|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Edited by: Fern Sidman
In a striking response to recent remarks by Haaretz publisher Amos Schocken, the Israeli ministries of the Interior, Education, and Diaspora Affairs announced on Thursday that they would cut ties with the newspaper. The decision follows Schocken’s statements at a conference, where he characterized Israel’s treatment of Palestinians as an “apartheid regime” and referred to “Palestinian freedom fighters that Israel calls terrorists.” According to a report on The Times of Israel web site, these remarks have ignited a firestorm within the government, leading officials to call for a comprehensive boycott of the newspaper across government entities.
Schocken’s incendiary remarks at the recently held Haaretz conference in London were widely circulated on social media, where excerpts of his speech raised strong reactions across the Israeli political spectrum.
In a video compiled from Schocken’s remarks, the Haaretz publisher expressed criticism of the Israeli government’s stance on Palestinian territories, suggesting that the administration under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “doesn’t care about imposing a cruel apartheid regime on the Palestinian population.” Schocken argued that Israel’s continued support for settlements in the Judea and Samaria region comes at a heavy cost, not only for Palestinians but also for Israelis, as resources are allocated to defending these territories. He described Palestinian terrorists as “freedom fighters that Israel calls terrorists,” a phrase that has since drawn intense criticism for appearing to legitimize terrorist actions.
The term “apartheid” is particularly sensitive in Israeli discourse, as Israel strongly rejects accusations that its policies in Judea and Samaria and Gaza meet this description. The Times of Israel report noted that Israel has consistently argued that Palestinian residents of Judea and Samaria are under the governance of the Palestinian Authority, which has self-rule over Palestinian territories. Meanwhile, Arab citizens of Israel have equal rights to their Jewish counterparts, a distinction Israeli officials frequently cite when countering allegations of apartheid.
Schocken went on to liken the current situation in Gaza and in Judea and Samaria to a “second Nakba,” referencing the displacement of Palestinian populations during the 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict. This term, laden with historical significance, refers to what Palestinians call “the catastrophe” of 1948, when the State of Israel was established.
Schocken did not limit his remarks to criticism alone; he proposed specific actions he believes the international community should take to address the situation, according to The Times of Israel report. In what he described as a necessary move to establish a Palestinian state, Schocken suggested that sanctions should be applied against Israel, particularly targeting leaders and settlers who oppose a two-state solution. This call for sanctions against Israel struck a particularly controversial chord among Israeli officials and citizens alike, leading to accusations that Schocken’s rhetoric promotes harm to the state.
Following widespread backlash, Schocken issued a statement on Thursday evening indicating that he had reconsidered his remarks about Palestinian “freedom fighters.” The Times of Israel reported that he acknowledged that his language was problematic and expressed regret over his initial phrasing, clarifying that he should have referred to “freedom fighters who also use terrorist methods and need to be fought against.” In his statement, reported by The Times of Israel, Schocken further emphasized that while there have been historical examples of freedom fighters resorting to terrorism, “the use of terrorism is not legitimate.”
This clarification, however, did little to quell the anger among some Israeli groups, including the Choose Life forum, an organization representing victims of terrorism. According to The Times of Israel, the forum filed a formal complaint with the police, accusing Schocken of incitement and of encouraging actions harmful to Israel’s security. The group contended that Schocken’s remarks “cross into incitement,” particularly by labeling individuals who carry out attacks against Israeli civilians as “freedom fighters.” In their view, his statements go beyond protected speech and constitute an endorsement of violence against the state.
Interior Ministry Director General Ronen Peretz also expressed sharp disapproval of Schocken’s statements. In a letter to the ministry’s spokesperson’s department, Peretz described Schocken’s words as “disgusting,” suggesting they represent a fundamental disconnect from Israel’s “basic values.” Peretz further underscored the government’s stance by referring to the current conflict as a “justified” war, emphasizing that Schocken’s remarks come in the wake of the devastating October 7 Hamas attack that left 1,200 Israeli civilians dead.
The impact of this decision will reach beyond routine interaction. As The Times of Israel reported, the ministry’s directive will bar Haaretz from publishing government ads, notices, or tender announcements in either its print or online formats. Channel 12 reported that this move is intended to reduce Haaretz’s ability to profit from government-sponsored content, thereby aligning financial actions with the government’s political stance.
Echoing the Interior Ministry’s stance, Diaspora Affairs Ministry Director-General Avi Cohen-Scali accused Haaretz of undermining Israel’s legitimacy on an international stage. According to The Times of Israel report, Cohen-Scali asserted that as a self-identified “Israeli” organization, Haaretz’s stance “astounds” those who expect it to support Israel’s narrative and interests. Cohen-Scali also noted that his ministry is actively engaged in fighting global delegitimization campaigns against Israel and that Haaretz’s rhetoric works against these efforts.
By cutting ties with Haaretz, Cohen-Scali aims to send a clear message about the limits of acceptable discourse within Israeli society. The ministry’s action reflects a wider governmental concern that internal criticism of Israel’s policies, particularly on sensitive issues such as military and foreign policy, could play into the hands of external detractors, potentially amplifying anti-Israel sentiment abroad.
The Education Ministry has also joined the boycott, with Director General Meir Shimoni directing ministry staff to cease all cooperation with Haaretz. According to Shimoni’s letter, Schocken’s statements “contradict the values of the education system.” The Times of Israel reported that Shimoni sees Haaretz’s editorial stance as incompatible with the ministry’s mission to foster patriotism and support for Israel’s sovereignty. By distancing the education sector from Haaretz, the ministry hopes to shield students and educators from rhetoric that could challenge Israel’s official narrative, particularly in light of the country’s current security situation.
Beyond the individual actions of each ministry, Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi proposed a blanket government boycott of Haaretz. According to report in The Times of Israel, Karhi’s proposal calls for all government bodies, including the Government Press Office, to withdraw any form of support for Haaretz, including advertising. Karhi argued that funding Haaretz through taxpayer money compounds the impact of the paper’s editorial stance on Israeli citizens, many of whom may find the paper’s coverage and language objectionable.
Karhi also addressed concerns that such a boycott might infringe on freedom of speech, emphasizing that his proposal respects these rights. He contended that Haaretz must have known that Schocken’s comments would “upset some of its clients, including the State of Israel.” By choosing to take a controversial stance, Haaretz effectively risked alienating the government and jeopardizing its relationship with state institutions, Karhi suggested.
The decision to sever ties with Haaretz has sparked a broader conversation within Israel about the boundaries of freedom of speech and the role of media in political discourse. Karhi emphasized that the boycott does not aim to suppress freedom of expression, but rather to respond proportionately to Schocken’s remarks.
