Gaza’s dangerous dilemma: Journalists, militants, and the battle for truth - Nzimande

Key topics:

• SANEF condemns journalist deaths in Gaza as attacks on press freedom

• Reports allege some Gaza journalists held militant or combat roles

• Conflict blurs line between reporting, propaganda, and warfare narratives

Sign up for your early morning brew of the BizNews Insider to keep you up to speed with the content that matters. The newsletter will land in your inbox at 5:30am weekdays. Register here.

Support South Africa’s bastion of independent journalism, offering balanced insights on investments, business, and the political economy, by joining BizNews Premium. Register here.

If you prefer WhatsApp for updates, sign up to the BizNews channel here.

By Z.T. Nzimande*

The role of journalists in conflict zones has always been perilous, but nowhere is it more acute than in Gaza. The South African National Editors’ Forum (SANEF) has repeatedly expressed outrage over the deaths of media workers, framing these fatalities as deliberate assaults on press freedom and human rights. According to SANEF, Israel has allegedly targeted journalists, restricted the access of foreign correspondents, and unfairly labeled reporters as militants. The forum pointed to the deaths of five Al Jazeera staff, including correspondents and cameramen, as part of a larger pattern in which more than two hundred Palestinian journalists have perished since October 2023. SANEF insists these events reflect a systematic attempt to deny the public critical information, aligning itself with watchdogs like the Committee to Protect Journalists and Reporters Without Borders in calling for urgent accountability.

Yet a growing body of investigative research, compiled through meticulous open-source analysis, challenges this narrative. According to these reports, many individuals publicly identified as journalists may have simultaneously held operational roles within militant organizations. Drawing from social media posts, obituaries, and other public records, the platform asserts that some media workers were not neutral observers but were actively engaged in combat or operational planning. While these claims remain unverified, even the possibility of dual roles raises profound questions about press neutrality and the challenges of reporting accurately in conflict zones.

Among those flagged as being close to these terrorist groups are: Anas Jamal Al-Sharif, a videographer for Al Jazeera alleged to have also served as a Hamas commander overseeing rocket launches. His work brought him to the frontlines, and it was during these assignments that he tragically lost his life. Abdullah Darwish, also known as Abu Moamn, is identified as a photographer for Al-Aqsa TV while simultaneously participating in the Nukhba unit and playing a role in the October 7 Be’eri attack. Hossam Basel Abdul Karim Shabat, a cameraman, is reportedly a trained sniper involved in combat operations, and Mahmoud Khaled Abu Saif is listed as a photojournalist while allegedly affiliated with Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Ahmed Abdel Nabi, ostensibly a media professional, is claimed to have ties to Hamas’s military wing. Omar Abu Shawish, a youth activist and poet, is suggested to have links to militant networks. Additional names, including Mohammed Qreiqeh, Ibrahim Zaher, Moamen Aliwa, and Mohammed Noufal, are similarly portrayed as individuals whose media roles may have overlapped with militant activities.

These claims starkly contrast with SANEF’s portrayal of journalists as innocent victims. On one hand, reporters face genuine threats in Gaza, where military operations are conducted in dense urban areas and the line between combatants and civilians is often blurred. On the other, if even a fraction of the allegations of dual roles is accurate, the consequences for media integrity are severe. Journalists operating under such conditions may, wittingly or unwittingly, become instruments of propaganda, helping to shape narratives favourable to militant groups while complicating international understanding of the conflict.

If these claims hold any weight, the ramifications extend far beyond the immediate danger to journalists. The reporting emerging from Gaza and the wider Middle East could be concluded as compromised, influenced by those embedded with armed groups rather than by neutral observers. Such circumstances can and has already started contributing to the demonization of the Israel Defense Forces, as audiences and advocacy organizations may interpret strikes on individuals presented as journalists as deliberate attacks on the press, even if some of those individuals were allegedly involved in militant operations. In this way, international media coverage risks misrepresenting the reality on the ground, reinforcing narratives that paint the IDF as targeting innocent civilians rather than acting to neutralize active threats.

Israel’s emphasis on the security challenges inherent in Gaza becomes clearer in this light. The difficulty of distinguishing civilians from combatants is compounded when militants exploit journalistic roles as cover. Media coverage can thus be unintentionally weaponized, portraying defensive military operations as unprovoked attacks and contributing to a skewed global perception. For international audiences, the dilemma is profound: how can observers trust reporting when the professional identities of those delivering it are disputed and possibly intertwined with combat operations?

Read more:

Moreover, this context illuminates the strategic use of information and propaganda by terror groups in the Middle East. Hamas and affiliated groups have long leveraged media visibility to advance political and military objectives, embedding their messaging within ostensibly independent reporting. Meanwhile, Israel must navigate the dual imperatives of neutralizing threats and avoiding the misperception that it targets journalists. These dynamics show that in modern conflict, media itself can be both a battlefield and a weapon, complicating efforts to maintain accurate and trustworthy reporting.

In such an environment, international organizations and media consumers must exercise heightened scrutiny. The potential for dual roles among journalists creates a volatile mix, where factual reporting, propaganda, and misinformation intersect. This tension highlights the challenges of assessing news from Gaza and the broader Middle East: the very individuals presented as witnesses may, in fact, be active participants in the conflict, blurring the lines between reporting and operational activity.

Sanitizing or simplifying these realities does not serve the public interest. While the deaths of journalists are tragic and their safety is paramount, reporting from Gaza must be analyzed critically, understanding the complexities of urban warfare, embedded personnel, and the strategic use of media by militant organizations. Awareness of these factors is essential for policymakers, advocacy groups, and global audiences to interpret events accurately and to avoid the unintentional spread of misleading narratives.

In the end, journalism in Gaza has become one of the most dangerous professions in the world, and the stories that emerge from the region will continue to be shaped by both the realities of combat and the narratives constructed around them. The very high possibility that journalists may also be combatants working for terror groups in the area does not negate the very real risks faced by civilians in conflict zones, but it does demand that media consumers, international organizations, and governments approach coverage with critical scrutiny, aware that the truth is often more complicated than it appears on the surface. Without such scrutiny, the combination of such damning allegations and highly charged reporting may inadvertently fuel the demonization of the IDF, influencing global opinion based on narratives that do not account for the full context of the conflict. Furthermore it disables the mouthpiece of those who are on the side of the truth. Media has changed, it is now a tool of war and if the world is not careful it will become the reason for this conflict to never reach its end.

*Z.T.Nzimande, is Middle East Africa Institute’s #FutureVoices Scholar of 2025/2026. He has a degree in Neuroscience and is currently completing his Postgraduate Diploma in Management. A former student leader at the University of the Witwatersrand (Wits), he has consistently sought to combine scientific excellence with a strong commitment to advocating for change. Has an interest in developing his thoughts with regards to measuring the impact of policy and geopolitics. His goal in his year as the #FutureVoices scholar is to provide insightful, well-researched analysis on global affairs, informed by his scientific training, critical thinking skills, and leadership experience.