Jerusalem Post Pays a Ransom, It Seems

Alerted by Muqata, and informed by Joe Settler, I now know that something very odd happened at the Jerusalem Post.

Let's make it simple:

1. Seth Freedman publishes a takedown of Israel.

Example:

Describing the situation in the West Bank as a form of apartheid causes offence to some, despite all the clear evidence justifying the term. The same people object to the wanton destruction meted out in villages by the IDF being likened to pogroms – the word having been somehow arrogated by certain Jewish people for their exclusive use, and only then in relation to the Jews' own historical suffering.

Any comparison between the expansionist, racially-motivated policies of the Israeli government and similar experiments of ethnic supremacy throughout history are deluged beneath a swamp of derisory, indignant responses, as though pointing out the glaringly obvious is the antithesis of honest and reasonable debate. The self-righteous anger is no less vehement, nor any less keenly expressed, on the other side among those who balk at the Jewish state being referred to as Israel, or the Israeli army as the IDF.

2. Edwin Bennatan published a takedown of Seth.

By his defense of these egregious descriptors, Freedman has set himself up as an apologist for the excesses of the Al-Aqsa station. In particular, his attempt to explain away the sensitivity of Israelis towards the careless use of the term 'pogrom' is inexcusable, considering that as a Jew and an Israeli he cannot claim ignorance.

Freedman concludes with one of his more remarkable statements. "While I understand how emotionally invested people (myself included) become when focusing on the conflict," he says, "we should not allow a situation where plainly-spoken facts are dismissed simply because the reader or viewer feels uncomfortable with the truth." In other words, those who reject the use of descriptors such as apartheid, Israel Occupying Forces, and pogroms, are clearly doing so because they are "uncomfortable with the truth". The possibility doesn't even enter Freedman's mind that they are rejecting these terms because they are uncomfortable with falsehoods.

While Freedman's most extreme allegations have been omitted here, he himself is a living rebuttal to his own claims. In Israel, he can call a spade a spade whenever he wishes; in fact he can even call it a pogrom. This is one of the benefits of living in a free society, - a privilege certainly not afforded by Hamas
to the Gaza viewers of Al-Aqsa TV.

3. David Horovitz, JP editor, takes down Bennatan's piece - literally - he censors it out completely.

4. David Horovitz then publishes this apology:

Thursday Sep 11, 2008
Point / Counterpoint: Apology to Seth Freedman

Posted by JPost.com staff

The Jerusalem Post would like to apologize to Seth Freedman for certain comments that appeared on our site following a September 1 blog entry written by Edwin Bennatan that were defamatory, threatening, and inappropriate.

The Jerusalem Post apologizes for any distress caused to Mr. Freedman, expresses its sincere regret that such a situation was allowed to occur, and will endeavour to prevent any recurrence.

A donation will be made by the Jerusalem Post to a charity of Mr Freedman's choice.

If Freedman sends his money to Hamas, how would you describe Horovitz?