Israel’s response to the assassination of popular journalist Shirin Abu Aqla has been regrettably predictable – a combination of denial, lies and ambiguity.
According to the Pak Sahafat news agency, James Zogby, president of the Arab-American Institute (AAI) and former member of the executive committee of the National Democratic Committee, wrote in an article for the Nation: The murder of Shirin Abu Aqla has infuriated me. Angry because an amazing journalist has been taken from the world. Angry because Israel’s reaction to the tragedy was predictable. Outraged by the United States for failing to take a principled stance in ensuring that the truth about Sweet Death should be revealed and held accountable.
Much has already been written about Shirin. She is an American citizen and journalist who have covered Palestinian lands for the past 25 years. Although she was not just a journalist. She was a storyteller who, like other greats in her career, was able to stage an event “under the skin” to reveal her human drama. Where the Palestinian Authority failed, she succeeded.
Shirin tried to relive the story of individuals and families who endured the humiliation, pain, and injustice of the Israeli occupation. Because of this, she posed a greater danger to the Israelis than any other gunman. She was seen as a threat to Israel’s inhumane narrative, the main purpose of which was to destroy the facts about the Palestinians. Israel seems to see this issue as deeply – even existentially – threatening. Otherwise, why have they killed dozens of Palestinian journalists in the last two decades?
Israel’s response to Shirin’s murder has been predictable. Their overworked propaganda machines did the usual thing – a combination of denial, lying, and ambiguity about what might have happened. Even before the military could begin an investigation into the killing, Israel’s initial response was that they were “investigating the possibility of journalists being wounded, possibly by Palestinian gunfire.” Another spokesman added: “I do not think we killed him … If we did kill him, we would take responsibility for it, but that does not seem to be the case.” While trying to divert, the Israelis took a different approach, claiming that they had offered to conduct joint investigations with the Palestinians – while even the Israeli press reported that no such offer had been made. The Palestinians rejected the “offer” after reading press reports about the “joint investigation”, saying: “Nobody offered us anything.” “Anyone who wants a joint investigation knows who to turn to.” This prompted an Israeli minister to suggest that the Palestinians’ refusal was “perhaps to cover up the truth.”
To further confuse, the Israelis released a video claiming to show how the bullets were fired by the Palestinians. The Israeli human rights group Beit Salm has denied the allegations using satellite maps to show that it is impossible for Palestinian gunmen to shoot and target Shirin and Ali. Depending on where the gunmen were, they had to shoot from the walls and corners.
Read more:
Associated Press: Shirin Abu Aqla has been killed by an Israeli weapon
To answer why the Israelis are making such a relentless attempt to create ambiguity, it is enough to look at an article that was published in the Israeli press the day after Shirin’s assassination. This article was written by an Israeli general who was in charge of a brigade in 2000 that killed 12-year-old Mohammed al-Dara, a child whose father became a symbol in the rain of bullets. In this article, the general admits that he made a mistake in accepting immediate responsibility, noting that other “explanations” were provided in the days and years that followed – including that the claim was a deception by the Palestinians to undermine the good name of the Israelis has been raised! The lesson he seems to have learned was not to admit anything in advance. Instead, wait for the points to be made that could make the water muddy for Israel and its supporters abroad.
This is the approach proposed by the famous line of the Marx brothers, “Who do you believe me or your own eyes?” – And the Israelis used it from the beginning: “The Palestinians were not evicted from their homes in 1948. The Arab armies asked them to leave. This may be a lie, but use it if it is acceptable enough to convince or confuse Israeli public opinion and Israeli supporters in the international community.
Finally, the US response to Shirin’s murder was predictable and disappointing. US State Department spokesman Ned Price expressed his condolences and regrets, that the murder of journalists is condemned all over the world, and we call for an immediate investigation and accountability, and it is very important to investigate attacks on independent media and prosecute those responsible.
However, this determination was dashed by questions from reporters at the press conference. Price insisted on conducting thorough investigations and responding to the usual deviations. When reporters referred to cases of Israeli action to acquit or punish the perpetrators, Price only reaffirmed that the United States has full confidence in Israel’s ability to investigate itself.
The difference between the US approach to Israel and that standard is worrying for other countries. In this case, mostly because Shirin is a journalist and a citizen of the United States. For more than four decades, with cases involving American citizens arrested, killed, tortured, confiscated, or barred from entering the United States, the United States has responded in the same way: Expressing concern, talking quietly with the Israelis about the issue and finally not taking any action; As if the subject is completely forgotten.
The result is that Israel acts with impunity and the Palestinians remain defenseless. In the case of Palestinian Americans, the message is that for Israelis and our government, US citizenship offers no special protection.