Less than a week after Aysenur Eygi was killed while attending a demonstration outside the Palestinian town of Beita in the West Bank, The Washington Post has published what it deems to be an exclusive investigation into the Turkish-American activist’s death.

Based on witness testimony and video evidence, the Post has called into question the IDF’s preliminary finding that it is “highly likely that [Eygi] was hit indirectly and unintentionally by IDF fire which was not aimed at her, but aimed at the key instigator of the riot.”

However, rather than prove its case, the Post’s investigation leaves open questions regarding both the events of the day in question and the newspaper’s investigatory process.

The Washington Post headlined its investigation “New video, witnesses challenge Israel’s account of US activist’s killing,” centering its case around witness testimony and video evidence.

Yet, despite the impression left by this headline, there is no new video evidence that dramatically upends the IDF’s claims. Rather, it appears to be the lack of video evidence that the Post finds to be the most relevant proof to help make its case.

In its investigation, the Post reviewed more than 50 videos and photos provided by the International Solidarity Movement and Faz3a, both pro-Palestinian activist groups that are active in the West Bank.

Yet, of all the visual evidence published in this investigatory piece, there’s no “new video” or smoking gun that can be said to really “challenge Israel’s account.” Rather, readers are exposed to a variety of video snippets and images of the lead-up to the protest as well as the clashes that ensued between Israeli forces and Palestinian demonstrators and their allies.

In addition, one video clip shows a brief moment of chaos after the moment that Eygi was shot.

To support its claim that there was no rioting happening at the time that Eygi was shot and, thus, no “key instigator” for the IDF to have targeted, the Post points to the fact that there is no video of the moment of the shooting.

According to the activists and local Palestinians who were interviewed for this investigative piece, since nothing was happening, it’s natural that there’s no visual evidence of the fatal moment in question.

However, to claim that no evidence is somehow proof for the inaccuracy of the IDF’s claims is purely speculative and in no way definitively proves the assertion that the Israeli claim is wrong and there was no violence happening at the time that Aysenur Eygi was killed.

Another key element of the Post’s “challenging” of Israel’s narrative regarding the death of Eygi is its reliance on 13 “eyewitnesses and Beita residents” who were in the vicinity at the time that she was killed.

The key flaw in this aspect of the investigation is that all these “eyewitnesses” are not unbiased observers but are active members of organizations that are ideologically opposed to the activities of Israel and the IDF in the area.

Yet, at no point, does the Post inform its readers that these witness statements might be tinged by bias, instead presenting them as reliable and unimpeachable sources.

The questionable reliability of these activists is made even more clear in light of the fact that a report by the Tazpit Press Service (TPS) found that foreign activists are told to deceive Israeli authorities about their intentions when they arrive in the country so as not to raise any red flags with the Israeli immigration authorities.

For an organization that encourages deception on behalf of a political goal, it’s not absurd to suggest they also might not be totally honest in their witness accounts in order to muddy the waters and besmirch the IDF’s reputation.

Further, as seen in a video that can be found here, which is composed of clips taken by ISM activists, these activists are known to seek out confrontations with IDF soldiers and intentionally disrupt Israeli security operations, using their foreign citizenship as a “shield” for these raucous activities.

Yet, despite their encouragement of deception and their history of anti-Israel activities that descend into violence, the Post treats the International Solidarity Movement (ISM) and Faz3a as purely reliable sources.

One example of the questionable nature of the Post’s sole reliance on the activists’ narrative is its claim that since the closest Israeli forces to the local Palestinians and foreign activists were roughly 200 yards away, it would have been absurd for the Israeli soldiers to feel under threat even if someone among them was engaged in violence. As Israeli activist Jonathan Pollak is quoted as saying, “Even an Olympic stone thrower cannot make half that distance.”

However, instead of taking this claim as the gospel truth, the Post could have noted that a projectile launched by a slingshot can make that distance. Since the Post earlier noted that there were Palestinians with slingshots present during the initial clashes with IDF soldiers, it would be within the realm of possibility that IDF forces would feel threatened by someone using a slingshot 200 yards away from them.

Yet, since the Post’s “investigation” only parroted activist claims with no critical analysis on the part of its authors, it erroneously took the assertion that no Israeli soldier would have been threatened from that distance for granted.

As the IDF continues to investigate the killing of Aysenur Eygi in order to determine potential criminal liability on the part of Israeli forces, The Washington Post has chosen to conduct an investigation of its own.

However, rather than provide its readers with a well-constructed and nuanced look at the event in question, the Post has created a flimsy report bent on impugning the Israeli narrative while relying on conjecture, circumstantial evidence, and biased witness statements.

For a newspaper with such a storied history of investigative reporting, this latest report is further proof of the decline in journalistic standards.

The author is a contributor to HonestReporting, a Jerusalem-based media watchdog with a focus on antisemitism and anti-Israel bias — where a version of this article first appeared.

The post The Washington Post’s Flawed Investigation Into American Activist’s Death Leaves More Questions Than Answers first appeared on Algemeiner.com.