PART A

Controlling the flow of information inside

Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories

Preface: Censorship is incompatible with Israel’s claim to be a “democracy” 4

1. The killing and wounding of journalists by Israeli forces 5

 No accountability for Israeli soldiers who kill or injure reporters.

2. Banning journalists from entering certain newsworthy areas 10

 “The Hill of Shame”
 Restrictions on access for journalists.

3. Expulsion of journalists unsympathetic to Israel 14

 The Chief English Editor of Ma’an News expelled.

4. Military censorship 15

5. Utilising gag orders, house arrest and forcing reporters into hiding abroad 18

6. Attacking the media infrastructure 21

 Radio Bethlehem
 Voice of Palestine
 The illegitimacy of targeting media infrastructure

7. Controlling and censoring the language used 24

8. An Israeli culture of self-imposed censorship 26

2
9. Blocking non-media investigations 27

10. Preventing critics of Israel from speaking out 28

11. The role of the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah in perpetuating the Israeli culture of
censorship 29

PART B
Zionist attempts to control the narrative beyond the shores of
Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories

1. Foreign pro-Israel media bias 31

2. Smear campaigns against critics of Israel

3. Conclusion 34

3
Israeli censorship

PART A

Preface
Censorship is incompatible with Israel’s claim to be a “democracy”

Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:

"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; the right includes
freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart
information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers.”1

Freedom of the press is a hallmark of a free and open democracy. It is inevitable that there will always
be some restrictions on a free press; the most widely accepted being those pertaining to personal
privacy and those relating to national security. However, in Israel today freedom of information is just
one more area to come under attack by the Israeli establishment and the truth is another victim.
Censorship, in its many forms, is being taken to an extreme degree, one most unbecoming of a so-
called “democratic” nation. Under the guise of “security” Israel is taking quite extraordinary measures
to censor news coming out of both Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPTs). Israel, in
fact, has such a blatant disregard for - or to be more accurate, a blatant hostility towards - journalists2
reporting on the “wrong side” of the conflict that it actually resorts to the deportation, banning,
arrest, intimidation, physical abuse and even killing of journalists, seemingly with total impunity.

Many journalists from the West may be “lucky” enough to be wined and dined, flown over to the Holy
Land and given the 5-star treatment, including luxury accommodation, free meals and a guided tour
of Israel’s flourishing nation. However, for those journalists who are after the truth and who do not
want to be spoon-fed Israeli PR spin while lounging in a sunny seaside resort or in a nightclub in Tel
Aviv, just to regurgitate it later; and for those who choose instead to head straight to the field to
report on the heart of the conflict where the real news is taking place, they can expect to receive a

4
very different welcome. Journalists who go to the sites where Palestinian homes are being
demolished routinely or who go to witness the weekly Palestinian protests against the illegal Israeli
apartheid wall in places like Bil’in, see a very different side of Israeli “hospitality”.

Israel’s treatment of such journalists, be they foreign or domestic, is shameful and the tactics used to
control the flow of information coming out of Israel and the OPTs are many. They include:

1. The killing and wounding of journalists by Israeli forces

2. Banning journalists from entering certain newsworthy areas
3. Expulsion of journalists unsympathetic to Israel
4. Military censorship
5. Utilising gag orders, house arrest and forcing reporters into hiding abroad
6. Attacking Palestinian media infrastructure
7. Controlling and censoring the language used
8. An Israeli culture of self-imposed censorship
9. Blocking non-media investigations
10. Preventing critics of Israel from speaking out

1. The killing and wounding of journalists by Israeli forces

Israel has a terrible track record of violence against reporters, whether they are Palestinians or
internationals. The violence includes anything from verbal and physical abuse, to unjustifiable arrest
and even death. Experience has shown that following the injury or death of a journalist there is no
real investigation and certainly no punishment for the Israeli offender. This state of affairs has given
Israel, yet again, a sense that it can act with total impunity. For years now the Israeli army has been
getting away with extreme violence against reporters, cameramen, researchers and anyone else
trying to report on the truth of the Jewish state’s oppression of Palestinians. This situation has gone
largely unnoticed and has received little condemnation from the wider international community and
has therefore just confirmed and compounded Israel’s feeling of total immunity and supremacy.

5
There is, of course, an inevitable element of danger involved in being a journalist covering a story in a
conflict zone anywhere in the world, but this in no way justifies allowing harm to come to journalists
almost as a matter of state policy. Journalists play a vital role in letting the world know what is going
on in areas that the general public would otherwise know little or nothing about. The presence of
journalists in an area of conflict is vital if human rights abuses are to be investigated, violators
exposed and victims protected. Journalists in this context are performing a vital public service and
must be offered a maximum level of protection, one that should be supported by all members of the
international community.

According to Alexandre Balguy-Gallois, a lecturer at the University of Paris (Panthéon-Sorbonne) and

legal adviser to Reporters Without Borders (Reporters Sans Frontieres):

“Attacks against journalists and the news media are unlawful because, under
international humanitarian law, civilians and civilian objects are protected and, with few
exceptions, not even the propaganda media can be considered military objectives. In
other words, while journalists and the equipment they use have no special status, they
benefit from the general protection enjoyed by civilian persons and objects, unless they
make an effective contribution to military action.”3

However, if the protection given to journalists and members of the press is that which is accorded to
them as civilians, given Israel’s abusive and illegal treatment of Palestinian civilians perhaps it should
not be so surprising that journalists have also become targets of the Israeli regime. The use of the
word “targets” in this context does not seem to be an overstatement. While one might have a degree
of sympathy for a soldier who wounds a journalist accidentally during the heat of battle, these are not
the cases we are examining here. Instead, we are talking about the targeting of media personnel
systematically and deliberately who are reporting on aspects of Israel’s illegal military occupation of
Palestine, who are in many cases wearing flak jackets with the word “PRESS” emblazoned across their
chests and who are doing pieces to-camera, sometimes even live on air, when Israeli soldiers open
fire on them with tear gas canisters, rubber bullets, live ammunition and other weaponry.

6
In March 2010 alone, a minimum of eight journalists were shot by Israeli soldiers in the West Bank
and Jerusalem.4 Journalists’ groups have called for an end to this disregard for international norms
and standards of behaviour by Israel. In a report published on 1 st April 2010 Reporters Without
Borders released a statement in which it “deplores the frequency of press freedom violations by the
Israel Defence Forces, which routinely fire on Palestinian journalists... The incidents continue with
complete impunity.” The statement continued, “The IDF soldiers involved are rarely punished and,
less still, disowned by the superiors, who endorse the use of violence against media personnel. It is
time this stopped.”5 These “incidents” extend to reports of journalists and cameramen being
accosted, threatened, beaten, strip-searched, detained at checkpoints, arrested and, in the most
extreme and despicable of cases, killed.

The Committee to Protect Journalists (a New York-based freedom of the press organisation) has been
so concerned recently that it wrote an open letter to Ehud Barak (Israeli Minister of Defence) on 10th
March 2010 expressing the fact that its members are “alarmed by a recent spate of press freedom
violations in the West Bank, including detentions, censorship, harassment and physical attacks by
Israeli soldiers. We ask that you ensure that the Israel Defence Forces (IDF)… discipline any individuals
who are found to have committed violations.”6 The letter refers, among other incidents, to the recent
shooting of Nidal Ishtieh, a photographer for the Xinhua news agency, who was shot with rubber
bullets as he tried to cover a confrontation between Israeli settlers and local villagers in the occupied
West Bank.

The Palestinian Centre for Development and Media Freedoms (MADA) reported on the detention of a
busload of 50 journalists on 7th Feb 2010 and provided an extensive list of other abuses against
journalists throughout the year, including a list of those injured and killed. Many journalists have been
killed by the Israeli army over the years while trying to report on stories in Israel and the OPTs. This
includes, inter alia, the following:

7
  “Mr [James] Miller, a British cameraman filming a documentary on the effect of terrorism on
children for the American cable station HBO, was shot dead in Rafah, in Gaza [3 rd May 2003]...
an eyewitness who was with Mr Miller claims that they were waving a white flag and moving
towards an Israeli armoured vehicle when it opened fire on them.”7

 “Nazih Darwazeh, a Palestinian cameraman working with the Associated Press Television
News, was shot in the head at close range while filming clashes between Palestinian youths
and Israeli troops in central Nablus on 19 April 2003. Eyewitnesses claimed that Mr Darwazeh
was shot deliberately by an Israeli soldier.”8

 Fadel Shanaa, a Palestinian journalist working for Reuters, was killed on 16th April 2008 after
an Israeli missile hit his vehicle that was clearly marked PRESS. His killing was condemned by
the Director General of UNESCO, Koichiro Matsuura.

 “Italian journalist Raffaele Ciriello. According to reports, on 13 March [2002] Mr Ciriello, a

freelance photojournalist working for the Italian daily Corriere della Sera, was shot six times in
the chest by an Israeli tank-mounted machine gun while covering the takeover of the West
Bank city of Ramallah.”9

 Basel Faraj, a cameraman for Aljazeera TV network ENTV, was killed during an Israeli air strike
on 6th January 2009. His killing was condemned by many including the Director General of
UNESCO, Koichiro Matsuura, who made a point of emphasising the Security Council Resolution
1738 which forbids attacks against journalists in conflict situations (as well as media
equipment and installations.)

This is a deplorable state of affairs in which journalists are being killed and assaulted in the line of
duty. A quick perusal of the headlines over the last few months on websites such as the International
Freedom of Expression eXchange (IFEX) shows that this pattern of aggression against journalists is by
no means slowing down. Examples of such headlines include, “Seven journalists assaulted in

8
Jerusalem and Hebron” (11th March 2010; they were shot, beaten, kicked, had their equipment
smashed and were then expelled from the area); “Israeli forces attack two journalists near Ramallah”
(24th March 2010); “Journalist arrested, others shot while covering protests” (13th April 2010). There
are many, many more.

Attempts to cover up the deaths of all foreigners in the conflict zone are nothing new. The killing in
2003 of a young American member of the International Solidarity Movement (ISM), Rachel Corrie, for
example, was steeped in controversy and convoluted attempts to obstruct the truth coming out.
Similarly, there seems to be a total lack of willingness to follow up on reports of any Israeli attacks
against journalists, be they Palestinian or foreign. For example, according to Reporters Without
Borders:

“The French journalist Bertrand Aguirre, a correspondent for the TV station TF1, was
injured on 15 May 2001 in Ramallah. Three different TV crews videotaped the shooting.
You can see an Israeli border guard get out of his vehicle, calmly adjust his firearm and,
with a cigarette in his mouth, open fire with real bullets at an angle likely to hit people in
the head or upper body. Aguirre, who had just finished filming a stand-up, was hit full in
the chest. Fortunately, the bullet was just stopped by his flack jacket. The police internal
investigations section, which is responsible for investigating breaches by the frontier
police, asked Aguirre to cooperate with them and promised to carry out the most
thorough investigation possible. Contacted two years later by Reporters Without
Borders, Aguirre said he was ‘disappointed but not surprised’ by the fact that the case
went nowhere. ‘Four months later, in September 2001, I got a three-line letter saying the
case had been closed for lack of evidence.’ He said he gave the Israeli authorities all they
had asked for. ‘I gave them the armoured plate of my flack jacket. I got all the witnesses
to agree to speak. And I didn’t file any complaint. I really played the game but I finally
realised there was no desire to carry out an investigation to a proper conclusion.’”10

9
The targeting of journalists with violence may not immediately appear to come under the traditional
banner of censorship. Censorship seems too passive and docile a word to cover such acts of violence
and brutality. However, if you consider the definition of censorship in its wider sense, to include the
suppression of information and any acts intended to prevent the dissemination of certain
information, then assaulting or killing journalists who have that information in their possession, or
who are in the process of gathering such information, is surely censorship taken to its most brutal and
lethal extreme.

Surprisingly, this aspect of Israeli censorship, which goes far beyond the realms of acceptable
censorship levels, receives very little media attention. This could be understandable if it only related
to the killing and maiming of Palestinian journalists. After all, as terrible as it may be, the reality of the
situation is that Palestinians are abused and killed by Israeli forces all the time and their deaths rarely,
if ever, make it into the mainstream news. However, this affects non-Palestinian journalists as well.
We are talking about the intimidation and abuse of an entire profession, regardless of race, gender or
religion, and it is time for journalists working in Israel and the OPTs to be offered the protection that
they need in order for them to cover stories on both sides of the conflict without fear of serious
physical harm or death. If this protection is not offered to them by Israel, the occupying power, then it
is natural to ask what Israel is afraid of. If Israel and its security forces are not doing anything illegal,
why attack journalists covering their actions? Why not let them do their jobs, report on the facts
safely and then let the wider international community make up its mind about Israel’s conduct based
on the cold, hard, objective facts?

2. Banning journalists from entering certain newsworthy areas

“The Hill of Shame”

Probably the most infamous recent example of the Israeli authorities preventing journalists from
doing their job by barring them from entering a newsworthy area was the prohibition of all reporters
from entering Gaza during Israel’s military offensive, “Operation Cast Lead”, in December 2008 –

10
January 2009. According to plan, hundreds of journalists were unable to report on the Israeli
massacre of more than 1,400 Palestinians, one-third of them children, as it was taking place. As a
result of their deliberate physical exclusion, the reporters could not give eyewitness accounts of the
effects of white phosphorous as it burned its way through the victim’s flesh down to the bone. Their
cameras were not able to capture the pain and grief on parents’ faces as they held their dying
children in their arms. All they could do was wait with their media colleagues, bored, frustrated,
dejected and impotent a mile or two away from the “action”. Journalists from all over the world
gathered on a nearby hill, which came to be know as the “Hill of Shame”, where they could use their
telescopic lenses to get as close as possible to the devastation in Gaza City. They could only report as
distant observers on the plumes of smoke as they rose from the rubble and film Israel’s US-made
fighter aircraft fly over and strike Gaza’s towns knowing full well that for the citizens of the Gaza Strip
living under the Israeli-imposed blockade, there was nowhere to run.
Instead of filing copy detailing the numerous human rights abuses being perpetrated against the
Palestinians in Gaza, too many news reports at that time were like the ABC News item which began:
“Our ace reporter files this compelling dispatch from the Israeli-Gaza border -- on the frustrations he
and his colleagues face there, day in and day out, covering the conflict.”11

This was an extreme form of censorship. As British journalist Jon Snow reported at the time, “access
has never been so completely barred”.12 He explained that journalists were given “full access to the
consequences of Hamas attacks, but no direct access to the carnage resulting from the Israeli assault
on Gaza”. It was only when the ban was lifted and the journalists were allowed to enter the territory
that they were able to see the full effect of the devastating assault and resultant carnage for
themselves.

11
The Committee to Protect Journalists was among the hundreds of groups and organisations to speak
out against Israel’s restrictions. It pointed out that the prohibitions,

“... contravened international legal principles. The Johannesburg Principles on National

Security, Freedom of Expression and Access to Information of 1995, an amalgam of
general principles of international law and customary international law, states that
governments ‘may not exclude journalists... from areas that are experiencing violence or
armed conflict except where their presence would pose a clear risk to the safety of
others.’ The CPJ adds that the burden of demonstrating the validity of the restriction
rests with the government. The blanket ban instituted by Israel in November 2008, which
remained in effect largely uninterrupted until January 23, 2009, did not meet this
standard.”13

The Goldstone Report also looked briefly into this issue as part of the UN-mandated investigation into
the Israeli attack on Gaza. Acknowledging that the ban essentially began on November 5th 2008 (in
preparation for the Israeli attack) the Report states:

“The Mission can find no justifiable reason for this denial of access. The presence of
journalists and international human rights monitors aides the investigation and wide
public reporting of the conduct of the parties to the conflict and their presence can
inhibit misconduct. The Mission observes that Israel, in its actions against political
activists, NGOs and the media, has attempted to reduce public scrutiny of its conduct
both during its military operations in Gaza and the consequences that these operations
had for the residents of Gaza, possibly seeking to prevent investigation and public
reporting thereon.” [p35, para. 116]14
“The denial of media access to Gaza and the continuing denial of access to human rights
monitors are, in the Mission’s view, an attempt both to remove the Government’s
actions in the OPT from public scrutiny and to impede investigations and reporting of the
conduct of the parties in the conflict in the Gaza Strip.” [p528, para. 1700]

12
Restrictions on access for journalists

This unprecedented level of censorship, as universally condemned as it was, occurred during a

military assault and may therefore be seen by some as an exceptional circumstance, imposed for the
good of the journalists themselves, as condescending as that may be. However, similar bans and
physical restrictions continue to be imposed by Israel on a daily basis all over the area where no such
justification, however feeble, exists. For instance, there is a military-imposed ban on all Israeli citizens
preventing them from even visiting the Occupied Palestinian Territories let alone reporting on events
taking place there. The illegal settlers across the West Bank and Jerusalem, of course, have “settler-
only” roads to get to and from their colonies so, technically, in Israeli minds they are not entering or
visiting the OPTs.

According to Reporters Without Borders, “Israel’s blanket ban on Israeli citizens entering the
Occupied Palestinian Territories obstructs the work of its journalists and violates press freedom”.15
When reporters like Israeli citizen Amira Hass have entered the “enemy territory” they have been
arrested (December 2008 and May 2009) and banned from re-entry.

Similarly, Palestinian journalists who live in the West Bank find themselves banned from accessing
many areas. They often find themselves stopped at checkpoints for hours or held outside an area
where protests, house demolitions, the arrest of children and other newsworthy events are taking
place. It is only after the Israeli human rights violations have been carried out that journalists may be
let through.

It is quite understandable that Israel does not want journalists reporting on its campaign to arrest
Palestinian children or the intentional shooting of international volunteers or the bulldozing of
Palestinian homes; but just because the Israelis do not want the world to witness these violations
does not give them the right to prevent journalists from covering these stories as they take place.

13
Similar restrictions on the access of journalists apply to Gaza as well. The Goldstone Report states that
“Israeli citizens, including journalists, have been barred from entering the Gaza Strip since the
abduction in 2006 of Gilad Shalit…”. *p486, para. 1768+ In fact, the Israeli Prime Minister's Office
website reminds foreign journalists that in relation to the Gaza Strip, “Entering and/or being present
in the area without a proper permit also constitute a criminal offence.”16

Israel’s ongoing blockade of Gaza is another means of preventing news coming out of the OPTs and
compounds the horrors of what is taking place inside the besieged Strip. Unreported atrocities are
occurring not simply behind closed doors but behind closed borders, atrocities which affect Gaza’s
1.5 million people. Israel’s ongoing siege of Gaza is merely an extension of its military incursion during
“Operation Cast Lead”. The assault on the citizens of Gaza did not end after 22 days but continues to
this day in a most menacing and inhumane form of mass imprisonment. Children are dying of
treatable medical conditions, including many types of cancer, in the most torturous and horrific way
simply because they cannot get access to medical treatment outside Gaza as a result of Israel’s
blockade, and yet no cameras are there to record their slow and painful death. Amnesty International
has reported that about 95% of the water in Gaza is unfit for human consumption and yet no
environmentalists or researchers can go in for themselves to chart the devastating effect this has on
the people, their animals or the land itself. Israel is imprisoning one and a half million people and
restricting access in the hopes that the world at large will remain ignorant about the atrocities it is
carrying out on a daily basis. Out of sight out of mind is the intention behind the policy and, for the
most part, it is effective. People are largely unaware of the conditions facing Palestinians in the Gaza
Strip because journalists and researchers have such limited access.

3. Expulsion of journalists unsympathetic to Israel

The Chief English Editor of Ma’an News expelled.

The Jewish-American journalist Jared Malsin, who is the Chief Editor of Ma’an News, was “expelled”
from Israel in January 2010 after being detained in a cell at Tel Aviv’s Ben Gurion airport for a week. In

14
a report by the British Index on Censorship it is stated that while the Israeli authorities gave numerous
reasons for not letting Mr. Malsin in, according to an internal report obtained by Ma’an News Agency
in relation to his interrogation it is clear that “Malsin’s deportation is directly linked to his journalistic
work”. The interrogation report revealed that, “Searching his name on the internet showed that on
his personal website — in his CV — he states that he has been covering events in the Palestinian
Authority for the past year and seven months... Further search brought up articles in which he covers
events in the territories from a viewpoint critical of Israel.” It seems therefore that you only have to
be a critic of Israel’s policies to be banned from the country and from one main access route into the
West Bank as well.

The International Press Institute Director, David Dadge, said at the time: “The International Press
Institute is troubled by the possibility that the Israeli authorities have detained and will deport Jared
Malsin because they dislike the editorial policies at Ma’an News Agency. The authorities should
recognize that the right of press freedom applies to all journalists, not just to reporters who write
favourably about Israeli government policy.”17

4. Military censorship

Having looked at a few of the more brutal and draconian methods by which the Israeli authorities
obstruct and control the flow of information coming out of Israel and the OPTs, it is important to look
at some of the more passive, but no less ominous, forms of censorship employed by the Israeli
authorities.

What form of official censorship is employed in Israel? Like most things in the Jewish state, the
censorship system is heavily bureaucratic and military in nature. Every journalist working in Israel
must first be accredited by the Israeli Government Press Office. Granting accreditation is entirely
discretionary and can take up to 90 days. According to the Israeli government’s Rules regarding cards
and certificates for journalists, press technicians and media assistants, “Cards and Certificates will not

15
be given to residents or citizens of enemy states, or to a resident of an area which is in an armed
conflict with the State of Israel” (emphasis added).18 This, naturally, excludes thousands of journalists.

For those who do not come from an “enemy state” but who do meet the criteria set out by the Israeli
authorities, even once accredited all interviews, articles, reports and film made which may in any way
relate to Israeli state security must go through the Military Censor’s Office. The Government Press
Office clearly states that “censorship is a function of the Israeli Defence Forces and not the GPO.”19
Apparently, “The Military Censor is interested in information relating to the security of the State of
Israel. All journalists applying for accreditation of Government Press Office cards are requested to sign
a form whereby they undertake to abide by the rules of the Military Censor which are designed to
safeguard this security.”20

With all the elements of a big brother state, Emmy award-winning film maker Tom Hayes explains
that:

“Registering as a journalist with Israel requires a signed commitment to clear every fax,
every foreign call that involves discussion of the situation, every tape, and every reel of
film through the Military Censor’s office at Beit Agroan. Failure to do so is punishable by
imprisonment or deportation. While you’re filming you constantly live with the implicit
threat that if you mess with the Army the Censor isn’t going to let you take your footage
out of the country.

You can’t clear your material bit by bit. No more than 48 hours prior to leaving the
country, you have to physically drag the crates up to the Censor’s office where armed
soldiers decide if it stays or leaves. All your work, all the risks and sacrifices contained in
those crates, comes down to that moment. They can do anything they want, from seizing
the entire heap, to screening the material frame by frame. They have guns.

Every story you see on television has been through this process, although the networks
rarely acknowledge it. The chronic failure to inform viewers and listeners that material

16
 has been cleared through the Israeli Military Censor amounts to a form of systematic
distortion. It gives the impression that what is posing as information is coming to you
‘free and clear.’”21

The Chief Military Censor in Israel is currently Colonel Sima Vaknin. According to an article by the AP
Col. Vaknin has said, in her own words, that she has “extraordinary power... I can, for example,
publish an order that no material can be published. I can close a newspaper or shut down a station. I
can do almost anything”.22 And so she can; she is able to silence a broadcast, block information and
imprison journalists. However, while Col. Vaknin may boast about the extraordinary level of power
she wields, her words send shivers down the spine of those who care about journalistic freedom and
integrity, and the right of the world to know the truth about the human rights abuses being
committed against the Palestinians. What is to stop the Military Censor from abusing that
“extraordinary power”? What is to stop her from using that power to cover up Israeli violations of
international law? Nothing, and indeed, according to the AP report, critics are beginning more and
more to say that Israel’s censorship policy is “a slippery slope not fit for a democracy.” Furthermore,
observers are saying that “the censorship system is worse than ineffective -- it's undemocratic, often
counterproductive and a violation of freedom of speech... ‘People are entitled to get as much
information as they can about what's happening in a conflict,’ says Rohan Jahasekera, associate editor
of the London-based magazine, the Index of Censorship. Israel's censorship rules are not unusual, he
adds, but ‘it's unusual in that they're enforced.’”23

During an interview on 23rd April 2010 with Middle East Correspondent Christoph Schult in Tel Aviv for
German publication Spiegel, Col. Vankin used some very revealing language. While trying to portray
the censorship system as a more liberal and democratic process than it actually is, she claimed that
the censorship office is not a military unit and argued that it does not “belong to the IDF” 24 (she did so
while wearing the uniform of an Israeli army Colonel, no less). She admitted, “We can force the Israeli
media to write ‘as reported in the foreign media’.” *Emphasis added+ The Spiegel journalist at one
point in the interview asked: “In the four and a half years I have worked in Israel as a correspondent, I
never handed in an article for approval; it is against my journalistic principles. But I have never
received a phone call from you, either. Was I lucky?” Vaknin, somewhat ominously, replied: “Don't

17
think we do not know what you have published. If I thought you were harming state security you
would get to know the ‘other side’ of the censorship. When you report to the German reader, you
usually would not describe what this or that army unit did yesterday. Your reports pertain to the
political issues and only occasionally to military issues. That's why we did not harass you.”

Col. Vankin speaks casually of receiving thousands of items each month for censorship inspection and
remarks that “out of the thousands of items, 80-85 percent are returned without being touched. Out
of the remaining articles, between 10-15 percent are returned to the publisher with what we call
‘specific disqualifications’… Only up to 1 percent of all the items submitted to the censor are totally
disqualified.” However, while she may not consider these to be high figures, the numbers she admits
to are, in fact, shockingly high. It means that every month hundreds and hundreds of articles are
interfered with by the Israeli censorship office and dozens, if not hundreds, every month are banned
from publication altogether; and those are only according to the official figures. The true number is
possibly many times higher.

Col. Vankin ends the Spiegel interview by saying, “When you leave Israel at the end of your time as
correspondent, I would be happy if you said: This country is really the only democracy in the Middle
East.” Or not.

5. Utilising gag orders, house arrest and forcing journalists into hiding abroad.

In the most controversial censorship scandal to have come out of Israel in recent months, it was
revealed that top Israeli investigative journalist Uri Blau, who works for Ha’aretz newspaper, has been
forced into hiding in London where he has been laying low for months now. The Israeli media was
under a government order preventing them from reporting on the case but once the story broke
internationally and spread via the internet the order became redundant with journalists inside Israel
unable to report on news that was already being widely reported elsewhere in the world. The ban has
been only partially lifted.

18
Basically, Israel’s internal security agency, Shin Bet, is demanding that Blau should return to Israel,
hand over sensitive documents he is alleged to have in his possession and reveal his sources. This
follows an investigation by Blau into Israel’s plans surrounding “Operation Cast Lead” which were
suppressed just before the assault on Gaza began in December 2008. Jonathan Cook has reported
that, “in a highly unusual move, according to reports in the Israeli media, the army ordered the
Ha’aretz newspaper to destroy all copies of an edition that included Blau’s investigation after it had
already gone to press and been passed by the military censor. The article was never republished.”25
The fact that his article had already been approved by the military censor counteracts any claims now
being made that the story has the potential to harm Israeli state security. If that was the case it would
never have got past the military censors in the first place. It seems that trying to keep the story quiet
is more about protecting the reputations of the state, its army and its leadership than any genuine
national security issue.

While the details of some aspects of his investigations relating to “Operation Cast Lead” are still
shrouded in mystery, other claims made by Blau which have caused embarrassment to the
establishment include reports of the targeted assassination of Palestinian militants by the Israeli
army, in direct defiance of Israeli court orders, as well as reports of abuses and corruption at the
highest level of the military. His expose claims that “the top echelons of the IDF authorized targeted
killings of Palestinian militants in ground operations, even when their arrests were possible. According
to the article, since the High Court of Justice Ruling in late 2005 that limited the circumstances where
targeted killings were allowed, the IDF masqueraded targeted killings as arrest operations gone
wrong.”26

Judith Miller, in her article “Israel's Censorship Scandal”, explains that among the stories written by
Blau that are alleged to have come from these “stolen” documents is Blau’s report that,

“A secret defence ministry database showed that about 75 percent of the construction in
the vast majority of Israeli settlements had been carried out illegally, that is ‘without the
appropriate permits or contrary to the permits that were issued.’ Blau also reported that

19
 the IDF database, portions of which he published, showed that the construction of roads,
schools, synagogues, yeshivas, and even police stations had taken place on private land
owned by Palestinians in the West Bank.”27

Given the illegal nature of these settlements in terms of international law as well as, it would seem,
Israeli law, these are all clearly matters of great public concern at both a national and international
level.

As a result of Blau’s investigations, particularly into the Israeli army’s policies and conduct before,
during and after “Operation Cast Lead”, there have been calls by some Kadima Party MPs for Ha’aretz
to have its licence revoked and be closed down. Others have started a campaign to get people to
boycott the paper until Blau is fired. Professor Amal Jamal who teaches a media course at Tel Aviv
University has said, “The goal in this case appears to be not only to intimidate journalists but also to
delegitimize certain kinds of investigations concerning security issues, given the new climate of
sensitivity in Israel following the Goldstone report.”28 He added that Blau was “probably finished”29 as
a journalist in Israel.

Those concerned about protecting freedom of speech have started a petition to try and convince Shin
Bet not to charge Blau with espionage, expressing concern that this case will “set a dangerous
precedent”.30

In a related development, it has emerged that one of Blau’s primary informants, 23 year old Anat
Kamm, has been under house arrest since December 2009. She is alleged to have stolen documents
while completing her military service and handed them over to Blau. Ms. Kamm has been charged
with espionage and could face up to 25 years in jail. The papers she is alleged to have passed on,
however, are certainly of public interest and relate in part to “military orders that violate court rulings
and justified law breaking by soldiers.”31

20
In terms of censorship, not only are the two key players in a major journalistic investigation being
both persecuted and prosecuted but “in an extremely rare action, an Israeli court has ordered the
Israeli media not to publish or broadcast a word about Kamm, the allegations against her, or the
investigation that has led Blau, the Ha’aretz reporter involved, to flee to London.”32 Such a gag order
has led to the bizarre state of affairs whereby the foreign media is able to report on these events
taking place inside Israel but Israeli journalists, within Israel, cannot say a word for fear that they will
be fined, arrested or their employer shut down. This has led to pronouncements by Israeli journalist
Gideon Levy that Israel has now turned into a “Shin Bet state”.33

As Richard Silverstein has asked, “In what kind of country does a journalist simply disappear with
other journalists and news outlets having no recourse to publish about it? China? Cuba? Vietnam?
Iran? North Korea? Is that what Israel is aiming for? To be no better than countries ruled by
despots?”34

Despite the storm of negative publicity that surrounded this case, Israel has not been shamed into
changing its tactics. On Thursday 6th May 2010 the head of NGO Ittijah, Ameer Makhoul, was arrested
in a vicious dawn raid. His home and offices were ransacked, his equipment confiscated and his family
harassed. He was taken away without charge and held without access to a lawyer. As author Ben
White explains “Makhoul’s detention was subject to a court-enforced gagging order, preventing the
Israeli media from even reporting that it had happened. This ban was finally lifted yesterday, [10 th
May 2010] as Israeli newspapers were being forced to report on angry protests by Palestinians in
Israel without explaining specific provocation”.

6. Attacking Palestinian media infrastructure

Radio Bethlehem

Not only are the individuals who work within the media subjected to violence and abuse at the hands
of the Israeli authorities but the very media infrastructure itself is also subject to frequent

21
interference and control by Israel. Television stations, radio stations, newspapers and other media
outlets and offices have all been subject to random closures and restrictions as well as actual
destruction.

In August last year Radio Bethlehem 2000 was shut down by the Israeli authorities. Reporters Without
Borders argued, “The summary closure of an independent Palestinian radio station and the arbitrary
seizure of its equipment constitute outright censorship... The station’s management was given no
explanation. We urge the Israeli military authorities to return the confiscated equipment and let the
station resume broadcasting without delay.” 35

According to the RWB report:

“The Israeli soldiers arrived at the station, based in Beit Jala, near Bethlehem, at about 6
p.m. yesterday in five jeeps. After ordering a technician to stop work, they removed the
station’s equipment without showing any warrant. One of the soldiers simply said: ‘We
don’t want to hear Radio Bethlehem 2000 anymore.’ Station manager George Canawati
told Reporters Without Borders: ‘We have not been told why the station was closed
although we tried to obtain any explanation from the Israeli military.’ An independent
radio station founded in 1996, Radio Bethlehem 2000 is now closed until further notice.
Reporters Without Borders has said, ‘This measure is all the more surprising as the
station had no political programmes on sensitive subjects and limited itself to
broadcasting music’.”

The Voice of Palestine

Similarly on 19th January 2001 at dawn, “the Israeli army exploded the television and radio building in
Ramallah. A column of tanks belonging to Tsahal [IDF] encircled the seven-storey building sheltering
the The Voice of Palestine. The Palestinian employees had gone out of the building a few minutes

22
before. The Israeli army seized some materials. Then, the soldiers blew up studios and premises. The
explosion destroyed most of the building that was still ablaze in the morning.”36

The illegitimacy of targeting media infrastructure

Israel makes a habit of targeting media infrastructure whenever it gets a chance. Whether during
times of direct military conflict, such as during “Operation Cast Lead” (in which targets included the
Al-Aqsa television station and studio headquarters; Al-Rissala weekly newspaper and Al-Rintisi
printers to name but a few) or on other occasions (Al-Jeel Press centre was the focus of an Israeli
missile attack [the centre housed local and foreign media including the BBC, CNN, NBC, Aljazeera and
Kuwait TV]; Al-Aqsa Radio station; the Al-Johara tower, [in which dozens of news agencies were
based] and so on); such attacks have been condemned by human rights organisations the world over.
As Executive Director of Human Rights Watch’s Middle East and North Africa Division, Sarah Leah
Whitson, has said (of the Al-Jeel attack), “The clear intent of these attacks is to silence local
Palestinian media… These senseless strikes must stop.”37

According to the legal advisor to Reporters Without Borders, Alexandre Balguy-Gallois, under
international humanitarian law, “Items of radio and television equipment are civilian objects and, as
such, benefit from general protection.”38 It is only if the destruction of a media outlet will offer a
“definite military advantage” that there may be leeway to consider the targeting of the facility to be a
credible military objective. However, as Executive Director of The Committee to Protect Journalists,
Joel Simon, wrote with regards to Israel Targeting Palestinian media in Gaza in January last year:

“Our concern is that the IDF views the dissemination of propaganda as a military (or
terrorist) activity. This is a position that does not have a basis in international law and
sets a dangerous standard that could undermine the ability of journalists to work in
conflict zones… Media facilities are civilian structures and cannot be targeted merely for
broadcasting propaganda which, after all, is a highly subjective term. The onus remains

23
 on the IDF to explain the basis for what seems to be its attacks on media facilities in
Gaza.”39

In addition to the closing down of newspapers, radio stations, television stations, and the bombing
and destruction of the said infrastructure, the Israeli army also confiscates and damages reporting
equipment frequently. There are many reports of cameras being smashed, video cameras being
destroyed and apartment blocks and offices being raided and ransacked with equipment, recordings
and documents vandalised and in many cases stolen outright. All such tactics are clear efforts to
restrict the flow of information and to prevent journalists from doing their job reporting on the events
taking place within Israel and the OPTs. In other words, they are attempts to censor the truth.

7. Controlling and censoring the language used

Israel has a very convoluted sense of history and human rights, and a skewed vocabulary is one of the
many tools that Israel uses to present its unique perspective of events taking place inside Israel and
the OPTs to the rest of the world. Language is one of the primary means by which Israel attempts to
normalise the decidedly abnormal events that are taking place in that part of the world. By shrouding
its actions in the language of “self-defence” and “self-preservation” it uses language in such a way
that illegal and inhumane acts are spun into the valiant acts of a victim, instead of the brutal acts of
the oppressor. This is a deliberate campaign of misinformation which takes place both inside and
outside the state of Israel.

Within Israel, for example, the Index on Censorship reported on 23 rd July 2009 that “the word Nakba,
Arabic for the ‘catastrophe’ of the 1948 war, has been removed by Israel’s education ministry from a
school textbook for Arab children. The ministry has said it does not want to undermine the legitimacy
of the state or promote Arab extremism. Israeli and Palestinian activists are calling the move ‘nakba
denial’”.40 Arab children make up about a fifth of the Israeli population and this is move imposes a
form of Zionist revisionist history on them. As Ian Black, reporting for the Guardian, said, “The
decision – which will alter books aimed at eight and nine year-old Arab pupils – will be seen as a blunt

24
assertion by Binyamin Netanyahu's Likud-led government of Israel's historical narrative over the
Palestinian one.”41 This sort of move also has very worrying wider connotations when viewed in the
light of the Israeli government’s attempts to ban the commemoration of the Nakba altogether, with a
three-year prison sentence being imposed for anyone who does otherwise.

Outside Israel there is plenty of evidence to demonstrate that this tactic of seemingly innocent
wordplay has spilled over into the wider public domain and strong pressure is placed on writers
worldwide to conform to Zionist-approved vocabulary in relation to all aspects of the Israeli
occupation. For example, the gargantuan concrete wall that is still being built in and around the
occupied West Bank, stealing huge swathes of Palestinian land and placing them on the Israeli side, is
called by Israel and its supporters the “security fence”; others less charitably but more accurately
describe it as the “apartheid wall” or “separation wall”. The “Israeli Army” or “Israeli Occupation
Force” is given the more innocuous title of the “Israeli Defence Force”. This implies that it is more of a
reactionary force than the proactive aggressor that it actually is (although this follows the trend
across the West to call government ministries which wage war ministries “of Defence”). The Israeli
assault on Gaza in December 2008 – January 2009 is referred to as the “Gaza war”, implying that two
military forces were locked in combat when, in reality, it was an invasion and assault by a massively-
armed military force against an overwhelmingly civilian population with nowhere to run and unable to
be evacuated from the combat zone. Far from being a war, it was a “massacre” of innocents by
Israel’s “Defence” Forces.

This use of relatively neutral terms to describe very aggressive tactics and events has been criticised
by many writers. Robert Fisk, for instance, condemned:

“The cowardly, idle, spineless way in which American journalists are lobotomising their
stories from the Middle East, how the ‘occupied territories’ have become ‘disputed
territories’ in their reports, how Jewish ‘settlements’ have been transformed into Jewish
‘neighbourhoods’, how Arab militants are ‘terrorists’ but Israeli militants only ‘fanatics’
or ‘extremists’, how Ariel Sharon - the man held ‘personally responsible’ by Israel's own

25
 commissioner's inquiry for the 1982 Sabra and Chatila massacre of 1,700 Palestinians -
could be described in a report in The New York Times as having the instincts of ‘a
warrior’. How the execution of surviving Palestinian fighters was so often called
‘mopping up’. How civilians killed by Israeli soldiers were always ‘caught in the crossfire’.
I demanded to know of my audiences - and I expected the usual American indignation
when I did - how US citizens could accept the infantile ‘dead or alive’, ‘with us or against
us’, axis-of-evil policies of their President.”42

8. An Israeli culture of self-imposed censorship

In his article The limits of freedom in the Guardian (26th July 2009), Gal Wettstein speaks of what it is
like to live in Israel having to monitor constantly what you say. The process of “self-censorship” is one
undoubtedly practiced by many Israelis who do not think in conformity with the official state mantra.
Wettstein says, “In theory we are free to say what we like in Israel, but the reality can be quite
different”. He goes on to explain:

“The legal limits on personal expression are draconian, but not very often invoked. It is
the unspoken limits of freedom of speech which are more binding. Even as I write I hear
the clinking of the chains in my mind: how much do I dare expose? What might be the
repercussions of this word, or that sentence?

No, what constrain me are the social consequences of speaking certain taboos. On the
most formal end of these is the concern that my security clearance may be re-evaluated,
forcing me to relinquish my post in reserve duty for one with less sensitive information
(though of course I would never reveal classified information, which could result in loss
of life).

However, of far greater concern is the less formal punishment which results from stating
opinions as innocent as a parity of value between the lives of Jews and Palestinians; or
using the word ‘apartheid’ in relation to the occupied Palestinian territories; or

26
 suggesting the Israeli army might have committed war crimes in Lebanon or in Gaza.
There is no law against saying these things but there is certainly a price for saying them.
Being identified with such opinions might cost one the recommendation of an already
wavering superior. It might undermine a shaky friendship.”43

9. Blocking non-media investigations

It is not only media personnel who are subjected to abuse by the Israeli authorities and who are
blocked from reporting on the facts on the ground as they are taking place, but practically anyone
wanting to go to the OPTs to see the situation for themselves are also obstructed at every turn.
Bureaucracy, arrests, non-cooperation, deportation; Israel has a whole range of tactics that it uses to
help in the suppression of information. This is especially the case when that information relates to
Israel’s abuses of the Palestinians. The Israeli authorities have no compunction about stopping even
the most high profile individuals from going in and reporting back on the facts as they see them.
Professor Richard Falk, the UN Special Rapporteur to the Occupied Palestinian Territories, has been
prevented from even visiting the OPTs to fulfil his UN mandate of investigating Israel’s compliance
with its human rights obligations in the territories. Instead of according him all of the rights of access
and privilege that one would expect any government in the world to grant such a high ranking UN
official, Professor Falk was, upon his arrival at Ben Gurion airport, subjected to a humiliating 15 hours
confinement in a detention cell with five other detainees before he was forced to leave the country. 44

Similar restrictions on access to vital information occurred in the context of the UN’s fact-finding
mission into Israel’s assault on Gaza during “Operation Cast Lead”, the product of which was the
groundbreaking Goldstone Report. For the purposes of this UN investigation we have been told by the
authors of the report that Hamas cooperated “one-hundred percent”45 while Israel cooperated not at
all.

Although, again, possibly one would not define this as outright censorship in its traditional sense, it
does serve the same purpose; namely the obstruction of information and a blatant effort to conceal

27
the facts. One must again ask what is Israel afraid of? The state’s fear of being investigated and the
drastic steps it takes to prevent any sort of public inquiries being made about its actions tells us
volumes about how bad its suspected abuses must be.

10. Preventing critics of Israel from speaking out.

Most people are familiar with the Israeli tactic of physically confining Palestinians so that they cannot
report about Israel’s human rights violations to the wider world. This is done by the continued siege
of Gaza, restrictions on access to and from the West Bank, and by the illegal detention for years on
end of journalists, parliamentarians and human rights activists, many without trial or access to a
lawyer. However, it does not stop there. Israel uses a host of other tactics to repress information and
threaten various punishments for those who speak out. For example, earlier this year six Arab
members of the Israeli Knesset (parliament) were threatened with removal of their immunity and
other rights simply for visiting Libya and meeting with President Gadhafi. Michael Ben-Ari, an MK for
the rightist National Union party said, “What we have here is an historic opportunity to abolish once
and for all the immunity and rights of Knesset members who hate Israel and denigrate the state.” 46
Other people have found that if they leave the country, they have not been allowed back in. These
sort of tactics naturally act as a serious disincentive to anyone who may even be contemplating
travelling abroad to explain the situation of the Palestinians to the world community.

Countries which invite Palestinians to talk about their experiences are also vilified strongly and
publicly by Israel. In April this year, “A report published by As Sama News Agency claims that Israel
has lodged an official complaint with the German government for inviting the Palestinian Minster of
Health in the Gaza Strip, Dr Bassem Naeem, to attend an academic conference in Stuttgart, also to be
attended by the former Speaker of the Israeli Parliament, Avraham Burg.” This is a shocking display of
interference by Israel in another country’s affairs. Dr Daud Abdullah, Director of the Middle East
Monitor explains why it is so important for Dr Naeem to be heard. For one thing, he points out,
“Bassem Naeem is an eyewitness of the consequences of Israel's aggression against Gaza in 2008-9.”
Moreover, by virtue of his role as Minister of Health, “he is in a unique position to report on the

28
damaging effects on Gaza's children and the elderly of the ongoing illegal and immoral siege. It is
important that people in Europe, in this case the Germans, hear what Dr. Naeem has to say, and then
decide whether they want their government to be complicit in what was clearly a war crime
committed by the Israelis in Gaza.”47

These attempts to deny Palestinians an international audience are attempts to hide Israel’s criminal
acts from the world. If the Jewish state insists on claiming that it is a democracy, perhaps it should
start acting like one and not as the oppressive, repressive state that it currently is.

Another increasingly common, yet transparent, method Zionists use to attempt to silence critics of
Israel is simply old-fashioned mud-slinging. Efforts to discredit those who speak out against the Zionist
state, whether for its human rights violations, its policies of apartheid, its murder of innocent
Palestinians or anything else, are met with unrelenting hostility. All those who challenge the Zionist
myth of Israel as the eternally righteous victim and Palestinians as the aggressors are subjected to
vicious smear campaigns, regardless of whether they are Jews (in which case they are branded “self-
hating”, as has happened to Judge Goldstone, Prof. Ilan Pappe, Prof. Avi Shlaim and Dr Norman
Finkelstein) or gentiles in which case the label is simply “anti-Semite”. This smear campaign may be at
an all time high at the moment but it is a flimsy tactic which no one with any level of intelligence
accepts and which is used so frequently that it is losing its shock value.

11. The role of the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah in perpetuating censorship

It should be acknowledged that the Israelis are by no means the only authorities in the region guilty of
censorship. The Palestinian Authority in Ramallah led by President Mahmoud Abbas has also been
accused of similar crackdowns on reporters. One recent report explains:

“Criticism of the Palestinian Authority can be deadly, as staff at the Palestine newspaper
knows too well. Just ten days after it opened, in May 2007, two journalists working on
the paper - Solomon Al-Ashi and Mohammed Abdu were ‘executed’ by the so-called

29
 Presidential Guard of Mahmoud Abbas. The following month, West Bank security forces
burned all available copies of the newspaper, accompanied by a raid on the newspaper's
offices during which employees were abused and threatened with prosecution; Al-
Ayyam Company which prints the paper was also threatened.

The roll-call of journalists and media activists who have suffered at the hands of the
Palestinian Authority is long: Mustafa Sabri, Mohammed Shteiwi, Tareq Abu-Zeid, Murad
Abu-Baha, Moath Meshaal, Younes Hsasneh, Samer Khuyrah, Khaldoun Mazloum, Nawaf
Al-Amer, Mohamed al-Halayqa, Musab Al-Khaseeb, Ibrahim al-Rantisi, Issam al-Rimawi,
Maher Dweikat, Osaid Amarna, Ahmed Al-Khaseeb and many others have all been
victims of prosecution, abduction and torture by the PA and the Israelis, for whom the
PA's security forces work. Their crime was to report abuses of power by PA officials and
remind people in Palestine of their legal and moral rights.”48

This is a disturbing state of affairs that is slowly gaining traction and momentum in the West Bank.
Even the Goldstone Report noted that: “Allegations of violations of press freedom by the Palestinian
Authority in the West Bank in the past year are linked to reports of arrests of journalists, the closure
of media offices, the forcible changing of newspapers and news website headlines, attacks against
photographers, some of whom have been forced to delete material and breaking or confiscating
photographic equipment.” (page 442, para. 1597) It is evident that this is being done partly in an
attempt to suppress opposition to the PA government and partly, it would seem, as a twisted
extension of the Israeli status quo. It is telling that the report cited above refers to the PA’s security
services working for the Israelis and, therefore, to achieve Israeli objectives. The mission further
reported that there have been claims that “the Palestinian Authority censored television programmes
and newspapers, and that editors were at times informed verbally not to use certain terms or words,
or not to broadcast programmes that could be considered as incitement against the Palestinian
Authority.” (page 442, para. 1598)

30
 PART B

Zionist attempts to control the narrative beyond the shores of Israel and the Occupied Palestinian
Territories

1. Foreign pro-Israel media bias

The long arm of Zionist censorship does not stop at the ill-defined borders of Israel and the OPTs; its
tentacles have a global reach. Attempts are made at every level and via all possible means to spin
media reports towards favouring Israel and demonising the Palestinians.

Israel has been waging a war against Palestine for generations now. That war encapsulates not only
the physical destruction of Palestinian infrastructure (homes, hospitals, schools, etc.) and lives, but
also the media. Winning that war requires Israel to portray (quite inaccurately) Israelis as the
perpetual victims and Palestinians as the constant aggressors, when in fact the reverse is most often
the case.

In order to help prepare Zionists for this battle over public perception of their state, groups such as
the Jerusalem Project have gone so far as to publish a PR handbook for all those discussing Israel in
public forums. It includes a list of phrases to be avoided and words and slogans to be encouraged, all
in an effort to present the illegal occupation in a more acceptable and less hostile light. In other
words, they encourage a play on words that will deceive the public into believing that wrong is right
and bad is good. It is a literary camouflage that the occupation hides behind and is perpetuated by
supporters of Israel the world over.

The subject of media bias and the countless ways in which it is slanted towards Israel is too vast to go
into in any detail here. Suffice to say that the constant mantra that there is a pro-Israel media bias has
become a cliché for a reason; it is based on reality. One interesting article to be published on the

31
matter is “Media Reporting in Israel - All in the Family” by Alison Weir in which she exposed just some
of the links between top US media personnel and the Israeli government including:

 The New York Times ex-Bureau Chief Joel Greenberg: Served in the Israeli Army
 Atlantic staffer Jeffrey Goldberg: Served in the Israeli Army
 US News and World Report’s senior foreign Correspondent Richard Chesnoff: His son was in
the Israeli army while Chesnoff was covering Israel
 New York Times reporter Isabel Kershner: An Israeli citizen (which suggests that she may
have also served in the Israeli Army – the New York Times refused to answer Weir’s questions
on this matter.)
 CNN’s Wolf Blitzer: Based in Israel for years and worked at one point for the pro-Israel lobby
in the US.

These are just a few examples. In and of itself obviously there is nothing wrong with an Israeli citizen
occupying a top media position anywhere in the world. Pointing out the connection between them
and the state of Israel is not a complaint that Jews have jobs (which is undoubtedly how many pro-
Israelis will try to spin Weir’s article accompanied by the usual howls of anti-Semitism). What it is
intended to highlight is that there seems to be a pattern of partisanship, in concert with a clear pro-
Israeli agenda, to which so many of these media outlets kowtow unapologetically, which leads, at the
very least, to the disturbing perception of bias. In turn, this results in non-independent and misleading
media coverage. If the public is not aware of this as they follow the news items issued by these biased
news sources, they will not be aware of how misleading the picture they are being presented really is.
Distortion of the truth is a primary function of the pro-Israeli lobby and installing Zionists in key media
positions is one sure-fire way to ensure the promotion and preservation of the Zionist agenda.

Even without explicit Zionist connections, Western media outlets still go to quite extreme lengths to
placate Israel in their coverage of events in the region. According to Muhammad Idris:

32
 “On February 29 last year *2008+ the BBC’s website reported deputy defence minister
Matan Vilnai threatening a “holocaust”, the story would undergo nine revisions in the
next twelve hours. Before the day was over, the headline would read “Gaza militants
‘risking disaster’”. (The story has since been revised again with an exculpatory note
added soft-pedalling Vilnai’s comments). An Israeli threatening ‘holocaust’ may be
unpalatable to those who routinely invoke its spectre to deflect criticism from the Jewish
state’s criminal behaviour. With the ‘holocaust’ reference redacted, the new headline
shifted culpability neatly into the hands of ‘Gazan militants’ instead.”

Israeli bias in the media can manifest itself in two primary ways. It can either entail the censoring and
withholding of information, or conversely it can entail the saturation of media reports with specific
types of information. For instance, while thousands of media reports in the West make mention of
the kidnap and detention by Palestinians of one Israeli soldier, Gilad Shalit, comparatively few ever
refer to the thousands of Palestinian prisoners detained – often without trial - in Israeli jails, among
whom are innocent men, women and, in breach of international law, children. The fact that one
soldier’s kidnapping is so much more heavily reported than the detention of thousands of Palestinian
civilians cannot be explained away by anything other than an ingrained media bias. The fact that the
Palestinians are held in a “prison” while Sergeant Shalit is held in a secret location makes no
difference if you consider the fact that Palestinian prisoners are often held under Administrative
Detention, without charge, without trial, without access to a lawyer and in inhumane conditions. For
all intents and purposes, they too have been kidnapped, since their detentions are illegal under
international law.

This unbalanced reporting also exposes an element of racism and disregard for the lives of
Palestinians. For instance, while the kidnapping of British reporter Alan Johnston, as distressing as it
was, made headlines around the world nothing of note is written or said about the kidnapping of
hundreds of Palestinian journalists.

33
 Conclusion

The Zionist lobby is working hard to take the lead on the dissemination of information about what is
going on inside Israel and the OPTs. From blocking UN investigations to shooting reporters dead; from
arresting and beating up cameramen to literally blowing up Palestinian-run media outlets; and
censoring information that will portray Israel in a negative light and further expose its breaches of
international law to the wider community; all are top priorities. This was much in evidence once again
at the end of May when Israeli commandos stormed a humanitarian aid flotilla which was attempting
to break the illegal Israeli siege on Gaza. They surrounded and boarded the boat, the Mavi Marmara,
which was in international waters at the time, and killed 9 civilians on board while detaining and
abusing hundreds of others, including dozens of journalists. It was all entirely illegal, of course.
Photographs and video footage taken by the passengers of the Marmara were destroyed or
confiscated by the Israeli authorities and have not been released or returned to their original owners.
This is despite repeated calls for the images to be made available to demonstrate the hostility and
criminality of the Israeli forces.

Many people are unaware of the extent to which Israel clamps down on journalists inside Israel and
the OPTs. The restrictions on access and impediments to travel and the military censor’s role are not
features of the vibrant democracy that Israel claims to be; the only such state in the Middle East no
less (a fact which completely disregards the fact that Hamas was voted into power in a free and fair
democratic election in Palestine in 2006). The reality is that Israel has more in common with the state
described in George Orwell’s 1984 than it does any democracy worthy of the name. It is about time
that it was seen as such and that the media was able to play a central role in disseminating that fact.

The abuse and murder of journalists by Israeli forces must stop. Knowledge is power and all interested
parties need to be able to disseminate knowledge about the true machinations of the Israeli state
without fear of censorship, censure or, even more worryingly, bodily harm and death. Reporters and
investigators should be free to report on the facts as they are and pressure must be applied on Israel
by all media personnel and outlets worldwide until that is the case. It is up to the international

34
community of nations to demand that Israel ensures the safety of journalists in the region and the
free reporting of the facts as they see them, granting the protection guaranteed by international laws
and conventions. Allowing Israel to continue to act with apparent impunity is an insult to the memory
of those brave media workers who have lost their lives in conflict zones all over the world.

List of organisations used as resources for this report

Reporters Without Borders

The Committee to Protect Journalists - Defending Journalists Worldwide

The International Press Institute

The International Freedom of Expression eXchange (IFEX)

Index on Censorship

The Palestinian Center for Development and Media Freedoms (MADA)

Human Rights Watch

35
1
Also see the ICCPR Article 19 for a similar statement on freedom of expression.
2
For ease of reference I will use the word “journalist” throughout although I include in this anyone working for the media,
be it print, radio, television or any other form of media. It also includes cameramen as well as reporters, etc.
3
http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/review-853-p37/$File/IRRC_853_Gallois.pdf
4
http://en.rsf.org/israel-palestinian-journalists-repeatedly-01-04-2010,36916.html
5
http://en.rsf.org/israel-palestinian-journalists-repeatedly-01-04-2010,36916.html
6
http://cpj.org/2010/03/cpj-alarmed-by-spate-of-idf-attacks-on-journalists.php
7
http://www.wan-press.org/article1175.html?var_recherche=israel
8
http://www.wan-press.org/article1175.html?var_recherche=israel
9
http://www.wan-press.org/article19.html?var_recherche=israel
10
http://en.rsf.org/spip.php?page=article&id_article=7662
11
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theworldnewser/2009/01/mideast-war-our.html
12
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/tv-radio/gaza-war-from-a-distance-1419147.html
13
http://cpj.org/2009/04/cpj-urges-israel-to-examine-gaza-limits-military-s.php
14
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/specialsession/9/docs/UNFFMGC_Report.pdf
15
http://en.rsf.org/israel-newspaper-reporter-arrested-as-she-13-05-2009,33055.html
16
http://www.pmo.gov.il/NR/rdonlyres/AF724F93-93CD-4057-8902-2625CA355A8E/0/REVOCATIONRULES.doc
17
http://www.freemedia.at/regions/mena/singleview/4671/
18
http://www.pmo.gov.il/NR/rdonlyres/4BFCE83A-151E-461B-9AAA-
0D72EF1879EF/0/RevisedandFinalPressCardRequirementsandapplicationforms.doc
19
http://www.pmo.gov.il/NR/rdonlyres/4BFCE83A-151E-461B-9AAA-
0D72EF1879EF/0/RevisedandFinalPressCardRequirementsandapplicationforms.doc
20
http://www.pmo.gov.il/NR/rdonlyres/4BFCE83A-151E-461B-9AAA-
0D72EF1879EF/0/RevisedandFinalPressCardRequirementsandapplicationforms.doc
21
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/media/info_blockade.html
22
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002876486
23
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002876486
24
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,690811,00.html
25
http://www.counterpunch.com/cook04152010.html
26
http://facthai.wordpress.com/2010/04/17/internet-breaches-israeli-censorship-mideast-youth/
27
http://www.israeli-occupation.org/2010-04-05/judith-miller-israels-censorship-scandal/
28
http://www.israeli-occupation.org/2010-04-05/judith-miller-israels-censorship-scandal/
29
http://www.israeli-occupation.org/2010-04-05/judith-miller-israels-censorship-scandal/
30
http://www.counterpunch.com/cook04152010.html
31
http://www.counterpunch.com/cook04152010.html
32
http://www.israeli-occupation.org/2010-04-05/judith-miller-israels-censorship-scandal/
33
http://counterpunch.org/cook04152010.html
34
http://www.israeli-occupation.org/2010-04-05/judith-miller-israels-censorship-scandal
35
http://en.rsf.org/israel-west-bank-radio-station-s-26-08-2009,34307.html
36
http://en.rsf.org/spip.php?page=article&id_article=190
37
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2004/07/01/israel-strikes-silence-palestinian-media?print
38
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2004/07/01/israel-strikes-silence-palestinian-media?print
39
http://cpj.org/blog/2009/01/targeting-palestinian-media-in-gaza.php
40
http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2009/07/word-nakba-banned-from-textbook-in-israel/
41
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/22/israel-remove-nakba-from-textbooks
42
http://www.counterpunch.com/fisk0416.html
43
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/jul/26/israel-freedom-speech-censorship
44
http://www.middleeastmonitor.org.uk/resources/interviews/884-richard-falk-qi-believe-that-hamas-should-be-treated-as-
a-political-actorq
45
http://www.middleeastmonitor.org.uk/downloads/interviews/interview-with-colonel-desmond-travers.pdf
46
http://www.haaretz.com/misc/article-print-page/knesset-may-strip-immunity-from-mks-who-met-gadhafi-in-libya-
1.283670?trailingPath=2.169%2C2.216%2C2.218%2C
47
http://www.middleeastmonitor.org.uk/articles/middle-east/963-first-it-forged-its-passports-now-israel-dictates-to-
germany
48
http://www.middleeastmonitor.org.uk/articles/middle-east/943-pas-press-censorship-will-not-change-the-truth

36