Haaretz: A case study in the collapse of modern journalism
The Tower has a devastating feature on Haaretz, Israel's Hebrew 'Palestinian' daily. It's calling it, '
a case study in the collapse of modern journalism.'
In a Sunday interview with journalist Kalman Libskind of the radio
station Galei Yisrael, Haaretz publisher Amos Schocken set out to defend
Hass’s article. Growing flustered, however, Schocken ended up saying
that moving to a settlement was a form of deliberately endangering the
welfare of one’s children, something that in another context would
trigger the intervention of social services. As for Hass’s sympathy for
rock-throwers, Schocken refused to distance himself. “Sometimes,” he
concluded, “you have to fight violence with violence.”
The method Amos Schocken chose to defend Hass’s article, and his
defense of editor-in-chief Aluf Benn’s decision to publish the piece in
full, sheds some light on the recent changes at the once-venerable
Israeli daily. In a series of interviews conducted with current and
former Haaretz employees, some of whom held high-level positions at the
paper and most of whom still hold it close to their hearts, a consensus
emerged to the effect that the paper is undergoing a process of major
change that has led to a dramatic reduction in staff, a precipitous
decline in journalistic standards, and a willful radicalization of its
politics in pursuit of Internet traffic.
As Israel’s longstanding newspaper of record, these developments have
raised important questions about the future of print journalism,
especially in a country where a free and dynamic press has always been
at the center of Israel’s democratic discourse.
...
according to the employees interviewed for this article, all of whom
refused to be identified out of fear of the impact on their careers in
Israel’s small and insular media environment, the Amira Hass affair was a
red flag not only for the Israeli public, but also for many on the
Haaretz staff. As one former editor at the news desk put it:
Amira Hass’s article must be seen as the result of a conscious
decision to radicalize the paper, to make it something shallow,
sensationalist, and shocking, and to give it the image of a
paper—really, a website—that is courageous and groundbreaking. At the
end of the day, there is only one goal: To generate traffic. It doesn’t
matter if the piece is good or bad, what matters is that it leads to
website traffic.
Like most of the people we spoke with, the editor does not identify
with the political Right in Israel. Yet he felt a need to add the
following: “Amira Hass’s article fits Aluf Benn and Amos Schocken like a
glove. She wrote shocking things. Any editor with a minimum of
discretion would have said that it wasn’t suitable for publication. But
here? The more provocative you are—to the Left, of course—the better the
editorial staff thinks it is.”
...
An even more pointed criticism of the editors’ objectivity came from
another staffer familiar with the news desk. “There is almost no one who
is not on the radical Left, or more precisely, who hasn’t accommodated
themselves to it and suddenly become a Leftist. Except for Amos Harel
and Haim Levinson, there are almost no journalists I would allow myself
to call trustworthy. The rest are sycophants who suddenly joined the
extreme Left. Israel Harel is the token Rightist in the opinion section,
but if you look at the section in its entirety, it’s obviously getting
systematically worse.” The same staff member also took issue with Benn’s
decision to dedicate time to giving public lectures and writing opinion
pieces for the paper.
...
Though the newspaper has always taken a progressive political line, even
its ideological detractors once recognized the benefit that a newspaper
rooted in quality journalism and rigorous about its standards provided
Israeli society. As Hanoch Marmari, who served as the paper’s
editor-in-chief for close to 50 years after being appointed by Amos
Schocken’s father, Gershom, put it:
“Today Haaretz is not in the playing field. Rather, it is morphed from a
player to a spectator in the bleachers. When you are a distant observer
you do not necessarily see the complicated dynamics of the game—and you
definitely exert less influence.”
Sounds just like the New York Times, doesn't it?
Read the whole thing.
Labels: Aluf Benn, Amira Hass, Haaretz, Israel's Hebrew Palestinian daily, Israeli media bias, liberal media bias
Surprise: Hamas says 'interim government' cannot work on peace with Israel
I'm sure you'll all be shocked - just shocked - to hear that Hamas 'foreign minister' Mahmoud al-Zahar has announced that the 'Palestinian' 'interim government'
cannot work on peace with Israel.
Zahar said Wednesday's deal covered five points, including combining security forces and forming a government made up of "nationalist figures".
"Our program does not include negotiations with Israel or recognizing it," Zahhar said in Cairo. "It will not be possible for the interim national government to participate or bet on or work on the peace process with Israel."
They also thumbed their noses at Prime Minister Netanyahu's
ultimatum that the 'Palestinian Authority' has to choose between Hamas and peace with Israel.
Both Hamas and Fatah, however, dismissed Netanyahu's ultimatum. "Abu Mazen (Abbas) has said we want Hamas, Hamas is part of the Palestinian national fabric," Fatah's Ahmad said.
Hamas spokesman Taher al-Noono also said Israel was "not concerned with Palestinian reconciliation and has been an impediment to it in the past".
Haaretz columnist Aluf Benn is
beside himself over what he regards as Prime Minister Netanyahu's good fortune.
The Palestinian reconciliation deal, if realized, heralds the takeover of the Palestinian national movement by Hamas, providing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with an escape from the rut he has fallen into because of the deadlock in the peace process. This is just what Netanyahu needed to unite the Israeli public behind him and thwart international pressure to withdraw from the West Bank.
A "unity government" or "technocracy" - as the Palestinians called it yesterday - is a nice but empty headline. In real life, there is no a-political rule and there are no egalitarian governments. There is always a ruling side with partners being dragged behind it. The stronger, more organized, better armed side, i.e. Hamas, will rule the Palestinian Authority and the PLO, not "technocrats." This is how the communists took over East Europe after WWII.
As for Netanyahu, the Palestinian reconciliation deal justifies his warnings that any territory vacated by Israel will fall into Hamas hands and become an Iranian terror base. It strikes any proposals for interim agreements and unilateral withdrawals, intended to appease the world, off the agenda.
Only two options remain - that Israeli surrender to the expected UN resolution on Palestinian independence and agreement to withdraw to the Green Line or entrench itself in its current position.
Netanyahu is expected to choose the second alternative. Israel is being attacked with missiles on Ashdod and on school buses and explosions in the gas pipe from Egypt, he will say.
There is nothing like a sense of emergency and siege to unite the Israeli public behind his government. When the third intifada erupts, Netanyahu will be able to portray Israel's war against it as a war against Iran and its satellites and neutralize criticism from the left about missed opportunities for peace in the past two years.
Benn isn't the only one weeping over the 'Palestinian' move. Here are the more moderate
Avi Issacharoff and Amos Harel.
Despite the harsh response, the reconciliation may well work to Israel's advantage. Israel has been struggling internationally, as more than 100 nations prepare to recognize a unilaterally declared Palestinian state in the UN in September. Renewed relations between Hamas and Fatah, however limited, could shed a different light on Abbas' intentions, and Netanyahu, who is due to speak before both houses of Congress next month, will be able to present the agreement as proof that Abbas doesn't really want peace.
If the reconciliation does indeed go through, Israel's immediate concern would be the future of security coordination with the PA. A Hamas foothold, however limited, would mean that Israel could not share intelligence with the PA.
Between the Hamas election victory in January 2006 and the Hamas coup in Gaza in mid-2007, Israel had been engaged in complex maneuvers to produce at least the appearance of completely excluding Hamas from any security arrangements.
If the reconciliation is accompanied by a mass release of Hamas prisoners from West Bank prisons, this would further increase the risk of terror attacks.
What none of these columnists can admit is that the key here is not that the move 'allows Netanyahu' to portray Abu Bluff as not wanting peace. Rather it proves that Netanyahu was correct all along. Hopefully, the IDF will take off the gloves and use an iron fist to ensure that terror attacks from and in Judea and Samaria don't happen. The 'peace process' is over. Oslo is over.
What could go wrong?
Labels: Aluf Benn, Amos Harel, Avi Issacharoff, Hamas-Fatah reconciliation, Mahmoud al-Zahar
Desparation?
I don't normally feel obligated to post everything (or anything) Haaretz's Aluf Benn writes. But in
this case, reader
Racquel R did such a good job of fisking him that the post writes itself:
Dear Tom,
I want to thank you for sending this, because it shows the fallacies of the so-called left.
Secondly, let me show where the article flat out lies. When he regained the prime minister's post, he discarded his predecessor's peace proposals and refused to discuss "core issues" with the Palestinians.
This is a LIE. I know for a FACT that Bibi did not "discard" his predecessor's revolting 'peace' (i.e., surrender) proposal. By disgusting, I mean that Olmert offered to not only divide Jerusalem, he offered to give up the Temple Mount, including the Kotel, and have a limited 'right of return.' Of course, Abbas did not accept this deal because he does not want a state. He just wants to retain his mafioso quasi-government and stay alive.
Now that said, while Olmert's deal was basically a surrender deal, it was Abbas who discarded all peace talks. When Obama took office, he decided to offer the 'Palestinians' far more than they were expecting (including essentially saying that all areas east of the "green line" were illegitimate), and so Abbas refused to even bargain! Moreover, he would not recognize Israel as a Jewish state or give security assurances. So in short, he offered nothing. To blame this on Bibi - despite the fact that it was Abbas who reneged on everything, is absurd.
But let me go on to prove how misleading Aluf Benn really can be. The new Israeli peace initiative presented by leading figures in the business and academic communities undermines the central foundation of the Netanyahu-Barak government, which is that there is no Palestinian partner. The prime minister's popularity is damaged when he is occupied with explaining his lavish travels around the world. It is increasingly reminiscent of Ariel Sharon's forlorn autumn that led him to the disengagement policy.
What "new Israeli peace initiative"? What "business and academic communities"? He doesn't even explain what this is, who has put this forward, or whether the public at large accepts or even knows about this. And yes, Israel is unpopular abroad. But he does not explain why that is not the fault of anti-Israel lies in the "mainstream media" of "Western" countries, as well as antisemitism, rather than Bibi. The "international community" has hated and isolated Israel for quite some time. None of what we see here is new or specific to Bibi. The "Goldstone Report" was commissioned when Olmert was in charge. And need I remind you of the "Zionism is racism" UN resolution? The prime minister is considering throwing the governments of the West a bone in the form of the transfer of territory in the West Bank to the Palestinian Authority without harming the settlements. In return, the Americans and Europeans will ease their pressure on Israel and refrain from recognizing a Palestinian state, and will convene an international conference where Netanyahu will be presented as a statesman and peacemaker rather than as a stubborn politician.
The amount of anti-Israel incitement (and particularly anti-Bibi incitement) in the "West" has reached such a fevered pitch, that it is far more likely that if you give a finger, they expect a hand. If Bibi thinks that conceding to the "West" and "international community" will prevent further action by the so-called "international community," then he is sadly mistaken. The party of the disengagement, Kadima, will be forced to support Netanyahu in his concessions. Its support will neutralize the growing threat of early elections against the backdrop of the expected indictment of Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman [Lieberman was indicted on Wednesday CiJ]. The left will praise Netanyahu, the investigation over his trips abroad will be shelved, and the right wing will criticize him but swallow the withdrawal out of concern over falling from power.
To that I say...maybe? But so what? Does this prove that if Bibi decides to give up land for nothing that he will be acting in Israel's interests? No. So much for his "statesmanship" if he surrenders. It sounds perfect, but there's a problem here. Netanyahu's new policy is not rational. If the territories are important for Israel, as he has argued up to now, why give them up for a deferral of a U.N. vote or for a meeting with U.S. President Barack Obama? And if the territories are not important, why hold on to them? If Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas is refusing to negotiate and the PA has engaged in incitement, as Netanyahu has argued, how can they be given more territory? And most importantly, let's assume Netanyahu gets through September and buys the deferral of a UN vote with a few thousand dunams of land. What will he do in October?
The world will not abandon its aspiration for an end to the occupation and independence for the Palestinians, and the pressure on Israel will continue.
There is no reason to carry out a miserly withdrawal without a quid pro quo just to buy more time.
Wow, this I agree with Aluf Benn about. There is a logic in a unilateral process that creates fundamental change on the ground and ultimately establishes a new border, such as was done in Gaza. The public will understand and the world will support a major withdrawal that includes the evacuation of dozens of settlements and heralds the end of the occupation while maintaining military control over the Jordan Valley. But such a decision requires courage and political ability on Sharon's level, and it is not enough to be a good speechwriter.
I don't know that the Israeli public would support this necessarily. [It would not. CiJ] And he hasn't proven that it is good for Israel, or would lead to increased safety and security for Israel. The "West Bank" is not the same as Gaza, and it is much closer to big Israeli population centers. Plus, much of it is the high ground. We see how well "disengagement" worked out for Gaza, and so why exactly would it work out for the "West Bank"? Aluf Benn has not shown one scintilla of evidence to explain how this could work. Thus, he has not shown where this action would be "courageous," rather than an action of capitulation to the "international community," which would still demand more, anyway.
Well done, Racquel.
Labels: Aluf Benn, Binyamin Netanyahu, unilateral concessions, unilateral withdrawal
Israel and the Arabs agree: It's just a nuisance
Reviewing the Wikileaks cables, Aluf Benn castigates the United States as an empire in decline. Although he argues that the cables from the Bush administration are equally as weak as those from the Obama administration, I don't believe anyone would have referred to America 'in decline' before January 20, 2009.
But it's Benn's biting assessment of where the 'Palestinians' stand in the World's eyes that is most striking about this article, especially because Benn is a committed Leftist who shares Obama's 'fierce moral urgency' to create a 'Palestinian state.' You will recall that in the summer of 2009, Benn
begged Obama to come here via a piece in the New York Times so that Israelis would learn to trust him. As of this past spring, Benn continued to believe that Obama needed to
endear himself to Israelis.
Even Aluf Benn understands now that no one cares about the 'Palestinians.' No one except Israel's and the Democratic party's Far Left.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was the first world leader to leverage the WikiLeaks revelations for his own purposes. At a press conference on Monday, Netanyahu used the leaked cables to trash Obama's position and advance the agenda of "Iran first." The cables prove, he said, that there's no truth in the narrative that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the greatest threat to the region and its future.
The doublespeak of the Arab leaders, who publicly attack Israel while warning against Iran in closed forums, helps the prime minister repulse the American administration's claim that solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict takes precedence. It provides confirmation of Israel's assertion, which the West has disbelieved for years, that the Palestinians aren't important.
The Arab leaders didn't ignore the Palestinians. They raised this issue over and over in their talks with American representatives. But the Egyptians and the Gulf emirates share their Israeli counterparts' view of the conflict as a nuisance that must be managed, not a problem that can be solved.
None of them fantasized about a Palestinian state, about freedom and independence for Gaza and Nablus. All they wanted was to get this annoying nuisance off their backs, and they didn't care how. They viewed Obama as a pest and his envoys as bothers, not as spokesmen for the global superpower. Or perhaps that's no longer what America is.
Indeed.
But one thing has changed. There is no chance Israelis will trust Obama's assessment of the 'Palestinian' issue again. He's finished here.
Labels: Aluf Benn, Barack Obama, linkage, Wikileaks
