by Bissan Edwan
Modern wars are no longer only fought on the battlefield. They are wars of narratives. In Palestine, where humanity is tested every day, the journalist stands at the most dangerous intersection: between the duty to report the truth, and an occupying power that treats truth itself as a threat to be silenced.
Over the past two years, hundreds of journalists have been killed in Gaza and the West Bank. Some were executed in front of their cameras, others were crushed under the rubble of their homes. What is most striking is not only the scale of the killings, but how the West responds: Palestinian journalists are rarely recognized as professionals. Instead, they are described as “activists,” “agenda-driven,” or even “terrorists.” This linguistic framing strips them of their profession and makes them “legitimate” targets in the eyes of the killer, and suspicious figures in Western newsrooms.
Since October 7, 2023, Gaza has become an open stage of bloodshed, where bodies fall under bombs and words are assassinated in cold blood. Each massacre of Palestinian journalists raises a pressing question: why does the international system, which loudly proclaims press freedom, remain silent when a Palestinian journalist is killed? Why is the death of a Ukrainian journalist seen as a “symbol of freedom,” while the Palestinian journalist is framed as “suspect” or “complicit with terrorism”?
The Case of Anas al-Sharif
The assassination of Al Jazeera journalist Anas al-Sharif in August 2025 was not an isolated event. It was part of a systematic campaign that has taken the lives of more than 247 Palestinian journalists since the beginning of Israel’s war on Gaza, according to the Palestinian Journalists Syndicate. Al-Sharif and six of his colleagues were killed near al-Shifa Hospital in a direct strike on the tent they were reporting from. This number alone shows that these are not “accidents” or “collateral damage,” but a deliberate strategy: break the Palestinian camera so the image remains controlled by the occupier.
And yet, Western coverage treated the death toll as a statistic, not a shock. Israeli officials claimed, without evidence, that al-Sharif was a Hamas commander, and Western outlets echoed diluted formulas such as “died under unclear circumstances” or “killed during clashes.” This is not neutral. It is complicity—blood washed clean by the language of “objectivity.”
The same language was used when Al Jazeera’s Shireen Abu Akleh was shot by an Israeli sniper in 2022, despite her clearly marked press vest. Most Western outlets headlined: “Journalist killed during clashes.” No perpetrator, no accountability, no recognition of her as a journalist. This is not journalism, it is whitewashing.
Law Absent by Design
Killing journalists is not only a crime of war—it is a crime against truth itself. International law is clear:
- UN Security Council Resolution 1738 (2006) affirms that journalists are civilians and must not be targeted.
- Geneva Protocol I, Article 79 (1977) guarantees journalists’ protection during armed conflict.
- The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (1998) defines intentional attacks on civilians, including journalists, as war crimes.
- Article 19 of the ICCPR (1966) protects freedom of expression and the right to access information as a universal, non-selective right.
Despite this, the European Media Commission limited itself to calls for “allowing journalists access to Gaza,” avoiding any mention of binding international law. Even UNESCO, while condemning the killings and calling for investigations, faced little media amplification in the West.
A Deadly Comparison: Ukraine vs Gaza
The comparison between Ukraine and Gaza is damning. In Ukraine, although some journalists were killed, reports like The New Yorker underlined that they were not deliberately targeted. Their deaths were immediately framed as “attacks on press freedom” and “war crimes.” In 2022, the European Parliament declared that killing journalists in Ukraine was an attack on European values. Reporters Without Borders (RSF) called for Russia to be tried before the ICC. Major Western media humanized each case with in-depth family stories.
In Gaza, by contrast, the numbers are unprecedented. According to The Guardian, AP News, and Wikipedia, between 192 and 247 journalists—the vast majority Palestinians—have been killed since October 2023. Brown University’s Costs of War Project found this figure exceeds the number of journalists killed in the U.S. Civil War, both World Wars, Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Yugoslavia combined.
Yet, Western media frames these deaths with vague, passive headlines:
- The New York Times: “Two More Journalists Killed in Gaza, Including Son of Al Jazeera Reporter” (no mention of Israel).
- The Washington Post: “The journalists killed in Gaza – and what they tried to show the world” (where the journalist is the actor, the killer unnamed).
- Time: “Groups Decry Israel Calling Gaza Journalists ‘Terrorists’” (normalizing the Israeli narrative of criminalizing victims).
Even prestigious outlets have internalized this bias: BBC wrote in 2023 that its local staff in Gaza were killed as a “result of being in conflict areas”—as if the journalists were to blame. Le Monde described Gazan journalists as “a mix of activists and reporters,” legitimizing their targeting. Meanwhile, the U.S. State Department offered only vague regrets about “deaths of journalists,” without naming Israel.
The difference is not linguistic alone, it is structural. In Ukraine, international investigations were launched immediately. Journalists were elevated to global symbols of free speech. In Gaza, no serious investigation has been carried out. Palestinian journalists remain numbers in charts, stripped of humanity.
This reveals a deeper colonial logic: the division of the world into “lives worth protecting” and “lives disposable.” The Ukrainian journalist becomes a martyr of universal freedom. The Palestinian journalist becomes a suspect by default.
The Weapon of Language: “Terrorism”
Western coverage does not stop at silence; it actively reproduces Israel’s framing. According to statements repeated by CNN in October 2023, Israeli officials called Palestinian journalists “propaganda partners of Hamas.” In this narrative, carrying a camera in Gaza becomes evidence of terrorism.
Contrast this with the U.S. reaction when Russia killed Western journalists in Ukraine: Secretary of State Antony Blinken declared, “Journalism is not a crime. Targeting journalists is a war crime.” That same clarity has never been voiced for Palestinian victims.
This double standard is not a journalistic slip—it is the result of political alignment. By constantly framing Palestinian journalist killings as “disputed narratives” (“the Israeli army says” vs. “Palestinians claim”), Western outlets erase the category of “war crime” and replace it with moral ambiguity. The result: no justice, no accountability, only normalization of the killing.
Gaza as a Mirror
Why target Palestinian journalists so persistently? The answer lies beyond the battlefield. Gaza’s cameras reveal what the West wishes to hide: mass graves, children under rubble, bombed hospitals. These images dismantle the myth of Israel as a “democracy under threat.” Killing the journalist is thus killing the mirror—erasing the evidence of a colonial war.
The assassination of Anas al-Sharif, alongside more than 247 Palestinian journalists, is not a tragic side-effect. It is a layered crime: killing the body, killing the narrative, killing international conscience. Unless these crimes are named for what they are, Article 19 of the ICCPR will remain ink on paper, and “press freedom” will remain a selective privilege, applied only when it serves strategic interests.
The central question, then, is this: do we live in a world that classifies journalists’ blood by geography, race, and identity? Can freedom of expression remain a universal value if Palestinians are killed twice—once by Israeli bullets, and once by Western discourse?
If Europe still sees itself as a guardian of press freedom, it must answer honestly: do Palestinian journalists deserve the same protection and respect as their Western counterparts? The answer will determine whether freedom of the press is truly universal—or merely a geographic privilege.
References
- The Guardian
- The New York Times
- The Washington Post
- TIME
- El País
- Mondoweiss
- AP News
- Foreign Policy
- The New Yorker
- Politico
- The Atlantic
- Al Jazeera Institute
- UNESCO
- Wikipedia
- The New Arab
- Reporters Without Borders (RSF)
- Geneva Conventions, Additional Protocol I (1977)
- UN Security Council Resolution 1738 (2006)
- International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966)
- Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (1998)