No need to look inside. Just look at the recent headlines:

"General linked to Jenin atrocities named defence chief"

"Scotland Yard will examine claims of Israeli war crimes"

"Human rights body: suicide bombers guilty of 'war crimes'"

Why do the Jenin events are written like a confirmed 'atrocity' when it clear beyond all doubts that there was no massacre or atrocity. Just a normal battle in a built up area.

And the most important question, why the hell in the headline that deals with crimes against Israelis, the phrase war crimes is in apostrophes? Are these not proven war crimes, contrary to our operations?

Maybe we should also look inside the actual posts. Is more bias possible?

"Settlers target the olive pickers in the battle for land"

A comprehensive report the escape of Palestinians from the village Yanun. Well done. Every conscientious man should condemn the settler violence and sympathize with innocent Palestinians.

But do they keep the same high standards when the Palestinians are on the oppressing side?

At October, 30, 2002 a Palestinian terrorist infiltrated a West Bank settlement and murdered three innocent female civilians, two of them 14 years old. Let's click at the headline "Three killed in West Bank shooting".

Only three paragraphs were devoted to the issues. No interviews with witnesses and relatives of the victims, no names. They are faceless, inhuman.

At October, 22, 2002 there was another heinous suicide attack in Israel, and 14 Israelis were murdered.

Onto the article: "Suicide car-bomb attack kills 14 in Israel"

A bit more detailed, 6 paragraph, but still a way behind the personal stories included 15 paragraphs long article about the bloodless withdrawal from Yanun.

This is their priorities list. Attacks on Palestinians – full coverage. Attacks on Israelis – lip service. Thin report just to fulfill the minimum.

Headlines and articles:

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/