Talk:Killing of Muhammad al-Durrah

Assuming that this was correctly spelled in the interwiki link to the Arabic Wikipedia, I have solved the Arabic spelling thing. Once someone verifies this, please remove this remark and the template above. Thanks. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:13, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

It's correct, removed. Mustaqbal 10:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

---

You are predictable, if nothing else, and approaching the bottom of the barrel level of the Holocaust deniers. --Alberuni 04:31, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Your conciliatory tone didn't last long; I always get my hopes up, and then... anyway, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. You didn't really imagine your version was NPOV, did you? Exactly which of my edits do you consider POV, or even non-factual? Jayjg 04:44, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

All in all, your edits were reasonably NPOV; there were a couple of innaccuracies and distortions, but it looks to me like those originated from the heavily biased sources rather than bad-faith editing. What I found, and changed, was:

• As far as I can tell, the ARD investigation consisted of a documentary based on the findings of the second investigation; it wasn't independent and, according to Fallows, it stuck to the minimal conclusion: that al-Durrah was not killed by IDF gunfire. According to this source, the documentary "stated that, in any case, the boy's death was accidental and that he was not purposely targeted by either side." I would of course like to see for myself, but I can't find a copy of the documentary in question ATM.
• The quotation of Fallows's article from this source is misleading: he didn't come up with the questions himself, but was indirectly quoting one of the investigators.
• WorldNetDaily is a far-right rag; it can certainly be cited as an example of the opinions surrounding the killing but it ought to be contextualized.

Fallows's article is the best source on this that I've read (I have the issue in which it appeared); unfortunately the only online version is restricted to Atlantic subscribers, though those who want to read it might try their local library. —No-One Jones ^(m) 11:49, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, Mirv, your edits looks good, as they are based on more information than I had. Jayjg 14:22, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Category:Martyrs

I recognize that this will probably be controversial, but considering the iconic status of his death, I believe it is appropriate. Any thoughts? —No-One Jones ^(m) 13:57, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That category should be useful. For every non-notable palestinian we'll have a non-notable Israeli civilian put in to balance it. Thanks. Lose it. Terrapin 14:11, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Non-notable? He's among the best-known icons of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Since we don't have Category:Whatever the plural of 'shahid' is (he's very often held up as one), this cat seemed the most appropriate. —No-One Jones ^(m) 14:50, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that, but I and others aren't going to feel like getting into POV-wars when someone adds Mohamed Atta in there and says "well, he was in every newspaper, and struck a blow against the Zionist enemies, blah, blah...". You KNOW it'll happen. It's just better to lose it now. Terrapin 14:56, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Terrapin is right, it's just fodder for edit and POV wars. It's almost inevitable that a "martyr" to one side is a "villain" to the other. Jayjg 15:09, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Not that we're saying al-dura is a villain in any way. I wouldn't have a problem with his OWN categorization in a similar cat, but it's just slippery precedent into pure POV idiocy later on. Terrapin 15:47, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps so. Until I figure out a better way to categorize the article, I'll remove this cat.

Isn't the category more for people like Joan of Arc? Jayjg 14:22, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That's what Category:Christian martyrs is for; but yes, it's not entirely accurate; see above. —No-One Jones ^(m) 14:50, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Oddly enough, Joan is not in either martyrs category; and yet you feel al-Durrah belongs in that very restricted list (I believe there were two others so far)? Jayjg 15:09, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

* Yes, she is (christian martyrs, it's own huge category). Judging by MIRV's contributions he appears to be a "martyr" hobbyist, and strives to complete those cats. Mostly christian martyrs. He's not a POV-warrior. Terrapin 15:54, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In fact, it was the other way round; I added this article to Category:Martyrs, then noticed that Category:Christian martyrs was almost empty and decided to fill it out. My last 100-odd edits are not representative of my contributions as a whole. Anyway, since I dealt with Christian martyrs, I'd like to finish developing the rest of the category, which is still weak.

The category was too broad for this article, I now agree; I'm still trying to figure out how to organize the people one might, for lack of a better term, call "secular martyrs": people like al-Durra, Matthew Shepard, Carlo Giuliani, etc. Maybe no appropriate category exists. —No-One Jones ^(m) 16:36, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Category:Hasbara

Why this category? How were any hasbara groups involved? Jayjg 14:22, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[1], [2], [3],[4], [5], [6], Etc --Alberuni 20:07, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, they reported on the controversy; but how were they involved? Jayjg 04:41, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, they reported on the controversy; but how were they involved? Jayjg 05:16, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

WorldNetDaily

Could someone explain to me why the opinion of WorldNetDaily is worth citing here? It's not like we've gone out to find balancing citations from rabidly pro-Palestinian sources, nor is it like they produced any evidence for their belief that the Palestinians have been so short on fatalities that they need to deliberately shoot Palestinian children to create martyrs. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:09, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

Yet, you find the Atlantic Monthly IDF apologist article acceptable. It looks like you have sympathy for some pro-Zionist sources and not others. NPOV does not mean "moderate Zionism". It means Neutral Point of View. When will you criticize the Zionist POV editors for "Occupied Palestinian Territory" denial? --Alberuni 19:44, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• See my reply below. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:19, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

O.K., we'll keep WorldNetDaily in just for you, Alberuni. Happy now? Terrapin 20:38, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it exemplifies the contemptible depths of extremism to which Zionists regularly descend in their denial of Israeli state terrorism and the continuing pattern of Israeli atrocities such as the IDF murder of Muhammad al-Durrah and hundreds of other Palestinian children. --Alberuni 21:00, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

WorldNetDaily didn't originate the conspiracy theory, and I've changed the article to reflect that. I also removed the quote of Fallows's position, since he didn't do any real investigation of his own; he just looked at the IDF findings and talked to the investigators. —No-One Jones ^(m) 21:01, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sources =

Alberuni writes, "yet you find the Atlantic Monthly IDF apologist article acceptable..." Excuse me? Did I say that? No, I was sticking my toe in the water on a discussion page which you, Alberuni, called to my attention (in an entirely repellent manner, I might add, by referring to it in a comment to an edit in which you stuck Holocaust Denial material into the article Jew). I wanted to see what response a mild criticism would bring. Unlike some people, I don't tend to use H-bombs for my opening salvo. But since you are questioning my good faith, here goes...

If one had read between the lines of my previous comment with charity rather than malice, one might have gleaned where I am headed on this. I was planning to get there gradually, but here goes: if we are going to quote sources like the Atlantic, we should be quoting sources like Al-Ahram. If we are going to quote "sources" like WorldNetDaily on a matter like this, then the only way I can imagine to "balance" this article is to quote severe critics of the Israeli occupation of the Territories, and probably throw in some jihadist who lauds Muhammad al-Durrah as a martyr.

In any case, this is obviously an article in flux, and way out of any area where I have specific expertise, but I certainly would not expect that in such a matter one should take seriously voices that say an IDF report understates Palestinian culpability, and one would presume that an IDF report is, itself, something that probably calls for balance from at least unengaged, or possibly even pro-Palestinian sources. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:19, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

It doesn't take a jihadist to recognize that a child killed by a fascist military machine is a martyr, just like Anne Frank was a martyr. --Alberuni 04:36, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The Jews of WW2 didn't walk onto german buses with bombs strapped around their waste. Terrapin 05:31, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Muhammad al-Durrah didn't do anything to anyone. He was an innocent child. Murdering him is an atrocity. You are trying to justify it because you support Israeli state terrorism, as you have indicated on many edits. The Nazis can claim they killed Anne Frank because of the acts of Herschel Grynszpan but they were also wrongheaded and evil people. --Alberuni 05:55, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Equating Israel with Nazis...how boring and typical of weak-minded fools who can't find meaningful and accurate analogies, if any. Surely your mother must be coming down the basement stairs soon. Turn off the light. Terrapin 06:01, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

When you are done bickering, would any of you mind addressing the substance of what I wrote? Repeating: "...if we are going to quote sources like the Atlantic, we should be quoting sources like Al-Ahram. If we are going to quote "sources" like WorldNetDaily on a matter like this, then the only way I can imagine to "balance" this article is to quote severe critics of the Israeli occupation of the Territories, and probably throw in some jihadist who lauds Muhammad al-Durrah as a martyr... I certainly would not expect that in such a matter one should take seriously voices that say an IDF report understates Palestinian culpability, and one would presume that an IDF report is, itself, something that probably calls for balance from at least unengaged, or possibly even pro-Palestinian sources. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:37, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

Zionist Revisionism should be moved to appropriate page

This page is about Muhammad Al-Durrah's murder, not about Zionist excuses for Israeli atrocities and anti-Palestinian conspiracy theories. Please move the revisionist material to an appropriate page. --Alberuni 04:40, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

While they're both denial of terrible crimes, I don't believe it's accurate to treat the IDF's self-exculpation as equivalent to Holocaust denial. There's a huge body of evidence for the Holocaust, so denial is limited to a few marginal cranks. In this case, though, there's simply not much evidence one way or another; as far as I know, the IDF inquiry (and what was based on it) were the only extensive investigations of the matter. If there are other reports that reached different conclusions, we should include them, but I don't think that excluding one of the only analyses of his death is the way to go here. —No-One Jones ^(m) 04:54, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It is your POV that the Holocaust is better documented than the murder of Muhammad al-Durrah. It will never matter to you how much evidence, film footage, witness testimony and Palestinian reports implicate the IDF directly in his murder. [7], [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] You believe what they tell you, "There's simply not much evidence one way or another". You will simply privilege the IDF and their apologists over the Arab voices you refuse to hear. Witness testimony was even included in this article until Zionist editors deleted it. There is a Holocaust being perpetrated against the Palestinian people by the fascist Israelis but you close your eyes to it. Why? You take the word of their spinmeister liars over Arab witnesses. And then you claim that Holocaust deniers are cranks. Why? They are just like you. You are just like them. "There's simply not much evidence one way or another" they say. It's all a POV. Those who don't want to believe will never be convinced. No consequences to you for living in denial. What's the worst that can happen? --Alberuni 05:44, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"It is your POV that the Holocaust is better documented than the murder of Muhammad al-Durrah". And with that Alberuni leaves the realm of weird anti-Israel poster, into realm of deluded holocaust denier and general idiot. It won't be long when the last words spoken about him are "...before taking his own life.". (probably his 9 cats will bare the brunt! ;-) Terrapin 05:52, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You won't mind if I ignore you completely from now on. I won't be petty and neurotic to point out your lack of civility and initiate an RfC on you for calling me an idiot. You can call me whatever you wish. Your opinion is worthless.--Alberuni 05:58, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Extent of the evidence

Alberuni: Please understand that I'm not trying to deny anything; I'm just unsure about the extent of the evidence. I'm aware of these points:

1. The France 2 video footage.
2. Testimony by the cameraman and Jamal al-Durrah.

• • • The Wall Street Journal story by Stephane Juffa from today says that Didier Epelbaum said that the cameraman Talal Abu Rahma has "retracted his testimony". - Jerryseinfeld 17:48, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

1. The examination of the site. The wall was demolished before it could be examined (which is unfortunate, because that might have determined what kind of bullets made the holes), but the concrete cylinder had marks from bullets that clearly came from the Israeli outpost.
2. The IDF's initial admission of responsibility.
3. The IDF's subsequent investigation and reenactment.

Have I missed anything? Were there other investigations, other tests, other analyses? Has anyone examined the full video? (I don't think all of it was broadcast.) Was the soldier who was shooting ever questioned? Was there an autopsy? Did anyone examine the bullet that killed him to determine what kind of gun fired it? If there are answers to any of these questions, they should go in the article. —No-One Jones ^(m) 15:03, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• • • The WSJ article says that Charles Enderlin "the France 2 correspondent in Jerusalem" gave as reason to leave out all but 3:26 of the 27 minute video that it was "to unbearable", and "it would not have added anything more". But the WSJ article says that after "three journalists were finally allowed to see" the whole footage, the Enderlin excuse turned out to be "a total invention". - Jerryseinfeld 18:04, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • The WSJ "Opinion" article from today (11/26/2004) seems to be largely the same as the mentioned October 22, 2004 Metula News Agency article by Stephane Juffa [16]. - Jerryseinfeld 18:16, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Category:Hoaxes

(hyperbole follows) If this is to stay on this article just because someone, somewhere, thought his death was a hoax, then I expect everyone who wants it here to help me keep it on an extensive list of articles. We shall start with Apollo missions 11 through 17 (several people think those are hoaxes), move on to Holocaust and numerous related articles (as before), move on to Evolution (I can find some who think that's a hoax), and so on. Who's up for it? —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 04:16, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You make a good point, but I have a reflexive reaction to Alberuni sockpuppets which describe Anne Frank as a hoax. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:32, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I didn't see that edit; it rather nicely highlights my point, and a broader problem with the category: nothing is so well-proven that nobody can claim it was a hoax. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 04:37, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I suspect the problem is with the category itself, which, like many controversial categories, is an invitation for POV abuse. Ideally it should be reserved for things which have been indisputably proven as hoaxes, if there are such things. And perhaps I shouldn't automatically revert Alberuni sockpuppets; on the one hand, he is banned for a year, but I must keep in mind that he is quite capable of good grammar and language editing, and on occasion has made other reasonable edits. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:43, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

BTW, note this interesting comment on this very Talk: page: [17] Jayjg ^(talk) 05:41, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Inconsistency of thought is a common sign of POV-pushing—that's assuming, of course, that STP is Alberuni's latest sockpuppet rather than, say, one of the Stormfronters. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 05:59, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If you're interested in the reasons why this is another Alberuni sockpuppet, please e-mail me. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:06, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In general, the danger is both to present truth as false or vice versa. As the evidence already shows, this story is already much more than just a controversy. IMHO, we should be doubly critical especially given continuous attempts to present killed Palestinian children (including those killed by Palestinians, as with recent incident in Gaza) as deliberately shot by Israelis, or the "Jenin massacre" of 2002 turned hoaxes. The "innocent until proven guilty" is a good principle for an encyclopedia, don't you think? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 06:19, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

(going left again) The "innocent until proven guilty" is a good principle for an encyclopedia, don't you think?—Yes, quite, and it should apply equally to whoever is accused of staging the event. (I, for one, think the loss of critical pieces of evidence means that this case will never be proven one way or another, absent some unforeseen event like al-Durrah turning up alive or the shooter—whether Israeli, Palestinian, or atomic-powered Kill-Bot from Planet X—making a public confession.) Other events may have been hoaxes, or exaggerated, but I think the article makes it quite clear that the facts of this case are as disputed as can be, and it can do no more. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 06:30, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think the recent revelations move this incident into the "highly questionable" category, but not yet into the "proven hoax" category. I'd hesitate listing it as a "hoax" for that reason. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:38, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Marcoo's edits

Marcoo, I've copyedited your latest edits; I've reduced the incredibly long quotes, and removed the irrelevant material. Please recall this is an article about al-Durrah and the controversy, not about Enderlin's life, or what various Jewish organizations might or might not have done. Also note that the Atlantic article is quite clear that there was a 2nd IDF investigation; any investigation commissioned by the IDF would have to be, and the IDF accepted it's conclusions, as the quote by Samia, and subsequent statements by spokesmen show. If you have any concerns, please bring them here. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:14, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Could you tell me exactly what is not relevant in Enderlin's explanation in an article about Muhammad al-Durrah's death ? The fact that Enderlin was threaten is a part of this affair, no ? --Marcoo 19:28, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The article is about al-Durrah, and what happened to him, and the controversy about his death. It is not about Enderlin's personal problems. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:34, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"If you have any concerns, please bring them here." -> The french sources I gave talk about the Shaul Mofaz's declaration about "an private enterprise".--Marcoo 19:28, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've included that in the article; however, the House of Representatives stuff was not sourced. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:33, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's sourced here : [18] --Marcoo 19:42, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, it's not sourced there at all. It simply claims that it happened; it doesn't say who said it, where, when, etc. That was my point. If we can't find the source, then we have no idea what was actually said. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:03, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How do you know Gérard Huber is a Metula News Agency contributor, and why would that be relevant? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:36, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

By using Google, see [19] "Gérard Huber correspondant permanent à Paris"... and it's sourced here [20] --Marcoo 19:42, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

and it's relevant because most of the controversy came from Mena. --Marcoo 19:44, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The controversy seems to long pre-date Mena's involvement, as the timeline shows, and this seems like extraneous detail meant to poison the well. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:02, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"the controversy about his death. It is not about Enderlin's personal problems." -> It's not a personal or private problem. The fact that Enderlin was threatened of death is totally linked to the public controversy. It's relevant to talk about it. --Marcoo 19:49, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with al-Durrah and who killed him; that's what this article focusses on. That kind of information, if properly sourced, belongs in the article on Enderlin, which also deals with the controversy from the perspective of Enderlin. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:02, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The part "Controversy" is about the controversy. And what happened to Enderlin is also about the controversy. You don't decide of what we can talk about and what we cannot. The controversy generate an hate climate, this article is the relevant place to talk about it. --Marcoo 20:16, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The controversy is about who killed al-Durrah, not what happened to Enderlin. I'll go put it in the correct article for you. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:52, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• In the article, Enderlin reproaches Denis Jeambar and Daniel Leconte with promoting censorship. Why it's not relevant in this article ?

It's a silly accusation that just makes Enderlin look bad, but I'll leave it in since you insist. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:03, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• he also gives arguement for the fact he trusts Talal by telling that he works for France2 since 1988. it's relevant.

It seemed like boring detail, but ok. Keep in mind, "Talal" is a free-lancer, he wasn't a France 2 employee. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:03, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• when telling Tala had made the initial claim, he insists he made it during the broadcast. It's an important point.

It's a bizarre claim, since it was Enderlin who made the claim in the broadcast, not "Talal". But fine. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:03, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• why to change "one million bullets" to "hundred of thousand of bullets" ?

It was obviously a round number estimate, 700,000 in the West Bank and 300,000 in the Gaza Strip. Moreoever, it's another silly argument; regardless of how many the Israelis had shot up until then, there was clearly back and forth firing going on around al-Durrah. But whatever. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:03, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Enderlin is talking about several Israeli reports to the same effect (les réactions (plural) des chefs de l’armée qui allaient dans le même sens), not a single "initial Israeli statement". --Marcoo 20:16, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

They're clearly not reports but rather statements, since there was only one initial investigation. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:03, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Irrelevant material

"The campaign by the Metula News Agency (which is not a press agency) was critizised by many French jewish medias. Some contributors of Mena, as Guy Millière, have been accused by Anti-Racism french associations as MRAP, of Anti-Arab articles[21]. The main Jewish associations in France, which by the past have criticized the role of medias on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, refused to take part of the controversy."

Who are the "many French Jewish medias" who criticized Mena? Why would accusations about a Mena contributor unrelated to the controversy be relevant, except to poison the well? In what way did the "main Jewish associations in France refuse to take part of the controversy", and why would it be relevant? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:10, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Who are the "many French Jewish medias" who criticized Mena?" Most of community radios for example.

If it were relevant, which seems unlikely, it would have to be specifically sourced, i.e., name them and what they said. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:33, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"In what way did the "main Jewish associations in France refuse to take part of the controversy", and why would it be relevant?" Please wait my answer before deleting the paragraph, and if you have after more questions, please give me time to answer... : Many associations asked Mena to give up the accusations. The fact that these associations in the past have criticized the role of medias on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and here gave support to Enderlin is an interesting aspect of the controversy, it's relevant to talk about it. --Marcoo 21:24, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Again, who said what? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:33, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Why would accusations about a Mena contributor unrelated to the controversy be relevant, except to poison the well?" Because Mena is seen by many people in France as a race hate site. Guy Millière, supported by Mena (which supported Oriana Fallacci telling that "there's something with Arab people which is disgusting for ladies"), explained that :

"Les Israéliens et les Américains se tiennent debout et droits Je pense que l'Europe se fait honte à elle-même, et qu'à force de jouer avec le feu, les Arabo-musulmans finiront par se brûler. Il m'arrive même de souhaiter que la brûlure vienne vite"

Google's automatic translation :

"The Israelis and the Americans are held upright and rights I think that Europe is made shame with itself, and that by play with fire, the Arabo-Moslems will end up burning themselves. It even sometimes happens to me to wish that the burn comes quickly"

--Marcoo 21:37, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure that any French site which has material critical of Arabs or Muslims has been accused at one time or another of being a "race-hate" site; regardless, that has nothing to do with the credentials of these specific reporters, or their statements regarding their visit to France 2, and what is on the tape itself, which no-one, I repeat no-one, not even Enderlin, has stated are false. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:49, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"I'm sure that any French site which has material critical of Arabs or Muslims has been accused at one time or another of being a "race-hate" site" : -> When someone makes negative generalization about Arabs or something linked to an ethnic aspect of people, he's racist. Not for you ?

I didn't say "negative generalization about Arabs or something linked to an ethnic aspect of people"; don't put words in my mouth, please. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:32, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Playing with fire, the Arab-Muslims will end up burning themselves. It even sometimes happens to me to wish that the burn comes quickly" is not racist ? --Marcoo 22:51, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"their statements regarding their visit to France 2" -> You're kidding ? Even Denis Jeambar and Daniel Leconte said that the accusation by Mena of faked death is not really credible. --Marcoo 22:17, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Right, and that's clearly stated in the article. But no-one has contradicted their point that most of the tape consists of Palestinians faking injuries, etc., nor their claim that it's obvious al-Durrah was shot from the Palestinian position; even France 2 now admits no-one knows who killed al-Durrah. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:32, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"their claim that it's obvious al-Durrah was shot from the Palestinian position" -> I didn't see anything proving that what they say is obvious. You have a very strong PoV on the controversy. For you all Enderlin arguements are silly... It's interesting but you have to let the article be built with argument's given by Enderlin, and associations who defended Enderlin. A neutral article cannot be written if more than 75 % is about opponent's thesis. --Marcoo 22:51, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Aggressive actions

Jayjg, if for you the paragraph :

After this campaign against him, Charles Enderlin explained he had to move with his family because of some death-threat letters. The campaign by the Metula News Agency (which is not a press agency) was critizised by many French jewish medias. Some contributors of Mena, as Guy Millière, have been accused by Anti-Racism french associations as MRAP, of Anti-Arab articles[22]. The main Jewish associations in France, which by the past have criticized the role of medias on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, refused to take part of the controversy.

is highly POV, re-write it to make it more neutral, but don't simply delete it, thank you. --Marcoo 21:48, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I said it was both highly POV and irrelevant in any case; see comments above. There's no point in NPOVing irrelevant material, and please stop aggressively insering obviously irrelevant well-poisoning, thank you. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:51, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And I see you've aggressively removed Leconte's response to Enderlin's charges as "not relevant to al-Durrah", in a tit-for-tat edit. Tell me, why is Enderlin's response to Leconte relevant, but Leconte's response to al-Durrah not? I personally think you'll have a difficult time explaining that, and I suspect we'll have to remove both in the end, don't you? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:54, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Tell me, why is Enderlin's response to Leconte relevant, but Leconte's response to al-Durrah not?" -> I tried to do what you explained me. To cut all what it is not linked to Al-durrah. (see above : "It has nothing to do with al-Durrah and who killed him; that's what this article focusses on.") But I give up, I won't be able to be as aggressive as you.

You're talking about neutrality, but in the part "Controversy", more than 75 % is about arguements given by opponents to Enderlin. Do you think it's neutral ?--Marcoo 22:11, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The arguments given are about the tape and al-Durrah; the stuff you've put in is about everything else, about how many bullets the IDF fired in the West Bank and Gaza, about how many Palestinians have been killed, about what unnamed Jewish media outlets and organizations didn't do, about how long abu Rhama worked for France 2, about other contributers to Mena, about Enderlin having to move, about a million and one ways of trying to discredit the information presented about the tapes and al-Durrah without actually addressing them directly. Why doesn't Enderlin actually address what is on the tape? Instead he blurts out nonsense about "censorship". How is that possibly relevant? You can't balance statements by throwing in all these ad hominem arguments. I'd be happy to see some statements about the tapes themselves, what's on them, ballistic reports, whatever. Instead you've filled the page up as much well poisoning as you can find. And I was willing to leave that crap in, but then when I put in one sentence that directly responded to Enderlin's nonsense statements, you deleted it, first claming that it wasn't about "censorship", then claiming it wasn't about al-Durrah. That's pure aggressive bad faith editing, and I'm tired of it. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:23, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"the stuff you've put in is about everything else, about how many bullets the IDF fired in the West Bank and Gaza, about how many Palestinians have been killed, about what unnamed Jewish media outlets and organizations didn't do, about how long abu Rhama worked for France 2" -> You're not here to judge if the arguments given by Enderlin are relevant or not. He explained he gave these details to explain his claim. If we make an Wipipedia articles with only what Jayjg can find relevant, it's useless to talk more about neutrality. --Marcoo 22:42, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg, you deleted : "but he explained that this part was minutes before the death of al-Durrah." explaining it must be deleted because there is no source.

, but you even didn't notice that the whole paragraph was without any source ? Why do you delete a change coming from me when I don't give immediately my source, and you let it when it's a opponent's view, even without source ?

If you kindly ask me the source (I first guess it was useless to give it because I've supposed you have read the interview the paragraph is about), it is here :

http://www.crif.org/index02.php?id=4255&type=Entretiens&menu=50&sm9=entretiens&PHPSESSID=7d78f8106f9363a3379c9041a19320c2

"Quatrièmement ce qui est quand même très troublant qu’au moment où Talal Abou Rahma est en train de filmer la supposée agonie du gosse il y a à côté on filme des mises en scènes. DL et DJ : Avant, avant, avant, quelques minutes avant."

DL and DJ say that the "faked actions" are minutes "before" (avant) the death of Al-Durah.--Marcoo 22:42, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"and I haven't deleted anything" -> Please don't play ironic games. You know that to put a paragraph in commentary has strictly the same effect than to delete it. --Marcoo 22:55, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's not ironic; I didn't delete it, I placed controversial additions in comments pending sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:40, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't want to be bothersome, but the following sentence seems very problematic:

"Nahum Shahaf, a physicist, who became famous in Israel when he stated that Yitzhak Rabin probably wasn't killed by Yigal Amir, but by many other snipers, and Yosef Duriel, an engineer he met during his investigation on Yitzhak Rabin's death, contacted IDF Southern Commander Major General Yom Tov Samia, and were commissioned by him to begin a private investigation of the case. "

I don't think Nahum Shahaf was famous in Israel at all. According to the Atlantic article: "Before getting involved in the al-Dura case, Shahaf was known mainly as an inventor. He was only the tenth person to receive a medal from the Israeli Ministry of Science, for his work on computerized means of compressing digital video transmission." Known is certainly different from famous. The sources suggest that he had some unusual theories about Rabin's murder, but did that really make him famous? Were these theories generally known? And does anyone know what the theories were? If some notable people see him as a conspiracy nut, then that information should be in the article. Finally, a commissioned private investigation doesn't make sense. Either the investigation was private or commissioned. Which was it?--Denis Diderot 20:03, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the Shahaf stuff is just more well poisoning; Marcoo couldn't find anything that actually discussed the controversy itself, so instead he has tried in a dozen ways to discredit anyone involved in raising questions about the tapes, and who actually killed al-Durrah. I'll give Marcoo a day to justify this ad hominem argument. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:40, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Commentary Magazine: "Myth, Fact and the al-Durrah affair"

Wow. The new edition of Commentary has an article essentially arguing that the al-Durrah "event" was most likely staged. [23]. I've got a subscription to their online edition...if anyone who has worked on this entry would like a copy of the article, I could e-mail it to you for your private use. Not sure whether that would be a copyright vio. I actually don't think it would be. Babajobu 11:20, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

---

The above article shows conclusively that not everyone agrees that al-Durah was even killed. He might be walking around today and going to school; that is what some significant number of people believe. To be consistent with NPOV, you've got to qualify that initial identification. He wasn't "killed by gunfire," he was "reportedly killed by gunfire." That is something that everyone can agree with. --66.81.115.85 18:25, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

No serious media that I know of doubt that al-Durah was killed. A number of extremists believe, or affect to believe, that the whole story was staged, but it does not make a serious challenge to the veracity of his death. Rama 20:27, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Commentary Magazine is pretty serious media. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:52, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Commentary absolutely qualifies as "serious media". It's by no means impartial, but it's a serious, influential, and well-researched magazine. That's why I was so shocked to read the article. For better or worse, the possibility that al-Durrah was never killed has now been presented in a credible, relatively mainstream publication. Babajobu 21:01, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Probably serious, but with a very clear political stance, and possibly difficulties to get very accurate first-hand information, not necessarly being French or Arab speakers. I have read articles by pro-Israeli American groups which attempted to cite French journalists and said approximatively the opposite of what the source was saying.

Let us say that in spite of them begin serious journalists, their doubts, if they have some, would not necessarly be sufficient to make the whole affair dubious. Recent independant inquiries concluded that there was no possible doubt as to the death of the boy (see Charles Enderlin). Rama 21:05, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Commentary is almost certainly the most respectable venue (albeit very partisan about Israel) where this has been mentioned. The fact that Commentary ran this story certainly merits mention in the article; I'm not sure it merits changing the lead. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:29, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Reading the said story, I fail to see upon which sort of facts the Commentary Magazine relies to challenge the death of this boy. They accurately cite the two French journalists who investigated the matter and concluded that the images were not faked, but finished their story by saying that a sound thing to do would now be to question the death of the boy. Since they they do not provide any independent investigation or new facts, I think it is reasonable to say that this story does not shake the credibility of the enquiry. Rama 08:40, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with your assessment of the Commentary article. I almost feel as though we read different articles. Babajobu 20:43, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

The entire discussion above misses the point of the original poster. The claim is that the article is now obviously not neutral, because it claims straightforwardly that Muhammad al-Durrah is dead. This is in dispute by serious investigators, and the fact that it is in dispute is itself not in dispute. Therefore, this dispute must be acknowledged in the article--the best place for it being at the end of the first paragraph.

All these doubts (and there are many, if you do much reading) could be put to rest if they would simply produce a grave. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.81.120.211 (talk • contribs) 24 Sept 2005.

Maybe this Muhammad's death was staged or faked, or maybe it wasn't. Does it really matter? Does anyone doubt that children have died in this conflict despite their father's attempts to protect them? Do we have to have film of it to know it happened?Why be so vehement in the opposition to the basic principal that little boys have died from bullets fired by both sides. Let them rest in peace. --65.6.24.115 07:31, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

No one is contesting any of that, but this particular article is about Muhammad al-Durra. Babajobu 19:42, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

www.truthnow.org

http://www.truthnow.org : the web site entirely dedicated to the Al Durrah case ! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.67.215.74 (talk • contribs) 14:29, 12 October 2005.

Yes, that's a well-known far-right-wing web site, thank you. Rama 12:40, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Why do you write such an incredible thing ? That's only the web site of a french citizen who wants its public channel to respect its internal charte. Is not this something to be fully respected ? Could you try and explain us how you can be convinced of any political trends of this guy ? I must confess i am totally surprised by what you write. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.67.215.74 (talk • contribs) 14:07, 13 October 2005.

Just google "laveritemaintenant". The site is quoted either by right-wing pro-israeli sites (like [24]), or by [25], where it is mentioned that most of the information is copied from the Mena (another well-known and much-noisy site), and that the site was one of the main activists in the courthouse attacks against France 2. Besides, just reading it leaves very little doubt. Rama 12:42, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks to your advice, I have been deeper through this web site, but as far as i am concerned, my inquiry confirms what I thought: this guy is only trying and make ethic be respected in his country. I have noticed that he feels unfairly attacked by this kind of slander. Let me quote what I read from him on his web site (http://www.truthnow.org/Members/webmestre/Document.2004-12-02.2822) He writes : "The technique employed to hide this truth is that of slandering those who desire to reveal it. Thus, we have often heard those who fight to have the true facts revealed described as extremists. Perjoratively labeled in this manner, no credence is given to what they wish to have others understand." I liked especially the following image he gave : "The truth is like the heart of a fruit that must be removed from the worthless inedible material that surrounds it. On the table of dictatorships, the undesirable fruits have been removed from the baskets. On the table of democracies, these undesirable fruits are left on the menu, but they are the fruits whose skin, scattered with thorns, often dissuade those who desire to discover the heart within it." And to finish : "To remove them from their covering requires infinite precaution because once you have been pricked by a thorn, in the eyes of the world you have contracted an incurable evil: inhuman, extremist, war like….none of which has any relevance to the truth that you are seeking to discover. It is in this manner that this forbidden fruit defends itself and it is in this manner that it will again try to defend itself by placing the thorns in the context of this lawsuit for slander, libel and threats." So it seems to me that we should try not to be ourselves manipulated by playing the game of those who would like a truth not to be revealed to the world. We have a big responsability. Best regards. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.67.215.74 (talk • contribs) 15 Oct 2005.

seconddraft.org

Someone recently added this link:

• "The Birth of an Icon" examines the death from a new perspective. WMV file

I don't have time right now to look at what is apparently a video; "a new perspective" sounds to me to be either vacuuous or a euphemism; I'd recommend that someone take the time to look at this and, if it belongs here at all, to describe it in a way that indicates what it actually is. I suspect it is partisan, and so should be described in a way that makes its viewpoint apparent. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

A second link from the same site has now been added, again with what I find an objectionable caption.

• The Second Draft presents the fullest available Muhamed al Durah dossier -- raw footage, video interviews, analysis.

This suggests a neutral site, but looking at the site it is nothing of the sort: it is a somewhat subtle propaganda site, but no less a propaganda site for its subtlety. For example:

• The "About us" page refers to "Pallywood", and despite saying "we believe in the dignity of difference," it mentions prominently that site founder "Richard Landes…wrote his first book on a series of forgeries that had fooled historians for centuries…"
• After effectively dismissing the possibility that the Israelis killed the boy either intentionally or accidentally, or the Palestinians did so by accident, their arguments against the Palestinians doing so on purpose include "No blood", "No ambulance evacuation", "No bullets recovered": in short, they are arguments that the incident was faked.
• Finally, their page on the possibility that the shooting was staged says—as one-third of the space supposedly devoted to arguments against it being staged—"There is no clear evidence against this scenario. Once one turns off the willing suspension of disbelief and look at these scenes as potentially staged, one finds few if any scenes that argue for real acting (with the exception of the terrified boy as real Palestinian bullets fly overhead)."

We have already nearly all agreed in the past that the claims that the boy was not really killed are, at best, marginal. So why are we providing two links to a pseudo-scholarly site that claims just that? -- Jmabel | Talk 07:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I've allowed over 48 hours. No one has responded to the above. I am removing the links. - Jmabel | Talk 00:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Lead paragraph

The controversy section is quite long and well documented. Serious issues have been made about the incident, with a large deal of evidence that it was staged. Please explain why this cannot be include in the opening paragraph. TDC 19:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

1) As you say, the controversy is well-documented.

Even more of a reason to include it in the opening paragraph. TDC 20:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

2) "many believing that al-Durrah's killing was staged" is misleading and tendentious. Basically only far-right movements say so. Neither the people who seriously investigated the incident not Tsahal context that the boy was actually killed. Rama 19:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

That is why I have changed it to "with many believing that the incident was staged". And as for only "far right" movements believing that this does not pass the smell test, perhaps this is because individuals sympathetic to the Palestinians have not looked into this matter beyond the PLO Hamass talking points? TDC 20:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I said that neither the people who seriously investigated the incident not Tsahal context that the boy was actually killed. Surely you do not regard Tsahal as "individuals sympathetic to the Palestinians [who] have not looked into this matter beyond the PLO Hamass talking points", do you ?

I think that your formulation is very misleading, and that the nuances of the matter are much better explained later on, which is the reason why I deem it better to leave this particular information. Rama 20:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Rama, the last part of "neither the people who seriously investigated the incident not Tsahal context…" is almost incomprehensible. Having reread it a few times, do you perhaps mean "neither the people who seriously investigated the incident, nor Tsahal, contest…"? -- Jmabel | Talk 02:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Rama 08:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Summary section

A concise summary section at the end of the article would be really nice. A lot of the article is devoted to changing public perception of the event and a back-and-forth over who probably fired the bullets, etc. If there were a summary of the following points, it would really help clear up the issue.

1. How certain is it that the boy was killed in an active exchange of gunfire?
2. Who, based on information we have now, probably fired the bullets?
3. Could it have been intentional, or alternately, could it have been unintentional?

Also, I don't quite understand this: "Jamal al-Durrah was also shot and suffered critical injuries but survived after receiving emergency surgery in Jordan." Why did he go to Jordan? Event occured in the West Bank; it would have been necessary for him to travel across all of Isreal and the West Bank to get there. Why was he not treated in a Palestinian or Israeli hospital? In whole, though, the article is remarkably NPOV. --AK7 21:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Citations

I have been going through this, trying to clean up citations, changing them from blind links to proper references. As of the moment I'm writing this, I'm not quite finished, but I'm seeing two disturbing patterns, both of which suggest bias.

1. There is extensive citation of sources partial to the theories that al-Durrah was either deliberately killed by the Palestinians to make a martyr, or that he was not killed at all. These are relatively marginal views in the debate over the incident. But considerably less marginal views near the opposite end of the spectrum—that he was killed by the IDF, for example—are given almost no play at all. They are set up early in the article, but the structure is entirely one of "debunking" those. There is no comparable "debunking" approach to (for example) the claim that the entire incident was faked.
2. Many of these citations come back to repetition of the same rather weak sources. WorldNetDaily is, itself, not generally considered a particularly reliable source, and several sources that, from the blind links, appeared to be independent confirmation openly admit to getting their own information from WorldNetDaily: Gabrielle Goldwater, Is Mohammed al-Dura Alive? and Report: 12-year-old Palestinian Martyr's Death 'Staged' (PDF). Further citations come from the site of CAMERA, a very partisan source, and again one whose reliability is widely questioned.

Please understand: I'm not saying that sources must be middle-of-the-road. There are plenty of sources very far from my own left-of-center politics that I will consider quite reliable for facts (National Review leaps to mind, as does the Wall Street Journal), but these two are not among them. - Jmabel | Talk 09:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The following is the article from Le Figaro written by Denis Jeambar and Daniel Leconte on January 25 2005 as availible in the Lexis Nexis database:

Partis pour faire notre travail journalistique de façon honnête, nous voilà aujourd'hui accusés d'être les complices d'une manoeuvre malhonnête, voire conspirationniste, un comble. C'est dire l'état d'une certaine presse en France.

Résumons. Depuis plusieurs années, la Mena, une agence francophone de presse israélienne, et la rédaction de France 2 s'affrontent. A l'origine de cette bataille médiatique, la fusillade du carrefour de Netzarim, dans les Territoires, le 30 septembre 2000. Elle oppose des soldats israéliens à des soldats palestiniens. Entre les deux, des lanceurs de pierres. Et parmi eux, un enfant et son père, pris dans la fusillade. Charles Enderlin, le correspondant de France 2 en Israël, n'est pas sur place. Il récupère les images tournées par son cameraman palestinien, Talal Abou Rama. Il les monte. Et le soir, sur l'antenne de France 2, il les commente de la façon suivante : « Ici Djamal et son père. Ils sont la cible des tirs venus de la position israélienne. L'enfant fait des signes mais... une nouvelle rafale... l'enfant est mort et son père est blessé. »

Faux, rien ne permet de dire que l'enfant a été tué par des soldats israéliens, affirme très vite la Mena. Et pendant trois ans, l'agence de presse accumule des indices troublants qui mettent en cause la version donnée par Charles Enderlin. Plutôt que les tirs israéliens, elle évoque des tirs palestiniens et demande des explications. En guise de réponse, France 2 se retranche derrière des arguments juridiques et décide de ne plus bouger.

C'est dans ce contexte que nous sommes approchés, il y a six mois environ, par Luc Rozensweig, ancien du journal Le Monde. Nous savons les ravages causés par cette image, la haine qu'elle a entretenue et développée sur place, chez nous, dans les banlieues dites sensibles, et partout ailleurs dans le monde, où elle a été présentée sur la base du commentaire fourni par Charles Enderlin comme un exemple de la barbarie israélienne.

Après discussions, nous acceptons donc d'accompagner Luc Rozensweig dans son enquête pour tenter de savoir ce qui s'est vraiment passé ce jour-là au carrefour de Netzarim. Mais pour empêcher les manoeuvres médiatiques habituelles, nous demanderons à Luc Rozensweig de garder le secret jusqu'au bout. Nous entendons même nous réserver la possibilité de ne rien dire s'il n'y a rien à dire de plus que ce qu'on connaît déjà.

C'est ce que nous faisons. Luc Rozensweig enquête et nous présente des faits totalement contradictoires avec la version officielle donnée par Charles Enderlin et Talal Abou Rama. Rozensweig va même plus loin. Il reprend les thèses de la Mena et suggère que les images de l'enfant et de son père sous le feu des balles pourraient être le résultat d'une mise en scène organisée par les Palestiniens.

A ce stade de l'enquête, Arlette Chabot, directrice de l'information de France 2, accepte de nous rencontrer. Et de collaborer sincèrement et courageusement à la recherche de la vérité. Nous lui présentons les éléments en notre possession. Nous lui confions nos doutes sérieux sur la version fournie par Enderlin et Talal Abou Rama. Mais dans le même temps, nous ajoutons que nous sommes prêts à écarter les accusations de Rozensweig sur la mise en scène de la mort de l'enfant si le visionnage de l'ensemble des rushes tournés par Talal Abou Rama confirme ce que Charles Enderlin a déclaré à deux reprises au moins, dont à Télérama : « J'ai coupé l'agonie de l'enfant. C'était insupportable... Cela n'aurait rien apporté de plus. »

Arlette Chabot accepte sans réticence. Sauf que le visionnage des rushes ne nous apprend rien de plus sur « l'agonie de l'enfant ». Ou plutôt, si ! Cette fameuse « agonie », qu'Enderlin affirme avoir coupée au montage, n'existe pas.

En revanche, le visionnage permet de relever, avec l'approbation de nos confrères de France 2 présents autour de la table que, dans les minutes qui précèdent la fusillade, les Palestiniens semblent avoir organisé une mise en scène. Ils « jouent » à la guerre avec les Israéliens et simulent, dans la plupart des cas, des blessures imaginaires. Le visionnage intégral des rushes démontre aussi qu'au moment où Charles Enderlin donne le gamin pour mort, tué par les Israéliens, c'est-à-dire le soir même sur le journal de France 2, rien ne lui permet d'affirmer qu'il est vraiment mort et encore moins qu'il a été tué par des soldats israéliens. Tout, bien au contraire, à commencer par l'emplacement des uns et des autres sur le terrain, incriminerait plutôt une ou des balles palestiniennes.

Face à cette dernière remarque, nos confrères de France 2 reconnaissent que rien effectivement ne permet de dire que l'enfant a été touché par des tirs israéliens. Leurs experts ont même démontré, nous assurent-ils, que l'enfant a été touché par des éclats ( ?) ou par des balles qui auraient ricoché sur la chaussée, des balles qui en tout état de cause ne visaient ni l'enfant ni son père. « De toute façon, conclut l'un d'entre eux, on ne pourra jamais savoir d'où venaient les tirs. »

Autrement dit, en attribuant la mort de l'enfant à des tirs israéliens le soir même sur France 2, Charles Enderlin a extrapolé à partir des rushes et de la version des événements fournie par son cameraman. Pourquoi ? Pourquoi a-t-il privilégié cette interprétation ? Dans quel but ? Peu importe, le fait est là et suffit en soi à revisiter toute cette affaire de fond en comble pour trier le vrai du faux.

Alors que, de part et d'autre, nous nous sommes engagés dans ce travail, la Mena, informée sans que nous le sachions par Luc Rozensweig, rend public le lendemain, dans une longue dépêche, les détails de la rencontre entre France 2 et nous. Elle profite même des premières conclusions auxquelles nous sommes arrivés la veille avec France 2 pour pousser l'avantage et exposer la thèse de la mise en scène de la mort de l'enfant, thèse que, pour notre part, nous n'avons, faute de preuves sérieuses, jamais reprise à notre compte.

Sollicités par la presse, nous choisissons de nous taire. Nous savons en effet que dans le tintamarre orchestré par la Mena, nous ne pouvons plus être entendus. France 2, entre-temps, d'ailleurs, nous a présenté des éléments sérieux qui réfutent la thèse de la mise en scène de la mort de l'enfant. Nous décidons alors d'interrompre notre enquête comme le fait la presse sur bien des sujets tous les jours.

Aujourd'hui que le tintamarre est un peu retombé, il redevient possible de dire les choses et qui sait, peut-être, d'être enfin entendus. A ceux qui, comme la Mena, ont voulu nous instrumentaliser pour étayer la thèse de la mise en scène de la mort de l'enfant par des Palestiniens, nous disons qu'ils nous trompent et qu'ils trompent leurs lecteurs. Non seulement nous ne partageons pas ce point de vue, mais nous affirmons qu'en l'état actuel de notre connaissance du dossier, rien ne permet de l'affirmer, bien au contraire.

A certains journalistes « médias » qui ont tenté d'amalgamer notre point de vue à celui de la Mena pour mieux le discréditer, nous voulons dire qu'ils participent une fois de plus à rendre ce dossier opaque. Il n'en avait pas besoin. En tout cas, compte tenu de la valeur symbolique de ces images et de leurs effets ravageurs, c'est un devoir professionnel pour tous, nous semble-t-il, d'éviter les approximations et de dire exactement ce que l'on sait. Ni plus ni moins.

I used babelfish to loosely translate it. I insert proper names that are translated (Le Monde is translated as The World) as well as some clarifying notes in square brackets:

Parties to do our journalistic work in an honest way, here us are today shown to be accomplices of an operation dishonest person, even conspirationnist, a roof [shill]. It is to say the state of a certain press in France.

Let us summarize. Since several years, [Mena], a French-speaking agency of Israeli press, and the drafting of France 2 clash. With the origin of this media battle, the shooting of the crossroads of Netzarim, in the Territories, September 30, 2000. It opposes Israeli soldiers to Palestinian soldiers. Between the two, stone launchers. And among them, a child and his father, taken in the shooting. Charles Enderlin, the correspondent of France 2 in Israel, is not on the spot. He recovers the images turned by his Palestinian cameraman, Talal Abou Rama. He assembles them. And the evening, on the antenna of France 2, it comments on them in the following way: "Here Djamal and his/her father. They are the target of the shootings come from the Israeli position. The child makes signs but... a new gust... the child died and his/her father is wounded "

Forgery, nothing makes it possible to say that the child was killed by Israeli soldiers, affirms very quickly Carried out it. And during three years, the news service accumulates disconcerting indices which blame the version given by Charles Enderlin. Rather than the Israeli shootings, it evokes Palestinian shootings and asks explanations. As an answer, France 2 cuts off itself behind legal arguments and decides not to move more.

It is in this context that we are approached, approximately six months ago, by Luc Rozensweig, old of the newspaper [Le Monde]. We know the devastations caused by this image, the hatred which it maintained and developed on the spot, on our premises, in the suburbs known as sensitive, and everywhere else in the world, where it was presented on the basis of comment provided by Charles Enderlin like an example of Israeli cruelty.

After discussions, we thus agree to accompany Luc Rozensweig in his investigation to try to know what really occurred this day to the crossroads from Netzarim. But to prevent the usual media operations, we will ask Luc Rozensweig to maintain the secrecy until the end. We intend to even to reserve the possibility us nothing of saying if there is nothing to say moreover than what one knows already.

It is what we do. Luc Rozensweig inquires and presents to us completely contradictory facts with the official version given by Charles Enderlin and Talal Abou Rama. Rozensweig goes even further. It takes again the theses of Mena and suggests that the images of the child and his father under the fire of the balls could be the result of a setting in scene organized by the Palestinians.

This stage of the investigation, Arlette Chabot, director of the information of France 2, agrees to meet us. And to collaborate sincerely and courageously in the research of the truth. We present the elements in our possession to him. We entrust our serious doubts to him on the version provided by Enderlin and Talal Abou Rama. But in same time, we add that we are ready to draw aside the charges of Rozensweig on the setting in scene of died of the child if the visionnage of the whole of the rushes [video of the whole of the clips] turned by Talal Abou Rama confirms what Charles Enderlin declared twice at least, of which in Télérama: "I cut the anguish of the child. It was unbearable... That would not have brought anything moreover"

Arlette Chabot accepts without reserve. Except that the visionnage of the rushes [video of the clips] does not teach us anything more on "the anguish of the child". Or rather, if! This famous "anguish", that Enderlin affirms to have crossed to the assembly, does not exist.

On the other hand, the visionnage makes it possible to raise, with the approval of our fellow-members of France 2 present around the table that, in the minutes which precede the shooting, the Palestinians seem to have organized a setting in scene. They "play" the war with the Israelis and simulate, in the majority of the cases, the imaginary wounds. The integral visionnage of the rushes also shows that at the time when Charles Enderlin gives the kid for death, killed by the Israelis, i.e. the evening even on the newspaper of France 2, nothing does not enable him to affirm that he really died and even less than he was killed by Israeli soldiers. All, quite to the contrary, to start with the site of the ones and others on the ground, would accuse one or of the Palestinian balls rather.

Vis-a-vis with this last remark, our fellow-members of France 2 recognize that nothing indeed makes it possible to say that the child was touched by Israeli shootings. Do their experts even showed, us ensure, that the child was touched by glares (?) or by balls which would have rebounded on the roadway, from the balls which in any event aimed neither the child nor his father "In any event, concludes one of them, one will be able to never know from which the shootings came"

In other words, by allotting the death of the child to Israeli shootings the evening even on France 2, Charles Enderlin extrapolated starting from the rushes and of the version of the events provided by his cameraman. Why? Why did it privilege this interpretation? With a which aim? It does not matter, the fact is there and is enough in oneself to revisit all this basic business in roof to sort the truth of the forgery.

Whereas, on both sides, we engaged in this work, Carried out it, informed without we knowing it by Luc Rozensweig, makes public the following day, in a long dispatch, the details of the meeting between France 2 and us. It benefits even from the first conclusions at which we were able the day before with France 2 to push the advantage and to expose the thesis of the setting in scene of died of the child, thesis that, for our part, we do not have, for lack of serious evidence, ever taken again on our account.

Solicited by the press, we choose to conceal to us. We know indeed that in the din orchestrated by [Mena], we cannot be heard more. France 2, meanwhile, moreover, us presented serious elements which refute the thesis of the setting in scene of died of the child. We then decide to stop our investigation like does it the press on many subjects tous.les.jours. [All.The.Time.]

Today that the din fell down a little, it becomes again possible to say the things and who knows, perhaps, to be finally heard. With those which, as Carried out it, wanted to us instrumentaliser to support the thesis of the setting in scene of died of the child by Palestinians, we say that they mislead us and that they mislead their readers. Not only we do not share this point of view, but we affirm that in the current state of our knowledge of the file, nothing makes it possible to affirm it, quite to the contrary.

To certain journalists "media" which tried to amalgamate our point of view with that of Mena for better discrediting it, we want to say that they once more take part to make this file opaque. It did not need any. In any case, taking into account the value symbolic system of these images and their devastating effects, it is a professional duty for all, seems to us it, to avoid the approximations and to say exactly what one knows. Ni more nor less.

Commentary: it seems that Jeambar and Leconte are asserting an agnosticism about the contents of the tapes and criticizing the lack of same from France 2. They argue that the tape is unclear about the circumstances at best and offers evidence that suggests a hoax at worst; and therefore reporting specifics, such as the state of al-Durrah or who was responsible for his state, was irresponsible.

What's the official position of IDF on this issue?

Can anybody provide any links to prove that the IDF stated it was responsible for this alleged killing? Mieciu K 01:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

"Prove" is a tricky word, but is was reported so by the BBC: [26] - Jmabel | Talk 06:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

death controversial?

is there really a controversy about whether the boy died or not. i read in a german interview with the woman who made the tv documentary that she talked with the doctor that performed the autopsy...--trueblood 12:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there is dispute at to the authenticity of just about everything that happened that day. Bibigon 12:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

sure i take it there is also a dispute to whether the fbi planned 9/11 but these claims are kept out of the main article --trueblood 16:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure, but there are no reliable and notable sources disputing the official 9/11 story. Meanwhile, just about every reliable and notable source reported the 9/11 story as fact. This is not the case with al-Durrah. Bibigon 22:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

not quite convinced. the cause of his death might be disputed, but aren't the people that dispute his death more on the same level as the people that tell these 6000 jews did not come to work in ny on 9\11 stories? his father says he is dead, there was an autopsy performed. the israelian army even took responsibility at some point. do you think he lives with his family or what?--trueblood 18:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The people who dispute his death are "Richard Landes, a Boston University professor", "Nahum Shahaf, a physicist", "the cameraman Talal Abu Rahma", "A 2002 documentary on Germany's ARD television network", "James Fallows, in a June 2003 article in The Atlantic Monthly", etc... That's just half the list. These are sources of significantly more notability and reliability than those who dispute the traditional 9/11 story. The IDF never took responsibility, they indicated that they were "probably responsible" at first, before the later investigations. That an autopsy was performed has not been substantiated, and the father's claims are also thus far merely claims.

The sources and evidence for the traditional 9/11 story were far stronger than the sources and evidence for the al-Durrah death story. The sources and evidence disputing the 9/11 story was meanwhile far weaker than the sources and evidence disputing the death claim. Bibigon 19:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Category: "Allegedly living people"

I deleted the "Category: Living people" entry. IMHO, "Category: 2000 deaths" is probably right, but "Category: Possibly living people" is at least arguably applicable. Thoughts? TheronJ 20:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Pretty much any category is going to be POV, isn't it. Even "possibly living" is awfully close to endorsing one side of an argument. - Jmabel | Talk 06:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

This has now been placed, via a template, in Category:Biography articles of living people. Seems very problematic to me. - Jmabel | Talk 23:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Im am very surprised that the web site http://www.truthnow.org has not been yet mentionned among the references of wikipedia on the Muhammad al-Durrah topic ! It's just the web site of a french citizen who have seized the french justice, not to accuse France Televisions of having made a stage, but to obtain, at least, that France Televisions officially says to his wiewers that it has never had any proof that this palestinian child was killed by israeli soldiers. Arlette Chabot (director of information of France Televisions) has told that France Televisions had never had proofs that would have unabled it to accuse Israeli Soldiers. ut she told that only on a small jewish radio. This citizen wants her to tell it on prime time during the TV news of France Televisions, in order to repair the consequences of an accusation without any