Tötung von Muhammad al-Durrah

Vorlage:Infobox Historical Event The Muhammad al-Durrah incident took place at the Netzarim junction in the Gaza Strip on September 30, 2000, on the second day of the Second Intifada, amid widespread rioting throughout the Palestinian territories. Jamal al-Durrah and his 12-year-old son, Muhammad, were filmed by Talal Abu Rahma, a Palestinian cameraman freelancing for France 2, as they sought cover behind a concrete cylinder after being caught in crossfire between Israeli soldiers and Palestinian security forces. The footage, which lasts just over a minute, shows the pair holding onto each other, the boy crying and the father waving, then a burst of gunfire and dust, after which the boy is seen slumped across his father's legs.

The question of whether the Israelis or the Palestinians shot the boy is a matter of ongoing dispute. Fifty-nine seconds of the scene were broadcast in France with a voiceover from Charles Enderlin, France 2's bureau chief in Israel, who did not witness the incident, telling viewers that the al-Durrahs had been the "target of fire from the Israeli positions", and that the boy had died. Muhammad was buried in an emotional public funeral and hailed throughout the Arab and Muslim worlds as a Palestinian martyr; streets and parks were named after him, and postage stamps bore his image. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) accepted responsibility within three days of the incident.

Over the following months and years, a number of investigators questioned the accuracy of France 2's report. A controversial IDF investigation in November 2000 concluded that the IDF had probably not shot the al-Durrahs. Three senior French journalists who saw the raw footage in 2004 argued that it is not clear from the footage alone that the boy died, and that France 2 cut a final few seconds in which he appears to lift his head and arm. France 2's news editor, Arlette Chabot, said in 2005 that no one could say for sure who fired the shots. Other commentators, including the director of the Israeli government press office, said the scenes had been staged by Palestinian protesters as propaganda aimed at the news agencies filming in the area that day. Philippe Karsenty, a French media watchdog, was sued in 2004 by France 2 for suggesting this; a ruling against him in 2006 was overturned by the Paris Court of Appeal in 2008, a decision that France 2 has taken to the French Supreme Court in a case that is ongoing.

The footage has acquired what one writer called the iconic power of a battle flag. For the Palestinians, it confirmed their view of the apparently limitless nature of Israel's brutality toward them. For the Israelis, the world's willingness to believe they had killed the boy amounted to a modern blood libel, the centuries-old antisemitic association of Jews with child sacrifice. The scene has been evoked in other deaths. It was blamed for the lynching of two Israeli army reservists in Ramallah in October 2000, and was seen in the background when Daniel Pearl, a Jewish-American journalist, was beheaded by al-Qaeda in 2002. Osama bin Laden invoked Muhammad's name, as did a suicide bomber who tried to attack an Israeli hospital. James Fallows writes that no version of the truth about the footage will ever emerge that all sides consider believable. Charles Enderlin has called it a cultural prism, its viewers seeing what they want to see.

Political background

Second Intifada

Rioting followed Ariel Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount

On September 28, 2000, two days before the incident, the Israeli opposition leader, Ariel Sharon, visited the Temple Mount in the Old City of Jerusalem. The Temple Mount contains the holiest site in Judaism and the third holiest in Islam, making its rules of access one of the hotly contested issues in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Sharon's visit was seen as provocative—the trigger for the violence that followed, according to the Palestinians, or the pretext, according to the Israelis—and the next day violent protests broke out in and around the Old City, leaving seven Palestinians dead and 300 wounded. On the same day, an Israeli police officer was killed by a Palestinian police officer in a joint patrol. Israel's ambassador to the United Nations said there had been violence before Sharon's visit too: Molotov cocktails had been thrown on September 13, and an Israeli soldier had been killed by a roadside bomb on September 27. The May 2001 Mitchell Report into what sparked the violence concluded that, although Sharon's visit was poorly timed, it was not the cause of the uprising.

On September 30, the day of the shooting, further protests against the previous day's deaths escalated into widespread violence across the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The uprising became known as the Second, or Al-Aqsa, Intifada, named after the Al-Aqsa Mosque on Temple Mount. It lasted over four years and cost 4,000 lives, around 3,000 of them Palestinian.

The Gaza Strip, showing the Bureij refugee camp, the former Netzarim Israeli settlement, and the Netzarim junction

Source of dispute at the Netzarim junction

The Netzarim junction lies a few kilometers south of Gaza City (at ) on Saladin Road, the main route through the Gaza Strip. Many Palestinians call it the al-Shohada, or martyrs', junction, after the scores of Palestinians who have died there in clashes with Israeli soldiers. The source of the dispute there was the nearby Israeli settlement of Netzarim—where 60 Israeli families lived until 2005, when Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip. The junction was the site of an Israeli military outpost, Magen-3, which guarded the approach to the settlement. Palestinian and Israeli security forces had mounted joint patrols in the area under interim peace arrangements, but in the days leading up to the shooting, there had been a series of violent incidents at the junction.

People

Charles Enderlin

Charles Enderlin was born in Paris in 1945, and has lived in Jerusalem since 1968, becoming an Israeli national in the 1970s. He has worked in journalism since 1971, studied film and television in London from 1975 to 1977, and has worked for France 2 since 1981. He became the network's bureau chief in Israel in 1990. He is the author of several books about the Middle East, including Shamir, une biographie (1991) and The Lost Years: Radical Islam, Intifada and Wars in the Middle East 2001-2006 (2007).

Enderlin is highly respected within the French establishment, and indeed is part of it himself. He is married to Danielle Kriegel, the daughter of Annie Kriegel, the anti-communist historian, and sister of philosopher Blandine Kriegel, a former aide to President Jacques Chirac. During a 2006 libel action he brought against Philippe Karsenty, who alleges the shooting was staged (see below), Enderlin submitted as part of his evidence a 2004 letter from Chirac, who wrote in flattering terms of his integrity. His stature within the country was confirmed in August 2009, when he was awarded France's highest decoration, the Légion d'honneur.

Paris-based journalist Anne-Elisabeth Moutet writes that Enderlin's coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is highly regarded by his peers in France, but regularly criticized in Israel. He not only produced a documentary series on the Oslo Accords and the 2000 Camp David talks, but arranged for several of the parties to the peace talks to hold discussions at the France 2 bureau as neutral ground. The criticism of him inside Israel after the al-Durrah report reached such fever pitch that, in 2008, an Israeli court was asked by the Israel Law Center to revoke his press credentials, though the court and government refused.

Enderlin was 70 miles away in Ramallah during the al-Durrah incident, but kept in touch with the cameraman by cell phone as the story unfolded, and has said he trusts him implicitly. "The video is authentic", he told Esther Schapira. "You can say that the boy was killed by Martians, by Palestinians, or by Israelis, [but] we did not stage these scenes. It is a smear campaign against me and France 2 by people who don't like my reports, my books, and my documentaries."

Talal Abu Rahma

Talal Abu Rahma, who lived in Gaza, had worked as a freelance cameraman for France 2 since 1988. He ran his own press office, the National News Center in Gaza, and contributed to CNN through the Al-Wataneya Press Office. He studied business administration in the U.S., and was a board member of the Palestinian Journalists' Association. He was presented with a number of awards for his coverage of the al-Durrah story, including the Rory Peck Award in 2001. Daniel Seaman, director of the Israeli government press office, accused Abu Rahma in 2007 of the "systematic staging of action scenes," with reference to the al-Durrah footage. Abu Rahma has strongly denied the allegations since they first surfaced in October 2000. "I'm professional journalist," he told On the Media in 2001. "I will never do it. I will never use journalism for anything ... because journalism is my religion. Journalism—it's my nationality. Even journalism is my language!"

Jamal and Muhammad al-Durrah

Jamal, born around 1966, and his wife, Amal, lived with their five sons and two daughters in the UNRWA-run Bureij refugee camp in the Gaza Strip, several kilometers south of the Netzarim junction. Jamal was a carpenter and house painter who, at the time of the shooting, had been working for Moshe Tamam, an Israeli contractor in north Tel Aviv, for 20 years, since Jamal was 14. Through Tamam, Israeli writer Helen Schary Motro had employed Jamal to help build her house, and had come to know him. She wrote in 2000 of his years of rising at 3:30 am to catch the bus to the border crossing at four, then a second bus out of Gaza, so he could be at work by six, able to make it only when the border was open. The border was closed on the day of the incident because of the rioting the previous day in Jerusalem, which is why Jamal and Muhammad were together.

Muhammad, born in 1988, was a fifth grade student, but his school was closed that day because of the general strike. According to the boy's mother, on the evening before the shooting, he had been watching the violence on television and asked if he could join the protests in Netzarim. He had been known to run off to the beach or to watch older boys throw stones during protests. Father and son decided instead to go to a car auction, according to an interview Jamal gave Abu Rahma in the Al-Shifa Hospital the day after the shooting.

The scene on the day

A diagram showing a crossroads, with the words South (at the top), East to the left, West to Netzarim Settlement to the right, and North to Gaza City at the bottom. The word "orchard" is on the upper right of the crossroads; the upper left says "Palestinian police post", "concrete sewage pipes", "Al Durra and his father". The bottom left says "France 2 Photographer", "Car", and "Fields". The bottom right says "Israel Military Tower" and "Two Palestinian Housing Buildings". In the middle of the crossroads is a diagonal line from the Israeli Military Tower to al Durra and his father. Above the line, it says, "Firing by Israeli soldiers", and below the line it says, "Approximate Distance 80 M".

Diagram by Talal Abu Rahma, the France 2 cameraman. A 2008 diagram by a French ballistics expert alleges that Palestinians were also shooting from a position called "the pita" behind the cameraman, in the area marked above as "Fields"—see below.

Netzarim junction layout

The Netzarim junction is a right-angle intersection of two roads. At the time of the incident, in the lower right/north west quadrant (see left), there was an abandoned warehouse, two six-story office or apartment buildings known locally as the "twins," or "twin towers," and a two-story building that the IDF was using as a military outpost called Magen-3, which guarded the approach to the Nezarim Israeli settlement, where 60 Jewish families lived. On the day of the shooting, this outpost was manned by 18 Israeli soldiers from the Givati Brigade Engineering Platoon and the Herev Battalion.

Diagonally across from the IDF position, on the upper left quadrant, was a small building and a sidewalk along which ran a concrete wall. This was the wall that Jamal and Muhammad crouched against. The upper right and lower left of the crossroads consisted of vacant land. According to several commentators, such as James Fallows in The Atlantic in 2003, and a diagram prepared in 2008 by a French ballistics expert, the lower left quadrant contained a circular dirt berm known locally as the "pita," because it was shaped like pita bread. Fallows writes that a group of uniformed Palestinian policemen stood on the pita, armed with automatic rifles. The "pita" position is not mentioned in the diagram produced by the France 2 cameraman, which marks the position only as "Fields" (see left and below).

News organizations and protesters

A crowd of Palestinian protesters had gathered at the junction early on the morning of Saturday, September 30. Several news organizations had gathered too, including camera crews from Reuters, Associated Press, and France 2. Both Reuters and the Associated Press captured moments showing the al-Durrahs, but the shooting of the pair was captured only by Abu Rahma for France 2.

James Fallows writes that the raw footage, or "rushes", from these news organizations shows a number of separate scenes involving several hundred protesters. Groups of young men are seen walking around, joking, sitting down, and smoking. Other scenes show protesters yelling and throwing rocks and Molotov cocktails. Some protesters run around waving the Palestinian flag and try to pull down an Israeli flag. Several had pistols and rifles, as did the Palestinian policemen, and shots occasionally ring out. In some of the scenes, protesters duck for cover, while, according to Fallows, others continue talking and smoking only feet away. One protester is seen falling and clutching his leg, as if shot; an ambulance appears immediately to pick him up. Fallows writes that one camera caught a man being loaded into an ambulance, while footage from a different camera shows the same man jumping out of the ambulance a few minutes later. There is no obvious linkage between any of the scenes, which according to Fallows gain narrative coherence only when packaged together for a news report. Several commentators agree there was at least some play acting that day for the cameras. Denis Jeambar, editor of L'Express, and Daniel Leconte, a former France 2 correspondent, who were invited by France 2 to view the rushes in 2004, said that a network official told them, "You know it's always like that."

Fallows writes that several scenes show smoke coming from M-16s pointed through the slits of the IDF outpost. According to Israeli spokesmen, the soldiers were under orders to fire only if they were fired at, and not in response to rocks or other objects being thrown at them.

Incident as initially reported

Jamal and Muhammad's arrival at the junction

Having failed to buy anything at the auction, Jamal and Muhammad decided to take a cab home, two kilometers away. They arrived at the Netzarim junction around noon, according to Time magazine, though that timing has been disputed. Abu Rahma says the "intensive shooting" began around noon, and his attention was drawn at around the same time to Jamal and Muhammad by Shams Oudeh, a Reuters cameraman who briefly took shelter with them behind the concrete drum. James Fallows wrote in 2003 that Jamal and Muhammad first appear on the footage around 3 pm, and Charles Enderlin's report describes the shooting as taking place at 3 pm (noon GMT). The discrepancies have not been resolved; see below.

The cab driver reportedly stopped when he saw the demonstrators and refused to go any further. Jamal decided to cross the junction on foot to look for another cab. As they were about to cross the junction, Palestinian gunmen started shooting at the Israeli soldiers, and the Israelis returned fire. Jamal and Muhammad waited until it had stopped, then crossed the road. The shooting started up again, and Jamal, Muhammad, and Oudeh, the Reuters cameraman, crouched against the concrete wall in the upper left/south east quadrant of the crossroads, diagonally across from the Israeli outpost. They used a three-foot tall concrete drum that was lying against the wall as cover. A large paving stone sat on top of the drum, which offered further protection. The Reuters cameraman later moved away, and Jamal and Muhammad were left there alone.

The shooting and the France 2 reports

White buildings in the background, with some people standing in front of them. A green truck is on the left of the image. Ahead of it, a man with dark hair and blue clothes seems to be running. In the foreground, a dark image of a hand against a lump of concrete. The incident from the perspective of the al-Durrahs, from footage taken by Shams Oudeh, a Reuters cameraman, as he crouched behind the concrete cylinder with Jamal and Muhammad. The hand at the bottom left is Jamal's. Oudeh had moved away by the time France 2 started filming.

A man with black hair wearing blue jeans and a white t-shirt crouches behind a wall and a white concrete cylinder. He is looking to his left and waving with his right hand. A young boy with black hair is crouching on the ground behind him. The boy is wearing blue jeans, sandals, and a blue and white top. His right hand is holding onto the man's t-shirt. He looks as though he is crying. Muhammad and Jamal under fire, filmed by France 2

The same scene as above, but now the man is looking toward the camera with his mouth open. Jamal looks toward the France 2 cameraman, standing 15–17 meters away. The cameraman said Jamal was shouting for help, but it was "raining bullets."

The same scene as above, but from a distance. There is a large wall behind the two figures, who are almost hidden by a cloud of dust. The man's head is hanging down. The camera goes out of focus as a burst of gunfire is heard in the background.

The same scene again. The man is sitting with his head hanging to his right. The boy is lying over the man's knees, with his right hand over his face. Four small holes can be seen in the wall behind them. As the dust clears, Muhammad lies across his father's legs. This was the last frame in the footage broadcast by France 2. Shortly after this frame, the boy is seen to move his arm. Enderlin later said he cut that scene to spare the audience, because the boy was in his death throes ("agonie"). Critics say the boy was peeking at the camera. Three senior French journalists who viewed the rushes say they show no death throes; see below.

Abu Rahma was the only cameraman to record the al-Durrah shooting. He swore in an affidavit on October 3, 2000, that he had filmed 27 minutes of an exchange of gunfire that he said had lasted 45 minutes. Around 64 seconds of his footage is focused on Jamal and Muhammad.

The tape was edited for broadcast by Enderlin, France 2's bureau chief in Israel, who was in Ramallah during the incident. Fifty-nine seconds of the scene with the al-Durrahs were shown, with a voiceover by Enderlin. The footage shows Muhammad and his father crouching behind the cylinder, the child screaming and the father shielding him. The father is seen waving toward the Israeli position, and appearing to shout something in the direction of the cameraman. There is a burst of gunfire and the camera goes out of focus. When the gunfire subsides, the footage shows the father sitting upright, appearing to have been injured, and the boy lying over his legs.

Ambulances were called to the scene but were delayed by the shooting. Bassam al-Bilbeisi, the driver of the first ambulance to arrive, was reported to have been shot and killed, as was a Palestinian policeman. The boy and his father were eventually taken by ambulance to the nearby Al-Shifa Hospital in Gaza City, where Muhammad was pronounced dead on arrival. Some confusion remains about the sequence of events; see below.

The 59 seconds of footage were first broadcast on France 2's nightly news at 8:00 pm local time (GMT+2), after which France 2 distributed several minutes of raw footage around the world without charge. The anchorwoman introduced the news with a summary of the unrest since Ariel Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount on September 28, and "an unprecedented wave of violence that has resulted in 15 dead and 500 wounded Palestinians on Saturday [September 30]". This was followed by Enderlin's report:

France 2 followed up the report on October 1, broadcasting a comment from Talal Abu Rahma, the cameraman, that he was sure the shots had come from the Israeli side, and a statement from the assistant chief of staff of the IDF that he could not rule out that an Israeli soldier, not having seen the father and the son, had fired in their direction.

Jamal and Muhammad's injuries; Muhammad's funeral

Datei:Muhammad al-Durrah pathologist's image.JPG

Pathologist's photograph; the Arabic identifies him as "Muhammad."

Muhammad was reported by the BBC to have been shot four times. Time magazine said he had received a fatal wound to the abdomen, which was confirmed by the pathologist in attendance, Dr Abed El-Razeq El Masry of Al-Shifa Hospital, who said the boy's injuries were such that his intestines had been expelled. The pathologist's post-mortem photographs were seen by the French channel Canal+ in 2008, and showed the body with injuries to the abdomen (but see below). He was buried in the Bureij refugee camp's cemetery before sundown that day, in accordance with Muslim tradition, in an emotional public funeral, his body wrapped in a Palestinian flag. A white marble headstone reads: "Those who die in battle do not really die, but live on".

A man with dark hair lying on a bed with what appears to be patterned sheets and a patterned pillowcase. He appears to be naked. There are bandages on his right arm and hand, and some blood is visible. There are more bandages on the right side of his body. The image caption at the bottom says in white letters, "Gaza Hospital Shifa, October 1, 2000". There is a small white "2" on a red background in the top right-hand corner.

Jamal al-Durrah the day after the shooting

Jamal was reported to have been struck by twelve bullets, some of which were removed from his arm and pelvis. According to Dr Ahmed Ghadeel of the Al-Shifa Hospital, Jamal received multiple wounds from high-velocity bullets striking his right elbow, his right thigh, and several locations in the lower part of both legs; his femoral artery was also cut. He was filmed by Talal Abu Rahma for France 2 at the hospital the day after the shooting (see image on the left). Dr Ghadeel was also interviewed, showing X-ray photographs of Jamal's shattered right elbow and right pelvis.

Jamal's Israeli employer, Moshe Tamam, tried to have him transferred from Gaza to an Israeli hospital and offered to cover the expenses, but the Palestinian Authority, or Jamal himself, declined the offer. He was flown instead to the Hussein Medical Centre in Amman, Jordan, where he was visited by King Abdullah. Jordanian doctors said his right hand would be permanently paralyzed. The nature of his injuries was later questioned by an Israeli doctor; see below.

Cameraman's account

Enderlin based his allegation that the IDF had shot the boy on the claim of the cameraman, Abu Rahma. Suzanne Goldenberg, writing in The Guardian, quoted Abu Rahma saying of the IDF: "They were cleaning the area. Of course they saw the father. They were aiming at the boy, and that is what surprised me, yes, because they were shooting at him, not only one time, but many times."

Abu Rahma said that, as well as the IDF post next to the buildings called "the twins" on the northwest side of the junction, he could see a Palestinian National Security Forces outpost located south of the junction, just behind the spot where the father and boy were crouching. He said shooting was coming from there too, but not during the time the boy was reportedly shot. The Israeli fire was being directed at this Palestinian outpost, he said. There was another Palestinian outpost 30 meters away. He said his attention was drawn to the child by Shams Oudeh, the Reuters photographer who for a time was crouching beside Muhammad and his father behind the concrete cylinder. Abu Rahma told National Public Radio on October 1, 2000:

I filmed a little bit, then the shooting became really heavy and heavier. Then I saw the boy getting injured in his leg, and the father asking for help. Then I saw him getting injured in his arm, the father. The father was asking the ambulances to help him, because he could see the ambulances. I cannot see the ambulance ... I wasn't far away, maybe from them [Jamal and Muhammad] face to face about 15 meters, 17 meters. But the father didn't succeed to get the ambulance by waving to them. He looked at me and he said, "Help me." I said, "I cannot, I can't help you." The shooting till then was really heavy ... It was really raining bullets, for more than for 45 minutes. Then I find, I hear something, "boom!" Really is coming with a lot of dust. I looked at the boy, I filmed the boy lying down in the father's lap, and the father really, getting really injured, and he was really dizzy. I said, "Oh my god, the boy's got killed, the boy's got killed", I was screaming, I was losing my mind. While I was filming, the boy got killed ...

[I]t was very difficult [to keep the camera rolling], I was very afraid, I was very upset, I was crying, and I was remembering my children. I was afraid to lose my life, and I was sitting on my knees, and hiding my head, carrying my camera, and I was afraid from the Israelis to see this camera. Maybe they will think this is a weapon, you know, and that I am trying to shoot them. For that, I was in the most difficult situation in my life. The boy, I cannot save his life, and I want to protect myself ... This was the most terrible thing that has happened to me as a journalist.

About an hour after the shooting, during which time the al-Durrahs were evacuated by ambulance, Abu Rahma managed to escape from the scene, he said. His footage was transmitted to France 2's Jerusalem office, where Enderlin compiled his report then transmitted it by satellite to Paris. An affidavit sworn by Abu Rahma on October 3, 2000, says that the Israeli soldiers shot the boy in cold blood:

I can assert that shooting at the child Mohammed and his father Jamal came from the above-mentioned Israeli military outpost, as it was the only place from which shooting at the child and his father was possible. So, by logic and nature, my long experience in covering hot incidents and violent clashes, and my ability to distinguish sounds of shooting, I can confirm that the child was intentionally and in cold blood shot dead and his father injured by the Israeli army.

The affidavit was given to the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights in Gaza, and signed by the cameraman in the presence of Raji Sourani, a well-known human rights lawyer. France 2's communications director, Christine Delavennat, later said Abu Rahma denied having accused the Israeli army of firing at the boy in cold blood, and that this had been falsely attributed to him.

Israeli response

Ephraim Sneh, Israel's deputy prime minister, stressed that it was an accident.

Isaac Herzog, the Israeli Cabinet Secretary, said the Palestinian police could have stopped the shooting.

The day after the shooting, October 1, France 2 reported that Israeli officials were reviewing the case, and the Israeli army had issued a statement "regretting the loss of human lives and claiming that it is impossible to determine the origin of the fire."

Three days later, on October 4, the Israeli army's chief of operations, Major-General Giora Eiland, said the shots had apparently been fired by Israeli soldiers; the soldiers had been shooting from small slits in the wall, he said, and had not had a clear field of vision. He told Israel Radio: "There was an investigation by the major-general of the southern command [Major-General Dr. Yom Tov Samia], and apparently [the boy was killed by] Israeli army fire at the Palestinians who were attacking them violently with a great many petrol bombs, rocks and very massive fire." He said, "This was a grave incident, an event we are all sorry about."

Ephraim Sneh, Israel's deputy prime minister, stressed that it was an accident. "I can say very, very clearly: it was a mistake which was not caused by intention." The Israeli Cabinet Secretary, Isaac Herzog, said that Palestinian security forces could have intervened. "[I]f Palestinian policemen had wanted to save the boy," he told the BBC, "they could have walked into the square, said 'Stop the fire'... and rescued the kid". He said that Palestinian police should have called their Israeli counterparts, and that the Israelis had been trying to speak to Palestinian commanders for hours.

The soldiers directly involved said they did not know who shot him. Second Lieutenant Idan Quris, who was in command of an engineering platoon at the Israeli outpost, told Israel Radio: "Believe me, all of our efforts were aimed at armed Palestinians. We don't know how he was killed." The acting commander of the Netzarim position, Lieutenant-Colonel Nizar Fares of the Herev Battalion, said no one had seen the boy from the Israeli position.

The army's deputy chief of staff, Major-General Moshe Yaalon, accused the Palestinians of making cynical use of children. He told France 2, "The child and his father were between our position and the place from which we were shot at. It is not impossible—this is a supposition, I don't know—that a soldier, due to his angle of vision, and because one was shooting in his direction, had seen someone hidden in this line of fire and may have fired in the same direction." This was also the position at that point of Major-General Yom Tov Samia, who had conducted the investigation for Major-General Eiland. Samia set up another team of investigators several weeks later, who reached a different conclusion; see below.

Controversy

The controversy centers on two areas: the raw footage and its interpretation by Charles Enderlin, and the lack of an official investigation into the boy's death. There is confusion regarding how much footage was shot, why it was blurred at the moment the shots were fired, and why France 2 cut the final scene. No ballistic tests were conducted. Within days of the shooting, the IDF demolished the wall the al-Durrahs had sheltered against. There is no evidence that bullets were recovered. There was reportedly no full autopsy, though pathologists did examine the body.

Next to the view that Israeli gunfire killed the boy, which Enderlin stands by, two alternative narratives have emerged, which commentators such as Adi Schwartz of the Israeli newspaper, Haaretz, call the "minimalist" and "maximalist" narratives. The "minimalist" narrative is that Palestinian gunfire caused his death, or that no one knows who did. The "maximalist" narrative, which Larry Derfner writing in The Jerusalem Post calls a conspiracy theory, is that the incident was a hoax staged by the Palestinians for propaganda purposes, and that the boy may not be dead at all, or may have been killed as part of the hoax.

Questions about the footage

Length and content of raw footage

The same scene as above with the man and the boy, but more blurred. The man is crouching, leaning toward his left. The boy is lying across the man's knees. The boy's right arm is slightly raised.

This scene from the France 2 footage occurs after the material that was broadcast. Enderlin said he cut it because it showed the boy's death throes. Three French journalists who viewed it said it did not.

There is confusion regarding how much footage was taken, and what it shows. Abu Rahma said in his affidavit that the gunfight lasted for 45 minutes, and that he filmed about 27 minutes of it.

On September 30, 2000, France 2 provided just over three minutes to other news organizations free of charge, saying it did not want to profit from the incident. Just over one minute of the footage showed Jamal and Muhammad, and of that only 59 seconds were broadcast by France 2 on September 30. No part of those 59 seconds shows the boy dead, though Enderlin did announce his death: "Another burst of fire. Mohamed is dead and his father seriously wounded."

Enderlin cut a final few seconds from the footage, during which the boy appears to lift his arm, leading critics to say he was peeking at the camera. Enderlin said he cut this scene in accordance with the France 2 ethical charter, because it showed the boy in his death throes ("agonie"), which he said—both in October 2000, and again in a letter to The Atlantic in September 2003 in response to James Fallow's article—was "unbearable." Enderlin wrote to The Atlantic:

James Fallows writes, 'The footage of the shooting ... illustrates the way in which television transforms reality' and, notably, 'France 2 or its cameraman may have footage that it or he has chosen not to release.' We do not transform reality. But since some parts of the scene are unbearable, France 2 cut a few seconds from the scene, in accordance with our ethical charter."

The issue of how much footage exists was further confused in November 2007. France 2 sued Philippe Karsenty, a French media commentator, for libel, because Karsenty accused them of having broadcast a hoax. A court ruled in France 2's favor, but Karsenty appealed; see below. The court of appeal asked to see the footage, and in November 2007, France 2 presented the court with just 18 minutes of footage. According to Agence France Press, France 2 said the rest had been destroyed because it had not been about the shooting. Enderlin then seemed to deny that 27 minutes had ever existed; according to The Jerusalem Post, he said just before the screening, "I do not know where this 27 minutes comes from. In all there were only 18 minutes of footage shot in Gaza."

Senior French journalists view the footage

In February 2004, Arlette Chabot became news director of France 2. On October 22 that year, in response to the disquiet about the images, the network allowed three senior French journalists to view the footage—Daniel Leconte, a former France 2 correspondent who became head of news documentaries at Arte, the state-run Franco-German television network; Denis Jeambar, the editor-in-chief of L'Express; and Luc Rosenzweig, a former managing editor of Le Monde. The journalists asked to speak to the cameraman, who was in Paris at the time, but France 2 reportedly told them he did not speak French and that his English was not good enough.

Having viewed the footage, Leconte and Jeambar wrote in Le Figaro on January 25, 2005 that there was no scene in it that showed the boy had died. They wrote that, when Enderlin said Muhammad was dead, "he had no possibility of determining that he was in fact dead, and even less so, that he had been shot by IDF soldiers." While they did not believe the scene was staged, they said the footage did not show the boy's death throes. "This famous 'agony' that Enderlin insisted was cut from the montage", they wrote, "does not exist."

The first 23 minutes of his film, they said, showed Palestinians playing at war for the cameras, falling down as if wounded, then getting up and walking away. A France 2 official had told them, "You know it's always like that", a comment that Leconte said he found disturbing. "I think that if there is a part of this event that was staged, they have to say it, that there was a part that was staged, that it can happen often in that region for a thousand reasons", he said. Leconte did not conclude that the shooting was faked. He said, "At the moment of the shooting, it's no longer acting, there's really shooting, there's no doubt about that." Both journalists emphasized that they do not believe the hoax theory: "To those who, like Mena [an Israeli French-language news agency; see below] tried to use us to support the theory that the child's death was staged by the Palestinians, we say they are misleading us and their readers. Not only do we not share this point of view, but we attest that, given our present knowledge of the case, nothing supports that conclusion. In fact, the reverse is true." On February 15, 2005, Leconte said he believed al-Durrah had been shot from the Palestinian position, and that France 2 or Enderlin should admit their report may have been misleading.

The third journalist to view the footage, Luc Rosenzweig—who has written material about the incident for Mena—disagreed with Leconte and Jeambar. He concluded from the footage that the incident had been staged, calling it "an almost perfect media crime."

Enderlin's response to their criticism

On January 27, also in Le Figaro, Enderlin responded to Leconte and Jeambar's article. He wrote that he had said the bullets were fired by the Israelis because he trusted the cameraman, who had worked for France 2 for 17 years. It was the cameraman who made the initial claim during the broadcast, and later had it confirmed by other journalists and sources, he wrote. The context also played a role. "The image corresponded to the reality of the situation", he wrote, "not only in Gaza but also in the West Bank." He said the IDF had killed 118 Palestinians, included 33 children, in the first month of the Intifada, compared to 11 Israelis who had been killed. He said of Jeambar and Leconte that they had never set foot in Gaza, certainly not during a time of conflict, and that he believed them to be mistaken in their criticism of him.

Autopsy, bullets, ballistics, injuries

Bullets, bullet holes

The same scene as above with the man and the boy, from a slightly different angle. The boy is still lying down over the man's legs with his right hand over his face. Five small holes can be seen in the wall behind him.

Bullet holes can be seen in the wall behind the al-Durrahs.

No bullets appear to have been recovered, either at the hospital or at the scene, and the wall and other structures the father and son had sheltered against were demolished a week after the incident by IDF Southern Commander Major General Yom Tov Samia to remove hiding places for snipers. This was done before ballistics tests could be carried out.

In an interview with Esther Schapira for Three Bullets and a Child, a 2002 documentary for Germany's ARD channel, Abu Rahma, the cameraman, said that bullets had, in fact, been recovered. He suggested Schapira ask a named Palestinian general about them. The general told Schapira that he had no bullets, and that there had been no Palestinian investigation into the shooting because there was no doubt as to who had shot the boy. When told the general had no bullets, Abu Rahma said instead that France 2 had collected the bullets at the scene. When questioned about this by Schapira, he replied: "We have some secrets for ourselves ... We cannot give anything ... everything."

IDF investigation (October 2000)

Major General Yom Tov Samia, the IDF's southern commander, set up a team of investigators shortly after the shooting, though the extent to which it was an official investigation remains unclear. The team included Nahum Shahaf, a physicist who said he was also a reservist in an Israeli intelligence division that deals with visual material; Yosef Duriel, an engineer; Meir Danino, a physicist and chief scientist at Elisra Systems; Bernie Schechter, a former police chief superintendent, a ballistics expert, and former head of the weapons laboratory at the Israel Police's criminal identification laboratory; and Chief Superintendent Elliot Springer, also from the criminal identification laboratory.

The investigation was initiated, and appears to have been led, by Shahaf and Duriel, who had no forensic or ballistic qualifications. They had met through an earlier campaign to clear Yigal Amir, the settler convicted of the 1995 assassination of Israeli prime minister Yitzhak Rabin, and had instead attributed the murder to a conspiracy headed by Shimon Peres, Israel's foreign minster. It was Shahaf who suggested to General Samia that he and Duriel be engaged to conduct an investigation, free of charge. According to Haaretz, Shahaf faxed Charles Enderlin, presenting himself as a media professional, requesting a copy of the unedited footage. Enderlin refused, and was subsequently shocked to learn that Shahaf was associated with an IDF inquiry.

Shahaf's inquiries were hampered by General Samia's decision to destroy the structures around the junction a week after the shooting. Shahaf and Duriel carried out engineering and ballistic tests to replicate the shooting, building a replica of the wall and the concrete drum in the Negev Desert. Soldiers stood on top of a dirt embankment and fired shots at the wall and barrel using different weapons. Shahaf also sought help from consultants who were not part of the IDF team. One of them, Yitzhak Ramon, an engineer from Haifa, wrote to Haaretz to argue that, had the shots been fired by the IDF soldiers positioned diagonally across from the al-Durrahs, the bullet holes in the wall would not have been so circular and "clean".

On October 23, Shahaf and Duriel invited a CBS 60 Minutes camera crew to film the renactment, Duriel telling 60 Minutes that he believed the boy's death was real, but had been staged to besmirch Israel's reputation. Those in the know allegedly included the cameraman and the boy's father, though the latter had not realized the boy would really be killed. When General Samia saw the interview, he removed Duriel from the investigation.

The report was never published, and a full list of those who took part in the investigation was never released. The findings were shown to the head of Israeli military intelligence, and the key points presented to the media. A request by Haaretz to see the investigation's order of appointment was turned down under Israel's Military Judgment Law. The findings were described to the media in November 2000 as not ruling out that the IDF had shot the boy, though describing it as unlikely, but in 2008, an IDF spokesman, Col. Shlomi Am-Shalom, said the report showed the IDF could not have shot him. Citing the report in a letter to France 2 in 2008, which requested that France 2 send the IDF the unedited 27 minutes of raw footage, as well as footage the France 2 cameraman shot the day after the incident, Am-Shalom wrote:

The general [Samia] has made clear that from an analysis of all the data from the scene, including the location of the IDF position, the trajectory of the bullets, the location of the father and son behind an obstacle, the cadence of the bullet fire, the angle at which the bullets penetrated the wall behind the father and his son, and the hours of the events, we can rule out with the greatest certainty the possibility that the gunfire that apparently harmed the boy and his father was fired by IDF soldiers, who were at the time located only inside their fixed position.

The investigation provoked immediate criticism. IDF Chief of Staff Shaul Mofaz insisted that it was a private enterprise of Samia's. A Haaretz editorial said, "it is hard to describe in mild terms the stupidity of this bizarre investigation", concluding that it was so shaky that the Israeli public would never accept its findings. "The fact that an organized body like the IDF, with its vast resources, undertook such an amateurish investigation—almost a pirate endeavor—on such a sensitive issue, is shocking and worrying." Israeli historian Tom Segev wrote in Haaretz that, because the measurements were made on a replica of the site, they were of no value as evidence.

Confusion about timeline of the shooting

Confusion has arisen about the time of the shooting, some reports suggesting the boy was shot at ten in the morning, others at three in the afternoon. Enderlin's report, which aired on France 2's nightly news program at 8:00 pm (GMT+2), gave the time of the shooting as 3:00 pm Israeli local time (noon GMT): "1500 hours, everything has just erupted near the settlement of Netzarim ..."

James Fallows concurs that Jamal and Muhammad first make an appearance in the footage at 3:00 pm, arguing that the time can be judged by later comments from Jamal and some journalists on the scene, and by the length of the shadows. Brian Whitaker wrote in The Guardian on October 5, 2000, that the news first arrived in London from the Associated Press at 6:00 pm BST (5:00 pm GMT), followed minutes later by a similar report from Reuters. These both named the boy as Rami Aldura. Abu Rahma explained later that early reports said the boy's name was Rami, until a local journalist from CBS, who was married to Jamal's sister, identified the couple in the footage as Jamal and Muhammad al-Durrah. This early confusion over times and names is one of the arguments German journalist Esther Schapira advances for her hypothesis that two boys were involved in shooting incidents that day; see below.

Contradicting the 3 pm timeline, Mohammed Tawil, the doctor who admitted Muhammad to the Al-Shifa Hospital, told German journalist Esther Schapira that this occurred around 10:00 am local. Abu Rahma, the France 2 cameraman, said the intensive shooting began at noon. According to Stéphane Juffa of the Israeli Metula News Agency, another doctor at the Shifa hospital, Dr. Joumaa Saka, said that Muhammad was admitted before 1:00 pm. James Fallows writes that he saw a hospital report saying a dead boy with an eight-inch cut down his belly was admitted at 1:00 pm.

Fallows also writes that there is a discrepancy regarding the time of the funeral. A boy wrapped in a Palestinian flag, with his face exposed, who Fallows says looked like Muhammad, was carried through the streets of the refugee camp, with thousands of mourners watching. Several news organizations reported that this occurred on the evening of September 30. Fallows writes that the procession appears to take place in full sunlight, with shadows that, in his view, suggest it was midday.

Metula News Agency

The case was taken up in 2002 by the Metula News Agency, also known as Mena, an Israeli French-language press agency based in Metula, Israel, and led by Stéphane Juffa. Mena produced a 20-minute documentary on the shooting in November 2002 called Al Dura—The Investigation, which was based largely on the work of Nahum Shahaf, the Israeli physicist who took part in the October 2000 IDF investigation. Mena concluded that the shooting was a "real set up, performed by actors." In January 2003, Gérard Huber, a French psychoanalyst who was Mena's permanent correspondent in Paris, published a book, Contre expertise d'une mise en scene ("Second opinion on a set-up") which expounds the same theory.

Philippe Karsenty litigation

Enderlin-France 2 v. Karsenty (2006)

Philippe Karsenty of Media-Ratings was sued by France 2 when he called the al-Durrah footage a hoax.

In response to the claims that it had broadcast a staged scene, Enderlin and France 2 filed three defamation suits. It sought symbolic damages of €1 from each of the defendants, suing for a "press offence" under the Press Law of 1881. The most notable of the lawsuits was against Philippe Karsenty, a French financial consultant who runs a media watchdog, Media-Ratings. He wrote on November 26, 2004, in a press release and article entitled "France 2: Arlette Chabot and Charles Enderlin should be removed from their positions immediately," on the Media-Ratings website, that the scenes with the al-Durrahs had been faked by the cameraman, that Muhammad had not been killed, and that Enderlin and Chabot (France 2's news editor) should be sacked. On December 9, 2004, Enderlin issued a writ for libel, followed by France 2 on December 3, 2005.

The case began on September 14, 2006 at the Palais de Justice in Paris. Witnesses who offered statements on Karsenty's behalf included the French journalist, Luc Rosensweig; Francis Balle, a media professor and former member of the Conseil supérieur de l'audiovisuel, a media regulatory institution; Richard Landes, an American academic who studied the footage; Gérard Huber, author of Contre expertise d'une mise en scene; and Daniel Dayan, research director of the French National Centre for Scientific Research. Dayan wrote: "I am ready to affirm, not that it was necessarily a set up, but that you are correct in noting the absence of verifying elements that would allow one to determine the veracity of the images ... The images broadcast did not justify the commentary that accompanied their broadcast ..."

Enderlin did not attend the hearing, but submitted as part of his evidence a letter from two years earlier, February 2004, from Jacques Chirac, then president of France. The letter did not mention the al-Durrah incident, but testified in general terms to Enderlin's integrity. The court was not persuaded by Karsenty's evidence, and upheld France 2's complaint on October 19, 2006, fining Karsenty €1,000 and ordering him to pay €3,000 in costs. Karsenty lodged an appeal that same day.

Karsenty v. Enderlin-France 2 (2007)

Public screening of the raw footage

The appeal began on September 19, 2007, heard by the 11th Chamber of the Paris Court of Appeal, the three-judge panel presided over by Judge Laurence Trébucq. The court asked France 2 to turn over, no later than October 31, the 27 minutes of raw footage the cameraman had said he had shot, to be shown during a public hearing on November 14. France 2 produced only 18 minutes. Karsenty refers to this discrepancy as "the first tampering of the evidence," though Enderlin told The Jerusalem Post on the day of the hearing that France 2 had produced all the raw footage it had, based on "an original tape that was kept in a safe until now. We presented a DVD that was made in front of a bailiff from the original tape... not from the various copies you can find here and there."

Enderlin was present during the screening, the first time he had attended any of the hearings, along with around 60 people in the audience. The screening lasted from 2:15 to 4 pm, interrupted several times so that Enderlin could describe what was happening.

The footage showed demonstrators throwing stones and Molotov cocktails at an IDF outpost, apparently being injured and carried into ambulances, an interview that the cameraman conducted with a Fatah official, and the incident with the al-Durrahs in the last minute. The court heard that the boy put his hand to his forehad and moved his leg, after the cameraman had said he was dead, and that there was no blood on the boy's shirt. Enderlin argued that the cameraman had not said the boy was dead, but that he was dying, though the cameraman himself told National Public Radio on October 1, 2000 that he had said out loud, "the boy got killed", when he saw Muhammad lying in his father's lap.

Schlinger report

A colored diagram. In the middle, a crossroads. At the top it says, "Le Carrefour de Netzarim vu d'Helicoptere." On the upper left side of the crossroads, a blue circle with an image inside it of figures crouching, and above the circle, the words "Al Doura." Two yellow boxes in the upper and lower left side of the crossroads, say "Poste palestinian," and "Poste palestinian PITA." A blue box in the lower left says "Talal Abou Ramah." In the lower right corner, another yellow box says "Postes palestinians," and below that, a green box says, "Poste israelien." A smaller yellow box says "Palestinian shooting." There are red arrows pointing in several directions, and blue arrows pointing diagonally across the junction.

A French ballistics expert, Jean-Claude Schlinger, presented a diagram to the court that included a Palestinian position called the "pita" (see above; lower left quadrant) from which he said shots may have been fired at the al-Durrahs. This position did not appear on the France 2 cameraman's diagram in 2000; see above.

Karsenty commissioned Jean-Claude Schlinger, a ballistics expert, to write a report for the court. Schlinger recreated the incident, examining the angle of the shots, the weapons, and the reported injuries. A diagram he produced included a position behind the France 2 cameraman and in front of the al-Durrahs, a circular dirt berm known locally as "the pita." James Fallows writes that Palestinian policemen were standing there armed with automatic rifles. This position did not appear in the cameraman's eyewitness report; see above. Schlinger's 90-page report concluded that, "If Jamal and Mohammed al-Dura were indeed struck by shots, then they could not have come from the Israeli position, from a technical point of view, but only from the direction of the Palestinian position." He said there was no evidence that the boy was wounded in his right leg or abdomen, as reported, and that if the injuries were genuine, they did not occur at the time of the televised events. Had the shots come from the Israeli position, he wrote, only the lower limbs could have been hit.

Appeal upheld

On February 27, 2008, the last day of hearings, Maître François Szpiner, former counsel to Jacques Chirac, referred to Karsenty as, "the Jew who pays a second Jew to pay a third Jew to fight to the last drop of Israeli blood", comparing him to 9/11 conspiracy theorist Thierry Meyssan and Holocaust denier Robert Faurisson. Karsenty had it in for Enderlin, Szpiner argued, because of Enderlin's even-handed coverage of the Middle East.

Despite the network's arguments, on May 21, 2008, in a 13-page decision, the court overturned Karsenty's conviction, ruling that his claims fell within the boundaries of permitted expression, and that statements provided by the cameraman were "not perfectly credible either in form or content". In a move reportedly unprecedented in French media litigation, France 2 appealed to the Cour de cassation, France's highest judicial court, a case that continues.

After the appeal, a petition in support of Enderlin was started by Le Nouvel Observateur, a left-leaning news magazine, and signed by 300 French writers and journalists, including Théo Klein, president of the Council of Jewish Organisations in France in the 1980s. It accused Karsenty of engaging in a "seven-year hate-filled smear campaign" to destroy Enderlin's "professional dignity", and objected to the appeal decision as "granting equal credibility to a journalist renowned for his rigorous work, and to willful deniers ignorant of the local realities and with no journalistic experience". Elie Barnavi, a former Israeli ambassador to France, called for an independent inquiry into the affair, as did Richard Prasquier, the current president of the Council of Jewish Organisations in France.

Questions about father's injuries

Questions were raised in 2007 regarding Jamal al-Durrah's injuries. On December 13 that year, Israel's Channel 10 aired an interview with Maj. (Res.) Dr. Yehuda David, a doctor at Tel Hashomer hospital who served during the 2006 Lebanon War in the IDF's Granite Infantry Battalion. David told Channel 10 that he had treated Jamal in 1994 for knife and axe wounds to his arms and legs sustained during a Palestinian gang attack. David said the scars that Jamal presented as bullet wounds from the 2000 shooting were actually scars from a tendon repair operation that David performed in 1994.

Esther Schapira documentaries

Drei Kugeln und ein totes Kind (2002)

In March 2002, the German network ARD broadcast Drei Kugeln und ein totes Kind ("Three bullets and a dead child"), a documentary by German journalist Esther Schapira. Her film did not conclude that Muhammad had been killed by Palestinian fire, but cast doubt on reports that he was shot by the Israelis. She said: "While the film shows Mohamed's death, it does not show who killed him, despite the fact that millions of people are convinced that they know who did." She argued that the lack of a thorough autopsy, and the destruction, eight days after the incident, of the structures around the intersection where the shooting occurred, had seriously compromised the investigation. She presented testimony from three anonymous Israeli soldiers on duty at the junction at the time of the shooting, who said they had never used automatic weapons. She also presented conclusions from Nahum Shahaf's investigation for the IDF that said the al-Durrahs had been protected by the concrete cylinder from shots fired from the Israeli position.

On October 2, 2002, 1,000 demonstrators gathered outside the offices of France 2, where Schapira's film was projected onto a giant screen, and France 2 and Enderlin were awarded what the demonstrators called a "prize for disinformation".

Das Kind, der Tod und die Wahrheit (2009)

In a second ARD film broadcast in March 2009, Das Kind, der Tod und die Wahrheit ("The Child, the Death, and the Truth"), Esther Schapira and reporter Geogre M. Hafner suggest that two Palestinian boys may have been injured that day, and that the boy who died and was buried may not have been Muhammad al-Durrah. The film was shortlisted for an Association of International Broadcasting Award in September 2009.

Interviews with doctors; time of funeral

Datei:Muhammad al-Durrah funeral.JPG

Muhammad was buried before sundown on the day of the shooting. Schapira suggests that the boy in the image is not him.

Schapira interviewed Dr Mohammed Tawil of the Al-Shifa Hospital in Gaza where Muhammad was initially taken. He said that, at 10 am, two people were delivered within a minute of one another, both dead. One was a small boy, the other an ambulance driver who had been shot through the heart. Tawil said he learned later that the boy was Muhammad Jamal al-Durrah. He said the boy had a serious injury to his abdomen, and that his bowels were lying outside his body. Schapira notes that, according to all other reports, Jamal and Muhammad had not yet reached the junction by 10 am, and that the shooting is reported to have started between midday and 2 pm. She also says that Jamal and Muhammad were reportedly transported away from the scene together, yet did not arrive at the hospital together, according to Dr. Tawil. She argues that the discrepancies suggest there was a mix-up of some kind.

Hospital records show that, at midday, a young boy was examined in the pathology department. Schapira argues that it was the same boy that Tawil had admitted, because the pathologist noted the same kind of injury. The pathologist, Dr Abed El-Razeq El Masry, examined the boy for about half and hour, and told Schapira that the boy's abdominal organs had been expelled and were lying outside his body. He showed Schapira images that he had taken of the body, with cards identifying it as Muhammad's. Schapira's camera zooms in to show a watch on the wrist of one of the pathologists, which appears to say 3:50. That evening, before dusk, Mohammad was buried in the al-Bureij refugee camp, which Schapira says is about one hour away by car. Her camera again zooms in to show a watch on the wrist of a mourner, which appears to say 5:30. Schapira argues that this cannot be Muhammad, because the time that had elapsed between the shooting—reported by Enderlin as taking place at 3 pm—and the funeral was too short (but see above regarding confusion over the timeline).

Name confusion; facial imaging expert

Schapira suggests that the dead boy may have been called Rami al-Durrah. When the news first spread that a young boy had been killed and was lying in the hospital morgue, Rami was the name that was reported by several news agencies, including Reuters and the Associated Press. Brian Whitaker wrote in The Guardian on October 5, 2000:

The first report of Mohammed's killing came from the American agency, Associated Press, just before 6pm last Saturday [British Summer Time, GMT+1)]. Unedited, the relevant part said: 'Among those killed was a 12-year-old boy who was caught in the crossfire. The boy, Rami Aldura, and his father, were crouched behind a metal barrel, trying to seek cover and pleading for a ceasefire. The father held his hand protectively over the boy, who was screaming with fear, only to see his son fatally shot in the stomach.'

A few minutes later, Reuters circulated a report which said: 'In Netzarim, 12-year-old Rami Aldura and his father Jamal were caught in the crossfire.' Both reports got the boy's name partly wrong ...

The name was changed to Muhammad al-Durrah by Abu Rahma, the France 2 cameraman, after another journalist, Sami—who was married to Jamal al-Durrah's sister—saw the footage and identified the pair as Jamal and Muhammad. Abu Rahma explained to Schapira that, when he heard Sami say the boy in the film was Muhammad, he changed the name on the France 2 report. The assumption that the boy in the footage was also the boy in the hospital morgue may not have been correct, Schapira suggests.

Schapira arranged for Kurt Kinderman, a facial imaging expert, to examine images known to be of Muhammad, alongside images from the pathologist's examination and the funeral. Kinderman said that, in his view, the faces in the pathology and funeral images belong to the same boy, but they are not the same as the boy in photographs identified as Muhammad. He identified what he saw as significant differences in the shape of the eyebrows and the mouth. Schapira does not conclude from this that Muhammad is alive, or that the incident was staged. She obtained other images of an injured boy being taken to hospital, either on that day or some other, which appear to be images of Muhammad, but their authenticity has not been established, and the original source is unknown. She concludes that Muhammad may well have died, but not the way his death has been presented. There is no firm evidence to show whether he is alive or dead, she argues.

France 2 responded angrily to the documentary, threatening to end cooperation with ARD. Charles Enderlin called Schapira a "militant journalist" who had been taken in by the Israeli right. Schapira replied that Enderlin had "a strange understanding of press freedom."

Personal and political impact

Two postage stamps, the top one showing the man and the boy crouching as above. Above the image, it says "H.K. of Jordan" with symbols above that, and to the right an image of a building topped by a golden globe. There is other writing to the left and right, and below. The stamp underneath it shows another image of the man and boy, and a close-up of a boy's face. It also says "H.K. of Jordan".

Jordanian stamps, captioned, "The martyr Muhammad al Durrah".

Doreen Carvajal writes in The New York Times that the images of Jamal's futile efforts to shield his son have the "iconic power of a battle flag". The footage took its place alongside other iconic images of children under attack: the boy with raised hands in the Warsaw ghetto (1943), the nine-year-old Vietnamese girl doused with napalm (1972), the firefighter carrying the dying baby away from the Oklahoma City bombing (1995).

The Arab street felt confirmed in its view that Israel's brutality toward the Palestinians knew no bounds. Several Arab countries issued postage stamps bearing the images. Parks and streets were named in Muhammad's honor, including the street in Cairo on which the Israeli embassy is located. Palestinian children started acting out the shooting in their playgrounds, afraid of being killed in the same way. The images were blamed for the lynching of two Israeli reservists in Ramallah on October 12, 2000, and for the burning of synagogues in France. Al Qaeda spokesmen mentioned Muhammad several times, including Osama bin Laden shortly after 9/11 in a "warning" to President George Bush. An image of Jamal and Muhammad was seen in the background as journalist Daniel Pearl, an American Jew, was beheaded in February 2002. A would-be suicide bomber, Wafa Samir al-Bis, 21, was caught in June 2005 on her way to a hospital in Be'er Sheva, where she had been receiving treatment for burns, to blow up Israeli children in his memory, she said.

Like other battle images—Carvajal gives as an example the 1945 Associated Press image of U.S. Marines raising the U.S. flag on Iwo Jima twice, because the first flag they used was too small for the photographs—the authenticity of the al-Durrah footage has been questioned precisely because it was such a potent weapon. Both sides have invoked the idea of the "blood libel"—the ancient allegation against the Jewish people that they are willing to sacrifice other people's children. From the Arab perspective, the footage proves it. From the Israeli perspective, the willingness of the world to accept the footage at face value is prompted by antisemitism. The situation has been compared to the Dreyfus affair in 1894, when a French-Jewish army captain in Paris, Alfred Dreyfus, was found guilty of treason based on a forgery, but this time with Philippe Karsenty, Israel, or the Jewish people in Dreyfus's place. French journalist Catherine Nay said that the death of Muhammad "cancels, erases that of the Jewish child, his hands in the air before the SS in the Warsaw Ghetto", suggesting, in effect, that anti-Arabism and Islamophobia are the new antisemitism.

Echoing Luc Rosenzweig's view that the images are an "almost perfect media crime", David Gelernter writes that if it can ever be shown that the footage was not authentic, "Where does Israel go to get its reputation back? What will it all matter to grief-stricken Israelis whose children, husbands, mothers and fathers have died in acts sparked by the Dura story?" On the other side, the French news programm, Jeudi Investigation, attributes the controversy to radical pro-Israeli commentators, for whom al-Durrah is an unbearable symbol, and their determined use of the Web to undermine Enderlin and his report. Mid-East expert Jonathan Randal told the Weekly Standard that the people attacking Enderlin are paranoid: "Americans have been under the gun of such people for some time, but France used to be free of this kind of thing. [These groups] are paranoid, they're persistent, they never give up, they sap the energy of good reporters. I can't imagine how much money France 2 has spent defending this case. Charles Enderlin is an excellent journalist! I don't care if it's the Virgin Birth affair, I would tend to believe him." Other journalists in France say Enderlin made a mistake but can't admit it. "Guy sends him pictures from Gaza, tells him the Israelis shot the kid, he believes him—I mean, even the Israeli Defense Forces spokesman believed it!" Jean-Ives Camus said. "But you can't own up one, two years after the fact."

Bamako, Mali, 2006

Enderlin, himself a Jew and an Israeli, has expressed astonishment at the argument that the incident was faked. "You really believe that a father and his child would be playing ... right in front of an Israeli position, in front of a dozen Israeli soldiers. Live bullets are being fired, and they're acting?" he asked Esther Schapira. "You believe that?" He and Abu Rahma have offered to take polygraph tests if a suitably independent inquiry is established, and Jamal has said he's willing to have his son's body disinterred.

At the center of the controversy, for the most part silent, the al-Durrah family was reported in 2000 to be profoundly affected, in part because of the repeated broadcasting of the footage. A therapist who treated the remaining children said they were suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder—wetting their beds, having recurring nightmares, becoming withdrawn and isolated, and denying that their brother was dead. Muhammad's sister, Nora, aged six at the time, was afraid to go to sleep, because she was being followed everywhere by a ghost who was waiting to kill her. Jamal is similarly haunted, unable to escape the images himself, and dismayed by some of the commercialization—he has even seen himself and his son on a toilet roll. "I can't get over that moment", he told the Los Angeles Times in 2003. "He sticks to me."

See also

Wikisource: Karsenty v. Enderlin-France2 – Quellen und Volltexte

References

• Abu Rahma, Talal (2000). "Statement under oath by a photographer of France 2 Television", Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, October 3, 2000, accessed January 7, 2010.
• Agence France-Presse (October 4, 2000). "Death of Palestinian boy a "mistake": Israeli deputy minister."
• Agence France-Presse (November 14, 2007). "La justice visionne les rushes d'un reportage de France 2, accusé de trucage."
• Association of International Broadcasters (September 30, 2009). AIBs 2009—shortlist announced, accessed January 9, 2010.
• Barluet, Alain and Durand-Souffland, Stéphane (2008). "Intifada: cette vidéo qui déchaîne les passions", Le Figaro, July 1, 2008.
• Barnavi, Elie (2008). "L’honneur du journalisme", Marianne, June 7, 2008.
• Barnes and Noble. "The Lost Years: Radical Islam, Intifada and Wars in the Middle East 2001-2006", accessed October 20, 2009.
• Bawer, Bruce (2009). Surrender: Appeasing Islam, Sacrificing Freedom, Random House of Canada.
• Beckerman, Gal (2007). "The Unpeaceful Rest of Mohammed Al-Dura", Columbia Journalism Review, October 3, 2007.
• BBC News (September 30, 2000). "Violence engulfs West Bank and Gaza", accessed October 17, 2009.
• BBC News (October 1, 2000). "Mid-East peace 'drowning in blood'", accessed October 17, 2009.
• BBC News (October 2, 2000). "Boy becomes Palestinian martyr", accessed October 17, 2009.
• BBC News (October 2, 2000). "Mideast violence intensifies", accessed October 17, 2009.
• BBC News (October 3, 2000). "Israel 'sorry' for killing boy", accessed October 17, 2009.
• BBC News (November 17, 2000). "When Peace Died", accessed October 17, 2009.
• BBC News (November 19, 2000). "Children become symbol of struggle", accessed October 17, 2009.
• BBC News (February 8, 2005). "Intifada toll 2000-2005", accessed January 6, 2010.
• Cahen, Eva (2005). "French TV Sticks by Story That Fueled Palestinian Intifada", Cybercast News Service, February 15, 2005.
• Canal+ (April 24, 2008). Jeudi Investigation: Le Bon, la Brute et les Truands.
• Carvajal, Doreen (2005). "The mysteries and passions of an iconic video frame", The New York Times, February 7, 2005.
• Carvajal, Doreen (2006). "Can Internet criticism of Mideast news footage be slander?", International Herald Tribune, September 18, 2006.
• Chandler, Joanna (2007). "A New Dreyfus Affair", Front Page Magazine, August 29, 2007.
• Channel 10 (December 13, 2007). "Jamal Al-Durrah presents: Scars from the past", Channel 10 on YouTube, accessed January 2, 2010; also see here.
• CNN (September 27, 2000). "Israeli settler convoy bombed in Gaza, three injured", accessed October 17, 2009.
• Cook, David (2007). Martyrdom in Islam. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521615518, 9780521615518
• Cygielman, Anat (2000). "IDF keeps shooting itself in the foot", Haaretz, November 7, 2000.
• David, Yehuda (2007). "War Hero Dr. Yehuda David Receives Citation For Bravery", filmed at Jerusalem's International Conference Center, September 2007, YouTube, accessed October 19, 2009.
• Derfner, Larry (2008). "Rattling the Cage: Al-Dura and the conspiracy freaks", The Jerusalem Post, May 28, 2008.
• Durand-Souffland, Stéphane (2006). "France 2 blanchie pour l'image choc de l'intifada", Le Figaro, October 20, 2006.
• Enderlin, Charles (2003). "Who Shot Mohammed al-Dura?", letter to the editor, November 2003.
• Enderlin, Charles (2005). "Non à la censure à la source", Le Figaro, January 27, 2005.
• Enderlin, France 2 v. Karsenty (2006). Enderlin, France 2 v. Karsenty, "Decision du 19 octobre 2006 par la 17ème Chambre du Tribunal correctionnel de Paris, no. 0433823049", accessed October 19, 2009.
• European Institute for Research on Mediterranean and Euro-Arab Cooperation. "The Second Intifada", accessed October 20, 2009.
• European Jewish Press (June 11, 2008). "French media critic calls on Sarkozy to intervene in Al-Dura French tv case", accessed October 20, 2009.
• Fallows, James (2003). "Who shot Mohammed al-Durra?", The Atlantic, June 2003.
• Fallows, James (2007). "News on the al-Dura front: Israeli finding that it was staged", Jamesfallows.theatlantic.com, October 2, 2007, accessed January 3, 2010.
• France 2 (September 30, 2000). 18 minutes of the France 2 raw footage; the al-Durrah incident begins at 01:17:06:09, YouTube, accessed September 18, 2009.
• France 2 (October 1, 2000). "Les blessures de Jamal a Dura", accessed January 7, 2010.
• France 2 (August 12, 2009). "Charles Enderlin décoré de la Légion d'honneur", accessed November 6, 2009.
• Frankfurter Allgemeine (March 4, 2009). "Was geschah mit Mohammed al-Dura?", interview with Esther Schapira, accessed October 20, 2009.
• Frum, David (2007). "L' affaire al-Dura", The National Post, November 17, 2007.
• Garfield, Bob and Campbell, Deborah (2001). "Images of Mohammed al-Durrah", On the Media, WNYC Radio, December 22, 2001.
• Gelertner, David (2005). "When pictures lie", The Los Angeles Times, September 2005.
• Goldenberg, Suzanne (2000a). "Making of a martyr", The Guardian, October 3, 2000.
• Goldenberg, Suzanne (2000b). "Israel washes its hands of boy's death", The Guardian, November 28, 2000.
• Goldenberg, Suzanne (2001). "The war of the children", The Guardian, September 27, 2001.
• Gross, Netty C (2003). "Split Screen", The Jerusalem Report, April 21, 2003.
• Gutman, Stephanie (2005). The Other War: Israelis, Palestinians and the Struggle for Media Supremacy. Encounter Books.
• Haaretz (November 10, 2000). "Stupidity marches on", accessed January 2, 2010.
• Haaretz (May 16, 2007). "French court examines footage of Mohammad al-Dura's death".
• Hessischer Rundfunk (March 3, 2009). ARD deckt Fälschung im Fall Mohammed Al-Durah auf, accessed January 2, 2010.
• Israeli Government Printing Office (2000). Book of Laws: Time Determination Law - 2000 (5760) (Hebrew), Israeli Government Printing Office, number 1748, July 28, 2000, p. 249, accessed October 17, 2009.
• Jerusalem Post (May 21, 2008). "Court overturns al-Dura libel judgment".
• JTA (May 12, 2008). "Credentials at risk for al-Dura reporter", accessed January 07, 2009.
• Juffa, Stéphane (2003). "The Al-Dura case: a dramatic conclusion", translated by Llewellyn Brown, Metula News Agency, November 3, 2003.
• Kalman, Matthew (2007). "Boy, 12, slain at onset of intifada gains new life in libel suit", San Francisco Chronicle, October 4, 2007.
• Kaplan Sommer, Allison, and Keinon, Herb (2002). "German TV report: Palestinians likely killed Gaza boy", Jerusalem Post, March 20, 2002.
• Karsenty, Philippe (2004). "France 2: Arlette Chabot et Charles Enderlin doivent être démis de leurs fonctions immédiatement", Media-Ratings, November 22, 2004, accessed January 7, 2009.
• Karsh, Efraim (2004). Arafat's War: The Man and His Battle for Israeli Conquest. Grove Press. ISBN 0802141587, 9780802141583
• Klein, Menachem (2003). The Jerusalem Problem: The Struggle for Permanent Status. University Press of Florida.
• Lancry, Yehuda (October 2, 2000). Letter dated 2 October 2000 from the Permanent Representative of Israel to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General, accessed October 13, 2009.
• Landes, Richard (2005). "Al Durah: According to Palestinian sources II. Birth of an icon"; also see "The Muhammad Al-Dura Blood Libel: A Case Analysis", Institute for Global Jewish Affairs, November 2, 2008, accessed October 14, 2009, and "According to Palestinian sources", The 2nd Draft, accessed October 14, 2009.
• Levin, Andrea (2008). "Guest Columnist: The silence of 'The Times'", The Jerusalem Post, July 10, 2008.
• Lévy, Elizabeth (2008). "Al Doura: le monde arabe doit savoir qu’il a été abusé", interview with Philippe Karsenty, Causeur, May 21, 2008.
• Libération (May 21, 2008). "Reportage sur la mort d'un enfant palestinien: Charles Enderlin débouté en appel".
• Maurice, Rogev, and Shahaf, Nahum (2005). "Who Shot Muhamed Jamal Al-Dura? Is the Boy Still Alive?", Proceedings of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, February 2005, Vol XI, section B27, p. 44, accessed October 14, 2009.
• Mekki, Hassan (2000). "Israelis admit troops killed 12-year-old boy: 'My son was terrified'", Agence France-Presse, October 4, 2000.
• Metula News Agency. Introduction to Mena, accessed January 9, 2010.
• Mitchell Report (2001). Report on the start of the Second Intifada, accessed January 8, 2010.
• Moutet, Anne-Elisabeth (2008). "L'Affaire Enderlin", The Weekly Standard, July 7, 2008.
• National Public Radio (October 1, 2000). "Shooting to Shooting", Abu Rahma discusses the shooting, accessed January 7, 2010.
• Orme, William A. (2000a). "Muhammad al-Durrah: A Young Symbol of Mideast Violence", The New York Times, October 2, 2000.
• Orme, William A. (2000b). "Israeli Army Says Palestinians May Have Shot Gaza Boy", The New York Times, November 28, 2000.
• O'Sullivan, Arieh (2001). "Southern Command decorates soldiers, units", Jerusalem Post, June 6, 2001.
• Patience, Martin (2007). "Dispute rages over al-Durrah footage", BBC News, November 8, 2007.
• Pearson, Bryan (2000). "Death of Mohammed al-Durra haunts Palestinian children", Agence France-Presse, November 6, 2000.
• Philps, Alan (2000). "Death of boy caught in gun battle provokes wave of revenge attacks", The Daily Telegraph, October 1, 2000.
• Poller, Nidra (2005). "Myth, Fact, and the al-Dura Affair", Commentary, September 2005.
• Poller, Nidra (April 2008). "Out Damn Spot", Front Page Magazine, April 9, 2008.
• Poller, Nidra (May 2008). "A Hoax?", Wall Steet Journal, May 27, 2008.
• Prasquier, Richard (2008). Prasquier: "establishing the truth about the Al-Dura case", Conseil Représentatif des Institutions juives de France, July 19, 2008.
• Radwin, Michael J. Hebrew calendar, Hebcal.com, accessed October 17, 2009.
• Recontres Internationales du Documentaire de Montreal Rêve brisé (Le), accessed October 20, 2009.
• Rees, Matt (2000). "Mohammed al-Dura", Time, December 25, 2000.
• Rettig Gur, Haviv (2008). "French court overturns al-Dura libel judgment", The Jerusalem Post, May 24, 2008.
• Rioufol, Ivan (2008). Les médias, pouvoir intouchable?, Le Figaro, June 13, 2008.
• Robert-Diard, Pascale (2006). "Reportage enfant Palestinien; Charles Enderlin et France 2 gagnent leur procès". Le Monde, October 20, 2006.
• Rohan, Brian (2008). "French court cancels libel in Intifada video case", Reuters, May 21, 2008.
• Rory Peck Awards (2001). "Talal Abu Rahma", accessed October 20, 2009.
• Rosenthal, John (2006). "France: The Al-Dura Defamation Case and the End of Free Speech", World Politics Watch, November 3, 2006.
• Rosenzweig, Luc (2007). "Quelques remarques après l'audience de visionnage des rushes de France 2, le 14 novembre 2007, devant la Cour d'appel de Paris", Media Ratings, November 14, 2007, accessed January 7, 2009.
• Schapira, Esther. (2002a). Three Bullets and a Child: Who Killed the Young Muhammad al-Dura?, ARD television.
• Schapira, Esther (2002b). "Die Bilder im Kopf", Frankfurter Rundschau, November 11, 2002.
• Schapira, Esther (2009). Das Kind, der Tod und die Wahrheit, part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5, ARD Germany, courtesy of YouTube, January 8, 2010.
• Schary Motro, Helen (2000). "Living among the headlines", Salon, October 7 2000.
• Schlinger, Jean-Claude (2008). Ballistics report prepared for Karsenty, February 19, 2008, accessed October 19, 2009.
• Schoumann, Helen (2007). "French court sees raw footage of al-Dura", The Jerusalem Post, November 14, 2007
• Schwartz, Adi (2007). "In the footsteps of the al-Dura controversy", Haaretz, November 8, 2007.
• Schwartz, Adi (2008). "Independent expert: IDF bullets didn't kill Mohammed al-Dura", Haaretz, February 3, 2008.
• Segev, Tom (2002). "Who killed Mohammed al-Dura?", Haaretz, March 22, 2002.
• Shuman, Ellis (2002). "German TV: Mohammed a-Dura likely killed by Palestinian gunfire", IsraelInsider.com, March 20, 2002, accessed February 5, 2006.
• Simon, Roger (2008). Interview with Philippe Karsenty, Pajamas Media, March 2, 2008, accessed January 7, 2009.
• Sofer, Roni (2008). "Court allows al-Durrah affair reporter to keep press pass", YNet News, January 7, 2008.
• Stack, Megan K (2003). "Israeli Tanks Leave Ruins and Anger in Their Wake", Los Angeles Times, July 1, 2003.
• Taguieff, Pierre-Andre (2007). "Imposture mediatique et propagande antizioniste", First Ratings Media Agency, November 22, 2007, accessed January 6, 2010.
• The New York Times (September 28, 2000). "Palestinians And Israelis In a Clash At Holy Site".
• The New York Times (November 27, 2000). "Israeli Army Says Palestinians May Have Shot Gaza Boy".
• The Wall Street Journal Europe (May 28, 2008). "Al-Durra case revisited".
• The Jerusalem Post (May 29, 2008). "Myth & Muhammad al-Dura".
• The Toronto Star (October 4, 2000). "Israel admits to killing boy, 12."
• Thiel, Thomas (2009). "Was geschah mit Mohammed al-Dura?", an interview with Esther Schapira, Frankfurter Allgemeine, March 4, 2009.
• Waked, Ali (2007). "Al-Dura's father: Israel's claims ridiculous", YNet News, February 10, 2007.
• Werber, Katharina (2009). "So kann es nicht gewesen sein", Frankfurter Rundschau, April 19, 2009.
• Whitaker, Brian (2000). "War of words in the Middle East", The Guardian, October 5, 2000.
• Zlotowski, Michel (2006). "French TV channel sues for libel over death of Palestinian boy in 2000", The Jerusalem Post, September 14, 2006.
• Zomersztajn, Nicolas (2004). "Affaire Al-Dura: la pseudo enquête d’une imposture ("The Al-Dura Affair: the pseudo-inquest of an imposture"), Regards 563, February 17, 2004, accessed October 19, 2009.

Further reading

• Enderlin, France 2 v. Karsenty (French) October 19, 2006; English translation by Richard Landes (2006). Decision du 19 octobre 2006 par la 17ème Chambre du Tribunal correctionnel de Paris, no. 0433823049, accessed January 3, 2010.
• Karsenty v. Enderlin-France2 (French) May 21, 2008; rough English translation, accessed January 3, 2010.
• Website of Phillipe Karsenty (French), accessed January 7, 2009; in English.
• Charles Enderlin's blog (French) at France 2, accessed January 9, 2010.
• Amnesty International (2001). Broken Lives: A Year of Intifada, pp. 15–16, accessed January 2, 2010.
• O'Loughlin, Ed (2007). "Battle rages over fateful footage", The Age, October 6, 2007.
• Phillips, Melanie (2007). The al Durah blood libel, The Spectator, November 16, 2007.
• Schapira, Esther (2008). Propaganda against Israel: The Mohammed Al Durah Case and Staging Reality in the Media, European Forum on Antisemitism, June 18, 2008, accessed January 3, 2010.
• Schlinger, Jean-Claude (2008). Ballistics report prepared for Philippe Karsenty, Media-Ratings, February 19, 2008, accessed October 19, 2009.
• Sharansky, Natan (2007). "Palestinian Propaganda Coup", The Wall Street Journal, October 7, 2007.

Video

• France 2 raw footage, YouTube, the al-Durrahs are first seen at 7:18 minutes, accessed January 3, 2010. Also see the same material, Seconddraft.com, begins around 02:10 mins, accessed January 3, 2010.
• Final ten seconds of the footage, not shown by France 2, YouTube, accessed January 6, 2010.
• 180 seconds of the same scene, filmed by a Reuters cameraman crouching behind the al-Durrahs, Seconddraft.com, accessed January 3, 2010.
• Eight seconds of the same scene, filmed by an Associated Press cameraman, Seconddraft.com, accessed January 3, 2010.

Vorlage:Refend
Vorlage:Arab-Israeli Conflict Vorlage:Israeli-Palestinian Conflict