Inside the Divisions: U.S. Officials Split Over Findings on Journalist Shooting

The Divided Landscape of Accountability

The tragic shooting of Shireen Abu Akleh, a respected Palestinian American journalist, during an Israeli military operation in 2022 left a stain on the reputation of both the Israeli Defense Forces and U.S. diplomatic processes. As I dive into this critical episode, I am compelled to shine a light on the complexities surrounding the U.S. government's assessment of her death, which some argue was intentionally downplayed to maintain good relations with Israel.

The state of affairs is anything but simple. U.S. Colonel Steve Gabavics, an official involved in the review of Abu Akleh's death, openly criticized the Biden administration's public conclusions, suggesting they were crafted to appease the Israeli government. His claim echoes a significant concern among those who believe that this instance reflects a systemic bias in favor of Israel that often sidelines Palestinian lives.

“The favoritism is always toward the Israelis. Very little of that goes to the Palestinians,” Gabavics shared, revealing his profound dissatisfaction.

Official Findings and Dissent

The initial U.S. State Department assessment stated that while shots fired from Israeli positions were “likely responsible,” there was “no reason to believe that this was intentional.” This equivocation outraged many Palestinians and others who viewed it as an attempt to protect the Israeli military from accountability. Gabavics, alongside a few other military personnel, emerged as skeptical voices countering the mainstream narrative.

As I probe deeper into the discontent within the U.S. government regarding these findings, it is evident that not all officials agree on the details or implications surrounding Abu Akleh's death. Several officials have expressed their belief that the shooting may have been intentional based on the context and the decision-making process that ensued in the chaos of the moment.

The Role of Military Investigators

Colonel Gabavics played a pivotal role in the investigation while serving at the Office of the U.S. Security Coordinator for Israel and the Palestinian Authority. This office was responsible for managing security relations between the two parties, a challenging task given the heightened tensions. During this investigation, Gabavics and others expressed concerns that the evidence could be manipulated or ignored due to political pressures from the Israeli government.

Following Colonel Gabavics' retirement, he decided to speak publicly about his dissatisfaction with the findings, contributing to a documentary released by Zeteo News, which uncovered aspects of the investigation not previously disclosed to the public.

Internal Conflicts and Their Consequences

The most significant conflict within the U.S. assessment team centered around Gabavics and his then-supervisor, Lt. Gen. Michael R. Fenzel. Gabavics alleged that Fenzel's commitment to preserving a working relationship with the Israeli military influenced the narratives surrounding the report. These internal clashes underscore a larger problem where political agendas may overshadow ethical concerns, and the need for accountability can be lost in translation.

“Ultimately, I had to make judgments based on the full set of facts and information available to me,” Fenzel asserted in defending his assessment.

Investigating the Shooting Itself

The U.S. team faced substantial limitations in their inquiry. They could not conduct independent interviews nor collect physical evidence outside what was confined in the initial investigations by Israeli and Palestinian authorities. They did, however, manage to procure the bullet that killed Abu Akleh, which was presented to Israeli ballistics experts for analysis.

Crucially, this “find and hand over” process included minimal probing of pertinent questions, such as whether the soldiers involved were aware of targeting an identifiable journalist. There were reports of military communications noting the presence of journalists in the vicinity at the moment of the shooting, raising serious doubts about the narrative of accidental death.

Conclusions and Broader Implications

This incident underscores the pressing issue of media safety in conflict zones, particularly for journalists reporting on contentious issues. The reluctance to definitively label the shooting as intentional can be seen as part of a broader tendency within U.S. foreign policy, often characterized by a delicate balancing act between maintaining alliances and securing justice.

Moving forward, I am compelled to reflect on the lessons that can be derived from the discord within U.S. assessment teams. Ensuring accountability must transcend the political considerations of international relations, particularly in cases involving human rights and freedom of the press. The need for truthfulness should resonate louder than political expediency, shaping a more just perception of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.