In his contribution from the floor, Roland Rance of Jews Against Zionism stated, “We are told that we call for the destruction of Israel.... We are told all sorts of positions that we don’t hold.” He went on to say: “No, we are not saying ‘Smash Israel’ or ‘Destroy Israel.’”
Oh, really? In a letter to Weekly Worker No. 634, July 20, 2006, Roland Rance’s comrade Tony Greenstein stated, “Yes, I want the state of Israel to be destroyed.”
Update
This post had been cross posted to Harry's Place and the comments from that post, I have copied into the comments of this post.
3 comments:
Comments
Abou Diaby
16 October 2008, 11:57 am
Wow Mikey, you really showed him. You win the internet. WOO HOO!
Michael
16 October 2008, 12:56 pm
You are an idiot. The state is a body of co-ercive bureaucratic and military force that stands above society, and is not the same as a people or nation. You have not ‘found out’ anybody and are an idiot. Why? Lets explore. The Israeli people overthow their own state, ’smashing it’. Have they just destroyed themselves? No. Idiot.
Django
16 October 2008, 12:59 pm
Uh?
Mikey
16 October 2008, 1:04 pm
Michael,
Can you repeat that in a way that makes some kind of logical sense?
Mark T
16 October 2008, 1:21 pm
Michael -
Your rather strange comment only makes sense if Mikey had reported Rance as saying he wants to smash Israelis.
He didn’t though.
You’re either a bit confused, or an idiot.
Nearly Oxfordian
16 October 2008, 1:23 pm
Both, I’d say.
Michael
16 October 2008, 1:43 pm
“Your rather strange comment only makes sense if Mikey had reported Rance as saying he wants to smash Israelis.
He didn’t though. ”
Yes he did: ” He (Rance) went on to say: “No, we are not saying ‘Smash Israel’ or ‘Destroy Israel.’”
Oh, really? In a letter to Weekly Worker No. 634, July 20, 2006, Roland Rance’s comrade Tony Greenstein stated, “Yes, I want the state of Israel to be destroyed.”
And the title is ‘Roland Rance exposed’. If it is not implied he supports the destruction of Israel, then no-one has been exposed for anything have they?.
If quoting a comrade saying that the Israeli state (emphasis) should be destoryed is not meant to imply this, and neither is the remark “Oh, really?” placed directly after Rance affirming that he does not want Israel destroyed, then what is the point of any of the words in the article at all!?
Mikey
16 October 2008, 1:48 pm
Michael -
Roland Rance said :
we are not saying …‘Destroy Israel’
Tony Greenstein said:
I want the state of Israel to be destroyed
Can you not see some logical problem with this?
Mark T
16 October 2008, 1:50 pm
Tony Greenstein stated, “Yes, I want the state of Israel to be destroyed.”
The fact that you quote that, then go on to say
If it is not implied he supports the destruction of Israel, then no-one has been exposed for anything have they?
is just priceless.
Jaw-dropping stupidity.
MattG
16 October 2008, 2:03 pm
teehee
Michael, don’t slam the door on yer way out pal.
Matt
Django
16 October 2008, 2:10 pm
Bye Michael.
david Herman
16 October 2008, 2:13 pm
To cut through the nonsense - both Greenstien and Rance are long term anti-zionists who want to see Israel destroyed/disappear/be no more (take your pick) for some reason they believe the fact that they’re Jewish adds some moral weight to their position.
I believe they’re psychologically flawed fools who collaborate with the enemies of the Jewish people.
They should remember that in the Nazi ghettos of Europe and the townships of South Africa the first people that the resistance targeted were collaborators.
In less forgiving times they would be recei ving a necklace for hanukah!
Michael
16 October 2008, 2:43 pm
Mikey Said:
“Michael -
Roland Rance said :
we are not saying …‘Destroy Israel’
Tony Greenstein said:
I want the state of Israel to be destroyed
Can you not see some logical problem with this?”
No, because there isn’t one. Greenstein said the Israeli STATE should be destroyed, a state is not a people.
The Destruction of Israel implies military occupation or anhilation. The destruction of the Israeli STATE implies reconstituting a collective means of decision making, ie the government.
David Herman
16 October 2008, 3:02 pm
What do you think would happen to the people of Israel once the State of Israel is destroyed?
Sardonic
16 October 2008, 3:07 pm
Someone needs to remind Roland Rance of his long-time membership of (gasp) the Federation of Zionist Youth
David Herman
16 October 2008, 3:36 pm
Was Roland Rance the anti-zionist hard nut who used to sit and knit at the back of meetings?
Fabian from Israel
16 October 2008, 3:38 pm
“The destruction of the Israeli STATE implies reconstituting a collective means of decision making, ie the government.”
Apparently not to Rance and Greenstein, living peacefully under the protection of a state they don’t want to destroy.
Fabian from Israel
16 October 2008, 3:40 pm
Sorry, that was a response (sort of) to:
“What do you think would happen to the people of Israel once the State of Israel is destroyed?”
If the State of Israel is destroyed, then the people of Israel will be too.
Michael, if you want to destroy the State of Israel, get 61 Israeli MKs to vote for the motion, ok?
David Herman
16 October 2008, 4:03 pm
Fabian - thats my point exactly, its a knowingly ridiculous distinction.
modernity
16 October 2008, 4:16 pm
how anyone, even Greenstein and Rance, could argue that to destroy the “state of Israel” (in the face of the opposition of millions of Israelis) and that it would NOT lead to mass bloodshed and murder is beyond me.
it is not conceivable that you could destroy the “state of Israel” without murdering millions of Israelis
so that’s really what they are buying into
Michael, please don’t try to sanitize mass murder, it is rather unbecoming of you
ami
16 October 2008, 4:20 pm
I know I once chided mettaculture for making fun of people’s names, but I am sorry, I can’t take seriously someone called Roland Rance. My mental image veers between rancid, or twee like this: http://www.ratfans.com/
And, while Michael is a perfectly unremarkable name, his attempt at constructing this distinction gets an F in remedial sophistry.
David Herman
16 October 2008, 4:24 pm
Modernity, mass bloodshed is exactly what their buying into, their self-loathing knows no bounds.
modernity
16 October 2008, 4:29 pm
indeed David H,
but the “destroy Israel” mob won’t think the issue through or fully articulate the logic of their arguments, they can’t see where their views lead to: the murder of millions of Israelis
everyone else can see it, but they can’t.
David Herman
16 October 2008, 4:31 pm
indeed modernity, thankfully there’s the IDF that can in the last resort articulate our position.
Mark T
16 October 2008, 4:32 pm
Even if the state of Israel doesn’t involve the destruction of Israelis, that wasn’t even the word used.
The quote was “Israel” not “Israelis”.
Michael is a very low-watt bulb.
Mark Gardner
16 October 2008, 5:49 pm
Jews against Zionism in their own words, but taken from the pro Hizbollah website, Inminds:
“Jews Against Zionism is an organisation of Jews and others opposed to the Zionist movement and ideology, and to its impact on both Palestinians and Jews. We believe that the conflict in Palestine cannot be resolved without a return of Palestinian refugees and dismantlement of the Zionist structure of the state of Israel; and that this is impossible in the context of “two states“ and a re-partition of Palestine.
We advocate the only approach which can lead to peace with justice in the region; we call fro a unitary, secular and democratic Palestine, the return of Palestinian refugees, and full and equal rights for Palestinians, Israeli Jews, and all other people living in the whole of Palestine.”
Now, you can have a Talmudic disputation as to how the “dismantlement of the Zionist structure of the state of Israel” does not equal “smash Zionism” or “destroy Israel” but I’m in David Herman’s (considerable) shadow on this one. We know where Rance and Greenstein stand, we know their previous, and its exactly why pro-Hizbollah websites carry their propaganda. Duh.
Gor Nicht
16 October 2008, 8:08 pm
Hamas TV is making a new children’s programme with Rance. The song goes like this:
Roland Rance, Roland Rance
Roland Rance with his Palestine Pants
With his keys a-jangling
Zionism he’s dismantling
Roland locks the Jews up to a man
Roland Rance, Roland Rance
Roland Rance with his Palestine Pants
With his good friend Tony
He’s talking baloney
They’ll both be executed in Hamastan
S.O.Muffin
16 October 2008, 8:27 pm
Michael is a very low-watt bulb.
If only… Michael is a hypocrite who believes that mass murder and genocide can be sanitised by appropriate use of language. Don’t say “genocide”, say “collateral damage”. Don’t say “destroying Israel”, say “destroying State of Israel”. Means the same but, oh boy, how much ground for sophistry!
Because of course there are two ways of “destroying the Israeli state”. The one is for majority of MKs to decide to disband the state. This, I believe, will require a privileged majority of 80, rather than 61 (being a constitutional affair) but this is immaterial. Because Michael, like everybody else, knows perfectly well that it will never happen and that Israelis are perfectly aware what will be the consequences. But there is another way and it is contingent on destroying Israeli people in sufficient numbers for the state to be destroyed.
So, can we please have some frank views from you, Michael? Do you expect Israelis to destroy themselves or want somebody else to do so?
Nick
16 October 2008, 9:38 pm
I have it on good authority from Juan Cole that Tony Greenstein did not in fact say, ‘Yes, I want the state of Israel to be destroyed,’ but rather ‘I would like to see the Zionist Occupation Government erased from the pages of history.’ Furthermore, this is an obvious case of the Zionist-controlled media … err, hang on …
Nearly Oxfordian
16 October 2008, 11:15 pm
Does anyone genuinely believe that if 61, or 71, or 81 MKs vote ‘to dismantle (the State) of Israel’ - happy, Michael? - that will be the end of it? Come on …
Roley Poley Dahl
17 October 2008, 12:16 am
Very interesting and useful post Mikey. I didn’t know about the horrendous Roland Rance before, but I do now. Try as I might, I doubt if I will ever be able to erase that name from my mind.
Mikey
17 October 2008, 12:40 am
Roley Poley,
Roland Rance has a long history of anti-Zionism
You may be interested to know that Roland Rance was the editor of the magazine RETURN that ran for five issues between March 1989 and December 1990.
This magazine was distributed at the National Union of Students (NUS) conference in December 1989. Maeve Sherlock, the then President of NUS banned the sale of the magazine because she ruled that it was “anti-Semitic.” It was admitted that this was the case.
in the editorial of RETURN issue 2 (March 1990)
This was not the first time that Rance had got up to his tricks. On August 27 1987, he had a letter published in the Guardian praising the play Perdition. This is the same play where the noted historian Dr. David Cesarani was quoted seven months earlier as saying, was “one of the most serious examples of antisemitic thinking seen in this country for many years. It revives the antisemitism that goes back to The Merchant of Venice.”
Lin Jenkins and Robin Stringer, “Play cancelled after protests by Jews,” The Daily Telegraph January 22, 1987
We can go back even further: the Jewish Chronicle of November 11, 1977 reported the fact that Roland Rance had signed the BAZO (British Anti-Zionist Organisation) statement.
The Chairman of BAZO was Dr. George Mitchell, who got himself banned from Strathclyde Union and according to a news report in the Jewish Chronicle, in 1979 “Dr Mitchell attended a Jewish Society meeting at Strathclyde and took photographs of those present, threatening to send the pictures to Beirut.”
“BAZO leader to appeal,” Jewish Chronicle August 24, 1979 p. 5
This is also the same BAZO that Rance’s comrade Tony Greenstein admitted supported Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. (“Letters” New Statesman December 10, 1982)
Perhaps Roland Rance should have stuck to writing letters to the Jewish Chronicle complaining that the Federation of Zionist Youth (FZY) was using Donald Duck money boxes to collect donations. That was a long time ago. Those concerned about such matters will be pleased to know that the Zionist Federation accepts donations by credit card.
Mikey
17 October 2008, 12:45 am
Roley Poley Dahl
You may be interested to know that Roland Rance was the editor of the magazine RETURN that ran for five issues between March 1989 and December 1990.
This magazine was distributed at the National Union of Students (NUS) conference in December 1989. Maeve Sherlock, the then President of NUS banned the sale of the magazine because she ruled that it was “anti-Semitic.” It was admitted that this was the case in the editorial of RETURN issue 2 (March 1990) .
This was not the first time that Rance had got up to his tricks. On August 27 1987, he had a letter published in the Guardian praising the play Perdition. This is the same play where the noted historian Dr. David Cesarani was quoted seven months earlier as saying, was
one of the most serious examples of antisemitic thinking seen in this country for many years. It revives the antisemitism that goes back to The Merchant of Venice.
Lin Jenkins and Robin Stringer, “Play cancelled after protests by Jews,” The Daily Telegraph January 22, 1987
We can go back even further: the Jewish Chronicle of November 11, 1977 reported the fact that Roland Rance had signed the BAZO (British Anti-Zionist Organisation) statement.
The Chairman of BAZO was Dr. George Mitchell, who got himself banned from Strathclyde Union and according to a news report in the Jewish Chronicle, in 1979
Dr Mitchell attended a Jewish Society meeting at Strathclyde and took photographs of those present, threatening to send the pictures to Beirut.
“BAZO leader to appeal,” Jewish Chronicle August 24, 1979 p. 5
This is also the same BAZO that Rance’s comrade Tony Greenstein admitted supported Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. (“Letters” New Statesman December 10, 1982)
Perhaps Roland Rance should have stuck to writing letters to the Jewish Chronicle complaining that the Federation of Zionist Youth (FZY) was using Donald Duck money boxes to collect donations. That was a long time ago. Those concerned about such matters will be pleased to know that the Zionist Federation accepts donations by credit card.
Mikey
17 October 2008, 12:46 am
Roley Poley Dahl
You may be interested to know that Roland Rance was the editor of the magazine RETURN that ran for five issues between March 1989 and December 1990.
This magazine was distributed at the National Union of Students (NUS) conference in December 1989. Maeve Sherlock, the then President of NUS banned the sale of the magazine because she ruled that it was “anti-Semitic.” It was admitted that this was the case in the editorial of RETURN issue 2 (March 1990) .
This was not the first time that Rance had got up to his tricks. On August 27 1987, he had a letter published in the Guardian praising the play Perdition. This is the same play where the noted historian Dr. David Cesarani was quoted seven months earlier as saying, was
one of the most serious examples of antisemitic thinking seen in this country for many years. It revives the antisemitism that goes back to The Merchant of Venice.
Lin Jenkins and Robin Stringer, “Play cancelled after protests by Jews,” The Daily Telegraph January 22, 1987
We can go back even further: the Jewish Chronicle of November 11, 1977 reported the fact that Roland Rance had signed the BAZO (British Anti-Zionist Organisation) statement.
The Chairman of BAZO was Dr. George Mitchell, who got himself banned from Strathclyde Union and according to a news report in the Jewish Chronicle, in 1979
Dr Mitchell attended a Jewish Society meeting at Strathclyde and took photographs of those present, threatening to send the pictures to Beirut.
“BAZO leader to appeal,” Jewish Chronicle August 24, 1979 p. 5
This is also the same BAZO that Rance’s comrade Tony Greenstein admitted supported Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. (“Letters” New Statesman December 10, 1982)
Perhaps Roland Rance should have stuck to writing letters to the Jewish Chronicle complaining that the Federation of Zionist Youth (FZY) was using Donald Duck money boxes to collect donations. That was a long time ago. Those concerned about such matters will be pleased to know that the Zionist Federation accepts donations by credit card.
Oniad
17 October 2008, 1:00 am
The Destruction of Israel implies military occupation or anhilation. The destruction of the Israeli STATE implies reconstituting a collective means of decision making, ie the government.
-lets look at a previous historical example for some guidance;
The destruction of Imperial Russia implies military occupation or annihilation.
The destruction of the Imperial Russian STATE implies reconstituting a collective means of decision making, ie the government.
If I recall correctly, the second point led to a major civil war with significant death toll and the establishment of the USSR with concomitant increased death toll etc. I suspect this would be the path that Israel would go down.
The example of Apartheid South Africa could be provided - however one would need to consider how the Israeli’s (who constitute a majority in Israel) would benefit from possibly creating a state whereby they could become a minority and at the mercy of a people who have democratically elected a representative government which argues that suicide bombing (a war crime and/or crime against humanity according to Human Rights Watch) is a legitimate act of politics. Additionally, the same government, arguing from a religious position, has justified discrimination against all non-Muslim minorities (and secular Muslims also) and acted upon this to oppress them. I cannot immediately see any benefits to an Israeli minority in such a situation but I am open to suggestions.
Roley Poley Dahl
17 October 2008, 1:31 am
Hmm. Thanks Mikey. I should have guessed he has a form sheet as long as my arm.
Alan Ji
17 October 2008, 6:57 am
What reason is there to beleive that Roland Rance entirely endorses every word or phrase of Tony Greenstein?
GideonSwort
17 October 2008, 9:35 am
“Yes, I want the state of Israel to be destroyed.”
Well, this is getting kinda personal. As an IzroZioJoo makes me feel sorta threatened. So, if Greenstein is calling for my destruction, is he my enemy? If so, does this declaration constitute Casus Belli? Can I therefore state with justification that ‘yes, I want JAZ and Greenstein destroyed’?
Ere Tony, have I got it right, are you threatening uz?
Fabian from Israel
17 October 2008, 9:50 am
Gideon: Tony does it because he loves you. He knows what’s best for you. You can choose between IsraHell or the eternal love of our saviour, Tony Greenstein.
Mikey
17 October 2008, 10:59 am
Alan,
You ask:
What reason is there to beleive [sic] that Roland Rance entirely endorses every word or phrase of Tony Greenstein?
This is a good question. Roland Rance stood up and spoke as a representative of Jews Against Zionism. He did not speak in first person singular (”I”) but in the first person plural (”we”).
Roland Rance and Tony Greenstein have long collaborated with each other. To provide but a few examples - they were both supporters of BAZO, they were both supporters of the play Perdition, they were both on the editorial committee of RETURN magazine and they have both been prominent members of Jews Against Zionism.
If you look at the website of Jews Against Zionism you will see they have only published the work of three people - Roland Rance, Tony Greenstein, Arthur Nelson and John E. Richardson. (As an aside, I can assure you that the works of Tony Greenstein are riddled with errors.)
Whilst, no doubt, Rance and Greenstein do not agree with each other 100% on each issue, Rance was speaking on a substantive matter on behalf of his organisation. He used the phrase “We.” In practice Jews Against Zionism is simply Rance and Greenstein -but they may get a few hangers on turn up to their meetings.
As a different aside, Rance’s 1981 essay Descent from Mount Zion is quite amusing. It is about his journey from being a Zionist active in the Federation of Zionist Youth (FZY) that led him to studying in Jerusalem rather than at a British university. The thing that made him “very bitter and hastened [his] return to England” was the fact that the Israeli government were not paying him a full grant but a lower amount because he was a temporary citizen of Israel as opposed to have taken full citizenship. We can conclude - Roland Rance turned up in Israel, they educated him and paid him a grant to study there. His subsequent behaviour is somewhat ungrateful!
Zkharya
17 October 2008, 1:09 pm
“Roland Rance, Tony Greenstein, Arthur Nelson and John E. Richardson.”
That’s four people.
quare fella
17 October 2008, 1:24 pm
Tony Greenstein is a funny fellow. He left yeshiva because he ‘couldn’t stand the racism’. He’s married to a gentile Christian, has a non-Jewish daughter and he is observant in no Jewish practice whatsoever.
When he expresses his views ‘as a Jew’, he can only mean ‘Jewish’ in a genetic or ‘racial’ sense, and/or ‘Jewish’ in the sense that a quasi-Christian Jewish apostate thanks himself more truly Jewish than regular Jewish Jews. He’s a queer sort of gas bag.
Mikey
17 October 2008, 2:55 pm
Zkharya,
You are correct of course. Sorry about the error! Unlike Tony Greenstein, I am prepared to admit a blunder. The point does not change. I attended a “big meeting” of theirs in the last year or two where they had two “big” speakers - Lenni Brenner from New York and Uri Davis. The meeting was above a pub near Euston. There were not many people there.
David All
18 October 2008, 3:44 am
Mikey, good job in exposing these two anti-Israeli acitivities who hide under a nominal Judaism.
Surely Roland Rance is a joke name just like Biggus Dickus!
(Sorry I am not internet savy enough to post a direct link to appropriate scene, you will just have to google Biggus and link from there.)
Tony Greenstein
18 October 2008, 5:26 am
Even by his own standards Herman’s comments calling for ‘necklacing’ of anti-Zionist Jews are disgraceful so it’s no accident to see Mark Gardener of the misnamed Jewish Security Trust endorsing them.
Yes I want to see the Israeli state, as a Jewish state destroyed, just as I wanted to see the South African state under apartheid destroyed. Quite simple even for the most feeble brains on here.
Herman, the ex Union of Jewish Students officer, an organisation which opposed no platform for fascists and racists whilst supporting it for anti-Zionism, clearly forgets that the collaborators killed in the Nazi ghettos were primarily the Zionists, who were of course overrepresented on the Judenrat, the instruments of deportation and death.
But no doubt like most Zionists Herman believes the Judenrat were a good thing to be defended. Just as Mikey defends the Zionist collaborator Rudolf Kastner, who betrayed 1/2 million Hungarian Jews as well of course as befriending (in so far as Mikey can befriend anyone) Gilad Atzmon, another anti-Semite. Yup. Even today Zionists go out of their way to find an anti-Semite to collaborate with.
Not much wonder that the BNP website is described by the Board of Deputies as the most pro-Zionist of them all.
But then hermann and his ilk no all of this. Eg:
But as Heinrich Class, President of the Pan German League, who on Hitler’s’ elevation to power was made an honorary member of the Reichstag, wrote:
Those who regard the Jews as a foreign race, which despite its partici-pation in all the products of our culture, did not become German… must rejoice over the fact that among the Jews themselves the nationalist movement called Zionism is gaining more and more adherents „ One must take ones’ hat off to the Zionists, they admit openly and honestly that their people are a folk of its own kind whose basic characteristics are immutable.. they also declare openly that a true, assimilation of the Jewish aliens to the host nations would be impossible according to the natural laws of race,.. the zionists confirm what the enemies of the Jews, the adherents of the racial theory have always asserted,… German and Jewish nationalists are. of one opinion in regard to the indestructibility of the Jewish race.” If I Were the Kaiser, 1912, D Prymman (pseudonym).
As that good Zionist Dawidowicz noted:
German anti-Semites regarded Class’s book as ‘ trailblazing’ and his influence on the National Socialists was decisive. [Lucy Dawidowicz ‘War Against the Jews’, Pelican 1975 p.88.]
But anyway David, dream on with your psycho sexual dreams.
Fabian from Israel
18 October 2008, 11:35 am
Tony, I am not new to the discussion, and I can see that your speech is full of disingenuous lies, which you utter consciously.
You call Mikey a friend of Atzmon, knowing that it is bullshit.
After that, there is absolutely nothing in your comment that I or anyone else can take seriously.
Learn to speak the truth, baby.
modernity
18 October 2008, 2:40 pm
Fabian,
you’re wasting your breath, you’ll get more sense out of a dead budgerigar than Tony Greenstein, he mangles history with a vengeance.
johng
18 October 2008, 3:58 pm
“it is not conceivable that you could destroy the “state of Israel” without murdering millions of Israelis”
Nonsense. The Aparthied State in South Africa was destroyed and it did not lead to the murder of millions of white south africans (although propaganda that this would be inevitable had been a mainstay of both domestic and international support for that state, and was assumed to be inevitable by many). Therefore whether you accept such parrallels or not, it is not at all inconcievable that you can destroy a state without destroying a people. And its also entirely clear to anyone who knows anything about anti-Zionist politics of the kind represented by Rance et al, that this is PRECISELY what they mean. Therefore there is no logical inconsistancy whatsoever and this post is entirely redundant. But everyone knew that already anyway didn’t they?
SnoopyTheGoon
18 October 2008, 5:36 pm
‘“Roland Rance, Tony Greenstein, Arthur Nelson and John E. Richardson.”
That’s four people.’
Zkharya,
With all due respect, even the number three is a bit exaggerated for this collection of half-wits. Just read that comment by GreenStalin on this thread, this is enough of an argument for lowering that number again.
modernity
18 October 2008, 5:56 pm
JohnG wrote:
“Nonsense. The Aparthied State in South Africa was destroyed and it did not lead to the murder of millions of white south africans (although propaganda that this would be inevitable had been a mainstay of both domestic and international support for that state, and was assumed to be inevitable by many).”
which fails completely to address the points raised by muffin (my emphasis):
“Because of course there are two ways of “destroying the Israeli state”.
The one is for majority of MKs to decide to disband the state. This, I believe, will require a privileged majority of 80, rather than 61 (being a constitutional affair) but this is immaterial. Because Michael, like everybody else, knows perfectly well that it will never happen and that Israelis are perfectly aware what will be the consequences.
But there is another way and it is contingent on destroying Israeli people in sufficient numbers for the state to be destroyed.“
exposinghypocrites
18 October 2008, 6:33 pm
I see Tony Greenstein is up to his usual tricks:
1) “the misnamed Jewish Security Trust”
Misnamed, that is, by Tony Greenstein. Presumably he means the Community Security Trust. Even when attacking his enemy’s name he can’t get it right.
2) “an organisation which opposed no platform for fascists and racists whilst supporting it for anti-Zionism”
Unlike Tony Greenstein, whose “no platform” policy amounts to holding a discussion with one of the leaders of the racist and fascist National Front!
3) “the collaborators killed in the Nazi ghettos were primarily the Zionists”
As Tony Greenstein knows, those killing the collaborators and fighting the Nazis were primarily the Zionists. The Warsaw Ghetto uprising was fought by the ZOB (mostly left-wing Zionists) and the ZZW (right-wing Zionists).
4) “befriending… Gilad Atzmon, another anti-Semite. Yup. Even today Zionists go out of their way to find an anti-Semite to collaborate with.”
Or so Tony Greenstein says. Now let’s see how he talks to Gilad Atzmon when he thinks no-one’s looking:
—– Original Message —–
Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2006 9:52 PM
Subject: Re: Gilad Atzmon @ The Vortex for 3 Nights
I shall be more than happy to hear you play the sax! Was going to drop you a line re your spat with Shamir …
Dare I say it, some of your remarks re the holocaust were spot on re the Zionist collaboration with the Nazis. And that is the point anti-Zionists should make rather than flirting with holocaust denial, or in Shamir’s case being a full blooded exponent.
regards
Tony Greenstein
In public Tony Greenstein calls Gilad Atzmon an anti-Semite and accuses Zionists of befriending him.
In private he tries to befriend this anti-Semite so the two of them can collaborate against the Zionists.
Roley Poley Dahl
18 October 2008, 7:02 pm
Absolutely fascinating and thought-provoking thread Mikey. So too is your new website “Anti-racists against anti-Zionists,” which I highly recommend. You have nailed one of the most unpleasant traits of these four people in your comment above. It is ingratitude.
Mikey
18 October 2008, 7:23 pm
Tony Greenstein has decided to contribute. This is the same Tony Greenstein, who, according to a letter from Nigel Savage, it is alleged
“led the intimidation of a Brighton Polytechnic Student, Brian Conn, who left his Jewish Society stall at Freshers Fair, in tears and thoroughly afraid, and who has not returned to the Poly since.”
Greenstein should explain why he was so heavily involved in the British Anti-Zionist Organisation (BAZ0) – an organization that was even denounced by many left-wing organizations as being anti-Semitic. [1]This was the same BAZO that was backed by the Saddam Hussein supporting National Union of Iraqi Students (NUIS) – an organization, according to a report by the National Union of Students (NUS), that intimidated, spied on, beat up and even stabbed other students. [2]
BAZO was also an organisation where such blatantly anti-Semitic points as the following were made. In 1979, trade unionist speaker Joseph Monaghan asked:
“Why did the Jews not bomb the ovens at Auschwitz and so stop the killings in the last war? With all the money they have, they could have got an air force. The Holocaust – the killing of six million Jews in Europe – was done by Nazis working with the Jews.” [3]
It is instructive to note that the same literature that was distributed by BAZO was also advertised by the neo-Nazi British Movement. [4]
It was therefore no surprise that NUS publicly condemned a BAZO leaflet entitled Against Zionism as antisemitic, and why its conference noted that BAZO literature was not dissimilar to that of the fascist National Front and therefore called upon NUS to ban BAZO activities “from its base in Strathclyde Union and any other campus in the United Kingdom.” [5]
By the Spring 1981 NUS Conference, BAZO were advertising that they were selling Alfred Lilienthal’s book – a book by an author who questioned the authenticity of The Diary of Anne Frank, who had signed a petition supporting a known Holocaust denier, and who was promoted by the National Front. The then President of NUS called the book “antisemitic,” warning delegates: “I don’t want to see this book at conference.” The NUS executive put out a statement at that conference, saying that
“the actions of BAZO help antisemites in their activities,”
and went on to add:
“We are not willing to allow BAZO to have stalls at our conferences, or publicise their material through our publications.”[6]
Despite all of this, Greenstein specifically referred to Lilienthal as a “reputable historian.” [7] Given Greenstein’s views on Lilienthal, it may be understandable as to why Greenstein spends time denouncing Searchlight, the leading anti-fascist magazine. [8]
Tony Greenstein admitted that he was involved in a “physical confrontation”with another student and also admitted that David Aaronovitch, the then President of the National Union of Students, had him banned from attending the NUS conference.[9]
I am not the only one to think that Tony Greenstein is disreputable as in 1986,Vicky Phillips, the then President of the National Union of Students urged people to write to Anti-Fascist Action expressing concern about Greenstein’s involvement in its steering committee because she thought that he being involved “brings the whole organization into disrepute?” [10]
But this was not all, because by the late 1980’s Tony Greenstein, along with Roland Rance, was on the founding editorial committee of, and he went on to become the editor of RETURN magazine.
This magazine was banned in 1990 by the National Union of Students by its then President Maeve Sherlock, in a decision actively supported by Steven Twigg, the next President of NUS (Steven Twigg went on to become a Labour Party Member of Parliament.) Other leading NUS members, including its Womens’ Officer also supported the decision of the President. As mentioned earlier, Maeve Sherlock specifically ruled that RETURN was “anti-Semitic.” [11]
Jewish students may join their Jewish Society for all manner of reasons – religious, cultural or social – but why did RETURN magazine hold the Union of Jewish Students in complete contempt, referring to them in an editorial as, “a wing of Israel’s propaganda network”? And why did Tony Greenstein argue that UJS “act as paid and unpaid informers for Mossad”? [12]
But what can we expect from Tony Greenstein, a person who wrote a pamphlet entitled Zionism: antisemitism’s twin in Jewish garb that he had published by Brighton Labour Briefing? That pamphlet was praised by the far right wing and antisemitic National Front who commented on his “painstaking researches” and referred to it as
“a seminal work, as important in its own way as was [Holocaust Denier Richard] Harwood’s ‘Did Six Million Really Die.’”
The effusive praise for Greenstein’s pamphlet from the National Front continued:
“fascinating and vital reading for the student of modern history ….his booklet is good. Read it and see!” [13]
Some may consider that all these activities in the 1980s and 1990s are in the past, but they can also consider his actions in more recent years, Tony Greenstein opposed Holocaust Memorial Day and went so far as to call it “obscene.”[14]
Asghar Bhukari, a spokesman for the Muslim Public Affairs Committee (MPACuk) was exposed for financing the Holocaust denier David Irving. [15] Despite this, in 2006, Greenstein went to Bhukari’s web site and sent him a very friendly message praising him for writing “a very excellent” article and for being “honest.” [16]
Even more recently, last month, Greenstein was making excuses for Jenna Delich. Delich is a member of the University and Colleges Union (UCU) and contributes to their activist list. Recently, and in order to attack “Zionists,” she linked to the web site of David Duke, the former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan. This disgraceful act was exposed on this blog. If Greenstein was a real campaigner against racism and fascism, he would be making a big fuss about Delich and would have congratulated Harry’s Place on their scoop. But no, not only does Greenstein not try and organise a campaign against Delich, he goes out of his way to defend her and at the same time he accuses the posters to Harry’s Place of being “hypocrites.” [17]
[1] Anne Sofer, “The South Bank shows its bias,” The Times October 1, 1984 p. 12
[2] Tim Jones, “Iraqi role in clashes questioned,” The Times July 28, 1983 p. 3
[3] “Little Southern Comfort,” Jewish Chronicle, March 23, 1979
[4] “Stuermer’ British style,” Jewish Chronicle, April 3, 1981
[5] Jenni Frazer, “UJS Learns to Push and Pull,” Jewish Chronicle, January 2, 1981
[6] “Students Ban BAZO,” Jewish Chronicle, April 10, 1981. The diary of Anne Frank was questioned by Alfred Lilienthal is his book, The Zionist Connection II: What Price Peace (North American Inc, 1982). The pages references are P. 481 and P. 849n71 The known Holocaust Denier that Lilienthal gave support to was Robert Faurisson. In 1980 Lilienthal had was one of the first signatories to a petition supporting him. Source: Werner Cohn “Chomsky and Holocaust Denial” in Peter Hollier and David Horowitz eds. The Anti-Chomsky Reader (Encounter Books, 2004) P 125 and P. 154n17
[7] Tony Greenstein “Antisemitism Through the Looking Glass: The UJS Thought Police,” RETURN No. 3 June 1990 pp. 21-25
[8] Ibid.
[9] “Letters,” Jewish Chronicle, July 24, 1981.
[10] Simon Rocker “Phillips waves the flag,” Jewish Chronicle December 26 1986
[11] See Unsigned Editorial, “NUS Attack on Freedom of Speech,” RETURN, No. 2, March 1990, pp. 4-5; Unsigned Editorial, “More Hypocrisy,” RETURN, No. 4, September 1990.
[12] Editorial, “Lies, Damn Lies and the UJS,” RETURN, No. 3, June 1990; Tony Greenstein, “The Fossilisation of Identity,” RETURN, No. 4, September, 1990.
[13] Philip Drax, “Book Review,” Sussex Front January 1983 p. 9
[14] “Letters,” The Observer, February 6, 2000
[15] Jamie Doward, “Muslim leader sent funds to Irving,” The Observer November 19, 2006
[16] http://www.mpacuk.org/content/view/3047/1/
[17] http://azvsas.blogspot.com/2008/09/witch-hunt-of-jenna-delich-pro-boycott.html
wardytron
18 October 2008, 7:55 pm
You may be interested to know that Roland Rance was the editor of the magazine RETURN that ran for five issues between March 1989 and December 1990
Blimey, he was editor of RETURN, was he, whatever that was? So presumably he’s as totally unimportant, irrelevant, uninfluential, useless and forgettable as Tony Greenstein, who also did something or other that no-one cares about.
Mikey
18 October 2008, 8:25 pm
Wardytron,
Yes, RETURN was a strange magazine. As the Jewish Chronicle reported there was:
a leaflet signed by numerous past and present NUS executive members as well as the president-elect Stephen Twigg condemning the magazine as “antisemitic.”
This was the very same magazine that Roland Rance first edited and Tony Greenstein who had been on the editorial committee with Rance became the editor.
Tony Greenstein
18 October 2008, 9:15 pm
However much Mikey twists and turns he can’t get out of the fact that he and Atzmon work together.
Mikey’s quote from Sussex Front is not only selective but took place in the context of my leading the anti-fascist fight against these scum in Brighton when Mikey’s friends were arguing against any No Platform position. The ‘review’ was written so the Jewish nationalists, as the NF described them, could use this as a stick to attack anti-fascists. Just another example of Zionist-Nazi collaboration.
As for NUS banning Return, it’s just another example of the hypocrisy of those who inhabit Harry’s Place. They believe in freedom of speech for racists but not anti-racists. Those who tried to ban Return are the same ones who deport asylum seekers today in New Labour.
The puerile racism of this ‘debate’ with idiots playing with peoples’ names on this list gives the game away, along with ‘necklacer’ Hermann, another prize idiot.
‘Mikey, can you provide us with the criminal record of this Bugger-Rance. Is he on spent conviction like greenie l or is he just an ordinary liar?
Gilad Atzmon | 03.12.07 - 8:00 pm | #
——————————————————————————–
I have been very busy digging up stuff on Tony Greenstein - Roland Rance will have to wait for another day.
Mikey | 03.12.07 - 8:53 pm | #
‘Mikey, I hope you do not mind me saying that, but your contribution for the pls solidarity movement is priceless. It is crucial that we all know about the racist record of this Greenpiss, a man who was banned time after time for being a racist and an anti Semite!
I really want to believe that this revolting violent man will feel some shame and take some time off to think about it all. But I doubt it.’
Gilad Atzmon | 03.04.07 - 10:46 am | #
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/thecutter/117192641046077827/
‘Mikey, I hope you do not mind me saying that, but your contribution for the pls solidarity movement is priceless. It is crucial that we all know about the racist record of this Greenpiss, a man who was banned time after time for being a racist and an anti Semite!
I really want to believe that this revolting violent man will feel some shame and take some time off to think about it all. But I doubt it.’
Gilad Atzmon | 03.04.07 - 10:46 am | #
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/thecutter/117192641046077827/
Again, again, I believe that Zionists like you can cope with philosophical thinking because Zionism is a Jewish ideological stand. RK, Ben Gurion and later Begin and Shmuel Tamir were operating within different interpretation of the very the same ideology. The political and legal aspects are nothing but a cover up of the real meaning of this saga.
You can cope with it, Greenie and Brenner can’t.
However, Good luck with Greenie and thanks for all the info you gave us about this low being.
Peace is the way forward
G
Gilad Atzmon | 03.08.07 - 4:02 pm |
wardytron
18 October 2008, 10:08 pm
I don’t mean any disrespect at all, Mikey, but: “a leaflet signed by numerous past and present NUS executive members”, even if it does include Stephen Twigg, fails to make Roland Rance or Tony Greenstein important.
A leaflet informing people of some special offers on takeaway pizza is going to be vastly more influential, because there are people who care about that, unlike revolutionary socialism. So Tony can be safely ignored.
exposinghypocrites
18 October 2008, 10:13 pm
Tony Greenstein is such a clown.
He admits his anti-Zionist pamphlet was praised to the skies by the neo-Nazi National Front, then he tries to make people believe it was “just another example of Zionist-Nazi collaboration.”
The problem is, Tony Greenstein also admits to meeting one of the leaders of those same neo-Nazis:
I once had a conversation with one of the leaders of the NF, Stephen Brady, who was also a member of the UVF. I asked him, why he was so bitterly opposed to Irish Catholics (although he was a Catholic himself) when they are white.
Why was Tony Greenstein asking this neo-Nazi to lighten up on Irish Catholics but not the Jews? I wonder if it has anything to do with Tony Greenstein’s support for the IRA:
The attack on Thatcher by the IRA was obviously legitimate. She was a military target. No doubt Kramm & Co. are happy with the bombing of Iraqi cities like Falluja but deem it ‘terrorism’ when the IRA targetted members of our own ruling class.
Then there’s the little matter of Tony Greenstein publicly attacking someone else for befriending Gilad Atzmon while privately emailing:
—– Original Message —–
Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2006 9:52 PM
Subject: Re: Gilad Atzmon @ The Vortex for 3 Nights
I shall be more than happy to hear you play the sax! Was going to drop you a line re your spat with Shamir …
Dare I say it, some of your remarks re the holocaust were spot on re the Zionist collaboration with the Nazis. And that is the point anti-Zionists should make rather than flirting with holocaust denial, or in Shamir’s case being a full blooded exponent.
regards
Tony Greenstein
I’ll be interested to see Tony Greenstein explain how Tony Greenstein trying to befriend an anti-Semite = Zionists befriending anti-Semites.
Maybe it’ll be as convincing as his theory that Tony Greenstein being praised by a neo-Nazi newspaper = Zionist-Nazi collaboration.
Stan
18 October 2008, 10:30 pm
Exposinghypocrites,
your ‘revelation’ reminds me of the Southpark episode:
Stan: “You mom was on the cover of ‘Crack Whore’”.
Cartman: “That was a long time ago”.
Stan: “It was last week, dude”.
Anon
18 October 2008, 11:13 pm
Ah the old ‘South Park Gambit.’
Guaranteed to win any argument over anything.
Al Gore must be kicking himself for not using it in his presidential debates.
Stan
19 October 2008, 12:50 am
Ah, the old ‘confusing a blog with an American presidential debate, as well as making a colloquial with an academic point, not to mention the comic with the serious’ gambit.
Which would explain a lot re. SWP, Johng, Tony Greenstein, Gilad Atzmon and co.
Mikey
19 October 2008, 2:01 pm
You may well have a point Wardy!
Thanks exposinghypocrites for your comments.
There was a very amusing debate that myself and Paul Bogdanor had with Tony Greenstein on the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty site. The whole debate has been copied to my blog. Below I copy my final contribution.
Before reading Greenstein’s words, we can note the following:
1. He admits that he would be quite happy if thousands of Jewish supporters of AIPAC were “vaporised.”
2. He would like to see “the Bush White House, the leadership of the Republican Party, New Labour’s cabinet” and many more also “vaporised.”
3. He endorsed the IRA bombing at a hotel in Brighton.
4. He has his work published by Neo-Nazis.
5. He acts as an apologist for Stalin.
6. He regurgitates Stalinist propaganda.
7. He dismisses Zionist efforts to combat the Final Solution.
8. He falsifies facts on the Holocaust
9. He lies about his sources.
10. He cites books that he has not read.
11. He cites unreliable sources as if they are reliable.
12. He admits that he supports the murderers of Hamas.
13. He believes Iranians are Arabs.
14. He believes in conspiracy theories.
15. He quotes the mass murdering Adolf Eichmann and believes him.
Having noted this, one can see why we has finally given up trying to defend his claims. With every sentence he writes, he makes a bigger fool of himself.
The debate is quite long so you would need time to read it but if you do you would note that Greenstein had said the following on the Alef list
“If every staffer in AIPAC were to be vapourised tomorrow, alongside Bush, Blair and Cheney, I wouldn’t lose a minute’s sleep.”
He also informed us that he
“would equally lose no sleep if the inhabitants of the White House were vaporised [sic].”
You would see that he supports the murderers of Hamas:
in the fight against the far more powerful and equally reactionary Israeli state I support all Palestinians, including Hamas, who stand up against that power.
And so it goes on…
I cannot end this post without commenting on Greenstein’s ludicrous assertion that I collaborate with Atzmon. There is nothing in his quotation of my words that shows that I do and of course it is completely false. Unlike Greenstein, as exposinghypocrites has shown above, I do not send Atzmon friendly emails saying that I want to hear him play jazz. But it is not just Greenstein, as in an edit to Wikipedia talk pages (2 September 2007), Roland Rance admitted that he has gone to hear Atzmon play live, he has listened to his CDs, read his books, corresponded with him and “met him several times.”
Res ipsa loquitur.
Nearly Oxfordian
19 October 2008, 3:00 pm
As for NUS banning Return, it’s just another example of the hypocrisy of those who inhabit Harry’s Place. They believe in freedom of speech for racists but not anti-racists.
You need professional help, pronto. You are free to post here, aren’t you?
Tony Greenstein
19 October 2008, 5:52 pm
Ah the oddballs on this list, king of whom is Mikey who is my internet stalker. How touching what he wrote to The Times when I forced them to eat humble pie and cough up for Mikey’s libellous comment on Aaronovitch’s blog.
Those of us who have done our time in the cause of anti-fascism don’t need any lessons from tykes who never lifted a finger except to attack other anti-fascists (which assumes they ever were of course).
I find Hermann’s comments interesting and Gardener’s endorsement of Hermann’s call for necklacing all the more interesting because it’s not the last that the louse Hermann will hear of them.
Hermann, unlike our deviant friend Mikey (where is your dirty mac Mike?) craves respectability. Even worked for Channel 4 I believe so it will be useful to throw back in his face his comments about necklacing, i.e. murder of Jewish anti-Zionists and the scumbag Gardener’s endorsement of him (’I'm in his shadow’).
The rest of the trash on this list (bar Michael of course!) aren’t worth responding to. Because that’s all you are - human trash. The kind the SA was stuffed with.
Tony Greenstein
modernity
19 October 2008, 7:08 pm
a direct question for Greenstein:
do you deny sending that email (as shown in the comment of 18 October 2008, 10:13 pm) to Atzmon, complimenting him?
Fred
19 October 2008, 8:06 pm
Greenstein claims Mikey is his internet stalker. Greenstein like many antisemites over the centuries portrays himself as a victim. So Mikey debates with Greenstein and this makes him an internet stalker. Greenstein is pure filth (and if last Sunday’s meeting is anything to go by he needs to apply some deodorant before he goes out).
Tony Greenstein
19 October 2008, 9:42 pm
I think Modernity needs to ask if the exchange I quoted above between Mikey and Atzmon is genuine (which he has already admitted to anyway) and then ask himself what it is that propels Zionists, even today, to reach out the hand of friendship towards anti-Semites.
Err yes Mr Exposinghypocrites (such lovely names Zionists invent for themselves!) I talked to Steve Brady, not long before we put him and a few of his comrades in hospital when they tried to take a stroll round town complete with Union Jacks. The point of course is not whether you talk to fascists. Any anti-fascist activist worth their salt has done that. The question is what is the purpose. And yes, the NF were attacking Catholics in Ireland not Jews at that time so it made even more sense.
But shock horror. I apparently supported the IRA. Not true. I supported Irish self-determination. It was for the people of Ireland to support the IRA. But I note that Stephen Brady, as a member of the UDA, was also an opponent of the IRA and a sectarian murderer therefore. Much like the Zionists on this list in fact.
But if Mikey and his alter-egos want to quote a fascist dirty tricks article, rather than the dozen or so attacking me fine. But the local press cited me as a spokesperson for anti-fascists on occasions too numerous to mention - not Mikey or Herman or any of the other gutter racists on HP. We were the ones who got attacked, beaten up etc. whereas Herman, Mikey et al. were penning their trite missives claiming how ‘anti-semitic’ we were. That’s why Redwatch features me on their web site. Having organised the demonstration that prevented John Tyndall speaking at this last public meeting before his death, that is quite understandable. Herman, Mikey et al of course don’t appear because they’ve never been involved in any anti-fascist work since their main efforts are defending racism in Israel. Little things like bombing civilians, starving civilians, torturing captives and of course dispossessing Palestinians.
But I notice Herman and Gardener have gone quite. Maybe they’ve found out that necklaces aren’t the most attractive pieces of jewellery after all.
Tony Greenstein
Mikey
19 October 2008, 9:45 pm
Greenstein calls me his “internet stalker.” Well, I started this thread and Greenstein appears. One wonders who is stalking who?
Greenstein talks about people attacking other anti-fascists. This reminds me of a comment a poster called Romarin left on a previous thread on this blog about Greenstein:
Way back in the late 70s my girlfriend and I arrived at the Brighton Resource Centre (the old one, eventually burned down by neo-Nazis) to help organise an anti-fascist event. On arrival we were confronted by the sight of an unprepossessing individual in a moth-eaten pullover (guess who?) haranguing a 14-year old schoolgirl, also a volunteer organiser, for having the temerity to wear a pro-Israel badge. The schoolgirl, who had been reduced to a distressed state, was led away by my girlfriend who commented in a stage whisper: “don’t mind Tony, he’s just an arsehole”. This subsequently became something of a catch-phrase amongst Brighton anti-fascists.
Moreover, as I mentioned earlier in this thread, in 1986,Vicky Phillips, the then President of the National Union of Students, urged people to write to Anti-Fascist Action expressing concern about Greenstein’s involvement in its steering committee because she thought that he being involved “brings the whole organization into disrepute?”
Mikey
19 October 2008, 9:58 pm
Tony Greenstein now claims that it is not true that he supported the IRA
People can compare that with his earlier statement on this blog in support of the Brighton bombing:
The attack on Thatcher by the IRA was obviously legitimate.
As Channel 4 reported, as a result of that bomb:
Five people were killed and over 30 were injured by the Semtex bomb.
This is the type of person Greenstein is - a supporter of murderers!
exposinghypocrites
19 October 2008, 11:24 pm
Tony Greenstein:
I apparently supported the IRA. Not true. I supported Irish self-determination. It was for the people of Ireland to support the IRA. But I note that Stephen Brady, as a member of the UDA, was also an opponent of the IRA and a sectarian murderer therefore.
Summary:
1) Tony Greenstein denies he supports the IRA, he just wants the Irish to support the IRA.
2) Tony Greenstein thinks ‘Irish self-determination’ means supporting a gang of killers hated by the people of Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic alike.
3) Tony Greenstein thinks anyone who doesn’t support the IRA is ‘a sectarian murderer therefore.’
More Tony Greenstein:
I talked to Steve Brady, not long before we put him and a few of his comrades in hospital when they tried to take a stroll round town complete with Union Jacks.
Summary:
1) Tony Greenstein tried to befriend one of the leaders of the neo-Nazi National Front.
2) Tony Greenstein’s bid to get the neo-Nazi to lighten up on the IRA didn’t work.
3) In response, Tony Greenstein boasts of committing assault occasioning GBH, a very serious criminal offence.
There’s still the matter of Tony Greenstein publicly accusing Zionists of befriending an anti-Semite when Tony Greenstein privately tried to befriend that same anti-Semite so they could both collaborate against Zionists.
What is his excuse for that, I wonder.
Tony Greenstein
20 October 2008, 1:25 am
How interesting, that the purveyors of free speech call for the murder of their political opponents on Harry’s Place!!
http://azvsas.blogspot.com/2008/10/ex-ujs-officer-david-herman-openly.html
Equally interesting that the Zionist clone above calls talking to a fascist, and I have even talked to Mikey, ‘befriending’. Such is the level of debate on HP these days.
I boasted of nothing, merely noting that the NF in Brighton had suffered a few casualties including the said Steve Brady. I was convicted of nothing. Brady, for the ignoramus’s information, was a UVF officer (Ulster Volunteer Force - a pro-Zionist outfit like the UDA), hardly an IRA supporter. In fact he could join scum like ‘hypocrite’ above.
Such is the level of ‘debate’ on HP that the morons are incapable of reading simple English. Even some of the fascists I met had a better command of English.
Oh and maybe David Gardner can tell us whether he is the one trousering between £100,000 and £110,000 for ‘fighting anti-Semitism’?
Tony Greenstein
20 October 2008, 1:31 am
Oh dear, the purveyors of free speech call for the murder of their political opponents on Harry’s Place!!
http://azvsas.blogspot.com/2008/10/ex-ujs-officer-david-herman-openly.html
Equally interesting that the Zionist clone above calls talking to a fascist, and I have even talked to Mikey, ‘befriending’. Such is the level of debate on HP these days.
I boasted of nothing, merely noting that the NF in Brighton had suffered a few casualties including the said Steve Brady. I was convicted of nothing. Brady, for the ignoramus’s information, was a UVF officer (Ulster Volunteer Force - a pro-Zionist outfit like the UDA), hardly an IRA supporter. In fact he could join scum like ‘hypocrite’ above.
Such is the level of ‘debate’ on HP that the morons are incapable of reading simple English. Even some of the fascists I met had a better command of English.
Oh and maybe David Gardner can tell us whether he is the one trousering between £100,000 and £110,000 for ‘fighting anti-Semitism’?
Human Trash
20 October 2008, 9:19 am
Tony,
I’m not condoning Mikey’s drink with Atzmon. But there is a difference between buying someone a drink or talking with them and with supporting (”Dare I say it…?”) some of their views on the holocaust and, not only attending a politically affiliated performance (i.e. not simply art for art’s sake, or simply for entertainment) but writing to say how pleased you are to attend. And Mikey made a distinction between Atzmon the personable chappie in the bar and his political views.
What is surprising is that this happened a year AFTER you had publicly eschewed Atzmon and his views. OK, we can all make mistakes. But at least Mikey was open and honest about having met Atzmon. Unless Atzmon had published your correspondence, would you have been as candid?
Human Trash
20 October 2008, 9:50 am
Tony,
in the ‘exchange’ you publish between Atzmon and Mikey, only one post comes from Mikey, saying he cannot help him on Rance.
He does not write to support or condone him, which is what you do with Atzmon.
All you have provided is the one sided appreciation of Atzmon. I am afraid that proves very little, if anything (although I am afraid that Mikey has been deceived by Atzmon’s personality too). You seem to think that if scum like neo-nazis think you scum, that says something innately virtuous about you. It doesn’t, not really. Virtue consists in more than that. But what does it say about you, if you are the one complimenting the views of the trash in question, as you did?
David Hertman
20 October 2008, 10:54 am
Tony,
For the record, I said ‘in less enlightened times…’, I’m quite pleased that we live in a society where everyone can say whatever they want.
All I was pointing out is that your are a collaborator with the enemies of the Jewish people. The evidence seems to be incontrovertible. Along with points made by Mikey above didn’t you go on an all expenses trip to Syria as guest of Ba’ath party?
Mikey
20 October 2008, 11:11 am
Thank you - “Human Trash” for saying that I do not “support or condone” Atzmon. I should make it very clear - I am interested in extremists and over the years I have met many -I have even turned up at meetings in pubs organised by Rance and Greenstein. Does that make me their collaborator? Of course not.
In fact, the reason I have some of the material in my possession that I have quoted in this thread was because it was provided to me by an anti-Zionist after one such meeting.
“Human Trash” is also correct that if you read the exchange that Greenstein thinks is evidence of my “collaboration” is not that. But I am bemused by Human Trash’s comment that I have “been deceived by Atzmon’s personality too.” In the lastguest post on this blog where I commented about Atzmon I stated:
Atzmon says that burning down a synagogue is a “rational act.”
I also referred to the fact that
Atzmon attacked [Anthony] Julius for his role in “the destruction of history revisionist David Irving’s career.”
If anyone thinks that I am deceived by Atzmon’s personality, they are surely mistaken. This is of course very different to Greenstein who sent an email to Atzon praising him as has already been mentioned on this thread.
Roley Poley Dahl
20 October 2008, 11:56 am
Wow. What an insight into humanity Mikey has given us on this thread. These people appear to be nothing but thugs of many years standing.
Mark Gardner
20 October 2008, 4:08 pm
This posting here has just been brought to my attention:
Tony Greenstein
18 October 2008, 5:26 am
Even by his own standards Herman’s comments calling for ‘necklacing’ of anti-Zionist Jews are disgraceful so it’s no accident to see Mark Gardener of the misnamed Jewish Security Trust endorsing them.
- Can I go on record here as saying that Greenstein’s (wrong) interpretation is potentially libelous. I do not, and have never, advocated violence against Tony Greenstein or Roland Rance. I did not believe David Herman to be advocating violence. I believed him to be contrasting other societies with the nature of blogs, and I supported that (ref: “Talmudic disputations”). I see that David has since confirmed that in a posting here.
- I have also seen Greenstein’s smearing repeated on two anti-Zionist websites. I have written to both of these, stating my position.
As an aside, the irony is that my initial praising David Herman’s posting was prompted by the entire debate on attitudes to smashing or dismantling Israel and Zionism. David’s necklace comment appeared obviously pro-debate to me, and was really not why I posted my comment.
andrew r
20 October 2008, 9:43 pm
I believe they’re psychologically flawed fools who collaborate with the enemies of the Jewish people.
Between Israeli Jews and Palestinians, which people routine have their homes and schools bombed, shelled, and sniped at, and whose land is taken to expand a country they have no civil rights in? And if you knew these facts, but not who they pertain to, would you ‘collaborate’ with the victims or the perpetrators?
Tony Greenstein
20 October 2008, 10:51 pm
Human Trash,
There are in fact plenty of friendly exchanges with Atzmon on the one thread I’ve quoted from. If I had time I’d detail all the evidence from his own mouth that his ‘research’ was for Atzmon but to be blunt Mikey is too insignificant to anyone but the Harry Place mob.
Try ‘I am going to disappoint Gilad Atzmon (or at least i think I will disappoint him) as I am simply not interested in the subject of “Jewish ideology” in response to a very friendly Atzmon post above. There are plenty more. The mere fact that Mikey goes on to the blog of Mary Rizzo, Atzmon’s buddy, to attack me is significant and symptomatic of the old alliance between anti-Semites and Zionists.
My criticism of Mikey is not that he had a drink with him, after all you can have drinks with enemies if you think it will be worthwhile. I’ve done the same with fascists if I thought I could get info out of them. My criticism was that this was a drink with a friend for whom he’d been doing work, as evidenced by his e-mail discussion.
‘Mikey, can you provide us with the criminal record of this Bugger-Rance. Is he on spent conviction like greenie l or is he just an ordinary liar?
Gilad Atzmon | 03.12.07 - 8:00 pm | #
I have been very busy digging up stuff on Tony Greenstein - Roland Rance will have to wait for another day.’
A simple ‘no, fuck off’ would have sufficed. But no, Gilad will ‘have to wait for another day’. And of course Mikey, if he’s honest, will admit that he was passing information on a joint enemy to Atzmon.
My comment in an e-mail is quite easily explainable and has been explained. Incidentally I gave permission for it to go up and have the e-mails to prove it.
I launche the campaign against Atzmon in the UK when we organised a picket of Bookmarks against his talk. We had had a long e-mail ‘discussion’ during which he told me what a ‘great text’ Paul Eisen’s Holocaust Wars was. And much else besides.
After that he began a disagreement with Israel Shamir, the spider at the centre of the web, in which Atzmon disagreed with Shamir’s argument that Auschwitz was an internment/labour camp and no more. In that situation, I believed (wrongly) that Atzmon had now broken from a holocaust denier.
Unlike Zionists, I don’t believe anti-Semitism is a biological quality that cannot be eradicated. I have been involved in breaking a number of fascists and although he isn’t a fascist, I was more than optimistic that Atzmon had seen the light. As I said I was wrong but the e-mail in question was my response to where I thought Atzmon was beginning to go.
I have never met Atzmon, unless a brief glimpse outside the picket when the fool came out with his trumpet is an example. I’ve never spoken to him. Mikey and Toube have but what is worse they find the company convivial.
As for Mark Gardner. Everything can be described as ‘potentially libellous’. You said you were in the shadow of David Herman after his comments and I believe you. If you wish to sue, be my guest.
David Herman’s comments are quite clear. He said ‘unforgiving’ not ‘enlightened’ times - a minor but significant point. If we are collaborators with the Jews’ enemies then so were anti-fascist Germans also ‘enemies’ of the volk. This is the racist mindset that Zionism gets into. Instead of dealing with the arguments they engage in this ‘traitor’ stuff, appealing precisely to the necklacers they then try to distance themselves from.
If Mark Gardener didn’t realise the import of his words, or didn’t notice the necklacing comments, that is because he found them acceptable. In reality he didn’t comment on them specifically because they are at one with his overall politics.
Tony Greenstein
Human Trash
21 October 2008, 12:40 am
Tony,
you’re chatting on the same thread. Provide evidence for Mikey’s being ‘friendly’ to Atzmon.
You’re confused: Atzmon’s asking for Milkey’s help and Mikey’s not providing it does not constitute the latter’s being employed by the former. Your approving, person to person, some of Atzmon’s ideas of the holocaust, and telling him how pleased you will be to attend his concert are stronger candidates in that vein (not that I make that case, I hasten to add).
Just as the fact that Neo-Nazis dislike you, while hardly a reason for criticism, is not innately virtuous in and of itself, anymore than the fact that both Atzmon and Mikey dislike Rance for, in their eyes, very different reasons, proves that, for instance, both Atzmon and Mikey are antisemites.
That kind of half-baked reasoning may be fine for internet forums and blogs, but hardly anywhere else.
So, as for the other stuff, your attribution to people of views they do not hold, what can I say? That you are too insignificant for one to waste any more time refuting, perhaps?
Tony Greenstein
21 October 2008, 1:53 am
Human Trash (sorry this is your description not mine!)
Of course Atzmon asking for help and Mike not providing it proves nothing. What I’m saying is that Mike did provide help about me, and Atzmon was extremely grateful because he thought it would enable him to divert attention from his anti-Semitism. That is the point I’m making.
Let us look at the first quote:
Mikey, can you provide us with the criminal record of this Bugger-Rance. Is he on spent conviction like greenie l or is he just an ordinary liar?
Gilad Atzmon | 03.12.07 - 8:00 pm | #
I have been very busy digging up stuff on Tony Greenstein - Roland Rance will have to wait for another day.
Mikey | 03.12.07 - 8:53 pm | #
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/thecutter/4331054892727834243/
A simple ‘No’ would have sufficed. Atzmon asks for information on a Jewish anti-Zionist, the same target as the title of this ‘discussion’ and Mike doesn’t say ‘no’ but ‘Rance will have to wait for another day’.
Again the comment below from Atzmon, WHICH MIKEY NEVER DENIED, or queried stated:
‘Again, again, I believe that Zionists like you can cope with philosophical thinking because Zionism is a Jewish ideological stand. RK, Ben Gurion and later Begin and Shmuel Tamir were operating within different interpretation of the very the same ideology. The political and legal aspects are nothing but a cover up of the real meaning of this saga.
You can cope with it, Greenie and Brenner can’t.
However, Good luck with Greenie and thanks for all the info you gave us about this low being.
Peace is the way forward
G
Gilad Atzmon | 03.08.07 - 4:02 pm |
‘Thanks for all the info you have us about this low being’.
You can, if you wish, turn your eyes, but it is clear. If Atzmon had said this to me about Mikey I would have told him to fuck off. I wouldn’t squeal on Attilla the Hun to a scummy racist like you.
But what was Mikey’s response? It was underneath, he had about 3 comments underneath. True he is arrogant beyond most peoples’ endurance and suffers from an enormous inferiority complex for reasons that are obvious, including puffing himself up at the slightest pretext. But you would have thought Mikey would at least have made some attempt to say, ‘what are you on about Atzmon’ (or Gilad to Mike). But no, he continues, AFTER being thanked by Atzmon for spying on me:
‘It is amazing what one can dig up with a bit of research!
January 1983 Sussex Front - a news rag of the fascist National Front!
Article by Phiilip Drax on Page 9 of that issue..’
Mikey | 03.08.07 - 4:36 pm | #
Let us leave aside the selective quotations even from the above article because Mikey knows even that article demolishes his case (it calls Trotskyism political rabies and muses on my fate at the hands of militant Zionism, which it makes it clear it is trying to stir into action). Not once does Mikey even try to deny what is alleged. The reason is of course because Atzmon would then have given chapter and verse.
I don’t know the extent of Mikey’s collaboration, but I know that it occurred. And I suspect that Mikey is still feeding Atzmon any information he can dig up, hence why he obsessively takes a tape recorder to all meetings he attends but doesn’t ever contribute or intervene.
The man is mad but trust Harry’s Place to take this collaborator seriously.
Of course the fact that 2 people dislike Roland or me for different reasons tells us nothing. But when those 2 people work together, as Zionists and anti-Semites did, without a shadow of doubt, and praise each other, then you do have to ask what else they have in common.
The sad truth is that Mikey, being an oddball, was probably grateful of the undoubted flattery that Atzmon engaged in. Whether that is virtuous I’ll leave to others.
Tony G
Tony Greenstein
exposinghypocrites
21 October 2008, 1:55 am
Tony Greenstein says his enemy’s conversations with Gilad Atzmon are
significant and symptomatic of the old alliance between anti-Semites and Zionists
But what did Tony Greenstein say in his own conversations with Gilad Atzmon?
—– Original Message —–
Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2006 9:52 PM
Subject: Re: Gilad Atzmon @ The Vortex for 3 Nights
I shall be more than happy to hear you play the sax! Was going to drop you a line re your spat with Shamir …
Dare I say it, some of your remarks re the holocaust were spot on re the Zionist collaboration with the Nazis. And that is the point anti-Zionists should make rather than flirting with holocaust denial, or in Shamir’s case being a full blooded exponent.
regards
Tony Greenstein
In public, Tony Greenstein accuses people of befriending Gilad Atzmon.
In private, Tony Greenstein tried to befriend Gilad Atzmon.
This is what is called hypocrisy.
Tony Greenstein says that, as an anti-Zionist, he is against anti-Semites.
But Tony Greenstein, as an anti-Zionist, tried his best to recruit an anti-Semite.
This is what is called dishonesty.
It’s like claiming he doesn’t support IRA murderers because he just wants the Irish people to support them.
Or calling himself an anti-fascist because he tried to befriend a fascist leader and ended up committing a serious criminal assault.
TonyVersusMikey
21 October 2008, 2:07 am
Tony Greenstein,
Your case against Mikey relies on Gilad Atzmon telling him, ‘Thanks for all the info you have us about this low being [Tony Greenstein].’
It proves nothing. As far as I can see, Mikey’s info about you is posted online for the world to see.
If you know better–if there’s dirt on you that Mikey sent specifically to Atzmon but withheld from the public–then maybe you should say what it is?
Human Trash
21 October 2008, 2:33 am
“A simple ‘No’ would have sufficed. Atzmon asks for information on a Jewish anti-Zionist, the same target as the title of this ‘discussion’ and Mike doesn’t say ‘no’ but ‘Rance will have to wait for another day’.”
There is no evidence that Mikey wanted to research Rance on behalf of Atzmon.
As for what you would or would not have done in hypothetical situations, I am not sure that is relevant. You did afterall give your personal endorsement to certain of Atzmon’s ideas about the holocaust etc. And ‘f-ck off’ is not the only legitimate negative response to someone. One can also ignore them.
And one does not have to say ‘f-ck off’ to every or any person with whom one disagrees or wishes to ignore.
Re. ‘amazing’ etc, there is no evidence that Mikey is specifically addressing Atzmon: there are others on that thread.
As for quoting from a fascist rag, where else would fascists write in support of you? It is after all you who cited the fact that such fascits hated you.
I do not happen to think that that fascists wrote approvingly of you necessarily means very much. Just as I do not believe the fact that some Nazis at certain times or places wrote approvingly of Zionism means a great deal. It certainly does not mean that they were working hand in glove.
Any more than there is evidence that Mikey was working for Atzmon, as you say.
‘Human trash’ was your coinage on this thread, Tony. But, yes, I am not terribly upset that you would think me so, which is why I chose the name.
Tony Greenstein
21 October 2008, 3:54 am
I think the friendly discussion between Atzmon and his drinking partner Mikey are clear and obvious to most people who aren’t robotic and automatons.
Just as I think that David Herman’s comments are equally clear, as was Mark Gardner’s response.
Of course the HP parallel universe may disagree but who cares? This conversation has served a very useful purpose even though most of the fools on it don’t understand that.
And the evidence, my dear Human Trash, is in the nature of Mikey’s response and Gilad’s lavish praise of him. Not a hint that there was no truth in Atzmon thanking Mikey for his endeavours. Jews who oppose racism, ZIonism included, will always attract the opprobrium of the fascist parties and Zionists, because they are like siamese twins and no amount of contortions will change that.
But just a question for one or 2 of the obsessives. if you had any commitment to anti-fascism or anti-racism, which of course you don’t have, then why do the BNP/Red Watch/NF never target or even notice you?
Answers on a postcard to Mark Gardner please
Human Trash
21 October 2008, 4:37 am
“And the evidence, my dear Human Trash, is in the nature of Mikey’s response and Gilad’s lavish praise of him.”
That is not evidence for Mikey’s working for Atzmon.
Any more than the praise of a tiny number of Nazis for Zionists, in limited times or places, is evidence for Zionists’ in general working with Nazis, other than to save Jews, again at certain times, in certain situations.
Alleging guilt merely by association is no kind of evidence at all.
Is a fascist rag’s praise of you proof of your alleged fascism?
Being the alleged targets of fairly insignificant, marginal groups, while not grounds for criticism, hardly seems especially virtuous to me. You have an odd criterion for virtue, an largely negative one.
“Not a hint that there was no truth in Atzmon thanking Mikey for his endeavours.”
Oh dear, Tony. This is absolute rubbish. What does it matter whether Atzmon was sincere in his thanks to Mikey or not? It means nothing. In any case, how could you possibly know whether Atzmon’s thanks were ‘true’ (I assume you mean ’sincere’) or not? Your ‘true’ suggests you can enter into Atzmon’s head, and know what he thinks, even think his thoughts with, or for, him. What does that say about you?
Human Trash
21 October 2008, 4:41 am
“Jews who oppose racism, ZIonism included, will always attract the opprobrium of the fascist parties and Zionists, because they are like siamese twins and no amount of contortions will change that.”
This is a circular argument:
“Zionism is racism, ergo Zionists are racists, ergo racist Zionists will always be contrary to anti-racist anti-Zionists”.
It means nothing, other than in the head of the one who argues in a circular fashion.
Margaret
21 October 2008, 4:47 am
What an irrational position: to comment about someone by name and then describe him as a stalker when he comments in return. So you’re not stalking him, you simply attack him continuously. I guess the point is that stalking is considered a disturbance of the peace in legal terms, whereas your constant personal assaults on him, which are both repulsive and boring, are not. Are there no Internet standards against harassment? I certainly apply them myself to evaluate the caliber of the person commenting.
Mikey
21 October 2008, 7:39 pm
Thanks to all on this thread who have supported me. To suggest I work with Atzmon is ludicrous, what he is doing sidetracking from the facts that I am bringing to attention about him, such as his editing a magazine denounced as antisemitic by the National Union of Students president and his involvement in Anti-Fascist Action denounced by a different NUS President and the list goes on.
exposinghypocrites
21 October 2008, 9:55 pm
Tony Greenstein’s logic:
1)
If an anti-Semite praises Tony Greenstein’s enemy, it’s because anti-Semites love Tony Greenstein’s enemy.
If neo-Nazis praise Tony Greenstein, it’s because neo-Nazis hate Tony Greenstein.
2)
If Tony Greenstein’s enemy meets an anti-Semite, he’s trying to befriend the anti-Semite.
If Tony Greenstein meets a neo-Nazi, he’s not trying to befriend the neo-Nazi.
Hi Mikey - about your post over on my blog, I engaged occasionally with JSF in their comments at a time when I was researching a few things independently which I won't go into in public as that research is still ongoing. If you want to reach me, my email address is at the bottom of my blog.
PS. Don't bother publishing my comment to you please!
Post a Comment