The  Al  Dura  Affair  and  Its  Implications  for  Morality  and  Ethics  in  France  Ambassador  Freddy  Eytan  Vol.  13,  No.  15          31  May  2013     The  report  of  Israel’s  governmental  inquiry  committee  on  the  al-­‐Dura  affair,  written  after  a  thorough  examination  of  all  the  materials  related  to  this  unfortunate  affair,  should  serve  as  a  lesson  for  all  foreign  reporters  working  in  Israel  and  be  taught  in  journalism  schools  throughout  the  world.  

The  authors  of  the  report  have  successfully  demonstrated  how  a  Palestinian  photographer  violated  the  basic  tenets  of  journalistic  work,  and  how  a  foreign  reporter  accepted  his  version  of  events  and  his  photos  wholesale  without  questioning  their  reliability  for  a  moment.  Verifying  sources,  cross-­‐checking,  meticulously  ensuring  objectivity  –  these  are  the  foundations  on  which  the  whole  enterprise  of  journalistic  coverage  rests.  

Yet  most  of  the  foreign  reporters  prefer  to  remain  in  their  offices  and  work  from  the  raw  materials  conveniently  provided  by  reporters  and  photographers  of  the  international  networks  and  news  agencies  –  which,  for  the  most  part,  employ  local  Palestinians.    

It  is,  of  course,  regrettable  that  the  report  only  appeared  thirteen  years  after  the  affair,  which  caused  grave  damage  to  Israel’s  image,  but  there  is  no  early  or  late  when  it  comes  to  the  truth.  We  owe  profound  gratitude  and  esteem  to  all  those  who  tirelessly  pursued  justice  in  this  affair,  with  the  whole  French  establishment  supporting  the  Palestinian  version.  These  activists  contributed  time,  energy,  and  professional  experience  to  the  struggle  for  the  supreme  value  of  bringing  the  truth  to  light.  

The  initiative  of  a  government  ministry  to  publish  the  report  on  the  al-­‐Dura  affair  is  very  praiseworthy  and  appropriate.  A  democratic  

state  that  fights  for  its  existence  is  required  to  defend  itself  and  its  image  with  all  the  tools  at  its  disposal.  

Never  Too  Late  for  the  Truth  The  report  of  Israel’s  governmental  inquiry  committee  on  the  al-­‐Dura  affair,  written  after  a  thorough  examination  of  all  the  materials  related  to  this  unfortunate  affair  and  published  by  the  director-­‐general  of  the  Ministry  of  International  Relations  and  Strategy,  Yossi  Kuperwasser,  should  set  off  red  lights  and  serve  as  a  lesson  for  all  foreign  reporters  working  in  Israel.  It  should  also  be  taught  in  journalism  schools  in  Israel  and  throughout  the  world.  It  is,  of  course,  regrettable  that  the  report  only  appeared  thirteen  years  after  the  outbreak  of  the  Second  Intifada  and  the  al-­‐Dura  affair,  which  caused  grave  damage  to  Israel’s  image,  but  there  is  no  early  or  late  when  it  comes  to  the  truth.  We  also  owe  profound  gratitude  and  esteem  to  all  those  who  tirelessly  pursued  justice  in  this  affair  despite  the  many  difficulties  that  confronted  them.  With  the  whole  French  establishment  supporting  the  Palestinian  version,  the  road  to  uncovering  the  truth  was  long  and  beset  with  journalistic,  political,  and  legal  hurdles.  Only  a  small  number  of  people  contributed  time,  energy,  and  professional  experience  to  the  struggle  for  the  supreme  value  of  bringing  the  truth  to  light.  The  inquiry  committee’s  report,  then,  points  the  way  to  a  clear  objective:  to  work  with  all  the  resources  at  our  disposal  so  that  justice  will  be  heard  and  seen,  and  especially  to  refute  once  and  for  all  the  versions  and  contradictions  of  the  reporter  and  photographer  of  the  France2  television  network.    The  report  also  glaringly  reveals  one  among  many  examples  of  the  sort  of  media  coverage  that  is  typical  in  an  arena  that  is  undoubtedly  one  of  the  most  complicated,  volatile,  and  sensitive  in  the  world.  The  authors  of  the  report  have  successfully  demonstrated  how  a  Palestinian  photographer  violated  the  basic  tenets  of  journalistic  work,  and  how  a  foreign  reporter  accepted  his  version  of  events  and  his  photos  

wholesale  without  questioning  their  reliability  for  a  moment.  Clearly,  this  does  not  reflect  on  those  reporters  who  do  their  work  honestly  in  Israel.  Such  phenomena,  however,  exist  and  must  be  denounced  and  uprooted.    

Asymmetrical  Media  Coverage  Media  coverage  of  the  Israeli-­‐Palestinian  conflict  is  asymmetrical  in  every  regard.  It  is  generally  accepted  that  Israeli  is  a  democratic  country  with  high  normative  standards,  granting  freedom  of  expression  to  anyone  who  wants  it  including  the  right  to  engage  in  harsh  criticism  of  Israel  itself.  The  IDF  is  unquestionably  a  unique  army,  operating  in  extremely  difficult  conditions  not  only  against  threats  from  standing  armies  but  also  against  terrorism,  violence,  and  disturbances  while  having  to  face  women  and  children  who  serve  as  human  shields.  The  instructions  of  the  General  Staff  are  clear,  and  after  every  clash  or  operation  a  painstaking  inquiry  is  conducted,  the  lessons  are  learned,  and,  if  necessary,  those  responsible  for  infractions  are  disciplined.  Such  standards  do  not  exist  among  any  other  armies  in  the  world  including  the  NATO  armies.  Yet,  as  far  as  media  coverage  is  concerned,  since  the  outbreak  of  the  First  Intifada  the  rules  of  the  game  have  changed.  Most  of  the  foreign  reporters  prefer  to  remain  in  their  air-­‐conditioned  offices  and  work  from  the  raw  materials  conveniently  provided  by  reporters  and  photographers  of  the  international  networks  and  news  agencies  –  which,  for  the  most  part,  employ  local  Palestinians.    Moreover,  in  the  centers  of  the  enlightened  world  the  ignorance  about  Israel  is  complete.  In  Europe,  and  particularly  France  with  its  large  Muslim-­‐immigrant  community,  the  effect  on  media  coverage  is  especially  striking.  We  must  dislodge  biases  and  replace  them  with  basic  historical  understandings.  To  that  end,  our  messages  must  focus  on  Jewish  and  national  values  and  explain  first  of  all  the  root  of  the  conflict  with  the  Arabs.  The  Ministry  of  Foreign  Affairs,  which  is  deployed  with  its  representatives  in  world  capitals,  serves  as  an  organizational  and  

operational  arm.  Yet,  lamentably,  in  the  al-­‐Dura  affair  the  delegation  in  Paris  failed  completely  to  confront  France2  and  turned  back  requests  by  Jewish  organizations  and  private  individuals  who  wanted  to  present  evidence  and  closely  examine  what  had  happened.  In  the  history  of  the  conflict  with  the  Palestinians,  an  affair  whose  repercussions  continued  for  more  than  a  dozen  years,  and  that  involved  the  spilling  of  so  much  ink  and  a  great  deal  of  blood,  is  not  remembered.  In  France,  however,  the  “death  of  the  Palestinian  boy”  became  a  symbol  for  struggle  against  the  occupation  and  against  the  French  Jewish  community  through  acts  of  incitement  and  violence,  which  reached  their  peak  with  the  murder  of  the  Sandler  family  at  the  Ozar  Hatorah  school  in  Toulouse.  It  should  be  noted  that  most  of  the  Jewish  leaders,  and  at  their  helm  the  outgoing  head  of  the  roof  organization,  Richard  Prasquier,  fought  the  French  television  network  in  every  way,  while  also  requesting  the  intervention  of  the  president  of  France  and  the  creation  of  a  governmental  investigatory  committee  that  would  finally  uncover  the  truth.  The  debate  is  still  not  over,  and  the  affair  has  been  brought  to  the  courts.  Yet  France2  keeps  refusing  to  provide  the  raw  footage  of  the  event,  a  fact  that  speaks  volumes.  The  controversy  was  extensively  publicized  in  all  the  media.  Ballistics  experts,  retired  military  people,  jurists,  politicians  and  diplomats,  doctors  and  intellectuals  took  part  in  the  heated  debate,  and  almost  everything  about  the  affair  has  already  been  said.  Yet  the  thirty-­‐seven  pages  of  the  Israeli  inquiry  committee’s  report  and  its  annexes  demonstrate  beyond  a  doubt  that  there  is  no  evidence  that  Jamal  al-­‐Dura  and  his  son  Muhammad  were  harmed  as  the  cameras  of  France2  indicated;  and,  even  more  important,  that  the  IDF  was  not  responsible  for  the  supposed  harm.  In  a  clear  segment  that  was  not  broadcast,  the  boy  is  seen  to  be  alive.    Nevertheless,  since  France2’s  report  was  broadcast,  there  has  been  no  letup  in  the  defamation  campaign  of  pro-­‐Palestinian  organizations  and  individuals  against  Israel  and  the  IDF.  Our  soldiers  became  

“bloodthirsty  murderers  of  innocent  children”  and  it  was  regularly  asserted  that  “the  Jewish  soldiers  behaved  like  Nazis”;  meanwhile,  the  Palestinian  boy  became  a  martyr.  Journalists  also  made  comparisons  with  the  famous  picture  from  the  Warsaw  Ghetto  where  a  Jewish  boy  raises  his  hands  near  a  German  soldier.  In  France,  just  as  in  Arab  countries,  the  death  of  “little  Muhammad”  became  the  political  cause  célèbre  overnight,  the  stuff  of  earnest  discussions  on  radio  and  television.  All  over  the  country  there  were  ceremonies  and  exhibitions  sponsored  by  communist  mayors.  Immigrants  gave  the  name  Muhammad  al-­‐Dura  to  newborn  babies.  And  even  graver,  the  pro-­‐Palestinian  weekly  Le  Nouvel  Observateur,  which  likens  the  conflict  to  the  French  occupation  of  Algeria,  published  a  petition  signed  by  about  a  hundred  French  journalists,  intellectuals,  diplomats,  and  politicians,  including  former  foreign  minister  Hubert  Védrine,  which  stated  unequivocally  that  “the  little  boy  Muhammad  al-­‐Dura  was  killed  by  fire  whose  source  was  an  Israeli  position.”  On  what  did  they  base  this?  Were  they  there  on  the  ground?  Even  the  reporter  Charles  Enderlin,  who  won  a  Legion  of  Honor  award  for  his  coverage,  was  not  at  the  “scene  of  the  crime.”  That,  to  one’s  sorrow,  is  how  supposedly  professional  journalism  conducts  itself,  and  along  with  it  the  French  leadership  and  most  of  the  intellectuals.  The  anti-­‐Zionist  ideology,  which  reigns  supreme,  flails  about  in  total  blindness  and  acts  in  accordance  with  preconceived  notions  that  have  been  in  place  since  the  Six-­‐Day  War.  Still  smarting  from  their  own  experience  with  colonialism,  the  French  stance  is  to  view  any  occupation  as  illegitimate,  unenlightened,  and  deserving  of  every  form  of  vilification.  Actually,  the  event  that  occurred  thirteen  years  ago  at  the  Netzarim  Junction  was  in  no  way  connected  to  a  sensitive  security  violation  or  to  military  censorship.  There  was  no  need  to  intervene  and  forbid  the  report  to  be  broadcast.  The  case  has  more  to  do  with  the  journalism  profession,  ethics,  and  morality,  and  with  the  very  high  standards  that  

every  reporter  needs  to  internalize  and  carry  out  in  practice.  This  is  all  the  more  so  given  the  asymmetrical  coverage  of  Israel’s  conflict  with  the  Palestinians.  Nevertheless,  a  number  of  foreign  journalists  in  Israel  violate  elementary  rules  while  knowing  full  well  that  they  enjoy  total  freedom  in  their  work,  even  as  the  region  as  a  whole  is  in  a  state  of  bloody  turmoil  and  ruled  by  totalitarian  regimes.  

The  Foundations  of  Journalism  Verifying  sources,  cross-­‐checking,  meticulously  ensuring  objectivity  –  these  are  the  foundations  on  which  the  whole  enterprise  of  journalistic  coverage  rests.  The  inquiry  committee  did  well  to  note  this  fact,  quoting  the  relevant  international  organizations  and  societies.  The  supreme  obligation  of  any  reporter  is  to  pursue  the  truth.  Regrettably,  however,  Charles  Enderlin,  who  is  a  resident  of  Israel  and  a  journalist  esteemed  in  the  profession,  did  not  exercise  judgment  and  stubbornly  continued  to  believe  in  the  Palestinian  photographer  with  a  strange  naiveté.  A  journalist  in  a  democratic  country  does  not  require  a  permit  or  license  to  work  in  his  profession.  Unlike  a  government,  which  is  committed  to  the  well-­‐being  and  security  of  its  citizens,  a  journalist  bears  no  responsibility  for  possible  negative  repercussions  of  an  article  or  broadcast.  But  this  means  that  when  a  reporter  errs,  he  must  immediately  admit  the  error.  Concerns  about  a  scoop  or  about  competition  in  no  way  justify  failing  to  wait  for  the  facts  to  be  verified.  This  is  a  fundamental  rule  that  is  learned  in  every  school  of  journalism.  It  was  a  standard  in  the  past,  and  it  is  just  as  valid  in  the  Internet  era.  Often  journalists  in  Israel  fall  into  the  trap  of  deliberate  or  non-­‐deliberate  manipulation  by  various  sources,  or  by  a  malicious  Palestinian  actor  in  the  field.  From  the  time  of  the  First  Intifada,  the  French  news  agency  has  adopted  methods  that  clearly  do  not  meet  the  test  of  objectivity.  The  way  in  which  terms  such  as  “terrorism,”  “occupation,”  “activist,”  “attack,”  “operation,”  “freedom,”  “disproportionate  response,”  “underground,”  or  “freedom  fighter”  are  defined  is  of  great  importance  for  setting  the  tone  of  coverage  and  for  

how  reports  are  formulated.  Without  question,  the  terminology  used  to  cover  any  conflict  must  be  precise,  veracious,  and  balanced.  This  news  agency,  however,  always  magnifies  any  IDF  operation  along  with  the  casualties  among  the  Palestinian  population,  while  the  Israeli  victims  of  terror  and  rocket  fire  get  much  less  traction.  A  terror  attack  on  Israeli  soldiers  or  settlers  is  presented  as  “legitimate”  or,  in  many  cases,  not  covered  at  all.  The  claims  that  are  made  are  transparently  ideological  and  political.  It  is  worth  reemphasizing  that  the  IDF  is  one  of  the  armies  that  operate  according  to  clear  open-­‐fire  orders,  and  is  unique  in  the  world  in  thoroughly  investigating  every  incident.  Sometimes  Israeli  soldiers  and  officers  have  to  stand  trial  for  a  very  small  infraction.  The  media  in  France,  however,  do  not  condemn  the  daily  provocations  of  Palestinian  teenagers  and  children  who  are  sent  to  form  human  shields  against  armed  IDF  soldiers.  Democratic  countries  ensure  that  children  are  protected  and  safe.  They  are  forbidden  to  take  part  in  demonstrations,  and  television  reporting  on  crimes  or  armed  conflicts  does  not  show  their  faces.  The  Palestinians,  however,  and  particularly  Hamas,  regularly  and  remorselessly  make  use  of  children.  Teachers  in  classrooms  define  “Jew”  or  “Zionist”  in  terms  of  vilification;  children  are  taught  that  Israel  is  a  country  that  does  not  exist,  and  it  does  not  appear  on  maps  of  the  region.  

We  Must  Continue  the  Struggle  for  Truth  We  must,  of  course,  tirelessly  continue  the  informational  struggle  and  denounce  phenomena  like  the  al-­‐Dura  affair.  We  must  prove  again  and  again  to  the  journalists  and  intellectuals  who  presume  to  preach  morality  to  us  that  they  do  not  hold  a  monopoly  on  truth  and  justice  in  the  world,  and  are  not  capable  of  solving  our  conflict  with  the  Palestinians  from  safe  distances.  We  must  loudly  and  publicly  emphasize  that  Israel  is  not  like  other  countries.  It  is  the  only  one  in  the  world  subject  to  open  calls  for  its  destruction,  and  the  only  one  without  recognized  and  defensible  

borders.  It  is  the  only  one  whose  capital,  Jerusalem,  is  not  officially  recognized  by  a  single  country  in  the  world.  At  the  same  time,  we  must  confront  the  problems  facing  us,  the  threats  from  Iran,  Hizbullah,  international  terrorism,  and  anti-­‐Semitism.  We  must  fight  the  websites  inciting  against  us,  the  Arab  broadcast  channels  like  Al-­Manar  from  Beirut  and  Al  Jazeera  from  Qatar.  And  yet,  despite  it  all,  Israel  has  not  lost  its  values;  it  persists  in  the  quest  for  a  real  and  sustainable  peace.  The  problem  is  strategic  and  political.  We  have  not  dealt  sufficiently  and  effectively  with  the  malicious  and  ugly  propaganda  of  the  other  side,  and  our  response  was  sometimes  weak  and  muddled  in  the  al-­‐Dura  affair  as  well.  While  we  continue  to  speak  in  the  Western  logic  of  common  sense  and  legal  aspects,  the  Palestinians  use  the  vernacular  of  emotions  and  passions.  We  need  to  carry  out  a  fundamental,  systematic,  carefully  thought-­‐out  revision.  In  sum,  while  criticism  of  the  State  of  Israel  or  its  government  is  undoubtedly  legitimate,  bias,  distortions,  and  delegitimization  must  be  condemned.  The  edicts  of  an  unreliable  group  of  people,  who  presume  to  objectively  portray  a  bloody  conflict  that  has  been  ongoing  for  a  hundred  years,  must  be  rejected  entirely.  Clearly,  then,  notwithstanding  the  criticism  and  reservations  that  have  been  voiced,  the  initiative  of  a  government  ministry  to  publish  the  report  on  the  al-­‐Dura  affair  is  very  praiseworthy  and  appropriate.  A  democratic  state  that  fights  for  its  existence  is  required  to  defend  itself  and  its  image  with  all  the  tools  at  its  disposal.