His Excellency Boaz Modai, Ambassador of Israel, and The Irish Times
On Saturday 6 September 2014 The Irish Times published a lengthy report under the headline “What next for Hamas?” The report initially concentrated on Palestinians’ reactions to the military incursions by the Israeli Defence Forces into Gaza. It included the views of a Palestinian lawyer who had founded a Centre for Human Rights, an engineer and owner of several factories that had been destroyed in the conflict, the director general of the health ministry and a professor of political science. The report then went on to deal with the wider context of Israeli and Middle Eastern politics and the international response to the latest conflict. The report also provided some historical context to the continuous conflict going back to 1948 and the establishment of the Israeli State. In particular the report looked at the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and his attitude to the “two-State” solution to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. Included in the report were controversial remarks on the subject of rape attributed to a lecturer in Arabic Literature at Bar-Ilan University.
His Excellency Boaz Modai, Israeli Ambassador, wrote to the editor of The Irish Times to complain about the article. He described the article as “frankly outrageous”, claiming that the article was based on biased Palestinian sources. He was particularly critical of the comments attributed to the Head of the Human Rights Centre which he described as “poisonous sensationalist accusations” which had gone unchallenged. The Ambassador went on to deny that the remarks attributed to the lecturer in Arabic Literature were accurately reported and that he had “merely expostulated abstractly on how Islamic fundamentalists have a morbid obsession with sexual purity and honour”. He went on to criticise the reporter’s understanding of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, pointing out that one of Hamas’ prime objectives is the destruction of the entire Israeli State and that all of the Prime Minister’s dealings with Gaza need to be understood in this context. The Ambassador concluded his letter by requesting that The Irish Times publish a clarification saying that the article was “built around hearsay from very partisan anti-Israeli sources” and that an apology be offered to the lecturer in Arabic Literature for the false accusations which the newspaper had published about him.
The editor of The Irish Times replied to the Ambassador defending the article and said that the remarks attributed to the various Palestinians in the article had been reported as comments and that it was for readers to decide the objectivity of those comments. He defended the reporting of “rape” remarks by the lecturer and said that his remarks had led to “strong reaction from females in Israel who had protested to the President of Bar-ilan University”. In regard to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s lack of commitment to the “two-State” solution the editor said that this was the opinion of the reporter.
At this point the Ambassador made a formal complaint to the Press Ombudsman’s office claiming that the article published on 6 September had breached Principle 1 (Truth and Accuracy), Principle 2 (Distinguishing fact and Comment), Principle 3 (Fairness and Honesty) and Principle 8 (Prejudice) of the Code of Practice for Newspapers and Magazines.
The Press Ombudsman’s Office initiated its conciliation processes during which the editor stood over the article, but offered to meet the Ambassador to discuss the concerns that he had expressed. The offer of a meeting was turned down by the Ambassador. As the complaint could not be resolved through conciliation it was referred to the Press Ombudsman for his decision.
I would first of all like to deal with the complaint under Principle 8 (Prejudice). This Principle refers to material that is intended to “cause grave offence or stir up hatred” against a number of defined groups. The State of Israel does not conform to any of the defined groups and therefore I can find no breach of Principle 8. To accept that the State of Israel can be defined by race, religion or nationality is to ignore the multiplicity of races, religions and nationalities that are found in Israel. It is also to deny the distinction between the State and its people. One can be critical of a State’s activities and policies without in any way being critical of its people.
Principle 3 (Fairness and Honesty) is primarily a requirement regarding fair procedures. No evidence has been presented to me to support a claim that the newspaper failed to “strive at all times for fairness and honesty in the procuring and publishing of news and information” (Principle 3.1) in the article published on 6 September. This Principle does not deal with a complainant’s sense of what is fair or unfair in what is found on the page. It deals with how information is obtained and then published.
In regard to Principle 1 (Truth and Accuracy) I can find no breach of this Principle in the article. The reporter was given the assignment of reporting from Gaza on the effects of the conflict. This she did largely by reporting the reactions she found from the people of Gaza in the aftermath of the destruction caused by the Israeli Defence Forces. I can understand that the Ambassador might have liked the reporter to challenge the remarks she heard but this was not necessary. As was pointed out by the editor of the newspaper readers could make up their own minds about what they read. In times of major conflict there are always conflicting views about events and their meaning. Reporters are obliged to make honest efforts to report what they see and are told.
In regard to the remarks attributed to the lecturer in Arabic literature I have insufficient evidence available to me to make a decision on this part of the complaint. The Ambassador says the remarks have been taken out of context, the newspaper stands over the report of the remarks as accurate.
Finally I must deal with the claim of a breach of Principle 2 (Distinguishing Fact and Comment). The article does stray from reportage into comment but this would be expected in such a lengthy analytical report. I do not think any readers were likely to be confused by a report moving from facts to comment. There is an expectation in certain articles that the author will provide historical background and current context to complex events. This is what happened in the article published on 6 September. I can appreciate that the Ambassador profoundly disagrees with the reporter’s analysis but I can find nothing to suggest that there is any confusion between the reporting of the facts and the subsequent analysis provided by the reporter.
13 February 2015