Debating with Greenstein and Holocaust Deniers on PeacePalestine

This Post is a copy of the comments section that originally appeared on PeacePalestine Fine. Lose your intellectual base. Just makes my job easier. Toss every Jew you can find from Palestinian organizations. Suits us just fine. Ibraham Av | Homepage | 02.20.07 - 1:55 am | #

> here we go again, shifting focus away from Palestinians, that's what > UK Anti-Zionist Jews do best Ahem - who is exactly shifting the focus? How relevant are these gatekeepers? Lets talk about Teutonia - where I live. Consumers of Teutonias media have never seen jewish leftists 'gate- keeping' the discourse on Irael, because no such discourse exists. The majority of teutonias journalists prefer to ignore the ME - and - if the subject cannot be avoided - to repeat the propaganda, that resembles the communiques from Israels embassy. Although the fight between the 'former jew' - Gilad - a wonderful sax-player - who takes self-hating too serious - and these leftists he suspects to be gatekeepers - I doubt he can prove that in case of Mark Elf - at least - it's not that interesting outside these circles - especially not in Teutonia - where our media are even too spineless to translate (!) Tony Judt (who is definetely not a LEFTIST gatekeeper) correctly. So far the show 'Gilad against the rest of the world' is somewhat interesting and may offer some insights - but it's also shifting the focus. Teutonia | 02.20.07 - 2:01 am | #

> Just makes my job easier. Being a roach is not a job. Did ya know that? May be you should try to find one - do something real - not waiting for the next checque from your local AIPAC bureau... Stop beeing a welfare-queen and learn to swim. You'll need that skill one day. Teutonia | 02.20.07 - 2:05 am | #

Proving that the Palestinians do not have a cause, beyond a desire for genocide, is my job. And you make it a very easy job. I don't wait for a check. It is automatically deposited. Ibraham Av | Homepage | 02.20.07 - 3:40 am | #

Mary, I will also address you by your first name. Maybe I shouldn't have expected any better but I had hoped that instead of rushing off an instant response you had actually sat down and thought about what I said in the CIF article. For example at least half of the article is dedicated to attacking the Zionist tactic and stratagem of labelling all support for the Palestinians and opposition to anti-Zionism as anti-Semitic. This has intimidated countless numbers of people and yet you say nothing about it. One of the reasons I speak up as a Jew is to counter this defamation. And yet to you it is too difficult an issue because some of those you work closest with also articulate anti-Semitic ideas. That is of course your problem but it explains your silence on this. Having ignored the fundamental crux of what I wrote it is not surprising that you failed to understand the rest of the article either! i. Gilad Atzmon compared Jews involved in Palestine Solidarity work with exiled Germans or yes German nationalists, a 5th column, in Britain during the war. If this doesn't make strangers of us then what does? I participate in the PS movement as an individual not a Jew anyway. I attack Zionism as a Jew, see if you can work that out. ii. I didn't sign the Palestinians as Priority petition, not because I don't agree that the Palestinians are the priority, I do, but because the petition was aimed at unnamed persons in the Palestinian Solidarity movement who apparently didn't share this belief. It is clear who these people are, they include me. The fact that the petition is wrong in virtually every accusation made against us, e.g. over the right of return, is double reason not to sign. iii. I have never said that fighting anti-Semitism is a priority in the PS movement. Reread my article again where I make it clear that anti-Semitism is a marginal form of racism cf. to attacks on e.g. asylum seekers. What I do say is that those who use anti-Semitic ideas, inc. Atzmon, are handing a free gift to the Zionists. iv. I've never asked you to publish a 1,000 word essay on Jewish groups. I've never written one either. v. I criticise or attack DYR because unfortunately its leading members, inc. British Director Paul Eisen, are fascinated by what they term historical revisionism i.e. holocaust denial. Since the holocaust is an established fact, one has to ask what their motives are. Why sully the Palestinian cause with this racist rubbish? The fight of the Palestinians is a fight against oppression, genocide, expulsion and racism pervades all. How can you possibly oppose Zionism and yet turn a blind eye or worse to anti-Jewish racism? Holocaust Denial is the property of the fascist right. It has no historical validity and is aimed at merely rehabilitating the record of the Nazi Party. Ironically no movement gave greater help to the Zionist cause than the Nazi Party. The Israeli State may not even have come into Tony Greenstein | 02.20.07 - 5:11 am | #

v. I criticise or attack DYR because unfortunately its leading members, inc. British Director Paul Eisen, are fascinated by what they term historical revisionism i.e. holocaust denial. Since the holocaust is an established fact, one has to ask what their motives are. Why sully the Palestinian cause with this racist rubbish? The fight of the Palestinians is a fight against oppression, genocide, expulsion and racism pervades all. How can you possibly oppose Zionism and yet turn a blind eye or worse to anti-Jewish racism? Holocaust Denial is the property of the fascist right. It has no historical validity and is aimed at merely rehabilitating the record of the Nazi Party. Ironically no movement gave greater help to the Zionist cause than the Nazi Party. The Israeli State may not even have come into existence without the Nazi Party and the Holocaust and without European anti-Semitism there would have been no Zionist movement. That is why we oppose the former, because it led to the latter. Many Palestinians recognise this simple fact which is why, like Abunimah, they criticsed DYR adviser Israel Shamir, who is an open denier of the holocaust and someone who finds the company of white supremacists and neo-Nazis most congenial. Finally it is not for me or anyone to impose anything on the Palestinians. But in our fight against Zionism we will posit a democratic, secular state as opposed to the 2 states solution. Mary supports a unitary state but believes that it can also be Muslim. I disagree. If you are looking for a way forward you look to the problem, Zionism and its ideas of racial purity and you ask how best to create a non-racist society in which both Israeli Jews and Palestinians can live together. That society can only be secular and democratic. Religion should be the preserve of the private sphere not the domain of the law and privilege. If you don't accept that then you are not an anti-Zionist. Tony Greenstein | 02.20.07 - 5:12 am | #

http://www.worldnewsstand.net/hi...ory/ Zionist.htm http://www.biblestudysite.com/markis.htm THE HOLOCAUST MAY NOT HAVE HAPPENED -- IF -- If the Zionist leadership in Germany had not cooperated with the Nazis. If the Zionists, world-wide, had not persuaded various countries to refuse to accept Jews from Germany. The Zionists in America persuaded President Roosevelt to shut the door and not allow Jewish refugees into America before the war when there was still a chance for Jews to leave Germany. * It must be added that many people, including Jews, question whether the Holocaust happened as portrayed by the Zionist propagandists -- at least not to the extent the Zionist claim. Believing in the Holocaust authentic history blindly will help Zionism. For instance, it is scientifically impossible to testify that they are the testimonies such as Gerstein and Pfannenstiel, and the colors of the corpse of the carbon monoxide poisoning death are blues. The color of the corpse of the carbon monoxide poisoning death is red. Natural science | 02.20.07 - 5:54 am | #

Tony why do you feel that you deserve to be congratulated because ‘as a Jew’ you’re able to acknowledge that it’s Muslims who get the rum deal these days!? You’re mistaken if you imagine this kind of coffee-table liberalism exonerates you from being held to account for your shocking disregard of the Palestinian electorate. For your information, everyone who has a brain larger than a wall-nut understands that the word ‘but’ eclipses everything that went before it; lines like this for instance:- ‘it is not for me or anyone to impose anything on the Palestinians. But in our fight against Zionism we will posit a democratic, secular state’ pathetically pertains to evenhandedness then ultimately reveals a neo-colonial agenda. Why not just say what you mean and be done with it? You believe Jews living in Britain have a better idea of what is good for the Palestinians than the Palestinians do. Who on earth do you think you are Tony? For all your pseudo empathy, you clearly regard Muslims as sub-human, theologically handicapped & incapable of legitimate decision making. You’re insistence on the superiority of secularism is bog standard ‘White Man’s Burden’ rhetoric. Now it’s the Guardian reading Jewry, rather than Kipling & co, who feel lumbered with the unfortunate task of having to tame the savages. The Palestinians democratically voted in Hamas. They are the human beings who live on the slither of land called Palestine & this is their choice, not yours! Sarah Gillespie | 02.20.07 - 1:50 pm | #

xxx It is pretty staggering that you have the gall to accuse Paul Eisen & Gilad Atzmon of anti-Semitism when you seemingly have a reputation for xxx. I suggest you work through some of your xxx with a professional. Given that you are a secular fundamentalist, a Rabbi will not suffice but maybe a cognitive therapist could do the trick, a kosher one naturally…. I imagine you could defend your shameful activities with an entirely different set of circumstances. You see Tony there is no such thing as ‘historical facts’, just fluctuating beliefs, subjective memories & collective narratives. Sarah Gillespie | 02.20.07 - 3:12 pm | #

Sarah Gillespie, fuck you woman!!! Go to HELL. Talmudic Israelite | 02.20.07 - 3:30 pm | #

TI - how does one mere mortal manage to possess such unquantifiable amounts of delectable charm....? Sarah Gillespie | 02.20.07 - 4:19 pm | #

One of the real advantages of the internet is that it keeps marginal cranks off the streets and at home in front of their computers where they can wage wars with no relevance to anyone but themselves, and no damage done. So hooray for the internet which occupies Tony Greenstein, Ibraham Av, Mary Rizzo and Sarah Gillespie, deludes them into thinking that they are making the slightest bit of difference to reality, while the rest of us get on with living. Thank you for listening. Goodbye. forecast | 02.20.07 - 4:29 pm | #

Sarah Gillespie, Since you were nice I'll present you with the charm of this blog: http://www.haloscan.com/comments...7183892/ #231694 Talmudic Israelite | 02.20.07 - 6:12 pm | #

Teutonia, I thought that there was indeed a group of Gatekeepers in Germany, the anti-Deutsche. Anyway, you are right, all of this stuff does deflect energy away from what really matters. On the other hand, you might actually see how it is irritating to always be accused of things, or have those you know accused of things... you almost feel compelled to reply, even though you'd rather be doing other things. Tony, I will try to address a few of your things one at a time. I will start here: TG:And yet to you it is too difficult an issue because some of those you work closest with also articulate anti-Semitic ideas. That is of course your problem but it explains your silence on this. M: Those I work closest with are not anti-Semites. Half of them are displaced Palestinians who are seeking their rights. They express anger sometimes, but it is not blind and it is articulated against the offences that they have undergone. TG:. Gilad Atzmon compared Jews involved in Palestine Solidarity work with exiled Germans or yes German nationalists, a 5th column, in Britain during the war. M: He made a simple analogy about how a group may be perceived, and this would be Jews, speaking as Jews, telling non-Jews what is the best for them. You seem to forget that perhaps, in your worldview, it might be time for you to direct your energies towards people like you, other UK Jews who might be able to learn from your experience, rather than assuming that as a Jew you have something useful to give to Palestinians. I don't think you do, because you always berate them. TG:I didn't sign the Palestinians as Priority petition, not because I don't agree that the Palestinians are the priority, I do, but because the petition was aimed at unnamed persons in the Palestinian Solidarity movement who apparently didn't share this belief. It is clear who these people are, they include me. The fact that the petition is wrong in virtually every accusation made against us, e.g. over the right of return, is double reason not to sign. M: the petition was aimed at anyone and everyone who might want to make a statement based on the principles that can't be sold off: ROR, respect of democratic vote, refusal to accept that both share equal responsabilities in the disaster, refusal to accept that other issues are going to take precedence to the interests of the Palestinians, including their right to resist. I'm not surprised you don't like it. Very many other people did, including some important names in the Palestinian world and in activism. TG: never said AS is a priority. M: well, everything you have ever written is obsessed with it. And as to the essay, of course you haven't written it. You asked on the ALEF if I would give you that exposure, a 1000 word essay, and I didn't answer, so I don't imagine you began writing anything. Lastly, what the hell do I or Gilad or DYR have to do with Nazi ideology? Nothing! I have nothing to do with your enemy Shamir either, so qui thecutter | Homepage | 02.20.07 - 8:05 pm | #

Quit going so ballistic on things that I haven't even brought up. thecutter | Homepage | 02.20.07 - 8:05 pm | #

Mary, this response is Teutonia's. Don't you think this aryan roach should be banned, if not be put to death? http://www.haloscan.com/comments...7183892/ #231694 forecast is right and I may accept his advise. I am off of this accursed Natzi blog. A Chosenite Hebrew | 02.20.07 - 8:20 pm | #

go go go, guy who brags of his sexual prowess under five different nicknames (so of course it's all fake! as if we care anyway). I didn't look at the link you left, and just skim over you, so go where you want. I won't miss you. thecutter | Homepage | 02.20.07 - 9:05 pm | #

"your shocking disregard of the Palestinian electorate." What??? We fully accept the fact that the palestiniajn people voted for genocide. And we are acting accordingly. Now what is your problem, Sarah? Ibraham Av | Homepage | 02.20.07 - 11:24 pm | #

It’s a pity that Sarah Gillespie, who I assume is Atzmon’s PR person, has to get down into the sewer with the Zionists she purports to oppose. A sad individual named Shachtman, a vehement Zionist, insists on posting lies about my past before CIF removed them. For the record: I was a delegate to 13 NUS Conferences and served on the NUS Polytechnics Committee for 2 years, as well as Vice President of my own union. Being a Jewish anti-Zionist, the Union of Jewish Students did their best to try and ban me speaking on campuses and from NUS Conference. As they did other Jewish anti-Zionists like Roland Rance. They never succeeded in the former, but the right-wing controlled NUS Executive, most of whom like David Aaronovitch are New Labour supporters or in government did apparently vote for a ban at NUS Conference. So what? They were and are racists and Zionists to the core. These scum are the ones responsible for the racist treatment of asylum seekers and Moslems in Britain today. Re the incident in question. A member of UJS assaulted me and yes I defended myself. At which point he wimped off. What I find interesting though is that Ms Gillespie is happy to accept Zionist smears as truthful, just as Shamir delighted in Sue Blackwell being inadvertently being linked to him. Which once again confirms all I have said, that Atzmon and his groupies are just the other side of the Zionist coin. As to the other points: i. I have never asked for congratulations because I stand up as a Jew against Zionism and its treatment of the Palestinians. ii. Unfortunately Gillespie’s brain is indeed no larger than a fly. It is perfectly possible to support Palestinian self-determination whilst criticising the politics of Hamas or indeed any other Palestinian group. I worked with supporters of the PFLP and other Palestinian leftists. I understand why Palestinians have voted for Hamas, given the corruption and brutality of Fateh but that doesn’t mean I, or I suspect most Palestinians, agree with its politics. But then Mary and others, including Atzmon, support a unitary state. Hamas doesn’t in practice, it supports 2 states. But I also a socialist and I understand that the Palestinians by themselves are not strong enough to determine events. Without the overthrow of the rotten and corrupt Arab regimes, without forging an alliance with Israelis who are not racists, just as the ANC did in South Africa, the Palestinians will remain in the dire situation they are in. That might suit Gillespie who can continue to weep crocodile tears but I would like to see the Palestinians liberated. iii. And then we see how deep the anti-Semitism has seeped. I apparently believe that ‘Jews living in Britain have a better idea of what is good for the Palestinians than the Palestinians do.’ Where have I said that? Most Jews, the vast majority don’t agree with a democratic, secular state in Palestine. It is my view. I speak as a socialist not a Jew in this Tony Greenstein | 02.21.07 - 2:55 am | #

I speak as a socialist not a Jew in this respect. You have Jews on the brain, and precious little else. iv. Yes I am a supporter of secularism, the antithesis of Zionism. Zionism took its political heritage from hatred of the French Revolution, as did Nazism and European reaction in the latter part of the 19th century. If you really think you can substitute Political Islam and the barbarities in say Iran or Saudi Arabia, the floggings and amputations for the Israeli State and sell that to anyone outside your charmed mistaken you are even more stupid than I previously thought. Mary, you know, because you have now stopped it, that Eisen and co. are obsessed with Holocaust denial. Tell me how that helps the Palestinians? You know it doesn’t, it plays into the Zionist’s hands. Gilad Atzmon’s comparisons are outrageous. When I am active in Palestine Solidarity Campaign I am there as an individual. When I take part in boycott activities in Brighton or elsewhere I do it as an individual, not a Jew. But when Zionists attack my comrades as anti-Semites I do intervene as a Jewish supporter of the Palestinians and I find that is usually very effective in shutting them up. The Petition was aimed at people like me. A petition is usually a pretty useless means of campaigning anyway, but this one had a hidden agenda. I therefore didn’t sign it as it added nothing to any campaign I’m involved in. It was a petition to boost Gilad Atzmon and Mary Rizzo. Sorry but that is not my priority. Believe you me Mary, I have no obsession about anti-Semitism. I wrote on the Guardian piece that anti-Semitism is a marginal prejudice. It is unfortunate that Atzmon & co. continue to give vent to anti-Semitic ideas and thus give the Zionists a choice weapon to use against the Palestinian Solidarity movement. It is interesting that the Zionist responses to my article have not mentioned Atzmon, Eisen etc. Their focus is on attacking people like me who rubbish their claims that support for Palestinian is anti-Semitic. Finally, I can remember when on the Just Peace UK list you did defend Shamir. If you have changed your mind that is fine by me. I am being honest and sincere when I say that I welcome that. But I also hope that DYR begins to clean up its act and that Gilad Atzmon stops praising Shamir, who is utter poison. Everything he writes is redolent of the worst fascist and neo-Nazi ideas. Palestinians need his support like they need the plague. But if you no longer wish to defend him and have no attachment to him or his ideas fine. I won’t bring it up again! Tony Greenstein | 02.21.07 - 2:57 am | #

Tony, the Palestinians welcome his support. Wonder why? I don't. I do not understand how you can continue to support such a racist, antisemitic and genocidal group as the Palestinians. It baffles me. Ibraham Av | Homepage | 02.21.07 - 5:06 am | #

Holy degenerate commentary! Feasting and feeding off each other. Rabidly intellectual yet seeming so far removed from what matters. Or is this all that matters? Say it ain't so. Additionally: Genuine anti-Semites! Or are they posers for the Zionist cause? Plus a racist Jew or two just to prove their racist too! How about this: Let the Jews who support the Palestinians raise the level of their game and start fighting (and dying) in their name. Give up your Jazz. Get on the street. Throw some stones. Become dead meat. Enough of the words against those Zionists you detest. Despise them beyond words. Despise them with your death. Support the Palestinians but take it one step farther. What they need is more than words. They need bodies - fresh new martyrs. When I see anyone break ranks from their tribe in deeds that lead to scorn. I'll believe that universal humanism has finally been reborn. Otherwise this talking looks all too much like tribe against tribe against tribe. And I thought there was a Palestinian Solidarity Movement to support. Brad Stroud | Homepage | 02.21.07 - 6:03 am | #

Brad, I am sorry to disappoint you. My sax and my pen are my weapons. I assume that they are effective enough to get the Zios and their crypto brothers very very angry . I do not think that I will be that effective in throwing stones, I may leave it to you and Greenie. Gilad Atzmon | 02.21.07 - 11:23 am | #

Good thing a sax is not racist. But Gilad is. Ibraham Av | Homepage | 02.21.07 - 11:38 am | #

"Is this the same Tony Greenstein who was xxxx(CIF) Tony, thanks to this Zionist on CIF we have learned that you were involved in xxxx. Something you happen to confirm above (though you provide an excuse...). However, it doesn’t stop just there… thanks to this Zionist contribution (that you were very quick to remove for a good reason….) we took the unusual initiative and looked into your past. We found some very interesting materials that I am pretty sure you do not like me/us to expose. To tell you the truth Greenie, your past is so embarrassing that I myself reluctant to expose it. Yet, you really give my friends and me some very good reason…. It will be interesting to learn from you, how do you explain the fact that you, out of all people, dares criticise Eisen and myself, people who have never been involved in any form of violence or xxx neither against Jews nor against anyone else. Have a good day Mr Greenstein... Gilad Atzmon | 02.21.07 - 11:57 am | #

Shaukat: Allah is One, and Muhammad is His final Prophet. Here's a brief description of Muhammad's sexuality ------------------------------------------------- Muhammad had sex with just about anyone he pleased, thanks to Allah's remarkable interest in his personal sex life. Muhammad was married to eleven women at one time, relegating them to either consecutive days or (according to some accounts) all in one night. He married a 9-year-old girl and even his adopted son's wife. On top of that he had a multitude of slave girls and concubines with whom he had sex - sometimes on the very days in which they had watched husbands and fathers die at the hands of Muhammad's armies. So, by any realistic measure, the creator of the world's most sexually restrictive religion was also one of the most sexually indulgent characters in history. Talmudist | 02.21.07 - 2:56 pm | #

Brad, your poem was interesting, but wrong in a lot of ways. You are right, that when the agenda is set by the (few) anti-Zionist Jews who seek to squeeze anyone else (especially Jews) out of "their" campaign of Righteousness, which boils down to determining exactly where all discourse is supposed to go, and definitely NOT willing to adapt to the situation should it become apparent that force-feeding "secularism" and passing that off as democracy is a way of activism that has seen better days. I too am secular. I too want the separation of Church and State. But, I am not about to tell Palestinians what to vote for, especially if they are the ones who have to live with the results. I will support them, as this is all I can do. But, most Palestinians don't want to be a martyr. Most of them just want their rights. Is that too much to ask for? Those of us who want that for them can only use the tools we have at our disposal, dialectic, fund-raising and promotion of their culture. There isn't much else that we can do, as we are trying to convince OUR local leaders and the people in OUR countries to use tools of pressure and consensus to get the leaders to shift politics in order to obtain justice for Palestinians. thecutter | Homepage | 02.21.07 - 3:05 pm | #

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Arti...le.asp? ID=18477 There are no differences in Mr. Greenstein and Plaut at all. http://www.israelshamir.net/ Cont...ntributor13.htm "·Overall there is very little evidence for the established Holocaust narrative. Hard evidence is elusive, and what evidence as does exist is built largely on eyewitness reports, confessions and hearsay. Witness reports, notoriously unreliable anyway, are in this case totally false. Many key witnesses have already been demolished in the witness box and many noted ones, such as those by Rudolf Vrba, Felipe Muller, Kurt Gerstein and Rudolf Hoess, are now partially or completely discredited." Please prove the thing whose color of the corpse of the carbon monoxide poisoning death is blue. Natural science | 02.21.07 - 3:11 pm | #

Brad Stroud: Enough of the words against those Zionists you detest. Despise them beyond words. Despise them with your death. Yes, yes, Gilad, be a suicide bomber!!! Talmudist | 02.21.07 - 3:31 pm | #

What's Izzie Baroque? Talmudski decorating the walls of the nearest pizza parlor. kassandra | 02.21.07 - 6:33 pm | #

TG: It’s a pity that Sarah Gillespie, who I assume is Atzmon’s PR person SG: ha ha!! TG: has to get down into the sewer with the Zionists she purports to oppose. SG: It’s true Tony, even if I profoundly disagree with someone I don’t feel that necessitates a blanket disregard for absolutely everything they think or say, particularly when it’s regarding your xxxx. I mean what on earth did that xxxx ever do to you? Did you sit on it? TG: Unfortunately Gillespie’s brain is indeed no larger than a fly SG: Hey, far be it from be it for me to argue with a graduate from that intellectual Mecca, Brighton Polytechnic... I reiterate what Mary pointed out in a post above, I am a secularist but I know many Muslims who are not. Given the election results in Palestine I assume that most Palestinians are not secularist either. Get over it. Sarah Gillespie | 02.21.07 - 7:49 pm | #

Tony, I have to hand it to you. You certainly are quick to point out the faults (presumed or otherwise) of other people, yet, you attempt to come off clean as a whistle. It doesn't wash with me. Look, everyone can make mistakes (and you seem to be a serial mistake maker), but it is really rich for someone who has actually xxx to pontificate about what is appropriate and who is to be trusted. I don't want to mix up issues, and I won't hold your past against you, but you should stop insinuating things about others when you yourself have some self-control problems. Judge not, lest you be judged... anyway, no one I happen to hang out with has xxxx, so I don't think that your moral superiority trip is going to hold out much longer unless you think that morals are variable and applicable on an individual basis. Back to your comment: But when Zionists attack my comrades as anti-Semites I do intervene as a Jewish supporter of the Palestinians and I find that is usually very effective in shutting them up. Mary: Shutting who up? The Palestinians? ahaha, just joking. If you believe that Zionists "shut up" when Jewish people defend their comrades, you are obviously dealing with a different kind of Zionist than the type I know. Explain how it works, I'm curious. cont: thecutter | Homepage | 02.21.07 - 11:13 pm | #

TG: The Petition was aimed at people like me. Mary: yeah, the world actually REVOLVES around YOU.... all political actions are just ways to reflect upon the beauty of YOU. TG:A petition is usually a pretty useless means of campaigning anyway, but this one had a hidden agenda. Mary: Ah, I know, petitions, elections, marches, demonstrations. We all know that the only thing that talks is money, but since we ain't got none, we use words for now. Hidden Agenda? You have got to be kidding. What was that hidden agenda then? TG:I therefore didn’t sign it as it added nothing to any campaign I’m involved in. It was a petition to boost Gilad Atzmon and Mary Rizzo. Sorry but that is not my priority. Mary: I didn't expect you to sign it, actually, since it had that bit about not making anti-Semitism the cornerstone to activism, you couldn't sign it. It also stated that smear campaigns were not going to be tolerated. That would put you out of a hobby. The petition was indeed penned by myself and Gilad, together with two Palestinians and a Canadian. The title was given by yet another Palestinian who did not compose it, but who read it and said that the only thing he would add was the title, so that it was clear what the point was. It was not about us at all, but of course, it stresses the issues we have been focussing on, namely the ROR and the will to serve the Palestinians and not put conditions on them in order to work towards the goal of their obtaining of rights. That is why many people, over half of whom Palestinians, signed it. I don't know... maybe they had to first ask you if it was a good thing. You obviously know what is best for them. On JPUK I said I didn't consider Shamir to be anti-Semitic, and I even stated clearly that I read him only very occasionally, so I am not even the perfect judge. Of the hundreds of writers, he is not among my preferred and I am not that familiar with his material, but at any rate, I would neither defend nor attack him for his ideas just because others insisted I should do so. This is quite different from being his supporter!!!! As a matter of fact, I am not at all one of his supporters, although I am not going to go into public attacks because people think they can pressure me to do so. I can say I will not attack many people, and this does not make me a supporter! It is your obsession with him that is the thing that is so ridiculous. It is also your "guilt by affiliation" way of thinking that is so flawed. thecutter | Homepage | 02.21.07 - 11:18 pm | #

"I read him only very occasionally, so I am not even the perfect judge." thecutter Even occasionally, he is incredibly antisemitic. So if that is not your judgement, you are an idiot or a liar. I'm willing to accept either. Ibraham Av | Homepage | 02.22.07 - 3:27 am | #

Av, you are just a garden variety racist who doesn't even write, so why should I care about your opinion? thecutter | Homepage | 02.22.07 - 8:04 am | #

Mary about Greenstein: "I happen to hang out with has been xxxx, so I don't think that your moral superiority trip is going to hold out much longer unless you think that morals are variable and applicable on an individual basis." Mary what you are saying about Greenstein is damn right. We are dealing here with xxx. In short, a man who xxxxx is not really a person that should preach ethics to others. Gilad Atzmon | 02.22.07 - 10:03 am | #

Mary, about my opinion; Doesn't matter why you should care, the fact remains that you do care. We feel sorry for Gilad's parents. But we also blame them for not injecting morals in his sorry ass. Ibraham Av | Homepage | 02.22.07 - 11:29 am | #

Aty least Gilad has parents... unlike maggots that hatch in a pile of dung and spread it throughout their pathetic life. desertpeace | Homepage | 02.22.07 - 11:32 am | #

Isaiah, chapter 17: Behold, Damascus is taken away from being a city, and it shall be a ruinous heap TI | 02.22.07 - 12:20 pm | #

It is so disingenuous for Mary to imply that she is surprised that Jews react to the themes of Jewish Power (ie the Jewish world conspiracy), Christ-killing and holocaust denial which Shamir Eisen and Atzmon are trying to introduce into the Palestinians solidarity movement. These themes have nothing at all to do with Palestinians and can only harm their cause. It is Messrs Shamir, Eisen and Atzmon who began by shifting the focus. Of course Jewish activists feel we have to respond in some way to these provocations, and then they accuse us of shifting the focus! Typical double-bind tactics. Deborah Deborah Maccoby | 02.22.07 - 9:01 pm | #

You are the one who is obsessed with Christ-Killing, Deborah. In fact, you confuse accusations with the idea that some people actually "do" identify with the ancient inhabitants of Israel. Why is it that all of your discussion is about what is good for the "movement"? Do you really know what is good for it? Tony insisted that when he says he's a Jew, it shuts Zionists up. What does that mean? Is it even true? Is there really a movement when there is negligence in promoting the Right of Return? I am always utterly astounded by the actual lack of campaigning for that idea by almost all people in the "movement". Isn't it more damaging to the Palestinian cause to insist that the Palestinians made a terrible choice when they voted in Hamas and basically imply that they get what they deserve from the "international community"? Why should conditions be put upon Palestinians? There should be no conditions, as it is their rights that are being violated! First must they be "tamed" and "instructed" to accept the values that are important to some Secular (or not) Jews in the UK? This isn't actually more damaging that talking about the abuse of the victim status that many Jews use in order to excuse all and sundry? Atzmon is not a Holocaust Denier, nor is Eisen. I don't know Shamir well enough to judge, but I don't think that's his gig. He's into religion, just like you are, so he promotes things from that point of view. I don't care about religion, so I just don't read that kind of analysis very much. Why do you feel that talking about Jewish power is being provoked? Do you believe there is no such thing? thecutter | Homepage | 02.22.07 - 9:33 pm | #

Maccoby: It is Messrs Shamir, Eisen and Atzmon who began by shifting the focus. G: Check it out Lady Maccoby. Leave out the notion of holocaust denial, it is just too Judeo centric for me to refer to. I will challenge your brain (take it as a complement). If the Palestinians (as well as Arabs and Muslims) are indeed the last victim of Hitler, then the History of WW2 belongs to them as much as it belong to you, me or anyone else. If you didn’t get it yet, the Holocaust is now presented officially as a pretext for a war against Iran. So the subject is more than relevant. It is even crucial. It is the essence of the Humanist cause! However, I myself do not care about the Holocaust that much. But I do care about the MEANING of the holocaust. I do care as well about the MEANING of Christ killing (rather than about Christ Killing per se). But the problem with you and the other Greensteins of the world is that you do not know the difference between History, Historical Narrative, Historical discourse, historical fact and MEANING. Sadly enough, you are too shallow to realise how stupid you happen to be. Thus, you keep bombard us with your embarrassing superficial arguments. Maccobyl: Of course Jewish activists feel we have to respond in some way to these provocations, and then they accuse us of shifting the focus! Typical double-bind tactics. G: Apparently you do not understand what double bind stands for. There is no such a thing as ‘double bind tactics’. There are tactics that expose people being in a state of a ‘double Bind’. Indeed you and your Judeological friends are in a severe state of double bind. You are locked in a ‘no win situation’ (I am afraid that your Shtetle friend Brian Robinson realised it at the time, he rescued himself by moving to Engage). You insist to act as a Jew as well as humanists. Yet you do not know how to bridge the gap between the 2. I will make it very simple for you my dear queen. There is no such a bridge. You can either choose orthodoxy or acting simply as a humanist regardless of your Jewishness. The reason is simple. THERE IS NO JEWISH SECULAR SCHOOL of HUMANISM/UNIVERSALISM. The reason is simple; there is no Jewish anthropocentric school of thought. If you know one please enlighten us. With love G Gilad Atzmon | 02.22.07 - 10:30 pm | #

Have you noticed that Polytechnic Gangster Greenie is keeping quiet? Do you think that he is still that enthusiastic about historical facts? Gilad Atzmon | 02.22.07 - 10:39 pm | #

Gilad, as the spiritual father of the palestinian people desired to assist Hitler and, in return, allow hitler to rid him of his jewish problem, it is unfathomable that you hold the opinion that the arabs squatting in the disputed territories were the victims of Hitler. Is there some historical fact that you are disputing, Gilly? Ibraham Av | Homepage | 02.23.07 - 12:19 am | #

Don't worry Iby, we are not talking about Hitler (for a change).... We are after a righteous Jew who visits here often enough. He preachs us about ethics. He is one of those who tell us and the PSC what is good for the Palestinians. However, we have learned yesterday that amongst his very many convictions he was as well engaged in xxx. We just can’t make our mind whether he did it as an ‘individual’ or as a ‘Jew’. Sherlock Holmes Place | 02.23.07 - 12:49 am | #

I would assume a righteous person would easily be able to tell us and the PSC what is good for the Palestinians. I would also assume that some prior criminal activity would not disqualify one in despensing wisdom. Would I would imagine that a born and bred antisemite would be disqualified from such. Ibraham Av | Homepage | 02.23.07 - 1:03 am | #

Gilad Atzmon, You can follow Israel Shamir and become a Friar. TI | 02.23.07 - 1:15 am | #

I know what is good for so called Palestinians: Embracing Judaism. I know also what is good for you Gilad Atzmon and Jewish friends: Just go to hell. Gilad Atzmon, you wanted to be a normal human being, but you don't seem to be able to get rid of your Jewish mindset. Just let yourself go. TI | 02.23.07 - 1:37 am | #

With stories like this anyone who can shift the focus away from Palestinians is doing them a favor. If the world really knew what these people are like and the press stopped hiding the truth about the way a large number of Arab/Muslims view life the international community would drop them like yesterdays news. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spa...ges/ 829440.html Abu Foxman | 02.23.07 - 4:57 am | #

But the world actually knows what these people are like and the press stopped hiding the truth about the way a large number of Arab/Muslims view life. And still they are supported. Makes you wonder what the agenda is all about. And why they fear a non-existant Jewish lobby. Ibraham Av | Homepage | 02.23.07 - 11:37 am | #

Abu Foxman, Here's a link to a site where you can read more about the religion of peace and its noble deeds: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/ We want Israel to be destroyed and an Islamic state based on the precepts of the religion of PEACE be established, where The Talmudon, a.k.a Gilad Aztmon, can live in eternal bliss, playing his sax in a Jewish Mosque, that is, a Mosque erected on the ruins of a Jewish synagogue. Bless you Jihad Abu Az Zaman. TI | 02.24.07 - 8:47 am | #

It is interesting that even Atzmon's attacks on me mirror those of the Zionists he purports to oppose. Let's face it Gilad, you are a Zionist, which of course is merely the other face of Zionism. I see you accept the Zionist version of this event at face value. Fine. No doubt you accept all the rest of their myths too! No of course you weren't involved in any hate crimes. You were merely a good member of the Israeli Defence Forces and unlike many members, had no objections to killing Palestinians or enforcing the occupation. You seem to be a hypocrite as well as, according to Lenni Brenner, a mediocre jazz player Tony Greenstein Tony Greenstein | 02.25.07 - 12:08 am | #

So Mary, given that Shamir now regularly regales with talk of the Jewish alliance, that he believes Auschwitz was an internment camp, that he even criticises the British National Party as Jewish run, do you revise your opinion of him. I notice that I've Atzmon rattled as he seems to have done some research into my background. I suppose the accusation of being a common and garden anti-Semite has got to him. And no, relieving the banks of their ill-gotten gains is no crime. It's taking money off those already poor that is the offence. Hence why I advise people how reduce their profits in the courts. So Gilad, now we've established you are a Zionist, are you still being paid by the Israeli state? >>On JPUK I said I didn't consider Shamir to be anti-Semitic, and I even stated clearly that I read him only very occasionally, so I am not even the perfect judge. Of the hundreds of writers, he is not among my preferred and I am not that familiar with his material, but at any rate, I would neither defend nor attack him for his ideas just because others insisted I should do so. This is quite different from being his supporter!!!! As a matter of fact, I am not at all one of his supporters, although I am not going to go into public attacks because people think they can pressure me to do so. I can say I will not attack many people, and this does not make me a supporter! It is your obsession with him that is the thing that is so ridiculous. It is also your "guilt by affiliation" way of thinking that is so flawed. thecutter | Homepage | 02.21.07 - 11:18 pm | # -------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ "I read him only very occasionally, so I am not even the perfect judge." thecutter Even occasionally, he is incredibly antisemitic. So if that is not your judgement, you are an idiot or a liar. I'm willing to accept either. Ibraham Av | Homepage | 02.22.07 - 3:27 am | # -------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Av, you are just a garden variety racist who doesn't even write, so why should I care about your opinion? thecutter | Homepage | 02.22.07 - 8:04 am | # -------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Mary about Greenstein: "I happen to hang out with has been xxxxx, so I don't think that your moral superiority trip is going to hold out much longer unless you think that morals are variable and applicable on an individual basis." Mary what you are saying about Greenstein is damn right. We are dealing here with a xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx In short, a man who xxxxxxxxxxx is not really a person that should preach ethics to others. Tony Greenstein | 02.25.07 - 12:12 am | #

More important than the ego of Atzmon is the beginnings of a breach between Jews and the Zionist leaders of their communities. Of course if Atzmon and his holocaust denier friends have their way, then they will be forced back together again. The Jewish Grassroots Revolt (The Alliance of Concerned Jewish Canadians) Special to Canadian Dimension February 19,2007 A grassroots revolt is underway in Jewish communities throughout the world, a revolt that has panicked the elite organizations that have long functioned as official mouthpieces for the community. The latest sign of this panic is the recent publication by the American Jewish Committee of an essay by Alvin H. Rosenfeld, entitled "'Progressive' Jewish Thought and the New Anti-Semitism," which accuses progressive Jews of abetting a resurgent wave of anti-Semitism by publicly criticizing Israel. This is the latest attempt to conflate anti-Semitism with anti-Zionism in order to silence or marginalize criticism of Israel. This approach is widely used in Canada. Upon becoming CEO of the Canadian Jewish Congress, Bernie Farber declared that one of his goals was to "educate Canadians about the links between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism." It is misleading for groups like the CJC to pretend that the Jewish community is united in support of Israel. A growing number of Jews around the world are joining the chorus of concern about the deteriorating condition of the Palestinians in the occupied territories as well as the inferior social and economic status of Israel's own Palestinian population. In a world where uncritical support for Israel is becoming less and less tenable due to the expanding human rights disaster in the West Bank and Gaza, leaders of Jewish communities outside Israel have circled their wagons, heightened their pro-Israel rhetoric, and demonized Israel's critics. These leaders imply that increased concerns about Israel do not result from that state's actions, but from an increase in anti-Semitism. Despite this effort to absolve Israel of responsibility for its treatment of Palestinians, Jewish opposition is growing and becoming more organized. On February 5th a group in Britain calling itself Jewish Independent Voices published an open letter in The Guardian newspaper in which they distanced themselves from "Those who claim to speak on behalf of Jews in Britain and other countries [and who] consistently put support for the policies of an occupying power above the human rights of the occupied people." Among the signatories of the letter were Nobel-prize winning playwright Harold Pinter, filmmaker Mike Leigh, writer John Berger, and many others. This development follows the emergence of similar groups in Sweden (Jews for Israeli-Palestinian Peace), France (Union Juive Francaise pour la paix, Rencontre Progressiste Juive), Italy (Ebrei c Tony Greenstein | 02.25.07 - 12:42 am | #

This development follows the emergence of similar groups in Sweden (Jews for Israeli-Palestinian Peace), France (Union Juive Francaise pour la paix, Rencontre Progressiste Juive), Italy (Ebrei contro l'occupazione), Germany (Jüdische Stimme für gerechten Frieden in Nahost), Belgium (Union des Progressistes Juifs de Belgique), the United States (Jewish Voice for Peace, Brit Tzedek, Tikkun, the Bronfman-Soros initiative), South Africa, and others, including the umbrella organization European Jews for a Just Peace and the numerous groups within Israel itself. In Canada, the Alliance of Concerned Jewish Canadians (ACJC) has been founded as an umbrella organization bringing together Jewish individuals and groups from across the country who oppose Israel's continued domination of the West Bank and Gaza. Criticism of Israel is not anti-Semitic, nor does it "bleed into anti-Semitism," a formulation that says essentially the same thing. Some genuine anti-Semites do use Israel as a cover for maligning the Jewish people as a whole, but it is fallacious to argue that anyone who criticizes Israel is anti-Semitic because anti-Semites attack Israel. There are some anti-Semites who support Israel because they are Christian fundamentalists who see the return of Jews to Jerusalem as a precondition for the return of Christ and the conversion of Jews to Christianity, or because they are xenophobes who want to get rid of Jews in their midst. Anti-Semites take positions in support of and in opposition to Israel. It is wrong to criticize all Jews for Israel's wrongdoings, yet Israel's leadership and its supporters in the Diaspora consistently encourage this view by insisting that Israel acts on behalf of the entire Jewish people. This shifts blame for Israel's crimes onto the shoulders of all Jews. But Jewish critics of Israel demonstrate through their words and deeds that the Jewish community is not monolithic in its support of Israel. Defenders of Israel often argue that Israel is forced to do what it does - to destroy people's homes, to keep them under the boot of occupation, to seal them into walled ghettos, to brutalize them daily with military incursions and random checkpoints - to protect its citizens from Palestinian violence. Palestinian violence, however, is rooted in the theft of their land, the diversion of their water, the violence of the occupation, and the indignity of having one's own very existence posed as a "demographic threat." To justify Israel's continued occupation and theft of Palestinian land, the state and its defenders attempt to deny Palestinian suffering, arguing instead that Palestinian resentment is rooted not in Israeli violence, but rather in Islam, or the "Arab mentality," or a mystical anti-Semitism inherent in Arab or Muslim culture. Consequently, pro-Israel advocacy depends upon on the active dissemination of Islamophobia. Not surprisingly, engen Tony Greenstein | 02.25.07 - 12:43 am | #

Not surprisingly, engendering hatred in this manner inflames anti-Jewish sentiment among Arabs and Muslims. None of this is a recipe for making Jews safe. Jewish people can help avert the catastrophic effects of Israeli behaviour, but only by taking a stand in opposition to it. This article was posted on Tuesday, February 20th, 2007 at 11:39 pm and is filed under Palestine / Israel Canadian Issues and Politics Tony Greenstein | 02.25.07 - 12:44 am | #

Sorry Tony, but the Jews are very aware of the suffering of the Arabs in the disputed territories. But they were suffering before the territories were in dispute. And their suffering is often at their own hands. Palestinian violence is rooted in antisemitism. The same that you preach. Ibraham Av | Homepage | 02.25.07 - 2:53 am | #

Tony , god knows what you are on about, So far it looks as if you are engaged in Greenstein's xxxxx denial. we are interested in your past, xxx tell us about it. We are not interested in your Idiotic politics. You have nothing clever to say about Palestine or Jews. .. just try to open our eyes, tell us how come xxx with so many xxxx is trying to suggest to us what is right and what is wrong...what is moral and what isn't...it is really beyond me/us Gilad Atzmon | 02.25.07 - 6:07 am | #

This is one of those debates that gets more and more rancourous and personal over time, but in which all the rancour and personal attacks from both sides generate more and more heat, but no illumination whatsoever. Since both sides are wrong, and at least one side appears to completely lack a sense of proportion about the beliefs of the other, and their significance, this is hardly suprising. Holocaust scepticism among dissidents of Israeli Jewish origin is a new phenomenon, though it parallels similar widespread beliefs among Arabs, which have now spread to some Jews. Those like Paul Eisen who are victims of this latest delusion are not fascists, not even remotely, even though their formal views may lead them to rub shoulders with geriatric Nazi cultists. Such proximity is purely conjunctural. The fundamental motives involved are 100% in opposition to each other. The Nazi nostagics deny the holocaust because they dream of laying the basis for another holocaust. The Israeli holocaust sceptics merely mistakenly and mechanically deduce from the totalitarian lying and vicious racism of the Zionists, which cynically uses the holocaust as a propaganda weapon to justify repression of the Palestinians that bears a strong resemblance to Nazism, that the Nazi genocide itself may be a myth. It is obvious when you look at the underlying causes of these phenomena, that the motivations are at 180% degrees to each other. The Nazi cultists are motivated by racism, pure and simple. The Eisen's of this world are motivated by midirected anti-racism, and revulsion at the crimes of their own, Israeli-Jewish, ruling class. To treat them as the same, or either proximate, political phenomena, is wrong, and does give some credibility to Gilad Atzmon's accusation of Jewish communalism directed against Jews Against Zionism (criticism which I also believe is over the top). The holocaust scepticism of the likes of Eisen and the small number of Jewish dissidents who share his views can be put into perspective when you look at the growth of the belief in 9/11 conspiracy theories in the United States. On Al Jazeera last night, a poll was referred to which stated that around 30% of the American population suspects that the Bush administration was in some way involved in 9/11, either by commission or deliberate omission. This growth of 9/11 conspiracy theories in the US is a recent phenomenon, the result of the exposure of the Bush Administration's deliberate lying over Iraq being extrapolated by large numbers of Americans to 9/11. And of course, 9/11 only happened just over 5 years ago. The potential for similar misguided theorising over an event that happened half a century ago, and is used in propaganda terms in a similar way, once Zionism begins to lose its authority among Jews, is so much the greater. In this context, one does not have to agree with the political views of Gilad Atzmon, or even Paul Eisen, to maintain some level of fraternal debate Ian Donovan | 02.25.07 - 1:11 pm | #

(continued) In this context, one does not have to agree with the political views of Gilad Atzmon, or even Paul Eisen, to maintain some level of fraternal debate with them. In this regard, I think the SWP's attitude to Gilad Atzmon is broadly correct, and the outcry against them is very unfortunate and does indeed play into the hands of the Zionists that I believe the comrades of Jews Against Zionist sincerely oppose and whose racism they loathe. This argument is being falsely conducted, and is really generating only heat, not light. Ian Donovan | 02.25.07 - 1:12 pm | #

And Gilad laughs all the way to the bank. Playing you all for fools. He believes not a word he preaches, just likes to hold the puppet strings. Ibraham Av | Homepage | 02.25.07 - 2:11 pm | #

Ian, I agree that it becomes personal, and that in a way is unavoidable since it seems that it is Tony and co who are setting that agenda. Is reacting a mistake? It could be, but when one reads certain things, it just comes naturally. As if we were all sitting in a bar and are allowed to say our bit. Tony, I can't believe you call Gilad a Zionist. Why is he one? Because he was born in Israel and like all Israelis he did his mandatory service in the fucking army? I think it takes a lot more than that to be qualified as a Zionist. Of course he had objections to punishing Palestinians and never misses a chance to denounce all of that. Since then, I would say he redeemed himself, because he denounces and shows his anger at what Israel represents, rather than blaming something else. So, xxxxxx is doing the working class a favour? It is relieving the bank of some ill-gotten gains? Explain this to me, as I just don't seem to get it. This kind of logical deduction is simply beyond me. I know what your problem is, Tony. I understand you, as well. You think that it is urgent, vital and necessary to set yourself apart from others. Within the human family, you are part of a particular group. Within the Jewish community, you are different and march to a different drum. In either case, whatever you do becomes more important. I think perhaps where we don't seem to agree is that for your Jewish community it might be important for you to make differentiation, but within the human family, it doesn't matter at all what group you say you belong to. If you are supportive, unconditionally, to the Palestinian people, you will be accepted by them and you can work together to achieve with them the freedom that they long for. If you address them as someone who knows better and especially impose your Western, Secular, Working Class (or what YOU consider working class, including stealing if it suits you) values upon them, they will send it back to you, because it is useless. Gilad and I have actually discussed your situation. We think that it's time that we started to see that you make some sense. You are right, the movement you think you are part of doesn't work with people like us in it. Actually, we are all too different to work together. The goals are not the same. It might be better if you continue, straight on, and stay in your ghetto, convincing your brethren of your immaculate morality, because it doesn't wash here, and you are actually just wasting everyone's time. I think there is more to be said on this, perhaps later we will say more. thecutter | Homepage | 02.25.07 - 2:31 pm | #

I just love it when supporters of antisemitism fight it out. No matter who dies, it's a win-win situation for the Jews. Fire another shot, Mary. But be careful not to turn the gun around. By the way, we wouldn't want to share Western Morality with Arabs. That would keep them from murdering their daughters because they were raped by their sons. We wouldn't want to stop that, now would we? Ibraham Av | Homepage | 02.25.07 - 2:55 pm | #

Iby, I don't think that Tony is a supporter of Anti Semitism. I certainly am not, nor is Gilad. The only racists around here are you Zionist slugs. I would delete you, but Michael is having fun with your comments. I hate to ruin Michael's fun. thecutter | Homepage | 02.25.07 - 3:06 pm | #

All three of you support antisemitism. You and Gilad are better at it then Tony. That is the only difference. Ibraham Av | Homepage | 02.25.07 - 4:53 pm | #

Tony, what a turgid load of waffle you have posted. What exactly are you trying to say? Not much, it seems. However, you’re impotent little xxxx illuminates the fact that it doesn’t matter if you xxxxx Palestinian land or someone xxxxx: just make sure your defence is that you come from a Jewish bloodline…. Is your last name Greenstein or Soprano? Sarah Gillespie | 02.25.07 - 5:04 pm | #

Sarah, It appears your racism is overpowering your argument. Reread what you wrote. You are more concerned with making antisemitic remarks then discovering any truths. And exactly whose land was stolen? Do you have the deed? Or is this just another Islamic fascist party line? Ibraham Av | Homepage | 02.25.07 - 5:15 pm | #

is your name Greenstein or Soprano? Sarah, you are vicious !!! Gilad Atzmon | 02.25.07 - 6:11 pm | #

Ian: “I believe the comrades of Jews Against Zionist sincerely oppose and whose racism they loathe. This argument is being falsely conducted, and is really generating only heat, not light” I as well believe that JAZ's sincerely oppose racism and Zionism. Yet, sincerity means very little in the case of Greenstein, Rance or Blackwell. More over the ‘Not In My Name’ philosophy is dated and pathetic. It didn’t stop Blair in Iraq and it won’t stop Israel. However, we are not against what JAZ say or believe in. Though we do not agree with what they may believe in. we defend their right to express their thoughts. The problem we have with them has something to do with the gate- keeping tactics they employ. Personally speaking, I am very interested in what they have to say. They embody the essence of Jewish self centered philosophy. Monitoring their cyber activity I ve learned a lot and I shared it all with my readers. However, as Mary mentioned above. We do not really know what solidarity movement they refer to. The people they oppose happen to be the most poetic and creative people in this discourse. The ideas that some of us already introduced to the discourse are there to stay and to be picked by others. We identify Zionism with Jewishness. We identify JAZ tactics with Zionism. We then try to learn what Jewishness stands for...We always present ideological and metaphysical argument. In response they call us names (Nazis, AS, H, Deniers etc’). Let me tell you Ian, tt will take more than that to silence any of us... Gilad Atzmon | 02.25.07 - 6:43 pm | #

It didn’t stop Blair in Iraq and it won’t stop Israel. Gilad, nothing you and your pathetic group of hatemongers can do will affect the Israeli position one iota. You'll do more good standing in front of a bulldozer. The publicity, though short-lived, will help generate the propaganda your ilk loves. Do you need airfare? We'll have a concert to raise the funds. Ibraham Av | Homepage | 02.25.07 - 8:51 pm | #

Ian Donovan's suggestion that holocaust denial is simply another variant of more general conspiracy theories is ludicrous. HD has been articulated almost entirely by neo-Nazis intent on rehabilitating the crimes of the Nazis and are not equivalent to the various flaky theories concerning e.g. 9/11. Their motivation is entirely different, though of course there are those who maintain that there was a hidden Jewish conspiracy behind 9/11. As for Atzmon's nonsense concerning myself. Of course none of it is true and he would have done well to check his stories rather than speak to his Zionist friends, as he will soon find out. Tony Greenstein Tony Greenstein | 02.25.07 - 10:55 pm | #

Tony, your XXXX is on the net, do you want to see the URL? Tony let put it straight, weren’t you XXXXX You see Tony, XXXXXX may be cool, but XXXXXX IS somewhat revolting…. As Sarah put it above: The Israelis take Palestinian land, Tony XXXXX , the Israelis smash Palestinian towns Tony XXXXXX….. Tony, i wonder, what is your moral ground? Tony, save the yourself the embarrassment, we have seen the original news papers… I think that I ll have to add the original PDF with your XXXXX to my 1001 lies page. I wonder if this would shut you up once and for all. Gilad Atzmon | 02.25.07 - 11:39 pm | #

Gilad, thank you for your kind observations. I am not responsible for what is on the net. What you put on your own web page is entirely your own affair, however you would be well advised not to do any such thing. I'm sorry you do not understand my previous message, however I hope to enlighten you soon. Tony Greenstein Tony Greenstein | 02.25.07 - 11:52 pm | #

Tony you play games. Why can’t you just tell us the truth? We have read about you and your XXXXX. We have seen the original papers, what is your explanation??? again what is your moral ground? Gilad Atzmon | 02.25.07 - 11:59 pm | #

Gilad, I can assure you that I am playing no games. I shall, in due course, send you a private e-mail which will make things clear to you. As for the question of morality, I am surprised you know how to spell the word. Tony Greenstein Tony Greenstein | 02.26.07 - 12:18 am | #

I am not in accord with bringing up TG's real or imagined criminal record. Sometimes one must do things like defend one's self physically and when one does this one risks arrest and conviction, especially if one is at the time representing "anti Zionism" (in no matter how distorted a way) and one's attacker represents and is aligned with Zionism and "the forces of law and order." If TG was attempting to be a "Robin Hood" I for one won't hold it against him, it would be something honorable that he has done. If TG was once a common criminal who is rehabilitated I wouldn't hold that against him either. If TG once was in dire straights and did something illegal (and especially not violent against innocents) in order to survive I would not be angy over it, especially if the illegal thing he did was against a damned bank. In my country, the USA, poor people and especially ethnic minorities are victims of not only frame ups and police concoctions but of selective enforcement, selective prosecutions and selective sentencing. Perhaps it's not like that in England? In my country sometimes progressive political demonstrators are framed up and sometimes they do things either to defend their persons, defend the persons of fellow demonstrators or defend the right to demonstrate. Sometimes these acts get them arrested. These are good and honorable people. I was twice in that situation, charged with multiple felonies and misdemeanors. Malcom X was an ex con, a drug abuser and a criminal hustler who was rehabilitated through Islam and later became a great leader of an oppressed people. Martin Luther King was a jailbird. Graduates of technical colleges have valid opinions as do illiterate peasants. Let's please stick with the issues, which is where TG is the weakest. He and others are trying to foist a judeophilic agenda onto the Palestinians. That is what should be opposed. Eugene Weixel | Homepage | 02.26.07 - 3:49 am | #

Eugene, we are talking about XXXXX rather than lefty heroic activity. but we expect TG to come with the good rather than us publishing the links. we ask tony for his moral ground... Gilad Atzmon | 02.26.07 - 8:58 am | #

Tony, talking about morality. I have NO CRIMINAL RECORD. Eisen HAS NO CRIMINAL RECORD. Please do not send me a private email, Just tell us all, how do you explain your XXXXX. And this is probably just a tip of the iceberg… By the way Tony, you are welcome to say that it all happened many years ago. you' ve changed. We will respect it though you still try to spread lies about your disastrous past. You see Tony; it is rather easy to be a bully. It is very easy to use your favourite tactics against you. In other words, you may have changed but you have never stopped being a bully Gilad Atzmon | 02.26.07 - 9:36 am | #

What a show - When neo-nazis tear each other apart over feigned morality. Survivor, move over. This is certainly more entertaining. Who will win? The failed musician who is in bed with holocaust deniers? Or will it be the thief who back Islamic Fascism? Tune in next week when these paragons of antisemitism spit at each other to the death! Ibraham Av | Homepage | 02.26.07 - 12:19 pm | #

I've been a way a week and come back to this - Tony's attempted smear of Deir Yassin Remembered and now his past. Tony, I for one couldn't care less what you did or didn't do in your youth. But now, why don't you stop your smearing and join the human race? paul | 02.26.07 - 4:50 pm | #

Eugene, for sure, I have nothing against a person who either 1) acts in good faith and does no harm to others or 2) feels remorse for wrongs that have been done and is determined to compensate for the damages they have done. This is what I suggest for Israelis all the time, to accept responsibility for the wrongs done, truthfully and because they realise that their actions have consequences, and to recognise who the damaged party is and not shift blame or try to weasle out of paying back. Tony spends most of his time commenting on blogs, and half of what he does is condemn other people for their bad character and acts he himself determines are damaging, and he asks people to boycott them, smear them, block them from being allowed a chance to be heard to join in community initiatives. It is from THAT pulpit that the things that Tony does assume a sinister light. He is great at smearing people, saying they are racists and haters and promoting and inciting towards evilness. He calls them Zionists on a anti-Zionist blogs, he calls them anti-Semites on Jewish ones. It's all just a game of damaging. Well, when things have been found that are not opinion, not invented, but rather are facts, (perhaps better kept private, but Tony does not stop smearing, and he doesn't seem to realise that people are then going to go looking into just WHO this person is who tells others what to do and how to act. Things come up, since we live in an age where access to this information is simple to obtain). He's pretty proud of his past. In Harry's Place (loathe the place, but it's quite good for laughs as well...) Tony said: "As for epitaphs, I care little once I'm dead but I suspect my achievements will outweigh yours, which will probably consist of having met me!" So, his past is something that he does actually discuss. And don't tell me that didn't make you all laugh as well! I've known Tony (internettally) for around 6 or 7 years, and modesty is not one of his virtues. And yes, Eugene, it would be more profitable to simply show his position (conditional support of Palestinians and constant gatekeeping of those whose ideas are not just like his own) for what it is, useless to work in activism for Palestinians, distracting, Judeocentric, etc... I know, but as I said, if one lives by slinging around insinuations, they had better have a very candid record themselves, and if not, they should at least quit judging others as if they are the arbitors of high moral standards. Now, what is more troubling is what Tony wrote here: "And no, relieving the banks of their ill-gotten gains is no crime. It's taking money off those already poor that is the offence. Hence why I advise people how reduce their profits in the courts." Pray tell, Tony, what does "XXXXX" have to do with relieving the banks of their ill-gotten gains? How is this to be seen as a revolutionary act for the good of thecutter | Homepage | 02.26.07 - 5:18 pm | #

Pray tell, Tony, what does XXXXX have to do with relieving the banks of their ill-gotten gains? How is this to be seen as a revolutionary act for the good of the working class? Is it helping the poor in some way? Is it giving advice to the poor for ways to scam the banks in court? I really don't get it, and that is a fact. Perhaps XXXXXXX, but you are the one who is saying what you did "is no crime". Therefore, you admit that what the Jewish Chronicle wrote was not only true, but that it was morally justified and ethical. thecutter | Homepage | 02.26.07 - 5:19 pm | #

Let's be honest about it - this thread is a farce. We have Tony Greenstein being accused of being a Zionist by Gilad Atzmon and Gilad Atzmon accusing Tony Greenstein of being a Zionist. It reminds me of the Iran/Iraq war with Sadaam Hussein and Khomeini accusing each other of being Zionists. Which one of you is Sadaam and who wants to be called the Ayatollah? Tony Greenstein doesn't seem to like Gilad Atzmon and Paul Eisen because Eisen thinks no Jews were killed at Auschwitz. Eisen of course defends himself for that charge as he has read publications by Ernst Zundel - now languishing in prison. Tony Greenstein thinks that is a load of nonsense as he thinks of course Jews were murdered at Auschwitz but the Zionists did it. The ideas of Zundel et al have been exposed as false by many people - not least Deborah Lipstadt and the ideas of Greenstein have also been exposed by many people - not least by me on this link Mikey | 02.26.07 - 5:52 pm | #

Paul you say: "Tony, I for one couldn't care less what you did or didn't do in your youth. But now, why don't you stop your smearing and join the human race?" Once he joins humanity he will become just another Paul Eisen. He obviously prefers to remain a JAZ. As you know, becoming a 'mensch' is more than a mere decision, it means developing a sense of empathy. It entails performance. Gilad Atzmon | 02.26.07 - 5:52 pm | #

Oops - first paragraph should read - We have Tony Greenstein accusing Gilad Atzmon of being a Zionist and Gilad Atzmon accusing Tony Greenstein of being a Zionist. With so many accusations flying around - and so many Zionists in our midsts - its not surprising I made that simple error! Reading this thread anyone might think a Zionist is a bad thing. Very strange indeed. Mikey | 02.26.07 - 6:01 pm | #

It's Purim this week - hamantaschen anyone? Mikey | 02.26.07 - 6:04 pm | #

Mary you ask: “Tony, what does XXXXXX Mary please don’t underestimate Mr. Greenstein revolutionary commitment. His philosophy is far reaching. He is not only about ‘working class politics’. He is very interested as well in ‘playing class’ hence, the toys. It is rather possible that Greenstein is convinced that Eisen, Shamir and myself are made out of Lego. But now he learns that even Lego toys can hit back and hard. Saying that. we are yet to do much, we just asking for Mr. Greenstein’s moral ground. Anyhow, I really believe that story of Greenstein can make a nice episode for Toys Story 3. Before I engage in writing the cinematic episode I would like to ask Mr. Greenstein. What kind of toys was he after in his thirties? Gilad Atzmon | 02.26.07 - 6:21 pm | #

Mikey, talking about Purim, what do you think, is Greenstein Mordechay or Esther? However when it comes to Paul, he has never said 'no Jews were killed at Auschwiz'. You have to be very careful with your words... Gilad Atzmon | 02.26.07 - 6:33 pm | #

Mikey: Eisen thinks no Jews were killed at Auschwitz. Eisen of course defends himself for that charge as he has read publications by Ernst Zundel Dear Mikey If you are who I think you are you know perfectly well that my views go a touch further than "no Jews were killed at Auschwitz". And regarding my having read Ernst Zundel, whatever revisionist literature I have or have not read, it's a damn sight more than you have. So why don't you stop being a smart-arse and address some issues? paul | 02.26.07 - 6:34 pm | #

Ouch!.. Being attacked by Paul (Eisen?) is like being attacked by a dead sheep. Let us be quite clear about it.. 1 simple question does Paul Eisen believe Jews were killed by gas in gas chambers at Auschwitz. A simple yes/no will do. Mikey | 02.26.07 - 6:49 pm | #

We can have a Purim Party - Gilad Atzmon on Sax, Rabbi Tony Greenstein reading the Megillah and paul Eisen waving a rattle and stamping his foot every time the name Achasverush is mentioned. Fancy dress - Paul Eisen dressed as Adolf Hitler and Tony Greenstein dressed as Haman. The tradition of Purim is that everyone gets completly drunk - I know a Jewish Tribal thing - what can I say? - anyway after everyone is off their heads Tony can try playing the sax and Gilad will give him marks out of 10. Also Tony can try on paul's fancy dress - and he musnt forget the moustache! Mikey | 02.26.07 - 7:01 pm | #

You sound like an inquisitor. You get to frame the question and to define the parameters of the answer. Alas I have no simple yes or no. The answer is that Jews were certainly killed at Auschwitz whether it was because they were Jews or that they just happened to be Jews, I don't know. Regarding gas, again I am not sure but the evidence for the use of homicidal gas-chambers is not good at all. The evidence against it is much, much stronger. These are complex issues. To begin to acknowledge that would be a start. paul | 02.26.07 - 7:03 pm | #

Mikey relax, in this cyber chamber we do one person at a time and today it’s Greenie. If you are after Eisen, please come tomorrow.… down to the point, Eisen always answers your banal question saying: “I wasn’t there, I can’t say”. Eisen as well as other scholars are speaking about the body of work that challenges the gas narrative. He and others argue that this work shouldn’t be dismissed. Can you see the difference between a historical discourse and a critical discourse? If you can’t see the difference just move on coz you are in the wrong place. Gilad Atzmon | 02.26.07 - 7:06 pm | #

Im just having fun it's coming up to Purim! Tony isnt discussing things at the moment - he cant debate me - he knows he loses. - he tried before - see the above link - Sp just before I pop out to have an argument with a Marxist who is going to try and tell me that all the problems in the world are due to the capitalism and the oppression of the working class (it makes a change from hearing all the problems in the world are the fault of the Jews or Zionists - depending of if you are reading the Protocols of the Elders of Zion or the Protocols of the Elders of Atzmon - and which version). Anyway Marxists are so funny - they are so easy to destroy - im going to win my argument hands down tonight - poor old Marxists... But whilst he is here... Let me therefore make the question simpler. "On the balance of probablities does Paul Eisen believe that Jews were murdered by gas at Auschwitz because they were Jews?" One more question - I get confused - Is it Gilad Atzmon or Tony Greenstein who is currently working for Mossad - or both of you? Mikey | 02.26.07 - 7:15 pm | #

Mikey, your Jewish friends get drunk in Purim to celebrate their victory in a fantasmic Judeocide that never happened. Purim and the book of Esther is the theological origin of the notion of Jewish Power. This is simply the moral of the book. It is there to teach Jews to infiltrate into powerful institutes. Esther did it to Acheshverosh, AJC lobby for a war against Iran! As you should know, the Book of Esther is totally fictional, apparently there has never been a Persian attempt Judeocide. You see Mikey, i am a Purim Denier. Luckily enough i can still play in Germany while denying Purim. I believe the Persians won’t stop me either Gilad Atzmon | 02.26.07 - 7:19 pm | #

Look Mikey, If you want to discuss the hydrogen cyanide traces in brickwork, go to the net - there's piles of information for you ther. I'm not interested in your "Are-you-now-or-were-you-ever..." questions. Much more interesting is why you ask them and what you hope to deduce from the received answers paul | 02.26.07 - 7:21 pm | #

Poor old Paul Eisen - evading the questions. I suggest you read something like Auschwitz and the Allies by Sir Martin Gilbert. He got knighted for his knoweldge on history - Zundel ends up in prison. Maybe its those pesky powerful jews again controlling the world history. I wish Jews could also know what was going to happen in the future -So much more useful. I would make a killing with the local bookmaker on the 3.30 at Ascot. All this Jewish power - I hear the guy that owns Carmelli's bagel bakery in Golders Green is Jewish. Maybe he is the real powerful one. Its probably what he puts into his bagels that does it. I'm not sure whether the power comes from the egg and onion or the smoked salmon. Mikey | 02.26.07 - 7:29 pm | #

I wonder why Tony just didn’t simply hold his hands up say ‘year, so what!?’ This would be far more noble and to the point. Anyway, word on the street is that Toys R Us have got a new Bob The Builder Friction Dodger in store with it’s own adjustable crane! Plus the Batman 3-in-1 Bat-Jet Vehicle is now half price & comes with a Batman Triple Mission Batmobile! These are must have items – Tony give me yr sort code Sarah Gillespie | 02.26.07 - 7:55 pm | #

Mikey, Why do you think I'm 'evading the questions'? Do you think I'm frightened? paul | 02.26.07 - 8:30 pm | #

SG "I wonder why Tony just didn’t simply hold his hands up say ‘year, so what!?’ This would be far more noble and to the point." Because TG is a bully. And he is far from being clever. Salam | 02.26.07 - 9:44 pm | #

The answer is that Jews were certainly killed at Auschwitz whether it was because they were Jews or that they just happened to be Jews, I don't know. Regarding gas, again I am not sure but the evidence for the use of homicidal gas-chambers is not good at all. The evidence against it is much, much stronger. These are complex issues. To begin to acknowledge that would be a start. paul | 02.26.07 - 7:03 pm | # Frightening. Does this fellow get paid or is he on the Dole like Berkeley? I think it is time to found "Der Yassin Forgotten" We can discuss how Palestinian Jihadists forced the villagers to stay in their huts while they fired at the Israeli troops. We can discuss how it was all a ploy by Islamic fascists to garner publicity. We can even begin discussing how it never actually occured. How the Jews merely took credit for an event they discovered. Ibraham Av | Homepage | 02.26.07 - 10:29 pm | #

Mary and Sarah and Atzmon and everybody... Greenstein explains his appetite for other people’s XXX saying that its " relieving the banks of their ill-gotten gains?” Doesn’t it mean that the man is actually a potential bank robber? I really like him, what else did he do? this is what we need in the Palestinian solidarity, some real men with big balls. Can he steal a Nuclear bomb from Dimona? Salam | 02.26.07 - 11:49 pm | #

So Mikey now makes an appearance to inform people that ‘the ideas of Greenstein have also been exposed by many people - not least by me on this link’. Unfortun the ideas of Greenstein have also been exposed by many people - not least by me on this link.’ In Mikey’s head that may be true, but someone who believes that the Kastner trial began in 1954, when the indictment was laid on 5th May 1953 (hence the Protocol Number 124/53) is hardly going to be exposing anyone. And although my reply to his final piece on Harry’s Place wasn’t printed, the idea that Kastner testified against Eichmann at Nuremburg, as Mikey claims, when Eichmann was nowhere near Nuremburg makes the rest of his ‘expose’ laughable. Quoting Zionists to support one’s case is like quoting said Zionists to ‘prove’ that the Palestinians left Palestine in 1947-8 of their own volition. What I don’t understand is why whenever challenged face to face Mikey runs away. At the Lenni Brenner meeting he attended recently, instead of challenging Lenni from the floor, he quietly left, merely complaining that Lenni hadn’t been to college (this is why Lenni doesn’t want to talk to you – he thinks you are an elitist as well as an ignoramus!). All Mikey said to me at the Lenni Brenner and IJV meetings was that ‘I know more than you about Kastner’. Even were that true, and it’s not a competition, it’s not how much you know but what you do with it, how you make sense of history is more important than an accumulation of facts. Atzmon however leaps into defend his Holocaust denier friend, Paul Eisen. ‘he has never said 'no Jews were killed at Auschwiz'. You have to be very careful with your words...’ No but he ‘doesn’t know’ whether they were or were not killed because they were Jews! In that case why were they transported there in cattle trucks? And the evidence that Jews were deported in such trucks from all over Europe is incontestable. So where did they go? And regarding the gas chambers ‘the evidence for the use of homicidal gas-chambers is not good at all. The evidence against it is much, much stronger.’ This is the clearest exposition to date of Eisen’s clear Holocaust denial views. It would be interesting to see whether Atzmon still wishes to support Eisen’s pretence that he doesn’t know and urge caution? The ‘evidence’ against the gas chambers has been demolished, and even Irving acknowledges that fact. The ‘Leuchter Report’ on which such attacks were based, concluded there were no gas chambers because the residue of HCN left in the chamber walls was less than that in the areas for disinfecting clothes. On the basis of the assumption that more HCN was needed to kill human beings than louses then it was clear ‘proof’ there were no gas chambers. The only problem is that the assumption was wrong. It takes far less HCN to kill a human being than louses. The only other challenge was based on whether or not there were apertures for dropping the Zyklon B in through Tony Greenstein | 02.27.07 - 1:47 am | #

The only other challenge was based on whether or not there were apertures for dropping the Zyklon B in through the roof and that too has now been put to rest. So if Paul Eisen thinks that the evidence against the gas c hambers is greater than that for them, maybe he would enlighten us to what evidence he is referring to in this ‘complex’ issue. In fact the issue is quite simple. Tony Greenstein The ideas of Zundel et al have been exposed as false by many people - not least Deborah Lipstadt and the ideas of Greenstein have also been exposed by many people - not least by me on this link Mikey | 02.26.07 - 5:52 pm | # However when it comes to Paul, he has never said 'no Jews were killed at Auschwiz'. You have to be very careful with your words... Gilad Atzmon | 02.26.07 - 6:33 pm | # -------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Mikey: Eisen thinks no Jews were killed at Auschwitz. Eisen of course defends himself for that charge as he has read publications by Ernst Zundel Dear Mikey If you are who I think you are you know perfectly well that my views go a touch further than "no Jews were killed at Auschwitz". And regarding my having read Ernst Zundel, whatever revisionist literature I have or have not read, it's a damn sight more than you have. So why don't you stop being a smart-arse and address some issues? paul | 02.26.07 - 6:34 pm | # Ouch!.. Being attacked by Paul (Eisen?) is like being attacked by a dead sheep. Let us be quite clear about it.. 1 simple question does Paul Eisen believe Jews were killed by gas in gas chambers at Auschwitz. A simple yes/no will do. Mikey | 02.26.07 - 6:49 pm | # -------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Alas I have no simple yes or no. The answer is that Jews were certainly killed at Auschwitz whether it was because they were Jews or that they just happened to be Jews, I don't know. Regarding gas, again I am not sure but the evidence for the use of homicidal gas-chambers is not good at all. The evidence against it is much, much stronger. These are complex issues. To begin to acknowledge that would be a start. paul | 02.26.07 - 7:03 pm | # -------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Mikey relax, in this cyber chamber we do one person at a time and today it’s Greenie. If you are after Eisen, please come tomorrow.… down to the point, Eisen always answers your banal question saying: “I wasn’t there, I can’t say”. Eisen as well as other scholars are speaking about the body of work that challenges the gas narrative. He and others argue that this work shouldn’t be dismissed. Can you see the difference between a historical discourse and a critical discourse? If you can’t see the difference just move on coz you are in the wrong place. Gilad Atzmon | 02.26.07 - 7:06 pm | # Tony Greenstein | 02.27.07 - 1:48 am | #

This site is becoming a rest home for Holocaust deniers and neo-Nazis. Whilst denying the existence of gas chambers Ted James nonetheless bemoans the fact that they didn’t exist! But at least he pays tribute to Paul Eisen. As for the quaintly named Natural Science (which one?) we are told that witness reports are notoriously unreliable. True but they all concur in one direction in the case of the concentration and extermination camps. They are only held to be false in this case because Holocaust deniers cannot accept the fact that the latter exist. Rudolph Vrba certainly wasn’t demolished on any witness stand and Hoess, commandant at Auschwitz, was in a position to know whether or not Auschwitz was just a labour camp as claimed. And Eichmann admitted, in an interview with a Dutch Nazi journalist in 1955, five years before capture and printed by Life Magazine in 1960, that Jews had been exterminated. In short, leaving aside the disappearance of whole communities, the organisation of deportation to the East from where few came back etc. the evidence is overwhelming. When, in a court case, the sole revisionist historian of any note, David Irving, was shown to manipulate sources and completely invert their meaning, such that he conceded the existence of gas chambers in Poland in Action Reinhardt, something he reiterated in Austria, the question is why Paul Eisen considers the evidence to be the other way? Puzzling unless he uses his uncertainty as a mask for what is in effect a decided opinion, viz. that the Holocaust was a fiction and invention. His problem is that he doesn’t have the courage to say so openly and instead hides behind thin and transparent circumlocutions. Tony Greenstein Anonymous | 02.27.07 - 6:08 am | #

Greenberg, it is Tony Soprano here, we have a job for you, how can we get in touch? Something nice, pretty easy, lots of dosh, many toys involved…. Tony Soprano | 02.27.07 - 10:31 am | #

As for master, it is understood that there is an absolute deletion authority of Web. http://www.israelshamir.net/ Cont...ntributor13.htm The cause of the dispute of Mr. Eisen, Mr. Atzmon, and Mr. Greenstein is sure also to have the success or failure of "The Holocaust Wars". If so, the success or failure of "The Holocaust Wars" should become the object of the discussion. If it is a place by which the discussion is avoided, it is necessary to withdraw 　"The Holocaust Wars" 　according to the demand of Mr. Greenstein. http://www.gilad.co.uk/html%20fi...0files/ 3rd.html Are Mr. Atzmon and Mr. Eisen "The 3rd Category Jewish"? Natural science | 02.27.07 - 10:55 am | #

The ignoramus inquisitor Greenstein tries to divert the attention from his impossible past. Being a leading exponent of the emerging Shoa necrophilia-religion, he now tries to present himself as a holocaust expert. Here is what Shraga Elam (a real holocaust scholar) had to say to Tony about the subject (22.11.06, alef list): “Tony, …..Your knowledge of the documents and the ongoing discussions is rather limited and in your place I would be more modest and more cautious with such insults. If it fits your position or not, it is a fact that there are no written proofs that Hitler did order Auschwitz or knew about it. …. … …I'm totally against the hysteric attitude towards Holocaust denial. Till now Holocaust denial is more dangerous to the deniers themselves while the Israel and its lobby make a profit out of it and find in it a justification for expanding the Holocaust religion while more and more people are getting fed up with the over kill. Shraga” To my taste, Elam’s vision of history and truth is rather archaic, yet, being a scholar he identifies that Greenie doesn’t have a clue about the subject. And he is indeed right. I have learned recently that Greenie went through the same humiliating experience on the horrible Harry’s place. I can try to find the link. Gilad Atzmon | 02.27.07 - 11:13 am | #

cont' Greenie, bearing in mind what we already know about you, we just cannot take you seriously anymore. Yet, because you are a politician (though a very unsuccessful one) we feel that it is our duty to tell the world who the real Greenie is. We are indeed troubled with it, it is against our belief to expose people and their past sins… However, I read above (in your own words: " relieving the banks of their ill-gotten gains”) that you still believe in the morality behind XXX. Why don’t you just concentrate on that for a while, In other words, give us a break. But here is an ofer for you, alternatively, you can join the human family. We will forgive you instantly. Generally speaking, We are very much into forgiveness and grace (just use the dictionary). Would you like to give it a try? Gilad Atzmon | 02.27.07 - 11:17 am | #

I fail to see what Greenstein's past has to do with the present conclution of holocaust denier such as Eisen and his busom buddy Gilad. Does Gilly feel that Tony hasn't the right to stone him because of a past imperfection? Funny how christians like Gilly take their literature. Ibraham Av | Homepage | 02.27.07 - 11:37 am | #

It really does not matter whether those who question the official H story are correct or not in their analysis. What is relevant is that they are being locked up for thought crimes, not for actual crimes. And it is incumbent upon all of us who claim to be fighting Zionism, the Neocons, the new world order, a world police state etc. to support them, whether we agree with them or not. Supporting the Palestinians is just one side of this battle, it’s the easy part, it doesn’t get one locked up…..but those who with their silence acquiesce to the detention of intellectuals for thought crimes in effect are inadvertently supporting Zionism. It makes a mockery of their claims to be fighting those who have been brutalising the Palestinians for the past 60 years. All that is needed for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing. Eisen is one of very few who has the courage to speak out. Edna | 02.27.07 - 12:09 pm | #

No support for truth justice etc. Just support for the enemy of your enemy. Good one Edna. Arabs have been brutalizing the Palestinians for 60 years. Why do you allow them to suckle you? You are to be mocked. It is fitting punishment for your racist behavior. Ibraham Av | Homepage | 02.27.07 - 12:14 pm | #

As always, you fail to understand the simplest concepts, Ibby. I support freedom of speech, freedom of thought, and historical revisionism of any sort. And despite the fact that every single thought you have and every utterance you make is filled with racist hatred, if you have not committed acts of violence based on these lunatic notions you spew out , I would support even you if you were to be locked up for making those statements and having those thoughts. Got it now? Edna | 02.27.07 - 12:48 pm | #

Atzmon's tribute to Shraga Elam is probably something he could do without. Just as Shraga could have done without paying tribute to David Irving. However I am, as I told Shraga, well aware that no written order re the Final Solution has ever been found, which is not surprising since it is highy unlikely that it was ever written down. Atzmon's concern for my experiences on Harry's Place is touching but entirely misplaced. Since however Atzmon knows nothing himself about the subject he is hardly in a position to judge who came off best. Suffice to say that Mikey ran away from the chance to confront Lenni Brenner. Tony Greenstein | 02.27.07 - 4:17 pm | #

Tony has asked Gilad if he would delete references that Tony takes offence to. Gilad isn't able to do that. Even though he does play a residency here, the blog is mine. I don't understand why Tony didn't ask me, since I am the only one who can make any changes edits or deletions, but for the sake of moving onto more political issues, I went in and weeded out this thread. Since everyone has a past that they have to live with, and Tony loves to use the past of other people to berate them, but facts (not opinions) about his own are something he wants to keep private, I will satisfy his request. I can't delete his past, but references to it that upset him I can omit in the comments, which has been done. Nothing that was published was gotten in an illegitimate way. Nothing was invented. I can understand that Tony feels that what we are doing makes him uncomfortable, and while he insists that he only addresses political issues (calling people names is apparently a political issue for him), I tend to feel that he goes into ad hominems and uses his insistence to exclude people from the public speaking sphere and also to suggest that they are not worthy people, morally somehow inferior to him. At any rate, he should feel better about this thread, as all concrete references have been omitted. thecutter | Homepage | 02.27.07 - 6:54 pm | #

Though it repeats. As for master, it is understood that there is an absolute deletion authority of Web. Please let me discuss "The Holocaust Wars". Please cooperate. It is a question to Mr. Greenstein. http://www.israelshamir.net/ Cont...ntributor13.htm "·Overall there is very little evidence for the established Holocaust narrative. Hard evidence is elusive, and what evidence as does exist is built largely on eyewitness reports, confessions and hearsay. Witness reports, notoriously unreliable anyway, are in this case totally false. Many key witnesses have already been demolished in the witness box and many noted ones, such as those by Rudolf Vrba, Felipe Muller, Kurt Gerstein and Rudolf Hoess, are now partially or completely discredited." Please prove the thing with blue color of the corpse of the carbon monoxide poisoning death if you think that Gerstein is correct. Please ask Mr. Michael Tregenza, Mr. Eisen, and Mr. Irving, etc. in detail. All members live in Britain. All members can meet easily directly. Natural science | 02.27.07 - 7:23 pm | #

You know, a lot of "The Holocaust Wars" was about seeing things through the eyes of others. This is something that Tony and his colleagues are unable to do. paul | 02.27.07 - 7:29 pm | #

and, Natural Science, you might misunderstand this blog. There are appropriate threads to discuss things you are interested in. Try to keep that in mind. thecutter | Homepage | 02.27.07 - 8:41 pm | #

So Mary, we are not JSF after all... Gilad Atzmon | 02.27.07 - 9:06 pm | #

The said thing is understood. Mr. Greenstein persists in "The Holocaust Wars". If so, the discussion doesn't end. Natural science | 02.27.07 - 9:16 pm | #

"Nazis Holocaust" is a past form. "Palestine Holocaust" is a present progressive. Natural science | 02.27.07 - 9:22 pm | #

Despite the comments by Greenstein - I never "ran away from the chance to confront Lenni Brenner." In fact I have confronted Lenni Brenner in print based on facts that he has wrong in his 1983 book. I recently met him in London and went over to introduce myself, but he told me to clear off as I had mentioned elsewhere that he did not have a college education - a fact that he has openly admitted in an interview. The truth therefore is the opposite as Lenni Brenner missed the chance of debating me. Moreover Tony Greenstein himself realised he lost the argument against me and walked away from the debate on Harry's Place after I exposed his numerous errors. Taking apart the likes of Greenstein and Brenner is quite easy - All you need to do for much of it is check their own footnotes. The pseudo scholarly styles they use in their writing leave them wide open for being exposed for dishonestly presenting facts. Reading relatively standard works on the facts in books that have not been discredited also helps. With reference to his writings about the life and actions of Rudolf Kasztner - Greenstein is either ignorant, dishonest or both. There are no other possibilities as he certainly does not present an accurate picture. Mikey | 02.27.07 - 11:39 pm | #

No Mikey, you never ran away from Lenni Brenner, you just ducked the chance to confront him from the floor. Can't imagine why not!! You need to grow up. What the hell has a lack of college education got to do with what he writes? Do they teach these things at university? Your elitism and arrogance is inverse proportion to your own talents. So in your eyes you are the winner every time. A real Walter Mitty character. When you have matured a bit you will, as I said above, realise it's not the quantity of facts or figures that count but the analysis of those facts. And it is e.g. a fact that Kastner collaborated with the Nazis, as was even found by 3 of the 6 Zionist judges who dealt with him, all of whom found he had interceded at Nuremburg on behalf of Lt. Gen. Kurt Becher (in fact on behalf of another 6 it would appear). It is also a fact that he didn't disclose Vrba's Auschwitz Protocols in order not to jeapordise the negotiations with Eichmann. Again a fact which even Martin sorry Sir Martin Gilbert accepts in his book Auschwitz & the Allies (since you are impressed by aristocratic titles). It would be churlish to have to point out all your errors but you are wrong that I 'walked away' from Harry's Place debate. I don't frequent the place often and by the time I had put a reply in, which I did on another thread, the debate in question had closed. In any case 95% of them are warmongers and Zionists like you so there isn't any need for me to keep up with the blog on anything other than an occasional basis. The evidence, from their own mouths, from Zionists themselves of collaboration with all manner of anti-Semites, from the Czarist Minister von Plehve to Eichmann and Becher is so overwhelming that you are faced with a hopeless task. But even if you were born with a silver spoon in your mouth in a well-heeled London suburb, you should try and curb your nasty and distasteful attempts to belittle someone because they didn't have a college education. Far better people (Nelson Mandela etc.) than you have not gone to university and yet made a much greater impression on the world. Tony Greenstein Tony Greenstein | 02.28.07 - 1:15 am | #

Nelson Mandela is in fact a well-educated man. After leaving school, he attended Fort Hare University in the Eastern Cape, but was suspended for joining in a protest boycott. He went to Johannesburg where he completed his BA by correspondence, took articles of clerkship and commenced study for his LLB. He has a law degree from the University of the Witwatersrand, and for several years ran a legal practice in partnership with Oliver Tambo. Edna | 02.28.07 - 1:50 am | #

Tony, they teach facts in college. Something you and Lenni have failed to absorb. Where did you get the information that Nelson was not college-educated? Ibraham Av | Homepage | 02.28.07 - 2:28 am | #

Tony Greenstein gets it wrong again. Is anyone surprised? I am not the type to walk away from debates with people. I went to hear Brenner speak. There were opportunities to ask questions from the floor - I do not need to ask Lenni Brenner any questions about Zionism as quite frankly, in my opinion, he hasn't got a clue. I have no more interest in asking Brenner or Greenstein the truith about Kasztner than I have in asking Paul Eisen the truth about Auschwitz. The reason I went to hear Breenner speak was to see if he said something original - but he didn't. My interest is not really in debating Brenner or Greenstein but exposing them here and here for their errors. The lack of a college education combined with a fact that Brenner openly admitted on his own web site that he has spent 39 months in prison for criminal acts may account for the fact why he cannot seem to report the facts to present an accurate picture. Regarding Greenstein's erroneous comments about Kasztner, the judges and the testimonies, I dealt with them on Harry's Pace. the debate can be seen on the link above and contrary to Greenstein's statement that the debate had closed, the debate went on What Greenstein actually said as can be seeen quite clearly is "Now I’ve spent too much time on the warmongers list so you’ll have to debate among yourselves my children." He was subsequently further exposed. In fact, exposing Greenstein is so easy it is becoming a bit of a bore. Take for example Greenstein's last sentence above. He claims Nelson Mandela did not go to university. This is typical of Greenstein's interest in the actual facts. A simple check of Mandela's biography < href = "http://www.anc.org.za/people/mandela.html"> such as this one will show that Greenstein is in error. Making up facts that have no bearing on the truth seems to come naturally to Greenstein. Mikey | 02.28.07 - 2:37 am | #

Yes you're right of course. How about Malcolm X and Fidel Castro, or Rose Parks? Tony Greenstein | 02.28.07 - 2:56 am | #

To show how flexible I am on this matter. After Grenstein walked away from the debate on harry's Place I put up a further response to his missive. That last response can be seen here . If Greenstein wants to attempt to respond to that and try and show that his errors are not really errors and how Nelson Mandela did not really have a college education despite facts to the contrary - he can try again here and for a laugh I will expose him once more. This time however I expect Greenstein to deal with the points as raised and not answer a different point entirely - something else he seems to be quite successful in doing. My only caveat to answering him here is that my post is published and not deleted by the site owner. I can not be bothered with the likes of Greenstein's chum Mark Elf who it seems just deletes anyone he disagrees with before calling them a dishonest liar or something similar. Greenstein and Elf are welcome to each other. Mikey | 02.28.07 - 3:02 am | #

"Nazis Holocaust" is a past form. "Palestine Holocaust" is a present progressive. Natural science But there has never been a palestinian holocaust. Not counting the thousands of palestinians massacred by Lebanese, Syrian, Egyptian, Kuwaiti, and jordanian forces. But the palestinians do dream and worship genocide. And they are quite willing to sacrifice their children to attain it. Ibraham Av | Homepage | 02.28.07 - 3:57 am | #

Mikey could have explained as an Israeli student at Sussex University did when Lenni Brenner did, why he disagreed with him. Fact is that we wasn't up to it. What does the lack of a college education have to whether or not one is knowledgeable about something or other? It is what makes Mikey such a sad, pompous individual. I'm not surprised, given the example of Gilad Atzmon, that Mikey now 'exposes' the fact that Lenni Brenner served 39 months in prison for criminal activities. In fact this is even more despicable. Lenni was fitted up by the cops because he was leading a campaign to reform the narcotics laws. He was found with 1/2 roach in his pocket and for this he did 39 months. Evidence later came up that he was deliberately fitted up by the FBI and that his parole was vetoed by redneck cops in Texas where he was supposed to be sent. The fact that Mikey defends this is no surprise given that he defends the expulsion of the Palestinians from 1948 onwards, the bombing of the Lebanon and apartheid in Israel. I just wonder whether Gilad wants to quote some more from this pompous prat who'd probably benefit from a regular girl/boy friend Tony Greenstein Tony Greenstein | 02.28.07 - 4:00 am | #

Errata. First sentence should read 'when Lenni Brenner spoke'. I also didn't 'walk away' from a HP debate, I came to it. But Mikey still hasn't explained how Kastner can testify against Eichmann at Nuremburg when Eichmann wasn't there! But if he wants to defend the quisling Kastner, then who am I to disagree? I will not be going on to Bognador's blog as he is an offensive and thick right-winger who puts his boring constitutionalist father to shame. If Mikey wishes to post on this blog and Mary agrees, preferably in a separate thread, then I am happy to respond, as I in fact did to Harry's Place but I assume it was deleted. And Mark Elf runs his blog in his own way. It has nothing to do with me and if I had time to run a blog I would only delete overt racist or fascist commentaries. Tony Greenstein Tony Greenstein | 02.28.07 - 4:05 am | #

"Now, what is more troubling is what Tony wrote here: 'And no, relieving the banks of their ill-gotten gains is no crime. It's taking money off those already poor that is the offence. Hence why I advise people how reduce their profits in the courts.'" (?) What is wrong with using the courts to reduce bank profits and transfer some of that to the pockets of poor people? No doubt someone who does that risks retaliation. Cutter- I understand and share your anger and G.A's anger at Greenstein's and others' repugnant attack on Gilad Atzmon's livlihood. That's what this nazi baiting and demanding that venues be closed to him boils down to and it also boils down to nazi baiting the SWP. Greenstein, his self described "socialist shiksa" friend and Co. also implicitly bait the Palestinian movement for not being adequately sensitive to The Holocaust (or they're in danger of not being adequately sensitive?) I look at the posts of a few people here who seem to be "in the know" as to what damaging information you have about Greenstein. It just seems a bit immature, this teasing and more or less giggling about these things. Frankly if what Greenstein has done is so bad or discrediting why are you not just putting it out there for others to see? I still think it's his politics that stink. Eugene Weixel | Homepage | 02.28.07 - 4:38 am | #

Dear Eugene, what Greenstein has done is just too embarrassing to mention. However, as you have read, he still believes that stealing from others is correct Although it all happened 20 years ago, I believe that Greenstein’s past disqualifies him of any moral stature. But I do believe that it is Greenstein who should stand up and admit his past. However, Mr, Greenstein, there is a massive difference between you and Brenner. While Brenner acts as a Scholar you are acting as a political activist who promotes a political agenda. While Brenner ‘so called’ crimes were ideological yours were far from being Ideological. While your past shouldn’t disqualify you from writing books, it disqualify you from passing judgment on others! If you can’t see the difference you are obviously too stupid to engage with The fact the Mikey is a Zionist is not really relevant. When a Zionist or even a Nazi says 1+1=2 I accept that he tells the truth. Truth is not a political property. Seemingly, it is you Mr. Greenstein who cannot face the truth, not even your own truth. Mr. Greenstein since you are so obsessed with the historicity of Israeli’s 1948 crimes and the Nazi crimes that are even older, you better be morally consistent and explain to us why you are so secretive about your own past. Greenstein, you won't be able to hide it for long, you better come up with the good... Salam | 02.28.07 - 6:26 am | #

"Deir Yassin Holocaust" is Holocaust. There is a request in Mr. Greenstein. Please do not obstruct Mr. Atzmon. Please do not obstruct Mr. Eisen. http://library.med.utah.edu/WebP...TML/ FOR126.html Note the bright "cherry red" or bright pink lividity to the hand. http://www.hyperchamber.com/carb...oning/ index.htm Natural science | 02.28.07 - 6:54 am | #

Salam: "When a Zionist or even a Nazi says 1+1=2 I accept that he tells the truth. Truth is not a political property." This is an important point, Tony. Grasp this and you will have taken a first and important step on your road to rehabilitaion. paul | 02.28.07 - 7:38 am | #

Mikey: "I have no more interest in asking Brenner or Greenstein the truith about Kasztner than I have in asking Paul Eisen the truth about Auschwitz. " Mikey, the truth about Auschwitz is not to be found in a person, but in the evidence. If you want to learn the truth about Auschwitz go and look at the evidence (there's loads of it) and then make up your own mind. paul | 02.28.07 - 7:40 am | #

Paul, truth is not interesting, meaning is interesting. And meaning is always in a flux. The meaning of Auschwitz used to be known as Shoa, but as time goes by it is changing into ‘cover up for zio crime’, ‘a pretext for war against Iran’ etc. The Greensteins of this world, the people who cannot handle the notion of the past are very unhappy about it. They think that they can bully us all to accept their truth. they are obviously wrong... They seem to believe that historical narrative is a subject to a vote in the PSC. This is obviously pathetic, but I wish them luck. Gilad Atzmon | 02.28.07 - 11:04 am | #

And Mikey, if you have the courage, think about the MEANING of fixating on something that (may have) happened over 50 years ago to Jews, while denying the many other genocides that have happened and continue to unfold right now, particularly to the REAL Semites i.e. the roughly 4 million Palestinians barred from returning to their own land, Palestine, stolen by these so-called victims, the false Semites. Consider whether this makes you an anti-semitic holocaust denier, along with the majority of world jewry. Edna | 02.28.07 - 11:38 am | #

Since you continue to invent facts, what good is your argument. Palestinian holocaust? More like the Palestinian inconvenience. False semites? Edna must be a false woman. Perhaps you should get a real woman to write for you. Ibraham Av | Homepage | 02.28.07 - 11:41 am | #

Ib: Perhaps you should get a real woman to write for you. Who exactly are you addressing? Yahweh? You seem to have a problem grappling with the notion that the people commenting here are all independent thinkers, we each have our own opinions, and none of us is writing FOR anyone else, or for some tribal lobby. Ibby, you exercise your freedom of speech ad nauseum, but why not try exercising your freedom of thought as well. Edna | 02.28.07 - 12:23 pm | #

GA: Paul, truth is not interesting, meaning is interesting. And meaning is always in a flux. Agreed but Mikey (and Tony) is not interested in finding out the 'truth' or anything else about Auschwitz. What Mikey wants is to ask me inquisitorial questions by which he can define me as being 'good for the Jews' or not. When he has defined me as not being 'good for the Jews' (which I am probably not) he can then proceed to smear me. Is that not so Mikey? paul | 02.28.07 - 12:55 pm | #

Tell you what Tony (and Mikey), if I say that six million Jews died, mainly in homicidal gas-chambers as part of a coherent plan by the National Socialists to kill every last Jew in Europe, will you let me off? Can I be part of the tribe again? paul | 02.28.07 - 1:00 pm | #

Regarding Brenner - As discussed I have exposed his errors in the article linked to above - there is also plenty more where that came from - No doubt at some stage I will write more on Brenner and his errors - it is quite easy. I have not "exposed" Brenner for spending 39 months in prison - he exposed himself on his own web site and he also mentions that he was arrested 3 times. Regarding Greenstein - as he does not want to look at paul Bogdanor's web site - Clearly Greenstein likes hiding from the facts - the original discussion can be seen < href="http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/archives/2007/01/24/tony_greenstein_more_errors_than_paragraphs.php"> here at Harry's Place and contrary to Greenstein's assumption it has not been deleted. In fact if Greenstein bothered to check facts he would have seen that it was still there, but as I have noted previously, Greenstein and checking facts seem not to be compatible. Greenstein writes "But Mikey still hasn't explained how Kastner can testify against Eichmann at Nuremburg when Eichmann wasn't there!" If Greenstein had bothered to read any of the references I provided for him in my exchange with him on Harry's Place he would have noted that the details regarding kasztner's testimonies can be seen in the following reference: Shoshana Barri (Ishoni) “The Question of Kasztner’s Testimonies on Behalf of Nazi War Criminals” The Journal of Israeli History Vol 18. No 2 and 3 1997 pp. 139-165. In order to testify against someone it is not necessary the the person your testifying against is present. However it does not surprise me that greenstein has not bothered to check this. He seems to have a clear aversion to fact checking. Salam states "Mr, Greenstein, there is a massive difference between you and Brenner. While Brenner acts as a Scholar you are acting as a political activist who promotes a political agenda." This statement is in my opinion very wrong. To refer to Lenni Brenner as a scholar does a diservice to genuine scholars. The only thing Brenner seems to specialise in is distorting the truth - in many ways much like Greenstein and both of them have a political agenda they are following. Paul Eisen continues rambling on about the "truth," It is a shame he doesn't pay attention to it. It reminds me of those who claim aliens are living in Utah or wherever with their "the truth is out their" statements. Sheer madness. Greenstein and Eisen both have problems with historical truth - Maybe they should seek psychiatric help. Mikey | 02.28.07 - 1:49 pm | #

Oops - I meant truth is out there not "their". It was the excitement of the aliens that must have done it. Mikey | 02.28.07 - 1:51 pm | #

Mary, Greenstein's edits are hilarious! Albeit unintentionally… Certain bits of text take on a whole new range of potential meanings…. ‘What on earth did XXXX ever do to you? Did you sit on it?’ for example or ‘Tony, your XXXX is on the net, do you want to see the URL? inspire a multitude of farcical interpretations… Sarah Gillepsie | 02.28.07 - 2:14 pm | #

Tony says: And Mark Elf runs his blog in his own way. It has nothing to do with me and if I had time to run a blog I would only delete overt racist or fascist commentaries. Mary: oh... that so? I just heard from Gilad that you prepared a huge file for me to delete more text from this comments block. Since my email account is down, I'll have to imagine that all you want deleted is racist and fascit commentaries. I will keep that in mind. Now, onto one more point (or two). Tony, you claim you only make political critiques. Well, I have quite the curiosity myself. If one states that there is an excess of American power in the way things go in the world, I don't think you'd call that anti-Americanism. It would be an opinion about global issues. If someone states rather, the power is in the hands of Jews, that is not necessarily an anti-semitic statement either. It is an opinion about global issues. It CAN BE DISCUSSED, and deciding a priori that even expressing such thought is anti-Semitic is indeed a form of ad hominem attack and it is not a political critique, but one about the opinion you have of the presumed racism or not of who expresses this. Also, Eugene mentions the Shiksa Comrade, and I have always wondered why Sue has to ask Jews if something is anti-Semitic or not. I mean, racism should be apparent if it is there, one should not have to get second and third opinions on it. Lastly, besides the blog, I have many other responsibilities, and IF I have time (today I don't) I will see about what if anything needs editing, as I believe that I caught all the details of the specific information that you believe is offensive. I did it out of courtesy, and by no means does this mean you are entitled to having all comments against you deleted, if that is what you are on about. thecutter | Homepage | 02.28.07 - 2:22 pm | #

Shame on you Mr. Geenstalin, I ve just read about you and your past. How dare you open your mouth? I am Palestinian living in the London, I have nothing to do with the PSC and the PSC has never done a thing for me either. But you are a convicted criminal and your protest against DYR is a crime against the Palestinian people. I will make sure that every Palestinian in the UK knows who you are. I do understand that Mary and Atzmon didn't want to publish the URL because they are good people but I tell you. you are a piece of s**T. There is not a single good word to say about you. Just piss off!!! Khalil Asad | 02.28.07 - 2:32 pm | #

Mikey, i understand you are a Zionist, I can understand it very well if I were a Jew and GreenStalin was the only alternative to Zionism, I would make fuck'n Aliya. It is possible that what that Zionists say about the Diaspora Jew's lack of morality is true. Lookibg at GreenStalin, this is the case. I am simply shocked. I just can't understand how he dares? Khalil Asad | 02.28.07 - 2:38 pm | #

I am very wondering what is meaning by all the XXX. what did he do this man? Is he a porn star? Aisha Khan | 02.28.07 - 4:27 pm | #

Ok I look 4 myself on www. I ask HOW is this person qualified to write commentary for Guardian News? I don’t understand. Is it western law that u can do such things as this man did and then tell others how 2 behaive? U r very strange peeple I have heard atzmon play saxophone @ the Islington chapel. If u think he is mediocre then u r deaf as well as immoral But then U English don’t have much good musicians just baby spice and eric clapington Aisha Khan | 02.28.07 - 4:38 pm | #

Dear Mr Greenstein, With all due respect, you are the last person I would expect to be taking an ethical stand. in view of your list of criminal records of wrongdoing, e.g. credit card theft, vandalism, etc, -in other words, plain hooliganism, - you are are causing too much ado! With reference to your past anti-social behavior, it would be better both for you and for us if you restrain your hyperactive drives, and stop intruding other people from following their constructive-contributing missions. Suzan Brody | 02.28.07 - 5:00 pm | #

Aisha i understand you do not have much respect to Greenie, but please leave Eric out of it... Gilad Atzmon | 02.28.07 - 6:35 pm | #

Mary: "If one states that there is an excess of American power in the way things go in the world, I don't think you'd call that anti-Americanism. It would be an opinion about global issues" Indeed, very good point yet , you are talking here to Tony Greenstein, an ultimate ignoramus. He cannot process simple analogies. May be you want to add some pictures. Gilad Atzmon | 02.28.07 - 6:44 pm | #

Aisha i understand you do not have much respect to Greenie, but please leave Eric out of it... but eric is all the time too often singing that very boring song he picked from bob marly i shot the sheriff... but i did not steal his credit card Aisha Khan | 02.28.07 - 10:40 pm | #

"Dear Mr Greenstein, With all due respect, you are the last person I would expect to be taking an ethical stand. in view of your list of criminal records of wrongdoing, e.g. credit card theft, vandalism, etc, -in other words, plain hooliganism." Suzan Brody Fine, then we can not expect any such thing from the current Palestinian leadership. Thank you for making my job so much easier. When the supporters of Islamic fascism themselves prove why they are worthless, what need do I have to add to their already insurmountable problem? Ibraham Av | Homepage | 02.28.07 - 11:30 pm | #

Gimme a break. Eugene Weixel | Homepage | 03.01.07 - 12:07 am | #

I gave you a break. What do you want now? Ibraham Av | Homepage | 03.01.07 - 12:26 am | #

Aisha you won!!! Gilad Atzmon | 03.01.07 - 1:07 am | #

I see Gilad Atzmon has been writing under the name of Palestinians again fine. The fake Palestinian Khalil Assad rather gives himself away when he refers to one particular Kahanist site which terms me GreenStalin. Mind it's an old trick to have Zionists dressed up as Arabs. One point of correction is that I have not suggested XXX be inserted. I simply made it clear what the legal consequences would be if the filth and tripe that is up there now, borrowed from Kahanist sites, remains. That is all. Mary asks why it is not anti-American to talk about American power whereas it is anti-Semitic to talk about Jewish power. Quite simple. America or the US is a nation state. The Jews are neither a nation nor a state (although the Zionists claim they are). Hence if you talk about Israeli power, then fine. If you talk about the power of individual Jews then yes, it is anti-Semitic just as the belief in a worldwide Catholic conspiracy or Catholic power could be consdiered anti-Catholic. As for Mikey. How can one testify against someone who is not even present? The fact is that Kastner went to Nuremburg to get his war criminal friends off the hook, and in the case of Becher he managed it and with Krumey and Wisliceny he didn't. I didn't say either that the thread wasn't still on Harry's Place, I know it is, however it is not open to further comments. Does that sink in? Tony Greenstein Tony Greenstein | 03.01.07 - 1:34 am | #

How interesting for a pro-Palestinian site. The article on Israel misusing cluster bombs (is it possible to properly use them?) has 4 comments, this threat has at the latest count 159. I think that speaks volumes for the real priorities of those running and writing for the site. Tony Greenstein | 03.01.07 - 1:40 am | #

Tony Greenstein's comments are becoming dull and boring. Given he thinks he knows his stuff - I challenge Tony Greenstein to a debate. I will start a blog specifically for the purpose if he agrees. He has three weeks to write any article that he so wishes about Kasztner and the role of the Zionists in the Holocaust. In order for him to write the article I am quite happy for him to enlist the assistance of his chums - Lenni Brenner, Roland Rance and Mark Elf. The article should be properly referenced with full notes of source material. - Word limit 10,000 (including footnotes) The article will be placed in full and unedited on the blog on March 22 2007 . No comments will be allowed. Exactly three weeks after that a response will be published of the same maximum length jointly by myself Mikey and Paul Bogdanor which will also be properly referenced. This post will also not have any comments available to it. A third post will then be opened entitled "Comments on the previous 2 posts". This will have an open comments box available to all. Given we probably cannot agree on a mutually acceptable moderator for that section, either of the 2 following alternatives are acceptable to me and I leave the choice to you. 1. Both Mikey and Tony Greenstein have right of veto to ensure any comment is deleted - or 2. Both Mikey and Tony Greenstein would have to jointly agree that a post is offensiive, racist or libellous for it to be removed. In the event only one of Mikey or Tony Greenstein believe the post to be legally racist or libellous (in UK law) then on the proof to the other party of an opinion by a qualified and practicing lawyer confirming their view (paid for or sourced by the person wanting the comment removed) confirming that view, the comment will be removed. The comments section will be open for 3 weeks and then closed to all. I believe this to be a fair challenge - I am open to consider variations of this idea. The questions are 1. Will tony Greenstein accept or is he a chicken? 2. Will he write the same rubbish that he has been writing for the last 25 years which is easy to discredit or will he for once be honest in his writing and actually produce a sensible argument? Mikey March 1 2007 Mikey | 03.01.07 - 2:42 am | #

How interesting for a pro-Palestinian site. The article on Israel misusing cluster bombs (is it possible to properly use them?) has 4 comments, this threat has at the latest count 159. I think that speaks volumes for the real priorities of those running and writing for the site. Tony Greenstein On that, Tony, I agree. There was another thread memoralizing a dead supporter. Nothing from the antisemitic jackals. Ibraham Av | Homepage | 03.01.07 - 2:50 am | #

Mikey: Will tony Greenstein accept or is he a chicken? No Mikey, Tony isn’t a chicken, he is Geflthe Fish and he has a big carrot on his forehead, something he will have to carry for the rest of his life. If Tony is interested in saving his name (removing the carrot). He should do something, and he better do it now! Mikey: Will he write the same rubbish that he has been writing for the last 25 years which is easy to discredit or will he for once be honest in his writing and actually produce a sensible argument?? He probably will, like his mentor, he lacks the necessary skills to engage in a real critical research . Yet, while his Master is trying to be accurate and persistent, Tony made incompetence into his claim for fame. More worryingly, we know now that dew to some pathological reasons, honesty isn’t one of his qualities. Mikey, may I suggest that you need a moderator. I believe that since I am critical of you both: I am critical of your Zionist ideology and pretty vocal about Greenie Zionist tactics, I am the man for the job ? Good luck with it, I hope Tony take the offer. General information: A while ago I offered Greenstein to debate me in public… he went away and came back after 2 days saying that the comrades said NO. I assume that in their close circuit of Yiddishe Stalinists. They know pretty well how dim Tony is. Let’s hope that this time he may make up his mind alone. Gilad Atzmon | 03.01.07 - 9:33 am | #

TG: How interesting for a pro-Palestinian site. The article on Israel misusing cluster bombs (is it possible to properly use them?) has 4 comments, this threat has at the latest count 159. I think that speaks volumes for the real priorities of those running and writing for the site. Tony Greenstein You see Tony, your Judeo centric motion is there to divert the attention from Palestine. This is what you and your motion is all about. As if Anti Semitism is a pls problem. I believe that if you indeed want to save your name, maybe you should consider to sign on the ‘Palestinians are the Priority’ petition. When you do that, you may start your process of rehabilitation for REAL. You then would not need the protection of the law... You will clear yourself for the first time in your life. Gilad Atzmon | 03.01.07 - 9:45 am | #

Sign the petition. Reveal that genocide is your goal. Ibraham Av | Homepage | 03.01.07 - 11:35 am | #

TG: It is anti-Semitic to talk about Jewish power. Quite simple. America or the US is a nation state. The Jews are neither a nation nor a state (although the Zionists claim they are). Hence if you talk about Israeli power, then fine. If you talk about the power of individual Jews then yes, it is anti-Semitic… Tony - do you honestly believe “American power” can be separated from “Jewish power”? Israel’s genocides are financed by Jewish power within the USA. To deny this horror is to support it. "I want to tell you something very clear, don't worry about American pressure on Israel, we, the Jewish people control America, and the Americans know it." Ariel Sharon to Shimon Peres, October 3rd, 2001, as reported on Kol Yisrael radio. Edna | 03.01.07 - 12:21 pm | #

Who’s footing the bill for what’s happening in Nablus at the moment? Operation “Hot Winter” …Take a look at Sabbah’s Blog today: http://sabbah.biz/mt/ …and you still want us all to focus on the events which took place in Europe over half a century ago? Edna | 03.01.07 - 12:23 pm | #

Who’s footing the bill for what’s happening in Nablus at the moment? Operation “Hot Winter” …Take a look at Sabbah’s Blog today: http://sabbah.biz/mt/ …and you still want us all to focus on the events which took place in Europe over half a century ago? Edna | 03.01.07 - 12:23 pm | #

It is a question to Mr. Greenstein. http://www.frontpagemag.com/Arti...le.asp? ID=18477 What is Mr. Plaut and your difference? Please ask Mr. Michael Tregenza, Mr. Eisen, and Mr. Atzmon, etc. in detail. All members live in Britain. All members can meet easily directly. Why do you run away from them? What is the cause of abnormally fearing Mr. Eisen? What is the cause of abnormally fearing Mr. Atzmon? Do you die when listening to the saxophone where Mr. Atzmon is blown? Natural science | 03.01.07 - 12:37 pm | #

Photo found: 'Star of David' a Khazar symbol They're not "Jews" and neither are they "Semitic"! They're Khazars (Rev. 2:9 and 3:9) Historian and author Michael A. Hoffman has unearthed this photo of a Ukrainian statue depicting "Ukrainian Prince Sviatoslav's defeat of the Khazar army, 968 A.D. (note the hexagram on the Khazar soldier's shield)" The Magen David was used in Jewish Kabbalistic rituals in the Middle Ages, but only became universally 'Jewish' in the 19th century when adopted by the Zionist movement as their national symbol. http://www.wakeupfromyourslumber...er.com/node/ 747 Edna | 03.01.07 - 12:41 pm | #

It is more than 12 hours since I raised the challenge and Greenstein still has not responded. I smell chicken! Mikey | 03.01.07 - 3:23 pm | #

Mikey, I don't think that the challenge is that exciting. Neither of you are interesting, although you both think you are the arbitors of truth and decency. YAWN. I'd skip the debate and just read the comments section..... As to Tony's comment about the frequency of participation on this thread and not on others. Tony, you are free to comment (it's free after all) on any thread you like, but you chose this one. Others have done the same. People tend to comment on things that have the "cast of characters" and not that much on news items. I don't know why it is. thecutter | Homepage | 03.01.07 - 3:43 pm | #

It is now official - Roland Rance is declared illiterate: http://buggerance.blogspot.com/ 2...illiterate.html Tony Atzmon | 03.01.07 - 6:53 pm | #

Michael Hoffman is a well known Holocaust Denier. How fitting for leftist moonbats to cite him as authoritative and credible. Simi Szamuels | 03.01.07 - 8:15 pm | #

Oh they dont care who they cite. These leftists have no shame - some of these leftists aren't even leftists they are far rightists. Even Tony Greenstein used to promote the work of Alfred Lilienthal who questioned the authenticity of the Diary of Anne Frank. Isn't that right Tony?? Mikey | 03.01.07 - 8:25 pm | #

There are indeed many questions to be asked about the Diary of Ann Frank. One question about Ann Frank herself is if the National Socialists really did intend to gas every Jew they got their hands on, how come the poor girl died such a terrible death from typhus in Bergen-Belsen? Incidentally the same questions can be asked about the incredible survival in Auschwitz of Elie Wiesel. You really are a Holocaust worshipper, Mikey paul | 03.01.07 - 8:40 pm | #

See Tony Greeenstein and Paul Eisen have a lot in common. In fact Paul Eisen will probably like the work of Greenstein. Greenstein once wrote a pamphlet entitled Zionism & Antisemitism . The fascist National Front commented that the pamphlet was " as important in its own way as was Harwood's Did Six Million Really Die?." Tony Greenstein and Paul Eisen - what a pair! With information like this that I have on Greenstein - no wonder he is so far refusing to debate me.... His new name should be Tony Greenchicken. Mikey | 03.01.07 - 8:56 pm | #

No, I don't like the work of Tony nor do I like your work, Mikey. You're both much the same - essentially both Jewish ethnic activists, both Holocaust worshippers and both really concerned with promoting secular Jewish specialness. I've met you Mikey and your real problem is that you look much more intelligent than you are. paul | 03.01.07 - 10:32 pm | #

Ouch - savaged by a dead sheep again. The problem with you Paul Eisen is that you are - to use a word best expressed in Yiddish - a complete messhuggener. Let's be clear about it. We have Paul Eisen known to be Jewish who thinks that on the balance of probabilities no Jews were gassed at Auschwitz. These ideologies come from the far right - Eisen admires the likes of Holocaust denier Ernst Zundel - However as Eisen is Jewish the other nutters on the far right have no time for him or laugh at him behind his back for being Jewish. He must really regret being born Jewish because if he were not the other far right wing deniers may listen to him. I wonder if Eisen also believes that Aliens are living in Utah? Does he also belive in fairies? Mikey | 03.02.07 - 12:10 am | #

Clearly Mikey Chickenbrain couldn’t even win a debate with Tony Greenfield. He might just stand a chance against Iby though, but since they are in agreement anyway, there wouldn’t be much point. Edna | 03.02.07 - 12:19 am | #

The reason I don't debate with Mikey (no second name! or just frit?) is that he is a liar. I have never 'promoted' Alfred Lillienthall, in fact he once threatened to sue me. But his books, turgid as they usually were, contained some useful information. They were also cited by among others David Hirst in the Gun and the Olive Branch. And the book in question, The Zionist Connection, raised questions about the genuineness of Anne Frank's Diary in a lone line footnote, in a 600 page book. I don't think it's the mark of a holocaust denier to question its provenance, though I have no doubt as to its authenticity. Mikey is being his usual dishonest self. I led anti-fascist movement in Brighton in clearing out the NF, and they wrote various articles about me in the Sussex Front. When they twigged I also opposed Zionism or Jewish nationalism, they wrote a fake review in order to give the likes of Mikey some ammo. In other words Mikey, you are a stooge of those you purport to oppose. By the way Mikey, ever been on any anti-fascist mobilisations or are you just all mouth? Not many Zionists were among those who stood up to be counted, so run off and now and find a nice girl. She might be the making of you! Tony Greenstein Oh they dont care who they cite. These leftists have no shame - some of these leftists aren't even leftists they are far rightists. Even Tony Greenstein used to promote the work of Alfred Lilienthal who questioned the authenticity of the Diary of Anne Frank. Isn't that right Tony?? Mikey | 03.01.07 - 8:25 pm | # -------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ There are indeed many questions to be asked about the Diary of Ann Frank. One question about Ann Frank herself is if the National Socialists really did intend to gas every Jew they got their hands on, how come the poor girl died such a terrible death from typhus in Bergen-Belsen? Incidentally the same questions can be asked about the incredible survival in Auschwitz of Elie Wiesel. You really are a Holocaust worshipper, Mikey paul | 03.01.07 - 8:40 pm | # -------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ See Tony Greeenstein and Paul Eisen have a lot in common. In fact Paul Eisen will probably like the work of Greenstein. Greenstein once wrote a pamphlet entitled Zionism & Antisemitism . The fascist National Front commented that the pamphlet was " as important in its own way as was Harwood's Did Six Million Really Die?." Tony Greenstein | 03.02.07 - 12:46 am | #

get a room boys. thecutter | Homepage | 03.02.07 - 12:58 am | #

Tony Greenstein has shown that he has run away from the chance of a debate - and do not think that I will forget this as I will not. It is here in print for all to see. Moreover, the same Tony Greenstein that denies that he promoted Lilienthal specifically referred to Lilienthal as a "reputable historian." Tony Greenstein "Antisemitism Through the Looking Glass: The UJS Thought Police" RETURN No. 3 June 1990 pp. 21-25 The very same Tony Greenstein that likes to refer to himself as an anti-racist and anti-fascist was busy denouncing Searchlight the leading anti-racist and anti-fascist magazine. Ibid. Tony Greenstein cannot seem to string a sentence together without telling another little fib. No wonder he refuses to debate me. He knows that if he did, lie after lie after lie will be exposed. Mikey March 2 2007 Mikey | 03.02.07 - 1:23 am | #

They got a room, Mary. This room. There is no better shit strewn room on the internet. Ibraham Av | Homepage | 03.02.07 - 2:30 am | #

I shot the sherrif... But I did not steal his credit card... Cripes! That's a laffer! Bravo! You see Mikey, i am a Purim Denier. Luckily enough i can still play in Germany while denying Purim. I believe the Persians won’t stop me either. Too funny! And yet, I am not a Purim denier. Gulf War I ended on Purim, Clinton's Operation Desert Fox started on Purim, and Gulf War II ("at a time of our choosing") started on Purim. Does this make me anti-Korean? Can I eat kimchee on the sabbat? 14 Adar comes on 4 March this year (eve on third). Shall we see fireworks in Iran or are we going to go by quaint kabbalistic numbers like 18 (6+6+6) ? Darn, there I go being anti-Korean again! It's so much easier with the false-flag ops: they get goy marketing: 9/11 3/11 7/7. Edna, that's a very good site. Check out the postings of history worm. He's picked up where Arthur Koestler left off. (the Khazar-Turanian-Uyghur nexus) Here's another one which will give you a very good synopsis of Cheka (yes, all Jews) war crimes against Russians. I didn't spoil the cohenreport.blogspot.com report on antisemitism by saying it was black humour, and I think you missed its tenor. Here is another of a kind (read the first two entries): http://dannysteinberg.blogspot.com/ So, Greenstein is the son of a rabbi? XXXXX? Well, it shows. As the irreplaceable Deborah Maccoby observed, "You don't have to be religious to observe the Talmud!" No shit! I think this forum could do with a little de-lousing, for the Palestinians' sake, don't you know. I'm deconstructing a proselytising Christian Evangelical type on Xymphora.blogspot.com. I figure I should experiment on a garden variety meshuggah goy before tackling the world dominionist genocidal racial supremacist Jew. "Nutter," as Mikey likes to say. The shekhalin is a bitch. When I was young, I had a certain discipline: every book I started I read to the end. The first book that broke me was Alexander Sozhenitsyn's The Gulag Archipelago, on page 586. I couldn't stomach the cruelty, the bloody-mindedness, the pettiness. Where did such abomination come from? Now I know. It is interesting to note that the most popular novel written by a Jew is Catcher in the Rye, by Jerome David Salinger. That book taught me to read between the lines. The whole book is about phoniness. I didn't understand where that insight came from. Now I do. Lord Piers | 03.02.07 - 9:15 am | #

I see Barky , aka Rowan Berkeley, has returned in the guise as Lord HawHaw. He learned his antisemitism where? While suckling? Figures. Ibraham Av | Homepage | 03.02.07 - 11:35 am | #

Does the Israeli Tail Wag American Dog? March/April 2007 By Kathleen and Bill Christison http://mparent7777.blogspot.com/...erican- dog.html A member of the New York panel who spoke in support of the Mearsheimer-Walt report, New York University professor Tony Judt, has written about the crippling effect that Americans’ induced fear of being labeled anti-Semitic has had on public discourse about anything relating to Israel and ultimately on policy. During the panel discussion, he highlighted the phenomenon by observing that, although there are “hundreds of distorting lobbies” in the US, the Israel lobby is the only one that not only acts energetically in pursuit of its cause, “but acts constantly and very effectively to silence criticism of its cause.” In a similar vein, Mearsheimer observed in an interview with Mother Jones that the main reason the strong affinity between the US and Israel continues is the absence of open and candid discussion about the relationship. There would be far less sympathy for Israel, he said, if Americans knew what Israelis are doing in the occupied territories. “In essence, America’s present relationship with Israel could not withstand public scrutiny.” Edna | 03.02.07 - 12:38 pm | #

“Anti-Semitism," the Provocative Accusation http://pcapostate.blogspot.com/ 2...accusation.html “Anti-Semite,” the very word can evoke a strong emotional reaction in many people, sometimes this reaction manifests itself as fear and discomfort, other times it may create confusion and uncertainty, which may then cause that individual to rethink their former position on various matters and perhaps even change their mind. The word itself is something of a misnomer, in that its modern application generally is associated with identifying and/or defining someone that “exhibits hostility towards Jews as a religious, ethnic or racial group.”[1] The term, as it is used however is contradictory and prejudicial in that it excludes every other member of the Semitic racial-ethnic group except Jews. The very same modern dictionary that defines “anti-Semitism” in the aforementioned manner clearly identifies a Semites as “a member of any of a number of peoples of ancient southwestern Asia including the Akkadians, Phoenicians, Hebrews and Arabs.”[2] This may at first seem to be a rather meaningless and even petty argument, after all it’s just a word right? In many instances this might be true, but not so this particular word, it has special connotations and purpose. There may not be another word in the entire English language with as much power and influence as the word “anti-Semite, it is truly a unique expression, reserved for those unfortunate enough to feel the effects associated with its malignant label. Despite being Semitic themselves, Arabs are frequently branded anti-Semites, as are the modern day descendents of the Phoenicians [Lebanese] when it comes to identifying any negative attitudes they may harbor towards Jews. Edna | 03.02.07 - 1:14 pm | #

Can Tony Greenstein tell us a bit more about the "physical confrontation" he admitted in a letter to the Jewish Chronicle on July 24 1981 that he was involved in? Can Tony Greenstein also tell us a bit more about why - as he admitted in that same letter - David Aaronovitch, the then President of the National Union of Students had banned him from attending NUS conference? Can Tony Greenstein tell us why Vicky Phillips, as President of the National Union of Students urged people in 1985 to write to Anti-Fascist Action expressing concern about Greenstein’s involvement in its steering committee as she stated “because I think it brings the whole organization into disrepute?” (Source Simon Rocker “Phillips waves the flag” Jewish Chronicle December 26 1986) Tony Greenstein was on the founding editorial committee of and went on to become the editor a magazine entitled RETURN that was banned in 1990 by the National Union of Students by its then President Maeve Sherlock in a decision actively supported by Steven Twigg the next President of NUS (who subsequently went on to become a Labour Party member of Parliament) and other leading NUS members including its Womens Officer. Maeve Sherlock specifically ruled that RETURN was “anti-Semitic.” (Sources Unsigned Editorial “NUS Attack on Freedom of Speech” RETURN No. 2 March 1990 pp. 4-5 and Unsigned Editorial “More Hypocrisy” RETURN No. 4 September 1990) Can Tony Greenstein tell us why, if he is an anti-racist why so many people have accused either him, or organizations or journals he has been associated with as anti-Semitic? Can Tony Greenstein explain a little more about why, as I have demonstrated in a post above, Greenstein has referred to as Alfred Lilienthal as a "reputable historian" despite the fact that as Greenstein admits he has questioned the authenticity of The Diary of Anne Frank and as reported by Werner Cohn , - in 1980 Lilienthal had was one of the first signatories to a petition supporting the known Holocaust denier Robert Faurisson? Source Werner Cohn "Chomsky and Holocaust Denial" in Peter Hollier and David Horowitz eds The Anti-Chomsky Reader ( San Francisco, Encounter Books, 2004) P 125 and P. 154n17] Would Greenstein like to comment on the following quote about Henry Kissenger that Lilienthal made “However much the essence of Judaism may have remained as distinct as ever from Zionism, the nationalist shadow has so overtaken the religious substance that virtually all Jews have, in practice, become Israelists, if not Zionists. Many who mistrust the Zionist connotation can still have their cake and eat it, through Israelism.” ?(Source as reported by Inquiry magazine in November 1985 in a review of Lilienthal's book) Checking the Lilienthal book directly - we can see the following... p.481: With the announcement of a new series of children’s books to be written by Wiesenthal for Raintree Publishers in Mikey | 03.02.07 - 1:52 pm | #

Continued.... Checking the Lilienthal book directly - we can see the following... p.481: With the announcement of a new series of children’s books to be written by Wiesenthal for Raintree Publishers in Milwaukee, the very young were not to be given fairy tales – or were they? – but recitals of the Wiesenthal adventures in tracking down war criminals. The first was to deal with his search for the Gestapo police officer in occupied Holland who arrested Anne Frank, the overpublicized teenager who’s diary (in twenty six editions) told of Jewish persecution in Holland under the Nazis, but the veracity of who’s saga has since come under serious question” The footnote (71) on p. 849 reads: “Bestseller, The Diary of Anne Frank, translated into many languages and printed in multifold editions, may be a fraud. It was sold as the actual diary of a young Jewish girl who died in a Nazi concentration camp after two years of abuse and horror. Any informed literary inspection of this book would have shown it could not possibly have been the work of a teenager. Writer Meyer Levin won a suit in the New York Supreme Court against Otto Frank., Anne’s father, for $50,000 as an ‘honorarium for his work’ on the diary” [Source Alfred Lilienthal The Zionist Connection II: What Price Peace (New Brunwick, NJ, North American, Inc 1982) P. 481, 849n71 Would Greenstein like to comment as to why as reported in the Jewish Chronicle "Tony Greenstein... was busy at NUS conference distributing BAZO material" An organization, the article goes on to say, had links with "the National Union of Iraqi Students, an organisation banned by NUS for its attacks on students." ? Source Ed. Jenni Frazer "On campus" Jewish Chronicle January 2 1981 P. 9) Can Tony Greenstein tell us more as to why after he spoke at a motion at Sussex University Students Union in 1982, that Nigel Savage, the Vice President of that Union at the time admitted that it led to "a number of Jewish students coming to my office to protest, or confess to being scarred?" (Quoted by Jenni Frazer "Students being intimidated" Jewish Chronicle October 22 1982 Mikey | 03.02.07 - 1:53 pm | #

thecutter: get a room boys. Get a LIFE boys! Mikey and Tony - you are two peas in a pod - so what is there to argue about? Anonymous | 03.02.07 - 2:09 pm | #

Tony – instead of debating with this fool¸ why don’t you show him how to XXXX on the XXXXX¸ whilst pretending to be humanitarians? We'll supply the rubber gloves! Anonymous | 03.02.07 - 2:27 pm | #

"Can Tony Greenstein tell us a bit more about the "physical confrontation" he admitted in a letter to the Jewish Chronicle on July 24 1981 that he was involved in? Can Tony Greenstein also tell us a bit more about why - as he admitted in that same letter - David Aaronovitch, the then President of the National Union of Students had banned him from attending NUS conference?" I don't believe it!! this Tony is a compulsive liar. Just for the record, Paul Eisen has never been banned from anywhere for being racist or an anti semite. Greenstein you are a joke, and I start to believe that all we learn about you recently is just the tip of the iceberg. There is no reason to help you concealing your past anymore. Mary, you are basically free. Since Greenstein is claiming for his heroic past activity since the 1980’s, there is no real reason to remain silent about the pretty serious offences he was involved in at the very same time. Greenstein, you better change tactic, just start to beg for mercy. You may have a chance….cos we are into grace... Gilad Atzmon | 03.02.07 - 3:12 pm | #

oh shit, so now it's time to rake Alfred Lilienthal over hot coals? Shame on anyone doing this. Lilienthal, while like anyone is not informed as to what is absolutely true or what is partially true, is a great man. I remember being very struck in my teens by his thoughts. It was eye-opening. A few years ago, when I learned he was really very ill, I sent him a card and his secretary sent me a very nice card in return, with a dove and the word "Peace" in many languages. It was beautiful and I treasure it. I think he is a decent, ethical person and kicks at his shins are not tolerated. I can understand Mikey hating him, but Tony, why you are so weasly is disgusting. If AL threatened to sue you, I wonder what kind of crap you were saying about him too. Is there anyone who escapes your wrath? thecutter | Homepage | 03.02.07 - 3:43 pm | #

I'm having fun! Can Tony Greenstein inform us why BAZO – an organization he was closely associated with, published an advert in the Guardian on November 4 1977 and included names such as Harvey Minsky and David Tomlinson amongst others who denied signing their support? This led to the Guardian printing an apology(Source “‘Guardian’ apology for BAZO advert Jewish Chronicle November 11 1977) Can Tony Greenstein comment on the following comment - At one BAZO meeting, trade unionist speaker Joseph Monaghan asked: “Why did the Jews not bomb the ovens at Auschwitz and so stop the killings in the last war? With all the money they have, they could have got an air force. The Holocaust – the killing of six million Jews in Europe – was done by Nazis working with the Jews.” ( Source “Little Southern Comfort,” Jewish Chronicle, March 23, 1979). Can Tony Greenstein comment why Dr.. George Mitchell, the President of BAZO attended a Jewish Society meeting at Strathclyde University, took photographs of those present and threatened to send the pictures to Beirut? (Source BAZO leader to appeal Jewish Chronicle August 24 1979 Can Tony Greenstein comment why NUS publicly condemned a BAZO leaflet entitled Against Zionism as antisemitic and why conference noted that BAZO literature was not dissimilar from that of the fascist National Front and therefore called upon NUS to ban BAZO activities “from its base in Strathclyde Union and any other campus in the United Kingdom.”? Given Tony Greenstein calls himself an anti-fascist, can he also comment why he was distributing BAZO material at NUS conference? (Source Jenni Frazer, “UJS learns to push and pull,” Jewish Chronicle, January 2, 1981.) Can Tony Greenstein comment why the same literature that was distributed by BAZO was also advertised by the neo-Nazi British Movement? (Source: “Stuermer’ British style,” Jewish Chronicle,April 3, 1981) Can Tony Greenstein explain why BAZO booked a stall at NUS conference in Spring 1981 under a false name and was subsequently ordered to take the stall down? Can Greenstein explain why at that conference BAZO were advertising that they were selling Lilienthal’s book – a book that by an author who not only questioned the authenticity of the Diary of Anne Frank and signed a petition supporting a known Holocaust denier and a writer of a book promoted by the National Front – but a book that the then President of NUS declared as “antisemitic” and he told delegates “I don’t want to see this book at conference”? Can Greenstein also comment why the NUS executive put out a statement at that conference saying that “the actions of Bazo help antisemites in their activities” and went on to add “We are not willing to allow Bazo to have stalls at our conferences, or publicise their material through our publications?” (Source: “Students ban BAZO,” Jewish Chronicle, April 10, 1981) Mikey | 03.02.07 - 5:05 pm | #

One more question... Jewish students may join their Jewish Society for all manner of reasons, be it, religious, cultural or social, but why did RETURN magazine held the Union of Jewish Students in complete contempt, calling them in an editorial, a “wing of Israel’s propaganda network,” and why did Tony Greenstein argue that UJS “act as paid and unpaid informers for Mossad.” ? Sources Editorial "Lies Damn Lies and the UJS " RETURN iNo 3, June 1990 pp. 2-4 and Tony Greenstein "The Fossilisation of Identity" RETURN i No. 4, September 1990 pp. 26-27 Mikey | 03.02.07 - 5:34 pm | #

Tony, What I find horrifying about all this stuff is that you seem to have spent the best part of your life hounding people. You seem to be some kind of political thug. paul | 03.02.07 - 7:22 pm | #

Also Tony, this relentlessly savahge pursuit of people with whom you disagree does seem to be something of a Jewish trait - and particularly a leftist 'anti-Zionist' Jewish trait. That is not to say that the only people who do it are Jews or that all Jews do it, but it does seem to be something of a tendency. I think that it's linked to Jewish notions about the specialness of their suffering. i.e. what happened to us is so bad and so unparalleled that it justifies just about anything. What do you say? paul | 03.02.07 - 8:03 pm | #

Gilad is ‘on the rd again’ without www. He wants to ask Tony Greenstein: Yo Tony! What the XXXX are we to make of this latest instalment of crimes, forgeries & false identities? Do you still have the gall to ask for an apology??? Mikey has clearly shelled out the £40 registration fee to the Jewish Chronicle, enabling him to plough through the anals, sorry - annals - of history, & report back on the great kosher crimes of the 20th Century. What next I wonder!? I am on the edge of my seat… . Sarah Gillespie | 03.02.07 - 8:13 pm | #

You see Tony, it's not your politics that I object to - it's your lack of humanity. paul | 03.02.07 - 10:01 pm | #

More Questions for Tony Greenstein. Can Tony Greenstein explain what he meant when he wrote to This is Brighton and Hove and said "Never not once have I experienced anti-Semitism at the University of Sussex.?” His use of a double negative is perplexing. Surely what he meant to say was that he has been the main cause of antisemitism at the University of Sussex? Source This is Brighton and Hove Letters, September 27, 2005 Can Tony Greenstein explain to us why he opposed Holocaust Memorial Day and went so far as to call it "obscene?" Tony Greenstein should be ashamed of himself for this - but it seems he has no shame. Source The Observer Letters, February 6, 2000 Why did Tony Greenstein say that the opinions held by the late Chaim Bermant "almost cost him his job" at the Jewish Chronicle when this was false? Does Tony Greenstein just make up information to suit his view? Sources: Guardian Obituary letters, January 28 1998 and January 29, 1998 Can Tony Greenstein explain why he was full of praise for Israel Shahak calling him “one of the few lights in a sea of darkness,” despite the fact that Shahak once wrote “These ‘Holocaust memories’ are a fake,” which gave great delight to the neo-Nazis and Holocaust deniers? Indeed giving further comfort to the far-right fringe were other comments that Shahak made such as commenting that the Nazi Nuremberg laws were “infinitely more moderate than the ‘Gentile’ regulations in Talmudic Law.” But then again, as Paul Bogndanor shows, in Shahak’s book Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years Shahak just made up incidents and got Talmudic law completely wrong. Shahak even went so far as to accuse religious Jews of devil worship, that when they wash their hands, they are “worshipping Satan.” According to Shahak Judaism itself is “dominated by profit seeking.” It is absolutely astonishing how Greenstein can praise such a man. Sources The Guardian Obituary letters, July 24 2001, Jason Maoz “The Wicked Son” The Jewish Press September 19, 2001 and Paul Bogdanor “Chomsky’s Ayatollah’s” in Edward Alexander and Paul Bogdanor, eds., The Jewish Divide Over Israel: Accusers and Defenders (Transaction Publishers, 2006) pp. 115-134 Can Tony Greenstein explain why he has given his support to the IRA and openly supported their terrorist techniques with his statement “The attack on Thatcher by the IRA was obviously legitimate. She was a military target?” It is no surprise that the Times columnist Oliver Kamm referred to Greenstein as “a political crank of the first order.” Sources The Independent Letters, October 10, 2002 and see also comments by Tony Greenstein and Oliver Kamm on Harry’s Place Can Tony Greenstein state why he made the following ludicrous statement Mikey | 03.02.07 - 11:11 pm | #

Can Tony Greenstein state why he made the following ludicrous statement "why, then, were the Taliban armed, trained and even created by the US?" The statement is patently bizarre and a typical Greenstein lie: It wasn't the Taliban, but the Islamic regime it overthrew that was backed by the US! For Greenstein’s information the Taliban overthrew the mujahideen faction backed by US against Soviets, Jamiat-e-Islami led by Burhanuddin Rabbani. Source This is Brighton and Hove Letters, November 17, 2001 As recently as 2002, Tony Greenstein has described himself as "a student of Zionist history." Can he please explain then why he gets so many facts wrong and disorts so many others. Source. This is Brighton and Hove Letters, August 6, 2002 Commenting on facts that Tony Greenstein got wrong can Greenstein, or any of us for that matter, be at all surprised that Daniel Randall and Sacha Ismail ended an article about him with the words "To rephrase Mark Twain’s old adage: there are lies, damn lies – and then there’s Tony Greenstein"? Mikey | 03.02.07 - 11:12 pm | #

Strangeley some of links haven't worked.. Harry's Place link is http:// hurryupharry.bloghouse.ne...our_streets.php David Randall and Sacha Ismail link is http://www.whatnextjournal.co.uk...t/ Tonyreply.htm Mikey | 03.02.07 - 11:22 pm | #

I'm sorry that Gilad Atzmon so readily accepts what the Zionist Mikey says at face value, but then he has to! It seems that Mikey is merely ploughing through the old files of the Union of Jewish Students. Well the answer to all his questions is that Zionists regularly use the lable 'anti-Semite' to attack their opponents. And since many of those on NUS Executive are now in or associated wi th the New Labour Govt. or their supporters (Aaronovitch, Clarke etc.) then the real question is why the racists of today tried to ban me for racism? Easy really. Yes Nigel Savage did indeed make accusations of anti-Semitism when he tried to stop me speaking at Sussex University Union. And he was massively defeated at a UGM 900 strong which went on to support by about 600-300 a resolution saying that Zionism was racism and supporting a democratic, secular state. So of course Savage wheedled out the alleged sufferings of his Zionist compatriots. I repeat that there was no physical assault on the Jewish Student in question and let's see if Mikey wants to post the whole of the letter not llittle excerpts. But the reason I see no point in debating Mikey is simply that he is a Goebbels style propagandist. The bigger the lie the better. Unlike Paul Eisen or Gilad A tzmon, I have never allied with Zionists against my political opponents. And as for Mikey's puffing himself up with back articles of the JC, the reason we don't want to debate you is because it's not worth it. You ran away from confronting Lenni Brenner at a meeting when you had your chance. It's clear you have nothing to say! Clearly Lillienthall was a reputable historian of the right. That is why all manner of writers, including as I've said David Hirst, quoted him. Whether I agree with him is another matter. And more fool Mikey for believing that a reputable historian is only someone who you agree with. David Irving was also found to be an able historian by the same High Court that found against him in Penguin v Irving. Israel Shahak was a survivor of the Warsaw Ghetto and Belsen. he was referring to those shysters like Mikey who make up tales of their holocaust experiences in order to make money. They do a service to the holocaust deniers, as does Mikey himself. My last word on the subject. Remember Mikey, when you had your chance to confront Lenni Brenner you became yellow and scuttled, cut and run. No point in debating such a timid creature who only gets courage on the internet. I'm sure Gilad Atzmon and you will get on famously as you do his 'research' for him. Tony Greenstein >> Tony Greenstein has shown that he has run away from the chance of a debate - and do not think that I will forget this as I will not. It is here in print for all to see. Moreover, the same Tony Greenstein that denies that he promoted Lilienthal specifically referred to Lilienthal as a "reputable historian." Tony Greenstein "Antisemitism Through th Tony Greenstein | 03.03.07 - 12:12 am | #

I read where Paul Eisen what upset about someone lacking humanity. Paul Eisen, the main apologist for palestinian brutality. What a joke. How 1984. Ibraham Av | Homepage | 03.03.07 - 1:09 am | #

Anti-Zionists have always said that Zionists and anti-Semites were different sides of the same coin. Here he have Mikey and Gilad Atzmon echoing each other. How quaint! And Mikey, the blog's very own trainspotter, asks why Vicky Phillips said she was writing to Anti-Fascist Executive about me. Since I wasn't there I don't know. But I can guess. She was probably playing to the gallery and the Zionist lobby, viz. the Union of Jewish Students. However since she never sent the letter it matters not a jot. As for Ms Cutter and Lillienthall, I think you misunderstand. He used to publish a newsletter and in one of them a correspondent asserted that Auschwitz was a myth or words to that effect, and I picked him up on that. However he retracted his threat and that was the last I heard of him, although he thanked me for defending him against some of his detractors, which I was happy to do because he wasn't an anti-Semite or a holocaust denier unlike some on this blog. He was however an ex-State Department man and decidedly on the right. However much of the stuff he printed, even though often too long, was nonetheless interesting. Now finally to our trainspotter Mike. I can explain everything but not to you old son because all you are capable of doing is scrummaging around in the Jewish Chronicle dustbin. You're an attention seeker wanting people to say that Mikey isn't as stupid as he looks and pat you on the back. Fact is, to you use your own words, you chickened out of confronting Brenner when you had your chance because in reality all you can do is quote the last person you read. And most of them are Zionist hagiographers. But no doubt you can explain to readers of the blog why Kastner went to Nuremburg to give testimony seeking to acquit 7 Nazi war criminals. Even Mary, give her her due, was instrumental in tracking down a Nazi war criminal who had murdered many in Italy. Why do you defend Nazi (& Zionist) war criminals? You don't have to you know? There are many Zionists around who condemn Kastner, Ha'avarah and all the other things that your movement did during the war. Tony Greenstein Anonymous | 03.03.07 - 1:11 am | #

The problem with Greenstein - and there are many problems with Greenstein is that he is physically incapable of accepting any evidence of truth if it disagrees with his warped world view. I have never ran away from the chance to debate Brenner. And my challenge which I will reopen to Greenstein and I extend it to Brenner is that if either of them will prepare a fully footnoted article up to 10,000 words in length, on their Zionist-Nazi collaboration thories I will publish it unedited on a blog and prepare a full response. The challenge remains open but Greenstein remains the chicken. Regarding Brenner, when I went over to have a discussion with him, he screamed at me to clear off because I had previously mentioned he had no college education - a fact he admits himself. Greenstein's comment "I have never allied with Zionists against my political opponents" shows him for what he is. Someone who calls himself an anti-fascist but would refuse to work with Zionists in the anti-fascist movement is a shere disgrace. On Lilienthal, an organisation BAZO, that Greenstein was closely associated with, actively promoted Lilienthal and Greenstein suppported that organisation. It is pointless for Greenstein to deny the truth as there is evidence of this - evidence, I may add, which comes from Greenstein's own words. Tony Greenstein was banned from National Union of Students conference or denounced by a number of separete Presidents of the National Union of Students, a union which as far as I am aware, has over one million members. These million plus members elected their President and consecutive Presidents denounced Greenstein. For someone that claims to be on the side of the unions, it is a bit odd that he cannot accept the view of the a number of different union Presidents. Greenstein states I have only selected a partial quotation from one of his letters to the Jewish Chronicle. This leads me to a further question - Does Greenstein want me to copy in full EVERY SINGLE letter in full that he has ever had published in that newspaper? I am happy to do so, readers may be surprised as to what he has admitted in his letters. Greenstein's lame responses to my questions are shocking. He ignored the vast majority of them and the ones he has tackled - He has done a very poor job at. For example his response to my comments on Shahak say nothing about the statements I quote from Shahak on devil worship. Tony Greenstein is a scoundrel, a fool, a political crank, a liar, a disgrace to human kind, he is also ideologically and politically bankrupt and to top it all off, he is a gutless, cowardly and lily-livered chicken who runs away from the chance of a debate. Mikey | 03.03.07 - 1:12 am | #

I love it when antisemites try to kick each other's asses. Ibraham Av | Homepage | 03.03.07 - 1:20 am | #

My previous post crossed with Tony Greenstein's last one - but he continues to be quite dull. Greenstein states "Anti-Zionists have always said that Zionists and anti-Semites were different sides of the same coin. Here he have Mikey and Gilad Atzmon echoing each other." I do not believe I agree with a single article I have ever seen Gilad Atzmon write - in fact I find them quite offensive - No doubt I will fully deal with Atzmon at some stage, but in the interim, there are a number of people who are writing quite well against his views, not least David Hirsh from Engage, Oliver Kamm and David T from Harry's Place. At the moment I hve nothing much to add to what they have already written, but suffice to say, I agree with the sentiment they express. To say that anti-Zionists and antisemites are "different sides of the same coin"shows Greenstein for the fool that he is. For Greenstein to simply ignore or brush of comments that Lilienthal has questioned the authenticity of the Diary of Anne Frank and signed a petition supporting the Holocaust denier Faurisson shows Greenstein's hypocrisy in calling himself an anti-fascist and anti-racist in all its glory. Regarding my sources and quotations - the sources are there for everyone to see. Indeed If I were to make a comment about Kasztner, I would put a source down. The reason why Greenstein has not put a source down for his assertation that "Kastner went to Nuremburg to give testimony seeking to acquit 7 Nazi war criminals" is quite simply he does not have one, or at least a credible one. He has simply made it up. It is not true. This could also be why he has so far refused to debate me - I have made the stipulation that he should footnote his sources. Given that his sources seem to include his own imagination, that might be tough for him to footnote with any credibility. Tony Greenstein remains the lily-livered chicken. Mikey | 03.03.07 - 1:39 am | #

Why should I debate with a nobody Mikey? What have you ever published? And why does it matter if Brenner has been to college? Working class kids tend not to, hence showing you to be a pompous little snob. And that's why I don't need to debate you because you are irrelevant to the struggle of the Palestinians. And if you are trying to deny that the Nazis favoured the Zionist organisations whilst suppressing all other Jewish political organisations then turn to that arch Zionist historian Lucy Dawidowicz's War Against the Jews. From memory pp. 118, 132 for the views of the SS on the matter! And given that Jews in Germany were forced to wear the yellow star in 1941 why did the Zionist paper Judische Rundschau come out with a headline to the effect 'wear the yellow star with pride' in or around 1934? That is in Dawidowicz's Holocaust Reader, and she of course was a fervent Zionist. The evidence is abundant that the Zionists collaborated with the Nazis and only a fool like you would or could deny it. If you want to know the source for the number of Nazis that Kastner tried to save at Nuremburg you could try Hannah Arendt's Eichman in Jerusalem or Ruth Linn's Culture of Silence for starters. Or are you going to deny the truth again? I'm just sorry you didn't have the courage to stand up, at the meeting, and make a contribution to everyone explaining where you disagreed with Brenner. Instead you thought he'd welcome you after badmouthing him. Which shows you are more of an idiot than I've previously given you credit for. You and Atzmon deserve each other! Now that is my last word to you. So go off and do a bit more trainspotting like a good boy. Tony Greenstein Tony Greenstein | 03.03.07 - 2:37 am | #

GreenStalin: "Why should I debate with a nobody Mikey? What have you ever published? And why does it matter if Brenner has been to college? Working class kids tend not to, hence showing you to be a pompous little snob." If GreenStalin doesn't understand why this passage exposes him as a fool who can't even follow his own logic then I can see why he had to drop out of college. (Or was it because of his disgusting record of XXXX which is so shameful that he doesn't want anyone to talk about it?) As for his nonsense on WW2, just remember that it was GreenStalin's Red Army comrades who helped the Nazis invade Eastern Europe! GreenStalin was so humiliated on Harry's Place that he chickened out there as well because he knew he couldn't answer: http:// hurryupharry.bloghouse.ne..._paragraphs.php GreenStalin accuses everybody else of collaborating with Nazis but supports the Red Army who fought alongside the Nazis and describes a convicted Nazi as an "able historian" while his own writings are reprinted on Nazi websites! What a clown! antigreenstalinist | 03.03.07 - 3:07 am | #

To add a few further points. 1. Tony Greenstein has used the fact that David Hirst has quoted Lilienthal to justify the support he has given Lilienthal and Greenstein's own claim that Lilienthal is a "reputable historian". It can be noted that Hirst also quoted from Israel Shamir. [Source: David Hirst, The Gun and the Olive Branch (3rd ed., London: Faber & Faber, 2003), Foreword to the Third Edition, pp91-2. ] Does this mean that Greenstein also believes that Israel Shamir is a "reputable historian?" Or is Tony Greenstein unsurprisngly going to lack consistency? 2. Greenstein has referred to me as "a Goebbels style propagandist." It can be noted that my own writing has not been raved about by the National Front, nor are books I support and promte also promoted by other neo-Nazi organisations. The same can not be said for Tony Greenstein. A quick search of the internet will find Greenstein's own work on neo-Nazi sites such as this one http://codoh.com/zionweb/ziondar.../ zionopp03.html Noontide Press is a neo Nazi publisher and bookseller and on their web site - up for sale are the works of Israel Shahak and Norman Finkelestein, both writers who Greenstein has praised alongside works such as The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion See http://www.noontidepress.com/catalog/ The person wo is the "Goebbels style propagandist, " does in fact seem to be Greenstein. 3. On the subject of Goebbels style propagandist, this is what Greenstein has said "David Irving was also found to be an able historian by the same High Court that found against him in Penguin v Irving." (see Greenstein's post above) This is what the judge saud - The judge cited examples where Irving “significantly misrepresented” the evidence, “pervert[ed] the evidence,” and employed “misrepresentation,” “misconstruction,” “omission,” “mistranslation,” “misreading” and “double standards”. Irving’s explanations were dismissed as “tendentious,” “unjustified,” “specious,” “distorted,” “fanciful,” “hopeless,” “disingenuous” and “a travesty.” As far as the judge was concerned, “Irving qualifies as a Holocaust denier.” Irving was “anti-semitic,” “a racist” and “a right-wing pro-Nazi polemicist.” see http://www.holocaustdenialontria...rg/ nsindex.html Given these comments by the judge - why does Greenstein decide to say that the jusge said irving is an "able historian". 4. Tony Greenstein has said of me "I'm sure Gilad Atzmon and you will get on famously as you do his 'research' for him." This is a bit odd as was it not Tony Greenstein who sent Atzmon a friendly note http://www.gilad.co.uk/html%20fi...ny% 27semail.htm saying "I shall be more than happy to hear you play the sax! " Was it also not in that same email Greenstein assisted Atzmon with his research. The fact that Greenstein manages to interpret Weizzman's comment in 1937 completeley incorrectly is a nother matter altogether. 5. Regarding Greenstein bringing up Kasztner et Mikey | 03.03.07 - 3:10 am | #

Continued --- 5. Regarding Greenstein bringing up Kasztner etc, as I have previously noted, I have discussed Greenstein's errors in somewhat detail here http:// hurryupharry.bloghouse.ne..._paragraphs.php where I also discussed the question of Kasztner's testimonies at Nuremberg. For anyone reading that post, they will be able to see that it was in fact Greenstein chickening out of the debate as he is doing again by refusing to debate me on the subject. Mikey | 03.03.07 - 3:15 am | #

There is evidence that some zionists requested aid from the nazis. But your blanket condemnation is the same as condemning the entire palestinian people for the sins of their spiritual fathers. Which is it? Ibraham Av | Homepage | 03.03.07 - 3:18 am | #

On that same post on Harry's Place, I also discussed in detail Greenstein's argument about Linn on Vrba and as I have now repeatedly said if Greenstein wants a debate on Zionist/nazi collaboration I am prepared tro have it - but that is not what Greenstein wants as he knows that will lose- Regarding Greenstein's assertion that I did not have the courage to stand up to Brenner, I have repeatedly answered that as well.. I wnt over to him to introduce myself and he just screamed at me to go away. Now I made a goiod set of notes at that meeting with Brenner and to highlight for you now how little Brenner actually does know, there was someone at the front who made some good points to Brenner as follows - The contributor mentioned the infamous Engels essay "The Magyar Struggle" which says: "The next world war will result in the disappearance from the face of the earth not only of reactionary classes and dynasties, but also of entire reactionary peoples. And that, too, is a step forward." Brenner stated he had never read it! The contributor also mentioned the major Ukrainian pogromist Grigoriev who started out as a Red Army commander before killing thousands of Jews. Brenner had never heard of him! For someone who has written books on Zionism and the Holocaust and is a self declared Marxist to not know such matters is simply appaling. It shows how little Brenner actually does know and that is one of the reasons why I am very happy to also offer to debate him in a similar way to that I have offered Tony Greenstein above. Lenni Brenner, like Tony Greenstein simply lacks to much knowledge and in Brenner's case, his lack of a college education may have something to do with it. I am not sure what excuse Greenstein gives for his lack of knowledge - For the last 25 years Greenstein has been writing about alleged Zionist Nazi collaboration - but he still does not know very much. If he felt comfortable with his knowledge, he would jump at the chance to debate me - but given he knows his lack of knowledge will be exposed for all to see - he runs away like the frightened chicken he is... Mikey | 03.03.07 - 3:43 am | #

Apologies for the typing errors above – it is quite late in London and I am now off to bed. Shabbat Shalom to all the Jewish readers and to Tony Greenstein who prefers Yiddish – Gut Shaibbos Mikey | 03.03.07 - 4:00 am | #

TG: I'm sorry that Gilad Atzmon so readily accepts what the Zionist Mikey says at face value, but then he has to! GA: Tony it costs £40 a year to buy an access to JC archive on line. Believe me I, will pay far more than that to read about your impossible XXXX and XXXX record…. As I told you before, truth is not politically orientated, but then what do you know about the truth, you are a compulsive liar. TG: Well the answer to all his questions is that Zionists regularly use the lable 'anti-Semite' to attack their opponents. GA: Hoy hoy hoy Tony, this is why we regard you as a smelly Zionist. You use exactly the same tactics. TG: Unlike Paul Eisen or Gilad A tzmon, I have never allied with Zionists against my political opponents. GA: Greslime, you are not a political opponent, you are too stupid! You are a disgrace. You are probably the lowest creature we have ever come across. Mikey, on the other hand is a political opponent, he has dignity. We can simply disagree on many things or even everything. I tell you something Tony, I have a big dilemma here, the more I learn about you, the more I am convinced that you are a serious mental case. You probably need help, a lot of help. If you are indeed a psychopath, I should offer you help rather than attacking you. I start to feel guilty about it all. I will use this opportunity and ask your friends, Sue, Roland and Deborah to send me a private email and to advise me about the subject. If I am indeed humiliating here a mentally ill man, make sure that I know about it ASAP. Please G Gilad Atzmon | 03.03.07 - 5:18 am | #

TG: Unlike Paul Eisen or Gilad A tzmon, I have never allied with Zionists against my political opponents. Tony, where have I allied myself with Zionists? paul | 03.03.07 - 6:17 am | #

There is a thing that wants to say to Mr. Greenstein. "The Holocaust Wars" is a lie. "The Holocaust Wars" is a lie. "The Holocaust Wars" is a lie. This repetition is not persuasive at all. It is necessary to write the thesis that can oppose "The Holocaust Wars". You only have to become a specialist who proves Holocaust. There is a question for "Rudolf Vrba". What is "Licentia poetarum"? Did you refer to the record of the trial of "the Toronto trial"? Mr. Eisen cannot be persuaded by your way. Because Bernie Ecclestone makes fascist's son Max Mosley a business partner, it might be sarcastically flexible. Even if it is few, it might be more flexible than Mr. Greenstein. It is not only negative to mercilessness as fascist's son. Natural science | 03.03.07 - 6:33 am | #

Yeeesh! Gimme a break. Eugene Weixel | Homepage | 03.03.07 - 12:52 pm | #

Saturday is the Sabbath of Judaism. The act that breaks the law at the Sabbath cannot be done at all. The "reform Jewish US" "liberal Jewish UK" and the Jewish of secularity : though are not that. Natural science | 03.03.07 - 1:36 pm | #

And your point? Ibraham Av | Homepage | 03.03.07 - 11:35 pm | #

This whole blog, Paul, is an alliance between Atzmon (the fool), Paul Eisen (the semi-intellectual) and Zionist 'researchers' like Mikey. You see the article on the Guardian's CIF site antagonised a whole no. of Zionists who started making libellous allegations before they were pulled. The last thing they want is for Palestine Solidarity Campaign to put its distance between itself and Deir Yassin Remembered. You advocate holocaust denial and that is incredibly useful to Zionists like Atzmon's Kahanist friends. Especially if you are linked in to the mainstream PS movement. So you and Atzmon are in essence having what laughably passes for 'research' done by the likes of Mikey for you. The more dirt Mikey thinks he can dig up about me, even if it only consists of back articles from the JC, the more Atzmon is gratified. And Atzmon laps it up because whatever his musical skills, there isn't much between his ears. Indeed this whole episode is a textbook example of how Zionists and anti-Semites get into bed with each other (there are of course some exceptions regarding the former - I believe Ibraham Av is pretty sickened by this gas chamber nonsense but Mikey has no problem with playing footsey with holocaust deniers and their fellow travellers. So much so that Atzmon, in between frothing, describes him as 'dignified' no less! And it would appear that Atzmon has now perpetrated another 2 libels in his last post. Keep going Gilad, make my day. Tony Greenstein Tony Greenstein | 03.04.07 - 12:29 am | #

Tony, You're on the right track, but the wrong train. The antisemites are in bed with the islamo-fascists. But all of you make my day. You four prove over and over again why the world says a lot, but lets the Arabs living in the disputed territories twirl with their thumbs up their asses. As long as the palestinian dream, aided by you 4 idiots, is genocide, all they will do is spin. Ibraham Av | Homepage | 03.04.07 - 12:38 am | #

GreenStalin seems to think that everybody else is a liability for the anti-Zionist movement and he alone is an asset. GreenStalin says that the "last thing they want" is for PSC to distance itself from DYR. Another thing "they" don't want is for PSC to distance itself from the remnants of BAZO and RETURN! GreenStalin hasn't denied that he was banned from student events for racism. GreenStalin hasn't denied that his writings are reprinted by Nazi websites. GreenStalin just described the country's best-known Nazi as an "able historian." And GreenStalin boasts of supporting the IRA in its attempt to murder Britain's Prime Minister! GreenStalin, if you didn't exist the Zionists would try to invent you! antigreenstalinist | 03.04.07 - 1:50 am | #

Tony Greenstein talks a load of nonsense. In 1983 Lenni Brenner came to the UK on a speaking tour. Brenner was due to speak at the London School of Economics (LSE) on November 11, 1983, but Tony Greenstein who had helped organise the tour was denied speaking rights on the grounds that he had previously been involved in antisemitic activities, and the invitation to Brenner was withdrawn. Brenner eventually did speak to LSE students (November 16, 1983) but under different auspices. Isn't that right Tony? can you tell us a bit more about your activities that led to LSE banning you? Mikey | 03.04.07 - 3:13 am | #

TG: Indeed this whole episode is a textbook example of how Zionists and anti-Semites get into bed with each other (there are of course some exceptions regarding the former - I believe Ibraham Av is pretty sickened by this gas chamber nonsense… Well done Greenie…you’ve just presented a convincing argument that there must be some truth to this “gas chamber nonsense”! If it sickens Av, it can only be good for the rest of humanity. His stomach is turned by anything intelligent, well-researched and coming close to the truth. Anonymous | 03.04.07 - 4:04 am | #

"Heads or Tails, me don't give a flying fark, so long as me pops mints da coin." ---Johnny "Rotten" Rothschild Lord Piers | 03.04.07 - 6:04 am | #

There is a thing that wants to be asked Mr. Greenstein. You must clarify the false of "The Holocaust Wars" logically. Mr. Eisen cannot be persuaded by your way. There is an obligation to present a logical rebuttal because you criticized "The Holocaust Wars". There is a question for "Rudolf Vrba". What is "Licentia poetarum"? Did you refer to the record of the trial of "the Toronto trial"? You should borrow the Ability of human who can prove Holocaust like the Klarsfeld clan. Natural science | 03.04.07 - 8:45 am | #

Mikey, I hope you do not mind me saying that, but your contribution for the pls solidarity movement is priceless. It is crucial that we all know about the racist record of this Greenpiss, a man who was banned time after time for being a racist and an anti Semite! I really want to believe that this revolting violent man will feel some shame and take some time off to think about it all. But I doubt it. Gilad Atzmon | 03.04.07 - 10:46 am | #

Oh come on Gilad, what is an anti-Semite? Greenstein is anything but. His whole politik is to put Jewish identity on a platform and speak in the name of it, believing it has something special or extra to contribute merely for the state of its existence as being Jewish. We had better define our terms if we want to do name calling. If he had problems with other Jews, this is no surprise because he has problems with anyone who doesn't think just in the way he does, and would like them to get back on the "jews first train". I can't stand Mikey and wonder just why he has decided to make this place his speakers corner. Hasn't he got enough breathing room at Harry's Place? Av doesn't give a toss about history. He just wants to see people who express support for Palestinians as bad guys. He is stupid as a rock. thecutter | Homepage | 03.04.07 - 11:29 am | #

Save your best shot for last? Yes, Mary, you know that I pierce your web with one slice every time. Support for the arabs living in the disputed territories is not wrong. But you, umakill (Nancy) Gilly, Mikey, Paul, and Tony are cut from the same hate mongering clothe as your betters - Irving, Zundel, and the other antisemitic racists. Your unconditional support for the destruction of Israel has left you dehumanized. Ibraham Av | Homepage | 03.04.07 - 11:54 am | #

It is not pleasant to see overt and rabid zionists' words taken at face value by anti zionists. I still feel and have not been convinced otherwise that this teasing and baiting about Greenstein's supposed past is immature. If there is substance there, by golly let it out. If not, please leave it alone. Greenstein by attacking Atzmon's livelihood certainly was looking for a fight and he got one. How is this thread helping the cause of Palestine? Eugene Weixel | Homepage | 03.04.07 - 1:20 pm | #

Be quiet, Eugene! You're spoiling it! Ibraham Av | Homepage | 03.04.07 - 1:49 pm | #

Eugene, you and I both know how easy it is to come under a storm of criticism for things that have nothing to do with service towards the cause of the Palestinian people. Of course, you get the ignorant Zionist like Ibiot, who only repeats the same kind of lines because he hasn't got an original thought in his mind, and you also get those like Mikey whose views are abhorrent, but they defend them with some sembiance of dialectic and debate. Debate is a useful tool, it can be powerful, and while I admit Talmudist is 100% wallpaper, Mikey is 95% wallpaper, so there is something in there to deal with. Yet, eliminate these Zionist pseudo-agitators, who specialise in minutae, because they can't justify Zionism morally, ethically or even as a practical solution to realpolitik, and we have those who are "supposed to be" in our camp: the anti-Zionist left. Why is it that they are the ones who attack Gilad, Paul, you, me and any others who don't want to prioritise Jewish voices in activism, dictating the issues (some of which are unacceptable, such as not pushing the ROR incessantly, of supporting Hamas and Hezbollah, of considering all Palestinians our priority, even those in exile, in Israel and places where the "vote" isn't allowed, so their voice is silenced, of not being overly concerned about accusations of anti-Semitism, because we know we aren't racists, of not operating under the banner of Jews because it simply promotes an idea of separateness that is anathema in Palestine activism, etc.) Why is it that they think they have to destroy us? What are they afraid of? Don't they see that our sites, blogs, papers, events are very successful and that we give voice to the ROR, to those who commemorate the Nakba, to those who fight the AIPAC, to those who fight Honesty in Reporting and all other watchdogs that are there fighting the Hasbara fight? If we don't hold them responsible for this defamation, they will in the end find themselves even more isolated than they are now. They can change, can't they? Stating where it is THEY who are betraying the Palestinian cause is part of our activism. They made it that way. thecutter | Homepage | 03.04.07 - 5:38 pm | #

Ibrahim, before you suggest that I support the destruction of Israel, I suggest you actually bother to read my posts. I find it incredible that you have come to that conclusion. Mikey | 03.04.07 - 8:07 pm | #

What I am objecting to are the frequent references to Greenstein's alleged past actions. If they are relevant to this argument then they should be presented. If they are not relevant they should be left alone. It really looks so schoolyard. Also some of these things that are being brought up by the Zionist peanut gallery do not condemn Greenstein at all. For example he is or was called an anti semite. Soft on Holocaust revisionists or deniers too. We all know that these labels are often badges of honor. That he was banned by some mainstream organization 23 years ago probably merits congratulations. And to put two cents more into this, politics that center on Jewishness, Holocuast promotion and anti semite hunting has nothing to do with working class politics. Eugene Weixel | Homepage | 03.04.07 - 8:28 pm | #

Sorry. Holocaust, not Holocuast although maybe it's better to disrespect this subject by not spelling it correctly. Eugene Weixel | Homepage | 03.04.07 - 8:33 pm | #

Oh, and it's for the Palestinians to decide what sort of state the future Palestine is to be and also who may or may not reside there or be citizens. In South Africa there always was a significant minority of "whites" (many of them Jewish) who risked and gave everything in service of liberating the majority of South Africans and it could be said that they earned a place for white settlers in the new state. Of course some people hate Jews for doing things like that. Perhaps some of those Jews and even other whites were actually motivated by a universalist message in the now discredited Holocaust Faith. I'd imagine they were. Oh well, you can't please all of the people all of the time. Eugene Weixel | Homepage | 03.04.07 - 8:54 pm | #

Sorry, Mikey, if I misjudged you. Mary keeps trying to dismiss me because I cut through her pet antisemites like a hot knife through butter. Zionism is so easy to defend, most can do it in their sleep. Mary still can't find a way to justify Arab behavior anywhere in the Middle East. Come on Mary, justify the Murder of four little sisters by putting a bullet in the head of each, at point blank range, by your palestinian heroes. While their mother watched. Before they put a bullet in her brain. Come on Mary. Let's debate. Ibraham Av | Homepage | 03.04.07 - 9:23 pm | #

The Zionist Anorak Mikey demonstrates that not only is he a liar but an ignorant fool as well. And we wonders why, when all he can do is reach back in time for little titbits , that I refuse to dignify him with a debate. I was banned in 1983 at the time of Lenni Brenner was I? Strange then that I have in front of me an article from The Beaver, paper of the LSE Students Union headed 'UJS Fail to Prevent Speaker on Zionism' subtitled 'Greenstein Meeting Takes Place'. And the date? Monday November 10th 1986. Three whole years after I was apparently banned! You couldn't make it up if you tried. And I spoke twice more at the LSE as well! So now I have shown that Mikey is a little liar let's move on. But Gilad approves that UJS tried to ban myself and other speakers, primarily but not exclusively Jewish anti-Zionists from campuses, just as Joseph Massad and Norman Finkelstein in the USA have felt the wrath of the Zionist banners. And all Atzmon can do is applaud. How can anyone doubt that he has got into bed with the Zionists now? And well done Atzmon. You have now confirmed that your sympathies are, as we all suspected with Holocaust denial. '...there must be some truth to this “gas chamber nonsense”! If it sickens Av, it can only be good for the rest of humanity. His stomach is turned by anything intelligent, well-researched and coming close to the truth.' So Eisen's nonsense about the gas chambers is 'intelligent, well-researched and coming closer to the truth.' So yes Atzmon, having once denied it, it would seem that you are now a holocaust denier. Fine by me. There would have been an intelligent reply to Ibraham Av, which was that if he was sickened by holocaust denial, he should also be sickened by denial of the wrongs done to the Palestians. And once again Gilad has accused me of violence. 'this revolting violent man'. Since I take snapshots of this site each day, you're goose is cooked!! >> Tony Greenstein talks a load of nonsense. In 1983 Lenni Brenner came to the UK on a speaking tour. Brenner was due to speak at the London School of Economics (LSE) on November 11, 1983, but Tony Greenstein who had helped organise the tour was denied speaking rights on the grounds that he had previously been involved in antisemitic activities, and the invitation to Brenner was withdrawn. Brenner eventually did speak to LSE students (November 16, 1983) but under different auspices. Isn't that right Tony? can you tell us a bit more about your activities that led to LSE banning you? Mikey | 03.04.07 - 3:13 am | # -------------------------------------------------- ------ TG: Indeed this whole episode is a textbook example of how Zionists and anti-Semites get into bed with each other (there are of course some exceptions regarding the former - I believe Ibraham Av is pretty sickened by this gas chamber nonsense… Well done Greenie…you’ve just presented a convincing argument that there must be some Tony Greenstein | 03.04.07 - 11:30 pm | #

Sorry, Tony, but it is Gilly and Paul themselves that sickens me. I do not doubt that Palestinians, better known as the arabs living in the disputed territories, have the short end of the stick. But they were given that short end by their arab brothers who have denied them independance, not the Jews. The Arabs have denied their brothers such becuase of politics. let the Arabs repay their brothers for the sins commited against them. It is not the fault of the Jews. it si the fault of the Muslims. Let the Muslims pay. Ibraham Av | Homepage | 03.04.07 - 11:40 pm | #

Yes Ibraham, but I was picking up on what Atzmon said. Which was that he now agrees that the gas chambers did not exist in so many words. This is the man that 'Mikey' and other Zionists have chosen as their play pal. Notice how Mikey has nothing to say about the holocaust deniers because in fact he realises they do his own work for him. But I can't let pass your comments about the Palestinians. This is self-serving nonsense. There is no doubt that the Palestinians were dealt a knife blow by the different Arab regimes in 1948-9, betrayed by those whose rhetoric was full of support for them. Much the same today really. But these regimes were, themselves, creatures of imperialism, primarily British imperialism. But the key reason for their conditions today is that of the Zionist settlers. Jewish land, labour and produce meant a boycott of Arab land, labour and produce. The Zionists carved out a state within a state with the intention of transferring the Palestinians across the Jordan primarily. How else would one create a Jewish State in a land where the Jews were in a minority. Ben Gurion and his fellows were not stupid, they knew full well that transfer was the only option and massacres, of which Deir Yassin was only one, were the way of 'encouraging' them to go. Yes there were collaborators, but it's like saying that because the Zionists collaborated with the Nazis throughout Europe, therefore the Jews were to blame for the Holocaust. Of course one was a reaction to the other and one was strong and the other weak, but nonetheless the primary cause of the Palestinian Naqba lies with those who dispossed them. Tony Greenstein >>Sorry, Tony, but it is Gilly and Paul themselves that sickens me. I do not doubt that Palestinians, better known as the arabs living in the disputed territories, have the short end of the stick. But they were given that short end by their arab brothers who have denied them independance, not the Jews. The Arabs have denied their brothers such becuase of politics. let the Arabs repay their brothers for the sins commited against them. It is not the fault of the Jews. it si the fault of the Muslims. Let the Muslims pay. Tony Greenstein | 03.04.07 - 11:52 pm | #

Gilly's descent into holocaust denialism (possibly so that Islamic fascist Arabs will love him) brands him for what he is. I do not doubt that some Jewish settlers in the Palestinian region felt that a separation between islamic Arab (Not ALL arabs) and Jew was a pragmatic choice for survival. I also do not doubt that the 1st Arab-Jew war allowed this pragmatic step for a percentage of the Arab populace. The collective fear mongering practiced by some Jews and Muslims cause an additional percentage to vanish to more attractive habitats. And the initial departure of the wealthy also contributed. And THE zionist did not colaberate with the Nazis, some did. They did so with the pragmatic hopes of saving some Jews, perhaps knowing they would not be able to save all. Der Yasin was not an exercise in ethnic cleansing. There was no plan to cleanse the village. Shit happens in war. Ibraham Av | Homepage | 03.05.07 - 12:28 am | #

You're quite desperate to hang the lable of holocaust denier on Gilad. Suffice to say that Gilad did not make that comment about the "gas chamber nonsense". I did - and it was rather tongue-in-cheek. Without choosing to leave a name - since I am tired of all the hysteria and personal name-calling around that subject. I made some other comments anonymously today - and all of them were me and not Gilad. Anonymous | 03.05.07 - 12:47 am | #

No desperation. Gilly has already proven himself to be an antisemitic fool. That he is "as one" with deniers like Eisen is just gravy. That you are too frightened to reveal yourself is your problem. Ibraham Av | Homepage | 03.05.07 - 1:43 am | #

Atzmon (anonymous) coming to the defence of Atzmon (open) is quite amusing. One of Atzmon's many problems is that he writes first and then thinks afterwards. Or maybe he thought that coming out as a Holocaust Denier would be easier if he did it 'anonymously' as he often writes in this guise. There is only one problem - there have been some 27 references to me as 'Greenie' - 26 of them by Atzmon in name and one anonymously. There is, as my learned friends would say, an unmistakable inference. Tony Greenstein >>You're quite desperate to hang the lable of holocaust denier on Gilad. Suffice to say that Gilad did not make that comment about the "gas chamber nonsense". I did - and it was rather tongue-in-cheek. Without choosing to leave a name - since I am tired of all the hysteria and personal name-calling around that subject. I made some other comments anonymously today - and all of them were me and not Gilad. Anonymous | 03.05.07 - 12:47 am | # Tony Greenstein | 03.05.07 - 2:59 am | #

But of course there is a simple solution. Mary Rizzo can release all the IP numbers in such a way that they cannot be doctored, or maybe Atzmon would like to release records of his postings, again in such a way that they cannot be doctored, bearing in mind his previous 'ethical' postings under the name of Palestinians and others! Tony Greenstein | 03.05.07 - 3:01 am | #

Stop whining, Tony. Lots of us call you Greenie. And it's less insulting than some of the other names being bandied about lately. I am quite within my rights to post anonymously if i so choose on the www. It's the internet, not the inquisition. Unlike Elf, Mary has the ethics not to publish IP numbers, but she will be able to confirm from my IP number, for the peanut gallery, that I am not Gilad. How silly man to hang onto the HD charge as though it is a life ring. Keep taking those meds. Anonymous | 03.05.07 - 3:15 am | #

Hang on a moment here Tony, when people ask for lists of IP numbers a red light goes on for me, because they can be used to access other people’s bank accounts (not so?) Anonymous | 03.05.07 - 4:38 am | #

1. Yet against Greenstein's comment are incredible and do not deal with thefundamental issue. I stated he was banned from speaking on November 11 1983 and he talks about 1986. Will he confirm that he was banned from speaking on November 11, 1983 at LSE? 2. The National Union of Students and student unions are not part of a totalitarian dictatorship - We know that as Greenstein is a Marxist (or so he claims) - he rejects democracy - but NUS is a democratic body. As Jewish students make up a tiny proportion of the student body of the country, the Union of Jewish Students have not been in any position to ban Tony Greenstein at NUS or at LSE. It was the National Union of Students and various student unions that had a policy of "No platform for racists and fascists." Tony Greenstein or publications or organisations he has been closely involved with have been banned under that policy. Consecutive presidents of the National Union of Students have either banned or denounced Greenstein or organsiations or publications he has beeen associated with. Those Presidents in the main came were largely candidates backed by the National Organisation of Labour Students - the student wing of the Labour Party. One of the Presidents who who was involved in all of this actually came from a communist background themselves. Will Tony Greenstein accept that those banning Greenstein were not the Union of Jewish Students but democratic student bodies of which Jewish students make up a very small proportion? Will Greenstein also accept that those Presidents that denounced or banned him were not UJS "stooges" as for example Vicky Phillips that was of the Presidents, was the President of the National Union in December 1987. At that conference the National Executive put forward a policy on the Middle East completely hostile to the type of policy that UJS would have wanted passed. (Compare NUS conference papers December 1987 -debate on Middle East - main motion supported by National Executive and Ammendment 2 supported generally by members of the Union of Jewish Students). The shameful policy put forward by the National Executive was fortunately defeated by the student body at that conference. 3. Tony Greenstein has been referred to by others as "Tony Greenstalin." Given the way that he likes to avoid the truth or distort the truth or outright make things up, that particular mokiker seems entirely appropriate. Mikey | 03.05.07 - 5:08 am | #

Apologies for late night typos - "Moniker" not mokiker" "Vicky Phillips that was one of the Presidents" not "Vicky Phillips that was of the Presidents" The following "Those Presidents in the main came were largely candidates" should have the words "in the main came" deleted. Mikey | 03.05.07 - 5:15 am | #

A poster to Harry's Place recently made the following observationb about Tony Greenstein "Way back in the late 70s my girlfriend and I arrived at the Brighton Resource Centre (the old one, eventually burned down by neo-Nazis) to help organise an anti-fascist event. On arrival we were confronted by the sight of an unprepossessing individual in a moth-eaten pullover (guess who?) haranguing a 14-year old schoolgirl, also a volunteer organiser, for having the temerity to wear a pro-Israel badge. The schoolgirl, who had been reduced to a distressed state, was led away by my girlfriend who commented in a stage whisper: “don't mind Tony, he's just an arsehole”. This subsequently became something of a catch-phrase amongst Brighton anti-fascists." 1. Will Tony Greenstein confirm that his past record has included reducing a 14 year old school girl to a "distressed state"? 2. Does Tony Greenstein believe it acceptable to harangue 14 year old school girls? 3. Will Tony Greenstein state whether or not he is still haranguing school girls? Mikey | 03.05.07 - 5:35 am | #

Fact 1 Tony Greenstein states above "Notice how Mikey has nothing to say about the holocaust deniers" Fact 2 - evidence to the contrary See my post on this thread - Mikey | 02.26.07 - 5:52 pm | # ............... Based on the above two facts, will Tony Greenstein confirm that his ability to tell lies seems to know no bounds? Mikey | 03.05.07 - 5:47 am | #

Hey Tony you little thief, give me back my credit card. Who told you that you can use it! barry | Homepage | 03.05.07 - 9:33 am | #

Bary, for obvious reasones TG prefers we say: Hey Tony you little XXX, give me back my XXXX XXXX. Who told you that you can use it! Gilad Atzmon | 03.05.07 - 10:21 am | #

Mikey, since you know Slimy Green that well, tell us, is he going to raise his head again? Gilad Atzmon | 03.05.07 - 11:20 am | #

How about the thinly-disguised attempt to gain access to people’s online data via their IP numbers. Sheesh. Anonymous | 03.05.07 - 11:35 am | #

Ibby: Mary keeps trying to dismiss me because I cut through her pet antisemites like a hot knife through butter. Zionism is so easy to defend, most can do it in their sleep. And in fact are trained to do that, aren’t they? You’re the ideal example, permanently on auto-pilot, recycling the same old tried and tested formula. But there is a golden opportunity staring you in the face here, Ib. And shekels to be made. Instead of wasting your undisputed gift for spreading discord this way, why don’t you consider taking 6 or 7 of your choice comments (just a slight variation of words, all containing the same text-book programmed message) and arranging it creatively, possibly into rhyming couplets, and doing a voice recording. Maybe get someone to compose some music to match the words (Artie?). Then put it on continuous replay, and Bob’s your uncle. You could download it onto the net and just provide the same link for us each time you want to leave a comment, thus saving time and energy. AND there’s money to be made here too. How about offering it as a CD to be played as background music, or subliminally as white noise, at Hasbara gatherings, for programming purposes. Hasbara parrots-in-training could play it whilst asleep, and wake up next morning, all set and ready to go. Consider it, seriously. If you’re really clever about it, you could charge -$5 per CD copy i.e. you would pay people $5 to take one, and sign a contract with the IDF offering them all “profits”! Then the more CDs you manage to distribute, the more the IDF will have to pay you! Edna | 03.05.07 - 12:40 pm | #

Can Tony Greenstein explain why the organisation BAZO that he was closely associated where as discussed above a leading member photographed Jewish students and threatened to send them to Beirut went so far as to produce a leaflet with a picture of David Aranovitch on it with a caption underneath "Remember his name, remember his face"? Can Greeenstein explain why he was involved in such a cruel and ferocious campaign against this NUS President? Can Tony Greenstein also explain why he was involved in an attempt to ban a Jewish Society at SOAS (London University's School of Oriental and African Studies) in 1986 -an which led to Vicky Phillips as President of the National Union of Students promising "firm and decisive action" against any attempt to silence Jewish students?. Mikey | 03.05.07 - 2:13 pm | #

Can Tony Greenstein explain why he wrote a letter, published in the Guardian on July 31, 2006 that was so bad that a letter appeared the next day accusing him of writing "tosh" and of "rewriting history"? Source Guardian Letters - July 31, 2006 and August 1, 2006 Mikey | 03.05.07 - 2:42 pm | #

Can Tony Greenstein why he has not just been banned from National Union of Students conferences but also had the distinction of being banned from the National Organisation of Labour Students' conferences? In 1986 Ben Lucas wrote to the Labour Club at Thames Polytechnic and said: "Tony Greenstein has been been removed from both NOLS and NUS Conferences because of his racist views and opinions.... I hope ... that the club will reconsider the invitation in the light of the opinions expressed." Does Tony Greenstein specialise in getting banned from places? Mikey | 03.05.07 - 5:02 pm | #

Can Tony Greenstein confirm that it was a fact that he was a leading member of BAZO and that BAZO provided substantial vocal support to the National Union of Iraqi students? Can Greenstein also confirm that it is also a fact that the National Union of Iraqi Students was involved in the murder and beating up of Iraqi dissident students? It seems reasonable to enquire whether Tony Greenstein still supports the muder of Arab students? So many qiuestions for Tony Greenstein but will he provide answers? Mikey | 03.05.07 - 5:09 pm | #

Can Tony Greenstein explain why the National Union of Iraqi Students that BAZO supported was, according to a report prepared by the National Union of Students and sent to the then Foreign Secretary Geoffrey Howe, involved in "spying, intimidation, violence, stabbings and beatings." Can Tony Greenstein explain his involvement in such a group? Source Tim Jones "Iraqi role in clashes questioned" The Times July 28, 1983 Mikey | 03.05.07 - 5:36 pm | #

What was Tony Greenstein doing as an active member of BAZO - an organisation that supported the National Union of Iraqi Students - From Financial Times January 15, 1991 Middle East in Crisis; Iraqi citizens living in the west face security clampdown JIMMY BURNS and ANDREW JACK THE SECURITY net around Iraqi residents in Western Europe and the US is tightening as governments react to the threat of terrorist action. However, within the alliance of countries currently opposed to President Saddam Hussein, there appears to be no united policy on how draconian security measures should be. As the crisis deepens, more governments are likely to have to make the unpalatable choice between greater security and civil liberties. EC ministers agreed in September to tighten security involving more than 18,000 Iraqis living in Europe, and this was quickly followed up by the first wave of expulsions of Iraqi diplomats from several European capitals, mainly military attaches, in a move led by France and Britain. More recently, Britain together with other European countries including France, Spain, Germany, Sweden and Italy have ordered intelligence and police services to increase surveillance of suspect Arab terrorists and are tightening up on new entrants. Britain has gone further than its EC partners in the number of diplomats it has expelled, now 28, and in deporting other Iraqis, mainly students, suspected of being a potential terrorist threat. In the US, where there are more than 68,000 non-immigrant and legal, permanent Iraqi residents, the FBI and other government offices have taken a series of controversial steps, including fingerprinting at ports of entry and interviewing suspects. Washington's latest wave of diplomatic expulsions was announced this weekend. State Department officials say the 'primary objective is to reduce Iraq's capacity to orchestrate terrorism in the event of hostilities'. But the decision of the FBI to ask Arab-American businessmen to volunteer information on their compatriots has caused controversy as a potential infringement of civil liberties. In Britain, where officials are wary of encountering similar protests, the Home Office was yesterday trying to play down the possibility of internment for Iraqis living in the UK. But they said 'contingency' plans exist for tightening internal security in the event of a war in the Gulf. There continue to be unofficial reports, however, that the Home Office has plans to arrest a limited number of Iraqis in the event of war, and detain them in camps guarded by military police, including one at an army base at Rollestone on Salisbury Plain. Apart from internment without trial in Northern Ireland, foreign nationals in Britain were last arrested during the Second World War. Any detentions would take place under emergency powers following a declaration of war. An alternative strategy for the government would be further depo Mikey | 03.05.07 - 6:21 pm | #

Cont... n alternative strategy for the government would be further deportations. But a Foreign Office official said she did not expect further deportations of embassy staff, adding:'The secretary of state has said that he wishes to keep channels of communication to the Iraqis open.' A similar view is being taken in Washington. The near-5,000 Iraqis living in the UK include a substantial number of dissidents. Nearly 600 have formally been granted asylum since 1979. The UK Council for Overseas Student Affairs estimates that around 1,000 Iraqi students were studying in Britain at the start of the academic year. But since their maintenance and tuition payments were frozen by the embassy after sanctions were introduced, many have left, says Ms Maeve Sherlock, deputy director of the council. The students are widely dispersed around the UK, with few in London, and the largest number - around 60 - studying at Strathclyde University, with significant groups in cities such as Leeds, Swansea and Loughborough. The two student political organisations are the National Union of Iraqi Students and Youth, which is Ba'athist and pro-Saddam, and the unofficial Iraqi Student Society. Few university student unions will fund the National Union, said Ms Sherlock, because it has the reputation of spying on Iraqi dissidents. Numerous Iraqi students appear to be non-political, or opposed to the Saddam regime. 'I have never been involved in any political action,' said one Iraqi science postgraduate living in South Wales. 'I am not very interested in politics. I'm just trying to get my PhD done. But I am very concerned about the safety of my family.' Mikey | 03.05.07 - 6:22 pm | #

"You believe Jews living in Britain have a better idea of what is good for the Palestinians than the Palestinians do... Who on earth do you think you are Tony? For all your pseudo empathy, you clearly regard Muslims as sub-human, theologically handicapped & incapable of legitimate decision making. .." It seems as if she believes that the Jews of Israel have no human right NOT to live under a Hamas theocracy. "The Palestinians democratically voted in Hamas. They are the human beings who live on the slither of land called Palestine & this is their choice, not yours!" And they should have the right to live under Hamas in their own country--not in mine. That's why the Jews of Israel wil lalways refuse to accept any one-state solution. Mikha'el | 03.05.07 - 6:39 pm | #

Can I confirm this, that and the other? Little Mikey asks monotonously. Can Mikey confirm that his hero is the late Senator Joe McCarthy? And when the little liar is found out, he whines that it's incredible. Even a child would understand that if you can speak in a place in 1986, the chances are you weren't banned in 1983! But Mikey is thick as well as anti-communist toe rag. But I tell you what Mikey, publish your full name and home town and I shall be happy to answer your questions, however I can't answer someone who hides behind a first name. It's kinda like they have something to hide. And we know, being such a diligent researcher who is so happy to quote what others have published, that that can't be the case. So Mikey like to reveal yourself and face the legal consequences or are you scared? IP numbers incidentally, being attached to all postings on the net, reveal nothing whatsoever about someone's private details. However they do prove that Gilad Atzmon is in the habit of posting under a multiplicity of false names, including Palestinian names. Tony Greenstein >>1. Yet against Greenstein's comment are incredible and do not deal with thefundamental issue. I stated he was banned from speaking on November 11 1983 and he talks about 1986. Will he confirm that he was banned from speaking on November 11, 1983 at LSE? tony greenstein | 03.05.07 - 6:56 pm | #

What does Tony Greenstein want my name and address for? Will he be sending it to Beirut or providing it the remnants of the National Union of Iraqi Students? Tony Greenstein states "the chances are you weren't banned in 1983!" but he doesn't deny that he was not allowed to speak at LSE on November 11, 1983 for precisely that reason. I have asked Tony Greenstein a number of questions, yet he fails to answer them. His association with BAZO is simply disgusting. I am no fan of Senator McCarthy and nor am I a fan of Tony Greenstein. Tony Greenstein refuses to debate me as he knows he will lose and refuses to answer questions as he is embarrassed by the truth. Mikey | 03.05.07 - 7:33 pm | #

IP numbers tell me things, such as those using other people's nick names or names, including my own. I don't think anyone should be required to post their full name on comments. I DO however, believe that if someone is critiquing another person, publishing it extensively (as Mikey does) he or she should have the balls to use their own name. I get articles all the time from people who ask me to post their work on my blog, but they don't want to disclose their identity. Only on one occasion did I do it, with Falasteen Son, because I know him personally, and know he would back up everything he wrote on any venue. He simply didn't want his name to appear because he is extremely shy and it was his first article. I am also getting irritated to have to weed out the comments all the time. I can understand a bit of teasing, but there is too much assuming the identity of others and just making a mess. I think most can see the false from the true, but it is at any rate a pain in the ass to have to waste my time like this. If you all want the chance to speak when you think you have something to say, try to act like grown ups!!! thecutter | Homepage | 03.05.07 - 10:49 pm | #

Greenie just relax and stop telling lies about IP adresses. As far as we are aware you are the only person here with massive XXXX record of XXX activity, Credit Card XXX, XXXX XXXX crime and XXXXX. You are the only one here to be banned by academic institutes, you are the only one to be kicked out from an academic insistute for being XXXXX and XXXX You are the only one here who hides behind ‘spent Convictions’. You are a joke. No one should give you an address. with your violent history (read above), you endanger the public Thus you have 2 options: either explain us once and for all, what is your moral ground or just piss off. Gilad Atzmon | 03.05.07 - 10:52 pm | #

I want to debate Tony Greenstein. I want him to come out with an article full of his usual nonsense about Kasztner and the Zionists in Hungary in 1944. Then I want to publish it unedited with a response. I just want to pull his article to shreds which will not be difficult based on his past writings. Come on Tony Greenstein stop being a chicken and try and be a mensch. He should Write an article about Kasztner and use all his favourite sources such as Ben Hecht and Lenni Brenner. He also should not forget to properly footnote it!!!! Let us see what he is made of! Greenstein can't go running away for ever ... He should accept the debate and similarly recognise that at the same time his work is going to be pulled to pieces. Greenstein will get so angry when he loses the debate that he will throw all his toys out of the pram and we know Greenstein likes toys. Tony Greencstein should stop being such a Greenchicken and accept a fair debate.. The prolem is that as he knows he is likely to lose he will not start the debate... He is such a chicken, Come on Greenchiken - stop bseing a slime ball and post a dence to your claim..... Chick Chick Chick Chicken - Mikey | 03.06.07 - 1:29 am | #

Mikey: Greenstein can't go running away for ever G: For sure he can! A man with zero dignity is as free as a fart. Ok Mikey, Greenie is finished, you know it, he knows it, I know it. And now you and me. In the light of what I wrote above about Prinz and Brenner. Would you accept that the same applies to Kasztner ? Kastner was behaving like an ideological Jew in line with the lesson of Mordechay. In other words, to collaborate with the Nazis was the right Jewish move (Ideologically). Would you accept it? Gilad Atzmon | 03.06.07 - 2:08 am | #

Does Mr. Greenstein have a mind to clarify the false of "The Holocaust Wars" seriously? Mr. Eisen cannot be persuaded by your way. Do you run away from the truth of "The Holocaust Wars"? Was "The Holocaust Wars" suitably criticized not well-grounded? Natural science | 03.06.07 - 4:44 am | #

The very speedy reponse to the question as posed by Gilad Atzmon is below. I do not believe it is right to "collaborate" with the Nazis and I do not believe that Kasztner did "collaborate" with the Nazis. Consequently the question as posed by Gilad Atzmon is based upon an assumption - that assumption being kasztner was Nazi collaborator - as i do not accept that assumption - the question makes as much sense to me as the following statement - "Mr Smith predicts the world wil end in 2009, therefore do you not believe you may well as quit work now and party on spending all your savings as you can't take it with you." As I would not accept Mr Smith's prediction, the rest of the question is irrelevant. It is the same with the question as posed by Gilad Atzmon - I do not accept the assumption behind it. If Gilad Atzmon would like to rephrase the question in such a way as that it may make more sense and not have such assumptions built into it, I should do my best to respond in full. Unlike Tony Greenstein, I am not the sort of person who runs away from such matters. Having said that, I do not have time to respond to lots of these sorts of questions, as whilst they do interest me, my time on them is better spent on the book I am writing that covers in detail different political opinions in relation to the Kasztner affair - (from marxist through left wing Zionist through revisionist Zionist and it is interesting that the opinion of the revisionists and the communists in relation to their analysis of the Kasztner affair is not massively different). To the best of my knowledge Tony Greenstein believes Gilad Atzmon is an antisemite - If I am correct here, it is an opinion I share with him. Tony Greenstein may well argue that by me answering such a question from Gilad Atzmon is evidence of Zionist "collaboration" with antisemitism. This would be laughable for Greenstein to mention sa large number of Jews (including myself) would consider Tony Greenstein to be an antisemite. Consequently by a similar argument - the mere fact I have been debating here with Greenstein (or at least trying to - but Greenstein is a chicken) would also suggest Zionist "collaboraton" with antisemitism. If Tony Greenstein is prepared to admit he is an antisemite - we may be in business. Note: |The above paragraph does not mean to say that I believe anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism are identical. In fact I used to be friendly with an anarchist who was certainly anti-Zionist but in no way antisemitic. He had a consistent opinion of all national movements and of all countries. He just wanted all borders everywhere to be abolished and the nation state to disappear. In the modern day sense he was therefore anti-Zionist, in the sense of an area in historic Palestine being made the homeland for Jews - as far as he is concerned as anyone can live anywhere if Jews or Palestinians or Chinese people or Greek people or whatever want to live anywhere they want - let Mikey | 03.06.07 - 5:24 am | #

Cont... Greek people or whatever want to live anywhere they want - let them. He was certainly not singling out Israel or Jewish nationalism in the form of Zionism for special treatment. I note with some amusement – Gilad Atzmon has said “Kastner was behaving like an ideological Jew.” I can safely say I have never heard that one before. I have heard attacks by Marxists such as Greenstein say something like “Kasztner was an ideological Zionist” and in order to justify their claims against Kasztner they quote Eichmann. This behaviour from the likes of Greenstein is perverse. It is like quoting a pedophile to confirm a view that seven year old children like having sex. It is nonsense. Back to the phrase used by Gilad Atzmon – “an ideological Jew.” I am stumped as I have no clue what “an ideological Jew” actually is. I am aware what a religious Jew is, an irreligious Jew is. I am also aware what a Zionist Jew is and an anti-Zionist Jew is and I could go on like this – but “an ideological Jew”? – I am afraid he had got me on his interpretation. I have located the term on the following website http://www.vbs.org/rabbi/hshulw/...lw/ restruct.htm and it will necessary for me to if the interpretation there was what he had in mind specifically in this context. I apologize that this is “answering a question with a question” but that is according to some a particular Jewish trait and as such I do not apologize at all. Mikey | 03.06.07 - 5:26 am | #

An ideological Jew is someone who (in my view for non-secular reasons) sees him or herself guided ethically by their Jewishness. More specifically it is also is someone whose ethical decisions are made according to what is 'good for the Jews'. So you, I think, are an ideological Jew, so is Tony and so was Kastner. Gilad is not. I may be one in the first sense (note the word 'may') but not in the second sense. paul | 03.06.07 - 7:13 am | #

Sorry, I meant 'secular' not 'non-secular' in the above. paul | 03.06.07 - 7:14 am | #

The big question is whether (again, in a secular sense) it is logically possible to be a non-ideological Jew. paul | 03.06.07 - 7:16 am | #

Paul, Gilad is not Jewish. Mikey, Tony.... I hope you are having fun, because I am bored to death with all of this. It was about the use of a moral standard to condemn others, and it has become the Mikey-Tony debate that no one gives a flying *** about (except Harry's Place and Engage, where Mikey has invited him to read his shining dialectic here). I find you both exceedingly irritating to an extreme that is hardly tolerable, and I consider myself to be really tolerant. I am also bored with people telling me how to run my blog, what IP numbers to put up, to go and check who is portraying whom, etc. Not to take Greenstein's part, but I agree that if one is "challenging him" to a debate, one can't hide behind a pen name. Talk about chickens? Got some problem saying who you are? Or would that make people start to do Google searches on YOU and your life is then up for scrutiny? As far as I'm concerned, you are a racist (Zionism is racism) just as much Judeocentric as Tony is, and therefore your dialogues are taking place on a planet of your own making, where the earth revolves around your special private Sun. I am tired of all the bickering, really. I may allow one or two more days of this bullshit and then this thread is permanently closed and the content is archived. If people want to consult it, they will have to ask me for a copy. So, copy everything down, Chilluns. Mary is getting really sick of the tedium. thecutter | Homepage | 03.06.07 - 8:56 am | #

Mikey, don’t play terminological games, so he didn‘t collaborate with the Nazis, he just did business with them. The crucial point here is that this is what Mordechay expects him to do. This is where Judaism stops being a religion and becomes an ideology. Zionism is just one manifestation of this very ideology. Greenie, for instance, may call himself a Marxist (He thinks it is sexy) but he isn’t more than ordinary ideological Jew. He isn’t religious but he believes in the uniqueness of the Jewish case. This is why he performs in Jewish segregated cells (JAZ) rather than amongst the international proletariat. However, back to Kasztner, what do you say Mikey, doing business with the Nazis was the right thing to do, Yes or No? What is your opinion (as an individual), what do you think is the Jewish take on the subject? What is the Judaic take on the subject? It is clear that Brenner wouldn’t understand such a question, I wonder whether you would? Gilad Atzmon | 03.06.07 - 9:51 am | #

I was going to provide a relatively detailed response to the question as posed by Gilad Atzmon, but following the intervention by Mary, I have decided against. The reason being - as she has stated that this thread is to be deleted - or at least not available for general viewing after "one or two more days." Given that the response would take me some time to write - it has now become pointless. I have spent some time on this thread and to my recollection I have never posted to this blog before. I do not really bother posting to Mark Elf's blog as he is quite famous for deleting posts that he does not agree, with irrespective if the comment is quite a responsible one. Had I had known that this thread was to be deleted, I would not have bothered commenting in the first place. Yes, it has been a complete waste of my time - but as I knew that the blog owner who has control is ideologically opposed to my views - As she states in reference to myself "As far as I'm concerned, you are a racist. This particular charge, I think is wholly wrong and indeed, it would be more accurate to describe many of the so called "anti-Zionists" or who are writing to this thread as more driven by hatred of Jews than other factors. Consequently there is no point me answering the questions by Gilad Atzmon. yes I could answer it else where, but the question, as he has now stated it, does not really interest me. I would only respond to prove a point. The point being I am not scarred of debate and I do not run away from debate - unlike Tony Greenstein. I do not really have that much interest in debating with Gilad Atzmon as other people are discrediting him and as people such as David Duke rave about his posts - I do not really need to add much more to what others have said. In the event that the blog owner has a change of mind and allows this thread to remain open access, just deleting any comments that are deemed to be libellous for whatever reason then I will provide my response to Gilad Atzmon. Mikey | 03.06.07 - 1:07 pm | #

It is the blog owner's pram and if she wants to throw all the toys out of it, she is quite entitled to, but do not expect me to write further. One final comment - If someone wishes to remain anonymous - they could have many reasons for doing so and quite frankly I do not see why it matters. Many people use pen names and providing they keep a consistent pen name - their opinions can be judged by the name they use. When commenting on blogs, I normally use the name "Mikey," - an exception to this is the Guardian Comment is Free site where I have used the name "MikeyMikey" the reason for the change there is that someone else had registered the name "Mikey." I am not a Marxist - but Leon Trotsky is well known by his pen name - but how many people know his real name was Lev Davidovitch Bronstein? There are numerous writers that use a pen name and I see nothing wrong with it. Even in the Palestinian movement - names such as "Abu Jihad" are not the real names of the people - but everyone would know who "Abu Jihad" is. For all I know Mary Rizzo may not be the real owner of the blog owner - it could be another pen name in the same way as "The Cutter" is - but does it matter? In cyberspace - people know the blog owner here under the name The Cutter or Mary Rizzo - that is the relevant point. I am known on the blogs I post to as "Mikey" or as stated "MikeyMikey." I prefer to remain - "Mikey" Mikey | 03.06.07 - 1:09 pm | #

oooh Mikey(Mikey)... all this grandstanding is becoming the rage, knew that sooner or later your moment of demand making would come. Everyone is so intent upon being able to define and dictate how comments are supposed to run. In the past week I have been practically ordered to delete, cancel, change, omit, etc. comments. Now I get, "I will DENY the public my intervention!" I have also seen a huge amount of static that is obviously so off topic or insulting that it makes me dread even coming to read the comments. It gives the term "wallpaper" new meaning. This thread may or may not be deleted, the jury is still deliberating, and if it is, I think it is evident what the reasons are. I wouldn't mind an actual intelligent debate on the issues Gilad raised. Is that going to happen? One would have to weed through 55 posts with "chick chick chicken" in order to really find out, and by that time, we have become bored with it. Perhaps that's your style, and I certainly don't like Greenstein's style at all either. It looks the same to me, intolerably snotty. Also, if you are a Zionist, you can't but be racist, there is an idea you adhere to of Jews having more rights to the land of Palestine and refusal to allow the refugees to return. So don't expect an apology from me. Sorry, my attention span for playground behaviour lasts less than it used to. If people want to debate (even with great passion and at times rage), they should be free to do that, but rather what we find here is a bunch of macho posing. As to using a pseudo, you do what you want, but it is obvious that if someone is going against someone on a name basis, they shouldn't be afraid to declare who they are. You think it's entertaining to have your enemies decide to attack you, use your name and do anything they want with it? Sure, you are being protective of yourself in keeping your privacy. But that doesn't stop you from being so cavalier with others. It's the stench of double standards that bugs me. And, at a later date, should you somehow not want your name attached to some idea you currently hold, all you have to do is say, "that wasn't me", and your boss, your buddies, your allies are all on your side. I personally think it's chicken. Sure, I use a pseudo when I post, but when I write about other people, they know who I am. You obviously believe you need a while to address the questions that are posed to you. In the meantime, write it down and if everyone behaves, the self-proclaimed intellectual Zionist from the UK will get his chance to have it read here. I don't think it's too much to ask to expect some decency around here, no matter what opinions people hold. If I have to wade through more crap, and anyone is able to recognise crap, I believe, you can consider that the debate will continue on Harry's Place. I spoke with a very intelligent friend of mine today and he said some things that I will share: there are a lot of blogs out there, and those who thecutter | Homepage | 03.06.07 - 2:30 pm | #

I spoke with a very intelligent friend of mine today and he said some things that I will share: there are a lot of blogs out there, and those who post cut and paste articles about Mohammed and his sexual sphere and other such stuff are there only to seek to draw attention away from the other people who contribute to the blogs. They seek to be so irritating that people will say, why bother with it? And the thing is, and everyone will admit this, I do not moderate the comments. I at times come in and do a cleanup, but I allow people to post. I could easily install another system that permits me to monitor the comments in a much more effective way, but that might exclude those who are taking a first dive in the blog, because if they don't see their comment up when they type it, (and with moderation, they won't. It would go up when I got around to it) they generally prefer to not comment. This is something that I have chosen to avoid, so that in a friendly way, people could engage in discourse. My friend also said that this issue is very emotive, and it causes people to turn to insult when they don't have any other way to attack. There are millions of blogs, and anyone here can open up his own and do things just the way he wants. But, that would mean they have to actually do a bit of work, they can't just mess around with things, and they prefer to dominate other blogs and create distraction. It is a tactic. So, Mikey, you will see whether or not my threat of pulling the comments will become reality. I have no idea. thecutter | Homepage | 03.06.07 - 2:36 pm | #

Mary: Paul, Gilad is not Jewish. As Karl Lueger the famous antiSemitic mayor of Vienna said, "I will dexcide weho or who is not Jewish" Seriously Mary I believe it is more complex than that. What do you mean by saying that Gilad is not Jewish? And what would you mean if you said that Gilad is Jewish? But I won't speak for Gilad - perhaps he'd like to comment. paul | 03.06.07 - 4:44 pm | #

The Jewish definition Israel = "The person in question or mother is a Jewish." Nazis = "Blood of 1/8" USSR = "Self return system" Sartre = "The person who is called a Jewish from others is Jewish." Atzmon = "http://www.gilad.co.uk/html%20files/3rd.html" Only this is classified only as long as I know. These have the influence also in the success or failure of "Six million". Mr. Atzmon is a person who equals Sartre. Natural science | 03.06.07 - 4:52 pm | #

It is time to say clearly, once and for all, that there is no such thing as a Palestinian "people" any more than the Pakistanis in Redding constitute a Paki-Redding nation. It is time to insist that the illegal occupation of Jewish lands by "Palestinians' be ended! And it is time to start hanging Jewish communists and traitors to their own people from a very high gallows. Anti-Zionism is a form of racism. Kharziad | Homepage | 03.06.07 - 4:53 pm | #

Mikey, take your time, and make sure that i know when you post your answers. Your view on the subject may be very interesting and i tell you why. If we have peace in the ME, it is you, rather than Greenie, who is going to be a partner. You are the Zionist, the Jew ideologist. Unlike Greenie, you are intellectually and ethically orientated. i will wait to hear from you. Gilad Atzmon | 03.06.07 - 5:03 pm | #

Mary/The Cutter I make no demands of you. All I have simply said is that if you intend to delete this post I shall not bother with writing a response to Gilad Atzmon’s question here. If you intend to pull all comments on this thread then I see no point in writing a comment – especially one that will take time. If you will leave all above comments (with the exception of deleting any comments that may be libelous ) then I am happy to respond here. The reason I will respond is to prove a point that I am not scarred of a debate on Kasztner and quite frankly I do not care who it is with. You mention that you “have no idea” whether or not your threat of pulling comments will become a reality. All I can say to that is when you decide please let me know and I will post a response to Gilad Atzmon’s question if you chose to leave the comments and not carry out your threat. I do not expect any apology from you for your incorrect view that Zionism is racism. However, do not expect me to agree with you either. Fortunately I live in the UK and the British Government and the major opposition party does not accept your view that Zionism is racism. You can keep shouting it from your blog – that is your prerogative – but I doubt you will find many serious politicians in Britain or America who agree with you. I do not have double standards on my use of name “Mikey.” I write to blogs under the name “Mikey” and Tony Greenstein writes under the name “Tony Greenstein”. If Tony Greenstein had chosen a different moniker for his blogs, I could have attacked his posts under the different moniker, but he doesn’t – he has chosen to use the name Tony Greenstein – and expose himself as the same person who has been producing anti-Zionist literature for the last 25 years or so. My history as “Mikey” is not so long – it dates back about 3 years – and can be seen in the main at Harry’s Place where I have chosen to comment to blog posts, but I have been known as “Mikey” and that name alone for more years than I care to remember by many of my friends, family and acquaintances – I see no reason to change it now. If you see any post under the name “Mikey” to Harry’s Place in the last few years – unless it is someone using a false identity (something possible even if I used my full name) the post is likely to be mine and I stand by record. Mikey | 03.06.07 - 5:39 pm | #

I will add to Gilad Atzmon I am not frightened in any way of the question. I believe there is currently a thread running on Harry’s Place discussing your relevant post. If you wish to post your question there instead I will respond there. I am just saying this incase Mary decides to pull this thread. It will take me some time to write and I am not prepared to waste my time further unless my comments will be left. I do not see this as making any demands. This blog does not belong to me. It is up to the owner whether or not they want to delete or accept posts. It is up to the commenter whether or not they want to comment with the threat of being deleted. Personally with the threat of being deleted, I prefer not to comment. I see that as quite reasonable behaviour. Please let me know if you post at Harry’s Place. Mikey Mikey | 03.06.07 - 5:42 pm | #

ok, Mikey, It seems as if you are capable of acting in a civilised way here, and so that the other Zionists can see their "guy" slug it out dialectically, and those who don't respect your politics can see your arguments, they will all have to act like adults. It is up to them. We all are going to know who is disrupting discussion, because it will be evident. Those using somebody else's nick will be exposed for their real identity and also banned and deleted should the ban not take. They will be deleted whenever and whereever they post on this blog. Also, Harry's Place is running its usual flame post on Gilad, so to avoid that venue would be better. The only good thing about Harry's was when I was able to Gabbly Chat with a Mozza-Smith verses slamout. good fun, the only fun possible to have at Harry's. thecutter | Homepage | 03.06.07 - 5:55 pm | #

Thank you for making the matter clear. I will respond here to the question as posed by Gilad Atzmon - but it may take me some time to post it - I may do it tonight but more likely expect it tomorrow or the day after. Mikey | 03.06.07 - 6:50 pm | #

Mikey asks why I want to know his full name. Because I don't debate with someone who isn't prepared to be honest as to who he is. And when he asks repeated silly questions along the lines of 'why did they ban you at x, y or z' regardless of whether it is true, then I don't take them seriously. The simple answer is go and ask the banners, they will be in the best position to know, bearing in mind that Zionists love to ban what they cannot destroy. Tony Greenstein | 03.06.07 - 8:42 pm | #

and so does Elf! ahahahha thecutter | Homepage | 03.06.07 - 9:19 pm | #

Tony Greenstein cannot name one instance when I said he was banned but he wasn't. I believe I have provided sufficient information and numerous references for people to check. He ignores many accusations. What does Greenstein have to say about BAZO and NUIS? What does Greenstein have to say to the person who accused him of haranging a 14 year old school girl? To these and many more questions I have raised, Greenstein remains silent. Tony Greenstein's only excuse is that I have not provided my full name. Can I ask Tony Greenstein therefore if someone else who was prepared to use their full name posed to you exactly the same questions whether he would be prepared to answer them? I have received a few emails about this thread and I know at least one of the people would be preapred to post under under their full name. If the same questions were then asked by that person using their full name - would Greenstein answer them? By considering the above point Greenstein may see that his excuse for not answering the questions is very lame. Greenstein should either put up or shut up. He should write an article about kasztner and he should include footnotes and should have a proper debate. The point is - if I were a betting man - my money would not be on Greenstein to win the debate. His gaps in knowledge or misinterpretations of facts are too numerous and vast for him to stand any realistic chance. I will allow him a further opportunity and am prepared to extend the deadline. How about I give Greenstein 1 month from today to research and write an article on Kasztner and the activities of the Zionists in the Holocaust? Surely that would be sufficient time for someone who has been writing about this for 25 years to get their act together and produce a single 10,000 word essay? I tell you what Tony Greenstein why don't you write the article jointly with Lenni Brenner? The two of you together writing a properly footnoted article on the actions of Kasztner and the Zionists in the Holocaust - with 1 month to do it - surely you won't chicken out of that? Or maybe you will. It will be interesting to see what Greenstein's lame ecuse is this time? Mikey | 03.06.07 - 10:12 pm | #

I have written a number of articles about the Holocaust and Kastner. Mikey can start with 4 last summer in the Weekly Worker! I don't need to debate him because it is clear he is only interested in libels and self-promotion. From what I've seen already he is all puff. He ran away from confronting Lenni Brenner in a meeting (not trying to speak to him at the end but confronting him from the floor). As Mikey would know if he had ever undertaken history as an academic discipline, it's not a question of facts, which in the case of Kastner in particular are well known but how you interpret them. I have already denied the story about a 14 year old and if Mikey is convinced of the story then let him put his full name to it and I can take the appropriate legal action. Mikey complains about lack of time himself and then expects me to answer the nurd's multiplicity of questions concerning Jewish Chronicle archives. Well I have one answer as I have all along - Zionists seek to ban their opponents by defaming them as anti-Semites. They build political alliances with the most reactionary elements in those situations to try and obtain such bans. However whenever such a ban has been sought and it has been subject to a democratic vote it has been seen for what it is and rejected. I think Mikey is quite capable of answering his own questions therefore. That is my answer to all his questions. Now if Mikey wants any further response he will have to say who he actually is, otherwise the terms chicken and coward will be his alone. Someone who makes a variety of allegations behind a cloak of anonymity is beneath contempt. Even Atzmon, with one or two exceptions, has not done that. So in his own words, put up or shut up Mikey. Tony Greenstein Tony Greenstein | 03.07.07 - 12:11 am | #

And what about BAZO and the NUIS? Mikey | 03.07.07 - 12:20 am | #

So regarding your articles in the Weekly Worker which I have seen - are you happy for me to copy one of them in full (unedited) and put it on a special blog for the purpose and write a response to it? Mikey | 03.07.07 - 12:22 am | #

You can do what you want, but don't expect my blessing for it. And I forgot to respond to your absurd suggestion about getting others to take responsibility for what you write. What have you got to hide that you are willing to hide behind others? You want a debate but you won't say who you are!!! Half buffoon and half crank. Tony Greenstein Anonymous | 03.07.07 - 12:44 am | #

It was Oliver kamm wo used the word Crank and he was referring to one Tony Greenstein. Mikey | 03.07.07 - 1:16 am | #

On Tony Greenstein's comment about pseudonyms - Tony greenstein considers himself a Marxist. Let us consider some other Marxists who use pseudonyms - None of the following names are their real names. Each one is an alias - But i cannot recall seeing Tony Greenstein complaining about them for that point. V. I. Lenin, Leon Trotsky, Grigori Zinoviev, Lev Kamenev, Joseph Stalin, Josip Tito, Che Guevara, Kim Il Sung, Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot, Tony Cliff, Ted Grant, Lenni Brenner - Mikey | 03.07.07 - 2:24 am | #

Lenin and others had good reason to use pseudonyms, since they were revolutionaries. But Mikey has never fought for anything other than a good meal in a restaurant, unless of course he considers that he has an identity of interest with Stalin and Pol Pot. One thing is for certain and that is I don't debate with people who aren't even honest enough to say who they are. But the other reason is that, leaving aside his attempt to establish himself as someone with something to say, Mikey has no doubt been brought up as a Zionist and has never engaged in critical thought, accepting the conclusions of others and is now merely scrabbling around to find some evidence. In that sense he is no different to David Irving who mangled and distorted his sources in order to reach preordained conclusions. I however was convinced by the evidence of Zionist collaboration with the Nazis having grown up as Zionist. In other words I looked critically at the evidence before reaching a firm conclusion that yes, the Zionist movement was the Nazi's favoured Jewish group. And there is an abundane of evidence, not least from Zionist sources. Mikey however accepts uncritically the most biased and propagandist Zionist sources, hence it is really like debating with a PR machine. There is no point. But I will give one example of what I mean. Mikey asserts in Harry's Place that Kastner was cleared of collaboration by the Israeli Supreme Court by 4-1. It is untrue. He was cleared by 3-2, the Court having found that all the facts of the lower court were correct, i.e. they differed in their interpretation of those facts. It is a minor point, but Mikey cannot admit he is in error because it is a matter of pride to pretend otherwise. I quoted in HP the opinion of Judge Moshe Silberg, to which Mikey replied that yes, he was the 1 judge. But Ben Hecht in Perfidy also cited the judgment of Judge ID Goitein: ‘It is enough that he has managed to convince the lower court, who fulfilled the task of jury and judge alike, that the man whom he accused lied in court and behaved in a way which left the cold impression that his conscience is not clear and that he is afraid and is trying to conceal things that shouldn’t be revealed to the sun. We didn’t see Dr. Kastner in the box and didn’t listen to him. However the facts which were revealed substantiate the findings of the lower court and prevent us as a court of appeal from interfering.' That seems quite clear, but Mikey still cannot accept that he is wrong. So what about Dr Noah Lucas, a visiting fellow at the Oxford Centre for Post Graduate Hebrew Studies as well as an Associate of St. Anthony’s College, as well as being a liberal but perceptive Zionist, as opposed to an ideological crank ready to swear that white is black. In other words he is hardly someone with an axe to grind. In his Modern History of Israel p.328 he writes that ‘The supreme court, by the smallest majority, delivered its judgeme Tony Greenstein | 03.07.07 - 3:52 am | #

In other words I looked critically at the evidence before reaching a firm conclusion that yes, the Zionist movement was the Nazi's favoured Jewish group. And there is an abundane of evidence, not least from Zionist sources. Mikey however accepts uncritically the most biased and propagandist Zionist sources, hence it is really like debating with a PR machine. There is no point. But I will give one example of what I mean. Mikey asserts in Harry's Place that Kastner was cleared of collaboration by the Israeli Supreme Court by 4-1. It is untrue. He was cleared by 3-2, the Court having found that all the facts of the lower court were correct, i.e. they differed in their interpretation of those facts. It is a minor point, but Mikey cannot admit he is in error because it is a matter of pride to pretend otherwise. I quoted in HP the opinion of Judge Moshe Silberg, to which Mikey replied that yes, he was the 1 judge. But Ben Hecht in Perfidy also cited the judgment of Judge ID Goitein: ‘It is enough that he has managed to convince the lower court, who fulfilled the task of jury and judge alike, that the man whom he accused lied in court and behaved in a way which left the cold impression that his conscience is not clear and that he is afraid and is trying to conceal things that shouldn’t be revealed to the sun. We didn’t see Dr. Kastner in the box and didn’t listen to him. However the facts which were revealed substantiate the findings of the lower court and prevent us as a court of appeal from interfering.' That seems quite clear, but Mikey still cannot accept that he is wrong. So what about Dr Noah Lucas, a visiting fellow at the Oxford Centre for Post Graduate Hebrew Studies as well as an Associate of St. Anthony’s College, as well as being a liberal but perceptive Zionist, as opposed to an ideological crank ready to swear that white is black. In other words he is hardly someone with an axe to grind. In his Modern History of Israel p.328 he writes that ‘The supreme court, by the smallest majority, delivered its judgement posthumously restoring Kastner’s honour. Since there are 5 judges of this particular Supreme Court (I don’t think even Mikey argues with that!) even Mikey can work out what the smallest majority is. And in Deaf ears, blind eyes, Uri Dromi: 'As the judgment cast aspersions on Mapai as well, the government decided to appeal to the Supreme Court. In January 1958, the Supreme Court, in a majority decision (3-2) found that Kastner did not collaborate with the Nazis and that under certain circumstances, a leader has to hide certain things from the public. However, all five justices found that Kastner had committed perjury in 1947 and had thus spared a senior S.S. officer from getting his due punishment. Note that there is no disputing by Dromi, who is critical of Ruth Linn’s defence of Vrba, that Kastner hid news of Auschwitz from all but the ‘Prominents’ i.e. the leaders of Hungarian Jewry and Zionism Tony Greenstein | 03.07.07 - 3:53 am | #

Note that there is no disputing by Dromi, who is critical of Ruth Linn’s defence of Vrba, that Kastner hid news of Auschwitz from all but the ‘Prominents’ i.e. the leaders of Hungarian Jewry and Zionism. http://www.google.com/search?q=r...n&start=30& sa=N So, whilst I have never shied away from a debate with genuine students of history, i.e. those prepared to look at the evidence critically regardless of their conclusions, I have no intention of wasting my time on a juvenile and puffed up propagandist. He cites the warmonger Oliver Kamm with good reason, since they are both cut from the same cloth. And Mikey takes issue with my description of Irving as a 'reputable historian' i.e. someone with a reputation. Yet it is hardly disputed that, despite his misuse of sources, Irving is a reputable military historian (but not a holocaust historian). If Mikey had bothered to read, let alone digest, the very lengthy judgment of Judge Charles Grey in the Irving v Penguin trial he would have picked up on Para. 13.7: 'My assessment is that, as a military historian, Irving has much to commend him. For his works of military history Irving has undertaken thorough and painstaking research into the archives. He has discovered and disclosed to histsorians and others many documents which, but for his efforts, might have remained unnoticed for years. ... I accept the favourable assessment by Prof. Watt and Sir Johnb Keegan of the calibre of Irving's military history and reject as too sweeping the negative assessment of Evans. It's a small point but because one disagrees with one's opponent, even one as detestable as Irving, one should nonetheless be fair and frank in one's assessment. The problem with Mikey is that he has no ability to judge or assess anything in a critical way because he is too juvenile for that, preferring as his sources random newspaper clippings! And that is why I see no point in wasting time in having a 'debate' with him. Debating with a brick wall would be a more productive expenditure of time. Tony Greenstein Tony Greenstein | 03.07.07 - 3:54 am | #

Gilad Atzmon asks whether it was particularly Jewish thing or the right Jewish thing to do to for Rudolf Kasztner to carry out negotiations with the Nazis. This is my understanding of the question as posed. As I am not a religious expert and am unlikely to become one, the question may be better directed or answered by a person such as a Rabbi who understands the case and can use their knowledge of religious law to provide an answer. I hold myself out to be an expert on Kasztner, but I have never held myself out to be an expert on the Jewish religion. To discuss exceptionally briefly the Kasztner case – Germany invaded Hungary in 1944 – it was towards the end of the war that many Germans realized they were losing. Eichmann was sent in to Hungary with the aim of deporting Jews to Auschwitz for extermination. Eichmann proposed to Joel Brand what became known as the “blood for goods” plan,. This plan was to save one million Jews including all of Hungarian Jewry and also possibly Jews from neighbouring countries. In order to implement this plan, Joel Brand went to Istanbul to conduct negotiations with the leaders of world Jewry and representatives of the Allies. These negotiations ultimately came to Whilst Brand was out of the country – Kasztner headed up the negotiations. Kasztner wanted a “gesture” to see that Eichmann was acting in good faith and it was agreed that a train load of Jews would leave Hungary for safety in Switzerland. This train contained 1,684 passengers. Separately Eichmann was able to inform Kasztner that approximately 18,000 Jews would be sent to safety to work in Austria where most survived the war. The Nazis extorted vast sums of money from the Jews for these people to be safe. Whilst all this was going on approximately 12,000 Jews a day were being sent to Auschwitz for annihilation. Mikey | 03.07.07 - 4:15 am | #

After the war Kasztner went to live in Palestine / Israel and became active in the left-wing ruling Zionist party Mapai. Malkiel Grunwald who was hostile to Mapai wrote a pamphlet which amongst other things accused Kasztner of collaboration with the Nazis. As Kasztner was a government official, the Government sued Grunwald for libel.. In the initial court case, the allegation by Grunwald that Kasztner had collaborated with the Nazis was found to be justified and the judge famously ruled that “Kasztner sold his soul to the devil.” The ruling was appealed and overturned but before the ruling Kasztner was assassinated by a small right wing Zionist cell. The issue was that it could not be seen as a contract as Kasztner had no free will. Justice Agranat for the majority cited the words of Eichmann to Kasztner during one of their meetings: “You seem extremely tense, Kasztner. I am sending you to Theresienstadt for recovery; or would you prefer Auschwitz?” The majority view was summarised as follows: “1 During that period Kasztner was motivated by the sole motive of saving Hungary’s Jews as a whole, that is, the largest possible number under the circumstances of time and place as he estimated could be saved; 2 This motive fitted the moral duty of rescue to which he was subordinated as a leader of the relief and rescue committee in Budapest; 3 Influenced by this motive he adopted the method of financial or economic negotiation with the Nazis; 4 Kasztner’s behaviour stands the test of plausibility and reasonableness; 5 His behaviour during his visit to Cluj (On May 3rd) and afterwards, both its active aspect (the plan of the ‘prominents’) and its passive aspect (withholding the ‘Auschwitz news’ and lack of encouragement for acts of resistance and escape on a large scale) – is in line with his loyalty to the method which he considered, at all important times, to be the only chance of rescue; 6 Therefore one cannot find a moral fault in his behaviour, one cannot discover a casual connection between it and the easing of the concentration and deportation, one cannot see it as becoming a collaboration with the Nazis” Mikey | 03.07.07 - 4:16 am | #

One issue that some Marxists claim is why did not the Jews revolt en masse in Hungary. The Supreme Court in Israel ruled that the Jews of Hungary were not psychologically or materially equipped for an uprising. When Joel Brand was interviewed in Aleppo his response was that whilst there were some people prepared to fight, they had few weapons, no wireless communications, and no liaison with any non-Jewish underground movement since no such organisation existed. there wasn’t one single group capable of serious self-defense with the weapons at their disposal.” An issue that was raised by Hannah Arendt in relation to the Jewish Councils in the Holocaust that anarchy would have been better than any leadership This argument has been widely discredited, not least by Isaiah Trunk in his monumental work Judenrat. The point was that it did not matter what the Jewish leaders did or did not do, the end result for the Jews was the same. Steven Katz comments in the introduction to Trunk’s book on the murder of between one and one and a half million Jews by the Einsatzgruppen as part of the German invasion of Russia in 1941 “No Jewish Councils yet existed in these newly invaded territories.” Gilad Atzmon asks whether Kasztner’s actions was the “right Jewish thing to do”? In the appeal of the Kasztner case Judge Agranat argued that a leader owes a duty to the community as a whole. A later case in Israel also discussed this matter - By looking at the ruling of the Israeli Supreme Court in the case of Hirsh Berenblat v. The Attorney General. the Supreme Court even commented on the rule of Jewish law confirming the view as expressed by Ha’levi, that one may not cause the loss of a single Jewish soul even for the purpose of thereby saving many Jews. What is clear is that Kasztner was trying to save all the Jews in Hungary, not just the few.. The tragedy is that the few were saved and the majority perished. It therefore seems that Kasztner did act within the Jewish tradition – but I will add this is unlikely to be simply a Jewish tradition but also a Christian tradition. Given Christians accept the Old Testament in their own teachings, I doubt that Kasztner’s acts would be a “Jewish” thing to do but not a “Christian” thing to do. In this moral regard, it seems to me that the two would be similar. Mikey | 03.07.07 - 4:18 am | #

GreenStalin, 03.03.07: "David Irving was also found to be an able historian by the same High Court that found against him in Penguin v Irving." GreenStalin, 03.07.07: "David Irving who mangled and distorted his sources in order to reach preordained conclusions." Again GreenStalin shows that he can't follow his own line of argument, not even when waffling about his excuses for a convicted Nazi! GreenStalin says he dropped Zionism after his "firm conclusion" that Zionists collaborated with Nazis. And where did his ideological journey take him? To supporting the Red Army, which opened WW2 fighting alongside the Nazis! How can anyone take this guy seriously? antigreenstalinist | 03.07.07 - 4:58 am | #

Mikey, thanks for the energy, you didn’t have to detail the entire saga.We all know the story. I asked a very specific question, whether Kasztner performed in line with Mordechay, in other words, is it right to say that he identified the danger, the power and reacted appropriately? The Judeo Marxist criticism of Kasztner is irrelevant here. I think that it may even be wrong in general. I as well go beyond the internal Israeli debate at the time (Begin/Tamir versus Ben Gurion) I asked this question in the context of my latest paper and in the light of my criticism of Brenner, who to my opinion fail in cross cultural examination. The Book of Esther teaches the Exilic Jew to trade with power. isn't it what Kasztner did. Is he different from Prinz? Gilad Atzmon | 03.07.07 - 6:40 am | #

Oh dear Greenstein continues to get it wrong. I have noted before that Greenstein lacks in knowledge. He digs himself deeper into a hole by arguing that the Halevey judgment was overturned by a 3:2 majority by quoting the American playwright Ben Hecht from his thoroughly discredited book Perfidy. Let us consider some of the reactions to Perfidy Lucy Dawidowicz argued in Commentary “Hecht is neither a historian nor a chronicler, he has little respect for the accuracy of a date, a name, or a quotation” In Jewish Frontier Marie Syrkin accused Hecht of “Falsification of facts,” of using material “out of context,” of “sleight-of-hand,” “omission,” “confusion,” “venom” and of “the revolting aspect” of exploiting “the martyrdom of European Jewry for his partisan ends.” A review in Midstream referred to Perfidy as “a fistful of pages concocted of half truths, outright falsehoods, misrepresentations, quotations out of context, surmises and innuendos, name calling, flight of fancy dressed up to sound like fact and huge glaring omissions of crucial facts and events which can be ascribed either to abysmal ignorance or to equally abysmal cynical disregard of truth.” Despite all of this and the fact that on page 2 of the Perfidy Hecht admits he is “not objective,” Tony Greenstein still is trying to justify himself. If Greeenstein had bothered to read more authoritative books, he would know that the decision was overturned by a 4:1 majority. See For example Randolph L. Braham The Politics of Genocide – The Holocaust in Hungary Vol 2 (The Rosenthal Institute for Holocaust Studies Graduate Center/ The City University of New York and Social Science Monographs, – Revised and enlarged edition 1994) p. 1,111. He can also see Asher Maoz “Kastner – Trial and Assasination” in Menachem Mor Ed, Crisis & Reaction (Creighton University Press, 1995). However where Greenstein is really out of order is that he knows that it was overturned by a 4:1 majority as he has read the published version of Perdition by Jim Allen (Ithaca Press, 1997) that contains a chapter by the anti-Zionist Akiva Orr who also admits the decision was overturned by a 4:1 majority. Failing that Greenstein should get his mate Roland Rance to translate the original Hebrew judgement. Justice Goitein clearly did not completely exonerate Kasztner, but he voted with the majority. The fact is not disputed by serious scholars. In relation to his twisting and turning on David Irving, as a commentator above points out Greenstein, 03.03.07: "David Irving was also found to be an able historian by the same High Court that found against him in Penguin v Irving." Greenstein 03.07.07: "David Irving who mangled and distorted his sources in order to reach preordained conclusions." Greenstein’s remarkable lack of consistency is there for all to see. Greenstein has pointedly refused to have a properly footnoted debate with me on Mikey | 03.07.07 - 1:54 pm | #

Greenstein has pointedly refused to have a properly footnoted debate with me on Kasztner as I will expose him time and time again. He fails to use reputable sources for his material and distorts facts. This thread is a testament to the dishonesty and cowardice that Greenstein shows. Mikey | 03.07.07 - 1:57 pm | #

In response to Gilad Atzmon - I am not overly familiar with the Book of Esther. I cannot really remember that much more than dressing up in fancy dress (I think I was Batman - not necessarily appropriate - but I liked the outfit) and waving a rattle to make a comotion when the name "Haman" was mentioned when the story was read to me when I was younger. What I can say is that I fail to see how Kastzner's actions could be seen as particularly Jewish - or as I have said - if they are Jewish - then surely his actions would also be Christian. I do not see how a moral judgement on kasztner's behaviour can be seen to be different Christians or Jews. i.e. What would a good Christian do that a good Jew would not do or vice-versa if Christians were in a minority somewhere and were presented with the same tragic and impossible decisions that Jews faced in Hungary in 1944? I see no difference. One may say that kasztner made mistakes and one may even think Kasztner was a collaborator - I don't think Kasztner was a collaborator but I accept it is a matter of debate (just not with Greenstein as he fails to be able to debate) - but I do no see how his behaviour can be seen to be uniquely "Jewish." I trust this clears the matter. Mikey | 03.07.07 - 2:16 pm | #

The published version of Perdition came out in 1987 not in 1997 as I mistakingly typed. What readers can note is that on the one hand Greenstein refuses to debate me on Kasztner and the Zionists in the Holocaust , then on the other hand he tries hard (but fails) to fault my own resarch into the matter- Either he wants a debate or doesn't - it seems he doesnt but isn't it about time Greenstein commented about what Ruth Linn had to say on Vrva? YAWN - More errors, misquotations, mistated facts etc aetc from Toy Greeestein - Mikey | 03.07.07 - 4:20 pm | #

Mikey: I fail to see how Kastzner's actions could be seen as particularly Jewish - or as I have said - if they are Jewish - then surely his actions would also be Christian. G: Again we are talking about Jewishness as an ideology rather than as an ethnic or racial identity. The ideology says : trade with hegemony. Mikey: I do not see how a moral judgement on kasztner's behaviour can be seen to be different Christians or Jews. G: This is the Issue Mikey, leave god and Judaism out; there is no Jewish moral code left. The difference between Jewishness and secular Christianity is that Christianity, while in the process of secularization, replaced belief with an anthropocentric philosophy i.e ethics. In other words, there is no Jewish Kant 2nd Critique… Jewish secularization means droping God. That's it! Mikey: What would a good Christian do that a good Jew would not do or vice-versa if Christians were in a minority somewhere and were presented with the same tragic and impossible decisions that Jews faced in Hungary in 1944? G: You do not get it Mikey, I do not argue that he did the wrong thing, it is the other way around. He did exactly the right thing to do within his own collective discourse. While Brenner and Greenie are judgmental, I am slightly more developed. What I am saying is that RK followed the Book of Esther. He just couldn’t find any Esther around… Mikey: I see no difference. One may say that kasztner made mistakes and one may even think Kasztner was a collaborator - I don't think Kasztner was a collaborator but I accept it is a matter of debate (just not with Greenstein as he fails to be able to debate) - but I do no see how his behaviour can be seen to be uniquely "Jewish." G: Your debate with Greenstein or Brenner is your business. I am not debating yet, I am questioning. I don’t expect you to read the book of Esther. But before we may continue, you will have to read my paper. I know it is long. I am sorry about it. Peace G Gilad Atzmon | 03.07.07 - 5:09 pm | #

It is ultra easy question to Mr. Greenstein. You should logically prove the correctness of "Rudolf Vrba". There is a question for "Rudolf Vrba". What is "Licentia poetarum"? Did you refer to the record of the trial of "the Toronto trial"? There is an obligation to present a logical rebuttal because you criticized "The Holocaust Wars". Mr. Eisen cannot be persuaded by your way. Natural science | 03.07.07 - 6:26 pm | #

For the last time, I don't debate with someone who doesn't have the honesty, or courage, to even reveal his identity. The fact that Mikey proposes getting someone else to put their name forward demonstrates that he must have something to hide. I gave 3 citations for the fact that the Kastner verdict was overturned by a 3-2 majority by the Supreme Court, inc. Noah Lucas. More to the point I quoted verbatim from Judge Goiten who specifically stated that the findings of the lower court should not be disturbed. So where do all the references bar Brahams, apparently, get the 3-2 majority from? Thin air? Goiten makes it crystal clear that he supports Silberg. As for Ben Hecht being discredited. Only in Mikey's mind. The fact that far right Zionist historian Lucy Dawidowicz has denounced Hecht's Perfidy in Commentary means nothing. And other denunciations by Zionists in Midstream and neo-con magazinzes is also worthless. Hannah Arendt's Eichmann in Jerusalem, a classic which was also pilloried at the time and now considered one of the great books of its kind, was also equally denounced. What Mikey means is that anything he doesn't agree with is discredited. Fine, no point in debating with such a buffoon. Dawidowicz incidentally wrote a glowing testimonial for Lynn Peter's forgery which argued that the Palestinians had never been expelled in 1947-9 because they had never lived there, being recent immigrants as a result of Zionist colonisation. She managed to quote a 14th Century mystic as having observed the emptiness of Palestine in his travels in the 19th Century! The fact that Dershowitz in his Case for Israel plagiarises Peters, itself a forgery, demonstrates how thin the Zionist gruel is. And for the other idiot on the list, who says he is an anti-Stalinist but presumably is a pro-Hitlerite instead, the Red Army tore the guts out of Hitler's Wermacht, with literally millions dead. That is what saved nearly half of Hungarian Jewry plus those in the camps. Zionist collaboration merely meant that Hungarian jews were not even informed about Auschwitz because Kastner's concerns, as he repeatedly admits in his report to the Jewish Agency, was the 'Prominents'. Certainly not the western forces who refused point blank to bomb the railway lines to Auschwitz or the gas chambers and crematoria. The fact that Stalin made a pact with Hitler is a condemnation of Stalinism not the Red Army. Well over a million Jews survived because of the Red Army. How many died because of Zionist collaboration in Hungary and elsewhere? Tony Greenstein Tony Greenstein | 03.07.07 - 7:44 pm | #

Let us put an end to Greenstein's sources and end it once and for all.. Althought I have noted he has gone quite again ... From Yechiam Weitz, "The Holocaust on Trial: The Impact of the Kasztner and Eichmann Trials on Israeli Society," Israel Studies 1:2 (1996), pp1-26:- In the Kasztner Trial, the situation was totally different in a number of respects: 1. There was not one verdict but five—each one of the five judges who sat on the bench issued his own opinion. 2. The verdict of Justice Shimon Agranat, with which four of the five judges concurred, totally reversed the verdict of Judge Halevi. 3. There was no agreement among the judges of the highest court. Alongside the verdict of Agranat there was also the verdict of Justice Moshe Silberg, who accepted Halevi's verdict in principle. 4. The highest Court of Appeals altered both the verdict and the sentence issued by Halevi. Halevi acquitted Gruenwald on three of the four charges of the indictment, convicted him on one (that Kasztner shared with Becher the spoils of the property of Jews of Hungary), and imposed a symbolic fine. The Supreme Court judges, on the other hand, convicted him of three of four counts, acquitted him on one (the question of the declaration regarding the matter of Kurt Becher), and imposed a substantive punishment. 5. The judges did not stop with reversing Halevi's verdict, but, in a very unusual step, the President of the Court, Justice Olshan, severely criticized the manner in which Halevi had conducted the trial. He argued that "in several respects the trial was not conducted in accordance with accepted procedural rules: Halevi allowed irrelevant testimony," as well as "extended, endless cross-examinations concerning trivial matters, which prolonged the trial in an exaggerated manner." He really is quite poor with his research - And this is the reason why I am very happy to debate him.. He can't help but make errors.. He is a born error maker - Can anyone actually believe anything Greenstein has ever said? He is unbelievable! I have never known anyone make as many errors as him. Mikey | 03.07.07 - 7:46 pm | #

oops post crossed.. but it just goes to show... he was still justifying his silly claim! Mikey | 03.07.07 - 7:50 pm | #

Regarding the PSPC issue: Further letter sent to Palestine Solidarity Campaign(UK) In a message dated 07/03/2007 08:01:28 GMT Standard Time, Charlie Chimp 1 writes: 7th March,2007 01233 500229 Dear Sir/Madam, Further to my earlier email, I set out below an article posted to the internet by Gilad Atzmon*, partly in response to the two motions to be submitted to the PSC General Meeting on Saturday. In my opinion, this posting serves to confirm my fears of the vendetta of which the motions appear to be a part and certainly confirms the advisability of PSC rejecting both the motions and involvement in any such political actions. PSC should not allow itself to be used in this way. Yours faithfully, Christopher Leadbeater * Enough is Enough - The Embarrassing Case of Tony Greenstein Edna | 03.07.07 - 7:52 pm | #

GreenStalin: "... Lynn Peter's forgery which argued that the Palestinians had never been expelled in 1947-9..." It was, of course, Joan Peters. Even when quoting something as simple as a name GreenStalin can't get anything right. It was GreenStalin's beloved Red Army who implemented the Hitler-Stalin pact, who jointly invaded Poland with the Nazis, and who would have carried on fighting alongside the Nazis had it not been for German treachery. Without the Red Army's alliance with the Wehrmacht there would have been no WW2 and no Holocaust. So GreenStalin admits that he admires Nazi allies responsible for the deaths of millions of Jews and tens of millions of others. antigreenstalinist | 03.07.07 - 8:16 pm | #

GreenStalin: "... Lynn Peter's forgery which argued that the Palestinians had never been expelled in 1947-9..." It was, of course, Joan Peters. Even when quoting something as simple as a name GreenStalin can't get anything right. It was GreenStalin's beloved Red Army who implemented the Hitler-Stalin pact, who jointly invaded Poland with the Nazis, and who would have carried on fighting alongside the Nazis had it not been for German treachery. Without the Red Army's alliance with the Wehrmacht there would have been no WW2 and no Holocaust. So GreenStalin admits that he admires Nazi allies responsible for the deaths of millions of Jews and tens of millions of others. antigreenstalinist | 03.07.07 - 8:16 pm | #

Maybe Mikey would still like to go back to the judgement of Goiten and see whether stating that the findings of the lower court cannot be disturbed are compatible with him being in the majority and again I ask, where has it come about that most commentators explicitly refer to a 3-2 majority? Of course even the Supreme Court had to uphold collaboration by 5-0 in respect of Kastner's testimony acquitting Becher. I also note that slippery Mike refuses to say why we will hide behind others rather than reveal who he is. Maybe he'd like to debate behind a curtain as they did in Stalinist show trials? I note that the other fool doesn't dispute that Joan Peter's book was a forgery and that Dershowtiz's, which quoted her verbatim without acknowledgment was a forgery based on a forgery. And these people apparently 'discredit' Ben Hech's Perfidy!! And noone I know defends the Hitler-Stalin pact but despite that the Red Army, i.e. the ordinary soldiers who fought, won the war not the Americans or British for that matter. Tony Greenstein Tony Greenstein | 03.07.07 - 8:31 pm | #

To answer GreenStalin's question on Goitein, the 3-2 factoid was successfully peddled by the losing defense lawyer Tamir. As pointed out already, the accurate 4-1 figure is given by Braham, Weitz and also Orr. GreenStalin doesn't retract his idiotic misnaming of Peters. Instead he orders me to attack her book! If GreenStalin wants to expose Peters then he's welcome to do that. But I'm here to talk about him not her! No-one has claimed that Peters or Dershowitz discredited Hecht. They never wrote about Hecht. Again GreenStalin can't get the simplest facts right. GreenStalin denies that supports the Hitler-Stalin pact but he admires the Red Army soldiers who implemented the pact. His beloved Nazi allies helped to start WW2 and doomed millions of Jews and tens of millions of others. As a college drop-out who has shown on this page that he can't even spell names properly, let alone get basic facts right, GreenStalin should be the last person to call anyone else a fool. antigreenstalinist | 03.07.07 - 9:58 pm | #

The anonymous jerk above is even more stupid than I have previously given credit for. Mikey argued that 'Let us consider some of the reactions to Perfidy Lucy Dawidowicz argued in Commentary “Hecht is neither a historian nor a chronicler, he has little respect for the accuracy of a date, a name, or a quotation”. And who was this Dawidowicz? The same person who lent her name to all the plaudits for Peter's forgery. Understand now or are you still spewing venom? It is quite a simple argument, Dawidowicz's attack on Hecht, a fellow Zionist by the way who told the truth (unusual I agree) lack all credibility. No the 3-2 majority verdict comes about not because Tamir span the verdict. how can anyone spin a verdict when it is a matter of record but because of the confusion that Goiten voted one way, apparently, and argued the other way. Again I know that is complicated for someone who speaks in cliches and the normal terms of abuse and simplicity that one loves from Zionist propagandists, but there you go. Goiten wrote and it is quite clear that 'It is enough that he (Greenwald) has managed to convince the lower court, who fulfilled the task of jury and judge alike, that the man whom he accused lied in court and behaved in a way which left the cold impression that his conscience is not clear and that he is afrad... We didn't see Dr. Kastner in the box and didn't listen to him. However the facts which were revaled substantiate the findings of the lower court and prevent us as a court of appeal from interfering.' Even the Judaeo-Nazi who writes under the name of 'antigreenstalinist' (oh yes, you are a Kahanist aren't you?) should understand the latter sentence, since it is a standard practice of common law courts, of which Israel's are one. The lower court finds the facts and unless there is an error of law or a perverse finding of fact it should not be interfered with. In fact the Supreme Court upheld all the factual findings. Judge Shlomo Chesin, part of the majority, states that 'I am not arguing with the basic factual findings of the learned President of the Jewish District Court.' Hence why did they overturn its verdict? And the answer is political. As Chesin went on to say, if Kastner was guilty of collaboration, 'one has to put on trial today Danzig, Herman, Hanzi Brand, Revis and Marton and many more leaders and half-leaders who gagged themselves in an hour of rcisis and did not inform others of what was known to them and did not warn and did not cry out of the coming coming danger...' And this was the real reason they had to acquite Kastner or strictly speaking convict Greenwald of libel. Because to do any other would mean putting on trial other Zionist leaders, including Dobkin and the Jewish Agency apparatchiks who had approved Kastner's testimony on behalf of Becher (to say nothing of Krumey, Wisliceny and Lt. Juttner, and apparently others). His American minder Robert Kempner, the US pr Tony Greenstein | 03.08.07 - 2:09 am | #

Greenstein is only going to dig his hole deeper and deeper - he just doesn't know when to stop digging... But as he is digging let us have some fun. I dont have Dr. Noah Lucas's book or Uri Domi's book - I can always go check them next time I am in the library - but to save hassle - assuming they are decent scholars - I assume that they both have footnoted their source. Can Greenstein let us know what the sources Dromi and Lucas have used for their statements? Greenstein states "most commentators explicitly refer to a 3-2 majority." This is laughable - Leading scholars on Kasztner include Randolph Braham, Yehuda Bauer, Yechiam Weitz, Szabolcs Szita, Leora Bilsky, Asher Maoz, Dina Porat, David Cesrani, Shlomo Aronson and Pnina Lahav - Not one of them would agree it was a 3:2 majority. It is funny how Yechiam Weitz is the leading scholar on the Kasztner trial and Randolph Braham who is acknowledged world wide as the leading scholar on the Holocaust in Hungary are sources that Greenstein dismisses, but he champions a book by someone who was simply a playwright and author - who wrote a book about Kasztner that he acknowledged himself was not objective. Moreover Greenstein is championing the book despite the fact that it was widely discredited 45 years ago! Greenstein goes on to dismiss those that criticised Hecht's book as "worthless" because they are "Zionist" or "neo-con," but forgets to mention that Hecht himself was a very right wing Zionist and Hecht's book was dedicated to a man (Tamir) who ultimately challenged Menachem Begin for the leadership of his political party in Israel. Greenstein's logic is simply absurd. Greenstein then goes to admit Arendt's Eichmann in Jerusalem was pilloried but claims that the book is "now considered one of the great books of its kind". In 2004 David Cesrani, a noted expert on the Holocaust wrote a highly aclaimed biography of the life of Eichmann and in page after page simply slated Arendt's analysis of Eichmann and Zionism in general. He stated that her "preconceptions were not always the result of careful thought" and accused her of having "blind prejudice" He mocked the fact that Arendt was "only in Jeruslam for a fraction of the trial and could only have seen him [Eichmann] testify for a few hours" and then coming up with a whole bunch of incorrect obeservations and as such her "interpretation of Eichmann's personality was wayward." See David Cesarani Eichmann: His Life and Crimes (Vintage 2005) pp. 343-356 So much for Greenstein's claim that Eichmann in Jerusalem is "now considered one of the great books of its kind." It seems with every statement Greenstein makes he makes another error. It is astonishing how ignorant Greenstein really is and simply amazing how he believes he can write about these subjects given thjat ignorance. Mikey | 03.08.07 - 2:16 am | #

Robert Kempner, the US prosecutor stated afterwards that 'Kastner roamed the Nazi prison camp for Nazi Officers searching for those he could help by testimony or intervention on their behalf. In the end we were very glad when we left Nurenberg.' And Kastner testified not only for Becher, but Krumey, Wisliceny and Lt. Gen. Juttner among others. All on behalf of the Jewish Agency leaders, Drobkin, Avriel and others. And the policy of the Zionist leaders, as Prosecutor Chaim Cohen and Attorney General stated was to select the few out of the many. And if that meant concealing even the existence of Auschwitz from all but the elite handful of Hungarian jews, then so be it. Hence why Kastner makes no mention of the Vrba-Wetzler Report in his own report because then he would have to explain why the Zionists leaders deliberately kept silent about extermination (and indeed why Zionist papers in Palestine like Davar actually stated that the situation wasn't as desperate as rumours to the contrary). So it's no surprise that the Jewish Nazi concentrates his fire on the Red Army which defeated the Nazis at the most pivotal battle of the 2nd World War at Stalingrad by raising the Hitler-Stalin pact. Stalin engaged in realpolitik, which meant that when the West, which was anti-communist and had initially welcomed Hitler to power, refused an alliance (France excepted though it meant little) he made the decision to ally with Hitler. Unfortunately that was par for the course for Stalinism. But millions of Soviet citizens were anti-fascist, not because of but despite Stalin. But our Jewish Nazi cannot stomach the fact that communists defeated Hitler rather than the US and British army. So yes, I support the Red Army that defeated Hitler and do not support the Red Army that attacked Finland and invaded Poland, just as presumably our Jewish Nazi can support the British army doing certain things (e.g. fighting Hitler) but I assume not supporting it when fighting the Hagannah and Irgun in Palestine. It's simple, even for a simple Jewish Nazi. Just as the survival of over 300,000 Hungarian Jews was entirely on account of the Red Army. If Kastner's collaboration had been allowed to continue to its logical conclusion then only the 1684 'Prominents' and the Strasshoff Jews in Austria would have survived (in fact the Soviets were responsible for the survival of most of the latter too). I call our Jewish Nazi a fool because he is unable to deal in anything except the most basic simplicities. And talking of getting his facts right, I dropped out of no college having gained 3 degrees and couple of post-graduate diplomas. Albeit that none of them were in the tortured dialectic of defending Zionist collaboration with Nazis! Tony Greenstein Tony Greenstein | 03.08.07 - 2:25 am | #

Grenstein now argies that the reason the verdict of the lower court was overturned in the lower court was "political." Does Greenstein have no shame! Every time he touches his keyboard he seems to type out nonsense! I could go on at length as to why he is wrong but the following three articles do an elegant job at that for me... Notably the first article by Leora Bilsky. They are here on the Internet with free access for all to see how much of a fool Greenstein is. http://www.historycooperative.or...9.1/ bilsky.html http://www.historycooperative.or...19.1/ luban.html http://www.historycooperative.or.../18.3/ maoz.html If people read these articles (and they are interesting) they should be able to see why Greenstein has been referred to as "the Tommy Cooper of the anti-zionist lobby." Greenstein is simply a joker... Anonymous | 03.08.07 - 2:38 am | #

Re Mikey's usual bile. See above for my comment on the verdict in the Supreme Court. Cesarani is noted as one of the more servile Zionist historians. He is so close to the Jewish establishment, and Zionist politics so closely inform his research that to call him anything other than excessively wordy would be to flatter him. On Kastner of course he is a safe choice to quote. Eg. he writes about the allegation that Kastner and the Zionists had kept the news of the Auschwitz from Hungary's Jews as a 'calumny' that 'can now be finally laid to rest.' (Genocide & Rescue p.5). Yet of course it cannot. A Cohen writes that 'It is beyond question: The Auschwitz Protocols did reach the Jewish Council and Zionist activists, including the Halutz Underground. Yet they did not transmit this information to the Jewish public when the deportations began.' (Holocaust Hungarian Jews in Light of the Research of Randolsph Braham,' 381. And just to emphasise the point, Cohen emphasises that 'The report remained unknown to the Jewish population inside Hungary itself.' (Resistance & Rescue in Hungary, in Genocide and Rescue: The Holocaust in Hungary 1944, ed. D. Cesarani!!! Not only is he a servile hack but he doesn't seem to have read the book he edited. Yes Hannah Arend't book is a masterpiece which will long outlive Cesarani's overlong but lightweight effort. Cesarani tries to hard to please his masters. No Antony Lerman he. Of course it was widely attacked. By the same Zionist propagandists who attack anything that opposes their version of history or any support of the Palestinians. She described the attacks as bearing no relation to what she wrote in the book. Some surprise there! I'm well aware that Hecht was, as well as being a famous playwright, a leading revisionist Zionist. But he was responsible for providing major support for the Bergson/Merlin Emergency Commitee for the Rescue of Jews in America, which defied Stephen Wise and the Zionists by raising the question of rescue. It was Bergson and Merlin, who were also revisonists those both repented of this I understand, who were directly responsible for the formation of the War Refugee Board in 1944, despite the active opposition of Wise and his pet congressman, Sol Bloom. When the WRB was formed the Zionists did their best to neuter it, but despite this it is credited with having saved a few hundred thousand Jews. The only people who didn't save anyone (bar Kastner's train of Prominents) were the Zionists who now use the Holocaust to justify the barbarities of the Israeli state. So Mikey, are you going to tell us why you remain anonymous and yet willing to get others to take the blame for your nonsense? What have you got to hide? Tony Greenstein Tony Greenstein | 03.08.07 - 3:03 am | #

How interesting. 3 anonymous Zionist hacks disputing the fact that Zionism was a movement of collaboration and none can reveal their identity. Can't imagine why?!!! Tony Greenstein Tony Greenstein | 03.08.07 - 3:05 am | #

The above "anonymous" was written by me "Mikey" .. sorry name was not in the box.. Anyway as Greenstein now has clearly had his argument demolished over his claim about the 3:2 majority - he goes on to bring up the matter of Kasztner's testimonies . This is where Greenstein has already lost a battle over at Harry's Place and he tries it again. Greenstein staes above "And Kastner testified not only for Becher, but Krumey, Wisliceny and Lt. Gen. Juttner among others. " How many do times do I have to repeat the same information to Greenstein before he absorbs it? Is he that stupid that he can not grasp something unless he has been told it numerous times and even then still does not get it? I will repeat similar information that I told him in the Harry's Place debate. Kasztner did testify on behalf of Becher – that is true. He also testified on behalf of Krumey and Juttner. He did not testify on behalf of Wisliceny but did provide a memorandum requesting Wisliceny was transferred from Slovak to American custody. He did not testify on behalf of anyone else but he did testify against other Nazis. It is not known exactly why Kasztner made those testimonies although there are numerous theories – but what we do know is what exactly Kasztner said in his testimonies. On behalf of Becher, Kasztner credited him Becher with allowing the 1,685 Jews on the rescue train to escape, 75 Jews hiding in Bratislava, preventing the deportation of 85,000 Jews in the Budapest ghetto and rescuing some 50,000 survivors at concentration camps – notably at Mauthausen and Flossenberg. Kasztner believed that at the end of the war Becher had done all that he could to prevent the killing of innocent civilians including an intervention with Himmler aimed at preventing Slovakian Jews near the city of Serad being concentrated prior to deportation. Kasztner thought it “equitable” that these facts should be taken into consideration by the Allied authorities. Kasztner argued on behalf of Krumey that he had acted “in a comparatively humane way” to the 15,000 Jews sent to Austria and deserved some credit that the majority of them survived the war. Kastzner also argued that Krumey had rescued 29 Jews in Bratislava and 30,000 Jews in Theresienstadt but undermining orders to destroy them. On behalf of Juttner he argued that Juttner’s and Becher’s interventions with Himmler had stopped the “death march.” On behalf of Becher – the most famous of these testimonies – Yehuda Bauer comments “He [Becher] was a convinced if superficial and opportunist Nazi, the stuff so many mass murderers were made of. Becher was a killer probably, a mass murderer probably, a robber and a blackmailer most certainly – and a saviour of maybe hundreds of thousands of lives. He saved those lives to benefit himself.” For full details on the testimonies see the followin Mikey | 03.08.07 - 3:16 am | #

It's pathetic to see how GreenStalin spews insults whenever his stupid blunders are pointed out to him. For example he wrote of someone called "Lynn Peter." He meant Joan Peters. But in his last message he again wrote of "Peter's forgery." Even when the answer is in front of him he still can't spell a name right! He also denied that Peters and Dershowitz discredited Hecht. But they never wrote about Hecht. His reply is that by attacking Peters and Dershowitz he has discredited Dawidowicz who tried to discredit Hecht! What a joke! Then there are his Stalinist-type labels. I'm not interested in Kahanism or Zionism, I'm interested in his lies about Nazism. And the Judeo-Nazi here is the one who supports the Red Army who helped the Nazis start WW2, the one who called a convicted Nazi an able historian, the one whose writings are posted by Nazi websites. Meaning GreenStalin himself. Is GreenStalin saying that he never dropeed out of college? Or that after dropping out of college he still managed to get 5 degrees or diplomas?!? And if so, in what subject? In spelling names properly when they're in front of him? antigreenstalinist | 03.08.07 - 3:18 am | #

For full details on the testimonies see the following reference where I took my information from Shoshana Barri (Ishoni) “The Question of Kasztner’s Testimonies on Behalf of Nazi War Criminals” The Journal of Israeli History Vol 18. No 2 and 3 1997 pp. 139-165 It looks like the Greenstein that refuses to debate me has decided to debate me! What a hypocrite! It is a shame however that he has not used footnotes for his claim that "Kastner testified not only for Becher, but Krumey, Wisliceny and Lt. Gen. Juttner among others. " As already staed Kasztner did not actually testify for Wisliceny - but what "others"? Greenstein does not have a source - and as such -not surprisingly he has not provided a source - Greenstein has simply made it up! He makes more errors than I thought it was feasibly possible to make. I previously referred to Greenstein as "Tony Greenchicken" because he refused to debate me- but now it seems he is debating me - "Tony Greenerrorprone" seems a more appropriate nickname. Mikey | 03.08.07 - 3:33 am | #

First GreenStalin wrote of "Lynn Peter," now he invents someone called "Hannah Arend't" who is his guru. Is she related to Hannah Arendt who had a Nazi lover for many years? Maybe she's better than someone who calls David Irving an able historian and whose own writings are posted by Nazi websites - but not much. GreenStalin also misquotes Cesarani. What he actually wrote was: "In return for the [Kastner] trainload it was alleged that they declined to warn Jews in the provinces, allowing them to be deported with the minimum of resistance. This calumny can now be laid to rest. The record shows that the Relief and Rescue Committee initiated a bold rescue plan for Hungarian Jewry and even had ambitions to save the remnant of Jews in the whole of Europe." But of course GreenStalin prefers to rely on an extreme right-wing Zionist playwright and a philosopher with a Nazi lover! So that's another GreenStalin post, another list of blunders. antigreenstalinist | 03.08.07 - 3:47 am | #

For Gilad Atzmon - Looking up some information on rabbinical views about Kasztner I noted the following that he may find interesting. This is a deviation from pointing out Greenstein's errors and to be honest the concept of an "ideological Jew" does not really interest me. Nor for that matter do arguments between rabbis on the Talmud interest me very much - But as it appears they interest the "ex-Jew" Gilad Atzmon I enlose some discussions about the Rabbis below. Maybe Atzmon should pop in to his local synagogue tomorrow morning, borrow someone's tefillin put it on and say a few prayers including the Shema that begins "Hear O Israel." You never can tell, Gilad Atzmon may enjoy the experience and become a regular shul goer! From Melech Westreich, "One life for another in the holocaust: a singularity for Jewish law?" Theoretical Inquiries in Law, 1:2, July 2000:- Some of the talmudic sources have been discussed at length in halachic texts and by researchers and were even referred to by the Jerusalem District Court and the Israeli Supreme Court in their judgments in the Kastner-Gruenwald matter.The President of the Jerusalem District Court, Judge Halevy, was of the opinion that Kastner had acted contrary to Jewish law by not informing the Hungarian Jews of the danger of annihilation that they faced, in exchange for which, the Nazis allowed him to save a few hundred privileged Jews. Judge Halevy quoted the rule of Rava and the case from the Palestinian Talmud as relevant sources. He concluded that if it was forbidden to deliver one innocent individual into the hands of murderers to save the majority of the people, how much more so was it forbidden to hand over the majority to save the few. The judge did not give a definite ruling as to whether Kastner had given people up as is demanded in the halachic sources..... In the Israeli Supreme Court, Justice Agranat criticized Judge Halevy's application of the Rava rule and the Palestinian Talmud case. Agranat argued that it was not at all clear whether the fact that Kastner did not pass on information to the Hungarian Jews about the deportation to Auschwitz should be considered abandoning the majority of those Jews to the Germans to save a minority. Justice Agranat held that the matter of Kastner "is reminiscent to some extent of the Baraita [Rabbi Ben Petura's case] of two people in a desert." As the law follows Rabbi Akiva's standpoint, Kastner was not obliged, under Jewish law, to sacrifice himself or those whom he might have been able to save in order to save the lives of all the Jews of Hungary. Mikey | 03.08.07 - 3:54 am | #

Looks like Greenstein is losing badly!.. Why doesnt he bring in some reinforcements?.. I suggest he brings on Lenni Brenner and Roland Rance quite sharpish. He is clearly in desperate need of help. I can just imagine the three of them all sitting down scratching their heads trying to work out where Ben Hecht went wrong in claiming erroneously that Halevey's judgement was overturned by a 3:2 majority. As far as I am concerned - three times as many people - will mean three times as many errors.. More fun for me! Mikey | 03.08.07 - 4:12 am | #

Greenstein one moment is saying the Zionists are collaborating with the Nazis who were murdering Jews but now he admits that Zionists in America were responsible for the creation of the WRB that was reponsible for saving Jews. Can Greenstein finally make his mind up - What was it Greenstein - were the Zionists collaborating with Nazis or with the American Government who were fighting the Nazis? The lack of consistency that Greenstein shows is simply appalling. Mikey | 03.08.07 - 4:22 am | #

By the way Greenerrorprone - Hannah Arendt's book was not just attacked by Zionists - but also by Jewish socialists - As Morris Schappes pointed out: "Jewish radicals and Socialists developed their own criticism of Arendt’s book… because they felt that she had maligned and affronted the Jews as a people, that she had stimulated among some Jews a disgust, not with some Jewish collaborators and with some Jews’ weakness, folly or crimes, but with the Jewish people as a whole. Therefore we Jewish radicals and Socialists, because we are no less part of the Jewish people because of our radicalism … felt it our duty to defend the Jewish people against such misrepresentation. The fact that her attack on the Eichmann trial and her false picture of the Jews could be used for its own purposes by the neo-Nazi international added urgency and an edge of wrath to our counterattack." Source: Morris U. Schappes "Notes and Communications: On Arendt’s Eichmann and Jewish Identity" Studies on the Left Vol. 5 Number 4 Fall 1965 pp. 52-79 Mikey | 03.08.07 - 4:30 am | #

Milkey if you would know what 'Shema Israel means' U would probably understand where J ideology draws its force from It is all about 'OUR God'. However Mikey, if you think that you can accomplish a historical research without understanding the ideology of the carriers of specific historical tale, i then say good luck. But I do not hold my breath. By the way, this is where Greenie and Brenner are failing. You all engage in forensic positivistic research while avoiding the hermeneutic essence. It is very Jewish by the way. It is called historical materialism. However, I jump now into the Rabbinical business. Again you mix here Judaism and J ideology. Israel is anti Judaic to the bone, it refers to itself as a secular state rather than halacha one. Zionism is essentially following the main precepts of J ideology (rather the Judaic one_) Moreover, while Halacha is largely (far from totally) ethically orientated, Jewish Ideology is totally self- centred. In the J ideology, the Jew becomes the subject of belief, the Jew believes in himself, in his power to redeem himself, hence materialism, hence, the ‘destruction of the I’ becomes a leading element. This is the logos behind the central role of the shoa, this is why you and Greenie fight without having a real debate. You simply agree on the basics. You agree on blindness, on avoiding the meaning. While, I am totally convinced that Greenie is a total idiot (may even be the absolute one) and a mental case. I do believe that you are morally orientated and intellectually sensitive enough to move one step further. I wonder whether we should continue it here on this blog, what do you think? Do you want to face the devil? Do you want to counter your blindness? all the best g Gilad Atzmon | 03.08.07 - 9:24 am | #

I am going to disappoint Gilad Atzmon (or at least i think I will disappoint him) as I am simply not interested in the subject of "Jewish ideology" - I do not hold myself out to be an expert in it (whatever it is or he thinks it is) and as such I prefer not to debate it. This is not me "running away from a debate" Greenstein style as it is different. If I stood up and pretended I knew all about halacha, I know very well that I could be exposed as a fraud - so I don't. But i don't do it for another reason - I am simply not interested in the subject. Greenstein on the other hand is a different kettle of fish. He does hold himself out to be an expert on Zionism and the Holocaust. He writes articles about it and has been rambling on about it for 25 years or more. The difference is that Greenstein is not an expert - experts do not tend to make so many errors in their field or they would hardly be called experts. Greenstein is simply a fraud and I am interested in exposing him as one - I am not pretending that it is not possible that I can also make errors in some of my statements - If I have made an error and someone points it out to me with a good explanation - I will thank them - Greenstein is different - It doesn't matter how many times I may have to point out to him that Ben Hecht's book is not reliable - he seems to not be willing to accept it. Look above at the way Greenstein tries and defends his statatement that the Halevi judgement in the Kasztner trial was overturned by a 3:2 majority. It is a joke. Greenstein is therefore not just a fool, but an arrogant fool - he will not admit when he is wrong. Greenstein has refused to enter into a full and more formal debate with me on the subject of Zionism and the Holocaust - Deep down he probably knows that he will lose and lose badly but that for him is too much - If i held myself out as an expert in something and entered into a debate with someone and lost badly it would hurt my pride too. I am not frightened of debate - I feel quite comfortable entering into a debate about Zionism and the Holocaust with most people - buit there some people I would not debate with and they are the ones where I would acknowledge they knew more than me. I would not for example enter into a debate with Szabolcs Szita or Randolph Braham on the subject of the Holocaust in Hungary - the reason being is that I would stand up straight away and acknowledge they both knew more than me - I will admit it now - I am not also saying that they cannot make errors - but before i accussed either of them of making an error, I would certainly tripple or quadruple check my claim (I have not noted errors in their work by the way). Greenstein however dismisses experts - Look at the way he has dismissed David Cesarani -a noted leading scholar and author on matters surrounding the Holocaust. Look at what Greenstein has to say about Cesarani "Cesarani is noted as one of the more servile Zionist historians Mikey | 03.08.07 - 1:26 pm | #

Look at what Greenstein has to say about Cesarani "Cesarani is noted as one of the more servile Zionist historians. He is so close to the Jewish establishment, and Zionist politics so closely inform his research that to call him anything other than excessively wordy would be to flatter him." It is a crass reason for dismissing someone's work. Cesarani is unlikely to be held in such high regard to the extent that the Queen has awarded him an OBE for his work on the Holocaust if he got things wrong. It doesn't matter if someone is a Zionist or anti-Zionist - the question is - are they an expert in the field. I do not agree with Akiva Orr's outlook on Zionism. Orr however has written in my opinion quite a good chapter on Kasztner. I do not take his chapter as authoritative, but I do not dismiss it out of hand because he is an anti-Zionist. I do not know whether Randolph Braham is a Zionist, an anti-Zionist or a non Zionist and I do not actually care - what i do know is that he is a phenomenal scholar on the Holocaust in Hungary and that is for my purposes all that matters. Greenstein is so blinded by his own political outlook that he closes his mind to authoritative scholarly works because he does not agree with the political views of the author! It is simply stupid. Greenstein is simply a fraud and he should be exposed as such. Mikey | 03.08.07 - 1:29 pm | #

Mikey, you don't dissapoint me and i fully understand but this may mean that you ll never understand the full scope of RK’s historical meaning or any other modern Jewish historical chapter. Again, again, I believe that Zionists like you can cope with philosophical thinking because Zionism is a Jewish ideological stand. RK, Ben Gurion and later Begin and Shmuel Tamir were operating within different interpretation of the very the same ideology. The political and legal aspects are nothing but a cover up of the real meaning of this saga. You can cope with it, Greenie and Brenner can't. However, Good luck with Greenie and thanks for all the info you gave us about this low being. Peace is the way forward G Gilad Atzmon | 03.08.07 - 4:02 pm | #

It is amazing what one can dig up with a bit of research! January 1983 Sussex Front - a news rag of the fascist National Front! Article by Phiilip Drax on Page 9 of that issue.. Book Review - Tony Greenstein -Zionism anti semitisms twin in Jewish garb - Published by Brighton Labour Briefing the article by Drax raves about Greenstein's pamphlet - "Greenstein's excellent and painstaking researches... makes not only fascinating but vital reading form the student of modern history." Drax goes on about the "valuable data" that Greenstein's "researches has unearthed." The article discusses "the personal courage shown by Greenstein in assembling and publishing his thesis." As far as Drax is concerned Greenstein's work is "as important in its own was as Harwood's 'Did Six Million Really Die'." And the conclusion - Greenstein's "booklet is good. Read it and see! A paltry subscription to tthe Labour Party's local funds is a small price to pay!" There you go - Greenstein has found a fan for his "researches" who rates him highly - The National Front! I can't imagine anyone else rating him so highly. Mikey | 03.08.07 - 4:36 pm | #

Oops sorry about the italics above - I clearly forgot to close out. It was all that excitement of seeing how much the National Front like the work of Greenstein. Also slight error in quote above - a typo - Should be "the Labour Party's" not "tthe Labour Party's". Tony Greenstein has beeen referred to as "Tony GreenStalin" - Surely with his National Front fan club he should be referred to as "Tony GreenFascist." Mikey | 03.08.07 - 5:32 pm | #

Greenstein has gone all quite again.. Can Greenstein explain this leaflet put out by BAZO-PS?? Books on the theme of the collaboration between Zionism and Nazism Perfidy (written by Ben Hecht) This historic book, written by a one time super-Zionist, outlines in detail the famous Rudolph Kastner trial which took place in ‘Israel’ in the 50s. Kastner was subsequently found guilty of collaboration. For PLO supporters only. £2.00 plus 40p(p&p) Greenstein - why doesn't the leaflet mention that Hecht's book was discredited and why doesn't the leaflet menntion that the decision of Kasztner being a collaborator was subsequently overturned? Is that Greenstein being his usual dishonest self? And out of interest - why was the book only for sale to PLO supporters????! Poor old Tony Greenstein - His life's work on Zionism including Zionism's anti semitism's twin in Jewish Garb , Socialist Zionism, The Impossible Contradiction , and his laughable Anti-semitism and its shadow - the reactionary roots of Jewish separatism,/i> is all going to come crashing down on him as it all gets exposed for error after error after error. I know it will be tough for you Greenstein, but if you do write rubbish - it is only fair that you are exposed for writing rubbish. I may be harsh - but I am fair! Mikey | 03.08.07 - 5:50 pm | #

Oi! Greenstein! Why did a leaflet entitled Against Zionism published by BAZO-PS that came as part of the Journal of BAZO-Palestine Solidarity Volume II Number 3 reprint a forged letter from the Israeli Embassy? I think we should be told as to why an organisation you were very closely associated with was reprinting forgeries and why that same journal was hounding David Aaronovitch - the then National Secretary of the National Union of Students. Who were the "dark, reactionary and sinister forces" BAZO alleged on page 4 of that leaflet, that was pretentiously titled a "journal ", who were standing behind Aaronovitch? I think Greenstein should explain his behaviour. Mikey | 03.08.07 - 7:11 pm | #

Mikey - you strike me as an intelligent fellow. I don't know why you're expending so much energy on Greenstein. He spits bile about Zionism, but then invokes Zionist sources when it suits him (Noah Lucas, Hecht) and trashes them when it doesn't (Cesarani). Far more compelling is your debate with Gilad Atzmon. And as you, Mikey, appear to have both a solid grasp of both fact and narrative, might I modestly suggest you concentrate on Gilad instead? The tone between you is much more respectful and the debate between you promises to be much more interesting. Interested Observer | 03.08.07 - 7:39 pm | #

Oy Mikey! Don’t you think it’s almost time to let go of poor old Greenstein and move on with your life? Are you going to accept the challenge regarding Meaning from a much more formidable opponent (GA)? Zionism’s the pits | 03.08.07 - 7:50 pm | #

The only thing discredited was Kastner. The trial that acquitted him found all the facts of the lower court proven. It's just that collaboration was the Zionist norm therefore it was unfair to blame Kastner alone. And to be quite honest, who can blame them for reaching this decision, since Chaim Cohen said selecting the few out of the many was a long Zionist tradition. But I'm also glad that Mikey accepts that Cesarani is an establishment toady who first reaches his conclusions and then reaches back for the evidence. A bit of reverse engineering in fact. However there can be no doubt that when his book on Eichmann is collecting dust, Hannah Arendt's Eichmann in Jerusalem will be going through yet another edition. Arendt, like Eichmann, was a liberal Zionist who reconsidered as she grew older, whereas Mikey and Mr Stalin are just hacks and automatons who accepted everything they learnt at their father's knee. But Mr Stalin must not be dishonest. If he wants to quote the Sussex Front at me then he should quote all their articles, about a dozen. And then he would find that the other 11 or so attack me for being such an effective opponent of theirs, unlike people like Mr Stalin and Mikey who've never got their hands dirty in anti-racist or anti-fascist work. And then he would admit that the 'review' mentions not one word of what it reviews. How strange. And why is that? Because it was written for toerags like himself to attack genuine anti-fascists. As has oft been said, even the Devil can quote the Scriptures. Tony Greenstein Tony Greenstein | 03.08.07 - 11:38 pm | #

kasztner was discredited for testifying on behalf of Becher and effectively lying in court. No one is denying this.. But Kasztner saved the lives of numerous Jews, what can Greenstein be credited for apart from making errors and intimidating Jewish students? Greenstein states, amusingly, "collaboration was the Zionist norm" yet he provides not one iota of proof or evidence for this. This is not surprising as he hasn't got any - or none that he wants to put up to scrutiny, so he just makes the stateemts hoping he will get away with it. He wont. Greenstein is a chancer and his luck has turned. Regarding Arendt's Eichmann in Jerusalem, isnt't it strange how Daniel Goldhagen's Hitler's Willing Executioners massively outsold Arendt's book and puts an end to any idea of "the banality of evil" in relation to the Nazis? Isn't it also strange how Arendt's book has been slated, but Cesarani's book has been highly praised "Excellent and thorough" said the Guardian, "Meticulous and admirably balanced" said the Times Literary Supplement and the list goes on? Arendt never became an anti-Zionist. - In fact she detested them. When the anti-Zionist, American Council for Judaism offered Arendt a forum for replying to her critics. In her refusal letter, she stated: "You know that I was a Zionist and that my reason for breaking with the Zionist organization was very different from the anti-Zionist stand of the Council: I am not against Israel on principle, I am against certain important Israeli policies. I know, or believe I know, that should catastrophe overtake this Jewish state, for whatever reasons (even reasons of their own foolishness) this would be the perhaps final catastrophe for the whole Jewish people, no matter what opinions every one of us might hold at the moment." According to her biographer Elizabeth oung-Bruehl, Arendt often contributed to the United Jewish Appeal and the Israel Emergency Fund particularly during the 1967 war in the Middle East. Young-Bruehl describes Arendt as “intensely proud” when Israel was victorious in that war. Commenting on that war, Arendt wrote to her friend Mary McCarthy and stated, “Any real catastrophe in Israel would affect me more deeply in anything else.” When Israel was attacked in 1973 that led to a further war, Arendt in an interview stated “The Jewish people are united in Israel.” She added that Judaism was a national religion. Given Arendt died in 1975, I think it is fair to say that in her later years Arendt was still supporting Israel. Source Elizabeth Young-Bruehl For the Love of the World (Yale University Press, 1982)pp 361, 391, 455-456 Regarding Greenstein and the National Front, he has more similarities with them than he cares to mention. Why is it that Greenstein was banned by NUS Presidents? Why is it that Greenstein's publications have been accused of antisemitism by NUS Presidents - It is very odd that both Greenstein and Mikey | 03.09.07 - 12:41 am | #

the National Front have the same accolade. I wonder if Greenstein is proud of this commonality.. Questions for Tony Greenstein - Do you enjoy being taken apart like this? I am certainly enjoying this - Why don't you try and dig up some more stuff that I can take apart ?.... How about writing that 10,000 word essay.?. come on Greenstein - I know you are on the ropes but try and make the anti-Zionist movement proud of your effort - fight like a man! Mikey | 03.09.07 - 12:49 am | #

For those who want me to debate Atzmon - I may well at some point - I'm just having so much fun with Greenstein at the moment, I want to continue it... Mikey | 03.09.07 - 12:53 am | #

Mikey: Arendt never became an anti-Zionist. …I know, or believe I know, that should catastrophe overtake this Jewish state, for whatever reasons (even reasons of their own foolishness) this would be the perhaps final catastrophe for the whole Jewish people, no matter what opinions every one of us might hold at the moment." This statement made by Arendt explains very well what Israel means to Jewish people…and the reason for the (pathological, some would say) support for Israel by Jewish people of all political persuasions, world-wide, despite its ongoing abuses against the Palestinians. Would you agree that Arendt hits the nails on the head, Mikey? Matthew | 03.09.07 - 1:21 am | #

What I mean is do you agree that the specter of the potential downfall of the Israeli state symbolizes the "final catastrophe for the Jewish people", as Arendt felt? Matthew | 03.09.07 - 1:27 am | #

Matthew, Jews support Israel for a whole variety of reasons. They are not all cardboard cut outs of each other. Some support it for religious reasons. There is no denying the centrality of Eretz Yisrael [The land of Isrel] to Jewish life. Religious Jews like the country because they know they can lead a religious life there ithout a problem. Religious Jews in the UK have a problem in some jobs as they can't leave work early on Friday in winter etc etc and this would not be a problem in Israel - Israel after all is the only Jewish country in the world. Christians, even non religious christians who celebrate Christmas in the UK quite easily. They are all given that day and in the UK the next day off work so they can spend time wioth their families etc even if they do not go to church. In Israel, the major Jewish holodays are national holidays and irreligious Jews can go sunbathe on the beach on the Jewish new year if they so wish . In that sense to be a Jew in Israel is like being a Christain in the UK or the USA Some jews support Israel because they have friends or families living there. Some support teh country as they like going on holiday there. Many Jews support Israel because their political views mean they would support Israel irrespective of their religion. In the UK - Tony Blair, the Prime Minister and David Cameron, the leader of the major opposition party both support Israel and they are both not Jewish. It is political support from a political standpoint irrespective of the religion. And yes, there are many Jews who support Israel in the main because they see it as some kind of insurance policy - somewhere they go and live if the ugly head of Nazism or an equivalent raises its head once more. Tony Greenstein will use that as evidence as to say antisemitsm is alligned with Zionism for this reason - but I have pointed out in the links above to the debate on Harry's Place the foolishness of this argument. There are Jews who support Israel because I guess they feel a common bond with other Jews around the world - And yes as a rsult of that if the President of Iran got hold of a nuclear bomb and dropped it on Israel - I believe it would be a disaster for the Jewish people, but not just for the Jewish people - also for humankind in allowing that to happen. There must be loads more reasons why Jews support the State of Israel - but i will add the following - You mention the "despite the ongoing abuses of the Palestinians" Neither I, nor any of my friends who are Jewish support "abuses against the Palestinians." I live in the UK and generally support Britain but that does not mean I am proud of any long wait necessary for old age pensioners to have hip operations on the National Health Service. You can support a country without supporting all its policies. Mikey | 03.09.07 - 1:53 am | #

Greenstein - I am prepared to make it easier for you - How about a 5,000 word essay? Half the amount of words.. if you are lucky you will only make half the amount of errors! Mikey | 03.09.07 - 2:41 am | #

You didn’t need to compile an exhaustive list of all the reasons Jewish people support Israel. Rather patronising, as we are all very much aware of the given reasons. You didn’t really answer my question. Does a fundamental change in Israel signal for most Jewish people the “final catastrophe”. And I am not talking here about the paranoid fantasy of Iran “getting its hands” on a nuclear bomb. LOL. Israel’s the one with the nuclear bombs, sweetie, and the collective state of mind to actually use them. Something a little more realistic, but fundamental, say the return of all the Palestinian refugees, one person one vote, and the emergence of a government where Jewish people would be a minority? Is this something akin to “the final catastrophe” for most Jewish people, would you say? If Gilad would like to give his take on the subject….please do! Matthew | 03.09.07 - 2:49 am | #

Matthew - I certainly hope that scenario would not be a "final catastrophe" - but this is moving away from the general subject of the thread of attacking Greenstein - But i am not so sure about how "paranoid" a "fantasy" it is of Iran getting hold of a nuclear bomb and it is not something I find I can "LOL" about. Maybe you can but I cannot. I also very much hope that Israel does not use any nuclear bomb - That would also be a tragedy for the world. I do not think that Israelis have the "collective state of mind" to use them either. What you mean, or I think you mean, with what you say is "realistic" and "fundamental" but I think is completely unreasonable is to the dismantaling of the Israeli state. I have not got a clue about whether "most Jewish people" would view this as a "final catastrophe" but I do not see it as a reasonable demand. What I do see as reasonable is the emergence of a Palestinian State on the West Bank and Gaza and that state having its own immigration policy allowing anyone they want to move there. I hope conditions can come about sooner rather than later when that can occur. To my knowledge this is the position of the Palestinian President - but unfortuantely not of Hamas. What do you think of the possibiility of a "fundamental" change in the Hamas policy such that they recognise the right of Israel to exist and renounce terror and sensibly change certain Articles in their Charter such as Article 22 that Nick Cohen comments might have been written by Adolf Hitler? Mikey | 03.09.07 - 3:18 am | #

Mikey: "….a nuclear bomb and dropped it on Israel - I believe it would be a disaster for the Jewish people, but not just for the Jewish people - also for humankind in allowing that to happen". Do you really? But it has already happened, most recently in Iraq. Not an atomic bomb perhaps, but a nuclear war nevertheless. Made much worse because it was a "pre-emptive" invasion of a sovereign countr which was not a threat. Depleted uranium, radiation¸ etc…with a shelf life of something like half a million years. So the aftermath will be just as deadly to the people of Iraq as the effects of the atomic bombs used against Japan, or say, Agent Orange in Vietnam. War crimes of the greatest magnitude. And Israel, bolstered up by world Jewry in positions of power, not only allowed it to happen, it was pretty instrumental in making sure it did happen, and is pushing for it to happen again, this time in Iran. What’s your take on that? Are nuclear bombs only bad when they are aimed at Israel, or are they BAD period? Do you condemn the use of weapons of mass destruction against the Iraqi people, both nuclear (DU) and chemical weapons (white Phosphorous), which has destroyed the lives of 24 million people (quite a bit more than six million, if you’ll forgive me for making that obvious reference)? Do you regard the mass extermination of Iraqis and Afghanistanis as a "disaster for humankind"? And if there is a nuclear attack on Iran, would that in your opinion be a “disaster for humankind”? Or does the means justify the end, when it comes to what’s good for Israel? Mikey: You can support a country without supporting all its policies. But can you support a country without supporting it’s most insidious and fundamental policies? That’s like saying you can support the Nazi regime or the Pol Pot regime without supporting all its policies. It doesn’t really cut both ways. Wouldn’t it make more sense to say you can support the people of a country like Israel by condemning it’s inhuman regime and policies completely? I have to sleep now but will be back on the morrow! Matthew | 03.09.07 - 3:27 am | #

Matthew - with all this talk of "world Jewry in positions of power" I think you have been reading too much Paul Eisen for your own good. To lengthen your quote - you say the following "Israel, bolstered up by world Jewry in positions of power, not only allowed it to happen, it was pretty instrumental in making sure it did happen, and is pushing for it to happen again, this time in Iran." Now let us look aty the Gallup poll of February 27, 2007 "PRINCETON, NJ -- An analysis of Gallup Poll data collected since the beginning of 2005 finds that among the major religious groups in the United States, Jewish Americans are the most strongly opposed to the Iraq war. Catholics and Protestants are more or less divided in their views on the war, while Mormons are the most likely to favor it. Those with no religious affiliation also oppose the war, but not to the same extent that Jewish people do. The greater opposition to the war is not simply a result of high Democratic identification among U.S. Jews, as Jews of all political persuasions are more likely to oppose the war than non-Jews who share the same political leanings..... Of these major religious groups, three show more opposition than support for the war: * Jewish people oppose the Iraq war by a better than 3-to-1 margin, 77% to 21%. * Americans without a religious preference are twice as likely to oppose (66%) as to support (33%) the war. * Catholics are somewhat more likely to oppose (53%) than to support the war (46%). More deatils can be seen on Gallup web site - but if you do not have it - the main details are on the following link http://whtt.org/index.php?news=2&id=1247 In relation to the rest of your post - the only general comment I wish to make is that I do not supsport the mass killing of people by WMDs anywhere - I am not holding myself out as an "expert" in this area, i just have general interest. My general interest does not really extend to want to get involved in a discussion with you about it. No personal offence - but "it is not my bag." If you want my opinion in more detail - you can pretty much get it from listening to speeches or comments by the UK Prime Minsister Tony Blair - he is far more eloquent than me on the subject. I am sorry if I do not therefore get involved further with you. Id rather have n argument with Greenstein on his allegations of Zionist Nazi collaboration- He doesn't know much and I like my bit of fun.,..On that note -where is he?? Mikey | 03.09.07 - 4:17 am | #

Matthew - As an aisde if you do want to have an argument on that stuff I suggest you post your questions to one of the posts at http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/ You will find there a whole bunch of people prepared to have an argument with. I just want to have an argument with Greenstein on his favourite subject of Zionist-Nazi collaboration. And to misquote an old phrase "If Greenstein wont come to Mikey, Mikey will go to Greenstein." Any clues where he is anyone? Mikey | 03.09.07 - 4:29 am | #

Clearly the inadequate little Mikey, who as far as I'm aware has never published one single article but has an ego in inverse proportion to his abilities is missing the attention. Maybe he should debate with his friend and collaborator Gilad Atzmon, who has been working overtime to prevent a ban on Deir Yassin Remembered. After all Atzmon believes that racist attacks on Jews as Jews are 'rational' according to his appropriately titled essay 'On anti-Semitism'. In case Mikey or others are going blind with self-abuse, I have to point out that I didn't say Arendt did become an anti-Zionist but that she reconsidered Zionism - true that is probably too subtle for Mikey and fellow ratbags, but there you go. Mikey affects not to know Uri Dromi, and he probably hasn't since one's experience of life is probably limited when you are glued to a computer terminal. But he wrote the review, 'Deaf Ears, Blind Eyes' in Ha'aretz of 30.1.05. and wrote that: As the judgment cast aspersions on Mapai as well, the government decided to appeal to the Supreme Court. In January 1958, the Supreme Court, in a majority decision (3-2) found that Kastner did not collaborate with the Nazis and that under certain circumstances, a leader has to hide certain things from the public. However, all five justices found that Kastner had committed perjury in 1947 and had thus spared a senior S.S. officer from getting his due punishment.' This is essentially correct and regardless of any formal vote, the opinions expressed by the 2 minority judges, Silberg and Goiten were that Kastner had been found effectively guilty of collaboration. Mikey believes Kastner saved lives, and that is correct. But the 1,684 lives were bought with the blood of nearly half a million Jews. And that is collaboration. If news of Auschwitz hadn't been kept from them, then Hungarian Jewry would have survived in far larger numbers. And if Mikey wants to devote the rest of his miserable life to rehabilitating the memory of Kastner then that just shows what a sad little tyke he is, as most knowledgeable Zionists these days, including even the scribes of Yad Vashem, realise that the Jewish Council in Slovakia and the 'Rescue' Committee in Hungary, acquiesced or worse in the Nazi plans. That was why Eichmann came looking for Kastner just as Kastner was looking for him. But since Mikey bases his beliefs on Kastner's own Report, which is highly unreliable and self-serving, it is little wonder that he ends up justifying the collaborator's collaborator. Now Mikey, I know you are younger than me, albeit a pretty sad forlon man whose only companionship is on the internet with anti-Semites like Atzmon, but try getting a life. Tony Greenstein Tony Greenstein | 03.09.07 - 5:10 am | #

Greenstein and anyone who still slightly dubious that I am wrong on how many votes Halevy's judgement was overturned by. For those interested in the sage - it all started out in the debate on Harrys Place http:// hurryupharry.bloghouse.ne..._paragraphs.php It starts off with Greenstein claiming the decision in the Kasztner trial was overturned by a 3:2 majority -(see his post January 25 2007 at 11.03pm. I responded on January 26 at 1.02am telling him he had got it wrong it was a 4:1 majority and thinking I would hear no from him..on the point.. Greenstein came back at 5.15am on the same day insisting he had got it right. I was bemused by this so I therefore respond at 5.34pm on that day and gave him a source that he could look up. and tht I thought would be the end of it.. But oh no...like a bolt fromn the blue after I had puled him apart for errors and his past deeds on thos thread at 3.52am on March 7 on this thread Greenstein brings it up again! "Mikey asserts in Harry's Place that Kastner was cleared of collaboration by the Israeli Supreme Court by 4-1. It is untrue. He was cleared by 3-2, the Court having found that all the facts of the lower court were correct, i.e. they differed in their interpretation of those facts. It is a minor point, but Mikey cannot admit he is in error because it is a matter of pride to pretend otherwise." This was really silly of him - but then can we expect anything else from Greensetin. I then give him some more sources at 1.54pm on March 7 on this thread telling him I am in fact right- Surely that must be the end of the matter? But no - Tong Greenstein who likes digging himself in a hole at 7.44pm on March 7 is still justifying himself. So at 7.46pm - i quote from a very authorative source.. But he still will not have it - at 8.31pm he is still trying to defend himself! So at 9.58pm someone else, a poster by the name of anti GreenStalin also tells Greenstein he is wronng...At 2.09am on march 8, I think he finally gives in and sort of agrees that he may have been wrong...but he tries to imply that the jusge was confused.. It isn't really like Greenstein to think that it was not the jusge that was confused but Greenstei himself. For anyone still any doubt here is an online source to show you I was righht all along. It is an article in Time magazine entitled "Exoneration of Dr. Kastner" dated January 27, 1958 about a weeek after the verdict was read.. The article is here and for free access http://www.time.com/time/ magazin...,864174,00.html I trust that now anyone following this can see for themselves exactly how stupid Greenstein was in defending his claim after I pointed out his error once to him. He should have quit then! Mikey | 03.09.07 - 6:01 am | #

Kasztner tried to clarify something and was assassinated. Kasztner might be can cope with it. I hope the answer along the question. And, the answer is repeated until being possible to get it. It is ultra easy question to Mr. Greenstein. You should logically prove the correctness of "Rudolf Vrba". There is a question for "Rudolf Vrba". What is "Licentia poetarum"? Did you refer to the record of the trial of "the Toronto trial"? There is an obligation to present a logical rebuttal because you criticized "The Holocaust Wars". Mr. Eisen cannot be persuaded by your way. Mr. Eisen is sure to want also to know the opinion concerning "Licentia poetarum". You are very insincere toward Mr. Eisen. Natural science | 03.09.07 - 6:11 am | #

hey Greenstein - Given you like Ben Hecht so much - maybe you should purchase the autobiography of Marilyn Monroe which she wrote with Hecht. I wonder if Marilyn Monroe comments about Kasztner! http://search.barnesandnoble.com...589793163& itm=1 Mikey | 03.09.07 - 6:14 am | #

Thats what I like Greenstein trying again and making more and more errors! TG "But the 1,684 lives were bought with the blood of nearly half a million Jews" Mikey: Wrong - There was no transaction in that sense. It was not a contract. Professor Bilsky explains in detail why this analysis is wrong. See http://www.historycooperative.or...9.1/ bilsky.html this article. I have this error out to Greenstein before. On the one hand Kasztner was in no position to be able to properly negotaiate and on the other hand as can be seen in numerous books - Kasztner wanted to save all the Jews in Hungary. TG "Mikey bases his beliefs on Kastner's own Report," Mikey: I do not base my belief on Kastzner's own report if the fact is contradicted elsewhere - Specifically by a noted academic. I have made numerous references above as to teh scholars I rely upon. And even then I often like to see at least 2 scholars confirming each others work. 3. TG "This is essentially correct and regardless of any formal vote, the opinions expressed by the 2 minority judges," Mikey: Greenstein shows why he gets called "GreenStalin" - what does the mere formalities of a vote matter to him? He can simply ignore it and impose his own will... Mikey | 03.09.07 - 6:36 am | #