I respond to Greenstein

November 12, 2007 at 4:47 pm Leave a comment

I decided to respond to the hidden post – I CC’d Greenstein into my email – ftp

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

freethepeeps at aktivix.org freethepeeps at aktivix.org
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(which I note you quote)

“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


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

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:




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.




Entry filed under: freethepeeps, Gilad Atzmon, Indymedia, Tony Greenstein.

Greenstein gets back Time Out

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


November 2007

Most Recent Posts

%d bloggers like this: