Either Gilad is 70 or Tony is a fool

November 20, 2007 at 7:45 pm 15 comments

Oh dear, ploughing through this tedious nonsense is no fun at all. So, I’m doing it slowly, and now I’m taking a break to see what Tony has to say in his published piece.

Heres my summary:

1) Mary wrote a story. Mary always gets it wrong. I’m going to put it right.

2) I have impeccable credibility as an anti-zionist Jew, and I am happy to diss Israel.

3) Gilad is a bad, bad man and I am going to prove that by giving lots of out of context quotes, and wildly misrepesenting his writings.

4) Using these tactics, I am going to libel Gilad and Mary as anti-semites, whilst baffling people by admitting that my tactics are not new.

5)  I am also going to kick up a big fuss at Indymedia, because they have no idea how to run an effective site. I am going to demand that they censor Atzmon and then I am going to call my article “There are no gatekeepers”, so that there is no doubt that I do not understand the term gatekeeping.

6) Next I will show that I am better for Palestine than Atzmon and Rizzo.

7) I will end by saying that Atzmon is entitled to express his opinions (which I have already said I am trying to censor), ” but not “in the name of the Palestinians” erm like I myself do.

Thats it – start to end in 7 easy steps.

Hurrah for that!

According to ‘our Tone’:

Even the very term gatekeeper is derived from Atzmon’s assertion that Jews are holding back support for the Palestinians.”

Those who have done any media studies will no doubt be amazed that Gilad managed to invent the term ‘gatekeeping’ some 16 years before he was born, when he was apparently using the alias Kurt Lewin.

“In human communication, in particular, in journalism, gatekeeping is the process through which ideas and information are filtered for publication. The internal decision making process of relaying or withholding information from the media to the masses.”

Thats what I thought it meant till Tone told us what it really meant.

In fact, when I saw Tone’s DEMAND for CENSORSHIP, I thought he was ‘gatekeeping’! Now I find that it wasn’t like that at all. Gilad doesn’t look 70 and I have to say, Tone makes him sound a lot more omniscient than I would have expected.

Tone boasts how he saw off the ‘anti-semitism libel’ used against those who lobbied for the academic boycott, by speaking out as a Jew. Of course, this would only actually work if people believed that Jews could not be anti-semities, and yet, Tone is devoting a large part of his life to asserting that Jews CAN be anti-semitic. Tone is shooting himself in the foot here. He complains, “according to Gilad Atzmon this was just another example of how it is ‘Jews and only Jews who engage in racially orientated peace campaigning

Now, I’ve looked at the article with that quote, which our Tone so kindly linked to, and his name isn’t in it. So, he links to something that doesn’t back up his claim. Either he thinks thats Atzmon directed the quote at him, or his link is duff.

Here’s a bit more of the quoted article:

During my years in Europe I have come across groups of people who call themselves ‘Jews for Peace’, ‘Jews for Justice in Palestine’, ‘Jews for this’ and ‘Jews for that’. I have recently heard about ‘Jews for Boycott of Israeli Goods’. Occasionally I end up asking myself what stands at the core of this racially orientated separatist peace-loving endeavour. I may as well admit that though I have come across many German peace activists, I have never come across an Aryan Palestinian Solidarity group or even Caucasian Anti-War campaigners. It is somehow Jews and only Jews who engage in racially orientated peace campaigning.

Now, maybe Tone knows of an ‘Aryan Palestinian Solidarity group’ or a ‘Caucasian Anti-War campaign’ and chose not to mention it, or maybe there isn’t one. Maybe there aren’t groups that Tone can point to, in order to  dispute Atzmon’s claim? Maybe one day Tone will help us to sort it out. But, to be really honest, I’m not holding my breath. I don’t think that he has an understanding of Atzmon’s article, let alone a devastating critique of it. But, if there is a devastating critique, someone would surely do us all a service by putting it to us, rather than demanding the banishment of the author. Cos now that Tony’s pointed us to the article, we’ve read it and we have to make sense of it.

And, when Atzmon writes this in the same article:

While observant Jews can easily list more than a few positive qualities they identify with, they for instance follow Judaism, they practice Jewish laws, they follow the Talmud, they follow Kosher dietary restrictions, etc., emancipated secular Jews have very little to offer in terms of positive characteristics to identify with. Once you ask a secular Jew what makes him into a Jew you may hear the following: “I am not a Christian nor am I a Muslim.” OK then, but what is it that makes you into a Jew in particular? You see, he may say, “I am not exactly an American, French or British. I am somehow different.” In fact, emancipated Jews would find it hard to list any positive quality that may identify them as Jews. As it seems, emancipated Jews are identified by negation. They are made of the very many things they are not.

we have to stop and think, is this true? Now instead of Tone and his mates assuring us that Atzmon is wrong, and that there are plenty of positive qualities associated with being a secular Jew, there seems to be a big resounding silence. I can’t imagine what a secular Jew might feel makes up her identity, butI do know that as an atheist, I don’t align myself with any racially orientated peace campaigning – and nor do I imagine that I might ever join a group of ‘ex-christians against the war’ or even ‘christians against the war’. Atheism doesn’t seem to draw me to other atheists particularly. I don’t define myself by the religion I was baptised into and then rejected. That isn’t necessarily to say it hasn’t affected my whole way of thinking though, maybe it has.

Now, I’ve hung around discussion of the whole Israel/Palestine issue for many years. And, along with all the strawmen arguments, and deafening roars of “anti-semite” and “holocaust denier’, this is one of the issues that keeps cropping up. Its clearly an issue that Gilad is trying to make sense of . Perhaps if someone pointed out to him that are many positive qualities associated with being a secular Jew he would understand, and refine his thought accordingly. A sort of process of dialectics if you like. It might help some of us to us understand why so many secular Jews accept that Jewish people have a right to someone elses land.

We do know that religion is used to justify the dispossession – that the bible apparently says God gave the land to the Jewish people. We also understand that christian-zionists believe the same thing. But how do secular Jews justify what is a real problem, the practical horrors of taking that land forcibly? I still have no idea. We also know that there are religious Jews who do not believe that the dispossession of the Palestinians is justified in their holy book. And likewise, we know that there are secular Jews who do not think that zionism is right. Despite all the claims that we harbour anti-semitic beliefs, often unwittingly, it seems to me that most on the left do understand that there are many differences amongst Jews, that they are not all some kind of mono-thought clique.

There is no doubt in my mind that the so-called left has to learn to deal with the ‘anti-semitic libel’, as well as the fact that there are real anti-semites out there. But we see time and time again that different people see anti-semitism in different places. We see that there is no easy way of dealing with the claim, because the accuser is always so certain that they are right and there is no need for discussion, that we are incapable of understanding the issues. If we do not jump when the accusation is made, then very quickly we have our anti-racist practices brought into question.

That is the worst type of gatekeeping, when censorship is DEMANDED, and any delay to think about it is immediately seen as a sign of anti-semitism. “Hypocrites, why not get rid of your anti-racist guidelines, they are meaningless” is clearly designed to put pressure on the editors, and to affect the outcome. Joining in the discussion and convincing people through rational debate would seem to me to be a much healthier form of gatekeeping. It would help move it all along, and educate these stupid fools who don’t understand in the process.


And, until he allows  us some rational debate, we are still faced with the choice of either being anti-semites ourselves, or with joining in with the lynch-mob mentality that Mr. Greenstein likes to pursue so rigorously.

I’d like to make my own mind up in an arena which is respectful, and understanding.


PS – having said that – a reasonable debate seems to be happening here

At comment #34 Stephen Marks, who clearly doesn’t have a lot of fondness for Atzmon makes some good points.

Why does Greenstein perpetually engage in this discussion, whilst demanding that Indymedia does not even refer to it? Why does he link to the alleged ‘anti-semitic’ texts all over the web, if his real concern is that anti-semitism is useful to the zionists? Shouldn’t he just shut-up and let us work it out for ourselves?

In Atzmon’s words:

my views are receiving more and more attention, by the way, a lot thanks to Greenstein… and guess what, he is doing it all for free.

Shukran Comrade Greenstein

Tone will keep pressuring us until we do what he wants. 

In the meantime,his mate will slag us off whatever we do.*sigh*


Entry filed under: freethepeeps, Gilad Atzmon, Jews Against Zionism, Mark Elf, Tony Greenstein.

‘How to get rid of Anti-Semitism’

15 Comments Add your own

  • 1. peacepalestine  |  November 20, 2007 at 9:45 pm

    Yes; Tony Greenstein is a Gatekeeper.

    Now, Elf makes me laugh, “I’ve got nothing against the free speech thing”.

    Just as long as you are already convinced he and Tony are right about everything. Otherwise, you will get either:
    a) verbally abused, called names and demeaned using often sexist innuendo
    b) called a troll and the gang of 4 will then be expected to attack accordingly
    c) both of the above and then “banned”

    It’s a free speech thing.

    i just feel sorry for Joe. he is their research slug and he didn’t even get on the round robin mailing…. I think he’s going to have to convert first. Now it that isn’t discrimination, I don’t know what is. I think he should call himself Joe Kaneovitz

  • 2. peacepalestine  |  November 21, 2007 at 10:37 am

    http://peacepalestine.blogspot.com has got an audio streaming that you might enjoy!

  • 3. golemonwheels  |  November 27, 2007 at 7:35 pm

    It seems clear that there’s a strange imbalance here. Those who are calling Atzmon an antisemite come from all places on the political spectra — left, center, right; Zionist, anti-Zionist; one-state, two-state; assimilationist, non-assimilationist. But those who celebrate Atzmon come from only two particular dots: anti-Zionist one-staters assimilationists, and Jew-hating stormtroopers like David Duke. Those are the two points on the spectra from which all of Atzmon’s support derives.

    That strongly suggests that, while the attacks on Atzmon’s antisemitism are non-political in motivation (you don’t have to be on the left to be repelled by antisemitism), the defense of Atzmon *is* political in motivation. For the brownshirts, this is no surprise; naturally the David Dukes of the world will support him, because he reinforces the antisemitic trope of the international Jewish conspiracy by being the exception that proves the rule. Among leftist supporters of Atzmon, it’s more frustrating, because it is in effect the counterproductive political decision to blind yourself to a form of racism because you think this is politically the best thing to do. It never is.

    This is, however, why Atzmon wants you to believe that there is no such thing as antisemitism, and why ftp wants to think of antisemitism as primarily a Zionist political tool to be disempowered by ignoring it — a repellent response to a repellent racism.

  • 4. peacepalestine  |  November 30, 2007 at 5:25 pm

    Well Golem, seems your world is all white. If you take a look at where Atzmon’s papers are translated and disseminated, you will see that he appears on dozens of Middle Eastern sites and tv channels. His papers appear in the main alternative Latin American places. He has a lot of support from the Palestinian communities both in Palestine and in exile. He is also on most of the major left-wing sites. But, it’s starting to get to be an exercise in futility to determine left and right. If someone is not supporting Palestinians completely, they are on the wrong side, and that must mean you, since I don’t see you criticising any Yesha.

    Your analysis is wrong also that the only “non-David Duke types” are assimiliationists, this means that you believe in an ethnically divided type of existence in the West: Jews here and the rest over there. It’s a bit backward, and it for sure was something our own grandparents fought against, they didn’t want yellow stars on their jackets, even though now you seem to think the yellow star is ok because Jews really “are” essentially different. Actually, this exposes your own racism, since you tend to believe that there is an inherent difference between Jews and others, or Muslims and others, etc.

  • 5. golemonwheels  |  December 1, 2007 at 12:59 am

    Well, they were right, Mary, you really aren’t the sharpest cheddar in the cheese shop, are you. To be called a “racist” by you is an honor. If I wanted your approval, I’d become a Holocaust denier.

  • 6. freethepeeps  |  December 1, 2007 at 6:30 am

    One more attack like that golemonwheels, and you can take your wheels elsewhere.

  • 7. peacepalestine  |  December 1, 2007 at 4:33 pm

    FTP, you’ve had a baptism of fire from these people. They are never going to address any point you make, or to come to terms with the contradictions in their own statements. It is far easier to sling the mud, since this is a tactic that is a no-brainer.

    They have been at Gilad’s and my throats since we exposed their lobbying and their lack of any real dedicated interest in the Palestinian people, with that constant line of Jews-first stuff that is the foundation of everything they utter. Sad, but true, they can’t see that they are actually the total expression of the problem Gilad points out, putting heavy pressure on people in order to make them cave in to their demands, and if not, they will associate those who disagree with Holocaust Denial, anti-Semitism and if that fails, they will insult your sexuality if you are female, or your intelligence.

    Hope you survive it!

  • 8. golemonwheels  |  December 1, 2007 at 7:47 pm

    Now, why on earth would anyone accuse Mary Rizzo of consorting with Holocaust deniers?

    Maybe the Paul Eisen defense of Ernst Zündel on your blog? The one with this antisemitic bullshit — “Dare I say it? In some ways – complicated, human, subtle ways – a Jew will always act like a Jew.”


    Be sure to read the comments thread, some of which are quite sensible and some of which are from Mary.

    Not to mention this sexist comment from Gilad: “Who is Sue Blackwell? I searched the net and found a girly pink page with some Judaica literature and a Nazi alert. . . . I wonder, is the Barbie academic associated with Simon Wiesenthal Institute.”

    Nor this peculiar outburst later in the comments: “Both Hitler and Stalin were Jews.”

    Then Andrew Winkler of the Holocaust denial site “ziopedia.org” steps in and starts to peddle Holocaust denial, putting in dozens of posts. Mary has no trouble with this.

    Do you, Mary.

  • 9. peacepalestine  |  December 1, 2007 at 11:02 pm

    Golem, (come out with your real identity, why don’t you, so I can hold a Kangaroo Court against you too!) you seem to know a few details, but surely, have no information on them other than what stuff has been fed to you.

    Shall we start with Winkler? Why don’t you ask him yourself what he thinks of me. I can’t get into the site, he blocked my IP number and told me I am the first person he has ever banned from his blog. I guess he couldn’t take it that I detest people like him who use the desire of others to be informed as a way to make money. Just like Rosen, he’s using the issue of relations between Jews and the Others as a way of earning a living. Ask Rosen about making a buck in events sponsored by Zionist organisations that finance settlers.

    Sue Blackwell is another character. She has made a name calling her page “famous”. Uh Huh. Let’s see, she insults a lot of people, even had me and Gilad and others on a Nazi Alert Page. In the past she has claimed she is some famous fighter of Fascism. Let me tell you about fighting Fascism, Golem. Of all those who claim in the UK they are leaders in the battle, I bet there isn’t a single one who has my personal track record. Look up my name, look up Michael Seifert, look up ANED, the site for Italian ex prisoners in Nazi Camps. I’m certainly the only one who has been an active participant in the capture of a Nazi war criminal. But, does Sue Blackwell bother to check into it. No, she’s blocked my email address or so she claimed a few years back when I stood up to her “Jewish Comrades” as she calls them. To me, comrades are just comrades, but that’s her own way of looking at things, tinted in the coloured lenses of her weird little world where little gets done, but a lot of huffing and puffing.

    What is so bizarre about publishing the comments of Paul. Don’t tell me you didn’t read them. Therefore, people are interested. Therefore, he is part of the public discourse.

    You got caught in your own trap.

    Everyone who claims they don’t read my “sewer” but knows every if and or but that goes on there is not only a liar but an idiot, and those are two categories I really detest, and will always expose.

    What do you think of Tony’s Islamophobia? Or isn’t that a problem? It can’t be a problem for you, as I am sure you share it, but call it Secularism or somesuch. Certainly. You are all the same tranparent bullshit peddlers.

  • 10. golemonwheels  |  December 3, 2007 at 3:12 pm

    I’ll ask again, Mary.

    “Dare I say it? In some ways – complicated, human, subtle ways – a Jew will always act like a Jew.”

    Please enlighten us about how this Stürmer-ish statement from Holocaust denier Paul Eisen is *not* essentialist anti-Semitism of the very sort you oppose (when convenient).

    Please do not respond in a scattershot matter, hoping to divert the subject.

    Please address the comment directly.

  • 11. peacepalestine  |  December 4, 2007 at 8:26 am

    Do I look like Paul Eisen? Ask him yourself what he means.

    On the other hand, do you believe that Jews make up a nation, a people? Like Americans, say, or Brits, or are they more like Catholics, who, when called to vote, vote like many Catholics do, putting those interests first in matters such as abortion? This should answer your own question for yourself, depending on what your definition of Jew is.

    You are the one who diverted all my questions.

  • 12. golemonwheels  |  December 4, 2007 at 2:50 pm

    Ah, the standard passive-aggressive stance. “Yes, just because I let Paul Eisen promote Holocaust denial on my very own blog doesn’t mean, you know, that I’m actually using my blog to promote Holocaust denial. And just because I can’t be bothered to remove a whole series of Holocaust denial comments from Winkler doesn’t mean that I support them, just that I — well, I don’t mind it much when people take an obvious antisemitic shit into my ‘peace’ blog.”

    No thinking person could possibly consider you credible on the anti-Semite issue as long as your blog welcomes anti-Semitic material like that so cheerfully. It is as though you’ve taken your credibiility, packed it into a single suitcase, and flung it out the window.

  • 13. peacepalestine  |  December 6, 2007 at 5:07 pm

    Golem: you don’t seem to have more than a vague idea about the idea of allowing people to communicate their thoughts. Allowing them to do so does not imply endorsement or agreement. I have a blog, the posts I put up represent what I think is worthy of being published, from the millions of things out there. The comments are public. By implying what you do, you are saying that FTP and yourself share the same ideas. I don’t believe even someone as incapable of carrying forth a logical argument can’t see that.

    If you enjoy censorship, there are loads of places you can go. Pepa is not one of those places.

  • 14. golemonwheels  |  December 6, 2007 at 9:09 pm

    So anyone can write whatever they want — no matter how atrociously anti-Semitic — in your blog, and all is well.

    Sanitary district codes limit what substances one can flush down the wc — not everything is acceptable.

    If you are truly claiming that your blog is literally less selective than a sewer, Mary, well, who am I to argue?

  • 15. peacepalestine  |  December 10, 2007 at 1:18 pm

    Golem, (read slowly so that you don’t miss anything) a BLOG has CONTENT (what the blogger him or herself selects and puts up). Got that? After content, there is INTERACTION (which is condensed into a comments feature and is not written by the blogger unless the bloggers name is underneath the comment).

    So, the comments are a sewer? Tell it to Greenie, Rosen, Joe90, Maccoby, Rance, Brenner and the others who have freely commented there. I think they might appreciate your feedback.


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: