AFP journalists sound alarm about dire conditions faced by hungry colleagues in Gaza
In a war-torn territory where Israel generally forbids outside journalists to enter, international news organizations like AFP, The Associated Press and Reuters rely on local teams to get out the news. They've been hampered by safety concerns and hunger in Gaza, where an estimated 59,000 people have died in the 21-month conflict, according to local health authorities.
The Society of Journalists at AFP, an association of professionals at the news agency, detailed what their Gaza colleagues are facing. AFP's management said Tuesday that it shares concerns about the 'appalling' situation and is working to evacuate its freelancers and their families.
'For months, we have watched helplessly as their living conditions deteriorated dramatically,' AFP said in a statement. 'Their situation is now untenable, despite their exemplary courage, professional commitment, and resilience.'
ADVERTISEMENT
One of AFP's photographers, identified as Bashar, sent a message on social media over the weekend that 'I no longer have the strength to work for the media. My body is thin and I can't work anymore.'
Bashar has been working for AFP since 2010. Since February, he's been living in the ruins of his home in Gaza City with his mother and other family members, and said one of his brothers had died of hunger, according to the journalists' group.
The journalists receive a monthly salary from AFP, but exorbitant prices leave them unable to purchase much food.
Another AFP worker, Ahlam, said that every time she leaves her shelter to cover an event or do an interview, 'I don't know if I'll come back alive.' Her biggest issue is the lack of food and water, she said.
Since AFP was founded in 1944, the Society of Journalists said that 'we have lost journalists in conflicts, some have been injured, others taken prisoner. But none of us can ever remember seeing colleagues die of hunger.'
ADVERTISEMENT
'We refuse to watch them die,' the society said.
AFP has been working with one freelance writer, three photographers, and six freelance videographers in Gaza since its staff journalists left in 2024. Representatives for the AP and Reuters also expressed concern for their teams there, but would not say how many people are working for them.
'We are deeply concerned about our staff in Gaza and are doing everything in our power to support them,' said Lauren Easton, a spokeswoman for The Associated Press. 'We are very proud of the work our team continues to do under dire circumstances to keep the world informed about what is happening on the ground.'
Reuters said that it is in daily contact with its freelance journalists, and that 'the extreme difficulty sourcing food is leading to their and all Gaza residents experiencing greater levels of hunger and illness.'
The agency said it is providing extra money to help them. 'Should they with to leave the territory, we will provide any assistance to help get them out,' Reuters said.
___
David Bauder writes about media for the AP. Follow him at http://x.com/dbauder and https://bsky.app/profile/dbauder.bsky.social.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
24 minutes ago
- New York Post
Smithsonian denies Trump admin pushed to get rid of exhibit's impeachment placard
The Smithsonian on Saturday denied it was pressured into removing a placard detailing the two impeachments against President Trump at an exhibit in the National Museum of American History. The federal arts and history institution, while confirming it removed the placard from the impeachment section of its 'The American Presidency: A Glorious Burden' exhibit last month, said it did so only because of aesthetic concerns. 'We were not asked by any Administration or other government official to remove content from the exhibit,' the Smithsonian said in a statement. 4 The exhibit spotlights US presidents who were impeached — or in the case of Richard Nixon, nearly. REUTERS It explained that the move was made because 'the placard … did not meet the museum's standards in appearance, location, timeline and overall presentation. 'It was not consistent with other sections in the exhibit and moreover blocked the view of the objects inside its case. For these reasons, we removed the placard,' the Smithsonian said. 'The section in question, Impeachment, will be updated in the coming weeks to reflect all impeachment proceedings in our nation's history,' it added. 4 The impeachment display is part of a broader exhibit on the American presidency. REUTERS Last week, the Washington Post reported that references to Trump's two impeachments had been scrubbed from the exhibit and claimed that it was the result of a content review the museum chain initiated under pressure from the administration. Some lefty critics quickly jumped on the notion, ripping the administration. But the Smithsonian explained that the placard in question was intended only to be a 'temporary' add-on to the exhibit, which is about 25 years old. 4 Donald Trump is the first US president to have been impeached twice and survived. AP Trump is one of three US presidents to have been impeached, or had charges brought against him, by the House, alongside Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton. All three were eventually acquitted by the Senate. Former President Richard Nixon is also mentioned in the Smithsonian display, although he resigned right before he could be impeached over Watergate. The first impeachment against Trump in 2019 was over his alleged pressure campaign to leverage aid for Ukraine to entice the US ally to dig up dirt on the Biden family. His second impeachment took place over the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot. Trump is also the first former or sitting US president to be criminally indicted — something he also survived. The charges involved falsifying business records. Trump's White House team has been leaning on the Smithsonian to root out wokeness in its policies and exhibits. In March, the president signed an executive order seeking to eliminate any alleged divisive narratives and to champion 'American' values. 4 Smithsonian officials denied that political interference led to the removal of a placard detailing Trump's impeachments. REUTERS 'The American Presidency: A Glorious Burden' exhibit opened to the public in 2000 and features a photo from Johnson's impeachment, copies of a report that sparked Clinton's impeachment and a battered filing cabinet from the Watergate controversy. Trump is briefly mentioned in a web-page companion to the exhibit.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Novelist David Grossman says Israel is committing ‘genocide' in Gaza, joining a rising chorus
Grossman, a longtime left-wing peace activist whose son was killed while serving in the Israeli army in Lebanon in 2006, has joined a growing number of Jews accusing Israel. The Israeli novelist David Grossman has joined a growing number of Jews and Jewish organizations saying that Israel is carrying out a 'genocide' in Gaza. Grossman is a longtime left-wing peace activist whose son was killed while serving in the Israeli army in Lebanon in 2006. He told the Italian newspaper La Repubblica in an interview published on Friday that he had not wanted to level the charge, which Israel rejects, and did so only with 'intense pain and a broken heart.' 'For many years I refused to use this word,' he said. 'But now, after the images I've seen, what I've read, and what I've heard from people who were there, I can't help but use it.' He noted that the charge, leveled by pro-Palestinian activists throughout the Israel-Hamas war, is especially freighted when applied to the Jewish state. Israel was born after the Holocaust, which the word 'genocide' was coined to describe. 'How did we come to be accused of genocide?' Grossman said. 'Just uttering that word — 'genocide' — in reference to Israel, to the Jewish people, that alone, the fact that this association can even be made, should be enough to tell us that something very wrong is happening to us.' International furor over Gaza's humanitarian aid Grossman's comments come amid an international furor over a humanitarian crisis in Gaza, 22 months into the war that began when Hamas attacked Israel from the enclave. Last month, the genocide scholar Omer Bartov announced in a New York Times essay that he had changed his earlier stance and concluded that Israel's campaign now constituted genocide. And earlier this week,B'Tselem and Physicians for Human Rights Israel, said they, too, had come to the conclusion. 'Recognizing this truth is not easy. Even for us, people who have spent years documenting state violence against Palestinians, the mind resists it. It rejects the facts like poison, tries to spit them out,' Yuli Novak, B'Tselem's executive director, wrote in The Guardian. 'But the poison is here.' Israel and its defenders staunchly deny that it is committing genocide in either intent or effect, noting that despite a heavy death toll the population of Gaza does not reflect a sustained campaign of elimination. 'Few claims are more offensive and blatantly wrong,' the American Jewish Committee said in a response to Bartov's essay. It remains to be seen whether Grossman's comments change the conversation in Israel the way he said his criticism of the occupation landed differently after his son was killed. 'There were people who stereotyped me, who considered me this naive leftist who would never send his own children into the army, who didn't know what life was made of,' he said in 2010. 'I think those people were forced to realize that you can be very critical of Israel and yet still be an integral part of it.' Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Israel's left and right are both making Jewish state a global pariah
Israel's international standing is being battered from both ends of its political spectrum. The far Right undermines it with reckless belligerence; the far Left corrodes it with moral preening. It's a story that could be written even before it unfolds. On Tisha B'Av, the fast day marking the destruction of the two ancient Temples in Jerusalem, National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir will go up to the Temple Mount. Once there, he will make some provocative statement that will be beamed worldwide. Shortly afterward, the Prime Minister's Office will issue a statement walking it back. On Sunday, that script — predictably — played itself out yet again. Ben-Gvir ascended the Temple Mount, led prayers there — in violation of the status quo that forbids public Jewish prayer — and said the following: 'I say this precisely from here - from the Temple Mount, where we've proven sovereignty is possible - that a clear message must be sent: The entire Gaza Strip must be conquered, sovereignty declared, every Hamas member taken down, and voluntary emigration promoted. Only then will we return the hostages and win the war.' The furious reaction from Jordan and Saudi Arabia quickly followed. As did this clarification from the Prime Minister's Office: 'Israel's policy of preserving the status quo on the Temple Mount has not changed, nor will it change.' Another predictable part of the ritual followed as well: people asking themselves, or their friends, why Ben-Gvir doesn't just keep quiet already, why Netanyahu doesn't muzzle him, and whether they both don't realize the damage these comments cause to Israel's standing internationally. Words that harm Israel's image Ben-Gvir is not the only far-right minister whose careless words irreparably harm Israel's image. Just last week, Heritage Minister Amichay Eliyahu, responding to an interviewer who noted Israel was racing toward a hostage deal, said that Israel was instead racing ahead 'for Gaza to be wiped out.' He added that all of Gaza will be Jewish, and that — unlike Israel's prior settlements in Gush Katif — 'there will not be settlements inside cantons, closed up behind a fence.' At a time when Israel is facing a diplomatic backlash of the kind it has rarely experienced — when it is being accused of starving the Gazan population, committing ethnic cleansing and even genocide — statements like these are seized upon by the country's harshest critics to validate their claims. The harm is real and lasting. In the torrent of commentary last week from politicians and pundits trying to understand and explain the West's growing hostility toward Israel — in the avalanche of countries announcing plans to recognize a Palestinian state and essentially reward Hamas — many pointed directly to statements like these. Not just isolated comments by Ben-Gvir or Eliyahu, but a steady stream of similar remarks over recent months from figures like Bezalel Smotrich, Orit Struck, and others. So much so that some diplomatic officials are urging Netanyahu to freeze all Gaza-related media appearances by government ministers — whether to international or domestic outlets — because even a seemingly minor interview with an obscure local radio station can and will be translated, circulated, and weaponized abroad. But here's the rub: it's not only the extreme Right that's damaging Israel's standing. Just look at the far Left. The international media is now running wild with an interview that author David Grossman gave to an Italian daily in which he described Israel's actions in Gaza as genocide. In a Friday interview with La Repubblica, Grossman said he was leveling the genocide accusation with 'intense pain and a broken heart.' 'For many years I refused to use this word,' he said. 'But now, after the images I've seen, what I've read, and what I've heard from people who were there, I can't help but use it.' Do you think Eliyahu's rhetoric was damaging? It pales in comparison to Grossman accusing Israel of genocide. As a celebrated author who lost his son in Lebanon, Grossman's words carry tremendous moral weight abroad. If he says Israel is committing genocide, then who are La Repubblica's readers — or anyone else — to argue? Grossman's defenders will say that it's the statements from Eliyahu, Ben-Gvir, and Smotrich that are isolating Israel internationally. But so are Grossman's. He may believe that by saying what he did, he's presenting the moral, compassionate face of Israel. But many abroad will simply take his words and use them — deliberately and gleefully — to portray Israel as an irredeemable villain, as a perpetrator of genocide. And Grossman is far from alone. Worried that Ben-Gvir is turning Israel into a pariah state? Consider this editorial last week by Yuli Novak, head of B'Tselem, published in the ever-hostile Guardian. The headline: 'I lead a top Israeli human rights group. Our country is committing genocide.' That headline is an echo of a recent New York Times op-ed written by an Israeli academic who has taught in the US since 1989 — Omer Bartov — titled: 'I am a genocide scholar. I know it when I see it.' His conclusion: Israel is committing genocide. All this is to say nothing of the Ehud Olmerts and Moshe Ya'alons -- the former accusing Israel of war crimes, the latter of ethnic cleansing. Their harsh words are picked up with enthusiasm by the international press, often stripped of context. Context, like Ya'alon's personal grudge as a frustrated former defense minister pushed out by Netanyahu, or Olmert's bitterness as a disgraced former prime minister who served 16 months in prison. In May, Olmert wrote in Haaretz: 'What we are doing in Gaza now is a war of devastation: indiscriminate, limitless, cruel and criminal killing of civilians. We're not doing this due to loss of control in any specific sector, not due to some disproportionate outburst by some soldiers in some unit. Rather, it's the result of government policy — knowingly, evilly, maliciously, irresponsibly dictated. Yes, Israel is committing war crimes.' That op-ed has been cited and quoted repeatedly since its publication, used by critics as authoritative evidence to support the most vile charges being leveled against the Jewish state. So what's the point? The point is simple: Israel's international standing is being battered from both ends of its political spectrum. The far Right undermines it with reckless belligerence; the far Left corrodes it with sanctimonious moral preening. One declares that Gaza should be wiped out, the other accuses Israel of genocide. One shouts, the other indicts. Both hands of ammunition to those eager to delegitimize the country. Both feed the same narrative: that Israel is evil. And left to pay the price and bear the consequences for these over-the-top and irresponsible remarks are the millions of Israelis in the middle — the vast majority — who are being defined in the eyes of the world by the rhetoric and portrayals of those on the country's extremes. Solve the daily Crossword
