Dans le déluge de commentaires partisans, de pétitions et de contre-pétitions, qui a suivi la publication du rapport officiel israélien sur «l’affaire Al-Dura», des articles de deux grands journalistes israéliens, Shhlomi Eldar et Ben Caspit, méritent d’être lus. Publiés tous deux par l’excellent journal en ligne Al-Monitor, ils défendent des positions contradictoires mais ils suscitent l’un et l’autre le respect. Je propose au lecteur français (sachant lire l’anglais) de les lire attentivement tous les deux.

M. W.  

Voici un extrait de l’article de Shlomi Eldar:


I am not arguing that there was no need to investigate the killing of the 12-year-old boy who became a symbol of the second intifada. The problem is the timing. It should not be done now, 13 years later. The narrative has already been etched into the Palestinian national consciousness, and nothing can change that, not even the conclusions of an official Israeli investigative committee. And it certainly does not help that its conclusions are based on meager findings derived from a video shot by the France 2 TV network. (…)

The former chief of Israel’s Southern Command reserve Maj. Gen. Yom-Tov Samia was the first to claim that it was not Israeli gunfire that killed Durrah. He based his conclusion on a comprehensive investigation that he personally led, which calculated the angle of the gunfire and the precise location of Israel Defense Forces (IDF) troops at the intersection during the incident. After collecting the evidence, he reached the verdict that the boy and his father were most likely hit by Palestinian gunfire. He provided a legitimate counterargument and presented it in real time, while the world was still outraged by images of the incident. What Samia did not conclude from his investigation is the ludicrous claim that “it was all staged,” and that Durrah is still “alive and kicking” somewhere in the Gaza Strip. (…)

Since the second intifada, almost 7,000 Palestinians have been killed. There were also some 1,100 Israeli casualties of suicide attacks. Tens of thousands more were injured or suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder. There were also two major military operations in Gaza and thousands of rockets were fired at Israel. Of all the issues raised by this bitter conflict, someone decided that the one thing that demands an investigation is the death of Muhammad al-Durrah.


Pour lire l’article dans sa totalité, cliquer ICI.


Voici un extrait de l’article de Ben Caspit:


No official Commission of Inquiry created by the Israeli government will succeed in changing the culture of hypocrisy and lies that still permeates the Arab world surrounding us. What interests me is what would happen if an Israeli soldier, and not some Syrian rebel, were photographed taking a bite out of the still throbbing heart of his enemy, who is lying dead at his feet. I want to know what would happen if 100,000 civilians were slaughtered in Jenin and Ramallah and Nablus in two years, instead of in Syria. The reason that I’m not upset is that I know exactly what would happen. We’ve gotten used to being the punching bag for the violent mob that surrounds us. Welcome to the Middle East.

There is no Israeli soldier who shot a Palestinian child in cold blood. I hope there never will be one, either. Deep in their hearts, the Arabs know that. No Israeli would don a suicide vest and blow himself up among a crowd of young people standing in line to get into a dance club. Baruch Goldstein was the one exception, and he remains a pariah until today. He reached the end of his tether and committed a terrible act, yet no one even considered naming a town square in his honor, not even in the settlement of Itamar.

In the century-long Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the numbers of Palestinians or Arabs who were actually killed are relatively small, when comparing everything happening all around them. I oppose the continuation of the Israeli occupation of the territories. I think that the occupation causes great harm to Israel, and I don’t think that you would find another Israeli journalist who wrote a more scathing critique of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu than me. I would sign the Geneva Peace initiative tomorrow and partition Jerusalem the day after that. But at the same time, I know that the Palestinian response to former Prime Minister Ehud Barak’s far-reaching peace proposals in 2000 was the second intifada, which included many barbaric assaults against women and children. I also know that former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s proposal to Palestinian Chairman Abu Mazen, as completely insane as it was, has not been answered until today. I also know that the Palestine Liberation Organization, or PLO, was founded before the Six-Day War, before there even was an occupation. That is why I try to keep everything in the right perspective. (…)

I have a lot of respect for correspondent Charles Enderlin from France 2, but as someone familiar with all the details at a very high resolution, I believe that he never should have determined that the al-Durrah boy was dead, as long as he had a video clip which showed him still alive. That footage was put into deep storage. It was censored and disappeared, only to show up again this week in the report by the Israeli Commission of Inquiry. A responsible journalist never would have broadcasted the footage without also showing the doubt, the full picture, and all of the details relevant to the story. When it comes to Israel, however, too many journalists and too many media outlets won’t let the facts ruin their story.


Pour lire l’article dans sa totalité, cliquer ICI.




Tribune Libre


Atlas du conflit Israélo-Arabe