Israel Violates Ceasefire Again. After Over 100 Previous Israeli Violations, Why Can’t The Media Just Tell The Truth Already?
Another day of Israeli bombing has lit up Gaza's night sky, and the world's media won't tell you the truth about why.
By Dominick Skinner | 28 October 2025
Israel bombed Gaza again today. You already know that sentence, you’ve read it a hundred times before, sometimes with a comma, sometimes with more context, but always with the same empty tone that says, “something happened,” but avoids the only word that matters: ‘violation.’ Because that’s what it is. It’s a ceasefire violation — number one-hundred-and-something if you’re still counting — and every news outlet knows it, but does not tell you.
Before this morning, there had been 125 recorded violations of the ceasefire agreement by Israel. Today those violations continue, and we don’t yet know what the count will be when this night is over, but at the time of writing, at least nine have been murdered, at least twenty-five wounded, as both Gaza City and Khan Yunis have been hit again.
Israel claimed they would hit Gaza in a “powerful, immediate” set of attacks, claiming that Hamas broke the ceasefire, except there’s no evidence, none, not a single piece of footage, despite the complete surveillance Israel has on the Strip. It’s just a line repeated enough times to pass as balance in the news cycle.
Netanyahu, not so coincidentally, was in court this morning, which should feel familiar by now because every time he’s on trial, Gaza gets bombed. Maybe the prosecutors should start charging him with arson.
And then you scroll through the Western press and it’s like déjà vu. Everyone failing to hold Israel to account, sharing these idiotic copy-paste headlines. “Israel planes strike Gaza after Netanyahu orders powerful attacks,” and“Israel launches strikes on Gaza, witnesses report.” USA Today, CBS, NBC, we browsed through all of the largest news orgs online, and it can be argued that not a single one has covered the events of today accurately in their headlines, others have practically hid the news from their readers, treating it as a minor issue.
Israel acts, Hamas allegedly provokes, and suddenly war crimes are given the green light. There’s a studied neutrality in the phrasing, where the airstrikes are seen as a norm during a ceasefire.
What none of them say, what they never say, is that Israel violated the ceasefire. Not “may have,” not “in dispute,” not “allegedly,” they just don’t. Even after a hundred previous violations. Even after a ceasefire that’s functionally meaningless because Israel treats a ceasefire like it always does.
The thing is, they could tell the truth if they wanted to. It would take one headline: Israel violates ceasefire again. That’s all, a factual, defensible and honest approach to informing the public. But instead, we get this endless parade of linguistic acrobatics designed to keep Israel as the victim, but never the perpetrator. Western journalism can’t seem to handle the idea that Israel might just be the aggressor, full stop. It has to be framed, softened, justified, even when the blood hasn’t dried.
Let’s take a look at how each of these News outlets wrote their headlines on an Israeli carpet bombing campaign during a ceasefire.
Reuters
Reuters are normally a gold standard of journalistic integrity, holding a high level of respect amongst both journalists and readers alike.
That level of respect is not often questioned, until they begin to utter words about Israel or Palestine. In this case, their headline writer entirely forgets that there is an ongoing ceasefire, failing to inform those scrolling the homepage that Israel have broken the agreement again.
Should you click into the article, the biased reporting continues. Despite Reuters quoting Israeli officials and pointing out that they “did not give a specific reason for the attacks,” they still go on to baselessly repeat unsupported claims that Hamas fired on Israeli troops.
The Guardian
One that surprised me, was the Guardian following the trend of headlines that forget a ceasefire exists. This is an outlet that has been better than most of the rest on Gaza, not perfect, but not always taking the bait of the Israeli propaganda machine, and at times, providing some exellent commentary of the ongoing Genocide.
In this case, the article is front and centre on their homepage, and the contents of that piece accurately outline the course of events, even pointing out the lack of evidence presented by Israel.
While I would be happy to chalk this up to a mishap, due to the good journalism on display both here and historically, it is nonetheless upsetting to see one of the best English-speaking sources turn to headlines that remove the important context.
USA Today
USA Today is a mixed bag on this story. The headline clearly states that the ceasefire is in danger, and also states that Netanyahu has ordered the strikes.
Then you click into the piece, and it all changes. The article mentions the word ‘violation’ at several points, but in each case, the blame is linked to Hamas and not Israel, it almost comes across as if separate people wrote the article and headline, which may actually be the case.
The Wall Street Journal
This is the worst example so far, and the only one that will be represented by two screenshots to show you how bad it is.
I clicked onto the Wall Street Journal to check how they reported this ceasefire violation, not expecting much, and still coming out disappointed. The first scroll of the homepage made me think that they had either not gotten to the breaking news yet, or that they don’t have it highlighted. There’s good reason for this, as halfway down the page, the story was there, barely noticeable under a story of how Israel is digging in along the yellow line.
This screenshot of the WSJ homepage shows you how important the news is to the outlet owned by Murdoch Family’s News Corp, with the news barely visible, almost looking like added context to the less important story above it that’s given more visible space.
Bloomberg
Bloomberg came ever so close to using a headline that does justice to the news on the ground, but ever so close is just not close enough anymore. Bloomberg have an awful reputation on Gaza, so it honestly comes as a surprise to be that they even mentioned a ‘truce’ in the headline.
It must be noted, they use the word ‘ceasefire’ in all headlines that talk about Israeli accusations against Hamas, so even thought they came close to pointing out that Israeli actions may break the ceasefire, they are still very guilty of installing apartheid rules into how they cover the events in Gaza.
BBC News
Oh BBC, here we are again. I have written two separate articles on the BBC’s failures on covering Gaza, and many other journalists have done the same.
All of the criticisms brought against the UK’s flagship news outlet prove to remain true today. In an utterly disgraceful piece of journalism, the BBC couldn’t even bring themselves to admit that Israel attacked Gaza, claiming that ‘reports say,’ despite the video evidence, despite the deaths, and despite Israel’s own admission to both planning and carrying out the events.
The shield is held so hard on this one, that discussing the failure to mention the word ‘ceasefire’ is actually a secondary observation. Journalism so bad, you have to try.
The New York Times
To close off our collection of these journalistic flaws, we have NYT, the New York Times. To some, this is a newspaper of integrity, to others, it is the outlet that allowed an opinion piece denying the possibility of Genocide in Gaza, despite the world’s court saying differently.
Today, NYT is busy writing headlines that puts all blame of Israeli carpet bombing onto Hamas. They didn’t share evidence of Israeli claims, because there is none, they didn’t explain to their readers that there is a clear violation by Israel alone. NYT did what NYT does on Gaza, they repeated the words of the Israeli military, failing their readers, fellow journalists, and those murdered by the Israeli commanders they refuse to question.
Read more:
Investigation Shows Israel Took More Territory Than Allowed, As Ceasefire Breaches Occur Daily
By Dominick Skinner | 26 October 2025
Hey fantastic article, but a discrepancy I'd like to point out:
Bezos owns the Washington Post whereas the WSJ is owned by Dow Jones & Company, a subsidiary of News Corp., which is owned by the Murdoch's. Just something to note!
If I'm incorrect though apologies