My appearance on Tamar Yonah’s show: Building in E-1, poll on Israeli Arabs & my banning at CiF


I was interviewed by Tamar Yonah yesterday on her Israel National Radio show, discussing the Guardian’s misrepresentation in reports on Israel’s plan to build homes between Jerusalem and Ma’aleh Adumim, the results of a poll about Arab citizens of Israel, and my banning at ‘Comment is Free’.

18 comments on “My appearance on Tamar Yonah’s show: Building in E-1, poll on Israeli Arabs & my banning at CiF

  1. Well said Adam. Banning you from CIF could turn out to be one of the Guardian’s biggest blunders.It continues to put itself beyond the pale.

    I have recently attempted to comment on a youtube video challenging a misquote of Herzl’s at the start of a falsumentary on “the Zionist Story”. I received an email challenging me to provide a fuller quote, which I did. The poster went into overdrive providing me with edited quotes by thinkers and Zionist leaders to make the point of how racist they were and for a while after researching each quote and giving him the full ones or contexts in which they were said or even made up, he refused to agree on anything I said. My correcting his basic misconceptions came to nothing. He was not interested in what anyone else says. He would not post my comment and that was final. This lack of tolerance is symptomatic among so-called liberal thinkers.

    Another example of this kind of intolerance to speaking freely to give an alternative opinion appeared on Question Time on BBC1 only last Thursday with Will Self and Peter Hitchins in a “discussion” about gay marriages in the church. According to Will Self, anyone who opposed it was a bigot or homophobic. There was no scope for discussing the matter, according to him. It mattered little to him as to how others who might also be sensitive to the religious implications of non-heterosexual marriage might not agree to go so far as to go so far as to sanctify a gay union ( as opposed to having civil partnerships that gave legal rights). Result: what a self-opinionated bore!

    • Dear Adam, were you able to explain that you were banned because a “pattern of abusive, trolling or offensive behaviour” was demonstrated?

    • Israel National Radio, aka Arutz Sheva… isn’t this the settler radio, based in the settlement of Bet El in the Palestinian territory, to which the Israeli government never granted a license to broadcast?

      • In 2003, ten employees of Arutz Sheva / National Israeli Radio were convicted of operating an illegal radio station during the period 1995-1998, both from inside Israeli territorial waters and from Beit El in the West Bank.

        • “In 2003, ten employees of Arutz Sheva / National Israeli Radio were convicted of operating an illegal radio station during the period 1995-1998, both from inside Israeli territorial waters and from Beit El in the West Bank.”

          So Nat, what is your point?
          (Are you implying that this interview was conducted illegally? Or are you chucking in an irrelavancy to grab attention as usually is the case?)

  2. I don’t know why Adam Levick is complaining about being banned. Does he not himself, ban people that too effectively diverge from the party line?

    • yeah, I ban people who have demonstrated a pattern of violating basic rules of commenting decency, such as threats against other commenters, or baseless, hateful smears. My CiF comments were always respectful and on topic. No comparison.

  3. yeah, I ban people who have demonstrated a pattern of violating basic rules of commenting decency, such as threats against other commenters, or baseless, hateful smears. My CiF comments were always respectful and on topic. No comparison.

    If you say so. But the Guardian says they only ban people because a pattern of abusive trolling or offensive behaviour is demonstrated.

    Problem.

    Who to believe. The editors of a quality newspaper, respected world wide or a snotty nosed full time blogging wannabe that doesn’t seem to be able to hold down a regular job.

    (This is not yet established as a pattern)

    • Armbach, what’s the matter?
      Why the sockpuppetry?
      Your previous grandiloquent handles are no longer enough for you(like RZ)?

    • “Who to believe. The editors of a quality newspaper, respected world wide or a snotty nosed full time blogging wannabe that doesn’t seem to be able to hold down a regular job.”

      What a petty, childish comment. Is that the best you can do? Your first claim isn’t true, and the second you couldn’t know. Try again?

      Let’s dress your comment in another suit:

      Who to believe. The editors of a propaganda machine, thirsting for power, ruthlessly and deviously trying to protect the last vestiges of their WASP privilege and influence while dressed fiendishly in the guise of protector of the underrepresented, or the little guy, a David speaking truth to the power of this media Goliath who wants to crush him to hide the truth of its imperialistic dream of world-wide hegemonic propaganda colonization.

Comments are closed.