It was in Gaza, at the Netzarim crossroads, on 30 September 2000, in the first days of the Intifada…
I remember the terrible pictures [shown by French state-run TV channel France 2] of a child and his father trying to protect themselves from the bullets, behind a pathetic makeshift shelter. Then after one last burst of fire, we were shown the dead child and his seriously injured father…
I still remember the mix of feelings that went through me: incredulousness, shame, dread and rage at the thought that Israeli soldiers could have done “that”, as the comment accompanying the TV news sequence peremptorily stated.
I remember the explosion of indignation and hatred which followed these images, distributed around the world, taken up in endless posters, flyers and stamps, installing in the public subconscious the image of Israeli child killers, thus justifying all forms of vengeance and horrors. Images inset against the backdrop of Daniel Pearl’s assassination and Bin Laden propaganda clips…
Today, I want to understand… How is it that such numerous and serious injuries, on both father and son, have left no visible trace of blood on the bodies, the wall, the ground? And how come the only red stain is that of a cloth moved by the child on his abdomen? How come the supposedly dead child moves his arm in a movement that is not a spasm of death throes?
How come 45 minutes of automatic arms fire (according to the testimony of a Palestinian cameraman) have left only 7 or 8 impacts on the wall, when there should have been hundreds? How is it that these impacts are circular, whereas the Israeli shots, because of their very oblique firing angle (35°) due to the Israeli outpost’s position with respect to the wall, should have caused elliptic impacts with a wide horizontal axis? How is it that bullets are fired into a wall that is not located between the Israeli and Palestinian positions, and that consequently there cannot be stray bullets in that direction, whereas the Palestinian position is in fact opposite the adult and the child?
In other words, since the shots were fired directly across, they could only come from the Palestinian side, and as it is impossible to imagine that the Palestinians were shooting at the wall to kill, the only possibility is that of a staged scene…
This is the opinion defended by Philippe Karsenty in the face of a barrage of silence and terribly effective contempt. I was reticent to listen to him. More than others, because of my years of personal involvement with the Holocaust, I am wary of “conspirationist” explanations. of which Jews have all too often been the victims.
But the questions are there and the answers are not forthcoming… So I want say here that it is high time for the documents to be analysed by a committee of neutral experts, of specialists in ballistics and forensic science, of traumatologists and image specialists. This committee must be French because France 2 is a French public television channel.
There is no question of interfering with a case that is currently being heard in the courts. This case, whose judgement is expected in May, has been brought because Philippe Karsenty has been accused of making libellous statements in respect of the channel’s news chief, Arlette Chabot, and news correspondent Charles Enderlin. Whatever the outcome, it will not put an end to the polemic as to what happened that day at the Netzarim crossroads. And this is what is truly important. The case is much bigger than its protagonists.
Don’t tell me that this is an old story now and that no one is interested. We are all aware of the influence of these images, and the terrorist vocations for which they opened the way.
Most of those who are criticising Philippe Karsenty have chosen not to analyse the documents he has collected. They have – and in some cases had – their own ready-made opinion. Some are using “ad hominem” arguments and are trying to get him to say things he has not said. Yes, a child was killed in Gaza that day, the pictures of the event are there; the question is, was it the child shown in the France 2 film or not.
With such solemn documents, no one has a right to say, as some have done, that they represent “the truth of the context”. A journalist is not supposed to present fiction, not even docu-fiction, when he or she is showing a news reel. There is the truth of facts, while the Middle Eastern conflict, more than others, has frequently produced staged events. The public has far too often been duped. If information is indeed leading the world, such information must be indisputable. We need the truth about the Al-Durra Affair!
English
Français