Some two months ago, Al Jazeera reporter Shireen Abu Akleh was shot and killed in the Jenin refugee camp. Accusing Israel of intentionally killing her was almost Pavlovian in nature. According to the findings released by the IDF two days after the incident, there were two possible sources of gunfire: the first, armed Palestinians fired and hit her while aiming at IDF vehicles; the second, a soldier fired from inside a jeep at a terrorist standing next to Abu Akleh, hitting her inadvertently. Either way, the investigation assumed she was mistakenly shot. Why are the findings not certain and concrete? Why weren't the soldiers who could have been involved questioned? Because the Palestinians are holding the bullet that caused her death, refusing to hand it over for testing, and are refusing to conduct a joint forensic investigation that could shed light on the circumstances surrounding this unnecessary death.
Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram
Unsurprisingly, American and Palestinian inquiries revealed a different picture: CNN and the New York Times found that Israel is to blame for Abu Akleh's death, whether inadvertently or intentionally. The Palestinians went further, publishing findings from an "investigation" whereby Abu Akleh was shot from behind while trying to run away from IDF soldiers, who simply opened fire at journalists, as we all know the IDF loves to do.
However, to anyone with any sense, it's obvious the Israeli interest is the opposite, and that the fallout from killing Abu Akleh is far greater than the benefit of silencing her. Why is this coming up again? Because the Palestinians aren't giving up so easily on a good story that can demonize Israel. The world has lost considerable interest in the Palestinian issue and the journalist's death has revived it. US President Joe Biden's impending visit has rekindled the story. The Americans pressured the Palestinians into handing over the supposed bullet that was removed from Abu Akleh's body, and their investigation came back inconclusive as to who shot her.
There could be even more forensic tests, with which Israel will cooperate, instead of standing up and stating with logic and confidence that this test is meaningless because the evidence could have been completely tampered with already. It might sound crazy, but this possibility is utterly plausible when it comes to the Palestinians. Hundreds of terrorists have been shot and killed by our forces. Would it be so hard to take one of those bullets, clean it, and put a few drops of the journalist's blood on it? Here's the DNA, the Arabs will claim, and the world will believe the story that the IDF destroyed the weapon that discharged the bullet that killed her. And that will be that. Quod erat demonstrandum – the very thing it was required to have shown. The fact that hundreds of stolen IDF weapons are in circulation in Jenin also won't change a thing.
A few final words: War reporters are heroes. They tell an important story and know that in doing so they are also putting their lives at risk. They can accidentally be killed by either side, and they understand this and take it into account. We also know, to our immense sadness, that friendly fire incidents do occur, and of course, no one accuses the soldiers involved of murder. However, hundreds of journalists have been killed in war zones across the globe, and no one has run ballistic tests on those bullets. Just for us. What else is new?
