How Israel Censors American News Coverage
American journalists in Israel must submit stories to the Israeli Censor
Did you know that American journalists in Israel are required to submit their stories to the Israeli Military Censor before they can be published to their audience back in America?
The Intercept recently described how this affects the news Americans get from Israel.
Ranked 97th in the world
This prompted me to do a little bit of research and I was surprised to see Israel is ranked 97th in the World Press Freedom Index. I suppose the fact that Israel engages in “prior restraint”1 much more frequently than the US explains Israel’s low rank.
By comparison Central African Republic and Haiti are ranked 98th and 99th,
The US, with its prosecution of Julian Assange, is ranked 45th,
Canada is ranked 15th, and
Norway is number 1.
American media outlets like CNN submit to the Israeli Censor and at least some of the The New York Times coverage appears to follow Israel’s censorship practices, whether they are required to or not.
Let’s take a look at this Breaking Points clip to see what this looks in practice, and then we’ll examine the New York Times coverage:
So to recap:
Language like “war crimes” and “genocide” are taboo words.
Israel’s bombings are reported as “blasts” and may not be attributed to anyone, unless Israel wants to take responsibility for them.
Information provided by Israel is approved quickly and information from Palestinians is heavily scrutinized and processed slowly.
Here’s Breaking points again: @5 min 44 sec
New York Times
Now to the New York Times – officially they says they do not submit to the Israeli censor, but their coverage appears to be similarly inhibited.
Some of you may have heard about Hind Rajab, the 6 year old girl recently and got the news somewhere other than the Times. Let’s look at how the “paper of record” reports the story.
Note how the headline leaves out the “How” and “Who,” from the Who, What, Where, When, and How?
How did she die?
Who killed her?
Notice the passive voice:
“.. Found dead” (rather than “killed”)
“.. Trapped in a car with dead relatives”
What gets Sensationalized vs Downplayed?
Normally, you would expect this sort of story to be sensationalized, not downplayed. For those of you who aren't familiar with the story, I've edited the headline to answer those customary questions:
Coverage Elsewhere:
Tiktok failed to load.Enable 3rd party cookies or use another browser
Comparing Coverage of Israel with Coverage of US:
By way of comparison, notice when the US military attacks, this attribution is reflected in the headlines:
U.S. and U.K. Launch Heavy Strikes on Houthi Sites in Yemen
The airstrikes, meant to deter attacks on ships in the Red Sea, came one day after the United States struck at other Iran-backed militias in Iraq and Syria.
U.S. Strikes Iranian-Backed Targets for Third Day in a Row
The attack on Houthi militants in Yemen came as Secretary of State Antony Blinken headed for the Mideast to try to defuse escalating tensions.
But here is another example of another headline where Israel doesn't take responsibility and the Times soft-pedals it:
Crowded Gazan City Bombed as Negotiators Try to Revive Cease-Fire Talks
A day after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu signaled that the Israeli military was preparing to move into Rafah, airstrikes there killed and wounded multiple people.
Who bombed the crowded Gazan City? Whose strikes killed and injured multiple people? If this were an American attack, it appears that the headline and story would be covered differently.
The New York Times says they don’t submit their stories to the Israeli censor, but their stories appear to follow a similar censorship approach.
Why Censor?
In an information age, a lot of information is going to get out, but censorship can shape the way it is processed.
By not allowing Israel’s actions to be openly attributed to it, Israel softens the negative news about it and introduces uncertainty about what is really happening.
But the information is out there, and in this case, Wikipedia puts the “The Paper of Record” to shame. I searched The New York Times to see if I could find a better follow-up article and this appears to be the most up to date news the Times published on the topic.
Cancellation
In addition to Censorship, Israel supporters practice “Cancellation”
Here’s Paul, a US Army veteran who talks about efforts Israel supporters have made to cancel critics, even just those who made what should be the uncontroversial calls to oppose war crimes.
Paul says he would be in jail right now if he were to call in the type of bombings that Israel is doing in crowded areas.
Web Summit CEO Paddy Cosgrave’s conference was boycotted by big Tech firms for saying “War crimes are war crimes even when committed by allies, and should be called out for what they are.”
Paul says the reason why Israeli partisans make such extensive use of cancelation is that Israel knows they can’t defend their actions under the Geneva Convention. Thus they need to work hard to silence those who attempt to have real discussion on the topic of war crimes because they know their actions are legally indefensible.
Information Operations
Paul describes how governments like the US and Israel run “Information Operations” with the goal of “paralyzing” the opposition.
For the Iraq War, they did this by conflating:
“opposition to the Iraq War” with support for the 9/11 terrorists.
In early January I wrote about an article in Jewish Currents, which described a similar sort of rhetorical strategy has been adopted by Israel and India. As with many recent Israel-related policies, Israel’s version of “Information Operation” makes an effort to accuse all opposition of being Anti-Semitic, even if the speaker is saying something uncontroversial, like opposition to war crimes.
Thus, today with Israel the “Information Operation” appears to be:
Israel has the right to defend itself, and
People who oppose Israel’s actions are “Anti-Semitic”
Uncontroversial Statements
Paul, the Army veteran in the video, notes how Information Operations often juxtapose seemingly uncontroversial statements.
“Israel has the right to defend itself” is an uncontroversial statement, sort of like
“I need to feed my family” – an uncontroversial statement that resonates with everyone, but it starts to sound absurd when used by NBA basketball player Latrell Sprewell to rationalize why, in 2004, he refused a 3 year contract for $21 million as inadequate (to feed his family).
The Limits of:
“I Need to Feed my Family” and
“The Right to Self-Defense:”
Just like there is a limit to the amount of money needed to “feed one’s family”, the average person understands that there is a limit to self-defense.
Today, Israel’s “right to defend itself” is conflated with a blank check to do anything, including the Dahiya Doctrine, ethnic cleansing, or genocide. However, if society grows wise to how these “Information Operations” are designed, can we more effectively resist them?
One might ask whether Israel's stated goals are attainable, but even more, whether the Prime Minister has an incentive to pursue achievable goals, lest he complete his term as Prime Minister and become a legal defendant in multiple corruption cases.
Netanyahu is a very wily politician, but every parent knows that even an simple young boy who doesn’t want to go to bed will find every excuse to postpone his bedtime as long as he can get away with it.
It’s a challenging situation, but the incentives are all wrong.2 One way the US could start is by ensuring its citizens are getting uncensored information. It could do that by attaching a provision to all foreign aid that the governments receiving aid may not censor the coverage of American journalists publishing news in the US.
Seeing through the Propaganda
One way to resist censorship and propaganda is to do basic research so that you understand when the actions are not abberations but the result of policy and can’t be denied away using the propaganda.
In Part 2, I cover 9 concepts that can help you see through the propaganda fog:
Dahiya Doctrine
“Mowing the Grass”
Power Targets
Roof Knocking
Hannibal Directive
Rules of Engagement
Israel lifts all Restraints
40-45% of all Bombs Unguided
Great March of Return
You may hear Israeli Spokespeople gaslight you about how “the IDF is doing everything humanely possible to safeguarding civilian lives.”
But you can see through the propaganda if you understand 8 concepts:
1. Dahiya Doctrine:
The first place to start is by understanding that Israel developed the Dahiya Doctrine in 2006 to target civilians because it could not militarily defeat Hezbollah’s army.
It appears that today Israel is in a similar situation of not being able to defeat Hamas militarily and so they take it out on the civilians, whether out of vengeance or strategy.
The War started in 2006 when Lebanon tried to take a handful of hostages for use in a prisoner exchange for a handful of Lebanese whom Israel had captured. But instead of this remaining a small-scale fight, Israel chose to expand it into a larger war which they were unable to win.
Rather than accept the results, Israel decided to retaliate against Lebanon’s civilian population in the Hezbollah-stronghold of Dahiya, a suburb of Beirut.
The dictum Israel gave was that for every 1 missile Hezbollah fired, it would destroy 100 houses for every one rocket, flattening the area. They then boasted that they would perform a similar attack on anyone else that attacked it.
So right away, you can see that this is not about “safeguarding” civilians. Rather its the exact opposite — attacking civilian infrastructure with the goal of causing “unbearable” civilian suffering, in the hopes that the civilians will pressure the militants to stop.
2. “Mowing the Grass”
Israel then adopted a policy of attacking Gaza on a regular basis every few years as part of what they called “Mowing the Grass.” The idea is that Israel needed to periodically go into Gaza and “mow down” the people and infrastructure.
This is the 5th attack Israel has performed on Gaza since 2008 — 2008, 2012, 2014, 2021, 2023.
Information about the Dahiya Doctrine and recent History is readily available online, but seldom appears in corporate media
3. Power Targets:
A more recent term that should appear in the news is “Power Targets” — non-military targets that are chosen for their symbolic power to “shock” or intimidate (terrorize?).
Examples of Power Targets are high rise towers (like the World Trade Center) or like universities and banks.
Once you know that this is a deliberate and favorite target, it is easier to see through the propaganda lies that Israel had no choice because there were Hamas tunnels or command centers. Rather excuses are always found to rationalize high profile targets that Israel wants to bomb. Israeli magazine +972 magazine says:
The bottom line is that they knocked down a high-rise for the sake of knocking down a high-rise.”
4. Roof Knocking:
In the past, Israel has reassured the public that they warn residents before a bombing with a “knock on the roof,” however now that Israel is “at war” the knocking policy is no longer used.
5. Hannibal Directive (Wikipedia)
The Hannibal Directive (Hebrew: נוהל חניבעל; also Hannibal Procedure or Hannibal Protocol) is the name of a controversial procedure that was used by Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) until 2016 to prevent the capture of Israeli soldiers by enemy forces. According to one version, it says that "the kidnapping must be stopped by all means, even at the price of striking and harming our own forces."[2] It was introduced in 1986, after a number of abductions of IDF soldiers in Lebanon and subsequent controversial prisoner exchanges.
There are credible reports that a significant number of Israelis were killed by the IDF helicopter and tank fire to prevent Israelis from being taken hostage. The Hannibal directive informally practiced, but was formally invoked at noon.
This explains why ~70 cars were “melted” and Kibbutz buildings appeared to be burned. It is true that these acts were done in response to fears of kidnapping, but Israel passed off images of devastation caused by apache helicopters and tanks as if it was the actions of Hamas.
6. Rules for Engagement: Shoot anything that moves
This approach is not legal under international law, but does this explain why Israeli hostages were shot when they tried to surrender and 2 Palestinian Christian women were shot by a sniper while on their church grounds?
Reporters should ask officials what the rules of engagement are.
7. Israel lifts all restraints on military:
Israeli Defense Minister Galant publicly announced he'd removed every restriction on Israeli forces (Oct 12, 2023). This wasn’t widely covered by the press.
In response to viral Tik Toks depicting IDF depravity, this isn't a breakdown of discipline. This is soldiers behaving as you would expect them given the leadership they are following.
8. 40-45% of all Bombs “Dumb” (Unguided)
So much for precision targeting — nearly half of the air-to-ground munitions that Israel has used in Gaza in its war with Hamas since October 7 have been unguided, sometimes known as “dumb bombs,” according to a new US intelligence assessment.
The assessment, compiled by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and described to CNN by three sources who have seen it, says that about 40-45% of the 29,000 air-to-ground munitions Israel has used have been unguided.
During the first six weeks of the war in Gaza, Israel routinely used one of its biggest and most destructive bombs in areas it designated safe for civilians, according to an analysis of visual evidence by The New York Times.
The video investigation focuses on the use of 2,000-pound bombs in an area of southern Gaza where Israel had ordered civilians to move for safety. While bombs of that size are used by several Western militaries, munitions experts say they are almost never dropped by U.S. forces in densely populated areas anymore.
“A Times Investigation Tracked Israel’s Use of One of Its Most Destructive Bombs in South Gaza.” New York Times, Dec 21, 2023.
9. Great Mach of Return (Wikipedia)
Did corporate media tell you about Gazan’s 18 month weekly protest (mostly peaceful)?
from March 30 2018 until December 27 2019 (18 months)
More than 13,000 Palestinians were wounded as of 19 June 2018. One Israeli soldier was reported as slightly wounded
a United Nations Human Rights Council's found that of the 489 cases of Palestinian deaths or injuries analyzed, only two were possibly justified
The commission deemed the rest of the cases illegal
Protesters were shot, many in the legs, others fatally:
Waiting for Corporate Media / Manufacture Consent:
One of the things I have learned from my investigation of Gaza is that the Corporate Media has strong inhibitions against covering challenges to power.
Given corporate media’s understatement bias, I believe it is important to take genocidal government statements seriously and to believe my own “lying eyes” and intuition, rather that taking Israeli spokespeople seriously. I’d be interested in hearing your strategies for coping with Israeli and American propaganda.
CNN Censorship: In detail
In an interview with The Hill, Intercept Reporter Daniel Boguslaw described how CNN's coverage is shaped by the IDF censor, resulting in Israeli favored stories, like the False 40 beheaded babies story being approved quickly, while Palestinian stories are approved slowly.
Note:
Although I’ve worked as a computer programmer for the last 20+ years, I was a History major at university and have rediscovered my love of research, writing, and creativity through recent projects.
If you or someone you know is aware of paid work doing research and writing please get in touch.
ELSEWHERE:
Proposal
Prior restraint is a form of censorship that allows the government to review the content of printed materials and prevent their publication.
The Incentives aren’t just wrong for Netanyahu. Just about everyone is acting in bad faith. Israel functions as a convenient scapegoat for its neighbors in the Middle East, allowing their governments to divert popular anger and frustration away from their own countries and towards Israel. And even though their may be popular feelings for the Palestinians, the leaders are not representative of the people and have little loyalty to the Palestinians. And many American Christian Zionists are acting in just as bad of faith because their actions are motivated by their own self-interested Biblical Interpretations to bring about the “End Times.”