This year, 54 journalists were killed worldwide, with 31 deaths occurring in conflict zones such as Gaza, Iraq, Sudan, Myanmar and Ukraine.
The 2024 Round-up by Reporters Without Borders (RSF) paints a grim picture of the state of journalism, with escalating violence against media workers, particularly in conflict zones. Over half of the journalists killed this year lost their lives in areas of armed conflict. The Gaza Strip emerged as the deadliest region globally for journalists.
Conflict zones dominate journalist fatalities
This year, 54 journalists were killed worldwide, with 31 deaths occurring in conflict zones such as Gaza, Iraq, Sudan, Myanmar and Ukraine. RSF’s data reveals that nearly 30% of these deaths occurred in Gaza, where at least 35 journalists were killed in direct connection with their work.Since October 2023, the Israeli army has been implicated in over 145 journalist fatalities in the region. RSF has filed four war crime complaints with the International Criminal Court to address these killings.Palestine has become the most dangerous country for journalists, recording the highest death toll over the past five years.
Rising detentions: 550 journalists behind bars
Globally, 550 journalists are currently imprisoned, marking a 7% increase compared to last year. The uptick is attributed to surges in journalist detentions in Russia and Israel, which has become the third-largest jailer of journalists since the onset of the Gaza offensive. Four countries – China (124 journalists), Myanmar (61), Israel (41) and Belarus (40) – account for nearly half of the imprisoned journalists worldwide.
This year’s report also highlights the plight of 55 journalists held hostage and 95 journalists reported missing. Syria remains the epicentre for hostage situations, with 70% of the cases linked to kidnappings by the Islamic State. Yemen saw two new abductions in 2024, while Mali recorded similar cases last year.Of the missing journalists, 45% are victims of enforced disappearances. Countries like Mexico, Syria and Palestine feature prominently in these cases. RSF has urged nations to ratify the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance to address this growing concern.
Urgent call to action
Thibaut Bruttin, RSF’s director general, stressed the need for global action to combat impunity for crimes against journalists. “Journalists do not die, they are killed; they are not in prison, regimes lock them up; they do not disappear, they are kidnapped,” Bruttin said, emphasising the importance of justice and protection for media workers.”These crimes – often orchestrated by governments and armed groups with total impunity – violate international law and too often go unpunished. We need to get things moving, to remind ourselves as citizens that journalists are dying for us, to keep us informed. We must continue to count, name, condemn, investigate, and ensure that justice is served. Fatalism should never win. Protecting those who inform us is protecting the truth,” Bruttin further stated.
As Israel inches closer to annexing the West Bank and Gaza, the illusion of the two-state solution collapses, exposing the apartheid reality of governance between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.
As Peter Beinart has argued convincingly, Donald Trump’s choice of advisors, combined with the messianic fanatics who hold the balance of power in the Israeli government, virtually guarantee the annexation by Israel of the West Bank, and, ultimately Gaza.
Annexation will completely expose the apartheid nature of the State of Israel. Today, there are approximately 7.2 million Jews and 6.3 million Arabs between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. All of the Jews are citizens of Israel with full rights and access to public services. The myth of Israel as a “Jewish democracy” depends on the fact that only 2.1 million of the Arabs are citizens of Israel, though with fewer rights and limits on their access to public services. 362,000 Arabs in East Jerusalem are citizens of the city but not of the state. The remaining approximately 4 million Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza are stateless, and subject to either military rule or open aggression. The lack of an agreed international status for the territories conquered by Israel in 1967 has left them with what we might call a maliciously ambiguous status. Their Palestinian residents have a supposedly temporary status as subjects of Israeli occupation (a term Israel rejects), pending a mutually agreed solution to the conflict. They are the people that the two-state solution needs – their ambiguous status will supposedly turn into citizenship of a Palestinian state. The malicious way they are ruled, allows Israel to hold so-called “democratic” elections in which more than a third of the population under its rule is ineligible to vote.
Defenders of Israel rebut charges of apartheid as ridiculous: Palestinian Arabs (about 21% of the total number of Israeli citizens) have the right to vote, they are represented in the Knesset, and some are judges and members of the armed forces. This specious argument depends on the fiction that the West Bank and Gaza are not in Israel. In fact, Palestinians constitute nearly 49% of the population ruled by the State of Israel, and most of them cannot vote or participate in the government that rules them.
Annexation of these territories will officially proclaim that they are part of Israel. But annexation will not involve extending citizenship and its rights to all Palestinians. Members of the Israeli cabinet like security minister Itamar Ben Gvir have been openly calling for the “voluntary” transfer of most of the Palestinians out of Israel. The genocidal campaign in Gaza and the accelerating ethnic cleansing of the West Bank provide a glimpse of what they really mean to do: confront Palestinians with a choice of emigration or perpetual violence, so they “voluntarily” choose emigration.
Most of those who claim to oppose such an outcome today advocate the two-state solution. But Ian Lustick, in his book Paradigm Lost, shows that the long-dead corpse of the two-state solution lies buried in the rubble of Gaza. The two-state solution is a fiction that has served for too long as a cover for Israeli apartheid. Once the cover is ripped off, the two-state solution is not a solution but an obstacle to overcome on the way to the only alternative there is to apartheid: equality.
Therefore opposition to the Jewish supremacist policy of annexation should organise not around the now-empty slogan of “two states for two peoples,” but around the slogan: “No to Annexation, Yes to Reunification.” Reunification was what happened in Germany. East Germans were not kept as stateless serfs of the West Germans; they received the full rights of citizenship.
It is not hard to show that it would be almost as difficult for these two peoples to coexist in a single state in Palestine/Eretz Yisrael as it would be to disentangle them to form two separate states. In fact, the so-called “two-state solution” never offered Palestinians a sovereign state; it hinted that the Palestinians might one day pick up their own garbage, while Israel controlled their borders, limited their security forces and dominated their economy.
The rights of the Palestinians require not mere opposition to annexation, but the demand that the inevitable annexation should become an initial step toward the democratic reunification of Palestine. The naked racism of the one-state reality would surely power a global movement as powerful as that against South African apartheid and, most importantly, shatter the now crumbling pro-Israel consensus in the United States. Reunification will not happen during the duopoly of Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu but it is time to cut through the confusion, recognise the inevitability of what Lustick calls the “one-state reality” and demand that those who will impose rule by a single state upon the land between the river and the sea will set before us a blessing, not a curse.
Barnett R. Rubin is Director, Afghanistan Regional Project and Associate Director, Center on International Cooperation of New York University.He is the author of Blood on the Doorstep: the Politics of Preventing Violent Conflict, The Fragmentation of Afghanistan: State Formation and Collapse in the International System, Afghanistan from the Cold War through the War on Terror, and other books.
This article was originally published on the author’s Substack account. It has been edited slightly for style.
Recognised for her solo exhibition Alter Altar, held at Tramway, Glasgow, Kaur used her acceptance speech to deliver a powerful message in support of Palestinian rights.
New Delhi: Jasleen Kaur has been awarded the Turner Prize 2024, one of the world’s most prestigious visual arts prizes, during a ceremony at Tate Britain in London. Recognised for her solo exhibition Alter Altar, held at Tramway, Glasgow, Kaur used her acceptance speech to deliver a powerful message in support of Palestinian rights.
“I want to echo the calls of the protesters outside. A protest made up of artists, culture workers, Tate staff, students who I stand firmly with. They’ve gathered to make visible the demands of the open letter signed by, when I last checked, 1,310 signatories in just a week calling for you Tate to sever ties with organisations complicit in what the UN and ICJ are finally getting closer to saying is a genocide of the Palestinian people,” Kaur said.
“This is not a radical demand. This should not risk an artist’s career or safety. We’re trying to build consensus that the ties to these organisations are unethical,” Kaur continued, likening it to previous successful campaigns by artists against ties with the Sackler family.
Kaur’s exhibition, curated by Claire Jackson, weaves personal, political and spiritual narratives into a compelling visual and auditory experience. Her installations were praised for their ability to evoke community, cultural inheritance and resilience.
The jury commended Kaur for her innovative storytelling and her ability to create a sense of solidarity and joy through her work. They noted how her exhibition brought together diverse voices and material in unexpected ways, making it a standout among this year’s other three shortlisted artists – Pio Abad, Claudette Johnson and Delaine Le Bas.
Kaur called on cultural institutions to align their actions with the values they promote, urging them to eliminate the divide between political expression within galleries and real-world activism. “I’ve been wondering why artists are required to dream up liberation in the gallery, but when that dream meets life, we are shut down. I want the separation between the expression of politics in the gallery and the practice of politics in life to disappear,” Kaur added.
Established in 1984 and named after the British painter JMW Turner, the prize aims to foster public debate on new developments in the art world. The £25,000 prize was presented to Kaur by actor James Norton.
Her award-winning exhibition reflected the pluralities of religious and cultural identities. The Turner Prize exhibition, featuring works by all four shortlisted artists, is on view at Tate Britain until February 16, 2025.
Born in Glasgow in 1986, London-based Kaur’s work is deeply rooted in her Sikh heritage and explores themes of cultural identity, community and resistance. Her work delves into cultural memory and the legacy of imperialism, reimagining traditional narratives and challenge inherited myths.
Kaur concluded her acceptance speech with a plea for immediate action. She said, “We needed a ceasefire a very long time ago. We need a proper ceasefire now. Arms embargo now. Free Palestine.”
Haaretz remains defiant, stating in its response that it “will not balk and will not morph into a government pamphlet”.
On Sunday (November 24), Israel’s far-right Cabinet voted unanimously to sanction Haaretz, the nation’s oldest newspaper. The motion was put forward by Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi (Likud), apparently in response to critical coverage of the Israel-Hamas war and a speech by Haaretz publisher Amos Schocken, who suggested imposing sanctions on senior government officials for violating international law.
The proposal stipulates ending government advertising with the newspaper and a contact boycott. It also calls for canceling all subscriptions to the left-liberal newspaper for state employees and employees of state-owned companies.
Haaretz, which publishes in Hebrew and English and is widely respected internationally, responded to the decision by saying that the boycott “is another step in Netanyahu’s journey to dismantle Israeli democracy. Like his friends Putin, Erdogan, and Orban, Netanyahu is trying to silence a critical, independent newspaper,” a statement said. Noa Landau, deputy editor-in-chief wrote on social media platform X, “we will not be deterred.”
Solidarity with Haaretz
Criticism was widespread among Israeli media watchdogs and within the journalism community. “It’s very worrying because they want to destroy the gatekeepers, and the media is the gatekeeper,” Anat Saragusti, head of the Israeli Journalists’ Union, told DW.
“There is solidarity among all journalists and all media who understand that this is something big.” Saragusti also said that this was just one of several attempts to restrict press freedom, including legislation to shut down Israel’s public broadcaster and intimidation campaigns against individual journalists.
Nahum Barnea, a prominent commentator in the daily Yedioth Ahronoth, wrote that “while dozens of missiles fired by Hezbollah, the organization we already defeated, filled the skies overhead and millions of worried Israelis rushed to take shelter, our government was busy addressing the question that truly preoccupies its ministers: How to financially screw over a media outlet.”
Publisher’s speech in the spotlight
On X, Israeli Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi wrote, “we won’t allow a reality in which a publisher of a newspaper in Israel calls for sanctions against it and supports the State’s enemies in the middle of a war and will still be financially supported by the State.” He also wrote, “fancy reading the poison that is Haaretz newspaper? Feel free to do so. We’ll just stop funding it. Inconceivable for you [Haaretz] huh? Freedom of expression yes, funding for poison against the State and the army? Absolutely not.”
In October, Haaretz publisher Amos Schocken, in a speech delivered at an event his paper had organized in London, called for international sanctions on Israeli leaders.
“A Palestinian state must be established and the only way to achieve this, I think, is to apply sanctions against Israel, against the leaders who oppose it and against the settlers who are in the occupied territories in contravention of international law,” Schocken reportedly said.
His speech drew sharp criticism in Israel — including from Haaretz journalists — for referring at one point to Palestinians as “freedom fighters.” Schocken subsequently clarified his comments and said his mention of Palestinian “freedom fighters” was not a reference to Hamas militants. An editorial in the newspaper criticized its publisher, saying that any organization attacking civilians is “a terrorist organisation, and its members are terrorists. They are certainly not freedom fighters.”
Nevertheless, the latest move is seen by Israeli media watchdogs as an effort to silence critical coverage.
“In 2023, when the judicial overhaul started, the intention was to change the media landscape simultaneously, and Minister Karhi, when he entered his position as minister of communications, said his goal is to shut down the Public Broadcasting Corporation,” said Oren Persico, editor at HaAyin HaShevi’it [Hebrew: Seventh Eye], an online magazine investigating media issues and freedom of the press. “Now they are back, there are a few bills right now trying to limit freedom of the press.”
Public broadcaster also targeted
Since its TV and radio launch in 2017, replacing the old, politically influenced Israeli Broadcast Authority (IBA), Israeli public broadcaster Kan (Hebrew: Here) has become an integral part of the country’s media landscape. Its news operations include journalists from all sides of Israeli society, right and left wing alike. Its social media channels enjoy high popularity among Israelis.
Prime Minister Netanyahu and his ministers tried to reduce Kan’s influence from the start. In a 2016 article for right-wing newspaper Makor Rishon, journalist Amit Segal wrote that Netanyahu would like to stop Kan’s establishment, even if that meant keeping the IBA.
Those attempts continue under current Communications Minister Karhi. At the beginning of 2023, the Haaretz Group daily business newspaper TheMarker reported in February that the Netanyahu government’s attempts to shut down Kan were due to it “not being prone to political pressure.”
Other laws such as the so-called Al Jazeera law were also passed. In May, the Israeli government shut down Al Jazeera’s office in Israel under the new law, which allows for the closure of foreign media outlets deemed a threat to national security. The Israeli military also later raided and closed Al Jazeera’s Ramallah bureau in the Israeli-occupied West Bank. The closure orders have been renewed every 60 days since the site was shuttered.
Haaretz remains defiant
This latest initiative is likely to be challenged at Israel’s Supreme Court, analysts said.
“It really invites an appeal to the High Court, as you shouldn’t insert political views into these calculations because the objective is to get the message to the public,” Persico told DW, referring to the government agencies advertising in newspapers. “The question is, will the government advertising agency really boycott Haaretz because of the political decision of the government.”
Haaretz remains defiant, stating in its response to the government’s decision that it “will not balk and will not morph into a government pamphlet that publishes messages approved by the government and its leader.”
Prime Minister Narendra Modi, in a statement marking the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People on November 29, reiterated India’s support for a negotiated two-state solution.
New Delhi: Prime Minister Narendra Modi, in a statement marking the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People on November 29, expressed deep concern over the ongoing conflict in Gaza and reiterated India’s support for a negotiated two-state solution.
In a press statement released on November 26, Modi called for an immediate ceasefire, the release of hostages, an end to terrorism and unimpeded delivery of humanitarian assistance. He reaffirmed India’s commitment to the Palestinian cause, emphasising the need for a sovereign, independent and viable State of Palestine living side-by-side in peace with Israel. Modi also highlighted India’s role as a steadfast development partner for the Palestinian people.
The Embassy of the State of Palestine in India commemorated the day with a strong call for an end to Israeli aggression in Gaza and an appeal for India’s continued backing for a sovereign Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital. The Embassy highlighted the devastating consequences of the prolonged Israeli offensive, citing a death toll exceeding 43,000 Palestinians, mostly women and children, and the near-total destruction of infrastructure in Gaza. They accused Israel of pursuing ethnic cleansing, using starvation as a weapon of war, and systematically targeting journalists. At least 188 media professionals have been killed, hindering the world’s ability to witness the full extent of the devastation.
Beyond the immediate violence, the embassy condemned what it termed Israel’s systematic policy of expanding settlements in the West Bank, isolating Palestinian cities and confiscating Palestinian funds. Furthermore, the statement criticised Israel’s increasingly adversarial stance toward the UN, including barring its secretary-general from entry and attempting to curtail the activities of United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, a critical lifeline for Palestinian refugees. These actions, the embassy asserted, demonstrate Israel’s unwillingness to engage in meaningful peace negotiations and its disregard for international law.
Reaffirming their commitment to self-determination, the embassy declared the Palestinian people’s unwavering resolve to continue their struggle for an independent state with East Jerusalem as its capital. They rejected all displacement policies and emphasised their faith in the UN and the principles of international justice. The statement underscored the urgent need for international intervention to protect Palestinian civilians and hold Israel accountable for its actions.
On this day of solidarity, Palestine appealed to India, citing the historical friendship between the two nations, to leverage its influence to halt the Israeli aggression, provide humanitarian and financial support, and actively promote a just and lasting peace. The embassy expressed its continued belief in India’s role as a voice for peace and stability in the region, particularly in facilitating the reconstruction of Gaza.
The embassy statement also acknowledged significant milestones, such as Palestine’s 2012 recognition as a UN non-member observer state and the raising of the Palestinian flag at UN headquarters in 2015.
There is speculation that this could be part of Israel’s strategy is to defeat Hamas and propose the wholesale transfer of north Gaza’s population south beyond the Netzarim corridor.
Western political leaders were quick to argue that the killing of Hamas leader, Yahya Sinwar, on October 17 presented a window of opportunity. Perhaps the decapitation of the militant group’s senior command would be a chance for renewed ceasefire talks and the release of the Israeli hostages.
The US president, Joe Biden, urged the Israeli government the following day to “make this moment an opportunity” to end the war in Gaza. But Israel had already launched a major operation in northern Gaza. On October 12, the IDF posted a message in Arabic on social media sites warning civilians living in an area designated as D5 on Israel’s grid map of Gaza to evacuate. It said the area would soon be a “dangerous combat zone” and ordered people to move to safe areas in the south of Gaza.
This process has continued as the IDF has renewed its offensive in the north of the enclave, with an estimated 400,000 people affected, about 20% of the population of Gaza. The UN reported on October 21 that only a “trickle” of food aid has been allowed into north Gaza over the previous week. The Israeli military has denied this. But it has also been reported that the emergency polio vaccination campaign in north Gaza has had to be suspended, due to Israeli bombardment and a lack of access to UN personnel.
The forcible transfer of a population during war is illegal under international law, as is denying access to humanitarian aid for civilians. But there are fears that there is a plan to move Palestinians out of north Gaza in a plan which could pave the way for settlers to move in.
The liberal Haaretz newspaper, a consistent critic of the Netanyahu government, published an editorial on October 22 saying that there was mounting evidence that Israel is now pursuing a policy of siege and starvation to force the complete evacuation of the civilian population of northern Gaza. In doing this, the newspaper said, Israel is implementing the now notorious “generals’ plan”. It asserted:
Make no mistake, [the generals’ plan] is a war crime, and it runs contrary to UN Security Council decision 2334, which states that land may not be taken through force, referring to acts of war.
Military plan or land grab?
The “generals’ plan” is attributed to retired Maj. Gen. Giora Eiland, a former head of national security in Israel. As a strategy to defeat Hamas (something which has proved elusive in 12 months of bitter fighting in Gaza) it proposes the wholesale transfer of north Gaza’s population south beyond the Netzarim corridor. A siege would be imposed on those who remain.
The Netzarim Corridor runs across the Gaza Strip below Gaza CIty. Israel is moving Palestinians south of the corridor. ChrisO/Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA
In late September Eiland argued in an interview with Haaretz that “it’s permissible and even recommended to starve an enemy to death, provided you’ve allowed the civilians corridors of exits beforehand. And that is exactly what I am proposing”.
Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, recently told US secretary of state, Antony Blinken, that Israel is not planning to lay siege to northern Gaza. But the evidence of the military’s actions on the ground suggests otherwise. Since October 6 the IDF has been conducting what it calls a “clearing operation” in Jabalia, north of Gaza City, channelling civilians south while launching airstrikes against the Jabalia refugee camp, where it says units of Hamas are embedded.
Changing the reality
There is widespread concern that the end game in north Gaza will include the return of settlers. A conference on October 22 attended by members of the ruling Likud Party, including several ministers in the Netanyahu government, heard the national security minister, Itamar Ben Gvir, assert that “encouraging emigration” of Palestinian residents of Gaza would be the “most ethical” solution to the conflict. The finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich, told journalists on his way to the conference that the Gaza Strip was “part of the Land of Israel” and that “without settlements, there is no security”.
Settlers were moved out of the the Gaza Strip in 2005, under the then prime minister Ariel Sharon’s Disengagement Plan. The plan dismantled 21 settlements in the Strip, relocating an estimated 8,000 settlers. Many vowed at the time that they would return one day.
CIA map of the Gaza Strip in May 2005, a few months prior to the Israeli withdrawal. The major settlement blocs are shaded in blue. CIA/Wikimedia Commons
There was a Jewish presence on the Gaza Strip from biblical times until 1929, when they were driven out during the Arab revolts, in which 133 Gazan Jews were killed. After the six-day war in 1967, Israel occupied the Sinai Peninsula, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights. In the aftermath of the war, the main focus of settlement was national security, rather than religious ideology. Here the driving force was Israel’s deputy prime minister, Yigal Allon, who believed that national security could be guaranteed by building settlements.
As a consequence, in the 1970s, the Labour government established the initial modern settlements in the Gaza Strip. The settlements divided the enclave such that the Palestinian inhabitants in each area were isolated from each other, thus enabling Israeli control.
UK-based historian Ahron Bregman, a former Israeli army officer (who has written for The Conversation on the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians), warned in a post on X about how national security could once again be used as a pretext for settlements to be established in north Gaza.
Warning: Ahron Bregman’s post on X on October 22. Twitter
The current operation in northern Gaza feels like a particularly ominous moment, not only in the Hamas-Israel war, but in the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Rather than use the opportunity of a weakened Hamas to reach a ceasefire and hostage deal and allow the people of Gaza to attempt to rebuild their shattered lives, Israel appears to be illegally, immorally and irreversibly changing the realities on the ground.
Leonie Fleischmann, Senior Lecturer in International Politics, City St George’s, University of London.
