Palestinians could reveal more about Abu Akleh death

For journalists covering the world’s conflict zones, the occupational hazards include kidnapping, serious injury and even death. The fact that they assume such risks does not make it any less tragic or, potentially, threatening to press freedom when the risks materialize. Hence the May 11 shooting death of Shireen Abu Akleh, Al Jazeera’s star reporter, while covering Israeli-Palestinian fighting in the occupied West Bank is a reason to mourn — and to determine how and why it happened. The fact that Ms. Abu Akleh is a citizen of the United States, Israel’s key economic and military backer, gives the case special urgency.

A Washington Post reporting team has just provided much-needed clarity, in an impressive review of audio, video and witness testimony, showing that it was likely an Israeli soldier’s bullet that claimed Ms. Abu Akleh’s life. This supports findings of an official Palestinian Authority investigation but refutes Israeli assertions, in the incident’s immediate aftermath, that errant Palestinian gunfire killed her. It casts doubt on Israel’s insistence, even now, that it cannot rule out the latter scenario. And it contradicted Israel’s claim that a Palestinian gunman between its troops and Ms. Abu Akleh drew fire that hit her.

The Post investigation is also noteworthy for what it did not uncover: proof that a soldier targeted Ms. Abu Akleh because she was a journalist, which Israel has always denied. Still less did the Post report show that she was “assassinated in cold blood,” as the Qatar-owned Al Jazeera declared within hours of her death. Israel within a day of May 11 walked back its initial denials and now acknowledges its troops’ possible fault. It has even identified — though not publicly — a potentially responsible soldier and a weapon. None of those steps in the right direction gains Israel credit with the chorus of critics that rushed to condemn it. The whole incident could have been avoided but for a wave of West Bank-based Palestinian attacks that killed 19 Israelis, most of them civilians, in the six weeks preceding Ms. Abu Akleh’s death and to which Israel was responding. Wherever this event fits on the spectrum between error and offense, however, Israel must review it and take appropriate remedial action.

Many are calling for an “independent” investigation of Ms. Abu Akleh’s death; we’re skeptical such an impartial inquiry is possible given the high emotions, and low trust, that permeate global discussion of the Middle East. It might help, however, if the Palestinian Authority let Israel have the bullet extracted from Ms. Abu Akleh at autopsy for ballistics testing, to see if it matches one of Israel’s guns, as it very well might.

Israel proposed such a test — with Palestinian Authority participation and under U.S. observation. The Palestinian Authority has unfortunately refused to release even imagery of the bullet, seeing an opportunity not to call Israel’s bluff but “to deprive them of a new lie, a new narrative,” as the Palestinian Authority attorney general put it. We do not see how Israel could manipulate the process if U.S. experts were indeed involved at every step. It’s the best realistic alternative — and the Biden administration should engage with both parties to make it happen.