In
English
Translated
from the French by Llewellyn Brown
About Medical Reports (3rd and final
part)
(info # 021310/8 EV) [analysis]
By Stéphane Juffa © Metula News Agency
Dr Walden’s Strange
Report
In order to protect Professor Raphael Walden’s private
life we have taken the liberty of effacing his address and his telephone
number, which in no way affects our enquiry
I have a very sincere admiration for Rafi
Walden, who is an exception person. And that is not a forced compliment
intended to balance the severe remarks I am about to write concerning his
report. These who doubt my sincerity can read my article (in French) Par
le mensonge et la manipulation that I devoted to him last May.
Nor am I about to discuss the medical relevance
of the content of Walden’s report. Firstly because I am not a doctor and I
would be afraid of appearing ridiculous, secondly, because the experts
contacted by the Ména are already at work, and we will shortly devote a
detailed analysis to this subject.
Besides, I am already far too busy with all the
comments that this report requires and that fall into my field of analysis, to
start dealing with things I do not know.
Fact: on
September 9 2008, that is to say almost eight years to the day after the
events, professor Walden wrote a medical report on the medical report of
the doctors from Al-Hussein Hospital, dated October 2000.
Not only is it a very belated initiative, it is
also a medical proceeding that calls for explanations. Was the initial report
incomplete? Were its Jordanian authors so incompetent that it was necessary to correct
them, in Tel-Aviv, eight years later? Were indispensable elements lacking in
the Jordanian report, which it was necessary to add? Did it contain erroneous
arguments that it was necessary to modify? Details that it was preferable to
delete?
And what a strange thing, for a blood specialist
to correct the work of bone experts in a case involving the reducing of
fractures. Having received so many justified compliments, did Rafi Walden
suddenly consider himself to be the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob?
And in all these cases, what got into the
professor? Who authorized him, Al-Hussein Hospital, Hippocrates himself or,
less gloriously, Charles Enderlin and France 2, thrown unceremoniously
into the ropes with no presentable arguments to defend their corrupt theory?
One thing is clear: if the Jordanian report had
suited Enderlin, he would have used it as was, he would not have ordered a
substitute.
Fact: The
Jordanian report is not originally written “in good English”, as Walden
testifies in writing. It suffices to turn back a few pages in this analysis to
see that it is in Arabic.
However if Rafi Walden, who, I repeat, is a
respectable man, believed that the English text that was given him was the
original report from Al-Hussein, someone made him believe that, someone hid the
report in Arabic from him.
Fact: The Walden
report bears no mention of the day in which Jamal “was showered with bullets”.
If the substitution of the Israeli professor’s report for the Jordanian one
only served to dissimulate that the original situates the events of September
29 at Netzarim, Walden’s contribution is already justified for Charles and his
gang.
Fact: The list of
wounds endured by Jamal is much more abundant and detailed in Walden’s report
than in the Jordanian one. We find 11 wounds listed in the Israeli’s report, as
compared to 5 in the original.
Where to this additions and this complementary
diagnostic come from, eight years after the events? Did Walden have access to other
sources, to other reports? Did he have the opportunity to examine Jamal A-Dura,
to speak to the doctors who treated him at Amman?
No, if we are to believe the professor’s
introductory declaration that asserts that his report “is based on the medical
report of the hospitalization at Al-Hussein Hospital in the Amman Medical
Complex on October 1st 2000”.
No once again, if we refer to the letter sent by
Charles Enderlin to Actualité juive: “this document” — that the
journalist of France 2 calls, hastily in our point of view, “the
Jordanian medical record” — “was submitted to Professor Raphael Walden
[…] Below is the report he [Walden] presented us, in English, and that you
may reproduce.”.
Enderlin sent these documents as an annex to Actualité
juive, and “the Jordanian medical record” is the one we reproduce in this
analysis.
All this leads us to believe that Rafi Walden
extrapolated on the basis of information and/or filmed documents that he was
provided with by Enderlin. The great specialist of vascular surgery seems to
have established a new medical record based on virtual elements, as a
replacement for work that was not done by the Jordanian doctors, eight years
after Jamal’s admission into the Jordanian hospital.
A Disturbing Fact: According to Palestinian medical sources, Jamal A-Dura was wounded
by 9 high velocity Israeli bullets. This information could be substantiated by
reading Walden’s report. Then, on November 18 2004, when Ms Chabot invited part
of the press to her informative meeting, precisely to provide “evidence”
that Jamal had been hit by Israeli bullets, she only showed pictures of Jamal’s
scars caused by the devastating axes that hacked into the Gazan in 1992.
The scars correspond, to the very centimeter, to
the wounds received in 1992 and the treatment given A-Dura by the surgeons
David and Rachmanov at Tel Hashomer Hospital in Tel-Aviv in 1994; all the
observations and the treatments appear, as a matter of course, with X-rays and
illustrations, in the Israeli medical record.
Apart from one wound whose origin is uncertain
and that will be discussed by the doctors we have questioned, Arlette Chabot
has presented no scar that could have been caused by one of the nine bullets
from the Israeli guns, and noted as being scars in the Jordanian report and
that of professor Walden.
If France 2 had attempted to demonstrate
to the medical community that all Jamal A-Dura’s wounds were caused by axe
cuts, and that they were noted and treated at Tel-Aviv, they would not have
gone about it any differently. It is true that when Talal Abu Rahma filmed
Jamal A-Dura in shorts in 2004, he could not film scars that were not on his
body.
Fact: By
demanding his right of reply to Actualité juive, Charles Enderlin
attempted to bluff, insisting on the real merits of professor Walden rather
than on the circumstances in which he wrote up his report.
Charles says of Professor Raphael Walden of Tel
Hashomer Hospital that he is a specialist of vascular surgery, a former
superior officer and personal doctor of the President of the State of Israel,
Shimon Peres. That is perfectly true, but the list of his principle activities
is not exhaustive and it is, moreover, of a nature to distort the information
given to the reader of this message.
Because one cannot mention Rafi Walden without
speaking of his activity in the “Association
of Physicians For Human Rights” [The link gives access to dozens of
articles concerning this association. Translator’s note]. Not that I consider, in
the least, that the activity of this association is not respectable. What I do
notice is that the “Association of Physicians For Human Rights”, or at least a
large number of its members, of which Walden, is very politically and
judicially committed in Israel. To omit the militant participation of Rafi
Walden in the enumeration of his activities can contribute to mislead the
public.
A public that is entitled to know that the
association professor Walden participates in contributed to instigate no less than
213 court cases over the last years. That it co-summonsed almost all the
institutions, all the civilian and military personalities of this country, from
the Health minister to the Labor minister, to the minister for Domestic
Affairs, without forgetting the commanding generals of the Southern and the
Central fronts, and the entire government of the Hebrew State.
Those who read Hebrew can consult the details
of all these court cases on the website of the Israeli Ministry of Justice.
One of the rare personalities to have ever been summonsed by Walden and
his friends is President Shimon Peres. Because the professor is his official
doctor, as Enderlin relates, or, perhaps, because he is his son-in-law? Rafi
Walden having married Tsvia Walden-Peres, daughter of the President and his
wife Sonia. Moreover Tsvia is a doctor of psycholinguistics, of recognized
talent.
These Broomsticks
who think they are Winchesters
What precedes corresponds to the preliminary
analysis that the Ména could undertake on the medical reports that
Enderlin pulled out of his top-hat.
One of our doctor friends commented them as
follows: “The Walden report resembles a report of admission to intensive care
and that of the Jordanians’, a letter of discharge. It is impossible to
consider that these two reports are based on the same observation. It is
impossible to accept that an Israeli professor of medicine could establish an
admission report without seeing the patient, his wounds, eight years after his
admission.
What is more, someone should show Enderlin what
a medical record looks like, in a modern hospital, for a patient who is so
grievously injured and exhaustively treated as Jamal. To claim that these two
documents represent the medical record of M. A-Dura is anything but serious.
Unless it is the record that is not serious.”
On this topic our correspondent in Amman
informed us that certain officials in the kingdom were furious about what he
had showed and explained to them, and that they were waiting to see if Enderlin
was going to produce the reports of the operations undergone by Jamal to decide
if there were grounds to open a judicial inquest. The suspicion: Palestinian
doctors of Al-Hussein hospital could have pulled the wool over the eyes of the
present monarch and exploited his presence at Jamal’s beside to accredit a
political staging.
At Metula we are cautiously pleased with these
reactions, we are preparing the next moves and we thank the physician Nahum
Shahaf for having entrusted us with the report of Jamal’s departures abroad. It
was Shahaf who discovered the incompatibility between the report that he was
given in 2000 by the army and the Walden report, concerning Jamal’s date of
arrival at the hospital in Amman.
As a matter of efficiency, we prefer that
firemen extinguish the fires, that bakers make bread and astronauts walk in
space. We are convinced that it is not enough to jot down personal ideas on a
website, to appropriate the Mena’s enquiries or steal its documents to
become an investigative journalist.
Professionalism in life would have avoided
spending one’s time gravitating between exaggerated euphoria and unjustified
depression. It would have avoided the UPJF the following foolish
remark:
The “report of the [Israeli] professor Raphael Walden
that establishes without any possible contestation, that Jamal al-Dura’s wounds
are authentic and serious.
So far no one has yet “publicly” dared revoke
his testimony into doubt.
I do not understand the meaning of “‘publicly’
revoke his testimony into doubt” [sic in French: “révoquer en doute”.
Translator’s note], but if it means refuting the Walden report, it seems that
it has now been done. Moreover I loved the “without any possible contestation”.
Time for those who claim to represent the Jewish
bosses and professionals of France to deal with questions they can master?
I also predict that we will see Karsenty-Landes swoop
down again on this enquiry undertaken by the Ména and act as if they had
just completed it?
Shlomo Malka, on RCJ [Radio Communauté Juive. A Jewish Parisian radio station. Translator’s note], Élisabeth Lévy,
on [radio] France-Inter, spoke about it, taking care not to mention that
we had undertaken it, requesting a guest unknown to us to defend what we had
written?
Innumerable community bloggers, industrious
rather than really correct, share the honors for the work we have accomplished.
One of the endemic evils of the French Jewish
institutional and media community is that scores of its broomsticks regularly
believe they are Winchesters. It remains that broomsticks cannot fire shots.
At the Ména we have no ambition to become
heroes or “Crusaders against a gross manipulation, distortion and
disinformation in the al-Dura case”, the title that we were awarded last June
by the Governing Committee of the world B’nai B’rith, one of the main Israelite
organizations. We thank the B’nai B’rith but feel unworthy of this honor.
On the other hand we intend to pursue our work
as investigators and analysts, without being ceaselessly importuned,
plagiarized and plundered by hordes of lazy nits, in search of shortcuts on the
road to a glory that is as ephemeral as it is superfluous.
In the Netzarim Controversy there are some
journalists who have written excellent articles and hundreds of others who have
turned out things that are unworthy of publication. Thousands of people think
they know the affaire but only master a fraction of it; they are unwittingly
the anti-Dreyfusards’ best allies.
Then there are two professional entities on whom
everything reposes: the Enquiry Commission of the Israeli army and at its head,
Nahum Shahaf, and the Metula News Agency. The only bodies that have
undertaken enquiries on the Controversy and that possess all the evidence of
the imposture.
Beware the opinions of those who speak of
enquiries that they have not undertaken. Beware those who consider their
opinion — be they Dreyfusards or anti-Dreyfusards — to be the truth, because
naming things incorrectly adds to the world’s misfortune. Camus knew what he
was talking about.
End.
www.menapress.com
