News outlets decry Israel's coverage limit
By Mark Jurkowitz
Boston Globe
April 3, 2002
Sending troops and tanks into the West Bank has brought Israel into direct conflict not only with Palestinians, but with journalists who have been denied access to combat areas and who, in several cases, were shot at in the line of duty.
The media showdown stems from Israel's decision late last week to label Ramallah - the city that houses Yasser Arafat's compound - off-limits to reporters during the ongoing military campaign. And it escalated yesterday with reports that Israel was considering litigation against news organizations that did not comply.
Hillel Newman, Boston's Israeli consul, said yesterday that his government made the decision "mainly for the safety of people who are not targets of operational activity." But that has not satisfied angry advocates for press freedom. The Foreign Press Association, which had earlier protested Ramallah's designation as a "closed military zone," released a statement yesterday saying that the Israeli government had now imposed the same status on Bethlehem. "Closing entire cities to the media indefinitely is an extreme and unjustifiable measure that makes it impossible for the media to do its job," the statement declared.
Joel Campagna, an official of the Committee to Protect Journalists, said, "Here's a case of a very important military operation that the press should be able to cover, but it's being restricted. It seems clear that the IDF (Israeli Defense Forces) is trying to keep journalists from documenting what is taking place in Ramallah and other towns where it is conducting military operations. . . . Some journalists feel there is an attempt to intimidate those still covering events."
The last few days have proved harrowing for reporters trying to chronicle the confrontation in the West Bank. Several CBS employees were escorted out of Ramallah by Israeli forces, prompting the network to file a protest with the Israeli Consulate in New York. More ominously, NBC says correspondent Dana Lewis and his crew were shot at by Israeli forces while traveling in Ramallah in a clearly marked vehicle on Monday. And on Sunday, Boston Globe reporter Anthony Shadid was shot and wounded by what he believes was an Israeli solider while in an area near Arafat's compound.
Newman said the Israeli government has concluded that "as far as we can tell, [Lewis] was not shot at by Israeli forces." And though acknowledging the investigation was not complete, he added: "We are quite sure it wasn't Israeli forces" who shot Shadid.
Adding to the sense of confusion on the ground, spokesmen for Reuters, NBC, the Associated Press, CNN, Fox, and ABC indicated yesterday that their reporters were still working in Ramallah despite the Israeli orders. And the Associated Press reported that the Israeli government was contemplating legal action if CNN and NBC continue to keep personnel there in defiance of the closed military zone edict.
A CNN statement said only that the network "continues to monitor the situation." NBC spokeswoman Barbara Levin said, "We're not commenting about the deployment of our correspondents. And, of course, we always believe the press should have access to stories as important as this one."
Israel's battle with the media triggered predictable reactions from Middle East partisans. Alex Safian, associate director of the Boston-based pro-Israeli Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America, said, "I think the major Israeli concern . . . is the military operation and the people getting in the way. There's people reporting in real time. Maybe the Israelis should have a press pool, a reporter [with them], but not reporting in real time."
James Zogby, president of the Arab American Institute, argued that "if you're an occupying power and you want to do bad things to the people you're occupying, you don't want a lot of cameras there."
Bob Zelnick, a former ABC correspondent who was stationed in Tel Aviv for two years, said "the Israelis realize they are in an extremely delicate public relations situation as well as an extremely delicate military situation. . . . They realize the vast majority of the world is sympathetic to the Palestinians in this situation" and that pressure on Washington to crack down on the West Bank operation could soon get "acute."
"I think the notion of a country at war trying to control information is endemic to the conduct of warfare," said Zelnick, now the chairman of Boston University's journalism department.
"We act usually with freedom of the press unless it's hazardous to their safety. Israel's policy is: What the IDF does is justified. So we don't try to hide it," countered Newman. And in discussing his country's policy of press restriction, he noted that limiting media access to combat "was also done by the US in Afghanistan."
Zogby took issue with that point saying, "we're not occupying Afghanistan. And we're not violating the rights of the Afghani people."
Zelnick said the two situations were not identical, but "I think there have been episodes in Afghanistan that are comparable to this."
