Epstein Files: Western Media Must Stop Burying The Israel Connection

Since the release late last month of millions more files in the Jeffrey Epstein saga, western media outlets have provided nonstop coverage. Yet despite an extensive focus on the disgraced financier’s relationships with powerful figures, his links to Israeli political and intelligence circles have been largely ignored, marking a conspicuous omission.

Searches across online news archives turn up thousands of recent stories on legitimate issues of public concern, highlighting victims of Epstein’s abuse and the alleged involvement of prominent persons and groups in that abuse. 

The New York Times, PBS, NBC and CNN, among other notable outlets, have drawn from the files to publish exhaustive accounts of powerful men with ties to Epstein.

In addition to naming business, academic and sports figures, much reporting has focused on political figures, such as US President Donald Trump, former Norwegian Prime Minister Thorbjorn Jagland, and the UK’s Prince Andrew and politician Peter Mandelson.

Media coverage has also emphasised Epstein’s relationships with foreign countries, with Reuters and the Washington Post running stories about his alleged ties to Russia. Other pieces have documented Epstein’s purported links to Norway and Slovakia. 

But despite Epstein’s ties to Israel having been known for months - an ongoing Drop Site News investigation suggests that Epstein worked closely with former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and participated in initiatives connected to Israeli intelligence - there has been little mainstream coverage of this aspect.

Even as sites such as Middle East Eye, Al Jazeera, Mondoweiss and TRT World, among others, have devoted significant coverage to the Epstein-Israel connections, there appears to be a glaring gap in western mainstream media.

Strategic omission

There are, of course, exceptions, such as the CNN interview last November with Marjorie Taylor Greene, in which the then-US congresswoman broached Epstein’s alleged ties to Israel. But the response from CNN presenter Dana Bash was telling: she became visibly irritated, and swiftly pivoted to the topic of antisemitism. 

Journalism studies scholarship routinely emphasises the importance of omission. The inclusion and exclusion of information are among the primary mechanisms through which members of the media create meaning. 

So why does it seem that mainstream western media outlets are bending over backwards to avoid the Israeli elephant in the room? This dovetails with broader questions on why western media tends to sympathise with Israeli narratives. 

In the current moment, the biggest danger for journalists is not getting a story wrong - it is appearing unwilling to tell it at all

Some outlets - or at least some powerful editors and producers - might have a direct interest in shielding Israel. It is also possible that news managers are afraid of the consequences of maligning Israel, or of being perceived to be “antisemitic”. 

Scholars John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt famously described the power of pro-Israel lobbying groups, which have long exerted considerable sway over American politics and media, helping to generate favourable coverage. Reporting that is critical of Israel often triggers pressure campaigns from these groups.

In such an environment, omission functions as a type of risk management. News editors know that even the perception of unfairness towards Israel can trigger accusations of antisemitism.

Media institutions operate within the broader sociopolitical climate. Since the start of the Gaza war in October 2023, American and British universities have come under fire for actively suppressing pro-Palestine speech and student protests critical of Israel. 

In 2024, an American university took the extraordinary step of firing a tenured professor over speech critical of Zionism, confirming how Israel-related criticism carries an unusually high professional risk - a reality that news outlets know well. 

Pivotal moment

Western journalists have long had to be careful about covering Israel. In 2018, contributor Marc Lamont Hill was fired by CNN for speaking in favour of Palestinian liberation. But sensitivities were heightened after 7 October 2023, when Hamas attacked Israeli communities and Israel launched its genocide in Gaza. 

Since the start of the violence, media figures have faced intense backlash, including firings, over speech critical of Israel’s actions in Gaza. Journalist Mehdi Hasan’s show on MSNBC was cancelled following his criticisms of Israel. 

Direct pressure is often applied by media owners, who are increasingly vocal about the need to protect Israel as it faces unprecedented global disapproval. Businessmen Larry and David Ellison have strategically acquired media assets - including TikTok’s US operations and CBS News - in an apparent bid to influence narratives about Israel. 

Since the acquisitions, TikTok has aggressively censored pro-Palestinian content, and CBS has shifted to a more overt pro-Israel stance. Zvika Klein, editor-in-chief of the Jerusalem Post, recently praised CBS’s new editor, Bari Weiss, for “doing more for Israel than most of us”. 

In the meantime, the Epstein files have created a public obsession, with every new detail generating a firestorm of interest, clicks, likes and shares. Serious independent news organisations and popular podcasts have reported extensively on Epstein’s ties to Israel, so the issue is unlikely to fade from the public conversation. Mainstream outlets may ultimately be forced to join in, if for no other reason than to maintain some semblance of credibility. 

After all, news audiences will soon wonder - if they do not already - why journalists readily report on Epstein’s alleged ties to Slovakia and Norway, but ignore his connections to a key western ally entangled in major conflicts with far-reaching implications. 

This is an important moment for western, and especially American, news organisations. Journalism derives its authority from its willingness to pursue uncomfortable facts that matter to the public. A growing number of observers in North America and Europe already believe that a double standard shapes how Israel is treated across western capitals. 

Media outlets should avoid feeding this suspicion, especially now, when public trust in media is at an all-time low. In the current moment, the biggest danger for journalists is not getting a story wrong - it is appearing unwilling to tell it at all.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.