His Excellency Boaz Modai, Ambassador of Israel, and The Irish Times
On 11 September 2014 The Irish Times published an article under the headline “The Holocaust makes Israel think international law doesn’t apply to them”. The article was based on an interview with Gideon Levy, a columnist with the Haaretz newspaper. In the article Mr Levy was quoted as expressing some very critical views of the Israeli Government’s policies towards Palestinians. The headline was a quote from Mr Levy who was reported in the article as having said “The Holocaust makes Israelis think international law doesn’t apply to them, because they are the ultimate victims of history; the only victims”.
His Excellency Boaz Modai, Ambassador of Israel, wrote to the editor of The Irish Times to express his concern about the article. He said that in his opinion the headline was “extremely provocative” and “anti-Semitic and insulting to the State of Israel and its people”. In his view, the choice of the headline implied that the newspaper “fully agrees with the outrageous and obnoxious view espoused by (Gideon Levy)”. The Ambassador added that the Haaretz newspaper is a “minority far-left newspaper, read by only 4% of the Israeli newspaper-reading population”. He went on to be very critical of the journalist responsible for the interview for not challenging Mr Levy on his views. The Ambassador said that some of the remarks attributed to Mr Levy and quoted in the article were “pure libel against the Israeli Defence Forces and the State of Israel”. The Ambassador concluded by requesting The Irish Times publish a clarification that “Mr Levy is an extreme contrarian in Israeli discourse” and that the journalist’s failure to hold his views to account amounted to a “dereliction of her journalistic duty”.
The editor of The Irish Times responded to the Ambassador’s complaint stating that the headline on the article was in speech quotes and that readers would have understood that the opinion in the headline represented the views of the person interviewed and were not the views of the newspaper. He stated that The Irish Times did not endorse the views of Mr Levy and that “really it is more appropriate that (the Ambassador) follow up your concerns with Mr Levy”.
At this point the Ambassador made a formal complaint to the Press Ombudsman’s Office that the article 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. He said that it was not credible that the journalist had not endorsed the views of Gideon Levy as she had not questioned or probed what he had said.
The complaint went to conciliation. The editor offered to meet the Ambassador, but this was declined. He repeated his assertion that the use of a quote in a headline was quite common and did not mean that the newspaper endorsed the opinion encapsulated in the quote.
As the complaint could not be resolved through conciliation it went to the Press Ombudsman for a decision.
I can find no breach of Principle 1. The article quoted extensively from an interview with a columnist. The Ambassador disagrees with the comments made by Mr Levy but the article only gives these as the interviewee’s comments. The article does not state that Mr Levy’s comments are facts. I can understand that the Ambassador would have preferred the article to include a range of commentators with different perspectives but it was made clear to readers that the article was based on one commentator’s views.
I can find no breach of Principle 2. Readers of the article would have been aware at all times that the article was based on the comments of the person interviewed and would not have confused fact and comment. The Ambassador profoundly disagrees with Mr Levy’s opinions but it is the essence of freedom of expression that newspapers are entitled to publish the opinions of individual contributors. One would hope that over a period of time a range of views are published or controversial views are challenged within articles. But there is no obligation to provide balance in a single article or interview. I can appreciate his expression of frustration that Mr Levy was not challenged in the article about his opinions but this does not equate to a breach of Principle 2.
Principle 3 of the Code states that Newspapers and magazines shall strive at all times for fairness and honesty in the procuring and publishing of news and information. I can find no evidence that this Principle was breached in the interview with Mr Levy.
Finally, 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.
25 February 2015