More on the fallout from the Israeli government’s appalling report on the killing of 12-year-old Muhammad al-Dura 13 years ago in Gaza.
First, a grotesque measure of how far the Israeli polity has fallen. Jerusalem Post:
The government has no idea where Muhammad al-Dura can be found today, Steinitz added, and the IDF and Shin Bet have a lot of work to do other than search for him.
But (also from the Post):
Muhammad al-Dura’s father, Jamal, said on Monday that he was ready to have the remains of his son exhumed “to prove that he was killed by Israeli soldiers’ bullets.”
Paldfnet has published photos of the boy’s family at his grave, including the one below:
Al Dura family at his grave
Larry Derfner has a fine piece up at +972 showing that the Israeli report was the product of a rightwing conspiracist. The Israeli government has now drunk the Kool-Aid, he says; “the most fitting adjective I can think of for the report, and for the thinking behind it, is ‘creepy.’” Derfner:
In the 13 years since Muhammad al-Dura was killed in an Israeli-Palestinian shootout in Gaza while cowering behind his father, masses of right-wing Jews have eagerly embraced a conspiracy theory of the 12-year-oid boy’s killing – that it was staged, a hoax perpetrated by Palestinians to blacken Israel’s name. This theory, promoted most avidly by Boston University Prof. Richard Landes and French media analyst Philippe Karsenty, depends on a view of Palestinians being superhumanly clever and fiendish, and a view of reality that comes from the movies. The mentality here is essentially the same one that drives the 9/11 “truthers,” the anti-Obama “birthers,” those who say the Shin Bet assassinated Rabin, or those who say ultra-rightists assassinated JFK – a fevered imagination activated by political antagonism that knows no bounds. In the right-wing conspiracy theories of the al-Dura shooting, the boundless antagonism goes out to the Palestinians and their supporters.
This week, the State of Israel officially joined the movement.
Again I say this is an important moment in the life of the New York Times. It put the Israeli government report in its news section as a credible document. I know that great institution well enough to be sure that there are many fine writers and editors there who understand they were hoodwinked and hoodoo’d. They have surely been empowered by this blunder.
Some hours ago, I commented in another thread here about Larry Derfner’s piece.
His ends with his own conclusions/reasoning/”belief”/”absolutely true commission finding”/”easiest to accept” sort of logic. He starts with a quote from that same “creepy” report he tears up. I guess he tried a nip from the same Kool Aid.
“I know that great institution well enough to be sure that there are many fine writers and editors there who understand they were hoodwinked and hoodoo’d. They have surely been empowered by this blunder.”
Nice try, Phil.
@Phil: It put the Israeli government report in its news section as a credible document.
Phil, the link you have to Kershner’s report does not go to the “news section.” It goes to the NYT blog, Lens.
As reported by Ira yesterday on Mondoweiss, NYT down-graded Kershner’s report from news to blog – or up-graded it, depending on ones’ POV.
Ira refers to the Kershner piece as “advocacy journalism.” Not sure I follow that. I found Kershner’s piece to be neutral. A lot of people, including a lot of objective, fair-minded Israelis, are struggling to understand not just this story but the foul hasbara and litigation it has spawned.
Thanks for keeping this issue hot. It’s important.
Hasbara – 3 October 2000
The dead Palestinian boy, identified as Muhammad Al-Durrah, was shot accidently by IDF gunfire.
Hasbara – late October 2000
The dead Palestinian boy was NOT shot by IDF gunfire (initial admission was made in “the fog of war” before all evidence was gathered).
The dead Palestinian boy was shot by Palestinian gunfire.
Hasbara – 2013
The dead Palestinian boy who was shot by Palestinian gunfire is NOT really dead, and may not have been struck by any bullets at all.
This is one of those instances were the Israeli government hope that Dick and Jane, whose attention span is not that long, will conclude, ‘one side say this, the other side say that’, who knows what happened? now move along, nothing to see here.