Comments on: Revisiting ‘Al Durah’ in Time of Iranian Media Control

By: Steve

Steve — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 13:46:05 +0000

Whether the Al Dura matter is a manifestation of French anti semitism or not, the larger picture is colored by the fact that active antisemitism is on the rise in Europe. Its manifestations include physical attacks on Jews throughout Europe. Even more dangerous is the acceptance of antisemitic narratives among the elites. To say you don’t like Jews is much more acceptable now than it was 20 years ago. Acceptance of anti Israelism (and its accompanying antisemitic references) among academics is so widespread that to defend Israel is an act of courage. The Al Dura photos and accusations of Jews as child-killers certainly accelerated the outing of these sentiments and made them much more mainstream. An official refutation of Enderlin’s work might be back page news, but it would help reduce the sting.

By: Richard Landes

Richard Landes — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 03:21:26 +0000

i don't think it's anti-semitism (which i define as the paranoid belief that if you don't exterminate the jews, they'll exterminate you), so much as moral Schadenfreude or the thrill of being able to say, "you jews, 2000 years you were oppressed by others and the minute you get power, you turn around and do it to the palestinians. you're just as bad as everyone else." and then of course there's the moral sadism of taking the next step: "in fact you're worse, you're like the nazis, you're even worse than the nazis because you should know better." that last position is moving rapidly towards anti-semitism. post-modern anti-judaism fuels muslim pre-modern anti-semitism, and there's no better illustration of the destructive relationship than the imbecility and corruption surrounding the al Durah affair.

By: Oscar the Grump

Oscar the Grump — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 22:37:07 +0000

See these sites, there are plenty of others.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_B1H-1opys

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzsCBFhCsyY

By: Don

Don — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 21:30:13 +0000

Speaking of selective editorializing, consider the NY Times keeping the fact secret that one of their journalists was kidnapped by the Taliban. Apparently their is some criticism over the NY Time’s motives; did they keep the secret to reduce the risk of the journalist’s killing or to keep the ransom cost down? Be that as it may, the more interesting observation is that when it’s one of their own the NY Times has no problem with news blackouts and keeping a secret; they only have a problem with news black outs and keeping a secret if it is Gitmo or enhanced interrogation pictures or releasing intelligence gathering sources and methods, because then only the troops get their throats slit. It does provide a reportable event however, also known as a revenue source. If it bleeds it leads is also an instance of pragmatism too, the favorite philosophy of realists.

By: Notre Dame de Sion

Notre Dame de Sion — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 21:15:40 +0000

bubblehead

If it’s French anti-Semitism, they found their useful Jew(s), Enderlin being the first and foremost one. But, as Oscar the Grump points out, it’s a world-wide phenomenon. And the double standards are only too visible when compared to media and public reactions to the current Iranian Intifada.

By: bubblehead

bubblehead — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 20:58:39 +0000

The French have always been notorious anti-Semites! The idea that a French news organization would behave this way does not surprise me in the slightest.

Other news outlets will continue to lie until this incident begins to turn up in schoolbooks as an example of Jewish brutality against the Arabs. By then, it will be established as fact forever.

Everyone is able to look themselves in the mirror by repeating the lie “It is an accurate representation of what was happening all over the region at the time. The Jews were brutal occupiers and we simply showed their true faces.” That, after all is the defense they used!

MERDE!

By: Oscar the Grump

Oscar the Grump — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 19:43:32 +0000

If you search the sites google and yahoo, you can find further explanations of the Pallywood setup. There is an excellent one of Talal pointing to the area where the shots were coming from, “they were coming from directly behind me.” and he points with his thumb. Directly behind him were the Palestinians. Another major point is that if you look closely there is a tripod about six feet behind them. The whole scene was being filmed from behind. That film man was standing “in the line of fire” the whole time. His films were never included and he was never shot. Had the Israelis shot at him, he would have been a dead man. Other Pallywood sequences are also shown and shown to be fraud. Bob Simons is seen making one or his famous Sixty Minutes broadcasts stating that at least 30 people were killed there by the Israelis. That lie was never brought out by Sixty Minutes, explained or apologized for. Bob Simons helped the lie of al Dura have legitimacy.

By: njcommuter

njcommuter — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 17:06:47 +0000

The man is a moral cretin. But what is appalling is the silence of the MSM in this country.

After Abu Ghraib, the US Army brought the perpetrators to trial and punished them. As Bill Whittle put it in his “Pope John” essay “Power policed itself.” This was something unseen in that country. Since when has the MSM policed itself? And as long as it is in bed with the Left, it will never police the Democratic party. Nixon’s Watergate brought down a presidency, but the repeated theft of elections by the Democratic machine, including perhaps the one that Nixon lost to Kennedy, were never front-page news.

This a profound, terrifying danger to human freedom everywhere. For without the truth you can never be free.

By: Richard Landes

Richard Landes — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 14:55:11 +0000

good point, Notre Dame de Sion. the response to al durah was ferocious.

By: Marie Claude

Marie Claude — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 13:30:20 +0000

tiens, that’s funny, one has nothing else to chew at the moment !