Israel-Hamas Thread II

A new in-depth study (Hebrew) by Israel's Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Centre concludes that a significant majority of those identified as journalists and media workers killed during the Gaza war were not neutral news gatherers, but belonged to terrorist organisations, including Hamas and "Palestinian" Islamic Jihad.

The study examined 266 "Palestinians" who were described as journalists or media workers in various press reports and official lists and who were killed between the outbreak of hostilities on Oct 7 2023 and the end of 2025. According to the findings, at least 157 of these victims, about 60 per cent, were members of terrorist organisations or had clear links to such organisations, including in roles involving both propaganda and operational activities.

Of these, 104 were affiliated with Hamas, 45 with "Palestinian" Islamic Jihad, and a smaller number with the armed wings of Fatah, the Popular Front for the Liberation of "Palestine", the Democratic Front for the Liberation of "Palestine", or the Popular Resistance Committees.

The analysis by the intelligence centre emphasises that these were not isolated or random cases. Rather, many of the individuals counted as journalists were involved in terrorist networks, they were employed by media companies run by Hamas or its allies, or were actively involved in military units. In a number of documented cases, individuals described as media professionals also acted as fighters or agents, reflecting a deliberate strategy by terrorist organisations to combine media work with operational objectives.

For decades, Hamas has invested heavily in its information apparatus and treats the media as a central front in its ideological and tactical campaigns. Its own publications and channels are strictly controlled by the movement and not by independent press associations, which reinforces the link between media work and political warfare.

International press freedom organisations and human rights groups have repeatedly cited the casualties among journalists in Gaza as evidence of disproportionate use of force or targeted attacks by Israeli forces. Last year, Reporters Without Borders claimed that Israel was responsible for a large proportion of journalist deaths worldwide, citing dozens of "Palestinian" media workers killed in the conflict. Such assessments have been used to portray Israel as particularly hostile to media workers.

However, the Intelligence Centre's study puts this portrayal into perspective by showing that a significant proportion of those identified as journalists were not independent or neutral reporters, but rather were affiliated with terrorist organisations. Many of those counted were associated with media outlets effectively controlled by Hamas or other militant factions, making them part of the political and military apparatus of those organisations rather than autonomous observers.

The category ‘journalist’ in Gaza can no longer be regarded as synonymous with neutrality without carefully examining the affiliation and role of each individual.

Benaiah468 said:

A new in-depth study by Israel's Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Centre concludes that a significant majority of those identified as journalists and media workers killed during the Gaza war were not neutral news gatherers, but belonged to terrorist organisations, including Hamas and "Palestinian" Islamic Jihad.

Click to expand...

A clearly invested source accuses others of not neuteral. Whilst I deplore the state of journalism worldwide, with a predisposition to advocate for positions rather than to provide information, I would not see Meir Amit as a source of information that was not geared to heavily side with the Israeli Defence Force.

Philip_B said:

A clearly invested source accuses others of not neuteral. Whilst I deplore the state of journalism worldwide, with a predisposition to advocate for positions rather than to provide information, I would not see Meir Amit as a source of information that was not geared to heavily side with the Israeli Defence Force.

Click to expand...

The bitter truth is that there is no independent journalism in Gaza. Every photographer, every cameraman, every reporter works under the thumb of Hamas. The terrorist organisation's Government Media Office controls filming permits, access and topics with an iron fist. Without Hamas' consent, no images from detention cellars, no recordings of looted aid supplies, no evidence of the recruitment of minors are ever made public.

International teams have not been granted entry permits for a long time. The few exceptions are closely supervised visits under military escort. In this way, Hamas determines which images the world gets to see and Western editorial offices willingly swallow this curated reality.

Benaiah468 said:

The bitter truth is that there is no independent journalism in Gaza. Every photographer, every cameraman, every reporter works under the thumb of Hamas. The terrorist organisation's Government Media Office controls filming permits, access and topics with an iron fist. Without Hamas' consent, no images from detention cellars, no recordings of looted aid supplies, no evidence of the recruitment of minors are ever made public.

International teams have not been granted entry permits for a long time. The few exceptions are closely supervised visits under military escort. In this way, Hamas determines which images the world gets to see and Western editorial offices willingly swallow this curated reality.

Click to expand...

That is a deflection, and does not change what I said. I have little doubt that everybody involved is invested in telling a one sided story.

Philip_B said:

That is a deflection, and does not change what I said. I have little doubt that everybody involved is invested in telling a one sided story.

Click to expand...

The Meir Amit Centre has shown that a large proportion of the ‘journalists’ allegedly killed in the Gaza war were in fact members or active supporters of Hamas & Co. As long as media and journalists fail to clearly state that their ‘partners’ on the ground in Gaza are often directly embedded in Hamas structures, the picture they paint has little to do with the reality on the ground. In Gaza, Hamas controls everything: journalists, ministries, hospitals, schools, kindergartens, markets and shops, from which it systematically collects taxes. Those who report from Gaza never report freely; every figure, every image, every story passes through the Hamas control structure. Anyone who wants to seriously engage in the debate about ‘killed journalists’ or ‘official information from Gaza’ must acknowledge these realities. Anything else means unwittingly feeding Hamas' PR machine.

A new report sheds harsh light on the PA stance on the Hamas terrorist attack of Oct 7 2023. According to "Palestinian" researcher Hani al-Masri, PA leader Mahmoud Abbas described the massacre of Israeli civilians on the morning of the attack as ‘the greatest day in "Palestinian" history’, a statement that further shakes the already fragile trust in the leadership in Ramallah

MEMRI TV
3:08ff

Al-Masri, head of the "Palestinian" think tank Masarat, the Centre for Policy Research and Strategic Studies, made this statement in an interview with "Palestinian" YouTuber Ahmad Biqawi. The topic was the "Palestinian" leadership's immediate response to the Hamas attack in southern Israel. If the account is accurate, it reveals not only a lack of political distance, but also a deeper ideological affinity with an act of violence that has traumatised Israel.

The reaction from Jerusalem was correspondingly clear. The Israeli Foreign Ministry published an excerpt from the interview and publicly asked whether this was really the ‘authority’ that should be established internationally as an alternative to Hamas. The accusation is that terrorism is not being condemned, but legitimised. What is explosive about this is that Al-Masri himself is part of the "Palestinian" establishment and a member of the board of trustees of the Yasser Arafat Foundation.

The statements fit into a familiar pattern. Al-Masri also confirmed that the "Palestinian" Authority continues to make payments to the families of imprisoned terrorists and so-called ‘martyrs’, despite repeated promises to the EU and the US to end this practice. The internationally criticised ‘pay-for-slay’ system therefore continues to exist, albeit in a modified form.

Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa'ar accused the PA of deceiving the international community once again. Payments to convicted murderers are now declared as pensions or social benefits for members of the "Palestinian" security services. However, nothing has changed at its core. ‘This is distorted. End “pay-for-slay” now,’ Sa'ar demanded.

x.com

Against this backdrop, the latest revelations take on particular significance. While Western capitals continue to discuss reforming or ‘revitalising’ the "Palestinian" Authority, such statements and practices reveal the huge gap between political rhetoric and actual attitudes. Anyone who does not clearly condemn Oct 7, but instead romanticises it as a historic moment, places themselves outside any credible peace process.

Turkey on the brink of humiliation: As part of his 20-point peace plan, the Turkish president wants to send troops into Gaza, which does not bode well for the Jewish state. If he does not invade, he could be out of the game.

Have you heard the latest news? Turkish special forces are ready for ‘immediate deployment in Gaza.’ Of course, according to their dictator, everyone everywhere must immediately take note of this important announcement and express their unconditional support.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has recently become increasingly impatient with the apparent lack of response to his important announcements regarding the Gaza Strip. Does anyone even know that such a thing as a Turkish special forces unit exists?

It seems as if he is on the verge of an increasingly embarrassing geopolitical situation. He is concerned about impending humiliation, rightly so, and about appearing irrelevant to his Arab neighbours, as Israel has effectively excluded him from participating in the International Stabilisation Force (ISF) as defined in Phase II of US President Donald Trump's 20-point plan for the Gaza Strip.

The International Food Security Index (IPC), which works on behalf of the UN, has fundamentally changed its assessment of the situation in the Gaza Strip. In its report published this week, the committee concluded for the first time since the start of the fighting that no famine had been detected in any area of the Gaza Strip. The IPC is thus correcting its own analysis from August, which still spoke of acute hunger and predicted that the situation would worsen.

This prediction did not come true. The current report acknowledges that the criteria for famine have not been met in Gaza City, Deir al-Balah or Khan Yunis. The IPC explicitly attributes this development to the ceasefire, the reduced intensity of the fighting and the massive expansion of humanitarian and commercial supplies.

Despite this clear turnaround, the tone of the report remains problematic. Instead of clearly focusing on the retraction of the famine diagnosis, the IPC continues to speak of ‘persistent food insecurity’ and warns of a ‘fragile situation.’ These are terms that are politically compatible and continue to generate international pressure, even though the central claim of earlier reports has been factually refuted.

The reaction in Jerusalem was correspondingly sharp. The coordinator for government activities in the territories stated that the report conspicuously ignored the actual quantities of food that had entered the Gaza Strip during the ceasefire. The conclusions appeared, according to the accusation, ‘distorted and pre-formulated’.

The Foreign Ministry also criticised the fact that the IPC relied almost exclusively on deliveries from UN organisations. However, these accounted for only around 20 per cent of all aid deliveries. The majority of supplies came from other international actors and commercial channels, which were hardly or not at all taken into account in the report.

According to Israeli figures, between 600 and 800 aid trucks pass through the crossings into the Gaza Strip every day. Around 70 per cent of these vehicles transport food. During the ceasefire alone, almost 30,000 trucks carrying more than 500,000 tonnes of food reached Gaza. This is many times more than what the IPC itself had described as necessary in earlier calculations.

There is another factor that is mentioned in the report but not consistently classified: distribution within the Gaza Strip. For months, Israel has been emphasising that the core problem is not access to food, but its distribution to the civilian population. Armed Hamas units systematically seize aid supplies, sell them on or use them to secure their power. Although this structural problem is hinted at in the IPC report, it is not identified as a key obstacle.

The claim that Israel is causing famine in Gaza has been one of the most effective political slogans of recent months. It has served as a moral cudgel, a legal lever and a constant topic in the media.

The fact that this claim has now been officially withdrawn fundamentally changes the facts of the case. This makes it all the more striking how cautiously and ambiguously this withdrawal has been worded. Instead of providing clarity, it leaves room for interpretations that perpetuate the old accusation in a watered-down form.

The IPC report shows that reality has not conformed to the narrative. The question now is whether the narrative will finally follow reality.

During the Gaza War, Israel sent tonnes of baby food to the Gaza Strip. Nevertheless, Hamas claimed that Israel was starving children. This accusation was taken up by ‘critics of Israel’ in Germany and dominated media coverage and political debates for months. But it was Hamas that deliberately starved babies. Large quantities of baby food were apparently found in warehouses belonging to the "Palestinian" Ministry of Health in Gaza. A "Palestinian" critic of Hamas confirmed to American journalists that Hamas stole baby food in order to defame Israel as a child murderer.

The Gaza Ministry of Health, in whose warehouses the stolen baby food was found, is the same authority whose figures and ‘press releases’ are regularly quoted by Western media, even though it is well known that this ministry belongs to Hamas and spreads misinformation.

There is little or no reporting in the British media and in politics about the discovery of baby food in Hamas warehouses. Pro-"Palestinian" activists and ‘human rights activists’ are also silent about this further crime committed by Hamas. The threat of starvation of a "Palestinian" child seems to be of interest only when it can be used to demonise Israel.

I think that after 5,170 posts and 259 pages on this forum, everything that has to be said has been said. We all know where we stand, and nothing will change it. We get it!

Some people support Palestine and see Israel as genocidal maniacs. In contrast, others see the Palestinians as brainwashed Jehadi extremists who, even though their closest Muslim allies refuse to take them in as refugees, know that they will only use the host country as a standing ground to continue their hostility.

All I am saying is that Israel and Palestine should see this through without intervention from anyone, including the US. Like a nature documentary, we should observe and see the results for ourselves. Continuing to argue and debate, based on the number of posts, is a fruitless endeavor. So please stop the cheerleading. This is a war that has been fought for thousands of years. Therefore, it is best that we stay out of it and let them continue to do what they have always done.

Oompa Loompa said:

This is a war that has been fought for thousands of years.

Click to expand...

Not even close. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict began in the late 19th century with the rise of Zionism and the eventual creation of the state of Israel in 1948.

JosephZ said:

Not even close. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict began in the late 19th century with the rise of Zionism and the eventual creation of the state of Israel in 1948.

Click to expand...

The Israel-Palestinian conflict began in the late 19th century. Lol! So did the crusades ever happen? Or is that another liberal reinvention of history? If you actually look at the history, you will find that the Bible is accurate in that the land was always in dispute since before David threw a stone to slay a Philistine called "Goliath." So, stop blindly accepting whatever AI source you choose to data mine, as it may confirm your existing biases.

Oompa Loompa said:

The Israel-Palestinian conflict began in the late 19th century. Lol! So did the crusades ever happen? Or is that another liberal reinvention of history? If you actually look at the history, you will find that the Bible is accurate in that the land was always in dispute since before David threw a stone to slay a Philistine called "Goliath." So, stop blindly accepting whatever AI source you choose to data mine, as it may confirm your existing biases.

Click to expand...

Again, after over 5k posts, I do not belive for a second that this information was never brought up. Which leads me to belive that I'm the information does not matter and is no longer worth discussing. We get it, you hate Jews, and others disagree. Nothing new under the sun.

Oompa Loompa said:

The Israel-Palestinian conflict began in the late 19th century. Lol! So did the crusades ever happen? Or is that another liberal reinvention of history? If you actually look at the history, you will find that the Bible is accurate in that the land was always in dispute since before David threw a stone to slay a Philistine called "Goliath."

Click to expand...

I have looked at history, and none of what you wrote has anything at all to do with the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians today.

JosephZ said:

I have looked at history, and none of what you wrote has anything at all to do with the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians today.

Click to expand...

So you just want to argue about the fact that Jews and Palestinians have been fighting for thousands of years with a weak "Well, technically the modern conflict occurred just until the 19th century." You completely ignored all the history prior. I do not know what AI source you are using, but I asked the question, "What is the history of the conflict between Israel and Palestine?" The answer was just the trash you just regurgitate. Then I asked, "What historical evidence shows that rhe conflict occurred before the 19th century?" The response was "There is substantial historical evidence of violent and political conflict over the land long before the rise of modern Zionism and Palestinian nationalism in the 19th century."

Oompa Loompa said:

So you just want to argue about the fact that Jews and Palestinians have been fighting for thousands of years with a weak "Well, technically the modern conflict occurred just until the 19th century

Click to expand...

The statement I made is historically accurate.

Oompa Loompa said:

I do not know what AI source you are using, but I asked the question, "What is the history of the conflict between Israel and Palestine?" The answer was just the trash you just regurgitate.

Click to expand...

Gee, I wonder why? Could it be that this is what history tells us?

Oompa Loompa said:

I do not know what AI source you are using, but I asked the question, "What is the history of the conflict between Israel and Palestine?" The answer was just the trash you just regurgitate. Then I asked, "What historical evidence shows that rhe conflict occurred before the 19th century?" The response was "There is substantial historical evidence of violent and political conflict over the land long before the rise of modern Zionism and Palestinian nationalism in the 19th century."

Click to expand...

I'm not using AI, but the AI source you're relying on is correct in saying that there has been conflict over the land long before the rise of modern Zionism and Palestinian nationalism in the 19th century. However, what you don't seem to understand is those conflicts were unrelated to the current Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Life in Gaza under the ceasefire:
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/12/02/middleeast/children-killed-israeli-drone-firewood-gaza-intl-latam

Tamer Abu Assi was preparing breakfast for his two young boys Saturday morning when he realized he had run out of firewood. Fadi, 8, and Jumaa, 10, went out to fetch some, as their father is paralyzed and wheelchair-bound. They never came back. An agonizing wait ensued, as he went to identify the bodies.
Abu Assi was waiting for them to return so he could set the table, when nearby residents rushed to his shelter saying two kids had been targeted and killed by Israeli troops. “Are they my children?” he recalled asking.
“I removed the shroud and hugged them. My little Juju’s head was blown off; God rest his soul… His arms were severed and parts of his torso were gone,” he said, trembling. “Fadi’s right hand and left leg were cut off,” he added.
Jumaa and Fadi were killed by an Israeli drone strike in the town of Bani Suheila, to the east of their shelter in Khan Younis, according to the family. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) acknowledged carrying out the strike in a statement, calling the children “two suspects who crossed the yellow line, conducted suspicious activities on the ground, and approached IDF troops operating in the southern Gaza Strip, posing an immediate threat to them.” “Following the identification, the IAF (Israeli Air Force) eliminated the suspects in order to remove the threat,” it continued.

Click to expand...

These were the two boys who were posing an "immediate threat":

Vanellus said:

Life in Gaza under the ceasefire:
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/12/02/middleeast/children-killed-israeli-drone-firewood-gaza-intl-latam

These were the two boys who were posing an "immediate threat":

Click to expand...

What are children doing in the immediate vicinity of a restricted military zone, tragically killed in a drone strike, but foreseeable. There are warning signs alerting adults to the danger of this situation. And these warnings do not only apply to adults.

Where are these irresponsible parents? They knew exactly what they were doing when they sent their children to their certain death. The rule that the Yellow line must not be crossed under any circumstances has been clearly communicated by the IDF. Just because they are children does not mean that the rule is suspended.

The IDF has repeatedly warned „Palestinians“ not to approach Israeli troops still stationed in Gaza amid the ceasefire. The military has also begun placing physical markers along the Yellow Line, in addition to an online map showing the boundaries.

Obviously there are „Palestinians“, who do not know the rules of the game and as long as that is the case, more unnecessary blood will be shed. They are the ones primarily responsible and guilty of the deaths of their own children by breaking the rules of the ceasefire.

A strategic decision has been made in Florida. Israel and the United States are jointly entering the next phase of the Gaza agreement. The price is high, the timing is delicate, and the political consequences will extend into the upcoming Israeli election campaign.

At their meeting in Mar-a-Lago, Benjamin Netanyahu and Donald Trump decided to move on to phase two of the agreement to end the fighting in the Gaza Strip. This is the first official step that goes beyond the previous ceasefire and entails concrete measures on the ground. According to information from Israeli and American government circles, reconstruction activities are to begin in parts of the southern Gaza Strip, particularly in the Rafah area. This is happening even though the terrorist organization Hamas has not yet been disarmed or dismantled.

The core of the agreement lies in pragmatic logic. Washington is pushing for visible progress in order to demonstrate political stability and finally leave the phase of military escalation behind. Jerusalem, in turn, accepts this step, even though Israel's key security demands remain unresolved. A high-ranking Israeli government official confirmed that President Trump was not prepared to link the transition to phase two to the return of the body of slain Israeli hostage Rani Guaily. For many of the victims' families, this is a painful point, but for the political leadership, it is part of a larger strategic calculation.

Specifically, the new phase means the start of limited reconstruction work in areas controlled by the Israeli army where much of the terrorist infrastructure has been destroyed. At the same time, the US is increasing pressure on Israel to open the Rafah border crossing in both directions. From the perspective of Trump's American advisors, this step is necessary to involve international actors and pave the way for broader regional responsibility. In Jerusalem, this pressure is viewed with skepticism, as Rafah is considered the most sensitive security point in the entire Gaza Strip.

What is remarkable is what was expressly not agreed upon at Mar-a-Lago. There is no stipulation regarding the timeframe for disarming Hamas. There is no mechanism for monitoring such a process. The future political administration of the Gaza Strip also remains unclear. Neither an international security contingent nor a Palestinian technocratic government has been defined so far. According to Israeli decision-makers, neither side had any interest in publicly deepening these differences as long as the overall picture of the post-war order remains unclear.

Beyond the security policy dimension, the meeting also has a clear domestic political component. In Jerusalem, there are increasing signs that the Israeli parliamentary elections could be brought forward. Political observers increasingly believe that an election date in June is realistic. Trump's invitation to travel to Israel in May to receive the Israel Prize is interpreted in this context as a deliberate signal. A visit by the American president in the middle of the election campaign would provide Netanyahu with foreign policy backing and underscore his leadership role.

For Trump, on the other hand, the agreement is part of his foreign policy self-promotion. In conversations with relatives of hostages, he emphasized once again that all releases had taken place during his term in office. At the same time, he avoided making concrete promises that he could not guarantee. This sober tone differs significantly from previous American positions and is perceived in Israel as both honesty and emotional distance.

The transition to phase two thus marks not a conclusion, but a risky interim state. Israel gains time and international room for maneuver, but for the time being refrains from fully enforcing key security objectives. The United States is securing diplomatic maneuvering room, but accepts that Hamas' structural power has not yet been broken. Whether this balancing act will lead to stability or create new tensions will not be decided in Mar-a-Lago, but in Rafah, in Jerusalem, and ultimately at the ballot box.

Behind the scenes of the talks with the Trump administration, a strategic conflict is intensifying. Israel is pushing to keep Turkey out of the planned Board of Peace. The concern goes far beyond diplomatic vanity and focuses on the core issue of post-war security.

In recent weeks, Israel has expressly asked Donald Trump's administration not to include Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan in the planned Board of Peace. This body is intended to accompany and steer the post-war political and security order as part of Trump's plan for Gaza. From Israel's point of view, the composition of the council is of crucial importance for the future of the Gaza Strip.

According to several sources familiar with the talks, the issue was raised in direct contacts between senior Israeli and American government officials. Jerusalem has made it clear that it wants to keep Ankara's political and operational influence in Gaza as low as possible. Israel had previously vetoed the deployment of Turkish troops as part of the International Stabilization Force, which is to be deployed in the next phase of the agreement.

However, the core of Israel's concern runs deeper. In Jerusalem, there are fears that greater Turkish involvement could not only delay the process of disarming Hamas, but could actually undermine it. According to Israeli security circles, Ankara has no strategic interest in completely weakening Hamas. Rather, Turkish politics continues to view the organization as a legitimate political actor through which influence can be exerted in Gaza. From Israel's perspective, a Turkish presence on the Board of Peace or a leading role in the reconstruction would give Erdogan the opportunity to exert pressure against consistent disarmament or to tacitly block it. This would create the danger that Hamas would survive politically and be indirectly supported, disguised as humanitarian or diplomatic involvement.

This stance is in direct contradiction to Trump's public statements. At the beginning of his meeting with Benjamin Netanyahu in Mar-a-Lago, the US president said he considered Turkish involvement to be fundamentally positive. He praised Erdogan as a reliable partner and referred to their personal relationship of trust. These words caused unease in Jerusalem, as they contrast with Israel's security assessments.

At the same time, Israel is working to limit Turkish influence in the reconstruction of Gaza. Government circles say that Ankara is attempting to establish a permanent foothold in the region through humanitarian projects, infrastructure measures, and civil organizations. Such a presence would enable Turkey to influence local power structures and shape political narratives. This is particularly problematic for Israel as long as there is no reliable guarantee that Hamas will be completely disarmed.

The issue is controversial within the Trump administration. Some advisers argue that Erdogan must be part of the peace committee because Turkey, together with Egypt and Qatar, is considered a guarantor of the agreements with Hamas. However, other voices in Washington point to Erdogan's increasingly confrontational stance toward Israel and the risks associated with Turkey playing a key role.

A final decision on the composition of the Board of Peace has yet to be made. In the coming weeks, Trump plans to announce both the members of this committee and the structure of a Palestinian technocratic government. This government is to consist of candidates approved by Israel after a security screening process.

Additional tensions are arising from the growing geopolitical differences between Israel and Turkey outside Gaza. Following Israel's recognition of Somaliland as an independent state, Erdogan reacted sharply, accusing Israel of seeking to destabilize the Horn of Africa. At the same time, Ankara announced new energy and infrastructure projects in Somalia. In Jerusalem, this is seen as a further sign that Turkey is systematically expanding its regional influence.

Against this backdrop, Israel's intervention in Washington is seen as a preventive measure. The aim is to prevent the reconstruction of Gaza from becoming a geopolitical lever for a state whose leadership treats Hamas not as a terrorist organization but as a political factor. Whether Trump will follow this line remains to be seen. What is clear, however, is that Turkey's role is likely to become one of the most sensitive points of contention in the coming phase.