SCENARIO 2: ISRAELIS BY ACCIDENT
* Those who adhere to this scenario: Many people
in the West and in Israel.
To those not willing to accuse the Israelis of outright murder, this
is the more benign version, that accepts the main lines of the story
as presented by France2, but sees the death as the tragic result of
getting caught in a crossfire. The original France
2 footage aired across the world, gives the impression of a crossfire,
with the father waving at the Israelis to stop. In the crossfire,
Israel becomes the prime culprit: As Robert Fisk of the Independent
put
it. "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."
Although he gives the Israelis a very thin benefit of the doubt ("True,
the Israeli soldiers who killed the boy may not have known whom they
hit"), Fisk is typical of a public that used the clip shown around
the world to presume that since the Israelis, on one side, were in
a shootout with the Palestinians, on the other, Mohammed and his father
would naturally be caught in the crossfire and struck by stray Israeli
bullets. This public includes many Israelis. For the editorial board
at Ha'aretz, this event typified
the conflict. Even the
army spokesman admitted that the Israeli soldiers might have shot
him accidentally.
A Boston Globe article on October
13, 2000 which compared reactions to the al-Durra incident with
the lynchings in Ramallah a few days later, shows how many Israelis
thought of the al Durah affair in the weeks after the footage aired:
'"OK, we accidentally killed the boy in Gaza and that was a terrible
thing. But nobody took pleasure in the killing. Nobody turned it into
a celebration. They're dancing on Jewish blood," said an Israeli woman
at the Jerusalem eatery, who gave only her first name, Sarit.'
Ironically, this is the scenario with the least evidence in favor
of it, and perhaps the most widely held, certainly in the USA and
Israel, where the media did not seize upon deliberation with so much
enthusiasm.
| FOR |
AGAINST |
|
- Israeli public statements:
Israeli officials admitted that their soldiers returned
fire that day, and that their soldiers may have accidentally
shot the boy.
- Evidence of crossfire on tapes: there was crossfire
that day at the intersection near the barrel, although
we do not know whether this took place at the time the
al Durahs were behind
the barrel.
- Israeli bullet might have ricocheted off wall behind
barrel: this accords with Jamal's
claim in one interview and the hospital claim that
he was shot over the left nipple.
- This scenario appeals most to fair-minded people
who do not want to charge Israel with deliberate murder,
but accept Enderlin's main storyline, the boy killed by
Israeli gunfire.
|
- No explicit testimony: The evidence for an
accidental killing in the cross-fire is less explicit
than that for an intentional murder. No eye-witness suggests
such a accidental scenario
- Angles of fire make Israeli gunfire the least likely
source of multiple wounds: As the official report
of the Israeli army published by General Yom Tov Samia,
Gaza commander of the Israeli Army at the time, as well
as Nahum Shahaf, a physicist in charge of the IDF investigation,
testify, the positioning
of the al-Durahs behind the barrel prevented any Israeli
bullets from hitting the two.
- No taped evidence of crossfire: although we
hear gunshots, no footage of the Israeli position either
shows them firing or fired at during the time the al Durahs
are behind the barrel.
To this end, 45 minutes of heavy automatic fire from the
Israelis does not fit with any of the footage shot that
day.
- Hospital photo (seen
at France2) has boy shot in stomach: the hospital
photos allegedly of Muhamed al Durah shown on Shapira's
film show no wounds above the nipple, and the photo filmed
by Talal (France2 rushes, October 1) show a gaping stomach
wound, not a chest wound.
- The photo of the barrel the next day shows no sign
of bullets ricocheting off the barrel nor were any
closer shots taken to prove the contention.
|
|
Links to articles and sites that support this scenario
http://www.supportsanity.org
http://uttm.com/stories/2000/10/24/60II/printable243723.shtml
|