Israel questions Gaza boy’s death

The father of Muhammad el-Dura, a Palestinian child killed in Gaza in 2000 during an exchange of fire between Israeli troops and Palestinian police, says he is willing to exhume his son’s body to refute Israeli claims that he was not shot by soldiers.

The television footage of Jamal el-Dura together with his 12-year-old son Muhammad, crouching in fear in front of a wall and sobbing as bullets flew by, became the most powerful image of the second Palestinian uprising.

Israel originally admitted responsibility but later declared that the boy and his father were not hit by Israeli bullets, accusing France 2 television of deliberately fabricating its coverage.

The Paris court of appeals is due to rule tomorrow on a defamation case brought by France 2's bureau chief Charles Enderlin who sued Philippe Karsenty, a French Jew, who claimed the report of the incident was a "media hoax".

Israeli report
A 36-page report drawn up by Israeli government officials, and including testimony from experts, released on Sunday, concluded that there was no evidence that the boy and his father were injured at all, let alone severely, by Israeli fire. The report accused France 2 of editing its footage to support biased reporting.

It also criticised other media outlets for basing their coverage of the case solely on France 2’s report, disregarding the fact that the incident was witnessed by many reporters.

Prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu said the incident slandered Israel’s reputation. “This is a manifestation of the ongoing, mendacious campaign to delegitimise Israel. Only the truth can prevail over lies.” Israeli strategic affairs minister Yuval Steinitz called the incident “a modern-day blood libel”.

Mr al-Dura rejected the findings of the Israeli report and called for an international investigation, saying he would be willing to exhume his son’s body if Israel agreed to such a move. He claimed his son died at the scene and he accused Israel of lying in order to clear itself of blame.

France 2 claimed it was not consulted for the report, and said it stood by its coverage.