The New York Times office building./Unsplash
At the beginning of our joint program on Radio 103, Arel Segal asked me this morning to discuss the news that was published yesterday (Monday) in a number of Israeli media outlets that Anat Schwartz, an Israeli reporter for the "New York Times", was summoned for an investigation that was going to end in suspension, this because, among other things, she marked 'like To my tweet from October 7, in which I wrote: "After I talked about unity, one principle that needs to be abandoned today: proportionality. We need a disproportionate response. Let Israel see what it is hiding in the basement. If a hair falls from their head - execute security prisoners. Violate every norm On the way to victory. For them to see and be seen. Those in front of us are human animals who do not hesitate to violate minimum rules, including the murder of medical staff and babies. We do not pass on this."
First, the necessary caveat, because the timing has meaning.
This tweet was written on the day of the massacre, and I used a phrase that I probably wouldn't use today.
Although the words were written while hundreds of bodies of Jews were still lying in the courtyards of the kibbutzim - slaughter is perhaps an exaggerated word that tried to express my opinion on the need for a disproportionate response to a disproportionate act, one that will burn for generations.
It should also be noted that the Israeli government is currently reacting aggressively in Gaza in a war that receives public support, and it's a good thing - otherwise we have no ability and no reason to continue living in this place.
The message from those sources is that the charges against the reporter may harm the "Israeli propaganda efforts"
However, the threats to suspend a journalist due to Simon Lake's "pro-Israeli" tweet were not born in a vacuum, and speak no less about the New York Times itself and the Israeli media.
On the ynet website belonging to the "Yediot Ahronoth" group, unknown "Israeli information sources" were located, who "expressed concern that the newspaper's move will help deniers discredit the credibility of Hamas' sexual assaults."
Let's recall:
Schwartz signed, along with other documents, the comprehensive investigation by the American newspaper that revealed difficult details about sexual assaults during October 7 and revealed that the sexual assaults were not an isolated incident - but a widespread pattern of sexual-based violence.
The message from those sources is that the blame that will be placed on the reporter may harm the "Israeli propaganda efforts".
In the opinion of those parties, did the reliability or the facts presented in the investigation change as a result of that inquiry or like?
Does the newspaper not stand behind the stories it publishes?
Doesn't the very inquiry harm the image of the newspaper?
Does not, for example, the fact that one of the senior publicists of the "New York Times" Thomas Friedman, consistently expresses opposition to Netanyahu, damage the image of the newspaper as "free from bias"?
We will stay with the supplier.
Item on the New York Times breaking news/screenshot, screenshot
Is liking a post that calls for a change of government political?
Is a tweet in the New York Times that supports the Prime Minister taking responsibility for the massacre partisan?
According to the American media outlet, Schwartz - who works there as a freelance reporter - violated company policy when she liked a tweet that was against the newspaper's policy.
The "New York Times" policy regarding the conduct of its employees on social media warns that a post or like must not "express partisan views, promote political views, support candidates, make offensive comments or do anything else that undermines the journalistic reputation of The Times."
But who will define what is "partisan" or "political"?
Is liking a post that calls for a change of government political?
According to the New York Times, is a tweet that supports the Prime Minister taking responsibility for the massacre partisan?
The same amorphous policy once again exposes the web of camouflage and the destructive potential of the control of journalists' opinions, under the "liberal" guise of "organization policy".
Even if the intentions are good, in practice (as has already been proven in a number of Israeli media outlets that advocate a similar policy and thereby created a chilling effect, mostly on left-wing journalists) - this is nothing more than a tool for political control.
Therefore, the simple truth must be told: a "regulatory" act of bosses (publishers) who monitor tweets on social networks, or worse - "likes" is anti-journalistic by definition.
More in Walla!
The thick hint given by the supreme president about Karai's candidate for the position of chairman of the search committee of the corporation
To the full article
IDF soldiers in the Gaza Strip, February 25, 2025/IDF spokesperson
Why exactly "genocide"?
And finally, there is the matter itself.
With all the importance of tweets or insignificant statements of insignificant ministers that reached The Hague, have you ever asked yourself why the anti-Israeli campaign since the beginning of the war focuses specifically on the words "genocide"?
What is in this couplet that mobilizes millions of citizens around the world against Israel?
Why was the slogan "the Jews are conquering", "the Zionist empire strikes again" or simply "the Israelis kill indiscriminately" not chosen?
The reason is simple:
the basic concept of radical circles in Europe and the US is that Israel won recognition because of the Holocaust. The attempt to place such a ridiculous blame (even in The Hague, not really home turf, we will not find the same smoking gun) on Israel is actually "offsetting" Israel's legitimacy to live here, in terms of "here, now she is the one doing the same thing".
And why do so many people around the world buy this product? Because just as in Israel there is a domestic poison machine that was built with labor and a lot of money to maintain government, so it exists at the same time A much stronger and bigger machine - which unfortunately attacks Israel "from the left". Through social networks and populist cells on campuses it buys it a foothold and sweeps away millions. In a perfect world, one could even say that there is poetic justice in this that closes the circle and punishes the nationalists and populists here in Israel, the problem is that I In the end, it is the sane majority that is left without protection and basic facts in the middle.
More on the same topic:
New York Times
Latest news
War of Iron Swords