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.
The ministry of defense also kept Gaza closed to the international media, defying a Supreme Court order to let a pool of reporters in. Prevented from covering the war first-hand, the disgruntled foreign television crews set up their cameras on a hill overlooking Gaza. Several international correspondents assigned to cover the war told me that their wartime interactions with the Government Press Office and the IDF’s senior officers led them to question Israel’s commitment to freedom of the press. Fredrik Græsvik, a correspondent for Norway’s TV2, bitterly described Israel as “a country that used to be a democracy.” New York Times bureau chief Ethan Bronner, who was also incensed at the army’s brazen defiance of the judiciary, said he was “pretty horrified” that there had not been a single editorial in the Israeli press about the moral dimension of the decision to keep the press out of Gaza.
But Israeli reporters seemed unperturbed by the limitations. They were used to covering Gaza from a distance, having been forbidden by law from entering the territory since 2006. And they understood, as the Yonit Levy incident illustrated, that the public was not interested in critical reporting about the war or in human interest stories about Palestinians in Gaza. Israelis wanted stories about the home front—about the civilians within rocket range, the soldiers called up for the ground incursion, and the worried or grieving families left behind.
Since Israel has a conscript army, there is a uniquely intimate relationship between civilians and soldiers, who are seen as the children of the collective, sent out to protect the homeland. Their deaths are treated as a national tragedy; often, the death of a soldier is given greater coverage than that of a civilian. This explains, partly, why the public was so anxious to be assured that the army was not taking excessive risks with soldiers’ lives.
Press military analysts were completely dependent on reports from the army spokesman, Brigadier-General Avi Benayahu. Alon Ben-David, chief military analyst for Channel 10 and a Middle East correspondent for Jane’s Defence Weekly, did not oppose the army’s decision to keep the press out of Gaza; but he acknowledged, in an interview published by the Tel Aviv weekly The City, that the army spokesman’s monopoly on information meant that, while the nature of television requires a wartime military correspondent to be seen reporting from the field, he could have covered the war from his desk in Tel Aviv. Information released by the spokesman’s office was usually reported as straight news, with little skepticism and less independent verification.
Yet the accuracy of the spokesman’s reports was challenged in several incidents involving Palestinian civilians in Gaza.

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?
#1 Posted by Andrew, CJR 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.
#2 Posted by Shan F, CJR 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.
#3 Posted by journofan, CJR 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.
#4 Posted by journofan, CJR 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.
#5 Posted by Amir, CJR 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
#6 Posted by alex, CJR 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?
#7 Posted by Gilead, CJR on Tue 7 Jul 2009 at 05:19 PM
Israeli war correspondent Alon Ben-David, remarked in an interview after the Operation "Cast Lead" in Gaza strip: 'In the [Israeli] mass-media, those who are pro-Israel, are suspected to be "recruited": those who are pro-Palestinian, are considered "objective".'
With Jewish "objective" bloggers friends like you, who needs enemies!
#8 Posted by Roby Buzaglo, CJR on Sat 27 Mar 2010 at 12:41 PM
Most of the argumentation in the comments chose to ignore the central point of the article which is that the Israeli,"common man in the street", does not know, and does not want to know what is actually happening of the ground in Gaza. "They" and "them" are Israeli IDF targets in the media. That so many of the victims were unarmed civilian individuals is hidden in Israeli reportage. Only in HaAretz and channel 10 are the wider implications revealed.
#9 Posted by arieh zimmerman, CJR on Wed 19 May 2010 at 06:59 AM
People who live in Israel know very well what's going on. What a pompous and ill-informed "public service" message this is.
Lisa quotes Shelah for optimal diminishment of the truth, "The rockets launched from Gaza, while frightening and loud, caused little damage and few fatalities."
If citizens in St. Paul Minnesota fired rockets at innocent people in Minneapolis, would people in the United States be ignorant of it? If 368 people in Minneapolis died from St. Paul terrorist rocket fire since 2001, would Lisa care?
Probably not.
#10 Posted by ken, CJR on Thu 24 Nov 2011 at 07:36 PM