Press watchdog CPJ reviewing Gaza casualty database over 'journalists' tied to Hamas, PIJ

The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), a global media watchdog, has denied allegations that it is attempting to exclude Palestinian and Lebanese journalists from its records due to alleged ties to Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ). These accusations emerged following a recent investigation by The Times of Israel, which uncovered that some individuals previously listed as journalists in the CPJ’s Gaza casualty database were actually members or affiliates of these armed groups. In response, the CPJ reaffirmed its journalistic criteria, emphasizing that its standards are rooted in international humanitarian law and remain unchanged despite the controversy.

The controversy began when Palestinian writer Mohammed El-Kurd accused the CPJ of altering its definitions to exclude journalists associated with government-funded media outlets in Palestine and Lebanon. His claim was supported by anti-Israel entities such as the Hamas-linked Quds News Network. According to El-Kurd, the CPJ’s revised criteria aimed to appease “Zionist” media by broadly excluding journalists who had died in the Israel-Gaza conflict. However, the CPJ dismissed these allegations as “unsubstantiated,” asserting that its long-standing guidelines continue to recognize journalists working for state-backed media and those affiliated with militant groups, provided they are not actively participating in combat or inciting violence.

The CPJ’s decision to review its Gaza casualty database followed growing concerns about the accuracy of its listings. The Times of Israel revealed that several individuals previously classified as journalists were later identified as Hamas or PIJ operatives. As a result, the CPJ removed eight names from its database after verifying their affiliations with these groups, and another 12 were removed for other reasons. The organization stated that its review process is based on verified information and that it does not act under political pressure. It emphasized that changes to the database occur only when new, credible evidence emerges regarding an individual’s status as a journalist or media worker.

The CPJ’s review process includes using at least two independent sources of information, along with desk-based research and, where possible, in-person verification. However, since the onset of the Israel-Gaza war, in-person verification by external researchers has become nearly impossible due to restricted access to Gaza by international correspondents. Despite these challenges, the CPJ maintains that its standards are consistent with international humanitarian law, which classifies journalists affiliated with non-state actors as civilians unless they are directly involved in hostilities.

In addition to the CPJ’s actions, a study conducted by the Meir Amit Center, an Israeli intelligence and terrorism research institution, found that 60% of individuals who identified as journalists and were killed in Gaza were affiliated with terrorist organizations, predominantly Hamas and PIJ. This finding contradicted claims made by Hamas and certain non-governmental organizations that journalists were being targeted unfairly. Shlomo Mofaz, director of the Meir Amit Center, noted that the issue of misrepresenting combatants as journalists or using “Press” insignia poses a significant risk to the safety of legitimate journalists reporting in conflict zones.

The CPJ has condemned the misrepresentation of combatants as journalists or the misuse of press insignias, stating that such practices endanger the lives of genuine reporters. The organization confirmed that its ongoing review of the Gaza casualty database is expected to conclude by July 2026. Meanwhile, Israel’s Foreign Ministry issued a statement criticizing the CPJ, claiming that it has admitted that many of the individuals listed as journalists in Gaza are actually Hamas and PIJ operatives.

As the situation continues to evolve, the CPJ remains committed to maintaining accurate and impartial records of journalists killed in conflict. Its stance reflects broader debates over the role of media in wartime and the ethical responsibilities of organizations tasked with protecting journalists. With the potential implications for the safety and credibility of journalists in the region, the outcome of the CPJ’s review could influence future discussions on accountability and transparency in conflict reporting.