A retired US military investigator has disputed the Biden administration's 2022 assessment of Palestinian American journalist Shireen Abu Akleh's fatal shooting, alleging diplomatic considerations trumped evidence, The New York Times reported. Col. Steve Gabavics, who helped examine the West Bank incident for the Office of the United States Security Coordinator, told The New York Times that officials "were just flabbergasted" when the State Department characterized the shooting as "the result of tragic circumstances" while finding it "likely responsible" but unintentional. US officials who scrutinized the case held sharply conflicting views, with some convinced the Israeli soldier knew he was targeting a journalist despite no definitive proof, five current and former officials told The New York Times.
Gabavics, a career military policeman with 30 years' experience including as Guantánamo Bay prison commandant, went public following his January retirement – first through a May documentary by Zeteo News and now in remarks to The New York Times. His most intense dispute was with his then-superior Lt. Gen. Michael R. Fenzel, who directed the liaison office and helped draft the July 4, 2022, State Department statement, The New York Times reported. "The favoritism is always toward the Israelis. Very little of that goes to the Palestinians," Gabavics told The New York Times about his experience. The conflict resulted in Gabavics being removed from the US review, with Fenzel additionally threatening dismissal, officials stated. Fenzel told The New York Times he stands by the conclusions, saying "Ultimately, I had to make judgments based on the full set of facts and information available to me."
The office began examining the shooting after Israeli and Palestinian officials declined to collaborate on a joint inquiry following separate independent investigations, The New York Times reported. The FBI initially refused to investigate, then launched its own probe in November 2022 under congressional pressure but has released no findings nearly three years later. The Biden administration assigned Fenzel's team to evaluate the case and produce an evidence report, with Gabavics and colleagues visiting the scene on the killing date for bullet trajectory analysis, The New York Times reported. A crucial role involved the US office taking custody of the fatal bullet and delivering it to Israeli ballistics specialists for testing with American officials present, though the 2022 State Department statement indicated severe bullet damage complicated determining which weapon fired it.
Gabavics told The New York Times he determined the shooting was intentional based on Israeli military radio traffic records showing soldiers knew about journalists in the vicinity, absence of gunfire from the journalists' direction, and a sniper in an Israeli military vehicle positioned to clearly see the journalists. During his visit hours after the incident, colleagues wearing blue vests resembling Abu Akleh's navy-blue protective vest marked "Press" positioned themselves where she had collapsed and were visible from the shooter's vehicle location, he stated. The shots' accuracy striking Abu Akleh's head and a nearby carob tree, combined with the shooter firing first at Abu Akleh's producer, then at her, then at a bystander attempting to assist, signaled intentional targeting, he told The New York Times.
A 2022 The New York Times investigation discovered 16 shots were fired from the approximate Israeli military convoy location, most probably by an elite unit soldier. For the shooting to be unintentional, "the most absurd thing in the world" would have needed to occur, Gabavics told The New York Times. "The individual popped out of the truck, just was randomly shooting, and happened to have really well-aimed shots and never looked down the scope. Which wouldn't have happened," he stated. His evaluation aligned with Palestinian officials' assessment, while Israel claimed Abu Akleh was struck by either an Israeli soldier or a Palestinian gunman firing randomly during confrontations, maintaining its soldiers would not deliberately harm a journalist, The New York Times reported.
Gabavics told The New York Times he communicated his conclusions verbally to Fenzel and incorporated them into a draft of the office's shooting report, but Fenzel held a different view and communicated his evaluation to the State Department, which publicly classified the shooting as unintentional. Gabavics and three former office officials told The New York Times he consistently introduced stronger language into the draft, which Fenzel consistently removed before ultimately removing his chief of staff from the case. "This was the one that probably bothered me the most" of any case throughout his career, Gabavics told The New York Times. "Because we had everything there."
