input: Please answer the following: Given the below context:  In 2007 Yehuda David, a physician at Tel Hashomer hospital near Tel Aviv, told Israel's Channel 10 that he had treated Jamal Al-Durrah in 1994 for knife and axe wounds to his arms and legs, injuries sustained during a gang attack. David maintained that the scars Jamal had presented as bullet wounds were in fact scars from a tendon-repair operation David had performed in the early 90s. When David repeated his allegations in an interview with a "Daniel Vavinsky," published in 2008 in Actualité Juive in Paris, Jamal filed a complaint with the Tribunal de grande instance de Paris for defamation and breach of doctor-patient confidentiality.The court established that "Daniel Vavinsky" was a pseudonym for Clément Weill-Raynal, a deputy editor at France 3. In 2011 it ruled that David and Actualité Juive had defamed Jamal. David, Weill-Raynal and Serge Benattar, the managing editor of Actualité Juive, were fined €5,000 each, and Actualité Juive was ordered to print a retraction. The Israeli government said it would fund David's appeal. The appeal was upheld in 2012; David was acquitted of defamation and breach of confidentiality. Benjamin Netanyahu, Israeli's prime minister, telephoned David to congratulate him. Jamal Al-Durrah said he would appeal the court's decision.In 2012 Rafi Walden, deputy director of the Tel Hashomer hospital and board member of Physicians for Human Rights, wrote in Haaretz that he had examined Jamal's 50-page medical file, and that the injuries from the 2000 shooting were "completely different wounds" from the 1994 injuries. Walden listed "a gunshot wound in the right wrist, a shattered forearm bone, multiple fragment wounds in a palm, gunshot wounds in the right thigh, a fractured pelvis, an exit wound in the buttocks, a tear in the main nerve of the right thigh, tears in the main groin arteries and veins, and two gunshot wounds in the left lower leg."  Guess a valid title for it!
++++++++++
output: Muhammad al-Durrah incident


input: Please answer the following: Given the below context:  In the central panel the Virgin and Child are enthroned in a church nave within a columned basilica running on either side. The columns are painted using a variety of dark red, orange and grey pigments, a colour scheme which Peter Heath describes as lending to a "sense of airy silence". The throne is positioned on a dais, before a lavishly detailed oriental carpet lying on a similarly geometrically designed tiled floor. The arms of the canopied throne and the arches to either side contain carved or sculptured figures, including tiny representations of Isaac, and David and Goliath, although art historian Antje Maria Neuner reads this carving as showing Jephthah sacrificing his daughter. Mary wears a richly embroidered and as is typical for van Eyck, voluminous red robe, which effectively serves as a cloth of honour. The robe is placed over a blue square-cut underdress edged with a jewelled border. In van Eyck's Marian paintings, he almost always clothes her in red writes Pächt, which makes her seem to dominate the space. The Christ Child is naked and holds towards the donor a banderole adorned with a phrase from the Gospel of Matthew (11:29), DISCITE A ME, QUIA MITIS SUM ET HUMILIS CORDE ("Learn of me, for I am meek and lowly in heart"). Mary's presence in the church is symbolic; she and the child occupy the area where the altar would normally be situated. Like van Eyck's two other late Madonna portraits (Virgin and Child with Canon van der Paele of 1436 and Madonna in the Church of c. 1438–40), Mary is unrealistically large and out of proportion to her surroundings. This reflects the influence of 12th- and 13th-century Italian artists such as Cimabue and Giotto, who in turn drew on the tradition of monumental depictions of Mary from Byzantine icons. According to Lorne Campbell, Mary is presented as if about to "rise from her throne and advance into the same plane as St. Michael and St. Catherine, she would tower above them and also above the columns of the church." This idea is in keeping with van Eyck's...  Guess a valid title for it!
++++++++++
output: Dresden Triptych


input: Please answer the following: Given the below context:  Trapper Jed Cooper and his two best friends Gus and Mungo are relieved of their possessions by some unfriendly Indians, so they seek shelter at a nearby army fort, commanded by Captain Riordan. The captain recruits the three men as scouts. Also at the fort is Corrina Marston, waiting for her missing husband, Colonel Frank Marston. Jed quickly falls in love with Mrs. Marston, sensing her ambivalence about her husband; when the colonel returns, he is revealed to be an unmitigated tyrant. Colonel Marston is driven to redeem himself after a disastrous battle at Shiloh, where over a thousand of his men were killed unnecessarily. Marston wants to attack the regional Indian chief, Red Cloud, believing this will restore his good name and return him to the battle back east. He ignores the fact that most of the men at the fort are raw recruits, hopelessly outnumbered and completely unprepared for the vicious fighting they will face with the Indians. Jed is faced with the decision of letting Marston go on with his mad scheme, or finding a way to do away with him.  Guess a valid title for it!
++++++++++
output:
The Last Frontier (1955 film)