Haaretz Boycott Marks Latest in Media Freedom Erosion in Israel, Say Experts
Amos Schocken, Haaretz’s publisher, called Netanyahu’s government an ‘apartheid regime’ and Palestinian terrorists ‘freedom fighters.’ The Israeli government decided to boycott Haaretz, sparking a heated debate
Amid a hot war between Israel and Iranian proxies on multiple fronts, another conflict is being fought in the Jewish state but with words. Creating a battle line between freedom of speech and the media’s role in political discourse, the Israeli government severed ties with Haaretz on November 24, following remarks by its publisher, Amos Schocken, during a speech in London.
Schocken criticized the Israeli government for imposing an “apartheid regime” on Palestinians and referred to Palestinian terrorists as “freedom fighters.” In response, Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi announced that all public entities would cease advertising in Haaretz, stating that while the government supports a free press, it also has the right to withhold funding from outlets that incite against the state.
Schocken later retracted his comments, clarifying that he does not view Hamas as freedom fighters and acknowledging that the use of terrorism is illegitimate.
Like his friends Putin, Erdoğan, and Orbán, Netanyahu is trying to silence a critical, independent newspaper. Haaretz will not balk and will not morph into a government pamphlet that publishes messages approved by the government and its leader.
Esther Solomon, the editor-in-chief of Haaretz English, shared with The Media Line the newspaper’s official response to Netanyahu’s government: “The opportunist resolution to boycott Haaretz, which passed in today’s government meeting without any legal review, is another step in Netanyahu’s journey to dismantle Israeli democracy. Like his friends Putin, Erdoğan, and Orbán, Netanyahu is trying to silence a critical, independent newspaper. Haaretz will not balk and will not morph into a government pamphlet that publishes messages approved by the government and its leader.”
It is in the nature of a free press that opinions will be shared that is not to everyone’s taste. Tolerating free expression is a key factor that distinguishes democracies from autocracies..
Expressing his concerns about press freedom in Israel after October 7, the deputy general secretary of the International Federation of Journalists, Tim Dawson, told The Media Line: “It is in the nature of a free press that opinions will be shared that is not to everyone’s taste. Tolerating free expression is a key factor that distinguishes democracies from autocracies.”
The Netanyahu government’s treatment of Haaretz is wrongheaded, repressive, and reactionary and damages Israel itself. It isn’t the first time the Israeli government has threatened to remove government advertising from Haaretz, which is troubling.
“The Netanyahu government’s treatment of Haaretz is wrongheaded, repressive, and reactionary and damages Israel itself. It isn’t the first time the Israeli government has threatened to remove government advertising from Haaretz, which is troubling,” Dawson added.
According to Hagar Shechter, an attorney at the Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI), Netanyahu’s government is “systematically working to dismantle Israeli democracy, including via the elimination of the free press.”
This holiday season, give to:
Truth and understanding
The Media Line's intrepid correspondents are in Israel, Gaza, Lebanon, Syria and Pakistan providing first-person reporting.
They all said they cover it.
We see it.
We report with just one agenda: the truth.
In addition to attacks on journalists and media outlets that do not align with the administration, the government is also advancing legislation aimed at undermining the freedom of the press, paralyzing or privatizing public broadcasting, and favoring media outlets that serve as government mouthpieces.
“In addition to attacks on journalists and media outlets that do not align with the administration, the government is also advancing legislation aimed at undermining the freedom of the press, paralyzing or privatizing public broadcasting, and favoring media outlets that serve as government mouthpieces,” she told The Media Line.
The Haaretz boycott comes a few months after Israel’s Knesset passed a law allowing the Israeli government to order the cessation of a foreign channel’s broadcasts in Israel if the prime minister is convinced that its content directly threatens the country’s security. This move allowed Netanyahu’s government to halt the broadcasting of Qatari television station Al Jazeera in Israel for broadcasting content defined as supportive of terrorists.
Shechter explained that outlets like Haaretz aren’t subject to standard media regulations or ethical guidelines that prevent the spread of fake news.
In this case, asserted Shechter, the attack and boycott against Haaretz “is caused because of its criticism towards the government and is a major blow to freedom of expression and freedom of the press, and reflects the government’s attempt to create a docile and paralyzed civil society, one that gets its information from fake news and partial truths, completely unaware of the injustices it perpetrates.”
Another TV channel under scrutiny by Netanyahu’s government is Kan 11, the Israeli state-owned, free-to-air television channel operated by the Israeli Public Broadcasting Corporation (IPBC). On Sunday, shortly after Netanyahu’s cabinet unanimously supported the boycott against Haaretz, the Ministerial Committee on Legislation approved a bill to privatize the IPBC within two years.
The bill proposed by Likud MK Tally Gotliv mandates issuing a tender for selling IPBC’s networks, including Kan and Reshet Bet, the Israeli public broadcasting radio. If no buyer is found within the given timeframe, the public broadcaster will be shut down, and its intellectual property will be transferred to the government, similar to an earlier proposal by Communications Minister Shlomi Karhi.
The Israeli deputy attorney general, Avital Sompolinsky, wrote a letter to Justice Minister Yariv Levin saying that the bill “severely damages the independence of the Public Broadcasting Corporation, whose proper and independent functioning is known to play a central role in Israeli democracy.”
Cathryn Grothe, MENA researcher at the Freedom House, confirmed the alarming crackdown on media freedom and free expression more broadly since October 7. She told The Media Line that while the Israeli media sector has generally been vibrant, and journalists have typically had robust legal protections, nevertheless, many journalists in Israel currently identify a shrinking space for critical media in the country.
Coupled with the proliferation of pro-government disinformation, this trend created a polarized information ecosystem with misleading content that erodes public trust in the media. Netanyahu’s continued attacks on the media and expression are not only deeply concerning but are reflective of a broader decline in Israel’s democracy.
“Coupled with the proliferation of pro-government disinformation, this trend created a polarized information ecosystem with misleading content that erodes public trust in the media. Netanyahu’s continued attacks on the media and expression are not only deeply concerning but are reflective of a broader decline in Israel’s democracy,” Grothe explained.
Considering that many news sources might feel inclined to avoid certain subjects after observing how Haaretz is being treated, Grothe added that in Israel, many publications also face problems with self-censorship.
Even before the war began, journalists in Israel have been discouraged from reporting on topics perceived to be sympathetic to Palestinians. The government has approved a vaguely worded law that criminalizes the ‘consumption of terrorist materials,’ providing an ambiguous threshold.
At the same time, hundreds of people have been arrested – often without sufficient evidence or due process – for social media posts or other content about the war. Also, recent regulations allowing authorities to ban or censor foreign broadcasters could limit the integrity and transparency of the information space in Israel.
“Even before the war began, journalists in Israel have been discouraged from reporting on topics perceived to be sympathetic to Palestinians. The government has approved a vaguely worded law that criminalizes the ‘consumption of terrorist materials,’ providing an ambiguous threshold. At the same time, hundreds of people have been arrested – often without sufficient evidence or due process – for social media posts or other content about the war. Also, recent regulations allowing authorities to ban or censor foreign broadcasters could limit the integrity and transparency of the information space in Israel,” she said.
According to Shechter, Israeli criminal law restricts freedom of expression in extreme cases where statements are highly likely to lead to violence, racism, or terrorism.
“Amos Schocken’s statements do not even approach this threshold. It is important to emphasize that since the outbreak of the war, various media outlets have been providing platforms for ministers, members of Knesset, journalists, and self-proclaimed commentators to make explicit calls promoting violence, racism, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. From this, one can only conclude that the government and its branches are implementing a policy of selective enforcement,” Shechter added.
In this context, Shechter has observed selective enforcement against expressions made by members of Israel’s Arab minority. Since the war’s outbreak, many Arab-Israelis have been arrested, investigated, and detained for statements that would have been completely ignored had they been written in Hebrew.
In the West Bank, several Palestinian Authority laws criminalize the publication of topics deemed critical of the state. Additionally, journalists, bloggers, and social media users are frequently subject to disproportionate surveillance, arrest, and repression by Israeli and Palestinian authorities.
On top of this selective enforcement by Israel, Grothe also observed that press freedom in the Palestinian territories has been significantly restricted for years as it confronts challenges from both Israeli and Palestinian politicians.
“In the West Bank, several Palestinian Authority laws criminalize the publication of topics deemed critical of the state. Additionally, journalists, bloggers, and social media users are frequently subject to disproportionate surveillance, arrest, and repression by Israeli and Palestinian authorities,” Grothe said.
