Sunday, September 14, 2008

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.


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 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?


Anonymous said...

self-censorship equals dhimmitude.

Ashan said...

I would call Horowitz an accessory to a crime against humanity.

Anonymous said...

Just do as we do:

1. Stop buying the JPost. As addicted as you are, that means not even the Friday and Erev Chag editions. We've been going cold turkey for 2 years now, ever since the JPost included a paid supplement advocating homosexual marriage (by an organization chaired by Aliza Olmert) along with its Rosh Hashanah edition. Horowitz semi-apologized then but things have only gotten more extreme at the post.

2. If you know someone subscribing to the JPost, show them what they're supporting and beg them to cancel their subscriptions until the paper fails (again) and changes ownership back to someone with a minimal of Jewish morals in them.

BTW, did you see today's absolute crap at the Post? There seems to be no end to their delusions.

Mr Bagel said...

An appalling editorial decision on behalf of David Horowitz, whilst I don't often agree with his p.o.v, until now I have had great respect for David.
The real truth of the matter is how on earth Seth Freeman can even begin to be respected when he has to resort to attacking any counter criticism with legal threats.
It seems populist manipulation via semantics is de rigour of Guardian dhimmis and doesn't just exist in the realm of middle east politics, it seems the lexicon of Journalism is now under assault as well.
Your wheel barrow is squeaking Mr Freeman.

Unknown said...

Glad to hear I'm not the only one that's noticed and cared about the disturbing shift in the JPost recently. Lately I've been seeing and increasing amount of lies, propaganda and gross bias in the JPost. Very strange.

SnoopyTheGoon said...

Could we be sure it's David Horowitz's decision?