- #1
David Ben-Ariel
Watching Israel's Media: Freedom of speech in the dock_
Yisrael Medad and Eli Pollak
Nov. 23, 2003
What role does freedom of speech really play in Israel?
One week after the High Court of Justice allowed the broadcast of the
viciously anti-Israel pseudo-documentary Jenin, Jenin, representatives of
the State Prosecutor's office appeared in the Jerusalem Magistrate's Court
to argue for the harshest sentences possible in the case of the non-licensed
Arutz 7 radio network.
The prosecution asked for prison sentences for four defendants, including
Shulamit Melamed; fines of hundreds of thousands of shekels for Rabbi Ze'ev
Melamed, Ya'acov Katz, and Hagai Segal; and smaller fines for French
department head David Shapira and broadcaster Gideon Sharon.
The reasoning behind the request for such harsh sentences was that Arutz 7
had broadcast for over 15 years, and the defendants are "leaders" who must
serve as an example.
We should recall that not one plane fell from the sky due to Arutz 7's
broadcast signal, nor was it ever proven that the signal interfered with
Ben-Gurion Airport, as claimed by the authorities. Arutz 7 has
conscientiously paid royalties to all songwriters, while Israel Radio's
local stations have not for the past decade. Among the people who have had
regular programs on Arutz 7 are chief rabbis, the Knesset Speaker, cabinet
ministers, MKs, leading lawyers, professors, thinkers, and more.
That the attorney-general and state prosecutor ignore almost 150 other
non-licensed stations indicates that a very_ __ specific lesson is intended
for the religious-nationalist camp.
Part of that lesson, it would appear, is that Attorney-General Elyakim
Rubinstein is willing to be lenient what it suits him and to behave
otherwise when it doesn't. He has consistently declared that the less he
involves the application of criminal procedure in matters of political
divisiveness the better.
For example, in the matter of the Wakf digs on Temple Mount, he received
letters pointing out that the destruction of its archeological treasures was
unlawful and violated, at the very least, the Antiquities Law and Law of
Planning. His response was to do nothing in public.
In a more recent instance, when it was claimed that Yossi Beilin was in
direct violation of Paragraph 97 of the Penal Code in acting to extricate
territory from Israel's sovereignty, he again insisted that this was an
issue for public debate, not the courtroom.
WHAT MAKES the case of Arutz 7 different? Is the Telegraph Law, which bans
non-licensed radio stations, really that crucial to the state's legal
fabric?
We should not forget that as per the Oslo Accords, several radio broadcast
channels were handed over to the Palestinian Authority. The performance of
these stations has been undemocratic if not downright inciting. The IDF has
even bombed these stations out of existence or knocked out their antennas.
As far as we are aware, Arutz 7 has not been charged with any similar
activities.
So why all the fuss?
The answer lies in the realization that the media, especially the electronic
media which is for the most part free and easily available, is a pillar of
society. The ability to affect society, shape its opinions, and provide it
with information and the ability to choose_ these are the real powers of
the media.
To our regret, Israeli society is poorly served media-wise. The field is
plagued by bias, political interference, journalistic unprofessionalism and
a lack of pluralism.
Israel does not have even one independent, private news outlet among its
broadcast media. Army Radio and the Israel Broadcast Authority are
governmental.
The regional radio stations are not permitted to present their own news
service. Channel 2 TV's news is run by its news company, which is
government-controlled. Arutz 7 was the only truly private broadcaster of
news in this country.
The Telegraph Law is clearly an excuse for silencing an independent news
outlet. What is really at issue is freedom of speech in its true sense. Had
we been a truly liberal country, we would have found a way for Arutz 7 and
its counterparts to continue broadcasting.
The writers are, respectively, board member and chairman of Israel's Media
Watch (IMW). info@imw.org.il
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid
=1069487632637
Yisrael Medad and Eli Pollak
Nov. 23, 2003
What role does freedom of speech really play in Israel?
One week after the High Court of Justice allowed the broadcast of the
viciously anti-Israel pseudo-documentary Jenin, Jenin, representatives of
the State Prosecutor's office appeared in the Jerusalem Magistrate's Court
to argue for the harshest sentences possible in the case of the non-licensed
Arutz 7 radio network.
The prosecution asked for prison sentences for four defendants, including
Shulamit Melamed; fines of hundreds of thousands of shekels for Rabbi Ze'ev
Melamed, Ya'acov Katz, and Hagai Segal; and smaller fines for French
department head David Shapira and broadcaster Gideon Sharon.
The reasoning behind the request for such harsh sentences was that Arutz 7
had broadcast for over 15 years, and the defendants are "leaders" who must
serve as an example.
We should recall that not one plane fell from the sky due to Arutz 7's
broadcast signal, nor was it ever proven that the signal interfered with
Ben-Gurion Airport, as claimed by the authorities. Arutz 7 has
conscientiously paid royalties to all songwriters, while Israel Radio's
local stations have not for the past decade. Among the people who have had
regular programs on Arutz 7 are chief rabbis, the Knesset Speaker, cabinet
ministers, MKs, leading lawyers, professors, thinkers, and more.
That the attorney-general and state prosecutor ignore almost 150 other
non-licensed stations indicates that a very_ __ specific lesson is intended
for the religious-nationalist camp.
Part of that lesson, it would appear, is that Attorney-General Elyakim
Rubinstein is willing to be lenient what it suits him and to behave
otherwise when it doesn't. He has consistently declared that the less he
involves the application of criminal procedure in matters of political
divisiveness the better.
For example, in the matter of the Wakf digs on Temple Mount, he received
letters pointing out that the destruction of its archeological treasures was
unlawful and violated, at the very least, the Antiquities Law and Law of
Planning. His response was to do nothing in public.
In a more recent instance, when it was claimed that Yossi Beilin was in
direct violation of Paragraph 97 of the Penal Code in acting to extricate
territory from Israel's sovereignty, he again insisted that this was an
issue for public debate, not the courtroom.
WHAT MAKES the case of Arutz 7 different? Is the Telegraph Law, which bans
non-licensed radio stations, really that crucial to the state's legal
fabric?
We should not forget that as per the Oslo Accords, several radio broadcast
channels were handed over to the Palestinian Authority. The performance of
these stations has been undemocratic if not downright inciting. The IDF has
even bombed these stations out of existence or knocked out their antennas.
As far as we are aware, Arutz 7 has not been charged with any similar
activities.
So why all the fuss?
The answer lies in the realization that the media, especially the electronic
media which is for the most part free and easily available, is a pillar of
society. The ability to affect society, shape its opinions, and provide it
with information and the ability to choose_ these are the real powers of
the media.
To our regret, Israeli society is poorly served media-wise. The field is
plagued by bias, political interference, journalistic unprofessionalism and
a lack of pluralism.
Israel does not have even one independent, private news outlet among its
broadcast media. Army Radio and the Israel Broadcast Authority are
governmental.
The regional radio stations are not permitted to present their own news
service. Channel 2 TV's news is run by its news company, which is
government-controlled. Arutz 7 was the only truly private broadcaster of
news in this country.
The Telegraph Law is clearly an excuse for silencing an independent news
outlet. What is really at issue is freedom of speech in its true sense. Had
we been a truly liberal country, we would have found a way for Arutz 7 and
its counterparts to continue broadcasting.
The writers are, respectively, board member and chairman of Israel's Media
Watch (IMW). info@imw.org.il
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid
=1069487632637
Last edited by a moderator: