When media outlet Al-Jazeera operates as an asset of a belligerent party it steps onto the battlefield to fight not to report.
By Andrew Fox
The usual candidates are up in arms about the IDF killing Al Jazeera journalist, Anas Al-Sharif. These outraged commentators seem to have overlooked the substantial evidence that he was an active member of Hamas’s Al-Qassam Brigades, and therefore an entirely legitimate target (see the screenshots below). However, I would go further than that: I will now make the case that he was a legitimate target because he was an Al Jazeera journalist.
There is a dangerous myth in modern conflict: that “combatant” means a man with a rifle or a woman in a uniform. The misunderstanding is that unless you are pulling a trigger, you are somehow outside the fight. This is a comforting belief, especially for those who think war is neatly contained to trenches, tanks, and troops. However, in the 21st century, that is no longer true, and under the Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC), it has not been true for a long time.
“Participation in hostilities” is the legal point at which a civilian ceases to be protected from being targeted. This does not only refer to kinetic actions. It encompasses any act that is likely to negatively impact the military operations or capacity of a party to the conflict. During the WWII, this included railway switchmen guiding troop trains. In Afghanistan, it referred to unarmed insurgent spotters on hilltops radioing in troop movements.
Today, I contend that it also means information warriors.
Modern militaries no longer see information merely as a support tool. Instead, it is established as a joint force function, equal to manoeuvre, fires, and sustainment. NATO doctrine, US joint publications, and even Israel’s operational concepts treat the information environment as a domain where decisive effects can be attained.
In Gaza, the battle is not just fought in tunnels and streets. We are all too well aware that it is also fought in newsrooms, on satellite feeds, and across social media timelines. No single outlet has played a more pivotal role in shaping the global perception of the battlefield narrative than Al Jazeera.
Journalism is not a crime, even in war. Legitimate, good-faith journalists should never be military targets. However, the legal considerations shift if a media organisation, especially one funded by a party to the conflict, moves from just reporting to actively participating.
Al Jazeera is not a neutral observer. It is the flagship media arm of Qatar, a state that funds Hamas directly through hundreds of millions in cash infusions into Gaza. Qatar provides political sanctuary, hosting Hamas leadership openly in Doha, and runs strategic information campaigns amplifying Hamas narratives and suppressing their atrocities. This is not independent journalism. It is state-directed strategic communication, explicitly designed to influence the conduct of hostilities.
Oh boy, has it worked. Hamas’s dominance of the information battlespace has been on a par with any battlefield victory the IDF has won in Gaza. The role of Al Jazeera’s coverage has been decisive. They have had a critical role in bringing international pressure by saturating global audiences with emotive, selective imagery. This has mobilised street protests, driven foreign policy debates, and generated calls for ceasefires.
This pressure has materially constrained Israel’s freedom of manoeuvre, forcing the IDF to alter targeting timelines, suspend operations, and accept increased risk to its own troops. Therefore, by shaping global perception, Al Jazeera has increased the political cost of decisive action by the IDF, giving Hamas operational breathing space and prolonging the conflict. If that is not “direct participation in hostilities” under LOAC, then nothing is.
The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) sets out three criteria for direct participation in hostilities:
Al Jazeera’s conduct fulfils all three criteria. The harm threshold is satisfied because their broadcasts have directly compromised IDF operations. A clear causal link exists between narrative shaping and operational constraints. This is well-documented and observable. Additionally, there is a belligerent nexus as their editorial stance explicitly aligns with Hamas’s strategic objectives and Qatar’s geopolitical interests.
Once those criteria are fulfilled, civilian protection is paused for as long as they participate. This is where the conversation becomes uncomfortable. We have been conditioned to see journalists as sacred non-combatants. Indeed, genuine independent journalism remains vital and protected, and there must be space for reporting mistakes, but this protection is not absolute. When a media outlet ceases to operate as an independent actor and instead functions as an operational asset of a belligerent party, it steps onto the battlefield, and on the battlefield, law and morality both demand that those who fight are treated as participants in the war.
Never mind that Al Jazeera’s journalists in Gaza double as active terror group members. Above and beyond that, I put it to you that the IDF is within its legal rights under LOAC to treat Al Jazeera’s Gaza-based personnel, facilities, and transmission infrastructure as legitimate military objectives. There is a further argument that Al Jazeera facilities worldwide have become actively involved in the conflict and, therefore, are legitimate military targets.
The conflict in Gaza is not just about bombs and bullets; it also involves hashtags, headlines, and live feeds. In that landscape, an enemy’s ability to wage war is not solely measured in rockets and rifles, but also in narrative dominance. Pretending otherwise does not make us more humane. It just leaves one side fighting with one arm tied behind its back.
The shocking global disinformation storm surrounding Gaza has been notable for its lack of accountability for major news outlets knowingly lying about the war and spreading falsehoods. If nothing else, establishing a clear threshold for crossing between journalist and targetable combatant might make these deceitful media organisations and reporters reconsider their journalistic standards.
About the writer:
A veteran of three grueling tours of Afghanistan, Major Andrew Fox holds a Batchelor’s degree in Law & Politics, a Master’s in Military History & War Studies, and is currently studying for a PhD in History.
While the mission of Lay of the Land (LotL) is to provide a wide and diverse perspective of affairs in Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish world, the opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed by its various writers are not necessarily ones of the owners and management of LOTL but of the writers themselves. LotL endeavours to the best of its ability to credit the use of all known photographs to the photographer and/or owner of such photographs (0&EO).
