It may be that you have your starting point wrong. As I understand it, all speech is protected, except for "certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech." Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire. Obscenity is one such class; speech creating a clear and present danger is another.

The point is, speech is presumed protected. By what virtue would high resolution pictures of Israel not be protected free speech? It's not libelous, obscene, seditious, or any other exception I can think of.