Sunday, June 18, 2006

Read German?

Try this, from the Süddeutsche Zeitung:

Warum kam Harbed nicht auf die Idee, die hysterische Huda zu beruhigen, anstatt sie minutenlang mit seiner Kamera zu verfolgen? Harbed sagt: „Sie hat mich gebeten, sie zu filmen. Sie wollte mit ihrem Vater gesehen werden und der Welt zeigen, welche Verbrechen Israel begeht.“ Die in Trauer aufgelöste zehnjährige Huda, die eben sieben Familienmitglieder verloren hat, soll Harbed Regieanweisungen erteilt haben?

Or, in other words:
Why didn't it occur to Harbed [the photographer] to comfort the hysterical Huda, instead of following her for minutes with his camera? "She ordered me to film her. She wanted to be seen with her Father, to exhibit to the whole world the crimes Israel had committed." The ten-year old Huda, hysterical, in tears, is supposed to have been giving camera directions to Harbed?

I shall try to translate the whole article later (today is o-Bon, I'm going to the Buddhist temple this afternoon) but that gives you an idea ... and asks an interesting question.


ambisinistral said...

A translation of the article will be interesting. Here is an English language article discussing the article.

buddy larsen said...

I wondered about that clip as it played across the networks. There were at least two changed camera angles, meaning the child's hysteria peaked for an extended duration, during which the cameraman made several moves and re-setups. I couldn't help but think of the highly-suspect "Israeli crossfire" incident at the front of the Second Intifada, with the kid and dad "shown" trapped near a street corner and getting shot up.

David Thomson said...

This is likely only a scam to slander Israel. The gullible MSM perceives the Palestinians to be brown skinned victims of Western imperialism. Anything they say must be true.

terrye said...

How many video cameras per capita are there in the Middle East anyway?

buddy larsen said...

How many are BUILT there--outside of Israel, that is?

Funny, if the Palis would just stop firing those Kassam missiles into Israeli villages, then they wouldn't need so many videocams.

MeaninglessHotAir said...

The gist of the article, very loosely translated, is:
the pictures of the 10-year-old consumed by sadness after the death of most of her family have taken the world by storm. But the Israeli army has film immediately before and after which indicates that 5 of the 6 grenades they fired landed 250 meters away. What happened to the 6th? The Palestinians claimed it hit the family; the Israelis claim that it was lost and "impossible" that it hit the family. As additional evidence, they say that metal shards taken from the victims are of a sort which could not have come from the Israeli armament. In the face of contradictory evidence, the original pictures take on a greater importance. Upon closer examination they are fishy for a number of reasons. The photographer's story doesn't quite add up. The more the Sueddeutsche Zeitung asked him questions the dodgier he became. Why don't the Palestinian authorities bring forth the shards to prove their case? Why is the news-agency responsible for the pictures suddenly grasping its rights firmly, instead of allowing the widest dissemination?