TEHRAN - In an exclusive interview with the Tehran Times, Abdul-Qader Fayez, chief the Al Jazeera office in Tehran, speaks candidly about Israel’s systematic targeting of journalists in Gaza, including the killing of renowned Al Jazeera correspondent Anas al-Sharif.

According to Fayez, the assassination of journalists is not incidental but an integral part of Israel’s military and political strategy under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Since the beginning of Israel’s war on Gaza, nearly 240 journalists and media workers have lost their lives, many in direct Israeli strikes. Al-Sharif’s death, in particular, has become a symbol across the Arab and Islamic worlds, underlining the dangerous reality faced by Palestinian journalists who, in Fayez’s words, are “treated as military targets simply because they reject Israel’s narrative.”

Fayez explains that Israel has always considered global public opinion a battlefield, and this is why it views independent journalism—especially Al Jazeera’s coverage—as a direct threat to its legitimacy. Unlike other wars, he argues, Gaza stands out because international press protections are completely disregarded and foreign reporters are barred from entering, leaving local journalists with no safety or recognition.

Despite these dangers, Fayez insists that the flow of information cannot be silenced.

This is the text of the interview:

Why do you think journalists such as Anas Al-Sharif have become such significant targets for Israel?

One of the defining features of wars—particularly those involving Israel—is the regime’s obsession with shaping public opinion. Israel’s narrative, whether in historical, political, or security dimensions, has always been constructed around the management of global perceptions. Indeed, one of the key pillars of Israel’s legitimacy over the decades has been its sustained effort to shape international opinion about its founding, its policies, and its behavior.

Within this strategy, the media plays a crucial role, serving as the primary instrument for influencing public perceptions. This explains why Israel places such importance on controlling media narratives. Yet not all outlets submit to Israel’s framing. Al Jazeera, for instance, has consistently resisted broadcasting Tel Aviv’s official version of its wars, especially in Gaza.

Since October 7, Al Jazeera journalists have played a decisive role in shaping public opinion—not only in the Arab and Islamic worlds but increasingly on a global scale. Their presence on the ground from the very outset of the war has made the network a direct target of Israel’s military strategy. This is no coincidence, but rather the result of a deliberate policy.

The worst thing media can do is remain silent in the face of the Gaza tragedy.Dozens of journalists have been killed in Gaza by direct Israeli fire—an undeniable fact that cannot be dismissed as rumor or allegation. To date, nearly 240 journalists and media workers have lost their lives. The most recent case was the direct assault on an Al Jazeera team inside a tent at a hospital, which led to the killing of Anas al-Sharif.

Al-Sharif—may he rest in peace—has since become a powerful symbol in Arab, Islamic, and even global public opinion. Israel understands this significance all too well, which is precisely why his assassination carried multiple messages: journalists and media outlets that reject the Israeli narrative have no immunity and will be treated as military targets.

Al Jazeera journalists in Gaza are undertaking extremely dangerous and high-risk work, yet it is their conscious choice. They are not only media professionals, but also Palestinians, Arabs, and Muslims. It is precisely these identities that render them a threat in Israel’s eyes—one the regime seeks to eliminate.

For this reason, figures such as Anas al-Sharif and his colleagues—whether at Al Jazeera or other outlets—have become direct targets. They have been martyred, and tragically, others are likely to follow the same path.

Do you see evidence that these actions are part of a deliberate policy?

A growing number of voices within the media, human rights, and political spheres worldwide argue that the killing of journalists is not accidental but part of Israel’s deliberate military and political strategy under Prime Minister Netanyahu. The Israeli army spokesperson even attempted to smear Al Jazeera correspondents—most notably Anas al-Sharif—by falsely accusing him of belonging to Hamas’s military wing, the Qassam Brigades. This baseless claim was designed to retroactively justify his killing as the elimination of a “military target” rather than a journalist.

The reality, however, is clear: Israel has never conducted serious investigations into the killing of journalists. The case of Shireen Abu Akleh in the West Bank remains the most telling example. Despite admitting that she was killed by Israeli forces, Tel Aviv took no real action. The impunity surrounding her murder opened the door for repeated crimes against journalists in Gaza today.

At Al Jazeera, we have no doubt that targeting journalists is part of Israel’s deliberate policy. But this conviction is not ours alone; many international human rights organizations and media watchdogs in the West share the same assessment. Yet as long as those responsible—within Israel’s military and government—are not prosecuted and held accountable, these crimes will continue, and their recurrence remains inevitable.

Israel employs assassination and direct targeting of journalists as a means to silence dissenting voices.

The experience of Al Jazeera makes one truth undeniable: Israel employs assassination and direct targeting of journalists as a means to silence dissenting voices. And among those voices, Al Jazeera has become one of the most important—and for Israel, the most intolerable.

How would you compare Israel’s approach toward journalists in Gaza with patterns you have observed in other war zones?

We believe that wherever a war breaks out, journalism and the media immediately become a point of reference—whether at the international level, the regional level, or within the country at war. Experience has shown that journalists and media workers are always on the front lines of danger. In conflicts such as the Libyan civil war after the popular uprising, the crisis in Syria, or the war in Iraq, although many journalists lost their lives, international law and regional regulations regarding the protection of journalists were still observed to some extent. Global organizations and regional institutions acted as a reference point and exerted pressure to safeguard journalists’ rights.

The war in Gaza, however, is fundamentally different. In Gaza, none of these laws are respected. Palestinian journalists, like ordinary civilians, are treated as legitimate targets of war. Israel does not even recognize them as “journalists,” but rather considers them part of the opposing side of the conflict.

Another key difference is access for foreign journalists. In most wars—whether internal conflicts or wars between states—both sides usually allow international reporters to enter and present the realities to the world. But since October 7, Israel has completely barred foreign correspondents from entering Gaza. As a result, only local journalists have been able to cover the war. Yet, from Israel’s perspective, they lack legitimacy, are denied recognition as journalists, and therefore enjoy no international protection. The war in Gaza is thus being waged without the presence of international reporters, without adherence to international law, and with local journalists deliberately targeted.

This has enabled Israel to cast doubt on the global narrative of the Gaza war and to manage international public opinion. Israel is fully aware that if independent foreign correspondents from major global outlets were present in Gaza, the world would witness the reality of massacred civilians, severe famine, and the bombing of schools, hospitals, and refugee camps. While local journalists have courageously brought these truths to light, reports by American, European, or other international correspondents would carry far greater weight in shaping global public opinion.

In what ways does Al Jazeera’s experience in Gaza resemble or differ from its experiences in other conflict areas?

Al Jazeera, as an international news network, has prioritized coverage of developments in the Arab and Islamic world. The network has extensive experience in reporting wars and conflicts, ranging from Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Tunisia, and Yemen to the Caucasus, the Korean Peninsula, and Latin America. In all of these crises, Al Jazeera sought to maintain neutrality and present realities from multiple angles, following the editorial and ethical standards set in its own charter.

From the very beginning, however, Israel has viewed Al Jazeera not as a media outlet but as an adversary. 

From the very beginning, however, Israel has viewed Al Jazeera not as a media outlet but as an adversary. Its offices in Israel and the West Bank were closed, leaving only its Gaza bureau—which remains open solely because Israel cannot directly shut it down. Israel has consistently tried to discredit the network, portraying it as a mouthpiece for Hamas, thereby labeling its staff as “legitimate targets.” This has placed enormous pressure on Al Jazeera’s journalists. Several of them have been killed in Gaza—not by accident, but through deliberate targeting by the Israeli military. The human losses suffered by Al Jazeera in Gaza are greater than in any other conflict zone. The assassination of veteran correspondent Shireen Abu Akleh in the West Bank is a stark reminder of this reality: she was shot dead by Israeli soldiers, yet no court held anyone accountable. A trial, at the very least, would have sent a deterrent message.

How do these attacks affect freedom of expression and the free flow of information?

From the perspective of press freedom and the free flow of information, the impact is profound. Israel’s systematic targeting of journalists is clearly intended to suppress reporting, yet it has not succeeded. Al Jazeera and local reporters continue to convey the story of Gaza to the world. The cost, however, has been extraordinarily high. For journalists and media workers, their work is now ten times more dangerous than before. Even more alarming, the killing of journalists is gradually becoming normalized in global public opinion—a development that was once considered a red line under international law. The danger is that such acts, alongside the broader humanitarian catastrophe of famine and mass civilian killings in Gaza, are becoming part of the “normal” landscape of war.

Despite all this, the flow of information has not been silenced—and it cannot be silenced. Local journalists and international networks such as Al Jazeera continue to transmit the reality of Gaza to the world. Although the price is heavy, in the end, the victory will belong to press freedom and the free flow of information. In today’s interconnected world, it is no longer possible to fully extinguish independent narratives. New communication tools, international media institutions, global legal frameworks, and a new generation of journalists all ensure that the struggle for truth will endure and adapt, resisting every attempt to block it.

What responsibility do international media outlets have in preventing emergence of a one-sided narrative?

In my view, the responsibility of international media regarding the Gaza war is becoming heavier and more important every day. The main question is: if tragedies similar to those occurring in Gaza happen again in Palestine or anywhere else in the world, how will media fulfill their duties properly?

Today, global media are more than ever obligated to go beyond the political arena and operate with a humanitarian and ethical perspective. Neutrality is essential in journalism, but in certain situations, being neutral does not mean turning a blind eye to the truth and the suffering of the oppressed. In Gaza, the reality is clear: civilians are the primary victims of the war, and this is the truth that the media must reflect.

Currently, a notable press movement has emerged worldwide—in the Western world, Asia, Central Asia, and Latin America—in response to what is happening in Gaza, although it is not yet complete. International media are important from three perspectives:

First, the media industry itself demonstrates that it is not political and must carry out its professional duties.

Second, it must not be forgotten that once the war ends, all those responsible for the conflict should not simply return to normal life, and it is the responsibility of international media to follow up on this and ensure they are held accountable.

Third, if international media perform their role correctly regarding Gaza, they can help prevent the repetition of such atrocities in other parts of the world in the future.

Do you believe that the silence of certain media organizations contributes to the continuation of this pattern?

Ultimately, the silence of political leaders, human rights institutions, military authorities, social bodies, and international organizations—and of media outlets that remain silent in the face of Gaza—is itself another catastrophe. This silence carries a heavy cost—not for the Palestinians, for the issue of Palestine has always existed and will continue—but at the regional and international level, silence has consequences.

The worst thing media can do is remain silent in the face of this tragedy. War is also a battle of narratives, and the media must publish alternative accounts to counter the Israeli army’s narrative, which the world is not fully convinced by, and ensure that other voices are heard. Therefore, silence is the worst course of action.