An interesting article on CiF; We can afford to be choosy by Douglas Murray.
Interesting in that it has implicit criticism for CiF itself.
It describes so accurately the Guardian cabal’s fanatical mindset.
CiF has quite a few ‘bees in its bonnet’ but they all crystalise around anything negative about the United States of America while paying very little attention to the negative aspects of virulently anti-US entities like Iran, Syria and North Korea.
Strangely, almost no interest is shown in China, India and Brazil (Ben Whites’s former home). These countries have been ‘fingered’ by inexperienced wannabes to be possible replacements to the superpower United States of America in the not too distant future without any particular speculation on the part of The Guardian about what awaits the Liberal Western Democracies when the US ‘implodes’.
Back to the article; it discusses the part that fanatics play in orientating the perception of the public to this or that occurrence. It also mentions the selective memory processes that will remember this atrocity by that terrorist but forget a different atrocity by another terrorist. There is a lot to be agreed with there. I have no accurate memory of the tens of atrocities committed in Pakistan and Afghanistan over the past five years. Yet I remember clearly the terrorist atrocity in Mumbai because Jews were singled out. I remember the terrorist atrocity in Argentina because a Jewish community was attacked by Iranian terrorists. So does that mean that I can’t really complain when a British racist rants?
Well. Yes I can. The terrorist action at the King David hotel in Jerusalem in the 1940s was the act of a terrorist group unsupported by Ben Gurion who even then, was the accepted leader of the Jewish community (Yishuv) in pre Israel mandated territory. And the action was against British soldiers, not against British civilians. Not that I in any way condone it. The fact is that it simply was not helpful to what followed.
And there we have it. In the Middle East, terrorism is complicating the situation and may bring about a ‘solution’ that will not be beneficial to the Palestinians. Yet the Guardian offers its ‘journalistic stage’ to groups that reject any compromise whatsoever (Hamas and Hezbollah). Even more, it vilifies those groups that may in the future choose compromise over a continued confrontation with a tiger.
To CiF/The Guardian, I say: Israel is not going away. It has survived more than 60 years of terrorist action by Arab states and Arab/Muslim organizations. Its economy is a ‘beacon of light’ for other countries however small. Its democracy, while far from perfect, is ‘up there’ with the leaders of those who profess with pride to be a ‘Western Liberal Democracy’. Its universities speak for themselves, as do its medical system and services. Its legal system is respected by so many including our neighbors.
To CiF/The Guardian, I say: in 40 years time, there will be very few surviving persons who can ‘claim’ to have been ‘expelled by the evil Zionists’. Their number is depleted year by year as I write, by natural means. Compromise is the only way forward. (Hint to the Guardian – that means both sides, not just Israel).
Now, in the past weeks, we have seen some minimal attempt at change on CiF (24 hr I/P threads being an example). I assume that this is due to a greater sensitivity to the widely accepted perception that CiF and by inference, The Guardian, gives a platform to Holocaust deniers and antisemites while claiming not to be antisemitic, only anti-Zionist.
While change is to be welcomed, this does not even begin to scratch the surface. By keeping the coterie of failed wannabe writers to ‘bash Israel’ is just playing to the hate Israel crowd who presumably need a constant stream of anti-Israel invective to survive until the next ‘fix’. And Berchmans and his ilk who have had so many of their comments deleted are still posting, while quality commentators like AKUS are ‘no more’.
Get a grip of yourselves. Your editorial and moderation policy is muddying the waters.
Like this:
Like Loading...
COMMITTEE FOR ACCURACY IN MIDDLE EAST REPORTING AND ANALYSIS
Georgina and Matt; a reality check
An interesting article on CiF; We can afford to be choosy by Douglas Murray.
Interesting in that it has implicit criticism for CiF itself.
It describes so accurately the Guardian cabal’s fanatical mindset.
CiF has quite a few ‘bees in its bonnet’ but they all crystalise around anything negative about the United States of America while paying very little attention to the negative aspects of virulently anti-US entities like Iran, Syria and North Korea.
Strangely, almost no interest is shown in China, India and Brazil (Ben Whites’s former home). These countries have been ‘fingered’ by inexperienced wannabes to be possible replacements to the superpower United States of America in the not too distant future without any particular speculation on the part of The Guardian about what awaits the Liberal Western Democracies when the US ‘implodes’.
Back to the article; it discusses the part that fanatics play in orientating the perception of the public to this or that occurrence. It also mentions the selective memory processes that will remember this atrocity by that terrorist but forget a different atrocity by another terrorist. There is a lot to be agreed with there. I have no accurate memory of the tens of atrocities committed in Pakistan and Afghanistan over the past five years. Yet I remember clearly the terrorist atrocity in Mumbai because Jews were singled out. I remember the terrorist atrocity in Argentina because a Jewish community was attacked by Iranian terrorists. So does that mean that I can’t really complain when a British racist rants?
Well. Yes I can. The terrorist action at the King David hotel in Jerusalem in the 1940s was the act of a terrorist group unsupported by Ben Gurion who even then, was the accepted leader of the Jewish community (Yishuv) in pre Israel mandated territory. And the action was against British soldiers, not against British civilians. Not that I in any way condone it. The fact is that it simply was not helpful to what followed.
And there we have it. In the Middle East, terrorism is complicating the situation and may bring about a ‘solution’ that will not be beneficial to the Palestinians. Yet the Guardian offers its ‘journalistic stage’ to groups that reject any compromise whatsoever (Hamas and Hezbollah). Even more, it vilifies those groups that may in the future choose compromise over a continued confrontation with a tiger.
To CiF/The Guardian, I say: Israel is not going away. It has survived more than 60 years of terrorist action by Arab states and Arab/Muslim organizations. Its economy is a ‘beacon of light’ for other countries however small. Its democracy, while far from perfect, is ‘up there’ with the leaders of those who profess with pride to be a ‘Western Liberal Democracy’. Its universities speak for themselves, as do its medical system and services. Its legal system is respected by so many including our neighbors.
To CiF/The Guardian, I say: in 40 years time, there will be very few surviving persons who can ‘claim’ to have been ‘expelled by the evil Zionists’. Their number is depleted year by year as I write, by natural means. Compromise is the only way forward. (Hint to the Guardian – that means both sides, not just Israel).
Now, in the past weeks, we have seen some minimal attempt at change on CiF (24 hr I/P threads being an example). I assume that this is due to a greater sensitivity to the widely accepted perception that CiF and by inference, The Guardian, gives a platform to Holocaust deniers and antisemites while claiming not to be antisemitic, only anti-Zionist.
While change is to be welcomed, this does not even begin to scratch the surface. By keeping the coterie of failed wannabe writers to ‘bash Israel’ is just playing to the hate Israel crowd who presumably need a constant stream of anti-Israel invective to survive until the next ‘fix’. And Berchmans and his ilk who have had so many of their comments deleted are still posting, while quality commentators like AKUS are ‘no more’.
Get a grip of yourselves. Your editorial and moderation policy is muddying the waters.
Like this:
Combating Biased Moderation: How To Save Posts Before Deletion
You may also like
Why Chas loves Israel
Anti-Israel ideology takes over Feminism in Montreal
Six Day War Anniversary resources