No prosecution for a dead journalist is the finding John Kiriakou put at the centre of a question about Israeli conduct toward the press, after the killing of an Al Jazeera reporter and four support staff.
The pattern
Kiriakou described the killings as the continuation of a habit rather than an incident: “This is a a long-standing pattern. The Israelis, it seems like they enjoy killing journalists.”[1]
The case he says he is still thinking about is Shireen Abu Akleh — “who was wearing a bulletproof vest that said press, a Kevlar helmet that said press, and an Israeli sniper shot her in the face, and then the IDF disrupted her funeral, made the pawbearers drop the coffin right there in the church.”[1]
The finding
What he says moved him from anger to a structural conclusion is a single fact of record. “one of the reasons why I’m so upset about all this is just today I read an article saying that the Israeli government has never prosecuted anybody in the death of any journalist ever.”[1]
Against that record he sets the standard official response: “Now Netanyahu said I think it was yesterday that well there will be an investigation. He always says that there’s always some pretend investigation.”[2]
The proposal
Kiriakou’s inference is stated as an assumption rather than proof — “I’m assuming that this is an Israeli government policy to murder journalists” — and his response to it is not a demand for accountability but a demand for candour.[2]
“if that’s the case, why don’t they just come clean with it and say, ‘Look, you know, we don’t respect international journalism. You take your life into your hands if you’re coming in here. We may kill you and maybe it’s going to be on purpose and maybe it’s going to be by accident.’ I mean, why play this game?”[3]
His guest answered that Israel does say something close to it in practice, and that a sniper could not have shot Abu Akleh without authorisation from the top of the government — a reading Kiriakou did not contest.[3]