November 21, 2007
Jews and Jew Haters: The Anti-Zionist Jewish Squabble
A Guest Post by “Mikey”
I once heard an anecdote of someone asking a New York lawyer why so many lawyers in the city seem to be Jewish. The response was something like, “I don’t know, Jews like to argue I guess.” For Jews not destined to become lawyers, what better way is there to have an argument other than to get involved in politics? If they really want to have a good argument then internal Jewish politics is surely an excellent place to do it.
Clearly, it is not just Jews in the mainstream who like to argue, because the tiny fringe of Jews who are committed opponents of Zionism seem to have a similar penchant. Tony Greenstein, a key anti-Zionist Jewish activist in Britain, last year said, “Yes, I want the state of Israel to be destroyed.” More recently, he has said:
If every staffer in AIPAC were to be vapourised tomorrow, alongside Bush, Blair and Cheney, I wouldn’t lose a minutes sleep…. Presumably if we could engineer a nuke that only devastated its offices and personnel then all would be well in Palestine.
I suppose that Israelis and their supporters should be grateful that to the best intelligence we have available, Tony Greenstein has not been trying to obtain a nuclear capability.
Fighting on the same side as Tony Greenstein is Mark “Jews Sans Frontiers” Elf. This character divides the world into anti-Zionists (good) and Zionists (bad.) Elf believes that Zionists are “dominating, if not controlling, the whole media” and that his blog, in its own small way, is a counterbalance to this domination. (As an aside, if there are any media journalists reading this, can they please confirm that on their application form for their job, as well as having to provide references, they had to swear allegiance to the State of Israel.)
Elf will of course claim that he is only anti-Zionist and not in the slightest bit antisemitic. Only last week he said:
The sad thing, I think, is this propensity for sheer instinctive dishonesty has become a habit of mind with many, maybe most, Jews. It's part of the culture now and it'll be a hard slog shifting it. I think as communities, the Jews are heading for a disaster thanks to this grotesque culture of deceit.
Surely, this was a simple slip up. Elf must have meant Zionists. He would not possibly be calling Jews dishonest would he?
On the other side to this debate is the Israeli saxophonist and self-declared ex-Jew, Gilad Atzmon who is championed by the SWP. Despite their opposition to the State of Israel and Zionism, Atzmon dismisses the likes of Greenstein and Elf as, crypto-Zionists. The problem he has with them is that they identify as Jews and set up groups such as Jews Against Zionism and websites such as Jews Sans Frontiers. The relevance being that these groups have the word “Jews” in their title. As a result, he refers to them as “a bunch of silly tribal Jewish ethnic activists.” Mark Elf counters that Atzmon and his main supporter, Mary Rizzo are “scum of the earth deliberately dividing the anti-zionist movement” and are “antisemitic pieces of shit.” Because both Zionist Jews and anti-Zionist Jews that identify themselves as Jews, proudly refer to themselves as Jews, Atzmon can exclaim, “In short, there is no difference between Zionists and Jewish anti Zionists.” He concludes that Elf should “seek some psychiatric help.”
Whilst Mark Elf believes that Zionists control the Press and the majority of Jews are dishonest, Atzmon wrote a few years ago:
[W]e must begin to take the accusation that the Jewish people are trying to control the world very seriously.... American Jewry makes any debate on whether the 'Protocols of the elder of Zion' are an authentic document or rather a forgery irrelevant. American Jews do try to control the world, by proxy.
Whilst Tony Greenstein erroneously believes that during the Holocaust the Zionists collaborated with the Nazis, Gilad Atzmon circulates texts from those that support Holocaust denial. Atzmon also leant support to Israel Shamir, and referred to him as “a very civil and peaceful man.” Shamir is of course not someone who just supports Holocaust denial but felt able to denounce Lee Barnes of the BNP as a Jew.
For a number of months, Atzmon and his supporters, the “Atzmonites” and the anti-Zionist Jews have been at each others throats like cats and dogs in a debate that is becoming increasingly acrimonious. The debate centers around two main issues. The first of these issues is whether antisemitism should be tolerated in the Palestinian Solidarity campaign. (PSC) Both sides have been accused of antisemitism and both sides deny it, but Greenstein and his pals insist Atzmon is an antisemite and want Atzmon and Israel Shamir banished from the pro-Palestinian movement. Atzmon insists that he is not against Jews, although it was reported in the Observer that he believes that burning down a synagogue is a “rational act” and he fully admits that he is against “Jewishness.”
The recent spat started with an article Atzmon wrote in August entitled “Saying NO to the Hunters of Goliath.” This article stated:
the Jewish state and the sons of Israel are at least as unpopular in the Middle East as their grandparents were in Europe just six decades ago. Seemingly, it is the personification of WW2 and the Holocaust that blinded the Israelis and their supporters from internalising the real meaning of the conditions and the events that led towards their destruction in the first place.
The article appeared on the Indymedia site. Tony Greenstein wrote to Indymedia requesting that they remove Atzmon’s article. In support of his request Greenstein copied an email he had received from Moshe Machover, who he refers to as “an absolutely solid Israeli Jewish anti-Zionist.” In that email, with which Greenstein claimed he agreed, Machover stated:
He [Atzmon] is comparing here the – perfectly justified -- present hatred for Israel in the Middle East, with the "unpopularity"(!!!) from which European Jews suffered in the 1940s! You, I and GA [Atzmon] agree that if a destruction awaits Israel in the future, it will be a consequence of its present actions. What he is implying here is that the same is also true of the destruction of European Jewry six decades ago. This is not Holocaust denial; it is rather Holocaust justification! Or, at the very least, partly blaming it on the victims.
This communication led to a whole bout of correspondence with a person who goes by the name, “Free the Peeps”, and who seems to be a moderator for Indymedia deciding that he does “not believe that Atzmon hates all Jews because they are Jewish.” As such he stated, “I am therefore for leaving the article on the newswire.”
Atzmon’s main supporter is Mary Rizzo, who runs her own blog, PeacePalestine. Shortly after Machover’s email appeared on Indymedia, PeacePalestine published an article entitled, Moisha’le’s New Suit by someone called “Hans Christian Underdog” generally assumed to be an Atzmon invented character. This article was a spoof fairytale ridiculing Machover, “a Marxist emporer,” and Greenstein and Elf as “nothing but imposters.”
Greenstein’s supporters in this dispute have fought back. Steve Cohen, who wrote the book That’s Funny, You Don’t Look Anti-Semitic wrote to Indymedia and said that Atzmon’s writing’s are “clear,unarguable anti Semitism. Just as ‘kill the Yids’ is clear,unarguable,anti-Semitism.”
Mark Elf sent Free the Peeps an email full of abusive language, accusing him of “betraying a woeful ignorance of racism.” Whilst Elf requested that any response was kept “off list,” Free the Peeps duly published Elf’s email complete with all the abuse together with his own response. As far as Free the Peeps was concerned, Machover, Greenstein, Elf and supporters were “using the exact same methods of intimidation that the zionist lobby uses to attack those that do not agree with the implementation of ‘Zionism in practice’ and the horrors that entails for Palestinians.” In no uncertain terms, he said of them:
If the group cannot find a more reasonable way of dealing with groups that they say they are supportive of, if they do not stop hounding and attempting to banish and silence their political adversaries, then I say they can FUCK OFF! I want nothing to do with them. Hopefully others will take the same line.The discredited Trotskyite author, Lenni Brenner, also wrote to Indymedia demanding that they “stop printing Atzmon's material” and arguing that Atzmon had developed a “mad form of fanaticism” and compared him to a Jew who shouts “Heil Hitler!” Free the Peeps was not amused and he responded stating that Brenner was “no comrade” of his and accused Brenner of hounding Atzmon on behalf of Greenstein. The crux of the matter and this really is the second major area of dispute between the anti-Zionist Jews and the Atzmonites was Brenner’s sign off: “For 1 democratic, secular bi-national Palestine/Israel in a socialist world.” Free the Peeps responded: -
Excellent news. I like the sound of that option. I'm just a little unsure about how you are going to persuade the Palestinians to see it your way. They kind of think that they have some right to be there on their own terms, and last time I looked they voted in some Islamic party that started with a H. Perhaps if you put them under serious pressure they'll see it your way?
What it comes down to is exactly this. Greenstein, Brenner and ideological comrades want to see Israel destroyed and a secular and socialist Palestine in its place. The Atzmonites also want to see Israel destroyed but they claim that they just support the Palestinians. If therefore the Palestinians want to support Hamas then so will they.
“Hans Christian Underdog” (Atzmon) was so impressed with Free the Peeps response to Brenner that he went to so far as to write and get professionally recorded a short radio play based on it. This play completely ridicules and pours scorn and derision on Brenner suggesting that apart from Greenstein and Brenner’s own mother, no one takes him seriously.
In the interim Greenstein has written an article, “There are no gatekeepers – just anti-racists” that he has had published on the Socialist Unity blog. Greenstein was most upset that Atzmon had called him a Zionist. He was also concerned that Atzmon and his supporters “indulge in anti-Semitic rhetoric.” Ignoring the fact that many Jews emigrated to Palestine for religious or other reasons that are completely independent of antisemitism, Greenstein states as a fact “Without anti-Semitism there would have been no Zionist settlers. The only effect of a growth of anti-Semitism today would be a new wave of settlers emigrating to Israel.” This is therefore what Greenstein is upset about: Because of Atzmon, Jews will be more likely to become staunchly Zionist and emigrate to Israel.
As many are aware, Hamas is a deeply antisemitic organisation, that in its own Covenant promotes the idea that Jews should be killed and that the notorious forgery the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, that suggested Jews have a plan to take control of the world, is true. Greenstein disputes this as he has said in the comments section of his own post in relation to Hamas and Hezbollah, “they are not anti-Semitic, because they quite simply are not organisations whose goal is the destruction of Jewish people or their oppression.” Greenstein does not elaborate in his bizarre statement how he can say that when the Hamas Covenant takes the trouble to specifically quote the Muslim Prophet as saying:
The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews.
None of this has stopped Atzmon accusing Greenstein et al of having a “racially exclusive” Jewish secular political identity and according to Atzmon, “Jewish secular socialism is nothing but a form of ‘national socialism.’”
Jews for Justice for Palestinians supporter, Stephen Marks, who only two years ago shared a platform with someone who had previously been funding the known Holocaust Denier, David Irving was upset that Atzmon called the Jews a “race.” He said “This assertion is simply nonsense. I am not aware of any secular Jewish organisation which regards Jews as a ‘race’. Whatever its validity or lack of it, secular Jewish identity is cultural.” Atzmon was not impressed. He said because anti-Zionist Jews operated in groups under a Jewish banner, such as Jews for Justice for Palestinians, “you (Jewish secular political activists) aren’t a race… just racially orientated. i.e racist.”
One wonders who sane and rational people should support in this dispute. Should they support Tony Greenstein who wants “the state of Israel to be destroyed” and who thinks that Hamas and Hizbollah are not anti-semitic or Gilad Atzmon who is happy to support Hamas, wants Israel to disappear, and who also thinks burning down a synagogue is a rational act?
I have no idea, but no doubt, this argument is set to run and run.
In the interim, I am looking forward to my holiday next month in Tel-Aviv.
To hear Gilad Atzmon's play, click here
Posted by Your View at November 21, 2007 04:08 PM | TrackBack
"I suppose that Israelis and their supporters should be grateful that to the best intelligence we have available, Tony Greenstein has not been trying to obtain a nuclear capability."
I am more grateful that for those who might want a nuke solution as described, Tony Greenstein is the best intellience they have avaialable.
Posted by: Brett Lock at November 21, 2007 04:17 PMThere is another side involved in this squabble of course...
I think that many of the UK anti-boycott folks have become so focussed on criticizing the role pf "jewish identity politics" in the boycott movement that a sort of bizarro mirror image world has risen in opposition to it.
In this bizarro world, recognition of Israel as a Jewish state is avoided, the use of Jewish language and cultural symbols is discouraged almost to the point where it is demeaned, but crticizing the Israel boycott movement as anti-Jewish is encouraged.
In this bizarro world, the identies of the the anti-boycotters is defined by their opposition to identity politics, and rather than pulling out their Jewish credentials to claim a position of authority on a particular issue, they pull out the inclusive, non-jewish nature of the editorial board of Engage to claim authority.
So my question is:
Why, over the course of a debate, is pointing out that John Pike is not Jewish (as Mikey did in a "debate" we were having earlier this week) inherently different than the Roses pointing out that they are?
There is a reason that the UK is currently the seat of the international antizionist movement. My hunch as a Yank who has been listening to this debate from the outside for a long time, is that it has more to do with the mental health of the Jewish community there as *a whole* more than anything else. There is a common thread running through the Atzmons, the Elves and the Engagers: you are all trying to erase something.
Posted by: Shmuel at November 21, 2007 04:19 PMPerhaps Greenstein,before launching his long range nuclear attack, could develop a weapon which destroys racist jazz saxophonists but leaves the musical genre standing.
Posted by: tim at November 21, 2007 04:39 PMTo summarize with labels:
Atzmon represents the Ex-Jewish antizionists Jews.
Elf represents the Jewish antizionists Jews.
Engage represents the non-Jewish non-Zionists Jews.
Something like a bidimensional continuum can almost be picked out, until you realize that they're all just completely bonkers.
Posted by: Shmuel at November 21, 2007 04:45 PMMy position on the boycott campaign was that (1) it was a discriminatory campaign which (2) formed part of an ongoing attempt by some on the very furthest reaches of the political Left and Right to delegitimise the existence of the State of Israel.
The "identity politics" aspect of it is a trivial issue: although it is very important to Atzmon, who spends most of his time thinking about the pernicious nature of "jewishness". I do think that there are a number of ethnically jewish athiests who have composed a jewish identity for themselves as "brave anti-Zionist jews".
I think that Atzmon is right to say that, for many of these people, their involvement in anti-Zionist politics is significantly about a quest for their own identities.
(He isn't right about much else though)
What is clear, though, is that these anti-Zionist jews have been idiots. Their main function has been to 'kosherise' the anti-Zionist argument: to allow those on the far Left to say "nothing we do or say can be racist, because here are jews who agree with us".
Now that Atzmon has burst onto the scene, some of Greenstein and Rance's old comrades are sticking by them: but others prefer the more glamourous and edgy Atzmon, who performs pretty much the same role.
In this bizarro world, recognition of Israel as a Jewish state is avoided, the use of Jewish language and cultural symbols is discouraged almost to the point where it is demeaned, but crticizing the Israel boycott movement as anti-Jewish is encouraged.
Democratic countries have an absolute right to decide on the nature of their state, as long as they accord full civil and political rights to all their citizens.
I'm not sure what point you're making.
Posted by: David T at November 21, 2007 04:50 PMMy position on the ... was
You're doing a lot of those type of comments recently. Everything ok?
Posted by: Morgoth at November 21, 2007 05:03 PMYes, I've been reading stuff written by trots, who wiffle on about "positions" all the time. It is a bad habit and I should get out of it.
Posted by: David T at November 21, 2007 05:12 PMGood post Mikey. Thanks.
David T - yes; the boycott debate is a cover for delegitimising the existence of the State of Israel. But I also take your point that for some of its proponents it's also a form of identity politics.
"One wonders who sane and rational people should support in this dispute."
If the attempt by this little group of mental defectives to scratch each others' eyes out merits the term 'dispute', then in response I can only quote a former Israeli Prime Minister's words when asked who Israel supported in the Iran-Iraq War:
"We wish great success to both sides." (Menachem Begin)
Paul,
That is a great quote. Had I have recalled it when I was writing my article I would have used it.
Posted by: Mikey at November 21, 2007 05:21 PMYou can retitle the article if you want to
Posted by: David T at November 21, 2007 05:26 PM"Democratic countries have an absolute right to decide on the nature of their state, as long as they accord full civil and political rights to all their citizens."
I'm not sure what point you're making.
Posted by: Shmuel at November 21, 2007 05:26 PMShmuel:
Naturally, I can't tell you what David T is alluding to, but it's sure funny that such sentiments are usually mentioned in the context of non-Jewish citizens of Israel not enjoying the same rights as Jewish citizens of Israel, and rarely in the context of the rights of non-Muslims residing in Sharia states.
Posted by: Lynne T at November 21, 2007 05:41 PMThe point I am making is that I do not think that Israel is a special case at all.
I think that the best sort of countries are countries which are democratic and which respect fundamental civil and political rights.
Israel isn't particularly wonderful, by Western European standards at least, at doing that. It is however considerably better at respecting democracy and civil rights than any other country in the region, bar none. I think it is remarkable that it has done so, while under repeated attack, and I applaud its citizens for maintaining its character in these circumstances.
What Israel becomes is really not a matter for me, because I don't live there. I applaud steps taken by its citizens to increase democracy and respect for civil and political rights, as I would in relation to any country.
I support measures which Israel takes to withdraw from land to which it has no legitimate territorial claim. Similarly, I'd oppose attempts to dissolve the country and merge it by force into neighbouring states.
What Israel becomes in some hypothetical future is just nothing to do with me. At the moment, it is a secular ethnic jewish state, with a number of sizeable and small minorities. But countries don't stay the same for ever. They can voluntarily pool sovereignty, share citizenship rights, open borders for trade and so on. However, all of this can only be done by consent.
Posted by: David T at November 21, 2007 06:14 PMA mere analysis of this short exchange makes my point is valid...
I merely said:
"In this bizarro world, recognition of Israel as a Jewish state is avoided."
To which you felt the need to respond (A):
"Democratic countries have an absolute right to decide on the nature of their state, as long as they accord full civil and political rights to all their citizens."
To which I said, "huh?"
Compelling you to clarify your position (B):
"At the moment, it is a secular ethnic jewish state."
Assuming (A) still applies, you could have merely disagreed with me, and said. "Of course I recognize Israel as a Jewish state, what else could I call it!"
Returning us to:
"In this bizarro world, recognition of Israel as a Jewish state is avoided."
You have proved my point for me.
----
So, for me the bigger question is:
Why do all these crazy Jews live in England? Why is the seat of the international antizionist movement in England? Is it best understood as a Enlgish phenomenon or a English-Jewish one? Posts like this make me think the latter.
Posted by: Shmuel at November 21, 2007 06:43 PMIsrael is a secular jewish state with a number of national minorities, some sizeable. Is this seriously disputed by anybody?
Just as, for example, Britain is a united kingdom composed predominantly of the English, Welsh, Scottish, and Irish: and other cultural and national groups.
Similarly, this isn't in disputr: which is why people don't feel a need to repeat it all the time.
You write as if Israel was an abstract concept, rather than a 60 year old existing state.
Posted by: David T at November 21, 2007 06:55 PMAtzmon says he's not against Jews, he's just against Jewishness.
Me, I'm not against Beethoven's music, just the notes in it.
Posted by: goodwin sands at November 21, 2007 07:04 PMMikey, well done, a very complete and detailed article
Four points:
1. The argument in Atzmon's “Saying NO to the Hunters of Goliath.” is the classical antisemitic lie that Jews are responsible for their own misfortunes, it is often heard on the extreme right. It is essentially saying that Jews are to blame for any disaster that befalls them.
2. The denial of the antisemitic character of Hamas is a peculiar phenomena and often found in people who don't base their views on evidence and somehow wish to exonerate Hamas. Nevertheless, the Hamas covenant is very clear on the validity of the Protocols of Elders of Zion, a notorious antisemitic forgery.
3. The question of identity politics, whilst it may play some part in the motivation of some anti-Zionists, is not critically relevant to the wider political issues, because identity politics is a purely subjective topic, relating to how an individual sees themselves and as such not terribly amenable to conclusive discussions.
4. The real political issue is how the activities of a small minority of Jewish anti Zionist activists have legitimised and opened the door for anti-Jewish racism, and in Gilad Atzmon's case how he won the approval of David Duke, ex-Grand Wizard of the KKK.
Posted by: modernityblog at November 21, 2007 07:16 PM"We wish great success to both sides." (Menachem Begin) I'm sure Begin must have been very satisfied with the 1 million dead then.
Posted by: TheIrie at November 21, 2007 07:42 PMIt kept them busy.
Posted by: Questor at November 21, 2007 07:46 PM"We wish great success to both sides." (Menachem Begin) I'm sure Begin must have been very satisfied with the 1 million dead then.
I'm not here to defend Begin or his comment. But it's an unfortunate fact-- based on lots of bitter experience-- that many Israelis regard fights between anti-Israel forces with a sense of relief (i.e., "at least when they're fighting each other, they're not fighting us").
Posted by: Gene at November 21, 2007 07:53 PM"Similarly, this isn't in disputr: which is why people don't feel a need to repeat it all the time...You write as if Israel was an abstract concept, rather than a 60 year old existing state."
This is bullshit, if not a 180 degree inversion of reality. Fatah for example does not currently recognize Israel as a Jewish state, and there are many other-how can I say- less invested parties and indivduals who are less than "comfortable" agreeing that Israel has the right to maintain it's identity as a Jewish state. For example just above you felt the need to refer to Israel as Jewish in the "moment" rather than "a 60 year old existing state" on first pass while accusing me of conceptualizing Israel in the abstract. It's this sort of weirdness and hypocricy that makes the Engage crowd part of the whole freak show. You guys may not be center ring, but you're not in the audience either.
Posted by: Shmuel at November 21, 2007 07:55 PMShmuel,
Why don't you set up your own blog and set things straight then?
Posted by: Mikey at November 21, 2007 08:03 PMI'm not a crystal ball gazer. States rise and fall; enter federations and leave them; people change their identities; and so on.
Fatah has no authority over Israel. Its authority is limited to the Palestinian Territories.
Posted by: David T at November 21, 2007 08:18 PMgoodwin sands,
I thought that you and many others made some excellant contributions on the SU blog
it is a bit of a shame that some "socialists" couldn't see anything wrong with Atzmon's filth, still I suppose that it was the "wrong" type of racism for them?
Posted by: modernityblog at November 21, 2007 08:20 PMHa! My mother went to your university Shmuel!
Posted by: David T at November 21, 2007 08:22 PMI wish great success to both sides of Respect.
Posted by: Yiggy Gluckstein at November 21, 2007 09:20 PMIs it best understood as a Enlgish phenomenon or a English-Jewish one? Posts like this make me think the latter.
This is just a variation on blaming Jews for antisemitism. It's rubbish but no more than I expect from many (although not all) American observers of this problem.
Posted by: Igor at November 21, 2007 10:00 PMI think that over the last year a corner has been turned with Atzmon, in that he is no longer able to silence his opposition simply by shouting "zionist! zionist!" and hoping the Atzmonian flock will then dutifully plug their ears to any dissenting voices. It's now clear to anyone that looks more than momentarily that the strongest opposition to Atzmon's antisemitism -- if only because he's baited them the most -- is coming from Jewish anti-Zionists, and his the ZIONISTS are PERSECUTING ME falls flat.
But, as always, there will be those who don't look, and who will immediately accept that (a) these front-rank decades-on anti-Zionists are actually crypto-Zionists and (b) we've always been at war with Oceania.
But Atzmon is a shock artist; I don't think anyone would be surprised to see him give his next performance in full Nazi regalia, read from Mein Kampf between tunes, call for the building of gas chambers for gassing Zionists, and then declare -- using the exaggeratedly Yiddish vocabulary that he saves, as cover, for his most abhorrent outbursts -- that it was all just a playful little joke and those Zionists shouldn't be so oversensitive.
But Atzmon is a shock artist; I don't think anyone would be surprised to see him give his next performance in full Nazi regalia, read from Mein Kampf between tunes, call for the building of gas chambers for gassing Zionists, and then declare -- using the exaggeratedly Yiddish vocabulary that he saves, as cover, for his most abhorrent outbursts -- that it was all just a playful little joke and those Zionists shouldn't be so oversensitive.
That is the sort of thing he would do. And there are people who would make excuses for him even then.
Posted by: Gene at November 21, 2007 10:07 PMWhat Greenstein, Elf et al have discovered is that there is no obstacle to the spread of antisemitic ideas within British anti-Zionism. This has been apparent to many of us for years. The irony is that it is a Jewish (well, ex-Jewish) antisemite who is spearheading its spread.
Posted by: Igor at November 21, 2007 10:11 PMWhat Greenstein, Elf et al have discovered is that there is no obstacle to the spread of antisemitic ideas within British anti-Zionism. This has been apparent to many of us for years.
But the strange result is that they end up affirming their anti-Zionism even more shrilly.
Posted by: Gene at November 21, 2007 10:20 PMBut the strange result is that they end up affirming their anti-Zionism even more shrilly.
and their former comrades are as supportive of them as a papier-mâché crutch, in a hurricane
Posted by: modernityblog at November 21, 2007 10:24 PMThe irony is that it is a Jewish (well, ex-Jewish) antisemite who is spearheading its spread.
I'd argue that that was a necessity. That's Atzmon's role, and he revels in it: providing the vital excuse, "If a Jew says X, then it must not be antisemitic to say X." It's his role as the Kosherizer. A non-Jew saying the same things would be -- quite rightly -- booed off stage. But, as a recent quote I saw on Engage put it, "There are nurses who murder patients. There are lawyers who defraud clients. Why should we be surprised there are Jews who are antisemites?"
See also the original model.
Posted by: goodwin sands at November 21, 2007 10:32 PMThe irony is that it is a Jewish (well, ex-Jewish) antisemite who is spearheading its spread.
I'd argue that that was a necessity. That's Atzmon's role, and he revels in it: providing the vital excuse, "If a Jew says X, then it must not be antisemitic to say X." It's his role as the Kosherizer. A non-Jew saying the same things would be -- quite rightly -- booed off stage. But, as a recent quote I saw on Engage put it, "There are nurses who murder patients. There are lawyers who defraud clients. Why should we be surprised there are Jews who are antisemites?"
See also the original model.
Posted by: goodwin sands at November 21, 2007 10:32 PM"Why don't you set up your own blog and set things straight then?"
*Go somewhere else and say that* seems to be your debating strategy of choice Mikey.
"Fatah has no authority over Israel."
99.9% of the people and organizations with wierd unrealistic conceptualizations of Israel have no authority over Israel.
"Ha! My mother went to your university Shmuel!"
I'm just the janitor here.
Posted by: Shmuel at November 21, 2007 10:34 PM
Shmuel,
Why I have suggested you starting your own blog is as follows - You wish to discuss something that this particular post is not about.
This post is about anti-Zionist Jews in the UK and their political disputes.
If you have something to say about
Gilad Atzmon
Tony Greenstein
Lenni Brenner (From the USA but he got involved)
Moshe Machover
Debrah Fink
Deborah Maccoby
Mark Elf
Roland Rance
David Rosenberg
Charlie Pottins
and one or two others, active in the British anti-Zionist scene, feel free to discuss it on this thread. That is what this thread is about.
If you wish to discuss your dispute with the political stance taken by David Hirsh of a different blog to this one entirely, then please do not do it here.
The Internet has a lot of space, if you open your own blog you can use that space to vent your disagreements and maybe myself or some others will come to your blog and comment on what you have to say.
I spent a substantial amount of time on this post and in the main other commentators have been polite enough to stick the subject we are debating. It is a matter of common courtesy.
You are welcome to comment on this post, but should you demand to know whether any particular commentator or poster is Zionist or Jewish, unless they have identified themselves as such, then those comments are unwelcome.
Please take that discussion elsewhere.
But Atzmon is a shock artist; I don't think anyone would be surprised to see him give his next performance in full Nazi regalia, read from Mein Kampf between tunes, call for the building of gas chambers for gassing Zionists, and then declare -- using the exaggeratedly Yiddish vocabulary that he saves, as cover, for his most abhorrent outbursts -- that it was all just a playful little joke and those Zionists shouldn't be so oversensitive.
I think he will end up in the Lubavich, performing in an jazz-opera, The Rebbianic Age.
Posted by: David T at November 21, 2007 11:10 PMGilad Atzmon in years to come?
Posted by: Mikey at November 21, 2007 11:23 PMTo hear Gilad Atzmon's play, click here
I wish I hadn't. I hope Atzmon is a better musician than radio playwright. That was crap.
Posted by: Boogski at November 21, 2007 11:29 PMI am not sure it is about identity, it is about belonging.
Extreme left – communists, Trots etc. – is obsessed with the problem of Jewishness. This resides deep in its history, back to the early days of 20th Century, and has to do with the central role of many Jews in the original triad of Mensheviks–Bolsheviks–Bund. It is important to understand that this obsession has nothing to do with Palestinians, who are just a convenient vessel for emotions that go much, much deeper.
Jews who have belonged to the extreme left movements often (but not always, something that has an explanation beyond this brief discourse) felt (rightly or wrongly) that, to fit and be accepted, they must be more anti-Zionist than the anti-Zionists, most outspoken in a manner which, similarly to all manner of obsessive anti-Zionism, may easily segue into antisemitism.
The tragedy of Greenstein, Moshik Machover and co. is that, the louder they shout, the more they wave the anti-Zionist banner, the more they label themselves as suspect in the mind-set of suspicious true believers. This is similar to converts to any religion who always must be more catholic than the Pope, more orthodox than the Chief Rabbi and more Islamic than the Grand Ayatollah – and the more they attempt to prove this, the more they draw attention and derision to themselves.
If you have any spare pity left, extend it to these poor sods. They more they try, the more they are considered pathetic by the very those whom they try to impress.
"Clearly, it is not just Jews in the mainstream who like to argue, because the tiny fringe of Jews who are committed opponents of Zionism seem to have a similar penchant."
This is a funny way of phrasing it.
In Britain and the world in general, only a tiny number of people are left-wing activists (ie opponents of zionism among all other forms of opression). Within the left in Britain in my experience, the number of people of Jewish descent is disproportionately high. Well not among Stalinists understandably, but visit any Trotskyist group and you will find a much higher number of Jews in leadership positions and among the rank and file than you would expect to if it were to be proportionate to British society as a whole. So to say a "tiny fringe of Jews" is a bit misleading, because this is not a case of a small number of Jews going over to a movement which is hostile to Jews, rather a case of a movement which is small in all communities being relatively large among Jews. Now if the marxist left in Britain were really anti-semitic, then there is a strong possibility that your argument would lead us tot he conclusion that the most prominently anti-semitic group in Britain is Jews themselves. Now is that not ridiculous?
Now I'll perhaps be accused of peddling anti-semitic propaganda here. Let me be the first to say that inf act I think the Jewish community has a history of producing forward thinking intellectuals, and that calling them "prominent amongs the left" is no insult, but the highest form of praise I could give to someone.
And let me just be clear: I do hate the state of Israel, and I do not hate Jews. If you think that's an impossible combination then you're an idiot.
Posted by: ff at November 22, 2007 12:13 AM"I do hate the state of Israel, and I do not hate Jews. If you think that's an impossible combination then you're an idiot."
Given that you exist, clearly the combination isn't impossible. Clearly, it is possible not to hate Jews as long as they are devoid of any national feelings, wag their tail and respond with yelps of joy to "nice doggy".
I always admired the ability of those at the extreme left to disguise (mainly to themselves) their irrational hatreds and obsessions. You might be hateful pricks exactly like the worst of fascists but, oh boy, what a style!
"Given that you exist, clearly the combination isn't impossible. Clearly, it is possible not to hate Jews as long as they are devoid of any national feelings,"
I agree personally. I'm devoid of national feeling because I think it's a disgusting concept to think "pride" is about "nationality"...where this leads, inevitably, is to people of different nationalities killing each other for their leaders. Do you want that? If not then why aren't you prepared to take on the myth of "nationality".
Now I understand that given the way they were persecuted, Jews didn't always have a choice about their "nationality", just like Palestinians today don't. But Jews today do have that choice. It's one thing to recognise when someone has nationality thrust upon them and to help them overcome those barriers before they cast aside that superstition, but it's another thing to actually endorse the idea of people being divided into competing nations (or do you somehow think that states would be necessary if there wer eno conflict between them? I mean, why would you need a border?)
Now I wouldn't encourage myself or any other Brit to make a common cause with the British ruling class, so, does that make me anti-British too? I don't see why you think it's progressive to make apologies for "national feeling" instead of exposing it as supersitious and anti-worker.
Posted by: ff at November 22, 2007 12:34 AMAh, but you are hypocrite, ff, aren't you? You hate Israel because you are "against all national feelings". Which other nation-states do you hate? Spain? Botswana? Peru? Syria?
Exactly. It is only the nation-state of the people you claim not to hate. So spare us your mental contortions. You are welcome to deceive yourself but don't expect anybody else to be taken by.
"Clearly, it is possible not to hate Jews as long as they are devoid of any national feelings, wag their tail and respond with yelps of joy to "nice doggy"."
oh and I have to point out that some of the marxists of Jewish descent I have met in my time would certainly not be considered anyone's "nice doggy". In fact there's one who I can think of who used to have me quavering in my boots at the thought of cocking up any of the tasks he'd co-ordinate :p
Posted by: ff at November 22, 2007 12:40 AM"Ah, but you are hypocrite, ff, aren't you? You hate Israel because you are "against all national feelings". Which other nation-states do you hate? Spain? Botswana? Peru? Syria?"
Well, right now, Burma, Pakistan and France are three of the states under most pressure and who I'd like to see smashed. Or do you think communists in those countries do not want to smash the state and eventually abolish their borders?
"Exactly. It is only the nation-state of the people you claim not to hate."
I claimed to hate it. What are you on about?
Posted by: ff at November 22, 2007 12:43 AMFF,
if you are so keen on this issue, why not prove it? give up your passport and become a stateless person
a step too far?
Posted by: modernityblog at November 22, 2007 12:46 AM"FF,
if you are so keen on this issue, why not prove it? give up your passport and become a stateless person
a step too far?"
Primitive argument modernity. Along the lines of "why don't you go to Iraq yourself if you support the war"...or "why don't you never use anything made in China if you oppose the chinese government"...or "why don't you never buy any oil if you hate the House of Saud"...you see modernity how futile those arguments are?
Posted by: ff at November 22, 2007 12:50 AMFF,
hardly a futile argument, just asking you to be consistent
if you're asking people to become effectively stateless and unprotected, and yet you're unwilling to contemplate and follow through on this issue yourself, well that isn't very consistent, is it?
practice what you preach
Posted by: modernityblog at November 22, 2007 12:55 AM"FF,
hardly a futile argument, just asking you to be consistent
if you're asking people to become effectively stateless and unprotected, and yet you're unwilling to contemplate and follow through on this issue yourself, well that isn't very consistent, is it?
practice what you preach"
Who am I asking to become stateless and unprotected? Opposing the fact that the world is divided up into states isn't the same as asking people to individualistically imagine they can just "wash their hands of it" and walk away from states. Fighting to take control of tthe resources monopolised by capitalists and protected by the state, just like workers across the world in countless countries are doing right now, is not the same as asking people to just "ignore" capitalist states and hope they go away. That is the anarchist approach, I'm not one of them.
Oh unless you're referring to my attitude to Jews - well with the money the US gives to the IDF they could build a mansion for every Israeli citizen. But no, they'd rather use Jews as buffers against Arab resistance to the American empire. Who's the real anti-semite?
Posted by: ff at November 22, 2007 01:02 AMFF wrote:
Oh unless you're referring to my attitude to Jews - well with the money the US gives to the IDF they could build a mansion for every Israeli citizen. But no, they'd rather use Jews as buffers against Arab resistance to the American empire.
well done, you've let the cat out of the bag
you clearly don't appreciate the fact that well over 1/5 of Israelis are NOT Jews.
perhaps, as you seem to be such an articulate and well informed Marxist, could you tell us the American State Department's attitude towards the new state of Israel in 1948?
then could you tell us about the Doctor's plot
Posted by: modernityblog at November 22, 2007 01:11 AM"you clearly don't appreciate the fact that well over 1/5 of Israelis are NOT Jews."
That's true, but I think the propaganda campaign has been to promote it as the duty of Jews to migrate to and populate Israel and maintain its constitutionally garuanteed Jewish majority. It's that process which makes Israel a pro-US buffer state - the fact that now, in 2007, the US, heir to the empires which most strongly backed Israel, is the biggest promoter of Zionism as the one true identity for Jews, because that's what serves the interests of the American bourgeoisie in the Middle East.
Posted by: ff at November 22, 2007 02:16 AMso FF,
do you even know what the US state department attitude towards Israel was in 1948?
Posted by: modernityblog at November 22, 2007 02:47 AMThanks Mikey. That's hilarious. I feel for you for having had to follow what these people write.
Posted by: shlemazl at November 22, 2007 02:51 AM"do you even know what the US state department attitude towards Israel was in 1948?"
Instead of asking me, why not state the fact as you see it, and explain what this shows?
Posted by: ff at November 22, 2007 03:49 AMMikey wrote: I don’t know, Jews like to argue I guess.
Reminds me of the one about the Jewish mother and her two grown up daughters having lunch rather loudly in a resteraunt; the waiter glides over and says "Ladies, is anything all right?
In less enlightened times, people would entertain themselves by going to Bedlam and watching the asylum's inmates. Today, we have a substitute in the antics of Greenstein, Machover, Finklestein, Brenner et al. Just as we pity the mentally ill who were so badly used in the past, so must we pity these unhinged and obsessed neurotics who impinge on our conciousness today. And we should also remember that in many cases their illness is a reaction to great pain inflicted on them and their parents, and that they are not objectively responsible for much of their behaviour.
Posted by: Ben at November 22, 2007 06:51 AMso must we pity these unhinged and obsessed neurotics who impinge on our conciousness today.
I was thinking more along the lines of kicking the crap out of them once and for all. :D
Just kidding! :D
Posted by: Boogski at November 22, 2007 06:58 AM"Well, right now, Burma, Pakistan and France are three of the states under most pressure and who I'd like to see smashed." (ff)
"It's that process which makes Israel a pro-US buffer state - the fact that now, in 2007, the US, heir to the empires which most strongly backed Israel, is the biggest promoter of Zionism as the one true identity for Jews, because that's what serves the interests of the American bourgeoisie in the Middle East." (again ff)
Then why don't you smash the US, if Israel is just a puppet?
Oh, I know, because you are the same kind of antisemite that abhors "capitalism" and thinks that he should start showing his disgust with the system by smashing all the jewish bankers.
Posted by: Fabian from Israel at November 22, 2007 08:33 AMBTW, great post, Mikey.
"That's true, but I think the propaganda campaign has been to promote it as the duty of Jews to migrate to and populate Israel and maintain its constitutionally garuanteed Jewish majority. It's that process which makes Israel a pro-US buffer state" (ff)
The second part of the argument doesn't follow from the first, don't you know? You have too much propaganda inside your system to recognize your antisemitism. And don't come to me with "I don't hate Jews". You know what people who write in Blogger that "The Protocols" are one of their favorite books? That they are not racist.
Posted by: Fabian from Israel at November 22, 2007 08:36 AM** sorry **
The second part of the argument doesn't follow from the first, don't you know? You have too much propaganda inside your system to recognize your antisemitism. And don't come to me with "I don't hate Jews". You know what people who write in Blogger that "The Protocols" are one of their favorite books say to me? That they are not racist, they just have found out that the Jews/Zionists are out to control the world.
A specifically annoying little creature born in the occupied Caliphate of Al-Andaluz (best known as the Spanish entity), and who has the Protocols as her favorite book use to leave comments in my blog demanding that my wife and me return immediately to Argentina, because we are usurpers and thieves of Palestine. You are cut of the same cloth.
Posted by: Fabian from Israel at November 22, 2007 08:41 AMAnd that annoying creature supports Zapatero and left-wing policies in Spain! So much for "the left cannot be racist".
Posted by: Fabian from Israel at November 22, 2007 08:44 AMWell, Fabian, by now you should have known that the Left can be just as racist as the Right. It pains me to admit it, as my natural instincts are on the left, but the left racism is more difficult to deal with because, unlike the right-wing one, it is not an "in your face" racism. It is racism in denial. You could have seen it in an odious creature like ff, you can see it in that disgusting combination of Greenstein and Atzmon (may they both loose!)... It is really summed up by the guy who told me at the last meeting of my local Labour Party which I bothered to attend, some years ago, that "I am not an antisemite, but the reason I hate you people is...". And the – call it what you may, tragedy, farce, congenital idiocy – of it is that he really believes that hating Jews (as Jews) doesn't qualify him as an antisemite: after all, he is left wing, so he can't be an antisemite.
I read in the paper this morning that it is Somalia which has the crappiest infant mortality rate (worse than Sudan). I want this looked into.
For crying out loud, people. What the fuck is the use of having an omnipotent military force if you can't put a stop to this kind of bullshit?
Exactly, Muffin: racism in denial.
BTW, yesterday I was perusing a book in my free time and came accross this short paragraph, by Michael Rosenak:
[With the Emancipation] Jews were asked to stop being "Jews" to become "persons". After that, they were asked to stop being "persons" to become loyal and proud "French" or "Germans".
I find that phrase amazingly accurate in its short sadness.
You could complete that historical argument with: after that, they were forced to abandon their pretenses of being "French" and "Germans" and accept their fate in Auschwitz or in an Argelian concentration camp. After that, some lucky survivors were asked to stop thinking of themselves as Israelis, and become again Jews (in the Diaspora), or "persons".
Posted by: Fabian from Israel at November 22, 2007 09:35 AMAfter ff "smashes" Israeli, Burmese, Pakistani and French nationalities, won't he eventually have to get around to "smashing" the Palestinian nationality? Solidarity with Palestinians until of course it's their turn to be "smashed".
And when their turn comes, you can already hear ff's rallying call to whit:
the propaganda campaign has been to promote it as the duty of Palestinians to migrate to and populate Palestine and maintain its constitutionally garuanteed (sic) Palestinian Arab majority. It's that process which makes Palestine a pro-imperialist buffer state - the fact that now, in (insert Julian calendar year), the (insert Imperialist State), heir to the empires which most strongly backed Palestine, is the biggest promoter of Palestinian nationalism as the one true identity for Arabs of, or descended from that region, because that's what serves the interests of the (insert imperialist state) bourgeoisie in the Middle East.
Well at least Palestinians can take some comfort that ff won't be coming out to "smash" them first. When ff's revolutionary lot eat their Smarties
they'll eat the Palestinian ones last. They'll suck them very slowly, not crunch them very fast.
Please don't veer off topic. There has been little to no discussion of:
Gilad Atzmon
Tony Greenstein
Lenni Brenner (From the USA but he got involved)
Moshe Machover
Debrah Fink
Deborah Maccoby
Mark Elf
Roland Rance
David Rosenberg
Charlie Pottins
Just paying penance for past sins Mikey....trying to do my part.
Posted by: Shmuel at November 22, 2007 10:43 AMwe shouldn't try to ask any question of FF and his type, they are pig ignorant on these topics and haven't got much use for history, despite being alleged acolytes of historical materialism
Posted by: modernityblog at November 22, 2007 12:14 PMAs an Israeli Jew, as well as an academic in this country, I am utterly delighted to see Atzmon pulverize this idiotic group of anti-zio jokers lead by shoplifter in chief: Greenstein. How about you? peacepalestine.blogspot.com
Posted by: yael at November 22, 2007 01:15 PMI've never fully understood the confusion surrounding the whole "anti-zionism" is /is not "anti-semitic" thing.
Zionism was initially the movement to re-establish the Jewish homeland. That having been achieved, a modern-day Zionist is merely someone who actively supports the continued existence of the Jewish homeland. There's no further political implication in the word. Zionists can be left wing, right wing, pro-Palestinian, anti-Palestinian etc.
The opposite is just as straightforward. If a Zionist supports the continued existence of Israel, an anti-zionist seeks the destruction of the Jewish homeland.
I guess the debate centres on whether this is antisemitic.
If it's too difficult to work out, ask yourself whether seeking the destruction of France is anti-French or whether a British re-colonisation of Ireland would be anti-Irish.
It would be wrong to suggest that anti-zionism is anti-semitism. Anti-semitism is much wider ranging. Anti-zionism is, however, quite specifically anti-semitic (unless you think denial of a people's native homeland is no big thing)
Posted by: uptight at November 22, 2007 01:41 PMOh - and FF "Hating Israel" doesn't mean you hate Jews. I hate Iran - that doesn't mean I hate Iranians.
Hating a country is one thing - seeking it's destruction is something else. If I sought the destruction of Iran, it would mean my hatred spread to the denial of a homeland for the Iranians. That's hatred as far as I'm concerned....just as being anti-Zionist is a manifestation of ones hatred for Jews.
Posted by: uptight at November 22, 2007 01:52 PMFinally - just to clarify "criticising Isreal" is not anti-zionism.
I mention this beceause anti-zionists often say "why is it racist to criticise a country".
Anti-Zionism is the denial of a homeland to the Jews.
Posted by: uptight at November 22, 2007 01:57 PMYael
Are you quite clear on the concept? Tony Greenstein may be an anti-zionist joker, but Atzmon is far worse. "An as Israeli Jew", Mr Atzmon despises both your Jewishness and your Israeli nationality.
I feel that we should accept what Mr Atzmon says when he states that he isn't Jewish; as such his anti-semitism is little different from that of David Duke or Lady Renouf. He is not, however, a self-hater. Someone who is "utterly delighted" to see themselves "as an Israeli Jew" held up as an object of contempt, disgust and loathing is the very definition of the Self-Hating Jew.
Posted by: hasan prishtina at November 22, 2007 02:04 PMuptight,
This is not an appropriate forum to discuss what Zionism and Antizionism are and are not. Please go elsewhere or stick to the topic:
Gilad Atzmon
Tony Greenstein
Lenni Brenner (From the USA but he got involved)
Moshe Machover
Debrah Fink
Deborah Maccoby
Mark Elf
Roland Rance
David Rosenberg
Charlie Pottins
Best wishes...
Posted by: Shmuel at November 22, 2007 02:50 PMDon't be a prick, Shmuel.
BTW, "yael" probably is Ariella Atzmon, Sir Gilead's mother. She is the only Israeli Jew who is an academic abroad and has the same hateful worldview as Gilead. Although the order is reversed, baby gilead has copied his mother, and his mother defends his baby.
Posted by: Fabian from Israel at November 22, 2007 02:56 PMAlthough why should I take "yael"'s sayings of herself/himself at face value, I don't know.
I am Fabián, Archduke of Rishon LeTzion, and heir to the Samarian throne, by my cousin Avi.
Posted by: Fabian from Israel at November 22, 2007 02:58 PMFabian,
Pardon me, but this isn't personal, so please refrain from making ad hominem attacks. Mikey spent a long time writing this piece and I think we *all* owe it to him to either keep things on topic or simply refrain from making comments.
Shmuel,
I understand your annoyance, but you are being petty. Others have told you similar. The general discussion on this thread is about anti-Zionism, please keep it that way.
Fabian,
Yael may be Gilad in a dress.
Posted by: Mikey at November 22, 2007 03:32 PMMikey,
Can you please stick to the "general" topic then of anti-Zionism and refrain from making comments regarding topics that are not relevant to the thread.
Or alternatively, make up your mind! You certainly didn't say that the topic was "generally" about antizionism above. If you had, certainly my previous comments would not have been judged as relevant. Recall that you wrote:
"This post is about anti-Zionist Jews in the UK and their political disputes."
You wrote this because I was discussing conceptual distinctions among "antizionism" "zionism" and "nonzionism" and you felt...what exactly?
Dear Harry & Co
With all Jew respect, I am not related to Gilad & I certainly don’t recall giving birth to him 40 odd years ago. However, Ariella was my teacher at the Hebrew University & I can assure you she would not be interested in engaging with a clan of Diaspora Jews on or off line. I have actually never even met Gilad though I was privileged enough to see footage of him in Jerusalem, as a small adorable boy spitting out his Gefilte fish & demanding homemade Musakhan & Qatayef… I understand there are more recent films of him on Youtube.
The issue at play here is not me, my God, my Semetic blood or my homeland. The issue is your lack of these elements. The question we are hoping you might answer is what you claim to represent when you promote your Jewishness?
As an Israeli Jew, as well as an academic in this country, (Yael)
Is that why your IP address traces suspiciously close in SE England To Gillie's other incarnations?
Posted by: HP IP Monitor at November 22, 2007 04:41 PMGet over yourself Sherlock. When I said 'this country'I meant England.
Posted by: yael at November 22, 2007 04:56 PMYael, we never did sort out that date. Maybe take in some klezmer this Saturday, after sunset?
x
Posted by: Tim Allon at November 22, 2007 05:10 PMTim, you extremely rude during our brief email exchange a while ago - but I am a forgiving woman....
I am considering catching Gilad perform at Pizza Express Jazz Club on Dean St this Thursday. Would you care to join me? I don’t know what your exact ethnology is, but I understand non-Jews are permitted into the club as well as various religious types & even the occasional Cameron supporter. Would that be an environment you or your comrades might consider frequenting?
Posted by: yael at November 22, 2007 05:32 PMYael,
Would "a bunch of silly tribal Jewish ethnic activists" be admitted?
Posted by: Mikey at November 22, 2007 05:44 PMAh, this thread has now achieved it's purpose...
It has sucessfully attracted one of these freaks so that the "non-freaks" can tease it with it's own pedantic vocab. This should prove to be very illuminating.
Posted by: Shmuel at November 22, 2007 05:56 PMYael,
Would "a bunch of silly tribal Jewish ethnic activists" be admitted?
Yael:I can't speak for the venue, but as far as I’m aware & despite the best efforts of your ‘liberal comrade’ Martin Amis, Britain, has not implemented the Nuremburg Laws as yet.
Therefore I assume, for the time being atleast, Jews are allowed into this club to mingle amid the human race - even if they are Israeli academics like myself.
There's something so depressing about these nutters pretending to be women. why do they do this? Dont they have the slightest sense of their own fucking dignity?
they are a real drag on the debate
Posted by: modernityblog at November 22, 2007 07:15 PMYael,
I'm sorry that I came across as rude, but you must understand that I'd just come out of a serious, long-term relationship, and at that time I really wasn't ready to start attending jazz gigs with another woman. Even now, I only have to hear the first 27 minutes of a John Scofield solo and I start crying like a child.
I never meant to hurt your feelings. I never thought I could hurt your feelings. Because you don't exist.
Incidentally, if you're not Gilad, who is Gilad on this thread? I mean, no-one seriously imagines that he's not here, do they?
Posted by: Tim Allon at November 22, 2007 07:37 PMA little background, in case anyone's interested:
"Yael" made "her" cyberspace debut a few months back in the persona of a London-based, Israeli female student, former student of Gilad's mum, and admirer of Gilad himself, coming out with comments along the lines of "whilst I certainly don't agree with a lot of what Gilad says, I must say that he's absolutely brilliant in every respect, especially when it comes to the antisemitic stuff".
Now, understandably some people suspected this might be a transparent attempt by Gilad or one of his supporters to pose as a disinterested third party, but just couldn't help fawning over him a little too much.
Spotting that Yael's purported e-mail would have been too highly in demand to be acquired recently for some sock puppetry, I challenged Yael to contact me from that e-mail as evidence of her identity. About a day later I received an e-mail from a Yael at Hotmail, but with the addition of a surname, ensuring that this address was indistinguishable from one that had been made up for the purpose of proving Yael's existence. Funnily enough, Yael's surname didn't seem to exist anywhere else on the internet, more or less confirming that whoever "Yael" was, she certainly wasn't who she said she was.
At this point we have to indulge in a little conjecture.
Assumption 1) Gilad will be using a sock puppet on any thread about Gilad.
Assumption 2) Gilad is too vain to to create anything other than a fawning sock puppet.
Assumption 3) There are no other fawning supporters of Gilad here, other than Yael.
Assumption 4) Gilad is thick enough to come up with such a crap sock puppet as Yael, and daft enough to think anyone less thick than himself would be fooled by it.
Conclusion: Yael is Gilad.
Yael, I'm sorry to upset you again like this, but the root of your problems is not my rudeness, but your own non-existence. Please don't cry. I couldn't stand to see you cry. If you can still remember your name, log onto your Hotmail account sometime and drop me a line.
x
Posted by: Tim Allon at November 22, 2007 08:04 PMSo Atzmon’s (Yael’s/Yocheved/Knuckles etc.) good friend Mikey has posted his tirade on what he calls ‘The Anti-Zionist Jewish Squabble. Even by his standards it’s pretty poor. Good friend because Atzmon at least has the good manners to thank Mikey for his help in digging up articles to attack me! But why shouldn’t Mikey continue the old and venerable tradition of Zionists and anti-Semites collaborating? Old habits die hard.
Yes I want the Israeli state destroyed. Actually I’d quite like the British state to go the same way although I acknowledge that at least the British state doesn’t differentiate unlike the Israeli state between its citizens on racial/religious grounds. You wouldn’t get a debate in Britain about whether it’s right to allow Jews/Blacks access to state lands and those controlled by a quasi-state organisation, the JNF.
But it is one of the hallmarks of fascism that the people exist to serve the State and although Zionism isn’t a fascist movement it certainly reflects the fascist attitude to the relationship between the people and the state.
I realise that this blog is peopled by Zionists so this will have to be my one-off contribution.
Mikey’s post goes wrong from the beginning. Atzmon isn’t an anti-Zionist, Jewish or otherwise. He is an anti-Semite. Anti-Zionists wish to see an end to the apartheid State of Israel and ascribe its role and support to imperialism, firstly British then American. Atzmon ascribes the nature of the Israeli State to ‘Jewishness’ and racial attributes of Jews. It’s quite simple. We therefore criticise him for his racism and anti-Semitism but of course Mikey and David T prefer to go drinking with him
‘Last week, Mikey invited me for a drink with Gilad Atzmon…. Gilad was, I have to say, utterly charming and a delightful drinking companion.’
http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/archives/2007/03/19/gilad_atzmon_and_jewishness.php
Mark Elf is of course a committed anti-Zionist and yes Zionism is leading Jewish people to disaster. When the USA pulls the plug on its support for Israel, because it’s not in its interest to continue supporting it, then those who witter on about the ‘anti-Semitism’ of anti-Zionism will understand what anti-Semitism really means.
Mark has never said that Zionists control the press, however it is abundantly clear that Zionism is an ideology and practice that all mainstream press support. How many national papers supported the Boycott campaign? Not one. And despite that it has received increasing and growing support.
The phenomenon of Atzmon and his crew is quite easy to understand. For years Zionists such as the scribblers above have been accusing any and every critic of Israel, not even anti-Zionists, of ‘anti-Semitism’. It is little wonder that some people have taken this to heart and reached the conclusion that if they have a choice between ‘anti-Semitism’ and supporting the Palestinians then they will choose the latter, because the evils that have been perpetrated against them far outweigh the so-called anti-Semitism they have been accused of. In other words, as Tony Lerman put it, accusations of anti-Semitism whenever you disagree with someone drain anti-Semitism of all meaning.
Atzmon does have problems with Jewish identity. We don’t. Why? Because there isn’t one Jewish identity anyway. I identify as Jewish because the anti-Semites call be Jewish and Zionists claim to speak on behalf of me. But we identify with the anti-racist heritage of being Jewish, Mikey & co. identify with the most chauvinistic strands.
There is nothing ‘erroneous’ about the belief that the Zionist movement collaborated with Naziism and obstructed rescue of the Jewish victims of it. Everywhere they opposed rescue to any country but Palestine. Their attitude that Jews had no place in the countries of their birth was repeatedly quoted by anti-Semites such as Fritsch and Heinrich Class. Indeed the introduction to the Nuremburg Laws stated that the Zionists of all people
‘If the Jews had a state of their own in which the bulk of their people were at home, the Jewish Question could already be considered solved today, even for the Jews themselves. The ardent Zionists of all people have objected least of all to the basic ideas of the Nuremburg Laws because they know that these laws are the only correct solution for the Jewish people too. (Die Nurnberger Gesetze, 5 Auflage Berline, pp. 13/14. Khamsin No. 6, p.38 pp. 13/14 and also The Third Reich and the Palestine Question - by Francis R. Nicosia.
It is a fact, as even ardent Zionist Lucy Dawidowicz has to admit in her ‘War Against the Jews’ that the SS and its leader Reinhardt Heydrich differentiated between Zionists and what were termed the Assimilationists.
As for Atzmon and co. they are a product of the Zionist insistence on associating Jews, wherever they live, with the murderous and racist actions of the Israeli state. Little things like the murder of 100 children last year by the IDF or the eviction of Bedouin from the Negev in order to ‘Judaise’ (Aryanise?) the area. But you won’t find the Zionist apologists on this list criticising or even referring to the abominations of the Israeli state. Just as too many Germans turned a blind eye to what happened to the Jews, so those on this list and unfortunately many Jews in Britain likewise turn a blind eye to what is done in their name. The difference is of course that Germans lived under a fascist state. New Labour hasn’t yet turned Britain into a fascist state.
I criticise Atzmon’s anti-Semitism not because I believe it poses a danger to Jews, it doesn’t, but because it poses a danger to the Palestinian cause.
Mikey mentions Steve Cohen supporting our criticism of Indymedia’s posting of Atzmon. That is true. Those with good memories will remember that Steve and myself bitterly disagreed with his analysis of anti-Semitism (and still do) but I recognise that Steve is a good anti-racist, dedicated and sincere despite the illness that has befallen him. I don’t recognise Mikey, David T or the rest of you who blindly support Israel’s every action, its institutionalised racism and the ‘Judaisation’ and demographic politics it pursues as anti-racists in any degree whatsoever.
I am not at all ‘upset’ that Atzmon calls me and others ‘Zionists’. Members of the NF did that regularly. I’m quite used to it, though to be fair, Atzmon’s anti-Semitism far outweighs anything I ever heard from British fascists.
Yes Jews did emigrate to Palestine for religious reasons but they did not do so as part of the Zionist project and what was termed the ‘old Yishuv’ was staunchly opposed to the Zionist settlers until the Zionists managed to associate the term ‘Jew’ with ‘Zionist’ and fearful of even further dispossession and quite tragically, under the feudal leadership of Haj al Amin Hussin, some Palestinians perpetrated the massacres of 1929.
There is nothing ‘bizarre’ about saying that Hizbollah and Hamas are not anti-Semitic. Since both were brought into existence by the Israeli state, Hamas literally so thanks to the support of Shin Bet, then it is clear who is to blame. Racism only exists as personal prejudice until it becomes backed up by the State and its forces. Hamas does not operate a state but at best, a mini-bantustan. It does not exercise meaningful power and the fact that Israeli Jews like Uri Avneri have spoken at meetings with Hamas testifies to the fact that so-called anti-Semitism is not what their politics, reactionary though they are, are about. Likewise it wasn’t Hizbollah, but Israel’s Phalangist friends who attacked Beirut’s Jewish community.
But what I like most is the guilt by association technique of Mikey, so beloved of McCarthyites. Stephen Marks spoke on the platform with someone who had made a small contribution to Irving’s fighting fund. He refers to Asghar Bukhari of MPACUK. But he wasn’t aware, as he has said, of who Irving was. He assumed that since the Zionists told him anti-Semitism was the same as anti-Zionism it must be true and therefore Irving was also opposed to Israel. People learn and Bukhari has repented. I welcome all repentant sinners. Would that some on Harry’s Place would learn the art.
Tony Greenstein
Interesting, Greenstein. According to your own logic, Uri Avnery is a collaborator with antisemites, because Hamas invites him to address his conferences, and distinguishes between this good Jew and the Zionists, just like in your own view, Zionists were "collaborators" with the Nazis.
"There is nothing ‘bizarre’ about saying that Hizbollah and Hamas are not anti-Semitic. Since both were brought into existence by the Israeli state, Hamas literally so thanks to the support of Shin Bet, then it is clear who is to blame. Racism only exists as personal prejudice until it becomes backed up by the State and its forces. "
But of course, according to your own view, Hitler was not antisemitic until he was named Chancellor, so Hamas is not antisemitic in spite that they argue for the ethnic cleansing and murder of Jews in their covenant. That is only "personal prejudice", in your view.
But you are disconnected with the reality if you think that Hamas doesn't control state resources. Just look at Gaza.
Well, you are certainly a Good Jew, according to Hamas. They will kill you last.
Posted by: Fabian from Israel at November 23, 2007 08:45 AMTony Greenstein, you need an editor.
But let me deal with just one point in your rant. Surely to remain consistent given your principles about objecting to the vast majority of land in Israel being held as state land and your deeming this policy as apartheid and racist, you would also object to First Nations/Aboriginal Canadians in British Columbia acquiring land through modern day treaties to be held collectively, as opposed to being treated as 'fee simple' by a First Nation government.
Since by your metrics, First Nations in British Columbia whose aspirations are to acquire land through modern day treaties and to deem that land to be collectively held Treaty Land for a particular First Nation are all racist and apartheid, as opposed to regarding the Treaty land as fee simple which then can be privately bought and sold by non-Aboriginals and members of other First Nations.
You'll be glad to know I'm sure that this puts you on the same side as non-Aboriginal right wing groups in British Columbia who make the exact same argument against First Nation aspirations.
Oh and since you and Mark Elf and your lot are British, why is it that your activism is solely directed against Israeli land policy when there is so much Crown Land in your nation-state that is held by a Monarch who is the exclusive "defender of the [Anglican] faith" an issue which your lot neglect entirely in place of screaming about Israeli racism? But even if we just stick to Israel, how is it that your lot have nothing whatsoever to say about the notion of Waqf lands? Aren't Waqf lands by your metrics also racist and apartheidist? Why the blinkers Tony?
And finally Tony, worrying about what distinguishes you and your lot from the Jew baiting Atzmon is your problem not mine.
Posted by: left, but not antizionist at November 23, 2007 08:48 AM
Tony must a whole bunch of Gharkad trees in his garden.
Posted by: uptight at November 23, 2007 09:53 AMTony not only plants Gharkad trees on his property, his antizionist politics which exclusively preclude the right to self determination of a Jewish minority in but a tiny portion of the lands of the former Imperialist Ottoman Empire would also have him objecting to this landmark ruling:
Decision Reached in Historical Land Claim Case:
Tsilhqot'in Nation v. British Columbia, 2007 BCSC 1700
Victoria, British Columbia, November 21, 2007 - After a courageous and epic struggle, a small Tsilhqot'in First Nation that took on the governments of Canada and British Columbia to protect their land and way of life has been victorious in Court. In a major precedent-setting decision, Justice David Vickers of the British Columbia Supreme Court ruled today that the Tsilhqot'in (Chilcotin) people have proven Aboriginal title to approximately 200,000 square hectares in and around the remote Nemiah Valley, south and west of Williams Lake, British Columbia. Although Justice Vickers declined to make a declaration of title based on technical issues, he found that the tests for evidence of title were met in almost half the area claimed.
The trial lasted 339 days during which 29 Tsilhqot’in witnesses gave evidence, many in their native language. 604 exhibits were entered with Exhibit 156 alone containing over 1,000 historical documents. The Judge received about 7,000 pages of written submissions from the lawyers on all sides.
"The court has given us greater control of our lands. From now on, nobody will come into our territory to log or mine or explore for oil and gas, without seeking our agreement," said the Plaintiff, Chief Roger William. "The court recognized that we have proven title in about half of the Claim Area - and from today we accept our renewed responsibility and powers of ownership of those lands."
Justice Vickers made a number of important findings that will impact future relations between the governments of Canada and British Columbia and First Nations, including:
1. The Tsilhqot’in people have aboriginal rights, including the right to trade furs to obtain a moderate livelihood, throughout the Claim Area.
2. British Columbia's Forest Act does not apply within Aboriginal title lands.
3. British Columbia has infringed the Aboriginal rights and title of the Tsilhqot’in people, and has no justification for doing so.
4. Canada’s Parliament has unacceptably denied and avoided its constitutional responsibility to protect Aboriginal lands and Aboriginal rights, pursuant to s. 91(24) of the Constitution.
5. British Columbia has apparently been violating Aboriginal title in an unconstitutional and therefore illegal fashion ever since it joined Canada in 1871.
Throughout much of Canada and the United States, the colonial governments made treaties with First Nations to purchase their lands. This did not happen in most of British Columbia. The government has continued to deny that B.C.'s indigenous people inherited the land that their grandparents owned.
A longer version is available at:http://www.woodwardandcompany.com/william/newsrelease_long.pdf
2) A link to the decision itself is available at: http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/sc/sc-jdbwk.asp
3) From Justine Hunter's article in today's Globe and Mail, "In court, Judge Vickers spent 339 days hearing arguments about who owns the Nemiah Valley. His decision is expected to refer some issues back to the parties for negotiation, and almost certainly will be appealed to a higher court, but it will be the first time a Canadian court has ruled in favour of aboriginal title.
The Xeni Gwet'in claimed roughly 440,000 hectares as their traditional territory in a lawsuit that started as a battle against large-scale commercial logging. It is expected Judge Vickers will find the band established exclusive and continuous occupation - the current legal test of title - to nearly half of that parcel of land.
That's far more than the Crown has been willing to put on the table in negotiations. Modern treaties in British Columbia have averaged about 5 per cent of the traditional territories claimed, although they also include cash compensation.
Both the federal and provincial governments opposed the band's broad claims but made unprecedented concessions. The Crown accepted the band's claims to aboriginal rights to hunt and fish in the valley, and conceded title in a very limited way.
"This is an absolutely critical decision and it may have significant ramifications for treaty negotiations," Shawn Atleo, B.C. Chief of the Assembly of First Nations, said in an interview yesterday."
4) From Vaughn Palmer in today's Vancouver Sun:
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
"VICTORIA - The B.C. Liberals are braced today for what is expected to be the first court decision recognizing aboriginal title -- ownership -- over a sizable territory in the province.
The courts have earlier recognized the existence of aboriginal title over B.C. in general terms, reflecting the historical fact that the native inhabitants were supplanted without treaties or other legal formalities.
But no Canadian court has recognized aboriginal title on the part of a specific group of natives over a specifically defined area of land.
Until now. Justice David Vickers of the B.C. Supreme Court is expected to do just that in a lengthy decision scheduled for release this morning.
William also asked the court to void provincial forestry legislation as well.
His argument was constitutional: The province has no jurisdiction over aboriginal lands, though federal legislation (including forestry legislation) would continue to apply.
If Vickers goes along with that -- and he is expected to do so at least in part -- it could open the way for a major jurisdictional shift in B.C.
About 95 per cent of the province is regarded as provincial-government-controlled Crown land, including surface timber and underlying mineral resources.
But most of those lands are subject to claims of aboriginal title. In future, Ottawa might have more regulatory control than Victoria over what is now regarded as provincial Crown land.
The natives also claimed damages against the province for infringing aboriginal rights and title over the years, particularly through logging in the band's traditional territory."
Allow me to point to a couple of the more disgraceful lies in Greenstein's comment:-
There is nothing ‘erroneous’ about the belief that the Zionist movement collaborated with Naziism [sic] and obstructed rescue of the Jewish victims of it. Everywhere they opposed rescue to any country but Palestine.
Here is what the Zionist movements of America were demanding in 1943:-
The United Nations should, without delay, take steps to designate and establish a number of sanctuaries in Allied and neutral countries to accommodate substantial numbers of Hitler's victims... The possibilities in several British territories, both in Africa and in the Caribbean, should be explored without delay... The United Nations should urge the Republics of Latin America... to endeavor to find temporary havens of refuge for a substantial number of refugees.http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/jewplan.html
And here is what the Zionist leaders of the Yishuv were demanding in 1944:-
The Allies should publish a declaration expressing their readiness to admit Jewish fugitives to all their territories, and stating that they have in this the support of neutrals (Switzerland, Sweden, Spain, and possibly Turkey), who are prepared to give temporary shelter to Jewish refugees from massacres.http://www.paulbogdanor.com/zionistrescue.html
This example is itself sufficient to judge Greenstein's attitude to the truth. But wait: there is his claim that the Zionists were praised in the introduction to the Nuremberg Laws!
Indeed the introduction to the Nuremburg Laws stated [...] "The ardent Zionists of all people have objected least of all to the basic ideas of the Nuremburg Laws because they know that these laws are the only correct solution for the Jewish people too."
Now the alleged source is an invention: no "introduction" to the Nuremberg Laws stated anything of the kind. Nicosia's book quotes (page 53) a similar statement by an official in the German Interior Ministry, but even here Greenstein has to mangle his sources: the phrase "ardent Zionists" does not appear.
The scholarly consensus on Nazi attitudes to Zionism is summarised by Jeffrey Herf in his article "Convergence: The Classic Case: Nazi Germany, Anti-Semitism and Anti-Zionism during World War II," Journal of Israeli History, Vol. 25, No. 1, March 2006. I quote from the abstract:-
Despite granting permission for limited Jewish emigration to Palestine in the 1930s, the ideology and policy of the Nazi regime never supported establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine. During World War II, Hitler's ideologically consistent view that such a state would be a branch of an international Jewish conspiracy converged with shorter-term efforts to gain Arab and Islamic support for the Third Reich's military goals in the Middle East. The ideological convergence of anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism found expression in the works of Nazi propagandists as well as in the speeches and radio addresses of Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, broadcast from wartime Berlin to the Middle East.http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a741522988
The Nazis were planning the total annihilation of the Jews of the Middle East. In this they had the enthusiastic support and promised collaboration of the Arab nationalist leaders. The latest findings are summarised by German historians Klaus-Michael Mallmann and Martin Cuppers in their paper, "Elimination of the Jewish National Home in Palestine," Yad Vashem Studies, Vol. 35, 2007. Here is their concluding paragraph:-
It is obvious that the history of the Middle East would have taken a far different course, and it probably would never have been possible to establish a Jewish state if the project described here had been made a concrete reality by the joint action of the Germans and Arabs. It was only thanks to El Alamein and the second Allied front that opened up in November 1942 in North Africa that the Yishuv - at the time nearly half a million Jews in Palestine - was spared and survived.http://www1.yadvashem.org/about_holocaust/studies/vol35/Mallmann-Cuppers2.pdf
Greenstein's tales of Nazi-Zionist conspiracies effectively whitewash the Nazi plans to annihilate half a million Zionist Jews. But these Orwellian perversions of fact come naturally to him. As I wrote during his previous appearance on this site:-
According to Greenstein, Jews should be thankful for the "million plus who managed to escape into Russia from Poland and the Ukraine." So what if the "escape" was a mass deportation carried out by the NKVD in collaboration with the Gestapo, in which "old people, cripples, mothers of children were sent with their children" to "die of hunger, cold and disease"?Source: Yosef Litvak, "The Plight of Refugees From the German-Occupied Territories," in Keith Sword, ed., The Soviet Takeover of the Polish Eastern Provinces, 1939-41 (St. Martin’s Press, 1991), pp. 67-9.
Greenstein deplores the Zionist struggle for a Jewish army to fight Nazism while celebrating the mass deportation of Jews to the Gulag as a result of the Soviet alliance with Nazism.
http://www.paulbogdanor.com/greenstein7.html
It seems that Greenstein is capable of lying about almost anything if the lies further his "argument" for the destruction of Israel. Is it surprising that he closes his latest comment by denying the genocidal antisemitism of Hezbollah and Hamas?
Posted by: Paul Bogdanor at November 23, 2007 11:17 AMTony Greenstein, you cut quite a tragic figure. I really feel for you - I do - standing there with the hechshers in your hand, only to find that the game's moved on, and that antisemitism is the new anti-Zionism. Outside your little coterie of anti-Zionist Jews, nobody, to the left or right of you, can be expected to understand the nebulous criteria by which you determine the line between antisemitism and anti-Zionism. To the untrained eye the difference seems rather arbitrary, and has less to do with some obvious distinction than you and Elf being a bitter that the antisemites don't need to pay you a tribute to get their anti-Zionist credentials rubber-stamped: Gilad's been handing out free passes for all, and who can blame them for going to him for kosherization?
No-one cares for your convoluted ahistorical lessons any more, for your apologies for every brown-skinned antisemite or for your subtle distinctions between resistance antisemitism and actual antisemitism. Everybody knows that anti-Zionism can never be construed as antisemitism - right? - and if Gilad calls himself an anti-Zionist, well, he can't be an antisemite, can he?
Bacon is the new chopped liver, and no amount of whinging is going to put your antisemitic genie back in the bottle. You've served your purpose. Time to move on. Have you thought about Jews for Jesus?
Posted by: Tim Allon at November 23, 2007 11:19 AMTony Greenstein responds and I can only say that his own contribution deserves a compete trashing. Mary McCarthy once said about Lillian Hellman's Soviet apologetics, “Everything she says is a lie, including and and the.” I feel the same sentiment about the words of Tony Greenstein.
1. Greenstein says that I am a “good friend” of Atzmon. This is simply inaccurate. It is certainly true that I have met Atzmon, yet that is what I do, I meet extremists for a hobby. Over the years I have met many and Iwould not refer to any of them as my “friend.”
2. Greenstein says that Atzmon has thanked me for digging up articles that attack him. That is true, there are many articles that are critical of Greenstein and rightly so. I note that in one on line discussion on the peacepalestine blog, I got into a debate with Paul Eisen. In that debate Eisen agreed that on the balance of probabilities he does not belive that there were gas chambers at Auschwitz. Greenstein has subsequently quoted Eisen for those words, but unlike Atzmon, does not have the manners to thank me for exposing someone. Does the fact that Greenstein has used that quote from Eisen mean that Zionists and anti-Zionists collaborate?
3. Greenstein admits he would like the British state to be destroyed, yet he spends hours and hours of his time and he has done for nearly thirty years attacking the Israeli state. He clearly singles out the State of Israel for his personal attacks and devotes a substantial amount of time doing so. In his letter to the left-wing paper where he said that he wanted the State of Israel to be destroyed for example, he did not add that he wanted Britain to be destroyed. He clearly singles out Israel and that is a disgrace.
4. Greenstein now refers to that old chestnut, the JNF and access to state lands in Israel. The argument is something along the lines that the JNF is a Jewish National Fund that owns much of the land in Israel and Arabs cannot purchase it. This is true – but neither can Jews. The land is owned by the State. Greenstein’s argument makes as much sense as saying Black people in the UK cannot purchase land owned by the National Trust – true – but neither can whites.
5. Greenstein states that Atzmon is not an anti-Zionist. This is laughable. One look at any of the writings of Atzmon will show that he spends his time attacking Zionism.
6. Greenstein adds that in his opinion Atzmon is an antisemite. I have stated that in my post and he may note that my post is headed “Jews and Jew Haters.” Maybe Greenstein did not read the title of my post.
7. Greenstein then goes back and mentions again that David T and myself went for a drink with Atzmon and quotes David T as saying that he enjoyed having Atzmon as a drinking companion. What Greenstein fails to note is that David T, along with Oliver Kamm has been the most ardent critic of Atzmon in his posts. Any search on Harry’s Place for the name “Atzmon” and a look at the articles by David T will immediately see that is the case. Greenstein sees what he wants to see and ignores what he doesn’t. As I have mentioned above, for a hobby, and I can add for research, I meet extremists. David T was aware of this and found it quite interesting and I suggested to him that he may want to come to one of my extremist meetings at one stage. He was intrigued and as he had written so much negative information about Atzmon, he agreed. It is as simple as that.
8. Greenstein defends Mark Elf as a committed anti-Zionist but has nothing to say about the quote that I used from Elf where Elf stated last week, “I think, is this propensity for sheer instinctive dishonesty has become a habit of mind with many, maybe most, Jews.” What has this got to do with anti-Zionism?
9. Greenstein, continuing to defend Mark Elf says that he has never said that Zionists control the press. I quoted Mark Elf directly in my post, Elf said, Zionists are “dominating, if not controlling, the whole media”. Greenstein’s statements seem to come straight from the George Orwell’s Big Brother hand book.
10. Greenstein then launches into a tirade criticizing the mainstream media for not supporting the boycott of Israel and that is evidence of their support for Zionism. Maybe Greenstein does not consider the more logical point – the boycott is racist in effect as it singles out Israeli Jews for boycott and no one else. The barrister who wrote the Race Relations act who knows a thing or two about racism was also against the boycott. It may well be that the mainstream is anti-racist and that Greenstein himself supports a racist policy.
11. Greenstein then uses a straw man argument. He suggest that I and others accuse “any and every critic of Israel, not even anti-Zionists, of ‘anti-Semitism’.” I have never criticized simple critics of Israel of antisemitism and nor do I believe has any mainstream Zionist organization in the UK. There is no problem with criticizing Israel, it is demonization of Israel that is a problem and it is demonization that Greenstein carries out. Greenstein should refer to the EUMC (European Union Monitoring Committee) working definition of antisemitism that was also supported by the British Parliamentary report into anti-Semitism.) This particular report makes very clear what is and what is not antisemitism. If Greenstein paid attention to it, he would find that he would not be accused of antisemitism himself. He believes he knows better than the British parliament and the European Union and all major Jewish bodies in the UK on what constitutes antisemitism. As well as everything else, Greenstein suffers from an appalling level of arrogance.
12. Greenstein says that he identifies as anti-racist and that I indentify with chauvinism. You could have fooled me. How many “antiracists” like Greenstein have had their work praised by the far-right wing National Front as Greenstein has? The National Front has certainly never praised anything that I have written.
13. Greenstein then resorts to his favourite subject of Zionist Nazi collaboration. Despite the fact that on the link I my main post, I show where I completely pulled Greenstein’s argument apart, he reiterates it. – See link in main post.
14. Greenstein argues that Zionists, during the Holocaust “opposed rescue to any country but Palestine.” He ignores The official view of the Jewish Agency in so far as Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany was concerned and was outlined in the January 19, 1939 edition of London’s Zionist Review, “Zionists are anxious to find any place under the sun which will afford Jewish refugees the prospect of escape.”
15. Greenstein uses a reference by Francis R. Nicossia to suggest that there was some commonality between the Zionists and the Nazis. He ignores substantial information that Nicossia mentions on pages 24-8 of the same book – Hitler delivered his first major speech on the Jewish question on August 13, 1920, where he concluded his comments on Zionism by stating, “the whole notion of the Zionist state and its establishment is nothing more than a comedy.” Hitler’s view, as outlined in Mein Kampf was based on the idea that the Jews wanted a state in Palestine because they wanted “a central organisation of their international cheating, endowed with prerogatives, withdrawn from the seizure of others – a refuge for convicted rascals and a high school for convicted rogues.” According to Francis R. Nicosia, there was “a fundamental ideological hostility and incompatibility between National Socialism and a Zionist movement that was considered to be merely an instrument of a monolithic Jewish world conspiracy.”
16. Greenstein makes one of is standard Zionist Nazi comparisons by suggesting that Zionists by not criticizing the State of Israel are like Germans who did not criticize Nazi Germany. Firstly this comparison is beneath contempt and I refer him yet again to the EUMC working definition on antisemitism for making such a comparison. Despite this, you only have to look at the pages of the Isareli newspaper Ha’aretz on any given day to see numerous Zionist critics of the actions of the State of Israel.
17. Greenstein moves on to twisted logic – Whilst he says that Atzmon is not an antisemite, he argues that it poses no danger to the Jews – only to the Palestinians!!! This is bizarre beyond belief. The fact that according a newspaper report, Atzmon believes it is rational to burn down a synagogue, in the world of Tony Greenstein –cloud cuckoo land – this pays no danger to Jews – only to Palestinians. As well as being arrogant, Greenstein is clearly also an idiot.
18. Of course Greenstein disagrees with Steve Cohen’s view of antisemitism as any reading of Cohen’s book and a subsequent reading of the output of Tony Greenstein will lead one tio the inevitable conclusion that Geenstein’s work can be interpreted as antisemitic in effect.
19. Greenstein suggests I blindly support Israel’s every action – another fallacy of his. He cannot stop telling lies it seems.
20. Greenstein does not think it bizarre that he can claim that Hamas and Hizbollah are not antisemitic but he has nothing to say about the words from the Hamas covenant that I directed him to in my main post.
21. Finally Greenstein defends Bhukari for funding a Holocaust denier. Greenstein, in sympathy, says “he wasn’t aware, as he has said, of who Irving was.” The fact that the fighting fund that Irving set up was specifically for his court case to oppose Deborah Lipstadt who had correctly called Irving a Holocaust denier is not something that Greenstein cares to mention. Bhukari voluntarily sent Irving £60 and if Greenstein for one second believes that Bhukari did not know what that money was for, then Greenstein clearly is in cloud-cuckoo land. Greenstein ignores the facts and chooses to believe what he wants to believe.
Tony Greenstein is simply a disgrace. The National Front compared Greenstein’s own work favourably to the work of Richard Harwood’s Holocaust Denial book. His own writings are odious and should be avoided like the plague by genuine antiracists.
Correction to point 17.. The first sentence should read "Greenstein moves on to twisted logic – Whilst he says that Atzmon is an antisemite, he argues that it poses no danger to the Jews – only to the Palestinians!!!"
Posted by: Mikey at November 23, 2007 12:14 PMTony Greenstein: "I realise that this blog is peopled by Zionists so this will have to be my one-off contribution."
Translation: I realise my catalogue of lies and misrepresentations is going to be systematically exposed and destroyed, so I'll excuse my lack of coherent rejoinders in advance.
Great article and excellent response to Greenstein, Mikey. I was hoping someone would have the energy and knowledge to methodically debunk his verbiage.
Posted by: Tim Allon at November 23, 2007 12:19 PMit's good that Tony Greenstein occasionally posts at HP, not for the sake of his rambling, errors strewn and ahistorical account, but for the rebuttals
we should congratulate Mikey, he has been forensically dissecting Greenstein's intellectually incoherent posts for ages, and deserves credit
I don't think I would have such patience
Posted by: modernityblog at November 23, 2007 12:23 PMI'm just a sucker for punishment - but I thank Tim and Modernity for their comments.
Posted by: Mikey at November 23, 2007 12:29 PMBelow is a copy of the email I have sent to Tim from my hotmail account. I must confess, I am flattered that you took the time to google me so extensively in your eagerness to verify my existence. However, despite your obsessive, conspiratorial nature, ‘I blog therefore I am’ will have to suffice.
Dear Tim,
Yes I do remember my name thank you. I have a nationality, a God, a belief system - not Alzheimer’s!
Stravovski' is actually my name before marriage & given your bizarre conduct, I will certainly not be divulging the name I now have & use professionally. The last thing I need is you & your brethren hopping about outside my lectures waving placards...
I hope you have convalesced form your broken heart,
Y
X
Gilad / Yael,
Thank you for your e-mail. Given that the reason you contacted me in the first place was in order to confirm your real world existence, it is odd that you would try and paint me as a stalker for the crime of Googling your putative surname. Funnily enough, when I Googled your surname again today I found it listed in the Harry's Place archives, so I guess Yael's become your regular sock puppet, and it stands to reason that you'd have held onto the e-mail address.
You have provided no evidence to suggest that you are who you say you are. That is entirely your prerogative, but for all the reasons mentioned earlier, no-one believes you, and no purpose is served by your contacting me unless it's to show that you might be who you say you are. So far all you've proved is that your e-mail address was fake and that your surname was probably made up.
As you know, I never revealed your supposed surname, your e-mail address, or the contents of any of your e-mails, because in the highly unlikely event that you do exist, I would not wish to be guilty of betraying any confidences. So, there must be some other reason why you are averse to settling the question of your existence: presumably the fact that you don't exist. As I write this, I have an image of a saxophonist in a dress. It's not pleasant.
As for my heartbreak - well, time's a great healer. Thank you for helping me to laugh again. I'm forever in your debt for that at least.
Posted by: Tim Allon at November 23, 2007 03:57 PMCongratulations Yael your putative maiden surname is so rare as to only elicit 4 returns when Googled. No make that 3 because one is a previous posting of yours to HP.
Of those 3, two are sourced to the same comment by a Spanish language Chilean TV blog commenter who writes:
Bienvenido Yo tambien soy de Pto Montt
Actores conocosco a:
-Gloria munchmayer (Me pidio un espejo no puedo catalogarla si es simpatica o no :roll: )
-pato Stravovski (es vecino de mi tia, esta medio rayado :roll: )
esos actores... :D
My Spanish-English internet translator translates the line mentioning your putative maiden surname as:
the duck of Stravovski (it's neighboring my aunt is what this line means :roll:)
And the final Google return for Stravovski brought up a comment on "Bloggy Giveaways .com" (a site offering internet gifts) which reads:
If I were to win, I have found that the Haley Fresh Water Rose Pearl earrings and the Queen Stravovski crystal chandalier earrings would be excellent Christmas presents to give to my girls. They would love them just as much as I do !!! Please enter me in for this wonderful prize.
Posted by: Debbie | November 08, 2007 at 09:36 AM
Anyways odd isn't it that outside your own blog comments your putative surname only appears on the internet as either that of a duck owner neighboring a Chilean TV blog commenter's aunt's place or as "Queen Stravovski crystal chandalier earrings"?
Oh and btw, Yael your own essentialist, dehumanizing and condescending language targeting Jews is in fact racist and repugnant exactly like Atzmon's. So frankly, the importance of whether or not you are a Gilad Atzmon sockpuppet pales in relation to your pathetic lack of an individual style of writing that would in anyway distinguish you from Atzmon.
Your university students, assuming you have any, apparently have an Atzmon imitating Zombie for a professor. Too bad he isn't teaching them himself, then at least they'd be getting the real thing instead of its vehicle. But I suppose if Atzmon himself hasn't got what it takes to be an academic, you're the next best alternative.
Posted by: left, but not antizionist at November 23, 2007 04:41 PM
Funny, Stravovski doesn't turn up even once (under multiple spellings) in a Hebrew language search on Google's Israel site.
Posted by: left, but not antizionist at November 23, 2007 04:53 PMThank you to Mikey and Paul Bogdanor for their answers to Greenstein.
Greenstein: you are a shameless liar, man! What do you do for living? write emails asking for help to retrieve a million-dollar account from a Nigerian bank?
Posted by: Fabian from Israel at November 23, 2007 04:59 PMLBNAZ: Pato is a nickname for Patricio. (Patrick, in English). A male name.
Posted by: Fabian from Israel at November 23, 2007 05:02 PM"-pato Stravovski (es vecino de mi tia, esta medio rayado :roll: )"
Translation: Patricio Stravovski (he is my aunt's neighbor, he is a little crazy, ROFL)
Posted by: Fabian from Israel at November 23, 2007 05:05 PMAnd...how often does "СТРАВОВСКИЙ" (ie the Russian spelling of what is presumably a Russian surname) turn up in Google?
Not so much НИ РАЗ (not one time) as НИ РАЗУ (not at all).
A few variant spellings (including how it would presumably read in Ukrainian) are equally fruitless.
Funny, eh?
Posted by: Venichka at November 23, 2007 05:12 PMThanks Fabian. Is Patricio in Chile a relative of Yael's? Or is that a different Stravovski family altogether?
Yet with hardly any Stravovskis turning up in Venichka's searches and none showing up in Israel, it just seems possible that Yael found a Russian sounding surname with the expert assistance of Atzmon's antisemitic friend and name changing guru, Israel 'I'm a Russian Jew converted to Christianity... oh actually, I'm not, I'm really a Swede" Shamir.
Oh and to the disgrace that is Tony Greenstein, whereas Atzmon only manages to spew bile and hate filled potshots at you, Mikey and Paul Bogdanor have squashed your claims and proven them to be lies and sheer idiocy so thoroughly that your best option is to buy and wear one of these
I was a little more creative with the spellings and got some pretty good results:
Starvoski: 63 results
Svaroski: 12,400 results
Svarovski: 109,000
Swarovski: 19,500,000
So it seems there's a perfectly innocent explanation after all. Yael's simply misspelled the name - a easy mistake to make. I get names wrong all the time. Admittedly, not my own.
Posted by: Tim Allon at November 23, 2007 08:54 PMAnd so ends tonight's episode of Just How Pathetic is Gilad Atzmon?
Posted by: goodwin sands at November 24, 2007 01:33 AMWith a mother like his, what chance did Gilad have? Like so many Jewish converts to Christianity before him, he thinks that antisemitism is the essence of culture, the height of sophistication. Pity him. Unfortunately, it does nothing to disguise the fact that as a jazz musician, he is fairly mediocre.
As for the other anti-Zionist Jews, Greenstein etc. It was amusing to see Tony Greenstein and Stephen Marks getting furious at 'Lenin' and Johng, because they would not condemn Islamicist homophobia. There is nothing wrong with being gay. But when you try to maintain (implicitly) that this is the way forward for Anglo- and other Jewry, or is a viable future for Jewish culture in general, while at the same time supporting Islamophic cultures against the tolerant Jewish state of Israel, one cannot help but sympathise with Greenstein's and Marks' position.
It's hard being the only Jewish gays in the Anti-Zionist Jewish village.
