Key takeaways: Documentary names alleged killer of Al Jazeera's Abu Akleh
A new documentary claiming to have uncovered the name of the Israeli soldier responsible for shooting Al Jazeera correspondent Shireen Abu Akleh has been released online.
Abu Akleh, a Palestinian American who had been with Al Jazeera since 1997, was killed while reporting from Jenin in the occupied West Bank in May 2022.
Shortly after her death, Israeli officials and media suggested she had been killed by Palestinian gunfire.
However, subsequent reports from human rights organisations and news agencies showed that the Palestinian fighters initially accused by Israel were some distance from Abu Akleh's killing and, in September, Israel conceded there was a 'high probability' its forces had 'accidentally' killed the correspondent.
Contributors to the documentary, Who Killed Shireen? released on Thursday by Zeteo, suggested that Abu Akleh's killing has helped further embolden a sense of impunity among Israeli soldiers, which has since contributed to the killing of more than 200 journalists by the Israeli military and settlers in the West Bank.
Here are four of the key takeaways from the investigation:
According to numerous testimonies featured in the film, officials within the Biden administration either knew or suspected that Abu Akleh had been shot by an Israeli soldier, but continued to support Israeli claims that she had been killed by Palestinians.
The filmmakers also claim that US officials had been informed by an unnamed Israeli general responsible for the West Bank within hours of Abu Akleh's killing that one of his soldiers had likely shot her.
Despite this, US officials continued to support public Israeli accounts of Abu Akleh's killing that attempted to shift the blame, and then, when Israel publicly admitted the likely culpability of one of its soldiers, that the killing was unintentional.
US officials did not publicly dispute that narrative, and instead said they were unable to determine if a crime had been committed without access to the shooter, which Israel refused to allow.
Speaking to reporter Dion Nissenbaum, one anonymous staffer within the former administration of President Joe Biden said that officials declined to press the Israeli administration on killing one of their citizens for fear of 'anger[ing] the Israeli government'.
This is despite officials having concluded, the same source said, that Abu Akleh's killing had been an intentional act.
Interviewed in the documentary, Eyal Hulata, who was Israel's national security adviser at the time of the killing, defended Israel's decision not to release the suspected soldier for questioning by the United States, saying that Israel had a 'very good and trustworthy investigative mechanism'.
Asked if he could ever remember the subject of the US journalist's murder arising in discussions between President Biden and Naftali Bennett, who was Israeli prime minister at the time, Hulala replies, 'This wasn't a topic between the prime minister and the president.'
Further requests from the Biden administration that Israel change the rules of engagement that some felt had led to Abu Akleh's death met, according to one interviewee, 'the brush off'.
The failure of the Biden administration to hold Israel to account or bring about a change to its rules of engagement after Abu Akleh's murder has, US Senator Chris Van Hollen told filmmakers, contributed towards 'the deaths of … other Americans and other civilians'.
The film reports that, according to soldiers active that day, Abu Akleh was killed by Alon Scagio, a sniper with the Israeli military's elite 'Duvdevan' unit.
Speaking of his response to having killed the journalist, despite her identity as a member of the press being clear, a friend of Scagio says he didn't 'remember anything special' about Abu Akleh's killing, 'so it wasn't, like, an issue. He wasn't happy, like, 'Hey, I killed a journalist,' of course, but he wasn't … eating himself from the inside.'
Investigations by the filmmakers show Scagio was moved out of the Duvdevan to a commander position in a different unit, distancing him from any investigation, as a result, the filmmakers guess, of having killed Abu Akleh.Scagio was later killed in June 2024 by a roadside bomb in Jenin, the same West Bank city in which he is accused of killing Abu Akleh.
As a result of the fallout from Abu Akleh's killing, Scagio's friend claims the Duvdevan unit took to using her image for target practice.
The killing of Abu Akleh came during what at the time was considered an intense phase of Israeli raids on the occupied West Bank. She was one of at least 145 Palestinians killed during the raids in 2022.
But since then, Israel has only ramped up its violence in both the West Bank and Gaza.
Israel has killed more than 52,000 Palestinians since it launched its war on Gaza in October 2023, decimating the territory and refusing the entry of food since March, starving the local population.
And in the West Bank, Israel has increased the severity of its attacks, using heavy weaponry and air strikes, and forcing Palestinians out of their homes. More than 900 Palestinians have been killed there.
Despite that, the US – both under former President Joe Biden and current President Donald Trump – has maintained its support of Israel, even as much of the rest of the world has criticised its actions.
At the United Nations, the US regularly votes alongside Israel, while the majority of member states seek to use the international body to pressure Israel to stop. And the US has threatened the International Criminal Court for seeking to arrest Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for committing war crimes.
It is, therefore, perhaps no surprise that, even though Abu Akleh was a journalist doing her job when she was killed and an American citizen, the US has been willing to look the other way.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
39 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Israel Unsure Iran Nuke Program 'Annihilated' After US Strikes: Official
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. During a Sunday morning press conference, U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said that "many presidents have dreamed of delivering the final blow to Iran's nuclear program, and none could until President Trump." The defense secretary then said to the world's cameras: "We devastated the Iranian nuclear program." In Israel, though, there's less certainty about whether Iran's nuclear development has been smashed to pieces by U.S. strikes on three of Iran's major nuclear facilities overnight, and whether the country's nuclear program is permanently out of the game. "Is it fully, fully annihilated? We don't know yet," a senior Israeli official told Newsweek. "Nobody knows yet," added the source, who was granted anonymity to speak freely. "It requires a lot of intelligence work." Israel and the U.S. both say they are still conducting assessments of the impact of American aircraft, massive "bunker-buster" bombs and submarine-launched cruise missiles on the central Iranian facilities of Isfahan, Natanz and Fordow. Initial takes suggest "all three sites sustained extremely severe damage," General Dan Caine, the chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, said on Sunday. Trump late on Saturday described Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities as "completely and totally obliterated." Yet analysts say it is very hard to judge whether the Iranian nuclear program, shrouded in mystery, has centrifuges squirreled away, or where exactly it is keeping many kilograms of unaccounted-for, highly enriched uranium. There may even still be entire sites no one knows about, experts add, on top of the difficulties working out the extent of destruction to areas so deep underground. Satellite imagery published on Sunday indicated several large craters at an ash-covered Fordow, damage to buildings at Isfahan and a 5.5-meter diameter crater directly over part of the underground facility at Natanz, according to imagery provider Maxar. Joint Chiefs Chairman General Dan Caine speaks during a news conference at the Pentagon in Washington on June 22 after the U.S. military struck three sites in Iran, directly joining Israel's effort to destroy the... Joint Chiefs Chairman General Dan Caine speaks during a news conference at the Pentagon in Washington on June 22 after the U.S. military struck three sites in Iran, directly joining Israel's effort to destroy the country's nuclear program. More AP Photo/Alex Brandon Caine, speaking to the media alongside Hegseth on Sunday, painted a picture of an intricate, highly classified American operation, rife with decoys and absolutely minimal communications while en route to Iran. A U.S. submarine launched more than two dozen Tomahawk cruise missiles against the aboveground facilities at Isfahan around 5 p.m. ET on Saturday, just before U.S. aircraft entered Iranian airspace, he said. Washington used deception tactics and a host of fourth- and fifth-generation aircraft traveling ahead of B-2 heavy bombers to sweep for Iranian fighter jets and air defenses, Caine added. At 6:40 p.m. ET, the first B-2 dropped two "bunker buster" GBU-57/B bombs at Fordow, the top general said. The rest of the munitions were dropped in the following 25 minutes, and Iran did not fire at U.S. aircraft traveling in or out of Iran, Caine added. The B-2s and their 30,000-pound GBU-57/B bombs were widely deemed the only aircraft-and-bomb combination to be able to take out a deeply buried site like Fordow, the underground complex built into a mountain roughly 60 miles south of Tehran. Israel, while not pursuing Fordow, has for over a week carried out extensive airstrikes on Iran's nuclear sites, including Isfahan and Natanz, and killed a litany of senior nuclear scientists and generals. 'Ambitions Cannot Be Obliterated by Fire' "Military attacks can degrade a program to varying degrees, but there is no military solution for a decisive and inclusive elimination of the program," Darya Dolzikova, a senior research fellow for proliferation and nuclear policy with the influential British think tank, the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), said. Attacks have certainly hit critical sites, Dolzikova told Newsweek. But even if the physical facilities sustain the maximum possible damage, "if Iran decides in the future that it wants to actually rebuild or even expand its program, the expertise remains for them to be able to do that." "Ambitions cannot be obliterated by fire," Eran Lerman, a former Israeli deputy national security adviser who's currently the vice president of the Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security, an Israeli think tank, said. But Israeli intelligence has reached the core of Iran's nuclear efforts, meaning it would be very difficult for Tehran to trust anyone it brings into the fold to rebuild, Lerman told Newsweek. Iran insists its nuclear program is peaceful, but its officials have openly floated discussions on whether Tehran needs nuclear weapons. Experts say highly enriched uranium, far beyond that needed for non-weaponized nuclear development, has been found in Iran and it would not be hard for Tehran to make the leap toward a nuclear weapon. Israel said as it launched its strikes on Iran earlier this month that Tehran "could take steps to produce a weapon in a very short time" if not stopped. U.S. intelligence believes Iran hasn't decided whether it take that step towards weaponization, The New York Times reported on Thursday, citing officials. However, Iran's top leadership is likely to move towards producing a bomb if the U.S. attacked Fordow, senior intelligence officials told the newspaper at the time. How Iran's most senior players currently assess the playing field, after U.S. strikes on Fordow, is not clear. Trump once again pushed for Iran to negotiate on a deal late Saturday, threatening Tehran with "far greater" attacks if it did not negotiate. The country's foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, warned of "everlasting consequences" for what he termed "outrageous" U.S. attacks, and has said Tehran will not negotiate while under Israeli attack. Iran's nuclear program cannot be taken out without negotiations, William Alberque, a senior adjunct fellow with the Pacific Forum and a former director of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's (NATO) Arms Control, Disarmament and WMD [Weapons of Mass Destruction] Non-Proliferation Center, said. "They've developed the most advanced centrifuges," he told Newsweek. "Those designs can't be eliminated." For international watchers to be sure they have a grip on Iran's nuclear development, Tehran would need to be under an enrichment ban and the United Nations' (U.N.) nuclear watchdog would need access to undeclared Iranian nuclear sites, Alberque said. Iranian state media reported key nuclear sites had been evacuated ahead of U.S. attacks, with enriched uranium moved "to a safe location." Satellite imagery provided by Maxar showed "unusual truck and vehicular activity" close to the entrance of Fordow on Thursday and Friday. Iran was producing considerable amounts of highly enriched uranium at Fordow, but it is not immediately apparent how much was still at the site in recent days, Alberque told Newsweek earlier on Sunday. The U.N.'s' nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), said on Sunday it had not detected an increase in off-site radiation levels but called an "emergency meeting" for Monday.
Boston Globe
44 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Iran could have chosen the road away from nuclear weapons. It declined.
Advertisement Iran's own words, and its actions around the world, demonstrated its lack of good faith. Under the Obama administration's 2015 deal, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, Iran capped its enrichment. But that agreement didn't fully block its path to a nuclear weapon, or even stop Iran from building ballistic missiles, which it has done aggressively. Those missiles menace the region and are being used against Israel now. In the meantime, Iran went unpunished for beefing up its terroristic proxies like Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis. Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up When the Biden administration wanted to appease its way back into a deal after Trump pulled out of the JCPOA, it was willing to stop at nothing to get an agreement. It floated dropping the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corp's designation as a foreign terrorist organization, lifting painful sanctions, and re-entering a deal that would allow Iran to Advertisement The effects of trying to appease a terroristic regime were predictable: Tehran turned up its nose at the West. It started sending drones to Russia and ramping up its uranium enrichment. Its proxies wreaked havoc on global trade in the Persian Gulf and Strait of Hormuz and executed the largest terrorist attack in Israel's history on Oct. 7, 2023. Though I grew up with negotiations, I also grew up experiencing Iran's malicious agenda firsthand. Lebanon, where my ancestors are from, continued to be dragged into conflicts and economic instability thanks to Hezbollah's terrorism and constant conflict with Israel. And it's not just Lebanon — my Iraqi friends, my Syrian friends, my Persian friends can attest to the fact that the region lives in a state of constant fear and chaos, funded reliably by the mullahs in Tehran. Now it isn't just Biden negotiators and Israel-hating progressives that are cutting Iran slack. Some prominent Republicans — including Tucker Carlson and have trumpeted isolationism, suggesting that holding Iran accountable for its nuclear ambitions is warmongering. But are they seeing what I have for two decades? Because if they did, they'd know that a country like Iran is not to be trusted with nuclear capabilities — or even a path to them. And certainly not when their favorite refrain is 'Death to America.' Advertisement Trump understands the threat. And for a president known to change his mind on everything from abortion to TikTok, he's remarkably consistent on Iran: It cannot have a nuclear weapon, and it cannot have a deal that will eventually allow it to pursue one. So Trump pulled out of the JCPOA during his first administration, slapping crippling sanctions on Iran with a With his return to the White House came the resurrection of maximum pressure. But also the possibility of a deal: Give up your enrichment for prosperity and inclusion with the international community. The deal even Despite a looming threat of an Israeli strike in the background, Iran did not take the deal. Israel struck them on day 61 of the 60 days Trump gave the Iranians to reach an agreement. Still, the Trump administration has repeatedly offered a diplomatic offramp — including So far, Tehran has declined to take it, and now it is paying the price that Trump repeatedly promised: US B-2 bombers on Saturday dropped huge bunker-busting bombs on Iran's nuclear facilities, including its deeply buried plant at Fordo. Advertisement 'President Trump gave Iran a choice, and the Ayatollah chose poorly,' Michael Baumgartner, a Republican on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, told me. The consequences of the attack will unfold for days to come and the actual damage to Iran's nuclear infrastructure is not yet clear. As those assessments trickle out, Trump's opponents, and even some of his allies, are going to call the strike warmongering. But holding your red lines against a regime that wishes your destruction isn't necessarily warmongering. It can be the opposite. Carine Hajjar is a Globe Opinion writer. She can be reached at
American Military News
44 minutes ago
- American Military News
Israel's barrage of Iran is furious. Azerbaijan, to Iran's north, is treading lightly.
This article was originally published by Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and is reprinted with permission. Azerbaijan's president stood before cameras of the state TV broadcaster, grinning alongside an Israeli attack drone newly acquired for his country's growing arsenals. Ilham Aliyev then petted it like a dog. The Israeli unmanned aircraft was part of an extensive fleet of Israeli and Turkish-built drones that Aliyev's military used to devastating effect against Armenia in its successful campaign to regain control of the disputed territory of Nagorno-Karabakh in 2023. The weapon is a small but notable reflection of Azerbaijan's quiet, long-standing — and significant– relations with Israel. Israel's furious, unprecedented barrage targeting Iranian nuclear and missile sites threatens to destabilize Tehran's government. Along with Iran's retaliatory missile attacks, the violence also threatens to possibly spark a wider war in the Middle East. In the midst of all this, Baku is trying to thread a very small needle. 'Aliyev needs to stay on the good side of both Israel — a continued supplier of sophisticated weapons to the Azerbaijani armed forces and a market for Azerbaijani oil — and Tehran [due to] Iran's ability to play Armenia and Azerbaijan off against each other,' said Richard Kauzlarich, who served as US ambassador to Azerbaijan in the late 1990s. 'Azerbaijan has no interest in a war with Iran and does not support Israeli strikes on Iranian territory,' said Zaur Shiriyev, an expert on the South Caucasus at the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center. 'Azerbaijan made its position clear that it is not part of this conflict.' Aliyev has said nothing publicly. Azerbaijan's Foreign Ministry issued a statement on June 13 — the day Israel started its campaign — saying Baku was 'seriously concerned' about the attacks. 'We strongly condemn the escalation of the situation and urge the parties to resolve the existing disagreements only through dialogue and diplomatic means in accordance with the norms and principles of international law.' The next day, the ministry said Foreign Minister Ceyhun Bayramov had spoken with his Iranian counterpart, Abbas Araqchi, and reassured him that Azerbaijan would not allow its territory to be used for attacks against Tehran. Bayramov later spoke with Britain's foreign secretary, expressing 'serious concern about the security situation in the region as a result of the Israeli-Iranian conflict.' Azerbaijan's Foreign Ministry did not respond to e-mails seeking further comment. Azerbaijan's ties with Tehran are a mixed bag. Iran is overwhelmingly Shi'ite Muslim. Shi'ites dominate in Azerbaijan as well, though there is also a substantial Sunni population. The country is officially secular and religion plays a small role in public life. Inside Iran, ethnic Azeris are the second-largest minority after the Fars, or Persians, a fact that occasionally worries the government in Tehran. Some estimates place Iran's ethnic Azeri population as larger than Azerbaijan's entire population. The northwestern city of Tabriz, which has been hit by Israeli strikes, is home to many of Iran's ethnic Azeris. Also thrown into the mix is Iran's economic ties with Armenia, with whom Azerbaijan has fought two wars in the past 35 years over Nagorno-Karabakh. Isolated by Azerbaijan's strongest ally, Turkey, Armenia currently has only two land border crossings: one with Georgia to the north, and one with Iran. With Tehran isolated by international sanctions, Armenia is an important outlet for Iranian exports to wider markets. With support from Turkey, Azerbaijan is angling to create a transport corridor across Armenian territory that would link up Azerbaijan and an Azerbaijani exclave to the west called Naxcivan. That would impede Iranian-Armenian trade, which would have to cross what's called the Zangezur corridor. And then there's Israel. Since first cultivating ties in the 1990s, Azerbaijan has become a major source of oil for Israel, supplying more than half of its imports. Israel, meanwhile, has become a major supplier of weaponry to Azerbaijan, which Baku has relied heavily on as it rebuilt its armed forces after disastrous losses during the first Nagorno-Karabakh conflict in the early 1990s. Between 2016 and 2021, Israel was the source for 69 percent of Baku's weapons imports, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. That includes missiles as well as sophisticated drones like the Harop 'loitering munition' drone, which Aliyev showed off in October 2021, or models like the Orbiter surveillance drones, which scoop up radio signals and other electronic data. Two years later, Azerbaijan took full control of Nagorno-Karabakh, forcing out most of its ethnic Armenians. The relationship is 'strong and mutually beneficial,' Kauzlarich said, 'based on perceptions in Baku that Israel will remain a supplier of arms in its ongoing conflict with Armenia and in Jerusalem that Azerbaijan supports Israeli objectives in Iran.' Tehran has long had concerns that Israel could use its relationship with Azerbaijan for covert, or overt, action against Iran. In an opinion piece published in 2006, a retired Israel Defense Forces general called for coordinating with Azerbaijan on the use of its air bases. Iran's fears were stoked further by US diplomatic cables that were leaked and published by the anti-secrecy group Wikileaks. One cable reportedly described a deep, secret relationship between Israel and Azerbaijan, prompting loud pushback from Azerbaijani diplomats. In 2012, Azerbaijani police announced that they had arrested several people linked to Iranian intelligence who were allegedly plotting attacks on Israelis in the country. Tehran accused of Baku of helping Israel to target Iranian nuclear scientists. 'Whenever tensions rise between Israel and Iran, there is a long-standing narrative, mostly pushed from outside, that Azerbaijan might open its airspace or provide support to Israel,' Shiriyev said. 'That has never been true. Today, with advanced airpower and drones, Israel does not rely on foreign refueling or nearby airbases.' In its current campaign to pummel Iran and its weapons programs, Israel is likely counting on Azerbaijan's moral rather than military support, said Efraim Halevy, the former head of the Israeli spy agency Mossad. 'If there will be a war… we do not wish to involve [Azerbaijan] in military activities which would cause loss of life and/or place Azerbaijan in a difficult position,' he said in an interview with RFE/RL's Azerbaijani Service last year. 'What we do hope is to get moral support from [Azerbaijan], to get from you support expressing your views on Iran and the way Iran is behaving, and to give us a clear view of Azerbaijani foreign policy concerning Iran,' he said. 'That I think, is what we expect of Azerbaijan, and I think it is in the interest of Azerbaijan to accept this.' 'Is Baku trying to stay out of a major war on its southern border?' Shiriyev said. 'Yes, but that is not simple.' 'Even if Azerbaijan avoids direct involvement, it could still face consequences, including refugee flows, trade disruptions, and logistical problem,' he said. 'If the conflict deepens, or if the Iranian regime collapses entirely, the result could be serious instability across the region. Iran is not Syria or Iraq. It is much closer, and its size means that any fallout would be felt across the South Caucasus. Azerbaijan, like other neighbors, would likely be among the first to feel the pressure,' Shiriyev added.
