Israel's Military Censorship: An Analysis of Current Practices and Impact

The issue of military censorship in Israel, particularly in the context of news reporting, has garnered significant attention due to recent events and ongoing controversies. Despite previous bans, recent disclosures have brought the current state of military censorship into sharper focus. This article aims to delve into the nuances of Israel’s military censorship, its origins, and its impact on both domestic and international news reporting.

Current Practices and Recent Disclosures

One of the most notable recent disclosures involves a report aired by Israels Channel 14, which detailed the activation of Israeli SIM cards in Gaza prior to the Hamas attack on 7 October. Until then, this information had been kept secret by the military censors, who operate under the 1945 emergency law enacted during the British mandate and later integrated into Israel’s legal framework.

According to Haaretz, a segment on Channel 14 revealed that around a thousand SIM cards had been activated shortly before the attack. Upon this information, the military censors lifted their previously imposed restrictions, allowing other news outlets like Yedioth Ahronoth to cover the story. The censors’ decision was backed by a brief report from journalist Nadav Eyal, which had already been approved. However, the military and Shin Bet (Israel’s internal security service) downplayed the number of activated SIM cards, stating that only dozens of cards went online.

Origins and Legal Framework

The roots of military censorship in Israel can be traced back to the British mandate period, with the 1945 emergency law serving as the cornerstone. This law allows the military to impose restrictions on publications to protect state security. The Reporters Without Borders (RSF) organization notes that media working on security issues require the approval of the military censor, with civil and criminal defamation threats facing reporters who do not comply.

Despite these strict controls, there is an implicit agreement between the Israeli press and the military censor, as highlighted by Guy Lurie and Tehilla Shwartz Altshuler from the Israel Democracy Institute. This agreement stipulates that the military censor cannot ban publications that harm the reputation of the military or politicians, but can ban those that compromise state security.

While politicians increasingly attempt to influence the military censor, the organization has managed to retain a degree of independence. Moreover, there is an appeals process for the censors' decisions, ensuring a cooperative relationship between the press and the military. This process permits the military censor's decisions to be reviewed by a committee, comprising members of the press, military, and publicly elected officials.

Modern Challenges and Criticisms

During Israel’s war on Gaza, the military censor has become more active. The Intercept reported on an order that mandated media outlets to submit articles on eight critical subjects to the censor before publication. These topics include details on Israeli hostages in Gaza, operational intelligence, weapons systems, cyber attacks, officials visiting combat zones, and cabinet meetings.

Foreign press, such as those embedded with the Israeli military in Gaza, face additional scrutiny. While some outlets like NBC do not send their final stories to the military censor, others like The Intercept note a persisting culture of self-censorship within the Israeli press. For instance, Yedioth Ahronoth confirmed they were aware of the SIM card incident before its disclosure by Channel 14.

Additional Challenges and Controversies

A report by the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) highlights numerous instances of attempted censorship by the Israeli government, predominantly affecting foreign and Palestinian reporters. One notable example occurred in November when Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi attempted to cease state funding to Haaretz over critical reporting. Such actions exemplify the broader challenges faced by the media in Israel.

The situation has worsened with the arrest, threat, and physical assault of journalists covering the conflict. Israel has even killed several journalists in Gaza and damaged over 50 media offices, further underlining the pervasive nature of censorship and hostility against the press.

Conclusion

Israel's military censorship remains a contentious issue, deeply embedded in its legal and political framework. While there is an ongoing balance in place between the press and the military censor, the recent events and reports underscore the significant challenges posed to media freedom. The culture of self-censorship and the attempts by the government to control the narrative in times of conflict highlight the ongoing need for vigilance and reform to protect the rights of the press in Israel.