On Saturday, the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) executed an airstrike on a Gazan building, housing both the Associated Press and Al Jazeera. Without much consideration for the tense conflict that has progressed rapidly over the past week and a half, this was immediately decried as an attack on ‘free press’ by major news outlets worldwide. The primary issue with any form of media is exposed when multifaceted issues get boiled down to a single overly simplistic point. That vein of simplicity is nearly always determined by pure bias, and it only helps to further establish the lines among which people divide themselves.
Over the last several days, Wikileaks has repeatedly tweeted their release of a classified U.S. cable referencing the IDF using Gazans as ‘human shields’ in 2008-09, while simultaneously ignoring a UN report from 2015 on how Hamas used civilians for the same purpose. On the surface, it could appear Wikileaks is simply tweeting information that their own outlet has acquired, but the complete collection of tweets shows clear support for Palestine over Israel with major facts omitted all along the way. Wikileaks’ reporting on Israel’s bombing of the Al Jazeera and AP building in Gaza is no different.
The root of their indignation seems to rest with the assumption the attack was targeting the press. From reading Wikileaks tweets, you would have no idea that the building was reportedly being used by Hamas. Amazingly, this point was not absent from the reporting of Brian Stelter on CNN. He first read a statement from Al Jazeera’s acting director who claimed: “the aim of this heinous crime is to silence the media and to hide the untold carnage and suffering of the people of Gaza.” Stelter then commented on Israel possibly having justification, and he emphasized the importance of Israel releasing proof that Hamas was occupying the building. Given the available information and characters involved, this could very well be another tactic used by Hamas to gain sympathy, on par with their use of civilian-occupied mosques, schools, and hospitals as military outposts.
Amidst the airstrike zero journalists were killed, as they were told to evacuate an hour before. Despite the narrative being pushed, all of the affected journalists are in active communication with their organizations, and no one is being silenced. If the aim was to silence the media, there would not have been a warning. On top of that, if Israel is found to have credible intelligence proving Hamas was occupying the building, it begs the question of why Al Jazeera and the Associated Press were sharing a building with Hamas.
As Wikileaks also failed to report, Qatar-based Al Jazeera has repeatedly sympathized with terror groups. The former United Arab Emirates Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Anwar Gargash has said AlJazeera violated a 2005 UN Security Council resolution that called on member states to counter “incitement of terrorist acts motivated by extremism.” They provided a platform to al-Qaeda, Hamas, and Hezbollah to “threaten, recruit, and incite without challenge or restraint”. In 2006 AlJazeera broadcasted a speech given by al-Qaeda leader Abdel Majid al-Zindani at a pro-Hamas conference in Yemen where proceeds of the conference went to Hamas. They have also given a voice to Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi who endorsed and glorified suicide bombers. In addition to this, AlJazeera America (AJAM) was attempted during the 2014 Gaza crisis. They repeatedly aired pro-Palestinian propaganda regarding excuses for ‘human shielding’ while simultaneously failing to mention how Hamas was using civilian-occupied buildings to house military assets.
There are plenty more examples similar to this, but the point is made clear that even if the press was targeted in this attack, AlJazeera is far from a ‘free press’ outlet, despite Wikileaks’ one-sided display. This would not suddenly justify bombing the press by any means, but it adds a layer of complexity to Israel’s airstrike that provides valuable context.
It remains to be seen what proof Israel has regarding Hamas’ occupation of the building, but failing to report the entire truth is not something Wikileaks is known for. It is troubling to see such a slanted narrative coming from an outlet that has a long history of disseminating objective and unbiased information.
