[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

It's not a question of Israel's priorities - letting journalists in requires absolutely nothing from Israel other then them getting out of the way. The idea that it is appropriate for one side of an armed conflict to decide what should and should not be covered is just . . . dangerous. Journalists should decide whether or not they want to take the risks that war correspondents routinely take - that's their JOB. If journalists only went where there was no danger there is a great deal of information we would never have.

I would HOPE the State Department has better information, but I don't share your confidence. After 9/11, it's a little harder to put your trust in government oversight of security information. Let the journalists in - the more you let in, the more likely you are to get a full picture of what is actually happening. "Fair" would mean both sides getting covered, and that's not what is happening now. Let the journalists in, and while you might have some biased towards one side or the other, with the full coverage that would emerge from it you would have much more in the way of information with which to judge both sides' actions.

It seems to me that those who don't want any more information must have already decided who is right and who is wrong. In that case, sure, why bother letting journalists in?

You know that things are being covered by both sides, right? There's a big controversy about a clip at CNN. (http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/...ons/index.html)

Here's there coverage now, some of it is from people in Gaza right now. http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/

Here's Huffpo:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/gaza

I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that there's no coverage or that journalists are being kept completely out.

Here's an article on keeping the foreign press out including explanations:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090102/...nalists_banned

It may not be as easy as it usually is, but I suspect that has [ETC] somewhat more to do with not want to be held responsible for killing journalists than it really does with suppressing coverage. But even if it is solely about image control, I don't think Israel has an obligation to let the foreign press in right now. Depending on how long the ban goes on, I might change my mind.

Would you have thought the US obligated to allow foreign press to cover the immediate aftermath of Hiroshima? ETA: or maybe Dresden is a better example.

Interestingly, I guess, if the Israeli press is banned and the international press is banned, Israel is willing to accept the risk that the coverage by completely by people in Gaza, favorable to Hamas.