The death of Palestinian official Ziad Abu Ein has occupied much of the Western media’s attention. Of course, it falls neatly into the all too common framing of the coverage of Israel with many of the primary ingredients: A peaceful protest against the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land ends with the killing of a defenseless Palestinian at the hands of the aggressive Israeli military.
And while questions were asked as to how Abu Ein died, many media were only prepared to ask superficial questions while parroting this particular narrative. Initial reports threw up conflicting eyewitness accounts, which included Abu Ein dying as a result of breathing in teargas, hit in the chest by a rifle butt, hit in the chest by a teargas canister or throttled by an Israeli soldier.
To his credit, Sky News‘s Tom Rayner walked viewers through the available video footage of the incident clearly explaining what was known and what wasn’t.
But what of Abu Ein’s medical history? While some such as the AP bothered to mention that Abu Ein suffered from diabetes and high blood pressure according to family members, others such as CNN, the LA Times, Reuters, AFP and WSJ (link in The Australian via Google News), NPR, McClatchy News, Daily Telegraph, Financial Times and The Guardian all omitted Abu Ein’s prior health issues.
The importance of this became clear with the release of a preliminary autopsy report. As YNet says:
The report, being led by Palestinian, Jordanian and Israeli pathologists, said the death was caused by blockage in the coronary artery, and said there were signs of light internal bleeding and localized pressure on the neck, at least according to the Israeli version of the report published by the Health Ministry.
The deceased suffered from heart disease, and there was evidence that plaque buildup were clogging more than 80% of his blood vessels, as well as signs that he had suffered heart attacks in the past.
But how many of the media will bother to update their stories?
It does appear that the stress and resulting heart attack were the result of a confrontation with Israeli soldiers, at least one of whom seems to have grabbed Abu Ein by the throat according to the video footage. This, however, also needs to be looked at in the context of the events of that day and whether or not a supposedly peaceful protest was really peaceful. Missed by many was NPR’s assertion that “There had been clashes in the area for several hours between Palestinians and Jewish settlers.”
And what of Abu Ein himself? CNN, the LA Times, Financial Times and Channel 4 all failed to mention Abu Ein’s background. The Jerusalem Post elaborates:
Abu Ein previously spent several years in Israeli prison for his role in a 1979 terrorist attack in Tiberias. A group of youngsters were celebrating Lag Ba’omer in the city center when a bomb exploded in their midst. Two 16-year-olds – Boaz Lahav and David Lankri – were killed and 36 other youths wounded.
After the attack, he fled to the US. In 1981, he became the first Palestinian ever to be extradited from the US to Israel.
A year later, Abu Ein was sentenced to life imprisonment but was released in the 1985 Jibril prisoner exchange deal. During the second intifada, Abu Ein was held in administrative detention.
Clearly, despite Palestinian efforts to portray Abu Ein as a martyr at the hands of Israel, he was no saint.
Irrespective of Abu Ein’s history of violence, what is beyond dispute, despite the terminology of Mahmoud Abbas who called the incident an “assassination,” Israeli forces at the scene were using non-lethal crowd dispersal methods and did not intend anyone to die.
And just how much of the Palestinian Authority’s rhetorical escalation is a result of the media attention given to this incident? Palestinian negotiator and serial liar Saeb Erekat has stated: “We see Israel as having complete responsibility for the murder of Ziad Abu Ein,”
A regrettable incident certainly. A murder certainly not.
