Israel’s Assault on Press Freedom

Freedom of the press is considered one of the fundamental pillars of a liberal democracy. Its true meaning, however, goes beyond formal recognition or declarations of principle. It is measured by the freedom of movement journalists enjoy, their access to sources of information and to the places where events unfold, and, of course, the protection of their personal safety. Failure to uphold these principles, which are essential to the existence of a free press, signals an erosion of the foundations of democracy. The ongoing attacks on the free press in Israel and on foreign media operating in the country must therefore be understood against the backdrop of the continued erosion of Israeli democracy, reflected, among other things, in the lack of civil equality, attacks on the independence of the judiciary, and the weakening of the system of checks and balances.

Throughout Benjamin Netanyahu’s years in power, and particularly under his current government, various efforts have been made to weaken the free press in Israel. At the same time, and seemingly unrelated to these efforts, there have been numerous incidents in which representatives of foreign media operating in Israel have been targeted, including through acts of violence. A broader examination of this trend reveals that these are two different expressions of the same policy: a policy aimed at targeting any Israeli or international actor who might challenge the continuation of right-wing rule or threaten Israel’s continued control over the territories of the West Bank. The Netanyahu governments’ actions against the Israeli media, like their actions against the judiciary and civil society organizations, are intended to weaken domestic oversight mechanisms and limit public scrutiny of government failures – whether government corruption, administrative failures, or the allocation of public funds according to political and sectoral considerations. Such scrutiny could undermine public support for the right-wing government. By contrast, the government’s actions against foreign media representatives are intended to limit international exposure of what is happening in Gaza and the West Bank, including settler terrorism, selective law enforcement, and systematic harm to the Palestinian population. Such exposure could intensify international criticism of Israel and threaten the government’s stability.

Within Israel, efforts to weaken the media are being pursued on several complementary fronts. The first involves promoting and supporting right-wing media outlets, which do not limit themselves to backing Netanyahu and his government but also conduct campaigns to delegitimize his political opponents. To be sure, many media outlets around the world adopt clear political positions. In Netanyahu’s Israel, however, media outlets that support his policies enjoy institutional and regulatory advantages, while his government has advanced measures that expand its powers of oversight and its ability to impose penalties on critical media outlets. Alongside these regulatory changes, a systematic political propaganda campaign, led by Benjamin Netanyahu himself, seeks to undermine the credibility – and, above all, the national loyalty – of the critical press. The critical press is repeatedly portrayed as politically motivated, seeking to undermine right-wing rule and, by extension, the state itself. The label Netanyahu has applied to these outlets, “channels of lies and incitement,” is not merely an expression of dissatisfaction with particular news coverage. It is part of a campaign designed to portray journalistic criticism as an act of hostility and strip it of public legitimacy. The government’s decision, for example, to boycott the newspaper Haaretz following its criticism of the government’s policy in Gaza illustrates how opposition to journalistic scrutiny can be translated into institutional action against a media outlet. In this way, the distinction between criticism of government policy and hostility toward the state becomes blurred, as does the distinction between a journalist’s duty to expose failures and the portrayal of that journalist as a traitor to their own country.

This message is not confined to political rhetoric or regulatory measures. Particularly critical journalists are subjected to harassment and violence, and some have even been provided with personal security. Despite the rise in violence against journalists, no voices of condemnation or protest have been heard from right-wing politicians. This silence is not neutral; it reflects tacit support for violence against the free press. Physical intimidation thus becomes another means, alongside regulatory and propaganda measures, of weakening the free press and emptying the principle of press freedom of its substance.

The same objective lies behind efforts to undermine foreign media operating in Israel, even if the methods differ. While efforts to weaken the Israeli media rely primarily on regulatory measures and on delegitimizing criticism itself, those targeting foreign media take the form of restrictions on journalists’ freedom of movement and their ability to report, the portrayal of journalists as hostile political actors, and interference with their work – sometimes escalating into physical violence.

Since the outbreak of the war in Gaza in October 2023, numerous accounts have emerged of restrictions on foreign journalists’ activities, imposed under a variety of administrative and procedural pretexts. These include delays and interrogations at border crossings, demands for information about the nature of their planned journalistic activities, the cancellation of entry permits, the confiscation of equipment, and restrictions on movement. In many cases, these procedures have gone beyond security considerations and have directly concerned the content of journalistic reporting. Such cases indicate that journalists’ previous publications have become a factor in decisions about whether to allow them entry into Israel. Journalistic criticism itself is thus turned into grounds for restricting press freedom.

An indication of the policy behind these forms of harassment can be found in statements made by several ministers in the current government. In June 2025, for example, Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi and National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir issued a joint statement portraying foreign media as a hostile force operating “under the guise of journalists.” Ben-Gvir further declared that “the media anarchy of the foreign press is over.”

Indeed, an investigation by the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), published in June 2026, documented at least six cases in which Israel denied foreign journalists entry, in some instances because of their previous reporting. One of these cases involved Alessandro Stefanelli, an Italian freelance journalist and photographer whose press visa was revoked in July 2025. The authorities gave him an official document stating that his previous reporting had been “one-sided.” Spanish journalist Queralt Castillo Cerezuela also faced restrictions on her movements after the Ministry of Diaspora Affairs circulated a message in a WhatsApp group for foreign journalists in Israel, accusing her of antisemitism and of supporting a boycott of Israel, partly on the basis of her critical reporting. No evidence was found to support these allegations. A particularly prominent case was the deportation of French journalist Alice Froussard in June 2026. Froussard had covered Israel and the West Bank for various media outlets for approximately six years. According to reports cited by CPJ, the decision to deny her entry into Israel was linked to previous statements in which she had described the military’s actions in Gaza as a “massacre” and Israel’s policy in the West Bank as “apartheid.”

The assault on foreign journalism does not end with administrative restrictions. Foreign journalists are also subjected to threats and physical attacks. According to CPJ data, at least 16 violent incidents involving at least 35 foreign journalists were documented during the first ten months of 2026. In March 2026, a CNN television crew was attacked; in August 2026, an NBC crew was attacked in the village of Jalud; on October 6, AFP photographer Jaafar Ashtiyeh was attacked while covering the olive harvest near Aqraba. He was beaten with rifle butts and sustained injuries to his head and upper body. On October 16, The Washington Post photographer Heidi Levine was attacked by Jewish terrorists, who broke four of her vertebrae. Netanyahu’s response – that “we need to determine who started the violence: the group of Jewish terrorists or the 65-year-old photographer” – says it all.

Of course, not every attack by private individuals should be attributed to government policy. However, when security forces fail to protect journalists and attackers are not held accountable, violence effectively becomes another means of restricting press freedom. The absence of effective law enforcement is not merely a failure on the part of the authorities. It sends attackers the message that they are unlikely to be held responsible for their actions, while at the same time creating a chilling effect on journalists seeking to document events on the ground.

Ultimately, the assault on press freedom in Israel must be viewed against the broader backdrop of the erosion of Israeli democracy. Attacks on the independence of the judiciary, attempts to weaken the watchdog institutions and undermine the system of checks and balances, and the refusal to enshrine the principle of equality in the constitution should not be seen as separate or incidental developments. They all stem from an ideology committed to the continuation of the occupation and the preservation of Israeli control over the territories of the West Bank. Yet the perpetuation of the occupation cannot coexist indefinitely with a robust liberal democracy, whose institutions and principles may impose limits on it, subject it to criticism, and challenge its legitimacy. The assault on press freedom is therefore part of a broader effort to restrict the ability of oversight mechanisms to expose the consequences of the occupation and subject them to public scrutiny. The notion that the occupation can continue while Israeli democracy is simultaneously strengthened ignores the fundamental contradiction between these two objectives: the continuation of the occupation necessitates the erosion of democracy’s foundations; conversely, ending the occupation is a prerequisite for ensuring Israel’s continued existence as a liberal democracy.