Symbolism And Controversy

This today from MSNBC:

The father of a Gaza boy whose killing in 2000 became a symbol of the Palestinian uprising laid flowers at the roadside spot where he died after Israel pulled forces out of the area on Monday.

Mohammed al-Durra [sic], 12, was killed in a shootout between the Israeli army and Palestinian gunmen at a junction on Gaza's main highway when the revolt erupted there and in the West Bank ...

... Palestinians say Israeli troops shot Mohammed near the turn-off leading to the isolated Jewish settlement of Netzarim, and they renamed the spot the ''Martyrs Crossroads.'' The Israeli army initially apologised for the boy's death but later said gunfire from Palestinian militants had killed him.

The story of al-Dura is interesting. It’s interesting because footage of the dying boy, broadcast with some frequency in the West but repeatedly in the Arab world, made the boy a symbol among Arabs of the Palestinian cause and presumed Israeli brutality. It’s also interesting because many have now called into question what really happened that day, but with little recognition. And finally, it’s interesting because some now question whether the controversy is itself a form of revisionist symbol creation.

The story is now like a snake eating it’s own tail: the creation of an iconic symbol, which was then questioned as an intentional act of propaganda, via a process which is now itself being questioned as an instance revisionist history.

Two pieces in particular illustrate the two sides ...

The first is this James Fallows Atlantic Monthly article, Who Shot Mohammed al-Dura? It leads:

The image of a boy shot dead in his helpless father's arms during an Israeli confrontation with Palestinians has become the Pietà of the Arab world. Now a number of Israeli researchers are presenting persuasive evidence that the fatal shots could not have come from the Israeli soldiers known to have been involved in the confrontation. The evidence will not change Arab minds—but the episode offers an object lesson in the incendiary power of an icon.

Read the entire article, then read the second piece, this Daily Times of Pakistan article by Shehryar Fazli, titled Power Of An Icon. In part, it reads:

If tearing down the symbol does not work, the revisionists will at least try to adapt its meaning … If the symbol is to remain, then put a new value on it. In this case, attempts to disprove the official account of al-Dura’s death by placing the blame on the Palestinians, may hope to cloak the original icon and confer on it a new, customised connotation: Palestinian deceit and absolute disrespect for human life.

Together, they surface many of the issues involved. More important, they highlight what the disparate Western and Arab coverage of the Iraq war also suggested: that for perhaps the first time both sides in this seeming "clash of civilizations" understand and are using the power of media to shape the discourse, and to define what the audience considers “real.”

Posted by Avocare at June 30, 2003 01:23 PM | TrackBack