The Times of London, the oldest newspaper in the world, was making news a fortnight ago for refusing an advertisement. And it is no longer the richest newspa­per in the world. So, why was it refusing what was for all practical purposes free money?
It didn’t quite say so, but The Times acted as if it thought the free money was blood money. Others grabbed the money – the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Guardian – the most powerful left-leaning papers in the Western world. The Times said no. The sponsors offered to revise the text and expunge anything the Times may have considered objec­tionable. The Times still said no.
The sponsors blew their tops. Hell hath no fury like the rich and power­ful when their money is scorned. The Times offered the standard textbook reply: “We reserve the rights to reject advertisements.”
The sponsors have a high-minded name “This World: The Values Net­work” founded by Shmuley Boteach, an “outspoken American Orthodox (Jewish) rabbi.” The advertisement itself is said to be a statement jointly written by Rabbi Boteach and the famous Nobel Peace Laureate, Elie Wiesel, the Holocaust survivor, who has been honored in many countries. Indeed, Wiesel is one of the most fa­mous Jews in the world. His book on the Holocaust is a bestseller. He is considered one of the moral pillars in an unjust world who can bear testi­mony to the triumph of good over evil.
So, it was understandable the frustrations of Rabbi Boteach who couldn’t see why The Times would refuse Wiesel, “one of the most re­spected human beings alive” and “the living face of the Holocaust.”
The most detailed explanation of­fered by The Times came from the New York Observer which also pub­lished the advertisement. It quoted a representative of The Times to say that “the opinion being expressed is too strong and too forcefully made and will cause concern amongst a significant number of Times readers.”
A little riddle in this incident is how to explain the behavior of the News Corporation which owns The Times, because it also owns the New York-based Wall Street Journal, which readily printed the advertisement. The Chairman of News Corporation Rupert Murdoch is easily the most un­scrupulous of the world’s media mag­nates and would not care two hoots taking money from the devil himself, to say nothing of Jewish right-wing fanatics.
When he bought The Times in the twilight of the 70s, The Times was broke but it was still considered a formidable British institution, which had been an organic part of British history and culture for 150 years. The paper was known in its hey days as the Thunderer because its editori­als came down like thunder bolts on ministers and governments. And they rarely survived when it struck.
The negotiation to buy The Times was long and difficult as the then own­ers tried to extract written guarantees that Murdoch won’t turn The Times into another soft-sale tabloid which was Murdoch’s trade mark. The Brit­ish didn’t quite know Murdoch at the time. Eventually Mr. Murdoch bought The Times and with The Times un­der his belt, he began his many wars against the printers union, organized labor, the Labour Party, and other lib­eral groups. He vanquished them all, well, more or less.
He became the acknowledged flag bearer of the right-wing. He sacked non-conforming editors. When he moved against Harold Evans, editor of the Sunday Times, everyone thought it was all over for the Times brand. But the papers returned to solvency and The Times didn’t become a tabloid. By demonstrating extraordinary cour­age a fortnight ago, the old Times, the fearless, incorruptible Times, the Thunderer, seems to be back in The Times of London.
In the old days there would have been a massacre at The Times for refusing the advertisement. Murdoch would simply interpret the rejection as an act of disloyalty if not to his person, then, to the cause of world conserva­tism.
The question is: what happened? How was it possible for The Times to muster the courage to defy Elie Wi­esel and scorn Jewish money and risk Israeli displeasure? The only cred­ible answer seems to be that the old crocodile is now war-weary. The tele­phone hacking scandals have taken their toll – one very senior editor is in jail, two more are on trial, scores more have been arrested, questioned and are under investigation. Murdoch must have decided to permit his man­agers to use their discretion and fol­low their conscience.
Now the message in the advertise­ment is said to be about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in Gaza. And at a time the world is horrified by Israeli destruction and mindless killing of Palestinians, the ad was a call on US President Obama and other world leaders to “condemn Hamas’s use of children as human shields,” which by the definition of Boteach and Wiesel amounted to “child sacrifice.” The ar­gument seems to be that Hamas hav­ing offered the children for “sacrifice,” it makes it right for Israel to go ahead and slaughter them in their hundreds as it has done.
It has been astonishing that Elie Wiesel lent his name to an adver­tisement like that. Which on its own shows what has happened to Israel – even a Holocaust survivor can suc­cumb to Goebbelian propaganda.
A furious Boteach was quoted as telling the London Observer that “At a time when Israel is fighting for its very existence against the genocidal terrorists of Hamas, the British media, already infamously skewed against Israel, refuses a paid ad that every major American outlet… was proud to run as a full page ad.”
The statement cannot bear the slightest scrutiny, for the world knows that Israel was not fighting for its ex­istence in the last six weeks. Indeed the world is now beginning to see the constant Israeli war on Palestinians as oppressive and unjust, even the best friends of Israel are beginning to worry that Israel is beginning to run out of goodwill around the world.
As for “the genocidal terrorists of Hamas,” the world is seeing instead an oppressed, besieged, belea­guered, impoverished, and helpless Palestinian people who, like the Jews under Nazi tyranny, are struggling for survival in the face of a ruthless, im­placable and arrogant power armed to the teeth minded to crush them.
That the British media are skewed against Israel is not only untrue but reveals the arrogance by which American Jewish groups think the world must always do their bidding at all times and in all circumstances even when Israel is violating the most sacred of international humanitar­ian laws. Huge protests against Is­rael and calls for a boycott of Israeli goods in South Africa and elsewhere are now being heard. That’s how it all begins.
The courageous action by The Times should give Israel a pause and ponder moment. Waving the Holo­caust flag has won arguments for Is­rael for 70 years. That’s close to three generations. That argument is wear­ing thin not because the Holocaust has lost its power to shock the human race. No. It is losing grip because Israel has lost its character. It has vacated the moral high ground. No­bel Laureate President Jimmy Carter equates Israeli treatment of Palestin­ians to apartheid. Israel has moved from being the oppressed to become the oppressor. All it has left now is naked force.
 

Bravo, ‘Thunderer’