News Coverage of Israel and Palestine Makes Me Ashamed to be a Journalist

This article originally appeared on VICE Belgium.

But this is not the type of information we’re seeing in the mainstream media, as numerous outlets frequently adopt the Israeli government’s version of events without counter-balancing it with Palestinian perspectives. This leaves the average person with the impression that the conflict is simply too complex to understand, let alone form an opinion around.

In reality, you don't need to be an expert to understand what’s happening: It's one state colonising another. As Europeans, we should know all about that, shouldn’t we? Of course, the geopolitical context surrounding it can be confusing. But the central issue here is to honour both Israeli and Palestinian victims, while understanding that the initial cause of all this suffering on both sides is the colonisation of Palestine by Israel. And anyone speaking about the conflict without acknowledging this crucial piece of context is telling a very partial version of the story.

About ten years ago, I decided to become a journalist, mainly because I liked writing. The reason I still am today is because I realised the potential impact my work can have on public debates, and the responsibilities that come with that. Being a journalist means influencing people's opinions and tipping the balance on important social issues; it's a job that should be taken very seriously. 

For each subject, the choice of tone, angle, the number of articles you write, and every word in them really matters. I don't necessarily enjoy having this power, but I've decided to use it to give a voice to people who don't often have one in the media, or who are represented in ways that are unfair to them.

Today, when I read mainstream coverage of this war, I almost feel ashamed to be a journalist, to be “one of them”. I’m part of a sector that has clearly contributed to the continued oppression of the Palestinian people – and of many others, for that matter. 

Neutrality is supposed to be an essential journalistic principle. It's a contested subject, but to me, the debate is totally obsolete: No one can be truly neutral. And the assumption that mainstream media is doing their best to cover these events in a neutral way does not hold up to close scrutiny.

British journalists Harry Fear, who made the documentary Gaza: Still Alive, and Owen Jones, a columnist for The Guardian and an activist, have both recently spoken up about the subtle ways the “fair and balanced” media have dehumanised Palestinians. Fear has pointed out that while the BBC and other reputable outlets reported people were being “killed” in Israel, their Palestinian counterparts simply “died” in Gaza. Which begs the question: How did they die? At the hands of whom?

Another way this bias shows up is in fact-checking. Several outlets reported that Hamas had beheaded 40 Israeli babies and that none other than US president Joe Biden had confirmed these reports. The story turned out to be completely unverified, and though most media organisations (as well as the White House) issued corrections, the damage had already been done. The original version – which incidentally confirmed Western stereotypes about Arabs being barbaric killers – had left its mark on people's minds and served as propaganda to justify the Israeli government's response in Gaza.

Talking about context, Israel's war on Gaza is always clearly described as the consequence of Hamas’s attack on Israel on Oct. 7 – the raid is rarely presented as a reaction to the ongoing Israeli occupation. The point here is not to justify what Hamas did, but to highlight key elements that are absent from the mainstream narrative.

Hamas as an organisation is often compared to ISIS. Israel, the US and multiple countries in Europe define it as a terrorist movement. However, Hamas defines itself as an Islamic resistance movement with a political party and military wing, and is seen that way by Palestinians and other Arab states. After all, Hamas has been running Gaza for 17 years, providing many regular services like any governmental administration would.

As a result, when Hamas killed Israeli civilians on the Oct. 7, they were described as a terrorist group brutally murdering the innocent; but when Israel, in turn, killed Palestinian civilians in Gaza, the headlines suddenly changed to defining the victims as casualties of war. As French historian Bernard Ravenel writes in 2005 in his contribution to the book Israël: L'enfermement (Israel: The Confinement), “the message that gets across is that the Israelis are waging war and the Palestinians are terrorists”.

People find it difficult to understand why Hamas has the support of some Palestinians. Political figures often point out that not all of them support Hamas, as if to distinguish between good and bad Palestinians – people who deserve Israeli bombs more than others.

Hamas was founded during the First Intifada, a Palestinian uprising against Israeli occupation, which lasted from 1987 to 1993. During the Second Intifada (2000-2005), which was far bloodier than the first, Hamas consolidated its power in Gaza and conducted a series of suicide bombings in Israel that left hundreds dead. As a response, Israel evacuated its settlement in Gaza and put the strip under an air, land and sea blockade from 2006 to today, controlling all movement of people, resources and goods in the territory. 

In 2007, Hamas was elected in Gaza after running a campaign in opposition to the slow and allegedly corrupt Fatah party that is still in power in the West Bank. Since then, it has conducted thousands of rocket launches, often targeting civilians. According to the UN, about 300 Israelis died at the hands of Palestinians between 2008 and August 2023, although the figures don’t cite how many among them were killed by Hamas.

By contrast, Israel has one of the most advanced armies in the world, which killed over 6,000 Palestinians during that same period. Its Iron Dome missile defence system, active since 2011, has exploded thousands of Hamas rockets mid-air. The army also counts on more than 169,500 soldiers, 400,000 reservists, 1,300 tanks and other armoured vehicles and 345 combat aircraft. Between 1948 and 2021, the United States contributed $125 billion to the Israeli army as part of a bilateral military agreement and has continued to supply weapons during the current preparations for a ground invasion of Gaza.

Ever since the blockade, Gaza has been plagued by mass poverty and unemployment, periodic bombings that have left a trail of death and destruction, and a widespread mental health crisis particularly affecting children. The strip will soon run out of drinkable water and has become almost unliveable, according to the UN. 

In 2018, the people of Gaza organised one of the largest non-violent demonstrations in the history of the conflict, the Great March of Return, which largely failed to gather international attention, let alone prompt an intervention. In the context of this level of desperation, maybe it’s less surprising that some might now view violent struggle as the way forward.

When talking about media bias against Palestinians, it’s impossible not to talk about the subject of terrorism. First coined in 1793, the term has evolved over the years. Today, according to the Oxford Dictionary, we define it as “the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims”.

Broadly speaking, terrorist tactics are often used by minority groups to either impose power or overthrow it, like in the context of a struggle for independence. But a state can also impose terror on its own population as a method of exerting control, like in a dictatorial regime or during occupation.

As a Belgian-Algerian, I can't help but draw a parallel with the Algerian War of Independence, which my grandfather fought in as a member of the National Liberation Army (ALN), the armed wing of the National Liberation Front political party (FLN). To Algerians, he was a revolutionary, a freedom fighter. But to the French – and most Western history books – my grandfather was nothing but a terrorist. Indeed, he would fit that description, since he belonged to an organisation whose aim was to overthrow the power in place: French colonisers. Nelson Mandela was also listed as a terrorist until 2008, for his role in resisting apartheid in South Africa.

Once again, the point here is not to justify Hamas killing thousands of Israeli civilians. The point is to highlight how words shift our perception, from a group using violence in a decolonial struggle, to a purely evil entity which must be fought by all means and defeated at all cost.

Many activists and people from the Muslim community denounce the use of the term terrorist, highlighting that it’s usually used to refer to attackers when they are Muslims. The association of terrorism and Islam has only grown stronger since 9/11. So perhaps the problem is not so much the word itself, but the connotation it has gained: Terrorists are bad Arabs, certainly not revolutionary fighters.

The BBC has a policy against calling Hamas terrorists. “Terrorism is a loaded word, which people use about an outfit they disapprove of morally,” explained BBC World Affairs editor John Simpson, as a response to criticism. The outlet does, however, allow reporters to quote other people as saying it.

Owen Jones, who has written multiple opinion pieces on Palestinian issues, told me there’s also a pragmatic reason behind the BBC’s decision. “If BBC journalists were compelled to [label] Hamas as ‘terrorists'‘, that would prevent them from being able to report from Gaza and could put their safety at risk in the Occupied Territories in general,” he wrote in an email. “It would also lead to very vocal counter-arguments for Israel to be described as practising state terrorism – clearly founded in reality – which… would open up an epic can of worms, to say the least.”

Another important way reports centring Palestinian perspectives are silenced is through the label of antisemitism. Many Western countries and institutions have adopted the definition of antisemitism developed by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, which has long been criticised by experts for conflating criticism of the Israeli government with hatred against Jewish people. This view is now so deeply rooted in public opinion that some people avoid taking a stand for Palestine for fear of being perceived as antisemitic. But the truth is, many Jewish people are against Zionism and colonialism, even among those based in Israel.

At times like these, we worry about the rise of antisemitism, and rightly so. But who’s concerned about the relentless rise of Islamophobia in the West, apart from those affected? Who’s concerned about how this crisis is impacting the Muslim community? The Palestinian cause holds great symbolic value for the Arab world, as we saw during the 2022 FIFA World Cup in Qatar. And the impunity of Israel’s actions is bound to create greater instability in the region, and further alienate people who are already marginalised in Western societies.

Besides the media, political figures also contribute to the dehumanisation of Palestinians. “We share Israel's grief. Hundreds of infants, children, women and men hunted down, kidnapped, murdered, taken hostage,” said Biden. “This was an act of sheer evil. More than 1,000 civilians slaughtered – not just killed, slaughtered – in Israel.” 

“What I saw and what I heard is breaking my heart,” stated EU President Ursula von der Leyen in a press conference in Israel next to a nodding Benjamin Netanyahu. “The blood of people killed in their sleep. The stories of innocents burned alive or slaughtered in their homes. The parents hiding their newborn babies before confronting the terrorists. [...] Over 1,300 human beings were murdered by barbaric terrorists of Hamas fighting against Israel.”

Barbarity, grief, murder, good vs. evil, slaughter, innocents… These terms carry a lot of emotion, and rightly so, because who wouldn’t feel deeply for the victims of Hamas’s attacks? But when Palestinians are killed by Israeli bombs, most politicians don’t describe them as being slaughtered in their homes. When Israel deprives Gaza of water, food, medicine, gas and electricity, they don’t say people are being starved to death. When Israel orders 1.1 million civilians to evacuate through a safe route, only to bomb that route, nobody says innocent people were burned alive.

The media describes Palestinian deaths with more muted terms. At most, UN officials or human rights organisations “raise concerns” about the situation using technical words: War crimes, crimes against humanity, collective punishment, ethnic cleansing. No sensationalism, no emotions. No White House spokesperson bursting into tears during a live interview on CNN. Even the word “genocide” – which a number of scholars have warned could be unfolding in Gaza – is beginning to sound hollow.

The mainstream media often bypasses the crucial historical context, uses language that humanises Israelis and dehumanises Palestinians, and amplifies perspectives that justify the bombings in Gaza. So why haven’t more journalists raised these issues of partiality within their newsrooms? And if they have, why haven’t newsrooms adjusted to a more fair and balanced coverage?

American journalist Dylan Saba recently denounced his experience of media censorship on X. An editor at a major left-wing newspaper had contacted him to write about the “wave of McCarthyite anti-Palestinian reactions and the censorship currently rampant in the US right now”, which he did. But his article was killed minutes before publication.

Ginella Massa, a journalist at Canada’s national broadcaster CBC, also denounced the difficulties journalists encounter when they try to challenge their media outlet’s editorial line. In 2021, after Israeli soldiers raided the Al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem, 2,000 Canadian people – including many journalists – signed an open letter to CBC calling for more balanced media coverage. 

Massa, however, didn't dare to sign the letter because she felt she “had too much to lose”. In fact, some of her colleagues who did were then later reprimanded and banned from covering the subject because of their “biased” perspective. Personally, I also know of journalists who had honest concerns about the way their outlet was covering Palestinian issues, but knew their opinions wouldn’t be welcome, so they kept silent.

I know some readers viewing this article and seeing my name will think that I’m the one who’s biased because of my origins. But don't worry, my sources are almost all white, because I know only too well that even if you have a degree in journalism and years of experience, you’re much more credible when you’re white.

In the end, the question of whether we should “take sides” is simply irrelevant. When thousands of civilians are being killed, the international community’s role has always been to intervene and stop it. Since 2020, we’ve had so many public discussions about colonialism. Cultural institutions have organised talks, workshops, events to decolonise public spaces – so why is there radio silence when it comes to the actual, ongoing colonisation of Palestine?

I dream of seeing the Palestinian flag on the facade of national theatres and institutions. I dream of seeing special reports on the news talking to regular people who have lost everything, just like when war broke out in Ukraine. Instead, pro-Palestinian protests have been banned in France as well as several German cities. In Berlin, you can’t even wear a keffiyeh to school. In October, British home secretary Suella Braverman warned that waving a Palestinian flag or chanting pro-Palestinian slogans might be considered a criminal offence in the UK. And even before Oct. 7, paintings of the flag were removed from the walls of Brussels' Midi Station by the municipality because they were deemed antisemitic. 

Of course, protesters are taking to the streets anyway. Thousands of people around the world are coming together to denounce these injustices. But without the media’s support, there’s no pressure on politicians to prevent Israel from doing whatever it wants. 

When Gaza is wiped off the map, it will be too late to show your support.