Ma'an News Agency’s Account of Elor Azarya's Court Verdict

Elor Azarya

The Ma'an News Agency’s news article on March 3,2017 reviews the controversy of Elor Azarya’s filmed shooting of an incapacitated Palestinian assailant, which took place near a military checkpoint in Hebron. In this event, two 21 year old Palestinians, Abd al-Fattah Yusri al-Sharif and Ramzi Aziz al-Qasrawi, armed with knives, attacked an Israeli Defense Force soldier. This exchange resulted in the IDF soldier being moderately wounded and Ramzi Aziz al-Qasrawi being killed in the process. Abd al-Fattah Yusri al-Sharif, who survived the initial struggle, was seen to be wounded and incapacitated at the scene when medics arrived. Shortly after, an IDF soldier, Elor Azarya, was filmed shooting Abd al-Fattah Yusri al-Sharif in the head, killing him instantly. Global outrage followed, when the court ruled that Elor Azarya be convicted of manslaughter and not murder. The final verdict resulted in a delayed 18 month prison sentence.  

The article begins by going over what the author believes to be the injustices of the court’s rulings. Throughout the article the author cites the judge's repeated defenses of Azarya. One example is when the judge said that Azarya "has proven he poses no danger to the public and that there's no fear he would try to escape justice." This statement gives clear insight to why the delayed sentence was included in the verdict. The article then continues, by presenting statistics showing the the many deaths of Palestinians by Israeli Defense Force soldiers and suspected IDF soldiers very rarely receive indictments. Towards the end of the Ma'an News Agency’s article, they present al-Sharif's family's point of view about their outrage and lack of surprise with the verdict. They also mention that this sentiment is shared by the Palestinian community. The article closes with a quote from a poll by the Israel Democracy Institute stating that 47 percent of Israelis believe that terrorists should be killed on the spot, even if detained.

IDF soldiers after the fatal shootings in Hebron.

When questioning the validity of  Ma'an News Agency’s data claimed in the article, many doubts come to the forefront. The primary concern is that most of the quotes presented in the article are from secondary sources. This article simply is a regurgitation of news from other news sources. Of the several examples in the article, the most glaring case is when Ma'an News Agency uses a quote from a another newsgroup, instead of getting a statement from the victim's parents themselves, “Israeli daily Haaretz quoted them as saying.” This is extremely concerning because the context of the quotes are left to the secondary source’s discretion.

Among the other data displayed in the article is the cited statistics from Human Rights Watch and Yesh Din. The information shared by Human Rights Watch and Yesh Din must be looked at with doubt, as credibility comes into question based on these groups objectives. Yesh Din is a non-governmental organization funded by many political European organizations. NGO Monitor gives insight into these groups stating, “As with other European-funded political NGOs based in Israel, Yesh Din’s agenda is one-sided, and ignores Palestinian violations of Israeli human rights, including terrorism.” NGO Monitor is a non profit website that compiles a list of non-governmental organizations and reviews their credibility. Also in question, is Human Rights Watch, which is also believed to have links to Western governments and often contains a bias against Israel. These statistics shown in the article from Human Rights Watch and Yesh Din very well could be accurate, but as both groups have an objective that favors these statistics, the reader must proceed with caution. Also equally important, is the fact that they lack the context of why these Palestinians were shot or why just four cases resulted in indictments. It leaves much to wonder about the angle with which this article is pursuing.

Ma'an News Agency’s Logo.

Another concern with this article is that the author's name was not given and leaves the reader questioning why this is the case. Even without the author's name, the reader gets a clear image of the author's point of view. By identifying the sources the author presents, the reader can see that there is a bias against conservative Israeli policies. This is also shown throughout the article, as he or she does not cite from any right-winged Israeli news organizations. The sources the author uses are: Ynet, Haaretz, Yesh Din, and Human Rights Watch. On top of this, the author quotes the judge and Yoram Sheftel, Azarya’s lawyer, but he does not give the judge’s name. Ynet has been known to convey negative opinions towards the expansionist beliefs of Revisionist Zionists,  mainly those beliefs of Netanyahu. Haaretz is known universally as the liberal news source for Israelis. Yesh Din and Human Rights Watch, as stated earlier, have been known to express anti Israeli ideology. As this is a compilation of other news sources, the material chosen provides the author's point of view. Clearly shown, the author’s stance is heavily pro Palestinian and liberal Israeli.