Israel kills Al Jazeera journalist it says was Hamas leader
Anas Al Sharif, 28, was among a group of four Al Jazeera journalists and an assistant who died in a strike on a tent near Shifa Hospital in eastern Gaza City, Gaza officials and Al Jazeera said.
An official at the hospital said two other people were also killed in the strike.
Calling Al Sharif 'one of Gaza's bravest journalists,' Al Jazeera said the attack was a 'desperate attempt to silence voices in anticipation of the occupation of Gaza.'
Al Sharif was the head of a Hamas cell and 'was responsible for advancing rocket attacks against Israeli civilians and IDF (Israeli) troops,' the Israeli military said in a statement, citing intelligence and documents found in Gaza as evidence.
Journalists' groups and Al Jazeera denounced the killings.
The other journalists killed were Mohammed Qreiqeh, Ibrahim Zaher and Mohammed Noufal, Al Jazeera said.
A press freedom group and a UN expert previously warned that Al Sharif's life was in danger due to his reporting from Gaza.
UN Special Rapporteur Irene Khan said last month that Israel's claims against him were unsubstantiated.
Al Jazeera said Al Sharif had left a social media message to be posted in the event of his death that read, '…I never hesitated to convey the truth as it is, without distortion or misrepresentation, hoping that God would witness those who remained silent.'
Last October, Israel's military had named Al Sharif as one of six Gaza journalists it alleged were members of Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, citing documents it said showed lists of people who completed training courses and salaries.
'Al Jazeera categorically rejects the Israeli occupation forces' portrayal of our journalists as terrorists and denounces their use of fabricated evidence,' the network said in a statement at the time.
In a statement, the Committee to Protect Journalists, which in July urged the international community to protect Al Sharif, said Israel had failed to provide any evidence to back up its allegations against him.
'Israel's pattern of labeling journalists as fighters without providing credible evidence raises serious questions about its intent and respect for press freedom,' said Sara Qudah, CPJ's director for the Middle East and North Africa.
Al Sharif, whose X account showed more than 500,000 followers, posted on the platform minutes before his death that Israel had been intensely bombarding Gaza City for more than two hours.
Palestinian group Hamas, which runs Gaza, said the killing may signal the start of an Israeli offensive. 'The assassination of journalists and the intimidation of those who remain paves the way for a major crime that the occupation is planning to commit in Gaza City,' Hamas said in a statement.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said he would launch a new offensive to dismantle Hamas strongholds in Gaza, where a hunger crisis is escalating after 22 months of war.
Thousands protest in Tel Aviv against Israeli govt move to expand Gaza war
'Anas Al Sharif and his colleagues were among the last remaining voices in Gaza conveying the tragic reality to the world,' Al Jazeera said.
The Hamas-run Gaza government media office said 237 journalists have been killed since the war started on October 7, 2023.
The Committee to Protect Journalists said at least 186 journalists have been killed in the Gaza conflict.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Recorder
3 hours ago
- Business Recorder
Opposing Israel is not anti-Semitic
EDITORIAL: In many Western countries, it has become commonplace for politicians, media outlets, or various interest groups to frame any criticism of the Israeli government's policies as anti-Semitic. This trend was highlighted recently in a public exchange between Athens Mayor Haris Doukas and Israeli Ambassador to Greece Naom Katz. In comments published last Sunday, Katz complained that Israeli tourists in Athens felt 'uncomfortable' due to the mayor's failure to act against 'organised minorities' putting up anti-Semitic graffiti. Doukas swiftly responded on X, stating, 'We have proven our strong opposition to violence and racism, and we do not take lessons in democracy from those who kill civilians.' Frustrated by the narrative equating criticism of Israel with hatred of Jews, he added, 'it is revolting that the ambassador concentrates on graffiti (that is clearly wiped off) while an unprecedented genocide is taking place in Gaza.' Doukas' remarks shed light on a broader frustration with efforts to divert attention away from Israel's actions in Gaza. Since Israel launched its offensive on October 7, 2023, over 60,800 people, many of them children, have been killed, and at least 149,880 others wounded. The death toll continues to rise daily as Gaza faces forced starvation and widespread destruction. Despite this, many Western governments continue to label any criticism of Israel's actions in Gaza — including its ethnic cleansing of the enclave and the violence in the occupied West Bank — as anti-Semitic. This labelling serves to shut down meaningful discussion about the ongoing crisis. The tactic manifests in various ways, from the discrediting of activists and human rights organisations that speak out against Israel's military actions, to laws passed in countries like the US and the UK that equate any denunciation of Israel with anti-Semitism. Such attempts to blur the lines between legitimate political critique and anti-Semitism risk trivializing genuine instances of hatred and bigotry against Jewish people. While it is crucial to combat all forms of racism and hate speech, it is equally important to distinguish between legitimate criticism of a government and expressions of bigotry. The exchange between Mayor Doukas and Ambassador Katz also highlights a growing divide within Western nations. More and more citizens are increasingly unwilling to offer blind support for Israel, particularly in light of the ongoing campaign in Gaza to annihilate Palestinians for the furtherance of expansionist ambitions of a 'Greater Israel.' By challenging the ambassador's focus on graffiti and calling out Israel's actions in Gaza as 'an unprecedented genocide', Doukas has aligned himself with a broader movement that refuses to let the defence against anti-Semitism obscure genuine human rights concerns. His remarks underscore an important point: while combating anti-Semitism needs to be confronted, it should not come at the expense of the right to criticise Israel. People should be free to voice concerns about Israeli policies without fear of being labelled as Jew-haters. Free expression is a cornerstone of democratic society, and it must remain a protected space for serious, open discussions, especially when it concerns the lives of Palestinians who are fighting for their right to live in their ancestral lands, free from occupation and violence by a colonial settler state. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Express Tribune
7 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Hollow statements
The humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza has reached an appalling new low. After months of siege, bombardment and displacement, what remains of the enclave is little more than a graveyard of rubble and grief. Entire neighbourhoods have been flattened, tens of thousands of innocent people have been killed and those who survive face an even slower death from hunger, disease and deprivation. In a joint statement this week, the foreign ministers of 24 countries — including Britain, Canada, Australia and several European countries — warned that "famine is unfolding before our eyes" and urged Israel to allow aid to flow into Gaza unrestricted. Their primary demand is to open all crossings, permit international NGOs to operate in what is the world's largest open air prison, and let in food, water, medicine, fuel and shelter materials without obstruction. Yet such calls have been made for months, with little to show for it. Israel continues to control and restrict the flow of supplies, turning humanitarian relief into a bargaining chip, in defiance of international law. It is difficult to see the current Israeli policy as anything other than the use of starvation as a weapon — a crime under Geneva Conventions. The situation is made worse by the inability, or unwillingness, of global powers to move beyond statements of concern. Expressions of outrage have not translated into concrete steps — such as sanctions, arms suspensions or legal action — that might force a change in course. The destruction of Gaza is an appalling indictment of the international system's failure to uphold its own rules. If the world allows an entire population to be bombed and starved, it loses the moral authority to speak of justice and human rights elsewhere.
Express Tribune
7 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Comprehending Iran
The writer is a retired major general and has an interest in International Relations and Political Sociology. He can be reached at tayyarinam@ and tweets @20_Inam While covering the Iran-Israel-US war in June this year, I had concluded that: a) the combined US-Israeli attack had badly damaged the Irani nuclear infrastructure and ambition, without obliterating it, as President Trump had claimed; b) Iran will never abandon its nuclear ambition and will sooner than later acquire nuclear arms; c) the Shia arc stands eclipsed before a Sunni crescent given that Iran's 3H proxies (Hamas, Hezbollah and Houthis) stand militarily degraded, and its client state Syria is out of Tehran's orbit; d) in 'missile economics' Iran retains the capability to target Israel with precision using cruise and ballistic missiles and that threat remains; e) contrary to Western expectations, Iranians rallied around clerics whose grip on power remains firm 'for now'; f) the battle redefines the nature of warfare, especially the non-contact conflict, particularly for India and Pakistan. Population on both sides must now contend with intense psy ops; and g) 'counterintelligence' and espionage emerge as niche force-multipliers in warfare. An eminent US scholar of Irani descent, Prof Vali Nasr recently published his new book, Iran's Grand Strategy: A Political History. The venerable professor, who has visited Pakistan and has previously worked with Richard Holbrooke, is a keen observer of the region. His MIT/Harvard educated father, Seyyed Hossein Nasr is also a respected scholar of Islam and a former professor at George Washington University. Mr Hossein has undertaken critical work on Allama Iqbal. Back to the work of Prof Vali Nasr, who concedes Iran's role in almost every crisis in the Middle East, that has caused 'serial humiliations' to Tehran recently. First, Prof Nasr thinks Iran's contemporary strategic vision is driven more by Iran's 'national security rooted in regional rivalries', and lesser by its revolutionary intent. Although Islam remains the language of Iran's politics, whose 'aims are now secular in nature'. Second, the eight years' war against Iraq in 1980s deeply affected every facet of Irani sociology and body politics. Western analysts generally downplay the effects of this conflict, as it mainly ended in a stalemate, despite overwhelming Western support to Iraq; and the West Plus subsequently took an embarrassing U-turn against Baghdad under Saddam Hussein. The ensuing strategic culture has guided Iran's behaviour blending 'encirclement fears with outsized ambition'. The response to Iraqi invasion in September 1980 strengthened Iran's ayatollahs; engendered some sort of strategic autonomy; and ushered in self-sufficiency, religious zeal and patriotism. There are chronicled tales of Basij Militia's heroism in the literature pertaining to Irani resolve during the war. Consequently, the war made Tehran lean towards and depend upon proxy power, and owing up the anti-Israel cause. A popular slogan among Irani volunteers was — "The path to Jerusalem runs through Karbala". Third, the strategic shift and revolutionary zest caused events like the 1979 storming of American embassy in Tehran and the ensuing 'Iran Hostage Crisis' for 444 days; the 1987 demonstration by Irani pilgrims at Mecca wanting to 'uproot the Saudi rulers'; the 1988 downing of Flight 655 by the US; and the 1992 bombing of Israeli embassy in Argentine, to mention a few. Khomeini perceived the US determined for regime change in Tehran, and his characterisation of the US, the 'Great Satan', was that of a dog, that needed to be firmly confronted to make it back off. Fourth, when President Rafsanjani pursued the 'Grand Bargain with the Great Satan' in the 1990s, and President Khatami in 2003 wrote a conciliatory letter to Washington, Khamenei - the successor to the leader of revolution, Imam Khomeini - held the view that rapprochement with the US was not possible. Emphasising continued resistance to the US, Khamenei reiterated that 'pursuit of the ideals is more important than attainment of the ideals'; that setbacks would be temporary; and that victory may be long drawn. This proclivity still guides Iran under the gerontocracy of Khamenei and his inner circle. Fifth, the war with Iraq gave the Pasadaran — the IRGC — more political power, a taste for private enterprise, and changed Iran into a 'technical autarky' resulting into self-sufficiency. The belief in rebounding from setbacks inspired Tehran's strategic doctrine of 'forward defence' formally adopted in 2003. The doctrine nurtured raising, equipping and manipulating proxies to neutralise threats to Iran before they reached Tehran. The slain General Qasem Soleimani, who used the IRGC's Quds and Jerusalem Brigades to deadly effect, was a great exponent of 'forward defence'. Soleimani shared intelligence with the 'Great Satan' over Afghan Taliban after 9/11; persuaded President Putin and Hezbollah in 2015 to intervene militarily in Syria; and used Afghan Shias in Syria. Sixth, however, despite heavy indoctrination through 'sacred defence museums' all over the country eulogising sacrifice, the Iranian old guard finds its rule over younger generations through revolutionary fervour and religious zeal, tenuous. Limited civil liberties, comparative oppression, economic hardships and lack of opportunity are making the young and the restless to question 'forward defence'. There is palpable but slow unravelling of the clergy's stranglehold on the levers of power. Seventh, Iran's limitations of resources finally caught up with its strategic overreach in the changed Middle East, where Israel backed by the US is now a resurgent and dominant power. Iran's loss of Syria, key to the region, is far greater than its diminishing influence in Iraq, Lebanon or Yemen cumulatively. Iran may, however, find it difficult to stomach and abandon 'forward defence' anytime soon. The Arab states, guided by similar calculations, sided ostensibly with Israel during the recent conflict to deflate Irani dominance. Finally, on the succession issue, Prof Nasr considers Mojtaba, the 56-year-old second son of Khamenei, as the likely and preferred candidate. He is principal advisor to his father. However, this succession might bring the 'Islamic Republic closer to becoming a hereditary monarchy'. The change might perpetuate the 'forward defence' doctrine more aggressively under a relatively younger ideologue and that might have implications for Iran, its people and politics, the region and the world. And despite efforts by the EU, the nuclear deal with Iran over terms favourable to West Plus is likely to remain a pipedream. In all this, the silver lining for Pakistan remains Tehran's post-conflict realisation of the value of its friendship with Islamabad, at least for now.
