In the world of literature and entertainment, a story of fiction always captures the public's heart. It's quite easy to understand why: with fiction you're free to use your wildest imagination, and create a perfect hero and a perfect story. Whereas in the non-fiction world, the rule is that you have to stick to the truth. But is that really so? Apparently, we've become so smitten with fiction, that not only do we use it on the news, when the truth comes up -- we prefer to ignore it.
Let me ask you a question: what does the name Mohammed al Dura mean to you?
You may remember his name because it was mentioned by the late reporter Daniel Pearl's captors, seconds before they ruthlessly beheaded him on tape for the whole world to see, in the name of Mohammed al Dura, the martyr child.
Al Dura's heartbreaking photo, taken seconds before his death, has become famous both in the Muslim world and in the western one. On Iraqi and Iranian stamps, for example, it appears with the caption: Killed by the Zionist army in Palestine. A dead child is the most awful price of war. Is it a wonder that hundreds of people raged and died in the name of this boy?
The only problem with this mythological tragedy is that it isn't true. I'm not the authority to state this, by the way. It is the supreme court in France that has made this final ruling, just last week. Have you heard about it? Probably not. In the past 12 years we've gotten so attached to the myth, we don't really want to ruin it with the truth.
The original Mohammed al Dura story is about a boy that was caught with his dad in the line of fire between Israeli and Palestinian forces, at the very beginning of the second intifada. French television FR2 aired a shaky and grainy minute long video of him trying to hide behind a barrel, crying among the bullets, until collapsing to his death on his father's lap. Israel and the IDF were blamed, and the hatred towards them roared.
Along the years, many new findings came up about this story. It started with a thorough IDF investigation which concluded that by the direction of the shooting, it's logical that the boy was hit by Palestinian bullets, and not Israeli ones. Then a German television investigative report showed that the remains of the buried boy who was supposed to be al Dura, were actually those of another boy, questioning if the whole incident actually occurred or if it had been staged for cynical propaganda purposes. It also turned out that the film of the incident wasn't shot by a French reporter, but by a Palestinian who gave it to channel FR2, which aired it right away without checking its authenticity. Search YouTube if you like, and you'll be amazed at some of the reports questioning if this whole incident actually happened in reality.
But the biggest lie was exposed last week by the French supreme court: it turns out that the boy's father had lied when he told French TV that his arm and leg were wounded at that same incident in which his boy died. Plain and simple -- he lied, probably because he was forced to by Hamas terrorists, and then sued the Israeli doctor for libel. But the father's wounding occurred years before this incident, by barbaric Hamas militants in Gaza. They attacked him with axes and knives, severely wounding him and paralyzing his right arm. He was brought to an Israeli hospital and treated by the Israeli doctor he later sued, because when the doctor saw the father's false statement on the FR2 report, he opened the medical documents to show it was a lie.
I don't blame the boy's father for lying, by the way. If it were me that had to choose between lying, or telling the truth and being attacked with axes and knives by terrorists again, I'm pretty sure I'd do the same. But while the poor father's motive for lying is clear -- what's the motive of the western world to keep silent about the truth, and prefer to keep believing the myth?
Sadly, these are the rules of our allegedly truthful world. The myth was aired all over the world and burned into the collective memory. It will live forever, and who knows how many others will be "inspired" with hatred as a result. And what about the real story? For some crazy reason -- no one is interested in reporting it. None of the major news channels that reported the incident 12 years ago felt necessary to report the ruling of the French supreme court. I guess it will remain our little secret, then. It kind of makes you wonder -- maybe all we really want is a good story with a hero? And once we get it -- please, don't confuse us with the facts.
Oh, and just in case you personally DO want to spread the truth and shatter the myth? Well, you may want to share this story, and try to make a small difference in a world in which it's become very hard to know who to believe.
Other lies emanating out of the region are the Jenin Massacre, Gaza Beach killings, and the propaganda lies of the Lebanon war. One might actually start to think that none of Israel's enemies ever tell the truth...
"The airstrike was carried out using two bombs, at least one of which was precision guided, which were dropped in the hour following 1 a.m. on July 30, The second bomb was dropped five to fifteen minutes after the first. The aerial attack killed members of the Shalhoub and Hashem families who had used an underground garage below a three-story apartment building as a shelter during the bombing.[5] Initial news reports state that the families were asleep when the two bombs were dropped on their building. While Israel had directed residents of South Lebanon to flee the conflict, roads out of the area were also subject to Israeli bombardment.[14] One of the eight survivors of the blast said that attacks on the roads out of Qana discouraged the two families from leaving.[15]
The Christian Science Monitor reported that further airstrikes and artillery attacks, which destroyed several houses in Qana, delayed the rescue response.[15] Sami Yazbuk, the head of the Red Cross in Tyre, told The Guardian that the first call about the bombing was received at 7 a.m. He said that previous shelling on the road to Qana had delayed the arrival of Red Cross personnel."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qana_airstrike
Simple enough for even you to understand.
I'm going with the second one.
It seems their stories get easier and easier to see through. F/F
~Enjoy.
It is about the consistent unending demonizing of Israel and the Jews which makes a mockery of the truth. Demonizing which results in bigotry, and violence. And when all is said and done it is about the media which when examined bares NO resemblance to the charge "Pro-Israel Zionist Media". Because they continue to print lies.
And when it's revealed in a court of law that they screwed up they STILL don't print the truth, but ignore it.
It is especially odd given that their refusal to release the raw footage make it look like they are hiding something (after all, they are hiding the raw footage) they would prefer everyone else not to see.
If, on the other hand, you are attempting to invoke the evidentiary presumption that a failure to produce evidence indicates that the evidence undermines that party's position, I am certainly willing to agree to apply that presumption, so long as it is applied consistenly.
Now, before you answer, please remember that the raw footage of the Flotilla incident is still being withheld by the IDF, and only edited footage has been released in that matter.
So, are you in favor of the presumption?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzsCBFhCsyY&feature=related
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/rubbing-salt-into-the-wound-1.413383
If you wish to base your opinion on this one op piece, out of so much information out there about the case, that's your decision to make...
If you wish to see a fuller spectrum that shows how twisted things have become, here are some more.
This is the news as it was originally reported by that same news site
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/israeli-physician-acquitted-of-libel-against-mohammed-al-dura-s-father-1.413178
and how it was reported by Israel's most popular news site (about 10 times the rating of the other one), that is considered neutral in its views (neither right wing or left wing)
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4190373,00.html
The whole point of my post was to show how irrational it is to believe something about the conflict without questioning it. The situation has become so twisted, it's very hard to know what the absolute truth is. I only know that all the evidence compiled along the years about this case, including the supreme court ruling, makes the possibility that the original story we all remember was true, so remote, you really need to want to keep the myth alive in order to keep believing it as it is.
Quite the change in tone girl. :))
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/138949#.T0To7_l43KE
also lets agree that all the kids in korea, vietnam, Japan, Irak etc who shut/blown/burned/evaporate by the USA bombs evor the years should get just as much attention by US public and media like that Gazan boy died in war between 2 sided that are not USA.
becouse if americans look more on others peoples wars more then on their own wars then one should think its a little hypocratizm.
I'm not the one who moderates them, by the way.
but maybe making up another conspiracy theory is the best you can do, just like your friend up there
The time to educate yourself to the grave danger to America is NOW, before an attack on Iran!
If you have the integrity and honesty, please view this interview with ex Marine Dr Alan Sabrosky who details the plot details and evidence.
http://www.intifada-palestine.com/2011/07/911-and-israel-alan-sabrosky%e2%80%99s-shocking-press-tv-interview/
"Articles by Sabrosky and Duff promoting anti-Semitic conspiracy theories have been widely circulated, picked up by the conspiracy press, the extreme right press, and elsewhere, including Islamic media sources in the United States"
http://www.adl.org/main_Extremism/911_conspiracy_theories_report.htm?Multi_page_sections=sHeading_3
http://adamholland.blogspot.com/2010/05/alan-sabrosky-large-majority-of-us-jews.html
but anyway, what did that Rafi dud said about that issue?
Except that the court made no such ruling.
you make up your own facts anyway, and don't even blink or think about taking it back.
so allow me to decline taking any real conversation with you further.
you're obviously not here to listen
"Dr. David, of course, did not examine the man and ignored data furnished by the hospital in Amman. In light of the fact that the medical file was put at the disposal of parties in this case years ago, this seems peculiar.
I would like to clarify the gist of the French court's ruling. The verdict does not conclude that Dr. David's statements were true; instead, the court found that his conclusions were written in good faith, on the basis of information he had in his possession, and that they are protected by principles of free speech. Meantime, the journalist who published the report denouncing Jamal al-Dura was required to pay 6,000 euros in compensation to him."
This was written by Rafi Walden, "deputy director of Sheba Medical Center, a member of the board of directors of the Physicians for Human Rights, and a lieutenant colonel in the IDF reserves"
Does anyone refute the facts / events as Dr Walden presented tham?
Up on the site for more than 24-hours... crickets.