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, with no consensus. The answer depends entirely on the definitions and methodology used by different organizations.

Israeli research groups and the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) claim that a majority (about 60%) of those killed had terror ties. Conversely, leading global press freedom watchdogs, such as the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), state that only a small minority (around 10%) were active militants or combatants, maintaining that the vast majority were civilian media workers.

The division between these two viewpoints stems from different interpretations of international law and varying standards of evidence.

The Israeli Case: Claiming ~60% Terrorist Affiliation

Pro-Israel research organizations and the IDF argue that Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) systematically use journalistic cover to shield military operatives and advance propaganda.

A comprehensive study by the Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center (ITIC) analyzed the identities of 266 Palestinians identified as journalists or media workers killed in Gaza between October 2023 and late November 2025.

•The Findings: The study concluded that roughly 60% (157 individuals) were members of, or affiliated with, terrorist organizations (specifically 104 with Hamas and 45 with PIJ).

•The Methodology: The ITIC arrived at this majority figure by defining "affiliation" broadly. They counted:

1.Active combatants or military commanders in armed wings (such as the Al-Qassam Brigades).

2.Individuals employed by media outlets directly owned and operated by terror groups (such as Hamas’s Al-Aqsa TV/Radio and the Shehab News Agency).

3.Individuals with "dual roles" who allegedly acted as media professionals while maintaining operational ties to military cells.

•Evidence Provided: The IDF has released seized documents, rosters, and internal Hamas communications that they claim prove certain prominent journalists (including some working for Al Jazeera, such as Anas al-Sharif) held operational military roles, such as serving as rocket cell leaders or battalion members.

The Press Freedom Case: Claiming ~10% Militant Affiliation

International press freedom organizations, such as the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) and Reporters Without Borders (RSF), strongly reject the assertion that a majority of the killed journalists were militants.

In mid-2026, the CPJ conducted a comprehensive review of its database of killed journalists. This audit was prompted after Hamas and PIJ published formal obituaries claiming several individuals previously listed as journalists as "martyred" combatants of their armed wings.

•The Findings: Following an audit of 229 cases, the CPJ removed 19 individuals (and 3 others whose journalistic credentials couldn't be verified) from its list after confirming they were active militants or participants in combat.

•The Scale: Because the CPJ's tally of killed Palestinian journalists stood at 191, the 19 confirmed militants represented roughly 10% of the total.

•The Stance: The CPJ and other press groups maintain that even after this revision, the vast majority of those killed were legitimate civilian journalists, and that the scale of journalist casualties in Gaza is unprecedented in modern warfare. They accuse Israel of using a handful of dual-identity cases to run a broad "smear campaign" to justify targeting journalists and restricting war coverage.

Why the Discrepancy Exists: International Law vs. Broad Association

The massive gap between the 60% figure and the 10% figure is rooted in a fundamental legal disagreement over who qualifies as a combatant:

1.Under International Humanitarian Law (IHL): Journalists are classified as civilians and are granted full protection from military targeting. To lose this protected status, an individual must actively and directly participate in hostilities (such as taking up arms or carrying out military operations).

2.The Status of Partisan Media Workers: Press watchdogs argue that simply working for a state-run or partisan media outlet (even one owned by Hamas, like Al-Aqsa TV) does not make a cameraman, editor, or reporter a combatant under international law, provided they are not engaging in combat.

3.The Broad vs. Narrow Definition:

•The Israeli methodology labels anyone working for Hamas-affiliated media or showing past political/organizational links as "linked to a terrorist organization".

•International watchdogs require concrete, independent proof of active military or combat participation before they will strip a media worker of their "civilian journalist" designation.

Citations (14)

1themedialine.orgNews and media
themedialine.org
Backs: “Whether a majority of the Gazan journalists killed since October 7, 2023, were linked to terrorist organizations is a subject of intense international dispute, with no consensus.”
2ground.newsData and toolsquality 0.77
ground.news
Backs: “The answer depends entirely on the definitions and methodology used by different organizations.”
3commondreams.orgNews and mediaquality 0.54
commondreams.org
Backs: “The answer depends entirely on the definitions and methodology used by different organizations.”
4timesofisrael.comNews and mediaquality 0.82
timesofisrael.com
Backs: “Israeli research groups and the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) claim that a majority (about 60%) of those killed had terror ties.”
5apnews.comNews and mediaquality 1.00
apnews.com
Backs: “Conversely, leading global press freedom watchdogs, such as the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), state that only a small minority (around 10%) were active militants or combatants, maintaining that the vast majority were civilian media workers.”
6aipac.orgNonprofits and think tanks
aipac.org
Backs: “The Israeli Case: Claiming ~60% Terrorist Affiliation. Pro-Israel research organizations and the IDF argue that Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) systematically use journalistic cover to shield military operatives and advance propaganda.”
7aipac.orgNonprofits and think tanks
aipac.org
Backs: “The Israeli Case: Claiming ~60% Terrorist Affiliation. Pro-Israel research organizations and the IDF argue that Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) systematically use journalistic cover to shield military operatives and advance propaganda.”
8thejc.comNews and mediaquality 0.51
thejc.com
Backs: “The Findings: The study concluded that roughly 60% (157 individuals) were members of, or affiliated with, terrorist organizations (specifically 104 with Hamas and 45 with PIJ).”
9ynetnews.comNews and mediaquality 0.80
ynetnews.com
Backs: “The Methodology: The ITIC arrived at this majority figure by defining "affiliation" broadly.”
10tps.co.ilGovernment
tps.co.il
Backs: “Active combatants or military commanders in armed wings (such as the Al-Qassam Brigades).”
11rsf.orgNonprofits and think tanks
rsf.org
Backs: “Individuals employed by media outlets directly owned and operated by terror groups (such as Hamas’s Al-Aqsa TV/Radio and the Shehab News Agency). 3.”
12algemeiner.comNews and mediaquality 0.77
algemeiner.com
Backs: “In mid-2026, the CPJ conducted a comprehensive review of its database of killed journalists. This audit was prompted after Hamas and PIJ published formal obituaries claiming several individuals previously listed as journalists as "martyred" combatants of their armed wings.”
13freepressunlimited.orgNot yet classified
freepressunlimited.org
Backs: “The Stance: The CPJ and other press groups maintain that even after this revision, the vast majority of those killed were legitimate civilian journalists, and that the scale of journalist casualties in Gaza is unprecedented in modern warfare. They accuse Israel of using a handful of dual-identity cases to run a broad…”
14maktoobmedia.comNot yet classified
maktoobmedia.com
Backs: “Under International Humanitarian Law (IHL): Journalists are classified as civilians and are granted full protection from military targeting. To lose this protected status, an individual must actively and directly participate in hostilities (such as taking up arms or carrying out military operations).”