Some Thoughts on Blogging and the Haaretz Brouhaha

Cecile Surasky's Muzzlewatch has published a letter by Haaretz's editor Dov Alfon responding to concerns over the recent changes at Haaretz. That site also has letters from Amira Hass and Dorothy Naor (the latter was the basis of my post from yesterday, since I didn't know whether Dorothy wanted to go public). I would love to hear a statement from Meron Rapoport but I don't want to bother somebody who was fired. I am a blogger, not a journalist.

Alfon speculated that the rumors about Haaretz had originated from extreme rightwing circles. Oy, so now he has outed me!

What does this mean? Within a week, a casual conversation between an activist and me starts a mini-brouhaha that ends with the major players making statements. That's the power of the web. (The threat of cancelling subscriptions to Haaretz did not hurt either.)

That gives my ego a rush, but it also makes me think of issues like...blogger responsibility.

Last week I heard a rumor and posted it. Journalists don't publish rumors (well, they do, but they are not supposed to.) They do fact checking. They get confirmations before they go public. That's journalistic ethics.

But bloggers aren't journalists. Sure, they shouldn't publish rumors that will hurt private individuals and hide behind some sort of freedom of blogging. But the point of my posting a rumor was, as I made clear in my original post, to try to clarify things. Some times attempts are made to verify a story before posting it. Some times it is not possible for a blogger.

The risk is, of course, that people will remember the rumor and not get the clarification. Well, that's a risk. But it seems to me that people know not to take blogger news as the final word. We are there to get things out in the world.

Frankly, I am happy that the editor of Haaretz got five emails on a single day querying him about what was going on at the paper. I know that if I had sent him an email identifying myself as a pseudononymous blogger, I would have waited a long time for a response.

Still, I would like to assure my readers that the bloggers I am friendly with (and whom I have never met in person) are responsible folks who do their best to get things right, and who will retract when they haven't.

PS. Coincidentally, I renewed my subscription to Haaretz yesterday.

The Personnel Changes at Haaretz (Provisionally) Explained

Last week I reported a troubling rumor that Meron Rapoport, a fine investigative reporter for Haaretz, had been fired. I also heard that Amira Hass was not returning to Haaretz, and this suggested to me that a new political wind was blowing at the only Israeli paper worth reading.

As always, things are more complicated.

Sources close to some Haaretz journalists now report that there has been a definite shift of late, but more financial than political. The focus of the newspaper is now less on politics and more on business and finance.

Several months ago Haaretz reduced the size of two separate sections, News and Opinion, and combined them into one. It expanded its business coverage, especially its financial coverage in its supplement, The Marker. Its Tel-Aviv readership, especially in the business community, is not necessarily interested in human rights issues in Gaza. So while there will be still some reporting of that, not as much.

Personnel changes: Meron Rapoport, whose investigative reporting is no longer needed, apparently, is out. Tamar Rotem may also be out. Amira Hass is on a year's leave of absence. She intends to return, but nothing is certain. Gideon Levy continues to write the Twilight Zone column, but it has been moved from the prominent Musaf (Magazine) section to Friday's This Week section. Levy is also doing television reviews (!) and writing on other issues. Akiva Eldar continues to work for Haaretz, but less space is alloted to him.

Is this political censorship? Not really. Will the paper become more rightwing? As far as I know, there are no signs of that. But it will become less leftwing because of the shift of focus.

My source (and her Haaretz sources) claim that the change of orientation is that of the publisher's, Amos Schocken. He obviously is not in the business of publishing a human rights report but a profitable newspaper. Shocken has repeatedly shown that, as publishers go, his heart is in the right place. Part of this has to do with the slide of Israeli society into vast popular culture. I came back from the Hebrew Book week noting the proportionately smaller output of challenging books.

All this is a pity. Meron Rapoport, in particular, will be sorely missed.

More on Meron Rapoport and Haaretz

Well, although I googled "Amira Hess" in Hebrew before I posted the story below. I didn't google "Rapoport." I should have: his departure from Haaretz already appeared on Monday here:

Apparently, Rapoport is one of three reporters associated with former editor David Landau who are leaving Haaretz. Landau appointed him news editor. His departure may be filed under the headline "New Editor Shakes Things Up at Haaretz."

David Landau was a good editor (I am sorely tempted to add, "for a liberal Zionist.") He was to be congratulated inter alia for bringing in Rapoport. I haven't noticed an ideological shift with the changing of the guard, but, then again, I haven't been looking. Before Meron Rapoport came over to Haaretz, he worked at Yediot Aharonot as a desk editor. He was fired from that position after he published Moti Gilat's story under the headline, "Sharon Did Not Speak the Truth"

Haaretz has been a courageous, if elitist, newspaper. Let us hope that this will not change. I certainly hope that Rapoport will continue to write his exposes.

Yishar Kokheha, Amos! And God Bless You, Jimmy!

When the Jews and the Palestinians have been liberated from their respective neuroses and nightmares,

When the generation of the Six-Day War has passed,

When the only people in Israel who buy into the volkish myths of political Zionism are the religious zionists, and a few ethnocentrists from the former Soviet Union,

When no serious Israeli intellectual, or progressive intellectual in the world, falls for the Israel-as-victim line,

Then part of the responsibility will be due to the courageous publisher of Haaretz, Amos Schocken, whose newspaper has fought tirelessly to expose the moral hypocrisy, shame, and, most importantly, hard-heartedness of an apathetic Israel that reeks of moral chauvinism.

The "non-Semite" who has arguably saved more Jewish and Arab lives than any person in modern history -- Jimmy Carter, of course -- deserves much more than a Nobel peace prize.

He deserves the gratitude and respect of every single Jew and Arab in the world today.

That he is villified by most Jews can only be called, to paraphrase the orthodox Jewish philosopher, Eliezer Berkowitz (in another context). "Hitler's posthumous victory."

God bless you, Amos. God bless the person who wrote the editorial. And, zakhur le-tov, God bless the indefatigable Sol Salbe, for pointing out the editorial to me.

Please read it below or here

Our debt to Jimmy Carter

The government of Israel is boycotting Jimmy Carter, the 39th president of the United States, during his visit here this week. Ehud Olmert, who has not managed to achieve any peace agreement during his public life, and who even tried to undermine negotiations in the past, "could not find the time" to meet the American president who is a signatory to the peace agreement with Egypt. President Shimon Peres agreed to meet Carter, but made sure that he let it be known that he reprimanded his guest for wishing to meet with Khaled Meshal, as if the achievements of the Carter Center fall short of those of the Peres Center for Peace. Carter, who himself said he set out to achieve peace between Israel and Egypt from the day he assumed office, worked incessantly toward that goal and two years after becoming president succeeded - was declared persona non grata by Israel.

The boycott will not be remembered as a glorious moment in this government's history. Jimmy Carter has dedicated his life to humanitarian missions, to peace, to promoting democratic elections, and to better understanding between enemies throughout the world. Recently, he was involved in organizing the democratic elections in Nepal, following which a government will be set up that will include Maoist guerrillas who have laid down their arms. But Israelis have not liked him since he wrote the book "Palestine: Peace not Apartheid."

Israel is not ready for such comparisons, even though the situation begs it. It is doubtful whether it is possible to complain when an outside observer, especially a former U.S. president who is well versed in international affairs, sees in the system of separate roads for Jews and Arabs, the lack of freedom of movement, Israel's control over Palestinian lands and their confiscation, and especially the continued settlement activity, which contravenes all promises Israel made and signed, a matter that cannot be accepted. The interim political situation in the territories has crystallized into a kind of apartheid that has been ongoing for 40 years. In Europe there is talk of the establishment of a binational state in order to overcome this anomaly. In the peace agreement with Egypt, 30 years ago, Israel agreed to "full autonomy" for the occupied territories, not to settle there.

These promises have been forgotten by Israel, but Carter remembers.

Whether Carter's approach to conflict resolution is considered by the Israeli government as appropriate or defeatist, no one can take away from the former U.S. president his international standing, nor the fact that he brought Israel and Egypt to a signed peace that has since held. Carter's method, which says that it is necessary to talk with every one, has still not proven to be any less successful than the method that calls for boycotts and air strikes. In terms of results, at the end of the day, Carter beats out any of those who ostracize him. For the peace agreement with Egypt, he deserves the respect reserved for royalty for the rest of his life.

(P.S. from Jerry -- the situation in the West Bank, of course, is not apartheid -- that is an insult to apartheid -- but much worse. At least in apartheid, black South Africans were not as restricted in movement as were the Palestinians. Both groups, of course, were considered to be culturally and morally inferior to their overlords. No, the proper word is not "apartheid", but rather, hafradah had-tzedatit, which may be roughly understood as "limiting the freedom of the untermenschen to protect the well-being of the ubermenschen")

Haaretz Expose of Financial Corruption at Israeli Neocon Thinktank, “Shalem Center”

In a long article in Haaretz’s Shabbat Supplement today, Daphna Berman and Naama Lansky exposes financial corruption, and even sexual improprieties, at the well-funded (and hitherto well-respected) Israeli rightwing think tank, the Shalem Center, whose donors include the usual rightwing suspects (Ron Lauder, Sheldon Adelson, Zalman Bernstein, and the russian oligarch, Leonid Nevzlin) Natan Sharansky is the director of Adelson Center for Strategy. Of course, the real directors are the former Princetonians and Daniel Polisar (the current president) and Yoram Hazony (the former president.)

Hebrew readers can read the dirt here. The English link is here Because I did not have the English link, I actually summarized it below. Then Richard Silverstein had told me that Sol Salbe had tipped him off to the article, and he "scooped" me here. Serves me right for not getting Tikun Olam delivered automatically to my inbox, which I will now rectify.

For the moment, here is the gist of Lansky’s investigative reporting. Some of it is significant; some of it is just gossip and sour grapes from fired employees. You know, the usual stuff of exposes.

Several weeks ago, there was a break-in at the Shalem Center’s Jerusalem headquarters, in which nothing was taken, but computers were vandalized and cables broken. A report was filed with the police which omitted all mention of the vandalism, and when the police investigated, they found no signs of a break-in. Two weeks ago the state’s attorney filed an indictment against the Center’s chief financial officer, the accountant Shaul Golan, for fraud and embezzlement of over a hundred thousand shekels (less than $25000.)

That’s only the tip of the iceberg. Apparently, two years ago Golan tried to take financial control over the Shalem Center, which he thought was being run wastefully and corruptly. An internal investigation was conducted which raised the suspicion that spyware had been installed in the computers, and that private email correspondence had been collected and leaked. Golan was arrested and released; many workers were questioned by the police, and armed guards protected the premises for several weeks thereafter.

I suppose the alleged theft of $25,000 is small potatoes when you realize that the annual operating budget of the Shalem Center is over ten million dollars. When the average annual salary of a Israel university professor is something like $40,000, Polisar and Hazony pull in over $200,000 each. According to the article, the two use the funds of the Shalem Center as personal slush funds for family outings, employing family members, using employees as gofers, personal shoppers, and babysitters.

I will skip over the personal eccentricities of Yoram Hazony reported by Lansky – his requirement that the employees use the same font for all their typing, that staples have to be at a 45 degree angle, etc; that they provide him with a particular sort of yogurt, and a certain amount of cream cheese for his bagel. Not surprisingly, there is a huge turnover of personnel. Employees of the Center are often sent out on personal errands, like bringing pizzas to his children, picking up his laundry, moving personal effects to new quarters – all of which is considered part of their regular duties. OK, here’s one funny story. An employee was once told to drop everything and to run to the pharmacy and get a prescription for Yoram as fast as she could. She ran to the pharmacy and breathless asked, “What are the directions?” The pharmacist said, “Just tell me, what sort of cat is this for? Because the directions are different for different sorts of cats.”

When it comes to the Shalem Center, apparently, money is no object. When Hazony didn’t like a design element for the journal Azure after it had been printed, he had all 5,000 copies reprinted. “Whatever it costs, just do it,” he is quoted as saying. Not bad for a center that defines itself as a non-profit organization.

Another employee tells of the decision to hold a brain-storming session not in the Center’s building but in the main ballroom of the King David Hotel, complete with the hotel’s catering, The vast majority of the participants, regulars at the Center, just walked out of the Center and went to the King David.

Of course, there is the usual nepotism associated with family businesses. Yoram’s brother, David, worked there for twelve years in an executive position, and as editor of the periodical Azure – until he was forced to leave because of an affair he conducted with one of his subordinates. (At the time he was working on a book on the Ten Commandments – or maybe, for him, the Nine) As part of the agreement, he committed himself to move out of the villa in the Jerusalem neighborhood of Ramot (over the green line, of course) that had been purchased for him, or to buy it himself.

Yoram’s wife, Yael, is the chief editor of the publication series of the Center, which has an annual budget of a million dollars to put out 4 or 5 books yearly. Yael is listed as the editor of the Hebrew translation of the Federalist Papers. This is not to the liking of the real editor of the book, Dr. Shlomo Yotbat, an expert in US history, who spent a year editing and annotating the book, for which he was paid, only to see that he appeared listed in one of the book’s pages merely as an “academic consultant” to Hazony’s wife – who apparently wrote none of the notes. Yotbat couldn’t afford to sue, he says, but as a result of the threat to sue and the negative publicity, the Shalem Center agreed to list his contribution as “scientific editor,” and to give him – what else? – some more financial compensation to shut him up. (Reaction of the Shalem Center – “The omission of Yotbat’s name was an error rectified in later editions.”)

Golan emerges towards the end of the article as somewhat of a good guy, because he tried to save the Shalem Center from the wasteful and corrupt management of Hazony and Polisar by attempting to hire a former employee, Sarah Kramer, who had begun to institute procedures and reforms before she was fired. A year after she was fired, Kramer met with other employees to see if they could wrest the control of the Shalem Center from its founders. Hazony found out, declared the situation “a nuclear war,” and went into action, which was to seize the computers used by the employees, fired other employees (though often keeping them on payroll provided that they not show up) Any employee who had been associated with Golan was summarily dismissed. Remember, we are talking about a research institute, not a biotech company. Yoram Hazony, who is apparently at work on a 1200 page treatise on human nature, which aims to present a new model of the human brain, with a Jewish accent, that will replace models by thinkers such as Noam Chomsky (I AM NOT MAKING THIS UP! -- JH), has been angling to be a rector or president of a new Jewish university that he wishes to establish. He recently confided to a friend, interviewed by Lansky, that if his new university is not established, “there will be no future for Zionism, no future for the Jewish people, and I daresay, no future for the West.”

At the end of the article, Haaretz published a response from the Shalem Center, which defended all its actions, and blamed disgruntled employees associated with Golan for all the dirt.

And now it’s Jerry’s turn to make a comment.

I have read many of these exposes in Israeli papers before, and the pattern is predictable: A Jewish organization has a charismatic but quirky guru at its head, who charms the pants off of rich Jews, who then bankroll him. He treats the organization as a private slush fund for his megalomania, and, if he is halfway intelligent, he can actually do a lot of good with the money. But there is no effective oversight; the employees are treated like dirt, and most important, the guru is usually there for life, without control and peer review.

The problem is not the ideological orientation of the Shalem Center. OK, I am obviously not in their ball park. But it is a pity that the Center has fallen the victim of its own success. I would suggest to the Shalem Center’s Board of Directors that they start looking for a replacement for Hazony, or kick him upstairs (making him “President” or “Rector,” since he likes the title).There are decent, hardworking, and intelligent neocons who work at the Shalem Center – Michael Oren comes to mind. And ribono shel olam, get a CFO who knows how to keep the rapacious intellectuals in their place.

Isn’t it about time that the quirky gurus from Princeton are replaced? For the sake of the future of Zionism, the future of the Jewish people, and the future of the West?

Shabbat Shalom.

Jerry