During the early 20th century, the movement witnessed several key historical events, including the Balfour Declaration of 1917, where Britain declared its backing for creating a “national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine. Britain’s support for the Balfour Declaration was influenced by a combination of strategic interests, Zionist lobbying, complex wartime alliances and conflicting promises. Underlying antisemitic and pro-Zionist sentiments and religious and historical motivations also played a role. 

During World War I, securing the Suez Canal and British imperial interests in the Middle East was paramount, and the establishment of a friendly Jewish state in Palestine was seen as beneficial. Prominent Zionists, such as Chaim Weizmann, effectively lobbied British policymakers, arguing that support for Zionism could garner Jewish support in the United States and Russia. Britain’s wartime diplomacy involved making conflicting promises to Arabs and Jews, with the Balfour Declaration attempting to balance these. Pro-Zionist views and the belief in fulfilling biblical prophecy also played a role. With the end of World War I in sight, British post-war strategic planning aimed to reshape the Middle East’s geopolitical landscape, prevent French dominance, and ensure a friendly presence near the Suez Canal. This era saw the establishment of the British Mandate of Palestine after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire post-World War I. The mandate period experienced a rise in Jewish immigration and land purchases in Palestine.

Following World War II, many Jewish survivors resided in Displaced Persons Camps across Europe, often under poor conditions, and sought to emigrate. Western countries, including the United States and Britain, denied Jewish refugees and were hesitant to substantially increase their Jewish immigration quotas due to reasons such as antisemitism, economic concerns and geopolitical situations. However, the British were open to directing these Jewish immigrants to Palestine, where they were welcomed by the Palestinians. As per the Palestine Passport Regulations of 1920, anyone wishing to enter Palestine needed a visa from either the Palestinian government or British consulates. The Immigration Ordinance of August 26th, 1920 empowered the Palestinian government to regulate entry. 

Palestinian nationality came into existence or started developing with the post-1917 period. This de facto nationality was formed locally, in line with the domestic law applicable to Palestine and British practices. Concurrently, the inhabitants of Palestine continued to be de jure (according to public international law) Ottoman citizens, albeit in a nominal sense. Article 7 of the Palestine Mandate, which was a unique provision not found in other British mandates, outlined the structure for Palestinian nationality:

“The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.”

The primary aim of the nationality regulation in this article was to facilitate immigrant Jews as Palestinian citizens. This was a logical extension of the overarching goal of Britain’s Palestine Mandate: establishing a Jewish national home within Palestinian territories.

Subsequently, Israel’s founding generation and its initial leaders entered Palestine on Palestinian visas. David Ben-Gurion, considered the country’s founding father, emigrated from Poland to Palestine. David Green was born in Płońsk, Poland. Like many immigrants to Israel, Green later changed his name to a Hebrew one, David Ben-Gurion, in a process called hebraization of surnames. Many immigrants to Israel have hebraized their names as part of integrating into Israeli society. In 1906, Ben-Gurion landed in Jaffa at Ahuzat Bayit, modern-day Tel Aviv.

Additionally, the citizenship request papers of 20-year-old Szymel Perski, who would later become the Prime Minister of Israel, had a special request: to change his name to Shimon Peres. In his citizenship request, Shimon included declarations in his own handwriting that he was employed in agriculture at a Jewish settlement, and the request to change his first name to Shimon came with the explanation that “Szymel is a corrupted Polish version of the name Shimon.” The request was stamped in October 1943 in the British Mandate of Palestine.

Over the years, there have been various grassroots initiatives, such as petitions and debates, urging the UK government and Parliament to formally apologize to Palestinians and take a leading role in peace initiatives. In 1923, Britain expressed “regrets for their aloofness” for ignoring Palestinian Arabs while continuing its mandate. On the centennial of the Balfour Declaration in 2017, a petition with over 13,500 signatures called for the UK Government to issue a public apology to Palestinians, citing that Britain’s colonial policy led to “mass displacement” and injustice. In 2021, more than a century after supporting the Balfour Declaration, The Guardian expressed regret for its initial endorsement. The newspaper included this stance in an editorial, listing the “worst errors of judgment” the British daily has made since its founding in 1821.

The effects of the Holocaust during World War II, which led to the extermination of six million Jews, added an urgency to the Zionist cause. The world’s failure to prevent this genocide underscored the necessity of a Jewish homeland. Some modern critics say that Zionists and Israel use arguments relating to the Holocaust as a tactic to keep Germany, Europe and the West locked into a state of eternal debt, and swiftly deeming anyone who criticizes the state of Israel an antisemite. 

On May 14, 1948, David Ben-Gurion proclaimed the independence of Israel, which was immediately met with war, as Arab countries invaded the new settler colonial state. Weeks before, underground Zionist militia groups — the Stern Gang and Irgun — orchestrated a massacre that was key to terrorizing Palestinian Arabs to leave their villages. Terrorism continued to be the modus operandi of settler Zionists. 

The Deir Yassin massacre was one of the many massacres that paved the way for the establishment of the state of Israel by repeatedly attacking Arab Palestinians and British personnel. They believed that by getting rid of British patronage, Zionists would become the sovereign masters of the country. These groups called themselves “Lohamei Herut Israel Lehi,” or fighters for the freedom of Israel. They ripped through Palestinian villages, causing a bloodbath among its inhabitants and forcing the survivors to leave. It is estimated that around 15,000 Palestinians lost their lives, and several hundred thousand were displaced, seeking refuge in different parts of Palestine or nearby countries. Palestinians refer to this tragic event as the Nakba, meaning “the catastrophe.” 

Thus, on burnt Palestinian villages, the new State of Israel was formed. 

The Deir Yassin massacre and the subsequent exodus of Palestinians in terror played a significant role in persuading the initially hesitant leaders of neighboring Arab nations to engage in military action following the declaration of the state of Israel, thereby initiating a sequence of regional conflict. The establishment of Israel marked a significant triumph for the Zionist movement but also set the stage for the ongoing Israeli-Arab conflict, including the deeply rooted Israeli-Palestinian conflict. 

Since its establishment in 1948, Israel has been involved in several conflicts which have resulted in changes in its territorial boundaries. Upon the declaration of the state of Israel in 1948, neighboring Arab states invaded. The war resulted in Israel expanding its territory beyond the UN Partition Plan for Palestine. Many Palestinians fled or were expelled from these areas, leading to a significant refugee issue. In 1967, the Six-Day War took place. This war had a profound impact on Israeli and Palestinian territories. Israel captured the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt, the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) from Jordan, and the Golan Heights from Syria. This marked the beginning of the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories, which continues to be a core issue in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. 

In the 2000s and onwards, the Second Uprising (“Intifada”) and subsequent conflicts took place. The Second Intifada from 2000 to 2005, and subsequent Gaza conflicts from 2008-2009, 2012, 2014, etc. have seen further entrenchment of territorial disputes. Israeli settlements in the West Bank have continued to expand, which are considered illegal under international law.

Since its founding, Israel has experienced an influx of immigration from Jewish communities from around the world. The Zionist movement continues to encourage Jewish immigration to Israel (Aliyah) and maintains strong connections with the Jewish diaspora worldwide. Israel’s Law of Return, enacted in 1950, allows Jews to immigrate to Israel and grants them immediate citizenship upon arrival. However, Under the Absentees’ Property Law of 1950, Palestinian refugees who were displaced following Nov. 29, 1947, are classified as “absentees” and are not entitled to any rights, let alone allowed to return to their homelands. Their properties, including land, homes, apartments and bank accounts (both movable and immovable assets), are seized by the state. Because of this, Palestinians are the largest stateless community in the world. 

The Zionist movement, while achieving its goal of establishing a Jewish homeland, has sparked regional unrest and severe humanitarian concerns for the last 75 years. The future remains dark and escalation is bound to increase and worsen. 

The concept of a “Greater Israel,” according to the founding father of Zionism Theodore Herzl, is a Jewish State stretching “from the Brook of Egypt to the Euphrates” and includes historic Palestine as well as other parts of Arab-majority countries. Some Zionists even believe that Greater Israel should span from the Nile in the West to the Euphrates in the East, covering areas such as Palestine, Lebanon, Western Syria and Southern Turkey. Some historians and observers of international relations suggest that this is the reason behind Israel’s gradual expansion into neighboring territories, particularly Palestine. However, it is noteworthy that the concept of Greater Israel is not exclusively a Zionist endeavor. Recent discussions among some scholarly circles speculate on its potential role in U.S. foreign policy, aiming to expand U.S. hegemony in the Middle East and potentially leading to the region’s fragmentation and fracture.

Zionism as a movement gained momentum in the early 20th century, leading to the establishment of Jewish communities in Palestine, then under Ottoman and later British control. The Balfour Declaration of 1917, a statement by the British government, supported the establishment of a “national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine, further legitimizing the Zionist movement. 

Zionism has evolved over time and has faced various challenges and controversies, including opposition from some Jewish communities and conflict with the Arab population of Palestine.

However, Zionism has been central to the founding of Israel. It has provided the ideological and practical framework necessary for the Jewish people to establish a national homeland in Palestine. The movement’s determination directly led to the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948. However, the creation of Israel also precipitated a profound and lasting impact on Israeli-Palestinian relations, laying the groundwork for a conflict that persists to this day. The displacement of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians during the Nakba and the subsequent occupation of Palestinian territories by Israel has been central to the enduring strife between the two peoples. 

Zionism’s legacy is thus twofold: it achieved its goal of establishing a Jewish state but also contributed to a deep-seated conflict characterized by territorial disputes, political tensions and cycles of violence from both sides. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains one of the most complex and challenging issues in international relations, with Zionism’s historical role continuing to influence perceptions, policies and peace efforts in the region.

The views expressed in opinion pieces do not represent the views of Glimpse from the Globe or its editorial team.

Zionism encompasses a variety of ideologies but is generally linked to the encouragement of Jewish migration to the ancient Land of Israel (Eretz Israel), the revival of Jewish culture and the Hebrew language, and the belief in the right of the Jewish people to self-determination in a sovereign state at the cost of Palestinian autonomy and self-governance. The Zionist movement marks a critical era in the history of Judaism, emerging in the late 19th century amid widespread anti-Semitic sentiment in Europe. A key driver for this movement was the prolonged persecution faced by Jews, coupled with the aspiration for a sovereign homeland to practice self-governance. Additionally, the movement drew significant impetus from biblical prophecies. The Torah, which is the foundational religious scripture of Judaism, repeatedly references the Land of Israel. 

For many Zionists, the creation of a state of Israel symbolizes the fulfillment of God’s promise to the forefathers — Abraham, Isaac and Jacob — that their offspring would inherit the land. This historical linkage is fundamental to Zionist philosophy, reinforcing the notion of the Jewish people’s entitlement to claim and govern this territory. The idea of the Jewish diaspora returning from their exile to the Land of Israel, a concept embedded in the Torah, is also perceived by some as being actualized through the Zionist movement.

Based on these religious and political beliefs, Zionism aimed to establish such a homeland in Palestine, which was then part of the Ottoman Empire. 

However, some Orthodox Jews do not accept these assertions, with some even actively opposing the Zionist movement. Instead, they adhere to the messianic principle that Jews should only return to Israel and establish a Jewish state upon the arrival of the Messiah. In this view, any attempts to do this through human actions are premature and contradict divine intent. Additionally, the initial secular orientation of the Zionist movement sparked concerns among some circles about diminishing adherence to religious values and Jewish law. 

It is also crucial to understand Christian Zionism — a widespread belief among evangelical Christians — to gain a better understanding of the movement and current responses. The United States holds the largest evangelical population globally, making them the second predominant religious group in the nation after mainline (non-evangelical) Protestants. Notably, evangelical Christians, who are typically influential in American politics, have remained mostly quiet regarding the recent humanitarian issues in the occupied Palestinian territories.

Christian Zionism is rooted in the belief that the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine is a fulfillment of Biblical prophecy, seen as part of God’s plan for humanity’s ultimate destiny. The doctrine of Christian Zionism has gained prominence in public discourse, particularly due to its endorsement by evangelical leaders including former U.S. presidents such as Ronald Reagan and televangelists such as Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson in their support for Israeli policies. This belief system is a significant factor shaping the perspectives of many Americans on Israel, Jewish people and their own nation’s role.

The conceptual groundwork for Zionism was established by Theodor Herzl, a journalist from Austro-Hungary. Inspired significantly by the Dreyfus Affair in France, a notable example of anti-Semitism that underscored the vulnerable situation of Jews in Europe, Herzl championed the idea of a Jewish homeland. He convened the First Zionist Congress in Basel, Switzerland, in 1897, signifying the official inception of the Zionist movement. This congress set the goal of establishing a “home for the Jewish people,” as articulated by Herzl in 1897. 

The early years of Zionism were largely secular, and its initial plan was wholly political.The Zionists and their supporters had considered, and subsequently vetoed, various territories in their search for a contemporary homeland for Jewish people including el-Arish, the Sinai Peninsula and Cyprus. Aside from Palestine, East Africa was also considered because, after the Kishinev pogrom in Russia, Herzl became more desperate to build a Jewish homeland. Ultimately, this initiative failed. The reasons for its failure are manifold, including resistance from the burgeoning white settler community in Kenya, indecision within the Colonial Office about managing the developing East Africa Protectorate and notably the hesitation of the Zionist leaders themselves.

Firmly focused on Palestine and its vicinity as the appropriate location for a Jewish national homeland, the Zionists, during their seventh Congress held in Basel in August 1905, emphasized the unfavorable elements of the fact-finding commission’s reports and subsequently declined the British proposal.

In the late Ottoman era, Jewish migration to Palestine was modest and largely driven by religious motives. The Palestinian Arab population, primarily Muslim but also comprising Christians, typically lived in harmony with the existing small Jewish community and the new Jewish immigrants.

As the Zionist movement promoting the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine gained momentum, perceptions started changing. Initially, Palestinian Arabs were either neutral or somewhat supportive of Jewish immigration, but their stance evolved as its political ramifications became clearer. Prior to 1948, the dynamics between Jewish immigrants and Palestinian Arabs transitioned from a state of coexistence and harmony to escalating tension and conflict, driven by Zionist ambitions in the territory.

The views expressed in opinion pieces do not represent the views of Glimpse from the Globe or its editorial team.

At present, journalists’ protection is categorized under the safeguarding of civilians and their assets under humanitarian law. The media is not viewed as a military entity unless specific situations arise. Essentially, no unique statutes are set for journalists or their equipment. However, they receive general protection intended for civilians and their belongings. Humanitarian law differentiates between two categories of journalists in war zones: “independent journalists” and those affiliated with armed forces. As defined by the Dictionnaire de droit international public, war correspondents are “specialized media professionals who, under the authorization and protection of a warring party’s military, report from conflict regions to relay information about the ongoing hostilities.” 

Regrettably, war correspondents are ambiguously classified as “persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof.” Since they aren’t directly affiliated with the armed forces, they receive general protections as civilians. But due to their association with the military endeavors, they are accorded prisoner-of-war status if captured by the opposition, provided they had proper authorization to be with the armed forces.

Participants of the Diplomatic Conference held in Geneva from 1974 to 1977 felt that they had to include a special provision on the “measures of protection for journalists” in Protocol I to supplement Article 4 (A) (4) of the Third Geneva Convention. Article 79 was the resulting provision, and it didn’t change the regime applicable to war correspondents. Article 79 formally states that journalists who are engaged in dangerous professional missions in zones of armed conflict fall into the category of civilians within the meaning of Article 50 (1). In times of being arrested or captured, journalists are automatically granted the full scope of protection under humanitarian law. The truth of the matter is that the framers of protocol I did not wish to create a special status for journalists, because “any increase in the number of persons with a special status, necessarily accompanied by an increase in protective signs, tends to weaken the protective value of each protected status already accepted.” The identity card of Article 79 (3) does not form a new status for media personnel but rather “attests to his status as a journalist.” 

There’s a lot of ambiguity surrounding the status of “embedded” journalists, those who accompany military troops during wartime. It is important to note that embedment is not a new phenomenon — what’s new is that it has been increasingly popular in practice since the 2003 conflict in Iraq. Journalists were assigned to British and American combat units, and they would agree on a set of conditions which obliged them to stick with these units. This ultimately ensured their protection, and they’d fall under the category of war correspondents mentioned in the Third Geneva Convention. 

Furthermore, the way bodyguards surround “unilateral” journalists can have dangerous consequences for all in the profession. On April 13, 2003, in Tikrit in northern Iraq, the private security escort of a CNN crew responded with an automatic weapon after the convoy was faced with fire at the entrance of the town. 

This type of behavior concerns many journalists who believe it is contrary to rules and beliefs of the profession. Reporters without Borders (RSF) secretary-general, Robert Menard, said “Such a practice sets a dangerous precedent that could jeopardize all other journalists covering this war as well as others in the future.” 

“There is a real risk that combatants will henceforth assume that all press vehicles are armed,” he added. “Journalists can and must try to protect themselves by such methods as traveling in bulletproof vehicles and wearing bulletproof vests but employing private security firms that do not hesitate to use their firearms just increases the confusion between reporters and combatants.”

When a journalist takes direct part in the hostilities, they become a legitimate target during combat and loses their immunity. They recover their right to protection against the consequences of hostilities only if they ceases to do so. Under articles 51.3 and 79.2 of protocol I, media personnel are guaranteed protection provided they do not take direct part of the hostilities. 

Television and radio facilities enjoy general protection since they are civilian objects. Attacking civilian objects was prohibited in the beginning of the twentieth century and was reaffirmed in the statute of the international criminal court and Protocol I of 1977. Article 48 of Protocol I follows the twofold obligation where there must be a clear distinction made between military objectives and civilian objects. Nonetheless, it is a war crime to attack certain objects to which special protection is afforded, i.e., places of worship, works of art, historic monuments, demilitarized zones, non-defended localities, installations and works containing dangerous forces, etc. Furthermore, Protocol II grants only certain objects protection – not general protection to civilian objects. These are objects of specific importance to civilians and under its provisions, are entitled to special protection, like cultural objects, objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, transports and medical units, etc.

The immunity enjoyed by civilian objects and protected objects thereof are not absolute and such immunity is lost if they’re used for hostile purposes. Civilian objects such as buildings, vehicles, aircrafts or ships that contain military supplies, equipment or personnel or that in any way make a major contribution to the war effort constitute to be legitimate targets – incompatible with their status. For example, if the facilities of the RTS building in Belgrade were really being used as transmitters by the military and radio relay stations by the special forces and military of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, the review committee set up by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) had probable cause to conclude that they constituted legitimate military targets for NATO.

Belligerents must take greater precaution when an object is used for dual purposes. International law requires that attacks be strictly limited to “military objectives” but there are loopholes one might take during formal discussions. The doctrine has now replaced “total war” with “limited war” which has paved the path for greatly reducing the category of “military objectives” which are still extremely numerous. According to the ICRC, the 1954 Hague Convention for the protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict and the above-mentioned doctrine, television and radio facilities may, under certain conditions, be permitted to be included amongst them. In today’s digitized culture, dual military and civilian use is often made of resources and goods which are not without consequences in terms of protection. On November 12, 2002, if the building of the Al-Jazeera television network in Kabul really did shelter offices belonging to Al Qaeda operatives and Taliban forces, then it was a legitimate target for bombing. It is fair to conclude that the spirit of Protocol I is reflected in this instance: it is lawful to attack objects which might be put to dual use if the conditions of Article 5 (2) of protocol I are met.

There are various obligations one must take, according to international humanitarian law, when launching attacks that could affect news media and journalists. The lawfulness of an attack depends not only on the circumstances and nature of the target, but also whether the required precautions to minimize civilian loss have been taken, especially regarding respect for the principle of proportionality and the responsibility to give warning beforehand. In this regard, news media and journalists do not enjoy special statues but benefit from the general protection civilians have according to Protocol I during times of hostilities.

It was in 1977 that the principle of proportionality was enshrined upon, particularly in Articles 51 (5) (b) and 57 (2) (a) (iii) of Protocol I. The objective of this principle is to reduce as much “collateral damage” caused by military operations as possible. It provides us with a criterion on which to look back to when determining to what degree such damage can be justified under international humanitarian law: there must be a reasonable correlation between undesirable collateral effects and legitimate destruction. According to the principle of proportionality, the accidental collateral effects of the attack – the accidental harm done to protected property and persons, must be proportionate with the anticipated military advantage.

Article 57 (2) (c) of Protocol I stipulates that “effective advance warning shall be given of attacks which may affect the civilian population, unless circumstances do not permit”. The key words here are “effective advance warning.” Doswald-Beck, deputy head of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) Legal Division, suggests that “common sense must be used in deciding whether and how to give warning, and the safety of the attacker will inevitably be taken into account”. In 1987, lieutenant colonel Burrus M. Carnaham, voiced his opinion that the duty to give a warning was customary in character. This opinio juris is confirmed by its implementation by several states in internal and international armed conflicts. Even if NATO argued that it had “made every possible effort to avoid civilian casualties and collateral damage” when bombing the RTS building, there were doubts about whether it had fulfilled its obligation to warn the civilians beforehand. In a similar light, when the United States bombed the Al-Jazeera and Abu Dhabi television networks in Baghdad on April 8, 2003, it seemed that there were no advance warnings given ahead of the attacks to the journalists. That day, one journalist died and another was wounded.

One of the many flaws current instruments have is the laws and statutes regarding the protection of journalists which are scattered everywhere ranging from the Geneva Convention to UN declarations. We need to set a sturdy declaration specifically dedicated to journalists- with the hazards they face, they deserve this privilege. The International Declaration on the Protection of Journalists has become an instrument uniting journalists and organizations from around the world with the sole purpose of protecting media personnel and their equipment. 

Empirical findings reveal that threats are a commonplace amongst the media personnel community around the world. Many of these threats, particularly in South America and Africa, end up fatal. For example, in January 2022, a well-known reporter Maria de Lourdes Maldonado Lopez knew people wanted her dead. So, she applied for the $23 million a year government-funded program where well-known journalists with probable cause receive full-time bodyguards, at-home panic buttons, anti ballistic gear and surveillance cameras. In some cases, the government relocates the journalists. However, it is not always enough. Lopez was killed in front of her home. Another journalist, Martinez Esquivel, was killed outside his residence that same month. These journalists work with whatever faulty aid they can receive by their national government and still end up dying. This is when we as the international community should come in and serve as a beacon of hope. The IDPJ should stress the importance of avoiding threats as that’s the first step to avoiding fatality. A separate provision should be added specifically dedicated to threats and intimidation; the deed itself, whether done by technology, a third person, or confrontation, should be outlawed and severe repercussions should be taken place. 

Item (8) of the IDPJ states that media institutions “should allocate an appropriate portion of their budget to…each according to its resources”. A revision should be done on this vague provision where media organizations are requested to set aside a minimum of five percent of their revenue from wartime journalism only to invest in media personnel protection. This provision should specifically mention revenue from wartime journalism and not general because different organizations divide up their wartime journalism according to their preferences.Companies like CNN or BBC should allocate more money to international wartime journalism compared to ABC or Fox news who generally focus on domestic issues.

Shield laws are legislations which have been created to protect reporters’ privilege. This privilege gives reporters the right to refuse to testify during compelled disclosure of any confidential information. Currently, the United States, Australia, New Zealand and a handful of European countries i.e., U.K, France, Belgium, Norway, Germany and Austria, are active in protecting reporter privilege. However, there are no U.S. federal shield law statutes. Mississippi, for example, does not hold any shield laws. The IDPJ should implement a new segment where shield laws are reinforced on an international level. There are no borders when it comes to  kidnapping and murdering journalists for information extraction. There have also been many hostages by terrorist organizations where journalists were thought to be “western spies” or were held as subjects of blackmail. 

The IDPJ should also specify what type of media personnel can claim protection under its provisions. The more precise the declaration is, the less leeway there will be for bellicosity. Independent journalists and freelancers are undoubtedly to be included since they are the main feeders of information to our newspapers, internet-based publications, television, and any media thereof. The same cannot be ruled for war correspondents. Although their jobs bring them to the most war-ridden places of the world and is believed to be the most dangerous form of journalism, “embedded journalists” do not get to collectively claim protection under this provision unless the state they signed with is a signatory of the IDPJ. Only 70 countries are signatories of this declaration. The same provision applies to any other document constructed by other entities. Because their contract is between the state and them as private individuals, nobody can hold the state liable – unless they publicly recognize and ratify the declaration. 

The proposed declaration should be signed through multilateral efforts. It would be rational to get superpowers on the wagon first and then strategically invite others with questionable history in war time conduct.

The biggest deficiency is not the lack of rules available, but a failure to implement them and systematically punish, prosecute and investigate violations.

To conclude, journalists and their equipment both enjoy immunity, the former as civilians, and the latter because of the general protection international law grants civilian objects during wartime. Unfortunately, this immunity is not absolute. Journalists are protected so long they don’t take direct part in the hostilities. News media personnel, even when partaking in propaganda efforts, enjoy immunity, unless they are employed for military purposes or to incite war crimes, acts of violence, or genocide. As a result of the many flaws current instruments retain, I’ve proposed alterations to the IDPJ. Changes include, but are not limited to, the explicit insertion of reporter’s privilege, appropriate budgeting towards journalists’ protection and the definite prohibition of threats. Regardless of who you are or where you come from, the protection of journalists is in everyone’s best interest as they are the embodiment of truth and transparency in an everlasting world of constant dissension.