Mode d'emploi
Lire Derrida, L'Œuvre à venir, suivre sur Facebook Le cinéma en déconstruction, suivre sur Facebook


                            NIVEAUX DE SENS :

Les collectes de l'Orloeuvre
Le statut de victime                     Le statut de victime
Sources (*) : On n'arrête pas l'angoisse               On n'arrête pas l'angoisse


La mort supposee de Mohammed Al Dura (Talal Abou Rahmeh, 2000) -

La mort de Mohammed Al Dura (cameraman : Talal Abou Rahmeh, 2000)



Il s'agit d'un film de 27 minutes, dont moins d'une minute portant sur Mohamed et son père, réduits la plupart du temps à une seule image dans la presse, dans son utilisation politique ou dans l'oeuvre de Pascal Convert. Quelle image? Le titre, La mort de Mohammed Al Dura évoque celle qui manque, ici la quatrième, au moment où le père et le fils auraient reçu des balles, image blanche, vide, désorientée. Dans une histoire qui ne peut être racontée que dans la durée, on voit la crainte, l'effroi, et ensuite l'enfant bizarrement couché comme s'il dormait, et le temps de l'impact, on ne le voit pas. Ni le père ni le fils ne sont ensanglantés; l'impact des balles, sur le mur, est déjà là quand ils sont encore vivants.

Reprenons. Un homme protège son fils de tirs qui viennent d'un endroit vers lequel il se tourne avec inquiétude, vers sa gauche. Il jette un coup d'oeil en face de lui, vers le cameraman qui le filme. Si le gamin a été tué, d'où sont partis les tirs? On n'arrive pas à comprendre comment il a pu passer de la position blottie derrière son père à cette position couchée. S'il cherchait une protection, pourquoi se serait-il jeté en avant sur les jambes de son père?

Le film, ici représenté par un photogramme simplifié, concentre toutes les ambiguités de la photographie de presse. On ne connaît pas les circonstances. Les indices que l'image propose sont ambigus. Si l'enfant a été tué, l'a-t-il été par des balles perdues palestiniennes? Rien n'empêche de le penser - ce qui n'atténue pas l'intensité du drame.

Published: 11/15/2007

Never-before-seen footage of the Mohammed al-Dura shooting raises additional questions about the iconic incident. The raw footage was shown Thursday in a French courtroom.

France 2 TV had been ordered in September by a Paris court to show raw footage of the 2000 shooting of al-Dura, a 12-year-old Palestinian, in the Gaza Strip as part of the appeal of a case against Philippe Karsenty, the head of a small watchdog group named Media Ratings.

Karsenty had accused France 2 of airing what amounted to a staged shooting of a Palestinian by Israeli troops, which quickly became an iconic symbol of Israeli brutality against Palestinians and helped unleash an international wave of hatred against Israel.

France 2 successfully sued Karsenty for defamation, but Karsenty appealed the decision.

The court, which saw only 18 of the 27 minutes of raw footage, was packed with supporters of Karsenty and the France 2 TV correspondent who filed the original report, Charles Enderlin.

The footage showed al-Dura lying motionless and apparently dead in the arms of his father after supposedly being shot. Seconds later, it shows the boy lifting his arm and peering through his fingers at the camera.

Karsenty said the footage proves his case and that the boy was not killed by Israeli soldiers -- and may not even be dead.

"How much longer will French politicians and media bosses continue covering up for France 2 and for Enderlin?" he told JTA. "The claims of al-Dura's death have now become ridiculous."

A decision is expected at the next court hearing, scheduled for Feb. 24.

Controversy over iconic images of Palestinian deaths ends up in court

Editing of video sequence showing death of father and son at issue as court hears appeal over defamation verdict

From Hugh Schofield In Paris


A PARIS court last week saw vital new evidence in a media libel case that centres on one of the most iconic - and distressing - pieces of international television footage of recent times.

In September 2000, pictures of 12-year-old Mohammed al-Durra cowering with his father during a shoot-out in Gaza, then dying from his wounds, became for many a potent symbol of Israeli brutality.

In the Muslim world the image appeared on monuments and postage stamps, and streets were named after the dead boy.

 But in France a self-styled media-watcher has been waging a relentless campaign to have the story branded a fake. Last year Philippe Karsenty was sued for libel by France 2, whose Jerusalem correspondent Charles Enderlin made the al-Durra broadcast.

Karsenty lost, but he immediately lodged an appeal. The case reopened on appeal in October and last week the court was allowed a first glance at something which Karsenty says clinches his argument: the raw footage or "rushes" of the original incident.

For both sides, the stakes are huge. For Karsenty - whose numerous Jewish and Israeli supporters swarm over the blogosphere - the pictures have to be exposed as fakes because of the enormous damage they have done. "People have died because of these images," he says.

But Enderlin insists that the scene at the Netzarim junction was witnessed by his Palestinian cameraman Talal Abu-Rahma, and that honest journalistic standards were followed throughout. He says pressure from the pro-Israeli lobby over the affair is intended to intimidate foreign journalists when it comes to future sensitive cases.

The al-Durra footage has already been the object of lengthy analysis, after the Israeli authorities first appeared to apologise for the boy's death but later retracted. According to a military committee set up to investigate, the father and son's position, behind a concrete cylinder, meant they could not have been hit by Israeli soldiers.

What became known as the "minimalist" version of events had it that the al-Durras were hit accidentally by fire from Palestinian positions. Subsequently, a "maximalist" version also began to circulate on pro-Israeli websites. According to this, the whole incident was a staged set-up and the boy did not even die.

The raw images of the incident were not screened at the original libel trial, so there was considerable anticipation at last Wednesday's hearing at the Paris central courthouse. There was some surprise that the "rushes" did not last the full 27 minutes as originally reported, but only 18.

According to Enderlin, who was in court, this was because the original cassette had been transferred at the time to a master copy in accordance with standing practice, and several minutes of uninteresting material had been wiped. The Karsenty camp, meanwhile, contends that evidence may have been destroyed.

The rest of the footage contains many minutes of standard intifada street ballet before settling on the father and son. According to Karsenty, several observations support his fraud theory. First, there is no sign of blood, and second, there are only a handful of impacts on the wall - despite the cameraman's claim that there were 45 minutes of continuous gunfire.

But the most startling new evidence to emerge is that at the moment when millions of television viewers were led to believe Mohammed al-Durra had died, the boy was in fact alive. The last frames - which come after the heart-rending sequence that concluded the broadcast version - show him lifting his arm and looking towards the camera.

What this proves is, of course, open to endless interpretation. The fact he moved does not mean Mohammed al-Durra did not subsequently die, and no evidence has ever been produced to suggest he is alive. And if he died, the arguments over who shot him remain unchanged.

But the importance may be greater for the actual libel case, which centres on Karsenty's charge that the report "disgraces France and its public broadcasting system".

If the judge thinks Enderlin played fast and loose with journalistic rules in order to make his report more dramatic, he could well decide Karsenty has a case.

Would a more truthfully edited version of story have had the same momentous fallout around the world? The court gives its judgement in February.


Recherche dans les pages indexées d'Idixa par Google



Création : Guilgal



Marque déposée

INPI 07 3 547 007






zi.2000.Abouramé.TalRang = YW.PAL
Genre = MK - NP