And aren’t you in the pay of the Israeli government now. I imagined you were since I’ve noticed that you’ve been less backward about coming forward condemning some of the CiF excesses :~))

And I would be interested, too, in your answer to HairShirt. I would like to know how you yourself would recognise “genuine” antisemitism or antisemites, and in what particular(s) you think the “pretend” ones differ from the “genuine” article.

And since when does Whitaker not following up with a story signify anything? Perhaps something more Israel-hating intervened? It seems to me that you place far too much credence on what Whitaker and others actually write rather than what their contributions to CiF their entirety would convey to the reasonable person you so resent Medusa referring to.

I agree with Medusa that al-Grauniad is an anti-Israel rag. Were it, as you naively argue, only anti West Bank occupation it would be publishing sensibly-thought-out articles which examine all sides of the conflict in depth, rather than emotive drivel which concentrates only upon Israel’s wrongdoings, real or imaginary, and it would certainly remind its readership as often as necessary (and again in an objective and reasoned way) of the context of the conflict and why the West Bank was occupied in the first place.

In short, it consistently fails to give the idiots below the line on CiF any context, rather it makes heroes out of suicide terrorists and Islamists who would want to wipe Israel out.

The inglorious three who run it are addicted to that topic – they seem need their daily fix of Israel-hatred, and that being the case it’s doubtful that they could ever turn their attention to other ongoing disputes and injustices – they are in too deep.

And what precisely is the difference between the behaviour of this disreputable trio, who deliberately commission articles designed to crank up hatreds, and what you call “genuine antisemites?”

Given that last sentence I would be interested in how you would define the genuine article and how you would recognise it if you met it.

“Only the simple minded or the wilfully ignorant would not make the connection that Whitaker et al wanted to be made”

Please, not the old “No reasonable person …” smear.

There are indeed idiot posters on CiF who pretty much imply that all pro-Israel posters are in a paid capacity. Recently some clown even accused me of this!

But Whittaker was merely drawing attention to what is ultimately a relevant story – but nowhere did he follow up with the insinuations you’ve accused him of.

You also refer to the Guardian as an “anti-Israel rag”. It is if anything anti-WB-occupation. If a 2-state solution wre ever to be realised I am sure it would turn its attention to other ongoing disputes and injustices.
Unfortunately this cannot be said of genuine anti-Semites.

It was written by a CiF editor of a blog which makes no secret of its support for Israel’s Arab neighbours and has his own pro-Arab website.

On a blog which takes every opportunity to crank up Israel-hatred above the line and lets outright Jew-hatred remain below the line;

Only the simple minded or the wilfully ignorant would not make the connection that Whitaker et al wanted to be made, which given that it came from an editor of CiF was doubly vicious and spiteful and calculated to offend.

And that Seaton cut down “a couple” of anti-Israel posts “rhetorically” means little. Why does he continue to support the policies of a woefully biased blog?

Seaton, Whitaker et al are all employed by the Guardian which is a known anti-Israel rag. They are associated with this anti-Israel rag in a professional capacity and, if the rest are anything like Seaton, all are dangerously confused about their professionalism and boundaries between it and their personal opinions, and use their professional status to promulgate their biases.

Yours is a lame argument therefore that it’s at all possible for them to be impartial when they comment “as staffers” below the line.

“Here’s an example of what Brian Whitaker caused:”

Did he post an untruth? It appears not. Do you have a general problem with this issue being disseminated?

There are fully-fledged anti-Semites and dogmatic Israel critics out there who will indeed seize on anything to further their claims (the shoddy Dispatches programme being a prime example). Yes, this is an example of that happening – but e.g. people who deny the Holocaust are in any case “lost”, if you know what I mean. Former Alabama governor George Wallace (are you American btw?) is a rare example of a racist recanting his views.

Would you have lambasted me for posting the same comment that Whittaker did?

As to Seaton, the ability to distinguish between personal views and official views is impossible when you have a big G logo next to your name.

And the fact of the matter is that even if Seaton is posting in his personal capacity, his views carry weight because of his status at the Guardian.

By the way, despite the fact that I think you’re terribly wrong, I appreciate you sharing your views here.

Hawkeye

You know as well as I do that Brian Whitaker had no place doing what he did. His comment lent credence to the existence of a Jewish conspiracy and the fact that it came from a Guardian “bigwig” if you know what I mean is all the more damning.

And this is not speculation on my part. Here’s an example of what Brian Whitaker caused:

illegalcombatant’s comment 17 Jul 09, 12:18pm

BrianWhit 17 Jul 09, 11:55am

Staff Israeli Foreign Ministry to Hire Shills for Internet Warfare Squad

Thanks for posting that Mr. Whit. There is also the GIYUS organisation that performs an identical role in spreading Jewish-Israeli-Zionist propaganda.

Their site offers the co-called Megaphone software that issues alerts which results in the faithful swarming to sites to spread the “truth” – much as we see regularly on the pages of CiF.

I suppose the name Megaphone says it all – any discourse is invariably very loud and one-way only.

This same commenter has engaged in Holocaust denial on the threads.

Pretzelberg, you are clearly one of the more intelligent posters on CiF and often have some really useful and interesting contributions to make. I really don’t understand why you have such a blindspot for this.

There was no insinuation that all or indeed most pro-Israel posters on CiF are paid agents etc.

I see you cite my challenge to Seaton. In fact I then saw that he had earlier cut down (i.e. rhetorically) a couple of anti-Israel posts and accepted that he was a) basically there on a personal basis and b) not the b&w anti-Israel person you paint him as.

Strange how you never mention such posts of his …

However, we need to think of another way to describe the CiF contributors’ conduct other than in terms of whether it is ethical or not, since it’s clear that they exist to feed the anti-zionist/antisemitism beast what it needs and, that being the case, any sense of ethics went by the board long ago.

The CiF editors’ interventions on the threads are indeed becoming more and more bizarre. My sense of this is that the number of them is proportionate to said editors’ perceived sense of threat from the likes of CW which criticises how CiF is run and the way in which they themselves run it. The editors know that the CiF ship is taking on water and this is their way of trying (and failing) to bail it out.

When the chips are down, throw the Jews down the well.

Not hard…

Who is “SickFrogman”? [sic(k)]