If they did, they would be prosecuted. They have critised Isreal, yes but what is wrong with that but please give me the Guardian article that calls for Jews to be destroyed.

They misrepresent items concerning Israel to their readers.

They publish anything negative about Israel. Never anything positive.

They look for the slightest aberration of democracy in Israel and try to present Israel as a colonialistic country, controlled by religious zealots. This is an attempt to make moral comparisons between the Iranian Thug regime and the Israeli democratic government.

There is never a slight demand of the Palestinians to behave responsibly. Palestinians/Muslims are, for The Guardian, devoid of any obligations of behavior.

In short. They are no longer reporting NEWS of Israel. They are embellishing on selected information that they have to demonise and de-legitimize the one western liberal democracy in the Middle East.

Their agenda is not limited to Israel. It includes the US, the EU and anything associated with real democracy or ‘western’.

They must be exposed and G. Alderman’s letter is just the start.

I dunno. Aren’t you being a tad harsh on Alderman there?

Prosecuted on what charge? Is it a crime in Britain to “for the intended victims in each case to seek the elimination of the threat by whatever means necessary, within the law”?

As to your second point, what you pass off as criticism, is better described as bigotry, incitement and demonization, but I strongly doubt you have the wherewithal to appreciate the distinct difference between bigotry and criticism when it comes to Israel.

The Guardian has run several articles in favour of all black short lists all of which have been slated by commentators. This bias comes from one of the editors of the section Joseph Harker who describes himself as a journalist and is ocassionally, about twice a year, allowed to write pieces. In one of them he comcluded that all white people were racist. You can find it by Googling him or looking him up on the site.

He is also one of the authors of the “Black Manifesto” an disgraceful racist diatribe which if it had come from the BNP would have resulted in a prosecution.

This crowd have the ear of La Harman and have actually drafted a part of the new so called equalities act which makes it legal to discriminate against white men in every sphere of life both public and private.

Actually, I don’t believe they’ve said that. They’ve told him he won’t have a platform on CiF if he continues to write for CiFWatch. Any other part of the paper may or may not in the future print an Alderman article. I’d imagine that is the domain of the various desk editors and not within the gift of Henry and Seaton to control.

It’s an important difference, I think.

it is based solely on the moonbat comments he/she leaves under the line of various harry’s place posts.

i disagree with the gruaniad’s treatment of alderman, i have no opposition to AIPAC or belief that they are the “second most powerful lobby group in washington” and have no hatred of christians or believing jews. these are just bizarre allegations plucked out of thin air.

Naomi, I am curious as to what exactly your impolite objection to CZ is based upon. Was it

1. mainly because of his comment that “the Guardian has strayed (not for the first time) into territory which is highly dubious from the ethical, journalistic, and perhaps even legal points of view”?

2. mainly because you take deep umbrage with his unwillingness to consider AIPAC “the second most powerful influence group in Washington?

or

3. mainly, because as CZ assumes, you harbor a “visceral hatred of the phrase “Christian Zionist” [which] mean[s] that you have the same problem with believing Christians as with believing Jews – you regard them as sub-human, as your enemies, simply because their religious belief is stronger than yours?

4. some or all of the above?

5. none of the above?

thanks

I had assumed that the comment stuff represents opinions with which the guardian editors do not necessarily agree. I had hoped that this was the case because of the frankly disgusting content of the comment section. But if they are enforcing an editorial line on comment contributors outside of their own site then the line between editorial and comment is actually very blurred and I think that the Guardian has gone too far down the slippery slope by its management and use of the CiF content.

I gather that the CIF site is part of The Guardian. Georgina Henry and Matt Seaton run it. Rustbucket oversees it. It has an inordinate amount of very low quality ‘articles’ all picking at any negativity unearthed in or by Israel/Jews. No other country is treated to the same microscopic critique.

Rustbucket must be aware of the controversy that CIF’s obsessive treatment of the one Western Liberal Democracy in the Middle East is generating. His inaction radiates agreement apart from his daughter being employed there as a moderator. (I joke not).

If The Guardian is to survive, the present management must be given the boot.