I have avoided the Mohammed al-Durra story throughout this blog's short life, mainly because I have never viewed it (the story that Israeli troops killed al-Durra) as being legitimate. Pallywood-style fake deaths are nothing new to those who follow the coverage of Israel in the MSM, and supporters of Israel have learned that the MSM takes as gospel truth anything that is said and shown to them by the Palestinians. The al-Durra blood libel was just one more of those stories, in my mind.
That said, I SHOULD have paid more attention to this story, if only because of the hold it still has on the public's imagination. Mohammed al-Durra has become an iconic figure in the Muslim world (as well as in Europe, where people apparently still love to believe in a good yarn about those EEEEEEEVVVVVVVVVVIIIIIIIIIILLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL Jews). The story that he was shot by Israeli troops stubbornly persists, though increasingly large cracks are appearing in the official version of the story, as propagated by France 2, the official French television network. Charles Enderlin, the journalist who narrated the report which first accused Israel of killing al-Durra, now has considerable egg on his face after a French appellate court vindicated blogger Phillipe Karsenty, who had accused Enderlin of fabricating a hoax. Enderlin then sued Karsenty for defamation, and won a symbolic victory at the trial court level. Rather than pay, Karsenty appealed, and he won big time: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121183795208620963.html?mod=djemEditorialPage.
Charles Enderlin has now appealed this decision to France's highest court. If he wins, you can be sure that it will be splashed across the front pages of newspapers across the West and the Arab World. If he doesn't, you can be sure that the decision will receive the same amount of attention that Karsenty's victory received, which is to say, none. Can't let a good blood libel die easily now, can we?