Independent Media Center, Israel http://www.indymedia.org.il
The Truth of Mohammed al-Dura: A Response to James Fallows%AM %03 %b %2003 author: Adam Rose
summary Whether or not a particular 12-year-old boy died at the hands of Israeli soldiers, the image of Mohammed al-Dura is an authentic symbol of the Israeli occupation. Avoiding this harsh truth does a disservice to Israel and the Jewish people, as well as to the Palestinians, hinders the quest for peace, and endangers everyone if the wrong lessons are drawn from the al-Dura incident. (A reply to "The Atlantic Monthly" article 'Who Shot Mohammed al-Dura?' by James Fallows)
href="The%20Truth%20of%20Mohammed%20al-Dura%20(Indymedia)_files/editdata.mso"> The Truth of Mohammed al-Dura: A Response to James Fallows
Whether or not a particular 12-year-old
boy died at the hands of Israeli soldiers, the image of Mohammed al-Dura
is an authentic symbol of the Israeli occupation. Avoiding this harsh
truth does a disservice to Israel and the Jewish people, as well as to
the Palestinians, hinders the quest for peace, and endangers everyone
if the wrong lessons are drawn from the al-Dura
name=Part1>In the June 2003 issue of The Atlantic Monthly, James
Fallows reports on Israeli research suggesting that the most famous image
of the Second Intifada may not be what it appears to be. That image--which
the lead-in to the article calls the "Pieta of the Arab world"--is of a
12-year-old Palestinian boy and his young father crouching against a wall
beside a concrete "barrel" that shields them from the gunfire of Israeli
soldiers. Ultimately, however, young Mohammed al-Dura
was killed and his father Jamal severely wounded.
style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman";
Actually, the image in question is not
really a single image, but rather a video of the 30 September 2000
incident near the Netzarim settlement
in Gaza made by a Palestinian cameraman working for the French TV
network France 2. Four still images from this video are particularly
dramatic and have become famous.
In the first image, father and son are
huddled together, backs against the wall "behind" the concrete barrel
that shields them from Israeli gunfire. Mohammed is clearly terrified
as he screams and clutches at his father.
In the second image, Jamal peers around
the barrel in the direction of Israeli soldiers while firmly gripping
his son's arm. The terrified Mohammed continues to scream and,
peering under his father's arm, looks directly into the camera--you
can see the whites of his eyes.
In the third image, there are bullet
holes on the wall and Jamal, still forcefully gripping the now-crying
Mohammed, directs a primal scream towards the camera, his white
teeth starkly contrasting with his dark face.
In the fourth image, Mohammed lies on
the ground with his hand covering his face. Jamal sits slumped
against the wall, his head cocked at an unnatural angle, his eyes
closed and his mouth open. Amidst the bullet holes and debris,
both appear to be dead--though, in fact, Jamal is not.
(The continuous video captures the moment
when the two are actually struck by bullets.)
this circumstantial evidence, which Fallows himself
finds "persuasive", some have concluded that Israelis did not kill Mohammed
class=SpellE>Dura; Palestinians did. Some have even concluded that entire
event was staged and that al-
class=SpellE>Dura was not killed at all. In either scenario, the Palestinian
motive is the same: "To manufacture a child martyr, in correct anticipation
of the damage this would do to Israel in the eyes of the world--especially
the Islamic world."
In the words of Nahum
class=SpellE>Shahaf, the Israeli physicist and engineer who instigated
and led the revisionist analysis and whom Fallows quotes:
I believe that one day there will be good
things in common between us and the Palestinians. … But the case of Mohammed
al-Dura brings the big flames between Israel
and the Palestinians and Arabs. It brings a big wall of hate. They can
say this is the proof, the ultimate proof, that Israeli soldiers are boy-murderers.
And that hatred breaks any chance of having something good in the future.
The revisionist analysis is thus offered as
proof of two things. First, that Israeli soldiers
did not kill Mohammed al-Dura. Second, and
in some ways more rhetorically and politically important, that Palestinians
will do anything in their propaganda war against Israel--including perhaps
killing one of their own children.
And the Palestinians are winning the
propaganda war according to Fallows. The Arab world--and perhaps the whole
world, including much of the United States and even of Israel itself--has
been eager to swallow the story of the Mohammed al-Dura's
align=right hspace=12 v:shapes="_x0000_s1065"> Through repetition [these images]
have become as familiar and significant to Arab and Islamic viewers as
photographs of bombed-out Hiroshima are to the people of Japan--or as footage
of the crumbling World Trade Center is to Americans. Several Arab countries
have issued postage stamps carrying a picture of the terrified boy. One
of Baghdad's main streets was renamed The Martyr Mohammed Aldura
Street. Morocco has an al-
Thus, the al-
class=SpellE>Dura case has been "uniquely damaging" for Israel because,
in the words of Israeli strategist Dan Schueftan,
"[It was] the ultimate symbol of what the Arabs want to think: the father
is trying to protect his son, and the satanic Jews--there is no other word
for it--are trying to kill him. These Jews are people who will come to
kill our children, because they are not human."
And as Fallow relates it, the Arab world (unlike
ours?) is not about to let a small thing like "facts" produced by Israeli
researchers change its opinion.
So here we have all the main elements of the
perspective that Fallows finds "persuasive". Despite the actual facts
of Israeli behavior on that fateful day in Gaza, the Palestinians deliberately
manufactured the martyrdom of Mohammed al-Dura
in order to "prove" the "satanic" nature of the Israelis, or perhaps "the
Jews". And despite the actual facts of Israeli behavior on that fateful
day in Gaza, the Arab world has adopted this false symbol with gusto.
Why? Because that's what they want to think. And "they" will
choose to think that regardless of the actual facts. Indeed, "facts"
will be manufactured to support it.
and article, therefore, are ultimately not about the forensic investigation,
but rather about the dynamics of "martyrdom" in the Arab world. For the
class=SpellE>Dura episode "offers an object lesson in the incendiary
power of an icon" and thus "illustrates the way the battles of wartime
imagery may play themselves out" in the future--especially in a U.S.-occupied
Iraq in which Arab civilians are dying at the (apparent?) hands of alien
soldiers. As Fallows ominously notes, "More of this lies ahead".
class=SpellE>Fallows's article needs to be assessed, then, first and
foremost for what it says about the image of Mohammed al-
class=SpellE>Dura's death and the relationship between that image and
"truth", especially in the Arab world. I believe there are at least two
significant problems with
First, there is an obvious contradiction between
claiming that a group of people will believe a particular thing regardless
of the "truth" and then suggesting that someone has found it necessary
to manufacture "proof" to convince these people of that very thing. After
all, strictly speaking, "proof" is only useful for those who remain to
be convinced. If the Arab world already believes that the Israelis or
"the Jews" are "satanic", no additional "proof" is needed. (One wonders,
therefore, if what is really so troubling about the al-Dura
image for Fallows and his sources is not that it has influenced those
who believe that Israelis can do no good, but rather that it has influenced
those otherwise disposed to think that Israelis or "the Jews" can do no
class=GramE>This points to the second and larger problem with
class=SpellE>Fallows's argument: his narrow and incomplete understanding
of "truth". From
class=SpellE>Fallows's perspective, the truth that matters
is who shot Mohammed al-Dura and the
truth is either that he was shot by Israelis or that he was not and the
Israelis were framed. And, of course, in one sense this is right and
important. But there is another, even more important truth of the matter
connected to its symbolic nature. And it is this symbolic truth that
Fallows completely misconstrues.
In his Poetics, Aristotle writes:
The distinction between historian and poet
is not in the one writing prose and the other verse--you might put the
work of Herodotus into verse, and it would still be a species of history;
it consists really in this, that the one describes the thing that has
been, and the other a kind of thing that might be. Hence poetry is something
more philosophic and of graver import than history, since its statements
are of the nature rather of universals, whereas those of history are singulars.
By a universal statement I mean one as to what such or such a kind of
man will probably or necessarily say or do--which is the aim of poetry,
though it affixes proper names to the characters; by a singular statement,
one as to what, say, Alcibiades did or had done
to him. (1451b1-12)
It is evident from the above that the poet
must be more the poet of his stories or Plots than of his verses, inasmuch
as he is a poet by virtue of the imitative element in his work, and it
is actions that he imitates. And if he should come to take a subject
from actual history, he is none the less a poet for that; since some historic
occurrences may very well be in that probable or possible order of things;
and it is in that aspect of them that he is their poet. (1451b27-32)
In other words, above and beyond "historical"
truths of what actually happens in particular "singular" events, there
are "philosophical" truths of what "probably or necessarily" happens "universally"
in certain types of events. And it is such universal, philosophical truths,
according to Aristotle, that are manifested in "poetry"--and by extension
other "arts" as well.
Sometimes the portrayal of an actual event
is "artistic" as well as "historic" because it represents a universal
as well as a singular truth. In these cases, the portrayal reveals, in
addition to the actual, the "necessary or probable" type of event of which
that actual is an instance. And sometimes the portrayal of an event that
never actually happened (or even never could happen) reveals a real, "necessary
or probable" type of event. In these cases, the portrayal is true as
a universal statement even though it is false as a singular statement.
align=right hspace=12 v:shapes="_x0000_s1066"> It is in this sense that one
experiences the "truth" of "art", "symbols", "myths"
style='font-family:Arial;'> and the like--quite independently
of whether the things they portray "actually happened". There is a truth
in Macbeth quite independent of the facts of Macbeth. There is
a truth in the story of George Washington and the cherry tree quite independent
of the historical George's childhood. There is a truth in the image of
the flag-raising at Iwo
class=SpellE>Jima that makes the issue of whether the event was staged
simply beside the point.
And it is in this larger "artistic", symbolic
sense of truth that the image of Mohammed al-Dura
has swept the Arab world and beyond. Not because it "proved" something
that people didn't already know, but because it perfectly represented
something that they already "knew" too well. The critical question, therefore,
is not whether the particular boy Mohammed al-
class=SpellE>Dura was or was not killed by Israeli soldiers on 30 September
2000 near the Netzarim settlement in Gaza.
Rather, the critical question is whether or not Mohammed al-Dura
being killed by Israeli soldiers represented a certain type of event that
"probably or necessarily" happens quite regularly--a type
of event that in its starkest form boils down to older adolescent males
armed with the most advanced weaponry on one side killing younger adolescent
males armed with the most primitive weaponry on the other.
In other words, the critical question in an
examination of the dynamics of Mohammed al-Dura's
"martyrdom" is not whether the singular "Story of Mohammed al-
class=SpellE>Dura" is true, but whether the universal "Mohammed al-
class=SpellE>Dura Story" is true.
And the sad, incontrovertible fact is that
the universal "Mohammed al-Dura Story" is
true. According to multiple, credible international, American and Israeli
sources, Israeli soldiers do kill little Palestinian boys on a
regular basis. Sometimes for throwing rocks. Sometimes because they
are in the wrong place at the wrong time. And sometimes (apparently)
for sport. (See, for example: "Killing the Future: Children in the Line
of Fire", Amnesty International, 30 September 2002; "A Gaza Diary: Scenes
from the Palestinian Uprising" by New York Times reporter Chris
Hedges, Harper's Magazine, October 2001; and "Don't Shoot Till
You Can See They're Over the Age of 12" by Amira
Hass, Ha'aretz, 20 November 2000.)
class=SpellE>B'Tselem, the Israeli Information Center for Human Rights
in the Occupied Territories, Israeli security forces killed 2,038 Palestinians
between 29 September 2000 and 11 May 2003. Of these, 366 (18%) were minors
under the age of 18. Indeed, by the end of the second day of the al-Aqsa
Intifada, the day on which Mohammed al-Dura
died, 15 Palestinians had already been killed. Of these, four (27%) were
minors. Besides Mohammad al-Dura, whose death
was so graphically captured on video, B'Tselem
reports these otherwise-invisible child casualties:
style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'> Khaled
age 15, from Nablus, killed by Israeli security
forces live gunfire to the head in Nablus/The
style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'> Nizar Mahmud 'Abd al-'
class=SpellE>Ayedeh, age 16, from Deir 'Ammar/Ramallah,
killed by Israeli security forces gunfire to the chest in Ramallah/The
style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'> '
class=SpellE>Iyyad Ahmad al-Khashashi, age
16, from Nablus, killed by Israeli security
forces live gunfire in Nablus/The West Bank
The day after Mohammad al-Dura
died, four more minors--including another 12-year-old, Samer
killed by Israeli security forces.
(By comparison, B'Tselem
reports that between 29 September 2000 and 11 May 2003 Palestinians killed
483 Israeli civilians and 216 Israeli security personnel, or 699 total.
Of these, 92 or 13% were minors. By the end of the second day of the
intifada one Israeli soldier but no Israeli civilians, and therefore no
Israeli minors, had been killed. Further information is available at
Of course, the standard Israeli explanation
is that Palestinian casualties consist of "terrorists" and unavoidable
"collateral damage". And no doubt many are. But there is equally no
doubt that many Palestinians, including children, are victims of Israeli
predation consciously intended to "break them" physically, mentally and
economically so that they will, one by one, despair and drift away to
other places where life will be better and easier for them and where their
children will have a future.
Such predation is an integral part of
a de facto Israeli policy of "creeping annexation" of the occupied
territories. This policy--which also includes the relentless demolition
of Palestinian homes, the continuous expansion of Jewish settlements
and Jews-only "bypass roads" and the construction of a "separation
wall" that on current plans will incorporate approximately an additional
10% of the occupied territories into Israel and make the nearby
Palestinian villages that remain completely untenable--is designed
to preclude the establishment of a genuinely independent, genuinely
viable Palestine on the land Israel conquered in 1967.
And such predation has recently been
extended to include clearly-marked, clearly-unarmed international
peace activists who oppose Israel's occupation and who provide the
outside world with timely, first-hand, front-line documentation
of this creeping annexation.
No revisionist analysis has yet suggested,
for example, that 23-year-old American Rachel Corrie was not in
fact run over twice (forwards and backwards) by an Israeli army
bulldozer on 16 March 2003 in Gaza. Or that 22-year-old Briton
class=SpellE>Hurndall was not shot in the head by an Israeli sniper
on 10 April 2003 (and is now effectively brain-dead).
One might be forgiven for thinking that Israelis
(or perhaps even "the Jews") have lost their minds. Or their morals.
Or both. One might be forgiven for thinking that Israelis are perpetrating
a great evil. Not occasionally. Not accidentally. But intentionally
and systematically. And one might be forgiven for thinking that the only
plausible explanation for an Israel running amok is that Israelis are
"satanic" (although one might alternatively agree with Edmund Burke that,
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing").
align=right hspace=12 v:shapes="_x0000_s1067"> It is
class=GramE>a recognition of the deep, intentional and systematic evil
of the occupation--an evil that is destroying Israel from within even as
it destroys Palestine from without--that has led many Israelis to oppose
it. Most dramatically perhaps, over 1,000
class=GramE>Israelis, represented by groups such as
class=SpellE>Yesh Gvul ("There is a Limit"), OmetzLesarev ("Courage
to Refuse") and others, have declared that they will refuse to serve as
soldiers in the occupied territories. In the words of the Courage to
Refuse Combatants' Letter, "We shall not continue to fight beyond the
1967 borders in order to dominate, expel, starve and humiliate an entire
And it is a recognition of the deep, intentional
and systematic evil of the occupation that is driving a growing number
of American Jews--represented by a range of diverse groups that includes
class=SpellE>v'Shalom ("Jewish Alliance for Justice and Peace"), Americans
for Peace Now, The Tikkun Community, the Refuser
Solidarity Network, Jewish Voice for Peace and Not In My Name--to actively
oppose it, just as they oppose the evil of Palestinian suicide bombings.
Likewise with a growing number of Jews around the world.
The image of Mohammed al-Dura
is thus not so much about the particular little Palestinian boy named
Mohammed al-Dura as it is about all the little
Palestinian boys. And the power of that image is not what it says about
one, but what it says about all. For in that "artistic", "symbolic",
"mythical" image all the little boys--the Khaleds,
the Nizars, the 'Iyyads, the
class=SpellE>Samers, the 12-year-old killed today (22 May 2003) as I
complete this essay--are Mohammed al-Dura. It
is an image that serves as a kind of Tomb of the Unknown Little Palestinian
From this perspective, therefore, the actual
facts about the killing of the particular boy named Mohammed al-Dura
are rather beside the point. For even if the image of Mohammad al-Dura
is not true as "news" or "history" (and I and many others are by no means
persuaded like Fallows), there can be no doubt that it is true
And it is as "art" that the al-Dura
image resonates throughout the Arab world and beyond. It is
align=right hspace=12 v:shapes="_x0000_s1062"> as "art" embodying a general
truth that it has inspired the postage stamps and the renamed streets
and parks that Fallows mentions. And it is as "art" that it inspires
other art, including a recent novel by 15-year-old Egyptian-Italian Randa
class=SpellE>Ghazy (already or soon to be published in over 16 countries,
including the U.S. and Canada where George Braziller, Inc. is bringing
it out as Dreaming of Palestine).
In other words, it is precisely as
the "Palestinian Pietà" that the image of Mohammed al-Dura
is most importantly and undeniably true. (And it is precisely as the
"Palestinian Pietà" that the image of Mohammed al-Dura
has been embodied by artist Adam Pincus in a sculpture similar, if not
comparable, to Michelangelo's.)
If the fatal shot was fired by an Israeli
soldier, the image of Mohammed al-Dura is both
historically true and artistically true. If it was not, if Fallows and
the revisionists are right, the image of Mohammed al-Dura
is nonetheless--to borrow Picasso's characterization of all art--a lie that
can make us realize the truth.
In either case, acknowledging the truth of
Mohammed al-Dura is a necessary prerequisite
to ending the conditions that precipitated it.
Why doesn't James Fallows see all this? Despite
the fact that he ostensibly wants to examine the dynamics of the premier
case of Palestinian "martyrdom" and despite the fact that he recognizes
the fundamental role that Israel's settlement policy plays in the conflict,
why does Fallows ignore the symbolic truth of the al-Dura
image? Or perhaps more precisely: why does Fallows's
analysis hide this universal, symbolic truth by transforming it into a
relativistic, "cultural truth" different from ours? A cultural truth
that his article implies--and purportedly demonstrates--is willfully less
true than our own. A cultural truth that, unexplained, must necessarily
appear symptomatic of an inexplicable cultural hatred that Arabs have
for Israel or "the Jews", and by extension, America and the West.
Is it because, as Palestinian-American writer
Ray Hanania suggested recently in a syndicated column entitled "Atlantic
Monthly continues with its pro-Israel propaganda", Fallows is a shoddy
journalist not really interested in the truth, or "doesn't want to lose
his job at a biased publication with a historical bias toward Israel that
never publishes any serious essays by Palestinians who challenge Israel's
My suspicion is that a clue to the answer
is revealed in Fallows's characterizations of
the two sides' respective contributions to the problem. From Fallows's
pen, the Israeli contribution emerges as a bland "policy of promoting
settlements in occupied territory" while the Palestinian contribution
emerges as a bloody "policy of terror". In this, I suspect Fallows is
simply seeing what he (or is it his readers?) wants or needs to see.
After all, how very uncomfortable for those
who support Israel to open the door to the possibility that Israelis may
in fact also be guilty of horrible crimes. Not just occasionally. Not
just accidentally. But intentionally and systematically. How very uncomfortable
to consider that Arab hatred may have origins in fact--may, "in fact",
be rational and justified. How very uncomfortable it would be to live
in a world in which "the Arabs" are not lunatics with a predisposition
to hate the innocent, the Israelis (or "the Jews"), the West--and therefore
in a world in which it is our cultural truth that is not quite
How much easier it is to simply avoid the
issue altogether by delegitimizing the Arab
perspective and then girding to defeat it. And them.
By misconstruing the "artistic" truth of the
al-Dura image, Fallows sidesteps--and invites
his readers to sidestep--some of the fundamental realities of the Israeli
occupation. Despite perhaps the best of intentions, Fallows thus nevertheless
does a great disservice to Israel and the Jewish people. For today's
true friends of Israel and the Jewish people are those who force them--and
themselves--to look at the image of Mohammad al-Dura
and see the truth there, however uncomfortable that may be. How else
can the great evil that gave rise to that image be corrected? How else
can Israel and the Jewish people restore themselves to what they say they
aspire to be?
More importantly, however, by sidestepping
some of the fundamental realities of the Israeli occupation Fallows inevitably
missteps when he attempts to draw lessons from the al-Dura
episode. For the real lessons here do not include that the Arabs
live in a culturally-constructed cocoon, immune to the truth. (At least
not any more than anyone else does.) Or that the Arabs have a cultural
predisposition to rush to judgment, or will not revisit their judgments
in the light of new, even inconvenient, facts. (Arab soul-searching in
the wake of the swift U.S. victory in Iraq should be proof enough of this.)
Or that the U.S. should simply imitate Israel by girding for a difficult
Rather, the five most important lessons here
First, no incident is an island. Patterns
matter. Both Palestinians and Israelis see the al-Dura
episode as the (potential) tip of an iceberg in which--incorrectly, as
it turns out--the "historical" truth of an event-type stands or falls with
the "historical" truth of a particular, symbolic event. If Israeli soldiers
killed Mohammed al-Dura, Israeli soldiers regularly
kill little Palestinian boys. If they did not, they do not. And it is
the truth or falsity of the larger event-type that both sides really care
about and that is really at issue in the struggle over the al-Dura
Second, Americans seem to have a hard time
seeing and understanding the patterns of Arab life under occupation.
I suspect that this is partly due to distance and lack of information
and partly due to certain prejudices about Arabs and Muslims. And, when
it comes to patterns of Arab life under the Israeli occupation, I know
that it is partly due to an enormous and enormously successful campaign
to color our vision.
Third, nothing could be worse than for the
United States to simply assume that its situation today is the same as
Israel's and that an "Israeli solution" is the answer to its problems.
Whatever similarities and cultural affinities there may be between the
two countries, prior to the war in Iraq there was at least one enormous
difference: bin Laden and al
class=SpellE>Qaeda notwithstanding, most Arabs did not see the U.S. as
directly occupying Arab land.
Indeed fourth, the United States must do every
thing in its power to prevent the American occupation of Iraq from becoming
a reprise of the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories. We
must at all costs create palpably positive "facts on the ground". We
must at all costs create patterns of events in which our actions visibly
contribute to the enrichment and ennoblement of Iraqi life rather than
to its impoverishment and debasement. And we must at all costs refrain
from anything that remotely hints at a de facto policy of creeping colonization
(which, given the experience with Israel, all Arab eyes are on the lookout
If we do not succeed at this, we risk drawing
ourselves and the Arab world into a mutually destructive, escalating cycle
of violence similar to the Israeli-Palestinian one, albeit on a much larger
scale. And we risk traveling down a slippery slope in which we ourselves,
like the Israelis, destroy the things we hold most dear about ourselves
and our way of life.
The somewhat perverse and counterintuitive
upshot of the al-Dura incident, then, is that
we should welcome the publication of tragic images because they enable
"the state of an occupation" to be directly assessed. Every time such
an image has no symbolic, "artistic" truth to it--every time such an image
is true only as "news" or "history", if it is true at all--we will
know that we have earned a reputation for humanity. But each time the
image is another image of Mohammed al-Dura,
we will know (if we want to) that something has been going horribly wrong,
something that is making it possible for the image of a boy to be seen
as a Pietà.
style='font-size:22.0pt'>If great enmities are ever to be really settled, we think
it will be, not by the system of revenge and military success, and by
forcing an opponent to swear to a treaty to his disadvantage; but when
the more fortunate combatant waives his privileges and, guided by gentler
feelings, conquers his rival in generosity and accords peace on more moderate
conditions than expected.
style='font-size:14.0pt;'>From that moment, instead of the debt
of revenge which violence must entail, his adversary owes a debt of generosity
to be paid in kind, and is inclined by honor to stand by his agreement.
style='font-size:14.0pt'>And men more often act in this manner
toward their greatest enemies than where the quarrel is of less importance;
they are also by nature as glad to give way to those who first yield to
them, as they are apt to be provoked by arrogance to risks condemned by
their own judgment.
Adam Rose is an instructor and past
chairman for the University of Chicago Basic Program of Liberal Education
for Adults as well as the founder and director of Support Sanity.
name=SupportSanity>About Support Sanity
Support Sanity is an independent public
style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'> Building massively-visible
mass support for an evenhanded two-state solution for Israel and Palestine;
style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'> Affirming the
common humanity of Palestinians and Israelis;
style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'> Promoting the
mass display of a simple, "symmetrically-affirmative" symbol that concretely
embodies this humane and practical perspective: the Israeli and Palestinian
flags crossed in friendship over the motto "Justice ·
style='font-size:10.0pt'> Peace · Life".
The centerpiece of the campaign is a lapel
pin that we are encouraging supporters of a just peace to wear as part
of their everyday attire. More information is available at:
Please send comments, suggestions and publication
a splendid initiative" with a website that's "an absolute must."
(C) Indymedia Israel. Unless otherwise stated by the author, all
content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast,
on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors
and are not necessarily endorsed by Indymedia Israel.