News this week in Israel included the death of two Arab journalists, in different locations, under different circumstances, and unrelated. But the circumstances, accusations, and double standards are glaring and need to be discussed.
This week, three months after Palestinian Arab-American Al Jazeera journalist Shireen Abu-Akleh was killed in Jenin, following a lengthy investigation, Israel has affirmed that she was likely killed by an Israeli bullet.
Other than her unfortunate death, the problem with this is that before the blood had dried, before she had been buried, and before any facts other than her death were confirmed, the Palestinian Authority (PA) and much world media immediately blamed Israel without any proof. That the PA rushed her burial and would not provide the bullet that killed her for forensics, underscored that they had something to hide, and that blaming Israel was just a convenient way to milk her death as a Palestinian Arab “martyr.”
Israel did not deny it may have been an Israeli bullet that killed her, but did not acknowledge specific responsibility because facts were not known. After a lengthy and credible investigation, Israel has indicated she was likely shot by an Israeli soldier, inadvertently, in the heat of a battle with Palestinian Arab terrorists in which Abu-Aklah was in the middle.
It’s never good to have to admit responsibility for such a thing, but as a democracy where the rule of law is the rule, at least Israel maintains the integrity to do so. In its statement about Abu-Akleh’s death, the IDF acknowledged, “There is a high possibility that Shireen was accidentally hit by IDF gunfire that was fired toward suspects identified as armed Palestinian gunmen, during an exchange of fire in which life-risking, widespread and indiscriminate shots were fired toward IDF soldiers.”
Like many journalists trying to cover a story, or be in a place to get the best scoop, many put their lives at risk. In the case of Abu-Aklah, it seems that not only did she put herself in harm’s way, but that she was there, camped out, waiting for violence to begin as if she had been tipped off to do so.
The other news item about the death of an Arab journalist in Israel this week is about Arab-Israeli journalist Nadal Ijbaria, who covered violent crime in Israel’s Arab community which has become an epidemic. Ijbaria was shot in his car after leaving a local mosque. Police are investigating. One hopes that they will find and arrest the perpetrators as one step to stem and then eliminate the Arab-on-Arab violence that’s been increasing for years, plaguing Israel in general and its Arab community specifically.
According to UNESCO, 55 journalists were killed internationally in 2021, and more than 60 journalists have been killed already in 2022.
Journalists are civilians and of course should never be harmed, and certainly not targeted. But there are risks in general, with an added element by operating and embedding themselves among terrorists who use and hide behind them as cover. Surely Israel did not target Abu-Aklah on purpose, or specifically because she was a journalist. Claims of this being a targeted assassination are absurd.
So why is it that the death of Al Jazeera’s Abu-Aklah has been reported more than any other journalist in the world all year, still making news, and the death of another Arab-Israeli reporter barely gone reported? The answer is simple: there’s a double standard with Israel being blamed even before facts are known, and that’s acceptable even in the media. While those reporting these allegations are not putting themselves in danger on the front line as Abu-Aklah did, they certainly do kill their own credibility in the unsubstantiated blaming of Israel for killing Arabs.
When it comes to the killing of an Arab-Israeli reporter by other Arabs, that’s not reported at all outside Israel, despite the fact that there is a plague of Arab-on-Arab deaths in Israel, accounting for more than the total number of journalists killed this year internationally. It’s a deep problem in Israeli society and Israel needs to take charge and do much more to clean up the streets and illegal weapons in its Arab community. But it’s not reported widely because Arabs killing Arabs is not only not news, it’s acceptable to the media. And it’s not something that can be blamed on Jews.
Ron Barak says
The IDF statement didn’t say ““There is a high possibility that Shireen was accidentally hit by IDF gunfire”
The Hebrew source was:
לאחר סדרת התחקירים שבוצעו על ידי צוות ייעודי, עולה כי לא ניתן לקבוע באופן חד משמעי על ידי מי נורתה
שירין אבו-עאקלה, אולם סבירות גבוהה יותר היא כי נפגעה בשוגג מירי צה״ל, שבוצע לעבר מי שזוהו כחמושים
פלסטינים. זאת תוך כדי קרב במהלכו נורה לעבר חיילי צה”ל ירי מסיבי, חסר הבחנה ומסכן חיים. לצד זאת,
יודגש ויובהר כי לאורך כל האירוע, אש חיילי צה”ל כוונה ונועדה לפגוע במחבלים שירו על כוחותינו. אפשרות
.נוספת שנותרה בעינה היא כי שירין אבו-עאקלה נפגעה מירי של חמושים פלסטינים
Which in English is:
After the series of investigations carried out by a dedicated team, it appears that it is not
possible to determine unequivocally by whom Shirin Abu-Aqla was shot, but it is more
likely that she was accidentally hit by IDF fire, which was fired at those identified as
This was during a battle during which massive, indiscriminate and life-threatening fire was
directed at fired at IDF soldiers. At the same time, it will be emphasized and made clear that
throughout the incident, the fire of IDF soldiers was aimed and intended to hit the terrorists
who fired at our forces.
Another possibility that remains is that Shireen Abu-Aqla was hit by gunfire from
PROBABILITY = סבירות
HIGHER =גבוהה יותר
In spite of all the mistranslations saying the IDF said there was a ‘high chance’ or that it
was ‘highly likely’ that is not what the IDF said. They said that the probability we did it
was higher than that they did although it is still possible that they did it, and that which is
the case can’t be conclusively determined.
In the initial report they had said that it was more likely they did it than that we did,
although still possible that we did, and that which is the case can’t be determined without
the bullet. (When the bullet was handed over two months later, it was found by a US
ballistics team to be too damaged to be used as evidence.)
The common themes in both reports are ‘probability’ and ‘lack of certainly’ without the
hard evidence of the bullet.
The IDF also did not specify whether this ‘higher probability’ meant 90/10 or 51/49 so
translations saying ‘high chance’ or ‘highly likely’ are misleading.
To get to your question: as one of the people who wrote a lot on this topic, I wrote about it
because is clear that the conclusion by most of the mainstream media that the IDF did it,
did it on purpose, and did it when there was not militant activity going on at the time (and
variations thereof) was improper.
To refresh your memory, the mainstream media outlets (such as CNN for example) made
New evidence suggests Shireen Abu Akleh was killed in targeted attack by Israeli forces 
CNN reached this conclusion based mainly on evidence in a video shot by Salim Awad,
there was no active combat, nor any Palestinian militants, near Abu Akleh in the moments
leading up to her death 
and based on the testimony of witnesses that
“no shots fired, no stone throwing, nothing,” before Abu Akleh was shot. 
My posts did not claim the IDF didn’t do it, but rather that these conclusions of the MSM
were improper (based on the evidence made public) because:
1. The eyewitnesses contradicted each other regarding how and when Abu Akleh was
shot, their own previous statements that they had been shot at by snipers on
rooftops, not soldiers in jeeps and the video evidence
2. The videos on the which claim there was no militant activity near her when she was
shot is based were both edited which the media either knew or should have known.
(The soundtracks of both Salim Awad’s video and Bannora’s video were both edited
at critical parts, and ninety seconds were cut out of Awad’s video)
3. In spite of this editing remnants of evidence that there WAS Palestinian militant
activity near her at the time she was killed remained in the videos
.This evidence included:
Explosions reflected in the shiny exterior of a car just before 90 seconds were cut
from Awad’s video
Broken branches on the north side if the tree which were intact as the journalist
started up the road but can be seen on the ground on the South side of it after she
was shot (when the IDF was South of her and the tree)
Seven shots of automatic fire (characteristic of Palestinian gunmen) which were
fired right after round two were edited out of Awad’s video
Shadows of people at the corner in a New York Times screenshot of Abu Akleh just
before she was killed taken from her cameraman’s video which do not match the
number and location of the people in Salim Awad’s video at that exact time,
meaning Awad’s video edited something out just before she was shot.
A round mark on the right front side of her helmet almost certainly caused by a
And therefore (since it appears from this evidence that both sides were shooting) it can’t
be conclusively determined who did it without some type of hard evidence (ballistics
analysis, a confession, an unedited video of the shooting itself – none of which is
The IDF report validates the above because it states (contrary to the media’s claims) that
Palestinian gunmen fired extensively and indiscriminately at IDF soldiers, including at the
time and space where the journalist was killed…
along with the throwing of explosives that hit the military vehicles and near the soldiers
This feels like Mohammed Al-Dura 2.0. Especially after reading Ran Barak’s comment.
Back then also, the IDF apologized too quickly, and it took lots of work by independent journalists examining the glitches in the narrative before the truth came out.
Like this Abu-Akleh affair, the ‘evidence’ for the Al-Dura killing was supplied by Palestinians to a major news outlet habitually hostile to Israel.
Like Shireen’s fellow journalist Hanaysha, Al-Dura’s father Jamal gave a tearful eyewitness account of what happened before his eyes, complete with the same groundless accusation – “Israeli soldiers deliberately shot at us”.
Like the Al-Dura incident, there was a lot of shooting from both sides (the CNN report itself mentions it, contradicting the Palestinian eyewitnesses that they quoted).
UNLIKE the Al-Dura incident, there is competing evidence showing Palestinians in the area shooting — and thinking they had downed an IDF soldier (Al-Akleh was wearing a helmet).
Like Ron says about the Al-Akleh video CNN chose to show (originally 16 minutes, but we only see around 3 minutes), there were also claims that the al-Dura video had been edited by France 2 to incriminate Israel. In time this was proven to be the case. But it took 7 years of court cases in France, and by then no media outlets were interested. (As of 2020, Al Jazeera was still promoting the hoax.)
Meanwhile, an intifada had rolled across Israel, killing and injuring thousands, with the “martyr” Al-Dura invoked as the inspiration.
It all started the same way as this incident, with a hasty IDF admission of “probability”:
“It could very much be — this is an estimation — that a soldier in our position… shot in that direction.”
Гк защита граждан says
[b]Лжеюристы, кто они?[/b]
Один из способовкидалова, при которых наживаются на слабостях и горе людей, – это предоставление якобы юридической помощи, которые, в действительности, клиенту не оказываются. Количество «черных юристов» и даже целых контор, которые обещают решить любые ваши проблемы, пропорционально растет, и иногда отличить их от настоящих специалистов может быть очень сложно. Вам даже могут составить необходимые документы, а не прекратить все контакты, как это любят делать [url=https://gk-zashhita-grazhdan.ru/]мошенники[/url]. Но, скорее всего, это будет делать человек, у которого даже нет юридического образования, а дело вы проиграете.