On 1 April, the Israeli Knesset approved the so-called Al Jazeera law, granting the communications minister the power to close foreign media outlets deemed security risks, with Al Jazeera in particular in its crosshairs.
“We have brought an efficient and rapid tool to act against those who use freedom of the press to harm Israel’s security, IDF [Israel Defense Forces] soldiers, and to incite terrorism during wartime,” said the communications minister, Shlomo Karhi. Prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated that he intended “to act immediately in accordance with the new law”.
The law is pending formal ratification, but even in its weakened state it is concerning. It serves as a warning to media outlets critical of the government, and has heightened the possibility that platforms opposing it could be shut down or penalised. Karhi has previously issued threats to both the liberal newspaper Haaretz and Israel’s public broadcaster, Kan. There is something quite disturbing in the lengths to which the government will go to shield the realities of Gaza from both the Israeli public and the international community – a fact becoming more apparent to Israelis with each day.
There are valid criticisms of the Qatari-owned Al Jazeera. It recently published a video of a Palestinian woman falsely claiming to have been raped by IDF soldiers, which it later removed from its site. It has also been accused of repeating Hamas statements as fact, as well as bias by other Middle East governments, and been closed or blocked – sometimes temporarily – by Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Egypt. Its agenda is clearly aligned to that of the government that provides it funding – sometimes for good and at other times for ill.
But its journalists are among the few international reporters in the besieged Gaza Strip. The images they capture and voices they platform are crucial for the world – and for Israelis – to understand the magnitude of the destruction in Gaza. It is important to hear Gazans speaking in their own voices, whether they are positive or even critical of Hamas.
Within the Israeli media, there are many journalists, pundits and analysts working hard to withhold the truth about the military and human catastrophe, and the killings of journalists in Gaza. In December, Channel 13’s Arab world analyst, Zvi Yehezkeli, casually mentioned the bombing of an Al Jazeera journalist’s house and has elsewhere stated that a humanitarian crisis is unavoidable if Israel is to be victorious.
The high-profile cases that do attract media attention, such as the killing of the Palestinian Judaism convert David Ben Avraham or the killing of seven aid workers from the World Central Kitchen charity, highlight what often goes unreported. These incidents – examples of a blatant disregard for civilian life and of a criminal targeting of individuals who posed no threat – are described as tragedies and viewed as PR nightmares rather than being of humanitarian or moral concern. This raises the question: how many incidents of indiscriminate killing go untold simply because the victims are Palestinian?
With mounting international criticism of Israel, regime supporters are working hard at creating an alternative reality where Israel is depicted as victorious and Gaza is seen exclusively as a haven for terrorists. No such broadcaster is more dedicated to this than Channel 14, an important stronghold for both Netanyahu and the far right. The channel is known for its blend of propaganda, extreme rhetoric and attacks on government critics. The rhetoric is so brazen, quotes from Channel 14 hosts were used in the International Court of Justice trial at The Hague.
Channel 14 is a favourite of the current government; so much so that it has actively intervened to adjust regulations and ensure financial gains for the channel, favouring it over public and other commercial networks. This issue is so dear to the government that the Likud member of the Knesset David Bitan shut down a meeting with the finance ministry, which opposes the channel’s favourable treatment. “We’ll pass the law the way we want,” he said.
Despite government and media gaslighting over the war, reality is creeping in. Six months in, Israeli society has very little trust in its government or its ability to keep its citizens safe; while Netanyahu is consistently accused of stalling the hostage deal for his personal political survival. Only a quarter of the population believe the war will end with Hamas’s defeat. After months of fighting, no progress has been made in negotiations for the release of hostages, and the IDF have had to retake areas they previously claimed were secured. The war has resulted in the daily deaths of young soldiers, the displacement of nearly 200,000 Israelis, and the closure of educational institutions. A looming clash with Hezbollah and maybe even Iran are contributing to a sense of despair, as well as creeping doubt over the possibility of “total victory”.
The truth of what’s happening in Gaza is slowly seeping into the wider conversation. “It’s important for me to say out loud here that the destruction, poverty and hunger in Gaza are horrifying,” said Noga Friedman, whose partner was killed in battle on 7 October, while speaking at a demonstration in Jerusalem. “It’s wrong to take pride in a moral collapse that celebrates blood, blood and more blood, in an endless cycle of vengeance.” Many Israelis may not fully grasp the extent of the destruction in Gaza yet, but more and more recognise the war is causing destruction to Israeli society, and further political isolation as the opportunity to bring the remaining hostages back diminishes.
As international pressure mounts and internal public opinion continues to shift in a more critical direction, the government’s push to enact the Al Jazeera law demonstrates that restricting the flow of news about Gaza into Israel and out to the world is the only way Netanyahu can survive politically. With the prospect of military victory becoming more remote, only silence and censorship can help him now.
-
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
