Haaretz, a major Israeli newspaper known for its critical stance towards the government, faces a boycott from government agencies after a controversial comment by its publisher. This action, reportedly endorsed by Prime Minister Netanyahu, has severed communication between the government and the publication, raising concerns about press freedom in Israel. Observers note that Haaretz remains a key voice in journalism, while broader issues regarding media control and transparency are highlighted amidst ongoing governmental pressures.
Haaretz’s Strained Relationship with the Israeli Government
The Israeli daily newspaper Haaretz has long been recognized for its critical perspective on the government. However, recent developments indicate a significant shift, as it appears that government agencies are no longer permitted to engage with the publication. This situation arose following a controversial statement made by the newspaper’s publisher.
Haaretz stands as one of Israel’s largest daily newspapers, offering content in both Hebrew and English. With a rich history that predates the establishment of the State of Israel, the publication was once backed by a Berlin family, but has been primarily owned by the Israeli Schocken family since 1937. Known for its left-liberal stance, Haaretz is especially noted for its incisive critiques of government policy.
In a move interpreted as punishment for its editorial stance, the Israeli government has reportedly initiated a boycott against the newspaper. This shift in relations was catalyzed by a comment made by Amos Schocken during a media conference in London, with Prime Minister Netanyahu allegedly endorsing the decision.
The Fallout and Implications for Press Freedom
Following the incident, Schocken sought to clarify his remarks, asserting that he did not intend to equate Palestinian freedom fighters with Hamas, emphasizing the necessity of combating terrorism. Nevertheless, the already tense dynamic between Haaretz and the government has reached a critical point.
All official agencies have been directed to cease placing advertisements in Haaretz, and communication between government representatives and the newspaper’s journalists has been effectively severed. Despite this, industry observers do not anticipate that reporters will lose their government credentials.
Nadav Tamir, a former diplomat and advisor at the Peres Center for Peace and Innovation in Tel Aviv, has labeled the cabinet’s decision—rumored to have Netanyahu’s backing—as an unprecedented overreach. He highlights that Haaretz, under the leadership of publisher Amos Schocken, remains a rare beacon of integrity in Israeli journalism, resisting political co-option. Tamir notes that he cannot recall similar boycotts being enforced against other daily newspapers for comparable editorial choices.
While the government has chosen to remain silent on the matter, Haaretz has accused officials of operating in secrecy, demanding transparency around the boycott’s approval process. The newspaper contends that the decision was not listed on the cabinet’s agenda during last weekend’s discussions, a point that raises eyebrows regarding procedural norms.
Haaretz journalist Gideon Levy has expressed his determination not to be cowed by these developments, stating, “Just because we stand alone with our view does not mean we are more or less right.” He asserts that the global perception of Israel is shaped by the actions in Gaza rather than by his reporting.
In a related incident, an ARD team faced detention and intimidation from Israeli soldiers while investigating violence perpetrated by radical settlers against Palestinians in the West Bank.
Concerns over press freedom in Israel are intensifying, particularly in light of the ongoing conflict. Reporters Without Borders has voiced alarm over the Israeli Prime Minister’s recent attacks on media freedom. The Communications Minister, Shlomo Karhi, is reportedly seeking to reshape the media landscape during wartime, which includes proposed legislation that could label foreign media as threats.
Additionally, the government is contemplating freezing public funding for the state broadcaster KAN. Critics argue that the ultra-conservative minister promotes a media narrative that favors governmental perspectives. The future of KAN, which the government intends to privatize, is expected to be a topic of discussion in an upcoming cabinet meeting, with experts warning that such privatization could ultimately lead to the broadcaster’s closure.