In late May I buttonholed Yuval Steinitz, the minister for Strategic Affairs and International Relations, and urged him to hold a Knesset debate on the Mohammed al-Dura affair. The minister’s office had just published a startling report to the effect that al-Dura, the 12-year-old Palestinian boy who became an international icon for Palestinian resistance, had not been killed in the early days of the second intifada and may still be alive.Steinitz refused. A pity, because I think public debate on this painful chapter in Israel’s fight against Palestinian terror is crucial. I reached this conclusion while working on my PhD, which dealt with media coverage of the second intifada. I focused on three seminal cases: the al-Dura affair, the lynching of two Israeli soldiers in Ramallah, and the so-called IDF “massacre” in Jenin.The most important – and the most damaging – was the al-Dura affair. Filmed by the French TV channel France 2, it occurred on September 30, 2000 and was a catalyst for rioting that spread across Gaza, the West Bank and later, briefly, northern Israel. Of course, the incident in of itself could not have detonated such a profound and widespread uprising had conditions not been ripe and the atmosphere already highly charged.What was it about the al-Dura affair that caused the fire of rebellion to spread so rapidly? It was, according to the France 2 reporter’s description (more than the actual footage itself) the live broadcast of the death of a child. The 12-year-old boy, who was evacuated afterwards by ambulance and reportedly buried the next day, happened to be at the Netzarim junction in Gaza by chance when he and his father, apparently caught in crossfire, took cover behind a concrete barrel. Death broadcast live is rare. And the shock is greatly amplified if the victim is a civilian, and even more so, a child. The event seemed to encapsulate the meaning of asymmetrical conflict.On the one side, a fortified Israeli position, a concrete structure surrounded by barbed wire, cold and impenetrable; on the other, two unarmed and defenseless people, Jamal al-Dura and his son Mohammed, trying to shield themselves from fire apparently coming from the fortified position. The picture captured the asymmetrical nature of the intifada as a whole.Nevertheless, Israel could have contained the impact. But the Israeli response was not decisive or clear. It allowed France 2 to dictate the narrative and strengthen its hold on international opinion, both directly and through other media outlets.Three days after the event, then IDF chief of operations, Maj.-Gen. Giora Eiland accepted full responsibility and apologized in the name of the IDF. Angry protestations by the head of Southern Command Maj.- Gen. Yom-Tov Samya were ignored. Two months later, Samya published the findings of a commission of inquiry he set up on his own initiative. It determined that the child had not been killed by Israeli fire. But by then it was a lost cause.Ever since, there have been two schools of thought on how to deal with the affair.One argues that since we know al-Dura was not killed by Israeli fire, we should say so, loud and clear, whenever and wherever we can. The other insists that to keep raising the issue only invites more PR damage. I am firmly in the first camp. After a thorough investigation, which included countless interviews and painstaking scrutiny of visual and other materials pertinent to the critical hours at the Netzarim junction, I reached the conclusion that al-Dura was not shot by the IDF. This enabled me to challenge the deeply ingrained France 2 narrative and to raise questions about the journalistic ethics of the international media, especially France 2.Others also took issue with the France 2 version of events. Physicist Nahum Shahaf argued that the angle between the Israeli position and the concrete barrel meant that Israeli forces could not possibly have fired the fatal shots. And French political activist Philippe Karsenty accused France 2 of actually staging the footage.But even so when Moshe Ya’alon, today the Defense Minister, told me, on the strength of the upcoming Steinitz report, that in his opinion al-Dura had not been killed, at least not on that day, I was surprised.In making that far-reaching assertion, the written report relies on the testimony of Dr.Ricardo Nachman, Deputy Director of the Tel Aviv-based National Center of Forensic Medicine. He determined, “The final scenes in which the child is seen lifting his head and his arm, moving his hand across his brow and looking into the distance do not depict death throes but rather voluntary movements. You don’t have to be an expert to see that.”I respect this view, but I don’t share it.I think it goes too far without adequate proof and raises further questions to which Israel does not have answers. For example, if the child was not killed, where is he? Moreover, this argument, because it sounds so farfetched, could cast unnecessary doubt on the main point that al-Dura was not killed by Israeli fire.In the war for public opinion, events are seared in consciousness, stored in memory, and then spark or prevent action. The al- Dura images sparked a huge campaign in the Arab world, signs of which were even present in the horrific execution of American Jewish journalist Daniel Pearl by al-Qaeda in 2002. Al-Dura also became a model for emulation by Palestinian youth who played an active role in the second intifada, some of whom were killed.Therefore, it was important to make it clear that Israel does not deliberately target civilians and certainly not children. Israel sees those deaths as terrible events, responsibility for which lies with those who press young people into waging a hopeless and futile war against superior forces. Sacrificing children in this way and using them as “human shields” is incomprehensible. It defies all humane, moral and legal criteria.Our battle with Palestinian terror is fought not only at the Netzarim junction and in the narrow alleyways of Jenin. It also takes place in the media – both the traditional and the new. Therefore, Israel needs to have an open and ongoing dialogue with the international media. It is not our enemy. We should insist that the media operate according to the highest ethical standards, and, bottom line, recognize its heavy responsibility.In my book “Milhamedia,” I propose a model for what I call “Molecular Public Diplomacy.” The idea is to have a worldwide network of individuals and organizations committed to speak on Israel’s behalf, hooked up to HQ in Jerusalem, all receiving Israeli positions on key issues and going online with them in real time.We cannot afford to stammer. If we are convinced that the information we have is solid, we should put it out in the public domain and be ready to engage in public debate. Israel cannot behave like an ostrich, lifting its head for an instant and then burying it in the sand again. Labor Knesset Member Dr. Nahman Shai, a former IDF spokesman, is the author of “Milhamedia” (Media War: Reaching for Hearts and Minds)
