The Times refuses to carry ad accusing Hamas of ‘child sacrifice’
The ad is a statement, written jointly by Elie Wiesel, the Nobel prizewinning author, and Shmuley Boteach, an outspoken American-born Orthodox rabbi. It calls on President Obama and other political leaders across the world “to condemn Hamas use of children as human shields”, which amounts to “child sacrifice”.
The advert has been carried in five US newspapers, including the New York Times has agreed to run the advert on Monday.
The New York Observer, which also ran the ad, reports that a Times representative wrote to the agency that sought to place the advert 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.”
The ad was paid for by an organisation called This World: The Values Network, which was founded by Boteach. He responded by telling the Observer: “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.”
He described Wiesel as “one of the most respected human beings alive” and “the living face of the holocaust.” He said: “I am shocked that the Times would engage in censorship of the worst kind to cater to the bigotry [of Hamas]”.
Shmuley said his offer to the Times to revise the advertisement was dismissed. The agency was told that the decision not to accept ad was not open to negotiation.
A Times spokeswoman told the Guardian: “We reserve the right to reject advertisements.”
Referring to the Guardian’s decision to run the advert, the Observer quoted an unidentified source “with knowledge of the Values Network’s ad-buying practices” as saying:
“The Guardian may be left wing but they obviously believe in free speech and allowing their readers to hear the voice of a Nobel laureate about a very important issue.”
But the Guardian’s acceptance of an advert does not mean, of course, that it endorses the views and claims made within it.
theguardian.co.uk