Colonel Steve Gabavics, a former US Army officer who participated in compiling a report on the Israeli military’s killing of Al Jazeera journalist and American citizen Shireen Abu Akleh, has publicly criticized the Biden administration for allegedly softening the findings of that report to favor Israel.
In an interview with the New York Times published on a recent Monday, Gabavics expressed his dismay at a statement released by the State Department. The statement referred to Abu Akleh’s killing on May 11, 2022, as the result of “tragic circumstances,” a characterization that Gabavics found unacceptable.
This statement marked the first official assessment of Abu Akleh’s death by the US government, which also asserted there was no evidence to believe the killing was intentional.
At the time, Gabavics was associated with the US Security Coordinator’s Office, an inter-agency team responsible for overseeing security cooperation between Israeli and Palestinian forces. His office was tasked by the Biden administration to compile a detailed analysis regarding the circumstances surrounding Abu Akleh’s killing, which subsequently informed the State Department’s public account.
Gabavics, alongside four unnamed colleagues, indicated that the official narrative provided by the US government did not accurately reflect the intense debates that unfolded during their analysis, particularly concerning whether the shooting was intentional.
The assessment compiled by this team integrated findings from both Israeli and Palestinian investigations, supplemented by a site visit and ballistic analysis. Despite the comprehensive nature of their investigation, the US has yet to release its own formal probe into the incident. Although the FBI initiated an investigation into the case in 2022, the current status of that probe remains unclear.
Gabavics revealed he was convinced that the shooting was indeed intentional. He conveyed that the diluted account from the State Department has troubled him relentlessly and weighed heavily on his conscience.
He raised doubts about the possibility that the soldier who fired the shot did not recognize they were targeting a journalist. According to Gabavics, this aligns with the conclusions of various rights groups, a United Nations investigative body, as well as Palestinian officials and other media organizations, including Al Jazeera.
While Israel later acknowledged that one of its soldiers likely shot Abu Akleh, it termed the incident an accidental killing with no personnel facing punishment.
In his argument, Gabavics cited Israeli military communications that indicated soldiers were aware of the journalists’ presence in the area at the time of the shooting. He emphasized that there had been no gunfire directed towards the journalists during this critical moment.
An Israeli military vehicle was also positioned nearby, which would have been visibly identifiable through a sniper scope, reinforcing Gabavics’ assertion that the shooting could not have been a random act.
He highlighted the apparent precision of the shots fired, noting they did not resemble a reckless display of gunfire. Gabavics pointed out that the soldier fired at a producer first, followed by Abu Akleh, and subsequently at another person who attempted to assist her, which he argued further suggested intentionality.
In his conversation with the Times, Gabavics criticized the official US government account, explaining that the shooting being classified as an accident was highly implausible.
He elaborated, stating, “The most absurd thing in the world would have had to happen for it to be considered an accident.”
For his conclusion, Gabavics notified General Michael R. Fenzel, who led the investigation, both orally and in written form. Despite this, Gabavics observed that his findings were not included in the assessment provided to the State Department, and he felt sidelined from the review process afterward.
General Fenzel, responding to these criticisms, defended his judgment-making process. In a statement to the Times, he asserted, “Ultimately, I had to make judgments based on the full set of facts and information available to me. I stand by the integrity of our work and remain confident that we reached the right conclusions.”
Gabavics went on to express that he witnessed a pervasive bias toward Israel during his tenure in the office, noting that US military aid consistently favors Israel over the Palestinians.
“The favoritism is always toward the Israelis, and very little support is directed to the Palestinians,” Gabavics remarked.
He further emphasized that dealing with the case of Abu Akleh had had a profound impact on him during his career.
“Because we had everything there,” he stated, reflecting on the weight of the circumstances surrounding the journalist’s death.
image source from：aljazeera
