How does a journalist convey the horrors of a war in which he finds himself a victim, while losing family members, friends and colleagues, struggling to survive, and then finds that his testimony to what is happening is called into question?
This is what is told in the new documentary “Inside Gaza,” which highlights the plight of Agence France-Presse journalists who found themselves trapped in the Strip, documenting the destruction and death around them, while they themselves faced the risk of being killed during the war launched by Israel in response to the Hamas attack on October 7, 2023.
Director Helen Lam Trung brings to the screen the testimonies of these veteran journalists who had to balance the duty of reporting the truth with attempts to survive, while the war was destroying their city, and claiming the lives of their relatives, friends, and colleagues.
Independent journalist and documentary director Lam Truong told Agence France-Presse in Los Angeles, where the film was shown at the American French Film Festival, that “most international correspondents... cover a war or a news event, and then return to their homes where they are safe.”
She added: “Palestinian journalists were not able to do this; They were stuck alongside the civilian population of Gaza, with no way out, and as the days passed, they themselves became victims of the war.”
The Hamas-led attack on Israel on October 7, 2023 resulted in the deaths of more than 1,200 people, the majority of whom were civilians, and more than 200 hostages were transferred to Gaza, where they were held.
Israel closed the borders of the Gaza Strip almost immediately, and prevented international journalists from entering.
It then launched a military campaign that destroyed vast areas of Gaza in attacks that killed 73,000 people, according to the Ministry of Health in Gaza, which is run by Hamas, and its figures are considered reliable by the United Nations.
Unable to send a team to bolster coverage, Agence France-Presse relied entirely on its local staff - veteran reporters, photojournalists and videographers, many of whom had worked internationally - to document Gaza's slide into a spiral of violence and despair.
Lam Truong said that had it not been for these journalists, whose work was sent to the thousands of media organizations subscribing to the services of the French Press Agency, the outside world would not have known what was happening inside Gaza.
In the film, which was prepared using materials produced by the team on the ground, as well as interviews conducted with its members after they were able to leave the Strip, the journalists talk about their frustration at having their work questioned or not being broadcast or published at all.
In one scene, the team describes its dismay at claims made by Israeli propagandists that real photos of a dead child were fabricated using a doll.
Adel Al-Zanoun, director of the Agence France-Presse office in Gaza, says: “At Agence France-Presse, media outlets around the world use our photos, news reports, and video clips that we produce, but during this war, some of our photos were not used at all.”
He added: “This worried us, and even terrified us. Because from the first days, the thousands of Palestinians who were killed had no regard for the media.”
At a time when demand for traditional journalism is declining as the public moves to social media platforms that lack content control, and politicians seek to discredit any media organization that publishes news they do not like, director Lam Truong believes that it is necessary for the public to understand how news is gathered, including the prices that journalists pay and the risks they are exposed to.
These risks include journalists themselves becoming targets of attacks. According to the Committee to Protect Journalists and Reporters Without Borders, about 200 journalists have been killed in Gaza since the start of the war.
The Agence France-Presse office in Gaza, which provided live broadcasts to the media institutions subscribing to its services, was hit by a strike likely caused by an Israeli tank shell, according to an investigation conducted by the agency in cooperation with other international media institutions.
Lam Trong said: “In Gaza in particular, the press and journalists have become at the center of events; “They were subjected to killing, attacks and persecution.”
She added: “We do not deserve to be accused of propaganda when we carry out field press coverage.”
Lam Trung, winner of the Albert Londres Prize, which is often described as the French equivalent of the Pulitzer Prize, hopes that the film, which has won many international awards and is eligible to compete for the Oscars, will contribute to conveying a message about the importance of journalism.
She said that the promotional campaign for the film during the awards season represents “an opportunity to deliver a very important message to Hollywood... that freedom of the press is threatened, and that we must defend journalists, not only the press, but the journalists themselves.”
Agence France-Presse employees left the Gaza Strip in 2024. The agency continues its impartial coverage in the Strip, relying on trusted independent collaborators.
The political transformations in Israel put the negotiations with Lebanon at a new stage of anticipation, amid questions as to whether assigning Gadi Eisenkot to form the government will lead to a change in the management of the negotiating track, or whether the security conditions adopted by Benjamin Netanyahu will remain constant, regardless of the identity of the next Israeli prime minister. While Lebanon waits for the fate of the Israeli government to become clear to set a date for the resumption of talks, political interpretations are emerging that rule out the change in leadership leading to a fundamental change in the Israeli approach, but rather see the possibility of Eisenkot adopting more stringent positions.
This discrepancy reflects a difference between the diplomatic assessment related to the timing of the resumption of negotiations, and the political reading of their future, especially since the last round in the American city of Tampa ended without setting a new date, while the dispute continues regarding the implementation of the tripartite framework agreement, the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanese territory, and the disarmament of Hezbollah.
A Lebanese ministerial source revealed, in a statement to Asharq Al-Awsat, that the resumption of negotiations between Lebanon and Israel is still on hold pending the clarification of the Israeli political scene and the fate of the new government, indicating that contacts with the American side are continuing, but have not yet resulted in setting a date for a new negotiating round.
The source explained that “the Americans were the ones who called for negotiations” during the last meeting held in the American city of Tampa, pointing out that “the meeting ended without setting a new date, in light of the various parties’ awareness that the elections in both Israel and the United States will lead to a decline in interest in the negotiating track or a change in political priorities.”
He pointed out that the Lebanese side is “currently awaiting the results of the consultations related to the formation of the Israeli government, and whether Prime Minister-designate Gadi Eisenkot will succeed in forming it,” explaining that his position on the negotiations with Lebanon is still unknown.
The source said: “We do not know his opinion on these negotiations,” noting that “Eizenkot’s stumble in forming the government will re-raise the issue of negotiations with Benjamin Netanyahu, in light of his government continuing to be caretaker, and the political complications that accompany that.”
He stressed that “the current stage requires waiting for the identity of the next Israeli government to become clear and its position on completing the negotiating path, before it is possible to talk about new dates or practical steps to resume the talks.”
Regarding contacts with the US administration regarding the future of the negotiations, the source confirmed that “there is always contact, but there is no answer on this issue,” explaining that the discussion has not yet progressed towards setting a new date, at a time when the focus is turning more towards the file related to the “United Nations” forces operating in southern Lebanon.
The Lebanese position comes after Israeli President Isaac Herzog assigned, on November 8, the head of the Yashar Party, Gadi Eisenkot, to form the new government, after he received the recommendation of 67 representatives in the Knesset, compared to 46 who recommended appointing Netanyahu.
Although Eisenkot obtained the majority of the recommendations, the formation of the government still faces obstacles related to the differences between the forces that supported him, especially regarding the composition of the government coalition, the participation of Arab parties, or understanding with religious parties. Eisenkot has 28 days to form the government, which can be extended for an additional 14 days, while Netanyahu and his government retain their powers until the transfer of power.
These complications increase the ambiguity surrounding the negotiations with Lebanon, in light of the lack of clarity of the options that Eisenkot will adopt, especially since he has not yet announced a detailed vision regarding the completion of the implementation of the “Framework Agreement.”
In a different reading of the future of the negotiating track, former MP Dr. Fares Saeed considered that the government change in Israel, and assigning Gadi Eisenkot to form a new government, will not lead to changing the Israeli strategic track or stopping negotiations with Lebanon, stressing that these negotiations will continue and will lead to new arrangements between the two countries, without this necessarily meaning a transition to a peace agreement.
Saeed said, in a statement to Asharq Al-Awsat, that “the earthquake that occurred” in the region led to Israel moving “from the position of watching or waiting for events to the position of extracting a long-term insurance policy from neighboring countries,” stressing that “this issue will not change from one government to another, or from one prime minister to another.”
He added, "The Lebanese-Israeli negotiations will continue, and these negotiations will inevitably lead to a new arrangement between Lebanon and Israel," explaining that "this does not mean that we will go to the issue of peace except through a major Arab initiative in the region."
Saeed linked the future of Lebanese-Israeli relations to the “broader transformations” taking place in the region, noting that the ongoing discussions about the establishment of a new regional order may open the door to comprehensive settlements, benefiting the countries that paid heavy prices as a result of the Arab-Israeli conflict over the decades.
He said, “Everyone is talking about a new East in the region,” considering that these transformations “may lead to the establishment of a new situation that will benefit all countries that paid a heavy price as a result of the Arab-Israeli conflict.”
In his reading of the interconnectedness between the regional fronts, Saeed saw that the confrontations extending from the Strait of Hormuz and Bab al-Mandab to the Ali al-Tahir Heights in southern Lebanon fall within one battle, ruling out that they would end through separate or gradual settlements.
He stressed that “this is one battle,” expressing his belief that “it will not end in stages, but rather during a general conference in the region in which everyone finds his position in a new region.”
Regarding the possibility that assigning Eisenkot to form the Israeli government would lead to a change in the style of negotiation with Lebanon, Saeed ruled out any fundamental change, considering that Eisenkot’s military background might push him to adopt positions no less strict than those of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Saeed stressed that he is “no less tough than Benjamin Netanyahu,” suggesting that he will adopt a more stringent negotiating policy, not only based on his security and military calculations, but also for considerations related to the internal political balances in Israel.
He concluded by saying that Eisenkot “may use a more stringent policy in order to close the door on the most extreme forces to his right, which means that changing the Israeli government leadership does not, in and of itself, constitute an indication of greater flexibility in the negotiations with Lebanon.”
