Haaretz labels Jewish Voice for Peace “anti-Israel”

Haaretz published an article today about a Jewish Voice for Peace member being threatened for her involvement in the organization. A cursory look at the headline and sub-headline reveals the newspaper’s normative stance regarding JVP and its acquiescence to polarizing labels.

Headline:

Jewish Voice for Peace chief threatened over pro-Palestinian campaign

So Haaretz has decided their campaign is “pro-Palestinian”, whatever that means.

Sub-headline:

Estee Chandler, who heads anti-Israel organization, found a poster of her picture, her workplace, other personal details and names of her relatives at her West Coast home.

Now Haaretz has also decided the organization itself is “anti-Israel,” whatever that means.

Opening sentence of article:

The head of the pro-Palestinian organization Jewish Voice for Peace received a threatening poster at her Los Angeles area home this weekend for her involvement in the organization.

Why is Haaretz using these vague and polar labels to classify the organization at all? What is it about JVP that makes it an “anti-Israel” organization? The article does not address this. Furthermore it even points out that the Anti-Defamation League classified JVP as “anti-Israel” and that many Americans consider it so because it “champions Palestinian rights” and calls for a boycott of “companies that profit from Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.” Should we thus understand from this that Haaretz has taken an explicit stance that these two positions are fundamentally “anti-Israel?”

In addition, by using the terms “anti-Israel” and “pro-Palestinian” interchangeably, Haaretz has equated and thus propagated the ignorant notion that those who support Palestinians are necessarily against Israelis, and vice versa – that those who support Israelis are necessarily against Palestinians. This, on top of the fact that the use of these terms does not actually aid in better understanding what the JVP organization or its campaign is about.  Rather it only feeds into the extreme and ignorant rhetoric.

I have written about the use of such labels in newspapers, and specifically in Haaretz, before on my blog. Once again, Haaretz has shown a lack of journalistic integrity by revealing its own bias regarding a specific organization and by capitulating to superficial labels that seek to dictate who qualifies as “pro-Israel” in the American Jewish establishment and who does not.