On Wednesday, a shoot-out between Israeli soldiers and Palestinian guerrillas in the West Bank city of Jenin resulted in the death of the journalist Shireen Abu Akleh. Her employer, Al Jazeera—the anti-Semitic and anti-American network owned by Qatar, a major financial and diplomatic sponsor of Hamas—immediately declared that she was “assassinated” by the IDF, a claim echoed on the House floor by Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib. Israeli officials have released evidence suggesting that the bullet that killed Al Akleh came from a Palestinian rifle, while acknowledging that it is impossible to arrive at forensic certainty without further investigation. But the Palestinian Authority has rejected Jerusalem’s call for a joint investigation, and it refuses to hand over any of the evidence in its possession. Ron Ben-Yishai comments:

When a journalist heads out to an active warzone, especially in an urban area, the chances of getting caught in the crossfire unintentionally are high. Such cases require an investigation in which an autopsy is performed, as well as a ballistic probe to determine which weapon was fired at the journalist.

But the Palestinians and Al Jazeera don’t want the truth. The Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas, Hamas, and the Ra’am Knesset member Walid Taha, wish to leverage her death, which was most likely unintentional, for political and propaganda purposes, and that is why they reject any offer for an objective investigation.

Even if such an investigation were to be launched, they will make sure to destroy any shred of evidence that might point to the probable scenario that the Palestinian militants who were firing wantonly were the ones who killed her.

The Palestinians rushed to declare the journalist a martyr because it serves the constant war of propaganda that Abbas and the Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar lead against Israel. But the IDF’s version is correct: the Palestinians and Al Jazeera’s assertions are grounded in nothing except deafening victimhood that is aimed at painting Israel and its security forces as the aggressor.

I believe that the journalist Shireen Abu Akleh was in Jenin because she wanted to report the facts as they were. We’re allowed to demand that Abbas, Al Jazeera, and Ra’am refrain from using her death to spread fake news until the facts are thoroughly examined.

While the current Egyptian president, Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, has never been friendly to Hamas, his government has objected strenuously to the Israeli campaign in the southernmost part of the Gaza Strip. Haisam Hassanein explains why:

Cairo has long been playing a double game, holding Hamas terrorists near while simultaneously trying to appear helpful to the United States and Israel. Israel taking control of Rafah threatens Egypt’s ability to exploit the chaos in Gaza, both to generate profits for regime insiders and so Cairo can pose as an indispensable mediator and preserve access to U.S. money and arms.

Egyptian security officials have looked the other way while Hamas and other Palestinian militants dug tunnels on the Egyptian-Gaza border. That gave Cairo the ability to use the situation in Gaza as a tool for regional influence and to ensure Egypt’s role in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict would not be eclipsed by regional competitors such as Qatar and Turkey.

Some elements close to the Sisi regime have benefited from Hamas control over Gaza and the Rafah crossing. Media reports indicate an Egyptian company run by one of Sisi’s close allies is making hundreds of millions of dollars by taxing Gazans fleeing the current conflict.

Moreover, writes Judith Miller, the Gaza war has been a godsend to the entire Egyptian economy, which was in dire straits last fall. Since October 7, the International Monetary Fund has given the country a much-needed injection of cash, since the U.S. and other Western countries believe it is a necessary intermediary and stabilizing force. Cairo therefore sees the continuation of the war, rather than an Israeli victory, as most desirable. Hassanein concludes:

Adding to its financial incentive, the Sisi regime views the Rafah crossing as a crucial card in preserving Cairo’s regional standing. Holding it increases Egypt’s relevance to countries that want to send aid to the Palestinians and ensures Washington stays quiet about Egypt’s gross human-rights violations so it can maintain a stable flow of U.S. assistance and weaponry. . . . No serious effort to turn the page on Hamas will yield the desired results without cutting this umbilical cord between the Sisi regime and Hamas.