Front Rest

Why were journalists banned from entering Gaza during the massacre last January?

Isn't it up to the journalists if they want to risk their lives? If Israel wasn't trying to hide war crimes, then why not just let them in so the world could see how "civilised" the IDF is?

Public Comments

1. Your question presupposes it's own answer. The term 'massacre' makes that obvious. But let me try to help anyway. Let's assume you instead asked: Why were journalists banned from entering Gaza last January? Well, because it could not possibly, under any circumstances, help the IDF. Hypothetically, let's say that the IDF is really a bunch of baby eating Satan worshipers like you suppose. Then journalists would reveal this to the whole world. Sucks to be the IDF. Alternatively, let's say that the IDF is actually an army of returned Jesus clones that shoot cancer curing kittens out of their eyes. Journalists get caught in the crossfire and die. Journalists present horrifying pictures, or biased coverage. It's almost impossible to take a complimentary picture of war. Once again, IDF loses, sucks to be them. So yeah. There's simple no reason to let them in under any situation that isn't grossly outweighed by the negatives.
2. The world knows what the idf does anyway, but they do not want to remind the world that they are doing it again and again
3. There were enough journalists there or didn't you watch/read the news. Why...every Arab in the Gaza had a camera, and what wasn't taken live was later fabricated in Palywood. Here read this http://www.theurbangrind.net/?p=3796 http://www.takeapen.org/Takeapen/Templates/showpage.asp?DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=842&FID=1330
4. Journalists were prevented from entering Gaza in order to protect them. What massacre? Don't you mean WAR? This was a war started by HAMAS! On June 17, 2008, after several months of indirect contacts between Israel and Hamas through Egyptian mediators, Hamas agreed to a cease-fire (tahadiya). Almost immediately afterward, terrorists fired rockets into southern Israel. Despite what it called a "gross violation" of the truce, Israel refrained from military action. In fact, during the six months the arrangement was supposed to be observed, 329 rockets and mortar shells were fired at Israel.
5. because it would be horrible if the world fund out what levels of war crimes were being conducted by such a civilized nation.
6. Because if they would let them do this it would be democratic and we all know how democratic the jews are. Fortunately the dead Palestinian babies bodies could not be thrown in mass graves and bulldoze them like so many other cases in Palestine so, we have the UN people's testimonies of how the skin of little children started to burn to the bone after the White Phosphorus nazi massacre. AIPAC had the audacity to "tell" Obama not to be so harsh on the Jews!!! I think that is is time for him to redecorate his administration. The clock is ticking . Tic-toc bye bye
7. because the jews didn't want the world to see what they were really doingin gaza 1300 killed mainly women and kids but yet these dumb jews on here are saying that it was hamas fighters that were killed they are in denial
8. To answer you, there was no massacre , and plus it has been proven many many times that not war crimes had been committed by Israel. Plus the IDF is the most civilized army in the world, they warned of attacks, unlike the terrorists Hamas.Israel was protecting the journalists from being attacked by Hamas. Anyone who has picked up a newspaper or turned on the television during Operation Cast Lead has seen plenty of coverage of the war in Gaza. Many reporters complained that they did not have the access they would like, but there was no shortage of information coming from the battlefront. It is true that Israel had restricted journalists’ access; however, this is no different than the policy of the United States and other armies which do not allow reporters’ unfettered access during military operations. Israel learned a lesson from the degree of freedom it granted reporters during the war with Hizballah that journalists sometimes hampered military operations and endangered troops. Still, Israel has begun to allow press in with troops to provide pool reports. It is hard to argue that Israel has benefited from any limits placed on journalists as the story coming from Gaza has been largely told from the Palestinian point of view, with no pictures of Hamas terrorists or rocket crews but a steady stream of images of suffering and injured Palestinians. CNN’s Nic Robertson has not allowed his position on the Israeli side of the border from Gaza to interfere with him reporting on events on the other side that he has not witnessed and cannot verify. He narrates video given to CNN from Palestinians as if he is an eyewitness to what is appearing on screen. In fact, since he is not in Gaza, he is not likely to have interviewed anyone and has no way to check information that is being presented to viewers as his story rather than propaganda he is repeating. Robertson, of course, is by no means the only journalist covering the conflict guilty of such irresponsible behavior. While the journalists sitting on the Israeli side of the border with Gaza complain and criticize Israel, few of them seem to be interested enough in going to Gaza to try to enter through the Egyptian side of the border. According to the UN, journalists are also waiting for Egypt to give them permission to enter, but any complaints they may have are not being trasmitted to the public. Perhaps this is because reporters are accustomed to having no press freedom in Egypt whereas Israel is known for its commitment to openness and journalists are not as ready to accept Israeli military arguments that the present security situation has necessitated the restrictions they have imposed.
9. Because they were friendly with the terrorists, and God doesn't want people like that in the Holy Land.