You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Biased Moderation’ tag.
As comedian Jeff Foxworthy used to say during his comic musings on life in the American South, “You know you’re a redneck when….”
Well, a Guardian reader using the moniker “genuineLeft” is an Israel hater (who has characterized Zionism as a “racist, colonialist, expansionist, violent ideology” which may one day be “genocidal”) who continues to demonstrate the strong overlap between anti-Zionism and antisemitism.
Beneath the line of Rodge Glass’s rather restrained CiF commentary on the recent CST report demonstrating an increase of antisemitic incidents in the Manchester area, genuineLeft opined as follows, (a comment which received 50 Recommends):
GenuineLeft’s annoyance is clearly directed at those who “ridiculously” condemn those Jews [like Atzmon] who engage in benign, sober and constructive criticism about the threat posed to humanity by world Jewry: a group, per Atzmon, who is literally trying to take over the world in a manner quite consistent with the sinister Semitic designs outlined in the unfairly derided Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and boldly confronted by historically misunderstood prophets like Adolf Hitler.
The comment hasn’t been deleted by CiF moderators which made me wonder whether a reader comment endorsing the views of a Neo-Nazi such as David Duke (who just so happens to be a fan of Atzmon’s brave stance against the international Jewish onslaught) would similarly remain on the thread.
No, I would never, ever, of course, suggest, under any circumstances that anyone engage in the universally discredited practice of “trolling” to test my curiosity – online apostasy which would clearly run afoul of ‘Comment is Free’s’ sacred community standards – but, merely, asking a question (ahem…screenshot…ahem) that I’d love to get a definitive answer to.
Related articles
- The Guardian, Khaled Diab and the Gilad Atzmon antisemitism test (cifwatch.com)
- Gilad Atzmon takes aim at CiF Watch, accusing us of running “a Jewish supremacist site”! (cifwatch.com)
- At the Guardian’s online bookshop, antisemitism is shipped within 24 hours! (cifwatch.com)
- Guardian publishes letter by supporter of Gilad Atzmon, refuses to publish rebuttal (cifwatch.com)
- Within 24 hours of CiF Watch post, Guardian removes Gilad Atzmon’s book from their online shop. (cifwatch.com)
- Following our post & complaint, Guardian amends Khaled Diab’s CiF essay: Removes Atzmon passage (cifwatch.com)
Perhaps to fill their quota of CiF essays not viscerally hostile to the U.S., and Israel’s very existence, the Guardian published “A covert campaign is the only way stop Iran’s nuclear ambitions“, by Andrew Cummings – an adviser on the Middle East and US affairs in the UK cabinet office national security staff.
Cummings argues that a negotiated settlement needs a comprehensive strategy, including covert action, increasingly robust sanctions, along with a credible threat of military action.
The author also pointed out the following politically inconvenient fact:
“Through the Revolutionary Guards, “Iran has been responsible for increasing the efficacy of insurgent improvised bombs in both Iraq and Afghanistan. It has helped to prop up Bashar al-Assad’s murderous regime in Syria and has a track record of attempting to assassinate or imprison its enemies – both at home and abroad.”
True to form, the merry band of Iran defenders whose Guardian-style politics can be pretty much summed up as “the enemy of the US and Israel are by definition deserving of sympathy”, immediately pounced on Cummings’ heterodox pro-Western views, often leveling clear ad hominem attacks on the author which have curiously not been deleted.
(I’ve read the first 202 comments posted thus far, and would gauge those militantly opposed to Cummings’ views in the 90-95% range, many of which are openly hostile to any suggestion that the West should challenge Iran’s aspirations for regional hegemony.)
Cummings is a Mossad agent who should be imprisoned or exiled (12 Recommends, not deleted)
Another accusation that Cummings is a Mossad Agent (10 Recommends)
U.S. and Israel are terrorists and war criminals (41 recommends)
The U.S. and Israel are a blight on the human race (22 recommends)
Iran should be seen as a check against the bullying and hegemony of the U.S and its allies. (23 Recommends)
Cummings is closer to an al-Qaeda terrorist than a civilized human being (25 Recommends)
Israel is an aggressive, jingoistic country which constantly murders innocent civilians (6 Recommends)
Cites conspiracy theory, including the suggestion that Israel lobby is behind assassinations
Perhaps Israeli leaders should be assassinated (8 Recommends)
And, finally, for some comic relief, here’s Berchmans, on the secret war mongering agenda of the “buffoons” at (multiple?) anti-CiF sites!
Related articles
- On CiF contributor Jonathan Guyer’s “chilling relations” with truth, context, and proportion (cifwatch.com)
- CiF piece by Brian Whitaker on “why media believes worst about Iran” draws on conspiracy blog (cifwatch.com)
- The Guardian welcomes back Ben White, tireless campaigner for the end of the Jewish State (cifwatch.com)
- Tin-Pot Pravda: Guardian editorial scolds Israel for taking Iranian nuclear threat seriously (cifwatch.com)
- How Guardian writers file stories about life in Gaza without mentioning Hamas, without really trying (cifwatch.com)
- CiF contributor characterizes Israel’s relationship with India as an alliance based on Islamophobia (cifwatch.com)
- Guardian readers claim leading Zionists during WWII rooted for Hitler. Comments not deleted by CiF Moderators (cifwatch.com)
One of CiF Watch’s signature posts is “Why was this deleted” and, alternately, “Why wasn’t this deleted”?
We spend quite a bit of time monitoring comments beneath the line at ‘Comment is Free’ observing what precisely runs afoul of their “community standards”, and have documented scores of examples of pro-Israel comments being deleted, while some of the most hateful anti-Zionist vitriol remains.
Beyond the narrow issue of deleted comments, however, there are some commenters whose apostasy has rendered them in a state of pre-moderation – where CiF Moderators review, and then release, on a case by case basis, only those comments deemed acceptable.
The last strike for unruly CiF commenters is to have their user privileges permanently suspended due to an especially egregious violation, or pattern of violations, of their norms.
We recently documented two cases in which such a ban was employed – one commenter for merely questioning whether an essay by Sunny Hundal was consistent with Guardian editorial guidelines, and another for simply asking CiF Moderators why his/her comments, noting the Islamist (pro-Muslim Brotherhood) sympathies of CiF contributor, Wajahat Ali, were being deleted.
While the latter example seemingly demonstrates that the Guardian is not about to have their consistent licensing of pro-Islamist voices – who espouse views they evidently deem consistent with “liberal” thought – questioned, the former suggests an institution which is, at the very least, remarkably thin-skinned.
In light of this propensity by CiF Moderators to ban users for content they deem offensive, the following comment, beneath the line of Ranj Alaaldin‘s CiF essay on Dec. 22, “Iraq must divide to survive“, which has not been deleted, nor resulted in the commenter being banned, is especially curious.
Is there any question this commenter is referring to Tony Blair? And, further, is there any doubt that the commenter using the moniker “ChanceyGardener” is suggesting that Blair be killed?
Here are a few CiF standards, from their ‘Community standards and guidelines‘ page, which would seem relevant when assessing comments calling for murder:
We understand that people often feel strongly about issues debated on the site, but we will consider removing any content that others might find extremely offensive or threatening.
We welcome debate and dissent, but personal attacks (on authors, other users or any individual), persistent trolling and mindless abuse will not be tolerated.
…we do ask users to find ways of sharing their views that do not feel divisive, threatening or toxic to others.
So, the suggestion that a former British Prime Minister should be executed: “divisive”, “threatening”, or “toxic”?
You think?!
Related articles
- CiF comment, justifying antisemitism as normal reaction to Zionism: 74 “recommends” & not deleted (cifwatch.com)
- CiF commenter banned for noting that Sunny Hundal essay is inconsistent with CiF “standards” (cifwatch.com)
- Unintentionally comical CiF reader comment of the day: CiF moderators are biased IN FAVOR of CiF Watch (cifwatch.com)
- Why weren’t these deleted? CiF essay about Rosh Hashana elicits antisemitic comments (cifwatch.com)
- CiF reader comment of the day: Bashing bankers, bashing Jews (cifwatch.com)
- Guardian readers claim leading Zionists during WWII rooted for Hitler. Comments not deleted by CiF Moderators (cifwatch.com)
- Comment is Free moderators delete my comment pointing out the moral hypocrisy of Medhi Hasan (cifwatch.com)
- Anti-Zionist CiF commenter accuses CiF Watch of the insidious tactic of trying to “sway” opinion (cifwatch.com)
A CiF commenter wrote the following beneath the line of Sunny Hundal’s essay (“Privatising Margaret Thatcher’s funeral would be a fitting tribute to her legacy“) which argued that the future funeral for the still living former British PM should be privatized.
Here are a few extracts from the Guardian’s “community standards” policy
1. We welcome debate and dissent, but personal attacks (on authors, other users or any individual), persistent trolling and mindless abuse will not be tolerated. The key to maintaining the Guardian website as an inviting space is to focus on intelligent discussion of topics.
How precisely is a jokey article about a living person’s impending death consistent with this community standard?
By my count, about half the comments here should be deleted on this ground, alone. But nasty comments about somebody dying – as soon as possible – have been invited by the tone of this piece.
3. We understand that people often feel strongly about issues debated on the site, but we will consider removing any content that others might find extremely offensive or threatening. Please respect other people’s views and beliefs and consider your impact on others when making your contribution.
Again, it is hard to think of a more offensive thing than glorying in the prospect of somebody’s death. But that’s a fair characterisation of about half the comments on this thread.
5. We will not tolerate racism, sexism, homophobia or other forms of hate-speech, or contributions that could be interpreted as such. We recognise the difference between criticising a particular government, organisation, community or belief and attacking people on the basis of their race, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, disability or age.
I would have thought jokes about a very old person being about to die constitutes “attacking people on the basis of their … age”
In short:
- If you act with maturity and consideration for other users, you should have no problems.
– Don’t be unpleasant. Demonstrate and share the intelligence, wisdom and humour we know you possess.
– Take some responsibility for the quality of the conversations in which you’re participating. Help make this an intelligent place for discussion and it will be.Joking about a living person’s death is a wonderful display of intelligence, wisdom and humour, and is in no way unpleasant .
I’d be interested to see if the Guardian actually applies its own moderation policy.
Then:
Then, if you look for the user’s profile, you get this.
That’s right. A user was completely banned for questioning whether ‘Comment is Free’ was abiding to their own “community standards”.
Perhaps the paper is a little on edge in light of recent highly embarrassing revelations that the biggest “scoop” of their obsessive phone hacking coverage – which claimed, in a sensationalized cover story, that a News of the World reporter deleted messages left on the voicemail of Milly Dowler’s mobile phone – was patently untrue!
Indeed, two days ago, the Guardian published a correction, noting that no less than 37 Guardian stories had been revised due to the above false report.
And, they’re worried about a single commenter under a CiF thread, questioning whether the institution is abiding by its own stated guidelines?
Thin-skinned and hypocritical are two terms, among many, which certainly seem apt in characterizing the ethically challenged “liberal” broadsheet.
Related articles
- Censored at ‘Comment is Free’: Information about pro-Islamist sympathies of CiF contributors (cifwatch.com)
- Deputy Editor of ‘Comment is Free’ expresses concern for Ben White’s “reputation” on Twitter (cifwatch.com)
- Anti-Zionist CiF commenter accuses CiF Watch of the insidious tactic of trying to “sway” opinion (cifwatch.com)
- Why weren’t these deleted? CiF essay about Rosh Hashana elicits antisemitic comments (cifwatch.com)
- Guardian readers note CiF Watch’s presence, & object to our suggestion that blood libel against Jews is false (cifwatch.com)
- Unintentionally comical CiF reader comment of the day: CiF moderators are biased IN FAVOR of CiF Watch (cifwatch.com)
As I observed the last time I commented on a CiF piece by Wajahat Ali, the commentator plays the Islamophobia card so liberally that he even characterized the U.S. Government’s prosecution of the Holy Land Foundation (HLF) as an example of anti-Muslim racism.
Far from a racist witch hunt, the FBI prosecution of HLF for the “charity” group’s ties to terrorism resulted in five convictions - including “conspiracy to provide material support to a foreign terrorist organization (Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood), providing material support to a foreign terrorist, and conspiracy to commit money laundering”.
The case was dubbed the “largest terrorism financing prosecution in American history”.
Ali can be seen here contributing essays to the English website of the Muslim Brotherhood. One such essay included, in the “related article” section beneath an Ali piece, an essay titled “Israel is Effecting Holocaust in Gaza“.
For those unaware of the MB, you can see the group’s spiritual leader, Sheik Yousuf al-Qaradawi, in a released WikiLeaks cable, asking Allah to kill every last Jew on earth.
Undaunted, CiF again commissioned Ali to opine on American Islamophobia, in “Lowe’s pulls TV ads – and gives a Christmas gift to Target et all“, Dec. 14, on the decision by the American retail chain to pull its advertising from TLC’s reality TV show “All-American Muslim”.
While Lowe’s decision certainly seems, on the face of it, entirely unjustifiable, it’s reasonable to question why CiF would choose someone affiliated with the MB to opine on bigotry in the U.S. – especially while not revealing the author’s Islamist sympathies.
Here’s one comment left by a reader beneath the line of Ali’s commentary.
14 December 2011 1:31PM
Wajahat
I absolutely agree that it is absurd and obnoxious to withdraw advertising from All-American Muslim: a show which follows very integrated and largely non practicing Muslims in America.
A stupider or nastier decision it would be hard to find.
HOWEVER, I’m very concerned by your own politics. Here is an article you wrote in the Guardian a couple of years ago, slamming the successful prosecution of the Holy Land Foundation
The HLF trial uncovered a significant network of funding, propagandising and political fronts for Hamas/Muslim Brotherhood in the USA. Those fronts were explicitly set up for two purposes:
1. To demolish the Oslo peace initiatives; and
2. The secure Hamas/Muslim Brotherhood leadership of US Muslim community politics.
One of the most remarkable pieces of evidence in the Holy Land Foundation trial was this document, entitled “On the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America.” :
The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers, so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.
These Hamas/Muslim Brotherhood fronts included some organisations which I understand you’ve been involved with yourself.
Now look. Most people here will stand up against rabble rousing and bigotry towards Muslims. However, it really does not help to have the case against Muslim-bating made by somebody with your politics.
CiF moderator Isabella Mackie (who, for those unaware, is Guardian Editor Alan Rusbridger’s daughter) was none too pleased, writing to the heterodox commenter:
A lot of off topic comments here. The article is about an American TV programme, an American TV channel, and an American family organisation. All the comments about the Muslim brotherhood etc will be removed.
Our commenter responded to Mackie’s warning:
14 December 2011 4:45PM
Response to IsabellaMackie, 14 December 2011 4:22PM
Bella
I really wouldn’t recommend deleting the comment in which I discuss the wisdom of commissioning an article, attacking anti-Muslim bigotry, written by a writer who appears to have been a Muslim Brotherhood activist, and who previously wrote an article attacking the US Government for prosecuting the Holy Land Foundation for terrorist fundraising.
Do you not remember the Dilpazier Aslam/Hizb ut Tahrir affair?
The Guardian commissioned a writer who was linked to Hizb ut Tahrir, but didn’t disclose his extreme politics. Eventually, the Guardian dismissed Mr Aslam, paid him compensation, and put up a correction.
Now look. It plainly is relevant to this article, that the person who has written it has a background in a Muslim Brotherhood group, and has previously attacked the prosecution of Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas linked terrorist fundraising.
In fact, it is highly relevant to a very important point: namely, “are people with a background in Islamist politics best placed to campaign against anti-Muslim hatred?”
My view, and that of a lot of other opponents of bigotry and discrimination, is that they hinder the fight against anti-Muslim hatred.
Shortly after this exchange, these comments were deleted, and the commenter banned.
What this commenter was pointing out, which evidently runs afoul of ‘community standards’ at CiF, is that proponents or defenders of militant Islam (a movement whose ideology is based on hate and intolerance towards Jews and all non-believers) have absolutely no moral authority when taking a stand against racism.
A genuinely liberal newspaper would understand this painfully obvious and intuitive truth.
Related articles
I posted yesterday on an essay by the Guardian’s Brian Whitaker which cast doubt on the “question” of whether Iran is seeking nuclear weapons, and cited, as his sole source for what he believes may be Iran’s peaceful intent, a marginal, far left conspiracy blog called “Alabama Moon”.
While I’m still amused at Whitaker’s evidently serious suggestion, per the blog he linked to, that what appears to be an Iranian nuclear weapons program may actually be the Islamic Republic’s benign efforts to manufacture nanodiamonds, there were some reader comments beneath the line which are anything but humorous.
Following a commenter who asked folks on the thread who were defending Iran to consider the fact that an Iranian nuclear attack could wipe out millions of Jews – a comment which, inexplicably, was deleted by CiF moderators – a Guardian reader using the moniker “rodent”, asked the following:
And, no, if you follow the comment thread you’ll clearly see that this reader was not being in the least sarcastic.
And, yes, his/her skepticism that Iran has actually ever threatened Israel with annihilation, and seeming indifference at the prospect of millions of dead Israelis, garnered 30 recommends, and has not been deleted.
Related articles
- Guardian readers claim leading Zionists during WWII rooted for Hitler. Comments not deleted by CiF Moderators (cifwatch.com)
- CiF piece by Brian Whitaker on “why media believes worst about Iran” draws on conspiracy blog (cifwatch.com)
- ‘Comment is Free’ Land: Here be Jews… (cifwatch.com)
- When CiF commentary about the Holocaust elicits contempt for Jews by Guardian readers (cifwatch.com)
- Guardian readers note CiF Watch’s presence, & object to our suggestion that blood libel against Jews is false (cifwatch.com)
- Anti-Zionist CiF commenter accuses CiF Watch of the insidious tactic of trying to “sway” opinion (cifwatch.com)
- Guardian readers come to the defense of the tragically misunderstood Islamic Republic of Iran (cifwatch.com)
- Why weren’t these deleted? CiF essay about Rosh Hashana elicits antisemitic comments (cifwatch.com)
This is cross posted at Point of No Return, by bataween
The Palestinians are celebrating their admittance to UNESCO. They are stepping up their political and cultural campaign against Israel and could now demand membership of 16 other UN agencies.
Predictably, the leftists of The Guardian are deploring President Obama’s decision to withdraw US funding from UNESCO.
This comment by Zamalek garnered at least seven recommendations before it was removed on 2 November from the Guardian’s Comment is Free site. It is hard to understand in what way the comment violated CiF’s guidelines. Perhaps it contained too many uncomfortable truths.
“It is quite obvious that the Palestinians wanted membership of UNESCO to further their political and cultural war against Israel.
“Since the 1990s, Arafat engaged in a campaign of deligitimisation against Israel, denying the Jewish connection with Palestine, pretending that a Jewish temple never existed in Jerusalem, digging priceless artefacts out from Temple Mount and appropriating Jewish holy sites as Muslim. Thus Rachel’s tomb in Hebron was renamed the Bilal-al Raba mosque after some minor figure in the Koran.
“The Arabs have been waging this revisionist campaign to erase the Jewish character of holy sites, not just in Palestine but in Iraq, for instance. An Iraqi journalist recently pointed out that the Jewish shrine of Ezra the Scribe near Basra had been turned into a mosque although it had never been considered holy to Muslims when he was a child. The Shia Wakf would dearly love to turn the Jewish shrine of Ezekiel, with its ancient Hebrew inscriptions, into a mosque.
” Jews from Egypt have been denied access to their communal records and a Jew was recently barred from entering a synagogue in Libya on the grounds that it was a national archeological site. Synagogues and holy sites all over the Muslim world have been seized, allowed to fall into rack and ruin or converted into mosques. ”And where has UNESCO been all this time while the Jews’ priceless cultural and historical heritage is being destroyed? It is just a willing player in the Arabs’ cynical political game.”
The only reason why the shrine of Ezekiel has not yet been turned into a mosque is opposition from the Heritage and Antiquities authority in Iraq, which would rather see Ezekiel’s tomb become a tourist site. Since neither the Wakf nor the Iraqi government has any money to spend on Ezekiel’s shrine, the stand-off continues. We have drawn up a petition asking for UNESCO to prevent the site being turned into a mosque and declare the site a World Heritage site.
The Iraqi religious authorities want to turn Ezekiel's shrine into a mosque
Calls from Egyptian Jews for UNESCO to take over the Jewish communal archives have gone unheeded.
UNESCO has been silent on the uncontrolled vandalism of Temple Mount in Jerusalem and the destruction of artefacts testifying to the Jewish Temples.
UNESCO has been silent on the destruction of Joseph’s tomb in Nablus.
UNESCO has Islamised Maimonides.
In fact the only thing that UNESCO has done for us is to designate Tel Aviv’s White City as a World Heritage site in 2003!
Related articles
In the comment section beneath Jonathan Freedland’s CiF essay, “Gilad Shalit has been brought home to an Israel that has no plan for peace.“, there was this comment by someone using the moniker FreshNews:
The reasoning which informs such vitriol against Israel is nothing new to CiF Watch readers.
One of the more prolific antisemites on the far left, Gilad Atzmon – who was given a platform by the Guardian several weeks ago – has written the following:
“There is no anti-Semitism any more. In the devastating reality created by the Jewish state, anti-Semitism has been replaced by political reaction. I am saying that these acts [vandalizing synagogues and Jewish cemeteries] should be seen as political responses rather than racially motivated acts or ‘irrational’ hate crimes. If Israel is the state of the Jewish people and the Jewish people themselves do not stand up collectively against the crimes that are committed on their behalf, then every Jewish person, Jewish symbol and Jewish object becomes an Israeli interest and a potential terrorist target….we should be consistent and regard any act against Jews as a political reaction rather than an irrational racist attack.”
CiF commentator, Medhi Hasan, has advanced a similar narrative:
”...the state of Israel – created ostensibly to protect Jews from across the world from hatred, prejudice and violence – through its actions today, and through its self-proclaimed role as the leader and home of world Jewry, provokes such awful anti-Semitic attacks against diaspora Jews.”
Former Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin had a great response, in an interview by David Frost, to the question of whether Israel’s actions provoke violence:
Begin told Frost that during his youth in Poland, he asked a group of Poles why they felt a need to beat up Jews, and they responded that the very presence of Jews was a “provocation.”
As such, it is a morally grotesque proposition to suggest that the actions, or mere presence, of Israel, causes or provokes antisemitism.
While manifestations of antisemitism have varied throughout history, the one common thread which unites them all is that such bigotry existed as an a priori phenomenon, and was not informed by any particular Jewish behavior.
Modern antisemites don’t gravitate towards Jew hatred as the result of Israeli behavior.
The hatred of Jews has simply never been informed by such causation, nor any semblance of moral or political logic.
Related articles
- The “I don’t hate Jews, only Zionists” Chronicles continue at CiF: The vile logic of Slavoj Žižek (cifwatch.com)
- Jews, Israel, & the Atavistic British Left: A response to Bob from Brockley (cifwatch.com)
- At the Guardian’s online bookshop, antisemitism is shipped within 24 hours! (cifwatch.com)
- Current-day antisemitism obsessed with concept of Jews as the chosen people (cifwatch.com)
- CiF piece critical of Gilad Atzmon elicits storm of antisemitic reader comments, including organ theft libels (cifwatch.com)
- Why weren’t these deleted? CiF essay about Rosh Hashana elicits antisemitic comments (cifwatch.com)
- Andy Newman’s racist left: And, how I became a “right wing troll” (cifwatch.com)
- Jew hatred as liberal commentary: Guardian provides platform to vicious antisemite, Gilad Atzmon (cifwatch.com)
No, what follows isn’t surprising to anyone familiar with the routine anti-Zionist vitriol spewed by Guardian readers beneath the line.
However, the following still should be noted as a perfect example of how Guardian readers are able to spin almost any news about Israel in way which assigns the maximum malice to the Jewish state.
Here are some reader responses beneath the line to “Gilad Shalit exchange for Palestinian prisoners – live update“, Guardian, Oct. 18.
First, we see the beginning of a series of comments which make the almost incomprehensible argument that the deal to release Gilad Shalit in exchange for 1027 Palestinian terrorists is an example of Israeli racism! When you read the comments you’ll see that these Guardian readers evidently believe the prisoner swap of one Israeli soldier for 1,027 Palestinian terrorists is evidence that Israel deems the lives of over Palestinians as only worth 1/1000th of an Israeli life.
First example of this narrative of Shalit’s release as evidence of Israeli racism. (44 Recommends)
The convoluted logic is almost comical, as it implies that the only non-racist act would be for Israel to release only one Palestinian terrorist in exchange for Shalit. The mind spins at the moral reasoning which informs such an egregious fallacy, which fails to see that, in reality, what the prisoner exchange shows is that Israel was willing pay the moral and other costs (such as the pain such a deal will cause to the families who lost loved ones to the released terrorists) of freeing scores of terrorists responsible for the murder of 100s of Israelis, in exchange for getting one of its citizens back safely.
But it continues (67 Recommends)
And, again. This is even more bizarre. As if only a one for one trade would show that Israel views Muslim lives as equal. (5 Recommends)
Again, another nearly unintelligible rant which includes: “Zionism values Jewish fingernails over Palestinian cities”. (3 Recommends)
Again, this time it’s the Guardian which values Israelis more than non-Israels! (6 recommends)
But, there’s more contempt for Shalit and Israel beyond the bizarre theme that the deal for Shalit’s release shows that the deal for Shalit somehow demonstrates that the Jewish state doesn’t value Muslim life.
General contempt for Shalit: (10 Recommends)
The Jewish state was too cheap to take care of the 1027 Palestinian prisoners. (3 Recommends)
Reader upset more terrorist murderers weren’t released. (42 Recommends)
Rich and powerful American Zionists protect Israel from being prosecuted for war crimes. (24 Recommends)
A guest post by Mitnaged
This article is meant to complement Adam Levick’s and to supplement my previous account of a conference I attended in London about conspiracy theories. It focuses on some of the below the line comments from those who I think show signs of being drawn to conspiracy theories, particularly about Israel and Jews, in their own words.
In my previous account I summarised the main entrenched beliefs of those who are likely to fall for conspiracy theories, namely that:
Everything is evil – there is invariably an assumption of malign intent (whereas, commonsensically, some conspiracy theories may be benign);
They reach far beyond the everyday – they are invariably over the top.
They evidence indiscriminate distrust – of the government, of other allegedly powerful groups
Every official explanation is a lie – “That’s what they want us to believe” and theorists do not believe evidence-based consensus.
Everything is intended – there is the assumption of hyper-competence on the part of conspirators who are perceived to be all-powerful – and that nothing happens by accident.
Everything is significant – inherent grandiosity of any theory. (Real conspiracies are, by contrast, limited in scope)
Heroic strivings to seek out evidence – in the absence of positive objective proof
Small anomalies are imbued with crucial significance.
They are self-insulating and therefore very resistant to change, and are sealed off from impartial examination of the evidence, and they arise even before the full facts are known.
My focus is on the below the line comments to Jon Ronson’s articles on CiF about the internet There is necessarily a small selection of the comments (I could, as they say, have gone on and on collecting more but am limited by space here) which evidence their writers’ lack of insight and critical thinking, the tendency to confuse thoughts and opinions with facts and to overgeneralise from the particular – all of which leave them wide open to be ensnared by conspiracy theories if they are not ensnared already. Levick has already pointed up the role of CiF in cranking up the fears of these people and readers are cordially invited, if they feel so inclined, to play “spot the conspiracy theorist” below the line throughout CiF and to share their findings here.
Having said all that, readers should note how glad I am to have been able to include here some comments which evidence that their writers are capable of questioning and critical thought.
Dealing first with Part 1 of Esc Control on CiF:
Opportunities for paranoia begin in the first video – Ronson wants to make a film not to see whether people are trying to control the internet – his hypothesis is that they are trying to control it. Note the buzz words - “Clash of ideologies”, “secret ways to control the internet” but at least he admits that that point of view may be paranoid.
Nevertheless he plays on insecure people’s profound discomfort with “not knowing”, their lack of basic trust, their sense of powerlessness, their having an external locus of control, all of which can set vulnerable people up to see conspiracies where there are none.
And this first article succeeds in doing all that below the line, although this poster later asks Ronson for more information too:
these 
(Note that this person says he/she is not being paranoid, but note also the extreme language – that the internet has been “disabled” (but doesn’t say how) in order to “stop communication” (but doesn’t give examples).
The following may well not be from a conspiracy theorist – it’s tempting to believe that he may have a point, not least because of the lack of rant and that his assumptions are precisely that – very importantly he does not claim that they are facts:
The next is a classic illustration of how CiF article has provided the fertile ground which attracts those unhealthily inclined to swallow conspiracy theories whole. Note the reference to the ubiquitous “they” without mentioning who “they” are and how he knows that there is a “they”. Note also “Wait till it happens to you…..” without describing what exactly happened to him:
The following seems a very sane and pertinent point, in contrast to jockyscot’s. Note the wording – he wants to “explore” this “apparent” abuse of power (ie he is willing to admit doubt); and again he recognises that his is a hypothesis/supposition rather than a fact:
In the following example the poster suggests that we are all watching each other. Not strictly within the realms of conspiracy theory perhaps but this person should be careful not to let imagination become fact without proof:
H/T Margie
Us CiF Watchers “all over the world” were just waiting for the furious reaction by Guardian readers beneath the line of “Nobel Prize in Chemistry — Live Blog“, Guardian, Oct. 5, when they announced that an Israeli named Daniel Shechtman won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for “the discovery of quasicrystals“
Sure enough, we didn’t have to wait long.
Yes, the Nobel Committee is definitely institutionally biased in favor of intelligence, ingenuity, and creativity, but my guess is that this isn’t the bias Bassim was talking about.
Helpfully, another commenter asked for clarification:
Luckily, Bassim cleared it up for us:
Yes, we Israelis are f”ing the world all the time with our COLONIALIST patents and IMPERIALIST scientific & medical innovations.
It’s just kind of who we are.
Related articles
- The Conspiracy Theory Mindset and its Contribution to the Guardian/CiF World View (cifwatch.com)
- Guardian readers note CiF Watch’s presence, & object to our suggestion that blood libel against Jews is false (cifwatch.com)
- Guardian readers claim leading Zionists during WWII rooted for Hitler. Comments not deleted by CiF Moderators (cifwatch.com)
- CiF Watch Exclusive: Zionist Spy Vulture gets wings! (cifwatch.com)
- Why weren’t these deleted? CiF essay about Rosh Hashana elicits antisemitic comments (cifwatch.com)
- Guardian reader comment of the day: The Protocols of the Learned Elders of CiF Watch Zionists (cifwatch.com)
There is one thing which is certain when reading comments beneath the line at Comment is Free.
Any use of the word “Jew” or “Israel” in even the most apolitical context within CiF commentaries will almost always elicit animosity, in some form or another, from CiF readers, towards Jews or Judaism.
Rabbi Naftali Brawer’s CiF essay, “Today is the time to ask what we are needed for, not what we need“, Sept. 30, is a case in point.
The fact that Brawer’s lucid meditation on the significance of the Jewish New Year – which suggests that this is a time for all people to ask what unique purpose they have in life – isn’t even remotely political presented no obstacle for CiF readers incensed by the mere suggestion of Judaism’s value.
First, there’s this completely off topic attack on Jewish tradition, which still hasn’t been deleted by CiF Moderators.
Then there was the suggestion, by another CiF commenter, of the problem of Jewish supremacism which also has not been deleted, despite being hateful, off topic and, as you’ll see, based on one single sentence from Brawer’s essay taken completely out of context.
Here is the full passage, from Brawer’s essay, which contains the sentence the CiF reader decided to focus on.
Such as the following passage from the Talmud: “A human being creates many coins from the same die and they are all identical; the Supreme King of Kings, the Holy One blessed is He, coins all people from Adam’s die and not one looks like another. This is why every person must say ‘The world was created just for me’.”
So, do CiF moderators believe that the issue of “Jewish supremacism” is a legitimate question, and consistent with Guardian community standards?
Based on at least one Guardian report, by David Hearst, the answer would appear to be in the affirmative.
Some frank clarity on this topic is overdue.
Related articles
- Jew hatred as liberal commentary: Guardian provides platform to vicious antisemite, Gilad Atzmon (cifwatch.com)
- CiF piece critical of Gilad Atzmon elicits storm of antisemitic reader comments, including organ theft libels (cifwatch.com)
- Guardian readers claim leading Zionists during WWII rooted for Hitler. Comments not deleted by CiF Moderators (cifwatch.com)
As a follow-up to our post earlier, “CiF piece critical of Gilad Atzmon elicits storm of antisemitic comments, including organ theft libels“, we observed that some CiF readers have taken notice of our blog.
And, then there was this, by a commenter praising CiF Watch for holding CiF Moderators accountable:
Finally, here’s a comment by “wh1952″, a reader who evidently was shocked to learn that his/her pro blood libel comment was noted by CiF Watch:
Here is the comment in question, by “wh1952“, which we published in our previous post:
Yes, as you can clearly see, our blog is so politically correct that we would condemn “out of hand” the charge that Israel murders Palestinians for the purpose of harvesting their organs.
Do charges by Alison Weir (and other sensitive anti-Zionist souls) that the medieval blood libel against Jews may indeed by historically accurate, and may help explain the recent organ harvesting charges against Israel, “have legs”?
Inquiring, un-PC, open-minded, liberal Guardian Left readers want to know.
Related articles
H/T Margie
A good barometer of the depth of Judeophobia among many regular Guardian readers is observing how they respond to a CiF commentary condemning the most egregious and undeniable expressions of Jew hatred.
As such, the hostility towards Jews expressed in various forms by CiF readers in response to a commentary by Andy Newman “Gilad Atzmon, antisemitism and the left“, Sept. 25, is a perfect illustration of this dynamic.
Newman, it should be noted, is a trade unionist and contributes to Socialist Unity website. That is, he is a leftist in good standing – a fact that didn’t seem to at all protect him from a volley of hate and vitriol from Guardian readers outraged at any suggestion that there is a problem with antisemitism on the left.
Newman’s commentary focuses on Gilad Atzmon, whose bigotry towards Jews recalls the most classic expressions of Jew hatred and antisemitic conspiracy theories throughout history.
Here are a few quotes by Atzmon which demonstrate his anti-Jewish racism.
Jews trying to take over the world:
“we must begin to take the accusation that the Jewish people are trying to control the world very seriously…. American Jewry makes any debate on whether the ‘Protocols of the elder of Zion’ are an authentic document or rather a forgery irrelevant. American Jews do try to control the world, by proxy. So far they are doing pretty well for themselves at least.”
Jews were responsible for their persecution by Nazis:
“Jewish texts tend to glaze over the fact that Hitler’s March 28 1933, ordering a boycott against Jewish
stores and goods, was an escalation in direct response to the declaration of war on Germany by the
worldwide Jewish leadership.”“Jewish lobbies certainly do not hold back when it comes to pressuring states, world leaders and even super powers. AIPAC’s behavior last week reminded me of the Jewish declaration of war against Nazi Germany in 1933.”
Israel is worse than Nazi Germany:
“We have heard the comparison between Israel and Nazi Germany. I don’t like this comparison because I really think that Israel is far worse than Nazi Germany.”
As you read the CiF comments below, also note that Newman’s commentary also mentioned, as another example of leftist antisemitism, Alison Weir, who published a piece at CounterPunch defending the libels advanced by the Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet about Israeli soldiers murdering Palestinians in Gaza to harvest their organs.
(It’s worth noting that the writings of Atzmon have recently received an unqualified endorsement from John Mearsheimer, the darling of the Israel lobby- fearing left.)
Here is a sample of some of the commentary beneath the line of Newman’s commentary.
Support, to varying degrees, of Israeli organ theft libel:
Zionists support greater antisemitism, as they see it as benefiting Israel.
Criticisms of Atzmon is a cynical attempt to silence all critiques of the Jewish right wing. Commenter endorses Norman Finkelstein.
Atzmon is not antisemitic at all. He is, rather, a compassionate and wise man whose words are just taken out of context and selectively edited.
Neuman’s essay is part of Zionist neocon campaign to smear Atzmon, who is merely revealing the world’s most sinister and racist ideology – Zionism.
Related articles
- Daniel Levy’s CiF essay on Jewish voters’ concerns with US Israel policy cites influence of Jews’ media megaphone (cifwatch.com)
- When CiF commentary about the Holocaust elicits contempt for Jews by Guardian readers (cifwatch.com)
- Is it possible to “understand” Ben White’s antisemitism? CiF again sanctions opposition to peace with Israel (cifwatch.com)
- Guardian readers claim leading Zionists during WWII rooted for Hitler. Comments not deleted by CiF Moderators (cifwatch.com)
- Berchmans’ off-topic Israel hatred of the day: On the IDF and dead Palestinian children (cifwatch.com)
Hawkeye
Omar2
WellofSense
Medusa
The Alchemist
Louise
Tosca
Maimon
Telling the Truth
Israelinurse
Adam Levick
Margie in Tel Aviv
Guest/Cross Post
Hadar Sela
CiF reader sees Zionist fingerprints in international condemnation of Syria
February 7, 2012 in Comments which are off-topic, ad hominem, racist, vulgar or include threats of violence will be deleted | Tags: anti-Zionism, Antisemitism, Biased Moderation, China, Comment is Free, Guardian, Nazi Analogies, Russia, Syria | by Adam Levick | 8 comments
Though the Guardian’s editorial (Syria: Russia on the wrong side, Feb. 7), critical of Russia (and China) for preventing the adoption of a watered down UN Security Council Resolution condemning Syria for its continuing civilian massacres, didn’t - unlike David Hearst – weave Israel into the narrative, that didn’t stop committed CiF readers from unleashing their righteous anger in a Zionist direction.
Here’s a comment by “PeteLoud” on Israeli control of U.S. and (therefore) UK foreign policy:
Yeah, I know, another day, another obsessive anti-Zionist conspiracy theory. Why sweat it? Well, occasionally such Israel Obsessive Compulsive Disorder-ridden CiFers can elicit quite pithy rejoinders, such as the following:
Further, PeteLoud’s original comment hasn’t been deleted and more than a few other commenters managed to weave Israel into the conversation. So, considering that ‘Comment is Free’ has a staff of moderators whose job it is to delete hateful and off-topic comments, it doesn’t seem, based on my review of the 178 comments so far, that they’ve done a very good job.
I’ll resist my urge to use the site Wordle again, but here are the results of my quick search on the number of times the following words have been used beneath the line:
Syria: 168
Russia: 179
China: 58
Israel: 56
As China was one of the antagonists in the Guardian editorial, and Israel has nothing whatsoever to do with the broader issue, it’s fair to say the Guardian’s professional moderators haven’t done a very good job of keeping the conversation on topic.
But, the story doesn’t end here.
I clicked on the link provided in PeteLoud’s ‘Comments is Free’ user profile, which took me to his personal website. And, it looks like Peter Loud (evidently his real name) is a lover of maps, photographs, and edgy political imagery.
Here’s a snapshot of the bottom of his home page:
As if we needed further evidence that our friend Pete sees Israel as a Nazi state, here’s a passage from his site’s “Palestine page“:
The fact that three out of four of Pete’s recommended links to prove Israel’s Nazi nature are from the Guardian are, OF COURSE, of no particular significance.
Related articles
Share this: