Does independent journalism exist in Gaza?

[Twiglets1]

Opinion piece in the Jerusalem Post today arguing that there is no independent journalism in Gaza - "only Hamas operatives posing as reporters".

The article talks about the incident last Monday in which five journalists were killed in an Israeli strike on a hospital in Khan Yunis. Outlets such as Reuters, and Al Jazeera claimed to have lost reporters, yet as the article argues:

Hamas doesn’t tolerate independent reporting. Everyone knows it. The only question is why Western outlets keep pretending otherwise. The Committee to Protect Journalists – far from a Zionist mouthpiece – has published testimony from Gaza reporters who spoke of intimidation, threats, and beatings.

One veteran, Tawfiq Abu Jarad, got a phone call warning him not to cover an anti-Hamas protest. He obeyed because Hamas had already assaulted him once. Another crew was attacked by Hamas police while filming, and the matter was quietly “resolved” through clan mediation.

Most of Gaza’s “journalists” aren’t journalists at all. Independent investigators – most recently analyst Eitan Fischberger – have exposed the truth about those killed in Monday’s strike. They weren’t neutral reporters. They were part of Hamas’s machine.

Mohammed Salama of Al Jazeera was a terrorist who personally participated in the invasion of Israel on October 7.

Mariam Abu Daqqa of the Associated Press taught “journalism” courses for the Hamas “Information Ministry.”

Ahmed Abu Aziz celebrated the October 7 massacre on social media, calling it “the greatest day of our generation” while mourning his fellow Hamas fighters. Terrorists, operatives, regime mouthpieces – call them what you will, but don’t call them journalists.

This is not new. Open-source researchers like @MiddleEastBuka have documented dozens of cases where “journalists” killed in Gaza were praised in obituaries as “mujahideen” (jihadists).

Mohammad Abu Daqqa, labeled a journalist, was celebrated as a “heroic mujahid,” a jihadist warrior, with photos showing him holding a Kalashnikov.

Anas Abu Shamala, a member of Hamas’s elite Nukhba unit that led the atrocities of October 7, was still counted as a “freelance journalist.”

Then there is Al Jazeera’s Anas al-Sharif. Abroad, he was lionized as a fearless correspondent. In Gaza, he posted a smiling selfie with Yahya Sinwar, the mastermind of October 7. The list goes on and on. Hamas dresses up its operatives in press vests. Western media report them as martyrs of free expression.

www.jpost.com/opinion/article-865662

That’s not to say that Israel hasn’t ever lied and IDF soldiers haven’t done terrible things.

The same as any government, and Army at war.

Let alone the government and Army of a tiny country surrounded by hostile countries with multiple terrorist entities pledging to annihilate that tiny country and its citizens for 77 years with constant terrorist attacks, rockets and wars that they have to spend billions on defence for while they are made out to be the bad guy.

It must get rather wearing being held to an impossibly high standard that no other country is held to while the other side are held with little to no accountability.

I was querying the blanket ‘Israel lies’ which seems to be specific to the Israeli government and the IDF.

It doesn't make sense but very little of what they are doing does.

What are you suggesting as an alternative to it being a lie that the convoy was deliberately targeted- 3 separate drone strikes were all accidental or hamas did it?

If CITME was about the Iraq war, I would be as against the US as I am now. If happens that's it's about the CITME - hence why Israel are being discussed rather than criticism of others.

You appear to be holding me to higher standards of evidence and sources than you are of the Israeli government.

Did you read the politifact article that I linked?

https://x.com/i/broadcasts/1MYGNorgjgLJw

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna119902

I asked AI to assess the evidence in relation to the UNwatcb report and it came back with this:

UN Watch's report,
"The Unholy Alliance: UNRWA, Hamas and Islamic Jihad," bases its claims on multiple forms of evidence, including photographic and documentary materials, testimonials, and intelligence reports. However, both UNRWA and other independent bodies have challenged the report's conclusions, citing a lack of verifiable proof and a biased methodology.
Evidence cited in the UN Watch report
Photographic and testimonial evidence: The report includes photographic evidence allegedly showing ties between senior UNRWA officials and Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) members. It also references eyewitness accounts from unnamed sources, including a returned Israeli hostage who testified to being held captive by an UNRWA teacher.
Intelligence reports: UN Watch and the Israeli government cite intelligence pointing to a deep infiltration of UNRWA by Hamas.
Employee participation in October 7: Following the October 7, 2023 attacks, Israeli intelligence alleged that at least 12 UNRWA employees participated directly in the attacks, with one allegedly involved in kidnapping an Israeli victim. An internal UN investigation by the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) found evidence indicating that nine employees may have been involved.
Terror group affiliations: Israeli intelligence reportedly estimates that hundreds of UNRWA employees in Gaza are also members of Hamas or PIJ.
UNRWA facilities and infrastructure:
Hamas data center: In February 2024, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) discovered a Hamas data center under UNRWA's headquarters in Gaza City. It was reportedly connected to UNRWA's electricity and telecommunication lines.
Weapons caches and tunnels: The IDF has reported finding numerous weapons caches, terror tunnels, and rocket launch sites inside or adjacent to UNRWA facilities, including schools.
Social media monitoring: UN Watch claims to have monitored social media accounts belonging to UNRWA staff, documenting posts that praise Hamas, glorify terrorism, and incite antisemitism. It also publicized a 3,000-member Telegram group for UNRWA teachers where many allegedly celebrated the October 7 massacre.
Criticisms and counter-evidence against the report
UNRWA, other independent bodies, and some news outlets have pushed back against the report's claims, arguing that the evidence presented is flawed or fails to prove systemic wrongdoing.
Disputed Israeli intelligence:
The Independent Review Group led by Catherine Colonna concluded in April 2024 that Israel had not provided sufficient evidence to support its claim of systemic Hamas infiltration within UNRWA, noting that Israel had failed to provide its supporting intelligence.
The internal UN OIOS investigation found evidence indicating potential involvement for only nine of the 19 UNRWA employees identified by Israel. For the other ten, the evidence was deemed insufficient.
UNRWA has stated that while it received lists of employees from Israel, no evidence was provided to substantiate the claims of Hamas affiliation.
Hamas data center discovery: While confirming that a tunnel was found under its Gaza headquarters, UNRWA noted that its staff had vacated the premises weeks before the discovery and stated it had no knowledge of any activity below the building.
Staff social media and neutrality:
UNRWA has claimed that breaches of neutrality by its 30,000-strong staff are not systemic, investigating a very small percentage of employees for such violations.
UNRWA also argues that its meetings with de facto authorities, including Hamas, were for operational coordination of humanitarian work—a standard practice for the UN in conflict zones.
Aid diversion: UNRWA denies any systematic aid diversion and states it has robust tracking mechanisms. The agency points out that empty UNRWA-branded sacks, sometimes shown in videos, are often repurposed by Gazans.
Biased methodology and agenda: UNRWA and other critics accuse UN Watch of conducting a politically motivated disinformation campaign to harm UNRWA and justify its dissolution. This includes using potentially misleading claims and evidence from unreliable sources while disregarding the humanitarian work done by the agency.

This

You are buying into the lies then.

Putting into AI to understand evidence of what happened:
On October 13, 2023, a civilian convoy fleeing northern Gaza was struck by an Israeli airstrike, leading to a contested account of what happened. The incident occurred as tens of thousands of Palestinians were following an Israeli military order to evacuate to southern Gaza ahead of a planned ground offensive.
The strike on Salah al-Din road

• The location: The attack happened on Salah al-Din Street, a major highway and one of the designated "safe routes" for civilians to travel south.
• The timing: Verified footage of the aftermath was filmed in the late afternoon of October 13, showing scenes of chaos and casualties.
• The casualties: Hamas officials and the Palestinian Health Ministry initially reported that at least 70 people were killed, mostly women and children, with over 200 injured.

Conflicting claims of responsibility

• Hamas's account: Hamas officials blamed Israel for the airstrike, which it labeled a "new massacre".
• Israel's account: The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) denied involvement, initially telling the BBC that it had no part in the incident. The IDF also accused Hamas of preventing civilians from evacuating in order to use them as "human shields," a charge that human rights organizations have contested. An Israeli ambassador later claimed the reports were "fake news" fabricated by Hamas.
• Evidence from independent analysis:
• Multiple open-source and journalistic investigations, including by BBC Verify and Forensic Architecture (working with Palestinian human rights organization Al-Haq), verified video footage and geolocated the strike on Salah al-Din road.
• An analysis by the Financial Times indicated that the evidence "appears to rule out most explanations aside from an Israeli strike".
• Amnesty International also verified videos of the attack and concluded it was the result of an airstrik8e.

Contradictory information and false narratives The highly polarized nature of the conflict led to the spread of conflicting narratives and misinformation shortly after the strike.

• Allegations of staged footage: Some social media accounts attempted to sow doubt by claiming images of casualties were faked by "crisis actors." However, these claims have been debunked by fact-checkers like PolitiFact, who noted some footage was repurposed from old film projects.
• Lack of forensic evidence: While some munitions experts pointed to an Israeli missile as the most likely cause, others noted the video evidence alone was insufficient for a definitive conclusion on the type of munition.
• No credible counter-evidence: Despite initial Israeli denials, independent investigations and expert analysis found that an airstrike, most likely from Israel, was the cause of the convoy attack. No credible evidence has emerged to support the claim that the event was "faked by Hamas".

Summary of what happened The evidence shows that on October 13, 2023, an Israeli airstrike hit a civilian convoy of Palestinians fleeing northern Gaza on a route designated as safe. This happened after Israel ordered a mass evacuation, which the UN deemed "impossible" and "calamitous." While Israel denied responsibility and an ambassador claimed the incident was fabricated by Hamas, verification of video evidence by independent analysts and human rights groups concluded the damage was consistent with an airstrike.

Yes by Israel I generally mean Israeli government or IDF - its a shorthand that is commonly used including by you in your first sentence.

And yes this is CITME so the focus is on Israel and Hamas largely at the moment but yes other countries lie and commit war crimes.
Hamas is also rightfully held to account where it has committed atrocities.

We get it, @TulipLavender ... the only possible reason for Israel ever doing anything is lies, more lies and damned lies.

Just to lay the "beheaded babies" thing to rest (hopefully once and for all!), this is the pathologist's explanation (from 02:04).

I do hope the UK is never in the position of dealing with such obscene trauma and trying to make sense of it for the benefit of a sneering global audience.

@Beachtastic I would have left it at my first couple of comments except I was asked to explain and then provide evidence.

Umm, pretty sure Palestinians are as capable as anyone else of independent journalism if actually given chance!

The reason there's no independent journalism in Gaza is because Hamas execute people who say things they don't like. Allowing in outside journalists wouldn't create the conditions for independent journalism either, since Hamas would still be there.

This is not the same thing as all journalists in Gaza being Hamas supporters, however. The number is clearly higher than zero, but that doesn't mean they all are.

Surely it would give a wider range of views? If credible news agencies had to remove their journalists because of Hamas, instead of being excluded by Israel?

What is Israel's reason for excluding journalists if they have nothing to hide?

And rebutting any false claims with evidence?

I don't see any reason to believe it would give a wider range of views, no. Hamas obviously can't allow genuine independent reporting, so either the foreign journalists present would be at risk from them if they tried it or would, as you say, be excluded by Hamas. That specific issue isn't within Israeli control.

Obviously yes the Israelis also benefit from there not being any genuine independent journalism in Gaza, and clearly have things to hide.

Ive heard of these journalists who have died that have supported Jamas.

I imagine many of the people will phones who have become journalists during the conflict are biased against Israel. However, because no others go in its difficult to have balance.

I still cannot get over people in the West marching just after the vile slaughter of October 7th took place. Not even a pause to reflect just cheering on the 'resistance ' as some call brutal murder. Not forgetting the rapes and parading the body of Shani Louk to cheering crowds of Palestinian civilians her broken body, paraded as a trophy, casualty dismissed by western supporters. Disgraceful.

Neither can I ... I am disgusted that people in the West would do that shortly after October 7th. They are the ones really guilty of dehumanising people that have nothing wrong.

I feel as though I've stepped into a nightmare parallel world since 7/10. The medieval barbarity of the attacks was bad enough - I used to rather naively think that a few rogue operators could act like sadistic pyschopaths, but a swarm of thousands, including civilian mobs? - utterly terrifying. What made it worse was the callous inhumanity shown here on MN in the immediate aftermath and on the streets of the UK. I knew humanity had its darker side, but I didn't realise just how dark.

I didn't come onto this board at that time & I'm glad that I didn't. Like you I would have found it very inhumane and dark to see people not completely sympathetic to Israeli citizens in the aftermath of the massacre & kidnappings.

Just trawling through your rebuttals of my previous posts as I wouldn’t want them to go unanswered.

I don’t find AI a very accurate method of assessing information as it only tends to pick up reports from mainstream channels which often don’t show the full picture.

Anyway, of course the UN challenged the report’s conclusions, they couldn’t not.

How can UNWRA staff be neutral, the vast majority are Palestinians!

As for the denial of systemic aid diversion and its claim of robust tracking mechanisms, their own figures show 90% of aid was diverted over the last two months.

https://app.un2720.org/tracking/intercepted

I find it extremely convenient their reporting does not differentiate between armed actors and hungry unarmed civilians when it must be relatively straight forward to get this information from the drivers of the trucks.

UNWRA is a billion $ industry, when started as a temporary measure with a one year mandate in 1949, to perpetuate the conflict and the Palestinian cause.

‘UNRWA’s raison d’etre is to perpetuate the conflict by maintaining the refugee status of Palestinians and by giving them false hope that they will one day return to homes in sovereign Israeli territory. This is why, among all the refugees in the world, only the Palestinians have a dedicated UN agency for their so-called refugees. It is also why UNRWA, unlike the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, UNHCR, keeps the Palestinians as perpetual refugees from one generation to the next, even after they become citizens of other countries. by maintaining the refugee status of Palestinians and by giving them false hope that they will one day return to homes in sovereign Israeli territory. This is why, among all the refugees in the world, only the Palestinians have a dedicated UN agency for their so-called refugees. It is also why UNRWA, unlike the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, UNHCR, keeps the Palestinians as perpetual refugees from one generation to the next, even after they become citizens of other countries.’

This speech by Baroness Deech is very enlightening about the difference in the UNHCR (UN High Commission of Refugees and UNWRA.

Also this speech from Hillel Neuer, Director UN Watch at the US Congress at smear attempts by the UN despite evidence of allegations they have been accused of.

Do you believe that Palestinians working for UNRWA (or more broadly) could be anti Israel but not terrorists?

And are you suggesting the UNRWA is responsible for the economic issues in Gaza that mean they are heavily reliant on aid to begin with?