* Posts Censored By The JC

Updated: 15 April 11

The JC is censoring/removing posts that aren’t leftist or anti-religious enough for its liking.  

Send them to us and we will post them here.  

We will also publish here letters or articles submitted to the JC that were not accepted for publication, subject to JCWatch relevancy.  

… and we will even go as far as publishing items that you think the JC won’t publish: again, subject to JCWatch relevancy.  

___________________________________________________  

15 April 11

On 4th February 10 Anthony Julius posted in the JC Blogs section a post entitled “England’s not so pleasant aspect”, at http://www.thejc.com/comment-and-debate/comment/26775/englands-not-so-pleasant-aspect .

Julius isn’t the subject here.

Recently a number of spam posts appeared under that post as reader-comments, but the “moderator” apparently didn’t see any reason to remove them.  Sloppy moderating, as usual. What said “moderator” DID find reason to remove, was a post by Kahina. Kahina rightfully pointed out that the JC charges large sums as advertising fees, but allows spamming intruders to reside in the JC’s honoured pages peacefully, at length, and free of charge.

Here’s the post that was removed (the JC knows little about protecting its resources!) Click on it to enlarge it for readability, and hit the “Back” button to return. 

___________________________________________  

23 Feb 11

The following letter to the Jewish Chronicle was published there at  http://www.thejc.com/blogpost/davis-et-al-continued   by Jonathan Hoffman and Michelle Huberman, but only after “interesant” censorship.

The letter is reproduced here, with the censored pieces – that were NOT published – in red:

Tzipi Livni’s  endorsement of the call to Mick Davis to join the conversation is a little  ironic, considering at the last elections her Kadima party refused to form a  government with the other two leading elected parties. It  was hoped at the time that Tzipi could raise herself above petty politics to work for the  good of the country. And why can’t Mick Davis work away from the glare of the  press?  We feel sure he has plenty of opportunities behind  the scenes to air his views directly to the Israeli government, but why does  he need to hand ammunition to our enemies when we have already seen the likes  of Gerald Kaufman use his comments to support his  opposition  to alteration of the Universal  Jurisdiction procedures?Your  leader stated “this newspaper has  grave reservations about the current Israeli government’s genuine commitment  to seeking a two state solution”.  Your partisanship sits most  uncomfortably alongside your tradition of being the ‘organ of British Jewry’,  since a logical conclusion of this is that your editorials should reflect the  wide range of opinions about Israel within the community — and not express a party preference. The ‘Palestinian  Papers’ have shown that to blame the breakdown of the peace talks on the  government’s unwillingness to extend the settlement freeze was a red herring  since Palestinian negotiators had already conceded that most of the  settlements would remain. And a freeze was offered, but in exchange for  recognition of Israel – a sine qua non one might  think, but Mahmoud Abbas vetoed it. We already have  our leading politicians openly criticising the current Israeli government,  does  your newspaper  really  need to add to the chorus?  Israelis have seen the hasty return of land for peace in Gaza  reciprocated with a regular hail of rockets into the south of the country. In  view of these circumstances, quite understandably, the electorate chose  parties  which would be not be  so quick to trade land and would look at other ways of achieving peace with  their neighbours.  Slowly, slowly the living standard of Arab citizens in  the West Bank is rising and many West Bank Arabs would prefer to live under  Israeli rule, as recent surveys have shown. This is a very challenging job and  the Israeli electorate deserve our support  —  not our  criticism. 

Sincerely
Jonathan Hoffman and Michelle Huberman

___________________________________________________  

05 Sep 10  

THE FOLLOWING LETTER WAS SENT TO THE KESSLER FOUNDATION ON JUNE 5TH 2010. THEY HAVE NOT DEIGNED TO REPLY. KESSLER OWNS THE JEWISH CHRONICLE AND IS THUS RELEVANT HERE. 

Jon Cohen 

e-mail: j.i.cohen@btinternet.com 

__________________________________________________________________________________ 

5th June 2010 

Robert E. Dillon, Jr., Chair 

Kessler Foundation 

300 Executive Drive, Suite 150 

West Orange, NJ 07052 

USA 

Fax: 00 1 973.324.8373 

e-mail: info@kesslerfoundation.org 

Dear Mr. Dillon, 

I am writing to the Kessler Foundation as owners of The Jewish Chronicle Newspaper in London. 

I have areas of concern about the direction of the newspaper with regards to its advocacy of Israel’s “case” in the media. 

As you know, Israel is facing a hostile de-legitimisation campaign in the world’s media. This situation has been compounded by the recent events surrounding the Flotilla to Gaza and the surrounding fallout from the events that occurred on the ship the “Mavi Marma”. 

I have been in correspondence directly with the editor of The Jewish Chronicle, Stephen Pollard, regarding the editorial stance that the paper is taking, which I believe is considerably Left of centre, in one of his replies to me he said that:- 

“I do defend our coverage of stories which do not reflect well on Israel. As a newspaper which is unapologetically pro-Israel, it is not only important that we cover all stories, and offer out view as a candid friend, I would also maintain it is our duty. If we didn’t, we would be just a propaganda sheet.  

 But thanks for your letter, and I certainly do not dismiss your arguments. I will ponder further”.  

 I do not believe that it is “propaganda” for the Jewish Chronicle to be supporting Israel. 

In light of the seriousness of the poor PR that Israel is receiving in the wider media, for the Jewish Chronicle to be taking this point of view is not good enough. 

The front page article of the 4th June issue is a case in point, the lead article panders to the media and is critical of Israel, there is more than enough criticism of Israel in the media without the Jewish Chronicle adding to this. 

What is needed is a pro-Israel stance, supportive and coherent, this is NOT propaganda, this is the position that the “Jewish” Chronicle should be taking. 

The Jewish Community in the UK is coming under increasing pressure from Trade Unions, Pro-Palestinian activity in Universities and general Political Activists and we need a “mouth piece” that is positively Pro-Israel to help us. We do on have the benefit of an AIPAC advocacy organisation in the UK to lobby and campaign effectively. 

I am an active blogger on the Jewish Chronicle webs site and you can look up my pieces under:- Jon_i_Cohen 

The web site is another area of concern where there is simply no moderation or control, non-Jews, anti Jewish Jews, Pro-Islamic fundamentalists are all allowed to “blog” and “post” at will. 

My final area of concern is the letters pages of the paper, if you take a survey amongst the very small numbers of letters that are published you will find the same names, the same letter writers keep re-occurring, why is that? Any attempt at having a letter published from a right wing, pro-Israel perspective is ignored. 

I urge you to consider my views; I have a wealth of accumulated evidence to support my views and am happy to discuss the points with anyone that might listen. 

I have more than 30 years experience of advocacy with regards to “putting the case for Israel”, as a student I was the Israel Officer for the National Union Of Jewish Students in the UK, over the years I have written extensively on the subject and have spoken at a variety of public events, including WIZO. I now blog on The BBC, The Times, The Guardian and was one of the 4 complainants that campaigned with Offcom here in the UK to, (successfully), have Press TV censured. 

So to summate, the areas of concern:- 

1. The hard copy paper too left of centre and lacking positive support of Israel in times of need. 

2. Too many “regular” letter writers, (the same names keep cropping up week after week) 

3. Web site allowing Israels enemies to blog and post too freely. 

I do hope to hear from you. 

Yours sincerely 

 Jon Cohen 

 ___________________________________________________  

 02 Sep 10  

Jon Cohen has sent us the following:  

Once again one of my comments is obliterated by the mad mullahs at the JC.
In response to one of the latest anti-israelites, one “telegramsam”, we shall call him “telegramsham”, who was pontificating about Yisrael Beytenu being akin to the BNP, i posted the following:-
 
This is what Yisrael Beytenu stands for:-

. A belief that the “land for peace approach” is fundamentally flawed – only a “land for land – peace for peace” approach, in which both parties compromise and commit to certain terms, can succeed

•    The exchange of land highly populated by Arabs for land with Jewish settlements as a viable proposal for solving the Israel-Palestinian conflict

•    The complete cutting of ties with Gaza and its separation from the West Bank

•    The desire to see the introduction of a new citizenship law that would require citizens to affirm their loyalty to the State and readiness to serve in the army or in the National Service in order to be eligible for any state benefits

•    The Maintenance of the Jewish character of the State as a balance of tradition, Zionism, modernity and tolerance as a political and educational imperative

•    The easing of the conversion process for those who wish to join the Jewish people

•    The adoption of the Norwegian Law, which would require Cabinet Ministers to give up their Knesset seat in order to reduce the role of partisan politics when deciding policy

•    More funding for education, more training and higher salaries for teachers, and a tougher response to violence in the schools

•    More funding for healthcare

•    Increasing the police force so that it can reduce crime effectively

•    Stiffer penalties for moving violations and more traffic police to enforce the law

•    The clean-up of our sites of natural beauty and the passing of legislation for energy conservation

•    The desire to see Israel join the European Union and Nato

So, telegramsham, which of the above principles relates in any way to the BNP
Please enlighten me.

___________________________________________________

JCWatch, can you see a logical reason for this to be taken off??

JCWatch replies:
Yes, we understand why this was removed: Yisrael Beytenu is diametrically the opposite of what the NIF stands for. And since we have recently posted a few articles associating the JC with the NIF via the Kessler Foundation, is is clear that the JC is just an NIF front. Anything not in their party line is OUT.
___________________________________________________

 

  

15th July 10  

Blacklisted Dictator has sent two letters to the JC, one to the JC Blogs Webmaster and a second to the JC Editor (Pollard). Neither of them will be published (Pollard’s concept of Free Speech is apparently Cuban in flavour), so here they are:  

Letter #1  

Subject: Fwd: Letter to the editor (The JC and The NIF)
Date: 15 July 2010 11:14:14 AM
To: help@thejc.com  

Dear Webmaster,  

I attach the following letter, to support my case, that I have been banned by The JC on purely political grounds.  

viva
blacklisted  

Letter #2
Date: 15 July 2010 10:49:40 AM
To: letters@thejc.com  

Dear Sir,  

Stephen Round wrote in The JC on March 11th 2010:  

“Nicholas Saphir, a Sussex-based farmer who is also a trustee of the Kessler Foundation which oversees the running of the JC, rejects any suggestion that the NIF was responsible for 94 per cent of submissions to the Goldstone Committee as asserted by right-wing group Im Tirzu.”  

As you know, Mr Saphir is also Chairman of the New Israel Fund as well as being involved in “overseeing the running of The JC.” In such circumstances, could The JC’s current editorial policy actually be influenced by Nicholas Saphir and his New Israel Fund’s political views? If so, are we to conclude, as seems evident from reading your publication, that The JC is now moving very much left of centre, in the various debates concerning Israel and diaspora Jewry?  

  14th July 10  

This is from Blacklisted Dictator, after he was banned from the JC Blogs section. Another letter to the Editor that won’t get published (in the JC):  

Date: 13 July 2010 10:21:19 PM
To: letters@thejc.com
Subject: Letter to the editor  

Puerile and Pathetic?  

Dear Sir,  

Does Stephen Pollard have an ulterior motive when he slams David Mitchell’s column about Rupert Murdoch, “puerile and pathetic”? Moreover, The JC’s editor dramatically concludes, in an accolade that takes your breath away:  

“my own view is that Rupert Murdoch is one of the few genuinely great men of our times, a man who has done more to enrich our lives than any other single human being of the past generation and who should be a hero for his commitment to freedom.”  

But one has to wonder whether all newspaper proprietors are genuinely great men who are heros for their commitment to freedom. Does Pollard’s adulation apply, for example, to Conrad Black who is unfortunately currently languishing in prison? And how about The Mirror’s Robert Maxwell? Would Pollard now be prostrate at his feet if he hadn’t committed suicide?  

It is quite strange though, that Pollard refused to consider that Mitchell’s column was written by a satirist who, unlike The JC’s editor, does not take himself too seriously. After all, Mitchell self mockingly writes:  

“Perhaps this sums up all that is unrepresentative and self-serving about my circle of acquaintance: like a smug and insular cult predicting the end of the world and having sex with each other’s children, we’re holed up with our certainties and only ever indulge in self-affirming conversations” . He sardonically concludes with regard to Murdoch’s introduction of subscription for the internet “Times” “All that is necessary for good to triumph, the reasoning seems to be, is for evil men to do something stupid.”  

One has to scratch ones head and think precisely what Pollard is plotting. Is he dreaming about a job at The Times? Perhaps he will phone his mate, Danny Finkelstein, to find out what sort of salaries are on offer? Of course, since Pollard has now ingratiated himself with the relevant “genuinely great man of our times”, he would be well placed if something nice crops up.  

But I doubt whether, if unbanned, I could have actually posted the above on Pollard’s blog. Ah, the ironies can kill you! Freedom of expression, of course, does have its limitations, even if it is fair game, for Pollard to sanctimoniously label Mitchell, ” a puerile and pathetic little man”.  

yours faithfully,  

Blacklisted Dictator  

___________________________________________________  

18 June 10  

The JC finally gets around to censoring the virulent anti-Israeli fanatic  tom eisner.  

For full details see our * Home page under the date  17th June 10, and from there (or from here) skip to:  

https://jcwatch.wordpress.com/tom-eisner-censored-by-jc-hard-to-believe  

___________________________________________________  

30th April 10  

We haven’t even bothered to check if the JC has published this letter (is the Pope German?) – click on the letter to enlarge it:  

     

___________________________________________________  

Dear JCWatch,
 
I have registered with the JC Blogs, posted an article I had recently written, and in reply to the public nuisance you have mentioned a number of times on JCWatch – moshezarfati2 – I had cause to reply as follows:
 
MarilynSchimmel 14 April, 2010 – 14:48  

I’m sorry, but I have read about you in JCWATCH, and it is obvious from your posts that you are anti-Zionist. I don’t engage in such discussions. For me Zionism is not a question.
   

The result was that my comment was deleted, my Userid was cancelled and I can no longer write in the JC Blogs. What kind of paranoid people are running the JC Blogs?  

Marilyn Schimmel  

JCWModerator’s Comment: Marilyn’s article – if not removed – can be found at:   

http://www.thejc.com/blogpost/no-credit-desecrating-g-ds-name  

– the JC “moderator” censored some comments!  

___________________________________________________  

Received 22 March 10 from Jon Cohen – Posted before 8am today, subsequently removed by JC censorship:  

RE: Liberal Rabbi: Calling for End of Jewish State Not Antisemitic  

On 23 March Jon Cohen notified JCWatch that following a letter of complaint to the Editor of the JC, 2 of his censored/removed posts have been reinstated.  

We have therefore removed the censored post from this Page, but retain its title for the record.  

___________________________________________________  

Sent by Jon Cohen on 19th March 10 – not published.  

Click on the letter to enlarge it.  

  

   

•    The exchange of land highly populated by Arabs for land with Jewish settlements as a viable proposal for solving the Israel-Palestinian conflict

•    The complete cutting of ties with Gaza and its separation from the West Bank

•    The desire to see the introduction of a new citizenship law that would require citizens to affirm their loyalty to the State and readiness to serve in the army or in the National Service in order to be eligible for any state benefits

•    The Maintenance of the Jewish character of the State as a balance of tradition, Zionism, modernity and tolerance as a political and educational imperative

•    The easing of the conversion process for those who wish to join the Jewish people

•    The adoption of the Norwegian Law, which would require Cabinet Ministers to give up their Knesset seat in order to reduce the role of partisan politics when deciding policy

•    More funding for education, more training and higher salaries for teachers, and a tougher response to violence in the schools

•    More funding for healthcare

•    Increasing the police force so that it can reduce crime effectively

•    Stiffer penalties for moving violations and more traffic police to enforce the law 

•    The clean-up of our sites of natural beauty and the passing of legislation for energy conservation

•    The desire to see Israel join the European Union and Nato