If British media outlets did their job properly, and acknowledged that many Palestinians employed by Qatari and Palestinian outlets as journalists are also affiliated with proscribed terror groups, while engaging in the rigorous research necessary to distinguish between real journalists and those compromised by terror, news consumers would be much better informed.
Even in such a scenario, we would still need to, on a case by case basis, push back on some reports about the death of a Palestinian reporting from Gaza. However, at least such disputes would be based on the common understanding about the proven overlap between professional journalists and those using their putative profession as a cover for their association with violent extremism.
For instance, independent researcher David Collier published a report in 2024 concluding that, at the time, 50% of the Palestinians killed in Gaza who were identified by Committee to Protect Journalists as “journalists” were associated with proscribed
terror groups.
However, as most media outlets continue to copy and paste their definition of a journalist from the statements of politicised NGOs, Qatari government mouthpieces and sometimes even Hamas-run ministries, we are a far way off from such a world.
Yesterday, in Gaza City, the IDF killed Anas Al-Sharif, who, while employed by the Al Jazeera network as a “journalist”, was, according to evidence provided by the army, the head of a Hamas terrorist cell responsible for coordinating rocket attacks against Israel. The evidence provided includes personnel rosters, lists of terrorist training courses, phone directories, and salary documents for the terrorist.
Al-Sharif was, the IDF said, a “terrorist operating under the guise of a journalist”, while noting that, in October, it published documents seized in Gaza purportedly confirming Sharif’s “military affiliation with Hamas.” At the time, the military said Sharif headed a rocket-launching squad and was a member of an elite Nukhba Force company in Hamas’s East Jabalia Battalion.
Further, see here and here for information on Al-Sharif’s relationship with Hamas, his support for terror, including his lauding of the Oct.7th massacre (while the mass murder was taking place!), as well as his penchant for spreading pro-terror propaganda and disinformation.
While media outlets are, of course, allowed to critically scrutinise the IDF’s evidence, as you can see in this review of coverage, they all effectively accepted the claims of Al Jazeera that he was a “journalist” at face value, ignoring the context regarding the historic collaboration between the Qatari outlet and the terror group.
The Guardian
The Guardian, whose coverage of the Oct. 7th war, we’ve demonstrated, has been effectively pro-Hamas, didn’t disappoint. They included the story on their homepage (“Anas al-Sharif, prominent Al Jazeera correspondent, among five journalists killed in Israeli strike on Gaza“, Aug. 11) with an extremely dishonest strap line suggesting that Israel “admitted” to killing a “journalist” – rather than noting the military’s statement about Al-Sharif being a Hamas operative.
In addition to the lead article, by Lorenzo Tondo, they also published a video report and several entries in their daily Live Blog on the war. The lead by Tondo did include the Israeli version of events surrounding Al-Sharif in the fourth, fifth and seventh paragraphs.
BBC News
The BBC News website’s report on the incident, (“Five Al Jazeera journalists killed in Israeli strike in Gaza“, Aug. 11), written by Amy Walker and Tiffany Wertheimer, called Sharif a journalist, without qualification. In the opening sentences he’s referred to as a “prominent reporter”. They relegated IDF reports of his terror affiliation to the fourth paragraph. The BBC article, which provided no background on previous examples of Hamas operatives working for the Qatari regime’s media wing, also continued in its dishonest campaign alleging that journalists are starving in the territory.
The Times
The Times also characterised Sharif as a journalist, without qualification. The piece, by Joshua Thurston, (“Five Al Jazeera journalists killed in targeted Israeli strike on Gaza“, Aug. 11) introduced Israeli version of events in the third paragraph.
Financial Times
The FT’s report also accepted at face value that Al-Sharif was an innocent journalist, (“Israel kills prominent Al Jazeera reporter in Gaza“, Aug. 11). The piece, co-written by their former Jerusalem correspondent Mehul Srivastava and the Sydney-based Nic Fildes, mentions the IDF’s statement about Al-Sharif being a terrorist in the second paragraph, but expresses skepticism of the ‘unproven’ Israeli claims.
Israel has killed a prominent Al Jazeera correspondent in Gaza and four other employees at the television network in an air strike targeting their tent in the besieged strip. The Israeli military acknowledged killing Anas Al-Sharif, 28, repeating unproven allegations that he was the head of a Hamas cell.
Evidently, for the FT, even Hamas records of his terror affiliation isn’t proof.
Sky News
Sky News published two short blog posts on Aug. 11, one titled “Al Jazeera: This was a blatant and premeditated attack on press freedom“, and another titled “Israel defends killing of Al Jazeera journalist – claiming he was head of Hamas cell“, the latter representing one of the few headlines which led with Israel’s statement regarding Al-Sharif’s terror affiliation.
However, the outlet also published an ‘analysis‘ on the killing by By Diana Magnay, their international correspondent currently based in Jerusalem, titled “This is how journalists are silenced – and Israel knows this“. While Magnay notes Israeli evidence of Al-Sharif’s terror affiliation, she effectively dismisses it, without explaining why:
Al Sharif’s death – and that of his four colleagues – is a chilling message to the journalistic community both on the ground and elsewhere ahead of Israel’s impending push into Gaza City. There will now be fewer journalists left to cover that story, and – if it is even possible – they will be that bit more fearful. This is how journalists are silenced. Israel knows this full well.
She further editorialised about what she claimed was the IDF’s desire to “silence” the “journalist” in an interview she conducted with a London-based Sky News presenter.
The Independent
A short entry in the Indy’s daily live blog (“Al Jazeera accuses Israel of ‘targeted assassination’ after journalists killed in airstrike“, Aug. 11) attributed to Bel Trew, Alisha Rahaman Sarkar, Shweta Sharma and Namita Singh, relegated Israeli ‘claims’ that Al-Sharif was a Hamas operative to the fifth paragraph of their seven paragraph post.
ITV News
A ITV News report described Sharif as a “journalist” in the headline, (“Israeli strike kills at least five Al Jazeera journalists in Gaza”, while relegating Israeli information about this Hamas affiliation to the eight paragraph
The Telegraph
The Telegraph, commendably, emphasised Al-Sharif’s alleged terror affiliation. The piece, titled “Israel kills Al Jazeera journalist accused of leading Hamas terror cell”, Aug. 11), includes Al-Sharif’s Hamas ties in the opening sentence:
Israel has killed a prominent Al Jazeera correspondent it accuses of leading a Hamas terror cell in Gaza.
Conclusion:
As we noted in our opening paragraphs, most of the outlets we reviewed referred to, for putative context about Al-Sharif’s death, claims by Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) and the Hamas media office about the number of “journalists” in Gaza killed by the IDF since Oct. 7th. This was designed to suggest that Al-Sharif’s killing represents a pattern of reporters being killed by Israel’s military. However, none of the outlets in question noted the terror affiliations of many of those listed as journalists – an omission which at least partly explains why most have been so skeptical of Israeli evidence of Al-Sharif’s role as a Hamas operative.
Also, several of the outlets we reviewed cited, as ‘proof’ that Israel intended to kill the “journalist”, his long expressed fear of the likelihood he would be assassinated by the IDF. However, his fear of being killed could just as easily be interpreted as evidence that, as a Hamas terrorist, he knew that – while on the payroll of Al Jazeera – he was a combatant who could legally be targeted.
Once again, most British outlets have misinformed news consumers about an extremely important issue – one that’s central to understanding the blurred line between civilians and terrorists during the war launched by Hamas’s pogromists 22 months ago.
