies who claim that the French press is serving "Zionist propaganda." In reality, from France Télévisions to Le Monde, including Libération and L'Humanité, the overwhelming majority of the media landscape adopts, on the contrary, an obsessively hateful stance towards Israel, as everyone could see after the massacre of October 7th. … Leftism is a mental illness!

Indeed, Pierre-André Taguieff goes on to say, in Il était une fois Pallywood in a special issue of Causeur, that the misleading images of "little Mohamed," with their antisemitic undertones, are akin to "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" and the Dreyfus Affair.  For the inventor of the concept of "Islamo-leftism," "the al-Dura lie has become a mythical banner of the media war against Israel and the Jews." As for the numerous journalists who chose to disseminate them without critical distance, they reveal the devastating corporatism of their profession.

In any case, Israel itself is lucky — as is the world — that over the decades, the country's inhabitants turned away from the leftist direction, and rediscovered its religious roots. See Dennis Prager's notes for Deuteronomy 4:28 (pages 57-58), where he mentions Jewish non-believers through the centuries and through the millennia in his Rational Bible books, Jews who were lured by other, secular, religions (among them Karl Marx): the founder of Prager University explains "What Happens When Jews Abandon God."

(This post ends here and now: the rest below is the original French version)

Reportage sur la mort supposée d’al-Durah : « C’est la plus grande manipulation médiatique des temps modernes », analyse Philippe Karsenty par Pauline Darrieus :

L’affaire al-Durah est la plus grande manipulation médiatique des temps modernes, elle a eu un impact planétaire et a acquis une dimension historique. Depuis la diffusion du reportage de France 2 le 30 septembre 2000, un djihad mondial a été lancé contre l’Occident judéo-chrétien.

La seconde intifada a été embrasée par ces images, Ben Laden a utilisé Mohamed al-Durah pour inciter à la haine avant le 11 septembre, le journaliste du Wall Street Journal Daniel Pearl a été égorgé au Pakistan en 2002 devant une capture d’écran du reportage de France 2. Tout le monde arabo-musulman commémore le « martyr du petit Mohamed » avec des rues, des écoles, des monuments et des timbres à son effigie.

Tant que France 2 n’aura pas admis avoir diffusé une mise en scène le 30 septembre 2000, il faudra revenir sur cette affaire pour obtenir la vérité. Cela doit être fait pour l’Histoire, de la même façon que les Protocoles des Sages de Sion ont été démystifiés ou l’innocence du capitaine Dreyfus a été établie ; c’est ce qu’explique Pierre-André Taguieff dans le dossier du magazine Causeur de février 2026.

« Le faux reportage de France 2 sur l’affaire d’Al-Durah témoigne de l’hostilité des médias contre Israël » : Philippe Karsenty interview de Etienne Fauchaire :

Quant à ces personnalités juives, elles sont avant tout de gauche avant d’être juives. Et il n’y a pas plus dangereux pour le peuple juif et Israël que les Juifs de gauche. Ce sont eux qui ont conduit Israël aux pires défaites, aux pires compromissions. Ce sont eux qui ont fait élire un des pires présidents américains vis-à-vis d’Israël aux Etats-Unis : Barack Obama. Ce sont eux qui ont fait élire l’islamiste Zohran Mamdani à la mairie de New York… Les Juifs de gauche sont des narcissiques masochistes, corrompus financièrement ou intellectuellement.

 … Cette affaire illustre la profonde mauvaise foi de la gauche et de ses affidés complotistes qui affirment que la presse française serait au service d’une « propagande sioniste ». Dans les faits, de France Télévisions à Le Monde, en passant par Libération et L’Humanité, l’écrasante majorité du paysage médiatique adopte au contraire une ligne obsessionnellement haineuse envers Israël, comme chacun a pu le constater après le massacre du 7 octobre. … Le gauchisme est une maladie mentale !