As I was glued to the screen Tuesday, I watched floods of emotions overwhelming Palestinians who were eagerly waiting for their beloved released prisoners from Israeli jails and on the other side Israelis, in a weird combination, awaiting Gilad Shalit, the Israeli soldier who was taken hostage five years ago by Hamas militants and kept in kept in captivity ever since.
Amidst the excitement, well-known Egyptian TV journalist Shahira Amin suddenly appeared interviewing Shalit, with so much excitement in her eyes about this great chance to be the first journalist to interview the long awaited hostage.
Regardless how appropriate or professional Amin's questions to Shalit were, I thought that she had did a good job and that the interview was scoop that any other journalist would not hesitate to take. However, no sooner had the interview was aired, rage among the Israeli citizens and others erupted over the "unethical, immoral and insensitive act" Amin did by interviewing Shalit, as some of the commentators described the interview on Facebook on twitter.
I could understand any argument about the quality of the questions asked during the intense interview but to be honest, I still cannot comprehend why Amin was attacked personally.
As a journalist, I immediately put myself in her shoes and wondered whether I would take this opportunity if I had been offered? Of course I would!
Just to make sure that I am properly understood -- and not to put myself in the life of fire -- I want to give an example that happened to me few years ago when I interviewed a Spaniard mother who lost her son in the Madrid terrorist attacks.
The interview coincided with the 5th anniversary of the bombings and I remember asking her tough questions. I had to stop the interview several times to give her chance to wipe tears off her cheeks, but that did not stop me from continuing the interview simply because I believed that I had a responsibility to deliver the woman's message to the rest of the world about her tragedy.
Within the same context, we all remember the 9/11 events and am sure many of us, including the victims themselves, still go to YouTube to look for footage documenting that tragic event in order to watch the firsthand shots taken on the spot of victims while they were still bleeding, running in shock and horrified unaware of what was going on at the moment.
Was that insensitive of those who took those shots? Was it immoral or unethical of the media to just position their cameras and start taking shots; while the World Trade Center's Twin Towers were falling down and while people were screaming, crying in shock?
First reactions are always honest. The way Amin was attacked by the Israeli media and others has no justification.
Her interview was purely professional, and in journalism, there are always moments where we, journalists, suffer and tolerate more than victims themselves. In wars, for example, journalists and photographers watch people get killed and they sometimes see parts of human bodies scattered in the streets, smashed heads, yet, they would be willing to be take photos or report live for their mediums. Does that make them inhumane or savages or insensible? They are only doing their jobs by documenting events for the record.
I know Amin well and I have no doubts about her professionalism or journalistic skills. I had the chance to talk to her about the interview shortly after it was aired and I could feel from the way she was describing the interview how she was touched and pity she felt for the released Israeli prisoner.
She assured me that before the interview she'd had a short talk with Shalit and asked him if he wished not to be interviewed. He assured her it was fine.
From my point of view, Amin was offered an opportunity to have a scoop and give the five year detained prisoner a window to speak to an Arab audience via a prominent Egyptian media outlet. She took it and made use of it like any other journalist would have done.
Follow Hani Hazaimeh on Twitter: www.twitter.com/hanihazaimeh
Mira Sucharov: Gilad Shalit: The Value of it All
Rabbi Bradley Shavit Artson: The Morality of Redeeming Captives: Gilad Shalit and the Talmud
That poor man could barely breathe, there was a masked hamas gunman standing behind him. He was not yet freed and he clearly thought that his release depended on the way he answered these questions. While she may not have realized that, any human being with half a heart would have stopped when she realized how labored his responses were, instead of proceeding to barrage him with incredibly inappropriate questions he had no way of knowing the answer to. They were unbelievably transparent attempts to boost Egypt's PR and were in no way aimed at interviewing Gilad himself.
It was a despicable act that should sincerely haunt any self-respecting journalist.
I'm just going to believe you didn't see it.
journalist have a tendency to see them selves above human laws, any body that watches this interview can clearly see that Gilad is suffering, is it ok just because Shahira wants a scoop? Can't you rise above your political views and look at the basic wrong of this so called interview?
We journalists "suffer and tolerate more than the victims themselves"?? Unless a journalist is captured, held and tortured for five years, that statement is the height of disingenuousness and hypocrisy!
you can't separate the context from the content here, if she'd have just asked him how he was feeling and what he's going to do, I'd understand, but she asked him very intrusive political questions that were obviously populistic and full of agendas, a kid who just spent 5 years in a dungeon!
That's what Israelis are raging about, its pure abuse.
He might think that he MUST do this interview to be released - it took place in Egypt (not in some more neutral European country) which is not a huge Israeli friend. So he probably still saw this as a hostile situation and was willing to do anything to get home. He wasn't given a choice to give the interview or not.
People that pass through even short hostages situation are typically treated by medical and psychologists first - before talk to journalists.
Of course any journalists wants to score such interview - just like paparazzi wants to score any picture and have no regards for privacy. It's their right, but it is right of interviewed/pictured to get protection by authorities or bodyguards. Shalit did not get such "protection" by Egypt authorities and on contrary was taken advantage by Egypt journalists that probably has connection with the same authorities.
if it was so 'innocent', then why didn't they show the masked gunn toting ha mas operative
standing almost directly behind shalit…..
This was propaganda. A "scoop" is not a propaganda lie, I guess for Arab reporters there is difference.
That is the point. Hazaimeh is simply trying to distract and excuse, with the claim that it was an irresistable opportunity to advance her career. That does not excuse the violation of shalit's human rights and international law. It does not excuse the crime.
exactly what point were they trying to make?
"From my point of view, Amin was offered an opportunity to have a scoop "
exactly….with no human context whatsoever. it was a SCOOP….with no regard to shalit
or what he had been through, or his obvious fragile and confused state.
"...and give the five year detained prisoner a window to speak to an Arab audience"
really? with a masked and armed member of ha mas just out of camera view….
what do yu think shalit, or anyone for that matter, just out of dungeon for 5 years,
would have said?
sorry, it was an insensitive opportunity for ha mas and shahira…..
it was no opportunity for shalit….other than hopefully his last opportunity to be
intimidated by his captures.
Exactly, Amin is a complicite partner in the psychological torture of Shalit and should be arrested and tried for this crime. Israel should seek her extradition through it's extradition treaty with Egypt and try her for the crime.
Then, after she has spent several years in prison, they can sit her in front of a reporter on live TV and see how she reacts.
He had not set foot on Israeli soil or been handed over to an israeli official. Do you really think he felt he had any choice in the interview??
I understand that a reporter will always try to get a big story, but this was incredibly sleazy. This was taking advantage of someone in a fragile emotional state who had legitimate fear for his life and freedom if he refused the interview.
was shalit's 'choice' really a choice? doubtful.
with a masked and armed representative of ha mas, standing just out
of sight of the camera….i'm sure shalit in his fragile condition did not
feel it was a choice.
the l.i.e.s. will never end and they will always hide behind a smokeScreen,
intentionallly