The New York Times have joined the likes of the AP, CNN, and The Washington Post in trying to uncover who killed Al Jizz journalist Shireen Abu Aqleh. Their conclusion? That the IDF likely killed her, although there was no indication she was deliberately targeted.
But I knew they were going to pin it on Israel two lines into the piece:
By referring to the terrorists merely as “Palestinian men, the reporters are showing their bias. They are subconsciously painting them as innocent parties. Actually, when you think about it, it is a quite stunning use of language, albeit not in a good way.
Meanwhile, blogger Elder of Ziyon still believes it could not have been the IDF (after initially believing the opposite – before new information came to light). While he goes to great lengths to prove it, and what he claims sounds very plausible, I still prefer to wait and see if we can get our hands on the bullet and have some objective forensic results. Only that might change people’s minds over this.
What is clear to me:
- The PA are worried about something, judging by their refusal to hand over the bullet for forensic analysis
- If we did kill her, it was an accident and not an assassination as so many have claimed
- The fact so many media outlets have shown such great interest in the death of this one journalist – as opposed to the countless others who have died in conflicts over the world over the years – and conducted their own analyses to ‘show’ Israel killed her, says it all about the state of the mainstream media
