SMITTY’S CORNER : Starting an Intifada
Posted on Thursday, September 6, 2007
You most likely remember the graphic footage of an Arab man and his son, cowering behind a concrete barrel and wall. They were hiding from gunfire and, as news anchors breathlessly announced, the boy was killed. We were told that Israeli guards at a border post were responsible for this death, and the wounding of the father, despite please from an obviously unarmed man to stop firing.
This incident, the death of Mohamed Al Durah, helped spark the Second Intifada against Israel. Thousands have died because of it.
It was a hoax. It was set up for the single purpose of defaming Israel and her military. It worked better than expected because there are enough people in this world who hate Israel and are willing to believe any charge against her.
On Sept. 30, 2000, a CNN and France 2 TV photographer captured footage of Mohamed al Durah and his father cowering behind a concrete barrel. For 45 minutes they hid there, under constant small arms fire from soldiers at an outpost at the Netzarim Junction in the Gaza strip. After those 45 minutes of gunfire, the France 2 Jerusalem Bureau Chief, Charles Enderlin, hand delivered a 55 second clip to all the major networks he could find. Those are the 55 seconds we saw endlessly that September so long ago.
The world was outraged that Israeli soldiers would fire on an unarmed man and child for 45 minutes. That was the intent of the filmmakers.
It took a while but the questions finally began. The truth is finally starting to leak out, despite the best efforts of the French and others to hide it. The most obvious question concerned the 45 minutes of constant shooting before trained soldiers finally hit their target. That should strike anyone as questionable. Also of interest is the fact that in all of the film released to date, there are no pictures of Israeli soldiers firing on the Al Durahs. 45 minutes of shooting and not one second of who is doing the shooting. Suspicious to say the least.
Next was a little detail that just came out. That same Sept. 30 th, at that same outpost at the same Netzarim Junction, film crews patiently waited for the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF ) to open fire at the children who were throwing rocks and Molotov Cocktails at their guard shack. These "loveable little children"attacked both from street level and from buildings overlooking the outpost. Reuters and AP have three hours of footage without a single shot being fired. Now if those "evil IDF soldiers"were intent on killing a child, would not those out in the open, throwing Molotov Cocktails, been better and easier targets ? Yet not a shot was fired by the same soldiers accused of killing Al Durah.
Next it was pointed out that neither the boy nor his father showed any signs of bleeding after being shot. According to the news reports, young Al Durah was shot in the stomach with the round exiting his back. That is a messy, bloody wound. Yet not a drop is visible on the boy, his father, their clothing, the wall behind them or on the ground. The father claims to have been shot in the hand, arm, elbow and leg. His hip was also crushed somehow. With all these wounds, not a drop of blood can be seen.
Odd at the very least. Unbelievable to anyone who has ever dealt with wounds of any kind, including gunshot.
Then there is a bit of film in those 55 seconds so carefully released. Viewed in slow motion, at the end of the seventh segment of film clip (seven segments were edited together to make up the 55 seconds ) we see two fingers. Two fingers in the frame like that are the normal signal that this was "take two"of a scene in a film production. Again, very suspicious.
However, the "piece de resistance"as the French like to say, was three seconds of film, available on the Internet, which show the "dead boy"raising his elbow and right leg, then turning his head, he looks around and finally replaces his head and elbow in the "dead"position. The right leg he forgets to put back in the right spot. This takes place in the film after we are told that Al Durah has died from his wound. Those three seconds were not included in the 55 seconds made available to the world. The French claimed that they did not wish to show the trauma of the boy dying. However, in those three seconds, he clearly is not wounded, much less dying.
Who says there is no life after death ? Mohamed Al Durah managed to rise from the dead all on his own.
This hoax, in which French journalists played a prominent part, has resulted in the deaths of thousands and perpetration of numerous other hoaxes. These amount to nothing less than modern day blood libels against the Jews.
What do we learn from this ? To be very cautious in what we believe in "news stories"published by the French of the Palestinian Arabs. They have blood on their hands and lies on their lips. Be very suspicious.
From the Corner Booth, flags flying, praying for our troops,
God Bless America
© 2007 Smitty's Corner
FEEDBACK:
Something to say about this topic? Submit a Letter to the Editor online