The American writer John Hersey once observed that “journalism allows its readers to witness history”. To do so, however, publications like this one must be prepared to look squarely at events – to question what is happening and to report what we see. Nowhere is this obligation more obvious today than in Gaza.
Describing the horror of the situation is hard. Neither “emergency” nor “catastrophe”, nor even “humanitarian crisis”, comes close to doing justice to the nature of what is happening. What is unfolding in Gaza is not the consequence of some great impersonal force of nature – as if it has fallen victim to an earthquake or tsunami – but because of decisions taken by individuals in positions of power.
While it is difficult to find the right words to describe the situation in Gaza, we must try. One of the questions of our time is whether we are witnessing not simply the atrocious consequences of war but something far worse: a war crime, ethnic cleansing or even genocide. Each of these words carries its own specific meaning, in law as well as in everyday use. But they also elicit emotions beyond their tight, legal definitions. All of these factors must be weighed carefully before deploying such language, because the point of journalism is not to provoke for the sake of fleeting notoriety, but, as Hersey put it, to witness history.
In this week’s edition of the magazine, we have attempted to deal with the challenge of reporting on Gaza in a sombre and serious fashion, presenting a carefully considered view from an eminent legal scholar and historian, Jonathan Sumption – a former Supreme Court judge – who has looked at the events taking place and the explanations given by Israeli ministers through the lens of international law and history. His conclusions are sobering in the extreme.
Sumption’s conclusions are not unchallengeable facts handed down on tablets of stone. Other lawyers will – and have – reached different conclusions. But he has considered the case with care and sincerity. His views are important and I hope will offer readers the kind of measured and intelligent analysis about the world that helps to make sense of events. Sitting alongside Sumption’s essay, we have a column by our international editor, Megan Gibson, setting out the disturbing facts on the ground in Gaza today. Meanwhile, Anoosh Chakelian considers the evolving language and emotions around asylum and migration: the deserving and undeserving, skilled and unskilled, legal or irregular.
Beyond our coverage of the war in Gaza and the importance of language in our national debates, the New Statesman’s in-house GP, Phil Whitaker, offers his assessment of the latest junior (or “resident”) doctors’ strike, George Eaton digs into the state of Labour trade union relations, and Andrew Marr reports on one of the most significant issues of our age – the radicalising effect of social media on our politics. Rowan Williams reviews The Strange History of Samuel Pepys’s Diary, Katie Stallard looks at the enduring influence of Xi Jinping’s father, and Will Lloyd offers an eye-watering review of Sarah Vine’s tell-all memoir, How Not to Be a Political Wife.
It has been wonderful to read this week’s letters. A special thank you to Rob Grew, who wrote in to praise the “feisty” spirit of the magazine of late. The letter got me thinking about words once again. The dictionary on my Mac offers two alternative definitions. “Feisty: (Of person, typically one who is relatively small) lively, determined, and courageous.” This just about sums up my ambition for this magazine. Yet, the dictionary offers another meaning: “Touchy and aggressive.” One word, two meanings – one I aspire to, the other I do not.
Over time, we will no doubt make mistakes, choose words with meanings and ambiguities we did not consider. But what we can control is our intent and the care with which we pursue our journalism. We will always strive to be lively, determined and courageous in covering the most important subjects of the day, however controversial. But we will do so with care, attention and seriousness, committed to witnessing history as best we can.
[See also: A question of intent]
Content from our partners
Related
This article appears in the 16 Jul 2025 issue of the New Statesman, A Question of Intent
Join the debate
Subscribe here to comment