Full Analysis Summary
Israel's use of Gaza militias
Multiple outlets report that The Wall Street Journal found Israel has been unofficially relying on new Palestinian militias inside Gaza to fight Hamas.
Those groups are used to operate in areas that the ceasefire and Israeli forces are supposed to avoid.
The militias are based in Israeli-controlled areas and reportedly receive direct support such as intelligence, drone air cover, weapons, supplies and medical evacuation.
Türkiye Today frames this as a tactic to bypass limits on Israeli military operations under the ceasefire.
Haaretz describes the support as extensive, listing drone air support, intelligence, weapons, food (and cigarettes), and treatment in Israeli hospitals.
The Australian likewise reports Israel has partnered with Palestinian militias in Gaza, supplying weapons and intelligence to target Hamas in areas Israeli troops do not enter.
Coverage Differences
Emphasis and detail
Haaretz (Israeli) emphasizes and quotes WSJ wording that Israel provided “extensive” support and lists specific items and medical treatment; Türkiye Today (West Asian) highlights the tactic as a way to “bypass limits on Israeli military operations under the ceasefire” and quotes Israeli officials saying there is close coordination; The Australian (Western Mainstream) reports the partnership more briefly, focusing on weapons and intelligence without the granular details and denials quoted elsewhere. Each outlet is reporting the same WSJ reporting but chooses different emphases and detail levels.
Militia claims and responses
The reporting centers on named militia figures and lethal actions inside Gaza.
Hussam al-Astal appears in the coverage, claiming his men killed a Hamas police officer and threatening further attacks.
Hamas denounced the attackers as collaborators and warned of punishment.
Türkiye Today summarizes the report, saying al-Astal claimed responsibility for killing a Hamas police officer and that Hamas called the attackers collaborators and warned of harsh punishment.
Haaretz repeats that al-Astal said in a video his men killed a Hamas police officer and that Hamas labeled the killers 'agents of the Israeli occupation' and warned that betrayal carries a heavy price.
The Australian includes a broader claim alleging Israeli partnership with militias.
Coverage Differences
Source focus and quoting
Türkiye Today (West Asian) and Haaretz (Israeli) both reproduce Hussam al-Astal’s claim and Hamas’s denunciation, directly quoting the militia leader and Hamas’s description; The Australian (Western Mainstream) reports the partnership but does not reproduce the specific claims by al-Astal or Hamas in the provided snippet, showing a difference in which elements each outlet chooses to include or omit when relaying the WSJ report.
Israeli coordination with militias
Multiple sources report Israeli officials and reservists told the Wall Street Journal they coordinate with and sometimes actively assist local militias by monitoring, sharing intelligence, providing drone air cover, and intervening to protect or help them.
Those accounts also say Israeli personnel have escorted aid convoys to supply a Rafah militia.
Türkiye Today quotes Israeli officials and soldiers saying there is close coordination and occasional intervention to protect and assist the groups, and that former Israeli officer Yaron Buskila said forces monitor and sometimes help the militias with information and active intervention.
Haaretz cites Israeli sources and reservists describing extensive drone air support, intelligence sharing, weapons provision, and that wounded militia members have been taken to Israeli hospitals.
The Australian similarly reports that Israel has reportedly partnered with these groups by supplying weapons and intelligence.
Coverage Differences
Degree of explicit Israeli involvement vs. reported denials
Haaretz (Israeli) and Türkiye Today (West Asian) present detailed attributions to Israeli sources and reservists describing active support (monitoring, drone cover, medical treatment), while those quoted militia leaders deny material support beyond food (a denial repeated in both Türkiye Today and Haaretz). The Australian (Western Mainstream) reports the partnership in a shorter form without reproducing the militia denials in the provided snippet. This creates a contrast between sources that emphasize Israeli operational involvement and quotes that show militia denial.
Proxy militias and cease-fire
Reporters and sources describe the motive for using proxy militias as a way for Israel to act where the cease-fire limits its army, portraying the collaboration as driven by shared hostility to Hamas and by legal or operational restrictions on direct Israeli operations.
Haaretz explicitly states the collaboration 'is driven in part by a shared hostility toward Hamas and by restrictions from the cease-fire that limit where and how the Israeli army can act.'
Türkiye Today frames the tactic as helping 'bypass limits on Israeli military operations under the ceasefire.'
The Australian describes it more tersely as a partnership supplying weapons and intelligence for areas Israeli troops do not enter.
Coverage Differences
Narrative framing of the ceasefire bypass
Türkiye Today (West Asian) foregrounds the idea that the militias are used to bypass ceasefire limits; Haaretz (Israeli) both documents the same dynamic and explicitly attributes motive to shared hostility and cease-fire restrictions; The Australian (Western Mainstream) reports the partnership but uses terser language about the geography of operations, offering less on motive. The sources thus differ in framing and explanatory depth while all citing the WSJ reporting.
Conflicting reports on support
The accounts contain clear contradictions and unresolved questions.
Militia leaders like Hussam al-Astal deny receiving more than food, while Israeli officials and reservists told the WSJ they provide extensive support and intervention.
Türkiye Today reports the denial and the officials' claim that there is close coordination and occasional intervention, Haaretz records both the militia leader's denial and the description of extensive Israeli support, and The Australian reports the partnership without the same denials in the provided snippet.
That leaves an evidentiary gap: public denials from militia leaders coexist with multiple Israeli-source attributions of support, and all three outlets base their reporting on the WSJ account.
Readers should treat the competing claims as unresolved by the available texts.
Coverage Differences
Contradiction and ambiguity
There is a direct contradiction between the militias’ denials and the Israeli sources’ claims: militias (quoted by Türkiye Today and Haaretz) deny material support beyond food, while Israeli sources and reservists (reported by Haaretz and Türkiye Today) describe active assistance including “extensive" drone support and intelligence. The Australian reports the partnership more simply, which omits the explicit denial and accentuates the official-claim side; collectively the sources reproduce both sides but do not resolve the dispute in the texts provided.