Were a majority of the Gazan journalists killed since October 7th, 2023 linked to terrorist organizations?

Whether a majority of the Gazan journalists killed since October 7, 2023, were linked to terrorist organizations is a subject of intense international dispute.

The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and Israeli-aligned research groups claim that a majority of those killed were active members of or affiliated with militant groups. Conversely, major international press freedom organizations, human rights groups, and global news outlets strongly contest these claims, arguing that Israel’s definition of "linked" is overbroad and legally invalid, and that the vast majority of those killed were legitimate civilian media workers.

The competing arguments, data, and definitions behind this issue highlight the core of this dispute.

The Israeli Claims and Studies

Israeli authorities and intelligence-linked research groups argue that Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) systematically embed combatants and propagandists within the media.

•The Meir Amit Center Study: In December 2025, the Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center (an Israeli research group with close ties to the defense establishment) published a study analyzing 266 individuals identified as journalists or media workers killed in Gaza. The center concluded that at least 157 of them (approximately 60%) were operatives in or closely affiliated with terrorist groups, primarily Hamas (104) and PIJ (45).

•The IDF Assessment: In October 2026, the IDF released a statement claiming it had determined that 170 Palestinians killed in Gaza who were presented as journalists were active members of terror groups, with 118 allegedly serving in Hamas's military wing.

•The "Dual Identity" Argument: Israeli researchers and the military argue that many Gazan journalists hold "dual identities"—acting as reporters or cameramen while simultaneously serving as military operatives, cell leaders, or rocket coordinators. In other cases, Israel argues that individuals employed by Hamas-run media networks (such as Al-Aqsa TV) are part of the group’s military-propaganda wing and should not be afforded civilian protections.

The Position of Press Freedom and Human Rights Groups

International press freedom organizations—such as the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), Reporters Without Borders (RSF), and the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ)—strongly reject the claim that a majority of the killed journalists were legitimate military targets or terrorists.

•International Legal Standards: Under international humanitarian law, journalists are considered civilians and are protected from targeted attacks. Watchdogs emphasize that working for a partisan or government-affiliated media outlet (even one run by Hamas) does not make a journalist a combatant or strip them of their civilian status. A journalist only loses civilian protection if they directly participate in hostilities (i.e., engage in active combat).

•Audits and Database Revisions: Watchdogs do investigate claims of militant affiliation. For example, in 2026, after Hamas and PIJ published formal obituaries for several individuals previously classified as media workers, the CPJ launched an extensive internal audit.

•As of late 2026, the CPJ had removed 27 individuals from its database after verifying that they had belonged to a militant group or participated in combat.

•However, even after these removals, the CPJ maintained a verified list of 191 Palestinian journalists and media workers killed by Israeli fire since October 7, 2023, whom they confirmed were civilians. The removed individuals accounted for a relatively small fraction (roughly 12%) of the total reported casualties, meaning the vast majority remained classified as civilian journalists.

•Criticism of IDF Evidence: Press freedom groups and media employers (including Al Jazeera) have repeatedly accused the Israeli military of fabricating or exaggerating claims of terrorist links to retrospectively justify the killing of reporters. For example, when Israel killed Al Jazeera correspondent Ismail al-Ghoul in July 2024, the IDF released documents claiming he was a Hamas military operative; however, independent watchdogs and media analysts labeled the evidence uncredible, noting discrepancies such as Hamas documents listing a military ranking for al-Ghoul when he was only 10 years old. In other high-profile cases, such as the killing of Al Jazeera's Anas al-Sharif, watchdogs argued the IDF failed to provide verifiable public proof to back up its claims.

Summary

Whether a majority of the killed journalists were "linked" to terrorist organizations depends entirely on the standard of proof and the definitions applied:

•According to Israeli military and research analyses, around 60% of those killed had terror affiliations, which Israel defines as including combat roles, membership in militant groups, or employment in Hamas-affiliated propaganda networks.

•According to independent international watchdogs and international law, the vast majority (over 85%) of the killed journalists were civilian media workers. While watchdogs have identified and removed a minority of individuals who were verified to be combatants or active militants, they maintain that the overwhelming majority of those killed did not participate in hostilities and were protected civilians under international law.

Citations (9)

1timesofisrael.comNews and mediaquality 0.82
timesofisrael.com
Backs: “The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and Israeli-aligned research groups claim that a majority of those killed were active members of or affiliated with militant groups.”
2timesofisrael.comNews and mediaquality 0.82
timesofisrael.com
Backs: “The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and Israeli-aligned research groups claim that a majority of those killed were active members of or affiliated with militant groups.”
3apnews.comNews and mediaquality 1.00
apnews.com
Backs: “Conversely, major international press freedom organizations, human rights groups, and global news outlets strongly contest these claims, arguing that Israel’s definition of "linked" is overbroad and legally invalid, and that the vast majority of those killed were legitimate civilian media workers.”
4wikipedia.orgEncyclopedias and referencequality 0.83
wikipedia.org
Backs: “Conversely, major international press freedom organizations, human rights groups, and global news outlets strongly contest these claims, arguing that Israel’s definition of "linked" is overbroad and legally invalid, and that the vast majority of those killed were legitimate civilian media workers.”
5ynetnews.comNews and mediaquality 0.80
ynetnews.com
Backs: “Israeli authorities and intelligence-linked research groups argue that Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) systematically embed combatants and propagandists within the media.”
6themedialine.orgNews and media
themedialine.org
Backs: “Israeli authorities and intelligence-linked research groups argue that Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) systematically embed combatants and propagandists within the media.”
7youtube.comSocial media and video
youtube.com
Backs: “International press freedom organizations—such as the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), Reporters Without Borders (RSF), and the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ)—strongly reject the claim that a majority of the killed journalists were legitimate military targets or terrorists. International Legal…”
8cpj.orgNonprofits and think tanks
cpj.org
Backs: “International Legal Standards: Under international humanitarian law, journalists are considered civilians and are protected from targeted attacks. Watchdogs emphasize that working for a partisan or government-affiliated media outlet (even one run by Hamas) does not make a journalist a combatant or strip them of their…”
9youtube.comSocial media and video
youtube.com
Backs: “Criticism of IDF Evidence: Press freedom groups and media employers (including Al Jazeera) have repeatedly accused the Israeli military of fabricating or exaggerating claims of terrorist links to retrospectively justify the killing of reporters. For example,”