Philippe Karsenty - The al Dura Hoax from CJHS on Vimeo.
This had not been clear before, but the disgraceful Charles Enderlin, the anti-Israelist director for France 2 TV who despised that someone had the courage to unmask the deception he willfully took part in - that being the al-Dura hoax, is still perseucting the brave Phillipe Karsenty in court for so-called "defamation". And we can only wonder: even if Enderlin didn't get much backing this time, what will be the fate of Karsenty?
Veronique Chemla, who attended the hearing, explains why this boomeranged:
Enderlin and Chabot’s reaction was to sue Karsenty for defamation. Karsenty was found guilty by the Court of Paris on October 19, 2006. He appealed. Upon his demand, the Court of Appeals of Paris requested on October 3, 2007, that France 2 present the report rushes. After viewing them, the Court released Karsenty on May 21, 2008. Moreover, it berated the respondent party.A travesty of justice then. Yet what's the point? By now, after the reel rushes were turned up, it's pretty clear that Enderlin doesn't have a leg to stand on, and anyone who sees the deeper side of the footage will know he's clutching at straws, acting vindictive because someone has the guts to take him on, and because he doesn't have the courage to take responsibility.
However, the Court of Annulment, France’s highest authority in judicial matters, quashed the decision on technical grounds on February 28, 2012: it argued that the defender is supposed to produce evidence by himself.
The case was thus sent back to the Court of Appeals of Paris — with a new panel of judges — in order to either confirm or revoke its decision. Hence the current hearings.
SNJ, the French journalists union, requested its members attend the hearings in order to grant support to Enderlin, yet very few turned up for the six-hour Court session. Daniel Bilalian and Vincent Nguyen from France 2 were there, as well as Emilie Raffoul of Canal+ . However, the top echelon of France Televisions, who had attended a previous Court session on February 27, 2008, was conspicuous by its absence. So were the French Jewish media.That's telling something, although the absence of Jewish-based media is surprising. Obviously, even some of the most reprehensible members of the press have come to terms with how the filming is the hoax it was planned as, and see no point in backing up such stupidity. But that the local Jewish press were disinterested is the sad part.
On the other hand, there was a large audience present, including VIPs like Richard Prasquier, the chairman of Crif (the Representative Council of French Jewish Organizations). JSS News, an Israel-based online magazine, covered the hearings live.
And here's something Enderlin said in his pathetic defense that really disgusts me:
Enderlin stresses that he is a good Israeli citizen, that he served in the Israeli Army and that his children served in the Army also. In other terms [words], there are no reasons why he would harm his country.That has to be one of the most classicly offensive forms of defense. How does being a citizen of Israel and serving in the army make one a saint or incapable in any way, shape or form of turning against it? I served in the army too, in a minor job when I was 19-21, and does that make me a saint? Umm, no. Even in the military, there can be - and are - people with deplorable motives, more than utterly capable of harboring say, racist views against blacks and Asians, to say nothing of anti-semitic views, and even capable of stealing other people's money and committing aggravated assault while drunk. Why, here's a report on cases of sexual harrassment in the IDF, which should make it perfectly clear that nobody in the army is a saint. So Enderlin's defense is one of the most bottom of the barrel pleas of innocence I've ever seen.
The court's decision is to be given on April 3. We must hope that Karsenty can prevail, and even if he doesn't, that he'll appeal again. Enderlin is a most disgraceful man who has brought nothing but shame upon 2 nations, and no matter what the verdict, it should be pretty obvious to him that he's been discredited along with his cameraman, and to keep on with this futile charade will only give the impression that he's vindictive and refuses to take responsibility on his part.