""Assuming a generation to be approx 20 years you are saying that the majority of the population of israel are decended from people who came there 80 - 100 years ago (ie pre 1925) . Exactly. And since its not believable to you I wonder what would happen if you founf out its true."I would accept it and move on happy that I have learned something that sheds insight into the area and its problems. What I wouldn't do is start up a web site claiming bais against the source and gripe that it was untrue in order to score political points.But I dont think it is true.

"I dont want the BBC to be objective about Pol Pot, I dont want them to be objective about Idi Amin and I sure as hell think it's an irrelevance when people claim they should be "unbiased" about the Israelis. I dont want them telling me that Hitler got the trains running on time or that Stalin was nice to his mom. I want good solid moral reporting - and god bless them for being as objective as they are!"not trying to score political points.......I was agreeing that the BBC was biased - and you seemed to think it was ok for the BBc to biased bc in your eyes Israelis are like Pol pot, hitler stalin etc. So I'm just trying to show you that were not.

not trying to score political points.......I was agreeing that the BBC was biased - and you seemed to think it was ok for the BBc to biased bc in your eyes Israelis are like Pol pot, hitler stalin etc. So I'm just trying to show you that were not. "Really? Then instead of pointing to discredited justification of why it was OK for the Israeli's to dispossess the Palestinians in 1948 (which is a fait acomplit now and pointless argueing about - Israel exists and has the same right to exist as any other country irrespective of how it was founded) why not point to how Israel is living up to its obligations under international law (as mandated by the UN) to withdraw from land it occupied in 1967? That would help make your point but be rather harder I think.Griping that the BBC is baised because it seems to think that consistently flouting international law is wrong just isn't helping at all.

"Really? Then instead of pointing to discredited justification of why it was OK for the Israeli's to dispossess the Palestinians in 1948 (which is a fait acomplit now and pointless argueing about - Israel exists and has the same right to exist as any other country irrespective of how it was founded) why not point to how Israel is living up to its obligations under international law (as mandated by the UN) to withdraw from land it occupied in 1967? That would help make your point but be rather harder I think"you havent discredited anything i said - your whole argument lies on: - there were no (or certainly not near 1 million) jewish refugees in 1948- I have given you a report which you don't accept becasue someone contested its neutrality. I don't accept your refutation because I know that these "pressure groups" are pretty damn near the truth of what happened to Jews in Muslim countries. I hold that the intial encyclopedia report is credible. I also hold that the facts in "From Time Immemorial" have not all been discredited. No-one you have quoted has mentioned the books extensive coverage of Jews from Arab lands, and since i have read the book I suggest you read it instead of using any article you can fish up on google.

This is a case of where the "greater good" supersedes the individual. Britain needs an institution like the BBC. When the Tories were in power they constantly whinged about the BBC. Now Labour are in and they whinge too. Thats the way I like it. Keep those suckers on their toes.

I think Fox is complete rubbish to be honest. I cannot think of one redeeming feature. It is basically tabloid news designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator.The BBCBias website is NOT an UNBIASED website. So we will take what ever it says with a pinch of salt.The lack of debate on Europe is no fault of the BBCs. The politicians (both Labour and Tory) do not want to debate this issue as they know it is deeply divise within their own parties.I think it makes commercial sense for both travellers and business to use the Euro in Britain, if only to avoid paying the 10% bid ask spreads offered by the banks.You cannot possibly be serious if you are stating that the BBC is in cohorts with Tony Blair. Good God man, where have you been for the last 7 years ?

I didnt say just Russia. I said Eastern Europe, Western Europe and US. Look, I did a quick search on google (what a wonderful thing it is) and came up with thishttp://www.nationbynation.com/Israel/Population.htmlI dont even know what axe they have to grind (if any). But lookig at the chart you can see that the population of Israel has doubled since 1970, from 3million to 6 million. And I am sure that is not entirely down to the fecundity of the Jews. It even gives you the breakdown of their birth places:Jewish 80.1% (Europe/America-born 32.1%, Israel-born 20.8%, Africa-born 14.6%, Asia-born 12.6%), non-Jewish 19.9% (mostly Arab) (1996 est.) Israel must be the only country in the world where most of its citizens were born abroad. It sort of contradicats your erlier statement of "most ISraelis are 4th or 5th generation" does it not ? edit note:The CIA website supports the population distrubiton shown above.http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/fac ... os/is.html

OK. The Euro inflation claim. Here is what the BBC site had to say about Euro Zone Inflation:Doesn't look like they have glossed over it to me. I actually remember that story - it was debated at length on the Today programme - and it actually was covered on the TV.See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/358 ... -------Why diners foot the bill for euro changeover By James Arnold BBC News Online business reporter I wonder if they'll take deutschmarks? We shouldn't worry our silly little heads about sneaky price hikes, policy makers assured us when Europe's single currency was rolled out two years ago. The European Central Bank (ECB) found "no evidence of a significant impact on prices"; official eurozone inflation figures ambled along below 2%. Consumers knew that was baloney at the time, and now the evidence is mounting that they were right. In some sectors (notably catering) and some countries (notably France and Italy), euro-related price gouging seems to have been rampant. See Venice and diet The latest evidence of this comes in a paper* scheduled for release at next week's Royal Economic Society annual conference. Giancarlo Marini, an economist at Rome University, was spurred to action when he was eye-poppingly overcharged in a Venetian restaurant. Together with colleagues Fabrizio Adriani at Bristol University and Pasquale Scaramozzino from London, he has produced what may be the most thorough analysis of European restaurant prices before and after the euro changeover. To do this, the three economists compared the 2002 and 2003 editions of the Michelin Red Guide - a useful source, since it can be assumed to filter out the more recklessly unscrupulous of restaurateurs. Mind the gap What they found can only be explained by concerted fiddling. In the three eurozone economies they studied, restaurant prices jumped from one year to the next - by as much as 5.5% in Italy; outside the eurozone, meanwhile, the average bill remained more or less static. When the analysis was narrowed down to tourist-oriented joints, the difference between eurozone and non-eurozone prices swelled to 6 percentage points. Even inside the eurozone, prices at restaurants that catered mainly to an unvarying crowd of regulars - diners well qualified to spot an illicit rise - remained steady. Consuming interest The results look credible. The authors took pains to allow for legitimate sources of restaurant inflation - high food costs due to seasonal bad weather, allowable rounding-up of euro prices, and the introduction of new menus in the new year. Indeed, the authors reckon their figures underestimate real restaurant inflation. And the study is only the latest in a long line. According to Dominique Forest of BEUC, the European consumers' association, price-gouging has affected everything from Irish health services to the Austrian lottery. "The Italians may have made the most noise about it, but this has been a problem throughout the eurozone," he says. Could do better With three EU states, including Britain, dawdling on the threshold of the eurozone, and 10 new members keen to get in, the issue is not just of historical interest. Don't expect much change from that BEUC wants to see greater strictures in place for future changeovers - in particular, a long-standing obligation to print prices in both currencies. Mr Forest points out that supermarkets, which in many countries have voluntarily continued to display dual prices, have won a greater slice of retail trade since 2002. In Italy, long the preserve of the neighbourhood boutique, this shift has been most marked. North and south The only sure remedy for euro-inflation, economists say, is competition. The more clunkily-regulated eurozone economies - France, Greece and Italy, for example - have tended to provoke more rip-off complaints than the liberalised north. Fabrizio Adriani argues that the closely-packed restaurants of Italy's tourist hot-spots may be more prone to collusion than competition. In Britain, notionally Europe's freest market, euro inflation may not prove so severe. Unfortunately for europhiles, the more loudly eurozone shoppers complain, the less inclined Britain will be to take that risk.

QuoteOriginally posted by: DCFCI know that Fox news caters for the bottom half of the American population, but it seems to insult the intelligence even of its target market of trailer trash.How do you know that? Have you ever even watched FOX news or do you base your opinion on hearsay? How many FOX shows have you actually watched? How do you explain that FOX news has double the audience of CNN and 10x as much as MSNBC? Are you trying to say that majority of US population are in the bottom half (not even sure how that is statistically possible... maybe you can explain it to us?) What's the source of your generalization? Please post a link that analyzes the income of an average FOX viewer. I always assumed that an average FOX viewer is someone who leans to the right or is a centrist/libertarian.... are you saying that most conservatives are trailer trash? If that's the case, why do Dems say that the republican party is the part of the rich? Please explain these inconstancies in your argument.QuoteAre Americans in general aware that the owner of Fox, Rupert Murdoch is locked in a bitter commercial battle withthe BBC ? Fox froths at the mouthNo. Most Americans don't even know what BBC is nor do they give a damn about UK press or TV. US channel's BBC remarks censured <== Great to see that the freedom of press is alive and well in UK.QuoteTHe BBC is hardly anti American, it is however anti whatever the government's policy happens to be at any time.And that makes them right how exactly? Call me skeptical for not believing another one of your hasty generalizations but let's for a second assume that you're right... if that's the case then BBC is the worst news agency in the world! They should report the news and form the opinion based on what they think is right and not just play opposition.

"US channel's BBC remarks censured <== Great to see that the freedom of press is alive and well in UK."Indeed it is! Good to see that we use censureship not censorship I am sure you will agree.cen·sure ( P ) Pronunciation Key (snshr)n. An expression of strong disapproval or harsh criticism. An official rebuke, as by a legislature of one of its members.