This is a guest post by Mitnaged
Readers will know that I made a complaint to the BBC after Michael White’s egregious contribution there on the 14th of December 2009. The article about that complaint can be found here and contains the background. I promised to update readers.
On 7th January 2010 I received a reply to my complaint, which I reproduce in full below. I have altered the format so that it is easier to read; the text is verbatim:
“Dear (name intentionally withheld)
“Thank you for your further correspondence regarding the remarks made by The Guardian’s Assistant Editor Michael White on the BBC London 94.9 breakfast programme on 14 December 2009. I believe the reply you have already received covers the further issues you raise, however I will add further clarification to some of the points:
“In a live interview, editorial decisions have to be made very quickly by the presenter and producer. On this occasion, Michael White combined two controversial issues (Northern Ireland and Israel/the Middle East) into his answer about the attack on Signor Berlusconi, of whom he also made controversial remarks. He did not break stride in making a series of comments about all three issues. The decision of the presenters and producer was not to go back to challenge each individual comment as each could have led to a lengthy exchange in their own right and would have diverted from the main subject of the interview. We stand by that decision.
“Michael White is well known as a media commentator with strong views which he often expresses in a forthright and colourful manner. We believe his comments on these matters were in keeping with his style and clearly identifiable as his own personal views. I do not believe any listeners would confuse Michael White’s comments with those of the BBC.
“BBC London 94.9 has a strong record of representing all sides of the Middle East conflict and, as stated previously, BBC journalists are advised to be fair and impartial in their handling of controversial issues.
“If you believe a serious and specific breach of the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines has occurred here, and you wish to escalate this matter to Stage 2 of the BBC Complaints process, you can contact the BBC’s Editorial Complaints Unit, within 20 working days, and they will carry out an independent investigation.
“You can write to them at the following address:
Editorial Complaints Unit
Room 5170
White City
201 Wood Lane
London W12 7TS
Yours sincerely
David Robey
Managing Editor
BBC London 94.9
As you may imagine, I was not particularly impressed by Mr Robey’s reply. In particular I noted (and I have again reformatted it in order to make it easier to read):
“… In a live interview, editorial decisions have to be made very quickly by the presenter and producer. On this occasion, Michael White combined two controversial issues (Northern Ireland and Israel/the Middle East) into his answer about the attack on Signor Berlusconi, of whom he also made controversial remarks. He did not break stride in making a series of comments about all three issues. The decision of the presenters and producer was not to go back to challenge each individual comment as each could have led to a lengthy exchange in their own right and would have diverted from the main subject of the interview. We stand by that decision…”
Two points stand out in the above section:
(a) that because Michael White combined two controversial issues and “did not break stride” in his comments (ie he was far too quick for professionals such as they) the presenters and the producer were powerless to stop him, and
(b) that neither the presenters nor the producer thought it necessary to correct his libel against the IDF and the Israeli government at the time he made it because to do so would have led to a “lengthy exchange in their own right and would have diverted from the main subject of the interview.”
Thus we see that the BBC allows libellous statements to be promulgated and to stand because they do not have the time to devote to countering them on air as they are being spoken.
Mr Robey’s second excuse is rather more diverting. One can almost imagine him open-mouthed in sycophantic admiration of Michael White. Again I have reformatted the section so as to make it easier to read:
“..Michael White is well known as a media commentator with strong views which he often expresses in a forthright and colourful manner. We believe his comments on these matters were in keeping with his style and clearly identifiable as his own personal views. I do not believe any listeners would confuse Michael White’s comments with those of the BBC…”
OK, so let me get this straight. Were I known for my strong anti-Islamist or anti-immigrant views which I routinely expressed in what Mr Robey calls “a forthright and colourful manner” and what I said on air was in keeping with my style and clearly identifiable as my own personal views, could I count on Mr Robey’s support for me in the face of complaint, simply by dint of my “colourful manner” which was “in keeping with my style” however libellous or insulting were those views? Something tells me not.
I also doubt that many listeners, primed as they have been by the BBC and other media to look at Israel in the worst possible light would have bothered to distinguish between Michael White’s personal views and those of the BBC.
Of course I intend to make a formal complaint to the BBC as per Mr Robey’s suggestion. Watch this space.
Hawkeye
Omar2
WellofSense
Medusa
The Alchemist
Louise
Tosca
Maimon
Telling the Truth
Israelinurse
Adam Levick
Margie in Tel Aviv
Guest/Cross Post
Hadar Sela
43 comments
Comments feed for this article
January 11, 2010 at 9:53 am
richard
As regarding Libel, it is becoming abundantly clear that the ruling left establishment is pushing to have libel laws removed from the books. This will enable anybody to say pretty much anything about anything else without concern of lawsuit or punishment. In my personal opinion its a very bad omen for English society in general. When a person can accuse another of almost anything under the sun without experiencing repurcussions for outrights lies that can do damage to another, rhetoric will trump over empircal facts. This, taken together with the fact that English citizens can make a request in court to arrest international officials without any evidence of wrong doing make for a very bad combination. We are seeing the beginning of the end in the UK. Truth and Lie are becoming indistinguishable, and together with the ability of UK courts to issue arrest warrants based on one’s words and claims make this a sordid lot indeed.
January 11, 2010 at 9:59 am
Oy Va Goy
They should have corrected it after he said it but you cannot stop someone from saying something before he has said it.
January 11, 2010 at 10:35 am
JerusalemMite
Richard – In my personal opinion its a very bad omen for English society in general. When a person can accuse another of almost anything under the sun without experiencing repurcussions for outrights lies that can do damage to another, rhetoric will trump over empircal facts.
Somehow the Americans survive the outright lies.
They have more free speech than the UK.
January 11, 2010 at 11:06 am
Mitnaged
@richard, I believe that the libel laws are something of a double-edged sword and are so capricious that it is difficult for the bringer of an action to have a clear idea of whether it will succeed.
People already say pretty much anything – look at CiF – and I am thinking of the nastiness and rubbish spouted by Islamists who then are very quick to resort to the legal system they so despise if they are at the receiving end of the similar or even taken to task for the nastiness they themselves spout .
Often such cases are brought or threatened in an attempt to intimidate. Harry’s Place was threatened, (see http://www.hurryupharry.org/2008/07/10/were-being-sued-by-hamas-uk/ which, of course, went nowhere). There is a distinct double standard, no doubt fueled by fear of backlash, which allows threats fuelled by such discontents to gain momentum when most legal representatives would tell the bringers of them not to be so stupid.
@Oy va Goy, yes it is nonsensical to try to prevent someone from saying something before he has said it and very difficult (although I would argue still possible if presenters are informed and aware enough) to correct such nastiness “on the hoof” as it were. My formal complaint to the BBC contains a requirement for a retraction.
January 11, 2010 at 11:31 am
cityca
mitnaged
I also wrote and also had a very similar response. Because I was away on vacation very soon after, and as I expected my further complaint to be similarly dismissed, I took no further action.
But I also wrote to the Israeli Embassy in London and received no response at all. I honestly think that until Israel starts fighting, not just in and around Israel but also in the courts and through the media of the world, the Palestinian apologists and supporters will continue to damage the reputation not just of Israel but of Jewish communities worldwide.
Until someone as bright as Ron Prosor, Israeli Ambassador to the UK, convinces his government that the IDF alone cannot protect Israel’s reputation, its hands will continue to be tied (by the court of international public opinion) when it comes to protecting its citizens from Hamas and Hez B’Allah, and its politicians and army officers will be unable to leave Israel for fear of arrest by way of the ICC.
The Palestinians have a genius for public relations – we have to match and pass them if Jews and Israel can again get a fair hearing.
January 11, 2010 at 11:37 am
Mitnaged
I agree with you cityca about the Israeli government representatives world-wide.
In truth I doubt that I will get much satisfaction from the formal complaint I have made but at least it’ll tie up their time.
It’d be great if some of us could lobby Ron Prossor (ask him to meet with us) and lay on the line what we need from his government.
I am in London on Wednesdays until April. Is anyone up for this?
January 11, 2010 at 12:27 pm
cityca
101%.
Happy to get together with you and His Excellency any Weds. If you wear a particular hat that might get us an audience, that’s great. If not, I have a couple of people through whom I met be able to get to see him.
January 11, 2010 at 12:43 pm
Jonny Moses
Exactly right, it is only because White’s views are anti Israeli that he is described by the BBC as ‘colourful and forthright’, and not as bigoted and offensive. The BBC’s reply to this complaint exposes the latent anti-Semitism within an organisation that judges the Jewish state by a different set of standards to all other norms. Keep up the good work Mitnaged
January 11, 2010 at 1:07 pm
pretzelberg
I said at the time that White’s comments were out of line.
But you should only be protesting to the BBC if it were one of their own correspondents.
Jonny Moses
“The BBC’s reply to this complaint exposes the latent anti-Semitism within an organisation”
Oh, you must be joking. That’s insane.
January 11, 2010 at 1:09 pm
Margie
“Oh, you must be joking. That’s insane.”
Hardly
January 11, 2010 at 1:35 pm
NicoleS
Mitnaged: Well, well. I too complained to the BBC, got exactly the same reply, wrote a letter to BBC London, and again got exactly the same reply as you. Here is what I wrote back:
‘Thank you for replying to my letter but I’m afraid I find your explanations almost baffling.
‘In particular, you repeat that what Michael White said was a “point of view” and clearly identifiable as such. How can the words “in Israel they murder each other a great deal” possibly be identified as a point of view, even one expressed in what you describe as a “forthright and colourful manner”? It was a factual statement which only a small minority of listeners would know was a disgraceful and completely unfounded calumny.
‘Nor was it clear, as you maintain, that Mr White was speaking only for himself and not the BBC, since listeners could hear the presenter murmur “mmm” in agreement.
‘I cannot comment on what Mr White said about Mr Berlusconi, but if he came out with equally slanderous statements about him too that does not make what he said about Israel any more creditable. Surely in both cases the BBC had the responsibility at least to caution listeners that Mr White’s outpourings should be taken with a pinch of salt.
‘Finally, if Mr White is, as you imply, already well known for what you call “strong views” that are not meant to be taken seriously, why on earth is the BBC interviewing him?’
I have sent a copy of the entire correspondence to the BBC’s editorial complaints unit, as suggested. It won’t do any good, but I hope it will at least help back up your complaint.
January 11, 2010 at 1:55 pm
HairShirt
Why is anything which exposes antisemitism “insane” according to exiledlondoner? Does he know for a fact that White did not say what he said because Israel is a Jewish country? In Arab countries people are killed a lot of the time. To deny antisemitism when it’s under one’s nose is insane.
There’s also the not so little matter of the Balen Report which the BBC paid up to an estimated £200,000 of taxpayers’ money to suppress.
Why suppress it if the BBC had nothing to hide?
January 11, 2010 at 2:06 pm
cityca
pretzelberg
If it’s not anti-Semitism and this is still up for debate, how can the BBC defend what is clearly out and out defamation of Israel by Michael White on a BBC programme? The statement he made and which I recorded at the time and listened to more than once, was nothing less than slander. He stated it as fact and the facts he stated were not true, yet a whole bunch of BBC listeners were left with the clear impression that the IDF murder politicians with whom they disagree. And this from a supposedly reputably senior journalist, on a reputable mainstream radio broadcasting medium. It is not just a bit off – it is outrageous and cannot be allowed to continue.
I don’t know what White’s, the Guardian’s or the BBC’s agenda is, but it simply is not the truth when it comes to Israel. Their slander is having a very real impact on Jewish people around the world and is neither justified nor deserved.
January 11, 2010 at 2:11 pm
Mitnaged
pretzelberg, I complained to the BBC because the presenters of the programme did not challenge White’s lies – indeed they appeared to be agreeing with them. As I have said above, real-time broadcasting can be tricky but that should not absolve presenters from remaining at least neutral even in the face of the most outrageous comments. Not only were the presenters not neutral, they indicated agreement with White.
White’s conduct was execrable and he should have engaged his brain before he opened his mouth, unless of course, the Guardian-inspired anti-Israel nonsense in his head got past what remained of his internal censor.
NicoleS, your complaint hits the nail firmly on the head. Thank you for having the courage of your convictions. You can bet your boots that had White libelled Berlusconi, there’d have been a grovelling apology from the Beeb and White by now, to try to prevent legal action.
Given what happened to the Balen Report, the contents of which are probably held back from us because they set out the BBC’s biases against Israel, I doubt that my formal complaint will come to much.
Nevertheless, I am glad that I made it.
January 11, 2010 at 2:13 pm
Yohoho
pretzelberg, how far “out of line” were White’s comments?
Did you complain to the Beeb?
January 11, 2010 at 2:18 pm
Oy Va Goy
I wrote this about it:
http://www.oyvagoy.com/2009/12/23/the-consequences-of-smearing-israel/
And I also complained to The Guardian (which he was representing when he made the remark).
White himself emailed me about this just before Xmas. I won’t quote from a private correspondence, but it’s safe to say he sounded very rattled by the whole controversy.
January 11, 2010 at 2:28 pm
Serendipity
Oy Va Goy, you set out very clearly at the link you gave how White “believes” one thing and yet says another.
I am glad he is rattled and I hope he’s better able, as Mitnaged says above, to engage his brain before he opens his mouth next time.
The damage has been done however. An apology from the BBC for their presenter’s bias should be the very least one might feel entitled to expect.
White, however, is beyond the pale. He works for the Guardian after all.
January 11, 2010 at 2:31 pm
HairShirt
Oops meant pretzelberg, who thinks White’s comment was out of line but doesn’t explain why. Apols for confusing you with exiledlondoner. My bad.
January 11, 2010 at 3:16 pm
Jonny Moses
Laugh along pretzel boy, but I bet that derogatory and dismissive snigger of yours would be out of sight if, for example, a spokesperson for the BNP was given a regular slot in the mainstream media to peddle their unsubstantiated fantasies about the heinous crimes committed by any other racial or religious group you could care to mention. But when it comes to the offense and distress such lies cause when targeting Jews, well, it just doesn’t compute. Which begs the question; how far your own anti-Israeli bigotry has degraded your sense of fair-play and common decency.
January 11, 2010 at 4:19 pm
TomWonacott
Mitnaged
This kind of gutless commentary serves the purpose of the BBC while at the same time, if someone complains, they can distance themselves from the comments. Just another way to promote an agenda……
Very good job.
January 11, 2010 at 4:44 pm
Serendipity
Jonny Moses, if racial or religious offence is judged to be so by others than those at whom it is directed (as seems to be the case with pretzelberg and others) then it becomes “a matter of opinion” rather than fact (how convenient!) and easily enters the public discourse and becomes acceptable.
It is the case with most of those who belittle anti-Jewish racism as racism that they inveigh against other racisms. All of which, as you say, begs the question of the extent to which their sense of fair play and decency has been degraded.
MacPherson Rules should operate as much for Jews as they apparently do for Muslims and others.
January 11, 2010 at 5:12 pm
pretzelberg
HairShirt
Does he know for a fact that White did not say what he said because Israel is a Jewish country?
Presumed guilty until proven innocent??
Sadly such a perspective is not untypical on this site.
@ Jonny Moses
FYI I am not laughing or sniggering dismissively. You appear to have completely misinterpreted my comments.
January 11, 2010 at 5:56 pm
Jonny Moses
Pretzel, as I was obviously serious, your response was clearly derisory.
As for your defence of White – that we should suspend our disbelief and assume that it was completely coincidental that the state vilified by White just happens to be Jewish – when so many other countries surpass it in their abuse of executive power; naive to the point of idiocy.
January 11, 2010 at 6:02 pm
richardhutton
@Serendipity: “MacPherson Rules should operate as much for Jews as they apparently do for Muslims and others”.
The Macpherson report concerned racism – fair enough there – but it contended that when a victim of an attack perceives it to be racially motivated then it should be investigated as such – that is, investigated; not automatically prosecuted. If on investigation it is found not to be racist then it’s not going to be charged as such.
@Mitnaged: ““If you believe a serious and specific breach of the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines has occurred here”.
What precisely is your complaint? That White expressed an opinion you didn’t like? The section of audio you link to is suspiciously short, Mitnaged; and I’m more than familiar with the methodology of ‘Honest Reporting’ – which is presumably your source:
http://honestreporting.com/articles/45884734/critiques/new/Guardian_Ed_In_Israel_They_Murder_Each_Other_a_Great_Deal.asp
whose tendency is to misrepresent what somebody has said in order to attack the commentator on a personal level; and – of course – to remain anonymous all the while.
What was the context of White’s comments? What did he say afterwards? And who specifically was he talking about? Perhaps he was talking about the policy of targeted assasinations, now?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3556809.stm
or
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/08/opinion/08iht-edbarghouti.1.6056658.html
It’s impossible to tell what precisely White was referring to because the audio clip cuts off immediately after the attributed quotes.
White certainly has expressed contentious opinions on the middle east in the past, however. For example:
“Israel has done some wicked and foolish things in its short life and its endless struggle for the survival the UN accorded it, but its Arab neighbours have always sought to deny.
But it has been on the receiving end of wickedness too, compounded by consistently weak or bad political leadership among the Palestinians, the consequences of which are currently evident on the streets of Gaza again. Violence, oppression, illegality and a denial of intellectual freedom are still conspicuous characteristics of most Arab regimes, and neither Israel nor the United States can be blamed for this”.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2007/jun/01/highereducation.uk
That doesn’t sound particularly biased to me – and that’s pretty much all that White has written about Israel in The Guardian as far as I can tell.
And good evening, Pretzelberg. I hope you’re well.
January 11, 2010 at 6:11 pm
cityca
Oy Va Goy
Pleased to hear that White sounded rattled but it’s too late. As someone once said, you cannot withdraw a fart.
Now if only we can persuade the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs to legally go for people like White who issue slanderous and/or totally false statements about Israel, then he really would have something to be sorry about.
As it is, all he’s damaged is his reputation, which he seems to hold fairly cheap anyway
January 11, 2010 at 6:15 pm
RepublicanStones
Now if only we can persuade the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs to legally go for people like White who issue slanderous and/or totally false statements about Israel, then he really would have something to be sorry about.
Hang on, I thought Lawfare wasn’t allowed. Doesn’t this site look down upon the Palestinians using lawfare?
All animals are equal, but some animals are….
January 11, 2010 at 6:18 pm
Polly
BBC being advised by extremist Abe Hayeem
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JustPeaceUK/message/27866
January 11, 2010 at 6:43 pm
Yohoho
Stones, no it doesn’t. It merely looks upon the sort of anti-Israel lawfare we’ve heard about as below the belt, particularly when it’s resorted to in order to advance Islamist violence and lies. On the other hand, Jews and others using lawfare to counter those lies, to force the liars to retract publicly and against lies which can cause more deaths is quite another matter.
(Actually, it’s the biter bit, isn’t it, and that really p*sses off the likes of you. Well pro-Israel lawfare is beginning Belgium and before long… well… watch this space as they say).
January 11, 2010 at 6:54 pm
RepublicanStones
Right so yohoho, lawfare used against Israel is islamist and bad, lawfare used by Israel is good.
Like I said
All animals are equal…
January 11, 2010 at 7:06 pm
Yohoho
You are oversimplifying and being obtuse as usual stones.
January 11, 2010 at 7:08 pm
Mitnaged
@ richardhutton – I wrote to the BBC yesterday to move on the complaint. I sent a copy of the letter to Hawkeye for publication here in due course. Have patience. All will become clear.
January 11, 2010 at 7:13 pm
HairShirt
pretzelberg, have you forgotten that Michael White writes for the Guardian? Would he hold such an auspicious position there if he wrote positively about Israel and Jews?
And I suppose Zionists and Jews are presumed innocent until proven guilty at your other home are they?
January 11, 2010 at 7:24 pm
RepublicanStones
You are oversimplifying and being obtuse as usual stones.
Actually, its pretty evident that thats your stance yohoho. At least you’re honest about t.
January 11, 2010 at 7:26 pm
RepublicanStones
Hairshirt why do you needlessly conflate both Israel and zionism with world jewry?
One is an ideology ( a sick one at that)
One is a State
One is a religion.
January 11, 2010 at 7:35 pm
HairShirt
richardhutton I just saw what I presume you believe is the redeeming paragraph in an article by Michael White (not on Comment is Free but hidden away elsewhere).
You also seem to be taking your information about his slanderous statement about Israel from a recording – I assume that Mitnaged and NicoleS actually heard the programme itself, so what you say about context and the cutting out of the recording is by the by isn’t it?
The allegedly redeeming paragraph doesn’t detract from the libel, does it?
Websters’ definition of slander is
A false tale or report maliciously uttered, tending to injure the reputation of another; the malicious utterance of defamatory reports; the dissemination of malicious tales or suggestions to the injury of another.
White is employed by the Guardian, and his views are well-known according to the David Robey of the BBC. This means that the Guardian’s views about Israel are also well known. So, when White says:
In Israel they murder each other a great deal. The Israeli Defense Forces murder people because they don’t like their political style and what they’ve got to say and it only means that people more extreme come in and take their place.
we are meant to believe that he speaks with some authority – he certainly sounds sure of himself – and therefore that what he says is true, even though his statement is libellous.
That the presenter audibly agreed with White aggravates the offence.
January 11, 2010 at 7:38 pm
HairShirt
Yohoho, a word to the wise – don’t feed the stone troll. It must be long past his bed time and he gets silly when he’s overtired.
January 11, 2010 at 7:39 pm
Serendipity
richardhutton, do you think that White was in a sort of dissociative fugue state when he said what he said?
January 11, 2010 at 7:46 pm
Serendipity
stones, perhaps Hairshirt does so because they are so often conflated at the other place and wants to help you feel at home here.
January 11, 2010 at 8:11 pm
pretzelberg
@ HairShirt
And I suppose Zionists and Jews are presumed innocent until proven guilty at your other home are they?
Where on earth did you get that nonsense from?
But that comment does prove my point about you and your baseless accusations.
@ RepublicanStones
You appear to have called zionism a “sick ideology”. Are you just preposterously narrow-minded or are you deliberately being offensive?
January 11, 2010 at 9:43 pm
Zac Cormac
“Hairshirt why do you needlessly conflate both Israel and zionism with world jewry? One is an ideology ( a sick one at that) One is a State One is a religion.”
Jews have been regarded as an ethno-national group dispossessed of temple, city and land for most of Christian and Islamic history.
One consequence’s being that, in the 19th and 20th centuries, most European, North African and Asian Jews i.e. the Jews of old world Christendom and Islam, were regarded, not so much as nationally European or, say, Arab, but, rather, nationally Judean that is to say, “Palestinian”, and were either killed or effectively driven out: before 1914, mostly to America; after 1914, mostly to Palesine or what became Israel.
That is why the Jewish state of Israel is the second or largest Jewish community in the world today.
Good luck persuading them that Jews are in nowise a nation.
January 11, 2010 at 10:00 pm
canadaneil
The main issue, rasied earlier on in this thread, and also in the past by Robin Shepherd, is how to deal with this slander? Should we be suing? No I don’t think it would achieve anything.
Cityca says the following:
“Until someone as bright as Ron Prosor, Israeli Ambassador to the UK, convinces his government that the IDF alone cannot protect Israel’s reputation, its hands will continue to be tied (by the court of international public opinion) ”
That is an interesting point. Israel’s hands are tied already by the court of international opinion. Supporting Israel is not fashionable. Being pro-Israel is a bit like being a stuffy Tory on a 5-live phone in. You are fair game.
This is a long and hard battle to fight. How to change people’s core believes. It has taken a change in president to start the process with respect to the US, however I doubt that the US will EVER cease to be the great satan in many people’s eyes.
Maybe a better approach is not to expend 80% of our energy into trying to convince the unconvincable that Israel may not be as evil as all that, but to convince the quiet majority…….
January 11, 2010 at 11:41 pm
TomWonacott
Prezelberg
@ RepublicanStones
“………You appear to have called zionism a “sick ideology”. Are you just preposterously narrow-minded or are you deliberately being offensive?……..”
I hope that Republicanstones doesn’t mind me answering that question for him.
RS believes that Israel is a “white colonialist settler state” that was created to promote British and American interest in the Middle East. RS is an anti western leftist (Marxist), and, no doubt, he is an anti American. You might say that he is Pilger lite, politically.
RS uses any information available to delegitimize Jewish history in Palestine such as the book by Shlomo Sand, “The Invention of the Jewish People”. RS sees no difference between Israel and South Africa, America, New Zealand, Algeria or Australia. As a classic British colonial enterprise, he believes that Jewish immigrants planned to ethnically cleanse Palestine of every last Palestinian Arab to “steal“ Palestinian land – right from the beginning. RS supports the destruction of the Jewish state in its present form i.e., he supports the one state solution for Palestine.
To answer your question, Prezelberg, RS most certainly visits CIF Watch to offend the Jews that log in here, but he absolutely does not interpret his views as antisemitic (what leftist does?). In fact, RS views the Palestinian Arabs as the victims of the “sick ideology”, Zionism. His hatred of Jews is obvious, but he might just hate the British just as much………Yep, Republicanstones is a bitter, anti western leftist.
How did I do RS?
January 12, 2010 at 1:21 am
Margie
Mitnaged’s examplary letters and behaviour are the very bedrock of civilisation.
Pointing out politely but firmly where lines should be drawn is the role of the responsible adult in society.
This kind of blog and particularly this kind of subject are the checks and balances on the too powerful media that take it on themselves to filter information and put it in a form acceptable to them so that it tells a story that fits their own mean little agenda.