Woorden tegenover beelden in affaire Mohammed al-Dura

 

Ik vrees dat de schrijver hier wel gelijk in heeft:

A strong argument can be made that by arguing forcefully against the accepted version of events in this case, by punching holes in the accepted narrative, by demonstrating how events can be edited and manipulated, the government is weakening overall Palestinian credibility and making it easier down the line to knock down fabricated Palestinian stories about Israeli “atrocities” (Think “Jenin Massacre”). 

But still. Israel, by releasing this report 13 years on, has put this picture back into people’s minds, and it is not entirely clear whose interests are served by resurrecting this potent image.

Het is goed dat Israel er alles aan doet om de waarheid boven tafel te krijgen, al is het na 13 jaar rijkelijk laat. Het is jammer dat de media vaak meer aandacht hebben voor de vaak krachtige beelden en de emoties en slogans in het conflict dan voor de droge feiten. Dit is waarschijnlijk een van de redenen waarom Israel de ‘oorlog’ om de publieke opinie aan het verliezen is: de beelden van Palestijnen die lijden onder de bezetting en Israels (vaak terechte) veiligheidsmaatregelen zijn veel krachtiger dan de uitleg dat ze deze ellende voor een groot deel aan zichzelf hebben te danken. De oorzaken hoe het zover gekomen is leggen het af tegen beelden van de muur en Palestijnen in vluchtelingenkampen. En sinds Israel, met behulp van diezelfde ‘muur’, de aanslagen die Palestijnen plegen tot bijna 0 heeft weten terug te brengen, zijn er weinig krachtige beelden om daar tegenover te stellen. 

 

RP

---------- 

 

Analysis: Words vs. pictures in al-Dura affair

http://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and-Politics/Analysis-Words-vs-pictures-in-al-Dura-affair-313783

By HERB KEINON

05/21/2013 02:08

It is not entirely clear whose interests are served by resurrecting the potent image of Muhammad al-Dura.

 

 

Palestinian boys carrying Hamas flags in the Gaza Strip walk past graffiti showing Muhammad al-Dura. Photo: REUTERS

CBS News correspondent Lesley Stahl, the tale is told, put together an unflattering piece on former US president Ronald Reagan in 1984, during the heat of that year’s election campaign, trying to show the contradictions between what Reagan had promised during his first years in office, and what he delivered.

Stahl, who wrote about the incident in her 1999 book Reporting Live, said she knew the nearly six-minute segment would have an impact, and thought that the White House would be furious.

Related:

·        Kuperwaser defends gov’t findings on al-Dura’s death

·        Al-Dura says he is willing to exhume son's body

After the piece – which showed favorable footage of Reagan over negative commentary – aired, Stahl did indeed receive a call from White House advisor Dick Darman. But he called to praise, not berate, her.

“Way to go, kiddo. What a great piece. We love it,” he told the correspondent.

Stahl, confused because her piece was highly critical, asked, “Didn’t you hear what I said?” To which Darman replied, “Nobody heard what you said. You guys in Televisionland haven’t figured it out, have you? When the pictures are powerful and emotional, they override if not completely drown out the sound. I mean it, Lesley. Nobody heard you.”

The same might be said of the government panel that on Sunday issued its conclusions that the IDF did not kill 12-year-old Muhammad al-Dura in 2000. Were Palestinian leaders to phone the members of the panel, they probably would say that the al-Dura image is so powerful, it is drowning out all the committee’s words.

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, upon receiving the report on Sunday, said, “It is important to focus on this incident – which has slandered Israel’s reputation. This is a manifestation of the ongoing, mendacious campaign to delegitimize Israel. There is only one way to counter lies, and that is through the truth. Only the truth can prevail over lies.”

True, and indeed a noble sentiment, one that Netanyahu repeats often.

The only problem is that the panel, as convincing as it might be, did not incontrovertibly demonstrate the truth. Rather, it put out – 13 years after the event – a strongly argued Israeli version of those events.

For those who despise Israel, all the learned arguments in the world are not going to convince them that Israel did not shoot the 12- year-old Gazan boy in cold blood. To those who truly know Israel, they do not need this document to know that IDF soldiers do not intentionally target children hiding behind their parents.

And those in the middle – well, they have probably long forgotten the story, inasmuch as it took place in September 2000.

Until now. Now the image is once again on television.

Now that picture is again in the newspapers. Now those in the middle are reminded about it again and again.

A strong argument can be made that by arguing forcefully against the accepted version of events in this case, by punching holes in the accepted narrative, by demonstrating how events can be edited and manipulated, the government is weakening overall Palestinian credibility and making it easier down the line to knock down fabricated Palestinian stories about Israeli “atrocities” (Think “Jenin Massacre”).

But still. Israel, by releasing this report 13 years on, has put this picture back into people’s minds, and it is not entirely clear whose interests are served by resurrecting this potent image.

Or, as Darman told Stahl, “When the pictures are powerful and emotional, they override if not completely drown out the sound.”