The language that researchers use to describe the increasingly violent reality in Gaza has become a contested space. Analytical terms like “genocide,” “self-defense,” “terrorism,” and “resistance,” while not inherently normative, have become tests of political loyalty. This reflects a broader struggle over the dominant narrative, particularly evident in Germany, where semantic disputes have hindered scholars’ ability to contribute meaningful analysis to public debates. Amid shrinking spaces for critical inquiry, we highlight the responsibility of scholars to counteract the expanding semantic void surrounding the Gaza war and the events of October 7 by advocating for an ethical representation of violence that honors the experiences of those affected. This responsibility rests on two foundations: 1) academic integrity, which requires naming, explaining, and contextualizing violent phenomena independent of political agendas, and 2) an ethical commitment to convey the lifeworld of research partners in terms of the meanings they attribute to it, without applying linguistic filters that distort these meanings.