Guardian

If my MEMRI serves me well….


Recently we pointed out how Brian Whitaker – commissioning editor of CiF – slurs pro-Israel posters there.

Unfortunately this is not surprising. Whitaker is the Guardian’s leading Arabist. He was the author of the famous “Selected MEMRI” article in 2002.

In that piece, Whitaker attempted to demonstrate that MEMRI was not only guilty of faulty translation but was also a propaganda arm of  Zionist interest colluding in the dusty back rooms of some  Washington lobby. He tried to debunk a story about Saddam Hussein ordering the ears of deserters to be cut off. This has been related by a former Iraqi Army Medical officer.

Needless to say, soon after the article was published, the Guardian was forced to backtrack. Indeed Saddam had given orders for ears to be severed. The correction is at the bottom of the archived article.

In an article headed Atrocity stories regain currency, page 13, August 8, and in an article headed Selective Memri on the Guardian website, we referred to Dr Adil Awadh, an Iraqi doctor who alleged that Saddam Hussein had ordered doctors to amputate the ears of soldiers who deserted. Dr Awadh has asked us to make it clear that he has no connection with Memri (Middle East Media Research Institute), and that he did not authorise its translation of parts of an article by him. He is no longer a member of the Iraqi National Accord (INA). He is an independent member of the Iraqi National Congress (INC). His reference to orders by Saddam Hussein to cut off the ears of deserters has been supported by evidence from other sources.”

It is a question in itself why Whitaker would want to research and dispel such a story to begin with. After all, it is one of hundreds evidencing the morbid brutality of Iraq’s former dictator. Perhaps Whitaker wanted to dispel the notion that Saddam was a maniacal sadist and thus should have been left to stay. Who knows. It is now history – as is Saddam Hussein.

Also in the article, Whitaker quotes Ibrahim Hooper, the executive director of CAIR, which has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and was an unindicted co-conspirator with the Holy Land Foundation, a US local branch of Hamas which was shut down shortly after 9/11 for terror funding linked to the Gaza Islamist group.

So Whitaker parades Hooper to try to demonstrate the fallibility of MEMRI:

“Memri’s intent is to find the worst possible quotes from the Muslim world and disseminate them as widely as possible.”

Those words become the thrust of the article.

The irony of quoting an individual from an organization which has refused to condemn Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorist organizations, to denounce MEMRI, is only lost on the avid readers of CiF and perhaps of Whitaker’s other endeavour, Al-Bab

Al-Bab aims to introduce non-Arabs to the Arabs and their culture. Western explorers of the 18th and 19th centuries portrayed the Arab world as a strange, exotic and sometimes terrifying place. Al-Bab seeks to portray the Arab world neither as an object of fear nor as a cultural curiosity – fascinating though it may be.”

Shooting the messenger is an old tactic, already well dealt with seven years ago here.

But shooting from such a frail glass house as Whitaker’s seems blatantly hypocritical, as outlined on Grasshoppa also in 2002 (near bottom, scroll down to August 13 2002).

It seems that Whitaker’s research into MEMRI is about as thorough as his research into pro-Israeli posters on CiF.

Last week Whitaker was back again, posting once more to denounce pro-Israeli posters. This time the issue was Human Rights Watch and whether they receive Saudi funding or not.

BrianWhit
10 Sep 09, 1:54pm
Staff
Are you suggesting that HRW is not heavily biased against Israel?
MiltonKeenest:
Yes. HRW, by the nature of its work, gets complaints from all sides – which probably demonstrates that it is doing its job quite well. In the Arab countries people complain that HRW is a pro-Israel organisation.

True, that HRW doesn’t get funded by the Kingdom of SA. Also true they are not funded by the Nazis either, yet their head military expert deployed to investigate Gaza is a Nazi fetishist. Or politely, Nazi memorabilia collector, who doesn’t even shy away from wearing a sweatshirt sporting the Iron Cross.

Perhaps Arab countries still consider HRW to be “pro-Israeli” but I am not convinced anybody else would.

And then my MEMRI was once again refreshed, but this time by none other than the famous Jonathan Cook, CiF contributor and has featured on more than one occasion on David Duke’s website. [Warning: neo-fascist/neo-Nazi web site, racist filth, be warned]

Ironically it is through the prism of Jonathan Cook that we are allowed to peek into the coulisses of CiF Management.

It appears that Cook penned a piece for CiF furthering the blood libel allegations regarding the IDF trafficking in stolen Palestinian organs but was rejected by Georgina Henry for lack of verifiable facts.

So Cook published his correspondence with Henry alleging that she was acting under the fear of appearing antisemitic:

…”Baffled by the reasoning provided by Henry in her rejection email, I engaged her in correspondence. Her initial willingness to respond looks generous but actually is driven, I suspect, by the need to persuade me, a former Guardian journalist, and herself that she is doing a reasonable thing in refusing my article. My polite but irritating suggestions that her own words imply that she is rejecting the piece not on its merits but out of fear of the expected backlash, as well as my requests that she explain which facts in the story need “100% independent verification” (a very unusual demand of an opinion piece), quickly lead her to shut down the debate..

So was this an opinion piece?

Judge for yourselves here .

The interesting anecdote in Cook’s correspondence with Henry is Whitaker who, according to Cook, has supported running the piece in CiF:

…Brian Whitaker, who had first received the piece and is the paper’s former Middle East editor, clearly like it and told me “we’re minded to use it”. But suggesting doubts about whether his own judgment would accord with that of the site’s executives, he warned that the issue was “a hot potato” and a decision would have to wait because “a couple of people are on holiday”.

“Hot potato”. That’s one way of saying it for sure.

So let me get this.

Whitaker attempts to take apart posters for being speculative about HRW and attempts to discredit MEMRI for the same reason but has no problem publishing a piece which is not only pure speculation, or opinion, as Jonathan Cook calls it, but rides on the nastiest of conspiracy theories written about Israel in a long time. One which alleges that Israelis harvest and trade in organs of Palestinians.

On a side note: If one’s opinion is that Israel is trafficking in stolen organs from Palestinians they kill, what does that say of the opinion holder?

Moving on.

For an editor who came to the rescue of Saddam Hussein when it was alleged that he was mutilating Iraqis coming out to support a blood libel piece, which, even by the view of its author is speculative, is a bit rich.

It is also very telling of the mindset at the Guardian where the default position seems to be to debunk allegations about the likes of Saddam Hussein (or Ahmedinejad) and to support the most outlandish and hostile speculations about Israel at the highest corridors of the editorial board.

I never would have thought I would be commending Georgina Henry on CiF Watch but it seems this time she did the sensible thing. Though I am not sure whether she did this out of fear of criticism as Cook alleges or out of common decency and journalistic ethic.

It’s a sensitive issue, because it requires 100 per cent satisfaction at our end that it will stand up to scrutiny. You will be the first to accept that anything you write will be combed through minutely by Israel supporters for evidence of bias and/or anti-semitism. For that reason, everything about this story would have to be independently checked by a Guardian reporter and I don’t have the resources on Cif to do that. I can, as I said, put you in touch with Rory McCarthy, our correspondent in Jerusalem, via the news desk. “

So I guess we await the News piece from the Guardian about the matter.

So far no story has surfaced, probably because no facts were uncovered to support the piece.

“Please don’t jump to other conclusions like the worst of the conspiracy theorists on the threads on the I/P articles we carry. I hardly think you can accuse the Guardian or Comment is free of shying away from controversy.”

Well, it looks like Henry is also aware of the swamp creatures surfacing regularly on CiF threads. But Whitaker, who posts semi-regularly on threads attacking pro-Israeli posters, seems to either like these nature expeditions or wants to feed the wildlife like the misguided tourists feeding animals despite the signs warning otherwise.

The problem though, is that he is supposed to be one of the game wardens.

36 replies »

  1. True, that HRW doesn’t get funded by the Kingdom of SA.

    Actually, much of the ostensibly “private” money in SA comes from the government directly or indirectly, given the close links between the government and the extended clans which form it, as well as the feed of funds from government to citizenry.

    Thus much of Saudi “private” money is actually public money, and so HRW does indeed solicit and receive SA government funding.

  2. Many posters on CIF supports Whitaker’s accusations saying that MEMRI translates and publishes articles selectively quoting only extremist Islamist material. As usual these followers of him never ever visited the site itself, they are just singing in the choir the songs together with their beloved preacher.

    Visiting the site http://www.memri.org and making a very short counting shows the following statistics:

    The number of headlines on MEMRI today = 12
    Number of articles quoting extremist stuff = 4
    Number of articles quoting moderate and reasonable articles = 4
    Number of neutral analyses, news, etc. = 4

    These numbers speak for themselves if:
    option A: you are not mathematically challenged
    option B: you are not blind
    option C: you can read
    option D: you are not a Guardian staffer

    Whitaker’s quote of Mr. Hooper’s wisdom somehow reminds me of Freedman’s role on CIF:

    “Freedman’s intent is to find the worst possible aspects of Israeli life and disseminate them as widely as possible.”

  3. peter, interesting what you say here about Memri; I didn’t know that they cover the news so broadly because I thought it’s a relatively small outfit with very limited resources and staff, so they have to focus on what’s worrisome. What likely irks certain people is perhaps that they do have a project that documents antisemitism in the Arab press…
    And like the recent post here that focused on the Jewish refugees from Arab countries and pointed out that this is a much neglected issue on Cif, antisemitism in the Middle East is for sure a very much neglected issue on Cif!!!

    And it is even more interesting to see what happens when they occasionally do get around to mentioning it — buried somewhere in an article at least: Khaled Diab, who is one of Cif’s regular contributors, recently had a piece on this Egyptian UNESCO candidate who said he would burn all Jew–ehm, all Israeli books in Egypt. Last time I looked, this piece had attracted only a handful of comments, and one of them of course was that this remark had to be seen in “context”!!! And this view was hardly surprising given Diab’s piece, which didn’t particularly focus on this outrageous statement — and then, hey, who would criticize the guy too harshly, after all, there were rumors that he was gay, so of course, you know, wink wink nudge nudge, he just had to say outrageous things about “Israeli” books in order to make himself more popular…

  4. It is interesting to read Cook’s account of the discourse with Henry. One wonders what really stopped her from accepting his article.

    It seems to me that the CI(F) cabal is careful in what they allow in as posts but still. some of the comments that they leave up are appalling. I remember ‘Gentle Hermine’, one of Berchmans’s friends, who was enraged at the low casualties suffered by the Israeli Defense forces at the time of the Cast Lead campaign and posted:

    ***********************************

    Hermine
    29 Jan 09, 8:57am (about 1 hour ago)
    MartinSW
    Thank you for enclosing the link to Barbara Lubins letter in Gaza.
    Here is a paragraph from it:
    Of all the devastation I have seen so far, there is one story in particular that I think the world needs to hear. I met a mother who was at home with her 10 children when Israeli soldiers entered the house. The soldiers told her she had to choose five of her children to give as a gift to Israel. As she screamed in horror, they repeated the demand and told her she could choose or they would choose for her. Then the soldiers murdered five of her children in front of her.
    The world needs to be told.
    http://www.jordantimes.com/index.php?news=13771

    *********************************************

    Now the link goes to a Jordanian English language ‘newspaper’ and I never understood why the Guardian didn’t pick up on the story which is an obvious blood libel. This exchange with Henry may give the reason why.

    Hermine (the Gentle), changed her moniker after that to Isabelita, presumably because CI(F) banned her. She occasionally makes an appearance on the threads. Possibly when her carers are busy and she passes an open doorway and spy’s an unattended computer keyboard.

  5. Good piece – well done.

    So the pieces published on CiF are ‘opinion’ pieces and therefore not subject to the usual standards which require a certain amount of research, substantiated facts and so on. (As if the non-opinion pieces on Israel are any better – but that’s another story).

    Why then, following this logic, did BW intervene in yesterday’s piece demanding that a poster back up his own opinion – that Seth Freedland’s article was a farrago of half-truths, unsubstantiated assertions etc? On the one hand, the Guardian’s editors do not expect substantiated facts from the authors of the ‘opinion’ pieces but on the other, if a below-the-line commentator objects to the lack of facts and the half-truths, BW expects substantiated rebuttals from him/her?

    As for Jonathan Cook’s piece – it will be published in one form or another sooner or later – ideally, as far as the Guardian is concerned, it will be written by a Jewish contributor – but I am holding out for a joint Ben White/Jonathan Cook effort. Then if a below the line contributor describes it as -eg – worthless, paranoid, unsubstantiated rubbish – BW will make sure not only that the comment is deleted but will draw attention to the comment in order to mock the commentator’s lack of journalistic cred. ‘Where are your facts’, BW will cry – implying an equality of time let alone anything else from someone looking up from their spreadsheet to read a CiF piece of opinion masquerading as fact written by people masquerading as reporters.

    As BW’s world-view is conspiratorial – of course such a below the line contributor has to be paid by the Israeli government for his time and is provided with research facilities etc – comparable to that of ‘journalists’. That world-view allows BW to believe the best about himself and his own motives (‘fight the power’) and tactics – humilation of an ordinary member of the public. This is acceptable because the Palestinians are ‘underdogs’/ Arabs are ‘powerless’/ Jewish self-determination aka Zionism is the original sin of our tired, old world and so on.

  6. Hi Sababa,
    did you see this?

    Rights group official suspended for collecting Nazi memorabilia

    “We do know he collects German and American World War II memorabilia, but we have questions as to whether we’ve learned everything we need to know,” Bogert said.
    Garlasco’s collection was revealed last week on Mere Rhetoric, a pro-Israel blog.

    http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1114712.html

  7. How deluded is Jonathan Cook? What a hilariously strange man!

    It’s like a rapist who won’t take ‘no’ for an answer.

    Good on CiF for not publishing his flimsy, racist crap.

  8. As for Memri’s reputation: I have seen posters condemning Memri because its staff has all been in the Israeli army – which just means that they are Israelis since all are subject to do army duty. However I have never seen an actual piece of proof of even one mistranslation or error and you can be sure that many have tried.

    Memri does excellent, essential work in revealing to us what people actually say in Arabic since we have learned to our cost that they regard what is said in English as less relevant than what they say in Arabic: for instance Arafat’s Peace of the Braves

  9. aaaaaagh I pressed the wrong button: the final lines of the above should read (kindly editor please patch it in):
    ——————-
    as opposed to his speech in the mosque in Cape Town where he emphasized that any land given to them by treaty would be used as a springboard to attack the rest until all of Israel was theirs.

  10. peter, this would be the same Bogert (Vice Director of HRW or something like that) who wrote an indignant letter to the Guardian protesting that they had reported the allegations against Garlasco — even though they should have known that if somebody by the name of Omri first drew attention to Garlasco’s fascination with Nazi awards, it was just so un-pc to pay any attention?

    The piece here about how Memri translations have been ruled “untrustworthy” by the Guardianistas reminded me of a post I read some time ago at Harry’s Place, here’s the relevant point:

    http://www.hurryupharry.org/2009/05/16/comment-is-curtailed/

    Shortly after I drew attention to the fact [by posting a comment on Cif] that the comments actually began with “Allah Curse the Jew” my post started getting deleted.
    So I kept re-posting.
    This went on for about 6 attempts to re-post when I saw they had been taken down with no explanation whatsoever until I reached the point where CiF prevented me from even posting. I emailed the moderators to ask exactly which guidelines I had breached as I had made no personal attacks, merely pointed out factual inaccuracies based on the evidence provided. The initial response was that CiF did not permit non English content. Yet when I removed the words “” (”God Damn the Jew”) CiF still would not permit my posts to appear.
    Further enquiry led to them informing me that my posts were off-topic and that it appeared to them that I had some sort of agenda.
    My final e-mail to them asked. (pardon the typos)
    “What agenda exactly? I was just pointing out factual errors in Beggs piece. 4 in the two opening sentences of his article.
    The headline of the website is (as you know) is “comment is free but facts are sacred”
    I was merely pointing to the facts which are at odds with what Begg wrote.
    All i did was highlight this discrepancy. Nothing more.
    Would it not be best for the readers of the website to decide if there appears to be agenda or lack of and let them consider whether or not a post is on or of[f] topic?
    Would they not be best qualified to decide what my post “looks like” or otherwise?
    The whole point of CiF is debate is it not?”
    Since then I’ve received no reply.

    — Obviously, since BW’s recent intervention, we can now conclude that the corrections offered by DaveM simply served “no useful purpose”…

  11. Outstanding article.

    CIF, and by extension the Guardian, permits constant attempts by its staff and commentators to try to demonize MEMRI. Whitaker appears to be very involved in this effort. Your article lifts the veil of secrecy that permeates the Stalinist world of CIF with is strange polices – which articles are accepted/requested for publication, which topics are – ahem – kosher for discussion, which comments infringe “community standards” in the eyes of “moderators”, which comments result in apartheid-style “banning”.

    MEMRI simply translates and makes available in English the endless litany of anti-Semitic, anti-Western diatribes, TV shows, sermons, newspaper articles etc. that pour from the Arab world and Iran on a daily basis. Their small staff, fluent in the languages of the ME, work tirelessly to intercept, record, and translate the broadcasts from the Arab media. The sources of this daily outpouring of filth, lies and incitement in Moslem countries hide behind the comfortable knowledge that their language and script make most of it inaccessible to Western audiences, assuming the authors of it even feel there is anything wrong with what they say, write, and produce.

    In many cases, thre are two versions of any event or comment available from the Arab world – one, the real one, for internal consumption, one, sanitized or fake, for friendly Western ears – the most notorious being Arafat’s comments in South Africa (see Mita’s comment above), which were captured when he forgot to turn off his microphone.

    There are similar attacks launched at CAMERA, which serves a useful purpose debunking many of the lies promulgated via Arab, and specially pro-Palestinian, sources, as well as those launched in the Western media by those who hate Israel.

    CIF, a website that claims as its motto “Facts are Sacred,” has been at the forefront of permitting constant attempts to devalue the service MEMRI provides in order to deny its readers the insights into the Arab world and Iran derived from their own words.

    If Henry WAS acting, as Cook claims, out of fear of appearing anti-Semitic despite Whitaker’s approval of Cook’s article – perhaps CIFWatch’s influence, and the daily efforts by a small but determined group of commentators determined to force the facts onto that anti-Israeli website are bearing fruit. The “MEMRI” of what anti-Semitism, masquerading more often than not as “anti-Zionism”, leads to, may be beginning to dawn on the Guardian’s leadership.

    Whitaker, apparently, missed that lesson in his history classes.

  12. John – Then if a below the line contributor describes it as -eg – worthless, paranoid, unsubstantiated rubbish – BW will make sure not only that the comment is deleted but will draw attention to the comment in order to mock the commentator’s lack of journalistic cred. ‘Where are your facts’, BW will cry – implying an equality of time let alone anything else from someone looking up from their spreadsheet to read a CiF piece of opinion masquerading as fact written by people masquerading as reporters.

    Use this sites recommendations for preserving comments and this will negate The Guardian’s unpleasant habit of putting an elbow on the scales using what is laughingly called ‘moderation’.

    I have posted above an old post from the dreaded Hermine. CI(F) left the post showing for a few days before eventually removing all trace of it. I archive various posts which I think will be illustrative of CI(F)’s ‘balanced’ editorial policy in the belief that they are saying that their moderation is one thing and doing things completely different.

    This forum gives me the (almost) perfect environment to attempt to defeat this policy of CI(F)s.

  13. Well done Sababa: you forcefully made them face their failings in regard to your posting. You showed them that their hypocritical FAQs are merely wallpapering. You insisted that they acknowledge in some fashion that they had one law for the pro Israeli public and another for themselves and you pushed them until they had no response left other than to silence you by banning you. As a finale you are repeating it here for all to read. Your posting is a classic example of how we are actually treated despite their mantra of “facts are sacred”.

  14. Check this comment out on the Lerman thread (me thinks that Lerman and Whitaker (who no doubt reviewed this piece) are so incensed by what we are doing that they can’t even get the name of NGO Monitor right!!):

    NGOMonit
    15 Sep 09, 1:53pm
    Antony, please note that our organization is called NGO Monitor, not NGO Watch.

    As for your allegations that Prof Steinberg is an advisor to the Lieberman led Israel Foreign Ministry this is simply not the case. Several years ago, Prof Steinberg was consulted by the ministry on matters totally unconnected to NGOs. This has no relevance to NGO Monitors role as a research organization. We demand an immediate correction of both these points.

  15. AKUS: outstanding comment!

    Mita, I’d love to take the credit here, but I was just posting a blog post from Harry’s Place, so this is not written by me!
    But this is a good opportunity to point out that all the Islamist rantings and ravings that are often reported at Harry’s Place are conspicously absent from Cif, and this is obviously a very important dimension for anyone who wants to even begin to understand Israel’s situation — though obviously, Cif’s Middle East editor prefers to sweep this under the carpet.

    Hawkeye, this NGO “Watch” business is really quite funny — especially since the Lerman piece also appeared in the print edition of the Guardian! NGO Monitor should therefore insist on a correction in the printed paper.

  16. Sababa

    The representative of the NGO Monitor is either unfamiliar with the methods and integrity of CIF and Lerner or must be extremely naive. To correct this king size distortion would serve no useful purpose as we all know, even could hurt the sensitivity of the two resurrected heroes replyto (talknick) and PhilosOptimos (Dotty).

  17. For all the complaints about Memri and the sneering that goes on with accusations of bias, its interesting to note that there have been very few if any challenges to the translations.

    As usual, the apologists ignore the content and choose to attack the messenger who in this case is just a translator.

    Oh my goodness, are we supposed think that the translations are only valid if Arabs do the translations???

    Come to think of it, where are the “house Arabs” to provide such translations instead of needing Memri to set the record straight?

  18. John

    If I’m looking at the correct article there are 81 comments, no deletions indicated and there’s no PetraMB.

  19. John, Ariadne

    PetraMB
    15 Sep 09, 3:50pm (about 4 hours ago)
    Contributor This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/sep/15/human-rights-gaza-israel?commentpage=3

    PetraMB
    15 Sep 09, 11:26am (about 8 hours ago)
    Contributor This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/sep/15/human-rights-gaza-israel?commentpage=2

  20. Ian Black’s piece: ‘Israel threatened with international law’ has this contribution from TheTrustworthy:

    TheTrustworthy
    15 Sep 09, 8:49pm (5 minutes ago)
    “designed to punish, humiliate and terrorise a civilian population”

    and this reminds me of Hitler and holocaust, albeit there were no phosphorous bombing, perhaps Israel has long back passed Hitler, ain’t it?

    Yeah, the Israelis are worse than Hitler, innit.

  21. Right, it’s party time at the Ian Black thread — and surprise, surprise, the Lerman thread was closed quite some time ago: it would hardly “serve any useful purpose” to allow comments on the sordid Garlasco story when you can spread word of the Goldstein gospel — oh, what joy!!!

    But the Lerman piece now is graced by a note announcing that the corrections requested by NGO Monitor have been made — there is even an acknowledgement that it was “incorrect” to claim that NGO Monitor was working for Lieberman!!!

    But there’s no doubt that Lieberman is evil, because the Goldstone report was barely released when the Israeli Foreign Ministry launched a website responding to it:
    http://www.mfa.gov.il/GazaFacts

    Since Ian Black wrote an entirely uncritical piece on Goldstein’s report, there will for sure also be a similarly enthusiastic piece on this Israeli response, no doubt — maybe it’s already on Cif, I’ll go and check…

  22. Channel 10 Israel says that the UN has declared war on Israel and will attempt to lure senior figures to be tried at the ICJ.

    The entry above is written by someone calling himself Trustworthy.
    It’s like calling yourself something like Human Rights Watch: attempting to give yourself stature: This is reminiscent of the iconic used car salesman in the US calling himself Honest Abe.

    This Rights group reports to a gang calling itself grandly, the International Court of Justice, among whose provisions is a statement that a permanent judge from Israel may not sit on that court. Prof Alan Dershowitz says!
    “A judicial decision can have no legitimacy when rendered against a nation that is willfully excluded from the court’s membership by bigotry.”

  23. The party at Ian Black’s thread, — or should that be “threat” given the title/leader?– was closed down early, very early… hmh, who’s to blame?

  24. peterthehungarian

    Thank you for the correct link. Here’s a remnant of what PetraMB said:

    FoolMeOnce
    15 Sep 09, 3:40pm (about 6 hours ago)

    PetraMB writes:

    “You couldnt make it up: Antony Lerman decries the ‘pollution of public discourse, but from the very start, he describes any criticism against HRW and similar organizations as “despicable attacks” that are not more than “lies”, and then he proceeds to denounce anyone who dares to argue that the reports of human rights agencies are biased against Israel as attack dogs.”

    [*]

    Nicely put- you’ve managed to point to the inherit fallacy of the whole article.

    It’s so utterly ridiculous that the author does exactly what he is attacking Israel for, and yet this irony flies over the heads of too many people, just like 8 years of Qassam rockets.

    Vooosh.

  25. Almost unbelievable – Petra, one of the few sane contributors to CIF, and one of the few either contributing or commenting who actually knows what she is talking about, provides in-depth sources – deleted!

  26. I don’t think deletions are about policy anymore.

    It is now pure politics. I have about 70% of my posts deleted. And have not changed my style since I started on Cif. In fact, I mellowed my rhetoric a lot.

    But it seems disagreement now merits deletions.

    I don’t they want opposing views there anymore.
    They want them to just leave.

  27. I think armoros is correct – they just want people who disagree with the articles on CIF to leave.

    But part of the increased deletions reflects their anger at CW for exposing them every day. They have no other way to hit back than to try to present one set of opinions and gradually find excuses to remove those they cannot tolerate. \

  28. If the pro Israeli’s leave, there will be no CIF,they can’t sit there and wank each other.
    It’s the pro-Israeli’s who liven up the place,that site/place is a joke and I treat it as such.I love pissing them off.

  29. Many comments of Cif are deleted without “This comment has been deleted etc.” appearing after the posters name.

    Also a post appears and is summarily deleted as if it had never been posted at all – so one never knows how many comments have actually been deleted after they appeared then disappeared into the ether. As are all comments referring to the post and comments the post is answering!