Where do newspaper editors draw the line when it comes to publishing controversial advertisements?
What line exists for a Jewish or Israeli media outlet?
The January 24 print edition of the Haaretz English edition ran this ad on page three. It was sponsored by a group of organizations recently blacklisted by Israel for supporting the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign against the Jewish state. Leaders of the banned groups are barred from entering Israel.
If Haaretz wishes to publish ads critical of Israel’s policies concerning the Palestinians, it has every right to do so. Likewise, Haaretz is at liberty to publish an ad attacking the recent Israeli blacklist itself.
But the ad goes beyond criticizing the ban with a direct call for “BOYCOTT.”
Where does freedom of speech end and responsible judgment begin?
Haaretz claims to be a Zionist newspaper despite its often dissenting and controversial contents. So why publish a boycott call and promotion for a movement that, despite the naivety of some of its followers, has, at its core, the desire to see the destruction of the Israeli state?
And what is the purpose of the ad? The Haaretz English print edition appears only in Israel. Do the organizations which produced the ad expect English-speaking Israelis to boycott their own country? Or is this aimed solely at the foreign diplomat, NGO and journalist community that relies on Haaretz for a very narrow and unrepresentative view of Israel?
Ultimately, there is something hypocritical about calling for a blanket boycott yet paying money to an Israeli media outlet for the soapbox. But if BDS was going to do business with the Israeli media, Haaretz is certainly a kindred spirit. Publisher Amos Schocken has admitted the paper has anti-Israel agenda. The paper’s world news editor Asaf Ronel unabashedly insists Israel is an apartheid state. For comparison, it’s unimaginable that BDS leaders would have considered taking out a full page ad in the Jerusalem Post, Israel’s other English print daily.
The BDS movement has crossed many lines. It’s highly disturbing that Haaretz believed it was acceptable to also cross the line.
