Where 'caught in the crossfire' can leave no room for doubt 

Robert Fisk

When I read the word "crossfire", I reach for my pen. In the Middle East, it almost always means that the Israelis
have killed an innocent person. When the Israelis fired shells into the United Nations compound at Qana in
southern Lebanon in 1996, Time magazine printed a photograph of a dead baby with a caption saying it had been killed in
"crossfire". This was untrue. The baby had been killed in the Israeli bombardment along with 105 other civilians ^ which
started after Hizbollah guerrillas opened fire on an Israeli army unit that was laying booby-trap mines inside the UN zone

So when 12-year-old Mohammed al-Durah was killed in Gaza on Saturday and I read on the Associated Press wire that the
child was "caught in the crossfire", I knew at once who had killed him. Sure enough, reporters investigating the killing said the
boy was shot by Israeli troops. So was his father ^ who survived ^ and so was the ambulance driver who was killed trying to
rescue the boy. Yet BBC World Service Television was still saying yesterday morning that Mohammed al-Durah was "caught in
the crossfire of a battle that has left hundreds wounded and killed many others". I knew what this meant.
True, the Israeli soldiers who killed the boy may not have known whom they hit. They were apparently firing through a wall. But
why the reluctance on the part of journalists to tell the truth? Why was it that in its report from Jerusalem on Saturday, the AP
only mentioned ^ in paragraph 17, for heaven's sake ^ that Israeli troops, on the word of their own officer, fired anti-tank
missiles during the confrontation? What was the Israeli army doing using missiles against rioters?
By yesterday afternoon, the story had been transformed into a "blame" conflict. The Israelis blamed the Palestinian authority for
organising riots. BBC World Service radio ran a tape of an Israeli official stating that rioters were "shooting [sic] Molotov
cocktails and stones" which "kill people". A listener might have been forgiven for thinking that 22 Israelis had been killed ^
rather than 22 Palestinians ^ in the previous 72 hours. The BBC then ran a tape of Nabil Shaath, the Palestinian spokesman,
saying that the Israelis, not the Palestinians, had been shooting.

Truth is a hard bullet to bite. Palestinian policemen had also opened fire on the Israelis. Ironically, the Arab press in Beirut had
no hesitation in saying this. The press in Lebanon showed photographs of Palestinian policemen firing Kalashnikov rifles at
Israeli troops. But, given the fact that they did not kill Israelis ^ one of them was hit while firing ^ was it not worth mentioning that
the Palestinians were the victims, not the Israelis?
When BBC Television got round to mentioning Ariel Sharon's flagrantly provocative visit to the Haram as-Sharif/ Temple Mount
on Thursday, they yesterday called him an "Israeli leader" when ^ for Palestinians ^ he was the man who bore indirect
responsibility (according to Israel's own inquiry) for the massacre of up to 2,000 Palestinian civilians in the Sabra and Chatila
refugee camps in Beirut 18 years ago. The BBC correspondent, Paul Adams, was one of the very few who bravely drew
attention to Sharon's appalling record, pointing out Sharon had "an extraordinary capacity to leave... destruction in his wake."
And so, by last night, the story had changed. No longer did Israeli soldiers and policemen kill at least 22 Palestinians in three
days; now the question was whether the Palestinian Authority organised the riots that "led" [sic] to their deaths. The Israeli
soldiers, who disobeyed every human rights commitment by firing on rioters with live rounds, were respectfully called the "Israeli
security forces", disregarding the fact that "security" was the one thing Israeli soldiers were clearly unable to provide.

On CNN and the BBC and other satellite chains, reporters were asked if the killings would upset the "peace process", with no
willingness to explain that it was the collapse of the peace process which lay at the heart of the riots. The Muslim holy areas of
Jerusalem were "disputed" ^ although UN Security Council resolution 242, upon which the "peace process" is supposedly
based, demands the withdrawal of Israeli forces from territories captured during the 1967 war, including east Jerusalem.
What lies behind this ^ apart from the sheep-like inability of many journalists to call a spade a spade ^ was the continuing belief
that Palestinians are, by nature, violent and riotous.
The United States called for an end to the "violence" ^ this courtesy of Secretary of State Madeleine Albright ^ without making
any reference to Sharon's grotesque visit to the mosque grounds of east Jerusalem. By yesterday afternoon, the BBC were at it
again, reporting that "Israeli authorities were bracing themselves for what may lie ahead". Weren't the Palestinians also doing
that?
Twelve-year-old Rami Jamal Al-Durra from a refugee camp in Gaza died in his father's arms on Saturday. Reporters watched
helplessly as the boy and his father became trapped against a wall with nothing but a small concrete block for cover as bullets
rained around them on a road near the Jewish settlement of Netzarim in the Gaza Strip. Rami crouched weeping and his father
tried in vain to shield him with his arms and body while pleading with the soldiers not to shoot. A few seconds later both were
shot by Israeli forces and Rami slumped into his father's lap. Rami died, while his father survived badly wounded (5 bullets). An
ambulance driver, Bassam al-Bilbeisi, who braved the fierce shooting to try to rescue them was also killed; another ambulance
driver who also tried to help was also shot.
For pictures of the murder of the 12 year-old Rami Al-Dura in Gaza:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/arabic/news/newsid_951000/951469.stm For a video of the murder, captured by a Palestinian
cameraman working for Agence France Press: http://www.france2.fr/vj/300920a.ram 

Robert Fisk