.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Emet m'Tsiyon

Thursday, June 05, 2008

The Intensity of Propagation and Gramscian "Hegemony" of the Al-Durah Hoax Deceive Even Those of Good Will

A rather good Wall Street Journal editorial of 5-27-2008, shows that even those with good intentions get taken in by the al-Durah myth. The Journal writes that:

The iconic image of the terrified child crouching behind his father helped sway world opinion against the Jewish state and fueled the last Intifada.
If we actually look at the film we see that the boy is crouching in front of his father. The father is next to the wall. The boy is more exposed than the father is to shooting coming from anywhere on a 180 degree arc [that is, within a semi-circle] based on the outermost point of the barrel and on a vertical plane parallel to the wall. This mistake by even a fair-minded observer shows how the myth created by Gaza Arab cameraman Talal Abu Rahma, by France2 correspondent Charles Enderlin, and by countless Islamic jihadist and pro-Arab Western propagandists ["journalists"] has the power to cause the highly visible empirical fact that the boy crouches in front of his father to be overlooked in the general gestalt view that the saintly father was trying to protect his martyred son. If anything, the boy is shielding his father. Here we have more testimony to the power of suggestion in a situation of ongoing indoctrination and emotion.

for more on the al-Durah Hoax or l'Affaire al-Dourah, see the foregoing post.
- - - - - - -

Coming: the anti-Jewish racism of the "peace process," more on Zionist activists and other Jews in the Armenian genocide, propaganda, peace follies, Condi Rice's anti-Israel Bigotry, etc.

Labels: , , ,


  • The boy is of course more exposed than the father, but he is still crouching behind him.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 2:20 PM  

  • anon,
    when I say "behind," I mean looking from the direction of the camera. From the camera's direction, the father is behind the boy.

    My point here was that the father was not protecting the boy, if anything, the reverse was true, the boy was shielding him --from the direction of the camera, which, I believe, was also the direction that the bullets were coming from. Photos of the wall with the bullet holes were enlarged by the Israeli phyysicist, Nahum Shahaf. These photos show that the bullet holes are perpendicular to the wall. That means that they were coming from the general direction of the camera or maybe the shooter was behind the cameraman in the same line as he was. The bullets were not meant to kill but to be part of the show and you may note that the bullet holes are on the wall above both father and son. These are indications of the fake nature of the alleged episode.

    Furthermore, the fact that the boy is more exposed than the father indicates that the father does not deserve credit for protecting his son, as the conventional al-Durah Myth has it.

    By Blogger Eliyahu m'Tsiyon, at 3:09 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home