Probe by rights groups, wire services finds Israeli attack on journalists in Lebanon was likely to have been intentional

The camera that belonged to Reuters journalist Issam Abdallah, who was killed on Oct. 13, is displayed during a press conference. (Reuters)
Short Url
Updated 08 December 2023
Follow

Probe by rights groups, wire services finds Israeli attack on journalists in Lebanon was likely to have been intentional

  • Evidence suggests that the military had knowledge that the individuals were civilians
  • Intentionally targeting civilians is a war crime

LONDON: Investigations by Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, Reuters, and Agence France-Presse have found that an Israeli attack on Oct. 13 was likely to have been a deliberate assault by the Israel Defense Forces on civilians, which is a war crime.

The attack killed journalist Issam Abdallah, from Reuters, and injured six others including Carmen Joukhadar and Elie Brakhya from Al Jazeera; Dylan Collins and Christina Assi from AFP; and Thaer al-Sudani and Maher Nazeh from Reuters. 

The reports include witness testimony and are based on analysis of videos, audio, munition remnants, and satellite imagery verified by the organizations, as well as multiple interviews with officials and civilians.

Aya Majzoub, Amnesty International’s deputy regional director for the Middle East and North Africa, said: “Our investigation into the incident uncovers chilling evidence pointing to an attack on a group of international journalists who were carrying out their work by reporting on hostilities.

“Direct attacks on civilians and indiscriminate attacks are absolutely prohibited by international humanitarian law and can amount to war crimes.”

The findings are in line with the Committee to Protect Journalists’ report “Deadly Pattern,” published in May, which showed lethal force by the Israel Defense Forces had left 20 journalists dead over the last 22 years, without any accountability.

The CPJ said it welcomed the four reports and “reiterates its call for an immediate, independent, and transparent investigation that holds the perpetrators to account.”

Ramzi Kaiss, Lebanon researcher at Human Rights Watch, said: “This is not the first time that Israeli forces have apparently deliberately attacked journalists, with deadly and devastating results.”

The attack on Oct. 13 occurred at around 6 p.m. The group of journalists had gathered as early as 4:45 p.m. in a clearing on a hilltop in Alma Al-Shaab, to film ongoing fighting on Lebanon’s southern border with Israel.

Journalists from Al Jazeera had conducted two live TV reports, the first at 4:55 p.m. and the second at 5:24 p.m., from the same location. 

Live transmissions by Reuters and AFP were also broadcast on air by several television stations during that period. 

The journalists had remained stationary for over 75 minutes before they were hit, and none of the evidence indicated the presence of any military target near the journalists.

All seven journalists were wearing helmets and blue ballistic vests with labels that said “PRESS,” and were clearly identifiable as journalists.

Footage also shows the group wearing the clearly marked vests and helmets in the same area, near a car marked with “TV” in large letters on its hood.

Five cameras belonging to journalists indirectly captured the attack and its aftermath, shedding light on how the attack was carried out and from where.

Evidence reviewed by the organizations indicates that the Israeli military knew or should have known that the people they were firing on were civilians.

The journalists interviewed said that the first attack struck Abdallah, killing him instantly, and badly injuring photojournalist Assi. 

Just 37 seconds later, the car owned by Al Jazeera was engulfed in flames and destroyed by a second attack, resulting in more injuries to journalists.  

Majzoub said: “Under international humanitarian law, parties to a conflict have a clear obligation to protect civilians, including journalists, and must at all times distinguish between civilians and civilian objects on one hand and fighters and military objectives on the other.”

HRW asserted that “warring parties are obligated to take all feasible precautions to avoid harm to civilians” and must “verify that targets are military objectives.”

It also suggested that Israel’s key allies, Germany, Canada, the US and the UK, “should suspend military assistance and arms sales to Israel, given the real risk that they will be used to commit grave abuses.”

Kaiss said: “The evidence strongly suggests that Israeli forces knew or should have known that the group that they were attacking were journalists.

“This was an unlawful and apparently deliberate attack on a very visible group of journalists.”


Study finds nearly half of UK news stories on Muslims show signs of bias

Updated 09 March 2026
Follow

Study finds nearly half of UK news stories on Muslims show signs of bias

  • Centre for Media Monitoring finds 20,000 out of 40,913 articles from 30 major news outlets contain bias and 70% link Muslims to negative behaviors or themes
  • Findings reveal ‘deeply concerning evidence of structural bias’ in portrayal of Muslims by UK press and point to ‘systemic problem’ within the media, says center’s director

LONDON: Nearly half of news articles published in the UK in 2025 that referenced Muslims or Islam contained some degree of bias, according to a report issued on Monday by the Centre for Media Monitoring. It also found that about 70 percent of stories linked Muslims to negative behaviors or themes.

The nonprofit organization, which tracks the ways in which Muslims and Islam are portrayed in the media, examined 40,913 articles from 30 major news outlets and found that about 20,000 showed some form of bias.

The study looked at “structural patterns” in coverage that “shape public narratives” about Muslims amid rising hostility toward the community.

“As the largest study of its kind ever conducted in the UK, this report presents deeply concerning evidence of structural bias in how Muslims are portrayed in the UK press,” said Rizwana Hamid, the director of the organization.

It found that 70 percent of the articles it reviewed highlighted negative aspects related to Muslims, though not all of the stories were biased in themselves. The wider patterns were also troubling: 44 percent of the coverage omitted key context, 17 percent relied on generalizations, and 13 percent included outright misrepresentation.

Taken together, the monitoring center said, the findings amounted to evidence of an “information integrity crisis” that distorts public understanding, and “a deeply concerning trend” in reporting on Muslims.

The research points to a “systemic problem within our media ecosystem,” Hamid said.

“When entire communities are repeatedly framed through lenses of suspicion or threat, it inevitably shapes public attitudes, political debate and the everyday lives of British Muslims,” she added.

News brands targeting right-wing audiences were more likely to produce biased coverage, the report found.

The Spectator magazine and GB News were identified as having the highest proportion of “very biased” articles, and as the “worst across all five bias categories”: negative framing, generalizations, misrepresentation, lack of context, and problematic headlines.

Other outlets highlighted for displaying high levels of biased content about Muslims included The Telegraph, The Jewish Chronicle, Daily Express, The Sun, Daily Mail and The Times.

In contrast, the BBC, other broadcasters and left-leaning outlets recorded the lowest rates of bias in the study.

The research comes as British Muslims report rising levels of discrimination. Official figures published in October revealed that religious hate crimes against Muslims rose by 19 percent in the year to March 2025 compared with the previous 12 months.