Haaretz admits to 'going soft' on Sharon and Olmert
Today's Jerusalem Post has a scathing article by Isi Leibler in which he tears apart Haaretz, Israel's Hebrew 'Palestinian' Daily. The whole article is worth reading, but it contains an astounding revelation that was buried in an article in the Post two weeks ago that confirms everything the right ever said about Ariel Sharon and Ehud K. Olmert.According to The Jerusalem Post, at the recent Russian Limmud Conference in Moscow, [David] Landau [the editor of Haaretz. CiJ]], one of the few non-Russian-speaking participants, dropped a bombshell. He stunned those present by boasting that his newspaper had "wittingly soft-pedalled" alleged corruption by Israeli political leaders including prime ministers Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert, when, in the opinion of Haaretz, the policies of those leaders were advancing the peace process.As most of you probably know, I believe that Sharon was not a believer in the 'peace process' and that he carried out the Gaza expulsion to try to keep himself and his sons out of jail. This article essentially confirms that Sharon was protected by Israel's leftist media (or at least by Haaretz) so that he would carry out the Gaza expulsion. And while Olmert seems to be a true believer in giving the country away to the 'Palestinians,' the protection the media here is giving him from corruption charges makes sure that he won't have any second thoughts.
When participants challenged him concerning the morality of such an approach, Landau responded with the extraordinary assertion that "more immorality happens every day at a single roadblock [in Judea and Samaria] than in all the scandals put together."
He then unashamedly assured those present that Haaretz was ready to repeat the process in order "to ensure that Olmert goes to Annapolis."
Even former Bolsheviks in the audience must have gasped at such views, openly stated, which incorporated all the hallmarks of the Stalinist era.
It is surely scandalous for the top editor of what purports to be a reputable and prestigious daily newspaper to publicly proclaim - and take pride in - having deliberately "soft-pedalled" and possibly even covered up acts of corruption by senior political leaders in order to promote his own political agenda, and, moreover, boast that his paper would continue to do so in the future.
Could one, for instance, visualize The New York Times suppressing information about an American president involved in corruption out of a desire to promote the administration's foreign policy objectives? No newspaper of integrity in the world would tolerate an editor making such an outrageous statement.
THE ISRAELI Press Council code of ethics contains clauses explicitly condemning such practices. Article 40 (and 16a): "A newspaper or a journalist shall not refrain from publishing information where there is a public interest in its publication, including for reasons of political, economic or other pressures."
I know that many of you in the US will say, "of course the Times would do that." I don't believe they would do something this blatant. Imagine if the Washington Post had 'softened' Woodward and Bernstein's reports on the Nixon administration in 1972-74 because Nixon was opening up relations with China and Russia. I can't see that happening.
Read the whole thing.
Please vote for Israel Matzav in the Best of the Top 251-500 Blogs category in the 2007 Weblog Awards contest once per day per computer. Thanks.
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 10:40 PM
1 Comments:
"I know that many of you in the US will say, "of course the Times would do that." I don't believe they would do something this blatant. ... I can't see that happening."
I agree it's wretched and reprehensible. However, IMO, the idea that most of the US MSM is any more moral or professionally responsible or competent is wrong.
For eight years, most of the MSM soft-balled all all the sins and misdemeanors of the Clinton Administration. If, for instance the Washington Post had been HALF as aggressive in investigating the Clintons as they were in Watergate, Clinton wouldn't have survived his impeachment. And it'd be a good debate as to whether Clinton himself, Hillary, Sandy Burglar-Berger and others would be in prison today, if the MSM were as honest, objective and professionally diligent as they're supposed to be, claim they are but definitely aren't.
For examle, the NY Times and Comrade Pinch are at least as disgusting and unpatriotic as the powers-that-be at Haaretz.
And since the Bush Administration took office, most of the US MSM have been the willing propagandists for the hard left and their ilk who've taken over the Democratic Party. They haven't hesitated to lie and misrepresent Bush or his Administration's actions, reveal top secret Govt activities, or do anything that damages America, in order to "get at" Bush or the Administration. And they don't give a damn what that costs America in the world, either in military effort in the Global War on Islamofascism, or diplomatically.
IMO, organs like the NY Times and people like Pinch Sulzberger, if not technically over the line, have come within hailing distance of Sedition and Treason.
Post a Comment
<< Home