One of the anti-Israel calumnies that has gained traction in the past few weeks is that the IDF is taking the lives of a disproportionate number of journalists. The idea seems to come from a report issued last month by the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), whose president claims that the Gaza war has been the “deadliest conflict for journalists” since the group started keeping records over 30 years ago. CPJ and those who cite its report also insinuate—or claim flat out—that Israel is systematically targeting these reporters, in what one Washington Post columnist called “an assault on memory, truth, and . . . Palestinian culture.”

The groundwork for these claims—which are entirely without merit—was laid in 2022 after the death of Al Jazeera’s Shireen Abu Akleh. Besides being absurd and unfounded, wrote Michael Oren at the time, “the charge that Israel deliberately killed Abu Akleh and other innocent correspondents reflects an image of Jews as demonic.”

Already in November, the media watchdog CAMERA pointed out that several of these supposed journalists worked directly for Hamas, and others indirectly. Another watchdog, Honest Reporting, observed the blurred lines between reporters and terrorists in Gaza by exposing the active participation of two photojournalists, who work for Reuters and other agencies, in the events of October 7, and their eager messages encouraging others to join in.

In a comprehensive study, David Collier dissects the specific evidence mustered by CPJ, and shows its flimsiness:

Half of the people that CPJ lists as journalists work for Hamas or Islamic Jihad channels. CPJ admits some do, but either from ignorance or laziness it appears unaware of the others. In any case it still lists them all as journalists. This is in direct breach of CPJ’s own guidelines which says working for terrorist groups should discount them. The situation is absurd.

Part of the problem appears to be that CPJ did one-dimensional, lazy, and amateurish research. It took the Hamas list and worked backwards. They probably googled the name and if they found a couple of links in support then they ran with it themselves. This is working the wrong way round.

Because CPJ did not research properly, the entire CPJ list was full of errors. [In fact], many of those included in the lists are not journalists at all.

Tamir Hayman analyzes the latest reports about an offer by Hamas to release three female soldiers in exchange for 150 captured terrorists, of whom 90 have received life sentences; then, if that exchange happens successfully, a second stage of the deal will begin.

If this does happen, Israel will release all the serious prisoners who had been sentenced to life and who are associated with Hamas, which will leave Israel without any bargaining chips for the second stage. In practice, Israel will release everyone who is important to Hamas without getting back all the hostages. In this situation, it’s evident that Israel will approach the second stage of the negotiations in the most unfavorable way possible. Hamas will achieve all its demands in the first stage, except for a commitment from Israel to end the war completely.

How does this relate to the fighting in Rafah? Hayman explains:

In the absence of an agreement or compromise by Hamas, it is detrimental for Israel to continue the static situation we were in. It is positive that new energy has entered the campaign. . . . The [capture of the] border of the Gaza Strip and the Rafah crossing are extremely important achievements, while the ongoing dismantling of the battalions is of secondary importance.

That being said, Hayman is critical of the approach to negotiations taken so far:

Gradual hostage trades don’t work. We must adopt a different concept of a single deal in which Israel offers a complete cessation of the war in exchange for all the hostages.