It is the prerogative of every newspaper to choose which opinion pieces to publish.
The Jerusalem Post, which, by its own telling, “is known for its centrist stance, and its writers and columnists hold views that span the entire political spectrum,” carries a wide variety of Op-Eds, representing a robust diversity which promotes critical thinking and healthy debate contributing to a democracy strengthened by the open exchange of factually sound arguments.
But the positives to be gained by allowing space for a diversity of views do not, and should not, mean that newspapers deem all contributions worthy of publication.
Indeed, in January 2020, The Post opted to publish, and then retract, a CAMERA Op-Ed criticizing The New York Times for ”whitewashing, mainstreaming and peddling of the world’s oldest hatred: anti-Semitism.” The retraction of a published Op-Ed — in this case a straightforward and necessary piece of media criticism — is an extremely rare move reserved for content usually considered well beyond the pale. About the piece, which soon found a home at Times of Israel, the then-editor at The Jerusalem Post cited a policy of professional protectionism: “we will not run opeds that are simply a take down [sic] of another media organization,” he said.
That unexpected call was within the bounds of editorial judgment, even if the decision to retract an Op-Ed after already publishing it was an extremely drastic step.
By the same token, The Jerusalem Post editors have the right to decide to publish an Op-Ed from B’Tselem, an organization often falsely identified in international media outlets as a “leading human rights group,” though it’s completely absent from the legal space where human rights battles are usually waged. At the same time, The Post equally has the right to decline the same piece, and there is good reason for doing so.
While the organization does not take steps to actually advance human rights, B’Tselem dedicates tremendous resources and energies to advancing the demonization of Israel in the international arena. Its Jan. 9 Op-Ed in The Jerusalem Post, “Israel using armed militias to ethnically cleanse the West Bank,” was the latest salvo in that unholy prioritizing of vilification of Israel over the actual fixing of real wrongs.
Leading Israeli and Jewish religious figures have rightly condemned reprehensible, unprovoked attacks by Israeli civilians on West Bank Palestinians. But the Jerusalem Post Op-Ed by B’Tselem spokesman Yair Dvir took a different approach, falsely alleging government backing for ugly violence which it mischaracterized with toxic terminology including “organized pogroms” and “ethnic cleansing.” “B’Tselem warns that state-backed settler militias are driving Palestinians from their land with violent attacks across the West Bank,” broadcasts the subhead.
The column itself continues in this vein, falsely charging the government with collaborating and encouraging such attacks:
The dozens of outposts from which the attackers emerge are established with the knowledge and encouragement of state authorities and in many cases with explicit, institutionalized support….
This model, of unchecked state-armed militias operating in coordination with the military and backed by all branches of government, has succeeded, according to B’Tselem’s monitoring, in driving 45 Palestinian communities out of their homes over the past two years.
Indeed, Dvir’s column opens with a description of shocking violence carried out by Israeli civilians against Palestinians in the West Bank town of al-Jaba’. What he doesn’t mention is that the Nov. 17 attack prompted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to convene a Nov. 21 security cabinet meeting to address the violence. As Reuters reported at the time (“Netanyahu vows crackdown on Israeli violence after attacks on Palestinian village“):
Netanyahu said: “I view with great severity the violent disturbances and the attempt to take the law into their own hands by a small, extremist group.”
He also said: “I call on the law enforcement authorities to deal with the rioters to the fullest extent of the law. I intend to deal with this personally, and convene the relevant ministers as soon as possible to address this serious phenomenon.”
The Israeli military said security forces were deployed to Jab’a and searches were under way for those responsible.
Furthermore, in an apparent effort to sell the “unchecked state-armed militias” falsehood, Dvir noted an Israeli settler reservist who ran over a praying Palestinian in an ATV but completely omitted the salient fact that, as The Jerusalem Post itself reported at the time:
The reservist’s firearm has been confiscated, the IDF affirmed in its statement, and noted that the reservist’s service had been terminated “due to the severity of the incidents.”
“The IDF strongly condemns and views any act of violence seriously, demanding that its soldiers and commanders act in accordance with the values of the IDF spirit,” the statement ended.
In what scenario does an army detain and terminate the service of members of a “state-backed militia” who carry out violence in the name of the state’s alleged goal of ethnic cleansing? And in what reality do members of the alleged “state-backed militia” attack soldiers from the very army supposedly backing them?
B’Tselem’s unserious analysis of a serious problem does a real disservice to informing about and thereby effectively addressing the problem. That B’Tselem, which has previously employed a Holocaust denier, staged footage, and misrepresented Palestinians who participated in violent attacks as “not involved in hostilities,” favors anti-Israel sensationalism over sober analysis is no surprise.
What is surprising is The Post‘s decision to give a platform and thereby legitimize an organization whose mission and methods revolve around demonizing Israel in the international realm as opposed to working on the ground to effect positive change in the Jewish state. Last month, The Jerusalem Post celebrated “93 years of influential journalism,” recalling past articles which reporters believe “left the strongest mark on public conversation, policy, society, and more.”
In the interest of continuing its legacy of positively impacting public conversation, policy, and society as the first centennial approaches, The Jerusalem Post would be well served by refraining from extending legitimacy to an organization which prioritizes toxic anti-Israel libels at the expense of its own supposed mandate to improve human rights.