Ah sorry. There is one sentance about Israel ‘belying the deal’ as opposed to ‘refusing to comply’. Israeli’s apparently behave a bit puzzlingly whilst Palestinians ‘refuse to comply’.

So johng, now it’s your vocabulary and your spelling that’s making you a bit infamous Ah well, we’re not all natural born editors. I myself quit an editing job after the first day because the act of hunting down wickedly placed semi-colons,commas and accents made me a bit batty.

Now does this vocabulary lesson change your perception on the objectivity of the article? And do you deny the emotion in Orla’s article? Would you call the NYT piece emotional?

Paul,
I have a question slightly off topic but related, and you are the only person I know who might be able to get a factual answer for me. My stepdad mentioned this morning that all the jews that were forced out of their homes in Gaza and whose homes were consequently destroyed or looted, are still being forced to pay the mortgages on those homes. He is so right-wing if he were a pigeon he’d only fly in circles but I am so under-aware- I get my news from here and The Daily Show- I had no idea how to reply. And I couldn’t contact Jon Stewart for comment. Any thoughts?
Thanks, Tova

I don’t think ‘unemotional’ can be equated with a lack of bias. I also think its very important to understand why (both sides) have emotions about these issues. I simply do not understand why Palestinians should comply with an agreement that they were not party to, when Israel can’t even comply with the agreements its party to (thats not objective description its kind of a question, I would’nt expect that to be said by someone in the media but I’d expect it to be explained that this is the case and that there are competing explanations as to why). In the same way that you believe (rightly) someone who does’nt know why Israel is in Gaza (although I think the reasons are somewhat more complex then its possible you do, and indeed contested in Israel itself) has’nt got the whole story, I think to speak of an agreement which Palestinians fail to comply with which they were not even party to, without explaining how both sides have seen this rather strange situation (‘there is no negotiating partner’ see as a terrible mistake by no less a mainstream figure then Shimon Peres, or on the other hand ‘what roadmap?’ which is the response of the PA side) is to be biased by ommission, actually in precisely the same way that you were complaining about Orla’s response.

I think that my initial point that people are in fact not complaining about a lack of bias but a lack of commitment is probably truer. On the BBC on regularly hears the opinions of settlers. One also regularly hear’s the opinions of Palestinians. The ‘neutrality’ of the BBC consists in viewing both sides as extremists whilst its interviews with the Israeli authorities are critical, but not as critical as the interviews with Palestinians or settlers. There is often a strange kind of playacting that goes on, being determined to be critical of everyone they interview.

The reports on the spot are conducted differently, and an attempt is made to let people speak for themselves and the tone is less critical then when interviewing spokespeople.

Sorry johng but you don’t really seem to have addressed any of my points in comment 3. And I fear that you are trying to blind me with gobbledygook.

What do you mean by the road map that the Palestinians “were not party to”?

If by “party to” you mean “drawn up by” — you would be correct…it was drawn up in collaboration with the United Nations, the European Union, the United States and Russia.

If by “party to” you mean “agreed upon” you would be wrong. Sharon and Abbas both agreed to it in 2003?

I would urge you to take a look at this hopelessly biased piece of propoganda at the ultra-right wing Wikipedia that includes a photograph of Sharon and Abbas shaking on it in Jordan.