On Jan. 18, Argentine prosecutor Alberto Nisman was found dead in Buenos Aires. A fatal bullet was lodged in Nisman’s skull.
Alberto Nisman, however, was not simply a representative of a foreign government that died; Nisman was a tireless campaigner for truth and justice in the 1994 bombing of a Jewish community center, in which 85 people died and more than 300 were injured. In a case that had gone untouched for years, Nisman took it upon himself to fight against terror through the best means he knew: By investigating the crime thoroughly, and bringing the responsible parties to justice. Nisman’s work was perhaps not glamorous, but it was surely noble.
In the days following his death, Nisman’s progress in the case has come to light; he believed that Iranian intelligence agents were involved in the bombing, and that the Argentine government was potentially complicit in keeping the truth hidden. Mr. Nisman’s death was originally ruled a suicide, but it has become increasingly likely that Mr. Nisman was murdered so that the full extent of the truth would remain hidden. Although I’m just beginning as a journalist, that’s a big story if I’ve ever heard one.
Apparently, the U.S. media seems to disagree with me. While the terrorist attacks against Charlie Hebdo garnered unprecedented attention from U.S. media outlets for almost two weeks, Mr. Nisman’s death has barely broken into the front pages of major U.S. newspapers in the last week. His death has been also been mentioned notably less on U.S. TV. This lack of coverage — as compared to Charlie Hebdo — is a disgrace.
In an incredibly beautiful and poignant piece featured in the Guardian Newspaper, satire artist Joe Sacco discussed how Charlie Hebdo may not be the champion of free speech that it has been touted as since the vicious January attack in which 12 people were killed. While a former cartoonist for the publication was fired for drawing a cartoon that was perceived as anti-Semitic, Charlie Hebdo often drew arguably derogatory images of Islam unabated.
This fact is especially significant given that France’s Muslim population, and in particular its immigrant, Muslim population of North African descent, is one of Western Europe’s most vulnerable minority groups. In statistics ranging from unemployment to incarceration, members of France’s Muslim population are disproportionately overrepresented. Social scientists from France and beyond have documented how Muslims in France face racial and religious discrimination in a manner more akin to segregated America in the 1950s than our general conception of modern Europe. This is the group that Charlie Hebdo made the butt of its jokes.
In contrast, Mr. Nisman fought to bring terrorists to justice in spite of his own nation’s apathy. While the attacks were a brutal assault against Argentine citizens, the victims were also primarily Jewish. This is notable given the strong undercurrents of anti-Semitism in Argentine society, both historically and presently.
The Jerusalem Post reported that in a recent study conducted by a Buenos Aires research group, “82 percent of those surveyed believe Jews are preoccupied with making money; 49 percent said they ‘talk too much about what happened to them in the Holocaust,’ and 68 percent believe they ‘have too much power in the business world.’”
Attacks against Jewish individuals are not infrequent in Argentine history, with the most recent assault occurring against 10 Israeli tourists only five days ago (Argentine authorities have supposedly failed to arrest the suspects even after their identification); even more sadly, the Jewish reporter who first reported Mr. Nisman’s death has fled to Israel, fearing for his life.
Satirizing the god of your nation’s most disenfranchised minority groups; that’s easy. Fearlessly pursuing justice and exposing the truth for 80 innocent victims of terrorism 20 years after the fact (even when the victims were members of a sometimes unpopular minority group themselves); that’s hard.
This is by no means stating that the attacks against the writers of Charlie Hebdo were acceptable. On the contrary, their murders were an atrocity, and their satirical representations of Islam often brought to light issues of social justice. While the U.S. media has swarmed upon Paris, declaring Charlie Hebdo a champion of free speech, little to no attention has been directed towards a man who gave his life to seek justice for innocent victims of terror.
Just as terrorists can come from any social, religious, ethnic or national background, so too can opponents of terrorism come from all over the world. Given our nation’s struggle to combat terrorism over the last decade, it is disheartening to see that a man who choose to fight terror with law, not weapons, and gave his life for the cause, has received no attention.
Perhaps the dearth of attention regarding Mr. Nisman’s murder reveals more about our nation’s general disregard for Latin America than it does about the U.S. media; perhaps the media is to blame. One way or the other, if you can see this Mr. Nisman, know that at least one opinion columnist cares.
Reach the columnist at burmasamoa@asu.edu or follow @ConnorLMurphy on Twitter.
Editor’s note: The opinions presented in this column are the author’s and do not imply any endorsement from The State Press or its editors.
Want to join the conversation? Send an email to opiniondesk.statepress@gmail.com. Keep letters under 300 words and be sure to include your university affiliation. Anonymity will not be granted.
Like The State Press on Facebook and follow @statepress on Twitter.
