General Antisemitism

The Canary In The Guardian’s Coalmine


The following is cross posted by Alan A at Harry’s Place

When a country is in trouble, it looks for scapegoats. All too often, that scapegoat has been the Jew. So it has been, too, with The Guardian.

The Guardian is in a death spiral. Like most newspapers, it has found that readers prefer not to pay for something that they can read for free on their mobile phones on the way in to work. In order to survive, it has undergone a sea-change into something rich – not in a monetary sense – and strange.

Most of you will be familiar with the extent of the problem at the beleaguered newspaper. The Scott Trust is in reasonably financial shape, and provides a safety net: but there is a natural limit to how long it can continue to underwrite a vanity project. Der Spiegel reports:

The Guardian has been losing money every year since 2004. Last year alone, it and its sister newspaper, the Observer, lost more than €47 million. It’s only thanks to the farsightedness and generosity of its former owners, the Scott family, that the paper hasn’t gone bankrupt.

Since 1936, the paper has been funded by the Scott Trust. This structure has but a single aim: “To secure the editorial independence of The Guardian in perpetuity.”

Many newspapers would like to be based on such a business model. The Scott Trust owns a number of lucrative companies, including the used-car magazine and portal Auto Trader. The profits generated on these are used to offset the heavy losses incurred by The Guardian.

“Our mission is to be profit seeking rather than profit finding,” says Deputy Editor Ian Katz. Even CP Scott, the paper’s owner in the early 20th century, believed it was more important to be influential than to turn a profit.

However, the Guardian’s losses have become too big to absorb — and in 2007 the Scott Trust was forced to sell some of its assets to refill its coffers.

Andrew Miller, a former consumer-goods industry manager and for the past year the managing director of the newspaper’s parent company, the Guardian Media Group, recently warned that if theGuardian continued to make such heavy losses, the company would simply run out of money within five years.

Alan Rusbridger’s solution is to turn The Guardian into a Huffington Post style web venture. Der Spiegel explains how this is supposed to work:

But for all its online verve, the Guardian isn’t making any money on the web either. Aside from a few allied services and a mobile subscription, the paper gives away its content wholesale, convinced this is the only way it will eventually be profitable. The hope is that the more people use the online edition, the greater the associated advertising revenues will one day become.

To date it has remained just that: A hope, though Rusbridger has a two-line graph he thinks proves his point. One line shows income from the print edition which is heading steadily downward. The other shows income from the web and points in the opposite direction. His reporters jokingly call the point where the two lines intersect the “Rusbridger cross”, the moment when their boss’ gamble would theoretically pay off even though the print Guardian continues to lose money.

The only question now is when and at what level the two lines will meet. “It is far too early to say that it won’t work out,” he Rusbridger says. “We have to wait and change the advertising industry’s mind.”

Comment is Free is at the very heart of this project. The problem is that the website is a cesspool. The greater its “success”, the more extensive the damage to The Guardian’s brand.

Recently, The Guardian launched its Open Journalism initiative. Put simply, it constitutes the infection of the remainder of the newspaper by the values embodied by CIF. This was made clear in the “Cannes Lion Award Winning” Three Little Pigs advert, which in one scene featured a nutter in his bedroom finding out “the truth” by googling around on the internet, and phoning it into the newspaper.

According to a recent GQ article, Guardian staffers understand well the problematic nature of The Guardian’s new business strategy:

The atmosphere among Guardian staff is turbulent. A reporter tells GQ: “There’s a lot of grumbling. People don’t like what the management is doing. They get that we’re losing money hand over fist and we need to stop the losses as much as we can, but they think that what’s being sacrificed is journalism.”At the heart of the Guardian’s problems is a crucial question: how much does good journalism matter? Or rather: how much is it worth?

For a decade now, ever since Seumas Milne, the former Business Manager of the Stalinist Straight Left newspaper was installed as Comment Editor of The Guardian, the newspaper and its associated web venture, Comment is Free, has been a happy home for anti-Israel obsessives, Hamas supporters, and activists in fringe far Left political parties.

I should make one  thing clear. The reason that this has happened is not that the CIF clique are antisemites. Rather, they are America-haters, from the fine old British tradition with its roots in both upper middle class elites and the far Left. None of these people see themselves as Jew haters. They see themselves as progressives, at the vanguard of opposition to “imperialism” and injustice. They honestly believe themselves to be good people, doing important work. When they publish and promote people who want to kill Jews – even as they congratulate themselves for their opposition to “racism in a digital age” – it is because they think they’re socking it to the global hegemon. For those on the far Left, that is the USA: however, some of those they publish believe that it is Israel and the Jews who are pulling the strings of power. However, that’s no biggie. Seumas Milne supports them all, and gave them column space, for the same reason that he supported ”militants”  in Iraq who killed British servicemen.

As a business strategy, this editorial line has paid dividends, but of a very odd sort. Some readers, who share these preoccupations, like it very much. Others, including long time self-defined “Guardian readers” loathe it. Either way, it generates page impressions, which in Rusbridger’s mind must eventually translate into profit.

Under the leadership of Becky Gardiner, the process has accelerated. It is now pretty much impossible, for example, to get an article in response or rebuttal even to an article by Hamas onto the website. As readers will know, any attempt to draw attention to Hamas’ notorious Covenant will result in immediate deletion of the comment. The Guardian’s official position is that of Nelsonian blindness to antisemitism and theologically backed promises to kill Jews.

Repeated attempts were made by Jewish Guardian writers to encourage Becky Gardiner to allow a single word of dissent on the subject of Raed Salah, the blood libel cleric, whose Op Ed was published on Holocaust Rememberance Day. Muslim liberals, tried too. All were batted away by Becky Gardiner: because she is a supporter of the man, what he stands for, what he says. Not content with offering the racist hate preacher a column, Gardiner even intervened to defend her hero in the resultant discussion.

The adulation of Raed Salah continued in the newspaper itself, where he was championed by David Hearst. When Salah lost at first instance, The Guardian simply refused to report the fact. Instead, it recycled conspiracy theories about The Community Security Trust’s role in the affair, propagated by Asa Winstanley: a “Christian Youth Minister at the Wembley Church of Christ“. They also published, on  Holocaust Memorial Day, a completely erroneous piece – which they later had to correct – about a supposed conflict of interest between Michael Gove MP and The Community Security Trust.  The source for that article was Professor David Miller, whose website once notoriously reproduced the thesis of a notorious neo Nazi, Kevin MacDonald, who believes that Jews are genetically predisposed to scheme and conspire against non-Jews.

Open journalism in action.

Well, who could possibly have predicted that when The Guardian opened its doors to those whose nastiness focused on Israel and Jews, that others – with a broader focus – would follow in their wake?

So, it has happened. If there is no reason to bat an eyelid at the parade of clerical fascists who are supporters or members of Hamas, then there can be no reason to oppose the printing of supporters of other associated clerical fascist parties: Egypt’s Ikhwan, Tunisia’s Ennahda. If them, why not mouthpieces and apologists for the Islamic Republic of Iran? And if you’re going to have Islamists and Communists from far away lands, who believe that their woes result from a world wide Jewish conspiracy, why not our own home-grown nutters: people like the comedian Charlie Skelton who has convinced himself that reporting on Syria is being controlled by a conspiracy involving the Bilderberg Group and George Soros?

Unhappiness at The Guardian with the direction of Comment is Free could not be clearer. Former Middle East Editor and Comment is Free Editor Brian Whitaker appears to be in open revolt, twittering away his anger at his inability to get an article criticism “infantile leftist ex-friends” – a phrase Whitaker might use himself – onto the pages of the website he supposedly edits.

Let me be absolutely clear about this. If Guardian journalists are twitchy about what is happening to their newspaper, they have only themselves to blame. The Jews were, as always, the canary in the coal mine. When those journalists stayed silent, either because they didn’t think they could say anything, or because they didn’t care, or even because they partly agreed, they allowed a culture of zaniness and extremism to take root at the newspaper. Now, the guns have been turned on them, over Syria and Middle East reporting generally, and it may well be too late for them to stop it. The Indymediaisation of The Guardian is likely spread further, across its other departments, as experts leave and are replaced by “Open Journalism” monomaniacs.

The problem is pretty clear. The Guardian has no self correcting mechanism. When long time readers of the newspaper – buyers of their product – appeared in comment threads asking what had happened to the journal that once defined their values, they were written off as “Tory Trolls” or “Zionists”.  Like many on the Left, The Guardian believes that it can do no wrong, and can make no mistakes. Its management cannot comprehend why many people who once loved the newspaper now think of it as the nasty paper, a sort of Daily Mail of the Left, whose online circulation is kept high by trolling its own readers.

Indeed, a friend whose judgement I respect, advised me not to mention Jews in this piece at all. To do so, he argued, would result in most people just switching off. That is exactly my point. Too many people switched off when Comment is Free began its decline, because they thought that it didn’t matter, or that it was best not to fuss, or that these were essentially communalist and parochial concerns. This is why we are where we are, generally.

I would love to see The Guardian return to basic journalistic values. However, with money short, genuine reporting is expensive: but comment is free.

What The Guardian really should do is to sack Becky Gardiner and to make a conscious effort to capture the mainstream. The GQ article quotes Juan Señor, a partner at Innovation Media Consulting, who observes:

“It’s the same old strategy of going for volume when they should be going for value. They’re obsessed with volume. They can’t see past the old digital fable that ‘if you build it, they will come’. It’s almost become a messianic mission.”

But CIF – in its present form – may well now be a juggernaut that cannot be halted. What The Guardian has built is a home for a very vocal, weird and nasty fringe. There’s brass to be made from muck, most certainly. However, what The Guardian will lose forever, and may have already damaged beyond repair, is its reputation.

Once that has happened, Rusbridger’s cross – the point at which the venture can run on web profits alone – will be forever outside his grasp.

97 replies »

  1. “I would love to see The Guardian return to basic journalistic values.”

    Odd that you see Guardian journalistic values in such decline when the paper was voted Newspaper of the Year by fellow journalists in 2006 and 2011. It’s associate in crime, The Observer, won the award in 2007. You are obviously not happy with the paper’s foreign reporting. Strange then that its journalists won Foreign Reporter of the Year awards in 2008 and 2009. By some margin The Guardian/Observer have done better in this award scheme in recent years than any other UK paper.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Press_Awards#Foreign_Reporter_of_the_Year

    • Maybe It’s because the judges come ” from the fine old British tradition with its roots in both upper middle class elites and the far Left.” ?
      To win a prize for journalism in the UK in our age is no great feat. ALL of the UKs papers have gone down hill over the previous 35 years. Be it The Times or The Guardian or its minime The Independent which won honours for Whingiest Paper ever.
      The polarization within the British media world is palpable. The BBC commissions reports on itself and then locks them away/censores itself. Many BBC TV journalists have left for Al Jazzy another great TV station privately owned by an Islamist sheik with a huge political agenda and paid for by oil money. At Al Jazzy the problem is not capitalism/
      Oil but feudalism. But at in Doha the mantra is ‘ You say Feudalism and I say Israel.’
      Even Julian Assange thinks the UK press suck. Once heralded as the new press messiah he turns out to be a paranoid Lefty with a egomaniac grudge against all who disagree with him. And a hungry penis.
      He UKs clout in the world has diminished, not just it’s imperial muscle, also it’s cultural Left.
      Upper middle class brains have a tendency to project their Sunday afternoon Guardian reads onto the wider world. Falling pray to a brutally misplaced idealism which fails in the real world. Prizes handed down by ones peers don’t change this. I dare write they compound the very issues at heart.

      • I tend to agree with you, Daniel. This shower has no more than a nodding acquaintance with journalistic ethics, if it has any acquaintance at all, much less the capability to think critically or question the guff they are being told to write

    • sencar you are correct that The Guardian won Newspaper of the Year award in 2011, but in 2005 the award went to the News of the World.
      So are you suggesting that when a newspaper wins this award it is a guarantee of journalistic standards? Or of continuing existence?

      As for Foreign Reporter of the Year, the journalist who has won that award on most occasions is……. Robert Fisk. So clearly it is another guarantee of high standards of journalism.

      • “As for Foreign Reporter of the Year, the journalist who has won that award on most occasions is……. Robert Fisk. So clearly it is another guarantee of high standards of journalism.”

        I have great admiration for Robert Fisk, Gerald. His books on the Middle East invariably get rave reviews and he writes brilliant stuff on Israel for The Independent. This for example on the madness of attacking Iran.

        http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-an-attack-on-tehran-would-be-madness-so-dont-rule-it-out-6358872.html?origin=internalSearch

        • sencar – it won’t surprise any of the regular commenters on this site that you “have great admiration for Robert Fisk”. Unfortunately, he is absolutely a symptom of the exact same malaise described in the OP above.

          You have clearly bought in 100% to the false liberalism of the pro-Islamists that are typified by Fisk, Gardiner et al.

        • Uh-huh..
          “Brilliant stuff on Israel”, calling a defensive action against a genocidal, brazen, regime, committed to Israel’s destruction, “Israeli aggression”.
          Sure… Very brilliant. 😐

        • Sencar: “I have great admiration for Robert Fisk.”

          Yeah, especially when he got his head kicked in in Afghanistan.

        • Sencar:
          [Fisk] writes brilliant stuff on Israel for The Independent

          Hardly.
          Fisk, to his (relative) credit, has regularly also lambasted Arab governments – although he hardly deserves a medal for that.
          But his criticism of Israel is OTT – plus he has all too often (and increasingly boringly) cited his one meeting with Bin Laden.

          Fisk is no pro-Islamist (see his Great War for Civilisation for evidence of that). The problem is his tendency towards self-glorification.

          John “We are now liberating Kabul” Simpson is another one.

      • Fisk being foreign reporter of the year says more about the state of the UK press than about Fisks bias.

        • Fisk’s books are considered as the bible on the Middle-East by all diplomats and journalists.

          Buf well, you’re free to disagree.

          • Well if nothing else proves that they are beyond the pale of decency, your remark does. Thanks.

            • Fisk is considered one of the classical references on the Middle-East.

              I mean, among people who actually graduated from university.

              • Nat: “I mean, among people who actually graduated from university.”

                Interesting that you feel it necessary to parade your ‘academic’ credentials as a sign of of your so-called intellectual superiority.

                The fact that Fisk is partisan is another indicator of your own ridgid dogma. Objectivity is no longer a guiding principle among academics?

                And Fisk is the best you can come up with when talking about intellectual heavy weights on the Middle East? No mention of Bernard Lewis?

                Well, if you want to hide you lack of in-depth knowledge behind vacuous political fashion statements, then Lewis is of no use to you, and Fisk is definately YOUR man.

              • Nat,
                As a rule I would never, never read books by journalists about political topics. Be they on the right or the left.

                You ask about a uni education, stick to academic books, and not bleeding heart liberals who are blatantly pushing an agenda. Journalists may write what they like. Academics need to answer their peers and certain standards.

              • Fisk is a 9/11 truther and he seems to hint that the USA paid the civil war militia’s in Iraq. Great guy. He should get a blog on 972.

          • Interesting. If true, the fact that he dabbled in being a Truther becomes even more disturbing. Can you provide some citations on that assertion or something? He has a fairly successful career, but I was not aware that he was seen as such a universal authority.

            Or do you only mean ‘diplomats and journalists who agree with the political view of Fisk’? Because that is slightly different.

            • Makabit,
              Fisks book sell well. But having read one, I can see why. They appeal to some people and obviously are biased. Fisk says so himself in Berkely in a quote on his wiki profile. Reading the mans opinion pieces in his Independent archive you will get dizzy. He pushes the line that the Arabs are fighting against the West’s double standard. This is a popular stance in Beirut where Fisks lives. Here is a fascinating link to a Beirut based agency that pushes this particular Arab agenda , http://www.conflictsforum.org/
              Conflicts Forum posts many interesting essays and articles by people like Fisk and their Arab and Persian friends. Arafat adviser Mark Perry used to be deeply involved in this Forum. Perry’s son is Al Jazzy station chief in Jerusalem. There is an interesting hour long interview with Mark Perry on C-span. Perry ends up suggesting that had Osama asked him where to fly those planes other than NYC, he would have known where to order them. I think he means Tel Aviv, but he never says so.

              I think most of its finances are taken care of by Tom Clark from the Clark Shoes family. The Clark’s are Quakers. Alistair Crook, the Forums director lives in Beirut with a partner who works or used to work in a Palestinian ‘refugee camp’. So you get the jist. Fisk is part of the Beirut wall paper since 1976. I could imagine him being part of the expat intelligentsia in Lebanon acting as a conduit through is London paper. I think his terribly whingy tone fits The Independent perfectly. He might as well be its editor in chief.
              Another detail is that John Malkovich offered to shoot Fisk and George Galloway instead of a fight to the death at a talk at Cambridge. Personally I always thought John Malkovich was a terrific actor with great intellect.

    • Technologically, the Guardian runs a good web site. (Full stop).

      Reporting is not what The Guardian does whatever the ‘prizes’ that it has received. It is a propaganda platform which pushes a radical left wing view of the world. Anything with any political implications that appear in the paper are open to examination to see if they are involved in misrepresentation or omission.

      It has lost it’s reputation for reporting. Mind you, true reporting is hard to come by nowadays but the Guardian excels in its ‘touched up’ presentation of ‘news’ to a gullible and contracting subscriber base.

      Pity. It used to be the newspaper of the rational left but has become a liability for that same rational left.

      • True NobblyStick – so many of its articles are copied from syndicated ones and merely churned out rather than thought about at all, let alone analytically.

        And as for Fisk, does sencar mean “Jenin Fisk”? Was he awarded Liar of the Year? He should have been.

    • Why do you have to pay to read the Guardian but not CIF Watch?

      Because the Guardian hires professionnal journalists reporting from the field, while CIF Watch does not.

    • When settlers are in trouble because they know their settlements and outppsts are illegal, they look for scapegoats. All too often, that scapegoat has been the pro-peace Israeli citizen and the honest journalist reporting from the field. So it has been, too, with CIF Watch.

      • July 18, 2012 at 1:47 am

        Benyamin

        “The Guardian’s policy regarding CIF Watch is plain and simple: they ignore this tiny website which has no influence and does not deserve to be commented upon.

        That’s actually the best tactic – ignore people who’re desperately seeking your attention and no one will know they exist.”

        • Yohoho, your insults on women journalists, accusing them of being brainless, only serve to highlight your own inabilities. Sherwood may be a woman, she’s still read by millions of readers. Welcome to the 21th century.

          • Nat – your sexism never fails to shock. Where did Yohoho mention anything to do with Sherwood’s gender? Your obsession that women must be protected from all criticism, simply because they are women, shows up your paternalistic, chauvinistic attitude. Shame on you.

          • Well, Nat, just because millions of readers choose to read articles written by a brainless woman, does not make her less brainless does it? She has form. You should read more and think before you comment.

  2. I look forward to the day the Guardian closes shop. Realistically I have my doubts. The paper is too famous and read by many people all over the world. Should they announce a serious money issue, the Leftist masses will donate. Or the Guardian will simply ask people to pay for content, like the NYT and many other papers. The era of free media content is coming to an end.
    I could also imagine some Arab Islamist sheik donating some of his petro $$s in order to keep the anti Israel/USA machine printing. They could be done discreetly, no need to upset the militant post feminists. Judith Butler would also donate.

    • I would imagine that there are plenty of ‘interested’ parties (other ‘news’ papers) who are keeping their tendrils very much focussed on how The Guardian will ‘ameliate’ its losses. They would be thrilled to discover Arab money going into The Guardian and expose it.

      Also, oil wealthy Arabs don’t really excel in backing lost causes.

    • Daniel, I believe that the Groan will have to regroup, but I doubt that the Leftist masses, as you call them, will donate, except buttons.

      If it asks people to pay for content its demise will come sooner. Nothing it publishes is worth the money it’d be asking people to spend.

      And for all we know it’s already being kept afloat by Arab petrodollars but times are hard for sheikhs too.

      I think that all the staff should work on half-pay, led by Rustbucket as an example. That ought to save a lot and they are certainly worth no more than half their salaries.

  3. When a country is in trouble, it looks for scapegoats. All too often, that scapegoat has been the Jew. So it has been, too, with The Guardian.

    What an absolutely revolting claim.

    – Britain’s demise from being a former superpower: does the Guardian blame that on the Jews? No.

    – Does the Guardian blame the Jews for the recent economic crisis? No.

    Yet that is what this preposterous article suggests.

    If you genuinely believe that, you must be demented.

    And if you don’t, then you’re just pushing propaganda.

    • Pretz – that paragraph is not accusing the Guardian of blaming the Jews for BRITAIN’s failings. It is pointing out that the GUARDIAN is failing, and as its losses mount, and its circulation shrinks, it is increasingly (at the very least) giving a platform to and aligning itself with rabidly anti-semitic individuals and groups such as Salah and Hamas.

      Am I demented for agreeing that this correlation exists?

      • Yes. Very true. But as the article implies, the prime target is the The USA, (The Soviet killer). Israel’s close alignment with the US makes Israel a target for the Groan and a much easier target that the USA. Add to that the disappointing faliure of Soviet Russia and the disappearance of Apartheid South Africa, the radical left has had difficulty identifying a susceptible target for obsessive vilification, deserved or not, and Israel swung into view.

        • Nobbly,
          Amen. The Left has nothing better todo. The only ‘left’ over from the cold war are the USA and Israel.

          What Chavez or Ortega do bothers no one.

      • Then the opening line is accusing the G. of blaming its own woes on the Jews and/or taking its – alleged – frustration out on the Jews. Either way, it’s an outrageous insinuation.

    • pretzelberg, is it a “revolting claim” because you disagree that it’s the case, or is it objectively revolting?

      The Guardian doesn’t have to blame the Jews openly, but merely imply it and it has and often, particularly in the cesspit that is CiF, which, by allowing terrorists who advocate the murder of Jews freedom to post their views and not allowing criticism of those views below the line, shows its support for them.

      This probably far too subtle for you to apprehend, and it’s not your fault, but nevertheless it’s the case.

  4. French newspapers (like Le Monde, Libération etc), magazines, TV have an extremely anti-Israel editorial line. The same applies in Belgium (Le Soir, La Libre Belgique). But unlike what happens in the UK nobody cares because it has become the norm, which is a pity. It has to be said that many in the anti-Israel crowd are Jewish. CIF Watch is doing a much needed and commendable job.

  5. What The Guardian has built is a home for a very vocal, weird and nasty fringe.

    What a load of bollocks.

    Wake up. The world is about more than Israel.

    • Funny you should say that. Since the guardian clearly obsesses about Israel, as opposed to fifty years of Arab human rights abuses….

    • The world is about more than Israel.

      Correct it really is. Then maybe you have a reasonable explanation of the Guardian obsession with Israel…
      BTW you would be surprised that for many millions of people Israel is a very central subject, for its citizens, its friends and for its enemies for example. (I didn’t take into account the kibbitzes sitting on the fence and preaching their laughably ignorant wisdoms here…)

    • What The Guardian has built is a home for a very vocal, weird and nasty fringe.

      What a load of bollocks.

      Actually, a basic home truth Pretz. Live with it.

    • Pretzel, I’d like to hear your thoughts on the following:
      What do you call a supposedly progressive publication, that publishes the screeds of not one, not two, but 8 (just recently), genocidal, homophobic, anti-Semitic “writers”, “troofers”, conspiracy-theorists, and Stalinists?
      It wasn’t also so, at the Manchester Guardian .

  6. You are not Jewish, not very bright and definitely not wanted around here. Is that so difficult for you to understand?

    I take issue with that statement. Whether Pretz is Jewish or not, I don’t know. But, whatever, it in now way impinges on his being able to comment on any site he wishes. And this site in particular.

    I certainly don’t agree with everything Pretz writes but he is against OTT statements by pro Israel and anti Israel posters alike.

    So am I.

    • Amen. Totally with you Nobbly, and I hope Fairplay will withdraw that part of his statement.

  7. Fairplay I agree that pretzelberg can sometimes be a twonk, but he has no derech erez and whenever he gets too OTT he’s slapped down.

    And yes, he is insensitive, but I guess that is his essential disposition and again if the insensitivity is too OTT then again he’s slapped down.

    But it matters little to me, at any rate, whether he is Jewish or not. A twonk is still a twonk whatever his religion or race.

    I enjoy your contributions here, but I have to say those above are not worthy of you. This is not agreeing with pretzelberg who often spouts the bollox he accuses others of spouting, rather it’s me saying it like it is to me.

  8. Fairplay, I think you may be reading far more into the criticism of your post (note not you yourself) than is merited. I, too, think your remarks are uncalled for and that it doesn’t matter whether pretzelberg is Jewish or not, but it’s hardly helpful for you to reduce this to Jew v not a Jew in your reply above.

    I am not colluding with pretzelberg, who shoots off his mouth before he engages his brain far too often, but this isn’t about me being Jewish and appealing to anyone.

    And I would respectfully disagree with you that antisemitism is only a non-Jewish problem – some of the worst enemies of Jews are themselves Jews and write for CiF!

    I agree that it’s not helpful if we disagree among ourselves, but that should not preclude speaking up if we believe that others among us are overreacting.

  9. What happened? I insulted our resident troll adding that he isn’t Jewish – by which I meant that he doesn’t understand our fears. Are you accusing me of being anti-goy? I know that subtlety doesn’t always work, but anyway, pardon me for not making myself clear.

    For what it’s worth, I think many of my contributions aim for style as well as content. In retrospect, my ‘not Jewish, not bright and not wanted’ was an unconscious echo of the anti-American comment during WW2 : “overpaid, oversexed and over here”. No offence meant.

      • You call that an “apology”?

        Incredible – but not surprising – how so many people here are so desperate to defend the bigot Fairplay … while at the same time use every opportunity to hurl childish ad hominems my way!

        Fairplay obviously deserves banning from this site.

        That goes for Mitnaged, Serendipity, Jeff. Shame on them all.

        • Ahem … The “That goes for …” bit is in reference to the people defending Fairplay and attacking me. I was not suggesting they too be banned.

          • Pretzel – I don’t get it? Mitnaged, Serendipity and Jeff (and I) clearly and unconditionally told Fairplay he was out of order criticizing you because of your percieved ethnicity. Why is that worthy of your scorn?

            They all agreed (as do I) that sometimes you make comments on here that we heartily disagree with, and that you are not immune from criticism for those comments, but we all pointed out that your apparent “twonkishness” is nothing whatsoever to do with your ethnicity or religion.

            By the way – I agree with you that Fairplay’s “retraction” is far from satisfactory.

            • Gooner, this is because pretzelberg’s particular bag is that he cannot let go. He is like a dog worrying a bone.

              He wants a grovelling apology from Fairplay, but I doubt that he will get or deserves it.

              • What if a poster had said: “You’re Jewish, you’re dumb and we don’t want you here”?

                Would you “let go” easily of such an issue?

                And yet you do not believe Fairplay should apologise?

                The sheer hypocrisy is amazing.

                • Pretzel, I am terribly sorry to butt in, but I am still waiting for your reply to a query I posited, to you.
                  If you would be so kind as to indulge me, see this again.

                  • I’d’ve thought my opinion of the G. would be pretty clear, i.e. I agree with some stuff it posts, but disagree with a lot too.

                    • That wasn’t my question.
                      I was merely asking, how can you deny that there’s institutional hatred of Jews & Israel @ the G., when, it has published(and cheered, in recent history) 3 “Op-Eds” by Hamas members(a genocidal group, committed to hunting down Jews, to the very last of them), Raed-“Blood in Matzohs”-Salah(including a heartfelt, and crusading defense by Gardiner- Editor in Chief of CiF), Seamus Milne(an unrepentant Stalinist(naturally, anti-Israel bigot), Comment Editor @ CiF), Skleton-9/11 “Truther” and many others, ad abundantiam?
                      The Guardian is not an objective edifice, since clearly, its staff goes out of its way to promote a singular, anti-Semitic, and anti-Israel agenda.

                    • @ Commentary101

                      While I am likewise tired of and disappointed by the Guardian’s anti-Israel bias – something I have expressed many times on this website – I do not see any “institutional hatred of Jews” at said paper.

                      a) There is no evidence thereof.
                      b) Why would so many Jewish people write for it if that were true? And why would the G. have its own Jewish podcast?

    • According to Jewish religion I am not Jewish, for Nazis clearly, because of my father. The family on my father`s side was nearly extinguished, although mostly assimllated Christians.
      How do you assess that? Goj, Jew, nothing of both or simply Idiotes because of self empowered intervening?

      • Fritz: you’re wunderlich/wundervoll/whatever. By me you’re a mensch. Anyway, most of us ( including me ) don’t even try to live up to the high standards of the Jewish religion. C’est la vie!

        Those who defended me – thanks for your support. I’ll wash it and return it good as new. 😉

    • OK, Fairplay, why didn’t you say that pretzelberg could not understand our fears rather than frame it in “not a Jew” terms? Do you not agree that this might’ve avoided all doubt as to what you meant?

      • Serendipity : I respect your opinion, but honestly, was I out of order for making a flippant reference to our flipping troll? Did I hurt his feelings? He must be used to that by now. Was I misunderstood? – it seems that way. He calls me a bigot. Sticks and stones…

        Should I have to apologize for some light-hearted banter?
        There was no harm intended, and the guy has no sense of humor.

        • A “flippant reference”, eh? Just “light-hearted banter”? Hardly.

          “There was no harm intended”. Yeah right – which is why you have continued to insult me in subsequent posts.

          And then you have the audacity to say “The guy has no sense of humor”!

          I was here a long time before you popped up, and will no doubt be around a long time after you finally leave (or are banned).

          And CiFW will be much better off without the hateful likes of you.

          • pretzel don’t you consider laughable your permanent whining about personal abuses when you posts contain virtually nothing else?

            And why do you think that do you have the slightest influence about banning anybody on Cifwatch?

            I was here a long time before you popped up, and will no doubt be around a long time after you finally leave

            Where did you learn this crap from the Hamas website or from the Kahanists?
            Do you think that you have any privileges on this web site? I think you don’t.

            ( I hope you took some minutes to learn something about the Aaron genes after your extremely rude personal attack about AKUS)

            • pretzel don’t you consider laughable your permanent whining about personal abuses when you posts contain virtually nothing else?

              What utter and complete bullshit. Do you know no shame?

              • What utter and complete bullshit. Do you know no shame?

                I would after insulting somebody like AKUS – a thousand times more knowledgeable and intelligent person than you – and would be caught with your simply amazing ignorance on the subject of your insult.

    • I insulted our resident troll

      I don’t see Pretz as a troll either. He comes here to give us the benefit of his ‘take’. While his ‘take’ is not mine, he is reasonably well informed if a little stuck in a groove.

  10. Great article, completely agree but the irony is that I cannot post this comment on Harry’s place because I’ve been BANNED, I think because I pointed out in a HP piece about a “Jewish terrorism” that although I understood HP is trying to bs even handed to compare and equate 20,000 Islamist attacks with 1 or 2 Jewish attacks is ridiculous. After posting this and a few other pro-Israel anti-Islamist comments I was banned.

    I this HP comments section is little better than CIF in it’s suppression of opposing views to their ideology.

  11. I too am sometimes simply appalled at what is moderated at HP.

    On weighing everything up though, the ‘good work’ far, far outstrips the negative on HP. By light years.

  12. “The Scott Trust is in reasonably financial shape, and provides a safety net:”
    The Scott Trust was wound up in October 2008, and replaced with a closed, limited company, The Scott Trust Limited. Its only assets are its shares in the Guardian Media Group, which in turn owns Guardian News & Media. It is the GMG which provides the safety net.
    “Since 1936, the paper has been funded by the Scott Trust. ”
    It has not. The Scott Trust had no funds to fund it with. The paper was owned by the Scott Trust, but funded by profits from other owned assets such as The Manchester Evening News.

  13. As usual, some Jews care more about appealing to the goyim than about their own kith and kin. This claims to be a Website that exposes antisemitism, and I challenge you to find more than a handful of bloggers on here that aren’t Jews.

    Hardly surprising, with bigots like you – and many others – scaring them off.