The AP Doesn't Like Israeli Censorship

The media seems outraged at Israel--again. In an article entitled Israeli censor wielding great power, AP reports:

Here's some news you may never hear about Israel's war against Hezbollah: a missile falls into the sea, a strategic military installation is hit, a Cabinet minister plans to visit the front lines.

All these topics are subject to review by Israel's chief military censor, who has — in her own words — "extraordinary power." She can silence a broadcaster, block information and put journalists in jail.

In the 5th paragraph, the article gets to the reason for the censorship:

The range of issues subject to censorship in the latest conflict with Lebanese guerrillas are all related to the goal of preventing Hezbollah from using the media to help it better aim rockets at Israel.

Sound simple enough, but the AP finds fault with the policy of censorhip for 2 reasons:
1. Freedom of the Press--it should be up to the editors to police their own paper.
2. Inaccuracy of the rockets used--so what's the point of hiding information that in this day and age is easy to pass along.

As far as the media policing itself, Mitchell Bard points out that in the Middle East, the journalists inevitably become part of the propaganda war since as a rule they can always be counted on to repeat what they are told first and only later--if ever--check out the veracity of what they have already reported.

During the current war in Lebanon, Hizbollah has taken advantage of the media's eagerness to get a story. Bard notes:

A CNN reporter is taken to an area of Beirut and told that the rubble of buildings is a result of Israeli air strikes on civilian targets. The reporter repeats the allegation as fact. He has no way of knowing what was in the buildings, whether it was a rocket workshop, a hiding place for katyushas, the home of a Hizballah leader, or a command center. In fact, he doesn’t even know if the Israel was responsible for the destruction that he is shown.

...The Lebanese Prime Minister is trying this tactic again in 2006 by claiming that Israel has perpetrated massacres and has made 500,000 people homeless. No effort is made to confirm these claims, they are simply repeated by the media, thereby reinforcing the incentive for Arab propagandists to spread disinformation.

Bard provides other examples of what happens when the media polices itself:

1. In April 2002 the Palestinians claimed that over 500 were killed in the 'massacre' in Jenin--which is exactly how the press reported it. Only later did the truth come out that 56 were killed, of whom 34 were combatants, by which time Israel's reputation was tarnished.

2. During the last war in Lebanon the Washington post published in August 2, 1982 a photo of a 7-month old baby that had been severely burned and lost both of its arms as a result of an Israeli jet accidentally hitting a Christian residential area. It turned out that the baby had not lost its arms and the burns were from a PLO attack on East Beirut. But the photo was one of the reasons Reagan called on Israel to stop its attacks.

3. During the same time the media reported that Israel's efforts to put an end to the PLO threats to northern Israel resulted in 10,000 and 600,000 homeless in southern Lebanon. But the numbers came from the Palestine Red Crescent--headed by Yasser Arafat's brother Fathi. The International Committee of the Red Cross used those numbers and later admitted they were wrong--by then it was too late: the perception that Israel was responsible for mass killings had already been created.

On the second point, that Hizbollah's rockets are inaccurate anyway, the AP writes:

Fired blind, Hezbollah's thousands of mostly short-range, inaccurate munitions simply pose a random peril to Israeli citizens.

Munitions? The AP performs the impossible: it actually makes it sound as if Hizbollah is less of a threat than Hamas. Forgotten is that Hizbollah has:

• 7,000 to 8,000—of 107mm and 122mm Katyusha rockets
• 144 Haseb-type multi-barrel rocket launcher mobile systems
• The Fajr-3 with a range of 25 miles (200 lb. warhead)
• The Fajr-5 with a range of 45 miles (200 lb. warhead)
• Syrian reproductions of Soviet BM-27 220mm rocket systems (220 lb. warhead)
• Mirsad One unmanned aerial vehicles (which can scout out areas)

Regardless of accuracy, the sheer numbers of rockets aimed at an area can do immeasurable damage. In 1996 Hizbollah fired over 500 Katyushas into northern Israel, which over a 2 week period cost Israel approximately $100 million.

If the media really believes that Israel faces only a random peril, perhaps it is because of their eagerness to cover the casualties in Lebanon at the expense of covering the deaths and family tragedies in Israel.

A third argument used against the Israeli use of censorship is that it is undemocratic and a violation of free speech. This is priceless:

"People are entitled to get as much information as they can about what's happening in a conflict," says Rohan Jahasekera, associate editor of the London-based magazine, the Index of Censorship.

And don't forget: terrorists are people too.

Based on Bard's list of media mismanagement, it sounds as if Israel has not consistently imposed censorship in similar situations in the past. Pity.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Hizbollah and Hezbollah and Lebanon and Media Bias.