The Jerusalem Post ran an article from AP about Jamal al Durah’s run-in with Hamas “security forces.” It raises as many questions about who’s at the switches in the Jerusalem Post staff as what Hamas is upt to.
Father of Mohammed al-Dura arrested in Gaza
Hamas security briefly detained on Saturday the father of a Palestinian boy who became a national symbol when he was killed during intense fighting in Gaza seven years ago.
Muhammad al-Dura and his father Jamal during a furious exchange of fire between IDF troops and Palestinian operatives.
Jamal al-Dura, 44, said he was held for four hours in a central Gaza police station and interrogated for allegedly shooting in the air during a family wedding. Al-Dura, a supporter of the moderate Fatah movement, denied the accusations and said he can’t carry guns because of his medical condition.
No way of knowing whether this is an insight into how much Hamas is trying to get control of “private violence” (and hence a monopoly on “public violence”) in Gaza, or whether that was an excuse to bring Jamal in and question/warn him about what he says about his son, given the increased attention the trial is bringing to him. The possibility that this is linked to the trial seems remote — it may be pure coincidence that this happened now — but bears watching.
On Sept. 30, 2000, al-Dura and his son, Mohammed, 12, were caught in a furious exchange of fire between Israeli forces and Palestinian militants. A French TV crew captured the two cowering, terrified, behind a wall, and the boy falling after he was fatally shot. The father was badly injured. The scene was broadcast around the world and became a symbol of the second Palestinian uprising against Israeli occupation.
Now I presume this is AP talking, but did no one at the JP think it might not be a good idea to recycle this stuff — essentially identical to what was said at the time, with no update from the last seven years?
Let’s take this paragraph sentence at a time; few passages of two sentences of length contain so many misrepresentations of our current state of knowledge.
On Sept. 30, 2000, al-Dura and his son, Mohammed, 12, were caught in a furious exchange of fire between Israeli forces and Palestinian militants.
It was not furious. This echoes Talal’s testimony “forty minutes shooting at the boy… bullets rained down… no one could move.” On the contrary, the “three minutes” Enderlin gave out (during which the boy and the father are already behind the barrel), have gunfire, but nothing remotely resembling “furious” gunfire.
A French TV crew captured the two cowering, terrified, behind a wall, and the boy falling after he was fatally shot.
It was a Palestinian crew working as stringers for a French TV station (and using their equipment). This detail alone speaks volumes on AP’s inability to understand the difference between Palestinian stringers working for France2 and a “French crew.” (Although, given my exposure to French journalists, I suspect that a French crew might not have behaved that differently.)
At least the AP (who had a reporter at the trial — Keffieh man) could have mentioned that “fatally wounded” is an allegation now under examination.
Indeed — and this is too much to expect AP to acknowledge at this point, but worth pointing out to people who care about evidence — the boy probably did not fall, he more likely lay down. Had he fallen from being hit by a high-speed bullet in the stomach, he would have fallen backwards, not — iconically — forward at his father’s feet.
The father was badly injured.
We have no sign of blood on his shirt after his son has allegedly died (i.e., after 40 minutes of shooting), no bullets recovered, and now, possibly, an Israeli hospital record of treating Jamal’s wounds from an inter-Palestinian fight years before the iconic moment, and that those wounds and scars correlate directly with the ones claimed in 2000 and repeated here.
The scene was broadcast around the world and became a symbol of the second Palestinian uprising against Israeli occupation.
This is the only remotely accurate statement, rendered all the more misleading by coming after a discredited narrative that makes the symbol seem appropriate, and its incompleteness. It also became a symbol of global Jihad and a call to genocide against the Jews in the Muslim world, and a “get out of Holocaust guilt free” card in Europe.
At the police station, Hamas asked al-Dura to sign a piece of paper to pledge he will abide by the law, al-Dura said. He refused.
“I am a law abiding citizen,” al-Dura said. “I am a respected man around the world and here. This is an affront to me and to them,” al-Dura said in reference to Hamas.
This doesn’t make sense. “Them” presumably refers to people who, with him, are affronted by Hamas, not “including” Hamas. And, at least from the videos of Jamal’s testimony that I’ve seen, he doesn’t strike me as the kind of guy to tell Hamas to take a hike. But whether he said it to the Hamas fellows at the station, or to the journalist, note his formulation: “I am a respected man around the world and here.” Oh woe is you if the story gets out.
Hamas security said al-Dura was called in for questioning on a firing incident and was let go.
Hamas is in control of Gaza after it wrested control of Gaza from Fatah-allied forces during fighting in June.
AP: D (generous. after all expectations are so low).
JP: F (what’s going on there? your coverage of the trial has been astonishingly poor; and now this? anybody awake?)