Category World News

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.

What do the new restrictions involve?

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:

• Filming or broadcasting images from impact sites, particularly near military installations.
• Using drones or wide-angle cameras to show impact areas.
• Detailing the precise location of affected areas near security installations.
• Broadcasting images of Israeli missiles being launched or of Iranian missiles being intercepted.
• The directive also bans the sharing of videos from social media without prior review by the censor, cautioning – as a side note – that some may be “enemy-generated fake news”.

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.

What restrictions were already in place before this?

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.

How often does the censor take action?

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.”

Service members are concerned about orders as President Trump deploys troops to protect against protesters in Los Angeles.

An unpopular Iranian government must woo a panicked populace facing a full-fledged war as Tehran evacuates.

President Donald Trump made fun of Israel’s nuclear war when he asked if he would join the country in the White House’s lawn for a press conference.

“I may do it. He said on Wednesday, “I may not.”

Trump is responsible for making the decision to engage in the war, according to US officials and the president’s allies, who have also stressed that they can trust his instincts.

“He is the singular guiding hand about what will be occurring from this point forward”, Department of State spokeswoman Tammy Bruce told reporters on Tuesday.

However, antiwar advocates have been making the case that Congress must decide whether or not war or peace is best for Trump over all other options.

Some lawmakers are reaffirming their congressional authority under the War Powers Act as Trump more and more publicly makes hints about the possibility of US involvement in the conflict.

But what are the laws guiding a declaration of war, and could Trump get the US involved in the war without the consent of Congress?

What information is necessary about US law that governs war decisions.

What is stated in the US Constitution?

Section 1 of the US Constitution, which established the legislative branch of the government and outlines its duties, says Congress has the power to “declare war”.

Some opponents claim that the president has the authority to appoint lawmakers over US military actions.

When did the US last declare war in writing?

In 1942, during World War II. Since then, the US has launched strikes and interventions in numerous nations, including Serbia, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen, while also going to war in Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf, Afghanistan, and Iraq.

What authority does the president have in a war?

According to Article II of the constitution, the president is designated “commander in chief” of the armed forces.

Presidents are able to direct the military to react to threats and attacks. Beyond that, Congress restates some of their authority to declare war. Article II empowers them to direct military operations once Congress has authorised a war. Under the direction of lawmakers, they are in charge of mobilizing the military.

Despite this, previous presidents have used their military’s ability to launch attacks on an emergency basis to defend themselves or repel threats.

How has the US sent soldiers into Iraq and other places without formal declarations of war?

Through legislation known as the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), Congress may grant the president the authority to use the military for specific purposes without declaring war.

For instance, Congress passed an AUMF that gave then-President George W. Bush broad authority to start what would become the “war on terror” at the world level in 2001 in response to the attacks on September 11, 2001.

And one year later, it passed another AUMF allowing the use of the military against the government of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, which became the basis of the 2003 invasion.

Presidents can still rely on the two authorizations to carry out strikes without first obtaining congressional approval. For instance, Trump authorized the murder of top Iranian general Qassem Soleimani in Baghdad in 2020 under the 2003 AUMF.

During Trump’s first term, there were concerns that he could use the 2001 AUMF to strike Iran under the unfounded claim that Tehran supports al-Qaeda.

The War Powers Act was passed when?

Presidents have discovered ways to avoid Congress in war issues despite the articles in the constitution. So in 1973, after decades of US intervention in Vietnam and elsewhere in Asia, lawmakers passed the War Powers Resolution to reassert their authority over military action.

The president’s war-making authority is limited by the law, at least in its intended form.

Following President Richard Nixon’s covert bombing of Cambodia, which resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians and sparked widespread protests in the US, it was passed.

What are the Act’s key tenets?

The US president’s authority to start an armed conflict was imposed by the federal law.

Enacted over Nixon’s veto, the resolution requires “in the absence of a declaration of war” that the president notify Congress within 48 hours of military action and limits deployments to 60 or 90 days unless authorisations to extend them are passed.

Congress must be consulted “in every way possible” before US troops are sent abroad, it says.

The War Powers Act: Why Does It Matter Right Now? &nbsp ,

Legislators have been considering the five-decade law and pushing for their own version as the possibility of US intervention in Iran grows.

Republican Senator Tim Kaine introduced a bill on Monday that would require that Trump, a Republican, obtain authorization before launching military operations against Iran. That was followed by a similar bill put forward in the House of Representatives on Tuesday by US Representatives Thomas Massie of Kentucky, a Republican, and Democrat Ro Khanna of California.

The Vermont senator’s No War Against Iran Act seeks to “prohibit the use of funds for military force against Iran, and for other purposes.”

However, it’s still unlikely that such legislation will pass in the Republican-controlled legislature despite the fact that some polls indicate Trump supporters are opposed to a war with Iran.

Why is new legislation needed if it’s in the constitution? &nbsp ,

The executive and legislative branches have fought over those positions throughout US history despite the separation of the executive and legislative branches’ constitutional separation of war powers.

The most prominent of these incidents – and the last time such a case made it to the Supreme Court in fact – took place in 1861 at the start of the US Civil War when President Abraham Lincoln blockaded southern ports months before Congress legally declared war on the Confederacy. The executive “may repel sudden attacks,” the court eventually decided that the president’s actions were constitutional.

Official congressional declarations of war have been a rarity throughout history. There have been just 11.

Instead, Congress has typically authorized a wide range of military resolutions.

Does the War Powers Act have any substance?

Almost since its passage, the 1973 law has been viewed by some critics as deeply ineffective – more of a political tool for lawmakers to voice dissent than as a real check on power. (A subcommittee led by then-Senator Joe Biden in the 1980s determined that the law had failed to fulfill its purpose.)

A presidential veto of a congressional resolution that calls for the end of military activities that are not authorized by Congress can only be overturned by a two-thirds majority of the House and Senate.

Others have argued the law served an important role in asserting Congress’s rights and creating a framework for speedy, presidential reporting to Congress. A semblance of transparency can be found in the more than 100 reports that have been sent to Congress since 1973.

What are presidents’ opinions of the act?

While Nixon was the most vociferous in his opposition to the War Powers Act, he’s hardly the only president to appear critical. Contemporary presidents frequently veer away from the law and make up their own legal arguments.

Since the attacks of September 11, 2001, the executive branch has steadily expanded its role in waging war.

The 2001 AUMF and the 2002 Iraq AUMF have been used to justify attacks on “terrorist groups” in at least 19 countries, according to the Friends Committee on National Legislation.

In a briefing, Heather Brandon-Smith, the nonprofit’s legislative director of foreign policy, wrote that the executive branch has expanded this authorization to include organizations that were unrelated to the attacks, including those like ISIS [ISIL], which were unexistent at the time.

And while successive administrations have shown little interest in doing so, despite organizations like the International Crisis Group’s demand for a rehaul or repeal of the AUMF. In recent years, congressional efforts to repeal the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs have only begun chipping away at the acts.

Although the Senate voted in 2023 to end the AUMF of 2001, the decision was largely seen as symbolic. In 2021, the House voted similarly to revoke the AUMF from 2002. But both laws still remain in effect.

Can Trump’s war with Iran be prevented by the War Powers Act?

That is still to be seen, but it doesn’t seem likely.

During Trump’s first term in office, Congress sought to limit presidential war authority for the first time since the Vietnam War.

Trump quickly vetoed a bill that would end US support for the Saudi-United Arab Emirates war in Yemen in 2019.

After Trump’s drone strike that killed Soleimani, a similar situation emerged a year later.

In response, both houses of Congress passed legislation seeking to limit a president’s ability to wage war against Iran.

Trump overrode that bill, and once more, the two-thirds majority needed to override it was lost to Republicans.

At least 16 Palestinians were killed by Israeli forces in Gaza on Thursday as they tried to get food. At least 29 Palestinians were present on Wednesday. At least 70 Palestinians were killed by Israeli forces as they gathered in Khan Younis for the aid distribution facility of the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF).

According to survivors, drones, machine guns, and tanks shot them down.

At least 38 people were killed on Monday, most likely in Rafah, while trying to get food in a similar manner. And in southern and central Gaza, at least 17 people were killed on Sunday.

Private security contractors make up the GHF, an organization supported by Israel and the United States. Israel established it in May to replace UN-led relief efforts, but at least eight Palestinians have been killed at GHF sites on at least eight occasions.

“Somewhat every day,” this is true. Journalist in Gaza Yasser al-Banna said it is becoming a routine.

Everyone in Gaza is worried that the world will forget about them now that Israel has started a war with Iran, he told Al Jazeera.

Exploiting the news

Since Israel began attacking Iran on June 13, the world has lost sight of the Palestinians’ desperate situation in occupied territory.

Israel has continued to attack Palestinians in Gaza while conducting deadly West Bank raids.

Analysts and human rights experts told Al Jazeera that they now believe Israel is likely to commit more “massacres” while putting emphasis on the welfare of Israelis as the Iran-Iran conflict drags on.

Omar Rahman, a Middle East Council on Global Affairs think tank expert on Israel and Palestine, claimed that “Israel is using the diverted attention from Gaza to continue to commit atrocious crimes against starving civilians.

He told Al Jazeera, “We have also seen a lot of military and settler activity in the West Bank recently.”

The GHF site’s highest single fatality count since the controversial organization first started operating last month was the result of Israel’s violence against helpless Palestinians at the site on Tuesday. What opponents have called the militarization of humanitarian aid has been criticized.

Palestinians must choose whether to flee from hunger or risk their lives to get a food parcel despite Israel’s chokehold siege.

Ibrahim Nabeel, a Palestinian doctor who treated victims of the GHF attacks, claimed that Israel’s entire GHF plan is intended to make Palestinians more humiliated.

raids and lockdown

Since starting an Israeli occupation of the West Bank in 2014, Israel has also intensified its support for its genocidal conflict in Gaza.

Moving from one village or town to another is “impossible,” according to several Palestinians.

Israeli forces have blocked access to Palestinian villages and cities, and there are more military checkpoints.

In the event that the Israeli-Iran war drags on, there is a fear that Palestinians will be cut off from their livelihoods or unable to stock up on basic necessities.

Additionally, many Palestinians have reported that the West Bank is experiencing a significant fuel shortage.

The majority of our basic imports are made by Israel, according to Murad Jadallah, a researcher who works for Al-Haq, a local organization that promotes Palestinian rights.

Israel is still conducting deadly raids throughout the West Bank in the interim. On June 18, Israeli troops stormed a village east of Ramallah, according to the Wafa Palestinian news agency.

Former detainees were warned by Israeli forces that they would be arrested again after they stormed a number of homes, according to Wafa.

According to Jadallah from al-Haq, Israel has also forced dozens of Palestinians from their homes in the past week after they stormed a refugee camp on the outskirts of Nablus city.

According to Wafa, Israel also detained at least 60 Palestinians in the West Bank between Tuesday night and Wednesday morning.

“The Israelis are still carrying out their operations. They actually entered our village just last night, detained a young man, and then destroyed his home,” according to farmer Layth Barakat east of Ramallah.

the following day

When Israel attacked Iran, Palestinians were shocked, like many other countries.

After Israel’s war with Iran is over, they worry that Israel will increase its aggression against Palestinians in the occupied territory.

If Israel engages in combat with Iran, “we will pay a high price,” Jadallah declared.

Who will prevent them from achieving their goals in Gaza and the West Bank if they can obtain what they want from Iran or implement regime change? he continued.

Prominent far-right ministers in Israel’s government have long advocated for the annexation of the West Bank, known as “Judea and Samaria,” and for Israeli colonization of Gaza.

Both of these goals are intended to stifle any prospects for an Israeli state and oversee ethnic cleansing campaigns.

Palestinians are merely attempting to survive, despite the media’s attention being drawn to their situation.

According to Al-Banaa from Gaza, most people are becoming more hungrier day by day as a result of Israel’s total siege.

He claimed that many people stopped buying sesame bags to make bread.

Before the Gaza War, a large bag of sesame used to cost two shekels (0.33), but it now costs about 80 shekels ($23).

Al-Banna noted that his wife, four young children, and themselves are unable to afford a meal.

He continues to decline to travel miles to a GHF distribution point, though.

He said, “I would rather die from hunger than from being shot.”

For everyone, not just the Palestinians, should be deeply concerned about Israel’s aggression against Iran and its occupation of Gaza, according to Rahman of the Middle East Council.

“It is incredibly worrying that Israel can get away with anything and anyone,” he said.