��������Ƶ

I was present at last month’s London conference at which the publisher of Israel’s liberal-progressive Haaretz newspaper, Amos Schocken, in a less than well-crafted speech, appeared to call the Hamas terrorists “freedom fighters.” And, like most of those present in the hall, I thought he had made a gross error of judgment.

My gut feeling was that it was a clumsy rather than a deliberate provocation of his audience, of whom the vast majority supported a two-state solution, opposed the Israeli occupation and were in favor of an immediate ceasefire deal that would also ensure the return of the hostages. However, there was no doubt in my mind that this passage from his speech would travel very quickly to Israel and cause an unholy storm.

Yet it was hard to imagine that Schocken’s comment, though misplaced, was a deliberate attempt to stir up a political hurricane that would present an opportunity for Israel’s government to try to destroy one of the longest-established and, in my humble opinion, the most internationally respected Israeli newspaper, by means of a financial boycott. I must admit that I was still a little naive regarding this present Israeli government, which has for some time been going after any aspect of its country’s democratic and free society.

As a participant in this conference, I left with the strong impression of an event that conveyed with a clear voice a message of peace, tolerance and reconciliation, with a very strong constructive and pragmatic approach — not one that would endorse political violence from any side. Yet, I also dreaded what would be the response in Israel to a misplaced sentence by one participant, as important as he is.

This present Israeli government has for some time been going after any aspect of its country’s democratic and free society

Yossi Mekelberg

And lo and behold, all hell broke loose. Right-wing politicians and journalists seized the opportunity to compete over who could deliver the strongest chastisement of the newspaper and its publisher. One right-wing organization even filed a complaint with the police. The subsequent retraction and apology from Schocken, as well as many of Haaretz’s journalists taking to their keyboards to reprimand their publisher in no uncertain terms, was not enough. The right in Israel smelled blood and nothing less would satisfy them — not even a model of press freedom in which journalists are unafraid to take their publisher to task.

For the Israeli right, Haaretz has long been walking with a target on its back because of its independent and critical thinking. However, above all else, it is because of its opposition to the occupation of Palestinian land and the oppression of the Palestinian people, its stand against the building of settlements and settler terrorism and, more generally, its refusal to bow its head to the unchecked assault on the country’s democratic institutions and gatekeepers by Netanyahu and his antidemocratic bunch.

If criticizing Schocken for his words was legitimate, the government’s decision to punish the newspaper by ordering a boycott of the publication by its officials or anyone working for a government-funded body, as well as by ceasing all government advertising in its print and online editions and canceling all subscriptions to it, was an utterly illegitimate attempt to completely silence the newspaper.

A statement by the office of Shlomo Karhi, the communications minister, opened a window on this government’s distorted understanding of press freedom. It argued, for example, that whoever calls for the imposition of sanctions against Israel, as Schocken has indeed advocated in order to help bring about an end to the occupation, should not be funded by the state of Israel. What Karhi does not understand is that the money the government controls belongs to all its citizens, including those who agree with this view, let alone that it is still perfectly legal to state it. Punishing those who criticize the government — and this was an obvious act of punishment — is an attempt to silence dissenting voices, not to protect the country.

To control the media is to control the discourse and its diversity of opinion. Hence, for example, the government’s move, back in May, to take the Al Jazeera TV network off-air and later to close the network’s offices in Ramallah (which, by the way, is a city that the Israeli military entered in violation of past agreements) were popular with Netanyahu’s political base. They were also a further attempt to prevent Israelis from seeing the horrors of Gaza and to entrench a collective denial of what is taking place there.

Punishing those who criticize the government is an attempt to silence dissenting voices, not to protect the country

Yossi Mekelberg

Between economic sanctions, barring a TV channel from broadcasting and closing a bureau, the plan is clearly to intimidate journalists in the hope that they will impose their own self-censorship. The government’s attempts to silence certain media outlets are one side of the coin; the other is its active lobbying for wealthy benefactors to establish media outlets whose main objectives are to praise and even worship the “great leader” and poison the discourse by attacking his critics.

In its ongoing moves to destroy the free press, the Knesset last month passed a controversial bill ordering the privatization of Israel’s Public Broadcasting Corporation within two years and threatening its ultimate closure should a buyer not be found. This would be a win-win for Netanyahu and, if it takes place, a painful blow to press freedom. Netanyahu could either ensure that the privatization process produces a new owner loyal to him or simply close down the corporation and bring to an end many decades of dedicated, courageous and professional public broadcasting that has been holding power to account since long before Netanyahu entered politics.

The direction in which Israel under Netanyahu and his far-right populist allies is traveling is toward a democracy in name only. Weakening the freedom of the press is only one aspect of it, albeit a very significant one. It is being complemented by similar attacks on the judiciary, on academia and on civil society; attacks that portray all these institutions as unpatriotic, elitist and dishonest, even as serving foreign interests, and by that declaring open season against them.

Israel’s democracy has reached a nadir, one that which only a few years ago would have been unthinkable. But now we have the reality of a prime minister standing as defendant in a corruption trial and who, instead of showing contrition, has elected to use the courtroom to portray himself as the victim of a hostile domestic media that serves the “deep state.”

Years of this assault on its freedom have left the media fighting for its independence. It is testimony to its struggle that, despite the relentless efforts to silence it, Israel’s media outlets and its brave journalists are maintaining their civil duty of speaking truth to power. In the case of Netanyahu, this includes some very painful truths that are currently being deliberated on in court.

• Yossi Mekelberg is a professor of international relations and an associate fellow of the MENA Program at Chatham House. X: @YMekelberg