Israel no longer has a completely free press. Will it be allowed to return next year?

As one might expect, Israel isn't happy about the downgrade, calling it "useless and ridiculous". Israel's Government Press Office chief Daniel Seamans says the government's decision to prohibit journalists from covering Cast Lead on the spot was a strategic move. Had the foreign press been allowed into Gaza, "their reports would have had a harsh effect on world public opinion."

Oh, well that's a good reason to restrict the press. In fact, that's almost precisely what Bush used as the reasoning behind not allowing the returning coffins of soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan to be photographed. :-|

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1239710852576&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

SURLEY this requires some additional options. as it is only part gagged?

Well, no; the Freedom of the Press report only has three categories into which a country may fall: 'Free' (a rating of 1-30), 'Partly Free' (31-60), and 'Not Free' (61-100). To drop into 'Not Free'--with the likes of North Korea, Cuba, and Iran--Israel's rating would have to go from its current 31 all the way up to 61...and that's not going to happen. Even if it did, this would still settle as 'No', since it would not be considered 'Free'.

Hardly sql....Bush wanted to let the individual soldiers' survivors make that decision. A kind gesture, I'd say. Though certainly contrary to a sensationalistic press' preferance.

No, he didn't Erik. The Radical Right can try to apologize all they want, but they can't rewrite history; The ban on media coverage was implemented by Dubya's daddy during the Persian Gulf war, and maintained by Dubya himself throughout the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Bush did say it was "to protect the privacy of the troops", but that was widely considered a canard; he was, rather, worried about the "harsh effect on world opinion" photos of thousands of flag-draped coffins might engender. And probably rightly so...though the truth has a way of getting out anyway, doesn't it? :-)

a kind gesture...are you serious? best laugh of the day

to my knowledge Gates is the one who suggested individual soldier's families decide about press coverage of returning bodies and then the policy was changed ... no more hiding of the bodies ala Bush...

sqlman - worried about the "harsh effect on world opinion" the left can't have it both ways. why would he care what world opinon is/was of dead american troops? but not care what they thought about gitmo? thats makes no sense. now if you said he was worried what american's would think that would make sense. then again trying to make sense of what some on the left thinks is harder than a wedding night ___! you can fill in the blank. :O)

Yes I'm serious, coolkraft. Do you not think that it should be your call whether the press has viewing of your loved one's coffin?

As far as sql....I'm not going to waste my breath, he probably has no loved ones so he just wouldn't 'get it.'

But both coolkraft's and sql's memory of recent events is right on. The Bushes banned flag-draped coffin photos. Only Gates stood up to W and allowed the newer policy that you had described as originating with W, Erik.

The point of this obviously isn't Dubya's demonstrated secretive ways, nor his administration's predilection for trying to roll back press freedoms in America. The point is, rather, whether Israel will return to the openness of days past, or stay in its current phase of a more restricted press. I guess we'll see...

viking>
I never claimed Bush originated the respectful treatment of our troops who gave the ultimate sacrifice.

In fact, if my feeble memory serves me, I think Johnson also turned the press away.

It's not about 'rolling back press freedoms'
It's all about respect for the dead and their kin.

That's the putative reason...but even many high-ranking types from within the White House have admitted it was really to hide the ugliness of death from the American electorate. If it truly had been "all about respect for the dead and their kin", Bush wouldn't have started the war in the first place; he wouldn't have paraded around in a flight suit in front of a huge banner announcing "Mission Accomplished"; he wouldn't have underfunded and under-armored the troops already there; and so on.

Wake up and smell the irony... :-)

Oh? And who are these 'many high-ranking types from within the White House.'?

It's about the press and their agenda...no mention of photos when Barry's in the chair.

Ever notice the practice of next of kin being notified before names are published in car wrecks, for example?

Do you really believe that your son's coffin should be plastered in the press in order to fuel their agenda before you get to pay your respects?

Should that really be the first view that you have of your son?

sqlman
comment 5 - he was, rather, worried about the "harsh effect on world opinion"

comment 14 - many high-ranking types from within the White House have admitted it was really to hide the ugliness of death from the American electorate.

see comment 8 from dieseldog. :O)

Wake up and smell the irony - is that like obama being againest war supplemental spending bills when he was a senator/canidate for prez? now he thinks their ok. remeber he was all for time lines for withdraw when bush was prez. well stay tuned he'll be againest them in the near future. you really need to stop watching MSNBC sqlman. they don't give you the full story. :)

President Barack Obama asked Congress on Thursday for $83.4 billion for U.S. military and diplomatic operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, pressing for special troop funding that he opposed two years ago when he was senator and George W. Bush was president. This would push the costs of the two wars to almost $1 trillion since Sept. 11, 2001.
http://digg.com/politics/Obama_seeks_83_4_billion_more_for_Iraq_Afghanistan_wars?FC=PRCK4

President Barack Obama is seeking $83.4 billion for U.S. military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, pressing for a war supplemental spending bill like the ones he sometimes opposed when he was senator and George W. Bush was president.
http://cbs13.com/national/iraq.afghanistan.war.2.980954.html

The purpose of no press of the coffins was purely a political move. The country went to 'war' but for the 'majority' of people here, life was simply the same old day in and out stuff. This was to minimize the effect it had on the population, because mind you....this WAS opposed by a large number of people. Funny though, when it's not YOUR kid, YOUR husband or wife, YOUR parent you don't really have a personal 'investment'.

Those of us who opposed it from the start know what your precious bloody Bush pulled. And my opinion is that he, his people and YOU folks that supported him ought to foot the bill for the outrageous deficit he created that has you NOW SUDDENLY freaking out over what Obama is doing to stop the bleed.

Do you conservative Bush suck ups even get that the entire cost of this murderous endeavor was borrowed money????

This question is getting a LOT of comments, like mine is on the Chavez-Obama issue, (mine has a somewhat flamboyant title). This question is a LOt closer to its headline, than mine is, and has a clearer decision making method. One can argue if this decision making process is good, or not, but at least it is an "objective" measure related to the question at hand...(regardless of whether that methodology is ideal)..

What countries at war should do with reporting, etc. etc. are OTHER issues (this just asks what will happen in this case, as judged by this methodology.). Now, if we were all leaders of Israel, or the US, then of course things would be run a lot better, and our people would be living in harmony..

Nice job sql..ken

bigken - if we (HD community) were the leader of a country we would tear said country apart. :O)