With the demise of the Berkeley Daily Planet, Israel bashers in the East Bay will need to find a new soap box.
As our story on page 3 details, the editor and publisher of the Berkeley Daily Planet announced they would cease publishing a print edition of the newspaper, offering only a weekly online version starting next month.
Editor Becky O’Malley partially attributed her paper’s financial woes to an advertising boycott led by pro-Israel activists. Those activists, outraged by the Daily Planet’s history of inflammatory anti-Israel letters and op-eds, did indeed dissuade some local merchants from advertising in the Daily Planet.
O’Malley has not withdrawn her published charge that “a few misguided zealots who represent themselves as friends of Israel” figured in her paper’s misfortunes, but she told j. she does not blame the entire Berkeley Jewish community for taking down the Planet.
This was a bittersweet victory for the pro-Israel activists. One of their leaders, Jim Sinkinson, said he would have preferred to see the Daily Planet simply cease publishing its constant stream of anti-Israel screed, rather than go under.
Of course, even online, the Planet may continue to publish rambling letters blasting Israel for every perceived sin on Earth.
In recent years we, too, have been appalled by the Planet’s editorial judgment, or lack thereof. In the name of free speech, O’Malley gave unlimited space to any and all Israel bashers. Not only was the paper’s letters to the editor section often littered with rambling anti-Israel harangues, but the Planet sometimes included op-eds penned by blatantly anti-Semitic cranks.
It all begged the question: Why should a small community newspaper become a central meeting ground for anti-Zionists and, yes, anti-Semites, obsessed with Israel rather than the concerns of Berkeley neighborhoods?
It shouldn’t, and thus we understood the anger on the part of the advertising boycott leaders.
However, while we approve of the push back against anti-Israel venom, we do not rejoice in seeing a community newspaper fail. It’s bad for the people of Berkeley, who deserve a thoughtful, informative community paper.
So while we are glad unabashed Israel haters have one less place to vent, we are sorry to see another newspaper disappear from street-side news racks. We hope the example of the Daily Planet shows readers the importance of supporting community papers like this one.
All
02/19/2010 at 06:35 PM
It seems that one can, in the name of free speech and the marketplace of ideas, “bash” any and all countries in the world, as long as the country bashed is not Israel. In a way, this is not dissimilar from Henry Ford’s once-famous dictum that consumers could buy his cars in any color they chose, just as long as the color was black. Interesting, how the Semite and the anti-Semite may converge.
We also have the argument that small community newspapers should not be “obsessed” with matters concerning Israel. This begs several questions: 1) Why the hell not? and 2) Who and what defines “obsessed”? In this case, the Jewish Weekly and Co. has taken on the job with the usual results, which appear, in turn, to be obsessed with the protection of a certain ethnic nationalism, no matter what.
Israel is a country, not a holy cause. As a country, it is open to any and all criticisms just like all other countries. Once a country and her defenders demand treatment as if the country were a holy cause then civil liberties and the marketplace of ideas go down the drain. Your editorial is a small-minded celebration of exactly that.
Login to reply to this comment or post your own02/19/2010 at 09:55 PM
Right if one adds balance. He asks, “Why the hell not?” to why should a local newspaper obsess on its hostility to Israel?
Should the Jewish everything in its power to get rid of such a newspaper. As GRF says, “Why the hell not?”
GRF argues that Israel should be open to the same sort of criticism as any other country. Sure enough. And if as much ink was spilled in the Berkeley Daily Planet over the real monstrosities committed in Egypt, Syria, Pakistan, Indonesia, and other places as largely invented misdeeds by Israel, one could agree with him.
But since nothing of the case has ever been the case, the ‘right to criticize’ argument is an empty and insincere hypocrisy. Criticism of Israel and only of Israel is the modern form of antisemitism.
GRF’s arguments are a smokescreen for bigotry and racism.
Login to reply to this comment or post your own