Guardian moderators inexplicably delete comment beneath post by Roy Greenslade

Roy Greenslade’s post, Al-Jazeera bureau chief arrested in Israel, Guardian, Aug. 16, produced a paltry number of comments, but it did elicit this by “Sorcey“.

In response to Sorcey there was this by HushedSilence:

HushedSilence16 August 2011 11:28AM

Re: “The only things that have occurred recently is more building by Israel in the West Bank and East Jerusalem”

Jews building houses in an area where Jews already live, is a matter for international concern.

Re: “IDF strikes on Gaza.”

Though of course you wouldn’t be aware that this is in retaliation for the rockets and mortar strikes on civilian areas in Israel and the damage and injuries done because that’s so unimportant that the Guardian doesn’t report them.

And, then.

So, apparently, glib accusations of Israeli racism and brutality – in response to a story where few details are available – are perfectly acceptable, but a rebuttal to the defamation, which also dares to criticize the Guardian, runs afoul of their “community standards.”

24 replies »

  1. Yet another example of The Guardian/CiF’s selective moderation to rub out any comments that do not jibe with The Guardian World View.

    I don’t know how you manage to ‘catch’ these instances of blatant misuse of ‘moderation’ of threads but – great work.

  2. Shows how much they believe in freedom of speech. They operate like they are the official mouthpiece of a dictatorship. And the irony of “Comment is free…”

    What hypocrites.

  3. This is why the Guardian reinforces its reputation as an anti-Semitic rag. Double standards and a malicious abuse of power when it comes to its moderation policy on Jewish sovereignty and the universal right to self-determination.

    Yes, there is more than one narrative, and people are entitled to make a choice as to which side of the fence they want to sit on, but it seems the bigoted Rusbridger finds any mention of the Israeli perspective an anathema to his Middle class English sensibilities. His allergy to Jewish empowerment is enough for him to jettison any pretense as a champion of fairness, liberty and the pursuit of truth.

    If the nepotistic and shallow BellaM had applied her ‘little Britain’ analogy to her own father’s attitude to Jews and power she would have been much closer to the truth.

    • The Guardian is not an “anti-Semitic rag.” If it were, it would hardly have prominent Jewish columnists, nor would it have a Jewish podcast.
      And as regards the universal right to self-determination: there are plenty of people posting on this site who would deny that to the Palestinians. Do you ever criticise them?

      And your suggestion about Rusbridger’s “attitude to Jews” is simply preposterous.

      • really? remember what Burchill wrote when she left the Guardian. OK let me remind you the paper demonstrates a “striking bias against the state of Israel.” That was in 2003. Not much has changed since then. Why has the Guardian singled out one country above all for regular biased criticiism, I think i know the answer to that… as well as regular readers of CIFWatch.

      • The Guardian has a stable of useful Jewish idiots that it uses to attempt to deflect criticism about its attitude to Jews and its attacks against Israel.

      • The Guardian is not an “anti-Semitic rag.” If it were, it would hardly have prominent Jewish columnists, nor would it have a Jewish podcast.

        Are you pretending this amazing naivete, or are yo serious pretzel?

      • ‘prominent Jewish columnists’

        You mean self hating Jews. All of them have an extreme left disparaging attitude towards the ‘Zionist Entity’ ranging from extreme hostility to negation of Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish democratic state. All of them have adopted the Arab/Palestinian narrative relating to the I/P conflict.

        As to their various ‘articles’ on Jews. I see all this within the objective of trying to justify the ‘fair and balanced’ clause in their laughably called ‘editing guidelines’. They also tend to compare Islamic/cultural abominations which are suddenly highlighted to some which may be similar in content in religious Jewish communities. As if to say, if the Jews do it, why not the Muslims. In their haste to justify these abominations, they neglect to mention that, while some of the social mores inside religious Jewish communities are just deplorable, they have no records of those involved being killed or physically abused. Certainly, rape has never been used as a weapon or a punishment. The ‘punishment’ is usually being thrown out of the community. That too is deplorable BUT, a far cry from honor killings and sharia loping off limbs.

        They want to throw in some dirty Jewish laundry with an overwhelming mass of Islamic dirty washing. Just a misrepresentation hoping that the ‘storm’ will blow over and the continuing disintegration of UK society will continue.

        The looting riots have been a watershed in The Guardian’s long term plans. Measures are in the process of being decided which will right some of the wrongs and, multiculturalism, one of The Guardian flagship strategies to crush UK society, has taken another banging.

            • I think the coffee lady and the chap who changes the light bulbs.

              Mind you that chap seems a bit shady and could may well be a Mossad agent accoding to guardian standards, but that’s well off topic…


            • Meir Javedanfar might be one with a more level headed attitude.

              I wouldn’t classify him as anti Zionist as far as the articles I’ve read in the Guardian which he wrote.

              He is talking of Israel and not the Zionist entity and makes it very clear to distinict between Israeli policies the actual right for Israel to exist.

              At least these have been the few articles I have read which he wrote.

              There have of course been articles by Shimon Peres and the Israeli ambasador which are most certainly not anti Zionists.
              But they are not employed by the guardian.

            • BTW,

              I am sure there are many Jewish people working in the AutoTrader magazine which I believe is owned by the guardian.

              You couldn’t possibly suggest all the guardian employees of Jewish heritege have the opinion you describe.

              You may be able to get away with suggesting the ones who regularly write articles for cif about Israel are, but this is a left liberal paper and you would assume that people with left leaning ideologies write there, (that does not excuse anti Zionists of extreme views to allow to get away with this).

              Another writer his my communitie’s Rabbi which writes occasionaly in CIF Belief.

              He is far from being AntiZionist of the type you describe.

              But once again his articles are not about Israel or Israeli policies.

        • You mean self hating Jews

          God, you do sometimes talk some offensive crap.

          multiculturalism, one of The Guardian flagship strategies to crush UK society, has taken another banging


      • Pretz I believe you are incorrect here.

        I can’t speak for everyone but the issue with the Palestinians is not the right to self determination but issue with the borders.

        Some agree that they should have the entire 67 areas which were controlled by Jordan and Egypt while others agree that they should have some of it.
        Then there are those who suggest that Jordan should be given to the Palestinian as it was part of Arab Palestine acoding to the 1918 Faisal – Weizmann agreement.

        If you knew well some Palestinian famillies you would realise tsome Palestinians in Gaza strip hate the ones in the WB and vice versa.
        The reason is that many of them desend from different areas such as Syria, Lebanon and Egypt (not mentioning Iraq and Jordan).

        This is not secret.
        Saying that, there are some famillies that were living in cities for generations but the majority were seasonal workers that used land owned by the Turks.
        Many only started arriving for economical reasons (like Arafat) after the Zionist started developing and stransforming the land thus creating jobs and infastructure.
        Read Chrchill as he wrote a lot about those times.
        Most Israelis, even right wingers, do not believe Arabs should be excluded from the right to self determination.

  4. pretzelberg, the Guardian has been an antisemitic rag for years. I remember the first time I picked up a copy when I was a student in the 90’s, an article contended that the Jews run America, and this was the only conceivable reason why America could be supportive of Israel.

    I see nothing has changed over the years.

    It is racist trash, dressed up in liberal clothing.

  5. Pretzel, I think I make my point quite clearly; “there is more than one narrative”, I don’t deny it to others, but the Guardian denies it to Israel and those who would defend the right of Jewish sovereignty. So a double standard does indeed apply, and when it comes to double standards that discriminate against any ethnic or religious group it is know as racism, and racism against Jews – denying them the same rights as others – including the right to reply to the distortions at the Guardian – is called anti-Semitism. Whether or not Jews are comfortable getting into the same bed as Rusbridger is another matter.
    I must say that what you find ‘preposterous’ in this case is no more than sanctimonious bluster.