Disputed 2nd Intifada affair resurges in French court, HuffPost

[Violet_Crumble]

Nearly 12 years later, the most indelible incident of the Second Intifada – in which Muhammad al Dura died in his father’s arms – is rehashed on the pages of the Huffington Post in an article that whitewashes the facts for the sake of saving Israel from bad publicity.

By Rechavia Berman

Something strange is going on over at The Huffington Post. The quasi-liberal answer to sites like Town Hall and Little Green Footballs ran a piece this week by an Israeli writer, Lilac Sigan, who pretended to give her readers a lesson in critical thinking and strict adherence to actual facts, however inconvenient they may be to one’s preconceived notions.

A laudable message, no doubt; it’s just a pity that Sigan’s actual words belied her purpose at every turn.

Sigan recounts a ruling by the French Supreme Court last week, and then proceeds to twist all but passing resemblance to the truth in order to paint Israel’s critics as fabricators of atrocities used to inflame passions against the country.

The facts, however – the very ones that Ms. Sigan so sarcastically waves as a flag of virtue – are in fact against her.

The erroneous “facts” Sigan was waving were based on a libel suit filed in France by Jamal al Dura, the father of 12-year old Muhammad Al-Dura, against an Israeli doctor, who called the said father a liar. The doctor was convicted in court of libel, but acquitted on appeal by the Supreme Court of France. Sigan took this acquittal to mean that the French court found Dr. David to be telling the truth and Mr. Al-Dura to be lying.

http://972mag.com/disputed-2nd-intifada-affair-resurges-in-french-court-huffpost/36721/

[azurnoir]

1. the salient point is here

I trust the gentle reader will not be too shocked to learn that this, in fact, is not the case. In fact, Ms. Sigan and Dr. David’s version of events was refuted very convincingly that very day by a rather unimpeachable source – an Israeli physician with higher standing than Dr. David, both medically and by Israeli security ratings. He is Dr. Rafi Walden, Deputy Director of the Sheba Medical Center and one of the personal physicians of a certain elder statesman named Shimon Peres (The First Citizen, aka President of the State of Israel).

So, on the one hand we have Dr. Walden, the second in command at Israel’s largest medical facility, and a man trusted enough by the establishment to treat the living embodiment of Israeli sovereignty. On the other hand we have Dr. David, who I’m sure is a competent enough physician in his own right, but evidently not as prominent professionally, nor as senior security-wise.

Dr. Walden states flatly that Dr. David’s testimony – according to which the injuries Mr. Al-Dura claimed to have sustained the day of his son’s death were actually sustained some years before, at the hands of Palestinians, treated by Dr. David himself – was false. Again: Dr. David’s statement, for which he was sued, was indeed false. The French Supreme Court did not contest this. It simply found that Dr. David wasn’t criminally liable for his erroneous statement, because he had reasonable cause to be misled. In other words, Dr. David may not know what he’s talking about, and may not have read the full Al-Dura medical file despite it being made available to him, a file which shows gunshot wounds which he did not treat back in 1992, and indications of surgery by doctors in Gaza and in Amman following the events of 2000. Dr. Walden, on the other hand, did read the 50-page file.

[shira]

2. The doctor was acquitted of slandering al Dura's father....

The doctor said that due to medical records he still had, Mr. al Dura was lying about his wounds being the result of the 2000 shooting.

The court judged that the doctor did not slander Jamal al-Dura.

Now what does that mean?

The logical conclusion is that Jamal al Dura lied. The court didn't make that ruling and neither did they say that the Doctor's claims were the truth, but the judgment certainly implies that. The doctor was also acquitted of violating patient confidentiality.

[azurnoir]

3. perhaps you need to actually read the article

it does answer your assertions