Abstract
This study examines Israel’s violations against Palestinian journalists during the Gaza War 2023–2025 within the framework of international humanitarian law (IHL). Adopting a Critical Legal Studies perspective, the study recognizes that IHL operates within unequal power structures and does not assume neutrality. The Gaza War, precipitated by the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israel, occurs against the broader context of the Israeli siege since 2006 and the ongoing Israeli occupation of Palestine. The study analyses the legal protections afforded to journalists in armed conflicts, documents Israeli violations, and proposes measures to strengthen accountability and safeguard media workers. Employing a descriptive-analytical approach, it reviews IHL frameworks—including Geneva Conventions and UN resolutions—and evaluates media and human rights reports. Findings reveal violations by Israeli forces, including targeted killings, movement restrictions, communication blackout, and attacks on media infrastructure, all of which contravene IHL principles of distinction, proportionality, and precaution. The study highlights the persistent enforcement gap in protecting the Palestinian journalists as civilians and advocates for enhanced HL protections, independent investigations and the use of international courts to ensure journalist safety and uphold press freedom.
Keywords
Introduction: Role of Palestinian journalists in covering the wars
The Gaza War 2023–2025 began with the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack (Barnea, 2024), but its roots lie in the longer history of the Israeli siege on Gaza (see Amer, 2017) and the broader Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories. Gaza has been subjected to Israeli attacks since October 7, 2023 (Fahmy et al., 2024), compounded by a blockade imposed since 2006 and recurring hostilities dating back to 1967 and 1948 (Elaraky, 2024). A ceasefire between Israel and Hamas began on January 19, 2025, after a 15-month war, though tensions and human rights violations persisted (see Human Rights Watch, 2025). This truce proved short-lived, as Israel resumed military operations in Gaza on March 18, 2025, effectively ending the truce after 58 days (Karim, 2025). Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz announced plans to seize large areas of Gaza for security zones, along with significant Palestinian evacuations (James and Al-Mughrabi, 2025). This renewed escalation resulted in substantial Palestinian casualties and additional mass displacement (CBS News, 2025). Amid this crisis, Trump’s 20-point plan, announced on September 29, 2025, led to a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas on October 10, 2025. The plan aimed to halt hostilities, secure hostage releases, and enable humanitarian aid under international oversight. The truce remains fragile, with Israeli forces still controlling parts of Gaza and sporadic clashes continuing.
Within these prolonged conditions of violence, Palestinian journalists have played an indispensable role in documenting events, often serving as the primary—or at times the sole—source of information for regional and global audiences. Yet, Schwalbe et al. (2019: 1921) observe, “similar to news media in other regions of the world, journalists in the West Bank and Gaza Strip have faced numerous occupational challenges to independent reporting for many years”. Palestinian journalists continue to play a critical role in documenting events. However, their work has become increasingly precarious due to Israel’s targeting, which not only threatens their safety but also undermines their ability to report objectively on these violations and atrocities.
Amid the escalation of threats to journalists, examining their protection under international humanitarian law (IHL) is essential to upholding press freedom and civilian safety in conflict zones. As Alexander (2015) argues, the modern concept of IHL did not emerge through a seamless moral evolution but through a historically contingent process, only explicitly formalized in the 1970s and subsequently declared authoritative by humanitarian actors. She defines IHL as “the current understanding of the ius in bello – the laws concerning the conduct of warfare” (p.110). This forced “humanitarian turn,” however, failed to resolve the structural power imbalances embedded within the law. Building on this critique, the protections afforded to civilians under IHL extend to media workers, who increasingly operate on the frontlines of contemporary conflicts and are among the groups most in need of these safeguards. Accordingly, this study situates violations against Palestinian journalists not as isolated incidents but as empirical evidence of a persistent “enforcement gap,” wherein legal rules are clearly articulated yet political will for enforcement remains absent.
IHL universally governs armed conflicts, binding both state and non-state actors (Coop, 2024). Its application, particularly regarding principles such as distinction and proportionality, becomes especially complex in asymmetric and urban warfare. Journalism serves not only as a medium for disseminating news but also as a fundamental tool for uncovering truths (Amer, 2017) and documenting breaches of international law (Kagan and Durham, 2010). Ensuring the protection of journalists is therefore integral to protecting the right to information and freedom of opinion (Seppelt, 2019). This study critically examines the legal protections for Palestinian journalists under IHL and the Israeli violations they faced during the Gaza War 2023–2025. Specifically, this study aims to:
Analyse the international legal framework governing the protection of journalists in armed conflicts (e.g. the Gaza War 2023–2025) and clarify the rights of Palestinian journalists under IHL.
Examine the forms and patterns of the Israeli violations committed against Palestinian journalists during the Gaza war 2023–2025.
Grounded in a Critical Legal Studies (CLS) perspective, this analysis views law not as a politically neutral code but as a system shaped by power dynamics. This framework interrogates the structural failure of international accountability when powerful state actors—such as Israel—are implicated in clear violations of IHL.
The gap between the protections outlined in international humanitarian law (IHL) and the realities faced by Palestinian journalists has become apparent since October 7, 2023, as Israeli violations have escalated dramatically. This sharp contrast underscores a fundamental failure in the enforcement of international protections.
This war has taken a record toll on journalists since global tracking of journalist fatalities started in 1992. Recent statistics further underscore the unprecedented scale of the violence faced by Palestinian journalists. As of April 15, 2025, between 175 and 232 journalists have been killed in Gaza since the Israeli military campaign began on October 7, 2023. The Gaza Government Media Office reported 211 deaths, mostly from airstrikes and drone attacks (Palestinian Information Center, 2025). Committee to Protect Journalists CIS (2025) confirmed at least 175 journalist deaths across the region, while the Watson Institute cited 232 deaths, calling it the deadliest conflict for journalists ever recorded (Al Jazeera, 2025).
Among the journalists killed in Gaza since October 7, 2023, were 17 women, marking “the largest targeting of female journalists in the history of global journalism” (Palestinian Journalists’ Syndicate, 2025). This grim milestone underscores both the unprecedented dangers faced by media workers and the heightened vulnerabilities experienced by women journalists in this conflict. The severity of the situation demands immediate international attention and systemic reforms, which will be thoroughly examined in the following sections through a structured methodological framework.
Methodological note
This study employs a descriptive–analytical method to examine international legal frameworks and decisions designed to protect journalists in wars, with a focus on the Israeli violations experienced by Palestinian journalists during the Gaza War 2023–2025. Consistent with Critical Legal Studies (CLS) scholarship (Moyn, 2024), the analysis foregrounds structural barriers to enforcement and views reported violations against journalists through the lens of power asymmetries and selective accountability.
The study draws on IHL databases maintained by the International Committee of the Red Cross 1 to examine the legal protections that IHL affords to journalists. Within these databases, the study analyses IHL norms in both treaty and customary law, specifically examining the journalists’ rights in the following conventions, protocols and courts: Geneva Conventions of 1949, 2 Geneva Convention (I) 3 on Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, 1949; Geneva Convention (II) 4 on Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked of Armed Forces at Sea, 1949; Geneva Convention (III) 5 on Prisoners of War, 1949. Within this convention (III), the analysis also focuses on Article 4(1)(4) 6 and the Geneva Convention (IV) on Civilians, 1949. 7
The study also refers to Protocol Additional 8 to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977. The focus is based mainly on Article 79 9 – Measures of protection for journalists. Special attention is paid to Articles 4(1)(4) and 79 of Additional Protocol I of 1977, known as Article 4 – Prisoners of war. 10 Further, the study refers to Article Two of the Preliminary Draft International Convention on the protection of journalists engaged in dangerous missions. 11 Also, the study considers the first paragraph of Article 50 12 of the relevant international humanitarian law conventions and the customary law as reflected in Customary Rule 34 13 in Chapter 10. The study refers to the Hague-Regulations of 1907, 14 and to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. 15 These databases provide authoritative references to the applicable legal norms, treaty provisions, and customary principles governing the protection of journalists in armed conflict.
In addition to legal texts, this study examines media reports and human rights organizations’ documentation to assess the extent of Israeli violations against Palestinian journalists. Given the politically charged nature of wartime reporting, the study incorporates sources from international, regional, and independent media outlets. Reports from Al Jazeera, Reuters, the BBC, and the Associated Press are analysed alongside publications from organizations such as the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), Reporters Without Borders (RSF), and Human Rights Watch (HRW). This mixed-source strategy helps ensure a broad perspective, acknowledging that news organizations operate within different political and editorial constraints.
The inclusion of reports from Palestinian media outlets adds local context, while maintaining rigorous source validation to mitigate bias. It is important to note that Israel’s refusal to grant foreign journalists access to Gaza – despite sustained international pressure—has positioned local media such as Al Jazeera as primary sources of wartime documentation, covering military operations, documenting human rights violations and the resulting humanitarian and legal consequences. To ensure transparency and rigour, all media and human rights sources are documented in the reference list.
Rather than conducting a content analysis of media coverage, this study treats media reports as empirical documentation of real-world violations against press freedom. These reports provide verifiable case studies that illustrate patterns of violence, censorship, and obstruction faced by Palestinian journalists. By synthesizing legal analysis with empirical data from journalistic and human rights documentation, the study offers a comprehensive assessment of the gap between legal protections and lived realities on the ground.
This investigation examines 12 months (October 2023–October 2024) and adopts a multi-method approach. Primary data consist of reports from international organizations and media monitoring agencies, while secondary analysis draws on established scholarship, including the work of Lisosky and Henrichsen (2011) on journalist protections in conflict zones. This dual approach enables both a normative assessment of IHL protections and an empirical evaluation of their implementation, with particular, on Palestinian journalists serving as a contemporary case study of reporting vulnerabilities.
The descriptive–analytical method relies heavily on media and human rights documentation. Acknowledging the complex and inherently biased nature of media representation in armed conflicts (see Amer, 2017, 2023, 2024), influenced by diverse state and non-state actors (Cherkaoui, 2024), including structural pro-Israel framing identified in prior scholarship (2017–2018) (Amer, 2017, 2018), this study does not attempt to resolve these biases through triangulation. Instead, consistent with its critical positionality, it examines how such distortions contribute to the broader enforcement gap in the protection of journalists under IHL.
Analysis and discussion
Legal mechanisms and rights for the protection of journalists under international humanitarian law
International humanitarian law (IHL) explicitly affirms that journalists working in conflict zones are civilians and therefore entitled to the protection established under the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and Additional Protocol I of 1977. Article 79 of Additional Protocol I stipulates that journalists should receive the same protections as civilians, as long as they do not directly participate in hostilities. This provision forms the central legal foundation for safeguarding journalists in conflict zones.
Journalists’ rights encompass the full spectrum of protections afforded to civilians under the Geneva Conventions and complementary international legal norms, which require all parties to a conflict to treat journalists with humanity, dignity and respect.
The obligation to protect journalists falls upon the parties involved in a conflict. These parties are legally required to take all feasible precautions to ensure the safety of journalists, refraining from directly or indirectly targeting them. The United Nations General Assembly, in its Resolution 69/185 16 titled Safety of Journalists and the Issue of Impunity (2014), emphasizes the necessity of a safe environment for journalists, condemns the persistence of impunity, and calls for effective measures to prevent crimes against media workers. However, despite these formal protections, Palestinian journalists have continued to face severe violations under Israeli military operations, a reality that this study examines through the lens of IHL.
This protection encompasses not only the physical security of journalists but also their fundamental right to access information. Additionally, journalists must be shielded from censorship and arbitrary restrictions while carrying out their professional duties. These rights are integral to the broader international legal framework that safeguards freedom of expression and the public’s right to information.
The scope of protection is further defined in multiple international treaties, including the Third Geneva Convention of 1949 (Article 4(1)(4) 17 and Additional Protocol I of 1977, as well as customary law as reflected in Customary Rule 34. 18 The protections afforded to journalists also extend under the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, which addresses the status and protection of civilians and journalists in armed conflict.
Additional protections apply under the Fourth Geneva Convention (1949), which outlines the rights and safety guarantees afforded to civilians—including journalists—during war.
The legal framework of Article 79 of Additional Protocol I (1977)
It is crucial to recognize that, before the adoption of Additional Protocol I, international agreements provided limited legal protection for journalists. Article 79 significantly expanded these protections, extending them to all journalists engaged in hazardous professional duties during armed conflicts. IHL distinguishes between two primary categories of journalists: war correspondents, as defined in the Geneva Conventions of 1949, and independent journalists, as addressed in Additional Protocol I of 1977. Article 79 of Additional Protocol I asserts that journalists performing hazardous professional tasks within international armed conflict zones must be regarded as civilians, and as such, they are entitled to the full protections afforded to civilian populations, provided they do not directly participate in hostilities.
While IHL makes a clear distinction between independent journalists and war correspondents, it lacks precise definitions of these terms, leaving significant interpretive ambiguity. This definitional gap is historically rooted and has intensified with the rise of citizen journalism and digital platforms. In response to these challenges, UNESCO’s Plan of Action on the Safety of Journalists and the Issue of Impunity emphasises protecting “the act of journalism” itself rather than narrowly defining who qualifies as a journalist (UNESCO, 2012 19 ).
The rise of social media during the Gaza War further complicates this framework. Many Palestinians have taken on the role of citizen journalists, documenting events through videos, livestreams, and social media posts. However, IHL does not explicitly protect citizen journalists, as its provisions primarily focus on professional or accredited media personnel. While these individuals are still civilians under IHL, their lack of specific legal recognition leaves them exposed and vulnerable to targeting.
This gap has proven deadly. Many individuals performing clearly identifiable journalistic functions have been attacked. While determining criminal intent (mens rea)—specifically, whether journalists were deliberately targeted—is the role of a competent international tribunal, the recurring nature of these incidents strongly suggests reckless or grossly negligent failures to uphold the IHL principles of distinction and precaution. Repeated lethal outcomes indicate a serious breakdown in compliance with the obligation to “take all feasible precautions to avoid loss of civilian life” (Additional Protocol I, Article 57). As Lisosky and Henrichsen (2011) argue, the legal framework must evolve to reflect the realities of modern conflict reporting and extend protections to all who document war.
A more comprehensive definition of journalist, encompassing all journalistic roles, such as correspondents, reporters, photographers, and journalistic technicians, would better reflect the diverse and evolving nature of modern journalism.
A new category, “embedded journalists,” has emerged in modern conflict reporting, although it is not explicitly addressed in IHL. First widely used during the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the term refers to journalists who accompany armed forces but lack formal accreditation as war correspondents. Military journalists or information officers, by contrast, are part of the armed forces and therefore fall under military rather than civilian legal protections. Article 79 of Additional Protocol I of 1977 underscores that journalists engaged in hazardous professional tasks in conflict zones are civilians, reinforcing the fundamental IHL distinction between civilians and combatants.
The definition of civilians in IHL further clarifies the status of journalists in conflict zones. Under Article 50 of the Geneva Conventions, a civilian is anyone who does not belong to the categories of combatants. Thus, journalists engaging in professional duties in conflict areas—whether in declared or undeclared wars, civil wars, or other conflict scenarios—are considered civilians. However, if a journalist directly participates in hostilities or takes up arms, they forfeit civilian protections under IHL.
The term “dangerous mission,” as defined in Article 2 of the Preliminary Draft International Agreement 20 on the Protection of Journalists, refers to any journalistic activity conducted in areas affected by armed conflict.
While war correspondents are considered prisoners of war if captured, independent journalists retain their civilian protections under IHL. Article 79 thus serves as a central legal instrument, ensuring that journalists’ ability to report from conflict zones is recognised and protected by international law.
Principles for the Protection of Journalists under IHL: A Focus on Additional Protocol I of 1977
The protection of journalists operating in conflict zones has long been a critical concern for international law. Gunawan et al. (2023: 2) state that: it is evident that journalists who do their tasks in combat zones require security. Awareness of the significance of protecting the existence of journalists in conflict zones is not a new issue, as evidenced by the formation of a variety of international agreements containing journalist protections.
This recognition is enshrined in numerous international agreements, particularly Additional Protocol I of 1977, which extends legal protections to journalists categorizing them as civilians—so long as they do not directly participate in hostilities.
In this section, the study examines the key IHL principles that form the legal foundation for journalist protection under Additional Protocol I, including the principles of distinction, proportionality, and precautions. These principles are central to safeguarding journalists—whether war correspondents or independent journalists—as civilians during armed conflict.
Principle of distinction
The First Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 underscores the imperative to distinguish between civilians and combatants, as well as between civilian objects and military objectives. Parties to the conflict are required to direct military operations solely at military objectives, ensuring that civilians and civilian objects are not targeted. This principle requires that parties to a conflict distinguish between civilian objects—such as homes, hospitals, and schools—and military objectives, ensuring that civilian infrastructure is not deliberately targeted unless it is being used for military purposes (see International Committee of the Red Cross, 1999).
A clear illustration of a breach of this principle occurred during the 2021 Gaza war, when Israeli forces struck the Al-Jalaa Tower—widely known as the “Journalists’ Tower”—which housed several international media organizations (see Al Jazeera, 2021). Such attacks on civilian infrastructure represent serious violations of the principle of distinction, leading to significant harm to journalists and the broader civilian population.
The distinction between civilians and combatants is central to journalist protection. Combatants, who are authorized to engage in hostilities, are not afforded protection under international law when targeted. In contrast, journalists—whether embedded with military forces or operating independently— retain civilian status and are entitled to protection, as long as they do not directly participate in hostilities.
In 1968, the United Nations General Assembly reiterated the necessity of applying the principle of distinction in all armed conflicts. Similarly, the Action Plan for 2000–2003, adopted during the Seventh International Red Cross Conference in 1999, urged all conflict parties to respect the absolute prohibition against targeting civilians who are not participating in hostilities (see International Committee of the Red Cross, 1999).
The UN Security Council further reinforced this position in 2000 by condemning deliberate attacks on civilians. While it was not a reaction to one specific conflict, it was part of a broader response to widespread and systematic violence against civilians in multiple conflicts throughout the 1990s, including: The Rwandan Genocide (1994), the Bosnian War, especially the Srebrenica massacre (1995), ongoing violence in Sierra Leone, Angola, and the Democratic Republic of Congo and the aftermath of NATO’s intervention in Kosovo (1999). According to the statute of the International Criminal Court, intentionally targeting civilians—individuals not taking part in hostilities constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts (see Rule 1, 21 The Principle of Distinction between Civilians and Combatants).
Since 2023, the Gaza Strip has witnessed a series of actions committed by Israeli occupation forces, including systematic targeting of civilians, bombardments of residential buildings and health facilities, and destruction of vital infrastructure, resulting in significant civilian casualties. When measured against the established IHL framework, this study finds that these actions represent prima facie grave violations of international humanitarian law and emphasize the critical need for accountability in international legal forums.
Principle of proportionality and precautions
The principle of proportionality prohibits attacks that cause excessive civilian harm in relation to the anticipated concrete and direct military advantage. This principle, codified in Article 51(5)(b) of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions, 22 requires that military operations weigh the expected military gain against the potential harm to civilians and civilian objects. Commanders must therefore assess the potential civilian harm before launching an attack, ensuring that the military advantage outweighs the risks to civilians and civilian infrastructure. The proportionality rule functions as a critical safeguard against indiscriminate, excessive, or otherwise unjustified use of force, reinforcing the balance between military necessity and humanitarian protection.
In the context of the Gaza War, this principle has been widely violated by Israel, with significant civilian casualties reported as a result of airstrikes and other military operations. Reuters (2024) reported that “The U.N. Human Rights Office said on Friday nearly 70% of the fatalities it has verified in the Gaza War were women and children and condemned a systematic violation of the fundamental principles of international humanitarian law.” Such casualty patterns strongly indicate repeated failures to ensure that civilian harm is not excessive in relation to stated military objectives.
IHL further obligates parties to an armed conflict to take all feasible precautions to minimize civilian casualties and damage to civilian objects during an attack. This obligation involves verifying the nature of the target, evaluating potential collateral harm, and selecting means and methods of warfare that reduce risks to civilians. If an attack appears likely to result in disproportionate damage to civilians or civilian property, it must be cancelled or suspended. Rule 15 (Principle of Precautions in Attack)
23
states that in the conduct of military operations, constant care must be taken to spare the civilian population, civilians and civilian objects. All feasible precautions must be taken to avoid, and in any event to minimise, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects.
A clear failure to uphold the principle of precautions was evident in the Israeli attack on UNRWA facilities in 2024 (UNRWA, 2024). This attack, along with subsequent strikes on hospitals, schools, and other civilian institutions during ongoing hostilities, resulted in extensive civilian casualties. Le Monde (2024) reports that “the decision by Israel’s parliament to ban the UN agency in charge of Palestinian refugees, while further operations in the Gaza Strip threaten the lives of tens of thousands of civilians, is a disgrace and a scandal.” Such actions underscore the extent to which both the proportionality and precautionary obligations appear to have been disregarded in practice.
Precautions against the effects of attacks and indiscriminate attacks
Parties to a conflict are required under IHL to take all feasible precautions to protect civilians and civilian objects under their control from the adverse effects of attacks, even if the attacks are directed at military objectives. These precautions include establishing shelters, constructing protective structures, disseminating timely information, issuing warnings, evacuating civilians, regulating traffic flows to avoid congestion, safeguarding civilian property, and activating civil defence mechanisms. Furthermore, civilians lose the protection afforded to them against attacks when they directly participate in hostilities. Although IHL does not offer a precise definition of “direct participation in hostilities,” the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights clarifies that such participation includes “acts that are intended by their nature or purpose to cause real harm to members of the enemy and to military equipment” (Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, 1999). This concept helps determine when civilians temporarily forfeit their immunity from attack.
Additional Protocol I explicitly prohibits indiscriminate attacks. These refer to means or methods of warfare that cannot be directed at a specific military target or whose effects cannot be limited as required by IHL, thereby violating the principle of distinction and disproportionately endangering civilian lives. The protocol also forbids “area bombardment,” which involves targeting a broad area containing a number of dispersed military objectives that are in proximity to civilian objects or populations.
In Gaza, indiscriminate attacks on residential buildings, hospitals, and schools have resulted in widespread civilian casualties, highlighting the violations of IHL and demonstrating the urgent need for greater accountability mechanisms. The principles of distinction, proportionality, and precautions form the core legal protections of journalists under Additional Protocol I. These principles safeguard journalists’ civilian status during armed conflicts, ensuring that their right to report from conflict zones is protected. Nevertheless, persistent violations of these principles—particularly in the Gaza context—highlight the insufficiency of current enforcement mechanisms and the continuing risks faced by journalists and civilians alike. Ensuring adherence to these legal principles is crucial for preserving the safety and dignity of those working in conflict zones, including independent journalists, war correspondents, and other media personnel.
The principle of humanity and necessity
The Geneva Conventions articulate three fundamental obligations towards those affected by armed conflicts: respect, protection, and humane treatment. Respect requires refraining from harming, threatening, or degrading individuals, while actively safeguarding their lives and dignity. Protection entails shielding individuals from the dangers of hostilities, and providing essential assistance to mitigate conflict-related risks. Humane treatment refers to ensuring that individuals are treated with decency, based on the circumstances of the conflict.
The principle of military necessity seeks to balance the demands of military operations with the need to minimize harm to civilians and other protected persons. Originating in the St. Petersburg Declaration of 1868, this principle stressed the need to reconcile military objectives with humanitarian limitations. The 1907 Hague Convention IV expanded on this notion, emphasizing that the destruction or seizure of enemy property is permissible only when required by military necessity. This principle is echoed throughout the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols, which refer to “imperative military requirements” and “urgent military reasons” as potential justifications for certain wartime measures. However, such measures must be carefully constrained to prevent unnecessary suffering. Destruction or seizure of property is deemed a war crime unless justified by military necessity, and even then, proportionality and precautions must be observed.
For journalists working in conflict zones, Article 79(1) of the Additional Protocol I of 1977 establishes that they are to be treated as civilians, distinct from combatants. Consequently, journalists must not be targeted, threatened, or subjected to acts of violence or intimidation intended to instil fear. This framework is essential not only for the protection of journalists but also for upholding the broader values of justice, human dignity, and accountability.
Their properties, such as equipment used for journalistic purposes, are also considered civilian objects, protected from attack unless they lose their civilian status by being directly used for military purposes. Moreover, the principle of proportionality applies to the actions against journalists and their properties. Any potential harm to journalists or their belongings must be balanced against the anticipated military advantage from an attack, and such harm should only occur if it is deemed necessary to achieve the military objective. Intentionally targeting journalists or their property, unless justified by military requirements, constitutes a war crime.
By upholding these principles, the international community helps maintain the essential role of journalists in documenting armed conflict, ensuring that they can report on events without fear of being targeted or subjected to violence. This legal framework is essential not only for the protection of journalists but also for reinforcing the broader values of justice, human dignity, and accountability during war.
Forms of the Israeli violations against Palestinian journalists during the Gaza War of 2023–2025
This section explores and assesses forms of Israeli violations faced by Palestinian journalists. Palestinian journalists have been subjected to various forms of violations as they endeavour to expose and report on the daily atrocities perpetrated by the Israeli occupation forces.
Forms of Israeli violations against Palestinian journalists
Direct targeting of journalists
Palestinian journalists have been directly targeted by Israeli forces in clear violation of IHL. These reported attacks include lethal strikes on vehicles clearly marked as “PRESS”, the targeting of journalists during active reporting, and the bombing of journalists’ homes. Since October 2023, over 157 journalists have been killed, with at least 32 of these killings occurring during active reporting (see report by Committee to Protect Journalists, 2024b). Such incidents indicate a pattern that extends beyond incidental harm and suggests an effort to suppress independent reporting.
Notable cases include the killings of Bilal Jadallah, the Chairman of Press House (Committee to Protect Journalists, 2023a) and photojournalist Rushdi Al-Sarraj, whose home was targeted by Israeli airstrikes (Al Jazeera, 2023a). Journalists, Hassouna Salim (Committee to Protect Journalists, 2023b) and Sari Mansour, were also killed despite visible press identifiers (Al Jazeera, 2023c; McKernan, 2024). These attacks raise serious concerns regarding Israel’s compliance with its obligations under IHL to protect civilians, including journalists.
Targeting journalists’ families and properties
Israeli forces have also targeted the families and residences of Palestinian journalists, actions that amount to intimidation and efforts to silence reporting. One such example is the Israeli airstrike on the home of Al Jazeera correspondent Wael Dahdouh, which killed members of his family, including his journalist son Hamza (Al Jazeera, 2023b). These actions are part of a broader campaign to suppress media coverage and intimidate journalists.
Under Article 8 of the Rome Statute, attacks on civilians and civilian objects may constitute war crimes, particularly when they form part of a widespread or systematic pattern. Repeated strikes on journalists’ homes linked to their professional work strongly suggest deliberate targeting or, at a minimum, reckless disregard for their civilian status. This pattern is consistent with observed media repression tactics in other conflicts—where attacks on journalists’ families function as a deterrent to reporting—though determination of deliberate intent requires formal investigation.
Indiscriminate bombing of media offices
The Israeli military has also bombed numerous media buildings, which house both local and international media outlets. This not only disrupts journalistic work but also fits into a broader media blackout strategy aimed at controlling the narrative. Human rights organization Amnesty International has condemned these bombings, highlighting that they prevent the international community from receiving timely and accurate information about the human rights abuses taking place in Gaza (ICHR, 2024). These actions are part of Israel’s ongoing campaign to control the narrative, obstruct documentation, and silence critical reporting. Such measures violate Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which protects freedom of expression and the press (UN General Assembly, 1966).
Arbitrary arrests and pursuit
Israeli forces have also engaged in arbitrary detention, harassment and persecution of Palestinian journalists. Many have been detained without formal charges or due process, seemingly as part of a broader strategy to suppress media coverage (Committee to Protect Journalists, 2024a).
From a Critical Legal Studies perspective, these systemic disparities in the application of international legal protections are particularly evident against Palestinian journalists. Gauthier-Villars et al. (2024) reported that, in 2024, the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) investigated the death of Reuters journalist Issam Abdallah, who was killed by an Israeli tank strike while reporting near the Israel–Lebanon border. The UNIFIL report concluded that the attack violated international law and called for accountability.
The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) reported that since October 7, 2023, Israeli security forces arrested 76 Palestinian journalists. As of May 29, 2024, 50 of them remained in prison, with 20 subjected to administrative detention (International Federation of Journalists [IFJ], 2024).
Restriction of movement and denial of access to coverage areas
Israeli authorities have imposed severe movement restrictions on journalists in Gaza, preventing them from accessing key conflict areas and obstructing documentation of military operations and civilian casualties. Such restrictions continue a long-standing pattern in which states limit media access to exert control over wartime narratives (Lisosky and Henrichsen, 2011).
These barriers to access are especially problematic for international journalists who were already barred from entering Gaza, leading to a media blackout and reduced global awareness of the situation (Al Mezan Center for Human Rights, 2024). Throughout the war, international journalists have been denied access to Gaza, with only rare, escorted trips arranged by the Israeli military. This effective ban has placed an immense burden on local reporters to document events under challenging conditions (Free Press Unlimited, 2024).
Jamming communication channels
Israeli forces have engaged in jamming communication, a tactic that severely hampered journalists’ ability to report in real-time. This included the deliberate disruption of wireless transmissions, interference with satellite signals, and cutting off internet access in targeted areas. These actions restricted journalists’ ability to send out live reports and updates, particularly crucial for documenting and broadcasting the unfolding events during the war.
In November 2023, Israel imposed a full communication blackout on Gaza, cutting off telecommunication and internet services for the second time in five days. Humanitarian aid agencies warned that such blackouts severely disrupt their operations and hinder journalists’ ability to report (Al Jazeera, 2023a; Daily Sabah, 2024; Time, 2023).
These communication blackouts demonstrate how digital infrastructure is weaponized as a tool of media repression in contemporary conflicts, further restricting independent reporting.
Failure of Israel’s compliance with IHL and its provisions to protect Palestinian journalists during the Gaza War (2023–2025)
This section examines Israel’s failure to uphold international humanitarian law and its protections to protect Palestinian journalists during the Gaza War 2023–2025.
UN Security Council Resolution 2222 (2015)
This resolution affirms the essential role of journalists in documenting armed conflicts and underscores that their safety is fundamental to transparency, accountability, and public awareness. The resolution condemns all violations against journalists, including attacks, abductions, and killings, and calls on all parties to ensure the safety of journalists, media workers, and their associated personnel. The resolution also stresses the importance of holding perpetrators accountable, condemns the culture of impunity, and calls for the prosecution of those responsible for crimes against journalists.
The violation of these principles is evident in the treatment of Palestinian journalists during the Gaza War 2023–2025, where Israel’s actions have directly contravened these protections. The international legal responsibility to safeguard the work of journalists is clear, and Israel’s failure to uphold these obligations further exacerbates the dire situation facing Palestinian media workers.
From a Critical Legal Studies (CLS) perspective — which views law as politically constructed, shaped by power relations, and rarely neutral (Moyn, 2024) — the inability of international bodies to enforce this resolution highlights structural asymmetries in legal accountability. Powerful states often evade meaningful consequences, revealing uneven application of legal protections. This disparity reinforces the marginalization of Palestinian journalists, whose rights remain insufficiently protected despite clear international legal mandates.
United Nations General Assembly Resolution 69/185 (2014)
This resolution reiterates the need for a safe environment in which journalists can operate freely, condemns impunity for crimes against journalists, and urges states to take effective measures to protect journalists and provide justice to victims. The resolution emphasizes that states should ensure that journalists can carry out their duties without intimidation, threats, or reprisals. In the context of Gaza, the persistent attacks and absence of accountability for violations against Palestinian journalists reveal a failure to uphold these obligations. This enforcement gap underscores the selective application of international law and reinforces entrenched global hierarchies in legal protection.
Article 79 of the Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions (1977)
Article 79 protects journalists as civilians during armed conflicts, explicitly prohibiting their targeting. It underscores the need for all parties in conflict to respect the safety and security of journalists and media workers, ensuring their ability to report on events without interference or harm. Israel’s conduct during the Gaza War—marked by the killing of journalists, destruction of media infrastructure, and severe movement restrictions—constitutes direct violations of Article 79. These actions illustrate not only non-compliance but also the broader limitations and fragility of IHL enforcement mechanisms, particularly when violations are carried out by militarily powerful states.
The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC)
The Rome Statute criminalizes war crimes, including the targeting of civilians such as journalists. Article 8 of the Statute specifically includes the targeting of journalists as a war crime, recognizing the attack on journalists as an attack on the free flow of information and an infringement of international humanitarian law.
Although journalists are recognized as civilians under international law, this designation provides limited protection in contexts where broader atrocities—such as alleged genocide, ethnic cleansing, or collective punishment—are unfolding, and where civilian protections are routinely disregarded. In such situations, attacks on journalists not only represent war crimes but may also offer critical evidence of an intent to silence witnesses and obstruct the documentation of mass atrocities.
Factors affecting the enforcement of international humanitarian law
Despite the clear legal protections provided by international humanitarian law, the enforcement mechanisms remain weak and inconsistent, particularly in the context of the Gaza War 2023–2024. Israeli violations against Palestinian journalists expose the shortcomings and failures of international institutions to enforce the legal norms designed to protect their safety. Several factors contribute to this lack of accountability:
The lack of accountability for these violations has allowed Israel to continue its assaults on journalists without facing substantial repercussions. To address this ongoing issue, the international community must strengthen efforts to ensure the protection of journalists and enforce international law. Independent investigations, stronger diplomatic pressure on Israel, and greater involvement from the United Nations are necessary to ensure justice for Palestinian journalists and to uphold the fundamental right to a free and independent press in conflict zones.
Conclusion
The legal analysis of international agreements underscores the critical need for the protection of journalists during armed conflicts. While IHL distinguishes between war correspondents and independent journalists, it remains vague in defining these categories, offering both groups the same civilian protections.
This ambiguity, combined with the general nature of IHL, leaves journalists in conflict zones like Gaza particularly vulnerable, relying on theoretical safeguards that often lack effective enforcement. As a result, Palestinian journalists, during the Gaza War 2023–2025, have faced violations that may constitute war crimes under the Geneva Conventions, Additional Protocols, and the Rome Statute, establishing international criminal and civil responsibility, providing the basis for seeking justice and reparations.
The gravity of these violations goes beyond the immediate physical harm to journalists; they represent an assault on press freedom and the essential function of journalism in war zones. Targeting journalists obstructs the free flow of information, depriving the global community of accurate reporting on atrocities. This undermines IHL and global governance, perpetuating a culture of impunity that weakens accountability in conflict zones.
This study highlights the urgent need for reform within international legal frameworks. Strengthening enforcement of protections for journalists is not just a legal necessity but a moral imperative. In an era where the media plays an increasingly central role in shaping public awareness and international responses to crises, safeguarding the rights of journalists is integral to upholding democratic principles and human rights worldwide. Failure to act diminishes public trust, compromises global reporting, and exposes vulnerable populations to further exploitation.
Immediate measures are needed in Gaza and the West Bank, including deploying international protection missions for journalists; pressuring Israel through UN mechanisms to cease violations; and providing emergency visas, equipment, and trauma support to media workers. On the legal front, IHL must be operationalized through empowered international bodies—such as the ICC and UN Special Rapporteurs—to conduct rapid, on-the-ground investigations. A global media safety task force, jointly managed by international organizations and NGOs, should coordinate protective actions and document abuses in real time.
The international community must recognize the stakes of this issue and take decisive, collective action to safeguard and restore faith in international humanitarian law. Only through action—not mere condemnation— can journalists be protected and the integrity of conflict reporting preserved.
Footnotes
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and publication of this article.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and publication of this article.
Notes
Author biographies
Address: University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom. [email:
Address: Israa University Gaza, Palestinian Territory, occupied. [email: