Slaying And Censoring The Journalists: The Murder Of Anas Al-Sharif
Palestinian journalist Wadi Abu al-Saud recalls the drone attack taking place at 11.22pm. Having entered the tent opposite, he had raised his phone to make a call when an explosion occurred. 'A piece of shrapnel hit my phone. I looked back and saw people burning in flames. I tried to extinguish them. Anas and the others had died instantly from the airstrike.' In two subsequent videos, al-Saud vows to 'return to my life as a citizen. The truth has died and the coverage has ended.'
IDF international spokesman Lt. Colonel Nadav Shoshani, straining verisimilitude, claimed that intelligence obtained prior to the strike proved that 'Sharif was an active Hamas military wing operative at the time of his elimination'. The reporter must have been frightfully busy then, able to juggle his tasks with Al Jazeera, filing news bulletins while playing the ambitious militant. But distinctions are meaningless for Shoshani, who went on to accuse the slain journalist of receiving 'a salary from the Hamas terror group and terrorist supporters, Al-Jazeera, at the same time.'
Evidence is typically sketchy, but the Lt. Colonel was untroubled, as the 'declassified portion of our intelligence on al-Sharif' was merely small relative to the whole picture. That picture, the IDF contends, revealed Sharif's credentials as leader of a rocket-launching squad alongside membership of the Nukhba Force company in Hamas's East Jabalia Battalion. This proved far from convincing to Muhammed Shehada, analyst at the Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor, who made the solid, pertinent observation that al-Sharif's 'entire daily routine was standing in front of a camera from morning to evening.'
Particularly troubling in this killing is that the IDF seemed to be laying the groundwork for justified assassination last month, when army spokesman Avichai Adraee reshared a video on social media making the accusation that al-Sharif was a member of Hamas's military wing. This proved chilling for the United Nations special rapporteur on freedom of expression, Irene Khan. 'Fears for al-Sharif's safety are well-founded as there is growing evidence that journalists in Gaza have been targeted and killed by the Israeli army on the basis of unsubstantiated claims that they are Hamas terrorists.'
The Committee to Protect Journalists was suitably perturbed by Adraee's remarks to issue a demand last month that the 'international community' protect al-Sharif. 'This is not the first time Al-Sharif has been targeted by the Israeli military, but the danger to his life is now acute,' said CPJ Regional Director Sara Qudah. 'Israel has killed at least six Al Jazeera journalists in Gaza during the war. These latest unfounded accusations represent an effort to manufacture consent to kill Al-Sharif.'
The other journalists killed in the strike are not deemed worthy of mention by the IDF, affirming the tendency in Israeli military doctrine to kill those around the designated target as a perfectly tolerable practice. Again, the rulebook of international humanitarian war is discarded in favour of a normalised murderousness.
The rulebook has also been abandoned regarding journalists working in Gaza, conforming to a pattern of indifference to distinctions between militants or civilians in Israel's sanguinary targeting. By December 2023, the Committee to Protect Journalists was already declaring that the war in the Strip had been the deadliest ever recorded by the organisation for press members. (The number currently stands at over 190; the global total for 2020-23 was 165.) 'Israel is murdering the messengers,' concludes Qudah. 'Israel wiped out an entire news crew. It has made no claims that any of the other journalists were terrorists. That's murder. Plain and simple.'
In a statement, Al Jazeera Media Network described the killings as 'yet another blatant and premeditated attack on press freedom.' The order to kill al-Sharif, 'one of Gaza's bravest journalists, and his colleagues, is a desperate attempt to silence the voices exposing the impending seizure and occupation of Gaza.'
The murder of al-Sharif and his colleagues by Israeli forces constituted the effective wiping out of Al Jazeera's team, one of the few able to offer consistent, unsmothered coverage about the IDF's remorseless campaign in Gaza. Since the October 7, 2023 attacks by Hamas, Israel has prohibited foreign reporters from entering Gaza except under strict invigilation by the Israeli military. Those accompanied by the IDF have been at the mercy of Israeli selectiveness as to where to go and barred from speaking to Palestinians.
In a note to be published in the event of his death, al-Sharif stated that he 'lived the pain in all its details', tasting 'grief and loss repeatedly'. This did not deter him from conveying 'the truth as it is, without distortion or misrepresentation, hoping that God would witness those who remained silent, those who accepted our killing, and those who suffocated our very breaths.' He also reflected on what images of sheer barbarity had failed to do, with 'the mangled bodies of our children and women' failing to move hearts or stop massacres. In dying along with his colleagues, al-Sharif had been butchered in a climate of hyper normalised violence, thinly veiled by the barbaric justifications of Israeli national security.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
7 hours ago
- Scoop
The Arab, The Left And Those Who Remained Silent: History Will Not Forgive You
The consequences of the Israeli genocide in Gaza will be dire. An event of this degree of barbarity, sustained by an international conspiracy of moral inertia and silence, will not be relegated to history as just another "conflict" or a mere tragedy. The Gaza genocide is a catalyst for major events to come. Israel and its benefactors are acutely aware of this historical reality. This is precisely why Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is in a race against time, desperately trying to ensure his country remains relevant, if not standing, in the coming era. He pursues this through territorial expansion in Syria, relentless aggression against Lebanon, and, of course, the desire to annex all occupied Palestinian territories. But history cannot be controlled with such precision. However clever he may think he is, Netanyahu has already lost the ability to influence the outcome. He has been unable to set a clear agenda in Gaza, let alone achieve any strategic goals in a 365-square-kilometer expanse of destroyed concrete and ashes. Gazans have proven that collective sumud can defeat one of the most well-equipped modern armies. Indeed, history itself has taught us that changes of great magnitude are inevitable. The true heartbreak is that this change is not happening fast enough to save a starving population, and the growing pro-Palestinian sentiment is not expanding at the rate needed to achieve a decisive political outcome. Our confidence in this inevitable change is rooted in history. World War I was not just a "Great War" but a cataclysmic event that fully shattered the geopolitical order of its time. Four empires were fundamentally reshuffled; some, like the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman, were erased from existence. The new world order resulting from World War I was short-lived. The modern international system we have today is a direct outcome of World War II. This includes the United Nations and all the new Western-centric economic, legal, and political institutions that were forged by the Bretton Woods Agreement in 1944. This includes the World Bank, the IMF, and ultimately NATO, thus sowing the seeds of yet more global conflicts. The fall of the Berlin Wall was heralded as the singular, defining event that resolved the lingering conflicts of the post-WWII geopolitical struggle, supposedly ushering in a new, permanent global realignment, or, to some, the "end of history." History, however, had other plans. Not even the horrific September 11 attacks and the subsequent US-led wars could reinvent the global order in a way that was consistent with US-Western interests and priorities. Gaza is infinitely small when judged by its geography, economic worth, or political import. Yet, it has proven to be the most significant global event defining this generation's political consciousness. The fact that the self-proclaimed guardians of the post-WWII order are the very entities that are violently and brazenly violating every international and humanitarian law is enough to fundamentally alter our relationship with the West's championed "rule-based order." This may not seem significant now, but it will have profound, long-term consequences. It has largely compromised and, in fact, delegitimized the moral authority imposed, often by violence, by the West over the rest of the world for decades, especially in the Global South. This self-imposed delegitimization will also impact the very idea of democracy, which has been under siege in many countries, including Western democracies. This is only natural, considering that most of the planet feels strongly that Israel must end its genocide and that its leaders must be held accountable. Yet, little to no action follows. The shift in Western public opinion in favor of Palestinians is astounding when considered against the backdrop of total Western media dehumanization of the Palestinian people and Western governments' blind allegiance to Israel. More shocking is that this shift is largely the result of the work of ordinary people on social media, activists mobilizing in the streets, and independent journalists, mostly in Gaza, working under extreme duress and with minimal resources. A central conclusion is the failure of Arab and Muslim nations to factor into this tragedy befalling their own brethren in Palestine. While some are engaged in empty rhetoric or self-flagellation, others subsist in a state of inertia, as if the genocide in Gaza were a foreign topic, like the wars in Ukraine or Congo. This fact alone shall challenge our very collective self-definition—what it means to be an Arab or a Muslim, and whether such definitions carry supra-political identities. Time will tell. The left, too, is problematic in its own way. While not a monolith, and while many on the left have championed the global protests against the genocide, others remain splintered and unable to form a unified front, even temporarily. Some leftists are still chasing their own tales, crippled by the worry that being anti-Zionist would earn them the label of antisemitism. For this group, self-policing and self-censorship are preventing them from taking decisive action. History does not take its cues from Israel or Western powers. Gaza will indeed result in the kind of global shifts that will affect us all, far beyond the Middle East. For now, however, it is most urgent that we use our collective will and action to influence one single historical event: ending the genocide and the famine in Gaza. The rest will be left to history, and to those who wish to be relevant when the world changes again. - Dr. Ramzy Baroud is a journalist, author and the Editor of The Palestine Chronicle. He is the author of six books. His forthcoming book, ' Before the Flood,' will be published by Seven Stories Press. His other books include 'Our Vision for Liberation', 'My Father was a Freedom Fighter' and 'The Last Earth'. Baroud is a Non-resident Senior Research Fellow at the Center for Islam and Global Affairs (CIGA). His website is
RNZ News
9 hours ago
- RNZ News
The House chips away at lawmaking, amid distractions
Photo: 123RF A brouhaha about unparliamentary language, an eviction from the House, and apologies, or a lack of them, stole the spotlight from the legislative agenda this week at Parliament. At the beginning of the week, the government had planned to get through as many as 12 legislative stages. By the time the MPs were allowed to go home on Thursday evening, the House had completed just seven of those scheduled debates. After a fiery Question Time and an even fierier Urgent Debate on Palestinian statehood , the legislative agenda began on Tuesday with two new bills. The first, a relatively uncontentious regulatory systems bill for internal affairs, making minor technical changes; and the second, a bill trying to curb 'antisocial' conduct while operating a vehicle. The Greens opposed the Transport Bill, but without their usual Labour ally. Labour had agreed to support the bill, at least to select committee, with the caveat that the committee would be Transport and Infrastructure, rather than Justice. With the first two readings out of the way in just under an hour, the government was making good time on its business. Enter the committee stage of the Resource Management (Consenting and Other System Changes) Amendment Bill, when progress got a whole lot slower. The opposition interrogated the minister in charge, Chris Bishop, over what they described as controversial last-minute amendments, one of which would allow farmers to pollute waterways without consent. The House spent all of Tuesday night and most of Wednesday evening debating that bill, before moving on to the committee stage of the Local Government (Water Services) Bill, which they eventually finished on Thursday morning, thanks to an extended sitting. Thursday afternoon saw the completion of three stages: To learn more about the bills that are going through Parliament this sitting block, have a look at our article from earlier in the week . RNZ's The House, with insights into Parliament, its legislation and issues, is made with funding from Parliament's Office of the Clerk. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Otago Daily Times
11 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Israel looking to re-settle Gazans in South Sudan
South Sudan and Israel are discussing a deal to resettle Palestinians from war-torn Gaza in the troubled African nation, three sources told Reuters - a plan quickly dismissed as unacceptable by Palestinian leaders. The sources, who have knowledge of the matter but spoke on condition of anonymity, said no agreement had been reached but talks between South Sudan and Israel were ongoing. The plan, if carried further, would envisage people moving from an enclave shattered by almost two years of war with Israel to a nation in the heart of Africa riven by years of political and ethnically-driven violence. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's office and Israel's foreign ministry did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the information from the three sources. A spokesperson for the U.S. State Department said, "we do not speak to private diplomatic conversations," when asked about the plan and if the United States supported the idea. Netanyahu said this month he intends to extend military control in Gaza, and this week repeated suggestions that Palestinians should leave the territory voluntarily. Arab and world leaders have rejected the idea of moving Gaza's population to any country. Palestinians say that would be like another "Nakba" (catastrophe) when hundreds of thousands fled or were forced out during the Arab-Israeli war of 1948. The three sources said the prospect of resettling Palestinians in South Sudan was raised during meetings between Israeli officials and South Sudanese Foreign Minister Monday Semaya Kumba when he visited the country last month. Their account appeared to contradict South Sudan's foreign ministry which on Wednesday dismissed earlier reports on the plan as "baseless". The ministry was not immediately available to respond to the sources' assertions on Friday. News of the discussions was first reported by the Associated Press on Tuesday, citing six people with knowledge of the matter. Wasel Abu Youssef, a member of the Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization, said the Palestinian leadership and people "reject any plan or idea to displace any of our people to South Sudan or to any other place". His statement echoed a statement from the office of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas on Thursday. Hamas, which is fighting Israel in Gaza, did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Sharren Haskel, who visited the South Sudanese capital Juba this week, told reporters that those discussions had not focussed on relocation. "This is not what the discussions were about," she said when asked if any such plan had been discussed. "The discussions were about foreign policy, about multilateral organisations, about the humanitarian crisis, the real humanitarian crisis happening in South Sudan, and about the war," she said, referring to her talks with Juba officials. Netanyahu, who met Kumba last month, has said Israel is in touch with a few countries to find a destination for Palestinians who want to leave Gaza. He has consistently declined to provide further details.
