How are the attempts to kill witnesses in the Sherine Abu Aqleh case?

The Israeli occupation state was not satisfied with the assassination of the journalist Shireen Abu Aqleh when she carried out her journalistic and humanitarian duty while covering the storming of the Jenin refugee camp (in the northern West Bank) on May 11, nor was it satisfied with publishing no less than 4 contradictory accounts of the assassination, which reflects A state of confusion, confusion and insistence on concealing the truth.

It also did not hesitate to reject the results of the investigation conducted by different parties separately, and came to one conclusive conclusion;

It is that Shireen Abu Aqleh was deliberately killed by a sniper bullet in the Israeli occupation army, but above that, and to justify her crime, impunity and the consequences of legal, political and international crime, she deliberately practiced a kind of moral killing of witnesses, most notably journalist Shaza Hanaysha, colleague and companion of Shireen Abu Aqleh in its last coverage.

The process of challenging the international and Palestinian investigations has mechanisms and tools that differ from the official reaction, which expressed its rejection of its results, and called for its completion by involving Israel in it, and transferring the crime instrument to it for examination;

In an implicit hint that the Palestinian is an unqualified and impartial party.

Shaza Hanaisheh became the main narrator, and the most prominent witness to the case of the assassination of Shireen Abu Akleh, and based on her testimony by virtue of her presence with the martyr Shireen at the moment of her targeting and assassination;

Attention was drawn to her, and she turned, in an instant, from a colleague and friend of Shireen's profession, to evidence of her murderers.

The targeting of Abu Aqila by the Israeli sniper was intentional and directed with the aim of assassinating her, and this was proven by the investigation of the Palestinian Public Prosecution and the investigations of CNN and the Associated Press, investigations that were based on a set of tangible physical evidence, including the testimonies of witnesses, most notably journalist Shaza.

This pivotal role of Shaza’s testimony and her closeness - to the point of danger to her life - to the crime made her a target for the Israeli media propaganda machine, which fumbled between the different accounts, and colluded in covering up the crime. Parties with a global reputation that Israel cannot enter into direct conflict with.

The process of challenging the international and Palestinian investigations has mechanisms and tools that differ from the official reaction, which expressed its rejection of its results, and called for its completion - as incomplete - by involving Israel in it, and transferring the instrument of crime (the projectile) to it for inspection, in an implicit hint that the Palestinian “is a party Unqualified and impartial."

Informal mechanisms that come in the form of anonymous statements with undefined reference are inserted into official reports under the name of “security source”, “Israeli official” or “informed parties” whose mission is to sow seeds of doubt, pass on the misleading message and manipulate public opinion without uploading official levels Its consequences, if it turns out to be inaccurate and false.

The most prominent example of this method used to challenge the testimony of Shaza Hanaisheh, on which the CNN report was based, can be identified by examining a report that was published on an important and central website in the Israeli media, the well-known “Ynet”, which Follows Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper, published on May 25, 2022 under the headline “CNN investigation: “Abu Aqila was intentionally wounded by the forces.” The army: “This is baseless.”

It is noted that the report came at a sensitive period in the case, in terms of the timing, it came immediately after the announcement of the decisive results of the investigation that do not accept interpretation, and in terms of the party that announced the results as a body with credibility and global reputation, and it cannot be accused of being hostile to Israel, so it can be assumed that it guarantees the central message that Israel wanted to deliver.

This letter was a moral bullet directed directly at the assassination of the central witness and the cornerstone on which the investigations in condemning Israel were based.

what net

In addition to presenting the official version rejecting the results of the investigation, and expanding the space allocated for the response of the army spokesman, the site visually prepared the reader to question the evidence of the conviction by displaying a large picture of Shaza, who was terrified, trying to take cover in a tree to demonstrate that she was confused, and directly under it was a picture (screen). Shot), translated into English and Arabic for a publication attributed to the journalist Shatha Hanaisheh, under which he wrote, "Shaza Hanaisheh publishes inflammatory posts against Israel on her personal accounts on social media," without indicating the date of the publication and the occasion of its publication.

Immediately below the post, a new paragraph begins by clearly indicating the centrality of Shaza's testimony, "In Israel they point out that a large part of the allegations that the army deliberately killed Abu Aqila are based on the testimony of the Palestinian journalist Shaza Hanaysha," and here the emphasis is on her being the central witness and that she is Palestinian at the same time. It has implications that will become clear in the following paragraphs, where the report continues that she is “a resident of Jenin camp,” and that Israeli sources point out that “it constantly publishes inflammatory content on its personal accounts,” a matter that has only been proven through one publication without a date or context. Therefore, the "Israeli source" added that the inciting publication was while she was working for the Middle East Eye website.

The "Israeli source" - according to Ynet - accused CNN of not checking Hanaisheh's testimony, who claimed that "she did not see Palestinian gunmen, despite their heavy deployment in the place," and that she "claimed that the army had identified her" to ask: How did you know that about "After 200?"

The irrefutable fact is that the Israelis themselves are the ones who do not bother themselves with the burden of scrutinizing and scrutinizing their narratives, and have been belittling others, believing that the world will take their narrative as it is, and they are not used to the fact that there are credible international bodies that will scrutinize every detail of what they claim as CNN did. in achieving it.

This indulgence is what prompted them to make mistakes about the personality of the witness, journalist Shaza Hanaysha. They mentioned that she is from Jenin camp (as if this is a charge in itself), while she is from the town of Qabatiya, and in the details of her work and her professional biography, they confused her with a female colleague with the same first name, and they went They are looking for plucking here and there to incriminate Shaza and justify targeting it.

This arrogant view expressed itself clearly in the coverage of the news of the martyrdom of the journalist, Sherine Abu Akleh, by the Hebrew platforms. Most of the coverage ignored the name of the martyr and sufficed as the "Palestinian journalist", which prompted the Palestinian journalist Muhammad Majadleh (who is a Palestinian insider and was a guest on his media programme. Rina Misleh) to shout in the face of this well-known announcer and repeat the name of Sherine Abu Akleh several times, telling them that she has a name and is not a nobody.

In its concluding paragraph, the report concludes, after “demonizing” Shaza and challenging her credibility, that “the report is inaccurate, and not complete,” and that only involving the Israeli authorities in the investigation, and handing over the bullet to them, will make it complete and reliable.

After revealing 3 reliable and separate investigations, they came to the same conclusion. It seems that campaigns to question the witnesses’ testimonies and “demonize” them are not limited to refusing to testify, but rather an attempt to kill the witness and bury the testimony to cover up the criminal.