Re: Israel - Arutz-7 Radio Off-Air Until Further Notice

"Free the airwaves"
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/Printer&cid=1066715115041
Oct. 22, 2003

Earlier this week Arutz Sheva was finally felled. It was defeated via a
lawsuit submitted by Labor's Eitan Cabel to the Jerusalem Magistrate's
Court, which upheld his assertion that it was broadcasting illegally.

Yet two decades ago Israel's Left mounted an aggressive campaign, both
within and without the Knesset, to legalize Abie Nathan's Voice of Peace
shipboard radio broadcasts.

The argument was that Nathan proved his enterprise a commercial success, had
an audience and several years in the business. He deserved, it was ardently
argued, special consideration. It would have doubtlessly been granted, had
Nathan not succumbed meanwhile to severe medical and financial problems.

But the very same arguments raised in his favor are even more cogent for
Arutz Sheva, which alone gives voice to settlers and their supporters.
Without Arutz Sheva, that portion of the population popularly dubbed "the
national camp" is effectively silenced. This station fills a niche and a
need, which no other does, far beyond anything that Nathan could remotely
claim.

So it's no less than dismaying that the very Left which so enthusiastically
lobbied for Nathan now so fervently fights Arutz Sheva's right to voice the
opinions of its many adherents.

It's difficult to escape the impression that what's really wrong with Arutz
Sheva isn't that its ship didn't distance itself sufficiently from Israel's
territorial waters or that studios in Beit El were used. What differentiated
it from Nathan's venture was politics.

Thus after 15 years on the air, during which the station proved itself
financially viable, professionally capable, and exceptionally popular, it
was silenced. Its loyal audience wasn't limited to the settlements. It was
avidly listened to within the Green Line, as most taxi passengers can
verify.

Particularly disconcerting was Justice Minister Yosef Lapid's outburst
against ministers who pleaded Arutz Sheva's case, warning that they'll have
"blood on their hands" if a plane crashes due to radio interference. With
all due respect, such scare-mongering is demagogic. Arutz Sheva never
endangered aviation. Those who do are numerous small-time pirates with
home-based transmitters, often operated by reckless teens. There are plenty
of laws against such delinquents. They need only be enforced.

Equating Arutz Sheva with them is a cynical red herring. Arutz Sheva has
become a staple of popular culture and we consider it is grossly imprudent
to close it precisely because it satisfied proven demand for its
journalistic product. Denying the public what it wants and had grown used to
will inevitably give rise to charges of politically motivated muzzling.

No amount of legalistic sanctimony will erase this perception.

This country urgently needs legislation to democratize the airwaves. This is
the case elsewhere in the free world. It's time we live up to our liberal
pretensions. A phenomenon like FOX Television would be impossible here.
Nothing, however, prevented a television network with a different
ideological bent from giving itself an electronic media platform in America.

It's time our regulations tolerated radio offerings that appeal to a range
of political and ideological preferences, as they do to musical tastes.
There's no reason an outfit like Arutz Sheva should not be able legally to
obtain a broadcasting license. At present this is nearly a mission
impossible. Red tape and demands for competition in a tender load the dice.

Entries for local radio tenders repeatedly feature varying combinations of
the same groupings and individuals with identical political slants. Arutz
Sheva is unlikely to prevail against them. With its record, it shouldn't now
be forced into a contest.

The uniqueness of Arutz Sheva's audience must be recognized. Likewise,
there'd be no harm if the haredi community, the kibbutz movement, or any
reincarnation of the Voice of Peace were also awarded radio licenses.

Ideological pluralism must be promoted in a polarized society such as ours.
A silenced plurality isn't in democracy's best interest. Those who do not
wish to see extremism flourish ought to be the first to make sure that
sizable segments of opinion, on the Right and Left, are allowed free
expression.
Citizens who feel stifled, marginalized, and delegitimized aren't likely to
espouse moderation.