About 60% of the people defined as journalist in gaza were hamas
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
A study by the Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center reviewed 266 people described as “journalists or media workers” killed in Gaza between Oct. 7, 2023 and late Nov. 2025 and concluded roughly 60% (at least 157 individuals) were members of or clearly affiliated with terrorist groups, including 104 linked to Hamas and 45 to Palestinian Islamic Jihad [1] [2] [3]. That finding is part of a larger, contested media battle: Israeli authorities and some Israeli researchers say many Gaza-based reporters had dual roles; rights groups and international outlets warn against systematic delegitimization and document harassment and targeting of Palestinian journalists [4] [5] [6].
1. What the study actually says — scope and headline numbers
The Meir Amit center examined 266 names it found in lists of people described as journalists or media workers killed during the conflict and reports at least 157 — roughly 60% — were operatives or closely affiliated with armed groups, listing 104 tied to Hamas and 45 to Islamic Jihad; the center says it matched casualty lists, press reports and Israeli intelligence documents and social-media evidence to reach that tally [1] [2] [3].
2. Why the finding is disputed — competing interpretations of “journalist”
Israeli military and allied researchers treat media workers employed by Hamas-run outlets or those with documented links to the group as not independent journalists, and the Meir Amit report uses criteria such as employment, membership, or on-the-record operational roles to classify affiliation [1] [3]. By contrast, Al Jazeera, media-rights groups and other international outlets argue that accusations have sometimes been used to delegitimize or justify lethal strikes and that evidence cited by Israeli authorities is not always made fully public or independently verified [5] [7].
3. Evidence cited by authorities — documents, rosters, seizures
Israeli officials and the IDF point to documents and seized material from Gaza — personnel rosters, phone directories, training lists and what they describe as internal Hamas files — as evidence linking specific journalists to Hamas or PIJ; they have publicly released portions of such material in some cases and have used those to name alleged operatives among media workers [7] [4].
4. Reporting limitations and the information battlefield
Independent verification is difficult because Israel has restricted entry to Gaza for foreign journalists and maintained tight control over what documentation it releases; several outlets and analysts note the conflict includes an active “legitimization” or information unit aimed at linking journalists to Hamas, complicating outside assessment [8] [9] [10]. The absence of unfettered access to the territory and primary sources limits what external investigators can confirm [8] [10].
5. On-the-ground realities for Palestinian reporters
Multiple reports document that Palestinian journalists operate under coercion, facing intimidation, assaults and censorship from Palestinian authorities and armed groups as well as mortal danger from Israeli military operations; organizations such as the Committee to Protect Journalists have recorded harassment and threats within Gaza that shape who reports and how [6] [11].
6. Broader counts and context about journalists killed
Different organizations count Gaza press deaths differently: aggregated tallies cited by media watchdogs and UN briefings place the number of media workers killed in the hundreds, and these broader figures fuel the dispute over whether the deaths predominantly reflect combatant status or the perils of reporting in a besieged enclave [12] [11].
7. Two plausible readings and their implications
One reading — advanced by Israeli researchers and the Meir Amit center — is that a substantial share of those labeled journalists were embedded with or active in armed groups, which would justify reviewing targeting claims carefully [1] [3]. The competing reading — advanced by Al Jazeera, rights groups and many international journalists — is that allegations of dual roles have sometimes been used to discredit Gaza reporting and shield military actions from scrutiny, especially where independent verification is limited [5] [9].
8. How to read future claims — what journalists and readers should ask for
Given polarized narratives and restricted access, readers and editors should demand transparent methods and source material: who compiled casualty lists, what criteria were used to define “journalist,” and what primary documents back individual allegations. Where Israeli authorities cite seized files or rosters, independent access or third‑party forensic review would strengthen credibility; where rights groups document intimidation, that should inform assessments of the press environment [3] [7] [6].
Limitations: available sources summarize the Meir Amit center’s numbers and outline competing claims and practices but do not provide full access to the underlying dossiers or independent forensic verification; therefore some contested individual allegations remain unresolved in current reporting [1] [5] [7].