Ruling by the Press Ombudsman
11 March 2016
This ruling is based on the written submissions of Mr Yissachar Berg and those of Susan Smuts, legal editor of the Sunday Times newspaper.
Complaint
Berg is complaining about an article in the Sunday Times of 31 January 2016, headlined Fugitive rabbi’s death threat to SA’s chief rabbi.
He complains that the story wrongly:
· stated that:
o there was a death threat against the chief rabbi of South Africa, Warren Goldstein;
o it was made by Rabbi Eliezer Berland and by his followers; and
· based its information on a website for which he is responsible.
The text
The story, written by Jeremy Gordin, said that Berland (87), who was on the run from Interpol, had issued a death threat against Goldstein. The threat was reportedly also made by followers of the Jewish sect headed by Berland, who made it in his name and on his website.
Gordin wrote that the SA police (SAPS), acting on a request from Interpol, raided a hotel in Samrand (north of Johannesburg) where Berland had been staying on and off for five months “with a number of his disciples”. Berland, a leader of the Breslov Hassidic movement in Israel and head of the Shuvu Bonim Seminary in Jerusalem (and considered a holy man by his followers) had been “on the run since 2012 when allegations were made by female followers in Israel that he had sexually harassed or raped them”.
Berland has reportedly escaped from the hotel just in time and subsequently went into hiding. He has eluded the SAPS on at least two other occasions.
His followers reportedly blamed Goldstein for setting the police on Berland. They also claimed that the former should be subjected to din rodef (“law of the pursuer”) – a provision in Jewish religious law that, as reported, permits extrajudicial killing.
Gordin reported that the group’s spokesman posted the following text on the website: “The police were sent in an attempt to arrest Rabbi Berland on Shabbath [sabbath] night. This is a very serious crime. [Jewish law] speaks extensively on the rodef, a person who goes and tries to imprison his fellow in the hands of non-Jews. There is a commandment to stop him at all costs. And the law refers to a simple Jew … whereas we are dealing with a great Rabbi, a great Torah Sage [Berland].”
The reporter reminded the readers that Yigal Amir, who murdered Israeli prime minister Yitzhak Rabin, defended his actions partly on the basis of din rodef.
The SA jewish community reportedly called on Berland to return to Israel to face the criminal charges against him, for which an international warrant of arrest had been issued.
The arguments
Berg says he is in charge of the relevant website and that he sent the reporter an article written by him (and published on the website) prior to the publication of the journalist’s article. He then complains about Gordin’s piece: “Instead he wrote lies which is not written in the article and never happened whatsoever” – he says there were no death threats, not from Berland nor from anybody else.
Smuts calls attention to the context of the story. She says:
First, the article said that followers of Berland issued a death threat against Goldstein in the former’s name and on his website. Then, the story described the way in which the death threat was made (on Shuvu Bonim Seminary’s website). In this regard, Gordin wrote that Berland’s followers blamed Goldstein for setting the police on Berland.
Following this, the opinion of a well-known Johannesburg rabbi was posted, stating: “The police were sent in an attempt to arrest Rabbi Berland on Shabbath [sabbath] night. This is a very serious crime. [Jewish law] speaks extensively on the rodef, a person who goes and tries to imprison his fellow in the hands of non-Jews. There is a commandment to stop him at all costs.”
(She states that the rodef amounted to extrajudicial killings permitted under Jewish religious law.)
From this context Smuts concludes, “Although the Johannesburg rabbi does not name … Goldstein, it is clear that in his opinion the person who set the police on … Berland deserves the rodef. His statement is clearly used as a justification to subject … Goldstein to din rodef since [he] is named by others as the person who set the police on … Berland. We submit that this amounts to a death threat (against Goldstein) … [it] must be seen as an invitation to Jews, or at least … [to] Berland’s followers, to carry out the deed.”
She adds the article made it clear that the threat was made on Berland’s website by his followers – a site of which Berg, by his own admission, was in charge (and indeed he also wrote the article).
The legal editor says that the original posting on the website, “which was seen by our writer”, referred to “a Mitzvah to kill him before he (the person who prompted the police to act) can carry out his plot”. This statement was subsequently changed to read, “stop him at all costs” – and later the page was removed. She argues the words “kill him” was a clear threat, and argues that the phrase “stop him at all costs” amounted to the same thing.
Smuts says Sunday Times is willing to consider publishing a letter of up to 300 words from Berland or his delegate, explaining what they intended by the invitation to Berland’s followers to subject Goldstein to din rodef; alternatively, it is willing to publish a statement clarifying that the threat was made on Berland’s website by Berg, as opposed to Berland himself.
|
Berg rejects both offers as he says: · he has no way of contacting Berland and he is not authorized to speak on his behalf, adding that the articles published on the website are all written without the rabbi’s knowledge; and · it is untrue that Berland’s students issued a death threat against Goldstein. He also says that din rodef, in modern Jewish law, is not interpreted as a death threat. Berg asserts Gordin’s mistake is that he relied on an unfounded Wikipedia article “which relates to some extreme radical right-wing individuals who unassumingly used the term to justify their horrible deeds…” He quotes Rabbi Pakak (a “leading authorized” rabbi in Israel) who said, “Anyone who makes the interpretation that din rodef means permission to kill, should either be put on trial for incitement for murder or [be] evaluated psychiatrically as [being] mentally ill…” He argues that Gordin, knowingly or not, “is the one who issued the death threat”. Berg concludes that he removed his article when he realized it could be misunderstood. |
Smuts replies:
· If Berg is not authorised to speak for Berland, as he asserts, he has no standing to lodge a complaint with this office – and she requests its rejection on this account;
· The newspaper cannot accept that Berg:
o is unable to write a response on behalf of Berland – he published his article on the rabbi’s website, and stated that he was in charge of that site. So, either Berland approved the article, or Berg speaks on his authority; and
o has no way of contacting Berland (as he is in charge of the rabbi’s website and claims the authority to lodge his complaint at this office);
· The offer to submit an explanation was not made because the newspaper conceded it was at fault, but because the matter of din rodef was novel to many readers – the offer was made to deepen understanding of the concept. So, Berg himself is welcome to provide such an explanation for publication;
· Berg does not respond to the submission that the first wording referred to “killing” and the second to “stop him at all costs” – while these statements are at odds with his later contention that din rodef is never interpreted as a death threat in modern Jewish law. “Furthermore, the fact that the offending story on … Berland’s website is no longer available tends to suggest that it cannot be defended”; and
· Gordin did not rely on a Wikipedia article to interpret the din rodef – he in fact spoke to at least two South African rabbis.
|
Berg has the last word. He says: · He does not complain on Berland’s behalf, but on his own behalf and on behalf of the website; · Even though he is in charge of the website, he does not have the authority to speak on Berland’s behalf, neither does he have any direct contact with him – the rabbi does not use technology (computer, cell phone), and he (Berg) was writing from Israel; · He first used the words “a Mitzvah to kill”, but changed them when he realized that the English-speaking public was not familiar with Jewish law and may have understood the words literally. “Everyone who is familiar with Jewish Law, however, understands that quoting din rodef from a thousand year old text is only to show the severity of the sin and not in any way should be taken as permission to kill, g-d forbid.” He adds that Pakak’s interpretation, which he quoted in this regard, is universally accepted by all religious Jews. “[The] person who should be making this explanation is … Pakak who issued the statement, not the website who quoted his words, and certainly not … Berland who had nothing to do with it”; · He decided to block the article from the public eye (he says it is still available), given the newspaper’s misleading reportage and the fact that Goldstein was “greatly hurt” by the headline; · Gordin did use Wikipedia. He cites Gordin’s article as stating, “the din rodef (‘law of the pursuer’), one of the few provisions in Jewish religious law that permits extrajudicial killing”, and compares that to the following sentence from Wikipedia: “This law, the din rodef (‘law of the pursuer’) is significant as one of the few provisions in Jewish law permitting extrajudicial killings.” He cites another such example regarding Yigal Amir, the person who murdered prime minister Yitzhak Rabin; and · The headline contradicted the article – while the former stated (or at least implied) that Berland had issued a death threat against Goldstein, the story mentioned a Johannesburg rabbi who supposedly made the din rodef statement. He states that the article was quoted in “dozens” of news inlets (he mentions a few from Israel, as well as some websites), and complains that this has caused “non-returnable damage” to his reputation and to the standing of his website, Berland, Goldstein, their students and religious Jews at large. He asks that “all resemblance” of the story should be removed from the internet and from any other news outlet, and requests monetary compensation. |
Analysis
Given the website in question, Berg is in some way connected to the issue. I have therefore decided to entertain his complaint.
For clarity’s sake, I quote the first two sentences of the article: “A fugitive rabbi on the run from Interpol has issued a death threat against the chief rabbi of South Africa, Warren Goldstein. The threat, made by followers of the Jewish sect’s leader in his name and on his website, has rattled the South African Jewish community.”
The central questions are whether Sunday Times was justified to:
· state that there was a death threat against Goldstein and, if so, whether it was made by Berland himself, or by his followers in his name; and
· base this reporting on the information garnered from the website in question.
I now first need to take a careful look at the website article (and compare it to Gordin’s article), as well as at another text published on the same site, as supplied to me by Berg.
A copy of the article on the website provided to me, stated the following (only the relevant parts):
|
The police said they followed Goldstein’s orders. “Goldstein … when feeling threatened by influential figures from a different community especially when they are leading on ‘their turf’ the ‘Break it Apart’ more accurately defines the expected behaviour. Not to bear that there is someone else conducting weddings and circumcisions in ‘His Land’, though many kilometers away and not bothering anyone, he decided to take things into his own hands and put an end to it and its’ (sic) people.” Other leaders and rabbis of the SA Jewish community was not able to bear this “outright dictatorship” and “xenophobia” imbued by Goldstein in their community and spoke out against “this malicious act”. According to a transcription of a speech by Pakak, he said (as this is important, I quote it in full, un-edited):
|
Berg provided me with another (translated) text which was published on the website at a later stage, headlined, Rav Berland blessing Rav Goldstein. It reads as follows (unedited):
|
Berland: “I’ve come to make it known to everyone that Chief Rabbi Goldstein is my most faithful friend, he is with me in heart and soul. He is, thank G-d, taking care of me and our kehilla here in Johannesburg, physically and spiritually. I have never had a friend like Rav Goldstein my whole life, a friend so faithful. The kehilla feels the best under his patronage, he takes care of all of the affairs of our kehilla. “I only respect him and pray to G-d that he should prolong his days and years. G-d forbid that things which were never said and have no foundation or basis be publicized in my name – to say that I want to, G-d forbid, take his life. I only pray for his well-being. “G-d should prolong his days and years and establish his Kingdom forever and ever, him and his family and children for all generations until the coming of our righteous Messiah.”
|
The website said that Pakak (a “leading authorized” rabbi in Israel, according to Berg), who was not certain of who had asked the police to arrest Berland, mentioned din rodef, saying:
· it had halachic status (which means that it is part of the collective body of Jewish religious laws);
· there was a Mitzvah (command, commendment) to kill the subject before he can carry out his plot; and
· this matter was “sevenfold more severe than the basic din rodef”, as it involved a “great rabbi”.
I also note that he was quoted as stating, “it doesn’t matter what kind of great person is standing behind this act”. This does not directly involve Goldstein, of course, but it does suggest that some “great person” may be behind it all.
Clearly, Pakak (at least, according to the transcription of his speech) believed that the person who alerted the police to arrest Berland (whoever it was) should be killed.
Berg’s attempt to explain this away does not hold water. Words have meanings.
Secondly, the article stated as fact that the police said they followed Goldstein’s orders.
I believe the ordinary reader would have put two and two together, and I do not blame Gordin for doing so as well – the person who alerted the police should be killed (according to Pakak) and that person was Goldstein (according to the police – I have no reason to believe that the police did not say this, and Berg also does not contest this particular issue).
Therefore, I accept that Gordin was justified in stating that there was a death threat against Goldstein – and that he got that information from the website in question.
The next issue is: Who made this threat (according to the website) – Berland, or his followers?
Berg does not dispute the fact that the website on which the article was published was Berland’s. It does not matter whether or not the latter uses new technology, the ordinary person would have believed that Berland accepted what was written on his website – if not, it should not have been published there in the first place.
Gordin’s thinking in this regard is understandable – the death threat was “advertised” on Berland’s website, and therefore the latter should take responsibility for it. However, this does not mean that the rabbi “ordered” a din rodef, or even that he “condoned” it. Even if the rabbi knew about the article, it does not mean, by default, that he himself was responsible for declaring a din rodef on Goldstein. The article on the website certainly did not state that Berland had been responsible for it.
This brings me to the second document Berg brought to my attention, as quoted above – Berland’s own words on this issue and the response of his followers to those words.
Clearly, Berland exonerated Goldstein (rightly or wrongly – that is not the issue at stake in this adjudication). This in itself makes it highly unlikely that Berland himself issued a din rodef on Goldstein.
The response of Berland’s followers now becomes important. I paraphrase, “After hearing Berland’s words we take back any harsh words that we may have been spoken in the past…”
This statement’s meaning is clear – the “harsh words” can only refer to Goldstein, and the issue at stake was a din rodef. The fact that they “take back any harsh words” speaks for itself.
The attempt by Berland’s followers to state that their words “were completely taken out of context, misunderstood and have caused unintentional insult and pain to innocent individuals” is neither here nor there – as I have said before, words have meanings.
Based on the above, and especially based on the text of the website, I believe that the newspaper was:
· not justified to claim that Berland issued a death threat against Goldstein; and
· justified to state that the rabbi’s followers had made such a statement (the followers may not have “issued” a din rodef, but they certainly condoned it – and spread the message worldwide through the website).
|
Please note: Even though I believe it is unlikely, I cannot state as fact that Berland did not make a death threat against Goldstein. What I can say, though, is that Gordin was not justified to report that this information was contained on the website – as it was not. |
Unfortunately, this was reflected in the headline as well.
In conclusion, Sunday Times was wrong, and out of context, to report that the website stated that Berland himself had issued a death threat again
If Gordin reported that Pakak had issued a din rodef on Gordin, it would have been a different matter – but he ascribed it to Berland. As it is, the reporter jumped to a conclusion, and presented that as fact.
Because Berland himself did not complain, and also because Berg did not complain on the rabbi’s behalf, the question of whether the story unnecessarily tarnished Berland’s dignity and reputation is not on my plate.
Lastly:
· It was disingenuous for Berg to say that Gordin, knowingly or not, was the one who issued the death threat – he himself should take responsibility for that, and for all the “non-returnable damage” he complains about;
· This office does not have jurisdiction over what is published in other countries (as far as this matter is concerned, it involves only Sunday Times);
· The Code makes no allowances for monetary compensation; and
· The issue of whether Gordin used Wikipedia or not is irrelevant, as the arguments more than outweigh this matter.
Finding
Sunday Times wrongly and unfairly, and out of context, said both in its headline and as fact in the story that the website in question stated that Berland had issued a death threat against Goldstein.
This is in breach of the following sections of the Code of Ethics and Conduct:
· 1.1: “The media shall take care to report news truthfully, accurately and fairly”; and
· 1.2. “News shall be presented in context and in a balanced manner, without any intentional or negligent departure from the facts whether by … misrepresentation.”
The rest of the complaint, namely that there was no death threat against Goldstein, and that his followers were not responsible for it, is dismissed.
Seriousness of breaches
Under the headline Hierarchy of sanctions, Section 8 of our Complaints Procedures distinguishes between minor breaches (Tier 1), serious breaches (Tier 2) and serious misconduct (Tier 3).
The breaches of the Code of Ethics and Conduct as indicated above are Tier 2 offences.
Sanction
Sunday Times is directed to apologise to Berg on the same page as the article in question, for reporting as fact, both in the headline and the story, that his article on the website stated that Berland issued a death threat against Goldstein.
The text, which should be approved by me, should:
The headline should reflect the content of the text. A heading such as Matter of Fact, or something similar, is not acceptable.
This text should appear on the newspaper’s website as well.
The newspaper is welcome to report on the dismissal of the rest of the complaint.
Appeal
Our Complaints Procedures lay down that within seven working days of receipt of this decision, either party may apply for leave to appeal to the Chairperson of the SA Press Appeals Panel, Judge Bernard Ngoepe, fully setting out the grounds of appeal. He can be contacted at Khanyim@ombudsman.org.za.
Johan Retief
Press Ombudsman