Widespread scepticism over reason for his death as it has not yet done so

There was widespread condemnation of the killing by Israel of Anas Al Sharif, the Palestinian Al Jazeera TV journalist. Reporters without Borders (RSF) and the Foreign Press Association (FPA) called it a targeted assassination of a journalist and the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) rejected Israel’s claim that Sharif was a Hamas terrorist as typical of a pattern of unsubstantiated allegations made against Palestinian journalists.

None of these respectable press agencies believe there is credible evidence Sharif was a terrorist. They claim “terrorist” is a label of convenience used by Israel to justify killing journalists and it is significant that a phenomenal 186 Palestinian journalists have been killed in Gaza since October 2023.

Israel has put out documentary evidence that Sharif was a Hamas leader of a rocket launching unit but the evidence has not been independently verified. It was seen by the BBC’s very experienced international editor, Jeremy Bowen, who said it was unpersuasive.

As Bowen and other western journalists constantly complain on air, Israel does not allow foreign journalists into Gaza, so the local Palestinian journalists have been an important source of information about Israel’s war in Gaza – they are doing heroic work according to Bowen.

Al Jazeera, for its part, insists that Sharif was a prize-winning journalist of great courage and distinction who was so ubiquitous as a journalist he could not have been a terrorist. He had been reporting for Al Jazeera in Gaza in plain sight since he was recruited in December 2013. Thus the Israelis would have had good intelligence about such a high-profile journalist and would have killed him a lot earlier without warning as they usually do those deemed real terrorists.

Al Jazeera is the TV channel many turn to for the true extent of the killing and destruction inflicted on the Palestinians in Gaza. It is significant that Al Jazeera itself was labelled terrorist and banned from reporting from Israel in May 2024 when Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu said it was a “terrorist channel”.

It is highly respected and is obviously not terrorist. It appears to model itself on BBC World News and many of its anchors and newsreaders are British or British trained. It is based in Doha in Qatar and its service in English strives to be editorially independent of the government of Qatar.

As I don’t speak Arabic I am unable to comment on the editorial independence of Al Jazeera’s Arabic service. However, it is well known that the Qatari state has been trying hard to mediate between Israel and Hamas for the release of the Israeli hostages and arrange a ceasefire in Gaza, and houses a huge American base, all of which proves its principal TV channel cannot be a “terrorist channel”.

Hamas is classed as a terrorist organisation in the west and there is no doubt that its attack on Israel on October 7, 2023 and its indiscriminate rocket attacks are terrorist attacks. There is also some credible evidence that before the war, Sharif was working in the media section of the Hamas-run government of Gaza but not that he was a Hamas operative in the rocket launching unit as the Israelis claim.  

The protection afforded to journalists under international humanitarian law is that they are treated as civilians. The 1949 Geneva Conventions I -IV and the 1977 Additional Protocols protect soldiers who are wounded and sick on land, sailors rescued at sea, prisoners of war (PoWs) and civilians.

Civilians were added in 1949 because of the appalling attacks on civilians perpetrated by both sides in World War II including the German blitz on London, the Anglo-American burning of Hamburg and Dresden and the nuclear attacks on Japan among many other atrocities inflicted on civilians in that war.

Article 79 of the 1977 of an Additional Protocol to the 1949 Geneva Conventions protects journalists by extending to them the same protection as civilians, provided they are not directly participating in combat. War correspondents embedded with troops on active operations are not protected as journalists but if captured they are entitled to be treated as PoWs.

Journalists are sometimes engaged in espionage, and propaganda is of course part of their trade. They are not protected if they are engaged in espionage because espionage is deemed to be participation in war; and if captured they are not protected as PoWs either. But they retain civilian protection when they engage in propaganda, unless it is inextricably bound up with combat operations. They are also protected as civilians even if they had previously participated directly in combat.

Terrorists posing as journalists as cover for terrorist operations are obviously not protected. The evidence journalists are active or sleeper terrorists must be clear and compelling and not an excuse to silence them.

There can be no doubt that Anas Al Sharif was working as a journalist when he was killed as he was daily on TV talking to camera beamed worldwide by Al Jazeera. But was he also moonlighting as leader of a rocket launch unit?

The burden is on Israel to provide proof positive that despite all the evidence that Anas Al Sharif was a courageous and committed journalist, there was clear and compelling evidence he was also engaged in terrorist activities when he was killed.

The problem with the threat Israel made against Sharif before killing him is that the IDF is not known for warning terrorists before taking them out. That fact alone strongly suggests he was killed for his symbolic resistance as a journalist and that labelling him a terrorist was, as the CPJ claimed, typical of a pattern of unsubstantiated allegations against journalists designed to suppress the unvarnished truth about what is happening and what is about to happen in Gaza.