Felicia Levy vs. The Star

SUMMARY

The headline to the opinion piece in dispute read, One holocaust many don’t like to acknowledge or discuss (published on 18 May 2016).

This ruling by Press Ombud Johan Retief was based on the Press Code that was in effect before 30 September 2022.

The opinion piece was about the miserable living conditions of Palestinians in Gaza. The author stated that 2 251 people were killed by the Israeli Defence Force in the 2014 war and sketched the ongoing poor conditions because of that battle.

Felicia Levy complained that the headline did not reasonably reflect the content of the article. She was particularly concerned about the use of the word “holocaust”, as the article did not contain any such notion, and argued that the term specifically denoted the killing of six million Jews during World War II – which meant that the headline suggested that the Holocaust before and during that war could be compared with what happened in Palestine in 2014.

Retief said he could fully understand that some (probably most) Jews or Israelis were sensitive about the term “holocaust” – which was enough reason for a newspaper to think twice before using that word.

However, Jews and Israelis did not own the word. He said the editor was correct – “the Holocaust”, with a capital letter, had come to denote the slaughtering of millions of Jews; but “holocaust”, with a small letter, may refer to other human catastrophes as well.

Dismissing the complaint, the Ombud said the opinion piece was about the dire ongoing consequences of the 2014. “Given the fact that it was an opinion piece, I am satisfied that the heading also reflected opinion – which is valid for some, but not for all,” he concluded.

THE RULING ITSELF

This ruling is based on the written submissions of Ms Felicia Levy and those of the editor of The Star, Kevin Ritchie.

Levy is complaining about the headline of an opinion piece in The Star of 18 May 2016. It read, One holocaust many don’t like to acknowledge or discuss.

Complaint

Levy complains that the headline was not a reasonable reflection of the content of the article, as required by the Code of Ethics and Conduct. She is particularly concerned about the use of the word “holocaust”, as the article did not contain any such notion, and argues that the term specifically denotes the killing of six million Jews during World War II – which means that the headline suggested that the Holocaust before and during that war could be compared with what happened in Palestine (when 2 251 people were killed during a war in 2014).

The text

The article, written by Victoria Brittain, was about the miserable living conditions of the Arab Palestinians in Gaza. She stated that 2 251 people were killed by the Israeli Defence Force in the 2014 war, and sketched the ongoing poor conditions as a result of that battle.

The arguments

Levy complains that the term “holocaust” misrepresented the content of the article. She argues that The Star used the word to portray the victims in Gaza as comparable and equivalent to the Jewish victims of the Holocaust. She calls this disingenuous and a shameful betrayal of editorial ethics and responsibility by the newspaper.

In support of her complaint, she presented me with definitions of the Holocaust, an account of some of the “facts and events” pertaining to the Holocaust, and “facts and figures” pertaining to Gaza.

Ritchie says while Levy is entitled to her view and her interpretation of the word “holocaust”, it can and does also refer to destruction and slaughter on a mass scale. “Our use of the word refers to the destruction wrought by the bombardment from the Israel side. It appears that it 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.”

Analysis

I can fully understand that some (probably most) Jews or Israelis are sensitive about the term “holocaust”. That, in itself, is enough reason for a newspaper to think twice before using that word.

However, Jews and Israelis do not own the word. Ritchie is correct – “the Holocaust”, with a capital letter, has come to denote the slaughtering of millions of Jews; but “holocaust”, with a small letter, may refer to other human catastrophes as well.

I am not in any position to make a judgment about the rights and the wrongs of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, neither is it my job to do so; my only task is to decide whether or not the use of the word “holocaust” in the headline was justified.

The answer to that is uncannily simple: 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 2 000 Palestinians died in the war in 2014. Levy might say “only” 2 200 (when compared to the Holocaust) perished; Palestinians might say “one death is one too many”.

The article was about the dire consequences of that war, still continuing to this day. Given the fact that it was an opinion piece, I am satisfied that the heading also reflected opinion – which is valid for some, but not for all.

Finding

The complaint is dismissed.

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 [email protected].

Johan Retief

Press Ombud