Thursday, June 19, 2008
Larry Derfner can't quite bring himself to fill the hole he's dug himself into by just admitting he was wrong, and that his instinct concerning being a good leftist is that he has to stand against anything anyone who he perceives as being on the right believes in hasn't served him well in this case. First he called names on the skeptics who believe in the Al Dura Hoax as hoax (see: Rattling the Stooge), now he's got a follow-up which a close reading will show represents slight climb-down -- as much as his ego will allow. It reminds me of that episode of Happy Days where Fonzie couldn't ever quite admit that he was wrr...rrr...rrr...wrong. If anything, the comments to this latest installment, Get real about Muhammad al-Dura, are even more scornful of the author than the original, if that's even possible.
Richard Landes has already reposted with a note from Esther Schapira, one of the "highly respected, disinterested journalists" Derfner relies upon in order not to have to face the more disturbing (to him) truth, wherein she states, in part: "Indeed even in 2001 I already came across a number of interesting hints indicating that the so called 'killing of Mohammed Al Durah' might be a Palestinian propaganda fabrication."
Read the rest at Richard's posting: Esther Schapira’s Statement of the Question of Staging. He also promises a full fisking.
The trouble with Derner's middle ground (the Palestinians probably killed the boy by accident in the crossfire) is that, to me, if you look at the maps, it may make the least sense. There's no Palestinian position from which the angle makes sense that they would be firing at the Israelis and accidentally hit the Al Duras, unless they were shooting through the wall (impossible).
Update 6/20: Richard has posted his lengthy fisking of Derfner's article (good Lord, Richard!): Derfner tries again: A for effort, C- for analysis. He also links to John Rosenthal's piece at PJM: Omerta and the European MSM: Rosenthal on the Al Durah Case
good point which you make more succinctly than i do in my lengthy response to derfner. basically that's the weirdest part of the story: what are the Palestinians shooting at the wall for? There are only Palestinians anywhere near there.
There's no Palestinian position from which the angle makes sense ...
Sol,
When one tries to untangle the "logic" behind this case one must realise that that a clan based culture perfused with Islamic dogma and "1001 Nights" is going to produce a far from rational thought process with regard to the Western secular mental capacity if we persist in Photoshopping their vision to try and fit our ocular capacity which parameters have been fashioned over millenia.
Their capacity for Machiavellian schemes leaves the mind boggling. Splice that with the honour/shame impetus and a bag full of excuses to rid one of any guilt feelings and we get a horrifying example of Homo sapiens.
Surely by now having seen the ease with which they, be they Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad etc., can sacrifice their own, mainly in the form of human shields, even for propaganda purposes, should rid us of the notion that such acts are impossible.
Just a thought, a possible hypothesis: Jamal, the father was already badly mauled by the thugs way back in the early 90s, as attested to by the Israeli Dr., and also for those concocting the whole thing still from the wrong clan so was abused again - a perfect scapegoat in their eyes. Probable? why not?