The New York Times did not report that a young Palestinian journalist had been arrested in Israel because it obeyed a gagging order issued by an Israeli court.

The paper's delayed publication of the story about the detention of Majd Kayyal (see below) was revealed by its public editor, Margaret Sullivan.

She quoted the NY Times's Jerusalem bureau chief, Jodi Rudoren, as explaining that the acceptance of gag orders is analogous to abiding by traffic rules or any other laws of the land.

Sullivan also consulted in-house lawyer David McCraw, who evidently described the situation as "somewhat murky". She quoted him as saying: "The general understanding among legal counsel in other countries is that local law would apply to foreign media."

Similar issues arise when US news media organisations cover the British courts, he said.

But is that really so? American newspapers often publish material that would be considered prejudicial in Britain.

Similarly, plenty of newspapers across the world publish material about Israel that is subject to internal censorship.

Sullivan was clearly unconvinced by the argument advanced by her paper's bureau chief, saying that she found it "troubling" that the NY Times should have to wait for the Israeli government's approval before deciding to run a story. (NB: Sullivan should have said "court" rather than "government" approval).

A "little transparency would go a long way", she said, and the the story should have informed readers what had happened. Perhaps Jodi Rudoren, who became bureau chief in May 2012, was being overly cautious. Her task is hardly easy as she explained earlier this month in an interview with Hadassah magazine.

My understanding is that although foreign journalists who want to obtain a press card in Israel are required to sign a censorship document in order to obtain a press card, in practice few submit their copy on security issues to the censor.

It is also the case that some Israeli publications have not obeyed gag orders, such as Haaretz (see here and here), as did an Australian outlet. And it was Haaretz that petitioned against the gag order on Kayyal's arrest.

House arrest for journalist who visited Lebanon

Majd Kayyal, a 23-year-old Arab-Israeli freelance journalist, was arrested on 12 April after visiting Lebanon to attend a conference for a Beirut-based newspaper he writes for.

He was released to house arrest, banned from using the internet for 20 days and subject to a travel ban.

Israel's security agency said there was suspicion that a Lebanese terrorist organisation may have tried to recruit Kayyal. They pointed out that he had participated in a Gaza protest flotilla in 2011 (see here).

In an editorial on Kayyal's arrest, Haaretz argued that the measures taken by the security service were "extreme" and criticised the "sweeping gag order" that was imposed. It said:

"Israelis who visit an Arab country in fulfilment of their journalistic duties, or to meet with relatives, or for any other innocent reason, are not criminals. They should not be considered as such as long as they do not compromise state security."

NB: This posting was amended at 8.15am on Wednesday 23 April to make clear that Sullivan should have referred to court rather than government approval.

Sources: New York Times/Poynter/Jerusalem Post/Haaretz: (1) and (2)/The Guardian