An innocent woman is killed by a bullet. That’s a tragedy. She was not supposed to be killed; she takes no part in the fighting; she is there to do her job, and then pays with her life. A tragedy. The woman is a journalist. The personal tragedy becomes a PR problem. The woman has an American passport. The personal tragedy turned PR problem is now a political headache. Thus, rather than mourn the unnecessary loss of life, one must suddenly take sides. Shireen Abu Akleh, the Al Jazeera journalist who was killed while covering an Israeli incursion in Jenin, was not supposed to die. Her death is a tragedy. The story of her post-death is a farce.
If a Palestinian shooter, or an Israeli soldier, aimed at her with an intent to kill her, then it matters. But in all other cases, it doesn’t. Her death was a tragedy—and an accident.
Who killed Shireen Abu Akleh? Let me make a suggestion: It doesn’t much matter. Not unless you think, and can prove, that someone killed her deliberately. If a Palestinian shooter, or an Israeli soldier, aimed at her with an intent to kill her, then it matters. But in all other cases, and the likely scenario of Abu Akleh’s death is one of those many other cases – it doesn’t. She was killed by accident. She was at the wrong place at the wrong time. She stood between two groups of people shooting at one another. One of them did not see her, or did not aim his weapon well, or did not understand who she is, or got nervous.
It might have been a Palestinian. It might have been an Israeli. The world is going to pay close attention to any hint suggesting it was one or the other. So, repeating myself, let me suggest: Don’t pay much attention to these hints, accusations, investigations. They will not change what we already know: Shireen Abu Akleh was not supposed to die. Her death was a tragedy — and an accident.
The rest is mere PR and politics – and the tendency of the media to be more interested in the killing of media personalities than the killing of other people. Had Abu Akleh been a dressmaker, or a baker, or an electrician, her death would not be less tragic. Had Abu Akleh been killed in an exchange of fire between policemen and car thieves, her death would not be less tragic. Had Abu Akleh been killed in Tel Aviv rather than Jenin, her death would not be less tragic. But in all three cases, her death would not have gotten even a fraction of the attention it has gotten around the world. An innocent person dies is a tragedy – a celebrity dying in a politically charged situation is a circus.
You might say: well, that’s the whole point – the politically charged situation, that’s why who killed her matters. If that’s what you think let’s think about it together. First, let’s say she was mistakenly killed by a Palestinian shooter. Does this diminish the argument of Palestinians against living under Israeli occupation? I don’t think it does.
Now let’s say she was mistakenly killed by an Israeli soldier. Does this diminish the argument of Israelis for staying in Judea and Samaria and keeping the current system of far-from-perfect occupation? I don’t think it does.
There are good reasons to oppose Israel’s policies, there are good reasons to support Israel’s policies – and Shireen Abu Akleh’s tragedy does not add one iota of weight to either of those, no matter which side mistakenly killed her.
Thus, everything we witnessed following her death was no more than a juvenile game. Assigning blame to Israel is not going to change anything; neither is deflecting blame. But let’s be serious: Does the US change its defense policies if one of its soldiers mistakenly kills an innocent bystander during a military operation? Does America’s enemy fighters halt their attacks if they mistakenly killed a bystander they did not intend to kill? If the answer is no, then I’m not quite sure why the US feels the need to be “highly troubled” by this incident, or demand a thorough investigation of the circumstances in which Abu Akleh was killed. If the answer is no, then I’m not quite sure why who killed Shireen Abu Akleh matters.
Something I wrote in Hebrew
The price of housing in Israel is soaring and the government seems incapable of fixing the problem. Here’s what I wrote: “The surge in apartment prices requires a complex approach to a problem for which there are only long-term solutions. It cannot be addressed by short-term governments, for two reasons. First, long-term solutions require long-term planning that is not subject to the changing whims of ministers who come and go. The second is that long-term solutions do not pay off politically, and therefore are not a priority for a government whose term in office is short, and who will have to compete in new elections tomorrow morning. And of course, that does not mean that the leaders do not want to do the right thing. That does not mean they do not want to solve the problem of housing prices. They do. But politics has its own dynamics…”
A week’s numbers
The current coalition lost its majority in the Knesset, so what would the public want to happen now? A majority would replace it, either by having new election or by forming a Netanyahu-led government.
A reader’s response:
Jessica Gold writes: “The new Israeli government promised to fix the situation near the Western Wall, but I don’t see them changing anything. I am highly disappointed.”
Shmuel Rosner is senior political editor. For more analysis of Israeli and international politics, visit Rosner’s Domain at jewishjournal.com/rosnersdomain.
