The political line of Israeli papers (a reader’s guide)

Posted: October 26th, 2010 | Author: | Filed under: media, The Left, The Right | Tags: , , , , , , , , | 28 Comments »

Maariv and Yedioth Ahronoth showing the same headline (photo: yossi gurvitz)Newspapers in Israel have always been of great importance. One of the first things early Zionists did in Palestine was to create their own Hebrew papers. Every major political faction had its own publication, usually a national daily. Even today, with the decline of printed journalism, papers are still widely read, especially among opinion makers.

The Hebrew papers raise issues and frame political questions; Knesset members often quote news items and op-eds during Knesset debates, and Knesset committees conduct debates on issues exposed by the printed media. It is worth noting that Israel has never had strong local daily papers, so the printed media always tended to deal with national questions of diplomacy, politics and security, and less with local issues such as crime and local policies. So if you want to understand Israeli society and Israeli politics, you need to understand Hebrew printed media.

The old party papers died over the last two decades or so, and today’s papers don’t have a certain partisan affiliation. Papers in Israel usually don’t endorse candidates or parties, but they do have a political line. In the cases of Haaretz and Yisrael Hayom this line is very clear. With Maariv – and especially with Yedioth – it tends to be more subtle, and has changed over the years.

Here is a short guide to the political lines taken by Israel’s newspapers these days. Remember that these assessments are subjective as well, and reflect my own views and knowledge. Disclaimer: I worked for Maariv and for Yedioth’s internet division in the past, and in the past six months I have written a few stories for Haaretz.

Yedioth Ahronoth

Market Share* (June 2010): 35 percent on weekdays, 43.7 on weekends.

Internet site: Ynet (English edition here).

Politics: After years of dominating the printed media market, Israel’s leading tabloid has met a fierce rival – the free paper Yisrael Hayom, launched three years ago by gambling billionaire Sheldon Adelson. Many people believe that this is the reason for the sharp anti-Netanyahu tone Yedioth has taken over the past year. The paper is constantly publishing articles attacking the Prime Minister, his staff and even his wife. Star pundit Nahum Barnea is especially hostile to Netanyahu; in fact, I think there is only one columnist in Yedioth – Hanoch Daum – who is an open Netanyahu supporter and a proxy to the Netanyahu family.

Leaving Netanyahu aside, Yedioth is a fairly centrist paper. It tends to be conservative on military and security issues, but more open than other tabloids when it comes to dealing with civil rights issues. The campaign the paper launched against the State Prosecution and the Supreme Court for their intervention in policy issues and nominations of high ranking officials seems to have calmed down recently.

I think people outside Israel don’t pay enough attention to Yedioth. For years, the paper was known for its ability to capture the voice of the average middle class Israeli. The front page story of the papers’ weekend magazine always presented “the man of the moment”, or the story that would be discussed during the following week. Yedioth is not as strong today – but it is still the most important media organization in Israel. Yedioth’s internet site (Ynet) is by far the most popular news site in Israel.

Yair Lapid, channel 2 anchorman and a possible candidate in the next elections, has a widely read column in Yedioth.

The bottom line for Yedioth Ahronoth: Conservative on security and Supreme Court; critical of the government and Netanyahu himself; slightly more liberal than the two other tabloids.


Yisrael Hayom

Market Share (June 2010): 35 percent on weekdays, 25.7 on weekends.

Internet site: Yisrael Hayom (Hebrew, printed edition only).

Politics: According to most estimates, Sheldon Adelson’s free tabloid, which is circulated in 250,000 copies, is losing money. But Adelson’s intention in launching the paper was not to gain profits, but political influence.

Adelson’s paper is edited by a former proxy to Netanyahu, Amos Regev. Under Regev, Israel Hayom is extremely supportive of the Prime Minister, constantly pushing stories that present Netanyahu and his family in a positive way. Recently, the paper is taking on an even more nationalistic editorial line.

[A more detailed post about the ties between Yisrael Hayom and Netanyahu can be found here.]

Yisrael Hayom is very hostile to the Palestinians; it tends to emphasize security threats and to present a favorable coverage of some of the new Knesset bills which are aimed against the Arab minority, Arabs members of Knesset and leftwing NGO’s (though one could find in it from time to time an occasional op-ed expressing different views).

Yisrael Hayom is supportive of the State Prosecution and the Supreme Court, but only on corruption issues, not civil rights ones.

Yisrael Hayom doesn’t have its own publishing house, so the paper has outsourced its printing and distribution to Haaretz. There are rumors that this move saved Haaretz from bankruptcy.

The bottom line for Yisrael Hayom: Conservative on security, diplomacy and civil rights; highly supportive of Netanyahu.



Market Share (June 2010): 12.5 percent on weekdays, 16.1 on weekends.

Internet site: nrg (Hebrew only).

Politics: for years, Maariv was Yedioth’s greatest enemy (when I moved from Ynet to Maariv in 2003, I was told by one of the senior editors that I would never write for Yedioth again), but now both papers join hands in the battle against Yisrael Hayom.

Maariv ran into financial difficulties more than six years ago, and since then it has been changing its editors and CEO’s frequently. A new team of editors (Yoav Zur and Yoav Golan), and a new co-publisher (businessman Zachi Rachiv) seem to have stabilized the paper a bit recently.

Under its new editors, Maariv has taken a sharp turn to the right. The paper’s subtle criticism of Netanyahu could be a bit misleading. Maariv keeps a very nationalistic and conservative line. It was Maariv that launched the campaign against the New Israel Fund by publishing the Im Tirzu reports. The paper is extremely hostile to the Arab population and to human rights organizations, and recently, it shows a hospitable attitude to the settlement project (a recent double spread all but invited people to live in Tapuach, a settlement formally known as the stronghold of Kahane supporters). Among Israeli papers, Maariv is the most supportive of Avigdor Lieberman’s policies, and it usually presents a somewhat favorable coverage of the bills Israel Beitenu is trying to pass in the Knesset.

Rumors have it that it was a conscious decision by Maariv’s editors and managing board to take an editorial line that would exploit the current nationalistic trends in the Israeli society. The promotion of conservative contributors such as Kalman Livskind and Ben-Dror Yemini support this theory. Yemini is known for his campaigning against “lefty” influence in the Israel academia and media. He has repeatedly called to hold state funds from critical movies and from artists and professors who are “anti-Israeli”. Last week he published a double spread attacking Haaretz journalist Gidon Levi for an interview he gave to the Independent.

The bottom line for Maariv: Highly conservative on security; anti-civil rights, anti-Supreme Court; slightly critical of Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak.



Market Share (June 2010): 6.4 percent on weekdays, 7.4 on weekends.

Internet site: Haaretz (English site here).

Politics: Haaretz was Israel’s liberal paper for many years, and one could claim that it’s the only paper committed to supporting civil rights and promoting democratic values. By Israeli standards, Haaretz is very critical of the IDF, thought in the past few years the paper was criticized for pushing Palestinians’ civil right issues into its back pages. Many leftwing activists and politicians are also dismayed by the liberal line Haaretz tends to take on economical issues.

Haaretz’s editorial line is very critical of Netanyahu and Lieberman, though some important contributors, such as Ari Shavit and Yoel Marcus are less clear on the issue. Haaretz journalist Amira Hass is especially known for her work on Palestinian rights issues.

Haaretz’ circulation is not substantial – it’s almost similar to that of the unimportant free tabloid Israel Post – but it is widely read and discussed by public opinion makers, politicians, diplomats and the international press, so it has a more substantial weight than its numbers. Nevertheless, it’s important to remember that very few Israelis actually read Haaretz.

The bottom line for Haaretz: liberal on security, civil rights and economy; supportive of the Supreme Court; very critical of Netanyahu’s government.


(*) Maariv and Israel Hayom are the only daily papers in Israel to disclose their circulation figures. The common way to measure papers’ share of the market – and the one used to determine advertising prices – is through the TGI poll, conducted twice a year by the independent company TNS-Telegal. The figures in this post relate to the June 2010 poll.

For daily updates on the leading stories in the Israel Hebrew press, check out the daily media roundup on +972 magazine.

28 Comments on “The political line of Israeli papers (a reader’s guide)”

  1. 1 Mondoprinte said at 7:50 pm on October 26th, 2010:

    Please do not draw any wrong conclusions and maybe I’ve overread something – but why haven’t you put Jerusalem Post on the list?

  2. 2 noam said at 8:09 pm on October 26th, 2010:

    maybe i should have. the truth is I don’t know the Jpost as much as I know other papers. furthermore, this post was about the Hebrew press, because I think that it’s the Hebrew press that shapes readers’ views, frame political issues and dictates the news cycle.

    Jpost is not read by many Israelis, and it doesn’t play the same role with public opinion makers. even the fact that it sits in Jerusalem while all the rest of the media (except for IBA) is in Tel Aviv is telling.

    I’m not saying it’s not an important paper or that it’s not a good one. simply that it doesn’t fall into the category i tried to deal with here.

  3. 3 maayan said at 11:26 pm on October 26th, 2010:

    I’ll bet Netanyahu, Barak, Olmert and Livni all read the Jerusalem Post. It’s too bad it’s not on your list because I think it’s a strong counterweight to Ha’aretz and will often report the same story, with high quality reporting, but with a very different outlook. The JPost, to remind you, is also a paper that pre-dates the state of Israel.

    Ha’aretz has become a mouthpiece for the PA in the same way that Yisrael Hayom is a mouthpiece for the Netanyahu government and the Likud in general. Aside from a couple of writers at Ha’aretz, when one opens their paper or their website, one is bound to see harsh attacks on Israel and a very soft touch on the PA and the Palestinians in general. To suggest that “one could claim that it’s the only paper committed to supporting civil rights and promoting democratic values” is an absurd statement and quite surprising. One could argue that a newspaper such as this, until recently led by a man who told Condoleeza Rice at a state dinner that the US should “rape” Israel, is actually undermining the very survival of Israel. For example, if you look at the talkbacks in their English language website, one can see how this newspaper fuels anti-Israel sentiments and provides a home and outlet for a large number of opponents to Israel who seek the state’s destruction.

  4. 4 MondoPrinte said at 3:22 am on October 27th, 2010:

    @ Maayan
    I’m not sure I can agree with what you say about Ha’aretz. With regard to the PA – are you sure that it can as simply be identified with “Palestinians in general” as you obviously indicate?
    As to the fuelling of “anti-Israel sentiments” – I am not sure here what to say, except that it is rather those merciless defenders of a strong an unlimited Israel that fuel these feelings than those who genuinely criticize Israeli policies, especially vis a vis Palestinians. It turns out that genuine critics are often those who are most concerned when it comes to Israel’s heart, soul, and survival.

  5. 5 Tamar said at 6:43 am on October 27th, 2010:

    Thanks for a(nother!) helpful post. What about the impact of Makor Rishon on its readers and the country as a whole? Seems every religiously observant right-leaning person in my family and circle of friends reads this one.

  6. 6 noam said at 6:56 am on October 27th, 2010:

    Maayan: I don’t want to dismiss Jpost. As I said, I focused on the Hebrew media, which I know much better. Yet I don’t remember MKs and ministers quoting the Jpost as they often do with Maariv or Yedioth.

    As for your comments on Haaretz: we always come to the point were you blame the paper for “fueling anti-Israeli sentiments” because it reports stuff, when I prefer to point the finger at those actually doing these things.

  7. 7 noam said at 7:00 am on October 27th, 2010:

    Tamar: Makor Rishon is a legitimate publication, but like Jpost, it doesn’t play the major role in the news cycle that the four papers mentioned above have.

    maybe that says something about Israeli media market as well.

  8. 8 Tamar said at 12:24 pm on October 27th, 2010:

    Thanks for your reply, Noam. Would you clarify your last sentence that I don’t understand completely, “… maybe that says something about Israeli media market as well.”


  9. 9 noam said at 5:17 pm on October 27th, 2010:

    I meant that we need to think why everything is Tel Aviv oriented, and we hardly know anything about the settlers, for example. of the religious orthodox, the Arabs, etc. you know where is the only place you can find Arab reporters in an Israeli Hebrew paper? in the sports section!

  10. 10 maayan said at 3:29 pm on October 28th, 2010:

    Well, the Jerusalem Post has Khaled abu Toameh reporting for them. He doesn’t do sports, though.

    As for the comment directed at me: “you blame the paper for “fueling anti-Israeli sentiments” because it reports stuff, when I prefer to point the finger at those actually doing these things.”

    No, that’s simply untrue. I read the news in different newspapers in Israel and find that Haaretz often reports news from a biased position that maligns Israel and its government regularly but does not malign Israel’s enemies. On the contrary, I often feel, while reading Ha’aretz, that the actions of Israel’s enemies are justified in the reporting.

    There’s an interesting moment in this LATMA video:

    In it, a fortune teller speaks to Rabin in the after-life through her crystal ball. To get his voice, they use real recordings of things he had said. He is quoted with some of his hard views in order to reflect how political correctness and the hijacking of his memory by the Left have confused what used to be a very different left-wing Israel. Today, Israel’s left, well represented by Haaretz, takes a very different view of Israel and the conflict with the Arabs than it did even 15 years ago.

    Haaretz today speaks like the fortune teller, but it’s not always the truth. In the process, however, Israel is hurt and often it is done unjustly.

  11. 11 maayan said at 10:15 pm on October 28th, 2010:

    I think this is a great example of what Haaretz is about:

    Look at the headline and tell me whether the story reflects the headline. Then, look at the IDF’s version at the end of the article and tell me whether the headline and tone of the story are justified at all. And yet, the damage to Israel’s image as well as the IDF’s image are done. This is being done by Haaretz instead of reporting about the program itself, which they didn’t, the attempts by people on both sides to bring people together, the facilitation of the get-togethers by the IDF at checkpoints, etc.

    Nu, is this what you mean when you tell me “you blame the paper for “fueling anti-Israeli sentiments” because it reports stuff, when I prefer to point the finger at those actually doing these things?”

  12. 12 noam said at 8:48 pm on October 29th, 2010:


    accidentally, I learned about this incident before it was published, and the version I heard was very different – the group waited for a long time, and the army’s decision took ages. and the woman was approved – the connection to the baby was the “problem”.

    but to be honest, even the fact that we are discussing this issue in this fashion is disturbing. I find the whole regime Israel has constructed to control the life and prevent rights from Palestinians wrong, even illegal. As long as Palestinians are under Israeli control, they deserve to travel freely. The fact that this idea might sound “bizarre” and “extreme” teaches about the point we have reached.

    finally, regardless of this specific story, the fact that you trust everything IDF spokesperson says, yet if a journalist doesn’t come up with a video and a sworn statement from five sources he is probably lying, is another problem. from my experience, IDF spokesperson distorts the truth just the same as everyone else.

  13. 13 maayan said at 3:30 pm on October 30th, 2010:

    I trust neither the reporter nor the IDF spokesman. However, the reporter and the publisher made a decision to publish the story with a headline that doesn’t reflect the story itself and certainly doesn’t account for the IDF version.

    That’s a choice.

    They could have made a different choice, but this is the way Ha’aretz tells most stories about Israel. This example is representative of what the newspaper has become. If I don’t trust what reporters say unless they provide ample evidence, it’s precisely because some publications are driven by a political agenda. Why would you trust a newspaper where the former publisher tells the Secretary of State of the USA that the States should “rape” Israel?

    As for Palestinians traveling freely, I find it absurd that you would think Israel has a responsibility to allow this. The events of 2000-2003 have changed that aspect of life for both Israelis and Palestinians permanently. Without the security changes Israel made – greater intelligence gathering in the WB, the security fence, re-entering areas that the PA had taken over after ’98, additional checkpoints, stringent limits (facilitated, unfortunately, by bringing in foreign workers) on the number of Palestinians who can enter Israel to work – people in Israel would still be terrified of getting on buses or going to restaurants, or just saying goodbye to their spouses or children in the morning when they go to work or to school. They’d be terrified because the Palestinians blew Israelis up on purpose with great effectiveness and on a regular schedule.

    I mean, did you forget about Palestinian terrorism?

    Now, don’t get me wrong. I don’t think that these Palestinian children are terrorists, although as we both know, sometimes the Palestinians have used children and teenagers to transport bombs and even on failed suicide missions. I do think, however, that you need systems in place to know who is entering Israel and where they are going. Sometimes, a group of kids will get stopped for an extra few minutes because of this. Big deal.

  14. 14 noam said at 6:23 pm on October 31st, 2010:


    Not to go into a long debate: my principle position is that Palestinians should have total freedom of movement or a free state. This is the ground rule. after that, we can have exceptions – according to security concerns, etc.

  15. 15 maayan said at 11:22 pm on October 31st, 2010:

    Then you should go to Abbas and tell him to negotiate. There was a deal on the table in 2008 where he could have had a state, a capital in eastern Jerusalem, compensation for refugee descendants, a limited right of return to original refugees, all of Gaza and virtually all of the West Bank, and shared international control of the Holy Basin.

    Since he refused to do that deal and then refused to negotiate, and now refuses to negotiate, I fail to see why you are not hounding him and the PA leadership to make a deal. Then they can have a state. If they don’t want a state and every Monday and Thursday a different PA or Fatah leader informs Ha’aretz, their mouthpiece, that they reserve the right to relaunch their intifada, it seems to me that they can’t have free movement either.

    The worst part of it is that while you and many on the Left are applying pressure on Israel, you and they do nothing to apply pressure on the Palestinians. You want them to have a state or free movement, but you won’t push them to compromise on something. Heck, on anything.

  16. 16 noam said at 5:12 am on November 1st, 2010:

    the political development should not be confused with the issue of rights . as far as rights are concerned, there is nothing to negotiate.

    If Israel cannot reach an understanding with the current political leadership in the PA (and this is the correct term. Imposing an Israeli plan on the Palestinians is not “a deal”) – it should turn to alternative routes that will bring an end to the occupation immediately.

  17. 17 maayan said at 11:11 am on November 1st, 2010:

    I’m sorry, but Israelis also have rights. They have the right to send their child to school on a bus without fear that either they or their child will be blown up.

    It wasn’t rogue elements that blew up those Israelis, it were the two political parties that lead the Palestinians – Fatah and Hamas.

    So how do you give rights to people who previously used those rights to commit deadly violence against your people?

    Second, and no less important, they can have their rights. They only want their rights if they can have them in a package that rejects Israel as a Jewish state and Jerusalem as the historic and religious heart of the Jewish people. They only want their rights if they can stake a permanent claim on Israel so that it would become another Arab state.

    Third, why should Israel find alternative routes when the Palestinians want this outcome? Why should they open the door to what happened between 1998-2003 when Israel was outside of the areas with almost the entire Palestinian population of the WB?

    You wish to place the entire burden on Israel and remove it entirely on the Palestinians. They have rights but if their rights will endanger Israel, you believe their rights take precedence. They don’t want to negotiate, so you think Israel should unilaterally remove any possible leverage it has and give up.

    That’s naive. The outcome of what you wish for is more war and violence.

  18. 18 noam said at 4:09 pm on November 1st, 2010:

    i didn’t say that Israelis have no rights. I don’t oppose exceptions for security reasons. but now the Israeli policy is the opposite: denying human rights from all the population and allowing exceptions on individual basis. for me, that makes all the difference.

    we got a bit distracted from the post’s topic, which is the media, and while I don’t agree with your historical analysis, basically you are right – I do think that as the occupying force, most of the burden is on Israel. However, I don’t oppose Israeli-Palestinian talks in general, so I must have given you the wrong impression there. on the contrary, I think the talks can be very important. it’s just that in the current circumstances, with an Israeli government that is unwilling to pay a real political price and a Palestinian leadership which has no legitimacy from its own people, the talks might cause more harm than good.

    Rest assure, if Netanyahu makes a real effort to end the occupation, he will find a Palestinian partner. as long as its just talks he is willing to give, there won’t be real negotiations.

  19. 19 maayan said at 10:59 pm on November 1st, 2010:

    “Rest assure, if Netanyahu makes a real effort to end the occupation, he will find a Palestinian partner. ”

    If that was true, we would have a Palestinian state already. What Olmert offered was Israel’s final position, in my opinion, and the Palestinians walked away entirely once he gave his proposal.

  20. 20 noam said at 9:08 am on November 2nd, 2010:

    Olmert was a lame duck, all he offered were words – again. By the way, the Palestinians did response to Olmert with a counter offer, and the talks never resumed. so even accusing them of walking out of the talks is not accurate.

    finally, even if the Palestinian leadership did a mistake in 2008 or even in 2000 – which is how most Israelis view things – does that means that the Palestinians automatically lose their right as individuals?

  21. 21 maayan said at 12:47 pm on November 3rd, 2010:

    Lame duck is the excuse provided by the Left to excuse what is actually completely inexcusable. Olmert was the PM of Israel and the Palestinians apparently think that they can begin this round of negotiations where they left off with the “lame duck.” In other words, he’s only a lame duck when you have no other explanation for their rejection of his extremely strong offer.

    Second, Olmert states that they never responded to his offer. He is unequivocal about that.

    Third, I don’t know what you mean by “words.” There were ongoing negotiations and at a critical point, Olmert gave the Palestinians a clear offer including maps. If you mean that it wasn’t “formal,” obviously the Palestinians believe it was formal because they demand current talks begin from where they left off with Olmert. Words are meaningful when it’s a peace process and you are making an offer to the Palestinians as Israel’s PM.

    As for you question about Palestinian rights “as individuals,” I fail to see your point. They have an elected leadership in Gaza and in Judea and Samaria. This leadership has ambassadors, representatives at numerous international institutions such as the UN, they have an army armed by Israel and the US, they have an economy growing at 7-12% a year, they have their own schools, universities (built under Israeli rule, of course), ministries and courts.

    These bodies were part of the war launched against Israeli civilians that are the key reason Israel has a serious security apparatus in the West Bank. So it’s not just the refusal of peace and a state that have undermined their freedoms, it is the wars they have launched against Israel. Those wars justify the measures Israel takes to protect itself.

  22. 22 noam said at 1:46 pm on November 3rd, 2010:


    on second thought, you are right about the “lame duck” argument. its not a serious one.

    To the point, there is a reason I’m not going into arguments over the reason for the failure of previous rounds of negotiations. basically, I don’t think there is much to negotiate. Israel must decide: are we about to leave the WB or to annex it.

    there is really nothing to talk about. what can the Palestinians give Israel in exchange for their freedom? a guaranty they won’t attack us? a recognition for a Jewish state? come on. Tomorrow Hamas can be in power and all agreements won’t be worth the papers they were printed on. all these endless debates are, for me, just an excuse for avoiding the problem of evacuation – which is something all Israeli leaders fear.

    let’s say the Palestinians won’t give up the right of return. or won’t recognize Israel. does that mean they will never be free? this is not how the concept of rights work.

    Who are you bluffing? you know that if the current trends continue we will never leave the WB. like many Israelis, I doubt if we can do it now. so what’s next? Apartheid? One-state? You are entitled to your opinion, but you must recognize what they imply.

  23. 23 maayan said at 3:09 pm on November 4th, 2010:

    I don’t have the answers for you. If I were the PM, I would offer what Olmert offered. Essentially, that means evacuation of 96% of Judea and Samaria and the giving up of land that is the heartland of our history as Jews. For a real peace, with guarantees from the Arab League, the Palestinians, the US and the UN, I would do it. I even agree to divide Jerusalem for peace, though the Holy Basin must retain the status quo.

    Is that a bluff? Not at all.

    On the other side, however, I have opponents who want to wait. They want to wait because they have nothing to lose by waiting and in recent years their waiting has only gotten them good things. Does that mean that I am responsible for them if they keep waiting? Why?

    They choose to use violence against Israeli civilians when they can. They choose to reject Israel as the state of the Jewish people. They choose to reject the historical connection between Jews and the Temple Mount. Am I responsible for their status when these things continue to exists? Why?

    These are their choices, not mine. I agree to let them have freedom from my army, their own state, their own land and even their own half of Jerusalem.

    So why should I be held responsible for their choices?

    Apartheid? Their fault.

    One state? Not going to happen.

    Occupation? Could end in a few months if they sign Olmert’s deal tomorrow.

    Israel’s first responsibility is to safeguard its citizens. Its second responsibility is to defend itself and ensure that Jewish self-determination remains alive in the form of the democratic state of Israel. If the Palestinians, Arabs and some Muslim countries have made it “cost” Israel the Palestinians’ freedom through their threats, violence and refusal to accept Israel, it is not Israel’s responsibility. Israel must defend itself, its democracy and its citizens.

    The conflict could end tomorrow. The Jews have agreed to divide Jerusalem and even the Temple Mount. What is left to discuss?

  24. 24 Tom Mitchell said at 5:43 pm on November 4th, 2010:

    When I lived in Israel some 30+ years ago I used to read Yediot and the Jerusalem Post. (Ha’Aretz’s Hebrew was too flowery for my level of fluency.) I know that the Post has shifted dramatically in its editorial line. It used to be pro-Labor except for maybe for six months or a year after the Likud came to power in 1977 when there was a honeymoon with the new Likud government before it returned to its previous pro-Labor editorial position. I understand that its transition to the right occured in the late 1980s.

    Yediot then was slightly to the right of the Post and was supportive of the Likud. Has it retained this same basic position throughout the decades or has it drifted farther to the right?

  25. 25 noam said at 11:03 am on November 8th, 2010:


    the Post became a real right wing paper during the last decade, I think.

    Yedioth is hard to define by its relation to a certain political party. I think it represents the voice of the Israeli Middle class; patriotic, supportive of the IDF, concerned by security issues and anti-settlements, at least most of the time.

  26. 26 maayan said at 2:19 am on November 13th, 2010:

    I don’t believe the Post is right wing. At best, center-right.

    Ha’aretz is at it again. The daily undermining of Israel and its government is difficult to watch.

  27. 27 noam said at 5:32 am on November 13th, 2010:

    I guess a better headline for you would be “Brave Prime Minister ends successful US tour”

  28. 28 maayan said at 9:36 am on November 13th, 2010:

    Brave? How is he brave?

    Successful? What was successful about it?

    My headline would have been:

    “Netanyahu ends US trip: no progress on diplomatic front but support for Israel in mainstream Jewish community”