Can Israel navigate dissenting voices without undermining democracy? – editorial

In the tumult of the wars against Hamas and Hezbollah, the discourse around media freedoms and the government’s relationship with news outlets has sparked intense debate. 

At the heart of this lies the legal and moral question: Should a government penalize a publication for its editorial stance, even if it diverges sharply from mainstream national sentiment?

Recently, Haaretz, the left-leaning newspaper, faced backlash over comments by publisher Amos Schocken to label Palestinian terrorists as “freedom fighters” and Israel’s governance in the West Bank as that of a “cruel apartheid regime.” Even Leonid Nevzlin, co-owner of Haaretz, publicly expressed his strong disagreement with the statements.

For The Jerusalem Post, the term “freedom fighters” is an affront to the harrowing loss of life and the brutality experienced at the hands of Palestinian terrorism, amplified even more so since October 7. The fallout from Schocken’s comments has extended to government bodies and private companies halting advertising agreements with the newspaper. These decisions are legally permissible, but their implications for democracy warrant scrutiny.

Israel’s democracy allows for diverse, even controversial, perspectives to be published without fear of legal retribution. This is one of its greatest strengths of being the only democracy in a region often characterized by media repression. 

Freedom of expression has consequences

However, free expression is not without consequences. Advertisers and government agencies have the right to align their partnerships with entities that reflect their values, just as readers can choose to support or boycott media outlets. The law provides space for this interplay between free press and free choice, underscoring the delicate balance of rights in a vibrant democracy.

The government unanimously approved at its weekly meeting on Sunday a proposal by Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi that all government bodies or those funded by it will “cease to engage with the newspaper Haaretz in any way and not publish any advertisements in it.”

Yet, this approach carries risks. Government withdrawal from media collaborations over ideological disagreements, while legally valid, can create the perception of censorship. Even in cases where no formal suppression occurs, the optics of state disengagement from critical press can embolden accusations of intolerance or authoritarianism.Israel today is navigating one of its most existential crises. The October 7 massacre and the ongoing war have profoundly impacted the national psyche. Understandably, the public is sensitive to narratives that seem to undermine the legitimacy of Israel’s struggle against terrorism. However, democratic resilience is tested not in times of peace but during periods of acute stress.

To embrace true democracy is to accept the discomfort of dissenting voices. Labeling this editorial choice as distasteful is fair and justified, but attempting to silence it through indirect economic pressure could lead to unintended consequences, including the erosion of public trust in media and governance.

A more constructive approach might involve public dialogue rather than financial disengagement. The government and civil society should challenge problematic narratives through debate and evidence rather than punitive measures. This is democracy manifest: the free exchange of ideas, even those that provoke anger or frustration, and the strength to counter them in the marketplace of public discourse.

It is essential to remember that the fabric of Israel’s democracy is built not only on the right to speak but also on the maturity to listen – even when it hurts. In this sense, the government and its critics share a responsibility to uphold the principles of free speech and accountability.

By navigating this issue with sensitivity and principle, Israel can reaffirm its democratic identity amidst the chaos. This is not only a matter of immediate political strategy but also of setting an enduring example for future generations. The message must be clear: Democracy is messy, but it is also resilient – and it is this resilience that will carry Israel through its darkest hours.