But even the compelling case of Dr. Aboul Aish failed to make a strong or lasting impact on many Israelis. One middle-aged woman, typically middle class in her speech and appearance, attacked him during a press conference at Tel Hashomer Hospital, where his wounded daughters were being treated. Screaming in front of the cameras and refusing to be silenced, she said that it was a disgrace to give the Palestinian doctor publicity in an Israeli hospital. He must have had weapons in his house, she insisted, because her sons were in the army and they would never shoot a civilian house. While many Israelis expressed abhorrence for her insensitivity to the doctor’s grief, there was wide agreement—lent credence by the army’s initial explanation, later retracted—that the army would not have shot at the physician’s house without a reason. Perhaps he had been unaware of Hamas gunmen shooting from his house? Dr. Aboul Aish rejected this explanation vehemently: speaking to Israeli television reporters from the hospital bedside of one of his wounded daughters, he insisted there had been no shooting either from his house or near his house.
Why were Israelis—both journalists and news consumers—so willing to accept the IDF’s version of events in Gaza? Why did Israeli reporters, normally cynical and irreverent to a fault, fail to ask critical questions during the military operation? Every journalist I spoke with gave the same explanation: the attitude toward covering the Gaza war was a direct reaction to the Second Lebanon War and the way it was reported.
The media had nearly unfettered access to the front lines during the July-August 2006 Lebanon War. Reporters walked right up to soldiers sitting around on the Lebanese border, interviewed them, and broadcast complaints about officers who gave contradictory orders, or about being called up for reserve duty and then kept waiting for days without instructions. A Channel 10 camera crew caught two high-ranking IDF officers as they discussed, in what they thought was a private conversation, their commanding officer’s apparent inability to function as a wartime leader. There were several reports about reserve soldiers who were sent into battle with inadequate equipment.
In response to post-war calls for an investigation into its military and political decision-making, the government appointed an independent commission, chaired by retired judge Eliyahu Winograd. The Winograd Commission’s report shocked the nation with its detailed findings of serious failures in the army’s tactics, communication, and preparedness. The IDF was perceived to have lost its power of deterrence. Israelis felt vulnerable. Somehow, the public absorbed the message that the media had been critical of the war while it was going on, thus exposing IDF maneuvers to Hezbollah, which monitors the Israeli media. And the media—which in fact had supported the war as a cause, only criticizing its tactics when victory proved elusive—felt chastened. Several of my colleagues worried aloud that their reports about failures in the IDF’s functioning had an adverse effect on home front morale. Others expressed guilt at having possibly risked the lives of soldiers by reporting too many details about IDF military moves.
In fact, these claims had already been thoroughly investigated and disproved. One month after the war, the Israel Press Council set up a commission, headed by retired Supreme Court Justice Dalia Dorner, to investigate the media’s coverage of the war. The commission interviewed high-ranking military personnel, including the military censor, and concluded in its report that the media had not violated any censorship rules during the war. In fact, her staff concluded in its report, “If similar coverage had been given to a war crowned with success and victory…[it] would have been applauded by the public.” The media, concluded the report’s authors, was only guilty of bringing bad news to a frustrated, angry public. None of the many reporters I spoke with remembered Justice Dorner’s report or the interview she gave to IDF radio, in which she described the Israeli media’s coverage of the Second Lebanon War as “patriotic.” But they all remembered that they had been accused of endangering Israeli lives—both on the home front and on the battlefield—with their reporting.

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