Israeli Writer| The internal arm of the Israeli power arm

This observation applies to the performance of the Israeli media in the current war, which marginalizes many implications loaded by the facts of the war, and is echoed by some analysts, including the indication of not underestimating the capabilities and abilities possessed by the Palestinian resistance.

Since October 7, Israel, as in all the wars it wages, appears to be immersed in the intoxication of power fueled by two arms: external, represented by the military war machine, and internal, represented by the propaganda and media machine. According to what a critical Israeli media expert confirms, the latter seeks to achieve two main goals: to mislead Israeli public opinion regarding everything related to what is happening in the Gaza Strip, including a comprehensive war of destruction and genocidal crimes against civilians.

Immediately framing any report regarding the killing of innocents in the Gaza Strip as an incident for which Hamas is solely responsible, by repeating the crisis of the movement’s use of the civilian population as human shields. This expert cited various quotes from media figures in which they clearly acknowledge that their role during wars is not to convey the truth, but rather to raise morale.

This behavior is not only a product of the current war, but it was the behavior of most Israeli media in previous wars, especially during the war on Lebanon in 2006, and the series of wars on Gaza that have not stopped since 2008.

I had attended a symposium at Tel Aviv University in late July 2007 entitled “The Second Lebanon War... The Media’s Self-Accounting,” on the sidelines of the launch of a special report entitled “The Israeli Media in the Second Lebanon War,” prepared by the Keshif Center for the Protection of Democracy in Israel” and was issued a year after the end of that war in 2006 (the most prominent findings of the report are that most of the Israeli media were among those who “fought the war until the last minute”).

In the context of the symposium, journalist Anat Saragusti, from the second Israeli television channel (currently Channel 12), who previously worked as an editor at the same channel, said that most Israeli journalists, during that war, chose to remain in areas flooded with light, and not to search for the hidden secrets that existed. In the dark. In its reading, the Israeli media were closed to one discourse, which is the war discourse, and were not prepared to hear other voices that contradicted this discourse, especially from women’s voices.

The performance of these media outlets was also characterized by the absence of the civilian side of the war, and in particular, the civilian side related to the other side, the Lebanese, as the stories of suffering among the Lebanese civilian population did not even find a foothold on the small screen, as well as within the reports of the written and broadcast press.

During the symposium, an internal document was revealed sent to the employees of Maariv newspaper, calling for support for the army, a stubborn stand by the state, and restraining criticism as long as the war continues.

The document acknowledges that this is, in a certain sense, tantamount to betraying the missions of journalism, but, at the same time, it stresses the necessity of doing so, because “we must take into account the national consideration, and because we have decided that in the event of this war we will be part of the state, and it is our duty to postpone disagreement and criticism, and we do not need to be ashamed or apologize for being supportive of the army and the government and providing them with cover.”

It was found, based on the report, that the Israeli media correspondents included in the research brought, throughout the days of that war, news and media material related to all aspects of the battles that were subjected to severe criticism, after the war had ended, as was reflected in the report of the official Israeli investigation committee. The facts of which were investigated by the Winograd Committee, but these materials were marginalized from the editorial office.

This observation applies to the performance of the Israeli media in the current war, which marginalizes many meanings loaded with the facts of the war, and is echoed by some analysts, including the significance of not underestimating the capabilities and capabilities possessed by the Palestinian resistance, the significance of changing the course of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and others that must be returned to due to their extreme importance.