The al-Dura incident
marked a seminal moment of the Second Intifada. A father and son,
crouching behind a concrete wall seeking cover from bullets, became one
of the most memorable images from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I
included it in my thesis because it was an interesting news event, and
because of its far-reaching influence even now.
From the very beginning
there were questions that made it difficult to provide clear-cut
answers. First, why did only one photographer, Talal Abu Rahman, capture
the incident, while all the other media attention was focused on the
Israeli army outpost? Second, why did Israel respond so slowly and
hesitantly while letting the French news outlet control the spotlight?
Finally, why did the commander of the IDF's Operations Directorate at
the time, Maj. Gen. Giora Eiland, rush to assume responsibility in
Israel's name, and what happened to the inquiry ordered by then-GOC
Southern Command Maj. Gen. Yom Tov Samia, which actually pointed to a
different conclusion from Eiland's?
The conclusion I came
to is that Israel did not cause 12-year-old Mohammed al-Dura's death.
The Netzarim junction where he and his father sought cover was located
in the middle of a fierce fire fight, and they were undoubtedly caught
in the crossfire. Every time I tried asking why Israel was not
attempting to dispute the photographed version of the event, I was met
with the same clumsy answer: "Why should we drudge it up after it's
already been forgotten?"
Indeed, we know it has
not been forgotten. The affair continues to spill over into courtrooms
in France and in Israel, which is why I proposed that if Israel was in
fact sure of its innocence, it was important to bring it up again.
Opening the discussion would prove that we were not afraid of
confronting this ghost, and would allow us to remodel the public's
perception of the incident.
The government inquiry
report did well to reopen the issue. It raises the possibility that
al-Dura wasn't even killed at the junction. This, at least, is the
impression of experts who watched the France 2 news report and studied
other information. I heard this claim at the time, too, but caution
prevented me from adopting it.
However, anyone who
believes that this version of events is truly founded in fact and
documentation is welcome to defend it. The version is possible, but it
is liable to drag us into bizarre ideas, such as opening the grave 13
years after the incident. This is not advisable.
As far as I'm
concerned, it is preferable to stop at the point that today seems most
plausible: Mohammed al-Dura wasn't shot by Israeli soldiers. He was shot
by Palestinian policemen who were firing indiscriminately.
Now the international media,
including France 2, will need to revisit its conduct. It will need to
ask whether it examined and presented the story according to
professional standards and whether it provided suitable room for
questions and doubts. And, if it accepts the Israeli narrative, will it
be prepared to admit its mistake? This is how wars over public
perception are fought.
No comments:
Post a Comment