Karsenty says the truth cannot be stopped
On 26 June 2013, the Court of Appeal of Paris condemned Karsenty for defamation Charles Enderlin and France 2. He must also pay their € 7,000. For nearly 13 years the controversy continues about the iconic story of the beginning of the second Intifada, report that seemed to show the death of a child live on TV, "the little Mohamed," a Palestinian child.I can't tell if that article was actually published on the website proper; it could be on his own site. But this is the best I can do for now in translating that article.
For over 11 years, Philippe Karsenty says this story was a "pure and simple staging." More than a decade of controversy and legal proceedings in which Philippe Karsenty met, usually, widespread opposition. Since 19 May 2013, things have changed since the Israeli government issued a formal report about forty pages, supporting his accusations. To learn more about this complex affair and his reaction after his recent conviction, we interviewed Philippe Karsenty, 47, founder of Media-Ratings, a rating agency in the media, but also deputy mayor of Neuilly-sur-Seine.
Michaela Benhaim: You have been convicted of defaming Charles Enderlin and France 2. You also need to pay them € 7,000. What is your feeling after the verdict?
Karsenty: I'm pretty sad to see that my arguments were not heard by the Court of Appeal of Paris. I also regret that she saw fit to condemn me to pay a large sum to the plaintiffs. This means that there's a real desire to share hurt, hitting the portfolio.
"This report is a fake, pure and simple staging."
Can you give us an analysis of the judgment which condemns you?
No, I can not do it because for the first time in this long process, I could not get the ruling on the field. I requested but it was clearly meant to me that it would not be possible, the clerk who told me that I would receive in one to three weeks.
You have to use to prosecute the legal battle?
Yes, of course, I could do as France 2 and Charles Enderlin did when I won in 2008, and filled me in cassation to try to quash the judgment of the Court of Appeal on technical arguments.
Will you do it?
No, I will not, for three reasons. The first is that the attitude of the French judiciary in recent times appears to me questionable in some cases. I observe that in order to convict me, the judges of the Court of Appeal had to postpone their decision twice and deliberating for more than five months. Perhaps one day we will know the reasons for these delays. Perhaps one day we will know what took place in the Court of Appeal of Paris. In the meantime, for my part, I lost some of my confidence in the French justice.
The second reason why I do not go to the Supreme Court is that justice was only a tool, not an end in itself. In fact, it was I who chose to lead France 2 engage in a debate with them. Through this, we obtained two important things:
- France 2 was forced to present his "evidence", and we saw that they did not have. It was thus possible to see that they were not what they claimed to have for years: the agony of the child.
- The world's media have focused on the al Dura, with the notable exception of most French media that we live in a small North Korea as soon as this topic is discussed.
The third reason why I do not continue the fight on the legal ground is that when I asked French parliamentarians to focus on the case, they "courageously" declined my proposal by hiding behind the fact that This case is before the French courts, they would not have the ability to treat it. We will remove the obstacle that some thought they had before them by removing the case of French courtrooms where it dragged on for nearly 9 years.
And I want to quote Michel Onfray when he said "Justice said law, it does not say the right or true." This seems especially true in this case. He must know when to stop a fight, use the advantages it has procured and lead the fight in other areas. That's what I'll do.
"I show them the facts. They oppose me their faith. Their belief that the Israelis are killers of children"
That is to say?
Example, I could take a page ad in a major French daily and renew my accusations against France 2 and Charles Enderlin with more force and those elements that I held in 2004.
Dare they sue me? I doubt it.
I could also start an association that would aim to recognize the truth by other means. We would be stronger if we were more numerous and especially coordinated. If some want to join me in this, they can contact me via Facebook or email@example.com I could also continue the fight leaving France. It is a possibility that I study seriously.
How do you analyze the use that France 2 and Charles Enderlin have done justice?
In 2004, they manipulated to silence critics but turned against them. They thought I would give up the fight very quickly and they have not imagined that it would lead them to have to show that they had no evidence to support their initial charge.
For my part, the objective attracting France 2 and Charles Enderlin on the judicial front, was to force them to show everything they owned, and also in fact they did not hold:
- 27 minutes of footage they claimed to hold and they could produce only 18 minutes more grotesque than one could imagine.
- The agony of the child they claimed to have and they have produced. However, they had to produce after the "death" of the child who had been cut in editing images we see a perfectly controlled the child who raises the elbow movement, turns his head towards the cameraman France 2 then it is supposed to be dead.
"You have to stop the battle, use the advantages it has procured and lead the fight in other areas"
Now that we have discussed hot news, can you summarize your position on the Case Dura?
September 30, 2000, France 2 broadcast the newspaper 20 hours a documentary shot by an Arab cameraman in Gaza, Talal Abu Rahma, then mounted and commented by the corresponding chain in Jerusalem, Charles Enderlin, a Franco-Israeli journalist. His comment was that the child was intentionally killed, and the father seriously wounded by Israeli soldiers. However, contrary to what is said in the comments, the image shows that neither the father nor the children have been killed or wounded by gunfire from the Israeli army. This report is a fake, pure and simple staging. I can prove that at the end of the story, the child is not dead and that his father was not injured, neither having been touched. So while they are supposed to have received 15 bullets weapons of war between them, there is no blood on their bodies, their clothes or on the wall to which they were backed. And a few seconds later, it was announced that the child died, he raises his elbow for 10 seconds, turns his head towards the camera, drop the elbow and keeps hanging up above the ground. If you find one doctor in the world capable of supporting the child was dead at that time, I bow.
The father and child would live so contrary to what is suggested by the France 2 report?
When the France 2 cameraman off his camera, yes, they are alive. This is the essential point to consider because it shows that this is a false story from the first to the last frame. Everything that happens after is not our approach. Those who ask us to present the living child now do not know the case, or in bad faith. In fact, I never said that the child was still alive today because I have no way to prove it, 13 years after the fact. He was able to get him a lot since. And even if we find ourselves Mohamed al Dura 13 years after the fact, it would become a young adult and it seems that this is not the same, whether it is a brother or a cousin. Indeed, if people are willing to accept the nonsense described above (the elbow lifted once "dead" and the total absence of blood despite the circumstances described), they always be reluctant to see the truth.
I show them the facts. They oppose me their faith. Their belief that the Israelis are killers of children.
These findings are corroborated by dozens of research work carried out by competent people, ballistics, forensic, biometric and even handwriting.
Why would we organized what you describe as a true staging?
It is not for me to have to ask but France 2 cameraman and chain that covers this lie for 13 years ...
Does everyone in France supports version 2 of the chain?
There are many journalists in France who do not even want to look at the pictures. So Enderlin is true. However, there are also free spirits who can not act openly because they risk losing their jobs. These courageous people help me for many years by contacting me damning documents for France 2. That's how I got the document from France 2 cameraman who, in a fax sent to the chain in 2002, retracted his original charges of intentional crime. This vital information has never been revealed, for example to the public by France 2. This is also how I got the famous footage of France 2, the images from which the iconic story of 50 seconds has been mounted.
"You can not say they want to fight against anti-Semitism in France if you do not attack the root of the hate propaganda"
Can you tell us more about these two famous footage of France?
Three days after the events, the France 2 cameraman made a sworn statement to the Palestinian Center for Human Rights in Gaza, in which he certifying filming "27 minutes of the incident." For years, France 2 said hold the 27 minutes of footage which proved the authenticity of the story. A week after the broadcast, the news director of France 2 said on live television, to respect their code of ethics and sensitivity of viewers, they had given to show the images of bullets reaching the father and child . Then, for many years, Charles Enderlin and France 2 colleagues claimed to hold the scene of the agony of the child.
This information butted, repeated so many people could legitimately intimidate all those who have had the idea to question the story of France 2. But in October 2004, three French journalists had access to these images and they revealed that they contained no scenes of agony, we did not see the dead child at the end of rushes and also that these pictures included many scene played. It is when this information was revealed to me by one of the three journalists I realized we definitely right, it was staged. Then, in November 2007, when France 2 was forced to show his pictures to the Court of Appeal of Paris, it has been observed that these 27 minutes were no more than 18 minutes - 9 minutes images had disappeared - but especially, that the child was alive and well at the end of the images of France 2, he raised even bend very controlled way and turned his head towards the camera after being declared dead by Charles Enderlin.
Viewing the footage was a real turning point: we had absolute proof that France 2 had no evidence to support his accusations and the chain, and his staff lied for over 7 years on the content of these Photo. For their part, in 2008, the French judges of the Court of Appeal were not very pleased to see that a third of the requested material had disappeared.
Charles Enderlin is it complicit in the manipulation or is it being manipulated by his cameraman?
I can not prove it is not complicit or handling. Still, the story is false. I do not know what happened in the Head of Charles Enderlin. From the outset, the France 2 journalist had ten seconds when the child raises his elbow and turned her head toward the camera. He also had pictures where we see two seconds later, the cameraman filming stops then resumes. At this time, we do not see anyone behind the barrel, the father or the child, and no blood ... so that, according to France 2, the father and the child would have received no less than fifteen bales weapons of war that have pierced their bodies!
Finally, do you have a message to convey?
Yes, I would like to quote the last paragraph of an article that was published by Richard Prasquier Talker recently:
Update: The American Thinker says:
Having attended 99% of the hearings in this case I can testify that citizen Karsenty became increasingly professional while France Télévisions and Charles Enderlin fumbled and mumbled, endlessly repeating the same weak arguments, producing no evidence to substantiate their case. Convicted in the court of first resort despite the avocat général's [public advocate] eloquent plea for acquittal, Karsenty won on appeal... because the court viewed raw footage shot at Netzarim Junction that day by Abu Rahmah. The plaintiffs took the case to the highest court ["Cassation," which cannot be compared to the Supreme Court] where it was remanded to the appeals court on the grounds that the Appellate judge had improperly assisted the defendant by ordering France 2 to hand over the raw footage. In plain terms this means that the concrete evidence sustains Karsenty's claim that the scene was staged. But he didn't have the footage in 2004.He could've kept quiet, like some American news reporters do, and not made such a fuss. Instead, he acted vindictively. I'd say this also strengthens the case against the French legal system, since something has to be done about that pathetic law requiring the defendent to bear the proof, not the plaintiff.
Given this bizarre judicial logic, the Appellate Court reached its guilty verdict on June26th. Case closed? On the contrary, the accumulated evidence produced by the defense in the course of this stubborn litigation has visibly strengthened the case against the broadcaster. Elsewhere, Al Dura demythifiers have pursued and refined their investigations, reaching and convincing an ever wider public. Forces determined to erase the al Dura blood libel are emboldened, not intimidated. In the space of a few short days since the verdict was pronounced, new information has been made public, new voices are raised. Several books-in French and in English-- are slated for publication this fall.
And what will France Télévisions and Charles Enderlin do about it? If the al Dura news report met the standards of professional journalism, if the broadcaster had responded to challenges by providing corroboration instead of suing bloggers, the affair would have been honorably settled long ago. The problem is that the news report cannot be corroborated and the endless lamentation of its producer cannot substitute for concrete evidence.