In an attempt at damage control, Haaretz is hastily trying to distance itself from a firestorm created by its own publisher, Amos Schocken. Schocken’s comments, in which he referred to Palestinian terrorists as “freedom fighters,” have not only angered Israelis but also prompted multiple government ministries to sever ties with the notoriously left-wing newspaper. Schocken, speaking at a Haaretz conference in London last week, decided to air his grievances against the Israeli government with remarkable tone-deafness, stating, “The Netanyahu government doesn’t care about imposing a cruel apartheid regime on the Palestinian population. It dismisses the costs to both sides for defending the [West Bank] settlements while fighting the Palestinian freedom fighters that Israel calls terrorists.” The remarks, captured on video and widely shared, seemed to conveniently ignore the reality of terrorism in favor of Schocken’s ideological agenda. After backlash reached a fever pitch, Schocken issued a “clarification,” claiming his “wording should have been different” and hastily adding that “as for Hamas, they are not freedom fighters.” In a hasty attempt to contain the damage, Haaretz published an editorial, almost begrudgingly titled “Terrorists are not freedom fighters,” attempting to undo the self-inflicted mess. In the piece, Haaretz concedes that, “The fact that he didn’t mean to include Hamas terrorists doesn’t mean that other terrorist acts are legitimate, even if their perpetrators’ goal is to free themselves from occupation.” In a spectacularly belated acknowledgment of the obvious, Haaretz goes on to declare, “Deliberately harming civilians is illegitimate.” Apparently, Haaretz felt the need to remind its readers that targeting innocent men, women, and children for ideological or political ends is indeed terrorism, not “freedom fighting.” The editorial struggles to strike a balance between historical narratives and the clear-cut nature of terrorism, yet somehow manages to paint Schocken’s initial comments as an innocent misstep. Haaretz concludes with a note that the term “freedom fighter” may have a “romantic connotation,” as if that excuse somehow mitigates the offense. This rushed editorial seems less like an apology and more like an attempt to excuse Schocken’s ideological misadventures. Whether this “clarification” will restore the newspaper’s credibility remains to be seen, but the damage from Schocken’s comments has been done—and it’s doubtful this half-hearted editorial will win back the confidence of those it alienated. (YWN World Headquarters – NYC)