This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2014/aug/08/hamas-thetimes
The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
Previous version
1
Next version
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| The Times refuses to carry ad accusing Hamas of 'child sacrifice' | The Times refuses to carry ad accusing Hamas of 'child sacrifice' |
| (35 minutes later) | |
| The Times is under attack for refusing to run an advert about the conflict in Gaza. The paper is accused of being part of a British media "infamously skewed against Israel." | The Times is under attack for refusing to run an advert about the conflict in Gaza. The paper is accused of being part of a British media "infamously skewed against Israel." |
| The ad is a statement, written jointly by Elie Wiesel, the Nobel prize-winning author, and Shmuley Boteach, an outspoken American-born Orthodox rabbi. | The ad is a statement, written jointly by Elie Wiesel, the Nobel prize-winning 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's use of children as human shields", which amounts to "child sacrifice". | It calls on President Obama and other political leaders across the world "to condemn Hamas's 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, Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal, which is published by News Corporation, the owner of The Times. The Guardian has agreed to run the advert on Monday. | The advert has been carried in five US newspapers, including the New York Times, Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal, which is published by News Corporation, the owner of The Times. The Guardian 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 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: | 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." | "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]". | 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. | 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." | "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. | But the Guardian's acceptance of an advert does not mean, of course, that it endorses the views and claims made within it. |
| Sources: New York Observer (1) and (2)/Arutz Sheva | Sources: New York Observer (1) and (2)/Arutz Sheva |
Previous version
1
Next version