חשיפה: כתב “הארץ” ששופטת פסלה עצמה (לאחר שחשה עצמה מאויימת) מהדיון בעניין הסכסוך שלו עם בת זוגו לשעבר הוא ניר גונטז’. העיתונאית שהייתה בת זוגו של גונטז’, התלוננה למשטרה כי התנהג כלפיה באלימות
Sharon Shpurer reported in HaMakom that an Israeli reporter for Haaretz had threatened a family court Judge before whom he appeared as a respondent in a custody case. Shpurer did not report that his female partner, also a Haaretz reporter, filed a police complaint against him charging him with acts of violence against her. They have a young child and are in the midst of a contentious court proceeding to determine visitation and child support.
During the proceedings, the male reporter grew angry with the female judge’s rulings in his case. He then informed her and the court that he was researching a story for Haaretz on the court itself, including the judge. He sought documents concerning the court administration and his own case.
The official Israeli canon of journalist ethics declares that:
“Journalists will not place themselves in a situation in which there is a substantial fear of a conflict between their responsibilities as journalisists and any other interest. Every publication of a journalist in which there is any hint of such a conflict tied to his business, family, or personal interest should be readily revealed…Journalists will not exploit their status, position or power through publication or restraining publication.”
Gontarz clearly violated this provision and no one at Haaretz has held him to account.
The judge, Esther Zitnitski-Rakover, then decided to resign from the case claiming that she felt “threatened” by the reporter’s attitude and vitriolic attacks upon her. A male judge then assumed the case and, after HaMakom appealed the gag order on the case, decided to release to Shpurer details of the case including the judge’s name. However, there is a gag order prohibiting Shpurer or any Israeli reporter from naming the couple.
HaMakom asked other Israeli media outlets to join in the appeal of the gag order. But all the major papers refused out of a misplaced sense of solidarity with Haaretz; or the fear that it would sic Nir Gontarz on them to write an unflattering story about their publisher or managing editor.
Thanks to an Israeli source, I can report that the male partner Nir Gontarz, 46.
Gontarz has a reputation as a gonzo journalist who presses the limits of journalism, even being accused of stalking targets of his stories. He writes a weekly column called, “On the Line,” in which he confronts a politician or government official by phone about unflattering issues his “victim” would prefer not to address.
He was a police reporter for many years at Yediot Aharonot and described there as a rude and aggressive type. In 2008, he received a three-day suspension for photographing the buttocks of one of the producers of the Shabbat supplement. He then sent the photographs to other male employees who shared a laugh about it. When one of them displayed it on their computer screen, the woman passed by and saw it. She was mortified and complained to the human resources department. Gontarz was then suspended by the editor. Yet despite this, Haaretz hired him.
When Shpurer approached Haaretz for a statement on the current case, the managing editor, Aluf Benn, told her: “When we have something to say, we will say it.” The publisher, Amos Schocken, said that since no actual article was ever published, no journalistic ethics were even violated. Gontarz remains at Haaretz and continues to report for it.
I approached both myself and posed the following questions:
- Did Gontarz have approval from his editor to write this story on the family court?
If so, did his editor know that he was a party to a case before a family court Judge and that he was requesting documents in his own case for the report he was preparing?
If the editor or others at Haaretz approved the story and knew he was before the court, how did you square this with a journalistic responsibility not to report on a story in which you have a Vested, personal interest?
What is Gontarz’s current employment/reporting status at Haaretz? What is Shabtai’s status?
Why was the report not published? If it had been approved, but then was stopped before publication–what were the considerations that went into this decision?
The family Court Judge presiding over Gontarz’ case resigned saying she felt threatened by him. How do you respond to this claim that a Haaretz reporter as part of his work as a reporter engaged in acts that made a female judge feel threatened?
This case and a number of others involving Haaretz journalists (Yitzhak Laor, Chicky Arad, Ari Shavit, Benny Ziffer, etc.) have given the impression that the leadership of the paper does not take sexual harassement and violence against women as seriously as it should. Further, some feel Haaretz is a Good Old Israeli Boys network in which female reporters & employees are not treated with respect. Can you respond to this in the context of the Gontarz case? What message should Nano Shabtai and her female Haaretz colleagues take from the fact that Gontarz appears to remain working at Haaretz, and you have not thought fit to respond officially to this case except with your statement that when Haaretz has something to say it will say it.
Benn responded:
Thanks for your interest and concern, Richard, but I stick to my message. All the best, Aluf
Schocken, who is a board member of the Press Council, which conducts ethics reviews, did not respond. But he did send a reply to Shpurer. It reads like it was written by his lawyer:
“To the best of my knowledge, there is no constraint in the Press Association Code of Ethics against what this journalist did. Nor was such an investigation ever given to Haaretz that was intended for publication there. Even if such a thing had happened, there certainly would have been full disclosure of the connection of the journalist to the legal matter. Ethics rules do not deprive a journalist of his rights as a party in a legal case, to make requests including seeking publication of various documents in his case file which are under gag order. I find it difficult to see why there should be any discrimination in this regard against the journalist just because he is a journalist.
This, in short, illustrates the smug and obtuse approach of Haaretz to such issues. The world is confronting sexual violence and harassement at home and in the workplace. But Haaretz refuses to shine a light in its own home. It is a Good Old Boys Network, run by and for the Boys.
Gontarz, who threatened the judge with writing an expose of her rulings in his and other cases, either was lying when he claimed that he would publish it in Haaretz. Or he wasn’t lying and he had apprised his editors of his intent to pursue such a story. If he did, they made a serious error in permitting him to do this.
Nor is this the first case of male Haaretz journalists accused of sexual abuse as noted above. In fact, there are many others including Ari Shavit, Yitzhak Laor, Benny Ziffer and Roy “Chicky” Arad. In each of their cases, the paper resisted holding them accountable professionally. Only in the cases of Shavit and Arad, did they resign. Laor worked for Haaretz for years after the first charges against him were made. And he was vigorously defended by Amos Schocken and others there. Eventually, he did leave as well. Ziffer remains the culture editor of the paper.
A features reporter who once edited the weekly Shabbat supplement, Moran Sharir, seems to enjoy impunity as well. In 2014, Mako wrote about a Facebook post published by former Haaretz managing editor, Dov Alfon. He claimed that Sharir was the first Israeli ever banned by the photo site, Flickr. After Alfon published this, a female producer responded that Sharir was known for taking photographs under the skirts of women at a club called Riff-Raff. In her late-lamented blog, Velvet Underground, Dvorit Shargel noticed that many of these images were to be found on his Flickr account. One of her readers complained to the company, which deleted his account. But Sharir’s career at Haaretz seems secure.
What’s a little fun among boys? At least that’s how Sharir explained it in a column he wrote for Maariv in 2007:
I uploaded more than a thousand pictures which offered pleasure to me, my friends, and many strangers who enjoyed living my life via the photos. Two weeks ago, I tried to access the site and failed. It didn’t recognize me. I tried and tried and then discovered there was no longer a user named “moriss.”
I sent a message to the site administrators who responded with a laconic message. It seems I had violated the new user rules and my ticket was cancelled. Cancelled without warning, without a prior message…
I won’t play innocent. I have a very good idea why they took down my page. Yes, there were pictures there which didn’t find favor from all sorts of people. Yes, these people are prudes. No, the pictures didn’t harm anyone. They are totally OK from a legal perspective; and as far as I’m concerned from a moral perspective as well.
Though this was written in 2007, it seems that Aluf Benn and Amos Schocken embrace roughly the same views today, 14 years later. After #MeToo. After Harvey Weinstein. After Eyal Golan. After Ari Shavit. It’s shameful and embarrassing. At least it should be.
Haaretz also published columns by Dan Margalit, Natan Eshel and Haim Ramon, each of whom were charged with flagrant cases of sexual harassement.
Haaretz claims to be a liberal socially progressive publication. It regularly covers the excesses of powerful public figures, including cases of sexual harassement. But apparently it believes the same rules don’t apply when it happens at home. It’s a shameless case of moral hypocrisy.
Thanks to the Israeli source who first brought this story to my attention and offered assistance in developing it.
/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/K43L6FH7R5KPZGYKO6FDOBXE5U.jpg)
I’m always amazed at the hubris and effrontery evinced by men, entitled men, throughout the world. And to Rich’s questions….it’s downhill from my first reaction.
My dad, a BJ from U of MO, would be turning over in his grave these days…..
Thx for the uncut reporting on the case of Nir Gontarz. Uncouth behavior, misogyny and rightwing fascism.
However dispicable his behaviour may be here, he is far from being a rightwing fascist.
His weekly column is one of the best features of Haaretz, he champions human rights and asks tough questions to politicians and civil servants usually from a leftwing bias.
I would not be too quick to judge someone at a time of distress when visitation rights of children are at stake, especially not seeing both sides of the story. (Wrong behaviour, but maybe mitigating circumstances).
I don’t think this is the typical macho Israeli that we all hate.
When someone shows you who they are, believe them. The implicit threat to the judge isn’t the typical macho Israeli male we hate, I can agree with that. He’s suppose to be a professional journalist, not a wanna-be third-rate Stanley Kowalski.
And even if he was the ‘typical macho Israeli that we all hate’, why not Richard occasionally writes something positive about an Israeli, someone with a good character, of which there are many here. I mean, let’s get real.
What was it Nietzsche said?
I totally agree with Shai about parents freaking out over visitation and custody.
What ever happened to ‘taking a walk in another man’s moccasins’.
Has that gone out of fashion?
As for threatening a judge, if Gonzo Gontarz really said something threatening, on the record, or in earshot of an attorney or a court officer, he’d have been handcuffed and jailed on the spot. I promise you.
@ Amnon: It’s not my job to serve as a cheerleader for Brand Israel. Israel has bought enough favorable media publicity to fund a thousand F-35 purchases. If that’s what you need or expect I suggest you’re in the wrong place.
And BTW, I don’t walk in the moccasins of sexual predators. I walk in the moccasins of victims of sexual abuse. You clearly don’t. But I suggest that you do better at seeing and understanding a female victim’s point of view.
Shpurer does indeed suggest that the judge should have reported Gontarz to the police rather than resign from the case. But if she had reported him she would have become entangled in a long process of filing police reports, being questioned by the police and state prosecutor, then testifying if there had been a trial on the charges. She didn’t want to go through the hassle and I don’t blame her. It was easier for her to hand the case off to a male judge who not only wouldn’t take Gontarz’s shit, but who Gontarz wouldn’t dream of treating in the same shabby fashion.
You don’t need to cheerlead for Israel, but for the sake of your soul you should at least try to find some good in Israelis.
There is a wealth of it, IF you make the effort.
Ah..heres the quote:
“He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss also gazes into you.” -Friedrich Nietzsche.
@ Amnon:
I’m truly touched about your concern for the sake of my soul. But you’re not looking for someone to “find the good in Israelis.” You’re looking for promotion of Brand Israel. Those are two different things.
This blog has profiled a number of Israelis who I admire. But you seem to have missed that. I wonder why? At any rate, Israel is far too dysfunctional and unjust to spend time cheering it on as you propose. It needs to face toughness and strong opposition to its policies, not kind or flattering words.
I resent the insinuation that I am a monster. It is Israel’s polices which are monstrous. Not me. As for the abyss, if Israel falls into the abyss it will not take me with it.
The abyss you stare into stares back into you, and scars your soul.
Here are some examples to prove my point.
Gonzo’s wife accuses him of assault, and you decide, without evidence, that Gonzo is sexually abusive.
An Israeli businessman offers to help out his friend, a Jordanian royal, and you smear the Israeli as a being a Mossad asset and part of a coup attempt against the Jordanian monarchy.
Port Beirut mysteriously explodes, and you claim, without a single shred of evidence, that Israel caused the explosion.
Just three examples of how your reflexive and excessive animus unfairly hurts Israel and the lives and reputations of Israelis.
@ Amnon:
I didn’t realize you had such a poetic soul. But the only abyss I’m staring into is the abyss of misogyny bred into Israeli men and society in general.
So now let’s put to rest the nonsense you’re peddling:
Be very careful of your claim “without evidence.” Everything I report is based on evidence. Everything. So if you make such a claim again I will moderate or ban you. In this case, the evidence is a police complaint filed by the abused partner. I assume police don’t take such a complaint without evidence. So this is the evidence. And another thing: believe women. Don’t believe men who are accused of violence or abuse. If you do, you are part of the problem. And I assure you based on your “contributions” here you are.
I thought you Israeli patriots believed that being a Mossad agent or asset was something heroic and patriotic. But now you’re claiming that doing so is something to be shunned? Make up your mind. Furthermore, the Jordanian pal of the Israeli is being tried for mounting a coup. So if an Israeli is aiding a Jordanian in what state authorities claim is a coup attempt, I’d bet that the Israeli has very close ties to Israeli intelligence circles. He’s either doing so in an official or semi-official capacity; or else taking advantage of the circle of ex-security assets who engage in these sorts of mercenary projects. And believe me, there are literally thousands of such Israeli ex-generals and Shabak/Mossad officials making tens of millions in this business.
I made very clear that the “evidence” I used in my report was based on an Israeli journalist source who covers one of the major Israeli ministries. Whether you like it or not that is “evidence.”
I have no animus against Israelis as a whole. My animus is reserved for those Israelis like you who apologize for, and promote apartheid and injustice. Do not exaggerate or distort my views. Do not mischaracterize them. You are on the verge of moderation. Consider this a warning.
Do not post in this thread again.
@ Shai: I never said a word about Gontarz’s politics and they are completely irrelevant in this case. Leftists like Laor can be serial rapists as well as right-wing fascists. In fact, in his case I’m sure Gontarz prides himself on his left-wing values and uses that as a shield to fend off attacks on his objectionable behavior toward women.
No one, no man and no woman has a right to conduct themselves as Gontarz did toward this judge. It doesn’t matter what the circumstances may be. Judges are to be respected (though I have written many posts about judges who lost the right to be respected, but that is not the case here). Gontarz treated this judge the same way he treats all women. The status of his court case has little to do with his offensive behavior and must not be used as a defense to mitigate his offensive behavior.
It is typical of male Israelis to react as you have. You see things from the male’s point of view and ignore completely the female point of view. That is why relations between genders are so fucked up in Israel as my scores of posts on this subject have shown.
Thanks for this Richard. I had no idea and I liked to read Gontarz regularly. I did not know about the photo suspension thing from 2008 either. Clearly he has been sexually abusive, at least in that case and may have been violent at home. He sure has been using this as a thug.
However, having read the Hamakom article after yours, I don’t see (yet) the connection between this current case and the culture of sexual harrasment in the workplace by the likes of the repulsive Laor and Shavit. Are you suggesting he sexually harrassed the judge ?
please also allow me to suggest that you missed one of the major points of Shpurer’s article.
Shpurer, I believe, hints that the Judge’s reason for resigning from the case may not be that she felt threatened:
“אפשר לפרש את מעשיו של העיתונאי לחומרה, כניסיון להשפיע על התנהלות השופטת בתיק. אך קשה להבין מדוע חשה כה מאוימת. וחמור מכך, אם הרגישה כך מדוע לא הגישה תלונה במשטרה או בחרה להשאר על כסאה, ללא מורא ומבלי להכנע לאיומים.
גם סגנית נשיאת בית המשפט השלום בתל אביב, השופטת מירה דהן, שאליה עבר התיק לקביעת שופט חדש, לא טרחה לתהות האם הגיוני ששופטת שחשה מאוימת תחליט לנוס מהתיק במקום להתמודד עם האיומים במישור המקובל, ואיזה מסר משדרת ההחלטה למי שיגיעו לאולמה של השופטת ולא יהיו שבעי רצון מהתנהלותה”
From Gontarz’s response it seems clear that he was going after her professional conduct and the court’s management in ignoring that conduct at a systemic level, too.
I am speculating that maybe he had a point and she resigned because she couldn’t stand his vulgar style in accusing her, but not because she really felt threatened sexually ?
@playmobil: I am suggesting That Gontarz is a serial sexual harrasser and probably sexual predator as well. And that his behavior toward the judge was of a piece with his behavior toward all women. His approach is to dominate women. When a woman stands in his way, his response is aggression. The comments he wrote about her are nasty, crude, and offensive. I didn’t add any examples of it because Sharon didn’t include any and I’d have to get the court transcripts of the hearing to do so. But suffice to say I seriously doubt Gontarz would respond in this fashion to a male judge even if the rulings went against him.
As for what Gontarz claims to have discovered about the female judge, that’s not relevant since he never published anything on That score. We don’t know what he discovered and whether her behavior amounted to anything that would be considered objectionable. I strongly doubt it.
There is something you don’t understand about male predation and sexual violence. A woman doesn’t have to feel in imminent danger of being physically assaulted by a man to feel “threatened.” And a judge is in a particularly sensitive position. If a respondent reacts in the way Gontarz did, a judge feels that such an attack renders her incapable of being seen as an objective party. And a judge must always Be seen in this way. She determined it was the better that she resign the case and give it to a male judge. I don’t hold that against her whatsoever, though Shpurer and Globes did. On this one matter, I see things differently than they did.
Richard, I’m always game for a little gossip but I don’t see what this has to do with the focus of your website on Israel’s National Security state. Perhaps you could write something on the Citizenship Law. That story has a better connection to the Security State than this matter.
@ Yankel: I don’t think you fully understand the scope of this blog. It is not merely one That focuses on national security. It focuses on Israeli society in general: especially issues of violence and abuse of power and rights. That takes in national security, of course. But it also takes in the status of minorities and gender relations as well.
Got it! Great, I’ll start thinking of your blog like the dual covers of the now deceased HaOlam Hazeh. We need more Uri Avnerys!
Yes but without the pictures of naked women that “graced” Haolam Hazeh!
“…Yes but without the pictures of naked women that “graced” Haolam Hazeh!…”
But I read העולם הזה only for the articles, I swear 😉
The status of minorities and gender relations are interrelated and in full connection with the Security state.
Court proceedings are public in free countries with rare exceptions.
The only reason that family courts are confidential is to protect the privacy of the family, and especially the children.
Family courts are not confidential to protect the judges.
@ No, I don’t think you got it: Family courts are not used to male respondents charged with violence against their spouses, who also threaten female judges.
As for confidentiality: the male judge released the female judge’s name for precisely the reason you mentioned.
[comment deleted: do not post duplicate comments or comments which essentially repeat an earlier comment.]
My remark …
Uncouth behavior, misogyny and rightwing fascism.
Meant as an universal criticism of characteristics as in Trump, Netanyahu but also Erdoğan, Orbán, Kaczyński, Putin. Suppression of human rights. Conservatism and orthodoxy can’t escape enslaving other human beings.
@ SimoHUrrta: I find your shilling for dictators, autocrats and murderers like Erdogan, Orban, Kacczynski and Putin to be deeply offensive.
No one here is defending Israeli or US policies. So you’re barking up the wrong tree. No one here claims that the US or Israel are paragons of democracy. But to the extent that they engage in criminal acts they are betraying democracy and when that happens I attack them. But I will never let thugs like the ones you shill for off the hook either.
And this is not an invitation to respond. Your comment was off topic as it is. Please stay on topic in future and do not drag in subjects that are not relevant to the post subject, even if a prior commenter has done so.
@ Oui: This comment is off-topic and led to a response from another commenter even more off-topic. Please keep strictly to the subject of the post.
Thank you for shedding light on this story. I am deeply disgusted by Haaretz editors hiding behind legal terminology and not letting all their chief male reporters out. I posted a comment on the Gontarz weekly ” on the line” with a link to this very article and it was deleted in less than 10 minutes. Soon after I got a call from Haaretz but didn’t take it. Shame on you Haaretz.
@ Hilla: Thank you for posting your comment and standing for decency. It is strange that Haaretz would call you after deleting your comment.
‘Hilla’ Thanks for posting the link. I saw it. I am curious – how do you know that the call that you didn’t answer was from Haaretz?
@ yoyo: You’ve heard of Caller ID, right?
Wow, how old are you?
@ Yoyo: Old enough to know an idiot when I see one.
QED
@ Yoyo: STFU!
You dial *42 and receive this strictly medicinal info.