AL-DURA: THE TRIAL (PART TWO)

The trial was almost the opposite of what I expected. I thought the issue was going to get laminated in legalese, evaporated in ennui, entangled, garbled, swallowed up under the high ceilings of the 17th Correctionel Chamber of the Tribunal de Grande Instance. No, it was a genuine debate conducted in a civilized manner by intelligent responsible citizens aware of the importance of every word they uttered. Except, of course, for the Plaintiff, France 2-Chabot-Enderlin, who apparently thought they could flitter through the court with the same arguments and the same methods they have been using for the past six years to cover up the cover up.

The presiding judge and his two associates (I’ll get the details straight tomorrow) were human, humane, attentive. Especially the judge. He listened attentively, smiled, put people at ease, engaged in no silly manners or intimidating attitudes. The prosecutor, was bright, forceful, and forthright. Her name is Madame Halimi-Selam (more on that later). If the judge follows her appreciation of the case, Karsenty will win. He is free to ignore her interpretations and recommendations but I don’t think he will.

I can’t save this anecdote for tomorrow: a journalist from Le Figaro said to a photographer sitting near him in the press box—the prosecutor looked at the case that way because she’s Jewish. I’ll find out his name tomorrow and tell you a bit more about him.

There were not many journalists in the courtroom, not many people in the audience…they don’t know what they missed.

It was a beautiful trial. It was held in an atmosphere of respect for justice. Karesenty’s lawyers presented solid arguments and four sincere witnesses. The al-Dura affair, which is so difficult and complicated, was presented in such a way that an outside could follow the arguments. My impression is that the judge started out with what I would call the James Fallows approach, a middle ground position safely installed in the reasonable zone. It is too radical to suggest that the Israelis killed the boy in cold blood, it is too extreme to suggest that the whole thing was a shoddy hoax, so it has to be that he was killed in a crossfire. Never mind that there IS NO CROSSFIRE in the death scene as filmed. So what’s so reasonable about dragging in all that ammunition and gunfire when in fact it is nowhere to be seen.

It is easier to see the hoax than the crossfire.

I think the judge was surprised to hear four different witnesses explain in four different ways how, as a result of extensive investigation and/or analysis they arrived at the conclusion that it was, in all probability, a hoax.

A judge who is not willing to learn stiffens when his position is challenged. And uses his power to stifle dissent. This judge listened. You could see in his eyes, in the expression on his face, that he was taking everything into consideration. Independently of the details of this particular case, whenever a lone individual is accused by an imposing national organism like France Télévisions, it is frightening. The court can take sides, can add its weight to the weight of the accusation, and crush the individual. Today, to my great surprise, I felt that I was in the presence of a commitment to justice.

Is it because this court hears so many cases involving freedom of speech, press freedom… Is there something of the dignity of literature at work? I’ll have to attend other trials to find out.

The court was divorced… I should say the court was above the atmosphere that reigns in French society today, in the media, in politics. That’s why I was so surprised. I felt like I was in the presence of a certain French decency that is hardly manifest anywhere else these days.

Next big surprise: the paucity of France 2’s arguments. Their lawyer, a slim racy woman with long thick white hair that she constantly coiffed and uncoiffed, ruffled, caressed, raised, lowered, and twisted with obvious pride, was seated about 2 meters away from me. I watched her working quite feverishly, shuffling papers, attaching post-its, scribbling notes, consulting with a colleague who looked more like a hatchet man than a partner in her law office, and in general giving the impression of someone who was preparing a whopper of a case.

When it was her turn to plead, she laid out the same tired non-explanations that France 2 and Enderlin have been giving for the past six years. It always begins with Charles Enderlin is a respected, experienced journalist, he has been Jerusalem correspondent for X years, he is Franco-Israeli, he has written books and won prizes…and it goes on to say how respectable is France 2, how devoted to excellence in journalism… Then she starts trashing everyone on the other side. Karsenty, his witnesses, his sources, their sources, the Israeli army investigators, the Metula News Agency…they are all low class, unreliable, unrespectable, dubious, bumbling fools if not outright conspirators.

All these droopy snoops have been dogging Charles Enderlin for six years. Enough already. Staged scenes in the outtakes? Perhaps, she says, but none of them were in the news report. (Assuming of course as given that the al-Dura scene was not staged). Besides—and this was the best of her low moments—a journalist from l’Express told her that in certain situations a person will lie down and play dead in order to save his life.

She accused Karsenty of making such a big noise about the al-Dura affair in this incriminated article that it went all the way to the Wall Street Journal and other such international media. What a disgrace, for France to be dragged through the mud that way. And she concluded that her client was asking for 1 euro of symbolic damages, and let this story be put to rest forever.

What astonished me is that France 2 dared to take someone to court over the al-Dura affair and not come up with a single new argument. Everything that was said in court had been said before. It was and still is utterly beside the point.
If what we saw in court was really the trial, France 2 lost. And will certainly appeal the judgment. The only thing that could tip the balance in their favor would be orders from above.

[Click here to read part 1]
[Click here to read part 3]
[Click here to read part 4]