BARBARA SOFER's To censor or not to censor?

By Barbara Sofer
Nov. 8, 2002

Only the deepest military secrets are censored in Israel; although several laws remain on the books, they're rarely enforced. But this weekend, censorship was at the heart of passionate discussions at our Jerusalem dinner table.

First, there was the question of the magazine cover story in Ma'ariv about the alleged sex-related misdeeds of Rabbi Shlomo Aviner, a leading religious Zionist leader. Some asked if defamation of character ( Aviner was not charged with a crime) is allowed. While the radio publicized the supposed expose, posters appeared in our neighborhood urging religious Jews to boycott the newspaper as punishment, and to discourage reading the reputation-damaging implications against Aviner.

This raised the question of whether anyone should be telling us what to read, particularly on such a sensitive subject. Some at our table argued that those of us identified as "religious" need to show solidarity with a rabbi and assume he was being persecuted by a scoop-motivated reporter. But then, knowing how rarely women's grievances concerning sexual harassment are taken seriously, should we laud a paper that takes them at face value? Would fear of exposure encourage rabbinical figures to follow stricter rules of conduct or, just the opposite, would it discourage them from interceding in family problems? And finally, should we practice self-censorship and not read the newspaper?

The other point of discussion was the screening at the Tel Aviv Cinemateque of Israel Arab actor Mohammad Bakri's film Jenin, Jenin: A One-Sided Movie, despite requests from the families of those killed in Jenin to cancel the showing.

Bakri's movie is admittedly "one-sided," and presents a skewed, anti-Israel view of the battle fought during Operation Defense Shield. Would cancellation of the movie backfire and create publicity, bringing people to go out of their way to see it?

Would the decision of a public body to show the movie in Israel provide a justification for showings all over the world? After all, how could Jews in London and Philadelphia protest when the
film was shown in the heart of Israel?

Orthodox Jews look back in horror at scandals that have centered around religious leaders, most notably the abuse of students by the principal of the Netiv Meir Bnei Akiva Yeshiva High School, and the abuse of both girls and boys by a prominent youth leader in New York. In both cases, initial complaints were hushed up and the crimes continued under the noses of religious authorities. On one hand, these incidents have made us increasingly worried about the desire to protect the good name of the community. But if we go along, then we share complicity in the shushing. On the other hand, our shame over the actions of these sick and sickening community leaders has left us open to the possibility of witch hunts. How unfortunate it would be if we stereotyped our own spiritual leaders as demonic voyeurs, and if those who dared to help grown ups with grown up problems were put on trial every time.

Anyone who took the trouble to read the article about Aviner would be baffled by the hype. The journalist simply couldn't come up with any of the promised damning facts, and the testimony of the accusing women was full of holes and questions. Given the content, the prominent placement of the article and its promotion on the radio certainly rings more of anti-religious prejudice than a sacred campaign. Journalist Kalman Leibskind and editor Amnon Dankner have been grossly irresponsible.

On the other hand, the campaign by portions of the Orthodox community to control our reading habits was a poor choice, reminding us of the common rabbinical silencing on this very issue. Critical reading is an essential skill for a free society.
Does that mean that everything should be allowed in public media? The ban on playing Wagner in Israel is reflective of a national sensitivity to the feelings of Holocaust survivors. If the producers of the play currently running in Egypt based on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion want it to appear in Habima, should they be allowed? Why should we be so uncaring about the sensitivities of our soldiers and the families of those maimed and killed in Jenin, who were there seeking out terrorists? And by the way, aren't we still at war?

So many lies have been told about the behavior of our soldiers in Jenin that the truth has been hidden behind a screen of hate. My neighbor Dr. David Zangen, who served as chief medical officer for Brigade Five in Jenin, was approached by the families of the dead soldiers to see if he could do anything to call off the screening. He approached friends with influence in the movie world, and they advised him that the most effective course of action would be to attend the showing and register objections during the discussion period scheduled to follow the film.

Sounds reasonable, right? Okay, the movie admittedly presents only the Palestinian side. Still, Zangen was surprised to see an elderly patient he'd personally treated in Jenin and then transferred to Afula telling a tale about how Israeli soldiers had punished him for not being able to stand after being shot by shooting him again.

The film won an ovation from the audience.

Zangen, who, unlike the film maker, was an eyewitness, was given the mike to protest the distortions. This pediatrician, whose daily work involves treating diabetic Jewish and Palestinian children at Hadassah Hospital in Jerusalem, and who treated both Jews and Palestinians in Jenin, was booed down and called a murderer. "How many kids did you kill today?"
There were Arabs in the audience, but most were Jews. There's something wrong with this picture. We send our children to war and then demoralize them by applauding those who call them murderers.

Are those who decide what constitutes culture in Israel really so far removed from reality? Don't we sometimes seem absurd in our own eyes?