A New Low for Press Freedom in Gaza

The deadliest place for journalists just claimed six more lives, making it even harder to identify fact from fiction in the ongoing war

Hours after promising to allow more foreign journalists into Gaza, Israeli forces killed six Palestinian journalists in Gaza City. The strike is part of a broader strategy by Israel to block international media while repeatedly targeting local reporters, who remain among the few critical windows into the territory.

The strike hit a media tent outside Al-Shifa Hospital, killing four journalists from the Qatari-funded network Al Jazeera—correspondent Anas al-Sharif (28), correspondent Mohammed Qreiqeh (33), and camera operators Ibrahim Zaher (25) and Mohammed Noufal (29)—along with freelance cameraman Momen Aliwa and freelance journalist Mohammed al-Khalidi.

The August 10 killings came as Israel approved Netanyahu’s plan to seize Gaza City as the first step in what he called establishing “overriding security control” over the entire territory.

During his press conference defending the plan against growing international condemnation, Netanyahu attempted to counter criticisms by announcing greater press access. He claimed he had "ordered, directed the military to bring in foreign journalists, more foreign journalists, a lot," saying this directive had gone out about two days earlier. This promise came after nearly 22 months of maintaining a near-total ban on independent international journalist access to Gaza—a restriction that began immediately after the October 7 attacks, leaving the world dependent on Palestinian reporters operating under impossible conditions.

Yet before midnight, Israeli forces had killed six more Palestinian journalists—the core of Gaza’s local press. At the same time, Israel prepared to admit select foreign reporters under tightly managed military embeds, while Palestinian journalists who provided independent on-the-ground coverage were increasingly targeted.

More journalists have been killed in Gaza than in the U.S. Civil War, World War I, World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Yugoslav Wars, and the War in Afghanistan combined, according to the Watson Institute Costs of War project, calling it "the single deadliest conflict for journalists in all known conflicts in the history of the world."

According to the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), at least 192 journalists and media workers have been killed since October 7, 2023, with 184 of them being Palestinian. The UN puts the figure even higher at 242 Palestinian journalists killed by Israel as of August 11, 2025. Brown University researchers found that 2024 was the deadliest year for journalists in CPJ's 30-year history.

This scale transforms the August 10 killings from an isolated incident into part of what press freedom organizations call an existential threat to independent journalism in conflict zones.

Israel's post-facto accusations against journalists serve a dual purpose: they attempt to retroactively justify extrajudicial killings while establishing a precedent that any journalist documenting Israeli actions can be labeled a terrorist and killed. However, the case of Anas al-Sharif requires examining the specific evidence Israel has presented, as it represents the most substantial allegations Israel has made against any journalist it has killed.

The accusations against al-Sharif are somewhat more substantial than the typical unsupported claims Israel makes about Palestinian journalists. The IDF has released unverified documents allegedly showing his enrollment in Hamas military training, salary records dating to 2013, and photographs appearing to show him with senior Hamas leaders, including Yahya Sinwar and Ismail Haniyeh. Additionally, screenshots allegedly from his social media accounts have circulated showing celebratory messages about the October 7 attacks, though their authenticity remains unverified.

These allegations raise complicated questions about the boundaries of journalism in conflict zones. However, crucially, none of this evidence constitutes "direct participation in hostilities"—as CEO Jodie Ginsberg of CPJ told the BBC, the narrow legal threshold required to strip journalists of their civilian protection under international law. Photos with political leaders, organizational membership, or even celebratory social media posts do not constitute active military engagement against enemy forces.

She went further, “They’re essentially admitting in public to what amounts to a war crime,” Ginsberg said, “and they can do that because none of the other attacks on journalists have had any consequences. Not in this war and not prior. It’s not surprising that it can act with this level of impunity because no international government has really taken it to task.”

Similar interactions occur regularly in conflict zone journalism without triggering targeted assassinations. Western journalists routinely photograph themselves with controversial political figures, including those classified as terrorists by their home governments. Fox News correspondent Trey Yingst, for example, has conducted interviews and been photographed with Hamas officials, yet no one suggests this makes him a legitimate military target. CNN's Clarissa Ward has reported from Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, requiring coordination with Taliban authorities, without losing her protected status.

The critical legal and ethical question is not whether al-Sharif held similar political views or even formal affiliations with Hamas, but whether he was actively engaged in hostilities against the IDF at the time of his killing. International humanitarian law protects journalists as civilians even when they work in hostile territories or hold controversial political beliefs. The Geneva Conventions specifically require that journalists only lose their protected status if they take "direct part in hostilities"—a narrow legal standard that requires active engagement in military operations against enemy forces, not political sympathy or propaganda activities.

Moreover, the timing of Israel's accusations raises concerns regarding their justification for the strike. If Israel possessed evidence of al-Sharif's alleged military role since 2013—as their documents suggest—why was he allowed to operate openly for over a decade? Why was he only targeted when sitting with five other journalists who Israel now claims were also terrorists, but refuses to specify? This pattern suggests the accusations serve to justify killings decided on other grounds rather than to prevent imminent military threats.

When pressed by journalists about why the IDF targeted al-Sharif while he was with five other journalists, Israeli military sources claimed that several other victims were also "incriminated terrorists." However, they provided no evidence and refused to specify which journalists they were referring to.

Israeli officials argue that distinguishing between legitimate journalists and militant operatives in Hamas-controlled territory presents genuine security challenges. They contend that Hamas systematically embeds military activities within civilian institutions, making verification difficult. Military experts note that armed groups worldwide have historically used journalist credentials as cover for intelligence operations.

However, these legitimate concerns do not justify abandoning legal protections for journalists or adopting a presumption that Palestinian reporters are combatants unless proven otherwise.

The European Union's foreign policy chief has called on Israel to provide "clear evidence" of its claims, while the Committee to Protect Journalists describes the accusations as part of a "smear campaign" designed to "manufacture consent" for targeting journalists. The UN Secretary-General António Guterres has called for "an independent and impartial investigation".

Under international law, such investigations require forensic examination of strike sites, interviews with witnesses and military personnel, and assessment of whether attacks violated the requirement to distinguish between civilians and combatants. However, such investigations require access to evidence, witnesses, and the conflict zone itself—precisely what Israel's media restrictions prevent.

What makes these deaths particularly disturbing is the mounting evidence of deliberate targeting. The CPJ has documented at least 26 cases where journalists were directly targeted and murdered by Israeli forces. These include Issam Abdallah, Wissam Kassem, Mustafa Thuraya, Fadi Hassouna, Hilmi al-Faqaawi, Mohammed Al-Ladaa, and now Anas al-Sharif. In each case, Israel has made unsubstantiated claims that the journalists were Hamas operatives—allegations consistently dismissed by press freedom organizations as fabrications designed to justify the killings.

A 2024 CPJ analysis found that the majority of Palestinian journalists killed by Israeli forces in the past 22 years had press insignia clearly visible on their bodies and vehicles. The International Federation of Journalists reports that Palestinian journalists in Gaza work under conditions more dangerous than war correspondents have faced in any previous conflict.

Anas al-Sharif’s work was not without controversy. While known for his extensive reporting from northern Gaza, he documented the bombardment, starvation, and displacement from an overtly partisan perspective that many, including me, argued lacked journalistic objectivity. His final social media post, published hours before his death, showed intense Israeli bombardment lighting up the Gaza City sky—the same city Israel had just approved for military takeover. Despite questions about his journalistic neutrality, his elimination removed one of the few remaining voices reporting from inside Gaza.

The killing of journalists in Gaza is an assault on the fundamental principle that the world has a right to know what is happening in conflict zones. The international community's response will determine whether targeting journalists becomes an accepted tactic of modern warfare. So far, the culture of impunity has only emboldened further attacks, and until those responsible face consequences, the voices bearing witness to injustice will continue to be silenced.

In Gaza today, being a member of the press is a death sentence. The question facing the world is whether we will allow this precedent to stand, or finally demand accountability for those who would kill the messengers to hide their crimes.

Middle East Uncovered is powered by Ideas Beyond Borders. The views expressed in Middle East Uncovered are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Ideas Beyond Borders.