The Israeli Army Says Palestinians
May Have Shot Gaza Boy. That was the big bold letter headline of
an article in the New York Times on Tuesday, November 28, 2000. The boy
they were referring to was Muhammad Al-Durrah who was shot by Israeli soldiers
in front of a cameraman for France 2 television. By now those who care
have seen the picture of this 12-year-old Palestinian who was shot along
with his father as they pleaded for the Israeli soldiers to hold fire.
who filmed the shooting testifies that IDF soldiers, firing blindly while
safely sheltered behind concrete walls, killed the boy during a sustained
30-minute fusillade. Since then, the Israeli Army has destroyed all the
physical evidence in a 'site-clearing operation'.
of us who believe our eyes, this is a close and shut case of random Israeli
murder of another unarmed Palestinian civilian child. This time the IDF
was caught committing the crime on camera. But the New York Times is always
willing to give the Israeli occupation soldiers a chance to challenge the
camera and the cameraman.
At the very
end of the article you learn that even Haaretz, a leading Israeli daily
was not buying into this elaborate IDF hoax. It is instructive to note
that the Israeli army went to great efforts to come up with its 'Findings',
including a full re-enactment at a 'similar' site and analysis of the French
videotape. Haaretz reacted to the IDF investigation with the embarrassing
statement that "it is hard to describe in mild terms the stupidity of this
reports that "at one point in the investigation, two Israeli civilians
who worked as unpaid advisers to the inquiry went so far as to suggest
that the boy's killing had been set up by the Palestinians, with the possible
connivance of the cameraman."
wrong with this picture? Well, at the New York Times, they just don't see
things in black and white. They see things in blue and white. They will
doubt their eyes in an effort to make the rest of us doubt our eyes.
A. Orme approvingly concludes his article with this appalling bit of journalism;
"The army report contained no inference that the killing had been a premeditated
publicity ploy". Really? What question was William Orme responding to?
Probably an inquiry to back up New York Times editorials in which Safire
and Friedman suggested that Palestinians throw their kids at Israeli bullets
as a publicity stunt.
comes to Israel, the New York Times is almost jingoistic. Its the
old line about "our boys in the IDF couldn't have done that." Got it.
there have been over 250 Palestinian fatalities in this latest round of
Israeli carnage. William Orme and the New York Times should spend less
time discrediting the French video tape and more time finding how many
other innocent Palestinians were needlessly killed and maimed by the the
overkill tactics of the IDF. Is it possible that any of the other Palestinian
victims were killed in circumstances similar to Muhammad Al-Durrah? But
that would be journalism and good journalism might not be good for Israel.