NOTE: The following is not intended as a condemnation or defense of Israel, or of any other country or political entity. Nor is it a defense or condemnation of Al Jazeera. It is, simply, a personal statement of unwavering support for democracy and the democratic principle of freedom of speech ... irrevocably including a free press.
*. *. *
They used to call him Bibi. It was an affectionate nickname, short for Binyamin (Benjamin). But you don’t often see it in print these days; now he’s just Netanyahu. And he’s the target of widespread protests in his own country demanding his ouster from office, and of international accusations of genocide. So what has happened to the man who holds the distinction of being the longest-serving prime minister in Israel’s history, having been in office — albeit not consecutively — for more than sixteen years since he was first elected in 1996?

Let me say, right up front, that I am staunchly pro-Israel. From that day in 1948 when it became an independent state, through the remainder of the 20th Century and the first two decades of the 21st, it has been a model of courage, strength, fortitude . . . and democratic principles. It has provided a safe haven for Jewish refugees, and for those simply seeking their historic home.
But life there hasn’t been easy, to state it mildly. Surrounded by countries harboring extremists who deny Israel its right to exist, it has had to fight ceaselessly to maintain that very existence. And six months ago, on October 7, 2023, one such extremist group — Hamas — launched a raid on Israel from Gaza, killing 1,200 people (including foreign nationals), and brutalizing and kidnapping hundreds more.

And Israel retaliated, as one would hope and expect . . . and as any nation would be expected to react: swiftly and fiercely, with the full strength of its military might. And, as Israel has shown the world time and time again in defending its sovereignty, its military might is formidable.

But that was half a year ago. And since then, we have seen an example of a non-proportional response unlike any I can recall in my lifetime. There has been, and continues to be, debate at the highest levels of governments throughout the world, in the mass media, and among friends and colleagues around the dinner table as to the acceptability of the level of Israel’s response.
And now, most horrifyingly, this professed man of peace . . . this stalwart friend of the United States in the Middle East . . . has permitted, encouraged, and taken advantage of legislation that cannot help but remind one of recent actions in Vladimir Putin’s Russia. On April 1st, the Knesset — the Israeli Parliament — passed a bill “[granting] the government the power to temporarily ban the broadcasting of international news outlets in Israel, if they are deemed threatening to national security.” [International Federation of Journalists, April 2, 2024.] And on the same day, Netanyahu personally “vowed to shut down Al Jazeera’s operations in Israel, calling it a ‘terror channel’ that spreads incitement, after parliament passed a law clearing the way for the closure.” [Josef Federman, Associated Press, April 2, 2024.]

Israel has sustained a long-running feud with Al Jazeera, with strong accusations being lobbed by each against the other. And now, Al Jazeera is one of the few international media outlets remaining in Gaza during the war, broadcasting bloody scenes of airstrikes and overcrowded hospitals and accusing Israel of massacres.
Israel accuses Al Jazeera of collaborating with Hamas:
“‘Al Jazeera harmed Israel’s security, actively participated in the Oct. 7 massacre, and incited against Israeli soldiers. It is time to remove the bullhorn of Hamas from our country,’ Netanyahu said on X, formerly Twitter.
“He said he planned on acting immediately under the authorities of the newly passed law. ‘The terror channel Al Jazeera will no longer broadcast from Israel,’ he [Netanyahu] said.” [Id.]
Al Jazeera’s response was quick and decisive: they called Netanyahu’s claim a “dangerous ludicrous lie.” [Id.]
*. *. *
Take a closer look at the language of Israel’s new law: “. . . if they are deemed threatening to national security.” Precisely what does that mean? And who decides what constitutes a threat?
Then look carefully at Netanyahu’s words, accusing Al Jazeera of having “actively participated in the Oct. 7 massacre, and incited against Israeli soldiers,” and of being “a terror channel that spreads incitement.” He then vowed that “The terror channel Al Jazeera will no longer broadcast from Israel.” [Id.]
Yes, Al Jazeera has been banned by other Middle East governments, including Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the UAE, Bahrain, and Egypt, for various reasons. But those governments are not democracies.
And yes, the Al Jazeera channel has broadcast graphic scenes and stories of the horrific results of Israel’s retaliatory strikes against Hamas in Gaza. Broadcasting the news is its job — just as the Western press, and formerly independent Russian media, have broadcast graphic scenes and stories of the destruction by Russia of region after region in Ukraine. That is also their job. And what has Moscow done? Just what it always does — shut down the media, both foreign and domestic, that presented what Vladimir Putin labels “fake news” and “inciting terrorist acts.” In other words, broadcasts that make him look bad.

How can you miss the similarities in terminology? Are we now seeing Israel taking a cue from Moscow’s playbook? What’s next? Will we be seeing people in Israel arrested for “spreading false information” about their country’s military? Will criticism of Israel’s government be labelled treason? Probably not. But it’s that first little step — the shutting down of a news medium whose broadcasts prove inconvenient or uncomfortable to your government — that scares the hell out of me.
And apparently it is worrying a lot of Israelis who are now calling for Benjamin Netanyahu to step down and for a new election. Perhaps that call will prove more effective in Israel than it has in Russia.
Just sayin’ . . .
Brendochka
4/8/24