Amos Schocken & Haaretz Stand with Israel’s Enemies

Amos Schocken’s remarks at the Haaretz-organized conference in London mark a profound betrayal of Israel at a moment of crisis, casting him as an adversary not just of Israel’s policies but of its very right to exist. In a time when Israel is still reeling from the October 7th Hamas attacks—a day defined by the brutal, indiscriminate slaughter of civilians—Schocken’s speech, filled with incendiary, distorted rhetoric, reveals a staggering disconnect from the reality faced by his fellow citizens. Rather than rallying in solidarity with a nation under siege, he chose to stoke fires of anti-Israel sentiment on the world stage. His words, broadcast to an international audience, illustrate a disturbing alignment not with Israel’s preservation, but with forces that seek to undermine it.

At this conference, provocatively titled “Israel After October 7th: Allied or Alone?” Schocken unabashedly painted Israel as a pariah state engaged in “apartheid” and “ethnic cleansing,” language that reinforces the darkest accusations leveled by those who wish to see Israel disappear. He stated, “The Netanyahu government wants to continue and intensify illegal settlement in the territories that were meant for a Palestinian state. It doesn’t care about imposing a cruel apartheid regime upon the Palestinian population.” In a few short sentences, Schocken not only demonized Israel’s democratic government but also used the same terminology promoted by anti-Israel groups worldwide, effectively undermining the legitimacy of his own country.

To call Israel’s government a “cruel apartheid regime” is an insult to the country’s citizens, who face constant threats from groups dedicated to Israel’s annihilation. Schocken’s willingness to adopt the language of Israel’s most vehement detractors—echoing accusations that the Jewish state is somehow analogous to apartheid South Africa—only deepens the harm. It delegitimizes the security concerns of the Israeli people, implying that they should simply tolerate the unchecked violence aimed at them.

Schocken did not stop there. He went further, stating that Israel’s struggle to protect its citizens and maintain its borders is a form of ethnic cleansing, declaring that “the present government also supports the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from parts of the occupied territories. In a sense, what is taking place now in the occupied territories and in part of Gaza is a second Nakba.” This incendiary comparison to the Nakba—the Arabic term for “catastrophe” used to describe the displacement of Palestinians during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war—feeds directly into the rhetoric of those who view Israel’s very existence as illegitimate. By drawing this parallel, Schocken aligns himself not with advocates for peace, but with extremists who seek to erase Israel from the map.

Schocken’s use of “freedom fighters” to describe Hamas is perhaps the most outrageous part of his statements. He claimed, “It dismisses the costs of both sides for defending the settlements, while fighting the Palestinian freedom fighters that Israel calls terrorists.” To label as “freedom fighters” those who murdered, kidnapped, and tortured civilians in the October 7th attacks is a gross distortion. Such language dishonors the memory of the victims and trivializes the suffering inflicted upon families who lost loved ones in brutal attacks. For Schocken, a leader of one of Israel’s most prominent newspapers, to propagate this twisted narrative is not just inflammatory—it is morally reprehensible. His words suggest a willful disregard for the suffering of his own people, painting those responsible for heinous acts as legitimate political actors rather than the violent, bloodthirsty terrorists that they are and always will be,

Attempting damage control, Schocken later backtracked, saying, “I should have said, ‘Freedom fighters who also use terrorist methods and need to be fought against. The use of terrorism is not legitimate.’” Yet, this half-hearted clarification only deepens the insult. By implying that the establishment of the Jewish state involved comparable acts, Schocken seeks to equate the actions of Israel’s founders, who defended their people’s right to exist, with the barbarity of groups that explicitly reject Israel’s right to life. Schocken’s “reconsideration” only underscores his deeply flawed perspective on the history and present-day realities of his own country.

Schocken’s betrayal of Israel is not just a personal failing—it represents a profound and deeply troubling stance within Haaretz itself. For years, Haaretz has made its hostility toward Israel’s government and policies clear, but in recent years, it has devolved into a mouthpiece for anti-Israel rhetoric so extreme that even publications like The New York Times, which are frequently criticized for their clear cut bias against Israel, pale in comparison. Haaretz’s readiness to amplify narratives that demonize Israel’s right to self-defense, in language that mirrors that of Israel’s most ardent enemies, shows a disregard for journalistic integrity and an absence of loyalty to the country it claims to represent.

Israel’s government, rightfully outraged by Schocken’s statements and Haaretz’s editorial stance, has taken appropriate action by canceling subscriptions to the newspaper within its ministries. No government, especially one facing existential threats, should be expected to fund a platform that actively undermines it. Haaretz’s departure from honest, balanced reporting is a tragedy for Israel’s media landscape, particularly in times when the truth about the nation’s survival is so essential.

In attempting to curry favor with anti-Israel forces, Schocken achieved nothing but disgrace. The protesters who gathered outside his speech, filled with antisemitic vitriol, did not recognize him as an ally. To them, he was simply another Israeli, another Jew, undeserving of sympathy. This tragic irony reflects the grim history of Europe’s Jews, who, despite assimilation and efforts to appease, were not spared the worst atrocities. Schocken’s words are yet another painful reminder that appeasement has never, and will never, be a path to acceptance or security for the Jewish people.

Ultimately, Schocken’s rhetoric and Haaretz’s complicity must be called out for what they are: a betrayal of Israel and a perversion of journalistic duty. As Israel faces an unprecedented assault on its sovereignty, it deserves a media that stands by its side, grounded in truth and loyalty. Schocken’s disloyalty only serves to empower those who wish to see Israel falter. For Israelis, the message is clear: they must stand firm against such betrayals, defend their right to exist, and reject those who would weaken them from within.