Home Investigations Al-Durah Five Scenarios Israelis on Purpose
1. Israelis on Purpose

Those of the opinion that the Israelis intentionally killed Mohammed al-Durah are located primarily in the Palestinian territories and the Arab and Muslim world where, thanks to edited footaged, his "murderer" appears in the footage. Among this audience we find people convinced of a Zionist plot to wipe the Palestinian people off the face of the earth and to enslave mankind. They use this incident as a confirmation of their suspicions and to justify their responses. This scenario has reaffirmed, for many, their worst beliefs and fears about Zionists, Israelis, and Jews. Many European media and radical groups present the case as a deliberate murder.



The main body of evidence supporting this claim comes from the testimony of Talal abu Rahma and Jamal al-Durah, given at several distinct instances.

Specifically, Talal points out that the Israelis were shooting at the boy and father for 45 . He also asserts that the Israelis saw the boy and the father and continued to shoot at them regardless . Talal has reiterated this position in interviews with the BBC, German filmmaker Ester Schapira, Israeli TV and National Public Radio. In his first formal statement under oath he claimed that the child was intentionally and in cold blood shot dead and his father injured by the Israeli army.

Jamal al-Durrah, the father of Mohammed, has supported this position in his many statements and interviews where he says that the Israeli soldiers saw and fired upon him and Mohammed repeatedly, even after he begged them to stop. Jamal has said that he was hit by eight bullets and Mohammed by four.

Palestinian officials, such as the doctor who examined Mohammed's body and the general who performed the investigation, also concur on the identity and motive of the guilty party.

1. All the evidence here is eye-witness testimony to events "under fire." They concern not observations but judgments that go to motive. None of the available evidence supports such an accusation.

  • The firing during the time when we can locate the father and son behind the barrel is limited and, judging from the behavior of some Palestinians and photographers who appear to know and do not take cover, the fire is Palestinian and possibly in the air.
  • Only one shot of the Israeli post shows a bullet fired from that position, which does not exclude firing, but hardly supports Talal's claims.
  • No shot of the boy and the father behind the barrel indicates a bullet hitting the wall coming from the Israeli position.

2. No Israeli bullets recovered

  • Either at the site
  • Or from the bodies of Jamal (8 reported bullet wounds) or Muhamed (3 reported bullet wounds).
  • Talal, when questioned by Esther Schapira, makes claims he cannot sustain claims he cannot sustain.

3. Distance from Israelis to Barrel

Talal has said that the army outpost was anywhere from 150 to 300 meters away from Jamal and Mohammed. From the vantage point of the father and son, it would be impossible to see the soldiers in the tower with the naked eye; so that Jamal's claim that he begged them to stop hardly means that they received the message. That Jamal could effectively beg them to stop shooting amid an allegedly deafening hail of bullets - Talal: I never saw shooting like that in my life," from a distance of two or three football fields is impossible.

4. Motive: Why murder a 12 year old boy?


Links to sites that take this position

Information Clearing House
The Modern Religion
Support sanity

Comments (0)Add Comment

Write comment
smaller | bigger

security code
Write the displayed characters








Facebook MySpace Twitter Digg Google Bookmarks