Most Israeli Jews would support apartheid regime in Israel

[Guest American Woman]

....any person with an ounce of moral value and respect for international law would also agree ,,,,,,

I love how you cannot state your opinion without this "any person with an ounce of moral value" hyperbole because it's so telling. You cannot stand on your own merit - you have to insult anyone and everyone who does not agree with you. There is no moral stand except yours, eh? Here's a newsflash for you - I don't automatically support "international law." Do you give any and every law respect simply because it's law?

Edited November 3, 2012 by American Woman

[bleeding heart]

Tell you what, you stick to the Hamas version of events, I'll stick to history's. Carry-on.

As you no doubt understand well enough, Hamas would despise Dre's version of events, and his views of the ongoing conflict generally.

So not really a fair comment.

[bleeding heart]

The New York Times, if you are unaware, has the reputation of being anti-Israel.

By whom?

[Guest American Woman]

By whom?

By many people.

[bleeding heart]

But really, who are these people? If you mean the End-Times religious sector of the Republican party (who interestingly enough are pro-Israel and anti-Jewish)...then sure. They hold lots of fascinating opinions.

Aside from them..who are we talking about?

[Guest American Woman]

[DogOnPorch]

As you no doubt understand well enough, Hamas would despise Dre's version of events, and his views of the ongoing conflict generally.

So not really a fair comment.

What's your particular version of 1948? Mine included the Arabs rejecting then attacking. Not the other way around. But, then dre will insist the Arab-Israeli conflict is about water rather than the wet dream of a Nazi.

[cybercoma]

By many people.

"That's their opinion."

[Guest American Woman]

"That's their opinion."

Really? Ya think?? Perhaps that's why I didn't say that it IS anti-Israel - simply pointed out that it has that reputation.

[cybercoma]

simply pointed out that it has that reputation.

That's your opinion.

[Guest American Woman]

That's your opinion.

Nope. That's a provable fact.

[cybercoma]

Nope. That's a provable fact.

It's your opinion that it's a provable fact.

[DogOnPorch]

It's your opinion that it's a provable fact.

The Rasmussen Report polled the paper at 40% left leaning by perception. That compared to 11% the other way. Not 'proof' but it is thought to be left leaning even if it isn't at times. As far as Israel goes, the NYT has been accused of being anti-Semitic in its portrayal of the Arab-Israeli conflict by the Simon Wiesenthal Center. I kind of agree...

Edited November 3, 2012 by DogOnPorch

[Guest American Woman]

There's a lot of proof out there that many perceive the NYT to be anti-Israel. I wasn't aware of its reputation prior to this, but I've been reading some interesting takes on it. Evidently many perceive the Guardian to be anti-Israel, too.

Edited November 3, 2012 by American Woman

[Bonam]

Evidently many perceive the Guardian to be anti-Israel, too.

The Guardian is quite possibly the most virulently anti-Israel and at times even anti-Semitic mainstream English-language paper in the Western world. I've read articles on there that were frankly disgusting, especially back in 2006/2007. The NYT is completely benign in comparison.

Edited November 3, 2012 by Bonam

[Guest American Woman]

The Guardian is quite possibly the most virulently anti-Israel and at times even anti-Semitic mainstream English-language paper in the Western world. I've read articles on there that were frankly disgusting, especially back in 2006/2007. The NYT is completely benign in comparison.

Interesting take on that in two OP's I've recently read; first there's this:

When explaining what I do for a living to new friends who aren’t necessarily familiar with the Guardian, I’m often asked, in one form or the other, something to the effect of, “How anti-Israel is the Guardian?”, to which I sometimes cheekily reply, “The Guardian makes The New York Times look like

Arutz Sheva

.”

http://cifwatch.com/...ployment-at-45/

And then there's this:

Ladies and gentlemen, while there are honorable exceptions, the New York Times has now reached the level of...the Guardian.

http://rubinreports....ow-and-new.html

The general consensus, though, definitely seems to be that the Guardian is the worst, just as you've said.

[bud]

I love how you cannot state your opinion without this "any person with an ounce of moral value" hyperbole because it's so telling. You cannot stand on your own merit - you have to insult anyone and everyone who does not agree with you. There is no moral stand except yours, eh? Here's a newsflash for you - I don't automatically support "international law." Do you give any and every law respect simply because it's law?

oh yes. international law. the very same thing that created the state of israel.

i love how you always run away from debating the facts. it's become a regular thing with you.

when faced with facts, you:

1) either do not respond and wait for fluff posters like peeves, dogonmufit et al, to make a few posts so you can pretend the post never happened, or

2) avoid discussing them and try to change the discussion by talking about something else, or

3) claim that you don't agree with them like your opinion changes the facts

typical cowardly hasbara bot approach to discussions about israel.

Edited November 3, 2012 by bud

[Mr.Canada]

typical cowardly hasbara bot approach to discussions about israel.

You need to stop calling people names and try sticking to the facts when debating, this isn't rabble where everyone name calls.

[Bonam]

I recommend that people start reporting bud for his repeated use of the insult "hasbara bot", which he has used hundreds of times. As per the recent thread regarding insults, that seems to be the appropriate course of action.

[bud]

Nope. That's a provable fact.

you spread misinformation because that's how you roll.

ethan bronner, the most recent jerusalem bureau chief for the new york times is anything but anti-israel. he has been called biased many times, but it's usually against the palestinians. he also has a son in the IDF.

Edited November 3, 2012 by bud

[bud]

I recommend that people start reporting bud for his repeated use of the insult "hasbara bot", which he has used hundreds of times. As per the recent thread regarding insults, that seems to be the appropriate course of action.

so people should report you, american woman and the rest of hasbara bots for continuously calling me or anyone who criticizes israel anti-semite?

[Bonam]

so people should report you, american woman and the rest of hasbara bots for continuously calling me or anyone who criticizes israel anti-semite?

Feel free. You may have trouble finding instances of me calling "anyone who criticizes Israel" an anti-semite though

[Mr.Canada]

I see, so any defense of Israel is not allowed for fear of being labeled a hasbot. This is the the same thing used years ago by the left to label people as racist.

[Guest American Woman]

I recommend that people start reporting bud for his repeated use of the insult "hasbara bot", which he has used hundreds of times. As per the recent thread regarding insults, that seems to be the appropriate course of action.

I'm game. I've been referred to a "hasbara bot" by him about a dozen times. Hopefully if there are enough reports it will have an effect.

Feel free. You may have trouble finding instances of me calling "anyone who criticizes Israel" an anti-semite though

Ditto. I don't think I've ever called any poster anti-semite.

[bud]

I see, so any defense of Israel is not allowed for fear of being labeled a hasbot. This is the the same thing used years ago by the left to label people as racist.

why do we need to defend a country or a group like we have a need to be cheerleaders? how about defending facts, justice and humanity?

any time i call someone a hasbara bot, i give the reason(s) why i am calling them a hasbara bot. for example, my last post:

oh yes. international law. the very same thing that created the state of israel.

i love how you always run away from debating the facts. it's become a regular thing with you.

when faced with facts, you:

1) either do not respond and wait for fluff posters like peeves, dogonmufit et al, to make a few posts so you can pretend the post never happened, or

2) avoid discussing them and try to change the discussion by talking about something else, or

3) claim that you don't agree with them like your opinion changes the facts

typical cowardly hasbara bot approach to discussions about israel.

Edited November 3, 2012 by bud