According to Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, "Journalism's ultimate purpose is to inform the reader... and never to permit the serving of special interests." When journalists make and shape news, rather than report it, they lose their right to claim a place in this profession, and the public in general loses an important mechanism for obtaining truth and

It is now journalists who make victory "nearly inconsequential."

information.


Two very worrisome instances have come to light in the last few days that lend increasing concern to the commonly stated opinion that Israeli journalists are losing their way. The first instance has to do with the coverage, or lack thereof, received by the ongoing effort to reclaim Homesh, a settlement destroyed during Ariel Sharon's Disengagement Plan two years ago. In recent weeks, hundreds of youth and families have made their way to Homesh and managed to maintain a steady presence there.


As shown by an article recently in Haaretz, Israeli journalists feel that they can play a role in the success or failure of this grassroots effort by giving or withholding coverage, "This [Olmert's handling of the situation in Hebron] will be Defense Minister Ehud Barak's first test in his current post vis-a-vis the settlers, with the exception of the IDF's resounding failure at Homesh, where settler youth have continued for weeks to visit the remains of the outpost at their will. The lack of media coverage at Homesh, however, has made the settlers' victory there nearly inconsequential," Haaretz journalists Amos Harel, Nadav Shragai and Yuval Azoulay write.


Suddenly, it is the journalists, and not the army, controlling the situation. And it is now journalists who make victory "nearly inconsequential." What this means, in the simplest of terms, is that Israeli journalists are guilty of shaping the news as Israelis receive it, and that is not their job. To deny coverage to the ongoing situation in Homesh represents a cynical abuse and one the Israeli population cannot accept in a society that values and needs freedom of the press. We cannot afford to have the press controlled by outside forces: not the government, not the army, and not even the editors and owners themselves.


The second worrisome instance was the coverage of the refusal by 30 soldiers to expel Jews in Hebron from land that was the Jewish Quarter of Hebron until the massacres in 1929. During repeated interviews on major broadcasts, several well-known journalists refused to allow their interviewees the opportunity to present their opinion that it was wrong of the Prime Minister to use soldiers instead of police.


With single-minded determination, they focused only on whether soldiers should be allowed to refuse orders, even when the soldier considers these orders unethical or immoral. In any other context, one can have little doubt that these same journalists would

To blindly follow orders has never been the "Jewish" way.

applaud a soldier who refuses to blindly follow orders. This was the case during the Likud reign in office, when some soldiers refused to serve in Judea and Samaria, or refused to protect the Jewish communities in Gaza. Then, the media wrote articles about "The Courage to Refuse."


Then and now, the media was blinded by its own interests, as it is largely blind today to the significant number of secular Israeli teenagers who refuse to serve in the IDF. It is only the refusal of yeshiva students that interests the media and thus receives the coverage; only the refusal of religious soldiers who refuse to follow orders they feel are unethical is of interest.


Thanks to this misguided reporting, ask any Israeli who avoids the draft, and the answer will almost always be the ultra-Orthodox. Few will think to mention rich, secular children, those featured prominently on A Star is Born, and those of our hypocritical Knesset Members and leaders, such as the Prime Minister himself, whose sons and daughter refused to serve.


To blindly follow orders has never been the "Jewish" way. Our society is built on the concept that our soldiers are human beings and do not simply "follow orders." We, of all people, know the consequences when soldiers follow blindly. But it is made noble when the media agrees with the justifications of the soldiers and made evil and anti-democratic when the reasons run counter to mainstream media opinions. This is not journalism, but rather the political manipulation of the media against the best interests of the country.


When the media works to hide and silence dissent, it is time for all Israelis to stop and take a careful look because, indeed, our very democracy rests on the ability of the press to be free from government and army restrictions, but also from its own prejudice and preconceived notions.


If the media honored those who refused to serve in the territories, and worked to bring their opinions to the front of the story, so too should it have worked to publicize the opinions of those who refused now. There are many in Israel who believe the 30 soldiers who refused orders should be honored for having the courage that so many thousands lacked two years ago. The army of Israel is tasked with the job of protecting the citizens of Israel. When the army is used against the people, as was done in Gush Katif and northern Samaria, again at Amona, and now in Hebron, the government must answer to the people. This opinion was lacking in the papers this week, because the media didn't want to show Israelis another option. They didn't want to report what it is their job to document.


Soon enough, Ehud Olmert's farce of a government will come crashing down on itself. What will be left, one hopes, is the army, the media, and a government more responsive to the needs and opinions of the people. The army to defend, the media to report, and the government to implement. When these important elements of our society fail in their primary mission - when the army doesn't defend and the media doesn't report and the government doesn't do the will of the people - it is the nation that suffers.


The army must act to defend the people and not allow its elite forces to be put in a position such as was done in Hebron. Had Hitler's forces had the conviction that these 30 young men had, it is likely the outcome for the Jewish people during World War II would have been drastically different. That is not necessarily to liken what was done in Hebron

Accepting the army line and questioning the soldiers, Haaretz and most major news organizations failed.

to what the Nazis did during World War II, but to remind all of us that Jews should not be expected to follow orders blindly.


If the reporters wanted to ask a challenging question, rather than ask if it is valid for a soldier to refuse an order, they should have asked what political reasons were behind the army issuing orders it knew would be refused. There was politics behind the decision to try to get a Hesder group involved in the expulsion of Jews from their homes. By accepting the army line and questioning the soldiers, Haaretz and most major news organizations failed in their mission.


The true story behind the Hebron refusals was not whether soldiers should follow orders blindly, but why orders that the army knew would be viewed as unethical were given to these particular soldiers. That this question was never asked shows more than ever that Israel's media has permitted itself to serve special interests and it is time for them to stop and find the path they have lost.