Saken om hvorvidt historien om 12 år gamle Mohamed al Dura er tidenes mediemanipulasjon ruller videre. Nå har en israelsk lege stått frem og fortalt at skadene som guttens far har vist frem på TV, stammer fra en skade i 1992 som legen behandlet i 1994.
Da ballen begynte å rulle om at saken er manipulert, laget den samme palestinske fotografen som filmet al Dura i 2000, en sak om farens skader. Men det som ble vist frem i 2004-filmen til Talal Abu Rahma var de samme skadene som den israelske legen hadde behandlet.
Denne filmen fikk to franske journalister som hadde sett råfilmen fra 2000 og konkludert med at hverken faren eller gutten ble såret, til å endre syn.
Nidra Poller følger saken fra Paris:
The wounds purportedly sustained on September 30 2000 by Jamal al Dura «target of gunfire from the Israeli positions»—in the words of France 2 bureau chief Charles Enderlin—were in fact incurred in 1992. Jamal, identified as the father of the shahid [martyr] Mohamed al Dura, is one of the two living witnesses to the incident that triggered the «Al Aqsa Intifada.» The al Dura news report has been the subject of controversy for seven years.
Philippe Karsenty, who is appealing his 2006 defamation conviction—for declaring on his Media-Ratings site that the al Dura news report was a blatant fake—obtained medical records proving that Jamal’s wounds were treated by an Israeli surgeon in 1994. Now the surgeon, Yehuda David, has confirmed this information on a December 12 newscast on Israel’s Arutz 10 TV. Jean Tsadik of Metula News Agency resumed the Hebrew-language newscast for French-speaking readers.
According to the Metula release, Jamal al Dura declared on medical records in 1992 that Palestinian militia had attacked him with axes. Doctors at Gaza’s Shifa Hospital* were able to save his life but he lost the use of his right hand because they could not repair a ruptured tendon in the forearm. Palestinian doctors referred Jamal to Tal Hashomer hospital in Tel Aviv in March 1994. Dr. Yehuda performed reconstructive surgery, grafting a tendon taken from the foot, and restoring almost normal use of the hand. The medical record of that operation also refers to the removal of «foreign bodies,» suggesting that other instruments besides axes were used in the 1992 attack.
Alerted by the Ména [Metula News Agency] to the film of Jamal’s wounds produced in 2004 by Talal Abu Rahma at the demand of France 2 news director Arlette Chabot, to silence investigators, Dr. Yehuda and his colleagues declare that the scars shown in that film were incurred in 1992 and result from axe blade wounds and definitely not from gunshot. They are ready and willing to testify to this in any court.
The Metula release promises further revelations in the near future.
Pajamas Media will try to solicit reactions from French journalists Denis Jeambar and Daniel Leconte who were granted the exceptional privilege, in 2004, of viewing a bit over 20 minutes of raw footage filmed by Talal Abu Rahma at Netzarim Junction in the Gaza Strip on September 30, 2000. After publicly declaring that there was no evidence in the footage to sustain the accusation that Jamal and his son Mohamed were hit by Israeli gunfire, they backed off from the controversy. Convinced by the film of Jamal’s wounds, produced expressly to spin their almost courageous conclusions, they opted for the crossfire explanation of the unfortunate incident.
The day after the alleged shooting Jamal, filmed on his hospital bed wrapped up in bloody bandages, described the ordeal in a critically wounded voice. A few weeks later, in an Israeli TV interview, he declared plaintively, with his hand resting on a crutch, that the Israelis fired at him and his son for 45 minutes, clearly recognizing them as innocent civilians.
Now we learn that Jamal used the arm restored by Israeli surgeons to act out the blood libel that provoked the murderous rage that killed countless Israeli civilians, including courageous doctors who had treated Palestinians with the same generosity he experienced.