Some days I’d rather forget I’m Palestinian
Instead of doubting the credibility of Palestinian journalists based on their nationality, Western journalists should condemn the killing and silencing of Palestinian journalists and oppose Israel’s media restrictions on the international journalistic community
By Rajaa Natour
There are days when I want to forget that I am Palestinian because the genocide unfolding in Gaza and the feelings of helplessness have made personal and collective Palestinian existence unbearable. There are also days when I want to forget that I am a Palestinian journalist because the powerful words I once relied on are now meaningless in the face of the genocide in Gaza. My words, along with those of many journalists around the world and even the ruling of the Hague Tribunal, did not save the lives of Gaza’s children and women. So, why should I continue writing? Why should I continue believing in the power of words? After eight months of war, there seems to be no reason to tell Israelis and the world that the Israeli government is deliberately starving Palestinian children and women to death because everyone already knows this. And who will listen anyway? The world will not listen to a Palestinian journalist accused of anti-Semitism, lack of professionalism, and unreliability simply because she criticizes the Israeli government’s policies in Gaza and the West Bank. Above all, the journalistic credibility of many Palestinian journalists is questioned by some readers and Western journalists, mainly because of our Palestinian identity.
In many of the media interviews I’ve participated in, particularly with Western press, I’ve been consistently asked the same question: Does my Palestinian identity and emotional connection to events in Gaza impact my ability to report on the unfolding situation there without bias? It’s important to note that this question isn’t unique to me but is posed to many Palestinian journalists and media professionals. There’s an underlying expectation that we, as Palestinian journalists, should distance ourselves from our national identity to be viewed as “impartial” by many readers and Western media outlets. This question needs to be revised. It assumes that being Palestinian is somehow a “flaw” or a barrier that prevents us, as Palestinian journalists, from being able to objectively report, write, and analyze the political circumstances in Gaza. Moreover, it suggests that Palestinian identity itself is neither ethical nor unbiased. Consequently, according to some Western media perspectives, we, as journalists and Palestinians, are required to renounce and disclaim this identity, even though for many of us, it’s simply one aspect of our identity as individuals, as men and women, and as journalists.
You probably think this is an isolated case. Still, the dehumanization of Palestinian civilians, victims, politicians, and journalists is a widespread, systematic, and intentional phenomenon in some Western media outlets and even among peers in the field. During the current war on Gaza, this dangerous trend has involved four main media components.
The first is the redefinition of the concept of terrorism. Israeli leaders initially described Operation Al-Aqsa Flood as a terrorist act against the State of Israel. Most Western leaders and mainstream Western media echoed this framing. This framing is problematic because it places Palestinians, their narrative, and non-violent resistance to occupation under the umbrella of terrorism, not just Hamas. This new framing of terrorism has seeped into the coverage of many Western media outlets to varying degrees. While CNN and Fox News describe Palestinian fighters as terrorists, The Washington Post and the BBC use terms like extremists and militants.
The second is the dehumanization of Palestinians as individuals and as a collective, compared to the humanization of Israeli victims as individuals and as a collective. This component is not new, but this time, it played a crucial role in giving unprecedented legitimacy to the continuation of the genocide in Gaza.
Talk shows and opinion pieces echoed many politicians’ descriptions of Palestinian fighters on October 7th, referring to Palestinians as “human animals,” claiming that “Israelis are waging war to defend the values of civilization,” and “eliminate monsters,” and calling for “all nations to stand with humanity.” The claim was and remains that “Israelis are fighting to defend civilization’s values” and “to eliminate monsters.” Therefore, “all nations must stand by humanity,” meaning to eliminate the Palestinian threat to civilization’s values. They repeatedly cited “the barbaric acts committed by Hamas fighters,” “rape of women,” “mutilated bodies,” and “burning families while they hugged each other.” As stated, no one denies that innocent Israeli civilians were brutally murdered on October 7th, but many accusations were factually proven wrong. For example, BBC broadcasts continued to discriminate even in reporting human loss, stating that Palestinians “died” while Israelis “were killed.”
The third component is Israel’s unquestioned right to self-defense, consequently making Palestinian victims a marginal price that must be paid to maintain Israel’s security. Thus, any action Israel takes is deemed legitimate. Accordingly, major Western media outlets in the US and UK continued using the term “evacuation” of Gaza residents instead of clear terms well-established in international law like “forced displacement” and “ethnic cleansing.”
The fourth component is de-contextualization. Most Western media coverage of Israel’s war on Gaza intentionally omitted the historical context linking October 7th to the long-standing Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Most Western media coverage neglected the suffering of Gaza’s residents since the Israeli siege 17 years ago and did not mention the repeated conflict cycles. Additionally, they did not report on the number of Palestinian casualties, which far exceeds the Israeli casualties in scale and scope.
The direct result of this framing was that all Palestinian journalists, media professionals, experts, and politicians interviewed by some Western press were granted the right to speak only if they condemned Hamas, supported Israel’s right to defend itself, and considered Hamas a terrorist movement that should be eliminated. These questions simplify the political discourse, overlook the Israeli occupation and its injustices, and assume that Palestinians are “immortal” until proven otherwise. Piers Morgan, Cathy Newman from Channel 4 News, Kirsty Wark Christiane Amanpour, and many others allowed themselves to treat the Palestinians they interviewed as a group of terrorists who only condemn Hamas could exonerate.
But Christiane Amanpour took the discourse of dehumanization of Palestinians one step further. Christiane Amanpour made a statement implying that no journalists were covering the war in Gaza. Those of you who watched the interview heard her skilled interviewee, Jon Stewart, correcting her, saying there were journalists on the ground, but they were Palestinian; most of them were killed by the Israeli bombardment. Amanpour apologized for her sweeping and problematic statement; momentarily, it felt like she understood her mistake. But then, she repeated the same condescending journalistic mantra and said, “I’m talking about independent Western journalists who cannot get there.” Then she continued in the same interview: “When we go to do our job, we go there to the eyes and ears of everybody who cannot go.” When Amanpour says there are no journalists in Gaza, she means there are no Western “white” journalists who can cover the war on Gaza “objectively and professionally.” Because there are journalists in Gaza, they are Palestinian, and therefore, they cannot be the eyes and ears of the world! They also cannot be objective because they have a disorder called “Palestinianity!”
However, those who believe that Amanpour and others express this view because Palestinian journalists are emotionally involved and, therefore, unable to report objectively are mistaken. This viewpoint is primarily rooted in the perception that Palestinian identity is seen as a non-moral identity component and even one that clashes head-on with everything considered Western, ethical, liberal, and moral. It is sad to say, but Israeli propaganda has succeeded in portraying Palestinian identity, especially Palestinian journalistic identity, as neither moral nor ethical. But again, the problem with this statement, which reflects a relatively common and dangerous phenomenon, is primarily that the dehumanization of Palestinian journalists leads to the dehumanization of the narrative and its owners. This phenomenon strips Palestinian journalists of their journalistic credibility and primarily of ownership of their narrative and implies that they cannot take ownership of their story. Therefore, “Western eyes and ears” are the only eyes and ears that can tell the story!
The problem with this perspective, which is common and dangerous, is that the dehumanization of Palestinian journalists leads to the dehumanization of their narratives and experiences. This strips Palestinian journalists not only of their journalistic credibility but also of their ability to take ownership of their stories. It implies that only “Western eyes and ears” can effectively convey the truth of the situation.
Amanpour and others should focus on why Israel has prevented Western journalists from entering Gaza to cover the war rather than questioning the Palestinian identity of Palestinian journalists. What does this situation reveal about Amanpour, her peers, and the global journalistic landscape? Instead of doubting the credibility of Palestinian journalists based on their nationality, Western journalists should condemn the killing and silencing of Palestinian journalists and oppose Israel’s media restrictions on the international journalistic community.
