During the first week of Israel’s winter military operation in Gaza, a broadcaster for ChanNel 2, which has the highest rating of Israel’s three television stations, sparked a small firestorm by expressing what was perceived as excessive sympathy for the enemy. Summarizing a report during the evening news, anchorwoman Yonit Levy said, “It’s hard to convince the world that the war is justified when we have one person dead and the Palestinian nation has 350 dead.” Channel 2 was soon inundated with letters of complaint and came under fire online, where somebody set up an Internet petition to have Levy fired. Several of Levy’s colleagues, horrified by what one called a “lynch,” came publicly to her support.
In the end the controversy was short-lived: Levy continues to anchor the Channel 2 news broadcast, which maintains its high ratings, and she remains Israel’s most popular news anchor. But the reaction to her statement is interesting as a demonstration of the solid public support—polled at more than 90 percent—for the twenty-two-day military operation, which finished with around 1,200 to 1,400 Palestinians killed and 11 Israelis, including 3 civilians. It also suggests what kind of wartime coverage the Israeli public wanted from its media.
Operation Cast Lead, the army’s computer-generated name for the military incursion, was widely perceived as a necessary war. The goal was to deter Hamas, which controls Gaza, from continuing an eight-year campaign of launching Qassam rockets at Sderot and the communities of southern Israel. Ari Shavit, a respected columnist for the left-leaning Haaretz newspaper, wrote that it was a “just campaign,” and that Israelis who opposed it were “anti-Israel Israelis.”
The catalyst for the operation came in mid-December, when a shaky six-month truce collapsed and a massive barrage of rockets launched from Gaza landed in the Sderot area, which had been relatively quiet for nearly half a year. Israel launched its military response mid-morning on Saturday, December 27, with an aerial bombardment of Gaza that continued for one week, followed by a two-week ground incursion.
The day after the initial bombardment, the front pages of Israel’s three main newspapers featured banner headlines about a well-planned military operation that surprised the enemy. Haaretz, a daily broadsheet, announced, “IDF Launches Surprise Attack Against Hamas: About 100 Targets Destroyed in Largest Air Strike Since 1967.” The Six-Day War of 1967 was Israel’s greatest military success; and it, too, was launched with a surprise attack that gave Israel the winning advantage. Yedioth Aharonoth, a popular liberal tabloid that is often called Israel’s “national newspaper,” announced “Tunnels Destroyed”—referring to the underground routes used to smuggle weapons into Gaza from Egypt. The headline on the front page of Maariv, a center-right tabloid second to Yedioth in popularity, read simply, “Fighting Back.”
Ofer Shelah, a prominent Israeli journalist and political commentator who writes for Maariv, explained why Israelis felt they needed to fight back. “Israelis see themselves as being under constant existential threat from the Arab and Muslim world,” he said. “It was very easy to sell the idea that Hamas represented the southern version of the Islamist threat, rather than defining it as an isolated case of the Palestinian movement—which, while it does not recognize Israel and does believe in using terror, cannot and will not ever threaten Israel’s existence.” He continued, “I suppose it sounds strange that a country with a nuclear arsenal and a defense budget of $12 billion a year sees a small militia that only manufactures primitive rockets as an existential threat, but that’s the way it is,” he said. “And then you add the fact that the rockets have been coming in for eight years, without us being able to stop them, and you have a volatile combination.”
Few Israelis remembered that the IDF had fought back all along. More than 1,200 Gazans were killed in aerial bombardments and limited ground incursions carried out by the IDF over the three years preceding Cast Lead, while the borders were kept sealed and a siege was imposed. The media reported all the incursions and fatalities, but there was, as Shelah put it, a huge gap between what the public heard and what the public absorbed. There was also a pervasive belief that there must be a way to stop the rockets by force.
Israel’s three television channels switched to saturation coverage of Cast Lead from the first day of the operation, but there was little to report. Israeli civilians living in rocket range stayed at home, close to their reinforced rooms. The rockets launched from Gaza, while frightening and loud, caused little damage and few fatalities. Television reporters in the field struggled to find new material for their frequent live updates, with some amusing results. Once, for example, a Channel 10 reporter near Sderot found and interviewed a handsome young correspondent for MSNBC Korea who expressed unequivocally pro-Israel views in fluent, nearly unaccented Hebrew. This fascinating combination made him a temporary celebrity on the morning talk show circuit.
The real action was in Gaza, but Israeli reporters were not permitted to enter the territory until the final days of the operation, when a handful of military correspondents were chosen for a limited embed. Even the border area inside Israel was a closed military zone.





How do you write an entire report about media coverage and ignore Al Jazeera's presence? I watched Al Jazeera coverage on LiveStation and they corroborated many of the claims that later resurfaced in Left leaning publications. I understand that the story is about the failure of the Israeli Media, and by extension European and American journalists but Al Jazeera played a very different role, no?
Posted by Andrew on Thu 21 May 2009 at 01:10 PM
Interesting idea, quite poor article. There isn't even a single new thought about the issue. All that's written here is a compilation of really old news. And a correction: Israelis have been forbidden to enter Gaza since 2005. The ban is part of Disengagement Law, approved when former PM Ariel Sharon decided to pull out the settlers from the Palestinian territory.
I also agree with Andrew. There's not even a single word about the local stringers who were caught on Gaza, of course, like the ones from Al Jazeera.
I really would expect more from a CJR piece.
Posted by Shan F on Fri 22 May 2009 at 03:19 AM
@Andrew, @Shan - I believe you misunderstood this article. It's point is to illustrate how how what the pop. of Israel was hearing differed so vastly from the rest of the world.
Although most israelis have access get int'l and al-Jazeera news, it is not where they get their news.
Posted by journofan on Fri 22 May 2009 at 11:55 AM
apologies for the incoherent last comment. What I meant to express was that the article accurately describes how mistrustful Israelis are about any news outlet other than their own local media. I imagine this doubly applies to Al-Jazeera.
Lisa, you do a great job of illustrating how we hear what we need to hear in the news. Who needs propaganda when you have selective hearing?
The Aboul-Aish story broke my heart.
Posted by journofan on Fri 22 May 2009 at 03:52 PM
This article is so full of inaccuracies I don't know where to start. A few "highlights":
When Zamir was actually interviewed about the "atrocities" he stated that the 2 reports were second hand, and he never meant for them to be published.
Statements like "For the first time, Israelis were able to put a familiar human face and voice to the suffering of Gazan civilians". are so untrue that they are funny. First of all many of us served in the army in Gaza, and second of all there are many TV reports throughout the year on the situation of civilians in Gaza.
This is an article from a Journalism school? I'd be embarrassed to be a member of the faculty there.
Posted by Amir on Sun 24 May 2009 at 08:43 AM
Poor journalism! Scattered semi-facts bent to meet a vage argument. There is so much to say about Israeli press and its conduct during national crisis. Too bad it wasn't said here
Posted by alex on Thu 28 May 2009 at 03:56 PM
Lisa, you say that the army could not ignore Zamir, a respected officer. Fair enough. What's striking, though, is that you yourself ignore Zamir, and his scathing comments about the way the international media misrepresented Israel. He said:
"A number of articles published recently in The New York Times quoted or were based on words spoken by myself and by graduates of the pre-army leadership development program which I head (the "Rabin Mechina") - graduates who participated as combat soldiers in Operation Cast Lead and who met recently to process personal experiences from the battlefield.
"Both explicitly and by insinuation, the articles claim a decline in the IDF's commitment to its moral code of conduct in combat, and moreover, that this decline stems from a specific increase in the prominence of religious soldiers and commanders in the IDF in general, and from the strengthening of the position of IDF Chief Rabbi Avichai Ronsky in particular.
"It was as if the media were altogether so eager to find reason to criticize the IDF that they pounced on one discussion by nine soldiers who met after returning from the battlefield to share their experiences and subjective feelings with each other, using that one episode to draw conclusions that felt more like an indictment. Dogma replaced balance and led to a dangerous misunderstanding of the depth and complexity of Israeli reality. The individual accounts were never intended to serve as a basis for broad generalizations and summary conclusions by the media; they were published internally, intended for program graduates and their parents as a tool to be used in the process of educating and guiding the next generation."
Would this apply to your piece, too?
Posted by Gilead on Tue 7 Jul 2009 at 05:19 PM