unflagging anti-israeli articles while keeping articles about other major events that have appearance of pro-israel - is bias.

banning pro-israeli posters after a few messages supporting israel for "it's not place for political discussions" and keeping on-site those who post continuously anti-israel articles - is bias.

> unflagging anti-israeli articles while keeping articles about other major events that have appearance of pro-israel - is bias.

To a limit. Very famously, a lot of Israeli publications promote an unrealistically positive perspective of their politics (a-la Hasbara). These Israeli articles with a predetermined bias are generally lower-quality and contribute to less fruitful discussion than the Israeli exposés like the "Lavander"/"Where's Daddy?" reports or the sniper drone allegations that NPR reported on yesterday. Since Israel has banned all other forms of reporting in Gaza I do not think it is biased to filter obvious propaganda when it appears.

> banning pro-israeli posters after a few messages supporting israel for "it's not place for political discussions" and keeping on-site those who post continuously anti-israel articles - is bias.

This I agree with. But it's not dang that's doing that, it's your everyone on HN that's not using a burner account and has the "flag" capability. We are extremely biased against fringe opinions expressed on fragile throwaway accounts. If you're seeing a disproportionate number of flagged Israeli perspectives, shouldn't that prompt a reflection on what the narrative is now? Gaza is not a back-burner discussion anymore, you cannot whataboutism or handwave justification for the plainly apparent ethnic cleansing Israel initiated.