Ha’aretz 03-10-2000

Focus

Our victims are stories, theirs are mere

numbers

By Aviv Lavie

The footage documenting the death of Mohammed al Duri, the

12-year-old Palestinian boy who was killed in the Gaza Strip on

Saturday, ranks as one of the most terrifying films ever made in the

Middle East.

As the images were shown on Israeli television, Channel One

correspondent Shlomi Eldar provided this commentary: "Dozens of

Palestinians are throwing stones from behind a brick wall, looking to stir

emotions. Otherwise, it's hard to understand what a father and son are

doing, ducking below the shelter. The father and son definitely weren't

trapped on the battlefield by accident. And that's how the cameras

documented it: Dozens of Palestinians are around, yelling and giving

instructions to the father about how he should provide cover for his

young boy. The boy panics, and cries. There's a finger pointing at the

[IDF] soldiers' post. And, that's it, here's how it ends; the boy is killed,

and the father loses consciousness."

That is what Eldar, a senior Israeli television correspondent and editor,

had to say about the killing which took place before his very eyes. Yet

the issue isn't a personal one, concerning only Eldar. The text of his

narration is a representative sample of Israeli media coverage of

Palestinian affairs, and a good example of the ailments that afflict that

coverage.

The text merits analysis, line by line. According to Eldar, the father and

son weren't trapped at the site by accident. In fact, the father later

explained that they had gone out to purchase a car, and crossed the

road at the wrong moment. They were "looking to stir emotions,"

according to Eldar. Well, the images of them clinging for their lives

behind a wall certainly achieved that. Eldar's ambiguous phrases

convey the impression that the father and son, with dozens of others,

were "throwing stones from behind a brick wall." This was another way

of saying that they were to blame for what happened to them. They

started it. Yes indeed, the 12-year-old boy was also a guilty party. And

the final part of the text: "Here's how it ends..." Here's how what ends?

An all-out battle? A work accident? Or maybe cold-blooded murder.

There is no coherent classification of what the viewer has seen. Nor is

there a minimal display of emotion on the narrator's part with respect to

the horrifying circumstances of this terrible death. Nor is there a hint of

criticism leveled at the indiscriminating IDF gunfire. The boy is killed,

the father loses consciousness. You know the story, that's how it

happens in war.

Throughout the Rosh Hashanah holiday, local televisions broadcast

these blood-curdling images, yet I heard no commentator bothering to

identify by name the boy who was shot by our troops. It wasn't until

Monday's newspapers came out that we learned that his name was

Mohammed al Duri. As a matter of fact, there's nothing new here: Our

victims count as news stories, their victims are mere numbers.

This insensitivity regarding the fate of people on the other side is a

journalistic failure. At the time this article went to press, none of the

local media organs had produced a coherent account of this rare, tragic

incident captured by a French film crew. Systematic, investigative

reporting in this case should present detailed testimony given by IDF

soldiers and by Palestinians who were at the scene, by the French

journalists who filmed it and by the victim's father (at least, the father's

account was aired on television). It should provide a clear picture of the

scene of the killing, along the lines of the extensive coverage lavished

on the failed Duvdevan operation a month ago. It should explain who

fired at whom, and why. This entire story, which is stocked with

dramatic, and tragic, importance, has been neglected by the local

media.

In recent days, facts and opinions have become so entangled in Israeli

media reports that it has become impossible to distinguish between

them. The account of the sequence of events which has been

supported virtually across the board in the media is that Yasser Arafat

initiated the violence. By this theory, the PA chairman willed the

violence to break out; and if he wants it to, it will end. With the

exception of a report by Amira Hass carried by Ha'aretz, virtually no

journalist challenged this interpretation.

The prevailing view is, of course, legitimate as a hypothesis. It could

very well be the correct account. But there is a world of difference

separating a hypothesis from a fact. Whoever submits the view as a

supposition ought to make clear that it is an opinion; whoever presents

the view as fact has to cite his or her sources.

One after the other, news correspondents and analysts alike are

declaring emphatically that Arafat started it all. How do they know that

this is the case? What facts do they have to support this view? Do they

have in hand minutes of meetings in which Arafat gave this or that

order? Are they relying on Palestinian sources who heard statements

made by the PA Chairman himself?

The accepted interpretation serves Israel's political interests and it's not

hard to guess how the account reached local journalists. Beyond the

fact that Israeli journalists willingly turn themselves into spokesmen for

the government by espousing its line, they are also leveling a highly

serious accusation at Arafat, implying that he cynically sacrificed

dozens of his people on the political altar to score some points in the

negotiations. Perhaps there's truth to this view - after all, we're not

talking about a leader built out of the most righteous human

components. And yet the accusation is sufficiently serious as to

demand thorough evidentiary grounding before being presented to the

public as a fact. Would anyone dare to hurl comparable accusations at

Ehud Barak? And, by the way, has anyone bothered to try to get a

response from the PA chairman?

As always happens during such times of violence and strife, the Israeli

media is functioning in part as a spokesman for the defense

establishment. Major General Giora Eiland, head of the IDF's

Operations Directorate, is given extensive camera time by Channel

Two's news studio; he and other ranking IDF officers say what they

have to say about the current events; and when they leave the studio,

television news defense correspondents Roni Daniel and Alon Ben

David say exactly the same things. Then the commentators ridicule

Palestinian media organs for broadcasting militaristic content all day

long. But at least there the media doesn't try to maintain a facade of

journalistic objectivity.

During the holiday, the media appeared to be in a stupor. Senior

television news presenters weren't called to the studio to describe the

events; the fact that the country was burning from one end to another

wasn't reflected by a significant increase in media reporting. This

turned the Internet into the prime information source for those who

didn't want to wait for the holiday to end to obtain news about battle

scenes. Normally the radio is a leading media alternative to the

Internet; but over Rosh Hashanah, the radio stations also operated in

low gear.