by Isi Leibler
Publisher Amos Schocken has imposed a radical ideology on the daily, seemingly oblivious to the harm that the paper's political agenda, anti-Israel delegitimization, and demonic views more appropriate for the Palestinian media, have inflicted.
Haaretz, Israel's oldest Hebrew daily
newspaper, was established in 1918 by a group of left-leaning
businessmen. In 1937, Salman Schocken bought the newspaper and it was
edited by his son Gershom until his death in 1990.
Although its circulation was never high when
compared to the tabloids Maariv and Yedioth Ahronoth, it has for many
years been regarded as the most influential intellectual newspaper in
Israel with its readership including leading political and economic
elites. It was considered a liberal newspaper although its economic
section was conservative, and it published many outstanding feature
articles.
After Gershom died, his son Amos assumed the
role of chairman, CEO and publisher. In August 2006, 25% of the
Haaretz shares were sold to the German publisher M. DuMont Schauberg,
whose father was a Nazi party member and whose publishing enterprises
promoted Nazi ideology.
Although he passionately denies being
post-Zionist, Amos imposed his radical left-wing ideology onto the
newspaper which has now been transformed into a vehicle that provides
much of the anti-Israeli sentiment, and even anti-Semitic lies and
distortions, that is a boon to our adversaries.
It is difficult to comprehend the depths to
which this once highly regarded newspaper has descended. There are
still a number of level-headed commentators, such as Ari Shavit and
Shlomo Avineri, and the occasional "fig leaf" in the form of
conservative columns contributed by Moshe Arens and Israel Harel. But
the opinion section is overwhelmingly dominated by delusional
anti-Zionists such as Gideon Levy and Amira Hass, who promote the idea
that Israel was born in sin. Levy repeatedly reiterates that Israel is
one of the world's most brutal and tyrannical regimes in existence
today and repeatedly accuses the Jewish state of being an apartheid
state. Even publisher Schocken wrote a column titled "Only
international pressure will end Israeli apartheid."
These demonic views of their own country would
be more appropriate for publication in the Palestinian media than in
an Israeli newspaper.
Furthermore, even the reporting became as
opinionated as op-ed articles, frequently totally distorting news
events and depicting Israel in the worst possible light. The reporting
has also become selective in its news coverage, a prime example being
the suppressed coverage of then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's alleged
corruption, in order not to create problems for the Gaza
disengagement.
If Haaretz was restricted to an Israeli
audience its impact would be minimal, as it has a small circulation and
few Israelis are influenced by what it publishes.
The real problem is the English language
edition and its internet site, which is monitored by diplomats and
reproduced by the global media.
It serves to demonize and delegitimize Israel
to countless internet readers throughout the world who are under the
illusion that they are reading a reputable liberal Israeli newspaper.
Pro-Israel Diaspora activists who would normally have protested the
bias and even the anti-Semitic slant of anti-Israeli media outlets, have
been confronted by editors who defended their approach on the grounds
that it reflected the editorial policies of a respected daily Israeli
newspaper.
The damage is incalculable. There is
sufficient evidence to suggest that in recent years, the newspaper has
caused more harm to the image of Israel than the combined efforts of our
adversaries. Nothing demonstrates this more than the front-page
headlines in 2009 based upon unsubstantiated evidence from the
discredited Breaking the Silence group which first promoted the lie
that Israeli soldiers were committing war crimes.
After successive days in which Haaretz
highlighted this blood libel, the IDF chief military advocate general
released a report describing the accusations as "categorically false."
Instead of apologizing and expressing remorse, Haaretz responded
sarcastically, suggesting that while the report showed the IDF to be
"pure as snow," implying that the accusers -- fighters and commanders
from some of its best combat units -- were a bunch of liars, who
exaggerated their case.
Despite the unequivocal repudiation of these
false allegations, the damage was done. The global media
enthusiastically highlighted the news from the "influential" Israeli
newspaper. This paved the way for subsequent allegations of Israeli war
crimes, culminating in the now discredited Goldstone report, which
remains a central feature of the defamation leveled against us by our
adversaries.
Another notable example was the 2014 Haaretz
Conference held in New York, where in deference to chief Palestinian
Authority negotiator Saeb Erekat, who addressed the conference, the
Israeli flag was removed from the podium.
The situation has continued to deteriorate,
with more readers canceling subscriptions, even including many
prominent left-wing supporters who can no longer tolerate the ever
increasing anti-Israel hysteria that fills the pages of the paper.
Uzi Baram, a respected former minister and MK
representing the Labor party, wrote a column stating that even left-wing
readers do not want to read a newspaper "that is ashamed of its
Zionism and which believes that without boycott from abroad, Israel has
no chance of changing its position."
The harshest blow came from liberal American
journalist icon Jeffrey Goldberg, who is regarded as the principal
media source used by U.S. President Barack Obama in relation to Israel
and Jewish affairs. Goldberg erupted after two American Jewish
historians published an article in Haaretz accusing the U.N. of
establishing a Jewish racist state that is today an extension of
Western colonialism. They proudly announced that they would never set
foot in any synagogue that supported Israel.
Goldberg also responded to a recent Levy op-ed
titled "Yes, Israel is an evil state" -- which described Israel as an
entity based on "pure evil. Sadistic evil. Evil for its own sake." He
announced that he was canceling his subscription, tweeting that "when
neo-Nazis are emailing me links to Haaretz op-eds declaring Israel to
be evil, I'm going to take a break." He also noted that "I can read
anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli things like this on other websites. There
really no need for an Israeli website like this."
Sadly, Schocken's delusional response was
predictable. He expressed regret that the critics failed to recognize
that, far from being a post-Zionist, he would not be deterred from
ensuring that Haaretz maintained a Zionist outlook. Having had a
lengthy personal discussion with Schocken on this issue, I can state
with confidence that he is genuinely convinced that he is on the side
of the angels and does not appreciate the immense harm that Haaretz's
anti-Israel demonization, delegitimization and political agenda have
inflicted upon us abroad. Nor does he recognize the extent to which
Haaretz has divorced itself from any semblance of political reality in
terms of the nation.
Isi Leibler's website can be viewed at www.wordfromjerusalem.com. He may be contacted at ileibler@leibler.com.
Isi Leibler's website can be viewed at www.wordfromjerusalem.com. He may be contacted at ileibler@leibler.com.
Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=36123
Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
No comments:
Post a Comment