His Excellency Boaz Modai, Ambassador of Israel, and The Irish Times
On Saturday 13 September 2014 The Irish Times, in its Arts and Books section, published an article which reviewed a number of books on the topic of the Middle East and in particular Israeli-Palestinian relations. The headline on the review read “Fear and loathing: Palestinians pay the price of history”. This was followed by a sub-heading “Israel still claims it has no choice but to continue the policies of ethnic cleansing, dispossession and extermination that started with its foundation”.
His Excellency Boaz Modai, Ambassador of Israel, wrote to the editor of The Irish Times to complain about the article. He challenged the nature of the “review” saying that the books had been chosen for “the anti-Israeli stances of their authors” and that the reviewer had used the books as a “vehicle for an extended polemic of her own against the historical and current legitimacy of the state of Israel”. His complaint, he said, was not against the polemical nature of the article but against “several outrageous falsehoods masquerading as fact”. He then listed some examples of what he regarded as falsehoods. One of these referred to a claim about the policy of the Yisrael Beiteinu political party on the deportation of Palestinians, which he said had been the subject of a retraction and correction by The Irish Times “following representations”. The next complaint was about the sub-heading to the article. The Ambassador drew attention to the increase in population of the Palestinian people as evidence that there was no policy of extermination or ethnic cleansing. He went on to challenge claims in the article about an apartheid policy resulting from Israeli policies on settlements, claiming that 96% of Palestinian Arabs live under the “autonomous government of the Palestinian Authority as agreed” at the Oslo accord. His next concern related to an understanding of United Nations resolutions following the 1967 Arab-Israeli War. This latter concern refers to the wording in UN resolution 242 about Israel returning territories occupied in the aftermath of the war. There is a dispute about whether the resolution called for a return of “territories” or “the territories”. The Ambassador concluded his complaint by asking the editor to publish a correction of the “false allegations” contained in the article.
The editor replied to the Ambassador and said that the reviewer’s opinion is that “ethnic cleansing, dispossession and extermination is the de facto policy of the current Israeli government”. He went on to say that this is not the opinion of The Irish Times as evidenced by its editorials. The editor went on to say that the claim of 40% of the West Bank being subject to Israeli settlement would be corrected. He concluded by noting the Ambassador’s views on UN Resolution 242 but stated “that there are differing views of the meaning of 242 is indisputable”
The Ambassador then made a formal complaint to the Office of the Press Ombudsman stating that the article 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 complaint went to conciliation at this stage. The editor of The Irish Times acknowledged that there were ”errors in the reportage” and accepted that the Israeli government had never publicly made the claim contained in the sub-headline. He offered to publish a correction/clarification that the Israeli government had not made such a claim. He said that he had already accepted that Israel does not occupy 40% of the West Bank, and that he had deleted the inaccuracy from the online edition. ” He also offered to meet the Ambassador to discuss the concerns that he had expressed.
The Ambassador turned down the offer of a meeting. He said he would accept the offer of a correction regarding the sub-headline but that “such a correction should go further and clarify that neither does Israel practise such policies and that assertions that it does so are libellous”. He said that it was satisfactory to note that the editor was prepared to publish a corrected estimate of the proportion of land occupied in the West Bank. He went on to seek the publication of a correction on UN Resolution 242. Finally he reiterated his complaint about a statement in the article that Israel was a country where “… hooligans shouting ‘death to Arabs’ lynch Palestinian youths”, which he said he continued to believe breached the Code of Practice.
As the Ambassador’s complaint could not be resolved through conciliation it was referred to the Press Ombudsman for a decision.
A book review contains quintessentially the opinions of the reviewer. Readers understand this but are entitled to find a review is accurate in its presentation of facts. If a review contains significant inaccuracies and these are not corrected promptly and with due prominence Principle 1 may be breached. However, the Press Ombudsman may decide that “the publication concerned has offered to take, or has taken, action which, in his opinion, is or was sufficient to resolve the complaint”. I believe that the editor’s actions, both in correcting the online edition of the newspaper in respect to one part of the complaint, and offering to publish a correction/clarification in respect of another, were sufficient actions on his part to resolve these parts of the complaint.
I cannot make a decision on that part of the complaint in relation to the interpretation of UN Resolution 242. The interpretation of Resolution 242 has been argued and debated since its adoption, and it is not for the Press Ombudsman to determine its exact meaning.
There is insufficient evidence available to me to make a decision on the reference in the article to the lynching of Arab youths.
Finally, I feel that it is necessary to draw attention to what is the essential function of the Press Ombudsman. It is not my function to act as some kind of referee or arbiter in interpreting the significance of contentious historical or contemporary events. In dealing with complaints the Press Ombudsman’s task is to decide if the Code of Practice for Newspapers and Magazines has been breached. The article that leads to a complaint is read, the complaint and response of the editor are reviewed and a decision is taken as to whether or not there has been a breach of the Code. In regard to this particular complaint I have no competence in determining what happened and why in the long-running disputes between the Israelis and the Palestinians. My task is to determine if the article breached any of the Principles of the Code of Practice cited in the complaint.
25 February 2015