LEVY FELICIA APPLICANT
VERSUS
THE STAR RESPONDENT
MATTER NO: 1752/06/2016
DECISION: APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
[1] Ms Felicia Levy (“applicant”) put in a complaint with the office of the Press Ombud in connection with a story which appeared in The Star (“respondent”) on 18 May 2016. The headline: “One holocaust many don’t like to acknowledge or discuss”. After the heading, the story went on to report extensively about the plight and suffering of the about 1.8m Palestinians living in Gaza. This was with particular reference to what was described as the bombing of the area by Israel in 2014.
[2] The applicant contends that the respondent has acted in violation of article 10 of the Press Code 10.1 which stipulates that the headline shall give reasonable reflection of the contents of the report. She notes that the article is with reference to the killing of 2,251 Palestinians by the Israel Defence Force in the 2014 war. But, she says “Nowhere in her (the journalist’s) article does she refer to these deaths, the casualties or the difficult living conditions of the Gazans ... as being the consequence of a ‘holocaust’ or even a ‘genocide’. Neither of these words ... appears anywhere in the article. Nor do the living conditions of the Palestinians that she writes about in any way parallel those experienced by the Jews of Western and Eastern Europe and Russia during the Holocaust”. She then goes on to say she shall provide facts and figures in support of her arguments. In brief, she argues that the word “holocaust” should not have been used with reference to what happened in Gaza in 2014. She then provides definitions of the word “Holocaust”, an account of events relating to the “Holocaust”, and then contracts the number of victims with those in Gaza.
[3] In response, the respondent points out that the word “holocaust can and does also refer to destruction (and slaughter) on a mass scale particularly through fire and indeed war. Our use of the word refers to the destruction ... by the bombardment from the Israeli side. It appears that is only Holocaust (rendered with a capital H) that is taken as a specific reference to the Nazi genocide of 6 –million Jews before and during World War II.”
[4] The Ombud dismissed the complaint, upholding the respondent’s argument. I agree with him fully. It is significant that the word was used with a small “h” as opposed to the capital “H”. The respondent also draws attention to this. The significance thereof cannot be lost to an average reader. In most dictionaries, even in those relied upon by the applicant, this significance comes out. The word “Holocaust” tends to be a proper noun referring to the mass murder of the Jews during World War II; while “holocaust” is simply a noun, defined for example as “a thorough destruction involving extensive loss of life especially through fire” (Merriam Webster); whereas “Holocaust” in the same dictionary refers to the mass slaughter of Jews. The world “holocaust”, it is clear from dictionaries, existed even before the slaughtering of Jews; the world knew it and used it even before then. As the Ombud says, “Jews and Israelis do not own the word”. Even though millions of South Africans were victims of apartheid and suffered a lot under it for years over many generations (many were even killed), they surely cannot claim to own the word “apartheid”, or object against it being used with reference to a smaller number of victims; nor can Rwanda, where nearly a million perished in a genocide, demand that the word “genocide” be used only with reference to their “own” situation or a situation only equal to theirs in magnitude. Says the Ombud: “it depends on one’s perspective – while I can understand that Jews or Israelis would not think that the word ‘holocaust’ was appropriate, I can well imagine that Palestinians may argue the opposite. The fact is that more than 2000 Palestinians died in the war in 2014. Levy might say ‘only’ 2,000 (when compared to the Holocaust) perished; Palestinians might say ‘one death is one too many”. It cannot just be a numbers game. It is important, finally, to mention that the article does in fact go into details about the destruction and its consequences which are said to be still persisting, many years later. The heading therefore gives a reasonable reflection of the content of the story.
[5] I know that the applicant does not intent to convey this, but her complaint may create an unfortunate impression that she trivialises the impact of the alleged killing and destruction in Gaza, or that what happened to the Palestinians there matters less than what happened to the Jews. It cannot just be a numbers game. Is the applicant saying that not enough Palestinians were killed, or that they have not suffered enough, to justify the use of the word “holocaust”? With respect, the complaint is, if the truth has to be told, astounding.
[6] For the reasons given above, the application for leave to appeal is dismissed for lack of reasonable prospects of success.
Dated at Pretoria this 7th day of July 2016
Judge B M Ngoepe, Chair, Appeals Panel