
My years reporting on Gaza broke me down. Why did it take so long for the world to become outraged?
I lasted a little under four years in Israel and Palestine. In that time, I reported on forced displacement and punitive bureaucracy (Israel's occupation is expanded through denied permits, home demolitions and revoked ID cards). I wrote about child killings, war crimes and terrorism (perpetrated by both sides). I tried to explain as best I could the annexation of the West Bank and the collective punishment of two million people in Gaza without using forbidden phrases such as apartheid or war crime. I included the necessary balance of voices and opinions. But still, every report of an atrocity in Palestine was met with highly personal accusations of bias. Editors were often twitchy, readers disengaged.
After two years of this, a grim reality became clear: people did not want to hear about it. By year three, I had started giving up trying to make them listen and the self-loathing arrived. Cynicism among reporters is a useful cipher for the fear, desperation and impotence that news industry norms do not allow them, but it has a dangerous side-effect: it dulls outrage. Without outrage, crimes such as apartheid, ethnic cleansing and genocide can continue uninterrupted – and they have.
Over a decade later, with Gaza's annihilation playing in my social media feed, I have been finishing my first novel, Vulture, for the past two years. It is the story of a reporter, Sara Byrne, trying to make a name for herself amid a war in Gaza. She is a destructive character steeped in cynicism and self-loathing who emerged, in all her surprising unpleasantness, as I tried to resolve my own experience as a journalist covering Palestine. There were nagging doubts and questions I could not shift, like: why have those of us whose job it was to report the atrocities in Palestine been so spectacularly unable to stop them?
The action in Vulture is fiction but set within the real time frame of the 2012 war in Gaza, which I covered. I was visiting Gaza City when the Hamas leader Ahmed al-Jabari was assassinated. I arrived at the site of his 'liquidation' within an hour, the burned-out frame of his car still smouldering. I noticed the blood splatters reaching the second floor of surrounding buildings in the writing of my first front page. Israel had launched its Operation Pillar of Defence.
Wars were never surprising in Gaza. Since 2006, when the last general election in Palestine paved the way for Hamas to take power and Israel and Egypt to impose their blockade, there has been a regular exchange of rockets fired by Hamas and bombs dropped by the Israeli military. Every few years, Israeli generals declared a military operation to bomb back Hamas infrastructure. Chatting comfortably off the record, retired military people called it 'mowing the grass'.
In the 2009 war – 1,400 Palestinians killed, 11,000 homes destroyed, white phosphorus shells dropped on markets and hospitals – Israel had not let foreign journalists into Gaza. In 2012, they did. Most of us stayed at the Al Deira hotel, eating and sleeping next to one another, reporting and filing the same stories. Uniformed staff brought us coffees and french fries as airstrikes threatened their homes and families.
Every day, we visited bombed homes and I made notes:
smell of cooking gas, kitchen gone
little kids playing in rubble find a beetle
a crying woman tugging at a buried mattress screams
We watched a steady stream of dead and injured arrive at al-Shifa hospital missing limbs and heads, dust-covered children mute and shaking having seen their parents killed. Doctors told us of power and drug shortages. I noted them:
no disposables
anaesthetics running out, can't do surgeries
lots of women and children with amputated limbs, quite clean, bombs do the job for us
We went to the funerals of whole families and spoke to mourners who asked us: 'You see anyone here with a gun?'
After 10 days of Israel's operation – 167 Palestinians killed, 1,500 targets in Gaza hit, 700 families displaced – a truce was declared. The particular camaraderie you form with your Palestinian colleagues under airstrikes is severed abruptly when they drop you off at the Israeli border; you are thrilled to be driving back to normality, but they are unable to. You'll see them again when the next flare-up in violence brings you back.
But when the next war came in 2014, I was already home in London, an editor on the Guardian foreign desk: 50 days of fighting, 2,104 Palestinians killed, 10,000 wounded. News audiences, we heard, were tuning out. The fighting ended, and I left the foreign desk to return to reporting. People looked at me warily when I brought up Palestine again. Was I a weird zealot? Or worse, an activist? I was neither, but outside of activist circles, the 'political complexity' of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict left little appetite for anything other than its most violent escalations or worst humanitarian catastrophes. Cynicism, it turns out, is better company than outrage.
So I stopped talking about what I knew was going on over there – the daily humiliations of occupation in the West Bank, the threat of settler terrorism backed by an occupation force, the extraordinary trauma of living a day in Gaza – until I sat down to start work on a novel in 2015 and Palestine poured out. I was drawn straight back to the Al Deira hotel, reimagined as The Beach. I found myself telling this huge, indigestible tragedy in small, messy, blackly funny, heartbreaking, angry human stories. It was a relief, describing freely the Gaza I knew.
By 7 October 2023, I had left the Guardian. I watched news of the Hamas terror attack devastated and sickened, then gripped with cold dread for what would follow in Gaza. Like anyone who had covered the place for any length of time, I had seen what was coming rehearsed for decades. Those nagging questions became urgent: had I done everything I could to warn this was coming? No. Did that make me complicit? Maybe.
Israel has not allowed foreign press into Gaza for this war. Our understanding of what is happening there comes from the Palestinian journalists living it and they are being killed in extraordinary numbers (176, a 10% mortality rate), their newsrooms obliterated along with their families and homes. The ones who remain are starving. Their reporting is not balanced, it is personal and outraged.
A year before Israeli forces killed him on 24 March, local journalist Hossam Shabat told his 175,000 X followers: 'The biggest problem is not Western journalists being unable to enter, but the fact that Western media doesn't respect and value Palestinian journalists … No one knows Gaza like we do, and no one understands the complexity of the situation like we do. If you care about what's happening in Gaza, you should amplify Palestinian voices.' His message stung deeply. It clarified the discomfort I had felt as an unnecessary interlocutor between western readers and Gaza's tragedy, raising more questions about my work there.
Western journalists reporting from Palestine did not stop the atrocities because we believed that was not our job, we were there to bear witness. Maintaining our impartiality is crucial if we are to be trusted. But were we not also meant to hold power to account? If we had condemned the US and Europe-backed power we knew was perpetrating these atrocities with the conviction and outrage they deserved, would 60,000 people still have been killed in 21 months?
As Vulture lands on bookshelves in the US, UN experts have confirmed that famine is under way in the Gaza Strip. Starving people are being gunned down at food distribution sites. Its hospitals have been bombed, doctors and their families killed. The electricity has been cut off. Our Palestinian colleagues are being murdered in staggering numbers and western journalists say it is not on them to name the genocide. Yet fiction writers do. In the interest of balance, the BBC has decided not to air its documentary about doctors in Gaza. Until this week, when even Donald Trump was forced to acknowledge 'real starvation', a friend working in television news told me a new verb had emerged: to Gaza a story, meaning to downgrade its editorial importance.
Finally, it seems the forbidden words are being named – genocide, famine, statehood – and our leaders may act to do something about them. But our outrage has come much too late. Why did we wait? Our wary silence abetted the tragedy in Gaza. Our cynicism allowed for the defining horror of a generation.
Vulture by Phoebe Greenwood is out 12 August 2025 on Europa Editions
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Telegraph
29 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Public think Labour will use new online laws for censorship
New laws will be used by the Government to censor content posted online, a majority of the public believe. There is strong backing for the aims of the Online Safety Act to protect children from online harms but deep scepticism about the consequences for people's privacy and whether it will work in practice, a major poll of more than 2,000 adults by Ipsos has revealed. While 69 per cent supported age verification for platforms hosting harmful content, half of those polled were not confident it will stop under-18s accessing it, according to the poll, published exclusively today by The Telegraph. More than six in 10 (61 per cent) believe the Act will lead to personal data being compromised and a similar proportion (58 per cent) expected increased government censorship. More than four in 10 say it will threaten free speech online. It follows The Telegraph's disclosure of a secretive 'spy' unit which has been used by the Government to target social media posts criticising migrant hotels and 'two tier policing'. Last week the US state department criticised the Online Safety Act over its potential impact on free speech as it warned the British Government had 'repeatedly intervened to chill speech' after the Southport attack. The Act also sparked a political row after Reform UK leader Nigel Farage pledged to repeal the Act as a threat to free speech, prompting Labour to accuse him of being on the side of sex offenders like Jimmy Savile. Keiran Pedley, Ipsos director of UK politics, said the poll exposed a 'significant paradox in public opinion'. 'While there is a clear and broad desire to protect children online, reflected in the strong support for age verification, this is matched by deep-seated scepticism about whether the Act can deliver on its promises,' he said. 'Data breaches and the potential for censorship are highlighted, as the public doubt these measures will be effective against tech-savvy young people. This creates a major challenge for platform operators and regulator, Ofcom: how to implement robust age assurance systems that the public actually trusts and is willing to use.' Nearly half (48 per cent) believe the Act will enable parents to better protect their children from online harms and 46 per cent said it will enable adults to more easily block inappropriate material. However, 44 per cent believe it will limit free speech online, against 40 per cent who do not. A similar proportion (43 per cent) fear it will limit adults' access to 'non-harmful' information online. Half of those polled (48 per cent) said they would be likely to submit proof of age to access a platform or website, against 30 per cent who would not. However, this dropped to 14 per cent for porn sites and 19 per cent for dating apps. More than half (56 per cent) were comfortable with using their email as proof of age but the public drew a line at financial information, with fewer than one in five saying they would use a credit card or banking information. Almost seven in 10 Britons (69 per cent) believed it would be easy for children and young people to get around safeguarding procedures by social media platforms. More than half (51 per cent) feared that it would lead to children using less safe parts of the internet such as the dark web. Nearly a quarter (24 per cent) admitted that they used a VPN when browsing the internet, a technology that enables users to encrypt their communications and hide their IP address. A similar proportion (22 per cent) said they had considered or downloaded a VPN since the introduction of the Online Safety Act. Despite this, four in 10 (40 per cent) believed the Act would prevent children and under 18s from seeing illegal or harmful material, although 52 per cent did not believe it would. While 37 per cent believed the legislation would make platforms and websites remove harmful and illegal content, 51 per cent did not.


The Sun
29 minutes ago
- The Sun
Ukrainian troops cut Putin's two-pronged frontline breach in HALF in wake of Trump summit in major blow to Vlad
UKRAINE has managed to cut Russia's two-pronged frontline incursion in half in the latest major blow to Vladimir Putin. Moscow suddenly breached an area in the Donetsk region as a reported 110,000 troops advanced on the eastern front being swiftly contained and pushed back. 7 7 7 Putin's bloodthirsty forces reportedly advanced by at least 10km north in two prongs as part of his attempt to capture the entire Donetsk region. The terrifying development came just days before the Alaska summit with Donald Trump and was seen as a warmongering Putin trying to gain the upper hand ahead of the talks. Moscow currently controls over 70 per cent of the highly-contested Donetsk region. Capturing it entirely would allow Putin's forces to cause major disruption to supply lines on the eastern front and force Ukraine into submission. Despite the Russians making an initial burst into Ukrainian territory these advances soon petered out. Ukrainian troops have since been able to drive the enemy away from positions near Rubizhne, Zolotyi Kolodiaz, Vesele, Vilne Shakhove, Nikanorivka, and Sukhotske, according to data from DeepState. Fierce battles erupted near the coal mining town Dobropillia with the 1st Corps of the Ukrainian National Guard announcing several hundred casualties for the Russians. The valiant corps also destroyed a Russian tank, took out two IFVs and managed to damage 37 light vehicles and three artillery pieces. President Volodymyr Zelensky also publicly praised the 1st Corps as well as several other units working in the Donetsk region in recent days. Speaking on X today, he said: "We are defending our positions along the entire front line. Donald Trump vows full peace deal not 'mere ceasefire' after Alaska summit as Zelensky to head to White House "For the second day in a row, we have achieved successes in some extremely difficult areas in the Donetsk region – in the direction of Dobropillia and Pokrovsk. "The destruction of the occupiers who tried to infiltrate deeper into our positions continues." Zelensky, who is now planning to meet Trump at the White House on Monday to discuss a peace deal to end the war, added: "I am grateful to all our warriors for their resilience." He also made a special shout out to the units of the 93rd Separate Mechanized Brigade 'Kholodnyi Yar' squad. Footage of the resilient forces battling on the ground and in the air in the village of Vesele shows them eliminating dozens of Putin's men. A clip shows a kamikaze drone smashing straight into two bumbling troops as they venture across a road. Another shows a missile being dropped from the sky and exploding upon impact as it hits its Russia target below. The Kholodnyi Yar unit were even responsible for capturing several soldiers and making them prisoners of war. Has the Alaska summit helped broker a peace deal? AS Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin both flew out of Alaska on Friday it appeared as though the summit was an utter failure in the eyes of Ukraine. There had been no agreements on a peace deal as Trump appeared to be hesitant to truly reveal what demands Putin was making. But a few hours after the meeting ended Trump took to social media to reveal the meeting was a success in his eyes. Trump said Russia and Ukraine both believe a full peace deal is "the best way" to end the war - rather than a short term ceasefire. Now diplomatic sources have revealed some of the initial details of the potential agreement, according to news agency AFP. The US has reportedly proposed an agreement that would see Ukraine not join Nato - but instead be offered Nato-esque protections similar to Article 5. Article 5 on Nato's founding treaty agrees collective defense - meaning allies see an attack on one as an attack on all of them. Trump reportedly floated the plan with Volodymyr Zelensky and European leaders during a call after his meeting with Putin. The US President is set to discuss the terms of an agreement with Zelensky on Monday when he travels to the White House. Zelensky did not directly address any potential plan but he did say on X: "We discussed positive signals from the American side regarding participation in guaranteeing security for Ukraine." 7 7 7


Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
Putin told Trump he could relax some territorial claims in exchange for Donetsk region, FT reports
Aug 16 (Reuters) - Russian President Vladimir Putin has demanded that Ukraine withdraw from the eastern Donetsk region as a condition for ending Russia's war but told U.S. President Donald Trump he could freeze the rest of the frontline if his core demands were met, the Financial Times reported on Saturday. Putin made the request during his meeting with Trump in Alaska on Friday, the FT said, citing four people with direct knowledge of the talks. In exchange for the Donetsk region, Putin said he would freeze the frontline in the southern regions of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia, the report said.