Anti-Imperialism & Anti-Humanist Rhetoric of Gilad Atzmon

[eyeno]

sounder wrote:

Marxists have always hated the peasants, maybe because Marxism is merely another side of imperialism.

Marxism creates peasants for the explicit purpose of hating, exploiting, and killing them. Marxists, being inferior, need to create something they feel superior to so that they (the marxists) can feel superior to their creation. If the Marxists ever evolve from their savage state of being the world will be a much nicer place to live for everybody involved.

[American Dream]

The Gilad Atzmon controversy
by Louis Proyect



Gilad Atzmon

Gilad Atzmon is a jazz musician who has generated controversy over his articles on Zionism similar to those generated by Israel Shamir who I wrote about in July. While both men are of Jewish origin, they have been accused of anti-Semitism and holocaust denial. Many of the same charges have been made against Norman Finkelstein but in the case of Shamir and Atzmon there is much more substance.

Atzmon has prompted some heated reactions once again coinciding with the release of his new book “The Wandering Who?: A study of Jewish identity politics”, both in mainstream and radical circles.

I first got wind of the controversy from a blog post by Jeffrey Goldberg in the Atlantic Monthly titled “John Mearsheimer Endorses a Hitler Apologist and Holocaust Revisionist. Along with Martin Peretz and Alan Dershowitz, Goldberg is one of America’s top apologists for the state of Israel. He was also a supporter of the war in Iraq, using his outpost at the New Yorker magazine to circulate pro-war propaganda very similar to Judith Miller’s. Goldberg writes:

Atzmon is quite obviously a twisted and toxic hater. His antisemitism is so blatant that activists of the so-called BDS movement (boycott, divestment and sanctions), which seeks the elimination of Israel, refuse to have anything to do with him. But Atzmon still has at least one friend among anti-Israel activists: The R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago, and co-author of “The Israel Lobby,” John J. Mearsheimer.

Mearsheimer had blurbed Atzmon’s book, much to Goldberg’s anger:

Gilad Atzmon has written a fascinating and provocative book on Jewish identity in the modern world. He shows how assimilation and liberalism are making it incredibly difficult for Jews in the Diaspora to maintain a powerful sense of their ‘Jewishness.’ Panicked Jewish leaders, he argues, have turned to Zionism (blind loyalty to Israel) and scaremongering (the threat of another Holocaust) to keep the tribe united and distinct from the surrounding goyim. As Atzmon’s own case demonstrates, this strategy is not working and is causing many Jews great anguish. The Wandering Who? Should be widely read by Jews and non-Jews alike.’

Mearsheimer responded to Goldberg on Stephen Walt’s blog. As anybody who has been following the culture wars over the state of Israel will know, Mearsheimer and Walt, two highly accomplished academics, were accused of anti-Semitism for putting forward the proposition that there was an Israeli lobby and—what’s more—stating that it undermined American interests. Although I disagreed with their analysis, I did defend them against the anti-Semitism canard. Mearsheimer wrote in self-defense against Goldberg, who has been hounding ever since the initial Mearsheimer-Walt salvo against Israel appeared:

The book, as my blurb makes clear, is an extended meditation on Jewish identity in the Diaspora and how it relates to the Holocaust, Israel, and Zionism. There is no question that the book is provocative, both in terms of its central argument and the overly hot language that Atzmon sometimes uses. But it is also filled with interesting insights that make the reader think long and hard about an important subject. Of course, I do not agree with everything that he says in the book — what blurber does? — but I found it thought provoking and likely to be of considerable interest to Jews and non-Jews, which is what I said in my brief comment.

Turning from the mainstream to the radical movement, an open letter appeared on Lenin’s Tomb from authors who had been published by Zero Books, the imprint associated with Atzmon’s new book. They complained:

Atzmon’s assertions are underpinned by a further claim, which is that antisemitism doesn’t exist, and hasn’t existed since 1948. There is only “political reaction” to “Jewish power”, sometimes legitimate, sometimes not. For example, the smashing up of Jewish graves may be “in no way legitimate”, but nor are they “’irrational’ hate crimes”. They are solely “political responses”.[5] Given this, it would be impossible for anything that Atzmon writes, or for anyone he associates with, to be anti-Semitic. This shows, not only in his writing, but in his political alliances. He sees nothing problematic, for example, in his championing of the white supremacist ‘Israel Shamir’ (“the sharpest critical voice of ‘Jewish power’ and Zionist ideology”[6]), whose writings reproduce the most vicious anti-Semitic myths including the ‘blood libel’, and for whom even the BNP are insufficiently racist.[7]

The thrust of Atzmon’s work is to normalise and legitimise anti-Semitism. We do not believe that Zero’s decision to publish this book is malicious. Atzmon’s ability to solicit endorsements from respectable figures such as Richard Falk and John Mearsheimer shows that he is adept at muddying the waters both on his own views and on the question of anti-Semitism. But at a time when dangerous forces are attempting to racialise political antagonisms, we think the decision is grossly mistaken. We call on Zero to distance itself from Atzmon’s views which, we know, are not representative of the publisher or its critical engagement with contemporary culture.

Along the same lines, Andy Newman, who runs the Socialist Unity blog used the Guardian’s Comments are Free to attack Atzmon:

Gilad Atzmon is a world renowned jazz musician, and a former soldier in the Israeli army, so his advocacy of the Palestinian cause is guaranteed to draw attention. Indeed, a small leftwing publisher, Zero Books, has commissioned Atzmon to write a book on the Jews as part of an otherwise entirely credible series by respected left figures such as Richard Seymour, Nina Power and Laurie Penny.

The trouble is that Atzmon has often argued that the Zionist oppression of the Palestinians is attributable not to the bellicose politics of the Israeli state, but to Jewish lobbies and Jewish power. Atzmon’s antisemitic writings include, for example, a 2009 article – Tribal Marxism for Dummies – in which he explains that while “Marxism is a universal paradigm, its Jewish version is very different. It is there to mould Marxist dialectic into a Jewish subservient precept”. Atzmon argues that it is merely a “Judeo-centric pseudo intellectual setting which aims at political power” and that “Jewish Marxism is there to … stop scrutiny of Jewish power and Jewish lobbying”.

Newman’s piece provoked a rebuttal from Jonathan Cook on Counterpunch titled “The Dangerous Cult of the Guardian“ that defended Atzmon as well as Edward Herman and David Peterson. Like Atzmon, these two have come under attack there as “holocaust deniers” on Bosnia and Rwanda from George Monbiot. Cook also took up David Leigh’s attack on Julian Assange, a recycling of the usual canards. Cook had this to say about Newman’s piece on Atzmon:

A typical example of the Guardian’s new strategy was on show this week in an article in the print edition’s comment pages – also available online and a far more prestigious platform than CiF – in which the paper commissioned a socialist writer, Andy Newman, to argue that the Israeli Jewish musician Gilad Atzmon was part of an anti-semitic trend discernible on the left.

Jonathan Freedland, the paper’s star columnist and resident obsessive on anti-semitism, tweeted to his followers that the article was “important” because it was “urging the left to confront antisemitism in its ranks”.

I have no idea whether Atzmon has expressed anti-semitic views – and I am none the wiser after reading Newman’s piece.

Cook says that he has no idea whether Atzmon has expressed anti-Semitic views. This might be a function of a failure to click the link in Newman’s article that would have brought him to the singularly stupid article titled “Tribal Marxism for Dummies“. In it you can find howlingly uninformed opinions such as:

Jewish Marxism is very different from Marxism or socialism in general. While Marxism is a universal paradigm, its Jewish version is very different. It is there to mould Marxist dialectic into a Jewish subservient precept. Jewish Marxism is basically a crude utilisation of ‘Marxist-like’ terminology for the sole purpose of the Jewish tribal cause. It is a Judeo-centric pseudo intellectual setting which aims at political power.

Palestinian thinkers were probably the first to realise that the situation in Gaza, Nablus and the refugee camps had little in common with 19th century Europe. This was enough to defy Marxism as a sole analytical political tool. However, the Jewish Marxists had a far more adventurous plan for Palestinians, Arab people and the region in general. They wanted Arabs to become cosmopolitan atheists. They suggested that Arabs should drop ‘reactionary Islam’ and liberate themselves as ‘the Jews did’ a century ago.

When I read junk like this, I really have to wonder how Atzmon ever got an invitation to speak at an SWP conference in Britain. Fortunately the comrades figured out that they were dealing with a first-class imbecile. Apparently Counterpunch’s standards are a bit lower as they continue to publish both Shamir and Atzmon as the spirit moves them.

I would repeat what I wrote about Shamir last July since it is equally applicable to Atzmon. While I would not give him a platform in either print or electronic format, I don’t think he represents a looming danger for Jews. The only damage that his articles pose are to logic, good sense, and political clarity.

…let me differentiate myself a bit from Žižek on the question of “threats” to the Jews. While I agree that the Arabs are not the Nazis of today, I am less inclined than he is to fret about anti-Semitism as a serious looming “existential” menace to the Jews. Perhaps his lack of interest in social and economic history (i.e., historical materialism) explains his dwelling over “superstructure” but there is a world of difference between traditional anti-Semitism and the speech or writings of a Hamas leader or Ahmadinejad. The persecution of the Jews in Czarist Russia and Nazi Germany was intimately linked to the terminal decay of capitalism that could only resolved through war and the use of scapegoats.

We are decidedly moving into a deadly constellation of events that might precipitate new outbreaks of pogroms and even extermination but the targets will not be the Jews who are not easily identifiable through their isolation in ghettos or their economic role as pawnbrokers, shopkeepers, etc. Instead, it will be the Roma, the undocumented worker from Northern Africa, the Mexican, or the Arab.

The left has to be vigilant against any form of racialist stupidity, whether it comes from a disturbed individual lacking a social base like Israel Shamir or someone like Ahmadinejad who lacked the common sense to not invite David Duke to a symposium on the holocaust in Tehran. We do so primarily because their words weaken our movement by leaving it open to the charge of racism. This is especially a problem given the ability of the mass media to control the discourse and make the criminal into the victim and the victim into the criminal, as Malcolm X once put it.



Continues at: http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2011/ ... ntroversy/

[Sounder]

The article that AD posted continues...

I will conclude with one of a series of articles I wrote on the Goldhagen thesis before I began blogging. It deals with real anti-Semitism as opposed to the knuckle-dragging stupidity of an Israel Shamir or a Gilad Atzmon that is a threat to nobody. It puts the persecution of the Jews into a historical context that is unfortunately lacking in the well-meaning and often very intelligent articles on Atzmon from his critics on the left.

Abram Leon wrote “The Jewish Question: A Marxist Interpretation” in 1941 when he was all of 24 years old and at a time when his hands were filled leading the Belgian Trotskyist movement under conditions of fascist repression. Eventually, the Gestapo captured him and sent him to Auschwitz. He did not make it out alive.

Leon’s first involvement with radical politics was with the Hashomir Hatzoir, a Zionist-socialist youth group. He grew disenchanted with Zionism and became a Trotskyist at the time of the Moscow trials. This showed a certain independent streak since the Hashomir-ites were pro-Stalin, as well as being Zionist.

While Leon devoted himself to the Trotskyist movement from this point on, he never lost interest in the “Jewish Question.”

Louis proceeds to present a serviceable history of anti-Semitism from an economic perspective, concluding with this from Abram Leon

“The economic catastrophe of 1929 threw the petty-bourgeois masses into a hopeless situation. The overcrowding in small business, artisanry and the intellectual professions took on unheard of proportions. The petty-bourgeois regard his Jewish competitor with growing hostility, for the latter’s professional cleverness, the results of centuries of practice, often enabled him to survive ‘hard times’ more easily. Anti-Semitism even gained the ear of wide layers of worker-artisans, who traditionally had been under petty-bourgeois influences.”

When a Trotskyist veteran first presented this theory to me in 1967, it had powerful explanatory aspects. The true cause of anti-Semitism was the capitalist system, not some latent and free-floating animus toward the Jew. The key to the survival of the Jewish people was not the Zionist state of Israel, but the abolition of the capitalist system.

It sounds like for Louis the first concern is ‘survival of the Jewish people’, with ‘abolition of the capitalistic system’ as the imperative adopted in order to assure Jewish survival.

Now how is it that despite the foregoing words, direct from someone involved with Marxism, it can be construed as being improper to associate the process of ‘abolishing capitalism’ through forced collectivization resulting in the intentional starving of millions of peasants and the pathologies or misguided imperatives adopted by ideologists that are Jewish?

Consciousness precedes Being- The unrepentant Marxist believes that he is qualified to define the nature of your being for you. Marxism is just another variety of vertical authority distribution system.

[Searcher08]

The meaning of a communication is the response you get, regardless of your intention


The intention of the Atzmon Decriers League communications is to alert everyone to what they see as 'poison in the discourse' that is 'in such plain sight' and agreed by people with 'credentials' that anyone who disagrees must be 'mentally unstable' and 'refusing to see it' (summary of Greenstein)

However the meaning of the A-D-L communications is to demonstrate that concerns about identity politics are being used as a cover to suppress discourse... to engage in ex-communication and dissociation strategies, about the hijacking of attention and resources of the Palestinian movement under the pretext of 'class struggle' and 'fighting antisemitism' which are imposed as over arching priorities, not actually what they Palestinians want / need.

So what happens when the A-D-L bump up against a united Islamist Palestinian movement?
Will they decide that this needs to 'obviously' be fought against? I wonder...
http://www.neurosemantics.com/nlp/seven-key-distinctions

DISTINGUISHING MEANING AND RESPONSE

This distinction is best expressed in the NLP premise, “The meaning of your communication is the response you get, regardless of your intention.” And the rest of this premise is, “We never know what we have communicated. We never know what the other person ‘heard.’ It is only in the response of the other person that we can begin to discover what the other person ‘heard,’ the meanings that the other generated, and therefore the meaning that was inadvertently co-created (communication, the communing of meaning).”

Because Neuro-Semantic is about the meanings (semantics) that get communicated and programmed into our body (neurology) and the meanings that we then act out or perform, meaning is a phenomenon of the mind-body system. It does not exist outside in the world. In this, meaning is not externally real. It does not exist “out there.” You have never walked down the street and stubbled over some meaning that someone dropped. It’s not that kind of thing.

Meaning is a construct, a construct that occurs within a mind-body-emotion system, and a construct that only arises from how we link and associate things, and then reflexively apply to ourselves as our frame-of-reference or frame of meaning. So meaning is an inside thing; response is an outside thing. These differ radically as they occur in different dimensions.

That’s why a person’s response begins to give us some clue about the meanings that must exist in the other’s mind. So we explore further. What did you hear? What does that mean to you? And if we discover that the other has constructed meanings that we did not intent to transmit, we can ask if we can try again. “Sorry, that’s not what I was attempting to say. I’ll give it another try.”

This meaning/response distinction also means that another person’s response is not the same as the meanings you give to it. The other’s stressed tone of voice is just a response, what meanings we give to that is our meanings. It may correspond to the other’s meanings, it may not. If we don’t suspend our meanings, and if we don’t ask, we won’t know if we are just hallucinating.

When we automatically and quickly attribute meaning to the responses of others we are coming from our maps of the world and so we are hallucinating what it means to us. We are not communicating. We are not giving the other person a chance to transmit his or her meanings. We are jumping-to-conclusions and perhaps confusing map/territory and then assuming that the meanings we create is what the other is saying or doing. This is a great way to create confusions and distortions and to completely ruin relationships.

To avoid that we have to use the meaning/response distinction to our advantage and do one of the most challenging things for us meaning-makers to do, namely, suspend our meanings and explore with the other from the state of refusing to over-trust our meanings. This is what those most masterful at communicating do. They know that they don’t know. They know that the greatest seduction in the world is that of coming from our meaning constructs (our matrix) and seeing responses through our filters.

They also know that this is the formula for being blind and deaf to others. That’s why just witnessing responses and distinguishing responses from meaning is so important for staying in the game.

[American Dream]

Elephant? What Elephant?

[Searcher08]

[quote="American Dream"]
Elephant? What Elephant?

THIS elephant. Like A-D-L said, with friends like these, who needs enemies... but by all means keep telling us what and how and with whom we can think if that floats your boat

Teaching American Kids about Arab Culture and Israel
By Abraham H. Foxman
National Director of the Anti-Defamation League
This article originally appeared in The Jerusalem Post on March 26, 2012 RULE

When the notorious, crusading anti-Semite Gilad Atzmon was recently invited to play his music, speak and disseminate his writings at Friends Seminary, a New York City private school, strong objections were raised by a number of people, including Harvard University law school professor Alan Dershowitz, and a number of organizations, including the Anti-Defamation League.

Friends is a Quaker-affiliated school. It has an excellent academic reputation and many Jewish students attend. In response to the criticisms, the school administration said it was not aware that Atzmon, a jazz saxophonist, was anti-Semitic. They acknowledged that someone of his views should not be allowed to speak to students and indicated had they known what his views were, he would not have been invited.

The story, however, doesn't end or even begin there. As I write this, a Friends Seminary group of six faculty and 19 high school students is visiting the Israel/West Bank region. It is what is taking place on this trip and, indeed, what goes on at the school regarding Israel and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that make the decision to invite someone like Atzmon to speak to students so disturbing.

As we have come to learn, the participants will be spending most of their time in the West Bank meeting with Palestinians. The trip is billed as a cultural one and the youngsters will have overnight stays with Palestinian families over a five-day period. In addition, they will be developing oral histories of those families. There is, of course, nothing intrinsically wrong in doing these things. But because of the intensely personal nature of the home visits in the West Bank, which will expose the group only to a Palestinian perspective, these visits should be balanced by similar experiences with Israelis within Israel.

While we understand the students are also spending three days in Israel, they will not be meeting with Israeli families and they will not be visiting important venues like the Holocaust memorial Yad Vashem.

The imbalanced structure of the trip would be troubling enough on its own. When combined, however, with the fact that one of the faculty members leading the trip is a history teacher with well-known anti-Israel views, which he promotes at the school, the concerns grow exponentially. He is the main teacher of history at Friends for 10th grade students. By all accounts, he presents the students a completely biased and one-sided version of events in the Middle East.

A prime example of his approach has been related by some of his students: in his World History class, when he devotes one day to Israel, his two primary sources have been reported to be a speech by former Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and a paper by the American Friends Service Committee. AFSC, as it is known, has a long history of one-sided advocacy against the State of Israel. For another example, he has said that the word "terrorist" is too subjective a word to describe a suicide bomber. We have been told similar examples abound.

It is clear, in talking to a number of parents, that the teacher's approach is one that does not have a counter for impressionable high school students within the school curriculum. On the contrary, it is strongly reinforced by the kind of trip going on now, and by certain other teachers.

One would think that school administrators would ask some questions about taking high school kids to the Middle East and devising such a pro-Palestinian schedule. After all, Israel is America's main ally in the region, a number of the students are Jewish, and balance is one of the school's valued and oft-stated educational goals.

What seems to be happening therefore at Friends is a familiar and disturbing phenomenon. An institution gets so comfortable presenting a distorted, anti-Israel version of historical and current events in the Middle East that it does not or will not recognize how easily what seems like criticisms of Israel can veer into anti-Semitism.

Then, when obvious anti-Semitism in the person of Atzmon rears its ugly head, there are statements by the same institution saying "that's not what we are about." But the environment has been created and the damage has been done.

What should this Friends school do to truly repair the damage? Apologies for inviting an anti-Semitic speaker are a start, yet they do not get to the heart of the problem.

The school has every right to present diverse views regarding Israel and the conflict. What it must move away from is the environment of a one-sided, anti-Israel viewpoint as the norm, which quite often allows even well-meaning people to miss the appearance of anti-Semitism in their midst.

Words have consequences. History teaches that lesson to us time and again, most recently in Toulouse. And when it comes to words that can be understood as biased against the Jewish people, particular attention must be paid considering the horrendous consequences in the past and in the very world we live in today. Educators especially have this responsibility.

The Anti-Defamation League, founded in 1913, is the world's leading organization fighting anti-Semitism through programs and services that counteract hatred, prejudice and bigotry.

[American Dream]

http://contested-terrain.net/on-israel-shamir/

On Israel Shamir

From Palestinian human rights activist Nigel Perry, of the website Electronic Intifada, on Israel Shamir:

In late 2000/early 2001, in the period following the beginning of the second Palestinian Intifada, articles began appearing on the Internet by a previously unknown Israeli-Russian writer called “Israel Shamir”. With a powerful command of the English language, compelling anecdotes, dramatic metaphors, and a spirited opposition to the Israel’s military occupation, Shamir was rapidly and warmly accepted into the pro-Palestinian activist scene, and by Spring 2001 had embarked on a speaking tour of the United States, speaking at many public events alongside leading lights of the Palestinian scene.As his articles kept coming, however, an increasing amount of the tone and content was observed by more than a few to fall into what could — if this hadn’t been an Israeli Jew writing it — best be described as a classic anti-Semitic repertoire. Shamir’s identity as a Jew initially enabled people to excuse this, until the whole mess began to unravel as more and more questions were asked. Eventually, these questions began to be answered, and the issue errupted into a controversy. This page is an archive for some of the material that circulated, and is offered to the Palestinian community in particular as a warning to check the backgrounds and content of the message of people who claim to speak on their behalf. However worthy the cause, the end does not justify the means.
Continue reading here…


And from Socialist Viewpoint:

Shamir is apparently a right-wing Russian journalist, who pretends to be an Israeli Jewish leftist.
….
He appeared in Israel, as if from nowhere, at the beginning of the Intifada, writing well-received articles, in which his hidden agenda became more and more overt. From the beginning, it was clear to those who could read critically that he was a Christian evangelist rather than a left activist.

Last year, he announced his “conversion” to Greek Orthodox Christianity; I’m sure he was a Christian long before this, but found it useful to pose as a Jew. I stress his Christianity because it is key to his positions. He subscribes to the most anti-Jewish strand of Greek Orthodoxy, and regularly denounces “the Jews” (or “the Mammonites,” as he sometimes calls us) as Christ-killers.
….
I’m not given to looking for anti-Jewish racism under every stone; but I think that, in this case, it is shouting from the roof-tops! Like many U.S. racists, he refers to the forces of ZOG (Zionist Government) to explain the behavior of the U.S.

[H]is comment on Le Pen’s success in the first round of the French elections was “Le Pen is a bad guy in my books, but bad guys will be called to undo the excessive Jewish power if the good guys fail to do it.”
Continue Reading here…


Also, December 2010: WikiLeaks and Israel Shamir. From The Guardian.

[Sounder]

AD, or any other Gilad slanderers out there, being that you are so comfortable in using Israel Shamir to slander Gilad by association, can you tell us how 'bad' Jeff Blankfort and Rich Siegal are also? Thanks in advance.

This is from the comment section at the site that AD first linked to from a fellow called the unrepentant Marxist.

http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2011/ ... ntroversy/

Some responses:

Dear all, NOT IN MY NAME PLEASE. I express my deep sadness at the petition in the Electronic Intifada, a petition which is composed and signed by people whom I love and with whom I have been struggling for a vision of equality and peace in Palestine for years now. Gilad’s book, bravely, and on many levels, points at; touches; brings into language the existential complexities that link the Jewish and the Zionist questions. It cries out for making this link into a field of inquiry. The complexities of these links reflect both the depth to which any grasping of and responding to what is now happening in Palestine must traverse. It is controversial but so what? It is causing offence to some uncritically accepted coordinates of debate but so what? It may not be palatable or expedient but so what? There is absolutely no racism or any hatred in the book. It is written from love, from passionate truth-seeking and beyond all out of deep care for people, care for the being of people, both those who perpetrate violence and those who suffer at its hands. Indeed the book meditates on the origin of violence in Palestine, origin to which Zionism may be but a symptom. The accusation of racist anti-Semitism is a cynical attempt to prevent a question from being asked – an act of violence against questioning, against opening the possibility of self-questioning. We need a debate not petitions like this. It is precisely the lack of debate which serves simplistic views and structures of power. This refusal to touch a painful points, points that are in existential sense earlier than memory, is itself question-worthy. Why does anybody fall into a line of feigning ‘expediency’ so strongly like that? Touching the relationship between Zionism and Jewish being and thinking might well be needed precisely if anti-Zionism is to have any existential bite. I sense the force that leads to this petition and am despairing at it. At no time does it call for an engaging with, to take on board, accept, contest, disagree and inflect Gilad’s insights and pointers. This petition is written out of fear and political expediency. It caricaturises and then criticises the caricature. It is certainly not written out of dwelling together in the seeking of truth and justice. Can justice ever be achieved if truth, not merely of actions but also that being that brings these actions about, is not sought and brought into language? Ironically it is the statement that shows the urgency to canvass the insights it evades. We are all together. Together. There is something very telling and deep in this violent silencing and oblivious to freedom of speech, this blind conditioning of respect for the political stake that ought to unite all the people who struggle for justice in Palestine. I call for adopting the seeking of truth and the overcoming of existential fetters, as the objective of this political struggle.

Therefore, if the statement about Gilad finds its way to our website than it is with the greatest sadness and regret that I have to withdraw my name from the declaration as well as from the website, as no attempt is made to disassociate the commitment to the statement from the commitment to the Palestinian statement about Gilad.

With peace and love, Oren [Oren Ben-Dor, anti-Zionist former Israeli residing in the UK]
————————————————————-
Indeed I oppose the attacks on Gilad. Apart from considerations of the right of people to voice alternative views, and their right to be heard, I do not believe it is appropriate for Palestinians in particular to get involved in what is largely an intra-Jewish dispute.

Ghada Karmi [prominent Palestinian writer/activist in the UK]
————————————————————–
Dear all

I agree with Oren and Ghada and will not have my name added to a statement denouncing Gil’ad Atzmon. I believe it is not up to us to censor opinions with which we do not agree, particularly on the anti-Zionist side, and I am saying this as a Jew and an Israeli citizen, albeit living and working in Ireland.

The discussions about him have taken far too much time and space, and as Lubna says, are diverting our attention from what is really important. If the group decides to publish this statement on the website, I will regrettably have to ask you to remove my name from the website and the list.

In peace and solidarity,

Ronit Lentin
———————————————————-
I agree with Ronit, Lubna, Oren, Sami, Ghada and others. Khalas. Those who feel strongly to add their name to support Condemning Gilad Atzmon can and should do it in personal capacity. We will not/should not post this on any group website. Those who want to post things on their individual sites should do so. Also those who wish to go to Munich or not go to Munich should also do it. But let us end this discussion here. It has taken far too much energy.

Mazin Qumsiyeh

Comment by Noel Ignatiev — March 16, 2012 @ 9:57 am

[Searcher08]

ADL
Anti-Semitism International


Backgrounder: Gilad Atzmon

Posted: January 30, 2012



Gilad Atzmon is an anti-Semitic author, writer and musician based in London. Born in Israel to a Jewish family, Atzmon now describes himself as an "an ex-Israeli" and an "ex-Jew." He is an outspoken and prolific promoter of classic anti-Semitic conspiracy theories about Jewish control over American foreign policy, and has written that Jews have a plan for world domination. He has trafficked in anti-Semitic canards such as the notion that Jews are responsible for the death of Jesus.

For at least a decade, Atzmon has written blogs, articles and books that call up traditional anti-Semitic stereotypes while demonizing Israel, Zionism, and Jewish culture and identity.

He has been an outspoken critic of the State of Israel and expresses support for Palestinian terrorist groups. Atzmon advocates for a one-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a solution that would mean the demise of the Jewish state.


Frequent themes in Atzmon's writings include:



· Conspiracy theories about Jewish responsibility and control.
Atzmon has directly accused Jews of excessive control in various arenas of public life and has blamed Jews and Israel for being secretly complicit in a range of incidents in the news.



· Open support for terrorist groups that engage in violent resistance against Israel.
In an interview with a fringe Web site in February 2011, he stated, "I support…Hezbollah, and I support Hamas." Similarly, in a 2010 interview with Palestine Chronicle, Atzmon described Qassam rockets aimed at Israeli civilian areas by Palestinian terrorists in Gaza as a "love letter from the Palestinian's stolen land."



· Holocaust trivialization and distortion.
Atzmon alleges that Israeli policies toward Palestinians are even bolder and more egregious than the Nazis' treatment of Jews. Writing in a summer 2009 article in Adbusters, he claimed that during the Gaza War, Israel "slaughter[ed] defenseless people in broad daylight" while the Nazis tended to kill Jews in a more "shy" manner. He invokes the Holocaust to condemn Israel. In a 2003 article titled, "On Anti-Semitism," he stated that ignoring the "Palestinian Holocaust," including the turning of Palestinian cities into "concentration camps," is the form of Holocaust denial that "really bothers" him. He has also described Israel's treatment of the Palestinians as a "Shoa," using the Hebrew term for the Holocaust.



· Predictions of Israel's Demise.
In a May 2011 article titled "Israel's Doomed Fate," Atzmon predicted Israel would soon cease to exist. He wrote that the "countdown has begun" and that Israel is approaching "its final stage." He frequently describes Israel as the "biggest threat to world peace" but at the same time appears to be very confident that Israel's destruction is imminent. Atzmon supports a one-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that would consist of a "state of all its citizens." In an article on his Web site reacting to the May 15, 2011 protests along the Israeli borders, Atzmon said he envisioned the collapse of the Zionist project and that the only "ethical and universal solution to the conflict" is the transformation of Israel into Palestine "from the river to the sea."



· Demonization of Jewish culture and identity.
Atzmon frequently rails against what he terms "Jewishness" and claims that anti-Semitism is merely a political response to the "disease" that is Zionism. He often attempts to legitimize his overt anti-Semitism by explaining that he is only against "Jewish ideology," not Jews or Judaism. He also rejects the notion that Jewishness and democracy can co-exist. "Tolerance, democracy and liberalism," Atzmon has written, "are foreign to Jewish political precepts which are all racially orientated and supremacist to the bone.



Conspiracy Theories about Jewish Control


Gilad Atzmon has directly accused Jews of excessive control regarding various arenas of public life and responsibility for a range of incidents.

In an opinion piece shortly after the Norway massacre in July 2011 he alleged it was possible that the terrorist Anders Behring Breivik had been sent by the Israeli Mossad. Atzmon claimed it was plausible that Breivik is a "Shabbos goy," commissioned by Israel because many children in the camp had anti-Zionist leanings.

In a February 2011 interview, Atzmon fashioned himself as a sort of one-man army against the Jewish lobby, claiming, "I like to fight alone; I take responsibility. Along the years, there have been a lot attempts to destroy the few of us who have stood up against Jewish power." He also stated, "We are all subject to Zionist global politics. According to my model, the credit crunch is in fact a Zionist 'punch'."

In his 2003 article "On Anti-Semitism," Atzmon argued that "Jewish people are trying to control the world very seriously" and referenced the disproportionate number of Jews that worked in the Clinton and Bush administrations as evidence. He alleged that the authenticity of the infamous 19th century anti-Semitic forgery "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" was irrelevant because, "American Jews do try to the control the world…So far, they are doing pretty well for themselves at least." A newer version of this article, which currently appears on Atzmon's site, replaced the words "Jewish people" in the first quote with "Zionists," and the second quote cited above now reads "American Jews (namely Zionists)…" The initial version, which only used the term "Jews" and "Jewish" and was more blatantly anti-Semitic, can still be retrieved online.



Anti-Semitism


Many of Atzmon's writings are infected with blatant anti-Semitism. He legitimizes anti-Semitic rhetoric (and even crimes) as rational responses to Zionism

In an August 2009 article about an attack on a gay center in Tel Aviv, Atzmon alleged that democracy and tolerance are "foreign to the spirit of Jewishness." He also explained the attack as emblematic of the Israelis' "murderous lethal tactics" and charged that "the Jewish state…is one of the least tolerant places on this planet. It is fuelled by hatred towards others and Otherness."

During an address at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London in 2005, Atzmon went so far as to legitimize hate crimes against Jews, saying, "I'm not going to say whether it is right or not to burn down a synagogue, I can see that it is a rational act."

Atzmon authored an article titled "On Anti-Semitism" in 2003 that remains his most virulently anti-Semitic piece to date. In the article, Atzmon alleged that "Jews were responsible for the killing of Jesus" and that Jewish outrage in response to the deicide charge only served to further prove their accountability. He also argued that anti-Semitic acts and attitudes are "political responses" to Zionism and cannot be interpreted as racially motivated or irrational incidents of anti-Semitism.

In the article, he posits that Israel benefits from anti-Semitism because it engenders global support for Israel and that Israel therefore engages in behavior toward Palestinians that will spur anti-Semitic reactions, a phenomenon he calls "the Zionist perpetuum mobile."



Holocaust Diminution
Gilad Atzmon engages in Holocaust diminution. He uses language and references that are appealing to, and have been cited by, some of the world's best known Holocaust deniers, including David Duke and Ernst Zundel, who claimed that Atzmon had described the Holocaust as a "forgery."



He defends the right of Holocaust deniers to challenge historical narratives and offer revisionist theories and has circulated and quoted from the works of Paul Eisen, a British Holocaust denier who claims that the "Holocaust narrative and its enforcement are major arms of Jewish or Zionist power."


In his most recent book, The Wandering Who, Atzmon envisions a scenario where Israel pre-emptively strikes Iran and the result is an all-out war. He then writes, "I guess that amongst the survivors of such a nightmare scenario, some may be bold enough to argue that 'Hitler might have been right after all.'"



Strained Relations with the Anti-Israel Left
Gilad Atzmon has been criticized by some anti-Israel activists for reinforcing negative stereotypes about the prevalence of anti-Semitism within the anti-Israel movement. The publication of his most recent book, The Wandering Who, was criticized by several anti-Zionist authors because his work "normalize[s] and legitimize[s] anti-Semitism," according to a statement they issued.



Furthermore, anti-Zionists have tried to protest and/or urge the cancellation of a variety of events throughout Europe featuring Atzmon that were openly anti-Semitic, including a session on "Jewishness, Zionism and Israel," which ultimately did take place in London in May 2011.


In turn, Atzmon has condemned anti-Zionists who insist on extracting anti-Jewishness from the anti-Israel movement as "crypto Zionists," arguing that if the anti-Israel left truly wants to stop Israel it must "openly question the notion of Jewish power." He has further described Jewish anti-Zionists as "another manifestation of Jewish tribal supremacy."

Despite his rocky relationship with some anti-Israel activists, Atzmon has been invited by a variety of anti-Israel groups in the U.S. to perform and speak at local events, including at a fundraiser for the second Gaza Flotilla that took place in Oakland, California, in May 2011. Atzmon also performed and provided a Q&A session about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict at an event in Houston in June 2009 sponsored by the Houston Coalition for Justice & Peace in Palestine, a local anti-Israel group.

[Searcher08]

[American Dream]

http://newjewishresistance.org/blog/gil ... i-semitism

[Links embedded in original]

Gilad Atzmon and the mainstreaming of anti-Semitism

blog | February 29, 2012 - 8:24pm | By Bill Weinberg

Here we go again. "Flashpoints," Dennis Bernstein's longstanding show on Berkeley's "progressive" KPFA Radio on Feb. 27 featured an interview with fellow lefty icon Rabbi Michael Lerner and professional anti-Semitic propagandist (and saxophonist) Gilad Atzmon. Listen to it (it is approvingly posted to several supposedly "progressive" websites, and some outright wacky ones), and you will of course find that it is the typical marshmallow-soft interview of the kind that plagues "alternative" media, with Bernstein not throwing the vile Atzmon a single hardball. Ostensibly, it was a "debate" between Lerner and Atzmon—as if the latter's hateful racism were just another legitimate POV. Amazingly, this seems not to be Lerner's first encounter with Atzmon—a YouTube video from last May shows them happily schmoozing each other at a social gathering, presumably in the Bay Area.

What the hell are Bernstein and Lerner doing by embracing an open Jew-hater with a website full of Holocaust revisionism, claims that Hitler's anti-Semitism was "in direct response to the declaration of war on Germany by the worldwide Jewish leadership," and shameless defenses of age-old anti-Semitic tropes? Has the "left" hit bottom yet? Has it completely abandoned progressive values?

There are a few lonely voices of dissent left on the left. Monthly Review Zine runs an open letter decrying the "Anti-Humanist Rhetoric of Gilad Atzmon," and his reactionary notion of an inherently corrupt "Jewish ideology." The aggressively anti-Zionist blog Jews sans Frontieres has called out Atzmon as a "classical anti-Semite" in refreshingly forthright terms. Hearteningly, the Angry Arab blog also states clearly: "[T]his is somebody that we should reject from the pro-Palestinian advocacy movement." Thank you, comrades. (Of course we at New Jewish Resistance have repeatedly called out Atzmon, and protested his growing embrace by "anti-Zionists.")

On the other hand, the perennially annoying Philip Weiss of the modestly named blog MondoWeiss runs a screed protesting that "the Israel lobby in the San Francisco Bay Area has once again attempted to censor discussion of Zionism and the Palestine issue"—meaning that the local ADL chapter put pressure on the city of Oakland to "force a public event featuring the controversial Gilad Atzmon out of a city-run arts center." Now, whatever the real problems with the ADL are, and whatever the merits of the free-speech issue here, you'd think MondoWeiss would have just a little opprobrium for Bernstein hitching his reputation to an overt Jew-hater. But no, not a trace of it. Atzmon is identified only as a "a world-renowned saxophonist, an outspoken critic of the lobby and all forms of Zionism, and most recently author of a book on Jewish identity politics called The Wandering Who?"

It seems that we have to say it yet again: Ritual squawking that "anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism" is just that—an empty ritual bereft of meaning—if we don't call out real anti-Semitism. Use of the "anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism" mantra to excuse this ugliness is no better than the Zionists' bogus use of the charge of anti-Semitism to silence critics of Israel. In fact, it is exactly the same propaganda device.

The most ironic thing is that by embracing a real anti-Semite, Bernstein and Weiss and (alarmingly) Lerner are, if unwittingly, playing into the Zionist propaganda tactic, making it easier to portray all opposition to Israel's crimes as Jew-hatred. They may think they are helping the Palestinian cause. They couldn't be more wrong.

[AlicetheKurious]

Observations about the hypocrisy and double standards of Gilad Atzmon's attackers:

1) They typically use "guilt by association" to smear Atzmon, pointing to David Duke, Ernst Zundel, etc. Yet they do not apply the same standards to themselves when actual supporters of war crimes like the ADL's Abe Foxman, Alan Derschowitz and Jeffrey Goldberg, and other advocates of ethnic cleansing and racial supremacy agree with THEM, using the exact same terminology. So, even if we disregard the actual devastating impact of their stalinist bullying, just by their own logic, they are zionist agents saboteurs, doing everything possible to destroy the Palestine solidarity movement from within.

2) They're very selective and hypocritical in listing those who admire and praise Atzmon's work. For example, they constantly point to David Duke, in order to portray Atzmon as a white supremacist, even though Atzmon has never had any contact or exchange with Duke and everything he says and does shows that he is the opposite of a white supremacist.

But they cynically ignore the inconvenient fact that among those who have praised Gilad Atzmon's writings are passionate Black American activists like Cynthia McKinney, and Munir Muhammad, among others, and liberal-left radio hosts like Peter B. Collins, and scholars with impeccable academic and humanist credentials such as Richard Falk, Norton Mezvinsky and Francis A. Boyle, as well as John Mearsheimer, all of whom have had personal exchanges with Atzmon and are very familiar with his work.

3) They claim that they are motivated by the desire to prevent division in the ranks of the Palestine solidarity movement, and to protect it from accusations of "antisemitism". In fact, all they do is throw around shrill and baseless accusations of "antisemitism" and promote bitter divisions within the movement, effectively paralyzing it and scaring away those who are genuinely interested in promoting Palestinian rights and human equality, rather than engaging in or defending themselves against ugly mudslinging. Like the Man said, "By their fruits shall ye know them." In fact, without exception, every organization that has fallen into their hands has been brought to its knees by bitter divisions and rancor. There is not one example of an organization that has become more effective, more active or grown in terms of numbers since they took it over. On the contrary, they are scaring people away. Not surprisingly, the far-right zionists are the only beneficiaries, and are ecstatically quoting these supposed "anti-zionists" as "proof" that the Palestine solidarity movement is indeed riddled with "antisemites".

I think that Nahida Izzat, a prominent Palestinian activist in the UK, has put her finger on the problem, and has come up with an excellent proposal to address it, in her essay Of Exclusivity, Loyalty and Liberation of Palestine: Jewish-Only Organizations . . . A Closer Look:

...While non-Jewish candidates are barred from becoming member, by definition membership to Jewish-only organizations is open to ANY person from Jewish background. This makes it piece of cake for Sayanim, Mossad agents, Shin Bet and Zionist sympathisers to effortlessly infiltrate, manipulate and steer such organizations. No wonder then, that so many Jewish-only groups who claim to be “pro-Palestinians” appear to be more interested with aims more in tune with securing the presence of “Israelis” in Palestine, than the restoration of Palestinian sovereignty.

This brings us to the core problem: while those members of Jewish-only organizations have the privilege (and rightly so) to be members and never excluded from pro-Palestinian organization, the opposite is not true. i.e we are faced with an alarming phenomenon whereby, Palestinians and non-Jewish individuals are systematically excluded from participating, having an input, debating, voting, influencing or even being informed about or simply being aware with the inner dynamics and the type and topics of discussions that takes place inside such Jewish-only organizations.

The outcome of such asymmetrical and un-mutual arrangement is what we have seen lately, matters are discussed amongst these exclusive groups, decisions are taken, and then the pro-Palestinian organizations are approached, persuaded, pressured or coerced to adhere to those propositions and motions.

...

Throughout the Palestinian movement, recent events reveal that some people on board of our movement deleterious to the Palestinian cause and some probably are disingenuous. Thus, such unhealthy, asymmetrical and exclusionary structures are indeed destabilizing and crippling the efficiency of Palestine Solidarity Movement, an efficiency vital to a Palestinian population under threat of annihilation… these are not trivial matters.

As a matter of principle, we refuse to apply the same exclusionary methods amongst pro Palestinian organization and will never resort to such racist exclusiveness. We cannot continue to claim to be humanist anti-racist while accepting simultaneously, the exclusionary nature applied by such organizations, especially in the light of compromised loyalty, and what we know about the sinister Mossad activities and the ease with which they infiltrate such groups.

It is therefore essential to crack open the shells of exclusion and secrecy, wherein topics of discussions are about "unfavourable" information to filter, which debates to “allow” and where to draw boundaries, which motions to propose and which one to oppose, and where sinister attacks against activists who might not conform to "permissible" line of discourse are cooked.

Under such conditions, it is imperative for the Palestine Solidarity movement to introduce a regulation that will allow room for transparency and reciprocity. Failure to address this issue would cause the continuation and aggravation of the crippling shift that has already befallen the movement.

...

To put an end to this predicament, the exclusionary nature of such organizations must be revoked, and the fair and mutual openness to membership without discrimination against race, culture or religion must be requested.

The Solidarity Movement needs to have a system of disclosure of political affiliation of its prospective members, making it a contractual obligation of disclosure of their membership to any hitherto Jewish-only organization, or to any other organization linked to either the Palestinian cause, or to the occupiers of Palestine aka “Israelis”.

Representatives of the Solidarity Movements must have the mutual right to have access to and to be fairly represented in the insofar exclusive Jewish-only organizations, in equal numbers, and have rights to vote in these organizations.

To avoid any further mistrust, friction, crippling or fragmentation, reciprocity and mutual open membership is the way forward.

[American Dream]

Nahida Izzat, the Atzmonite quoted immediately above is presented in a broader context here:

Atzmon and Friends Set Out to Destabilise the Palestine Solidarity Movement

Historically the Zionist movement has sought to associate anti-Zionists and supporters of the Palestinians with ‘anti-Semitism’. Atzmon is determined to prove the truth of such allegations. Some people have suggested that Atzmon, like his friend Israel Shamir, is an Israeli state agent. One thing is clear. He is worth his weight in gold to Israel’s hasbara. If he isn’t being paid by Shin Bet then he has a good case for unpaid wages, because every time he opens his mouth the Zionist find it difficult to contain their glee.

The work of PSC Branches and activists, up and down the country, has been disrupted by Atzmon and his supporters. Everywhere they seek to divert effort from BDS and solidarity work to ‘the Jews’. Everywhere they fail, but not without causing significant disruption.

Harry’s Place, the notoriously racist anti-Muslim site, which shares a common agenda with the English Defence League, is besides itself with glee at the work of Atzmon. For example in an article Gill Kaffash, The Palestine Solidarity Campaign, Camden Council and Gilad Atzmon the utterances of Gill Kaffash, the newly resigned Secretary of Camden PSC, are spelt out.

Yet the increasingly deranged Lauren Booth, who all of us respected at the time of the Iraq War for speaking out against her war criminal brother-in-law, is happy to supply the Zionists with further copy. In Palestine Solidarity Campaign in unholy alliance with Israeli mouthpiece and UK Zionist website Booth has this to say:

‘Gill Kafesh, until recently the popular secretary of the Camden branch of the PSC, was “asked to resign by a small group, who made the decision at a special meeting” this autumn. On Harry’s Place, Kafesh is listed as (guess what?) “a supporter of Holocaust denial”. She denies the slur.’

She may well deny ‘the slur’. Nonetheless it is true. In an article ‘My Life as a Holocaust Denier’ Paul Eisen recalls that when he ‘came out’ as a holocaust denier he was disowned by most people ‘but there were some who openly and repeatedly demonstrated their solidarity e.g. Dan McGowan, Henry Herskovitz, Gilad Atzmon, Sarah Gillespie, Israel Shamir, Francis Clark-Lowes, Gill Kaffash, Amjad Taha, Randa Hamwi Duwaji, Cambridge PSC, Rosemary Ernshaw, Fr. Michael Prior RIP, Ernst Zündel; Ingrid Rimland.’

In fact some of those on it – Rosemary Ernshaw and Fr. Michael Prior – were never supporters of Eisen and holocaust denial. Others like neo-Nazi Ernst Zundel and his wife Rimland certainly were. But also there is one Gill Kaffash. When I first saw this article, written in January 2008, I filed it away knowing that it made a number of false claims about people.

However in correspondence on 28th April 2011 Gill Kaffash, in an e-mail to activists stated that ‘Gilad Atzmon is very clear what he means by Jewishness. Come and hear him’. Debbie Fink took exception to the term ‘Jewishness’. In her response of 2nd May Kaffash complained that no one had explained to her why Atzmon was anti-Semitic. So on the same day I posted her an e-mail explaining that Eisen was a self-declared holocaust denier and cited Atzmon's holocaust denial comments and the relevant quotations. On 7th May I reminded Kaffash that she had requested an explanation as to why Atzmon was anti-Semitic and yet she had gone unusually quiet. And so it was to be. When push comes to shove she has nothing (worthwhile) to say.

On 10th April 2011 I wrote to PSC Executive, referring them to e-mail discussions on the Brighton & Hove PSC list when Francis Clarke-Lowes had declared himself to be a holocaust denier. It should be pointed out that the reaction of local members of PSC to Lowe’s utterances were uniformly hostile. On 20th April Lowes was expelled by the officers of Brighton Branch, without any dissent by members.

I have had a number of disagreements with PSC Executive, as readers of this blog will confirm! However the reaction of PSC Executive and their Secretary Ben Soffa to the situation was quick and decisive. Frances Clarke-Lowes was unceremoniously expelled and although he has a right of appeal to the PSC AGM in January there is no doubt whatsoever that that decision will be upheld. In short there is no room at the Palestine Solidarity inn for holocaust or genocide deniers.

Equally welcome was the PSC Executive statement amending PSC's aims to make what was previously implicit, holocaust denial, explicit.

In Bradford there has also been considerable disruption and diversion of energy as a result of the local Raise Your Banners group, once considered on the left, hosting Gilad Atzmon. It was originally booked at the Bradford Cathedral, but owing to slow sales of tickets was moved to a smaller venue. Nick Lowles, editor of the Searchlight anti-fascist magazine, which has previously been extremely supportive of Zionism under Gerry Gable, came out with an extremely fair report of this debacle. PSC distances itself from Raise Your Banners See also GILAD ATZMON: Supporting Holocaust Deniers and spreading hatred of Jews.

In Liverpool a Palestinian activist, Nahida, who was once the mainstay of the group, changed almost overnight when she married a sinister Dutchman. Jewish conspiracies took over her life and it was with difficulty that the branch reclaimed its website, which had posted links to her anti-Semitic website (‘Spiders Web’). Nahida wrote that ‘‘With my usual frankness I attempted to defend Atzmon and Eisen, explaining that in the writing of either men, I did not find any evidence supporting the allegations thrown against them i.e anti-Semitism or denial of the Holocaust.’ I commented on the blog explaining why both Atzmon and Eisen were anti-Semitic.

In Birmingham the Chair of Birmingham PSC, who interviewed me a number of times for Unity FM, a Muslim radio station, also became a convert to Atzmonism and holocaust denial. He was soon removed as an officer of the branch.

In Exeter the local Friends of Palestine group at the University held a meeting at which Atzmon was the star speaker. Exeter has been a problem branch for some time, with Roy Ratcliffe one of the most dedicated of Atzmon supporters. See Gilad Atzmon Finds Someone to Defend Him (Roy Ratcliffe)

Naturally Atzmon and friends have fed off the disruption caused like vultures feeding off carrion. In a ‘review’ of David Landy’s new book 'Jewish Identity & Palestinian Rights - Diaspora Jewish Opposition to Israel', Atzmon wrote of how

‘In the last few months in the UK, more and more exiled Palestinians and solidarity activists have been kicked out from PSC and other solidarity organisations, thanks to relentless pressure from the so-called ‘Israel Critical Jews’. Francis Clark- -Lowes, former Chair of the National PSC was thrown out of the PSC a few months ago due to demands mounted by the infamous Jewish activist Tony Greenstein. Admired Palestinian poet and writer Nahida Izatt was also cleansed . This time it was no Israeli or a ‘Zionist’ who barred her from her local Palestinian solidarity group - it was a Jewish ‘anti’ Zionist Greg Dropkin who had been harassing her and other intellectuals for years. A similar fate was awaiting Gill Kaffash, an admired London activist, who was asked to resign from being Camden PSC’s Secretary. Sammi Ibrahem, Palestinian activist and radio journalist, originally from Gaza, was Chair of Birmingham PSC – at least he was, until he too was expelled due to Jewish ‘anti’-Zionist pressure.'

The ‘Shoah – Palestinian Holocaust’ site , which is run by Atzmon or his devotees, in an article of 23.9.11. Palestine Solidarity Campaign PSC surenderd to Zio-Nazi Harry Place and J lobby pressure we are treated to a series of e-mails describing the plight of the hard pressed anti-Semite and holocaust denier facing expulsion and ostracism in the Palestine solidarity movement.

In his own contribution ‘PSC has made it’ of 23.9.11. Atzmon takes pleasure in the disruption and divisions he is causing. We are told that ‘UK PSC is now approved by the notorious UK hard core Zionist Jewish Chronicle (JC).’ And why? Because PSC had “amended its statement of purpose expressly to include a denunciation of Holocaust denial.” Atzmon purports to being ‘puzzled’.

Atzmon does not even know what holocaust denial can mean. ‘Can one deny’ he asks, 'a historical chapter?' In the course of many e-mails and what purports to be a discussion between Atzmon and myself, one thing I have learnt is that not only is Atzmon far more stupid than he gives himself credit for, but he also has a terrible memory, probably caused by imbibing certain substances. Yet even Atzmon can’t, I asked myself, be that stupid or forgetful.

After all when he performed for the SWP, he actually denied that he was a holocaust denier! He wrote on 21.6.05. that ‘This is to confirm that I am not a Holocaust denier, I have never denied the Nazi Judeocide and I do not have any intentions to do so. For me racism and Nazism are categorically wrong and it is that very realisation that made me into a devoted opponent of Israel and Zionism.’ Even more relevant than Atzmon’s coke ridden brain cells is the simple fact that of course it is possible to deny the holocaust. Just as it is possible to deny the Nakba, the Armenian Genocide and many other similar massacres. Indeed the deniers of the Nakba bear a distinct resemblance to holocaust deniers. Both use outright denial, despite the overwhelming evidence, to justify their barbarities.

Atzmon seems to think it is a sign that PSC has sold out that the Jewish Chronicle reported the fact that PSC had amended its statement of aimson its website to include: "Any expression of racism or intolerance, or attempts to deny or minimise the Holocaust have no place in our movement." Strange that when I would have thought that such an obvious anti-racist statement should have been welcomed.

The fact that PSC has admittedly come under pressure, because of the views held by a tiny minority of its members, doesn’t mean it has caved into Zionist demands. The fact is that holocaust denial is death to Palestine solidarity and PSC are more than aware of this fact. Likewise the fact that the Jewish Chronicle mentioned that ‘the move has been welcomed by Jewish anti-Zionists such as Tony Greenstein.’ should be welcomed. What would be worrying would be if the Zionists were attempting to 'prove' that Atzmon's views represented anyone but himself and a small coterie around him. In particular, it would be worrying if it was seriously suggested that PSC somehow endorses Atzmon. It doesn't and won't.

Putting on his best mask, Atzmon assures that although not a member of PSC ‘I would like the PSC to be strong and effective.’ Yes Gilad, and kosher pigs really do fly!

But the most hysterical and vitriolic of all the contributions comes from one Lauren Booth on 26.11.11. In her article Palestine Solidarity Campaign in unholy alliance with Israeli mouthpiece and UK Zionist website Booth raises a call to arms by the Atzmonites as they realise that the bluff of their supporters has been called. She seems to have been particularly riled by the dissociation by PSC from any support or involvement in the Bradford concert by Atzmon. Booth wrote [Three people in this marriage. The PSC, the JC and Harry’s Place], (26.11.11.)

‘This week, the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) revealed itself to be ethically compromised at the highest level.
In recent months it has become clear that the central office of the PSC is increasingly pandering to the whims of Israeli hasbara – or propaganda – activists, joining with the likes of the rabid Zionist site Harry’s Place in efforts to silence some of this movement’s most outspoken and popular thinkers.’

As if this were not bad enough the next section is entitled ‘Sarah Colborne dives into the Zionist sewer’. Sarah, who was one of those who was on board the Mavi Marmara, whose testimony at the following press conference was moving to anyone who watched it. She was clearly traumatised by what had happened. It is quite outrageous to describe her as a Zionist. Normally this term of abuse is reserved for Jewish anti-Zionists because they are Jewish. For opposing anti-Jewish racism, Ms Colborne has been branded a Zionist. Thus proving the very point we have been making.

It used to be the case that the National Front and Greater Britain Movement would attack 'Zionists' when they meant 'Jews'. 'Zionist' was a code word. Today they don't bother doing that. Instead they leave the really heavy anti-semitic lifting to Gilad Atzmon and his useful idiot, Lauren Booth.

According to Booth, ‘this is not the first but the most recent in a shameful spate of expulsions and harassment of pro-Palestinian activists by the national office of the PSC.’ The problem, apparently, is that ‘They [PSC] are attempting to create a pro-Palestinian organization that does not hurt Zionist sensibilities.’ And the result? They have ended up ‘In bed with the Islamophobic Zionist Harry’s Place’.

I mention this because I, more than anyone, have been critical of PSC because of its diplomatic orientation and its refusal to condemn Abbas and the Palestinian Authority or clearly come out against Histadrut or make a firm commitment in favour of a one-state, secular and democratic Palestine. However there is nothing that Booth, the paid scribe of Iran's Press TV mentions that is at all critical of PSC's political positions. Booth's venomous attack is based on a core racist commitment.

Booth alleges that ‘Sarah Colborne and others have chosen to align with those whose interests lie in silencing debate on the precise nature of apartheid Israel and its root causes.’ It’s a strange accusation, not least because it is untrue. There are many criticisms that can be made of PSC, but this is not one of them.

Apparently the Jewish Chronicle ‘reported gleefully on PSC’s amended mission statement’ which condemned holocaust denial in its own right. I'm pleased it did. That means that whenever anyone doubts PSC's viewpoint on anti-Semitism and the holocaust, they can refer back to the article. One wonders what Booth’s objection could possibly be. But no doubt the erudite half-sister of Cherrie Blair can tell us how holocaust denial is helpful to the Palestinian cause.

The question is what next to do. There is no doubt that the effect of the Zionist libel that anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism are one and the same has built support for Atzmon, who openly proclaims his anti-Semitism. It is also the case that Atzmon's supporters tend to be Islamists, who have no tools of analysis bar Islam and are therefore prey to Atzmon's subjective analysis. It also represents the despair of those who want to see the liberation of the Palestinians and see no end. There is a natural resentment against British Jews who support the horrific attacks of Israel on the Palestinians (& increasingly even Jewish citizens of Israel - witness the raft of Acts attacking basic democratic rights in Israel).

As Israel Shahak, the former Hebrew University Professor of Chemistry and survivor of Belsen-Bergson and the Warsaw Ghetto remarked, 'The Nazis made me afraid to be a Jew, and the Israelis make me ashamed to be a Jew." To be Jewish at the time of the attack on Gaza indeed made one feel ashamed, when innocent children and civilians were being butchered on the altar of Zionist expansionism. Ashamed at the fact that what was being done was being done in all of our names. But Gaza probably heralded a new stage in the struggle. Certainly in Britain, which contains one of the most devoted Jewish populations, the attendance at the Zionist war meeting in Trafalgar Square (4,000) was a fraction of previous turnouts.

If Atzmon were successful, it would only be to ensure that those Jews breaking from Zionism had second thoughts in view of the hostility to them of the Palestine Solidarity movement. Because the logic of Atzmon and Booth's position is to picket not the Israeli Embassy but the local Jewish kindergarten.

PSC needs to take decisive action to root out, once and for all, those who evince sympathy for racism - of whatever description. And that includes the expulsion of Kaffash and Atzmon's most devoted supporters. This isn't a call for a witch-hunt. It is natural that people will occasionally refer to 'Jews' rather than 'Zionists'. After all that is how Israel justifies its actions. The blurring of the distinction between being Jewish and Zionism is the effect of constant propaganda in this society. But those who evince sympathy with Hitler's aims and fascism or deny that extermination was among his 'achievements' have no place in the Palestine solidarity movement.

It is no accident that nearly all of the far-Right and fascist parties in Europe [bar Hungary's Jobbik and Germany's NPD] are both racist and anti-Semitic and pro-Zionist. Anti-Muslim hatred is more important than anti-Semitism. [See Israel's anti-Semitic Friends]

But there is also a crying need for greater internal education within PSC so that these issues don't continually blow up. E.g. how many people realise that the first Zionists were non-Jewish imperialists or that the descriptions that the Zionists used about Jewish people were even more anti-Semitic than the anti-Semites or that they myths about Zionism, such as that Herzl was converted to Zionism by the Dreyfuss Trial are just that - myths.

But there is also one more thing that can be done. But only Palestinians can do it. Too many Palestinian intellectuals - e.g. Ramzy Baroud and Samir Abed Rabbo - have given comfort to Atzmon and supported his initiatives. Their stupidity beggars beliefs. These are people who are the most privileged Palestinians. They above all should understand that historically Zionism has always been helped by anti-Semitism. Even today, the Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj al-Amin Husseini, and his support for Hitler, is used to justify Israel and Zionism. The Mufti's stupidity did more to help the Zionist cause than anything the current Netanyahu cabinet could manage. To visit Yad Vashem, the Zionists' propagandistic holocaust memorial museum, one would think that next to Hitler, the Mufti was the major war criminal of Nazi Germany rather than the most minor and pathetically ineffectual individual that he actually was.

Yet Baroud, Rabbo and Makram Khoury-Machool seem determined to learn nothing and forget nothing. I have personally written to a number of progressive and leftist Palestinian intellectuals, such as Joseph Massad (from whom I've heard nothing whatsoever) but it is fair to say that people are keeping their heads down, hoping that things will blow over.

Yet if history teaches one thing it is that racism doesn't go away of its own accord. There is a need for a forthright stance that makes it clear that no one benefits from anti-Semitism in the Palestine solidarity movement as much as the Zionists themselves. Indeed there is no better article on the subject than Joseph Massad's article Semites and anti-Semites, that is the question in Al Ahram of 9.12.04. which is subtitled 'Today the real victims of Western anti-Semitism are Arabs and Muslims'.


Tony Greenstein



http://azvsas.blogspot.com/2011/11/atzm ... stine.html

[AlicetheKurious]

So, Nahida married a "sinister Dutchman", eh? Funny, Nahida herself says that Greenstein never met her and knows nothing about her life. It seems that, like AD, Greenstein likes to insinuate things to cover for his ignorance....

This latest copy-paste hit-piece from (who else?) Tony Greenstein, courtesy of his devoted catamite AD, is so full of lies and distortions it's difficult to know what to address. I mean, AD uses two fingers and less than two brain cells for two minutes to copy and paste a pack of defamatory lies from the likes of Greenstein, and then I'm supposed to tediously expose them one by one? I don't think so.

So I'll just pick out one example, to illustrate the dishonesty of Greenstein/AD (and their contempt for others' intelligence):

In Palestine Solidarity Campaign in unholy alliance with Israeli mouthpiece and UK Zionist website Booth has this to say:

‘Gill Kafesh, until recently the popular secretary of the Camden branch of the PSC, was “asked to resign by a small group, who made the decision at a special meeting” this autumn. On Harry’s Place, Kafesh is listed as (guess what?) “a supporter of Holocaust denial”. She denies the slur.’

She may well deny ‘the slur’. Nonetheless it is true. In an article ‘My Life as a Holocaust Denier’ Paul Eisen recalls that when he ‘came out’ as a holocaust denier he was disowned by most people ‘but there were some who openly and repeatedly demonstrated their solidarity e.g. Dan McGowan, Henry Herskovitz, Gilad Atzmon, Sarah Gillespie, Israel Shamir, Francis Clark-Lowes, Gill Kaffash, Amjad Taha, Randa Hamwi Duwaji, Cambridge PSC, Rosemary Ernshaw, Fr. Michael Prior RIP, Ernst Zündel; Ingrid Rimland.’

In fact some of those on it – Rosemary Ernshaw and Fr. Michael Prior – were never supporters of Eisen and holocaust denial. Others like neo-Nazi Ernst Zundel and his wife Rimland certainly were. But also there is one Gill Kaffash. When I first saw this article, written in January 2008, I filed it away knowing that it made a number of false claims about people.

However in correspondence on 28th April 2011 Gill Kaffash, in an e-mail to activists stated that ‘Gilad Atzmon is very clear what he means by Jewishness. Come and hear him’. Debbie Fink took exception to the term ‘Jewishness’. In her response of 2nd May Kaffash complained that no one had explained to her why Atzmon was anti-Semitic. So on the same day I posted her an e-mail explaining that Eisen was a self-declared holocaust denier and cited Atzmon's holocaust denial comments and the relevant quotations. On 7th May I reminded Kaffash that she had requested an explanation as to why Atzmon was anti-Semitic and yet she had gone unusually quiet. And so it was to be. When push comes to shove she has nothing (worthwhile) to say.

So, Gill Kaffash, a Palestinian, was kicked out of a Palestinian solidarity organization on whose behalf she'd dedicated years of excellent work, because Jewish self-appointed "solidarity" activists accused her of being a "Holocaust denier". Did she "deny" the "Holocaust"? No. She defended the right of other people to (gasp!) think and speak for themselves, and even more shockingly, refused to give in to bullying by these so-called "solidarity" activists and defame Atzmon as a racist, which he is not.

In other words, it is not necessary, according to Tony Greenstein/American Dream, to actually "deny" the "Holocaust" in order to be labeled a "Holocaust denier": all you have to do is to believe in people's freedom to think and speak for themselves, and fail to obey when you are ordered to defame and attack one of your friends. This is what they mean by "Holocaust denial". And it is clearly such stiff-necked rebels that they especially target.

Here's where Messrs. Greenstein and Dream let us know a bit more about their agenda:

...In a ‘review’ of David Landy’s new book 'Jewish Identity & Palestinian Rights - Diaspora Jewish Opposition to Israel', Atzmon wrote of how

‘In the last few months in the UK, more and more exiled Palestinians and solidarity activists have been kicked out from PSC and other solidarity organisations, thanks to relentless pressure from the so-called ‘Israel Critical Jews’. Francis Clark- -Lowes, former Chair of the National PSC was thrown out of the PSC a few months ago due to demands mounted by the infamous Jewish activist Tony Greenstein. Admired Palestinian poet and writer Nahida Izatt was also cleansed . This time it was no Israeli or a ‘Zionist’ who barred her from her local Palestinian solidarity group - it was a Jewish ‘anti’ Zionist Greg Dropkin who had been harassing her and other intellectuals for years. A similar fate was awaiting Gill Kaffash, an admired London activist, who was asked to resign from being Camden PSC’s Secretary. Sammi Ibrahem, Palestinian activist and radio journalist, originally from Gaza, was Chair of Birmingham PSC – at least he was, until he too was expelled due to Jewish ‘anti’-Zionist pressure.'

Too many Palestinian intellectuals - e.g. Ramzy Baroud and Samir Abed Rabbo - have given comfort to Atzmon and supported his initiatives. Their stupidity beggars beliefs. These are people who are the most privileged Palestinians. They above all should understand that historically Zionism has always been helped by anti-Semitism. Even today, the Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj al-Amin Husseini, and his support for Hitler, is used to justify Israel and Zionism. The Mufti's stupidity did more to help the Zionist cause than anything the current Netanyahu cabinet could manage. To visit Yad Vashem, the Zionists' propagandistic holocaust memorial museum, one would think that next to Hitler, the Mufti was the major war criminal of Nazi Germany rather than the most minor and pathetically ineffectual individual that he actually was.

Yet Baroud, Rabbo and Makram Khoury-Machool seem determined to learn nothing and forget nothing. I have personally written to a number of progressive and leftist Palestinian intellectuals, such as Joseph Massad (from whom I've heard nothing whatsoever) but it is fair to say that people are keeping their heads down, hoping that things will blow over.

Hmmm. So, Jewish activists, operating mostly out of exclusively Jewish groups, are purging the Palestine solidarity movement of...Palestinians. Especially those Palestinians and sincere activists who are genuinely dedicated to Palestinian rights and who refuse to be bullied into obeying the orders of these Jewish groups, to transform themselves into little Palestinian clones of Abe Foxman. This seems to be quite the collaborative effort, between zionists and "anti-zionists":

Nick Lowles, editor of the Searchlight anti-fascist magazine, which has previously been extremely supportive of Zionism under Gerry Gable, came out with an extremely fair report of this debacle. PSC distances itself from Raise Your Banners See also GILAD ATZMON: Supporting Holocaust Deniers and spreading hatred of Jews.

In reality, it's not accurate what Tony Greenstein/American Dream say, "that historically Zionism has always been helped by anti-Semitism," especially not since the end of WWII (when the zionists were able to force Jewish refugees to locate against their will in Palestine). Today, Jewish people are collectively among the most privileged on earth, and have been so for decades. They do not suffer the kinds of discrimination or oppression or deprivation that are associated with being victims of racism. And yet, during this same period, Israel has escalated its ethnic cleansing and expanded into more and more Palestinian and other Arab lands. Its economy is booming at a time of global financial crisis. It continues to enjoy absolute immunity and impunity for all its crimes. Countries like Britain actually change their laws to accommodate Israeli war criminals, and violate their own policies to provide Israel with preferential trade status. Among the most rabidly violent and genocidal settlers on Palestinian land are emigrants from the US, where they did not suffer from "anti-Semitism".

On the contrary, zionism has been "helped" far more by the weakness of the Palestinian people, and by the ability of the zionists to get away with committing horrible atrocities against them with impunity. Zionism has been "helped" far more by the fact that the Palestine solidarity movement in the West has been dominated by...zionists, who appointed themselves the Masters of Discourse. Zionism has been "helped" by the fact that the zionists who dominated the Palestine solidarity movement until recent years, have diverted people's attention away from the Jewish lobbies and Israeli agents who ensure Israel gets all the financial, military and political support it needs, at the expense of the countries that allow these support networks to avoid public scrutiny and accountability.

And the truth is, it is the accusation of "anti-semitism", which these self-styled "Palestine solidarity activists" are wielding so enthusiastically, rather than any actual anti-Jewish racism, that has been most "helpful" to zionism -- not because it has any validity, but because of the very real threat that those who are targeted by it could lose their careers or worse. In other words, the accusation of "anti-semitism" does not represent an appeal to conscience or to morality, nor does it represent an appeal to logic or intellect: it is used to browbeat people, by threatening their livelihoods or worse.

As American Dream is so fond of saying: "With friends like these..."

Thank goodness, the Palestine solidarity movement is now a global phenomenon, and it's growing, despite the efforts of assholes like Greenstein and his gang of little Foxmans (including our very own self-styled "activist" AD). While they celebrate their teeny handful of "success" stories, individuals whom they've managed to frighten into joining their ADL, many thousands of others are getting a real education in how saboteurs operate.

In that sense, I'm grateful to Tony Greenstein and AD and all the other little Foxmans in "Palestine solidarity activists" clothing: by their actions they have confirmed the accuracy of Gilad Atzmon's and others' analyses, to a "t". Though I would have found Atzmon's writings interesting, I doubt I would have fully appreciated their value, if I hadn't witnessed for myself how true they are, and how dangerous our naivete has been. Clearly I'm not the only one: Atzmon's book has become an international bestseller -- it's not available here yet, but I will make sure to get it when I travel this summer. Maybe I'll buy a few copies and give them to my friends. After all, forewarned is forearmed...

[American Dream]

Gilad Atzmon

People have been asking me about him a lot as of late: in the UK and the US. I make it very clear: this is somebody that we should reject from the pro-Palestinian advocacy movement. He is anti-Jewish and his offensive language against Jews and Judaism should be categorically rejected. I would put the name of Israel Shamir in the same category. Anti-Semites belong to the Zionist side, and not to our side.

--As’ad AbuKhalil, "The Angry Arab"


http://angryarab.net/2012/02/28/gilad-atzmon/