I think you're partially right. It was a visceral reaction, but it's true that they have to keep the house style.

I disagree that I'm reading "too much polemic instead of real journalism". I think journalism is in crisis, and that the pursuit of "neutrality" in a post-truth era has severely weakened the fourth estate when it should be armed to defend its existence and fundamental values.

First, it's a myth that news is impartial. Conventional news absolutely has a system of values: it's inherently pro-truth, pro-freedom of thought, and democratic. Assassinating journalists out in the open and decreeing that they're legitimate targets is a direct attack on fundamental principles of journalism and free society. Journalism does not need to be neutral on whether assassinating journalists is wrong to retain their legitimacy.

Sadly, these institutions are not experienced or practiced at navigating the challenge of addressing this kind of story. The real story here is that because the practice of journalism undermines what the ruling coalition considers to be in the national interest, Israel has decided as a matter of national policy that it will no longer abide by Article 79 of the Geneva convention. They have not admitted it explicitly, but there is an obvious pattern of fact that goes beyond hundreds of assassinations all the way to their law against publishing news that undermines "national morale". That, imo, is the story. Really stop and think about what a monumental and newsworthy thing it is for a major world power to so publicly confirm a policy that has been until now a matter of dispute.

But the BBC can't within their current operating guidelines find a way to tell that very vital story. That's a tragedy.