Why is the International Communication Association Silent on Genocide?
Israel has deliberately killed and silenced more journalists in Gaza—the vast majority of them Palestinian—in the ongoing genocide than any war in modern history has claimed, as documented by the international Committee to Protect Journalists. It has also systematically obliterated Gaza’s education system and destroyed cultural sites, as recognised by a UN Commission. Meanwhile, governments, corporations, media organisations, and universities around the world have repressed and criminalised speech and protest related to Palestine, in response to the largest global anti-war movement of the 21st century.
Two years into the first livestreamed genocide, we would expect as a bare minimum, that professional associations representing scholars of international communications to publicly condemn such unprecedented war crimes against journalists and mass suppression and criminalization of speech around much of the world. But the leadership of the International Communication Association (ICA), the largest professional body of media and communications researchers and educators, not only recently refused to release a statement condemning Israel’s genocide in Gaza and expres solidarity with Palestinian colleagues, students and media workers, it is also in the process of scrapping a policy that enables the organisation to issue political statements altogether.
A senior Egyptian professor first proposed such a statement in August 2025, noting that communication scholars were uniquely placed ‘to examine the implications of this crisis on media freedom and ethics’ and to assess the implication of the ‘ongoing repression of journalists’ in Gaza, where more than 200 media workers been killed by Israeli forces in the last two years.
The proposal was immediately blocked by ICA’s Executive Committee on the basis that it would be inappropriate ‘to presume to speak on behalf of the many thousands of ICA members with one voice’. The double standards on Palestine are glaring, given that soon after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the ICA had no qualms about issuing a public statement condemning the attack and noting the ‘fundamental role communication plays in the betterment of the human condition’.
Why does ICA refuse to take a similar position on another catastrophic war, whose human cost is much higher? In contrast, associations in various disciplines— such as the International Studies Association, the American Sociological Association, National Women’s Studies Association, numerous sections of the American Anthropological Association and the International Association of Genocide Scholars—have already issued strong public statements recognising Palestinian sovereignty and condemning genocide.
Indeed, some other associations of communication scholars have taken a stronger stance. The US-based National Communication Association adopted a resolution in November 2024 denouncing the dehumanisation of Palestinians and silencing of Palestinian advocacy—although it was preceded by an incident in which a Palestinian scholar was not allowed to speak at an NCA convention over fears she would talk about the genocide. The Spanish section of ULEPICC, the main association of Spanish-speaking communication researchers, issued a statement that not only condemns the genocide and expresses solidarity with Palestinian civilians and journalists, but also notes that ‘academic communication cannot be neutral in the face of violence and occupation’.
This conception of the academic’s role is wholly at odds with the false balance of an ICA Executive Committee message sent to members days after it blocked the proposed statement. The dispatch notes the destruction of universities in Gaza but then offers solidarity ‘with all of our members—Israeli and Palestinian alike—who find themselves and their families continually torn apart by this war’. Yet, there are no ‘both sides’ to genocide: to equate the genocidal actions of the Israeli state with the experiences of Palestinians living under occupation since 1948 is to strip away the context that should be the hallmark of any thoughtful scholar.
The upcoming ICA Conference in June 2026 will be held in South Africa—a country that initiated a case in the International Court of Justice against Israel for committing genocide in Gaza. Given that the conference in Cape Town is on the theme of ‘Inequalities in Context’, it seems right to ask whether academics should be bemoaning inequality in their research papers and conferences while enabling the gravest form of inequality through their (in)actions? Frustrated by ICA’s failure to issue a statement, we initiated a petition to put pressure on the Executive Committee to change its mind. Without access to ICA’s official membership list and using only personal contacts, we nevertheless managed to get the signatures of some 350 researchers and educators from 43 countries, urging the EC to reconsider its decision to block the statement.
In response, the EC has now called a special meeting of ICA’s Board of Directors, which includes the heads of its different sections. But this meeting will only consider whether to continue with the principle of issuing political statements and not to discuss an actual statement on the genocide in Gaza.
This kind of bureaucratic manoeuvring is familiar territory for any large organisation seeking to deflect attention away from a ‘difficult’ problem. It is particularly common inside academia, with its strong culture of individualism, hierarchy, and risk-averseness. It is also the precise opposite of what we consider to be one of the responsibilities of the academic: to take a side when the situation demands it.
Recall the words of the Palestinian scholar and activist Edward Said, who lambasted academic ‘neutrality’ in his BBC Reith Lecture back in 1993:
"Nothing in my view is more reprehensible than those habits of mind in the intellectual that induce avoidance, that characteristic turning away from a difficult and principled position which you know to be the right one, but which you decide not to take. You do not want to appear too political; you are afraid of seeming controversial; you need the approval of a boss or an authority figure; you want to keep a reputation for being balanced, objective, moderate."
Genocides are not the time to invoke calls for ‘balance, objectivity, and moderation’ because non-intervention undermines the fundamental objectives of an organisation such as ICA, which claims to be committed to ‘peace, human rights and international law’. We call on the ICA leadership to reverse their decision and adopt the fair and ethical position of publicly opposing a genocide. By doing so, they will also protect the academic freedoms of Palestinians and all of those who speak out against genocide and occupation of Palestine in the field.
Gaza is a litmus test, although certainly not the only one, for those who support the right of self-determination, equality and peace. As communication scholars, we have a responsibility to publicise our commitment to social justice and freedom of expression as a legitimate and necessary response to genocide.
Despite the recent and very welcome ceasefire, Palestinians continue to face violence from and occupation by Israeli forces and, therefore, it’s vital that international associations do not step back from expressing solidarity with the victims of genocide and demanding that those who carry out genocide are held to account.
Des Freedman, Paula Chakravartty, and Saif Shahin
(On Behalf of Communication Scholars for Justice)