Secret meetings between top editors from the BBC, The Guardian, The Financial Times, and Sky News with an Israeli general just weeks after October 7, 2023, have sparked concerns over media impartiality and potential influence operations. The revelation, uncovered by Declassified UK, sheds new light on the relationship between Britain’s press and the Israeli military, which is currently under investigation for genocide at the International Court of Justice (ICJ).
The Meeting and Its Purpose
Documents obtained by Declassified UK reveal that General Aviv Kohavi, who served as the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) Chief of Staff until early 2023, visited London on November 7, 2023—exactly one month after Hamas’ attack on Israel. During his visit, he held private discussions with key figures in the British media, including The Guardian’s editor Katharine Viner, senior officials at the BBC, the editor of the Financial Times, and executives at Sky News.
The documents indicate that the purpose of Kohavi’s visit was to secure support for Israel’s ongoing military operations in Gaza. According to the records, the meetings were considered “highly important” for influencing individuals who could impact the “legitimacy of the State of Israel in the Iron Swords War,” the Israeli term for its military campaign in Gaza.
This meeting took place at a time when thousands of Palestinians had already been killed in Israeli strikes. The revelation that influential British media figures met with an Israeli general under these circumstances has led to accusations that they participated, knowingly or unknowingly, in an Israeli influence campaign.
Additional Findings and Analysis
According to Middle East Eye, the meeting aligns with a broader trend of Israeli efforts to shape international media coverage of the war. The report highlights how Israeli officials have maintained close relationships with major Western media outlets, providing them with exclusive briefings and access while ensuring that narratives favorable to Israel dominate coverage. The outlet also noted that media executives in Britain have faced little public scrutiny over their ties to Israeli officials, raising concerns over transparency and editorial independence.
Electronic Intifada further expanded on this issue, stating that Kohavi’s meetings with British media executives fit into a pattern of Israel’s long-term media strategy. The site referenced past cases where Israeli officials provided “exclusive” information to journalists in order to frame events in a way that benefits Israeli public relations efforts. The publication also pointed out that Palestinian voices, particularly those directly affected by the conflict, have been largely absent from mainstream British media coverage, suggesting an imbalance in reporting.
In response to growing scrutiny, the BBC and The Guardian have defended their participation in these meetings, emphasizing that engagement with political and military figures from all sides is part of their journalistic responsibilities. However, Declassified UK pointed out that there is no evidence these outlets have engaged with Hamas or Palestinian officials at the same level, which contradicts their claim of balanced reporting.
Who is General Aviv Kohavi?
Kohavi, who led the IDF from 2019 to early 2023, has been associated with several controversial military actions. He defended Israeli forces after the killing of Palestinian-American journalist Shireen Abu Akleh, who was shot while reporting in the West Bank. International human rights organizations, including the United Nations, concluded that IDF forces were responsible for her death. Additionally, Kohavi publicly took responsibility for orders given during Israel’s violent suppression of the 2018-2019 Great March of Return protests in Gaza, where Israeli snipers were documented shooting unarmed protesters, including medics and journalists.
According to Middle East Eye, Kohavi has consistently sought to justify IDF operations that resulted in mass civilian casualties, often framing them as necessary security measures. This track record has contributed to widespread condemnation from human rights groups, who argue that his policies have directly enabled war crimes.
The Role of Israeli Influence Operations
The documents reveal that the visit was coordinated by Gad Yavoh, a reserve lieutenant colonel in the IDF and a security academic affiliated with City University in London. Yavoh’s documents explicitly state that Israel sought to “change how people think about Israel” by facilitating interactions between military officials and senior Western journalists.
What is striking is the Israeli government’s transparency in releasing this information. While governments like the UK or the US typically classify such details, Israel has historically faced little international scrutiny, allowing for greater openness about its influence efforts. Electronic Intifada argues that this attitude reflects Israel’s confidence that it will not face serious repercussions for its actions, even as allegations of war crimes and genocide mount at the international level.
Implications for British Journalism
This revelation raises serious questions about the independence of British media, particularly in the context of reporting on Israel and Palestine. While meetings with officials are a common practice in journalism, the secrecy surrounding these discussions and the timing of Kohavi’s visit suggest that Israel was actively seeking to shape media narratives at a critical moment in the Gaza war.
Moreover, the lack of similar engagements with Palestinian representatives calls into question whether British news outlets are fulfilling their responsibility to provide balanced reporting. As the ICJ investigates allegations of genocide against Israel, the role of media in shaping public opinion becomes even more crucial.
The secret meeting between British media editors and an Israeli general raises fundamental questions about press freedom, journalistic integrity, and foreign influence in Western media. The refusal of editors to disclose these meetings to the public only deepens suspicions. In an era of increasing media skepticism, transparency and accountability must be prioritized to maintain public trust in journalism.
