Thursday, April 19, 2012


If you hadn't heard yet, the man who was persecuted for telling the truth about the al-Durah blood libel - and thankfully acquitted - is now running in the French election, and here's his campaign website. And you know what, I think I'll translate his reply to a letter Charles Enderlin sent him as best as possible:
Thank you for writing me this letter. For the first time, you addressed to me, not through justice, but directly, even if you have chosen to express the ironic mode. It is ironic that, for my part, I will answer you. This, for one simple reason: the subject is serious between us.

I actually did advertise your conference so that people can come to you and "ask politely," according to my own terms.

Indeed, your public speaking on the themes of the Middle East and Arab-Jewish relations is not trivial: you are the author of the report which crystallizes, for over eleven years, anti-Semitic hatred in the world. But if I think it important that a challenge can be sent to you, you seem to overestimate my influence by attributing all of this contradiction to my "followers", or those you contemptuously call my "people".

Many people in France and around the world, after seeing your story on the "death" of Mohammed al Dura, and after reviewing the facts, do not accept the version that you give. It is neither my faithful, nor my servants.

Moreover, I note that the opponents have arisen during my last conference in Paris. I welcome it because it was easy to answer their position. One of them, a journalism student, who worked in France 2, your chain. Does this mean that the method of ensuring the publicity of a conference opponent is not too bad to you, provided that the contradiction is for your opponent, not yourself?

You affirm that I am under the sentence for defamation. This is false since the appeal suspends the sentence. I also remind you that you got the quashing of the judgment call that relaxes me on purely procedural grounds: the Supreme Court has sanctioned the judges of the Court of Appeal because they had asked to see the rushes. According to the Court of Cassation, the trial court may, in defamation cases, help the accused to establish his innocence. But neither my good faith, neither the documents that I produced myself in court of appeal, and that led to my release, have been challenged by the Court of Cassation.

Nevertheless, the trial of appeal has been highly instructive: when the images broadcast by France 2 not, or even part of them, are presented to the judges, they can not believe your version of events.

On the merits, I note that you persist in accusing Israeli soldiers of firing in the direction of al Dura. This accusation is refuted by all ballistic experts were consulted. You've never been able to name one to contradict their conclusions: no bullet holes that were on the wall which had backed the al Dura could not come from the Israeli fortress. I invite you to read the full investigation of ballistic Jean-Claude Schlinger, by clicking here.

You state that the Israeli authorities have refused to make "an investigation properly." This is not true since you asked, repeatedly, to provide the technical elements you have. You're always refused. Again, I invite you to read the letter by the deputy spokesman of the army, and one that was issued by the office of Israeli Prime Minister by clicking here.

You state that your cameraman, Talal Abu Rahma, was filmed less than two minutes of "shooting". Yet, in his affidavit (available here), the same cameraman claimed to have filmed "27 minutes of the incident." At the Court of Appeal, your chain had provided only 18 minutes of images that I owned already. This deletion of 9 minutes fairly annoyed the magistrates. Now you claim that these 27 minutes have become "less than two minutes." This is not credible.

Witnesses you mention have accused the Israelis of firing in the direction of the father and the child with "aircraft, anti-tank missiles, helicopters." Despite all the Armada, there were eight bullet holes in the wall, not a drop of blood on the alleged victims, their clothing or on the wall to which they were resting. How can we not see that such statements will form part of a propaganda? Your camera has himself stated in 2001 in Le Matin du Sahara, have "chosen journalism to defend the Palestinian cause." The images that you have been forwarded for a purpose activist. It was your duty to submit to a prior critical examination.

It is true that I asked the CADA to access the full 27 minutes of images that you claim to hold. This request was in every way justified. You had in effect said, repeatedly, hold the images of "the agony of the child." Since these images do not appear within 18 minutes I have, do you mean they are included in the 9 minutes that you have withheld from the Court? If you were sincere, why would you have refused to produce these images further before the magistrates, when they were able to establish that your story is true?

You state that Mike Hanna has not refused to go and comment on the same images that you received and which you were eager to do the "scoop" of your career. Yet this is what your friend and fervent supporter, Elisabeth Schemla, wrote in his book published in 2001, My dream is your nightmare, page 267:

"CNN took these terrible images along with France 2. Talal Abu Rahme, who took them, is indeed the "local" in Gaza of the French public station and "any info" American. He sent his video to Charles Enderlin and Mike Hannah, the new Jerusalem bureau chief for CNN. Enderlin then immediately decided to send it to Paris to log 20 hours, Hannah declined to send it on its own headquarters in Atlanta. Including the explosive content of these images, in order that the honors and we can not shoot a backhand under the pretext that he has been "grilling" by the competition, he wanted to have all story "about" knowing the exact circumstances, why and how, before launching this media bomb."

This information was confirmed in the article by Jacques Bertoin, published in Jeune Afrique in January 2005: "Charles Enderlin took possession of the film in the afternoon - after CNN, in which Abu Rahma had proposed, was requested additional safeguards."

Only when you have these images available to all televisions in the world [can] CNN broadcast your story.

Any honest person who will be aware of these facts after reading your letter will be aware of the ambiguous relationship you have with the facts and reality.

Thanks to your "friends", you think you can continue to maneuver and avoid facing the consequences of your actions. You have received support which, one after the other, not really dare to publicly commit to your side. Advance the truth. It is becoming better known throughout the world. An American author comes to stage a play - Al Dura: true or false - that is not to your advantage. Audiovisual documentaries ranging in the same direction have already been released. Feature films will follow. In any event, the truth will be known one day.
Why be locked into an attitude of denial, the risk of inciting further tragedy, other murders committed in the name of al Dura?

The wives of soldiers lynched in Ramallah in October 2000, parents of slain Daniel Pearl in Pakistan, but also the families of all victims of crimes and to avenge attacks claimed the "death" of Mohammed al Dura you know what they should. They do not tell you thank you.

Philippe Karsenty - JSSNews
PS: In a second message, you affirm that I insulted you. I challenge you to find one of these insults. They do not exist.

You will say that I lead a campaign against you. This is also false. I fight for truth, and not against you personally.

Challenging your job is neither to insult nor a personal campaign, which is public information.
And that's saying something. Sooner or later, Enderlin and his obscene gang of thugs are going to get whatever they have coming to them, which should be banishment from France and a lot of yelling by an angry crowd to speed them on their way. France is seriously in need of a variant on the Danish Free Press society to counter people like Enderlin. We can only hope one is in the works, and maybe Karsenty could be one to co-found it.


Punditarian said...

Hi Avi,

Let me help with a modified translation of this paragraph:

"The wives of soldiers lynched in Ramallah in October 2000, parents of slain Daniel Pearl in Pakistan, but also the families of all victims of crimes and to avenge attacks claimed the "death" of Mohammed al Dura you know what they should. They do not tell you thank you."

I would translate this as follows:

"The wives of the soldiers lynched in Ramallah in October 2000, the parents of Daniel Pearl whose throat was cut in Pakistan, and also the families of all of the crimes and attacks motivated by revenge for the "death: of Mohamed al Dura know what they owe you. They aren't saying thank you."

Thanks for bringing to our attention this excellent letter.

Avi Green said...

You're welcome. It's very important information.