generalspeaking

Whom To Trust?

It's a tough call.

"The echoes of the al-Durrah report, both in terms of accusations against Israel, and the behaviour of Western media outlets and their local stringers, have continued to resonate in the media coverage of Israel's operations against terrorist organizations.
"It is important to focus on this incident which has slandered Israel's reputation. This is a manifestation of the ongoing mendacious campaign to de-legitimize Israel. There is only one way to counter lies and that is through the truth. Only the truth can prevail over lies."
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu

"I believe that what we saw on the France 2 news item was exactly what happened and the camera caught exactly what happened. It is mission impossible to fake such a huge event. Nobody, least of all the Palestinians, can create such a fabrication. In principle, parts of the Israeli establishment are trying to create such a situation where if we doubt France 2's pictures, it means we can doubt everything the Palestinians say.
"It's a pity the Israeli government has decided to reopen this issue without the ability to mount a real investigation."
Yizhar B'er, executive director, Keshev, Israeli media monitoring group

Associated Press/France 2, Fille - ** FILE ** In this Sept. 30, 2000 file image from television, Jamal al-sutra signals his position while protecting his 12-year-old son Mohammed al-Dura, as they seek shelter.

So, then why bring the issue back into currency? Why bother going through the rigmarole of launching yet another investigation to 'prove' that the Palestinians indulged in yet another false slanderous attack on the State of Israel? There are more than enough blood libels in existence which belie truth and still have made their impact on the international scene. Why resurrect this one? Because it rankles of course, because it created such an international stir.

It could simply have been dismissed as yet another unfortunately tragic by-product of conflict. Which it most certainly would have been if it were a true event - or not. Initially, Israel reacted to the incident and the international outrage that accompanied it, with Israeli officials themselves accepting that an Israeli soldier might have fired the shots that killed a 12-year-old Palestinian boy sheltering in abject fear beside his father, in Gaza during the second 2000 Intifada.

Hugely regrettable, but not always avoidable in the "fog of war". Things happen; that they do must be accepted.

But then doubts arose, and investigators spoke of bullet trajectories and the placement of the IDF and the Palestinians, and filming and coincidences and logic belying the conclusion. And now the footage aired internationally of the crossfire at Netzarim Junction where the young boy was seen to have been hit in the stomach and consequently died, is being labelled "a blood libel against Israel, alongside other blood libels like the claims of an alleged massacre in Jenin (in 2002)."

The result of an internal investigation that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu commissioned which concluded the event may have been fabricated for propaganda has simply re-opened old wounds, causing a stir with uncertain outcome. The report that came out of the investigation accuses France 2 television reporting Israeli soldiers had been responsible for the death of the boy in their crossfire with Palestinians.

Claiming a thorough examination of unedited film leaves Mohammad al-Durra alive, though injured.

France 2's dispatch "had the immediate effect of harming Israel's international standing and fanning the flames of terror and hate", was the conclusion. There have been, in fact, proven incidents where dead children have been planted by Palestinians at conflict sites where Israeli-mounted attacks in response to provocations have taken place. Children who were acting, or children who had died at other sites and were brought to additional venues for maximum effect.

Later investigations and examinations of various videos pointed out the blatant manipulations meant to smear Israel and the IDF. Revelations that did little to appease the anger of those who preferred to believe initial, compelling reports solidifying peoples' original belief in Israel's wrong-doing. The harder Israel tries to defend its reputation, the more it seems the intended audience balks at believing it, simply because it has no wish to.

So why bother?

Labels: Conflict, Controversy, Human Relations, Israel, News Media, Palestinians

posted by Pieface @ Tuesday, May 21, 2013