logo
How does Israel restrict its media from reporting on the Iran conflict?

How does Israel restrict its media from reporting on the Iran conflict?

Al Jazeera2 days ago

The Israeli government has issued new directives restricting how its media covers its current war with Iran.
On Wednesday, a circular from Israel's military censor, Brigadier General Kobi Mandelblit, announced new rules on what Israeli media organisations and journalists within the country can – and cannot – publish about the effect of Iranian strikes.
The legal underpinnings of censorship in Israel are older than the country itself.
Restrictions on media freedom in the territory were first established by the British during their Mandate for Palestine in 1945, before being incorporated into Israeli law after the state was created three years later.
However, restrictions on press freedom in Israel go further than just outlawing aspects of journalists' reporting.
According to figures from the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ), Israel has killed at least 164 journalists in Gaza since October 7, 2023. More have been killed in Lebanon, the occupied West Bank and, now, Iran.
Since May 2024, the Israeli government has banned Al Jazeera from its territory and, since November, has sanctioned the Israeli liberal daily, Haaretz, over coverage considered critical of its actions.
So, what are the new restrictions on journalists and how does media freedom in Israel stack up against that in other countries?
Here's what we know.
The new regulations relate specifically to the conflict with Iran. They place special restrictions on the way journalists and editors can report the impact of Iranian strikes on Israel.
In a circular, published on Wednesday, titled Rising Lion – IDF Censor Guidelines for Media Coverage of Attack on the Israeli Home Front, the office of Israel's chief military censor ordered editors to take 'strict measures' when reporting on missile and drone attacks.
The censor is also warning against reporting anything that could indicate attack positions or air defence operations, or damage assessments that could 'assist the enemy' and pose 'a tangible threat to state security'.
Specifically, journalists and editors are prohibited from:
The new restrictions have taken immediate effect. Photographers in the port city of Haifa were arrested in the early hours of Tuesday morning while setting up cameras to capture images of potential strikes on the port.
Journalists and editors were already required to submit any article that could touch upon Israel's security to the military censor for approval ahead of publication.
Under the existing regulations, the censor has the power to halt publication of any article if 'there is a 'near certainty that real damage will be caused to the security of the state' by its publication.
It may not, however, restrict articles or reports on the grounds that they might damage the reputation of either the Israeli army or the country's politicians.
In 2023, Israel's already tight restrictions were increased via an amendment to the country's anti-terrorism law which punishes those who 'systematically and continuously consume terrorist publications' or who broadcast 'a direct call to commit an act of terrorism'.
According to media freedom organisations, such as the Index on Censorship, even before the new restrictions on reporting the Iran conflict were introduced, the censor's definition of 'security issues' was very broad, covering topics as diverse as the army, intelligence agencies, arms deals, administrative detainees, aspects of Israel's foreign affairs, and more.
Any journalist, publication or media group can appeal a decision by the censor to the Supreme Court, which has the power to overturn its decisions.
Frequently.
In May, the Israeli-Palestinian magazine, + 972, described what it called an 'unprecedented spike in media censorship' since the start of the war on Gaza.
According to the magazine, throughout 2024, Israel's military censor fully blocked 1,635 articles from being published and imposed partial restrictions on another 6,265.
This amounted to an average of roughly 21 interventions in news stories every day; more than twice the highest previous daily tally of about 10 interventions during the 2014 Gaza conflict (Operation Protective Edge), and more than three times that typically recorded during peacetime of 6.2 per day.
Complicating matters are regulations banning outlets from stating whether parts of an article have been censored, so readers cannot be certain what information has been censored and what has not.
None of the countries that Israeli leaders typically compare themselves with has any institution comparable to Israel's military censor.
According to the Reporters Sans Frontieres (RSF) World Press Freedom Index, Israel currently stands at 112th place out of 180 countries for freedom of the press – below Haiti, Guinea Bissau, South Sudan and Chad.
According to the RSF: 'Press freedom, media plurality and editorial independence have been increasingly restricted in Israel since the start of the war in Gaza, launched by Israel on 7 October 2023 following the deadly Hamas attack.'
RSF also noted the importance given to political connections in choosing the leadership of Israel's broadcasting regulatory bodies and that only firmly pro-government networks, such as Israel's Channel 14, are generally selected to host interviews with senior figures.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Gaza boy inconsolable after father killed by Israeli air attack
Gaza boy inconsolable after father killed by Israeli air attack

Al Jazeera

timean hour ago

  • Al Jazeera

Gaza boy inconsolable after father killed by Israeli air attack

Gaza boy inconsolable after father killed by Israeli air attack NewsFeed A young boy in Gaza was filmed wailing over the boy of his father, who was killed in an Israeli air attack on Jabalia. Israel's bombing of Gaza has not subsided despite it's escalating military campaign on Iran. Video Duration 01 minutes 22 seconds 01:22 Video Duration 00 minutes 40 seconds 00:40 Video Duration 01 minutes 42 seconds 01:42 Video Duration 00 minutes 42 seconds 00:42 Video Duration 01 minutes 22 seconds 01:22 Video Duration 00 minutes 33 seconds 00:33 Video Duration 01 minutes 32 seconds 01:32

Pro-Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil released from detention
Pro-Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil released from detention

Al Jazeera

time5 hours ago

  • Al Jazeera

Pro-Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil released from detention

Pro-Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil released from detention NewsFeed Palestinian activist and former Columbia University student Mahmoud Khalil was released after three months in immigration detention, following a judge's ruling to free him amid growing backlash over Trump's crackdown on pro-Palestinian campus protests. Video Duration 01 minutes 42 seconds 01:42 Video Duration 00 minutes 42 seconds 00:42 Video Duration 01 minutes 22 seconds 01:22 Video Duration 00 minutes 33 seconds 00:33 Video Duration 01 minutes 32 seconds 01:32 Video Duration 00 minutes 22 seconds 00:22 Video Duration 00 minutes 31 seconds 00:31

Netanyahu's legacy will not be security – it will be isolation
Netanyahu's legacy will not be security – it will be isolation

Al Jazeera

time5 hours ago

  • Al Jazeera

Netanyahu's legacy will not be security – it will be isolation

Since its founding in 1948, Israel's prime ministers have sought to leave legacies that would outlast them — some through war, others through diplomacy, and a few through historic blunders. David Ben-Gurion secured the state's independence and built its foundational institutions. Golda Meir presided over a war that cost her office. Menachem Begin signed peace with Egypt while expanding illegal settlements. Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated for trying to make peace with the Palestinians. Each leader, in some way, left their mark. But none has ruled as long – or as divisively – as Benjamin Netanyahu. And now, more than ever, the question is not just what kind of legacy he wants to leave, but what legacy he is actually creating. In 2016, I argued that the Arab world had effectively crowned Netanyahu 'King of the Middle East' — a title that reflected his success in positioning Israel as a regional power without making any concessions to the Palestinians. Today, I believe he sees an opportunity not only to consolidate that title, but to reshape Israel's regional position permanently — through force, impunity, and a strategy rooted in securitised dominance. Since his first term, Netanyahu has insisted that Israel's security must override all other considerations. In his worldview, a Palestinian state is not merely incompatible with Israel's security; it is an existential threat. Even were such a state to be created, Netanyahu has made clear that Israel must retain what he calls 'security sovereignty' over all of historic Palestine. This has never been mere rhetoric. It has shaped his every major decision, none more so than the current war on Gaza. The assault has levelled entire neighbourhoods, killed tens of thousands of Palestinians, displaced most of its two million people, and created an unprecedented humanitarian catastrophe. Israel stands accused by human rights groups and United Nations agencies of committing war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and genocide. It is facing genocide charges, supported by multiple countries, at the International Court of Justice. The International Criminal Court has also issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu and his former defence minister, Yoav Gallant, for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity, including the use of starvation as a weapon of war. Yet Netanyahu presses on, arguing that Gaza must never again pose a threat to Israel, and that the destruction is necessary to secure the country's future. This logic does not stop at Gaza. He has used similar arguments to justify Israel's attacks on Lebanon, including targeted strikes on Hezbollah figures and the attempted assassination of the group's leader, Hassan Nasrallah. Using the same rationale, Israel has also launched strikes in Yemen and made clear that it will act in Iraq whenever and wherever it deems necessary. The security argument has likewise been used to justify the continued occupation of Syrian territory and is currently invoked to legitimise ongoing attacks on Iran, ostensibly to prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons and to degrade its missile and drone capabilities. In every case, the same narrative is repeated: Israel cannot be safe unless its enemies are broken, its deterrence unchallenged, and its dominance undisputed. All dissent, disagreement, or resistance — whether military, political, or even symbolic — is cast as a threat to be eliminated. Even Netanyahu's diplomatic efforts follow this logic. The Abraham Accords, signed with the UAE, Bahrain, and Morocco during his premiership, were hailed as peace deals but functioned primarily as instruments of regional alignment that marginalised the Palestinians. For Netanyahu, normalisation is not a path to peace — it is a way to cement Israel's position while avoiding a just resolution to the occupation. What, then, is the legacy Netanyahu seeks? He wants to be remembered as the prime minister who crushed all resistance to occupation, permanently ended the idea of a Palestinian state, and enshrined Israel's dominance in the Middle East through sheer force. In his vision, Israel controls the land, dictates the rules, and answers to no one. But history may remember him differently. What Netanyahu calls security, much of the world increasingly sees as systemic violence. The global response to the war on Gaza — millions marching in protest, international legal action, growing boycotts, and diplomatic downgrades — suggests that under his leadership, Israel is not gaining legitimacy but losing it. Even among its allies, Israel faces growing isolation. While the United States continues to provide diplomatic cover, terms like 'apartheid', 'ethnic cleansing', and 'settler colonialism' are no longer confined to fringe activism. They are entering mainstream political discourse and shaping public consciousness, particularly among younger generations. Many commentators argue that Netanyahu is clinging to power merely to avoid prosecution for corruption or accountability for the failures of the October 7, 2023, attacks on Israel. But I believe this analysis misses a deeper truth: that he sees this moment — this war, this absence of accountability — as a historic window of opportunity. In his mind, this is legacy work. The tragedy is that in pursuing this legacy, he may achieve the opposite of what he intends. Not a stronger Israel, but a more isolated one. Not a secure homeland, but a state increasingly seen as a violator of international norms. Not a legacy of strength, but one of moral and political collapse. Netanyahu will be remembered. Today, as Gaza burns and Iran faces strike after strike, there is no longer any doubt about that. The only question is whether his legacy will be one of national security, or one that leaves Israel more alone, more condemned, and more precarious than ever before. The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial stance.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store