Journal for the Study of Antisemitism

2009] BETRAYING TRUTH 173
film by Abu Rahmeh, he concluded that the whole scene must have been
staged. 130
All those present at the original screening agreed that, while it was
impossible to determine precisely where the bullets had come from, it was
highly unlikely that they could have been fired from the Israeli garrison.
Further, what had been described as the child’s “unbearable agony” was
nowhere to be seen: a logical conclusion was that, rather than having been
edited out, it simply did not exist. 131
On May 21, 2008, the appellate court handed down its decision, noting
ruling. It noted “inexplicable inconsistencies and contradictions in the
explanations by Charles Enderlin” (whose appearance in court had been his
first sworn testimony in the matter). Judge Laurence Trebucq concluded
that Karsenty had not defamed France 2. On the contrary, the accumulated
evidence of multiple documentaries, articles, and books had proven that–in
the process of broadcasting a story that shocked and incited much of the
world–a veteran journalist, his cameraman, and a prestigious French media
institution had demonstrated gross dereliction and dishonesty. 132
The court had seen the un-broadcast footage from Netzarim Junction
showing Palestinian Arabs staging injuries, faking falls, and racing ambulances
to bogus rescues. It noted contradictions and omissions concerning
the Israeli military’s line of fire in relation to the al-Duras’ location, as well
as visible movement by the boy after he was pronounced dead. It questioned
the provenance of the injuries to the father, and the absence of blood
in the wake of ostensibly blistering gunfire. And it referred to Enderlin’s
repeated claim that he had cut the last seconds of footage of the boy’s death
to spare audiences from witnessing his final bloody “agony.” 133
The court concluded that Karsenty had acted in good faith as a media
commentator and that, although the hoax could not be definitively proven,
he had presented a “coherent body of evidence.” 134 Karsenty had won his
appeal, but the journalistic war was far from over. Despite the clarity and
definitiveness of the court’s ruling, the press rallied around Enderlin. In
less than a week, a petition on his behalf appeared in Le Nouvel
Observateur, a prominent French newsmagazine, which called Karsenty’s
130. See Backrounder: Muhammad al-Dura, C.A.M.E.R.A., available at http://
www.camera.org/index.asp?x_article=855&x_context=3
131. Id.
132. Moutet, note 124.
133. “I edited out the child’s agony. It was unbearable. . .It would not have added
anything.”
See Andrea Levin, “The Silence of the Times,” Jerusalem Post, July 10, 2008.
134. Karsenty v. Enderlin, supra note 124.