If you put half the effort you exert fighting zionism instead of attacking anti zionists, out struggle for the Liberation of Palestine would be that much easier.

There is no 'solidarity with Palestine' at all the way you and your fellow Brits from Elf's pages operate.

Condoning and enabling antisemitism, either on the left or on the right, is in no way helping the Palestinian cause. Tony is right to fight it, and he's right to condemn Atzmon for it. The sooner the left -- including Indymedia -- learns to distinguish between those who are anti-Israel and those who are demonstrably anti-Jew but claim to be only anti-Israel, the quicker it can regain the moral ground people like Gilad Atzmon and Indymedia are busily wasting.

Tony Greenstein did not bother to address the article he seems to think he is giving a rebuttal to. He has simply taken advantage of a space that the site has allowed so as to continue in his campaign of defamation. TPV frequently prints articles by myself and by Gilad, and if that is the case, do you consider it legitimate that my site is Conspiracy or Right Wing? It is anything but!

The article about Indy was about a pressure campaign launched in order to take someone off a public site, and it used comments that not only were used out of context, distorting their meaning (it is clear to anyone but Tony and the gang he called in to back up his pressure campaign that it is about a mindset that Gilad speaks, not about an ethnic group.)

If anyone has some doubts about the limpidness of Tony and his racism, I invite them to read this article where Tony puts to good use his arsenal of Islamophobia. Read it and judge for yourself. They are his own words, taken out of context, but it is not hard to determine the meaning of when he says he will NEVER respect the Palestinian choice since they voted in Hamas, which he equates with Hitler and he insists that should there be an Islamic state, Jews will be oppressed. Great person to lead a Palestinian campaign, isn't that? http://peacepalestine.blogspot.com/2007/11/jews-sans-manires.html
http://peacepalestine.blogspot.com/2007/11/whats-it-all-about-indy.html

As well, he is not as careful with the boycott as he claims. While I've been supporting it totally, he makes exceptions. Who is right or wrong is not important. But, excluding discussion of it is indeed wrong, and he reserves this abuse for Gilad and not for people like Elam who are TRULY against the boycott.

I am surprised at you for putting this piece of crap up.

“The sooner the left -- including Indymedia -- learns to distinguish between those who are anti-Israel and those who are demonstrably anti-Jew but claim to be only anti-Israel, the quicker it can regain the moral ground people like Gilad Atzmon and Indymedia are busily wasting.” - petunia

This sounds like Rumsfeld’s ‘known unknowns and unknown unknowns’ speech, clear as mud. So just exactly how do you propose to demonstrate that somebody is actually anti-Jew when they are clearly anti-Israel? I think what you really want to do is find a way of demonstrating that being anti-Israel is actually anti-Jew. Of course this is impossible because it simply isn’t true. But if the impossible connection between the unconnectible could ever be made, the Zionist right would arrest every dissenter. For all I know there are already people being arrested simply for dissenting against the fascist Israeli state.

Mr. Greenstein,

Why do you waste your own and other people's energy by engaging in labyrinthine and useless arguments about who said what, where & when?

May I remind you that as we speak, Palestinians are being killed in great numbers down there. -Jewish people in so-called Israel murder them ruthlessly and steal their land. This is is what we all should focus on.

Mary and Gilad are good people, who are doing a lot in terms of solidarity with the Palestinian people. -Yet you seem to take some mysterious pleasure in vilifying them. Why is this?

rj

If people make generalised and essentialist remarks about Jews then it is safe to assume that they are being antisemitic. If they analyse the structure of the State of Israel, the way in which it uniquely favours Jews worldwide for citizenship and much else besides, over the native non-Jewish population who either live there or who have been ethnically cleansed from there, then we're looking at anti-zionism.

For all that Tony Greenstein et al are accused of attacking Atzmon, it was Atzmon who began attacking them because they followed Electronic Intifada's Ali Abunima's lead in condemning the neo-nazi Israel Shamir. Since then he has made a passtime of doctoring the writings of Jewish anti-zionists in order to develop his ludicrous thesis that zionism is actually working against the assimilation of Jews. The bizarre thing and the thing that makes it nigh on impossible to have a normal debate with Atzmon, is that the Jews he attacks are overwhelmingly assimilationist in terms of their own private lives and in terms of their outlook. One of the targets of Atzmon's vitriol, Michael Rosen, once said that we should be neutral on the question of assimilation. He said this in response to Tony Greenstein and Roland Rance once writing that "assimilation is good." It was Rosen's writing that Atzmon doctored in a Counterpunch article. He knew what he had done, there was no mistake there. He didn't just quote him out of context, he virtually invented the quote. And he did that to come up with a new definition of zionism that has no bearing on the Palestinians whatever.

I think the main point of a solidarity movement with an oppressed people is that it expose the oppression. Certainly leads should be taken from the oppressed but this does not mean cheering for every leader to emerge from among the oppressed. This would be impossible in the case of Palestine anyway as there are broadly three groups to consider, the refugees, the occupied and those living within the pre-67 boundary. Hamas for all their praiseworthy steadfastness and undeniable courage have a charter that even Dr Azam Tamimi (of MAB) has described as ludicrous and antisemitic. Now 44% of the people who voted in the last PA elections voted for Hamas. Does this mean that solidarity activists have to pretend to believe that the Jews rule the world through rotary clubs? Mary Rizzo might believe so and so might Atzmon. But ok, let's run with that. Let's ignore the refugees and the so-called Israeli Palestinians. We, the solidarity movement, inscribe on our banners "The Jews rule the world through rotary clubs." How does it sound? Good? Will it make Gordon Brown renounce his patronage of the Jewish National Fund? Will it stop the UK facilitating US arms supplies to Israel via Prestwich? Ok, try suspending disbelief and assume that it would succeed. So next time the people under occupation - remember not the Palestinians in Israel or the Palestinians beyond the bounds of Palestine altogether - vote they vote for Fatah. Change those banners. Now we inscribe on our banners "Cheap cement from the PA to the wall!" Yup, a PA minister used to (maybe still does since the Abbas takeover) sell Israel cement for the wall. How does that sound? That of course isn't antisemitic but it does show where pretending to take ones cue from the PA elections might lead.

Far better to develop a real world analysis of the situation in Palestine than run with medieval mystical notions of Jewish power and then pretend to be simply honouring the wishes of the Palestinians when 44% of the people who vote in the occupied PA elections (ie a minority of a minority) happen to vote for a group a part of whose charter tallies with the antisemitic worldview you are promoting.

Now, lest I be accused of doing an Atzmon and using bogus id, my name is Mark Elf and my blog is Jews sans frontieres. Perhaps people can go there and judge for themselves whether I am anti-zionist or not.

once again what we have here is a jew trying to distiguish himself from the zionist while trying not to refute their philosophy. trying to create a contigency plan in case the zionist movement blows up in their face. then what happens?? regime change in israel. a new political organization trying to eliminate the palestinians and steal land that belonged to them before the jewish religion was even established. there are certain jews poised to take power and continue the policies once the zionists are exposed as the murdering land stealing people that they are. would another jewish government be any better?? are we to believe that once the zionists are taken from power the state of israel will just go away and give the land back to the rightful owners when one of the core doctorines of their religion is the taking of the "promised land". not promised to them by any of the rightful owners but promised by their mythical god. If their all powerful god wanted them to have that land wouldn't he just reach down and brush aside the palestinians. of course he would!!! the problem is that he doesn't exist. some people would call me an atheist but in reality I am a realist. Do I object to others believing?? absolutely not, I believe people do whaty they have to to get throught the day. I just think it is wrong to murder and steal in the name of that religion. which is exactly what the state of israel is doing to the palestinians while the rest of the world stands around watching and encouraging them. The jewish people did a good job of inventing christianity and instilling in christians the idea that the land belongs to them because our mutual god says so. A great con job huh?????

No one doubts that you are an anti zionist Mssr. Elf, but as your own blog testifies, the EMPHASIS is on Jews....

Join the battle against zion without wearing the yellow star you chose to display.

Together, WE, Jews,Muslims and Christians can make a difference without separations among ourselves.

What is noticeable is that none of the critics of the article are able to respond to the substance of the article. It's no surprise since I rely almost entirely on their own word!

I have no objection to conspiracy/holocaust denial sites putting up Atzmon's nonsense - wordy and turgid though it is. I object to left-wing/anarchist/direct action sites doing so because it demeans them. There are other sites which are contrarian and will want a debate and it is noticeable that, last time I looked, there wasn't a single comment to Rizzo's original article on here, this posting has, in a few hours attracted a number of comments.

But let's deal with the criticisms, such as they are:
i. Why don't you spend your time supporting the Palestinians instead of engaging in these polemics. Well I presume that this is also said to Atzmon and Rizzo since they are the ones, as Mark said, who began all of this with Atzmon's notorious London Elders of Zion.

ii. I probably devote a greater amount of my time to supporting the Palestinians than either Rizzo or Atzmon. I also don't attack the efforts of others. Palestinians called for a boycott. We responded and the left in UNISON, of which I'm a part, as well as in the TGWU, UCU and NUJ got motions passed. The Zionists howled as never before. The Boycott is so potent precisely because it calls into question the legitimacy of the whole Zionist project, the nature of the 'Jewish' state. I've met no Palestinian except Abu Atzman, who criticises it (sorry, I'm citing one of his many pseudonyms!). Book burning no less - tell that to Palestinian students trying to get to Britain from Gaza to study or those detained at the 500+ roadblocks. Or Ilan Pappe for that matter - Atzmon declared that since no senior academics supported it he would oppose it. What he meant was that the academics who supported it didn't support him! Maybe Ilan Pappe isn't senior enough but Pappe will be speaking in support of Boycott at the debate on Tuesday that Independent Jewish Voices are organising. Is he senior enough? Is he a racial ethnic activist too? I think we should be told.

3. Mary Rizzo suggests that although she has fully supported the Boycott (has she, I don't know, she put up Atzmon's interview attacking it) Shraga Elam does not. But Mary knows that on the Alef (Israeli academic left) List I have indeed criticised Shraga and continue to do so for opposing the boycott. He is dead wrong but Shraga hasn't accused fellow Jewish anti-Zionists of being ethnic racial activists so our exchanges are comradely.

4. Editor asks 'how do you propose to demonstrate that somebody is actually anti-Jew when they are clearly anti-Israel?' By what they say. If they are attacking Jews as Jews, as Atzmon clearly does when he witters on about Third Category Jews and says they control the world etc. that is clearly anti-Semitic. Most people would recognise that instantly, just as when he blames 'gatekeepers' for having been responsible for the lack of success of the Palestine solidarity movement he is being anti-Semitic, making Jews in the movement a scapegoat, when everyone knows that the real battle will inevitably be in Palestine itself.

'I think what you really want to do is find a way of demonstrating that being anti-Israel is actually anti-Jew.' Absolutely not. I've fought all my political life against the idea that being anti-Israel or anti-Zionist is being anti-Jew/anti-Semitic. Why should I since I am Jewish? It makes no sense. But I do want to distinguish between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism, not least because anti-Semitism is the other side of the coin from Zionism. That is why it is clear that Atzmon is politically a Zionist - he does nothing but attack Jewish anti-Zionists and from the same perspective as his mentor and friend Israel Shamir the holocaust denier, who believes Avigdor Liebermann, deputy Israeli PM and leader of the far-right transferist party, Israel Beteinu, is the least racist of all Jewish parties in Israel!

5. RJ believes that it is wrong to criticise Atzmon and Rizzo because of all the good work they are doing. I'm not aware of what good work you might be referring to since Mary has spent most of her time attacking others in the movement. But maybe its right to attack Jewish anti-Zionists but not right for them to respond! Yes Palestinians are undergoing a starvation siege, borrowed from the tactical arsenal of the Governor of the Generalgovernment of Poland under the Nazis, Hans Frank, who talked of 'death by hunger'. What is happening is an outrage and I suspect that I am more of an activist than those who keep attacking us.

6. Oldscutlas's argument, besides verging into the anti-Semitic and being incomprehensible, demonstrates the fallacy of those who can't distinguish between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism. The Zionist movement was a POLITICAL movement backed by anti-Semites to enable them to remove the Jews in their midst. Anti-Semites have always ended up supporting Zionism, hence why this is another reason to reject Zionism besides the most obvious, what it does to the Palestinians.

7. Not so long ago I was the only Jewish anti-Zionist interviewed for a Channel 4 programme hosted by right-wing bigot Richard Littlejohn. He was very concerned about 'anti-Semitism'. So are other bigots and racists on the right - both of which he is. To come out with anti-Jewish nonsense, as Atzmon does, instead of supporting the Palestinians, as we do, is to play into the hands of the Zionists. Atzmon, because of his ego, doesn't support an academic boycott. Because of his ego he attacks his critics in the most foul-mouthed and underhand way. What he doesn't do is attack the Zionists.

8. Diego tells Mark Elf to get rid of his yellow star. This is another example of the anti-Semitism we talk about. Neither Mark nor myself wear a Nazi or medieval yellow star. What Diego means, presumably, is pretend you're not Jewish. Why? If the Zionists justify their attacks on Palestinians because of their Jewish heritage then it is incumbent on some of us, as Jews, to stand up to them, to say that the battle isn't against Jews but Zionists.

Now I attended a wonderful conference yesterday on the Single State at which people like Ilan Pappe, Joseph Massad, Abunimah, Omar Baghouti spoke among others. The debate was between a binational state, which the more softer anti-Zionists/non-Zionists supported and a democratic, secular state that people like Ilan and Omar supported. It's interesting that Atzmon/Rizzo both support an Islamic state on the basis that 44% of the Palestinians voted for Hamas, primarily because of the collaborationist politics of Fateh than any enthusiasm for another Iran. Of course such a prospect would repel support from any section whatsoever of the Israeli state, as well as Christian and secular Palestinians. But who cares, bigotry is their stock-in-trade.

9. But for once I am pleased to see something by Rizzo. She says 'I am surprised at you for putting this piece of crap up.' This is rich coming from someone who was only lately babbling on about censorship of someone who has dozens of sites printing his nonsense. Seems Mary isn't such a believer in free speech and debate as she makes out! No matter I've 2 articles in the printed media coming out which I'm sure she'll find enjoyable!

Tony Greenstein

tonyg:

while I will refrain from responding for others who you felt like trashing I will respond for myself.

You first say that my argument is incomprehensible and anti semitic. If it was so incomprehensible why is it you can call it anti semitic?? I love that phrase right there "anti-semitic" it really makes someone sound as if they believe that the jews should be eliminated. but this is not at all my position. I think that the state of israel should be eliminated. then I believe the israeli people need to crawl on their knees to what little of the palestinian people there is still alive and beg forgiveness for thousands of years of genocide and ethnic cleansing the israelites have perpetuated upon the palestinian people. how is that for anti-semitic??

now that being said I am a person who believes everyone has basic rights and everything I have seen and heard in the news, from history, and on the internet tells me that which I have stated above. I am not some fancy college educated scholar who spends all my time trying to convince people how smart I am and how dumb they are. very rarely will I quote anything but rely instead on what my own mind is logically able to deduce after looking at something from all sides. but this situation requires one of those rare times;
exodus 6: 8

" I will bring you to the land that I solemnly promised to give to abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; and I will give it to you as your own possesion. I am the lord!"

here we have god saying to the israelites that moses will lead them out of egypt and to the promised land. now let's jump ahead and see how they do it. The whole plagues and who begot who is too boring to wade through.
Exodus 23: 31-33

" I will make the borders of your land extend from the gulf of aqaba to the euphrates river and from the Mediterranean sea to the desert. I will give you power over the inhabitants of the land and you will drive them out as yo advance. Do not make any agreement with them or their gods. Do not let those people live in your country: if you do they will make you sin against me.

and here is god telling the israelites to drive out the arab people who own the land called arabah and canaan. hence driving home the argument that the israeli people are the ones who do not have a right to that land.
numbers 31:7-10

" they attacked midian, as Lord had commanded moses, and killed all the men including the five kings of Midian. they also killed Balaam son of beor. The people of israel captured the midianite women and children, took their cattle and their flocks, plundered all their wealth. and burned all their cities and camps.

these are direct quotes taken from the bible. the old testament to be exact. the first five books even which the jews consider to be their law. this is just the start of the ethnic cleansing the israelites caused upon the people of what is now palestine. now once again I ask you who is the real owner of the land being disputed?? that is what is at the core of any argument concerning the israeli/palestinian conflict. the israelites own holy book tells us that they stole the land. is that comprehensible enough for you???

Diego, there should be no problem with identifying oneself as a Jew. Christian Aid does some wonderful work for the Palestinians. The Muslim Public Affairs Committee UK does good work too. As, of course, does Hamas, who in spite of their own professed philosophy, have the support of many Muslim secularists. There doesn't seem to be a problem with their identity. And anyway, go back to my site again and look at what I say about what goes on in the media or in Palestine and rather than criticise the name of the blog because you find the word or identity - Jews - repugnant, criticise what I have actually written. As it happens, apart from the name of the blog, Jews sans frontieres, the emphasis is on zionism and my opposition to it. I don't see how condemning people who were born and raised as Jews for continuing to identify as Jews, helps the Palestinians. And it wasn't Atzmon and Rizzo who were attacked by anti-zionist Jews, it was Atzmon who attacked them for taking Ali Abunima and Hussein Ibish's lead in condemning the neo-nazi, Israel Shamir.

Atzmon gets a lot of space on sites where he could expose and condemn zionism and the state of Israel. Instead he has doctored the writings and sayings of others to come up with a meaningless definition of zionism and to try to mobilise people against named Jewish anti-zionists. And yet it is the respondents who are condemned by you. You seem to have an agenda other then support for the Palestinians.

You say that Christians, Muslims and Jews should work together and yet it is only Jews you condemn for identifying with being Jewish.

You say it would be easier to struggle for the liberation of Palestine if Atzmon's antisemitism wasn't criticised. Why don't you say that it would be easier for anti-zionist Jews to participate in this struggle if they didn't have to constantly fend off and defend themselves against the lies Atzmon posts on every conspiracy site and open space that he can find?

I think you need to read around your subject a bit more than you have done. Atzmon claims to be anti-zionist and yet he has redefined zionism to mean Jews opposing assimilation or simply Jews identifying as Jews. For the former he has doctored the writings of named Jews in Counterpunch and no doubt other sites. So basically for Atzmon, zionism and Jewishness are pretty much the same, though he claims to love the determinedly anti-assimilationist, homophobic and sexist, Neturei Karta, he has praised the zionist, Primo Levi, and he has described self-identifying secular Jew, Ronnie Kasrils as "a hero," once he found out who that last one was. How does all this ludicrous inconsistency make the struggle for the liberation of Palestine easier? The answer of course is, it doesn't. Atzmon is a wonderful musician I'm told but his writing is mostly pretentious tosh combined with antisemitism because as the anti-zionist movement has become more popular, being an anti-zionist Israeli lost its appeal so he turned to the more controversial antisemitism and attacked activists of several years standing.

So, do you want to analyse zionism and oppose it for what it really is or do you want be just another ludicrous groupie for this thoroughly dishonest ego maniac?

Oldscutlas - Hamas takes the view that the biblical Israelites were entitled to the holy land, or as Dr Azzam Tamimi said "the Israelites were the good guys then." Apart from that, telling people what the Jews believe when Jews like any other community numbering in the millions have many beliefs is antisemitic. The attribution of one single belief to millions of people who share an ethno-religious identity is called racist, or antisemitic when specifically applied to Jews and the idea that the Jews of today are the direct descendants of the Israelites of the bible is downright ludicrous. Your racial mythologising dovetails almost perfectly with that of the zionist movement.

Israel is a colonial settler state based on privileging Jews and ethnically cleansing Palestinians and it claims to speak for all Jews. Once upon a time, Atzmon said that Jews as Jews should condemn zionism. I don't actually agree with that but we are entitled to condemn zionism as Jews without being harassed and smeared by Atzmon and his on line acolytes.

woops, I should have said that Hamas enjoys the support of Muslim and other secularists. And I probably should have said critical support too.

I wonder why Tony Greenstein, on various blogs, continues to say that in Nazi Germany, Zionism collaborated with antisemitism. He, of course, has no evidence for this and naturally he has not footnoted his claim as he knows full well that if he did, he would be exposed.

This kind of error, I believe is done deliberately, in order to denigrate Zionism, a movement that was in favour in the establishment of the State of Israel and of Jews emigrating there. Had, of course, this been done at the time the Zionists were demanding it in the late 19th Century and early 20th century, the Jewish people may have had an escape from the Nazis.

The continual attacks on Zionism by Tony Greenstein are unjustified, unwarranted and erroneous.

All I am saying M. Elf is that your blog seems to stress the fact that you are all Jews. Yes, it is noble for Jews to oppose zionism, but it is also noble to work with ALL others that oppose it regardless of a difference of opinion here or there.

Your differences with Rizzo and Atzmon looks more like a personal vendetta of sorts than an argument about issues. Whatever differences or dislikes you may have about them the anti zionist movement would benefit by all forces working together. Once zionism is eradicated the 'in-fighting' won't matter, now it does.

As far as your accusation of me saying I condemn Jews for identifying themselves as such.. and Christians and Muslims not.... I never condemned anyone nor said the latter was OK... I said.."Together, WE, Jews,Muslims and Christians can make a difference without separations among ourselves."
EMPHASIS on the word TOGETHER...

As far as my comment on the yellow star, perhaps that was a bit harsh, I apologize if you were offended by it.

Bottom line is, all I am saying is LET'S WORK TOGETHER TO DESTROY THE BEAST.... NOT EACH OTHER!

Diego

Elf (a ‘Jew’ sans frontieres) fails to understand that Islam and Christianity are religious beliefs. Indeed, Judaism is as well a religious belief, yet, Elf, Greenstein & Co are secular Jews. They do not follow the Judaic belief and they do not confront Zionism in the name of Judaism.

Instead, they interpret Jewishness as a legitimate national notion. Like the Bund, they believe in Jewish people are a nation (who lack a geographical orientation). This is not a crime it is just another face of Zionism (Zionism, by the way, was there to solve the geographical lack).

They are basically a bunch of Diaspora Zionists who promote the interest of the Jewish people (instead of the Judaic spirit i.e. religion). This is why they try to stop us from discussing the Israeli Lobby in America. It isn’t very surprising to find out that they act as Zionist operators. They are politically engaged solely within racially segregated cyber cells (JSF, JAZ, JFPp etc’ ). Seemingly, they insist that the rest of us regard them as universal humanists. Once we mock them for who and what they are (a marginal bunch or racially orientated NATIONAL socialists), they would start to call us names… racists, anti Semites, Jew haters…

As far as I am aware, no one has ever tried to silence them. No one has ever tried to stop them from joining multi faith/cultural solidarity movement. In fact it is them, who try to silence others and this is exactly what they are doing here.

Sounds like ADL to me…

Diego it was indeed harsh to mention the ‘Yellow Star’ but as sad as it may be, this is what it is. Although Hitler is defeated and Jews are now totally free to join the peace movement, our so called ‘Progressive, cosmopolitan Jewish Socialists’ voluntarily put the yellow badge on, they voluntarily pushe themselves back into the ghetto. …. In fact nothing is really wrong with putting the yellow badge on except the fact that it doesn’t entail any intellectual, ethical or ideological universal meaning.

I really want to know what Jewish secularism stands for, what are the Jewish secular values which those Tribal leftists try to promote? As far as I can see, every Jewish humanist with a substantial body of thought stood up against Judaism, Jewishness, Jewish tribalism etc’. Is there a Jewish secular universal system value? Where is it? What is it? Where is the textbook and who is the author?

When those ‘tribal national socialists’ come up with the good I promise to rest my case.

p.s. by the way, I am not against people being Jewish and not even against people acting politically as Jews. I am just against Jewish secular politics. It is racially orientated. And i am against racism.

I have to agree with your last paragraph Gilad... it says it all!

It more or less sums up what I have been saying, that WE (Jews, Muslims and Christians) have to work TOGETHER.

It's very funny. Everything written here reinforces every single word I wrote in my original text!

That Tony did not even attempt to address the text (and this is why I call his writing a piece of crap) makes me think of the words that a solicitor would shout during a trial when he brings up everything and the kitchen sink from his constant litany of abuse and smears:
Irrelevant,
Irrelevant,
Irrelevant.

Tony is afraid to address the fact that he is engaged in censorship. That he sets his clan onto others in a lobbying effort to SHUT THOSE HE DISAGREES WITH UP when he is unable to stick to the arguments.

Do I bring up his shady past? I am tempted, but it's IRRELEVANT.

I DO demonstrate that while he is calling me anti-semitic and not being able to substantiate it, he himself is operating straight out of the ADL manual, (name calling, glittering generalisations, repetition of out of context quotes, dividing the world into Islam and Non-Islam (this was Huntington's schtick, Tony), name dropping of "absolutely" solid JEWISH people to defend his argument.

Let's talk about the absolutely solid. Solid what? This Machover is more like a waffle, having assumed several positions at the same time regarding censorship and banning of Atzmon. But, Tony wants the moderators at IM to feel pressure from a Jew whose opinion they better not disagree with, or they will get the dirt flung at them too. Which is what it boils down to.

Don't believe me? Take a look at Elf's blog.
Yes, Let's talk about freedom of speech for a moment, The People's Voice.

Elf continually smears me, encouraging his other commenters to do the same. Now it's being passed onto poor FTP who managed to want to SORT THINGS OUT FOR HIMSELF without their pressure, before deciding to actually cave in to their demands or not. /demands is their word, ask Lenni Brenner.

Now, Gilad and I are used to the smearing, FTP isn't, and they are giving it to him in there, calling IM Holocaust Justifiers and so on, and know what? I am not allowed to comment, about the issues, in defence, or to discuss what they are even talking about! I leave comments which are then censored. Sometimes I post them on my blog, sometimes I don't. I posted one on FTP's blog.

If we want free speech, we have to want it. But, we have to know what it is.

I want Tony to respond to MY ARTICLE and not use his space as a chance to make a harangue against his bitter enemies who have EXPOSED the lobbying. Yep, that was what the Elders of London was all about, and seems things ain't got no better, James.

If we think that just allowing someone to smear us, without proving it is free speech, we have to think harder about it.

for the record: I don't care that Tony doesn't know my activities. He could ask around if he can't figure it out. I don't need to prove anything to him, he matters not to me, because he is only looking out for himself. Yet, he might want to question Rosen about why he performs at events sponsored by Zionist and settler groups. This is far more disturbing.

And TPV, take some kind of public position on this. If you allow that he calls my blog right wing and conspiracist, if you allow that smearing takes place rather than argumentation and rebuttal, which I would actually like to see, then say so. If this is the case, thanks for the nice work with me in the past, but surely, I would not like to be affiliated with positions of the sort, and therefore, despite the dozens of my past contributions here, to which I am grateful for your hard work, I hope you never print another one. It would make me ashamed.

One last comment: seems Tony never read a word I have written, despite 750 blog posts, 5000 other posts elsewhere and articles interspersed here and there: I never said "I support an Islamic State"

Come out with the Quote Tony.

I support the Palestinians.

I am not going to tell them what State to have. That is their decision, not mine. It is time you learn to figure out that respecting them, their dignity and their aspirations is all that you can do. You can't do anything else, and if you don't start there, you will never be of any aid to them, but only a lot of noise.

Diego, we agree.

And you know what, this may be the first time this two tribal notorious activists try to engage in an open conversation with Goyim. This may be a major step forward. I want to be optimistic, they may even manage to assimilate and join humanity as equal human beings after all.

However, I’ve just come across this study by IM UK administrator named FTP who studied Greenstein ADL smearing tactics and deconstruct them one by one.

http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-uk-features/2007-November/1118-bj.html

I do not know FTP, I have never met him.

FTP has been subject to some sever form of abuse inflicted by our ‘progressive friends’ something he explores in the following link

http://freethepeeps.wordpress.com/2007/11/11/hello-world/

I am sure you find it interesting it may even prepare you to Elf verbal abuse.


My take on solidarity is very simple…

Our mission is to cross the divide, and to fight for Palestine as human being just because the crime against the Palestinians is a crime against humanity.

Yet, we have to remember that the crime against the Palestinians is conducted by the JEWISH state in the name of the JEWISH people.

Hence, we are entitled to ask, who are the Jewish people? What the word Jew refers to?


However, I totally understand a Jew who stands up and say: “I am Jew and I am against Zionism” or alternatively: “I am a Jew and `I’ve nothing to do with this crime” (not in my name).

Yet, again, we should be entitled to push it one step forward and ask him: ‘what is it about the Jew in you that opposes Zionism? What are the moral secular Jewish precepts that you are referring to?

Except the orthodox Jews, not a single secular Jew has managed to come with an answer. ...

Let’s see whether Elf, Greenstein and their five comrades can suggest an answer.


What we really want to see is a reference to the ‘Book of Jewish Secular Ethics’

Where is the book, let’s know and please do not refer us to Levinas… Levinas was a Rabbi and his ethics was Talmudically orientated.

If they do not provide us with the title, I assume we can move on and accept the fact that such text doesn’t exist.

In other words, universal humanism should mean, ‘put your tribal clannish tendencies behind.’

Just become an ethical human being


Peace

Gilad

Grimly amusing this discussion is appearing here at People's Voice, since this website has repeatedly published Ernst Zundel, neo-Nazi and Edgar J. Steele, an attorney for the Aryan Nations, those cuddly neo-Nazis in Idaho.

http://www.paulbogdanor.com/greenstein1.html
Exchange: Tony Greenstein – More Errors Than Paragraphs

NB: The following originally appeared on the blog Harry’s Place. For background on Tony Greenstein, see here, here and here. For background on the antisemitic play Perdition, see here.

The discussion generated over 100 comments from readers. I’ve included the original blog post as well as the replies by Tony Greenstein and substantive comments from Oliver Kamm, the blogger and myself.

This exchange is in 8 parts:-

1. “Mikey”
2. Oliver Kamm
3. Tony Greenstein
4. “Mikey”
5. Paul Bogdanor
6. Tony Greenstein
7. Paul Bogdanor
8. “Mikey”

For legibility I’ve cleaned up the formatting and corrected numerical, grammatical and spelling errors, except where they appeared to be deliberate or were mentioned by one of the contributors. I’ve also abridged the longer comments to eliminate repetition.

– Paul Bogdanor

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Guest post by “Mikey”:-

Tony Greenstein is a notorious radical left-wing anti-Zionist demagogue who is happy to play fast and loose with the facts if it promotes his ideological cause.

This week the Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign is not only staging the play Perdition but is also hosting Lenni Brenner. To do this in Holocaust Memorial Week is, to say the least, distasteful. The play Perdition was vilified in 1987 for historical inaccuracy and antisemitism. At that time, Tony Greenstein was a proponent of the play, and to judge by his recent comments, he still is.

On January 21, Greenstein appeared in the comments section of Harry’s Place and wrote the following (insults, spelling and grammar as in the original):

One of the “strengths” of Stalinist discourse was its ability to distort the positions and ideas of its
opponents in order to discredit them. Hence social democrats were social fascists. Jews were Zionists
etc. Harry’s Place shares this in abundance.

Brenner is a trotskyists. He has nothign to do with Stalinism. It’s people like Oliver Kamm, who believes a
war in Iraq which has killed at latest estimates about 3/4 million people in order to secure oil supplies is
justified who owe their methodology to Stalinism.

In fact, the future Police State manipulators of HH deliberately ignore that Perdition and much of what
Brenner writes is based on the Israeli trial of Israel Kastner between 1953 and 1956 in Israel, when he was
accused of gross collaboration, including pleading for the life of SS Col. Becher and saying he was a
rescuer of Jews. Kastner was found guilty of collaboration as a Jewish Agency official and in the case of
Becher by both the Supreme and Jerusalem District Courts. Now I may be mistaken but I don’t think
either of the above bodies was a sub committee of the Politburo!

So the freedoms that HH devotees talk about is based upon keeping its own audience in ignorance. The
fact is that the behaviour of Israel today and its occupation of the West Bank and the means of terror to
keep it there are taken from the book of anti-Semitism including the Nazis. Take my word for it? Perish
the thought. Read Tommy Lapid in Ha’aretz!!

Oh and all the allegations in Perdition are made by the 2/3rd Jewish escapee from Auschwitz, the non-
Zionist Rudolph Vrba who was a non-personality (again shades of Stalin) in Israel because he didn’t go
along with the Zionised version of the Holocaust and how it justifies Israel. No doubt Vrba, who escaped
with Wetzler to warn Hungarian Jewry of what was coming was also an anti-Semite for accusing the
Zionists of suppressing his Auschwitz Protocols to save the Zionist elite.

But the only problem is that even Prof. Yehuda Bauer of Yad Vashem has had to admit Vrba is correct.

I thought it might be helpful to list Greenstein’s factual errors in full.

1. Lenni Brenner’s line on Zionist-Nazi collaboration comes straight out of Stalinist antisemitic propaganda. In his book Zionism in the Age of the Dictators he even invokes Stalinist literature by citing the East German propagandist Klaus Polkehn.

2. The Kasztner trial commenced in January 1954 and the lower court’s verdict was given in June 1955. The appeal hearings commenced in 1957 and concluded in January 1958.

3. Kasztner was not the accused in the trial. He was a witness for the prosecution. It was Malkiel Grunwald who was accused of libel.

4. The lower court’s verdict against Kasztner – regarded by many as a result of his unreliability in the witness box and a political vendetta by the judge – was posthumously overturned by the Supreme Court.

5. Although Kasztner claimed that he testified for Becher as a Jewish Agency official, he had absolutely no authorisation to do so. This was made clear at the Kasztner trial by Jewish Agency witness Eliahu Dobkin.

6. Kasztner was at Nuremberg as an aide to the American prosecutors. He testified for Becher because he believed that Becher had assisted his rescue efforts at the end of the war.

7. The allegations in Perdition were not made by Vrba. Perdition claims that Zionism “worked hand in glove” with Nazi Germany and refers to “the Zionist knife in the Nazi fist.” Vrba blamed Kasztner for negotiating with Eichmann rather than publicising information about Auschwitz.

8. Vrba is not a non-person in the State of Israel. Many scholarly books on the Holocaust discuss his actions and Yehuda Bauer, Professor of Holocaust Studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, praises him as “one of the authentic Jewish heroes from the period.”

In fact, and ironically, Greenstein treats as “non-persons,” the countless Zionists who fought against Nazism, either in the Allied armies or the Jewish resistance, and the Zionists who risked their lives to rescue Jews during the Holocaust. These heroes are never mentioned by Greenstein and his fellow anti-Zionists.

9. No-one has made the ridiculous claim that Vrba was an antisemite. Historians do, however, reject his unfounded belief that anyone who tried to negotiate with the Nazis to save Jews – including not only Zionists like Kasztner but also anti-Zionists like Rabbi Weissmandel – was a Nazi collaborator.

10. Yehuda Bauer does not accuse “the Zionists of suppressing his Auschwitz Protocols to save the Zionist elite.” In fact, Bauer has written extensively about Zionist efforts to save Jews, which included calls for the bombing of Auschwitz. He also describes the Hungarian Zionist Kasztner as a “a real-life hero” who rescued thousands of Jews and tried to save many more.

11. The “Zionised version of the Holocaust” is not the justification for Israel’s existence. Jews have wanted to return to their homeland for centuries. The Balfour Declaration and the League of Nations Mandate to establish a Jewish national home in Palestine were issued decades before the Holocaust.

12. Israel’s policies are not taken “from the book of anti-Semitism including the Nazis” but from the internationally recognised right of the Jewish people to their own homeland – a right that was affirmed by the League of Nations and the United Nations, although it is denied by anti-Zionists such as Brenner and Greenstein.

13. Ha’aretz reported that Lapid compared the illegal actions of “some Hebron settlers” to the treatment of Jews in Yugoslavia just prior to World War II. Readers may wish to compare this Ha’aretz report to Greenstein’s version of it. As this example shows, Greenstein cannot be trusted to cite sources accurately.

Greenstein’s lengthy outburst includes more errors than paragraphs. That is quite an achievement. The above comments exclude his erroneous claims about the war in Iraq and I also have not commented on his ad hominem attacks on Oliver Kamm and Harry’s Place. Greenstein was prepared in 1987 to support erroneous claims about the Holocaust in the play Perdition and twenty years on he is making erroneous statements himself. What is even more amazing than his errors is that he expected to get away with them.

Posted by david t at January 24, 2007 06:10 PM | TrackBack

Exchange: Tony Greenstein – More Errors Than Paragraphs, Cont.

Previous: “Mikey”

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tony Greenstein is among the thickest people I’ve ever met. The last time he cropped up on this blog, so far as I recall, was in an early discussion about the antisemite Gilad Atzmon. Someone mentioned Greenstein’s opposition to Atzmon, so I pointed out that Greenstein is a crank of the first order who welcomed the Brighton bombing of 1984 and the attempted assassination of the Prime Minister. Greenstein then posted an indignant comment here that confirmed my recollection (the indignation was on account of my suggesting there was anything wrong with his position on the issue). He then insulted another commenter who had referred to the notion of Jewish “self-hatred” (which is not a term I ever use, as I consider it illegitimate to invoke psychological explanations for political opinions). Greenstein claimed that “self-hatred” was a concept first used by the Nazis against their domestic opponents. He was talking rubbish, of course: the term certainly dates from before WW1, and was popularised (though not coined) by the Jewish philosopher Theodor Lessing in his book Der jüdische Selbsthaß. (Lessing was murdered by the Nazis in 1933.) When I pointed out Greenstein’s error on this site, he responded by sending me numerous emails comprising several thousand words of semi-literate abuse, and judging by this post he still hasn’t composed himself.

Posted by: Oliver Kamm at January 24, 2007 07:04 PM

Exchange: Tony Greenstein – More Errors Than Paragraphs, Cont.

Previous: Oliver Kamm

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ah, such invective, so few little facts, not least from our aristocratic banker Kamm. As for thick, well I’m sure he’s an expert in such things.

As for Mikey’s “guest post” (is he that special that he has to be a guest?):

Yes, in some quarters I’m no doubt a “notorious radical left-wing anti-Zionist demagogue.” If such quarters include the racist warmongers of Harry’s Place then that is an added compliment.

i. Brenner’s research is his own, not from Stalinist sources. If he quotes Klaus Polkehn it’s because the latter’s article, which if I remember correctly appeared in History Today around 1980, regarding the trip to Palestine of the head of the Jewish Office of the SS, Count Mildenstein, was courtesy of the Labour Zionist Haganah. of course mere facts like that don’t get a look in at Mikey’s when ad hominem attacks and lies are so much more interesting.

ii. I’m aware of when the Kastner trial started, who was accusing who etc. But as in many libel trials, e.g. Irving v Penguin, the accuser becomes the accused and so it was in the Kastner trial. The Attorney General took over the case personally and asked whether all Zionists are guilty of collaboration because it was Zionist policy to select the few, the Zionist elite, out of the many.

iii. The Supreme Court overturned the lower court decision, by 3-2, BUT upheld the facts found by the lower court and also the finding that Kastner had collaborated by seeking to exonerate Nazi SS war criminals, something Mikey finds perfectly OK and acceptable – not just Becher, but Krumey and Wisliceny and also I understand another 4.

iv. Dobkin may have testified that Kastner had no authority to testify on behalf of the Jewish Agency, but that does mean it is true. Fact is that the Israeli State, fully aware of what Kastner did, had at no time prosecuted him for this act. On the contrary Mapai, Israeli Labour Party, put him high on the list for the next Knesset elections before the trial.

v. Kastner wasn’t at Nuremberg other than to help get SS war criminals avoid the gallows. The Americans complained about this Zionist official whose only interest seemed to be in exonerating such criminals. And why if it was all kosher did Kastner not admit from the start what he was doing? And if he was at Nuremberg as an aide to the Americans, presumably he was there as a representative of the Jewish Agency? In what other capacity would he have been there?

vi. No the allegations in Perdition were not made by Vrba. Nor did I say they were. But Perdition covers the same ground and therefore presumably, by the same guilt by association techniques loved by HP, he is also an anti-Semite! Vrba blamed Kastner for far more than not publicing Auschwitz but for covering up, suppressing the news, doing a deal in exchange for help in rounding up and pacifying the Jews of Hungary.

vii. Vrba was indeed a non-person in Israel, where he briefly settled before making his way, via the London Medical Research Council to a professorship in Canada. His book I Escaped from Auschwitz was not translated into Hebrew, the Auschwitz Protocols, which he and Wetzler had provided the material for, concerning the whereabouts of Auschwitz and its layout etc., were not translated at Yad Vashem into English or Hebrew and were virtually hidden away from all but the most persistent and knowledgeable of academics. Likewise Hannah Arendt’s Eichmann in Jerusalem was also not translated for years into Hebrew. When Arendt wrote Eichmann in Jerusalem she was subject to bitter attack by an Israeli Professor at Oxford. Vrba leapt to her defence against this forerunner of Harry’s Place propaganda.

viii. The full story of the attack on Vrba by the Zionists’ official historians of Yad Vashem, Bauer et al. is told in the remarkable little book by Ruth Linn, herself a Professor at Haifa University, Escaping Auschwitz – A Culture of Forgetting, which I reviewed earlier this year for Tribune.

ix. In fact Bauer and co. after many attacks on Vrba, whose name was wholly unknown in Israel to all except a few experts in the area, e.g. the fact that he was the 2nd and 3rd Jewish escapee with Alfred Wetzler is not to be found in the normal school syllabus on the Holocaust, realised that their attacks had rebounded. But Bauer called Vrba many other things besides the comment Mikey quotes.

x. It is asserted that I have nothing to say about Zionists who fought the Nazis. Not true. I am not a biological determinist. Zionists, given the right set of circumstances, will of course fight like others. But I’m not going to take the hasbarah of Israeli propagandists at their word. No-one doubts the bravery of Mordechai Anielwicz, commander of ZOB in the Warsaw Ghetto. But Anielwicz himself said that the Zionist activities of the Zionist youth groups in Poland was an utter waste of time and a distraction, things like running kibbutzim to replace Polish labour deported to the slave factories of France (which Skif, the Bundist paper, vigorously condemned as collaboration incidentally). But what I do say is that when Zionists fought, they did not do so as Zionists, be it in the allied armies or as Partisans, but as individuals organised in groups, despite the politics of those groups. Hashomer Hatzair and left PZ in the Warsaw Ghetto had effectively abandoned Zionism and had one though and one alone – retribution against the Nazi beasts. Likewise incidentally the Revisionist fighters who, in Warsaw almost alone of anywhere, also fought (and more effectively given their heavier weaponry) than ZOB.

xi. Vrba doesn’t label anyone who negotiated with the Nazis as a collaborator. Show me the quote. He certainly doesn’t accuse Rabbi Weissmandel, who certainly does accuse the Zionists of collaboration e.g. Holocaust Victims Accuse or Min Hamitzair. What Vrba says, and on this I agree with him though Lenni Brenner doesn’t agree, is that his belief that deportations from Slovakia stopped in 1942 because of the payment of a £50,000 ransom negotiated with Wisliceny and the idea of the Europa Plan that for a $2m dollar ransom the Final Solution could be ended were utterly futile pipe dreams. The idea that the Nazis were susceptible to this bribery was absurd, not least because there was an economic and political incentive to murder the Jews of occupied Europe. But these subtleties the war mongers of HP will never understand.

xii. Yes, Bauer is on record that Kastner is a hero (& elsewhere that he was a collaborator). Vrba has always been crystal clear, as he wrote in the Daily Herald of February 1961:

I accuse certain Jewish leaders of one of the most ghastly deeds of the war. This small group of quislings
knew what was happening to their brethren in Hitler’s gas chambers and bought their own lives with the
price of silence. Among them was Dr Kastner. I was able to give Hungarian Zionist leaders three weeks
notice that Eichmann planned to send a million of their Jews to his gas chambers. Kasztner went to
Eichmann and told him, I know of your plans; spare some Jews of my choice and I shall keep quiet?
Eichmann not only agreed, but dressed Kasztner up in SS uniform and took him to Belsen to trace some
of his friends.

Both Bauer and Israel Gutman, both of the Israeli propaganda institute, Yad Vashem, accept that the Auschwitz Protocols were not disseminated by those who received them, 2 weeks before the deportations in Hungary began, in order to save the negotiations for the Jewish and Zionist elite. That is where the sympathies of Mikey and his war monger friends on HH place lie, with the Jewish bourgeoisie and their Zionist friends. Ours is with the Jewish working class who were sacrificed in Hungary and elsewhere.

And incidentally, Yad Vashem also refused to print Raul Hilberg’s monumental Destruction of European Jewry because again it didn’t fit into the ideological purposes of Yad Vashem.

xiii. As for the centuries longing of Jews to “return” to Palestine, strange they chose the imperial era to do it, under the protecton of British bayonets. Even stranger that the first Zionist Congress had to be transferred in 1897 from Munich to Basle. Presumably this longing had temporarily waned?

xiv. Likewise the Zionist nonsense about the “internationally recognised right of Jews to their own homeland” etc. The anti-Semites certainly recognised the “right” of Jews to “return” since they didn’t recognise rights of Jews where they were. But who cares? As Herzl said in his Diaries, the anti-Semites will be our friends and allies (pp. 83-4 from memory). The fact is that those who saw the Jews as a separate nation apart from those who lived there were either anti-Semites or Zionists and in the case of HH I suspect both.

xv. Yes Lapid compared the actions of settlers to the Nazis harassment of Jews. Mikey, being an apologist for the settlers and settlements of course chooses to query whether it refers to all or some settlers. The fact is that the pogroms and harassment, the stone throwing and the encouragement these scum have from the army and police can be found in the actions of anti-Semitic regimes in Europe. This is something that Mikey, Kamm and all the other trash of Harry’s Place are more than happy to applaud.

xvi. In fact there is a direct ideological link between Nazi Germany and Israel. Whether it is the actions of the Judeo-Nazi settlers (Israel Shahak and Leibowitz’s words – not mine!) in the occupied territories, the Rabbis consulting the Black Book of who is and is not a Jew (including Nazi sources of who is a Jew) or the welcome given by Zionist groups to the Nuremberg Laws, whose very preamble paid tribute to this Zionist welcome is a matter of record.

As for Perdition, it is a play and as such should be allowed poetic licence. But I welcome the Zionists’ continued attempts to ban this play by the excellent socialist and Trostkyist playwright, the late Jim Allen (not a Stalinist you fools). The more you scum ban, the more people want to know!!!

Posted by: Tony Greenstein at January 25, 2007 06:18 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Although the thickos on this list wouldn’t have spotted it, I did in fact confuse Klaus Polkehn, who wrote of the “Secret Contacts between the Zionists and Nazis 1933-41,” with Jacob Boas who wrote the January 1980 article in History Today on a Nazi’s travels to Palestine.

Re: Yehuda Bauer. As Ruth Linn, no anti-Zionist she, writes in Escaping Auschwitz – A Culture of Silence, p. 123:

When they [the Slovakian Judenrat/Jewish Council/Working Group] were told to ask the Jews of
Bratislava to report for deportation to Sered, they obeyed. When their community list was taken the [local
Slovak] police, they complained to the SS but did not spread the word to the community to hide... The
month of September [1944] the last period of the Working Group activity, casts a dark shadow over all of
them and on Gizi as their leader. They could have no illusions by then, but they acted just like many of the
Jewish Councils in Poland. [Bauer, Gizi Fleischmann, 262.]

As Linn notes, Vrba’s voice was first given academic legitimacy not by the Israelis but rather by the Germans (p. 112) and in his reply to Vrba’s 1996 article in Vierteljahrshefte fuer Zeitgeschichte, Bauer accepts that the Hungarian Jews who were deported to Auschwitz were ignorant of their fate. Yet the “prominents” in the elite train did know. And in his Rethinking the Holocaust Bauer also accepts that Vrba’s Auschwitz Protocols were an important factor in stopping the deportations (p. 238). Gutman and Bauer also have no doubt that Kastner and the Hungarian Zionists had the Protocols, i.e. knew about Auschwitz over 2 weeks before the deportations began. The conclusion is obvious.

Posted by: Tony Greenstein at January 25, 2007 11:03 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Next: “Mikey”

An anti Semite was at one time a person that hated Jews.... today it seems to be a person that is hated by Greenstein, Elf and Associates.
This thread has gone beyond ridiculous. The only ones that seem to speak with any clarity on the struggle against zionism seem to be PeacePalestine and Gilad, the very two that are the target of the others here.
Tony claims to devote more time to the Palestinian cause than both Rizzo and Atzmon, I have been at the demonstrations in Bil'in every Friday for over a year now....literally putting my life on the line. I do not recall ever seeing Tony at the site, nor do I recall ever hearing Tony's name in Palestinian activist circles. So, if blogging away on Jewish Only Blogs is his claim to Palestinian activism, all power to him.
Both Rizzo and Atzmon have spoken out and acted on behalf of the Palestinian cause, without bragging about it.
Self praise will not/has not helped the cause ever... only actions do.
And in case anyone is wondering, my family moved to Israel from Argentina when I was a young child, I speak as an Israeli that is opposed to the crimes committed here...as Gilad said above "not in my name!"

Mikey, don't spam the comments with stuff that is irrelevant.

I want Tony to respond to the What's it all About Indy article.

Nothing else matters in what he says, if this is supposed to be a rebuttal.

If instead it is just a place to smear and defame, my bad.

Diego....
what lovely comments.

More power to you, and what you do by really putting your life on the line is what matters, and I don't even come close. If there is going to be any change, it's by actions you do.

That was not me posting the stuff from Paul Bogdanor's site - but it was a very funny exchange. The whole thing can be seen on the following web site.

http://www.paulbogdanor.com/greenstein1.html
or in the original at
http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/archives/2007/01/24/tony_greenstein_more_errors_than_paragraphs.php

Greenstein was taken apart.

Let's , move on before this site becomes another cyber shtetle..

However, if Greenie manages to suggest what J secular ethics is all about, someone should notify me
Peace.

levi:
you wrote

Oldscutlas - Hamas takes the view that the biblical Israelites were entitled to the holy land, or as Dr Azzam Tamimi said "the Israelites were the good guys then." Apart from that, telling people what the Jews believe when Jews like any other community numbering in the millions have many beliefs is antisemitic. The attribution of one single belief to millions of people who share an ethno-religious identity is called racist, or antisemitic when specifically applied to Jews and the idea that the Jews of today are the direct descendants of the Israelites of the bible is downright ludicrous. Your racial mythologising dovetails almost perfectly with that of the zionist movement.

Israel is a colonial settler state based on privileging Jews and ethnically cleansing Palestinians and it claims to speak for all Jews. Once upon a time, Atzmon said that Jews as Jews should condemn zionism. I don't actually agree with that but we are entitled to condemn zionism as Jews without being harassed and smeared by Atzmon and his on line acolytes.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

so it seems to me that you are saying that the "tora" is not taught in all synagogues (please excuse the spelling) around the world!!
Really??? cause I have been led to believe that it is the basis for their whole religion. please by all means tell which synagogues don't teach this basic premise of the jewish faith. I will glady convert and attend every sabbath with those peace loving people!!!

You say that hamas believes that the israelites are entitled to the "holy land". If that was the case wouldn't hamas be encouraging their people to leave the "state of israel" and let the jews have it. Ridiculous!!!! hamas's actions speak louder than words about who they feel is the rightful owners of the land.

Gatekeepers, Cyber Slanderers and Censorship alive and well on the www:

Every few weeks I google my name just to see what i have written that is being read or said about me.

On the third page of 'eileen fleming' was :

ProSemiteUndercover :: View topic - Psycho Inc. sending in their ...
I would suggest that Eileen Fleming definitely qualifies as a hardcore Jew-hater ... Is not the self-styled Brenda Starr/Eileen Fleming more like a bumbling ...
prosemiteundercover.phpbbnow.com/viewtopic.


NOT being a Jew hater in the least, but most definitely an unabashed anti-zionist for i abhor and denounce any ideology that proclaims any people, race, religion more superior and deserving of special treatement at the expense of the least among us.

The thread included a repetition of my photo and personal attacks against me,


BUT not anything of substance to discuss or what I actually have said, just a few words taken out of context.

I logged in and posted 3 articles from my blog in rapid succession,

With the hope and prayer to engage these pro-Semites in an actual dialog:

WAWA Blog November 5, 2007: Veterans Day is a week away, Remember LIBERTY

WAWA Blog November 9, 2007: Zion's Zealots

WAWA Blog November 15, 2007: Children Prisoners of the 'Holy' Land



The posting took me less than 5 minutes and then I returned to my email and received the message:

"You have been banned from this forum."


Now, how can any claim to be an adult and a good Jew and pro-Semite [Arabs are Semites too!] if they are unable to engage in a civilized respectful conversation concerning the least among us; the poor, oppressed occupied people of Palestine?


"From Moses to Jeremiah and Isaiah, the Prophets taught...that the Jewish claim on the land of Israel was totally contingent on the moral and spiritual life of the Jews who lived there, and that the land would, as the Torah tells us, 'vomit you out' if people did not live according to the highest moral vision of Torah. Over and over again, the Torah repeated its most frequently stated mitzvah [command]:

"When you enter your land, do not oppress the stranger; the other, the one who is an outsider of your society, the powerless one and then not only 'you shall love your neighbor as yourself' but also 'you shall love the other.'" [Rabbi Lerner, TIKKUN Magazine, page 35, Sept./Oct. 2007 ]

e

Mikey wrote:

'I wonder why Tony Greenstein, on various blogs, continues to say that in Nazi Germany, Zionism collaborated with antisemitism. He, of course, has no evidence for this and naturally he has not footnoted his claim as he knows full well that if he did, he would be exposed.'

Mikey understands full well why anti-Semites and Zionists collaborate. After all he and Atzmon collaborate and Atzmon has thanked him for helping him attack me! He even goes for drinks with the guy (search Harry's Place for details!).

But if Mikey wants any proof of the collaboration between Zionism and the Nazis, just take the pamphlet by Joachim Prinz, one of the leaders of German Zionism, who later became deputy-chair of the world Jewish Congress:
'The Jews) have been drawn out of the last recesses of christening and: mixed marriages. We are not unhappy about it... the theory of assimilation has collapsed. We are no longer hidden in secret recesses. We want to replace assimilation by something new. The declaration of belonging to the Jewish nation and the Jewish race. A state built according to the principles of purity of the nation and race can only be honoured and respected by a Jew who declares his belonging to his. own kind.'
Prinz went on to declare that:
'On the foundation of the new state which has established the principle of race, we wish to fit our community into the total structure so that for us too... fruitful activity far the fatherland is possible. Our acknowledgement of: Jewish nationality provides for a clear and sincere relationship to the German people and its national and racial realities. We don't wish to falsify these fundamentals because we too are against mixed marriages and are for maintaining the purity of the Jewish group and reject any trespasses of the cultural domain... For its practical aims Zionism hopes to be able to win the collaboration even of a government fundamentally hostile to the Jews... the realisation of Zionism could only be hurt by resentment of Jews abroad against the German development. Boycott propaganda... is in essence fundamentally unZionist, because Zionism wants not to do battle but to convince and to build.'
(J Prinz, 'Wir Juden' Berlin 1934 pl54 cited in Khamsin No 6, Pluto Press op. cit.)

Prinz, in an interview with Lenni Brenner didn't deny the above. He merely said that it was a form of madness which made no sense now he was in the USA.

Ibid cited in Glaser, 'Some of my best friends are Nazis ' Jewish Guardian Vol, 2, No 2, November 1978.

Or I can cite the memorandum of the Zionist Federation::
'May we therefore be permitted to present our views, which, in our opinion, make possible a solution in keeping with the principles of the new German State of National Awakening and which at the same time might signify for Jews a new ordering of the conditions of their existence ... Zionism has no illusions about the difficulty of the Jewish condition, which consists above all in an abnormal occupational pattern and in the fault of an intellectual and moral posture not rooted in one’s own tradition ...

... an answer to the Jewish question truly satisfying to the national state can be brought about only with the collaboration of the Jewish movement that aims at a social, cultural, and moral renewal of Jewry ... a rebirth of national life, such as is occurring in German life through adhesion to Christian and national values, must also take place in the Jewish national group. For the Jew, too, origin, religion, community of fate and group consciousness must be of decisive significance in the shaping of his life ...

On the foundation of the new state, which has established the principle of race, we wish so to fit our community into the total structure so that for us too, in the sphere assigned to us, fruitful activity for the Fatherland is possible ... Our acknowledgement of Jewish nationality provides for a clear and sincere relationship to the German people and its national and racial realities. Precisely because we do not wish to falsify these fundamentals, because we, too, are against mixed marriage and are for maintaining the purity of the Jewish group ...

... fidelity to their own kind and their own culture gives Jews the inner strength that prevents insult to the respect for the national sentiments and the imponderables of German nationality; and rootedness in one’s own spirituality protects the Jew from becoming the rootless critic of the national foundations of German essence. The national distancing which the state desires would thus be brought about easily as the result of an organic development.

Thus, a self-conscious Jewry here described, in whose name we speak, can find a place in the structure of the German state, because it is inwardly unembarrassed, free from the resentment which assimilated Jews must feel at the determination that they belong to Jewry, to the Jewish race and past. We believe in the possibility of an honest relationship of loyalty between a group-conscious Jewry and the German state ...

For its practical aims, Zionism hopes to be able to win the collaboration even of a government fundamentally hostile to Jews, because in dealing with the Jewish question no sentimentalities are involved but a real problem whose solution interests all peoples, and at the present moment especially the German people.

The realisation of Zionism could only be hurt by resentment of Jews abroad against the German development. Boycott propaganda – such as is currently being carried on against Germany in many ways – is in essence un-Zionist, because Zionism wants not to do battle but to convince and to build ... Our observations, presented herewith, rest on the conviction that, in solving the Jewish problem according to its own lights, the German Government will have full understanding for a candid and clear Jewish posture that harmonizes with the interests of the state.'

You can find these excerpts in Lenni brenner's 'Zionism in the Age of the Dictators' http://www.marxists.de/middleast/brenner/ch05.htm#9 or the full version in Lucy Dawidowicz's Holocaust Reader pp. 150-55.

If Mikey doesn't think this is collaboration then words have lost all meaning.

Tony Greenstein

'this may be the first time this two tribal notorious activists try to engage in an open conversation with Goyim.'

As I said, Atzmon is deeply anti-Semitic. Why is mark elf or myself 'tribal'? I gave as an example of the problem the fact that Atzmon opposed the academic boycott that most Palestinian academic supported (bar Sari Nusseibah), but for Atzmon, hostility to Jewish proponents of the boycott outweighed the merits of the boycott itself.

No I didn't attempt to address Mary Rizzo's text, such as it was. It was incomprehensible and inane. Noone not already privy to the discussion could possibly understand it. Instead I put it into context. Last time I looked there was not a single comment whereas there are over 30 quotes on here, includings Atzmon's Zionist mate, Mikey. But maybe Mary can address why Atzmon opposes the boycott out of personal spite? Is that good? Is Atzmon's ego more important than the Palestinians? I think we should be told.

Or maybe he can address, and don't forget mary, your Peace Palestine site acts as a monotonous platform for Atzmon's turgid articles, why it is that anti-Zionist Jews who actually achieve something in the battle against Zionism, who take to the streets to confront Zionist Jews, are somehow Zionists unlike Atzmon whose never been on a demonstration in his life.

There was, I repeat, little of substance Mary to address in your article so I thought I'd explain to people where it came from and it would appear that they now understand.

Atzmon attacks Jews because he's anti-Semitic. And if they're anti-Zionist he attacks them twice over because at the root of it he has not lost his Zionist bearings, hence why Mikey follows him around like a devoted spaniel.

Tony G

'I am surprised at you for putting this piece of crap up.'

Which is the real Mary?
'Yes, Let's talk about freedom of speech for a moment, The People's Voice.'

'I am surprised at you for putting this piece of crap up.'

'If we want free speech, we have to want it. But, we have to know what it is.'

I think what Mary means is that free speech is when she agrees with something!

'I want Tony to respond to MY ARTICLE and not use his space as a chance to make a harangue against his bitter enemies who have EXPOSED the lobbying.

Yes there's a lobby of the UK Parliament at the end of the month about the horrific situation in Gaza. Is that what she means? Somehow I doubt it.'

There nothing to respond to in your article Mary, which is why noone including me has replied.

'Yep, that was what the Elders of London was all about' Ah yes, the Elders of London. But I don't live in London. No matter, we're all part of that conspiracy. And Elders? Seems like this is also out of the Nazi trash can.

'If we think that just allowing someone to smear us, without proving it is free speech, we have to think harder about it.'

As I said, free speech is only when you support Mary Atzmon.

'Yet, he might want to question Rosen about why he performs at events sponsored by Zionist and settler groups. This is far more disturbing.'

Another example of the smear technique. Mary refers to an event, the Jewish book fair, at which the Palestinian ambassador and other Palestinians attended. Whether Mike Rosen, a dedicated Jewish anti-Zionist was right to attend is a difficult call and I'd leave it up to Mike. No Palestinians (bar Abu Atzman) has criticised him for it. But when Atzmon goes for drinkeys with his Zionist friend Mikey and David T, from the Zionist blog Harry's Place, then I don't think Mary Atzmon can criticise him for it.

'And TPV, take some kind of public position on this. If you allow that he calls my blog right wing and conspiracist, if you allow that smearing takes place rather than argumentation and rebuttal, which I would actually like to see, then say so. If this is the case, thanks for the nice work with me in the past, but surely, I would not like to be affiliated with positions of the sort, and therefore, despite the dozens of my past contributions here, to which I am grateful for your hard work, I hope you never print another one. It would make me ashamed.'

Seems Mary is beside herself. What is this but a public/private call to the editor admonishing him for printing a contrary article and one criticising her blog as right-wing. Oh anti-Semitism is definitely right-wing, people like Paul Eisen, Rowen Berkely and all the others who go on about jewish conspiracies. Why right-wing? Because if you blame Jews rather than imperialism and the social system that backs Israel you are anti-Semitic. Period.

One last comment: seems Tony never read a word I have written, despite 750 blog posts, 5000 other posts elsewhere and articles interspersed here and there: I never said "I support an Islamic State"

No you may not have said it, but you and Atzmon have criticised me for saying that an Islamic State would be to perpetuate the oppression of the Palestinians. I oppose ALL religious states and I don't believe for one minute that Palestinians, despite the Hamas shooting of Palestinian demonstrators want one anyway. But you are full of praise for Hamas on your list, so it is a reasonable inference.

And please be nicer to your faithful lapdog Mikey. He is offering to collaborate again. don't spurn him, even if he does fluff his lines occasionally.

I forgot to thank Petunia for her lovely wise words. Let me repeat them again:

'The sooner the left -- including Indymedia -- learns to distinguish between those who are anti-Israel and those who are demonstrably anti-Jew but claim to be only anti-Israel, the quicker it can regain the moral ground people like Gilad Atzmon and Indymedia are busily wasting.'

Absolutely right Petunia. We are anti-Israel not anti-Jewish.

Tony




Come out with the Quote Tony.

I support the Palestinians.

Tony Greenstein wrote: "No I didn't attempt to address Mary Rizzo's text, such as it was. It was incomprehensible and inane. Noone not already privy to the discussion could possibly understand it. Instead I put it into context. Last time I looked there was not a single comment whereas there are over 30 quotes on here, includings Atzmon's Zionist mate, Mikey. But maybe Mary can address why Atzmon opposes the boycott out of personal spite? Is that good? Is Atzmon's ego more important than the Palestinians? I think we should be told."

There, TPV, Tony admits that he did not bother to make a rebuttal to the article I wrote, (and if it was so turgid, why did so many sites place it, even without me sending it to some of them!? He is mistaken if he thinks this is the only place discussion has occurred, as it certainly is not, and judging by the reactions here, it seems that Mikey is using Tony's self-promotional space for one of his own agendas, not even bothering with what Tony wrote. I'd call it a mess.) So, the argument that he is defending himself against an article against him falls flat. He used this opportunity to flame, insinuate his "inane" accusations without substantiating them. This is not the rebuttal he claimed he should have, it doesn't even address the article and he admits it!!! Think about this, TPV.

He DID put pressure on IM, and continues to do so to anyone who does not jump when he says so. Nothing in my article has been contradicted by Tony who claims he can't make heads or tails of it.

Hm...

And Tony, learn to read once in a while; after you do the other tasks such as substantiating your smear that I am racist or anti-Semite, such as finding a quote where I say "I support an Islamic State", and where does Gilad say he opposes the boycott???? He says he has questions about it! Isn't this what discussion is about? Or do we have to all think about complex issues in the same way?

Gilad has ever right in the world to say that there is a big difference between boycotting an avocado and a book. He is SUPER right in his argument that while you are talking about ways to keep a Tel Aviv prof out of Birmingham, NOT a single one of you are working on ways to make it easier for a Palestinian academic to travel! I'll have you know that I've tried to set up a speaking tour for someone who lives in the PA and it is extremely difficult, if not practically impossible to get the documents in any reasonable way. This makes many activist groups prefer the Israeli "dissidents" because they don't need a human rights group to push for papers. But, you wouldn't know or care about that. You are unable to read, much less reason.

As to ego, all I see is what Diego sees, Tony bragging about how great he is, with very little to show for it. You are a joke, and a disgrace. But as you yourself say, the decision about your demands is going to be happening soon and he who laughs last laughs longest. Judging from the discussion and from the news that you are still harassing them and spamming their inboxes (do you have a life outside of this kind of harassment?) it seems you are not being very persuasive. Your ego is going to take a dive.

Tony is back to childish games. I won't go into the many contradictions he makes, (if a friend of his actually is on a bill promoted by Zionist groups, it's OK, the guy is a Dedicated Jewish Anti-Zionist... lots of dedication there, and it shows). There is just too much stupidity for one single person who simply distorts everything, and it's late and this is boring. The problem is, Tony acts as if he does not get it! he can't REALLY be that dim.

So, Tony doesn't support a religious state, and now this means support he might give out of his most generous kindness to Palestine is conditional, as if Hamas would automatically make it a religious state... hasbara propaganda if ever there was some. Sorry, I don't have the same philosophy. I am not going to put conditions on these people. No way. Last time I looked, Tony couldn't vote in the PA elections. Sure one can criticise them all they want, but damn it, you better respect the Palestinians if you want them to want to hear you talk. They don't need you just as much as you don't need them.

But, let's leave his little arguments and see how this man thinks: Do I call him Tony Elf? Does he not think it a bit sexist to automatically make a man and a woman who are affilated, who collaborate and are friends into "a couple", the little woman... oh, tony, this isn't very Comradely of you is it.

Elf is no better, there I am the "Atzmonette" and have heard all kinds of other sexist thing every time that band get going. Oh, free speech means being able to actually talk, something Elf seems to think he can limit, because he reads all my stuff, Joe does the reporting, and you all smear away, not even allowing me to comment. This from people who DEMAND rebuttal and free speech. No, to them free speech means freedom to smear, demean and make sexist insinuations.

Oh, not that Gilad would be horrible to marry, Gilad's my best friend, but people don't marry their best friends generally and, he's married. I'm married, but not to one another, and in fact, we live in different countries. Is it so difficult for a grown adult to not resort to this kind of attitude that a woman is "the little woman" or "the groupie". This is something that you should have abandoned back in 68. Or, just continue like this with your great leftist dialectic. Show your true colours, as if everyone hasn't already figured them out.

I've said already that I didn't wish to get bogged down in the obtuseness of Mary's article, but rather to place it in context. That way everyone knows where Mary's coming from.

What is amusing is that the great anti-censor Rizzo is fuminating and frothing because the article even went up!! She just can't stand being criticised and being unable to respond to the substance of the article, which is that Atzmon is more concerned with attacking Jews than supporting Palestinians.

As for Michael Rosen, he is a good supporter of the Palestinians, despite the misquoting and maligning o