The Fight to Report from Gaza

August 18th, 2025
Sophia Amundgaard

The media has long recognized Gaza as “the world’s most dangerous state for journalists,” of whom more than 238 have died at the hands of Israeli forces—a toll higher than that of both World Wars, the Vietnam War, the war in Afghanistan and the Yugoslavia wars combined. But now, journalists aren’t just getting stuck in the crosshairs; they’re in Israel’s line of fire.

Al Jazeera correspondent Hani Mahmoud fears for his life, explaining how “every assignment is accompanied by the same unspoken question: Will [I] make it back alive?”

His fear is justified, and its answer is unfolding all around him.

The Story of Anas al-Sharif

On Sunday, an Israeli drone attack on a media tent outside al-Shifa hospital in Gaza left seven dead. Among the count was one of Palestine’s most prominent figures in modern media: 28-year-old Al Jazeera journalist Anas al-Sharif, known for his extensive reporting in northern Gaza.

He and the other four deceased Al Jazeera correspondents were honored at their funeral on Monday. His prepared message was also released on X, finishing with a plea: “do not forget Gaza… And do not forget me in your sincere prayers for forgiveness and acceptance.”

Shortly before his death, al-Sharif noted on X that Israel had begun to launch a series of highly concentrated attacks—also known as “fire belts”—on the south-eastern part of Gaza City.

Moments later, Mahmoud “could see [an explosion] when it lit up the sky and, within moments, the news circulated that it was the journalist camp at the main gate of the al-Shifa Hospital.”

Tragically, al-Sharif’s death wasn’t an accident. In fact, after admitting to the targeted strike, the Israel Defense Force (IDF) held that—as derived from “unequivocal proof”—he had “served as the head of a terrorist cell in the Hamas terrorist organisation and was responsible for advancing rocket attacks against Israeli civilians and IDF forces”.

Though al-Sharif had, prior to the conflict, worked with the Hamas media team in Gaza, his recent reporting also directly condemned aspects of the organization’s function in the war. Furthermore, the chief of communications and programmes at the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor, Muhammad Shehada, found there to be “‘zero evidence’ that al-Sharif took part in any hostilities”.

But al-Sharif wasn’t alone.

Israel's Strategy

There’s a reason the journalism sector in Gaza claims a 10% mortality rate; since October 7, Israel has barred outside media from entering Gaza, and now, they’re eliminating those who remain.

As Jonathan Dagher, head of the Reporters Without Borders (RSF), alleges, “if there are no journalists, there’s no one who can independently verify [developments] and tell the world… then the Israeli army becomes the source of information.”

It would appear that that’s precisely President Benjamin Netanyahu’s goal. Out of the 130 journalist deaths the RSF examined, analysts found 31 credible cases backed by substantial information confirming the reporters were targeted because of their media-related profession, not an association with Hamas.

CEO Jodie Ginsberg of the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) explained that along with the National Public Radio, the CPJ has pressed Israel for evidence of al-Sharif’s association without recognition, adding that even in the event Israel could produce concrete evidence, “experts have repeatedly raised questions about the nature of the documents and the veracity of the documents themselves.” Ginsberg also cited former Al-Jazeera analyst Ismail al-Ghoul, who too was assassinated in an Israeli airstrike, alleging that “the documents that Israel provided would have had him as a commander of a battalion, I believe, at age ten.”

Israel’s Response

The UN Human Rights office asserted on X that “Israel must respect & protect all civilians, including journalists,” calling for “immediate, safe and unhindered access to Gaza for all journalists,” to which Netanyahu claimed that he expected to complete his new Gaza offensive—a recently approved plan to overtake Gaza city: “fairly quickly.”

The war between Israel and Hamas has produced a historic landslide of headlines. But today, the deadliest of them all have presented themselves amid the deaths of those dedicated to reporting them, begging the question: Can Palestine survive without media coverage?

Extemp Analysis by: Sophia Amundgaard

Question: Can Palestine survive its war as media coverage perishes in Gaza?

AGD: I would recommend using the story of Anas al-Shaif or a parallel journalist’s death that gives direct context to the situation, alleviating some burden from the background.

Background: This prompt isn’t just asking us some sort of odd hypothetical you’d see at ETOC, it was written because the media is actually dying in Gaza. You need to establish this context immediately in your background, likely with a stat (the above article offers plenty) or a quote from an organization like the United Nations. Then, without spoiling your answer, give context as to why journalism is so crucial in this conflict—I recommend this article.

SOS: Your background tells us why we are asking the question at hand, your statement of significance should tell the judge why we're asking this question today. Some easy grabs include Al Jazeera reporting the killing of their entire news crew in Gaza. Although stats about net deaths in the war are impactful, they don't tell the judge why this prompt is so crucial to be asking.

Answer: There are a lot of ways to go about this question because it isn’t entirely black or white.

⭐️ The easiest way to answer it is probably to say no and give a series of explicit reasons journalism is so crucial to Gaza’s survival. This answer does however run the risk of being overwhelmingly negative which you’ll have to compensate for.

However, you could also approach the prompt as an opportunity to explain that media coverage won't be gone for long—the UN is condemning Israel, the US can’t really support such a cause, etc. This is a much more difficult approach to take so I’d recommend the former, but it can work if you have a higher level of content knowledge.

Another strong but somewhat difficult way to answer this question is to explain why media coverage isn’t actually crucial to Gaza’s survival (answering yes). It may have played a role in recognition for the conflict, but is it really a driving force of humanitarian, military, or diplomatic aid?

Analysis + Concluding Thoughts

Points: I’d recommend watching Robert Zhang’s lecture to better grasp this weird meld of substructure (8:20). You’ll also kind of need to adjust this substructure depending on how you answer the question but for the starred answer essentially we’ll break up our points into:

Something necessary to Gaza surviving the conflict (*the great situation*)
Why it won’t be able to happen without the media (*the great proposal/changer*)

So let's say you’re adopting that same answer, “No—the media plays a central role in Gaza’s survival”, one of your subpoints could be about the role of journalism in garnering humanitarian aid:

Humanitarian aid is necessary due to the starvation crisis in Gaza
Without journalism, reporting is unreliable and the international community won’t fully grasp the necessity of aid
Impact (ex. support is already dwindling, outline the long term effects of starvation will be felt even upon the introduction of aid now)

Reminders: In a conflict such as this, there are many angles to take and an even larger amount of information to quote—understanding substructure will help you research more specifically and funnel out non crucial information. Remember, everything you say should be able to be tied back to the question, if it isn’t, it is not necessary to the speech.