[Honest Reporting Canada (HRC)](https://honestreporting.com/tag/honestreporting-canada/) interviewed Bret Stephens on September 23, 2021. The interview was conducted by Jonas Prince (JP), Chair of HRC.

JP - Quote: “The first casualty of war is truth.” But what’s reported today becomes foreign policy tomorrow. The problem is serious. So why is Israel losing the media war, and what can be done about it? With that thought, no introduction is needed for today's guest. But in 2002, tell us why you left WSJ to join Jerusalem Post as editor-in-chief at age 28. We heard it was unsettling to JP’s staff. Why did you leave WSJ and what do you think is happening there - and in the western press generally - now?

BS - I left WSJ because I thought media was getting the story wrong. I was working in Brussels and was asked to cover from there “the end of the peace process” after the failed Camp David summit. Wearing my working journalist hat, I saw a much different story than what was being reported, which was: “extremists on both sides” were sabotaging peace accord. But “that symmetry was fundamentally wrong.” To me, Arafat was clearly an extremist in disguise. Then, a month later, the second intifada erupted.

The western press still gets the fundamental question dead wrong: who is the aggressor? You hear people ask: why don’t Palestinians get to have their own Iron Dome? They have an even better more reliable system - they just stop firing rockets & they’ll be fine because the moment Hamas declares a ceasefire, Israel stops firing back. But apart from what’s true then and now, the bigger question is the harm done by media to public opinion by continuing to slant the story wrong - that is, the fundamental nature of the conflict.

JP: [A recent open letter by Canadian journalists castigates Israel](https://www.algemeiner.com/2021/05/16/open-letter-signed-by-major-media-figures-denounces-canadian-news-coverage-as-skewed-towards-israel/). and says nothing about Hamas role in instigating the 2021 conflict. It’s typical of articles written recently by people complaining about nothing other than what Israel is doing. What should we do when reporters seem to be following marching orders that tell them they should carry one side’s flag?

BS: Nowadays, too many journalists consider their profession as a form of activism. Or, they can’t distinguish their personal views from factual reporting. I am an opinion columnist, that’s my role, it’s specific, it operates under distinct parameters, I still get fact checked but “I get to have an opinion.”

For those who are not opinion writers, their employer should “pay their reporters not to have an opinion.” When reporters become activists, they actively destroying their profession. More an indictment of the journalists than it is the State of Israel.

JP: Quoting BS in a recent conference, to the effect of - “no country can have good gov’t without high quality journalism that can distinguish between facts and opinions … and that opinions, if based in facts, are a bridge to the “larger idea called truth”.” Further comments on that?

BS: Liberals, conservatives, doesn’t matter - good reporters collect facts and report them. They gather and distill them, then decide which facts to include in their copy based on what is most relevant to “the overall arc of the story” they see happening - which isn’t easy.

Harold Rosenberg, an art critic in the 1940s, coined the phrase the “[herd of independent minds](https://www.commentary.org/articles/harold-rosenberg-2/the-herd-of-independent-mindshas-the-avant-garde-its-own-mass-culture/).” It’s meant to mean that once a narrative develops around a particular story, it’s difficult for reporters to work outside that narrative. But those who do are the ones you need to read.

An example from the 1980s, was the idea that Japan would soon become a dominant economic power, surely by the start of the 21st century. A bunch of reporters went there and looked at the factories. Everything was humming. Then they may have noticed how Tokyo real estate was beyond booming. So you go there and you find great Japanese companies, and lots of busy workers - but there was also a crazy $10k per sq ft cost of an office lease, and you might have realized you were seeing in a bubble. Had you noticed, you would have seen the cusp of economic stagnation and reported the right news. But no one did.

The same thing happening in the Middle East lately. The controlling "narrative" is this: - until Israel starts to treat the Palestinians the way they must, there will always be deep antipathy for Israel throughout the Middle East against it. But instead, in last decade, wealthier Arab nations have clearly begun to see the potential of working with Israel, advancing their own economies, access to technology, handling of challenging environmental issues. Hence, the Abraham Accords. And yet no one expected it. Instead you kept getting tendentious, ill-intentioned, foolish opinions from reporters who should have been earning their living by looking around corners.

JP: Problem of going from having blinders on to having blindfolded journalists. Take a photo (screen shot) of the Hamas army. Wearing military uniform, marching in formation. That’s who they are. But when they show up for a battle, they wear civilian clothes so they can blend in and have human shields around them. Deliberate tactic, loss of innocent life as a result. But you never see this reported. What can be done to overcome this?

BS: It has to be called out. Example: In 2019, there were huge protests in Gaza. People in the streets. Not about Israel or the blockade, but against Hamas, for its dictatorial, kleptocratic misrule. It took days before anyone in western media to notice. Why? Because it was “inconvenient to the narrative” which was that Israel was the sole cause of all of the woe of Gazans. “This happens all the time.”

BS (cont’d): When a reporter is stationed in Israel - Tel Aviv or Jerusalem - they are living in a free country. Officials can be bastards to deal with, some refuse to share important facts due to secrecy concerns, but basically, things are out in the open. No reporter fears for their life or safety. They can pretty much go where they want when they want. But the stringers in the West Bank or Gaza are in a totally different position. They know they are being watched. They cover what it’s safe to cover, what they’re shown they “should” cover. That’s how Hamas works. They know they will lose a shooting war with Israel every time. But their true field of combat is “public perception.” Sure, they’re bound to lose again to Israel on the ground. But in western public opinion, they make steady headway. They keep “building their case.” They think eventually it will change the equation.

JP: Let’s talk about the so-called “progressive” assault on Israel. I hate the word progressive, but its really all about wokeness, CRT, intersectionality. The idea that oppression of one group is oppression on all. It helps conceal blatant antisemitism because where are all these outspoken social warriors when it comes to places other than Israel? No where. But how is this affecting how journalists operate?

BS: A “very big question.” The entire west is at an inflection point where we have to decide whether we are going to stick with the values of the enlightenment, rationality, evidence-based thinking, reason and fairness. Or do we accept a new religious dogma, a new device intersectionality and a new cast of heroes. The sudden sweep of the new thinking about what’s happening “has been stunning.” No less dramatic than in the 1960s but then it was about your clothes or hair. We look the same now but the differences in how we think about things is vast. This concept of denunciation, newspeak, not only monitoring your behavior but also inferring your thoughts based on your identity.

This creates particular problems for Jews, in four ways.

1. Race replacing ethnicity as the defining marker of personal identification imposes new defnitions. We used to be hyphenates, a salad bowl nation: Greek-Americans, Jewish-Americans, Italian-Americans, Irish Americans. But now it’s all boiled down to “people of color” vs. whites. This shunts Jews into a racial classification they don’t fit in. I may have white skin but I haven’t participated in any long-term system of racial oppression. Jews feel deeply discomforted by racialist dogma as a defining feature of society and rightly so.

1. The harvest of success is turned into “privilege.” Ingenuity, good luck, individual merit - forget about it. Who cares. Now it just means you are part of a “system of oppression” - either oppressor or oppressed. But on which side are Jews are over-represented? We are 2.4% of adult American population, but 16% of Yale undergrads. So does that mean Yale should stop bestowing privilege on Jews, and the ratio should match the population. We’ve had this debate for awhile - affirmative action - but now it’s about knocking off those who benefit from a system of privilege not elevating those seeking to join tracks of success.

1. Independent thinkers are being treated as heretics. Jews are as independent as they come. They often succeed by going against the grain. Viewed with suspicion
1. “Conspiracy thinking has gone mainstream.” Antisemitism and anti Zionism are at the top of the list. Before, antisemitism in Europe had two narratives. Jews were imposters, pretending to be Germans or Brits, changing their names, their clothes, their lines of work. But really, they were of the semitic race, worthy of being despised. OR, they were swindlers, busy making a buck where a buck couldn’t or shouldn’t be made if you played by the rules. But it’s the same thing now in the Middle East. Israel's Jews are imposters, claiming to have legitimate historical and cultural ties to the Middle East but they really don’t. They don’t fit in, they were Europe’s problem, then they were fobbed off on us. Oh, and they are swindlers, stealing the land from those who really belong here.

In an era where everyone is falling for everything - Pizzagate, QAnon, etc. - they’ll fall for this too. Meanwhile, 54% of religious hate crimes are directed at Jews. Why? For the right, we’re not white. For the left, we’re too white. A no win situation. Not novel but distressing nonetheless.

JP - this assault has an underlying hypocrisy. Take the LGBT community. Buying into “from the river to the sea, Pal will be free” when they’d never be free. A friend put it this way: “gays for Hamas” is like saying “chickens for KFC.” Women’s rights groups, very vociferous about Afghanistan, subject to the laws of the seventh century. Where is similar outcry here?

BS: there are problems with activist leaders of these new social movements. Many in the movement - BLM, indigenous rights, LGBTQ - may be younger, but led by those on “far political fringes” who have “anointed themselves as leaders of this or that group.” Example - an overwhelming # of LGBTQ folks know full well that Tel Aviv is fun, Gaza is not. But their activist leaders bury that or claim its misdirection, "pinkwashing," to cover up for apartheid or whatever. Womens’ march was similar situation. I have daughters, I saw how excited they were. We were all for it in 2016. No indictment on their desire to do that. But leaders veered off into whatever direction they wanted to go and got all the headlines. And somehow Palestine gets in it.

JP: We don’t impugn the community but can we better monitor what’s happening on the platform? LGBTQ is a good example. After all, these are mainly identities, not organizations.

BS: Some smaller groups are trying to change the narrative. Example: A Wider Bridge - a LGBTQ pro-Israel gay community. Doing really important work around that. But these are mostly tiny groups that get no attention in media, have shoestring budgets. Still, we as Jews should care about this. Don’t let minority groups be represented monolithically.

JP: Let’s talk about how Dem party fringe has affected its politics with the brazenness of its attacks on Israel. They are handing the GOP a golden talking point. Just now, with by holding up funding for Iron Dome. Where is that headed?

BS: “I have always been a 'never Trump' conservative.” When the Trump movement came along, I felt strongly it was “wrong at its core” even when I agreed on some of its policies. It’s important for people on both sides to “monitor their own side.” These people may have limited influence, don’t can try to stop mainstream buy-in of crazy stuff, if they have the fortitude to call it out, to censure when they should. But do they? Not always. Edmund Burke quote: evil can triumph when good men do nothing." Consider the potential Corbynism problem that happened to UK Labour party happening over here. To stop, identify the moral cancer in your party and say we don’t accept it, period, even if you lose an election as a result

JP: the "phrase wars" are raging on Israel-Palestine. Descriptions of the Israeli side are repugnant. Ethnic cleansing, apartheid. So sick of hearing it but they have now become part of the narrative. Someone (didn't catch) put it well - only ethnic cleansing was when Israel removed all the Jews from Gaza. How do we change this script?

BS: the “non-right” (including the center) has “ceded the battle of words.” But once you say “occupation,” you have already lost 90% of the argument. The West Bank was always contested, even during 1947-49. No one ever "agreed" it would be Palestinian territory. It was a green line to reach an armistice, never an int’l border. So Palestinians choose words for their emotional impact. Intifada is another example. Al-Aqua Intifada is even more explicit, making it a holy war. But the Israelis were calling it “the situation.” by not making

Colonialism is another example. This land was occupied by a series of occupiers from the Romans, Byzantines, Mamluks, Ottomans. So in my view, Zionism is a liberation movement from all thse others.m So we either succumb to the language but frame it correctly or we turn it completely around with the right language. But things are too far gone in my opinion.

When I went to Israel to take over Jerusalem Post, I came as a journalist obsessed with getting the story right, not pumping out "hasbara." We don’t need biased journalism to balance out biased journalism on the other side. We simply need actual objective journalism. And it won’t always look good for Israel, it’s "not a nation of saints."

JP: There was protest recently at MOMA. The spoon is a “new symbol of Palestinian resistance”. Why at MOMA? Because Mr. Lauder is on BOD and is involved in Birthright. Why a spoon? Because it's now about a “heroic escape to freedom”. 4 out of 6 were PIJ - ready to destroy Israel! One even admitted his bombing plot was to sabotage peace that’s it, nothing about Palestinian self-determination. And yet celebrated in a protest as a sign of revolution. How do you deal with that? What do you say instead?

BS: that protest is “of a piece” of a broad set of protest that is gathering momentum. The gist of it is to celebrate the goal of killing Jews. If you embrace it or support it or even if you are are indifferent, it's all the same. It's like if you stood by or participated in 1940s.

American Jews are very wary about drawing moral influences or making inferences that are “provocative or aggressive.” But we are at the cusp of a new wave of antisemitism. We owe ourselves being mindful of being in this moment. While we still have institutional muscle, social significance, political influence, we should use it.

JP: Social media is “our new battlefield.” There's a complete lack of accountability - is this the end of truth?

BS: if I were a benign dictator, I’d bar any journalist from having a Twitter account or Facebook - and have their publishers handle their work as they do everything else. Promote it and leave them out of it. “My own life is measurably approved” by getting off social media. It is deliberately architected to enhance shrillness. “Refusing to engage” in an exchange can often the best strategy.

JP: Let's discuss the new Israeli government. You were recently quoted as calling it “unholy.” What did you mean?

BS: The word was meant to be in quotes. The old narrative was: Bibi was a bigot, he’s in charge of apartheid. Let's get rid of him, make things better. But soone thereafter, we have a new gov’t with an Islamist as a key partner, a gay man in charge of health ministry, a black woman is in charge of aliyah and immigration; an Arab man is running the ministry of regional cooperation. It's a phenomenal demonstration of Israeli democracy. Just as we were hearing Israel was a system of unruly and unhappy tribes, we see this which shows the opposite - very diverse and inclusive. This is “not hasbara” - this is all “demonstrably, verifiably true.” Article here --
https://www.post-gazette.com/opinion/Op-Ed/2021/06/17/Bret-Stephens-Israel-s-coalition-of-patriotic-traitors/stories/202106170043

JP: you always supported by two state solution, but you say “just not now” and a recent bill introduced by Democrats was about trying to save it. How do you assess its prospects now?

BS: Israel should not want to govern indefinitely over Palestinians and they shouldn’t have to be governed by Israelis. We should aim toward that, whether it take 10 or 50 years. If we said we were going to return an island off the coast from the US to Canada, that would be fine. It wouldn’t matter, because our values are the same. But would a self-governing Palestine have a willingness to live in enduring peace with its neighbors? The last thing Israel needs right now is for there to be another Gaza in the West Bank.

So what should Israel do? Yes, it should block the latest crazy new settlement. But you can't induce a baby in the 20th week of pregnancy.

JP: Last question. You are now the Editor-in-Chief of a new online journal called Sapir. But he did not ask a specifc question about this ...

BS: did not respond, but see article here --

https://sapirjournal.org/social-justice/2021/04/our-duty-to-be-unimpressed/