The Bloody Mohammad al-Dura Hoax Still Lives

On Sunday, Nihad Awad, the executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), sent a Tweet noting the supposed anniversary of the death of the child Mohammad al-Dura, “who was murdered by Israeli soldiers eighteen years ago.” But, as Awad surely knows, it has long since been demonstrated that Dura was not murdered or even injured on that day. Rather, the France2 news channel had shown deceptively edited footage of the then-twelve-year-old Dura and falsely claimed that he had been shot by the IDF on the third day of rioting at the start of the second intifada. The story of Dura’s “murder”—not unlike the ritual-murder accusations of the Middle Ages—sparked mob violence against Jews in Europe; it was also used to justify suicide bombings in Israel. Richard Landes recalls being among the first to see the original and complete raw footage:

What I saw astonished me. In scene after scene, Palestinians staged scenes of battle, injury, ambulance evacuation, and panicked flight, which the cameramen deliberately filmed, all the while standing around in front of the Israeli position, completely unafraid. To judge by [the France2 cameraman Talal] Abu Rahma’s 21 minutes of film, and a Reuters cameraman’s two hours, [Ramallah’s] Netzarim Junction that day . . . was the site of multiple makeshift stages upon which cameramen, most Palestinian, some foreign, filmed “action sequences” performed by everyone from military men with guns to teenagers and kids standing by.

At one point in our viewing, a very large man grabbed his leg and began to limp badly. Perhaps he had not faked his injury convincingly enough, perhaps his size discouraged anyone from picking him up. In any case, only children gathered around, whom he shooed away, and, after looking to see no one was coming, he walked away without a limp. . . .

When Landes asked Charles Enderlin, the France2 correspondent who aired the story—and who has persisted in defending it—about the faked injuries, he responded, “Oh, they do that all the time. It’s a cultural thing.” Landes writes:

The TV news media were “in” on a secret that they kept from the public. Palestinians faked scenes and journalists regularly edited that footage, taking small, believable soundbites and stringing them together to present the Palestinian narrative of victimization by the Israeli Goliath. . . . Thus, talented, respected journalists like Enderlin, perhaps unaware, perhaps unconcerned, perhaps just glad to have material, could offer stories of clashes between Palestinian children throwing rocks and Israelis soldiers armed to the teeth, and pepper them with high casualty figures for the [alleged] Palestinian victims, all to the background footage of injury and evacuation. . . . So far as Enderlin was concerned, the Durah story was believable precisely because it “corresponded to the situation in the West Bank and Gaza Strip at the time.”

You have 2 free articles left this month

Sign up now for unlimited access

Subscribe Now

Already have an account? Log in now

Read more at Tablet

More about: Anti-Semitism, CAIR, Israel & Zionism, Media, Second Intifada

 

A Better Syria Strategy Can Help Achieve the U.S. Goal of Countering Iran

While the Trump administration has reversed much of its predecessor’s effort to realign Washington with Tehran, and has effectively used sanctions to exert economic pressure on the Islamic Republic, Omar Hassino argues that these measures might not be enough:

Iran and its militias control more territory and natural resources in Syria and Iraq than before President Trump took office. . . . The U.S. should back the low-cost insurgency approach that has already shown potential in southwest Syria to bleed the Iranian forces and increase the costs of their expansion and [of Tehran’s] support for the Assad regime. It makes no sense that Iran can fund low-cost insurgencies to bleed American allies in the region, but the United States cannot counter with the same. The administration should also consider expanding support to the proxy forces that it currently works with—such as the Revolution Commandos near the [U.S.] al-Tanf garrison in southwest Syria—for the purpose of fighting and eliminating Iranian-backed militias. This limited escalation can curb Iranian expansion and put pressure on the Assad regime in the long term.

Furthermore, in this vein, the U.S. should empower peaceful Syrian civil-society groups and local councils operating outside Assad-regime control. Last year, the Trump administration eliminated assistance for stabilization in Syria, including funding going to secular anti-Assad civil-society groups that were also combating al-Qaeda’s ideology, as well as the Syrian [medical and civil-defense group known as] the White Helmets, before quickly [restoring] some of this funding. Yet the funding has still not completely been resumed, and if this administration takes an approach similar to its predecessor’s in relying on regional powers such as Turkey, these powers will instead fund groups aligned ideologically with Muslim Brotherhood. This is already happening in Idlib.

The United States must [also] jettison the Obama-era [strategy of establishing] “de-escalation zones.” These zones were from the start largely a Russian ruse to help the Assad regime conquer opposition areas, and they succeeded. Now that the regime controls most of Syria and Iranian proxies are dominant within the regime side, support for de-escalation is tantamount to support for Iranian expansion. The United States must [instead] prevent further expansion by the Assad regime and Iran in parts of the country that they still do not control.

You have 1 free article left this month

Sign up now for unlimited access

Subscribe Now

Already have an account? Log in now

Read more at Tablet

More about: Iran, Israeli Security, Syrian civil war, U.S. Foreign policy