Israeli journalist Jackie Hugi highlighted the apparent celebration by Saudi media over the assassination of resistance leaders in Gaza and Lebanon, pointing out that media outlets such as “Al-Hadath,” “Al-Arabiya,” and “MBC” reflected Riyadh’s official stance on the “Axis of Resistance” through their coverage of the Israeli war.
In an article published in the Hebrew newspaper Maariv, Hugi noted that “it is hard for any observer of Saudi media to ignore the evident joy in their reports after the assassination of Yahya Sinwar, Hassan Nasrallah, and their men.”
The writer, who is a Middle East affairs analyst for the Israeli army radio, added that “it was difficult to distinguish between Israeli newspapers last Friday and Saudi Arabia’s Okaz newspaper.” He observed that “Okaz, much like Israeli newspapers, celebrated the demise of Yahya Sinwar, with the main headline reading: ‘Israel Has Added Sinwar to Haniyeh’s List.'”
He further pointed out that this celebration by a Saudi newspaper sparked widespread outrage online. Commentators were particularly surprised that Saudi Arabia, which claims to lead the Arab and Islamic world, would express joy over the killing of a Muslim Arab leader at the hands of the Israeli military. The term “Arab Zionists” re-emerged, referring to Arabs who support Israel.
It wasn’t just Okaz. Saudi channel “MBC” aired a report listing the assassinations carried out by Israel against its adversaries, starting with Hezbollah leaders like Imad Mughniyeh and Samir Kuntar, up to Sinwar, whom the report referred to as “the Butcher of Khan Younis.”
The same sentiment was echoed in Asharq Al-Awsat newspaper, which published several articles critical of Hezbollah and Hamas. One of the writers called for “burying Hezbollah’s corpse to save Lebanon,” suggesting that delaying its “funeral” would prolong the country’s suffering, as the article described.
The Israeli writer argued that “these media outlets, owned by members of the royal family or businessmen close to the palace, expressed Riyadh’s official position,” as he claimed.
He also highlighted that during the Israeli war, Saudi media “served as an exclusive information source for Israel, often publishing the names of targeted leaders just minutes after their assassination, even before their families had a chance to learn of their deaths. This allowed Israel to further humiliate the resistance,” according to him.
According to the article, channels like “Al-Arabiya” and “Al-Hadath” have become “part of this cooperation, as these Saudi channels operate from Dubai, funded by Saudi and Gulf businessmen. Occasionally, Sky News Arabia adopts a similar stance, along with printed press like Asharq Al-Awsat.”
The Israeli writer noted that “this Saudi mobilization did not come with the explicit intention of serving Israel,” considering it a way for Saudis to exact revenge on the Axis of Resistance, “savoring their cold revenge daily and continuously.”
Hugi pointed out that Saudi motives are deeply rooted in the historically tense relations between Saudi Arabia and the Iranian axis, as he described it.
In this context, the writer urged not to place too much hope on this Saudi media trend leading to a rapprochement between Israel and the Kingdom, pointing to an interview conducted by the BBC with Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to the UK, Khaled bin Bandar.
The Saudi ambassador expressed his “understanding of the shock that Israel went through on October 7th, but he sharply criticized its government,” noting that some of its ministers “express hatred and extremism of the type Israel accuses both Hamas and Hezbollah of,” according to the article.
The article quoted Khaled bin Bandar saying, “It seems that Israel has lost control; it operates tactically and may achieve daily goals, but at what cost? Killing 40,000 people to eliminate a few organization leaders is not the right way.”
When asked by the interviewer about the prospects of normalization with Israel, the Saudi diplomat replied: “The Crown Prince has been clear in his statements. He said that as long as we do not see a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital, there is no room for normalization. We must strive for the normalization of peace, not the normalization of violence. I do not see the current Israeli government moving in that direction.”
