Isn’t It the Job of Journalists to Interview Leaders and Controversial Figures?

In that sense, international law—particularly international human rights law and international humanitarian law (especially the Geneva Conventions), along with the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court—offers protection to journalists in conflict zones.

This is an intentional attempt by the IOF to hide the truth and silence those who expose its war crimes on the ground. But it will fail to achieve that, because the world now sees the ugly face of this evil and terrorist occupation.

The deliberate targeting and killing by the Israeli occupation forces (IOF) of not only Al Jazeera’s four journalists and media workers, but also:

• The deliberate targeting and killing of 300+ journalists and media workers in Gaza over the past two years;

• The IOF Air Force’s airstrikes targeting the TV channel building in Iran;

• The deliberate assassination of more than 10 journalists and media workers in Lebanon, and the injuring of seven others;

are all considered war crimes.

What is particularly dangerous is that the Israeli occupation entity is now boldly and insolently adopting the direct targeting and assassination of journalists. We all saw the statement issued by the IOF following its targeting of the journalists’ tent at the gate of the Al-Shifa Hospital Medical Complex Sunday night into Monday morning, which resulted in the deaths of seven journalists and media workers.

The IOF further justified its attack by claiming that one of the journalists, Anas al-Sharif, worked with Hamas.

The IOF cited a photograph in which Anas appeared with Hamas leaders—the late Ismail Haniyeh and Yahya Sinwar—behind him.

But isn’t it the job of journalists to interview leaders and controversial figures? By the IOF’s logic, almost every Israeli occupation's media who interviewed Hamas leaders would be terrorist. And wouldn’t CNN’s Peter Arnett and Peter Bergen, as well as ABC’s John Miller, all be terrorists for interviewing Osama bin Laden and taking photos with him? Wouldn’t that logic also apply to France 24, CNN, BBC, and PBS for interviewing the head of al-Qaeda in the Levant, Abu Mohammed al-Jolani (also known as Ahmed al-Sharaa)?

Moreover, the Israeli occupation’s blatant claim that some of the journalists it killed held arms does not hold under international law.

Even if a journalist is armed but is not directly participating in hostilities, they remain a civilian. Attacking them would still be considered a war crime under international law.

Needless to say, none of the Palestinian or Lebanese journalists who were assassinated by the IOF over the past two years were armed or took an active part in the conflict—unlike their Israeli occupation counterparts.

Why doesn’t the IOF consider the Israeli occupation journalists who not only carry arms but also actively participate in the Israeli occupation forces’ criminal actions?

Anas al-Sharif was neither an intelligence gatherer nor a transporter of weapons, nor was he a combatant. He was the world’s eyes and ears in Gaza. He relayed the truth as it was and consistently denied the IOF’s allegations against him. For that, he was killed.

The IOF repeatedly threatened and targeted him in the past, and ultimately killed him. All of this serves as further proof that this heinous war crime was deliberate, premeditated, and intentional.

Leila Hatoum is a war reporter and political economist who holds an LL.M. in international law, with an emphasis on humanitarian laws. She is the editor-in-chief of MENA Uncensored. She has been covering the Israeli occupation’s aggression on Lebanon, from the frontline, since October 8, 2023.