The Price of Truth: Press Safety and Enforcement

Journalistic work has become increasingly dangerous in recent decades, with bodily harm becoming a normalised condition for war reporters (Creech, 2018). One conflict zone has been more perilous than all the rest in recent years: Gaza. 

Gaza stands as the most visible and televised example of the systemic violence against journalists in modern times. This case is not isolated, but represents an international pattern: between 2006 and 2024, UNESCO has reported more than 1,700 journalists' deaths worldwide, with close to 9 out of 10 cases remaining unresolved. Beyond the context of war, journalists face threats and intimidation from the state and organized crime organizations for exerting their right to freedom of speech, as per the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. While there are existing frameworks ensuring the protection of journalists, to what extent are they being enforced?

Back in October 2023, shortly after the outbreak of the current conflict, Israel’s military told Reuters and AFP that it could not guarantee the safety of their journalists operating in Gaza. According to the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ)’s data, last updated on September 3rd, 197 journalists and media workers have been confirmed killed in the conflict. Other groups have higher numbers, with the International Federation of Journalists’ data putting the number at 221 as of today, and Palestinian officials reporting nearly 250 as of Monday. Please note that there is differing data, which may result from varying methodologies and access to sources.  

Two members of Free Palestine Maastricht (FPM), an association that centers solidarity with Palestine, agreed to sit down with us to give us their insights on the dangers being faced by journalists in Gaza. They are anonymised through the use of the code names ‘Red’ and ‘Green.’

THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK

In theory, journalists in conflict zones enjoy wide protection under international humanitarian law. The most relevant regulations are found in the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their protocols. There is universal recognition of the Geneva Conventions by all states. The Conventions themselves are generally considered to reflect customary international law. 

Although not all states have ratified the Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions, many of the fundamental provisions are widely regarded as customary international humanitarian law, thus being binding even for states not party to them. Among them are extensive rules on the protection of civilians in armed conflict. In fact, protection of civilians is one of the cornerstones of international humanitarian law, especially the rule that attacks may only be directed against combatants, and not towards civilians. 

It is also customary international law that serious violations of humanitarian law constitute war crimes. Under the four Geneva Conventions and AP I, a willful direct attack against protected persons, including civilians, constitutes a war crime, as provided by Article 8(2)(a)(i) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. This provision outlines 51 war crimes and is currently the most comprehensive provision in international treaty law regulating this area of law. 

In terms of protection for journalists, Article 79 of Additional Protocol I (AP I) to the Geneva Conventions provides that journalists must be considered civilians, meaning they are entitled to full protection as exactly that. According to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), state practice indicates this rule to be accepted as customary international law. The term journalist is not defined in AP I, and there is no universal legal definition of it. One interpretation, provided by a 1975 draft UN convention and endorsed by the ICRC, yields a broad definition of a journalist being any correspondent, reporter, photographer, film cameraman, or press technician who has that status by virtue of their country’s law or practice. In addition, Article 79 of AP I requires that journalists be engaged in a dangerous professional mission in the area of armed conflict to be awarded protection, which is a term that covers typical journalistic activities conducted in an area affected by hostilities. The Geneva Conventions apply as soon as an armed conflict exists. Consequently, if these conditions are met, journalists enjoy the same protection as civilians under Article 50 of AP I.

This means that in an armed conflict, a journalist, as a civilian, must not be indiscriminately targeted, and all feasible measures must be taken to ensure their safety. This is the case even where a journalist is embedded within or accompanies armed forces. In terms of limitations, reading Article 79(1) AP I with Article 51(3) AP I reveals that if a journalist takes direct part in hostilities, their protection ceases. This would require that the journalist participate in acts of war, which, by their nature or purpose, are likely to cause actual harm to the personnel and equipment of the enemy armed forces. Notably, engaging in propaganda alone cannot be considered direct participation. 

THE SITUATION IN PRACTICE 

The protections provided in law are far from reality on the ground in Gaza. Before October 7th 2023, a report by the CPJ found that despite at least 20 journalists having been killed by the Israeli military in the last twenty years, no one had ever been charged or held accountable for them. A year into the conflict, another report by CPJ held that this was still true, although the number of investigations underway was unknown. 

On the difference between the legal framework and the actual situation for journalists in Gaza, Green noted that “if we look at it from an international law perspective, for example, under the Geneva Conventions, journalists are guaranteed their safety in conflict zones as civilians. And what’s been happening recently is that, that safety that should have been guaranteed by international law is ignored by pretty much all involved international organisations and countries. In principle, countries have an obligation to make sure those conventions are upheld. But right now, the situation that we see is just oh, yeah, this happened [...] There are no actual consequences for the targeting and the killing of journalists.” 

Meanwhile, the Israeli military denies deliberately targeting journalists, saying that many of those killed in Israeli airstrikes were members of Islamist militant groups working under the guise of the press. However, it has not produced any verifiable evidence that any of the journalists whom it has admitted to targeting were involved in such military operations. 

A prominent example is the death of Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Anas al-Sharif. He was killed alongside Al Jazeera colleagues Mohammed Qreiqeh, Ibrahim Zaher, Mohammed Noufal, Moamen Aliwa, and freelance photojournalist Mohammed al-Khaldi in an Israeli attack on a tent housing journalists in Gaza City on August 10, 2025. Al-Sharif had reported prominently on the war since its onset, and both the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression and the CPJ had called for his protection prior to his death, expressing grave worry about his safety. To this, Red noted that “He was one of the most well-known journalists working in Gaza. They just flat-out murdered him. They didn’t even try to cover it up. They tried to frame him like he was some Hamas military commander, and the evidence they put out was immediately disproved.”  

The Israeli military alleged that al-Sharif was an active Hamas operative, providing screenshots of electronic spreadsheets to support their claims. The military alleges they show that al-Sharif joined Hamas’s military wing in 2013, had been certified as a team commander in 2019, that he retained a salary from them after an injury in 2017, and that he was on the internal phone registry of the elite Nukhba Force company in Hamas’s East Jabalia Battalion. The military claimed that the source of these screenshots is a small, declassified portion of their intelligence on al-Sharif discovered in Gaza. It has not disclosed the full documents, and the screenshots have not been independently verified. Further, they refused a request by NPR for further proof beyond the lists provided. Al Jazeera has repeatedly denied that al-Sharif is affiliated with a Hamas Cell. Both the UNESCO Director General Audrey Azoulay and UN experts have condemned the killing and the “unfounded accusations” against al-Sharif. 

On the explanations given by the Israeli government, Green mentioned that “the targeting of a certain journalist is not an isolated case, because a lot of the excuses that the Israeli military and the Israeli government has given was that ‘Oh, we did this by mistake’ [...] They’re supposed to be the most advanced military in the world. A mistake can happen once or twice, but not in 240 cases. So it also shows, or sort of debunks the Israeli story that ‘we didn’t mean to, we’re trying to be as nice as possible.’”

MEDIA RESPONSE 

Attention on this issue has been rising. In response to the Israeli military’s killing of six Palestinian journalists through a bombing on Nasser Hospital in Khan Younis in August, there was widespread condemnation from State representatives and international organisations alike. Media attention has also been increasing, coming to a head with Avaaz and Reporters Without Borders organising a campaign that took place on 1 September 2025. Overall, over 250 media outlets across 70 countries participated by simultaneously blacking out their front pages and website homepages, as well as interrupting their broadcasting to condemn the murder of journalists by the Israeli army in Gaza. There are four concrete demands: the protection of Palestinian journalists in Gaza, the evacuation of reporters seeking to leave, an end to impunity for Israeli crimes against Gaza’s reporters, and that foreign press be granted independent access to the territory.

But is the media doing enough? According to Red, there may be reason to question the intentions behind the publicity: “I do think that there is a lot of genuine concern about things that have happened recently, but part of me does think it is also a bit cynical, especially with the recent wave of European countries who are recognising Palestine. They do see that Israel’s genocide is just becoming undeniable at this point. So they are trying to find whatever pressure valve they can use. They give people the idea, and have a semblance of doing something, but not actually doing very much that is concrete.” 

Adding to this, Green noted that “the general populace now has more awareness about things, they can actually see that the traditional media is not portraying the full truth. So that sort of forces the traditional media, to save some credit, to actually be more objective and actually go towards the action.”

Another factor complicates the picture even further. The fact that international journalists do not have access to Gaza. This was also brought up by Green during the interview: “From Israel’s perspective, they know that the murder of a Palestinian journalist is not the same as the targeting of a different journalist, because it’s the state of the world. That’s also a factor on why Israel doesn’t allow international journalists from outside of Gaza, because then there’s more consequences for them on paper if those journalists are targeted, which is a trend at the moment.” 

International journalists have been banned from entering Gaza independently since the start of the conflict in October 2023, with a few journalists having been taken into Gaza under controlled access by the Israeli military. Israeli officials have justified this based on their military’s priority being the rescue of hostages and the fight against Hamas, wherein the safety of reporters could not be ensured. Last year, Israel’s High Court of Justice ruled that restricting the entry of foreign journalists is justified. More concretely, they accepted the Defense Ministry’s stance that escorted tours are sufficient and appropriate in these circumstances due to the extreme security concerns and concrete security threats that go with approving entry permits for independent journalists. In response to this press-blockade, 27 states backed the Media Freedom Coalition statement calling for Israel to allow immediate independent foreign media access into Gaza in August. 

OUTSIDE CONFLICT ZONES

Gaza is said to be the deadliest conflict for journalists, as described by the CPJ, due to its unprecedented death toll and deliberate efforts to silence journalists. However, Gaza is just one harrowing example of the systemic efforts targeting media workers and is currently the most visible one. Mexico is the Western Hemisphere’s most dangerous country for journalists, leading the count of most disappeared journalists, and being a notorious example of the effects of years of impunity and threats to the press. According to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), this results in “zones of silence”, which are created when journalists are killed, forced to flee, or intimidated out of the profession. Over the past years, multiple Mexican journalists have spoken out about the threats and intimidation they have received. Death threats from cartels, encounters with masked individuals with arms, and constant stalking: all realities of the systemic violence journalists face in the area. In addition, according to the CPJ’s Global Impunity Index, Mexico consistently ranks among the 10 countries with the highest number of journalist murders unresolved. With both IACHR and CPJ reporting that, the lack of accountability increases the uncertainty and fear amongst media workers. The pattern of violence against journalists historically has been used as a tactic to manipulate the dominant narrative by erasing prominent voices through intimidation or murder, resulting in “zones of silence”. Precisely in these cases, the role of local reporters can not be overstated. As Green explains: “I think journalists are the conveyors of truth. So they are our eyes and ears on the ground, for many different reasons. They're the people on the ground we cannot physically go there to see. So they bear the responsibility, the heavy responsibility, of having to portray to the world that this is what's happening. They are making a case against everybody in the world that you can't say you did not know about what's happening in Gaza.”

It is important to contextualise the violence against journalists in Gaza not as an isolated event but as a part of a recurring tactic used by powerholders to control public information by intimidating, censoring, or killing those documenting their truths. To contextualise this is to recognize that press and independent media are and have been under threat. Although International law is clear, interpretations and enforcement vary widely. Journalists are considered civilians and are granted the protections of such under Article 79 of Additional Protocol I (AP I), and the UN has repeatedly condemned violence against press and urged nations to prevent impunity. In practice, these obligations are not being upheld and are causing the loss of pluralism in public information and, most importantly, lives. To combat this issue, UNESCO’s UN Plan of Action proposes three clear pillars: prevention, protection, and prosecution in hopes of ensuring the safety of journalists and avoiding impunity. They emphasise a calling for holistic implementation of the plan to create a safe environment for journalists and media workers. On the topic of enforcement, Green put the expectation clearly:  “We also need to put pressure on countries and international organizations to at the very least enforce these Geneva Conventions which guarantees the protection of journalists. And the second part of it is getting the people who committed these crimes to court and actually be punished.” Red added the importance of centering Palestinian voices: “you might get the feeling like, oh, what can I do from here? Or what power do I have? But there is this privilege: in that people are more willing to listen to you than they are willing to listen to a Palestinian.”  Following this sentiment, FPM has scheduled a screening of "Gaza: Journalists Under Fire” on Thursday, the 11th, at BrandweerKantine, which will host Palestinian journalists, Iyad Sandid and Dr. Omar Kayed, according to their Instagram. 

We, at the Maastricht Diplomat, are highly concerned with the ongoing violence against our colleagues and the lack of accountability for those actions. We will continue to exert our right to freedom of expression and contribute to the multiplicity of Maastricht’s media landscape.