At the Guardian, the French kill Islamist militants, while Israelis kill children.


H/T Gilad

The contrasts in language, tone and narrative focus between a report by Harriet Sherwood on Israel’s November conflict with Hamas and a recent Guardian report on the French war against Islamists in Mali represent an exquisite illustration of the paper’s egregious double standards. 

Headlines:

Here’s the headline and strapline for the Nov.18 report (and the still shot from the accompanying video) by Sherwood about one day’s fighting in a 8 day Israeli war against a radical terrorist regime on its border who had fired thousands of missiles at Israeli civilians :

gaza

Now here’s the headline and strapline from a Jan. 14 Guardian report (and still shot from accompanying video) by Afua Hirsch and Nick Hopkins about the current French war in a former colony located thousands 0f miles from Paris – waged, in part, to prevent a terrorist state from forming “at the door of Europe“:

mali

In Sherwood’s report, the deaths of Palestinian children represent the overwhelming narrative focus.  The fact that the IDF was attempting to target Hamas terrorists is only mentioned in the strap line, and even then is qualified with the word “believed”.

In the report by Hirsch and Hopkins, on the other hand, we are informed via the headline that militants are killed, while the deaths of Mali children are only noted at the end of the strap line.

Videos:

Further, the contrast in videos used by Guardian editors to illustrate each story is also quite remarkable.

First, here’s the video used in Sherwood’s report: 

The emphasis is clearly on Palestinian civilian casualties.  Also, as you watch the last few seconds of the video note how the narrator explains the contrasting loss of life in Gaza and Israel: She explains that “fifty Palestinian civilians” had been “killed” in the war, while “three Israelis lost their lives“. 

Now, here’s the video used to illustrate the story about Mali.

The first thing we see is a French military aircraft.  And, throughout the film there is no mention of the loss of Mali civilian lives as the result of French bombing.

Text:

Additionally, the contrasting narrative focus of each story couldn’t be more stark.

Here are the first two paragraphs of Sherwood’s report:

“At least 11 members of one family, including five women and four children, were killed when Israel bombed a house in Gaza City on Sunday as the five-day-old war claimed more civilian lives with no sign of a let-up in the intense bombardment.

The air strike flattened the home of the Dalou family in the Sheikh Radwan district of Gaza City, causing the biggest death toll in a single incident since the offensive began last Wednesday.”

Now, here are the first two paragraphs of the report on Mali.

“Islamist militants are fleeing major towns in northern Mali after two days of air strikes by French troops, which sources say have left scores of rebels dead.

French fighter jets have pounded insurgent training camps, arms and oil depots as the French defence ministry confirmed reports of Islamist deaths, together with at least 11 civilians including three children.”

Consistent with the headlines and straplines, the text in the report on Gaza focuses on the death Palestinian children, while the report on Mali emphasizes the deaths of Islamist militants – and Mali civilian casualties are only mentioned at the very end of the last sentence.

Moreover, out of 28 total paragraphs in the report on the war in Mali, only 7 (25%) touch on the fate of Mali civilians.

In the report on the Gaza war, out of 24 paragraphs, 15 (63%) focus on the threat to Palestinian civilians.

Finally, while the Jan. 14 Guardian report is only one example of the paper’s coverage of the French war, is there even a possibility that the suffering of civilians in the West African nation will be a significant focus of their future coverage?

While unchallenged lethal narratives about Israel ensure that media groups like the Guardian will continue to meticulously report the details of every Palestinian civilian death as the result of IDF operations against Hamas, such selective humanitarianism will prevent readers from ever learning the names of African children killed by French airstrikes against Islamists in Mali, seeing heartbreaking photos of their bodies on Twitter, or reading tragic accounts of suffering by their grieving parents.

239 comments on “At the Guardian, the French kill Islamist militants, while Israelis kill children.

  1. SO WHATS NEW??????????????????????????????????????SUPPOSE WE WOULD FAINT IF IT WAS ANYTHING ELSE

    • What CIF Watch forgot to mention is that the number of people who were killed or injured either by Israeli airstrikes and shelling, or by Hamas rockets, and the status of these victims (civilians or armed combatant) is known as international organizations have unrestricted access to the ground in both Gaza and Israel, and have verified the number of casualties.

      The number of casualties from the French airstrikes and their status (civilian or armed combatant) is unknown as international organizations have little to no access to the ground in this aear of Mali, due to the presence of Al Qaeda militants.

  2. There’s a major difference here: Israel occupies the Palestinian territory (West Bank, East Jerusalem, Gaza), but France does not occupy Mali.

    • Bloviating again, “Nat”, and dehumanising Israelis murdered by Islamic terrorists?
      You’re pathetic, even for usual trolling form.

      • Commentary 101, why are you so aggressive? Can’t you engage in a peaceful debate without insulting people? And where did I “dehumanize Israelis”? It’s not the first time that I have to remind you that Israel is a democracy, where freedom of speech and freedom of the press are paramount.

        • Come on Commentary101, answer the question. How did Nat ‘dehumanize Israelis’? Speak up.

          The organisation that most dehumanises Israelis is of course the IDF. Don’t see you calling them out!

          • The IDF is protecting Israeli lives on a daily basis.
            “Nat” suggested that Israelis killed by a deliberate Hamas rocket attack “lost their lives” — the equivalent of their being killed in an accident.
            That’s a revolting whitewash of terrorism. Your support for it is not surprising.

            • Commentary 101, rockets launched from Gaza and targeting civilian areas are a clear violation of international law.

              I NEVER said that the Israelis who were killed by rockets “were killed in an accident”, it’s absurd, they were killed by rockets targeting civilians, which is unacceptable. Every civilian has the right to be protected from violence.

              • Yes you did, TROLLING SCUM, look up-thread….
                You unreservedly supported Hamas’ war-crimes…
                Are you aware that you’re committing a felony based on Dutch law?
                Get a lawyer, troll, fast.

          • Well, that’s your opinion about the IDF.No facts and figures to back it up,I see.

            You are assuming a few things with your little accusation. First Nat is correct, they did lose their lives. Second, you assume it was a deliberate tageting. In fact, Hamas have made statements that they are aiming for legitimate military targets, so you are assuming they are lying (which is heavily frowned on in Islam of course). Third, you are assuming that Nat thinks they were killed in an accident, which he certainly didn’t say, so that’s another imputation / assumption. All in all, not very convincing. Tough luck!

          • Hamas targets Israeli cities, and is a proscribed terrorist organization.
            Are you seriously suggesting that the IDF doesn’t exist to protect Israel?
            Wow, you’re insane.

          • Ok, sure. HRW is good evidence for the Hamas claim. One assmption down, at least two to go!

            Yes, that is exactly what I am suggesting. I believe the IDF’s aggression has made Iraelis less safe.

          • “Sanity”, I think you may have misunderstood me; if you exculpate “Hamas” — a recognized, and outlawed terrorist organisation, you forfeit any possiblity of continuing this conversation.
            The fact that you would accuse the armed forces of a Sovereign state, of harming its citizenry’s security, but not the Terrorist groups who wreak the violence on them, officially qualifies you, as “Nutcase of the Day”. It was a tough call too — you and “Nat” were pretty close to a draw.
            Hopefully, you’ll find someone else to address your ravings now. I am done indulging you.

          • So I guess you believe that the armed forces of Syria, a sovereign state,are protecting its people.I guess you think the armed forces of China, a sovereign state, are protecting the people of Tibet. Ditto North Korea. Ditto ad infinitum.

            Try to think outside the fascist box, habibi.

          • Commentary 101, you seem to suffer from paranoia. No one here is “deshumanizing Israelis”, not even the Guardian, who reported from both sides of the conflict – Israel and Gaza – on the suffering of both Israelis and Palestinians.

            Any journalist learns to avoid repeating the same words in the same story by using synonyms. For instance, they will say that someone “was killed”, “died” or “lost his life”. It does not mean that they’re being judgemental.

          • “Nat”, suffice it to say, that you clearly don’t avoid repeating the same nauseating nonsense, over, and over again, which would imply not only that you’re not a Journalist, but that you’re also an imbecile.
            Furthermore, you seem completely bent on acquitting Hamas, a terrorist Organisation, from the premeditated murder of Israelis.
            But then again you’re a hired troll, so you probably have no cognisance of what you’re doing.

            • Dear Ser Jew, why are you and your alias Commentary 101 so aggressive?

              Why can’t you engage in a peaceful debate and agree to disagree?

          • Sanity: “The organisation that most dehumanises Israelis is of course the IDF.”

            What a clever boy! Don’t you just love those cuddly yids when they are cowering and powerless against their bigotted aggressors, like in the video of those religious Jews being pelted with snowballs, their religious regalia removed by the taunting, baying mob. The IDF really spoils the party for people like you.

          • So I guess you believe that the armed forces of Syria, a sovereign state,are protecting its people.I guess you think the armed forces of China, a sovereign state, are protecting the people of Tibet. Ditto North Korea. Ditto ad infinitum.”

            Oh, (in)Sanity!
            Please tell me you’re not any older than 19 or 20 at the most. Only sophomores are excused for making sophomoric comments like that that one.
            It’s the old “So I guess you believe…” tactic. Seriously, you sound like the kind of student/poseur activist going victim slumming on the Berkeley campus. You really got me chuckling with that one!
            O.K. Sorry to interrupt. Go back to sitting on your “enlightened” fat ass and pontificate about how unjust it all is while you sip your cappuccino.

          • I prefer Turkish coffe, actually.

            Jeff, since you are clearly not the sharpest knife in the box… Commentary101 argued that the IDF must be a good thing since it was the army of a sovereign state. THat was his justification. Ergo, armies of sovereign states must al be good. He didn’t add any qualifications or modifications. That’s the point I’m making.

            • That’s not quite what he said. Go back and re-read his comment, this time for meaning. He was talking about the IDF protecting the security of Israelis, and you came up with the insane notion that this was somehow comparable to saying that the Chinese army protects Tibetans.

              Don’t cast aspersions on the intelligence of others. You’re in no position to do so.
              That’s it. We’re done.

              • Jeff, Commentary101 wrote: “The fact that you would accuse the armed forces of a Sovereign state, of harming its citizenry’s security…“. Maybe he was referring to Israel only, but the form of his argument was generic not specific. If he uses clearer laguage in the future that will be better. The fact that it is the armed forces of a sovereing state is by the by. The armed forces of sovereign states routinely violate the rights and lives of their own citizens, Better arguments required. Less blinkered viewpoints also required.

        • Hey, “nat”, why are you such a coward whiner? Can’t you quit your diversion tactics? And how are your sock-puppets ariel-the-moron and hadara-the-turd?

          • Dear Ser Jew, why are you and your aliases – Commentary 101 and Matzoh – so agressive?

            Why can’t you engage in a peaceful debate and agree to disagree?

      • Today the French and the Malian army entered the city of Timbuktu, a UNESCO World Heritage site which was being destroyed by Islamist militia.

        The population was on the street to greet the French and the Malian armies, who cooperated to put an the end to their ordeal.

        It seems that their joy was not shared by Mr Adam Levick.

    • ‘There’s a major difference here: Israel has had its citizens attacked by Palestinian terrorists, but France does not face a direct threat from Mali’

      I thought I’d amend that so it was actually an honest statement.

      • I note that there is deafening silence from Elmer Phudd (aka William Hague) et al when it comes to urging restraint on the French in their war against Islamism. Israel, on the other hand, is urged to defend itself only a little bit.

    • Nat: “Israel occupies the Palestinian territory”
      Do we have to talk about the final borders again?
      And if France does not occupy Mali, why does it pound it?
      You score own goals time and time again.

      But don’t worry, Hakol Over Habibi.

      • France is not building settlements in Mali in violation of international law.

        Israel is building settlements in the Palestinian territory in violation of international law.

          • Actually, so distorted is what passes for their and Nat’s thinking that they believe, like children stuck at the magical thinking stage, that if they say a thing it must be true!

            Hence the equivalent of chewing the carpet by Nat when it proven not to be.

          • The state of Palestine was internationally recognized on 29 November.

            What Israel needs si women and men who stand for peace, it does not need delusionnal children who deny reality.

        • “France is not building settlements in Mali in violation of international law.”

          No? Just killing people? No big deal.

        • “Israel is building settlements in the Palestinian territory in violation of international law.”
          That’s your contention.

          • Just to add to that, Jeff: it’s also the contention of every international legal institution on the planet. Always worth remembering.

          • What is, say, those so-called “international legal institutions” told you to shoot yourself in the head? Would you comply?

          • “Just to add to that, Jeff: it’s also the contention of every international legal institution on the planet. Always worth remembering.”

            Sock puppet. Never worth answering.

            • “Never worth listening to bigots who produce no evidence for their comments.”

              No problem. I’ll never listen to you, Nat, or arabisraelibookreviewscokpuppet, who, by the, produced no evidence for anything, but simply made a claim about an opinion of the law.

          • Israeli settlements built in the territory of the state of Palestine (West Bank, including East Jerusalem, Gaza) are in contravention of international humanitarian law.

            Article 49 (6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention states that “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies”.

            Israel’s transfer of its own civilian populaiton into the territory of Palestine is in breach of the Geneva Conventions; as a result, Israel’s settlements in that territory are considered illegal.

            The International Court of Justice, the United Nations, the European Union, the ICRC, the reconvened Conference of the High Contracting Parties to the Geneva Conventions: all consider that Israel’s settlements in the Palestinian territory are illegal.

            • “nat,”
              You clearly do not know what “transfer” means as defined in the convention. Stop working from a cheat sheet.
              Everyone who thinks settlements are illegal think they’re illegal. Those who don’t, don’t. Both base their views on interpretations of law. But, there you go again pushing the idea that the 1949 armistice lines are borders, when they aren’t (at the insistence of the Arab parties to the conflict.)
              The borders are to be negotiated between the parties, both of whom have legitimate claims.

              • Jeff, I’ve given you LEGAL EVIDENCE and you’ve given us nothing, only your personal opinion.

                Article 49 (6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention states that “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies”.

                Israel’s transfer of its own civilian populaiton into the territory of Palestine is in breach of the Geneva Conventions; as a result, Israel’s settlements in that territory are considered illegal.

                The International Court of Justice, the United Nations, the European Union, the ICRC, the reconvened Conference of the High Contracting Parties to the Geneva Conventions: all consider that Israel’s settlements in the Palestinian territory are illegal.

                • This is no legal evidence as the territories are not that of a state, but relict, when Jordania left.

          • Jeff says that Israel’s settlements in the territory of the state of Palestine are legal.

            The International Court of Justice, the United Nations, the European Union, the ICRC, the reconvened Conference of the High Contracting Parties to the Geneva Conventions say that Israel’s settlements in the Palestinian territory are illegal.

            Who has more credibility: Jeff or these international organizations and Western governments?

            • “Jeff says that Israel’s settlements in the territory of the state of Palestine are legal.”

              Citation?

          • @ Nat

            Are you aware that you have posted 12 of the last 15 posts? Suggest you do yourself a favour and go out for a little stroll, run a few errands, go whitewater rafting etc.

      • “Why do you so aggressively defend the Arab war of annihilation against the Jews and Israel?.”

        Jeff, your comment seems to suggest that you’ve lost your mind.

        Why are you so aggresive with anyone trying to instill some good sense on this forum? Why can’t you engage in a peaceful fruitful debate, which is the basis for democracy? Wy can’t you agree to disagree with other people?

        • Why do you keep trolling? Why do you use many sock-puppets? Who pays you to disrupt this blog? Why are you such a shameless hypocrite? Why don’t you just STFU?

          • “Nat”, why are you so fragile, behaving as a fake victim when challenged? This strategy isnt working, dude.

        • From where I am sitting it is you, Nat, who are seriously compromised in the mental health department.

          You are passive-aggressive, which is much more poisonous than the “out there” argumental approach by Jeff and others, particularly when it is married as in your case with Oedipal rage.

          You are oppositional by nature and would probably have an argument with yourself in an empty room – and still lose

          • Mitmanaged, why are you so aggressive? Why can’t you engage in a respectful debate and agree to disagree?

          • Why are you so repetitive? And no, one cannot agree with lying trolls such as yourself and your sock-puppets ariel-the-moron and hadara-the-turd.

          • SerJew, all of Israel’s settlement activity in the Palestinian territory is considred illegal, and runs contrary to Israel’s obligations under the Road Map and repeated Quartet calls for the parties to refrain from provocations.

          • Changing subjects once again, eh, “nat”. Listen, if you are so concerned with so-called settlements, just move your fat arse and go join a Salafist gang.

          • Well, “nat”, methinks you are too sensitive. IF and WHEN you care for a debate, you’ll have one. Begin by stopping your repetitive trolling.

          • I love that you can’t think of your own ideas so you have to echo mine. You are a bona fide village idiot. Truly.

          • Nah, you just can’t stand tasting your own crapolla. Maybe you’ll eventually learn. Maybe not. BTW, you repetitive trolling is not quite creative, oh, great Knight of Hypocrishire.

          • Wait, was this another cut-and-paste job or just another slip of the finger? Too much semen on it perhaps?

              • Jeff, why are you so aggressive? Why can’t you engage in a respectful debate? Why do you freak out any time someone disagrees with your pro-settlement views?

                • Why do you keep copy and pasting the same regurgitated blather?
                  Trolling will eventually get you banned.
                  “Nat”, hit they road.

        • “Nat,”
          Your constant rantings suggest someone who is constantly inebriated, i.e., you speak like a drunk.

          “Why are you so aggresive with anyone trying to instill some good sense on this forum? ”
          Name one.
          “Why can’t you engage in a peaceful fruitful debate, which is the basis for democracy? Wy can’t you agree to disagree with other people?”

          “Nat,” Why do you use this tired old refrain with anyone who disagrees with your drunken rantings?
          …and, if you’re so concerned with democracy, why do you give succor and support to Arabs who are on a clerical fascist, right wing religious mission to exterminate the only democracy in the middle east, where arabs have more rights than in any arab country? Why do you run interference for an Arab/Islamic war to obliterate Jews?

          • Jeff, why are you so aggressive? Why can’t you engage in a respectful debate and agree to disagree?

            Why do you get in a fit of rage each time you meet someone who supports the two state solution, in line with the Road Map for peace?

            Is it because you know that there is clear majority among the Israeli public that supports a Palestinian state existing side by side with a Jewish one?

            Israel is a democracy. How do you expect to live in Israel if you’re unable to respect what the others have to say?

            • “Why do you get in a fit of rage each time you meet someone who supports the two state solution, in line with the Road Map for peace?”

              Who is it you think you’re talking to?
              I think you’re confusing me with some off-the-wall fantasy profile you’ve come up with for anyone who finds your rantings obnoxious. Take pretzelberg’s advice. A nice walk, etc.

              P.S. The Road Map calls for bilateral negotiations on all outstanding issues, including borders.

          • Demopaths such as yourself are not acceptable. Try another tactic, like having some honesty and truthfulness.

      • Dear Jeff, if there is one thing people have learnt in Israel, it’s how to be united despite their differences, and how to respect one another even when they disagree. I wish you could travel to Israel and learn turning differences into possibilitiesre.

    • Either dead children are dead children or they are not. Apparently, at the Guardian some are not, as long as they are not Palestinians. What on earth does that have to do with territory?

  3. “(Sherwood) explains that 50 “Palestinian civilians” had been “killed” in the war, while “three Israelis lost their lives.”

    This is a useful reminder that Sherwood is… a professional journalist.

    One of the first things you learn in journalism school is to avoid repeating the same words by using synonyms. For instance, you can say that someone “was killed”, “died” or “lost his life”.

    • “This is a useful reminder that Sherwood is… a professional journalist.”
      “Nat,”
      It’s a useful reminder that Harriet Sherwood is a paid, biased, reporter and propagandist. Being “professional” is no guarantee of anything. Professional doctors mangle operations. Professional accountants cook the books.
      You seem to be the only one who doesn’t notice what a joke your constant appeals to credentialism are. That, in itself, provides the rest of us with a good laugh.
      Your comment (as with all your comments) is a reminder that you support the Arab war of annihilation against Israel, its Jewish population, and western values of pluralism, democracy, etc.
      You know about as much about international law as my dog knows about pedestrian law.

      • “Your comment (as with all your comments) is a reminder that you support the Arab war of annihilation against Israel, its Jewish population, and western values of pluralism, democracy, etc.”

        Your comment is a reminder that you’ve lost your mind. No one here is denying the right of Israeli civilians to life – or the right of any other civilian of any other country in the world.

        • Hey, “nat”, what is the opinion of your sock-puppets ariel-the-moron and hadara-the-turd? Do they agree with you? Do you have multiple personalities or you are just a shameless liar?

          • SerJew, why do you get in a fit of rage each time you meet someone who supports the two state solution, in line with the Road Map for peace?

            Is it because you know that there is clear majority among the Israeli public that supports a Palestinian state existing side by side with a Jewish one?

          • Hey, “nat”, why are you so sensitive when your masquerade is debunked? Grow up and quit whining. Or better, go troll elsewhere.

        • “No one here is denying the right of Israeli civilians to life – or the right of any other civilian of any other country in the world.”
          Wrong. Hamas, Hezbollah, and all the criminal enterprises you carry water for “suggest” that Israeli civilians have no right to life. All annihilationist talk comes from one side in this conflict, a conflict advanced by those opposed to the existence of any kind of jewish autonomy. Why won’t you support the collective rights of Jews to rule themselves as other people do, in a state where minority rights are respected through the rule of law. Such a state exists. It’s called Israel. Why do you support those who desire its extinction?

          • Jeff, once again: you’ve lost your mind, you need help.

            I’ve never “carried water for Hamas, Hezbollah, and all the criminal enterprises”, I suspect they all have running water at home.

            Why do you get in a fit of rage each time you meet someone who supports the two state solution, in line with the Road Map for peace?

            Is it because you know that there is clear majority among the Israeli public that supports a Palestinian state existing side by side with a Jewish one?

            Why do you spend your time insulting others? Is is because you’re unable to articulate your thoughts?

            • “Why do you get in a fit of rage each time you…” blah blah bla ad nauseam.

              Why do you keep copying and pasting your own previous comments. Take a break. Think of something new to say. And try to be honest. You’ll feel better.

          • Nat there is deffinately a majority of Israelis who are for a Palestinian state to be created next to Israel.
            They defer between some who believe it should follow 67 borders to the cm, others who believe in various land swaps and some who believe that Jlordan should be renamed in to Palestine.
            Together they make most of Israelis.
            The rest probably didn’t vote on the question.

          • “some who believe that Jordan should be renamed in to Palestine”

            Itsik, would you accept to rename Israel in to Palestine?

            No?

            So why do you want Jordan to be renamed in to Palestine?

            Israel, Jordan and Palestine are three separate states, pretty much like Italy, France and Spain.

            Denying the existence of the Palestinian people is childish ans runs contrary to Israel’s commitment to the Road Map for peace and its two-state solution. Both the Israeli and the Palestinian peoples have the right to live in their states without being harassed by extremists denying their very existence.

            • “Israel, Jordan and Palestine are three separate states, pretty much like Italy, France and Spain.”

              Not quite. But thanks for playing.

          • There’s no such thing as a “palestinian” state. Why you keep lying? Who pays you for this shameless trolling? Now, go change subjects once again.

          • SerJew, the state of Palestinian state was internationally recognized on 29 November at the United Nations in New York.

            Denying the existence of our neighbor is not only childish, it also endangers peace and contravenes the Road Map for peace.

          • Hey, “nat”, spreading lies is bad, bad, bad. Why are you addicted to it? What’s wrong with you? Were you molested by a priest? Open your heart to us.

            • SerjJew, you’re like a little child who’s so scared of the world that he constantly denies reality. The state of Palestine was internationally recognized at the UN in November. You can deny it as much as you want, but it’s not gonna change.

              Real men don’t behave like children, real men are real men because they have the courage to confront reality.

              • So when will you own up to yourself, that you’re a paid troll, and that what you do is akin to prostitution?
                “Be a man”, “Nat”.

          • SerJew, that is not an adequate answer to the question of the UN recognition of Palestine as a “state”. Either you are more of a village idiot than I thought or you know you’re wrong. Or most likely both.

          • Who the heck are you to decide what is an “adequate” reponse to an anti-Semite like “nat”? You are a moron indeed.

              • Can you please outline the evidence for me being an antisemite, especially since I have been opposing antisemitism, criticising people for using antisemitic tropes here, etc.

                • To prove your case you should: 1) show how I “identify” with Nat (specify what you mean by “identify” and prove that I do it) and 2) show that Nat is an antisemite.

                • You never criticize “nat”, a proven anti-Semite. You defend “nat”. So, oh Knight of Hypocrishire, the plausible conclusion is that you condone “nat”s judeophobic views and you are a Jew-hating racist yourself. Now, YOU drop your Soviet commissar BS and your shameless sanctimonious pseudo-racist crusade.

                • I’ve shown you how to structure an argument and a proof. The fact that even with this leg up you can’t manage is revealing. So let it be known that when SerJew was asked to prove his allegagtion that Nat is an antisemite he was unable to do so. QED.

                • “a proven anti-Semite” “judeophobic views” “Jew-hating racist”

                  Serjew, you seem to hae completely lost your mind. YOU NEED HELP.

                  Are you aware that libel is a serious offense? Why do you seem to be intellectually unable to engage in a respectful debate with people who defend the Israeli democracy and disagree with your far rightist views?

              • Jeff, how do you insult the memory of the millions of Jews who died at the hands of the Nazis in the 40s?

                Accusing everyone who disagrees with your far right wing, extremist, pro-settlements views of being an “antisemite” is a disgrace.

          • His obsession with Israel and only Israel; his relentless lies and double-standards; his demands of perfection from Israel only; his use of nazi-analogies. It all fits even the EU definition of anti-Semitism. And you keep defending him. So much for your anti-racist credentials.

            • I have NEVER, EVER used “Nazi analogies” to speak of Israel.

              SerJew, the real issue seems to be that you feel intellectually unable to engage in a respectful debate and to articulate your thoughts when you come across people who stand for the Israeli democracy and who disagree with your far rightist view of the world.

          • Could you please outline where he has claimed to be “obsessed with Israel” and where he has demanded perfection from Israel and Israel only?

          • Give us a break. Quit feigning stupidity. Or are you really that stupid? Ideologues like you rarely declare they are haters. But “nat” is blatantly obsessed with Israel and Israel only and his double-standards and hypocrisy (like yours) are abundantly clear. So, why dont you never call him a racist? Maybe because you think just like him and are a racist yourself?

            • Serjew, you need help. You need urgent help. You need to learn RESPECT and you need to learn how to engage in a respectful debate with others, even when you disagree with them.

          • If it’s so “blatant” you’ll easily and quickly be able to point to the evidence! A few links would be nice!

          • Basically ALL his posts. You really is on “nat”s side because you idenfity with his racism. This is perfectly in tune with your repulsive hypcrisy.

          • Bt the majority of your posts on this site are about Israel. I guess you too are obsessed with Israel. I guess you too must be an antisemite. In fact, your Nazi analogies walk the line, so I may be closer than I at first thought.

            Please, give some REAL EVIDENCE about Nat. Put up or shut up.

          • This blog is about the Guardian obsession and delegitimization of Israel. Moreover, “nat” is not only obsessed with Israel and Israel only (almost like you) but his double-standards and lies reveal a blatant anti-Semitism. But of course he won’t sign a document declaring he´s one. Even Hitler once said he had nothing against Jews per se. Are you that moronic? Good grief, you are such a prototype of anti-racist racist. A case study.

            • You and Maztoh Maker come on this site an make Nazi analogies which are offensive, inappropriate and basically racist and then you have the cheek to call other people racist, and do so without evidence. You whine like a little boy “it’s ALL his posts!!!” but can’t actually cite any single one or any group of them. You are a little twat really.

            • SerJew, you need to seek help from a psychologist. He or she can help you learn how to speak with others without insulting them.

              You have the right to disagree with me when I defend the Israeli democracy and the two-state solution . However you do not have the right to insult and/or defame me or anyone else.

    • Correct, Nat, but when the choice is to use the active word “killed” which implies violent death brought about by the actions of another for one group of people, and “lost their lives” which is a passive word and carries implications either that the deaths were accidental, natural or somehow blameless, you generate a specific impression that one group’s deaths are somehow more despicable than the other’s – which is, of course, precisely why Sherwood used them in this way.

      Of course, in actual fact the reprehensible nature of the deaths was almost entirely inverted. The Israeli civilians were deliberately targetted by a proscribed terrorist organisation. The Palestinian civilians died because they were used as human shields by that same terrorist organisation.

      However, if you are looking for non-judgmental, neutral pairs of synonyms, how about these: “died” and “lost their lives”; or “slaughtered” and “massacred”.

    • If anything proves that you are deluded, Nat, it is your belief that Hattie Sherwood is a professional journalist.

  4. CIF Watch did not take the time to read both articles it seems.

    Sherwood reports that “Israel bombed a house in Gaza City”.

    Hirsch and Hopkins report that “French fighter jets have pounded insurgent training camp”

    Pounding an insurgent camp is NOT the same thing as pounding a house. A military target is a legitimate target, a house is not.

    • Nat, it’s very simple: CiF Witch(Hunt) considers Gaza to be a terror camp (though it’s more like a prison camp, as you and I know). Hence this explains the apparent cognitive dissonance!

        • On the contrary, I completely oppose France’s action in Mali. (Though it was at the request of the Malian govt, I still oppose it.) This should have been a UN mission, not a unilateral one, and should not have involved offensive action, rather peacekeeping. That clear for you? Disagree if you like, but don’t try to smear me as racist.

          • Maybe YOU should quit smearing others as racists before whining. BTW, do you have anything else to do besides whining? And who is your employer?

          • Sanity: Yeah, the UN, did such a good job ‘peacekeeping’ in Rwanda, Cambodia, Bosnia etc. I’m sure you’re anti-racist credentials will go down really well in Kigali. But who gives a fuck about the Tutsis anyway? – certainly not the UN, what really counts is how many points you get at the next parochial SWP meeting. Isn’t it great to feel good about yourself! A paragon of humanist, anti-racist, progressive virtues, and so morally superior to your average Zionist.

          • Should I? I don’t protest on the streets for anything else. I’m not a member of the SWP. I usually vote Republican. Just because the UN has had failures, doesn’t mean that other countries should be able to invade others. The world is fortunately becoming more civilised (IDF not withstanding) and so most people are hoping for a reduction in the use of indiscriminate bombing campaigns.

            • “The world is fortunately becoming more civilised (IDF not withstanding) ”

              A blatant lie (on all counts) from a vulgar, insipid, and insane hater.

                • “Israeli Dehumanization Force?” Outing yourself yet again, fake anti-racist.

                  Nothing in your comment supports your contention. It’s just one more misrepresentation by you.

                • Yes, since I believe teaching adoloscents about how to be violent is a bad thing, and I believe that doing so dehumanizes people, and because I apply this equally to Israelis, that must make me a racist. Either that, or I’m a rational anti-violence kinda guy, and you are a wannabe fascist. I know which one fits the evidence best!

          • I should point out that “frog” is an offensive racial epithet. It’s of course not the first time that you have resorted to such language. But I guess the moderators of this site will give you a free pass once again.

            My employer is none of your business. However, if you guess it correctly I will tell you so. I believe in people who run political campaigns being transparent about their funding sources. If and when I run a political campaign I will hold myslef to that same standard.

          • Frog, racial term?
            Last time I checked my French nationality is identical to the many other French nationals but our race is very different.

            It is a derogatory term if anything.
            not the same.

          • “My employer is none of your business.” Sanitary

            Great. So is this private blog’s finances. Your trolling about it is pure diversion, because you do think this blog is successfully poking at the lies and distortions of your loved Der Grauniad.

            As for the frogs, I knew you would whine about it. And moderators give you free pass to your accusations, lies, trolling and plain vulgarity. Whining and lack of character are your trade-marks.

          • Again, denying your racism. Perhaps you think it’s ok to call Israelis ‘yids’? Or perhaps Nigerians ‘coons’? Or perhaps Chinese ‘chinks’? Your racism-denial is odious.

          • Ha! Finally you enter your self-righteous mode, eh? That’s what makes you feel soooo good inside, eh? The lone crusader fighting against evil Zionists…by trolling. What a pathetic joke. Hey, who’s paying you?

          • i’ve never used the term “Zionists” on this site. Please point out where. Otherwise I think you should apologise for saying that I am somehow concerned with Zionists.

            I oppose racism whether it’s anti-Jewish, anti-French, anti-Nigerian. The lot. You on the other hand propagate racism through your odiousness. You are utterly repulsive.

          • You are entitled to your idiotic opinions, oh great Knight of Hypocrishire. But then, you’d be criticised for them. That’s democracy. Put up or shut up (oh, am I intimidating you?). As for apologies, you are the one in debt for you relentless trolling, “racist” accusations and hypocritical-hysterical tantrums. Of course, you totally lack character and self-criticism to recognize your comic little theatre.

          • Sanity: “Just because the UN has had failures…”

            Yeah, just because… Like I said, go to Kigali and tell them there. Or is
            it too far? You can always just sit on your fat sanctimonious arse and spout your bile at the yids, parading your superior credientials. Funny how your liberal bullshit makes fine bedfellows with fascist, racist and genocidal regimes, where you can scratch each other’s backs and commend yourselves how progressive you are, but to anyone who suffers under such tyranny you are, and always will be, completely offensive.

      • “Nat, it’s very simple: CiF Witch(Hunt) considers Gaza to be a terror camp (though it’s more like a prison camp, as you and I know).”

        If that’s the case, (in)Sanity, you might want to petition it’s warden, Hamas, to set its prisoners free. Mind you, don’t do it up close and personal – they’ll brand you a “collaborator” and drag your carcass through the streets behind a motorcycle.

        By the way, the “prisoners”, enjoy a higher standard of living and better general health and longer life expectancy than the “liberated” people of Egypt, or most neighboring states. And they have freedom of I-hate-the-Jews speech. Your kind of place for sure. Maybe you, “Nat” and his sock puppets should think of emigrating. Sounds like your kind of town.

      • Sanity,
        If you don’t like CiF Watch, maybe you should go back to Cesspit is Fragrant and remember to breathe deeply.

    • You left out the “Oil Depots”.
      Now why would they pound these?
      When are you going to start crying “Collective punishment” like you did about Gaza’s blockade?
      A house is not a target? Even when militants hide in it or use it as a weapon cache?
      How do you know that some of these “training camps” were not inside schools, parks or holiday clubs?

    • Surprisingly, this “insurgent camp” contained the “at least 11 civilians, including 3 children” who were killed/lost their lives in this incident. That is because an “insurgent camp” is simply a village/town occupied by Islamists AND THEIR FAMILIES which they use as a base for training etc. It will include all the usual faciltiies, such as a school, medical centre etc. So actually, bombing “a house” which intelligence tells you is where a terrorist is, is far more responsible than indiscriminately “pounding an insurgent camp”.

      Thanks for coming.

    • So you wouldn’t be in favour, then, of urging restraint on French forces in Mali? They are killing Muslims.

    • I believe CiF asks for unbiased reporting.
      Why do you believe they care or don’t care about Islamists?

      • CIF Watch does not ask for unbiased reporting, CIF Watch criticizes the Giuardian for not reporting in line with their own right-wing, pro-settlement ideas, even if such an ask contradicts the principle of freedom of the press which is paramount in Israel.

        • And even when the Guardian is a UK newspaper protected by UK freedom of speech laws, and as far as I can tell, Adam Levick does not have any connection to the UK.

          • “Adam Levick does not have any connection to the UK.” So what? The days are long gone when a media outlet’s influence is defined by national borders. Are only British people are allowed to complain about British media? That’s a very nationalistic (or should I call it a ethnonationalfascistic in sanity lingo) approach to take, isn’t it?

          • In fact – as far as I can tell, the Guardian does not have any connection to Israel or the Palestinians. So what business does it have spouting off about their business on a daily basis? That seems to be your point, Sanity.

          • That’s actually a good point. Mr Levick is an American citizen who moved to Israel where he spends time criticizing a UK-based newspaper. An unusual career path.

          • Labenal, the Guardian is a daily newspaper whose professionnal journalists report from all over the world, including Israel and Palestine. CIF Watch is Mr Levick’s private blog and is not written by professionnal journalists. I’m not sure that comparing a major daily newspaper to a private blog makes sense.

          • Nat. I am sure we are all truly inspired by your undying respect and admiration for everything the Guardian’s professional journalists have ever written, but there is no reason why its status as a national newspaper should prevent it being criticized by a blogger, journalist, teacher, politician, street-sweeper, anarchist, Jew, atheist, cyclist or Islamist of whatever nationality or none! That is quite simply the point, and your failure to “get it” is becoming irksome.

        • An unusual career path.

          Good grief…your envy thing is corroding you, eh, “nat”? So, tell us about YOUR “career”. You live in Holland and troll for a living, like an online whore?

  5. How is this site funded? Is anyone employed full or part time to work on this site? Whether by another organisation or by the site itself?

    • Use the contact Us tab at the top to find out (as you’ve been told time and time again).
      Troll.

        • “How do you know I haven’t tried already and not received an answer?”

          You sound like a little girl in a pissing contest.

        • Sanity, I don’t know.
          But repeating it here rather than taking it elsewhere equals trolling.
          G’day.

          • BTW Sanity, did n’t you just write the following:

            “I believe in people who run political campaigns being transparent about their funding sources. If and when I run a political campaign I will hold myslef to that same standard.”

            Is Adam Levick running a political campaign, or are you suffer from double standards syndrome?

        • CiF Watch is a sight more credible than Al-Grauniad, Nat
          Have you asked al-Grauniad where its funding comes from or are you too much of a coward?

          • The Grauniard is transparent on its funding.

            CIF Watch is not transparen, Mr Levick has so far declined to comment on where its funding came from.

            The Guardian is part of the GMG Guardian Media Group of newspapers owned by The Scott Trust, a charitable foundation existing between 1936 and 2008, which aimed to ensure the paper’s editorial independence in perpetuity. At the beginning of October 2008, the Scott Trusts assets were transferred to a new limited company, The Scott Trust Limited, with the intention being that the original trust would be wound up.

            • The Guardian is a newspaper, and most likely, must disclose this information. CiFWatch is a PRIVATE BLOG. Figure it out.
              By the way, charitable foundations have donors.

              • From the minute when CIF Watch decided to “monitor” the Guardian, it has the moral obligation to be a transparent as the Guardian and to disclose its own sources of funding.

                Otherwise, how can we know whether CIF watch is a serious blog, or a blog launched by people who failed to get a job at the Guardian and are now seeking revenge?

          • As I’ve said, my position as a commenter on this blog is not analagous to writing a blog (affiliated with a professional organisation, camera) and waging a political campaign in the United Kingdom. That is all.

          • Does anyone else notice the irony of Nat and Sanity’s twin obsessions?

            1. They demand that CifWatch reveal their funding, because (for instance) the Guardian does.

            2. They say that CifWatch is not a professional body, and Adam Levick is not an accredited journalist, so he has no right to criticize the Guardian which, by contrast is a well-respected professional organ.

            Trying to have your cake and eat it, Nat and Sanity?

            • Labenal,

              Of course we notice it. Only Sanity and “Nat” don’t notice their own brand of rarified hypocrisy. That’s the joke.

          • You fancied yourself as moralizing race-defiling crusader. Hence, you are liable to scrunity for your credentials. That’s all. So, who’s your employer? What are you so afraid of?

          • I can’t speak for Nat, but you have not accurately described my position. I have said that I don’t know whether this site is amateur or not. I cannot know because no one has declared it. I suspect that this site does not make money (it doesn’t carry advertising) so either Adam Levick has another job and therefore does this on the side, or perhaps a generous donor gives him money to maintain the site. Or perhaps he’s on Israeli welfare. Or perhaps something else entirely.

            Adam Levick is perfectly at liberty to criticise the Guardian. I couldn’t care less. I think he’s often wrong, but people can and do disagree. Not a problem. I don’t like how he allows racism against Muslims, French and even Jews BTL. I think it’s disgusting, whether he’s amateur or just amateurish is not the point.

            • ” I don’t like how he allows racism against Muslims, French and even Jews BTL. ”

              I don’t like the way he allows you to post your racist and slanderous drivel about all things Israeli BTL. He’s obviously a liberal and tolerant man who believes in freedom of speech. Quite a contrast to the totalitarian leanings of the Guardianistas.

              • Please outline where I have written anything racist.If you can’t, retract that statement immeditately.

            • Sanity: “Adam Levick is perfectly at liberty to criticise the Guardian. Not a problem. Whether he’s amateur or just amateurish is not the point.” Well said, Sanity. Precisely (apart from the assumption that Adam is amateurish – I think he does a fantastic job, though of course he is fallible as all of us are). The state of Adam Levick’s finances, and the source of funding of CifWatch is NOT THE POINT. What is far more important is the CONTENT of the articles he publishes.

              Now, can we PLEASE stop the pointless discussions about who funds CifWatch?

              • You’re right, the content is important.It is vitriolic and aggressive, often wrong, and makes many incorrect and unjustified assumptions. That is is of course important.

                I also have no interest in Adam Levick’s personal finances. He can spend money on the Guardian, penny sweets, hard core porn (IDF frat party, or Liberman bondage variety) or whatever he chooses, it’s none of my business.

                However, I’m interested in the source of money, as should you be, which funds this political campaign against the Guardian. And that is a legitimate question, and it is the other half of the point.

          • Give us a break! One second you say you couldn’t care less, the next your obsession with this blog surfaces. And all of that is jusfified by your psychotic delusions of grandeur, as you seem to be enthralled by the ridiculous self-styled crusader. You are the Great Sanctimonious Knight of Hypocrishire.

        • “Transparency is key to credibility.”
          “Nat,”
          Not so fast. You’re transparent, yet you’re not credible.

          • Jeff, SerJew, transparency is key to credibility. That’s why all major media and NGOs disclose where their funds come from.

            Considering that CIF Watch criticizes the Guardian, it should be as transparent as the daily and disclose where their own funds come from.

            Don’t you find it strange that CIF Watch does not disclose who is funding it to monitor the Guardian?

          • Hey, “nat”, honesty and truthfulness are key to credibility. That’s why you and Der Guardian have none. Thats democracy, dude.

  6. Nat’s ignorance and prejudice make him an ineffectual though irritating gadfly. The fate of gadflies is to get swatted.

    • Drew,

      By this time “Nat’s” arse has as usual been beaten beet red, and he loves it, and can’t wait to come back for more tomorrow.

  7. Obviously the oil funds are getting to their end when desperate Antisemites like Nuts are asking for sources. :-)

      • “Nat”, your inability to engage in meaningful, honest and truthfull debate is nauseating. Just go away. Go back to your CiF cesspool.

        • Can you please outline your case with evidence as to why you think Nat is “an antisemite”? Don’t sling around accusation like that without evidence please.

          • In your case it’s the use of the offensive racial epithet “frog” to describe French people and the use of Nazi analogies in discussing the Israel / Palestine issue and the actors involved.

          • Back to the sanctimonius Knight of Hypocrishire. Your just love to call people “racists”, eh? It seems to energize you and make you feel so self-righteous. Meanwhile you can’t notice the blatant hatred of the likes of “nat”, which you keep defending. You’re just an ideological robot.

          • You’ll notice that I give specific reasons and evidence for the positions I take. You on the other don’t. That’s why I’m smart and you’re a village idiot. Or you are four years old, perhpas. Mental age?

            • “You’ll notice that I give specific reasons and evidence for the positions I take.”

              On the occasions that you actually do, they’re distorted and misrepresentative as in the case of Commentary 101’s exchange with you and “Nat” about the IDF’s mission (see above). You slandered the IDF (see above; there was no hard evidence to back your claim, and there is none, only manufactured misrepresentations, i.e., obscurantist propaganda). You misrepresent facts, you misrepresent people’s positions. You are a fabricator and a phony.

              • Nothing new concerning Sanity ,or Alex, or Nuts, or, ..
                They all come up with fakes and fabricated stories demanding a respectful discussion of their lies.
                Only bizarre.

          • Once again, your psychotic delusions of grandeur and superiority. You are so transparent that’s even pitiful, though it’s mostly funny.

          • Did you already stand the duck test?Notihng against it that an Antisemite comes to the rescue of his buddie.

  8. Pingback: “Honni soit qui Mali pense !” | Augean Stables

  9. Yep! Operation Cast Lead resulted in more than 300 children dying for the sake of Israel and its security. Well done! 300 fewer terrorists to worry about. Chances are that the French have also ‘taken out’ some kiddies with their ever so surgical and smart strikes against Islamic Terror! Well done France,I can sleep even easier tonight!

    ________________________________

    • Yeah, snotty, war sucks, doesn’t it? That’s why you should whine at your Hamas gangsters because THEY decided to start it (hey, destroying Israel is their fundamental aim). Maybe you should quit your confortable hectoring and try instead to convince islamofascists with your pathetic babblings; who knows, they might listen to you (after impaling your infidel arse).

  10. Pingback: Hasbara El Salvador - ReVista de Medio Oriente – 12/2/13

Comments are closed.