Bob

The truth is, waldo, I can find bias in about 95% of BBC and Guardian articles relating to Israel. And by bias, I mean explicitly omitted context that misrepresents history and contemporary events in order to mislead the readership. it also includes massaged language intended to send a false message. It is beyond easy to do so. It can be done in virtually every article. Go ahead, give me any article (or background history piece), no matter how old, you want from either the BBC or The Guardian. The bias and misinformation is everywhere among those two outlets.

This is a complete waste of time. Before giving us evidence, why not make a claim? Come out and directly answer American Woman's question - do you or do you not recognize that there are varying degrees of principle and morality to which various countries and peoples subscribe to? I'll assume you don't, as you're trying to suggest, while being too afraid to explicitly state it, that America is worse than Hamas. See, this is why you are a ridiculous poster.

There's something quite sinister about people who will misrepresent important truths - such as anyone who may claim that this is some sort of isolated incident and not part of a much broader trend that goes right to the root of this conflict. People who will make such claims, as far as I'm concerned, are verminous, as they are trivializing existential issues that face the Jewish people.

We're talking about something different here, though. We're talking about the people who are in the streets in Cairo demonstrating/rioting. I certainly don't have any special insights into these events that most others don't, but I know enough to be skeptical of claims that these persons are motivated by the ideals of democracy, pluralism, and liberty. I also highly doubt they can be described as "secular" as the term is understood in North America. We're not really talking about what goes on in Israel, unless of course you'd like to talk about Arab (Palestinian) motivations and sentiments in Israel, which I am very familiar with. My intuition may be wrong, and time will tell, but I have serious reservations about motivations of "the Arab street" for change.

Answer the question you were asked, please. Were you suggesting that there aren't countries and people that act more morally and principled than others? Do you not recognize that there are degrees of "acting on principle" when examining countries and peoples? Your earlier post suggests that you do not, which in all seriousness, wouldn't surprise me given your posting history.

I have no idea what you're going on about - that was quite the irrelevant tangent. Feel free to answer American Woman's question, anytime, and we can resume this discussion on-topic. It was a relatively simply question.

Although your entire post is false, I'll address only your last falsehood - about 20% of Israel's citizens are Arabs. They're quite safe where they live. So don't tell me that it's the same thing on both sides of this line, because it isn't. They don't need military protection to protect them from us. As far as Jews "displacing" Arabs across the Green Line, they move almost exclusively (99.9999% of the time) into unoccupied lands. No Arab has been displaced since 1948/1949. There is a world of difference between the safety of Arabs living among Jews and the safety of Jews living among Arabs. Of course, this reality doesn't fit into your false narrative which tries to dumb everything down.

No, they're rallying in support of Israel during the Flotilla controversy. You don't even grasp the content of the videos you post. Supporting Cast Lead and demonstrating in support of it is certainly not the same as supporting the killing of civilians, although of course people like you obfuscate this to advance anti-Semitism/anti-Zionism. Either way, it's irrelevant - the video you posted shows supporters of Israel towards another issue.

I agree with her 100%. Their mere existence is a threat to us. And they never suffer nearly enough for their crimes against us. Nothing fascistic about that. We supply them with food, water, electricity, medical treatments, and other essentials... and what do we get in return? Terrorism. They are entirely responsible for their own situation (they elected Hamas, an openly anti-Semitic terrorist organization), the problem is, they haven't really been accountable (yet).

What a surprise, you link to Max Blumenthal - a verminous anti-Israel and anti-Zionist "journalist" who desperately tries to spin Israelis and Jews as bloodthirsty and filled with hate. Moreover, the Blumenthal video you linked is regarding Israeli-solidarity demonstrations with respect to the pro-terrorist/anti-Israel flotilla, and the second video is the terrible story of the now well-known Gaza doctor Aboul Aish who has (three?) daughters of his accidentally killed by Israeli shells during Cast Lead. You can't even get your spin straight.

Another dishonest oversimplification that tries to equate us with them. Typical bullshit from you.

That same line of thinking would lead us to believe there should be no Israel because it was "full" of people opposed to our basic national rights.

It's certainly not an isolated incident, but a simple continuation of anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism that we've seen from Arabs/Muslims since the 19th century. This is a war, and this is how they fight the war. This is another in the long ling of hundreds of attacks and thousands of victims of terrorism in Israel and abroad targeting Jewish and Israeli people. Sometimes I wonder if it's even worth addressing the vermin who try to deny the reality that these events and all others like them really represent.

We're all well aware that you refuse to distinguish between Israeli acts of self-defense and Palestinian/Arab/Muslim terrorism and murder in order to advance your dishonest and ignorant agenda.

So you think "highly-religious" means the a similar thing in the context of the American Revolution of the 18th century and current uprisings in Arab/Muslim countries? A "highly-religious" pilgrim from Old America is quite different than a "highly-religious" Muslim Brotherhood supporter. How can you not understand this? Sorry, but this attempts to draw meaningful parallels between these two events and two types of peoples is so unbelievably fucking stupid. Michael Hardner started this stupidity, but you're going along with it. It's really, really, really stupid.

Look waldo, it's quite funny how you hold this institution up which you probably know very little about in such high-esteem. You've conceded that you take your pointers from them. Bias doesn't exist in British media unless they say so. This is simple, if you know a lot about a subject and are honest, you can identify bias on your own. Whether or not the BPCC recognizes or acknowledges The Guardian's hostility to Israel doesn't change the fact that The Guardian stakes out an anti-Israel position in its reporting. I'll say it again, the assumption you make that somehow people who work for this institution are capable of understanding the issues well enough to recognize bias is laughable. The institution is more than likely staffed by the same people we see working at The Guardian and the BBC. Basically, persons who are completely unqualified to examine Israel and its related issues in an accurate and honest manner. It's the blind leading the blind. Part of me feels like this whole discussion was some attempt of yours to try and impress us with your "knowledge" of the existence of this institution, as if somehow this qualifies you to render an opinion of The Guardian's anti-Israel bias. I'm not here to convince you, I'm just telling you the truth. I follow Israel-stories closely. I've read many, many, many Guardian news stories and op-eds. I've seen Guardian journalists speak of the record. I have a well-informed sense of what they're about. If you don't want to believe me, that's cool.

It's just moral equivalence rhetoric. Nothing sane about it, just ignorant rhetoric built up to reinforce general ideological concepts he refuses to let go. Primarily, the assumption that all peoples are the basically the same and want the same things.

I never said that. We've had a small number of such persons. Baruch Goldstein being the first to come to mind. Any objective analysis that compares the volume and manner of such crimes perpetrated by the Arab/Muslim group to the Jewish group would be revealing. Moreover, take a look at how we conduct ourselves in Israel with respect to the many differences between all of us - our religious groups, by and large, are not moving with violence to impose their ways on us - contrary to the fantasy you are trying to portray. Yes, there are many problems with our ultra-religious groups. Going around killing the non-observant and trying to implement the Talmud as the law of the land certainly isn't one of them. Any examples you'll certainly search for to "prove me wrong" will be trivial. Israel isn't at risk of becoming an ultra-religious Jewish state. Anyways, it's a separate issue. The bottom line is that yes, we do have ultra-religious undesirables among our people, but they're not like Hamas and Hezbollah - which is the disgusting lie you are trying to propagate in here. You're just trying to draw some moral equivalence and throw mud at people you know nothing about. I've addressed these remarks above. I will add one thing - "international law" has to be the most meaningless term that I always hear. Morality and justice is what matters to me, regardless of what "international law" may or may not say. Ultra-religious nutcases in Israel who want a Halahic state aren't a threat to Israel, and they're not violent. Well, it depends on what land you're talking about. Israel is certainly the land of the Jewish people and belongs exclusively to us. Either way, I have no interest in pursuing this line of argumentation - as it's not one that's regularly advanced in standard discussion of land rights. You don't know enough about the history to comment, anyways. You're again trying to draw a moral equivalence between us and the Arabs/Muslims with the simplistic comment I bolded for emphasis. There is no question that we have the moral high-ground, and always have. A simple examination of how we conduct ourselves compared to how they conduct themselves reveals this to be true. We have pluralism and diversity. They do not. We abide by and believe in democratic values and freedoms. They do not. We conduct war with moral codes of conduct. They do not. The very values that most of us believe in, are actualized and REAL in Israel, by virtue of the Jewish people. Those values are not a reality in Arab-administered territories, by virtue of those people. You are making this up as you go along. You have no idea what you're talking about. Terrorism has been reduced exclusively because of improved security paid for and administered by Israel. "Cracking down on terrorism"? Give me a break. You couldn't even name one example from your recollection of a genuine PA effort against terrorism without running to Google for a half-baked example. You're trying so desperately to paint this false image of the "better Arab". As if somehow in the past few years their inclination for "resistance" (otherwise known as terrorism) has gone down for one reason or another. The hatred and animosity among them is worse then ever, and the improved security situation is entirely the result of improved security arrangements and intelligence - primarily the security barrier. As far as settlement expansion, I certainly do support the development in Jewish communities across the 1949 armistice lines, which were never borders, and were never feasible to become borders. Of course this depends on context, I do not support all expansion. But as an example, Jerusalem is, in my view, eternally Jewish and a red line. No part of it is negotiable. No part of it is a "settlement", contrary to your "international law". You couldn't even name three settlements, and have no grasp of the topography or geography of this land, and how these issues affect our security/economic/resource situations. Basically, you don't know what you're talking about. As far as international opinion, do you think I give a damn? It's the same world that looked the other way when we were being placed in gas chambers. I'll repeat what I said earlier, I believe in morality and justice, and do not temper these principles under ignorant "world opinion". Well, I reject Palestinian nationalism outright. They're indistinguishable from other Arabs/Muslims in the area. They can have their self-determination elsewhere, and not on top of us and at our expense. There are more than enough countries through which Arabs/Muslims can actualize self-determination. Who rejects their humanity? We reject their nationalistic ambitions in our country. They're humans, no denying that. Your Zaide may also be quite ignorant of events in Israel. It's all irrelevant, anyways, your posts reveal much about your ignorance of contemporary events and the historical context.

You're probably right. Everyone's got their strengths, and Israel is no easy subject to tackle. Moreover, it's just not that important enough to most people to motivate them to really learn about it. I honestly don't fault people for being ignorant of these issues - why should I expect Joe Canadian without any connection to these issues to know a lot about Israeli? So GostHacked, let me just add one thing - I don't mean to disrespect you. It's just that when it comes to this issue, you've got a lot way to go. Trust me, that's VERY true for myself on MOST issues. So in a way, you're in good company.

You're right. I'll stop wasting my time.

Answer American Woman's question, and then we can talk. Tell us we're wrong in assuming that you were suggesting that all countries are similarly unprincipled, and that there aren't examples of countries that are much more principled and moral than most others. Tell us that's not what you meant.

We are a sovereign nation. The criticisms that are often made against us are precisely because we are a sovereign nation - through which Jewish independence is actualized. That's one of the big problems, which you can't seem to bring yourself to understand. So in a way, I agree with this post on a technical basis. I just reject the message you intended to send with it, in spirit. You got those two points right (kinda). There's a little bit of irony here, as you're reinforcing something that I've been saying for awhile, and you don't even realize it.

That's really sad. I'm sure you've also met exceedingly stupid Canadians, too? I sure have. Have enough conversations with enough people, and you're bound to meet people like that in many places.

Me too. Given the portion of the Quebec population with relatively strong nationalistic/separatist sentiment, it stands to reason that they would be deeply interested in Canadian history and events that lead them to their current state of "dispossession". They care about it, so they focus on learning about it.

The reality of the Guardian's hostility to Israel remains, whether or not you're aware of it. Unlike persons like you, those of us who carefully follow events in Israel don't need a statement from the British Press Complaints Commission to validate reality. People who are ignorant, such as yourself with respect to Israel, depend on third-parties to make up their opinions (about other opinions) for them. So basically, when The bias at The Guardian is there and has been for as long as I can remember. I can pull articles from there nearly ten years old dripping in the same anti-Israel rhetoric. Basically, your opinion is made up for you by the British Press Complaints Commission, because you don't have enough knowledge to have a substantiated opinion. That's fine. It's not a field you know much about, so... you trust an institution with a nice sounding name. Although this should be an obvious point, the very concept of a government-institution dedicated to examining bias (assuming that's what the BPCC does) is ridiculous. Moreover, your assumption that somehow this institution, upon which you base your opinion of bias in British media because you don't know enough to formulate an informed opinion, is staffed with people knowledgeable enough to carry out such an analysis is quite funny. The same types of people who work at The Guardian are the same types of people who work at the BBCC - supremely unqualified to provide analysis regarding Israel. Lastly, this thread points out something that's been obvious, at least to me, for a very long time. The same anti-Israel crowd (of which I believe you're a part of, if I recall your posts on this issue correctly), will continue in its hate-filled campaign against Jewish national rights by lying to advance its agenda. Nothing really changes here.