‘An elephant in the room’

Tony Greenstein clearly has not got a clue how open publishing works
despite all his talk of supporting Indymedia in the past (Bold is my emphasis) - ftp

[Imc-uk-features] Atzmon

tony greenstein tonygreenstein at yahoo.com
Fri Nov 9 15:42:41 PST 2007

Dear FTP
I have a feeling that you are deliberately arguing past the points I have made in order to justify your decision to keep Atzmon’s anti-Semitic article ‘Saying NO to the Hunters of Goliath’ on Indymedia. If so, of course then that is a political decision on your part, but it is also a political decision to post an overtly anti-Semitic article, not just a comment, and it also indicates, as do your comments below, for its content, on Indymedia.
There is no comparison between for example a reference or link to Eisen’s Holocaust Wars in my Guardian CIF article and reposting the article on the Indymedia site. Any analysis of fascist or racist writings will need to refer to the original. It is one thing to post a link, it is entirely another matter to proudly display on your site a racist article. Are you also saying that in order to better understand Mein Kampf you are happy to put it up? Maybe anti-fascist journals should also reprint articles they criticise in Spearhead? I’ve never heard such nonsense.
You ask for a definition of anti-Semitism. Like any form of racism, anti-Semitism is an ideology and practice that seeks to discriminate, demonise or persecute on the grounds of being Jewish or whatever, or which claims that there are ‘racial characteristics’ which account for alleged social behaviour of Jews is anti-Semitic. The same is true of other forms of racism. Like the elephant in the room it isn’t difficult to know it’s there even if it is can’t be exactly be defined. You know it when you spot it.
Likewise the fact that the article in question ‘Hunters of Goliath’ has been up for 2 months it is irrelevant. When it was brought to my attention by Moshe Machoever I immediately wrote to you. I do not deliberately search out the articles of Atzmon.
You say you don’t know what I am complaining about since my comments upon it are already up. Actually I had that argument with the editor of the Guardian’s CIF section. I will restate what I told her. To merely comment on an article means that the article has a status and validity which outweighs the comments by virtue of the fact that someone is commenting upon it, not the other way around. The least that you can do then is to have an article on Indymedia critiquing Atzmon’s article from a position of equality.
You speak of my ‘problem’ with Atzmon. I have no problem with him as a person, as I have already stated. I disagree with his politics. It is the hallmark of the right-wing that they seek to evade the political issues and concentrate on personalities. Atzmon as an individual is irrelevant. It is his ideas I critique. When I describe his article as ‘unremarkable and indeed unoriginal either; that is a description of the article although of course it may reflect on the pretensions of the writer too.
In Dialectic of the Negation Atzmon states that ‘The reason is simple, negation of Zionism is a good enough reason to set a powerful Jewish political identity. Though this may explain why Jews are so involved in Palestinian solidarity, it may additionally explain why the Palestinian solidarity movement has never made it into a global mass movement.’
Leaving aside the incomprehensibility of much of his nonsense about identity and negation thereof, what is clear from this quote is that the reason that Atzmon gives for why the PS movement has not become a ‘global mass movement’ is because of the number of Jews in the movement. If you don’t think that that is anti-Semitic then clearly you have difficulty understanding what racism is. Indeed you give the impression that you are willing to provide an alibi for anything that is racist as long as it is dressed up in flowery language and is suitably mystified.
You still don’t understand what the original complaint is. You write that: ‘So, I still don’t understand why you are so keen to stop others from doing the same. I’d like to think that Indymedia readers have the wherewithall to make up their own minds
’ Fine, then presumably using the same logic any amount of racist and fascist articles can appear on Indymedia and you will adopt the same attitude. In which case why not scrap the guidelines and have done with it?
The point you make about the Guardian is even more absurd. The Guardian doesn’t consciously give space to overt racists like Atzmon. It was only after legal threats and other bluster that CIF agreed to carry an article from Atzmon, to which I replied. What you are saying is that there is no right of reply to Indymedia, since I assume this response to you will also not find its way online. So by any measure, the position of Indymedia when it comes to carrying racist articles is far worse than that of the Guardian.
You state that ‘‘long before Atzmon began writing the stuff of which you disapprove, arseholes like Littlejohn were saying that pro-Palestinian = anti-semitic
. If Indymedia was to run a service that Littlejohn and the cops approved of and couldn’t criticise or act on, we’d be less than useless.’
I’m well aware of what Littlejohn is saying. That is precisely why for you to carry an overtly anti-Semitic article by Atzmon merely gives support and sustenance to what people like Littlejohn say. Clearly you neither understand what I’m saying if you think I’m suggesting seeking the approval of Littlejohn and the cops. I can only suggest you read the article which I wrote on Indymedia, and also the tape I made of a conversation with Brighton’s Police Commander, Kevin Moore, concerning the police harassment and attack on the demonstration against the bombing of Lebanon. It is after all on Indymedia’s site! What you are doing is giving grist to the mill for people like Moore and Littlejohn. http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/09/350370.html. There is simply no logic to what you are saying.
You also ask ‘What would you have expected Indymedia to do if someone had contacted us about one of your posts, and demanded that we remove it because of your own anti-semitism?’ I would expect you to look at their allegations and if they related to the fact that I support the Palestinians or oppose Zionism then to dismiss the allegation. If however I had written for example:
How is it that people living today feel accountable or chased for a crime committed by their great great great ancestors almost 2,000 years ago? I assume that those Jews who get angry when blamed for killing Jesus are those who identify themselves with Jesus’s killers.’ Or
we must begin to take the accusation that the Jewish people are trying to control the world very seriously. It is beyond doubt that Zionists, the most radical, racist and nationalistic Jews around, have already managed to turn America into an Israeli mission force.
Then I would expect you to do something. Judging by everything you have said so far you see nothing wrong with mixing up medieval anti-Semitism about Christ killers and Jewish conspiracy theories. Perhaps this also the position of the features collective too?
The fact that the SWP, for their own opportunistic reasons, engage with Atzmon is irrelevant.
Since sending you the original e-mail I have received fairly conclusive proof that Atzmon, for legal reasons, is posting via a colleague in South America. You say you do not log IP addresses, however you must be able to look at and send headers of e-mails in order that that analysis is being done. Atzmon has been caught out doing this before and what we have is Atzmon commenting on his own articles without even having the honesty to own up to his authorship. But perhaps you approve of that too?
I have not said that Atzmon’s article is causing direct suffering or poses a danger, other than to Indymedia’s reputation. |However toleration of racism has its own dangers, like making people immune to racial arguments that the world is divided into races and peoples with their own innate characteristics. As I previously stated, I was under the impression that Indymedia stood for certain things like anti-racism and anti-imperialism and that its collective would have been aware not to post racist and bigoted articles. Clearly I was wrong.
You state that: ‘Heres my reading of it: The fact that Atzmon prefaced the statement with talk of a biblical lesson, means he is talking about a religious worldview too. He then goes on to make a comparison to the present. I don’t see gross anti-semitism that has to be deleted ‘before the disease spreads’ at all. If the anti-semitic content is so oblique that you have to have studied in depth to understand it, who exactly does it pose a danger to? And that is only IF he meant what you say he meant..
No the fact that Atzmon ‘prefaces’ his statement with ‘talk of a biblical lesson’ means nothing. Many and varied are the writers who have used ‘biblical lessons’ in order to illustrate racial themes. That in case you have forgotten was the defence of Nick Griffin when charged with incitement to racial hatred, that he was merely quoting from the Koran. Every anti-Muslim racist claims that they are only motivated by religious antagonism. The Nazis too used such ‘biblical lessons’. That was why the first thing they did when they invaded a country was to ban Jewish ritual slaughter.
Atzmon states that ‘The Israelis tend to personalise conflicts. Yet, by doing this, they are neither original nor innovative. They in fact follow a Biblical lesson. Within the Judaic worldview, history and ethics are often reduced into a banal single binary opposition principle.’
Atmon’s references to a ‘Judaic worldview’ make it clear he is speaking about Jews, not Israelis, though he uses them interchangeably. He follows almost immediately with: ‘The tendency to personalise and concretise history is rather common amongst Jews. ‘ And in this Judaic world view, ‘history and ethics are often reduced into a banal single binary opposition principle.’ Another racist generalisation. Presumably other groups don’t so reduce ethics in the way described.
It would appear that you too have adopted Atzmon’s mindset. You state that ‘he asks you to engage with the Palestinian solidarity movement as a humanist.’ Really? I’ll let you into a secret. I have never done other and I wonder why you presume otherwise? Or do you think that I and other Jewish anti-Zionists are part of a secret Jewish cabal that works within the Palestine solidarity movement as part of one of Atzmon’s world Jewish conspiracies? Maybe when I spoke at the last UNISON conference in support of the motion to boycott Israel I was doing it was one of Atzmon’s tribal loyalists? This is the type of nonsense that I am complaining about but which you clearly refuse to comprehend. I’ll let you into another secret. The prominence of Jews in it was subject to some considerable attack by the Zionists and also was effective in negating the usual jibes of ‘anti-Semitism’. Which is one reason why Atzmon’s only comments on the Boycott were critical.
You say that Atzmon is talking about ‘identity politics’ and that is he isn’t referring to all Jews. It is irrelevant whether he is talking of all Jews, he is using anti-Semitic and racist generalisations about the behaviour of Jews and virtually everything he writes comes back to Jews. As for it being a form of identity politics, that is exactly the claim of every unrepentant fascist. They are merely asserting the identity of their own white kith and kin. Identity politics have a lot to answer for but you are stretching the definition to the point where they cover the most blatant forms of fascist style racism. If Atzmon wanted to talk about Jewish identity politics he would first start with how Jewish identity has changed over the centuries, including how Zionism has affected it. Instead he posits an essential and unchanging position, the ‘Judaic world view’.
What Mary Rizzo says about Atzmon and politics is frankly irrelevant. It wasn’t too long ago that she was defending Israel Shamir,, a person that Atzmon holds to have a ‘unique and advanced’ form of thinking. But maybe characterising Auschwitz as a labour camp and his arguing for an alliance with white supremacists is also a form of identity politics?
You state that ‘Atzmon seems to me to believe that the primary focus of the Palestinian solidarity movement should be to stop the injustice that is happening NOW to Palestinians.’ Unfortunately that is not true. When the most potent campaign, i.e. a Boycott of Israeli Academia was launched, Atzmon denounced it as ‘book burning’ because some of those most prominent in the campaign were either Jewish or, like Sue Blackwell, had denounced Atzmon as an unregenerate anti-Semite. Far from Palestine solidarity being Atzmon’s primary focus, it is his ego that takes pride of place in that regard.
Tony Greenstein

So, chill

[Imc-uk-features] Re a letter allegedly sent to me which was posted instead to Rizzo’s anti-Semitic PEPA site

freethepeeps at aktivix.org freethepeeps at aktivix.org
Fri Nov 9 11:01:31 PST 2007

Quoting tony greenstein :Dear FTP,

Thank you for this, which is the first real response after 2 or more weeks after having submitted my original complaint. Unfortunately it is not clearwhere posts that complain about an article go, nor did or even do I understand where such posts go and where the threads can be found or indeed how one posts a reply to such a thread. So maybe I can make a few comments on this:

1. I can assure you that I have received nothing in my inbox. The first time I knew there was such a letter was went onto Mary Rizzo’s pepa. So if you sent it I didn’t receive it, I can assure you.

Fair enough.

2. Given the nature of the complaint, the least that could have been done is that my response, which was hidden could have been placed up alongside the article complained about rather than relegated. The effect is a political choice that an anti-Semitic article stays up in public view and the criticism of it is hidden from most readers of IndyMedia.

I don’t understand what you mean by “placed up alongside the article complained about rather than relegated.” You have already commented on the article, so your views are clearly there for anyone who should happen to stumble upon the article. As I have said the article was hidden in the same way that other complaints about moderation are hidden. If you want to post the article as a comment, that is your perogative. You are aware that it isn’t an
accurate summary of what Indymedia is doing, or where things are at, no?

3. I am absolutely certain of the fact that the article is anti-Semitic. So are most people in e.g. Jews Against Zionism, people like Moshe Machover, a retired anti-Zionist Israeli academic in this country from Matzpen, the first such organisation in Israel. It is not simply what is written in the article which I’ve highlighted (it is a long article, much of it unremarkable and indeed unoriginal either) but the cumulative weight of what Atzmon has written, of which this is an example e.g. the essay ‘On Anti-Semitism’ his use of the term Elder to describe his anti-Zionist Jewish critics (and the fact that his first ever criticism of us was in an article entitled the The Protocols of the London Elders of Zionism). Or maybe his statement in the ‘Dialectic of Negation’ (all on his site) which states that maybe the reasonfor the lack of success of Palestine solidarity groups is the presence ofJews in their ranks or his statement in his ‘Esther to Aipac’ article that those who believe there was a holocaust ‘dare’ not challenge holocaust revisionists (deniers).

From reading details of the history of your problem with Atzmon, I am aware Moshe Machover was involved somehow in the picket of Bookmarks, as presumably were the other people you are referring to. You’ve said that this isn’t personal, but political, so why the need to add this: “(it is a long article, much of it unremarkable and indeed unoriginal either)”? I’ve reread that section of the “Dialectic of negation”, and his argument is a little more sophisticated than the one that you present here, no? And your partial quotes of an extensive array of his writings, do show that you’re reading a lot of his stuff. So, I still don’t understand why you are so keen to stop others from doing the same. I’d like to think that Indymedia readers have the wherewithall to make up their own minds, and the comments section is there for you to add your take on his writing, no?

4. You don’t understand the practice on the Guardian’s CIF. I would have preferred not to link to Eisen’s piece. That is taken as read. However the editors insist that if you refer to something then you have to provide a link so others can see what it is you are criticising. 

Personally speaking, I wouldn’t write for the Guardian, but if I did, I could
not imagine allowing a situation to develop where they linked to a text that I
was vociferously opposed to, especially if I had been publicly hounding someone
for doing exactly the same thing. I’d have picked up my ball and gone home
rather than allow it to happen.

But until this all happened I was under the impression that IndyMedia was different. I have put stuff up about the Police attack on the Lebanon 2 years ago, including a secret tape recording of the Brighton Police Commander Kevin Moore justifying to me that response, including the allegation that we were, yes ‘anti-Semitic’. It was incidentally people like me, i.e. Jewish anti-Zionists who were most vociferous in forcing the police to back off.
Which is a particular reason why, if we allow people like Atzmon, to then pollute the discourse with anti-Semitic remarks, then it hands a free gift to the police or people like Richard Littlejohn etc. who are eager to portray support for the Palestinians as anti-Semitic.

Well, long before Atzmon began writing the stuff of which you disapprove,
arseholes like Littlejohn were saying that pro-Palestinian = anti-semitic. And
in any case, they’d just have to read JSF to know just about everything that
Atzmon ever said. If Indymedia was to run a service that Littlejohn and the
cops approved of and couldn’t criticise or act on, we’d be less than useless.

What would you have expected Indymedia to do if someone had contacted us about one of your posts, and demanded that we remove it because of your own
anti-semitism? They could even have backed it up with links from the internet.

The Guardian/Indie etc. are liberal papers of the ruling class in this country. One expects them to have a different attittude to printing stuff from the far-right. Something like Indymedia I would have expected to take a position not that far removed from the old anti-fascist position of ‘No Platform’ for overt racists and fascists.

Need I remind you that the SWP addressed that point directly? They supported
Atzmon, and said they would rather engage him than ban him, and said that that
position should be reserved for genuine racists and fascists.

5. I have no doubt, based on previous antics of Atzmon, including the nature of the allegations made and use of language that ‘knuckles’ is Atzmon. I am no expert in IP numbers etc. but I do know that it is possible to disguise them. I say that having received an abusive set of e-mails re an assault case I’m involved with the Police from staff in EDO who have faked IP addresses. I suspect Atzmon has simply written the pieces and if, as he says, there is a S American IP address, he has had it remailed by a member of Eisen’s DYR.

We don’t log IPs so I don’t know where it came from. I am sure you suspect that
its him – as I said its something I can neither prove, nor disprove. Thats the
nature of the internet.

6. Well you say that ‘There is a discussion going on, that has caused quite a major upset in the collective. That is not ‘giving up’, is it?’ No I agree. But I would also have hoped that whilst that discussion was going up, where there is a prima facie case that something is racist, (it is a legal term for where there is a case even though it has not yet been proved) that the article is taken down or hidden. It’s similar to when BSE was about. Should precautions have been taken as soon as the danger was there or not until it was proven scientifically, by which time many others have been infected. I see Atzmon’s writings as a political form of BSE.

Its clear to me that you provoke Atzmon, and he provokes you. I’m aware of the
term prima facie, and its more useful in a court of law than in an Indymedia
collective imo. To suggest that leaving the article up until we can reach an
informed decision, because it poses such a danger, is taking it too far in my
opinion. It had been sitting on the site for 2 months without a comment before
you started demanding its removal. If you can show me direct suffering that has
resulted from the article being on Indymedia (but long ago off the front page)
during the last fortnight, I will obviously apologise prolifically.

I have to say that I think you should have thought of this bse analogy when you
allowed the Guardian to link to Eisen in your name, bearing in mind the fuss
you had previously made about it.

7. You quote Rabbi Dr. Yitzchak Greenberg. No I haven’t heard of him, butlooking at the article I note it comes from that bastion of tolerance viz. the University of Bar Ilan? It is a religious university, which has validated the College of Judea & Samaria on the West Bank. It is a university which refuses to allow Arabs to live on campus. In any case what Greenberg was arguing for was in the context of a religious world view. Atzmon’s argument was entirely different and uses this religious metaphor in order to draw current political conclusions, hence his use of the term Israelite, as if Jews today are the offspring of the ancient 12 tribes. Note ‘the similarities to the Israelite of our time are rather concerning.’

Heres my reading of it: The fact that Atzmon prefaced the statement with talk
of a biblical lesson, means he is talking about a religious worldview too. He then
goes on to make a comparison to the present. I don’t see gross anti-semitism
that has to be deleted ‘before the disease spreads’ at all. If the anti-semitic
content is so oblique that you have to have studied in depth to understand it,
who exactly does it pose a danger to? And that is only IF he meant what you say
he meant.

This is not dissimilar to the use by the Nazis of medieval beliefs about Jews, including their role in trade, in order to paint the assimilated Jews of Germany as the equivalent of money lenders etc. But yes, I think Greenberg’s essay was equally reactionary. He writes from a Zionist viewpoint, regretting the fact that Jews are becoming integrated into modern society and looking back to the days when anti-Semitism kept them apart.

Atzmon actually appears to be doing the opposite as far as I can see. He pushes
the very assimilation that Greenberg rues. Isn’t that at the heart of your
problem with him – The fact that he asks you to engage with the Palestinian
solidarity movement as a humanist, and can’t see any good coming out of your
appending the term Jewish to it, even though he admits it is something he has
done in the past?

Zionism and anti-Semitism are 2 sides of the same coin. Both deny that Jews have any valid place in the diaspora and I could quote you far worse things than Greenberg that Zionists use to describe Jews who live outside Palestine/Israel. It is a fact that anti-Semites used to regularly quote Zionists philosophers such as Jacob Klatzkin to ‘prove’ that Jews were strangers and outsiders. E.g.: Instead of establishing societies for defence against the anti-Semites who want to reduce our rights, we should establish societies for defence against our friends who desire to defend our rights. J Klatzkin in B Matovu ‘The Zionist Wish and the Nazi Deed’, Issue Winter 1966-7, cited in Uri Davies, Utopia Incorporated, p.17.
or from the same writer:
‘Galut can only drag out the disgrace of our people and sustain the existence of a people disfigured in both body and soul – in a word, of a horror. At the very worst it can maintain us in a state of national impurity and breed some sort of outlandish creature in an environment of disintegration of cultures and of darkening spiritual horizons. The resultwill be something neither Jewish nor Gentile – in any case, not a pure national type…. some sort of oddity among the peoples going by the name of Jew. The Zionist Idea, Arthur Hertzberg p. 322/323.’ Klatzkin was one of the foremost Zionist theoreticians of his day, a founder of the Encyclopaedia Judaica and an editor of the Zionist official weekly Die Welt.

Incidentally if you were to read similar articles by people like Moses Hess in the book The Zionist Idea, by a liberal Zionist Arthur Herzberg, you would come across stuff which, if you didn’t know, you would think was written by anti-Semites. That was why the founder of Zionism, Theodore Herzl could say of them that ‘the anti-Semitic countries will be our friends and allies.’
(Diaries pp.83/4).

What can I say other than I would be opposed equally to the nonsense above being posted uncritically as an article on Indymedia? There is reams of this stuff from Zionists. The irony is that in his attacks on Jews in the diaspora, Atzmon is merely repeating much of this nonsense, which is why I and others consider that he is not only anti-Semitic but is also someone who shares the Zionist view of diaspora Jews.

Well, the more I read Atzmon, the more I am persuaded that he isn’t talking
about all Jews – the fact that he posits 3 categories and says that 2 of them
are fine by him, sort of attest to that as well. You say he thinks like a
zionist, and he says you think like a zionist – and the debate rages on -
leading to talk of ‘Atzmon fatigue’ on JSF. If he was talking about all Jews,
then it would quickly become obvious that that was the case. Furthermore, he
says he is talking about Jewish identity politics (he categorically denies
there is any racial component), and that he has a problem with certain
behaviours.

You, whose behaviour he critiques, now want us to delete the article on the
basis of racism, but there isn’t, to borrow your term, prima facie evidence of
racism. There is clearly a debate to be had – and it may be that he is wrong,
or it may be that you are wrong. At the end each individual must either make up
their mind, or ignore the whole thing and move on. TBH I reckon most people are
likely to ignore it and move on.

Partial quotes of provocative statements seem to obscure the whole situation,
and to be the worst form of viral BSE. Have you thought about that? The more
that you keep submitting list of things he has said that you don’t like, the
more available they become for the coppers and littlejohns of this world.

You ask ‘Erm, did I say you personally abused him? No! And you’re surely not now going to deny that you have a beef against the man, nor that you have tried to get him banned from other groups on other occasions, are you?’ The implication in all the posts I’ve read on this dispute, and it is implied in your own, is that my altercation with Atzmon is personal. You yourself say I have ‘a beef against the man’. I’ve never spoken to him and I’ve refused to meet him. On a personal level he may be sweetness and light. Actually many Nazis were highly cultured and disapproved of the gutter anti-Semitism of their more uncouth colleagues. But the suggestion that this is a personal matter is unsustainable. Not only me, but people like Mike Rosen, David Rosenberg, Moshe Machover, Roland Rance and Debbie Maccoby have also sustainedconsiderable personal abuse from Atzmon because of our political criticisms of what Atzmon says.

Guess what? Atzmon could equally say the same of all of you. I seem to remember
Mary Rizzo saying it – ie that Gilad is making political statements, and is
getting personal abuse in return.

8. You say that you do not ‘fully understand what Atzmon means by the “real meaning o their Holocaust” – perhaps he will contribute to the discussion and explain it.’

I suspect Atzmon doesn’t either. However from reading what he does say it would appear that the ‘real meaning’ is derived from his previous assertion that the Holocaust was a result of their unpopularity, i.e. the Jews. Not only is this factually untrue, anti-Semitism was not popular in Germany and there was mass revulsion at the SA pogrom on Krystalnacht, but it would be a tautological irrelevancy. Let me explain. No one doubts that homosexuals were unpopular in 1930’s Germany and most other countries in the West. Were they murdered because of that unpopularity? I would suggest that the unpopularity was a manifestation of the fact that sexual relations were seen as being an integral part of reproducing the labour force, procreation and in that sense ‘unnatural’. It was because homosexuality was seen as running counter to the family morality of capitalism that gays were persecuted and murdered. So was it their ‘unpopularity’ that was to blame? No the latter was a product of the political and social factors that led to it. Otherwise it becomes a tautology.

Likewise even if Jews were unpopular, and it could be argued that in White Russia that was true, it wasn’t that that led to their extermination, but factors such as the emergence of those economies from feudalism and the use that was made of a visible minority by the regimes and movements in power.

Yup, and so far it is your reading of his words that makes you think he is
simply saying that the Jews were responsible for their own demise in the
Holocaust. And because you have read this into what he wrote, you want
everybody to see it your way, and to delete his article – and the next one and
the next one – because you have proven that he is a racist.

9. You ask what I meant when I quoted Boaz Evron, a noted Israeli journalist, that “Zionist propagandists and fundraisers use the holocaust is best described by Israeli writer Boaz Evron: holocaust awareness is an official, propagandistic indoctrination, a churning out of slogans and a false view of the world, the real aim of which is not at all an understanding of the past, but a manipulation of the present. I am making much the same point that e.g. Norman Finkelstein does in The Holocaust Industry. Instead of the holocaust being used to draw anti-racist and anti-imperialist lessons, that racism is wrong whoever it is directed against, Zionism uses it in order to justify barbarities such as the present day siege of Gaza. I didn’t quote this article in my reply to you, but you clearly found it on the web. My latest article in Weekly Worker (of which I’m not a member!) compares this hunger siege to the statements by those like Hans Frank, Nazi Governor general of Poland’s General government that they would implement a policy of ‘death by hunger’ and indeed some 50,000 of Warsaw’s Jews did die from starvation.

I detest the way Zionists use the calamity of the holocaust to justify their present policies but unfortunately people like Atzmon are playing right into their hands when they themselves use anti-Semitic imagery in ’support’ of the Palestinians. It is utterly counterproductive and that is why I am asking Indymedia, of all groups, to take his stuff down. I don’t care if he
abuses me in the postings I’ve googled on Indymedia, that is of no account, though I’m not sure why they are there anyway. His ’supportive’ articles, are damaging to any notion of Palestine solidarity.

Atzmon seems to me to believe that the primary focus of the Palestinian
solidarity movement should be to stop the injustice that is happening NOW to
Palestinians. It also seems to me that he believes that discourse around
Palestinian solidarity is so ‘zionised’ that it hampers the struggle against
injustice. He appears to argue that the notion of anti-semitism, being the
flipside of zionism, is being used to stop any mass movement from forming, and
he reacts to that by asking his readers to confront all the traps that arise
from ‘zionised discourse’. He’s also extremely provocative at times, and makes
mistakes, because he is human.

He thinks you damage any notion of Palestinian solidarity, and you think it is
him that does that. That is quite a vicious circle to be caught up in, and now,
thanks to you we have to confront it too. If I was in your shoes, I wouldn’t
distribute the most provocative parts of his texts so widely – because you’re
in danger of doing exactly what you hound him for. Kinda like the Eisen text
thing.

I don’t know your name, since I assume ftp refers to the collective, but I have tried to respond in a measured way since I want to take at face value your statements that you are in the process of discussion. That is fine, there should be discussion and I would freely accept I may have been intemperate. But I would also ask that rather than keep Atzmon’s stuff up, and I would suggest all his contributions on these lines (I was not aware he’d posted so much before) that they are taken down pending a decision one way or another because Indymedia, which is a valuable resource, should not sully its own reputation with this stuff.

ftp is short for freethepeeps, my username.

I’ve outlined why I don’t think there is such an urgent need to take the stuff
down. As you say, you have posted here yourself, and weren’t aware that Atzmon
had.

I ask you again why this stuff should be freely available on Jews sans
Frontieres, but not on Indymedia?

If Jews sans Frontieres takes down all the Atzmon stuff, I’d be more inclined
to believe that you really do think there is imminent danger from Atzmon’s words.

BTW, I note that you didn’t include a definitive definition of anti-semitism to
help us ‘become more capable’. If you have one, it would really help as we have
a network meeting coming up where the issue will be discussed.

cheers

ftp

Rollcall time

Tony replies - and just look at the CC list -its like a rollcall from The Protocols of the elders of London – ftp

[Imc-uk-features] Re a letter allegedly sent to me which was posted instead to Rizzo’s anti-Semitic PEPA site

Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2007 06:44:41 -0800 (PST)
From: tony greenstein
To: freethepeeps@aktivix.org, imc-uk-features@lists.indymedia.org
Cc: Roland Rance , Moshe Machover , deborah maccoby , charlie pottins , Diana Neslen , David Rosenberg , MARK ELF , Michael Karlmanovitch , sofia mcleoad

Dear FTP,

Thank you for this, which is the first real response after 2 or more weeks after having submitted my original complaint. Unfortunately it is not clear where posts that complain about an article go, nor did or even do I understand where such posts go and where the threads can be found or indeed how one posts a reply to such a thread. So maybe I can make a few comments on this:

1. I can assure you that I have received nothing in my inbox. The first time I knew there was such a letter was went onto Mary Rizzo’s pepa. So if you sent it I didn’t receive it, I can assure you.
Well, it was sent to you as a cc – I’ve checked my sent email, and the email
that I received from the list, and you are definitely cc’d on both.

2. Given the nature of the complaint, the least that could have been done is that my response, which was hidden could have been placed up alongside the article complained about rather than relegated. The effect is a political choice that an anti-Semitic article stays up in public view and the criticism of it is hidden from most readers of IndyMedia.

3. I am absolutely certain of the fact that the article is anti-Semitic. So are most people in e.g. Jews Against Zionism, people like Moshe Machover, a retired anti-Zionist Israeli academic in this country from Matzpen, the first such organisation in Israel. It is not simply what is written in the article which I’ve highlighted (it is a long article, much of it unremarkable and indeed unoriginal either) but the cumulative weight of what Atzmon has written, of which this is an example e.g. the essay ‘On Anti-Semitism’ his use of the term Elder to describe his anti-Zionist Jewish critics (and the fact that his first ever criticism of us was in an article entitled the The Protocols of the London Elders of Zionism). Or maybe his statement in the ‘Dialectic of Negation’ (all on his site) which states that maybe the reason for the lack of success of Palestine solidarity groups is the presence of Jews in their ranks or his statement in his ‘Esther to Aipac’ article that
 those who believe there was a holocaust ‘dare’ not challenge holocaust revisionists (deniers).

4. You don’t understand the practice on the Guardian’s CIF. I would have preferred not to link to Eisen’s piece. That is taken as read. However the editors insist that if you refer to something then you have to provide a link so others can see what it is you are criticising. But until this all happened I was under the impression that IndyMedia was different. I have put stuff up about the Police attack on the Lebanon 2 years ago, including a secret tape recording of the Brighton Police Commander Kevin Moore justifying to me that response, including the allegation that we were, yes ‘anti-Semitic’. It was incidentally people like me, i.e. Jewish anti-Zionists who were most vociferous in forcing the police to back off. Which is a particular reason why, if we allow people like Atzmon, to then pollute the discourse with anti-Semitic remarks, then it hands a free gift to the police or people like Richard Littlejohn etc. who are eager to portray support for the Palestinians as anti-Semitic.

The Guardian/Indie etc. are liberal papers of the ruling class in this country. One expects them to have a different attittude to printing stuff from the far-right. Something like Indymedia I would have expected to take a position not that far removed from the old anti-fascist position of ‘No Platform’ for overt racists and fascists.

5. I have no doubt, based on previous antics of Atzmon, including the nature of the allegations made and use of language that ‘knuckles’ is Atzmon. I am no expert in IP numbers etc. but I do know that it is possible to disguise them. I say that having received an abusive set of e-mails re an assault case I’m involved with the Police from staff in EDO who have faked IP addresses. I suspect Atzmon has simply written the pieces and if, as he says, there is a S American IP address, he has had it remailed by a member of Eisen’s DYR.

6. Well you say that ‘There is a discussion going on, that has caused quite a major upset in the collective. That is not ‘giving up’, is it?’ No I agree. But I would also have hoped that whilst that discussion was going up, where there is a prima facie case that something is racist, (it is a legal term for where there is a case even though it has not yet been proved) that the article is taken down or hidden. It’s similar to when BSE was about. Should precautions have been taken as soon as the danger was there or not until it was proven scientifically, by which time many others have been infected. I see Atzmon’s writings as a political form of BSE.

7. You quote Rabbi Dr. Yitzchak Greenberg. No I haven’t heard of him, but looking at the article I note it comes from that bastion of tolerance viz. the University of Bar Ilan in Tel Aviv. Perhaps you are not aware of Bar Ilan? It is a religious university, which has validated the College of Judea & Samaria on the West Bank. It is a university which refuses to allow Arabs to live on campus. In any case what Greenberg was arguing for was in the context of a religious world view. Atzmon’s argument was entirely different and uses this religious metaphor in order to draw current political conclusions, hence his use of the term Israelite, as if Jews today are the offspring of the ancient 12 tribes. Note ‘the similarities to the Israelite of our time are rather concerning.’

This is not dissimilar to the use by the Nazis of medieval beliefs about Jews, including their role in trade, in order to paint the assimilated Jews of Germany as the equivalent of money lenders etc. But yes, I think Greenberg’s essay was equally reactionary. He writes from a Zionist viewpoint, regretting the fact that Jews are becoming integrated into modern society and looking back to the days when anti-Semitism kept them apart. Zionism and anti-Semitism are 2 sides of the same coin. Both deny that Jews have any valid place in the diaspora and I could quote you far worse things than Greenberg that Zionists use to describe Jews who live outside Palestine/Israel. It is a fact that anti-Semites used to regularly quote Zionists philosophers such as Jacob Klatzkin to ‘prove’ that Jews were strangers and outsiders. E.g.:
  ‘Instead of establishing societies for defence against the anti-Semites who want to reduce our rights, we should establish societies for defence against our friends who desire to defend our rights. J Klatzkin in B Matovu ‘The Zionist Wish and the Nazi Deed’, Issue Winter 1966-7, cited in Uri Davies, Utopia Incorporated, p.17.
  or from the same writer:
  ‘Galut can only drag out the disgrace of our people and sustain the existence of a people disfigured in both body and soul – in a word, of a horror. At the very worst it can maintain us in a state of national impurity and breed some sort of outlandish creature in an environment of disintegration of cultures and of darkening spiritual horizons. The result will be something neither Jewish nor Gentile – in any case, not a pure national type…. some sort of oddity among the peoples going by the name of Jew. The Zionist Idea, Arthur Hertzberg p. 322/323.’ Klatzkin was one of the foremost Zionist theoreticians of his day, a founder of the Encyclopaedia Judaica and an editor of the Zionist official weekly Die Welt.

Incidentally if you were to read similar articles by people like Moses Hess in the book The Zionist Idea, by a liberal Zionist Arthur Herzberg, you would come across stuff which, if you didn’t know, you would think was written by anti-Semites. That was why the founder of Zionism, Theodore Herzl could say of them that ‘the anti-Semitic countries will be our friends and allies.’ (Diaries pp.83/4).

What can I say other than I would be opposed equally to the nonsense above being posted uncritically as an article on Indymedia? There is reams of this stuff from Zionists. The irony is that in his attacks on Jews in the diaspora, Atzmon is merely repeating much of this nonsense, which is why I and others consider that he is not only anti-Semitic but is also someone who shares the Zionist view of diaspora Jews.

You ask ‘Erm, did I say you personally abused him? No! And you’re surely not now going to
deny that you have a beef against the man, nor that you have tried to get him banned from other groups on other occasions, are you?’ The implication in all the posts I’ve read on this dispute, and it is implied in your own, is that my altercation with Atzmon is personal. You yourself say I have ‘a beef against the man’. I’ve never spoken to him and I’ve refused to meet him. On a personal level he may be sweetness and light. Actually many Nazis were highly cultured and disapproved of the gutter anti-Semitism of their more uncouth colleagues. But the suggestion that this is a personal matter is unsustainable. Not only me, but people like Mike Rosen, David Rosenberg, Moshe Machover, Roland Rance and Debbie Maccoby have also sustained considerable personal abuse from Atzmon because of our political criticisms of what Atzmon says.

8. You say that you do not ‘fully understand what Atzmon means by the “real meaning of
their Holocaust” – perhaps he will contribute to the discussion and explain it.’

I suspect Atzmon doesn’t either. However from reading what he does say it would appear that the ‘real meaning’ is derived from his previous assertion that the Holocaust was a result of their unpopularity, i.e. the Jews. Not only is this factually untrue, anti-Semitism was not popular in Germany and there was mass revulsion at the SA pogrom on Krystalnacht, but it would be a tautological irrelevancy. Let me explain. No one doubts that homosexuals were unpopular in 1930’s Germany and most other countries in the West. Were they murdered because of that unpopularity? I would suggest that the unpopularity was a manifestation of the fact that sexual relations were seen as being an integral part of reproducing the labour force, procreation and in that sense ‘unnatural’. It was because homosexuality was seen as running counter to the family morality of capitalism that gays were persecuted and murdered. So was it their ‘unpopularity’ that was to blame? No the latter was a
 product of the political and social factors that led to it. Otherwise it becomes a tautology.

Likewise even if Jews were unpopular, and it could be argued that in White Russia that was true, it wasn’t that that led to their extermination, but factors such as the emergence of those economies from feudalism and the use that was made of a visible minority by the regimes and movements in power.

9. You ask what I meant when I quoted Boaz Evron, a noted Israeli journalist, that ‘Zionist propagandists and fundraisers use the holocaust is best described by Israeli writer Boaz Evron: holocaust awareness is “an official, propagandistic indoctrination, a churning out of slogans and a false view of the world, the real aim of which is not at all an understanding of the past, but a manipulation of the present”. I am making much the same point that e.g. Norman Finkelstein does in The Holocaust Industry. Instead of the holocaust being used to draw anti-racist and anti-imperialist lessons, that racism is wrong whoever it is directed against, Zionism uses it in order to justify barbarities such as the present day siege of Gaza. I didn’t quote this article in my reply to you, but you clearly found it on the web. My latest article in Weekly Worker (of which I’m not a member!) compares this hunger siege to the statements by those like Hans Frank, Nazi Governor general of
 Poland’s Generalgovernment that they would implement a policy of ‘death by hunger’ and indeed some 50,000 of Warsaw’s Jews did die from starvation.

I detest the way Zionists use the calamity of the holocaust to justify their present policies but unfortunately people like Atzmon are playing right into their hands when they themselves use anti-Semitic imagery in ’support’ of the Palestinians. It is utterly counterproductive and that is why I am asking Indymedia, of all groups, to take his stuff down. I don’t care if he abuses me in the postings I’ve googled on Indymedia, that is of no account, though I’m not sure why they are there anyway. His ’supportive’ articles, are damaging to any notion of Palestine solidarity.

I don’t know your name, since I assume ftp refers to the collective, but I have tried to respond in a measured way since I want to take at face value your statements that you are in the process of discussion. That is fine, there should be discussion and I would freely accept I may have been intemperate. But I would also ask that rather than keep Atzmon’s stuff up, and I would suggest all his contributions on these lines (I was not aware he’d posted so much before) that they are taken down pending a decision one way or another because Indymedia, which is a valuable resource, should not sully its own reputation with this stuff.

regards

Tony Greenstein

Talking to a brick wall?

[Imc-uk-features] Re a letter allegedly sent to me which was posted instead to Rizzo’s anti-Semitic PEPA site

freethepeeps at aktivix.org freethepeeps at aktivix.org
Fri Nov 9 03:54:10 PST 2007

Quoting tony greenstein :

Dear Anonymous Moderator of Indymedia,

I note your comment about”It doesn’t help if you think you have the
rightto be rude to Indy volunteers” Presumably you believe that it is polite
that I should read a letter addressed to me on the anti-Semitic list of Mary Rizzo
since you haven’t bothered to actually send me the letter below. However
I’m not interest in the question of etiquette.”

Well, it was sent to you as a cc – I’ve checked my sent email, and the email
that I received from the list, and you are definitely cc’d on both.

What you are saying is that my response to Atzmon’s overtly
anti-Semitic article has been hidden but that you are quite happy to carry his article. Fine. But don’t pretend that that is not a political decision.

Its standard practice not to clog our newswire with complaints about moderation
policy. The reason for using the list is that the complaint about moderation is
more likely to be read by members of the collective on list. Its extremely time
consuming to read every post on the newswire.

If you have actually read the list discussion which I linked to, you will have
noted that several members of the collective are in favour of banning Atzmon.

And if you are going to be honest then you should drop your guidelines. The last time I looked they stated:
Articles and/or comments may be hidden for the following reasons:
Discrimination : posts using language, imagery, or other forms of
communication promoting racism, fascism, xenophobia, sexism, homophobia or any other form of discrimination.
It would be more honest if you were to delete this guideline rather than
pretending to something you are unable to achieve.

It appears that in your view you are absolutely right, the article is
indefensible, and I suspect that nothing I say is going to make the blindest
bit of difference. However, I have actually spent a whole load of time trying
to make sense of this, and I haven’t yet managed to achieve any level of
certainty – let alone the absolute certainty that you appear to have.

We are trying to find a way of dealing with claims of anti-semitism that doesn’t
just make any criticism of Israel or zionism impossible. If you want us to
become more capable, then maybe you can assist us by offering us a definitive
definition of anti-semitism.

I have also been looking at some of your writings, and I note that you actually
linked to the Eisen article on CiF. You, who have attacked Atzmon for
circulating that text, chose to circulate it to the entire readership of CiF.

In light of that, why are you in such a hurry to get the Atzmon article off our
server? It is something I am struggling to understand. You have replied to him
in the comments section, so readers can see for themselves that there is a view
of his work which states that it is categorically anti-semitic.

The post is no longer on the front page, and the only people likely to read it
now are people following this discussion, or the one on Peace Palestine or JSF.
The article itself appears on many other sites.

It is clear re ‘knuckles’; that this is Atzmon using an alias. In
much the same way that Atzmon has posted other material in other places using similar aliases such as ‘Yocheved’.

It is clear to you. My point is that your evidence does not support the
contention. ‘knuckles’ denies it, and I have no way of proving or disproving
it.

Yes I have said that the accusation of ‘anti-Semitism’ is used
to defame and intimidate anti-Zionists and supporters of the Palestinians. However it is also the case that on occasion an accusation of anti-Semitism is actually true. I accept that one of the consequences of Zionists labelling their opponents as ‘anti-Semitic’ is, unfortunately, to drain the term
of much of its meaning, but that is no excuse for you to give up on trying to make a clear distinction between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism.

There is a discussion going on, that has caused quite a major upset in the
collective. That is not ‘giving up’, is it?

You state that “I think that it would be a bad move on our part to
automatically take your side on this matter. It is better in the long run,
for all of us, if the kneejerk response to calls of anti-semitism is replaced
with an informed decision.”At no time have I asked you to take
side in this matter or make an uninformed decision nor to make a “knee
jerk response”. You have after all had two weeks to make a decision, but by your own admission “it isn’t going to be a quick process.” It is clear
that you are incapable of making such a decision since you clearly do not understand anti-Semitism or, more generally, racism even when it stares you in the face.

Thanks for that, You complain that you don’t know who I am, but you are clear
that I don’t understand racism – even when it stares me in the face. I don’t
think its that clear at all, but I have known myself for much longer than you
haven’t known me.

You give 2 reasons for not taking Atzmon’s overtly anti-Semitic
article down.

1. When I cite Atzmon as stating that “Within the Judaic worldview,
history and ethics are often reduced into a banal single binary opposition
principle” you complain that I don’t add his qualification, viz.
that ‘it isn’t just the Israelis who personalise conflicts’. Leaving
aside Atzmon conflation of Jews and Israelis, this is a further example of the problem.
The term I object to is the reference to ‘the Judaic worldview’.
Judaic in my dictionary means relating to Jews or Judaism. It is inherently anti-Semitic
to talk about a Judaic or Jewish worldview and the idea that there is such a
thing as a Jewish or Arab etc. world view is inherently racist. Such expressions were integral to the idea of the world Jewish conspiracy and a common ingredient of writers such as Henrich Class, Houston Chamberlain and Gobineau. Clearly you are incapable of recognising the clearest formulations of racism. Atzmon’s qualifier was therefore meaningless.

Rabbi Dr. Yitzchak Greenberg may not agree with you on this one. Whilst some
laud him as a leading Jewish thinker, you say that he is an anti-semite.

As Jews became more modernized, as Jews became more
integrated, some of them began to say that the price was too high. That
realization poses the opportunity which we face today. The reassertion of
Jewish integrity and the right to a coherent Judaic worldview leads to the
argument that there are two legitimate worlds, and that the Jewish world
has independent values of its own. Jewish tradition and claims deserve to be placed side by side with those of the other world. The educational challenge is no longer how one [Jewish] world can reshape itself to be integrated into the other; rather the question is how do the two worlds ‘ standing side by side ‘ correlate, integrate or confront each other? The time has come for a two-way conversation of equals, not a one-way conversation between a dominant and a minor culture.

You might want to contact Targum Shlishi, and demand that they remove his article immediately. Personally, if you are as correct on this one as you think you are, then I find it inexplicable that they haven’t already picked up on it.

Your second example is Atzmon’s statement that “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”. You state that there
are “other ways of reading the text’ and suggest that my criticism is
personally motivated. Far from it. Personal abuse is entirely Atzmon’s forte.

Erm, did I say you personally abused him? No! And you’re surely not now going to
deny that you have a beef against the man, nor that you have tried to get him
banned from other groups on other occasions, are you?

Atzmon’s statement, which is in any case false, is made in the context
of what he describes as ‘the real meaning of their Holocaust’. And what is
this ‘real meaning of the Holocaust’? It is the unpopularity of the
Jews who were exterminated. Forgive me, but I thought the Nazi holocaust had something to do with the rise of fascism and its Nazi variant. Perhaps Atzmon’s racist nonsense also holds million Poles and thousands of gays? By the same token they too were all ‘unpopular’ and by the same ‘logic’were also therefore responsible for their own demise.

I’m sorry, but I still don’t read anywhere that Atzmon blames the Jews for their
own demise. Nor do I fully understand what Atzmon means by the “real meaning of their Holocaust” – perhaps he will contribute to the discussion and explain
it.

You ended your article, The real resistance, by noting:

The cynical way that Zionist propagandists and fundraisers use the holocaust is best described by Israeli writer Boaz Evron: holocaust awareness is “an official, propagandistic indoctrination, a churning out of slogans and a false view of the world, the real aim of which is not at all an understanding of the past, but a manipulation of the present

I personally would find it very helpful if you could explain what you think Boaz
Evron meant by that statement.

Clearly your search for consensus is going to be a meaningless activity since you appear to be incapable of understanding the most vile racist statements. In the circumstances it is probably a good thing that you are publicly displaying Atzmon’s article and hiding my response because that at least illustrates where the collective stands on the matter.
Tony Greenstein

I certainly seem incapable of understanding Atzmons text in exactly the same way
that you do. I am still working at understanding what is being said, and until
I do, I am not going to agree that it must be anti-semitic because I am still
not entirely sure what he is saying.

The collective hasn’t yet reached a “stand” on this matter.

The fact that your complaint about our moderation was hidden, doesn’t mean that
you have been banished from Indymnedia, does it? The fact that I’m not doing
other things, because I’m responding to you is a testament to that fact.

This list too is publicly archived, so you now have the opportunity to put your
side of the story in public view.

ftp

Greenstein piles up the pressure

This email is cc’d to Indymedia. the to list is: uk_left_network@yahoogroups.com, sa discuss , indie sa – the aim presumably being to get more people to pile on the pressure – indie sa and sa discuss presumably are groups that specialise in the area of anti-semtism – ftp

[Imc-uk-features] Indymedia – happy to host Atzmon

A couple of weeks ago I posted a request to Indymedia, which prides itself on being a counter-culture/ anarchist media outlet in Britain and world wide, to take down or hide an overtly anti-Semitic, indeed nakedly racist and chauvinist article by Gilad Atzmon, the jazz player. Not only did Indymedia fail to reply to my request, but a letter purportedly sent to me was in fact sent to the anti-Semitic PeacePalestine site.

The anonymous ‘features collective’ seems to have great difficulty finding anything anti-Semitic or racist in the term ‘Judaic world view’. They equally fail to see anything wrong with saying that the ‘real meaning of their Holocaust’ is that ‘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’.

No doubt gays, gypsies, Poles and others should also blame their demise on their ‘unpopularity’. No doubt the fact that Zionists have, for so long, accused supporters of the Palestinians of being anti-Semitic, has meant that even those who consider themselves anti-racist now have difficulty recognising anti-Semitism when it is staring them in the face. Clearly the UK Indymedia Collective are incapable of making the distinction. I am therefore copying the letter that I have written to them in response to their ‘reply’.

Although Indymedia purports to oppose racism and imperialism, indeed it has guidelines to this effect, it is also clear that they are prepared in this instance to turn a blind eye to anti-Semitism. I can only ask that people e-mail the list addresses below.

imc-uk-contact at lists.indymedia.org, imc-uk-features@ lists.indymedia.org

Tony Greenstein

Dear Anonymous Moderator of Indymedia,

I note your comment about ‘It doesn’t help if you think you have the right to be rude to Indy volunteers’. Presumably you believe that it is polite that I should read a letter addressed to me on the anti-Semitic list of Mary Rizzo since you haven’t bothered to actually send me the letter below. However I’m not interested in the question of etiquette.

What you are saying is that my response to Atzmon’s overtly anti-Semitic article has been hidden but that you are quite happy to carry his article. Fine. But don’t pretend that that is not a political decision. And if you are going to be honest then you should drop your guidelines. The last time I looked they stated:
‘Articles and/or comments may be hidden for the following reasons:
Discrimination : posts using language, imagery, or other forms of communication promoting racism, fascism, xenophobia, sexism, homophobia or any other form of discrimination.
It would be more honest if you were to delete this guideline rather than pretending to something you are unable to achieve.

It is clear re ‘knuckles’ that this is Atzmon using an alias. In much the same way that Atzmon has posted other material in other places using similar aliases such as ‘Yocheved’.

Yes I have said that the accusation of ‘anti-Semitism’ is used to defame and intimidate anti-Zionists and supporters of the Palestinians. However it is also the case that on occasion an accusation of anti-Semitism is actually true. I accept that one of the consequences of Zionists labelling their opponents as ‘anti-Semitic’ is, unfortunately, to drain the term of much of its meaning, but that is no excuse for you to give up on trying to make a clear distinction between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism.

You state that ‘I think that it would be a bad move on our part to automatically take your side on this matter. It is better in the long run, for all of us, if the kneejerk response to calls of anti-semitism is relaced with an informed decision.’ At no time have I asked you to take ‘my’ side in this matter or make an uninformed decision nor to make a ‘knee jerk’ response. You have after all had two weeks to make a decision, but by your own admission ‘it isn’t going to be a quick process.’ It is clear that you are incapable of making such a decision since you clearly do not understand anti-Semitism or, more generally, racism even when it stares you in the face.

You give 2 reasons for not taking Atzmon’s overtly anti-Semitic article down.

1. When I cite Atzmon as stating that ‘Within the Judaic worldview, history and ethics are often reduced into a banal single binary opposition principle
” you complain that I don’t add his qualification, viz. that ‘it isn’t just the Israelis who personalise conflicts
.’ Leaving aside Atzmon’s conflation of Jews and Israelis, this is a further example of the problem. The term I object to is the reference to ‘the Judaic worldview’. Judaic in my dictionary means relating to Jews or Judaism. It is inherently anti-Semitic to talk about a Judaic or Jewish worldview and the idea that there is such a thing as a Jewish or Arab etc. world view is inherently racist. Such expressions were integral to the idea of the world Jewish conspiracy and a common ingredient of writers such as Henrich Class, Houston Chamberlain and Gobineau. Clearly you are unable to recognise the clearest formulations of racism. Atzmon’s qualifier was therefore meaningless.

2. Your second example is Atzmon’s statement that “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’. You state that there are ‘other ways of reading the text’ and suggest that my criticism is personally motivated. Far from it. Personal abuse is entirely Atzmon’s forte.
Atzmon’s statement, which is in any case false, is made in the context of what he describes as ‘the real meaning of their Holocaust’. And what is this ‘real meaning of the Holocaust’? It is the unpopularity of the Jews who were exterminated.

Forgive me, but I thought the Nazi holocaust had something to do with the rise of fascism and its Nazi variant. Perhaps Atzmon’s racist nonsense also holds for the extermination of up to half a million gypsies, 3 million Poles and thousands of gays? By the same token they too were all ‘unpopular’ and by the same ‘logic’ were also therefore responsible for their own demise.

Clearly your search for consensus is going to be a meaningless activity since you appear to be incapable of understanding the most vile racist statements. In the circumstances it is probably a good thing that you are publicly displaying Atzmon’s article and hiding my response because that at least illustrates where the collective stands on the matter.
Tony Greenstein

>> [Imc-uk-features] A response to Tony Greenstein’s hidden article

From one of the moderators of the Indymedia board
Wed Nov 7 04:38:01 PST 2007
Dear Tony
Your article of last night has been hidden, as it is essentially a complaint about moderation, and our editorial guidelines (http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/static/editorial.html) (which I note you quote)
state:
“Concerns about editorial guidelines or queries about moderation are dealt with on the imc-uk-features list. These issues are not dealt with through the newswire, and newswire posts on these topics will be hidden.”
In your email to contact, you stated:
“On most occasions accusations of anti-Semitism, especially by Zionists against those supporting the Palestinians are a form of defamation.”
ie you advised that claims of anti-semitism are not to be taken at face value, as the term is often misused in order to defame critics – especially those who support Palestinians.
You then go on to say:
“In this case they are unfortunately true.”
ie you claim that we can trust you to have got it right.
However, there is a glaring error in your email:
“In most ‘Knuckes’ contributions like the above Atzmon purports to suggest that he is not Atzmon. However in a post at 00.04 of 23.10.07. he forgets his alias and both writes in the first person and signs off as Atzmon:”
Yet, the comment is clearly entitled:
“Gilad Atzmon – an open comment to JSF”
and the opening lines are:
“Gilad Atzmon’s open comment to JSF
http://peacepalestine.blogspot.com/2007/10/gilad-atzmon-open-comment-to-jsf.html”
If you click on the link, it takes you to the exact same text that appears underneath, and it is signed:
“ATB
Gilad Atzmon”
So, rather than ‘knuckles’ forgetting his alias, it appears to be knuckles posting the text from Peace Palestine.
In other words, it would appear that you are capable of making mistakes, or getting the wrong end of the stick, so to speak. At best your evidence is extremely circumstantial, and disputable.

Now, you have DEMANDED that Indymedia do what you say – which is, in any case not even our usual practice, ie to delete the post from our server, so that it would be unreadable to anyone, as would the comments.
However, in the full awareness that there is a high level of antagonism between you and Gilad, that this has been going for several years and that you have several times attempted to have him banned from places, I think that it would be a bad move on our part to automatically take your side on this matter. It is better in the long run, for all of us, if the kneejerk response to calls of anti-semitism is relaced with an informed decision.
So, contrary to your claim that the collective has done nothing about your demand, there has been a debate about the issues that you have raised.
You can read the archived discussion at:
http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-uk-features/2007-October/thread.html#start
and
http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-uk-features/2007-November/thread.html#start
You have already used the comments section to make your objections to the article known, and the list is an open one.
You offer up 2 partial quotes from the article:
The first is this:
“‘Within the Judaic worldview, history and ethics are often reduced into a banal single binary opposition principle
“
What you don’t quote is the qualification:
“But let’s face it, it isn’t just the Israelis who personalise conflicts. Thanks to the Neocons and their tremendous current influence within the Anglo-American political realm, we are all subject to some oversimplification and personalisation of almost every Western conflict”
In other words, it is all of us who are subject to this behaviour.
The second is this:
“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’.”
which you assert means that Atzmon blames the Jews for the Holocaust.
However, if it is true that there was rampant anti-semitism in Europe 6 decades ago, then there is some truth in the claim that Jews were unpopular – to say that someone is a victim of racism does not automatically imply that it is their fault.
It does appear that there are other ways of reading the text, and I have doubts about how objective a participant in a long running and mean-spirited dispute can be about their foes words.
That is why it is not as simple as you would like to it to be. We cannot just take it as gospel that you are correct and the article is anti-semitic. It is your interpretation, and there are reasons to be cautious about it.
We are still looking for consensus as how we should deal with claims of anti-semitism as a collective, and to be honest with you, it isn’t going to be a quick process.
BTW, It doesn’t help if you think you have the right to be rude to Indy volunteers, and it was out of order to single out someone, who tried to assist you, for attack in an article on the newswire.
If you wish to make a response to the collective, the right place to do it is through this list. However, it would be good if you could try and be civil in your posts, as incivility just tends to cloud issues.
ATB
ftp

Decontextualised quotes

[Imc-uk-features] Re removing Atzmon’s Hunters of Goliath

tony greenstein tonygreenstein at yahoo.com
Thu Nov 8 19:19:10 PST 2007
Since there are those on the collective who doubt whether references to a ‘Judaic’ world view’ or ascribing the Nazi holocaust to the ‘unpopularity’ of their victims are anti-Semitic or more generally racist and chauvinist, I enclose some more of Atzmon’s equally non-racist quotes for the collective to ponder about.

‘it is Zionist interests that America is serving. 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. So far they are doing pretty well for themselves at least. Whether the Americans enjoy the deterioration of their state’s affairs will no doubt be revealed soon.
http://www.gilad.co.uk/html%20files/onanti.html
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. So far they are doing pretty well for themselves at least. Whether the Americans enjoy the deterioration of their state’s affairs will no doubt be revealed soon.

http://www.labournet.net/antiracism/0507/ongilad1.html
In June, Gilad distributed an article by his friend Paul Eisen, entitled “The Holocaust Wars”. It is a long defence of the neo-Nazi, Hitler lover, and Holocaust denier Ernst Zundel

Gilad described “Holocaust Wars” as a very important text, and defended Eisen when the controversy erupted. The document was originally published in December on the website of Israel Shamir, whom Gilad described as a “unique and advanced thinker”. His independent thinking includes describing Auschwitz as a labour rather than as an internment camp. http://www.israelshamir.net/English/Who_Needs.htm

G: Mr Greenstine, True I circulated Paul Eisen’s paper. I do believe that argumentative texts must be circulated as widely as possible. I am sure that in case you have a counter argument to suggest Paul will be delighted to address it. By the way, my take on the subject is slightly different than Paul’s one and yet, i found Paul very attentive to my criticism. Furthermore, Let me assure you that if I ever see a great text written by yourself I ll be the first to circulate it. This is my way, that is what i believe in. T: Not that this should be any surprise given your association with Israel Shamir, who makes a habit of supporting and defending white supremacists. These statements were made in e-mails to me (Tony G)

The idea that Zionists have taken over America might sound bizarre in the first instance but we must remember that this kind of strange scenario does happen. Last month I heard Israel Shamir’s observation regarding this very issue. In a very open manner he said that no one would be surprised to hear that during different phases of the British Empire the world was governed by a very close group of ‘Eton’ graduates. “Some times” he added, “great empires are taken over by very marginal groups”. We might have to acknowledge that this is the case with America. American foreign policy is dictated by a very marginal group of Zionist activists, even by the state of Israel itself. Good news for Israel, quite an amazing achievement for a microscopic state. But is it good news for the American people? Is it good news for the world?
http://www.gilad.co.uk/html%20files/protocols.html

The J word, the J people and the J spot-Gilad Atzmon
The J’s are the ultimate chameleons, they can be whatever they like as long as it serves as some expedient.
http://www.gilad.co.uk/html%20files/jspot.html

On Anti-Semitism
Gilad Atzmon 20.12.2003
I would suggest that perhaps we should face it once and for all: the Jews were responsible for the killing of Jesus who, by the way, was himself a Palestinian Jew. But then two questions should be asked:
1. How is it that people living today feel accountable or chased for a crime committed by their great great great ancestors almost 2,000 years ago? I assume that those Jews who get angry when blamed for killing Jesus are those who identify themselves with Jesus’s killers. Those who would commit this murderous act today. Those Jews are called Zionists and they are already advancing into their sixth decade of inhuman crimes against the Palestinian people and the Arab world. Zionism, for those who do not know, is a repetition of the darkest age of the Jewish Biblical era. 2. Why is it that the Jews who repeatedly demand that the Christian world should apologise for its involvement in previous persecutions, have never thought that it is about time that they apologised for killing Jesus?

Tony Greenstein

Greenstein finds the list via PePa

[Imc-uk-features] Re a letter allegedly sent to me which was posted instead to Rizzo’s anti-Semitic PEPA site

tony greenstein tonygreenstein at yahoo.com
Thu Nov 8 19:16:36 PST 2007

I assume that this is the means by which I contribute to one of the threads re Atzmon. However this is also addressed to the collective whose decision, in the absence of any decision, is to allow an anti-Semitic article to stay up.

Tony Greenstein

Dear Anonymous Moderator of Indymedia,

I note your comment about ‘It doesn’t help if you think you have the right to be rude to Indy volunteers’. Presumably you believe that it is polite that I should read a letter addressed to me on the anti-Semitic list of Mary Rizzo since you haven’t bothered to actually send me the letter below. However I’m not interest in the question of etiquette.
What you are saying is that my response to Atzmon’s overtly anti-Semitic article has been hidden but that you are quite happy to carry his article. Fine. But don’t pretend that that is not a political decision. And if you are going to be honest then you should drop your guidelines. The last time I looked they stated:
‘Articles and/or comments may be hidden for the following reasons:
Discrimination : posts using language, imagery, or other forms of communication promoting racism, fascism, xenophobia, sexism, homophobia or any other form of discrimination.
It would be more honest if you were to delete this guideline rather than pretending to something you are unable to achieve.
It is clear re ‘knuckles’ that this is Atzmon using an alias. In much the same way that Atzmon has posted other material in other places using similar aliases such as ‘Yocheved’.
Yes I have said that the accusation of ‘anti-Semitism’ is used to defame and intimidate anti-Zionists and supporters of the Palestinians. However it is also the case that on occasion an accusation of anti-Semitism is actually true. I accept that one of the consequences of Zionists labelling their opponents as ‘anti-Semitic’ is, unfortunately, to drain the term of much of its meaning, but that is no excuse for you to give up on trying to make a clear distinction between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism.
You state that ‘I think that it would be a bad move on our part to automatically take your side on this matter. It is better in the long run, for all of us, if the kneejerk response to calls of anti-semitism is relaced with an informed decision.’ At no time have I asked you to take ‘my’ side in this matter or make an uninformed decision nor to make a ‘knee jerk’ response. You have after all had two weeks to make a decision, but by your own admission ‘it isn’t going to be a quick process.’ It is clear that you are incapable of making such a decision since you clearly do not understand anti-Semitism or, more generally, racism even when it stares you in the face.
You give 2 reasons for not taking Atzmon’s overtly anti-Semitic article down.
1. When I cite Atzmon as stating that ‘Within the Judaic worldview, history and ethics are often reduced into a banal single binary opposition principle
” you complain that I don’t add his qualification, viz. that ‘it isn’t just the Israelis who personalise conflicts
.’ Leaving aside Atzmon’s conflation of Jews and Israelis, this is a further example of the problem. The term I object to is the reference to ‘the Judaic worldview’. Judaic in my dictionary means relating to Jews or Judaism. It is inherently anti-Semitic to talk about a Judaic or Jewish worldview and the idea that there is such a thing as a Jewish or Arab etc. world view is inherently racist. Such expressions were integral to the idea of the world Jewish conspiracy and a common ingredient of writers such as Henrich Class, Houston Chamberlain and Gobineau. Clearly you are incapable of recognising the clearest formulations of racism. Atzmon’s qualifier was therefore meaningless.
Your second example is Atzmon’s statement that “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’. You state that there are ‘other ways of reading the text’ and suggest that my criticism is personally motivated. Far from it. Personal abuse is entirely Atzmon’s forte.
Atzmon’s statement, which is in any case false, is made in the context of what he describes as ‘the real meaning of their Holocaust’. And what is this ‘real meaning of the Holocaust’? It is the unpopularity of the Jews who were exterminated. Forgive me, but I thought the Nazi holocaust had something to do with the rise of fascism and its Nazi variant. Perhaps Atzmon’s racist nonsense also holds for the extermination of up to half a million gypsies, 3 million Poles and thousands of gays? By the same token they too were all ‘unpopular’ and by the same ‘logic’ were also therefore responsible for their own demise.
Clearly your search for consensus is going to be a meaningless activity since you appear to be incapable of understanding the most vile racist statements. In the circumstances it is probably a good thing that you are publicly displaying Atzmon’s article and hiding my response because that at least illustrates where the collective stands on the matter.
Tony Greenstein

gatekeepers

Another post goes up on Peace Palestine – the title does not reflect the situatioaccurately, as the matter appears to be far from resolved – ftp

Thursday, November 8, 2007
The Gatekeepers lose another one! Indymedia UK rejects censorship demand

Some who read this might ask themselves what it’s all about. Why should a board that is focused on issues of Palestine and opposition to militarism, interventionism and occupation publish frequently about “internal issues” relating to publishing and activism? I believe the response is very simple. There are many news and analysis sources that one can refer to in order to learn more about the issues, to understand them better and to decide what kind of involvement one chooses to have in his or her approach. There are many forums where one can discuss, and in the recent years, there has been a great deal of networking between activists, in order to organise and participate in information and action campaigns. This often means that things become personalised, we get to know one another, and we start to see cracks in some reasoning that without deeper analysis might have seemed unimportant. We not only refine our ideas, but we are called upon to come to our own conclusions on the spectrum of ideas that we are presented with and the genuine dedication to the cause. We also end up being involved in clashes that end up being extremely aggressive.

This blog has been active for three years, and I am happy that I’ve been able to present the situation in all of its complexity (despite limited time, given that I’m heavily involved in several other editorial, internet and street activist projects). Peacepalestine has documented major events, but also, the vicissitudes of the activist world itself, and more specifically, that of the group I believe I have belonged to all my life, the “movement” that is dedicated to the Palestinian people and their liberation, from a humanist, radical left progressive perspective. Included in the values of this “group” is the importance of service, ie, we are here not for ourselves, but to render service in any way we can to the people of Palestine. We may not always get it right, but Palestinians remain the absolute priority. Another important value is that of conservation of freedom – freedom of thought, freedom of speech, freedom of belief, because radical views have almost always been the first to have been sacrificed to Power. There is an enormous need for those who have power to crush those who don’t have power, but are part of “the masses”. Yes, there is a weapon we have, and we tend to forget how important it is: to quote a punk band, Anti-Flag, “You’ve got the guns, We’ve got the numbers”. We actually have MORE power than those who are the oppressors, we just need to put it to good use, once we remember that we are the ones who can decide to think and act according to our morals. If we want to be VERY left, we call it “Change from Below”.

This is why it becomes of vital importance for activists first of all to ask themselves two things: At whose service are we? How effective are we? If we are turning the light on about the atrocities of Zionism, Colonialism and Imperialism, we are of service to those who are VICTIMS of these criminal philosophies and the actions that derive from them. In order to turn on the light, we have to be able to communicate, to be allowed the liberty to declare that there is a mindset, a worldview and an ideological position behind all of these things. This is the analytical element of activism. Things aren’t born from a vacuum, they have a history, they have some kind of meaning. We have to be willing to reject the “news” that is often filtered through to us, and we have to appeal to the Humanist part of our commitment, and this means a certain kind of approach. If our primary interest (as activists for justice and peace in Palestine) is anything but justice for the victims of Zionism, we are not of service to Palestinians. It couldn’t be put any simpler.

As to being effective, obviously, we are not making many inroads. There are many reasons for this, and in the coming days I will analyse a few more of them, but for the moment, one of the greatest obstacles is precisely getting our message across. There are a lucky few who are courageous, some amazing sites that never compromise, all isn’t lost. In fact, there is actually more than a little reason to be cheerful.

Everyone who is a habitué of this blog knows that Gilad Atzmon is the major featured writer. Obviously, I like what Gilad writes, and I believe that he is a genuine (one of the most genuine, and in 27 or 28 years of activism, I’ve met my share) supporter of Palestinians. His dedication is without shadow of a doubt, and besides, he comes with a new and interesting approach.

While many believe politicians have a lot of influence, they really don’t know much about the issues. While some journalists are very good at what they do, they ultimately, (most of them) are serving someone before they are serving the cause they support, be it their editor or advertisers or political parties. Philosophers are in a completely different position. They have total intellectual autonomy. Gilad has been attacked, (and naturally, anyone who supports his ideas and believes that they are worthy of widespread dissemination is attacked just as much) by certain sectors of the “movement”. There have been calls by some in this extremely marginal group of people (both in number and in relevance) to have Gilad Atzmon banned, boycotted, picketed, harassed, and most frequently, CENSORED. The latest had been documented here, here and here. Well, the demands of Tony Greenstein, acting for Moishe Machover, had been rejected by IndyMedia UK. Here is the letter from one of the moderators, explaining to Tony that not only was Tony’s diatribe going to be “hidden” (something that Tony had asked to be done to Gilad’s article, if they couldn’t out and out censor it), but that his proposition was rejected.

I’ve stopped keeping count of the various humiliating defeats Tony and his cronies have had in trying to 1) tell Palestinians who is good for them and who is bad for them, 2) tell other activists that certain “elements” had to be silenced (yes, there have been even attempts to have me voted off a discussion forum! Not even a political party!!!) 3) determine priorities for the movement that are not essential to the Palestinian Rights Campaign, ie, the focus on Fighting Anti-Semitism as one of the major issues, if not the determining one, 4) convincing everyone that the tunnel vision to which he is a victim is the only correct approach to discussion of the Israel-Palestinian problem, and this vision dictates the precise direction which any discussion must go, as well as the certification of all those who are dedicated to the Palestinian struggle into the parametres he has set, which obviously have major intellectual and ethical holes in them.

The utter irony of it all lies in this: the aggression aimed towards Gilad (which it is necessary to mention, is always unprovoked. Gilad uses his capacity to think and write, others use theirs to publish and disseminate and comment on, and Tony and Co. turn it into a highly charged battle against the PERSONS, to which the persons involved at times feel they would spend time responding to) began with an analysis of a group of people that were attempting to smear, defame and silence others by their “demerits” or “affiliations”. It was a classic example of a lobbying measure used by a group of people who identify themselves as “Anti-Zionist Jews” to silence other Anti-Zionists who, oddly enough, were all of Jewish origin, but refuse to identify themselves primarily as Jews and act under that name. It was a classic example of gatekeeping. I would say that the paper that Gilad wrote on it then, almost three years ago, is just as valid today as it was then. It seems they just can’t win. It seems they just can’t move on and start getting their energies committed to Palestinian people!

For your pleasure, edification and information:

[Imc-uk-features] A response to Tony Greenstein’s hidden article

From one of the moderators of the Indymedia board
Wed Nov 7 04:38:01 PST 2007

Dear Tony

Your article of last night has been hidden, as it is essentially a complaint about moderation, and our editorial guidelines (http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/static/editorial.html) (which I note you quote) state:

“Concerns about editorial guidelines or queries about moderation are dealt with on the imc-uk-features list. These issues are not dealt with through the newswire, and newswire posts on these topics will be hidden.”

In your email to contact, you stated:

“On most occasions accusations of anti-Semitism, especially by Zionists against those supporting the Palestinians are a form of defamation.”

ie you advised that claims of anti-semitism are not to be taken at face value, as the term is often misused in order to defame critics – especially those who support Palestinians.

You then go on to say:

“In this case they are unfortunately true.”

ie you claim that we can trust you to have got it right.

However, there is a glaring error in your email:

“In most ‘Knuckes’ contributions like the above Atzmon purports to suggest that he is not Atzmon. However in a post at 00.04 of 23.10.07. he forgets his alias and both writes in the first person and signs off as Atzmon:”

Yet, the comment is clearly entitled:

“Gilad Atzmon – an open comment to JSF”

and the opening lines are:

“Gilad Atzmon’s open comment to JSF

http://peacepalestine.blogspot.com/2007/10/gilad-atzmon-open-comment-to-jsf.html”

If you click on the link, it takes you to the exact same text that appears underneath, and it is signed:

“ATB
Gilad Atzmon”

So, rather than ‘knuckles’ forgetting his alias, it appears to be knuckles posting the text from Peace Palestine.

In other words, it would appear that you are capable of making mistakes, or getting the wrong end of the stick, so to speak. At best your evidence is extremely circumstantial, and disputable.

Now, you have DEMANDED that Indymedia do what you say – which is, in any case not even our usual practice, ie to delete the post from our server, so that it would be unreadable to anyone, as would the comments.

However, in the full awareness that there is a high level of antagonism between you and Gilad, that this has been going for several years and that you have several times attempted to have him banned from places, I think that it would be a bad move on our part to automatically take your side on this matter. It is better in the long run, for all of us, if the kneejerk response to calls of anti-semitism is relaced with an informed decision.

So, contrary to your claim that the collective has done nothing about your demand, there has been a debate about the issues that you have raised.

You can read the archived discussion at:

http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-uk-features/2007-October/thread.html#start

and

http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-uk-features/2007-November/thread.html#start

You have already used the comments section to make your objections to the article known, and the list is an open one.

You offer up 2 partial quotes from the article:

The first is this:
“‘Within the Judaic worldview, history and ethics are often reduced into a banal single binary opposition principle…”

What you don’t quote is the qualification:

“But let’s face it, it isn’t just the Israelis who personalise conflicts. Thanks to the Neocons and their tremendous current influence within the Anglo-American political realm, we are all subject to some oversimplification and personalisation of almost every Western conflict”

In other words, it is all of us who are subject to this behaviour.

The second is this:
“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’.”

which you assert means that Atzmon blames the Jews for the Holocaust.

However, if it is true that there was rampant anti-semitism in Europe 6 decades ago, then there is some truth in the claim that Jews were unpopular – to say that someone is a victim of racism does not automatically imply that it is their fault.

It does appear that there are other ways of reading the text, and I have doubts about how objective a participant in a long running and mean-spirited dispute can be about their foes words.

That is why it is not as simple as you would like to it to be. We cannot just take it as gospel that you are correct and the article is anti-semitic. It is your interpretation, and there are reasons to be cautious about it.

We are still looking for consensus as how we should deal with claims of anti-semitism as a collective, and to be honest with you, it isn’t going to be a quick process.

BTW, It doesn’t help if you think you have the right to be rude to Indy volunteers, and it was out of order to single out someone, who tried to assist you, for attack in an article on the newswire.

If you wish to make a response to the collective, the right place to do it is through this list. However, it would be good if you could try and be civil in your posts, as incivility just tends to cloud issues.

ATB
ftp
___________________________________________________________
Comments:

In Minnesota where I live Zionists pressured St. Thomas College, to uninvite Bishop Desmond Tutu for an anti-Zionist speech. When it was made public, he was invited back. The school is demoting the professor who invited him, now Tutu refuses to speak there until her position is reinstated.

Regards.
Renegade Eye | Homepage | 11.08.07 – 8:27 pm | #
__________________________________________________________________

This is all very interesting. Thank you for not stopping to monitor the very people who are supposed to “show us the way” to a better world. With people like that on our side, who needs enemies?

Good Luck to Gilad, to you and to the other courageous bloggers, writers and sites.
Harry Potter | 11.08.07 – 8:39 pm | #
_________________________________________________________

So we know about Greenie and the credit card, we know as well all about Greenie and the photo copy machine, we know about Greenie being violent towards his brothers but now a new chapter in his criminal career opens up…

Pepas and Papes

Please welcome
Greenie the Shop Lifter
http://www.geocities.com/buggerr…e/ greenfine.pdf

Greenie what else do you have in your Pandora box?

Seemingly our Zio enemies are very good detectives.

So far on record you had been charged as a thief, robber, credit card fraudster, you had been banned from university for vandalism, you had been banned from other universities for anti Semitism. Greenie tell us the truth, do you think that you are the right person to fight the Jewish tribal causes. Can’t you see that it doesn’t make much sense?

However, leaning more and more about you explains why the only person who sticks to you and your astonishing record is my current protagonist Emperor Moish’le Machotosser.
Hans Christian Underdog | 11.11.07 – 8:35 pm | #

Over and Out

startx posts to a different publicly archived list - I’ve added the responses on that list below -
the situation has developed to a stage where not only is the collective being forced to take sides in Greenstein’s war of attrition, but divisions are expanding within the collective – there are different readings of Atzmon’s work, and the issue of how to deal with claims of anti-semitism just can’t be agreed on this article
ftp

[Imc-uk-process] withdrawing from lists and admin

startx startx at plentyfact.org
Thu Nov 8 02:06:05 PST 2007

hello there,

as some have noticed, i was rather quiet in the debate on
the lists this week. we had several heated debates during
the last 6 month, several times i thought i would drop my
involvement in imc, several times i tried again.

what frustrated me is not only that this or that causes discussion,
but that there seems to be a tendency i completely dislike.
it is simply a question where i want to put my energy into,
and, to be honest, indymedia uk, is it not.

the debate of the last week finally did it. as yossarian said in his
email on the features-list yesterday, it “lead me to believe that I am
simply not functioning on the same planet as the rest of the most
active site admins.” yes, that’s the feeling i have, too. and i cannot
say it better as he did it in his mail.

i, too, thank all people who put work in indymedia uk while i was
involved. i’m involved in other projects with some of them anyway,
so we wont loose contact.

cu on the net and on the streets.

cheers,

startx.
_____________________________________________________________

[Imc-uk-process] withdrawing from lists and admin

Bob Maycock bobmaycock at yahoo.com
Thu Nov 8 02:36:19 PST 2007
_______________________________________________________________
[Imc-uk-process] withdrawing from lists and admin

cactus at zetnet.co.uk cactus at zetnet.co.uk
Thu Nov 8 05:38:45 PST 2007

Hello startx and yossarian

I think it is a real shame that you two have felt you have to leave/pull
back for the indymedia project, i really do hope
it is temporary and that we can sort any problems out through dialogue at a
network meeting and other face to face
meetings here in London. It is a double hit for us in London as i was
hoping you both would be involved in the
development of the new London site and direction which of course you were
both key to setting in motion.

cheers tony

Greenstein hiddens x2

Meanwhile, Tony Greenstein makes two more posts about moderation to the newswire – both get hidden – a comment is posted to the first repost with a copy of the email I wrote in response to his first hidden post - we don’t always report repeated hiddens to the list and there doesn’t seem to be a note of the hidings – ftp

Why is Indymedia hosting openly Gilad Atzmon’s anti-Semitism
Tony Greenstein | 07.11.2007 19:55 | Anti-racism | Palestine | South Coast | World

For years the Zionist movement has proclaimed that supporters of the Palestinians and opponents of Zionism are anti-Semitic. Ironically many people are now, consciously or otherwise, making a false choice, between supporting the Palestinians and opposing anti-Semitism. Some like Gilad Atzmon go further and openly espouse anti-Semitism. What is worrying is that the Features Collective of Indymedia appear incapable of making the distinction.

In its guidelines, Indymedia gives as one reason (under Discrimination) to hide an article the fact that it uses: ‘language, imagery, or other forms of communication promoting racism, fascism, xenophobia, sexism, homophobia or any other form of discrimination.’
The Features Collective have failed to apply this criteria to a clearly anti-Semitic article by Gilad Atzmon.
On 22nd October, in response to an e-mail from Moshe Machover, a founder of the anti-Zionist Israeli group Matzpen, alerting myself and others to this article ‘Saying NO to the Hunters of Goliath’ http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/08/378213.html?c=on#c183225 ,.
I sent an e-mail to Indymedia at imc-uk-contact@lists.indymedia.org asking them to take the said posting down. I received no response and so posted a reminder 6 days later.
I eventually received a response from ‘Ana’ informing me that ‘the features collective is currently discussing and trying to make a decision on this, hence the delay in answering. Thanks for your understanding.
Ana, one of imc.’
On November 3rd I was pointed to an article on the anti-Semitic ‘Peace Palestine’ site where an article by Atzmon, entitled, ‘Censorship and “Hiding” Texts: Big and Little Gatekeepers of the World UNITE!’ http://peacepalestine.blogspot.com/ was published, detailing the fact that the features collective had passed my request to Atzmon and asked for his comments. Presumably the Indymedia collective were unable to decide what is and is not racist without asking the racist in question.
If anyone has any doubts about whether or not the article is anti-Semitic, then the following extracts should convince them:

‘Within the Judaic worldview, history and ethics are often reduced into a banal single binary opposition principle…. 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’.
What is the ‘Judaic’ world view? Do all Jews hold the same view? If so this is nothing other than another version of the world Jewish conspiracy that some of us thought had disappeared.

The Holocaust was therefore not the result of the rise of fascism in Germany, the portrayal of Jews as the personifiers of German capitalism, but on account of their ‘unpopularity’. A better example of blaming the victim would be harder to imagine. It is little more than a justification for the Holocaust.
Maybe gypsies and gays should ask themselves why they too are so ‘unpopular’?
I sent a blunt e-mail to the said Ana protesting at the duplicity of herself and the features collective who still haven’t, to date done anything. She replied saying that she was going to do nothing more, though to date neither she nor the collective had done anything anyway.
The following comments from Atzmon have been posted on Indymedia below the article, courtesy of his ‘friend’ Knuckles (who is in fact Atzmon):

‘For my readers and myself, it is absolutely clear that every form of Jewish secular politics (no matter where they find themselves located, Left, Right or Centre) is based on racial orientation….
I am suggesting that the only way to internalise the meaning of the Jewish Holocaust is to teach Jews how to start looking in the mirror, to teach Jews to ask themselves why conflicts with others happen to them time after time. Rather than blaming the Goyim, the Germans, the Muslims, the Arabs, it is about time the Jewish subject learns to ask the 6 million $ question: “why do they pick on me?”
… However, maybe Greenstein can tell us whether or not Jews were involved with Bolshevism….or was it just a Nazi fantasy?….
knuckles: How exactly, Tony? By suggesting that Jews look into their endless tale of destruction and try to understand what is it about them that doesn’t agree with the world?
…. Atzmon: …the Jewish state and the sons of Israel are at least as unpopular in the Middle East as their racial brothers Tony Greastein, Mark Elf and Roland Rance were unpopular in the PSC AGM just a few months ago.’

In most ‘Knuckes’ contributions like the above Atzmon purports to suggest that he is not Atzmon. However in a post at 00.04 of 23.10.07. he forgets his alias and both writes in the first person and signs off as Atzmon:
In June 2005 Jews Against Zionism, and members of the Jewish Socialists Group, picketed a meeting that the SWP held, at which Atzmon spoke. We did it because Atzmon’s writings are clearly anti-Semitic. A sample of his virulent anti-Semitism was the following, which is on his own site:
http://www.gilad.co.uk/html%20files/onanti.html

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. So far they are doing pretty well for themselves at least. Whether the Americans enjoy the deterioration of their state’s affairs will no doubt be revealed soon.

I can only assume that the Indymedia Features Collective cannot form a judgment as to whether a statement asserting that it is ‘irrelevant’ whether the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are genuine is anti-Semitic. The Times managed to make up its mind in 1921. Mein Kampf had no doubt as to their provenance. But according to Atzmon, since what the Protocols say is true, what does it matter if they are a forgery?
Tony Greenstein

Tony Greenstein
e-mail: tonygreenstein@yahoo.com

__________________________________________________
Addition to the article:

A response to Tony Greenstein’s hidden article

07.11.2007 20:06
This email was sent to Tony Greenstein earlier today. This article too has been hidden in accordance with the editorial guidelines:

The email text followed
___________________________________________________________
2nd hidden post