Talk:Charles Enderlin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Contents

[edit] IDF recognition

Hi ! Yes, about the IDF recognition for having killed the boy: I don't mean to imply that it proves anything about the IDF being "bad"; it's more about what kind of can of worm the whole story is. Your last version convoys very well the feeling of confusion around this mess -- recognition by the IDF, denying by the IDF, pressing of charges by the Palestinians, then retractation, etc. Thanks and cheers ! Rama 23:28, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hi Rama, I'm just wondering what a "grant reporter" is. SlimVirgin 01:19, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Press agency Mena

"The French-speaking Israeli press agency Mena realeased a statement the day after the rushes were examined, Denis Jeambar and Daniel Leconte said, which tended to use them to push the thesis that the whole affair was a scam, a thesis which they said they could not hold at the time."

What does this mean? Jayjg (talk) 01:31, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There's a lot that isn't clear. If a person knew nothing about this incident, I'm not sure they'd understand it by the time they'd finished reading the article. SlimVirgin 01:43, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
Your edits are good, except you really messed up all the letters with accents. Jayjg (talk) 03:49, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Some queries

Rama, I've done a copy edit to try to make some of it clearer, though I'd say it needs a rewrite, because it's still not clear (to anyone not knowing the subject) exactly what the controversy was about. Also, it lacks citations, and there were quite a few POV statements e.g. he wrote "authoritative" books, and there was a "campaign of criticism," rather than just criticism. If you want to say "campaign," you should probably quote someone saying that, or else it looks like your opinion. I've made some sections that need citations invisible, and I've left a few invisible questions for you. Also, how many books has he written on this topic? Your intro says several, but your books section says two,

I couldn't understand these: "Generally, the very heated critics coincided with a movement in France by supporters of Ariel Sharon, and similar political tendencies (Likoud France), to systematically discredit journalists expressing criticism against Israel." the heated critics cooincided with a movement doesn't really mean anything, and if there was such a movement, you'd need a citation. And "Four years later, on the 18th of November 2004, France 2 filed a "Lawsuit against X" for "Public Defaming" " needs to be fleshed out e.g. what is a lawsuit against X.

One thing I noticed when I'd finished is that some of the acutes have turned into odd characters. This happens sometimes when I edit pages containing acutes; it's apparently an incompatibility with the version of Safari I use. I'm going to try to correct them now using a different browser, but in case I don't succeed (because it may be connected to my Mac), below is what needs to be fixed. Sorry about the extra work. Best, SlimVirgin 03:57, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

  • biography section: Paix ou guerre, les secrets des n?gociations isra?lo-arabes 1917-1997
  • al-Dura controversy section: "Ligue de D?fense Juive"
  • quotes section: Albert Camus's R?flexions sur le Terrorisme )
  • and several in Notes and Books sections
Okay, I think I fixed the accents. SlimVirgin 04:34, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
And Jay fixed the rest. Thanks, and sorry. SlimVirgin 04:56, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Jay, you've improved it a lot. I think this sentence should also be deleted as there's no citation and it seems to contradict their other statements: "Nevertheless Jeambar and Leconte denied that they were claiming the whole affair to have been a hoax or scam." I'm using Safari at the moment so I won't delete it myself. SlimVirgin 06:11, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Rama insists it must be in there, and has restored various versions of it to the article at least 3 times. Perhaps he can explain where it comes from. Jayjg (talk) 06:14, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
It can't stay without a citation. I'll make it invisible for now because it contradicts the rest of the material about them. I'll use Netscape though. ;-) SlimVirgin 07:22, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)


Hi ! Yeah, sorry about my English; there are also a few technical words which don't help, perhaps I should not attempt to translate them.

  • "authoritative" books;
well these books tend to be cited often; perhaps we can put "important" or "famous".
  • "campaign of criticism," rather than just criticism.
There was undoubtly a coordinated criticism from several organisations, including threats of physical violence (see the list of organisations involved in the "goebbels prize"). Campagne de diffamation (diffaming campain) is a term which is commonly used in the French press to refer to the affair, so I am rather rather tender translating that. But indeed, this could be better documented; do you think that "...critism, commonly refered to as a diffaming campain in the French press (ref here), ..." would fit ?
  • Also, how many books has he written on this topic? Your intro says several, but your books section says two.
There are three books in the Books section. When do "several" start in English ? (honest question, I'm not sure). I put the "several" because I a not sur the list in "books" is complete, and also that leaves some rooom for the more books to come.
  • "Generally, the very heated critics coincided with a movement in France by supporters of Ariel Sharon, and similar political tendencies (Likoud France), to systematically discredit journalists expressing criticism against Israel."
hmmm... does "...the very heated critics coincided with a tendency ..."
  • "Four years later, on the 18th of November 2004, France 2 filed a "Lawsuit against X" for "Public Defaming" " needs to be fleshed out e.g. what is a lawsuit against X.
in the French law, a plainte contre X ("complain against X") is a way to fill a lawsuit against people whose identity is not known. In particular, it means that determining the identity of the offenders will be part of the legal investigation. I don't know whether this is documented somewhere on Wikiepdia...

I have tried to document what what you asked. I am very sorry, but I'm afraid that a significant portion of the references are in French; also, some of the references require subscribtion, I tried to include links to sites mirroring the information when possible.

I removed "Most of these associations are close to the views of the Likud or Ariel Sharon", which indeed was awakard. Some articles said this in 2000, but the situation was different then, and I'm not sure that the home politics of Israel are always very clearly understood in the French mainstream press (at the time, Sharon was often regarded as tantamount to far right).

As for "His book Shattered Dreams, and his involvement in the "Al-Dura affair" (see [Muhammed_al-Dura]) induced outrage in some parts of Israeli public opinion, as well as in some circles of the French Jewish intelligentsia close to the Israeli far right wing", I think it could be removed indeed, it doesn't add much to the article. I didn't delete it outright without asking you, but I don't thik anyone will miss it ?

Now, I'd like to make a quick general statement: I don't mean to make the apology of Charles Enderlin nor defend of particular reading of the al Dura affair. Very few things are certain in this thing; some extremist movements on the Palestinian and on the Israeli side tend to take this as their battle horse and shout louder than the reasonable people trying to be reasonable somewhere in between.

There was some sort of skirmish around the Figaro article, I think mainly because Jayjg had mainly access to the www.camera.org article (a fairly pro-israelian site it seems); since the Figaro article is, obviously, in French, it might be non-trivial to understand the nuances, but about half of it complained about pressures and innacuracies from both sides, the other half saying that the review of the footage raised yet-to-be-answered questions (obviously, the journalists came under fire from people who prefer answers to questions and that upset them). The Figaro article itself is the reference. On the other hand, my formulation was probably not perfect at all, so I understand that this might have looked confusing.

Thanks and cheers ! Rama 07:55, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't know whether there's a policy regarding citations, but as this is the English-language Wikipedia, citations probably ought to be in English wherever possible, or else, if absolutely none are available, ought to be quoted from in English so that readers can easily understand. Also, the article needs to be written in clear English. A couple of questions:

  • What is the relevance of his liking Der Judenstaat? And what do you mean by "refers to citations": when and where? Or is that in the link you provided? If it is, please quote from it, translated into English.
  • The bit about him knowing the leaders in the peace process. The links you provided were just publisher's blurbs, or quoted from them, about him having unequalled access. Journalists always say that; it's not the same as knowing people.
  • When you say the Palestinian cameraman was on his team, what do you mean exactly?
  • The sentence beginning: "More widely, a heated harassment campaign began, on the grounds that the very harsh images . . ." this is not good English, and it needs an English-language citation. I haven't corrected the English because I haven't seen a source that says there was a campaign, so I've just made it invisible for now.
  • This sentence that you restored: "Nevertheless Jeambar and Leconte denied that they were claiming the whole affair to have been a hoax or scam." needs a citation (English or a translated quote). SlimVirgin 08:17, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't know whether there's a policy regarding citations, but as this is the English-language Wikipedia, citations probably ought to be in English wherever possible, or else, if absolutely none are available, ought to be quoted from in English so that readers can easily understand. Also, the article needs to be written in clear English
I understand your concern, of course; on the other hand, since this whole thing is mostly about French press, it's going to be difficult to find English equivalents for all revelant references... I'm afraid I'll have to translate things directly from the French references more than once.
Of course I cound't agree more about the clear English.
  • What is the relevance of his liking Der Judenstaat? And what do you mean by "refers to citations": when and where? Or is that in the link you provided? If it is, please quote from it, translated into English.
I think I would better translate the revelant paragraph and let you judge.
So here we start ! Translation reads:

Quand il débarque à Tel-Aviv, en décembre 1968, Charles Enderlin a 22 ans. Il a en tête les écrits de Theodor Herzl, aujourd'hui honni par l'orthodoxie religieuse. Le journaliste de France 2 connaît par c?ur des passages de L'Etat des Juifs. Ceux, notamment, où Theodor Herzl recommande de "cantonner" les chefs religieux "dans leurs temples, de même que nous cantonnerons l'armée de métier dans les casernes". Ce rêve a fait long feu. "Chacun est aussi libre dans sa foi ou son incroyance que dans sa nationalité, ajoutait Theodor Herzl. S'il se trouve parmi nous des fidèles appartenant à d'autres religions ou à d'autres nationalités, nous leur garantirons une protection honorable et l'égalité des droits." Quand il parle de Herzl, Charles Enderlin dit simplement : "Je viens de là."

When he arrives in Tel-Aviv in decembre 1968, Charles Enderlin is 22 years old. He has in mind the writings of Theodor Herzl, now a paria of the religious orthodoxes. The France 2 journalist knows parts of the States of the Jews [not sure about the title... :p] by heart. Those, notably, where Theodor Herzl recommands to "confinate" [the exact nuace of the word means "to settle an army in its camp"] the religious leaders "in their temples, as we will confinate the professional army in its barracks". This dream didn't come true. "Anyone is as free in faith or lack of thereof than i nhis nationality, Theodor Herzl added. If there are among followers belonging to other religions or other nationalities, we will guarantee a honourable protection and egality of rights." When he speaks about Herzl, Charles Enderlin simply says: "This is where I come from".

Why relevant ? because this frames the voiced political opinions of Enderlin. Some of his critics have accused him of "hating Israel"; this shows that he is an Israeli national, and that he has an ideal for the Israeli society. Now, if you think that mentionning this is toroughfully odd, I won't scream.
  • The bit about him knowing the leaders in the peace process. The links you provided were just publisher's blurbs, or quoted from them, about him having unequalled access. Journalists always say that; it's not the same as knowing people.
Sorry, I didn't realise that the nuance was so badly shaped. I indeed meant something like "he ran across"... Mea culpa.
  • When you say the Palestinian cameraman was on his team, what do you mean exactly?
Well... there was a team of journalists (cameraman, reporter), and the cameraman was Palestinian. Perhaps "of" or "from" Enderlin's team ?
  • The sentence beginning: "More widely, a heated harassment campaign began, on the grounds that the very harsh images . . ." this is not good English, and it needs an English-language citation. I haven't corrected the English because I haven't seen a source that says there was a campaign, so I've just made it invisible for now.
The term "campaign" was what was generally accepted in teh French press. There is an example here [1] ("French journalists are beginning to ask these questions after a sustained and organised campaign of harassment against the media."), or here [2] (by the way, this is a very good article which provides clues to adress lots of issues we have here; "against X", what the Figaro journalists said, ...).
Now, I would very much appreciate your corrections, I'm afraid I am badly in need for some.

Did you have a chance to listen to the radio interview? Jayjg (talk) 17:36, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No, I very much wanted to, but the audio format is a non-Free format, it's not trivial to set up a system which can read this on GNU/Linux :/ . If someone could provide a OGG or a transcript, that would be interesting.

In any case, the abstract reads:

Guet-apens dans la guerre des images : Qui a tué le jeune Palestinien de Netzarim, le 30 septembre 2000 ? Des images et ses commentaires ont-ils été manipulés pour plus facilement accuser Israël ?

Tout le monde se souvient de cette image terrible, celle d'un enfant qui meurt dans les bras de son père. Israël a été aussitôt accusé d'avoir tué l'enfant. Les enquêtes contradictoires, diligentées depuis, ne sont plus aussi catégoriques. Les images et les commentaires ont-ils été manipulés ? Quels sont les auteurs des tirs qui ont blessé mortellement le jeune Palestinien ? Mardi 1er février, dans le journal de 12 heures 30, Shlomo Malka recevait Denis Jeambar, directeur de "L'express" et Daniel Leconte, réalisateur et producteur. Ils reviennentt sur cette affaire à la suite d'un article dont ils sont les auteurs, publié dans Le Figaro, le 25 janvier.

Ambush in image warfare: Who killed the young Netzarim Palestinian, on the 30th of Septembre 2000? Have images and their commentaries been manipulated to accuse Israel more easily ?

Everyone remembers this terrible image, the one of a child dying in his father's arms. Israel was immediatly accused of killing the boy. Contradictory investigations, started from then, are not so categoric anymore. Have images and commentaries been manipulated ? Who fired the shots which killed the young Palestinian ? On Tuesday the 1st of February, in the 20h30 news, Shlomo Malka welcomed Denis Jeambar, director of L'Express, and Daniel Leconte, realisator and producer. They review this affair, in the light of an article which they authored in the Figaro, on the 25th of January.

So here again, we have questionnings about the attribution of the killing to the IDF, but nothing in this abstract (in the abstract. I have yet to listen to the actual recording) sugests that the images are fake. "Manipulated", in this sense, means "use in an oriented manner" (POV, as we effenciently say here ;) ).

If I had to make a brief summary, I'd say tat the whole controversy lies on two layers of criticism:

  • the first one questions the precipitation with which the killing was attributed to the IDF (unfortunately, IDF officials themselves corroborated this statement at first; while their courage and honesty is highly commandable, unfortunately it didn't contribute to clarifying the affaire), ask why the tape was distributed the way it was, what is on the rest of the tape, what Enderlin meant with this bizarre allusion to "unbearable" images of the agony of the boy, etc.
  • another criticism is to outright deny the existance of the incident. These people will underline the Palestians "playing war" in front of the cameras (they certainly did, but that didn't prevent the kid from getting killed), some say that no blood can be seen on the images, etc.

While the "first layer" of criticism is very valid and shared by most of the media, the second doesn't seem to be. The article by Daniel Leconte and Denis Jeambar is very much in this vein: they once again adopt the "first layer", and tend to invalidate the "second layer" (and fire a few verbal shots at those who press them to adopt of reject both "layers").

I'll try to see whether I can have access to a Windows computer soon (fortunately or unfortunately, they are not very common in my field) and see whether I can confirm the "two-layer theory". Cheers ! Rama 06:48, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've also ran into this article of the Mena [3] about the radio emission. It is not very interesting though, nothing factual, only a long rant... The tone of the article is extremely insulting for Daniel Leconte and Denis Jeambar (and the French public too, for that matters).
They compare them to Laurel and Hardy to ridiculous them, complain that they spoke on an obscure radio and not on a main national media, repetedly question their professional competence and integrity without precise references, make gratuitious and very insulting insinuations (calling the radio France Info "Frantz Info"), call the French public "sheeps" and "ruminants", and make such sentances as "Enquête mes fesses, m'entends-tu bien, Germaine ? Nibe !" ("investigation, my ass, ya hear me Germaine ? Nuts !").
So I assume they are not happy with what they heard. Rama 15:58, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Oh, www.acmedias.org/Q436.asp says that they confirm what what said is the Figaro article ("ils confirment le contenu de leur article paru dans le Figaro") and that they still refuse to say that the whole film is a fraud ("les deux héros se refusent à parler de mise en scène intégrale et affirment qu'Arlette Chabot a aidé à l'établissement de la vérité.", "the two heroes refuse to talk about a complete staging and state that Arlette Chabot help to acertain the truth"). (they don't seem to like them very either, by the way... they even affirm their link to the Mena) Rama 16:09, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I stripped the link to acmedias.org because it is on the blacklist and the link blocks editing of this talk page. --Jorunn 22:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Rama, regarding the cameraman being part of Enderlin's team, my understanding is that the cameraman is a freelance who runs his own Gaza news agency, and does freelance work for, among others, CNN and France 2. Enderlin was not present when the film was shot, but simply did a voiceover later, so it's perhaps misleading to say the cameraman was part of anyone's team. Another point: when people say images have been manipulated, they usually mean more than POV; they would usually mean a more active distortion than a POV presentation.
Regarding the sentence: "Nevertheless Jeambar and Leconte denied that they were claiming the whole affair to have been a hoax or scam," thank you for providing that very helpful translation. They say that they are not claiming the boy is not dead, because they have found no evidence that he is not dead. But they do say there is no evidence that the IDF killed him, and that France 2 now admits this. It would probably be better to clarify that, because "the whole affair" in your sentence could refer to the death of the boy (not a scam, they are saying), or it could refer to Enderlin's coverage (which arguably was a scam, they are saying, or at least a hasty and POV interpretation of an event Enderlin did not witness).
Hope this helps a bit. Thank you for all your hard work in providing these translations! SlimVirgin 07:13, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Future edits

In the light of the information on this talk page, I suggest the following edits:

  • He is the author of several important books [4] on the subject
Shattered Dreams seems to be a classic in the US Army...
  • (...) the age of 22 to live in a kibbutz
(...) the age of 22 to live in a kibbutz. Enderlin is an admirer of Theodor Herzl, an advocate for a stronlgy laic Israel.
  • "Enderlin commented on the images, which had been taken by Talal Abou Rahmeh, a Palestinian cameraman on Enderlin's team, and became the target of a "campaign of harassment"" could but turned into something like:
"The images were taken by Talal Abou Rahmeh, a Palestinian freelance cameraman notably working for France 2 and CNN (eventually reference here, if available ?). Enderlin, who was not present when the scene was filmed, commented the images, notably accusing the Israely army of shooting the boy. Enderlin and France 2 became the target of a violent "campaign of harassment" [5], [6] which spread against several of the main French media (France 2, Le Monde, AFP, Libération, ...)

(thanks to SlimVirgin for the freelance thing, I didn't know that)

  • On the Internet, French-language websites accused Enderlin of having fabricated the images of al-Durrah's death. [7]
  • The "Ligue de Défense Juive" (Jewish Defense League, an extremist movement forbidden in Israel) called for a "demonstration against France 2 lies". Other websites made explicit reference to physical violence. For example, the website http://www.amisraelhai.org published a list of "bad Jews to be re-educated with baseball bats" [8], [9]. Several Jewish organizations awarded Enderlin the "Goebbels Prize" for disinformation. See "notes" below for a list of these organizations.
  • The IDF initially declared it was probably responsible for al-Durrah's death, but a comprehensive ...
just add the reference [10] here. (again, so that my intention here wouldn't be misunderstood, the idea is to show that the affair is complicated, not to suggest that the IDF fired the bullet. I mean this as just documenting the initial statements of the IDF).
  • Jayjg, would you happen to have references which can confirm that the Metula News Agency reviewed the film itself ? As far as I've understood, they rely on the restimony of Denis Jeambar and Daniel Leconte... The article you cite seems to be the very article which so angered Jeambar and Leconte. Since the Mena and France 2 are notoriously at odds, it would be interesting to document this... Also, I see that the [11] access is restricted... since the title is quite provocative ("The Mythical Martyr") and that the point of Juffa (who basically denies that the event occured at all, I am correct ?) is already presented just before, perhaps we could shorten this a little bit ?
  • I would actually suggest the whole paragraph be replaced by this one (the point of Juffa and the Mena will then be moved just afterward):
The denegation of the Israeli Army and several emerging fact raised another trend of questions was raised about the commentary of the images. The film was about 27 minute long, of which only about 55 seconds were made public (about three minutes and 26 seconds were later released to the Israeli army). Asked why only this short portion was shown, Enderlin had the French monthly Télérama, in October 2000: "I cut the child's death throes. It was too unbearable". A 2002 documentary on the German television [12], Three Bullets and a Child: Who Killed the Young Muhammad al-Dura? attempted to make a ballistic expertise of the scene, whose conclusions, yet not definitive, tended to suggest that the bullets might rather have come from the Palestinian position and hit the boy by accident.
  • On 25 January 2005, in Le Figaro,[5], [6] Denis Jeambar and Daniel Leconte (who had seen the footage with Juffa) also refuted Enderlin's longstanding explanation of why the footage of the killing was brief and apparently truncated. Jeambar and Leconte stated that the "unbearable" images of al-Durrah's "death throes" simply do not exist. Instead they noted that in the 27 minutes of tape "Palestinians seem to be organizing a staged event. They 'play' at war with the Israelis and simulate, in most of the cases, imaginary injuries." [7] [8]. In a 1 February 2005 radio interview, Jeambar and Leconte described the original reports that Israelis shot al-Durrah as "false"; Jeambar explained that 24 minutes of the footage consisted of nothing but Palestinian youths faking being wounded and then running off, and ambulances evacuating uninjured people. [9]
In October 2005, journalists Denis Jeambar and Daniel Leconte met with France 2 Arlette Chabot to review the complete film. They later stated that the "unbearable" images of al-Durrah's "death throes" do not exist. They also noted that in the 27 minutes of tape "Palestinians seem to be organizing a staged event. They 'play' at war with the Israelis and simulate, in most of the cases, imaginary injuries." [13][14]. The Mena news agency immediatly published articles alleging that the journalists had proved that the images were a "gross staging, aimed at demonizing Israel and the Israeli army." [15]. On the 2th of January 2005, in Le Figaro [16],[17],

Denis Jeambar and Daniel Leconte published a vigourous response indicating that, although questions were indeed raised as to why Enderlin accused the Israeli Army and made allusion to images showing the agony of the boy, the elements produced by France 2 did not allow to question the autenticity of the images: " To those, like the Mena, who wanted to use us to support the thesis of that the deaeth of the child was faked by the Palestinians, we say that they are misguided, and are misguiding their readers. Not only do we not share this point of view, but we affirm that by the knowledge of the file we have today, nothing allows to affirm this, much to the contrary."

Regarding who saw the film, Luc Rosenzweig, a former chief editor of Le Monde and one of Mena's contributors saw it along with Jeambar and Leconte. Mena's information is presumably from Rosenzweig. As for the article, the link is not restricted for me, but there are many more to the same article: here's one I found [[18]]. As for the changes, I'd like to move slowly, a paragraph at a time if you don't mind, and in my view would be a good idea to wait until you've been able to listen to the radio interview. Jayjg (talk) 17:48, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Oh, all right. I was just asking the question because Le Monde called him an "occasional" contributor to Mena, so I just wanted to be extra cautious about the "of the Mena" thing.
Yeah, it's exasperating this tendency that some newspapers have to restrict the content of their archive. I've the Google cache to be a way to go around the problem, but I'm not sure whether this is a lng-term solution :/
Yes, moving the paragraphs slowly seems wise, but on the other hand, the present state of the article is not representative of what's now documented here, so I wouldn't like to be too slow either.
As for the radio interview, I'll give it a try, but the links I've posted above don't suggest that something significantly new was said compared to the Figaro article. Anyway, better safe than sorry.
Cheers ! Rama 18:26, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I've been able to listen to the radio emission, but only partially because the file seems to be truncated (on the server, that is). Basically, it's a live version of the Figaro article. Interesting quotations I have noted :
"we were extremely troubled by what we saw [on the rush]" (Jeambar )
"[Arlette Chabot, director of the Information of France 2] has been perfectly fair play"
"this meeting was made public [by the Mena] (...) the investigation must be completed before you make a publication. You don't publish the intermediary steps of an investigation"
"France 2 has had verifications made by its correspondant and we were close to get conclusions"
"We wanted to be prisonners of nobody"
"We wanted to finish our investigation, which was not completed" (Leconte)
"[it turned out to result in] the 3-year old usual confrontation between the Mena and France 2
"you confirm that you do not endorse the thesis of the Mena that this was a staging and that the child did not die, but you say that a number of things were troubling, notably when Enderlin says that the child and his father are targets of fire coming from the Israeli lines" (the interviewer)
"Everybody agrees [that the boy was not killed by the IDF]"
"[about the people who say that the IDF hasn't been very clear about this:] The Israeli Army never answers to anything"
"In these rushes, for 24 minutes, you see only staging (...) such is the weapon of the weak ["weak" in the sense of "those who don't have stronger weapons", not "those who are morally weak"]" (though they later mention one particular case of a man wounded at the leg, saying they can see the blood)
"The father wears a t-shirt on which no trace of blood can be seen, and he was later re-filmed to show the impacts corresponding to the wounds which can be seen later at the Hospital" (not very clear what he means by this)
The file ends with them commenting on Enderlin saying that he cut the "unbearable agony" of the child; they say that they didn't see this.
So here we are...
Oh by the way, Slimvirgin, about the "manipulated" thing, I see what you mean, but don't forget I am the one who translated the thing. I privileged a rather litteral translation whenever possible, but it is very possible that the nuances would not be exactly the same. So here, I don't know whether "manipulate images" in English means something like "edit the images"; in French, in this context, it is absolutely not this sense: it means "used in a tendencious manner" (like you "manipulate" somebody to make him do what you want without his agreement). So they do make a strong statement, but they don't suggest that the film was edited.
Given these elements, and now that the radio show has been examined, I suggest we review the paragraphs corresponding to the latest developments in priority, since they are not, in their present state, conforming with the statements of the journalists. Rama 08:48, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Latest edits

Unfortunately the latest edits appear to be attempts to delete information that is relevant, while adding verbiage that is not beneficial to English readers. Please come here to discuss. Jayjg (talk) 14:59, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

See the diff:

  • In October 2005, journalists Denis Jeambar, Daniel Leconte and Luc Rosenzweig (a former chief editor of Le Monde and Metula News Agency contributor)
  • In October 2005, journalists Denis Jeambar, Daniel Leconte and Luc Rosenzweig (the later a former chief editor of Le Monde and presently Metula News Agency)

Denis Jeambar andDaniel Leconte are not empoyed by Le Monde, and do not contribute to the Mena.

This is quite clear to an English speaker; the original wording does no imply (in English) that Jeambar and Leconte contribute to Mena etc. Jayjg (talk) 15:16, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Jeambar and Leconte also refuted Enderlin's longstanding explanation of why the footage of the killing was brief and apparently truncated. Jeambar and Leconte stated that the "unbearable" images of al-Durrah's "death throes" simply do not exist.
  • Jeambar and Leconte stated that the "unbearable" images of al-Durrah's "death throes" do not exist.

What does the second sentance is equivalent to the first, only more precise. As for the "simply", I cannot see it adding anything more than connotation --not information.

I've re-worded again; the point is made most clearly this way. Jayjg (talk) 15:16, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • However, Jeambar and Leconte indicated that, although questions were indeed raised as to why Enderlin accused the Israeli Army of shooting the boy, and spoke of images showing his agony, the film produced by France 2 did not allow one to conclude they were entirely fake
  • However, Jeambar and Leconte indicated that, although questions were indeed raised as to why Enderlin accused the Israeli Army of shooting the boy, and spoke of images showing his agony, the film produced by France 2 did not allow one to conclude that the death of the boy was a forgery

"They" ? What "they" ? There's not even a plural subject in the sentance which matches this ! The thing which is discussed here is the death of the little boy. The Mena say that it was all staged. The journalists say that the death of the boy was genuine, and was in a context of other people playing a "media war". "Not entirely fake" gives an impression that the death of the boy still is at least partly a forgery, a theory that noone (including the IDF) seems to hold, apart from a very vocal news agency.

I've re-worded in a way that is gramatically better in English. Jayjg (talk) 15:16, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • radio interview Jeambar and Leconte described the original reports that Israelis shot al-Durrah as "false"; Jeambar explained that 24 minutes of the footage consisted of nothing but Palestinian youths faking being wounded and then running off, and ambulances evacuating uninjured people.
  • They confirmed their views in a radio interview on the Jewish radio station RCJ on the 1st of February

Factually true but partial (they also reaffirm that the film was genuine) and redundant with what was said before. "they confirmed".

Rama 15:11, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You've deleted important statements they made in the interview about the contents of the missing film. Please stop doing so. Jayjg (talk) 15:16, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I would have though that "Instead they noted that in the 27 minutes of tape "Palestinians seem to be organizing a staged event" made the information available. I recognise that the last part is a little bit more precise -- now the matter is that these two are not joined... but well, fair enough. I just their confirmation that the death itself was genuine -- they mention this too in the interview.
I was thinking, don't you feel that the section about al-Durrah is a little bit lengthly and not exactly in the topic ? Perhaps we might want to created a "al-Durrah" article, or merge this into the "al-Durrah" article, while of course keeping a reference here... Rama 15:33, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
You're probably right. Much of this material is duplicated in the al-Durrah article. I'll see what I can do about making sure the al-Durrah article matches the information here, and then propose (in Talk:) a slimmed down text for this article, focussing on Enderlin's role. What do you think? Jayjg (talk) 16:00, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it sound very reasonable to me. I just hope that the (hypotetic) merging won't be too difficult -- I mean, the subject is sensitive, and it's easy to misunderstand the edits of another user... for instance the crafting of the present version of this page was, I think, quick, efficient and relatively painless, thanks notably to your suggestion to compare the diff. I hope it'll be as clean there. Cheers ! Rama 16:14, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

O.K., I've incorporated everything here into Muhammad al-Durrah. I'll try to work on a draft of the section in this article today, and will propose it here once I'm done. Jayjg (talk) 15:50, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, thanks very much. I've had a quick review at the Muhammad al-Durrah page, it would seem that the work the we have done here will be quite useful :) Auto-congratulation time everybody ! Rama 16:24, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed re-write of al-Durrah section

I re-wrote this on Monday, but then Wikipedia went down, and my edits were lost. Here's my second try. This section focusses on Enderlin, his involvement, and reactions to him, as opposed to the al Durrah article, which focusses more on the events themselves. I've tried to duplicate as little information as possible in both articles. Jayjg (talk) 16:12, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Muhammad al-Durrah controversy

In autumn 2000, pictures of the young Muhammad al-Durrah, shot dead during a firefight between the Israel Defense Force and Palestinian activists, appeared on French television. In Enderlin's commentary on the images, which had been taken by Talal Abu Rahma, a Palestinian cameraman on Enderlin's team, he stated that al-Durrah had been killed by the Israeli troops, and he became the target of a "campaign of harassment" [19].

On the Internet, French-language websites accused Enderlin of having doctored the images of al-Durrah's death. The Ligue de Défense Juive (Jewish Defense League, an extremist movement banned in Israel) called for a "demonstration against France 2 lies". Other websites made explicit reference to physical violence. For example, the website www.amisraelhai.org published a list of "bad Jews to be re-educated with baseball bats". Several Jewish organizations awarded Enderlin the "Goebbels Prize" for disinformation. See "notes" below for a list of these organizations.

The IDF initially declared it was probably responsible for al-Durrah's death, but a comprehensive IDF investigation released November 27, 2000 reached different conclusions, stating "A comprehensive investigation conducted in the last weeks casts serious doubt that the boy was hit by Israeli fire," he said. "It is quite plausible that the boy was hit by Palestinian bullets in the course of the exchange of fire that took place in the area." Later investigations came to similar conclusions.

These investigations, and several emerging facts, raised further questions about Enderlin's commentary on the images. The film was about 27 minute long, of which only about 55 seconds were made public (about three minutes and 26 seconds were later released to the Israeli army). Asked why only this short portion was shown, Enderlin told the French monthly Télérama, in October 2000: "I cut the child's death throes. It was too unbearable". However, in late 2004 Enderlin told Télérama magazine that there had been a "misunderstanding," that he had meant to use the word "agony" to describe the scene of the shooting of Mohammed al-Durra. [20]

In October 2004, journalists Denis Jeambar, Daniel Leconte and Luc Rosenzweig (a former chief editor of Le Monde and currently a Metula News Agency contributor) met with Arlette Chabot of France 2 to review the complete film. After the viewing, on October 22, 2004, the Metula News Agency repeated earlier claims that the incident had been staged.[21] [22]

On January 25, 2005, in Le Figaro,[23] [24] Jeambar and Leconte (like Rosenzweig) refuted Enderlin's longstanding explanation of why the footage of the killing was brief and apparently truncated, stating that the "unbearable" images of al-Durrah's "death throes" did not exist. Instead they noted that in the 27 minutes of tape "Palestinians seem to be organizing a staged event. They 'play' at war with the Israelis and simulate, in most of the cases, imaginary injuries."[25] [26] However, Jeambar and Leconte indicated that, although questions were indeed raised as to why Enderlin accused the Israeli Army of shooting the boy, and spoke of images showing his agony, the film produced by France 2 did not allow one to conclude that the death of the boy was faked. They repeated these statements in later interviews on radio,[27] and with CNSnews. [28] Leconte took Enderlin and France 2 to task for not admitting what he insisted was an error in attributing guilt to the Israeli army: "Who will say it, I don't know, but it is important that Enderlin or France 2 should say, that on these pictures, they were wrong - they said things that were not reality." Leconte also insisted that the fact that Enderlin did not provide an explanation to Leconte and Jeambar's revelations in Le Figaro indicated that his and Jeambar's points were indisputable, stating "Enderlin would be better off recognizing it. That would resolve at least one part of the debate".

On February 10, 2005, in an online discussion forum for Le Nouvel Observateur news magazine, Enderlin was asked how he would describe the same video images today. He replied that he would say the same things, but that in the editing process he would include footage of the "child's agony," seemingly contradicting his late 2004 clarification to Télérama. During the first edit, Enderlin said, the video in question was "cut considerably at the time because it made the report too hard."

In response in Le Figaro to the question posed by Leconte and Jeambar about why he accused the Israelis of the shooting, Enderlin said "the image corresponded to the reality of the situation, not only in Gaza but also in the West Bank." However, Leconte's vehement reply was "I find this, from a journalistic point of view, hallucinating. That a journalist like him (Enderlin) can be driven to say such things is very revealing of the state of the press in France today". [[29]

[edit] Intro

I do not really wish to enter this (non)controversy right now, but the intro should clearly state from the beginning that he was accused of making a fake, first by the Jewish Defense League, then by Denis Jeambar, etc., and then that he won in court a trial for defamation. The reader should get this basic information without having to read 45 lines, and any one familiar with the subject is surprised to see this most important information drowned in all of the pseudo-polemics (as hundreds arise every day). This is not the best use of Internet (don't misunderstand me: this does warrant an article, but the article should be well written). Maybe some one would be brave enough to take some time to make a resume in the intro. Cheers friends! Tazmaniacs 23:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)