In 2003, my Atlantic colleague James Fallows performed a huge public service. He painstakingly reviewed the evidence and concluded that perhaps the single most iconic anti-Israel image did not in fact document an Israeli action at all. Muhamed al-Dura was, we were told, the name of a 12-year-old Palestinian boy shot dead by Israeli soldiers, as he crouched against a concrete wall beside his helpless father.
This image still defines the conflict for millions in the Muslim world. It was cited by Osama bin Laden as justification for his crimes. However, and having examined the evidence, Fallows concluded:
It now appears that the boy cannot have died in the way reported by most of the world's media and fervently believed throughout the Islamic world. Whatever happened to him, he was not shot by the Israeli soldiers who were known to be involved in the day's fighting—or so I am convinced, after spending a week in Israel talking with those examining the case.
The man who did most to bring the al-Dura image to the world, Charles Enderlin, is one of France’s most esteemed journalists, a chevalier of the Legion of Honor. Many of his critics lacked media credentials and media experience. Yet in the end, as Fallows concluded, they were right and Enderlin was wrong.
Yesterday, Fallows posted a piece on the dustup over my tweets about images from Gaza. He had some critical things to say about me, and I agree they were deserved. Normally I count to 10 before posting on Twitter, but on this occasion I was over-impulsive and reacted too fast, too angrily, and too emphatically, in the process making accusations for which I had no sufficient basis. I take that mistake seriously, and I’ve apologized for it.
But there’s a danger of veering to the opposite extreme. That extreme is to lose sight of the long experience that Israel’s enemies manipulate imagery as a strategic tool against the Jewish state. Here’s Fallows again, from that most recent post:
We all dislike something about the press, so we take for granted rather than glorify the fact that these are people taking real risks for usually minimal pay. And glorification would be beside the point. From my time in even faintly similar circumstances (during the anti-government riots in South Korea, with a rebel group in Mindanao, in Burma during the 1988 upheavals) I know that people do this for adrenaline and camaraderie and a host of normal, non-glorious reasons.
But respect is called for. For all their blind spots and flaws, reporters on the scene are trying to see, so they can tell, and the photographic and video reporters take greater risks than all the rest, since they must be closer to the action.
I agree that we should respect journalists who incur danger to show the world what they have seen. I stressed that point in my post of apology. My late father-in-law was a foreign correspondent who covered wars from Algeria to Vietnam. My own passport carries stamps from Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Nicaragua, Ukraine, and Venezuela, and of course Israel too. I know something of the risks that journalists run.
But I also know—and of course Jim Fallows also knows—that even as we respect the risks journalists incur, we also need to exercise critical judgment about the stories they tell and the images they show. This is especially true in the Middle East, where management of images has become a strategic tool. Just yesterday The New York Times gave the following statement to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency to explain why the American paper has published so few images of Hamas fighters engaged in combat operations:
Our photo editor went through all of our pictures recently and out of many hundreds, she found 2 very distant poor quality images that were captioned Hamas fighters by our photographer on the ground. It is very difficult to identify Hamas because they don’t have uniforms or any visible insignia; our photographer hasn’t even seen anyone carrying a gun.
I would add that we would not withhold photos of Hamas militants. We eagerly pursue photographs from both sides of the conflict, but we are limited by what our photographers have access to.
Those “limits” are very deliberately imposed by Hamas itself:
Palestinian journalist Radjaa Abou Dagga, for example, wrote an article for French newspaper Libération, published July 23, detailing how Hamas intimidated him, forcing him to leave Gaza, and how Hamas terrorists use a section of Shifa hospital, just a few meters from the emergency room, as their offices ….
The next day, Mr. Dagga asked Libération to remove his article from their website, apparently out of fear for his family still in Gaza.
You can see the Libération notice of the article’s removal here. (Translated from French the notice reads, “This article, which described the attempted intimidation of the Palestinian journalist Radjaa Abu Dagga, a correspondent for Ouest France formerly with Libération, was unpublished at his request.”)
I’ve dispensed criticism in the past for the mistakes of others—for example, when one of Vox’s writers on the Middle East understated by more than half the number of Israeli lives lost to terrorism since 2000. I expect and accept criticism in my turn when I err. So no complaints on that front.
But I do complain of this: Some of the writers criticizing me have taken the next follow-on step to try to retrospectively authenticate questionable photographs from the 2006 Lebanon war.
Tim Rutten, then of The Los Angeles Times, powerfully described the flow of images out of that conflict:
Many, including grisly images from the Qana tragedy, clearly are posed for maximum dramatic effect. There is an entire series of photos of children's stuffed toys poised atop mounds of rubble. All are miraculously pristinely clean and apparently untouched by the devastation they purportedly survived. (Reuters might want to check its freelancers' expenses for unexplained Toys R Us purchases.) In some cases, the bloggers seem to have uncovered the same photographer using more than one identity. There's an improbable photo by Hajj of a Koran burning atop the rubble of a building supposedly destroyed by an Israeli aircraft hours before. Nothing else in sight is alight. (With photos, as in life, when something seems too perfect to be true, it's almost always because it is.) In other photos, the same wrecked building is portrayed multiple times with the same older woman—one supposes she ought to be called a model—either lamenting its destruction or passing by in different costumes.
The year 2006 was perhaps the zenith of the independent blog. The people who drew attention to the dubious images from Lebanon often worked at websites that often carried funny names such as Little Green Footballs or The Jawa Report. (The New York Times reported in 2006 on the role of Little Green Footballs, in particular, in exposing contested photographs.) They were often impelled by passionate political views of their own. As Rutten wrote:
Make what you will of the analysis, much of which is feverish, sneering and tending toward the mechanistically conspiratorial. What's hard to imagine is how anybody can look at the photos and not conclude that they're riddled with journalistic deceit.
One site, aggregated many of these images in one place. That site also carried an absurd name: Zombietime. If you prefer sites with less silly names, a smaller selection of photos can also be seen at the Jewish Virtual Library. But if you want to see, as opposed to merely hearing described, what all the fuss was about in 2006, Zombietime is a convenient location. So when, in my apology post, I wanted to explain the sources of my skepticism of some images from the Israel-Palestine conflict I wrote, "A summary of such practices in the 2006 Lebanon war can be read here” and linked to the Zombietime site. Not all the images on that site have been conclusively proved to be manipulated or staged—I didn’t mean to suggest they had been—but take a look at them and see if you don’t reach some of the same conclusions that Tim Rutten and many others did.
My link to the images at Zombietime incurred the wrath of Gawker’s Adam Weinstein, who dismissed the site as a den of conspiracy theorists. For confirmation of his claims, Weinstein linked to the website, Electronic Intifada. Here’s some background on the co-founder of Electronic Intifada, which comes not from a pro-Israel pen, but from Hussein Ibish, one of the most tireless champions of the Palestinian cause:
He has defended the most recalcitrant elements in Hamas and encouraged its most obstructionist and counterproductive attitudes, with sentiments like, “’Hamas: We will never recognize the enemy.’ Let’s hope they keep their word.” A March 2009 article by Abunimah and his father Hassan accused Hillary Clinton of “sabotaging” Palestinian reconciliation talks (yes, the same Hillary Clinton who he now tells the Times has impressed him), and urged Hamas not to agree to the conditions of the Middle East Quartet. This is hardly surprising, given that he is opposed to both peace and negotiations, instead endorsing, “Liberation through resistance not ‘peace’ through ‘negotiations.’"
His admiration for Hamas leaders is often gushing: “Nothing better than a live interview on Aljazeera with a top Hamas official. They are always so eloquent and clear.” As for the leadership of the even more extreme Islamic Jihad organization, his enthusiasm seems to go beyond the political. In one of his earlierst and perhaps most unguarded tweets, Abunimah wrote, “I think [Islamic Jihad leader] Ramadan Shallah is super intelligent, eloquent and hot.” Yes, hot.
This is the authority that Weinstein turns to in order to determine what is “nutty” and what is not? Maybe that’s not entirely surprising, given that his most noteworthy post on Gawker argued that climate-change skeptics be arrested and imprisoned.
I am not engaging in self-exculpation here. I lost my temper on Twitter. I hurled an accusation for which I did not have evidence. For that, I am sorry. But I am sensing in this controversy something more at stake than one man’s impulsive lapse in judgment.
We can all see there is terrible human suffering in Gaza. The sight of that suffering causes every viewer pain, myself very much included. As Bill Clinton emphatically stated in an interview with Indian television, this reaction is exactly what Hamas hoped to achieve by choosing war: “Hamas was perfectly well aware of what would happen if they started raining rockets on Israel. … They have a strategy designed to force Israel to kill their own civilians.”
Yet there are those who wish to shift the blame, to exonerate Hamas and to arraign Israel. They selectively deploy images from the conflict zone to vilify Israel’s campaign of self-defense—and they have invested great effort and emotion to ensure that this selective deployment continues. To the extent that my mistake on Twitter encourages and emboldens such people … well, that’s yet another reason for me to regret my error.
This article available online at: