Is Haaretz really better than the New York Times?

A new article by a distinguished professor claims that the NYT is not critical enough of Israel's policies in the occupied territories. His proof: Haaretz. His problem: ignorance



1.

This is one of the most bizarre articles I read this year, but several readers have already asked for my reaction, so I guess I should provide it as quickly as possible.

You can find this article on the Web site of the Belfer Center. It therefore carries the prestigious stamp of a Harvard University site, but as we?ve seen in the recent past, this is not necessarily a proof of quality.

The Jerome Slater article compares Haaretz and the New York Times in order to prove that the NYT is not critical enough of Israeli policy in the Palestinian territories. I can probably assume that the readers asking me the article want to draw my attention to it because I work for Haaretz. However, as much as I love Haaretz, where I've worked for 12 years now, and as much as I'd love to think that it is indeed better than the NYT, the case in this particular article is less than convincing. As the person responsible for Haaretz's news coverage for most of the period the author is dealing with (2000-2006), I also know for a fact that many of his conclusions are greatly exaggerated, or in some cases, quite far from the truth.

2.

So let me start by explaining the inherent flaw in this article:

The author approaches his topic with the assumption that something's wrong with the policy toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. That's an argument one can easily make, but in this context is very problematic.

"The combination of U.S. public and governmental ignorance, domestic politics, fundamentalist Christian ideology, right-wing Jewish influence, and a commendable but simplistic overall U.S. moral commitment to Israel," Slater writes, "has produced an astonishing immobilism in U.S. policy, in reckless disregard for the easily observable and plainly disastrous consequences for the Israelis and the Palestinians, as well as for critical U.S. national interests."

But here's the problem: as soon as we know that this is what Slater thinks, we can also guess which paper he is going to praise - the one that's more critical. This should eventually lead him to praise the Israeli paper and denounce the American paper. But what if it is the NYT that's got the story right and Haaretz the one that's got it wrong?

In short: you have to agree with Slater (politically) in order to agree with Slater (scientifically, if you think this can be called science).

3.

"The New York Times bears considerable responsibility for the recent mythology about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict", writes Slate. Barak was willing to close a deal, but the Palestinian leader rejected the extended hand - that's mythology. "Almost no part of this mythology has survived serious examination, not only by Haaretz writers but also by numerous Israeli, American, Palestinian, and European scholars and journalists, and especially Israeli and U.S. officials directly involved in the 2000 negotiations," Slater writes.

Oh, really?

President Bill Clinton: "I regret that in 2000 Arafat missed the opportunity to bring that nation into being and pray for the day when the dreams of the Palestinian people for a state and a better life will be realized in a just and lasting peace."

Chief negotiator Dennis Ross: "Arafat said yes, and then he added reservations that basically meant he rejected every single one of the things he was supposed to give".

Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright: "At Camp David, Arafat rejected the best deal the Palestinians may ever be offered. He is a survivor and a virtuoso of doubletalk, not a leader."

Slater might be right in the sense what happened in Camp David is always under debate by scholars and negotiators, and that a black and white caricature of the event can not survive serious examination. However Slater tends to replace one caricature by another, and to ignore those who still believe the "mythology" is a sad reality.

This one-sided way is the way he treats almost every issue he discusses.

4.

Another example:

Slater quotes Ami Ayalon, former head of the Shin Bet security service, as saying that "Yasser Arafat neither prepared nor triggered the Intifada. The explosion was spontaneous, against Israel, as all hope for the end of occupation disappeared, and against the Palestinian Authority, its corruption, and its impotence. Arafat could not repress it. . . . He can fight neither against the Islamists nor against his own base. The Palestinians would end up hanging him in the public square." But he does not quote former Chief of Staff Moshe Ya'alon, who keeps talking about "Arafat's decision to launch his Intifada in 2000 after being responsible for the failure of the Camp David Summit."

Is it because he thinks that Ayalon can be trusted more than Ya'alon? Or is it because Ayalon is the one giving him the quote he needs?

5.

Anyway, the problem with this article is not its ignorant and shallow treatment of the events on the ground, but rather its judgment of journalistic practices. For starters, it ignores the fact that the NYT doesn't (and shouldn't) cover the events of this region as extensively as an Israeli paper like Haaretz covers them. Naturally, non-Israeli coverage has to be more concise, and leaves less room for the marginal and the unconventional. Haaretz can dedicate space to include both the mainstream and the peculiar. The NYT needs to make sure it does not make a bizarre narrative the course it serves its readers. This is exactly what enables Slater to find so many examples in Haaretz to reinforce his convictions - and not as many examples in the NYT.

6.

To prove his point, Slater quotes Haaretz writers extensively. But he does that by choosing and picking the writers and articles that fit comfortably into his neat theory. The more left-leaning writers, like Amira Hass and Gideon Levy, are often quoted. However, the centrist late Zeev Schiff, the most authoritative Israeli voice on national security, is quoted only twice, from an article he wrote back in 1978. Hass is quoted 14 times.

And yes, Slater acknowledges the fact that some of the writers he quotes are considered "leftists." But reading his article carefully, I came to realize that Slater is quite ignorant when it comes to even identifying the Israeli right and left.

Take this one example out of many I found:

Slater mentions "Haaretz Op-Ed writers and regular correspondents Akiva Eldar, Uzi Benziman, Gideon Samet, and Amira Hass" as "strong critics of Israeli policy." Then he goes on to argue that conservative columnists made similar arguments against the Israeli government, using this example: "even more striking, then, was a piece published by the conservative Haaretz reporter and columnist Nehemia Shtrasler."

This demonstrates sheer lack of knowledge of Israel's political landscape. Yes, Shtrasler is a conservative when it comes to economics, his main field of journalistic expertise. However (like many Israeli fiscal conservatives), Shtrasler is as dovish as they come on the Arab-Israeli conflict. Bringing up his name as someone who's the opposite of Hass and Eldar on the Palestinian issue is no more than a bad joke.

7.

Slater also ignores one of the most important factors influencing the phenomenon he is describing: the cultural differences between the U.S. and Israel. Praising Israel for its open, sometimes anarchic debate on the Palestinian issue is fine. Ignoring the fact that the nature of every debate in Israel is different than the nature of American debates is missing an important point.

Yes, the NYT is more reserved in its criticism. That's the way the NYT operates not just in regard to Israel and the Palestinians but in regard to almost every issue. Haaretz, on the other hand, is more blatant, thus reflecting the nature of Israel's society. Comparing the tone of these two on just one issue creates a false impression of a specific difference that's just not there. These two papers are just different in tone - on every issue.

8.

The examples of flaws in this article are so many, and the comparison so ridiculous, that spending more time on it is really a waste of time.

But this final note is meant to make it clearer:

Slater wants to push a political agenda, and he uses Haaretz as a tool with which to harass the NYT into criticizing Israel's policy. Whatever one might think about the policy - and a good case against it can be made - his argument is no more than sheer nonsense.