"The journalists, whose names are Ron Ben-Yishai, Tsur Shezaf, and Lisa Goldman, had travelled to either Lebanon or Syria to report on stories in the region."

They are lucky they weren't kidnapped and held for ransom. Had they been kidnapped then their families would have lobbied the country to give in to blackmail.

This is someting brain dead Tikkunites who don't even live in Israel don't understand or don't care.

"A democracy should not cage its citizens for the sake of potential threats. One may expect such laws in countries like Iran, Egypt, North Korea, and Saudi Arabia, but not from a country that proudly proclaims it is the only democracy in the Middle East."

These countries don't allow their journalists to come to Israel for political and not for security reasons.

The situations are not comparable.

Here is a salient difference the journalist and others in Israel who were not allowed to travel to countries at war with Israel can complain about it openly in the Israeli press. There have been many articles about it published in Haaretz and other Israeli papers.

The Arab journalists who can't travel to Israel are not allowed to write about it in their press.  

No, Le Roi Ben Yehuda, the two situations are not comparable.

i disaggree for the following:

1) it is illegal

2) the enforcment takes place when the phenomena seem to grow  and to become a  problem

3)Dual citizenship does not protect an israeli citizen from  getting into trouble in an enemy contry.

4)When this happened , the israel goverment  is expected by the victim to bail him/her out  either by diplomatic negotiation (through a third party) or by rescue operation ( with life thretening situation to the rescue team and the local citizens) or by exchange with terrorists.

5) More over, also the Isreali public expect government involvment in rescue the victim  ( in the tradition of "bnei Israel arevim za laze")

6) there were 3 cases like that in the past , one ended with a relatively small "price" and the other 2 took much effort and resources  including blood

7) it can end up in a war (some times a small trigger is the begining of a war - many examples in history)

 8) journalism can be a cover for espionage ( some ofthe great spys//) so when it come to enemy country which  is involved in an going blood war with Israel ( see last summer)  one  must be carfull.

In summary , hostile borders are missery to the  citizens in both sides including ( but certainly not the wrost of it all) prevention of free travel for  family visits, buisness, schooling , tourism, ecollogy cooperation, health treatment as welll as  journalism 

Mina – I disagree with your disagreement…

Yes, you are right.  This is illegal but this is a pretty miserable law.  Let’s change it.

Don’t just settle with a summary that hostile borders are misery.  Of course they are.  But how do we find the breakthrough that puts an end to this hostility!?   Certainly not through crying about this misery.  The only way is to take actions, brave actions, which can really move this wagon out of the mad.  Remember Anuar Saadat in 1977?  That was an action!   I’m not advocating to break the law but laws like this really keep this county in the state of stagnation that, eventually, costs the lives of our children.

These journalists did a brave action, risking their lives, and I command them for that.  Hopefully, with our help, their action may contribute to a change that will get us closer to getting out of this ‘hostile borders misery’.

You are writing on a very important subject and you are dead right about it!

Just suppose and imagine where would Israel be if the government would  have used the state power to prevent journalists from visiting  'certain places' with the pretext of keeping them safe..."  So, they'll all stay in Tel - Aviv and not report during war or even peaceful times; they'll all be part of a protected environment absent the violence and confrontational activity out there.... ...Is it reasonable?   Yes, if you are a Third World  developing country of Asia, Africa, and Latin America.…  I find it unsettling and disturbing when talking about Israel.

I would like to thank the people that risk their lives in order for us to learn about my friends, enemies and governments. 

There has actually never been a single case of an Israeli civilian being abducted and held for ransom in an enemy state that s/he entered using a foreign passport. That does not mean the scenario is impossible, but there are precedents that show it is highly unlikely.

One recent precedent occurred in October 2002, when a French-Israeli journalist named Gideon Kouts covered the Francophone Summit in Beirut as a reporter accredited for a French-Jewish newspaper. Kouts' Israeli nationality was exposed when several Lebanese reporters at the summit heard him conducting a telephone conversation in Hebrew. The agitated Lebanese reporters surrounded Kouts, who was protected by the security guards at the conference. Kouts was stripped of his credentials for the conference because he had "caused an uproar" and was suspected of filing a story for an Israeli media outlet, for which he was not accredited. Interestingly, the Lebanese authorities did not arrest him or deport him. Even more interestingly, UNESCO and Reporters Without Borders lodged an official protest with the Lebanese authorities', citing freedom of the press, over their decision to strip Kouts of his press credentials.

A second precedent occurred in October of this year, when an Israeli-German named Daniel Sharon was arrested by the Lebanese police and held for about three weeks. Sharon's release was negotiated by the German authorities, since Sharon entered Lebanon on his German passport (as I entered Lebanon on my Canadian passport). There was no talk of hostage exchanges, and the Israeli authorities were not involved in the negotiations for Sharon's release. The full story is here.

As I wrote in my response to the investigation for Haaretz, the example of Elhanan Tennenbaum is not comparable to mine. Tennenbaum was a former high-ranking officer in the IDF intelligence corps who was abducted by the Hezbollah in Dubai, then transferred to Lebanon. Three years later, he was traded for 400 political prisoners held in Israel. Dubai is not classified as an enemy state - in fact, lots of Israelis do business there. Tennenbaum was, according to his own admission, trying to do a drug deal in Dubai - but his contact was actually a Hezbollah agent. Since Tennenbaum had access to classified information, the Israeli authorities needed to obtain his release in order to discover what - if any- state secrets he might have revealed to the Hezbollah under torture. Finally, Tennenbaum does not have alternate citizenship so he was indeed solely Israel's responsibility.

In any case, Israel is under no obligation to trade political prisoners for abducted civilians. Instead of forbidding travel to enemy states, the government could require them to sign a waiver absolving the state of any responsibility for the journalist's welfare.

I do believe this law needs to be re-examined, for several reasons.

First, it is not logical. Israelis can be abducted anywhere in the world, and there is no evidence to suggest that they are more likely to be abducted while visiting an enemy state.

Second, the law limits freedom of the press. Only about 10 percent of Israelis know English well enough to follow reports about the Arab world in the Western media. But even if language were not an issue, surely Israelis deserve the right to first-hand reporting about their neighbouring states, from their own perspective. After all, all the Arab media outlets have reporters in Israel. Why should Arabic speakers have the right to first-hand information about Israel, from their perspective and in their own language, while Israelis must rely on translated second-hand reports?

Third, as Roi points out in his article, by limiting freedom of the press Israel is undermining its own democracy. One of the cornerstones of a thriving democratic society is an unfettered press. To me, this investigation smells like the government trying to control the press by frightening reporters with threats of jail sentences. After all, Israelis with dual citizenship have for years been traveling in their thousands to enemy states on their alternate passports. There are far too many precedents to list here. Most of the time we do not hear about this, because in the Middle East we play a silly little game of "don't ask, don't tell." But the fact is that the Law to Prevent Infiltration has never been enforced.

And finally, I think it is very important to question the police's assertion that Israeli reporters compromised the security of the state. There is simply no evidence to support that statement. Unfortunately, however, too many Israelis stop asking questions when the word "security" is mentioned. We assume that the authorities have our best interests at heart and that they know more than we do. Based on my experience, however, this is not always the case. Indeed, it is too often not the case at all.

Let us not subvert democracy in the name of security, especially when security is not really the issue.

Lisa Goldman

"One recent precedent occurred in October 2002, when a French-Israeli journalist named Gideon Kouts covered the Francophone Summit in Beirut as a reporter accredited for a French-Jewish newspaper. Kouts' Israeli nationality was exposed when several Lebanese reporters at the summit heard him conducting a telephone conversation in Hebrew. The agitated Lebanese reporters surrounded Kouts, who was protected by the security guards at the conference."

So Israel has no freedom of the press because it doesn't allow its reporters to risk abduction in countries with which it is at war. Aran countries like Lebanon even when their reporters have Israeli reporters arrested for speaking Hebrew do have freedom of the press.

Why would any sane reporters risk being abducted in the name of "freedom of the press?" And if they want to take the chance why should Israel be forced to trade them for terrorists?

I would force reporters and their family memebrs, who want to go to Lebanon to sign an affidavit stating that Israel is not responsible for their safety and they will not demand to be excahnged for terrorists in case of their being abducted.

Shriber, you have completely missed the point. The Lebanese security officials actually protected Gideon Kouts from the reporters who tried to mob him when they heard him speaking Hebrew. Furthermore, the Lebanese authorities did not expel Kouts from the country, even after they knew he was an Israeli citizen. They stripped him of his press accreditation for the Francophone Summit - an act that was condemned by UNESCO and several other NGO's as a violation of freedom of the press.

As for your suggestion that Israelis wishing to visit enemy states on their foreign passports sign a waiver releasing the government from responsibility for their well-being, I agree. That is precisely what I suggested in my comment, and in my piece for Haaretz.

Firstly, it appears that the IPL is a poorly constructed law providing for too much variability in interpretation and implementation (and hence potential abuse by the authorities) and is generally inconsistent with democratic principles. Secondly, what certainly comes across as the intimidation of its own journalists can be seen as a far greater threat to Israel's international reputation and its security than an Israeli jounalist without security clearance being held hostage in an 'enemy country'. If the government is concerned about preventing espionage, then it should use laws designed specifically for this purpose. Using a mostly unenforceable law in an arbitrary manner that appears to be designed to inhibit free press through underhanded intimidation of jounalists, and possibly for the purpose of inhibiting the journalistic investigation of issues that many feel the current Israeli government may have an interest in surpressing (its blunders in the recent war in Lebanon), makes for a reputation smelling of corruption far more destructive to Israel's international support and security than a kidnapped journalist (if that were to happen), which could, ironically, increase sympathy for Israel (not that I'm recommending it).

"One may expect such laws in countries like Iran, Egypt, North Korea,
and Saudi Arabia, but not from a country that proudly proclaims it is
the only democracy in the Middle East."

I'm sure North Korea too proudly proclaims that it is
the only democracy. Anyone who proudly proclaims things like that is to be expected to behave like a hypocritical son of a bitch.

Is it Israel?  North Korea?

The question aroused by the police's assertion that Israeli reporters compromised the security of the state is troublesome Why the same question did not  bother the German's government while they negotiated the release of Sharon? Is Israel  so unique, being the only one of its kind; unlike any other country, in protecting their citizens?  Why is it even a question if the government should protect their citizens? They must do so without compromising the freedom of the press!

I hope that people in Israel whom thrives on secrecy will support and help the journalists to uncover the secrets, by an organized public demonstration expressing strong objection to the policy and  course of action adopted  by the government.

Both. Is what I wrote really so difficult to understand?

"Shriber, you have completely missed the point. The Lebanese security officials actually protected Gideon Kouts from the reporters who tried to mob him when they heard him speaking Hebrew."

I got your point Lisa.

But please pay attention to the irony in your post.

Security officials follow orders. If they protected the Israelis it was because the current government is inclined not to create an international incident. Government policies are subject to change.

However, reporters are supposed to believe in the freedom of the press. This isn't supposed to change. If these reporters were threatening their Israeli colleagues that means that Israeli reporters will never be safe in Lebanon. Not until the country begins to tolerate open dissenting views.

This time the Israeli reporters were saved, what will happen next time when the security forces have different orders or are under the management of Hizbollah?

You can't take one incident which ended peacefully as an indication that Israeli reporters will always be safe in Lebanon.

They, you, can go of course, but don't come crying to me when  there is a tragic outcome.

"The question aroused by the police's assertion that Israeli reporters compromised the security of the state is troublesome Why the same question did not  bother the German's government while they negotiated the release of Sharon? "

Israel and Lebanon are in a state of war. Germany is not.

Although Hebrew is my first language, I often read Lisa Goldman's (English) blog since I find her views on Israel insightful and original. However, I think both Lisa and Roi Ben-Yehuda are playing outsiders' lack of knowledge on the Israeli situation to their advantage. Two things everyone who knows Israel can tell you about this story:

1. Lisa Goldman nor anyone else of these journalists will not spend a single day in any jail, regardless of how good their lawyer is. Some of the top journalists in Israel did similar reports, and they have the backing of people far more powerful in this country than any policeman, judge or politician. I believe Lisa knows that full well.

2. Hezbollah at the past did take civilian Israelis hostage, leading to years of negotiations in order to release them - in exchage for hundreds of Hezbollah militants. This is the "security risk" the police refers to, not the risk of having Hezbollah probe Goldman's detailed knowledge of Tel Aviv cafes. The cases of Kouts or Daniel Sharon only go to show the threat is real.

I think Lisa & Roi know this story is getting such attention not because she's an intrepid journalist in an oppressive regime, but because stories who present Israel as less-than-democratic appeal to a great number of people. You can count on this page being Digged, Reddited or at least Daily-Kossed in the near future, if it wasn't already. The truth is anyone who reads Israeli media knows its far more critical & powerful (and significantly less professional) than most nations'.

Hi Nir,

 Of course we all know that I am not going to serve any jail time because I wrote about the cafes and clubs of Beirut for a Tel Aviv magazine. And of course we all know that the attorney general's office would have to try dozens of Israeli reporters if they really wanted to show they were serious about this law. The reason I am so outraged by this silly interrogation is this: I have very good reason to believe it is a politically motivated, possibly personal, vendetta, and it just pains me to see the ISCU wasting time and resources investigating me and two other journalists when they are supposed to be concentrating on going after organized crime, corrupt politicians and shady, money-laundering oligarchs.

When an Israeli criticizes his country, it's because he wants to make it a better place. When a so-called "Progressive" leftist criticizes Israel, it's in order to further the Zionistcolonialistdoesn'tdeservetoexist agenda. I know this story will be twisted and blown out of proportion by those people. But if I were to stay silent about this utterly shameful investigation it could get really out of hand. I don't want to be made an example of in order to further the personal vendetta of a frustrated civil servant (see the last two paragraphs of my article in Haaretz for details). That is why I want to highlight and publicize the absurdity of the investigation.

 BTW, I'm very glad you enjoy my blog. :)

Best,

Lisa 

This is horrible!  I think the reason that these journalists are being persecuted is because they are journalists- people feel threatened by others writing the truth.  To be told that you aren't allowed to explore the rest of the world is controlling.  Everyone can run the risk of being abducted or hurt in some way.  Even those who think they are in a safe environment.  I think to try to stop the gaining of knowledge, and that's what the Israeli government is doing, is a crime. 

"This is horrible!  I think the reason that these journalists are being persecuted is because they are journalists- people feel threatened by others writing the truth."

No this is not the reason the journalist were questioned. They wersn't being persecuted. You also don't know what persecution is, do you?

Kudos to Roi Ben-Yehuda for this article, and also to Lisa Goldman for her engagement of the essence of democracy: dissent not for the sake of dissent, but in the interest of change for the better.
 
As a Muslim, I have oft looked to Israel not as my enemy, but as a state its "enemies" can learn from. I certainly find fault with Israel at times; but one thing I have always recognized is the capacity Israelis have to criticize their own community. This is something that lands us dissenting Muslims on hit lists - yet it is something that we must learn to do. The law in question is inconsistent with democracy. I congratulate and support those who use the best of what democracy has to offer in order to give the rest of us hope for the region. When Israelis dissent with their establishment - it inspires me to do the same with my own.

I think that the freedom of the press should be the highest value of a democracy otherwise secrecy and corruption will grow like a cancer not being exposed.  Freedom of the press is the main argument but not the only one.  The exposure that millions of people will get from this story and the perception of Israel’s way of democracy will be questioned.  In today’s world so much effort is spent on image that cases like this are not worth the tarnished image they leave.  The law seems to be outdated and probably needs to be revised or completely abolished. Things are evolving so fast, but you still see outdated laws being enforced.  There are higher risks of being abducted but risks are everywhere.  What Lisa and the other journalists did was a brave act, I believe if I was a citizen of  Israel I would highly appreciate the courage of these people and I would look forward to seeing their work to get their perspective whether I agree with it or not.

I am a Jordanian-American citizen who spent my whole life hoping for peace in the Middle East. We need to end the misery that all Israelis and Palestinians must live under. I think it’s a shame that another generation will pass without seeing the end of all these hostilities.  Many people I have met around the world would want nothing more than being able to come and visit the Holy Land. I don’t know what Lisa Goldman writes about and why she has been chosen to take the fall but I believe that it is courageous efforts like hers, her colleagues and articles like this by Roi who make me feel like peace is not only possible, but very close.

Your comment in fact shows theexistence of brave people ready to analyze, create a change and sometimes critique.  

Withpeople from both sides that have a deep commitment, and are preparedto defend and advocate phenomena, there is chance for a change,a true possibility of something happening is only with open mind and courage. 

that Israel and its government would be placed under tremendous pressure to bring home those three journalists had they been captured. As we saw not too long ago, this is a costly and terrible endeavor, we would not want another Lebanon, thus I see the governments value in forbidding its citizens to walk into the heart of darkness as it were. However, Roi, does make some amazing points, and this article is VERY well written. I’m an avid reader of Jewcy and I see this guy’s work every once in a while, wish he was here even more, he is funny and poignant.

Good Stuff!

"...the real issue here is the wisdom, utility, and
justness of this law. ...an amendment was added to the law which forbid
Israelis from travelling to enemy states without permission of the
government (permission that is rarely given)."

"In a healthy
and vital democracy the role of the press is to keep the government
accountable by giving the people reliable and independent information
about their world. When the government bars its journalist from
investigating for themselves the reality of their neighbors, it weakens
its democratic character."

Both extremely valid points, and the main reasons for my continued interest in learning more as this story continues to unfold.

"(permission that is rarely given)" - Have you statistics to qualify this? I don't mean to be cheeky, but this is rather vague. The structure of your arguments to why this is an unjust law is based on the assertion that it will result in limiting access to information and ultimately free speech. If, in fact, permission is attainable, then it rather disqualifies the argument that the law will be responsible for censure of the press. Have you reliable information in this regard to support your argument?

Remember the Munich Athletes!

Remember Entebbe!

Any and all Israelis are always at risk of abduction. So long as Israel is in a state of war, its citizens need to understand that certain behaviors and freedoms that are taken for granted in other parts of the world are inappropriate for the exceptional conditions of war and DO NOT APPLY here. There WILL be peace, just not immediately. The Jewish nation waited thousands of years to come back home, and we should know that we are capable of waiting a little longer until our current situation stabilizes. W

THE FLY WHO VISITED THE PRIME MINISTER'S RESIDENCE
by Nadia Matar

I dreamed a dream. I dreamed about a fly who understood human speech. In my dream I see the fly coming through a window into the Prime Minister's residence, where it encounters Ehud Olmert and his guest, President Shimon Peres. This is the conversation between those two Israeli leaders:

Shimon Peres:
Listen, Ehud, Abu Mazen will be arriving here shortly with Condoleezza Rice, and they expect you to explain to them how to solve the problem of the settlers. They want to hear a detailed program of how we will throw the 250,000 settlers from their homes, in order to transfer them from the territories to little Israel. Have you prepared such a program?

Ehud Olmert:
Shimon, listen, we have a problem. Only Ariel Sharon was capable of carrying out a program of loading settlers on trucks and expelling them, as he did in Yamit and later in Gush Katif and northern Samaria. I don't have Sharon's strength, charisma, and backing to carry out such a plan. So what do you suggest? What should I do?

Shimon Peres:
My dear friend, I have an idea.

The fly sees how Shimon Peres draws close to Olmert and whispers into his ear at length, at length. Olmert listens, internalizes, and smiles, satisfied. Shimon Peres leaves the room, Abu Mazen and Condoleezza Rice enter.

Abu Mazen approaches Olmert and says:
Ehud, let's get right down to business. The only obstacle in the way of establishing a Palestinian state is the settlement enterprise. As long as there are settlers in the territories, we will not be able to establish our state. You promised us a plan for their removal. What is it?

Ehud Olmert:
My dear Abu, due to various circumstances, we cannot repeat the scenario of Sharon's disengagement. This simply won't work. And so, the plan is that we will create a situation in which the settlers will leave of their own free will.

Abu Mazen:
Dir balak [a common curse in Arabic], what a lot of nonsense. You know very well that most of the settlers are idealists, they love what they call their land, and it doesn't matter how much money you offer, they will never leave.

Ehud Olmert:
But if we cause them to leave....
Let me explain the details of the plan. The architects of the plan are Shimon Peres and Yossi Beilin, who have already been hard at work on it for a long time: we intend to transfer to you as the head of the Palestinian Authority, dozens of armored cars, thousands of rifles, and two million bullets. We will explain to Israel's citizens that you need this weaponry in order to contend with the enemies of the Palestinian Authority. The Israeli citizens will assume that we mean the members of Hamas.

But you and I know that it is the settlers who are both your and our enemies. They are in your way because they are an obstacle to the Palestinian state. They bother us, because they and their camp represent the Jews who cleave to the values of Zionism and their Jewish heritage. Once and for all, we must finish what we began with the Altalena, and ensure that this camp will never again take power. The elimination of the settlement enterprise will be such a great blow for them that they will never be able to recover from it. With our weapons you will be able to launch numerous terror attacks against the settlers and against the IDF soldiers who serve in the territories.

Day after day we will hear the news about terror victims and funerals - and so we will create a situation in which the settlers' lives will turn into a hell on earth. At the same time, the Four Mothers' movement will come to life and demand that the IDF be removed from the territories. The Israeli media, that is mobilized on behalf of the establishment of a Palestinian state, will do its part, as usual, and so, I hope, after a few months, most of the settlers will leave the hell we will make for them, of their own free will. We will know how to deal with the hard core that will remain under any conditions, with determination, and without sensitivity.

Abu Mazen:
Wow, Ehud, you little genius! Now I understand why you agreed to release hundreds of our soldiers whom you had imprisoned. In this way, they will have another chance to carry out their mission: to kill Jews!

However, the settlers have guns. Don't you think that they will oppose us and fight back?

Ehud Olmert:
Don't worry. We thought about this, too. In about two months, in the beginning of February, a direct order will be issued to all the settlers who have been given blue documents (those who have been given permission to bear weapons in their settlement for guarding) that they have to return their permits. This will greatly reduce the number of settlers permitted to bear arms, and so you will be able to act almost unhindered. So that the settlers won't understand that this is a death trap, we have decided to give those with yellow documents permission to bear their weapons. Those settlers will be permitted to take their weapon and go anywhere with it. But the number of yellow document holders is minuscule, and so you don't have anything to worry about. I am certain that you will be able to take care of them.

But my dear Abu Mazen, before you become too enthusiastic - there is a condition and limitation to this entire plan.

Abu Mazen:
And what is that?

Ehud Olmert:
That this time, you will use the weapons we give you only against settlers and soldiers in the territories. And, of course, against the inhabitants of Jerusalem, because we realize that you also want Jerusalem, as well. But don't repeat the mistake you made in the past, when you began to murder us Israelis in Tel Aviv. You remember what happened in the nineties. Peres and Rabin signed the Oslo Accords. They brought Arafat and his gang, and gave them weapons for the clear purpose that this weaponry would be directed exclusively against the settlers, so that they would leave the territories. But Arafat's people were too happy and excited, and they began to use the weapons against the inhabitants of Gush Dan as well. This greatly annoyed Peres and Rabin. What, just like that, to murder the inhabitants of Gush Dan? That's going too far! And so we were forced to set aside the Oslo Accords.

Now we are giving you another chance. This time, you will honor the understanding between us: you are receiving weapons on condition that they will be directed only against settlers and soldiers in the territories and in Jerusalem. If, Heaven forbid, you dare to touch a single hair of a single Tel Avivian - we will not agree to the establishment of a Palestinian state. Right, Ms. Condoleezza Rice? You, too, agree to this plan?

Condoleezza Rice:
Yes, sir! Very good! I like it!

Ehud Olmert:
Obviously, the details of this plan cannot leave this room. Because unfortunately, according to all the polls, a majority of the Israeli public vehemently opposes the establishment of a Palestinian state. So I must take a different tack in order to lull the public. For example, I will soon have to allow the IDF to enter Gaza, in order to pretend that I am fighting terror. Don't worry. We won't kill more than a few low-level Kassam launch teams and then we will leave. This will divert the public's attention from our plan in the territories.

And so I beg you: don't leak what was spoken here. If the contents of our meeting are leaked to the public, the settler community and their many supporters in Israel are still liable to rise up, storm the barricades, and bring down the government - which will stop the establishment of the Palestinian state.

Condoleezza:
Don't worry! There's no one in the room with us, except a little fly....

Condoleezza Rice and Abu Mazen shake Olmert's hand and leave the room.
The fly follows them. In the corridor Condoleezza tells Abu Mazen:
Great! Olmert is acting just as we expected. We will use him to establish your Palestinian state with Jerusalem as your capital. When this is accomplished, we will move on to Phase Two of our plan: the elimination of the State of Israel. I recommend beginning Phase Two with Kassam launches at the Ben-Gurion airport. You will be able to launch the Kassams from the ruins of the settlements, just as you are doing now in Gaza. This stage will come in the future.

Clearly, we must be patient. Today, we must focus on the war against the Zionist entity, within the '48 borders, as well. Don't forget to monetarily reward the 25 Arab families from Um-El-Fahem that want to build houses within the Jewish settlement of Mei-Ami. They, too, are taking action for the elimination of the State of Israel as a Jewish state, and we must reward them, just the same as we reward the Kassam launch teams.

Abu Mazen hugs Condoleezza, smiles, and goes out to his automobile. The fly follows him to the car. From his car, Abu Mazen calls someone, and says:

Osama ... everything is going according to plan. Condoleezza is putting pressure on Olmert, and the plan for the elimination of Israel is being implemented. She thinks that she will thereby save the United States from the Islamic jihad. As if the elimination of Israel will satisfy us! She isn't any smarter than Olmert. Go for it - you can begin to plan our intifada in Europe and the United States. They will yet long for 9/11! Allah Akhbar!

Abu Mazen closes his cell phone, brushes away the fly, and crushes it against the window. He starts his car and drives away.

I woke up, and I turned on the radio. The Israel Radio News announced that the Olmert government plans to give the Palestinian Authority 50 armored cars, thousands of rifles, and two million bullets....

I'm not surprised that this happened. Israeli authorities are in a constant state of alertness and are easily provoked - for that reason, I can't condemn them for their actions in this case. Yes, the reasons for their reaction could have been sinister and political. On the other hand, they may have honestly thought they were doing the right thing for their citizens. We won't ever know that. Either way, it is important to draw attention to situation for the sake of discourse, full-disclosure, and a clear understanding of the law. So, Roi Ben-Yehuda and the journalists affected are justified in making noise about it.

No, journalists should not be prevented from traveling where they wish. There should however, be some measure of control. A signed waiver, as mentioned above, in which journalists acknowledge that their release will not be negotiated for, seems like the best solution.

On Roi's blog, one reader wrote, “I am ashamed that it is even a question that people are still
debating about.” I, too, think it’s a silly thing to debate–a veritable
no-brainer. A government that limits freedom of press is a government
with something to hide, or at least that is how it will be perceived.
It really isn’t to their benefit UNLESS THEY HAVE SOMETHING TO HIDE.
Those who wish to suppress the press usually say either, “X must remain
secret for the sake of National security,” or “Journalists cannot X for
the sake of their own protection.” The first justification is stronger
than the second, and justifiable as long as the data in question
eventually, and in a reasonable time frame, becomes declassified. The
second justification is a form of paternalism. The funny thing about
paternalism (at least in America; I’m sure Israel has it’s equivalents)
is that people pick and choose when they want to apply it. When
protecting people hurts big business, Republicans are against it, e.g.
workers’ rights. When it comes to protecting people from the shameless
Jenna Jameson, they are all for it. Journalists are usually educated
and at least somewhat rational. They understand the risks, weigh
consequences, and act as they see fit. This is very different from
something like euthanasia, where decisions are made under strain,
discomfort, or fear. We see the effects of press-restraint in the so
called “war” in Iraq. The coverage is so tepid, the imagery so watered
down, that Americans who don’t have family members in the military
forget that there is a “war” going on while we Christmas-shop for our
obese children.

"I, too, think it’s a silly thing to debate–a veritable no-brainer. A government that limits freedom of press is a government with something to hide, or at least that is how it will be perceived."

You'd have more credibility if you had posted this in your own name.

Your post is full of furious abstraction signifying nothing concrete.

Firstly, Israel a country where people are continuously exposed to deadly terror attacks is hardly a nanny state. This libertarian term may apply to stable democracies were people take security for granted but not to embattled societies.

Secondly, Israeli reporters are among the most free in the world. They can and do criticize even the military in times of war.

Thirdly, the few restrictions in place have more to do with the ramifications of the actions of people like Lisa Goldman than with her as a reporter.

If Lisa wants to expose  herself to being kidnapped and killed, that is her business. However, she has no right to allow herself to be used as a bargaining chip that will adversly affect the security of her country.

Not allowing her to go to a country with which Israel is at war is hardly a sign of the nanny State.

Another sordid affair by the very same police force which sent investigators all the way to South America to "interrogate" a 20 year old girl, because the Minister of Justice, Haim Ramon, tried to kiss her for 3 seconds. The Zionist garrison state strikes again with its self-imposed besieged Ghetto mentality, this time targeting some of its finest reporters who are simply going about doing their job, bringing Israelis much needed coverage from within the region. Shame on Israeli legislators and police. Superbly written article by a first class journalist and writer. Would love to see more articles by Ben Yehuda.

great article.  Hope that will help somehow the 3 journalists.

"The Zionist garrison state strikes again with its self-imposed besieged Ghetto mentality, this time targeting some of its finest reporters who are simply going about doing their job, bringing Israelis much needed coverage from within the region."

If it's a "garrison State" than how come it has a free press?

The ghetto mentality is in your imagination, the Jews of Israel are free to criticize their government and many do so all the time.

You are just a Jew hating idiot.

As for investigating the Minister of Justice, how can a "garrison State" with a "ghetto mentality"  investigate a high government official in that thought controlled country?

 Are you this dense on all subjects, Tal?