The state-sponsored killing of journalists is another way to limit freedom of speech

Yahoo

a day ago

The life of journalist Anas al-Sharif is worth no more and no less than any other life lost during the war in Gaza, or in the terrorist atrocities, perpetrated by Hamas, that preceded it. But his targeted killing – alongside that of the four other Al Jazeera staff members who died with him – does raise further significant questions about the way in which Israel has conducted the war.
That an accredited journalist who worked for Al Jazeera (and previously for Reuters) was specifically targeted by the Israel Defense Forces is a development that can only be looked upon with a degree of horror. His death was not the kind of inevitable collateral damage that can take place in any war; for want of a better word, Sharif was the subject of a state-sponsored assassination.
The Israeli authorities say he was a terrorist, belonged to Hamas, and served as the leader of a cell. They've produced some documentary evidence, but this has not impressed the independent observers who've examined it, and it raises the question of why, if it was so compelling, it was not released sooner. It certainly does not give any lawful reason for his killing, still less that of his Al Jazeera colleagues – correspondent Mohammed Qreiqeh, cameramen Moamen Aliwa and Ibrahim Zaher, and their assistant Mohammed Noufal – none of whom has been claimed by the Israelis to have had any links to Hamas.
Truth, as the old cliche goes, is the first casualty of war, and the fact is that Israel – unusually – has banned international journalists from covering the conflict. The Israeli authorities say it is not safe to do so, a grim irony given Sharif's fate. That, though, is not a matter for them to judge: it is one that should be left to the many news organisations, including The Independent, that have proudly dispatched brave journalists into even more hazardous environments over the course of many decades.
Moreover, the Israeli policy has meant that the actions of the Israel Defense Forces cannot be independently monitored and reported on in the traditional manner. The images captured during recent aid flights and first reported by The Independent, of a moonscape where once were bustling neighbourhoods and olive groves, have, alongside the reportage of Sharif and his colleagues, given the world some idea of the disproportionate way in which Israel has acted. The result is that Israel stands accused of war crimes by the International Criminal Court, and the term 'genocide' is increasingly being used in connection with the denial of food and medicines to the people of Gaza.
Absent the full measure of international scrutiny, journalists from Gaza itself have had to take on the responsibility of providing this essential function. They have willingly placed themselves in the line of fire to tell the world about the destruction of the Gaza Strip, and its human cost; to assess the extent of terrorist activity; and to draw attention to the plight of the hostages still cruelly held by Hamas.
Wearing 'PRESS' flak jackets and helmets, they should have received the normal protections afforded to all journalists, and they might well have if they'd been, say, American or Saudi. The vast majority of the 232 or so journalists who have died in the war in Gaza have been Palestinian – a statistic that almost speaks for itself. According to the Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs' Costs of War project, more journalists have been killed in Gaza than in both world wars, the Vietnam war, the wars in Yugoslavia, and the United States' war in Afghanistan combined.
As the exiled Palestinian writer Ahmed Najad has written in this newspaper, the death of Sharif is an attack on truth itself – and such attacks on freedom of speech and thought are sadly not confined to war zones.
The arrest of hundreds of passive, peaceful protesters in London over the weekend shows how the effects of the war in Gaza, and the bitter arguments surrounding it, have spread across the world – or at least, to those parts where dissent is still possible and the press remains relatively uncontrolled by the state. It may well be the case, as ministers darkly hint, that Palestine Action is intent on carrying out activities that its supporters do not know about, but that still does not justify detaining elderly people whose only crime is to hold up a piece of cardboard with a message on it and exercise their right to free expression.
A nation that seeks the support of its allies the world over will not succeed in drawing others to its cause by denying international reporters – and indeed, other countries' governments, and citizens – access to the truth. If Israel feels its actions are justified, then it must allow proper scrutiny of them, including coverage of the war it seems intent on perpetrating.
The killing of journalists will never elicit anything other than shock from the international community. Benjamin Netanyahu would do well to remember this.