Israel government’s boycott of left-wing Haaretz newspaper is understandable for an administration in wartime

Peloni: Haaretz is even more damaging to Israel than is the Qatari Al Jazera rag.  When foreign papers, politicians or activists attack Israel, they routinely cite the propaganda promoted and distributed from the Haaretz as a source of some weight given its prestigious history and relevance of it being an Israeli source.  The fact that it took October 7 to pass the legislation eliminating govt funding for this propaganda is both telling and regretful.

Ori Wertman | University of South Wales | December 11, 2024

At a recent conference held in London by Israel’s longest-running newspaper, Haaretz, the publisher Amos Schocken – who is known for his critical stance towards Israel’s treatment of Palestinians – argued that the Palestinians who are defined by Israel as terrorists are, in fact, freedom fighters. Schocken also claimed that Israel is running a brutal apartheid regime against the Palestinian people and called for sanctions to be imposed on the Israeli leadership.

His words shocked many in Israel, where people are still in grief over the terror attack of October 7 2023, in which Hamas murdered 1,200 Israelis. In response, the Israeli government announced it would halt all government advertising in the newspaper and ban government bodies from commenting in its pages.

This is not the first time that Haaretz, with just 5% of newspaper circulation in Israel, has caused outrage in its home market. In a 2013 article, reporter Amira Hass justified throwing stones at Jewish people on the West Bank, writing that: “Throwing stones is the birthright and duty of anyone subject to foreign rule.”

The same year, Haaretz journalist Gideon Levy called for a boycott of the state of Israel, while in 2017, his colleague Yossi Klein claimed that the Israel’s national religious community was more dangerous than Hezbollah.

His op-ed caused a great deal of upset at the time, with Netanyahu and others calling on Haaretz to apologise.

Haaretz was founded in 1919, 29 years before the establishment of Israel as a Jewish state. Initially, the broadsheet identified with the mainstream of the Zionist movement – and, by the early 1930s, was the most widely distributed newspaper in the Jewish community (the Yishuv).

In 1936, Haaretz was purchased by the Schocken family. Under the leadership of Gershom Schocken (Amos’s father), the newspaper began to adopt liberal positions close to those of the General Zionists, which later became part of the bloc of parties that formed the Likud party decades later.

Schocken himself even served as a member of Knesset from 1955-1959 for the Progressive party, a centrist party that operated in the 1950s and eventually merged with Menachem Begin’s Herut party, before Begin went on to found Likud in 1973.

Under Schocken’s control, Haaretz became an opposition newspaper to Mapai (The Workers Party of the Land of Israel), the party of David Ben-Gurion and Golda Meir, which became the dominant party in the Knesset after the formation of Israel.

Even then, Haaretz was known for making controversial statements. A series of articles published by the paper in 1949, called for a reduction of immigration by Jews from North African countries, claiming that they were a primitive population that would not be able to properly integrate into Israeli society.

Defending democracy

These days, Haaretz sits very much at the left of the political spectrum. But in the 1960s and 1970s, most of the newspaper’s writers were considered to be hawks. In an article published in November 1973 under the headline “The Illusion of Peace”, Schocken ruled out any possibility of withdrawing from the territories occupied in the six-day war.

The same year, an article under the headline “No More Doves” by Amnon Rubinstein – who later served as a minister and a member of Knesset for the left-wing Meretz party – argued that the principle of “territory for peace” was no longer legitimate.

Haaretz’s line began to change following the 1982 Lebanon war. The newspaper called for an immediate withdrawal from Lebanon and accused the then prime minister, Menachem Begin, and his defence minister, Ariel Sharon, of a “war of deception” in Lebanon. This led to a wave of subscription cancellations by Haaretz readers who did not like the new line taken by the newspaper.

Over the years, Haaretz has supported the left-wing Meretz party. Earlier this year, it hailed a merger between Meretz and the Labor party as “the blueprint for how the left and centre can resist the tide of authoritarian nationalism”.

Critics say that by boycotting Haaretz, the Netanyahu government is showing its anti-democratic colours. An opinion piece on December 1 by Haaretz’s editor-in-chief, Aluf Benn, said this was part of a policy aimed at silencing dissent:

Netanyahu has never liked our reporting and our strong stance against his policy of occupation and annexation, and his overall denial of Palestinian rights. Now his political henchmen want to delegitimise and strangle us financially – but we are not alone in the government’s crosshairs.

But the goverment’s decision is arguably legitimate. The government is not trying to shut the paper down, merely expressing that it is not willing to continue financing it with public money.

Democracy also has a right to defend itself against those who call for harm to it under the guise of freedom of expression. Haaretz can continue to criticise Israel as much as it wants, but the Israeli public, most of which does not view the activities of Haaretz newspaper favourably – but rather the opposite – should not have to fund it.

In my opinion, adopting the narrative of those who call for the destruction of the Jewish state is crossing a red line. So the Netanyahu government, which is pledged to defend the country and its people and is in the middle of a bitter conflict, is justified in withdrawing financial support in this way.The Conversation

Ori Wertman, Research Fellow, Faculty of Life Sciences and Education, University of South Wales

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

 

 

December 12, 2024 | 11 Comments »

Leave a Reply

11 Comments / 11 Comments

  1. More good news on the media war front. Is Israel’s channel 13 going the way of America’s CBS? I have no doubt Bibi is being steered on course by the redoubtable Caroline Glick, on the strength of whose endorsement I voted for Senator Ted Cruz in the August 2016 NY Republican primary after Governor now Ambassador Mike Huckabee dropped out.

    Israeli journalists fear for press freedom if UK billionaire sells TV channel stake
    Union urges Leonard Blavatnik to scrap Channel 13 deal, saying it is part of Netanyahu plan ‘to capture the media’

    Israeli journalists have appealed to a British billionaire not to proceed with the sale of a stake in an Israeli television channel, which they warn would represent a severe blow to the independence of the country’s media.

    Sir Leonard Blavatnik, listed by the Sunday Times as the UK’s third richest person, is selling a nearly 15% share in Channel 13, a commercial channel that has run critical news coverage of Benjamin Netanyahu’s government in recent years, including investigations into the prime minister’s financial dealings.

    Blavatnik is selling to a telecoms tycoon, Patrick Drahi, who has French, Portuguese and Israeli nationalities. Drahi already owns a cable television company and a news channel in Israel that generally runs far less critical coverage of Netanyahu.

    The rest of Drahi’s business empire is heavily in debt and he is embroiled in a legal battle with his creditors in the US.

    The Union of Journalists in Israel issued a statement calling the sale an “unlawful deal, which is likely to further erode press freedom in the country” and described it as part of the Netanyahu government’s “master plan to capture the media” before this year’s scheduled elections.

    “The Union of Journalists is confident that Sir Blavatnik, who is known for his generous philanthropy, will not support any move that will undermine press freedom in Israel,” the statement said.

    Blavatnik is selling just under a 15% stake in Channel 13, the maximum share allowed to be sold to a competitor with an existing media asset under Israel’s competition laws, but critics argue that as the sole investor in the channel (Blavatnik is reportedly unwilling to invest further after years of heavy losses), Drahi will have real control of the outlet.

    “While Patrick Drahi is only buying 15%, our fear is that by buying 15%, he gets 100% hold of the policy of the channel,” said Anat Saragusti, who oversees freedom of the press for the Union of Journalists. “Because if he’s the only one that can pour money into the channel and make it sustainable, then it is completely dependent on him.”

    Leonard Blavatnik at a pre-Grammy awards party in Los Angeles last month
    View image in fullscreen
    Leonard Blavatnik (pictured) is selling a 15% share in Channel 13, which has run critical news coverage of Benjamin Netanyahu’s government in recent years. Photograph: Jon Kopaloff/Getty Images for Warner Music Group
    “It’s a lose-lose for the Israeli public, in terms of freedom of speech and diversity of opinions,” Saragusti added.

    Drahi’s company, Altice, Netanyahu’s office and Israel’s ministry of communications were all approached for comment but did not respond.

    Ayala Panievsky, a presidential fellow in journalism at City St George’s, University of London, compared the struggle over Channel 13 to the fate of the Washington Post under the US billionaire Jeff Bezos, who steered it closer to Donald Trump and last week axed nearly a third of its workforce, firing hundreds of journalists.

    Panievsky last year published a book, The New Censorship: How the War on the Media is Taking Us Down, on the siege on the free press mounted by the populist right around the world. She views the Washington Post and Channel 13 cases as “part of the escalating war on independent and critical journalism, launched by the alliance of populist authoritarians and the broligarchy’s enablers”.

    She said: “Media owners should be facing heat because they are in influential positions and are collaborating with governments to harm press freedom.”

    Israeli journalists fear a Drahi takeover would lead to similar mass job losses as those suffered by their Washington Post colleagues.

    A consortium of liberal Israeli tech entrepreneurs had made a rival bid for 74% of Channel 13. A source close to the group said it was prepared to invest considerably more – $80m to $120m (£59m to £88m) over three years – in the modernisation of the channel than Drahi and had put the offer on paper, though the negotiations had not been finalised.

    A spokesperson for Blavatnik’s main company, Access Industries, denied there had been any political pressure to sell to Drahi. “Any suggestion that the preferred offer has been selected for political reasons is entirely false,” the spokesperson said. “Following negotiations with two separate groups, Patrick Drahi’s proposal was selected because it represented the better deal for [Channel] 13.”

    The spokesperson added: “His offer enables the urgent injection of funds into the channel to support [Channel] 13’s stability, expand its reach, and allow its investment in high-quality content, innovation, and digital transformation, so it can continue delivering value to its audiences. Of the two proposals, it was the higher confirmed sum, and ultimately the stronger, faster option prevailed.”

    The company denied Israeli reports that the Netanyahu government had signalled to Blavatnik that a purchase of the channel by the liberal tech consortium would not gain official approval. “Sir Leonard Blavatnik, nor anyone on behalf of Access, has spoken with any government official regarding [Channel] 13,” the spokesperson said.

    Netanyahu and his ministers have mounted a concerted campaign to reshape Israel’s media landscape before this year’s elections. One set of corruption charges the prime minister is now on trial for involves the alleged offer of favourable financial treatment in return for positive coverage.

    Last month a government minister sued an investigative journalist on the only other major independent news channel, Channel 12, for record damages of 12m shekels (£2.86m).

    The government has imposed financial sanctions on the independent newspaper Haaretz, which it accuses of “support for the enemy” over its criticism of the Gaza war.

    The tech consortium is expected to continue to argue its case for buying Channel 13, and the Union of Journalists said it expected Israel’s antitrust authorities or its supreme court to block the Drahi bid. Meanwhile, the reporters are hoping Blavatnik changes his mind.

    “If Channel 13 falls, this would be the end of the free press in Israel, because the rest will fall after that. It’s the tipping point,” Saragusti said. “I think Blavatnik doesn’t really understand that this is not merely an economic issue but a milestone in Israeli democracy.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/feb/13/israeli-journalists-fear-press-freedom-uk-billionaire-sells-tv-channel-stake

  2. Adam, actually Keelie (myself) didn’t say anything; that was a quote (“—“) from what was written above.
    My take was to question why the idea of “Treason” was not being used.

  3. @Adam

    Israel’s Cabinet approved a proposal by Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi that calls for all government staffers and staffers of state-owned companies to end communications with Haaretz and stop advertising and subscription purchases with the paper.

    -Axios

    The boycott failed to pass last year, and again earlier this year. It was only after Haaretz’ publisher gave a speech in London stating that the Israeli govt

    dismisses the costs of both sides for defending the settlements while fighting the Palestinian freedom fighters, that Israel calls terrorists.

    that the legislation boycotting Haaretz successfully moved forward and gained unanimous support of the govt.

  4. Why did the announcement of this policy change by the Israel government come from a professor at the University of South Wales, rather than from an Israeli government or media source? Weird?

  5. @peloni @keelie. Peloni writes that the Israeli government subsidy for Haaretz.takes the form of mandatory subscriptions to Haaretz by government offices. But Keelie says that it takes the form of government advertising in the pages of Haaretz (advertising of what? ). These are two very different descrptions of hoe the Israel government has withdrawn financial support for Haaretz. Which one is true? Or are both of these means of subsidizing Haaretz by the Israeli government?

  7. @Adam
    The funding indicated in this article and the boycotting legislation comes in the form of mandatory govt subscriptions for Haaretz for the various govt agencies and bodies, rather than in the form of financial grants which the US govt provides for many MSM entities. Just for clarification.

  8. I was not aware that the government funded any Israeli newspapers, I also thought twoof the cases against netenyahu involved some sort of request by the publishers of newspapers for financial help, in the form of tax exemptions, from the Israel government, and/or an offer by Netanyahu to provide such exemptions if they gave him and his wife more favorable coverage. That the Israeligovernment is already subsidizing Israeli newspapers was unknown to me.

  11. “His words shocked many in Israel, where people are still in grief over the terror attack of October 7 2023, in which Hamas murdered 1,200 Israelis. In response, the Israeli government announced it would halt all government advertising in the newspaper and ban government bodies from commenting in its pages.”

    How about charges of Treason???