On the day the US moved its embassy to Jerusalem, Israeli soldiers opened fire on unarmed Palestinian protesters who gathered at the border fence on the Gaza Strip.

Sorry. That requires a rewrite to reflect “the truth” as promulgated by the Israeli government.

On the day the US moved its embassy to Jerusalem, Israeli soldiers opened fire to prevent an invasion of their country by Arabs living in the Gaza Strip.

This is a typical instance of the divergence in reporting that has become a hallmark of recording the conflict in Israel/Palestine.

Indeed, the use of term Israel/Palestine is also a matter of dispute. No matter how hard journalists may try, they find it virtually impossible to make a neutral, factual statement when writing and broadcasting about the Middle East.

Both sides perceive bias in every report. It’s as if facts – those statements of reality underpinned by evidence that can be verified and which are supposed to be a reporter’s stock-in-trade – do not exist. But there is one reporting medium that continues to have value: the camera, moving or still. It enables people elsewhere to get some perspective on events. Although contextual explanation, inevitably loaded with propaganda, quickly follows, it is impossible to erase the images from viewers’ minds.

Now Israel’s parliament is being asked to consider a law that would prevent us from having even that momentary, partial view of what members of the Israel Defence Forces are doing. A bill has been proposed that seeks to prohibit “the photographing and documenting” of IDF troops “with the intention of undermining the spirit” of the army. It recommends a five-year prison term for offenders and 10 years for those judged to have harmed state security.

According to its proposer, Robert Ilatov, chairman of a minority rightwing group supportive of the ruling Likud party, the “worrying phenomenon” of the monitoring of Israel’s soldiers by pro-Palestinian organisations through video, photographs and audio recordings is a “biased and tendentious” act with “a clear anti-Israeli agenda”.

Reports suggest the idea has the support of Israel’s defence minister, Avigdor Lieberman, the founder of Ilatov’s party. That prompted Israel’s liberal newspaper, Haaretz, to treat the matter seriously in an editorial that called the proposal “dangerous”. Its aim, said the paper, was “to silence criticism of the army and in particular to prevent human rights organisations from documenting the Israeli army’s actions in the [occupied] territories”. The International Federation of Journalists also condemned the proposal, arguing that it “constitutes a serious breach of the freedom of the press” because it “criminalises the work of journalists”.

Haaretz agrees, believing such a law would harm press freedom: “The public has a right to know what the reality is and especially what the ‘people’s army’ is doing in its name and on its behalf.”

I couldn’t put it better myself. Any restriction on the freedom to report inhibits the possibility of holding power to account.

One trigger for the Ilatov initiative is obvious. In March 2016, a Palestinian attacker who was lying wounded and immobilised on the ground was shot dead at point-blank range by an IDF soldier, Elor Azaria. The shooting was caught on video and posted on social media by the Israeli human rights organisation, B’Tselem. As a result, Azaria was arrested, convicted of manslaughter and served nine months of an 18-month sentence before being released last month.

Would he have been charged if there had been no film? We cannot be sure, but it is significant that it was the first time in 12 years that a member of the IDF had been convicted of manslaughter. The truth could not be fudged because of the film footage. Azaria was the criminal, not B’Tselem.

The message for Israel’s politicians is straightforward. There is no democracy without press freedom and there is no press freedom without democracy. If they wish to uphold their claim to be living in a democratic state, they should vote overwhelmingly against Ilatov’s ill-considered proposal.

Robinson learns the limits

So, you may rightly ask in view of the above, does the exercise of press freedom have no limits at all? Can we film wherever we like, whenever we like? Should we be able to speak without any restriction?

The straightforward answer is “no”. Even in a democratic society there can be good reasons to circumscribe freedom. It is a lesson the self-described “independent activist and journalist”, Tommy Robinson, discovered last week when sentenced to 13 months in prison for breaching the contempt of court law by live-streaming from outside a Leeds court.

Robinson, erstwhile leader of the English Defence League, sought to present himself as a free speech hero. Hundreds of misguided people supported him in the foolish belief that “the establishment” is engaged in a conspiracy to suppress details of an ongoing trial.

Reporting restrictions have been put in place in the interests of the trial being conducted fairly, and Robinson’s action had the potential to prejudice the process. If these silly antics had not been halted, a retrial might have been necessary.

To confuse matters further, Robinson’s own case was then subject to a reporting restriction that had the unforeseen effect of feeding the conspiracy theorists. Their fantasies were given full rein online before the ban was lifted following an appeal by local journalists.

In reality, what Robinson and his rightwing cronies were in danger of reviving was hue and cry, a practice outlawed in the early 19th century. It was anything but a responsible use of press freedom.

Arkady Babchenko: appears unrepentant about his deceit. Photograph: Genya Savilov/AFP/Getty Images

Fake death is gift to Russia

Lies cannot be fought with lies because the original liar is always the beneficiary. That’s the clear lesson of the Arkady Babchenko fiasco.

It is impossible to see any value in the Ukrainian security service’s elaborate faking of his death. The hoax has been a gift to the Kremlin’s lying machine and it is a pity that Babchenko should have allowed himself to be used in such a stupid stunt. Despite trenchant criticism of his deceit, he appears anything but repentant, describing the British press as “fucking smart arses”, and adding “go fuck yourselves”.

Why single out British reporters? Journalists across the world have poured scorn on Babchenko’s actions. Rather than hurl insults, he would do better (a) to explain exactly how pretending to be dead helped prevent his assassination; and (b) to apologise for providing Vladimir Putin with his greatest propaganda gift to date.

Babchenko and his Ukrainian hosts have done a disservice to truth, and to journalism.