Is the Guardian the most bigoted newspaper in Britain?

[shira]

The decision to give a platform to a leader of Jew-hating Hamas shows the Guardian is now wallowing in and drinking from the sewer of history. Read and be shocked

====


Which of these propositions do you think is correct; and can you identify a moral distinction between them?

The Guardian newspaper has just run an article by someone advocating that black people be returned to the status of slaves.

The Guardian newspaper has just run an article suggesting that landlords be allowed to put up notices saying that Irish people and dogs need not apply for housing.

The Guardian newspaper has just run an article by a political leader whose foundational charter advocates the murder of Jews and promotes conspiracy theories that would not have looked out of place in Nazi Germany.

No prizes for guessing that the third of those propositions is correct on a factual basis. The morality? It’s a race to the bottom.

more...
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/1293/is_the_guardian_the_most_bigoted_newspaper_in_britain_

[shira]

1. The Guardian reaches a new low

On Friday night, I was amazed – no, I'm afraid sickened is probably the right word – to find the Guardian’s Comment Is Free website had celebrated Thursday’s Holocaust Memorial day with this piece, written by none other than Sheikh Raed Salah. For regular readers, you will know that Raed Salah is a renowned extremist preacher and anti-Semite who the government have recently failed to have deported. Importantly, the judge essentially ruled there was not enough evidence to show he was a danger to the British state and therefore deported; it certainly did not clear him of making anti-Semitic statements, such as repeating the blood libel, a centuries-old trope about Jews drinking children’s blood.

There is a huge amount of information on him – he is a convicted fundraiser for suicide-bombing terrorists Hamas – but really all you need to see is this video (hat-tip: Harry’s Place), where he laughs about drawing a swastika on the blackboard of his old Jewish schoolteacher as a child.

&feature=player_embedded


A riot, eh?

Apart from the article trying to exonerate him from the blood libel (his explanation for which even the judge who freed him declared to be “wholly unpersuasive”), the most disturbing thing about this is the Guardian feeling it is perfectly acceptable to publish articles from well-known racists.

more...
http://thecentreleft.blogspot.com/2012/04/guardian-reaches-new-low.html

[cyclezealot]

2. Did you read the actual article Posted in the Guardian..

It represented the views of the commentator , not the newspaper.. I skimmed the article..
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/08/palestinians-reclaiming-our-destiny

It seemed moderate in tone. I see nothing wrong with a newspaper presenting unpopular views.. That is what newspapers should do.

[shira]

4. So presumably, the Guardian can publish Nick Griffin and David Duke's views as well...

...so long as they are moderate in tone.

[azurnoir]

9. so shira how do you feel about the Torat HaMelech being published

with an English translation yet, do you feel that too should be censored

[shira]

13. Where was it published in english? n/t

[azurnoir]

16. Google The Kings Torah it will come up, and I invite anyone doubting this to do it n/t

[shira]

18. I see a lot of articles rightly criticizing the text. So? n/t

[azurnoir]

22. I just Googled it again it's the 5th one down from the top and 4th depending on what browser

your using

[shira]

24. I wish you'd get to the point, if you really have one. Just provide the website. n/t

[azurnoir]

28. I asked you a question that you have danced around for 3 hours rather than just answer

however as I said just Google it, I believe the website its on is a hate site which is why I will not post it, betcha' didn't already know that, huh?

[shira]

30. I can't read your mind. But what does that being on a hate site have to do with anything? n/t

[azurnoir]

56. what becomes apparent is that you wish to deflect from question about the Kings Torah

I'll accept that as your answer thanks

[shira]

62. I don't see the connection. Those views in the KT are odious and vile...

...but do you see respectable sources endorsing those views? BTW, if there's a website you have in mind, I don't know what it is.

And I honestly don't know what you're getting at. I cannot read your mind. I wish you'd make your argument more clear. I have no idea what you're even accusing me of doing, believing, or endorsing.

[azurnoir]

63. I asked you a question in comment #9, which you have deflected for quite a number off posts now

and that has become the point of this subthread

[shira]

64. Sorry I didn't answer that earlier...

I guess I feel the same about it being translated into english as any other religious teachings from any other faith. Can't say I feel one way vs. another. Bigotry is vile, but unfortunately it's built into just about every faith out there.

Is there a newspaper endorsing the KT views, besides Arutz Sheva?

[azurnoir]

65. as I do not read Hebrew I can't really say perhaps there are

I thinking that settlers have more than one publication

[snot]

3. Assuming the author of the objectionable article is a horrible person in nearly all ways,

what if he wrote an article that described a cure for cancer?

I haven't read the article, but it seems to me its publishability should be judged on its contents, not its author's past; although it's also fair to ask that the author's identity not be misrepresented.

And actually, the Guardian seems to me to be one of the world's more useful large newspapers; at least, they've been a much better source than most others re- a number of issues of concern to liberals.

[shira]

5. So you'd be okay with the Guardian publishing Nick Griffin, David Duke...? n/t

[intaglio]

6. Bigotry?

This is the usual Zionist rant against one of the most liberal papers in the developed world - because they have a policy of presenting both sides of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict - or impartiality as it is known. Yes the man may have intolerable views but you deserve to know those views so you can rationally oppose what he desires

Here is a definition of bigotry as you do not seem to know it:

the attitudes, behaviour, or way of thinking of a bigot; prejudice; intolerance

and bigot:

One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

Now who on DU is displaying "prejudice" or "intolerance"?

[shira]

7. You'd have no problem with the Guardian mainstreaming Nick Griffin, David Duke...?

To be fair, the Guardian should publish the most radical, rightwing, bigoted settler leaders too, correct?

[intaglio]

11. The answer to your question is of course

But right wing bigots do not work with the Guardian, because it is liberal. I would also be happy for Ha'aretz to publish articles by Palestinian extremists and "the most radical, rightwing, bigoted settler leaders"; except that in the first case Ha'aretz would be closed down by rioting, "radical, rightwing, bigoted" settlers whilst in the second they already do.

Apparently you agree that the Guardian is not being bigoted i.e. "displaying prejudice and intolerance". If that is the case are you happy to change the title of your OP to match reality? Or are you just showcasing extreme Zionist views for fun?

[shira]

12. Huh? "Right wing bigots do not work w/ the Guardian, b/c it is liberal"?

You don't think Hamasniks are rightwing bigots? They're liberal?

And to answer you, there's no question the Guardian is bigoted IMO. This article title (as well as the content) proves that beyond any doubt whatsoever:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/jan/03/comment.israelandthepalestinians

Now imagine that headline WRT Iran or any other nation. That's rightwing filth, whether Israel is the target or any other nation. It's in no way liberal.

[intaglio]

20. What is your definition of bigoted?

Because it is not one that is in the dictionary.

By your own account The Guardian publishes articles involving right wingers and, even you will admit, it publishes articles favouring, socialism and anti-monarchism. It has articles by people identifying as Jews and now by someone identifying as Palestinian. So how is it bigoted? Come on, tell us, what is your definition; write it out; give us the benefit of your wisdom.

Actually you are just being an echo chamber for Zionist extremists - so you will admit nothing.

[shira]

26. In the OP, look at the parts from the Hamas charter and see if you can find...

...anything bigoted there. It's irrational hate with the intent to harm/kill a certain people/ethnicity/race. Merriam Webster defines it as...

a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance


That is what Haniyeh and Hamas is all about, don't you agree?

Do you also agree that calling for the destruction of another nation is very rightwing and something that shouldn't be in liberal media? BTW, it has been in the Guardian many, many times throughout the past decade. I can show you many, many articles from contributors who are anti-zionists @ the Guardian, whose contributions follow the Hamas agenda. I'll do so if that makes a difference to you. OTOH, the opposite extreme view of the most rabid settlers is not a constant fixture at the Guardian (and I'm not sure it ever has been). Neither is the agenda of the BNP's Nick Griffin there, or his cronies who would be allowed to write just as many articles as anyone else, pushing their racist agenda.

Tell me, do you even realize the difference b/w a liberal POV and one that is radically leftwing and reactionary? Hint: the Guardian is the latter, not the former. Let's not confuse the Guardian with a liberal news outlet.

Bottom line, Haniyeh's article is very crude propaganda and it's going unchallenged. That simply wouldn't happen WRT an extreme settler POV or that of the BNP. Their POV wouldn't show up at the Guardian, and we damned well know it wouldn't go unchallenged. Ergo, the Guardian is bigoted, not 'fair and balanced', but just as faux as Fox.

[intaglio]

36. You are describing the author NOT the newspaper

Will you withdraw your words about the Guardian or will you remain a mouthpiece for the Zionists?

[shira]

58. It's the newspaper. Clear antizionist view. Happy to do propaganda for Hamas. n/t

[Shaktimaan]

70. Just so I'm clear on this...

either this poster must retract their statement about the newspaper that you disagree with, or he/she is being "a mouthpiece for the Zionists?"

People have different opinions on many topics. Holding one that opposes your own does not make that person a "mouthpiece" for anyone other than him or herself. The fact that the guardian often leans towards anti-semitism has even been acknowledged by the Guardian itself to a certain degree...

http://www.thecommentator.com/article/624/the_guardian_acknowledges_a_degree_of_anti_semitism

Your insistence that the Guardian is impartial is absurd on its face.

[LeftishBrit]

35. You are wrong. Apart from Haniyeh, some local RW bigots have blogged in the CiF section

e.g. at one point, the right-wing Tory and Christian-Right promoter Tim Montgomerie was blogging there quite regularly.

Even in the Guardian itself, the horrible economic right-winger Julian Glover (not the actor) was given a platform to publish several nasty articles.

I think the Guardian is better than most British newspapers, which is perhaps not saying much, and that it is often subject to witch-hunts by the British right, which make people elsewhere think it is worse than other papers. But it is not a paradise of pure liberalism.

[intaglio]

37. It is better, and more left wing than virtually any American or Israeli Newspaper

BUT it is happy to publish both Left and Right - because it is liberal

Bigoted? No

Hateful to Zionists? Yes

And as is pointed out later in this thread CiF is only a blog and the comments there do not represent the views of the newspaper

[shira]

41. At least you can admit the Guardian is "hateful to Zionists". n/t

[intaglio]

46. As in "hated by Zionists" yes n/t

[shira]

47. You like it b/c it tilts heavily anti-zionist, right? n/t

[intaglio]

51. No, I like it because it is a liberal publication

What have you got against liberal publications?

[shira]

59. It's not a liberal publication. It's radically and reactionary far leftwing. n/t

[LeftishBrit]

75. That you can describe the Guardian as 'radically far leftwing', indicates to me that you haven't

really read it.

Are you aware that they have in most elections supported the LibDems, or Liberals pre-1988 - not even Labour?

[shira]

77. Support for Ismael Haniyeh and Raed Saleh isn't liberal. It's Stalinist far leftwingery....

...which may as well be rightwing. Support for the MB within the context of the Arab Spring, a far right fascist murderous movement if there ever was one, is not a liberal position either.

[LeftishBrit]

80. The Guardian as a whole does not support these individuals...

they have given them too much of a platform no doubt, but all media gives too much of a platform to foreign dictators. Anyway, I define 'left-wing' and 'right-wing' in a British paper, mainly not by views on Middle Eastern politics, which play very little part in any newspaper, but by their views on British politics.

[snot]

66. I don't give a dam' who they publish; I just care whether it's true and reasonable.

If Einstein was a child molester, I'd still want us to know about the theory of general relativity.

If his words are false or irrational, don't publish them, not because of what he is but because of what he said.

If he committed a crime, publication of his true and reasonable writings needn't stop us from trying him for his crime.

If we try to punish via shutting down communication, we hurt ourselves.

[shira]

67. They're publishing terrorists who explicitly call for the killing of Jews...

...while celebrating the acts and inciting the population to do more of the same.

Haniyeh's op-ed is pure propaganda meant to produce western support for the Hamas cause in its war against the Jews.

[azurnoir]

8. the nerve why how dare they actually publish a piece by the leader of Hamas

only very carefully chosen messages from Hamas should be published the ones that show the completely genocidal hatred of the leaders of Gaza, the ones that allow for an the ease of conscience when Gaza is bombed in the war 'against Hamas' no matter how much collateral is racked up in the effort, because anything else is well just damnably off message

[shira]

10. how dare they not publish Nick Griffin for balance, or any of the most far rightwing...

...extreme, pro-Kahane settler leadership!

Better that in mentioning those buffoons, the Guardian should forever portray them as bigoted, warmongerers!

[azurnoir]

17. actually I would have no problem with that, all sides of a question should be heard

to do anything less indicates fear and a bit of paranoia

[shira]

19. In a right-to-reply debate style format that's fine. Otherwise it's sick propaganda.

Raed Saleh was published by the Guardian 2 months ago. The sick bastard believes drawing up swastikas in front of Jews is humorous.

Where was the other side presented WRT Saleh and his views @ the Guardian?

Where's the other side WRT Haniyeh?

========

There's no question those 2 Hamasniks are Jew haters who want Jews dead. All Israel is occupied to them and therefore all Israel must be destroyed. With that in mind, their articles are crude propaganda, intended for their cheerleading hoards and other useful idiots who will not learn of their backgrounds at the Guardian.

[azurnoir]

23. "Where's the other side WRT Haniyeh?" well here's a few from The Guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/24/hamas-pm-backs-syrian-protests

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/02/hamas-osama-bin-laden

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/dec/20/israel

now will you complain because it's not the same edition?

[shira]

25. Those articles have nothing to do with Haniyeh's recent piece...

There's nothing challenging Haniyeh's bullshit about not wanting bloodshed, only wanting peace and an end to occupation nonsense.

The point is the Guardian consistently publishes the Hamas, anti-zionist 1-state, Israel is colonial/racist, having no right to exist viewpoint.

The Guardian does not constantly air the most extreme rightwing settler views, nor that of the BNP. If you can find OP-EDs from those types of contributors, then admittedly you'd have a point.

[azurnoir]

29. Well your challanging it aren't you? however does JPost challange piece written by Caroline Glick

or Isi Leibler? But thanks I knew somehow it wouldn't be 'good enough'

[LeftishBrit]

33. Nick Griffin WAS given a platform to speak at the Oxford Union

All kinds of nasty people get platforms from time to time at 'respectable' organizations.

By the way, did you know that the Daily Mail serialized the Protocols of the Elders of Zion in the 1930s?

[shira]

44. So let's see Griffin & his racist POV becoming commonplace within the pages of the Guardian and CiF

Last edited Sun Jun 10, 2012, 09:31 AM - Edit history (1)

That wouldn't be an actual *endorsement* of the BNP's racist agenda, now would it?

I didn't know the Daily Maul serialized the Protocols. But tell me, with its antizionist blog (commissioning far more people who share the Hamas agenda than Zionists) and its I/P reporting (rarely if ever critical of Hamas' genocidal antisemitism, misogyny, hate towards women/christians) but viciously anti-Israel, what's the difference b/w the Guardian and the Daily Maul?

Do you know who Raed Salah is, and what was happening with him in the UK recently? The Graun (not CiF) in pretty much every single report was totally in his corner. That couldn't be more clear...
http://cifwatch.com/2012/04/10/why-is-the-liberal-guardian-still-rooting-for-a-reactionary-antisemitic-islamist-named-raed-salah/

[LeftishBrit]

55. Well, it's already commonplace in most of the tabloids!

Not Griffin himself, but the racist demonization of immigrants.

[shira]

57. They endorse or are indifferent to Griffin's views. Same WRT the Graun & Hamas. n/t

[aranthus]

14. What's the problem? He just wants to end Israel. How is that bad?

Okay, he uses the word Occupation, but anyone familiar with Hamas knows that is their code word for Israel. And as for those who don't know or don't care, why is it so bad for the Guardian to give him a forum to commit mass political fraud? If the sheep don't know or don't care that they are being lied to, why should the Guardian care? Just because they are knowingly helping a very bad guy to mislead the public into thinking that he's good, doesn't mean that they are bad themselves, does it?

[shira]

15. He's a good liberal mensch. Anti-occupation, pro-peace...

An anti-racist who loathes women and christian haters, gay bashers, and jew killers.

In other words, a liberal god.

WTF was I thinking?

[LeftishBrit]

34. This is not an endorsement of Haniyeh

It is giving him a platform, just like television interviews with a leader do (there have been several American and British TV interviews with Assad in the past, for example).

FWIW, I think hard-right-wing foreign leaders like Haniyeh should NOT be given platforms in the British media. Freedom of speech does not apply IMO, as such people have plenty of other opportunities for free speech. But calling the Guardian 'the most bigoted newspaper in Britain' is letting off the hook all the papers, that in their 'news' headlines - not a hosted comment section or even an editorial but front-page headline news - regularly scream abuse at the minority group du jour: until recently mostly immigrants, currently mostly benefit claimants, especially the sick and disabled. They are normally not so interested in foreign leaders (though the Daily Mail was very pro-Nazi in the 1930s), but certainly give a platform to local right-wing extremists.

[shira]

42. If you agree the Guardian is heavily tilted anti-zionist....

...and that CiF commissions far more anti-zionist POV's than zionist, then it's not much of a leap to say they endorse Haniyeh's views. I mean, do you ever see many articles (news, opinion, or blog) that very clearly state the Hamas position (antisemitic, genocidal)?

Consider the rabid, far rightwing settler POV or Nick Griffin. Is the Guardian or its blog clear about their POV's? Do they allow equal space to both sides of the issue? CiF is heavily tilted anti-zionist. Is it also heavily tilted Nick Griffin? Or to the rabid, far rightwing settler POV? And if not, why not in your opinion?

[aranthus]

49. I understand that.

Last edited Mon Jun 11, 2012, 10:29 AM - Edit history (1)

But they gave him a platform to present himself in a way that was dishonest. And they had to have known what he was doing. They have facilitated deception of their readers It's like giving an interview to a dictator and only asking the questions he gives you, but not telling anyone that is what's going on.

Coming from the US I have a more open view of free speech. Newspapers should be able to print whoever, subject to the reading public being able to question journalistic judgment and integrity. I don't want the government to stop the Guardian from printing Haniyeh, but I do think that it should be seen as less credible for doing so in this way.

[shira]

50. Well put. Here's Haniyeh on video just 6 months ago with his real views...

I challenge anyone here defending the Guardian to show me where the Guardian reports the following WRT Haniyeh...

[kayecy]

21. But not bigoted enough for Shira to resist quoting the Guardian when it suits her!.......n/t.

[shira]

27. I quote it knowing that extreme anti-zios like yrself find it credible and antiracist.

You wouldn't have a problem with the Guardian spewing the BNP line over and over, allowing Nick Griffin and his gang endless OP-ED opportunities, do you?

See if you can answer that one.

After all, that's exactly what the Guardian does WRT Hamas and its antizionist agenda.

[kayecy]

31. Freedom of speech is very precious...................

You wouldn't have a problem with the Guardian spewing the BNP line over and over, allowing Nick Griffin and his gang endless OP-ED opportunities, do you? ......See if you can answer that one.

I can see you belong to the "censorship brigade"..........You would no doubt ban BNP racist views being published.......Other people in the "censorship brigade" would ban Arutz Sheva from publishing settler views.......would ban the reception of the BBC in Iran........would ban any news of Tianamen square being published......Free speech is so vital to liberal democracy that it is too dangerous to allow any authority to decide what can and cannot be published.


If you are disgusted by the Guardian, why quote them when they run a news item which happens to supports your view?....Why quote the Haaretz when you suspect their reporting?..........You are being two-faced Shira.

[intaglio]

38. So no-one, not even the Jewish, can say anything bad about Israel?

No-one can say anything bad about the Zionists currently in occupation of Israel's Government? Can no-one, to use your own words, say bad things about the "radical, rightwing, bigoted" settlers

Shiny, shiny mirror

[oberliner]

39. "The Zionists currently in occupation of Israel's Government"

What does that phrase mean?

[shira]

43. You mean like Israel has no right to exist and should be destroyed? The Guardian and CiF...

...are extremely critical of the rabid, rightwing settler POV. As well as Zionism in general. They're not easy on the BNP.

They're not so critical WRT Hamas (if at all).

Why?

[intaglio]

45. So they are not bigoted

And many moderate Jewish and Israeli voices are welcome to contribute. Less moderate and even bigoted contributions would be welcome on CiF

[shira]

48. Of course they are

They endorse the agenda of Hamas (primarily the end of Israel via the murder of Jews based on antisemitic ideology). Yes, I know anti-zionism is "only" about an end to Israel, but we all know what that entails.

[intaglio]

52. How can Hamas be anti-Semitic?

Palestinians, as shown by population genetics and language studies, are a Semitic race, ie they are viewed as descendants of Shem.

They are anti-Jewish state, I agree. They are anti-settler, I agree. They are anti-Zionist, I agree. But those things are not necessarily wrong, but the methods they propose are wrong - although remarkably similar to those used by the IDF and the settlers.

You forget that the Palestinian peoples were turfed out of their homes and forced to become refugees, does this not even stir the faintest resonance by it's similarity to the Diaspora?

[LeftishBrit]

53. 'Antisemitic' is a term invented by Europaean antisemites to mean anti-Jewish

It does not refer to all speakers of Semitic languages. The term implies a fundamental objection to Jews on (pseudo)-racial rather than just religious or cultural grounds. Someone who is 'anti-Jewish' in the sense of religious bigotry may still accept someone of Jewish descent if they convert to the prevailing religion'; an 'antisemite' objects to all of Jewish descent, whatever their current religion, and however assimilated they may be.

It may not be a particularly good term, but to say that Hamas cannot be antisemitic because Palestinians are 'semitic' is like saying that Canadians, Mexicans and Peruvians are all part of the United States because they are 'Americans' in a literal sense.

[shira]

60. Genocidally antisemitic. Go about 6-8 videos down and you'll find where I start citing Hamas....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11343829#post90

The PA is hardly better, but if that's not the worst kind of antisemitism imaginable then I don't know what is.

[LeftishBrit]

32. No; the Daily Mail, Daily Express and the Sun are much worse.

P.S. 'CommentisFree' is NOT part of the Guardian news or editorial sections; it is a blog/ comment section which includes comments from all sorts of people, the more controversial the better.

By the way, you may like to know that one of the most regular bloggers on CiF is Nick Cohen.

[shira]

40. LB, do you agree that the Guardian is generally anti-zionist in its reporting? Not just...

...in CiF, where the blog tilts heavily anti-zionist. Well maybe you don't agree with that either...

[LeftishBrit]

54. No, not generally (yes, sometimes). I agree that the bloggers on CiF include a disproportionate

number of anti-Zionists, though some are strongly Zionist, e.g. Nick Cohen, and most are not concerned one way or another with Israel or the Middle East.

But since we're discussing newspaper biases: what about 'TheCommentator' which published that article by Robin Shepherd, and of which he appears to be an owner?

Let's note first of all: in MY view, while anyone who advocates and supports RW-ers anywhere in the world is thus tainted, the worst is to actively support the Right in your own part of the world- this is not out of isolationism on my part, but because writers and politicians usually have most power and influence at home. I know you don't entirely agree with me on this: you once said that if people support liberal Arabs over right-wing Arabs, this is more important that ANY of their domestic views. As far as I am concerned, this is only the case if they have a big influence on Arab countries and political parties, and if they have the capacity to exert this influence in the direction of liberalism - e.g. whatever its stated principles, the Iraq war had quite the opposite effect. And my country's welfare state, fundamentally progressive public services, NHS, and social safety net are among the few things that I would truly be prepared to fight and die for if necessary - so I take it very seriously when they are placed under threat as they are by elements of our current governemt and of the media.

Note some of the articles that get published in this journal. For example, there is one by Ryan Bourne, who writes an article called 'Where's the vision thing, Dave?' (referring to David Cameron). Among much else, he writes:

'Naturally, I would love the government to come out and say they believed in small, limited government, low taxes, national self-determination, individual freedom and a liberalisation of public services – all of the concepts that made Margaret Thatcher’s governments so successful'

Now - was Margaret Thatcher quite as evil as Haniyeh? - no. However, her influence on my country was monstrously evil. I consider her as the Devil on a local scale. And anyone who supports so-called 'small limited government and low taxes' is basically advocating cuts in public services and reduction in the social safety net. Basically, this article is saying that Cameron isn't right-wing enough; and anyone who holds this view is a poisonous snake!

Another writer for 'The Commentator ' is Douglas Carswell, a well-known right-wing Tory MP, who also writes for better-known right-wing publications. He writes an article here, which ends:

'Until the centre-right in Britain (re)discovers Austrian school economics, we are doomed to fight the long retreat'

Austrian school economics = free market monetarism, and pulling out the rug under poor people! In the long run, it tortures and kills poor and vulnerable people.

And more blatant in its right-wing triumphalism, an article by Charles Crawford, a former ambassador, entitled 'Hurrah for Governor Walker and honest money' (One thing that I have noted over the last few years is an increasing collaboration between the British and American Right over not only foreign but also domestic policy).


Wisconsin has nearly 6 million people and a GDP comparable with Greece or Finland. So it counts for something in the greater scheme of things.

'Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker (a Republican) has been under sustained attack from Left/progressive forces for all sorts of things, but above all for scaling back the power of public sector unions. The Guardian, before the election, gave us a handy summary written of all the horrible things he has been doing. And here at Forbes is the opposite view, explaining why Wisconsin needed some medicine to help stabilise its public finances.

Why should it bother us, one way or the other?..

Most people, even ardent pro-EU, pro-Europeans, these days accept that ‘something must be done’ to reform the Eurozone and the In Wisconsin and many other US states (as in Europe) we have seen over the past few decades the growth of a collectivist idea that ‘the state’ has to solve most problems. Once the state has unlimited responsibilities, it is not surprising that those who work for ‘the state’ have started to treat public money as itself ‘unlimited.

Why? Because the state is (in theory) uniquely unable to go bust – either it uses force against its own citizens to raise more taxes, or it borrows unfeasibly large sums of money against that monopoly of force, or it prints more money to pay its way and lets someone else take the hit as inflation emerges.

In these ignominious circumstances public sector unions have managed to win for themselves all sorts of incremental benefits and privileges, above all in respect of their pensions... In these circumstances, it is madness to allow a situation under which public sector unions can compel all union members to pay lavishly into their political funds to help unions lobby intensely for ever greater benefits and against reasonable reforms. Governor Walker stopped that happening by breaking ‘closed shops’ and making union dues voluntary. Union membership has dropped sharply, in part because of this. Plus he compelled union members to pay rather more into their pension and health funds. Brutality! Class war!

No. Just putting in place vital common sense checks and balances. The key fact in last night’s Wisconsin recall election? Over 30 percent of households with a union member in them voted for Walker. A strong majority of people in Wisconsin got the core Tea Party political and moral message: stop unaffordable spending

We are going to have to deal with a sprawling moral hazard issue in democracy itself as the bills dumped on the future continue to rise, but the people required to pay them decline in numbers as demographic trends unfold. Under what circumstances should people who don’t work have a claim on the product of those who do, or will?

This explains why it is a Good Thing that the Walker camp outspent the anti-Walker camp. To those who wail that Big Money is now unfairly buying political outcomes, the answer is that that is a far sounder basis for long-term public spending than Big Stupidity using monopoly power to define the options and ending up creating ruin, as has happened for far too long across much of the European Union.

Scott Walker has gone through a hellish ordeal simply because he is determined to keep Wisconsin’s strategic public funding issues under adult supervision. This victory is a terrific win for him, but most importantly for the moral principle articulated so well by Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s: honest money. President Obama’s, and the wider Democratic Party’s, inability to articulate a credible alternative is now a serious political weakness.'

So: this individual is basically not only supporting Thatcherism, but supporting the export of Tea Party values to my country!!!




I might not have brought up all this, if the author were not attacking another newspaper as 'the most bigoted in Britain'. You may consider that the views of the Commentator as a whole are irrelevant to the author's comments on the 'Guardian' and that one should argue with the specific article rather than attacking sources ('attacking the messenger'). So it may be. But one can't have it both ways. If the inclusion of right-wingers and bad foreign leaders in the CiF blogs discredit the Guardian, which whatever its faults is one of the few newspapers that does attack our government's vile social and economic policies from the left, then by the same token one can criticize someone for being associated with 'The Commentator'. If one is going to look at messages individually, without consideration of other material on the newspaper site, then one should do it for both 'The Guardian' and 'The Commentator'.


And anyone who attacks public services and the welfare state on my turf is my ENEMY, whether pro-Zionist or anti-Zionist or neither. If they are in the Middle East, then their views on the Middle East trump their views about my country - I'm not THAT Little-England-ish. But if they are British, then they probably have much more influence on Britain than on the Middle East!

[shira]

61. Yes, to their credit they also publish Nick Cohen a lot...

You don't see the problem with the Guardian allowing Haniyeh to propagandize on their blog? This isn't just your run of the mill racist like Nick Griffin or David Duke. Haniyeh's organization very explicitly incites its population to murder Jews. They praise terror acts against children as well.

When Raed Salah had his problems over the past year, the Guardian (not the blog) was extremely supportive of him.

It is possible to agree or disagree with the principle behind Salah’s banning from the UK, but there is certainly no reason for any genuine liberal to invest as much energy as the Guardian has done into trying to disguise the fact that the aim of his visit was to spout his incitement, promote his ideas of theocratic-based separatism and do a bit of round-about fundraising for a terror organisation on the side.

http://cifwatch.com/2012/04/10/why-is-the-liberal-guardian-still-rooting-for-a-reactionary-antisemitic-islamist-named-raed-salah/

That's pretty bad. I don't know what to say if you don't see it that way. For someone who loathes rightwing evil, and I understand that perfectly and can't argue against that, it's hard to believe you don't find the Hamas view as evil par excellence.

======

As to the Commentator, I think you know already I couldn't care less about their politics, but Robin Shepherd nailed that one. I respect sources that are honest, rational and whose commentary/analysis is based on real evidence.

[LeftishBrit]

72. Hamas are indeed evil right-wingers

But that does not mean that everyone who opposes Hamas is a valid source. That is just another version of 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend'.

I might accept your hatred of the Guardian, if you expressed at least similar levels of hatred of the Daily Mail, Daily Express, Sun and Daily Telegraph.

[shira]

73. The Guardian is the mirror image of those hard rightwing publications that incite against minorities

Neither is any better than the other.

I bring up the Guardian b/c obviously this is the I/P forum, and their hostility against Israel is unmatched in those rightwing publications you mentioned.

Also, those publications you cited do NOT, as far as I know, openly support and embrace evil rightwingeres like Raed Salah or Ismael Haniyeh of Hamas. The Guardian doesn't even pretend. Do those rightwing publications openly support or embrace some of the worst , most vile rightwing bigoted fascists who openly call for and carry out attacks on innocents?

[LeftishBrit]

74. Even if that were true, the Sun has a daily circulation of 2 1/2 million, and the Daily Mail

2 million; and the Guardian only 215000.

And yes, the publications I mentioned do endorse evil right-wingers. The Daily Mail supported the Nazis, and more recently, its writer Paul Johnson , chaired a pro-Pinochet news conference with Chilean Supporters Abroad, and commented: 'I regard the demonisation of General Pinochet as the most successful, mendacious propaganda exercise ever carried out in the 20th century.'

As regards fascist attacks on innocents: althought the Daily Mail and similar papers claim to oppose the BNP and EDL, the latter organizations frequently quote their anti-immigrant articles and they do nothing to prevent this. Almost more nastily, the Daily Mail and Daily Express have been publishing a lot of articles in the last couple of years portraying people on disability benefit as 'workshy' and 'scroungers', and this has led to some violent attacks on disabled people. When confronted about it, the Daily Mail claimed that the people really to blame are the disability charities that don't denounce fraud sufficiently!


I suspect that you don't in fact read the British press very much; only commentators about it.

[shira]

68. Islamism, and the Guardian left’s moral complicity with explicit antisemitism

http://cifwatch.com/2012/06/11/islamism-and-the-guardian-lefts-moral-complicity-with-explicit-antisemitism/

The Guardian has published multiple essays by leaders of Hamas: a group which advocates genocidal antisemitism.

As I noted in my post in reply to Haniyeh’s CiF essay (The Guardian and Hamas: Willing dupe and immutable victim), June 8th, this is not a Guardian one-off. In fact, since 2011 the broadsheet which aspires to be the “world’s leading liberal voice” has published essays by the Islamist terror group’s head of international relations (Osama Hamdan), its ‘advisor‘ (Azzam Tamimi), and the deputy head of Hamas’s political bureau (Musa Abumarzuq).

As Shepherd noted, the Guardian – by publishing articles by Hamas members – is in essence endorsing, as consistent with liberal thought (insofar as they oppose Zionism), a highly reactionary, religious extremist and violent political movement which advocates the murder of Jews and promotes conspiracy theories about the dangers of world Jewry in a manner indistinguishable from history’s most lethal antisemitic movements.

The Guardian ‘Live Blog from Gaza’ included a Palestinian blogger who advocates violence against Israelis and writes for an extreme right antisemitic Palestinian publication.

Their recent Live Blog from Gaza included a piece by Nader Elkhuzundar (whom the Guardian describes as a ‘Young Gaza blogger’) on Jun 8th.

As Harry’s Place noted, Elkhuzundar maintains a blog called Sleepless in Gaza, which (in one entry) suggests Palestinians should “kill a Zionist“.

Elkhuzundar is also a writer for the Palestine Telegraph; a racist paper known for praising Gilad Atzmon’s “courageous” new book, publishing an antisemitic video by former KKK grand wizard David Duke, as well as running an article claiming that World Wars 1 and 2 were both Jewish plots.

[shira]

69. Der Sturmer in the UK?

http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/der-sturmer-in-the-uk/

Less than five months ago, Haniyeh celebrated Hamas’s 24th anniversary by boasting of the numbers of Israelis the terror group had murdered (civilians as well as soldiers) and the amount of rockets fired from Gaza aimed at Israeli civilian targets.

Does this sound like a man who does not want to attack anyone? As for “dozens of massacres” and “tens of thousands” having lost their children, this sort of language is straight out of the Joseph Goebbels playbook – tell a big enough lie and it will be believed.

I shouldn’t need to deconstruct Hamas propaganda but I can ask why The Guardian feels the need to give a platform to terrorism. Granted, the New York Times and LA Times have done the same in the past. But neither publication has demonstrated a consistent and obsessive hatred towards Israel to the point of open activism against the country.

Otherwise, how to explain The Guardian’s open criticism of the Palestinian Authority’s apparent willingness to compromise with Israel as outlined in leaked documents relating to Israeli-Palestinian negotiations? Referring to the so-called “Palileaks,” The Guardian hauled the PA over the coals for daring to contemplate possible concessions in exchange for peace, taking a similar line to Hamas.

The Guardian was also the paper of choice for anti-Semitic Sheikh Raed Salah to spread his vicious hatred of Israel during his ultimately successful effort to challenge his deportation from the UK.

[shira]

71. Guardian article blames Jews for killing Mer-Khanis in Jenin....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/stage/2012/jun/12/stand-up-for-west-banks-freedom-theatre?INTCMP=SRCH

[dipsydoodle]

76. No its not

in answer to your question.

[Cicada]

78. Current leader of Hamas has explicitly stated their charter is historical, not operative now

The "foundational charter" of USA condoned slavery. Guardian is blameworthy if they publish opinion of Obama?

[shira]

79. Tunisians greet Hamas leader with chants of “Kill the Jews!”

Cries of ‘Out with the Jews!’, ‘Kill the Jews!’ greeted the arrival at Tunis airport of the Hamas chief in Gaza, Ismail Haniyeh…

A few hundred people gathered on 5 January at the Tunis-Carthage airport to welcome Haniyeh. As they waited for him they sang antisemitic chants and slogans to the glory of Palestine and the liberation of Gaza. They carried Palestinian flags, the flags of the Ennahda movement, and the black flags of the Salafists.

http://cifwatch.com/2012/01/06/guardian-moderate-islamism-update-tunisians-greet-hamas-leader-with-chants-of-kill-the-jews/

I'm sure it was just a misunderstanding. Bad translation. Haniyeh thought they were crying out to "love the Jews".

[shira]

81. Guardian’s Jewish problem: Paper praises extreme antisemitic site CounterPunch as ‘progressive’

Mainstream left-wing antisemites do not, typically, explicitly accuse Jews of engaging in global conspiracies. They do not, typically, explicitly advance the narrative of the duplicitous money-grubbing Jew. They do not, as such, advance the ancient antisemitic blood libel. And they typically do not, per se, warn their readers of the injurious effects of Jewish power on society. Nor do they deny the Holocaust.

However, as this blog is continually demonstrating, the most egregious antisemitic sin of far left broadsheets such as the Guardian is their legitimization – even praise – for antisemites who do advance such racist calumnies about the Jewish people.

The Guardian’s recent editorial in praise of Alexander Cockburn (In praise of the Cockburns, July 23rd) represents a perfect example.

In the editorial, the Cockburns (Alexander and his father and brother) are characterized as “…aristocratic radicals” who “have been pillars of progressive journalism for decades.” Here’s the editorial in its entirety.

more...
http://cifwatch.com/2012/07/24/guardians-jewish-problem-paper-praises-extreme-antisemitic-site-counterpunch-as-progressive/

[aranthus]

82. You realize that by calling such stalwarts of Progressive and Leftist ideological elites antisemitic

that you could just as easily be arguing that Leftist and Progressive ideology (as opposed to individual leftists and Progressives) is, in fact, antisemitic.

[shira]

83. Do you think the CounterPunch radicals are ideological elites within the Progressive Left? n/t

[aranthus]

84. Not necessarily, but I would say that about the Guardian.

CounterPunch is what I would call the radical or hard Left. And while there are obvious differences, many of the underlying ideological and psychological (there is a psychological component to ideologies and extremists) factors are the same between Leftism and Progressivism. Part of the problem lies in terminology. What does it mean to be Progressive? Is the term merely a re-packaging of Leftward moving Liberalism, or does it mean something different?

[azurnoir]

85. the key is in the repackaging of terms liberal, progressive, leftist

what I've seen in this venue (I/P) but it spills over into others is using 2 issues those being Gay Rights and women's rights sometimes repackaged 'minority rights' as the gold standard for liberalism and on the surface that could seem to be the do all end all and unfortunately in US politics that seems the case, however in international politics under those standards figures such as Geert Wilders and Avigdor Lieberman could be claimed as liberals and occasionally have been here on DU, that said the subdividing of a group in this manner serves 2 purposes first allowing those who support what is a rightwing policy of oppression and colonization to call themselves liberal, and the second would be a divide and conquer type of scenario

[shira]

86. So what do you personally make of CounterPunch and the Guardian? Do they generally represent....

....Progressive/Leftist ideology and values in your opinion?

And if they don't, who does?

[azurnoir]

88. sometimes CounterPunch does and sometimes it does not

you seem to want sweeping sound byte type statements in an arena where that is unrealistic at least for those who have any knowledge of the situation(s) in the ME and elsewhere, I'll give 2 examples of what I am speaking of here Waris Dirie and Ayaan Hirsi Ali both are vocal about FMG yet IMO one is a despite her admirable work in that arena is a bigot, and the other is not why?

[shira]

90. So who or what organizations best represent Progressive ideology in your opinion? n/t

[azurnoir]

93. well for starters B'tselem, Gush Shalom, Jewish Voices for Peace

Women in Black to name 4

[shira]

111. JVP is for BDS. In fact, what sets them apart from Miles of Smiles....

...which you also support?

[King_David]

87. What rubbish !!

Anyone not supporting Gay , women or minority rights ( absolutely ) is most certainly not progressive and has no business having posting privileges on this website.

[shira]

89. Do you consider yourself progressive, liberal, or both? n/t

[King_David]

91. Both

As well as being very involved in Democratic party, big Obama supporter, as are most Jews.

[azurnoir]

92. As perhaps a poster who supports the notion of keeping a brutal and illegal war/military occupation

that has resulted in the deaths of over 4000 Americans and untold Iraqis

http://www.democraticunderground.com/113411909#post91

but more over states that any country that does not have up to standard Gay Rights should not be "allowed to exist" a statement would would include the US BTW

[King_David]

94. You have made it abundantly clear

Your ignorant opinion on gay rights and the really strange thing is that you keep linking to a post I am proud of and that fits in really well with any progressive ideology on the gay rights "issue ".

Perhaps your views on Gay rights would be more welcome at some other conservative right wing sites ?

Ask anyone in our very own LGBT here on DU about the post you find so repugnant if you doubt this

[azurnoir]

95. oh so you think a conservative would welcome my support of Gay Marriage ?

and I have challenged you to post that statement anywhere upstairs ( that the US should have stayed in Iraq because of their abysmal record on Gay Rights) you please you have yet to do so, it could seem you are reluctant but why?

[King_David]

96. I am proud of the post you somehow think shames

me... Somehow and not surprisingly you seem to think Gay rights are negotiable .

Ha ... It's sickening to me .. I need a shower .

[azurnoir]

97. yes you seem to be proud of wishing to continue a war that has resulted in countless deaths

but if you are so sure of the the support you get why do you not post it upstairs I would suggest the LGBT forum I'm curious as to how it would be parsed or would you post your support for the Iraq war on the basis of Gay Rights ? you also seem proud of your name calling but IMO it is merely juvenile and ugly

[King_David]

98. Please feel free to repost ,

The post of mine that you find so repugnant ,in the LGBT forum , Its laughable you think we would not support Gay right ... Absolute , full and indivisible with a
" homosexual agenda 1st ".

Laughable

[azurnoir]

99. it isyour statement and you are the one claiming support

so if you believe that go ahead and post it, I am not the one making claims about support or not

however you seem to feel that the lives of men women and children both Gay and straight are negotiable on their countries Gay Rights records and laws

[King_David]

101. I am proud of my post

And it's clear for everyone to see , your the only one challenging the absolute right Gays should have. And I doubt anyone calling DU home would.

Gay Rights Are Absolute and Not Negotiable nor Up For Discussion
( PERIOD)

You just do not get it !!

Bye Bye
( it simply is NOT up for discussion )

[azurnoir]

102. ok I am going to put it another way

so far the discussion has been about using military intervention in the name of Gay Rights, which say you are proud of supporting but would you give equal support to a BDS campaign in the name of Gay Rights as less deadly an alternative? I certainly would

[azurnoir]

100. a caveat though I am talking about your support for the continueing the Iraq war

on the basis of Gay Right not some amorphous post about Gay Rights being not negotiable

[LeftishBrit]

103. No, it isn't.

First of all, there is no single Leftist or Progressive ideology (indeed 'progressive' can mean almost anything, and some British Tories love to call themselves 'progressive'). Secondly, it seems to me that the primary meaning of 'left-wing' is economic: a left-winger believes in public spending, an emphasis on public services, a welfare state, and places the right of all people to a social safety net above the right of some people to advance themselves as much as possible.

It is certainly possible for left-wingers in this sense to be antisemitic, otherwise racist, sexist, socially illiberal, or warmongers. If they are any of these things, however, then they are not really left-wing for all; they are making exceptions to their generally egalitarian, pro-safety-net views. Sometimes lots of exceptions. As satirized in 'Animal Farm: 'All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others'.

Sadly, it is too common for left-wingers to be 'left-wing only for some', just as it is all too common for liberals to be 'socially liberal but fiscally conservative', i.e. socially liberal only for those over a certain income level. But that does not mean that either economic leftism or social liberalism is a bad thing, let alone that it is by nature antisemitic: only that they are too often corrupted or applied selfishly.

One thing that bothers me about some of the articles posted here is just this: that they seek, by pointing out antisemitism or other forms of racism in left-wing or liberal sources, without mentioning the same in right-wing sources, to bring left-wing ideology into disrepute in order promote right-wing ideology. (And as far as I am concerned, right-wing ideology is INFINITELY EVIL: basically an ideological excuse for punishing poor or weak people and social minorities, and generally kicking people when they are down.) This is certainly not only on the pro-Israel side; plenty of sources promoted by pro-Palestinians are in favour of xenophobic isolationism, paleoconservativism anti-government (and antisemitic) conspiracy-theory paranoia, or hardline Islamism. In this context, I do not consider Counterpunch basically left-wing at all: it does include left-wing writers, but also some very right-wing writers. But I think that on all sides, while we need to criticize left-wing people and sources when they are wrong or hypocritical, we also need to remember that the right-wing is ALWAYS wrong, and that we must ALWAYS oppose any writer or source that implies that the right is better than the left.

[shira]

105. So if CounterPunch isn't Leftwing at all in your view, why is the Guardian praising it?

The Guardian (and its many readers, mostly online) considers itself a platform for liberal and leftwing opinion, after all. I'm not even sure that's really debatable.

As it relates to I/P, they're also very sympathetic to Hamas, and that's obvious in their editorial pages. Hamas could not possibly be more rightwing in ideology or evil if they tried, but I believe that's something that's downplayed considerably here by self-proclaimed left-wingers and progressives who are too embarrassed to admit they've thrown their lot in with a movement that's far more rightwing and evil than the worst parts of the extreme settler movement. Both the Guardian and CounterPunch have also cast their lot in with the FGM, PSC, ISM, and FGM; all birds of the same feather working in close collaboration with the evil right-wingers from Hamas and Iran.

Here's an article from a very leftwing, anti-zionist Israeli who, like myself, considers the anti-Israel (anti-semitic) International Left to be rightwing in reality:

http://ygurvitz.net/?p=180

That article created a huge rift between Israeli anti-zionists like himself and the so-called International anti-zionist Left (with its leaders like Ali Abunimah and Ben White). In no way could these left-wingers get on board and relate with the socialist J-14 movement that brought both Israelis and Palestinians together to battle Netanyahu and his rightwing collaboration. In fact, this so-called International Left did Netanyahu's PR for him by minimizing and undermining the movement.

Anyone disgusted by evil right-wingers should be even more disgusted by faux left-wingers who are virtually indistinguishable from far right-wingers.

[LeftishBrit]

106. Because Cockburn just died, eliciting piety; and because the Guardian isn't consistently left wing

anyway.

They are better than most other British newspapers, but they have published articles by writers in favour of cuts and 'small government', for example.

'this so-called International Left did Netanyahu's PR for him by minimizing and undermining the movement.'

And by the same token, some of your posts are doing Hamas' PR work for them by implying that any support for or defense of Israel requires a rejection of left-wing political views. I think it is perfectly possibly to be left-wing and Israeli/pro-Israel at the same time - but some of your posts are giving aid and comfort to the mirror-image-ists who think that Israel must be intrinsically right-wing just because Bush regarded Israel as an ally.

[azurnoir]

107. something else IMO as or more disturbing

and not just shira but some of the posts here feed the idea that ProIsrael and antiArab are becoming synonymous, which should not be

[aranthus]

108. I would have thought that it was the other way around.

That the claim is being made that being pro-Arab or pro-Palestinian was anti-Israel. Maybe both claims are being made.

[shira]

110. Maybe the confusion lies with people who conflate criticism of Hamas or the PLO with....

...criticism of Arabs or Muslims in general.

[shira]

109. The Guardian isn't 'consistently' left-wing? How can they be considered left-wing at all...

...with their ties to CounterPunch and sympathetic view of Hamas? Put in simple terms, I really doubt you'd consider people to be left-wingers who are sympathetic to and apologists for the extreme rightwing settler movement. I mean, can you name any that fit such a description? I can't. So what makes people leftwing who are sympathetic with and apologists for the Hamas regime?

I thought I was pretty clear in my last post distinguishing between left-wingers and the Israel bashing International Left. I'm not criticizing all left-wingers. Neither was Yossi Gurvitz in his blog post. Tell me, which left-wingers would minimize, virtually ignore, or undermine the very socialist, left-wing J-14 movement in Israel? The point being, left-wingers aren't being bashed at all b/c they're essentially right-wingers that both you and I should be condemning. They certainly aren't left-wingers economically.

I'm thinking back to a past discussion we had:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/11346820#post19

Do you really think Vittorio Arrigoni and Mer Khamis were left-wingers or progressives? They're part of the very same International Left that Yossi Gurvitz labels right-wingers.

[shira]

112. BBC’s Disgusting Response to Olympic Complaints

Many people who complained to the BBC about its failure to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital on its Olympic country website profile were answered with the following included in a canned response:

We have received a range of feedback about the errors on the BBC Sport Olympics page and we feel it is worth explaining that a considerable number of those have been generated by online lobby activity.

What exactly is the inference of referring to “online lobby activity?”

Does the BBC consider your individual complaints less worthy simply because the information was passed on to the complainant by way of HonestReporting or any number of other organizations?

Not to mention the particularly insidious connotation behind referring to a “lobby” when it comes to an issue associated with Jews or Israel. Is the BBC insinuating that the issue is being driven by dark forces behind the scenes and that the complaints are insincere?

http://honestreporting.com/bbcs-disgusting-response-to-olympic-complaints/

[shira]

113. The Guardian’s Seumas Milne defends Palestinians’ right to kill Israelis

Guardian Associate Editor Seumas Milne just published an essay at ‘Comment is Free’ brimming with anger at Israel, and crowing about the glory of Hamas “resistance”.....



Declaring Gaza still “occupied”, Milne defends Hamas “resistance”, thus:

“So Gazans are an occupied people and have the right to resist, including by armed force (though not to target civilians), while Israel is an occupying power that has an obligation to withdraw – not a right to defend territories it controls or is colonising by dint of military power.

Even if Israel had genuinely ended its occupation in 2005, Gaza’s people are Palestinians, and their territory part of the 22% of historic Palestine earmarked for a Palestinian state that depends on Israeli withdrawal from the occupied West Bank and east Jerusalem. Across their land, Palestinians have the right to defend and arm themselves, whether they choose to exercise it or not.”

Seumas Milne is arguing that Palestinians in Gaza, the West Bank and ‘East Jerusalem’ have the right to murder Israelis.

And, if you’re wondering about the one qualification in Milne’s essay – that civilians can’t be intentionally targeted – a subsequent passage seems to clarify his meaning.

“Emboldened by the wave of change and growing support across the region, Hamas has also regained credibility as a resistance force, which had faded since 2009, and strengthened its hand against an increasingly discredited Palestinian Authority leadership in Ramallah in Ramallah. The deployment of longer-range rockets that have now been shown to reach Tel Aviv and Jerusalem is also beginning to shift what has been an overwhelmingly one-sided balance of deterrence. [emphasis added]

The Hamas rocket attacks he’s so proud of – ‘operations’ he’s hopeful may change the balance of power in the region – seem to fall outside of his definition of prohibited acts (which target civilians) and thus consistent with the overall Palestinian right of armed “resistance”.

http://cifwatch.com/2012/11/20/the-guardians-seumas-milne-defends-palestinians-right-to-kill-israelis/

[shira]

114. Seumas Milne says Hamas has right to resist (see video starting ~ 1:20)

&feature=player_embedded


Milne is the Guardian's Associate Editor.

And he couldn't be more grotesquely rightwing.

What a piece of shit.

[shira]

115. Chris McGreal: Why any Israeli can be murdered via terrorism

Meet Abu Jindal and Abu Nizar. Up until fairly recent times they might have been fixing cars for Israelis. Nizar’s father even “had good things to say about the Israelis he knew”.

But those days are long gone and now Nizar, the son, has little problem with the rockets he fires into Israel causing civilian casualties “such as the three who died…from rockets fired from Gaza in recent round of fighting.” For Nizar “there is no such thing as a civilian on the other side.”

So what makes it so easy for Nizar and Jindal to murder innocent Israeli men, women and children?

Judging from Chris McGreal’s piece, Gaza’s cycle of aggression shapes new generations more militant than the last published in last Friday’s Guardian, it’s all Israel’s fault with Nizar and Jindal having little, if any, responsibility for their terrorist activities.

cont'd...
http://richardmillett.wordpress.com/2012/11/28/why-israeli-be-murdered-by-palestinian-terrorists-explained-chris-mcgreal/