Report on IDF shooting of Palestinian boy during intifada may cause Israel more damage than good 21May13 May 21, 2013
Haaretz    -    20 May 2013
The report of the committee investigating the âcoverage by French TV station France 2 of the Mohammed al-Dura affair, its results and implicationsâ, which was presented Sunday to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, is probably one of the least relevant documents written by the Israeli government in recent years.
The fact that 13 years have elapsed since the incidents addressed in the report took place turned the submission of the report into a surreal affair. Netanyahu recited slogans about âa campaign of de-legitimization directed against Israelâ and Minister Yuval Steinitz, who had no part in preparing the report, muttered a few words about a âblood libelâ, and everyone present felt very righteous.
The person who advocated for setting up the committee and who chaired it was Yossi Kuperwasser, director general of the Ministry for strategic Affairs. Kuperwasser, who was the Intel Officer at Southern Command and later head of research and analysis for Israel Defense Forces intelligence , has been waging a 13-year long public relations campaign against the Palestinians. For better or worse, his attention to the al-Dura affair became an obsession, leading to a suspicion there might be a conflict of interest.
The result of the committeeâs work was a document for the extremely meticulous. It is doubtful whether even a hundred people in Israel or worldwide are sufficiently familiar with all the intricate details of the incident as to be able to follow the convoluted arguments by the authors of the report. Furthermore, the document contains no new evidence that might significantly impact the accepted version. Even the new interpretation given to some of the old findings seems groundless. For example, Dr. Ricardo Nachman, deputy director of the Israelâs National Forensic Institute, determined, based on viewing poor quality video footage, that Mohammed al-Dura wasnât shot and killed in that incident.
The expert opinion which was attached to the report reads like a report by a movie critic and not by a pathologist. âThe final scenes, in which the boy is seen raising his head and arms, bringing his hand to his face and looking into the distance, are not compatible with death throes but seem like voluntary movementsâ, wrote Nachman. âOne doesnât need to be an expert to see thatâ.
The impression is that the report was written for use within Israel. The evidence and arguments that were presented might convince the already convinced, but no more than that. The committee could not present any âsmoking gunâ evidence showing the 25 year old al-Dura sunbathing on a Gaza beach. Not even close. Any thought of getting such a report to change the globally accepted narrative after 13 years is akin to trying to put the toothpaste back into the tube.
The report was seemingly a campaign of revenge by the State of Israel, directed against a single journalist from the France 2 network, Charles Enderlin, who first reported the Muhammad al-Dura incident. Committee members tried to saddle Enderlin, who is an Israeli Jew who served in the IDF spokesmanâs bureau and whose two sons served in the IDF, with all the problems of Israel and the Jewish people.
The committee went even further and hinted at Enderlinâs responsibility for the massacre of Jewish schoolchildren in Toulouse. âHis report inspired many terrorists and contributed to the demonization of Israel and to the rise of anti-Semitism in Moslem and Western countriesâ, wrote committee members. âIn some cases the implications were deadlyâ.
The damage done by this report could be greater than any doubtful utility. Its publication, accompanied by an international public relations campaign only threatens to awake sleeping dogs. If international press picks up on the report, it could lead to a renewed discussion around Palestinian children getting hurt during IDF operations.
Thank You.