From Muhammad al-Dura to Shireen Abu Akleh

Israel may have lost in the media arena, but not in the diplomatic arena, and that’s what’s important.

Al Jazeera journalist Shireen Abu Akleh. Source: Screenshot.
Al Jazeera journalist Shireen Abu Akleh. Source: Screenshot.
Ariel Kahana
Ariel Kahana is a diplomatic correspondent for Israel Hayom.

There are battles when the most you can hope for is to mitigate the damage. This was the goal of Israel’s public relations campaign on Wednesday morning.

Immediately after the reports of Al Jazeera reporter Shireen Abu Akleh’s death, the IDF Spokesperson’s Office, the Foreign Ministry, the Government Press Office, the Israel Police and the Public Diplomacy Directorate in the Prime Minister’s Office—which coordinates between the various bodies—shifted to an emergency footing. It was obvious that the incident was not good for Israel, and that a quick and clear response was imperative.

Unlike the Palestinians, however, who took the liberty to claim Israel was responsible without any factual evidence, Israel is an orderly country. To get caught in a lie down the road would be worse than claiming things right now that sound beneficial. Due to all the complexities involved, this was the chosen PR approach.

As a lesson learned from the Muhammad al-Dura fiasco, Israel on Wednesday avoided the trap of Arab propaganda and didn’t admit that our soldiers were the ones who killed Abu Akleh. Moreover, by 8 am, just one hour after her death, the IDF Spokesperson had already issued a statement that it appeared the Palestinians themselves murdered her in the midst of a gunfight. By 9 am, his words had been translated to Arabic and English and sent to international news outlets and foreign reporters. At the same time, a video was released that was intended to support the Israeli claim.

The swiftness of the response was critical. Compared to the Public Diplomacy Directorate’s deafening silence during Operation Guardian of the Walls a year ago, the quick release of an Israeli version upended the Palestinians’ exclusivity and established Israel’s position.

Where do we still fall short in the court of international opinion, however? When the Palestinians claim with passion that “Israel murdered” while we say “perhaps not,” the Israeli side can’t turn the tables. Against the Palestinian “definitely,” Israel only has a “maybe.”

As representatives of a responsible country, however, Israeli spokespeople couldn’t rule out our involvement in the incident. The truth supersedes the interest.

And yet, the efforts of Israeli spokespeople bore fruit: By noon, most of the major news outlets in the world had already highlighted the Israeli position. It wasn’t the headline, but Israel’s doubts regarding the Palestinian version of events were at least given expression.

In the more important diplomatic arena, where facts and evidence are, for the most part, prioritized, Israel had the upper hand. No serious country condemned the Jewish state. The important countries more or less fell into line with Jerusalem. Great Britain, the European Union and the United Nations asked for an investigation into the incident and, of course, expressed remorse over Abu Akleh’s death.

Even Egypt and Jordan didn’t adopt the Palestinian version. In public and behind the scenes, the Israeli Foreign Ministry didn’t receive any reprimands.

The most important country of all, the United States—even more so because Abu Akleh was a dual US citizen—sufficed with a general call for an investigation, without blaming either side.

“We are heartbroken by and strongly condemn the killing of American journalist Shireen Abu Akleh in the West Bank,” U.S. State Department Spokesman Ned Price said on Twitter. “The investigation must be immediate and thorough and those responsible must be held accountable. Her death is an affront to media freedom everywhere.” And this is Israel’s exact position—to hold an investigation. Meanwhile, the Palestinian rejection of an investigation added points in Israel’s favor.

The conclusion is that we lost in the international media arena, but only there and only temporarily. In terms of the diplomatic arena, an Israeli official offered a succinct summary: “There’s no crisis.” That’s what’s important.

And what will happen if the IDF investigation does reveal that a soldier shot the journalist? It’s safe to assume the soldier will face justice and the international community will issues condemnations.

But even if we arrive at that moment, we mustn’t forget the most important thing: For two decades, Shireen Abu Akleh was part of a propaganda machine operating under the guise of journalism that spewed lies and incited to terror and violence across the Middle East.

Of course, she shouldn’t have been killed, but she was no saint either. Journalism is supposed to oppose violence.

Ariel Kahana is Israel Hayoms senior diplomatic correspondent.

This article was originally published by Israel Hayom.

The opinions and facts presented in this article are those of the author, and neither JNS nor its partners assume any responsibility for them.
You have read 3 articles this month.
Register to receive full access to JNS.

Just before you scroll on...

Israel is at war. JNS is combating the stream of misinformation on Israel with real, honest and factual reporting. In order to deliver this in-depth, unbiased coverage of Israel and the Jewish world, we rely on readers like you. The support you provide allows our journalists to deliver the truth, free from bias and hidden agendas. Can we count on your support? Every contribution, big or small, helps JNS.org remain a trusted source of news you can rely on.

Become a part of our mission by donating today
Thank you. You are a loyal JNS Reader.
You have read more than 10 articles this month.
Please register for full access to continue reading and post comments.
Never miss a thing
Get the best stories faster with JNS breaking news updates