Jerusalem Post new office 370.
(photo credit: Courtesy)
A wonderful thing about The Jerusalem Post is the diverse spectrum of views that
can be found in its pages – and among its staff.
That’s why I can say
frankly within our pluralistic work environment that I didn’t agree with the
paper’s editorial earlier this week on African migrants and NGOs who support
I thought that the editorial was over the top in its claims
that NGOs “have been disseminating misinformation about the migrants in an
attempt to advance a post-Zionist political agenda that seeks to transform
Israel from a Jewish state to ‘a state for all its citizens.’”
I believe that
most of these NGOs are sincerely committed to forwarding humanitarian efforts to provide a safe haven for the migrants who are here, and that it’s
Israel’s obligation as a progressive, enlightened country, to open its arms to
them – whether you call them refugees or infiltrators.
misguided or harsh as this week’s editorial may have been, it was child’s play
compared to the menacing vitriol directed at the Post
’s management and senior
staff by supposed advocates of the migrants and NGOs in question.
particular, one Daniel Sieradski – a left-wing blogger critical of Israel who
observes from the safety of the US – launched a Twitter campaign against the
editorial and the Post
, posting items like “If your newspaper burned down &
you all got cancer it would be too good for you.”
That missive and
similarly abusive diatribes were then retweeted by an organization called
Freedom4Refugees and other online activists who apparently think it’s acceptable
to wish death upon people they don’t agree with.
There’s a way in a
civilized society to rebut and make an opinion known. Unfortunately, when it
comes to issues like the African migrants, or negotiations between Israel and
the Palestinians, it’s perfectly fine to throw human decency aside and resort to
verbal abuse, threats and hate speech.
It doesn’t change my feeling that
the government’s position on the migrants is flawed, but it does raise some red
flags over whether the agenda of some of the migrants’ supporters isn’t also
over the top.