NEED TO KNOW

• Israel's military censor banned 1,635 articles outright in 2024, more than double 2014 levels
• Foreign photographers face criminal prosecution for filming missile strike sites without military approval
• Two CNN Türk journalists detained live on air had phones confiscated and accessed without consent

WASHINGTON, DC (TDR) — When Israeli security forces moved on two CNN Türk journalists broadcasting live from Tel Aviv on March 3, the moment played out in real time on screens across the world before the signal went dark. Reporter Emrah Çakmak and cameraman Halil Kahraman were covering the aftermath of Iranian missile strikes near Israel's Ministry of Defense when uniformed personnel walked into frame, seized equipment and cut the feed. The incident was not an aberration. It was the visible tip of a press freedom crackdown that has been accelerating for months, now backed by formal directives, criminal penalties, and the full enforcement apparatus of the Israeli state.

How Israel's Censorship Machine Works

Israel's military censorship authority is not a wartime improvisation. Its legal roots stretch back to British Mandate regulations from 1945, incorporated into Israeli law when the state was founded three years later. Every journalist working inside Israel must be accredited by the Israeli Government Press Office, and any article touching on national security is subject to review and potential suppression by Brigadier General Kobi Mandelblit, Israel's chief military censor.

Under existing law, the censor can halt any publication if there is what it calls a "near certainty that real damage will be caused to the security of the state." The censor may not, however, restrict articles on the grounds that they might damage the army's reputation or embarrass politicians, a distinction that critics say has been systematically blurred since October 7, 2023.

Freedom-Loving Beachwear by Red Beach Nation - Save 10% With Code RVM10

The numbers tell the story plainly. In 2023, the censor fully blocked 613 articles, itself a record at the time. In 2024, that figure jumped to 1,635 complete bans and 6,265 partial redactions, meaning Israeli authorities directly intervened in journalism more than 20 times per day on average. The +972 Magazine report that uncovered those figures, obtained through a freedom of information request, described it as an "unprecedented spike." Outlets suppressed by the censor are also barred from informing readers that censorship occurred.

"Information pertaining to censorship is of particularly high importance, especially in times of emergency. Although it is obvious that there is information that cannot be disclosed in times of emergency, it is appropriate for the public to be aware of the scope of information hidden from it." — Or Sadan, Movement for Freedom of Information attorney

The Iran War Directives: What Is Now Banned

When Israel launched strikes on Iran's military and nuclear facilities on June 13, 2025, triggering the 12-day war that would kill 28 people on Israeli soil and more than 700 in Iran, the censor issued a new slate of wartime restrictions that went further than anything previously formalized. The June 18 IDF censor order, which the Committee to Protect Journalists reviewed directly, prohibited:

Filming or broadcasting images from Iranian strike impact sites, particularly near military installations. Using drones or wide-angle cameras to show strike areas. Detailing the precise location of affected areas near security facilities. Broadcasting images of Israeli missiles being launched or Iranian missiles being intercepted. Sharing social media videos from impact zones without prior censor review.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE THE DUPREE REPORT

The directive came with a note warning that some footage circulating online might be "enemy-generated fake news." Its immediate effect was felt in Haifa, where Palestinian journalists were raided at their hotel on June 16 and had their equipment confiscated. Photographers setting up to cover potential strikes on the port were arrested in the early morning hours.

Two days later, National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi escalated further. In a joint directive emailed to foreign journalists, the ministers announced that any live or recorded broadcast from a "combat zone or missile strike site" without explicit written approval from the military censor, covering both location and content, would constitute a criminal offense. Police were authorized to confiscate equipment, revoke press credentials and make arrests on the spot.

"Following the successful coordinated enforcement against Al Jazeera broadcasts and others that violate censorship instructions and harm state security, we are implementing a new policy: All foreign journalists who wish to broadcast from Israel during wartime must receive specific written approval from the military censor — not only for the broadcast itself but for the precise location as well." — Ben-Gvir and Karhi, joint statement

The Shin Bet security agency was subsequently brought in to assist enforcement. Police were documented actively blocking camera views at impact sites in Beersheba, Holon and Ramat Gan. That footage was later broadcast, suggesting the obstructions were coordinated with intelligence units aware that cameras were rolling.

Journalists Detained, Equipment Seized

The CNN Türk incident on March 3, 2026 was the most internationally visible enforcement action, but it followed a documented pattern. Çakmak and Kahraman had been broadcasting live from outside the IDF's Kirya military headquarters when two individuals in military attire approached them, seized the reporter's phone and halted the transmission. The camera caught the intervention before it, too, went dark.

Israeli police later said the crew had been detained on suspicion of filming "a sensitive security facility." A complicating factor: one of their press credentials had expired.

"We are once again confronted with one of Israel's attacks targeting members of the press in an attempt to conceal the truth." — Burhanettin Duran, Head of Türkiye's Communications Directorate

Kahraman was briefly allowed to call CNN Türk executives from custody, confirming both journalists were in good health but had no access to their phones. After their release, Çakmak disclosed that his iPhone had been unlocked without his consent during the detention, raising questions about what Israeli security forces accessed on a journalist's device.

The Turkish government's response was swift. AKP spokesman Ömer Çelik called the arrests "unacceptable" and demanded immediate release. Turkey's Journalists' Union issued a formal condemnation, calling the action a violation of press freedom and a failure to ensure journalist safety in war zones.

The CNN Türk detention was not an isolated event. On June 21, 2025, Channel 13 journalist Ali Mughrabi and a camera operator were expelled from a drone crash site in Beit She'an despite presenting valid press credentials. A local deputy mayor challenged their accreditation, shoved the cameraperson and ordered them to leave. On June 22, a civilian volunteer police squad led by far-right activist Yoav Eliasi, known publicly as "The Shadow," detained four journalists, including Arab Israeli reporters and an international correspondent, at a Tel Aviv strike site. In Ramat Gan, police interrupted live broadcasts by two Western news agencies, suspecting footage was being fed to Al Jazeera, which Israel banned from operating in May 2024.

The Case for Wartime Restrictions

The Israeli government's argument is rooted in a genuine security concern: that real-time broadcast footage of strike impact sites, particularly near military bases, oil infrastructure and strategic facilities, provides Iranian forces with precise targeting data to calibrate future attacks. This is not a hypothetical. During the 12-day war, Iran launched more than 550 ballistic missiles and more than 1,000 drones at Israeli targets. The accuracy of those strikes was a live military intelligence question.

"Anyone who endangers Israel's citizens in the name of 'journalistic reporting' will face a determined and tough police force. No concessions, no games." — Itamar Ben-Gvir

CNN's own reporting acknowledged that the censor's prohibition on live broadcasting of intercepted Iranian missiles, which could reveal the accuracy of ballistic weapons and the positioning of Israeli interceptor arrays, carries operational weight. Disclosing where Iron Dome failed to intercept a projectile, or which neighborhoods sustained heaviest damage, could meaningfully assist an adversary planning a follow-on strike. Other democracies at war have imposed comparable restrictions.

GPO Director Nitzan Chen argued the directives were in line with standard wartime protocol. The ministers framed the enforcement as protecting citizens, not suppressing journalism, and insisted that the prior-approval process was a workable accommodation rather than a ban.

"Freedom of the press does not override the security of our citizens and soldiers." — Ben-Gvir and Karhi, joint statement

The Case Against

Critics of the restrictions, including voices from within Israel's own political establishment, argue that the directives have been drafted too broadly and enforced too aggressively to be explained by legitimate security needs alone.

Opposition leader Yair Lapid, no critic of Israel's military operations against Iran, called the foreign press restrictions "a targeted and destructive blow to Israeli hasbara and our international standing." His argument was pragmatic: for the first time in years, international media was broadcasting coverage sympathetic to Israel's position, and the restrictions were actively undermining that advantage.

Legal analysts also challenged the directives on procedural grounds. Israel's attorney general, Gali Baharav-Miara, demanded that Ben-Gvir and Karhi explain the legal basis for their announcement. The ministers' response, that she was "trying to thwart" their efforts to prevent foreign media from helping the enemy target Israelis, sidestepped the constitutional question. Haaretz subsequently reported that the censor's June 18 order was legally invalid on procedural grounds.

Tehilla Shwartz Altshuler, a researcher at the Israel Democracy Institute, noted that Ben-Gvir and Karhi were operating well outside their actual legal authority and were likely seeking political capital from high-profile enforcement rather than operationally necessary security measures.

"They make claims that exceed the legal framework of their powers, and also are very, very extreme. Usually, they make a lot of noise in order to get political gain from this publicity." — Tehilla Shwartz Altshuler, Israel Democracy Institute

The Committee to Protect Journalists was more direct.

"We are deeply concerned by the Israeli authorities' escalating efforts to suppress press freedom through censorship and intimidation. Journalists must be allowed to report on the Iran-Israel conflict without obstruction or fear of retaliation. Silencing the press deprives the world of a clear, unfiltered view of the reality unfolding in the region." — Sara Qudah, CPJ Regional Director

The International Federation of Journalists condemned what it called a "disturbing wave of attacks targeting Palestinian and Israeli journalists" and called on Israeli authorities to restore press freedom. Israel's own Union of Journalists denounced the crackdown.

A Trend Accelerating Since October 7

The wartime restrictions are not disconnected from a longer trajectory. Reporters Without Borders ranked Israel 112th out of 180 countries in its 2025 World Press Freedom Index, below Haiti, Guinea Bissau, South Sudan and Chad. In 2020, Israel ranked 88th. The 24-place drop in five years coincides almost exactly with the period from the Gaza war's outbreak through the Iran conflict.

In 2024, the Israeli parliament passed legislation empowering senior ministers to shut down foreign media outlets without court oversight if deemed security threats, the law used to ban Al Jazeera. A follow-on bill introduced in December 2025 would allow political appointees to replace independent regulators overseeing Israel's domestic broadcast media. The public broadcaster and Army Radio are both targeted for privatization or closure under the same initiative.

The CPJ's December 2025 investigation into Israeli press conditions found that independent domestic reporting had declined sharply, with an October 2025 analysis by the Israeli think tank Molad finding that only 3% of Channel 12's war coverage referenced the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

"The Israeli media decided, and decides anew every day, that we will not report on the humanitarian situation. The Israeli media is part of the war effort." — Nir Hasson, Haaretz reporter

Benjamin Netanyahu himself has reportedly pressured the military censor to expand restrictions beyond what security justifies, including a push to criminalize journalists who publish reports on the security cabinet without censor approval. Mandelblit, the chief censor, acknowledged the political pressure publicly, a rare instance of an Israeli official calling out the prime minister's interference in his office.

"Media freedom is often a casualty of war, and Israel's recent war with Iran is no exception. We have seen Israeli authorities use security fears to increase censorship, while extremist right-wing politicians have demonized the media, legitimizing attacks on journalists." — Sara Qudah, CPJ

What the World Doesn't Know

Israel has acknowledged more than 50 missile strikes on its territory during the 12-day conflict. Twenty-eight people were killed on Israeli soil. But because of the restrictions on filming, drone footage and precise location disclosure, the full extent of physical damage from Iranian strikes inside Israel remains unknown. Damage at or near oil refineries, military installations and infrastructure went largely undocumented by independent press. The Israeli government's account, filtered through prior-approved broadcasts, is the primary public record.

That information gap cuts both ways. It prevents Iranian forces from assessing strike accuracy in real time. It also prevents the Israeli public and international observers from independently verifying the government's account of what happened, where strikes landed, what was damaged and who was killed. In a democracy, those two functions, military operational security and civilian accountability, are in inherent tension, and the balance struck during wartime has consequences long after the shooting stops.

Freedom House, which has tracked Israel's media freedom score at a consistent 3 out of 4 for nearly a decade, noted that state pressure on journalism within Israel predates the Gaza war and has deepened with each successive conflict. The question press freedom organizations are now asking is whether the wartime restrictions, with their criminal penalties, civilian enforcement squads and intelligence agency involvement, will be rolled back when the fighting ends, or whether they will become the new baseline.

When a government controls what images the world sees of a war fought in its name, does the security benefit of restricting the press outweigh the democratic cost of a public denied independent verification of official claims?

Sources

This report was compiled using information from Al Jazeera, Al-Monitor, the Committee to Protect Journalists, CNN, Arab News, TRT World, Turkish Minute, The Jerusalem Post, JURIST, +972 Magazine, Reporters Without Borders, Freedom House, and Index on Censorship.

Freedom-Loving Beachwear by Red Beach Nation - Save 10% With Code RVM10