How the Wall Street Journal Mistook Propaganda for Journalism

By publishing an op-ed from a discredited gang leader, the Wall Street Journal gave legitimacy to a propaganda campaign disguised as local leadership

When America’s most prestigious business newspaper gave op-ed space to a gang leader with a criminal record, it didn’t just make a poor editorial choice. It became an unwitting participant in a disinformation campaign.

Recently, the Wall Street Journal’s editorial page made one of the most alarming platforming decisions in recent memory: it published an op-ed by Yasser Abu Shabab, presenting him as a credible Palestinian voice and alternative to Hamas. That framing would be questionable even if he were simply a controversial figure. But Abu Shabab is a far more troubling character.

A known criminal with a history of drug trafficking, Abu Shabab reportedly escaped prison during the October 7 bombings. Security sources describe him as “35 years old, thin, weak, short (around 150 cm), uncharismatic, illiterate, with strabismus in one eye, and no military experience”—a profile at odds with that of a legitimate political leader.

More alarmingly, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has admitted that Israel is "arming, financing, and providing protection" to Abu Shabab’s gang. The Israeli military has acknowledged that some clan members tied to him are involved in terrorism and affiliated with extremist groups like the Islamic State. Even his own family has disowned him for "supporting the Zionist occupation forces" and has said they "have no objection to those around him liquidating him immediately."

The so-called “Popular Forces” Abu Shabab claims to lead are, in fact, notorious for looting humanitarian aid and extorting protection money from aid convoys. Truck drivers are charged "transit fees" of around $4,000 or face abduction and confiscation of their cargo. The UN now designates the area it controls as “high-risk,” and many aid organizations have ceased delivering life-saving assistance as a result.

These gangs operate with impunity under Israeli military control. Aid trucks are “pillaged just over 500 yards from Israeli military posts,” with soldiers “silently monitoring everything.” The military justifies inaction by citing concerns that intervention could provoke international backlash. Meanwhile, suspected Hamas fighters in other parts of Gaza are eliminated swiftly, and local escorts for aid convoys have reportedly been fired upon by Israeli forces when attempting to intervene.

Yet this is the man the Wall Street Journal chose to portray as a legitimate alternative to Hamas. The editorial decision becomes even more disturbing when one examines the content that the Journal actually published.

Abu Shabab was presented as “commander of the Popular Forces in Gaza,” leading an “independent Palestinian group” that allegedly governs “the only area in Gaza not affiliated with Hamas since 2007.” He claimed to have kept Hamas out of eastern Rafah, providing residents with “shelter, food, water, and medical supplies”—a humanitarian success story, as he described it.

He even used the Journal’s platform to call on “the U.S. and Arab countries” to formally recognize his group as Gaza’s legitimate administration, claiming to speak “on behalf of the overwhelming majority of Palestinians.” He promised that within months, 600,000 people—nearly a third of Gaza’s population—could be living under his leadership.

The Wall Street Journal ran these claims without apparent fact-checking, critical scrutiny, or even mention of Abu Shabab’s criminal ties, Israeli backing, or record of looting aid. It allowed him to present himself as Gaza’s legitimate authority, ignoring that he is rejected by the Palestinian Authority, hated by ordinary Palestinians, and disowned by his own family.

Abu Shabab’s claims stand in sharp opposition to his actual conduct. While he wrote of bringing security to civilians, his forces were simultaneously reported to have seized Nasser Hospital in Khan Yunis through armed violence, supported by Israeli airstrikes. It was a forced takeover of Gaza’s last functioning hospital in the south.

Reports also indicate that Abu Shabab’s militia kidnapped the director of Gaza’s field hospitals and handed him over to Israeli forces. Abu Shabab is not a counterforce to Hamas. He is a tool used against the Palestinian people.

Palestinians on the ground know this. His gangs are reviled for their theft of humanitarian aid, seizure of medical facilities, and collaboration with occupying forces. Where Western media sees a humanitarian, Palestinians see an opportunist exacerbating their suffering.

The Journal likely followed what must have seemed like sound logic: if Hamas is losing support, perhaps there's value in amplifying alternative Palestinian voices. Abu Shabab’s pitch was seductive because he presented himself as a pragmatic figure providing aid and stability in a war zone.

But this points to a larger problem in international media: the conflation of authenticity with legitimacy. Being “on the ground” does not make someone a trustworthy voice. Abu Shabab, a man with documented criminal ties and reported ISIS links, operated not as a grassroots leader but as a proxy for foreign military goals.

The Journal fell into what might be called the authenticity trap—prioritizing the appearance of a local, unaffiliated voice without investigating whether that voice represents anyone but himself, or serves interests that directly contradict the well-being of ordinary Palestinians.

Indeed, while Israel’s military is quick to shoot unarmed Palestinians near aid convoys, Abu Shabab’s men loot them at gunpoint within view of Israeli tanks, unchallenged. An internal UN memo cited by The Washington Post states that his gang has established warehouses and compounds in Rafah to store looted aid, compounds untouched by Israeli airstrikes in an area where almost all other movement is met with lethal force. The memo accuses Israel of providing “active or passive protection” to his gang.

In other words, what the Wall Street Journal presented as an authentic Palestinian perspective was in fact Israeli propaganda, dressed in local garb and laundered through the voice of a proxy.

Netanyahu’s government has previously funded Hamas indirectly, using Qatari money between 2018 and 2023, in a bid to sideline the Palestinian Authority and avoid meaningful negotiations. Intelligence officials warned Netanyahu that Hamas was diverting these funds to military operations, but he allowed it to continue. As he reportedly told Likud party members in 2019, “Anyone who wants to prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state needs to support strengthening Hamas.”

That same logic now underpins the promotion of Abu Shabab: elevate a less popular, less legitimate alternative to sideline real Palestinian representation. The endgame is managed instability that justifies the status quo and stalls meaningful peace.

Israel gains plausible deniability for the suffering in Gaza—able to blame stolen aid on Palestinian corruption rather than its own restrictions—and avoids working with legitimate Palestinian institutions. It also gets to point to figures like Abu Shabab as proof that alternatives to Hamas exist, even if those figures are criminal gangs despised by the population they claim to represent.

The reality on the ground is that Palestinians may resent Hamas, but they loathe Abu Shabab’s gangs even more. Hamas fighters have reportedly killed over 20 of his men recently, and local tribes are coordinating efforts to push them out.

Yet when Abu Shabab speaks to Western media, he sounds like an “authentic” Palestinian voice. He claims links to the Palestinian Authority (which has publicly disavowed him) and speaks the language of humanitarian governance. But every element of that story is a fabrication.

The Palestinian Authority has made its position clear: “We have no relationship with the so-called Popular Forces led by Yasser Abu Shabab,” said PA security spokesperson Anwar Rajab. His narrative—that Hamas is the problem, that there are grassroots alternatives, and that international aid should be channeled through him—perfectly aligns with Israeli messaging. And when platforms like the Wall Street Journal legitimize that narrative, they launder a strategic deception campaign into mainstream discourse.

This is an editorial misstep and a case study in how sophisticated disinformation campaigns exploit the desire for “diverse” perspectives in Western media. State-backed influence operations no longer rely on crude propaganda. They now cultivate local figures who speak with apparent authenticity while serving state interests.

This makes the stakes higher than a single op-ed. As information warfare becomes more refined, American journalism must decide whether it will develop the tools and judgment needed to resist manipulation or continue to serve, however unwittingly, as a conduit for foreign agendas.

The solution is not to abandon local voices or controversial perspectives. It’s to develop better frameworks for evaluating legitimacy. Journalists must ask: Does this person represent anyone? What is the real source of their power and support? Who benefits from their amplification?

In Abu Shabab’s case, any basic reporting would have raised red flags: his criminal record, his disavowal by family and the PA, his organization’s theft of aid, and his protection by Israeli forces. He is not a representative of the Palestinian people—he is their tormentor.

Yes, Abu Shabab is newsworthy as a symptom of Israeli statecraft in Gaza. But newsworthiness doesn’t mean he should be given uncritical space to propagate an agenda. Cover him, investigate him, report on his activities. But don’t publish his propaganda.

Media outlets like the Wall Street Journal must recognize that their institutional credibility is a valuable and vulnerable commodity. When they lend that credibility to figures like Abu Shabab, they become vehicles for strategic manipulation, contributing to public misunderstanding of complex conflicts.

Middle East Uncovered reached out to The Wall Street Journal for comment, but the outlet did not respond to the request.

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.