Easing the civilian blockade on Gaza: how the media turned security into surrender

Questions the Israeli media did not ssk

June 2010

>> Read the full report

On June 20, 2010, the Israeli Government announced a change in its policy of blockading the Gaza Strip and announced the opening of crossings for civilian goods that had been forbidden for the past four years. This radical change in government policy, which came on the heels of the Turkish flotilla incident, raises some serious questions about coverage of the blockade policy in the main Israeli media outlets.

Analysis of coverage of the government's decision in four major Israeli newspapers (Yediot Aharonot, Ma'ariv, Ha'aretz and Yisrael Hayom) on June 21 and June 22, 2010, the first two days after the policy change was announced, brings these questions into sharper relief.

The Prime Minister and his associates claimed that the far-reaching civilian blockade of more than a million and a half people, a blockade that lasted for four years, did not achieve any positive result for Israel and even harmed Israel's interests. Now seems like a fitting time for the Israeli media to raise questions about the wisdom and responsibility of the decision makers who decided to carry out the blockade. Now is a proper time for the major media to ask whether the Prime Minister is correct in his current estimation. More importantly, the press should ask, if indeed the blockade brought no security benefits why was the decision to ease the blockade only made after Israel became entangled in the Turkish flotilla imbroglio?

An examination of coverage during this period reveals that the Israeli media did not deal with these questions at length. Instead, the media outlets preferred to focus on another aspect of the government decision:

• The headlines presented the government decision as a victory for the instigators of the flotilla and as surrender to international pressure that was brought to bear on Israel. Such coverage conveyed an emotional message against the government decision, focusing on the emotional aspect of the flotilla incident.

• Serious discussions of the essence of the decision, justifications for it and arguments against it by its opponents, were rare and appeared far from the headlines. Only deep in the texts of articles could readers learn the considerations that motivated the government decision. Only deep in the texts could readers learn that Prime Minister Netanyahu is now convinced that the blockade, which was imposed on Gaza for the past four years, was actually damaging to Israel.

• Important information that was marginalized in the coverage raised the possibility that easing the blockade would have only a limited effect on humanitarian conditions in the Gaza Strip. Relegating such information to marginal places can bias the picture of reality that newspapers make available to their readers. In the event that international criticism ofIsrael resumes concerning the humanitarian situation inGaza, Israeli newspaper readers will have a hard time understanding the context in which such criticism is made.

"Press for Peace" project is made possible by the generous support of the American people through the United States Agencyfor International Development (USAID). The contents are theresponsibility of Keshev and do not necessarily reflect theviews of USAID or the United States Government.