“The PCC deals with all editorially-controlled material in UK newspapers and magazines (and their websites). This can include:

Readers’ letters
Edited or moderated reader comments on newspaper and magazine websites.”

How effective they are I don’t know, since I have not had any cause to complain(yet). But quite clearly your book has opened up a huge debate on terms that opponents are not prepared to engage in. As you clearly have shown, anti-Zionism is not a polar opposite of Zionism. It is something else and those who claim differently will find it increasingly uncomfortable. That is why they have shied away. Your book is a brilliant deconstruction of the anti-zionist cause and since what you are arguing is anti-mainstream, is refreshingly subversive and an exciting and long awaited response to this dandruff-ridden discourse. I wish you well and am recommending your book.

My second ‘Addendum’ pulls apart Lerman’s second misrepresentation of the book………. and if he tries it again, there will be a third ..

I bought and read your splendid book. I particularly admire it for its scrupulously fair tone and its insightful conclusions. It should come as no surprise that it was misrepresented in a review embodying the addled mindset which you had identified.

Sloppy thinking, careless writing and the use of loaded terms are the stock in trade of modern journalism, both in newsprint and in the broadcast media. Might I suggest that the decline to this present sad state of affairs be the subject of your next book?

You will need a case study, and what could be better than a history of that once-great newspaper The Manchester Guardian? Please put my name down for the first copy.

While you could probably not make a case that the paper itself writes articles that could be defined as hate-speech, there is no doubt that it provides a welcoming home for those who do on the main pages and in CiF. On CiF itself the anti-Semitism of some commentators is almost unbelievable – their names are known to regular readers, and listed at CiFWatch.

I am noticing more frequently that the moderators are now not only deleting certain comments, and leaving their trademark “this comment was deleted”, but there is more frequent use of the ability to make comments simply disappear, as if they were never there. This is, I think, a pre-emptive effort by the Guardian to try to avoid prosecution for allowing hate-speech to appear on its site, so they must be aware of how thin the ice on which they are skating is becoming. As everyone should know, in fact anything that has once been stored on electronic media can be recovered, and the mere cost of forcing the Guardian to recover that “lost” information under whatever the UK equivalent of a subpoena is would be enough to cramp their style quite considerably.

The “disappearance” of comments is also apparently an attempt to promote the GWV (Guardian World View) by hiding the number of objections to the incessant anti-Israeli articles and the increasingly sieve-like appearance of the I/P threads, where up to 25% – 30% of the comments are deleted (mainly those of Israel’s supporters). In addition, the increasing number of “banned” (shades of Apartheid!) pro-Israeli posters is an attempt to present a false picture of support for the GWV by simply sending those who disagree to the Gulag.

I agree with Israelinurse in comment #10 who said “Maybe some more reputable newspaper than The Guardian would be interested in giving you a well-deserved platform?”. Perhaps the Jewish Chronicle, the Jerusalem Post or even the Daily Telegraph would agree to host an article of yours in response?

Peter the Hungarian, thank you for advising re Steimatsky. I didn’t know one can order directly from them. I will be heading their way forthwith.

Harrys Place has picked up this saga