Looking Behind Ha'aretz's Liberal Image by Ran HaCohen 6:30pm Wed Oct 2 '02 Ha'aretzdaily.com is not a full translation of the Hebrew paper; it's a selection. It often omits certain items, certain columns, that Ha'aretz does not find "suitable" for foreign eyes, like the report I just mentioned. Another way to achieve the same hidden bias is by "nationalistically correct" translations. print article Looking Behind Ha'aretz's Liberal Image A new Israeli web-site, supported by two major settlers' sites from the West Bank and Gaza Strip, is dedicated to the holy cause of "encouraging and supporting the employment of Jews only". It is already listing dozens of Israeli firms that do not employ "Gentiles". In the first months of the Intifada, Israeli racists initiated a boycott of Arab shops and restaurants; now, employment of Arabs is targeted. Let's keep the inevitable historical analogies for another time; the point I want to make now is, that most of you haven't heard of this web-site. Right? The site is neither confidential nor is it my discovery: I simply read about it in the Hebrew Ha'aretz a few days ago (24.9.02). But most of you could not. Why? Because this item was left out of Haaretzdaily.com, the English version of Ha'aretz. Haaretzdaily.com is not Ha'aretz Is this a mistake? An exception? No it is not. Ha'aretzdaily.com is not a full translation of the Hebrew paper; it's a selection. It often omits certain items, certain columns, that Ha'aretz does not find "suitable" for foreign eyes, like the report I just mentioned. Another way to achieve the same hidden bias is by "nationalistically correct" translations. For example, when Hebrew Ha'aretz read (2.7.02): "Recent reports about Egyptian intentions to develop nuclear weaponry WERE APPARENTLY THE RESULT OF ISRAELI PSYCHOLOGICAL WARFARE AND do not match intelligence information in Jerusalem, according to a senior Israeli official", the English translation simply omitted the words I've capitalised. Or, quoting an Israeli officer on the use of Palestinians as "human shields", the English version read (16.8.02): "Before the search [in a Palestinian house] we go to a neighbour, take him out of his house and tell him to call the people we want out of the next door house. [...] The neighbour does not have the option to refuse to do it. He shouts, knocks on the door and says the army's here. If nobody answers, he comes back and we go to work." Sounds pretty harmless? - Just because the last sentence is a "nationalistically correct" translation of the following Hebrew sentence: "If nobody answers, we have to tell the neighbour that he will be killed if no one comes out." Ha'aretz, Not What You Thought Of course the "nationalistic correctness" of Ha'aretz is not confined to its English version. In the last two years - which saw both the Intifada and the launching of its English on-line edition - Ha'aretz has taken a sharp turn to the nationalistic right. A lecture delivered at the end of May by its editor-in-chief is worth reading to understand that. In the lecture, at the 9th World Editors' Forum in Bruges, Belgium, Hanoch Marmari seems to have had two objectives: one was to affirm Ha'aretz's liberal image as a serious, "global brand" quality-paper: quite understandable considering his function and audience. But the other objective, just as apparent, was to discredit allegations of an Israeli massacre in Jenin. Typically, it's this second issue that Marmari introduces first, at the very opening of his lecture: "First, the good news: Abu Ali's nine children are alive and well - as well as children can be among the ruins of the Jenin refugee camp. Please deliver this news to all of your friends". The two objectives - serving the paper's image and serving Israel's propaganda - are highly interwoven; which of them prevails? Denying the massacre cannot contribute to Ha'aretz's reputation; whereas Ha'aretz's reputation is quite essential for denying a massacre in Jenin, as well as for disseminating other official Israeli positions. Reporters The best "proof" given for Ha'aretz liberalism is its critical journalists, the best-known of which is Amira Hass: it is no coincidence that hers is the only name mentioned in Marmari's lecture. Amira Hass is indeed a superb journalist whose work is utterly invaluable. She deserves every bit of her global reputation, and more. But let's put things in proportion. Hass is not the only journalist in Ha'aretz. She is "balanced" by, say, Nadav Shragai, who reports on the Israeli settlers with unconcealed sympathy, or by Amos Harel, who mainly quotes Israeli military sources. If those three perspectives - the Palestinian, the settlers' and the army's - diverge, you can imagine which of them will make it to the front page, headline or editorial. Again, the controversy over Jenin is a good example: the very day that Amira Hass, visiting the scene immediately after the operation, carefully reported that one could not say at that stage whether a massacre had taken place, Ha'aretz editorial (ab)used her evidence to claim categorically that "There was no massacre in Jenin", as its heading read (19.4.02). By the way, the headline of the undervalued daily Yediot Achronot that day was: "Israel in a Propaganda Offensive: 'There was No Massacre in Jenin'": a responsible piece of journalism, reporting the government's propaganda efforts rather then joining them like Ha'aretz's editorial did. Op-Eds As far as columnists are concerned, Ha'aretz naturally prints right-wingers as well as left-wingers. This does not mean that "anything goes": though several op-eds and editorials criticised the Israeli conscientious objectors, no op-ed supporting them was ever allowed: that's as far as liberalism goes. Moreover, the past year saw several liberal and left-oriented columnists leave (leading sociologist Baruch Kimmerling, critical economist Ephraim Reiner, Aviv Lavie's excellent media criticism) or reduced (Meron Benvenisti). Ever more columns are written by rhinoceros like Ari Shavit, who was critically left-wing in the past and moved to the other end once the Intifada broke out, or by Amnon Rubinstein, retiring Knesset Member for Meretz, whose columns count Israel's blessings and attack any criticism from the dovish end. In a recent column, Rubinstein badly distorted a letter published in the Guardian by Nigel Parry and Ali Abunimah, American pro-Palestinian activists; when the two asked to publish a response, Ha'aretz typically refused. Ads Not less revealing is the advertisement policy of Ha'aretz. When an Israeli death-squad had assassinated the Palestinian colonel Khaled Abu Khiran (14.5.02), Ha'aretz refused to publish a condolence ad by the Arab-Jewish Partnership group Taayush that stated that Abu Khiran "was executed without trial by the State of Israel". The reason given for the refusal was that Ha'aretz did not want to turn its condolence ad page into a place for political expression. But Ha'aretz has no problem publishing the standard condolence ad of the Government of Israel after every terror attack, stating the victims were "murdered by Sons of Evil": this does not sound like a political statement in Ha'aretz's ears. Framing Sometimes, framing an item is enough to divert or even subvert its message. The Guardian recently published an impressive interview with Britain's chief rabbi, Jonathan Sacks. In an unprecedentedly strong warning to Israel, Professor Sacks argued that the country was adopting a stance "incompatible" with the deepest ideals of Judaism, and that the current conflict with the Palestinians was "corrupting" Israeli culture. Ha'aretz (27.8.02) reported the Guardian interview quite faithfully; but it put it in a more "friendly" light. The eight paragraphs on the interview were followed by four paragraphs recycling an old interview, more suitable for nationalistic ears: "In an interview in Ha'aretz in January this year, on the subject of 'The New anti-Semitism,' Sacks launched a vehement attack on Muslims as the archetypal anti-Semites of the new millennium [...] Referring to the Intifada which erupted in September 2000, Sacks said that the Palestinian leadership was unable 'to acquiesce in Israel's permanence. They see Israel as a Crusader state'." Now that Sack's criticism of Israel is safely "balanced" by criticising the Arabs, he can be let in. Caveat Lector These are some of the more overt examples for Ha'aretz's very one-sidedly limited liberalism. The picture emerging from off-the-record talks is much harder. I have heard of censored op-eds, of suppressed book reviews, of editors reproached for publishing mildly critical stuff, of journalists fighting to insert a critical line. All this may not be so surprising: in a society sinking into the ugliest forms of nationalism and racism, in a country actually run by the army behind an ever thinner fig-leaf of democracy, in a land where war crimes are rapidly turning from frequent exceptions to a legitimate rule, it would be a miracle if one medium-size newspaper remained an unaffected oasis of liberalism and free expression. Neither Ha'aretz staff, nor its readers, nor its advertisers live on an isolated island. However, too many people in- and outside Israel seem to believe in this miracle, and that's when it becomes dangerous. Ha'aretz should be taken for what it is: a Zionist Israeli newspaper, operating in a rapidly deteriorating society. Just as it reflects this society, society's deterioration is reflected in it. Expecting to get an objective, non-partisan picture of Israeli-Palestinian realities from Ha'aretz is a dangerously naive illusion; even more so from its retouched English edition. - Ran HaCohen www.antiwar.com/hacohen/h093002.html add your comments Source file

the haaretz is as biased as the NY times. by the haaretz is as biased as the NY times. 9:27pm Wed Oct 2 '02 address: the haaretz is as biased as the NY times. phone: the haaretz is as biased as the NY times. the haaretz is as biased as the NY times. print comment the haaretz is as biased as the NY times. the haaretz is as biased as the NY times... add your comments

Comment by * 12:28pm Thu Oct 3 '02 print comment This is very disturbing if true. Media censorsship like this rattles the foundation of a democracy. It contributes to an increase of aggression, lack of understanding, is boarderline propoganda and is at best false information. It shows an utter disregard for the non-hebrew speaking public, and if intentional, it can also be called racist. I thought the media was supposed to be free, I have considered Ha'aretz as a free media group....a little thing to do with living in a free country with free information....... a democracy. add your comments

I read about all that in the English version by A Reader 4:01pm Fri Oct 4 '02 print comment Actually, I did read about the boycott in the English online version. I don't read Hebrew. What I suspect happened was that the story was part of the changing news stories, in the middle front, which can go off the front page quickly if there is some breaking event that requires more of reportage space. add your comments

Sven by that's bad stuff, but still... 7:44pm Tue Oct 8 '02 address: ...it's a good paper phone: that's bad stuff, but still... sven sp. print comment A few days ago I read an article by Avi Primor accusing Sharon of using an "South African Strategy". There might be some critical stuff omitted (or a lot of; I only now the english version), but my impression is certainly not that of a "nationalistically correct" representation to the outside world. Concerning the speech of the editor-in-chief: I understand the necessity of differing coverage, depending on the audience. The foreign readership of Ha'Aretz are mostly critical people (concerning Israels' policy) if not antisemitic (and the coverage of Jenin is really a good example for that: a lot of people being keen on "the israeli massacre"). Anything that reminds even indirectly of nazi-like terms or actions does have a fatal effect on e.g. the political climate in germany (my home), even resulting directly into attacs on synagogues or jewish people. Ha'Aretz certainly doesn't deserve to be used as a key-witness by stupid neo-nazis and antisemites. Anyway, counterfeit translations cannot be accepted and don't fit any journalistic standard. ---- add your comments

afd by sdf 12:05am Wed Oct 9 '02 print comment what are you talking about... they might as well rename haaretz to "Israel.. what's that?? daily news" add your comments

Haaretz is most advanced media outlet in Midd by Fred Hauptman 2:00am Tue Oct 15 '02 print comment All things aside, there are perhaps thousands of Newpapers, radio stations, magazines, websites and TV news programs currently active in the middle east (Israel and Arabland). Haaretz is the most intelligent and accurate source of news amongst these thousands of contenders. If you do not agree, please refer me to another source that you think is better. add your comments

aljazeera is math better by yoram 6:02am Tue Oct 15 '02 print comment haaretz is a zionist newspaper, they don't have even one arab (palestinian) reporter, they reprot about conflicts in the 3'th world from imperialistic point of view that suport U.S side without criricism. add your comments

Haaretz has one (1) Arab reporter by Iris 6:15am Tue Oct 15 '02 print comment Since the beginning of the Intifada, and after protest that included even one demonstration, Haaretz finally hired one Arab reporter - Jalal Banna, who mainly covers the issues of Arabs inside the greenline. Haaretz have more 2 reporters who can speak Arabic,one of them is responsible for the west bank + Gaza strip coverage. 1/3 of the issues that the newspaper is coverning are related to Palestinian issues - but they have just 2-3 reporters working on this issue continously. All Haaretz news about the other parts of the middle east(most of the middle east) are translated from British & American newspapers. AlJazeera - for the other hand, have a reporter in any sight... they have 2 reporters in Palestine, who are concerened, also, in Israeli issues, and both can speak Hebrew. This media resource is known as one of the best all over the world, and played during the Afghanistan war the same role as the C.N.N. played during the first golf war. There is also Abu Dhabi satelite that have not bad news at all. add your comments

by brian 2:15am Sat Oct 26 '02 print comment if you think press freedom = democracy, then israel is far from being a democracy, as the following article indicates. Isreal is 92nd on a list of press freedom: The international journalism pressure group Reporters Without Borders has published a list judging 139 countries on their respect for press freedom. At the top of the list are Finland, Iceland, Norway and the Netherlands. North Korea, China and Burma are at the other end of the scale. Top 10 1 - Finland, Iceland, Norway, Netherlands 5 - Canada 6 - Ireland 7 - Germany, Portugal, Sweden 10 - Denmark There are some surprises for Western governments - the United States ranks below Costa Rica and Italy scores lower than Benin. The pressure group's list - the first of its kind - has been compiled according to levels of censorship, arrests and killings of journalists, state monopoly ownership and legal restrictions. Asia ruled worst Rich countries do not have a monopoly on press freedom, according to the report. Costa Rica (ranked 15) and Benin (11) were identified as leaders among poorer nations. Nor is a democratic government a guarantee of press freedom - democracies such as Colombia (114) and Bangladesh (118) are far down the list. Italy's Prime Minister Berlusconi also owns a media empire The report from the Paris-based organisation said the situation is particularly bad in Asia, home to the worst four offenders - North Korea, China, Burma and Turkmenistan. Reporters Without Borders said in the worst countries "press freedom is a dead letter and independent newspapers do not exist". The only media sources are tightly controlled or monitored by the government, and the few independent journalists left in these countries are constantly harassed, the report says. In contrast, the top four countries are labelled as states which "scrupulously respect press freedom in their own countries, but also speak up for it elsewhere". Israel scores badly The US' 17th place was lowered because of the number of journalists arrested for refusing to reveal their sources, the report says. EU member countries score well in the list - except for Italy, ranked 40th. Bottom 10 139 - N Korea 138 - China 137 - Burma 136 - Turkmenistan 135 - Bhutan 134 - Cuba 133 - Laos 132 - Eritrea 131 - Vietnam 130 - Iraq According to Reporters Without Borders, news diversity in Italy is under serious threat, as Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi continues to combine his job as head of government with being the boss of a privately owned media group. Elsewhere, the organisation places the Palestinian Authority (82) higher than Israel (92) in terms of press freedom. Israel's ranking was hurt by what the pressure group claims are "a large number of violations of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights" in the West Bank and Gaza. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/europe/2354077.stm add your comments

What Do You Expect?.. by Captain Nemo 5:15pm Mon Oct 28 '02 print comment Please never forget - the Word was, is and shall be the weapon (of choise) of mass destruction. Buy a gas mask. add your comments

anti semitic by DarkCloud 9:28am Sat Nov 9 '02 print comment Are Arabs semites? Is there a patent on the term Anti-Semitic? Are the Israelis grateful to Hitler for making Israel possible? Do palestinians hate Hitler for the holocaust that drove the Jews to take Israel by force? Are diaspora Jews alarmed that the hate growing in dispossessed Palestinians if choked off by Israeli fence might become a world wide terrorism. add your comments

arab media is MUCH worse by Mahmoud 11:58pm Sun Dec 15 '02 print comment All-jazz-era and other lying Arab press is a thousand time worse than Haaretz. Actually, Haaretz is anti-jewish sometime more than enough, because of democracy and free speech in Israel. They want to be hollier than hollies. If in some arab media should published just a one percent anti-arabic stuff what can be similar to anti-jewish in Haaretz - those arab journalists would be tortured and killed immediately. You folks, used much higher moral standard to the jews than to any other one. Instead of looking at the mote in your neighbours eye... add your comments

sorry to say i'm not all surprised by Ariel 8:00am Thu Jan 30 '03 print comment All us truly orthodox jews recognize the inherent fallacies in zionsim and the 'state' of is(real)? it's not real. only the messiah can establish the *true* israel, not some zionist occupying army. all the zionists have done is shed the blood of those who think they are following mosaic law, and that of innocent palestnian christians and moslems. i'm not at all surprised by the lies of haaretz. add your comments