His Excellency Boaz Modai, Ambassador of Israel, and The Irish Times
On 6 September 2014 The Irish Times published in its news section an article under the heading “Medical personnel claim Israel tested new weapons during attack on Gaza”. The article carried allegations from Dr Sobhi Skaik, chief surgeon and medical director at Shifa hospital and Ibrahim Abu Kas, ambulance officer of the Palestinian Red Crescent Society, that some of the injured and dead people they had seen had suffered injuries from forms of weaponry and munitions that they had not seen before. Ibrahim Abu Kas also made allegations that the Israeli army had attacked civilians and rescue workers who had rushed to the site of a bombing.
His Excellency Boaz Modai, Ambassador of Israel, complained to the editor of The Irish Times that the medical personnel interviewed in the article were “in Gaza working under Hamas” and had “an agenda to blacken Israel as much as possible” and that their claims had appeared “nowhere else in the international media”. He also claimed that a Norwegian doctor quoted in the article was a “political activist with an extreme-left Norwegian party and that he had a long record of activism against Israel in particular”. The Ambassador also complained about the choice of photograph used to accompany the article (a scene of Muslim men praying in a mosque in Gaza City that had been hit by an Israeli airstrike).
The editor of The Irish Times replied to the Ambassador defending the article claiming that the reporter had reported what she had been told and that she did not accept statements from Hamas or anyone else at ”face value”. In response to the claim by the Ambassador that no other international media had reported the claims about new weaponry and munitions he could only assume that it was because the reporter alone “talked to the medical personnel concerned”. He also defended the choice of the Norwegian doctor who was interviewed in the article and the choice of the photograph used to accompany the article.
At this stage 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) and Principle 8 (Prejudice) of the Code of Practice for Newspapers and Magazines, the latter because in the Ambassador’s opinion the article was responsible for “stirring up hatred against the Jewish State of Israel”.
The conciliation process of the Press Ombudsman’s Office was initiated and the editor of The Irish Times offered two measures to address the Ambassador’s complaint. The editor offered to meet the Ambassador. This offer was not acceptable to the Ambassador as he said he had previously met the editor following earlier complaints and the result had not been, in the Ambassador’s opinion, any improvement in the reporting of the Middle East conflict by the newspaper. The editor also offered in the interests of conciliation to publish a clarification for readers stating that the Norwegian doctor quoted in the article “had been given a lifetime ban by Israel on entering Gaza and is regarded by the Israeli government as an anti-Israeli activist”.
The Ambassador replied to this offer by providing some background on the Norwegian doctor’s political activities including that he had charged Israel with committing “state terrorism at the highest levels”. He described the passing off of the doctor in the article as simply a medical doctor as “extreme naiveté at best, deception at worst”. He claimed his complaint remained that Principles 1, 2 and 8 of the Code had been breached.
As the complaint could not be resolved through conciliation it was passed to the Press Ombudsman for his decision.
Principle 1 states that in reporting news and information, newspapers and magazines shall strive at all times for truth and accuracy. What was reported in the article published on 6 September were the claims made by Palestinians about the weaponry and munitions used by the Israeli Defence Forces. In any situation of military conflict there are going to be conflicting views about almost every action undertaken by soldiers. I can appreciate the Ambassador’s frustration that the report on 6 September came from the “Palestinian side” in the conflict and therefore reflected a Palestinian interpretation on what was happening. He would have preferred, of course, that the report had included Israeli views about what was happening. But as is always the case in military conflict reporters can generally only report from one side. The Irish Times reporter made it clear that she was reporting from the Palestinian side and the views she reported were Palestinian views. Readers would have understood this and made allowance for the source of the views expressed. I can find no evidence of any breach of Principle 1.
In regard to Principle 2 it is stated that comment, conjecture, rumour and unconfirmed reports shall not be reported as if they were fact. As in any situation of military conflict The Irish Times reporter would have little opportunity to confirm the accuracy of what she had been told. However, as she limited her interviewees to medical personnel who had been dealing with the injured and dead and as there was a consistency in what she was told it is possible to say that, in as much as was possible, she had the views expressed confirmed. I have no doubt that had she spoken to Israeli medical sources she might have got an alternative account of the wounds inflicted on casualties by the Israeli Defence Forces, but the reporter was operating behind the lines on the Palestinian side and the option of seeking confirmation from the other side was not available to her. I can find no evidence of a breach of Principle 2.
Finally, I would like to deal with the complaint under Principle 8 (Prejudice). This Principle states
Newspapers and magazines shall not publish material intended or likely to cause grave offence or stir up hatred against an individual or group on the basis of their race, religion, nationality, colour, ethnic origin, membership of the travelling community, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, disability, illness or age.
The Ambassador refers in his complaint to the “Jewish State of Israel”. To sustain an argument that Principle 8 has been breached it is necessary to argue that the State of Israel can be coterminous with a race, religion, nationality or ethnic origin. It is my view that the State of Israel does not conform to any of these groups and therefore I can find no breach of Principle 8. To accept that the State of Israel can be defined by race, religion, nationality or ethnic origin is to ignore the multiplicity of races, religions, nationalities and ethnic groups 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.
In regard to the choice of photograph used to illustrate the article I can find no breach of any Principle of the Code of Practice. Given the subject matter of the article the choice of photograph was appropriate.
18 February 2015