On the Killing of Shireen Abu Akleh

I think Ned Price is a reasonable spokesperson for the State Department. But, as with Jen Psaki, he does have to at times just provide the (dubious) current line. And, the release of a statement "On the Killing of Shireen Abu Akleh" is of that character. That would be Palestinian-American journalist Shireen Abu Akleh. The statement is short enough to post in full:

After an extremely detailed forensic analysis, independent, third-party examiners, as part of a process overseen by the U.S. Security Coordinator (USSC), could not reach a definitive conclusion regarding the origin of the bullet that killed Palestinian-American journalist Shireen Abu Akleh. Ballistic experts determined the bullet was badly damaged, which prevented a clear conclusion.

In addition to the forensic and ballistic analysis, the USSC was granted full access to both Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and Palestinian Authority (PA) investigations over the last several weeks. By summarizing both investigations, the USSC concluded that gunfire from IDF positions was likely responsible for the death of Shireen Abu Akleh.  The USSC found no reason to believe that this was intentional but rather the result of tragic circumstances during an IDF-led military operation against factions of Palestinian Islamic Jihad on May 11, 2022, in Jenin, which followed a series of terrorist attacks in Israel.

The United States appreciates and continues to encourage cooperation between Israel and the PA in this important case. We will remain engaged with Israel and the PA on next steps and urge accountability. We again offer our deepest condolences to the Abu Akleh family.

I have not kept track here, but the general sentiment of the commentary is that this was a grave wrong, the killing of an innocent journalist.  Furthermore, many note there are very suspicious details that suggests that it was intentional.  

And, there was a general suspicion of the good faith of the U.S., who  has long been pro-Israeli, including not formally overturning some over the top Trump policies.  A statement that seems a bit pathetic and slanted is not a good look here.  Even if Ned Price tries to claim “Our goal in this was not to please everyone."  Sure.

The Palestinians were wary of allowing such a test and some far from clearly backed up by the evidence comments like "no reason to believe" (contra evidence provided by others) suggests maybe they were right.  The framing of "tragic circumstances" can be cited as a sign the U.S. is just a concerned outside, though it is diminished by highlighting the context in a way that seems to put Israel on the ah offensive.  

What does the Israelis have to be displeased here? Other than a full fledged sham job, the U.S. couldn't have said more to help them sweep it under the table.  What if the reporter was killed by Russian forces? As my local paper, which is not exactly a liberal newspaper, notes:

The world will only keep getting more dangerous for reporters if the powers that be fail to properly probe killings or bring perpetrators to justice. The U.S. must either conduct a real investigation or assist a trusted third party in doing so.

This is a case where people need to bite the bullet and focus on what is right.  I realize that sounds a bit naive when it comes to international relations, especially those involving Israel, but so be it.  On certain issues, however, some things will remain. There is a limited "both sides do it" that is true though even there we have degrees.  The killing of a member of the press, however, is a time to draw a line  

NEW: Sen Lindsey Graham (R-SC) will go to court to challenge the subpoena from grand jury in Fulton County, Georgia

Statement from attorney accuses grand jury of working "in concert" with House January 6 Select Committee pic.twitter.com/AwfJLn2RBm

— Scott MacFarlane (@MacFarlaneNews) July 6, 2022

It is easier for liberals to rail against someone here, but the overall principles hold.  The basic issue here is the rule of law.  We were told impeachment was not necessary (or ideal), in part since there were alternative methods.  But, darn, if they too are avoided in the end.  Here, someone can't even TALK to a grand jury.  

A secret body.  And, he puts forth strawmen such as the idea that his right to discuss the election with state officials is being challenged.  Now, yes, it is a bit curious when a federal senator does that.  Is that normal?  

But, the basic concern here is a full accounting of what happened to the degree criminal action occurred.  He does not have some total discretion here. Can he aid and abet breaking the law and not even be called to talk about it in a grand jury?  What sort of outrageous is this? 

This is outrageous, though it will get lost in a bunch of other outrageous obstruction of justice [the fact that was a whole separate grounds for impeachment the first time is basically forgotten] in this matter.  Sen. Graham is violating the basics of his oath to uphold the Constitution, especially the letter of its terms.  

It is so fucking outrageous and YET AGAIN the idea having these people in power in 2023 is insane.  And, we get more "Biden is weak" stuff, or "Democrats are not doing anything."  Which is both a lie and a damn stupid thing to put out front and center.  We aren't in a debating society here.  The net result is to aid the side of fascism.  

But, we have to watch our own houses, and the killing (supposed murder) of journalists have to be carefully addressed. More than the bullshit statement dropped during July 4th weekend basically suggesting embarrassment of the whole thing.