Gender and war coverage: The case of Israeli female war correspondents

ABSTRACT

The paper describes the performance of the Israeli female war correspondents. Since the 1980s, only three Israeli women have been accredited as military affairs reporters. Thus, not only Israeli military affairs are males’ domain, their coverage represents males’ discourse and narratives.

The most famous female reporter is Carmela Menashe of Kol Yisrael radio station. For about fifteen years she is doing her reporting developing a new, feminine style in war coverage which has some followers. Menashe serves as ombudsman for the GIs, bringing their complaints.

The paper describes the new military realities in Israel that is confronting system change in the international, regional, and local system while dealing with the Middle Eastern peace process, post-modernism, and diminishing social status of the IDF. Menashe's reporting is showing that the IDF is not well adjusting to the new demands of the Israeli public for greater transparency and accountability. Furthermore, her work paved the way to a change in Israeli media-military relations. 

This paper analyzes women versus men performance as military affairs reporters, and tries to ascertain the importance of the feminine voice in war coverage.

INTRODUCTION

Women have been accompanying military life since the first war erupted. They have been warriors, mothers, sisters, wives, cooks, spies, nurses, prostitutes, cleaners, cheerleaders, etc. Each of these functions has created a bunch of myths and a wide variety of archetypes.[1]
 
May be that Biblical Deborah is the first ever woman covered a war. Chapters 4-5 of the book of Judges is a most fascinating war story covering war, gender, and heroism. However, although women have been in and around the military (even during wars), for centuries, they were excluded from both the military and the media. Both areas have remained as masculine realms. Masculinity of the military is seen in the hysteric reactions of the old guard trying to block any feminine infiltration of the military, by sending women back to their “proper tasks” – caring, praying, cooking, pregnancy, and motherhood.[2]

While some argue that feminization of a profession would lead to a decrease in both prestige and wages (as happens in teaching and journalism), it is not an inevitable outcome of feminization. Others would say that feminization is a symptom of a decline of a profession. This decline has correlated rather precisely with the influx of women. Furthermore, “whereas the regular armed forces of most developed states are ceasing to be warfighting machines, other kinds of armed forces – which include few if any women – are taking over and doing the real work.”[3]

Up to the 1970s, both the military and the media had been masculine realms. Therefore, a comparison between the two fields can be done, and especially in the overlapping between the both – the coverage of national defense affairs might supply us with an insight into feminization processes.

This paper is going to expose the war coverage in Israel in order to depict the “glass walls” excluding women from this area that is regarded very prestigious by the Israeli society. The main focus of the analysis is the mini-series Zikaron Zevai Mesuyam (A Certain Military Memory) directed by Chayim Tal. Its three chapters were shown on the Israeli Arutz [Channel] 2 Television station in mid-1998 and in a re-run on mid-1999.[4] The mini-series is devoted to the relationship between the Israeli military affairs reporters (called in Israel war correspondents – katavim zevai’im) and the IDF since the mid-1960s.

WOMEN IN WAR COVERAGE 

Since the Second World War, women have begun to be seen throughout the realm of Journalism of which they had been almost excluded. In the1970s, Journalism schools in the United States and Europe were open to women. Since that time, the field of Journalism in Israel has been highly feminized. In spite of that, in the 1990s, a “Pink-Collar Ghetto” has been created: “glass walls” and “glass ceiling” have limited the promotion of women into leading and prestigious jobs in Israeli printed and electronic media.[5] Women has been excluded from top positions with the Israeli news media (although Hanna Semer was the editor-in-chief of the National Trade Union – Histadruth – daily Davar, and Ada Sa’ar chaired the secretariat of the Leftist daily Al HaMishmar).[6]

Since Israeli female soldiers are excluded from combat duties, the exclusion of Israeli women from war coverage is an understood. No woman had been accredited by the IDF as a war correspondent during Israel’s first 46 years of existence. Only three women has covered military affairs for the Israeli press – Tali Rappoport-Selinger of Davar, Rosette Hakim of the Arabic-speaking station of the Voice of Israel (Kol Yisrael), and Carmela Menashe of the Hebrew-speaking radio station of the Voice of Israel[7] – and both had been accredited since the mid-1980s.

The research is not including the various IDF house organs[8] that are merely products of military public relations rather than newspapers. They have almost no civilian readership, and their staffs are not entitled to be members of the Israeli Association of Journalists. Up to the late-1970s, women had not been assigned as field reporters – radio-, print- or photojournalists – for both the IDF radio station and weekly magazine. Their reporters had been asked to be capable to escort military operation, and, thus, some of them even been sent to the Jump School. However, ever since there has had no assignment of a woman to be the military affairs reporter for Galey Zahal (The IDF Waves), the IDF radio station run by the Education Corps.

Nor are included female reporters who devote some of their time to occasionally cover military affairs. Those are not members of the union of military affairs reporters of the Israeli Association of Journalists.

WOMEN IN THE IDF

War coverage is a derivative of the women-military relationship. Therefore, the Israeli system of compulsory draft of women has to be discussed. 

Israel is the only democratic state enacting a compulsory military service on men as well as women.[9] The Israeli Military Service Act (1948) states different service length on gender and religious-ethnic basis in regular as well as reserve duties. Thus, promotion of women is relatively slower than men – as happens in the civilian sector in Israel too.[10] This seems to be a result of the separation of training (from the boot camps to basic officers training course).[11] The IDF has been offering women draftees what is regarded as “women’s jobs”. Basically, those are the jobs men do not want to perform. In this regard, the IDF is not different than other militaries that are masculine establishments run by men for men, and, therefore, have masculine values.[12]

"[Women are drafted to the IDF] … mainly to be an auxiliary force for men … in order to free as many men for combat duties."[13]

The first version of the Israeli Military Service Act allowed women to serve in all jobs. Its second version (1952) makes a clear definition between women and men. Thus, according to Moskos, Israeli women are not allowed to serve in combat jobs and whereas the environment is not fit for women (e.g., aboard combat vessels).[14] As of now, a reform in women service is undergoing. However, in 1992, women were about one third of the recruits, but only six percents of the officer corps.[15] Only few women are serving on reserve duties: most women soldiers are discharged from the IDF reserve force at the age of 23-24 or upon marriage, and mothers are not taking any reserve duties.

Seemingly, the best example of the discriminatory treatment of females in the IDF might be the marginal rate of women holding military medals and citations. Barely six Israeli women won military citations and medals, but only one won it under fire in combat during the 1956 Sinai Campaign. In early 1957 she was a publicity resource for the IDF that showed her to foreign visitors – like the American military historian S. L. A. Marshall.[16] As of now, she is almost unknown even within the Israel Chen.

When the medal system was retroactively introduced to the IDF, in mid-1973, she was given none. Since then, the IDF has ignored her, and strongly refused to rectify it.[17] 

The question of promotion of women within the officer corps is a crucial one. Data show discrimination of women officers and non-commissioned-officers. Since women are separately trained (by the Women Army Corps), they lack know-how and experience in a corps that is combat-oriented. This shortage is radiated even to promotion of women in non-combatant jobs at the general ranks – as the IDF Spokesperson, Chief of Education Corps, Provost Marshal, Adjutant General, Judge Advocate General, Surgeon General, Commander of the National Defense College, etc.[18] 

Masculinity of the Israeli society had a negative impact when a total mobilization of men occurred in October 1973: women that wanted to be drivers of civilian public transportation were sent home “to bake cakes” for the soldiers.[19] In the United Kingdom and the United States women were given incentives to come and take the men’s place during the world wars.[20]

Israel is a warrior society in which a macho ethos prevails. Thus, in order to show his Israeliness – at least in the industrial era – an Israeli is asked to prove masculinity. The utmost test of masculinity is a meaningful military service.[21] Military service (which includes Jewish women[22] and men, and Druze men) might play a negative service in broadening social inequalities in contrary to the common myth that the military service in Israel is the big equalizer. This negative aspect is due to the fact that military service serves as an integrative agent in Israel. It gives one the attribute “Israeli” while delineating borders between Israelis and the “others” (non-Israeli Jews, ultra-Orthodox Jews in Israel, Arabs, etc.)[23] 
     
Military service poses a dilemma between what asked from a woman as a citizen (i.e., military service) and what asked from her as a woman (i.e., femininity and motherhood). In a Jewish society, Jewish norms and laws of the Judaism (Halachah) intensify such a dilemma.[24] This dilemma had already been in the background of the discussions of the Israeli Parliament (Knesset) while the first draft of the Military Service Act was brought to the flour as early as 1948. Amendments to the Act[25] have been designed to satisfy demands by religious norms and leaders. 

Military service might give an ex-military person knowledge and understanding of the military society. However, it does not give the ex-military an ability to understand security matters. Thus, covering military affairs in Israel has been mainly a masculine job. On the other hand, war coverage is regarded as a very prestigious job because it is adjacent to vital interests.[26] That’s why in emergency women has been excluded from it. An emergency needs an authoritative personality to report and especially to bring the news. Nevertheless, during the last phases of the struggle against the British authorities in Palestine, in the late-1940s, illegal radio stations of the three Jewish underground movements had used many women to bring news and commentaries in order to mobilize all the members of Jewish community against the British rule.

According to an Israeli myth, women had played an equal part in the formation and defense of the State of Israel. Since then, Israel is cherishing that myth while not keeping equality in the defense realm.[27] In late-September 1999, the media reported that the IDF Chief-of-Staff Lieutenant-General Shaul Mufaz declared that he had decided to totally change the policies regarding promotion of women officers.[28] His announcement is relevant to top jobs of Colonels and Generals. However, it is not a matter to be solved by one-person’s decision but by constant shifts in the military organization’s culture and even a value modification within the whole Israeli society.

FEMALE WAR REPORTERS AT COMBAT ZONES

Blocking women soldiers from combat duties breeds another barrier. It is hard to ask a female war correspondent to stay and operate where a women soldier is excluded, and it is hard to ask the military to allow women journalist access to places it is excluding access its women personnel.

In the last phases of the Cold War, after the war in Vietnam, the possibility that the USA would project forces out of the Western Hemisphere was low. After the invasion of Grenada (Operation Urgent Fury, October 1983), the Sidle Commission decided to build a national pool of military affairs writers. The Sidle Commission report does not refer to the gender of the reporter.[29] The national pool teams covered American military activity in Latin America and the First Gulf War up to the invasion of Panama (Operation Just Cause, December 1989). The Sidle Commission report set the guidelines for media-military relations in the Second Gulf War (Operations Desert Shield/Storm).

Journalism had been men’s realm up to the 1970s. It includes reporting of major issues. Even the anchors were men. Barbara Walters made the breakthrough in 1976 upon joining the ABC for a one million-dollar contract per year.[30]

Many women covered wars after the prophet Deborah. It seems that Lady Florence Caroline Dixie was the first to cover a modern war.[31] Sometimes a woman that knew to write had been cast into a war situation.[32] In most of the cases there had been stubborn women (journalists or photojournalists) approached the fighting zone in order to do professional reporting for the press. It happened in the American Civil War and other wars in the second half of the nineteenth century, the Spanish Civil War, the two world wars, the Korean War, the war in Southeast Asia, and other wars (including the Middle East) around the world. Some of those female reporters exposed themselves to various dangers, were wounded, captured, and even were killed in action.

The fight over women coverage of wars was won in Vietnam. Officially, female reporters are not excluded anymore. It seems that a combination of the influence of the women movement with the peculiar character of the war in Vietnam brought the change.[33] In the Second Gulf War, women were seen everywhere.

Trotta, 1991, states that the debacle in Southeast Asia which was a men and white one opened the gates for women in the military, and then in combat. Since white, male chauvinism failed, military leadership had endured several problems in forging opposition to the new demands raised by minorities (“others”), even though it was totally against their own believes what is good for the military and the USA. The generals’ opposition shifted to a mere war of attrition rather than a strong containment of the new trends.

"… [T]he collapse of male authority was colossal, and it unleashed a flood of dismay, disillusion, mockery, and at last of action-generating resentment from blacks, women, and eventually even homosexuals. If they had been lacking in nerve to march for their places in the sun, the ever-present example of ferment against the war gave them steel."[34]

During Operations Desert Shield/Storm women access to almost all the ranks and jobs in the American (as well the British, but on smaller rate) military was highly visible and discussed.[35]

After the Gulf War, there are a few military jobs in the US military that are restricted for women. Since the logic of restriction is the definitions of “rear” and “front” areas and “combat” and “support” jobs is blurred, that logic is obsolete in the post-industrial era. Even though organizational differences lead the US armed services treatment of women.[36]

ISRAELI FEMALE WAR REPORTERS

In the 1980s, Israeli printed media had drastically changed. Politically-owned media had disappeared while local weeklies began to flourish. Within this systemic change, there are a change in style and a rapid feminization of the media. Women begin to be promoted to top jobs in reporting and management. But Israeli media is still a masculine realm because women are not given access to the top. As mentioned before, women were promoted to top jobs only in marginal newspapers that meanwhile ceased publication.

As in the American media, Israeli women were not allowed to be anchors of the electronic media. Whereas women were allowed to report, they were excluded from defense, economic and foreign affairs that remained masculine jobs. The covered cooking, education and fashion – typical feminine jobs.[37] Even when women were accepted as anchors in the Israeli electronic media, they were judged according to their look, and were not put on news programs during the Second Gulf War – besides anchor Ms. Orly Yaniv of the Arutz 2 TV.[38]

A crucial decision of Editor-in-Chief Semer of Davar is the nomination of Tali Rappoport-Selinger as military affairs reporter. Even now such a decision is revolutionary – a real breakthrough in Israeli Journalism history. Semer set a precedent in the early 1980s: a married mother to small children was picked to do this job. In the mini-series Zikaron Zevai Mesuyam, Rappoport-Selinger (now Lipkin-Shachak) says:

"… [W]hen Hanna Semer offered me this job, during the Lebanon War, the only reason I did not take the opportunity at once was that she waited to get the IDF Spokesperson’s approval. When I think about that now I am shocked. Why should the IDF Spokesperson okay such a nomination [in a newspaper]? She gladly told me [that] Chief-of-Staff [Lt.-Gen.] Raful [Raphael Ethan] … agreed … but [they] have to check whether the IDF is willing … to cooperate. It was not easy then: I was travelling in [South] Lebanon when women soldiers were excluded there."[39]

Rappoport-Selinger served as Davar’s military affairs reporter until she got her divorce. Then she dated Major-General Amnon Lipkin-Shachak, the Head of Military Intelligence – also a divorcee – and they got married.[40] because of her relationship with a serving general, she left her job, and covered other subjects for Davar.

To some extent, this episode bears a negative message to the feminist case since it fits some very nasty male chauvinist stereotypes about women and the military.

Accreditation. The above mentioned words of Ms. Lipkin-Shachak represent the great paradox of war coverage in Israel. In a democratic state, even the military cannot decide who is going to cover it for the media, and who is not. The basic tenant of free press is the so-called “watchdog of democracy” role of the media. Namely, its function is to check the Executive Branch, and such an interference with the nominations and promotions policies of a medium should be regarded at least as a “chilling effect” on the freedom of the press. Another aspect of media-military relations in Israel is the small size of the Israeli society that makes separation between reporters and their subjects of reporting almost impossible.[41]

The IDF is regularly disturbs any reporter who is not positive to the military. When a reporter is critical of the IDF, s/he might suffer a massive retaliation of the IDF. In the past, the IDF did not accredit such a reporter, or ceased his/her accreditation. That means that the reporter is not given official information (including off-the-record briefings and logistic support). Since the early 1960s, the IDF had not accredited or ceased accreditation of about five reporters. Only one of those cases was on political grounds. The Israeli Supreme Court (ISSCT) did not reverse the decision of the IDF mainly because of the then Israeli political culture.[42] A sign that this culture has been changed is the fact fierce struggle of the HaAretz daily, in the early 1990s, for the nomination of Ethan Rabin as its military affairs writer. The IDF rejected that nomination, but Rabin was on the job, in spite of the IDF rejection and non-cooperation, until he was forced to leave the paper on personal reasons.[43]

News Management. Another aspect of accreditation is news management (in Hebrew – divrur). At least, since the late 1960s, the Israeli Broadcasting Authority[44] had stricken an agreement with the IDF.[45] In order to get priority over other Israeli and foreign press and exclusive stories, the IBA gave the IDF Spokesperson the right to vet items filed by its reporters. Both parties understood that this censorship is not on security ground (which had been done by the Israeli Military Censorship), but on public relations grounds. According to IDF sources, other Israeli media had such agreement with the IDF too. For about fifteen years, the IBA kept its signature on the agreement until the State Comptroller ruled, during the Lebanon War, that it is an illegal agreement.[46] Critics have been saying that the IDF never kept its promise for rendering the IBA exclusivity. Some of this critic is echoed in interviews with Lipkin-Shachak, Ron Ben-Yishay[47] and Nachman Shay[48] for the mini-series.[49]

Censorship. Another interesting means of co-existence in media-military relations in Israel is the Military Censorship.[50] While it is understood why the military would like to operate such an organization, it is questionable why the journalistic establishment support it. In spite of the British laws, the operation of the Israeli Military Censorship (IMC) is based on media-military agreement in early 1948 (even before the Declaration of Israeli Independence). The agreement was given a written form in September 1949, and has three versions that are almost identical (1966, 1989, 1996). In the late 1980s, a sub-committee of the Knesset Foreign and Defense Affairs Committee (F&DAC, chaired by Yossi Sarid) checked the operations of the IMC, and elaborated on the idea to replace the agreement and the British laws with an Israeli legislation. The Israeli media establishment co-operated with the Sarid sub-committee while expressing the view that there is no need to change the existing rules. The foreign press stationed in Israel refrained from any connections with the Sarid sub-committee since freedom of the press means no state intervention with the operation of the press, no legislation, and no prior restraints on the press.

About ten years later now it seems that the IMC is anachronistic and has been abused for other than security reasons.[51] As of now, the Chief Military Censor Brigadier-General Yitzhak Shannee is about to retire, and the IDF wants the MoD to take its operations under its auspices.
 
Israeli media establishment is augmenting the IMC by self-censoring the Israeli media. Sometimes even items that are published abroad are not vetted in Israel. It seems that such censorship has no sense since an enemy can infer from the vetting what the censoring party is willing to conceal.[52] Furthermore, there is no sense to declare a news item published abroad a state secret since it can be easily revealed by global communication.[53]

ISRAELI MILITARY AFFAIRS DISCOURSE

Paradoxically, Israeli media and public are characterized by low – or even absent – discourse of military affairs. The Israeli media bring scattered reports that give no understanding of the matters. Furthermore, reports upon military affairs are elite-centered. The paradox might be explained by the reality of a protracted war. Israelis are asked to frequently mobilize their resources – personal, monetary, and societal – to their national defense. Therefore, we might assume, according to democratic thinking, that Israelis would demand more information about national defense matters, and the IDF and Israeli MoD would like to supply it in order to elicit higher motivation of the public and support of the Israelis of their military.

Seemingly this paradox in civil- and media-military relations is the result of some characters of the Israeli society:

• The first on is the protracted Arab-Jewish war in the Middle East that is over 120 years. Such a conflict throws the parties to a siege mentality in which any discussion of national security matters is muzzled since it might “help the enemy.” Even in older democratic societies (like the American and the British), in freedom of the press is endangered in wartime.

• Israelis lack the fundamental democratic roots. As of now, Israel is enduring a democratization process in which equality, human rights, freedom of information, transparency and accountability is slowly adopted.

• Israeli military affairs reporters lack knowledge of military affairs. Therefore, they would prefer dealing with news rather than analysis.

•  Israeli military affairs reporters lack sources, and almost totally rely on official sources. Thus, they cannot give other-than-the-establishment’s views.

•   Israeli news media – and especially war coverage – is mobilized to serve the Zionist idea, the State of Israel, and the military leadership; and

• Self-censorship of the Israeli news media. Therefore, any subversive voice is silenced also as a means of securing and keeping social hegemony. 

Israeli war coverage suffers all the flaws of news deriving from the news and competition myths.[54] Many analysts in Israel and abroad have observed flaws of the Israeli war coverage.[55]

The Israeli military culture is highly characterized, since the early 1970s, by the terms rosh katan (small head), Kastach (cover yourself), and va’adoth chakirah (commissions of inquiry). All three are closely related with the terms kishalon (failure), and mechdal (omission). Israeli public and media have responded to the 1973 Yom Kippur War, 1982 Operation Peace for Galilee and other military debacles in searches for scapegoats. Thus, the military system is shifting to a defensive mode in which they try harder to cover, and to do less in order not to fail. In this regard, the news media is encouraging the military system to react defensively. The media are searching for heads rather than looking for procedures, processes, organizations and structures that their synergy (sometimes errors added) caused the failure. They want accusations rather than responsibility.

The chasing of news, exclusive stories (“scoops”), and rating is intensified by the competitive myth of the press to modify the news media into a squad of professional people that hate deferred satisfaction. The news media demand on instant, short answers whereas ambiguity is most of the time the name of game. The audience has been socialized to consume that meager dietary of dull news. Then, a demand- supply viscous loop is developing, and both parties are conditioned to that kind of news without being able to break the loop. 
       
Defensive methods of the military system include abuse of secrecy. However, in order to prevent the dirty cloth to be washed outside, sometimes the military system is refraining from taking the needed steps to prevent reoccurrence of accidents in order to prevent leaking of data. Thus, the then newly-nominated Head of the Israeli Military Intelligence Maj.-General Shlomo Gazit decided upon taking his office not to investigate his branch’s omissions in September-October 1973. Subsequently, the causes to the Israeli debacle have not been studied yet.[56]

Israeli military affairs discourse is masculine by its nature. It serves the hegemonic process: The official narrative is an agent to sustain the present power structure, and the priming of national security and generals. Israeli war coverage has been plagued with personality cult of outstanding military heroes – Moshe Dayan is the best example of this trend – that has been portrayed as the total answer to Israel’s illnesses. Such an exaggerated treatment gets also some units. The most favorite unit, in the 1990s, is the Special Forces unit sayeret Matkal (in which last two Israeli Prime Ministers – Benjamin Netanyahu and Ehud Barak – served). In the case of Sayeret Matkal, it seems that it is with General Barak’s blessings – in violation of all prohibitions on the exposure of a Special Forces unit – because the unit suffered several public blows. Other Israeli Special Forces – e.g., Shayetet (Flotilla) 13 (the Israel equivalent of the US Navy’s SEALs and the Royal Navy’s SBS) are kept under relatively stricter secrecy.

By injecting feminine military affairs discourse into Israel’s media and public spheres, the Israelis get more than the official narrative, and are puzzled by several agendas and narratives, some of the subversive. In a warrior society, a feminine discourse is, by definition, subversive and anti-hegemonic.

Tal’s mini-series portrays the IDF as a sanctified establishment in Israeli culture. It is changing, and the IDF is going to be democratized and transformed into a socially responsible institution. Tal records some changes especially while he depicts the changing relationship between the IDFSU and the military affairs reporters. 
   
CARMELA MENASHE

After the accreditation of Tali Rappoport-Selinger, another breakthrough took place: Rosette Hakim was accredited as the military affairs reporter of the IBA's Arabic-speaking radio station. The very nomination of Hakim – a Jewish woman – is astonishing even in Israeli terms since the main audience of the station – Arabs in Israel and the Middle East – lacks feminist ideology.

Although both accreditations took place within fringe media, they paved the way – in the Israeli media as well in the IDF – to the acceptance of women into the sacred chambers of the Israeli masculinity. Following those accreditations Carmela Menashe was accredited as the military affairs reporter of Kol Yisrael, the IBA's Hebrew-speaking radio station.

Menashe served with the Kol Yisrael administrative corps. Then she took reporter Training course, and shifted to reporting. She covered criminal and local affairs. She holds a Masters degree in Jewish History from Tel Aviv University, and has chaired the union of military affairs reporters of the Israeli Association of Journalists. Menashe has no children, and from time to time gossip is dealing with her personal and marital affairs.

She is serving in that position over a decade, and acquired a great fame as a person, as a reporter, and as a woman. She covered about five Ministers of Defense, and some six Chiefs-of-Staff. Her fame led the leaders of the HaMerkaz [Central] party[57] to offer her a ticket in the 1999 national elections. In late-Summer 1999, Israeli media reported that she was offered the job of communication advisor to the Minister of Defense – a traditional means of cooptation of Israeli reporters.

Menashe’s secret is in what she does not doing. Male counterparts of her are regarded as “frustrated generals” – trying to manage Israel’s national defense out of their reporting. She sees her tasks differently. As Menashe says:

"… [It is] more important and more interesting … to expose what is wrong with the army [the IDF] rather than joining a raid of a squad of AWOL catchers or a night ambush, an ambush in [South] Lebanon [emphasis added by me – EHBZ]."[58]

And she adds:

"Do you want me to do Alon Ben-David [HaArutz HaRishon – the IBA TV station (The First Channel in Hebrew) – military affairs reporter]?

"Alon Ben-David and Ronnie Daniel,[59] [Lt.-Colonel (res.), the IDF. Arutz 2 (TV) military affairs reporter] are great. They highly love to stand [holding a microphone in front of the TV camera]. Let them get a dirty fatigue, and they are looking better. A fatigue and an unshaved face [of a warrior], and they are looking like a reporter filing a story in Vietnam.

"Enough is enough! There is no more Vietnam!

…

"I do hate wars. They are telling me, 'you’re a military affairs reporter. You do want wars.' No, [I do not want] wars. It would not give me more work. I do have enough work even in peacetime, even more work, according to my judgment [emphasis added by me – EHBZ]."

She is putting herself as the opposite side of her male counterpart of the electronic media. As “frustrated generals,” they are army-centered, and aim on covering combat activity of the real generals while she is audience-centered, and serves as a watchdog on the IDF.

Another confrontation is taking place in her mockery of her male counterparts to go in the footsteps of their predecessors. Since she speaks about a new military agenda in Israel (at least since the end of the Second Gulf War), she sees no achievement in covering events in the Israel-Lebanese border out of a hill bedside an airstrip near the Israeli town of Kiryat Shemona. Reporting military affairs out of the Camp Yitzhak Rabin (used to be HaKiryah – Machaneh Matkal) in central Tel Aviv (where the Israeli General Headquarters – Matkal – is located). Her male counterparts do not succeed in accommodating to the new military reality of the post-modern Israel. In such a reality, military affairs reporters have to vigorously accomplish their missions – surveillance (reporting), correlation (commenting), and criticism rather than trying to run with the troops and their generals.

Such an attitude might violate norms of Israeli civil-military relations. Israel has experienced nomination of retired generals to cabinet ministers, and primed security affairs while other aspects of civil society (such as education, health and even law enforcement and crime control) get much less resources. To some extent Menashe says that the MoD and the IDF are not different from other subject matters of journalistic work. To some extent, she is cutting the tree she is sitting on in order to enable herself to perform as a reporter. Furthermore she fulfilled her views by becoming an outlet for GIs’ and their parents’ complains against the military system. Becoming a so-called “ombudsman” for the GIs might be a feminine way to cope with the masculine world of the IDF. It seems that such a performance ca barely satisfy the “frustrated generals” that are reading about Scipio Africanus.[60]

Tal, 1997, is showing the Israeli audience how the military affairs reporting is done in Israel: the IDF Spokesperson Unit (IDFSU) officers and non-commissioned-officers are dictating news releases to the military affairs reporters that are serving as a mere relay between the IDFSU and the public. The reporters are whining behind the screen, but their audience does not hear them. They are serving the IDF by muzzling their non-confidence in the Israeli military system.

Tal recorded a conversation over a mobile phone between Menashe and her typist (a female too) when the reporter files a news item about an investigation of last year’s helicopter crash. Both of them do not believe the Israeli Airforce has been doing its utmost in preventing such crashes. To the viewer surprise, none was echoed in the item she files.   

Most of their whining is focused on the technical terminology under which the IDFSU is taking cover and the typical ending, “The IDF studied the lessons of the crash.” This ending is ridiculous since the new release speaks about a year-old helicopter crash that was followed by a two CH-53 heavy transport helicopter crash on February 1997 claiming 73 lives.  
   
Tal: Don’t you believe that “The IDF studied the lessons [of the crash]”?

Menashe: Gee, a year had elapsed. I believe that the IDF is studying the crashes. I believe that accidents are happening, and since they are reoccurring, there was not a study [of the previous accidents]. That’s a fact. 
  
 This exchange might be used against Menashe as a proof of her being unprofessional. However, as a female, she pronounces what an Israeli male would not dare to express – a statement of disability to understand military terminology. To some extent, it is a gender statement: I do not take part in that males game, and you, the IDF, should try harder to explain things in a manner a common person might understand. However, Israeli males would do their utmost to conceal their inability to understand military jargon.

Male critics of Menashe are claiming that since she is not a retired officer, she lacks the ability to understand military life and terminology. However, she has to report ordinary people who do not deal daily with military terms. Thus, in order to function, she needs to use ordinary people’s language in order to enable them to understand security matters.[61]

In the Israeli warrior society, a male cannot say, “I do not understand what’s going on in military affairs” without jeopardizing his masculinity. Unintentionally, Menashe and her typist used a feminist, post-modern stand that is opposing to hierarchy and social strata. It is a bitter antithesis of the masculine theses and myths.

Director Tal intensifies the male-female confrontation by confronting as well between old and new types of Israeli military affairs reporters. Thus, by comparing old and new military agenda, as seen by the reporters, the audience might infer what a dramatic change has been taken the Israeli military culture.

Then, Tal is interviewing reporter Alon Ben-David:

Tal: What have you reported today?

Ben-David: Today, about the commission of inquiry report on the previous helicopter crash.

Tal: When you have begun your career as military affairs reporter, did you think that this is going to be the lion's share of your work – reports about commissions of inquiry?

Ben-David: Not at all.

Exclusion. During the interview with Ben-David, Tal exposes a major aspect of Israeli media-military relations. Since the 1980 (or even before), the IDF is excluding reporters from combat areas and actions. While local commanding officers habitually disobey these orders, it is tightly enforced on the Israeli-Lebanese front. These orders give us a better insight to the understanding of war coverage in Israel and explain the high ratio of leaks out of the Israeli military.

"… [T]he IDF does not allow us [the military affairs reporters] to combat action [in Lebanon] …. I think they are committing a mistake. My model [] are the great men of war reporting in Israel. It is Ron Ben-Yishay reporting under fire from Lebanon …It is Nachman Shay reporting [the Yom Kippur War] …"

The exclusion order is sometime lifted. Ben-Yishay was given access to Lebanon in order to join an ambush by the Egoz anti-guerrilla squad. Then, such a clearance was given to Ben-David. Ben-Yishay exerted massive pressure on the IDFSU, and used his personal network including CoS General Lipkin-Shachak to get the approval.[62] Other reporters – including foreign news media – are not given any access to combat action at all. 
Menashe does not compete on this line. She has developed a line of herself, and is followed now by her counterparts. Her professional challenge is not covering wars – although she volunteered to be Roeh’s successor in covering the Galilee and South Lebanon. She tries to get exclusive stories out of the IDF.

Ben-David: What is my worst nightmare? Missing a war.

Menashe: What is my worst nightmare? That Ronnie Daniel and Alon Ben-David would go out with a [very important] news item at eight PM ... and I am sitting in my office, and hear that.

SUBJECTS OF REPORTING

Menashe has acquired her fame out of reporting on misbehavior of lower-, medium-, and high-echelon commanders, especially in violating GIs’ rights. In spite of decades of preaching that the GI is Israel’s real secret weapon, commanders are still harassing their soldiers and sexually harassing women soldiers. Beyond being criminal and self-destructive, in a post-modern society such a behavior is breaking any given norms. Reports by Menashe deals extensively with racist mistreatment and discrimination of Ethiopian and Russian immigrants (olim) and non-Jews serving in the IDF, sexual harassment of women soldiers, red-tape abuse, as well as incidents of Khaki-collar corruption. Exposure of such incidents might help the IDF to correct and amend what went wrong. Sometimes her stories are the main source for the Matkal intervention in the cases. Various writers about management ascribe a preventive function to the press. 

A post-modern atmosphere, coupled with seemingly a peace process in the Middle East, creates another agenda – or agendas – in Israel. It seems that those agendas are less favorable to the military on one hand and forcing the IDF and other national defense establishment to be more accountable to the press, soldiers, and their parents. Although reserve duties are much less than in the 1970s and in the 1980s, many fathers are still with the forces, and can check, through their own personal networks, policy announcements and their implementation. However, even those who are not serving have their civil right to fully know about the Israeli national defense – at least regarding any information that its cannot infringe security.

In the 1990s, the IDF and Israeli generals are loosing their sacred status within the Israeli society. The leading edge of Israel is becoming post-modern, and, therefore, cannot anymore automatically justify any deed done for national defense. It seems that greater portions of the Israelis are seeing the IDF as another bureaucracy operated by civil servants in lower rates of efficiency than the civil society. Accordingly, the IDF seems to be inferior to the civil sector in human relations and observing civil rights of the troops too.

As of now, the IDF officer corps seems to lose its status as the “chosen sons” of the Israeli (Zionist) state, and is not adjusting to the new environment. Inquiring mothers calling battalion and brigade commanders at their residence and asking about their “babies” is one facet of the revolution. The other is an investigating news media that is easily and frequently accessible to parents, GIs and dissatisfied personnel serving as whistle blowers.

Another example of the IDF inability to adjust to the new environment is the parents of the fallen soldiers, especially those who were killed in accidents and friendly fire. Many researches have observed the change in role performances of the Israeli bereaved parents, widows and children. Early signs of the change have been visible since the Yom Kippur War, and it radiates to the KIAs’ survivors as well. Ill-advised and motivated by personal and local interests, the IDF committed all the possible mistakes in treatment of mishpachat hashechol – “the bereavement family” in Hebrew. Thus, in spite of a lot of funds poured, the gap between the IDF and mishpachat hashechol has been widened.

An atmosphere of non-confidence in the IDF has many roots – rumors, news carried by the press, public announcements and activities of groups – that are part and parcel of a public space. To some extent, active members of mishpachat hashechol wittingly using the news media to transmit subversive messages inflicted the worst impact on the IDF image.

Menashe was very instrumental in airing complaints of mishpachat hashechol. Carefully she accomplished her journalistic work while being responsible. It seems that being a female, she could see the problems clearer than her male counterparts that have some conflict of interests between reporting and loyalty to the masculine realm of the IDF.

Another manifestation of the change of Israeli society is the coverage of corruption within the armed services. Exposure of Khaki-collar corruption (abuse of resources, embezzlement, etc.) negatively contributes to the bond between the society and its army. At least, two IDF Brig.-Generals had been convicted on such cases in recent years. The first was the IDF Provost Marshal and the other was the Head of Logistics of the Israeli Airforce.

A facet of the post-modern revolution is the struggle against sexual harassment of women within the armed forces. In Israel young women are coerced to serve in the IDF. Therefore, It is the IDF duty to protect them. Menashe, as a female, was very instrumental in fighting sexual harassment and violence against women in the IDF. In the infamous General Nir Galilee Affair (mid-1999), her support helped to overrule a decision to promote a Brig.-General to the post of commanding officer of an IDF corp.[63] This affair is seemingly another example of the IDF leadership insensitivity to Israeli public opinion. 
   
As a reporter, Menashe is dividing her activity. On the one hand she brings exclusive stories about the IDF. On the other hand she brings – as her counterparts – stories and news releases originated by the IDFSU. In her exclusive stories she is GIs-oriented rather than serving as a volunteering publicity agent for the Israeli generals. Her innovating service is irreplaceable from the GIs and their families’ viewpoint as well as the IDF cannot afford to lose her. Menashe is not a bitter critic of the Israeli military – a muckraker. Therefore, the IDF can be helped by her in its strive for improvement. On the other hand, both GIs and their families see her sometimes as the only remedy. Accordingly, it was reported that military vehicles of the Israeli Northern Command bear bumper stickers saying, “I’ll tell Carmela!” 
  
DISCUSSION

Had Zikaron Zevai Mesuyam been translated, a foreigner would be astonished. Israeli war correspondents treat themselves as the founders and only practitioners of war coverage worldwide. There is no reference – beyond the repeated mention of Vietnam – to others’ accomplishments in war coverage nor they refer to the foreign news corps in Israel.[64] Their level of description and analysis and references is ethnocentric, personal and arrogant.

Israeli reporters of the same cohort are not willing to give their cohorts or foreign reporters a bit of respect. Furthermore, their story is not full and sometimes reconstructed in order to establish one’s fame. 

In the course of that bragging, they even ignore Israeli counterparts that had not been members of the “gang” – the union of katavim zevai’im – like photojournalist Avraham Vered, reporter Uri Dan and photojournalist Micha Bar-Am. The first two, working in the mid-1950s, are regarded the real founding fathers of the Israeli war coverage. By the way, in 1962, Vered was the first (out of two) Israeli journalist decorated by the IDF, but the only one won a high-ranking decoration (Itur HaMofeth – the Medal of Exemplary Service – which is ranked third in the Israeli order of military medals).[65] The later has won a worldwide fame for covering Israeli and global events for Israeli and foreign press since the 1950s.

Menashe’s fame shows that the IDF has too many problems that she covers. Beyond keeping her busy, it draws attention to the IDF’s inability to correct itself by its sources.

Israeli war coverage has been drastically changed since Menashe developed her own approach. She has not been into a chase after generals and heroes in the old style of the great wars. Alternatively, she devoted herself to a “feminine” aspect of the military – listening to GIs and voicing their (and their families’) complaints. Since “there are no wars anymore,” she devoted herself to bring the GIs’ voice to the public rather than the generals’.

As a matter of fact, since Israeli reporters are excluded from combat actions, they merely recycle press releases by the IDFSU. Some of them do a better job by using leaking sources within the IDF. It seems that Menashe decided to go on a unique way of her. Armed with a “feminine” approach, she has been looking for the individual, ordinary GI, suffering in accommodation to a huge system that is unfortunately indifferent to personal problem. Her approach is in contrast with the “masculine” one that cater to generals, strategy, tactics, and operations. Both approaches are different in their discourses, heroes, and even narratives. A “masculine” approach is stressing military and national values, strength, and success by the military system. It speaks in plural upon “the Army,” “the Unit,” “victory,” etc. A “feminine” approach speaks about individuals – mostly weak, discriminated and abused – trying to cope with the military system. It speaks singular terms upon “a soldier,” “a woman,” “a mother,” “pain” “sorrow,” etc.

A “masculine” approach would be complimentary to the military system, trying to serve as a socialization agent preparing people to their military service, and trying to improve the social status of the military. It would do the utmost to ignore failures and casualties supposedly because they are harmful to morale and motivation.

It sounds anachronistic because of the relatively dissatisfactory performance of the IDF in the last quarter of the twentieth century. Furthermore, Israel has endured a total change in international, regional, and local environment during the 1990s. It is a systemic change to which, at least, the leading strata of the Israelis have been already accommodated.

Yet the IDF and most of the Israeli military affairs reporters are accustomed to the new environment, and thus frequently surprised of the public responses. The IDF – as was shown in the above-mentioned General Nir Galilee Affair – is insensitive to public opinion. It worsens upon unnecessary collisions between the IDF and the families of the fallen soldiers. Although only few families have taken a vocal anti-military stand, their voice was loud, clear and inflicted devastating blows on the IDF. 

Many scholars observed a bond between a group of reporters covering a subject and their subject. The Israeli war correspondents are typical example of this observation. Many of them are reserve officers (at least, two of them are colonels).[66] By the nature of Israeli society, a social separation between reporters and subjects is almost impossible when reporters and subjects are drawn from the same class.[67] This proximity has a “chilling effect” on war reporting in Israel. As a soldier, sergeant (ret.) Menashe was a clerk in a paratrooper’s battalion. Thus, it seems that she – as a female – lacks this ties, since she does not belong to the “Boys’ Club.”

Post-modernity and the Israeli Military. Changes in the Israeli foreign environments are influencing Israeli society since the Second Gulf War. These changes and diminishing will to proceed a protracted war are the determinants of the new Israeli military environment. Israelis are trying to get out of the their so-called national siege complex while adopting post-modern values. Subsequently, the IDF has been losing its prime status, and “holiness.” These processes are exposing the IDF to be more transparent and accountable.

One cannot ignore Menashe’s contribution to the profanation of the IDF. However, she has a great contribution to Israeli journalism: other reporters are following her in search of “feminine” stories and criticizing the military’s treatment of its human resources.

CONCLUSION

Almost impossible to separate between discrimination of women in the armed forces and the exclusion of female war reporters by the military and media establishments. Both masculine establishments – the military and the news media – they tried their utmost to bloc their feminization. Upon accepting women to them, “glass walls” and “glass ceiling have been erected to discriminate women. Only when equality was enforced over the military through political action, the arena was open to female reporters too. In the USA and Israel, it was accomplished after the armed forces could not deliver a victory. Those debacles are masculine (and White – in the US). Consequently, the military establishment has not been able to resist their feminization, although the process of accommodation is painful. The same happened simultaneously with the media establishment. The entrance of females to the field of war reporting made possible the infiltration of anti-hegemonic voices of military affairs by airing feminist discourses. Along these processes, both American and Israeli societies are enduring a post-modern reform, feminist in its nature, that basically changes civil-military relations.[68] 
       
Relatively speaking, the IDF is lagging behind in equal service of men and women (in spite of the used-to-be over-sold myth of armed Israel female soldiers). Therefore, it is not astonishing that only three women have covered Israeli military affairs since the its first steps in the mid-1940s.

In spite of the salience of defense affairs in Israel, war reporting is not serving the Israelis with insight, knowledge, or information of military affairs. It is rather a public relations endeavor to the military, sustaining the masculine, hegemonic processes in Israel. The exclusion of Israeli reporters of the combat zones is putting their combat- like Vietnam-styled reports in quite ridiculous context.

Of the three female reporters, only Carmela Menashe has developed a style of her own in covering the IDF. The fact that she is with the high-rated Voice of Israel radio station – which is regarded by common Israelis as an official outlet – helped her to be influential. She has succeeded in inserting small changes into Israeli war coverage that traditionally echoed the macho defense establishment-oriented discourse. The confrontation between the “old guard” and her is intensified by the absence of all-out Arab-Jewish wars.

The anti-hegemonic messages are carried by variety of media and, therefore, cannot be managed or silenced easily. Those who initiate alternative narratives and agendas have their own ways to get the audience. In various instances Menashe helped to air those alternative – and even subversive narratives. By the very fact that her favorites are “small” stories about the ordinary GI and the others – immigrants, non-Jews, females, etc. – serving the IDF is quite different of the traditional Israeli defense affairs reporting. The main line of engagement between the “old guard” and Menashe is her statement, “Enough is enough! There is no more Vietnam!” Namely, there are no more wars, and as the Middle Eastern peace process advances, the news media would be left with only “small” stories to investigate and to file. 

Tal is presenting war coverage as an interface between civil and military societies. According to him, this interface seems to have two versions: the anachronistic non-democratic “old guard’s” and Menashe’s. Tal is showing very awkward situations that show that the IDF is badly doing in accommodating itself to the changes in the Israeli society. It is vivid, according to him, in those fields:

• The motivation to serve among youth, low-echelon officers and reserve soldiers.

• Training accidents and mishaps.

• Women’s, and others’ equality within the military.

• Abuse of power by military personnel; and

• Khaki-collar corruption.

All these subjects are frequently filed as exclusive stories by Menashe that is complaining, “I do have enough work even in peacetime, even more work, according to my judgment.” Upon the scarcity of wars in Israel, Israeli society and Meashe among it is left with the fight for a better IDF – socially responsible, transparent, and accountable – that has a human rather than Mars face.

In Zikaron Zevai Mesuyam, Menashe says, “one day I am going to be a myth.” Evaluating the number of journalists following her and the stickers on military vehicles, one can confess that she is already a myth.

– 30 –
       
NOTES

1.  Cynthia Enloe, 1983. Does Khaki Becomes You? The Militarization of Women’s Lives. Boston: South End Press, p. 7; Laurie Weinstein & Christie C. White (eds.), 1997. Wives & Warriors. Women and the Military in the United States and Canada. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey, p. xiii. 

2.  Weinstein & White, (eds.), 1997. pp. 79-97.

3.  Martin van Creveld, 1998. “Women in the Military: Gain or Regression?” A lecture at the symposium at the Bar-Ilan University’s BESA Center, Ramat-Gan, Israel. His lecture is going to be printed in a forthcoming book edited by Prof. Stuart A. Cohen (Democracies and their Armies Towards the 21th Century: Israel in a Comparative Context. London: Frank Cass, BESA Series on Strategic Studies).
 
4.  The first chapter had been aired on Israel Independence Day, on May 1997, but was not followed by the other two chapters. Some months after that Israeli press reported that Brigadier-General Oded Ben-Ami, the Israel Defense Force’s Spokesperson angrily reacted (also in a nasty letter to the producer) after seeing the chapter. It was speculated that massive pressure by the IDF and a threat to boycott the producer and the TV station helped to postpone the airing of this mini-series by about a year. 
   
5.  Dan Caspi & Yehiel Limor, 1998. The In/Outsiders. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

6.  Both papers had had a marginal readership, and meanwhile ceased publication.

7.  Menashe had served, for some time in the 1990s, also as the military affairs reporter of the high-circulating Yedioth Acharonoth daily. However, she had not signed her articles in the printed press.

8.  Among them are the IDF radio station Galey Zahal , the IDF weekly magazine BaMachaneh, the Airforce journal, the Navy paper Beyn Galim, the Chief Rabbinate periodical, The IDF Journal (published by the IDF Spokesperson Unit), etc.

9.  Hazleton, 1978, p. 114.

10.  Noga 34 (Summer 1998) [Hebrew], p. 38.

11.  Hazleton, 1978, p. 112 ff.

12.  Enloe, 1983, p. 7. 

13.  Gideon Doron & Daniela Shoenkar-Scherk, 1998. Waiting for Representation. Women and Politics. Tel Aviv: HaKibbutz HaMeuchad Publishers [Hebrew], pp. 51-3. 
       
14.  Quoted by Doron & Shoenkar-Scherk, 1998, ibid.

15.  The number of women officers includes academician and nurses that commissioned through the Athudah Akademith – a ROTC-like training sequence before drafted.    

16.  S. L. A. Marshall, 1957. Victory in Sinai.

17.  Eviathar H. Ben-Zedeff, 1992. “The only medallist female.”  BaMachaneh 33-34 [Hebrew], pp.42-5.

18.  As of 1999, the only women in the rank of (Brig.) General in the IDF are the Chief of the Women Army Corps (CHEN), the Head of Casualties Department in the Manpower Command, and the Head of the Computers Division. 

19.  Dafna Yizraeli, Ariela Friedman, Ruth Schrift, Frances Raday, & Yehudith Buber Agassi, 1982. Trapped Women. Tel Aviv: HaKibbutz HaMeuchad Publishers [Hebrew], p. 227. 

20.  Scott M. Cutlip, Allen H. Center, & Glen M. Broom, 1994. Effective Public Relations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall (seventh edition), pp.109-11, 116-9.

21.  Hazleton, 1978, p. 99.

22.  In spite the fact that since the 1970s, about one half of the Jewish women has not served in the IDF. Hazleton, 1978, p. 118.  

23.  The same argument applies to other social cleavages in Israel. See Yagil Levi, 1997. Trial and Error: Israel’s Route from War to De-escalation. New York: State University of New York Press.

24.  Stuart A. Cohen, 1997. The Scroll or the Sword? Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishers, pp. 91-3.

25.  Most of the amendments are giving exemptions of compulsory service to women of all religions and some Jewish men on religious grounds.

26.  Boaz Shapira, 1984. Order in the Public Agenda-Setting. Tel Aviv: an unpublished MA thesis [Hebrew].

27.  Doron & Shoenkar-Scherk, 1998, p. 32.

28.  Amir Rappaport, “Revolution in the IDF: Hundreds of Top Officer Jobs would Be Open to Women.” Yedioth Acharonoth, September 24, 1999, p. 1.

29.  Peter Braestrup, 1985. Battle Lines. Report of the Twentieth Century Fund Task Force on the Military and the Media. New York: Priority Press Publications.

30.  At the first steps, managers of the TV networks thought that women, as reporters and anchors, are a very creative and interesting gimmick. Liz Trotta, 1991. Fighting for Air. In the Trenches with Television News. New York: Simon & Schuster, pp. 175-6. 

31.  Mitchel P. Roth, 1997. Historical Dictionary of War Journalism. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, p. 89. 

32.  As Lady Sara Wilson of Mafeking smuggled on a regular basis dispatches about the siege on her hometown in the Boer War. Roth, 1997, pp. 193-4. 

33.  Christine Martin, 1998. War Stories: Women Correspondents Battle to Cover Vietnam Conflict. A paper presented at the AEJMC conference.

34.  Trotta, 1991, p. 196.

35.  See, for example, Anne Johnston, 1993. “Media Coverage of Women in the Gulf War.” In Robert E. Denton (ed.), The Media and the Persian Gulf War. Westport, CT: Praeger, pp. 197-212; Julie Wheelwright, 1994. "'’It Was Exactly Like the Movies!’ The Media’s Use of the Feminine During the Gulf War.” In Elisabetta Addis, Valeria E. Russo, & Lorenza Sebesta (eds). Women Soldiers. Images and Realities. New York: St. Martin’s Press, pp. 111-136. 
 
36.  Georgia C. Sadler, 1997. “Women in Combat: The U.S. Military and the Impact of the Persian Gulf War.” in Weinstein & White (eds.), 1997, pp. 79-97.
   
37.  Dafna Lemish, 1997. “Equally rated in the Media: A Feminist Look on the Israeli Media.” In Dan Caspi (ed.). Communication and Democracy in Israel. Jerusalem & Tel Aviv: The van Leer Institute & HaKibbutz HaMeuchad Publishers [Hebrew], pp. 125-7.

38.  Lemish, 1997, p. 128. 
  
39.  Chayim Tal, 1997. Zikaron Zevai Mesuyam [hereafter – Tal, 1997].

40.  General Lipkin-Shachak was promoted to Chief-of-Staff, and now is a Lt.-General retired. He serves as Israel’s Minister of Tourism. Ms. Lipkin-Shachak is again a reporter with the Ma’ariv daily. 

41.  The very marriage of General Lipkin-Shachak and a military affairs reporter is merely an example to this impossible setting.

42.  ISSCT 29/62 Shalom Cohen v. The Minister of Defense and other three. Piskey Din [Decisions of the ISSCT] 17 (1962), at 1025-36. To the best of my knowledge, there is no official translation of the ISSCT decisions.

43.  Rabin is covering now military courts for Ma’ariv.

44.  A BBC-like organization founded in 1965 to operate radio and TV stations – among them the Kol Yisrael radio and the Israeli TV. 

45.  The agreement was on the background of the 1967-70 War of Attrition in which the IDF launched several retaliatory raids on Arab countries (e.g., the September 1969 raid on the western – Egyptian – coast of the Red Sea). In some of these raids Israeli reporters were given right to accompany on an individual basis, or as a pool-person for the local and/or foreign media.

46.  For a blatant critic of the agreement, see Moshe Negbi, 1985. A Paper Tiger. Tel Aviv: Sifriyat Poalim Publishers [Hebrew].

47.  IBA's military affairs reporter in the 1960s and 1970s. Now with the Yedioth Acharonoth daily.

48.  IBA's military affairs reporter in the 1960s and 1970s. In the Second Gulf War was – as Brig.-General – the IDF Spokesperson. Now he is the director general, Israeli Ministry of Culture and Sports.

49.  Tal, 1997.

50.  The British left Israel with a legacy of anti-freedom of expression legislation to a point that Israel is a paradise for censors. The Military Censorship is merely one agency of censorship. Negbi, 1965.

51.  Abuse of the IMC had been ruled as illegal by the ISSCT as early as 1954 and 1989. ISSCT 73/53 and 87/53, and Kol HaAm v. The Minister of Interiors, 680/88 Meir Schnitzer, et al. v. The Chief Military Censor, et al. 

52.  In this regar director David Cronenberg is quoted as saying, “Censors tend to what only psychotics do: they confuse reality with illusions.”

53.  That was the ground for the British court ruling in the case of Peter Wright’s, Spycatcher in the mid-1980s.

54.  Gaye Tuchman, 1978. Making News. A Study in the Construction of Reality. New York: The Free Press; Johan Galtung & Mary H. Ruge, 1970. “The Structure of Foreign News.” In Jeremy Tunstall (ed.). Media Sociology. London: Constable, pp. 259-98.

55.  See for example, Eviathar H. Ben-Zedeff, 1996. “Did the Israeli Press Provide Enough Warning of the Upcoming Yom Kippur War?” Politics, Communication, & Society 3, [Hebrew], pp. 27-64.
  
56.  Yoel Ben-Porat, 1991. Neila: Locked-on. Tel Aviv: Edanim {hebrew]. 

57.  Of them are Generals Yitzhak Mordechay (ex-Minister of Defense) and Amnon Lipkin-Shachak.

58.  Tal, 1997.

59.  Upon preparing to leave for the States, in early October, I read the Israeli papers announcing that Mr. Daniel is going to be director General of the Second Israeli Authority for TV and Radio. He is Mr. Shay’s successor. 

60.  As Ronnie Daniel confessed in Tal, 1997.

61.  In mid-Summer 1999, a similar accident took place. Hashim Mahamid – an Arab member of the Knesset – joined the F&DAC. At the first meeting of the committee, a general briefed the members, and the Israeli press reported that MK Mahamid showed his lack of understanding in military affairs by not being able to decipher military acronyms. 

62.  Col. (res.) Ben-Yishay is in his late fifties. He served for a long time in the Israeli infantry. 
  ISSCT 1284/99, An anonymous female v. The IDF Chief-of-Staff, The Minister of Defense, et al.

63.  Thus, upon telling their own stories of heroism, they mention their fallen friends, but ignore fallen foreign journalists during covering Israeli-Arab wars. This author speculates that they even do not know about those fallen journalists.  

64.  The other journalist won an IDF medal is Ben-Yishay. He was decorated in 1974 with Zalash Ramatkal  -- citation by the CoS – for organizing medical evacuation under fire of wounded reserve paratroopers west of the Suez Canal, in the Yom Kippur War. However, Ben-Yishay won his medal for his valor during noble, but non-journalistic, accomplishments. 

65.  One of them even keeps his commission in the Israeli infantry, and speaks about his wish to be promoted.

66.  For example, Ron Ben-Yishay of Yedioth Acharonoth graduated the Haifa Military Academy in the early 1960s. Some of his classmates have become generals.

67.  The most blatant example of those changes is the treatment of lesbian and homosexuals in the armed services.