New York, August 28, 2025—The Committee to Protect Journalists calls for an independent investigation into Monday’s killing of five journalists by multiple Israeli strikes on Nasser Hospital in Khan Yunis, Gaza. A preliminary Israeli military report said “it appears” that a Hamas camera was the target of the attack and named six “terrorists who were eliminated during the strike” — none of whom were the five journalists killed. 

“Israel’s initial report leaves many more questions than answers and does not explain why an Israeli tank fired on Reuters camera operator Hussam Al-Masri and the news agency’s visible, live-feed camera that had been filming from that location daily for several weeks,” said CPJ CEO Jodie Ginsberg. “Nor does it explain why first responders — including other journalists — were targeted in an apparent so-called “double tap” strike on the same location. The indiscriminate and disproportionate nature of the attack demand that this incident be investigated as an apparent war crime.”

A “double tap” is a controversial military tactic designed to maximize casualties by firing on first responders, such as medical personnel, rescue workers, and journalists. 

Additional video evidence obtained by CNN showed that what was initially described as a second “tap” was actually two more nearly simultaneous strikes, both fired nine minutes later. These second and third impacts appear to have been responsible for most of the fatalities.

In response to CPJ’s emailed request for comment, the Israel Defense Forces’ (IDF) North America Media Desk said it didn’t have “any further comment” beyond the existing August 26 IDF statement and infographic of the six “terrorists” killed. The IDF did not respond to any of CPJ’s questions.

The statement said that the Commander of the IDF’s Southern Command, MG Yaniv Asor, presented the military’s initial findings to the Chief of the General Staff LTG Eyal Zamir, who ordered “several gaps” to be investigated, including the chain of command that approved the strikes. 

“Our experience over decades is that Israeli-led investigations into killings are neither transparent, nor independent — and in not a single case over the past 24 years has anyone in Israel ever been held accountable for the killing of a journalist,” Ginsberg said. “We demand a full, transparent, and independent investigation to ensure accountability for this attack and any violations of international humanitarian law.”

Military spokesperson Lt. Col. Nadav Shoshani told Reuters that “the Reuters and AP journalists were not a target of the strike.” The IDF has not specified whether Al-Masri’s camera was the same one it believes was positioned and used by Hamas. Nor has Israel alleged that it considered any of the journalists killed as terrorists. Journalists are civilians and it is a crime to deliberately target them. Under international law, warring parties also have a duty to minimize civilian casualties and to protect hospitals. 

The questions CPJ submitted to the IDF on August 26 were: 

• The IDF statement suggests that the target of the initial strike was a camera allegedly used by Hamas for surveillance. Given that Reuters contractor Hussam Al-Masri was operating that live-feed camera at the time of the strike, is the IDF asserting that Al-Masri himself was affiliated with Hamas or directly involved in hostile activity?
• If the IDF is not categorizing Al-Masri as one of the six “terrorists” it claims were killed in the strike, what evidence—if any—led to the decision to strike while he was clearly engaged in journalistic work, operating a visible camera on a known media feed?
• Assuming the first strike was intended to neutralize the alleged surveillance threat, why did the IDF authorize a second strike in the same area shortly afterward — despite the arrival of first responders, journalists, and civilians? What precautions were taken to avoid further civilian casualties?
• What intelligence or real-time situational awareness informed the second strike, and was there any reassessment conducted before firing again into a location where noncombatants had clearly converged?
• What specific steps were taken to assess the proportionality of the strike, especially knowing that Nasser Hospital is a functioning medical facility and a known reporting location?
• Was any distinction made between the camera as an object and the civilian individuals operating or standing near it, including journalists?
• Given that at least five of the individuals killed were journalists, some of them clearly wearing vests*, can the IDF confirm whether it had prior knowledge of the presence of media personnel before the strike was authorized?

*This was based on initial reports from the scene. CPJ notes that it has not been able to establish conclusively if those killed were wearing visible “Press” vests.

IDF statement incomplete, inadequate

Al-Ghad TV video footage, shared via Reuters, shot just before the second strike shows rescue workers tending to the injured and a journalist with a boom mic. Another journalist in a red shirt wears a camera around his neck and holds a smartphone in his hand, documenting the scene.

CPJ notes that the IDF’s current statement is incomplete and inadequate. It does not address critical operational decisions or explain the rationale behind targeting a hospital rooftop known to be used by the media. 

Furthermore, there appears to be a contradiction between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s original framing of the strike “tragic mishap” that “Israel deeply regrets” and the military’s subsequent assertion that it had targeted and killed “terrorists.”  

The IDF’s response to CPJ falls woefully short in explaining or justifying the deaths of Al-Masri and the other four other journalists. This lack of transparency undermines Israel’s moral duty and obligations under international law to protect journalists. The work of the press is not optional — it is essential. 

We call on the Israeli government and the IDF to:

• Agree to, and cooperate with, an independent investigation led by international investigators
• State clearly whether Israeli forces knew journalists were present before launching the strikes
• Provide evidence that any of the individuals targeted posed a military threat
• Explain what precautions the IDF took to avoid civilian deaths in and around a hospital
• Hold accountable anyone responsible for violations of the laws of war

Israel’s multi-strike killing of these five journalists is one of the deadliest incidents for the press in 22 months of war. But it  is not an isolated tragedy — it is part of a wider, deeply troubling pattern of lethal attacks on the media. The press cannot function under fire. When journalists die without answers, truth dies with them.