Follow-up correspondence RE: Haaretz violates the rules of good journalism again

[Maurice Ostroff]

Mr. Ehud Ein-gil, senior editor of Haaretz
replied promptly to my email of December 9 and
the following exchange of correspondence has
since taken place (in reverse chronological order) .
Regards
Maurice


December 11, 2013

Dear Mr. Ein-gil,

Thank you for your email. Unfortunately it
doesn't address the gist of my email to you. For
example, it ignores my request for an explanation
of how Peres' accompanying Rabin and Vorster
justifies Levy's declaration; "Shimon Peres and
Benjamin Netanyahu have no right to eulogize
Nelson Mandela" and my question whether you apply
the same reasoning to the others who hosted Vorster that I named.

The article by Avi Shilon to which you refer
supports my argument. He wrote that describing
Israel as a friend of the apartheid regime is flawed and simplistic.

Shilon does not support Levy's claim that Israel
is virtually THE ONLY country that collaborated
with the apartheid regime. He says it was the
only WESTERN country that in 1986 did not take
part in sanctions and even this is incorrect.
Factually, when economic sanctions were imposed
in 1986 Germany and Britain merely made
recommendations and imposed no binding sanctions.
Switzerland rejected sanctions and Margaret
Thatcher actively opposed sanctions as did Ronald Reagan.

The non-profit Khulumani Support Group filed
claims against dozens of major international
companies in 2002 for having aided and abetted
apartheid.They include Barclays, Citibank and
Deutsche Bank and oil companies Total, BP, Engen
and Shell, among others who violated the
embargoes (none from Israel). Also car
manufacturers such as Daimler, who supplied
armored vehicles, knowing they would be used in
repressive activities in the townships and arms
manufacturers. Apartheid's four main credit
lenders, were the US, Germany, Switzerland and
the UK. German net capital export to South Africa
between 1985 and 1993 amounted to $2.13 billion.
SIPRI reports that the largest suppliers of arms
to South Africa were France, UK, USA, West Germany

Allow me to emphasize that I advocate honest
criticism of Israel. I am proud of Israel's free
press and and I believe that criticism of
government is not only healthy but essential for
democracy. However, while I don't expect
objectivity, press freedom must always be subject
to accuracy, fairness and accountability. The
disproportionate singling out of Israel
and insinuation of sinister meanings to events
in Israel that are considered unremarkable when
occurring in other countries, violates the basics of ethical reporting.

In view of the above I REPEAT MY CHALLENGE to
you to prove that Levy's statement that Israel
was virtually the only country that collaborated
with the apartheid regime is accurate. I am not,
as you suggest, concerned with Levy's opinions.
He clearly stated this as a fact, not an opinion.
He wrote "Why was Israel virtually the only
country that collaborated with that evil regime."
Virtually is defined by Merriam-Webster as almost
entirely or for all practical purposes.

Your replies will be published together with my emails.

Sincerely
Maurice


----------

At 11/12/2013,10:07,Wednesday, Ehud Ein-gil wrote:
Dear Mr. Ostroff,
Thank you for you response.
I have refuted your claims that Levy's article contained factual errors.
Now your claims concentrate on opinions. These
are Levy's opinions, and he has the right to express them.
We are not in the business of censoring opinions.
By the way, there was a period when Israel was
the only country that refused to respect the UN
sanctions on South Africa, as even a defender of
Israel's policy confirms (see
http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.562792).
As for Israel's special cooperation with South
Africa, and its economic importance for Israel
see http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.562813
Sending a text to a mailing list is nowadays the
equivalent of publishing it, as you should have
known, and if you did not – now you certainly do.
Sincerely,
Ehud Ein-Gil


----------

From: Maurice Ostroff [mailto:mau...@trendline.co.il]
Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 7:17 PM
To: Ehud Ein-gil
Subject: RE: Haaretz violates the rules of good journalism again

December 10, 2013 PM

Dear Ehud Ein-gil

Thank you for your prompt and considered response. I appreciate it.

If by "misfired" you mean that the facts I stated
are incorrect, I respectfully disagree.

You can't be serious in using the logical fallacy
of guilt by association, inferring that a photo
of Peres with Rabin and Vorster justifies Levy's
declaration that Shimon Peres and Benjamin
Netanyahu have no right to eulogize Nelson Mandela.

Yes, Peres was Minister of Defence when Rabin
hosted Vorster, but how do you connect the dots
in reaching the conclusion that because Peres met
with Vorster and Rabin he has no right to express
admiration of Mandela? Does this conclusion apply
only to Peres or also to Rabin and all who
accompanied him when he was with Vorster? And
more interestingly does it apply to the Christian
mayor of Bethlehem, Elia Freij who welcomed
Vorster and showed him the manger in which infant Jesus lay?

If you apply the reasoning that Peres is tainted
by indirectly hosting Vorster, then Levy would be
more directly tainted by his association with
Arafat. In an April 28, 2009 Haaretz article
Gideon Levy tells how he dined with Arafat who is
regarded by many as the father of modern
terrorism, involving Black September with
its hijackings and violence in Jordan, hundreds
of terror acts including the 1972 murder of
Israeli athletes in Munich, the 1985 hijacking of
the Achilles Lauro and throwing overboard of
wheelchair-bound Klinghoffer as well as Arafat's
siphoning of hundreds of millions of dollars from the Palestinian people.

You ask "so what if other countries entertained
Mr. Vorster?". Do I really need to explain that
if a balanced standard were applied, then by
Levy's reasoning none of the leaders of the many
democracies that hosted Malan, Vorster and Botha
would have a right to eulogize Mandela; a classic
example of reductio ad absurdum? It is this
recurring, propaganda-like insinuation of a
sinister meaning only to events in Israel that
are considered unremarkable when occurring in
other countries that is objectionable.

You say Israel did have special relations and
cooperation with the apartheid regime.Yes Israel,
like other democracies had relations with
apartheid South Africa but I gave you figures
showing clearly that Levy's statement that Israel
was virtually THE ONLY country that collaborated
with the apartheid regime is patently false and I
challenge you to prove otherwise.

By the way, I did not publish my letter to you in
the media as I have been awaiting your response
so that it could be be published together with
mine. I did however send copies to my mailing
list and it appears that someone passed it on to
an online publication which published it without my knowledge..

Sincerely
Maurice Ostroff

----------

At 09/12/2013,18:51,Monday, you wrote:

Dear Mr. Maurice Ostroff,
Thank you your detailed letter. Unfortunately, you have misfired.
Shimon Peres was Minister of Defense when the
South African premier visited, and actively
participated in hosting him. Please see the
attached photograph from Haaretz front page of
April 10, 1976. It shows PM Rabin and Peres with the South African PM.
So what if other countries entertained Mr.
Vorster, who had been detained during WWII for
his pro-German sympathies and anti-Allies
activity, and remained a racist and one of the architects of apartheid.
Israel did have special relations and cooperation
with the apartheid regime, an alliance that was
not based on trade but on military, strategic and
political (and according to foreign sources,
including South African ones, also nuclear) mutual interests.
I see that you did not wait more than three hours
for our reply before publishing your unfounded
criticism and accusations, but sure, you are not
a journalist and therefore are not bound by the
ethics code that mandates fact-checking before publishing.
Sincerely,
Ehud Ein-Gil
Senior editor
Haaretz



----------

Sent: Monday, December 09, 2013 12:13 PM
To: Ehud Ein-gil
Cc: Israel Press Council
Subject: Haaretz violates the rules of good journalism again

Maurice Ostroff
5/501 Asher Barash, Herzliya, 46365 ISRAEL
Tel. +972 9 9595 261
December 9, 2013

To Haaretz Senior Editor

Haaretz violates the rules of good journalism again

Recently Haaretz and Gideon Levy were reprimanded
by the Israel Press Council for violating the
ethics code that mandates fact-checking,
objectivity and loyalty to the truth and that
bars any mention of a person's country of origin,
ethnicity or social class if it isn't relevant to
the subject under discussion. It also said
Haaretz's editors had not made sure the facts
were checked and that they were not careful
enough about what the paper published

Your December 8 article under the sub-title
"Shimon Peres and Benjamin Netanyahu have no
right to eulogize Nelson Mandela" similarly
contravenes the basics of good journalism. For
example while you correctly quote Nelson Mandela
as having said "We know too well that our
freedom is incomplete without the freedom of the
Palestinians" you omitted his very important
qualification acknowledging Israel's legitimate
security concerns: "I cannot conceive of Israel
withdrawing if Arab states do not recognize Israel within secure borders."

Careless with facts, Levy erroneously slams
Shimon Peres for allegedly having hosted South
Africa's prime ministers and says this
disqualifies him from admiring Mandela. As far I
can recall only two apartheid prime ministers
visited Israel and Peres hosted neither. Ben
Gurion was PM when D.F. Malan visited in 1953 and
Rabin was PM when B.J. Vorster visited in 1976.
Malan also visited Britain, Switzerland, Belgium
and Netherlands and Vorster was welcomed in
Portugal, Spain, France, W. Germany Paraguay,
Uruguay and Switzerland. P.W. Botha was welcomed
in Britain as late as 1984. Between 1980 and 1988
he visited most European countries including the Vatican.

Singling out Israel is not only malevolent, it is
absurd. Levy's argument implies that none of the
leaders of countries that hosted South African
prime ministers in the days of apartheid are entitled to admire Mandela.

Levy FALSELY alleges that Israel was "virtually
the only country that collaborated with that evil
regime". It is disgraceful that he recklessly
propagates this damaging canard in violation of
clause 5 of the Israel Press rules that states
unambiguously "Prior to the publication of any
item, the newspaper and the journalist shall
check the accuracy thereof with the most reliable
source and with the caution appropriate to the circumstances of the case".

The fact is that dozens of countries traded and
collaborated with the apartheid regime. In 1986,
while apartheid was suffering worldwide
opprobrium, South Africa's main trading partners
were, USA $3.4 billion, Japan $2.9 billion,
Germany $2.8 billion, and U.K. $2.6 billion. By
comparison, Israel's puny $0.2 billion total
trade with South Africa amounted to less than 1%
of South Africa's total trade. In addition the
apartheid regime was propped up by Arab oil and
financing by major European banks

Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan opposed
sanctions against South Africa in the 1980's.
Thatcher visited SA and was hosted by Botha who
said he was highly impressed by her. The US
considered the ANC a terrorist group and
Mandela's name remained on the U.S. terrorism watch list Until 2008.

In the circumstances and in view of the harmful
political implications, it is highly
irresponsible to propagate the canard (i.e. the
false deliberately misleading story) that Israel
was the only country that collaborated with South
Africa and a retraction is called for.