The Jerusalem Post has canceled Naomi Chazan’s biweekly column, after she and the New Israel Fund of which she is president threatened legal action against the paper over a recent advertisement.Hard to believe, isn't it. As in "Naaa, that's impossible". That kind of hard to believe.
The decision was taken by Jerusalem Post management after a legal threat was received at the paper from the NIF and Chazan’s lawyers.
Along with other publications, the Post last Sunday carried an advertisement criticizing Chazan and the New Israel Fund in the context of the Goldstone Report on Operation Cast Lead.
In Friday’s paper, the Post carried an advertisement defending the NIF and Chazan against their critics.
We do need to watch how Haaretz reports this tomorrow.
6 comments:
Poor fake Ibrahim
- another one of his accusations evaporated - I wonder whether he will decide on "deafening silence" or come with up an argument
Silke
http://coteret.com/2010/02/07/contextualizing-the-jpost-and-chazan-you-cant-have-it-both-ways/
Thank you Alex! I appreciate the link, as it taught me that it's Gilad Sher's office that's behind the attempted block. I also left a comment at Coteret.
The story is becoming ever more important in my mind. That there are many individuals in the radical-left corner of Israeli society who don't understand or accept democracy has been clear to me for many years - probably about 20. Now, however, it appears that the rot has made its way into the very heart of their institutions. This is a worrying development.
That Coteret "analysis" is certainly rather amusing.
Nary a mention of Chazan's lawsuit. Wonder why....
But the writer gives himself or herself away with this gem of a paragraph:
The Post’s editorial line is, in understatement, not my cup of tea. Some of its columnists, like Caroline Glick, engage in a kind of fascist demagoguery that makes even Fox News appear mainstream. Blogger Shmuel Rosner consistently and dishonestly wraps neoconservative talking points in a “centrist” wrapping and seems to operate without any kind of effective editorial supervision. That, however, is part of what a vibrant public discourse is all about and is irrelevant to this discussion.
Not relevant. Yeah, sure. Spouting all the codewords of the righteous: "fascist", "neoconservative"; but of course, none of it is relevant(!). Clever little stunt, no doubt, in the writer's own mind.
Wish these people would grow up. (Maybe then, they might be taken seriously.) And yes, that is absolutely relevant to this discussion.
What are your libel laws Yaacov? If the ad was genuinely libellous then the JP would be liable along with the advertiser, as a publisher. (that's how our defamation laws work anyway). Truth is also an absolute defence against libel, and I very much doubt these people would be keen on seeing the activities of the NGOs exposed in an Israeli courtroom. JP looks to have called their bluff, wonder how far it will go.
Gavin -
I don't know what our libel laws are, but no-one seems to be saying they're applicable in this case. Not even the legal players. If they felt they had a case we'd have heard it by now; even if they thought it to be a long shot they'd have initiated the proceedings in order to back down once the furor is over (that's a well known tactic that gets used when someone seeks the appearance of being defamed but knows there's no real case).
Post a Comment