Anti-Racists against Anti-Zionists

Tony Greenstein Goes on the Attack

2010-01-27T16:28:00.001+00:00

Cross posted from Harry's Place

Tony Greenstein Goes on the Attack

This is a Guest Post by Mikey
I have previously mentioned that Tony Greenstein can be violent. For those not familiar with this character, some background information is in order.
This is the man who is proud to have admitted that he “worked with supporters of the PFLP.” The PFLP is an organisation that pioneeredaircraft hijacking. Greenstein claimed (RETURN No. 5, December 1990), that it was an “honour” for someone to be the head of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – General Command (PFLP-GC). This is the organisation that is suspected as having involvement in the Lockerbie bombing. On a comment to this blog, he has justified IRA terrorism: “The attack on Thatcher by the IRA was obviously legitimate.” In a letter to the communist newspaper, Weekly Worker, he stated explicitly, “I want the state of Israel to be destroyed.” In an email to an academic mailing list(password required) on April 19, 2007 he stated:
If every staffer in AIPAC were to be vapourised tomorrow, alongside Bush, Blair and Cheney, I wouldn’t lose a minutes sleep.
In an exchange that originally appeared on the Workers’ Liberty website and reproduced here, Greenstein was questioned on this outrageous statement. He took the opportunity to extend the list of those he would not mind being “vapourised”:
I would equally lose no sleep if the inhabitants of the White House were vaporised or the leaders of the Christian Coalition.
He further added as “wishful thinking”:
I would lose no sleep if … the leadership of the Republican Party, New Labour’s cabinet and any other warmongers I can think of, were vaporised.
As he has referred to “the racist warmongers of Harry’s Place,” it is reasonable to assume that he would also would not care if many of the readers and contributors to this blog were also “vaporised.” It may well be a relief to readers that Greeenstein only polled 188 votes when he stood as a candidate in the last General Election. If he ever had the ability to have his hands on a nuclear button, it could lead to the end of civilization as we know it.
Greenstein was a founding member of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC), but left it at the time of the Oslo Accords. He believed that the “PSC should not support the Oslo Accords.” The Oslo Accords was an agreement where:
The Government of the State of Israel and the PLO… representing the Palestinian people, agree that it is time to put an end to decades of confrontation and conflict, recognise their mutual legitimate and political rights, and strive to live in peaceful coexistence and mutual dignity and security and achieve a just, lasting and comprehensive peace settlement and historic reconciliation through the agreed political process.
Of course Greenstein did not agree with this: it did not state that the State of Israel must be destroyed. It would appear that Greenstein’s support for the Palestinian people extends only so far as the Palestinian people agree with him.
In any event, he subsequently rejoined the PSC, but that does not mean to say that he agrees with its current leadership. He has gone on the attack. He has previously claimed that the “PSC Executive have successfully managed to insert 3 members of Socialist Action as paid staff of PSC.” He now claims, “when challenged PSC Executive members deny that they are members of Socialist Action.” But he is not satisfied with this response. He quotes from Wikipedia:
Socialist Action is a small Trotskyist group in the United Kingdom. … From the mid-1980s Socialist Action became anentryist organisation, attempting to take over other organisations, with members using code names and not revealing their affiliation. [Emphasis added by Greenstein.]
In a letter that was sent to the PSC Executive last summer, accusations were made of undemocratic methods, of allowing Socialist Action to have a disproportionate influence, of having a high staff turnover and questionable financial management.
The PSC Executive responded in their Annual Report:
the EC and the staff of PSC who have been subject to a campaign of harassment and in some cases personal abuse by widely published emails and a blog. These actions can only detract from the work of PSC and help those who want to see PSC fail in our efforts to build a mass movement. We resisted engaging with the perpetrators, however in August a group of 13 people made unsubstantiated allegations to the EC.
Greenstein is clearly not happy. He believes they have accused him and his co-signers of being “Zionist Agents.” He has accused them of acting in a “Stalinist” fashion and of writing a “big lie.” The PSC Executive has resorted to “desperation,” to McCarthyism and are trying to achieve “some kind of para-Leninist command organisation.” They act in a “hostile manner” and are guilty of both “control freakery” and “libel.”
The PSC AGM is being held on February 6. If Greenstein shows up, assuming he has no vaporising equipment, my advice to the PSC Executive, based on my own experience, is to ensure that he is not wearing steel toe-capped boots.

Greenstein pre-empted on Edelman

2009-10-07T12:21:00.003+01:00

Here is Tony Greenstein's post dated October 7, 2009 on Marek Edelman

...Today Zionism praises the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, but in the 1930’s and 1940’s it treated and made deals with the Nazis..... Of course there were many Zionists who, despite their Zionism, fought against the Nazis.

Below is a comment to Harry's Place dated October 3, 2009 - I think the point is made:

Michael Ezra
3 October 2009, 8:54 pm
Marek Edelman should certainly be remembered.
One thing that can be mentioned is that are some anti-Zionists who would like to believe, and this was a theme of the anti-Zionist playPerdition, that the Zionists were not interesting in fighting Hitler. The argument runs along the lines that maybe some Zionists did fight Hitler but this was in spite of their Zionism not because of it. As far as this warped section of the anti-Zionist community are concerned, the Zionists collaborated with Nazism and did not fight against it.
This is of course nonsense and it has been highlighted in this thread with the mention of names such as Mordecai Anielewicz, an activist in Hashomer Hatzair who bravely fought in the Warsaw Ghetto. But it was not just the socialist Zionists amongst the Zionists in the Warsaw Ghetto that fought. As Moshe Arens points out (Israel Affairs, Vol.14, No.1, January 2008):
ZZW (Zydowski Zwiazek, Wojskowy), was led by Pawel Frenkel, a member of the Revisionist Youth Movement, Betar; Leon Rodal, a member of the Revisionist movement, and David Apfelbaum, a former officer in the Polish Army who was an adherent of Ze’ev Jabotinsky. It was built around a core of fighters who were members of Jabotinsky’s Zionist-Revisionist movement and its youth movement, Betar….
The heaviest battles of the uprising took place at Muranowski Square, where ZZW fighters withstood the repeated onslaught of German forces. The ZZW fighters there were better trained and equipped than the other fighters in the ghetto, had prepared defensive positions in anticipation of the impending battle and had dug a tunnel under the ghetto wall that allowed for the bringing in of supplies and the evacuation of the wounded. Muranowski Square was the main battleground of the uprising.
Even in the Yishuv (the Jewish community in Palestine) they were delighted to hear of the resistance in the Warsaw Ghetto. An editorial in Davur in October 1942 headlined “The Zionist Underground” mentioned “There is also quiet bravery…the defense of honour….There is dedication to the people fighting.” In April 1943 an editorial in one paper commented on the Jewish resistance “An eternal symbol of a people which refuses to be destroyed by the Gentile – the symbol of life. The honour and the glory of this heroism, enacted on the front line of the war against Nazism, has perhaps no parallel.” A further note of pride of the Warsaw ghetto uprising was expressed in Hapoel Hatzair in an article entitled “Defence Filled With Glory.” As far as the editor, who wrote the article, was concerned it proved “Jews are not always led like sheep to the slaughter.”
I have taken the above examples of press reports from the following essays
Yechiam Weitz, “The Yishuv’s Response to the Destruction of European Jewry, 1942-1943″ Studies in Zionism, Vol. 8, No. 2 Autumn 1987 and
Yoav Gelber, “Zionist Policy and the Fate of European Jewry, 1943-1944,” Studies in Zionism, Issue 7. Spring 1983.
None of this takes away from the Bundists who were very active in the Warsaw Ghetto uprising. The vast majority of Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto were wiped out. Edelman was one of the few who managed to survive and as a result we have his published account,The Ghetto Fights, a memoir that is well worth reading for anyone interested in this terrible period of history.

Greenstein to review Nicosia's latest book

2009-07-13T23:35:00.007+01:00

In his latest blog post, Tony Greenstein informs his readers that he is to review the following book:

Francis R. Nicosia, Zionism and Anti-Semitism in Nazi Germany (Cambridge University Press, 2008)

Greenstein informs us in his blog post that he found the book, "extremely disappointing." This is not surprising because Greenstein regularly tries to link Zionism with Nazism. Aware of such claims, Nicosia is very clear in dispelling any notion of such an absurd linkage. Below I provide some short quotations from the book; no doubt these explain why Greenstein finds the book "disappointing."

"lest the reader imagine that the purpose of study such as this to somehow equate Zionism with National Socialism, Zionists with Nazis, or to portray their relationship as a willing and collaborative one between moral and political equals. The research, analysis and conclusions, do not in any way support such notions. The existence of certain common assumptions on the part of Zionists on the one hand, and nationalist and anti-Semitic Germans on the other, does not in any way connote moral and/or political equivalency." (pp. 2-3)

"The dominant Zionist approach, like that of most non-Jews at the time, shared a reliance on the idea of an ethno-nationalist state, an idea that was the societal norm in Central Europe in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Their embrace of that norm does not make the Zionists the moral equivalent of the Nazis. Nor does the willingness of the Zionist or any other Jewish organisation in the Third Reich to cooperate with the state make them willing collaborators in the Nazi destruction of Jewish life in Germany; to suppose that any Jewish organisation in Hitler's Germany prior to the 'final solution' had the option of refusing to work on some level with the state is fantasy." (p. 3)

Nicosia specifically states that it is a-historical and simplistic to"

dismiss Zionism as yet another of racism, the substance of which has not been very different from German National Socialism." (P. 8)

He adds:

"Most anti-Semites could never embrace Zionism and its institutions as partners in a common quest because Zionists were, after all, still part of what they believed to be a monolithic world Jewry." (P. 9)

"For most anti-Semites in Germany, therefore, including the Nazis prior to 1941, their willingness to use Zionism and the Zionist movement was never based on an acceptance of the Zionist view itself." (p. 10)

"the Jewish Agency for Palestine and the Zionist movement in general recognized the critical link between its own survival and the survival and well-being of all Jews in the Diaspora. Even on a practical level, the Zionist view was that if the Nazis succeeded in murdering the great majority of Jews in Europe, a Jewish majority and state in Palestine might never be achieved." (pp.8-9n15)

Finally, I enclose one factually accurate quote from Nicosia

"Of Course, the Nazis opposed a Jewish state, in any form, in any part of Palestine or anywhere else in the world." (P. 197)

These quotes simply refute Greenstein's analogies. Disappointing for him, indeed.

Distorting the Holocaust: The Case of Haim Bresheeth

2009-05-15T18:25:00.006+01:00

Following a request, I reproduce a post that I once made as a comment in a thread to Harry's Place blog about Haim Bresheeth. The post was made in October 2007 and for some reason, when Harry's Place moved to a new blog in 2008, the posts from that month were not copied accross. A point that I would change in that post is that I would not use Anna Porter's book for the reference for footnote 5 as Porter's book, in my opinion, is unreliable. A better reference for the same point from a far more reliable scholar is the following:

Randolph L.Braham, The Politics of Genocide: The Holocaust in Hungary, Volume 2, (New York: Columbia University Press, Revised and Enlarged Edition, 1994) p.1,115

Subsequent to me writing that post, I have obtained a copy of the 1994 book, The Holocaust for Beginners, of which Bresheeth is a named author along with Stuart Hood and Litza Jansz. In my opinion it is an absolute disgrace that Icon Books published this ideologically motivated travesty of history. I feel that I must comment on the following. On page 144, the claim is made:

the Judenrat [in Hungary] ... went so far as to fabricate postcards from a non existant work camp with optimistic reports about food and conditions, in order to entice those left behind to join them.

What is a clear fabrication is that claim. The Jewish Council [Judenrat] did not fabricate any postcards and Bresheeth has no evidence that they did. As Randolph Braham comments (The Politics of Genocide: The Holocaust in Hungary, Volume 2, p.737), the postcards were "brought back from Auschwitz ....[and] were often written by the victims just before they were gassed."

On page 156, the book alleges that Jews who escaped from Auschwitz "delivered [to the Allies] in 1942 ... extremely accurate information about the camps and the numbers killed since 1941." This again is a disgraceful error. The report that Bresheeth and his co-authors are referrring to is known as The Vrba-Wetzler Report. Given that Vrba and Wetzler did not escape from Auschwitz until April 1944, .(Rudolf Vrba, I Escaped From Auschwitz, [London: Robson Books, 2006] pp. 246-7), the Allies could have hardly seen the information in 1942. In fact, by the time the report was written and it was in the hands of the Allies, it was the middle of June 1944. (Martin Gilbert, Auschwitz & The Allies: The politics of rescue, [Feltham, Middlesex: Hamlyn Publishing Group, 1983] pp. 231-9). Given how many Jews were killed at Auschwitz between 1942 when the authors allege that the Allies received this information and June 1944 when the Allies did recieve this report, such an error by the authors is simply inexcusable.

The section at the end of the book (pp.170-173) "The Zionist View of the Holocuast" is where the authors have gone to town with their own crass political views e.g. on page 171:

While it is unfair and inaccurate to compare the Israeli occupation of eastern Palestine since 1967 to the Nazi occupation of Europe, there are undoubtedly similarities between the Israeli occupation and some of the worst, most racist occupations elsewhere.... This has produced ideas, practices and policies which resemble those found in Germany in the late 1930s

.On a book that theoretically should be suitable for school children, the inclusion of such drivel should mean that no school librarian should allow such a book on their shelves.

The post that I made to the comments section of Harrys Place is copied below:

For those not familiar with the despicable Bresheeth he was associated with the notorious but defunct RETURN magazine and infamously wrote an article for that magazine entitled "Zionism and the Holocaust."

This particular article makes absurd suggestions that the Zionists in Nazi German had "political power" when of course they had no such power. The whole purpose of the article is to try and argue that the "lives of individuals, Jews and non Jews" were secondary to "the Zionist enterprise in Palestine" and that is why the Zionists were involved with "collaboration" with the Nazis "over the death of almost a million Jews." [1] Bresheeth's article is simply ahistorical and full of distortions of the truth. The litany of errors is truly frightening. It argues that Eichmann's first act after the Nazis invaded Hungary was to appoint "Zionist federation members, headed by Kastner, as the agent and the clearing house for all Jews in their relationship with the SS." This was not the case. Kasztner's committee was not appointed by the Nazis, it was formed in late 1942/early 1943 before the Nazis even invaded Hungary. Moreover Kastner was not head of that committee. It's head was Otto Komoly. Furthermore the Nazis had dealings with the Jewish Council – a body that Kastner was not a member of. Three mistakes in one sentence alone. What is more concerning is what Bresheeth leaves out. For example, when discussing the Kastner matter, Bresheeth does not mention that is ruled by the Supreme Court in Israel that he had not collaborated with the Nazis despite the views of Bresheeth. [2] One wonders if Bresheeth had even read the Supreme Court judgment because Bresheeth discusses that collaboration was "the price paid" of rescuing the Jews on the Kastzner train. Had Bresheeth read the ruling of the Supreme Court he would know that that argument was ruled to be wholly wrong and Kastner's actions were reasonable .[3]I can continue here - Bresheeth argues that Kaszner persuaded Hannah Senesh to give herself up. This is a blatant lie. Senesh was arrested virtually as soon as she crossed the border in Hungary on June 9, 1944 and it had nothing to do with Kastner.[4]He argues "Kastner acted as a result of his strongly held Zionist convictions" but fails to mention that other Zionists such as Moshe Krausz who was with hi in Hunagry and who were also strong Zionists disagreed with the actions of Kastner. [5] He spends a long time discussing the Ha'varah (Transfer Agreement) that enabled Jews to leave Germany for Palestine. Pehaps Bresheeth would have preferred it those Jews who were saved by this agreement would have stayed in Germany and met the same fate as millions of other Jews in Europe.

He states "Zionism agrees with the basic tenet of anti-Semitism, namely that Jews cannot live with non-Jews." This is a ludicrous and false argument. There are many non Jews living in Israel and no serious Zionist thinker in the mainstream has suggested that Israel should purely be for Jews.

The above is just about one article and I could go on pointing out distortion after distortion - but I believe I have made the point so I will leave you with a review of Bresheeth's book on Holocaust that was written for school children.

Editorial Reviews
From School Library Journal
"Grade 9 Up-This strange and contradictory book is not an introduction to the Holocaust; it is a statement of the authors' revisionist political beliefs about that dark period of history. Written and illustrated in a graphic-comic format, it promulgates the view that the Nazis did not intend "to destroy European Jewry physically" but rather, that "many forces within the German state as well as outside it helped to bring it [the Holocaust] about." The authors do not deny that the Holocaust occurred, but assert that the Nazi policy of genocide evolved only after Hitler was unable to expel all the Jews. They indict Western nations for refusing to accept Jewish refugees and argue that Zionists worked to impede immigration to all countries other than British-controlled Palestine. They also postulate that middle-and upper-class European Jewish communities colluded with the Nazis instead of resisting them. The "Aftermath" presents the revisionist stance that Israel today has become the executioner instead of the victim, the colonial oppressor rather than the oppressed. In addition to the bizarre and unproven propaganda permeating the text, the authors' account negates one of their primary assumptions; they demonstrate repeatedly that the killing fields and concentration camps were the results of Nazi policy initiated by Hitler and his henchmen. There is no reason why libraries serving young people should consider this highly politicized, inconsistently argued, and misleading title. Steer them instead to Milton Meltzer's Never to Forget (HarperCollins, 1976), Barbara Rogasky's Smoke and Ashes (Holiday, 1988), or Art Spiegelman's "Maus" books (Pantheon)."
Jack Forman, Mesa College Library, San Diego
Copyright 1994 Reed Business Information, Inc.[6]

[1] Haim Bresheeth "Zionism and the Holocaust" RETURN issue 1 March 1989 pp.25-26 (subsequently reproduced on the following web site http://www.radioislam.org/historia/zionism/zionhol01.html
[2] Yechiam Weitz "Kasztner, Rudolf (Israel) (1906-57)" in Walter Laqueur ed. The Holocaust Encyclopedia (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001) pp. 379-82
[3]Leora Bilsky Transformative Justice: Israeli Identity on Trial (USA: University of Michigan, 2004) pp. 41-66
[4] Judith Tydor Baumel "'Parachuting to Their People' – the Operation of the Parachutist-Emissaries During World War II in Historical Perspective" Yad Vashem Studies Vol XXV 1996 pp. 137-180
[5] Anna Porter Kasztner's Train: The True Story of Rezso Kasztner, Unknown Hero of the Holocaust (Vancouver: Douglas & McIntyre, 2007) pp. 395-6
[6]http://www.amazon.com/Introducing-Holocaust-Introducing-Totem-Bresheeth/dp/1840461217/ref=sr_1_1/105-3401713-1119606?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1192626499&sr=8-1
Posted by: Mikey at October 30, 2007 03:11 PM

http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/archives/2007/10/30/well_funded.php

On Islamic antisemitism

2008-11-12T00:56:00.011+00:00

An expert scholar on the Islamic Middle East is Bernard Lewis. In a "specialised sense" he defined antisemitism as:

that special and peculiar hatred of Jews, which has its origins in the role assigned to Jews in certain Christian writings and beliefs concerning the genesis of their faith, and which has found modern expressions in such works as the Protocols and similar portrayals of a universal Jewish plot against both God and mankind.

Based on this definition, he comments:

anti-Semitism did not exist in the traditional Islamic world. True, Muslim religious and other literature provide ample evidence of prejudice against Jews, and Muslim history records not a few cases of persecution. But - and this is surely the crucial point - these attitudes and these persecutions were not accompanied by the demonological beliefs and conspiratorial fantasies that are characteristic of Christian anti-Semitism in both medieval and modern Europe, and do not differ significantly from the hostility and persecution to which other religious minorities, besides the Jews, have been from time to time subject.

Noting that the Qur'an shows greater hostility to Jews than to Christians he states that nevertheless:

the Muslim law makes no such distinction, but treats both subject religions on a footing of equality with each other. In practice, in medieval and in Ottoman times, Jews often fared rather better than Christians, for the obvious reason that unlike their Christian compatriots, they were not suspected of treasonable sympathies with the Christian enemies of the Islamic empires.

The conservative commentator Daniel Pipes concurs with these point from Lewis. Both Pipes and Lewis also agree that things changed in the 19th century when the Muslim world started to employ antisemitic imagery and themes more common in Europe. This more familiar style of antisemitism was imported into the Middle East from Christian Europeans to Christian Arabs and did not originate from Islamic sources. In effect, Muslims began to ape the antisemitism of European Christians.

Robert Wistrich, a noted expert on antisemitism, wrote a very interesting paper in 2002 for the American Jewish Committee entitled, Muslim Anti-Semitism: A Clear and Present Danger. He provides examples where Jews are depicted as the enemies of Islam in the Qur'an but notes that in practice, Jews, like Christians, were afforded the status of dhimmis (“protected peoples.”) Whilst Jews had to pay a jîzya (poll tax) they were accepted as ahl al-kitab (“peoples of the Book”) and were allowed to practice their faith. Whilst Jews were discriminated against by being dhimmis, it is important to realise that this discrimination was not specifically anti-Jewish, as Christians suffered similiarly. Quoting the work of someone else, Wistrich states:

Dhimmis were often considered impure and had to be segregated from the Muslim community. Entry into holy Muslim towns, mosques, public baths, as well as certain streets was forbidden them. Their turbans—when they were permitted to wear them—their costumes, belts, shoes, the appearance of their wives and their servants had to be different from those of Muslims in order to distinguish and humiliate them; for the dhimmis could never be allowed to forget that they were inferior beings.

This is not to say that there were never incidents of violent antisemitism in the Muslim world. As Efraim Karsh points out in his study published two years ago:

The last and most powerful Jewish tribe – Quraiza – suffered more profusely following the abortive Meccan siege of Medina in the spring of 627. Charged with collaboration with the enemy, the tribe’s 600–800 men were brought in small groups to trenches dug the previous day, seated on the edge, then beheaded one by one and thrown in. The women and children were sold into slavery and the money they fetched, together with the proceeds from the tribe’s possessions, was divided among the Muslims. This process was completed on Muhammad’s deathbed in the form of an injunction ordering the expulsion of Jews (and Christians) from the peninsula: ‘Two faiths will not live together in the land of the Arabs’

The relevant issue is that Muslims took (and still take), in the words of Daniel Pipes, "a somewhat patronizing view of other religions." As he states:

A Muslim believes so confidently in the perfection of Islam that he cannot quite comprehend why Jews and Christians continue to follow their outmoded and imperfect versions of the truth.

All these scholars note that Muslim antisemitism became rife in the 20th century. As a phenomenon, it has clearly exploded post 9/11, but this does not mean to say that antisemitism per se is traditionally Islamic. It would be far more accurate to argue that opposition to all other religions has been a fundamental theme in Islamic history.

Tony Greenstein, Man of Violence

2008-10-28T01:08:00.002+00:00

The post and the comments below appeared on Harry's Place

Tony Greenstein, Man of Violence

Your View, October 25th 2008, 9:55 am

This is a guest post by Mikey

Last night the The International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network (IJAN) launched its founding Charter. Opposing Jewish statehood - because, they believe, it excludes non-Jews - the anti-Zionists will accept Jewish members only. (Non-Jews are, at best, “network affiliates.”) Like any good Jewish group, IJAN held its event in the local Trinity United Reformed Church, on the Jewish Sabbath.

Fascinated by these self-proclaimed “anti-racists” who launching a Jews-only campaign group in a church, I went along with a friend. We arrived late and I took my place in the back row by the aisle. Predictably, the meeting was very dull. I started chatting with my friend on Blackberry instant messenger. From the front echoed the buzzwords we all expect to hear at such meetings: “warmongers,” “solidarity,” “colonialism,” “Iraq,” “Ireland,” “struggle,” “neoconservatives,” and so on, and so on.

I do not believe I was alone in my boredom. Soon enough, numerous audience members appeared to be slumping in their chairs, perhaps hoping that sleep would provide some relief.

Tony Greenstein was at the meeting. He is to be found at all such meetings. After taking a phone call at the back of the room, he walked back past me to his seat. As he passed me, I quietly called out his name.

Tony Greenstein turned around, summoned all his strength, and kicked me in the shins. He started shouting and screaming. He ranted that I was a Zionist spy. He raved that I had tried to trip him up. He demanded that I be driven from the room.

As I sat there in stunned silence, and no small amount of pain, Roland Rance joined in. Possibly livid at my recent exposure of his views, he told everyone that I had a history of threatening violence: which anybody who knows me will appreciate is a hilarious fabrication. He too demanded my expulsion but he did not explain why my imaginary threats of violence offended him so much more than his comrade’s actual violence.

Amazed at the disgusting spectacle, I kept silent as the commotion increased. The word “spy” was repeated over and over. According to a woman at the back (who appeared to be assisting the organisers), my friend and I were using Blackberrys and looking around the room: proof that we were Zionist spies. As it happens, we had no commission for our troubles from MI5, the CIA, the Mossad or the Bilderberg Group, but it would have been irrelevant even we had. We were, after all, audience members at a public meeting.

An honest man sitting across the aisle, who had witnessed the attack on me, interjected that it was not my fault.

All this was in the middle of a tedious speech. The chair asked that the speaker be allowed to continue; the matter could be investigated afterwards. At that point Tony Greenstein was given the opportunity to repeat his libels and his demand for my expulsion. Roland Rance followed suit; others stood up and commented. The word “spy” was used constantly. Someone said that even if we were spies, kicking us out would do little good because the room possibly contained further spies!

From the platform, Moshe Machover tried to defuse the situation, indicating that if I behaved I should be allowed to stay. The chair seemed to agree, and so did the audience. No-one thought it relevant that I had been the victim of a spontaneous assault by Greenstein. And at no point did anyone think of asking me for my opinion. It was almost as if I was the defendant in a Stalinist show trial.

Finally, I requested to speak. I was granted a few moments to explain that Tony Greenstein had assaulted me, that I had not tried to trip him up as he was now claiming, that I was not a spy and that I had been quiet throughout the meeting. At this point the chair cut me off and I returned the microphone without complaint.

Thanks to the attack I had already suffered and the subsequent intimidation, I wondered if Greenstein and comrades were preparing a more thorough assault against me. My friend and I thought it best to leave before the end.

Only this week, Tony Greenstein was boasting on this site of his criminal violence which landed his political opponents in hospital. And others have described similar conduct by him. Does Tony Greenstein, unable to win an argument, now plan on answering all his critics with violence, instead of dialogue?

Comments

Fabian from Israel

25 October 2008, 10:11 am

I wish you recover soon, Mikey.

What man kicks in the shin when he is angry? Does Tony not know what fists are for?

Mikey

25 October 2008, 10:15 am

I was in quite a bit of pain Fabian and I am glad that Tony Greenstein did not use his fists. I was quite concerned that he and some of his comrades may have tried that tactic after the meeting and that is why I thought it wise to leave before the end of the meeting.

Andrew Coates

25 October 2008, 10:21 am

Considering that Comarde Greenstein is roughly the same size and shape as Coatesy (i.e. small and slight) I imagine you are still quivering in yer boots!

felicitas

25 October 2008, 10:28 am

There is a nice article by Marina Hyde over at the Guardian about the Bullingdon Club and its ragging of Osborne - Greenstein deserves similar treatment ie. being suspended by the legs and having his head bumped against the ground until he gives the right answer, which is, as it turns out, ‘I am a despicable cunt’.

Fabian from Israel

25 October 2008, 10:30 am

Mikey, I have translated part of your post in my blog, so the Spanish world will know about Tony, the violent church Jew.
Hahahahaha.

Mikey

25 October 2008, 10:35 am

Thank you Fabian. I do not speak Spanish but I can guess what Hombre violento means!

David T

25 October 2008, 10:39 am

These Jewish anti Zionist groups - both the religious ones like NK and the irreligious ones - are a bit like the takfiris within Islam.

Takfiris, as we know, spend the greater part of their time and energy targetting Muslims who they regard as heretics: basically, all Muslims apart from themselves.

The AZJs, similarly, appear to be primarily preoccupied with Jews who don’t conform to their political and religious vision. Non Jews barely feature in their world, except as walk on parts.

I hope that violence doesn’t become a bigger part of their modus operandi.

Dave Rich

25 October 2008, 10:42 am

You should have him prosecuted for assault.

Seriously.

Dave Rich

25 October 2008, 10:48 am

At least takrifis have their meetings in mosques!

Holding this meeting in a Church on a Friday night is real class.

Pierrot Grenouille

25 October 2008, 11:07 am

“Spy”? Humm, am I detecting a pompous attitude here? So they think they deserve a spy? a.k.a. MI5 Central office - x october 2:16 pm - “I want you to send a spy to x church; dangerous peope; the government and the Queen herself are worried; and blah blah blah”.

What happened to the classic word “provocateur“? Much more accurate, in my opinion.

Alec Macpherson

25 October 2008, 11:10 am

Agreed with Dave Rich. I’ve had similarly utterly depressing experience with a close family member which, I am convinced, did not result in violence simply because it was on the ‘phone.

(Coatsey, guess what the front-cover photographs on the Edinburgh University prospectus have been for at least been.)

Danny Smircky

25 October 2008, 11:10 am

Pierrot, I think you’re right - sounds like overblown self-importance on their part.

Mikey, as you say, Greenstein can’t give you a verbal kicking in an argument so has to resort to the real thing. Hope your shin has recovered.

Alec Macpherson

25 October 2008, 11:16 am

I’m trying cut down on individual words, as seen in my last post.

Maven

25 October 2008, 11:16 am

I wonder what a self-hating Jew does when it comes to sex? Do they become impotent? If homosexual do they make sure their boyfriend is ALSO Jewish otherwise they will get even more penis envy/regret.

The appear to be part of another implied organisation “Jews for the Second Holocaust”

I am only guessing but with a name like Greenstein
I wonder if he suffered antisemitic abuse as a kid and has grown up trying to wash off his Jewishness.

Lets face it, any Jew can easily create the Jew from Planet Bizzaro (an old Superman Comic World). Just wear trainers to a Yom Kippur service, pull out a ham sandwich during the Al Chaits and masturbate over it.

I also wonder whather such self-hating is something genetic/cultural about Jews. Note the continual self-deprication in Jewish comedians and Jewish jokes. Its as if some Jews have to punish themselves in order to demonstrate to non-Jews that maybe there is something about being Jewish that brings on hatred, and maybe there;s a grain of truth in it. Its empathy seeking.

Note how the antisemitic assertions about Jews and money bring Jewish comedians to make jokes about Jews and money so as to feed the sterotype in the belief that by doing so they can be accepted.

So, maybe, to feel accepted some Jews have to agree with Antisemitic sentiment and due to some political fringe beliefs they can find reasons why Israel fits their anti-Imperialist model. Hence, please don’t send us to the gas chambers because we agree with you. Look, I don’t want Israel. Am I a good boy now? Will you now apologise for all that antisemitic name calling?

I am very serious about the psychological models that may bring a Jew to self-hate themselves. I’m not sure there are self-hating Black people or self-hating Muslims. So why the self-hating Jew. If anyone knows of any papers written on the subject I’d be grateful to know of them.

Apologies I went from light to deep.

BTW - wish your shin better you spy. Don’t think your subtlety escaped me.

Shin Bet!

Nearly Oxfordian

25 October 2008, 11:16 am

While sympathising with your distress and wishing you speedy recovery, Mikey, one can’t help but feel sorry for TG, as one has to feel sorry for everyone who is so mainfestly mentally ill.

tim

25 October 2008, 11:18 am

Greenstein Vs Galloway.
“Celebrity Short Arse Anti-Zionist Cage Fight”

Nearly Oxfordian

25 October 2008, 11:18 am

LOL, Maven.

A Hypnotherapist Writes

25 October 2008, 11:26 am

My eyes are spinning in their sockets here.

lol

25 October 2008, 11:37 am

i wonder what kind of information they think a spy can glean from their meeting? who their leaders are? what their next action is going to be?
what can you find by listening in that they won’t gladly bore you with if you just ask?

Pierrot Grenouille

25 October 2008, 11:47 am

“Celebrity Short Arse Anti-Zionist Cage Fight”

A sordid, grotesque Mud Fight is certainly better. Anyone wants tickets? Tip: I’m the guy serving the drinks ;)

Marge

25 October 2008, 11:59 am

“Just wear trainers to a Yom Kippur service”

Nothing wrong with this. I’ve seen plenty of people with trainers at Yom Kippur services. In fact, the frummer the person, the more likely they will wear trainers.

The ham sandwich, OK.

s.o.muffin

25 October 2008, 12:00 pm

Well, Mikey, even without a kick in the shin, what a way to spend an evening!

But, of course, all this becomes more interesting once one attempts to analyse the convoluted meanderings of a Greenstein mind:

1. Why should the Mossad, the Bilderberg Group, the Rothschild family or the ZOG waste valuable time of its agents on a meeting of few sad types, repeating ad nauseam their obsessions? I mean, it is not like if Moshik Machover or Roland Rance are just about to dismantle the Jewish state (as much as they would have loved to).

2. And, even had the Mossad, the Bilderberg Group, the Rothschild family or the ZOG to waste their considerably well-funded stashes of money (yes, I had to segue to the current economic crisis) on a group of recidivist washouts, why should they send somebody so well known to the Master Kicker and his colleagues? Surely, if the Mossad is so clever as to manipulate the entire world and pull all the strings (and if string theory is correct, all the superstrings) in the universe, they will be clever enough to send an unknown face?

3. Or, even better, to suborn and inveigle one of the Great Leaders of The Struggle… Machover, Greenstein, Rance: which one of you is Agent Gideon?

Anyway, I have the following suggestion. Find enough well-funded individuals in London to establish the following scheme: each time IJAN holds a public meeting anywhere in London, this triggers an automatic contribution of one million pounds to United Jewish Appeal. Just imagine these nice signs in a forest in Gallilee or a school in Ofakim: “This project has been made possible through the generosity of Tony Greenstein”.

Fabian from Israel

25 October 2008, 12:25 pm

“I’m not sure there are self-hating Black people or self-hating Muslims. ” (Maven)

In the movie Malcolm X there is a scene, in the jail, when a situation of a self-hating black (Malcolm) is played.
I am sure you will find lots of those in every ethnicity or sexual orientation.

“Anyway, I have the following suggestion. Find enough well-funded individuals in London to establish the following scheme: each time IJAN holds a public meeting anywhere in London, this triggers an automatic contribution of one million pounds to United Jewish Appeal. Just imagine these nice signs in a forest in Gallilee or a school in Ofakim: “This project has been made possible through the generosity of Tony Greenstein”.” (Muffin)

Hahahahahahaha!

Fabian from Israel

25 October 2008, 12:34 pm

JNF Celebrates Israel at 61 - “The Year of Tony Greenstein”.

For over a century, JNF has helped realize the dreams of Jews around the world to create and strengthen the Jewish homeland.

This partnership has produced miraculous results, like the help of anti-Zionists in the restoration of hundreds of heritage sites associated with Israel’s rebirth.

Over the coming year, 61 JNF historic projects and partners like Tony Greenstein and Roland Rance will be featured in our site. Every month, new projects will be added and highlighted.

Please let friends, colleagues, family members and Moshe Machover know about this wonderful resource for anyone who is interested in learning about Israel’s magnificent history.

JNF would like to acknowledge The International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network (IJAN): The major source of information on the JNF historic projects and partners.
http://www.jnf.org/site/PageServer?pagename=israelat61

s.o.muffin

25 October 2008, 12:39 pm

Fabian, LOL.

“The Year of Tony Greenstein”

The Chinese already have The Year of the Rat. But I am confident that, in the best academic tradition, you’ll add a reference.

Nearly Oxfordian

25 October 2008, 12:52 pm

No, no, not trainers: gym shoes. Must be made of fabric, not leather, which trainers are.

Nearly Oxfordian

25 October 2008, 12:55 pm

The rat is an intelligent, clean animal. Greenstein would never be worthy enough to clean a rat’s whiskers.

Dom

25 October 2008, 1:01 pm

Yuck, these SWP anti-Zionists, I know the type and applaud your patience. Wherever they have a majority expect to be ganged up with no option for polite dissent; where they don’t, expect rabid opposition of a sort you were too good mannered for that day in Trinity Church. I don’t like to be too broad with words like leftist and liberal even if SWP is a little too specific to apply here, but whatever they are, to think they consider themselves progressive and opposing viewpoints somehow controlling - the words dangerously and disturbed spring to mind.

Autobahn

25 October 2008, 1:13 pm

Maven - try the self-hating Jew wiki page. aka auto-antisemitism. Somewhere online there is a huge debate whether there should be a second hyphen in auto-antisemitism, ie. auto-anti-semitism.

wardytron

25 October 2008, 1:17 pm

Of course, you could have saved yourself all this trouble by NOT BOTHERING TO ATTEND this totally insignificant meeting of a handful of obscure nutters. I mean, when I lived in Brighton, Greenstein stood as parliamentary candidate for the “Alliance for Green Socialism”. This was in a constituency which consistently delivers high votes for green and left parties, and one where the Greens were only 826 votes away in 2005 from beating the Conservatives into 2nd place.

He won 188 votes. This is fuck all. He was one of the 2 or 3 nutjobs manning the boycott Israel trestle table outside the Churchill Centre, and every Saturday I and countless thousands of other people would ignore him. I recommend a continuation of this wise policy.

Mikey

25 October 2008, 1:20 pm

wardytron,

You have a very fair point, but I have a hobby of attending meetings held by extremists. What can I say? Some people like attending football games - I attend meetings of Marxists!

wardytron

25 October 2008, 1:27 pm

Well there’s nothing wrong with esoteric hobbies, such as trainspotting, morris dancing, cheese-rolling, Greenstein-watching, and so on, but I don’t want anyone to get the impression that he’s some kind of significant and influential figure in international affairs on the level of me or Sonic or Flanker.

Deep Throat

25 October 2008, 1:46 pm

Can’t say too much.

What’s the best way for a real spy to remain concealed? Out someone else as a “spy”…………

Need I say more……….?

Boogski

25 October 2008, 2:15 pm

He won 188 votes. This is fuck all

It’s still 187 votes too many.

Is this the wanker who kicked you, Mikey? I’m just trying to get a mental picture of your confrontation. :D

David Herman

25 October 2008, 2:18 pm

yes Boogski that’s him. At the risk of sounding thuggish you should have headbutted the motherfucker.

David Herman

25 October 2008, 2:18 pm

yes Boogski that’s him. At the risk of sounding thuggish you should have headbutted the motherfucker.

David T

25 October 2008, 2:20 pm

Greenstein is NOT a ’self hating Jew’. Atzmon is.

Greenstein has huge regard for himself. His hatred is directed exclusively against Jews who do not meet his standards.

marvin

25 October 2008, 2:20 pm

Interesting hobby Mikey, great post.

David Herman

25 October 2008, 2:27 pm

David T, I think your splitting hairs over question of whether or not Greenstein is a self hating Jew. He has a regard for himself, bit his definition of a good Jew is so narrow that only a very few on ultra left or ultra religious right can possibly comply. ‘His standards’ entail a total commitment to anti-zionism and aligning himself with the enemies of the Jewish people. To my mind, this makes Greenstien , a de facto ’self hating’ Jew.

wardytron

25 October 2008, 2:35 pm

He has a regard for himself

Well it’s nice that someone has. In the 2005 election he managed to get 320 fewer votes than someone called Kimberley Crisp-Comotto.

Ben Cohen

25 October 2008, 2:36 pm

Mikey, I agree with Dave. Press assault charges against him.

lol

25 October 2008, 2:39 pm

so much is clear after seeing him on that video.

Maven

25 October 2008, 2:43 pm

Nothing wrong with this. I’ve seen plenty of people with trainers at Yom Kippur services

Marge, absolutely right. I’ve revisited my ancient memories of Crowland Road shul and realise that no-one brought a ball.

Not mocking because I have a lot of respect for those traditional Jews of faith. Long may they preserve the traditions.

Maven

25 October 2008, 2:47 pm

“This project has been made possible through the generosity of Tony Greenstein”.” (Muffin)

Fabian,

How about The Tony Greenstein Memoriall Gardens?

How quickly could we set it up?

go rimbaud

25 October 2008, 2:50 pm

Hey Mikey,

If you are seriously worried about threats of physical violence by these self-regarding tossers I’d be happy to go along to a few meetings with you.

I’m fairly unworried about a scrap with this lot.

David Herman

25 October 2008, 2:56 pm

Mikey - I’ll come to a few meetings with you too. Its better they worry.

Andrew Coates

25 October 2008, 3:22 pm

Given my view on the link above.

Mikey

25 October 2008, 3:26 pm

Thanks to all those who supported me. I would be delighted if a few more HP people turned up at these meetings with extremists.

What is always fun is attending the annual Marxism week held in the summer at the University of London. There is nothing funnier than the chance to hear John Rose get the name of the President of the USA wrong. (Check section between 5 minutes and 10 seconds and 5 minutes and 20 seconds.)

Nearly Oxfordian

25 October 2008, 3:30 pm

Sorry, Maven, but you 2 are still wrong about leather trainers ;-)

Paul

25 October 2008, 3:31 pm

“At the risk of sounding thuggish you should have headbutted the motherfucker.”

Completely agree. I can’t think of any situation where, were I booted in the shins, there wouldn’t be some form of retaliation.

Mind you, they used to say that you should never hit a man with glasses. In Greenstein’s case, I’m sure exceptions could be made…

Alcuin

25 October 2008, 3:37 pm

I wonder if, in Gene’s eyes, this would make Greenstein a man of the far left or the far right, and if his opinion were based on Greenstein’s politics or his thuggery.

Kudos to Mikey for his guts for going into such a bear pit in the first place, and for this report.

Nearly Oxfordian

25 October 2008, 3:50 pm

Alcuin, Greenstein is imo clearly demented. You can’t classify his ‘politics’ (or rather, his personal delusions) as ‘left’ or ‘right’ (which are shifting definitions anyway).

Koppers

25 October 2008, 3:52 pm

Is this the wanker who kicked you, Mikey? I’m just trying to get a mental picture of your confrontation. :D

He absolutely oozes charisma, not.

Neil D

25 October 2008, 4:03 pm

Why aren’t the Police involved?

Paul

25 October 2008, 4:06 pm

“Why aren’t the Police involved?”

Yes, that’s just what Greenstein needs - that cunt Sting getting all tantric on his ass….

Benjamin

25 October 2008, 4:24 pm

It was almost as if I was the defendant in a Stalinist show trial.

Yeah, right! Almost! LOL

Tony Greenstein

25 October 2008, 4:25 pm

It is of course typical of Harry’s Place that an assertion is taken as proof of what happened. Of course there were others who saw things differently, but no matter, in the Harry’s Place Police State, encouraged by David Herman to do a little headbutting, there is only one version.

Leave aside a ranting foaming Mikey 10 days before at the AWL-CPGB debate who pushed Roland Rance and tried to do the same with me. Or him sticking his face an inch from mine and foaming about how he hates Nazis despite allying himself with Atzmon.

In fact Mikey deliberately stuck his foot out to trip me up, being the silly man he is and I moved his leg back again. Next time he won’t be a silly boy and he will also be refused admission, with or without friends to any further meetings.

S.O.Muffin

25 October 2008, 4:26 pm

Now that measures are afoot toward the Greenstein Memorial Forest on Mt Carmel, and to avoid undue envy among the leaders of IJAN, the next step should be a new character on a children programme of Hamas TV: Roland Rat.

Paul

25 October 2008, 4:29 pm

“In fact Mikey deliberately stuck his foot out to trip me up, being the silly man he is and I moved his leg back again. Next time he won’t be a silly boy and he will also be refused admission, with or without friends to any further meetings.”

Okay, that’s your version. But can you at least admit that you are a bit of a loony?

S.O.Muffin

25 October 2008, 4:30 pm

That’s absolutely fair, Tony Greenstein:

…sticking his face an inch from mine and foaming about how he hates Nazis

I can imagine how upset you’ll be with that particular hatred.

Mikey: next time humour him, tell him how much you love Nazis.

Benjamin

25 October 2008, 4:31 pm

It’s handbags at dawn!

wardytron

25 October 2008, 4:38 pm

In fact Mikey deliberately stuck his foot out to trip me up, being the silly man he is and I moved his leg back again.

For christ’s sake, try acting your age.

Boogski

25 October 2008, 4:43 pm

Does Tony Greenstein deny calling Mikey a “Zionist spy”?

Maven

25 October 2008, 4:47 pm

Sorry, Maven, but you 2 are still wrong about leather trainers ;-)

OK! I was trying to hide my age! They were, in fact, plimsols. White canvas and rubber.

Thanks Nearly Oxfordian.

Mephisto

25 October 2008, 4:47 pm

Greenstein:

in the Harry’s Place Police State

Oh, you silly cunt.

Boogski

25 October 2008, 4:47 pm

…Goes to credibility, your honor. :D

Tony Greenstein

25 October 2008, 4:54 pm

I think when someone sticks their face an inch from yours and spits and foams that is invading your personal space, apart from the fact that they can headbutt you without being able to defend yourself. So my tolerance a week ago was just that. I made allowance for Mikey being mentally ill but if someone tries tripping you up, quite deliberately, then it is an act of magnanimity to gently place their foot back again. Sorry if Mikey is so sensitive.

Still it has clearly encouraged ‘necklace’ Herman to come out of his thuggish shell again. Always rareing for action are we David?

As for the Nazi self-hatred jibe I can confirm I love myself and my friends but I hate you fuckers and all racists.

lol

25 October 2008, 4:57 pm

interesting that greenstein pops in to comment on every one of his “internet stalker’s” posts.

i wonder who’s stalking who?

and really, after seeing that video, the aggressive tone just makes me laugh. oh no! greenstein will beat me up!

Mikey

25 October 2008, 4:58 pm

What nonsense from Greenstein:

Leave aside a ranting foaming Mikey 10 days before at the AWL-CPGB debate who pushed Roland Rance and tried to do the same with me. Or him sticking his face an inch from mine and foaming about how he hates Nazis despite allying himself with Atzmon.

The AWL meeting that Greenstein refers to was on October 12 as anyone can check. Greenstein clearly cannot recall as he claims that it was 10 days prior when it was 12 days prior. This lack of recollection has led him to make further errors. I did not push Rance but as I walked through the door, Rance was standing there and he pushed me. I did not attempt to push Greenstein either - it is is not me who is a man of violence but himself. I did tell Greenstein that I hate Nazis - a true statement - but despite his repeated claims I do not ally myself with Atzmon.

Greenstein continues from the ridiculous allegations to the absurd ones:

In fact Mikey deliberately stuck his foot out to trip me up, being the silly man he is and I moved his leg back again.

I did not try to trip up Tony Greentein - my leg was in the aisle as were the legs of many others. In so far as his comment “I moved his leg back again” it would be helpful if he explained that he did so by kicking me hard in the shins.

S.O.Muffin

25 October 2008, 4:59 pm

I can confirm I love myself

Good somebody loves you. The technical term is, I believe, “masturbation”.

Mikey

25 October 2008, 5:04 pm

Tony Greenstein can do no better than to accuse me of spitting and foaming - neither of which is true. He accuses me of being mentally ill but anyone sane and who witnessed his actions last night might be forgiven for thinking that he is in serious need of psychiatric treatment. In so far as his claim that he “gently” placed my feet back, that is a complete lie - He kicked me very hard in the shins and I was in pain.

Koppers

25 October 2008, 5:07 pm

As for the Nazi self-hatred jibe I can confirm I love myself and my friends but I hate you fuckers and all racists.

Lol - truly the words of a demented buffoon.

Stop Lying Tony

25 October 2008, 5:12 pm

Tony says:

“Mikey deliberately stuck his foot out to trip me up … and I moved his leg back again”

Oh really? You bent down, picked up his leg with your hands and moved it back into place?

You gently nudged it away with your foot?

And then, after peacefully ending this little incident, you suddenly found it necessary to interrupt the whole meeting by shouting and screaming at the top of your voice?

Not very plausible.

Tony Greenstein

25 October 2008, 5:17 pm

Idiot Winds says:

Oh really? You bent down, picked up his leg with your hands and moved it back into place?

You gently nudged it away with your foot?

Correct.

And then, after peacefully ending this little incident, you suddenly found it necessary to interrupt the whole meeting by shouting and screaming at the top of your voice?

Correct. One can’t allow violence in the movement.

And if someone repeats 20 times or so that they hate Nazis in your face, when my hatred is probably somewhat greater than Mikey or most on this list (after all I don’t take drinkeys with Atzmon and friends and nor do I complain because National Front members who visit violence on others are themselves placed in casualty by others).

Hopefully Mikey will learn from his silliness but he was correct to leave early as there were some people who were less inclined to forgive and I’m not sure, being small, that I would have been able to hold them back.

Tony Greenstein

25 October 2008, 5:23 pm

However Mikey is welcome to bring a police or civil action for damages if he seriously believes he was assaulted. I would welcome exposing this liar who was responsible for The Times having to pay £1,000 of Murdoch’s loot to Friends of Bir Zeit University for having defamed me!!!

Boogski

25 October 2008, 5:24 pm

Did you call Mikey a Zionist spy, Tony? If you deny it, then kindly say so.

Paul

25 October 2008, 5:25 pm

“He kicked me very hard in the shins and I was in pain.”

You should have stood up and lamped him then. That would have been much more becoming than simply doing all this ‘boo-hoo, poor me’ thing on Harry’s Place.

Despite the fact that Greenstein is an obvious twat and clearly in the wrong, I think this is all getting a bit silly. As somebody else said, I don’t understand why you waste your time with these cretins in the first place. And it’s getting to the stage now (with all the ‘he did this and I did that and he said this and I said that’) where the only appropriate response will be: “I don’t care who started it - you both need your heads banging together!”

wardytron

25 October 2008, 5:26 pm

What Paul said.

Koppers

25 October 2008, 5:31 pm

However Mikey is welcome to bring a police or civil action for damages if he seriously believes he was assaulted.

Equally, you could sue Mikey for slander if he is lying.

Richard Farnos

25 October 2008, 5:42 pm

I think Mikey should grow up.

Paul

25 October 2008, 5:47 pm

“Equally, you could sue Mikey for slander if he is lying.”

Can you imagine these two in court? Greenstein with his funny high-pitched voice whining on about nothing, Mikey rolling up his trouser legs and pointing to long-vanished bruises, the judge rolling his eyes, the jury wanting to slit their wrists….

A45

25 October 2008, 5:48 pm

Wardytron - Please do not reduce this trainspotting, morris dancer to the same level as the SWP.

Alec Macpherson

25 October 2008, 5:49 pm

And we - yes, I am presuming to speak for the rest of the world - think you’re a pathetic middle-class nobody, Farnos.

Pierrot Grenouille

25 October 2008, 5:49 pm

“Your fault!”
“Not mine, yours!!”
“No! Yours!”
“No no no no! Yours!!”

Oh well… Where is mom? Just imagine the cops listening to the above dialogue…

25 October 2008, 5:50 pm

Wardytron - Please do not reduce this trainspotting, Morris dancer to the level of the SWP

Dave Rich

25 October 2008, 5:50 pm

If you hate Nazis so much why do you jump to the defence of people who fund David Irving?

Nearly Oxfordian

25 October 2008, 5:51 pm

in the Harry’s Place Police State

Do you actually know what a police state is, you utterly sad loser?

Your previous posts on various HP threads have demonstrated quite clearly what an ignorant idiot you are.

roland rance

25 October 2008, 5:52 pm

POST THIS AGAIN AND I WILL POST YOUR ADDRESS IN ITS PLACE

Nearly Oxfordian

25 October 2008, 5:53 pm

I love myself and my friends but I hate … all racists

You have just admitted that you hate yourself, jerk.

David T

25 October 2008, 5:55 pm

Just popping in to say hahahahahaha

Oh, and comment of the thread award goes to Paul:

‘Okay, that’s your version. But can you at least admit that you are a bit of a loony?”

Nearly Oxfordian

25 October 2008, 5:57 pm

One can’t allow violence in the movement

I haven’t laughed so much for ages. You support mass-murdering Nazis, you total and utter prick!

Jon d

25 October 2008, 5:58 pm

Shit happens, whenever I go into London I get my lower legs kicked to bits just for trying to board a train.

Nearly Oxfordian

25 October 2008, 5:58 pm

ROFL. Brilliantly funny.

Richard Farnos

25 October 2008, 5:59 pm

Oh I see my stalker back. And I love to know on what basis Alec assumes that I am middle class, especially when he “presuming to speak for the rest of the world” - a very middle class activity in my experience.

Imshin

25 October 2008, 6:01 pm

Hey, Tony Greenstein.

Sorry to change the subject but…

anyone ever told you you’re the spitting image of nutty Israeli actor/comedian/film producer Tzvi Shisel? Or at least the way he looked in the nineteen seventies.

Maybe you’re related.

exposinghypocrites

25 October 2008, 6:04 pm

Tony Greenstein, today:

‘One can’t allow violence in the movement.’

Tony Greenstein, earlier this week:

‘I talked to Steve Brady, not long before we put him and a few of his comrades in hospital when they tried to take a stroll round town complete with Union Jacks.’

On his own argument, Tony Greenstein must expel himself from ‘the movement.’

More important, it is another example of Tony Greenstein’s blatant dishonesty.

Avi

25 October 2008, 6:05 pm

So Mikey was in danger, then. The thing is, Greenstein, you and your Jew-hating friends should watch your own backs. Don’t threaten what you can’t deliver, you stupid fucking cunt.

Alec Macpherson

25 October 2008, 6:09 pm

No, Farnos, stalking would require my pursuing you across different threads or sites, making statements apropos of nothing which came before but merely expressing my absolute scorn of you. Rather like you did with Mikey.

All the best!

Dom

25 October 2008, 6:15 pm

Thing is, Tony Greenstein, Mikey is likely to be the sort of guy who wants to see what’s going on in the thick of it, but if he’s just there with a mate and you know him already, he isn’t the sort to get physical. I can well imagine what sort of raised tempers brought your faces so close together, it happens when someone’s getting all aggro and the saner man decides not to be intimidated. It’s a guess because that’s how I am and much as I enjoy discussion, any attempt to keep the peace with the angry hard left is from my experience impossible. Mikey or his acquaintances here can confirm if I’m correct.

25 October 2008, 6:18 pm

I was wondering what criteria are applied when testing the Jewishness of potential IJAN stormtroopers - would it be the orthodox matrilineal, or the hitler test - one Jewish grandparent? According to their website http://www.ijsn.net (note the url fail) IJAN is open “is open to individuals who identify as Jewish”. So plenty of scope there. The website looks very international for something produced by a solitary nutter using google translate.

Stop Lying Tony

25 October 2008, 6:18 pm

Tony says:

‘You gently nudged it away with your foot?’

Correct

‘And then, after peacefully ending this little incident, you suddenly found it necessary to interrupt the whole meeting by shouting and screaming at the top of your voice?’

Correct. One can’t allow violence in the movement.

So you claim the incident ended without violence but then you started screaming like a madman because you were against violence?

Not very plausible.

he was correct to leave early as there were some people who were less inclined to forgive and I’m not sure, being small, that I would have been able to hold them back

So, as Mikey suspected, there was a plan to beat him up after the meeting.

You, Tony, knew of this planned assault.

And you claim you intended to come to Mikey’s defence, but feared you were too much of a weed - this when you boast of putting NF supporters in hospital.

Not very plausible.

Try getting your lies straight, Tony!

Alec Macpherson

25 October 2008, 6:23 pm

I was almost physically assaulted last month, discounting a glancing flying-kick (the sort of unprovoked attack which, in the cities, has blameless young men getting a knife in the throat). My crime was possessing a fedora with intent.

I responded by thrusting my face into his and roaring back. At one point, he made as if to place his hands on my shoulders. I was a gnat’s crotchet away from breaking the grip and kneeing him in the balls.

David T

25 October 2008, 6:24 pm

I do think it is a shame though, to see Mikey, who comes from a family Iraqi refugees, being attacked in this fashion. Britain should be a country in which political debate can proceed without the spectre of the sort of political violence that his family must have hoped to have escaped.

David T

25 October 2008, 6:29 pm

I have to be schoolmarmish, but I don’t want to see swearing on this thread

David T

25 October 2008, 6:32 pm

Tony

What was the libel action against The Times about?

Boogski

25 October 2008, 6:32 pm

Apparently saner heads prevailed at the front table as Mikey was allowed to speak on microphone.

Richard Farnos

25 October 2008, 6:32 pm

See Alec what I find hard to believe is that man set on physical violence as Mikey claims would attack someone’s shins? Moreover Alec don’t you find the idea of comparing being thrown out of public meeting for playing with his blackberry to a “Stalin show trial” a tad childish?

Paul

25 October 2008, 6:33 pm

“Britain should be a country in which political debate can proceed without the spectre of the sort of political violence that his family must have hoped to have escaped.”

Was shin kicking popular in Iraq then?

Sorry….

David T

25 October 2008, 6:37 pm

Well done for spotting the comedy gold in this thread!

The seveneleven Survivor

25 October 2008, 6:40 pm

See Alec what I find hard to believe is that man set on physical violence as Mikey claims would attack someone’s shins?

10 seconds googling turns this up on a martial arts site:

Also, targetting the Shins directly can be very painfull. As
many peoples shins are not conditioned and takes very little
to cause extreme pains. (if not a bone break, or a very nasty
forwards trip

Do us all a favour Farnos and talk about something you know about If there is anything you know about, and I’m not convinced.

Richard Farnos

25 October 2008, 6:45 pm

This gets better - Tony Greenstein - the Ninja!

Paul

25 October 2008, 6:46 pm

“Also, targetting the Shins directly can be very painfull. As
many peoples shins are not conditioned and takes very little
to cause extreme pains. (if not a bone break, or a very nasty
forwards trip”

So you’re saying that Greenstein is a martial arts expert? Hmm. Maybe he is. After all, insecure little fellas always go in for that type of thing - or body building.

David T

25 October 2008, 6:47 pm

The Karate Kid!!

Alec Macpherson

25 October 2008, 6:50 pm

“Stalin show trial”

What Mikey actually said was “it was almost as if I was the defendant in a Stalinist show trial”. Not “Stalin”, not even “Stalin-era”, but “Stalinist”. Based on your reasoning, Stalinist has be a hyperbolic statement since 1953.

Why d’you think sportsmen wear shin-pads?

ami

25 October 2008, 6:55 pm

David T: on the facts I have heard, the Times action was another of those disgraceful capitulations by a big company, when on the info available in my humble opinion the potential Claimant didn’t stand a gnat’s chance of succeeding if it got to court. On my assumption, it could only have been the result of some pusillanimous inhouse decision to avoid litigation at all costs that could have led to this paltry settlement.

Nearly Oxfordian

25 October 2008, 6:55 pm

I was almost physically assaulted last month

How utterly fascinating. Should be made into a film.

Roley Poley Dahl

25 October 2008, 6:58 pm

Many thanks Mikey for drawing our attention to how vile these obscene thugs are, albeit at damaging cost to your shins. I hope you recover quickly.

Nearly Oxfordian

25 October 2008, 6:59 pm

ami,
Was it something like saying that Bir Zeit is located in J&S?

wardytron

25 October 2008, 6:59 pm

TV Burp’s on any minute now.

ami

25 October 2008, 7:01 pm

And having met Mikey on occasion, try as I might I have found it impossible to imagine him foaming and spitting as alleged or at all.

Paul

25 October 2008, 7:01 pm

“TV Burp’s on any minute now.”

I’m sitting here waiting for it. And my dinner. And then it’s X-Factor. It’s Laura for me….

That Phil Spector Arena documentary should be good too.

David T

25 October 2008, 7:04 pm

Yes, ami

But I’d love Tony to tell us what untrue and damaging statement led to his well deserved pay out.

I think that we all accept that it cannot possibly be true, because otherwise, the Times would certainly not have agreed to settle.

Richard Farnos

25 October 2008, 7:05 pm

Alec when did these “Stalinist”, not “Stalin” or “Stalin-era” show trial happen?

Nearly Oxfordian

25 October 2008, 7:07 pm

Don’t confuse Alec with logic.

mitnaged

25 October 2008, 7:09 pm

Mikey, I am sorry that you got hurt and I don’t blame you for leaving early for the reasons you give. It looks like Greenstein has severe impulse control problems and if he can’t control himself and becomes violent it also means that he has to be controlled by others if necessary. Myself, I think he’s cracking up.

May I suggest that you get whatever bruises you have photographed and the photographs witnessed? If Greenstein is indeed about to nose-dive this won’t be the last time he will do this and the next person may not be as “lucky” as you were.

Maven, from what I have been told Greenstein comes from an orthodox Jewish family and it seems to me that he must have had severe oedipal difficulties and has transferred that hatred onto Jews generally and Israel in particular. If he has always had the difficulties we are hearing about, it would scarcely be surprising if he suffered abuse, whether antisemitic or otherwise, and perhaps he did indeed put that down to his being Jewish rather than to, let us say, his “unfortunate personality.” This in turn may well lead such a one to distance himself from the group which, he believes, is the root cause of the trouble and identify with one which would cause them a lot of trouble.

There are quite a few papers and books about Jewish self-hatred.

Nearly Oxfordian, I don’t believe that Greenstein is mentally ill, at least not by DSM IV criteria; rather I suspect that he is personality disordered, probably dual diagnosis - borderline/narcissistic. These unfortunates seem to lurch from crisis to crisis in their lives and sometimes these are punctuated by manifestly psychotic episodes as is shown by Greenstein’s obviously paranoid reaction to Mikey. They may also be extremely litigious and have an exaggerated sense of entitlement

One should have pity on people who are so troubled but Greenstein has shown that he is dangerous.

s.o. muffin, what a splendid idea, but it’d probably tip Greenstein over the edge.

Alec Macpherson

25 October 2008, 7:19 pm

Nearly, it was like a scene from Small Faces.

tony greenstein

25 October 2008, 7:20 pm

Fake Tony Greenstein

I know who you are. I WILL post your details in the next one of these posts you put up. Do you understand?

ami

25 October 2008, 7:21 pm

on the trainers thing: Can anyone confirm that the rationale for this was that as you are meant to afflict your soul (if not your sole) on Yom Kipppur, you were meant to wear your most uncomfortable shoes. This was in the days where you most comfortable shoes were your best shoes, made of leather, and your everyday shoes were clogs or the like. So you avoided wearing leather and wore the clogs on Yom kippur. However, these days, especially for ladies, wearing flat canvas sneakers or even plastic trainers is more comfortable than leather, so really if I wanted to afflict my soul I should wear leather shoes with 6 inch stilleto heels.

25 October 2008, 7:23 pm

I normally sport deck shoes for Yom Kippur. But no sailor hat.

Richard Farnos

25 October 2008, 7:26 pm

mitnaged are you really qualified to judge whether someone has a personality disorder?

SayWhat??

25 October 2008, 7:28 pm

Mikey, log a complaint with the police against this bastard. Go to A & E, get the bruises photographed and report the bugger.

Boogski

25 October 2008, 7:30 pm

Just got my FT subscription renewal price reduced by $60 simply by calling and asking. Never hurts to ask, folks. :D

hasan prishtina

25 October 2008, 7:38 pm

Thanks, jr, for the letter. Being out of the boycott loop, I didn’t know that the wonderful Mercedes Sosa was playing in Israel. Needless to say, she avoided the loons and is now half way through her tour there. Will put on one of her CDs as a tribute.

S.O.Muffin

25 October 2008, 7:45 pm

Mitnaged:

s.o. muffin, what a splendid idea, but it’d probably tip Greenstein over the edge.

Ah, the Greenstein Forest… Yes, I really like it. On reflection, let’s locate it at the Ramon Crater in the Negev, plenty of edges there. And our friend Anthony will know that there is a piece of foreign land which is forever Greenstein. Will make his loving himself so much more exciting.

Josh Scholar

25 October 2008, 7:50 pm

Amusing!

Koppers

25 October 2008, 7:54 pm

Dear all

Let’s have an anagram competition for the words tony greenstein.

I’ll kick it off with:-

Teens One Trying

Nearly Oxfordian

25 October 2008, 7:55 pm

mitnaged,
One can feel pity for ill people, at the same time as stepping out of their way when one sees them coming at you with a foaming mouth.
I don’t claim to be an expert, but imo anyone exhibiting psychotic episodes is as close to be mentally ill as makes no odds. These are all rather arbitrary labels, surely.

Nearly Oxfordian

25 October 2008, 7:57 pm

being, even.

Clap Hammer

25 October 2008, 7:59 pm

Tony Greenstien.

I will pray for you.

In Jerusalem.

In a church.

That was once a synagogue.

Amen

Graham

25 October 2008, 8:08 pm

Alec when did these “Stalinist”, not “Stalin” or “Stalin-era” show trial happen?

Turkmanistan would be one very recent example:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F06E5D61539F934A15752C0A9659C8B63

Anyone else come out of a meeting and found themselves surrounded by hobbit-like swuppies who seem to have positioned themselves so that any movement on your part would look like an assault on their person? Happens to me quite often and I find the shoulder charge very useful in such situations.

Richard Farnos

25 October 2008, 8:17 pm

So Graham is this Turkmanistan trial really comparable to be thrown out the public meeting? Or would that not be childish?

Alec Macpherson

25 October 2008, 8:19 pm

Anthony Greenstein results in, threatening yen son, which would be appropriate if ever he took a dislike to Japanese bankers.

Graham

25 October 2008, 8:21 pm

That wasn’t what you asked Richard - what is childish is your continual attempts to change what you think the thread should be about.

In my opinion most of the tiny meetings which you, Greenstein and the other self-agrandising failures of the political world indulge yourselves at are childish to begin with so it is unsurprising that they would behave like mini-Stalins (second time as farce and all that what?)

Alec Macpherson

25 October 2008, 8:26 pm

I tell you what’s childish, Farnos. Childish is seizing on a non-point to make a claim which no-one was making. Not to mention Stalinist.

I await your explanation as to why Brownie cannot be described as a Blairite has he has never sat in on Cabinet decisions; merely attended his local Labour Party meeting.

Boogski

25 October 2008, 8:28 pm

Happens to me quite often and I find the shoulder charge very useful in such situations.

Lol! I didn’t know what a “shoulder charge” was until now. I like it! :D

Graham

25 October 2008, 8:31 pm

Well I totally agree Alec. Mikey was clearly saying that the lack of concern about the attack on his shins made him feel as HELPLESS as a defendent in a Stalinist show-trial (ie: that nobody was interested in what he had experienced at all as the outcome was pre-conceived.) The fact that Richard Farnos has latched onto this with his usual trope about sub-godwinesque hyperbole is just a further attempt to undermine Mikey using Stalinist methods.

Quite funny though!

Alec Macpherson

25 October 2008, 8:34 pm

So, is Richard a sub-Leninist Pooteresque controlling creep or a pathetic middle-class nobody, Graham?

“And I love to know on what basis Alec assumes that I am middle class” compared to TG’s “I love myself”. Which is more fist-swinging?

Graham

25 October 2008, 8:35 pm

Probably all of those things.

Anyway here is a masterful example of the shoulder charge:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=YLt4wTtOQPo&feature=related

Richard Farnos

25 October 2008, 8:39 pm

Look Graham and Alec, Mikey compared being thrown out a meeting in the UK for playing with his Blackberry to a “stalinist show Trial.” I am sure that he was refering to trials in the 30’s but perhaps he had Turkmanistan in mind. If this was a “non-point” (whatever that means) than Mikey is responsible not me. However this, together with idea that focus of any first strike in a fight would be the shins, makes Mikey’s story really hard to believe.

Graham I was not at the meeting, whether it was small or otherwise I can not say. The fact that Mikey was at the meeting, does that make him a “Mini-Stalinist”?

Alec Macpherson

25 October 2008, 8:42 pm

Look Graham and Alec, Mikey compared being thrown out a meeting in the UK for playing with his Blackberry

No he didn’t. Run along and play now, there’s traffic outside.

Lilo

25 October 2008, 8:43 pm

Mikey perhaps you would clarify something for me. You are empowered enough to write about this on a blog - why don’t you do the right thing by going to the Police and pressing charges against Greenstein, thus ensuring he won’t be able to behave like a violent thug to anybody else?

Another thing I want to say is I’m totally pee’d off by some of the comments saying that Greenstein is the way he is because of some anti-Semitic incident in his past. It’s about time you stopped blaming Gentiles for everything that ever goes wrong with and for Jews. Has it ever occurred to you that Greenstein is the way he is because he’s just a terrible person? Lots of them about - including some Jews.

Nearly Oxfordian

25 October 2008, 8:45 pm

… idea that focus of any first strike in a fight would be the shins, makes Mikey’s story really hard to believe

Drivel.

Nearly Oxfordian

25 October 2008, 8:46 pm

It’s about time you stopped blaming Gentiles for everything that ever goes wrong with and for Jews.

Nobody was doing any such thing.

Richard Farnos

25 October 2008, 8:47 pm

Nearly Oxfordian - please explain?

Alec Macpherson

25 October 2008, 8:50 pm

Graham I was not at the meeting, whether it was small or otherwise I can not say.

That Graham only alluded to this particular meeting makes this another non-point intended to direct the thread in your chosen direction.

The fact that Mikey was at the meeting, does that make him a “Mini-Stalinist”?

No. There is a far stronger case for accusing TG of a chumming up with neo-Nazis and other antisemites.

#Brooom!# #Brooom!# #Screech!#

David T

25 October 2008, 8:50 pm

Thinking about it, I have just realised that, if anybody were to repeat the untrue and damaging libel that the Times settled over, we would be in danger of republishing that libel.

Therefore, I want to make it absolutely clear that I will delete ANY mention of, or allusion to the nature of whatever lie it was that The Times published. Tony Greenstein has a perfect right to protect his reputation, and if somebody did make a statement that was materially untrue, then it is imperative that it be condemned, and that it never see the light of day, in civilised society.

Most particularly, I will ban any poster who suggests that the defamatory statement was actually true. This is tantamount to suggesting, not only that Tony Greenstein is a liar, but also that he effectively demanded money with menaces from The Times. That is a very serious accusation: because it implies that Mr Greenstein is a criminal blackmailer.

The only person who I will allow to repeat the statement over which he sued, is Tony Greenstein himself.

If he does so, he will do us a service. Because, in doing so, we will all be alerted to the nature of these vile untruths, and accordingly, will know when to spot and censure them. I, for one, will take the lead in condemning them.

Tony: please help us out here…

Richard Farnos

25 October 2008, 8:50 pm

Alec - I stand corrected - Mikey was not thrown out, he left of own accord - so how is that comparable to a “stalinist show trial?”

Nearly Oxfordian

25 October 2008, 8:51 pm

OMG - you want it in words of one syllable? It is perfectly possible to start a fight by kicking someone’s shins. I have seen it happening.

Given Greenstein’s general infantilism, it seems very appropriate and not at all unlikely.

Alec Macpherson

25 October 2008, 8:54 pm

It’s been explained to you, Richard. Expecting endless verification from others, whilst considering your rather glaring errors to be irrelevant, is another suggestion of Stalinism.

Graham

25 October 2008, 8:55 pm

Look Graham and Alec, Mikey compared being thrown out a meeting in the UK for playing with his Blackberry to a “stalinist show Trial

Oh dear. Afraid he didn’t. What he did do was compare the lack of concern shown for the fact he was assaulted with the (totally helpless) defendent of a Stalinist show trial. Time for some remedial reading lessons perhaps?

Graham

25 October 2008, 8:57 pm

The fact that Mikey was at the meeting, does that make him a “Mini-Stalinist”?

Apparently they thought him more of a McCarthyite spy.

Lilo

25 October 2008, 8:57 pm

Nearly Oxfordian I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt - you obviously haven’t read Mitnaged’s comment at 7.09pm

Boogski

25 October 2008, 9:05 pm

Thinking about it, I have just realised that, if anybody were to repeat the untrue and damaging libel that the Times settled over, we would be in danger of republishing that libel.

Unless court documents are sealed, isn’t it a matter of public record?

David T

25 October 2008, 9:07 pm

I’m sorry Boogski

I’m afraid I’m going to have to take a strict line here.

Tony is the only person who I will allow to discuss the nature of the libel that he suffered.

Fabian from Israel

25 October 2008, 9:16 pm

I am interested in knowing if Greenstein called Mikey a “Zionist spy”.
Mikey should expect a whiping when he returns to HQ if that is true.

Tony, let us know if we should discontinue Mikey’s services.

Koppers

25 October 2008, 9:18 pm

Thinking about it, I have just realised that, if anybody were to repeat the untrue and damaging libel that the Times settled over

Isn’t that the alleged untrue and damaging libel that The Times settled over?

At the moment we only have Tony “squeeky voice” Greenstein’s word for it.

I’d like to see a shred of evidence that Greenstein was ever libelled in the first place.

Orangina

25 October 2008, 9:19 pm

I second David T’s request for urgent clarification on said matter. As we all know, Tony Greenstein is a law abiding member of the community. Always has been…

Mikey — true Greenstein has this rather strange tough-guy reputation, (hang on, can’t type whilst wiping away tears of laughter) I’m not convinced there’s much validity to this and would have recommended you put Boney, I mean, Tony, to the test. What you can still do about this matter, is go to the cops and press charges.
Wish your shins better.

Zionist Spy

25 October 2008, 9:31 pm

Mwahahahahaha!

wardytron

25 October 2008, 9:33 pm

I wonder what the law makes of the fact that the convicted sex offender, war criminal and serial killer wardytron is allowed to post here. Surely this blog should be shut down.

Richard Farnos

25 October 2008, 9:34 pm

Yes Alec, if someone is making such a serious allegation I expect some if not “endless verification from others.” The trouble with Mikey’s recollection is that it clearly exaggerates (all that Stalinist shit) which clearly raises doubts about the creditability of his other recollections. This neatly brings me on to Nearly Oxford point.

Of course a fight could start with a kick to the shins; it also could start with a stab in the eye, a fist to the face, gut or groin. The point is which is more likely? Moreover the idea that the injuries were initiated by Mikey himself blocking Greensteins path seems more credible to me. After all, according to Mikey, this was in the middles of a supposed boring speech from a colleague of Mr Greenstein- hardly the time to start a fight?

Alec Macpherson

25 October 2008, 9:38 pm

Richard, are you still suggesting that Mikey suggested he was threatened in whatever way for playing with his Blackberry?

David T

25 October 2008, 9:38 pm

Please, please!

No more talk of this “libel” business.

Can’t you see that you put me in an intolerable position!

Richard Farnos

25 October 2008, 9:44 pm

Alec, I am questioning whether Mikey was threatened at all.

Alec Macpherson

25 October 2008, 9:47 pm

You’re as inconsistent as TG. Are you *now* suggesting that he did not physically assault Mikey and that no-one in the audience was prepared to do so again?

ami

25 October 2008, 9:48 pm

What if, and I am speaking purely hypothetically here- the complainant does not dispute the act which is the subject of the l-bel, but disputes the categorisation of, or the motivation imputed to, the act. Perhaps he could just state the agreed facts and let them speak for themselves.

Richard Farnos

25 October 2008, 9:49 pm

Yes

Alec Macpherson

25 October 2008, 9:51 pm

Well, then you’re contradicting TG himself. You really are a pathetic waste of an intellect.

Richard Farnos

25 October 2008, 9:57 pm

I have no idea of TG position, I understand THt he clais that any injury occured on Mikey was as a consequenece of Mikey blocking his path. That sounds more crediatably to me. While TG may have handled the situation better, it is hardly assault.

By the by Alec why do feel the need to belittle me?

Richard Farnos

25 October 2008, 9:58 pm

THt should read TG

Alec Macpherson

25 October 2008, 10:04 pm

TG’s own account of Mikey’s behaviour and his response has been contradictory. Mikey’s has not been.

TG also stated that there was a potential ambush planned against Mikey. I find *this* credible.

By the by Alec why do feel the need to belittle me?

Because you’re a creep? Oh, I know, I should grow-up and stop bullying you for calling you a creep.

Nearly Oxfordian

25 October 2008, 10:04 pm

Nearly Oxfordian I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt - you obviously haven’t read Mitnaged’s comment at 7.09pm

I have no idea what you are talking about. I have replied to mitnaged’s post …
I don’t have to share mitnaged’s opinions, if that’s what you are driving at.

Nearly Oxfordian

25 October 2008, 10:09 pm

Of course a fight could start with a kick to the shins; it also could start with a stab in the eye, a fist to the face, gut or groin. The point is which is more likely?

Completely irrelevant, indeed quite laughable. Any individual has his or her own preferred method of initiating physical aggression, should he be an individual that initiates physical aggression in the first lace.

Moreover the idea that the injuries were initiated by Mikey himself blocking Greensteins path seems more credible to me.

Bollocks.

Boogski

25 October 2008, 10:11 pm

Question for Mikey:

Did you have your leg sprawled out in the aisle in what could be remotely considered an obstructive manner? Why was your leg even in the aisle? And yes, it matters.

Richard Farnos

25 October 2008, 10:13 pm

Well, Alec, I disagree I think TG explanination is more crediable.

Alec, that a side what I don’t understand is why you hate me so much. After all to my knowledge we have never met.

Nearly Oxfordian

25 October 2008, 10:15 pm

Oh, for fuck’s sake - some people have long legs. I often find myself having to sit next to the aisle with my legs in it, if the distance between the rows is too small for comfort. Just try to tell me face to face that I am being aggressive - you could expect a kick in the shins.

Nearly Oxfordian

25 October 2008, 10:19 pm

Yes Alec, if someone is making such a serious allegation I expect some if not “endless verification from others.”

Can we have endless verification from TG, then?

That aside, please concentrate on your typing, Your spelling is atrocious, and your punctuation likewise (the closing quotes go before the full stop above, for instance).

The Hasbara Buster

25 October 2008, 10:19 pm

At this point, blaming it all on Israel Shamir begins to look like a good idea.

KB Player

25 October 2008, 10:23 pm

“I wonder what the law makes of the fact that the convicted sex offender, war criminal and serial killer wardytron is allowed to post here. Surely this blog should be shut down.”

Not to mention your littering and parking on double yellow lines. Hope that tag is chafing you.

Boogski

25 October 2008, 10:24 pm

Nearly,

He was sitting in the aisle seat. His foot could have been next to the chair in front of him, or it could have been in the middle of the fucking aisle.

Mikey

25 October 2008, 10:24 pm

Richard Farnos,

The comment about the Stalin show trial was due to the fact that one by one it seemed people were standing up to denounce me as Zionist spy. No one thought of asking me for my opinion until I finally interjected myself as the chair wanted to move on to other matters. One by one people got up to denounce me. I was awaiting the equivalent of Andrei Vyshinsky who famously said things such as the following:

“Shoot these rabid dogs. Death to this gang who hide their ferocious teeth, their eagle claws, from the people! Down with that vulture Trotsky, from whose mouth a bloody venom drips, putrefying the great ideals of Marxism! Let’s put these liars out of harm’s way, these miserable pygmies who dance around rotten carcasses! Down with these abject animals! Let’s put an end once and for all to these miserable hybrids of foxes and pigs, these stinking corpses! Let’s exterminate the mad dogs of capitalism, who want to tear to pieces the flower of our new Soviet nation! Let’s push the bestial hatred they bear our leaders back down their own throats!”

Stephane Courtois, “Conclusion: Why?” in Stephane Courtois et al. eds., The Black Book of Communism: Crimes Terror Repression (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1999) p. 750

It was in this context that I used the comparison.

Inna

25 October 2008, 10:28 pm

I think most people have said what needs to be said. And Mikey, I hope you are feeling better!

But (please forgive my American ignorance): what in the name of all that is holy does Ireland have anything to do with Israel/Palestine? I know there are books out there about how an Egyptian princess married a Celtic king or something.. but somehow I suspect that may not be the entire reference?

Regards,

Inna

The Hasbara Buster

25 October 2008, 10:31 pm

That aside, please concentrate on your typing, Your spelling is atrocious, and your punctuation likewise (the closing quotes go before the full stop above, for instance).

If instead of Nearly Oxfordian you were Nearly Bostonian, for instance, you would be aware that in American English it’s customary to put the closing quotes after the period.

Or maybe you are aware, and your rejection of the practice is yet another example of your intolerance of dissent.

pbr streetgang

25 October 2008, 10:31 pm

Not popped in for a while guys and know nothing much of Greenstein apart from what I have read on here, but, what a fucking loony!

Alec Macpherson

25 October 2008, 10:37 pm

Good to see you again, PBR. Meet Buster. He’s lovely.

Boogski

25 October 2008, 10:37 pm

Welcome, pbr streetgang. This is almighty, over. :D

Richard Farnos

25 October 2008, 10:42 pm

Nearly (if I can be so famliar), I am Dyselixic to more spelling isn’t great. Moreover I think you miss the point TG cliames that any injury was due to Miket obstruacting his way. Now this implies that Mikey refused to move if asked. Whatever the rights or wrongs of thid situatition the gulag it is not.

Mikey I haven’t a clue what happened at the meeting - I was not there, however I find comparasions to to “Stalinist trails” unbelieveable, when push comes to love , was your life was never really under threat?

Maven

25 October 2008, 10:43 pm

Ref: Greenstein and mental state

We have been trying to do a denigration psychological analysis.

If the Tony Greenstein handle who posted is the real Tony Greenstein then think about that phrase he used about “invading my personal space”. Its not the usual type of phrase someone would use in the 21st century. There is something significant about that but I can’t decide what.

Mikey

25 October 2008, 10:46 pm

To come back to some others:

@Ami

Thank you for your supportive comments.

@Fabian

Yes, Greenstein did call me a Zionist spy and so did Roland Rance.

Richard Farnos states, (spelling and grammatical errors left in place):

I have no idea of TG position, I understand THt he clais that any injury occured on Mikey was as a consequenece of Mikey blocking his path. That sounds more crediatably to me.

and Boogski asks me:

Did you have your leg sprawled out in the aisle in what could be remotely considered an obstructive manner? Why was your leg even in the aisle? And yes, it matters.

In response to Richard Farnos and Boogski:

Yes I did have my leg sprawled out in the aisle but so did others who were also seated on an aisle seat. My leg was in the aisle as I was seated in an aisle seat and I slouched back in my chair and stretched my legs out as one might do if they were seated in a relaxed position on a chair. My leg was not obstructive as it could have easily been stepped over or walked round (the aisle was substantially wider than the distance my leg stretched) and it was easy to see. (Admittedly, a blind person may not have seen my leg and tripped up if they were not walking with a cane to check where they were walking.)

Greenstein has not claimed that I did trip him up as I did not. He clearly saw my leg. Rather than walking around it or step over it, he took the opportunity to kick me hard in the shin and then let out a stream of abuse. These are the facts.

Lilo asks me (and others have asked or suggested similar):

why don’t you do the right thing by going to the Police and pressing charges against Greenstein, thus ensuring he won’t be able to behave like a violent thug to anybody else?

I am contemplating doing exactly that.

Lilo goes on to comment:

Another thing I want to say is I’m totally pee’d off by some of the comments saying that Greenstein is the way he is because of some anti-Semitic incident in his past. It’s about time you stopped blaming Gentiles for everything that ever goes wrong with and for Jews.

I think it is fair to say that I am not “blaming Gentiles for or everything that ever goes wrong with and for Jews.” It can be noted that Greenstein is himself Jewish.

No Shit Sherlock

25 October 2008, 10:46 pm

Of course a fight could start with a kick to the shins; it also could start with a stab in the eye, a fist to the face, gut or groin. The point is which is more likely?

Inspector Morse this person is not.

Lilo

25 October 2008, 10:54 pm

Mikey, you misunderstood me - I didn’t mean that you yourself blame Gentiles for everything - but at least one post on this thread did, and let’s face it many Jews who see anti-Semitism everywhere, even when it’s not there - do.

I hope you will go ahead and press charges against Greenstein.

Makhno

25 October 2008, 10:55 pm

Whatever the rights or wrongs of thid situatition the gulag it is not.

First Richard Farnos (wrongly) accused Mikey of making a direct comparison of the Ijan meeting to a Stalinist show trial and now he has moved on from there to bring in the the up until now totally untouched upon subject of the gulags.

Whatever his point may be I would think that judged by his own standards of exaggeration nobody here can actually be taking him seriously now.

Richard Farnos

25 October 2008, 10:59 pm

Mikey, when you saw TG or for that matter anyone else walk down the aisle did you move your legs?

David T

25 October 2008, 11:02 pm

Are you suggesting that if Mikey moved his legs, that that was tantamount to trying to trip Greenstein?

Or are you suggesting that if Mikey did not move his legs, that was tantamount to trying to trip Greenstein?

Can we make the nature of the charge clearer, please?

M o r g o t h

25 October 2008, 11:05 pm

This thread has more feet/shin/leg action than a Shoe Fetistish’s Convention.

Boogski

25 October 2008, 11:09 pm

My leg was not obstructive as it could have easily been stepped over or walked round (the aisle was substantially wider than the distance my leg stretched) and it was easy to see.

Okay. So your leg was if fact in the walkway. Agreed that you weren’t trying to trip anyone but your leg shouldn’t have been where it was. You would’ve been sanctioned back in my theater usher days. :D

Richard Farnos

25 October 2008, 11:11 pm

If we are to have trial by blog, David, than at least thinks must me questioned. Otherwise, surely it becomes a kangaroo court?

David T

25 October 2008, 11:12 pm

You would’ve been sanctioned back in my theater usher days. :D

Is “sanctioned” a euphemism for “receive a savage shin-scuffing”?

Richard Farnos

25 October 2008, 11:12 pm

me = be

David T

25 October 2008, 11:13 pm

If we are to have trial by blog, David, than at least thinks must me questioned.

I have read this sentence several times, and am still none the wiser as to its meaning.

David T

25 October 2008, 11:14 pm

thinks must be questioned

No, still none the wiser.

Mikey

25 October 2008, 11:14 pm

Boogski you say:

Okay. So your leg was if fact in the walkway. Agreed that you weren’t trying to trip anyone but your leg shouldn’t have been where it was. You would’ve been sanctioned back in my theater usher days. :D

There was no sign that I saw that said legs should not be in the aisle nor did any of those helping out at the meeting ask me to take my feet out of the aisle. It should also be noted that others in aisle seats also had their legs in the aisle. Certainly it was not suggested to me that if you put your leg in the aisle the punishment for it is to be kicked hard in the shins and to be accused of being a Zionist spy!

Richard Farnos

25 October 2008, 11:16 pm

Earlier you seemed to suggest that my questioning of Mikey was out of order- if I got the wrong end of the stick - forgive me.

Richard Farnos

25 October 2008, 11:17 pm

Mikey did you move your legs when you saw people coming?

David T

25 October 2008, 11:18 pm

No, Richard.

I merely asked you whether the assumption underlying the question was whether Mikey was at fault for having his feet in the aisle, or for moving them. I thought it a perfectly proper question to ask. I just wanted to know what lesson you hoped to draw from it.

By the way, I am still none the wiser as to what “thinks must be questioned” means. Can you help me out here?

David T

25 October 2008, 11:19 pm

Sorry Richard - I think it really is important that you tell us what significance you see in the movement, or lack of movement, of Mikey’s legs.

Brownie

25 October 2008, 11:20 pm

I know it’s testosterone-fuelled bullshit to say so, but I really do wish I’d been there. We can sit around all evening talking about how right Mikey was to retain the moral high-ground, rising above the schoolboy provocations of Greenstein, but there does come a point when people like TG and his pals need a taste of their own medicine.

Come and kick these shins you pug-faced wanker…*

(*…is what I’ll shout if I can ever be arsed to get out of my chair and attend one of these meetings)

Richard Farnos

25 October 2008, 11:23 pm

Lets hope, David, you ever become a fucking Judge. You know very well the importance of this question, just let Mikey answer - if is answwer now can ever be sincere.

Richard Farnos

25 October 2008, 11:24 pm

ever == never

Boogski

25 October 2008, 11:24 pm

Is “sanctioned” a euphemism for “receive a savage shin-scuffing”?

No, but it would likely get you and your entire party illuminated with the dreaded “torch of exposure”. Not a good thing when you (and you’re girlfriend) are trying to maintain a low profile. :D

Alec Macpherson

25 October 2008, 11:25 pm

Mikey, granted the Police in my town have less on their plates, but I did precisely the same, whilst emphasising that I wanted only for my would-be assailant spoken to. Of course, he didn’t have a history of this sort of thing.

Nor, do I assume, does Tony Greenstein over whatever these unproven allegations were.

Mikey I haven’t a clue what happened at the meeting - I was not there,

Not even Sgt. Toolan.

however I find comparasions to to “Stalinist trails” unbelieveable, when push comes to love , was your life was never really under threat?

Again, this ain’t what you or Mikey have been saying. Now, about Brownie the Blairite…

Boogski

25 October 2008, 11:27 pm

Your you’re your you’re fuck fuck fuck!

Shmuel

25 October 2008, 11:27 pm

I myself received a rather nice settlement after being punched in the face by someone who accused me of “looking like a zionist”. I recommend it highly.
Hugely satisfying.

David T

25 October 2008, 11:28 pm

Richard

I am merely asking, politely, for you to tell me what you think the significance of the question you are asking is. Do you say that Mikey is as fault for moving his feet, or for not moving his feet? It must be one or the other. Which is it?

Can you also please tell me what “thinks must be questioned” means?

Brownie

25 October 2008, 11:28 pm

Now, about Brownie the Blairite…

I’ll sue if this slur is repeated.

I’m officially a Mandelsonite now.

Alec Macpherson

25 October 2008, 11:31 pm

Look at me, I’m Brownie.

Alec Macpherson

25 October 2008, 11:35 pm

I don’t think this has been addressed, so has anyone informed the Trinity United Reformed Church of what went on?

David T

25 October 2008, 11:36 pm

Please Richard. I want to go to bed!!

Shmuel

25 October 2008, 11:39 pm

David T, Do you think that people like Richard *actually* have an interest in the truth, or are you taking pleasure in publicly humiliating him? (Serious question.)

Richard Farnos

25 October 2008, 11:39 pm

If I told you, David, the significance of the question that I ask Mikey, surely that would effect his responce - if your intervention hsan’t already.

David T

25 October 2008, 11:40 pm

I honestly do not know. I am more than prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Alec Macpherson

25 October 2008, 11:41 pm

Shmuel, no and yes.

Richard Farnos

25 October 2008, 11:44 pm

“I am more than prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt.”

I am not.

It is not a hard question. Did Mikey move his legs when he saw TG coming?

David T

25 October 2008, 11:45 pm

surely that would effect his responce

But you would strengthen your position, if you chose between the two options: that he should have retracted his feet, or that he should not have done so. You see, if you do not choose, then Mikey will be able to accuse you - unfairly of course, but in a rhetorically powerful manner - of changing your interpretation, post hoc as it were, to suit the answer Mikey gave.

By stating your position clearly, you will neatly sidestep that avoidable pitfall.

Can you please tell me what that other post meant. Come on! Humour me!

Maven

25 October 2008, 11:45 pm

“Now Mr Mikey, would you show your leg to the jury. No Mr Mikey, the one that is six feet long and two feet wide. Now, is it true you have a history of RLS (for the jury that is Restless Legs Syndrome) as well as severe bouts of cramp?

Also Mr Mikey you say that the conference was so boring that you fell alseep. Is that not so? I have here the police records of an incident in 2007 where you were found wandering naked through Bovingdon at 1:32am kicking at various objects and shouting “Goal!”. Upon the attention of the police doctor it was determined that you had a somnabulist episode (if you will, sleep-walking incident) and thought you were Michael Owen. Is that not so Mr Mikey?

To the members of the jury, I put it to you, a man with a six-foot by two foot leg, with Restless Legs Syndrome, suffering from bouts of leg cramp and a history of somnabulist soccer is more likely to have fitted the evidence offered by the fragrant Mr Greenstein and I ask you to find favour with the anti-Zionist Jew and award him the finest hock of ham from Harrods”

Mikey, better not sue!

Richard Farnos

25 October 2008, 11:46 pm

Why doesn’t Mikey just answer the question, or does he have to hide?

Boogski

25 October 2008, 11:47 pm

Oh I’m with you on this, Mikey. The fact that other people had their legs in the walkway but Greenstein chose to kick you seals his fate.

All I’m saying is that it’s annoying as fuck to have to step around something that has no business being there in the first place. And yes, it is customary for you to move your shit out of the way if it has no business there.

Alec Macpherson

25 October 2008, 11:48 pm

“I am more than prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt.”

I am not.

Fred Hollis?

It is not a hard question. Did Mikey move his legs when he saw TG coming?

If he said no, would it count against him?

David T

25 October 2008, 11:49 pm

I am not.

I think you misunderstand me. I was saying that I was more than prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt. I am stating my confidence in your intentions. In other words, I agree with you. I think that Mikey should tell us all whether he retracted his legs, or whether they remained unmoved. And then I think you should reveal which of those actions you regard as blameworthy.

However, I do think that it would be sensible for you to state your position clearly, up front. You see, if Mikey is indeed a malicious tripper, he will almost certainly change his position. You will then be able to accuse him of cutting his suit to fit the cloth. His blame will have been compounded, while you will have been shown to be a model of transparency, and praised for it.

I know it sounds a little political. However, you’re not averse to a little bit of politics, are you?

Richard Farnos

25 October 2008, 11:55 pm

Fair enough David, if I got the wrong end to stick, forgive me. The point is neither I, you, Alec, Boogski, Maven or whoever can answer this quetion about Mikey’s legs. Only Mikey can.

Alec Macpherson

25 October 2008, 11:56 pm

Thus, Richard, Mikey remains in a passive position, lounged back in a chair; a stance which makes it difficult, if not impossible to threaten TG with his feet, even were he not concentrating on the Blackberry.

And, *still* would have us believe he was to blame? Hello, Stalinist, anyone?

Richard Farnos

25 October 2008, 11:58 pm

Alec - you are making assumptions again.

Shmuel

25 October 2008, 11:59 pm

“the question was whether Mikey was at fault for having his feet in the aisle, or for moving them.”

I think the Talmud actually has commentary on this. But the fact that it happened on shabbos might complicate matters.

Boogski

26 October 2008, 12:06 am

underline test

David T

26 October 2008, 12:09 am

I think we must face up to the sad truth that Mikey has either run away, or is asleep

Am I the only one who detects a certain carnival spirit on this thread. Is it Bacchanalia tonight by any chance?

Maven

26 October 2008, 12:13 am

Barrister: “Now Mr Greenstein, I understand you call yourself an anti-Zionist Jew. Would you explain to the jury what that means?”

Greenstein: “Yes your holiness, Sir, Barrister for the Righteous. I happen to believe that as a Jew, Israel shouldn’t exist because it should let non-Jews become citizens.”

Barrister: “Correct me if I’m wrong but there are 1.8m non-Jewish citizens of Israel. And if they should have a child then that child is a citizen of Israel”

Greenstein: “Fook You! I told them I didn’t want a Jewish Barrister. Get me Jenny Tonge!”

Barrister: “I was merely trying to establish that you are a man of integrity who can hold a position even though that position is false and thereby you are a man of honour”

Greenstein: “Well I never thought of it that way. You’re good!”

Barrister: “Now, as a man of demonstrable integrity I want to go over your story again. It was dark, you were walking down the aisle of a high level Government sponsored conference when an octopus-like leg proceeded to wrap itself around you while a voice shouted “Greenstein you c-nt I’m going to strangle you and take you down with me to Davy Jones locker, Ahar and Shiver Me Timbers. As anyone would do in the circumstances you stabbed that tentacle several times with the Tarzan The Ape Man Machete you always carry with you. You realise, that in the panic of the moment this was in fact the defendant, Mr Mikey, who posseses a six-foot long leg. Mr Mikey then proceeded to insult you by calling you a “Dick-headed c-nt, a disgrace to humanity, a Hitler-loving nancy boy, with small penis and AIDS”. Despite this torrent of abuse we should point out that you are not suing for libel but for assault. Is that correct?”

Cont P94

YossiUK

26 October 2008, 12:13 am

“The AZJs, similarly, appear to be primarily preoccupied with Jews who don’t conform to their political and religious vision”

I think it is salient to point out, that most anti-Zionist religious Jews like myself, are not preoccupied by Jews who don’t conform to our religious views. We just quietly live out lives and and care for all our fellow Jews Zionist or not. Don’t confuse us all with some lunatics from Neturei Karta, who have been condemned and disowned by almost every Haredi group, including I might add, but the moderate wing of Neturei Karta.

Maven

26 October 2008, 12:15 am

Is it Bacchanalia tonight by any chance?

No its Saturday Nite Live on HP!

Shmuel

26 October 2008, 12:17 am

I don’t know either of these people, but they both seem humorless. One is completely earnest and a little naive, the other is a lunatic.

David T

26 October 2008, 12:18 am

If Mikey was attending a meeting on Shabbos, can he really ever be said to be blameless? Or even a Jew?

If he has truely disassociated himself from the body of World Jewry, to entertain himself on the night he should be observing a rest day, it can fairly be said that he is not a Jew, and therefore had no right to be there in the first place!!

This is pure conjecture, of course.

Night Night!

ami

26 October 2008, 12:19 am

thinks must be questioned: please I can take no more of this mirth, Richard please explain- even with the extra hour we can’t wait all night

Maven

26 October 2008, 12:19 am

neither I, you, Alec, Boogski, Maven or whoever can answer this quetion about Mikey’s legs. Only Mikey can

I have clearly settled the truth of the matter and Mikey has nothing to answer. His only dilemma is whether to get the other leg enhanced or the six-foot one reduced.

“Tarzan”, “problems with legs” - where’s the Pet & Dud Trazan sketch when you need one?

Alec Macpherson

26 October 2008, 12:28 am

Where to the ceilidh, David?

Richard, please tell us how someone in that position could effect a tripping up. Everything Mikey has said has been consistent, and indicates that what his position. Everything TG has said has been barking. Everything you have said has been Stalinist.

Shmuel

26 October 2008, 12:33 am

“If he has truely disassociated himself from the body of World Jewry, to entertain himself on the night he should be observing a rest day, it can fairly be said that he is not a Jew”

There is certainly no Talmudic or Biblical prohibition against attending an anti-Zionist meeting on Shabbos. (Entering a Church on the otherhand…) But aside from that, perhaps Mikey intended to trip TG, without moving his legs, as Farnos half-insinuates, so as to avoid the prohibited work such an action would have involved. I’m assuming the best of Mikey, Super Jew.

Richard Farnos

26 October 2008, 12:49 am

Hay I want to wait to hear from Mikey, but to let you into a a clue, the issues here isn’t whether Mikey sort to trip Tony - it is far more basic than that.

Alec Macpherson

26 October 2008, 12:55 am

Says who, Richard? You? Naff off.

Sid

26 October 2008, 12:58 am

hahahahahahahahaaaha!

Mikey, my sympathies. You should have roundhoused him in the neck.

Richard Farnos

26 October 2008, 1:00 am

ERR Alec there - such a productive bunny

Alec Macpherson

26 October 2008, 1:02 am

No, Richard. Mikey has stated his position many times over. You, however, have consistently lied both about what he has said and what you have said. Your position is now that he was culpable because he did not move his legs out of TG’s path, and that any response from TG was as justified as a 15 year kid thinks it justified to carry a knife in case someone ‘disses him.

No it wasn’t, and no he can’t.

Richard Farnos

26 October 2008, 1:04 am

So why doesn’t he answer my questions Alec?

Graham

26 October 2008, 1:11 am

You know very well the importance of this question

Very much so. I think the importance for an historian is certainly whether the Russian revolution itself could have happened had people sat with their feet in the aisle during Lenin’s meetings. Certainly injuries would have been caused on a grand scale and we must be thankful that order number one of the Petrograd Soviet whilst abolishing saluting and standing to attention also found time to lay down the internationally accepted socialist principle that Potemkin potentates should be able to strut the aisles of church halls everywhere without fear of being cut down in their prime by the size nine boots of a Zionist spy.

nearly oxfordonian

26 October 2008, 1:12 am

Why aren’t people paying attention to me?

I feel lonely.

Richard Farnos

26 October 2008, 1:20 am

Well Graham and Alec seem to have lost it - well I suppose it is a Saturday night, well technically early Sunday!

Alec Macpherson

26 October 2008, 1:23 am

So why doesn’t he answer my questions Alec?

Because he is under no obligation to play the games of a ~~sub-Leninist Pooteresque controlling creep~~ pathetic middle-class nobody. Why haven’t you answered my questions about whether you were deep-frying live kittens last week? This is about as relevant as your “questions”, not to mention as unencumbered by the technicality of not having previously been asked.

It really is *this* simple. The moment you, Richard Farnos, say that “the issues here” is [whatever], we, the reader, can be absolutely sure that they ain’t. That they ain’t ever been. And that whatever they are, you are deliberately ignoring.

Did I not tell you to naff off?

Boogski

26 October 2008, 1:27 am

Holy crap, Alec. I’m a big time Yanni fan. Saw his orchestra in concert several years ago in Orlando. He had a black chick with dreadlocks playing the fiddle and she smoked it!

anna

26 October 2008, 1:29 am

Tony
Strong and bitter words indicate a weak cause.

Richard Farnos

26 October 2008, 1:32 am

Alec what it your point your trying to make. All the personal virtual obscures it.

YossiUK

26 October 2008, 1:43 am

Now if all the people involved in this horrible incident, had been sitting around their family’s Shabbos table, making Kiddush, eating some lovely sweet challah, singing Shabbos songs, then this whole unpleasant situation might have been avoided.

As a people we have sufficient enemies, and sufficient hatred directed at us, do we have do add more to the pot?

Alec Macpherson

26 October 2008, 1:47 am

Alec what it your point your trying to make.

That you’re a liar. That you’re employing Stalinist methods. Is this too obscure?

(Aye, Boogski, I don’t mind him, although I found this link whilst looking for Armenian music which anyone who is anyone is listening to with as we go Byzantium crazy.)

Boogski

26 October 2008, 2:04 am

It was pretty neat, Alec. People actually dressed up. Lots of suits and ties. Nothing like the rock concerts I was used to. They had stalls that sold $200 bottles of wine if you wanted (they had beer as well).

Totally different experience for me.

Pope Benedict

26 October 2008, 2:20 am

What’s this I hear? Jews fighting in a Church? Haven’t you people got synagogues of your own?

Trabi Mechanic

26 October 2008, 3:56 am

Did somebody say anagram? ‘Tony Greenstein’ quickly yields the oddly suitable ‘Energy Neon Tits’ - or, if we go with Anthony, Internet Hyena Song is not catchy but no less apt.

Benjamin

26 October 2008, 4:29 am

It was almost as if I was the defendant in a Stalinist show trial.

The post would not be complete without a bit of HP hyperbole. Going on trial in one of the most murderous states in the world, facing the risk of death or exile to Siberia, compared to a pointless punch up in a obscure political meeting in the UK no one cares about, followed by a few jars down the pub, no doubt. Clearly deeply similar.

Yaniv

26 October 2008, 4:42 am

May I provide you Mikey with the friendly suggestion that you would skip this whole thing, avoid complaining in the police and concentrate in the future on Greenstein’s “political” (well, loony is definitely better) views, like you did so many time in the past? You have suffered enough, and there is no need to spend some extra time at a waiting room in a police station, before launching a futile attempt to complain about Greenstein’s violence (how many time have you seen him behaving this way in the past?). Even if the police would believe every word you say, and TG would certainly present a contradictory version, they won’t do anything. They almost surely won’t spent any efforts trying to resolve another Rashomon.

I think, however, that it’s good that you posted that story. If it happens again to you or to someone else, then it would be another sign of deterioration of the “Jewish” anti-zionist movement.

Tony Greenstein

26 October 2008, 5:12 am

I see the loonies have been busy.

How interesting that the supporters of the Iraq War, the cheer leaders for Israel’s having killed 80 Palestinian children this year alone, are up in arms over Mikey’s shins.

But of course Richard Nixon was impeached for Watergate not the secret war of genocide in Cambodia so it fits.

What I love about HP and its belief in ‘free speech’ is that Mikey was allowed to write an article presenting one side only. As I have said he can lie till he’s blue in the face here but when The Times had to defend his comments on Aaronovitch’s blog Richard Rampton QC took the position that it couldn’t be defended. And Mikey himself admitted to having become somewhat psychologically distressed at hearing arguments, i.e. free speech, that contradicted the brainwashing he’d experienced as a child.

In a letter from the house lawyer at The Times of 2.7.07. this is the quote from Mikey’s ’supporting’ statement to them:

‘“I was a student myself in the period X-Y and I can assure you that when I heard Greenstein speak, I felt very intimidated - and yes I was a Jewish student. In fact my current fascination with collecting information about Tony Greenstein and trying to deconstruct all of his arguments, psychologists might put down to getting some revenge for the stress he caused me with his pamphlets and speeches as a student.”

Now it is irrelevant if the usual right-wing racist nuts at HP believe what I say or not. To be quite blunt I don’t give a toss, since it matters not a jot. Those of us who are anti-Zionist and anti-racist Jews, a distinct minority, have to put up with threats of violence, including hate mail (swastikas etc.) all the time. In fact there were times when getting such stuff I wasn’t sure whether the letters were from the NF/BNP or Zionists since the most anti-semitic crap (pity Hitler didn’t get you etc.) came NOT from fascists but Zionists. That is the real self-hatred and anyone familiar with Zionist writings will be well aware of what people like Jacob Klatzkin wrote about the ‘hideous and disfigured’ Jewish people in the diasporah.

So I need no lessons from racists like the Israeli Fabian or the other muck which thinks it’s amusing to post a message in mine or Roland Rance’s name. Mikey has already been proved to be a liar on The Times blog so he’s clearly got form.

But the other attribute of HP is the ability to make false allegations without a seconds thought. Apparently I have convictions for violence - now what would they be?

Well I was once prosecuted for ABH for disarming someone with a knife, but not only was I acquitted but commended by Hove magistrates. This is provable since I received a rather large award for a knife wound from the Criminal Injuries Board as it was then.

Or there was the Police prosecution for Threatening Behaviour when I had a gentle talk with a couple of fascists. Problem is I was acquitted of that too.

So if Mikey wants to go ahead and make either a complaint to the Police or bring a civil action for personal injury then he does it knowing that there are witnesses both to the current allegations and his previous behaviour.

In fact Mikey is lying in any case. His feet were not sprawled in the aisle. Noones were. They were like everyone else in front of him. He deliberately stuck them in front of me as I walked down the aisle and the alternative to moving them away from me was to step on them, bearing in mind that I had almost lost my balance. He would then have complained because it could have broken his leg, so if his shins did get bruised then he has only himself to blame for his juvenile antics.

Yes there were people who were angry with him. I also spoke to them and told them on no account to accost him because, unlike Zionists who support the bombing of civilians I am resolutely opposed to violence other than in self-defence.

So put that in your pipe and smoke it! Hopefully Atzmon’s drinking partner and buddy will start to grow up.

Auntie Ziona

26 October 2008, 5:49 am

Sunday, 26 October 2008
The IJAN is Birthed - with Two Jews Fighting in a Church
Oy gevalt, it seems that my two little nephews, Mony’le and Miki’le, have got nothing better to do than tripping and kicking each other in a church.

Mony’le hates the churches…………

http://azvas.blogspot.com/2008/10/ijan-is-birthed-with-two-jews-kicking.html

Auntie Ziona

26 October 2008, 5:53 am

Mony’le hates the churches.

http://azvas.blogspot.com/2008/10/ijan-is-birthed-with-two-jews-kicking.html

Boogski

26 October 2008, 6:29 am

Why can’t you answer a simple question, Tony? Did you or did you not call Mikey a Zionist spy? Yes or no?

Boogski

26 October 2008, 7:09 am

This looks good:

Gran Torino

I used to have a Gran Torino. Huge fucking engine.

Stop Lying Tony

26 October 2008, 7:45 am

Tony Greenstein says:

Apparently I have convictions for violence - now what would they be?

I haven’t seen anyone on this thread calling you a convicted thug. You’re definitely a self-confessed thug:

I talked to Steve Brady, not long before we put him and a few of his comrades in hospital when they tried to take a stroll round town complete with Union Jacks.

I took the time to read the link with examples from Sussex student union:

Greenstein attacked a member of the Sussex delegation to NUS Conference (April 1981), was forcibly restrained by Graham Nicholas (then a Vice-President here), and was ultimately removed from the conference floor …

Greenstein assaulted John Brooke-Rhodes, the NUPE Convenor on campus …

Greenstein led the intimidation of a Brighton Polytechnic student, Brian Conn, who left his Jewish Society stall at Freshers Fair, in tears and thoroughly afraid, and who has not returned to the Poly since.

What about your shifting versions of the assault on Mikey?

He deliberately stuck [his legs] in front of me as I walked down the aisle and the alternative to moving them away from me was to step on them, bearing in mind that I had almost lost my balance. He would then have complained because it could have broken his leg, so if his shins did get bruised then he has only himself to blame for his juvenile antics.

How does this tally with your previous story?

“You gently nudged it away with your foot?”

Correct.

“And then, after peacefully ending this little incident, you suddenly found it necessary to interrupt the whole meeting by shouting and screaming at the top of your voice?”

Correct. One can’t allow violence in the movement.

Now it seems you didn’t gently move your victim’s leg after all. You kicked him in the shins.

You kicked him so hard, you’re worried the injury may be visible when he reports you to the police.

Nor did you end the incident peacefully. You say he was lucky you didn’t break his leg.

That’s on top of your earlier statement about plans to beat him up at the end of the meeting.

So you boast of putting people in hospital, you admit to injuring someone by kicking him in the shins, you say he was lucky you didn’t break his leg, you confirm knowing about another planned assault.

Good luck in court Tony …

Dave Rich

26 October 2008, 8:34 am

Those of us who are anti-Zionist and anti-racist Jews, a distinct minority

Just to clarify, does this mean you think most Jews are racist? Have you asked them all for their opinions first, or is this just a working assumption?

Fabian from Israel

26 October 2008, 8:54 am

“So I need no lessons from racists like the Israeli Fabian”

I am also Argentinean.

Fabian from Israel

26 October 2008, 9:09 am

For living in Israel, I am racist for Tony.

In Argentina the accusations of racism work differently. You are accepted totally as an Argentinean, whether you are Jewish, Catholic, Protestant, etc. etc. It is a very inclusive form of national identification (not shared of course, by the minority of right-wing Catholic nationalists). But it is very intolerant of difference. So I was once accused in Argentina by a coworker of being racist because I mentioned to him that I decided I wanted to marry a Jewish girl. You can be as Jewish as you want, but you absolutely cannot say to a non-Jewish friend that you want to marry a Jew. You are then putting “religious fanaticism” above “love”, a terrible offense. And then your non-Jewish friends rethink whether you were a true friend all these years because you never wanted to marry them…
That is how it works there…

Nearly Oxfordian

26 October 2008, 9:35 am

He was sitting in the aisle seat. His foot could have been next to the chair in front of him, or it could have been in the middle of the fucking aisle

And it could have been waving in the wind.
And your point?

Maven

26 October 2008, 9:36 am

Greenstein, when you write came NOT from fascists but Zionists. That is the real self-hatred and anyone familiar with Zionist writings will be well aware of what people like Jacob Klatzkin wrote about the ‘hideous and disfigured’ Jewish people in the diasporah.

You clearly aren’t writing about a “Zionist” but a Jew.

You demonstrate elegantly that you don’t know what the word “Zionist” means. How many letters did you get from Kansas Evangelicals or Mormons? Did Gordon Brown write one of these letters?

You seem to not cater for a Zionist not being Jewish. By excluding non-Jews from your organisation you are playing a race/ethnic card by ONLY allowing a single race/ethnicity to join.

You can’t see the logic inconsistency of your own argument.

Nearly Oxfordian

26 October 2008, 9:39 am

If instead of Nearly Oxfordian you were Nearly Bostonian, for instance, you would be aware that in American English it’s customary to put the closing quotes after the period.

It is customary, and yet condemned by my literate American colleagues as, well, illiterate.

Or maybe you are aware, and your rejection of the practice is yet another example of your intolerance of dissent.

ROFL. This screeching propagandist, simply dripping with Jew-hatred, accuses me of ‘intolerance of dissent’. Unbelievable.

Nearly Oxfordian

26 October 2008, 9:42 am

Richard, I didn’t know you were dyslexic. My apologies.

Do you not agree that obstructing the aisle or not, being kicked in the shin, denounced as a ‘Zionist spy’, thrown out and threatened with further violence may have been, how shall I put it, just a tad OTT?

Nearly Oxfordian

26 October 2008, 9:54 am

And yes, it is customary for you to move your shit out of the way if it has no business there.

And it is customary, when the villein (the correct spelling!) has failed to do so, to sentence him to 24 hours in the stocks and sequestrate one half of his property + 3 chickens. Mikey got off very lightly.

Nearly Oxfordian

26 October 2008, 9:59 am

LOL, Maven. You are a barrister, right?

Nearly Oxfordian

26 October 2008, 10:01 am

I don’t know either of these people, but they both seem humorless. One is completely earnest and a little naive, the other is a lunatic.

Doesn’t follow at all.

Nearly Oxfordian

26 October 2008, 10:04 am

As a people we have sufficient enemies, and sufficient hatred directed at us, do we have do add more to the pot?

What anti-Zionists like you and TG completely fail to understand, is that Jews are first and foremost people, human beings.

pisa

26 October 2008, 10:05 am

“I’m not sure there are self-hating Black people or self-hating Muslims”

Michael Jackson?

It’s much easier for a jew to hide and/or deny his jewishness than for a black man to hide and/or deny the color of his skin. Huge difference, psychologically speaking?

As for self-hating people, they really don’t have to be jewish. Look at the 9/11 truthers - the self-hating citizens of the western civilization (mostly americans, I think - but hatred of America might be equated to hatred of the western values and way of life).

Shinpads BOGOF

26 October 2008, 10:25 am

No I always had David T and Tony G down as political opponents. You can imagine how shocked I was to read David T’s conjecture that:

“we must face up to the sad truth that Mikey has either RUN AWAY, or is asleep” (my emphasis)

The clear implication here is any injury to Mikey’s legs were insignificant

Boogski

26 October 2008, 10:32 am

And it could have been waving in the wind.
And your point?

I’ve made my point. Did you want to elaborate?

YossiUK

26 October 2008, 10:47 am

“What anti-Zionists like you and TG completely fail to understand, is that Jews are first and foremost people, human beings.”

Firstly I would ask you not to compare me to TG, as I feel I have as much in common with him as I would with George Galloway, that is not very much. We approach the issue of Zionism from very very different positions.

Secondly, I am well aware that Jews are foremost people, human beings. But what’s your point? People can have self control you know. They don’t have to engage in venomous hate filled diatribe, they don’t have to go around kicking people in the shins. We have a choice as to how we respond to things.

All I am saying is, that I just wish that amongst us, we could engender a large dose of respect and good feeling, so that we can discuss any issue without the corresponding hostility.

Such a concept is not new, Machlokes l’shem Shomayim, as an idea has been around for quite a while.

Maven

26 October 2008, 10:53 am

LOL, Maven. You are a barrister, right?

Nearly Oxfordian, that is a massive compliment you paid me. Many of my friends say that I should have been a barrister because of my argumentative logic and psychological make-up.

In NLP terms Barristers tend to be the type known as auditory-digital, which means they communicate in words to describe the world and present a case (obviously) and that happens to be my communication and personality style. (btw, that’s why I write lots!)

I recently forced two people to send written apologies to myself and those with whom they had communicated a libel. The letters I wrote convinced them that I had taken legal advice - but I had not. I then discovered that the father of one of them was a retired Barrister who told his sibling to apologise and avoid any legal nastiness!

The only thing a Barrister has over me is knowledge of the law and knowledge of case history precedent. Oh, and the patience to read all that stuff.

Alec Macpherson

26 October 2008, 11:08 am

(No lumberjack shirts allowed, Boogski?)

They almost surely won’t spent any efforts trying to resolve another Rashomon.

Wa-haha!

TONY GREENSTEIN

bearing in mind that I had almost lost my balance. He would then have complained because it could have broken his leg

Yes, let’s bear in mind that you say you could have lost your balance. This would have involved your continuing in a forward direction, over his forelegs as is the intent of a tripping-up. Anyone else who would have been injured would have been the person in front. What you would not have had would have been the concentration of energy and stability in your lower body to deliver a kick. Unless…

It’s been said before, but another won’t hurt. Stop lying, Tony.

Oh, and fuck off, Benji.

Dave Rich

26 October 2008, 11:19 am

All I’m wondering is, if Tony meant that most Jews are racists, then given how much he insists that he hates racists…well I wouldn’t want to make any conclusions about what comes next without some clarification from him first.

Greg

26 October 2008, 11:20 am

Greenstein sounds like a right shit, doesn’t he? It’s a pity he still calls himself Jewish. Probably only does it to lend his anti-Zionism more credence (in his mind anyway). Thankfully traitorous (and violent) cunts like him are in a tiny minority… and always will be.

Fabian from Israel

26 October 2008, 11:40 am

“Tony Greenstein was at the meeting. He is to be found at all such meetings. After taking a phone call at the back of the room, he walked back past me to his seat. As he passed me, I quietly called out his name.”

Is this true then, Tony? Did Mikey call you? Did you hear him? Was this before or after you tripped?

YossiUK: Hi, a question, have you been to Israel?

YossiUK

26 October 2008, 11:43 am

Hello Fabian, yes I have.

Fabian from Israel

26 October 2008, 11:54 am

Yossi: so your anti-Zionism is of the kind of the Talmudic “don’t go up the land in masse until….”
But now that we are there, however, what do you think we should do?

Alec Macpherson

26 October 2008, 11:55 am

Yes, LOL, LOL. I quite liked:

I also spoke to them and told them on no account to accost him because, unlike Zionists who support the bombing of civilians I am resolutely opposed to violence other than in self-defence.

Well, if my wearing a fedora can be threatening, just think of the impending violence in carrying a Union flag (you’re forgiven for the Jack, it’s a matter of taste). Eh, Tony?

There is also this earlier statement:

he was correct to leave early as there were some people who were less inclined to forgive and I’m not sure, being small, that I would have been able to hold them back.

So, you’re now claiming to have spoke to them? You’re now claiming to have successfully dissuaded them? You’re now claiming that an attack on Mikey, some time after [whatever] the fact [was], could be equated with your justified response?

And I’m the Queen of Sheba.

Alec Macpherson

26 October 2008, 11:56 am

(Not to mention the incongruity with your having previously stated that it was a matter for the Irish to support the PIRA.)

David T

26 October 2008, 11:59 am

Any mention of any criminal conviction that is spent under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act will be deleted.

Nearly Oxfordian

26 October 2008, 12:02 pm

Not as much as you think, and I will continue to make the comparison since I believe it is valid. You are both anti-Zionists, because you don’t believe that Jews are a nation like all nations, made up of ordinary people like everybody else.

Secondly, I am well aware that Jews are foremost people, human beings. But what’s your point?

My point is that both of you are obsessed with Jews somehow being special, different in some way. They are not. They are just ordinary human beings, who together make up one tribal group, just like the Japanese or the Norwegians. Like all nations, they have distinguishing national/cultural characteristics, like the ones distinguishing the Japanese from the Norwegians. But as individuals, they can be gentle or aggressive, stupid or clever, tolerant or racist, etc. Asking people to ‘get on with each other’ just because (some of them? most of them?) are Jewish is pie in the sky.

Nearly Oxfordian

26 October 2008, 12:05 pm

PS. And like all nations, they are entitled to their own free, independent country.

On what moral basis, exactly, are you demanding that Israelis give up their independent country? You have no such basis, any more than TG or GG or Hamas has one.

Comrades Renunited

26 October 2008, 12:06 pm

Is Roland Prance currently in the “Fourth International”, i.e. ISG/Socialist Outlook/Respect Renewal?

Nearly Oxfordian

26 October 2008, 12:08 pm

Maven, almost everything you write about yourself applies to me equally ;-)
(But your sense of humour is far superior to mine, as that long screed evinces. I have entered the Dark and Stormy Night aka Bad Prose competition a few times, but got nowhere other than one brief word of praise for my inventivenesss from the chap running it).
I haven’t threatened to sue anyone for libel, but over the years have received loads of letters of apology + cheques from companies, e.g. utilities and banks, who had tried to screw me.

YossiUK

26 October 2008, 12:10 pm

Fabian,

The not going up on mass argument otherwise known as the 3 oaths argument, is the one held by Satmar etc. That is not my view. but I do respect it.

My view is simply that Israel as a secular state, is not and can not be the legitimate national expression of the Jewish nation.

I support the yishuv’s right to exist, and defend itself, but I don’t associate myself with the State’s political identity.

What should we do now that we are there? Well that depends on what exactly you refer to. Internally? Our relations with the Palestinian Arabs?

Nearly Oxfordian

26 October 2008, 12:13 pm

I see the loonies have been busy.
How interesting that the supporters of the Iraq War, the cheer leaders for Israel’s having killed 80 Palestinian children this year alone, are up in arms over Mikey’s shins.
But of course Richard Nixon was impeached for Watergate not the secret war of genocide in Cambodia so it fits.
What I love about HP and its belief in ‘free speech’ is that Mikey was allowed to write an article presenting one side only. As I have said he can lie till he’s blue in the face here … Now it is irrelevant if the usual right-wing racist nuts at HP believe what I say or not. To be quite blunt I don’t give a toss, since it matters not a jot. Those of us who are anti-Zionist and anti-racist Jews, a distinct minority, have to put up with threats of violence … blah blah …

Absolutely hilarious. Not a shred of self-knowledge about what a dumb jerk he is.

Nearly Oxfordian

26 October 2008, 12:15 pm

My view is simply that Israel as a secular state, is not and can not be the legitimate national expression of the Jewish nation

You have nil entitlement to make that decision for other Jews, who choose to constitute a secular state. You have not been appointed by anyone to speak for them. I suspect you are not even aware of the massive arrogance manifested by your position.

Nearly Oxfordian

26 October 2008, 12:17 pm

What should we do now that we are there?

You are NOT there. Hence, it is not for you to say. You are NOT ‘we’.

Fabian from Israel

26 October 2008, 12:21 pm

Hi, Yossi:

“My view is simply that Israel as a secular state, is not and can not be the legitimate national expression of the Jewish nation.”

Well, then you will have to found another Jewish state more to your liking. I think that is compatible with a non-Zionist position. An anti-Zionist position, well… that is kind of a step too far.

As a way of an analogy, imagine that I am a Argentinean with Italian citizenship and I say that Italy, as a secular state is not the legitimate national expression of the Italian nation… I think that it would be coherent of me to try to change Italy by voting for what I believe, not to be anti-Italy. As I say, it is a step too far.

“What should we do now that we are there? Well that depends on what exactly you refer to. Internally? Our relations with the Palestinian Arabs?”
Lets say both. What should an Israeli Jew do? Emigrate? Expell the Arabs? Put Ovadia Yossef as Cohen Hagadol? Name Eli Yishai King of Israel?

Alec Macpherson

26 October 2008, 12:24 pm

Any mention of any criminal conviction that is spent under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act will be deleted.

Serious question, David: why? As I understand it, any conviction will not have been quashed, merely no longer relevant when applying for positions of employment/trust.

Which this discussion is not.

Mikey

26 October 2008, 12:24 pm

Hi all,

Good morning!

I am sorry that I left this thread last night but it was Saturday night and I do like to go out and have a bit of fun on occasion. I can confirm that I was not at any sort of political gathering last night.

I can also confirm that contrary to speculation, my legs are not six foot long.

I would certainly like to thank everyone on this thread who has provided me support.

Not only is it true that I was kicked hard in the leg by Tony Greenstein, but I was also correct to feel intimidated by what was occurring in the meeting at large. As Tony Greenstein said earlier in this thread:

[Mikey] was correct to leave early as there were some people who were less inclined to forgive and I’m not sure, being small, that I would have been able to hold them back.

This is quite a clear statement confirming my fears that I outlined in my main post as follows:

Thanks to the attack I had already suffered and the subsequent intimidation, I wondered if Greenstein and comrades were preparing a more thorough assault against me. My friend and I thought it best to leave before the end.

Dave Rich asks Tony Greenstein the following:

Just to clarify, does this mean you think most Jews are racist? Have you asked them all for their opinions first, or is this just a working assumption?

I am sure Tony Greenstein is more than capable of answering this question directly himself, but the answer is clearly a yes. The reason is as follows, Tony Greenstein thinks that all Zionists are racists and as he is aware that most Jews are Zionists he views most Jews as racist. His views on Zionism being racist are clear.

Firstly he believes Zionism to be the “twin” of antisemitism. In fact, in 1982, he wrote the following pamphlet published by Brighton Labour Briefing entitled Zionism: anti semitism’s twin in Jewish garb. He summed up his view in an article he wrote in 1990:

If someone tells me that I don’t belong in this country and I should ‘go back to Israel’, that person is either a supporter of the National Front or a Zionist.

Source: Tony Greenstein, “Antisemitism Through the Looking Glass: The UJS Thought Police,” RETURN No. 3 (June 1990) pp. 21-23

His argument is based on similar fallacious logic as the following set of statements

1. All cats are mortal
2. Socrates is mortal
3. Socrates is a cat.

Secondly, away from believing that Zionists themselves are antisemites, he clearly believes that Zionism is a racist ideology and that the State of Israel reflecting that ideology is racist. In the RETURN statement that he supported and signed it stated:

the Zionist structure of the state of Israel is at the heart of racism and oppression against the Palestinian people, and should be dismantled.

(Source: Ibid. pp. 28-29)

YossiUK

26 October 2008, 12:25 pm

Nearly Oxfordian,

You are partially right.

I do view Jews as normal people, but normal people with a very special role.

I agree, I believe our Nation is not like all other Nations, or more accurately that it should not be like all other nations. I am not ashamed to hold to this view, the view held by the majority of Jews for over 3000 years. I’m not sure why this meets with such hostility from you. I understand that you do not share this view.

You may call it pie in the sky, but I have no doubt, that people, all people, can chose to get on with each other in a more decent way, and that cultures that develop this trait are possible to create. I don’t say it is easy, or that in our current climate it is likely, but it is a value I hold very dear, Kol Yisroel chaveirim, and Ahavas Yisroel, are important to me, and I don’t see anything wrong, in trying to create better feelings amongst Jews.

YossiUK

26 October 2008, 12:30 pm

“You have nil entitlement to make that decision for other Jews, who choose to constitute a secular state. You have not been appointed by anyone to speak for them. I suspect you are not even aware of the massive arrogance manifested by your position.”

I don’t make this decision for any other Jews. I don’t prevent Jews from doing what they want. I just have an opinion, and having an opinion is not arrogance. If it where, then with your plethora of opinions……

As for the ” we” business. I see myself as part of the entire Jewish people, the people in Israel are my people end of story. I don’t tell people in Israel what to do. I don’t tell anyone what to do.

YossiUK

26 October 2008, 12:43 pm

Fabian, I am not anti Israel in the sense that I work towards the destruction of the State. And in fact, I prefer to describe my views as non-Zionist.

I have no problem with religious people in Israel voting to try and change the nature of the country. I don’t support forcing religion onto the country’s non-observant population, I would just hope that gradually, Israeli Jews come to a greater level of observance.

Ultimately, I believe that the type of Jewish state I would like to see, will only come about in the times of Moshiach.

I absolutely don’t think that Jews should leave Eretz Yisroel. Eretz Yisroel is the best place for Jews. And I don’t agree with expelling the Arabs. I also don’t agree with expelling Jews from their homes as in the disengagement plan.

I support the two state solution, and as soon as it is safe to do so, if it ever is, I would support the creation of an Arab state, in Judea and Samaria.

Within Israel, I would like to see a greater return to observance, as I mentioned before, and a bettering of relations between Israeli Jews and Arabs.

And as for the King and the Kohen Gadol, I think it best we let Moshiach deal with that :-)

Fabian from Israel

26 October 2008, 12:55 pm

Thank you for your answers, Yossi.

Mikey

26 October 2008, 12:59 pm

Comrades Renunited asks:

Is Roland Prance [sic] currently in the “Fourth International”, i.e. ISG/Socialist Outlook/Respect Renewal?

The answer is that Roland Rance is a self declared Marxist and supporter of the Fourth International. He associates himself with the International Socialist Group which bills itself as the “British section of the Fourth International.”

Auntie Ziona

26 October 2008, 1:03 pm

Oi Miki’le you must come to me on Friday for special Gefilte fish & Kreplach.
I will even make tzimmes if you insist. You must make peace with Mony’le.

It breaks my heart to see my 2 favorite nephews fighting kicking screaming

There is even a picture of Mony’le in action. Oi vey the shame on my people!
http://www.azvas.blogspot.com

Nearly Oxfordian

26 October 2008, 1:18 pm

Yossi,

I am not ashamed to hold to this view, the view held by the majority of Jews for over 3000 years. I’m not sure why this meets with such hostility from you.

Several reasons:
1. It is arrogant.
2. It is counterproductive, indeed destructive. When you believe yourself to be special, and in particular, special in the sense that you are looked after by a divinity and the messiah will come to redeem you, you don’t have an incentive to work towards your own redemption as a nation. Israel came about because of people who actually went and founded villages and towns and self-defence organisations and universities and hospitals, instead of sitting on their hands and waiting for someone else to do it for them.
Jews moan about being persecuted. Those people stopped moaning and went and did something about it.
I am not telling you to be ashamed. But I can tell you that I am proud to be a descendant of those people, and to have contributed my share.

Nobody is stopping you from having an opinion. You don’t prevent them, but you agitate against their right to have their own country.

As for the ” we” business. I see myself as part of the entire Jewish people, the people in Israel are my people end of story.

Since you oppose their right to self-determination even though you do not live there, and have not (unless you wish to correct me) participated in their existential struggle, incl. but not limited to fighting for their lives in 1948/1967/1973, they are not, end of story.

I would support the creation of an Arab state, in Judea and Samaria

I believe there is a religious injuction against giving away even an inch of Israel to foreigners, and here you are calling for this to be done. Of course, as an atheist I don’t rely on that argument myself. But I thought you would, if you were consistent.

YossiUK

26 October 2008, 1:44 pm

Nearly Oxfordian,

Firstly, there is a prohibition to sell the Land of Israel to non-Jews. But this might not apply if Halachicaly that land is not truly owned by Jews, which might be the case in regards to Israel as it is not a Halachicaly legitimate state (I stress Halachicaly, as according to all secular understanding, Israel is a totally legitimate state). And more importantly, all Mitzvos of the Torah can be broken to save life (except the 3 cardinal prohibitions). Supporting the two state solution, is an acceptable position and supported by many Haredi, and non Haredi Orthodox Rabbis.

There is no response to your assertion that holding a view, implicit in Judaism, held by the majority of Jews for the majority of Jewish history is personal arrogance. I am only sad that you view me that way. All I can say is that I don’t in any way claim to speak on behalf of all Jews.

And yes we do work to to bring about our own redemption as a nation, but not by the means you would agree with. By learning Torah, by performing Mitzvos, by improving ourselves, and by secular means as well.

There is no doubt that you and I have a very different view as to what constitutes the redemption of the Jewish nation. You view Israel as that redemption, I do not. Let us agree to differ.

Jews moan about being persecuted. Speaking on behalf of all Jews are you? And Jews throughout history have worked very hard to prevent persecution, just because they did not seek to create a state, please don’t denigrate their efforts.

When you say I agitate against their right to have their own country, I simply don’t agree.

I make no political argument about the acceptability of the State of Israel, only a religious argument. I do not support, secular anti-Zionists, or anti-Zionists motivated by philosophies drawn from other religions.

I do not seek the destruction of the State of Israel.

My views are simply that, mine. My non/anti-Zionism is expressed by my non identification with the State, and with my not celebrating its festivals, and with my non-interest in it’s flag, it’s anthem etc.

No matter what you say, I will always view the Jews of Israel, and of any other country for that matter, as my people, my nation. I don’t tell them what to do, I simply give my opinion in the course of debate, or if asked.

I have not fought in Israel’s wars no. I have on the other hand contributed many pounds and many tears and many prayers for the continued safety of my fellow Jews in our precious and holy Land.

Fabian from Israel

26 October 2008, 2:12 pm

Maven: you are reading too much Little Green Footballs.
I used to like the blog, but it has become hysterical. Defeat does that to some.

mitnaged

26 October 2008, 2:19 pm

Richard Farnos, yes I am. I am a Chartered Psychologist with substantial experience in working with people with all sort of mental illnesses but I wouldn’t take on Greenstein, not least because he thinks that we’re all out of step with him…. He would have to be ready to sort himself out and it’d still be immensely difficult for him even if he were.

NearlyOxfordian, yes they are arbitrary labels and often psychologists and psychiatrists thenselves disagree about them, which I think is healthy and keeps them mindful. Having read Mikey’s account, however, and having heard something of Greenstein’s tendency to lash out in the past I stand by what I wrote above and you don’t have to agree with me! Your disagreeing keeps ME mindful and thanks for it.

I feel compassion for Greenstein as I would for anyone who got himself into trouble because he couldn’t control himself but I am not blinded to the fact that his acting out, (and as I have already said, this is not the first time), is dangerous not least because he cannot see that he has done anyone any harm.

Maven - “..We have been trying to do a denigration psychological analysis…” Well I haven’t. I have taken what I have heard about Greenstein from reputable sources and set it against the incident where Mikey describes how he was attacked. If this were the first time I had heard about Greenstein’s antics I believe that I would have written in similar terms. EVEN IF Mikey had deliberately got in Greenstein’s way, the resulting OTT reaction cannot, I believe, be explained away or made light of. Greenstein is a loose cannon and loose cannons can be dangerous.

Alec, I would imagine that David does not want to be sued by Greenstein,who has sued in the past when the public has been reminded of his “colourful” reactions to things and activities…

ami

26 October 2008, 2:38 pm

It is puzzling that the creepy lot who are locked in tedious and eternal battle with Greenstein, and who sometimes leak onto this site, (I see you have quite rightly deleted the latest) make reference to spent convictions incessantly and with apparent impunity.

Nearly Oxfordian

26 October 2008, 2:44 pm

Just quickly:

Jews moan about being persecuted. Speaking on behalf of all Jews are you?

Were exactly did I use the word ‘all’, and where exactly did I claim to be ’speaking on behalf’ of anyone, in any shape or form? I made a factual, historical observation. Are you denying that a great many Jews, over a great many periods of history, have moaned about being persecuted? I am astonished that you deny this simple fact. It can be corroborated quite easily.

It is also a fact that some of those people so moaning, have done nothing practical to prevent that persecution. Sorry, I don’t regard prayer as a practical measure.

Donating financially is great, but you have not specified the destination of those donations. Therefore, I cannot comment on the effectiveness of those donations. You will have gathered by now that I do not regard donations to yeshivas, I mean yeshivas whose members do not serve in the IDF by using various loopholes that I regard as dishonest, as effective in defending the safety of fellow Jews. But if you have hypothecated your donations to (e.g.) MDA, or Va’ad Le-ma’an He-Khayal, that’s a different matter, of course.

Nearly Oxfordian

26 October 2008, 2:47 pm

this might not apply if Halachicaly that land is not truly owned by Jews, which might be the case in regards to Israel as it is not a Halachicaly legitimate state

Are you saying that the tombs of Abraham, Rachel and Joseph are not part of Eretz Israel?

Mike S

26 October 2008, 2:53 pm

I don’t have a dog in this increasingly peculiar argument, but a former acquaintance of mine who had a worrying fondness for getting into punch-ups swore by the shin-kick as an opening gambit. He claimed it gave him a crucial element of surprise.

If I were one of Mikey’s friends, I’d probably advise him to get a new hobby. This current one seems a little peculiar.

Nearly Oxfordian

26 October 2008, 2:53 pm

Mitnaged,

I don’t think we actually disagree ;-)

Whether someone is regarded as mentally ill, or as someone with psychotic episodes, seems to me a matter of nomenclature. Are we not in agreement that such a person is suffering from some sort of disorder? It would then be down to you, as the professional, to decide what to do about him/her (should s/he seek help and should you decide that s/he would benefit from it). That’s all I am saying.

And of course, yes, a person with certain behaviours would be dangerous and must be handled with caution.

Nearly Oxfordian

26 October 2008, 2:55 pm

Yes, it is a peculiar thread - but what fun!

YossiUK

26 October 2008, 3:00 pm

“Are you saying that the tombs of Abraham, Rachel and Joseph are not part of Eretz Israel?”

I am not saying that at all, I am saying that there is a difference between Eretz Yisroel and Medinat Yisrael. And that just because territory is controlled by or is part of Medinat Yisrael, it does not mean that such ownership has any halachic validity. And that in order to save lives, ceding Land would be legitimate.

As for the destination of my contributions, a small list would include;

Yeshivas
Yad Ezra V’Shulamit.
Migdal Ohr.
Zaka.
MDA.

Appeals to help the people of Sderot.

Appeals to support the families of terror victims

Appeals to provide support for Israel’s brave soldiers.

I could go on.

I just mean to stress, that disagreeing with the political ideology of Zionism, and non identification with it’s symbols does not prevent me from aiding and supporting the Jewish community in Eretz Yisroel.

Mikey

26 October 2008, 3:17 pm

I should be grateful if people would stop attacking YossiUK on this thread, it really is not necessary. Many Orthodox Jews see the State of Israel in a very different light to those of secular Zionist Jews. For anyone interested I suggest the following book:

Harry Rabinowicz, Hasidism and the State of Israel, (London and Toronto: The Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, Associated University Presses, Inc., 1982)

Mikey

26 October 2008, 3:22 pm

MikeS says:

If I were one of Mikey’s friends, I’d probably advise him to get a new hobby. This current one seems a little peculiar.

All I can say in response is that MikeS is not the only person to have said that to me over the years. I will say that by doing so, I have managed to collect a fine collection of contemporary anti-Zionist literature.

David T

26 October 2008, 3:23 pm

I am very sorry to say that, as somebody is repeatedly posting details of spent criminal convictions, I am going to have to close this thread.

Roland Rance Exposed!

2008-10-16T10:05:00.004+01:00

On Sunday October 12, 2008 I attended a debate in London between Moshe Machover and Sean Matgamna ostensibly on the subject "Israel, the Palestinians, and Iran" but in reality mainly about the attitude of the left to Zionism and Israel.

In his contribution from the floor, Roland Rance of Jews Against Zionism stated, “We are told that we call for the destruction of Israel.... We are told all sorts of positions that we don’t hold.” He went on to say: “No, we are not saying ‘Smash Israel’ or ‘Destroy Israel.’”

Oh, really? In a letter to Weekly Worker No. 634, July 20, 2006, Roland Rance’s comrade Tony Greenstein stated, “Yes, I want the state of Israel to be destroyed.”

Update

This post had been cross posted to Harry's Place and the comments from that post, I have copied into the comments of this post.

Maccoby vs. Maccoby

2008-10-08T23:46:00.003+01:00

Deborah Maccoby is an anti-Zionist Jew. Her late father, Hyam Maccoby, was a noted scholar of the Jewish and Christian religious tradition and of antisemitism.

Efraim Karsh is Professor and Head of the Mediterranean Studies Programme at King's College London. Ten years ago he wrote a book entitled Fabricating Israeli History: The "New Historians"

Engage is a web site dedicated to combating left-wing antisemitism. In the comments box of one post, Deborah Maccoby wrote:

"Re Efraim Karsh - he has such a right wing axe to grind that h [sic] has little credibility in my eyes. His attempts to prove the 'New Historians' wrong about 1948 have failed entirely."

In a review of Karsh's book on the New Historians, Hyam Maccoby wrote:

"Efraim Karsh, whose scholarship in all the relevant documentation in English, Hebrew and Arabic far outweighs that of the New Historians, has delivered a crushing blow to them, revealing how hollow and superficial their thesis are.... He shows that so far from establishing a new level of objective analysis of documents, they quote selectively and misleadingly from the documents and have even omitted some of the most important of them from their analysis altogether, being unaware that they are available, or even asserting wrongly that they were being withheld."

Hyam Maccoby, "Pernicious Revisionism Exposed" Midstream Vol XXXXIV No. 3 (April 1998) pp. 40-41

Deborah Maccoby would do well to pay attention to the words of her late father.

Greenstein and Feivel Polkes - More Lies

2008-10-06T09:44:00.006+01:00

Tony Greenstein likes to discuss Zionists and Nazis in the same sentence. The point of this is to try and imply some kind of linkage or similarity. It is of course the inverse of the truth. He has done it again with the following:

Historically of course the Zionist movement has often worked with Nazis against the common foe e.g. the Gestapo/Hagannah agent Feivel Polkes (whose file to this day is kept closed in Israel).

The above sentence is simply inaccurate.

1. Greenstein claims that the Polkes file is closed in Israel. We already know that Greenstein lied about reading Francis R. Nicosia's latest book, Zionism and Anti-Semitism in Nazi Germany. Claiming to have read it, he was forced to admit otherwise. Had Greenstein actually read it, he would be aware that Nicosia had clearly used the Haganah archive in Tel Aviv for information. Moreover, I have in my possession a copy of the "Secret Document of the Berlin Security Police Concerning Feivel Polkes of Tel Aviv" dated June 17, 1937. The clear stamp on my copy reads "The Central Archives for the Disaster and the Heroism, Yad-Washem, Jerusalem." There is therefore plenty of information available in Israel on Polkes.

2. Greenstein uses the example of Polkes to suggest that the Zionist movement worked with the Nazis. Here we need some historical context. In 1937 there were many Jews living in Nazi Germany. At that point in time the Nazis wanted the Jews out of Germany and Polkes, who worked for the Jewish self-defense organization in Palestine, the Haganah, had contact with a Nazi agent Franz Reichert who suggested to Polkes that there was a possibility of a substantial increase in Jewish emigration from Germany to Palestine. As a result of this contact Polkes traveled to Berlin where he met Eichmann and other Nazis and tried to convince the Nazis to allow Jewish emigration from Germany to Palestine. Following this meeting, Eichmann with his accomplice Hagan traveled to Palestine and on to Egypt. It was in Egypt that Eichmann met Polkes and where Polkes suggested ways of increasing Jewish emigration from Germany to Palestine.

Had Polkes been successful in his endeavour, many more Jews might have been saved from their ultimate fate at the hands of the Nazis, but as Nicosia mentions, "Nothing of substance ever came from this contact."

Greenstein has used the example Polkes of the Zionist movement working with the Nazis. What Greenstein does not reveal is that it emerged in a subsequent interview with Polkes that the Haganah did not favour Polkes trip to Berlin. Shaul Avigur from Haganah's illegal immigration department also confirmed that Polkes's trip not requested by the Haganah. And as Nicosia comments, Polkes's brief encounter with Eichmann "came under severe criticism within the Haganah after his return to Palestine, and he was eventually relieved of his responsibilities in the organization."

All this can be seen on pages 123-126 of Francis R. Nicosia's latest book.

A Classic Greenstein Lie!

2008-09-18T10:34:00.003+01:00

In the thread I made the following statement (comment 49):

Mary McCarthy famously said that “every word Lillian Hellman writes is a lie, including ‘and’ and ‘the.’” I would say the same about Tony Greenstein.

Here is a classic example:

In comment 62, I stated the following:

The Nazis for example were virulently anti-Semitic and also anti-Zionist. I suggest Greenstein reads Francis R. Nicosia’s new book published this year by Cambridge University Press Zionism and Anti-Semitism in Nazi Germany. This should set him right on the point.

Tony Greenstein responded in comment 64:

I have incidentally read Francis Nicosia’s book and it is very good in terms of source material, but not so good in terms of analysis. It produces further evidence of the close symbiosis between the Nazi Party and Zionism. Far from the Nazi Party being anti-Zionist, ludicrous, it specifically differentiated between the ‘good’ Jews – the Zionists and the bad ones.

Oh really? I responded (comment 75) as follows:

This really is Greenstein’s favourite accusation. He tries to make out that the Nazi party was a Zionist party. Incredible as it sounds Greenstein not only says it, he claims he has read Francis R. Nicosia’s recently published book, Zionism and Anti-Semitism in Nazi Germany (Cambridge University Press, 2008) and he claims that the evidence presented in it supports his thesis. Specifically Greenstein states

“It produces further evidence of the close symbiosis between the Nazi Party and Zionism. Far from the Nazi Party being anti-Zionist, ludicrous, it specifically differentiated between the ‘good’ Jews – the Zionists and the bad ones.”

Well let us consider some of the passages in that book:

“lest the reader imagine that the purpose of study such as this to somehow equate Zionism with National Socialism, Zionists with Nazis, or to portray their relationship as a willing and collaborative one between moral and political equals. The research, analysis and conclusions, do not in any way support such notions. The existence of certain common assumptions on the part of Zionists on the one hand, and nationalist and anti-Semitic Germans on the other, does not in any way connote moral and/or political equivalency.” (pp. 2-3)

Nicosia continues:

“The dominant Zionist approach, like that of most non-Jews at the time, shared a reliance on the idea of an ethno-nationalist state, an idea that was the societal norm in Central Europe in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Their embrace of that norm does not make the Zionists the moral equivalent of the Nazis. Nor does the willingness of the Zionist or any other Jewish organisation in the Third Reich to cooperate with the state make them willing collaborators in the Nazi destruction of Jewish life in Germany; to suppose that any Jewish organisation in Hitler’s Germany prior to the ‘final solution’ had the option of refusing to work on some level with the state is fantasy.” (p. 3)

Nicosia specifically states that it is a-historical and simplistic to “dismiss Zionism as yet another of racism, the substance of which has not been very different from German National Socialism.” (P. 8)

“Most anti-Semites could never embrace Zionism and its institutions as partners in a common quest because Zionists were, after all, still part of what they believed to be a monolithic world Jewry.” (P. 9)

“For most anti-Semites in Germany, therefore, including the Nazis prior to 1941, their willingness to use Zionism and the Zionist movement was never based on an acceptance of the Zionist view itself.” (p. 10)

“the Jewish Agency for Palestine and the Zionist movement in general recognized the critical link between its own survival and the survival and well-being of all Jews in the Diaspora. Even on a practical level, the Zionist view was that if the Nazis succeeded in murdering the great majority of Jews in Europe, a Jewish majority and state in Palestine might never be achieved.” (pp.8-9n15)

I trust I have made my point. I do not believe it is necessary for me to go further, but I cannot fail but to add one final quote from that book: “Of Course, the Nazis opposed a Jewish state, in any form, in any part of Palestine or anywhere else in the world.” (P. 197)

In all likelihood, despite his claim, Greenstein has not read Nicosia’s latest book, but if he had, it is simply another example of one Greenstein’s lies, in this instance, about its contents.

Finally, in comment 77 Greenstein admits:

The book of Francis Nicosia which I have read is ‘The Third Reich and the Palestine Question’ which makes the pro-Zionist orientation of the Nazi Party quite clear.

So now Greenstein admits he has not read the book that he claimed to have read but suggests a different book by the same author “makes the pro-Zionist orientation of the Nazi Party quite clear.” I have not yet responded to this lunacy claim, but it just so happens that I also own Nicosia’s The Third Reich and the Palestine Question (I.B. Tauris & Co, 1985). Nicosia states quite clearly (pp. 24-25) that there was:

a fundamental ideological hostility between National Socialism and a Zionist movement that was considered to be merely an instrument of a monolithic Jewish world conspiracy.

It can be seen that Greenstein claims that he read one book and he had not, he claims he knew what was in it and he did not - he then claims he has read another book that claimed something where it did not! This is the sort of thing that one has to deal with if they are to respond to Tony Greenstein.

My advice to anyone reading his comments on the Internet is ALWAYS check his sources. You cannot believe a word of what he says.

The Deleted Post - Tony Greenstein : The Man, The Distortions, The Omissions and The Lies.

2008-09-16T15:57:00.002+01:00

In my previous post to this blog it may seen that the moderator of Socialist Unity deleted post number 75 as they claimed it was libellous, without specifying what part was libellous. In actual fact, I have full references for all the claims I made in that long post and I copy it below for anyone interested.

(NB if there is anything wrong - I said that Tony Greenstein "sends friendly emails" to Atzmon when, to my knowledge there was only one email. I hardly think that in the grand scheme of things a judge will get hugely worked up about this minor matter.)

Tony Greenstein : The Man, The Distortions, The Omissions and The Lies.

1. Perfidy

Zeev is completely correct to attack Tony Greenstein for the use of Ben Hecht's Perfidy.This is the same Ben Hecht who in 1931 wrote the novel A Jew in Love. Within four lines of the first page of that novel he states, “The Jews now and then hatch a face which for Jewishness surpasses the caricatures of the entire anti-Semitic press. These Jew faces in which race leers and burns like some biologic disease are rather shocking to a mongrelized world." Hecht continues on his first page “People dislike being reminded of their origins. They shudder a bit mystically at the sight of anyone who looks too much like a fish, a lizard, a chimpanzee or a Jew.” [1] Hecht continues in this vain but I think I have made my point and it is not necessary for me to quote further from that book.

At the very beginning of his 1961 polemic, Perfidy, Hecht admits that he is not objective: “For though I write a history I am not a historian; that is if an historian is a man full of facts and with an objective attitude. Facts I have, but I am not objective” [2] As Zeev states, the case presented by Hecht is that of Tamir. If anyone is any doubt of this, Hecht dedicated Perfidy to Tamir.

To get an idea of how distorted Perfidy is without going into specific examples – we can see some of the major reviews of the book:

A. The most authoritative destruction was published by The American Section of the Executive of the World Zionist Organization and the Jewish Agency in 1962 and reproduced as an appendix in later editions of Perfidy by Juian Messner Inc, the original publishers of the book. The review states that “The method used by Hecht would not put to shame the most notorious falsifiers of history, past or present.” Before providing examples to back up the case the, review accuses Hecht of

i. “the invention of Big Lies, of such scope and nature that they defy any brief denial”
ii. “the distortion of facts, sometimes subtle, sometimes not-so-subtle”
iii. “the ‘selective’ quotations – out of context – of sentences and half-sentences, giving them a meaning quite opposite to the statement as a whole”
iv. “the invention of small lies, of minor importance but intended to give an impression of detailed documentation and veracity to the major lies, distortions and misquotations.” [3]

B. Chaim Lieberman, a member of the editorial staff of the Jewish Daily Forward, went so far as to write a 103 page booklet, both ridiculing Ben Hecht and commenting on the distortions of history that Hecht published in Perfidy. Lieberman states that Perfidy was “Written with spittle and venom, it is a book in which the great Jewish tragedy is turned into a cheap shocker.” Lieberman goes on to say that “Hecht really has no conception of the true significance either of Zionism of the holocaust [sic]. He is woefully unqualified, morally and spiritually, to penetrate their meaning and mystery.” [4]

C. A review of Perfidy in the New York Times said that Hecht “indulges in some crude distortions of history.” [5]

D. Lucy Dawidowicz reviewed Hecht’s polemic for Commentary: “Hecht is neither a historian nor a chronicler, he has little respect for the accuracy of a date, a name, or a quotation: it is too much to expect that he should have placed Kasztner in historical context.” Dawidowicz was scathing in her attack: “He [Hecht] has converted ideological differences into savage personal defamation, and equated Zionist mistakes and expediency with German murder.” [6]

E. In Jewish Frontier Marie Syrkin slated the “unsavory” book. She accused Hecht of “Falsification of facts,” of using material “out of context,” of “sleight-of-hand,” “omission,” “confusion,” “venom” and of “the revolting aspect” of exploiting “the martyrdom of European Jewry for his partisan ends.” [7]

F. A review in Midstream referred to Perfidy as “a fistful of pages concocted of half truths, outright falsehoods, misrepresentations, quotations out of context, surmises and innuendos, name calling, flight of fancy dressed up to sound like fact and huge glaring omissions of crucial facts and events which can be ascribed either to abysmal ignorance or to equally abysmal cynical disregard of truth.” Shlomo Katz who wrote the review said “It is an evil book in every sense of the word …. The first reaction to reading Perfidy is one of loathing. ‘Trash!’ one is inclined to exclaim and to fling Ben Hecht’s opus into the nearest garbage can.” Katz concluded “Ben Hecht’s Perfidy … is unique – when one reads it, one feels soiled.” [8]

This is the book that Tony Greenstein relies upon – One that is completely and utterly discredited.

2. Joel Brand : Rather than relying on the discredited Hecht to try and justify his erroneous claim that Brand testified against Kasztner, Greenstein could have read some of the contemporaneously written trial reports. Had he bothered to do so, he would know that Brand testified for the prosecution and against Gruenwald and not the other way round. [9] When Brand was recalled to the witness stand by Benjamin Halevi, Brand denied that he ever had any important differences with Kasztner.[10]

3. It is simply ludicrous for Greenstein to say Kasztner’s committee was a Jewish Agency committee. It was not and Zeev above is correct in his comment on the matter. I have already provided a good source – Martin Gilbert to show that Moshe Krausz’s organization was the representative body in Hungary of the Jewish Agency. For a further source, Randolph Braham also stated categorically that Moshe Krausz, as the Executive Secretary of the Palestine Office, represented the Jewish Agency in Budapest. [11] So Greenstein is completely wrong, Krausz was not a “dissident” Zionist.

Whilst it is true that Kasztner signed in the name of the Jewish Agency, as I pointed out earlier witness Eliahu Dobkin denied that Kasztner had such authorisation. We simply do not know who was telling the truth here, but Greenstein assumes it is Kasztner. It can be noted that Kasztner was prone to exaggeration as Greenstein also points out that Kasztner signed as “Former Chairman of Zionist Organization in Hungary.” This was a lie as that was not his title. Kasztner’s title was in fact executive vice president. [12] Given it is clear that kasztner lied about one part of his title, I do not see how Greenstein can be sure he was not lying about the other!

4. Greenstein tries to make excuses as to why, according to Nigel Savage’s letter, Brian Conn may have left his Jewish Society stall in tears and afraid. Greenstein suggests that it may have been because Conn simply had to listen to an argument different from his own. This stretches credibility too far. People do not normally break down in tears and are afraid simply by listening to an argument they do not agree with. The truth is that Greenstein’s history shows him to have been a nasty piece of work.

Greenstein should explain why he was so heavily involved in the British Anti-Zionist Organisation (BAZ0) – an organization that was even denounced by many left-wing organizations as being anti-Semitic. [13] This was the same BAZO that was backed by the Saddam Hussein supporting National Union of Iraqi Students (NUIS) – an organization, according to a report by the National Union of Students (NUS), that intimidated, spied on, beat up and even stabbed other students. [14] BAZO itself is an organisation whose President George Mitchell, attended a Jewish Society meeting at Strathclyde University, took photographs of those present and threatened to send the pictures to Beirut. [15]

BAZO was also an organisation where such blatantly anti-Semitic points as the following were made. In 1979, trade unionist speaker Joseph Monaghan asked: “Why did the Jews not bomb the ovens at Auschwitz and so stop the killings in the last war? With all the money they have, they could have got an air force. The Holocaust – the killing of six million Jews in Europe – was done by Nazis working with the Jews.” [16] It is instructive to note that the same literature that was distributed by BAZO was also advertised by the neo-Nazi British Movement? [17]

It was therefore no surprise that NUS publicly condemned a BAZO leaflet entitled Against Zionism as antisemitic, and why its conference noted that BAZO literature was not dissimilar to that of the fascist National Front and therefore called upon NUS to ban BAZO activities “from its base in Strathclyde Union and any other campus in the United Kingdom.” [18]

By the Spring 1981 NUS Conference BAZO were advertising that they were selling Alfred Lilienthal’s book – a book by an author who questioned the authenticity of The Diary of Anne Frank, who had signed a petition supporting a known Holocaust denier, and who was promoted by the National Front. The then President of NUS called the book “antisemitic,” warning delegates: “I don’t want to see this book at conference.” The NUS executive put out a statement at that conference, saying that “the actions of BAZO help antisemites in their activities,” and went on to add: “We are not willing to allow BAZO to have stalls at our conferences, or publicise their material through our publications.”[19] Despite all of this, Greenstein specifically referred to Lilienthal as a “reputable historian.” [20] Given Greenstein’s views on Lilienthal, it may be understandable as to why Greenstein spends time denouncing Searchlight, the leading anti-fascist magazine. [21]
The NUS executive put out a statement at that Spring 1981 conference saying that “the actions of Bazo help antisemites in their activities” and went on to add “We are not willing to allow Bazo to have stalls at our conferences, or publicise their material through our publications.” [22]

Tony Greenstein admitted that he was involved in a “physical confrontation”with another student and also admitted that David Aaronovitch, the then President of the National Union of Students, had him banned from attending the NUS conference? [23]
I am not the only one to think that Tony Greenstein is disreputable as in 1986,Vicky Phillips, the then President of the National Union of Students urged people to write to Anti-Fascist Action expressing concern about Greenstein’s involvement in its steering committee because she thought that he being involved “brings the whole organization into disrepute?” [24]

But this was not all, because by the late 1980’s Tony Greenstein was on the founding editorial committee of, and went on to become the editor for, a magazine entitled RETURN. This magazine was banned in 1990 by the National Union of Students by its then President Maeve Sherlock, in a decision actively supported by Steven Twigg, the next President of NUS (Steven Twigg went on to become a Labour Party Member of Parliament.) Other leading NUS members, including its Womens’ Officer also supported the decision of the President. Maeve Sherlock specifically ruled that RETURN was “anti-Semitic.” [25]

Jewish students may join their Jewish Society for all manner of reasons – religious, cultural or social – but why did RETURN magazine hold the Union of Jewish Students in complete contempt, calling them, in an editorial, “a wing of Israel’s propaganda network”? And why did Tony Greenstein argue that UJS “act as paid and unpaid informers for Mossad”? [26]

But what can we expect from Tony Greenstein, a person who wrote a pamphlet entitled Zionism: antisemitism’s twin in Jewish garb that he had published by Brighton Labour Briefing? That pamphlet was praised by the far right wing and antisemitic National Front who commented on his “painstaking researches” and referred to it as “a seminal work, as important in its own way as was [Holocaust Denier Richard] Harwood’s ‘Did Six Million Really Die.’” The effusive praise from the National Front continued: “fascinating and vital reading for the student of modern history,” “his booklet is good. Read it and see!” [27]

Some may consider that all these activities in the 1980s and 1990s are in the past, but they can also consider his actions in more recent years, Tony Greenstein opposed Holocaust Memorial Day and went so far as to call it “obscene.”[28]

Asghar Bhukari, a spokesman for the Muslim Public Affairs Committee (MPACuk) was exposed for financing the Holocaust denier David Irving. [29] Despite this, in 2006, Greenstein went to Bhukari’s web site and sent him a very friendly message praising him for writing “a very excellent” article and for being “honest.” [30] Even more recently, this month, Greenstein has been making excuses for Jenna Delich. Delich is a member of the University and Colleges Union (UCU) and contributes to their activist list. Recently, and in order to attack “Zionists,” she linked to the web site of David Duke, the former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan. This disgraceful act was exposed on Harry’s Place, a popular UK based political blog. [31] If Greenstein was a real campaigner against racism and fascism, he would be making a big fuss about Delich and would have congratulated Harry’s Place on their scoop. But no, not only does Greenstein not try and organise a campaign against Delich, he goes out of his way to defend her and at the same time he accuses the posters to Harry’s Place of being “hypocrites.” [32]

Tony Greenstein uses his blog, in part, to attack Gilad Atzmon. He refers to him as an “Open Holocaust Denier.” [33] This is all very well but he does not mention that in June 2006 he sent Atzmon a friendly email saying “I shall be more than happy to hear you play the sax! ” and went on to continue that some of Atzmon’s “remarks re the holocaust were spot on.” [34] This is despite the fact that as this thread shows clearly, Tony Greenstein cannot get the fact right about the Holocaust himself. Not that sending friendly emails to Atzmon should be a surprise given the same Tony Greenstein admits to have consorted with Stephen Brady, a leader of the fascist National Front! [35]

5. The Real Collaborators with Nazis – The Communists

Tony Greenstein is a Marxist and Marxists have a long and not so glorious history of collaborating with Nazis. There was for example, Hermann Remmele, a speaker from the German Communist Party, the KPD who went along to a debate by the Nazi Party. He said, “At the very beginning, I wish to make one thing clear. The National Socialist Party, like all other socialist organisations, has within its ranks a number of convinced and honest people.” He went on to say, “This courage and bravery we honour and respect.” [36] Or there was a different Communist speaker at a political rally in Germany in 1924 who said, “The time is not far off when Völkische and Communists will be able to unite.” [37] Or we can look to Heinz Neumann a young KPD party leader who said, “Young Socialists! Brave fighters for the nation: the Communists do not want to engage in fraternal strife with the National Socialists.” [38] The actions of the KPD were completely shameful. As Conan Fischer points out, In 1932 the KPD proposed United Action and posters appeared in Germany “showing Communist, Nazi and Socialist workers standing shoulder to shoulder in class solidarity against the bourgeoisie.” In fact, the term United Action was used because the Communists did not want to use the term Anti-Fascist Action as it would alienate the Nazis! [39] The KPD backed by Russia ensured that Hitler could finally take power. One former German Communist commented that Zinoviev said to him in 1933, “Apart from the German Social Democrats, Stalin bears the main responsibility to history for Hitler’s victory.” [40]

Of course, in August 1939, the Russian Communists and the German Nazis cemented their friendship with the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. Communists such as Sean O’Casey who was on the editorial board of the Daily Worker demanded peace with Hitler. [41]

And it was not just those Communists who supported Stalin that were making pacts with Hitler - those Communists who supported Trotsky did not want “Imperialist” countries such as Britain or America to fight Hitler either. In America, the Trotskyist Labor Action took the position that World War II, like World War I, is “a war between two great imperialist camps ... to decide ... which ... shall dominate the world.” It is “a war of finance capital ... a war for stocks and bonds and profits ... a war conceived and bred by world capitalism.” Labor Action went so far as to attack the trade unions who supported Roosevelt’s decision to go to war. Max Shachtman used the paper to launch an assault on another socialist for jumping “into the War Camp.” [42]

The conclusion of all this is clear: The Stalinists made a pact with the Nazis and the Trotskyists did not want America or Britain fighting the Nazis. None of this was obviously any help to the Jews, Zionist, non-Zionist or anti-Zionist, in Nazi occupied Europe.

6. Contrary to the claim of Greenstein, I do not “disregard” the testimony of Katherine Senesh (Szenes). What I did say was that Mrs. Senesh claimed that she tried to see Kasztner on a number of occasions but was turned away by others who claimed Kasztner was not there or was busy etc. I commented that Kasztner “claimed that he was not aware that Hannah’s mother had tried to see him.” This does not disregard the testimony of Mrs Senesh.

7. Regarding Ruth Smeed of the Board of Deputies and her comments about the BNP, I do not know why she said what she did. If Greenstein is so interested to find out why, maybe he should email or write to her and ask for clarification.

Irrespective of why Ms. Smeed made her comments, it was clearly not in line with the policy of the Board of Deputies. Even the article that Greenstein links to where he read Ms. Smeed’s comments explains: “The Board of Deputies, the London Jewish Forum and the Community Security Trust have launched a campaign with other ethnic minority and cultural groups and the Hope Not Hate campaign to combat the BNP threat.” Moreover, as the article makes very clear, Henry Grunwald, president of the Board of Deputies said “Despite all its attempts to portray itself differently we know [the BNP] is still the same antisemitic, racist party it always was.” He added: “We, in the Jewish community, will not tolerate any form of racism or prejudice ... I would be thoroughly ashamed if any member of the Jewish community voted for them.” [43]

8. Greenstein states, “Mikey believes it is a ‘lie’ that Kastner testified on behalf of Wisliceny. Then presumably he is accusing Barri of lying?” The points made by the poster by the name of “Correction” are completely correct. I am not accusing Barri of lying as Barri does not say anywhere in her article that Kasztner testified on behalf of Wisliceny. What Barri says is that Kasztner appealed on behalf of Wisliceny. Kasztner wanted him transferred to American custody. [44] An appeal is not the same as a testimony but Greenstein clearly does not understand this.

9. Greenstein has harped on this thread about Gilad Atzmon. He has suggested that I am “willing to work” with him and that he is my “friend.” Both of these comments accusations are absurd but Greenstein persists. The basis of this accusation seems to come from a thread on the comments section of PeacePalestine blog that can be seen on the following link: http://www.haloscan.com/comments/thecutter/117192641046077827/

I urge everyone to read all the comments by myself and if they wish also the relevant comments by Tony Greenstein, Gilad Atzmon and Paul Eisen. In my first contribution to the thread, I ridicule the debate that was occurring: “this thread is a farce. We have Tony Greenstein being accused of being a Zionist by Gilad Atzmon and Gilad Atzmon accusing Tony Greenstein of being a Zionist.” I also stated that Paul Eisen “thinks no Jews were killed at Auschwitz.” Eisen decided to enter into a debate with me but all I wanted to know was one thing that I asked him in that thread: “does Paul Eisen believe Jews were killed by gas in gas chambers at Auschwitz. A simple yes/no will do.” Despite earlier trying to evade the question, he finally gave his answer: “I am not sure but the evidence for the use of homicidal gas-chambers is not good at all. The evidence against it is much, much stronger.” I had achieved what I wanted to do: getting Paul Eisen to admit on the Internet in very clear language what his position on the Holocaust actually was.

Away from that matter with Eisen, readers of the thread can see that I had brought up many past activities of Tony Greenstein. I have interest in attacking anti-Zionists of all shades – whether they are those like Atzmon and Eisen, whether they are those like Greenstein and Rance or even like Bhukari or Delich. It just so happens that as Greenstein was a frequent poster in that thread, I decided to take my opportunity to attack him there. (If It did not do it there, I would do it elsewhere – like here for example.) I did not attack Greenstein there because I was asked to, but because I wanted to. I would also attack Roland Rance if he contributed to the comments boxes of blogs I view and can post at. Greenstein and Atzmon are enemies of each other and as I have mentioned earlier they use the worst insult they can each imagine– they accuse each other of being Zionists.

Greenstein claims that Atzmon wanted information on Roland Rance and that I replied on the thread on March 12, 2007 at 8.53pm that I said “‘I have been very busy digging up stuff on Tony Greenstein - Roland Rance will have to wait for another day.” Now, if anyone bothers to click on the link, they will see that no such contribution exists on the thread that Greenstein gave! Despite this detail, it is not the point I wish to make. The point is that I am happy to dig up information on Roland Rance irrespective of Atzmon, but I have no desire to assist Atzmon himself.

It is also true that I have met Atzmon. Over many years I have met many anti-Zionists. I have attended their meetings and heard them speak. Greenstein is aware of this as he has referred to the meeting I attended organised by Jews Against Zionism when Lenni Brenner spoke and I attended his own meeting by Green Left on anti-Zionism to which this thread relates. I have been for a drink, had dinner, visited them at their homes, had short or long conversations in person with or spent hours on the phone with a number of anti-Zionists including some of whom Greenstein would consider his own ideological comrades. I do not do this because I view them as my friends or to assist them , but for my own research into anti-Zionism. I will not mention specific names here but I have referred to in this thread to different examples of articles in various issues of RETURN magazine. If Greenstein does his own research he might find out who provided them to me at a discounted price! Whilst I do not need to mention names – I can assure him that it was one of his own anti-Zionist comrades. Does that make his anti-Zionist comrade, a Zionist collaborator in the eyes of Greenstein?

This is of course very different from Tony Greenstein who sends friendly emails to Atzmon advising him on matters of the Holocaust and Zionism. The fact that Greenstein was very wrong in his analysis in that email to Atzmon is beside the point. [45] The only explanation that I can think of as to why Greenstein continues to suggest that I am a friend of Atzmon and assist Atzmon is because he is embarrassed as to his own assistance to him and this is the way he deals with his own psychological issues.

10. Randolph Braham on Kasztner

Greenstein uses Lenni Brenner’s discredited 1983 book, Zionism in the Age of Dictators: A Reappraisal [46] for Braham’s view as opposed to looking at the source itself. Greenstein writes the following:

“’History and historians have not been kind to the leaders of Hungarian Jewry in the Holocaust era.’ [Randolph Braham, The Official Jewish Leadership of Wartime Hungary, (unpublished manuscript), p.1.] As Braham admits, many ‘tried to obtain special protection and favours for their families’. [Randolph Braham, The Role of the Jewish Council in Hungary: A Tentative Assessment, Yad Vashem Studies, vol.X, p.78.]”

The first example is an unpublished manuscript and hence we cannot check it to see how out of context Brenner has taken that quote but knowing how Brenner distorts information . Given Brenner quoted it in his book published by 1983, Braham must have written that sentence prior to that time. The title of the first essay suggests that Braham was writing about the Jewish Council and in the second essay (which I have) Braham was certainly writing about the Jewish Council. A discussion about the role of the Jewish Council in Hungary would be a separate exercise but Greenstein has no real interest attacking that body as it was not a Zionist body. All Greenstein wants to do is attack Kasztner. Rather than quoting Braham on the Hungarian Jewish Council, if Greenstein wants Braham’s view on Kasztner he should look it up. If he did so, he would see that Braham says the following:

“An ardent Zionist by conviction, and an idealistic but opportunist politician by inclination….A man of unbounded political ambitions with some inclinations toward a bohemian lifestyle, Kasztner had a large number of faithful friends, as well as many bitter enemies who conspired against him. Dictatorial and jealous by nature (he could not gracefully acknowledge the success of others) Kasztner unwisely monopolized the negotiations with the SS. He may have been guided by an SS-imposed directive for secrecy ‘in order not to jeopardize the success of the deal,’ and therefore contacted the traditional leaders of Hungarian Jewry only when he needed their financial assistance. It is likely that, motivated by a strong subconscious drive for grandeur, he hoped to emerge as virtually the sole rescuer of close to one million Jews…. He had a sharp analytic mind but gifted as he was, he did not possess the strength of character which ultimately distinguishes the great from the average man. Nevertheless, in his dealings with the SS…he often displayed great skill and courage in championing the cause of rescue.” [47]

11. On Public Debates

Greenstein suggests that I am a coward because I did not raise any points either at the Lenni Brenner talk or at his own talk. The truth is that I did not do so, not because I am a coward and am afraid to debate Greenstein but because in the normal course at such “debates” contributors from the floor in the question time are not given an equal amount of time to the main speakers. Let us say that the meeting is 1 hour and a half – with speakers for 50 minutes, questions and points from the floor for 20 minutes and responses by the panel for 20 minutes. (I Just use these figures as an example). Given there may be a number of different contributors from the floor, any individual contributor is not given much time. Moreover, that contributor does not have the ability to come back to the speakers retorts. i.e the format is massively loaded in favour of the speaker. I am prepared to debate in a fair debate and that is why I proposed an internet debate on a forum acceptable to both of us. (Personally, I have no objection to Socialist Unity hosting it assuming we were given equal space for our points.) Greenstein turned the idea down. It is him that is chicken – not me.

12. I am pleased that Greenstein will accept my contributions to the comments boxes of his own blog. I assume this one will also be published.

13. Zionists and Fighting Nazis

Greenstein uses his post to try and imply that the Zionists never fought the Nazis or if individual Zionists did, they did not do so because they were Zionists. This is a long running theme of Greenstein’s poisonous writings and it is of course, like most of what he writes about Zionism, Zionists or the Holocaust complete hogwash.

Let us consider some facts. On July 28, 1942, the Jewish Fighting Organisation (Zydowska Organizacja Bojowa or ZOB) was founded. This was founded by three Zionist youth movements, Hashomer Hatzair, Dror and Akiva. Initially the Socialist Bund opposed creating a Jewish fighting force because it believed in an alliance between Poles of the same class rather than an alliance between Jews with different political convictions. Mordecai Anielewicz, an activist in Hashomer Hatzair, was one of the founders of the ZOB. The organisation that was set up on 24th October 1942 and was the organisation that Mordecai Anielewicz, a Zionist, was elected the Chief Commander. The ZOB contained 22 combat units, each with between twelve and twenty members. Fourteen of those units contained Zionist pioneers who were preparing for eventual emigration to Palestine. Away from the ZOB was the Jewish Military Organisation, (Zydowski Zwiazek Wojskowy or ZZW) led primarily by Revisionist Zionists and those from the Betar, the Revisionist youth movement, who had political sympathies with the Irgun. ZZW members also put up a very courageous fight against the Nazis in Warsaw. It therefore can be seen, far from Zionist organisations either not fighting, or Zionists only acting as individuals, the Zionist organisations were central in the Warsaw ghetto uprising one of the major acts of resistance during the Holocaust. [48]

The above was in Europe, we can now consider the view from the Yishuv (Jewish community in Palestine). Y. Tabenkin had said at a meeting of the Histradut Council in December 1942, “It is impossible to understand why these Jews…do not raise up their spades against their enemies.” It should be understand that at this time, there was a lack of information in Palestine about what exactly was occurring and the possibilities of resistance. An editorial in Davur in October 1942 headlined “The Zionist Underground” mentioned “There is also quiet bravery…the defense of honour….There is dedication to the people fighting.” [49] The uprising in the Warsaw changed much of the poor perception. In April 1943 an editorial in one paper commented on the Jewish resistance “An eternal symbol of a people which refuses to be destroyed by the Gentile – the symbol of life. The honour and the glory of this heroism, enacted on the front line of the war against Nazism, has perhaps no parallel.”[50] A further note of pride of the Warsaw ghetto uprising was expressed in Hapoel Hatzair in an article entitled “Defence Filled With Glory.” As far as the editor, who wrote the article, was concerned it proved “Jews are not always led like sheep to the slaughter.” [51]

It can therefore be seen that not only did Zionists in Nazi occupied Europe fight and try and resist the Nazis, but in Palestine the Zionists were immensely proud of the ghetto fighters.

In any event, Greenstein knew he was lying with his claim about Zionists not fighting Nazis as he himself quotes Dawidowicz as saying, “the socialist Zionist youth movements succeeded in transforming their pre-war apparatus into functioning underground organisations.”

14. Zionism and Nazism

This really is Greenstein’s favourite accusation. He tries to make out that the Nazi party was a Zionist party. Incredible as it sounds Greenstein not only says it, he claims he has read Francis R. Nicosia’s recently published book, Zionism and Anti-Semitism in Nazi Germany (Cambridge University Press, 2008) and he claims that the evidence presented in it supports his thesis. Specifically Greenstein states

“It produces further evidence of the close symbiosis between the Nazi Party and Zionism. Far from the Nazi Party being anti-Zionist, ludicrous, it specifically differentiated between the ‘good’ Jews – the Zionists and the bad ones.”

Well let us consider some of the passages in that book:

“lest the reader imagine that the purpose of study such as this to somehow equate Zionism with National Socialism, Zionists with Nazis, or to portray their relationship as a willing and collaborative one between moral and political equals. The research, analysis and conclusions, do not in any way support such notions. The existence of certain common assumptions on the part of Zionists on the one hand, and nationalist and anti-Semitic Germans on the other, does not in any way connote moral and/or political equivalency.” (pp. 2-3)

Nicosia continues:

“The dominant Zionist approach, like that of most non-Jews at the time, shared a reliance on the idea of an ethno-nationalist state, an idea that was the societal norm in Central Europe in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Their embrace of that norm does not make the Zionists the moral equivalent of the Nazis. Nor does the willingness of the Zionist or any other Jewish organisation in the Third Reich to cooperate with the state make them willing collaborators in the Nazi destruction of Jewish life in Germany; to suppose that any Jewish organisation in Hitler’s Germany prior to the ‘final solution’ had the option of refusing to work on some level with the state is fantasy.” (p. 3)

Nicosia specifically states that it is a-historical and simplistic to “dismiss Zionism as yet another of racism, the substance of which has not been very different from German National Socialism.” (P. 8)

“Most anti-Semites could never embrace Zionism and its institutions as partners in a common quest because Zionists were, after all, still part of what they believed to be a monolithic world Jewry.” (P. 9)

“For most anti-Semites in Germany, therefore, including the Nazis prior to 1941, their willingness to use Zionism and the Zionist movement was never based on an acceptance of the Zionist view itself.” (p. 10)

“the Jewish Agency for Palestine and the Zionist movement in general recognized the critical link between its own survival and the survival and well-being of all Jews in the Diaspora. Even on a practical level, the Zionist view was that if the Nazis succeeded in murdering the great majority of Jews in Europe, a Jewish majority and state in Palestine might never be achieved.” (pp.8-9n15)

I trust I have made my point. I do not believe it is necessary for me to go further, but I cannot fail but to add one final quote from that book: “Of Course, the Nazis opposed a Jewish state, in any form, in any part of Palestine or anywhere else in the world.” (P. 197)

In all likelihood, despite his claim, Greenstein has not read Nicosia’s latest book, but if he had, it is simply another example of one Greenstein’s lies, in this instance, about its contents.

Despite the fact that Greenstein contends that the Nazis thought the Zionists were “good” Jews, here is what Hitler thought about Zionists: "For while the Zionists try to make the rest of the world believe that the national consciousness of the Jew finds its satisfaction in the creation of a Palestinian state, the Jews again slyly dupe the dumb goyim. It doesn’t even enter their heads to build up a Jewish state in Palestine for the purpose of living there; all they want is a central organization for their international world swindle, endowed with its own sovereign rights and removed from the intervention of other states: a haven for convicted scoundrels and a university for budding crooks." [52]

Adolf Hitler delivered his first major speech on the Jewish question on August 1920, stating: “the whole notion of the Zionist state and its establishment is nothing more than a comedy.” The following year Alfred Rosenberg, who influenced Hitler, published an essay with the title "Zionism Hostile to the State” which called Zionism “the powerless effort of an incapable people to engage in productive activity… a means for ambitious speculators to establish a new area for receiving usurious interests on a global scale.” This was reissued by the main Nazi publishing house in 1938. A year after that the Nazi Propaganda Ministry distributed a book with the title Palestine: Jewish State? which exposed “the real line of Jewish politics, namely the striving for a new, perhaps decisive base for Jewish world power” in a Jewish state. They also issued a book entitled The English, Jews and Arabs in Palestine, warning that the Zionist goal in Palestine was the “establishment of a Vatican of world Jewry. A firm base is to be built, on which, in later years, Jewish world policy can rest.” During the war the Nazis published a book protesting “the exploitation of the Arabs by the Jews” and “the clear bond between the English government and the Zionists.” The Nazis were aware that Weizmann was aligning himself with the British and as such they saw an “English-Jewish alliance” against Germany. [53]

The German Foreign Minister and leading Nazi, Joachim von Ribbentrop sent a letter to the Arab leader, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem in 1942 where he had said “Germany is …ready to give all her support …for the destruction of the Jewish National Home in Palestine.” [54] Far From being Zionist, the Nazis were anti-Zionist. Below is the full text of a letter sent in 1943 from Heinrich Himmler to the Grand Mufti:

“To the Grand Mufti: The National Socialist Movement of Greater Germany has, since its beginning, inscribed upon its flag the fight against world Jewry. It has, therefore, followed with particular sympathy the struggle of the freedom-loving Arabians, especially in Palestine, against the Jewish interlopers. It is in the recognition of this enemy and of the common struggle against him that lies the firm foundation of the natural alliance that exists between National-Socialist-Greater Germany and the freedom-loving Muslims of the whole world. In this spirit I am sending you on the anniversary of the infamous Balfour Declaration my hearty greetings and wishes for the successful pursuit of your struggle until the certain final victory.”[55]

And so on and so on. As Jeffrey Herf makes perfectly clear, for the Nazis, there was a convergence between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism. [56]

Mikey

Endnotes

[1] Ben Hecht, A Jew in Love (Fortune Press, n.d.) p. 5
[2] Ben Hecht Perfidy (Milah Press/Gefen Books, 1999) p. 2
[3] “Ben Hecht’s Perfidy: An Analysis of His Rewriting of History,” (The American Section of the Executive of the World Zionist Organization and the Jewish Agency, 1962) and reproduced on line at http://www.paulbogdanor.com/hecht.html
[4] Chaim Lieberman, The Man and His “Perfidy”: A Rejoinder to Ben Hecht’s Vitriolic Attack Upon the Government and Leaders of Israel (Bloch Publishing, 1964) pp. 99-101
[5] Homer Bigart, “A Matter of Personalities” New York Times Book Review January 28, 1962 P. 20
[6] Lucy S. Dawidowicz, “Ben Hecht’s ‘Perfidy’” Commentary, Vol. 33. No. 3 (March 1962) pp. 260-264
[7] Marie Syrkin, “Perfidy and Stale Venom,” Jewish Frontier January 1962 pp. 13-17
[8] Shlomo Katz, “Ben Hecht’s Kampf,” Midstream Winter 1962 pp. 92-101
[9] “The Strange Case of Yoel Brandt: As told in Jerusalem District Court,” Jewish Observer and Middle East Review April 9, 1954 pp. 3-4
[10] “’Blood For Goods’ Trial: The Drama of Kastner and Brandt,” Jewish Observer and Middle East Review, June 18, 1954 pp. 11-12
[11] . Randolph L. Braham The Politics of Genocide: The Holocaust in Hungary (Columbia University Press, Revised and Enlarged edition 1994), Vol. 2. pp. 1,070-1,071
[12] Ibid. Vol. 1 pp. 108-109
[13] Anne Sofer, “The South Bank shows its bias,” The Times October 1, 1984 p. 12
[14] Tim Jones, “Iraqi role in clashes questioned,” The Times July 28, 1983 p. 3
[15] “BAZO Leader to Appeal,” Jewish Chronicle, August 24, 1979
[16] “Little Southern Comfort,” Jewish Chronicle, March 23, 1979
[17] “Stuermer’ British style,” Jewish Chronicle, April 3, 1981
[18] Jenni Frazer, “UJS Learns to Push and Pull,” Jewish Chronicle, January 2, 1981
[19] “Students Ban BAZO,” Jewish Chronicle, April 10, 1981. The diary of Anne Frank was questioned by Alfred Lilienthal is his book, The Zionist Connection II: What Price Peace (North American Inc, 1982). The pages references are P. 481 and P. 849n71 The known Holocaust Denier that Lilienthal gave support to was Robert Faurisson. In 1980 Lilienthal had was one of the first signatories to a petition supporting him. Source: Werner Cohn “Chomsky and Holocaust Denial” in Peter Hollier and David Horowitz eds. The Anti-Chomsky Reader (Encounter Books, 2004) P 125 and P. 154n17
[20] Tony Greenstein “Antisemitism Through the Looking Glass: The UJS Thought Police,” RETURN No. 3 June 1990 pp. 21-25

[21] Ibid.
[22] “Students ban BAZO,” Jewish Chronicle April 10, 1981
[23] “Letters,” Jewish Chronicle, July 24, 1981.
[24] Simon Rocker “Phillips waves the flag,” Jewish Chronicle December 26 1986
[25] See Unsigned Editorial, “NUS Attack on Freedom of Speech,” RETURN, No. 2, March 1990, pp. 4-5; Unsigned Editorial, “More Hypocrisy,” RETURN, No. 4, September 1990.
[26] Editorial, “Lies, Damn Lies and the UJS,” RETURN, No. 3, June 1990; Tony Greenstein, “The Fossilisation of Identity,” RETURN, No. 4, September, 1990.
[27] Philip Drax, “Book Review,” Sussex Front January 1983 p. 9
[28] “Letters,” The Observer, February 6, 2000
[29] Jamie Doward, “Muslim leader sent funds to Irving,” The Observer November 19, 2006
[30] http://www.mpacuk.org/content/view/3047/1/
[31] http://www.hurryupharry.org/2008/08/22/ucu-and-the-david-duke-fan/
[32] http://azvsas.blogspot.com/2008/09/witch-hunt-of-jenna-delich-pro-boycott.html
[33] http://azvsas.blogspot.com/2008/01/gilad-atzmon-now-open-holocaust-denier.html
[34] http://www.gilad.co.uk/html%20files/tony%27semail.htm
[35] http://www.engageonline.org.uk/blog/comment.php?id=934
[36]Abraham Ascher and Guenter Lewy, “National Bolshevism in Weimer Germany: Alliance of Political Extremes Against Democracy,” Social Research 23:1/4 (1956) p. 468
[37] Ibid.
[38] Ibid. pp. 477-478
[39] Conan Fischer, “Class Enemies or Class Brothers? Communist Nazi Relations in Germany 1929-33,” European History Quarterly, Vol. 15, No. 3, July 1985 p. 271
[40] Robert C. Tucker, “The Emergence of Stalin’s Foreign Policy,” Slavic Review Vol. 36. No. 4. (December 1977) p.584
[41] George Watson, “The Eye-Opener of 1939 or How the World Saw the Nazi-Soviet Pact,” History Today Vol 54. No. 8. August 2004, pp. 48-53
[42] Edward Alexander, Irving Howe: Socialist, Critic, Jew (Indiana University Press, 1998) p. 13
[43] Matthew Taylor, “BNP seeks to bury antisemitism and gain Jewish votes in Islamophobic campaign,” The Guardian April 10, 2008 p. 17 available on line at http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/apr/10/thefarright.race
[44] Shoshana Barri (Ishoni), “The Question of Kasztner’s Testimonies on behalf of Nazi War Criminals,” The Journal of Israeli History, Vol 18, nos. 2 and 3 1997 pp. 139-165.
[45]
The full text of the email from Greenstein to Atzmon was as follows:
“Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2006 9:52 PM
Subject: Re: Gilad Atzmon @ The Vortex for 3 Nights

“I shall be more than happy to hear you play the sax! Was going to drop you a line re your spat with Shamir. He referred you to Beit Zvi's book and argued that the Zionists couldn't foresee the Holocaust. He is wrong on that. Both Ben Gurion and Weizmann did exactly that, with Weizmann at the 20th Zionist Congress in 1937 saying, as you may be aware, that the old and feeble will pass, 'economic and moral dust' if my memory serves right.

“Dare I say it, some of your remarks re the holocaust were spot on re the Zionist collaboration with the Nazis. And that is the point anti-Zionists should make rather than flirting with holocaust denial, or in Shamir's case being a full blooded exponent.

regards

Tony Greenstein”
http://www.gilad.co.uk/html%20files/tony%27semail.htm
The actual speech by Weizmann that Greenstein was referring to in his email to Atzmon was the one Weizmann gave to the Zionist Congress in 1937. The part of the speech that Greenstein was referring to was quoted by Ben Hecht in Perfidy pp. 19-20
“I told the British Royal Commission that the hopes of Europe’s six million Jews were centered on emigration. I was asked, ‘Can you bring the six million to Palestine?’ I replied, ‘No.’ … The old ones will pass. They will bear their fate or they will not. They are dust, economic and moral dust in a cruel world…. Only a branch will survive.”
Both Hecht and Greenstein make the same mistake with this speech. As The American Section of the Executive of the World Zionist Organization and the Jewish Agency make clear in text approved by Moshe Sharett who, during the period involved, was head of the Political Department of the Jewish Agency and subsequently Israel’s first Minister of Foreign Affairs and later Prime Minister:
“The implication is that Weizmann, foreseeing the murder of Europe’s six million Jews, decided that they were expendable. If it were not self-evident that this was not the case, it could be easily proved by a further passage in the same speech, so selectively quoted by Hecht, in which Weizmann expounds his plan of accelerating the rate of immigration to Palestine by some 150 percent, so as to make it possible for two million Jews to come to Palestine. Obviously, what Weizmann meant when he said ‘the old ones will pass,’ was that they would live out their lives in the places of their abode in Europe.” (The American Section of the Executive of the World Zionist Organization and the Jewish Agency, “Ben Hecht’s Perfidy: An Analysis of His Rewriting of History,” Op. Cit.)
[46] For examples of where it can be seen that Brenner’s work is discredited, see the following:
Louis Harap, “’Zionist-Nazi collaboration’ Refuted – Lenni Brenner’s Trickery Exposed,” Jewish Currents May 1984 pp. 4-9, pp. 28-30 available on line at http://www.paulbogdanor.com/brenner/harap.pdf
C.C. Aronsfeld, “Zionism in the Age of the Dictators: A Reappraisal,” International Affairs Vol. 60. No.1 (Winter 1983-1984) pp. 138-139 available on line at http://www.paulbogdanor.com/brenner/aronsfeld.pdf
Bryan Cheyette, “Pathological anti-Zionism and the ‘revisionism’ of the left,” Patterns of Prejudice Vol. 17 No. 3 (July 1983) pp. 49-51
Walter Laqueur, “The Anti-Zionism of Fools” New Republic November 2, 1987 pp 33-39
[47] Randolph L. Braham The Politics of Genocide: The Holocaust in Hungary (Columbia University Press, Revised and Enlarged edition 1994), Vol. 2. pp. 1,071-1,072
[48] Moshe Arens, “ The Jewish Military Organisation (ZZW) in the Warsaw Ghetto,” Holocaust and Genocide Studies, Vol 19. No. 2 (Fall 2005) pp. 201-225, Martin Gilbert The Holocaust – The Jewish Tragedy op. cit., P565, See also following on-line sites http://warsawghetto.epixtech.co.uk/HistVI.htm , http://warsawghetto.epixtech.co.uk/HistV.htm , http://warsawghetto.epixtech.co.uk/Anielwcz.htm , http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/Anielevich.html

[49] Yechiam Weitz, “The Yishuv’s Response to the Destruction of European Jewry, 1942-1943,” Studies in Zionism, Vol. 8, No. 2 (Autumn 1987) P. 216. Weitz cites Davar October 5, 1942

[50] Yoav Gelber, “Zionist Policy and the Fate of European Jewry, 1943-1944” Studies in Zionism, Vol. 7 (Spring 1983) p. 141. Gelber quotes Y Tabenkin at the meeting of the Histradut Council on December 3, 1942 and the editorial (Hebrew) in Zror Michtavim No. 135, April 30, 1943

[51] Yechiam Weitz, “The Yishuv’s Response to the Destruction of European Jewry, 1942-1943,” op.cit., P. 214
Weitz cites Yitzhak Laufbahn, “Defence Filled With Glory” (Hebrew) Hapoel Hatzair March 25, 1943

[52] Jeffrey Herf, Jewish Enemy: Nazi Propaganda During World War II and the Holocaust (Harvard University Press, 2006) p. 75

[53] Jeffrey Herf, “Convergence: The Classic Case: Nazi Germany, Anti-Semitism and Anti-Zionism during World War II,” Journal of Israeli History, Vol. 25, No. 1 (March 2006) pp. 63-83
[54] Letter from Ribbentrop to Grand Mufti of Jerusalem April 28, 1942 quoted by, A Backgrounder of the Nazi Activities in North Africa and the Middle East During the Era of the Holocaust; Including an Overview of the Arab World Leader, Amin Al-Hussein, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and his Connection with the Third Reich. (New York: International Sephardic leadership Council, April 2006) P. 20
[55] Message from Heinrich Himmler to an anti-Balfour Declaration meeting November, 2 1943 quoted by ibid. p. 22
[56] Jeffrey Herf, “Convergence: The Classic Case: Nazi Germany, Anti-Semitism and Anti-Zionism during World War II,” Journal of Israeli History, Vol. 25, No. 1 (March 2006) pp. 63-83

2008-09-16T15:53:00.001+01:00

The Socialist Unity Debate

29 August, 2008

Green Party conference fringe: Anti-Zionism, a Jewish perspective

Filed under: Uncategorized — Derek Wall @ 10:34 am

Green Left and SOAS Palestinian Society

Anti-Zionism. A Jewish Perspective.

Friday 5^th September @ 7pm (Khalili Lecture Theatre SOAS)

With

Simon Lynn (Editor of Jewish Socialist Magazine)

Tony Greenstein (Palestine Solidarity Campaign)

Chair: Dr Joseph Healy (Co-Convenor Green Left)

Green Party conference runs from next friday to monday. We agreed a couple of months ago that there would be a GL fringe with the Jewish Socialist Group, I am also very pleased to say we have Tony Greenstein. Tony is a member of the Alliance for Green Socialism and it is fair to say the AGS and GL do not always see eye to eye. I think it is important to do common work on the left where as with 90% of things there is clear agreement. Green Left have been strong supporters of an academic boycott of Isreal and have been strong critics of racists and anti-semites.

Our other fringe is at Bolivar Hall with speakers on ‘Greening Latin America’ with Roberto Perez from Cuba.

78 Comments »

Details of the Greening Latin America fringe can be found here: http://studentmedic.wordpress.com/2008/08/26/pre-conference-meeting-greening-latin-america/

I look forward to both!

Comment by studentmedic — 29 August, 2008 @ 10:51 am
On what grounds are either Simon Lynn or Tony Greenstein ideal candidates to speak about a Jewish perspective on anti-Zionism?

Imagine if the following event to take place was billed:

Racism: A British Perspective

Nick Griffin, British National Party
David Irving, Author

Reasonably minded people would say that neither Griffin nor Irving represented mainstream British views. They would be accurate. Likewise, for this event, neither Lynn nor Greenstein represent mainstream Jewish thought on the subject of anti-Zionism.

I do not know who Green Left are and nor do I care, what I do know is that by organising this meeting with such speakers they have acted in a shameful way.

Comment by Mikey — 29 August, 2008 @ 3:08 pm
Mikey,

I don’t think that anyone (least of all themsellves) would claim that Simon Lynn or Tony Greenstein represent mainstream Jewish opinion.

They do however represent a coherent tradition within the Jewish community that can be traced back a century or more.

And it is a tradition that many other people find interesting and useful.

To equate Lynn or Greenstein with NIck Griffin really is a shameful deceit on your part.

Comment by Andy Newman — 29 August, 2008 @ 3:49 pm
Mikey, I do not think that the meeting is intended to convey “mainstream views”, whatever they may be. (I think the secret lies in the ‘anti’ bit of the “anti-Zionism”.)

(Incidentally, I think you may well find Griffin and Irving speaking on “Racism: A British Perspective”. Although I doubt whether they use that title.)

Comment by Lobby Ludd — 29 August, 2008 @ 3:53 pm
“Reasonably minded people would say that neither Griffin nor Irving represented mainstream British views. They would be accurate. Likewise, for this event, neither Lynn nor Greenstein represent mainstream Jewish thought on the subject of anti-Zionism.”

Idiotic fucking HP Sauce scum. Typical behaviour one would expect from the trash and vermin that infest that shit hole. The real tragedy is that Socialist Unity are now not only apologists for these infectious human waste but also stand in “solidarity” with them. WTF? Just tell them to go fuck themselves and stop being so fucking soft!

Comment by Joepolitix — 29 August, 2008 @ 4:36 pm
@Joepolitix: please do not use this kind of fascist language (”trash”, “vermin”, “infectious human waste”) for labelling other human beings!

Comment by Entdinglichung — 29 August, 2008 @ 5:46 pm
I can heartily commend the following article by Tony Greenstein.

Please take time to read it as it is brilliant showcase for TG’s talents - it also happens to be a superb demolition of this psuedo-itellectual charlatan ‘Mikey’ (Mike Ezra) who supports racism, racist violence and violently racists regimes
ie he’s a zionist -
Zionist Collaboration in Hungary - Mike Ezra attempts to Defend the Indefensible
Anti-Zionists Against Anti-Semitism aka ‘azvas’
12 Jun 2008

all the best!

Comment by joe90 — 29 August, 2008 @ 6:21 pm
I did forget to say,
that atzmon employs Mikey here to dig up dirt on effective and prominent anti-zionist Palestinian solidarity campaigners such as Tony Greenstein, as well as menbers of the Yahoo messege group JustPeaceUK -
Search Results - Mike Eazra
JPUK

So when atzmon says he supports Palestinian solidarity and the like, he doesn’t.

He empoys anti-Palestinian zionists to attack and undermine Palestinian solidarity, here in the UK, and openly associates with anti-Hamas blogs such as ‘Harry’s Place’ and its contributers (for want of a better description of these open racists).

all 5the best SU!

Comment by joe90 — 29 August, 2008 @ 6:33 pm
The point Mikey is making, albeit in dramatic language and with unfair innuendo, is that you would not necessarily expect practitioners of anti-Zionism to be presenting the Jewish perspective session, in the same way you wouldn’t expect practitioners of racism to present the British perspective on it.

The session is perhaps misleadingly-titled; it might be better called “Jewish anti-Zionism” or something similar.

Comment by unseen — 29 August, 2008 @ 6:56 pm
Looks to me like Mikey tore Greenstein’s argument to pieces. Why do you think different Joe ?

Still been a bad week inspite of your efforts

Jerusalem Quartet will perform to full house in Edinburgh
http://www.hurryupharry.org/2008/08/28/jerusalem-quartet-will-perform-to-full-house-in-edinburgh/

All the best !

Comment by Bennett — 29 August, 2008 @ 7:03 pm
Jenna Delich links to David Duke’s website and Andy rightly condemns it.

However when his mate and occasional contributor to Socialist Unity John Wight links to a holocaust denial site and uses the language of far right traditional antisemites Andy denies Wight is an antisemite.

Andy , it’s good that you condemen Delich but you are in denial over Wight. You say this has been discussed before but that doesn’t make your defense of Wight the antisemite correct.

http://www.engageonline.org.uk/blog/article.php?id=1627

Hope you won’t delete this Andy.

Comment by Bennett — 29 August, 2008 @ 7:07 pm
Unseen “The session is perhaps misleadingly-titled; it might be better called “Jewish anti-Zionism” or something similar.”

Or perhaps just “anti-zionism”. Greenstein is a useful toekn Jew for the hardcore antizionist campaigners and he is simply used to Kosherize their campaign.

Comment by Bennett — 29 August, 2008 @ 7:11 pm
…that you would not necessarily expect practitioners of anti-Zionism to be presenting the Jewish perspective session…
- There are many arguments against zionism as it is currently practiced, one of the best being when Jewish anti-zionists stand out publicly against zionism and the crimes it perpetrates in the supposed name of Judaism and Jewish people everywhere.

So when Jewish people speak out aginst zionsim, people will see that zionism itself is carrying out crimes, not just against Palestinians for instance, but also againt Judiasm and Jewish people because it is obviously making false claims that its crimes are somehow representative of the wishes of Jewish people and are, therefore, Jewish crimes.

Also this way, when Jewish people criticise and oppose zionism then zionists can’t accuse their opponents of antisemitism.

Of course,
when the likes of Atzmon uses Palestine solidarity to pedddle his antisemitism, then accusations by zionists that Palestinians, and their friends, are antisemitic won’t be because they are trying to silence legitimate criticism of zionism, but will be answering their critics because it will be true.

On what grounds are either Simon Lynn or Tony Greenstein ideal candidates to speak about a Jewish perspective on anti-Zionism?
- On the grounds they are Jewish and anti-zionist.

Also, this is a democracy and people are perfectly entitled to make their views known to a wider public. You don’t have to listen to what they have to say nor are you being forced to.

If you have any objections to their views then feel free to present your own intellectual arguments against them.

I know, for instance, the likes of Mikey here doesn’t have any intellectual arguments, which is why he is stuck with the usual zionist ad hominum argument, as accusations of antisemitism can’t be deployed.

Comment by joe90 — 29 August, 2008 @ 7:29 pm
Comment 10 -
Looks to me like Mikey tore Greenstein’s argument to pieces. Why do you think different Joe ?
- How sweet!
One zionist supports the lies of another zionist regarding the mass-murder of 200,000 innocent defenceless Hungarian-Jewish people in WWII.

You don’t have to go to openly antisemitic websites such as David Dukes to come across lies about Nazi atrocities - just visit zionist blogs and websites.

From the Tony Greenstein blog article quoted above -
In April 1944 we handed to a high representrative of the Zionist movement, Dr Oskar Neumann, a 60 page detailed report on the fact that extermination of 1,760,000 Jews had taken place in Auschwitz…. Did the Judenrat (or the Judenverrat) in Hungary tell their Jews what was awaiting them? No, they remained silent and for this silence some of their leaders – for example Dr. R. Kasztner – bartered their own lives and the lives of 1684 other ‘prominent’ Jews directly from Eichmann…’.

Scratch a zionist and you’ll find an antisemite underneath.

Comment by joe90 — 29 August, 2008 @ 7:50 pm
” know, for instance, the likes of Mikey here doesn’t have any intellectual arguments, which is why he is stuck with the usual zionist ad hominum argument, as accusations of antisemitism can’t be deployed.”

Joe , bearing in mind your abusive comments you’re hardly one to accuse people of adhominem arguments.

Not you haven’t answered my question of why you see Greenstein as having demolished Mikey ?

Good to see you failed at Edinburgh. Perhaps if you put as much effort into helping Palestinains as you did in your obsessive and abusive antizionist posting then you might do something positive for once.

All the best !

Comment by Bennett — 29 August, 2008 @ 7:50 pm
Joe 90 “Scratch a zionist and you’ll find an antisemite underneath.”

Sicko.

Comment by Bennett — 29 August, 2008 @ 7:51 pm
Joe 90. In your case and in the case of SPSC you don’t even need to scratch.

What is it with the Scottish PSC and antisemites?

http://www.engageonline.org.uk/blog/article.php?id=1752

All the best folks !

Comment by Bennett — 29 August, 2008 @ 7:58 pm
Good idea; line up the Uncle Toms and all accusations of anti-Semitism will go away. As if.

Comment by Charles Dexter Ward — 29 August, 2008 @ 9:07 pm
Charles, I think people know full well that your false accusations of antisemitism won’t go away. Everyone is aware that you have no actual arguments to defend your racism, so throwing around crappy charges of antisemitism is all you have.

Comment by christian h. — 29 August, 2008 @ 9:27 pm
Mikey asks: “On what grounds are either Simon Lynn or Tony Greenstein ideal candidates to speak about a Jewish perspective on anti-Zionism?”

Well, like me, Tony spends far too long reading blogs so he will answer for himself. As a fellow editor of Jewish Socialist magazine I happen to know Simon doesn’t spend his time reading blogs, so I will answer for him.

Simon is a longstanding anti-zionist from a zionist family. He has been active in specifically Jewish left politics since the mid-80s, and has been involved with the magazine almost since the beginning - the mag has been running for 23 years)

He also has a fine record of activism in anti-racist, anti-deportation campaigns, anti-fascist campaigning (for which he had harassment from fascists) and as a trade union activist, especially in Hackney.

He has visited Israel/Palestine through his trade union work and written both about Palestinian struggle and the activities of the Israeli peace movement. So go and listen to him Mikey - you might learn something.

He’s also a longstanding campaigner on anti-nukes - so good Green credentials too.

And he’s a West Ham fan too and a true mentsh (good human being for the non-Yiddishists out there)!

To compare him with Griffin et al is really beneath contempt and disappointing, even for you, Mikey

Unfortunately I can’t be at the meeting but hope it goes well and gets a better and more intellectually stimulating discussion going than on this thread so far!

Comment by David Rosenberg — 29 August, 2008 @ 11:27 pm
David,
I read a comment of yours that I thought was important in this debate,at Lenins Tomb.
You made the point that the left,or at least parts of it,changed its perspective on Israel in 1982 with the Lebanese invasion.
You then argued (paraphrasing here) that a part of the left, through accomodating anti semitism,alienated natural supporters.

Does the recent Delich debate back up your argument?

Comment by tim — 29 August, 2008 @ 11:35 pm
David. After the Jewish Socialist Group has been ignored by 99.9% of Jewish socialists i guess it’s nice to have an audience that respects your views. It’s a shame because there used to be some good articles in Jewish Socialist. There may still be , but i stopped reading it after the disgusting treatment Steve Cohen received a couple of years ago when he submitted an article critical of people who supported Hizbolla. The abusive emails he received from Charlie Pottins were a disgrace. As you know Steve Cohen has been an activist for many years. Luckily he now understands the problem of antisemitism. It’s a disgrace how your magazine treated him. JSG always talks about being abused by zionists and yet you turn on one of your own in a vile hostile way. I mentioned this before and you claimed not to know about it. Ask Charlie.

Comment by Bennett — 29 August, 2008 @ 11:39 pm
Tim “You made the point that the left,or at least parts of it,changed its perspective on Israel in 1982 with the Lebanese invasion.
You then argued (paraphrasing here) that a part of the left, through accomodating anti semitism,alienated natural supporters.”

Tim , one person who did start to take antisemitism on the left seriously was Steve Cohen. Steve started writing a book from a Marxist perspective on the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. He used far left newspapers and articles for research. However what he found shocked him. While still disgusted by the Israeli invasion he also became disgusted by the way that sections of the far left were using antisemitic themes that belonged to conventional non left antisemites. Amazingly Jewish Socialist Group refused to publish it (they didn’t take antisemitism on the left seriously enough) and it was published by a collective.

You can read it here : http://www.engageonline.org.uk/ressources/funny/

Comment by Bennett — 29 August, 2008 @ 11:45 pm
Steve Cohen was way ahead of this stuff.
Threee years after the Lebanon invasion he spotted what a part of the left would become he.
David Rosenbergs contribution reflected that.

Sadly, the reflex action of those parts of the left that Cohen,and now Rosenberg,clearly saw has raised its head again over Delich.
To his credit Andy Newman has been unbending in his stubborness on this.Apologists for anti semitism generally get given a hard time in Swindon.

Comment by tim — 30 August, 2008 @ 12:13 am
Joe90 wrote:

“The mass-murder of 200,000 innocent defenceless Hungarian-Jewish people in WWII.”

Actually it was 500,000. Joe90 diminishes the Holocaust in Hungary by 60%.

“Did the Judenrat… tell their Jews what was awaiting them? No, they remained silent and for this silence some of their leaders - for example Dr. R. Kasztner - bartered their own lives…”

Kasztner was never on the Judenrat, which was run by anti-Zionists.

Playing down the Holocaust and repeating lies about famous Jews: hardly a good way for joe90 to disprove charges of anti-Semitism!

Comment by Correction — 30 August, 2008 @ 12:36 am
and on and on and on and on and on and on and on it goes…is there some sort of weapon that could put all these half wits out of their misery?

Maybe the looming war between Russia and America might sort it out. I doubt it. Even in the post-nuclear wasteland everyone here will be going ‘we’ll I told you so’ or…’I said yakkety yak on a blog…’ ‘…well you said…’ ‘oh! what a snidey remark’

…..looming global war; credit crunch…oh, dear; ye that have not read (and understood) your Marx and Engels are in for a real f*cking shock.

..the only good thing that’s coming is the return of the working class. And when that class speaks….well, hopefully, most of the pratts here will stop their squeaking….actually; you will have to…good night!

Comment by RC — 30 August, 2008 @ 12:46 am
re 21: the point I made on lenin’s tomb that you referred to was this:

“Particularly since the Lebanon War of 82, support for Zionism has been in decline in many diaspora communities including Britain, but fear of antisemitism and a sense that the left doesn’t take it very seriously has helped keep a lid on this rebellion to some extent.”

On this blog I mainly see people on the left taking it seriously. But this not necessarily generalised on the left. And as most people know, but evidently not Bennett, the Jewish Socialists’ Group has a good record of taking it up antisemitism when it is expresed by people of the right or the left, eg when Tam Dalyell goes on about jewish cabals or Atzmon comes up with his tripe etc.

My view on the Delich case was that even if she really didn’t know about the person behind the site, she should have recognised the antisemitic arguments. And some comments I’ve seen seem a little to understanding of her ignorance of these. The justified anti-zionist cause is not helped at all by borrowing antisemitic arguments. Palestinians need friends but antisemitism is no friend to them -quite the opposite.

Bennett seems to think the only Jewish Socialist in the world ever to confront antisemitism from leftists is Steve Cohen and is still peddling some rubbish about Steve Cohen and the magazine. This is bollox, of course.

BTW Steve has never had any issue with the magazine and has written for it many times. He had a heated issue with Charlie P about an internal JSG paper and unfortunately went outside the JSG to seek support over an internal matter.

But it was resolved (only Bennet seems to want to prolong it) and, after that was resolved, Steve continued to write for the magazine. What the internal stuff from the JSG has to do with Bennett I don’t know, but he just seems to like to stir.

He seems also to conflate this with a decision by the JSG 20 years ago or more not to publish a book by Steve Cohen (which many years later Steve put on the Engage website though with a new and unfortunately dishonest introduction). The content of the book covered an area the JSG has always been very much engaged in, but we didn’t share it’s analysis enough to agree to it being an official JSG publication. That was a democratic decision by the JSG committee at the time.

That decision didn’t stop the book coming out by other means nor did it prevent the JSG from continuing its work with its analysis over such matters.

One thing Bennett might ask Steve is: who actually supplied him with examples of antisemitism on the left when he was writing his book. It wasn’t mainly his own research. The answer might surprise him - it was other JSG members largely.

Comment by David Rosenberg — 30 August, 2008 @ 1:09 am
David. It was not an internal JSG paper but a piece for the magazine. Charlie did eventualy apologise to Steve but only after he received complaints from people. People were disgusted.

Can you tell me why JSG refused to publish “It’s Funny , You Don’t Look Antisemitc” ?

And David , you know that there was a split in JSG on whether to publish Steve’s book. I might be wrong but weren’t you in favour of publishing it ?

Comment by Bennett — 30 August, 2008 @ 1:21 am
Going over old and very old JSG history is boring for me, so god knows how boring it is for others reading this…but in the interests of historical accuracy:

Jewish Socialist magazine has an editorial collective of 6 people. No single editor can accept/reject articles. We make collective decisions. Like all serious mags we accept good pieces but reject inferior pieces. Most, but not all the pieces Steve C has submitted over the years have been accepted.the item by Steve you are going on and on about was NOT submitted to the magazine collective. It had NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MAGAZINE.

And even if Steve would have submitted that piece to the mag, (which he didn’t, whatever it’s merits, we would not have wanted to print something that was freely available already on the web, (on the Engage Website).

Bennett, if you want to continue to waste people’s time by telling lies about it, I can’t stop you, but as someone who has been an editor of JS since its inception all I can say to anyone else who can be bothered to read this tiresome discussion, is that I think those who are on the mag collective (ie me) know more about this than someone who isn’t (ie you).

Charlie is one of the magazine editors but cannot make individual decisions relating to the magazine.

Charlie also edits an internal bulletin of the group. For that he has editorial responsibility to publish/not publish. That’s what this matter was about. it got heated and was then resolved.
Steve continued to be a member of the JSG and to submit other stuff for JS that has been published, for example a piece on white slavery around the turn of the 20th century in Issue 53, Spring 2007 - well after the incident Bennett is still obsessed with.

Going a bit further back to the early 1980s, yes the JSG decided after a long drawn out debate, not to publish Steve’s book as an official JSG publication, representing the JSG’s analysis of left wing antisemitism (see comment 27). I was initially more favourable to publishing it, but was eventually convinced to support the majority concensus of the committee against publication. Nobody left the committee because thy were in a minority. Possibly 2 or 3 members close to Steve in the wider group were disppointed and left.

Every year we have new membrs and some members who don’t rejoin. The only significant split the JSG had in its 34 year history occurred two or three years before that. It was over three issues - inner party democracy, attitudes to the Jewish establishment over how to campaign over antisemitism (some founding members had gone soft on the establishment’s cautious approach) and attitudes to the Israel/Palestine conflict and the PLO.

In that split Steve was on the same side as me, the same side as the overwhelming majority of the group. The members who split formed a group called Jewish Socialist Action which folded soon afterwards. I’ve got other bits of my life to get on with now, rather than continue the fight for a better past…

Comment by David Rosenberg — 30 August, 2008 @ 9:23 am
David , the reason i’ve brought it up is to show that inspite of the JSG’s claims to being intimidated by the Jewish establishment the JSG is hardly innocent itself.

Comment by Bennett — 30 August, 2008 @ 9:39 am
“I’ve got other bits of my life to get on with now, rather than continue the fight for a better past…”

Said The Bundist !

Comment by Bennett — 30 August, 2008 @ 9:42 am
joe90 (post # 7) accuses me of being an “psuedo-itellectual [sic] charlatan,” and of supporting “violently racists [sic] regimes.” Before joe90 criticises other for their views, he should learn both how to spell and the correct use of plurals in the English language. As joe 90 has not mastered the English language, he should certainly not Latin phrases that have become part of our language, something he did in post #13 where he wrote “ad hominum [sic].”

Far worse than this is joe90’s comments in post #14. The person under the name of “correction” in post #25 is accurate in his observations. By joe90 playing down the amount of innocent Jewish deaths in Hungary from approximately 500,000 to 200,000, he has acted as Holocaust minimiser.

joe90 has quoted the notoriously unreliable Tony Greenstein to imply that Rudolf Kasztner was a member of the Judenrat. This is clearly nonsense as not only was Kasztner not a member of the Judenrat, the majority of the Judenrat in Budapest was made up of those who were not Zionists. The quote from Greenstein also suggests that those on the train were all “prominent” Jews. This is simply not the case. Had either Greenstein or joe90 read, for example, Ladislaus Lob’s book Dealing With Satan: Rezso Kasztner’s Daring Rescue Mission, they would have seen an analysis of the passengers on the train and realised that by no means were all the passengers prominent. It never ceases to amaze me how Greenstein can distort so much about the Holocaust in such a short passage.

In this post, joe90 also accuse Zionist blogs of antisemitism. I should remind joe90 that it was Zionist bloggers who recently linked to the web site of a former Ku Klux Klan leader to make their point. (http://www.hurryupharry.org/2008/08/22/ucu-and-the-david-duke-fan/)

I think it is quite clear: joe90 should go back to school and pay a bit more attention in English and history lessons.

Comment by Mikey — 30 August, 2008 @ 10:57 am
Error.

The relevant sentence in my above post should of course read “I should remind joe90 that it was not Zionist bloggers who recently linked to the web site of a former Ku Klux Klan leader to make their point.”

Comment by Mikey — 30 August, 2008 @ 10:59 am
Can this be right?
On what issue can Tony Greenstein speak for PSC?
Although a member of PSC, he doesn’t speak for PSC - certainly in relation to dealing with anti-semitism.
As he has called PSC anti-semetic, how can it be consistent for him to speak for PSC?

Comment by Stuart G — 30 August, 2008 @ 11:55 am
Brilliant,
Mikey shoots himself in the foot as usual.
Criticing others with regards to trivia about spelling and grammer in comments and then commits the same crime himself - you couldn’t make it up.

Zionists are antisemites Mikey - why else would they go around accusing Judaism and Jewish people everywhere of crimes they have never committed and object to?
I’m talking about the racist crimes committed by the current Israeli regime?

Most Jewish people don’t live in Israel, don’t take part in its phoney racist elections and (if opinion polls are believed) don’t agree with the policies of the Israeli government. Yet this violent racist regime and its zionist supporters claim Israeli crimes are committed for the benefit of Judaism and Jewish people everywhere.

Indeed, crazed zionist lunatics go further and describe the zionist entity of Israel as ‘the Jewish state’.

Isn’t this what the old nazis used to do, for instance - accuse Jewish people, and Judaism, of crimes they didn’t commit and hold them all collectively responsible?

And thanks for the correction Mikey,
less than 2,000 zionists saved at the cost of a mere 500,000 innocent defenceless Jewish-Hungarians during WWII. Zionist crimes get worse.

Trouble with you Mikley is, you don’t know when to shut up. At least David t only pretends he’s thick and stupid, you actually are.

On what issue can Tony Greenstein speak for PSC?
- As far as I’m aware, TG doesn’t.
Palestinian solidarity doesn’t necessarily refer to the organisation of the PSM.
It’s just a shorthand generic way of describing the multi-various manifestations of people and organisations devoted to peace and justice for everyone in former Mandate Palestine, but especially for Palestinians.

Palestinians happen to be the priority because they are the victims of a violently racist regime at the moment, as well as crazed racist bogs such as ‘Harry Place’.

Comment by joe90 — 30 August, 2008 @ 6:09 pm
Comment 10 -
Jerusalem Quartet will perform to full house in Edinburgh
http://www.hurryupharry.org/2008/08/28/jerusalem-quartet-will-perform-to-full-house-in-edinburgh/

Here’s the latest from the Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign.
Please notice the beer-keller bully-boy tactics inside the hall -

1. Five arrested at Scottish protest of visit by Israeli military musicians,
the Jerusalem Quartet to Edinburgh International Festival:

Five protestors were arrested at Edinburgh’s Queen’s Hall today and charged with disrupting the performance of the Israeli Jerusalem Quartet, musicians, who enjoy a double status as ‘Cultural Ambassadors of Israel’ as well as ‘Distinguished IDF Musicians’.

While the siege of Gaza continues, Israel should not be allowed to conduct ‘business as normal’ and musicians associated with the murderous Israeli Army, its state, or its illegal occupation should be denied any platform.

About a dozen music-lovers returned their tickets at the gates after realizing the concert was a means for Israel to legitimise its ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. Gratifyingly, a further small but significant number of the audience left and expressed their support, one couple thanking the demonstrators inside and out ‘for awakening our consciences’. One music-lover who had complained about the harsh ejection of a demonstrator from the hall was told to leave as well!

Earlier this week, local Jewish writer and journalist, Marion Woolfson had written to festival organisers asking that they rescind their invitation to “the representatives of a country that practices ethnic cleansing and a form of apartheid which even those who have lived in South Africa have said is worse than anything thought up by the former rulers of their country.”

Police prevented protesters outside the venue from setting up a simulated checkpoint. Graham McVitie, spokesman for the Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign that organised the protest said that the checkpoint was designed to mimic one of around 600 Israeli controls scattered throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territories: “These checkpoints are designed to restrict movement within Palestine and strangle its economy.”

Mick Napier, Chair of the Scottish PSC, said: ‘Everyone loves music, but Israel’s mountain of crimes against the Palestinians weighs more in the scales than some Scots enjoying a piece of music, or a cricket game, or a film, indifferent to the crimes their government supports. People stopped games by the old South Africa’s apartheid sports teams; we can do no less with the cultural ambassadors of Israel’s apartheid and ethnic cleansing.’

Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign

The ethnic cleansing of zionists continues!

all the best!

Comment by joe90 — 30 August, 2008 @ 7:03 pm
My apologies for repition,
but here is the relevent SPSC webpage regarding ethic cleansers trying to infect the world’s biggest arts festival with their racist plague bacilli -
What they say: ‘A rifle in one hand and a violin in the other is the ultimate Zionist statement.’
SPSC
last update 29 Aug 2008

The ethnic cleansing of zionists continues!

all the best!

Comment by joe90 — 30 August, 2008 @ 7:40 pm
Joe 90 writes:

“less than 2,000 zionists saved at the cost of a mere 500,000 innocent defenceless Jewish-Hungarians during WWII. Zionist crimes get worse.”

Joe90 lowered the Holocaust in Hungary from 500,000 to 200,000.

That’s no different from lowering the Holocaust in Europe from 6 million to 2.4 million.

First joe90 plays down the Holocaust. When that doesn’t work he calls it a Zionist crime.

I’m sure the Jewish community is really grateful to joe90 for playing down the Holocaust and blaming Zionists for it.

Thank goodness joe90 is here to fight vicious racists who deny the Holocaust and use “Zionists” as a code word for Jews.

Comment by Correction — 31 August, 2008 @ 1:51 am
I’ve only just come across this now, though for reasons I won’t explain it’s a good job I did.

As a matter of fact about 450,000 Jews were exterminated in Hungary. Those who survived, about 200,000, were those in Budapest or the labour brigades. But yes there’s no doubt that Rudolph Kaztner, the leader of Hungarian Zionism was a collaborator of the worst sort and it is no surprise that Mikey, who imitates him in his own way with his friendship with Gilad Atzmon, should defend Kasztner.

Kasztner was given the Auschwitz Protocols, exposing Auschwitz and all its works on April 29th by the Hungarian Judenrat or Judenverrat. He kept it quiet. Fortunately it was given to many others including the Vatican and Auschwitz and the deportation programme, no thanks to the Zionist movement, was soon exposed and on July 8th Horthy the Hungarian Regent, stopped the deportations. The Auschwitz Protocls had been drawn up from the testimony of 2 Jewish escapees, Rudolph Vrba and Alfred Wexler, who had had an almost miraculous escape from that hell hole.

What did Kasztner do? According to Vrba in the Observer on 22.9.63., replying to an attack on Hanna Arendt by Zionist academic, Jacob Talmon, he described how:
‘In April 1944 we handed to a high representrative of the Zionist movement, Dr Oskar Neumann, a 60 page detailed report on the fact that extermination of 1,760,000 Jews had taken place in Auschwitz…. Did the Judenrat (or the Judenverrat) in Hungary tell their Jews what was awaiting them? No, they remained silent and for this silence some of their leaders – for example Dr. R. Kasztner – bartered their own lives and the lives of 1684 other ‘prominent’ Jews directly from Eichmann…’.

The facts are clear, but Mikey, as a pale imitator of a collaborator (see http://azvsas.blogspot.com/2008/06/zionist-collaboration-in-hungary-mike.html) fails to see it. The fact is that the whole train of Prominents was described as exactly that by Kasztner himself, in a 300+ page report to the Jewish Agency that I’ve read. AND NOT ONCE IN THE REPORT DOES HE MENTION THE AUSCHWITZ PROTOCOLS. Zionist historian, Randolph Braham in the Politics of Genocide - The Holocaust in Hungary, describes this as ’self-serving’. Of course Prof. Loeb excuses Kasztner -he was on the train!

And the same Kasztner gave evidence in SUPPORT of at least 4 Nazi war criminals at Nuremburg - Lt. Col Becher, Kurt Wisliceny, responsible for the deportation of Slovakian Jewry who was hanged in Czechoslovakia after the war, Krumey, Eichmann’s henchman and SS Lt. General Hans Juttner. The fact that Mikey even tries to excuse this demonstrates just who is the anti-Semite. The fact that Kasztner was a member of the Zionist Rescue & Relief Committee rather than the Judenrat, which barely functioned till the Nazi’s refounded it, is neither here nor there. They both came from the same political well, except that the Judenrat were the elite of Hungarian Jewry (not anti-Zionist) whereas the Zionists were more petit-bourgeois!

As I’m not a member of the JSG I don’t wish to comment on things that I know little about. I have had many disagreements with them but I also have great respect for them and their record. Steve Cohen’s book ‘That’s Funny You Don’t Look anti-Semitic’ is one I profoundly disagree with, not least its criticism of me! I suspect Steve might have written things differently if he had written it a decade or so later. But I have a great respect for Steve because he is a genuine and dedicated anti-racist who I only met about 5 years ago in Oxford at a Barbed Wire Europe conference. I consider him a comrade and a friend and those who would use his writings to attack the JSG are despicable.

The fact is that until the Nazi holocaust, anti-Zionism was the majority political strand amongst European Jews gaining 17 of the 20 Jewish Council seats in Poland in 1938. As Isaac Deutscher noted, the anti-Semites shouted ‘jews go to Palestine’ and the Zionists agreed. Hitler wiped out the reserves of anti-Zionist Jewry in Poland and the Ukraine. The Zionists were more concerned about statehood than saving the remnant. All that is well documented.

Yes it is true that anti-Zionism is a minority now among Jews. But so what? The greatest Jews - Marx, Spinoza, Heine, Arendt etc. were pilloried in their time and still are by the middle class no marks such as Mikey. Those advocating resistance in the Jewish ghettoes were a minority, but they were still right!

It is no surprise that Mikey seeks to compare Simon Lynn and myself with Nick Griffin and David Irving. This is always the way with Zionist propagandists who are unable to address the argument and instead resort to libellous and defamatory attacks which have no basis in fact. However as Mikey is also aware, there is no more dedicated Zionist than Nick Griffin!!

As Ruth Smeed of the Board of Deputies expalained in the Guardian of April 10th 2008, ‘The BNP website is now one of the most Zionist on the web - it goes further than any of the mainstream parties in its support of Israel’.

Brilliant analogy Mikey. Any others?

Tony Greenstein

Comment by Tony Greenstein — 1 September, 2008 @ 1:24 am
It becomes tiresome correcting Greenstein’s errors that he regularly makes on numerous matters concerning Zionism and especially about the Holocaust. It is quite clear that he is trying to make a political point and by doing so has no objecting to distorting the truth in a heinous way.

1. Joe90 initially claimed that 200,000 Hungarian Jews were killed in WWII. The person aptly named as “Correction” corrects this outrageous statement to a figure of 500,000. Now Greenstein lies and tells us “As a matter of fact about 450,000 Jews were exterminated in Hungary.” He should have listened to “Correction” who was basically accurate. In fact, as the Holocaust Encyclopedia tells us, “Under German occupation, just over 500,000 [Hungarian Jews] died from maltreatment or were murdered.” http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?lang=en&ModuleId=10005458

2. Tony Greenstein claims that “about 200,000” Hungarian Jews survived the Holocaust. The actual figure was closer to 255,000. http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?lang=en&ModuleId=10005458

3. Tony Greenstein claims that “there’s no doubt” that Kasztner was “a collaborator of the worst sort.” This is a deliberate lie. Greenstein is well aware that the accusation that Kasztner was a collaborator reached the Supreme Court in Israel who ruled, “one cannot find moral defects in [Kastzner’s] behaviour, one cannot find any causation between it and the expediting of the deportation and the extermination and one cannot see it amounting to the degree of collaboration with the Nazis.” (Ben Hecht, Perfidy Jerusalem: Milah press, 1999 p. 275)

4. Tony Greenstein claims that I imitate Kasztner in my own way. This is nonsense, he has simply made it up.

5. Tony Greenstein claims that I am a friend of Gilad Atzmon. This is again a pathetic lie. Far from being a friend, I have attacked and ridiculed Atzmon on numerous occasions on the internet and it is there for anyone to verify. http://www.hurryupharry.org/2008/05/08/jews-and-jew-haters-ii-from-cranks-to-clowns/

6. Tony Greenstein claims that Kastzner was given the Auschwitz Protocols on April 29. This is not known for certain. For more information of the uncertainties surrounding this, see Yehuda Bauer, “The ‘Protocol of Auschwitz,’” Yalkut Moroshet, No. 3, Winter 2005.

7. To suggest what Kastzner did with the Auschwitz Protocols, Greenstein relies upon Vrba, but Vrba was not in Hungary and as such would not have known. In any event, Vrba is notoriously unreliable. For example, even in the very short passage by Vrba that Greenstein quotes, Vrba makes a big error by suggesting that Kasztner was a member of the Hungarian Judenrat. Not only is this wrong, Greenstein knows it is wrong as he admits that Kasztner was not on the Judenrat later in his own post! One may well wonder why Greenstein relies upon the work of someone he knows to be unreliable?

8. Vrba also makes the error that Greenstein repeats that the train full of Jews that Kasztner managed to save from the Nazis were all “prominent.” This is nonsense, as an analysis of the passengers shows. An analysis of the occupations of passengers carried out Ann Pasternak Slater from the passenger list shows for example there to have been 40 workmen or labourers, 27 teachers, 25 tailors, 18 nurses, 12 gardeners, 3 shoe makers, 2 bakers, 2 cooks and the list goes on with 10 secretaries, 7 locksmiths, 7 mechanics, 7 hairdressers etc etc. (Ann Pasternak Slater, “Kasztner’s Ark” Areté 15 Autumn 2004, pp. 5-40

9. Greenstein claims that he has read kastzner’s report and goes on to say using capitals for greater emphasis: “NOT ONCE IN THE REPORT DOES HE [Kastzner] MENTION THE AUSCHWITZ PROTOCOLS.” This is a blatant lie. I direct Greenstein to section II:18 of the report where Kasztner clearly states:

“According to these reports, the SS was ready to repair and renovate the gas chambers and crematoria of Auschwitz… one of the guards was overheard saying, ‘Soon we’ll eat good Hungarian salami,’ referring to the provisions the Jews took with them..”

10. Whilst it is true that Kasztner gave testimonies or evidence in support of certain Nazi criminals, he also gave evidence against others. Kasztner made other statements leading to the conviction of other Nazi War Criminals. For example Kasztner stated in his report that Eichmann was determined that not a single Jew should survive. For more information on these testimonies see Shoshana Barri (Ishoni), “The Question of Kasztner’s Testimonies on behalf of Nazi War Criminals,” The Journal of Israeli History, Vol 18, nos. 2 and 3 1997 pp. 139-165.

11. Greenstein makes the following disgusting statement: “Hitler wiped out the reserves of anti-Zionist Jewry in Poland and the Ukraine.” What Greenstein does not mention is that Hitler also wiped out Zionist Jews in Poland and Ukraine. It was not as if they got to the gates of Auschwitz and the Nazis said All Zionists to the left for safety and all anti-Zionists to the right for gas chambers. Maybe Greenstein simply does not care that Hitler killed Zionist Jews, after all Greenstein has admitted elsewhere he would not lose any sleep if thousands of Jews who work for AIPAC were vaporised.

12. Greenstein says that it is “well documented” that “Zionists were more concerned about statehood than saving the remnant.” The official view of the Zionist Jewish Agency in so far as Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany was defined the following month, in the January 19, 1939 edition of London’s Zionist Review, “Zionists are anxious to find any place under the sun which will afford Jewish refugees the prospect of escape.” (Quoted by S. Levenberg, Guardian “Letters,” January 29, 1987) To complete refute Greenstein’s argument, This is what Ben-Gurion stated very clearly in September 1943:

“We must do whatever is humanly possible, whatever a human being of flesh and blood is capable of doing, in order to render material assistance to those on the forefront of rescue, in order to save those who can still be saved, to delay the disaster to the extent that it can be delayed. We must do it now, to the best of our will and ability.” ( quoted by Tuvia Frieling, “Ben-Gurion and the Holocaust of European Jewry 1939-1945: A Stereotype Reexamined,” Yad Vashem Studies XVIII 1987 pp. 199-232)

13. I have no idea if Greenstein thinks that I, or the Zionists in the Holocaust were against advocating resistance in the ghettos. Unlike Greenstein, I remember the activities of Mordecai Anielewicz, an activist within the Zionist youth movement, Hashomer Hatzair and other Zionist youth including those active within the socialist Zionist Dror and religious Zionist Akiva youth movements who were part of the ZOB (Jewish Fighting Organisation) in the Warsaw Ghetto. Given Greenstein has admitted elsewhere that he used to be a member of Bnei Akiva (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JustPeaceUK/message/12510) he should know this.

14. The use of the David Irving and Nick Griffin analogy was to show that that they do not represent mainstream British Jews. In a similar way Greenstein does not represent mainstream Jewish views. The views he holds would be agreed with by a tiny tiny minority of Jews in the country. The talk at SOAS is billed as, “Anti-Zionism. A Jewish Perspective.” Not a single spokesperson from mainstream Jewish body is billed. I am in favour of freedom of speech and I am not against Greenstein exercising his right to it. The title of the talk is misleading. Tony Greenstein is a self declared Marxist and I am sure readers of this blog do not need me to remind them that Marx viewed religion to be an opiate of the masses. Marxists reject religion. The title of the speech might be better as “Anti-Zionism: An anti-Zionist perspective.” I can make a further observation and that is that this speech by Greenstein is being held on a Friday night and as such, no religious Jew would be able to attend. Does it show even the slightest sensitivity the concerns of the Jewish community in Britain when a talk is held offering a Jewish perspective on a Friday night by someone who has rejected the religion he claims to speaking from the perspective of! It is a farrago of nonsense.

Finally, on this point, given Greenstein makes so many errors about Zionism and Jewish history as can be seen in this response to his nonsense, if anyone takes him seriously and considers him some form of authority, they are seriously deluded.

15. Far from the BNP being Zionist as Greenstein alleges, as the Jewish Chronicle reported a few months ago, a senior BNP spokesman said that paper was the mouthpiece of a “clique of Zionist parasites and crooks.” http://www.thejc.com/home.aspx?ParentId=m11&SecId=11&AId=59132&ATypeId=1 In fact, the view of the organised Jewish community was elaborated by Mark Gardner of the Community Security Trust in a letter to the Guardian on April 14, 2008 where he said that the message from the Jewish community was “whoever you vote for, use your vote to stop the BNP.”

Comment by Mikey — 1 September, 2008 @ 1:49 pm
joe90

I see you refer to Zionists as a “plague bacilli” and argue that they are “trying to infect the world.”

The language of Nazi propagandists is not lost on you either.

Comment by Mikey — 1 September, 2008 @ 5:07 pm
I see you refer to Zionists as a “plague bacilli” and argue that they are “trying to infect the world.”

The language of Nazi propagandists is not lost on you either.
- Says Mikey,
Especialy when its found such a welcoming warm home amongst you zionists who continue to spread lies about Jewish People and Judaism claiming they are responsible for decades of Israeli racist crimes.

Murkey in comment 32 -
- claims my figure of 200,000 Jewish-Hungary deaths is minimising the Holocaust -
Mikey in comment 40 -
- now admits my figure was actually was quite close to the mark of 255,000.

Comment by joe90 — 1 September, 2008 @ 10:44 pm
joe90 you are simply an idiot. You clearly do not understand the difference between the amount of Jews killed and the amount of Jews who survived. Learn how to read you complete fool.

Comment by Mikey — 1 September, 2008 @ 11:25 pm
Sorry I’m getting confused here,
How many Hungarian Jews did you zionists forget to tell what was about to happen to them at the hands of the Nazis, Murkey?

atzmon is never done attacking you zionists but that doesn’t stop zionists, like you, and antisemites, like him, collaborating -
- after all, it didn’t stop zionist collaboration with the their antisemite nazi pals.

I love your Point 3 - where you quote an Israeli court, of all institutions, of exonorating a fellow zionist of collaboration with the Nazis, and of also giving the collaborator Kastner a sparkling character reference as well!

Brilliant hasbara scholarship!

Comment by joe90 — 2 September, 2008 @ 12:00 am
If I knew that it would be possible to save all the children in Germany by bringing them over to England, and only half of them to Eretz Yisrael [“Israel”], then I would opt for the second alternative. For we must weigh not only the life of these children but also the history of the people of Israel.
- David Ben Gurion,
Quoted in Lenni Brenner Zionism in the Age of the Dictators (Beckenham, Kent, 1983) p.149.

Try chapter 25 -
25. Hungary, the Crime within a Crime

…the view of the organised Jewish community was elaborated by Mark Gardner of the Community Security Trust in a letter..
- Who voted these well known racist fear-mongers spokepersons for the ‘organised Jewish community’ Mikey?

Don’t tell me ‘Harry’s Place’ bog is representative of British Jewish opinion - that would be sad indeed.

Comment by joe90 — 2 September, 2008 @ 2:48 am
Regarding the BNP and zionism / Anti Semitism, one thing that is certain is that there will be plenty of real anti-semites in the Party, but with the focus of the Griffin leadership being Anti-Muslim, there has recently been a more pro Israel line from the leadership of the BNP at least.
There is a BNP Councillor, Patricia Richardson (nee Feldman) who is Jewish in Epping Forest.
Perhaps if people wish to attack other jewish people for their political opinions then she might be a more appropriate target than the Jewish Socialist Group or other Anti Zionist Jews.
Having said that we are getting the same arguments again and again from the same people and as usual it is becoming rather heated, insulting and unconstructive, nobody is changing their opinions just ranting and raving at each other.

Comment by Green Socialist — 2 September, 2008 @ 9:22 am
Well it was an excellent meeting tonight at SOAS. And Mikey and a couple of friends turned up, but although one of his friends had the courage to tackle me strangely Mikey was totally silent, fiddling with his mobile (or something anyway!). Although quite brave on the internet, Mikey is quite gutless at a public meeting clearly being afraid to tackle his opponents. He did the same at a Lenni Brenner meeting 18 months ago and when he tried to speak to Lenni afterwards was told to get lost because he’d badmouthed Lenni for not having gone to a university!! Elitism doesn’t die it just takes on the jaded colours of ‘left’ Zionism.

Apparently I disort the truth, so much so that it makes Mikey tired!

>>It becomes tiresome correcting Greenstein’s errors that he regularly makes on numerous matters concerning Zionism and especially about the Holocaust. It is quite clear that he is trying to make a political point and by doing so has no objecting to distorting the truth in a heinous way.

1. Mikey accuses me of ‘lying’ i.e. deliberately telling an untruth, because .5 million rather than .45 million Hungarian Jews died. But there are all sorts of people, Hilberg, Browning etc. who differ on figures because the truth is noone can know exactly how many died. But if Mikey wants to say that the Zionists betrayed 1/2 million rather than 450,000 I’m inclined to accept his word.

2. Yes I claimed that about 200,000 Hungarian Jews survived. Some 50,000 from the Labour Brigades and also those who fled, despite Zionist advice, over the Romanian border and about 150,000 in Budapest itself (where the Nyilas fascists killed about 50,000). Mikey being his usual dishonest, i.e. lying self, gives us a link to http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?lang=en&ModuleId=10005458 to ‘prove’ that 255,000 survived. Well again this is, and has to be a matter of conjecture. But I went to the link. And guess what? Mad Mikey Ezra has lied again. Sure it mentions that 255,000 survived but the article also says that ‘About 190,000 of these were residents of Hungary in its 1920 borders.’ But maybe Mikey isn’t lying. Maybe it’s just ignorance. In fact the article says that 10,000 less Hungarian Jews than I estimated survived. The difference? Until 1944 Hungary had been a sanctuary for Jews who managed to escape from all over Europe - Austria and Slovakia in particular. It is widely accepted that the pre-war population of Hungary was about 700,000 so if .5 million died then 200,000 survived.

Of course this is all irrelevant because what matters is the fact that anyone was annihilated in the gas chambers. But when your whole political project depends on exploiting the holocaust to provide you with reparations, which you then deny to the intended recipients - the Jews who survived the Holocaust - then numbers are important. See http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/999787.html ‘Just 10 of 66,000 Holocaust survivors’ heirs get assets back’ relating to the assets of holocaust victims held in Israel. Or try http://web.israelinsider.com/views/11331.htm or how about Yediot Aharanot on-line, http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3488389,00.html entitled ‘Struggling Survivors - Holocaust survivors accuse State of stealing their welfare funds’. This is the real scandal that sycophants like Mikey try to defend.

3. Yes the trial of Kasztner reached the Israeli Supreme Court and 2 of the 5 judges found the arguments of Kasztner’s opponents quite persuasive, but the other 3 Judges found for the State. The arguments of Kastner’s lawyer, Attorney General Chaim Cohen were quite persuasive - ‘if you find Kastner guilty of collaboration then you find the founders of the State likewise guilty’ sums up the argumentation. In fact on one charge the Supreme Court did find the accusation of collaboration proved - Kastner had gone to the Nuremburg trial to exonerate his old friend, Waffen SS Col. Becher, which he did. In fact it later turned out that not only had he given testimony in favour of Becher, but he had also given testimony in favour of his Dieter Wisliceny, the butcher of Slovalian Jewry, who was hanged in Bratislava after the war and his deputy Krumey - another SS henchmen and Waffen SS General Hans Juttner. If Mikey doesn’t think this is collaboration, regardless of what the paid stooges of the Israeli Supreme Court say, then it just goes to show his mettle.

In fact we all, i.e. all socialists, know that courts are not neutral and in times danger to the state will act accordingly. But nonetheless the Israeli Supreme Court upheld all the findings of the Jeruslame District Court, which under Judge Benjamin Halevi had upheld all but one of the accusations of collaboration against Kastner. As Judge Goiten of the minority stated:
‘It is enough that he (Kastner’s accuser - Greenwald) has managed to convince the lower court, who fulfilled the task of jury and judge alike… However the facts which were revealed substantiate the findings of the lower court and prevent us as a court of appeal from interveneing. I should add also that the evidence that was brought and which is not argued against by anybody on the Kastner-Becher relations after the war and the collboration of kastner by rescuing Becher from the gallows do not coincide with viewing Kastner as a National Jewish Zionist personality; and conincide with the findings of the lower court - that the acts committed during the war were acts of collaboration with the Nazis.’ Judge Moshe Silberg was even more forthright:

‘We can sum up with these 3 facts:
A. That the Nazis didn’t want to have a great revolt - ‘Second Warsaw’…. [which Eichmann later confirmed in an interview]

B. That the most efficient means to paralyze the resistance wheel or the escape of a victim is to conceal from him the plot of the coming murder….
C. That he, Mastner, in order to carry out the rescue plan for the few prominents, fulfilled knowingly and without good faith the said desire of the Nazis, thus expediting the work of exterminating the masses.’

In fact Judge Goiten, although he believe and stated that Kastner was a collaborator, nonetheless voted for his acquittal on technical grounds essentially that since the Defendant, Malchiel Greenwald had not proved the truth of all his allegations, that Kastner had dressed up in SS uniform to visit Auschwitz and had personally benefitted from his collaboration, it would be artificial to split up the charges of libel. This was also the opoinion of Justice Olshan, President of the Court.

More importantly than Israeli judges, who have distinguished themselves by their support for the actions of the Israeli military in the occupation of the last 40 years or who endorsed the position of their fellow Judge Landau in accepting the use of ‘moderate physical’ pressure, i.e. torture by the Israeli military, was the fact that numerous witnesses who testified in the trial were themselves Hungarian holocaust survivors. They had no doubt about Kastner’s guilt. People like Levi Blum, from Kastner’s own birthplace of Cluj (Kolosvar).

4&5. Mikey denies he is good friends with Gilad Atzmon and a minor collaborator, thus his defence of Kastner. But he is caught on his own petard, to wit, when asked to dig up information on a fellow anti-Zionist comrade, Roland Rance, what does Mikey say to Atzmon? Piss off? Get lost? Do your own dirty work? This is what he actually wrote:

‘I have been very busy digging up stuff on Tony Greenstein - Roland Rance will have to wait for another day.
Mikey | 03.12.07 - 8:53 pm | #
‘Mikey, I hope you do not mind me saying that, but your contribution for the pls solidarity movement is priceless. It is crucial that we all know about the racist record of this Greenpiss, a man who was banned time after time for being a racist and an anti Semite!…
However, Good luck with Greenie and thanks for all the info you gave us about this low being.’
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/thecutter/117192641046077827/

However much Mikey wriggles he’s caught on the hook of his own words.

And we learn from David Taube that ‘Last week, Mikey invited me for a drink with Gilad Atzmon. Mikey’s thoughts on Gilad and his worldview follow, below….’ http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/archives/2007/03/19/gilad_atzmon_and_jewishness.php

I’ll spare people the gory details.

6. Yehuda Bauer is not reliable on when the Auschwitz Protocols, definitively revealing the existence of Auschwitz, were handed to Kastner, representative of the Zionists and the Jewish Agency in Hungary. According to Zionist and Yad Vashem historian, Yisrael Guttman, ‘Kasztner was given a copy of the report on 29 April 1944… but at that time he had already made a decision, together with other Jewish leaders, choosing not to disseminate the report in order not to harm the negotiations with the Nazis.’ Shoah Vezikaron, cited in Ruth Linn’s ‘Escaping Auschwitz – A Culture of Forgetting’ p.72. Incidentally even Bauer, dedicated Zionist historian though he is, makes the same estimation in his ‘Jews for Sale?’ pp. 156-7.

The reality is that, as even Guttman acknowledges, news of Auschwitz was suppressed in order that the Zionist and Jewish elite could escape whilst half a million were burnt and gassed. And Mikey considers this is not collaboration?

7. Rudolph Vrba, a member of the Auschwitz Underground, the 2nd/3rd Jewish escapees from Auschwitz, someone who received the highest medal for bravery when fighting in the Slovakian Uprising is unreliable. That is why all mention of Vrba was suppressed in Israel, why the Hungarian translation of the Protocols was hidden away at Yad Vashem and not catalogued separately, why Vrba was deliberately not invited (along with the last surviving commander of the Warsaw Ghetto Resistance, Marek Edelman). And why? Because these Jewish heroes were not Zionists, were not collaborators, unlike Kasztner and in his own, trivial way, Mikey.

The Hungarian Zionist Rescue & Relief Committee worked hand in hand with the Nazi appointed Judenrat. To most Hungarians it would have been indistinguishable. The Judenrat helped with the round up of Jews to the concentration areas, brickyards mainly, prior to deportation. The Rescue & Relief Committee likewise worked together, keeping the Jews in ignorance of their fate and thus ensuring they did not escape. It is a technical ‘mistake’ of no consequence. Vrba’s Report is credited with the saving of 200,000 Jews. Kasztner ‘saved’ 1,684 at the expense of half a million, yet Mikey considers his collaborator hero ‘reliable’.

8. The term ‘Prominents’ to describe the passengers of the Zionist train out of Hungary is that of Kasztner himself in his Report to his employers, the Jewish Agency. Some of the Zionists, being a petit-bourgeois movement were undoubtedly cooks, bakers and candlestick makers. That didn’t debar them from leadership since the big capitalists like the Manfred Weisses negotiated their own rescue via the aforesaid Kurt Becher.
http://azvsas.blogspot.com/2008/06/zionist-collaboration-in-hungary-mike.html

9. Mikey claims that it is a blatant lie that ‘Kastzner does not mention the auschwitz Protocols.” Yes he paraphrases from the Report, but doesn’t mention the Report itself, viz. in its references to ‘Hungarian salami’ which was or should have been in the Auschwitz Protocols but which the Slovakian Zionist leaders omitted.

But let us see what the acknowledged historian of the Hungarian holocaust, Randolph Braham in the Politics of Genocide has to say:

‘Shortly after liberation, Kasztner brought out a detailed though self-serving report on the wartime activities of the Budapest Rescue Committee. In it, he provides both direct and indirect evidence that he and his colleagues on the Committee were fully aware of the draconic measures that had been adopted against the Jews in Nazi-occupied Europe. He is basically silent about their failure to inform Hungarian Jewry.’ p. 706. And Braham, who is himself a critical Zionist, asks a little further on:
‘Why were the Protocols not forwarded to these leaders of the world soon after they were completed on April 26? Why were the Hungarian Jewish masses not alerted about their content? What would have been the consequence had they been alerted before the deportations?… It is safe to assume that Krasznyansky’s recollection about Kasztner’s visit to Bratislava late in April 1944 and about his receiving a copy of the original German text there is correct…. Given the evidence that at the time of the German occupation of Hungary both Kasztner and the official leaders of Hungarian Jewry were awre of the Nazis’ extermination program, how can one explain their silence?’ pp. 718-9.

And this, of course, not Mikey’s pathological nitpicking, is the real question. Why were the Zionist leaders in Hungary, representatives of the Jewish Agency, silent? What did they hope to gain? The answer is all too obvious.

10. Mikey tells us that ‘Whilst it is true that Kasztner gave testimonies or evidence in support of certain Nazi criminals, he also gave evidence against others.’ Well that makes it ok then!! He alleges that Kasztner made other statements leading to the conviction of other Nazi War Criminals. Not so. Mikey argues that ‘Kasztner stated in his report that Eichmann was determined that not a single Jew should survive.’ Yes but Eichmann was not on trial at Nuremburg so this was a safe statement to make!! There is incidentally evidence that more than the 4 war criminals above, murderers of hundreds of thousands of Jews, were given supportive testimony by Kasztner e.g. Kettlitz, the purchasing agent for Becher. As Dr Robert Kempner, an American prosecutor at Nuremburg explained vs Kasztner:
‘Yes, I invited Kastner from Tel-Aviv to Nuremburg as a witness for the prosecution. Immediately after his arrival I regretted this invitation. Apart from the fact that he turned out to be a very expensive witness… a curious situation developed. We were, after all, the authorities of the prosecution. I consider it my duty to state explicitly that Kastner roamed the Nazi prison camp for Nazi Officers searching for those he could help by testimony or intervention on their behalf. In the end we were very glad when he left Nurenberg.’ Hansi and Joel Brand, Satan and the Soul, Tel Aviv 1960 p.107. cited by Akiva Orr ‘The Kastner Case, Jerusalem 1955’ pp. 97-8, Perdition – A Play in 2 Acts by Jim Allen.

11. Mad Mikey infers that I distinguish between Zionist and anti-Zionist Jews who were exterminated. Nonsense of course, I merely point out that the Jews of Ukraine and Poland were in their overwhelming majority opponents of Zionism. That was certainly one reason why the Zionists leaders in the West felt little compunction in playing down, or on occasion denying that the Jews of Eastern Europe were being exterminated (see S Beit Zvi, Post Ugandan Zionist in the Crucible of the Holocaust). Mikey thinks there’s something wrong in saying I’d be happy if those who are responsibility for the murder organisation called the American Israel Public Affairs Committee were vaporised. Why? Their whole mission is supporting war crimes. I wouldn’t lose any sleep if the White House and its occupants were also wiped out or if the Christian Zionist movements were likewise obliterated. It has nothing to do with who is Jewish or non-Jewish. There is nothing morally wrong in wiping out organisations dedicated to murder – the only objection is that there will be other cretins to take their place.

12. Mikey quotes Zionist propagandist S. Levenberg to the effect that “Zionists are anxious to find any place under the sun which will afford Jewish refugees the prospect of escape.” Well of course they would say that! Mikey cites Ben Gurion’s public speech but his private letter as President to the Zionist Executive (17. 12. 38) makes their attitude to Jewish refugees quite explicit:
‘If the Jews are faced with a choice between the refugee problem and rescuing Jews from concentration camps on the one hand, and aid for the national museum on the other, the Jewish sense of pity will prevail…. We are risking Zionism’s very existence if we allow the refugee problem to be separated from the Palestine problem.’ Y Elam, ‘Introduction to Zionist History’ Tel Aviv 1972 ppl25/6 cited in Machover/Offenburg Khamsin 6 see also ‘Ot, organ of the Youth cadre of the Israeli Labour Party, no 2 Winter 1967.

There are too many other quotations and incidents I could cite but the fact is that Ben Gurion, made one or 2 speeches during the war about the Holocaust and that was it. All Zionist activity had one aim – statehood. All else was secondary.

13. Mikey wonders whether I think that Zionists in the Holocaust ‘were against advocating resistance in the ghettos.’ and cites Mordecai Anielewicz, of Hashomer Hatzair and commander of ZOB, the Warsaw Ghetto Fighting Organisation. Mikey misunderstands. Zionism is a political movement which opposed fighting anti-Semitism. In Warsaw some of the worst collaborators and Gestapo agents were Zionists such as the Abraham Gancawajch, also of Hashomer Hatzair. But it isn’t a question of individuals but of politics. Many Zionists did resist, not because they were Zionists but despite that fact. But there is no recorded example, for example in Reuben Ainsztein’s ‘Jewish Resistance in Nazi Occupied Eastern Europe’ of outside help from the Zionist movement, the best organised political current in world Jewry, to the ghetto resistance. And Anielwicz himself expressed his regret over the “wasted time” undergoing Zionist educational work. [Gutmann p.143 citing Yitzhak Zuckerman and Counci1 of Kibbutz Hi Meuhad 4/1945.] He went on to say that “had the fate of the Jews in 1942 lain in the hands only of the political parties (Zionist - TG), the revolt would never have taken place.” Y. Guttman, ‘The Jews of Warsaw - 1939-1943, Ghetto Underground Revolt’, Harvester Press, 1982 p. 441 fn. 23

14. Mikey complains that I spoke on a Jewish perspective on anti-Zionist on a Friday night! The tradition of Jewish socialism and Marxism was always to reject the babble and mysticism of the rabbis. However I note that the silent Mikey was not prevented from attending!

15. Mikey claims that ‘Far from the BNP being Zionist… a senior BNP spokesman said that paper was the mouthpiece of a “clique of Zionist parasites and crooks.” Err yes. That’s exactly my point. The BNP manage to combine both anti-Semitism and Zionism. But come to think of it, so does Mikey.

Tony Greenstein

Comment by Tony Greenstein — 6 September, 2008 @ 4:52 am
The above post without a few typos!
TG

Well it was an excellent meeting held by Green Left at SOAS on the subject ‘Jewish Perspectives on anti-Zionism’. A couple of Zionists, including one ‘Mad’ Mikey Ezra and a couple of friends turned up, but although one of his friends had the courage to tackle me strangely Mikey, was totally silent, fiddling with his mobile (or something anyway!).

Although quite brave on the internet, Mikey is quite a coward at public meetings clearly being afraid to be shown up. He did the same at a Lenni Brenner meeting 18 months ago and when he tried to speak to Lenni afterwards was told to get lost because he’d badmouthed Lenni for not having gone to a university (whilst at the same time asking for help!). Elitism doesn’t die it just takes on the jaded colours of ‘left’ Zionism. However Mikey is on the periphery of the ‘Trotskyist’ Zionist group, Alliance for Workers Liberty in Britain which probably says something about that group.

I am accused of distorting the truth, well I shall leave it to others to judge!

1. Mikey accuses me of ‘lying’ i.e. deliberately telling an untruth, because .5 million rather than .45 million Hungarian Jews died. But historians of the Holocaust cannot be exact because numbers were never recorded, either of those murdered or of those who escaped. Hilberg believes 5.1 millions died, the figure quoted as if it were sacred by the Zionists is 6 million. The truth is noone can know exactly how many died. Indeed Mikey gives a good demonstration of why this only plays into the hands of the Holocaust deniers who are quite able to notice the different totals given by different historians and then use those discrepancies to ‘prove’ how the Holocaust never happened, because they can’t even get the numbers of those murdered right. In fact it is a totally irrelevant point, what matters is that anyone died in the gas chambers or on the steppes of Russia. But if Mikey wants to say that the Zionists betrayed half a million rather than 450,000 I’m inclined to accept his word.

2. Yes I claimed that about 200,000 Hungarian Jews survived. Some 50,000 from the Labour Brigades and also those who fled, despite Zionist advice, over the Romanian border and about 150,000 in Budapest itself (where the Nyilas fascists killed about 50,000). Mikey being his usual dishonest self, gives us a link to http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?lang=en&ModuleId=10005458 to ‘prove’ that 255,000 survived. Well again this is, and has to be a matter of conjecture. But having gone to the link, guess what? Mikey Ezra has either lied again or can’t read or it’s a bit of both. Sure it mentions that 255,000 survived but the article also says that ‘About 190,000 of these were residents of Hungary in its 1920 borders.’ That is ten thousand less than I said survived of Hungary’s Jewish inhabitants! It would help if Mikey could read what he quotes! And the difference? Until 1944 Hungary had been a sanctuary for Jews who managed to escape from all over Europe – Austria, Bohemia and Moravia and Slovakia in particular. It is widely accepted that the pre-war Jewish population of Hungary was about 700,000 so if .5 million died then 200,000 survived.

Of course this is all irrelevant because what matters is the fact that anyone was annihilated in the gas chambers. But when your whole political project depends on exploiting the holocaust to provide you with reparations, which you then deny to the intended recipients - the Jews who survived the Holocaust - then numbers are important. See http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/999787.html ‘Just 10 of 66,000 Holocaust survivors’ heirs get assets back’ relating to the assets of holocaust victims held in Israel. Or try http://web.israelinsider.com/views/11331.htm or how about Yediot Aharanot on-line, http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3488389,00.html entitled ‘Struggling Survivors - Holocaust survivors accuse State of stealing their welfare funds’. This is the real scandal that sycophants like Mikey try to defend.

3. Yes the trial of Kasztner reached the Israeli Supreme Court and 2 of the 5 judges found the arguments of Kasztner’s opponents quite persuasive, but the other 3 Judges found for the State. The argument of Kastner’s lawyer, Attorney General Chaim Cohen was to the effect that ‘if you find Kastner guilty of collaboration then you find the founders of the State likewise guilty’. In fact on one charge the Supreme Court did find the accusation of collaboration proven - Kastner had gone to the Nuremburg trial to exonerate his old friend, Waffen SS Col. Becher, which he did. In fact it later turned out that not only had he given testimony in favour of Becher, but he had also given testimony in favour of his Dieter Wisliceny, the butcher of Slovakian Jewry, who was hanged in Bratislava after the war and his deputy Krumey - another SS henchmen and Waffen SS General Hans Juttner. If Mikey doesn’t think this is collaboration, regardless of what the placemen of the Israeli Supreme Court say, then it just goes to show that his loyalty to the institutions of the Zionist State are higher than his alleged concerns for the victims of the Holocaust.

In fact we all, i.e. all socialists, know that courts are not neutral and in times danger to the state will act accordingly. But nonetheless the Israeli Supreme Court upheld all the findings of the Jerusalem District Court, which in turn, under Judge Benjamin Halevi, had held that all but one of the accusations of collaboration against Kastner by Malchiel Greenwald were proved. As Judge Goiten stated:

‘It is enough that he (Kastner’s accuser - Greenwald) has managed to convince the lower court, who fulfilled the task of jury and judge alike… However the facts which were revealed substantiate the findings of the lower court and prevent us as a court of appeal from intervening. I should add also that the evidence that was brought and which is not argued against by anybody on the Kastner-Becher relations after the war and the collaboration of Kastner by rescuing Becher from the gallows do not coincide with viewing Kastner as a National Jewish Zionist personality; and coincide with the findings of the lower court - that the acts committed during the war were acts of collaboration with the Nazis.’

Judge Moshe Silberg was even more forthright:

‘We can sum up with these 3 facts:
A. That the Nazis didn’t want to have a great revolt - ‘Second Warsaw’…. [which Eichmann later confirmed in an interview]

B. That the most efficient means to paralyse the resistance wheel or the escape of a victim is to conceal from him the plot of the coming murder….
C. That he, Kastner, in order to carry out the rescue plan for the few prominents, fulfilled knowingly and without good faith the said desire of the Nazis, thus expediting the work of exterminating the masses.’

In fact Judge Goiten, although he believed and stated that Kastner was a collaborator, nonetheless voted for his acquittal on technical grounds essentially that since the Defendant, Malchiel Greenwald had not proved the truth of all his allegations, that Kastner had dressed up in SS uniform to visit Auschwitz and had financially benefited from his collaboration, it would be artificial to split up the charges of libel. This was also the opinion of Justice Olshan, President of the Court.

More importantly than Israeli judges, who have distinguished themselves by their support for the actions of the Israeli military in the occupation of the last 40 years or who endorsed the position of their fellow Judge Landau in accepting the use of ‘moderate physical’ pressure, i.e. torture by the Israeli military, who have accepted every human rights abuse against the Palestinians, systematic discrimination against Israeli Palestinians etc. was the fact that numerous witnesses who testified in the trial were themselves Hungarian holocaust survivors. They had no doubt about Kastner’s guilt. People like Levi Blum, from Kastner’s own birthplace of Cluj (Kolosvar). So when it comes to a choice between a collaborator and the Jewish survivors of the Hungarian holocaust Mikey chooses the former.

4&5. Mikey denies he is good friends with Gilad Atzmon and a minor collaborator. But he is caught on his own petard, to wit, when asked to dig up information on a fellow anti-Zionist comrade, Roland Rance, what does Mikey say to Atzmon? Piss off? Get lost? Do your own dirty work? This is what he actually wrote:

‘I have been very busy digging up stuff on Tony Greenstein - Roland Rance will have to wait for another day.
Mikey | 03.12.07 - 8:53 pm | #
‘Mikey, I hope you do not mind me saying that, but your contribution for the pls solidarity movement is priceless. It is crucial that we all know about the racist record of this Greenpiss, a man who was banned time after time for being a racist and an anti Semite!…
However, Good luck with Greenie and thanks for all the info you gave us about this low being.’
Gilad Atzmon | 03.04.07 - 10:46 am | #
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/thecutter/117192641046077827/

However much Mikey wriggles he’s caught on the hook of his own words.

And we learn from David Taube that ‘Last week, Mikey invited me for a drink with Gilad Atzmon. Mikey’s thoughts on Gilad and his worldview follow, below….’ http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/archives/2007/03/19/gilad_atzmon_and_jewishness.php

I’ll spare people the gory details.

6. Yehuda Bauer is not reliable on when the Auschwitz Protocols, definitively revealing the existence of Auschwitz, were handed to Kastner, representative of the Zionists and the Jewish Agency in Hungary. According to Zionist and Yad Vashem historian, Yisrael Guttman, ‘Kasztner was given a copy of the report on 29 April 1944… but at that time he had already made a decision, together with other Jewish leaders, choosing not to disseminate the report in order not to harm the negotiations with the Nazis.’ Shoah Vezikaron, cited in Ruth Linn’s ‘Escaping Auschwitz – A Culture of Forgetting’ p.72. Incidentally even Bauer, dedicated Zionist historian though he is, makes the same estimation in his ‘Jews for Sale?’ pp. 156-7.

The reality is that, as even Guttman acknowledges, news of Auschwitz was suppressed in order that the Zionist and Jewish elite could escape whilst half a million were burnt and gassed. And Mikey considers this is not collaboration? Perhaps he would enlighten us as to what he does consider collaboration?

7. Rudolph Vrba, a member of the Auschwitz Underground, who together with Alfred Wetzler, was the 2nd/3rd Jewish escapees from Auschwitz, someone who received the highest medal for bravery when fighting in the Slovakian Uprising against the Nazis, is apparently ‘unreliable’ – unlike Mikey. That is why all mention of Vrba was suppressed in Israel from high school holocaust texts, why Vrba and Wetzler were referred to as the 2 Jewish Slovak escapees rather than by name, why the Hungarian translation of the Protocols was hidden away at Yad Vashem and not catalogued separately, why Vrba was deliberately not invited (along with the last surviving commander of the Warsaw Ghetto Resistance, Marek Edelman) to testify at the Eichmann trial. And why? Because these Jewish heroes were not Zionists, were not collaborators, unlike Kasztner and in his own, trivial and pathetic way, Mikey.

The Hungarian Zionist Rescue & Relief Committee worked hand in hand with the Nazi appointed Judenrat. To most Hungarians it would have been indistinguishable. The Judenrat helped with the round up of Jews to the concentration areas, brickyards mainly, prior to deportation. The Rescue & Relief Committee likewise worked with them, ensuring that Jews were kept ignorant of their fate, and threatening the leaderships of those communities if they didn’t accept the central control of the Judenrat. It is a technical ‘mistake’ of no consequence. Vrba’s Report is credited with the saving of 200,000 Jews. Kasztner ‘saved’ 1,684 at the expense of half a million, yet Mikey considers his collaborator hero ‘reliable’.

8. The term ‘Prominents’ to describe the passengers of the Zionist train out of Hungary is that of Kasztner himself in his Report to his employers, the Jewish Agency. Some of the Zionists, being a petit-bourgeois movement were undoubtedly cooks, bakers, butchers and candlestick makers. We are talking about the political elite of Hungarian Jewry. That didn’t debar them from leadership since the big capitalists like the Manfred Weisses negotiated their own rescue via the aforesaid Kurt Becher.
http://azvsas.blogspot.com/2008/06/zionist-collaboration-in-hungary-mike.html

9. Mikey claims that it is a blatant lie that ‘Kasztner does not mention the Auschwitz Protocols.” Yes he paraphrases from the Report, but doesn’t mention the Report itself, viz. in its references to ‘Hungarian salami’ which was or should have been in the Auschwitz Protocols but which the Slovakian Zionist leaders omitted.

But let us see what the acknowledged historian of the Hungarian holocaust, Randolph Braham in the Politics of Genocide has to say:

‘Shortly after liberation, Kasztner brought out a detailed though self-serving report on the wartime activities of the Budapest Rescue Committee. In it, he provides both direct and indirect evidence that he and his colleagues on the Committee were fully aware of the draconic measures that had been adopted against the Jews in Nazi-occupied Europe. He is basically silent about their failure to inform Hungarian Jewry.’ (my emphasis) p. 706. And Braham, who is himself a critical Zionist, asks a little further on:

‘Why were the Protocols not forwarded to these leaders of the world soon after they were completed on April 26? Why were the Hungarian Jewish masses not alerted about their content? What would have been the consequence had they been alerted before the deportations?… It is safe to assume that Krasznyansky’s recollection about Kasztner’s visit to Bratislava late in April 1944 and about his receiving a copy of the original German text there is correct…. Given the evidence that at the time of the German occupation of Hungary both Kasztner and the official leaders of Hungarian Jewry were aware of the Nazis’ extermination program, how can one explain their silence?’ pp. 718-9.

And this, of course, not Mikey’s pathological nitpicking, is the real question. Why were the Zionist leaders in Hungary, representatives of the Jewish Agency, silent? What did they hope to gain? The answer is all too obvious.

And let us also be clear. Whilst Kasztner was the big shot, the representative of the Jewish Agency, the Palestinian wing of the World Zionist Organisation, there were dissident Zionists, Moshe Krausz and Joel Brand, who desperately wanted to save their fellow Jews. Not because they were Zionists, if anything despite it. The reality is that Raoul Wallenberg and the other diplomats, including the Papal Nuncio, saved far more than the Zionists and they didn’t in the process help the Nazis in the destruction process.

10. Mikey tells us that ‘Whilst it is true that Kasztner gave testimonies or evidence in support of certain Nazi criminals, he also gave evidence against others.’ Well that makes it ok then!! He alleges that Kasztner made other statements leading to the conviction of other Nazi War Criminals. Not so. Mikey argues that ‘Kasztner stated in his report that Eichmann was determined that not a single Jew should survive.’ And so? Eichmann was not on trial at Nuremburg so this was a safe statement to make!! In fact it is not true because Eichmann was quite happy to help Kasztner ‘save’ a few Jews at the expense of the thousands. Kasztner was able to travel around Hungary, didn’t have to wear a yellow star and ended up sojourning in Berlin in a hotel. There is incidentally evidence that more than the 4 war criminals above, murderers of hundreds of thousands of Jews, were given supportive testimony by Kasztner e.g. Kettlitz, the purchasing agent for Becher. As Dr Robert Kempner, an American prosecutor at Nuremburg explained vs Kasztner:
‘Yes, I invited Kastner from Tel-Aviv to Nuremburg as a witness for the prosecution. Immediately after his arrival I regretted this invitation. Apart from the fact that he turned out to be a very expensive witness… a curious situation developed. We were, after all, the authorities of the prosecution. I consider it my duty to state explicitly that Kastner roamed the Nazi prison camp for Nazi Officers searching for those he could help by testimony or intervention on their behalf. In the end we were very glad when he left Nurenberg.’ Hansi and Joel Brand, Satan and the Soul, Tel Aviv 1960 p.107. cited by Akiva Orr ‘The Kastner Case, Jerusalem 1955’ pp. 97-8, Perdition – A Play in 2 Acts by Jim Allen.

11. Mikey infers that I distinguish between Zionist and anti-Zionist Jews who were exterminated. Nonsense of course, I merely point out that the Jews of Ukraine and Poland were in their overwhelming majority opponents of Zionism. That was certainly one reason why the Zionists leaders in the West felt little compunction in playing down, or on occasion denying that the Jews of Eastern Europe were being exterminated (see S Beit Zvi, Post Ugandan Zionist in the Crucible of the Holocaust). Mikey thinks there’s something wrong in saying I’d be happy if those who are responsibility for the murder organisation called the American Israel Public Affairs Committee were vaporised. Why? Their whole mission is supporting, aiding and abetting war crimes. I wouldn’t lose any sleep if the White House and its occupants were also wiped out or if the Christian Zionist movements were likewise obliterated. It has nothing to do with who is Jewish or non-Jewish. You see Mikey, I’m not a racist. It isn’t only Jewish blood that is important. There is nothing morally wrong in wiping out organisations dedicated to murder – the only objection is that there will be other cretins to take their place.

12. Mikey quotes Zionist propagandist S. Levenberg to the effect that “Zionists are anxious to find any place under the sun which will afford Jewish refugees the prospect of escape.” Well of course they would say that! Mikey cites Ben Gurion’s public speech but such words are easy. But in his private letter, as President to the Zionist Executive, (17. 12. 38) he make his real attitude to Jewish refugees quite explicit:
‘If the Jews are faced with a choice between the refugee problem and rescuing Jews from concentration camps on the one hand, and aid for the national museum on the other, the Jewish sense of pity will prevail…. We are risking Zionism’s very existence if we allow the refugee problem to be separated from the Palestine problem.’ Y Elam, ‘Introduction to Zionist History’ Tel Aviv 1972 ppl25/6 cited in Machover/Offenburg Khamsin 6 see also ‘Ot, organ of the Youth cadre of the Israeli Labour Party, no 2 Winter 1967.

There are too many other quotations and incidents I could cite but the fact is that Ben Gurion, made one or 2 speeches during the war about the Holocaust and that was it. All Zionist activity had one aim – statehood. All else was secondary.

13. Mikey wonders whether I think that Zionists in the Holocaust ‘were against advocating resistance in the ghettos.’ and cites Mordechai Anielewicz, of Hashomer Hatzair and commander of ZOB, the Warsaw Ghetto Fighting Organisation. Mikey misunderstands. Zionism is a political movement which opposed fighting anti-Semitism. In Warsaw some of the worst collaborators and Gestapo agents were Zionists such as the Abraham Gancawajch, also of Hashomer Hatzair. But it isn’t a question of individuals but of politics. Many Zionists did resist, not because they were Zionists but despite that fact. But there is no recorded example, for example in Reuben Ainsztein’s ‘Jewish Resistance in Nazi Occupied Eastern Europe’ of outside help from the Zionist movement, the best organised political current in world Jewry, to the ghetto resistance. Anielewicz himself expressed his regret over the “wasted time” undergoing Zionist educational work. [Gutmann p.143] He went on to say that “had the fate of the Jews in 1942 lain in the hands only of the political parties (Zionist - TG), the revolt would never have taken place.” Y. Guttman, ‘The Jews of Warsaw - 1939-1943, Ghetto Underground Revolt’, Harvester Press, 1982 p. 441 fn. 23. Likewise Emanuel Ringleblum, the historian of the Warsaw Ghetto, wrote of Anielewicz of Hashomer, the commander of the JFO:
The Mordechai who had matured so rapidly and risen so quickly to the most responsible post as commander of the Fighters Organisation now greatly regretted that his fellows and he had wasted three war years on cultural and educational work. We had not understood that new side of Hitler that is emerging, Mordechai lamented. We should have trained the youth in the use of live and cold ammunition. We should have raised them in the spirit of revenge against the greatest enemy of the Jews, of all mankind, and of all times. [Emmanuel Ringelblum, Comrade Mordechai in Yuri Suhl (ed.), They Fought Back, p.102], cited in Lenni Brenner, Zionism in the Age of the Dictators, Ch. 21.

14. Mikey complains that I spoke on a Jewish perspective on anti-Zionist on a Friday night! The tradition of Jewish socialism and Marxism was always to reject the babble and mysticism of the rabbis. However I note that the silent Mikey was not prevented from attending!

15. Mikey claims that ‘Far from the BNP being Zionist… a senior BNP spokesman said that paper was the mouthpiece of a “clique of Zionist parasites and crooks.” Err yes. That’s exactly my point. The BNP manage to combine both anti-Semitism and Zionism. But come to think of it, so does Mikey.

Tony Greenstein
http://azvsas.blogspot.com/2008/09/kasztner-debating-with-zionist.html

Comment by Tony Greenstein — 6 September, 2008 @ 8:39 pm
Clueless Greenstein

I have said it before and I’ll say it again. Every time that Tony Greenstein decides to write something about Zionism or the Holocaust, he makes a mess of things. He really should not bother.

1. Greenstein shows that he does not know that the borders of Hungary changed as a result of the Treaty signed at Trianon Palace in Versailles in 1920. Otherwise he would not make his preposterous claim about the reasons for the differing population of Jews at the time. [1]

2. Greenstein states: “the pre-war Jewish population of Hungary was about 700,000.” Had he actually bothered to check, he would know that the last census in Hungary prior to the Holocaust showed 725,005 Jews. He would also be aware that a further 100,000 claimed to be Christian but were treated as Jews under the anti-Semitic laws passed after 1938. [2]

3. Greenstein links to an article that shows that Holocaust survivors have been slow to receive restitution funds. If he had read the article he would realise that the survivors are being championed by Members of the Israeli Knesset. [3]

4. Greenstein claims that Kasztner testified “in favour of Dieter Wisliceny.” This is a nonsense. Kasztner testified against Wisliceny in September 1945 and in July 1947 Kastzner appealed for Wisliceny to be transferred from Slovak to American custody for interrogation about Eichmann’s whereabouts. Greenstein also says that Kasztner testified in favour of Krumey. Had Greenstein bothered to read Kastzner’s 1946 report, he would know that Kastzner explained Krumey’s role in the destruction of Hungarian Jewry extensively. In December 1944 Kastzner could have stayed in Switzerland, but instead he risked his own life to travel back to the Reich. There were approximately 15,000 Jews in Vienna who had been sent from Hungary and Krumey was in charge of them. In the final months of the war Krumey did kill them but, according to Kastzner, acted “in a comparatively humane way” towards them. There is no question that Krumey was a war criminal but the 15,000 Hungarian Jews in the Strasshof labour camp were no doubt relieved not to be murdered. Juttner had intervened with Hitler to stop the death march. Kastzner’s testimony for Becher is well known. It is discussed in detail by Shoshana Barri. [4]

5. Greenstein states that in the Supreme Court verdict of the Kasztner trial. “2 of the 5 judges found the arguments of Kasztner’s opponents quite persuasive, but the other 3 Judges found for the State.” In fact, 4 out of the 5 judges voted to overturn the charge that Kastzner was a collaborator. I have told him this numerous times. Greenstein knows his information is incorrect from his own sources. Greenstein has mentioned Orr’s essay which states quite clearly that 4 of the 5 judges found that the charge of collaboration libellous. [5]

6. Greenstein suggests that I am a friend of Atzmon. Greenstein is well aware that I have attacked and ridiculed Atzmon and his Marxist supporters in the SWP. I attack all those I view as rabid anti-Zionists: Atzmon, Greenstein his fellow fanatics such as Rance. In my article on Harry’s Place, I attack and ridicule Atzmon, Greenstein and Rance. [6]

7. Greenstein, who has no academic position and has never published a scholarly article, has the chutzpah to attack Yehuda Bauer, Professor of Holocaust Studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and one of the world’s greatest living Holocaust historians. [7] Greenstein shows no evidence that he has read Professor Bauer’s essay in Yalkut Moroshet. I suggest he does so before commenting further.

8. Greenstein lies outright about pages 156-7 of Bauer’s book Jews for Sale? Bauer does not state there that Kastzner received the Auschwitz Protocols on April 29. All he says was that “according to one version” Kasztner received the document “in late April.” Moreover Bauer does not imply that the Auschwitz Protocols were not distributed. In fact Bauer states very clearly on those pages that six copies of the document were prepared and distributed to people including Horthy’s daughter-in-law, a Cardinal and two Bishops. Moreover, Bauer states explicitly on page 157: “They certainly did not keep the information to themselves.” [8] Greenstein can’t help telling lies - even when he knows that will be caught by anyone checking his source!

9. Greenstein complains that Vrba and Wetzler “were referred to as the 2 Jewish Slovak escapees rather than by name” in Israeli high school text books. But he does not criticise his anti-Zionist comrade Haim Bresheeth’s book Holocaust For Beginners, which also refers to them as “two Czech Jews.” [9]

10. The Hungarian Zionist Relief and Rescue Committee (Vaada) was very different from the Judenrat. The Vaada was created by Jews to rescue Jews. The Judenrat was created by Nazis to control Jews. The Vaada was Zionist. The Judenrat was run by anti-Zionists. Greenstein has no basis for saying that the Vaada threatened the leadership of Jewish communities. He simply made it up. [10]

11. Greenstein suggests that those on the train were “the political elite of Hungarian Jewry.” How then does Greenstein account for passengers such as Ladislaus Lob and his father who were neither wealthy, prominent nor Zionist? Greenstein refers to the train as a “Zionist train” but the passengers included non-Zionists and virulent anti-Zionists such as the Satmar rabbi, Joel Teitelbaum. [11]

12. Greenstein should learn not to use out-of-date editions of books. Had Greenstein used the latest and full edition of Randolph Braham’s Politics of Genocide rather than an out of date version he would know that Braham specifically states that Kasztner mentions the Protocols of Auschwitz in his report. [12]

13. Greenstein refers to Joel Brand and Moshe Krausz as “dissident Zionists.” He argues that they “desperately wanted to save their fellow Jews. Not because they were Zionists, if anything despite it.” Greenstein wants to separate their behaviour from Kasztner’s behaviour which he believes to be Zionist behaviour. But it is ludicrous. Brand was Kastzner’s partner on the Zionist Vaada. In fact, the blood for goods negotiations with the Nazis started as a result of a meeting between Eichmann and Brand. The discussions with Kasztner came later. [13]

Far from being a “dissident” Zionist, Krausz joined the Zionist Federation in Hungary in 1929; he became Secretary-General of the Palestine Office of the Jewish Agency in Budapest in 1932, ran it from 1937-1944 and was a delegate to the 22nd Zionist Congress in Switzerland in 1946, moved to Israel in 1948 and lived there until his death. [14]

14. I stated that “Kasztner made … statements leading to the conviction of other Nazi War Criminals.” Greenstein responds: “Not so.” Well it is very much so. Kasztner’s affidavit accused Veesenmayer of giving an ultimatum to the Hungarian government “demanding the deportation of the Budapest Jews.” Kasztner also accused Eichmann’s boss Kaltenbrunner of commissioning “the plan of the gas chambers.” [15] As a result, Veesenmayer received a 20-year prison sentence and Kaltenbrunner was executed.

15. Greenstein doesn’t understand what is wrong with the murder of thousands of Jewish and non-Jewish supporters of AIPAC. Greenstein says he would not care if they were “vaporised” and if the whole of the White House and its occupants were “wiped out” and thousands of pro-Israel Christians were “obliterated.” The logic of Greenstein’s position is genocide.

16. Greenstein shows his dishonesty in the use of ellipses in his quotation from Ben-Gurion. Greenstein quotes as follows:
“If the Jews are faced with a choice between the refugee problem and rescuing Jews from concentration camps on the one hand, and aid for the national museum on the other, the Jewish sense of pity will prevail…. We are risking Zionism’s very existence if we allow the refugee problem to be separated from the Palestine problem.”
The full quotation is as follows:

“if the Jews are faced with a choice between the refugee problem and rescuing Jews from concentration camps on the one hand and aid for the national museum in Palestine on the other, the Jewish sense of pity will prevail and our people’s entire strength will be directed at aid for the refugees in the various countries”

Interestingly, even Jim Allen’s play Perdition did twist that particular quotation. [16] Cesarani points out:

“Ben Gurion is saying that if the Jews have to choose between sending aid to the doomed ‘national museum’ that the British were administering and giving assistance to Jews seeking refuge in other countries, of course Palestine would lose out.” [17]

17. Greenstein claims: “Ben Gurion, made one or 2 speeches during the war about the Holocaust and that was it. All Zionist activity had one aim – statehood. All else was secondary.” This is complete rubbish. Ben Gurion made many speeches referring to the destruction of the Jews. Shabtai Teveth’s book, Ben-Gurion and the Holocaust has numerous quotations. As Teveth points out, after reading Mein Kampf in August 1933, “the major – even the only – meaning of Zionism for Ben-Gurion became the rescue of the Jewish people.” [18]

18. Greenstein tries to defend his ridiculous claim that Zionists in the Holocaust “were against advocating resistance in the ghettos.” Even other anti-Zionists know this claim is ludicrous. For example, the Marxist anti-Zionist John Rose in his atrocious book, The Myths of Zionism states, “Zionism was perfectly capable of inspiring resistance to the Nazis.” [19]

19. Greenstein has a severe problem with logic. He states:
“Mikey claims that ‘Far from the BNP being Zionist… a senior BNP spokesman said that paper was the mouthpiece of a “clique of Zionist parasites and crooks.” Err yes. That’s exactly my point. The BNP manage to combine both anti-Semitism and Zionism.”

The quotation from the BNP attacked The Jewish Chronicle as a “clique of Zionist parasites and crooks.” Greenstein infers that the BNP is Zionist. Even his anti-Zionist comrades should see that as an insult to their intelligence.

Mary McCarthy famously said that “every word Lillian Hellman writes is a lie, including ‘and’ and ‘the.’” I would say the same about Tony Greenstein.

Mikey

[1] Randolph L. Braham The Politics of Genocide: The Holocaust in Hungary (Columbia University Press, 1994) Vol 1. pp. 23-28
[2] Ibid. P. 78
[3] Anshel Pfeffer, “Just 10 of 66,000 Holocaust survivors heirs’ get their assets back,” Haaretz.com July 7, 2008 available on line at http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/999787.html
[4] Shoshana Barri (Ishoni) “The Question of Kasztner’s Testimonies on Behalf of Nazi War Criminals,” Journal of Israeli History Summer/Autumn 1997.
[5] Akiva Orr, “The Kastner Case, Jerusalem 1955,” in Jim Allen Perdition (Ithaca Press, 1987) p. 99
[6] See http://www.hurryupharry.org/2008/05/08/jews-and-jew-haters-ii-from-cranks-to-clowns/
[7] See for example Yad Vashem : http://www1.yadvashem.org/about_yad/departments/institute/bauer.html
[8] Yehuda Bauer, Jews for Sale? Nazi-Jewish Negotiations, 1933-1945 (Yale University Press, 1994) pp. 156-157
[9]Haim Bresheeth, Stuart Hood and Litza Jansz, The Holocaust for Beginners (Icon Books, 1994) p. 156
[10] For a detailed examination of the activities of the Relief and Rescue committee see Szabolcs Szita, Trading in Lives? Operations of the Jewish Relief and Rescue Committee in Budapest, 1944—1945 (Central European Press, 2005)
[11] Ladislaus Lob Dealing With Satan (Jonathan Cape, 2008) p. 270
[12] Randolph L. Braham The Politics of Genocide: The Holocaust in Hungary (Columbia University Press, 1994) Vol 2. P. 826
[13] Martin Gilbert, Auschwitz & The Allies (Hamlyn, 1983) pp. 201-202
[14] Ibid., p. 348
[15] “Affidavit of Dr. Rezso (Rudolph) Kastner, 13 September 1945″ contained in Trial of the Major War Criminals before the International Military Tribunal Nuremberg 14 November 1945- 1 October 1946 Volume XXXI Official Text English Edition(Nuremberg, Germany: International Military Tribunal Nuremberg, 1948) Document 2605-PS
[16] Jim Allen Perdition (Ithaca Press, 1987) p. 32
[17] “Letters,” Guardian, January 21, 1987
[18] Shabtai Teveth Ben-Gurion and the Holocaust (Harcourt Brace & Company, 1996) p. xxxv
[19] John Rose, The Myths of Zionism (Pluto Press, 2004) p. 212n5. Rose also provides in that note two examples of books where this resistance can be seen: ‘Antek’ Zuckerman’s autobiography, A Surplus of Memory and Primo Levi’s If Not Now When?

Comment by Mikey — 9 September, 2008 @ 9:56 pm
Erratum: my paragraph 4 should read:

There were approximately 15,000 Jews in Vienna who had been sent from Hungary and Krumey was in charge of them. In the final months of the war Krumey did NOT kill them [my emphasis] but, according to Kastzner, acted “in a comparatively humane way” towards them. There is no question that Krumey was a war criminal but the 15,000 Hungarian Jews in the Strasshof labour camp were no doubt relieved not to be murdered.

Comment by Mikey — 9 September, 2008 @ 10:41 pm
Another erratum: paragraph 16 should say:

even Jim Allen’s play Perdition did NOT twist that particular quotation [unlike Tony Greenstein!]

Comment by Mikey — 9 September, 2008 @ 11:09 pm
Yes there were many erratums.

There isn’t a great deal of point in replying to this garbage, so I won’t waste a lot of time or space.

i. The BNP are anti-Semitic. According to the Board of Deputies of British Jews spokesperson, they also have the most pro-Zionist website of anyone. (10.4.08 - The Guardian). Is Mikey suggesting that this isn’t the case? In which case they are supportive of Zionism, i.e. hate all Muslims including Palestinians, but don’t like Jews a lot, hence why Zionism is such a fine thing as it means Jews can go to Israel. Even someone as stupid as Mikey should understand that.

ii. I’m well aware that Hungary suffered a massive loss of territory under the Treaty of Trianon. That was, again, the point I was making silly boy. I also note that the late Zionist historian, Lucy Dawidowicz, gives some figures about those murdered in Hungary. According to her 450,000 died, 200,00 survived. I seem to recall these were the figures I gave!! But of course Mikey knows different. The fact is, as I also said, there can be no definitive figure because it is not possible to know exactly how many died and how many survived.

Normally this is a question that only obsesses holocaust deniers looking for any ‘error’ to try and trip people up and thereby ‘prove’ that there was no holocaust. It is not surprising that Mikey has the same mindset as these people.

The question of Christian Jews is a different question, but in general they were not deported (most lived in Budapest anyway). Their position in Hungary changed as the definition changed but I doubt there were anywhere near as many as 100,000 who were affected. As in Germany and most of western Europe, Christian Jews and the Mishlinge had the greatest chance of survival and the Rosenstrasse protest in Berlin, outside Gestapo hq, was an example of how integration of Jews and non-Jews was the surest guarantee of survival.

iii. It is irrelevant whether Mikey has written articles criticising Atzmon. The fact is that he has show himself willing to work with him when it comes to attacking anti-Zionist Jews. He conveniently omits to explain the quotations I have cited!

iv. Mikey shows that he is not only incapable of telling the truth, but he deliberately distorts it as well. His habit of accusing others of lying would appear to be a reflection of his own methodology.

Mikey states that ‘Greenstein claims that Kasztner testified “in favour of Dieter Wisliceny.” This is a nonsense. Kasztner testified against Wisliceny in September 1945 and in July 1947 Kastzner appealed for Wisliceny to be transferred from Slovak to American custody for interrogation about Eichmann’s whereabouts.’

The article by Shoshana Barri that he quotes has a somewhat different take on this, to wit:

‘In all, then, there was a total of 7 interventions by Kastner on behalf of Nazi war criminals. Three testimonies were on behalf of Becher, two were on behalf of Krumey, one was on behalf of Juttner and there was an appeal that had the potential to deliver Wisliceny from the threat of executionin Slovakia…. Kastner’s testimonies were foreful enough to aid the Nazi war criminals.’

So here we have a truly David Irving style distortion of historical sources. Far from wanting Wisliceny transferred in order to aid the hunt against Eichmann, the intention was obviously clear - to try and save his neck as Barri, writing in that well-known anti-Zionist magazine The Journal of Israeli History, makes clear. Note the interventions ‘on behalf of’ Nazi war criminals - interventions that Mikey makes clear he supports. It would seem that Mikey now sees nothing wrong in Kastner’s behaviour and lies about it when he can’t justify it.

The idea incidentally that anything Kastner said had any influence on the conviction and execution of Kaltenbrunner, Heydrich’s successor, is a figment of Mikey’s imagination. Kastner was a minor fish in this whole episode. His only influence was in helping to exonerate, because having a representative of the Jewish Agency in your favour was clearly going to be advantageous. When it came to conviction there were far more powerful voices than Kastner.

As to the other points such as the position of the judges of the Israeli Supreme Court in the K appeal, I suggest Mikey try rereading what I wrote. It is often a good idea, if you can stop spluttering long enough, because then he will see that I make it clear that Judge Goiten spoke one way and voted another.

It’s not much wonder that Mikey attends anti-Zionist meetings but never has the courage to make an intervention!

TG

Comment by Tony Greenstein — 10 September, 2008 @ 1:47 am
Just in case Mikey has difficulty locating the quote in Barri’s article it’s on page 145 (para. 3). And he might look at the paragraph beneath it which cites Kastner himself as saying that testimony on behalf of Wisliceny and Krumey was impermissible since they were actively involved in the destruction process.

At the end of the war all sorts of Nazi war criminals ’saved’ Jews, including Krumey and Juttner. Indeed by this measure, Himmler too ’saved’ Jews and indeed at one point in his trial Kastner virtually said as much.

TG

Comment by Tony Greenstein — 10 September, 2008 @ 1:53 am
Tony Greenstein writes:

“So here we have a truly David Irving style distortion of historical sources. Far from wanting Wisliceny transferred in order to aid the hunt against Eichmann, the intention was obviously clear - to try and save his neck as Barri, writing in that well-known anti-Zionist magazine The Journal of Israeli History, makes clear.”

Shoshana Barri wrote:

It is the author’s view that Kastner’s appeal… was but a continuation of the Jewish Agency’s attempts to locate Eichmann. Kastner, after all, presents reasons similar to theirs in his memorandum: “It should be noted that Wisliceny is the only available member of Eichmann’s staff who can give a complete and thorough picture of the extermination program and the people involved in the execution of this program. He will probably be hanged by the Slovakian officials where he is interned unless he is extradited and we would thereby lose all the proof he may be expected to give.”

(Shoshana Barri, “The Question of Kastner’s Testimonies on Behalf of Nazi War Criminals,” The Journal of Israeli History, Vol. 8, No. 2-3, 1997, p. 156)

Shoshana Barri wrote the opposite of what Tony Greenstein claims she wrote.

It’s obvious who is guilty of “a truly David Irving style distortion of historical sources.”

Comment by Correction — 10 September, 2008 @ 2:37 am
Greenstein should Keep Quiet

1. I would like to thank the poster by the name of “Correction” above, who has clearly bothered to check the source. I would advise anyone to check Greenstein’s sources as he regularly distorts them. Adding to the point by Correction, we can see that Greenstein does not know the difference between a testimony and an appeal. Even in the quote that Greenstein uses from Shoshana Barri, she does not say that Kasztner testified for Wisliceny.

2. Greenstein states: “The BNP are anti-Semitic. According to the Board of Deputies of British Jews spokesperson, they also have the most pro-Zionist website of anyone. (10.4.08 - The Guardian). Is Mikey suggesting that this isn’t the case?”

This matter has come up in a previous debate with Greenstein that occurred on the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty website and reproduced on the following link:
http://www.paulbogdanor.com/greenstein-awlscreenshot.html

At one stage it can be seen that Greenstein went to the trouble of linking to the BNP web site to try and prove his point. Paul Bogdanor, went to the trouble of reading that web page and he noted that on that very page, the BNP were :

“- raving about the neocon plot to ‘make the world safe for the Zionist state of Israel’
- attacking ‘the power of the Zionist lobby in American politics’
- denouncing the ‘overseas agitprop department of Israel’s ruling Likud party’
- vilifying their ‘Christian-Zionist and plutocrat allies.’”

For completeness, the BNP web page that Greenstein linked to in his posting of 10 June, 2008 at 03:09 was the following
http://www.bnp.org.uk/2007/11/by-their-fruits-or-lack-of-them-shall-you-know-them/

3. Greenstein writes: “Lucy Dawidowicz, gives some figures about those murdered in Hungary. According to her 450,000 died, 200,00 [sic] survived.” What Dawidowicz actually stated was “Over 450,000 Jews, 70 percent of the Jews of Greater Hungary, were deported [to Auschwitz], were murdered or died under German occupation (The War Against the Jews 1933-45, (Bantam, 1986,) pp382-3). Her pre-war figure of 650,000 Jews excludes “some 100,000 Christians, who were regarded as ‘racial’ Jews and subject to anti-Jewish laws.” (p381) The destruction of these Jewish converts is not counted in her 450,000 German occupation death toll. And as Randolph Braham notes:

“Hungary instituted a series of increasingly severe anti-Jewish measures that not only curtailed the basic civil and socioeconomic rights of the Jews but also claimed approximately 64,000 Jewish lives by early 1944.”

i.e. These 64,000 Jewish lives were taken before the German occupation.
(Randolph L. Braham, “Assault on Historical Memory: Hungarian Nationalists and the Holocaust” available on line at http://deimos3.apple.com/WebObjects/Core.woa/DownloadTrackPreview/ushmm.org.1434846455.01447111387.1446957713.pdf )

Comment by Mikey — 10 September, 2008 @ 10:21 am
Sorry Mikey whats this all about? An endless attempt to prove that anti-Zionists are liars?

Comment by johng — 10 September, 2008 @ 10:54 am
johng, this is not an attempt “to prove that anti-Zionists are liars.” It is an attemmpt to prove that Tony Greenstein habitually lies and distorts the historical record in an effort to try and make a political case.

My instinct is that he got away with it for a number of years because nobody bothered to check his sorurces. Having spent time reading about those very subjects that Greenstein focusses upon, particularly his fascination with the actions of Zionists during the Holocaust, I realised that he spoke total garbage. As I have reliable sources at my fingertips on the matter, it is not difficult for me to expose his distortions. By doing so, those readers that may not be familiar with the source material will not be taken in by the rubbish that he spews. That is what this is about.

I trust that is reasonable or do you feel that it is wrong to point out blantant distortions of the historical record by others?

Comment by Mikey — 10 September, 2008 @ 11:15 am
1. Mikey can witter on all he likes, the reason Kastner tried to have Wisliceny moved to US jurisdiction was to save his neck, not to locate Eichmann. After all if it was locating Nazi war criminals then Israel could have prosecuted the saviour of Mussolini, Otto Skorzeny. In any case there is no dispute that this would have been the effect, if Kastner’s efforts had been successful. The speculation as to motive is just that, speculation. But Mikey has already defended Kastner’s testimony on behalf of all 4 Nazi war criminals so the real reason for Mikey’s defence of Kastner is not hard to guage.

2. It was Barri who described Kastner’s testimony as being ‘on behalf of’ Nazi war criminals, not me. Barri of course is entitled to his opinion, that the purpose was to locate Eichmann, but that is merely speculative. What is clear is that had it succeeded then Wisliceny would have escaped with his life and given Kastner’s record of collaboration, including his silence over Auschwitz (other than to the select 1,684 on the train) it is clear what his motive was. Barri incidentally quotes the effective prosecutor of Kastner, Shmuel Tamir, later a Justice Minister in Israel who in his attempt to have a retrial argued that the purpose of Kastner, to obtain a lighter sentence, was but further evidence of the fact that Kastner collaborated. There is another reason that has been given by Shraga Elam for the behaviour of the Jewish Agency in this regard (& it is clear that the JA knew of and approved of Kastner’s testimony - Elam believes that Kastner was merely their pawn) and that was money.

3. I note that Mikey has not given any explanation of his e-mail conversation with Atzmon, which he doesn’t and can’t dispute. Merely referencing to an article he wrote in which, for the sake of form, he criticises the man is irrelevant. The fact is that for Zionists it is anti-Zionists not anti-Semites who are the main enemy hence Mikey’s offer to ‘research’ his and Atzmon’s opponents.

4. The only distortion in the historical record is by those who seek to exonerate the representative of the Jewish Agency in Hungary, who is acknowledged by all as having obtained the rescue of the Prominents (his description!) by keeping silent over the fact of Auschwitz’s existence. What makes this worse was this was the fag end of Nazi rule, which enabled Wallenburg, Lutz, the Red Cross and the Vatican representative, to shelter and save thousands of Jews in Budapest and elsewhere (as Eugene Levai details in his Black Book on Hungarian Jewry). Mikey and his anti-communist friend Bogdanor are in the business of trying to rehabilitate someone who was effectively a war criminal.

5. I took the Dawidowicz figures from Appendix 2 in her book, to demonstrate that the original figures I gave are as accurate as any can be. The Jews who died before 1944 were primarily murdered on account of the deportation of Jews into the hands of the Nazis under Prime Minister Bardossi. There was no extermination as such of Jews under the anti-semitic Hungarian regimes and these Jews were not in any case Christian Jews. This is just a deliberate attempt to conflate different categories.

I’m not sure where the 64,000 Jews massacred prior to the Nazi occupation comes from, as the main atrocity was the deportation of ‘alien’ Jews into the hands of the Nazis at Kaments-Podelsk when according to the Nazi SS leader Jecklyn some 23,000 died and Dawidowicz cites a figure of 17,000 and about 3,000 died in the Ujvidek massacres. However even assuming that this figure is true, what is not true is that Dawidowicz’s figures for 450,000 Jews murdered excludes Christian or racial Jews.

I suggest Mikey and his alter-ego Correction, read pp.456/7 of Dawidowicz’s War Against the Jews.
‘Over 450,000 Jews, 70% of the Jews of Greater Hungary [i.e. not Trianon Hungary] were deported, were murdered or died under German occupation. Within the boundaries of lesser (pre-1938) Hungary about half the Jews were annihilated. Some 144,000 survived in Budapest, INCLUDING 50,000 ‘racial’ Jews, and about 50,000 to 60,000 survived in the provinces.’ (my emphasis)

So when Mikey writes that ‘Her pre-war figure of 650,000 Jews excludes “some 100,000 Christians, who were regarded as ‘racial’ Jews and subject to anti-Jewish laws.” (p381) he is, in his own words, lying.

Whether or not Dawidowicz is correct is another matter. It is arguable that he overestimates those who survived in the provinces and underestimates those who survived in Budapest but it is no excuse for Mikey doing a David Irving again.

It’s no surprise that when push comes to shove, Mikey feels unable to contradict or make a contribution to the debate when anti-Zionist Jews speak. For all his internet posturing, Mikey is a coward when it comes to arguing his corner face to face. Hence why he kept silent in Lenni Brenner’s and my own meeting.

It’s no wonder that The Times sent me a letter citing Mikey as saying I had traumatised him when he was younger because I put forward anti-Zionist politics. Instead of coming to terms with the fact that Zionism has never fought fascism or anti-Semitism he seeks to posture as an expert in order to try and exonerate not merely Kastner, who was merely the represntative of the Jewish Agency, but the role of the Zionist movement in ensuring that most Hungarian Jews went to their deaths ignorant of their fate. That is the crime and nothing Mikey or any other Zionist apologist says can change that fact. The Auschwitz Protocols of Rudolph Vrba were deliberately kept under wraps by kastner and that, incidentally is why Brand and Krausz were dissidents ie. they disagreed with what he was doing, so much so that Brand testified AGAINST Kastner at the famous trial in Israel. Strange behaviour if Brand was in agreement with kastner.

Likewise the mother of the Zionist parachutist, Hanna Senesh, who was captured and tortured by the Gestapo before being executed, testified as to how Kastner refused to lift a finger to help her.

Mikey’s devotion to Kastner is no surprise, because like birds of a feather, collaborators also stick together. Even when one partner is dead!

Re the BNP’s Zionism. Presumably Mikey believes his stupidity is some form of virtue. It is irrelevant what the anti-communist Bogdanor, who believes there was no difference between the Soviet and Nazi regimes. The fact is that even the Board of Deputies of British Jews concedes that the BNP is the most pro-Zionist of political parties. To wit:

‘Ruth Smeed, of the Board of Deputies, said: “The BNP website is now one of the most Zionist on the web - it goes further than any of the mainstream parties in its support of Israel and at the same time demonises Islam and the Muslim world.’ ‘BNP seeks to bury antisemitism and gain Jewish votes in Islamophobic campaign.’ http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/apr/10/thefarright.race

As the article is publicly available I don’t know why Mikey is even attempting to argue the toss, other than the fact that he is a dishonest prick. Yes of course the BNP is anti-Semitic, but why is that relevant? Anti-semitism and Zionism go hand in hand. Or to use one of my favourite quotes from Israeli novellist, A B Yehoshua:

‘Anti-Zionism is not the product of the non-Jews. On the contrary, the Gentiles have always encouraged Zionism, hoping that it would help to rid them of the Jews in their midst. Even today, in a perverse way, a real anti-Semite must be a Zionist.’ Jewish Chronicle 22.1.82. Even Mikey, despite his deliberate stupidity, should be able to understand that one!

TG

Comment by Tony Greenstein — 11 September, 2008 @ 2:00 am
Quick reminder.

Greenstein wrote:

“Far from wanting Wisliceny transferred in order to aid the hunt against Eichmann, the intention was obviously clear - to try and save his neck as Barri, writing in that well-known anti-Zionist magazine The Journal of Israeli History, makes clear.”

In fact Barri wrote:

“It is the author’s view that Kastner’s appeal… was but a continuation of the Jewish Agency’s attempts to locate Eichmann.”

She quoted his memorandum:

“It should be noted that Wisliceny is the only available member of Eichmann’s staff who can give a complete and thorough picture of the extermination program and the people involved in the execution of this program. He will probably be hanged by the Slovakian officials where he is interned unless he is extradited and we would thereby lose all the proof he may be expected to give.”

Now Greenstein writes:

“the reason Kastner tried to have Wisliceny moved to US jurisdiction was to save his neck, not to locate Eichmann.”

Greenstein was caught out twisting a source to mean the opposite of what it says.

But he just carries on as if nobody noticed.

Comment by Correction — 11 September, 2008 @ 9:59 am
I can’t help being impressed
by Mikey deploying a pseudo-academic apparatus in his spurious efforts to add some kind of legitimacy to his efforts at spreading historical un-truths.

It reminds me of the ‘Institute of Historical Review’ and the way it employs scholastic paraphanalia in its phoney attempts to give the impression it’s a respectable and recognised pillar of historical academia.

In fact, IHR and Mikey both aim at the same object - to cover-up for and exonerate criminals involved in the mass-murder of Nazi victims during World War II.

“Who do you think you are kidding David Irving
If you think mad Mikey’s sane…”

Comment by joe90 — 11 September, 2008 @ 10:25 am
I’ve just checked another of Greenstein’s statements.

Greenstein writes:

“Brand and Krausz were dissidents i.e. they disagreed with what he was doing, so much so that Brand testified AGAINST Kastner at the famous trial in Israel. Strange behaviour if Brand was in agreement with kastner.”

Brand testified FOR Kastner at the trial.

As his memoirs put it:

“About a quarter of the Hungarian Jews survived the war - a percentage greater than that in any other country under German control. This achievement was due in no small measure to the work of the Budapest Waada. If Kastner, as the leader of the Waada after Brand’s departure, must be held responsible for all mistakes and omissions, then it is only right that he should also be credited with the success of this work. And the charge that he collaborated with the Germans solely to insure the departure of the Bergen-Belsen transport, and that by saving a few hundred he sacrificed hundreds of thousands, is a shameless calumny.”

(Desperate Mission, Criterion Books, 1958, p. 230)

Greenstein has again twisted a source who says the opposite of what he claims.

I’m starting to think there’s a pattern here.

Comment by Correction — 11 September, 2008 @ 10:32 am
I would like to thank “Correction” for his/her posts as they are remarkably accurate and expose Tony Greenstein for the scholarly fraud that he is. “Correction” has also saved me time as I do not need to repeat the same information. Points for which Greenstein clearly has no answer for.

To cover some of the points “Correction” does not cover:

1. Despite having a copy of Shoshana Barri’s article (Shoshana is female name not a male one and Greenstein should know that) he repeats the lie that Kasztner testified for Wisliceny. He did not - he put in an appeal to have him transferred to American custody.

2. Greenstein refers to Kasztner as a representative of the Jewish Agency. He was not and nor was his committee. In fact the person who was a representative of the Jewish Agency in Hungary was Moshe Krausz as I mentioned in an earlier post to this thread. This, of course, is the same Moshe Krausz who Greenstein incorrectly argued was a “dissident” Zionist. When Kasztner went to Nuremberg and testified on behalf of Becher, he did sign in the name of the Jewish Agency but at the Gruenwald Court case, witness Eliahu Dobkin from the Jewish Agency was called who denied that Kasztner had the authority to sign in the name of that institution. [Tom Segev, The Seventh Million: The Israelis and the Holocaust (Owl Books, 1991)P.270]

3. Greenstein argues that Kastzner was “effectively a war criminal.” Well that is Greenstein’s opinion. Professor Yehuda Bauer, who has published widely on the matter argues differently. He concludes that in his opinion Kasztner is “a real-life hero.” [in David Cesarani ed. Genocide and Rescue: The Holocaust in Hungary 1944(Berg, 1997) p. 206] This view is shared by others as well. For example Anna Porter in her biography of Kastzner published last year by Douglas & McIntyre - the book is entitled: Kasztner’s Train: The True Story of Rezso Kasztner, Unknown Hero of the Holocaust.

4. Greenstein states, “I’m not sure where the 64,000 Jews massacred prior to the Nazi occupation comes from.” This shows Greenstein’s ability to look up anything. I provided a reference. It was an article by Randolph Braham, the widely recognised leading scholar of the Holocaust in Hungary. It was not difficult for him to access as I provided a link where it can be located on line. Had he bothered to read it, he could have seen in note 4 on page 65 the following:

“Approximately 40,000 to 45,000 of these were labor servicemen; 17,000 to 18,000 so called “alien” Jews who were deported in the summer of 1941 and murdered near Kamenets-Podolsk; and the remainder victims of the massacres in and around Újvidék early in 1942.”

5. Greenstein accuses me of being a coward, but I have, on more than one occasion, previously challenged Greenstein to a debate on Kasztner and the Holocaust in Hungary. Greenstein has refused. By and large, across these informal debates in the comments boxes of blogs, Greenstein walks away as he did in the first debate on Harry’s place:
http://www.hurryupharry.org/2007/01/24/tony-greenstein-more-errors-than-paragraphs/
or as he did on a more recent debate on the Alliance from Workers’ Liberty web site (reproduced at http://www.paulbogdanor.com/greenstein-awlscreenshot.html)
Up and until now I have copied my contributions from this thread to Greenstein’s own blog entry on this discussion:
http://azvsas.blogspot.com/2008/09/kasztner-debating-with-zionist.html
But it seems Greenstein has thrown his toys out of the pram one more time as in a more recent blog entry he now claims he will not accept any more of my contributions. http://azvsas.blogspot.com/2008/09/moderation-apologies.html I will actually try and copy this to his blog, and readers will be able to see if he prefers censor to debate.

6. Greenstein discusses traumatising people. Well, according to Nigel Savage, in a letter to F. Howard who was then an Executive Member of the National Union of Students, Tony Greenstein, “led the intimidation of a Brighton Polytechnic student, Brian Conn, who left his Jewish Society stall at Freshers Fair, in tears and thoroughly afraid.” http://www.paulbogdanor.com/greenstein.pdf

7. Greenstein repeats the lie that “Zionism has never fought fascism or anti-Semitism.” This is despite the fact that as I earlier pointed out even other anti-Zionists such as John Rose disagree with him and provide examples of reliable books that show it was the case. Greenstein also knows that he has told a lie in this statement as in the same post, Greenstein mentions Hannah Senesh. This very same Hannah Senesh was a Zionist who had emigrated from Hungary to Palestine and along with numerous other Zionists parachuted themselves into Europe in order to operate behind Nazi lines. Whilst the book is not completely reliable - a most interesting account of their ventures can be read in the following book: Yoel Palgi, Into the Inferno: The Memoir of a Jewish Paratrooper Behind Enemy Lines (Rutgers University Press, 2003) As Palgi was a mission companion of Sensesh, this book is particularly interesting.

8. It is true that Kasztner did not do anything for Hannah Senesh. According to her mother, she attempted to see Kastzner and was turned away with a number of different excuses about Kastzner being busy or not there. Kasztner claimed that he was not aware that Hannah’s mother had tried to see him. (Judith Tymor Baumer, “‘Parachuting to Their People’ - the Operation of the Parachutist-Emissaries During World War II in Historical Perspective,” Yad Vashem Studies Vol. XXV 1996 p. 152)

9. The poster by the name of “Correction” has already shown that far from testifying against Kasztner, he testified for him. It can be noted that many Israelis know the most about the Kasztner trial from Motti Lerner’s 1994 television drama, Mishpat Kastner. This was a three part mini-series and about the court case. There was a sub plot in this television drama and that was the strange relationship between the Kasztner’s and the Brand’s. Rudolf Kasztner was having an affair with Joel Brand’s wife Hansi and it seemed that both Kastzner’s wife and Joel Brand knew about it. Even despite this, Brand still was in favour of testifying for Kasztner. (I accept that this is a television drama and not necessarily reliable - Brand’s book, Desperate Mission is obviously much more reliable - but the point I wish to make is that Motti Lerner’s drama was broadcast on a major Israeli channel on prime time. If it had been wrong on the point about Brand and Kasztner there would have been uproar in Israel on the matter and there was not.)

10. It is tiresome that Greenstein keeps referring to the BNP as Zionist when they quite clearly are not. I draw Greenstein to the attention of a letter published a few days later (April 14, 2008) in the Guardian by Mark Gardner, spokesperson for the Community Security Trust, the Jewish communal body that is recognised as actually responsible for monitoring antisemitism. The letter showed very clearly that the view from the mainstream Jewish organisations was “whoever you vote for, use your vote bto stop the BNP.” The headline above the letter was “Don’t be fooled by the BNP claims.” It seems that Greenstein has been fooled.

11. Greenstein takes a quote from one Israeli that he has located that says that a real anti-Semite must be a Zionist. This is plainly wrong. The Nazis for example were virulently anti-Semitic and also anti-Zionist. I suggest Greenstein reads Francis R. Nicosia’s new book published this year by Cambridge University Press Zionism and Anti-Semitism in Nazi Germany. This should set him right on the point.

Finally, joe90 makes a useless contribution adding nothing but insults to the debate. Greenstein may distort the information he has read but at least he has read something on the matter. joe90 has clearly not even read anything reliable on the subject and it shows.

Comment by Mikey — 11 September, 2008 @ 8:00 pm
Finally, joe90 makes a useless contribution adding nothing but insults to the debate.
- But this isn’t really a debate Murkey.

This is just you, a zionist, trying to exonorate and cover-up for fellow zionists and zionism’s collaboration in World War II Nazi atrocities.

For instance, why would you ignore questions about your involvement with antisemites such as atzmon ?

Comment by joe90 — 11 September, 2008 @ 8:45 pm
1. We can get the measure of Joel Brand’s testimony, he was called by Shmuel Tamir for the Defence i.e. Malchiel Greenwald by his testimony:
‘“Rightly or wrongly, for better or for worse, I have cursed Jewry’s official leaders ever since. All these things shall haunt me until me dying day. It is much more than a man can bear.” [Protocol, C.C. 124/53 in the D.C. Jerusalem] Perfidy p.210.

And at a Histadrut meeting in Tel Aviv after the war, he stated ‘“You were the last hope of hundreds of thousands condemned to death. You have failed them. I was those people’s emissary yet you let me sit in a Cairo prison … You have refused to declare a general strike. If there was no other way, you should have used force.” …
(Alex Weissberg, Desperate Mission, p.210).

2. I note that Mikey has not commented on the fact that I caught him out yet again, with his statement that Lucy Dawidowicz’s estimate of the numbers of Hungarian Jews murdered INCLUDED the racial Jews, which is where this debate originally started. Mikey operates on the basis that if he doesn’t comment when his mistakes/lies are refuted then they didn’t happen. Another example of the David Irving technique.

4. Judge Halevi of the Jerusalem District Court, whose findings of fact were not interfered with by the High Court (not that it would have mattered) ruled:
‘It is clear that the positive recommendation by Kastner, not only in his own name but also in the name of the Jewish Agency and the Jewish World Congress was of decisive importance for Becher.’ Perfidy, Ben Hecht p.ii.

5. I am baffled that Mikey continues to lie, to use his expression and deny that Kastner was head of the Jewish Agency Rescue Committee in Hungary or their representative. Barri herself, in an article which is remarkably deficient in many ways, is quite clear. Not only did Kastner testify as a JA representative but she comes to the conclusion that he did it with their knowledge and assent, which they denied via Dobkin. Is she a liar as well as Mikey?

6. Yes Dobkin did deny that Kastner testified on behalf of the Jewish Agency but as Mandy Rice-Davies put it, he would, wouldn’t he? It’s called plausible deniability. The fact is noone believed him, not least the Judge! Being an intelligence operative one wouldn’t expect him to say otherwise.

In fact this is what Kastner himself said (Perfidy pp. 54/5).
“I went to Nuremberg from Switzerland at the beginning of 1947 at the invitation of General Taylor, chief Prosecutor for the International Court. I was the General’s advisor in matters pertaining to Jewish extermination.
“I worked in Nuremberg until August, 1947. Then I returned to Switzerland in order to immigrate to Israel. I received a cable from General Taylor guaranteeing me my expenses and a fee if I would return to Nuremberg to assist him. I showed the cable to Ben-Gurion. He told me to go. After a conference with the top officials of the Political Department of the Jewish Agency, where we discussed how to exploit this trip for various political purposes, it was agreed that I join General Taylor. The Jewish Agency provided me with money for the trip.
“In answer to the defendant’s accusation that I aided Becher after the war, I will state that I gave no testimony in Nuremberg in favor of Becher. I gave it neither to the International Court nor to any of its institutions or officials.
“Greenwald’s statement in his pamphlet that I went to Nuremberg to save Becher is a total lie.
“The German court of de-Nazification of Becher invited me to give them testimony about Becher when I was in Nuremberg. I refused. I had no desire to appear before any Germans. I’d had enough of Germans during the war.
“I agreed, however, to give them a sworn affidavit, which I sent them. It is a total lie that I helped Kurt Becher escape punishment in Nuremberg. I gave no testimony or affidavit in his favor.”

Which even Mikey knows is untrue. But Kastner, Mikey’s hero clearly claimed that he was a representative of the Jewish Agency! To wit:
‘“In my opinion, when his case is judged by Allied or German authorities, Kurt Becher deserves the fullest possible consideration
. . .
“I make this statement not only in my name but also in behalf of the Jewish Agency and the Jewish World Congress. Signed, Dr. Rudolf Kastner, Official Jewish Agency in Geneva. Former Chairman of Zionist Organization in Hungary, 1943–1945. Representative of Joint Distribution Committee in Budapest.” Perfidy p. 68 citing Affidavit before Mr. Benno H. Selcke, Jr., of the American Evidence Division of the International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg on August 4, 1947.

And Hecht continues:
‘Judge Halevi asks the red-faced Kastner, “Who gave you permission to offer this affidavit in the name of the Jewish Agency?”
Kastner: Dobkin and Barlas gave me permission to speak in the name of the Jewish Agency. And Mr. Perlzweig, chief of the political department of the World Jewish Congress, and Mr. Riegener, European representative of the World Jewish Congress gave me permission.’

In other words the same Dobkin who denied the Jewish Agency had given the authorisation! So here’s a dilemma. Who, I wonder, does the Zionist toe-rag Mikey believe? A difficult dilemma I guess.

7. But let us divert. Another witness at the trial was Professor Aktzin, dean of the Law Faculty of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem:
‘Tamir: Is it true that the Joint Distribution Committee and the Jewish Agency did suppress the news of the extermination in the United States up to and through 1944?
Professor Aktzin: The Zionists, Jewish Agency and Joint Distribution Committee did refrain from publicizing in the American press the massacre of Jews. [Testimony of Professor Benjamin Aktzin, Dean of the Faculty of Law, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, at C.C. 124/53 in the D.C. Jerusalem, cited in Perfidy].

8. Or let us take another little diversion, the question of why Kastner kept silent. At the trial in Jerusalem, Shmuel Tamir asked:

And you, Rudolf Kastner, head of the Hungarian Jewish Agency Rescue Committee, do not know if any of your assistants tried to warn the Jews of Hungary.
Kastner: I can’t remember.
(Kastner’s voice is a scream. His eyes roll and he looks like a man about to jump out of a window. Prosecutor Tell rushes in with the smelling salts.)
Tell: (jumping to his feet) This is torturing a witness! This man will have to be carried out of here on a stretcher. It is pure torture.
Tamir: If simple questions become torture because the witness is struggling to avoid answering them truthfully, the fault is not mine. (p.100 Perfidy)

And as for the mother of Hannah Senesh, whose testimony Mikey disregards in favour of his collaborator hero:

Tamir: Is it true that Hanna Senesh was a British officer in addition to being an emissary of the Jewish Agency?
Kastner: Yes, that is true.
Tamir: Is it true that British interests in Hungary were represented by the Swiss Consulate?
Kastner: Yes.
Tamir: Did you notify the Swiss Consulate that a British prisoner of war was being held by the Hungarians?
Kastner: No.
Tamir: Why didn’t you?
Kastner: I think I had my reasons. (Hecht, p.113)

Kastner’s cross-examination in C.C. 124/53 in the D.C. Jerusalem.

Mikey even tries to find an excuse for Kastner’s refusal to see Hanna Senesh’s mother in Budapest, who was desperately trying to get food to her and a lawyer. A flavour of what happened was her testimony when she met him by chance in Israel:

‘Dr. Kastner answered, “Believe me, what happened pains me more than it does anyone else.”
I said, “I believe it is painful to you now, Dr. Kastner, but at that time, when something could have been done, I could not find you.” He said, “No we did everything. One day I shall come to you and tell you how much we did.”
I said to him, “I know it is not true. I don’t say that you could have saved my daughter Hanna, but that you didn’t try—it makes it harder for me that nothing was done.”
He said, “Truly, we did everything. Believe me, we did everything and I will call on you and tell you someday.”
I said to him, “I know the contrary to be true. If you wish to tell me, Dr Kastner, that the matter of my daughter Hanna was so dangerous that it was better no to touch it, I’m willing to accept that as an explanation.” Hecht p.116

9. As Hecht testifies re Moshe Kraus, the dissident Zionist in Budapest, ‘Krauss has also filed a court case against the Jewish Agency in Palestine for not paying his salary and for throwing him out of his job without even compensation.’ ‘Only one exception to the do-nothing, say-nothing policy of official Zionism - religious Zionist Moshe Kraus, who left the Jewish-Agency-Zionist Party Line and its ranks of “rescuers,” and, almost single-handed, raised a fairly laudible outcry. Heroic Moshe Kraus enlisted the support of the Swiss consul in Budapest, Charles Lutz, the Swedish Representative, Raoul Valenberg, and representatives of several South American countries. He headed up an Underground that turned the city’s basements into hideaways,…’ (Hecht, p.121)

10. Mikey refers to a letter from Nigel Savage, a right-wing Vice President Finance at Sussex University, who wrote a letter to F. Howard, an Executive Member of the National Union of Students, Tony Greenstein. This is an example of the quality of Mikey’s argument. The complaint was about the fact that I had been able to speak to a successful motion at Sussex University SU’s AGM supporting the Palestinians. Apparently Savage didn’t like the fact that Howard spoke at the same meeting as me. His allegation that I intimidated a Brighton Polytechnic student, Brian Conn, ‘who left his Jewish Society stall at Freshers Fair, in tears and thoroughly afraid.’ is another lie, unless of course listening to an argument different from one’s own opinions constitutes intimidation.

But according to Alistair Brett, solicitor for The Times, Mikey wrote that
‘I was a student myself in the period X-Y and I can assure you that when I heard Greenstein speak, I felt very intimidated - and yes I was a Jewish student. In fact my current fascination with collecting information about Tony Greenstein and trying to deconstruct all of his arguments, psychologists might put down to getting some revenge for the stress he caused me with his pamphlets and speeches as a student.”

Sad really. And lest people forget, it was Mikey’s false allegations that I had intimidated Jewish students on David Aaronovitch’s blog which led to my having to bring a successful libel action against The Times. http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=1487 Or maybe Mikey has forgotten the apology that The Times made, as a result of him having lied once again.

11. Yes it must be ‘tiresome’ that I keep referring to the BNP as pro-Zionist but there it is. Even the Board of Deputies of British Jews admits that! The only article the BNP carried re the Lebanon War was in support of Israel’s genocidal bombing. But maybe Mikey can explain Ruth Smeed’s statement in The Guardian that ‘The BNP website is now one of the most Zionist on the web - it goes further than any of the mainstream parties in its support of Israel and at the same time demonises Islam and the Muslim world.’ ‘BNP seeks to bury antisemitism and gain Jewish votes in Islamophobic campaign.’ http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/apr/10/thefarright.race

12. Mikey believes it is a ‘lie’ that Kastner testified on behalf of Wisliceny. Then presumably he is accusing Barri of lying? The very article he continues to cite states that Kastner testified ‘on behalf of’ Nazi war criminals and included in the list was Wisliceny, whose neck he was trying to save.

13. I also note that Mikey hasn’t yet explained his conversation with Atzmon, as detailed on the blog of Atzmon’s friend – Mary Rizzo. Another inconvenient little story he wishes would go away? So perhaps he would answer a direct question (just for once)? Why did Atzmon say ‘However, Good luck with Greenie and thanks for all the info you gave us about this low being.’ What was he referring to Mikey?

14. Mikey cites Randolph Braham as ‘the widely recognised leading scholar of the Holocaust in Hungary’. This is what he had to say about Kastner:

“History and historians have not been kind to the leaders of Hungarian Jewry in the Holocaust era.” [Randolph Braham, The Official Jewish Leadership of Wartime Hungary, (unpublished manuscript), p.1.] As Braham admits, many “tried to obtain special protection and favours for their families”. [Randolph Braham, The Role of the Jewish Council in Hungary: A Tentative Assessment, Yad Vashem Studies, vol.X, p.78.] cited in Lenni Brenner, Zionism in the Age of the Dictators, Ch. 25.
Mikey denies being a coward because I refused to continue debating him on Harry’s Place. Socialist Unity is a better place, although of course Mikey is a complete reactionary. What I was referring to was his inability to challenge either Lenni Brenner or myself at public meetings. But maybe he is shy!!

15. Mike claims that I have said that I will not accept any more of his contributions upon my blog. Again, even over the simplest things Mikey either lies or can’t read (and I suspect it may be a problem of literacy as much as honesty). I have begun to moderate the blog and I made it clear why:

‘I have always opposed the idea of moderating a blog, believing that it inhibits free debate. However, as the number of deleted posts indicates, there has been a regular attempt by the anti-Semitic supporters of Gilad Atzmon and Mad Mikey Ezra to defame other anti-Zionist Jews with puerile abuse.’

I gave as an example the fact that holocaust deniers and Atzmonites, in other words friends of Mikey, have been bombarding the blog with racist and fascistic comments. So yes, I will block those who say there was no holocaust. I will also block those who make disgusting personal attacks on anti-Zionist comrades of mine like Roland Rance, as Mikey’s anti-Semitic friend Atzmon has repeatedly done. However if Mikey posts without abuse it will be carried.

I made this clear when I said: ‘However I shall not block any post simply because I disagree with it. As I explained to Ms Rizzo and her friend Richard Jones, as long as it is not personally offensive it will be posted.’ Let’s see if Mikey can do this!

16. Yes I said that Zionism has never fought anti-Semitism or fascism. It would be tedious to give examples such as the friendly relations between Mussolini and the leaders of the WZO, Sokolow and Weizmann for example. Even Hannah Senesh, whom Mikey cites, was abandoned by the representative of the Jewish Agency Kastner. I also made it clear that I differentiate between individuals, such as Mordechai Anielwicz, the leader of the Jewish Fighting Organisation (ZOB) in Warsaw and the movement. Many Zionists undoubtedly hate anti-Semitism but the movement they are a part of sees and always saw anti-Semitism as having, in Herzl’s words ‘the divine will to the good’ in it. It’s a complicated argument I know so I accept that Mikey finds it difficult to get round the difference between an individual and a movement or organisation.

But there is no doubt that the Zionists, who were busy setting up kibbutzim in Nazi-occupied Poland and Europe, did nothing to prepare for resistance and that they provided the majority of the collaborators and Judenrat (Jewish Councils). As Dawidowicz notes (War Against the Jews, p.321)
‘Only the left wing parties and the socialist Zionist youth movements succeeded in transforming their pre-war apparatus into functioning underground organisations. The largest of these was the Jewish Labour Bund… the Jewish section of the Communist Party had been second in numerical strength before 1939.,. smaller and weaker than the communists were the Labour Zionists split into left and right wings.

And what does Donald Niewyk in his The Jews in Weimar Germany conclude:
‘In so far as the National Socialists succeeded in persuading Germans that their future plans coincided with those of the most active and vocal Jewish group, the Zionists, their anti-Semitism must have been made to appear essentially harmless. Niewyk describes how Liberal Jews referred to the Zionists as ‘Volkisch Jews’. ‘Their exasperation was unbounded when at one Centralverein meeting, Zionist and anti-Semitic hecklers took the same ground.’ Niewyk p. 372.

17. Mikey describes A B Yehoshua as ‘one Israeli’. In fact he is one of the foremost Israeli novelists and the speech where he was reported as saying that even today, ‘in a perverse way’ a real anti-Semite must be a Zionist, was given to the Union of Jewish Students. But I accept that if it was only a question of one Zionist then it would be unfair to label the whole movement with one individual’s quirky opinion. But Yehoshua is mainstream. What did the Editor of Die Welt, Jacob Klatzkin, the Zionist weekly, write:
‘Instead of establishing societies for defence against the anti-Semites who want to reduce our rights, we should establish societies for defence against our friends who desire to defend our rights. J Klatzkin in B Matovu ‘The Zionist Wish and the Nazi Deed’, Issue Winter 1966-7, cited in Uri Davies, Israel: Utopia Incorporated, p.17.

Or the founder of Political Zionism – Theodore Herzl:
‘the anti-Semites will become our most dependable friends, the anti-Semitic countries our allies. We want to emigrate as respected people. Diaries pp. 83/4, Thomas Yosseloff.

I could cite a ream of quotes and still be going!!

I have incidentally read Francis Nicosia’s book and it is very good in terms of source material, but not so good in terms of analysis. It produces further evidence of the close symbiosis between the Nazi Party and Zionism. Far from the Nazi Party being anti-Zionist, ludicrous, it specifically differentiated between the ‘good’ Jews – the Zionists and the bad ones.

Again I quote the good Zionist Dawidowicz in relation to the attitude of the SS. Heydrich laid down that:
‘The activity of the Zionist orientated youth organisations are not to be treated with the strictness that it is necessary to apply to the members of the so-called German Jewish organisations (assimilationists).’ (p.118, War Against the Jews).

18. But the most idiotic of Mikey’s points is where he accuses me of using ellipses in order to change the meaning of Ben Gurion’s letter to the Zionist Executive of December 1938, one month after Krystalnacht, when it was clear to all that the Jews in Germany were in dire peril. Any reasonable person can see that the ellipse doesn’t change the meaning of the quotation, if anything it reinforces it.

“if the Jews are faced with a choice between the refugee problem and rescuing Jews from concentration camps on the one hand and aid for the national museum in Palestine on the other, the Jewish sense of pity will prevail [and our people’s entire strength will be directed at aid for the refugees in the various countries].

The Jewish problem now is not what it used to be. The fate of Jews in
Germany is not an end but a beginning. Other anti-Semitic states will learn
from Hitler. Millions of Jews face annihilation, the refugee problem has
assumed world-wide proportions, and urgency. Britain is trying to separate
the issue of the refugees from that of Palestine. It is assisted by anti-Zionist
Jews. The dimensions of the refugee problem demand an immediate, territorial solution; if Palestine will not absorb them another territory will.
Zionism is endangered. All other territorial solutions, certain to fail, will
demand enormous sums of money. If Jews will have to choose between the
refugees, saving Jews from concentration camps, and assisting a national
museum in Palestine, mercy will have the upper hand and the whole energy
of the people will be channelled into saving Jews from various countries.
Zionism will be struck off the agenda not only in world public opinion, in
Britain and the United States, but elsewhere in Jewish public opinion. If we
allow a separation between the refugee problem and the Palestine problem,
we are risking the existence of Zionism.’”

The meaning is crystal clear. Britain, ‘assisted by anti-Zionist Jews is trying to separate off the Palestine problem from the question of rescue of Jews from the Nazis. True because Palestine was no solution. The Arabs had revolted in 1936-9 against Zionist colonisation and the British had introduced immigration quotas. What was Ben Gurion’s fear? ‘if Palestine will not absorb them another territory will. Zionism is endangered.’ Ben Gurion was not concerned about the danger of annihilation, but the fact that Zionism would be endangered by rescue. Mercy will have the upper hand, ‘the whole energy’ of people will be chanelled into saving Jews and ‘Zionism will be struck off the agenda’. His conclusion therefore was that no separation could be allowed ‘between the refugee problem and the Palestine problem.’

Does this sound like someone whose main priority was getting as many Jews out of Nazi Germany? To anyone who can read it is quite clear. He was worried by what was termed ‘refugeeism’ by other Zionists would endanger the Zionist project. And what was the answer? Whenever the question of rescue of Jews came up, the Zionists would cry ‘what about Palestine’. They did this in Britain, the USA and Australia among other countries. They did their best to ensure that the Evian Conference of 1938 was not a success and when San Domingo offered a 100,000 places they did their best to stymie it. This is the record of the organisation that Mikey and his disciplinary friend Correction defend.

As the Israeli Socialist Organization Matzpen commented on this letter:
Saving Jewish lives from Hitler is considered by Ben Gurion a potential
threat to Zionism unless the Jews thus saved are bought to Palestine. When
Zionism had to choose between the Jews and the Jewish state, it
unhesitatingly preferred the latter. (Arie Bober (Ed.), The Other Israel : The Radical Case Against Zionism, Anchor Books, New York, 1972, p. 171).

Or to quote the President of the American Zionist Organisation,
‘I am happy that our movement has finally veered around to the point where we are all, or nearly all, talking about a Jewish State… But I ask, are we again, in moments of distraction going to confuse Zionism with refugeeism which is likely to defeat Zionism… Zionism is not a refugee movement. It is not a product of the second World War, nor of the first. Were there no displaced Jews in Europe… Zionism would still be an imperative necessity.’ 49th Annual Convention of Zionist Organisation of America, New York Times, 27. 10. 1946.

Despite there being many sincere Zionists who, despite their own movement, sincerely wanted to fight fascism, the Zionist movement itself had but one priority and it wasn’t rescuing Jews. The book I’ve quoted above, Ben Hecht’s Perfidy isn’t a book by an anti-Zionist. Hecht was a Revisionist Zionist, as were his friends Bergson and Merlin in the USA, but despite that they moved mountains in forcing the US Government to set up the War Refugee Board, which is credited with the saving of a few hundred thousand Jews. Till the end the Zionists opposed such an organisation.

And losing his rag, Mikey accuses Joe of making personal attacks! Talk about motes and beams.

I know this is lengthy, but as the old saying goes, by the time the truth has got its boots on a lie is 12 leagues round the world.

Tony Greenstein

Comment by Tony Greenstein — 11 September, 2008 @ 11:07 pm
I have read this debate and would like to make some comments.

Mr. Greenstein has taken a lot of his information about the Grunwald-Kasztner libel trial from the book Perfidy. This is a work of right-wing propaganda. Scholars do not take it seriously. I explain why in a moment.

The Grunwald-Kasztner libel case was a political show trial. In Israel everyone knows this. Mr. Greenstein could be unfamiliar with the facts. He should know:

1) The defense attorney, Shmuel Tamir, was a leadership candidate in the right-wing opposition Herut party.

2) The judge, Binyamin Halevy, had been denied promotion by the Mapai government. He was about to join Herut. His judgment in the libel trial was timed for the Israeli election season. I believe Herut doubled its seats after the judgment. Halevy was later a Herut politician in the Knesset.

3) Ben Hecht, who wrote Perfidy, was an American Herut propagandist who observed and reported the trial for Shmuel Tamir’s defense team. When you read his book, basically you are reading the defense case.

4) Moshe Krausz, the defense witness and one of Rezsoe Kasztner’s loudest accusers, was in the right-wing religious Mizrachi party. They were political competitors in Hungary and this did not stop in Israel.

5) Joel Brand, who has been subject to debate on this page, was by then a former terrorist in the extreme right-wing Lehi or Stern Gang. His objective after the Holocaust was to paint himself as a martyr and discredit the Mapai leaders.

6) Benjamin Akzin, another witness quoted here, was a right-wing Revisionist Zionist from America and an important political ally of Ben Hecht, Peter Bergson and Shmuel Tamir.

A cosy ideological family! They were simply political activists who wanted power for their movement. This was also true of the other side: they were from the Mapai establishment. As I said, it was a political show trial.

Now back to Perfidy. Mr. Greenstein quotes a famous passage: “his eyes roll and he looks like a man about to jump out of a window” etc. It is a case study of Hecht’s technique. The incident is well known. Tamir was simply shouting at Kasztner on the witness stand for hours on end. Judge Halevy did nothing to stop it. Kasztner collapsed and it looked like a heart attack. But Hecht, who was after all from Hollywood, writes as if Kasztner was almost confessing his guilt!

That is typical of Perfidy’s distortions. The book is full of selective quotes, mistranslations, facts which aren’t true. I can give Mr. Greenstein more examples if he wants. Mr. Greenstein, as a socialist, has a healthy distrust of right-wing propaganda. Does he make an exception for the Grunwald-Kasztner trial?

After Halevy’s politically aimed verdict, which destroyed the socialist government and doubled the right-wing opposition vote, Tamir naturally had Kasztner charged with perjury in relation to Becher. Kasztner was acquitted because he did not testify for Becher at Nuremberg after all. He made his statements at Becher’s denazification hearing. I don’t blame Mr. Greenstein for repeating this common mistake, but here is a predictable result of using a right-wing propaganda source.

I can solve Mr. Greenstein’s confusion about the Jewish Agency. Krausz at the Palestine Office was the Jewish Agency official in Hungary. Kasztner’s Relief and Rescue Comittee was a different body. (Mr. Greenstein’s mistake is natural because Krausz was Mizrachi and Kasztner was in Ihud, Hungary’s Mapai.) Kasztner was paid by the Jewish Agency after the war — not in Nazi-occupied Hungary.

In general Holocaust scholars inside and outside Israel see the Grunwald-Kasztner libel case for what it was, a political show trial. Maybe they are wrong. But in today’s Holocaust scholarship, as in the Supreme Court judgment, Kasztner is nearly everywhere rehabilitated.

Comment by Zeev — 12 September, 2008 @ 3:52 am
I can’t believe my eyes: Greenstein has done it again!

Less than 48 hours ago he wrote:

“Far from wanting Wisliceny transferred in order to aid the hunt against Eichmann, the intention was obviously clear - to try and save his neck as Barri, writing in that well-known anti-Zionist magazine The Journal of Israeli History, makes clear.”

In fact Barri wrote the opposite:

“It is the author’s view that Kastner’s appeal… was but a continuation of the Jewish Agency’s attempts to locate Eichmann.”

Then she quoted his appeal:

“Wisliceny is the only available member of Eichmann’s staff who can give a complete and thorough picture of the extermination program and the people involved in the execution of this program. He will probably be hanged by the Slovakian officials where he is interned unless he is extradited and we would thereby lose all the proof he may be expected to give.”

I showed how Greenstein twisted his source to mean the opposite of what it said. Not only did he refuse to admit what he’d done, he repeated himself:

“the reason Kastner tried to have Wisliceny moved to US jurisdiction was to save his neck, not to locate Eichmann.”

I posted a reminder of his distortion, but that doesn’t matter, he just carries on as if he was never caught:

“[Barri] states that Kastner testified ‘on behalf of’ Nazi war criminals and included in the list was Wisliceny, whose neck he was trying to save.”

To sum up, Greenstein twists a source to mean the opposite of what it says, he’s caught out but he decides to keep doing it, thinking nobody will notice!

Yes it’s clearly deliberate. But why on earth does he think he’s going to get away with it?

Comment by Correction — 12 September, 2008 @ 7:37 am
In general Holocaust scholars inside and outside Israel see the Grunwald-Kasztner libel case for what it was, a political show trial. Maybe they are wrong. But in today’s Holocaust scholarship, as in the Supreme Court judgment, Kasztner is nearly everywhere rehabilitated.
- So that’s all right then.
A Zionist Israeli court exonorates a zionist for collaborating with the nazis.

Murkey has already tried that ploy. However, it would be hard to spot as Murkey likes to pile on the waffle, using detail to try and hide the fact he is a zionist apologist for nazis collaborators and nazi crimes.

Using the opinion of an Isreali court, when it comes to zionists and zionism, is utterly worthless as a defence.

And I am not throwing insults about when I say that Mikey’s efforts at trying to pass himself of as a respectable scholar reminds me of the ‘intellectual’ trash to be found at the Institute for Historical Review - they both attempt to mimic the outward forms of serious schlarship with the same ends in mind, to white-wash nazi-dom and its collaborators.

Comment by joe90 — 12 September, 2008 @ 7:44 am
Zeev’s comments are the first serious intervention by a Zionist in this debate which merit serious consideration. Having said that I will comment on them in another post, suffice to say I disagree with him and I am aware of the political affiliations of the main actors!

The only other thing I should say about them in this post is that the motives of those involved in doing what they did is not important. People often spill the beans and tell the truth for reasons that are frankly appalling or distasteful. E.g. Geoffrey Archer, the Tory Lord and ex-candidate for London Mayor was brought down by a chum and a colleague who had been party to his conspiracy to obtain large damages in a libel trial against the Daily Star and who resented the idea that he could become mayor. Nonetheless, despite the personal pique and jealousy, he did a notable service in nailing Archer. There are many more such examples of people doing the right thing for the wrong reason.

First a little unfinished business.

“This, of course, is the same Moshe Krausz who Greenstein incorrectly argued was a “dissident” Zionist. When Kasztner went to Nuremberg and testified on behalf of Becher, he did sign in the name of the Jewish Agency but at the Gruenwald Court case, witness Eliahu Dobkin from the Jewish Agency was called who denied that Kasztner had the authority to sign in the name of that institution. [Tom Segev, The Seventh Million: The Israelis and the Holocaust (Owl Books, 1991)P.270]”

I don’t have time to produce the quotes but people can read for themselves pp. 976-82 of Rudolph Braham’s Politics of Genocide. Even Mikey describes Braham as an authoritative author on the Hungarian holocaust, which he is. He speaks of the ‘long standing conflict between Krausz and the Vaada’, the latter of which Kastner headed. (p.982) To therefore suggest that Krauss was not a dissident Zionist, within the context of Hungarian Zionism, is to behave as the lapdog commentator Mikey is.

And yes Eliahu Dobkin claimed that Kastner no authority to sign affidavits for Nazi war criminals on behalf of the Jewish Agency The question of course is whether or not he was telling the truth. As a relatively unsophisticated propagandist, because Mikey is unable to read and contrast historical documents or accounts, then the voice of officialdom is enough.

The only problem is that Shoshana Barri’s article on ‘Kastner’s Testimonies on Behalf of Nazi War Criminals’ examines this in some depth and reaches the opposite conclusion, with which I agree. Dobkin claimed not even to have heard of the name Becher. This was clearly absurd. Even Chaim Cohen, the representative of Kastner and the Attorney General, accepted when Barri interviewed him, that if the evidence of Dobkin’s and the Jewish Agency’s dealings had been known at the time, ‘it would have believed Kastner rather than Dobkin.’ (p.161) citing an interview with Cohen of 7.10.91.

But to Mikey, officialdom is all!

I don’t however agree with Barri’s interpretations or analysis, especially on the motivation of the Jewish Agency in all this. But she herself describes the change in Kastner’s testimonies on behalf of (her words, not mine!) Krumey, Wisliceny et al.

‘Th change in Kastner’s testimonies was the result not only of a psychological change, but was coordinated w ith the Jewish Agency’s efforts to capture Eichmann and the Mufti on the one hand and to reclaim the property of Hungarian Jewry on the other hand.’ Barri describes Kastner’s efforts on behalf of Wisliceny and co. as ‘unaccompanied by consideration as to their morality.’ (p.159)

The reference to Kastner’s psychological state is interesting. She cites a quite remarkable cable that Kastner sent to the Jewish Agency ‘in which he mentions that the end of the war has frustrate the continuation of his rescue activities.’ But for Mikey & his disciplinary friend, Correction, Kastner is a hero!!

Mikey, who is to the Zionist movement what a poodle is to its lady owner, splutters in outrage at the fact that i have ‘the chutzpah to attack Yehuda Bauer, Professor of Holocaust Studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and one of the world’s greatest living Holocaust historians.’ Subservience and deference mark him out as a potential scholar himself, except that even Bauer knows when to retreat. And of course Bauer does understand the basic requirements of an academic, which is at least to pretend to understand opposing viewpoints.

But Bauer, with his attacks on one of the true Jewish heroes of this period, Rudolph Vrba, though he later comes round to adopt much of his argument, albeit sullenly (he also regretted, so he says anyway, the refusal to publish Raul Hilbergs Destruction of European Jews)is a somewhat more intelligent and sophisticated Zionist historian than Mad Mikey. However his loyalties are not in doubt and nor is he consistent over e.g the Goldhagen controversy (’Hitler’s Willing Executioners).

But Bauer’s defence and praise of Saly Mayer, the Joint Distribution Committee man in Switzerland, who even Kastner criticises for having obstructed rescue ‘a philanthropic gangster’ mark him out as an unwavering Zionist loyalist. Yad Vashem which he heads is dedicated to the use of the Holocaust as part of the construction of Israeli national consciousness, rather than a lesson to the world in respect of genocide and war crimes.

Mikey’s partner, Madam Correction, seems to be going apopleptic. Barri does indeed make clear, during the course of her article, that the intention behind Kastner’s testimony was the saving of Wisliceny’s life. This the person who was instrumental both in destroying 80,000 Slovakian Jews and also in organising the round up of Hungary’s Jews. HOWEVER, since Correction seems to be even more stupid than her quirky partner Mikey, Barri having presented the evidence (strange it is true for a Zionist) backs off the obvious explanation, or rather conflates them.

Indeed Barri becomes inarticulate and illogical in parts of her article and it can only be explained by her political loyalties. She does indeed believe herself that the reason for trying to save W is the question of Eichmann BUT at the same time she also makes clear that the Americans weren’t interested in Eichmann or other ‘low level’ Nazis (her description). So why then transfer W to the Americans if they would have released him soon? one reason is filthy lucre, the ‘Becher Deposit’ which I’ll leave people to read up about. The other is clearl the part W played in the negotiations with K.

Mikey is determined to prove that Zionism is a collaborationist movement. According to him ‘There is no question that Krumey was a war criminal but the 15,000 Hungarian Jews in the Strasshof labour camp were no doubt relieved not to be murdered. Juttner had intervened with Hitler to stop the death march.’ He therefore defends the Kastner testimony on behalf of not just Krumey but the Higher SS Leader Hans Juttner. No doubt he too was a saviour of Jews!

The number of Strasshoff deportees incidentally was over 18,000 and some figures quote 30,000. Krumey’s role is best described by Braham’s who notes that ‘an indeterminate number were ordered deported by Krumey to Auschwitz as punishment for infractions, including the possession of money, the use of barbers or going to the movies.’ At Strasshoff, up to 30,000 (Braham cites 20,000) Jews were ‘laid on ice’, diverted from being deported to Auschwitz, as a result of severe labour shortages in Vienna and Austria. They worked on farms, estates and in digging anti-tank ditches. 75% survived thanks to the Soviet invasion. As Braham describes it (p. 650) ‘The chief of the RHSA [Kaltenbrunner] was besieged by the Austrian entrepreneurs operating war industries and by government officials… with requests to provide them with desperately needed slave labor.’ Not that that stopped both Kastner and his sidekick, Andre Biss, claiming credit.

As I said, I will respond to Zeev’s post, which unlike Mikey, Mme Correction et al, is a serious contribution later.

Tony G

Comment by Tony Greenstein — 13 September, 2008 @ 6:48 am
What reminds me of the intellectual trash at the Institute for Historical Review is joe90 denying 60% of the Holocaust in Hungary and then calling it a Zionist crime.

What reminds me of the street trash of the British National Party is joe90’s habit of throwing insults about because he can’t think of any facts to defend his opinions.

Why not try proving Zeev wrong about the consensus of Holocaust scholars or proving me wrong about Greenstein twisting sources to mean the opposite of what they say.

Comment by Correction — 13 September, 2008 @ 6:55 am
A review of the state of play. A couple of days ago Greenstein wrote:

“Far from wanting Wisliceny transferred in order to aid the hunt against Eichmann, the intention was obviously clear - to try and save his neck as Barri, writing in that well-known anti-Zionist magazine The Journal of Israeli History, makes clear.”

Barri’s article said the opposite:

“Kastner’s appeal… was but a continuation of the Jewish Agency’s attempts to locate Eichmann.”

She also quoted Kastner:

“Wisliceny is the only available member of Eichmann’s staff who can give a complete and thorough picture of the extermination program and the people involved in the execution of this program. He will probably be hanged by the Slovakian officials where he is interned unless he is extradited and we would thereby lose all the proof he may be expected to give.”

Instead of apologising for twisting his source, Greenstein did it again:

“the reason Kastner tried to have Wisliceny moved to US jurisdiction was to save his neck, not to locate Eichmann.”

I reminded everyone that Greenstein’s source said the opposite of what he was claiming. But Greenstein posted his blatant distortion for the third time:

“[Barri] states that Kastner testified ‘on behalf of’ Nazi war criminals and included in the list was Wisliceny, whose neck he was trying to save.”

Obviously he thought people wouldn’t notice what he was doing. In his latest post he does it for the fourth tine:

“Barri does indeed make clear, during the course of her article, that the intention behind Kastner’s testimony was the saving of Wisliceny’s life.”

But then he apparenty sees that people have noticed. So he reverses course, admits his source said the opposite of what he claimed, ignores his own repeated lies, even in the very same post, and tries arguing that the source didn’t really say what she plainly said:

“She does indeed believe herself that the reason for trying to save W is the question of Eichmann BUT at the same time she also makes clear that the Americans weren’t interested in Eichmann or other ‘low level’ Nazis (her description)”

Amazing.

I wonder what Greenstein will try now. Something as impressive as boasting about his mastery of historical documents when he can’t even get Randolph Braham’s name right?

As for Greenstein’s harping on S&M, it’s a bit too Freudian. By twisting sources and getting names wrong when they’re on the same page, he does make it easy for people to humiliate him. Now it seems this was his plan all along!

Comment by Correction — 13 September, 2008 @ 7:47 am
What reminds me of the intellectual trash at the Institute for Historical Review is joe90 denying 60% of the Holocaust in Hungary and then calling it a Zionist crime.
- I thought I was just a ‘holocaust minimiser’ as well.
Now I’ve been upgraded to a ‘holocaust denier.
That didn’t take long.

Of course, I’m not the one distorting the historical record in order to defend nazi war criminals and their zionist collaborators - I leave that to zionists such as Mikey and Correction here.
It shows how much they actually care about Jewish People in contrast to how much they care about their racist war crime utopia of Isreal.

Why not try proving Zeev wrong about the consensus of Holocaust scholars….
- Why don’t you try proving this first instead of just asserting it?

I mean, if you are keen on others proving their case then why don’t you prove yours first?

…or proving me wrong about Greenstein twisting sources to mean the opposite of what they say.
- I don’t want to cramp TG’s style.
He’s far more knowledgeable about these matters than I’ll probably ever be. He doesn’t need me to do what he can do far better himself especially as it’s only a pair of fanatical zionists trying to whitewash nazi criminals and their zionist collaborators.

I’m looking forward to what TG has to say about Zeev, which is more than can be said about the Orwellian named ‘Correction’ or Mikey.

It tickles me to hear claims that issues to do with the Holocaust have been used, amongst other things, as a basis for political show trials inside Israel. I think you’ll find the Holocaust has been used for more than just that by Israel and its apologists.

Comment by joe90 — 13 September, 2008 @ 8:03 am
“Of course, I’m not the one distorting the historical record in order to defend nazi war criminals,” writes joe90.

“Of course” not: joe90 just denies 60% of the Holocaust in Hungary, claims the Zionists did it, and worships Greenstein who distorts historical sources to mean the opposite of what they say.

Denying parts of the Holocaust and blaming a group of Jews for the rest of it: that’s how much the likes of joe90 “care about Jewish People.” Thanks joe90! We Jews need more friends like you!

If joe90 was honest he’d admit he couldn’t care less about my relatives who died in the gas chambers. He wants to use their suffering to hurt the Jews who are still around. That’s what he’s about.

I never had a chance to meet those relatives. But it’s clear what they’d think of joe90.

Comment by Correction — 13 September, 2008 @ 4:18 pm
I don’t deny I quoted incorrect figures and haven’t disputed the fact that I did.

If you can find any evidence that I have consistently assert incorrect figures be my guest and present your evidence.

The fact you provide no supporting evidence for your assertion has to be put down to the fact you are a zionist smear merchant exploiting the suffering of Jewish People in order to silence your critics.

Zionists exploiting Judaism and the victims of the nazis as human shields to hide your crimes behind doesn’t suprise me. Exploiting the Holocaust to justify zionism and Israeli racist war crimes has a long and sordid history.

After all, you have no answer to the fact of zionist collaboration with the nazis - so the only tactic left to you, as you have no arguments and evidence to prove your case, is to throw mud and hope it sticks.

The zionist arguments against their opponents can be categorised thus -
1. antisemitism with various flavours such as holocaust minimiser, holocaust denier etc etc

1. ad hominum

Comment by joe90 — 13 September, 2008 @ 5:13 pm
How ridiculous we have a tireless critic of Gilad Atzmon, that is Joe90, being accused of holocaust denial by a supporter of Mikey, in turn a supporter of Kastner and a collaborator with Atzmon. No wonder “Correction” prefers to remain anonymous. Meanwhile, Joe is on record condemning the holocaust and never taking issue with the overall numbers and condemning those who really do deny the holocaust or support and distribute the writings of those that do deny it.

The issue here is not how many hundreds of thousands of Jews were betrayed by Kastner out of the millions that died but that they were betrayed by Kastner. That’s it. Quibble about numbers and places but when the zionists lose every humanist argument over their nasty racist project they resort to “it’s good for Jews”. Mikey and Kastner, generations apart, are proof that they even lose that argument as well.

Comment by Mark Elf — 13 September, 2008 @ 10:05 pm
[This comment was deleted as it contained a libel. This same libel was published previously by the Times Newspaper, who retracted it and apologised. Andy]

Comment by Mikey — 14 September, 2008 @ 2:41 am
Erratum,

The page reference for the following comment from Francis R. Nicosia’s book Zionism and anti-Semitism in Nazi Germany (Cambridge University Press, 2008) has not come out:

Nicosia specifically states that it is a-historical and simplistic to “dismiss Zionism as yet another of racism, the substance of which has not been very different from German National Socialism.”

The relevant reference is page 8 of that book.

Comment by Mikey — 14 September, 2008 @ 2:46 am
It is interesting that having been the cause of The Times conceding a libel action, because of his lies - yes lies - which Aaronovitch put on his blog, the freak known as Mikey now dares to repeat his libels WITHOUT even having the honesty to acknowledge that even a major right-wing newspaper wasn’t prepared to defend them when push comes to shove because it realises that Mikey’s traumas at hearing me speak weren’t a defence!

No Mikey you are not a coward you just failed to intervene. Yes you wouldn’t have had as long as me, that is usually the case with guest speakers, but I have never hesitated to intervene for 1-2 minutes in a meeting, what is your fear? You can’t say anything succinctly? Well you intervened, not that anyone noticed, at the IJV meeting on Boycott, so you can clearly do it but were also clearly afraid of being humiliated by Lenni Brenner and me.

i. Having scanned it it is libellous and repeats the same lies, and yes even the Jewish Chronicle can and does print lies, that led to the successful libel action against David Aaronovitch and The Times. Being an activist and an employment lawyer in particular, I don’t have time to waste on human freaks like Mikey in search of an identity.

I can only briefly comment on Mikey’s reply, not only because as I have a life and kids, but because it is a waste of time rebutting him since Mikey still believes that if he can get any quote, however propagandistic or polemical, even if it has no substance or is taken from a plagiarist even, then that is a rebuttal. E.g. he cites as proof that Perfidy is the worst book since sliced bread that fact that ‘ A review of Perfidy in the New York Times said that Hecht “indulges in some crude distortions of history.”

Well that clinches it doesn’t it. But the New York Times isn’t a source of neutral, value-free facts and comment. It is a player and it has been pro-Zionist, absurdly so, and pro-war since its beginnings. Maybe the name Judith Miller means nothing to him but it certainly does to those who oppose the Iraqi war, because she was the columnist who took the claims of the Pentagon and CIA about weapons of mass destruction at face value and her ‘news’ stories were little more than the formers’ press releases. http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/media/features/9226/

Likewise it ran a veritable campaign in favour of the notorious forgery by Joan Peters ‘From Time Immemorial’ alleging that the Palestinians refugees were in fact recent immigrants caused by the Zionist presence. Problem was that she borrowed her ‘facts’ from a plagiarist and then that other plagiarist, Alan Dershowitz borrowed them from her. http://www.serendipity.li/zionism/joan_peters.htm

But shock horror. Mikey has turned up a terrible quote from Hecht, which is clearly anti-Semitic. And? We know he was a Zionist and a revisionist Zionist to boot. But were quotes about ‘Jew faces in which race leers and burns like some biologic disease are rather shocking to a mongrelized world.’ any worse than those from the editor of the Zionist die Welt, Jacob Klatzkin, that ‘Galut can only drag out the disgrace of our people and sustain the existence of a people disfigured in both body and soul - in a word, of a horror. At the very worst it can maintain us in a state of national impurity and breed some sort of outlandish creature in an environment of disintegration of cultures and of darkening spiritual horizons.’ (A Hertzberg, the Zionist Idea, pp. 222/3) or Moses Hess in Rome & Jerusalem that ‘Jewish noses can’t be reshaped and black curly hair can’t be changed into blond hair or combed straight by christening. The Jewish race is a basic one and reproduces itself in its integrity… the Jewish type has itself always remained the same throughout the course of the centuries… the Jewish type can’t be exterminated Hess, Rome & Jerusalem - The Last Nationality Question’, 1862, pp. 85/6.

However it’s good that Mikey has been provoked beyond endurance! Hence he retails a number of lies himself:
i. I send friendly e-mails to Atzmon. Not so. When Atzmon got into an argument with Israel Shamir, over the question of Lenni Brenner’s book that Mikey thinks discredited and, at that time, took a position that the railway lines to Auschwitz should be bombed, I took this as a change of his position and wrote him an e-mail welcoming his change of heart. I was wrong, he hadn’t changed. And that was the first and only such e-mail.

ii. Mikey lies about the National Front and myself. It is a lie because I have pointed this out to before to him. I was one of the founders of the Brighton & Hove anti-fascist committee and Secretary of the local ANL, which at that time believed in physically confronting the fascists. Mikey by way of contrast has never involved himself in anti-fascist activity or taken the associated risks - your home address being publicised, being physically attacked by gangs of goons etc. We were successful in driving them off the streets (and at Sussex University the Chair of the Zionist ‘J’ Soc OPPOSED no platform for them because it might be used against them! This was the kind of right-wing shit that Nigel Savage was.

The NF discovered that I was anti-Zionist and therefore deliberately wrote a fake review of a pamphlet I wrote comparing it to the holocaust denial pamphlet ‘Did 6 Million Really Die’ by Richard Harwood/Verall. They did this, quite clearly, in order to give ammunition to quislings and Zionists like Mikey and of course Mikey swallowed the bait. But without having the ‘review’ to hand it also mentions that fact that I had helped hospitalise the bastards and their indifference to my personal fate. Strange things to mention in a ‘review’ but in fact they mentioned that their ‘review’ would provide ammunition for the more brain dead Zionists like MME. In fact Mikey even quotes selectively from the NF ‘review’.

5. Mikey believes the real collaborators with the Nazis are the communists. Well right-wing scum like would believe that but some of us understand that despite Stalin’s pact with Hitler the Russian people, and the system created by the Bolsheviks, however deformed, were responsible, at terrible cost for the destruction of the Nazi armies. It certainly wasn’t the West whose firms like IBM were doing trade in the middle of the war (or Bush’s grandfather’s oil firm). Trotskyists like Abram Leon paid with the life whilst fighting fascism so a toe rag like Mikey, who even collaborates with ex-Jewish anti-Semites should hang his head with shame.

6. Mikey at last concedes that Ruth Smeed on behalf of the Board of Deputies acknowledged that the BNP web site was the pro-Zionist of all. He says he doesn’t understand but suggests I ask her. But I don’t need to because it is quite clear, as the reference from Joe proved, that the site is both pro-Zionist and anti-Semitic.

7. Mike says that ‘Barri does not say anywhere in her article that Kasztner testified on behalf of Wisliceny. What Barri says is that Kasztner appealed on behalf of Wisliceny. Kasztner wanted him transferred to American custody. [44] An appeal is not the same as a testimony’. This is what is called splitting hairs. No K didn’t testify on W’s behalf he merely appealed on his behalf!! Please, give us a break. And he merely wanted him transferred to American custody because those damn Czechs were in the habit of hanging Nazi war criminals. Quite.

8. Mikey still wishes to argue that 1+1=1. Ok Mikey you didn’t work with Atzmon, with whom you admit to having met, you merely collaborated with him. Fact is that he thanked you for the information dug up on me and you think it is legitimate to go around ferretting around for information on people whose politics you find difficult to oppose, showing what a low-life you are. Fine, but why did Atzmon thank for having passed on that info?

9. I have on this threat criticised the behaviour of the Jewish Council (Judenrat) in Hungary which was as bad as any. It consisted of Zionists and well-connected businessmen and other such types. There was nothing progressive about it but it didn’t keep the news of Auschwitz secret like Kastner. It wasn’t handed by the Slovakian Judenverrat a copy of the Auschwitz Protocols but certainly it should be very heavily criticised as a quisling group.

I have read the Braham’s quote on Kastner. It is of course an opinion, though an important one, but in fact Braham veered in different directions re Kastner and also raises the allegation that he saved the 1684 Prominents in exchange for the rest of Hungarian Jewry, something Mikey has no problem with.

10. It is not true that I claim that the Nazi Party is a Zionist party. That is absurd. It was pro-Zionist, a very different thing.

11. The book of Francis Nicosia which I have read is ‘The Third Reich and the Palestine Question’ which makes the pro-Zionist orientation of the Nazi Party quite clear. Nor do I doubt that Zionists like the racist Tabenkin were ‘proud’ of Jewish resistance fighters in Poland, that is not the point. They were unwilling to do anything to help them and indeed they were part of the effort to close the doors to all escapees unless their destination was Palestine. Perhaps Mikey should read S Beit Zvi’s monumeanl ‘Post Ugandan Zionism on Trial’ in which he details just how the Zionist movement in Palestine resisted doing anything.

12. I note how Mikey has ignored the 1938 memorandum of Ben Gurion to the Zionist Executive (and his falsification of Dawidowicz’s figures on the Hungarian Jewish dead) so let us pile up the agony even more. The Chair of the Rescue Dept. of the Jewish Agency Executive was none other than a Yitzhak Greenbaum. When asked to actually do something this was his response:

‘When they come to us with two plans - the rescue of the masses of Jews in Europe or the redemption of the land I vote without a second thought for the redemption of the land. The more said about the slaughter of our own people, the greater the minimisation of our efforts to strengthen and promote the Hebraisation of the land….

And when I was asked but could you donate from the resources of the United Jewish Appeal (Foundation Fund) for the rescue of Jews in Europe, I said no. And I say again no. I know that people wonder why I found it necessary to say that. Friends tell me that even if these things are true, I should not reveal them in public at a moment of such sorrow and anxiety… I cannot agree. In my opinion one should resist this wave which relegates the Zionist activities to secondary importance. And because of that I was called anti-Semitic and was judged to be responsible for the fact that we do not absorb ourselves completely in the rescue activity.’

Statement to Zionist Executive Council on the Holocaust and On the Reaction. (18.2.1943) published in Beeyemei Khurban Veshoah, (In Days of Holocaust and Destruction) Tel Aviv, 1946, pp. 68/9, cited U Davies p.25 and Shonfield. Also Hecht, p. 50.

No doubt Mikey can explain this quote. But rather than just quote Zionist politicians, what was the view of an objective, indeed pro-Zionist writer such as Christopher Sykes, the British imperial historian and son of Government Minister Sir Mark Sykes, who writes of the 1938 Evian Conference

‘which was held purportedly in order to try and find places of refuge for Europe’s Jews, but more as a face saving exercise, that:
The Zionists who played no part in the (Evian) Conference were not worried by its failure… From the start they regarded the whole enterprise with hostile indifference. Zionist writers scarcely mentioned it…
If the 31 nations had done their duty and shown hospitality to those in dire need, then the pressure on the National Home and the heightened enthusiasm of Jews with Palestine would both have been relaxed. THIS WAS THE LAST THING THE ZIONIST LEADERS WISHED FOR… Even in the more terrible days ahead they made no secret of the fact, even when talking to Gentiles, that they did not want Jewish settlements outside Palestine. To be successful… the Zionists wanted to do something more for Jews than merely help them to escape dangers. They wanted to make them the object of respect, not the object of pity… If their policy entailed suffering, then that was the price that had to be paid for the rescue of the Jewish soul. It is hard, perhaps impossible to find a parallel in history to this particular Zionist idea.. That such was the basic Zionist idea is not a matter of opinion but a fact abundantly provable by evidence… There can be no doubt that here again one is confronted with an idea which even if judged as morally wrong is such as could only be conceived by a great people. As time went on it grew rather than diminished in strength. It formed another crossroads.’ pp. 188-91.

I have read this debate and would like to make some comments.

Mr. Greenstein has taken a lot of his information about the Grunwald-Kasztner libel trial from the book Perfidy. This is a work of right-wing propaganda. Scholars do not take it seriously. I explain why in a moment.

The Grunwald-Kasztner libel case was a political show trial. In Israel everyone knows this. Mr. Greenstein could be unfamiliar with the facts. He should know:

1) The defense attorney, Shmuel Tamir, was a leadership candidate in the right-wing opposition Herut party.

2) The judge, Binyamin Halevy, had been denied promotion by the Mapai government. He was about to join Herut. His judgment in the libel trial was timed for the Israeli election season. I believe Herut doubled its seats after the judgment. Halevy was later a Herut politician in the Knesset.

3) Ben Hecht, who wrote Perfidy, was an American Herut propagandist who observed and reported the trial for Shmuel Tamir’s defense team. When you read his book, basically you are reading the defense case.

4) Moshe Krausz, the defense witness and one of Rezsoe Kasztner’s loudest accusers, was in the right-wing religious Mizrachi party. They were political competitors in Hungary and this did not stop in Israel.

5) Joel Brand, who has been subject to debate on this page, was by then a former terrorist in the extreme right-wing Lehi or Stern Gang. His objective after the Holocaust was to paint himself as a martyr and discredit the Mapai leaders.

6) Benjamin Akzin, another witness quoted here, was a right-wing Revisionist Zionist from America and an important political ally of Ben Hecht, Peter Bergson and Shmuel Tamir.

A cosy ideological family! They were simply political activists who wanted power for their movement. This was also true of the other side: they were from the Mapai establishment. As I said, it was a political show trial.

Now back to Perfidy. Mr. Greenstein quotes a famous passage: “his eyes roll and he looks like a man about to jump out of a window” etc. It is a case study of Hecht’s technique. The incident is well known. Tamir was simply shouting at Kasztner on the witness stand for hours on end. Judge Halevy did nothing to stop it. Kasztner collapsed and it looked like a heart attack. But Hecht, who was after all from Hollywood, writes as if Kasztner was almost confessing his guilt!

That is typical of Perfidy’s distortions. The book is full of selective quotes, mistranslations, facts which aren’t true. I can give Mr. Greenstein more examples if he wants. Mr. Greenstein, as a socialist, has a healthy distrust of right-wing propaganda. Does he make an exception for the Grunwald-Kasztner trial?

After Halevy’s politically aimed verdict, which destroyed the socialist government and doubled the right-wing opposition vote, Tamir naturally had Kasztner charged with perjury in relation to Becher. Kasztner was acquitted because he did not testify for Becher at Nuremberg after all. He made his statements at Becher’s denazification hearing. I don’t blame Mr. Greenstein for repeating this common mistake, but here is a predictable result of using a right-wing propaganda source.

I can solve Mr. Greenstein’s confusion about the Jewish Agency. Krausz at the Palestine Office was the Jewish Agency official in Hungary. Kasztner’s Relief and Rescue Comittee was a different body. (Mr. Greenstein’s mistake is natural because Krausz was Mizrachi and Kasztner was in Ihud, Hungary’s Mapai.) Kasztner was paid by the Jewish Agency after the war — not in Nazi-occupied Hungary.

In general Holocaust scholars inside and outside Israel see the Grunwald-Kasztner libel case for what it was, a political show trial. Maybe they are wrong. But in today’s Holocaust scholarship, as in the Supreme Court judgment, Kasztner is nearly everywhere rehabilitated.

Comment by Zeev — 12 September, 2008 @ 3:52 am

Comment by Tony Greenstein — 14 September, 2008 @ 11:40 pm
Zeev posted a comment re Perfidy, which I want to take up and reply to:

1. I am aware that Perfidy was a book by a right-wing, revisionist historian. However his book is still, nearly 50 years on, regularly cited by scholars. E.g. I had a dispute with Mikey about whether or not Braham had cited him in his Politics of Genocide. he stated he had twice whereas I made some 9 counts (from memory). Braham is one of many.

2. If the Kastner-Grunwald libel case was a political show trial that is because Kastner and those behind him, the Government made it so. They pressed charges, they got the Attorney General himself, Chaim Cohen to appear. They decided that they could no longer ignore the attacks on Kastner, not just from Grunwald but from the survivors of the Hungarian holocaust.

3. I am aware that defense attorney, Shmuel Tamir, was a leadership candidate in Herut. Though in 1977 when he became part of the Begin coalition government he was in Yigael Yadin’s Democratic Movement for Change. This has disappeared because israel, being a bogus ‘democracy’ has very few stable political formations.

4. I am also aware that Judge Binyamin Halevy was close to Herut, though at first he was extremely hostile to Grunwald, asking him at the beginnign if he’d like to reconsider his plea. The fact is that he was convinced by the evidence brought forth.

5. Of course Ben Hecht’s was, as you say, essentially the case for the defense. But it was a good case!! But Hecht was someone contacted by these dissident Zionists, he was originally just a Hollywood producer/playwright.

6. Or put it another way, out of all the Zionist groups and individuals in the USA, only the dissident Zionists around Peter Bergson and Shmuel Merlin wanted to do something to rescue the Jews of Europe. They met obstruction from the leaders of American Zionism, including Stephen Wise who had at the State Department’s request suppressed news of the Holocaust for 3 months in the autumn of 1942. That even they too were held back by their Zionism I would accept but they were the only ones, not the tame establishment friends of Roosevelt, the Labour Zionists.

7) I am aware that Moshe Krausz, who you rightly accept was ‘one of Rezsoe Kasztner’s loudest accusers’ (Mikey cannot accept that even among Zionists there can be differences) was in ‘the right-wing religious Mizrachi party’. Well being ‘right-wing’ did not stop Ben Gurion insisting on having a government alliance wih their party, the National Religious Party in Israel, even when the ‘left’ Zionist Mapam and themselves had an absolute majority in 1949.

8. Likewise I realise that Joel Brand was likewise attracted to the ‘right-wing of Zionism’ and not just be, but the deputy commander of the Jewish resistance in the Vilna Ghetto, Chaim Lazar. That is a fact, because of course ‘left’ and ‘right’ in Zionist terms is meaningless. So too Benjaim Atzkin. But it was because of these differences, tactical differences in many cases, that we came to learn something of what happened when Hungarian Zionism betrayed the Jews they purported to represent.

I accept also that Hecht’s writing technique was very much at one with his Hollywood writing, not least when describing Kastner’s reactions.

Zeev asks if I ‘as a socialist, has a healthy distrust of right-wing propaganda. Does he make an exception for the Grunwald-Kasztner trial?’ Yes I have a healthy distrust of all propaganda but I note that the attacks on Perfidy, which Mikey details below, are all of the ‘tut tut, how dare he wash our laundry in public’.

No Halvey’s verdict never ‘destroyed the socialist government’ because there never was one. These socialists were the ones who expelled the refugees, demolished their villages, perpetrated massacres e.g. Rabin at Lydda/Ramleh.

Let me describe the reaction of Pinhas Ruttenberg, founder of the Israeli national electric company. He was ‘a great hater of trade unions’ yet during the conflict with the workers there, the Histadrut ‘decided not to call for a work stoppage, even if it meant harming the workers and their rights.’ Why? Because ‘this integral nationalist, who believed only in force and loathed organized labor in all its manifestations, such as the celebration of the First of May, also described himself as a socialist.’ p.239.

Labour Zionism in all its manifestations (bar the minority around Gdud Avodah - the work brigades) rejected socialism, quite explicitly. Socialism, the unity of the working class against the capitalists, was abhorrent. Zionism was in favour of a national form of socialism or as Zeev Sternhall described it, ‘nationalist socialism’ (& only because of the connotations of ‘national socialism’).

Sternhell, in his Founding Myths of Israel, describes laboriously and meticulously, how Labour Zionism was never socialist, never believed in class struggle but did believe in the slogan ‘from class to nation’ in other words it was the role of the working class to bring the nation state into being and that meant excluding the Arab workers.

Re where the Budapest Rescue Committee was a Jewish Agency body. Formally it might not have been, but in practice it was. It is no accident that Kastner wrote his 300+ report on its activities to the JA after the war, embellishing it along the way. Clearly it linked up and worked with the JA in such a way, including its main offices in Switzerland and Istanbul in such a way that I stand by my description.

Yes Krauss worked at the Palestine Office of the JA. But that was concerned soley with emigration whereas the JA was the Palestine wing of the WZO and was concerned with more than just that.

I don’t accept that Kastner has been rehabilitated. What is true is that there have been concerted attempts to rehabilitate Kastner but this is impossible given the formidable evidence of his collaboration, including testifying on behalf of 4 Nazi war criminals (at least) and deliberately ensuring that news of their destination was not leaked to the Hungarian Jews, who were entitled to that information, which had been conveyed by Vrba and Wetzler precisely in order that they might have the opportunity to escape. Elie Wiesel describes in his memoir Night how the Hungarian Jews who were deported did not believe they were being taken to destruction but to settlement in a fictitious place called Kenyermeze.

One particularly moving and tragic account of what this meant is in Helen Fein’s Accounting for Genocide, a story about a little girl Eva’s Story. The family’s non-Jewish cleaner wanted to take her away and keep her safe until the war’s end. Her parents and family, not believing anything untoward would happen to her, and with a hysterical grandmother going mad, refuses to allow her to be taken away. Eva died in Auschwitz. That was what Kastner’s behaviour meant and that fact that he belonged to Ihud in Hungary and the ’socialist’ Mapai in Israel is irrelevant.

Tony Greenstein

Comment by Tony Greenstein — 15 September, 2008 @ 12:51 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Tony Greenstein on Mass Muder etc

2008-09-16T15:37:00.003+01:00

This post originally appeared on Alliance for Workers' Liberty web site but as can be seen they have deleted many of the contributions. Fortunately a screen shot was kept. The whole thread is reposted below but my summary post for those who may just want a summary is as follows:

Before reading Greenstein’s words, we can note the following:

1. He admits that he would be quite happy if thousands of Jewish supporters of AIPAC were “vaporised.”
2. He would like to see “the Bush White House, the leadership of the Republican Party, New Labour's cabinet” and many more also “vaporised.”
3. He endorsed the IRA bombing at a hotel in Brighton.
4. He has his work published by Neo-Nazis.
5. He acts as an apologist for Stalin.
6. He regurgitates Stalinist propaganda.
7. He dismisses Zionist efforts to combat the Final Solution.
8. He falsifies facts on the Holocaust
9. He lies about his sources.
10. He cites books that he has not read.
11. He cites unreliable sources as if they are reliable.
12. He admits that he supports the murderers of Hamas.
13. He believes Iranians are Arabs.
14. He believes in conspiracy theories.
15. He quotes the mass murdering Adolf Eichmann and believes him.

Having noted this, one can see why we has finally given up trying to defend his claims. With every sentence he writes, he makes a bigger fool of himself.

Printer-friendly version

Defend Tony Greenstein!

Submitted on 14 February, 2008 - 21:10

Author:

Rhodri Evans

Not a headline you'd expect to see here, since Tony Greenstein has spent much of his energy, for many years, on denouncing and traducing the AWL because we support the right to self-determination for Israeli Jews as well as for the Palestinians. But read on.

Greenstein has been the most high-pitched and abusive of those who say that when AWL argues against left anti-semitism, we are just belabouring an invented straw man, and de facto helping the ruling circles in Israel.

Well, now Greenstein himself - a vehement supporter of boycotting Israel, etc. etc. - has fallen foul of people on the left who take even further the idea that Israel is a nation so bad that it cannot be allowed to continue to exist.

He has been banned from the left-wing Internet network Indymedia for protesting - obstreperously, to be sure, but that is the right way to protest in such cases - at Indymedia carrying anti-semitic comments from ex-Israeli musician and SWP associate Gilad Atzmon.

Atzmon has written such things as: "We must begin to take the accusation that the Jewish people are trying to control the world very seriously... American Jewry makes any debate on whether the 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion' are an authentic document or a forgery irrelevant. American Jews do try to control the world, by proxy..."

But Atzmon continues to post on Indymedia, and his obstreperous critic is banned.

"Indymedia capitulates to the anti-semites and the holocaust deniers", writes Greenstein, aptly.

He also manages to blame "the Zionists" for this... "Zionists have for so long attacked supporters of the Palestinians and anti-Zionists as anti-Semitic, that now that the real anti-Semites are coming out of the woodwork, the IM Collective, and to be fair not only them, have difficulty in telling the difference between the genuine article and the person that the Zionists have defamed".

In fact real anti-Semitism has been "out of the woodwork", and poisoning the left, primarily through the old Communist Parties, for a long time.

Protest to any Indymedia activists you know! And draw the lesson that left anti-semitism is not a "straw man".

More.

Printer-friendly version

The "anti-Zionist united front"?

Submitted by martin on 14 February, 2008 - 21:54.

The "blogosphere" is, of course, all agog at this. I can't claim to have an overview of what's been written. But this caught my eye, from Ian Donovan (formerly one of the Weekly Worker's main writers, now a prominent figure in Galloway's Respect Renewal).

Donovan takes strong objection to this remark, by Andy Newman: "Yes we wish to split the Palestinian solidarity movement, because we want to exclude neo-Nazis, anti-Semites, holocaust deniers, and those who defend them".

"Does this include Hamas supporters?", asks Donovan. "Since Hamas has a explicit positive reference to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion in their charter, I don’t see how you can avoid this kind of conclusion. If you want to be consistent. Unfortunately, Hamas are also the legitimate, elected leadership of the Palestinians.

"If you wish to exclude all those who are sympathetic to Hamas, or who ‘defend’ them from the Palestinian solidarity movement, you will have a ‘Palestinian solidarity movement’ that excludes many if not most Palestinians. Not only would it exclude Hamas supporters. It would also exclude the many non-Hamas Palestinians who would interpret an attempt to exclude Hamas supporters as an attack on the right of the Palestinian people to choose their own leaders and representatives.

"This is very unwise. If you want to be in a ‘Palestinian solidarity’ movement acceptable to the likes of Goodwin Sands and David T, but unacceptable to most Palestinians, then go for it. Because that is what would be the result of such a split. Or is it not Hamas supporters you object to, but simply that Jewish fringe that flirts with some of their rhetoric? If that is the case, then why the inconsistency?"

I've never seen the argument put so baldly that international activity in solidarity with the Palestinians should (in effect) let its tone be set by Hamas. But when you see the argument stated that baldly, doesn't it make a case for a different sort of Palestine solidarity activity, one that starts from internationalist and democratic principle and not from an alleged need to accommodate "neo-Nazis, anti-Semites, holocaust deniers, and those who defend them"?

Martin Thomas

Printer-friendly version

Tony Greenstein

Submitted by MikeyMikey on 15 February, 2008 - 15:48.

In my opinion, it is perfectly reasonable to attack Gilad Atzmon for his views but that does not mean to say that genuine socialists and anti-racists should resort to defending Tony Greenstein. Theoretically if Stalin had attacked Mao as a mass murderer, would Workers' Liberty have defended Stalin?

Printer-friendly version

Come on, Mikey!

Submitted by martin on 15 February, 2008 - 17:55.

We're not talking mass murderers or totalitarian dictators here! Indymedia's attack on Tony Greenstein's criticism of Gilad Atzmon is an attack on all criticism of Gilad Atzmon. Besides, what Tony Greenstein says about Gilad Atzmon is true.

Martin Thomas

Printer-friendly version

Hi Martin,

Submitted by MikeyMikey on 15 February, 2008 - 18:58.

I agree with you in principle. My difference is that I do not say, as you have done, "Defend Tony Greenstein!" What I would say is - a plague on both of your houses. This dispute involving Indymedia has gone on for some time. I expressed my own views on the matter in the following article:

http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/archives/2007/11/21/jews_and_jew_haters_the_antizionist_jewish_squabble.php

My concluding question in that article was:

"One wonders who sane and rational people should support in this dispute. Should they support Tony Greenstein who wants “the state of Israel to be destroyed” and who thinks that Hamas and Hizbollah are not anti-semitic or Gilad Atzmon who is happy to support Hamas, wants Israel to disappear, and who also thinks burning down a synagogue is a rational act?"

What concerns me is why "the left" have not taken up the question of left-wing antisemitism more seriously.* The SWP have continually hosted Atzmon despite his known pronouncements and Indymedia also seem to be supporting him. Not only these so called left organisations but the PSC itself also seems to be happy to have Atzmon.

Regards,

Mikey

* I exclude Workers' Liberty from this criticsm. In fact I believe that some articles your organisation have published over the years have been excellent. I hold out for particular praise the following

1. Stan Crooke, "The Stalinist Roots of 'left' anti-semitism," Workers' Liberty No. 10 May 1988, pp. 30-37 (and the unsigned introduction to that article on pages 28-29

2. John O Mahony, "The 'Perdition' Affair," Workers Liberty No. 6 Apr/May 1987 pp.10-11 and O Mahony's responses to Tony Greenstein's correspondence on this article in the "Forum" of Workers' Liberty No. 7, June 1987 pp. 33-5 and in Workers Liberty No. 8, October-November 1987, p. 38. (There is an amusing anecdote about this series of articles. I showed them to someone else who has no sympathy for Marxism who gave what he would view as a massive compliment to Sean Matgamna,using the pseudonym John O Mahony, as author: "Sean Matgmana is too clever to be a Leninist." You may believe this to an insult, but I can assure you it was meant as a very high compliment.)

3. Sean Matgamna, "With Hitler on the road to Samara" Solidarity 3/99 28 September 2006, available on line at http://www.workersliberty.org/node/7049

Printer-friendly version

I apologise

Submitted by MikeyMikey on 15 February, 2008 - 19:21.

There is one more excellent article that I cannot fail to praise,

Sean Matgamna, "Gerry Healy discovers World Jewish Conspiracy," Socialist Organiser, April 14, 1983

Given that when this article was written your organisation was still supporting the idea of a secular democratic state of Palestine as opposed to the current 2 State Solution to the Israel/Palestine question, certain comments in that article were quite perceptive, such as "WRP style anti-Zionism is the anti-imperialism of idiots. And it is indistinguishable from anti-semitism,"

Printer-friendly version

Greenstein = Atzmon

Submitted by Paul Bogdanor on 17 February, 2008 - 00:49.

Martin Thomas wrote: "We're not talking mass murderers or totalitarian dictators here!"

Judging by their intentions rather than their actions, this is not so obvious. Let's compare the two:-

- Both legitimise violence against Jews.

Atzmon reportedly suggested (he disputes the quotation) that "to burn down a synagogue... is a rational act" (The Observer, April 17 2005). Greenstein wrote (he does not dispute it) that he "wouldn't lose a minute's sleep" if masses of American Jewish activists were "vapourised" (Alef list, April 19, 2007).

- Both employ antisemitic conspiracy theories.

Atzmon claims that "American Jews (in fact Zionists) do control the world," as in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion ("On Anti-Semitism," www.gilad.co.uk). Greenstein denounced American Jewish activists as an "anti-Semitic caricature" whose "naked conspiracies" seem "to act out the lines prepared in the Protocols of Elders of Zion" (Alef list, April 19, 2007).

- Both equate Zionists with Nazis.

Atzmon wrote: "we compare Israel to the Third Reich, we equate the IDF to the Wehrmacht" (Aljazeerah.info, August 11, 2006). Greenstein linked Zionism to "the anti-Semitic movements whose activities led directly to the Holocaust" (Return Magazine, March 1990) and stated that "Israel represents Hitler's triumph" (Socialist Unity, February 8, 2008).

- Both blame Jews for Nazism.

Atzmon claimed that Israelis are "as unpopular in the Middle East as their grandparents were in Europe just six decades ago" (PeacePalestine blog, August 13, 2007). Greenstein wrote that "without a Zionist movement... it is hard to believe that anything like 6 million would have been allowed to die" (Zionism: Anti Semitism's Twin in Jewish Garb, 1982).

- Both falsify Holocaust history.

Atzmon claimed that "many Jews do not take the 'six' figure and the Zionist Holocaust narrative very seriously" (CounterPunch, May 1, 2006). Greenstein denies that the Nazi-Soviet Pact led to the mass murder of Jews and insists that Stalin "save[d] up to 2 millions if not more" from Hitler (Socialist Unity, February 10, 2008).

If the editors of Indymedia are at fault for publishing Atzmon while pretending to be anti-racist, then the editors of Socialist Unity are at fault for publishing Greenstein while professing concern about leftist antisemitism. Not even their hypocrisy is original.

Printer-friendly version

Corrections

Submitted by ekes on 18 February, 2008 - 14:36.

I don't want to enter into the debate of substance in this forum. There is a clearly and publicly stated disagreement between Indymedia activists over the substance - 'Is Atzmon personally an anti-semite', 'Are the articles that he has written anti-semetic', 'Are the articles he has written open to interpretation', or as discussion has gone on 'are they not explicitly anti-semetic, but open to easy interpretation as such and appropriated by anti-semites', is there 'new antisemitism', etc... Sadly webfora like these, and the blogs of individuals that have informed the bizarre interpretation of events, are not actually very good for this sort of discussion.

So two factual corrections about the course of events:

* 'But Atzmon continues to post on Indymedia'

Atmon's content, a few articles, had been reposted by others. No more have been posted since this row blew up. Only Greenstein's involvement drew him to the site, where he joined a mutual discussion of abuse. This has led Indymedia UK to clarify its editorial guidelines about posts about individuals.

* 'Indymedia's attack on Tony Greenstein's criticism of Gilad Atzmon is an attack on all criticism of Gilad Atzmon.'

The most vocal critics of Atzmon within Indymedia were equally vocal in condemnation of the incredibly counterproductive way that Greenstein has operated and were as supportive of keeping him out of discussion within Indymedia from now on.

Printer-friendly version

Defending Tony Greenstein?

Submitted by tonyg on 20 February, 2008 - 02:56.

I'm not sure what the purpose of this article is, since I'm not aware that I have ever asked to be defended. My purpose in writing to Indymedia UK last October was to protest about their publishing Atzmon's 'Hunters of Goliath' article. It is, to say the least, unfortunate that instead of dealing with the problem of an open anti-Semite being able to publish non-news items on IM UK without let or hindrance, they fell in behind criticisms of those who had objected to Atzmon, myself included.

Whether I am able to post to Indymedia myself is a matter of supreme indifference. I objected to a site which sees itself as anti-racist, publishing articles from a holocaust denier and anti-Semite. http://azvsas.blogspot.com/2008/01/gilad-atzmon-now-open-holocaust-denier.html http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=1559#comment-35911

Unfortunately the IM UK collective was unable to form a collective view on an article which justifies the Nazi holocaust. That it does exactly that is hardly open to dispute. It suggested that it was the Jews’ ‘unpopularity’ in Europe, ahistorical and wrong anyway, that led to their extermination. As if the ‘unpopularity’ of the victims of racism has any relevance to what the racists do. It then equated that with what the Israeli state does to the Palestinians, when the obvious comparison would be with what the Nazis did to the Jews. And yes, I’m well aware that extermination camps haven’t been set up in Israel, but that doesn’t mean that political projects which have as their central aim ethnic cleansing don’t share common characteristics with Nazism.

The fact that IM UK have engaged in continuous personal attacks on myself does not matter, what matters is what they do about Atzmon and co., and it would seem that they are not doing a lot.

It is indeed ironic that the critic of Atzmon has been banned whilst no such sanctions have attached to someone who has made a number of personal attacks on me, with his supporters, on the site. However if Ekes does not see the irony then he and others will have to live with the political consequences.

And given the publicity that their actions have attracted it is not to me that IM UK are going to have to justify their behaviour to date.

I have indeed been a vocal critic, not a traducer, of the AWL’s support for Zionism over a number of years and that will not change, nor would you expect it to, which is why I suspect that the purpose behind this article is not as transparent as is being made out. I take a very simple political position and that is that racism is wrong, whether it is the Israeli state or local anti-Semites who carry it out.

But I don’t accept the argument that either Ian Donovan or your criticism of him is correct. There is a world of difference between solidarity with the Palestinians, Hamas included, and including anti-Semites in the solidarity movement outside Palestine. For a start there is no evidence that the motivation behind Hamas is anti-Semitism. Their motivation is primarily the genocidal attacks on the Palestinians of Gaza, the hunger and the bombing and the siege. I can quite understand that when someone demolishes your home and shoots your children in the name of ‘the Jews’ that they will react by cursing Jews. This not at all the same as European anti-Semitism who are the product of an entirely different social and political milieu. And if Hamas are that bad then the Israeli state, which consciously helped bring them into existence in the early 1980’s, bears the responsibility.

Andy Newman is quite right. Anti-semites should be excluded from the Palestine solidarity movement and of course we should express solidarity with the Palestinians, Hamas or non-Hamas, in their struggle against the Israeli state.

I have never argued that Israel is a ‘bad’ nation. I don’t recognise the terms ‘bad’ or ‘good’ when it comes to nations because this is to adapt to a nationalist mentality, not a class analysis. I argue that Zionism, in its goal of a Jewish state, allied with imperialism, first British and then American, to create an ethnically pure state and that the consequences of this carry on to this day.

Rhodri Evans is however wrong to fail to recognise that bogus accusations of anti-Semitism have not helped in the acceptance of people like Atzmon and ftp, his most trenchant supporter in Indymedia. Accusations of anti-Semitism against supporters of the Palestinians and opponents of Zionism are a universal tactic of Zionism’s supporters. One example I gave was when Marks and Spencers rejected a takeover bid from Philip Green, the latter accused their chairman, Paul Myners, of anti-semitism! (JC 6.8.04.) Do I really need to cite others? Even Yizhak Rabin was dressed up in Nazi uniform by his opponents, prior to his assasination. The examples are legion. See
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/tony_greenstein/2007/04/an_attack_on_free_speech.html

With the benefit of 30 years hindsight, I can see how these accusations, and Paul Bognador is a good example of this type of practitioner, have genuinely confused and misled people who genuinely support the Palestinians into adopting the belief that all accusations of anti-Semitism are bogus. To fail to recognise this fact, when people like myself have regularly been the target of Zionist accusations of anti-Semitism, is politically dishonest. The Zionist movement bears the primary responsibility for the spread of Atzmon and his ideas that it is Jews or ‘Jewishness’, not Zionism, that is the problem.

As Anthony Lerman, Director of the Institute for Jewish Policy Research and no anti-Zionist, noted, ‘anti-Semitism’ has been drained of all meaning. http://thepcaa.org/writtenevidence.pdf

Mikey and Paul Bognador sing from the same songsheet. To Mr Bognador I am equal to Atzmon and from his perspective, of course, he is right. Indeed, if he is honest, I am worse than Atzmon, because despite his anti-Semitism Atzmon is at heart still a Zionist and operates within that framework.

I will not dignify most of Bognador’s hysterical rant with a response other than to say that of course hundreds of thousands of Jews were saved because of the existence of the Soviet Union and the fact is that Soviet troops took many with them and others fled with them. Menachem Begin’s ‘The Revolt’ testifies to this, hardly an unbiased source! This is not to justify in any way Stalin’s counter-revolutionary policy which led to the Nazi-Hitler pact. However the Soviet Union, despite its political degeneration, was a place where Jews could and did escape. This is recognised by Holocaust historians such as Gerald Reitlinger but Bognador’s anti-communism is such that he is unable to understand that the Soviet Union, even under Stalin, represented a different type of society from Hitler’s Germany.

As to his little echo, Mikey, he is clearly too modest. Far from saying ‘a plague on both houses’ he has been a willing accomplice with Atzmon. That of course is not surprising, since anti-Semites and Zionists have always had more in common with each other than with anti-Zionists. A full record can be found on http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=1687#comments but below is a sample of this sordid correspondence.

‘I have been very busy digging up stuff on Tony Greenstein - Roland Rance will have to wait for another day.’
Mikey | 03.12.07 - 8:53 pm | #

‘Mikey, I hope you do not mind me saying that, but your contribution for the pls solidarity movement is priceless. It is crucial that we all know about the racist record of this Greenpiss, a man who was banned time after time for being a racist and an anti Semite!

Gilad Atzmon | 03.04.07 - 10:46 am | #

However, Good luck with Greenie and thanks for all the info you gave us about this low being.
Peace is the way forward
G

Gilad Atzmon | 03.08.07 - 4:02 pm |
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/thecutter/117192641046077827/

Ekes says that ‘the most vocal critics of Atzmon within Indymedia’ were equally vocal in criticising me. But that is the problem. They weren’t at all vocal when it came to Atzmon. On the contrary they fell in behind ftp and presented a united front against his critics. They have accepted this sordid compromise whereby I am banned but Atzmon is ‘disputed’ i.e. published with a tiny disclaimer. At no point have they presented a unified coherent account of what they wanted. On the contrary they now seem to be accepting the present attempt to provide an ‘authorised’ version of what happened.

Tony Greenstein

Printer-friendly version

On Greenstein

Submitted by Paul Bogdanor on 22 February, 2008 - 08:40.

Tony Greenstein's reply to my documentation of his ideological resemblance to Gilad Atzmon is instructive.

Does Greenstein deny that like Atzmon he has legitimised violence against Jews? No. Does Greenstein deny that like Atzmon he has promoted antisemitic conspiracy theories while invoking the Protocols of the Elders of Zion? No. Does Greenstein deny that like Atzmon he equates Zionists with Nazis? No. Does Greenstein deny that like Atzmon he has blamed Jewish groups for Nazi crimes? No. Does Greenstein deny that like Atzmon he is guilty of falsifying the history of the Holocaust? No.

Indeed, Greenstein seems eager to contribute items to my list: he tries to convince himself that "despite his anti-Semitism Atzmon is at heart still a Zionist," he finds "common characteristics with Nazism" in the movement that introduced democratic elections to the Middle East, and he identifies the "universal tactic of Zionism's supporters" in the negative publicity surrounding a Marks & Spencer takeover bid!

Where Greenstein does attempt to defend his record, he proves less than reliable. He insists that "I have never argued that Israel is a 'bad' nation. I don't recognise the terms 'bad' or 'good' when it comes to nations." Really? Less than 18 months ago he avowed that "what constitutes the Israeli Jewish 'nation' is the quest for racial purity" (Letter, Weekly Worker, October 12, 2006) and he declared that "Israeli Jews as a collective can only be oppressors because that is the political form that their identity takes" (Letter, Weekly Worker, November 9, 2006).

Perhaps this explains why Greenstein supports Hamas. He argues that "there is no evidence that the motivation behind Hamas is anti-Semitism" and so "we should express solidarity with the Palestinians, Hamas or non-Hamas, in their struggle against the Israeli state." No evidence? According to Hamas, "there is no blood better than the blood of Jews" (Jerusalem Post, February 17, 2006), Israel is "a cancer that should be eradicated" (BBC, November 8, 2006), and the Holocaust is just an "exaggeration" (Al-Jazeera TV, July 16, 2007)!

These examples tell us how far Greenstein can be trusted when he asserts that "hundreds of thousands of Jews were saved" from the Nazis by Soviet troops. The truth is that hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees from the Nazis were deported to concentration camps by Soviet troops. I have repeatedly alerted him to the scholarly research on these deportations, in which "old people, cripples, and mothers of children" were sent to "speedy annihilation" by "hunger, cold and disease" (Yosef Litvak, "The Plight of Refugees From the German-Occupied Territories," in Keith Sword, ed., The Soviet Takeover of the Polish Eastern Provinces, 1939-41, St. Martin’s Press, 1991, pp66-9).

That Greenstein is dissembling on these matters can be seen in his reference to Begin's Revolt. On Socialist Unity he adduced this source for his claim that Stalin had rescued 2 million Jews. When I exposed his falsehood, he cited Begin's remark that "hundreds of thousands of Jews were saved from Nazi hands." I then pointed out that he had amputated the sentence: "hundreds of thousands of Jews were saved from Nazi hands – though some of them suffered greatly and some of them died in prison, in exile, or as refugees." Caught red-handed, what could Greenstein do? After all, Begin had been describing his own experiences as a Jew in Stalin's concentration camps!

Greenstein thinks that I'm "unable to understand that the Soviet Union, even under Stalin, represented a different type of society from Hitler’s Germany." Actually, I consider that obvious. Just as it's obvious that Hitler's Germany represented a different type of society from its equally genocidal ally in Tojo's Japan. Just as it's obvious to everyone but Greenstein that without Stalin's alliance with Hitler, there would have been no WW2 and no Holocaust.

Printer-friendly version

Mikey

Submitted by MikeyMikey on 22 February, 2008 - 11:17.

Oh dear, why does Tony Greenstein put his fingers on the keyboard and allow himself to be ridiculed so badly. He really should count to ten before he hits the send button and hopefully, in that time, he may decide not to. But Tony Greenstein does not pay much attention.

In his post above is a classic Greenstein blunder. I mentioned in an earlier post that in relation to the dispute between Greenstein and Atzmon, in my post to Harry's Place which I lined to, I took "a plague on both of your houses" approach. Greenstein retorts that this is not the case: "Far from saying ‘a plague on both houses’ he has been a willing accomplice with Atzmon." However the phrase I used about a plague on both houses is virtually identical to the phrase Tony Greenstein had earlier used about my argument:

"I posted last night, whilst holding my nose, to Harry's Place where Mad Mikey ... has a 'guest' post (such nice guests!) on the opposition to Atzmon by our good selves. Atzmon's favourite drinking partner takes a plague on all your houses approach as well as going for Mark (and of course me)!
Tony Greenstein | 11.23.07 - 9:19 am | #"

http://www.haloscan.com/comments/levi9909/1336238984744864458/#319951

Consequently, it can be seen that it was Greenstein who first referred to my post as a plague on both (all) houses, I then use the same argument and Greenstein says I am wrong. Clearly, Greenstein cannot one remember what he says one day to the next, he does not agree with his own arguments from one day to the next.

Now in relation to this argument by Greenstein that I am "Atzmon's favourite drinking partner," he is referring to the fact that I have met Atzmon in a pub. The reason for this meeting is known to Greenstein, for a hobby I attend meetings with all sorts of extremists. I have been to meetings also in a pub, hosted by Greenstein's own despicable organisation, Jews Against Zionism, does that mean that I am also Greenstein's favourite drinking partner? Similarly, in relation to his claim that I am "a willing accomplice" of Atzmon, Greenstein ignores the fact that I am quote happy to attack the arguments of himself and Roland Rance irrespective of Atzmon. This is exactly what I did in the same Harry's Place guest post and what I have done in other posts. See for example:

http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/archives/2007/01/24/tony_greenstein_more_errors_than_paragraphs.php

Therefore, as we can easily conclude, Tony Greenstein's post above, in line with many of his posts contain a farrago of nonsense.

Printer-friendly version

Bognador and Mikey's tripe

Submitted by tonyg on 25 February, 2008 - 02:01.

Since Bognador answers his own questions there's no need for me to do so.

Mikey makes a habit of meeting 'extremists'. I don't know what 'extremists' are. Possibly those who believe in changing society? No doubt the suffraggettes and the Tolpuddle Martyrs were also 'extremists'. It is an example of the empty rhetoric of Mikey but even if it were true, does that justify offering to act as an errand boy and dig up dirt on anti-Zionists for the benefit of an anti-Semite?

It would seem that Mikey's relationship with Atzmon went beyond the odd drink!

I am of course grateful for the mischievous support of the AWL. It reminds me of what Lenin said about the Labour Party - we should support it like the rope supports a hanging man. So Martin & Rhodri will understand if I take it with a pinch of salt!

Tony Greenstein

Printer-friendly version

Tony Greenstein

Submitted by MikeyMikey on 25 February, 2008 - 13:10.

Tony Greenstein now claims that he does not know what "extremists" are. That is not all he does not know but on the subject of extremists he clearly has not looked in the mirror recently. Those, such as himself, as Paul Bogdanor has mentioned, "'wouldn't lose a minute's sleep' if masses of American Jewish activists were 'vapourised'" are exactly the sort of extremists that I meet.

I am glad Tony recognises that the information that I have uncovered about him, by quoting his own words and from publications he has been intimately associated with it, is "dirt."

Printer-friendly version

Greenstein's Bloodlust

Submitted by Paul Bogdanor on 25 February, 2008 - 22:40.

Since Greenstein not only admits that he would like to see masses of American Jews vapourised but also says that he wants to hang AWL activists (metaphorically of course...), I suppose I should be grateful that he's too incompetent to spell my name correctly!

Printer-friendly version

Erm...

Submitted by David Broder on 26 February, 2008 - 11:01.

Paul,

To be fair to TG, I'm pretty sure he was saying that the AWL supports *him* like a rope supports a hanging man... moreover, it's a simile/play on words! No bloodlust involved.

He's also right, obviously, about "extremism".

Sacha Ismail

Printer-friendly version

Sacha

Submitted by Paul Bogdanor on 26 February, 2008 - 15:08.

It would be prudent to assume the worst, regarding the direction of the analogy (was he really thinking of AWL as Lenin and himself as the Labour Party reformist?!?), and his willingness to take it literally (cf. his thoughts on vapourising American Jewish activists)...

Presumably "extremists" in this context meant "anti-democratic extremists" (and not merely "those who believe in changing society").

Printer-friendly version

"Extremism"

Submitted by David Broder on 26 February, 2008 - 15:23.

Yes, but the choice of language is telling. Why not talk about anti-democratic reactionaries or whatever; why bring "extremism" into it? The answer is that most people who use this language are at least as opposed to the far left (ie democratic, egalitarian "extremism") as they are to the far right (anti-democratic, elitist "extremism"), seeking to paint them as essentially similar (for instance by equating the far left with Stalinism).

Sacha

Printer-friendly version

The "Democratic" Far Left

Submitted by Arthur Bough on 3 April, 2008 - 11:27.

I have no intention of supporting Bogdanor's general argument, but he is right that for Sacha to talk about the credentials of the far left being democratic etc. whereas those of the Far Right being undemocratic is truly a bit rich. As he says look at any of the AWL's literature going back decades to see how democratic they really beleive others on the Left are. Look at the report elsewhere here about the SWP and SA's position at the NUT on LGBT rights where it conflicts with their support for clerical-fascists. In most democratic organisations there is a change of leadership every few years, but the leaders of nearly all the Far Left groups throughout the world hold their positions for life. Some have been in power longer than some leaders of the CPSU!

The drift of the SWP in particular would not be the first time that people in an undemocratic organisation, guided by a corrupted and bastardised, elitist and statist version of Marxism have found themselves in the camp of fascism. It happened to Mussolini and others, and as Trotsky pointed out in relation to Stalinism it differed from Nazism only in its greater cruelty, yet all of those people (or at least the majority) including Stalin himself began as "Marxists".

Arthur Bough

Printer-friendly version

Extremism

Submitted by Paul Bogdanor on 27 February, 2008 - 01:25.

They think that the far left is no less elitist and totalitarian than the far right. And after examining AWL's damning evidence against its rivals in the WRP, the SWP, Militant, Workers Power, Socialist Action, etc., etc., who would care to disagree?

Printer-friendly version

Defending Tony Greenstein?

Submitted by tonyg on 2 March, 2008 - 00:59.

Just for the record, I am not on record as wishing 'masses of American Jewish activists were "vapourised". What I said is I would lose no sleep if Aipac, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee were vaporised. A throwaway line it is true but I am referring to an organisation whose sole purpose is to legitimise the murder and dispossesion of the Palestinians and is widely recognised as representing the far-right of Zionist politics.

I would equally lose no sleep if the inhabitants of the White House were vaporised or the leaders of the Christian Coalition. However I doubt anyone could then go on to say that being oblivious as to whether these mass murderers were liquidated is akin to wishing millions of Christian Americans or indeed Republicans eliminated.

As to Mikey, digging up information on someone who is the target of Gilad Atzmon is, to me, the dirty act. At least Mikey doesn't pretend it didn't happen anymore

Tony Greenstein

Printer-friendly version

Greenstein on Murder

Submitted by Paul Bogdanor on 4 March, 2008 - 02:11.

Greenstein wrote on the Alef list: "If every staffer in AIPAC were to be vapourised tomorrow, alongside Bush, Blair and Cheney, I wouldn't lose a minute’s sleep."

AIPAC has 100,000 members.

Greenstein tells us that he "would equally lose no sleep if the inhabitants of the White House were vaporised [sic]."

In addition to the President and his family, the White House has 90 permanent staff and 5,000 visitors a day.

Readers may wish to compare these examples with Greenstein's previous endorsement of the Brighton hotel bombing: "The attack on Thatcher by the IRA was obviously legitimate."

http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/archives/2005/06/10/racist_scum_off_our_streets.php

In that atrocity, 5 innocent people were murdered, and others left disabled for life.

Printer-friendly version

Right, I'm not interested in

Submitted by Tom on 4 March, 2008 - 10:12.

Right, I'm not interested in this debate particularly, but that post from Bogdanor was a stunning example of dishonest argument. Quotes from Paul in Italics.

Greenstein wrote on the Alef list: "If every staffer in AIPAC were to be vapourised tomorrow, alongside Bush, Blair and Cheney, I wouldn't lose a minute’s sleep."

AIPAC has 100,000 members.

Are members the same as staff? No, obviously not.

Greenstein tells us that he "would equally lose no sleep if the inhabitants of the White House were vaporised [sic]."

In addition to the President and his family, the White House has 90 permanent staff and 5,000 visitors a day.

Are visitors 'inhabitants'? Obviously not. Are permanent staff 'inhabitants'? Obviously not. (I'm sure that some staff live there, and I'm sure the President doesn't always live there, but whatever, it's clear what Greenstein means.) To an onlooker, your post looks pretty absurd.

I personally 'wouldn't lose any sleep' if the AIPAC staff were vapourised either. I mean, it's obviously be sad for them and their families etc., but next to all the shit that goes down in the world, some of which they support, I really don't care about a few ruling class hawks being 'vapourised'. Neither would most people. It's a perfectly normal reaction.

Printer-friendly version

Murder

Submitted by Paul Bogdanor on 4 March, 2008 - 11:59.

There's no point debating with someone who thinks that AIPAC members do not staff AIPAC's offices, or that you could vapourise the inhabitants of the White House without killing everyone in the building. This is about as plausible as the notion that the IRA "only" intended to kill Thatcher when they bombed that hotel in Brighton.

More significant is the assumption that the murder of Jewish lobbyists and democratically elected leaders is unobjectionable, with numbers alone up for discussion. It's like listening to some neo-Nazi "explain" that Hitler should have stuck to his demand in Mein Kampf for the gassing of thousands of "Hebrew corrupters of the nation" rather than aiming at the entire Jewish population of Europe.

Printer-friendly version

Vaporisation of AIPAC

Submitted by tonyg on 9 March, 2008 - 22:46.

Bogdanor is a total reactionary. Hence he will put any off the cuff comment by anyone to this right (which means most people) under the spotlight, distort it and then draw his own preconceived conclusions.

Do I ADVOCATE vaporisation of anyone? No. Am I suggesting only vaporising Jewish leaders of Aipac? No. What I said was, and let's be clear, given the support of that organisation's leadership for the Iraq war, for a new war on Iran, for 'full spectrum dominance' by the US in accord with the New American Century they advocate, regardless of who dies i the process, I would lose no sleep if they, the Bush White House, the leadership of the Republican Party, New Labour's cabinet and any other warmongers I can think of, were vaporised. Of course this is anarchist wishful thinking! I can't however see a connection with Mein Kamp though!

Other examples of Bognador's reactionary and dishonest nature abound. Apparently
'Perhaps this explains why Greenstein supports Hamas. He argues that "there is no evidence that the motivation behind Hamas is anti-Semitism" and so "we should express solidarity with the Palestinians, Hamas or non-Hamas, in their struggle against the Israeli state." No evidence? According to Hamas, "there is no blood better than the blood of Jews" (Jerusalem Post, February 17, 2006), Israel is "a cancer that should be eradicated" (BBC, November 8, 2006), and the Holocaust is just an "exaggeration" (Al-Jazeera TV, July 16, 2007)!'

Agree it is a complicated argument, certainly too complex for Bogdanor. I don't support Hamas politically. I believe it is politically reactionary, but in the fight against the far more powerful and equally reactionary Israeli state I support all Palestinians, including Hamas, who stand up against that power. You may agree or disagree with such a stance but that is not political support. Likewise its 'anti-Semitism'. Now assuming the quotes Bogdanor repeats are correct, then all that tells me is that Hamas are reflecting the anti-Semitism of others. And since the Israeli state in the 1980's play a pivotal role in bringing Hamas into being, just as the US did with the Taliban, then a simple question would be why Israel helped an anti-Semitic organisation come into existence? Why did they fear secular Palestinian nationalism so much? I would argue that its rhetorical anti-Semitism has nothing to do with real Jews and in fact people like Uri Avneiri have held meetings in Gaza supported by Hamas. This is playground yah boo politics of the Right.

And then Bogdanor waxes lyrial. Apparently I am totally untrustworthy for asserting that "hundreds of thousands of Jews were saved" from the Nazis by Soviet troops. The truth is that hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees from the Nazis were deported to concentration camps by Soviet troops. Even assuming his sources are correct and not motivated by anti-communism, then I was quoting Begin's Revolt. There is no doubt whatsoever that hundreds of thousands, probably well over a million were saved by the Soviets. I distinguish between Stalin and his monstrous system and ordinary Russian people who extended the hand of friendship or the Red Army which went out of its way on occasions to rescue whole villages of Jews. Does that excuse the gulags and Soviet camps? Of course not. I just happen to hold to that old Trotskyist view that despite the counter-revolutionary nature of the Soviet leadership the system itself was nonetheless not capitalist and indeed progressive in certain ways.

Don't take my word for it. One of the main difficulties as Raul Hilberg, who is not a hack polemicist, explained in his book Destruction of European Jewry (the key work for anyone who wishes to understand the mechanism of the Holocaust) is the numbers who managed to take advantage of the Soviet occupation to escape from the Nazis. That the Soviets committed many crimes, not least sending back Communists to the Nazis under the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact is undisputed. I suspect Bogdanor is so vehemently anti-communist that he will happily quote any anti-communist to prove that it wasn't Hitler but Stalin who was the real enemy in world war 2.

Tony Greenstein

Printer-friendly version

Greenstein on Mass Murder

Submitted by Paul Bogdanor on 26 March, 2008 - 19:30.

Greenstein will be pleased to know that he is not the first to argue that "Bogdanor is a total reactionary." Chomsky's neo-Nazi allies in France have already accused me of embracing "the most reactionary point of views [sic] of the last 40 years." While they deny the mass murder of Jews by Hitler, Greenstein denies the mass murder of Jews by Stalin. It would be flattering to be condemned by either party, and I'm honoured to have been insulted by both.

Previously I exposed Greenstein's thoughts on vapourising as many as 100,000 American Jews in AIPAC, along with the inhabitants of the White House, as well as his endorsement of the IRA atrocity at the Brighton hotel. Greenstein now extends the list to the leadership of the Republican Party, New Labour's cabinet "and any other warmongers I can think of." Thus Greenstein's "anarchist wishful thinking" encompasses the mass murder of the entire democratically elected leadership of America and Britain, and, apparently, anyone at all who supported the Iraq war. That would presumably include everyone from Iraqi voters who support Coalition forces to those he has elsewhere described as "the racist warmongers of Harry's Place"!

The implementation of such "anarchist wishful thinking" would entail a bloodbath rivalling the death tolls in Dachau and Buchenwald. I do wonder why Greenstein chose to reply by widening his list of potential victims. Perhaps he wanted to distract attention from his equally outrageous statement that AIPAC's "naked conspiracies" seem "to act out the lines prepared in the Protocols of Elders of Zion"?

Explaining his views on another case of mass murder, Greenstein draws a "complex" distinction: in the war against Israel - i.e., the killing of Israeli Jews - he supports "all Palestinians, including Hamas... but that is not political support." The possibilities for such "complex" argumentative techniques are limitless. One can well imagine Stalinists protesting that their "support" for Hitler at the time of the Nazi-Soviet Pact was not "political support." Or the SWP pretending that its "support" for Atzmon during the Oslo intifada was not "political support." Does Greenstein really expect to convince anyone with this sort of nonsense? Does he even believe it himself?

Greenstein considers it an excuse that "Hamas are reflecting the anti-Semitism of others." Apologists for the antisemitism of Hitler and Stalin would say the same. More interesting is his suggestion that Hamas can't really be antisemitic because they played host to Uri Avneri. Google Tony Greenstein's name and you will find his essays on the website of the Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust (CODOH). Elsewhere you will find Greenstein's admission that he met "one of the leaders of the NF, Stephen Brady." Thus Greenstein's excuses for the genocidal Hamas fanatics he supports (but not "politically"!) would exonerate all manner of fascists.

Passing from atrocious logic to historical fiction, Greenstein alleges that Israel played "a pivotal role in bringing Hamas into being, just as the US did with the Taliban." Of course, Hamas is the Palestinian wing of the Muslim Brotherhood, which was created in 1928, two decades before Israel even existed. As for the Taliban, Greenstein tells us (The Argus, November 16, 2001) that it was "armed, trained and even created by the US and its client, the Pakistani government, in order to destroy a progressive Afghani regime." But even a minimally attentive undergraduate knows that, far from being armed, trained and created by the US, the Taliban overthrew the US-backed Jamiat-e-Islami government in Afghanistan.

Like many of Greenstein's tales, this last falsehood has been exposed before. And still he repeats it. The conclusion is obvious.

The same holds when he cites Begin's The Revolt to prove that "hundreds of thousands, probably well over a million" Jews were saved by Stalin. To reiterate what I said above, Greenstein is referring to Begin's remark that "hundreds of thousands of Jews were saved from Nazi hands." And he is deliberately suppressing the rest of Begin's sentence: "some of them suffered greatly and some of them died in prison, in exile, or as refugees."

Apparently being caught red-handed once, twice, three times, just isn't enough for Greenstein. He continues to falsify Begin's words, just as he manipulates Hilberg to conflate the number of Jews who fled the Nazi advance with non-existent humanitarian rescue efforts by the Stalinist dictatorship. And then he adds a new fabrication: that the Red Army "went out of its way on occasions to rescue whole villages of Jews," when in fact hundreds of thousands of refugees from Nazism were sent to die in the Gulag! Are there no limits to chutzpah?

I began with Greenstein's "wishful thinking" about mass murder, and I'll end on the same note. Stalin, says Greenstein, was "monstrous," but "the system itself was nonetheless not capitalist and indeed progressive in certain ways." In what respect was Stalinism progressive? In the construction of totalitarian state monopolies? In the violent enslavement of the peasant population? In the manufacture of famines? In the genocidal deportations of national minorities - including Jews? In perpetrating the greatest peacetime mass murders in European history? The latest demographic evidence shows that by 1939, the Stalinist dictatorship had murdered 10 million innocent people, including 4 million children. This is what Greenstein calls "progressive."

Printer-friendly version

Bogdanor - another reactionary rant

Submitted by tonyg on 2 April, 2008 - 15:04.

Since Chomsky doesn't have any neo-Nazi allies the rest of Bogdanor's diatribe is pretty irrelvant. However the 'democratically elected' leadership of the West is the same one that has perpetrated a bloodbath of 1 million plus in Iraq and to wish that the inhabitants of the White House (who were not elected by Iraqis and therefore had no democratic mandate to invade that or any other country) had perished instead seems quite reasonable.

Whatever Stalin's horrendous crimes he did not single out the Jews for genocide or extermination, although of course many died as did many Russians and others.

I suggest that Bogdanor jnr. stops shouting and ranting and looks to his father, a model of prevarication and hesitation before coming to a conclusion (albeit the wrong one being a constitutional theoretician) and shouting at everyone.

Tony G

Printer-friendly version

Greenstein and Denial

Submitted by Paul Bogdanor on 3 April, 2008 - 16:02.

If Greenstein reads this translation to the end he will see French Holocaust deniers boasting of Chomsky's support and Chomsky openly collaborating with them:-

http://www.paulbogdanor.com/guillaume.html

He will also find that these neo-Nazis denounced me in precisely the terms that he is using.

But this isn't the first time Greenstein has defended an ally of Holocaust deniers:-

http://www.paulbogdanor.com/greenstein.html

Above and elsewhere I have quoted the historians on Stalin's antisemitic mass murders. Greenstein openly denies those atrocities, while falsifying sources to portray the murderers as rescuers. His denial of antisemitic mass murder is on the same moral level as his "wishful thinking" about the annihilation of Jewish lobbyists.

Greenstein apparently thinks he can save any argument by calling his opponent a reactionary. He has yet to explain his statement that AIPAC's "naked conspiracies" seem "to act out the lines prepared in the Protocols of Elders of Zion." Does Greenstein pretend that invoking the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is anything other than reactionary and antisemitic?

Printer-friendly version

Tony Greenstein: Stalin's Apologist

Submitted by MikeyMikey on 3 April, 2008 - 17:17.

I find it incredible that Greenstein can claim that Stalin, "did not single out the Jews for genocide or extermination." If Greenstein knew anything about Stalin's antisemitism he would know that by the mid 1940’s quotas were effectively established for Jews in prominent positions in the party, for admission to universities and that Jews were also barred from obtaining a position in the Soviet foreign service. Confidential instructions were sent to factory directors to remove Jews from positions of responsibility. The culmination of this was that by 1946, Stalin could boast "in our Central Committee there are no Jews!" All of this and more can be seen in William Korey's excellent article, "The Origins and Development of Soviet Anti-Semitism: An Analysis" published in the March 1972 issue of Slavic Review.

Specifically in relation to genocide, Tony Greenstein ignores the fabricated Doctors' Plot that appeared in Pravda in January 1953. According to a number of sources the purpose of this fabrication was that a show trial could be staged and used as a pretext for deporting all Soviet Jews to Siberia “for their own safety.” The idea was that approximately sixty famous Soviet Jews would denounce the traitorous “doctor-murderers” in a letter that would be published in Pravda. The signatories would propose that the entire Soviet Jewish community would be “voluntarily” deported to protect them from “the Russian people’s righteous wrath.” This act would have been a virtual death sentence for the entire Russian Jewish population. Fortunately Stalin died and the matter could be dropped before this plan was carried out. For more on this genocidal plan of Stalin's, particularly aimed at Jews, I direct Tony Greenstein to the following source material:

David Brandenberger, "Stalin’s Last Crime? Recent Scholarship on Postwar Soviet Antisemitism and the Doctor’s Plot" Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History Vol 6. No. 1 Winter 2005 pp. 187-204, A. Mark Clarfield, "The Soviet 'Doctors’ Plot' – 50 years on" BMJ Vol. 325 December 21-28, 2002 pp. 1,487-1,489 and Simon Madievski, "The Doctors’ Plot," Midstream September-October 2003

Printer-friendly version

More nonsense from Mikey and Bogdanor

Submitted by tonyg on 10 April, 2008 - 17:41.

I'm well aware of the Doctor's Plot but Stalin died before it could be put into operation. Clearly Stalin was anti-Semitic but to compare what might have happened had the Doctor's Plot transpired with what did happen in Nazi Germany just demonstrates how the extermination of European Jewry is merely a political device for smearing the left as far as right-wing Zionists like Bogdanor are concerned.

Bogdanor goes on at length about the Soviet Union and the Jews. The fact remains that up to 2 million Jews owe their lives to the fact that the USSR was in existence and that they were able to take shelter when the Nazi storm erupted in Poland and the areas of the USSR that the Nazis occupied. As I have already cited, even Menachem Begin estimated that 3/4 million Soviet Jews survived, somewhat more than the Zionist project saved. But then the Zionist leaders saw the Holocaust as a bargaining chip at the negotiating table, an opportunity to help in the building of the State rather than a priority that necessitated dropping all else.

And if Bogdanor stops shouting and starts reading he could try Raul Hilberg's Destruction of European Jewry which estimates that about 1.5 million Jews were saved as a result of the Soviet Union. Again somewhat more than the Zionist movement managed with its policy of 'selectivity'.

As for the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Bogdanor says that 'Does Greenstein pretend that invoking the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is anything other than reactionary and antisemitic?'. No I don't agree. It depends on what the context is. If Zionist groups call themselves the Jewish Lobby, and act in conspiratorial ways to defeat candidates, channel money to certain other candidates, seek to demonise and witchhunt people on campus under various bogus names and do all this undercover, as the ADL did when it got found out spying on left-wing groups a few decades ago, then one can indeed say that th ey are seeking to replicate what the Protocols described. That isn't to sanctify the Protocols but to condemn the disgusting war-mongers and genocide supporters in AIPAC.

AIPAC seek to legitimate the oppression of the Palestinians, the denial of the most basic land and water rights to the indigenous of that area, in the name of American Jewry. They are not better than the worst anti-Semite.

Printer-friendly version

Greenstein, Stalin and the Protocols

Submitted by Paul Bogdanor on 10 April, 2008 - 23:15.

Here and elsewhere I've repeatedly exposed Greenstein's preposterous campaign to rehabilitate Stalin as a mass rescuer of Jews. I've cited the historical research proving that Stalin did nothing to help Jews but much to kill them. I've also exposed Greenstein's hoax that Begin credited Stalin with saving 2 million lives. Greenstein now reduces his claim to 3/4 million, but a fabrication remains a fabrication, no matter what number he plucks out of thin air. And since Greenstein continues to invoke Hilberg, let me put an end to his fakery by quoting the historian's final verdict:-

"there is little evidence of any Soviet attempts to evacuate Jews as such... in most invaded regions Jews were often on their own. Soviet Jews, directly threatened but effectively muted, could not pressure the Soviet government to do anything, and that government was not going to take any overt steps to assist Jews as Jews" (Perpetrators, Victims, Bystanders, HarperCollins, 1992, pp251-2).

Why does Greenstein embarrass himself with lies about Stalin's humanitarianism? He knows that Stalin had murdered 4 million children in peacetime before Hitler built the first gas chamber. He knows that without Stalin's collaboration with Hitler, there would have been no WW2 and no Holocaust. He knows that far from trying to save Jews, Stalin had the refugees from Hitler's terror sent to "speedy annihilation" in the Gulag. So why does Greenstein persist?

The reason, of course, is his tortured effort to persuade himself that Stalin was better than the hated Zionists who "saw the Holocaust as a bargaining chip at the negotiating table" and not as "a priority that necessitated dropping all else." Contrast Greenstein's malevolent fantasy with the minutes of the Jewish Agency executive on November 29, 1942:-

"We must limit ourselves to focusing on a few issues which can be adapted to demands for the Jewish people as a whole, and to gaining for them the support of the enlightened world. They are: (a) cessation of the slaughter and rescue of the Jews; (b) enabling the Jewish people to fight as Jews against Hitler. It is also our duty to request that the Allies threaten the Nazis with individual and collective retribution for massacres of Jews... We must particularly stress the rescue of children, but we ought not to be satisfied with children alone: every Jew who can possibly be rescued must be saved" (Yad Vashem Studies 13, 1979, p195).

I won't respond to Greenstein's claim that for me "the extermination of European Jewry is merely a political device for smearing the left" since his psychological projection must be obvious to everyone. Far more serious is his reliance on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. When I quoted his views on the subject, I expected a denial but hoped for a retraction. I hardly anticipated a shameless defence of the antisemitic lie that became infamous as the "warrant for genocide." But then Greenstein has also confessed to "wishful thinking" about the extermination of Jewish activists, democratically elected leaders, the Labour cabinet and "any other warmongers I can think of." Fantasies about mass murder, support for Hamas, apologetics for Stalin and now endorsement of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion - can Greenstein possibly sink any lower? It's difficult to imagine, but no doubt he'll try.

Printer-friendly version

Tony Greenstein and Genocide Denial

Submitted by MikeyMikey on 11 April, 2008 - 08:51.

I see that Tony Greenstein continues to deny that Stalin had plans to kill Jews en masse. Louis Rapoport ( Stalin's War Against The Jews: The Doctors' Plot And The Soviet Solution New York: Free Press, 1990) has written a detailed account of the Stalin’s actions against the Jews. He states that after the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact "one of Stalin's first gifts to the Nazis was to turn over some 600 German Communists, most of them Jews, to the Gestapo at Brest-Litovsk in German-occupied Poland. “ He continues, “ Beginning in February 1940 in the Soviet-occupied zone of Poland, Beria's NKVD arrested and deported about one million Polish refugees, half of them Jews. Many died en route to Siberia."

In relation to the 1953 Doctors’ Plot, Rapoport states that the plan was to first execute the doctors under the fictitious charges and “Then ‘incidents’ would follow: attacks on Jews orchestrated by the secret police, the publication of the statement by the prominent Jews, and a flood of other letters demanding that action be taken. A threestage program of genocide would be followed. First, almost all Soviet Jews . . . would be shipped to camps east of the Urals . . . Second, the authorities would set Jewish leaders at all levels against one another . . . Also the MGB [Secret Police] would start killing the elites in the camps, just as they had killed the Yiddish writers . . . the previous year. The . . . final stage would be to ‘get rid of the rest.’”

It is chilling to read Greenstein’s denial of all this. He should be thoroughly ashamed of himself although I suspect he has no shame.

Printer-friendly version

Bogdanor Rants & Mikey Wails

Submitted by tonyg on 11 April, 2008 - 17:57.

I defend nothing about Stalin. But Stalin wasn't the sole actor in respect of the Soviet Union's defence against fascism in the second world war. The Red Army defeated Nazi Germany (something Bogdanor clearly regrets) despite not because of Stalin.

If Bogdanor were to actually read Destruction of European Jewry he would also find references to whole Jewish communities evacuated by the Soviet Army in the wake of Operation Barbarossa. But being a died in the wool anti-communist but a louder version of his father he cannot bring himself to admit what anyone to the left of Atilla the Hun does, viz. that between 1 and 2 million Jews survived the war because of the existence of the Soviet Union (not Stalin - if the ignorant Bogdanor can make that differentiate).

And yes it was one of the great crimes of Stalin and Stalinism that they handed back to Hitler German communists. I have written about this but they were handed back NOT BECAUSE THEY WERE JEWISH BUT BECAUSE THEY WERE COMMUNISTS! Simple - even Bogdanor and Mikey should understand.

Unfortunately Bogdanor is like a rabid dog. He reads what he reads what he wants to read and disregards all commonly accepted meanings. Nowhere have I suggested rehabilitating Stalin. Why should I? The record of the Jewish Agency and the Zionist Executive is best judged not by pious declarations that never saw the light of day but by the decision of Stephen Wise, ably supported by the Jewish Agency to keep secret for 3 months news of the Final Solution, following the Riegner telegram delivered via the British, at the request of the US State Dept. This of course was in the middle of the most intensive period of the Final Solution - Autumn 1942. paper declarations mean nothing in this regard.

One example of a little Bogdanor lie is his statement that 'I've also exposed Greenstein's hoax that Begin credited Stalin with saving 2 million lives.' I never credited Stalin with saving anyone. I referred to the Red Army and Soviet citizens who did what they did despite Stalin. Nor have I reduced the figure of those saved to 3/4 million. I was quoting Begin, as Bogdanor knows, but Bogdanor knows nothing else other than how to lie. I have said I don't know, nor did Hilberg or Reitlinger or other reputable historians. But it is accepted by most people that between 1-2 million Jews did escape, not only with the Red Army but by joining Soviet partisans in the forests (whereas the Polish and other partisans were often anti-Semitic and turned them away or worse).

It's also the case that many Polish Jews preferred not to escape with the Soviets because they believed that the rumours of what the Nazis would do was just propaganda. Tragically they were to learn that these were not the cultured Germans they had believed them to be.

Since I've not actually read the Protocls quite how I can rely on them I'll leave to someone who is a bit saner than Bogdanor. As for endorsing them well this is another leap of Bogdanor's febrile imagination. As I've told him before, ask your dad before you put pen to paper and then you won't make such an ass of yourself.

I have also not wished for the extermination of Jewish activists but I have also said I would lose no sleep if AIPAC and the other warmongers, who are responsible for the extermination of others, were to be vaporised alongside the Bush Whitehouse. Those who advocate genocidal war should indeed be prepared to face the consequences, not because they are Jewish but because they are warmongers. The fact that some in Aipac are Jewish or Christian fundamentalist is irrelevant but this is an example of the malicious and deliberate lying of this cretin.

As for Gilad Atzmon's friend and collaborator (did he pay you or did you do 'research' on me for him for free?). Well at least he thanked you for it demonstrating that collaboration with anti-Semites is as much a part of Zionism as eating haggis is a Scottish custom. I'm aware of the Doctor's plot and no amount of speculation will uncover whether or not it was the precursor to something else. The Slansky trial in Czechoslovakia didn't lead to a generalised attack on Jews and nor did the Doctor's Plot. As I wrote in an early pamphlet:
'Following the Stalinisation of the U. S. S. R. anti-Semitism did become more and more tolerated (with the exception of the 2nd World War) and no-one should be in any doubt as to the anti-Semitic nature of the Slansky trial of the Czech communist and resistance leader who was framed and shot after the War, and the notorious Doctors Plot which was fortunately brought to an end by Stalin’s death or the attacks on Trotsky and other old Bolsheviks by virtue of their Jewish origins.'

Anyway it's nice to know that the 2 rabid anti-communists are up to their old tricks of distortion and plain lying.

Printer-friendly version

Tony Greenstein’s Doublethink

Submitted by MikeyMikey on 13 April, 2008 - 00:41.

I find it amusing that Tony Greenstein is reduced to attempts at dehumanisation by comparing Paul Bogdanor to a “rabid dog.” His insistence that he is not a Stalinist is hardly convincing when he uses the language of Andrey Vyshinsky, the prosecutor at Stalin’s show trials in the Great Purge, who would say about the suspects, "Shoot these rabid dogs."

The twists and turns in Greenstein's latest outburst are exposed for all to see. He told members of the Alef List that those who run AIPAC “seem determined to act out the lines prepared in the Protocols of Elders of Zion.” Now he forgets his own words and claims that he has “not actually read the Protocls [sic].” Earlier he argued that Stalin "did not single out the Jews for genocide or extermination"; after being reminded of the Doctors’ Plot which he claims he is “well aware of,” he changes his tune to argue that "no amount of speculation will uncover whether or not [the Doctors’ Plot] was the precursor to something else." He also claims he has "not wished for the extermination of Jewish activists" as members of AIPAC that he wants "vaporised" could be Jewish or Christian. It would be like arguing that if Neo-Nazis attacked a Kosher restaurant it would not be antisemitic because the victims might include non-Jews.. He believes "Those who advocate genocidal war should indeed be prepared to face the consequences ...because they are warmongers," but at the same time he believes that people should "express solidarity" with Hamas. Maybe I should remind Tony Greenstein that Article 13 of the Hamas Charter states "There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad." George Orwell defined in part doublethink as "The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them."

Greenstein accuses me again of being "Gilad Atzmon’s friend and collaborator." He ignores the fact that I totally refuted this scurrilous allegation earlier on this thread. (See my contribution of February 22, 2008.)Orwell provided a further part definition of doublethink as "to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed." How convenient that Greenstein forgets his meeting with one of the leaders of the fascist National Front.*

*See comment from Tony Greenstein on March 26, 2007 at 06:01:26 AM on the following post
http://www.engageonline.org.uk/blog/article.php?id=934#

Printer-friendly version

Greenstein Caught Red-Handed

Submitted by Paul Bogdanor on 12 April, 2008 - 22:47.

"I defend nothing about Stalin," says Greenstein. "Nowhere have I suggested rehabilitating Stalin," insists Greenstein. His misattribution to Begin of 2 million Jews saved by Stalin is a "Bogdanor lie," claims Greenstein. "I referred to the Red Army and Soviet citizens who did what they did despite Stalin," adds Greenstein. And here, for the record, are the exact words of Greenstein:-

"Just to say that the figure of 2 million Jews who would otherwise have died is cited in Menachem Begin’s The Revolt... There were many things to say about the Stalinist regime [emphasis added] in the USSR but they didn’t embark on an attempt to liquidate the Jews, quite the contrary, the USSR was one of the few places of refuge for Jews from Poland. And even Begin owes his life to that fact." (Socialist Unity, February 11, 2008)

Greenstein's attribution of the 2 million figure to Begin was a hoax, as he was immediately forced to admit. Greenstein was caught red-handed fabricating humanitarian achievements by the Stalinist regime, and now he has been caught red-handed denying that his hoax had anything to do with the Stalinist regime.

Greenstein was equally unfortunate when he repeatedly invoked Hilberg and I responded by actually quoting Hilberg. But Greenstein simply will not admit defeat: it isn't that Greenstein has been contradicted by Hilberg. Not at all: his defence is that Hilberg has been contradicted by Hilberg!

As I've written before, "being caught red-handed once, twice, three times, just isn't enough for Greenstein." And this litany of polemical disasters arises not from some trivial matter but from Greenstein's apologetics for the regime that murdered 4 million children in peacetime, the regime that sent Jewish refugees to die in concentration camps, the regime whose collaboration with Nazism led to the Holocaust.

Greenstein's historical revisionism extends to his own writings, even on this page. He dismisses evidence of Zionist efforts to combat the Final Solution, having previously asserted that Zionists saw the murder of millions of Jews as a "bargaining chip." He inveighs against "genocidal war," disregarding his own support for the genocidal fanatics of Hamas. He denies that he "wished for the extermination of Jewish activists," having boasted of his "wishful thinking" about the mass murder of "every staffer in AIPAC." He even expects us to believe that his endorsement of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a leap of my "febrile imagination," when he has just accused "Zionist groups" of "seeking to replicate what the Protocols described."

Greenstein makes excuses for Stalinism and then pretends that he hasn't, he falsifies sources and pretends that he hasn't, he fantasises about mass murder and pretends that he hasn't, he endorses the Protocols and pretends that he hasn't. I predicted that he would find it difficult to sink any lower, but clearly he has made the effort: calling me a "rabid dog," he actually claims that I regret the defeat of Nazism, implying that I welcome the murder of my own relatives in the Holocaust. Will Greenstein's next message deny making that statement as well?

Printer-friendly version

The attempts of Bodganor & Mikey to Relatavise Nazi Crimes

Submitted by tonyg on 1 May, 2008 - 00:50.

Mikey finds it difficult to believe I haven't read the Protocols. But I haven't. I have read ABOUT them, e.g. Norman Cohn's Warrant 4 Genocide and on that basis I say yes, definitively, that AIPAC and other Zionist lobby organisations behave just like cardboard caricatures out of that work. They plot, plan, conspire to unseat election candidates in the US, prevent people from speaking on campuses, invent false allegations against academics like Joseph Massad to deny them tenure (except they got it wrong in that case). No contradiction there.

As for vaporising Aipac's leadership I stand by my comments. These are people whose sole raison d'etre is the waging and creation of wars. It's called reaping what you sow.

The Doctor's Plot came at the fag end of Stalinism. It never got off the ground and it is, I would have thought, significant that Stalin's successors did not carry out this plot. Mikey and Bogdanor seem to regret it.

What we really have here is an attempt, along the lines of German historical revisionists, Ernst Nolte, in particular to play down if not legitimise the Nazi regime by seeing it as a reaction to Bolshevist class terror. Hence the desperate attempts of Mikey and Bogdanor to paint the Soviet Union as equally guilty of the genocide and murder of Jews as the Nazis. It's no wonder that Mikey is such good friends with, and even a collaborator with, holocaust denier Gilad Atzmon.

Calling Bodganor a 'rabid dog' is merely a reaction to his hysterical rants and modus operandi. What Vyshinski said about the victims of the purges is neither here nor there since the same comparisons and epithets are made in countless different situations so it is another example of the McCarthyite guilt-by-association technique.

If Bogdanor were to actually read, not a short book but Hilberg's magnus opus, the Destruction of European Jewry, he would find all the evidence he needs for the assertion that possibly 1.5 million Jews survived by escaping into the Soviet Union, many perhaps the majority taken there with the Soviet troops. Begin mentions a figure of about 3/4 million, which is not inconsiderable but since it defeats Bogdanor's thesis that the Soviet Union was no different from Nazi Germany (indeed worse possibly) he makes no reference to the figure that Begin does mention. I cited, from memory, a figure of 2 million. That was mistaken. So what?

Tony Greenstein

Printer-friendly version

Tony Greenstein: Stalinism's Twin in Trotskyist Garb

Submitted by MikeyMikey on 2 May, 2008 - 00:07.

It is astonishing that Tony Greenstein accuses AIPAC of being part of a Zionist conspiracy. Norman Cohn described the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as a Warrant for Genocide - and Greenstein proves it when he boasts that he would be happy if "every staffer in AIPAC were to be vapourised tomorrow."

Greenstein defends Stalin's successors because they chose not to commit antisemitic genocide, ignoring the fact that they shared Stalin's antisemitic ideology. For example V. Vysotsky made the extraordinary claim that that there had been a secret meeting of Zionist lobbyists where they plotted via the use of "force, bribery, slyness, perfidy, subversion, and espionage" to achieve "mastery over mankind." (Sovetskaia Belorussiia, May 1969) V. Bolshakov argued that the "international Zionist body" is "a well-organised propaganda and slander service" dedicated to "bellicose chauvinism, anti-communism and anti-Sovietism." (Anti-Communism: The Main Line of Zionism, Novosti, 1972, pp.4-5) And L. Korneyev wrote that Zionism operates "Mafia-like on a world-wide scale" in its "espionage and subversion." (Ogonyok, No. 5, 1977) All this seems remarkably similar to Greenstein's ranting about "Zionist lobby organisations" which "plot, plan, conspire to unseat election candidates..."

Following the maxim "never let the truth get in the way of a good story," Greenstein reiterates his libel that I am "good friends" with Atzmon the "holocaust denier." Alas, Greenstein has yet to provide a decent explanation of his own grovelling message to Atzmon in which Greenstein praised Atzmon's views on the Holocaust. Readers who want to check this for themselves can see it here:

http://www.gilad.co.uk/html%20files/tony%27semail.htm

As the AWL itself has stated (Workers' Liberty, May 1988), "much of what many British and international leftists - even Trotskyists - say about Israel is an indirect and unwitting copy of the Stalinists' efforts at constructing a Marxist-sounding gloss on old anti-semitic themes."

Greenstein's conspiracy theories about Zionists are a case in point.

Printer-friendly version

Greenstein's Politics Lessons

Submitted by Paul Bogdanor on 2 May, 2008 - 00:28.

Since Greenstein views the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as a reliable guide to Zionist politics, readers may be inclined to distrust his pretended expertise on the history of the Holocaust. With good reason.

Greenstein accuses his critics of trying to "relatavise [sic]" Nazi crimes and attacks those such as Nolte who "play down if not legitimise the Nazi regime." Of course, Nolte's thesis that Hitler "originated the State of Israel" is identical to Greenstein's own verdict that "Israel represents Hitler's triumph."

Greenstein pretends that 1.5 million Jews were rescued by the Stalinists, "many perhaps the majority taken there with the Soviet troops." For this claim he relies on Hilberg, who actually wrote that "there is little evidence of any Soviet attempts to evacuate Jews as such... in most invaded regions Jews were often on their own."

Greenstein cited Begin for the statement that Stalin saved 2 million Jews, his hoax was exposed and so he reduces it to 3/4 million. Begin did not mention that number either - but he did say that Jews who fled to the Soviet Union "died in prison, in exile, or as refugees."

Is it surprising that Greenstein sees nothing wrong with this type of hoax, when he boasts of taking his politics lessons from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion?

Printer-friendly version

probably enough

Submitted by Martin Ohr on 1 May, 2008 - 19:30.

Tony, Mikey, Paul

Thrilling though it must be for site visitors to watch you three metaphorically kicking lumps out of each other, I don't think this debate can possibly progress given that you are all consistently mis-representing what the other is saying. If you want to continue with this I'm sure that there is a proper forum to do so elsewhere, either on one of your own blogs or over at socialistunity.com.

Since all three of you disagree wildly with the AWL on many of our politics we'd be very happy for you to post comments on any of the many thousands of articles on here which I'm sure can lead to stimulating debate, without the need to reduce yourselves to playground level name calling.

Printer-friendly version

Martin

Submitted by Paul Bogdanor on 1 May, 2008 - 20:47.

Is this a personal opinion or a formal request by AWL? If it's the latter, then I will offer to publish any further posts by Greenstein or Mikey in full on my own site.

I'm slightly amused that you accuse us of misrepresenting each other while the comment below makes the opposite criticism!

Printer-friendly version

what are you on about?

Submitted by bill j on 1 May, 2008 - 19:32.

What are you on about?
You essentially corroborate what Tony Greenstein was saying and then claim it was a hoax.
Your baleful posts are a joke.

Printer-friendly version

The Zionist Politics of Distortion

Submitted by tonyg on 3 May, 2008 - 15:06.

I agree that there is little purpose in this continued 'debate'. However it is illustrative of the way the more wacky Zionists distort their opponents.

E.g. I cited, from memory, Begins statement about Jews finding refuge from Nazis in the Soviet Union DESPITE Stalin (which becomes in Bogdanor's jumble 'Greenstein pretends that 1.5 million Jews were rescued by the Stalinists'). No I didn't say 'the Stalinists' rescued Jews but that:
a. Many Jews sought refuge on their own account, and Hilberg and Reitlinger go into this in some depth.
b. The Red Army evacuated whole communities as the Nazis advanced. Again that is in Hilberg's Destruction of European Jewry. Being 3 volumes and some 1300 pages long I wouldn't expect Bogdanor to have read it, let alone digested it.

Begin, who was himself an example of someone who sought sanctuary in the Soviet Union as he states in his biography that he would have otherwise have been executed if he had remained in Poland (which Brenner doubts in Zionism in the Age of the Dictators) states that 'hundreds of thousands' of Jews were saved because of the Soviet Union. That is quite compatible with 2 million or 1.5 million for that matter, since it is a matter of dispute just how many Jews died in the Nazi holocaust. The most widely quoted figure is 6 million however Hilberg, who is the most authorative historian on the Nazi holocaust uses the lower figure of 5.1 million precisely because of the no. of Jews he estimates escaped to the Soviet Union.

However to Bogdanor the Stalinists were as bad as, if not worse than, the Hitler regime and therefore yes Bogdanor relativises the Nazi crimes. How else can you describe it? I cited Nolte in this respect not on the origination of the Israeli state, although of course Zionists regularly use the Holocaust as justification for the establishment of the Israeli state.

Mikey, who to be fair plays 2nd fiddle to Bogdanor, cites one V. Bolshakov, who I've never heard of before. But if he talks about an "international Zionist body" is that wrong? Isn't there a World Zionist Organisation? Do tell us if this is wrong?

And if he talks about "a well-organised propaganda and slander service" is that wrong? Mikey and Bogdanor are good examples of just that or the ritual libel/slander of anti-Semitism/self-hater or the most virulent anti-Semitism that Zionists have used to e.g. attack the signatories of the recent letter to the Guardian by 105 British Jews. Or maybe Mikey hasn't seen the e-mail distributed by Haim Beresheeth which calls him a 'kike'. Does Mikey and Bogdanor agree with attacking anti-Zionists using the most filty anti-Semitic slurs?

As for Zionism being "bellicose chauvinism, anti-communism and anti-Sovietism." what is untrue in that? Zionist politics have become steadily more overtly right-wing and Aipac has aligned itself with the most right-wing and anti-semitic elements in the US, viz. the fundamentalist Christian Zionists who want a Jewish State to encourage Rapture and the return of Christ, whence all Jews who don't convert will be slain. I would be happy to see Aipac, Bush, the neo-cons, Blair & Brown, to say nothing of Putin and most of the Arab leaders, including Ahmedinajad vaporised. What objection can there possibly be to that?!!!!!!!!!!

Tony Greenstein

Printer-friendly version

Protocols of the Elders

Submitted by tonyg on 3 May, 2008 - 15:11.

I forgot to add that because the Protocols allege there was an international Jewish conspiracy doesn't mean that conspiracies don't exist or don't take place. E.g. the Iraq war was clearly the result of a conspiracy to manipulate intelligence and mislead people. Likewise the Jonathan Pollard spy case and the more recent case of Israel spying on the US would seem to be a conspiracy (spies tend not to do things openly!).

It is one of the ironies that the Zionist movement does operate, not in an open manner debating its differences with its opponents, but by means of dirty tricks, libelling (as per Bogdanor/Mikey), trying to get its opponents banned and to prevent them speaking, denying tenure, manufacturing incidents that don't occur (Prof. Joseph Massad) etc.

So yes, Zionist politics are a caricature of the Protocols but the Zionism has always sought to justify the main claim of anti-Semites that Jews don't belong in the Diaspora. So reaffirming the Protocols is just one more string to the bow.

Tony Greenstein

Printer-friendly version

Greenstein Unmasked

Submitted by Paul Bogdanor on 5 May, 2008 - 17:08.

What do we learn from Greenstein's latest communications?

Greenstein announced on Socialist Unity that "the Stalinist regime" had granted refuge to Polish Jews. I demonstrated that the Stalinist regime had sent them to die in the Gulag. Greenstein then angrily protested on this page that "I never credited Stalin with saving anyone" and "I didn't say 'the Stalinists' rescued Jews."

Greenstein has lied about his statement.

Greenstein writes that Begin was "an example of someone who sought sanctuary in the Soviet Union." Begin sought sanctuary in Lithuania, which he called "anti-Communist through and through" (White Nights, Steimatzky, 2008, p21). Far from seeking "sanctuary in the Soviet Union," Begin fled to a country that was later attacked by the Soviet Union, whereupon he was sent to a concentration camp in the Soviet Union.

Greenstein has lied about these facts.

Greenstein announced on Socialist Unity that Begin had credited the Soviets with saving "2 million Jews." When I challenged his hoax, Greenstein admitted that Begin gave no such number. Greenstein then claimed on this page that "Begin mentions a figure of about 3/4 million" and "Begin estimated that 3/4 million Soviet Jews survived." Now that I have challenged his hoax, Greenstein admits that Begin gave no such number.

Greenstein has lied about these statistics.

According to Greenstein, Begin "states that 'hundreds of thousands' of Jews were saved because of the Soviet Union" which is "quite compatible with 2 million or 1.5 million." But according to Begin, out of "hundreds of thousands" saved from the Nazis, "some of them died in prison, in exile, or as refugees" under the Soviets. And contrary to Greenstein, Begin gave no hint of "2 million or 1.5 million" Jews rescued because of the Soviet Union.

Greenstein has lied about this statement.

Greenstein invokes the authority of "Hilberg's Destruction of European Jewry. Being 3 volumes and some 1300 pages long I wouldn't expect Bogdanor to have read it." Alas, Greenstein hasn't read it. That's why he keeps getting the title wrong - it is The Destruction of the European Jews - and that's why, on Socialist Unity, he referred to the abridged 1-volume "student edition."

Greenstein has not read the book he accuses me of not having read.

Greenstein has asserted that if I read the book he hasn't read, I'll "find all the evidence" that out of 1.5 million Soviet Jewish refugees, "many perhaps the majority" were "taken there with the Soviet troops." In the 3-volume edition Hilberg writes that they "fled before the Germans arrived" (Holmes & Meier, 1985, p291). Nowhere does he say or imply that 750,000+ Jews were "taken there with the Soviet troops."

Greenstein has lied about this source.

Greenstein cites Hilberg to prove that the Red Army "evacuated whole communities as the Nazis advanced." In the 3-volume edition the sole reference to evacuation of whole communities is a Nazi allegation contradicted by research stating that "there is no evidence" of such an evacuation plan (p295). As Hilberg's subsequent book confirms, "there is little evidence of any Soviet attempts to evacuate Jews as such."

Greenstein has lied about this source.

Greenstein omits that Hilberg provides no evidence that 1.5 million fled. As it happens, the figure came from a Soviet spokesman (Morgen-Frayheyt, October 21, 1946). And as historians concluded decades ago, "There is simply no proof to justify such a sweeping statement" and Hilberg's escape estimates turned out to be "wildly wrong" (Holocaust and Genocide Studies, Vol. 1, No. 2, 1986, p301).

Greenstein has repeated discredited nonsense about the Holocaust.

Greenstein argues that "to Bogdanor the Stalinists were as bad as, if not worse than, the Hitler regime and therefore yes Bogdanor relativises the Nazi crimes." But Greenstein has compared the Zionists to "the anti-Semitic movements whose activities led directly to the Holocaust." Greenstein thinks that Orthodox Judaism has "Judaeo-Nazi views" and Greenstein condemns the Israelis as "Judaeo-Nazis."

Greenstein will not compare Stalin with Hitler but he accuses other Jews of being Nazis.

In this exchange, Greenstein has falsified the Holocaust, boasted of supporting Hamas, defended Soviet antisemitic incitement and invoked the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. He has justified the murder of Jewish activists, democratic politicians and people who disagree with him on Iraq. He has lied about facts, lied about statistics, lied about sources and lied about his own lies. It is all rather depressing. But Greenstein has now lightened the burden: he has described Ahmadinejad as an Arab leader. At least I can thank him for that moment of hilarity!

Printer-friendly version

Tony Greenstein - Genocidal Thinking and Other Matters

Submitted by MikeyMikey on 6 May, 2008 - 08:45.

Just over a year ago, Tony Greenstein wrote to the Alef list and said, “If every staffer in AIPAC were to be vapourised tomorrow, alongside Bush, Blair and Cheney, I wouldn't lose a minutes sleep.” On this thread he widened his target list to include “the inhabitants of the White House” and the leaders of the Christian Coalition.” (March 2) As the thread progressed, his “anarchist wishful thinking” extended further to include “the leadership of the Republican Party, New Labour's cabinet and any other warmongers I can think of.” (March 9) In his latest message Greenstein’s genocidal dream targets have extended still further to include, “the neo-cons,” “Blair & Brown,” “Putin,” “ most of the Arab leaders” and “Ahmedinajad” who he mistakenly refers to as an Arab leader. Martin Ohr has suggested this thread has gone on long enough, maybe he is right because the longer it goes on the more people Tony Greenstein seems to want killed.

Not only does Greenstein have this extended list of people he wants killed, he cannot see anything wrong with it and is perplexed that anyone else can.

Paul Bogdanor has already cited many lies in Greenstein’s words but I wish to add one more: In order to justify his wish for “vaporising Aipac's leadership,” Greenstein argues “These are people whose sole raison d'etre is the waging and creation of wars.” (May 1) This is a blatant lie. The purpose of AIPAC is to help ensure that American support for Israel remains strong.

On “trying to get its opponents banned and to prevent them speaking,” thi s is the exact technique that some in the boycott Israel movement that Greenstein has placed himself at the forefront of have carried out. For examples there was the case of Andrew Wilkie who banned an Israeli student from working in his laboratory and the case of Mona Baker who sacked two Israelis from the boards of her journal because they were connected to Israeli universities.

Finally, with his talk of conspiracies and his agreement with hard-line Stalinist propagandists one wonders whether Tony Greenstein has gone completely mad.

Printer-friendly version

Bogdanor's apologia for the Hitler Regime

Submitted by tonyg on 22 May, 2008 - 22:35.

There is no need to respond to Mikey's comments because, as he has had to accept, he is a collaborator with Gilad Atzmon no less (though pretending to remain neutral in the divide between anti-Semites and their opponents). It is little wonder that his hero is Rudolf Kasztner.

As regards Bogdanor, whose project is a thoroughly anti-communist one, which is to follow the lead of German revisionist historians in relativising the deeds of Nazi Germany, little comment is needed. Yes Jews who escaped from the clutches of the Nazis were often sent to the gulags in Siberia. Not because they were Jewish but because of the paranoia of the Soviet regime. Many died not because they were Jewish but because they were seen as political enemies, however if Bogdanor cannot understand the difference between killing Jews, or Slavs or Gypsies because of that fact and the general level of repression which killed many people then he is even more stupid than I've given him credit for.

Begin is of course a good example of someone who fled and was incarcerated in a Soviet camp but also lived to tell the tale. Very few survived the Nazi extermination camps and that is the difference, but it is a difference that the anti-communist Bogdanor finds difficult to accept because it runs contrary to his current project of demonising the left and cuddling up to the right.

Bogdanor reminds me of Jabotinsky's comment about Begin - the useless screeching of a door. The fact that he repetitively uses the word 'liar' is an example of his political hyperventilation. He should take some lessons from his more staid bourgeois father, Vernon Bogdanor, who unlike him has a reputation, albeit as a constitutionalist pedant. Bogdanor is just an amateur propagandist.

The rest of his rubbish about the Protocols is just that. However for the enlightenment of others who are not one step away from the lunatic asylum, I post some extracts from both Hilberg's Destruction of European jews and Reitlinger's The Final Solution. I think it's quite clear that both authors accept that hundreds of thousands were indeed saved by the Soviet troops, despite Stalinism and its counter-revolutionary politics (which of course Bogdanor is quite happy with).

Jews Fleeing into Soviet Russia
Hilberg, Destruction of European Jewry, 2003 edition:
p. 299: 'As Einsatzgruppe B moved rapidly through the eastern portions of Byelorrusia, it tore holes in Jewish poulation centers, but left them essentially intact…. On the road from Smolensk to Moscow, the Einsatzgruppe reported that in many towns the Soviets had evacuated all the Jewish inhabitants.

Starting from southern Poland, Einsatzgruppe C traversed Galicia. When it reached the heart of Ukraine, it reported on September 12 that “across the lines, rumors appear that circulated among the Jews about the fate they can expect from us.’ It had in fact encountered Jewish communities that were reduced 70 to 90% and some by 100%. Such reports were to multiply in the fall. Dnepropetrovsk had a prewar Jewish population of roughly 100,000. It was thought that 30,000 had remained, an estimate that turned out to be too high. In Chernigov, with a prewar Jewish community of 10,000, Sonderkommando 4a found only 309 Jews.
[fn. 21 – Most Jews were reported to have fled also from Kremenchug and Poltava RSHA IV A 1 Operational Report]

p. 353 Of 4,000,000 Jews in the area of operations, about 1,500,000 had fled. Five hundred thousand had been killed, and at least 2,000,000 were still alive. To the Einsatzgruppen the masses of bypassed Jews presented a crushing burden. When Einsatzgruppe C approached the Dnepr, it noted that rumors of killing operations had resulted in mass flights of Jews…. The Einsatzgruppe went on to say: ‘Therein may be viewed an indirect success of the work of the SD, for the movement of hundreds of thousands of Jews free of charge – reportedly most of them go byond the Ural – represents a notable contribution tof the solution of the Jewish question in Europe.’

p.394 ‘Ostland Jewry became a remnant of fewer than 100,000 divided into 2 groups: Jews who had fled to the forests and the remainign Jews in ghettos and camps.’ Of Operation Hornung, Brigadefuhrer von Gottberg reported 3,3000 dead Jews. ‘Nonetheless some thousands survived in the woods until the arrival of the Red Army.’

Gerald Reitlinger p.53 The Final Solution estimates that 700,000 fled into the Soviet Union. ‘For, in the deeper interior, most of the employable Jews had escaped or had been evacuated by the Russians, so that their families and dependants, were reasily disposed of.’ P.216

So despite the hysterical screeching of the Bogdanor and his little echo chamber, Mikey Ezra, the facts speak for themselves. And the facts are that Mikey is a dirty collaborator with Gilad Atzmon, whose anti-Semitism and racism becomes more pathological with every passing day, witness his latest U Tube offerings. But Mikey can't help, like a dog returning to its vomit, following in the footsteps of Kastner, Rumkowski and Greenbaum.

So no, Mikey isn't a Nazi, but faced with the choice of socialists or Nazis it's not difficult to know what his choice would be.

Tony Greenstein

Mikey's Collaboration with Atzmon"

Mikey, can you provide us with the criminal record of this Bugger-Rance. Is he on spent conviction like greenie l or is he just an ordinary liar?
Gilad Atzmon | 03.12.07 - 8:00 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have been very busy digging up stuff on Tony Greenstein - Roland Rance will have to wait for another day.
Mikey | 03.12.07 - 8:53 pm | #
‘Mikey, I hope you do not mind me saying that, but your contribution for the pls solidarity movement is priceless. It is crucial that we all know about the racist record of this Greenpiss, a man who was banned time after time for being a racist and an anti Semite!
I really want to believe that this revolting violent man will feel some shame and take some time off to think about it all. But I doubt it.’
Gilad Atzmon | 03.04.07 - 10:46 am | #
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/thecutter/117192641046077827/
‘Mikey, I hope you do not mind me saying that, but your contribution for the pls solidarity movement is priceless. It is crucial that we all know about the racist record of this Greenpiss, a man who was banned time after time for being a racist and an anti Semite!
I really want to believe that this revolting violent man will feel some shame and take some time off to think about it all. But I doubt it.’
Gilad Atzmon | 03.04.07 - 10:46 am | #
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/thecutter/117192641046077827/
Again, again, I believe that Zionists like you can cope with philosophical thinking because Zionism is a Jewish ideological stand. RK, Ben Gurion and later Begin and Shmuel Tamir were operating within different interpretation of the very the same ideology. The political and legal aspects are nothing but a cover up of the real meaning of this saga.
You can cope with it, Greenie and Brenner can't.
However, Good luck with Greenie and thanks for all the info you gave us about this low being.
Peace is the way forward
G
Gilad Atzmon | 03.08.07 - 4:02 pm |

(Martin Ohr 09/06/08 -I edited this comment because the html tag it contained was causing the rest of the page formatting to screw up. I didn't change any of the text)

Printer-friendly version

Greenstein's Nonsense Continues

Submitted by MikeyMikey on 23 May, 2008 - 23:50.

Greenstein continually copies an extract of a thread to suggest that I "collaborate" with Atzmon. There is of course nothing in that extract to prove his ludicrous point. Moreover, Greenstein ignores the fact that I have ridiculed Atzmon as my recent post on Harry's Place clearly shows. The fact is that I oppose Atzmon, I oppose Greenstein and I oppose Rance. Greenstein, on the other hand, sends Atzmon very friendly emails saying that he would be "more than happy" to hear him play Jazz. So whilst Greenstein tells me I am a "collaborator" with antisemites what he is doing is sending those same people who accuses me of collaborating with friendly messages. Greenstein also does not explain his meeting with one of the leaders of the fascist National Front that mentioned on this thread in my post of April 13.

Finally, it seems very hypocritical of Greenstein to claim that he is against racism when he is one of the major champions of a campaign to attempt to get the UCU to boycott Israeli universities. This is a policy that two eminent barristers in their recently published Opinion consider to be in breach of the Race Relations Act!!

Printer-friendly version

Greenstein, Double Standards and Extermination of Jews

Submitted by Paul Bogdanor on 24 May, 2008 - 01:36.

After a dozen weeks, thousands of words and an infinity of blatant lies, Greenstein finally admits that "Jews who escaped from the clutches of the Nazis were often sent to the gulags in Siberia." Not that this undermines his position: "Many died not because they were Jewish but because they were seen as political enemies," he asserts.

Thus Greenstein is forced to concede that "the Stalinist regime" he had previously credited with saving millions of Jews from Hitler was in fact a mass murderer of Jewish refugees from Hitler. And it makes no difference to him. According to Greenstein, slaughtering Jews because they are not communists is so much better than slaughtering Jews because they are not Aryans!

Greenstein-watchers often start to wonder if they have been transported to an alternative universe in which black is white, true is false and up is down. An example: Greenstein asserted that Begin sought refuge from Nazism under the Soviets. I pointed out that Begin fled to Lithuania, which was invaded by the Soviets, whereupon he was sent to a concentration camp by the Soviets. Does Greenstein admit that he lied? Of course not! He just papers over his lie: "Begin is of course a good example of someone who fled and was incarcerated in a Soviet camp but also lived to tell the tale." Does Greenstein realise that the only person on earth who expects anyone at all to fall for this evasion is Greenstein?

All too many of Greenstein's lies provoke the same question. A selection:-
- "Bogdanor is quite happy" with "Stalinism and its counter-revolutionary politics."
- "Bogdanor finds difficult to accept" that "very few survived the Nazi extermination camps."
- Opposing mass murder irrespective of the perpetrator amounts to an "apologia for the Hitler Regime."

Since Greenstein accused me of not having read the 3-volume edition of Hilberg, it's good to see that he has finally decided to read it himself. Unfortunately for him, the quotations in his latest message confirm my point exactly: "the sole reference to evacuation of whole communities [by the authorities] is a Nazi allegation" from an Einsatzgruppen report. If he had bothered to read my previous message before reserving a library copy of the 3-volume Hilberg so that he could set eyes on it for the very first time, he would have checked Hilberg's reference to the research contradicting this Nazi fantasy.

As for Hilberg's statistics on the mass escapes of Jews, it's a pity that Greenstein's visit to the local library didn't include a perusal of the sources I mentioned. To save him the effort, I quote one of them at length (page references omitted):-

"[Hilberg] says that 1.5 million out of a total of 4 million Jews in territories occupied by the Germans escaped into the Soviet interior. There is simply no proof to justify such a sweeping statement. The suspicion that this is an overestimate is provided by Hilberg himself... The same can be shown for the Vilna region, where he claims that 'up to a third' of the Jews managed to flee. Dov Levin’s and Yitzhak Arad’s research has shown very clearly that this is unfortunately not so. For Bessarabia and Bukovina, Hilberg says that one hundred thousand were deported – and thereby saved – by the Soviets prior to the German conquest, or had fled, or had been evacuated (not deported). This is wildly wrong, as research by Jean Ancel and Avigdor Shahan has shown. Hilberg ignores the statistical calculation made many years ago by Jacob Robinson in the Encyclopedia Judaica, which arrived at 5.8 million victims." (Holocaust and Genocide Studies, Vol. 1, No. 2, 1986, p301)

And since Greenstein is equally infatuated with Reitlinger, let me save him yet another trip to the library:-

"Reitlinger’s misuse of the Stahlecker-Ohlendorf evidence is related to a far graver error on the number of Jews killed in Russia through 1941. He gives this as 'about 350,000,' but provides no bases of calculation in the documents. In fact Reitlinger’s figure is an invention... The death toll for this first phase of the Holocaust in Russia comes to over 600,000 Jews, a quarter-million more than Reitlinger’s invention...

"From all these errors of omission and commission, it is evident that far fewer Jews escaped from the mobile killing areas and that many more were killed there than Reitlinger admits. His overall death figure, about 750,000 Jews, is low by considerably more than 100 per cent...

"[Reitlinger] misused and ignored documents to arrive at a large understatement of numbers murdered. Why he does this so often is a difficult question. Certainly it is in part a matter of sheer intellectual slovenliness. Yet it cannot be only this, because Reitlinger’s errors are a non-random pattern, always in the direction of death minimization." (Jewish Social Studies, Vol. 41, No. 2, Spring 1979, pp102, 106, 111)

Although Greenstein's evidence consists entirely of long-refuted blunders from history books that are decades out of date, I must congratulate him on his discovery that sources should be checked before, and not after, he pretends to know what they say.

There remains his comical suggestion that in condemning the slaughter of Jews by an ally of Nazi Germany, I seek "to follow the lead of German revisionist historians in relativising the deeds of Nazi Germany."

If Greenstein ever decides to devote his efforts to learning rather than lying, he will discover that I "follow the lead" of the co-author of the Black Book of Russian Jewry. He will attend to my demonstration that his own writings "follow the lead" of the most notorious of the "German revisionist historians." And he will tell us why comparing Zionists to the progenitors of the Holocaust and denouncing Orthodox Jews as Judeo-Nazis does not count as "relativising the deeds of Nazi Germany."

Perhaps he will even explain why his readiness to invoke the Protocols of the Elders of Zion does not count as disseminating the lies of Nazi Germany.

Printer-friendly version

Bogdanor - Full of Sound & Fury Signifying Nothing

Submitted by tonyg on 31 May, 2008 - 05:30.

Amidst the hysteria of Bogdanor, surely some form of oedipal reaction to his staid father, we have the ludicrous allegation that Gerald Reitlinger deliberately minimises the numbers murdered in the Holocaust. And then having previous accused me of quoting Hilberg against Hilberg he does precisely that!!

The fact is that whether it was 4 or 5 or 6 million Jews who were murdered is irrelevant to the enormity of the crime. However it is not only necessary for Bogdanor to want as many to have been killed as possible, and to imply that those who don't agree with his figures are some form of anti-Semite or holocaust denier, but he needs to equate the Stalinist regime and the USSR with Hitler's Germany. Just as the German revisionist historians do. Bogdanor comes from the Abba Achimeir school of Zionism, which published a column 'Diary of a Fascist' in the paper Doar Hayom. In this Achimeir made it clear that but for Hitler's anti-Semitism he would have had no difficulty in supporting him. Indeed the Stern Gang, which included Yitzhak Shamir as one of its leaders, did exactly that in proposing a military alliance.

Being a fool and an idiot Bogdanor fails to understand that the Soviet regime could both kill those who sought refuge, not because of the fact that they were Jewish but because like all refugees they were suspect, with the undoubted fact, as Hilber documents, hundreds of thousands if not millions of Jews were saved because of the existence of the Soviet Union. No amount of screeching, or bold lettering by Bogdanor, can get away from the fact that whereas the Zionist project saved next to noone, not even its own cadre, the degenerated Soviet system, despite its counter-revolutionary and reactionary leadership, was responsible for saving far more Jews than the Zionist movement did. And of course the reason is, as S Beit Zvi documented in his Ugandan Zionism in the Crucible of the Holocaust, viz. that achieving statehood was the aim, whereas saving the victims of the Nazis was something that only lip service was paid to, indeed there was actually obstruction of the resc ue efforts of others including the dissident revisionist Zionists, Bergson & Merlin in the USA. This again is too well documented for Bogdanor or his acolytes to dissent.

Just one example of Bogdanor's stupidity will suffice. Lithuania had already been invaded by Poland before in turn it was invaded by the Soviet Union and then Nazi Germany. But for the latter invasion and Begin's escape (he claimed the Nazis would have executed him) he would have died. Hence why even Begin, a fascist according to Einstein and Arendt, was grateful to the Soviets for the fact that he lived. However our latter day apologist for fascism, Paul Bogdanor concedes nothing in this respect because his enemy is socialism and imperialism and fascism are his natural allies.

If Bogdanor understood the nature of historical debate then he would know that estimates of how many died in the holocaust, and in different phases of it, depend on factors which will never be finally ascertained. The Yad Vashem database lists some 3 million victims. Bogdanor, like the proverbial dead sheep, likes to think he has savaged Reitlinger for deliberately (lying? that's how the Bogdanor conducts a debate!) for suggesting 350,000 died in the first phase of Operation Barbarossa by the end of 1941. But in fact noone can be certain how many died, that is the whole point. Another historian who I presume Bogdanor has heard of, Christopher Browning in the Origins of the Final Solution, estimates that between .5 and .8 million had died by the end of 1941.

But in fact Reitlinger doesn't say that 350,000 died by the end of 1941 He says (p. 259) in the 1968 Edition that this no. had died 'In four short months of 1941' i.e. around the middle of October. Simple extrapolation would suggest that this would be aroun .5 m by the end of 1941.

The fact is that the Zionist historians whom Bogdanor quotes wish to inflate the figures to match the 6 million symbol whilst the movement they support did nothing at the time. Serious historians as opposed to scribblers like Bogdanor know that you can't estimate either the numbers who died in the Slave Trade or the Nazi holocaust with any great degree of accuracy.

And no I don't think condemning the likes of Rabbi Dov Lior for saying that Jewish blood is more precious than non-Jewish blood is relativising the Nazi horrors. It merely puts into context the racism that is predominant in Israeli society since Lior was only kept off the Central Rabbinical Council by Executive fiat.

I note the elitism and snobbishness of Bogdanor's reference to public libraries. Wonderful institutions as Bogdanor will discover if he ever pays visit to one of them. Or wouldn't daddy allow him to be seen in one?

Tony Greenstein

Printer-friendly version

Tony Greenstein or David Irving?

Submitted by Paul Bogdanor on 8 June, 2008 - 21:53.

Anyone still following this exchange will be familiar with Greenstein's methods by now: (i) he makes a ridiculous factual assertion, vaguely mentioning a source; (ii) he is shown to have lied about the facts and the source; (iii) he responds with a stream of childish abuse (latest examples: "hysteria," "screeching," "fool," "idiot," "stupidity," etc.) and the cycle starts all over again.

A couple of reminders will suffice. Greenstein wrote that Begin had credited the Soviets with saving "2 million Jews." I exposed this as a lie. Greenstein then wrote that "Begin estimated that 3/4 million Soviet Jews survived." I exposed this as a lie. Greenstein next asserted that Begin "sought sanctuary in the Soviet Union." I exposed this as a lie. Begin was in Lithuania when it was attacked by the Soviet Union. Greenstein now accuses me of "stupidity" and produces yet another lie: "Lithuania had already been invaded by Poland before in turn it was invaded by the Soviet Union and then Nazi Germany."

For Greenstein's information: in 1939, Poland was invaded by Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union; Polish territory was transferred to Lithuania by the Soviet Union; and in 1940, Lithuania was invaded by the Soviet Union.

Greenstein just can't control his compulsion to lie. He adds that without that invasion, Begin "would have died" and he "was grateful to the Soviets for the fact that he lived." On the contrary: Begin had just received his visa for Palestine when the Soviets arrested him and sent him to the Gulag. His interrogator told him: "Running away from the Soviet Union is an offence and you will be punished for it" (White Nights, Steimatzky, 2008, pp121-2).

Another example: Greenstein made various assertions about Hilberg, all of which I exposed as lies. So Greenstein accuses me of "screeching" and pretends that "as Hilberg documents, hundreds of thousands if not millions of Jews were saved because of the existence of the Soviet Union," which saved "far more Jews than the Zionist movement did." Of course, that wasn't Hilberg's view at all:-

"Soviet information media, in pursuance of a policy of appeasement, had made it their business to keep silent about Nazi measures of destruction. The consequences of that silence were disastrous... a large number of Jews [2.5 million, on his figures - PB] had stayed behind not merely because of the physical difficulties of flight but also, and perhaps primarily, because they had failed to grasp the danger of remaining in their homes" (Destruction, Holmes & Meier, 1985, p316; Yale University Press, 2003, p325).

Hilberg also explained how the Hungarian Zionists saved 200,000 Jews from Auschwitz by transmitting demands for Allied bombing of Hungarian and German targets, instigating a worldwide publicity campaign and issuing a hit list naming the perpetrators (ibid., 1985, pp851-2; 2003, pp910-1).

Can things get any worse for Greenstein? Well, yes. He deplores my "elitism" regarding public libraries. But my subject wasn't the merits of these institutions - it was the comic spectacle of Greenstein repeatedly boasting of his expertise on the 3-volume Hilberg and then rushing to the library so that he could actually read it! I'll admit that he won't find me beseeching the local librarian for spare copies of books I've mentioned. That's because unlike Greenstein, I examine my sources before I claim to know what they say!

Now I don't expect accuracy from someone who cites books he hasn't read and thinks that Ahmadinejad is an Arab leader. Nor do I expect rationality from someone who argues that Hitler's genocides must never be compared with Stalin's genocides because the true equivalent of Nazism is Orthodox Judaism. But I do wonder if Greenstein's definition of "German revisionist historians" includes Jewish Holocaust scholars such as Breitman, who observes that the Soviet regime "closely resembled Nazi Germany" in its contempt for innocent human life.

Trapped by his own blunders, Greenstein has decided to minimise both Soviet and Nazi crimes. Hence his reliance on the long-discredited statistics of Reitlinger. If Greenstein consults the paper I quoted, he will learn that Reitlinger published a figure of 350,000 murders when the relevant documents listed a total of 600,000. And he will find evidence of countless similar distortions. He will understand why the statistical appendix was omitted altogether from the German edition, having lost all credibility.

Then there's Greenstein's disgusting argument that "noone can be certain how many died" in the Holocaust, although "Zionist historians" attempt "to inflate the figures to match the 6 million symbol." So Greenstein now thinks that the Zionists invented the 6 million. Apparently he wants to reduce the number to 4 million or less. Perhaps he recalls the infamous neo-Nazi who "put the number of deaths of Jews in the Holocaust as high as 4 million."

So far Greenstein has expressed support for the genocidal terrorists of Hamas, justified the mass slaughter of political opponents and espoused conspiracy theories that rely on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Is he planning to propagate the lies of the Holocaust deniers as well? Is he determined to prove that "imperialism and fascism" are his "natural allies"?

Printer-friendly version

AWL Stalinism

Submitted by Llin Davies on 15 June, 2008 - 21:53.

Yesterday I saw a comment here from Arthur Bough about the AWL deleting his posts. From what I've read here the AWL told him to only post short items which I don't really understand, but never mind. The post I saw was only 3 or 4 lines. But later I noticed it had been deleted. Yesterday I posted to ask why as this seems very undemocratic to me and a dangerous precedent. Today, I find that my post asking about this has been deleted too. Perhaps given your comments above you might want to ask about this too.

Printer-friendly version

I Might Be Tempted To Participate in This lengthy and Wordy

Submitted by Arthur Bough on 8 June, 2008 - 19:55.

debate, but unlike the reactionaries currently allowed to write thousands of words by the AWL here, I'm restricted to only writing 3 or 4 lines. C'est la vie.
Arthur Bough

Printer-friendly version

Arthur

Submitted by Paul Bogdanor on 8 June, 2008 - 21:53.

Why are you restricted to writing 3 or 4 lines?

Printer-friendly version

Because the AWL have had a problem with me writing so much

Submitted by Arthur Bough on 9 June, 2008 - 20:34.

stuff on the Discussion Board which they clam as their private property. I thought that over the last few months I had reduced my posts and their length substantially, but apparently me criticising Max Shachtman a couple of weeks ago in response to an article by Trotsky against other moral socialists conflicted with their need to use the Board solely for indoctrination of their contacts so I now have to write anything more substantive on my own blog.

Arthur Bough

Printer-friendly version

And Even 3 or 4 lines appears to be too much for them now as

Submitted by Arthur Bough on 9 June, 2008 - 20:39.

I posted comments within that limitation on the articles about Tony Cliff's State Capitalism and a link to a discussion on my blog, and even they have been deleted! Fortunately, Mike McNair did pick up the link from one of them to my blog, and at least some decent discussion is forthcoming from that. Its how the Stalinists first began to silence Trotsky and his followers.

Arthur Bough

Printer-friendly version

Menachem Begin Timeline

Submitted by Paul Bogdanor on 9 June, 2008 - 00:39.

I have checked the new edition of Menachem Begin's White Nights, which contains the transcripts of his NKVD interrogations. There he says (p79) that he fled Warsaw for Vilna on September 7-8, 1939, and stayed until his arrest on September 20, 1940.

The timeline is as follows:-

1939
September 1 - Nazis invade Poland and bomb Warsaw.
September 7-8 - Begin flees Warsaw for Vilna.
September 17-9 - Soviets invade Poland and occupy Vilna.
October 10 - Soviets announce transfer of Vilna from Poland to Lithuania.
October 28 - Soviets withdraw and Lithuanians enter.
1940
June 15 - Soviets invade Lithuania and reoccupy Vilna.
September 20 - Soviets arrest Begin as he prepares exit to Palestine.
1941
March 8 - Begin sent to concentration camp in Soviet Union.

In short, Begin fled to a city within Poland which was then briefly occupied by the Soviets, handed to Lithuania, and reoccupied by the Soviets the following year.

At no time did Begin seek "sanctuary in the Soviet Union," as Greenstein keeps pretending.

Printer-friendly version

The Screeching of the Useless Door

Submitted by tonyg on 9 June, 2008 - 00:50.

As I said, Bogdanor reminds me of Jabotinsky's description of Menachem Begin: 'the screeching of a useless door'.

Most of what he says now is simply not worthy replying to. The ignoramus can't decide whether to cite Hilberg or attack him. No surprise there.

But let's have one final look at another piece of nonsense. Apparently I have 'espoused conspiracy theories that rely on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion'. Hmm now what might this be? Is it a belief in world Jewish conspiracy theories? Good gracious no. Apparently my description of the murderous outfit that lobbies for the confiscation of Palestinian land and genocide inc. as behaving as if they were trying to act out the Elders of Zion stereotype is itself an 'espousal' of such theories.

Now I realise that Bogdanor Jnr. is not a patch on his old cerebral dad. To be blunt he is quite thick although he does spend a lot of time searching for quotes besides screeching. But anyone with a few brain cells to rub together would note a difference between my espousing.... and someone else acting as a caricature of someone or something. However Bogdanor doesn't do subtlety, or much else besides.

So what about the Jewish TV presenter, Jon Stewart, a link to whose show is below. In a skit on Aipac and the traipse of 3 Presidential candidates to their conference he asks 'would that be sufficient protocol to win over these Elders of Zion.'

I can only hope that Bogdanor doesn't have a heart attack as he bombards the Daily Show with his screechings. can there ever be a more explicit statement of support...... you can imagine the fool's rantings. Most people will know that a murderous organisation like Aipac, which does indeed behave as a nasty conspiratorial organisation, deserves to be pilloried, not least as a caricature of everything the anti-Semites used to put about (before the BNP and assorted German neo-Nazis became overtly pro-Zionist).
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=171492&title=indecision-5768

But as I said before, Bogdanor's main purpose is to paint Stalin's regime as being as bad as that of Hitler, by suggesting both were engaged in their own version of a final solution. History suggests otherwise and that despite Stalin's counter revolutionary politics, unlike the Zionist project which saved next to noone, the USSR was responsible for, according to Hilberg some 1.5m Jews seeking refuge.

Bogdanor's problems with Hilberg is that of the establishment Zionist historians when it first emerged. Yad Vashem refused to publish it (which Bauer later regretted) because it didn't fit in with their line on the Judenrat or Jewish resistance. Indeed he details in his last edition just some of the campaign that was waged against him, including one particularly horrific meeting.

But there is a certain irony in the reactionary Bogdanor, whose contempt for public institutions like libraries or indeed anyone not born with a silver spoon in their gullet, coming to debate on the AWL web site.

Tony G

Printer-friendly version

Greenstein's Words and Historical Truth-The two are incompatible

Submitted by MikeyMikey on 9 June, 2008 - 02:22.

Tony Greenstein states:

"Yad Vashem refused to publish it [Hilberg's book] (which Bauer later regretted) because it didn't fit in with their line on the Judenrat or Jewish resistance."

Greenstein's explanation of why Yad Vashem did not publish Hilberg's book is of course not accurate, but as it seems he cannot write anything in an honest fashion we should not be surprised.

The reasons why Yad Vashem did not publish Hilberg's book were sent to Hilberg in a letter from the General Manager of Yad Vashem on August 24, 1958. Hilberg copied the complete text of it in his own autobiography. The editorial board of Yad Vashem met on August 15, 1958 and noted that whilst "the manuscripts possessed numerous merits, it also has certain deficiencies." Yad Vashem explained to Hilberg that these deficiencies were as follows:

"1. Your book rests almost entirely on the authority of German sources and does not utilize primary sources in the languages of the occupied states, or in Yiddish and Hebrew.
"2. The Jewish historians here make reservations concerning the historical conclusions which you draw, both in respect of the comparison with former periods, and in respect of your appraisal of the Jewish resistance (active and passive) during the Nazi occupation."

Yad Vashem then explained to Hilberg, "our foundation cannot appear as one of the publishers without running the risk that expert critics who know the history of the Nazi catastrophe thoroughly and possess a command of the languages of the occupied states in question, might express hostile criticism to this book."

Source:

Raul Hilberg, The Politics of Memory: The Journey of a Holocaust Historian (Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 1996) pp. 110-111

Whilst Greenstein seems to be concerned about the health of Paul Bogndanor, right minded people might think that Greenstein himself ought to see a psychologist for his obvious problem, a compulsion to tell untruths.

Printer-friendly version

Greenstein Surrenders

Submitted by Paul Bogdanor on 9 June, 2008 - 12:29.

Having endorsed the genocidal terrorists of Hamas; justified the mass murder of American Jewish activists, democratic leaders and all manner of political opponents; revived the Protocols of the Elders of Zion; invented humanitarian achievements by Stalin and denied the murder of 6 million Jews by Hitler, Greenstein has finally surrendered.

He no longer pretends that any of his factual assertions were true. All of them were blatant lies: repeatedly faking statistics from Begin; repeatedly falsifying Begin's biography; pretending that Hilberg praised the Soviets and attacked the Zionists; citing Reitlinger as a credible source; totally misunderstanding the Historikerstreit; citing books he hadn't read; and so on and on and on - it was all a pack of lies.

Just look at the gap between his previous message and this one. In the previous message, he invoked Hilberg to show that the Zionists rescued no-one. I summarised Hilberg's conclusion that the Zionists saved 200,000 Jews in Hungary alone. So Greenstein simply repeats that the Zionists saved no-one. Is there a single honest person on the planet who could read those statements without recognising Greenstein's mendacity?

Greenstein seems to think he can have it both ways: he wants to rely on Hilberg where Hilberg has been refuted (1.5 million escaped) but he wants to lie about Hilberg where Hilberg has been vindicated (2.5 million trapped). He wants to fabricate arguments that are not in Hilberg (organised Soviet rescue) while denying statements that are in Hilberg (organised Zionist rescue). Does Greenstein have any idea how transparent his tactics have become?

All that remains is Greenstein's pathetic effort to rationalise his obscenities about the Protocols, irrelevant nonsense about Yad Vashem, and a barrage of childish insults. He has not been discredited; he discredited himself. How can Greenstein justify his argument that Hitler should not be compared to the tyrant who killed 4 million children in peacetime, because he had more in common with Orthodox rabbis? And how can Greenstein explain his denial that Hitler murdered 6 million Jews?

Printer-friendly version

Greenstein's BNP Lie

Submitted by Paul Bogdanor on 9 June, 2008 - 12:30.

Since Greenstein has just been caught lying about Yad Vashem, I can't resist pointing to yet another lie in his latest message.

According to Greenstein, the BNP is "overtly pro-Zionist." But according to the BNP,

- a "clique of Zionist parasites and crooks" has "abused and exploited the British Jewish community for decades"
- they are "Zionist Nazis of the extremist Nazi wing of Israeli politics"
- and the Board of Deputies is a "clique of self serving Zionist racists" and a "Zionist-Nazi organization."

So the BNP shares Greenstein's views on Zionism. And in his attack on "Zionist historians" who "inflate the figures to match the 6 million symbol," Greenstein echoes the BNP's views on Nazism.

No wonder he supports the Holocaust deniers of Hamas.

Printer-friendly version

The Screeching Bognador Froths Again

Submitted by tonyg on 10 June, 2008 - 03:09.

It is advisable when you accuse others of lying not to repeat the same mistake oneself. Bogdanor's collaborator with Atzmon quotes from the letter of the General Manager of Yad Vashem, Dr Melkman. What he doesn't do is of course cite the response of Hilberg himself as to why his book, the Destruction of the European Jews was turned down by Yad Vashem. An act of which at least Yehuda Bauer has some regrets.

Hilberg, who was no anti-Zionist, clearly understood what lay behind this decision. He writes of Melkman:
'...during the German occupation [in the Netherlands] his Zionist connections enabled him and his wife to hold on to a precarious privileged position, first in Amsterdam, then in the transit camps of Westerbork, and finally in Bergen-Belsen. In writing his letter to me he clearly relied on his staff. To discover e source of his argument about 'resistance', I merely had to glance at Yad Vashem's letterhead, which proclaimed the parity of the diaster and heroism. Net to that ideological statement, I could see only an attempt at parochail self-preservation. Did his e xperts really believe that their Yiddish or Hebrew sources had altered the basic history revealed by the German documents? Could they really stand on the primary so urces' in the languages of the occupied countries when in fact these materials were largely inaccessible to the public and therefore unemplored by YV itself? Where were the publications of these experts? Where was the evidence of their expertise?'

So yes, Yad Vashem did indeed justify itself by reference to use of German sources (which are clearly the most appropriate for understanding the mechanics of the Final Solution) and his relegating of 'resistance' to the footnotes. And this was therefore, as Hilberg says, an ideological decision. And if Bogdanor's daddy will buy him a copy, he can find the above quote in 'The Politics of Memory - the Journey of a Holocaust HIstorian' pp. 110/111, Hilberg.

I shall be interested to see the source for the Hilberg quote that the Zionists saved 200,000 in Hungary. It's nonsense of course since just about their only effort, excluding dissident Zionists like Krausz, was the rescue of the 'Prominents'. In fact Hilberg, precisely because he is an expert on the Germans, is not particularly au fait with the Zionist 'Rescue' Committee of Kastner. Certainly this is not the conclusion of Eugene Levai's Black Book of Hungarian Jewry, which Hilberg is the first to praise. In fact Hilberg quotes word for word what Eichmann said about the leader of the Jewish Agency in Hungary:
'Eichmann stated in his memoirs that Kastner "agreed to keep the Jews from resisting deportation - and even keep order in the camps - if I would close my eyes and let a few hundred or a few thousand young Jews emigrate illegally to Palestine. It was a good bargain.' Life Magazine, 5.12.6.

One notes that Rudolf Brahams, whose coverage of the Hungarian holocaust is much more comprehensive, is extremely non-committal about Kastner, despite himself being a Zionist. Where Hilberg quotes uncritically from Kastner's Report to the Jewish Agency after the war, Braham's describes it was 'self-serving'.

If anyone is responsible for the fact that about 200,000 Jews survived in Hungary (and again figures can only ever be approximate, Levai believes it is fewer) it is the US War Refugee Board which threatened mass bombing of Budapest and began to carry it out, forcing Horthy's hands. It is fair to say that the Papal Nuncio and the neutral countries saved rather more than the Zionists, who saved 1,684 Jews on their train of Prominents.

And the idiot Bogdanor, who really should take a lesson from his somewhat more famous father, i.e. settle down, relax and then think, asserts it is a 'lie' that the BNP is pro-Zionist. Of course never having been an anti-fascist activist, since he is a racist from the Abba Achimeir school who merely regrets that German fascism was also anti-Semitic, he now pretends that the BNP is anti-Zionist (& anti-Semitic!). In fact the BNP, like most anti-Semites is ALSO pro-Zionist. But don't take my word for it. That is what the Board of Deputies of British Jews says!!! Because on Thursday April 10 2008 the Guardian carried a news story which, for some of us at least, was no revelation. ‘BNP seeks to bury antisemitism and gain Jewish votes in Islamophobic campaign’.· We were told by one Ruth Smeed of the Board of Deputies of British Jews that ‘The BNP website is now one of the most Zionist on the web - it goes further than any of the mainstream parties in its support of Israel’.

And were Bogdanor to actually be acquainted with developments in the BNP then he would have read the article by Nick Griffin, ‘By their fruits (or lack of them) shall you know them’ he makes his reasons for the switch to a pro-Zionist position explicitly clear:
‘When the overwhelming majority of the instinctively patriotic people of our nations feel threatened by an alien force which is self-evidently evil by Christian and democratic secular values alike, to place oneself in the position whereby our political opponents can portray you as an enemy sympathiser, a collaborator, a traitor, is political suicide.’
http://www.bnp.org.uk/2007/11/10/by-their-fruits-or-lack-of-them-shall-you-know-them.

Of course anti-Semitism and Zionism go hand in hand. The anti-Semites believe Jews have no place outside Israel and the Zionists agree. Both agree that Jews are responsible for anti-Semitism by living as strangers in others' lands so their stance is quite natural Even today, the headquarters of the Zionist Organisation in Britain is named Balfour House, after one of the foremost anti-Semitic British politicians, Arthur J Balfour, who in 1905 as PM was responsible for the introduction of the Aliens Act. But the Zionists supported that too!

But it's nice to know that a reactionary and anti-communist like Bognador feels impelled to visit a socialist site with his fellow collaborator to try and rewrite history.

Tony Greenstein

Printer-friendly version

Heating Up: The Battle for the Jewish Voice and the Jewish soul

Submitted by tonyg on 10 June, 2008 - 03:11.

Here is a wonderful open letter from some young Canadian Jews. Unlike racists such as the Bognador/Mikey combination, they clearly understand the real lesson from Jewish history. That if you oppose racism you must oppose racism by Jews too.

Tony Greenstein

Dear Mom, Dad, your Zionist friends, and Bob Dylan too,

I’ve got news for you all: The times they are a changin’! Remember last
Passover? Remember when we sat around the Seder table and listened to you rant
about Israel`s victimhood? About how ethnic cleansing really isn’t that bad?
And about how if they try to kill the Jews this time, we will at least take
them all with us? Remember the rolled eyes of my cousins and the looks we
exchanged thinking you were all nuts?

These are the four questions we were thinking of:

1) Why, on this night we dedicate to remembering our own history as an
oppressed people, do we justify Israel’s oppression of the Palestinians?

2) Why, on this night when Israelis are free to celebrate, are the Palestinians
locked down under curfew – as is done on most Jewish holidays?

3) Why, here in Canada, where we are a minority amongst a Christian majority,
do we advocate for and support a ‘Jewish State’ in the Middle East, where
the non-Jewish minority are treated as second class citizens?

4) Why should anyone think that just because we say ‘next year in
Jerusalem’ at the end of our Seder, that we had a right to kick others out of
their homes so that we could live there?

You see, our generation is different. We are not blind Zionist ideologues. We
did not take the lesson of kill or be killed from the stories our grandparents
told us about the Holocaust or the anti-Semitism they faced. Alongside our
lessons about Zionism and about why the Holocaust meant that Jews need a Jewish
state for themselves, we couldn't help but absorb the need to oppose racism,
to fight oppression and to not justify the subjugation of one ‘people’ for
the benefit of another.

At first, we may have believed your myths about ‘Israel the good’, about
the Israel Defense Forces being the world’s only ‘moral’ army, and about
how it’s not Israel but ‘the Arabs’ who don’t want peace. But we have
grown up now, and like our Christian peers who come to understand Santa Claus
is not real, the growing majority of us have come to see myth of Israel the
good as a relic of our childhood Chanukahs.

For those of us who have followed developments in the mainstream Jewish
community, we see more to your ranting, too. We see a sick hierarchically
organized Jewish community that is not only serving as a smokescreen to allow
the ongoing genocide of a people; we also see the twisted irony that you, our
parents who claim we need Israel as a safeguard from anti-Semitism, are
actually putting us and the rest of World Jewry in danger. By tying our fate
(and our children’s) to that of the leadership of the dying American empire,
you are setting us up as a scapegoat.

Israel is an offshore American army base and the Israeli leadership and its
North American lobby are so in bed with the neo-cons that our community will be
suffering consequences for years. Even worse, in Canada and the United States,
the lobby has deluded itself into actually thinking it controls the hand that
feeds it. The lobby happily plays the role of the dirty cop on the beat using
underhanded (but not so secret) ways to try and eliminate what it sees as
threats to Israel’s support, or the lobby`s own domestic power. I’m sure
that Harper, Bush, and their corporate masters are not disappointed that the
targets the Israel lobby chooses for career or character assassination (in the
media, academia, public life, etc.) typically line up with their own. But, what
will happen if: Oil prices keep rising? The war in Iraq and Afghanistan keeps
failing? Housing foreclosures keep increasing? And world anger at the West
keeps growing?

The Jewish community’s leadership certainly makes it easy enough to paint a
picture that the Jews are behind it; sometimes they even gloat. Will it really
be a surprise if, when shit hits the fan, our supposed allies in the
US/Canadian elite cut Israel’s strings and point the blame at home towards
Jews?

Hypotheticals aside, luckily this too is changing! From the disenchanted, once
isolated Jews, a new community is rising. Remember the article I wrote on
“The Fall of Zionism” last October? Remember how you thought I was a
dreamer and that there was no way a threat to the Zionist control of our
community could ever take hold? Well, a lot has happened in the past eight
months. The kids are coming home! All those ‘self-hating’ Jews who isolated
themselves from the community not because of a dislike for our culture,
heritage, or religion, but because they were told to leave after speaking their
mind on the oppression of the Palestinian people, are finding each other,
organizing, and coming back.

In Canada, for example, there is a new national umbrella organization called
the Alliance of Concerned Jewish Canadians (ACJC), which represents Jews who
are opposed to the Israeli occupation of Palestine. The ACJC was launched in
March when internationally renowned author, journalist, keynote speaker and
Canadian Jew Naomi Klein kicked off a national conference that brought together
over 100 activist Jews representing 23 different Canadian Jewish groups. The
purpose of the ACJC is to provide a counterweight to Jewish organizations that
serve as apologists for Israel’s crimes, such as the Canadian Jewish Congress
(CJC). The ACJC has since put action to words. Recently, for example, it lent
support to the Canadian Union of Postal Workers when it became the first
national Union in North America to courageously pass a resolution supporting
the Palestinian campaign for a Boycott of Israel, and recognizing that Israel
has become an apartheid state.

Likewise, in May the ACJC, along with other anti-occupation Jewish groups
across North America and the world, heeded the call of the Palestinian people
to declare the 60th anniversary of the Naqba (disaster) as No Time to Celebrate
(this is a common slogan being used in protest of Israel’s celebrations).
Protests were organized worldwide, and in Canada and the United States Jews
protested alongside Palestinians and other concerned citizens. In San
Francisco, twenty Jews were (unjustly) arrested trying to make themselves heard
as Jews opposed to Israel`s crimes. In Britain, over one hundred Jews signed an
open letter published in The Guardian, one of the United Kingdom’s leading
newspapers, declaring they would not celebrate Israel’s birthday. In Paris,
French Jews hung the Palestinian flag on the Eiffel Tower in protest. Here in
Canada’s capital of Ottawa, Jews, Palestinians, and other concerned
individuals formed a one hundred person-strong silent protest outside the
official Israel celebrations at the Convention Center on May 8th, and then
repeated it a few weeks later at another event at the National Arts Center on
May 20th. Despite the money and glamour being thrown into making 60 years of
Israeli oppression a propaganda campaign to whitewash Israel’s crimes, Jews
around the world are promising not to celebrate (one US-based online pledge not
to celebrate has over 500 Jewish signatures). The actions I am describing did
not have millions of dollars for publicity like the official events organized
by the Jewish community’s elites. Instead, they grew through grassroot
networks and traveled by word-of-mouth from committed activist Jew to committed
activist Jew. The Jews taking part in these events are the ones who are informed
and willing to put themselves on the line to oppose the mainstream Jewish
community’s official position, and I am growing increasingly confident that
their support runs deep.
This letter may sound angry, and at some points it is. It upsets me to hear our
Passover conversations, and I won’t just quietly roll my eyes anymore. But the
reason for that is love and respect. We are forming a new community, with a
humanist core that ties us together strongly. Seders are being held that tell
the story of the Palestinian enslavement along with that of our own. Events are
being held where Jews celebrate Jewish culture from a place that recognizes how
our history gives us a responsibility to speak out against oppression. I will
continue to celebrate my heritage as part of our family, just like all those
supposed ‘self-hating’ Jews will celebrate with me, as Jews and as part of
the Jewish community. We are committed to justice, and through this we are
finding our Jewish souls. And when you are ready to join the multitudes of
other Jews opposing Israeli oppression, our door will be wide open.

Love,
your Young Non-Zionist Kids

http://www.culturemagazine.ca/content/view/271/56/

Printer-friendly version

Greenstein Exposed

Submitted by MikeyMikey on 10 June, 2008 - 20:58.

Several times Greenstein has accused me of being a collaborator with Atzmon. Several times I have refuted this allegation. On the other hand, Greenstein’s ideological comrade, Roland Rance, proudly admits (September 2, 2007) that he has gone to hear Atzmon, corresponded with Atzmon and repeatedly met Atzmon.

I am pleased to see Greenstein’s admission that he was wrong on Yad Vashem’s decision not to publish Hilberg’s book. He originally stated that it was “because it didn't fit in with their line on the Judenrat or Jewish resistance.” After being corrected, he says: “Yad Vashem did indeed justify itself by reference to use of German sources.” But that doesn’t stop Greenstein telling another untruth: he adds that Hilberg’s “relegating of 'resistance' to the footnotes” was another reason. As I mentioned above, it was nothing of the sort – but concern about conclusions Hilberg had drawn in “comparison with former periods, and in respect of [his] appraisal of the Jewish resistance.”

Greenstein quotes (with many spelling errors and the wrong page numbers) Hilberg’s question in The Politics of Memory: “Where were the publications of these experts? Where was the evidence of their expertise?” Hilberg could have looked at the work of Professor Ber Mark who used extensive primary research as a director of the Jewish Historical Institute in Warsaw. Long before Hilberg’s book, Mark had published at length on Jewish resistance and had written books on both the Warsaw and Bialystok ghettos. In his devastating review, Mark completely demolishes Hilberg, concentrating on his selective use and blatant misuse of sources (“Falsifying the Jewish Resistance,” Jewish Currents, April 1963). Hilberg could have also consulted references from Jacob Robinson and Philip Friedman’s Guide to Jewish History Under Nazi Impact (New York: Yad Vashem/YIVO Institute for Jewish Research, 1960).

David Matis, a Yiddish writer originally from Kaunas (Kovno), listed numerous books and articles documenting the heroic Jewish resistance in Kovno that Hilberg had simply ignored (“Jews, Tradition and Resistance,” Jewish Currents, June 1962).

Yuri Suhl, who spent years working on his book They Fought Back: The Story of the Jewish Resistance in Nazi Europe, explained how Hilberg had misrepresented source material. He concluded: “If one were to take all the articles written in refutation of Raul Hilberg’s factual inaccuracies and false theories about Jewish non-resistance to Nazism which appear in his book, The Destruction of European Jews, and lay them out page-to-page they would fill a sizeable volume” ( “Is This Responsible Scholarship, Dr. Hilberg?” Jewish Currents, June 1964).

Hilberg notes that Hugh Trevor-Roper had written a positive review and Oscar Handlin had replied in Commentary. But Hilberg did not see fit to comment on the long and detailed letter from the leading expert on the Judenräte, Isaiah Trunk (Commentary, August 1962) Nor did Hilberg mention that A. A. Roback had demolished Trevor-Roper’s review elsewhere (“A Modern Balaam in Reverse,” Jewish Quarterly, Autumn 1962). Subsequently many specialist studies, such as Isaiah Trunk’s Judenrat: The Jewish Councils in Eastern Europe Under Nazi Occupation, refuted Hilberg’s conclusions.

None of this will have any impact on Greenstein, who does not care about the facts. Nor will it stop Greenstein from praising Hannah Arendt, although even Hilberg dismissed her scholarship (Hilberg, Politics of Memory pp. 147-157)!

It doesn’t surprise me that Greenstein moves on to the Holocaust in Hungary, where he can’t get anything right.

Greenstein can’t even get a name right. The doyen of Hungarian Holocaust studies is Randolph Braham. Greenstein calls him “Rudolf Brahams.” Greenstein tells us that Braham “is extremely non-committal about Kastner.” Obviously Greenstein needs to go back to the library: Braham states quite clearly that Kasztner “displayed great skill and courage in championing the cause of rescue” (The Politics of Genocide, New York: Columbia University Press, 1994, pp. 1,071-2) and that “Kasztner, like the six million other Jews, was also a victim” (p. 1,112).

Of course Kastzner’s report is “self-serving” and that is why responsible historians treat it with care. But then again Greenstein objects to quotations from Kasztner but he is happy to rely on Eichmann!

The lies keep coming. Greenstein refers to Miklos (Moshe) Krausz as a “dissident” Zionist. In fact Krausz ran the Palestine Office in Hungary (Braham, p. 94). Greenstein suggests that apart from the efforts of Krausz, the rescue of 1,684 “prominents” was the only Zionist achievement! This is a lie of gigantic proportions. It ignores most importantly the Zionist struggle to save one million Jewish lives in the “Goods for Blood” negotiations. And it ignores the Zionist activists who saved thousands of children (Robert Rozett, “Child Rescue in Budapest, 1944-5,” Holocaust and Genocide Studies, Vol. 2, No. 1, 1987).

Greenstein suggests that the 1,684 were all prominent. In fact many were poor. They included “Jewish refugees from Poland, Yugoslavia and Slovakia as well as seventeen Polish and some forty Hungarian orphans” (Szabolcs Szita, Trading in Lives? Central European University Press, 2005, p. 91). Less than ten percent paid for their places (Yehuda Bauer, Jews for Sale?, Yale University Press, 1994, pp. 198-9).

Greenstein gives credit to the War Refugee Board for saving the remaining Jews in Hungary. He does not mention that the WRB was founded thanks to pressure from right-wing Zionists (David S. Wyman and Rafael Medoff, A Race Against Death, The New Press, 2002). .

There is something rather sickening about Greenstein’s pleasure in quoting Eichmann. What next? Will he be quoting Myra Hindley on the last moments of her victims?

Finally, I’m amused that Greenstein accuses Bogdanor of not reading Hilberg’s Politics of Memory. As it happens, my copy is second hand: I borrowed it from Bogdanor!

Printer-friendly version

Mikey's inability to understand what he has written!

Submitted by tonyg on 10 June, 2008 - 21:07.

Mikey says that 'Several times Greenstein has accused me of being a collaborator with Atzmon. Several times I have refuted this allegation.'

No. Tried to refute it. Which part of:

'Mikey, can you provide us with the criminal record of this Bugger-Rance. Is he on spent conviction like greenie l or is he just an ordinary liar? Gilad Atzmon
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have been very busy digging up stuff on Tony Greenstein - Roland Rance will have to wait for another day. Mikey'

does Mikey not understand? Is it little wonder that Atzmon, who we all acknowledge to be an open racist and holocaust denier can pay tribute to Atzmon thus:

‘Mikey, I hope you do not mind me saying that, but your contribution for the pls solidarity movement is priceless.'

My advice Mikey is that when in a hole stop digging and instead own up to the fact that you did 'research' on me for Atzmon.

Since Mikey states that 'I am pleased to see Greenstein’s admission that he was wrong on Yad Vashem’s decision not to publish Hilberg’s book.' when in fact I made no such admission, there really is no need to spend much time on the rest of his nonsense. Yes historians disagree. Yes Hilberg wasn't impressed with the resistance to the Nazis, neither was Hausner at the Eichmann trial because he opposed calling Vrba and Marek Edelman (couldn't afford the fares!) and kept asking why the Jews went like sheep to their slaughter.

As for all those poor Jews on the Kastner train. I guess that is why they were called Prominents by Kastner? In fact the poor Jews were the ones from whom knowledge of Auschwitz was kept by the Zionist 'rescue' committee.

Yes the War Refugee Board was established as a result of a campaign, not least by right-wing revisionist Zionists who first had to fight Stephen Wise, Sol Bloom and the AJC. Wise even compared Bergson/Merlin to Hitler in documents later obtained on his discussions with the State Department. Which is why Bergson later reconsidered his attitude to Zionism. But yes, many of them couldn't see why the Zionist movement, which wanted a Jewish State, was so indifferent if not hostile to rescue.

It was not me quoting Eichmann but me quoting Hilberg quoting Eichmann!! But maybe Mikey was in too much of a hurry. Either way what Eichmann had to say was invaluable since he did not say it under pressure or coercion but as part of his story of what his role was in the final solution to a sympathetic Dutch Nazi journalist, Sassen. Any serious student of the holocaust has to quote Nazis, whether verbatim, from diaries or documents. But since Mikey is just a plagiarist and fantasist it's not surprising that he thinks there's a principle involved in not quoting Nazis. In fact what Eichmann says and Hoess for that matter, is important in combatting the holocaust deniers that Mikey supports.

I suspect Mikey is somewhat more familiar with Myra Hindley and her ilk than I could ever be. Who knows, one day he might even grow up and have kids of his ownn and then he'll know how fatuous and offensive his comments are. But then again the chances that Myra Hindley is as much a pin up star for him as Kastner. After all he and his Bog friend have no difficulty in supporting the starvation and murder of Palestinian children.

Printer-friendly version

Greenstein's Contortions

Submitted by MikeyMikey on 11 June, 2008 - 12:16.

Tony Greenstein is a blatant hypocrite. He writes friendly emails to Atzmon saying that he would be delighted to hear him play jazz, ignores the fact that his ideological comrade Roland Rance is proud to admit that not only has he heard him play music, he has met Atzmon on several occasions and decides to attack me for his imaginary belief that I collaborated with Atzmon. By doing this Greenstein ignores the fact that I attack him and Roland Rance independently of anything Atzmon does. In fact, as I have already mentioned in this thread, last month I published an article on Harry’s Place ridiculing all of them.

Greenstein’s fantasy has expanded. He now claims that the reason I researched him was for the benefit of Atzmon! This is particularly idiotic. I have been reading Greenstein since the mid 1980’s when I first came across his shoddy pamphlet complete with numerous distortions: Zionism: anti semitism’s twin in Jewish garb (Brighton Labour Briefing, n.d. circa 1982). Over the years I have collected lots of his equally shoddy output and tracked down,from an even earlier period, some particularly nasty stuff published by BAZO. I first came across the name Gilad Atzmon three or four years ago. I can assure Tony Greenstein that I am not a psychic.

Greenstein tries to withdraw his admission of error on Yad Vashem’s decision not to publish Hilberg’s book. Anyone following this thread can note that Greenstein stated: “"Yad Vashem refused to publish it [Hilberg's book]… because it didn't fit in with their line on the Judenrat or Jewish resistance." I copied an extract from a letter sent from Yad Vashem to Hilberg that gave the reasons why they did not want to publish it. Greenstein responded “Yad Vashem did indeed justify itself by reference to use of German sources.” Given that Greenstein has seen Hilberg’s memoirs The Politics of Memory that contains Yad Vashem letter, is he going back to his original erroneous claim despite the evidence he has available to him?

Greenstein tells another lie. He now claims that Gideon Hausner, Israel’s prosecutor of Adolf Eichmann was not impressed with resistance to the Nazis. The New York Times, which is more reliable than Greenstein, reported on Hausner speaking on May 19, 1963 at a dinner of over 1,000 people in America sponsored by the Bergen Belsen Survivors Association. The news report (Irving Spiegel, “Hausner Criticizes Book on Eichmann,” New York Times, May 20, 1963 p. 12) stated the following:

“In sharply rejecting the thesis that Jewish victims in the Hitler period had behaved passively, Mr. Hausner cited several instances of Jewish heroism, which had been depicted at the Eichmann trial in Jerusalem.

“He pointed to the heroic resistance of Jewish men, woman and children in the town of Bialystok, Poland. Here, he said, the Jews under the command of Mordecai Tennenbaum, ‘resisted with only a handful of weapons’ until they were killed.”

Greenstein again tries to imply that the Jews on the train that Kasztner rescued were all “prominents.” This is simply erroneous. Ladislaus Lob, who was not prominent, was a passenger on that train and he has recently published a book that comments on the diversity of the passengers:

“187 housewives, 139 students, 113 employees, 84 merchants, 77 dressmakers or seamstresses, 40 workmen or labourers, 36 lawyers, 35 doctors, 32 children, 27 teachers, 25 tailors, 18 nurses, 17 rabbis, 16 engineers, 12 gardeners, 12 chemists, 10 secretaries, 9 professors, 7 locksmiths, 7 milliners, 7 hairdressers, 5 manufacturers, 5 florists, 5 electricians, 4 printers, 4 economists, 4 dentists, 4 watch-makers, 3 furriers, 3 architects, 3 shoe-makers, 3 painters, 3 carpenters, 2 accountants, 2 bakers, 2 cooks, 2 actors, 2 photographers, a weaver, a glazier, a singer, a cabinet-maker, a butcher, a contractor, an agronomist, a musician, an exporter, a candy-maker, a glove-maker, a journalist, a blacksmith, an occupational therapist, an artist, a translator, a librarian and many more.” [Ladislaus Lob, Dealing With Satan: Rezso Kasztner’s Daring Rescue Mission, (London: Jonathan Cape, 2008) p. 117]

Tony Greenstein suggested that the only Zionist rescue effort(excluding those who he refers to as “dissident” Zionists) was the rescue of the above train. I showed that to be a lie. Greenstein ignored numerous other efforts. Greenstein suggested it was “nonsense” that Zionists can claim any credit for the rescue of the Jews of Budapest and gave credit to the War Refugee Board (WRB). I pointed out that efforts by Zionists were instrumental in getting the WRB established, a point he now concedes. So Greenstein was wrong, he admits that he was wrong but I assume he will now back track and deny that he was wrong. In my response to Greenstein on this thread on April 13, 2008, I made a reference to George Orwell and Greenstein’s Doublethink. I would like to ask Greenstein whether Oceania was ever in alliance with Eurasia.

Greenstein clearly changes his mind on matters at a whim, then denies he was wrong in the first place so one wonders whether he is back to his first opinion or not.

It is perfectly acceptable for Hilberg and responsible historians to quote Eichmann and the words of other Nazis as they tend to do so in context and do not accept claims that they make as fact. Greenstein, on the other hand, uses the fantasies of Eichmann and believes them. Maybe, it is for a similar reason that Greenstein thinks it is right to murder everyone at AIPAC. Eichmann would have no doubt approved of this.

As for Greenstein's final fabrication, let me point out that Greenstein himself admitted on this page that he supports Hamas, which advocates the extermination of millions of Jewish children.

Printer-friendly version

Fantasist Mikey Collaborator Ezra Gets it Wrong Again

Submitted by tonyg on 11 June, 2008 - 13:23.

It's interesting how Zionist liars accuse others of lying. Let us deconstruct his major lie above:

'Greenstein tries to withdraw his admission of error on Yad Vashem’s decision not to publish Hilberg’s book.'

Lie 1: I have done no such thing.

'Anyone following this thread can note that Greenstein stated: “"Yad Vashem refused to publish it [Hilberg's book]… because it didn't fit in with their line on the Judenrat or Jewish resistance." I copied an extract from a letter sent from Yad Vashem to Hilberg that gave the reasons why they did not want to publish it. Greenstein responded “Yad Vashem did indeed justify itself by reference to use of German sources.” ... is he going back to his original erroneous claim despite the evidence he has available to him?

Lie 2: That my claim that ONE OF the reasons for the rejection, its use of mainly German sources, therefore invalidates the other political reason concerning resistance. But I also cited point 2 in the letter of Melkem:

"2. The Jewish historians here make reservations concerning the historical conclusions which you draw, both in respect of the comparison with former periods, and in respect of your appraisal of the Jewish resistance (active and passive) during the Nazi occupation."

So there is nothing to withdraw. Roland Rance and I have been the bitterest and most consistent critics of Atzmon, who I've never even met. Nor, to the best of my knowledge, has Atzmon. Both of us have been attacked, villified, libelled etc. by him. The one occasion I sent him a friendly message was when he criticised the Allies for not bombing the railway lines to Auschwitz and got into a spat with Israel Shamir who believes Auschwitz was a holiday camp. Mikey by contrast offers to do research and become an unpaid (?) errand boy for Atzmon and dares to question me about the Zionist lies he purveys (which ended up in The Times conceding a libel action to me) on this anti-Semitic PeacePalestine site.

The fact is that at least Kastner & co. were working in a situation of terror and occupation. What is Mikey's excuse for being a low-life informer to a well-known anti-Semite? Actually the answer is not hard to find. Mikey is an opponent of anti-Zionism. 'Anti-Semitism' is just a stick to beat his opponents with. he's never lifted a finger in his life to engage in anti-fascist or indeed any other activity, being a pretty sick and warped individual who is known as pretty loopy by those aware of his activities. But unlike Mikey I don't go for drinkies with Atzmon or offer to work for him or try to curry favour among fellow Zionist anti-Semites such as Atzmon (because in reality he combines both anti-Semitism and Zionism).

Professor Loeb, who escaped on the Kastner train is indeed grateful in his new book to Kastner who he tries to rehabilitate. Again Hilberg's description of the passengers on the train, and I suggest Mikey tries looking it up, makes it clear that those who were saved were in a number of categories, primarily Zionist but including rabbis. Of course they didn't include the very rich like the Manfred Weisses who negotiated their own private arrangements with the SS.

But Mikey is a strange liar who not only distorts the evidence and believes that quoting any Zionist historian somehow proves the point, but he even lies about those he is debating with! Take this:

' pointed out that efforts by Zionists were instrumental in getting the WRB established, a point he now concedes.'

I have conceded nothing so why another lie Mikey? Is it because your whole life is a lie? That having poured your heart out to The Times (yes I've got all the correspondence!) about how traumatised you were at hearing me speak, that you now have to engage in this type of crap. I suspect you feel close to Myra Hindley because of your own personal and sexual inadequacies, which are also well known.

The WRB was establishedd in the teeth of opposition of the Zionist movement as represented by Stephen Wise and Abba Hillel Silver. A few dissident Zionists, people who villified by the Mikeys and other collaborators of the time, in the Emergency Committee fought to bring the Jews of Europe into the limelight. Mikey prefers to identify with those who suppressed news of the holocaust and then claim credit for the activities of the Emergency Committee. Sorry it won't wash - especially coming from someone whose main goal in life is to justify the collaboration of Kastner et al.

Tony Greenstein

Printer-friendly version

Tony Greenstein and Adolf Eichmann

Submitted by MikeyMikey on 11 June, 2008 - 17:14.

Greenstein is out of ideas and keeps repeating the same point about Atzmon. I have already answered him. Anyone who can be bothered will see who is lying. I shall ignore Greenstein's personal insults and his hysterical fabrications about my personal life.

What I will do is comment on Greenstein's disgusting scholarship, not that it deserves to be called scholarship.

Readers will have noted that Greenstein has continually referred to Hilberg and in his recent message has suggested that I consult Hilberg. I have read Hilberg on Kasztner. To show how disgraceful Greenstein's posts are, I copy from the third edition of Hilberg's The Destruction of European Jews (Yale University Press, 2003) p. 903:

"There are two versions of the ensuing discussions.

"According to Kastner, the SS man promised that, for 6.5 million pengö (ca. RM 4,000,000 or $1,600,000 at the official rate of exchange), 600 Jews would be permitted to leave for Palestine. The committee immediately turned to the Central Council for financial help, and after weeks of canvassing, the Council managed to collect five million pengö from the rich Jews. The committee itself added the missing million and a half. The Germans then raised the number of prospective emigrants by a thousand. [166] Eichmann stated in his memoirs that Kastner "agreed to keep the Jews from resisting deportation – and even keep order in the camps – if I would close my eyes and let a few hundred or a few thousand young Jews emigrate illegally to Palestine. It was a good bargain." [167]

The relevant footnotes are:

166. Kasztner, "Bericht," pp. 24-27, 58, 63
167. Life, December 5, 1960, p. 146

Hilberg provides two alternate accounts. This is perfectly reasonable. Greenstein uncritically accepts Eichmann's account ("invaluable") while dismissing Kasztner's ("self-serving"). When his own source mentions two alternative witnesses – a mass murdering Nazi or a Jewish leader - Greenstein believes the Nazi and not the Jew.

A further example is his description of all the passengers as "prominents." I pointed out that they were not all prominent and quoted Lob's breakdown. Greenstein dismisses Lob as a "Zionist historian." One wonders how Greenstein can tell if Lob is or is not a Zionist. His book does not discuss the State of Israel, but such is Greenstein's modus operandi: if he doesn't like the evidence, he denounces the source as a Zionist or a "rabid dog" in true Stalinist fashion.

Greenstein then backs away from his claim that they were all prominent: "Hilberg's description of the passengers on the train, and I suggest Mikey tries looking it up, makes it clear that those who were saved were in a number of categories, primarily Zionist but including rabbis." I have looked it up. It is on the same page:

"[The Zionists'] first reaction was to select only children. [Eichmann's deputy] Wisliceny, however, vetoed this plan on the ground that the Hungarians would notice a children's transport. The Jews thereupon proceeded to compile a list of ten categories: Orthodox Jews, Zionists, prominent Jews (Prominente), orphans, refugees, Revisionists, and so on."

Another Greenstein fabrication.

Bogdanor, above, summarised Hilberg's conclusion that the Zionists had helped save the 200,000 Jews of Budapest. Greenstein replied that he'd "be interested to see the source for the Hilberg quote that the Zionists saved 200,000 in Hungary." If he had checked Bogdanor's page references he would have seen this:

"The Hungarians in their eagerness had intercepted the messages [transmitted by the Jewish relief committee in Budapest] and had thereupon managed to frighten themselves. On July 6 Veesenmayer was informed by Sztojay that the Regent had ordered the deportations to stop."

So much for Greenstein's methods.

Printer-friendly version

Mad Mikey Ezra fails to explain his Collaboration & much else

Submitted by tonyg on 12 June, 2008 - 02:36.

Yes, it is true. Mikey has already answered me, by evasion, regarding his relationship with Gilad Atzmon. What he hasn't explained is how come he came to work with him in the first place. So please tell us Mikey. What was it, when I and others were attacking Atzmon for trying to gain an audience for anti-Semitism amongst a fringe element of Palestine solidarity activists, that led you to lend him a helping hand? Was it the enemy of my enemy principle? After all it makes sense. If the main enemy for Zionists like you is anti-Zionism then an alliance with anti-Semites makes sense. Indeed given Atzmon’s increasingly pro-Zionist sentiments it makes even more sense: Because there is no other way to interpret lines such as:

'Mikey, can you provide us with the criminal record of this Bugger-Rance. Is he on spent conviction like greenie l or is he just an ordinary liar?'

To which you could of course have told him to get lost, that you wouldn't be seen dead with anti-Semites and people who subscribe to Jewish conspiracy theories. Instead the response is: 'I have been very busy digging up stuff on Tony Greenstein - Roland Rance will have to wait for another day.' Roland is a long-standing anti-Zionist comrade, who has been equally active in combatting people like Atzmon. But your only response was to say that Atzmon will ‘have to wait for another day’. You really are condemned out of your own mouth.

Mikey complains that 'Greenstein objects to quotations from Kasztner but he is happy to rely on Eichmann!' until I pointed out to him that I am merely citing Hilberg's quotation of Eichmann in his Destruction of European Jews! Now he complains I didn't cite everything. But that is the job of any historian, to make selections. In fact Hilberg's whole treatment of the Kasztner affair, and he doesn't give it much treatment at all, is second hand at best. But clearly he gives credence to Eichmann's version, which as I say was unforced and for which he had no discernible motive to lie. On the contrary he bragged about his role in the Final Solution and wished he could have completed it. I would say this is pretty powerful evidence that he was speaking the truth. And the question of keeping order in the camp was raised in the Kastner trial in Israel by those who didn't perish. And it is also pretty convincing evidence with which to dismiss those other flat earthers – the Holocaust Deniers – since it comes from one of the main architects of the final solution.

But at least Mad Mikey Ezra (MME) cites the professions and political attachments of those who left on the train, though other accounts state that some 300 or so Jews leapt on the train at the last moment. In other words it was not only class but political attachment that was decisive. Anti-Zionists, socialists or communists were not considered. But even now MME can't resist the temptation to quote selectively. After admitting that the categories included Orthodox Jews, Zionists, Prominents, Revisionists among others he omits the following from Hilberg: 'One category consisted of "paying persons. The geographic distribution was a bit lopsided: 388 persons, including Kastner's father-in-law came from the Transylvaia city of Cluj.' In other words mainly Zionists and the Orthodox, but also large numbers of friends and family, for which news about Auschwitz and reassurance about being transported for labour in the Reich was the deal.’

But what’s MME’s explanation for the end to the deportations. I asked for the location of the claim by Bogdanor that Hilberg had said that the Zionists had saved the 200,000 Jews of Budapest and he quotes what is really a throwaway line from Hilberg, viz. that "The Hungarians in their eagerness had intercepted the messages [transmitted by the Jewish relief committee in Budapest] and had thereupon managed to frighten themselves. On July 6 Veesenmayer was informed by Sztojay that the Regent had ordered the deportations to stop."

Even Mikey should possibly see what is wrong with this except that he is such a hack Zionist propagandist that he can’t. Hilberg is a brilliant historian concerning the mechanics of the Final Solution, but he is not so brilliant when it comes to political speculation about an area in which, by his own admission, he would have had little information that was original.

Instead Mikey distorts even when it is not necessary. For example when I said that Kastner’s Report to the Jewish Agency was ‘self-serving’ this is not to be contrasted with Eichmann, as if it is a choice between the mass murderer and the collaborator. Both can be wrong, or Eichmann alone can be right. In fact Eichmann’s testimony is backed up by other sources. Of course one wouldn’t condemn Kastner simply because Eichmann says he collaborated but there is pretty good evidence. And the reference to ‘self-serving’ is not mine anyway, but is quoted from Randolf Braham’s Politics of Genocide and is made specifically about the complete absence of or mention of the Auschwitz Protocols of Vrba from Kastner’s tediously long-winded Report to the Jewish Agency on his war-time activities.

Mikey fails to tell us how and why Kastner went to Nuremburg to testify for 4 Nazi war criminals (at least). Col. Becher of the Waffen SS, Wisliceny and Krumey of Eichmann’s 4 B IV SS Jewish Department and SS Lt. Gen. Hans Juttner. This in itself was, as even the Israeli Supreme Court, anxious to exonerate him was forced to admit, collaboration.

But yes I disagree with Hilberg and accept the main thrust of the account of Eugene Levai in his Black Book of Hungarian Jewry, which both Braham and Hilberg accept as authoritative. Let me cite excerpts from Levai:

229 on June 26th through Swiss Legation, Roosevelt ‘threatened the Hungarian Government with grave reprisals and a relentless bombing of Hungarian towns.’ On June 27th Secretary of State Hull protested against the ‘massacre of the majority of the Hungarian Jews.’ The first news regarding the fate of the Hungarian Jews appeared in the Swiss papers towards the end of June and the beginning of July. [so much for the nonsense about the Zionists publicising the Report they undoubtedly had - TG]. … On July 8th the ‘Gazette de Lausanne’ published on its front page a very effective leader by its editor, Mr Georges Rigassi ‘les Juifs persecutes’. Talked of the deaths of 400,000 in Auschwitz and the ‘stain on the honour of the Hungarian nation, which could never be removed.’
230 Article presented to Regent Horthy by his son.
231 On June 25th Pope sent personal message to Horthy. General message of hope that ‘Your Serene Highness will do everything in your power to save many unfortunate people from further pain and sorrow.’
235 On June 21st Baky and Endre attended Cabinet meeting where they read their reports ‘especially the more detailed one of Endre… gave an extraordinarily reassuring description of the position the Jews found themselves in.’
240 In response Minister Jugerth-Arnothy remarked sarcastically: ‘One almost regrets not having been born a Jew and thus not to be able to join these pleasure trips.’…
243 Following day Field Marshall Faragho was summoned before Horthy, who declared that he would not permit further deportations.’ On 26th June Crown Council. Horthy stipulated that ‘I won’t stand it any longer. I won’t allow the deportations to bring more shame upon Hungary! The Government shall take measures to remove Endre and Baky from their positions. The deportation of the Budapest Jews shall be stopped.
244 Cabinet meeting of 27th ‘consented in part to the proposals of the Deputy Foreign Minister but actually did nothing to put an end to the deportations. They dared not even inform the Germans of the Regent’s point of view.’ 4th and 5th ‘cleaning up operations’ were in full progress.
247 Attempted coup….Baky turned out 1,600 gendarmerie on streets. Purpose deportation of Jews.
249 Middle of July finally brought a turning point in the fate of the Jews of Budapest. Great Soviet summer offensive of 1944 in the Tarnopol-Luck area had just begun. Horthy and advisors at last realised that Germany stood on the brink of collapse. ‘This enlightenment as well as the easy victory gained over Baky acted as a stimulant to the Regent and his entourage. They even dared challenge the Germans in matters relating to the Jewish question.’
253 ‘Horthy no longer accepted the explanations given by Sztojay and Jaross… Finally the Regent ‘issued the plain order: the deportation of the Jews has to be stopped.’ A number of reasons for which included the Allied invasion was proceeding to plan, the victory gained over the ‘Baky attempt’ by the vigorous action of the Christian churches, the ‘menacing attitude of the enemy countries’ the protests of the neutral countries and ‘last not least by the insistence of members of his family, summoned Prime Minister Sztojay.’ The last deportation train left Bekasmegyer Hev station on Saturday night, July 8th.
254 New deportation train to leave Kirstaczy on July 14th. Horthy ordered Jarossy to have it stopped. It was recalled and back the same evening. ‘Every one of the 1,500 occupants were safe, even those who had previously been detained at Rokk Szilard Street and Horthy-Liget. (This is an indisputable proof of the ability of the Regent and his Government to enforce their orders as far as the Jewish question was concerned, provided they wanted, or chiefly, if they dared to do so…)
267 Towards the beginning of May the reports arriving from Slovakia contained the first authentic account of the horrors of Auschwitz…. It seems clear therefore that Eichmann suggested the idea of the consignments at precisely the same moment in which 300,000 Jews had to face the catastrophe of deportation….’ Of Kasztner, As member of the Zionist Federation, he judged nearly every question from that point of view.'
268 ‘It must be borne in mind that Kasztner was never willing to inform the Jewish leaders as to the progress of the negotiations without being pressed to do so, although he was acting with the authorisation of the Jewish Council…. It was obvious that he intended to be the only one to have a grasp on the situation, fearing that possibly somebody might contest his leadership.’
270 ‘the Jewish Council – by virtue of a concession obtained from Eichmann through Freudiger and Wyslizeni – managed to rescue several prominent Jews from the provincial ghettos and to have these brought to Budapest. Kasztner himself, with the assistance of Eichmann, rescued 350 Zionists from his home town, Kolozsvsar. In Budapest these people were held in a so-called ‘Vorzugslager’ in the Deaf-Mute Institute in Columbus Street, which had been equipped by the ‘Sonderswtab’ and was guarded by SS-men in order to protect the inmates against the gendarmerie and the Hungarian Gestapo.’

So when Mikey insists, not only on defending the collaboration of Kastner and the Jewish Agency but that of the Zionist movement as a whole re Hungary and even has the audacity to suggest that the Zionists ‘saved’ 200,000 Jews in Hungary, when it was they, under the leadership of Stephen Wise who bitterly opposed doing anything in the USA which might jeopardise the establishment of the Israeli state, then one is entitled to kick a little sand in his face.

Rudolph Vrba, one of only 5 Jewish escapees from Auschwitz, wrote to the Observer on 22.9.63. after Hanna Arendt had come under attack by the Zionist professor, Jacob Talmon, for daring to raise the question of collaboration. He described how:

‘In April 1944 we handed to a high representrative of the Zionist movement, Dr Oskar Neumann, a 60 page detailed report on the fact that extermination of 1,760,000 Jews had taken place in Auschwitz…. Did the Judenrat (or the Judenverrat) in Hungary tell their Jews what was awaiting them>? No, they remained silent and for this silence some of their leaders – for example Dr. R. Kasztner – bartered their own lives and the lives of 1684 other ‘prominent’ Jews directly from Eichmann…’.

Yehuda Bauer, the main Zionist historian at Yad Vashem, writes in his ‘Jews for Sale’ that the Auschwitz Protocols, which Vrba and his fellow Wetzler had written in Slovakia for the Judenrat, arrived in Hungary ‘perhaps through Kasztner at the end of April and have been handed over to the leading members of the Judenrat.’ pp. 156/7.

As Ruth Linn explains in, ‘Escaping Auschwitz – a Culture of Forgetting’
‘Like Freudiger, Kasztner was convinced from reading the Vrba-Wetzler report that the entire Jewish community in Hungary was doomed to be liquidated. In his mind the only hope was to try to save the few.’ And that is the real story. The Zionist strategy throughout the holocaust of saving the few, the elect, the prominents, call them what you will as opposed to rescuing or saving the poor, the working class, the socialists. Linn, who is a Professor at Haifa University, no she is no anti-Zionist, goes on to describe how ‘during his intense negotiation with the SS, Kasztner kept the Vrba-Wetzler report secret in order not to create panic among the potential deportees to Auschwitz.’ p.27.

And therein lies the real crime.

And as for the fable that the Zionists were responsible for saving 200,000 Hungarian Jews, we learn that not only were the Auschwitz Protocols sent to the Pope but ‘they also sent the Vrba-Wetzler’ report to the Zionist liaison committee in Istanbul and to the Zionist representative in Switzerland, Nathan Schwalb.’ Schwalb was the representative of Hehalutz, the Zionist young pioneers, in Europe. However ‘Schwalb’s primary interest in this instance was to prevent the Vrba-Wetzler report from being published so as not to disrupt Kasztner’s negotiations with Eichmann.’ Maybe this is an instance of ‘saving Jews’?!!

And citing Braham’s Politics of Genocide, Linn describes how:
‘On July 5, Eden stated that the BBC would be employed to warn the Hungarian leaders. On July 7 1944, Admiral Miklos Horthy ordered a halt to the deportations from Hungary, which became effective only on July 9. Almost 200,000 Jews in Budapest were thus saved from deportation.’

And what was the reaction of those Jews who hadn’t been informed of Auschwitz, bearing in mind that many Jews in Hungary were but a short distance away from safety in Rumania? Linn again describes an incident in the Eichmann trial when ‘during Freudiger’s testimony [Zionist Chief Rabbi of Hungary] at Eichmann’s trial, a Hungarian survivor screamed at him from the gallery, ‘You duped us so you could save yourselves and your families. But our families were killed.’ This man was apparently attacking Freudiger as a representative of the Jewish Council, for he added, referring to another Judenrat member, ‘He gave us injections to numb our minds. But he took his own parents out… and left mine there to die.’ citing Pearlman ‘The Capture and Trial of Adolf Eichmann’. p. 38 Linn. The holocaust survivor was then ejected from the Eichmann trial.

And just in case Mikey has still not got it then Andrea Biss, who helped compile the lists of the Prominents, ‘further provides the moral rationale for the Judenrat’s decision to conceal the Vrba-Wetzler report:
‘It was part of Klages’ job… to keep an eye on Eichmann and to see that everything was done to ensure that the secret behind the ‘final solution’ should be completely guarded. It was therefore necessary that the object of the deportations should remain unknown.’ Linn p.80.
And just in case Mikey still doesn’t get the message, let us cite a few more opinions:

‘Here [in Hungary] the protocol acquired some kind of publication. It was taken to heads of churches and leaders but it was not distributed to the Jewish communities generally….
‘It is beyond question: The Auschwitz Protocols did reach the Jewish Council and Zionist activists, including the Halutz Underground. Yet they did not transmit this information to the Jewish public when the deportation began.
‘The report remained unknown to the Jewish population inside Hungary itself.’ [Linn p.81 citing reports such as Cohen’s ‘Holocaust Hungarian Jews in Light of the Research of Randolph Braham’ 381.

And even in Bauer’s Rethinking the Holocaust ‘Bauer admits that ‘the protocols were an important factor in stopping the deportations.’

One could go on but the idea that the Zionists, having suppressed all news of Auschwitz as long as they dare, can then claim to have ‘saved’ the 200,000 Jews of Hungary is plain sick. It was Chaim Cohen, the Attorney General who defended Kastner in the Jerusalem District Court trial, who explained that saving the few from the many was a Zionist principle, even if as in Hungary it meant sacrificing close to half a million Jews for the sake of ‘The Prominents’.

I hate to be so dismissive of Mikey’s zionised version of history but one has to be hard – be it on Holocaust Deniers or Holocaust Falsifiers (and of course Nakba Deniers). It is little wonder that in their attacks on Vrba, for not following the Zionist line on the Holocaust, that the Zionist historians – Bauer, Porat, Kulka et al. have simply provided ammunition for the Holocaust Deniers who use their attacks as a way of casting doubt on the Auschwitz Protocols. Therein lies their real crime.

Tony Greenstein

Printer-friendly version

Greenstein the Contortionist

Submitted by MikeyMikey on 12 June, 2008 - 22:53.

I have never offered to do research for Atzmon - paid or unpaid. When I publish something, I can't stop Atzmon reading it. When Greenstein publishes something, he can't stop Nazis re-posting it. Or maybe he can. At any rate, people who want to know what I think of Atzmon can easily find out. Greenstein is repeating this nonsense as a diversion from his own friendly communications with Atzmon, his comrade's secret meetings with Atzmon, and their ideological resemblance to Atzmon.

Greenstein's 3,000-word diatribe is quite an achievement: it's as dull as it's dishonest. Greenstein's contortions are amazing to see.

1. Greenstein demanded that I read Hilberg on Kastzner. I'd read Hilberg on Kasztner. I showed that Hilberg contradicted Greenstein. Greenstein responded that Hilberg doesn't give the Kasztner affair "much treatment at all" and the treatment he does give "is second hand at best"!

2. Greenstein demanded to see a Hilberg quotation on the Zionists saving the Jews of Budapest. When the quotation was given, Greenstein dismissed it as a "throwaway line," claimed that Hilberg was "wrong" and decided that Hilberg was "not so brilliant" after all!

3. I said that "Greenstein believes the Nazi [Eichmann] and not the Jew [Kasztner]." Greenstein objects: "Both can be wrong, or Eichmann alone can be right." For Greenstein, there is no possibility that the Jew might be right and the Nazi wrong! He even argues that the Nazi who murdered millions of Jews "had no discernible motive to lie"!

4. I don't disagree when Braham calls the Kasztner report "self-serving." But contrary to Greenstein's claim that there is a "complete absence of or mention of the Auschwitz Protocols," Kasztner's report does mention them (Braham, pp. 826, 845n57). If Greenstein had paid attention to Braham rather than his own prejudices, he would be slightly less ignorant about the Holocaust in Hungary.

5. Greenstein tells us that "class" was "decisive" in choosing passengers for the train. The Kasztner Memorial website lists more than 1,300 passengers with their professions. Perhaps Greenstein could explain the "class" origins of the butcher, the bakers, the cabinet-maker, the hairdressers, the teachers and the numerous orphans.

6. Greenstein tells us that anti-Zionists were excluded. This is a fabrication. The train carried the virulently anti-Zionist Satmar Rebbe and dozens of his followers (Lob, Dealing With Satan, pp. 150-1). Greenstein tells us that socialists were excluded. This is a fabrication. The train carried many socialists, notably the members of youth movement Hashomer Ha-tzair which shared Greenstein's love for the Soviet Union (Szita, Trading in Lives?, p. 91n7).

7. Greenstein says that Kasztner's aim was "saving the few." Kasztner's aim was saving the many. Hence the title of the book by André Biss, A Million Jews to Save (Hutchinson, 1973). As the Supreme Court Judge Agranat ruled, "Kasztner was motivated by the sole motive of rescuing all Hungarian Jews."

8. Greenstein argued that if anyone is "responsible for the fact that about 200,000 Jews survived in Hungary… it is the US War Refugee Board." Then he admitted that the WRB "was established as a result of a campaign, not least by right-wing revisionist Zionists." But now he dismisses the idea that Zionists "saved the 200,000 Jews of Hungary" as "plain sick." Watching Greenstein's performance as historical contortionist must make his readers sick.

Printer-friendly version

Mad Mikey Ezra Dodges Again

Submitted by tonyg on 13 June, 2008 - 02:01.

It seems that amateur sleuth and fawning Zionist toady, Mad Mikey Ezra, is a glutton for punishment.

Like Humpty Dumpty words mean what MME wants them to mean. What he hasn’t done is explain his conversation with Atzmon, and how could he!!!

Of course I can’t stop people posting what I write, but I don’t parley or negotiate or communicate with them. MME when asked to ‘provide us with the criminal record of this Bugger-Rance. Is he on spent conviction like greenie l or is he just an ordinary liar?' didn’t tell him to fuck off but said instead ‘Roland Rance will have to wait for another day.' I’m afraid that no amount of lying will exculpate you MME. Try apologising and a bit of contrition.

Yes my citation from Eugene Levai, who clearly MME has never read, may be dull but it’s not dishonest. That is reserved for MME and his idiot friend the Screeching Bogdoor.

I don’t demand MME reads anything since he is incapable of understanding what he does read.
No quotation was give re the Zionists saving 200,000. The quotes I gave, make it clear that the intense diplomatic and military pressure on Hungary were what led to Horthy putting a stop to the deportations and that Schwalb still did his best to cover things up. Of that there is, not surprisingly, no comment.

MME talks about ‘the Jew might be right’. A good example of Zionist anti-Semitism. Whether someone is Jewish or not is irrelevant. It is their politics.

MME says that Kastner’s Report does mention the Auschwitz Protocols. Well I couldn’t find them and despite his quotations, which I also can’t find, in Braham’s book, he is quite clear on the subject: Brahams is quite explicit on Kastner’s role:

706: ‘Shortly after liberation, Kasztner brought out a detailed though self-serving report on the wartime activities of the Budapest Rescue Committee…. He is basically silent about their failure to inform Hungarian Jewry…

Since MME is unable to understand the written English language I shall continue:

711: In his report on the activities of the Budapest Vaada, Kasztner is basically silent about the Auschwitz Protocols…. The Protocols are also ignored by Samu Stern [Chair of the Jewish Council]… In the ‘Report on Hungary’, which he wrote with co-authors a few months after his arrival in Bucharest on August 10, 1944, Fulop Freudiger is also silent about them’.

It is clear that the leaders of Hungarian Zionism and the Jewish Council deliberately kept silent for reasons which are obvious. Brahams makes repeated references to what he describes (632) as ‘the most baffling enigmas requiring elucidation if one is to understand he extent of the catastrophe in Hungary.’ Mad Mikey and his idiot friend believe that knowledge of Auschwitz would have been of no use and would have helped noone (except that those who did know had much better survival chances!). This is the typical arrogance of Zionist toadies and their servile understudies like MME that it is better that those who went to the gas chambers should know nothing of their impending fate.

And again on p.715 Braham’s refers to the ‘agonizing question remains: Why did the Jewish leaders in Hungary, Switzerland, and elsewhere not distribute and publicise the Protocols immediately after they received copies of them late in April or early in May 1944?’ Of course Mad Mikey isn’t interested in this question because it points the finger at his comrades in crime. Braham, who remember MME used to refer to as the most authoritative scholar on Hungary also mentions that ‘The Protocols appear to have been ignored by, or perhaps not even brought to the attention of the Palestine press…’

Previously MME pretends that Moshe Krausz was just another Zionist whereas he was one of the few in bitter disagreement with Kasztner. Braham’s refers to ‘Krausz, Kasztner’s long time enemy’ who claimed that Kasztner had obtained the Protocols in April 1944. [fn. 81. p.729.]

Braham’s, MME’s favourite historian (until now!) also refers to the ‘plausible and to a considerable extent convincing’ claims made in respect of the Protocols, though he says, quite correctly, that there is no ‘foolproof evidence’ to substantiate them: And what were these claims? That Kasztner had received the Protocols in April 1944 and ‘The charge that Kasztner deliberately remained silent in accordance with an agreement with Eichmann under which he was allowed to save a few thousand ‘prominent’ Jews, including his own family and friends.’

Hilberg describes at length pp. 909/910 how ‘with regard to the Jewish question, Horthy mentioned that daily he was being bombarded with telegrams from all sides, from the Vatican and the King of Sweden, from Switzerland and the Red Cross. He, Horthy was certainly no friend of the Jews, but for political reasons he had to intervene… Fourth, the Hungarian government was ‘deluged’ with telegrams from the King of Sweden and the Pope. The nuncio was calling ‘several times’ a day.’

And what had the Zionists been doing. Well he describes some of their ‘activities’. Hilberg cites Henry Monsky, president of B’nai Brith on 6.1.43. when the Final Solution was at its height, declaring that ‘American Jewry… must be ready to voice the judgment of American Jews along with that of other Jewish communities of the free countries with respect to the post-war status of Jews and the upbuilding of a Jewish Palestine.’ Hilberg comments that ‘In this letter no warning to the Germans is proposed, no scheme to put an end to the destruction process is suggested; the destruction of the European Jews is not even mentioned. The European Jews are already given up and all thoughts turn to post-war salvage.’ p.1205

So then we go back to another of Mikey’s lies, the idea that the War Refugee Board was the result of Zionist efforts when the Zionist leaders in the USA vehemently opposed it to the last. If anything it was Henry Morgenthau, the Treasury Secretary who can claim the credit. The Revisionist Zionist minority, with Ben Hecht remember, who pushed for such an organisation did it in the teeth of opposition of the leaders of Zionism at whose feet Mikey fawns. Bergson and Merlin did what they did not because they were Zionists, but in spite of that fact, as Bergson later came to recognise.

Let us cite a document even Mikey should be familiar with, the Department of State Memorandum of Conversation of 19.5.44. Let us remember this is 4 days after the start of the Hungarian deportations, a time when one would expect the Zionists to be exerting every muscle, but of course their eyes are fixed on statehood: Dr Nahum Goldman ‘asserted that Bergon’s activities had not resulted in the rescue of one single Jew or in the saving of a single Jewish life… He mentioned the support which Bergson had been receiving from the WRB and he said that he had discussed this several times with Mr. Pehle, the Executive Director of the Board, who had taken the position that Bergson’s Emergency Committee to Save the Jewish People of Europe had inspired the introduction of the Gillette-Rogers Resolution, which in turn had led to the creation of the WRB. In on of their meetings with Mr. Pehle, Rabbi Wise had gone so far as to inform Mr. Pehle that he regarded Bergson as equally as great enemy of the Jews as Hitler, for the reason that his activities could only lead to increased anti-Semitism. Dr. Goldmann said that only yesterday he had again seen Mr. Pehle and had told him that unless the WRB disavowed Bergson it would be necessary for the WJC to denounce publicly the WRB.’ (reprinted in Lenni Brenner, 51 Documents – Zionist Collaboration with the Nazis’ pp. 197-200). So the organisation which we all agree was responsible in major part for the saving of 200,000 Hungarian Jews, and others as well, was the subject of the threat of denunciation because Goldmann’s political enemies were being talked to by the State Department and WRB. Bergson who wanted to and did save Jews was the equivalent of Hitler. Zionist power politics are shown in all their naked glory as more important than dead Jews from Hungary. And that is the story of Zionist collaboration in Hungary.

As I’ve already pointed out, Loeb is not a reliable source when it comes to Kastner. What is clear though is that those on the select train, the Jewish and Zionist leadership were chosen because of their politics, not their class. It is immaterial whether they were butchers or candlemakers given the general decline in Jewish status in Hungary anyway. The very rich got out as I already explained but MME prefers to ignore. Or maybe the 300+ Kasztner relatives in Cluj were also the poor of the earth?

And what is Mikey’s response to the charge of selectivity, saving the few from the many?
‘Kasztner's aim was saving the many. Hence the title of the book by André Biss, A Million Jews to Save (Hutchinson, 1973). As the Supreme Court Judge Agranat ruled, "Kasztner was motivated by the sole motive of rescuing all Hungarian Jews."

Ah yes, the logic is impeccable. Not only did Kastner’s sidekick Biss call his book ‘A million Jews to save’ but an Israeli judge confirms it! But that was not the rationale of his defence counsel, Attorney General Chaim Cohen. Again let me quote from Braham, who Mikey previously found so infallible:

‘Ironically, a related conclusion was reached by Chaim Cohen, then Attorney General of Israel, in defending Kasztner, against the accusation of collaboration with the SS. He explained Kasztner’s predicament and silence as follows:
‘Kasztner was convinced and believed that there was no ray of hope for the Jews of Hungary, almost for none of them, and since he, as a result of his personal despair, did not disclose the secret of the extermination in order not to endanger or frustrate the rescue of the few – therefore he acted in good faith and should not be accused of collaborating with the Nazis in expediting the extermination of the Jews, even though in fact he brought about its result.’ p. 721.

Note that ‘expediting the extermination of the Jews’ and an admission that ‘in fact he brought about its result.’ And still Mad Mikey defends Kasztner, the representative of the Jewish Agency in Hungary Truly one can say he is not only a liar and distorter, but an apologist for those who delivered nearly ½ million Jews into the hands of the nazis in order to save the elite.

Tony Greenstein

Printer-friendly version

Tony Greenstein’s Ludicrous Post

Submitted by MikeyMikey on 14 June, 2008 - 19:26.

Tony Greenstein's latest post is a complete shambles. It is full of so many errors and distortions, one hardly knows where to begin. Below I expose a number of his worst blunders:

1. Greenstein claims he does not “parley or negotiate or communicate” with antisemites. One wonders how he can say that after he admitted in the comments section of Engage (March 26, 2007) that he “ once had a conversation with one of the leaders of the NF.” I presume in Greenstein’s topsy-turvy world, where the words of Nazis such as Eichmann are believed to be true, his email to Atzmon was also not communication?

2. I have never accused Eugene Levai of being dull and dishonest in his writings. I reserve that accusation for the likes of Greenstein. Greenstein is also in error when he says that I have never read Levai’s book. I have – but as it was originally published in 1948 it is outdated on a lot of information.

3. I originally stated: "Greenstein believes the Nazi [Eichmann] and not the Jew [Kasztner]." Greenstein objected: "Both can be wrong, or Eichmann alone can be right." Hence my accurate comment: " For Greenstein, there is no possibility that the Jew might be right and the Nazi wrong!” Greenstein now tells us that suggesting a Jew may be right is anti-Semitism! Clearly in Greenstein’s world, Jews are liars.

4. I gave Greenstein a full reference where he can see Braham quoting Kasztner mentioning the Auschwitz Protocols in his report but Greenstein could not locate it. I suggest he looks again because it is there as clear as day. As he is so incompetent, I will help him out. I made it clear that I was using the latest 1994 revised and enlarged edition of Braham’s two volume work The Politics of Genocide. It is quite clear from Greenstein’s references that he is using an earlier edition. I suggest he finds a decent library that has a moré up to date copy.

5. Greenstein keeps saying that the Jews did not know about their fate but he ignores facts and scholarly opinion: For example Greenstein has chosen not to cite the testimony of Dr. Alexander Nathan who stated that after reading the Auschwitz Protocol:

"I could not keep information like that to myself. I consulted with Zionist friends [in the labor service unit] and it was agreed that I should read the document to the whole unit. The reaction was awful .... [They called me ] 'a defeatist, a traitor, a rotter.' They threatened to turn me in. It was no joke. If not for a few Zionist friends they would have beaten me to the point of death. One of the young men fell upon me with a big iron bar which my friends took away from him. The entire company was convinced that I was a provocateur, and that’s how they treated me."

[Cited by Asher Cohen, The Halutz Resistance in Hungary 1942-1944 (Social Science Monographs, Boulder and Institute for Holocaust Studies of City University of New York, 1986) pp. 129-130]

6. Greenstein claims that I pretended “that Moshe Krausz was just another Zionist.” That is a blatant Greenstein lie. I cited Braham and said quite clearly that “Krausz ran the Palestine Office in Hungary.”

7. When Greenstein writes about what the Zionists were doing in early 1943, he ignores the fact that for example 15 meetings were held in different cities in the USA on February 28 and March 1 to “protest the deliberate and barbaric massacres” of Jews in Nazi -occupied Europe. At the meeting in Detroit with Rabbi Stephen Wise and Charles Taft of Roosevelt’s War Relief Board, a motion was passed appealing to Roosevelt and the Allies listing seven points for immediate plans for rescue and for aid in the escape of victims of Nazi terror. (Bette Roth Young, “The American Jewish Response to the Holocaust – A Reconsideration,” Midstream March-April 2007)

8. Greenstein comments that “the idea that the War Refugee Board was the result of Zionist efforts” is one of my “lies” but it was Greenstein himself who said the WRB "was established as a result of a campaign, not least by right-wing revisionist Zionists”!

9. Greenstein claims that “Bergson and Merlin did what they did not because they were Zionists, but in spite of that fact” This is hardly the case. As Rafael Medoff explains, Bergson was an Irgun Zvai Leumi activist, who, in 1936 “helped defend Jerusalem against Palestinian Arab rioters in 1936.” He then “spent several years in Poland, organizing Jewish immigration to Palestine in defiance of British restrictions.” He went to America in 1940 because revisionist Zionist leader Ze'ev Jabotinsky sent him there! (Rafael Medoff, “A Zionist play that changed history,” Jerusalem Post Online Edition September 4, 2006)

10. Greenstein suggests Ladislaus Lob’s book “is not a reliable source when it comes to Kastner.” He has shown no evidence that he has read this book and has not pointed to a single inaccurate statement in that book and provided a reliable of source documenting this. The fact is that Lob had first hand knowledge of the Kasztner train as he was a passenger on it!

11. Greenstein first told us that “it was not only class but political attachment that was decisive” for selection on the train. He now claims that passengers were chosen “because of their politics, not their class.” With each post Greenstein seems to change his mind.

12. Greenstein implies that “300+ Kasztner relatives in Cluj” were passengers on the train but Benjamin Halevey in the Kasztner trial said that there were “more than 20 of Kasztner’s family” on the train. Whilst I accept that “more than 20” could equal “300+” it is massive exaggeration to say that was the case and not surprisingly Greenstein has not sourced his claim. The reason he hasn’t is that he does not have a source. Like many of his claims, it is a figment of his imagination.

13. In relation to Kasztner’s committee attempt to save a million Jews, Greenstein dismisses the book by Biss because he was “Kastner’s sidekick” and dismisses Judge Agranat’s considered opinion because he was an “Israeli judge.” But he is quite happy to believe quotes from Adolf Eichmann!

In fact, details of Kasztner’s committee attempt to save 1,000,000 Jews can be read in numerous books. For example Braham Politics of Genocide (1994 edition) pp. 1,078-1,088; Bauer, Jews for Sale? pp. 162-195; Szita Trading in Lives? pp. 67-76; Martin Gilbert, Aushwitz & the Allies: The Politics of Rescue (London: Hamlyn Paperbacks, 1983) pp. 201 ff; Shlomo Aronson, Hitler, the Allies, and the Jews (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004) pp. 219-262 and the list goes on.

14. Greenstein shows he does not have a basic understanding of the court case involving Kasztner as he refers to Chaim Cohen as Kaszter’s “defence counsel.” The truth was that far from acting as a “defence counsel,” Cohen was the prosecuting attorney!

But then again, what can we expect from someone who reads the words of Adolf Eichmann and believes them?

Printer-friendly version

Time to Call an end to Battering Mikey the Collaborator

Submitted by tonyg on 14 June, 2008 - 01:35.

Having battered Mikey around town, so much so that he even claims that what I say is just another form of agreement with him, I think it's time to call it a day and let him lick his wounds.

Tony Greenstein

Printer-friendly version

Summing Up Greenstein’s Depraved Posts

Submitted by MikeyMikey on 14 June, 2008 - 19:47.

Before reading Greenstein’s words, we can note the following:

Having noted this, one can see why we has finally given up trying to defend his claims. With every sentence he writes, he makes a bigger fool of himself.

Printer-friendly version

Atzmon's favourite Zionist Talks to Himself

Submitted by tonyg on 15 June, 2008 - 01:11.

I can only assume that Mad Mikey Ezra has managed to convince himself of the above if noone else

Printer-friendly version

Mad Mikey 2

Submitted by tonyg on 15 June, 2008 - 21:33.

Oh I see Mad Mikey's omitted point 16. I eat babies for breakfast. Don't care what religion their parents are though.

Printer-friendly version

Greenstein, Eichmann's Disciple

Submitted by Paul Bogdanor on 16 June, 2008 - 15:49.

EICHMANN

Not content with minimising the victims of Stalin and Hitler, Greenstein has decided to peddle the lies of Eichmann. According to Greenstein, "what Eichmann had to say was invaluable." So Greenstein believed Eichmann when he said:-

"the real agitators for war were the infernal high finance circles of the Western hemisphere, whose servants are Churchill and Roosevelt, and the puppets, the pawns in this game of theirs, are Hitler, Mussolini, Daladier, Chamberlain."

In the words of the judges:-

"The 'infernal finance circles' are, of course, the Jews according to the concepts of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion... This is the style used by the Accused even in 1957, so deep was his conviction from the past that the Jews are the enemies of mankind, and he reaches a new peak in the development of the Nazi mythology: Hitler himself was a plaything into the hands of the Jews."

Since Greenstein also uses the Protocols of the Elders of Zion to justify atrocities against Jews, he must consider Eichmann "invaluable" on this point as well.

KASZTNER

Greenstein's assertions about Kasztner are as "invaluable" as Eichmann's ravings about Hitler. For example, Greenstein referred to "the complete absence of or mention of the Auschwitz Protocols" in the Kasztner Report. "I couldn't find them," he protested. That's because he never looked. He hasn't read it. I quote:-

"According to these reports, the SS was ready to repair and renovate the gas chambers and crematoria of Auschwitz... One of the guards was overheard saying, 'Soon we'll eat good Hungarian salami,' referring to the provisions the Jews took with them." (Kasztner Report, II:18)

Greenstein says that Zionists "delivered nearly 1/2 million Jews into the hands of the nazis in order to save the elite." Kasztner's contemporary communications prove the opposite:-

"Many hundreds of thousands have to be saved from deportation and its related outcome, so we must be helped to carry out this plan... It is still possible to help many hundreds of thousands of Jews and keep them alive..."

To state the obvious: Greenstein is a liar.

BRAHAM

Greenstein pretended to be an expert on Braham. He had never read Braham. He rushed off to the library and found an outdated edition of Braham. That explains why he gave the wrong page references in Braham. It doesn't explain why he blatantly falsified Braham. Compare Greenstein's rendition of Braham with Braham's verdict on Kasztner:-

"It is likely that, motivated by a strong subconscious drive for grandeur, he hoped to emerge as virtually the sole rescuer of close to one million Jews... in his dealings with the SS, and especially with the leaders of the Sonderkommando, he often displayed great skill and courage in championing the cause of rescue." (Politics of Genocide, Columbia University Press, 1994, pp1,071-2)

Greenstein dismissed "the nonsense about the Zionists publicising the [Auschwitz] report." Braham made it clear that the Zionists had been distributing the reports:-

"it was Krausz's report of June 19, rather than the many similar reports sent by Kasztner and his colleagues, that became the focus of the diplomatic activities in the summer of 1944." (p1,162, emphasis added)

To repeat: Greenstein is a liar.

HILBERG

Greenstein pretended to be an expert on Hilberg. He had never read Hilberg. He rushed off to the library and found the 3-volume edition of Hilberg. He claims that there is nothing about "the Zionists saving 200,000" in Hilberg. I quote Hilberg's description of how the Zionists saved 200,000 Jews from Auschwitz:-

"Finally, the Hungarian Prime Minister brought up his strongest point... [Intercepted messages] suggested the bombing and destruction of destination points and railroad lines, 'target bombing of all collaborating Hungarian and German agencies, with exact and correct street and house numbers in Budapest,' and finally, 'world-wide propaganda with detailed descriptions of the state of affairs.' In another teletype message seventy Hungarian and German personalities who were said to constitute the main culprits were mentioned by name...

"The Jewish relief committee in Budapest had sent these requests to Bern to be transmitted through diplomatic channels to the Allied capitals, where no action was taken upon them. [Wrong: Budapest was heavily bombed on July 2 - PB.] But fate had intervened. The Hungarians in their eagerness had intercepted the messages and had thereupon managed to frighten themselves.

"On July 6, Veesenmayer was informed by Sztojay that the Regent had ordered the deportations stopped." (Destruction, Yale University Press, 2003, p910ff, emphases added)

Again: Greenstein is a liar.

WAR REFUGEE BOARD

To sustain his lies about Zionists, Greenstein resorted to praising capitalists. He referred to the War Refugee Board, which "the Zionist leaders in the USA vehemently opposed... If anything it was Henry Morgenthau, the Treasury Secretary, who can claim the credit." But Greenstein has been caught red-handed again:-

"Since the Treasury initiative came about as a result of actions begun by the WJC... we must credit this organization, at least partially, with the achievement of the Board. In addition, according to Morgenthau's own testimony, it was Rabbi Wise (President of the WJC) who first made the Secretary aware of the Holocaust and prepared to act to save Jews, the most important expression of which was the struggle to establish the WRB." (Ariel Hurwitz, "The Struggle Over the Creation of the War Refugee Board," Holocaust and Genocide Studies, Vol. 6, No. 1, 1991, p28)

According to Greenstein, the WRB "is responsible for the fact that about 200,000 Jews survived in Hungary." And according to the WRB, the credit belongs to Kasztner (The Holocaust: Selected Documents, Vol. 16, Garland, 1982, p46ff).

Once more: Greenstein is a liar.

CONCLUSION

Greenstein is no ordinary liar. He denies Hitler's annihilation of 6 million Jews. He repeats Eichmann's lies about the annihilation of Jews. He supports genocidal terrorists who seek the annihilation of Jews. And then he poses as a champion of murdered Jews - while using the Protocols of the Elders of Zion to justify atrocities against living Jews. Presumably there was much to discuss in his meeting with the National Front.

Printer-friendly version

Greenstein and the BNP

Submitted by Paul Bogdanor on 16 June, 2008 - 15:53.

That point about the National Front reminds me to mention another Greenstein lie: "the BNP, like most anti-Semites is ALSO pro-Zionist." I had embarrassed Greenstein by quoting the BNP's virulent attacks on Zionism. So Greenstein scoured the BNP website. He linked to an article on the BNP's "pro-Zionist position."

Turning to Greenstein's BNP source, we find him

- raving about the neocon plot to "make the world safe for the Zionist state of Israel"
- attacking "the power of the Zionist lobby in American politics"
- denouncing the "overseas agitprop department of Israel's ruling Likud party"
- vilifying their "Christian-Zionist and plutocrat allies."

I'm curious as to Greenstein's mental state when he tells these lies. Does he think that his references won't be checked? Does he think that he won't be exposed? He praises the "invaluable" testimony of Eichmann. Does he hope to convince anyone? Does he expect anything other than ridicule and disgust?

Printer-friendly version

Nathan Weinstock: ex-anti-Zionist

2008-09-16T15:23:00.000+01:00

This Post originally appeared on Harry's Place

Nathan Weinstock: ex-anti-Zionist

David T, February 21st 2008, 3:26 pm

There’s a translation of an interesting interview with Nathan Weinstock here, in which he discusses his new work on the explusion of the Mizrahi jews from Arab lands:

Why do you think that the exodus of nearly all the Jews from Arab countries has been shrouded in silence?
Nathan Weinstock: Several reasons. First, the Jews themselves were embarrassed (it is not something to be proud of, to be ‘cleansed’ like so much dirt). They wanted to draw a line over their past. And until recently, many Ashkenazim showed a certain contempt of all things Sephardi. Secondly, they felt ‘cornered’ by the prevailing, simplistic, politically-correct notion of colonialism. The exodus of the Jews from Arab lands was perceived by progressives as a ’settling of scores’ with the effects of colonialism. Add to this the unwritten law that only the West can embody evil. Everything coming from the Third Word must necessarily escape criticism. The exiled Jews would therefore be ill-advised to muddy the waters of the simplistic ideology of the onward march to progress. Sympathy with the Palestinians has only reinforced this tendency.

What makes this particularly interesting is that Nathan Weinstock used to be an outspoken Trotskyite anti-Zionist, and author of the seminal book: “Zionism: False Messiah”

Apparently, he has now changed his mind.

According to Mikey on Engage, this is now Nathan Weinstock’s position:

I have prohibited my publisher from reissuing Zionism - False Messiah. Let me add that, while I naively believed - an error of youth - that this book could fuel a constructive discussion leading to Israeli-Palestinian coexistence, I came to realise that this had been unforgivable naivety on my part: the book served only to salve the conscience of avowed and unconscious anti-Semites.

There’s a turn up for the books.

There’s also this letter in today’s Irish Times from Benny Morris, which sets out his historical thesis, and his position on those who mis-cite his work in support of their arguments:

Madam, - Israel-haters are fond of citing - and more often, mis-citing - my work in support of their arguments. Let me offer some corrections.
The Palestinian Arabs were not responsible “in some bizarre way” (David Norris, January 31st) for what befell them in 1948. Their responsibility was very direct and simple.

In defiance of the will of the international community, as embodied in the UN General Assembly Resolution of November 29th, 1947 (No. 181), they launched hostilities against the Jewish community in Palestine in the hope of aborting the emergence of the Jewish state and perhaps destroying that community. But they lost; and one of the results was the displacement of 700,000 of them from their homes.

It is true, as Erskine Childers pointed out long ago, that there were no Arab radio broadcasts urging the Arabs to flee en masse; indeed, there were broadcasts by several Arab radio stations urging them to stay put. But, on the local level, in dozens of localities around Palestine, Arab leaders advised or ordered the evacuation of women and children or whole communities, as occurred in Haifa in late April, 1948. And Haifa’s Jewish mayor, Shabtai Levy, did, on April 22nd, plead with them to stay, to no avail.

Most of Palestine’s 700,000 “refugees” fled their homes because of the flail of war (and in the expectation that they would shortly return to their homes on the backs of victorious Arab invaders). But it is also true that there were several dozen sites, including Lydda and Ramla, from which Arab communities were expelled by Jewish troops.

The displacement of the 700,000 Arabs who became “refugees” - and I put the term in inverted commas, as two-thirds of them were displaced from one part of Palestine to another and not from their country (which is the usual definition of a refugee) - was not a “racist crime” (David Landy, January 24th) but the result of a national conflict and a war, with religious overtones, from the Muslim perspective, launched by the Arabs themselves.

There was no Zionist “plan” or blanket policy of evicting the Arab population, or of “ethnic cleansing”. Plan Dalet (Plan D), of March 10th, 1948 (it is open and available for all to read in the IDF Archive and in various publications), was the master plan of the Haganah - the Jewish military force that became the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) - to counter the expected pan-Arab assault on the emergent Jewish state. That’s what it explicitly states and that’s what it was. And the invasion of the armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Iraq duly occurred, on May 15th.

It is true that Plan D gave the regional commanders carte blanche to occupy and garrison or expel and destroy the Arab villages along and behind the front lines and the anticipated Arab armies’ invasion routes. And it is also true that mid-way in the 1948 war the Israeli leaders decided to bar the return of the “refugees” (those “refugees” who had just assaulted the Jewish community), viewing them as a potential fifth column and threat to the Jewish state’s existence. I for one cannot fault their fears or logic.

The demonisation of Israel is largely based on lies - much as the demonisation of the Jews during the past 2,000 years has been based on lies. And there is a connection between the two.

I would recommend that the likes of Norris and Landy read some history books and become acquainted with the facts, not recycle shopworn Arab propaganda. They might then learn, for example, that the “Palestine War” of 1948 (the “War of Independence,” as Israelis call it) began in November 1947, not in May 1948. By May 14th close to 2,000 Israelis had died - of the 5,800 dead suffered by Israel in the whole war (ie almost 1 per cent of the Jewish population of Palestine/Israel, which was about 650,000). - Yours, etc,

Keywords: Israel/Palestine.

Comments

Mikey

21 February 2008, 4:18 pm

Nathan Weinstock’s comments on his refusal to allow his own book to republished, that David T has quoted above, can be seen http://www.menapress.com/viewtopic.php?topic=79&forum=15> here in the original French and http://emperors-clothes.com/docs/weinstock.htm>here in English.

It is interesting that Weinstock’s book is used as a reference by the leading Socialist Workers Party supporter http://www.marxists.de/middleast/rose/ack.htm> John Rose in his tract Israel the Hijack State. Rose and others who do similar, should perhaps learn from what Weinstock has said.

2008-09-16T15:20:00.000+01:00

This post originally appeared on Socialist Unity

7 February, 2008

ANTI-SEMITISM IS A REAL PROBLEM

Filed under: anti-semitism — Andy Newman @ 10:58 am

As regular readers of this blog will know we have taken a strong line against anti-Semitism, and particularly have sought to expose the anti-Judaic bigotry of Gilad Atzmon.

There is a divergence of opinion of how significant anti-Semitism is as a political influence in British society today. My own view is that it is marginal but showing worrying growth. The danger is it can become socially acceptable.

In September 2006, a parliamentary enquiry heard of a sharp increase of attacks on Jews since the war in Lebanon had started. The Times reported Mark Gardener of the Community Security Trust saying: “In July, when the conflict in Lebanon began, we received reports of 92 incidents, which was the third-worst month since records began in 1984.” In 2000 the monthly average was between 10 and 30 incidents. … The July incidents “were more dispersed than usual … It is usually a small number responsible for a large number of attacks, but these were very widespread across the country and included graffiti attacks on synagogues in Edinburgh and Glasgow. The attackers, when visible, are from across society, he said. “When it’s verbal abuse, it’s just ordinary people in the street, from middle-class women to working-class men. All colours and backgrounds. We hardly ever see incidents involving the classic neo-Nazi skinhead. Muslims are over-represented.” In hate-mail to senior Jewish figures, ordinary Jewish people were being blamed for the deaths of Lebanese civilians. “There are also references to the Holocaust, saying that Hitler should have wiped out the Jews.”

The huge success of Mel Gibson’s “Passion of Christ” reveals the large audience for the traditional Christian interpretation of the Gospels, that the Jews killed Christ. In the Gospel of Matthew, the Roman governor, Pontius Pilate “took water, and washed his hands before the [Jewish] multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it. Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children.” This may be a deeply unfashionable interpretation for trendy Anglicans, but it is believed by millions of Christians around the world.

Over the last few years, as an activist campaigning against the Iraq and Afghan wars, I have several times been offered the explanation that the wars have been orchestrated by Jews, along with “revelations” that various members of the British government are Jewish.

For example, this Tuesday in the pub after our local Stop the War Coalition meeting there was a discussion about the US presidential elections, and one well respected socialist activist expressed the opinion that Israel decided who the US president would be, and a member of the Green Party agreed that Jews still controlled most of the world’s money. Of course other people, including myself, challenged these views.

The individuals concerned would be horrified to be called anti-Semitic. Indeed I am sure they are not prejudiced at all against individual Jews, but they have bought into anti-Semitic narratives. The worrying thing is that so much of the left seems to ignore this problem.

320 Comments »

I don’t actually think, however, that this is the same thing as the pre-war anti-semitism, which was a counter-revolutionary demonology, not just a form of racism. Which is what made it doubly potent.

Part of the reason why reasonable people accept these views is that, from the point of view of empiricism, there appears to be at least a modicum of truth in it. There is a strategic alliance between the United States and Israel, there is a quasi-McCarthyist witchhunt in the US against even bourgeois figures who question that alliance. Special priveleges are granted to pro-Israeli lobbyists in the United States, and also to a significant (though lesser) extent in Europe.

The material reasons for this is that the US seeks to dominate the most important energy reserves in the world, and Israel is, as the British governor of Palestine, Storrs, once said, the ‘loyal little Jewish Ulster’ that is now helping the US (with the UK now reduced to junior status) to dominate the Middle East.

There vociferous pro-Israel lobby in the United States contains Jews and non-Jews. Many of the Jewish elements have direct ties to Israel, which is hardly suprising since Zionist ideology posits Israel as the Jewish state. It also suits the pro-Israeli dominant wing of the US ruling class, which is mainly WASP, to stay a little bit out of the limelight in this regard and allow the Jewish component of the pro-Israel lobby relatively more prominent. This is called hedging your bets, just a bit, and keeping a scapegoat in reserve in case things go wrong. Nothing particularly conspiratorial about this, just cynical realpolitik.

But to empiricists, it appears that a priveleged, Jewish layer is exercising an undue influence on US foriegn policy. This is bound to be reflected in popular consciousness to some extent. The only antidote to this is Marxist analysis, not moralising.

But this cannot be equated with the ideology that led ultimately to the WWII genocide, when wide sections of the privelged classes of the advanced countries (though not all) believed that Jews represented some kind of subversive threat and a danger of “Western civilisation”, and were prepared for massive repression, and even mass slaughter, of the Jews. *That* ideology is dead. It only survives today in fragmentary, incoherent and electic ramblings among those subjected to oppression by the West and Israel.

The corresponding ideology today is subtly different, it involves the defence of ‘Judeo-Christian civilisation’, a phrase that crops up time and time again in the current anti-Muslim discourse.

Comment by Ian Donovan — 7 February, 2008 @ 12:28 pm
Socialists should act against any manifestation of anti-semitism, including from those thinking they’re supporting the Palestinians. Here in Oz I’ve occasionally comes across it: only at the receiving end from a couple of the more obnoxious upper class twits at the upper class twit school I did the last two years schooling at (on a scholarship I always hasten to add); mainly since living in the regions from nutty old farmers who were probably associated with the once sizable rural-based far right outfits, but also a few times the sort of unconscious attitudes that Andy’s related from younger leftish people.

However it’s all too often necessary to distinguish between actual anti-semitism and what Zionists claim is anti-semitism, for the purposes of deflecting criticism of the Israeli state. In an open letter by Green Left Weekly to such a slander by an Australian Zionist organ http://www.greenleft.org.au/2007/710/36878 there was a useful definition of actual anti-semitism viz Israel. It was pointed out:

“In the same issue of your journal [that slandered GL], Israeli academic Dina Porat argues that criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic ‘when it attributes Jewish qualities to Israeli military and political behaviour’. We agree and you will search completely in vain in the so far 709 issues of GLW for a single reference to any essential ‘Jewish nature’ of the policies of the Israeli state that we certainly criticise, or any use whatsoever of derogatory stereotypes of Jews”.

Of course in practice this journal and a lot of Zionists have a much broader definition of anti-semitism.

Comment by Nick Fredman — 7 February, 2008 @ 12:45 pm
Ian, your remarks make uncomfortable reading.

Your claim seems to be that right-wing anti-Semitism is a reactionary force so should be opposed, while left-wing anti-Semitism is essentially a progressive force; that it’s understandable that empiracists (that is, people who believe what they see) would be anti-Semites.

This is not a million miles away from one strand of marxist thought that sees traditional (that is, pre-Nazi) anti-Semitism as essentially a progressive manifestation of class consciousness.

Comment by unseen — 7 February, 2008 @ 1:00 pm
Good, I’m glad my views make our cowardly, anonymous troll ‘uncomfortable’. I’ll leave it up to honest people to judge whether I said that any sort of anti-semitism is ‘progressive’.

Comment by Ian Donovan — 7 February, 2008 @ 1:08 pm
Ian Donovan - “The corresponding ideology today is subtly different, it involves the defence of ‘Judeo-Christian civilisation’, a phrase that crops up time and time again in the current anti-Muslim discourse.”

I’m not buying this. It’s the parallels between pre and post war anti-semitism that give it away: Ideas that Jews run the banks, run US foreign policy, etc. And if a specific group do wield influence, then you have to identify them properly, and not lump them together with an entire ethnicity.

I concur with Andy with regards to the spread of anti-semitism, I’ve come across more often these days from people I would consider ‘reasonable’.

Comment by Alex Naysmith — 7 February, 2008 @ 1:27 pm
“And if a specific group do wield influence, then you have to identify them properly, and not lump them together with an entire ethnicity.”

Indeed, that is the whole point of Marxist analysis.

Comment by Ian Donovan — 7 February, 2008 @ 1:34 pm
I am very uncomfortable with Ian’s points here.

Firtsly, I think our threshold for taking a form of bigotry seriously shouldn’t be to wait for it to reach levels of nazi germany!

Secondly, I am worried about the “empiricism” and the “modicum of truth”, This is just as falaicious as saying that anti-black racism is informed by lower eductaional acheivement and higher rates of criminality among blacks.

Comment by Andy Newman — 7 February, 2008 @ 1:45 pm
ian donovan’s piece should be seen for what it is - naked anti-jewish bigotry! If the US in such a strong grip of the ‘jewish lobby’ how come the US has such good relatins with the reactionary feudal muslim state of saudi arabia? (a sworn opponent of the very existence of the state of isreal) He mistakenly asserts that the kind of anti-semitism that resulted in the holocaust no longer exists. Well he clearly hasnt read the stuff being spewed out by the fascist theocrats of hamas and hizbollah, who openly talk of the annihilation of the state of isreal and who regularly cite the forged protocols of the elders of zion as fact!

Comment by leigh — 7 February, 2008 @ 1:57 pm
Its not about levels, i.e. a quantitative relationship. Its qualitatative. Some kinds of bigotry have simply died out, as the historical grounds of their existence have changed in some way to make them untenable. Like the bigoty against Protestants in France that produced St Bartholomew’s. The old anti-Catholic hatred that produced penal laws and the like in this country is also pretty well dead.

Frankly, the only thing that sustains suspicion of Jews in the advanced world today, is Israel and its outrageous racist acts committed in their name. The counterrevolutionary demonology is however dead - since their is little in the world more counterrevolutionary than Israel. So the suspicion is of a different type. Marx’s remarks about history repeating itself, tragedy and farce spring to mind.

Comment by Ian Donovan — 7 February, 2008 @ 2:01 pm
And ‘leigh’ obviously cannot read since I didn’t talk of a Jewish lobby, but rather a pro-Israel lobby composed of both Jews and non-Jews. His method of argumentation is that of Josef Goebells - the big lie.

Comment by Ian Donovan — 7 February, 2008 @ 2:03 pm
Andy, you’ve captured exactly the point I was trying to get at, though I didn’t phrase it quite so well.

I don’t like the idea that we should only really worry about racism when it’s reactionary and counter-revoluntionary, or the suggestion that contemporary anti-Semitism is basically an understandable misplaced anti-imperialism that can be easily fixed with a quick dose of critical theory.

I think Ian sums up a feeling of a lot of the Left at the moment - being aware of anti-Semitism in the movement on some level but just thinking that it isn’t particularly bad or particularly important. It’s the Lindsey German “main form of racism” argument: that because Islamophobia is widespread and is strongest on the Right, the Left should worry less about anti-Semitism which isn’t really a big deal. It’s certainly not worth upsetting your comrades and allies by calling them racists.

Better to keep your mouth shut when they talk about Zionist Occupied Governments or Jewish Power while you try to build a broad front around (eg) opposing attacks on Iran, rather than risking splitting the movement. After all, the Iran campaign is simply more important than anti-Semitism right now.

Comment by unseen — 7 February, 2008 @ 2:07 pm
Andy #7

‘Firtsly, I think our threshold for taking a form of bigotry seriously shouldn’t be to wait for it to reach levels of nazi germany!’

Reply:

I agree with you completely, Andy, which is why we need to confront Zionism and Israel’s racist and brutal treatment of the Palestinians before it descends to that level. I wrote a piece for the MStar recently, which I posted on here, pointing to the fact that the Holocaust was the culmination of a decade-long process of demonistation of the Jews and their religion and culture, preparing the ground for the horror that took place thereafter.

But to allow supporters of Israel to constantly use the calumy of antisemitism in order to frighten off anyone who dares protest or speak out against Israel today is a monumental mistake and, worse, political cowardice of the worst sort.

Currrently, I am being skewered by the good folks over at the Engage forum for my pro-Palestine articles and activism. I am now being labelled antisemitic. I posted on here a letter I wrote on behalf of the SPSC to East Renfrewshire Council protesting their endorsement of a pro-Israel event, a letter containing hard historical facts with regard to Israel’s ehtnic cleansing and apartheid, and the only comment on it was to the effect that the SPSC are antisemitic.

Pander to this kind of McCarthyism and you end up politically castrated. Anti-Zionism does NOT equate to antisemitism, much as Israel’s apologists try to make out. Yes, Atzom and his ilk constitute a degenerate current that must be challenged, but be careful that in so doing you don’t lose sight of the burning issue of Israel’s illegal, immoral and brutal theft and occupation of Palestinian land.

Comment by John W — 7 February, 2008 @ 2:08 pm
Jon W, I’ve just read the Engage piece you pointed me to.

They are indeed attacking you. But they’re attacking you for linking to (among other things) “the Committee for Open Depate on the Holocaust” to justify your point

Comment by unseen — 7 February, 2008 @ 2:25 pm
Unseen, could you please give a shred of evidence for the existence of one strand of marxist thought that sees traditional (that is, pre-Nazi) anti-Semitism as essentially a progressive manifestation of class consciousness?

Comment by Ken MacLeod — 7 February, 2008 @ 3:01 pm
Linking to CODOH was a bad move. But for David Hirsch to throw it in John’s face after he’d apologised and claimed ignorance of the nature of the site was ungracious, to say the least. And what are we to make of an argument like this:

Here Wight translates his own antisemitic paragraph into a language which is not evidently antisemitic. But the paragraph has the same meaning. Anyway, John Wight thinks it has the same meaning.

Surely if you challenge someone for using what you perceive as anti-semitic language, and they not only disclaim any anti-semitism but rephrase what they were saying in terms you don’t find offensive, the reasonable conclusion is that you got them wrong the first time. By contrast, Hirsch’s logic seems to be that Wight used what Hirsch saw as anti-semitic language, therefore Wight’s intended meaning must have been anti-semitic - therefore expressing the same argument in language that isn’t anti-semitic is still evidence of anti-semitism! A bit hard to get off that particular hook…

Comment by Phil — 7 February, 2008 @ 3:06 pm
Ian- I think you’re wrong to make a distinction between pre-war and post-war anti-Semitism.

I agree that the genocidal anti-Semitism of the Nazis is on a different scale to other less violent forms of anti-Semitism. However, the truth is that in its 2,000 year old history anti-Semitism like all other forms of hatred and bigotry has existed on the level of a general dislike of Jews, danagerous falsehoods about Jews and sporadic outbursts of violence against Jews. It would be foolish in the extreme to look away as the forces of hatred gain in strength.

Anti-Semites have always believed that they are telling the ‘truth’ about the Jews, those who ignored anti-Semitism have always thought there was a “modicum of truth” about anti-Semitic slurs.

Anti-Zionist discourse from the left is identical to far-right hate literature. This should alarm true socialists.

When Jews complain about anti-Semitism they are accused of being part of an overarching conspiracy to silence ‘the truth’. This ‘defence’ against charges of anti-Semitism itself is grounded on known anti-Semitic slurs that Jews lie in order to advance their own interests and that they do so in an organised and conspiratorial fashion.

Why is it that the ideology of Zionism has acquired every negative stereotype of the Jew?

Zionists control the media
Zionists control international finance
Zionists secretly conspire to rule the world
Zionists start proxy wars for their own benefit
Zionists kill children
Zionists are greedy

How anyone can look at this and fail to recognise that anti-Semitism has crept into the debate on the fate of Palestine/Israel?

No-one serious says that Israeli govt policy is closed for criticism, yet when the criticism is dressed-up in anti-Semitic imagery then Jews and true anti-racists are right to call the issue. To deny the facts is to conflate criticism and bigotry; one is necessary the other is not.

Comment by Stephen — 7 February, 2008 @ 3:15 pm
That’s a powerful and well argued contribution. I dont have time to fully respond to it now, I’ll do so later when I’ve given it more thought.

Comment by Ian Donovan — 7 February, 2008 @ 3:37 pm
Where did John Wight get the phrase “International Jewry” from,if not from neo-Nazi literature?

Comment by Mikey — 7 February, 2008 @ 3:40 pm
John W

“Currently, I am being skewered by the good folks over at the Engage forum for my pro-Palestine articles and activism.”

This is simply not true John. The reason you are getting stick is because of the anti-Semitic things that you say. That you simultaneously criticise Israeli policy is irrelevant; don’t conflate criticism and bigotry.

When you say that, “The state of Israel is a hydra-headed monster, …. Arrayed against this monster are the forces of human progress.” or you talk of “international Jewry”, its not surprising that people may think of you as an anti-Semite. This language is strikingly similar to the kulturkampf notion found in Nazi ideology.

When from amongst the sources you link to to back up your information there appears a far-right holocaust denial site, it again makes one wonder why you are looking at sites like these to verify the truth? I know you have apologised for this on the grounds of ‘lazy research’ but the fact that you didn’t notice it was a far-right website because fascists say the same things you do isn’t a very convincing defence. When left, anti-racist discourse is identical to far-right hatred this demonstrates there is a problem. Yet whenever this is pointed out it is dismissed as an unpleasant coincidence. Ask yourself this; if you found that your views on African immigrants were identical to that of fascists such as the BNP or NF would you also dismiss this as an unfortunate coincidence?

I don’t suppose for a moment you are a conscious or intentional anti-Semite but you do say anti-Semitic things and in doing so you legitimate a discourse which permits Jew-Hatred to flourish. Violent Anti-Semitism (that is attacks on Jewish people and property) is rising throughout the world and you are helping to make the problem worse. Not because you criticise Israeli government policy or support the Palestinians. It is because some of the things you say are racist.

Of course you could fall back onto further anti-Semitic tropes in order to convince yourself that all the flak is part of a global conspiracy to silence you and other ‘critics’. Or you could take the problem seriously and work out how to build some effective arguments which criticise Israeli policy without having to rely on anti-Semitic language and imagery. Surely its not that difficult?

Comment by Stephen — 7 February, 2008 @ 3:49 pm
I’m shocked that someone in the Scottish PSC should write all these things,knowing that the SPSC has been accused of acting as a haven for anti semites.

Comment by Patrick. — 7 February, 2008 @ 4:00 pm
“The state of Israel is a hydra-headed monster, …. Arrayed against this monster are the forces of human progress.” or you talk of “international Jewry”, its not surprising that people may think of you as an anti-Semite.

I can’t see anything anti-semitic in John calling the state of Israel by any rude name he pleases. As for the reference to ‘international Jewry’, what John was saying was that a lot of Jews around the world sustain the state of Israel and that he hopes they soon stop doing so.

I don’t suppose for a moment you are a conscious or intentional anti-Semite but you do say anti-Semitic things

No. He’s made anti-Zionist arguments in terms which were perceived as anti-semitic, and when called on it he’s apologised and rephrased them in terms which weren’t anti-semitic… but were still anti-Zionist. I’m not sure anti-semitic language is the real problem here.

Comment by Phil — 7 February, 2008 @ 4:49 pm
Did he link to an Aryan Supremacist site and use it as a source.
Not even spotting it?

Comment by Patrick. — 7 February, 2008 @ 4:53 pm
The time has passed when it was possible to write off concern about antisemitism by use of the “Livingstone Formulation”.

http://www.z-word.com/on-zionism/antisemitism-and-anti-zionism/anti-zionism-and-antisemitism%253A-decoding-the-relationship.html?page=2

If there is a concern about antisemitism we need to use our judgment to see whether the concern is justified. Simply screaming that concern about antisemitism is expressed in bad faith by “Zionists” in order to de-legitimize criticism of Israeli human rights abuses, isn’t any longer enough.

Comment by David Hirsh — 7 February, 2008 @ 4:55 pm
But the phrase John W used was “international Jewry.” You can interpret it which way you want but it was the language of Nazis and is the language of neo-Nazis.

Comment by Mikey — 7 February, 2008 @ 4:56 pm
The more familiar you are with the history of anti-semitism, the more you’re struck by the reappearance of the same collection of themes presented in the barest of “anti-Zionist” disguises. The issue is not that Israel is being criticised, but that — from some sources — the criticisms have been selected to mirror the canonical imagery of anti-semitism, to mirror them so remarkably that coincidence alone fails to explain it and another cause comes into view.

In some cases, that resemblance is deliberate. Atzmon in particular has a cottage industry of, by design, refurbishing these medievalisms in smart new fashions.

Comment by goodwin sands — 7 February, 2008 @ 4:58 pm
Ian

I would like to add something else for you to think about while you consider your response to Stephen’s comments.

I agree with you that antisemitism in the first half of the 20th century was counter-revolutionary, whereas now it is not. I invite you, though, to consider the next step in this argument: that antisemitism today is most likely to be found in revolutionary movements, whether that is the anti-imperialist far left or radical Islamist movements of the Arab and Muslim world. It is not relevant for ordinary Jews that the people who today believe in a Jewish conspiracy tend to be from oppressed minorities rather than ruling elites; but it does have a serious impact on the ability and willingness of many people on the left to recognise and oppose this antisemitic discourse.

Before you say it, I know that few people today talk about “Jewish” conspiracies - most substitute the word Zionist, or neo-con, instead. If you visit a few far right websites you will find that even there it is Zionists, not Jews, who are blamed for all the world’s ills. You may also recall that the original Nazis used “West Coast bankers” and Stalin’s antisemitic purges were directed against “cosmopolitans”. There will always be a euphemism that can be used to attach a “modicum of truth” to what is essentially an antisemitic charge.

Your empiricist argument is just nonsense. People who see a connection between Jews and neo-cons are quick to list Abrams, Wolfowitz and Perle, but always ignore Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld. Tam Dalyell detected a “Jewish cabal” around Tony Blair and named three people: Lord Levy, Peter Mandelson and Jack Straw. Of these, only one is Jewish. When Dalyell was criticised, Paul Foot sprang to his defence by clarifying that he meant “Zionist”, not Jewish. Does substituting the word Zionist for the word Jewish remove the antisemitic meaning from what Dalyell said? Of course not. To say it does is to give a free pass to every antisemite who knows which code words to use. Anti-racists need to be a bit smarter than that.

I am intruiged by your explanation that “Many of the Jewish elements have direct ties to Israel, which is hardly suprising since Zionist ideology posits Israel as the Jewish state.” Try, for a moment, to put your political theories to one side and consider this at a human level. The reason that many Jewish organisations in America - and every other country, for that matter - have links to Israel is because the vast majority of ordinary Jewish people have a visceral, emotional connection to Israel. Not because “Zionist ideology” tells them to, but because they feel it as a core part of their identity. Yet in your formulation you dehumanise this relationship and ascribe it to some abstract, unidentified force.

I would suggest that if you want to engage with antisemitism in a meaningful way, you need to take it out of the context of power politics and consider it at a human level. Ordinary Jewish people in this country are much, much more concerned about antisemitism today than they were ten years ago. This is because they are much more likely to have suffered an antisemitic attack, or to know someone who has; they are much more likely to have read something antisemitic in their newspaper or heard it on a radio phone-in. They feel it because it is their personal experience, not because some mysterious Zionist superstructure has told them to feel it.

As for John Wight…he is here as a case study of what Andy is talking about, nothing more. To visit a far right, Holocaust Denial website, read what it has to say about Zionism and not detect the whiff of antisemitism takes some doing.

Comment by Dave Rich — 7 February, 2008 @ 5:11 pm
Phil, you’re free to be an anti-Zionist that’s NOT the problem. The problem is as you well know; anti-Zionist arguments dressed-up in anti-Semitic language. Out of interest I’d like to know what you mean by Zionism?

Would you have a problem with the tyrant Mugabe being likened to a gorilla? Despite the obvious allusion to negative stereotypes about Africans; would this simply be criticism of his regime? Or maybe just calling the President of Zimbabwe any old rude name of my choosing?

John didn’t just use any old insult he used an insult reminiscent of Nazi anti-Semitism. Is it merely coincidence that the Jewish state and its ideology has acquired all the negative stereotypes of the ‘Jew’?

In addition to this John didn’t apologise for the Nazi-inspired imagery- he stood by it and then gave a more detailed explanation of what he meant by his choice phrasing. Using the term ‘international Jewry’ in this day and age requires a great deal of malice, stupidity or ignorance. The point is that using language like this and then recoiling in shock when people assume anti-semitism is idiotic. What’s more is its so obvious to anyone with even a cursory knowledge of anti-Semitism.

Whether people are doing this consciously or otherwise it is is a problem. Surely its not that difficult to come up with decent arguments against the State of Israel without demonising it via allusions to Nazi anti-Semitism?

I don’t envy your position- having to defend or apologise for the use of racism to further a political agenda. You might even find more support for Palestinians in their struggle if their leaders and other anti-Zionists didn’t reach for anti-Semitic slurs at the first available opportunity. Palestinians suffering in the West Bank, Gaza and assorted refugee camps can perhaps be forgiven for indulging in anti-Jewish hatred. Scottish anti-Zionist activists who call themselves socialist should expect to encounter a less forgiving response.

Comment by Stephen — 7 February, 2008 @ 5:32 pm
Someone above reminded me of a formulation I’d long forgotten: “The main form of racism”. Credited to Lyndzee G of the SWP.

It is this *tactical* orientation on the issue that has allowed the left to let anti-semitic small talk go. Either at the pub or in mass rallies…

What groups like the SWP, and individual members of them, have thoroughly forgotten is that hostility toward racism ain’t a tactic. It makes for incredibly uncomfortable relations with your collaborators - but it don’t half make for Respect in the long term!

Comment by BatterseaPowerStation — 7 February, 2008 @ 5:32 pm
As far as I know ‘Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld’ were none of them Neo-cons (I’m unsure about Cheney). Small empirical point.

Comment by johng — 7 February, 2008 @ 5:39 pm
It has been interesting to follow the continued skewering of myself on this thread, carried over from the pro-Israel and avowed Zionist Engage site, almost as if a baton has been passed. In any of my articles, including the one recently published in the MStar, I challenge anyone to point to anything which even smacks of antisemitism. This is the article that gave rise to the original thread in Engage, which they claim points to antisemitism on the Left. The aim of Engage is to muddy the waters, to direct attention away from Israel’s ongoing campaign of ethnic cleansing against the Palestinians. In the course of the exchange that followed on their site, amongst others, I indvertently posted the url of a far right site devoted to Holocaust Denial. I didn’t even open the link to the site, as I was looking for the site: Campaign For An Honest Discussion Of Zionism (CODOZ) and instead ended up on (CODOH). This was an honest mistake, which Engage, and certain contributors on here, have sought to capitalise on. I offered an immediate and unreserved apology for this mistake, which I fully admit was a case of intellectual laziness on my part.

However, their purpose is clear: to silence any and all voices that are raised in support of the Palestinians. I have never denied the Holocaust in the entire time I have been active in politics. I do not believe in any Zionist conspiracy, nor do I subscribe to the belief that the Zionist lobby in the US governs US foreign policy. I so however subscribe to the view that Zionism is a racist ideology, that it has been a disaster for the Jewish people, and that it is the cause of the unremitting suffering of the Palestinians and a major contributory cause of the dislocation - social, economic, and political - that has been visited on the Middle East since its formation. Israel is a hydra-headed monster comprising US imperialism, Zionist expansionism, and collaborationist Arab regimes, each intertwined around the dollar. It is a US strategic asset and as such must be confronted. I believe ultimately in a one-state solution in which Arab, Jew, and Christian exists under the principle of universal human rights. I have the onerous distinction of being listed on Redwatch for my impacable opposition to the BNP and the far right and their poisonous ideology of racism and antisemitism. I have repeatedly denounced the degenerate current represented by people like Mr Atzmon and will continue to do so. I will also continue to exert as much energy as I have in support of the Palestinians.

Comment by John W — 7 February, 2008 @ 5:52 pm
One of the principal reasons for the growth of “left-antisemitism” is because it dovetails with the complete failure by much of the left to offer socialist solutions to the Israel-Palestine conflict.
But the argument that simply by fighting for Palestinians, it will go away, doesn’t hold water.

We’re talking about two seperate phenomena that are entangled together, but have a different history. They require specific strategies.

A variety of reactionary social forces are prepared to use anti-semitism and are known to diseminate it.

1) Neo-nazis
2) Traditionalist elements in the Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox Church, including the Russian section of it.
3) German Americans and Isolationists in the USA (think of the number of people descended from families who may have had members interned for membership of the German-American Bund)
4) Islamic Chauvinists

The influence of all of these people should be fought by the left in all of the movements they take part in. They are widespread on the internet and on the alternative media and have played a major part in poisoning discourse there.
Although they remain on the fringes, the horizontal nature of the modern media gives them a lot of influence, because people increasingly distrust official sources. But that doesn’t make them right.

If there is a serious recession, as I expect there will be, this problem will get worse. But ignoring it won’t make the left’s job any easier. It will make it much, much harder. Which is why it’s so important not to give any political credence to people who adopt these arguments.

I offer one small example:
A few years ago I was in discussion with a group of Muslim youth and one Somali claimed “the Press was controlled by Jews and Rupert Murdoch is a Jew”.
I just laughed at him and said “No he’s not, he’s an Australian Catholic”
After quite a lot of discussions with him and his mates, he realised he was wrong. He even started spending time looking at Marxist websites.
He’s a very intelligent guy, now doing an engineering degree.
Transplanted from Somalia to London with all the contradictions that involves.
He could go either way. He also thought the Janjuid in Sudan were “warriors”

I found it quite amusing sometime later when he and his Egyptian mate started singing “Hava Nagila” when they spotted me. Quite amusing, but a little sinister too.

Comment by Prianikoff — 7 February, 2008 @ 5:57 pm
John W continues with antisemitic imagery with his comments about being “intertwined around the dollar.” He really has spent too much time on those neo-Nazi sites.

Despite John W reading the criticism of his words here and on Engage, he continues to peddle this filth.

Comment by Mikey — 7 February, 2008 @ 6:00 pm
Mikey:

Fact:

Total U.S. aid to Israel is approximately one-third of the American foreign-aid budget, even though Israel comprises just .001 percent of the world’s population and already has one of the world’s higher per capita incomes.

Egypt is the second largest recipient of US aid. Saudi Arabia receives US military hardware and expertise, the main aim of which is to protect the regime from its own people.

The dollar is currently the international reserve currency, without which the US economy would collapse.

Now, please refute any of the aforementioned facts and tell me how my previous statement was incorrect.

Now, let me ask you a question.

1. How many UN Resolutions has the State of Israel violated or ignored with respect to the Palestinians and its Arab neighbours since 1948?

2. Did the Nakba take place and were 750,000 Palestinians forcibly expelled from their homes?

3. Does Israel have the right to keep 1.5 million Palestinian civilians locked up in the open prison otherwise known as Gaza?

Comment by John W — 7 February, 2008 @ 6:12 pm
Thanks for this post Andy

Ian Donovan “*That* ideology is dead. It only survives today in fragmentary, incoherent and electic ramblings among those subjected to oppression by the West and Israel.”

Sure , there are no Nazis around anymore. I remember going to a student AFA meeting 20 years ago when somebody said we shouldn’t worry about antisemitism because most Jews are rich - at least that person recognised that Nazism still existed though unlike Donovan who thinks it’s dead.

Is the poster John W the same guy who can’t tell the difference between antizionism and antisemitism (or maybe he can and doesn’t care).
http://www.engageonline.org.uk/blog/article.php?id=1627

Comment by Richard — 7 February, 2008 @ 6:16 pm
Why has the Scottish PSC become polluted by people like this.
Is there a substantial difference in the tolerance of hate groups and Aryan Supremacist web sites for a reason.

Comment by Patrick. — 7 February, 2008 @ 6:17 pm
1. John Wight says that Engage is an “avowed Zionist” site. He cannot give the reference where Engage avows its “Zionism”.

I don’t deny the charge of “Zionism” - when it is made by an antisemite. But it is another example of Wight’s (avowed) intellectual laziness when he says that we call the Engage website “Zionist”. We don’t.

I disagree with Wight that Zionism is necessarily racist - I think that Zionism is a form of Jewish nationalism which was itself a response to half a century of antisemitism and to the Nazi project to sweep Europe clean of the Jews. All forms of nationalism have within them racist potentialities but are not essentially or necessarily racist. Zionism was, historically, a nationalist movement of the oppressed - with all of the contradictions and potentialities for harm that such movements always embody. Personally, I am not a political nationalist of any sort.

2. Wight offers an explanation of why he thinks we characterize his words and actions as antisemitic. He might be right or wrong as to why we do so. But what he hasn’t done is to rebut the characterization. That’s the point, isn’t it? If it was a charge made in bad faith it would be no less or more important to show that it was untrue.

3. The fascists allege that Jews or Zionists are so powerful across the world that they can suppress an honest discussion of the Holocaust.

Wight’s “campaign for an honest discussion of Zionism” alleges that Jews or Zionists are so powerful across the world that they can suppress an honest discussion of Zionism.

Both are allegations of a Jewish or Zionist conspiracy which controls the media. I am not surprised that Wight got confused which was which. The reason is that they both allege a Jewish or Zionist conspiracy to suppress free speech.

I’ve published a piece of work on the relationship between anti-Zionism and antisemitism. It is available online here: http://www.yale.edu/yiisa/workingpaper/hirsh/index.htm

Comment by David Hirsh — 7 February, 2008 @ 6:23 pm
Socialists don’t use phrases such as “international jewry” or “hydra-headed monster”. Right wing antisemites do. I ggogled “international jewry” but i wont post a link to it here as it was too offensive in what it brought back. However i knew what it would bring back because i’m aware enough not to use these kind of phrases.

Comment by Richard — 7 February, 2008 @ 6:30 pm
Could I just focus on one of the phrases being discussed here? ‘International Jewry’. Phil tried to clarify:

“As for the reference to ‘international Jewry’, what John was saying was that a lot of Jews around the world sustain the state of Israel and that he hopes they soon stop doing so.”

Well, if John was saying that, then I think you’ll find that the phrase ‘international jewry’ is not the one he needs! International Jewry has meant and still means to those who usually use it (which is actually how meaning is defined) the fact that Jews as a whole and in co-operation with each other operate internationally for the benefit of Jews. As a phrase it doesn’t hold for any exceptions. All Jews are implicated. If John would like to say that Zionism is an idea that has the support of a majority of Jews around the world, then say it. (it also has the support of most right wing and centre right governments of all cultural backgrounds, so I guess you would have to think why you’re singling out Jews as the most significant supporters of Zionism. It’s just possible that they’re not the most significant section, isn’t it? In which case, Israel would be sustained not by ‘international Jewry’ but by ‘global capitalism’ or some other formulation.

Is there a question emerging here in the ‘I’m not antisemitic’ debate about whether Ian, Phil, John and others feel that there is actually a problem with all Jews in the world today? In other words, it’s not just there is an Israel lobby, not that International Jewry is having its own way with the world (ie running the show its own way) but really the problem is with Jews. If so, is this genetic? Habit? Have they all just got very good at running things while everyone else has been lulled and gulled into taking up secondary roles behind the Jews? How did that happen? And when?

And then there is the big one. If all these comments and analyses about ‘International Jewry’, the Israel lobby controlling US foreign policy, Jewish power running the world etc etc are true then clearly something must be done. But what? And how? How should action be taken against ‘International Jewry’? How should these Jews be targeted? All of them? Some of them? And what will we be replacing these people with? Or will the revolution just ensure that they melt away?

Comment by MichaelRosen — 7 February, 2008 @ 6:37 pm
Incidentally, people should know that the charge that Jews benefit from antisemitism - that Jews use antisemitism in an instrumental way to increase their power - is an old one. It was articulated in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which claimed, in Protocol 9, that the world Jewish conspiracy had said the following:

“Nowadays, if any States raise a protest against us it is only PRO FORMA at our discretion and by our direction, for their anti-semitism is indispensible to us for the management of our lesser brethren…”

Comment by David Hirsh — 7 February, 2008 @ 6:38 pm
Richard:

Socialists don’t use phrases such as “international jewry” or “hydra-headed monster”.

Reply:

Socialists use whichever term is apt according to the facts. Israel, I repeat, is a hydra-headed monster responsible, in conjucntion with US imperialism and collaborationist Arab regimes, for the economic, social, and political dislocation which has been visited on the entire region.

International Jewry means the Jewish diaspora. It says what it means. Is there or is there not a Jewish diaspora?

In response to David Hirsh, please consider the following quotes from various Israeli primie minsters and officials down through the years and repeat your assertion that Zionism is NOT a racist ideology:

1. Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion, May 1948, to the General Staff.
From Ben-Gurion, A Biography, by Michael Ben-Zohar, Delacorte, New York 1978:

“We must use terror, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation, and the cutting of all social services to rid the Galilee of its Arab population.”

2. David Ben Gurion, quoted in The Jewish Paradox, by Nahum Goldmann, Weidenfeld and Nicolson,
1978, p. 99:

“Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even know the names of these Arab villages, and I do not blame you because geography books no longer exist. Not only do the books not exist, the Arab villages are not there either. Nahlal arose in the place of Mahlul; Kibbutz Gvat in the place of Jibta; Kibbutz Sarid in the place of Huneifis; and Kefar Yehushua in the place of Tal al-Shuman. There is not a single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population.”

3. Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir. Interview with The Times of London, 1969.

“There is no such thing as a Palestinian.”

4. Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, speech to the Knesset, quoted in Amnon Kapeliouk, “Begin and the ‘Beasts,”‘ New Statesman, June 25,1982:

“[The Palestinians] are beasts walking on two legs.”

5. Michael Ben-Yair, Attorney General of Israel, 1993-1996 (in Ha’aretz):

“The Intifada is the Palestinian’s people’s war of national liberation. We [Israel] enthusiastically chose to become a colonialist society, ignoring international treaties, expropriating lands, transferring settlers from Israel to the Occupied Territories, engaging in theft and funding justification for all these activities.. we [Israel] established an apartheid regime.”

Comment by John W — 7 February, 2008 @ 6:44 pm
“The aim of Engage is to muddy the waters, to direct attention away from Israel’s ongoing campaign of ethnic cleansing against the Palestinians ”

Funny isn’t it, how John W repeats the (antisemitic) myth that “you can’t say a word against Israel because you will get labelled an antisemite”,when, of course the fact of the matter is, as the above quote shows, that is precisely the tactic John W adopts.
He links to a far-right group, (and, along with others - defends the use of the term “international jewry”). Gets caught in other words, red handed, flirting with antisemitism and what’s his response? “They’re out to get me because they are Zionists”. It seems from this thread that more and more people are getting increasingly irritated and embarased at the politics John W represents. Just surprising it took so long.

Comment by Saul — 7 February, 2008 @ 6:45 pm
So if ‘international Jewry’ is the ‘Jewish diaspora’… (by the way, John some of us dispute whether there is a diaspora, as it concedes too much to the idea that we’ve come from Israel, but no matter, if you want to keep going with that one, so be it)…does the Jewish diaspora act as one? Are all the individuals in your Jewish diaspora (ie the Jews) implicated in all this? What about half-Jews and ex-Jews? Are they in it, or out of it? I’m sure you can see where I’m going with this. I’m trying to find out if ‘the Jewish diaspora’ and/or ‘international Jewry’ is ‘the Jews’? And if so, it would seem logical to expect you to fill in the theory that explains what it is about ‘the Jews’ that has brought this about. Otherwise, it’s all a bit mysterious isn’t it? And you seem to be someone with Marxist answers for things like this…

Comment by MichaelRosen — 7 February, 2008 @ 6:50 pm
John Wight, I disagree with you about the question of the relationship between Zionism and racism. I also think that if people google your quotes they will find evidence that they are manipulated, de-contextualized and fabricated. I also think that such quotes from Israeli Prime Ministers, even if they were true, would not give the whole truth of the history and complexity of Zionism. But this is a side-issue.

I note that you did not rebut my other points. The points which relate to antisemitism.

Comment by David Hirsh — 7 February, 2008 @ 6:57 pm
JOhn - I am sure you are feeling a bit got at.

Firstly, it is true that some Zionists use the argument that all criticsm of Israel is anti-Semitism.

There is a blogger, “Modernity” who continually insuates that I am anti-Semitic.

But it is also true that some arguments against Israel are informed by anti-semitism.

Some people commenting here are obvioulsy hostile to you and out to discredit you, there are others of us who are your friends and comrades, and we are just arguing you need to think a bit more critically about this.

Comment by Andy Newman — 7 February, 2008 @ 7:01 pm
Ken Macleod “Unseen, could you please give a shred of evidence for the existence of one strand of marxist thought that sees traditional (that is, pre-Nazi) anti-Semitism as essentially a progressive manifestation of class consciousness?”

Ken , i don’t think that Marxism itself does , but there have been people on the left and people who have called themselves Marxists who have fallen into the trap of antisemitism. This shouldn’t be used against socialism or Marxism (in the same way that Marx’s racist description about Lasalle shouldn’t be used to show that Marxists are racist).

Steve Cohen covers the subject here
http://www.engageonline.org.uk/ressources/funny/chap2.html

in his book
http://www.engageonline.org.uk/ressources/funny/

I was with Steve a while ago. We discussed antisemitism and Steve agreed that one could believe in a one state solution with regard to Palestine / Israel and still be very concerned with the ammount of antisemitism on the left today.

Comment by Richard — 7 February, 2008 @ 7:04 pm
Michael

No, the Jewish diaspora does not act as one. However, individuals such as Norman Finkelstein, Illan Pappe, Howard Zinn, and groups such as Jews For Justice For Palestine, are labelled ’self-hating Jews.’

The influence which the Pro-Israel lobby exerts in the US is well known and documented. Israel would not exist without this influence, currently at its zenith with the Bush administration, though it is a relationship based on mutual benefit in which the US ruling class is the dominant partner. Zionism, I repeat and maintain, has been a disaster for the Jewish people. Israel was meant to offer a safe haven for the Jews in response to Jewish pogroms that took place intially at the turn of the last century and was given added impetus by the Holocaust. However, in the case of Israel, and as has often occurred in history, the oppressed have become the oppressors.

Comment by John W — 7 February, 2008 @ 7:07 pm
Richard: “one could believe in a one state solution with regard to Palestine / Israel and still be very concerned with the ammount of antisemitism on the left today.”

That would be me.

Comment by Andy Newman — 7 February, 2008 @ 7:07 pm
Is there a question emerging here in the ‘I’m not antisemitic’ debate about whether Ian, Phil, John and others feel that there is actually a problem with all Jews in the world today?

Frankly, I’d be insulted if the idea wasn’t so ridiculous. If your reading of my defence of John leads you to think that suggestion’s even faintly plausible, then your reading of my defence of John is wrong.

Comment by Phil — 7 February, 2008 @ 7:15 pm
Anti-Semitism today is not a mainstream or state form of racism. It is a marginal phenomenon and prejudice and noone should take anything the Community Security Trust says, other than with a hefty pinch of salt. See my articles on the Guardian CIF site.
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/tony_greenstein/2007/07/a_war_on_rationality.html
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/tony_greenstein/2007/05/vetting_in_practice.html
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/tony_greenstein/2007/04/an_attack_on_free_speech.html

They are an explicitly pro-Zionist body. I would suggest to Andy that the Parliamentary Inquiry into anti-Semitism was no such thing. It was a group of right-wing MPs, John Mann and Dennis McShane, pro-war all of them. They did indeed in their report seek to conflate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism. And they did this to legitimate their pro-war agenda. Their statistics were equally suspect as their political motives.

For David Hirsh, defender of Richard Littlejohn’s ‘anti-racism’ to come here all innocent is what those of us who are Jewish call a chutzpah. He above all has been responsible for conflating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism. And that is the rub. Zionists like him have so confused the debate that many genuine supporters of the Palestinians are now buying into anti-Semitic arguments.

Ian Donovan has a point but fails to understand what it means. Yes, there is absolutely no comparison between the horrific anti-Semitism of pre-war Eastern Europe and what today is a marginal prejudice. None whatsoever. The cold blooded murder of men, women and children because they were Jewish, the savage pogroms that the Nazis organised in Lithuania and Latvia bear no comparison to today’s poring over the meaning of sub-texts.

Why then do I say that anti-Semitism and anti-Semitic arguments should be taken seriously? For this reason. Jews have little to fear in this society, which doesn’t mean that things might not deterioriate if and when the West abandons Israel. That is a real possibility.

Mark Elf, a good comrade, thinks I’m obsessing about Atzmon and his fellow creatures. Others have said this too. But the main reason why I concentrate on him and his ilk is because the main danger of their argument about Jews, Jewishness etc. is that it is a danger to the cause I hold dearest above all. Palestine. Ian Donovan is a relative newcomer to all this but I have campaigned for 30 years on a subject where there few supporters in Britain when I began and when you could count the number of Jewish anti-Zionists on the fingers of one hand. And I say in all seriousness that those who put forward anti-Semitic arguments thinking they are doing the Palestinians a favour are doing the exact opposite. They are building support for Zionism.

I don’t take Hirsh, Mikey or the others seriously. They aren’t in the least concerned about anti-Semitism. If they were they would turn their attentions to Zionists who have told me that when I was circumcised they cut off the wrong bit or it’s a pity Hitler didn’t get me etc. The most virulent anti-Semitism comes from Zionists who hate the Galut (Jewish diasporah) and that is where Atzmon’s anti-Semitism derives – the traditional Israeli/Zionist hostility to Jewish communities outside Israel. But these two are only concerned about Israel. That is why when some of us moved to organise and campaign for a Boycott of the Israeli State, just as we did over apartheid and before us over the slave trade, Hirsh & co. cried ‘anti-Semitism’ when, as the Board of Deputies of British Jews conceded, the most prominent people involved in it were Jewish!

Mikey, a reactionary from Harry’s Place, is in even less of a position to criticise anti-Semitism anywhere since he is a collaborator and drinks partner of Atzmon and regularly contributes to Mary Rizzo’s PeacePalestine sewer. In particular he has worked with Atzmon to attack me, which is fine, because Zionists and anti-Semites are really two sides of the same coin. E.g. on Rizzo’s site the following appeared:
‘Mikey, can you provide us with the criminal record of this Bugger-Rance. Is he on spent conviction like greenie l or is he just an ordinary liar?
Gilad Atzmon | 03.12.07 - 8:00 pm | #

I have been very busy digging up stuff on Tony Greenstein - Roland Rance will have to wait for another day.
Mikey | 03.12.07 - 8:53 pm | #

‘Mikey, I hope you do not mind me saying that, but your contribution for the pls solidarity movement is priceless. It is crucial that we all know about the racist record of this Greenpiss, a man who was banned time after time for being a racist and an anti Semite!
I really want to believe that this revolting violent man will feel some shame and take some time off to think about it all. But I doubt it.’
Gilad Atzmon | 03.04.07 - 10:46 am | #
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/thecutter/117192641046077827/

Does anymore need be said about this freak?

Yes of course Andy the main supporters of Zionism in the USA are not Jews, who are quite liberal on the issue, but the Christian Zionists who flocked to Mel Gibson’s Passion of Christ. They want Israel so that the battles on the Plains of Armhaggedon can be fought and when the Jews are all killed then Christ will come back! Of course being astute fellows the Zionists count on there being no such second coming and therefore take the advantage now!

Ian Donovan phrases everything wrong. Yes anti-Semitism in pre-war times was counter-revolutionary. It still is. There is no such thing as ‘left-anti-Semitism’ though some sections of the left, in particular the German KPD made appalling concessions to it in the absurd hope they could win over the ‘left’ wing Strasserites to their politics. However the anti-capitalism of the SA was a reactionary form of anti-Semitism, half-lampoon half myth, as Marx said of feudal socialism. But today anti-Semitism is not progressive either. It can only serve the interests of imperialism by reinforcing Zionism and US imperialism. If you read Atzmon carefully, like his nonsense article on the Bund, he ends up saying the Zionists were right, only the formation of a national state could preserve the Jews. Of course he mixes this up with his anti-Semitism and his notion of an essentialist ‘Jewishness’ but then he would.

Anti-Semitism was a fundamental core of Nazi, i.e. fascist ideology. It was the glue that bound the Nazi party together. It was the concession to ‘anti-capitalism’ of the brownshirts. In fact anti-Semitism was not a popular ideology, even in Germany, because the material conditions for it were disappearing (read Ian Kershaw’s 2 excellent books – The Hitler Myth, Popular Dissent). In fact Ian Donovan is wrong – the ideology today is much the same it is the material roots underpinning it that has changed, hence why this talk of Jewish conspiracies seems so ludicrous to most people.

And the quote that Ian Donovan cited was from Sir Ronald Storrs, who was Military Governor of Jerusalem from 1920-6 not British Governor of Palestine. He said, and it is worth quoting in full from his book ‘Orientations’ that:
“Enough [Jews] could return, if not to form a Jewish state … at least to prove that the enterprise was one which blessed him that gave as well as him that took, by forming for England ‘a little loyal Jewish Ulster’ in a sea of potentially hostile Arabism.” This was the basis on which the ‘socialist’ Zionists colonised Palestine – under the protection of British bayonets.
Nick Fredman is therefore quite right to say that we should make a sharp distinction between the ‘anti-Semitism’ that Zionists go on about and the genuine thing. It is this that Ian Donovan’s apologestics fail to come to terms with.

I agree with Andy about the ‘empiricist’ explanation of anti-Semitism. There is nothing empirical about saying that the Jews had forewarning of 9/11 and therefore escaped. This is a problem of the backward nature of political consciousness today amongst many, not least in the third world. Lacking explanations of how the multi-nationals and finance capital operate they look for an easy explanation – and Jewish manipulations and Israeli power are easy to understand. Within this orbit of course the idea takes hold that far from the USA using Israel to further its imperial ambitions, it is Israel that controls the USA and that it is Jewish communities who control Israel. A completely topsy turvy understanding of the world which Atzmon has taken to his heart.

Ian says that ‘the only thing that sustains suspicion of Jews in the advanced world today, is Israel and its outrageous racist acts committed in their name.’ Maybe that is true, certainly in the West, but surely that is all the more reason to make a careful distinction between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism? Because if you anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism are polar opposites. You cannot be both, anymore than you can be both a racist and anti-racist at one and the same time. Yes the Zionists spread anti-Semitism by claiming Israel’s war crimes in the name of all Jews. And David Hirsh is happy to go along with this. Which is all the more reason we shouldn’t.

Leigh is wrong to speak of the ‘fascist theocrats of hamas and hizbollah’. They are not fascist and whether we like it or not they are the chosen representatives of their people. After all Israel brought Hamas into being quite consciously as a counter-weight to secular Palestinian nationalism. And Hizbollah was brought into being by the genocidal Israeli invasion of Lebanon. Hizbollah waged a courageous struggle against the odds when Israel did the same 2 years ago and I for one salute them for their heroic resistance to not only Israel but US war plans. Because as Seymour Hirsh showed, Israel’s attack on Lebanon was a dry run for an attack on Iran.

My advice to John W is not to post on Engage. They deliberately distort and smear. When I was smeared as saying Zionists and Nazis are the same, Hirsh refused to allow me to correct this. Hence why I e-mailed the whole of the academic faculty at Goldsmith, at which point he did post my response! If John did use the term ‘international Jewry’ he was wrong but for Mikey to get worked up about this is the ultimate hypocrisy. Do we not have a World Zionist Organisation? Do Zionists not say that being Jewish and Zionist is one and the same thing? The fact is that Zionists do their best to prove that the Protocols are true. They are a caricature of everything the worst anti-Semites ever said about Jews. They talk themselves of a ‘Jewish lobby’ and talk of unseating or choosing candidates according to Jewish interests, i.e. Zionist ones. So for them to complain about what John said is the height of hypocrisy. John is clearly not an anti-Semite. The fact that he used a phrase that is borrowed from anti-Semites and Zionists is proof positive that the Zionist campaign, led by Hirsh, to associate Palestine solidarity with anti-Semitism has had some successes.

John Rich writes that ‘The reason that many Jewish organisations in America - and every other country, for that matter - have links to Israel is because the vast majority of ordinary Jewish people have a visceral, emotional connection to Israel. Not because “Zionist ideology” tells them to, but because they feel it as a core part of their identity.’ This is both right and wrong. The fact that Jews have this emotional connection to Israel is in itself a product of the Zionist movement and its ideology. More than that it is a product of the disappearance of a Jewish working class and the move to the right among western Jews. It is a fact that for many Jews Israel is at the centre of their Jewish identity, so they perceive attacking Israel is attacking them as Jews. Just as Northern Ireland Protestants saw support for a united Ireland as an attack on them. In so far as there is this Jewish/Zionist identity, predicated upon the oppression of the Palestinians it must be opposed and criticised. We should always be clear that there are negative Jewish identities (Israel/Zionism) and positive (anti-racism/Bund). We should argue that Israel represents the worst manifestation of Jewish identity, it has literally turned the Jewish religion into a form of idolatory, state worship, as the late orthodox scholar Yeshayahu Leibowitz (winner of the Israel prize!) said.

I’m surprised at Stephen, if it is Stephen Marks should talk about the ‘2,000 year old history anti-Semitism like all other forms of hatred and bigotry has existed on the level of a general dislike of Jews…’ As Abram Leon wrote in The Jewish Question – A Marxist Interpretation’ ‘Zionism transposes anti-Semitism to all of history and saves itself the trouble of understanding it.’ Anti-Semitism did radically change throughout history, indeed for much of that history there was no anti-Semitism. Most of what was called anti-Semitism was antagonism to Jews because they were the oppressors of the peasantry. That is a fact. Of course anti-Semitism changes. What was a genocidal and mass counter-revolutionary movement now exists as a form of prejudice. It is not a form of state racism. Of course many of the same ideas still persist.

Tony Greenstein

Comment by Tony Greenstein — 7 February, 2008 @ 7:16 pm
Andy:

Some people commenting here are obvioulsy hostile to you and out to discredit you, there are others of us who are your friends and comrades, and we are just arguing you need to think a bit more critically about this.

Reply:

It goes with the turf Andy. Better men and women than me have come under far worse for speaking up for Palestinian human rights. As for thinking critically, be careful that you don’t pander to these supporters of ethnic cleansing and apartheid in allowing them to frame the debate. I stand by my words. They know that I am not antisemitic, but they ARE anti-Arab. Not one has answered any of my questions in previous posts with regard to quotes I have posted from previous Israeli prime ministers of officials. Not one has answered the 3 simple questions re the Nakba, Gaza, or the number of UN Resolutions violated by Israel since its formation.

This says it all.

Comment by John W — 7 February, 2008 @ 7:16 pm
Andy - I don’t want to turn this into a Palestine / Israel debate so i’ll hopofuly pick up on this again. Anyway thanks for this piece , i’ve just emailed it to a friend who is convinced that Marxists don’t take antisemitism serously.

Comment by Richard — 7 February, 2008 @ 7:17 pm
Phil, you’re free to be an anti-Zionist that’s NOT the problem. … Out of interest I’d like to know what you mean by Zionism?

I’m free to be an anti-Zionist, just as long as I can prove to your satisfaction that I’m not an anti-semite. Riiiight.

Comment by Phil — 7 February, 2008 @ 7:19 pm
John, thank you for telling me about Finkelstein et al and yes, I am aware that some zionists call them self-hating Jews. I’m not sure what this has got to do with what you’re saying, though. So, I’ll ask you if you think Finkelstein et al are part of ‘international Jewry’? I note that you don’t want to help me out with finding out if there is something coincidentally or essentially Jewish about all this and yet you seem to be implying that there is. What is it about these Jew people that they do this shit?

the ‘well known and documented’ biz, isn’t really good enough. Take a look at Lenin’s Tomb on ‘israel and the discontents’ or some such (sorry can’t remember, it’s a few threads down on the front page)and you’ll see a lengthy repudiation of the argument that Israel calls all the shots. If you’re going to talk about ‘relationships’ between nation states or between pressure groups then we need a sense of proportion don’t we? Who’s the big guy here? Are you saying it’s ‘international jewry’ ? Or are there other players? Who are these other players and are they under the spell of International Jewry eg the oil industry, or the armaments industries? Are they in hoc to IJ in some way?

Comment by MichaelRosen — 7 February, 2008 @ 7:19 pm
John, are you serious about saying that no one has answered your questions? I mean ‘no one’? Or do you mean the Engage people who are here? I think you’ll find that some of us have been saying that zionism is a form of racism for something like thirty or forty years and, in my case, my father and mother were saying it for the thirty or forty years before that.

Comment by MichaelRosen — 7 February, 2008 @ 7:27 pm
John, “The Israel Lobby and its discontents” is here, if you want to stick to your idea that it’s all ‘well documented’ etc.

http://leninology.blogspot.com/2008/01/israel-lobby-and-its-discontents.html

Comment by MichaelRosen — 7 February, 2008 @ 7:29 pm
Michael

You know exactly what I’m saying. Does AIPAC exist? Does it not exist to influence US foreign policy with regard to Israel? Does not the US ruling class view their strategic interests in the Middle East as inextricaby linked to Israel? Is this not why Israel is by far the largest recipient of US aid of any nation in the world?

Are the Palestinians occupied illegally under international law? Has Israel violated more UN Resolutions than every other UN member-state combined? Are the various quotes I posted an accurate account of the black heart of racism and ethnic cleansing which beats under the cloak of liberal democracy that is Israel? Did an event known as the Nakba occur in 1948, during which an estimated 750,000 Palestinians were forcibly evicted from their homes and their land? Do you subscribe to the Zionist myth that Palestine was a ‘land without people for a people without land?’

Please answer these questions.

Comment by John W — 7 February, 2008 @ 7:30 pm
Do I subscribe to the myth that Palestine was ‘a land without people for a peole without land’???!!! Why do you think I speak on platforms with Palestinians? why did I renounce my right of return? Why have I signed one-state petitions from Palestinian organisations? Why did I used to perform Palestinian poems and Deir Yassin Remembered? (before I felt it had become compromised by what Paul Eisen was saying and doing etc etc)Why have I turned out for PSC and the now defunct Campaign for Palestine etc etc? Why did I support Vanunu from day one of his arrest?

Of course all those lobbying interests exist, but repeating it over and over again doesn’t prove that the lobby runs the show. I plead with you to have a look at Lenin’s Tomb on this.

Comment by MichaelRosen — 7 February, 2008 @ 7:37 pm
Michael,

I am reposting a previous post, which I hope will answer you question re my views on Israel’s relationship with the US and on the recent assault from the supporters of the Engage site. This will be my final post on the issue. Before I go, I have to compliment Tony Greenstein on his interventions, which was exemplary. It has been a fruitful discussion.

The way ahead is clear: Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions.

It has been interesting to follow the continued skewering of myself on this thread, carried over from the pro-Israel and avowed Zionist Engage site, almost as if a baton has been passed. In any of my articles, including the one recently published in the MStar, I challenge anyone to point to anything which even smacks of antisemitism. This is the article that gave rise to the original thread in Engage, which they claim points to antisemitism on the Left. The aim of Engage is to muddy the waters, to direct attention away from Israel’s ongoing campaign of ethnic cleansing against the Palestinians. In the course of the exchange that followed on their site, amongst others, I indvertently posted the url of a far right site devoted to Holocaust Denial. I didn’t even open the link to the site, as I was looking for the site: Campaign For An Honest Discussion Of Zionism (CODOZ) and instead ended up on (CODOH). This was an honest mistake, which Engage, and certain contributors on here, have sought to capitalise on. I offered an immediate and unreserved apology for this mistake, which I fully admit was a case of intellectual laziness on my part.

However, their purpose is clear: to silence any and all voices that are raised in support of the Palestinians. I have never denied the Holocaust in the entire time I have been active in politics. I do not believe in any Zionist conspiracy, nor do I subscribe to the belief that the Zionist lobby in the US governs US foreign policy. I so however subscribe to the view that Zionism is a racist ideology, that it has been a disaster for the Jewish people, and that it is the cause of the unremitting suffering of the Palestinians and a major contributory cause of the dislocation - social, economic, and political - that has been visited on the Middle East since its formation. Israel is a hydra-headed monster comprising US imperialism, Zionist expansionism, and collaborationist Arab regimes, each intertwined around the dollar. It is a US strategic asset and as such must be confronted. I believe ultimately in a one-state solution in which Arab, Jew, and Christian exists under the principle of universal human rights. I have the onerous distinction of being listed on Redwatch for my impacable opposition to the BNP and the far right and their poisonous ideology of racism and antisemitism. I have repeatedly denounced the degenerate current represented by people like Mr Atzmon and will continue to do so. I will also continue to exert as much energy as I have in support of the Palestinians.

Comment by John W — 7 February, 2008 @ 7:39 pm
#55 John W to Rosen: “…Please answer these questions”

Mike Rosen has spoken in support of the Palestinians in Trafalgar Square and called for a Palestinian state. I saw him myself.
You on the other hand are requiring *what* before he’s acceptable to you and your dubious cronies?

Comment by Prianikoff — 7 February, 2008 @ 7:41 pm
John W: “I believe ultimately in a one-state solution in which Arab, Jew, and Christian exists under the principle of universal human rights.”

Confirming what I deduced when I debated with you before.
You’re a supporter of the bourgeois democratic revolution as a solution to the national question. Which means:

1) You’re a utopian, because 13 million people cannot exist in 10,000 square miles of land, of which about one fifth is arable, without an economic disaster within months.

2) You’re likely to make alliances with all sorts of reactionaries from the Middle East and elsewhere.

3) As a result you make political concessions to their politics.

Comment by Prianikoff — 7 February, 2008 @ 7:46 pm
That’s John W’s usual tactic. Ask someone to answer a question and if they dont’t threaten them with insults. John W seesm to spend an inordinate ammount of time on these blogs. He needs to get a real life and realise he is influencing nobody with at times his made up words and phrases some of wich I not realise existed. All he is doing is getting a repuation as a nutter and discrediting some very worthwhile causes. If I did not know better I would say he’s a plant.

Comment by RedRooster — 7 February, 2008 @ 7:51 pm
No Tony, I am not the person posting earlier as ‘Stephen’!

Comment by Stephen Marks — 7 February, 2008 @ 7:54 pm
The original piece was about Andy’s concern about antisemitism on the left , about “one well respected socialist activist expressed the opinion that Israel decided who the US president would be, and a member of the Green Party agreed that Jews still controlled most of the world’s money. Of course other people, including myself, challenged these views.”

It was about antisemitism. When people said antisemitism , John W cried “Israel”.

John W - you say something which debunks the theory that the “lobby” is responsible for US poilicies (in particular foreign policy) which is something which is used in arguments today when you say “Does not the US ruling class view their strategic interests in the Middle East as inextricaby linked to Israel? ”
Well if that’s the case and their interests are inextricably linked then there’s no need for this lobby.

Comment by Richard — 7 February, 2008 @ 8:01 pm
Thanks John. If you pop back, and I’m not here, it’s because I’m having a chat with International Jewry.

Comment by MichaelRosen — 7 February, 2008 @ 8:03 pm
Michael “Thanks John. If you pop back, and I’m not here, it’s because I’m having a chat with International Jewry.”

Don’t forget to keep all the best bagels for yourself (that’s the real Jewish conspiracy !)

Comment by Richard — 7 February, 2008 @ 8:07 pm
Prianikoff

You’re a supporter of the bourgeois democratic revolution as a solution to the national question

Reply:

I’m a supporter of a solution that is in the interests of the international working class. The State of Israel is a US gendarme in the Middle East. Ending that role is of vital importance to all socialists and Marxists with an understanding of US imperialism as the common enemy of humanity in our time.

Reactionaries?

Any contradiction within Arab liberation movements between progressive and regressive tendencies are there as a result of the devastating impact of western imperialism. Hezbollah has called for an alliance with secular and anti-imperialist forces internationally in the struggle against US imperialism and Israeli expansionism. Hamas calls for the very same. Both organisations have filled a vacuum created by the exit from the stage of Arab history of secular resistance movements, due to their own mistakes in combination with a determined effort by US imperialism and Israeli security forces to purge them. As such, at this juncture, we have common interests with them in resisting US and US sponsored imperialism.

Communists and socialists the length and breadth of Latin America have forged alliances in the past with proponents of liberation theology within the Catholic Church.

Comment by John W — 7 February, 2008 @ 8:18 pm
What good does it do the Palestinian cause for you to morph into age old anti Semitism and far right language John?

Comment by Patrick — 7 February, 2008 @ 8:23 pm
Red Rooster:

‘John W seesm to spend an inordinate ammount of time on these blogs. He needs to get a real life’

Reply:

You are absolutely correct. Any suggestions? How about I invent an avatar for myself, perhaps a name with the prefix Red in it, and post under that instead?

Comment by John W — 7 February, 2008 @ 8:27 pm
Stephen:

Would you have a problem with the tyrant Mugabe being likened to a gorilla?

Yes. I’d also have a problem with Jewish stereotypes being applied to Israeli politicians. That’s very much my point - that criticising a nation-state is a very different thing from criticising an individual or a group of people.

John didn’t apologise for the Nazi-inspired imagery- he stood by it and then gave a more detailed explanation of what he meant by his choice phrasing.

If you assume that John genuinely didn’t believe it was ‘Nazi-inspired imagery’ this becomes a lot easier to explain.

Using the term ‘international Jewry’ in this day and age requires a great deal of malice, stupidity or ignorance.

I think it was a bad choice of phrase. I don’t see any reason to assume it was any more than that - and if it wasn’t any more than that I don’t see any reason to shout about it.

(Incidentally, Michael, I read John’s original comment about ‘international Jewry’ to mean that it would be a good thing if all the Jews in the world turned anti-Zionist, because this would make it hard for the Zionist state to carry on in the same way. I don’t see that this is a wildly problematic statement.)

I don’t envy your position- having to defend or apologise for the use of racism to further a political agenda.

Thanks for the sympathy, but no thanks. If I felt I had to apologise for the use of racism to further a political agenda, then that agenda would stay undefended.

Comment by Phil — 7 February, 2008 @ 8:38 pm
Red (in the face) John W

I’ve heard you would rather be more “annonymous” than that. You really can reach the masses with words like avavtar!

Comment by RedRooster — 7 February, 2008 @ 8:56 pm
then that agenda would stay undefended.

Or ‘unfurthered’, even.

Comment by Phil — 7 February, 2008 @ 9:02 pm
Andy Newman is right.

It is ironic, I think, that his comrades in RESPECT Renewal include a number of those on the Islamist Far Right who subscribe to and openly rehearse precisely the analysis which Andy finds shocking. Moreover, it is his party which has done so much to bring these views from the pariah-fringes into the socialist mainstream.

http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/archives/2008/02/05/socialist_unity_on_atzmon.php

I have posted on this article here:

http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/archives/2008/02/07/international_jewry.php

I haven’t opened comments on the thread at my blog. I’ve made it clear that if anybody posts abusive or trolling material on your blog, they’ll be banned from mine as well.

Comment by David T — 7 February, 2008 @ 9:10 pm
Gosh, what nonsense Tony Greenstein is coming out with. He dismisses the Parliamentary report into antisemitism because MPs associated with it, including Labour MPs such as John Mann are “right-wing” and the only reason that they prepared such a report was “to legitimate their pro-war agenda.” What a load of codswallop. It is too much for Greenstein to accept that Members of Parliament may legitimately be concerned about antisemitism so he events another reason why they researched the matter.

It is not just MPs that Greenstein suggests are writing about antisemitism for the wrong reason, but he includes the likes of David Hirsh and myself with his comments that we “aren’t in the least concerned about anti-Semitism.” This is plainly ludicrous.David Hirsh has been a long time campaigner against antisemitism and I personally have campaigned against antisemitism and demonstrated against organisations such as the National Front since the 1970s.

I do not know what planet Tony Greenstein is on for him to make the following extraordinary comment: “The most virulent anti-Semitism comes from Zionists who hate the Galut (Jewish diasporah).” Zionists certainly do not hate the Jewish diaspora, Greenstein has simply made this claim up.

Now Greenstein argues that I “collaborate” with Atzmon because in the course of my research into extremists, I met Atzmon in a pub. I have also attended Jews Against Zionism meetings, does that make me a “collaborator” with that group? It is a simply illogical and bizarre argument from Greenstein.

Greenstein poses the following question, “Do Zionists not say that being Jewish and Zionist is one and the same thing? ” The answer is a resounding no. However Greenstein, in order to justify John Wight’s use of the term “international Jewry” poses a different question, “Do we not have a World Zionist Organisation?” I put it that it is Greenstein himself who is conflating Judaism and Zionism!

Greenstein has forgotten much of what he learnt in his own upbringing with his following erroneous observation, “The fact that Jews have this emotional connection to Israel is in itself a product of the Zionist movement and its ideology.” What he has clearly forgotten is that Jews have been waking up in the morning for thousands of years and said the words “Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one” in their morning prayers. Greenstein has also forgotten that at the Jewisn festival of Passover, Jews say “Next year in Jerusalem.” Again these words have been said for thousands of years. The fact that these prayers etc predate Zionism as a political idea by centuries is, I guess, something that Greenstein is reluctant to admit, even to himself.

Comment by Mikey — 7 February, 2008 @ 9:13 pm
“…in the course of my research into extremists, I met Atzmon in a pub.”

Liberal. I would have gone for his niagaras.

Comment by Prianikoff — 7 February, 2008 @ 9:24 pm
John W “Communists and socialists the length and breadth of Latin America have forged alliances in the past with proponents of liberation theology within the Catholic Church.”

Yes I know. Who’s arguing with that exactly?
The point being that they were trying to win them over to socialism.

Comment by Prianikoff — 7 February, 2008 @ 9:26 pm
Mikey, some zionists say to Jews who are not zionists, ‘You can’t be Jewish’ or ‘You’re not Jewish’ or, as was said to me, ‘You’re an animal.’ It’s not a necessary part of zionism to claim that anti-zionist Jews can’t be Jewish. It just so happens it’s what some of them say. When I was on a phone-in for Spectrum Radio, several callers rang in to claim that I couldn’t possibly be Jewish if I expressed my opinions. Some zionists hold to the idea that one of the defining characteristics of a Jew is that he or she should regard Israel as the Jewish homeland. If you renounce that, then you can’t by Jewish, they say. You are in effect, an ex-Jew. If you care to dig around in old threads at Harry’s Place, several posters made this clear to me at the time. I’m not sure what you’re trying to prove otherwise and anyway it’s no big deal. If I was a zionist, I’d probably think anyone who was an antizionist Jew should go hang, just as people who ran the British Empire thought that Brits at home who attacked the Empire were traitors and locked them up. Antizionism is a form of treachery and some of the antizionist Jews who I know accept that. I for one am not demanding that I belong to ‘Jewry’ (hi JohnW). I just say that I was born into a family with parents who understood they were Jewish. I don’t see why I should disbelieve them just because some zionists (not all, by any means) say that I’ve lost my membership card.

Comment by MichaelRosen — 7 February, 2008 @ 9:27 pm
#49 Tony Greenstein ‘Most of what was called anti-Semitism was antagonism to Jews because they were the oppressors of the peasantry. That is a fact.’

More of a selective fact than a fact.

Quote me one example where there weren’t feudal Barons in the leadership of anti-Jewish in which any significant group of peasants took part.
In every one I’ve ever looked at in Britain that was the case.

It was also the case during the Crusades, instigated by the Papacy, led by bands of armed knights and supported by separate bands of millenarian peasant-paupers.

It was the case in the Khmelnytsky revolt in the Polish Ukraine, in which the Cossacks collaborated with Tatar slavers to create an independent Ukrainian feudal state.

Yet when a genuinely independent peasant uprising broke out against the Poll Tax, only 90 years after the expulsion of the Jews from England, prominent amongst Wat Tyler’s targets were the higher Clergy and lower nobility. (Unfortunately they thought the King was neutral)

Objectively, they were aiming to destroy the feudal system, not consolidate it and deceive the peasantry. That’s what I call a popular uprising.

Comment by Prianikoff — 7 February, 2008 @ 9:33 pm
Could anyone tell me why the Scottish PSC ( as opposed to south of the border) seems to be infected with this stuff,Atzmon,Perdition and now this

Comment by Patrick. — 7 February, 2008 @ 9:37 pm
Michael,

But where does your argument lead to the conclusion of Greenstein that Zionists hate the Disapora? As many Zionists quite happily live in the Diaspora and are happy to participate in civil and communal organisations in the countries where they live, I find it ridiculous that anyone can conclude that Zionists hate the Diaspora.

I would be interested in anyone who actually made the following claim that you allege:

“Some zionists hold to the idea that one of the defining characteristics of a Jew is that he or she should regard Israel as the Jewish homeland. If you renounce that, then you can’t by Jewish, they say. You are in effect, an ex-Jew. If you care to dig around in old threads at Harry’s Place, several posters made this clear to me at the time.”

It is a bizarre comment to make. It ignores sections of the ultra-Orthodox Jews who are opposed to Zionism. However, they are opposed on different grounds to Marxists.

Had I seen any of those comments on Harry’s Place, and I have not, as I would remember it, I would argue against.

Despite this I do think it is fair to say that many Jews get very annoyed with Jews who stand up and oppose Zionism and do so “As a Jew” in groups such as “Jews Against Zionism” when they have no connection with Judaism as a religion and /or Jewish life in say the United Kingdom over an above using their credentials of being Jewish to say “As a Jew” and denouncing everything that most Jews believe in.

Comment by Mikey — 7 February, 2008 @ 9:43 pm
Prianikoff:

‘Yes I know. Who’s arguing with that exactly?
The point being that they were trying to win them over to socialism.’

Reply:

Well, I hardly think that when a people are hanging on to their lives and their national identity by a thread in Palestine that it’s the appropriate time to arrange an exegesis of the Communist Manifesto.

Do you?

We convert more people to our ideas through our actions, not through paternalistc dissections of the beliefs of those who are existing at the sharp end of ethnic cleansing and apartheid. BDS.

Comment by John W — 7 February, 2008 @ 9:51 pm
Dear Chief Executive,

On behalf of the Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign (SPSC), I am writing to you in response to your letter replying to our original email to East Renfrewshire councillors requesting that East Renfrewshire Council re-think its decision to endorse and support an event to be held this May celebrating the 60th anniversary of the formation of the State of Israel.

Israel, as a state founded on the ethnic cleansing of the indigenous population in 1948, holds a unique place in the world. As such, it cannot be compared to Pakistan or any other state currently in existence, as you have attempted to do in your letter. Further, given the facts of the matter – taking into account all of the historical and empirical evidence – neither can this be construed as simple matter of a conflict between two warring tribes each with a just claim. This is clearly and unequivocally a struggle between a state committed to apartheid and ethnic cleansing on one side, and those committed to a world based on the principle of universal human rights on the other.

In 1948 the State of Israel was created on 78 percent of historic Palestine. An estimated 750,000 Palestinians were forcibly expelled from their villages and towns in the so-called War of Independence which followed. These villages and towns were then razed to the ground, their existence purged from the map, and Israeli towns and settlements built in their place complete with different names. Thereafter a concerted attempt has been made to wipe the Palestinians, their history and their culture, from history.

To date, the State of Israel has violated or ignored more UN Resolutions since its formation in 1948 with regard to the Palestinians and its Arab neighbours than every other member-state of the UN combined. This onerous record is broken down as follows: 28 Resolutions of the United Nations Security Council (which are legally binding on member-nations), and almost 100 Resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly (which are not binding, but represent the will and understanding of the international community). Further, Israel is now in violation of the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice of 2004, condemning the separation wall Israel is building throughout the occupied West Bank.

More specifically, Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and the Golan Heights has continued in violation of UN Resolution 242 since 1967. Recently, one of our members visited Gaza in the aftermath of the break-out from what to all and intents and purposes is an open prison, where mass misery and deprivation visited on a civilian population of 1.5 million Palestinians masquerades as a security measure. He relayed to us two things: 1. the savagery and cruelty of Israel’s blockade of the Gaza Strip in what can only be described as an act of illegal and immoral collective punishment, and 2. the courage and resilience of a people who have more or less been abandoned by the international community.

Please be assured that this is not a case of anti-Semitism, as supporters and apologists for Israel have levelled at people, like us, who campaign for Palestinian human rights in order to muddy the waters.

Both in our organisation, and around the world, there are many Jews who share our revulsion at the barbarity of Israel’s occupation of Palestine and who utterly reject the notion that Israel be granted an opt-out of international law and all norms of human decency.

Recently, I wrote an article on the Holocaust that was published. In it I made the following crucial point vis-à-vis Israel and its treatment of the Palestinians.

‘the Holocaust was not the starting point of the Nazi persecution of the Jews in Europe. Rather it was the culmination of a process which took place over a decade. It began with the slow but steady demonisation of the Jewish religion and culture, then government sanctioned attacks on their communities, businesses, and places of worship, then the implementation of apartheid laws, followed by ethnic cleansing and the forced removal of the Jews to specially designated ghettoes. The logical conclusion of this process was the Holocaust.
It is an irony of history that today the Palestinians are being subjected to much the same methods of oppression by the State of Israel that were visited on the Jews by the Nazis throughout the 1930s. It is an irony that takes on the form of an ominous portent which we ignore at potentially catastrophic cost.’

And lest you are remain unconvinced of our case and by extension the Palestinian cause, I ask you to consider the following quotes from various Israeli prime ministers and government officials down through the years:

1. Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion, May 1948, to the General Staff.
From Ben-Gurion, A Biography, by Michael Ben-Zohar, Delacorte, New York 1978:

“We must use terror, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation, and the cutting of all social services to rid the Galilee of its Arab population.”

2. David Ben Gurion, quoted in The Jewish Paradox, by Nahum Goldmann, Weidenfeld and Nicolson,
1978, p. 99:

“Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even know the names of these Arab villages, and I do not blame you because geography books no longer exist. Not only do the books not exist, the Arab villages are not there either. Nahlal arose in the place of Mahlul; Kibbutz Gvat in the place of Jibta; Kibbutz Sarid in the place of Huneifis; and Kefar Yehushua in the place of Tal al-Shuman. There is not a single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population.”

3. Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir. Interview with The Times of London, 1969.

“There is no such thing as a Palestinian.”

4. Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, speech to the Knesset, quoted in Amnon Kapeliouk, “Begin and the ‘Beasts,”‘ New Statesman, June 25,1982:

“[The Palestinians] are beasts walking on two legs.”

5. Michael Ben-Yair, Attorney General of Israel, 1993-1996 (in Ha’aretz):

“The Intifada is the Palestinian’s people’s war of national liberation. We [Israel] enthusiastically chose to become a colonialist society, ignoring international treaties, expropriating lands, transferring settlers from Israel to the Occupied Territories, engaging in theft and funding justification for all these activities.. we [Israel] established an apartheid regime.”

Finally, in the report carried in the Jewish Telegraph on 19 October 2007, Philip Mendelsohn of the Jewish Representative Council is quoted thus: “I am delighted that the Council has agreed not only to assist the community in its celebrations, but also agreed formally to mark the event with a public ceremony.” The full report can be read via our website at: http://www.scottishpsc.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2095&Itemid=408

Could you confirm whether or not the extent of the Council’s participation as claimed by Mr Mendelsohn in the report is accurate? If it is accurate then it contradicts the statement made in your letter in this regard.

Sir, on behalf of the Palestinian people, the SPSC once again urges you to give consideration to your endorsement of this event.

Kind regards

SPSC
c/o Peace & Justice Centre
2 Princes Street
Edinburgh EH2 4BJ
www.scottishpsc.org.uk

Comment by John W — 7 February, 2008 @ 9:55 pm
Phil

“I’m free to be an anti-Zionist, just as long as I can prove to your satisfaction that I’m not an anti-semite. Riiiight.”

1) You have no need to prove you are not an anti-Semite in order to continue holding an anti-Zionist position. I see no reason why my consent can alter the contents of your mind or limit your freedom in any way. Unless of course I have Jewish magical powers, or I’m part of an organised conspiracy to silence ‘the truth’? Since I don’t suppose you believe in either of those anti-Semitic myths, I really don’t know what you’re getting at here.

2) I can’t grasp why the issue of Anti-Semitism is so easily dismissed. If I used language which the vast majority of the African/Caribbean community considered offensive or racist I’d be horrified, I’d want to understand why. Ultimately, even if I found that I disagreed with the answers given, I’d stop using that kind of language out of simple respect.

There are ways to criticise Israel and Zionism without using imagery and language closely related to the Nazis. Why don’t people use these? Why do so many on the left feel the need to supplement their arguments by appealing to racist language and imagery?

John W

You “challenge anyone to point to anything which even smacks of antisemitism”

Lets start with your ‘defence’ against the idea that the language and imagery you use is itself Anti-Semitic (e.g. you referring to the state of Israel in way which alludes to Nazi anti-Semitic caricatures of Jews, or your use of the phrase ‘international Jewry’). Your defence is that Jews raise the this objection in bad faith. That is, when making a claim that certain language or imagery is anti-Semitic, Jews knowingly bring up an objection that they consider to be false. They do this in order to silence and intimidate.

Your very ‘defence’ is itself grounded on anti-Semitic notions of Jews lying in order to further their own interests, myths of Jewish power and myths of Jewish conspiracy.

The conspiracy aspect is crucial to the coherence of the ‘Jews lie about anti-Semitism to silence critics of Israel’ argument; without this the whole argument falls apart. So we have a defence against anti-Semitism which rests largely on the myth of an organised Jewish conspiracy which has the power to silence and intimidate critics of Israel. How you can make use of this and in the very next sentence claim to “not believe in any Zionist conspiracy” defies logic.

I am curious as to one thing- in what ways does the demonisation of Jews further the Palestinan struggle for liberation?

2) You misquote the Zionist phrase it was “a land without A people for a people without a land”- quite different from your rendition which suggests the absence of people altogether, rather than the implication that Palestine contained no distinct nationality of its own. This is in fact fairly uncontroversial- in every forum which gave them the possibility to express an opinion, the leadership of the Arabs of Palestine stated that they were Arabs or Syrians and definitely not Palestinians.

Tony G

No need to pick out individual passages- your post is packed full with anti-Semitism in entirety.

Comment by Stephen — 7 February, 2008 @ 10:06 pm
I think it is necessary to acknowledge the disjuncture between mediaeval anti-Judaic bigotry from modern forms, but also recognise that these represent deep wells from which modern day bigots can draw.

In the same way that we should see nothing particularly unusual about the emergence of Zionism - as during the nineteenth century a number of nations were invented in popular consciousness - and the two “destinies” of those nations were either assimilation or political seperatism. Difficultiues of assimilation for Jews (see Dreyfuss for example) gave credibility to political nationalism, and therefore the transformation of a religious and lingusitic community into a self-identifying political one.

(Interesting BTW that during the 1860s German nationalist Richard Boeckh, in creating the myths of shared language for german nation building, argued that all ten million Yiddish speakers in Eastern Europe were therefore ethnic germans.)

I would therefore argue that Zionism is no more inherently racist than any other form of nationalism - and it also includes elements of being a response to anti-Semitism. (The obvious similarities in language and ideals between Zionists and rastafarians is striking, except there is no rastafarian state. You could speculate what would have happpened had rastafarian settlers in Ethiopia made a determined effort to really create a homeland there)

The actually and historically specific existing state of Israel is the problem, not the fact that some (many/most?) Jews self-identify themselves now as being a nation, and want a national state. That aspiration is shared by most of the world’s popuation (even some English people want a state of our own!) So unless you say that all people who have national consciousness and identify with a nation state are racists, then you cannot say that all Zionists are racists, or that Zionism is an inherently racist project.

The difficulty is that the historicaly contingent and actually existing circumstances that created Israel, and its sixty year war of occupation has created a racist dynamic and colonist mentatilty. The interesting thing of course is that the fundamentalist settlers are unpopular in israel itself.

The question here is that there can be no solution for the palestnians wiothout a change of political will within israel, and anti-Semitism makes that less rather than more likely.

Comment by Andy Newman — 7 February, 2008 @ 10:08 pm
Mikey, some zionists say to Jews who are not zionists, ‘You can’t be Jewish’ or ‘You’re not Jewish’ or, as was said to me, ‘You’re an animal.’ It’s not a necessary part of zionism to claim that anti-zionist Jews can’t be Jewish. It just so happens it’s what some of them say. When I was on a phone-in for Spectrum Radio, several callers rang in to claim that I couldn’t possibly be Jewish if I expressed my opinions. Some zionists hold to the idea that one of the defining characteristics of a Jew is that he or she should regard Israel as the Jewish homeland.

I have no doubt that you will find people who say this sort of thing. Some may well have incorporated an attachment to an ethnic state into a religious worldview: although as you know, that’s not what anybody but a minority current of religious Zionists (not all of whom are jewish, as you know) think.

It is difficult to know how to react to somebody who advocates the immediate absorbtion of a state containing a majority of jews, into a larger state which would contain a majority of arabs, would be a recipe for oppression and genocide. That is so, particularly if somebody supports such an outcome, and then goes on to express support for Hamas, which has an open policy of genocide in its foundational constitutional document. The same was true of those who supported Fatah, pre-Oslo.

When I hear somebody advocating such a view, I usually assume that they are an ideologue with an astonishingly counter-intuitive understanding of what will happen if you tried to forge a single state out of two semi-militarised and mutually antagonistic peoples.

I think that what you’re getting from jews you encounter on phone-in programmes is this. By and large, they don’t understand that your central sense of yourself is as a revolutionary socialist. You have a particular view of the form of society that you think is the best possible. You probably also think, because you are a revolutionary socialist, that the creation of such a society is worth a little pain: but that it will inevitably emerge.

Because your listeners don’t understand how central your messianic belief in international socialism is to your understanding of the world, they just see you as a man who, unaccountably, favours a political outcome in the middle east which would in all likelihood result in the massacring of jews.

I’m not a supporter of Zionism. I think revolutionary socialism is an absolutely terrible idea. Rather, I’m in favour of nation states self determining, self-governing in accordance with democratic principles, adopting a constitution and laws which embody respect for the principles of equality between persons, liberty, and fundamental human rights. I would like to see those states federate, willingly, pooling sovereignty by choice, and creating common citizenship rights, opening borders and enhancing social protection. This is an excellent model. Unlike revolutionary socialism, it has both worked, and produced a period of absolutely unprecedented prosperity and longevity. In Europe.

Central to the notion of federation, are the notions of choice and consent. Peoples can freely choose to open their borders and create a common citizenship. You can change your nationalism, and keep it at the same time. I am a European citizen, and also a British one. I do not see that as a diminution of my identity. In other words, I am not a supporter of ethnic nationalism. I think that there are many reasons for people to open their borders and federate. That goes for every country in the world, including Israel and Palestine.

But although I am a supporter of regional federations, I don’t want them to be imposed on the most unwilling of populations, merely to suit my own ideological vanity.

Comment by David T — 7 February, 2008 @ 10:27 pm
But Andy, isn’t the *point* of socialist activity and propaganda to break down, or at least expose the contradictions in a “national consciousness” whenever it pops its ugly head above the parapet?

When you dig into relationships with progressive nationalists (and yes I do still see that as being an appropriate label for some), like the ones I had the honour of forming with south african or palestinian activists in the past, there is *always* a stopping point in challenging their assumptions as to *what* the essential characteristics are that define their aspiration/s.

You’re bound to, if you are committed to a universality of common interest among people unbound by their respective patch of dirt. No?

So although it’s obviously true that antisemitism makes any changes to the political will inside Israel less likely, that isn’t the principal plank upon which socialists oppose it.

Comment by BatterseaPowerStation — 7 February, 2008 @ 11:03 pm
Interesting that for all the rhetoric between here and Engage, Andy and David Hisrh basically say very similar things about anti-Semitism.

Comment by unseen — 7 February, 2008 @ 11:43 pm
Mikey said

a) would be interested in anyone who actually made the following claim that you [ie me, MichaelRosen] allege:

“Some zionists hold to the idea that one of the defining characteristics of a Jew is that he or she should regard Israel as the Jewish homeland. If you renounce that, then you can’t by Jewish, they say. You are in effect, an ex-Jew. If you care to dig around in old threads at Harry’s Place, several posters made this clear to me at the time.”

and then Mikey said:

b) Despite this I do think it is fair to say that many Jews get very annoyed with Jews who stand up and oppose Zionism and do so “As a Jew” in groups such as “Jews Against Zionism” when they have no connection with Judaism as a religion and /or Jewish life in say the United Kingdom over an above using their credentials of being Jewish to say “As a Jew” and denouncing everything that most Jews believe in.

Mikey, I don’t know whether you find it difficult to concentrate or perhaps you don’t get out very much. But your comment b), I suggest is citing ‘many Jews’ in a sympathetic light, perhaps including yourself in this category. These ‘many Jews’ get ‘very annoyed’ do they? Well, what is the content of their annoyance, not the form of it? Yes, I have seen many times (see the thread by Lynne Segal at Comment is Free, where several posters dismiss Independent Jewish Voices on account of the fact that the Jews who signed (not me, by the way) don’t fit the bill of what a Jew is or should be eg someone like Eric Hobsbawm. Perhaps you (or these ‘many jews’ who get ‘very annoyed’ of which you may or may not be a part (!)) have some special right to decide what is appropriate Jewish behaviour. and this is ‘doing something in the Jewish community, it would seem, from comments on CiF and ones I’ve heard many, many times and yes, the other one is support for Israel. This is what’s called ‘normative behaviour’. Such people are trying to define the norm of what is a Jew. If you fall outside of that norm, then you risk being the equivalent of being called an apostate, a heretic, an excommunicated one or a non-Jew or even a non-person. Go back to Harry’s Place and you’ll remember perhaps that someone from Israel said that if I held the views I held I was not only not a Jew, I was an ‘animal’. David T rebuked him for it.

I don’t know why you’re expressing surprise or indignation about this. You will know of countless examples of Jewish families refusing to speak to members in their family because that person ‘married out’. It’s no rarity for some Jews to decide that other Jews aren’t Jews.

There is also an absurd implication in what you and the CiF zionists are saying, which seems to suggest that you would take Jewish antizionists more seriously if they did all the other things that Jews are supposed to do. And if you want to raise the matter of the ‘ultra orthodox’ Jews who oppose Zionism, then I suggest once again you return to Harry’s Place where I raised the very same matter with the people trying to prove that I was no longer Jewish. To which I got a stream of posts telling me first of all to look at what Naturei Korta stand for and others telling me that they’re not really Jews, they’re just madmen. I said, I wasn’t particularly interested in what they believe in, I just simply and only raised the matter of whether it was theoretically possible to be a Jew and to be antizionist. Over and over again, there were posts from people saying that NK had put themselves beyond the pale. It was over a year ago, I think. I’m sure David T can direct you to the thread. But if you don’t want to believe that, then find out why I was banned from talking to the children of Simon Marks School in Hackney. Please note, I’m not complaining. It’s just that I was invited to do my show there, but a group of parents (who later boasted about it on the web) got me banned. Quite right, I would have banned me too, if I was them. I’m so not the kind of Jew they want anywhere near their school, it’s better to make me the non-jew, ie disinvite me. I’ve cited Spectrum Radio to you (who also banned me after that). Don’t get me wrong. I’m not knocking on any doors to get in. It’s just that occasionally when people invite me and I state what I believe in, I get a torrent of stuff explaining to me it’s not possible for me to be Jewish if I believe what I do. If you want to imagine some other cosy world where Jews don’t behave like this, then that’s nice for you, but it’s rubbish. Please yourself

Your question to me about Tony Greenstein’s claim that zionists hate the diasporists is a question for Tony. Tony made the point. I didn’t. But you’re asking me about it? Do you have a problem in keeping focus? In public I have stated over and over and over again, I have a completely different angle to this matter: it’s not that zionists hate the diaspora but that most zionists in the world ARE the diaspora. They live in it and not in Israel. They much prefer living in the diaspora. But if you want to raise this matter, then there’s someone you could address it to. He’s called Tony Greenstein. He’s not called Michael Rosen. If you can’t follow that, give me a shout and I’ll try and clarify it.

Comment by MichaelRosen — 7 February, 2008 @ 11:50 pm
Andy

After a relatively short period of arguing about Islamism, you get pretty good at separating those who are merely rather doctrinaire about their secularism, and those who are yer actual anti-muslim bigots. In between the two, though, are people who, usually properly, don’t regard themselves as anti-muslim bigots, but who slip easily into the tropes of Islamophobia. Because this renders them blind to racism, it is these people who create an intellectual atmosphere in which bigotry is allowed to flourish.

A similar thing happens when you argue about Zionism, which I’ve done for some time too.

You’re finding this out for yourself.

That is why the SWP is unable to cut its links with Atzmon. And that is why RESPECT-Renewal has far right Islamists who propagate a conspiracist vision of the power of International Jewry, because they actually believe it to be true.

Comment by David T — 7 February, 2008 @ 11:58 pm
You have no need to prove you are not an anti-Semite in order to continue holding an anti-Zionist position. I see no reason why my consent can alter the contents of your mind or limit your freedom in any way. Unless of course I have Jewish magical powers, or I’m part of an organised conspiracy to silence ‘the truth’? Since I don’t suppose you believe in either of those anti-Semitic myths, I really don’t know what you’re getting at here.

What I’m getting at is that your statement that my anti-Zionist views weren’t a problem was immediately followed by a request that I define what I mean by anti-Zionism - which clearly implies that some anti-Zionisms are less legitimate than others, and that you’re reserving the right to judge which variety I adhere to.

2) I can’t grasp why the issue of Anti-Semitism is so easily dismissed.

The issue of anti-semitism is very easily dismissed in my personal case because I’m pretty damn sure that I personally am not an anti-semite, and don’t believe I’ve given anyone any grounds for concluding otherwise.

As for minority communities’ sensitivity to potentially discriminatory language, I’ll give you an example. When I was very young there was a counting rhyme which everybody knew, which included an offensive word beginning with N. My children have learnt a different version of the rhyme, and over time I imagine the offensive version will be forgotten. This is absolutely appropriate. For Black British people to object to the word ‘niggardly’, on the other hand, or the word ‘picnic’, would not be appropriate, and if I came up against these objections I’d object right back.

There’s something very similar going on here, with the complicating factor of a nation-state’s amour propre. If anyone talks about the Jews controlling the media, we’ll know what we’re dealing with and I’ll be denouncing it along with you. But if someone talks about the power exerted by Zionist groups, well, that could be anti-semitism, or it could be someone who’s done some research and found that Zionist groups are exerting power. As a rule of thumb, if what someone’s criticising is ‘Jews’, I think talking about anti-semitism may be in order (’may be’, not ‘is’). If not, not.

Comment by Phil — 8 February, 2008 @ 12:35 am
Michael Rosen

I shall firstly start at the end, you seem to be complaining that I was commenting to you but writing about something Tony Greenstein said. The reason for that is that your post to me was in response to my earlier comments to Tony Greenstein, so I do not see why you are complaining. To use your own words, “If you can’t follow that, give me a shout and I’ll try and clarify it.”

The complaint against IJV is a similar complaint and that is that they stand up “As a Jew” when they are not in the main involved in Jewish communal life. Let us say I were to stand up and say the following: “As a Jew, I believe that it is perfectly acceptable to eat a bacon sandwich. These laws against pig meat were made at a time when hygiene and medical standards were not so high, but the word kosher literally translated means ‘clean’ and people do not get ill from eating a bacon sandwich. A bacon sandwich is clean and hence it is kosher.” If I made that statement, I would expect to widely criticised by the Jewish community for my comments. By using the first few words, “As a Jew,” what I would be trying to do is to legitimise the rest of my statement, which other Jews would tell me is an incorrect statement. It would not make any difference if I went to synagogue regularly and was a Board Member of a Jewish charity, my comments would be viewed as nonsense. To the ill informed my “As a Jew” comment may well sound like I know what I am talking about, but to anyone who knows anything about Jewish dietary laws, they could tell you it was nonsense. Other Jews would be rightly annoyed at my use of the phrase “As a Jew” as well as the fact that I am wrong in the substantive point that I was trying to make.

You comment on accusations about “normative behavior” and I think the accusation (without reading the specific comments but just your words) have some legitimacy. Being a member of “Jews for Jesus” and acting in an Jesus is the Messiah evangelical way is not the normal for Jews and nor is “Jews against Zionism.” They are both tiny fringe sects whose views do not represent that of the Jewish community in the UK.

If someone made an accusation that you are a non-Jew because oppose Zionism, I would also rebuke someone for it and so I believe would any Rabbi or anyone who understands how a Jew is defined. For those who may not be aware, a Jew is defined (in Jewish law) as someone who has a Jewish mother. It is pretty much as simple as that. But this does not mean a Jew cannot be an antisemite. It seems that even Jews Against Zionism argue that Gilad Atzmon is an antisemite.

You are correct that there are examples when a Jewish family has excommunicated another member of their family for marrying out, but I am not sure of the point you are making. The person that is married out is still regarded as Jewish and under Jewish law that person will still be regarded as Jewish, would be entitled to be a member of a synagogue (even if the spouse would not be) and would be entitled to be buried in a Jewish cemetery. In fact, if it is a Jewish woman that has “married out” under Jewish law, the children would be Jewish and fully accepted as such.

On the subject of Neturei Karta, yes they are Jews and anyone who says anything different would be talking nonsense, but they are exactly an example of a group that has been excommunicated. It is interesting to note that the Satmar sect have a similar view of Zionism to Neturei Karta but they completely reject the idea that Neturei Karta stand up, and shout about it and in doing so they make friends with some of the worst antisemites. A clear example was the attendance of Neturei Karta to the Iranian Holocaust Denial conference at the end of 2006. As such, it is not just mainstream Jews who believe that Neturei Karta are beyond the pale, but also Satmar, despite the fact that Satmar use the work of the Grand Satmar Reb Joel Tietlebaum as a basis for much of their argument.

Regarding you being “banned” by a Jewish school, I would not complain too much, I have been banned from commenting on Mark Elf’s site. Personally I am not in favour of bannings as I am quite pro freedom of speech and I believe I share the view of David T of Harry’s Place that racists and extremists should be argued against as opposed to banned. What surprises me is that on the one hand you want to boycott Israeli academics but on the other hand you are quite prepared to speak at the Jewish Book Week that is sponsored by a Zionist charity. It seems to me hypocrisy of the worst order.

Comment by Mikey — 8 February, 2008 @ 1:45 am
I feel that Mike Rosen and John W are arguing past each other. Mike is a sincere and dedicated anti-Zionist. A bit too much in the SWP’s orbit for my liking but noone can doubt he is an anti-Zionist and a principled comrade.

John W is not anti-Semitic or anywhere near it. He has used unfortunate phrases like ‘international Jewry’ though it is not unknown for many people to use such phrases, not least Zionists, the question is what the context is. The WZO certainly sees Jewry as one international body. It certainly tries to present Jewry as one political grouping. The Board of Deputies does the same here, excluding non and anti-Zionists from its membership.

As I explained on another post I have no interest in increasing the number of anti-Semites. The Zionists do that except they class anyone as an anti-Semite who opposes the Israeli state.

I wouldn’t personally have used the ‘multi-hydra’ analogy because it does imply that power resides in Israel rather than in the US and imperialism. Israel also has its own interests which diverge from that of the USA, a subject little talked about. E.g. the US doesn’t have a great interest in settlements in the West Bank, but Israel does and the US goes along with that because of Israel’s strategic usefulness to them. It’s called a trade off. It is a complicated relationship and of course the Atzmonites subsume everything in the idea that Israel is the controlling factor.

I’m baffled by Prianikoff’s comments. I support a unitary, democratic secular state in Palestine. Am I a bourgeois nationalist? I guess so. And if I opposed 2 states in South Africa would I have also been one? And a united Ireland? Is that bourgeois nationalism? Get real. Fact is that 2 states is a utopian chimera as it ignores the underlying reality of Israel as an expansionist state which will not allow anything other than a client statelet which would make Northern Ireland seem like an oasis of independent government.

Richard is wrong. Just because there is a congruence of interests between the US and Israel it doesn’t mean that Israel doesn’t press hard on the things that concern it but not the US, like settlements for example. We should not be reductionists in this. AIPAC doesn’t control US foreign policy BUT it can influence it in directions which are inimical to the Palestinians.

Mikey is his usual dishonest self. It’s one thing to have a drink with an ‘extremist’ i.e. racist. It’s another to collaborate in targetting someone who is anti-racist BUT also anti-Zionist. My quotes from Atzmon and the dialogue between Mikey and Atzmon demonstrate it wasn’t just a drink Mikey was after. I notice he hasn’t commented upon Atzmon’s compliments to him. Can’t imagine why?

Mikey says that ‘Zionists certainly do not hate the Jewish diaspora, Greenstein has simply made this claim up.’ This just demonstrates that Mikey, who thinks he is some kind of academic researcher, knows nothing about the Zionism he defends.

Vladimir Ze’ev Jabotinsky spelt out his views on the Galut (Jews in Exile thus):
‘I have no doubt that I am a Zionist because the Jewish people is a very nasty people and its neighbours hate it and they are right. (S. Avineiri, p.162. Ktavim)

And the person who can be credited with being the founder of modern political Zionism, Moses Hess, subscribed to the Jewish blood libel myth. I kid you not.

‘For example, Hess writes that the Children of Israel were originally idolaters whose principle god, Moloch, demanded blood sacrifices… In the course of time, he maintains the Jews passed from blood (dam) sacrificesto money (damin) sacrifices. Shlomo Avineiri, ‘The Making of Modern Zionism - The Intellectual Origins of the Jewish State’ p.41,Weidenfeld & Nicholson, London, 1981. Is there any better example of Jewish self-hatred than these Zionists?

Or Jacob Klatzkin, editor of the Zionist main weekly, Die Welt between 1909-11 and one of the founders of the Encyclopedia Judaica. This is what he wrote about Jews outside Palestine:
‘Galut can only drag out the disgrace of our people and sustain the existence of a people disfigured in both body and soul - in a word, of a horror. At the very worst it can maintain us in a state of national impurity and breed some sort of outlandish creature in an environment of disintegration of cultures and of darkening spiritual horizons. The result will be something neither Jewish nor Gentile - in any case, not a pure national type…. some sort of oddity among the peoples going by the name of Jew. Arthur Hertzberg, ‘The Zionist Idea’ pp. 322/323. Herzberg was Deputy Chair of the American Jewish Congress and an ardent Zionist.

Or his most infamous statement that ‘If we do not admit the rightfulness of anti-Semitism we deny the rightfulness of our own nationalism… Instead of establishing societies for defence against the anti-Semites who want to reduce our rights, we should establish societies for defence against our friends, who desire to defend our rights. (B. Matovu, “The Zionist Wish and the Nazi Deed’ Issue, Winter 1966-7. Uri Davies, ‘Utopia Incorporated’ p. 17)

Or this, from the World Zionist Organisation’s own web site: http://www.wzo.org.il/en/resources/view.asp?id=1320
Zionism and Myths of Assimilation
By: Robert S. Wistrich
‘The Zionist movement from its inception regarded assimilation as one of its central enemies, as a morally degrading position for any self-respecting Jew to adopt.
Like other national movements it tended to decry assimilation as an expression of weakness of character rather than to perceive it as a historic process with its own logic and momentum. Thus Zionists all-too easily overdramatized the “spiritual slavery” of the assimilationists, producing a mythical image of Western Jewry in particular, that bore little relation to the realities of Jewish existence in the more open, pluralistic societies of the West. “Assimilationists” found themselves branded as self-hating Jews or traitors to their people even when they were no longer religious, had little knowledge or connection with Jewish tradition and their self-definition as part of the Jewish people made little sense in the general context of liberal, 19thcentury European society….

Yet, according to Jacob Klatzkin, the greatness of Herzl as a human being lay in his ability to recognize the “moral collapse” of assimilation and its disgrace. Herzl considered it to be something immoral and also unaesthetic lacking authenticity and human dignity. Hence he came to Zionism not through a Jewishness from which he was wholly alienated but as a Mensch who was saying to the assimilationists -let us begin by creating human beings out of the Jews!’

So did I make it up? I have reams of this stuff but Mikey, being an ignoramus knows nothing and learns nothing. But thanks Mikey for making The Times cough up £1,000 for your libelous comments about me on Aaronovitch’s blog!!! You helped to fund a Palestinian student scholarship for a year. Well done!!

And as for praying next year in Jerusalem, this was a pious hope, a millenarian dream common to all peoples of dreaming for a Zion. But when faced with a choice, of the 2.5 millions who emigrated from Czarist Russia between 1850 and 1914, less than 2% went to Palestine!

I don’t understand Patrick’s comment. Scottish PSC are the most advanced politically and there is no comparison between Atzmon and Perdition. Perdition describes in a theatrical form the role of the Zionist movement in Hungary where the Zionists under Kastner did a deal with the SS and in the process concealed the news of Auschwitz. That is an established fact. Atzmon was invited to speak to Scottish PSC once and got a hostile reception. It’s called ‘never again’!

Yes many Jews do live in the diaspora and that is one of life’s contradictions. What it means in practice is that there is a contradiction between the interests of Jews living here and the interests of the Israeli state. It is a living contradiction and it is something that Zionism cannot overcome other than by attrition. The reality is that Zionism is parasitical on diaspora Jewry and is bringing anti-Semitism in its wake. And if anti-Semitism did ever rear its ugly head again Israel would be no refuge as Argentina demonstrated.

Where I would disagree with Andy is that Zionism wasn’t just another form of nationalism of the oppressed. From the very start it allied itself with the oppressors of the Jews. Herzl parleyed with them all, including the leader/founder of French anti-Semitism, Eduord Drumont. His meetings with von Plehve, organiser of pogroms in Czarist Russia brought down on his head the condemnation of the Bund, which was a mass party in Russia. He was collaborating with the murderers of Jews in order to obtain a charter for Palestine. Zionism was not a mass national movement of Jews. The Bund was if anything this and its nationalism was focussed on where Jews lived not Palestine. Zionism was seen by most Jews as a quisling movement and when Herzl wanted to hold the first Zionist Congress in Munich, the local Jewish community petitioned the authorities against this anti-Semitic assembly, as they saw it. The following are citations from a reputable Zionist, not anti-Zionist source:

The French Radical Right: From Anti-Semitic Zionism to Anti-Semitic Anti-Zionism
Pierre Birnbaum The Journal of Israeli History Vol. 25, No. 1, March 2006, pp. 161–174

‘Edouard Drumont, the author of La France juive, suggested getting rid of the Jews, “sending them all back to Palestine,” and, a little later, was highly complimentary about Theodor Herzl’s recently published book, Der Judenstaat, stating at a conference: “Dr Herzl wishes to restore a Homeland to this people that is a people; and I see nothingwrong in this as long as thisHomeland is not mine . . .. I have seen with great pleasure in the Archives israe´lites the full-page advertisement by the Jewish National Society . . . the Zionist movement represents the democratic element in Jewry.” By 1903 Drumont was congratulating Max Nordau on his nationalist arguments, writing: “The Jew who aspires to reestablish a homeland for himself is worthy of esteem. The Jew who wishes to have a flag is a decent Jew. . . . Is not having a homeland the most critical of all duties? France for the French! Palestine for the Jews.”

In this way, Drumont—the inventor of political anti-Semitism, the man who made anti-Semitism into an organized mass movement fromwhich theAustrian and German anti-Semitic movements would draw their inspiration—pursued a formidable line of reasoning to its logical conclusion, declaring himself openly in favor of the Jews’ departure for Palestine, which would restore France’s authentic nature.’

Or another article from the most prestigious of Zionist academic journals. ‘The Journal of Israeli History’ Anti-Semites on Zionism: From Indifference to Obsession, Derek J. Penslar 01 March 2006

‘A decade later, as the Zionist movement appeared to shake off the lethargy that had gripped themovement sinceHerzl’s death in 1904, Drumont devoted considerable energy to drumming up anti-Semitic support for Zionism. At the time of the Eighth Congress in 1907, Drumont wrote that Zionism represented the “future of the Jewish Question and, consequently, the future of humanity as awhole.”Were the Jews removed fromEurope to Palestine, “this Jewish Question, which . . . dominates all human affairs, including the SocialQuestion,would be resolved, at least for the timebeing, and theworldwould finally know a period of calm and relative security.” Drumont even expressed admiration for Zionists, whom he contrasted unfavorably with their opponents: The Jew who aspires to reconstitute a homeland is worthy of esteem. The Jew who destroys the homeland of others is worthy of every kind of scorn….’

Need I say more?

This argument that Zionists question who is a Jew because they are not part of the Jewish community or religious really reflects the worst practices of the anti-Semites. Who is a Jew is a question that fascinated the Nazis. It also fascinates the Zionists and their search for demographic solutions. I find it quite simple. I’m a Jew because there are fascists and I’m a Jew because of what Israel does in my name. And also because I like Jewish food!! Since when was being Jewish about supporting America’s favourite client state? Or super nationalism? The great Jews in history weren’t Zionists. Einstein all but renounced it as he got older, Hannah Arendt became a non-Zionist and all the other great figures in Jewish diaspora history would have run a mile from the idea as did most Jews as and until Hitler triumphed. It was the holocaust that made Zionism into a majority political current in the world and Israel represents Hitler’s triumph. Just as the growth of the German Jewish community (the fastest growing such community in the world) represents the final nail in Hitler’s coffin. That is why they sent foreign minister David Levy to Germany to plead that Germany should impose immigration barriers on Jews wishing to immigrate, just as in the 1970’s and 1980’s Begin and Rabin similarly pleaded with US Presidents not to admit Soviet Jews to their shores and waged a long battle to prevent Jews going anywhere but the USA.

In fact Mikey is wrong in any case. The Jewish community in Britain and the USA is fast assimilating to the majority, but a significant part thereof see themselves as part Jewish. Like my daughter who is 16. She is an atheist like her dad and describes herself as half-Jewish. I haven’t influenced her in that but I’m glad that that is the way she sees herself.

I see my role as quite a simple one. I didn’t choose to be born Jewish but I was. I won’t deny it and if the NF take to the streets I’ll be after them. But when the fight against the fascists was at its height the Zionists said keep your heads down. Do nothing and trust the police. It was non-Jews who were my comrades and Jewish anti-Zionists. With one exception, a Mapamnik moving leftwards, I cannot remember a single Zionist who participated in the struggle. Zionism does not believe in the fight against anti-Semitism rather it believes in labelling people who are not anti-Semites as that.

And for the last time. People make mistakes. It is easy as the Atzmon affair is proving to confuse concepts. If someone like John W says they are not anti-Semitic then unless there is more than an ill-chosen phrase then I believe them. It really is as simple as that. And if John disavows Atzmon and what he represents then that is pretty good for me. What I do find disgusting is that Zionists like Mikey are prepared to do ‘research’ for creatures like Atzmon. Which is why Mikey spends his spare time trying to exonerate another collaborator, Rudolph Kasztner.

Tony Greenstein

Comment by Tony Greenstein — 8 February, 2008 @ 3:19 am
What a load of waffle from Greenstein complete with his usual errors and distortions. The funniest is probably his attack on Moses Hess. Greenstein is probably not even aware that Hess was a huge influence on Karl Marx himself and is widely credited with convincing Frederich Engels to become a communist! I suggest Greenstein does a bit more reading.

I openly admit that I met Atzmon for a drink and I also openly admit that I have subsequently written posts about him on Harry’s Place attacking him, through research I have more information. What I did not do, which is what Greenstein did is to send Atzmon a message saying that he would love to go and here Atzmon play jazz. Moreover, whilst Greenstein has commented on the fact that Atzmon offered me a backhanded compliment, he has ignored the fact that the National Front wrote a review of one his own disgusting pamphlets and compared his (Greenstein’s) work favourably to that of Holocaust Denier Richard Harwood. Ironically, it is also the case that the Holocaust Denial site that John Wight linked to on Engage itself contains at least 2 articles from a magazine that Greenstein himself was on the editorial committee for. No wonder Greenstein is defending John W, because if he did not, he would also in a roundabout way be implicating himself.

Greenstein goes on to claim that the great Jews in history were not Zionist. He provides 2 examples - Einstein and Arendt. Firstly on Einstein, Greenstein claims that Einstein “all but renounced it [Zionism] as he got older” but he does not actually say that Einstein did renounce his Zionism. In fact the truth is that Einstein (3 years before his death) was offered to succeed Chaim Weizmann as the President of the State of Israel. It is hardly likely that offer would have been made if Einstein was an anti-Zionist. yes, Einstein was critical of some Zionists, notably Begin, but he certainly was not an anti-Zionist - not even as he got older.

Similarly, Greenstein claims that Hannah Arendt was a non-Zionist. The truth is not as simple as Greenstein makes out. Firstly she was not an anti-Zionist, secondly she devoted over 20 years of her life working for Jewish and Zionist organisations. Thirdly she regularly donated money to the State of Israel in its appeals, notably in the 6 day war in 1967 and in the Yom Kippur War in 1973.

Greenstein, to try and prove his point, quotes from an article by Birnbaum, but when he does, he conveniently ignores quoting from te concluding paragraph, where the author stated, “it should be recalled that Drumont’s movement represented a populism that brought together far left and far right alike, in which white supremacists took part, along with Guedists and sometimes even socialists, who had no scruples about being involved in a large-scale anti-Semitic movement that overwhelmingly drew its inspiration from the far right.”

Greenstein alleges that I am wrong in my discussion about who is a Jew. What I claimed was that someone is a Jew if they have a Jewish mother. This is quite clear in Jewish law. Greenstein comments that his daughter calls herself a “half-Jew.” This phrase has no meaning in Jewish law. Either Greenstein’s daughter is or is not Jewish. On the logical assumption that Greenstein’s daughters mother is not Jewish, then neither is Greenstein’s daughter. It is quite clear.

It can be noted of course that the State of Israel uses a different definition of who is a Jew to Jewish law, in its Law of Return, and the reason for that is the State recognised that antisemites themselves put a different definition on who is a Jew and persecuted and killed Jews under that definition. To save them all from possible persecution, the halachic(Jewish legally) Jews and those that would not full under such a definition, but might have been killed by a Nazi for being Jewish all the same, allowed these categories also to live in Israel. Consequently, despite Greenstein’s claim, it is not me that is wrong, it is him, but why should that surprise anyone?

Finally Greenstein says that I spend my time trying to exonerate Rudolf Kasztner who he claims was a “collaborator.” Greenstein may have failed to realise that I do not need to exonerate Kasztner as the Supreme Court in Israel ruled by a 4:1 majority in 1958 that he was not a collaborator. Greeenstein needs to do a little more research himself.

Comment by Mikey — 8 February, 2008 @ 4:38 am
In your post to me, Mikey, pure fog. Perhaps you’ve forgotten what you raised with me: ie whether some zionists say that me (and the likes of me presumably) are Jewish or not. You said, you’ll remember that zionists would not claim that. I said they would and have and I’ve cited examples (Harry’s Place posters, Spectrum Radio, and indeed the usual normative stuff). You reply telling me that I shouldn’t ‘complain’. Are you reading what I’ve written? This is what I wrote:

“But if you don’t want to believe that, then find out why I was banned from talking to the children of Simon Marks School in Hackney. Please note, I’m not complaining. ”

I’ll put that in caps “I’M NOT COMPLAINING”

I raised it as an example of how some zionists (not all) try to make me (and the likes of me a non-Jew). And as I’m trying to make clear to you, I’m not asking to be a member of this club. I just am. Born into it. It’s people like you doing the normative stuff. Why not wait till your head’s in gear before you leap to your keyboard?

Comment by MichaelRosen — 8 February, 2008 @ 6:37 am
# 89 Tony Greenstein

‘I’m baffled by Prianikoff’s comments. I support a unitary, democratic secular state in Palestine. Am I a bourgeois nationalist? I guess so. And if I opposed 2 states in South Africa would I have also been one? And a united Ireland? Is that bourgeois nationalism? Get real. Fact is that 2 states is a utopian chimera as it ignores the underlying reality of Israel as an expansionist state which will not allow anything other than a client statelet which would make Northern Ireland seem like an oasis of independent government.’

You’re baffled by them because you don’t understand them.
I don’t support 2 states, I support a *bi-national Socialist state*.

In the real situation ‘2 states’ may be utopian, but so is 1 state.
I’m not interested in a political split over the difference between 1 and 2.
But yes, it’s absolutely the case that no one in the PSC, including you, go beyond the terrain of bourgeois nationalism.
You for example totally refuse to do any work amongst Israeli workers because you reject the idea that any valid class struggle goes on inside the country, or that divisions between rich and poor are meaningful.

Comment by prianikoff — 8 February, 2008 @ 7:46 am
Prianikoff:

I don’t support 2 states, I support a *bi-national Socialist state*.

Reply:

And you call us Utopian? In case you haven’t realised, with regard to Palestine the Israeli working class isn’t listening. Your analysis is determinism at its worst. Israel is not a state in the normal sense of the word. It is a settler colonial state, committed to clearing the land of what it views as untermensch, the Palestinians. The Israeli working class benefits materially from Israel’s ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians, who aren’t used as exploited labour but are viewed solely as vermin to be expelled and cleansed from the land. Israel’s role as a US stretegic asset is also unique and makes our efforts in resisting its apartheid and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians vital.

Pandering to Israeli national chauvinism over the interests of the international working class this way is simply wrong.

Comment by John W — 8 February, 2008 @ 8:48 am
Greenstein tells bad stories about me.

He says I’m a defender of Richard Littlejohn - in fact I remarked how shameful it is that Littlejohn’s stance on antisemitism is better than that of some of us on the left. Littlejohn’s programme, which Greenstein himself helped to make - as a piece of popular TV - wasn’t bad. It set out some of the arguments about contemporary antisemitism quite well, I thought.

Greenstein says it is a real chutzpah for me to come to a socialist website to discuss antisemitism. He says I’m responsible for conflating antisemitism with anti-Zionism. He implies that I am therefore responsible for those in the anti-Zionist movement who are antisemitic. He says he doesn’t take me seriously. He says I only pretend to be concerned with antisemitism. He says if I was concerned about antisemitism I’d launch a campaign against those Zionists who have been very rude to him. He says that most antisemitism comes from Jews and later he says that the bocyott campaign can’t be antisemitic because it is led by Jews. He says I “cried antisemitism” in bad faith in order to rescue Israel from a boycott. He says that on Engage we deliberately distort and smear. He misquotes me as saying that he thinks that “Zionists and Nazis are the same”; in fact I said he thinks that “Zionism is like Nazism” - which he evidently does think http://www.engageonline.org.uk/blog/article.php?id=918. He openly admits emailing my colleagues and bosses, where I work, with all this baloney (a few colleagues sympathized with me for having such a weird stalker and asked if I had called the police). He says I’m a Zionist - as though being a Zionist was some kind of great crime.

Lots of stuff from Greenstein about why I am a bad person with a bad history and should not be listened to. Lots of assertions.

But nothing from Greenstein - not one word - about how what Andy Newman says about antisemitism is wrong or about how my own critique of John Wight’s antisemtic outbursts is mistaken.

Not one word about the significance of the remarks by colleagues reported by Andy, not one word about John Wight’s “mistake” at having linked to a Fascist website, not one word about contemporary antisemitism. Well there was one word - this was to blame most Jews (ie “Zionists”) for antisemitism.

Lots of pontification about how I’m a bad person. Nothing about why what I say is wrong.

Do have a look at what I have written http://www.yale.edu/yiisa/workingpaper/hirsh/index.htm.

Maybe Greenstein is right, and I am a bad and dishonest person. But maybe what I write about antisemitism is nevertheless worth reading. Judge the arguments, the evidence, the analysis, not the person.

Comment by David Hirsh — 8 February, 2008 @ 9:10 am
David Hirsh:

Maybe Greenstein is right, and I am a bad and dishonest person. But maybe what I write about antisemitism is nevertheless worth reading. Judge the arguments, the evidence, the analysis, not the person.

Reply:

David Hirsh, I am personally calling you a pro-Israel, Zionist supporter of apartheid and ethnic cleansing in Palestine. Your detemined efforts, and those of your supporters, to label me antisemitic are a clear and wilful attempt to divert attention and to cleave a division on this discussion list over the issue of Palestine. Again, I assert, I have spent many years campaigning for Palestinian human rights at home and abroad and will continue to do so. I have also campaigned vigorously against the BNP and the far right and have the onerous distinction of being included on their Redwatch site for doing so. I have apologised to my comrades for referencing the url of a far right site. It was an honest mistake. You have not accepted this as a mistake because it would not suit your purposes to do so.

I am calling you a scumbag. Take me to court, sue me.

Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions.

Can you dig it?

Comment by John W — 8 February, 2008 @ 9:20 am
John.
Stop digging.

Comment by Patrick. — 8 February, 2008 @ 9:37 am
Another astonishing comment from John Wight: “In case you haven’t realised, with regard to Palestine the Israeli working class isn’t listening.”

This is true, argues Wight, because Israel is unique in that the interests of its working class are opposed to the interests of “the international working class”.

Astonishing.

So unlike the Israeli working class, which is essentially tied to its own bourgeoisie, the other working classes, all over the world, are, I suppose “listening” to Marxists like John Wight?

Well, no, actually, they’re not listening right now are they? But that is because of false consciousness, right?

Whereas the Israeli workers are not listening - but in that cause it is because of true consciousness.

The Israeli working class is the only working class on the planet that has divined its true interest - which is, according to John Wight, to bind with its own bourgeoisie, to “international Jewry”, to American imperialists, to “Arab Collaborationist Regimes” in a project of ethnically cleansing Palestinians - which is opposed by “the forces of human progress”.

This antisemitic, Stalinist pile of steaming rubbish is not Marxism.

In Capital, Marx offered an analysis of exploitation which did not rely on a picture of the rich and the powerful conspiring against the exploited. That was his genius. He replaced conspiracy theory with a structural analysis.

Some people on the left who forget Marx, or who never understood Marx, are left only with the conspiracy of bad people against the oppressed.

And from conspiracy theory it is one short tempting step to antisemitic conspiracy theory.

But don’t listen to me. Because as John Wight and Tony Greenstein point out, I am a clever little Jewish demon who knows how to make arguments about socialism and Marxism in bad faith - in order to protect Israel from criticism of its human rights abuses.

Comment by David Hirsh — 8 February, 2008 @ 9:40 am
Lots of pontification about how I’m a bad person. Nothing about why what I say is wrong.

Very remiss of Tony; it’s just as well he’s not the only person commenting on this thread. If you want to know why what you say is wrong - or rather, why the way you argue is wrong - have a look at my comment #15.

Comment by Phil — 8 February, 2008 @ 9:40 am
#84 from David T and #85 and BPS, I think form a nice pair of comments on a related theme.

In #85 BPS asks

“isn’t the *point* of socialist activity and propaganda to break down, or at least expose the contradictions in a “national consciousness” whenever it pops its ugly head above the parapet? When you dig into relationships with progressive nationalists (and yes I do still see that as being an appropriate label for some), like the ones I had the honour of forming with south african or palestinian activists in the past, there is *always* a stopping point in challenging their assumptions as to *what* the essential characteristics are that define their aspiration/s.”

Yeah – I suppose I have a different take on this, which is that national consciousness over the last 150 years has become such a normative part of almost everyone’s collective self-identity that we have to work with it.

Writings from Lenin in a period only thirty years after the Czarist state first started to try to create a Russian nation, and when nationalism was both novel and weak don’t relate to today’s conditions, where national identity is firmly established as usually as a vital part of self-identity for most people.

So David T’s point addressed to Miachal Rosen is a fair one:

I think that what you’re getting from jews you encounter on phone-in programmes is this. By and large, they don’t understand that your central sense of yourself is as a revolutionary socialist. You have a particular view of the form of society that you think is the best possible. You probably also think, because you are a revolutionary socialist, that the creation of such a society is worth a little pain: but that it will inevitably emerge.

Because your listeners don’t understand how central your messianic belief in international socialism is to your understanding of the world, they just see you as a man who, unaccountably, favours a political outcome in the middle east which would in all likelihood result in the massacring of jews.

I would generalise from that to say that socialists saying that all national consciousness or patriotism is chauvinism and racism is a terrible barrier against us ever having mass influence.

Comment by Andy Newman — 8 February, 2008 @ 9:50 am
John Wight: “Your determined efforts, and those of your supporters, to label me antisemitic are a clear and wilful attempt to divert attention and to cleave a division on this discussion list over the issue of Palestine.”

This is the opposite of the truth.

The truth is that people like Wight have split the Palestine Solidarity movement down the middle by insisting on defining who is a friend of Palestine and who is an enemy of Palestine in a very strange way.

I think it should be pretty clear. I am a friend of Palestine because I oppose the Israeli occupation and I oppose the Israeli racism and the Israeli human rights abuses which are necessary to sustain the occupation. I am for an end to the occupation. I think that Israeli settlers should go home to Israel. I am for the establishment of a genuinely free and democratic Palestinian state.

Now, clearly some of you believe that a sovereign Palestinian state alongside Israel would not be a just or a workable solution. I believe it would be more just and more workable than any other possible solution. So we have some disagreements.

But surely we should be able to work together in a broad Palestine Solidarity movement? So why can’t we?

We can’t because the Palestine Solidarity movement which exists, defines me as an enemy of Palestine. Why does it?

a) because I don’t support an exclusion of Israelis - and only Israelis - from the cultural and economic life of the planet

b) because I believe that the distinction between criticism of Israeli policy and demonizing Israel as a whole, is important. I think that demonizing Israel can lead to antisemitic ways of thinking - and of acting - and I think this is something which we should be careful to avoid.

The Palestine Solidarity movement, as it exists, defines friends and enemies of Palestine according to whether they support BDS, according to whether they characterize Israel as apartheid, according to whether they support the smashing (from outside - remember, not relying on the israeli working class) of the state of Israel.

The politics of boycott and the politics of demonization splits and disables Palestine solidarity in Britain.

The sniff of antisemitism which hangs around Palestine solidarity work - the smell which Andy Newman brings to light in this piece - puts off decent people, who are for Palestinian liberation.

People like me, who support Palestinian freedom, are hardly likely to want to join the Scottish PSC - or Edinburgh Stop The War - when they are angrily denounced as “scumbags” when they get there.

Comment by David Hirsh — 8 February, 2008 @ 9:58 am
It is a shame that a thread that began as a thoughtful piece about antisemitism has become a discussion about Israel and Zionists. A shame, but not a surprise. How has this happened? Because John W cannot discuss antisemitism without asking how many UN resolutions Israel has broken. In the same way that he couldn’t write an article about Holocaust Memorial Day without actually writing an article about Palestinian rights. Meanwhile Tony Greenstein only ever has one thing to say, which is to blame Zionists for everything.

This is exactly the problem that Andy is getting at. There are too many people on the left who cannot relate to anything to do with contemporary Jewish life, Jewish politics, antisemitism or the Holocaust without making it a very angry debate about Israel. If you hate Israel as much as John W does, and you cannot discuss matters Jewish without making it a discussion about Israel, your hatred will inevitably be transferred onto the majority of ordinary Jewish people and their mainstream Jewish organisations that are not anti-Zionist.

Note I say “are not anti-Zionist”; you do not even have to be a particularly active Zionist for this to apply. Eric Lee had his funding pulled by one trade union because he was a politically active Jew who was not an anti-Zionist.

John W and Greenstein both declare their bona fides by stating their record of active opposition to the neo-Nazi far right. I do not doubt either of them. But when leftists or Islamists say the same things as neo-Nazis about Jews, they are unmoved. John W talks about Israel being a “hydra-headed monster” involving “international Jewry” as if these ideas have no antisemitic history. Tony Greenstein has, I am sure, opposed the activities of David Irving for decades; but when Asghar Bukhari of MPAC was revealed as a funder of Irving, Greenstein posted a message of support on Bukhari’s website. When has Tony Greenstein ever been so forgiving of someone who funds Holocaust Denial? When the person who gives money to David Irving does so because they think Holocaust Denial is an anti-Israel activity.

As I said in my previous comment: ordinary Jews are used to the idea that antisemitism can come from many different sources. Our history is replete with examples. Christians, Muslims, Arabs, Persians, far right, far left, intellectual elites, violent mobs…what matters is what people say, think and do about Jews. The same, sadly, does not apply for too many people on the left, who give antisemitism a free pass, or even help it along, if it does not come dressed in jackboots and swastika armbands.

Comment by Dave Rich — 8 February, 2008 @ 10:00 am
Sure Phil, I’ll look at comment # 15.

Firstly, I was quite open in the piece I wrote on Engage that Wight had “apologized” for linking our website to a Fascist holocaust denial website. But I think it is more complicated than that. I think that he did do it by mistake - so I don’t accuse him of supporting the right wing Fascist website. But I don’t think that the nature of the mistake was simply accidental. I think that his view, which says that Jews are sufficiently powerful enough, round the globe, to silence an honest discussion of “Zionism” is very similar to the view of the Fascist website, which says that Jews are sufficiently powerful around the globe to silence an honest discussion of “Zionism”. I think it’s basically the same charge of Jewish (or Zionist) conspiracy and I think that is why he got the two confused.

His subsequent explanation doesn’t hold much water. He says he googled one but got the other. Try it. You don’t get one by googling the other.

Your second point is that my logic is twisted with my critique of what Wight subsequently said.

He stood by his antisemitic comments about “world Jewry” and about Israel consisting of American imperialists and Arab collaborationists. He stood by the version which was explicitly antisemitic. And then he repeated the sentiment using an “anti-Zionist” vocabulary which made it harder to understand that the content of the argument was antisemitic.

My point was that the meaning of the passage which he offered in his email was the same as the meaning in the original comment. One was expressed using antisemitic language and the other wasn’t.

Straightforward point.

http://www.engageonline.org.uk/blog/article.php?id=1627

Comment by David Hirsh — 8 February, 2008 @ 10:06 am
I think it’s basically the same charge of Jewish (or Zionist) conspiracy and I think that is why he got the two confused.

Well, I think we can all agree that there are Zionist groups which organise in more than one country. A left-wing anti-Zionist might talk about ‘international Zionist organisations’ without meaning anything more than that. A Fascist might use exactly the same phrase and mean something completely different. Sometimes a Zionist is just a Zionist.

He stood by the version which was explicitly antisemitic. And then he repeated the sentiment using an “anti-Zionist” vocabulary which made it harder to understand that the content of the argument was antisemitic.

This is exactly my point. You divine the content of the argument from the use of terms you see as anti-semitic; when the same argument is made without using those terms, you conclude that it’s an anti-semitic argument disguised in anti-Zionist vocabulary! Surely it would be simpler - as well as more charitable - to say that John was simply making an anti-Zionist argument all along?

Comment by Phil — 8 February, 2008 @ 10:25 am
David T’s point addressed to Miachal Rosen is a fair one

Eh? David T’s ‘point’ is a typical rhetorical double-shuffle: first assume the point that’s in dispute by presenting your opponent’s position in grotesquely extreme terms (would in all likelihood result in the massacring of jews), then graciously ‘explain’ why your opponent believes this travesty by reference to their psychological makeup (your messianic belief in international socialism).

I can see where you’re going with the nationalism argument, but I don’t think it works. Yes, it’s probably the case that more British Jews are Zionists than anti-, but I don’t see that that puts Jewish socialists under any obligation to fly the Star of David from their car aerials.

Comment by Phil — 8 February, 2008 @ 10:36 am
Phil:

This is exactly my point. You divine the content of the argument from the use of terms you see as anti-semitic; when the same argument is made without using those terms, you conclude that it’s an anti-semitic argument disguised in anti-Zionist vocabulary! Surely it would be simpler - as well as more charitable - to say that John was simply making an anti-Zionist argument all along?

Reply:

But Phil, his intention is not to divine the content, it is to muddy the waters by diverting attention away from the burning issue of Israel’s ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians.

Now David Hirsh claims that he is a supporter of the Palestinians. Perhaps in that case he might care to explain his opposition to BDS. What does he propose in its place? He previously ridiculed an earlier post by me claiming that the Israeli working class are intextricably tied to their own bourgeoisie. When it comes to the occupation and the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians, the Israeli working class are absolutely and irrefutably tied to their own bourgeoisie, with few , too few, exceptions. As with the US working class, as with the British working class.

But Israel is a settler colonial state, a vital strategic asset of a global empire emanating from Washington that is intent on imposing on the world a free market desert. Marx’s structural analysis of the proletariat and its relationship to the means of production was essentially Eurocentric. He never in any meaningful way factored into that analysis the plight and revolutionary potential of colonial peoples. For that we look to Lenin and, later, specifically with regard to the Middle East, the analysis of people like Isaac Deutscher, Tariq Ali, and even Chomsky for his work in deconstructing Israel’s relationship with the US.

Comment by John W — 8 February, 2008 @ 10:38 am
So your contention, Phil, is that John was making an anti-Zionist argument all along, but he mistakenly articulated it in antisemitic language.

He then said that he stood by this passage - the one which we agree was articulated in antisemitic language - but he offered us a translation to be read alongside the original passage into anti-Zionist language.

If that is your reading of what happened I won’t argue with you.

But the point is that this kind of anti-Zionist thinking leads a decent antiracist like John:

1) to a place inside his head where he is ready to use antisemitic language

2) to a place where he is ready to stand by the antisemitic language, even when it is pointed out to him that this language is antisemitic

3) to then denounce the person who did him the favour of pointing out that the language was antisemitic as a scumbag

4) to claim that the person who pointed out the antisemitic language does so only for bad motives

My argument is not that anti-Zionists are really motivated by an underlying, conscious or unconscious antisemitism.

My argument is that certain kinds of anti-Zionism are dangerous because they tend to lead to anisemitic ways of thinking - in terms both of form and content, of language and of politics.

Wight may have begun as someone who was rightly extremely hostile to Israeli human rights abuses. I share this hostility.

But his hostility led his politics - and it led him to a place where he is beginning to talk like an antisemite - in antisemitic language - and content too.

If it was just a mistake, he would have thanked us (if not us, then Andy, his friend and comrade) for having pointed it out.

It is a disproportional hatred of Israel which leads to antisemitism.

It is an understanding of Israel as something absolutely unique.

It is the belief that Israel and “Zionism” are at the very centre of what is wrong with the world which leads towards an antisemitic way of thinking.

It is the belief - articulated very clearly by John - that if only the evil of Zionism was destroyed, then Palestinians - and all the rest of us - could live in peace - it is this belief that is menacing.

Antisemites have always put Jews at the centre of what is wrong with the world.

Some variants of anti-Zionism tend to pub Israel at the centre of what is wrong with the world.

In truth, neither Jews nor Israelis are at the centre of anything in the world.

Comment by David Hirsh — 8 February, 2008 @ 10:38 am
John Wight has a good idea. Lets read at Isaac Deutscher: http://www.engageonline.org.uk/archives/index.php?id=49

Comment by David Hirsh — 8 February, 2008 @ 10:41 am
For Michael Rozen:

Michael, first of all, I want to apologize because it was probably me who hurled abuse at you at Harry’s place. I don’t remember if I called you an “animal”, not a particular insult I would use, but certainly, I lost my temper. For that, I apologize.

Before I continue, I would like to copy a paragraph from Mikey which I think is to the point: “Despite this I do think it is fair to say that many Jews get very annoyed with Jews who stand up and oppose Zionism and do so “As a Jew” in groups such as “Jews Against Zionism” when they have no connection with Judaism as a religion and /or Jewish life in say the United Kingdom over an above using their credentials of being Jewish to say “As a Jew” and denouncing everything that most Jews believe in.”

I am one of those who gets very annoyed. I think that you, consciously, work to destroy not only “what I believe in” but the greatest collective work of modern Jewish history, namely, the State of Israel, which, as every human endeavor, is not perfect. Moreover, you do that in the name of one of the most murderous ideologies in history, namely socialism, marxism, or however you want to call your own belief. Marxism is a fringe movement in today’s world for a obvious reason. It failed and killed huge amounts of people every time it was tried. Most reasonable people have abandoned this ship.

Now, in the process of your demolition work, you get in touch with many unsavoury people, but you don’t recognize that you yourself are outside Jewish history. Not because you live in the diaspora (my whole family lives in the Diaspora! so much for “Zionists hating the Diaspora”), but because politically you work to destroy Jewish product insted of working to create. There is nothing you can create through socialism, much less in the Middle East. You can only wish to destroy a state where most Jews live and consider their home.

I think very annoying of you to try to “fusion” a state in which you don’t live, nor plan to live. I think you would find me as annoying if I were a member of a movement in Israel with the express goal to “fusion” Britain with Pakistan as the only solution to Pakista’s misery. Of course, the difference is that we, Jews, are very few, and have lots of enemies - sorry, yes we have - who want to “fusion” us, while Pakistan and Britain are very big countries and would laugh at my hypothetic movement. However, think the fear Europe had of being “fusioned” by force with the Soviet Union to recall what I want to say here. You are an enemy of my people, whether you like it or not, whether you want to consider yourself a Jew or not.

When I think of your “one-state” ideas, I cannot fail but think of how some Christians think that through their religion “there is no more Greek and there is no more Jew, we are all the same in the eyes of God”, as someone put it to me very recently during a discussion. To that I had to point out that there are still Greeks, that there is a country called Greece, (and a country called Armenia, and Russia, and…), in spite of his Christian utopia. There is room in the world for a country called Israel, that Jews call their home. The fact that you work against the existence of this country makes me think that you are exactly like this Christian evangelist, only that your bible is Marxism. You are just as annoying as them.

Too bad you cannot understand this. I have no “false consciousness” and I am not part of the “Zionist elite”. I am a proud citizen of my own homeland.

Best,
Fabian

Comment by Fabian from Israel — 8 February, 2008 @ 10:45 am
I don’t know why you’re expressing surprise or indignation about this. You will know of countless examples of Jewish families refusing to speak to members in their family because that person ‘married out’. It’s no rarity for some Jews to decide that other Jews aren’t Jews.

Yes, a couple of generations ago. Didn’t happen to me. Didn’t happen to two of my mates (for very long, at least) and his dad’s a rabbi.

So, jews like to argue, often loudly. And they’re schizmatic! Who would have thought it!!?

I think the problem you’re facing is this, Michael. You’re evidently a very nice and sweet guy. Yet somehow, you’ve thought yourself into this weird political position, in which you unaccountably want two militarised, mutually antagonistic peoples, to live together in a socialist paradise that neither of them want. And you don’t just want it as a theoretical wouldn’t-it-be-nice-one-day way. You actually appear to think that this would be a good idea to try this experiment right now. And when it comes to appearing on platforms, or joining political parties containing Islamists who believe that the day of judgement will not come until rocks and trees cry out “O Muslim there is a Jew hiding behind me come and kill him”, you say “Well, they’ve had a hard time, and they don’t really mean it!”.

I completely accept that you’re not a racist or a self hating jew or anything like that. I think you’re a doctrinaire revolutionary socialist, with a deep love of yiddishkeit. I would happily leave my kids with you.

But can you see how somebody, hearing you say what you say, might just think “He really wants to see jews delivered over to muslims who will massacre them. How odd.”

I mean, if you were an muslim Arab, who made a habit of going to rallies run by the Israeli “Greater Israel” Right, and endorsed the absorbtion of “Judea” and “Samaria” into “Greater Israel”, do you think you’d get a good reception at Arab muslim events?

You get a very good reception from most people, including jews - with some exceptions - because, basically, you seem like a nice bloke who has spent too much time in the company of frothing-at-the-mouth trot fantasists, and who has been led astray from reality.

Comment by David T — 8 February, 2008 @ 10:55 am
Coming from a ‘foaming-at -the-mouth’ anti-Muslim bigot, that’s rich.

Comment by Ger Francis — 8 February, 2008 @ 11:21 am
Ger

You’re an ex-member of a very small and very unsuccessful trotskyite party, which expelled you for getting too close to the EXTREMELY dodgy Birmingham Central Mosque crowd, which includes Salma “Free Abu Hamza’s Terrorist Son” Yaqoob, Adam “Slap Tatchell” Yosef, and Mohammed “Dancing Cows” Naseem.

It might have escaped your notice, but the overwhelming majority of muslims in this country want nothing to do with these sorts of fringe nutters. Only Islamophobes identify muslims with the exotic freak-show you’ve been cavorting with for the past few years.

You’re the equivalent of a defender of Kahane Chai, who claims that anybody who stands against you is an anti-jewish bigot.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/9178/

Comment by David T — 8 February, 2008 @ 11:32 am
Phil #106

David T’s point addressed to Michael Rosen is a fair one

Eh? David T’s ‘point’ is a typical rhetorical double-shuffle: first assume the point that’s in dispute by presenting your opponent’s position in grotesquely extreme terms (would in all likelihood result in the massacring of jews), then graciously ‘explain’ why your opponent believes this travesty by reference to their psychological makeup (your messianic belief in international socialism).

I can see where you’re going with the nationalism argument, but I don’t think it works. Yes, it’s probably the case that more British Jews are Zionists than anti-, but I don’t see that that puts Jewish socialists under any obligation to fly the Star of David from their car aerials.

You misunderstand me.

The point I think is reasonable is that when David points out that “revolutionary socialists” who dismiss other peoples’ own sense of their self-identity are likely to be misunderstood by the vast majority of people who don’t share the assumptions of revolutionary socialists, and indeed have probably never even been exposed to those assumptions.

For example when Adam Joh**nes from Cardiff accuses me of being a racist and a chauvinist because I posted an interview with a Plaid Cymru Assembly member! Clearly his “revolutionary socialism “ has put him on a completely diffetent page from most people, and he is likely to be misunderstood, and cause offence.

There is certainly no obligation for any Jew to support Israel, nor any obligation that being Jewish should require support for the idea of a Jewish nationhood. Nevertheless, a lot of Jews do feel they are a nation, and support Israel as in some way their nation state. I feel we will get a lot further if we recognize that rather than seeking to delegitimise it by saying Zionism is inherently racist.

Comment by Andy Newman — 8 February, 2008 @ 12:15 pm
Ger,
Thats nonsense and you know it.
Deliberately confusing Islamist with Muslim does noone any favours.
The people you are involved with in Birmingham,want to confuse the two,and you deliberately help them.

John W is really doing damage to the PSC.
His views are an embarrassment and will alienate potential supporters.

His claim that he was searching and ended up on the wrong site is truly odd.
I tried it last night.
On no search engines and no combinations of words or initials was it possible to get the two on even the same page.
Perhaps you could tell us how you managed it John.

Even if you are a cyber magician,its a sign of an unhealthy mind to be unable to differentiate between the two sites you claim to have mixed up.

Comment by Steve W. — 8 February, 2008 @ 12:17 pm
David T, you wrote at #88:

After a relatively short period of arguing about Islamism, you get pretty good at separating those who are merely rather doctrinaire about their secularism, and those who are yer actual anti-muslim bigots. In between the two, though, are people who, usually properly, don’t regard themselves as anti-muslim bigots, but who slip easily into the tropes of Islamophobia. Because this renders them blind to racism, it is these people who create an intellectual atmosphere in which bigotry is allowed to flourish.

Yet in comment #113 you slip into caractature islamophobic language yourself.

It is utterely ridiculous to describe Salma Yaqoob as an Islamist “Fringe nutter” - and it seems that you are living up to your reputation of seeking to delegitimise involvemtn of Muslims in politics, particularly those who object to the crimes of Israel.

Comment by Andy Newman — 8 February, 2008 @ 12:21 pm
#115 - Steve W

I have no intention of allowing this thread to degenerate into a platform for islamophobes.

Spouting anti-Muslim bigotry under the smokescreen of being “anti-Islamist” (whatever that even means) is no different from anti-Semitism disguised as anti-Zionism.

Comment by Andy Newman — 8 February, 2008 @ 12:25 pm
Oh honestly, anti-semitism is barely a problem anymore in Europe. The real danger is the growth of openly anti-muslim forces in supposedly liberal countries like the Netherlands, where politicians can call for banning the Koran or taking away the citizenship of Moroccan-Dutch criminals, the government wants to forbid the wearing of the burka, etc. That’s a bigotry that’s embraced in the heart of our societies, encouraged by our leaders and far more dangerous than the fringe activities of some loser neonazis, or the confused anger of people sympathising with Lebanon two years ago.

Comment by Martin Wisse — 8 February, 2008 @ 12:32 pm
Martin says

“Oh honestly, anti-semitism is barely a problem anymore in Europe.”

Yet as I have written before: http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=357

The Estonian government has also refused to cooperate with the Simon Wiesenthal centre in bringing to justice Estonian’s Nazi war criminals. In 2006 the Estonian state prosecutor, Heino Tonismagi, described the Nazi collaborator Harry Mannil, who personally murdered several civilians in Tallinn in 1941, as “one of the most outstanding Estonians” and cleared him of any criminal responsibility, on the ludicrous grounds that the Estonian authorities had no responsibility as the country was occupied at the time.

In 2002 a war memorial was raised in the Eastern city of Parnu celebrating the Estonians who served in the Waffen SS, describing the Nazi invasion of Estonia as “a war of liberation for the fatherland”.

And Estonia is the darling accession country in the EU, and never a word spoken about any of this from other EU governments.

Comment by Andy Newman — 8 February, 2008 @ 12:42 pm
I realise that you have to say this, Andy, but really!

I’m assuming we’re not taking issue with the nutterdom of THE major declared respect funder, Mohammed Naseem? Who favours the execution of homosexuals? Who thinks that the 7/7 bombers’ confessions were the product of CGI? Who babbles about Bilderberg? Or Yosef, who wanted to nasty “slap Tatchell” and for “his queer army” to “pack their bent bags” and “head back to Australia”?

Is this the sort of thing that socialists say? Are these the sort of allies that ANY progressive should have? Is this what your muslim mates - you know, the ones we grew up with, not the nutters who have gravitated to RESPECT - think? Is it bigoted to point out that these are utterly fringe views, rejected by all sensible people, muslim and not?

Does pointing out the fact that you’ve got people like this on your slate, running for election, “delegitimise the involvement of Muslims in politics”, or do these people do it for themselves, and only for themselves?

We’ll see a generation of muslim politicians, just as all minority groups engage successfully and productively in the political and economic mainstream of our (mostly) open society. But they don’t come from the fringes, and they don’t mad conspiracy theories or nasty attitudes.

I know that Salma Yaqoob is presented as an asset to RESPECT Renewal, but she isn’t. She is an absolute liability. Do you know about her involvement in the Justice for the Yemen Eight campaign: including Abu Hamza’s son and godson at a terrorist training camp in Yemen? Abu Hamza was yesterday cleared for extradition to the US to stand trial for his part in the massacre of tourists which followed their capture. How do you think Salma Yaqoob ended as “press officer” for that campaign? What does that tell you about her politics?

Here’s an article that Salma Yaqoob wrote, called the Islamic Republic of Great Britain. It is a ‘comedic’ vision of Britain becoming an Islamic Republic: an outcome which she evidently favoured. This is how it ends:

“However, one lone man was spotted walking hurriedly towards Departures in Heathrow Airport. His face was not recognisable as he was wearing dark glasses and had a beard. But on closer scrutiny he appeared to be clutching a book to his chest and the words “Satanic
Verses” were just visible”

http://www.divshare.com/download/1168362-52f

Do you think that this is the sort of politics which socialists, liberals, progressive of any sort ought to be associating with?

If so, why?

Comment by David T — 8 February, 2008 @ 12:44 pm
Let me make two predictions, Andy:

1. You will leave RESPECT Renewal on this issue.

2. You will then be utterly vilified as an Islamophobe, and a Zionist and a Racist by your former comrades.

Welcome to the club.

Comment by David T — 8 February, 2008 @ 12:47 pm
You might be right, Martin Wisse, that antisemitism is barely a problem in Europe anymore.

Yet this discussion demonstrates that it is a problem in the Palestine Solidarity movement, in Stop the War, and in the pub after the meeting.

It is a problem on campus where there is a campaign to exclude Israelis - and only Israelis - from our universities.

There is little violence against Jews and there is little discrimination against Jews. But there is increasingly a discursive and political antisemitism - and it is well represented on the left - but not only on the left.

David Duke, David Irving, Jenny Tonge, Mearsheimer & Walt, Richard Ingrams - they are all using the same language to express the same hostility to “Zionism”, to its control of American imperialism and to its central place in all that is bad in the world.

So while I’d agree that in some senses antisemitism is much less threatening than other forms of racism in contemporary Europe, political and discursive antisemitism is still alive and kicking on the left and in other parts of the political spectrum too.

Martin Wisse is quite wrong to suggest that there is a choice to be made - either we are militantly opposed to antisemitism or we militantly oppose Islamophobia. It is obvious to me that one goes with the other.

There are plenty of people who oppose either one or the other and who tend to be soft on the one they don’t oppose.

This shouldn’t be the attitude of the left. We should oppose both antisemitism and islamophobia, and we should see this opposition as a single antiracism.

Martin Wisse talks about support for Hezbollah or for the exclusion of Israelis from campuses as a “confused anger of people sympathising with Lebanon two years ago”. I think he’s right.

But racism is always a confused anger. Martin is right to understand what kind of confusion is involved in contemporary antisemitism. But when an anger is confused and misdirected - when it becomes an anger against Jews in general - or against “international Jewry” - then it also becomes threatening.

Antisemitism isn’t only important because it’s a threat against Jews.

It is also important because it harms Palestine.

It is also important because it acts as an indicator of something seriously wrong within radical thought.

That was why Marx went for the antisemites in particular - he went for Bauer, for Prouhdon, for During - he went for the antisemites in particular because antisemitism is a symptom of totalitarian thinking.

Comment by David Hirsh — 8 February, 2008 @ 12:51 pm
David T #120

There is Islamophobia among some Muslims. Let me let you into a little secret though, there is also a lot of homophobia amongst fire-fighters, the police, Catholics and all sorts of other people as well.

Salma Yaqqob specifically has argued that if Muslims want tolerence and respect for their lifestyle, then they need to show tolerance and respect for other peoples’ lifestyyle choices. that seems sensible to me.

Also, it is understandable that some people under the cosh of Israeli brutality - or those who stringly identify with the Palestinians - are susceptible to anti-Judaic interpretations. There needs to be an argument against such ideas, but it doesn’t mean that the instincts of solidarity with the palestian struggle are wrong.

Some people go further than that and make anti-Semitism central to their politics - these are the people who should not be worked with. These are not the people attracted to or invlved with Respect.

Comment by Andy Newman — 8 February, 2008 @ 1:08 pm
Naah David, there’s a problem with people like you, who attempt to muddy the waters between criticism of Israel, anti-zionism and anti-semitism. You want everything in the first two categories to be percieved as anti-semitism, because that will make it a lot easier to dismiss.

Meanwhile I’ve seen Orthodox Jews in full costume walking together with Palestinian Muslims on demonstrations in Amsterdam against the Israeli occupation of Gaza, or against the War on Iraq, or even against anti-Muslim bigotry in the Netherlands.

So no, I don’t think there’s any real problem with anti-semitism on “the left”, or in the anti-war movement, or even the SWP.

There is however a real problem with people attacking “the left”, or the anti-war movement or even the SWP as anti-semitic because of genuine, well founded criticism of Israel.

Comment by Martin Wisse — 8 February, 2008 @ 1:09 pm
I’ve seen Orthodox Jews in full costume walking together with Palestinian Muslims on demonstrations in Amsterdam

This would be Neturei Karta, an extreme breakaway faction of a Hassidic sect that believes Israel is a manifestation of Satan on Earth. They also believe that when the messiah comes, the Palestinians will all be kicked out of Israel and Palestine anyway and a Theocracy will be imposed which will execute adulterers and stone gay people (and atheists).

They are an extremist faction within an extremist faction of a religious sect. They number only a couple of hundred worldwide. And they are another example of the kind of people that socialists should be uncomfortable working with

Comment by unseen — 8 February, 2008 @ 1:20 pm
Martin Wisee,

You put up a straw man argument that people cry antisemitism when really all they are doing is “genuine, well founded criticism of Israel.”

David Hirsh,on behalf of Engage, has repeatedly said that criticism of Israel in itself is not antisemitic. Moreover, no one sensible does claim that criticism of Israel is antisemitic. To provide an example, the Board of Deputies of British Jews, which is, if you like, the Jewish establishment, stated quite clearly:

“The board has never claimed that criticism of Israel is anti-semitic, nor is there any orchestrated campaign by Jewish leadership bodies to silence those who do criticise Israel.”

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/independent_jewish_voices/2007/02/board_of_deputies_can_include.html

What genuine antiracists are concerned about is when it goes way beyond the normal bounds of criticism. When, within this claimed “well founded criticism of Israel” people use the old antisemitic sterotypes of Jewish power,Jewish money or demonise Israel and Israel alone.

Why is it, that people such as John W write so passionately about the “hydra headed monster” of Israel and comment upon International Jewry”? The criticism of Israel because it is merely backed, as is claimed, by Imperialism, far outweighs the criticsm of the Imperialist powers themselves. Why is that? Why are these so called anti-Imperialists arguing that Israel must disappear of the face of the earth but they do not say that Australia, a genuine colonial settler state, with the Queen of England at its head should disappear and nor do they claim that America or Britain is a “hydra-headed monster.” This language is reserved for Israel and Israel alone and that is why complaints of antisemitism are raised.

Now, I can go further, you state that there is a problem with attacking the SWP for antisemitic actions, but you do not allude to the fact that it seems virtually unanimous on this thread that commentators feel Gilad Atzmon has expressed comments that are antisemitic, and that the SWP have continued to host Atzmon despite the allegations about Atzmon being known to them.

Comment by Mikey — 8 February, 2008 @ 1:31 pm
Andy @ 119: you’re right that there are still problems, especially in several Eastern European countries, of which Estland is one, Poland another, but on the whole I’m much more worried about Islamophobia. On the whole, worrying too much about anti-semitism in Britain seems somewhat of a distraction from much more pernicious and widespread forms of racism. Anti-semitism hasn’t disappeared, but it’s the least acceptable form of racism in our societies, enjoying no support amongst the great and powerful, unlike Islamophobia.

In your post there’s a sentence that immediately makes me skeptical: “In July, when the conflict in Lebanon began, we received reports of 92 incidents, which was the third-worst month since records began in 1984.” How many of those are real incidents of the kind described in the article and how many are just the usual labeling of criticism of Israel, or Anti-zionism as anti-semitic?

Comment by Martin Wisse — 8 February, 2008 @ 1:31 pm
125: vhere you there, Charlie?

Normal Jews. Not some breakaway sect. Just Jews who don’t believe in the right of Israel to ethnically cleanse a country of its people because of some mythical connection 2,000 years old.

126: fuck off. You know it happens and Engage is far from innocent in conflating anti-zionism and anti-semitism.

Comment by Martin Wisse — 8 February, 2008 @ 1:36 pm
Andy (and Martin)

Absolutely, and my instincts are solidarity with Palestinians who are entitled to national self determination. I’ve no time for anybody who disagrees with that.

But I’m not talking about Israel or Palestine. I’m not even talking about anti-semitism. I’m talking about why it is, that RESPECT (and now RESPECT Renewal) has within its ranks:

- Salma Yaqoob, who started her political career in the Abu Hamza wing of Islamism, who thought that the ideal state was an Iranian-style Islamic Republic, and who recently described 7/7 as “the reprisal attacks”

- Abjol Miah, who is a Jamaat-e-Islami activist: and others

- Abdulrahman Jafar, who believes that Israel is running US and UK foreign policy, and our governments are lying to us about it.

This is not socialist or progressive, Andy. But yet you tolerate it!

So I think it is excellent that you won’t tolerate anti-semitism or racism of any type. The trouble is, RESPECT has created a millieu in which, not just anti-semitism, but other forms of virulent reactionary bigotry - at its highest levels - is unremarkable and commonplace.

For example:

- Abdulrahman Jafar expressed the view on Comment is Free that Sikhs had taken a vow not to cut their hair until every muslim in the world was dead.

- Mohammed Naseems’ Islamic Party had a policy of executing homosexuals (but only if they manifested their homosexual identity in public, mind you).

This isn’t like some catholics, or firefighters being a little bit reactionary. This is like the leader of the firebrigades union, or a catholic political party expressing these views. These aren’t your rank and file. They’re your leadership!!!

So yeah, there’s a little bit of anti-jewish racism in RESPECT. I think that’s a problem, but perhaps not a massive problem.

The massive problem is that the anti-jewish racism is a small part of the general conspiracism and lunacy that is circulating at the General Council level of RESPECT Renewal, the incredibly dodgy far right backgrounds of some of the high placed activists, and the fact that, as you say, “so much of the left seems to ignore this problem”

Is pointing this out anti-muslim racism? Of course it isn’t. If somebody had joined a political party which was a coalition between socialists and jewish far right politicians, who had (for example) supported Baruch Goldstein, or who had declared that Britain would be better ruled according to Halachic law, with apostates forced to flee to the airport, and gays executed, would that be anti-semitic? No it wouldn’t be. It would be racist to suggest that these extremists represented jews at all!

In fact, as “unseen” points out, Neterei Karta are just such a bunch of vicious fringe lunatics. They’ve got PRECISELY the same analysis as the Messianic settler types, EXCEPT that they don’t believe that the time of the Messiah has come yet. Of course, when he does, they’re looking forward to a lot of “smiting”…

And what happens when I point this out? Martin Wisse claims that I’m trying to “muddy the waters”. He says that because he doesn’t want to engage with what is actually going on in his own political movement.

You at least are beginning to do so.

Comment by David T — 8 February, 2008 @ 1:37 pm
David Duke, David Irving, Jenny Tonge, Mearsheimer & Walt, Richard Ingrams - they are all using the same language to express the same hostility to “Zionism”, to its control of American imperialism and to its central place in all that is bad in the world.

Two fascists, an old-school Tory, a well-meaning Liberal and two centre-right American academics… all using the same language to express the same hostility.

Really, David, don’t you think other people would have noticed by now?

Comment by Phil — 8 February, 2008 @ 1:44 pm
Martin Wisse repeats the claim about “criticsm of Israel” and poses the question whether the reported antisemitic incidents are genuine or simply “the usual labeling of criticism of Israel, or Anti-zionism as anti-semitic?”

Dave Rich, who has commented on this thread and has written about the CST report, commented on “the person who is moved to send hate-mail to their local synagogue because of a war in Lebanon.”

Under Martin’s classification is sending hate-mail to a synagogue about Israel’s actions justifiable? If so, maybe Martin Wisse also agrees with Atzmon that burning down a synagogue is a rational act.

Comment by Mikey — 8 February, 2008 @ 1:44 pm
Sorry, I missed a link for my comment 131 about sending hate-mail to synagogues.

It is as follows:

http://www.engageonline.org.uk/blog/article.php?id=857

Comment by Mikey — 8 February, 2008 @ 1:47 pm
If I may say something, it really says a lot about the quality of the leadership you have. This John W. #40 “quotes” Ben Gurion saying: “Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even know the names of these Arab villages, and I do not blame you because geography books no longer exist. Not only do the books not exist, the Arab villages are not there either. Nahlal arose in the place of Mahlul; Kibbutz Gvat in the place of Jibta; Kibbutz Sarid in the place of Huneifis; and Kefar Yehushua in the place of Tal al-Shuman. There is not a single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population. 2. David Ben Gurion, quoted in The Jewish Paradox, by Nahum Goldmann, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1978, p. 99: ”

Now, it is obvious that John W. knows next to nothing about Israel and Zionism.

1. Most antisemitic sites (like ifamericansknew or jewishtribalreview, and some pro-Palestinian sites which are apparently not antisemitic, say that the quote belongs to Moshe Dayan, not to Ben Gurion. So it seems that John W. is a fan of collecting stuff from the internet without really trying to find out if the quotes are accurate or not. But, most important,

2. The “quote” actually is a misquote.

March 1, 2001 by Ricki Hollander

Zionist Misquote: Moshe Dayan on Dispossessing Arabs in the Land of Israel

The following is an example of statements misquoted, taken out of context or otherwise manipulated to present a distorted view of Zionist intentions and actions. The misquotes are found in op-eds in campus newpapers and mainstream press as well as on anti-Israel websites.

MISQUOTE:

Example 1 (as quoted in Riverdale Press, January 4, 2001):

We came to this country, which was already populated by Arabs, and we are establishing a Jewish state. Jewish villages were built in the place of the Arab villages. You don’t even know the names of the Arab villages, because those geography books no longer exist. Not only the books do not exist, the Arab villages are not there either — there is not one place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population. ( Moshe Dayan, as quoted in Ha’aretz 1978)

Example 2 (as quoted by Ralph Schoenman)

We came here to a country that was populated by Arabs, and we are building here a Hebrew, Jewish state. Instead of Arab villages, Jewish villages were established. You do not even know the names of these villages and I do not blame you, because these geography books no longer exist. Not only the books, but also the villages do not exist. Nahalal was established in place of Mahalul, Gevat in place of Jibta, Sarid in the place of Hanifas and Kafr Yehoushua in the place of Tel Shamam. There is not a single settlement that was not established in the place of a former Arab village. (The Hidden History of Zionism, Veritas Press 1988, p. 41. Also available online here.)

ACTUAL QUOTE AND CONTEXT:

The quote is taken from an address Dayan gave to Technion University students on March 19, 1969. A transcript of the speech appeared in Ha’aretz on April 4, 1969.

In answer to a student’s question suggesting that Israel adopt a policy of punishing Arabs who commit crimes in the West Bank by deportation to Jordan, Dayan answers that he is vehemently opposed to this idea, insisting that the answer to the longstanding Arab-Israeli problem is to learn to live together with Arab neighbors. He goes on to say:

We came to a region of land that was inhabited by Arabs, and we set up a Jewish state. In a considerable number of places, we purchased the land from Arabs and set up Jewish villages where there had once been Arab villages. You don’t even know the names [of the previous Arab villages] and I don’t blame you, because those geography books aren’t around anymore. Not only the books, the villages aren’t around. Nahalal was established in the place of Mahalul, and Gvat was established in the place of Jibta, Sarid in the place of Huneifis and Kfar Yehoshua in the place of Tel Shaman. There isn’t any place that was established in an area where there had not at one time been an Arab settlement.

Dayan’s conclusion was that the solution to the Arab-Israeli problem is to learn to coexist with them.

In the misquote, the key phrase “we purchased the land from Arabs” is omitted, and thus Dayan’s meaning is reversed. Dayan was not saying that Arabs were dispossessed. On the contrary, he was indicating that though Arabs sold the land of their own free will, given their presence in the region, the Israeli goal is to live peacefully together with them.

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&x_issue=21&x_article=371

***
Now, I suppose that John W. has read the original Haaretz article in Hebrew and his is an informed comment. What next? Quotes from the Talmud?

Comment by Fabian from Israel — 8 February, 2008 @ 1:48 pm
How many of those are real incidents of the kind described in the article and how many are just the usual labeling of criticism of Israel, or Anti-zionism as anti-semitic?

I can answer your question. The statistics are available in full in the CST’s Antisemitic Incidents Report for 2006, which you can read here http://www.thecst.org.uk/docs/Incidents%5FReport%5F06.pdf. There are two sections that are relevant to your question:

Firstly, in the introduction on page 5, this paragraph:

“All reports of incidents are investigated thoroughly before being included in the CST’s incident statistics. If there is no evidence that an incident is antisemitic then it is not included: in 2006 the CST received 306 reports of potential incidents that were rejected for this reason, and are not included in the total number of antisemitic incidents. These represent 29 per cent of the potential incidents reported to the CST and mostly
involved criminal damage to Jewish property, or criminal assaults on Jewish people, where there was no evidence of antisemitism.”

And more pertinently perhaps, this on pages 13-14:

Antisemitism and criticism of Israel The role that hatred of Israel plays in contemporary expressions of antisemitism often leads to discussion of the relationship between criticism of Israel and antisemitism, and when
the former becomes the latter. Of course, criticism of Israel is perfectly legitimate and many people who wish to express their unhappiness with events in the Middle East do so in a way that is not antisemitic. As explained
in the introduction to this report, the CST rejects many reports of potential incidents because they are not considered to be antisemitic. By contrast, the antisemitic nature or content of the incidents recorded by the CST
is usually blatant, even when they are predicated on anti-Israel feeling. Messages that start out as attacks on alleged Israeli policy or behaviour often conclude with abuse of, or threats to, all Jews, the wish that all Jews
were dead, claims of Jewish conspiracy or the accusation that Jews killed Christ. The antisemitism is compounded if the incident is targeted at a Jewish person or institution - such as a synagogue - that is then held responsible for the alleged actions of the Israeli government. This charge of collective responsibility
and collective guilt, whereby every Jew in the world is supposedly answerable for the behaviour of every other Jew, is one of the fundamental building blocks of all racism. Some examples of incidents where criticism of Israel
led to general expressions of hatred against all Jews are given here:

􀀠 A woman phoned a synagogue in Newcastle and said, “You are murdering babies on the beaches in Gaza, you are worse than the Nazis, all Jews should burn in hell”.

􀀠 An organisation in London closely associated with Israel received an email that read, “I am not antisemitic in anyway, I am a theatre producer and some of my best friends and work associates are Jews and I have a lot of time for your country. But the way, that those bastards in your government in Tel Aviv are working at the present time
makes me think that it would have been better if the holocaust had succeeded”.

􀀠 A Jewish man was walking down the road when two Asian men saw his Star of David necklace and chased him, screaming “you represent Israel you fucking Jew, we will kill you and chop your heads off, death to all Jews.”

Comment by Dave Rich — 8 February, 2008 @ 1:52 pm
David Hirsh,on behalf of Engage, has repeatedly said that criticism of Israel in itself is not antisemitic. … the Board of Deputies of British Jews, which is, if you like, the Jewish establishment, stated quite clearly: “The board has never claimed that criticism of Israel is anti-semitic, nor is there any orchestrated campaign by Jewish leadership bodies to silence those who do criticise Israel.”

Well, that’s a weight off all our minds.

I think the problem we’ve all got here is that what people actually do isn’t necessarily what they believe they’re doing. John W doesn’t believe he’s using Nazi language and David H doesn’t believe he’s applying loyalty oaths. You pays your money and you takes your choice.

Comment by Phil — 8 February, 2008 @ 1:53 pm
#133

We don’t have to go back into the depths of time (or 1948) to see israel grabbing land - the seperation wall, the house demolitions “on security grounds” in the West bank even today.

We see illegal Settlements in the West Bank squatting land, and then not recognising deeds of ownership by Arabs for that land from the Jordanian period.

We can also meet old men and women and their descendeants who were forcibly evicted from villages in the 1948 lands.

Comment by Andy Newman — 8 February, 2008 @ 2:48 pm
Andy,

I think the point Fabian was making in post 133 was not the history of 1948 and who did what, but that some people, and in this instance, John W distort the historical record by misquoting an Israeli leader in order to attempt to score a political point. This is unacceptable.

Comment by Mikey — 8 February, 2008 @ 2:53 pm
#129

David T

You can’t help yourself can you.

Quite apart from the non-sensical slurs that named individuals like Abjol Miah and Salma Yaqoob are “far right”, when in fcta they are progressive, left wing politicians, you talk about “general conspiracism and lunacy ” of Muslims in Respect.

I am not a Muslim, i don’t beleive what Muslims believe. But equally, I have worked with a number of religious people over the years, in the peace movement and labour party for example who are Catholics, Quakers and protestants, who have beliefs that I think are irrational, and sometimes reactionary.

But in any effective politics you learn to distinguish what is important - the beliefs that motivate people and inform their political activity, away from the other beliefs they may hold that are private or irrelevent.

I should imagine that many of the Muslims in Respect have the same approach to working with Trotskyists!

Comment by Andy Newman — 8 February, 2008 @ 2:57 pm
#137

Mikey.

It seems that John W quoted from a book in good faith.

The establishment of Israel in its 19848 borders, let alone its 1967 borders was not done by “land purchase”, and so whatever may have been said at that university many years ago, the bigger truth is that Arab villages were taken by force.

Comment by Andy Newman — 8 February, 2008 @ 2:59 pm
What are you talking about when you say “David Hirsh doesn’t believe he’s applying loyalty oaths”? I have absolutely no idea what I have ever done which could be construed as a “loyalty oath”. Loyalty to what?

Martin Weisse tells me to “fuck off”. John Wight tells me that I’m a scumbag. Tony Greenstein says I’m “not in the least concerned about antisemitism”. Various people say I’m a Zionist.

Really, what kind of a discussion is this? This ad hominem stuff does not help us to understand whether there is a problem of antisemitism in our movement.

George Orwell:

“… so long as no argument is produced except a scream of ‘Trotsky-Fascist!’ the discussion cannot even begin… In such circumstances there can be no argument… What purpose is served by saying that men like Maxton are in Fascist pay? Only the purpose of making serious discussion impossible. It is as though in the middle of a chess tournament one competitor should suddenly begin screaming that the other is guilty of arson or bigamy. The point that is really at issue remains untouched. Libel settles nothing.” (Orwell 2003)

The time has passed when it is plausible just to scream insults at a person who raises the issue of antisemitism.

Comment by David Hirsh — 8 February, 2008 @ 3:06 pm
Andy,

I am quite competent to discuss 1948 and actual land purchases, but I think it is moving very much away from the point of this thread.

In any event, one may wonder why the misquotes of the likes of John W of Israeli leaders always are one way round, to portray them in a bad light.

Comment by Mikey — 8 February, 2008 @ 3:16 pm
Andy

I see what you’re saying: but you’re making excuses for some incredibly dodgy politics, run by people who are not progressives or socialists at all, but who have quite different political ideals in mind. You’re doing it because you think of them as “Muslims”. You wouldn’t make the same lattitude for anybody else.

But these people are not just “Muslims”. They’re people with far right Islamist politics, who HAPPEN to be muslims. Just as Kahane Chai types aren’t “Jews”: they’re fascists who HAPPEN to be jews.

These are not “non-sensical slurs”. Jafar really did write an article in which he said that Sikhs grew their beards in anticipation of the day when all muslims would be killed. He really did write an article in which he said that our leaders were lying to us about how Israel controls US and UK foreign policy. Salma Yaqoob really did write an article about an Islamic Republic of Great Britain. She really did work as press officer for the Abu Hamza Yemen terrorist defence campaign. Naseem really did found a party which wanted to execute gays.

None of this is a product of being a “Muslim”. Seriously. Before joining RESPECT, did you ever meet muslims who believed this sort of stuff? I grew up in East London. The only muslim I knew who bought into this stuff was my mate from university Anjum Chouhdry, and he went mad after one too many acid trips, and ended up running Al Muhajiroun. This is not to do with religion and culture. This is to do with a section of the far right, in pretty threadbare religious garb.

“But in any effective politics you learn to distinguish what is important - the beliefs that motivate people and inform their political activity, away from the other beliefs they may hold that are private or irrelevent.”

Yes, I agree. And so, if you’ve - oh, I dunno - published an article in a national newspaper, or run a campaign, or formed a political party, then these beliefs aren’t really “private” or “irrelevant”

I should imagine that many of the Muslims in Respect have the same approach to working with Trotskyists!

They do! Which is, incidentally, one of the reasons that they knifed the SWP. One of my penfriends is a senior RESPECT activist, who I’m rather fond of. This person calls you lot “the godless ones”. They’re laughing at you, mate.

I like laughing at the SWP. Who doesn’t?

But you’re a non-opportunist, principled socialist (although, admittedly, one who is wrong), and you shouldn’t be running with this rabble.

Comment by David T — 8 February, 2008 @ 3:42 pm
I have absolutely no idea what I have ever done which could be construed as a “loyalty oath”.

Shorthand for taking it on yourself to challenge other people’s bona fides, and demonstratively refusing to accept they are what they say they are until they prove it to your satisfaction.

What purpose is served by saying that men like Maxton are in Fascist pay? Only the purpose of making serious discussion impossible.

Well, quite. What purpose is served by saying that people like John Wight are anti-semites?

Comment by Phil — 8 February, 2008 @ 3:55 pm
“It seems that John W quoted from a book in good faith. ”

Andy, It seems that John W never ever saw any book, not even those two books that misquoted Moshe Dayan. John W. is evidently taking his knowledge about Israel history readymade from the internet, in several not very reputable websites. To argue otherwise is similar to believe that John W. was looking for something called “CODOZ” when he quoted content from the website “CODOH”.

Exactly the same, and taken from the same websites, are doing those nutters who post in blogs I read in Spanish falsified quotes from the Talmud.

Hillel in the first century said “Kill your neighbor for money”, or maybe not, he said “Do not do unto others what you wouldn’t like to be done unto you”, but who cares which statement is right because -as we all know - there are probably Jews who killed people for money in history, and there is no “historical truth”, right? That is just a burgeois assumption. Better use lies when we discuss about Israel. What damage can we can do?

Comment by Fabian from Israel — 8 February, 2008 @ 4:20 pm
That is not and never has been our argument Phil, as I explained above.

My argument is not to say that anti-Zionism (an inadequate political framework) can be explained by either secret or unconsicous antisemitism. I don’t explain exaggerated hostility to Israel as an effect of hostility to Jews. Mine is not an ad hominem argument.

It is the other way round. There are political reasons for the focused and exaggerated hostility to Israel which I do not explain in terms of an underlying Jew hatred. I do not believe that people like Wight are motivated by an underlying Jew hatred. I believe that they are motivated by an anger towards Israeli human rights abuses. But I believe that their politics leads them towards an antisemitic world-view.

Good motivation leads to bad politics. Bad politics leads to warped ways of thinking, warped ways of explaining the world. “Marxism” without Marx becomes conspiracy theory. It becomes an explanation for exploitation in terms of the badness of the ruling class rather than in terms of the logic of capitalist development.

So you’re not right, Phil, if you think my argument is:

(a) Wight is a racist
(b) Therefore you shouldn’t take him or his politics seriously.

My argument is:

(a) Wight’s politics are inadequate and lead to warped ways of thinking - ways of thinking that don’t accurately describe the world.
(b) One way of thinking that it leads him to is to put “Zionism” at the centre of all that is bad in the world.
(c) He then supports antisemitic movements like Hezbollah and Hamas.
(d) He then makes elaborate apologies for the antisemitism of these movements.
(e) He then insists that what defines a friend of Palestine is a willingness to boycott Israelis.
(f) He then starts using antisemitic language.
(g) He becomes so disorientated that he starts linking to Fascist websites by mistake.
(h) When all this is pointed out to him he angrily denies it all and responds with a Stalinist shout of “Scumbag!”

It is not an ad hominem argument. It is an argument about what people say and what they do.

Please do look at my paper, “Anti-Zionism and antisemitism: cosmopolitan reflections” - available online here: http://www.yale.edu/yiisa/workingpaper/hirsh/index.htm

Comment by David Hirsh — 8 February, 2008 @ 4:23 pm
Andy: There are like 364 websites that repeate exactly the same misquotation! (there are variations I am not taking into account) And that is only in English.
When someone translates this to Spanish, Italian or Swahili, do you think that there are enough people capable of getting the facts right going to the original?
No, people in Argentina who do not read English will do like John W. and get the same misquotation from someone who copied it from a neo-nazi site…
And you ask, “what damage is done”?
Have you ever heard that the Holocaust started with 2000 years of lies about Jews?

Comment by Fabian from Israel — 8 February, 2008 @ 4:29 pm
Fabian #146

You are puttng words into my mouth.

I did not say ““what damage is done”?”

And of course it is ahistorical nonsense to argue that “the Holocaust started with 2000 years of lies about Jews”

Comment by Andy Newman — 8 February, 2008 @ 4:35 pm
“Good motivation leads to bad politics. Bad politics leads to warped ways of thinking, warped ways of explaining the world. “Marxism” without Marx becomes conspiracy theory. It becomes an explanation for exploitation in terms of the badness of the ruling class rather than in terms of the logic of capitalist development.”

Exactly! The use of the fake quotes comes to replace an understanding of the 1948 war in terms of the problems and dilemmas of a war between two nations with a conspiratorial idea that the Zionist leaders did everything is ascribed to them because they were demoniacally bad; perverted! The fake quotes replaces true analysis with demonization. Demonization of Jews = antisemitism.

Comment by Fabian from Israel — 8 February, 2008 @ 4:36 pm
Andy, weren’t you defending the use of fake quotes because “the bigger truth” more or less conforms to them?

Comment by Fabian from Israel — 8 February, 2008 @ 4:38 pm
David #145

It seems that most of what you object to in JOhn’s politics is his opposition to Zionism.

Comment by Andy Newman — 8 February, 2008 @ 4:39 pm
What is of course interesting is that an attempt to seriously discuss anti-Semitism is being hijacked by those who want to use it as a stick to beat opponents of Zionism.

Comment by Andy Newman — 8 February, 2008 @ 4:41 pm
Hijacked?! my God, you cannot even exchange three arguments with me! I am debating in good faith. It seems that you think that is “hijacking”.

Comment by Fabian from Israel — 8 February, 2008 @ 4:43 pm
#149

Fabian

What I was doing was pointing out that inaccurately quoting someone could be done in good faith.

Ae you denying that physical force was used to steal Arab land? Are you denying that even today the seperation wall excludes palestinians by force from access to their own land?

Comment by Andy Newman — 8 February, 2008 @ 4:44 pm
One effect of his particular variant of anti-Zionism is that it has led him to write like an antisemite and to link to Fascist websites - to license antisemitic ways of thinking and to insist that the only way forward is to exclude Israelis - and only Israelis - from the cultural, academic and economic life of humanity.

There are others. For example it is not smart to pretend that the only way that Palestinians can win their freedom is by winning an absolute and total victory over “Zionism” and entirely destroying it. It is a programme which understands freedom for Palesitne to be, in reality, unachievable. It is not a positive politics of Palestinian liberation but nihilistic politics of fighting the evil.

I do object to John Wight’s kind of anti-Zionism but we can have a reasonable discussion about that and about how we fight for freedom and liberty in the Middle East.

But on the question of antisemitism it seems to me we have to draw clearer boundaries. We should not normalize antisemitism by treating it as one side of a legitimate debate. Antisemites - in fact most racists - try to appear legitimate by posing as one side of a legitimate debate. David Irving and Wight’s “Campaign for an open discussion of the Holocaust” are clear examples.

Like all racisms, we should try to understand antisemitism. We should understand why people become racists. We should understand what kinds of misdirected anger racism represents. But we should also be clear in our opposition to racism.

This is particularly true when it appears within our own world: on the left; in the trade unions; in stop the war; in the PSC; in the universities.

Comment by David Hirsh — 8 February, 2008 @ 4:51 pm
Andy: first of all, this post is about antisemitism in your movement, not about Israel.

Second, I have posted an apology to Michael Rosen, but explained where I dissent with him.

Third, I have brought to everybody’s attention, John W. use of fake quotes about Zionist leaders. I have added also that this method of debate is common among neonazis. David Duke has a very easy download page of all these quotes.

You argued that John W “seems” to have quoted from a book in good faith. It is obvious that John W. has never seen a book. He copy-pastes those “quotes” from the internet from not very reputable websites that propagate lies.

Your defense is to attack me arguing about Israel’s history. But that is beside the point.

I point out that using fake quotes replaces analysis with conspirationism and demonization of Israel. That is very grave.

You complain then about “hijacking” the thread to defend Zionism. Come on. If you want to fight antisemitism in your movement, fight for the truth. For example ask John W. to show you the books where he took out all those “quotes”. You know he hasn’t any books, that he is copy-pasting. He actually knows very little about Israel. Still he is obsessed. Well, man, he is foremost, your problem. He is not in my movement.

Best,
Fabian

Comment by Fabian from Israel — 8 February, 2008 @ 4:54 pm
David

The trouble is that arguing for a boycott of Israel or political solidarity with Hamas and Hizbollah are not necessarily anti-Semitic.

Even being too unaware of anti-Semitism and naively looking at far rigt web-sites is not necessarility conscious anti-Semitism.

You weakened you argument by bundling that all together.

Fabian - we don’t need fake quotes to justify opposition to Zionism, or Israel’s policies. I have no idea whether JOhn read the book or referenced a web-site - and nor do you. BUt there is no reason to beleive he acted in bad faith.

Comment by Andy Newman — 8 February, 2008 @ 5:14 pm
Fabian:

You argued that John W “seems” to have quoted from a book in good faith. It is obvious that John W. has never seen a book. He copy-pastes those “quotes” from the internet from not very reputable websites that propagate lies.

Reply:

This is complete garbage. The quote is from the book mentioned, of which I possess a dog-eared copy.

Fabian:

Your defense is to attack me arguing about Israel’s history. But that is beside the point.

Reply:

Israel’s history is PRECISELY the point.

Tell me, as a citizen of Israel, what is your opinion of your govt’s policy towards the Palestinians?

Comment by John W — 8 February, 2008 @ 5:15 pm
John W,

Israel’s actual history is precisely not the point when dealing with antisemitism in 2008. What is the point is why some wish to use and abuse that history and make antisemitic arguments when doing so.

One can entirely be critical of the Israeli government policy towards the Palestinians but at the same time not use demagogic language that is reminiscent of classical antisemitic literature.

Comment by Mikey — 8 February, 2008 @ 5:29 pm
“This is complete garbage. The quote is from the book mentioned, of which I possess a dog-eared copy.”

You have provided a suspiciously well ordered assortment of quotes from books, English and British newspapers (some that are impossible to locate according to your quote, e.g. “Michael Ben-Yair, Attorney General of Israel, 1993-1996 (in Ha’aretz)”).

You have obviously copy-pasted them. For example, if I search in yahoo for the exact phrase “Michael Ben-Yair, Attorney General of Israel, 1993-1996 (in Ha’aretz)” enclosed in quotes I find 13 sites with lists of fake “racist Zionist quotes”.

You have copy-pasted from them, admit it. You don’t even know where and when in Haaretz, the Israeli newspaper, the “quote” was supposedly taken from!

Stop digging John W.

Or provide us with Talmud “quotes” already.

Comment by Fabian from Israel — 8 February, 2008 @ 5:45 pm
sorry, “English and Israeli newspapers”

Comment by Fabian from Israel — 8 February, 2008 @ 5:45 pm
Andy, do you still give John W. the benefit of the doubt regading his “good faith” in “quoting from a book”? He is clearly lying about this.

Comment by Fabian from Israel — 8 February, 2008 @ 5:50 pm
Andy “What is of course interesting is that an attempt to seriously discuss anti-Semitism is being hijacked by those who want to use it as a stick to beat opponents of Zionism.”

Andy , i think you’ll find that it was certain “antizionists” who hijacked the thread to excuse antisemitism. People mention antisemitism and certain parts of the left (such as John W) cry “Israel”.

And you know something Andy , it’s a little unfair. I’d like to comment about the subject of Israeli wrongs and also Palestinian wrongs but i won’t - not because i’m a zionist apologist but simply because by doing so we detract from the real subject of this thread antisemitism.

I had a nasty experience 20 odd years ago when as a student i went to a SWSS meeting on Israel The Hijack State”. AFter the meeting we all went for a drink , myself , a few Jewish Society members , and some comrades from The Labour Club. I had a heated discussion with the SWP full-timer. One of the Labour Club members then said that while he had been sitting there , 2 SWSS memebrs had been talking about “fucking Jewish Bastards”. I couldn’t believe it , i presumed that they would get a talking to from the SWP full-timers. The reaction of the full-timer (years before Foot excused Tam Dalyell’s antisemitic outburst) was to say that they must have meant “zionists” and not “jews”. Somethings never change do they ?

Comment by Richard — 8 February, 2008 @ 6:09 pm
Fabian From Israel, I see from your blog that you were born in Buenos Aires and immigrated to Israel in 2003.

Palestinians born in Palestine, countless thousands of them, have not been allowed to return to their lands, the homes stolen from them by Zionist terrorists, since 1948.

Are you okay with that?

Comment by John W — 8 February, 2008 @ 6:17 pm
163.
Surprised you’ve got time to post here, John, given the devastating developments for Solidarity this week.

Comment by watcher — 8 February, 2008 @ 6:23 pm
Andy, sorry to roll all the way back to point 101, but I do want to address your response to my question regarding socialism and nationalism (broadly speaking).

You wrote, “Yeah – I suppose I have a different take on this, which is that national consciousness over the last 150 years has become such a normative part of almost everyone’s collective self-identity that we have to work with it.”

I’d like to hear more on this, because I’m not sure I follow. When I say that socialists should ‘reject’ or ‘expose’ contradictions in “national consciousness” I’m not implying that they should ignore it.

*How* socialists insert categories like class into and over nation is the rub here is it not? The debate seems to be over ham-fisted conflations that in some cases end up sounding like racism. Doesn’t the old saying go, “ultra-leftism and opportunism walk hand in hand”?

You go on to write, “Writings from Lenin in a period only thirty years after the Czarist state first started to try to create a Russian nation, and when nationalism was both novel and weak don’t relate to today’s conditions, where national identity is firmly established as usually as a vital part of self-identity for most people.”

I hope this was a general statement and not aimed at my ramblings. You seriously misplace me if you think I’m after bolshevik orthodoxy for the 21st century. In fact I think that toy-bolshevik mannerisms are at root of the “tone” of opposition to Israels actions. To be insensitive to your audience’s ideological jump points is one of the most fundamental flaws and failures of the left in Britain. Added to by it’s “tactical” orientation on questions of principle.

BTW, I loved David T’s assertion that he would let his kids be minded by Michael Rosen. Mine would pay good money for the opportunity!

Comment by BatterseaPowerStation — 8 February, 2008 @ 6:27 pm
john.
The story about googling the two sites doesn’t ring true.
Are you sure your memory is correct?
Which search engine were you using?

Comment by tim — 8 February, 2008 @ 6:28 pm
On a lighter note, where are all the women?
Where do you guys get the energy to rehash the same points on the same 4 blogs with the same 10 suspects? Has to be an all Jewish males conspiracy. Who else but closet rabbis will engage in such talmudic points,counterpoints, parsing, and hair splitting? I feel a migraine coming on after reading 150 posts.I am dizzy. Oy vey! As a Jewish female, I say: a pox on all your houses!

Comment by A female — 8 February, 2008 @ 6:34 pm
BPS #165

Yes rest assured it was a general point, and certinly not aimed at you!

My own view is that we should seek to shape national consciousness rather than seeking to confront it - and seek a convergence between the content of what people see as their class interest, and what they see as representative of their national culture.

Also we shoud challenge any chauvinist ideas that people’s own national cultures are better than other peoples, but acceot that people are quite fond of the culture they have grown up in, and there is nothing wrong with that.

I have to go out now, but I will come back to this.

Comment by Andy Newman — 8 February, 2008 @ 6:36 pm
Andy (168) Pheeeeew!

I think we have alignment. I also feel a lot better about letting my kids read about Winston Churchill, (applying critical, negative dialectics along the way of course!).

But “shape vs. confront” is the rub here it would seem.

Comment by BatterseaPowerStation — 8 February, 2008 @ 6:49 pm
John W. # 163. I see that you cannot defend yourself. Andy, take note of this guy. He is a liability on your movement.

“Fabian From Israel, I see from your blog that you were born in Buenos Aires and immigrated to Israel in 2003.” (john W.)

If I may end this productive -I am not joking- discussion with a slightly politically incorrect joke, I would say to John W. that I was born in Argentina and lived there for the first 27 years of my life. As you know, Argentina came to existence as a state by the almost complete –>mass murderingexpelled

Comment by Fabian from Israel — 8 February, 2008 @ 6:59 pm
shit HTML. This is what I wanted to say:

John W. # 163. I see that you cannot defend yourself. Andy, take note of this guy. He is a liability on your movement.

“Fabian From Israel, I see from your blog that you were born in Buenos Aires and immigrated to Israel in 2003.” (john W.)

If I may end this productive -I am not joking- discussion with a slightly politically incorrect joke, I would say to John W. that I was born in Argentina and lived there for the first 27 years of my life. As you know, Argentina came to existence as a state by the almost complete mass murdering of its native population and its replacemen by Europeans during the last decades of the XIX century. Today, the natives don’t need to “return” anywhere. The few that are left live in reservations where they literally die of hunger, and their bodies reach northern hospitals thin as in the pictures of Jews in Auschwitz. Next to the Argentinians, the Zionists, that only expelled - not mass murdered - some -not all- of the Arabs during a total war of extermination against them, are Angels of Mercy and deserve the highest praise by every civilized people. Excuse me that I can’t see any particular evilness in Zionism. I come from South America.

Comment by Fabian from Israel — 8 February, 2008 @ 7:04 pm
Too bad I am not a Zionist leader, eh, John W.? Or you could play a little loose with my words and add my joke to the lists of “quotes” going around in neonazi websites that you copy-paste.

Comment by Fabian from Israel — 8 February, 2008 @ 7:14 pm
Surprised you’ve got time to post here, John, given the devastating developments for Solidarity this week.

Comment by watcher — 8 February, 2008 @ 6:23 pm

What’s Eddie Trollman rabbiting on about now?

Comment by watching liemen — 8 February, 2008 @ 7:22 pm
I loved David T’s assertion that he would let his kids be minded by Michael Rosen. Mine would pay good money for the opportunity!

Yes, I missed that. Might I also add that I have no objection in principle to Anthony Horowitz or Lauren Child dropping round to give us the odd night off, just as long as they put the kids to bed at a decent hour and don’t let them sit in front of the PS2 all night. These authors, you’ve got to keep an eye on them.

Comment by Phil — 8 February, 2008 @ 7:59 pm
“Even being too unaware of anti-Semitism and naively looking at far rigt web-sites is not necessarility conscious anti-Semitism.”

I would like to stress again - for the third time on this thread alone, that the danger of discursive and political antisemitism is not a danger of “conscious” antisemitism.

We are all accustomed to the idea that lots of the most menacing racism in society is not “conscious” - it is structural or institutional - it is expressed through racist practices and racist assumptions.

I never thought that John Wight was a conscious hater of Jews. I think that his politics has led him to a place where he speaks and acts like a conscious hater of Jews.

But that is just as dangerous. He educates the youth in the movement; he runs Stop the War in Edinburgh; he speaks for the SPSC. The fact that he is not conscoius of his own antisemitism does not make everything OK.

The Engage argument is not an ad hominem argument. It does not say that anti-Zionism is motivated by Jew-hatred.

It says that Jew-hatred is a likely effect or outcome of a politics which understands “Zionism” to be a unique evil on the planet.

Comment by David Hirsh — 8 February, 2008 @ 8:14 pm
Fabien may also find that many of the loudest critics of “settler states” and Military juntas,were the same people who wanted to appease the Galtieri Governments bid to extend the settler states borders in 1981.

Comment by tim — 8 February, 2008 @ 8:17 pm
After 20-30 years of hard work we have finally realised that when a woman cries rape then she means it. 20-30 years that when a person of Caribean or Asian descent says that they didn’t get a job or was attacked on the street, we believe him. When a man says he can’t get a job working with children because he is gay, we believe him. When a Muslim man tells us of excrement put through his letter box because he is a Muslim, we believe him.
But, when a Jew screams antisemitism, in typical Stalinist fashhion, we tell him that it can’t be true because there has been no antisemitism for the past 60 years, and so he has to be making it up; in fact, not only do we tell him that they are making it up, but that they are making it up to hide the truth, and that they are making it up for no other reason than as a means to oppress and silence everyone in the world so as to protect “their” obnoxious little Jew-state. After all, this is what some people here are saying, when can you ever trust a Jew?
So, I guess, when all is said and done, what I am saying is, no, Martin Wisse, you fuck off!

Comment by Saul — 8 February, 2008 @ 9:08 pm
Salma Yaqoob and Dr Naseem are dodgy Birmingham ‘Islamists’, eh? Odd then that in the current controversy about Shaira law they are to the forefront in opposing it:

http://www.birminghammail.net/news/top-stories/2008/02/08/city-muslims-say-no-to-sharia-law-97319-20454638/

And this is how the Birmingham Post described Dr Naseem:

‘He has been a vocal champion of Muslim integration into British society, and broke ranks with conservative members of his faith by appointing the first female onto a Shariah Council and having a woman as a spokesperson for the mosque. He also lead the way in promoting what he believes is the true peaceful message of Islam by opening the mosque to people of all faiths without restrictions. He was also the first British mosque official to ban openly the extremist group Al Muhajiroun from the mosque and its grounds.’

http://icbirmingham.icnetwork.co.uk/birminghampost/power50/

I don’t share Dr Naseem’s penchant for conspiracy theories, nor some of his historical examples, but he is, for good reason, recognised as one of the most progressive religious figures not just in the Muslim community but also across the city.

The notion that either he or Salma espouse or practice sectarian hatred, which the catch all phrase ‘Islamist’ is meant to denote, finds currency only at Islamphobic sites like Harry Place and those bigoted or ignorant enough to take their understanding of Muslim politics from it.

Thankfully, in Birmingham at least, these slanders are confined to the racist fringe where they belong.

Comment by Ger Francis — 9 February, 2008 @ 12:19 am
I’d just like to point out to John Wight, #173, that I am not ‘Watcher’ and that if I was going to be a troll in relation to his postings it wouldn’t be on this issue or others in relation to Palestine, Islamophobia etc.

Comment by Eddie Truman — 9 February, 2008 @ 12:24 am
First it’s difficult to understand why Mikey is even contributing to a discussion on the Socialist Unity site since he’s not a socialist. Merely a not very sophisticated defamer and Zionist apologist who has caused The Times to concede a libel action against me because of his habitual lying. That is a fact unlike most of his assertions. He is really no different from Atzmon, Rizzo et al, merely a different side of the same coin. Hence his fascination for them.

I suggest that Mikey reads Shlomo Avineiri’s article on Moses Hess. Avineiri for those who don’t know is a mainstream labour Zionist historian who for the most part is completely uncritical of Zionism. But he makes it clear that Marx rejected Hess’s blood and soil racism, unlike Mikey himself who is unable to comment on the fact that Hess subscribed to the medieval Jewish blood libel among other racial fantasies. Not something Marx believed in! Marx broke completely from Hess fairly early.
Mikey admits to meeting Atzmon for a drink. Yes well that’s public and up on Harry’s Place. What he doesn’t comment on are the posts he put on Mary Rizzo’s peacepalestine sewer, which I have quoted, where he admits acting as an informer for Atzmon. At least his hero Kastner could claim that he was operating under duress. What’s Mikey’s excuse? Well the answer is obvious. To him anti-Zionism is the main enemy and working with anti-Semites is permissible in such circumstances.

I may have said I’d see Atzmon play jazz but not meet him socially or otherwise. Therein lies the difference. What is particularly disgraceful is that Mikey wants to go from collaborating with anti-Semites who are not fascists (Atzmon) to those who are both, i.e the NF, by retailing at face value what they write. I’m quite serious. For anyone to quote the NF against someone who is well-known as an anti-fascist is a disgrace in any language.
The NF didn’t write a review of my pamphlet ‘Zionism – anti-Semitism’s twin in Jewish garb’. They didn’t comment on anything in the review. What they did was discover that I was an anti-Zionist and bought a pamphlet I had written on Zionism and anti-Semitism and how the former was an offshoot of the latter. Unlike Mikey, who has never been involved in any anti-fascist activity, I was secretary of the ANL in Brighton and a founder of local anti-fascist committee. As is documented in literally dozens of articles in the local press I led the campaign to clear them from the streets and was subject to a number of organised physical attacks by them. That is why I have a prominent place on the Southern section of Redwatch. I even organised the last demonstration against a public meeting that John Tyndall was going to address before he died. I doubt the fascists have even heard of Mikey and why should they? He is nothing other than an internet troll and my own internet stalker (I’ve had to block his attempts to spam me). In much the same way that the Alef (academic left) list from Haifa University has also blocked him (and they do have Zionists on them but people who are serious academics and historians). He is suspected of having linked up with Steven Plaut and other supporters of the late Rabbi Meir Kahane, who was a Jewish Nazi.

The NF wrote the article cited in order to hand a weapon to Zionists like Mikey. But most Zionists, even theit most ardent propagandists, have refrained from soiling their hands with this particular article, as it is so obvious in its intent. Not so Mikey who has no shame. Mikey conveniently omits the following from the NF article:
‘TONY GREENSTEIN, AS most readers of ‘Sussex Front’ well know, is a leading light in the local Trotskyite ‘Anti-Nazi League’. Tony Greenstein is a Jew…
Nationalism oppose Zionism. Zionism – or Jewish Nationalism – in turn opposes non-Jewish Nationalism yet these otherwise virulent opponents share the same basic beliefs in Race and Nation. However, anti-Nationalists, whether Jewish or non-Jewish, oppose Nationalism of either variety and in doing so risk association with either or both brands of nationalism….’

This is of course nonsense. If you oppose one form of racism it doesn’t mean you espouse another, but no matter.
‘One can argue with Greenstein’s conclusions but not with the valuable data his researches have unearthed. We have crossed swords with Mr. Greenstein in the past and will undoubtedly do so in the future. Trotskyism is political rabies and the Greenstein’s of this world are its infected carries…

Doubtless Greenstein will be as savagely mauled by the mad dogs of Zionism for his authorship of this booklet as if it was written by Richard Harwood himself… Greenstein’s personal fate at the hands of lunatic Zionism is a matter of indifference to us….’

If Mikey had any knowledge at all of the NF or holocaust revisionism he would know there is no such person as ‘Richard Harwood’. It was Richard Verall, at the time deputy leader of the NF.

The purpose behind the ‘review’ has always been clear to anti-fascists and that is why a patsy like Mikey is happy to do the NF’s bidding by pretending the article is a genuine express of NF beliefs. My pamphlet starts a priori from the fact of the Holocaust and then goes on to detail the collaboration of Zionism with anti-Semitism, including the Nazis. The NF deny there was a holocaust. If Mikey can’t see the problems in this then his stupidity is even greater than even I have previously given him credit for.

Mikey says that the site John W linked to has ‘2 articles from a magazine that Greenstein himself was on the editorial committee for’ is an example of the politics of Mikey. It’s called guilt by association. In other words a form of McCarthyism. I don’t have time to trawl the internet for who has reposted articles I or other socialists for that matter have written that fascists and conspiracy sites copy and use. What matters is whether I approve of such use. The answer should be obvious, even to someone of Mikey’s limited mental capabilities.

As Lenni Brenner has said, even a dung beetle appreciates gourmet food! Or as the saying goes, even the devil can quote scripture. The fact is that especially in the early 1980’s, when the left had a revival, the fascists often did ape leftist literature over things like rights for the unemployed etc. Anyone active at the time or who is a student of fascism will know that fascists borrow leftist themes and then subvert them for their own purposes. Much like Labour Zionism which tries to appear progressive when it is anything but.

Yes Einstein was offered the President of the Israeli State. He also refused it! Mikey unfortunately wears blinkers on this too. Einstein, as Lenni Brenner has pointed out, started out as a Jewish chauvinist and Zionist. On that there is little dispute. However over the years he became wiser and rejected Jewish chauvinism. He also rejected political Zionism in favour of a form of cultural Zionism which saw a Jewish cultural presence in the Middle East as something to support but not a state. Repeatedly he warned of the dangers of Zionist nationalism. By the end of his life Einstein’s political position was that of Judah Magnes, founder of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem who was hounded out of Palestine because of his support for binationalism. In his evidence to the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry in January 1946 Einstein stated that:

‘The State idea is not according to my heart. I cannot understand why it is needed. It is connected with narrow-mindedness and economic obstacles. I believe that it is bad. I have always been against it’ and then continued that the idea of a Jewish state was an ‘imitation of Europe, the end of which was brought about by nationalism.’

As early as 28.1.30. he had written in the paper Falastin that ‘oppressive nationalism must be conquered’. And in a later letter to the New York Times with Rabbi Leo Baeck he praised Judah Magnes, who he argued represented the true feelings of most Jews, not the narrow nationalists that Mikey comes here to defend.

Arendt clearly moved to a non-Zionist position and wrote an article ‘Zionism Reconsidered’ in 1944. Judith Butler in her article in London Review of Books, ‘I Merely Belong to Them’ 10.5.07. writes@

In ‘Zionism Reconsidered’ (1944), however, she argued forcefully that the risks of founding a state on principles of Jewish sovereignty could only aggravate the problem of statelessness that had become increasingly acute in the wake of the First and Second World Wars. By the early 1950s, Arendt was arguing that Israel was founded through colonial occupation with the assistance of superpowers and on the basis of citizenship requirements that were anti-democratic. In the 1930s she had worried that the Jews were becoming increasingly stateless; in the late 1940s and early 1950s, the displacement of Palestinians made it imperative that she develop a more comprehensive account of statelessness.
In ‘Zionism Reconsidered’, she calls ‘absurd’ the idea of setting up a Jewish state in a ‘sphere of interest’ of the superpowers. Such a state would suffer under the ‘delusion of nationhood’: ‘Only folly could dictate a policy which trusts a distant imperial power for protection, while alienating the goodwill of neighbours.’ On the one hand, she is clearly anxious to find ways for Israel/Palestine to survive; on the other, she predicts that the foundations proposed for the polity will result in ruin. ‘If the Jewish commonwealth is obtained in the near future . . . it will be due to the political assistance of American Jews,’ she writes. ‘But if the Jewish commonwealth is proclaimed against the will of the Arabs and without the support of the Mediterranean peoples, not only financial help but political support will be necessary for a long time to come. And that may turn out to be very troublesome indeed for Jews in this country, who after all have no power to direct the political destinies of the Near East.’

In 1948, after the UN had sanctioned the state of Israel, Arendt predicted that ‘even if the Jews were to win the war [of independence], its end would find the . . . achievements of Zionism in Palestine destroyed . . . The “victorious” Jews would live surrounded by an entirely hostile Arab population, secluded inside ever threatened borders, absorbed with physical self-defence to a degree that would submerge all other interests and activities.’ She stated once again that partition could not work, and that the best solution would be a ‘federated state’. Such a federation, in her view, ‘would have the advantage of preventing the establishment of sovereignty whose only sovereign right would be to commit suicide.’ http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n09/butl02_.html

She was bitterly attacked by the Zionist movement and its hack critics for her brilliant book ‘Eichmann in Jerusalem – The Banality of Evil.’ The postcript pp. 282/3 to the 1994 edition gives an insight into the method of Zionist propagandists and defamers like Mikey who are responsible for giving sustenance to the Atzmons of this world since their methods so closely resemble the worst caricatures of Jews:

‘Even before its publication this book became both the center of a controversy and the object of an organised campaign… the campaign conducted with all the well-known means of image-making and opinion-manipulation, got much more attention than the controversy so that the latter was somehow swallowed up by and drowned in the artificial noise of the former. This became especially clear when a strange mixture of the 2, in almost identical phraseology, - as though the pieces written against the book (and more frequently its author) came ‘out of a mimeographing machine’ (Mary McCarthy)… And this was possible because the clamor centered on the ‘image’ of a book which was never written and touched upon subjects that often had not only not been mentioned by me but had never occurred to me before.

The debate – if that is what it was – was by no means devoid of interest. Manipulations of opinion, insofar as they are inspired by well-defined interests, have limited goals; their effect, however, if they happen to touch upon an issue of authentic concern, is no longer subject to their control and may easily produce consequences that they never foresaw or intended.’

Arendt speaks of how it was alleged that she was attributing to the whole Jewish people ‘a “death wish” unconscious of course. This was the unexpected conclusion certain reviewers chose to draw from the ‘image’ of a book, created by certain interest groups, in which I allegedly had claimed that the Jews had murdered themselves. And why had I told such a monstrously implausible lie? Out of ‘self-hatred’ of course.’
Arendt ends up quoting an inmate of the Thereinstadt concentration camp: ‘The Jewish people as a whole behaved magnificently. Only the leadership failed.’ The Mikeys of this world defend the leadership because they are anti-socialist to the core and flunkeys.

Like most philosophers, Arendt was inconsistent and had her lapses back to chauvinism such as her support of Israel in 1967 and 1973 (because even she was taken in by the propaganda wave, which I remember distinctly). Even Isaac Deutscher, a critic of Israel, was prone to this. Arendt wasn’t a socialist but was a humanist and a great writer and thinker. It is this that caused her to fall foul of the propagandists of Zionism who are really nothing but intellectual terrorists.

If Mikey was a historian of any worth then he would first take on board the inconsistencies rather than pretend that those the Zionist movement attacked during their lifetime were in fact signed up supporters to their genocidal project.

I don’t quote all of Birnbaum’s article for one simple reason that Mikey seems not to understand. Because I source a quote doesn’t mean I agree with the whole analysis. But I note that having said that I made up the idea that Zionists propagandists attacked the Jewish Diaspora as hateful, he has now retreated from that little error! Unsurprisingly because the evidence is too overwhelming, even for him.

And Mikey also demonstrates that his argument is really little different from the Nazi strain of racial mythology. There is nothing in Jewish law that says Jews have to originate from the mother’s line. That is how the law has been interpreted (halachah) over the centuries but in fact it was originally via the male. There is nothing unusual in this. The Bible forbade usury, the rabbis allowed it as long as it was non-Jews who were the object of the practice. People, one of whose parents were Jews, were defined as Jewish under the Nazi race laws and treated accordingly. They would have been considered Mischlinge (mixed race) of the 1st degree and were in considerable danger and many died as a result. It is an insult to their memory to now claim that they weren’t Jewish when that was why they were exterminated. Even the detestable Israeli Law of Return recognises that those with one parent who is Jewish are in fact Jewish but being the hack he is, Mikey merely repeats the nostrums he was brought up with. In fact his definition is an orthodox Jewish one and not one that the Reform or Liberal movements accept. Unsurprisingly because if the Orthodox definition continues then there aren’t going to be many Jews left in Britain, just as the majority of American Jews are of the Reform/Conservative strand. But my daughter may only be 16 but she is clearly more sussed than Mikey already and understands that being Jewish isn’t just a question of racial attachment. That is why I’m proud of her.

Mikey puts ‘collaborator’ in inverted commas re Rudolph Kastner whose trial, including appeal, went on for over 4 years in Israel, led to the downfall of one government and led to a quick abandonment in Israel of the trial of collaborators there. The fact that the Supreme Court acquitted Kastner of collaboration for political reasons, the reason they primarily gave was that they were in no position to accuse anyone of collaboration when they weren’t there, but also because what Kastner did was not unusual from the Zionist perspective (‘saving the few from the many’) is immaterial to whether he was a collaborator. Mikey is fond of quoting Randolph Braham’s work on the genocide of the Hungarian Jews. The Politics Of Genocide: The Holocaust in Hungary. Even Braham, who is a Zionist notes that Kastner’s report to the Jewish Agency, which excludes all mention of how he came to learn of Auschwitz, which he hid from Hungarian Jews rather than informing them of what lay in store, was ‘self-serving.’
In fact the Supreme Court UNANIMOUSLY upheld both the facts found by the lower court, that Kastner ‘sold his soul to the devil’ and the finding of collaboration against Kastner for having travelled to Nuremburg to provide testimony exonerating Kurt Becher, promoted to SS General in January 1945 and at least 4 other Nazi war criminals including Wisliceny, one of Eichmann’s key adjutants, responsible for the holocaust in Slovakia and hanged there after the war. SS General Hans Juttner was another he tried to exonerate (another key war criminal). That Mikey even attempts to justify this demonstrates where he is coming from.

As I’ve told Mikey on numerous occasions, two out of the five Supreme Court judges had no doubt that Kastner was a collaborator. Moshe Silberg, whom even he accepts found against Kastner. But I D Goiten also found that ‘the facts which were revealed substantiate the findings of the lower court and prevent us a court of appeal from interfering.’ Goiten clearly upheld Halevi’s findings. However for technical reasons apparently he voted with the majority, but only on technical grounds and it is this which Mikey claims in his favour! Incidentally this is why reputable writers and historians like Noah Lucas, Lenni Brenner and of course Ben Hecht state that the verdict was 3-2. In reality it was and in justifying Kastner’s saving of the Zionist and bourgeois leadership in Hungary at the price of half a million dead Mikey also demonstrates what his own politics are and they have nothing to do with socialism.

Tony Greenstein

Comment by Tony Greenstein — 9 February, 2008 @ 5:17 am
The one thing I don’t say about David Hirsh is that he is a ‘a bad and dishonest person’. These are morally relative terms which say nothing and reveal nothing. I am prepared to believe that David is a good partner, nice to his kids (if he has any) and is totally upfront about his politics.

However David is a Zionist, which he thinks is fine and I think is the legitimating ideology for what happened in Palestine, the dispossession of a whole people and the massacre of many of them, to say nothing of its baleful influences on Jews outside Israel.

Yes I admit to e-mailing Hirsh’s academic colleagues to demonstrate how he operates politically. He makes an allegation on his site, viz. that I think Nazism and Zionism are the same thing and then refuses a right of reply until I broadcast his methods to his academic colleagues! As he says only a few of them sympathised with him whereas lots of them wrote to me that they sympathised with what I wrote and none of this was a revelation. That’s perhaps why his colleagues voted not to support him as a delegate to the UCU National Council.

And David really shouldn’t tell porkies about the affaire de Littlejohn! After all why, if what he says is true, did he delete the whole thread from Engage? There is a simple answer. He was so embarrassed at what he’d written that he felt this was the best thing to do. Unfortunately I had already captured the thread and for those who are interested, there is a good article about it on Mark Elf’s Jewssansfrontieres blog. I quote the salient parts from David Hirsh: http://jewssansfrontieres.blogspot.com/2007/07/disengaging-from-littlejohn.html

‘But diasporist, my point was, how come this right wing sleaze is now suddenly more of an anti-racist than you are? At least than Livingstone is, than the SWP is, than Alexei Sayle is, than UCU is than UNISON is, than T&G? How come?

What has happened to antiracist politics when even Richard Littlejohn is to the left of all those that I mention? I never said he was good, I said he was a clearer opponent of anti-Jewish racism than a whole layer of “antiracists”.’

There are no anti-semites in the ‘anti-Zionist movement’ so how can I say that Hirsh is responsible for conflating the two? I say he conflates antisemitism with anti-Zionism. A completely different thing. It is this sleight of hand that demontrats the dishonest political method of Hirsh. If you are an anti-Zionist you must be opposed to anti-Semitism. Anti-Zionism is a form of anti-racism. That is why Atzmon is not an anti-Zionist. He rejects any analysis of Israel that says it is the creature of colonialism or imperialism. He argues that it is ‘the Jews’ who are responsible. And David Hirsh agrees with him on this too.

I’m sorry David has such trouble reading. This must be a great handicap for a sociology lecturer but on second thoughts maybe not since sociology is crap for the most part. My previous post goes into a lot of detail about how I see anti-Semitism today and also where I disagree with Andy.

I’ve already commented about John W’s mistake. Does that make someone an anti-Semite because they make a genuine mistake? Why is Hirsh so interested in creating anti-Semites out of people who are not anti-semitic? Does he have a vested interested in anti-Semitism? Perhaps he should let on!

No David. I don’t have the time to look at what you’ve written because if it comes from the stable of Engage it’s not likely to be worth the read. Your colleague John Strawson performed a similar trick when he referred me to an article of his which he said demonstrated how much he supported the Palestinians. On that occasion I was suckered into reading it and realised immediately that it had little to say about the Palestinians and was nothing more than a not very subtle rejection of the argument that Israel is an apartheid state. Sorry, but I’m not going to fall for the same trick again!

Tony Greenstein

Comment by Tony Greenstein — 9 February, 2008 @ 5:40 am
I think that David Hirsh has given another excellent example of the method of Zionists in attacking as anti-Semitic all those who disagree with them. For making the obvious point that the Israeli working class is and has been in alliance with its own bourgeoisie, and a product of Zionism, ‘This antisemitic, Stalinist pile of steaming rubbish is not Marxism.’

I doubt if Hirsh would know what Stalinism was if it leapt up and bit him on his ample butt.

It is a fact, as I have often argued, that settler working classes - whether it is Northern Ireland, South Africa or Israel - are the most racist and most chauvinistic sections of society. In S Africa we had the example of ‘white workers of the world unite’ led by the Communist Party! In Northern Ireland does anyone seriously argue that the Loyalist working class allied with Unionism against Catholic workers? And in Israel the Jewish working class has CONSISTENTLY, without fail, taken a hostile attitude to working with Arab workers.

Histadrut, their own so-called trade union, waged a campaign in the 1920’s and 1930’s for Jewish Labour, i.e. a boycott of Arab labour. Pickets were set up in orange groves and outside factories calling for the sacking of Arab workers and their replacement by Jewish workers. This was their answer to unemployment.

Although a Zionist, he is also a socialist of the old school but with a blind spot for Arabs. I refer not to Hirsh of course, who is no socialist but to Zeev Sternhall’s Founding Myths of Zionism. It is the best book I’ve read on the origins of labour Zionism and he shows, with unique access to archival material, that labour Zionism was always an ANTI-SOCIALIST project that from the beginning rejected all suggestion of joint work with Arabs. He also details how the labour Zionist leaders, who Hirsh loves so much, ended up starving (literally) into submission the work brigades (Gdud Avodah) of roaming workers in Palestine amongst whom some went over to an anti-Zionist position of joint working class opposition to the British and Zionists. Sternhall misses this out but he shows how determined Ben Gurion & co. were to squash them.

Once again Hirsh shows he is unable to conduct an honest political argument and instead libels people as ‘anti-Semites’ instead. Most people without their head in the clouds know of the ‘poor white’ mentality that sees those below you as the target of all your animus. Hirsh, being unable to conduct a political argument, despite or maybe because he is a sociology lecturer, resorts to ad hominem abuse.

Comment by Tony Greenstein — 9 February, 2008 @ 5:53 am
Re Dave Rich’s contribution. The reason a piece about anti-Semitism becomes intertwined with a discussion of Zionism and Palestine is that, unfortunately, the majority Jewish identity today is intertwined with Zionism. When people like Hirsh and co. proclaim that any criticism of Israel and Zionism is anti-Semitic in practice then it is difficult to avoid the subject.
But I do discuss anti-Semitism. I say it is a marginal prejudice, today and at this moment. It is not a form of state racism. But anything can change as society changes and capitalism becomes more barbarous. That is precisely why Zionism has to be fought, not just because of what it does to the Palestinians but because it also leaves Jews defenceless with its theory of the objective rightfulness of anti-Semitism and its views that Jews are strangers in others’ lands.
Eric Lee incidentally had his funding pulled, i.e. not given, by UNISON because he is a Zionist who uses his Labor Start web site to subtly support Israel. He used to have an IDF symbol on the site, as an ex-officer, until he was embarressed into taking it down. He supported the Israeli attack on Lebanon two years ago and has consistently refused to document the oppression of Arab workers in Israel, or in Palestine itself, unless forced to do so or unless they are in conflict with other Palestinians. He has nothing whatsoever to say about Histadrut and its apartheid discrimination against Arab Israelis for example.
Re Asghar Bukhari of MPAC. Asgha is a representative of an oppressed community in this country, Muslims. He made a mistake and admittted to making a mistake. That was the point. I don’t want to increase the number of anti-Semites. Only Zionists love them and want more. Asghar gave a small amount of money, I think about £60, to Irving’s campaign because he was taken in by Irving’s self-professed anti-Zionism.
When people like Hirsh, Mikey & co. say that Israel is a Jewish state and therefore what it does in is in the name of the Jewish people, there are many, many people who are not anti-Semitic who believe them. Who are not politically sussed. Asghar Bukhari was one of them. When it was pointed out that Irving was a racist and anti-Semite he apologised and regretted his actions. What problem does Rich have with this? Is he stuck with the mark of Cain? Indelibly marked forever on account of this mistake? I made it clear to MPACUK that he was wrong but that if he accepted it was wrong then I too accepted he was not anti-Semitic. In fact what I also did was go through the MPACUK site and ask them to take down the writings of Atzmon for reasons which are obvious. Rich and Hirsh couldn’t do this because they are not interested in real anti-Semites only those who oppose Zionism. MPACUK acceded to my request and that demonstrates that they are honest in their intent. Further they have on at least one occasion asked me what I thought about a submission for their site and I’ve given them my opinion. Why should they be experts on anti-Semitism? When people who should know better exonerate Atzmon and proclaim that he is not anti-Semitic, is it any wonder that people are confused by Zionist attacks on any and everyone as anti-Semitic?
Hirsh, Rich & co. want people to be anti-semites. They wouldn’t know what to do without them. But I take my stance from Jesus. I welcome converts on the road to Damascus.
If Rich and Hirsh had had any involvement in anti-fascist activity they would know that winning over fascists to anti-fascism was also a secondary aspect of our activity. It wasn’t just acquainting fascist heads with the pavement. One of the people I work with today on anti-fascist work was a member of the British Movement. Should we have rejected him and pointed out all his past sins and refused to accept that he was genuine? I am a socialist not a reactionary essentialist.

Comment by Tony Greenstein — 9 February, 2008 @ 6:17 am
Andy writes that ‘There is certainly no obligation for any Jew to support Israel, nor any obligation that being Jewish should require support for the idea of a Jewish nationhood.’

I don’t know whether you were brought up in a Jewish household, let alone an orthodox one Andy. But I disagree. Looking back, Israel and the Jewish state were presented as an absolutely inseparable from my Jewish identity. I really never even heard about the phenomenon of Jewish anti-Zionism. The Bund never made an appearance and the only hint of radicalism from my rabbi father was the fact that he personally took part in the Battle of Cable Street (which the Zionists of course opposed alongside the bourgeois Jewish representatives of the Board of Deputies of British Jews). And because of the old Tory attitude to anti-Semitism he always voted Labour.

But and I have to be honest, he is an anti-Arab bigot and not just anti-Arab either.

I understand where you are coming from but socialists must avoid the pitfalls of nationalism, which at the end of day means a cross-class alliance. Instead we should make a sharp distinction between the nationalism of the oppressed and the oppressor. The latter is wholly reactionary. The former is not. When I went to northern Ireland as part of Troops Out and Labour Party delegations I was impressed by the progressive politics of so many Sinn Fein activists.

Jim McCallister, who has recently resigned from Sinn Fein over the gangsterism of some of their members in the Armagh region, was an example that stood out as someone committed to justice. An elected member of the Assembly he has fought passionately for justice for his people. If that is nationalism I can live with it.

I remember the women in Sinn Fein arguing with the men about the right to choose. Imagine in any other northern Ireland political party people supporting a right to choose, which actually became policy at one Ard Fheis (though reversed later Sinn Fein’s policy has been better than most in Southern Ireland).

The task of socialists is to work with people like this as opposed to the Gerry Adams to take the struggle for human emancipation forward.

The situation re British Jewry is different. For a start most of the organised community is middle class/professional. Its politics are not progressive in the main. I make a distinction between the organised community and the very large number of secular Jews who want nothing to do with that community.

I broke with Zionism when it became clear to me that you couldn’t reconcile socialism with Zionism. And a debate at my Jewish school where I took the position of supporting the Palestinians (before doing any research which then convinced me!) are my 2 personal milestones.

But I am not convinced that downplaying Zionism and Israel has any merit because it won’t convince anyone. The point is to make it clear that we oppose anti-Semitism just as we oppose what Israel is doing.

On an entirely separate point. David Hirsh admits that anti-Semitism is a marginal phenomenon but points to the experience of jewish students on campus. Again this is nonsense. We have a Union of Jewish Students, funded by their own admission, to the tune of hundreds of thousands of pounds a year, with more sabbaticals than the NUS. And it has determinedly tried to ban people like myself and Roland Rance from campus because we are Jewish anti-Zionists.

Part of the story is here. The hypocrisy of these people is amazing.
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/tony_greenstein/2007/05/vetting_in_practice.html

We do first have to accept that it is part of mainstream Jewish identity, although I am very pleased to say

Nevertheless, a lot of Jews do feel they are a nation, and support Israel as in some way their nation state. I feel we will get a lot further if we recognize that rather than seeking to delegitimise it by saying Zionism is inherently racist.

Comment by Tony Greenstein — 9 February, 2008 @ 6:39 am
Mikey writes:
“The board has never claimed that criticism of Israel is anti-semitic, nor is there any orchestrated campaign by Jewish leadership bodies to silence those who do criticise Israel.”
And what did Jacob Gerwitz, Executive Director of the Board of Deputies Defence Department claim in ‘Anti-Semitism, the Left and the Right’?
‘Although theoretical differences can be drawn between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism, these are distinctions without a difference. The fascists, odious as they are, have at least the virtue of candour.’
But being a poor propagandist Mikey quotes officialdom without ever questioning them. Yes the Board claim to be in favour of tolerance and light, but what is their record? Just before Independent Jewish Voices were formed last year (& why would there be such a need unless there was such intolerance?) there was a massive campaign led by people like Stanley Kalms and other luminaries of the Jewish establishment in this country that the Director of the Institute of Jewish Policy Research, an independent body that he founded, to sack Antony Lerman. And why? Because he is one of those who questions whether a unitary secular state might be in order. He is a Zionist as far as I’m aware but one of the increasingly questioning kind. Oh and he also maintains that the ritual attack on people who support the Palestinians is ‘draining anti-Semitism of all meaning’.
It’s a great pity that this thread has mouthpieces like Mikey contributing when they say nothing except repeat what their elders and betters tell them. But again maybe it’s a good lesson for others.
And on the question of Estonia and anti-Semitism. This is of course true. A despicable government but one which is pro-Israeli so when it comes to real anti-Semitism you’ll hardly hear a murmur from the professional anti anti-Semites like David Hirsh. Anti-Semitism is only a problem if those who are ‘anti-Semitic’ are also supporters of the Palestinians. And therein lies the rub.
And as for Hirsh opposing Israel’s brutal and racist policies towards the Palestinians. We judge someone David by action not words. Boycott was and is the most effective tactic in making Israelis question what they are doing. Yet you oppose it because it is ‘anti-Semitic’, alongside of course the Parliamentary Committee on anti-Semitism and other worthies. Your record shows that you have never done anything to support the Palestinians. You are a byword for hypocrisy.

Comment by Tony Greenstein — 9 February, 2008 @ 6:52 am
Clearly irony is lost on Dave Rich and much else besides. He cites the Community Security Trust, an organisation which the old National Council for Civil Liberties strongly criticised for its thuggery and physical intimidation of Jews who are not Zionists. I mean members of the Jewish Socialists Group and even on one occasion a member of Mapam. (see Civil rights council blasts security men) 17.8.90. I would sooner trust Arthur Daley to sell me a reliable car than these people.
But look again at these incidents. They hardly equate with racist attacks on people in the street, mob violence against Muslims etc. And what do they have in common? That’s right – the atrocities that Israel commits. And all of them accept the Zionist propaganda that Israel, a Jewish state, acts on behalf of Jewish people wherever and that there is an indivisible bond between Israel and Jews and that the latter should automatically accept and justify Israel’s deed.
If once, just once, I had heard Hirsh or any of the other members of the echo chamber, condemn the Chief Rabbi for defending the bombing of Lebanon and speak in the name of the Jewish community or the Board of Deputies which allows NO criticism of Israel (& a motion to widen this was recently defeated) then I would understand. But most people, who are understandably horrified by the murder of a whole family on the beach at Gaza are not so sophisticated. So congratulations Hirsh and co. You are managing to make anti-Semites of people who are not anti-Semitic and people like me have to go round picking up the pieces.
None of the comments below are defensible but who planted in the head of these people that ‘the Jews’ were responsible? Step forward Hirsh, Rich and co.

Comment by Tony Greenstein — 9 February, 2008 @ 7:08 am
Clearly irony is lost on Dave Rich and much else besides. He cites the Community Security Trust, an organisation which the old National Council for Civil Liberties strongly criticised for its thuggery and physical intimidation of Jews who are not Zionists. I mean members of the Jewish Socialists Group and even on one occasion a member of Mapam. (see Civil rights council blasts security men) 17.8.90. I would sooner trust Arthur Daley to sell me a reliable car than these people.
But look again at these incidents. They hardly equate with racist attacks on people in the street, mob violence against Muslims etc. And what do they have in common? That’s right – the atrocities that Israel commits. And all of them accept the Zionist propaganda that Israel, a Jewish state, acts on behalf of Jewish people wherever and that there is an indivisible bond between Israel and Jews and that the latter should automatically accept and justify Israel’s deed.
If once, just once, I had heard Hirsh or any of the other members of the echo chamber, condemn the Chief Rabbi for defending the bombing of Lebanon and speak in the name of the Jewish community or the Board of Deputies which allows NO criticism of Israel (& a motion to widen this was recently defeated) then I would understand. But most people, who are understandably horrified by the murder of a whole family on the beach at Gaza are not so sophisticated. So congratulations Hirsh and co. You are managing to make anti-Semites of people who are not anti-Semitic and people like me have to go round picking up the pieces.
None of the comments below are defensible but who planted in the head of these people that ‘the Jews’ were responsible? Step forward Hirsh, Rich and co.

Andy is right. In fact a maximum of 6% from memory of land was purchased and that was from rich, absent landlords like Sursuq in Lebanon and the peasants were evicted from the land by the ‘socialist’ Zionists never to be re-employed. The vast majority of Palestinians were forcibly expelled as the remarkable book by Ilan Pappe, the Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine documents, including far worse quotes from Ben Gurion than the one by Moshe Dayan that was wrongly atttributed. And I don’t accept that the quote that John cites is inaccurate incidentally. Dayan was in the habit of saying these things and worse.
David Hirsh complaining about personal attacks when he remains silent about Mikey accusing me of being in league with the National Front leaves me speechless. Clearly the man has no sense of irony as Tom Lehrer said about Kissinger after he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
Fabian from Israel has the cheek to say that false quotes, in fact correct quotes wrongly misattributed, come to replace an understanding of the 1948 expulsions of the Palestinians. I was brought up to believe that the Arabs left when ordered to by Arab radio broadcasts. This pernicious lie, no different in principle from those that the holocaust deniers use, except this is Naqba denial, was laid to rest when Palestinian researcher Walid Khalidi and then Erskine Childers in The Spectator in 1960 proved, through going through the CIA and BBC monitoring of such transcripts that not only were the refugees not ordered to leave but they were ordered to stay. These are the real facts that Fabian ignores. Ethnic cleansing accompanied by massacres. This has nothing to do with anti-Semitism but everything to do with the anti-Arab racism of Zionism.
Hirsh witters on about anti-Semitism but never has anything to say about the anti-Arab racism in Israel whereby 4 out of 5 people say they don’t want to live next to an Arab, 61% say they wouldn’t have an Arab in their home, nearly half would strip Israeli Arabs of the vote and a large majority are opposed to any governing coalition being dependent on Arab votes and of course more than half support the ‘transfer’ of Israeli Arabs out of Israel. Oh and some 2/3 believe marriage to an Arab is ‘national treason’. About this Hirsh is totally silent. Is it any wonder that we question whether he is genuine in his concern about anti-Semitism when he has nothing to say about racism perpetrated on behalf of Jewish people?
Fabian of Israel ‘can’t see any particular evilness in Zionism’ and therein lies the rub. Being from Argentina it is clear that there are none so blind as those who will not see. Maybe I can help him see why, even from the point of Jews, Zionism is a disaster. Remember that in Argentina between 1976-83 there was a vicious and murderous junta that not only murdered some 30,000 socialists and leftists but Jewish leftists in particular. Despite being less than 1% of the population some 10% of those killed were Jews.
Or maybe the following article in Hadashot of 28th September 1990 is also a lie.
‘The Jewish government could have saved hundreds of Argentine Jews, who were murdered or kidnapped during the rule of the generals between 1976 and 1983, claims Marcel Zohar in his book Let My People Go to Hell, soon to be published by Zitrin.
The military censor this week decided to at last permit the publication of the book, except for several paragraphs which, so he claimed, might endanger certain person’s lives or harm Israel’s relations with other countries. The publisher, Ben Zion Zitrin, is about to offer the book to foreign publishing houses. Zohar, who was Yedi’ot Aharonot [an Israeli evening newspaper] correspondent in Argentina between 1978 and 1982, describes how the Israeli government, the Jewish Agency and other official bodies refrained from processing immigration applications from Jews with left-wing background, in order to preserve Israel’s good business and political links with the ruling junta. In the same period, arms sales worth about one billion dollars were concluded between Israel and Argentina. According to Zohar, both Likud and Labour leaders shared in the conspiracy of silence.
His book recounts the struggle which took place between Danny Rekanati, the immigration official based in Argentina, and the Israeli ambassador, Ron Nergad. Rekanati tried to help persecuted Jews escape from the country, while Nergad, according to the book, complained about his activities. The unwritten instruction was to refuse any help to Jews defined as ‘too left-wing’. The late Menahem Savidor, who was Knesset chairman at the time, admitted to Zohar that he had prevented a public Knesset debate on the situation of Argentina’s Jews at the government’s request in order not to harm Israel’s crucial links with Argentina. The prime ministers of the period covered, would not discuss the book. Yigal Alon and Moshe Dayan, who were Israel’s foreign ministers then, are no longer alive. The foreign ministry refused to cooperate or to open its archives for the period.
As Yossi Sarid leader of the Zionist Meretz party put it: “In Argentina, Israel sold even the Jews for the price of its immediate interests.” Har’aretz 31.8.89. Jewish Political Studies Review 16:1-2 (Spring 2004)
According to Sarid, this was done through cooperation with the military junta in the economic area, and by not arousing international and Jewish public opinion about the fact of the disappearance and arrest of young Jews in that country. However, according to Foreign Ministry personnel, the arms sales actually helped the embassy in its application for the release of detainees in military camps, and thus saved them from sharing the fate of the desaparecidos.
This is the Zionism which Fabian believes is an angel of mercy. And incidentally it is a myth that there was a war of total extermination against Israel in 1948. Perhaps he could read something other than propaganda pamphlets of the Israeli foreign ministry? Try Simha Flapan’s Myths & Realities. Flapan was one of the leading ideologues of the Mapam party, a dedicated Zionist, but he convincingly refutes this nonsense.

Comment by Tony Greenstein — 9 February, 2008 @ 7:41 am
Eddie #180

I did not post the comment made in #173.

Tony Greenstein #s182-186

Magnificent!

Comment by John W — 9 February, 2008 @ 8:24 am
Denham’s post is that of somebody who likes to conduct his political argument by smears. He does not bother to engage with the evidence because it is spoils the picture he seeks to paint. Contrary to what he and his ilk at Harry’s Place assert, Dr Naseem is not regarded as an Islamic fundamentalist ‘lunatic’ in Birmingham. And having a suspicion about the security services does not make him one. He is seen as a voice of religious moderation.

http://icbirmingham.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0100localnews/tm_objectid=14533861&method=full&siteid=50002&headline=terror-leaflets-found-at-mosque-name_page.html

http://icbirmingham.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0100localnews/tm_objectid=14617688&method=full&siteid=50002&headline=city-outrage-over-pro-osama-poster-name_page.html

http://icbirmingham.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0100localnews/tm_headline=leaders-put-their-faith-in-brum-s-future&method=full&objectid=19778320&siteid=50002-name_page.html

Comment by Ger Francis — 9 February, 2008 @ 9:02 am
John Wight is certainly impressed. I’ll leave others to judge the value of Greenstein’s pompous knock-about for themselves.

But his attack on Eric Lee’s magnificent LabourStart should not go un-opposed. Firstly becuase LabourStart is fantastic international resource for Trade Unionists which people should use - and people should spread the word. And secondly because the camapaign to portray LabourStart as illegitimate in the labour movement because Eric is a Zionist is a scandal.

People should look at LabourStart and make their own judgment.

http://www.labourstart.org/

Tony Greenstein is not telling the truth when he says that LabourStart “has consistently refused to document the oppression of Arab workers in Israel, or in Palestine itself”.

Go to http://www.labourstart.org/ and put in the word “Palestine” into the search box in the top left hand corner of the site. You will see that LabourStart is a very rich source of information on Palestinian trade union struggle - as it is on trade union struggle throughout the world.

Greenstein is part of a campaign to de-legitimize an international labour movement resource on the basis that it is run by a Jew who identifies himself as a socialist Zionist.

Eric is a lifelong trade unionist, socialist and campaigner for an independent Palestinian state. You may disagree with his view but the idea that his view puts him outside of the labour movement is a disgrace. He is a socialist Zionist but he doesn’t have horns.

To accept that Eric and LabourStart have no place in the Labour movement is to accept that Jews who do not identify themselves as anti-Zionists have no place in the labour movement.

Antisemites have always tried to drive Jews out of public life.

Greenstein wants to drive Eric Lee out of the trade union movement because he is a Jew and a “Zionist”.

Comment by David Hirsh — 9 February, 2008 @ 9:39 am
Hirsh

Zionism is a supermacist,racist ideology,which lies at the root of Israel’s ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians. These attempts to posit you and yours as socialist Zionists are as transparent as they are ludicrous. The issue isn’t over the post 1967 occupation (at least not as far as I am concerned it is not). The issue, my Zionist friend, is the original sin of 1948 when 750,000 Palestinian civilians were foribly expelled from their homes, terrorised, and sent on their was by Zionist terrorist militias such as the Stern Gang and Irgun.

Are you saying that this crime constitutes a legitimate act in the formation of a modern nation state? Do you even acknwoledge that this crime took place?

I support a one-state solution and the Palestinian right of return. What do you support? You support a two-state solution which allows a state, Israel, to exist as an avowed and exlusionary Jewish State. What about the right of return of the Palestinians able to trace origins to the land in 1948? What about people like ‘Fabian from Israel’ who wasn’tborn there and only immigrated to the land in 2003?

This is the contradiction which lies the heart of your attempt to whitewash Zionism’s crimes against humanity.

Tony Greenstein is a widely respected socialist and activist in support of the Palestinian cause. You support Israel’s right to exist at the negation of another people, despite your determined efforts to maintain otherwise. In this you are redolent of those Christian fundamentalist who’ve adpated themselves to the science in support of evolution with their Creative Design codswallop.

Splash me all over your forum ya radge. I take it as a compliment.

Comment by John W — 9 February, 2008 @ 11:01 am
Apologies,

I just realised that perhaps some on here are unfamiliar with the eytomology and meaning of the word ‘radge.’ Allow me to enlighten the comrades as to the multiple definitions and versatility of this internationally renowned Edinburgh colloquialism.

Radge: (noun) bam; daftie; a person, male or female, who is a coil short of a toaster; a person, male or female, whose brain is considered to be 2lbs lighter than a meringue. (adj)to go radge: enjoying oneself with reckless or gay abandon; losing one’s self control; wild, exuberant behaviour.

Comment by John W — 9 February, 2008 @ 11:16 am
John Wight “Splash me all over your forum ya radge. I take it as a compliment.”

It’s a shame that Wight is proud of his antisemitic rhetoric. You would have thought that he would have learnt his lesson and modified his rhetoric - a rhetoric which is more reminiscent of traditional far right wingers. Instead he’s proud.

“Ethnic Cleansing in Palestine?”

http://www.engageonline.org.uk/blog/article.php?id=1353

Comment by Richard — 9 February, 2008 @ 11:25 am
Time for ‘two-staters’ like Hirsh to tell us what this Palestine state will look like? At present the territory where such a state would exist (according to most of the descriptions doing the rounds)has been chewed into by the wall, settled on in fortified enclaves by people who say that the whole of this territory is ‘jewish’ land (!), divided up by roads along which Palestinians can’t freely travel, separated from Gaza.

The fact is that the whole of the territory between Egypt, Syria and Jordan is occupied by Jews and Palestinians. The great majority of it is ruled by a people who say that it must be ruled as their state, for their benefit. It is in their words a Jewish state. One of the ways in which this rule is maintained is by chopping up the Palestinians into ‘Gazans’, ‘West Bankers’ ‘Refugees’ and ‘Israeli Arabs’ and the like. All the while, the Jews worldwide are supposedly one unified people all with equal claim to live in this Jewish state.

Creating yet another enclave: a ‘Palestinian state’ in this situation will solve nothing. It will produce any combination of civil wars between Palestinians, perpetual conflict between Palestinians and Jews in this territory. In the end, the very notion of a Jewish state in the modern world is unsustainable. States cannot survive as one-people entities either in a capitalist or a socialist world. Capital and peoples flow between territories under capitalism. I, for one, would hope that peoples and co-operation would flow between states in a socialist world until such time as borders came down anyway. Either way, mono-people states, which allow for immigration but only on the terms of the mono-people and only for the benefit of that mono-people, are a dead duck. Northern Ireland and South Africa are signposts in the capitalist world.

I suspect that the same applies to the Israel-West Bank - Gaza territory. At some point, there will have to be some kind of federal solution. Zionists say that this means ‘Israel won’t exist’ and of course make this a condition for negotiation, thereby blocking off all possible negotiation around this matter. The phrase ‘israel won’t exist’ is intended to signify that Jews won’t exist, ie they will have been massacred and pushed into the sea. This vision is a deliberate attempt to scare off people trying to envision something bigger and better than enclave and tribe politics. People like Hirsh, left, right or centre, who imagine they’re talking the language of freedom, liberalism, human rights, enlightenment etc by talking up ‘viable Palestinian state’ and the like are trapped in racialised, tribal politics, policed by Imperial diktat. They then hound anyone who criticises them by labelling them with what is supposed to be a terrifying swearword ‘antisemitism’. The word has now become so debased that pages and pages of blogspace is taken up with people arguing over what it means anyway. This too serves the purposes of sustaining the Jewish state, I suspect Hirsh himself knows. Even for saying the things I’ve said above, there are some zionists who would label me antisemitic. That’s how purposeless it’s become. If Hirsh and other so-called liberal zionists went back to ‘liberty, equality, fraternity’ and applied those old principles, in full, in their entirety to the Middle East, you wouldn’t come up with two-states - for the simple reason that the Palestinian state as envisaged, as feasible, is no state for the Palestinians and no future for the area.

I suspect that if Egypt, Syria, Jordan ,Israel and the Palestinians could sit down and negotiate with chairpeople as chosen by all parties, a solution could be found. In fact, what goes on in the area is a pax americana - no, it’s not a ‘pax’ (peace) it’s a war…and again, I suspect that the realpolitik of the US re the area is that this is a sustainable war, and with the cooperation of the Saudis, can be sustained forever.

Comment by MichaelRosen — 9 February, 2008 @ 11:36 am
“There is therefore a strong case to be made for excluding Jews altogether from any principled debate about anti-semitism, cince as a group, they are characterised by support for a racist state.”

Maybe let them comment and put a big label “Israelite” after their name ?

Comment by Richard — 9 February, 2008 @ 1:04 pm
Michael, I’d be happy to discuss ways of moving towards an end to the violence between Israel and Palestine - any deal that the Israelis and the Palestinians can negotiate between them is fine by me. Everybody serious knows what the deal is - something like the Geneva Accords or the Nusseibeh-Ayalon initiative.

And it is important in my view not to confuse the basis of a peace agreement on the one hand - which is clearly an end to the occupation, an end to the killing and a sovereign Palestinian state - with the basis of the best imaginable long term political arrangement for life in the Middle East on the other.

After WWII, a peace in Europe came first. Schengen came later.

The Geneva Accords are the basis of a peace agreement - they are neither my nor your political utopia.

I think we could talk reasonably about our differences on one state / two states.

But this thread is about antisemitism. And we have just seen an explicitly antisemitic comment - declaring that you and I should be excluded from this debate because we are Jews.

Antisemitism is about pushing Jews out of public life.

Whether it is a ’socialist’ suggestion that Jews should be excluded from a debate about antisemitism.

Or a ’socialist’ suggestion that Eric Lee should be excluded from the labour movement because he is a Jew who refuses to identify as an anti-Zionist.

Andy Newman, to go back to his original post, was right and courageous.

Comment by David Hirsh — 9 February, 2008 @ 1:23 pm
Verat:

The important point that John W is making is that it is no longer possible to allow Jews to have any say in what constitutes anti-semitism.

Reply:

Here we go again, attempting to conflate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism. When did I make the point that you state? Please tell me. Or is that you and your fellow travellers are the arbiters of what constitues anti-Semitism? What about Illan Pappe, a man I have met and discussed these matters with at length and who now is the regular recipient of hate mail for the views he holds. The problem is that your frame of reference for what constitutes anti-Semitism is any non-Jew who comes down unequivocally on the side of the Palestinians and sees the root of the problem as 1948 and not 1967. Who doesn’t pander to what apologists for Israel refer to as ‘facts on the ground.’

Anything which questions the right of Israel to exist as an exclusionary Jewish State is calumnied as anti-Semitic in this train of thought, a traine of thought which begins with the starting point that Israel represents the interests of all Jews, of the Jewish people. Well, I and others do question this view, and despite the dread attached to the label of anti-Semite I will continue to question it.

Exceptionalism is the antithesis of universal human rights. It is exceptionalism which has lain at the root of every act of genocide in human history. It is Aryan exceptionalism which led to the Holocaust in which six million perished. It is exceptionalism, both US and Israeli, responsible for the chaos and carnage in the Middle East.

Comment by John W — 9 February, 2008 @ 2:38 pm
Actually, exceptionalism is what lay at the heart of left-wing arguments against Jewish emancipation. John Wight’s politics can be traced back directly to Bruno Bauer, the one whose arguments he destroyed and who later became a leading antisemite. According to his line, only those who cease to be anything can be granted and give human rights. Again, the comparion between US Israel and the Nazis! Next, what, Proudhon?

Comment by Saul — 9 February, 2008 @ 3:00 pm
Verat,

I misread your previous post. However, having re-read the passage I still disagree with you. Jews are eminently qualified to determine what constitutes anti-Semitism. Zionists, however, I agree cannot be taken seriously on this topic, given their adherence to the existence and exaltation of a state founded upon the ethnic cleansing of another people and which continues to exist at their negation.

Comment by John W — 9 February, 2008 @ 3:27 pm
I hope, but don’t believe, that verat is a parody.

“… we could certainly make demands for Jews to be excluded from platform debates or published work or even university courses unless they could establish their anti-Zionist position.”

Disgusting.

Comment by goodwin sands — 9 February, 2008 @ 3:31 pm
“The removal of large numbers of Jews from public life may be the wake-up call they need to rouse them from their foetid little world of race supremacy and hate.”

Ah, the things said in the name of “anti-racism.”

Comment by goodwin sands — 9 February, 2008 @ 3:47 pm
John W

Everything you have written here is a cross purpose discussion of something other than the topic at hand.

Most people here want to have a discussion about anti-Semitism on the left. A part of this is how anti-Semitic narratives have been woven into anti-Zionist arguments (the origins of which are Nazi era radio broadcasts and Soviet propaganda from the 1950s and 1960s).

You on the other hand want to talk about Israel. This itself is part of the problem. When I talk about anti-Semitism I’m telling you because despite everything you’ve written so far I do believe you want to see a world without prejudice or bigotry. The way to resolve this is to start first by looking at our own behaviour.

Believing in equality at some abstract level is very easy but your actions betray the value you claim to uphold. A simple example might be treating the kind of people who come here as equals deserving of your respect- individuals concerned about racism no less than you are; people who believe in socialist solutions but who are concerned with the way in which anti-Semitic narratives and ways of thinking are returning to leftist discourse.

However, when people in good faith take issue with the kind of language you use you treat them with no respect whatsoever. You treat them as lesser human beings, not worthy of being taken seriously or afforded respect. You simply dismiss their concerns as a waste of your time.

The biggest part of building socialism is in the everyday interactions we have with other human beings; acknowledging them, according them respect as equals, engaging with them and their concerns. Most Jews would find the type of language you use offensive because they consider it anti-Semitic.

Myself, David Hirsh and others have made specific pointed criticisms of the language you use- explaining exactly why we consider it offensive. Your only responses so far are to repeat said language, ignore the substantive issues and call David a Zionist, a radge and a scumbag.

You don’t need to allude to Nazi caricatures of Jews when describing Israel or talk of “international Jewry” when making a case for the Palestinians. We all understand your opposition to Zionism- what we can’t get our heads around is your instance that its acceptable to express your anti-Zionism in language many Jews consider to be anti-Semitic.

If you genuinely believe in equality it necessary to find ways to express your opposition to Zionism in language which includes rather than excludes people. This is particularly relevant when the people you need to persuade are the very ones excluded and offended by the language you use.

Saying “Boycott was and is the most effective tactic in making Israelis question what they are doing”- is another example of your self-defeating approach. Your claim is simply false.

I speak as an Israeli, I’m also a socialist and a kibbutznik. I know what my freinds and family think about BDS. Whether you like it or not BDS will not make Israelis question ourselves any more than we already do. The fact is that BDS is perceived by most Israelis (and diaspora Jews) as the latest manifestation of anti-Semitism. This is the reality that you have to deal with.

There are many practical ways to support the Palestinians Ways that will support the kind of solution you claim to aspire to. Yet you aren’t interesting in the kind of activities which build bridges between Israelis and Palestinians (one example being the ecological seminars which take place on my kibbutz involving Palestinian and Israeli schoolchildren). Building bridges is the only way that a one-State solution could ever be viable. Demonising the Israelis whilst lionising Palestinians just deepens the divisions. You simply can’t achieve peaceful coexistence by stoking up hatred.

Your use of anti-semitic language and imagery and your support for BDS are indicative of your whole approach to building socialism and Palestinian liberation; in both cases you claim to believe in things and then do everything in your power to prevent them from happening.

Comment by Stephen — 9 February, 2008 @ 3:52 pm
Andy. Perhaps Verat is not what he seems ?

Comment by Richard — 9 February, 2008 @ 4:08 pm
“verat”, were I in the unfortunate position of being in the same meeting as you and hearing what you wrote, I would move and argue for your removal. On failing to win the argument I would leave.

Comment by BatterseaPowerStation — 9 February, 2008 @ 4:19 pm
John W

Can I get this straight - as Zionism is racism, Zionists cannot comment on anti-semitism. As most Jews are Zionists therefore most Jews cannot be trusted to comment on anti-semitism unless they can demonstrate that they are not Zionists.

Presumably no socialists can be Zionists also because Z=R

If Z=R then I presume you also support such time honoured traditions as calling for the banning of Jewish societies within student unions, boycotting Zionist sponsored book weeks and calling for Israel to be thrown out of the eurovision song contest.

Just want to be clear.

verat must be a parody…surely

Comment by monsgon — 9 February, 2008 @ 4:22 pm
Of course he is. Thats why people are ignoring him.

Comment by johng — 9 February, 2008 @ 4:33 pm
The sad thing is that John W., the compulsive liar -see above, when he lies about taking the fake quotes from his “dog eared book”- is not a parody. He is real. He is a real antisemitic socialist. I don’t think he needs to provide “quotes” from the Talmud anymore. Enough was said.

Comment by Fabian from Israel — 9 February, 2008 @ 4:52 pm
Here is my question. John W claims ‘I didn’t even open the link to the site, as I was looking for the site: Campaign For An Honest Discussion Of Zionism (CODOZ) and instead ended up on (CODOH)’.

Yet I am unable using Google to turn up any evidence for an organization called ‘Campaign For An Honest Discussion Of Zionism’ or any similar organization with an acronym ‘CODOZ’.

John W, what were you looking for again? Something less ad hoc this time.

Comment by goodwin sands — 9 February, 2008 @ 5:08 pm
“Are you denying that physical force was used to steal Arab land?”

Are you denying that physical force was used to steal Jewish land?

Comment by Shmuel — 9 February, 2008 @ 5:09 pm
Are you denying that physical force was not used to steal German land?

Comment by Shmuel — 9 February, 2008 @ 5:16 pm
Campaign For An Honest Discussion Of Zionism (CODOZ)

Committee For Open Discussion Of Zionism. It is a site created by Joel Kovel.

Apart from that I refuse to have any further discussion with any Zionist. Zionismin relation to Palestine and ethnic cleansing cannot be negotiated with, neither can it be reasoned with.

It can only be confronted and resisted.

Verat posted:

That’s the campaign the left needs to instigate and brave people like you who can resist the stigma of smear campaigns are the ones who can start calling for it.

Reply:

No, you are completely wrong. Bravery is what those courageous men and women did last week in Gaza in breaking that barbaric and inhuman blockade. That is bravery. Watching the footage of them breaking out, the joy on their faces at winning their freedom, and listening to a first hand account from a comrade who was there from SPSC, it reminded me of Lenin’s description of the Paris Commune in 1871 as a ‘Festival Of The Oppressed.’

And that’s exactly what it was: a festival of the oppressed.

Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions.

Avante!

Comment by John W — 9 February, 2008 @ 5:34 pm
Wight “Apart from that I refuse to have any further discussion with any Zionist.”

That’ll be a relief for “international jewry”

Comment by Richard — 9 February, 2008 @ 5:54 pm
On doing a little digging, the site you are looking for is codz.org, although there is almost nothing there; I think this was an honest bit of confusion on your part.

Comment by goodwin sands — 9 February, 2008 @ 5:57 pm
If you google “Campaign For An Honest Discussion Of Zionism” which was what Wight says he was looking for , you get no results found.

Comment by Richard — 9 February, 2008 @ 5:59 pm
Question is John W radge?

Replies over 400 words will be considered.

Comment by RedRooster — 9 February, 2008 @ 6:35 pm
Andy,

can you please remove posts 204 and 209 by Ibnaz, who is almost certainly a Zionist troll masquerading as an anti-Semite. His statement that:

‘The bombing of the International Jewry/Zionist community centre in Argentina for example was a progressive act of true social justice that we may wish to emulate.’

needs no comment. It is obviously anti-Semitic.

Likewise Verat’s comments are clearly a put up job, or he is immensely stupid to call for a numerus clausus for Jews attending universities. I’ll leave it to the imagination.

The point about Jews and anti-Semitism is that clearly some Jews, like David Hirsh, deliberately conflate anti-Semitism with anti-Zionism. A case in point is Eric Lee. I have criticised him for his bias against Palestinians on his site. It was only grudgingly that he put anything up, he had very little on the struggle of the Workers Advice Centres and nothing on Histadrut. I therefore oppose my union funding him given his racism. And that is on the grounds that he is a Zionist, not because he is Jewish, Mormon or whatever religion he might be.

So Hirsh is, once again, deliberately lying. Because on the one hand he says ‘oh we never accuse anti-Zionists of anti-Semitism’ and then he goes and does just that.

Stephen believes that ‘Most people here want to have a discussion about anti-Semitism on the left. A part of this is how anti-Semitic narratives have been woven into anti-Zionist arguments (the origins of which are Nazi era radio broadcasts and Soviet propaganda from the 1950s and 1960s).’

Rubbish. I don’t recognise an ‘antisemitism of the left’. If you are a socialist then you can’t be an anti-Semite. And if you are an anti-Semite you are no socialist. Period. Despite the best efforts of Zionists like Stephen anti-semitic narratives (what are they? is this the same narrative that holocaust denier Atzmon refers to - strange choice of language these racists use) are not at all interwoven into anti-Zionist discourse and I challenge Stephen to be specific rather than engage in vague generalisations.

Tony G

Comment by Tony Greenstein — 9 February, 2008 @ 6:41 pm
“It can only be confronted and resisted.”
And if need be, with fake quotes, distortions and lies.

Evidently John W. relies on other people to provide him with “Zionist quotes” since he doesn’t read what Zionists have to say nor discusses with them.
How will he know which quotes are real and which are fake?
Do you think he cares?

Comment by Fabian from Israel — 9 February, 2008 @ 6:44 pm
lbnaz is evidently paroding John W.
Greenstein wants to remove the posts because they raise too many uncomfortable facts.

1984, eh, Greenstein?

Comment by Fabian from Israel — 9 February, 2008 @ 6:46 pm
“Rubbish. I don’t recognise an ‘antisemitism of the left’. If you are a socialist then you can’t be an anti-Semite.”

I studied that at school in Argentina!
It is called the falacy of the good Scotish. “La Falacia del Buen Escocés”

1. A good Scotish drinks whisky.
2. I am a good Scotish and I don’t drink whisky.
3. You are not a good Scotish.

Comment by Fabian from Israel — 9 February, 2008 @ 6:49 pm
Sorry, it is not the “good” Scotish. It is the falacy of the “authentic” Scotish.

Comment by Fabian from Israel — 9 February, 2008 @ 6:50 pm
Throughout this thread we have had the hypocritical baiting of John W for one or 2 sloppy comments and misquotes. Despite him making it clear he is not anti-Semitic, the Hirshes and Fabians of this list have continued to harass him over which site he went to and when. Their concern is touching.

Now maybe Hirsh will prove that his concern is with anti-Semitism and not anti-Zionism by promising never again to allow Mikey to do a ‘guest post’ on Engage and that he will ban his comments too, just as he has done to my comments. Otherwise he is a gross hypocrite. Because whatever minor sins John W has committed stand in contrast to Mikey.

I cited earlier the comments of Mikey on the overtly anti-Semitic peacepalestine site of Mary Rizzo. In case Hirsh has forgotten them I repeat them below:

Here is someone who not only goes out for social drinks with an anti-Semite and holocaust denier, but acts as an informer. Atzmon asks him to provide information on my political comrade Roland Rance and what does he say? No, I’m too busy doing the same on Tony Greenstein. Informing for an anti-Semite against a Jew. Are you happy with that Hirsh. Now redeem yourself by ensuring that this collaborator with anti-Semites and holocaust deniers plays no further part in Engage.

If you ignore this or pretend that you don’t understand then we shall understand you for what you are - a hypocrite. On the other hand if you do demonstrate that your concern about anti-Semitism doesn’t only come into play when anti-Zionism is on the agenda I shall take my hat off to you. It’s your decision.

But it is ironic that despite being a site devoted to ‘anti-semitism’ the only time Atzmon is mentioned is either to minimise him (David T’s article on him) or simply to ensure that there is an association drawn to peoples’ attention between Atzmon and Palestinian/Left groups. There is no attempt at analysis beyond the superficial. No looking to see whether he is an anti-Semite by reference to his works, still less a holocaust denier. That work has been done entirely by anti-Zionists such as myself. Now I wonder why it is that Engage makes no attempt to campaign against Atzmon but merely seeks to use him to discredit others?

And below is also an explanation of how Jewish law treats informers like Mikey. Indeed according to Jewish religious law Mikey himself is no longer a Jew! Especially when their informing is to non-Jews (which Atzmon is having converted to Christianity)!

Tony Greenstein

A verbatim transcript of Rabbi Simcha Cohen’s article “A Jewish Informer” here follows. Please note that whereas the Jewish Encyclopedia uses the accepted spelling “moser,” Rabbi Cohen goes with an alternate spelling of this Hebrew word for informer, “mosser.”

HALACHIC QUESTIONS
Rabbi J. Simcha Cohen
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

A Jewish Informer

Question: Jewish law considers the crime of informing upon a fellow Jew a most vile and odious sin. Why? What is the nature of the sin of the informer (the mosser) that galvanizes such a negative reaction?

Response: The Rambam rules that an informer is not to be deemed part of Klal Yisrael (Hilchot Mamrim 2:2). In another section, the Rambam notes that an informer is not to receive a share in the World to Come (Hilchot Teshuva 3:12). The rationale of the Rambam, says Hagaon Rav Hutner, z”l, is based upon the following theory: One who separates himself from the ways of the community (ha’poresh mi’darchei tzibbur) “even though he does not sin… has no share in the World to Come” (ibid. 3:11). Thus, separation from communal standards is tantamount to exclusion from the Jewish people. This, moreover, does not have to relate to any specific sin. Informing on Jews, contends Hagaon Rav Hutner, is an action that goes against the essence of Jewish communal standards. It is a behavioral pattern that is simply not Jewish. This is not what Jews do. As such, the informer (mosser) is excluded from Klal Yisrael because of his refusal to conform to the moral character of the Jewish people (Pachad Yitzhak, Pesach, Ma’amar 63:5).

Rabbi Cohen is the Rav of the Mizrachi Kehilla in Merbourne and the author of several halachic works, the latest being “How Does Jewish Law Work?” (Jason Aronson)

>>Mikey, can you provide us with the criminal record of this Bugger-Rance. Is he on spent conviction like greenie l or is he just an ordinary liar?
Gilad Atzmon | 03.12.07 - 8:00 pm | #

I have been very busy digging up stuff on Tony Greenstein - Roland Rance will have to wait for another day.
Mikey | 03.12.07 - 8:53 pm | #

‘Mikey, I hope you do not mind me saying that, but your contribution for the pls solidarity movement is priceless. It is crucial that we all know about the racist record of this Greenpiss, a man who was banned time after time for being a racist and an anti Semite!
I really want to believe that this revolting violent man will feel some shame and take some time off to think about it all. But I doubt it.’
Gilad Atzmon | 03.04.07 - 10:46 am | #
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/thecutter/117192641046077827/

Comment by Tony Greenstein — 9 February, 2008 @ 7:02 pm
What complete and utter garbage from Greenstein in post number 180.

I simply detest the political views of Atzmon and yes, I have written about it on Harry’s Place. One my recent pieces on that site entitled “Jews and Jew Haters” [1] shows exactly what I think of him. In that article, I also comment in that article on one Tony Greenstein. I urge everyone to read it.

Greenstein is attacking me for writing on PeacePalestine site, but he does not attack me for far more comments on the obnoxious site belonging to Mark Elf, a person who openly comments on, “this propensity for sheer instinctive dishonesty has become a habit of mind with many, maybe most, Jews. It’s part of the culture now and it’ll be a hard slog shifting it. I think as communities, the Jews are heading for a disaster thanks to this grotesque culture of deceit.” [2] I suppose Greenstein will put this statement of accusing most Jews of dishonesty and deceit down to anti-Zionism?

Greenstein continues with his comments about Hess and Marx. What Greenstein does not discuss, is that one of the profound differences of opinion between Hess and Marx was that Hess completely rejected the association by Marx of capitalism with Judaism,[3] an argument that many scholars claim is antisemitic. [4] But given Greenstein was discussing Avineri on Hess, as Avineri comments on page 246 of his book “Moses Hess: Prophet of Communism and Zionism, that in the classic text Hess wrote in 1862, Rome and Jerusalem it can be demonstrated that the ideas of socialism and Zionism “coexisted side by side [and] complemented each other.” [5] This clearly disproves Greenstein’s rubbish pamphlet that he wrote some time in the 1980s “Socialist Zionism: The Impossible Contradiction.” [6] The truth is, as is well known, Hess inspired the whole Kibbutz movement, a movement that has probably been the closest working experiment of the communist ideal that has been seen.

Greenstein states “The NF didn’t write a review of my pamphlet ‘Zionism – anti-Semitism’s twin in Jewish garb’.” This is completely inaccurate and Greenstein knows it. The truth is, Sussex Front devoted virtually a full page article entitled “Book Review” dedicated to Greenstein’s pamphlet. The review clearly discusses “Greenstein’s excellent and painstaking researches” and referred to it as “vital reading” before going on to refer Greenstein’s “thesis” as a “seminal work, as important in its own way as was Harwood’s “Did Six Million Really Die.” [7] This is not all but Greenstein goes on to state “The NF wrote the article cited in order to hand a weapon to Zionists like Mikey.” This is complete nonsense as the article comments upon “the mad dogs of Zionism,” but Greesnstein and writing complete and utter nonsense is nothing new. Greenstein suggests that I do not know that Harwood was the name used by Verrall, but of course I know about it. It can be read in many places, not least the excellent book by Gill Seidel, The Holocaust Denial: Antisemitism, Racism & the New Right. If Greenstein had taken the trouble to read this book, he would also know about Lenni Brenner’s distortion of the Holocaust, a matter she discusses in reasonable depth and concludes that Brenner’s thesis on Zionism and the Holocaust is “virulently antisemitic.” [8] One wonders why Greenstein continue to quote from this discredited author.
Greenstein rambles on about his so called anti-fascist activities in Brighton. But he fails to mention that Vicky Phillips, as President of the National Union of Students, urged students to write to Anti-Fascist Action protesting against his involvement, because, in her words, Greenstein “brings the whole organisation into disrepute.”[9] Despite Greenstein’s claims about his anti-fascist work, it is somewhat a strange anti-fascist that was on the editorial board of a magazine that was banned from NUS conference for being “antisemitic.” [10]

I cannot fail to comment on Greenstein trying to spread a false rumour that I have “linked up” with “supporters of the late Rabbi Meir Kahane.” This is not only completely false, it is the opposite of my actions and is a slur against my character. It is probably too much to expect that Greenstein might actually apologise for this.

Greenstein tries to excuse the fact that Neo- Nazis praise his work so much that they republish them on their own web sites. It does not seem to concern him at all that his work is that his (and Brenner’s) thesis on Zionist Nazi collaboration seems only to be quoted by so called “anti-Zionists” on the left and neo-Nazis on the right. Responsible historians dismiss this thesis out of hand.

Greenstein’s comments on Einstein ignore substantial amounts of information. He ignores the fact that Einstein toured America with Chaim Weizzman promoting Zionism and, as his biographer Denis Brian comments, making “money-raising speeches for the Zionist cause.” [11] Not only did Einstein commit himself to raising money for Israel, as commented he was offered the Presidency of the State of Israel. Greenstein correctly notes that Einstein turned down the offer, but the reason for doing so, he does not mention. He was, in his own words“deeply moved” by the offer “saddened” to turn it down but did so because he was primarily a scientist who throughout his life had “dealt with objective matters,” and hence he believed that he lacked “both the natural aptitude and the experience to deal properly with people and to exercise official functions.” In the weeks before he died, Einstein made clear that he regarded “the birth of Israel as one of the few political acts in his lifetime which had an essential moral quality.” He proposed to make speech on April 27 1955, Israel’s seventh birthday in favour of the country, but died before he got a chance. Nevertheless, Einstein bequeathed all of his papers to the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, a body that he was in his lifetime on the Board of Governors of. [12]

Einstein’s papers can still be seen at the Hebrew University [13] and it is ironic that this is one of the few universities in the world (all of the others also being in Israel) that Greenstein is arguing people should boycott. What a terrible shame for the advancement in knowledge of the mind of one of the greatest, if not greatest, scientist that ever lived.

Greenstein goes on to comment about Hannah Arendt and yet again ignore much crucial information. Substantially after Arendt wrote “Zionism Reconsidered,” in 1963, she wrote:

“I am not against Israel on principle, I am against certain important Israeli policies. I know, or believe I know, that should catastrophe overtake this Jewish state, for whatever reasons (even reasons of their own foolishness) this would be the perhaps final catastrophe for the whole Jewish people” [14]

Not only did Arendt often contribute to the United Jewish Appeal and the Israel Emergency Fund, but Arendt’s biographer, Elisabeth Young-Bruehl describes Arendt as “intensely proud” when Israel was victorious in 1967 war. Commenting on that war, Arendt wrote to her friend Mary McCarthy and stated, “Any real catastrophe in Israel would affect me more deeply in anything else.” When Israel was attacked in 1973 that led to a further war, Arendt in an interview stated, “The Jewish people are united in Israel.” She added that Judaism was a national religion.[15]

I do find it somewhat amusing that Greenstein feels competent to comment at what points Einstein and Arendt were wise and at what point they were not. Perhaps Greenstein will tell us that Einstein was wrong to claim that E=MC**2

Greenstein reverts to his favourite subject that continually makes errors on, that of the case of Rudolf Kasztner. [16] It is true that I am fond of quoting Randolph Braham, widely recognised as the leading historian on the Holocaust in Hungary and it is also true that Kasztner’s own report was “self serving “ and that is why, I do not rely upon it, but rely upon the work of serious scholars such as Braham. In fact if Greenstein had bothered to read Braham’s highly acclaimed two volume work, The Politics of Genocide: The Holocaust in Hungary [17] there is no possible way that he could come to the conclusions that he does about Kasztner and the actions of the Zionists in Hungary and maybe he would also make less errors.

Contrary to what Greenstein claims, the Supreme Court did not acquit Kasztner for “political reasons” but because they considered the evidence and ruled that “Kasztner was motivated by the sole motive of rescuing all Hungarian Jews, i.e., rescuing the maximum number which, considering the circumstances of time and place as assessed by him could be saved.” Consequently, they ruled that “one cannot find a moral fault in that behavior; one cannot find any causation between it and the expediting of the deportation and the extermination and one cannot consider it amounting to the degree of collaboration with the Nazis.”[18]
It was not a fact of the case that Kasztner, “sold his soul to the devil” as Greenstein claims but it was the opinion of Judge Benjamin Halevey, an opinion that was not only overturned by the Supreme Court but an opinion that Halevey himself, on more than one subsequent occasion admitted that he regretted using. [19] Kurt Becher was not promoted to a General in 1945 as Greenstein alleges but a colonel. [20] Greenstein continues to repeat the falsity that the verdict in the Kasztner case was 3:2. I can provide numerous scholarly accounts that expose this falsity, but in this instance Greenstein need only look at the anti-Zionist Akiva’s Orr article on the Kasztner case that was published in the book of JimAllen’s despicable play Perdition to know that it was a 4:1 majority in the Supreme Court. [21] If Greenstein wants another reference, I suggest he purchases Ladislaus Lob’s book that is published this week , that I have been fortunate to receive an advance copy of Dealing With Satan: Rezso Kasztner’s Daring Rescue Mission where he be able to see quite clearly on page 279 that it was four to one majority. [22]

Finally, Greenstein suggests that my politics have nothing to do with socialism. He makes that claim as he thinks that I am a Zionist and that it is “impossible” for Zionists to be socialists. Greenstein should spend some time and learn about the whole history of socialist Zionism. He could start with Moses Hess.

Mikey

[1] http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/archives/2007/11/21/jews_and_jew_haters_the_antizionist_jewish_squabble.php

[2]
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/levi9909/5773458525484843543/?src=hsr#319340

[3]Nicholas Xenos, “Moses Hess: Prophet of Communism and Zionism by Shlomo Avineri,” The Journal of Politics, Vol. 48, No. 2. (May, 1986), pp. 524-527

[4] See for example, Max Geltman, “On Socialist Anti-Semitism,” Midstream March 1977, pp. 20-30 available on line at:
http://www.paulbogdanor.com/geltman.pdf

[5] Cited by David Ellenson, “Moses Hess: Prophet of Communism and Zionism by Shlomo Avineri,” The Journal of Religion, Vol. 67, No. 4. (Oct., 1987), pp. 558-559.

[6] Tony Greenstein, “Socialist Zionism: The Impossible Contradiction,” (London: Palestine Solidarity Campaign, n.d.)

[7] Philip Drax, “Book Review” Sussex Front January 1983, p. 9

[8] Gill Seidel, The Holocaust Denial: Antisemitism, Racism & the New Right (Leeds: Beyond the Pale Collective, 1986) pp. 85-92

[9] “Phillips waves the flag,” Jewish Chronicle December 26, 1986 p. 12

[10] “Banned mag storm,”Jewish Chronicle April 27, 1990 available on line at
http://www.paulbogdanor.com/return-banned.pdf

[11] Denis Brian, Einstein: a life (New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 1996) p. 126

[12] Ibid; pp. 424-9

[13] http://www.alberteinstein.info/about/

[14] Quoted by Elisabeth Young-Bruehl, Hannah Arendt: For the Love of the World, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1984) p. 361

[15] Ibid., pp. 455-6

[16] For an example of where I have previously highlighted errors in claims Greenstein has made about Kasztner, see http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/archives/2007/01/24/tony_greenstein_more_errors_than_paragraphs.php

[17] Randolph L. Braham, The Politics of Genocide: The Holocaust in Hungary revised and enlarged edition (New York and Boulder: The Rosenthal Institute for Holocaust Studies Graduate Centre / The City University of New York and Social Science Monographs, 1994)

[18] Cited by Ben Hecht, Perfidy, (Jerusalem: Geffen Publishing House, 1999) p. 275

[19] For examples of where Halevey admitted regretting using the phrase that Kasztner sold his soul to the devil, see Leora Bilskey, Transformative Justice: Israeli identity on trial (Ann Arbor, Michigan: The University of Michigan Press, 2004) p. 44, 272n 11. The reference Bilsky provides the comments by Halevy were taken from an interview Halevey gave to the newspaper Ma’ariv on 3 October 1969. Tom Segev The Seventh Million: The Israelis and the Holocaust ( New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1991)P. 310 provides a further reference. based on an interview Halevey gave to the Israeli Defense Forces radio station. (Segev does not seem to provide a date for the broadcast.)

[20] Gabor Kadar and Zoltan Vagi Self-Financing Genocide: The Gold Train, the Becher Case and the Wealth of Hungarian Jews (Budapest: Central European University Press, 2004) pp. 235-6

[21] Akiva Orr, “The Kastner Case, Jerusalem 1955” in Jim Allen Perdition (London: Ithaca Press, 1987) pp. 81-105

[22] Ladislaus Lob, Dealing With Satan: Rezso Kasztner’s Daring Rescue Mission, (London: Jonathan Cape, 2008) p. 279

Comment by Mikey — 9 February, 2008 @ 7:04 pm
No because it’s probably Fabian from Israel engaging in a bit more racist drivel. This time at the expense of Jews rather than Palestinians.

>>Greenstein wants to remove the posts because they raise too many uncomfortable facts.

1984, eh, Greenstein?

Comment by Fabian from Israel — 9 February, 2008 @ 6:46 pm

Comment by Tony Greenstein — 9 February, 2008 @ 7:05 pm
“Despite him making it clear he is not anti-Semitic…”

Just like David Irving or David Duke. What does that prove?

“the Hirshes and Fabians of this list”

There is more than one Fabian or are you grouping me with people I have never met?

“have continued to harass him over which site he went to and when. Their concern is touching.”

Well, he has posted fake quotes and misquotes while using antisemitic language. But for the little I have read of you in Harry’s Place, you are not a stranger to that either.

“Atzmon asks him to provide information on my political comrade Roland Rance and what does he say? No, I’m too busy doing the same on Tony Greenstein. Informing for an anti-Semite against a Jew.”

Inform about you? Who ARE you?

Comment by Fabian from Israel — 9 February, 2008 @ 7:10 pm
I have deleted a number of commenst from “Verat” and “Ibnaz” due to their clearly and inflamatory anti-Semitic nature.

Comment by Andy Newman — 9 February, 2008 @ 7:26 pm
Andy, lbnaz is “Left but not AntiZionist” from Harry’s Place. Paranoid Greenstein thinks lbnaz is me.

You shouldn’t have deleted lbnaz comment because it was a parody of John W.’s antisemitic thought, with lots of important data that anti-Zionists usually ignore. (for example, the role of Arab fighters in violence and terrorism against Jews in Eretz Israel much before the days of the Stern Gang and the Irgun.

If you can bring the post back, do it.

I don’t want to think that you are pretending that lbnaz post was antisemitic just because it was unconfortable reading for an anti-Zionist.

Best,
Fabian

Comment by Fabian from Israel — 9 February, 2008 @ 7:34 pm
Tony- I have given specific examples in all of my posts- read them. Look at the original article by Andy, is he part of the Zionist conspiracy too?

I know you think socialists can’t be anti-Semitic- but your claim is based on an abstraction- unless of course you don’t consider John W or yourself to be socialists? What about the whole history of left-wing anti-Semitism?

Comment by Stephen — 9 February, 2008 @ 9:24 pm
“I have deleted a number of commenst from “Verat” and “Ibnaz” due to their clearly and inflamatory anti-Semitic nature.”

What makes some comments clearly antisemitic while others require several essays and 200+ comments to deconstruct?

Comment by Shmuel — 9 February, 2008 @ 10:19 pm
There has been a lot of interesting debate going on here. We should be grateful and applaud the above author for sparking it off.

One point I would like to make concerns the parallels between the former apartheid South Africa and the apartheid state of Israel. Undeniably, the situation in Israel is much worse.

When apartheid ended and Nelson Mandela became President, many South Africans fled the country and settled in Israel, taking their expertise in the mass control and suppression of populations with them.

The South African boycot, divestment and sanctions campaign was one of the biggest and most successful socialist led campaigns of all time.

I suspect though, that when it comes to Israel, BDS as a tactic is ultimately doomed to failure. No campaign can ever hope to reach the required critical mass to win or secure the concessions it seeks without mass, grassroots popular support.

Principally, the problem doesn’t seem to have much to do with lack of public interest or sympathy, and probably has more to do with language and the ideological and religious dimensions that conflates the issue of apartheid Israel as opposed to apartheid South Africa.

Members of the public all too easily buy into the idea of boycotting goods that exploit or support the abuse of populations, the environment and the animal kingdom - as campaigns against South African goods, environmental degradation, child or sweatshop labour and animal testing have demonstrated.

But once Judeophobic rhetoric or imagery (or anything open to accusations of being) starts creeping into discourse about Israel, most members of the public understandably run a mile, meaning many campaigns about Israel are left to flounder, extending little beyond a bubble of politically conscious activists left preaching to themselves.

Whoever can devise a BDS strategy for growth that manages to throw off this achilles heel, and can simply sell the issue in a populist and undogmatic way that gets the public doing their bit (in a humanistic way that is effortless, seems fun, simple and fashionable) will undoubtedly have found the elusive, and most important Holy Grail of anti-imperialist, anti-Israeli colonialist politics.

Comment by Tam G — 9 February, 2008 @ 11:23 pm
JohnW. Re Ethnic Cleansing.

Hot off the press!
Census: 30% rise in Palestinian population over last decade
Palestinian population in West Bank, Gaza and east Jerusalem reaches 3.76 million, up from 2.89 million a decade ago.
JohnW, Please revise propaganda. Talking points mugged by census. Over.

Comment by R. — 9 February, 2008 @ 11:43 pm
Tam “When apartheid ended and Nelson Mandela became President, many South Africans fled the country and settled in Israel, taking their expertise in the mass control and suppression of populations with them.”

Care to back this up ?

Comment by Richard — 9 February, 2008 @ 11:45 pm
Tam - I know many South AFircan Jews left for Israel but it’s your presumption that firstly they were involved in the repression in South Africa and secondly that they exported their skills in repression to Israel.

I think the reason BDS won’t find the same ammount of support over Israel is that people can see that Israel is not an aparteid system. That’s not to say that there isn’t racism against Israeli Arabs , it’s not to say that the occupation is not oppressive but many people understand that there are wrongs on both sides and that it is a conflict of nationalities. SOuth Africa was a white minority ruling a black majority. There were no black Members of the South African Parliament , no black judges , no suffrage for black SOuth Africans , no mixed universities , or health care , no Hamas , no rocket attacks on civilians.
That’s why poeple won’t support boycotts.

Comment by Richard — 9 February, 2008 @ 11:52 pm
Sorry about the typos !

Comment by Richard — 9 February, 2008 @ 11:58 pm
@228 “But once Judeophobic rhetoric or imagery (or anything open to accusations of being) starts creeping into discourse about Israel, most members of the public understandably run a mile, meaning many campaigns about Israel are left to flounder, extending little beyond a bubble of politically conscious activists left preaching to themselves.”

This is exactly the case. Here’s an example -

http://www.radicalpress.com/?p=686

A letter from Mary Rizzo endorsing a ridiculously anti-semitic Holocaust denial site. The article bears a collection of tags - visible at the bottom - that represent an anti-semite’s fever dream: “… Jewish Porn Industry, Jewish Lobby, Jews Behind Bolshevik Revolution, Alternative Media, Canadian Identity/Sovereignty, Zionist Jews in Russia, Germany, Jews, Ernst Zundel, Jewish Banking Cartel, Jewish Holocaust Industry, Human Rights/orgs, Israel Shamir/writer, B’nai Brith, Anti-Defamation League (ADL), Jewish Media Monopoly, Freedom of Thought, Canadian Human Rights Commission, Canadian Jewish Congress, The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion.”

But here’s what Rizzo has to say: “I hope you realise that it is a valuable resource, and any campaigning made to insinuate that it is a racist site is not at all accurate.”

And so blind Mary Rizzo find herself left behind, rallying supporters but coming up with only the Atzmons, the ‘Shamir’s, the Wendy Campbells of the world. It is difficult to imagine under what circumstances she could add anything positive to the Israel/Palestinian discussion, and even if she did, speaking as she is from down inside such a deep and self-created credibility hole, its unlikely anyone could even hear her.

Comment by goodwin sands — 10 February, 2008 @ 12:17 am
I see that Mikey has yet again seen fit to ignore the quotes which I have provided that he was happy to be an informer for Atzmon. There are more up there on Rizzo’s peacepalestine sewer site.

So if Mikey does indeed ’simply detest the political views of Atzmon’ why act as his informer against someone who has been his most determined foe? Simple question but Mikey can’t give the simple answer, which is that Zionists will indeed work with anti-Semites against their main foes, anti-Zionists.

I have read Braham’s 2 books and they rely heavily on no less than people like Ben Hecht, who is quite clear about the role of Kastner.

As I’ve already said the Israeli Supreme Court delivered 5 different verdicts - 3 favourable to Kastner, 2 not favourable. The fact that there was a formal 4-1 vote on technical grounds does not invalidate this and contrary to what Mikey wrote, the Supreme Court, which is a political body like its US counterpart, voted 5-0 that Kastner collaborated in exonerating one SS war criminal.

Becher incidentally was already a Colonel with the SS and was promoted to General in January 1945.

Arendt and Einstein were not politicians, they had contradictory views at different times of their lives but both recoiled against Jewish nationalism, the type of Jewish nationalism that Mikey, Hirsh et al espouse and saw in Israel the possibility of a cultural centre for Jews. Maybe when a unitary state of Palestine is created then that will be an actualite.

Mark Elf answers for himself, just like Mikey occasionally does for himself.

I also notice, despite Mikey’s witterings, that he hasn’t told us why Hess supported the blood libel myth and whether Mikey therefore endorses it too? Either you do or you don’t endorse Hess’s many comments on race, such as the length of Jewish noses etc. That this was typical among Zionist ideologues is maybe part of the problem. They were all racist to a man.

Professor Loeb who Mikey quotes is indeed an enthusiast for Kastner. Not surprisingly since he was one of the lucky 1684 people on the train of the ‘prominents’. The allegations of collaboration against Kastner came from those who were among the approx. 200,000 Hungarian Jews who survived because the Jews of Budapest were not deported, though subject to the tender mercies of the Nyilas fascists. Those who lost their relatives because one word from Kastner about Auschwitz and they would have fled across the border to Rumania. That is the crime that Mikey wants to defend.

And as I said Mikey not only works with Atzmon but he’s happy to act as a supporting chorus for the claims of Brighton NF. When he tells us what his anti-fascist activity consists of then he can be taken seriously.

Tony G

Comment by Tony Greenstein — 10 February, 2008 @ 12:31 am
I endorse what Goodwin says. I have only just come across this Radical Magazine (radical as in Germany). It is listed as one of the organisations/individuals signing up to Atzmons and Rizzo’s little petition on www.peacepalestine.blogspot.com saying I’ve been unfair to them! I don’t think Mikey’s yet got around to signing.

Richard is a Zionist so he doesn’t want a boycott to work. He is a giveaway with his talk of Hamas (Israel creation circa 1981) and rockets (but not Israeli rockets)but his nonsense about Israel not being an apartheid state is just that.

According to Roee Nahmias in YNet News March 27, 2007 (Yediot Aharanot online) in an article‘Marriage to an Arab is national treason’ we are told that over half of the Jewish population in Israel believes the marriage of a Jewish woman to an Arab man is equal to national treason, according to a recent survey by the Geocartography Institute.

The survey also found that over 75 percent of participants did not approve of apartment buildings being shared between Arabs and Jews. Sixty percent of participants said they would not allow an Arab to visit their home.

Over 56 percent of participants said they believed that Israel’s Arab citizens posed both a security and a demographic threat to the country.

Over half of the participants said they would not want to work under the direct management of an Arab, and 55 percent said “Arabs and Jews should be separated at entertainment sites”. When asked what they thought of Arab culture, over 37 percent replied, “The Arab culture is inferior.”

And of Israeli Jews 62% want Arab emigration; nearly one third of respondents say Jewish majority required for crucial national decisions, almost two thirds want to encourage Arabs to leave the country http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3248693,00.html

This isn’t marginal racism but symptomatic of a diseased and racist society. Apartheid isn’t ‘whites only’ signs but what happens in practice. When you can’t rent land because you are not Jewish or can’t work in a factory because it is ’security related’ and you are not Jewish or you can’t live with your Palestinian spouse and remain in Israel. This is apartheid as is the continual displacement of Bedouin in the Negev and the destruction of their unrecognised villages (Jewish towns are never unrecognised). Or the Judaification programmes for the Negev and Galilee (strike a bell that work? how about Aryanisation?).

The fact is that Israel is an apartheid society but worse than South Africa. In the latter they simply denied Blacks any political rights. In Israel they didn’t do that, they expelled them instead! And those remaining had political rights as long as they didn’t use them to question the Jewish nature of the state.

So yes, BDS is exactly the right way to go. Of course there’s no anti-Jewish imagery in it. That is why Rizzo and Atzmon oppose boycott incidentally, for Atzmon it is ‘book burning’. In fact not only Mikey but David Hirsh and Atzmon should get on like a house on fire. It’s no wonder that Mikey is Atzmon’s unpaid research assistant.

Tony Greenstein

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3381978,00.html

Comment by Tony Greenstein — 10 February, 2008 @ 12:50 am
The Tony Greenstein committee makes me feel like throwing up - and let’s get it straight: Tony Greenstein (and Andy Newman, New Man = homosexualised,zionist, Illuminati, Space lizard stooge)is not ONE person, but a well-funded and well-staffed zionist propaganda operation, dedicated to destroying PSC.

Comment by Jock McTrousers — 10 February, 2008 @ 2:23 am
Tony Greenstein is a complete joker.

He comments again suggesting that I am “happy to be an informer for Atzmon.” However if we look at what happened in that conversation, I was attacking you for more of your erroneous comments. Atzmon asked me also for comments about Rance and I responded that I was busy dealing with you. I would have dealt with you irrespective of the comments of Atzmon and I would also deal with the nonsense of Rance irrespective of Atzmon. One wonders how warped Greenstein’s mind actually is if he thinks I would work with someone who openly wants to see the State of Israel destroyed. As I did in my article “Jews and Jews Haters” which I referred to in my above post (222) I attacked both Atzmon and Greenstein in the article for having the same end goal.

One can only laugh at Greenstein’s simply ludicrous statement, “I have read Braham’s 2 books and they rely heavily on no less than people like Ben Hecht, who is quite clear about the role of Kastner.” If Greenstein had actually read The Politics of Genocide by Braham, he would know that the statement he has made is completely false. For those who are not aware, Randolph Braham is the foremost scholar in the world on the Holocaust in Hungary. There is not any credible scholar who studies that subject who does not footnote the work of Braham in their own books. Ben Hecht, however, is not a historian and nor does he claim to be, Hecht was a playwright who was more used to writing and assisting to write the screenplays for films such as Gone with the Wind, Roman Holiday and Scarface. To claim that Braham relied upon Hecht is simply pathetic. I do not know who Greenstein is trying to fool, but as the saying goes, you cannot fool all the people all the time.

To make it clear, in the index of The Politics of Genocide (revised and enlarged edition, 1994,) Braham has two references to Ben Hecht for over 1,500 pages of text. One reference (p. 1,161) is a footnote where when referring to the actual document of the Supreme Court ruling, Braham mentions that there are also extracts in Ben Hecht’s book. The more major reference is for page 836. I copy the paragraph in full below:

“The same conclusion [that Kasztner allegedly offered to remain silent and ‘help keep the Jews from resisting deportation’ in exchange for the opportunity to rescue 15,000-20,000 ‘biologically valuable’ Jews] was reached by a number of anti-Zionist or anti-Mapai Zionist figures, including Vrba and Ben Hecht. According to them, Kasztner and his associates constituted a group of quislings who sold out Hungarian Jewry to save themselves, their friends, and a few rich Jews. They reject the view of some historians, including Professor J. L. Talmon of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, that by the time those associated with the Jewish Councils ‘grasped the real aim of the Nazis they were no more than helpless and benumbed hostages.’ Vrba claims that men like Kasztner were far from ‘helpless;’ they were in fact ‘clever diplomats who knew what their silence was worth.’ Hecht with his own ‘revisionist’ axe to grind against the official Zionist leadership, extends this accusation to virtually everyone associated with the Mapai or the Jewish Agency.” [1]

That is the complete paragraph and I trust Greenstein will no longer make such a ludicrous claim that Braham relied heavily upon Hecht.

In fact, Hecht’s work that Greenstein and Brenner for that matter is keen to rely upon was widely criticized by many scholars. Chaim Lieberman went so far as to write a 109 page booklet exposing Hecht for his own nonsense. [2]

Why Greenstein is continuing with this 3:2 nonsense about the Supreme Court verdict in the Kasztner trial, I will never know. I do not know how many scholars he needs me to quote to show that it was a 4:1 majority but I will quote one more. The scholar who has probably done the most work on this case is Yechiam Weitz. He states quite clearly:

“• There was not one verdict but five—each one of the five judges who sat on the bench issued his own opinion.
• The verdict of Justice Shimon Agranat, with which four of the five judges concurred, totally reversed the verdict of Judge Halevi.
• There was no agreement among the judges of the highest court. Alongside the verdict of Agranat there was also the verdict of Justice Moshe Silberg, who accepted Halevi’s verdict in principle.
• The highest Court of Appeals altered both the verdict and the sentence issued by Halevi. Halevi acquitted Gruenwald on three of the four charges of the indictment, convicted him on one (that Kasztner shared with Becher the spoils of the property of Jews of Hungary), and imposed a symbolic fine. The Supreme Court judges, on the other hand, convicted him of three of four counts, acquitted him on one (the question of the declaration regarding the matter of Kurt Becher), and imposed a substantive punishment.
• The judges did not stop with reversing Halevi’s verdict, but, in a very unusual step, the President of the Court, Justice Olshan, severely criticized the manner in which Halevi had conducted the trial. He argued that “in several respects the trial was not conducted in accordance with accepted procedural rules: Halevi allowed irrelevant testimony,” as well as “extended, endless cross-examinations concerning trivial matters, which prolonged the trial in an exaggerated manner.”” [3]

I also have no idea why Greenstein tries to dispute what I say about Kurt Becher. Greenstein should know by now that I know an awful lot more about the Kasztner case, Kurt Becher and surrounding issues than he does. Moreover, I have the most scholarly accounts at my fingertips in my personal library, so all I have to do is to turn around, pick a book of my shelf and prove him wrong. Despite the fact that I have already used the authoritative study of Kador an Vagi,to show thatGreenstein is wrong, he still insists that he is correct (without providing any source). I will therefore provide another impeccable source: Szabolcs Szita, the head historian at the Holocaust museum in Budapest. He said that Becher’s rank was Obersturmbannfuhrer (Lieutenant-Colonel) and in January 1945 he was promoted. The new rank was Standartenfuhrer (Colonel) [4]

Greenstein shows his ignorance of the conditions of the Jews during the Holocaust in Hungary with his astounding claim that had the Hungarian Jews known about Auschwitz they could have fled across the border to Rumania. Greenstein does not consider for a moment how they could have done this. He does not consider that the Jews had no cars as they were prohibited from Jews, they were not allowed on train as they were also prohibited so Greenstein firstly does not consider the problem of getting to the border in the first place. Secondly when at the border, what were the Jews going to do? Show a passport and travel across the border as if they were on some kind of day trip? The borders were heavily armed but Greenstein does not consider any of these details. For completeness on this matter, despite the danger and how hazardous and risky it was to attempt to cross the border, as Asher Cohen explains, between 5,000 and 7,000 Jews, most of whom who lived closer to he border did manager to be smuggled across of which about 2,000 were saved directly by the Zionist halutz resistance. [5]

Tony Greenstein is a complete joke. He should stop commenting on either Zionism, Nazism or the Holocaust as he can hardly string a sentence together without including at least one error or distortion.

Mikey

[1] Randolph L. Braham, The Politics of Genocide: The Holocaust in Hungary, revised and enlarged edition Volume 2 (New York and Boulder: The Rosenthal Institute for Holocaust Studies Graduate Centre / The City University of New York and Social Science Monographs, 1994) p. 836

[2] Chaim Lieberman, The Man and His “Perfidy”: A Rejoinder to Ben Hecht’s Vitriolic Attack Upon the Government and Leaders of Israel.” (New York: Bloch Publishing, 1964)

[3] Yechiam Weitz, “The Holocaust on Trial: The Impact of the Kasztner and Eichmann Trials on Israeli Society,” Israel Studies Vol 1. No. 2 (1996) pp. 1-26

[4] Szabolcs Szita Trading in Lives?: Operations of the Jewish Relief and Rescue Committee in Budapest, 1944-1945 (Budapest: Central European University Press, 2005) p. 34, p. 199

[5] Asher Cohen, “Resistance and Rescue in Hungary”in Ed. David Cesarani, Genocide and Rescue: The Holocaust in Hungary 1944, (Oxford: Berg, 1997) pp. 123-34

Comment by Mikey — 10 February, 2008 @ 3:07 am
Up at Comment # 91, a Tony Greenstein writes this: “Vladimir Ze’ev Jabotinsky spelt [sic! spelled?] out his views on the Galut (Jews in Exile thus): ‘I have no doubt that I am a Zionist because the Jewish people is a very nasty people and its neighbours hate it and they are right. (S. Avineiri, p.162. Ktavim)”.

The source is a bit misconstrued which happens when you use secondary sources even though better ones are available. On page 27 of Jabotinsky’s autobiography, “Sippur Yamai”, in the Hebrew, he relates making his very first Zionist speech in Berne, Switzerland where he had gone as a journalist in 1888, having left high school. He was thus not yet 18 at the time. For those for whom Hebrew is still a foreign language, Joseph Schechtman’s biography basically translates the few sentences Jabotinsky managed to utter before being shouted off the platform of the students’ club at the University where Jabotinsky was hanging out (later that year in the fall, he went to Rome where he studied for some three years) in his Volume One, “Rebel and Staesman”, p.47.

As Jabotinsky recalled the situation, Nachum Syrkin made an appearance and tried to synthesize Zionism and Socialism and then the 17 and a half year old arose and said something like [and here I am using the original Hebrew for Schechtman inserts some terms that aren’t there in Jabo’s version YM]: “I am little acquainted with the teachings of socialism but I am undoubtedly a Zionist for the Jews were facing in the Diaspora a St. Bartholomew’s Night massacre. The enemies of the Jews were not completely wrong since in the dispersion the Jews are a very negative people and its neighbors harte them with justice. Only a wholesale emmigration of Jews to Palestine could save the Jewish people.”

As he himself explains, Jabotinsky had just taken the rail from Odessa to Berne and passed through the heart of Galicia. The main crossing between Russia and Central Europe at the time went through Brody and he was surprised at the hovels, poverty and off-setting impressions the Jews of that area provided for him, a Jew from intellectual and liberal Odessa and so presumed that if he was so affected, the Goy even more so.

So, that is the background. If one wishes to quote Jabotinsky, even at the age of 17.5, why not quote his prophetic outlook on what would happen to Jews without a Homeland.

Comment by Yisrael Medad — 10 February, 2008 @ 6:54 am
Sorry, that “harte” should, of course, be “hate”.

Comment by Yisrael Medad — 10 February, 2008 @ 6:56 am
Post #95 John W writes:-

” you call us Utopian? In case you haven’t realised, with regard to Palestine the Israeli working class isn’t listening. Your analysis is determinism at its worst. Israel is not a state in the normal sense of the word. It is a settler colonial state, committed to clearing the land of what it views as untermensch, the Palestinians. The Israeli working class benefits materially from Israel’s ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians, who aren’t used as exploited labour but are viewed solely as vermin to be expelled and cleansed from the land. Israel’s role as a US stretegic asset is also unique and makes our efforts in resisting its apartheid and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians vital.
Pandering to Israeli national chauvinism over the interests of the international working class this way is simply wrong.”

————————————————————————–

I honestly don’t see the point you’re making here at all.
How exactly does supporting a bi-national Socialist state pander to Israeli National Chauvinism?
It does exactly the opposite!

It would mean ending any special privileges of one side over another, demilitarisation of the state and providing the economic and political framework within which there was any practical possibility of settling the refugee question. What you seem to be saying on the other hand, is that ANY recognition of Jewish nationality EVEN within a bi-national state is reactionary.
i.e. that those Israelis who remain have to accept that they are ‘Arab-Jews’, (perhaps Dhimmis in a Hamas controlled state?)
That there should be no official recognition of Hebrew and no representation of ethnic or religious groups within the polity.
But that’s a Pan-Arabist position, which even the Saudi government promotes.

Sorry, but this is historically and politically ludicrous.
First of all, there are over 5 million Israeli Jews and even if they are secular, they speak Hebrew.
A totally different situation to that which existed in Iraq, Morocco or other Arab countries with sizeable Jewish minorities in the past.

The real history of Israel/Palestine is that the Jews and Arabs have been distinct groups for over 2,500 years.
Any future solution needs to recognise that fact.
Politically, making appeals to the declaration of the Rights of Man and vague promises of equality isn’t going to convince anyone, least of all Jews.
It’s never worked anywhere else and it isn’t going to work there either.
It’s simply a propaganda formula.

You also picture the views of the extremist right wing settlers as being synonymous with those of the Israeli working class.
This is completely untrue.
The fact that such views may be getting increased political support is in part, due to the attempt to impose a 2 state solution within a capitalist framework by imperial diktat.

Bi-Nationalism is the only approach that makes any sense.
It was even the official policy of Left-Labour zionists from the 1940’s to the late 50’s
It’s also supported by the left-wing Arab Knesset member Asmi Bishara.
Absolutely NOT a position that will make you friends on the chauvinist right in Israel.
But certainly one it’s possible to get a minority hearing on amongst both Jews and Arabs.

It’s even something actively discussed amongst Palestinian activists.
Socialism is the only economic system that can guarantee that it will work.
I’m not suggesting that this become official policy of a solidarity movement.
But socialists should argue for it within such a movement.
Eventually, the majority will see that it’s the only position which corresponds to reality.

Call that “determinist” if you like, but I don’t regard that as an insult.

Comment by prianikoff — 10 February, 2008 @ 8:25 am
Wow, interesting debate (yawn). How many times can Tony reiterate his lies and four really strange and equally monomaniacally obsessed types parrot it by simply insinuating and not engaging in rational thinking?

THIS is what I wrote in support of Radical Press:
Jan 17, 2008

Dear Editor,

The issue of peace in the Middle East is far too important for anyone to attempt to think it can only be dealt with between other “more important” issues such as sporting events and what Paris Hilton is doing these days. Yet, I do understand (as I am a journalist myself) that people do like to read things they already agree with that don’t challenge anything they think they already know, and especially, they don’t get encouraged to think out of the box.

At any rate, The Radical Press presents thought-provoking and intelligent information and analysis. It is absolutely NOT anti-Semitic, but many who might not agree with its harsh critique on Israel might try to label it as such, so that people will create confusion between the two, and things never change.

I hope you realise that it is a valuable resource, and any campaigning made to insinuate that it is a racist site is not at all accurate.

Mary Rizzo

Uh… where do I endorse Anti-Semitism Goodwind?

the “little petition” got Tony’s pants all knotted. He decided now he’s going to destroy Redress! Way to go, Tony. Is he going to go on a campaign against everyone who signed? Just wait until he sees the comments that I will publish.

BTW, lying through his teeth about the boycott is idiotic. Everyone but Tony knows I support the boycott. I actually go much farther than Tony by practicing what I preach. Tony suggested that I accept the invitation by an Israeli “peace” film director to plug his film. Tony affiliates with someone who absolutely does not support the Boycott, Shraga Elam, while Gilad just says it needs discussion, quite a different and not so small detail.

Tony lies through his teeth. He has very little support in Palestinian activism, because they see through him as if he were transparent.

The rest of what he writes is the same old BS, but let him carry on…. he asked for it.

One last thing, and VERY funny… Tony goes all Talmudic on Mikey. OH WOW!!! and, where did Tony get the info that Gilad converted?! That’s the best one I’ve heard all day. Keep on making up the stuff, Tony, but “support your argument with evidence!” You are the ultimate joker. How ANYONE takes you seriously is beyond me. And, want to know more? After your threat to Redress, the Head Editor signed the petition and said you do not scare them in the slightest.

BTW, the petition is on many Palestinian, Lebanese, Syrian and other sites including The People’s Voice, Uruknet, Arab News… It’s being translated into Spanish because Rebelion, the major leftist internet site wants to publish it, and French because ISM France wants it. No one is afraid of you, Tony! You and your group of Zionist (and this is the way even a survivor of Auschwitz described you in a comment that you will soon see) comrades do not intimidate any of us.

And… do you have a life outside of banging on a computer? How do you find the time?????

Comment by thecutter — 10 February, 2008 @ 9:57 am
And by the way, Jabotinsky’s later-in-life thoughts on antisemitism and the Diaspora can be located in the book “The Political and Social Philosphy of Ze’ev Jabotinsky - Selected Writings”, M. Sarig, ed., Vallentine Mitchell 1999, Chapt 9, pp. 130 - 147 where he expounds on two categories - the antisemitism of “things” and of “men”. An additional source is the English translation of Professor Raphaella Bilski Ben-Hur’s “Every Individual, A King - The Social and Political Thought of Ze’ev Vladimir Jabotinsky”, Bnai Brith Books, 1993, 164 - 175.

Comment by Yisrael Medad — 10 February, 2008 @ 11:33 am
One of the problems the left has obviously had to deal with when it comes to Israel is the religious exclusivity of the state.

Unlike campaigns against the policies of warmongering regimes of religiously pluralist nations, many on the left seem to have seen no other option than to engage in a multi-layered campaign on Palestine that encompasses both 1) the military repression and 2) the rampant discrimination against non-Jews that has been enshrined in Israeli policy on the ground, on a daily basis, for blood-soaked decade after decade. The latter has obviously necessitated focussing on and questioning the religious ideological aspects of the conquest and occupation that gave birth to and enables the very existence and perpetuation of the Israeli state.

Obviously, in the spirit of extending international solidarity the racist nature of those policies needs to be opposed, but you can not effectively fight racism or hope to occupy the moral high-ground by engaging in language that is open to accusations of being anti-Judaic or racist itself.

This has been the tightrope balancing act that the left has had to walk when it comes to criticising and opposing apartheid Israel and grassroots policies ranging from land ownership, employment to healthcare that unapologetically favours Jews over Muslims. All this against the backdrop of a community, ravaged and scarred by the genocidal atrocities of a Nazi Holocaust that happened within living memory. A community understandably hyper sensitive today to any attacks and criticism that focus too much on their religious beliefs.

And therein lies the danger; bridge-destroying waters are entered when a campaigner, government or any form of media appears to blame and hold to account an entire religion and its followers wherever they may be across the world, for the actions of a single person, group or, in this case, entire nation state. It is very difficult to avoid treading on toes, alienating and burning bridges with that community when you do that, which is sad because the Jewish community, particularly those that have Israeli citizenship and have the vote and a powerful voice on the ground over there, are potentially the most effective ‘citizen’ ambassadors there are.

In the case of Israel and Palestine, I think those that benefit from the perpetuation of the conflict are filled with private glee when they see the two sides and camps at logger-heads, alienating and scape-goating the other, fighting, mud-slinging and name-calling, because it helps perpetuate what they want to achieve: the continuing mutual-demonisation and segregation of the two populations, with one ’sitting pretty’, controlling all the territory and resources, and the other, left powerless and downtrodden, living at the whim of a draconian 21st century imperial ‘over-lord’.

Where can you plant the seeds of reconciliation - of peace - when that’s the soil your working with?

My feeling is that there is a pressing need for rational discourse on the subject, perhaps a special conference or publication on the issue. My view is that you have to be pragmatic and focus on the need to achieve demonstrable, beneficial results on the ground for the people. Anti-imperialist, anti-Israeli colonialist discourse is one thing. bonbastic, anti-Judaic hyperbole quite another. It no doubt brings a warm glow to the hearts of those that engage in it, angered and fired up by Israeli human rights abuses - some of it they will have witnessed and even experienced at first hand - but what it does (other than antagonise and alienate other anti-racists and our Jewish comrades) to ultimately benefit the Palestinians is questionable.

There’s never been a better time for the left to take a few steps back from the coal face and reflect on the way ahead.

Comment by Tam G — 10 February, 2008 @ 11:56 am
John W., can you show us your dog-eared copy of “Michael Ben-Yair, Attorney General of Israel, 1993-1996 (in Ha’aretz)”?

Comment by Fabian from Israel — 10 February, 2008 @ 12:13 pm
Well, Tony is now promoting and arguing using Halacha Law, differentiating the Jew from the Goy, as a valid argument to do … what?? We are figuring that one out now. Will get back to it, as well as waiting not that patiently for the information on the Conversion to Christianity of Gilad Atzmon!!! This is so rich, you couldn’t make it up if you wanted to.

He does actually circulate Jabotinsky material on Alef, (as well as using Wikipedia as a source but lamenting when anyone else does….) so I think “Socialist Unity” blog should wonder just who they are giving all this bandwidth to!

Why not ask a Holocaust survivor who signed Walid’s petition what he has to say?
Dear friends,
For me, as a survivor of 10 month of Auschwitz, one thing is clear, there is a fundamental flaw
in Zionism. At least in the form in which it expresses itself in political reality. It has not accepted one of the fundamental truths of the Enlightenment: the essential and fundamental equivalence of all human beings.
Therefore, due to this fundamental flaw, political Zionism in its present form will eventually perish.
Unfortunately, you the Palestinians will have to mobilise a lot of somoud. So far, you have been able
to show that you can do it. Don’t despair, the enlightened world is with you.

Dr Hajo G. Meyer, Heiloo, the Netherlands

More comments will be posted in the coming days. But, this one seemed relevant for this venue.

Comment by thecutter — 10 February, 2008 @ 12:13 pm
Hello Mary.

Tell us - although I suspect we already know - whether you find anything antisemitic about this tag list: “… Jewish Porn Industry, Jewish Lobby, Jews Behind Bolshevik Revolution, Alternative Media, Canadian Identity/Sovereignty, Zionist Jews in Russia, Germany, Jews, Ernst Zundel, Jewish Banking Cartel, Jewish Holocaust Industry, Human Rights/orgs, Israel Shamir/writer, B’nai Brith, Anti-Defamation League (ADL), Jewish Media Monopoly, Freedom of Thought, Canadian Human Rights Commission, Canadian Jewish Congress, The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion.” This is how Radical Press has tagged the page your letter appears on.

Anything there strike you as possibly a little dodgy?

You claim “The Radical Press presents thought-provoking and intelligent information and analysis. It is absolutely NOT anti-Semitic”

Yet: http://www.radicalpress.com/?p=308

A long piece by a leading Holocaust denier in praise of his movement.

Mary you’re the perfect portrait of the uncritical activist true-believer. Let someone claim to be pro-Palestinian and your criticial faculties shut down completely. This leaves you praising not only the toad Atzmon but Holocaust denial sites like Radical Press. If it were only a matter of your embarrassing yourself in an emperors-new-clothes sort of way I would say it’s merely entertaining, rather like when a Nabokov narrator unintentionally tips his hand and reveals himself to be mad as a battlefield. But because you have tied yourself to the Palestinian struggle there is more at stake than your own unintentional comedy, because of the damage you do to that struggle due to the startling vapidity with which you embrace anti-semites.

Comment by goodwin sands — 10 February, 2008 @ 3:30 pm
It is absolutely shocking that the cutter is defending The Radical Press by claiming, “The Radical Press presents thought-provoking and intelligent information and analysis. It is absolutely NOT anti-Semitic.”

Let us take some examples from a browse through its disgusting web site-

“AMERICA IS NOW A JEW-RUN NATION.” [1] February 2, 2008

Support for Holocaust Denial and the known Holocaust Denier, Ernst Zundel. [2]January 24, 2008 and December 2, 2007, April 3 2007 etc

Support for Neo-Nazism by those “who are genuinely desirous of fighting Jewish supremacism and the anti-white death cult ” [3] February 2, 2008

Support for standard antisemitic filth:
“The Jew also believes he is destined to own and rule the whole world as a ‘master race.’”
“The Jews are not going to stop what they are doing to us! We are going to have to stop them, even if that means separating them from our midst permanently!”
“Jewish supremacists thrive and thieve more successfully in a country without a strong majority that is well-organized for its own self-interest, as whites used to be before the Jewish Trojan Hebrew Horse rode into town”
“the whole concept of “multiculturalism”, the kind offered up like a steady dietary staple on a majority of college campuses, was created by Jews. In fact, as political dissident author Curtis Maynard explains, a Jewish woman actually wrote a whole primer to encourage and spread this alien ideology.”
“Abortion is a modern and grisly Jewish death trade. Jews run 50% of abortuaries in America (though only comprising 2% of the population) and they make up the leadership of nearly every pro-abortion activist group…. the main impetus or stimulus for the Jewish abortion cheerleaders is to dramatically lower the white birthrate, thereby killing off their chief competitors and decreasing the white surplus population.”
“Most teens in America have a far more favorable view of homosexuals than their parents or grandparents ever did. But this is the Jewish way. Brainwash, propagandize and then recruit, recruit, recruit like hell! But as Jewish homosexual organizations try to indoctrinate sexually confused young people into the gay death style there seems to be more at work here than simple “tolerance” or “diversity” issues. This is an effort to tear asunder the notion of “traditional family” that has been the bedrock of Western survival….Though not all homosexual enthusiasts are Jewish, their leaders surely are.”
“All of these facets of the Jewish blueprint have one central theme. They impose sickness and social disease and degeneracy and death by constant fiat.” [4] January 31, 2008

But of course, according the cutter, none of the above is antisemitic.

[1]http://www.radicalpress.com/?p=681
[2] http://www.radicalpress.com/?p=663#more-663 and
http://www.radicalpress.com/?p=563#more-563
and http://www.radicalpress.com/?p=436#more-436
[3] http://www.radicalpress.com/?p=683#more-683
[4] http://www.radicalpress.com/?p=674#more-674

Comment by Mikey — 10 February, 2008 @ 5:17 pm
Mary Rizzo describes The Radical Press thus:

‘The Radical Press presents thought-provoking and intelligent information and analysis. It is absolutely NOT anti-Semitic, but many who might not agree with its harsh critique on Israel might try to label it as such, so that people will create confusion between the two, and things never change.’

Well let’s see what this intelligent, thought provoking and analytical site can offer.

There are articles on the:

Jewish Banking Cartel (82) Jewish Holocaust Industry (77) Jewish Lobby (112) Jewish Media Monopoly (105) Jewish Porn Industry (50) Jews (148) Jews Behind Bolshevik Revolution
http://www.radicalpress.com/?p=681#more-681

Let us take Brother Daniel’s incisive article:

AMERICA IS RUN BY JEWS

By Brother Nathanael Kapner
Copyright © 2008
Brother Nathanael bronathanael@yahoo.com
AMERICA IS NOW A JEW-RUN NATION. Here is a list of the prominent Jews who run America:

On second thoughts let not take it.

Elsewhere we learn that ‘Judaism is a “chameleon” culture/religion. It “becomes” whatever is necessary in order to deceive and trick non-Jews’

http://www.radicalpress.com/?p=681#more-681

Yes, these are all excellent ways to support the Palestinians. Anti-semites unite.

Fact is that Mary Rizzo is such an anti-Semitic twisted little individual that she can no longer tell the difference between anti-Zionism and support for the Palestinians and anti-Semitism.

And another article by the object of her adoration, Gilad Atzmon, which is on the Redress site:

‘Brave new world war Holocaust politics in the service of Anglo-American hegemony
I do not wish to enter the debate regarding the truth of the Holocaust but the ugly face of Holocaust politics cannot be hidden any more.’

As for Mikey however much he twists and spins he can’t get out of the fact that he was doing deals with Atzmon, who praises him in comparison with me. To wit:

Mikey, can you provide us with the criminal record of this Bugger-Rance. Is he on spent conviction like greenie l or is he just an ordinary liar?
Gilad Atzmon | 03.12.07 - 8:00 pm | #

I have been very busy digging up stuff on Tony Greenstein - Roland Rance will have to wait for another day.
Mikey | 03.12.07 - 8:53 pm | #

‘Mikey, I hope you do not mind me saying that, but your contribution for the pls solidarity movement is priceless.

To anyone with eyes to see the above is quite clear. Mikey doesn’t say, no fuck off Atzmon, I don’t work for you. He says ‘Roland Rance will have to wait for another day.’ And Atzmon replies in the same spirit: ‘your contribution for the pls solidarity movement is priceless’. Why? Because Mikey was trying to dig up dirt on me to be used by holocaust deniers and anti-Semites.

I suggest a long period of silence from you would not go amiss.

Mikey suggests there are only 2 references to Hecht in Braham’s books (1981 edition Columbia Press. How about footnotes 61, 62, 64, 111, 113, 117, 118 pp. 727-731. They are probably not all but those I’ve quickly scanned, which makes 7 not 2! Clearly arithmetic is also not the collaborator’s main claim to fame.

Mikey mentions Professor Talmon of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and indeed he is worth a mention, as he was one of the main defenders of the Judenrat, the quisling Jewish Councils set up by the Nazis as part of their programme to annihilate the Jews.

In ‘Escaping Auschwitz – A Culture of Forgetting’ by Professor Ruth Linn of Haifa University, a book I reviewed in Tribune last year, she reprints an exchange of letters between Talmon and Rudolph Vrba. Vrba is one of the heroes of the Jewish resistance. He together with Alfred Wexler, the 2nd and 3rd Jewish escapees from Auschwitz gave testimony for what became the Auschwitz Protocols. These for the first time definitively showed where Auschwitz was and laid out a map and detailed the exterminations there.

On September 8 1963 there was a report from Hannah Arendt on the Eichmann trial in Jerusalem and how the trial had been manipulated to serve the purposes of Zionist historiography. She questioned many things including the role of the Judenrat and the accusation that the Jews of Europe went to their deaths like sheep, as if they did something different from other victims of genocide.

‘Arendt argued that it was imperative to study the connection between the functioning of the wartime Jewish leaders and the lack of Jewish opposition or to what extent the Jewish leaders might have contributed to the “sheep-to-the-slaughter” state of mind. It certainly ought to have interested the prosecution, who relentlessly kept asking the witnesses: Why did you not resist.’
On September 15 Talmon replied. Signing himself off as Professor of Modern History’ he referred to Arendt, one of the greatest of philosophers, as ‘Miss Arendt’ – a calculated insult. On September 22 Vrba replied describing how he and Wetzler had escaped from Auschwitz on April 7 1944. I quote:

‘In April 1944 we handed to a high representative of the Zionist movement (in Slovakia) Dr Oskar Neumann, a 60 page detailed report on the fact that extermination of 1.76m Jews had taken place in Auschwitz…. Did the Judenrat (or the Udenverrat) in Hungary tell their Jews what was awaiting them? No, they remained silent and for this silence some of their leaders – for instance Dr R. Kasztner – bartered their own lives and the lives of 1684 other ‘prominent’ Jews directly from Eichmann. They were not ‘helpless and benumbed hostages’ but clever diplomats who knew what their silence was worth. The 1684 Jews whom they bought from Eichmann included not only various prominent Zionists, not only relatives of Kasztner etc, but also such Jews who were able to pay with millions… At the same time they silently watched as more than 400,000 Hungarian Jews, unaware of their fate, were tricked into Auschwitz, where thousands of their children were not even gassed but merely thrown into the pyre alive.’

And he concluded: ‘Now Professor Talmon is an historian and he should understand that if we ponder and speak about the past it is because we think about the future. This historical phenomenon has to be faced if we are able to understand mankind.’ (Linn, pp. 9-13)

Of course it is understandable that the small collaborator, Mikey, identifies with historians who are also apologists for collaboration. I prefer to identify with the non-Zionist Rudolph Vrba who did his utmost to reveal the whereabouts of Auschwitz and what was about to happen to the last remaining large Jewish community in Europe which had been untouched so far. The Auschwitz Protocols were handed to Kasztner on April 29th by Oskar Neumann and Kasztner sat on them. He did nothing to publicise them or make sure that the gist of what they were saying were distributed to the Jewish communities of Hungary. The major Jewish community of Kolozvar (Cluj) was but a few miles from the Romanian border. It is indisputable, because this is what the survivors who challenged Kasztner after the war said, that they could have crossed the border to Romanian. Some may have perished but some would undoubtedly survived. Everwhere in Europe where Jews fled the ghettos for the forests some survived. Even if it was only 50% it was 50% higher than survived if they went in a sealed train to the extermination camps.

That Mikey defends the Zionist collaborators shows exactly where he is coming from. He is not someone to accuse of modesty. He believes he knows more than me about Holocaust history. Even were this true it would be irrelevant because he comes with predetermined conclusions, viz. that nothing the Zionists did was wrong. It is not a question of how much individuals know, as Vrba demonstrated with Talmon, who was undoubtedly a scholar with much knowledge, but to what use you put that knowledge and what sense you make of it. Mikey uses what knowledge he possesses to justify collaboration. And his great stores of knowledge, as showed by his reference to Hecht and Braham seems to be primarily dipping in and out of books. If he had read Brahams as opposed to just going to the index then he would know that there were a number of references to Ben Hecht in the footnotes and that Braham did indeed rely heavily on him for the section on Kasztner.

Ben Hecht incidentally was a Zionist dissident, a supporter of the Revisionists, but despite this he was an ardent campaigner to save ALL Jews not just Zionist leaders in Nazi occupied Europe. Hence he supported the Bergson/Merlin group of Zionist dissidents who campaigned to make people aware of the Holocaust and to force the US Government to do something. The Zionist leaders bitterly opposed this group because they were more concerned about forming a future Jewish state rather than saving Jews in the here and now.

Yisrael Medad refers me to the original of what Jabotinsky said in the original Hebrew. I am happy to stand corrected because I am not a Hebrew speaker and therefore do have to rely in this instance on secondary sources. However Shlomo Avineiri, albeit a Labour Zionist whereas Y Medad is a Revisionist Zionist, gives I think a faithful translation, bearing in mind that any translation is always open to translation. I have seen at least 3 different translations of Ben Gurion’s famous 1938 memo to the Zionist Executive on having to choose between
‘refugeeism’ and building a state. Who is to say which is right? Any interpretation is a work of art to some extent.
Yisrael’s quotation is: ‘“I am little acquainted with the teachings of socialism but I am undoubtedly a Zionist for the Jews were facing in the Diaspora a St. Bartholomew’s Night massacre. The enemies of the Jews were not completely wrong since in the dispersion the Jews are a very negative people and its neighbors harte them with justice. Only a wholesale emmigration of Jews to Palestine could save the Jewish people.”
Avineiri’s is: ‘I do not know if I am a socialist, since I have not yet acquainted myself with this doctrine; but I have no doubt that I am Zionist, because the Jewish peopoe is a very nasty people, and its neighbours hate it and they are right; its end in the Diaspora will be a general Bartholomew Night, and the only rescue is general immigration to Palestine.’

I don’t think there are major differences between the 2 versions. I don’t accept Medad’s reasoning, viz. that ‘he was surprised at the hovels, poverty and off-setting impressions the Jews of that area provided for him, a Jew from intellectual and liberal Odessa and so presumed that if he was so affected, the Goy even more so.’ Is Medad really saying that the cause of anti-Semitism was the poverty Jews lived in? Non-Jews were also poverty stricken. The causes were political not the state that Jews were living in.

The point I was making was that the utter contempt and hatred for the Jewish diaspora was a common feature of Zionist ideologues. Actually this was most true of the Labour Zionists. If it makes Medad happier I will conceded that this was less true for Revisionism. It is no accident that Hecht, Bergson and Merlin came from the Revisionists who did believe, wrongly that Palestine could save all Jews. It was a chimera. The only way of preventing the holocaust was resistance in Europe and it is no accident that 6 and not 8 million died. This was because the Soviet Union, for all its hideous deformations, save up to 2 millions if not more. When the Soviet troops retreated in the summer of 1941 they took with them hundreds of thousands of Jews, in some cases whole communities.

For example I could quote from an article by Joachim Doron ‘Classic Zionism and Modern Anti-Semitism: Parallels and Influences (1883-1914), Studies in Zionism, No. 8 Autum 1983 where he says: ‘It cannot be denied that the Jewish self-criticism so widespread among the German Zionist intelligentsia often seemed dangerously similar to the plaints of the German anti-Semites.’ p.171.
It would be churlish to go over at length the quotations from Arthur Ruppin’s Diary. Ruppin was know as the father of the settlements. A key person in charge of land settlement within the World Zionist Organisation. Doron quotes how when Ruppin was accused of being an anti-Semite, he replied that:

‘I have already established here [in his diary] that I despise the canceres of Judaism more than does the worst anti-Semite…’ (entry 4.8.93.) And what was his take on the Dreyfuss trial, where the French aristocratic and military caste sought to pin the label of treason on a Jewish officer as a means of rolling back the gains of Emancipation for French Jewry as a whole?

‘In Paris a captain by the name of Dreyfuss has been arrested on charges of spying: he is a Jew. In Berlin a major usury trial is taking place. Naturally the accused are Jews, and so it goes on. I fear that up till now I have had too good an opinion of my people and perhaps the anti-Semites are right in their charges after all!… Even the gravest punishment is not too harsh for this Dreyfus, since not he alone but all the rest of us must suffer for his guilt.’ (23.11 and 23.12.94) So much for the idea that Herzl was so horrified by the Dreyfus Affair that he became a Zionist.

Doron speaks of Ruppin’s ‘revulsion toward the Jewish character and its physical embodiment.’ p. 191
Ruppin, Klatzkin, Hess and Jabotinsky were not, however, isolated figures. This was endorsed by all major Zionist figures. They believed in the ‘new Jew’ as opposed to the ‘hideous’ speciment in the Jewish Diaspora. If one doesn’t understand this one doesn’t understand anything about the role of Zionism. That is why I disagree with Andy that Zionism was a Jewish national movement. It wasn’t. It was a quisling movement. Those Zionists who did fight against anti-Semitism, such as Mordechai Anielwicz, commander of the Jewish Fighting Organisation in Warsaw Ghetto did this not because of but despite their Zionism. And Anielwicz made this clear himself when he referred to the wasted years engaging in Jewish self-education and running Kibbutzim (under the Nazis no less!).
Take the Zionist newspaper Die Welt. As Doron notes:

‘One of the most effective weapons of the anti-Semites in reinforcing the stereotype of the Jew in the consciousness of the masses was the caricature whose purpose was to make its object hateful to the general public. The Zionist newspaper Die Welt, however saw in the caricature – and especially the anti-Semitic caricature – a positive and educational value. According to that view, those who denounced the Jewish people over the ages unwittingly filled an e ducational role. For the Jew must come to know himself ‘and who will deny that there are faults in the Jews that invite caricature?’ The Jewish typology that appeared in the anti-Semitic caricatures was not new. For example the French artist Charles Huard who frequently won enthusiastic reviews in the Zionist paper, repeatedly portrayed nouveau riche; the leech that s uchs the blood of the French and the ‘impudent’ Jew who pushes his way into Christian society quite uninvited. (Rudolph Lothar ‘Antisemitische Karikaturen, Die Welt, no. 3 1897, p.14. Lothar concluded thus:

‘An anti-Semitic teacher once said ‘It is impossible to be too hard on the Jews.’ The man was pretty close to the truth. Only relentless vigor, only relentless denunciation can heal Judaism of its ills.’

There is much else I could quote. But now people can judge where Mikey’s comment ‘“The most virulent anti-Semitism comes from Zionists who hate the Galut (Jewish diasporah).” Zionists certainly do not hate the Jewish diaspora, Greenstein has simply made this claim up.’ is in fact true or merely a demonstration of the ignorance of this purveyor of hasbarah (propaganda).

Maybe a more general point since nothing will shake the collaborator Mikey’s belief that he is the greatest historian since Gaius Cornelius Tacitus, the Roman orator and politician.
Andy wrote a good article on anti-Semitism on which there should be a debate. However it quickly got sidelined onto Zionism etc. I think this demonstrates that today anti-Semitism cannot be discussed in isolation from the movement which took anti-Semitism as its starting point and which continues to define anti-Semitism in such a way that they target above all their anti-Zionist opponents.
I haven’t pointed out the sordid dealings between Mikey and Atzmon just to embarrass the former or to his false allegations on Aaronovitch’s blog in order to humiliate him, though clearly he is prone to making wild allegations that cannot be sustained. It is because Zionism always considered anti-Semitism normative, a natural reaction of non-Jews to the Jews in their midst.

I also suggest that there is no point in discussing anti-Semitism when anti-Semites like Mary Rizzo participate. She clearly hasn’t an inkling just what anti-Semitism is. Even the most virulently anti-Semitic sites are, to her, just anti-Zionist. I suggest any posting by her on the subject is deleted as soon as Andy is able to because she has nothing to contribute. And trolls like Fabian from Israel who likewise are more than happy to justify the most overt racism are deleted. That way there may be a genuine discussion. Fabian can go to a blog which debates whether it is right to bar non-Jews from ‘Jewish’ land and the like. But just as Rizzo doesn’t understand anti-Semitism, he doesn’t understand anti-Arab racism.
Let me include extracts from ‘Zionism was right’ a report of a lecture by A B Yehoshua to the Union of Jewish Students as reported in the Jewish Chronicle. I can e-mail anyone who wants the whole article:

‘Zionism was right
Novelist A. B. Yehoshua raises a debate on Israel’s centrality to Jewish life
ZIONISM started at the end of the 19th century, not because of the memory of eretz yisrael for which Jews had never ceased to long. Zionism was created as a political movement out of the fear of the diaspora, which for the first tine overcame the fear of Eretz Yisrael.
…
Later on, Jabotinsky issued his famous warning: “If you do not destroy the gola, then the gola will destroy you. “The great majority of the Jewish people; however, persisted in opposing Zionism.’

Anti-Zionism is not the product of the non-Jews. On the contrary, the Gentiles have always encouraged Zionism, hoping that it would help to rid them of the Jews in their midst. Even today, in a perverse way, a real antisemite must be a Zionist.

Nevertheless, the main opposition to Zionism came from among the Jews themselves. For example, the great chasidim on the one hand, and the extreme Socialist movement, the bund, on the other, opposed Zionism

The Balfour Declaration issued in 1917 was a moment of grace. Britain was inviting the Jews to establish a homeland in Eretz Yisrael. The world Jewish population at that time totalled six and a half million”— two and a half million of whom were on the move from Eastern Europe to America.

If only five per cent of them had come to Eretz Yisrael in the 1920s, our destiny might have been completely different. With 800, 000 Jews, we could have established a Jewish State then and its existence could have saved countless Jewish lives in the Second World War.

The British cannot be blamed. Lloyd George and others were very favourable towards Zionism but they could not hold the country for us forever. Yet the Jews did not come. Then Britain got involved in the war and it could not fulfil Zionism for us. This was the failure of the Jewish people. Zionism was right, but the Jewish people failed.
The final proof that Jews do not want to come to eretz yisrael is that since the establishment of the State 90 per cent of new immigrants have come through lack of choice. The remaining 10 per cent prove that you don’t have to come only because someone is forcing you to.
Eretz Yisrael is the pillar of Judaism. for Jews have never forgotten the Promised Land. They say in. their prayers: “Next year in Jerusalem. ” So why aren’t they coming? This is a pathological situation.
…
This refusal to come to Israel has been constant since the time of the Second Temple. It is a malady which is deep in our veins because there has always been a superficial excuse ready without trying to look deeper into the malady.
…
The definition of a Jew as the child of a Jewish mother is a very narrow one. No one would define a British person as being “a child of a British mother. ” To be British, you have to be connected to the British framework, to be eligible for conscription into the British Army, etc. Next to this come the religious and cultural concepts of Judaism and there is a conflict between the two definitions which the diaspora is helping to avoid.
…
People should not say, “Next year in Jerusalem, ” if they do not mean it. Don’t be dishonest with us Israelis, with yourself or with the Gentiles around you. By living in an uncommitted situation, you are escaping from your responsibilities.
Jewish Chronicle 22.1.82.

This is also the answer to the trite and superficial argument of the Mikeys of this world that the prayer ‘next year in Jerusalem’ has any political meaning. It didn’t until imperialism decided that it should.

My apologies for the length of the post but as the old saying goes, by the time a lie has gone 12 times around the world, the truth has only just got its boots on.

Tony Greenstein

Comment by Tony Greenstein — 10 February, 2008 @ 7:37 pm
Greenie,is there any dignity in your pathetic system?

Palestinian activists are clearly asking you to leave the room….

http://peacepalestine.blogspot.com/2008/02/petition-for-two-activists-that-you.html

“We, Palestinians and activists for Palestine, express our solidarity with Gilad Atzmon and Mary Rizzo….. Tony Greenstein created among his usual lies that some Palestinians attack and defame the two dedicated supporters of the Palestinian cause, Atzmon and Rizzo. We declare that he does not speak for us or in our names when he attacks these and other activists.

Initial Signatories: other names will be added and comments that have been sent will be compiled and published.
Adib S. Kawar, Nazareth, Palestine - Beirut, Lebanon
Walid Halabi, France-Italy
Arab Abdel-Hadi PMWATCH, Ansar Al-Quds. LEBANONVIEW, Free Palestine and others
Malak Abdel-Hadi, Palestinian living in Dubai
Shahira Mehrez, Egyptian living in Cairo, Egypt
Paola Pisi, Italy, URUKNET
Ismail Zayid, Canada
Nizar Issa, London, UK
Nadia Hasan, Chile
Dr Sadek Pharaon MD, Syria
Oren Ben Dor, UK
Manuel Talens, Spain
Dima Hamdan, London, UK
Iqbal Tamimi, Exiled Journalist Network – UK, A Palestinian journalist and poet
Samir Daoud - Akka Palestine - residence: Beirut – Lebanon
Nadia Daoud - Akka Palestine - Residence: Beirut – Lebanon
Hala Kawar – Nazareth, Palestine - Residence - Beirut – Lebanon
Wajih Freij – Jerusalem, Palestine - Residence: Beirut – Lebanon
Lamia Kawar – Nazareth, Palestine - Residence - Beirut - Lebanon
Ibrahim Kawar – Nazareth, Palestine - Residence - Beirut - Lebanon
Fausto Giudice, Secretary, France, Zapatist Alliance for Social Liberation
Ginette Hess Skandrani, France, Chairwoman, Zapatist Alliance for Social Liberation
Wael AlSaad, Düsseldorf-Germany. PYN Coordinator-Germany Palestinian Community Düsseldorf Board
Dr Hajo G. Meyer, Heiloo, the Netherlands, survivor of Auschwitz
The Radical Press, Canada
Mauro Manno, Italy
Manuela Vittorelli, Italy
Diego Traversa, Italy
Vicente Romano, Spain
Carlos Sanchis, Spain
Nancy Harb Almendras, United States, Germany
Zuhair Nafa, Palestine
Raja Chemayel, The Hague, Netherlands
Theodore D. Turner, Brooklyn, New York
Kristoffer Larsson, Sweden
Ellen Rohlfs, Germany, German-Palestinian Society and Gush Shalom
Hergen Matussik, Germany
Benedetta Scardovi-Mounier, USA/Italy
Cristina Santos, London, UK
Rocío Anguiano, Spain
Sigge Andersson, pre-med student, Sweden
Guenter Schenk, France/Germany, Aktionsbündnis für einen gerechten Frieden in Palästina
LanceThruster, LA, CA, USA
Mary Sparrowdancer, Tallahassee, FL
Birgit Jödahl, Sweden
Miguel Martinéz, Florence, Italy
Susanne Scheidt, Al-Awda Italia
Jean-Marie Flémal, writer and translator, WPB (Workers’ Party of Belgium), Charleroi, Belgium.
Edna Spennato, South Africa-Brazil, Earth Heal Geoharmonic Research Project
Abdullah Husain, Palestine by birth, KSA, India by life accident
Wendy Campbell, California, USA, MarWen Media
Peter Brooke, UK, www.peterbrooke.org.uk
Daniel McGowan, Geneva, NY, Exec. Director, Deir Yassin Remembered
Debbie Brown, Hacienda Heights, California USA
Kenneth Rasmusson, Sweden
Redress Information & Analysis, London, UK
Schuyler Ebbets, USA, The People’s Voice.org
Ragnar B. Johannessen, Norway, The People’s Voice.org
Annie Selden Annab, Annie’s Letters Blog
Jim Leven, UK, PSC member
Javier Fernández Retenaga, Spain
Shaukat Khawja, Toronto, Canada Profession: Engineer
Volker M., Canada
Lina Abu Baker, London, UK
Brenda Heard, UK, Friends of Lebanon, http://www.friendsoflebanon.org/
Letizia Tessicini, Orte, Italy
Simon R-Levin, Manchester, UK
Paloma Valverde, Spain,member of CEOSI
Sarah Stevens, UK
Ralph Pinner, UK
Inge Soder, Germany
Sarah Gillespie, London, UK
Raja Ibrahim, Pistoia, Italy, ASSOCIAZIONE AMICIZIA ITALO - PALESTINESE
Adriano Mencarelli, Roma - Italy
Diego Ianiro - Caserta, Italy, of Khalas Napoli - khalasnews.splinder.com
Francesca Longhi- Bergamo, Italia
Antonio Corraine - Aosta, Italy
Stuart Cary Welch - N/A
Haitham Sabbah, Tulkarm, Palestine/Dubai, blogger of Sabbah’s Blog
Latuff, Rio De Janiero, Brazil, Cartoonist
Nureddin Sabir, London, UK, Editor of Redress Information & Analysis
Steve Amsel, Jerusalem-Al Quds, blogger of Desert Peace
Lasse Wilhelmson, Sweden
Richard Jones, Swansea, Wales
Einar Schlereth, Sweden, Journalist
Karaiskos Kostas, Komotini, Greece, ANTIFONITIS director
Adeline Rec, N/A
Àlex Tarradellas, Catalonia
Nuria Álvarez, Spain
Guillermo F. Parodi, Paraguay, Universitary Professor
Dennis Zackrisson, Uppsala, Sweden
Mark Roland, Eugene Oregon, USA
Robert Wagner, Italy
Graham Derrick, West Yorkshire, UK
Gabriele Rèpaci, Milano, university student
Emmanuel St John, London, UK
Sami Joseph, UK
Ernesto Paramo, Mexico/UK
Muhammad Idrees Ahmad, Glasgow, Scotland, blogger of The Fanonite
Jeffrey Blankfort, California, USA
David Baldinger, USA, Cartoonist, blogger
Olivia Zémor, Paris, France, cofounder CAPJPO (Coordination des Appels pour une Paix Juste au Proche-Orient)
Ana Cleja, France
John W. Blalock, N/A
Maryam Husain and Children, Displaced Palestinian/KSA/Italy/India currently
Emanuela Borrelli, Italy
Rachel Bridgeland, UK
Maria Ingrosso, Lecce, Italy
Riccardo Di Vito, Roma, Italia - Campo Antimperialista
Camilla Rahm, Gothenburg, Sweden

Comment by Gilad Atzmon — 10 February, 2008 @ 7:54 pm
Ah, and now Gilad Atzmon.

Gilad, your friend Paul Eisen thinks that the gas chambers of Auschwitz probably didn’t exist. You’ve helped him spread that belief by circulating his essay.

Is he right, Gilad? Are the gas chambers of Auschwitz a Jew - sorry, ‘zionist’ - fraud?

Comment by goodwin sands — 10 February, 2008 @ 8:01 pm
And Greenie’le mine kind, don’t you forget, today was the IM UK day ….

You may want to call your friends their…. you may have another fiasco to deal with before you go to bed…

You are really good in bringing the shit on yourself…

Now when the Pls solidarity movement is rejecting you , I am afraid I may going to miss you.

Comment by Gilad Atzmon — 10 February, 2008 @ 8:02 pm
Atzmon, Rizzo, and ‘Jock McTrousers’ - are there any more anti-semites who’d like to step up and pollute this site, or are they all over at Rizzo’s blog?

Gilad, your friend Paul Eisen thinks that the gas chambers of Auschwitz probably didn’t exist. You’ve helped him spread that belief by circulating his essay.

Is he right, Gilad? Are the gas chambers of Auschwitz a Jew - sorry, ‘zionist’ - fraud?

Comment by goodwin sands — 10 February, 2008 @ 8:12 pm
Ah yes, the Ego himself returns. Perhaps Atzmon might answer Goodwin Sands question, as to whether he believes the gas chambers existed or is it just part of a rolling narrative?

But Goodwin doesn’t need to hang around for an answer. As John Prine once remarked, a question ain’t really a question when you know the answer too. And we all know the answer Atzmon, don’t we? In your latest article, ‘Holocaust politics in the service of Anglo-American hegemony’ you state that
‘I do not wish to enter the debate regarding the truth of the Holocaust but the ugly face of Holocaust politics cannot be hidden any more.’

The starting point of any debate that anti-Zionists take part with over Zionist uses of the holocaust is that the Holocaust happened. Period. You look at anything Finkelstein or Brenner or myself have written and that is where we begin. You don’t. You begin with a question mark over the holocaust itself and if the reports from Germany are correct, you believe the Holocaust is a ‘forgery’. So a simple question which will allay our doubts. Do you believe there was such a thing as the holocaust, i.e. the deliberate extermination of European Jewry by the forces of Hitler. I’m sure that with all the thousands of words you expend you will be able to find the courage to answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’.

‘In a public statement, Atzmon is quoted as having said that the written history of the Second World War and the Holocaust are a “complete forgery, initiated by Americans and Zionists”.

Atzmon has a history of distributing Holocaust denial literature, and of endorsing Holocaust revisionists. Of course, he angrily denies that he himself is a Holocaust denier.

I found myself curious about the source of this Atzmon quote, which I have never seen before. (Stoltz used the same quote while defending neo-Nazi Rigolf Hennig in 2006.)

After much searching, I found it: In 2005, a local newspaper, Ruhr Nachrichten, reported on his lively performance in Bochum, Germany:
What followed was a heated debate…during which several spectators left the room in protest. Atzmon described the known history of the Second World War and the Holocaust as a whole, as a forgery initiated by Americans and Zionists….Particularly fierce debate erupted as Atzmon argued that there is “no forensic evidence” that the number of Jews killed during the Holocaust is really six million.’

Atzmon asks ‘Greenie,is there any dignity in your pathetic system? Palestinian activists are clearly asking you to leave the room….’

I truly thought that Atzmon and Rizzo would have had second thoughts about this obvious and absurd petition. Clearly the anti-Semites have been feeling the heat, after their debacle on the Cork PSC Database where an Atzmonite editor, Paul de Rooij, effectively defaced the page where an author is introduced. The fact is that Ireland PSC, with its feet on the ground, did not wish to be seen to be in any sort of alliance with the Atzmonites, because those who campaign for the Palestinians know that Atzmon and his fellow anti-Semites are death for Palestinian solidarity.

Likewise the Redress site, which is advertised at the moment on the UNISON Scotland site will be removed. Normal people detest you Atzmon, hence why you hang around with the freaks and weirdos comprising some Indymedia moderators. I say some because there are others who are devoted campaigners. But the ftps of IM UK have no base in the real world.

Just like the same petition 2-3 years ago, also hosted by Redress, this one is written by Atzmon and Rizzo. They eventually owned up to writing the last one so I hope they’ll be honest this time around. It adds, as an afterthought, that people should remember the people of Gaza. And that says it all. Atzmon’s ego is so big now that he goes around asking for palestinians and their supporters to support him. And being generous people, without most people knowing anything of the issues, they append their names. Not many of them but enough to feed Atzmon and Rizzo’s egos for another day.

Far from Atzmon being a supporter of Palestinian solidarity, he expects Palestinians to be a supporter of the Atzmon Ego. And the man has the cheek to talk of dignity? Who could parody this?

Tony G

Tony Greenstein

Comment by Tony Greenstein — 10 February, 2008 @ 8:41 pm
Let’s keep this short: the Goy antisemite, as you call him, can’t stand the Jewish existence in the Diaspora among him for all sorts of reasons (and there is a difference between ‘my’ Christian poor and the ‘their’ Jewish poort) and will either, hate, igniore, discriminate or kill the Jew(s). The Jewish Zionist also doesn’t like Diaspora Jewish existence as it has corrupted Jewish national psyche, to use the term Jabotinsky did, and doesn’t like the Jew who cooperates with a Diaspora existence. But he doesn’t hate the Jew rather he dislikes his/her characteristics and therefore wants to redeem him/her by returning him to his natural, physical, cultural, psychological, nationalistic and religous environment. Is that too difficult to comprehend? If so, why?

Comment by Yisrael Medad — 10 February, 2008 @ 8:49 pm
So it’s now the Atzmon Solidarity Campaign?

Amongst its assorted supporters we have one “Lance Thruster”
Sarah Gillespie, a well know Atzmon sycophant and hatemonger.

A collection of unrepresentative individuals, bloggers a ‘Universitary Professor’ and members of such organisations as the ultra-stalinist Workers Party of Belgium and the “Earth Heal Geoharmonic Research Project” and joining them Atzmon’s personal research assistant schmendrack Mikey.

All hail Fatzmon and his grotesque overbloated ego!

Comment by Prianikoff — 10 February, 2008 @ 8:56 pm
No Yisrael. It is not at all difficult to comprehend. Far from it. The anti-Semite (I didn’t say goy) doesn’t like the Jewish existence in ‘their’ country, but not just as an individual, but for all the reasons you elaborate: natural, physical, cultural, psychological, nationalistic and religous environment. There is therefore a meeting of minds between Zionist and anti-Semite.

Both agree Jews do not belong where they live and were born. Both agree they are strangers and both agree that the Jew should go to Palestine. Of course whilst individual anti-Semites will hate individual Jews (though their leaders declaim all such gutter anti-Semitism) the Zionist merely detests the existence of the Jew in the diasporah because it has ‘corrupted’ his ‘national psyche’.

The two amount to the same and it is on this basis that Herzl ensured that no criticism of the Czarist pogromists was made at the 6th Zionist Congress and why the Zionist movement, almost uniquely, was a legal movement in Czarist Russia. And as you know Medad, this culminated in the Ben Gurion idea that if there was a choice between what he termed ‘the national museum’ and saving the Jewish diasporah, regardless of destination, then the former took precedence.

Revisionists previously, like Hecht and co. and of course Shmuel Tamir who represented Greenwald in his libel suit against Kastner and who himself became a government Justice Minister in the late 1970’s under Begin, disagreed with this creed of Ben Gurion. Indeed Herut as a whole castigated Kasztner. Do you agree with the position that Herut used to adopt or have you changed with the wind?

Tony G

Let’s keep this short: the Goy antisemite, as you call him, can’t stand the Jewish existence in the Diaspora among him for all sorts of reasons (and there is a difference between ‘my’ Christian poor and the ‘their’ Jewish poort) and will either, hate, igniore, discriminate or kill the Jew(s). The Jewish Zionist also doesn’t like Diaspora Jewish existence as it has corrupted Jewish national psyche, to use the term Jabotinsky did, and doesn’t like the Jew who cooperates with a Diaspora existence. But he doesn’t hate the Jew rather he dislikes his/her characteristics and therefore wants to redeem him/her by returning him to his natural, physical, cultural, psychological, nationalistic and religous environment. Is that too difficult to comprehend? If so, why?

Comment by Tony Greenstein — 10 February, 2008 @ 9:07 pm
Yissie: “Is that too difficult to comprehend? If so, why?”

It’s not difficult to comprehend, but it’s a complete fantasy.
You must be living quite a privileged existence on your kibbutz.
Try living in a 2 room flat in Haifa during a khamsin in August.
Try working in an oil refinery and taking the bus to work everyday.

That’ll do wonders for your nationalist psyche Haver

Comment by Yeshiya — 10 February, 2008 @ 9:21 pm
Gaswind, I mentioned to you before that I am not too concerned with the historicity of the Jewish Holocaust because the debate on the topic is momentarily prohibited (this is changing now). However, I do care about the meaning of the event (ethics). I am obviously far more concerned with the Shoa that is taking place in Gaza in your name.

Re Eisen and the gas Ch, I may have to challenge you first, … are you an Holocaust expert? What are your credentials? Did you publish a paper on the subject in an academic magazine? I know that Eisen did his research,I published a few papers on the subject (widely published and translated into 5 languages) but what about you Gaswind?

You see Gaswind’le in order to debate scholarly you have to do some homework.

You ll have to accept it: having your schwantz chopped a week after you came to the the world is far from being an academic credential. You’ll have to try harder. As far as I can remeber, you were asked to resolve the Q raised by Eisen and others…i cannot recall seeing your answer.

However, it is so nice to see that this SU blog that had the pretence of a progressive blog just a few month ago, is now officially transformed into a kosher cyber shtettle with the David Taubs, and the Fabians, and the Greensteins, and the Tims, and the Gaswinds. What can i say, well done guys, well done Andy, it didn’t take too long.

You are indeed an impressive bunch of ‘Wondering cyber Jews’.

I ask myself, why can’t you just settle in one blog like us in Pepa?

Comment by Gilad Atzmon — 10 February, 2008 @ 10:08 pm
Can i raise a basic question relating to what started this discussion - namely a member of the Green Party at an anti war coalition meeting saying that in essence the world economy is Jewish controlled. This is clearly anti semitic - the socialism of fools which blames jews for capitalism. What puzzles me is why this person was not , at least if s/he persisted with these views, simply expelled from the meeting. If this had been an expression of any other form of racism (eg Palestinians rule the world) or misogyny (witches are behind the election of the US President) then I suspect the Green Party member would have been kicked out of the meeting. Why not here? Why are anti-semitism and anti-semites treated with kid gloves? This is a genuine question. It would be depressing if it were answered with the usual vituperation - namely that Jews somehow can’t stamd criticism of themselves and have no concern for democracy etc etc. At a time of the international growth of anti-semitism then such views need not simply be contested but need to be visibly stamped on. Otherwise the next thing we will hear from the Greems (as we did from their Nazi counterparts in the 30s) is that Jews are somehow rsponsible for envionmental distaster through their atatchment to urbanisation. Steve Cohen

Comment by steve cohen — 10 February, 2008 @ 10:25 pm
Atzkatzazayin, you’re such egotistical scum it’s a pain to listen to you.

Comment by prianikoff — 10 February, 2008 @ 10:34 pm
Steve wrote “Otherwise the next thing we will hear from the Greems (as we did from their Nazi counterparts in the 30s) is that Jews are somehow rsponsible for envionmental distaster through their atatchment to urbanisation.”

To put the record straight: In the mid 90s David Icke was thrown out of the Green Party for anti-semitism. As an active anti-fascist at the time I was involved in helping to mobilise a campaign and protest against Icke - he was holding large meetings in Totnes in Devon (I’m based “down the road” in Exeter) to publicise his book “The Truth Will Set You Free” which cited the notorious Czarists anti-semitic forgery the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as if it were true.

Anyway - it was activists from the Green Party who played a central role in this principled campaign against this anti-semitism. I had the pleasure as an anti-fascist (not a Green!)of working with people like Dave Taylor of Glastonbury Green Party who did brilliant work on this. I have no hesitation in congratulating the Green Party for their role in this affair.

What you might describe as the “anti-capitalist” movement does attract some politically naive people who are taken in by the seeming radicalism of conspiracy theories. There can be something quite comforting about seeing the world in terms of the machinations a small evil “elite”. So 9-11 can be interpreted as the ultra-evil plot by conspirators, that the course of the world is determined in secretive meetings of the Bilderberg group and other such nonsense, that US foreign policy is controlled by the “Jewish lobby” and so on. People attracted to such ideas are to be found amongst the Greens, amongst socialists and amongst anarchists - and in terms of debate on this site most significantly within those who volunteer their services to Indymedia. I think they are a small minority in wider the movement and I don’t agree that their numbers are growing - however perhaps there is a lower level of political consciousness around such that they aren’t jumped on as quickly as they should be! They have alweays been challenged though!

Comment by garagelanduk — 10 February, 2008 @ 11:03 pm
What a load of junk from Tony Greenstein.

Firstly Greenstein should let us know what was he doing reviewing Ruth Linn’s book given that Linn is a lecturer at Haifa University and what is he also doing using Studies in Zionism as a source as that journal was published by Tel Aviv University. I thought Greenstein was boycotting Israeli universities. On the news of his own activities, can he make it clear to us whether he is a) a hypocrite or b) has dropped his idea that Israeli universities should be boycotted? There is no other alternative. (By the way Greenstein did not review Linn’s book last year for Tribune, but for publication on June 9, 2006 where his review also contained errors.)

I am pleased to see that Greenstein has managed to source a copy of Braham’s Politics of Genocide, albeit an old edition. Even if Greenstein is accurate that there were seven footnotes to Hecht’s book, out of probably thousands in the 2 volumes, it can hardly be claimed that Braham did “rely heavily” on Hecht that Greenstein claims. If Greenstein could stick to using those two volumes as a source he would not make such ridiculous claims that Kurt Becher was a General.

In any event, Ben Hecht’s book Perfidy contains numerous errors. A review of Perfidy in the New York Times said that Hecht “indulges in some crude distortions of history.” Lucy Dawidowicz argued in Commentary, “Hecht is neither a historian nor a chronicler, he has little respect for the accuracy of a date, a name, or a quotation: it is too much to expect that he should have placed Kasztner in historical context.” Dawidowicz was scathing in her attack: “He [Hecht] has converted ideological differences into savage personal defamation, and equated Zionist mistakes and expediency with German murder.” [2] In Jewish Frontier, Marie Syrkin slated the “unsavory” book. She accused Hecht of “Falsification of facts,” of using material “out of context,” of “sleight-of-hand,” “omission,” “confusion,” “venom” and of “the revolting aspect” of exploiting “the martyrdom of European Jewry for his partisan ends.” [3] A review in Midstream referred to Perfidy as “a fistful of pages concocted of half truths, outright falsehoods, misrepresentations, quotations out of context, surmises and innuendos, name calling, flight of fancy dressed up to sound like fact and huge glaring omissions of crucial facts and events which can be ascribed either to abysmal ignorance or to equally abysmal cynical disregard of truth.” Shlomo Katz who wrote the review said “It is an evil book in every sense of the word …. The first reaction to reading Perfidy is one of loathing. ‘Trash!’ one is inclined to exclaim and to fling Ben Hecht’s opus into the nearest garbage can.” Katz concluded “Ben Hecht’s Perfidy … is unique – when one reads it, one feels soiled.” [4]

Despite Greenstein’s claim, Arendt’s “report” on the Eichmann Trial did not appear on September 8, 1963. It originally appeared in the New Yorker in five successive issues from 16th February-16th March 1963. In May 1963 the articles were compiled into a book published by Viking Press.

To suggest that it was “a calculated insult” for Professor Talmon to refer to Hannah Arendt as “Miss Arendt” is incorrect. Hannah Arendt was widely known as Miss Arendt and this was the title that even her friends gave her in positive reviews of the book. [6]

Again, in any event, I do not see why Greenstein is relying upon the work of Arendt as It was widely discredited. Not least by Judge Musmanno, who famously said:

“Miss Arendt’s book is so kernel-full of hopelessly inexplicable inconsistencies, unutterably illogical utterances and unfathomably preposterous conclusions that one could only wholly cover the absurdities in her book by writing one equally as long to refute it.” [7]

Jacob Robsinson took that project upon himself and did write a full length book extending to over 400 pages critiquing Arendt’s “report” noting literally hundreds of errors. [8]

Whilst it is true that Rudolf Vrba was indeed a hero of the Holocaust, he was not a historian and his facts about the Holocaust in Hungary and the possibilities are not accepted by historians such as Yehuda Bauer, professor of Holocaust Studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. In any event, Vrba was not in Hungary as after he escaped from Auschwitz, he made his way to Slovakia and joined the partisans there. [9]

It is not clear cut that “The Auschwitz Protocols were handed to Kasztner on April 29th” as Greenstein claims. Krasnianski, who Vrba claims wrote the protocol gave three different testimonies that all contradicted each other. He originally claimed that Kasztner received them on April 26, but this seems impossible as to the best of our knowledge they were not finished until April 27. In a different testimony he claimed “Kasztner say this on the 28th.” [10] The truth is, we do not know exactly when Kasztner received the Protocol.

Contrary to the claim of Greenstein, I do not claim that the Zionists in the Holocaust did nothing wrong, I believe that numerous errors were made. The difference is, I put the blame for the deaths fairly and squarely where it belongs, in the hands of the Nazis and their helpers. I do not try and apportion the blame to the Zionists.

For Greenstein to claim “The Zionist leaders bitterly opposed this group because they were more concerned about forming a future Jewish state rather than saving Jews in the here and now,” is simply astounding. I have no idea where he makes up this nonsense from. In fact the opposite is the case. David Ben-Gurion put it at the time: “There has never yet been a time like today when we have all been threatened with destruction… the destruction of the Jews of Europe is ruinous for Zionism for there will be no-one left to build the state of Israel.” [11]

Really, Tony Greenstein should refrain from allowing his fingers to touch the keypad. Like John W, it might be better if he let people wonder if he was a complete ignoramus, rather than writing such comments and leaving no doubt.

Mikey

References:

[1] Homer Bigart, “A Matter of Personalities,” New York Times Book Review January 28, 1962 p. 20

[2]Lucy S. Dawidowic, “ Ben Hecht’s ‘Perfidy,’” Commentary Vol. 33 No. 3 March 1962 pp. 260-264

[3] Marie Syrkin, “Perfidy and Stale Venom,” Jewish Frontier Vol. XXIX No. 1, January 1962 pp 13-18

[4] Shlomo Katz, “ Ben Hecht’s Kampf,” Midstream Winter 1962 pp. 92-101

[5] Jacob Robinson, And the crooked shall be made straight: The Eichmann Trial, the Jewish Catastrophe and Hannah Arendt’s Narrative (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1965) pp vii-viii and Anson Rabinbach, “Eichmann in New York: The New York Intellectuals and the Hannah Arendt Controversy,” October 108, Spring 2004, pp. 97–111.

[6] See for examples, Daniel Bell, “The Alphabet of Justice: Reflections on ‘Eichmann in Jerusalem, ’” Partisan Review Vol. XXX Number 3, Fall 1963, pp417-29 and also Mary McCarthy, “The Hue and Cry,” Partisan Review, Volume XXXI, Number 1, Winter 1964, pp82-94.

[7] Michael Musmanno, “Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Critique” Chicago Jewish Forum, Vol. 21, Number 4, Summer 1963 pp. 282-5.

[8] Jacob Robinson, op. cit. For a view of some of Robinson’s located errors etc. see, “A Report on the Evil of Banality: The Arendt Book,” Facts, Vol. 15 No. 1, July-August 1963 pp. 263-70 available on line at:
http://www.paulbogdanor.com/robinson-arendt.pdf

[9] Rudolf Vrba I Escaped from Auschwitz, (London: Robson Books, 2006) pp. 250-77

[10] Yehuda Bauer, “The ‘Protocol of Auschwitz,’” Yalkut Moreshet 3 Winter 2005, pp. 125-36

[11] David Ben Gurion, quoted in Dina Porat, The Blue and the Yellow Stars of David: The Zionist Leadership in Palestine and the Holocaust, 1939-1945 (Cambridge Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1990), P. 259

Comment by Mikey — 10 February, 2008 @ 11:37 pm
Atzmon @ 258: “Gaswind, I mentioned to you before that I am not too concerned with the historicity of the Jewish Holocaust because the debate on the topic is momentarily prohibited”

Horseshit, Atzmon. I’m not asking for a book-length dissertation. And I am not asking Eisen but you. I’m asking you for either a ‘yes’ or a ‘no’.

Surely that is not beyond your capabilities.

Unless of course there is something you believe that youd rather not say in public.

Comment by goodwin sands — 10 February, 2008 @ 11:57 pm
So Atmon’s friend Mikey has once again cited Zionist authors at length to refute and rebut Perfidy.

I’m glad that the ‘expert’ (self-defined) Mikey now admits that the no. of references to Hecht’s book by Braham is at least 350% more than he first acknowledged! The point is that these references are all in the chapter concerning Kasztner.

As for quoting Lucy Dawidowicz in Commentary and various other neo-con magazines I suggest Mikey that you take on board that most people on a socialist site take that as proof that there must be more than an element of truth in it if it gets up the noses of Wolfowitz et al. Sorry if you don’t get it.

Dawidowicz was above all a Zionist. A right-wing Zionist at that. She gave very favourable plaudits to Joan Peter’s From Time Immemorial whose main thesis is that no Palestinian refugees were expelled because they were never refugees in the first place! They were recent immigrants attracted by the Zionist settlers! And in ‘proving’ this she quoted an eye witness, a 14th century philosopher no less! It’s almost as bad as quoting from or helping Atzmon.

The book was a forgery and after all the favourable reviews in America it all turned to dust as reputable historians, both in Israel and England, savaged it. So no, I don’t take Dawidowicz with more than a pinch of salt. Where she documents something then what she writes is invaluable but overall her analysis, likeyour own, is lamentable.

Ben Hecht’s book is written by a revisionist Zionist. I disagree with its analysis but the facts it details cannot be disputed, other than by a holocaust denier like Atzmon, in whose camp you are an honorary member.

There is no doubt that Kasztner was given a copy of the Protocols. I have deliberately chosen the date that is accepted by most people, April 29th. There can be no doubt that he, like Freudiger (chief rabbi) and others were recipients. From memory it was from Hungary that a copy was sent to Istanbul. You have nothing to say about Kastner keeping silent fine.

No Vrba wasn’t a historian but Linn asks the pivotal question in her book. Who is a better historian? The person who sits behind a desk and writes or the person who lives through it? I think most people would say that Vrba, having lived the events is in a better position to judge than a Dawidowicz or Bauer. And precisely because of his experiences with Zionist collaborators he became a non-Zionist or in your words anti-Zionist.

Mikey also doesn’t understand the Boycott campaign. It is specifically not aimed at individuals, but at institutions. That means boycotting conferences, joint acacdemic exchanges, reviewing peer papers and other forms of collaboration. It doesn’t prevent people communicating and exchanging especially on topics that are of use to the struggle against Zionist attempts to appropriate history, in this case holocaust history. Nor is it mean to mean one boycotts reading an Israeli journal. Sorry Mikey, you’ll have to practice your ’skills’ at Engage.

Knuckles or, to give her her full name, Edna Spennato, thinks I’m perturbed about the ‘petition’. Quite the contrary. I notice she signs on behalf of the ‘South Africa-Brazil, Earth Heal Geoharmonic Research Project’. Clearly not much harmonics when she writes here, but that may be because Atzmon does the writing and she does the posting.

No I absolutely welcome this petition. It shows just what the priorities of the anti-Semites are - themselves.

Atzmon will do everything, Goodwin, to avoid answering a simple question. As you surmise, there is only one reason for that. in fact I’d go further. Even when he has denied he is an anti-Semite or a holocaust denier (as per his statement that the SWP dragged out of him) you simply can’t believe him.

One has to judge someone by their actions not just their words. He works with, defends, distributes the material of holocaust deniers and of course uses the same language about ‘Zio holocaust narratives’. There can only be one conclusion. After all - if you lie down with a dog you end up with fleas. And Atzmon has those in abundance.

Tony

Comment by Tony Greenstein — 11 February, 2008 @ 12:39 am
Greenstein gets it wrong again. There should be no surprise.

In 1962, Commentary was not a neocon magazine. It may have become associated with the neocon movement by 2008, but it certainly was not when Dawidowicz wrote her article. For example, Irving Howe, who was the editor of the left leaning Dissent also wrote articles for Commentary including a very interesting one criticising the New Yorker for their publication of Hannah Arendt’s “report.” [1] For that matter Partisan Review was also anything but neoconservative as it attracted the sort of writers such as Mary McCarthy, Daniel Bell, Robert Lowell and what Irving Howe subsequently described in Commentary as – “The New York Intellectuals.” [2] Jewish Frontier was also not neoconservative as the magazine was associated with its Socialist-Zionist editor, Marie Syrkin. [3]

Lucy Dawidowicz was also not “above all a Zionist.” She was primarily a historian focussing on the Holocaust and other Jewish issues and was highly regarded for it.

To suggest that Ben Hecht’s facts cannot be disputed, as Greenstein does, surely is a joke. I direct Greenstein to The American Section of the Executive of the World Zionist Organisation and the Jewish Agency response to Perfidy. [4] This report detailed numerous errors in Perfidy and to the credit of Julian Messner Inc., who originally published Perfidy they included this devastating response in later editions of the book.

For Greenstein to suggest that I am either a “holocaust [sic] denier” or in Atzmon’s “camp” is a lie and a slur on my character. How low Greenstein is prepared to go to peddle his filth.

Rudolf Vrba certainly lived through Auschwitz and I am very prepared to read what he has to write about that camp, but he was never in Hungary. Using your own analogy, you my wish to read Joel Brand’s story as Brand understood what conditions were like in Hungary at the time.[5]

Greenstein states, in his own words, that the boycotters of Israel should not be “reviewing peer papers.” He simply does not explain why he was therefore reviewing Ruth Linn’s book. As I said earlier either Greenstein is a hypocrite or he must realise that the whole boycott must be dropped.

Mikey

References

[1] Irving Howe, “‘The New Yorker’ & Hannah Arendt,” Commentary, Vol. 36 No. 4, October 1963, pp318-19.

[2] Irving Howe, “The New York Intellectuals: A Chronicle & A Critique,” Commentary Vol. 46 No. 4 October 1968, pp. 29-51.

[3] Marie Syrkin, The State of the Jews (Washington, DC: New Republic Books, 1980) p. 1

[4] The American Section of the Executive of the World Zionist Organisation and the Jewish Agency, “Ben Hecht’s “Perfidy” – An analysis of his rewriting of history,” contained in Perfidy(New York: Julian Messner Inc., 1962)

[5] Alex Weissberg, Desperate Mission: Joel Brand’s Story as told by Alex Weissberg,” (New York; Criterion Books, 1958)

Comment by Mikey — 11 February, 2008 @ 1:40 am
You have to give it to Tony Greenstein: no matter how many times he is exposed, he keeps coming back with the same interminable nonsense!

What is one to make of someone who in one breath insists that there’s “a meeting of minds between Zionist and anti-Semite” because they “agree Jews do not belong where they live and were born,” but then explains that his friend Bukhari donated money to a neo-Nazi because “he was taken in by Irving’s self-professed ANTI-Zionism” and that neo-Nazis heaped praise on his anti-Zionist views and reprint his anti-Zionist diatribes on their websites because “as the saying goes, even the devil can quote scripture”! Does Greenstein want us to believe that neo-Nazis post his writings because they don’t agree with them? Or perhaps he wants us to think that it’s all a clever neo-Nazi trick to discredit him? Perhaps they were put up to it by the Zionists! If Greenstein can allege that the Union of Jewish Students act as “paid and unpaid informers for Mossad” (Return Magazine, September 1990) then he is capable of anything!

But then again, Greenstein is quite happy to manipulate definitions of Zionism, anti-Zionism and antisemitism to fit whatever Party line he is pushing at any particular moment. So it is that he cites Avineri on the virulently antisemitic Blood Libel essay by Hess while suppressing Avineri’s point that this essay was penned by Hess during his communist ANTI-Zionist years! So it is that he cites essays by Birnbaum and Penslar from the Journal of Israeli History (March 2006) while suppressing the major theme of those essays, and of all the other essays in that special edition - namely that all far-right antisemites turned into venomous anti-Zionists!

While we’re on the subject of antisemitism, let’s take a look at some of Greenstein’s most extraordinary fabrications. Greenstein tells us that “Marx rejected Hess’s blood and soil racism” and “comments on race, such as the length of Jewish noses,” comments that are “typical among Zionist ideologues.” Perhaps Greenstein would like to explain Marx’s infamous diatribe against the “Jewish nigger Lassalle” who - as “the shape of his head and the way his hair grows also testify” - was “descended from the negroes who accompanied Moses’ flight from Egypt” (Letter to Engels, July 30, 1862, Marx-Engels Collected Works, Vol. 41, p388). No blood and soil racism there! And no antisemitism either, for, as Greenstein informs us, he doesn’t recognise an antisemitism of the left: “If you are a socialist then you can’t be an anti-Semite”!

Presumably then, Saint-Simon, Fourier, Toussenel, Blanqui, Proudhon, Bakunin, Marx, Engels, Duhring, etc. were neither leftists nor socialists. Proudhon and Duhring are particularly significant, as they were the first modern European intellectuals to demand the annihilation of all Jews. In fact Duhring’s writings to that effect were even more shocking to Herzl than the Dreyfus case. Incidentally, the French socialists generally supported the antisemites AGAINST Dreyfus: “The extreme Left and the Nationalist Right found common ground in France after the Dreyfus Affair in their hatred of Jewish finance, Jewish intellectualism, Liberal-Republican democracy and bourgeois parliamentarism” (Robert Wistrich, “Socialism and Judeophobia,” Leo Baeck Institute Yearbook, 1992, p115). Just as the Russian far left had enthusiastically supported the antisemitic pogromists against their Jewish victims (Stephen Berk, “The Russian Revolutionary Movement and the Pogroms of 1881-1882,” Soviet Jewish Affairs, 7:2, 1977). Just as the German revolutionaries Marx and Engels, while writing The Communist Manifesto, were also publishing a virulently antisemitic newspaper in which they called for the destruction of entire classes and peoples while denouncing Jews as “national simpletons and money-grubbers,” the “meanest of all races,” whose “lust for profit” caused them to “plunder the churches, set fire to the villages,” beat people to death in public places, etc. (Engels, Neue Rheinische Zeitung, April 29, 1849).

But Greenstein knows better: “If you are a socialist then you can’t be an anti-Semite”!!!

It seems that there are no limits to Greenstein’s historical revisionism. Take his assertion that Zionism was “not a mass national movement of Jews,” unlike the Bund. Of the 5.6 million Jews in in the Russian empire, including Poland, at the time of the October Revolution the Zionist movement had 300,000 members while the Bund had 33,700 members; in elections to the Constitutent Assembly, the Zionists won 417,000 votes while the Bundists won 31,000 votes - thus Zionists outpolled Bundists by over 10-1! Indeed, “The overwhelming majority of politically conscious Jews identifying with Jewish parties preferred the Zionist parties and programs to those of the socialists… [and] it can be assumed that [the] half-million Jews who voted for Jewish parties represented the great majority of Jews voting” (Zvi Gitelman, Jewish Nationality and Soviet Politics, Princeton University Press, 1972, pp71-2, 80-1).

Greenstein’s revisionism runs from the ludicrous to the sinister: “It was the holocaust that made Zionism into a majority political current in the world and Israel represents Hitler’s triumph.” Greenstein, of course, knows from Herf’s essay (in the Journal of Israeli History, supra) that the Nazis vehemently opposed Jewish statehood. And he knows from the recent study by Mallman and Cuppers (Yad Vashem Studies 35) that the Nazis wanted to murder all Jews, including the Jews of the Middle East, and that they colluded with the Palestinian Arab leadership in planning the massacre of the Yishuv.

So Greenstein criticises Eisen for denying the Holocaust, but Greenstein himself denies planned extensions of the Holocaust! And he does this more than once, for he also says that “it is a myth that there was a war of total extermination against Israel in 1948.” His source for his denial of this “myth” is an ideologue for Mapam! A party that openly supported Stalin’s antisemitic purges! A party led by paid KGB agents! More reliable, I think, are official statements by the Arab League: “This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades” (BBC, May 15, 1948).

Finally there is the matter of Greenstein’s ongoing denials of collaboration in the actual Holocaust. I refer not to his falsehoods about Kastner - Greenstein surely knows that Kastner was never in the Hungarian Judenrat, contrary to the Vrba statement which he quotes as Gospel truth - but to his obscene claim that Stalin “save[d] up to 2 millions if not more” Jews from Hitler. The fact of the matter is that during their joint aggression against Poland the Soviets collaborated with the Gestapo in deporting hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees to concentration camps, so that “old people, cripples, mothers of children were sent with their children” to “die of hunger, cold and disease” (Yosef Litvak, “The Plight of Refugees From the German-Occupied Territories,” in Keith Sword, ed., The Soviet Takeover of the Polish Eastern Provinces, 1939-41, St. Martin’s Press, 1991, pp67-9).

Such is the depraved denouement of Greenstein’s anti-Zionist fanaticism: denial of leftist antisemitism, denial of Nazi plans to implement the Holocaust in the Middle East, denial of Stalin’s mass murders of Jews in collaboration with Hitler!

Comment by Paul Bogdanor — 11 February, 2008 @ 1:56 am
Paul Bogdanor is a madder version of Mad Mikey and a reacton against his father, constitional theorist Vernon Bognador. As such I will not dignify his foaming attacks on the left as having conspired with the fascists to murder Jews. It is a conspiracy theory too far.

Just to say that the figure of 2 million Jews who would otherwise have died is cited in Menachem Begin’s The Revolt, hardly a tome of anti-Zionist understanding!

And the other mistake I’ll correct is regarding the 10-1 support the Zionists had in Poland vs the anti-Zionists. It is true that in the 1920’s and early 1930’s the Zionists did have a mass base. But as the fight against anti-Semitism increased, the Zionists with their theories of the objective necessity of emigration to Palestine were seen as little more than the validation of anti-Semitism.

By 1938 when the local Jewish council seat elections were held, the Bund won 17 out of 20. The Zionists won just one. History is fluid not static. As the terror under the Colonel’s government increased and as anti-Semitism increased, the Jewish masses flocked to support the only party in the Jewish community that sought to fight anti-Semitism, the Bund. Even the left Poale-Zion increasingly undertook joint work with the Bund on self-defence.

Bognador as a foaming-in-the mouth Zionist of the far right would understand none of this. But as with Mikey he belongs on Harry’s Place and other pro-war sites.

Tony Greenstein

Comment by Tony Greenstein — 11 February, 2008 @ 2:27 am
I assume that Tony Greenstein means by his above post, that he simply cannot answer the points Paul Bogdanor has made. Does it surprise anyone? One thinks that it is actually Tony Greenstein who is foaming at the mouth.

Comment by Mikey — 11 February, 2008 @ 2:48 am
Those who are seriously interested in combatting anti-Semitism, as opposed to defaming their opponents, will want to hear what has happened at Indymedia. See the following link.

It would seem that the hopes of Gilad Atzmon, fed by his faithful collaborator ftp (no not you Mikey this time round) have not been fulfilled.
http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=640441812647446166

Comment by Tony Greenstein — 11 February, 2008 @ 4:56 am
Greenstein has lost the argument. Again.

Well, what can you expect from someone who argues using secondary school fallacies “if you are a socialist you cannot be an antisemite”. The level, my God, the level…

Ey, John W., can you show us yet your dog-eared copy of “Michael Ben-Yair, Attorney General of Israel, 1993-1996 (in Ha’aretz)”? Such a compulsive liar…

Comment by Fabian from Israel — 11 February, 2008 @ 7:37 am
Fabian

What can you expect from a Zionist who sees nothing wrong in the fact that the land he now lives in, and wasn’t even born in, was stolen from a people who aren’t allowed to return that land?

Tony Greenstein is respected and supported throughout the Palestine Solidarity Movement. Despite the cheap attempts at Zionist revisionism which have polluted this list over the past few days, he will continue to enjoy this support and respect.

Now, for your edification, I suggest you study the following:

UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

Adopted and proclaimed by General Assembly resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948

PREAMBLE
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,

Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,

Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,

Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

Comment by John W — 11 February, 2008 @ 7:55 am
#268 Bogdanor “Stalin’s mass murders of Jews in collaboration with Hitler”

Standard right wing propaganda and not to be trusted.
Stalin was culpable for the policies that allowed the Nazis to gain power.
But in Eastern Poland and the Ukraine, the choice for Jews was pretty clear as this account shows:-

History of the German Occupation of Stryj, Galicia
(edited extracts of a family history by H.Edelstein)

Stryj lying in the plains and lowlands at the southeastern corner of Poland
Minor, was the city holding the corridor to the Carpathian Mountains, whose
summits rise against the distant horizons on the way to Skole, a small town
southwards in the direction Hungarian frontier. The River Stryj serves as a
diadem to the wide stretching and multi-colored city, with it’s embroidery
of fields and forest as far as the foothills of the mountains. The river’s
waters moved the wheels of the mills from which the city used to obtain its
flour, and beside which the townsfolk bathed in the hot summer. The city
ties on a crossroads, and in the days of the Emperor Franz Joseph of Austria
it linked Eastern Galicia with Hungary by the railway line that ran from
Lemberg and Lawoczne to Budapest in the south, with Stanislawow to the
southeast and Prszemysl to the northwest.

There were Jewish communities round and about in all directions, among those
were Rozdol, Mikolayow, Zurawno, Sokolow, Zydaczow and Bolechow. Not far
away lie Drohobycz, Boryslaw and Schodnica, with their oil-wells, from which
most of the population of these towns made their living. By the beginning of
World War II the population consisted of about 40,000 persons in roughly
equal proportions of Jews, Poles, and Ukrainians. Jews were a vital part of
the economy. They handled manufacturing, trade, food supply, clothing,
footwear, furniture, building materials, fuel, drapery, haberdashery and the
like. Their handicrafts included harness making, carpentry, tailoring,
tinkering, glaziery, house painting, construction, upholstery, furriery,
watchmaking, manufacturing of oilcloth, gold and silversmith work, and the
handling of all other kinds of metals and skilled mechanics. Jews were some
of the finest craftsmen in all branches of handicrafts. Many Jews in the
surrounding villages made their living directly or indirectly by
agriculture. Some lived directly from their farms, while others leased vast
stretches of land from Polish barons and noblemen who were estate holders,
and cultivated them on behalf of the latter. Or else they leased inns in
traditional fashion, the leaseholds passing from father to son for
generations.

Germany Attacks - Under Soviet Rule

German troops attacked Poland on September 1, 1939. When the German army
entered Stryj, Ukrainian Peasants from the surrounding villages came in a
crowd to greet them, dressed in their finest clothes. A triumphal arch was
set up in Droboycka street, with the proclamation, “We shall pave the way of
victory for the German soldiers with Jewish skulls”. In the city, Jews hid
in attics and lofts and cellars.

Soon it began to be rumored that Galicia had been divided between the
Soviets and the Germans. On the 22nd of August 1939, Stalin had signed a
non-aggression pact with Hitler, its chief purpose was to ensure that
Germany would not fight on two fronts. The treaty had ensured Hitler freedom
of action in the West and other parts of Europe and Africa, without any fear
of being attacked from the East. On the third day after the Germans entered
the city, army commanders from both sides met on the Bolechow Bridge
crossing the river Stryj. They decided that the Germans should withdraw to
the River San, and that Stryj should be included in the Soviet Occupation
Zone. The joy of the Jews when they saw the Germans leaving the town was
beyond description. On the eve of the Day of Atonement, 1939, Soviet forces
entered the city.

Under Soviet rule, the Jewish population suffered from want as compared to
the ample living of prewar Poland but not because they were Jews. The Jews
suffered together with all the other people of Soviet Russia during the
emergency; but not more than they did. The Soviets fed the people the
doctrines of Marx and Lenin, and ordered them to obey the Stalinist
Constitution in accordance with which he who does not work shall not eat.
The Front moved west and people seemed to be safe. The people felt that it
was fortunate to live in peace under the protective wings of the Soviets,
and would find shelter in the shadow of the Red Flag. There seemed to be
reason for these feelings. An obvious proof of the friendly relationship
between the Germans and the Soviets, were railroad cars full of wheat seen
passing through the railroad station in Stryj en route from the Ukraine to
Germany.

A Soviet Commissar came to the farm at Gaje-Nizne and informed my
grandfather and his partner that the farm was being collectivized, and that
they and their families must leave. The only things they could take were
personal possessions and furniture.

Nazi Occupation

On the 22nd of June, 1941 airplanes suddenly appeared at a great height. The
sound of artillery fire could be heard from the direction of Drohobycz and
Przemysl. German airplanes began appearing without a break and dropped
bombs. Germany had attacked the Soviet front and government and party
officials made their preparations to leave the city. Railway wagons were
placed at the disposal of the families of soldiers and party members, to
take them to safe places across the Russian frontier. Yet countless of these
railway wagons were bombed and completely destroyed by the German planes as
they made their way eastward.

Once the German occupation was complete, every Jew from the age of 16-60 was
compelled to work. In the city a vast number of institutions were
established, including military stores, military laboratories and private
German firms. Some of them were: Heeresverpflegungsdepot (Army Supply
Depot), Baudienst (Building Service), H.K.P., Wasserwirtschaft (Water
Authority), Karpathen Oh, Altstoff (old clothes etc.), Heeresbarrackenwerke
(Military Barracks Factory, the sawmill of Zelig Borak), A.S.A. Glasfabriken
(Glassworks - in Neubauer’s flour mill).

The Ukrainians and Poles traded and made money. Jews were forbidden to leave
the town limits. Every morning workers went in the thousands to work at the
above places. in return for their work they received rations of bread and
soup.

All Jews wore armbands with the Star of David on them. It was permissible to
enter and leave the Jewish Quarter. Jews with work papers might enter the
Aryan Quarter, white Aryans were permitted to enter the Jewish Quarter. Each
day my grandfather and farther would go out to work in the barracks factory
and return home that evening. Jewish workers were identified by an arm band
with a Star of David and a number which corresponded to the one on their
work papers. Later they were issued square patches, to wear along with their
armbands, on which was darned the letter “W” meaning “Wichtig” (important).
This meant that they must be preserved and safeguarded, and that the Gestapo
must not do them any harm.

Establishment of the Jewish Quarter

A few months later the order establishing the Jewish Quarter (Juedisches
Wohnviertel) was published and paved the way for the Ghetto. It meant that
the Jews were separated from the Aryan population. The Jewish Quarter began
from Kilinskiego Street (the Lachowicz Bookshop) to its end at the corner of
Iwaszkiewicza-Drohobyca Street). It continued on the other side along the
Stojalowskiego Boulevard, Zamkowa, Rynek, Berka Joselowicze, Kusnierska,
Lwowska; Batorego to Zielona Street.

The German District Officer had ordered the people of the Jewish Quarter to
form a Judenrat (Jewish Council). This council had a double task. It was to
maintain contact with the German Command, carry out its orders, and handle
all the internal affairs of the Jews themselves, who from that day forward
would constitute a separate body entirely cut off from the Aryan population.
This Jewish Council was chiefly intended to serve as a bridge for passing on
the decrees of the Nazi Command to the Jews. The Council was given authority
to collect taxes from the Jews, and establish a Jewish police
(Ordnungsdienst) which would be under its orders. The Council was provided
food for the community. The Jewish Council Building was the on the corner of
May 3rd and Potockiego Streets. Departments were set up for taxes, housing,
furniture and food. There were secretaries with telephones, typewriters,
storehouses and shops. A complete state apparatus down to the last detail.
The Jews of the Aryan Quarter were transferred to the Jewish Quarter and
crowded into the apartments of the Jews already living there. At this time
the Quarter contained about 12,000 persons. The Jewish Council was ordered
to make room for another 11,000 persons who had been expelled from the small
towns of the district, which were thus made Judenrein.

Escape from the “Action”

Before long the “Actions” began. This was the name given to the systematic
extermination carried out in accordance with a definite plan, and with
precise German order. On one occasion, for example, orders were given to
kill 1000 Jews between the hours of 4-12. If by chance another Jew came
along after twelve, the murderers sent him away until the next Action.
On September 3, 1942 a major Action occurred. The Action lasted three days
during which 5,000 people were deported to the Belzec concentration camp.
The Action continued through the day with SS and Ukrainian troops beating
and killing Jews unmercifully. At the end of the day those captured were
marched to the Great Synagogue and were shut inside. Here they remained over
night without food or water. All attempts to bribe the soldiers guarding
them failed.

When morning came they were taken to the railway station where they were met
by SS and Ukrainian troops with dogs and herded onto railway cattle cars.
Those inside were packed tightly together. They slid the doors closed and
began to board up and put barbed wire over the small windows. My grandfather
and another bribed the guards not to nail the boards too tightly, so that
they could possibly escape by pushing out the boards from the inside.
They waited all day inside the cramped car. When evening came German
soldiers climbed in mounted gun boxes spaced along the length of the train,
which then began to leave the station.

The Ghetto and the Liquidation

On December 1st, 1942, large posters consisting of photographs and signed by
Hans Frank of the General Gouvernement announced the establishment of the
Ghetto in Stryj. Entrance and exit was permitted only to Jews with work
cards stamped by the Gestapo. Those breaking the law were subject to the
death penalty. The Aryans were warned not to approach the Ghetto limits.
Selling or giving food or offering Jews any kind of help would be punished
by hanging. The Ghetto area consisted of the following streets: Berka
Joselowicza, Kusnierska, Krawiecka and Lwowska. It had two main entrances,
in the Borek Joselowicza and Lwowska streets. Thick wooden posts were set up
on both pavements and logs were placed as a barrier which were raised when
necessary.

Policemen watched the gates day and night. Streets that led to the Aryan
quarter were blocked with high wooden fences. The Ghetto was set up with the
definite purpose of being destroyed.
The liquidation of the Ghetto began on June 10, 1943. German troops went
house to house seeking victims and destroying buildings. They threw
incendiary grenades into suspected bunkers or flooded them with water and
then shot any survivors. The offices of the Jewish Council were burned and
the members were shot along with the council police. In early July the
Altstoff and Wasserwirtscaft camps were liquidated with other small camps.
On July 20, 1943 the A.S.A. and H.K.P. camps were liquidated a few days
later so was the Heeresbarrackenwerke, the largest labor camp in Stryj.

Stryj was liberated by Soviet troops on August 8, 1944.

Comment by prianikoff — 11 February, 2008 @ 8:05 am
John W

Now, for your edification, I suggest you study the following:

UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

That would be the same United Nations that, just a year before, had voted to create the State of Israel as a “Jewish state”? Funny how anti-Zionists always rely on UN resolutions to condemn Israel, while pretending that resolution 181 never happened.

As for Tony Greenstein:

Clearly irony is lost on Dave Rich and much else besides. He cites the Community Security Trust, an organisation which the old National Council for Civil Liberties strongly criticised for its thuggery and physical intimidation of Jews who are not Zionists. I mean members of the Jewish Socialists Group and even on one occasion a member of Mapam. (see Civil rights council blasts security men) 17.8.90. I would sooner trust Arthur Daley to sell me a reliable car than these people.

So because eighteen years ago, the NCCL criticised CST, therefore CST’s report on antisemitic incidents in 2006 should be considered unreliable? This guy really knows how to hold a grudge. Strange how a man who sues if you mention anything about his past is so quick to dredge up the most flimsy allegations about everyone else.

For what it is worth, and in keeping with Greenstein’s record for inaccuracy, CST did not exist in 1990. I presume Greenstein has in mind the security division of the Board of Deputies, which was the forerunner of CST. Martin Wisse questioned how many incidents recorded by CST were in fact antisemitic, and how many were merely anti-Israel. I responded by posting the relevant section from the report, which demonstrates how CST distinguishes between the two. Greenstein responded to this by (a) telling everyone to ignore the report because eighteen years ago someone at the NCCL decided to take a pop at a different Jewish organisation, and (b) excusing the antisemitic incidents on the grounds that the perpetrators only abused British Jews because they were angry with Israel. And this guy says he is serious about fighting antisemitism. In fact he will excuse and ignore every example of antisemitism that comes in an anti-Zionist wrapper.

Hence his rush to forgive Asghar Bukhari for sending money to David Irving at the time of his libel trial against Deborah Lipstadt. Bukhari sent the money with a note commending Irving for “trying to expose certain falsehoods perpetrated by the Jews”. Greenstein says that Bukhari simply made a mistake, which he has since acknowledged. Well if it was a mistake, it’s one that Bukhari and MPAC make an awful lot. They have repeatedly reposted material from Irving’s website onto the MPAC website, over many years. They have done the same from other far right websites, including the Heretical Press and the Church of the Creator. They have posted articles in support of Ernst Zundel and others by Mark Weber of the Institute for Historical Review. One article celebrated the legal victory of Argentinian Denier Hector Buela against the Wiesenthal Center, which had tried to stop him disseminating Holocaust Denial material. MPAC have called the Talmud the “most racist book in the world” and place Zionist conspiracy theories at the centre of everything. They blamed a Zionist conspiracy for the Danish cartoons and just last week blamed Zionists for the underfunding of elderly care by the British government. I understand that MPAC’s desire to blame everything on Zionists is what so endears them to Greenstein; but I presume he never saw their alteration of a Sunday Telegraph article in 2003 about Neitzsche which included the line that he was “the victim of a posthumous smear campaign by anti-Nazis”. MPAC changed “anti-Nazis” to “Zionists” in their version of the article. So much for anti-fascist solidarity between Greenstein and Bukhari. Now Greenstein says he is advising Bukhari and MPAC. It is one thing to help someone understand why their way of thinking is antisemitic and wrong. It is quite another to help someone couch their antisemitic message in more subtle language.

Comment by Dave Rich — 11 February, 2008 @ 11:00 am
One difficulty with the above discussion is the confusion of topics which have been central to debates within scholarship on both the Holocaust and Israeli history (the role of collaberation on the one hand, and of course the voliminous literature on the Katz affair), and some kind of debate with ‘holocaust deniers’ and flatearthers of other kinds. I think its very important to draw a line between these very different kinds of discussion.

Comment by johng — 11 February, 2008 @ 12:19 pm
JOhn

I agree, I gave up trying to make any sense of this thread some while ago.

What I think it has proven is:

i) There is some anti-Semitism in the palestinian solidarity movement (Atzmon, Rizzo, et al)
ii)Some people who are not anti-Semitic (John W, for example), unfortunately give hostage to fortune by being insufficiently switched on over the issue of anti-semitism
iii) some Zionists do misrepreent all criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic

Comment by Andy Newman — 11 February, 2008 @ 12:26 pm
johng,

You could start by trying to provide some kind of rational answer as to why the SWP continually host Gilad Atzmon.

Comment by Mikey — 11 February, 2008 @ 12:36 pm
some Zionists do misrepreent all criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic

Some - perhaps many? - people will always simplify things to the point of misrepresentation. I would suggest that the tendency of some anti-Zionists to misrepresent antisemitism as criticism of Israel, outweighs the tendency of some Zionists to misrepresent criticism of Israel as antisemitism. Although I suppose it all hinges on your definition of “criticism”.

Comment by Dave Rich — 11 February, 2008 @ 1:17 pm
Andy:

iii) some Zionists do misrepreent all criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic

Reply:

No, ALL Zionists do. It is a congenital condition of what is clearly and unequivocally a racist, supremacist ideology.

Comment by John W — 11 February, 2008 @ 1:19 pm
Hi! I just came from Beit Ariella in Tel Aviv. I think it is the only place in the world where you can read the original Haaretz newspaper from 1969 (If you call Haaretz directly, they will direct you to Beit Ariella, the main public library in Tel Aviv).

I have in my camera pictures from the original microfilmed newspaper.

I have read enough of Moshe Dayan’s conference in Haifa to find the misquote. Efectively, Camera is right. It was a misquote, and the context is omited. I won’t say that Moshe Dayan sounds like Peace Now, but certainly, he is a voice of moderation against the desires of some of the students whose questions are also transcribed, for collective punishment, transfer (although the word uses is Aabara, not Transfer) and harsher actions against terrorists and Arab population. When I have more time I will post in my own blog pictures of the original article and my own translation from Hebrew to English.

For the moment I can say in response to John W. #40 that:

1. Ben Gurion never said those words, it was Moshe Dayan, and the quote is a misquote of him. So, in the case you actually have the book “The Jewish Paradox” by Nahum Goldmann, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, I would be very careful to use it as a source. In fact, I could never rely on it. You don’t read Hebrew and that is a shame, because, as an Arab friend here once told me at the University: “we Arabs have a saying: each new language you add to your knowledge is like a new world you can live in”.

2. You have been lying regarding the procedence of at least another of your quotes, and probably you have never read “the Jewish paradox”. You have taken them from non-reputable sites on the internet, as it is obvious from the way you have made the citation.

3. Your only defense is calling me names and try to deflect attention. Very grown up.

4. You are an ignorant about Israel and it shows. I would start correcting that by learning Hebrew, you potz.

Andy, even though you may agree with John W. political positions, this is a guy in which you cannot trust because he lies and hides the truth.

Best,
Fabian

Comment by Fabian from Israel — 11 February, 2008 @ 1:47 pm
ALL Zionists do. It is a congenital condition of what is clearly and unequivocally a racist, supremacist ideology.

As I said at the beginning of this thread, a case study in demonisation, nothing more.

Comment by Dave Rich — 11 February, 2008 @ 1:57 pm
“As I said at the beginning of this thread, a case study in demonisation, nothing more.”

Indeed. In fact Zionism is a movement that contains as wide a range of political ideologies as Islamism or socialism. John Wright’s assertion that all Zionists treat criticism of Israel as anti-semitic is plainly false. There are many Zionists, including peace activists, human rights advocates and army refusniks who have plenty of criticism of how the Israeli state treats the Palestinians.

Comment by Dust to Dust — 11 February, 2008 @ 2:32 pm
Andy Newman: “ii)Some people who are not anti-Semitic (John W, for example), unfortunately give hostage to fortune by being insufficiently switched on over the issue of anti-semitism”

John Wight: “ALL Zionists [misrepreent all criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic]. It is a congenital condition of what is clearly and unequivocally a racist, supremacist ideology.”

Andy, if you think that John W is (unfortunately) giving hostages to Zionists who will dishonestly use his ignorance against him, and against all anti-Zionists… why do you think he is still doing it?

Why, Andy, when it is pointed out to John W that he is saying antisemitic things, do you think he not only keeps on saying them, but he insists that he is the one in the right?

He is not motivated by antisemitism, we can all agree, so why does he keep saying antisemitic things?

How many antisemitic things does a person have to say, how many times does it need to be pointed out to him, before we characterize a that person as an antisemite?

Does it matter if we characterize John Wight as an antisemite or not? The point is that he insists on continuing to say antisemitic things. He has learnt nothing from this thread.

And he continues to teach antisemitic things to the youth.

Surely he is not fit to take a leadership role in Stop the War or in the SPSC.

Comment by David Hirsh — 11 February, 2008 @ 3:08 pm
Tony Greenstein denies that his communist heroes “conspired with the fascists to murder Jews. It is a conspiracy theory too far.” Now denials of Stalinist mass murders are always disgusting. And denials of Stalinist mass murders perpetrated in collaboration with Hitler are particularly vile. And when the issue is the mass murder of Jews, Greenstein is not a million miles from Holocaust denial. Let’s quote just a few of the sources:-

“When the Soviets became convinced that many of the Jewish refugees [from the Nazi-occupied zone] were ‘anti-social’ elements they aparently decided to give them a ‘loyalty test’ … This deceitful tactic was made possible thanks to the close cooperation between the NKVD and the Gestapo. The German assistance in the perpetration of this great fraud on the Jewish refugees by the NKVD was illustrated in two matters: 1) The Gestapo apparently gave its approval to the publication by the Soviets of public announcements that the refugees could register for their organised return to their homes and families in the German-occupied territories; 2) in order to encourage the Jewish refugees to believe these announcements, a Soviet-German committee was actually set up [in Brest-Litovsk]…

“[Thus] the NKVD had in their possession complete and up-to-date lists, including addresses, of the refugees who had failed the loyalty test and against whom action would need to be taken. The ‘criminals’ of employment age were sentenced to Gulag camps in the northern part of European Russia and in Siberia… Old people, cripples, and mothers of children were sent with their children to places of exile in Kazakhstan and in the northern regions… Both the prisoners and the exiles were likely to die of hunger, cold and disease. The fate of both groups was fairly speedy annihilation.”

- Yosef Litvak, “The Plight of Refugees From the German-Occupied Territories,” in Keith Sword, ed., The Soviet Takeover of the Polish Eastern Provinces, 1939-41 (St. Martin’s Press, 1991), pp66-9.

“It was in the course of the third mass deportation, in June 1940, that the greatest number of Jews was deported to the USSR…

“Compilation of the June 1940 deportation lists involved more deliberate deception than had been used on previous occasions… Two registrations were going on in the spring of 1940 in Western Ukraine and Western Belorussia: one for identity papers and the other, conducted by the German repatriation commission, for population transfers. The actual decision to deport refugees from western and central Poland may have been taken independently of these two procedures. But only as a result of them were complete name and address lists of the refugees compiled by the Soviet authorities.”

- Jan T. Gross, Revolution From Abroad: The Soviet Conquest of Poland’s Western Ukraine and Western Belorussia (Princeton University Press, 2002), pp97, 202-3.

“By the time that the [Soviet] Amnesty had been granted in 1941 (for crimes that had not been committed), almost half of the one-and-a-half-million Poles deported in the previous years [i.e., 750,000 people] were already dead. The victims included 100,000 Polish Jews, headed by the Chief Rabbi of Warsaw, Moses Shore. The exact numbers will never be known.”

- Norman Davies, God’s Playground: A History of Poland in Two Volumes (Oxford University Press, 2005), Vol. 2, p334.

Thus Greenstein is exposed as a denier of the mass murder of 100,000 Jews resulting from collaboration with the Nazis.

I can’t resist pointing to one last example of Greenstein’s methods. He says that “the figure of 2 million Jews who would otherwise have died [but for Stalin’s humanitarianism] is cited in Menachem Begin’s The Revolt, hardly a tome of anti-Zionist understanding!” I have a copy of this book, which says nothing of the kind: in fact the first three chapters recount Begin’s experiences as an inmate of the Stalinist concentration camps!

Greenstein has already unmasked himself as a denier of Hitler’s plans to murder the Jews of the Middle East, a denier of Stalin’s collaboration with Hitler and a denier of Stalin’s mass murders of Jews. Would it be at all surprising if he denied the existence of Stalin’s concentration camps as well?

Comment by Paul Bogdanor — 11 February, 2008 @ 6:38 pm
I trust this post meets Andy’s criteria, seeing as previously my blatantly obvious sarcastic parody of John W’s tone and banter and challenge of some of what has passed uncritically on this rambling thread as historical narrative was deemed too offensive for this site and even regarded as ‘antisemitic’ by Andy and Tony Greenstein.

Just wondering, regarding the boycott/divestment/sanctions initiative, if any of its proponents (besides John W, Mary Rizzo, Jock McTrousers and Gilad Atzmon), can explain how it is that Cuba not only allows their Jewish citizens to emigrate to Israel should they wish (which begs the question how free are Cuban citizens to emigrate elsewhere should they wish?), but also imports Israeli fruits and vegetables among other goods?

Surely, Cuba can’t be considered either insensitive to the plight of Palestinians, under undue pressure from a ‘Walt and Mearsheimer type’ pro-Israel lobby, or imperialistic — in the ‘only the US, Israel and UK are contemporary imperialist states’ sense of the term. So how is this willingness of Cuba to have fairly good relations with the State of Israel and foster trade with Israel explained?

BTW, unlike much of the rest of the planet, the scourge of far left (and as one would expect, far right and paleocon) antisemitism is practically non-existent inside Cuba. Same goes for anti-Arab and anti-Muslim sentiment both inside Cuba and with respect to Cuba’s external relations.

Comment by lbnaz — 11 February, 2008 @ 6:43 pm
With his wild assertions, such as I have ‘unmasked’ myself as a denier of Hitler’s plans to murder the Jews of the Middle East, Bognador just reveals himself as a foaming in the mouth liar. He should take a few lessons from his somewhat more respected father and calm down.

I have no doubt at all that if the Nazis had conquered Palestine they would have murdered the Jews and many of the Palestinians too, who they saw as untermenschen. It is possible that they would have related to the Zionists as the new Jews of Baron Mildenstein and other Nazis description and treated with them as with other colonial elites. But it was Trotsky who said that Palestine could prove one big trap for the Jews.

The idea that I’m a stalinist is just another example of Bognador’s foaming. I come from the trotskyist tradition but without Bognador’s rabid dog approach to Stalinism.

Re Begin’s Revolt. Bognador says that:
‘He says that “the figure of 2 million Jews who would otherwise have died [but for Stalin’s humanitarianism] is cited in Menachem Begin’s The Revolt, hardly a tome of anti-Zionist understanding!” I have a copy of this book, which says nothing of the kind.’

Nothing of the kind? This is what Begin says:
‘I cannot forget and no Jew should forget, two fundamental facts. Thanks to the Soviet Union hundreds of thousands of Jews were saved from Nazi hands.’ It is on p.13 of the book so I can understand Bognador’s difficulty in finding it. He may not have mentioned a figure of 2 million but the gist of the meaning is quite clear.

Or how about Nahum Goldmann, one of the key leaders of world Jewry and Chair both of the World Jewish Congress and the WZO at different times.
‘Let us not forget that the Russians saved hundreds of thousands of Jews by allowing them to flee from Poland, after the Nazi invasion into Russia and enabled them after the War, to return to Poland and most of them to Israel
JC., 25. 9. 1981. ‘The Danger Facing World Jewry’, N. Goldmann

Gerald Reitlinger argues that the official figure of 157,420 who returned after the war from Russia is dwarfed by the number of Jews from Polish White Russia who chose to stay in the Soviet Union. Up to 700,000 may have escaped from Poland and eastern Galicia into Russia. A quarter of a million Jews, including those in Auschwitz, the Lódz ghetto and the hidden Jews survived the Nazi occupation. [The Final Solution pp. 303-4] The fact that such large numbers remained concealed is testament to the fact that anti-semitism was not all-pervasive.) [pp. 497-99, p299]

Reitlinger estimates that between 60,000 and 70,000 of the Baltic Jews escaped the holocaust by escaping to Russia. [p.292]

The Ukraine contained the true ‘reservoirs of eastern Jewry’. In addition to the 568,000 Jews from east Galicia, annexed in 1939, over two million lived here. When the Russians retreated in 1941, most employable Jews left with them, leaving only their families. German paramilitary Einsatzgruppe C reported that rumours about the fate of the Jews had already preceded them and that many Jewish communities were reduced by 70%-90% - and in some cases 100%. According to Einsatzgruppe B, “in many towns the Soviets had evacuated the entire Jewish population”. But for the Bolshevik revolution, despite all the subsequent Stalinist horrors, at least a million and a half more Jews would have died. [R Hilberg, Destruction of European Jewry, pp. 107, 109. Student edition]

Unlike Norman Davies and Bognador, both Reitlinger and Hilberg are acknowledged historians of the holocaust.

One of the reasons that Hilberg and Reitlinger for that matter, who are holocaust historians unlike Norman Davies (whose books were subject to severe criticism in respect of their coverage of the Jewish question incidentally)find it difficult to place figures on the number of Poles who died is because so many fled to the Soviet Union.

I cannot forget and no Jew should forget, two fundamental facts. Thanks to the Soviet Union hundreds of thousands of Jews were saved from Nazi hands.

It is no secret that Stalin colluded with the Nazis. I think even Bognador knows about the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. This involved for example deporting German communists back to Germany. Likewise the Russians would have deported Poles too, among whom were Jews. However Bognador elides over the fact that Jews deported were deported because they were Poles, not because they were Jews. In fact in the first 2 years of the Nazi occupation of Poland, more Jews died because they were part of the Polish intelligentsia than from purely anti-Jewish Actions.

Of course for Bognador Soviet Russia and Hitler’s Germany were one and the same thing. This is the real holocaust revisionism since but for the Soviet troops and army and the Soviet people, and despite Stalin’s bloody misleadership, hundreds of thousands of Jews were saved from an otherwise certain death. Compare this to the Zionist project which obstructed rescue.

So Bognador, in his anti-communist zeal, demonstrates once again that he is a falsifier of history.

As for Fabian from Israel. If he is so concerned about racism then he could turn his attention to the state he lives in. Why does the JNF control state lands and why are Palestinians even from Israel barred from 93% of the lands, why are Bedouin villages in the Negev destroyed as part of the ‘Judaification’ process there and in the Galilee. I could go on but anyone who pretends they are concerned about anti-Semitism when they turn a blind eye to Zionism’s racism, even when they live in the Israeli state is a hypocrite.

David Hirsh takes exception to John W’s statement that all Zionists misrepresent criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic. That is true. And that is precisely why people like those in Indymedia, who are undoubtedly anti-racist, have become so confused as a result that they are now receptive to holocaust denial. Congratulations David. An excellent achievement!

And when are you going to bar Mikey for collaborating with one of the key exponents of holocaust denial and anti-Semitism,Gilad Atzmon, viz. one Mikey?

It is a sign of the sick and twisted mind of Bognador that he repeats what are really the warmed up offerings of German revisionist historians like Ernst Noltke, who also argue that Stalin and Hitler’s regime were one and the same and indeed that the former gave rise to the latter. That is indeed where the most rabid Zionists end up - as the exonerators of Hitler. There were many things to say about the Stalinist regime in the USSR but they didn’t embark on an attempt to liquidate the Jews, quite the contrary, the USSR was one of the few places of refuge for Jews from Poland. And even Begin owes his life to that fact.

Comment by Tony Greenstein — 11 February, 2008 @ 7:34 pm
First Tam G posted the following: “When apartheid ended and Nelson Mandela became President, many South Africans fled the country and settled in Israel, taking their expertise in the mass control and suppression of populations with them.”

Richard then asked her to back up her claim that South Africans who emigrated to Israel (we can safely assume here that by South Africans, Tam G was referring primarily to Jewish South Africans, can we not?) had expertise in “mass control and suppression of populations”.

She neither backed up her patently indefensible claim and neither did she retract it.

And notwithstanding that her post, not to mention Jock Mc Trouser’s, John W’s and Mary Rizzo’s posts, didn’t strike Andy Newman as being either too offensive or antisemitic for this thread, what I find even more absurdly ironic is that following Tam G’s unfounded and demonizing claim about South African Jews who emigrated to Israel, she posted the following comment: “Anti-imperialist, anti-Israeli colonialist discourse is one thing. bonbastic, anti-Judaic hyperbole quite another. It no doubt brings a warm glow to the hearts of those that engage in it…”.

How can the juxtaposition of Tam G’s two comments, the first, bombastic, anti-South African Jewish hyperbole and the second a condemnation of other people’s but not her own, bombastic and anti-Jewish hyperbole, not be seen as a blatant demonstration of pot calling kettle black?

Will Pam G. please retract her previous claim if she wants readers to take her second comment as sincere?

Comment by lbnaz — 11 February, 2008 @ 7:44 pm
TG @ 287 -”With his wild assertions, such as I have ‘unmasked’ myself as a denier of Hitler’s plans to murder the Jews of the Middle East, Bognador just reveals himself as a foaming in the mouth liar. He should take a few lessons from his somewhat more respected father and calm down.”

Good grief - who is foaming at the mouth and needs to calm down? Who makes wild assertions all the time.

You should stop encouraging him Andy - when he’s finished making a fool of himself - you’ll look pretty damn silly too.

Comment by ftp — 11 February, 2008 @ 8:21 pm
David Hirsh:

Why, Andy, when it is pointed out to John W that he is saying antisemitic things, do you think he not only keeps on saying them, but he insists that he is the one in the right?

He is not motivated by antisemitism, we can all agree, so why does he keep saying antisemitic things?

Reply:

Again, again, and again you continue to conflate anti-Zionism with antisemitism. For far too long you and your supporters have banked on being able to roll out the anti-Semitic card when the heat is on vis-a-vis Palestine and have good people run for cover for fear of being calumnied. I again reject your pathetic attempts to do so and state again that Zionism is a racist, supremacist ideology, and that Israel as an exlusionary Jewish State has been the source of unremitting suffering for the Palestinian people and for its Arab neigbours, a majory contributory factor in the economic, political, and social dislocation that has so devastated the region. A state founded upon the ethnic cleansing of another people and which continues to exist at their negation constitues a stain on the conscience of the world. Israel as an apartheid state has NO right to exist. Such exceptionalism is the very antithesis of universal human rights. Such exceptionalism has lain at the root of every act of genocide in human history, whether committed under the aegis of the British Empire, European settlement of North and South America, the slave trade, the Armenian Genocide, the Jewish Holocuast, or the Rwandan Genocide.

Surely you see the pattern yourself?

The Jewish people, throughout history, have played key roles in forming and shaping our world for the better. They have also been resolute in resisting oppression. The Jews who stood side by side with communists, socialists, trade unionists, Irish immigrants, etc., to smash fascism in the East End of London in the Battle Of Cable Street in 1936 were heroes. The Jews of the Warsaw Ghetto who resisted the Nazis in 1943 were giants. The Jewish men and women who took part in the uprisings in Sobibor and Treblinka concentration camps in 1943 were the same. They also played key roles in the various resistance and partisan groups that fought the Nazis in Eastern Europe and were heroes all.

The State of Israel and its brutality towards the Palestinians tarnishes the memory of those people and the memory of those who were slaughtered by the Nazis in Europe.

Zionism is not the same thing as Judaism. Judaism is a religion and a cultural identity. Zionism is an ideology.

As for my being in leadership positions within Stop the War or SPSC, you are incorrect. I am merely an activist the same as everybody else.

Re Israel and S Africa, it is a matter of historical record that Israel maintained trade relations with S Africa during the apartheid years. The US used Israel as a conduit to continue to sell arms to S Africa in order to circumvent sanctions and there was cross fertilisation between both Israel and S Africa in counter-insurgency techniques and training.

In fact Israel to this day exports and sells its expertise in torture and counter-insurgency to countries around the world, expertise gained via its repression of the Palestinians. We have just uncovered one such school close to Edinburgh, run by a company that goes by the name ‘360 Defence.’ Here is their website: http://360defence.co.uk

David, would you like to join us in protesting this company and their activities?

Comment by John W — 11 February, 2008 @ 8:37 pm
John W “In fact Israel to this day exports and sells its expertise in torture and counter-insurgency to countries around the world, expertise gained via its repression of the Palestinians. We have just uncovered one such school close to Edinburgh, run by a company that goes by the name ‘360 Defence.’ Here is their website: http://360defence.co.uk”

I think you’re onto something big here John.

Comment by Richard — 11 February, 2008 @ 8:47 pm
The anti-road rage course - i bet it’s just a cover.

Comment by Richard — 11 February, 2008 @ 8:51 pm
We’re still googling CODOZ and CODOH.
John,
You must be a genius to achieve what you did.

Comment by Jeff — 11 February, 2008 @ 8:54 pm
It is no coincidence that ftp (free the peeps!) has come to this site to defend Paul Bognador, an ultra-Zionist if ever there was one.

Ftp has been the main person in UK Indymedia campaigning for the right of holocaust deniers and anti-Semites to continue posting openly on UK IM whilst at the same time hiding posts which criticise Atzmon and his friends.

Birds of a feather methinks!

Tony G

Comment by Tony Greenstein — 11 February, 2008 @ 9:11 pm
John W. Can you please post the search link where you came up with CODOH instead of CODOZ ?

Comment by Richard — 11 February, 2008 @ 9:28 pm
Speaking of birds of a feather, I notice that the Holocaust denier Paul Eisen has signed Mary Rizzo’s presumably self-written ‘I support Mary Rizzo’ petition, bringing that self-serving enterprise’s total to four Holocaust deniers - at least that I know of, on the assumption that Tony is right that Edna is the toad’s toady ‘knuckles’.

Ah the ‘anti-racist’ Holocaust denier. Mary you’re welcome to them. We on the left have other ideas. And ftp will sooner or later have to choose.

Comment by goodwin sands — 11 February, 2008 @ 9:30 pm
@ 295, John W was looking for a site called codz.org, Committee for Open Discussion of Zionism. It’s a very slight little site but it does exist and John’s mistake is to my eye not implausible.

Comment by goodwin sands — 11 February, 2008 @ 9:34 pm
Socialist Unity? In this case an obvious oxymoron? How many sectarians is it possible to balance on the head of a needle? Fortunately very few people will ever get to read this navel gazing rubbish and fortunately your influence on the Palestinian Solidarity movement or on the Revolutionary Socialist movement is ….

Comment by Richard Jones — 11 February, 2008 @ 9:56 pm
Goodwin Sands

I googled codoz , codz , codz.org and i didn’t find aything from Codz.

Comment by Richard — 11 February, 2008 @ 10:02 pm
Sorry i just found Codz under SPSC. But no Codoh at all.

Comment by Richard — 11 February, 2008 @ 10:04 pm
Tony Greenstein is simply ridiculous. He was not named “the Tommy Cooper of the anti-zionist lobby” for nothing.

http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/archives/2007/01/24/tony_greenstein_more_errors_than_paragraphs.php

He claimed (message 250) that Stalin “save[d] up to 2 millions if not more” Jews from Hitler.

Paul Bogdanor picked him up on this point (message 268)

Greenstein stupidly retorts (message 269) “Just to say that the figure of 2 million Jews who would otherwise have died is cited in Menachem Begin’s The Revolt.”

Paul Bogdanor correctly states (message 285) that Begin’s book “says nothing of the kind.”

Greenstein then goes to his source and see that it actually states (message 287) “Thanks to the Soviet Union hundreds of thousands of Jews were saved from Nazi hands.”

Consequently Greenstein converts “hundreds of thousands” to “up to 2 millions if not more” and then tries to defend his statement.

This is a typical example of one of Greenstein’s historical distortions and lies and why no genuine socialist or anyone else for that matter should believe a word of what he says. He is no better than a common liar.

Comment by Mikey — 11 February, 2008 @ 10:25 pm
TG @ 294: “It is no coincidence that ftp (free the peeps!) has come to this site to defend Paul Bognador, an ultra-Zionist if ever there was one.”

Try reading it again Tony, its not a defence of Bogadnor at all, its merely a remark on the irony of you accusing someone else of doing what you do, and then advising them to do what you should do.

“TG @ 287 -”With his wild assertions, such as I have ‘unmasked’ myself as a denier of Hitler’s plans to murder the Jews of the Middle East, Bognador just reveals himself as a foaming in the mouth liar. He should take a few lessons from his somewhat more respected father and calm down.”

Good grief - who is foaming at the mouth and needs to calm down? Who makes wild assertions all the time.

You should stop encouraging him Andy - when he’s finished making a fool of himself - you’ll look pretty damn silly too.

Comment by ftp — 11 February, 2008 @ 8:21 pm”

Comment by ftp — 11 February, 2008 @ 11:03 pm
Tony Greenstein wrote: “As for Fabian from Israel. If he is so concerned about racism then he could turn his attention to the state he lives in. Why does the JNF control state lands and why are Palestinians even from Israel barred from 93% of the lands…”

The JNF controls a whopping 13% of state land in Israel, not 93%, while 87% of the land inside the 1967 armistice lines can either be leased or purchased by non-Jews, as well as Jews. As to why, that 13% held by the JNF is reserved for Jews, the reasoning as far as I can understand it, before either justifying or condemning the policy is twofold.

First, there is a context to consider parallel to the aspirations of First Nations in British Columbia, most of which are currently negotiating treaties with both the provincial and federal governments in Canada, First Nations in BC assert that a substantial portion of the lands they receive as a result of the treaty process are to be deemed as communal lands held by a given First Nation as a whole and not deemed as fee simple lands in which any private individual or private interest is eligible to purchase the land from a member of the First Nation who was allocated land as a result of a ratified treaty and later able to sell that land to any other private individual or interest. Of course, the reason that First Nations do not want most or all the land they receive through the treaty process to be deemed fee simple is because of the likelihood that under a fee simple title, much of the land they receive out of a treaty process can be sold out to people who aren’t members of the First Nation minority, thereby defeating the purpose of the treaty process in the first place. Of course much of the right wing opposition to both the treaty process and to any non-fee-simple titled land being transferred to First Nations hinges on the argument that land held communally by any First Nation is racist.

In what way can the aforementioned scenario in BC be compared to the 13% of state lands held by the JNF in Israel? Well, of course inside Israel, Jews make up approximately 80% of the country’s population and so within the state they can not be considered a minority. However, in the Arab Middle East, from which most of Israel’s Jewish population originated, the situation is altogether different. The ratio of land in square miles held by Arab states that Jews are forbidden from purchasing is about 650:1. For every one square mile in the Middle East owned by a Jew, 650 square miles of land are held by Arabs that Jews are forbidden to purchase or own.

It is a crime punishable by death for an Arab in either the West Bank, Gaza, or Jordan to sell land to any Jew. Maybe Tony Greenstein and others can rationalize to themselves that this isn’t racist, but that the JNF is, or at least that the JNF holding 13% of land in Israel for Jews is more racist than laws and policies that selling land to Jews is a crime punishable by execution, but that species of argumentation can not be considered rational or persuasive. Jews from Egypt, Iraq, Tunisia, Yemen, and practically all the Arab states from which Jews originated had their land and property expropriated from them, simply because they were Jewish and because Arab states and populations opposed UNSC 181 (not because Jewish communities were taking up armed resistance against Arabs in those countries) and somewhere between 750,000 and 800,000 Jews from these countries were forcibly expelled from their homes. To this date, not a single one of these Arab states has seriously sought to redress this dispossession.

Notwithstanding the yes, racist sanctions forbidding Arabs from selling land to Jews in several Arab states and in the West Bank and Gaza and the dispossession and expulsion of 750,000-800,000 Jews from most Arab states, none of which are even seriously discussing redressing that injustice — there is another aspect to consider as far as the JNF’s communal policy (whether you agree with it or not) to exclusively reserve 13% of the land they own in Israel for Jews and not have all lands in Israel deemed as fee simple, apart from the minority status of Jews in the world and in the ME in particular.

The JNF was established long before Israel was admitted as a member state of the UN and its funds were raised specifically for the purchase of lands in what was to become the British Mandate of Palestine from voluntary contributions of Jews throughout the world. Non-Jews did not contribute funds to the JNF and non-Jews weren’t and aren’t taxed for the purchase or maintenance of the JNF lands. That is to say that it is foremost up to the donors to decide today whether the JNF policy of reserving 13% of land in Israel communally for Jews should be continued or terminated. The last polling I saw done on the issue claimed that 81% of Israeli Jews were in favour of maintaining the JNF communalist policy of reserving the 13% of land held by the JNF for Jewish people as opposed to deeming those land holdings as in effect fee simple and available for purchase or sale by all.

I am not aware of polling of JNF donors around the world as to what their position may be on the status of JNF held lands, but It strikes me that a substantial part, but not all of the explanation why at least the Israeli Jews polled want the communal policy to remain in place is because of the extant de facto and de jure restrictions preventing Jews from having any access to land in much of the Arab world, even land that was unjustly expropriated from Jewish owners between the 1930’s and following the war in 1967.

Of course, we have those on this thread who assert that all of the land held by the state of Israel, by the JNF, or by private Jewish individuals was obtained solely or at least predominantly, through forced expulsion of approximately 700,000-750,000 Arab residents from Israel during the 1947-49 war. In fact, as was published in Arab language newspapers of the late 1920’s, 30’s and 40’s, such as Al Jammiyyah al- Arabia, Al Carmel, Filastin, Maraat Al-Sharq, Al Tzrat Al-Mastiqim, Al Yarmuq and Al Maqdam, to name a few, Arab elites, absentee landowners, smaller Arab landowners, indebted fellahin (agrarian peasants) and Arab brokers and middlemen, many of whom, following the anti-Jewish pogroms in British Mandate Palestine, claimed to be the purest of Arab nationalists and made a big show of denouncing any Arab who might sell land, or anything else for that matter, to Jews, did in fact sell their private land to the JNF and to individual Jewish purchasers. It is also crucial to acknowledge that by far most of the land in Ottoman and British Mandate Palestine was never privately owned, either by Arabs or Jews, but instead was held as property of the reigning power.

Perhaps Tony Greenstein and other antizionist activists in the British Isles who denounce the JNF as racist for holding 13% of land within the 1967 armistice lines as a communal trust for Jews, who make up less than a single percent of the world’s population, can provide some sound legal justification as to why First Nations in BC today ought to be able to demand of the Provincial and Federal governments in Canada, that most, if not all of the land transferred to their communities through the current treaty process ought to be held and deeded perpetually as a communal trust rather than deeded as fee simple lands. Are they opposed to any community perpetually holding land for any reasons under a communal type of title because they deem that to be racist, or just opposed to the JNF holding 13% of land within the 1967 armistice lines?

Inside the 1967 armistice lines I have no objection to a maximum of 13% of land to be held communally for Jews, if it was legally purchased by the JNF on behalf of its Jewish donors and if those donors wish to maintain that policy and nor do I have any objection to First Nations in BC acquiring land through a ratified treaty with the federal and provincial governments in Canada to be deeded as perpetual communal treaty lands as opposed to fee simple lands. Then again, I’m not an antizionist.

Comment by lbnaz — 11 February, 2008 @ 11:16 pm
Greenstein’s latest outburst is surely one of the most embarrassing and self-destructive messages ever published online.

Previously Greenstein cited Begin as the source for 2 million Jews saved by Stalin. I exposed this as a lie. Greenstein now admits that he was lying, but quotes this passage from Begin: “I cannot forget and no Jew should forget, two fundamental facts. Thanks to the Soviet Union hundreds of thousands of Jews were saved from Nazi hands.”

Greenstein has, of course, amputated the quotation. Here’s what Begin actually wrote: “Thanks to the Soviet Union hundreds of thousands of Jews were saved from Nazi hands - though some of them suffered greatly and some of them died in prison, in exile, or as refugees.”

This example tells you everything you need to know about Greenstein.

And Greenstein hasn’t finished: having admittedly lied about Stalin saving 2 million Jews from Hitler, he now claims that without the Bolshevik Revolution the Nazis would have killed another 1.5 million Jews! Now it’s hardly debatable that without Lenin, there could have been no Stalin; hence no Hitler-Stalin Pact; hence no WW2 and no Holocaust. Indeed, Greenstein’s mentor Brenner went even further: in Zionism and the Age of the Dictators he wrote that “Stalin’s fanaticism” shared the blame for the “failure to unite” the German left that “let Hitler come to power.”

Greenstein has tied himself into this historical straitjacket because he insists on denying the mass murder of 100,000 Polish Jews as a result of the Nazi-Soviet Pact. Greenstein thinks that anyone who mentions the mass murder of millions of innocent men, women and children, including Jews, by Stalin thereby turns into an apologist for Hitler. With identical logic, his counterpart Irving argues that anyone who recognises the mass murder of millions of Jews by Hitler must be an apologist for Stalin. And just as Irving lies about Hitler saving the victims of Stalin, so Greenstein lies about Stalin’s efforts to rescue Jews. Having denied, Irving-style, the mass murder of 100,000 Polish Jews, now he tries to conflate the number of Jews who FLED the Nazi advance with humanitarian rescue efforts by the Stalinist dictatorship. On the non-existence of these rescue efforts, see Ben-Cion Pinchuk, “Was There a Soviet Policy For Evacuating the Jews?” Slavic Review, March 1980; Jeffrey Herf, “The Nazi Extermination Camps and the Ally to the East,” Kritika, Fall 2003; and countless other sources.

Especially comical in this respect is Greenstein’s recommendation of Hilberg. Greenstein would be well advised to consult Hilberg’s chapter on Hungary, which not only contradicts his discredited line on the Kastner case but repeatedly cites Kastner as a source. Perhaps, if Greenstein spends some time reading Hilberg, he will learn to stop relying on the testimony of Eichmann?

Comment by Paul Bogdanor — 11 February, 2008 @ 11:53 pm
I’m amused, but not surprised, that Tony Greenstein has made the monumental blunder of invoking the Nazi apologist Ernst Nolte. Let’s compare the two of them.

- Both equate Zionism with Nazism.

Nolte wrote that “Zionists basically wanted something similar to the national socialists, namely to conquer and colonize a vital space” (quoted in Jewish Political Studies Review, Fall 2002). Greenstein wrote that the Zionist “obsession with demography and purity of the national entity, was no different from that of the anti-Semitic movements whose activities led directly to the Holocaust” (Return Magazine, March 1990).

- Both blame Zionists for the Holocaust.

Nolte argued that the Nazis were “justified in treating the German Jews as prisoners of war” because the Zionists were on England’s side (Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, July 24, 1980). Greenstein stated that “without a Zionist movement… it is hard to believe that anything like 6 million would have been allowed to die. If it was the Nazis who pulled the trigger it was the Zionists who provided them with the alibi” (Zionism: Anti Semitism’s Twin in Jewish Garb, 1982).

- Both claim that Hitler founded Israel.

Nolte “maintains that in future historical perspective, Hitler will appear as the one who originated the State of Israel” (JPSR, Fall 2002). Greenstein declared, above: “It was the holocaust that made Zionism into a majority political current in the world and Israel represents Hitler’s triumph.”

- Both celebrate the Hitler-Stalin war while ignoring the Hitler-Stalin alliance.

Nolte justifies the genocidal Nazi regime as the “strongest of all counter forces” to communism (New York Times, June 21, 2000). Greenstein, above, justifies the genocidal Stalinist regime as the main obstacle to Hitlerism.

- Both identify Judaism with an ideology of genocide.

Nolte detected “a great affinity between Judaism and Bolshevism” (JPSR, Fall 2002). Greenstein saw “the Jewish orthodox religion” as “the fount of the most virulent forms of racism,” invoked “solid foundations for these Judaeo-Nazi views in the Halachah” and rejected “the Nazi pronouncements of Jewish orthodoxy” (Return Magazine, March 1990).

- Both defend the PLO and justify the destruction of Israel.

Nolte asked his readers to imagine that the PLO “were to succeed in destroying the nation of Israel,” which would be remembered as a “victory over racist, repressive, even Fascist Zionism” (FAZ, July 24, 1980). Greenstein wrote: “I want the state of Israel to be destroyed” because its leaders are “Judaeo-Nazis” (Letter, Weekly Worker, July 20 2006) and he boasted of visiting Baathist Syria with PLO funding (Harry’s Place, June 10, 2005).

Thus in all important respects, Greenstein is the mirror image of Nolte, the antisemitic ideologue and Nazi apologist.

There is, I submit, one crucial difference. To my knowledge, Nolte has yet to advocate the mass murder of American Jews. By contrast, Greenstein has announced that “If every staffer in AIPAC were to be vapourised tomorrow, alongside Bush, Blair and Cheney, I wouldn’t lose a minute’s sleep” because they are an “anti-Semitic caricature… determined to act out the lines prepared in the Protocols of Elders of Zion” (Alef list, April 19, 2007).

In proposing this 9/11-style massacre of Zionist Jews, Greenstein is, I think, in a class of his own.

Comment by Paul Bogdanor — 12 February, 2008 @ 12:09 am
Or in other words,

Tony Greenstein represents antisemitism’s twin in Marxist garb!

Comment by Mikey — 12 February, 2008 @ 12:22 am
It is worrying to read much of the thread above as it seems to do nothing to help with either supporting the cause of the Palestinians or defeating anti-semitism.
I’d like to return to the original blog which is the practical consideration of how to deal with the rise of anti-semitism and how Jews must align themselves with others in the movement.
Even Jews who support Israel, are opposed to anti-semitism - the crucial question is who will lead - us or those who will readily capitulate as was usual for the Board of Deputies when it came to fighting Mosely in the thirties.
I have my views on Stalin (not very good ones), much better view on the Red Army who objectively saved Jews whilst under a banner of Russian Nationalism as well as defence of the Soviet Motherland. However, if this discussion is to be of any use and lead anywhere it might focus on how the left can seriously tackle anti-semitism in the here and now.
As it happens, I am Jewish but strongly opposed to Zionism, supporting the Palestinians right to self-determination (not telling them they must live in a secular state because I think it’s best).
But for those who seem to wish to trade insults in this thread, please remember: the fascists do not care whether you are Zionists or not, go to shool or not, socialist or not when they come for us.

Comment by Ray — 12 February, 2008 @ 12:45 am
Remember something else, Ray…. zionazis do not care whether you are Jewish or not, go to shool or not, socialist or not when they come for us.

Comment by knuckles — 12 February, 2008 @ 10:36 am
knuckles dearest, the zionazis don’t have to come for you, they’re already in your head.

Comment by lbnaz — 12 February, 2008 @ 7:30 pm
Let’s catch a wake-up, boys and girls. “Anti-Semitism is a real problem”. Er, can you actually say that seriously in this day and age, when there are REAL problems such as the neo-con genocide of 11 million people in one country alone… http://www.countercurrents.org/polya080208.htm
That’s not even looking at Iraq yet!

Comment by knuckles — 12 February, 2008 @ 7:46 pm
David Hirsh writes that ‘The Jewish people, throughout history, have played key roles in forming and shaping our world for the better. They have also been resolute in resisting oppression. The Jews who stood side by side with communists, socialists, trade unionists, Irish immigrants, etc., to smash fascism in the East End of London in the Battle Of Cable Street in 1936 were heroes.’

Yes but David Hirsh is being his disingenuous self again (or maybe ignorance would be a better word). As Geoffrey Alderman (yes it is he, the JC columnist and now bigot) wrote in his excellent book, the Jewish Community in British Politics wrote, the only grouping in the Jewish community which supported David Hope Kydd and the anti-immigrant Tories in the 1900 General Election was the fledgling English Zionist Federation. (93) Kydd described the Jewish immigrants as ‘the very scum of unhealthiest of the Continental nations.’ (75)

These were Zionists, not most Jews of course because only Zionists saw advantages and opportunities in anti-Semitism.

And when are you going to answer David whether or not you are going to have more ‘guest posts’ from Atzmon’s favourite helper, one mad Mikey?

Yes Begin says ‘hundreds of thousands’ though I remember a figure of 2 million. So? Same order of magnitude. Bognador says ‘nothing of the kind’ - nothing mind you. I think my comments were somewhat more accurate.

As for Ibnaz, he says that ‘Inside the 1967 armistice lines I have no objection to a maximum of 13% of land to be held communally for Jews, if it was legally purchased by the JNF on behalf of its Jewish donors’. Firstly it’s not 13% but 93%. The JNF jointly control this land with the Israeli Land Administration, who formally control 80% via the various JNF laws in 1960/1. So having now established it is 93% of Israeli land that Palestinian Israelis are barred from we can see exactly why, as in Southern Africa, land is the key to the apartheid situation in Israel.

Bognador has begun foaming again. I provided him with the quote and he still foams!! He’s not worth bothering with and should go back to his little libel sites and hope to gain a little attention that way since he is a far-right freak who is in good company with Mikey and Hirsh.

An example of his method is his quote from me:
‘If every staffer in AIPAC were to be vapourised tomorrow, alongside Bush, Blair and Cheney, I wouldn’t lose a minute’s sleep” because they are an “anti-Semitic caricature… determined to act out the lines prepared in the Protocols of Elders of Zion” (Alef list, April 19, 2007).

Note the ‘if’ - if it happened. What does the idiot then write?

‘In proposing this 9/11-style massacre of Zionist Jews, Greenstein is, I think, in a class of his own.’ There is no proposal in the above it is a conditional clause. If Bognador cannot understand that there is no point debating with him.

I agree with Ray. The Russians won the war despite Stalin who let the Nazis march in because of his faith in Hitler’s word. But the fact remains that without the Russians having torn the guts out of the Nazis the latter may well have won the war, certainly in the whole of Europe. But I suspect that that is not a prospect Bognador would have been too worried about, since he is first and foremost an anti-communist.

But should one expect any different from Zionists? Even the David Hirsh variety?

Tony G

Comment by Tony Greenstein — 12 February, 2008 @ 11:12 pm
Tony Greenstein seems now to have attributed a quote to me that was in fact written by the only person who is impressed by all his erudition, John Wight.

I suppose that now Greenstein realizes that it wasn’t written by me but by Wight, then he will change his mind about it being “disingenuous”.

It is beyond belief that anybody could take a single word Greenstein writes seriously. Poor old Tony.

Comment by David Hirsh — 12 February, 2008 @ 11:47 pm
Tony Greenstein is very much an oddball and if there is anyone “foaming” on this thread it is him. He continues to repeat the nonsense that I am “Atzmon’s favourite helper.” Earlier on in this thread Greenstein tried to prove it by linking to a series of comments on PeacePalestine web site.

In that same thread that he linked to, it can be seen by my continual questions to Paul Eisen, I got him to say the following:

“Regarding gas, again I am not sure but the evidence for the use of homicidal gas-chambers is not good at all. The evidence against it is much, much stronger.”

http://www.haloscan.com/comments/thecutter/117192641046077827/#232973

Tony Greenstein has subsequently used that quote more than once to attack Atzmon for his friendship with Eisen. By Greenstein’s own perverted form of logic, I could be accused of being “Greenstein’s favourite helper.”

It is complete nonsense, like the nonsense that Becher was a General, like the nonsense that it is reasonable to attribute a claim that the Russians saved “up to 2 millions if not more” Jews from Hitler to Menachem Begin, like the nonsense that it was a 3:2 majority in the Kasztner case in the Supreme Court ruling. The list goes on. If Greentein were Pinocchio, the length of his nose would by now be as long as the M1.

Comment by Mikey — 13 February, 2008 @ 12:23 am
It is true that the ILA on behalf of the State have a law enacted in 1961 which sets out the state’s relationship with the JNF. However, Tony Greenstein’s conflation of the ILA and the JNF is spurious, when it comes to how much land inside the 67 armistice lines is held in trust by the JNF on behalf of its donors. What Tony G seems to be opposed to is public lands. Very odd, nay counterintuitive, for a socialist. Of course, if the public land isn’t in Israel, Tony G. likely becomes a socialist again and will support the concept of publicly held land. But when it comes to Israel, Tony G. joins the chorus on the right in Israel who call for the privatization of state lands.

And again notwithstanding that Tony G is clearly beyond his depth on this matter and so impervious to acknowledging facts when it comes to Israel or Zionism, or WWII, that it suits him better to bask in ignorance and repeatedly make spurious claims, I will anyways counter his bs with facts: Tony G is dead wrong. 76.5% of the land inside the 67 armistice lines is owned by the State of Israel; 8% of the land inside the 67 lines is privately held or fee simple; 2.5% of the land inside the 67 lines is owned by the Islamic Waqf; and 13% of the land (approx. 2.5 million dunam or approx. 625,000 acres) is held in trust by the JNF on behalf of its Jewish donors.

http://www.kkl.org.il/kkl/hebrew/nosim_ikaryim/jewish-lands/hakika/hakikakneset.x

For the last fifty years any non-Jew wishing to lease JNF land was able to do so by means of the following arrangement: Israel Lands Authority would give the person whether Jewish, or not, the JNF property he wanted to acquire, and would compensate the organization with land of equal value at another site.

Since 2004, however, because of technical and procedural problems, the Lands Authority has stopped doing this, and the Adalah Arab rights association petitioned both the Authority and KKL-JNF in the High Court of Justice, on the grounds that KKL-JNF lands are no longer being sold to non-Jews.

The High Court of Justice accepted the view held by JNF and the State, which is that a land-swap agreement has to be reached between the two. For a period of three months, until a comprehensive arrangement has been worked out, the practice of individual land swaps will be reinstated and followed once more as it was for many years in the past.

Comment by lbnaz — 15 February, 2008 @ 12:41 am
Mikey seems to have a problem with reading the English language. I have said, repeatedly, that even if the Supreme Court voted 4-1 on political/legalistic grounds (primarily they didn’t have the right to judge anyone a collaborator) their opinions divided 3-2 - Judges Goiten and Silberg in the minority. They ALSO upheld that the collaboration charge was proved, remember this is a libel, in respect of his testimony on behalf of Kurt Becher. Mikey continues to ignore this aspect.

The report of Becher’s promotion to General is in Hecht and he cites a US source from memory. It is irrelevant really because rank was not the determinative factor in influence. Eichmann for example only had the rank of a Lt. Colonel. (standarten fuhrer I believe).

Most people recognise that Supreme Courts, be it in Israel or the USA, deliver political judgments in accord with the society they live in. The Kastner case was extremely embarrassing. It threw a light on an episode they would rather have concealed. After the first few days the attorney general himself, Chaim Cohen (late a Supreme Court judge too) took over the prosecution (in reality defence).

The story is now widely known, not just in standard history books but Ben Hecht’s Perfidy and of course the Perdition play.

Mikey still hasn’t explained his acting as an unpaid researcher for Atzmon and why Atzmon, not just in the quotes I’ve posted, is so warm in his praise for him. I think one can assume the reason.

And despite making a guest appearance here, David Hirsh has still seen fit not to comment! I can’t imagine why. Here is a gues poster on his site who consorts with anti-Semites. Hirsh professes to detest all anti-Semitism. Why the silence?!!!

I don’t accept Ibnaz’s interpretation. The Israeli Lands Authority controls 80% of land in Israel and together with the JNF it is 93%. There is a joint committee of the ILA and JNF to administer it. I am not interested in the arrangements made or how they are operated. Public in Israel means Jewish Public. Why else would a Jewish, not Israeli, Jewish National Fund have a status in law to administer lands that non-Jews cannot lease or rent, as per Article 3A of its own articles of incorporation . Uri Davies has published a whole book on this but the reality of the situation is quite simple.

When the Ka’adan ruling was made by the Supreme Court the JNF pressed for a bill to reverse the ruling and allow it to continue to only have to let apartments to Jews. See the leader ‘a racist Jewish state’ in Ha’aretz.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=884358

On its own KKK-JNF site, all the pretensions and lies and obfuscations of Ibniz are swept away. This is what they say:

‘A survey commissioned by KKL-JNF reveals that over 70% of the Jewish population in Israel opposes allocating KKL-JNF land to non-Jews, while over 80% prefer the definition of Israel as a Jewish state, rather than as the state of all its citizens.’

Note that 80T prefer Israel as a Jewish state rather than as the state of all its citizens.

And if you go further down, you will see that the JNF explain why they should be able to keep their 13% separate and reserved for Jews:

‘KKL-JNF continued to perform this function after the State of Israel was founded, too. The distinction here is very clear: the State owns over 80% of Israel’s land.’

Now noone disputes the JNF owns 13%, so you don’t have to be a brilliant mathematician to work out that 80+13=93%.

Anyone who has an ounce of anti-racist politics would denounce this apartheid practice of leasing land to Jews only. However our Zionist sophists try to make excuses instead.

Tony G

Comment by Tony Greenstein — 15 February, 2008 @ 2:15 am
I should have added the url to the quotes from the JNF.

http://www.kkl.org.il/kkl/english/main_subject/jewish%20people%20land/jewish%20people%20land.x

I should point out that the heading in this article ‘All KKL-JNF land was paid for in full with money contributed by Jews all over the world.’ is untrue as is admitted much further down. 80% of it, 2m dunums was the land given to the JNF in 1950 from ‘absentee’ Palestinian landowners.

tony greenstein

Comment by Tony Greenstein — 15 February, 2008 @ 4:33 am
Tony Geenstein cannot get a simple thing right.

He comments that Eichamnn’s rank as Lieutenant colonel was equivaluent to “standarten fuhrer.” I have already stated above (10 February, 2008 @ 3:07 am) that the rank for Lieutentant Colonel is Obersturmbannführer. This fact can be checked in any half decent book the Holocaust. But Greenstein does not rely on half decent books, he relies on Ben Hecht, a book that I have highlighted contains numerous errors and has been exposed as such.

Despite this, Greenstein relies on a book by a playwright for his facts. Not only is Hecht incorrect, his book also has inconsistencies. One of these areas is the rank of Becher. On page 62, Hecht states “From August [1944] on, Kastner was busy traveling. He traveled with S.S. Lieutenant General Kurt Becher…” On page 68, Hecht states, “In 1945, Hitler rewarded the elegant mannered and industrious Kurt Becher with the rank of Lieutenant General.” (Ben Hecht, “Perfidy” ( Jerusalem: Gefen Publishing House, 1999))

It is quite obvious to anyone (apart from Tony Greenstein) that if, according to Hecht, Becher was already “Lieutenant General” in 1944 that he would not have been “rewarded” with the same rank in 1945. This is aside from the fact that Becher’s was never “Lieutenant General” in the first place.

But Greenstein’s error is compounded, because now he is claiming that his source of information was Hecht but in his post (235) Greenstein states, “Becher incidentally was already a Colonel with the SS and was promoted to General in January 1945.” As is quite clear, Greenstein even misquotes his incorrect source because Hecht gave Becher a rank of Lieutenant-General both pre and post Janary 1945. It is simply farcical.

But that is not all the nonsense from Greenstein because he comes up with a new one. As far as Greenstein is concerned, the Israeli Supreme Court “didn’t have the right to judge anyone a collaborator.” I simply have no clue how Greenstein can write such complete balderdash as he should be aware that in 1950, a number of years before the Kasztner case the State of Israel issued the following law “Nazis and Nazi Collaborators (Punishment) Law, 5710-1950.” This law can be seen on the official government web site as follows:
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/1950_1959/Nazis%20and%20Nazi%20Collaborators%20-Punishment-%20Law-%20571
Not only is there a law that specifically allows the Israeli court system a collaborator, as Greenstein well knows, the lower court judge did refer to Kasztner as a collaborator. The job of the Supreme Court was to uphold or overturn the ruling. (Kasztner was not on trial, Grunwald was - but it was precisely that ruling that the Supreme Court considered). Greenstein should have known this as because he has carefully read Ben Hecht, he would recall that on footnote 176 (p.275) Hecht quote Supreme Court Judge Shimone Agranat as saying, “one cannot consider it amounting to the degree of collaboration with the Nazis.” Agranat and the three other judges who voted with him (making four in total) could have easily said something different.

Why Greenstein is continuing to push his argument about the judges vote in the face of all the evidence I shall never know. He comments that the opinions of Silberg and Goiten were in the minority. Even Greenstein must understand that if Goiten agreed with Silberg, he could have voted with him. He chose not to. He voted with the majority. Consequently the majority opinion was 4 and the minority opinion was 1. This, as I have repeatedly said, is a straight fact. It can be seen in a number of scholarly books and articles and I have already quoted some. Greenstein should stop relying upon Ben Hecht for this point as Hecht has been shown to be wrong.

Not only does Greenstein rely upon Hecht for incorrect information and he does not even properly report Hecht’s views were, Greenstein compounds his blunder by suggesting the play Perdition. For those not familiar with that play, it was widely discredited by leading historians for factual inaccuracies.(Sir) Martin Gilbert commented that when he first read the play he “found more than 60 historical errors, each one of which was used … to build what seemed to have been a vicious case and a false one against the wartime Jewish leadership, both Zionist and non-Zionist, inside Europe and outside.” (Martin Gilbert, “Travesty of the facts,” Daily Telegraph, January 22, 1987.)Sir Martin Gilbert was not the only one, David Cesarani and Stephen Roth, both eminent also highlighted where they had gone wrong. For more information about this play see David Cesarani, “The Perdition Affair,” in Robert S. Wistrich (Ed.) “Anti-Zionism and Antisemitism in the Contemporary World.” (Basingstoke and London: Macmillan/IJA, 1990) pp. 53-60

Tony Greenstein should simply give up commenting on Kasztner and surrounding matters, as each time he does he makes a fool of himself.

Comment by Mikey — 15 February, 2008 @ 12:16 pm
Tony G’s link in #316 says the exact opposite of what he claims. But as he says in #315: “I am not interested in the arrangements made or how they are operated.” As far as I can tell, the only thing that Tony Greenstein isn’t credulous about is the observation that Gilad Atzmon and his fan club are reactionary bigots. Mind you to put that into some perspective, there are a lot more people far more credible than Greenstein that recognize Atzmon and his tiny cadre to be reactionary bigots. FFS, even a stopped clock tells the correct time twice in a 24 hour period.

Comment by lbnaz — 15 February, 2008 @ 2:35 pm
Although I don’t have Perfidy with me it sources the promotion of Becher in January 1945. Not that it is particularly important. Yes there were a no. of trials for collaboration with the Nazis in Israel BEFORE the Kastner trial. There were none after that and one of those convicted before the Kastner trial had his conviction quashed on precisely the grounds I’ve mentioned, viz. who is to judge in hindsight.

That was the thrust of the majority judges decision, that they should not sit in judgement as they were not there etc. A cop out but that is what it was.

I notice Mikey still hasn’t admitted that the Supreme Court nonetheless found that Kastner was guilty of collaboration in regard to the testimony he gave at Nuremburg. Is it too inconvenient to this thesis?

Yes Martin Gilbert slated Perdition, after the Zionist lobby had successful put pressure on for the Royal Court Theatre to ban the play. A stupid act as it gave Perdition far more publicity than it would otherwise have garnered.

Mikey may not have been about at the time but I remember the Channel 4 programme in which Gilbert took part, debating Lenni Brenner. He came off very poorly and it is his opinion that there were 60 mistakes. In fact one of these ‘mistakes’ the putting on ice of up to 20,000 Jews at the Vienna Strasshoff camp which Gilbert claimed for Kastner was no such thing of course, as Mikey will of course know from his reading of his favourite author Brahams.

Gilbert in any case tries to run with the foxes and hunt with the hounds. He also wrote the foreword to Rudolph Vrba’s ‘I Escaped from Auschwitz’, a book which slates in the appendices the collaboration of - yep that’s right - Kastner! But quoting from Zionist historians and in Gilbert’s case disgusting establishment historians, doesn’t prove anything. Gilbert is a licensed historian to the establishment, which is why he was entrusted as the official biographer for Winston Churchill, who he has defended through thick and thin against charges of racism, anti-Semitism etc. although it is well known that he was a vile racist and imperialist in respect of non-white people.

It is no surprise though that Mikey defends Kastner because he has a fondness for those who collaborate with anti-Semites, as my latest quote from Atzmon in respect of his services proves!

Comment by Tony Greenstein — 16 February, 2008 @ 7:58 pm
Why, oh why, does Tony Greenstein keep coming back for more punishment? One can only conclude he is something of a masochist.

Tony Greenstein comments that in the Kasztner case, “the thrust of the majority judges decision [was] that they should not sit in judgement as they were not there etc.” This is nonsense. The role of the judges is precisely to sit in judgement and that is what they did. To quote directly from the judgement, using the translation by the anti-Zionist Israeli, Akiva Orr, (just in case Greenstein tries and accuses my of a translation bias,) Justice Agranat for the majority concluded as follows:

“1 During that period Kasztner was motivated by the sole motive of saving Hungary’s Jews as a whole, that is, the largest possible number under the circumstances of time and place as he estimated could be saved; 2 This motive fitted the moral duty of rescue to which he was subordinated as a leader of the relief and rescue committee in Budapest; 3 Influenced by this motive he adopted the method of financial or economic negotiation with the Nazis; 4 Kasztner’s behaviour stands the test of plausibility and reasonableness; 5 His behaviour during his visit to Cluj (On May 3rd) and afterwards, both its active aspect (the plan of the ‘prominents’) and its passive aspect (withholding the ‘Auschwitz news’ and lack of encouragement for acts of resistance and escape on a large scale) – is in line with his loyalty to the method which he considered, at all important times, to be the only chance of rescue; 6 Therefore one cannot find a moral fault in his behaviour, one cannot discover a casual connection between it and the easing of the concentration and deportation, one cannot see it as becoming a collaboration with the Nazis” [1]

It can therefore be seen that, Tony Greenstein is incorrect, and there should be no surprises there, as the judges did consider Kasztner’s actions and did not decide that they should not sit in judgment.

Greenstein comments that “the Supreme Court nonetheless found that Kastner was guilty of collaboration in regard to the testimony he gave at Nuremburg.” This is not accurate. Using the same anti-Zionist source, Akiva Orr shows that in the lower court, Judge Benjamin Halevey grouped Grunwald’s accusations Kasztner into four headings. 1 Collaboration with Nazis; 2 “Indirect murder” or “preparing the ground for murder” of Hungarian Jews; 3 Sharing plunder with a Nazi war criminal; 4 Saving a war criminal from punishment after the war. It can therefore be seen that there was a split between the charge of collaboration and that of the testimony. The majority decision in the Supreme Court did find that the accusation that Kasztner had saved a Nazi war criminal from punishment to be truthful, but they exonerated him from the charge of collaboration. [2]

Greenstein now states, “the Zionist lobby had successful put pressure on for the Royal Court Theatre to ban the play.” Yet again, this is not accurate. The play was not banned. The Artistic Director of the Royal Court Theatre was Max Stafford-Clark. He made it clear in an article for the Guardian that the reason the play was axed was not because it was banned but because he “lost confidence in the play’s credibility.” He states explicitly that it was his decision to axe the play, as, in his own words, “as Artistic Director the constitution of the Royal Court entrusts me with responsibility for the selection of the theatre’s programme.” It is true that Martin Gilbert and Stephen Roth went to see Stafford-Clark about the play, but as Stafford-Clark stated very clearly, “It is ironic that throughout its history, the Royal Court has received generous help from a number of Jewish trusts and prominent Jewish families. In the course of this affair, none of them put any pressure on me. As for any other ‘undeclared pressure’, there was none.”[3]

Continuing with his errors, Greenstein goes on to suggest that one of the errors that Gilbert said was in the play in the Channel 4 debate was about the “the putting on ice of up to 20,000 Jews at the Vienna Strasshoff camp.” Greenstein is being very silly here, because a that whole debate can be watched on line because an anti-Zionist web site has uploaded the video. [4] I have watched this video very closely and at no point does Martin Gilbert mention the Jews who were transported to Strasshof, most of whom survived the war. Regarding Gilbert coming off badly, that is Greenstein’s opinion, however the facts are that Lenni Brenner, in order to try and suggest that Kasztner was a collaborator, reduced himself to quoting Adolph Eichmann. Martin Gilbert expressed complete shock at such an appalling display from Brenner and I concur. What next from the likes of Brenner and Greenstein, will they be quoting Myra Hindley, convicted and found guilty in the Moors child murders trial, on the best way to treat children?

It is true that Martin Gilbert wrote the preface, (not the foreword as Greenstein claims) of Rudolf Vrba’s book, “I escaped from Auschwitz,” but as Gilbert claims, and rightly in my opinion, it was “an honour” to do so.[5] Vrba escaped from Auschwitz and his report (with Wetzler) combined with further information from later escapees, provided the Allies with crucial information about Auschwitz. In this respect, Vrba was certainly a hero of the Holocaust. However, despite Vrba’s view of Kasztner, he was not in Hungary at the time. Even after escaping Auschwitz, he made his way to Zilina, Slovakia before going on in that country to Liptovsky Svaty Mikulas before travelling to Western Slovakia where he joined the partisans. [6] Consequently, despite the fact that Vrba was very competent to comment on Auschwitz and did so admirably, his comments on Kasztner are based on his secondary sources and simply his own opinion.

Greenstein seems fit to dismiss Sir Martin Gilbert for the bizarre reason that he is an “establishment historian.” What can one say to this nonsense? Sir Martin is an Honorary Fellow of Merton College, Oxford University, and a Distinguished Fellow of Hillsdale College, Michigan. [7] Lenni Brenner, on the other hand is a man who did not even have a college education. [8] I find it amusing that Greenstein prefers the work of an uneducated man whose work has been widely discredited [9] rather than the work of an internationally respected historian. It exposes more the stupidity of Tony Greenstein than anything else.

I will conclude this post by quoting the distinguished professor Randolph L. Braham, who states on Kastzner the following:

“Whatever characterization of Kasztner one wishes to believe – and most appear quite understandably exaggerated – it seems that Kasztner’s role cannot possibly be evaluated with any degree of objectivity without assessing the wartime attitude of both belligerent parties towards the Jews; the Nazis’ decision to bring about the Final Solution on the Jewish question and the intensity with which they pursued this goal; the Allies’ passivity towards the Jews and their failure to undertake any military measures to frustrate the Nazis’ designs. In this context, Kasztner, like the six million other Jews, was also a victim.” [10]

Mikey

References

[1] Akiva Orr, “The Kastner Case, Jerusalem 1955” in Jim Allen, “Perdition” (London: Ithaca Press, 1987) pp. 81-105

[2] Ibid.

[3] Max Stafford Clark, “Why I axed Perdition,” The Guardian, March 13, 1987. (NB a copy of this article can be seen in Jim Allen’s, “Perdition” ibid, pp. 140-41)

[4] The video can be watched in its entirety by clicking on the relevant link at
http://cosmos.ucc.ie/cs1064/jabowen/IPSC/php/clip.php?cid=310

[5] Sir Martin Gilbert, “Preface from Sir Martin Gilbert,” in Rudolf Vrba, “I Escaped from Auschwitz,” (London: Robson Books, 2006) p. vii

[6] Rudolf Vrba, ibid., pp. 250-77

[7] http://www.martingilbert.com/index.html

[8] “‘It’s All Rabbis and No Jews’: An Interview with Lenni Brenner.” Palestine Solidarity Review -Fall 2004 available online at http://www.psreview.org/content/view/33/72/

[9] See for example C.C. Aronsfeld,, “Zionism in the age of the dictators: a reappraisal, By Lenni Brenner” International Affairs, Vol. 60 No. 1 (Winter 1983-1984) pp. 138-39 available online at http://www.paulbogdanor.com/brenner.pdf (PDF) A further example is Louis Harap, “Zionist-Nazi collaboration” Refuted – Lenni Brenner’s Trickery Exposed,” Jewish Currents, May 1984 pp. 4-9, 28-30 available on line at http://www.paulbogdanor.com/harap-brenner.pdf (PDF)

[10] Randolph L. Braham, “The Politics of Genocide: The Holocaust in Hungary,” revised and enlarged edition Volume 2 (New York and Boulder: The Rosenthal Institute for Holocaust Studies Graduate Centre / The City University of New York and Social Science Monographs, 1994) p. 1,112

Comment by Mikey — 17 February, 2008 @ 3:41 am
The biggest danger to the socialist movement today is the siren song of “national liberation.” The workers don’t need a nation, they need a state. When nationalism and “national liberation” eclipses the working class as the liberating and historical force of revolution you are half-way to syndicalism and well on the road to proto-fascism.
Populism is not socialism. National liberation is an oxymoron. The rhetoric of “Anti-imperialism” has become a mask to justify a wink wink anti-Semitism.

Comment by Robert — 22 March, 2008 @ 4:29 pm

Jews and Jew Haters II: From Cranks to Clowns

2008-09-16T15:14:00.001+01:00

This post originally appeared on Harry's Place

Jews and Jew Haters II: From Cranks to Clowns

Your View, May 8th 2008, 9:28 am

(This is a guest post by Mikey)

Six months ago, I posted Jews and Jew Haters: The Anti-Zionist Jewish Squabble. It was about the nasty feud between Tony Greenstein, an anti-Zionist British Jew, and Gilad Atzmon, an anti-Zionist Israeli. Greenstein wants “the state of Israel to be destroyed” and claims that Hamas and Hizbollah are not antisemitic. Atzmon says that burning down a synagogue is a “rational act.” I wasn’t sure if a sane person could support either side, but I concluded: “this argument is set to run and run.”
And so it has turned out. The Tony Greenstein camp has established its own blog, Anti-Zionists against Anti-Semitism, to “opppose [sic] that small current around Israel Shamir and Gilad Atzmon who wish to introduce the ideas of racism and anti-Semitism into the Palestine solidarity movement.” A large proportion of the posts are attacks on Atzmon, described as “a holocaust denier” who is “fundamentally racist and reactionary.”
The blog is very dull and only masochists will enjoy it. Apparently even Greenstein finds it boring, which may explain why he is anxious for the excitement of a court case. He has initiated legal proceedings against Atzmon in respect of:

False allegations of serious criminal conduct and fraud. concerning alleged offences over 20 years ago, contrary to s.8 of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.
False allegations of violent crimes, in particular against Jewish people
False allegations of race hate crimes against Jewish people
False allegations of vandalising church property

In full litigation mode, Greenstein has also threatened to sue Google for hosting the website of Atzmon’s main defender.
In the Nazi mind, the ultimate evil is being a Jew. In Atzmon’s mind, the ultimate evil is being a Zionist. This is worse than being a Nazi:

there is no room for comparison between Israel and the Nazis. If a comparison is to be made, then it is the Israelis who win the championship of ruthlessness… Israel and Zionism endanger our world… We have to admit that Israel is the ultimate evil rather than Nazi Germany… We should never compare Israel to Nazi Germany. As far as evilness is concerned, we should now let Israel take the lead.

Since it is the worst insult he can imagine, Atzmon has taken to calling the Greenstein camp crypto-Zionists. Since it is the worst insult he can imagine, Greenstein throws the same accusation against the Atzmon camp, whose ideas “can only lead in one direction – to the strengthening of Zionism.” But Greenstein is more promiscuous with his abuse. Not long after the BNP’s legal adviser attacked the Board of Deputies as “a clique of self serving Zionist racists” and a “Zionist-Nazi organisation” and the Jewish Chronicle as “the mouthpiece of the same clique of Zionist parasites and crooks,” Greenstein wrote that the BNP is “pro-Zionist.” Perhaps he was trying to enliven his blog by making it hard for his readers to keep a straight face.

It may become a double-act. Both Gilad Atzmon and Tony Greenstein despise Anthony Julius for his criticisms of anti-Zionism. Greenstein recently dismissed Julius as “quite a simple fellow” under a headline that screamed, “Gilad Atzmon Joins with Anthony Julius to Attack Jewish Anti-Zionists.” That was shortly after Atzmon attacked Julius for his role in “the destruction of history revisionist David Irving’s career.”

Meanwhile the Trotskyist Alliance for Workers’ Liberty has rallied to Greenstein defence. This is in spite of Greenstein’s boast on the very same webpage that he

would lose no sleep if they [AIPAC], the Bush White House, the leadership of the Republican Party, New Labour’s cabinet and any other warmongers I can think of, were vaporised.

As Paul Bogdanor commented:

Previously I exposed Greenstein’s thoughts on vapourising as many as 100,000 American Jews in AIPAC, along with the inhabitants of the White House, as well as his endorsement of the IRA atrocity at the Brighton hotel. Greenstein now extends the list to the leadership of the Republican Party, New Labour’s cabinet “and any other warmongers I can think of.” Thus Greenstein’s “anarchist wishful thinking” encompasses the mass murder of the entire democratically elected leadership of America and Britain, and, apparently, anyone at all who supported the Iraq war. That would presumably include everyone from Iraqi voters who support Coalition forces to those he has elsewhere described as “the racist warmongers of Harry’s Place”!

Greenstein’s troubles go beyond allegations of serious criminal conduct and the exposure of his “wishful thinking” about terrorism. While coping with the tedium of his own blog, he faces the humiliation of a spoof blog by a supporter of Atzmon. The unidentified blogger has even started posting videos mocking a certain “Mony Gripstein” and his comrade, the irreplaceable Roland Rance.
Watching the farce of the Jewish anti-Zionists, you may think that the lunatics have taken over the asylum. I prefer to say that the clowns are now running the circus.

Jews and Jew Haters: The Anti-Zionist Jewish Squabble

2008-09-16T15:10:00.001+01:00

This post originally appeared on Harry's Place and can be seen in the cache.

November 21, 2007

Jews and Jew Haters: The Anti-Zionist Jewish Squabble

A Guest Post by “Mikey”

I once heard an anecdote of someone asking a New York lawyer why so many lawyers in the city seem to be Jewish. The response was something like, “I don’t know, Jews like to argue I guess.” For Jews not destined to become lawyers, what better way is there to have an argument other than to get involved in politics? If they really want to have a good argument then internal Jewish politics is surely an excellent place to do it.

Clearly, it is not just Jews in the mainstream who like to argue, because the tiny fringe of Jews who are committed opponents of Zionism seem to have a similar penchant. Tony Greenstein, a key anti-Zionist Jewish activist in Britain, last year said, “Yes, I want the state of Israel to be destroyed.” More recently, he has said:

If every staffer in AIPAC were to be vapourised tomorrow, alongside Bush, Blair and Cheney, I wouldn’t lose a minutes sleep…. Presumably if we could engineer a nuke that only devastated its offices and personnel then all would be well in Palestine.

I suppose that Israelis and their supporters should be grateful that to the best intelligence we have available, Tony Greenstein has not been trying to obtain a nuclear capability.

Fighting on the same side as Tony Greenstein is Mark “Jews Sans Frontiers” Elf. This character divides the world into anti-Zionists (good) and Zionists (bad.) Elf believes that Zionists are “dominating, if not controlling, the whole media” and that his blog, in its own small way, is a counterbalance to this domination. (As an aside, if there are any media journalists reading this, can they please confirm that on their application form for their job, as well as having to provide references, they had to swear allegiance to the State of Israel.)

Elf will of course claim that he is only anti-Zionist and not in the slightest bit antisemitic. Only last week he said:

The sad thing, I think, is this propensity for sheer instinctive dishonesty has become a habit of mind with many, maybe most, Jews. It's part of the culture now and it'll be a hard slog shifting it. I think as communities, the Jews are heading for a disaster thanks to this grotesque culture of deceit.

Surely, this was a simple slip up. Elf must have meant Zionists. He would not possibly be calling Jews dishonest would he?

On the other side to this debate is the Israeli saxophonist and self-declared ex-Jew, Gilad Atzmon who is championed by the SWP. Despite their opposition to the State of Israel and Zionism, Atzmon dismisses the likes of Greenstein and Elf as, crypto-Zionists. The problem he has with them is that they identify as Jews and set up groups such as Jews Against Zionism and websites such as Jews Sans Frontiers. The relevance being that these groups have the word “Jews” in their title. As a result, he refers to them as “a bunch of silly tribal Jewish ethnic activists.” Mark Elf counters that Atzmon and his main supporter, Mary Rizzo are “scum of the earth deliberately dividing the anti-zionist movement” and are “antisemitic pieces of shit.” Because both Zionist Jews and anti-Zionist Jews that identify themselves as Jews, proudly refer to themselves as Jews, Atzmon can exclaim, “In short, there is no difference between Zionists and Jewish anti Zionists.” He concludes that Elf should “seek some psychiatric help.”

Whilst Mark Elf believes that Zionists control the Press and the majority of Jews are dishonest, Atzmon wrote a few years ago:

[W]e must begin to take the accusation that the Jewish people are trying to control the world very seriously.... American Jewry makes any debate on whether the 'Protocols of the elder of Zion' are an authentic document or rather a forgery irrelevant. American Jews do try to control the world, by proxy.

Whilst Tony Greenstein erroneously believes that during the Holocaust the Zionists collaborated with the Nazis, Gilad Atzmon circulates texts from those that support Holocaust denial. Atzmon also leant support to Israel Shamir, and referred to him as “a very civil and peaceful man.” Shamir is of course not someone who just supports Holocaust denial but felt able to denounce Lee Barnes of the BNP as a Jew.

For a number of months, Atzmon and his supporters, the “Atzmonites” and the anti-Zionist Jews have been at each others throats like cats and dogs in a debate that is becoming increasingly acrimonious. The debate centers around two main issues. The first of these issues is whether antisemitism should be tolerated in the Palestinian Solidarity campaign. (PSC) Both sides have been accused of antisemitism and both sides deny it, but Greenstein and his pals insist Atzmon is an antisemite and want Atzmon and Israel Shamir banished from the pro-Palestinian movement. Atzmon insists that he is not against Jews, although it was reported in the Observer that he believes that burning down a synagogue is a “rational act” and he fully admits that he is against “Jewishness.”

The recent spat started with an article Atzmon wrote in August entitled “Saying NO to the Hunters of Goliath.” This article stated:

the Jewish state and the sons of Israel are at least as unpopular in the Middle East as their grandparents were in Europe just six decades ago. Seemingly, it is the personification of WW2 and the Holocaust that blinded the Israelis and their supporters from internalising the real meaning of the conditions and the events that led towards their destruction in the first place.

The article appeared on the Indymedia site. Tony Greenstein wrote to Indymedia requesting that they remove Atzmon’s article. In support of his request Greenstein copied an email he had received from Moshe Machover, who he refers to as “an absolutely solid Israeli Jewish anti-Zionist.” In that email, with which Greenstein claimed he agreed, Machover stated:

He [Atzmon] is comparing here the – perfectly justified -- present hatred for Israel in the Middle East, with the "unpopularity"(!!!) from which European Jews suffered in the 1940s! You, I and GA [Atzmon] agree that if a destruction awaits Israel in the future, it will be a consequence of its present actions. What he is implying here is that the same is also true of the destruction of European Jewry six decades ago. This is not Holocaust denial; it is rather Holocaust justification! Or, at the very least, partly blaming it on the victims.

This communication led to a whole bout of correspondence with a person who goes by the name, “Free the Peeps”, and who seems to be a moderator for Indymedia deciding that he does “not believe that Atzmon hates all Jews because they are Jewish.” As such he stated, “I am therefore for leaving the article on the newswire.”

Atzmon’s main supporter is Mary Rizzo, who runs her own blog, PeacePalestine. Shortly after Machover’s email appeared on Indymedia, PeacePalestine published an article entitled, Moisha’le’s New Suit by someone called “Hans Christian Underdog” generally assumed to be an Atzmon invented character. This article was a spoof fairytale ridiculing Machover, “a Marxist emporer,” and Greenstein and Elf as “nothing but imposters.”

Greenstein’s supporters in this dispute have fought back. Steve Cohen, who wrote the book That’s Funny, You Don’t Look Anti-Semitic wrote to Indymedia and said that Atzmon’s writing’s are “clear,unarguable anti Semitism. Just as ‘kill the Yids’ is clear,unarguable,anti-Semitism.”

Mark Elf sent Free the Peeps an email full of abusive language, accusing him of “betraying a woeful ignorance of racism.” Whilst Elf requested that any response was kept “off list,” Free the Peeps duly published Elf’s email complete with all the abuse together with his own response. As far as Free the Peeps was concerned, Machover, Greenstein, Elf and supporters were “using the exact same methods of intimidation that the zionist lobby uses to attack those that do not agree with the implementation of ‘Zionism in practice’ and the horrors that entails for Palestinians.” In no uncertain terms, he said of them:

If the group cannot find a more reasonable way of dealing with groups that they say they are supportive of, if they do not stop hounding and attempting to banish and silence their political adversaries, then I say they can FUCK OFF! I want nothing to do with them. Hopefully others will take the same line.

The discredited Trotskyite author, Lenni Brenner, also wrote to Indymedia demanding that they “stop printing Atzmon's material” and arguing that Atzmon had developed a “mad form of fanaticism” and compared him to a Jew who shouts “Heil Hitler!” Free the Peeps was not amused and he responded stating that Brenner was “no comrade” of his and accused Brenner of hounding Atzmon on behalf of Greenstein. The crux of the matter and this really is the second major area of dispute between the anti-Zionist Jews and the Atzmonites was Brenner’s sign off: “For 1 democratic, secular bi-national Palestine/Israel in a socialist world.” Free the Peeps responded: -

Excellent news. I like the sound of that option. I'm just a little unsure about how you are going to persuade the Palestinians to see it your way. They kind of think that they have some right to be there on their own terms, and last time I looked they voted in some Islamic party that started with a H. Perhaps if you put them under serious pressure they'll see it your way?

What it comes down to is exactly this. Greenstein, Brenner and ideological comrades want to see Israel destroyed and a secular and socialist Palestine in its place. The Atzmonites also want to see Israel destroyed but they claim that they just support the Palestinians. If therefore the Palestinians want to support Hamas then so will they.

“Hans Christian Underdog” (Atzmon) was so impressed with Free the Peeps response to Brenner that he went to so far as to write and get professionally recorded a short radio play based on it. This play completely ridicules and pours scorn and derision on Brenner suggesting that apart from Greenstein and Brenner’s own mother, no one takes him seriously.

In the interim Greenstein has written an article, “There are no gatekeepers – just anti-racists” that he has had published on the Socialist Unity blog. Greenstein was most upset that Atzmon had called him a Zionist. He was also concerned that Atzmon and his supporters “indulge in anti-Semitic rhetoric.” Ignoring the fact that many Jews emigrated to Palestine for religious or other reasons that are completely independent of antisemitism, Greenstein states as a fact “Without anti-Semitism there would have been no Zionist settlers. The only effect of a growth of anti-Semitism today would be a new wave of settlers emigrating to Israel.” This is therefore what Greenstein is upset about: Because of Atzmon, Jews will be more likely to become staunchly Zionist and emigrate to Israel.

As many are aware, Hamas is a deeply antisemitic organisation, that in its own Covenant promotes the idea that Jews should be killed and that the notorious forgery the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, that suggested Jews have a plan to take control of the world, is true. Greenstein disputes this as he has said in the comments section of his own post in relation to Hamas and Hezbollah, “they are not anti-Semitic, because they quite simply are not organisations whose goal is the destruction of Jewish people or their oppression.” Greenstein does not elaborate in his bizarre statement how he can say that when the Hamas Covenant takes the trouble to specifically quote the Muslim Prophet as saying:

The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews.

None of this has stopped Atzmon accusing Greenstein et al of having a “racially exclusive” Jewish secular political identity and according to Atzmon, “Jewish secular socialism is nothing but a form of ‘national socialism.’”

Jews for Justice for Palestinians supporter, Stephen Marks, who only two years ago shared a platform with someone who had previously been funding the known Holocaust Denier, David Irving was upset that Atzmon called the Jews a “race.” He said “This assertion is simply nonsense. I am not aware of any secular Jewish organisation which regards Jews as a ‘race’. Whatever its validity or lack of it, secular Jewish identity is cultural.” Atzmon was not impressed. He said because anti-Zionist Jews operated in groups under a Jewish banner, such as Jews for Justice for Palestinians, “you (Jewish secular political activists) aren’t a race… just racially orientated. i.e racist.”

One wonders who sane and rational people should support in this dispute. Should they support Tony Greenstein who wants “the state of Israel to be destroyed” and who thinks that Hamas and Hizbollah are not anti-semitic or Gilad Atzmon who is happy to support Hamas, wants Israel to disappear, and who also thinks burning down a synagogue is a rational act?

I have no idea, but no doubt, this argument is set to run and run.

In the interim, I am looking forward to my holiday next month in Tel-Aviv.

To hear Gilad Atzmon's play, click here

Posted by Your View at November 21, 2007 04:08 PM | TrackBack

Comments

"I suppose that Israelis and their supporters should be grateful that to the best intelligence we have available, Tony Greenstein has not been trying to obtain a nuclear capability."

I am more grateful that for those who might want a nuke solution as described, Tony Greenstein is the best intellience they have avaialable.

Posted by: Brett Lock at November 21, 2007 04:17 PM

There is another side involved in this squabble of course...

I think that many of the UK anti-boycott folks have become so focussed on criticizing the role pf "jewish identity politics" in the boycott movement that a sort of bizarro mirror image world has risen in opposition to it.

In this bizarro world, recognition of Israel as a Jewish state is avoided, the use of Jewish language and cultural symbols is discouraged almost to the point where it is demeaned, but crticizing the Israel boycott movement as anti-Jewish is encouraged.

In this bizarro world, the identies of the the anti-boycotters is defined by their opposition to identity politics, and rather than pulling out their Jewish credentials to claim a position of authority on a particular issue, they pull out the inclusive, non-jewish nature of the editorial board of Engage to claim authority.

So my question is:

Why, over the course of a debate, is pointing out that John Pike is not Jewish (as Mikey did in a "debate" we were having earlier this week) inherently different than the Roses pointing out that they are?

There is a reason that the UK is currently the seat of the international antizionist movement. My hunch as a Yank who has been listening to this debate from the outside for a long time, is that it has more to do with the mental health of the Jewish community there as *a whole* more than anything else. There is a common thread running through the Atzmons, the Elves and the Engagers: you are all trying to erase something.

Posted by: Shmuel at November 21, 2007 04:19 PM

Perhaps Greenstein,before launching his long range nuclear attack, could develop a weapon which destroys racist jazz saxophonists but leaves the musical genre standing.

Posted by: tim at November 21, 2007 04:39 PM

To summarize with labels:

Atzmon represents the Ex-Jewish antizionists Jews.

Elf represents the Jewish antizionists Jews.

Engage represents the non-Jewish non-Zionists Jews.

Something like a bidimensional continuum can almost be picked out, until you realize that they're all just completely bonkers.

Posted by: Shmuel at November 21, 2007 04:45 PM

My position on the boycott campaign was that (1) it was a discriminatory campaign which (2) formed part of an ongoing attempt by some on the very furthest reaches of the political Left and Right to delegitimise the existence of the State of Israel.

The "identity politics" aspect of it is a trivial issue: although it is very important to Atzmon, who spends most of his time thinking about the pernicious nature of "jewishness". I do think that there are a number of ethnically jewish athiests who have composed a jewish identity for themselves as "brave anti-Zionist jews".

I think that Atzmon is right to say that, for many of these people, their involvement in anti-Zionist politics is significantly about a quest for their own identities.
(He isn't right about much else though)

What is clear, though, is that these anti-Zionist jews have been idiots. Their main function has been to 'kosherise' the anti-Zionist argument: to allow those on the far Left to say "nothing we do or say can be racist, because here are jews who agree with us".
Now that Atzmon has burst onto the scene, some of Greenstein and Rance's old comrades are sticking by them: but others prefer the more glamourous and edgy Atzmon, who performs pretty much the same role.

Democratic countries have an absolute right to decide on the nature of their state, as long as they accord full civil and political rights to all their citizens.

I'm not sure what point you're making.

Posted by: David T at November 21, 2007 04:50 PM

My position on the ... was

You're doing a lot of those type of comments recently. Everything ok?

Posted by: Morgoth at November 21, 2007 05:03 PM

Yes, I've been reading stuff written by trots, who wiffle on about "positions" all the time. It is a bad habit and I should get out of it.

Posted by: David T at November 21, 2007 05:12 PM

Good post Mikey. Thanks.

David T - yes; the boycott debate is a cover for delegitimising the existence of the State of Israel. But I also take your point that for some of its proponents it's also a form of identity politics.

Posted by: Danny Smircky at November 21, 2007 05:17 PM

"One wonders who sane and rational people should support in this dispute."

If the attempt by this little group of mental defectives to scratch each others' eyes out merits the term 'dispute', then in response I can only quote a former Israeli Prime Minister's words when asked who Israel supported in the Iran-Iraq War:

"We wish great success to both sides." (Menachem Begin)

Posted by: Paul Frenkel at November 21, 2007 05:18 PM

Paul,

That is a great quote. Had I have recalled it when I was writing my article I would have used it.

Posted by: Mikey at November 21, 2007 05:21 PM

You can retitle the article if you want to

Posted by: David T at November 21, 2007 05:26 PM

"Democratic countries have an absolute right to decide on the nature of their state, as long as they accord full civil and political rights to all their citizens."

I'm not sure what point you're making.

Posted by: Shmuel at November 21, 2007 05:26 PM

Shmuel:

Naturally, I can't tell you what David T is alluding to, but it's sure funny that such sentiments are usually mentioned in the context of non-Jewish citizens of Israel not enjoying the same rights as Jewish citizens of Israel, and rarely in the context of the rights of non-Muslims residing in Sharia states.

Posted by: Lynne T at November 21, 2007 05:41 PM

The point I am making is that I do not think that Israel is a special case at all.

I think that the best sort of countries are countries which are democratic and which respect fundamental civil and political rights.

Israel isn't particularly wonderful, by Western European standards at least, at doing that. It is however considerably better at respecting democracy and civil rights than any other country in the region, bar none. I think it is remarkable that it has done so, while under repeated attack, and I applaud its citizens for maintaining its character in these circumstances.

What Israel becomes is really not a matter for me, because I don't live there. I applaud steps taken by its citizens to increase democracy and respect for civil and political rights, as I would in relation to any country.

I support measures which Israel takes to withdraw from land to which it has no legitimate territorial claim. Similarly, I'd oppose attempts to dissolve the country and merge it by force into neighbouring states.

What Israel becomes in some hypothetical future is just nothing to do with me. At the moment, it is a secular ethnic jewish state, with a number of sizeable and small minorities. But countries don't stay the same for ever. They can voluntarily pool sovereignty, share citizenship rights, open borders for trade and so on. However, all of this can only be done by consent.

Posted by: David T at November 21, 2007 06:14 PM

A mere analysis of this short exchange makes my point is valid...

I merely said:

"In this bizarro world, recognition of Israel as a Jewish state is avoided."

To which you felt the need to respond (A):

"Democratic countries have an absolute right to decide on the nature of their state, as long as they accord full civil and political rights to all their citizens."

To which I said, "huh?"

Compelling you to clarify your position (B):

"At the moment, it is a secular ethnic jewish state."

Assuming (A) still applies, you could have merely disagreed with me, and said. "Of course I recognize Israel as a Jewish state, what else could I call it!"

Returning us to:

"In this bizarro world, recognition of Israel as a Jewish state is avoided."

You have proved my point for me.

----
So, for me the bigger question is:

Why do all these crazy Jews live in England? Why is the seat of the international antizionist movement in England? Is it best understood as a Enlgish phenomenon or a English-Jewish one? Posts like this make me think the latter.

Posted by: Shmuel at November 21, 2007 06:43 PM

Israel is a secular jewish state with a number of national minorities, some sizeable. Is this seriously disputed by anybody?

Just as, for example, Britain is a united kingdom composed predominantly of the English, Welsh, Scottish, and Irish: and other cultural and national groups.

Similarly, this isn't in disputr: which is why people don't feel a need to repeat it all the time.

You write as if Israel was an abstract concept, rather than a 60 year old existing state.

Posted by: David T at November 21, 2007 06:55 PM

Atzmon says he's not against Jews, he's just against Jewishness.

Me, I'm not against Beethoven's music, just the notes in it.

Posted by: goodwin sands at November 21, 2007 07:04 PM

Mikey, well done, a very complete and detailed article

Four points:

1. The argument in Atzmon's “Saying NO to the Hunters of Goliath.” is the classical antisemitic lie that Jews are responsible for their own misfortunes, it is often heard on the extreme right. It is essentially saying that Jews are to blame for any disaster that befalls them.

2. The denial of the antisemitic character of Hamas is a peculiar phenomena and often found in people who don't base their views on evidence and somehow wish to exonerate Hamas. Nevertheless, the Hamas covenant is very clear on the validity of the Protocols of Elders of Zion, a notorious antisemitic forgery.

3. The question of identity politics, whilst it may play some part in the motivation of some anti-Zionists, is not critically relevant to the wider political issues, because identity politics is a purely subjective topic, relating to how an individual sees themselves and as such not terribly amenable to conclusive discussions.

4. The real political issue is how the activities of a small minority of Jewish anti Zionist activists have legitimised and opened the door for anti-Jewish racism, and in Gilad Atzmon's case how he won the approval of David Duke, ex-Grand Wizard of the KKK.

Posted by: modernityblog at November 21, 2007 07:16 PM

"We wish great success to both sides." (Menachem Begin) I'm sure Begin must have been very satisfied with the 1 million dead then.

Posted by: TheIrie at November 21, 2007 07:42 PM

It kept them busy.

Posted by: Questor at November 21, 2007 07:46 PM

"We wish great success to both sides." (Menachem Begin) I'm sure Begin must have been very satisfied with the 1 million dead then.

I'm not here to defend Begin or his comment. But it's an unfortunate fact-- based on lots of bitter experience-- that many Israelis regard fights between anti-Israel forces with a sense of relief (i.e., "at least when they're fighting each other, they're not fighting us").

Posted by: Gene at November 21, 2007 07:53 PM

"Similarly, this isn't in disputr: which is why people don't feel a need to repeat it all the time...You write as if Israel was an abstract concept, rather than a 60 year old existing state."

This is bullshit, if not a 180 degree inversion of reality. Fatah for example does not currently recognize Israel as a Jewish state, and there are many other-how can I say- less invested parties and indivduals who are less than "comfortable" agreeing that Israel has the right to maintain it's identity as a Jewish state. For example just above you felt the need to refer to Israel as Jewish in the "moment" rather than "a 60 year old existing state" on first pass while accusing me of conceptualizing Israel in the abstract. It's this sort of weirdness and hypocricy that makes the Engage crowd part of the whole freak show. You guys may not be center ring, but you're not in the audience either.

Posted by: Shmuel at November 21, 2007 07:55 PM

Shmuel,

Why don't you set up your own blog and set things straight then?

Posted by: Mikey at November 21, 2007 08:03 PM

I'm not a crystal ball gazer. States rise and fall; enter federations and leave them; people change their identities; and so on.

Fatah has no authority over Israel. Its authority is limited to the Palestinian Territories.

Posted by: David T at November 21, 2007 08:18 PM

goodwin sands,

I thought that you and many others made some excellant contributions on the SU blog

it is a bit of a shame that some "socialists" couldn't see anything wrong with Atzmon's filth, still I suppose that it was the "wrong" type of racism for them?

Posted by: modernityblog at November 21, 2007 08:20 PM

Ha! My mother went to your university Shmuel!

Posted by: David T at November 21, 2007 08:22 PM

I wish great success to both sides of Respect.

Posted by: Yiggy Gluckstein at November 21, 2007 09:20 PM

Is it best understood as a Enlgish phenomenon or a English-Jewish one? Posts like this make me think the latter.

This is just a variation on blaming Jews for antisemitism. It's rubbish but no more than I expect from many (although not all) American observers of this problem.

Posted by: Igor at November 21, 2007 10:00 PM

I think that over the last year a corner has been turned with Atzmon, in that he is no longer able to silence his opposition simply by shouting "zionist! zionist!" and hoping the Atzmonian flock will then dutifully plug their ears to any dissenting voices. It's now clear to anyone that looks more than momentarily that the strongest opposition to Atzmon's antisemitism -- if only because he's baited them the most -- is coming from Jewish anti-Zionists, and his the ZIONISTS are PERSECUTING ME falls flat.

But, as always, there will be those who don't look, and who will immediately accept that (a) these front-rank decades-on anti-Zionists are actually crypto-Zionists and (b) we've always been at war with Oceania.

But Atzmon is a shock artist; I don't think anyone would be surprised to see him give his next performance in full Nazi regalia, read from Mein Kampf between tunes, call for the building of gas chambers for gassing Zionists, and then declare -- using the exaggeratedly Yiddish vocabulary that he saves, as cover, for his most abhorrent outbursts -- that it was all just a playful little joke and those Zionists shouldn't be so oversensitive.

Posted by: goodwin sands at November 21, 2007 10:00 PM

But Atzmon is a shock artist; I don't think anyone would be surprised to see him give his next performance in full Nazi regalia, read from Mein Kampf between tunes, call for the building of gas chambers for gassing Zionists, and then declare -- using the exaggeratedly Yiddish vocabulary that he saves, as cover, for his most abhorrent outbursts -- that it was all just a playful little joke and those Zionists shouldn't be so oversensitive.

That is the sort of thing he would do. And there are people who would make excuses for him even then.

Posted by: Gene at November 21, 2007 10:07 PM

What Greenstein, Elf et al have discovered is that there is no obstacle to the spread of antisemitic ideas within British anti-Zionism. This has been apparent to many of us for years. The irony is that it is a Jewish (well, ex-Jewish) antisemite who is spearheading its spread.

Posted by: Igor at November 21, 2007 10:11 PM

What Greenstein, Elf et al have discovered is that there is no obstacle to the spread of antisemitic ideas within British anti-Zionism. This has been apparent to many of us for years.

But the strange result is that they end up affirming their anti-Zionism even more shrilly.

Posted by: Gene at November 21, 2007 10:20 PM

But the strange result is that they end up affirming their anti-Zionism even more shrilly.

and their former comrades are as supportive of them as a papier-mâché crutch, in a hurricane

Posted by: modernityblog at November 21, 2007 10:24 PM

The irony is that it is a Jewish (well, ex-Jewish) antisemite who is spearheading its spread.

I'd argue that that was a necessity. That's Atzmon's role, and he revels in it: providing the vital excuse, "If a Jew says X, then it must not be antisemitic to say X." It's his role as the Kosherizer. A non-Jew saying the same things would be -- quite rightly -- booed off stage. But, as a recent quote I saw on Engage put it, "There are nurses who murder patients. There are lawyers who defraud clients. Why should we be surprised there are Jews who are antisemites?"

Engage - Email

2008-09-16T11:19:00.003+01:00

This Post originally appeared at Engage. I add the Comments from Engage as a comment to this post

An email from Tony Greenstein

Dear David Hirsch,

One of the fundamental principles of academic debate and argument is not to misattribute statements and beliefs to opponents which they do not hold. Normally one would assume that if your intention was to critique’s someone’s political ideas, as opposed to distorting what they have to say, then you would at least take care to ensure that you had understood what you were criticising. And if there is any doubt over the matter, then you would at least accord them a right of reply or, failing that, tell your readers why you have denied any right of reply.

You run a website by the name of ‘Engage’. It was set up in order to defeat the motion, passed by the AUT in summer 2005, in support of the Academic Boycott.

Despite having twice sent in responses to your original blog, which purported to represent what I have argued, nothing has appeared. I can’t imagine why!

Contrary to your assertions:

I do not believe that ‘Zionism is like Nazism’. This is crude, apolitical and since Zionism isn’t a fascist ideology, plain wrong.

Nor do I believe that the ‘Zionists helped the Nazis carry out the Holocaust’. The Nazis needed no help. What I do believe, as have many Holocaust survivors, that sections of the Zionist movement collaborated with Nazism. An example of this is the evidence that came out in the trial of Rudolph Kastner, a representative of the Jewish Agency, which took place in Israel.

Nor is it true that I believe that ‘Israel, uniquely, is an essentially and unchangeably racist state.’ Israel was not unique, anymore than apartheid in South Africa or Rhodesia under Ian Smith was unique. What is unique is Israel's status as the sole surviving settler, colonial state.

Zionism is however indisputably racist. The mere fact that you and I can ‘return’ to a country and live in it as citizens, whereas Palestinians born and brought up there cannot is testimony to that fact.

That we have many disagreements on the above issues is one thing. But why do you feel the need to caricature your opponents’ views, to deny them a right of reply and to refuse even to let readers of your own blog know that there has been such a refusal? What do you have to gain by such dishonesty?

Tony Greenstein

Flesh is Grass

2008-09-16T11:14:00.001+01:00

This post appeared on the Flesh is Grass blog

Complete this sentence: “Because he’s a Jew, he …” August 19, 2007

Posted by fleshisgrass in Jewish, discrimination.
trackback

Anybody with half a grip on how many ways there are to fall foul of stereotypes and preconceptions would be cautious about attributing an attitude, opinion or moral act to a person’s ethnic background. But some people seem to be pretty confident about their stereotypes and preconceptions.

How about “Because he is a Jew, he won’t call another Jew antisemitic for criticising Israel”?

Because he’s from a Jewish background, David Miliband is reckoned by the BBC’s Paul Reynolds (who subsequently apologised ~~via~~ - see the comments on the Engage piece - and, it seems, revised the article) to be free to criticise Israel without anybody attributing this to antisemitism:

“David Miliband’s Jewish background will be noted particularly in the Middle East. Israel will welcome this - but equally it allows him the freedom to criticise Israel, as he has done, without being accused of anti-Semitism.”

Which implies that Jews believe themselves incapable of antisemitic and also that Jews can be confident of an absence of antisemitism in their Jewish critics and so will ‘welcome’ their criticism in situations in which they’d ‘accuse’ a non-Jewish critic of antisemitism. This falsely hints both at a universally-shared Jewish outlook on antisemitism, and the workings of a sinister Jewish cabal. More on Jewish critics of Israel below.

How about “Because he’s a Jew, he won’t get called antisemitic for criticising Israel”? Or “Because he’s a Jew, he can’t be antisemitic”?

As well as being relevant to Miliband’s case above, Ghada Karmi also illustrates these in Bitterlemons. She wants us to think that Jews can’t be antisemitic:

“…the imputation of anti-Semitism is a red herring … In the case of the British boycott committee it is particularly inapt, since most of the members are Jewish.”

Meaning that being Jewish, or getting a Jew to make your point, is a good protection against charges of anti-semitism since Jews are simply incapable of committing an antisemitic act.

Simon Kelner, editor of The Independent, is reported to have said that as a Jew he “would be sensitive to anything antisemitic”. But again, being a Jew doesn’t confer these insights - it doesn’t mean you arrive in the world complete with an awareness of antisemitism and and the faculties to identify it. These things require an education.

How about “Because he’s a Jew, he won’t criticise Israel”?

Robin McKie in the Observer (Review, 5 Aug 2007, p27) writes of biologist Max Perutz “… though he was Jewish he was an implacable opponent of Israel’s treatment of its Arabs”. As if it were highly surprising, then or now, for Jews to criticise the Israeli government when it discriminates against its Arab minority. In fact there have been too many critics to mention, including Benny Morris, Baruch Kimmerling, Tanya Reinhart, Gideon Levy, Amira Hass, David Hirsh, Tony Greenstein, Stephen Rose, Hilary Rose, Gilad Atzmon, Ilan Pappe, Ammiel Alcalay, Shlomo Ben Ami, Eliyahu Eliachar, Shalom Chetrit, Ella Habiba Shohat. Members of groups and movements such as Israel’s New Historians and New Sociologists, OneVoice, The Abraham Fund, Naturei Karta, Marxists, B’Tselem, Gush Shalom, Haaretz reporters, Jews for Justice for Palestinians, Independent Jewish Voices (who in distancing themselves from the “all Jews defend Israel” stereotype managed to avoid addressing it - I use past tense because the dust emanating from their CiF page and Web site nearly choked me when I looked in). There are many more individual politicians, artists, academics and activists. I may reject the criticism levelled at Israel by some of the individuals and groups above, but there it is - the critics are, among other things, Jews.

How about “Because he’s a Jew, he’s got a lot of money“, from Big Brother contestant Shanessa who said “I have always wanted to be Jewish, Jewish women have really nice clothes, Chanel suits and expensive things”. Just plain wrong, a stereotype from Shanessa’s perception from the more prosperous parts of North London perhaps or, subliminally, times when British Jews were prevented from owning land and pushed into usury and related occupations.

Wondering whether it were possible to stereotype yourself, I searched the Web for “As a Jew, I”. Some of the statements which turned up are below.

“As a Jew, I cannot sit idle while genocidal atrocities continue to unfold in Darfur” is attributed to US politician Jan Schakowsky and is one of several different Schakowsky”As a Jew” quotes you can find if you search. I know what she means. Israel exists because of genocidal acts and tendencies against Jews, and it’s a kick in the guts to read about Darfur. For the same reasons it’s also a kick in the guts to read about Israel deporting 50 illegal immigrants, most of whom were Darfurian refugees, back into Egypt from where they may be returned to Sudan and and uncertain chances of survival at best. There’s a sense that a Jew’s failure to exert themself in opposition to genocide is more negligent, more of a betrayal, more indecent. So we have this appeal - Schakowsky is not the only one to make it - to a sense of empathy and urgency based on the experience of Jews through history, which amounts to action on ethnic, rather than simply human, grounds. Its power is in the ease with which in these Darfurians you can see your desperate parents or grandparents fleeing Europe, and the inevitable question accompanied by a shameful and chilling sense of betrayal - who are you in this scenario? But I think it’s a fallacy. The holocaust didn’t just happen to Jews - it didn’t even just happen to Jews, Gypsies, gays, disabled people, Poles and dissenters. To a greater or lesser extent holocaust dehumanised or depraved all its contemporaries, and the work of researchers like Milgram which demonstrates that none of us are immune from depravity means that the legacy of its contemporaries is also our legacy. Simply by virtue of being aware of genocide, all human beings are equally guilty if they fail to act against it. Jews who sit by as idley on this or any other a given issue as any Gypsy, gay, disabled person, Pole or dissenter - anybody - are equally blameworthy for their apathy and negligence, not more so. I’d feel very uncomfortable defending people’s right to do nothing in the circumstances of genocide, but my expectations about who should exert themselves most are not based on ethnicity. I understand why Schakowsky made this statement, but ‘Jew’ should be jettisoned and substituted with ‘human being’.

Attributed to Viennese swimmer Judith Deutsch in 1935 we have “As a Jew I cannot participate in the Berlin Olympic Games. My conscience does not allow me”. This is a show of solidarity on the basis of discrimination against her ethnicity. It is also an act of empathy and resistance, but perhaps unlike Schakowsky, it is not a tacit appeal for solidarity or a display of higher moral values. The statement is reproduced from a letter to the Austrian Olympic Committee and constituted, as she wrote, “a personal decision” which she was attempting to explain and so preempt disciplinary proceedings. She was not seeking to persuade anyone of anything on the basis of her ethnicity but, having a lot to lose, appealing to empathy in the members of the Olympic Committee in the face their damaged public relations with Germany. In the event, she failed to convince the authorities and was banned from competing nationally - her family emigrated to Mandate Palestine the following year.

“As a Jew, I’m aware of the benefits open border immigration brings to the US” says a commenter on a story about Buchanan. This is to say “I know how I got here, I’ve visited Ellis Island and I’m not a hypocrite”. Fine - don’t be a hypocrite, and don’t tell us that you’re not a hypocrite. Considering the number of immigrants of different stripes in the US, the “as a Jew” part is superfluous.

“As a Jew, I’d dig calling Bob Marley my cousin”. Weird. I include it for interest.

“As a Jew, i’ve always felt uncomfortable with the notion of the rosary beads being in my stagewear wardrobe… until now!”, from a comment on a Jewish Forward article. Equally weird. On what grounds would Jews be uncomfortable with Catholic artefacts in their stagewear wardrobe? Because religious equipment should remain reverently stored until required? Or because it might weaken the religious identity of non-Catholics?

Based on these and other examples, it is possible to stereotype yourself, then, even when you’re talking about your own personal Jewish experience, if you extrapolate it to persuade others to take a certain course of action. There’s not much else to say really - Jews are a very diverse bunch. Hard to pin down. Some are religious, some are secular, some identify ethnically or culturally as Jews, some acknowledge a Jewish background, some decide to let their Jewish background fade, some don’t really think about it but happen to have a Jewishness thrust upon them in the form of the surname ‘Cohen’. Some feel personally and particularly responsible for Palestinians because they want to demonstrate against an Israeli politician who says he acts on their behalf, some because they feel a connection with Israel, some on humanitarian grounds. Some feel obliged to maintain a vigil for antisemitism. Jews are right-wing, left-wing, centrist or politically apathetic. Some are prominent establishment figures. Some are dissenters. Only a few of the above are mutually exclusive.

Unsurprisingly, in these respects and others, Jews are pretty much like everyone else. There is at least one historical particularity though - Jews are collectively (though certainly not exclusively) exposed to the evil of stereotypes and preconceptions. Like all instances of stereotyping, whether against Jew, Muslim, Irish, gay, woman or man, we have to recognise these and take them to pieces.

Part of this involves not being complacent about our abilities to recognise them and take them to pieces.

Comments»

1. Anonymous - August 21, 2007

As a jew I detest stereotyping !!!

2. fleshisgrass - August 26, 2007

Clever.

3. Paul Miller - September 4, 2007

“Because he’s from a Jewish background, David Miliband is reckoned by the BBC’s Paul Reynolds (who subsequently apologised via Engage and, it seems, revised the article) to be free to criticise Israel without anybody attributing this to antisemitism:”

I don’t find Reynolds’s apology on Engage or elsewhere — can you point me to it?

4. fleshisgrass - September 4, 2007

Paul, in the comments to the Engage piece on his article, there’s a reproduced bit of correspondence (search the comments page for “I am sorry I offended you”) containing an apology from Mr Reynolds. That doesn’t strictly speaking constitute ‘apologised via Engage’ - you’re right.

The original piece at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6248508.stm was also changed to eliminate the stereotype.

5. Tony Greenstein - September 4, 2007

Firstly I’m not sure why I’m placed alongside David Hirsch whose condemnation of anti-Arab racism is conspicuous by its absence and even more so that I am but 3 places away from Gilad Atzmon. Atzmon is without doubt an anti-Semite, but he doesn’t consider himself a Jew. Apparently he is now a Christian. But although individually Jews can be anti-Semitic and the Zionist movement is littered with those whose comments were anti-Semitic (e.g. Herzl ‘the anti-Semites will become our most dependable friends, the anti-Semitic countries our allies. We want to emigrate as respected people.’ (Diaries pp. 83/4) among one of many such quotes, on a political level Jews cannot be anti-Semitic, in other words their racism is reflective.

But more to the point, Jews - in whose name Israel acts and speaks - are becoming aware, or some of them are, that what Israel is doing and becoming is no better than what happened in European countries pre-1945. I enclose a fascinating article translated from the Hebrew in Yediot Aharanot of 30th August.

Thursday, August 30, 2007
[Translated from the Hebrew press]

FINDING RACISM

THE COUNTENANCE OF THE COUNTRY

Yedioth Ahronoth (p. 2) by Yuval Kaner et al. –

Six Israelis of similar age and education went to look for work, rent an apartment and sign their child up for a private kindergartens. The six were: an Arab, a Haredi, an Ethiopian, a Russian, a Mizrahi and an Ashkenazi. In the Israel of 2007, will there be any significance to their origin or skin color? The answer, regrettably, is: yes. Yes, there is racism here. Sometimes disguised in a sentence such as, “[the position] is no longer open,” and sometimes obvious, direct, in a sentence such as, “we don’t want an Arab child in the kindergarten.” It is not good to be a member of a minority in the State of Israel.

In a special project by Yedioth Ahronoth in cooperation with local newspapers, we sent six Israelis, all similarly educated and in the same age range, to make calls to dozens of places all over the country and find out where they are happily received and what city demonstrates racism shamelessly. This is not a professional survey, but a random sample only. The responses, you will discover, do not reveal any shame.

Six educated men with similar personal data were chosen to represent the various sectors. They went to more than 400 restaurants, cafes, apartments for rent and kindergartens in 22 cities, from Kiryat Shmona in the north to Eilat in the south, and offered themselves up as waiters, tenants and parents who wished to register their children for kindergarten. During every conversation their origin was made clear - sometimes by noting their full name, sometimes it was their accent that gave them away, or alternatively they explicitly mentioned that they belonged to a certain sector. Between eight and 27 calls were made in every community. Phone calls were taped and full details of every person contacted are in the hands of the editors.

The Ashkenazi person who called, Itai Unger, was the one who received the most positive responses, and did not encounter open racism against him. In second place according to the number of positive responses he received, following closely behind the Ashkenazi, was the caller of Moroccan origin, Yehuda Peretz. After him, in third place, was the Haredi, Yisrael Bernstein, closely followed by the immigrant from the former CIS, Boris Balenki.

But in fifth and sixth places, lagging far behind, were dozens of embarrassing refusals. More than half of the conversations carried out by the caller who immigrated from Ethiopia, Sanbeto Tamno, garnered refusals (and dozens of insulting comments). Not far behind, with close to 70% refusals (and endless slamming down of the phone), was the Arab caller, Said Hasnin.

During the investigation, with results piling up and turning into a tower of obvious racism, entering the room allotted to Said at the newspaper became more difficult, pressured and embarrassing. One after another we gave him telephone numbers of apartments that were, for certain, available for rent, of relevant jobs and kindergartens that were not yet full. And he, obediently, again and again dialed - and was humiliated. Another rejection, another disconnected call, another evasion. “Sorry, [the position] is no longer open,” was the key sentence that cut through the air - and Said’s heart - over and over again like a knife.

Here are some of the results:

Ramat Gan: Experienced Arab? No. Inexperienced Ashkenazi? Yes

Ramat Gan did not welcome Said (the Arab). When he asked for the waiter’s job he was rejected at two restaurants, one in the Ramat Gan stadium area and the other in the stock market area, although he spoke about his experience. Itai (the Ashkenazi), who wanted the same jobs, was invited for an interview even though he admitted that he had no experience.

We decided to examine another restaurant, on Jabotinsky street, which was looking for waiters. Yehuda (the Moroccan ) dialed and was asked to come for an interview. Sanbeto (the Ethiopian) dialed, and was invited to stay home. Said called (and suffered another refusal). “I have a tremendous amount of experience,” he tried to insist, but the owner was even more insistent. “We are full at the moment,” he said. Five minutes later he invited Itai for an interview. [©]

Bat Yam: Ethiopian? Only with a coffee diploma

At the coffee shop on the promenade in Bat Yam, where Sanbeto tried to get a job as a waiter, they asked him for a “certificate to operate an espresso machine,” explaining: “We work with a very, very complicated machine here.” All his claims that he was a skilled barman did not help. Itai, in contrast, was immediately invited to come for an interview. “But I have no experience,” he warned. “Don’t worry,” said the person in charge. “If we don’t take you as a barman, we will take you as a waiter.”

Tel Aviv: Arabs do not sound good over the phone

At the kindergarten in north Tel Aviv in Shikun Dan, Sanbeto, Itai and Yisrael received positive responses. Said was told: we are full, we have no room. During a conversation with Said, the teacher suddenly couldn’t hear: “I cannot hear you,” she said, “call another time.”

Eilat: Ashkenazim can choose

Eilat apparently does not like Arabs and Ethiopians. Attempts by Said and Sanbeto to get work as waiters were adamantly denied. A bit later on Itai called for the same job. “We are looking for barmen and waiters,” said the voice at the other end of the line. “What do you prefer?” Ashkelon

“I don’t deal with Moroccans”

All our representatives tried to get accepted to the kindergarten in Ashkelon. To Sanbeto they said: “We are full.” Yehuda Peretz received a similar response. After him called Boris, and wonder of wonders, there’s room, and how. “I prefer Russians and not Sabras,” said the teacher. Yisrael, the Haredi, received a positive response, while Said received a negative response with a smidgen of hope: “I need to organize a meeting with the parents to examine whether they would agree to have an Arab child in the class.” [©]

Petah Tikva: “The parents will not be comfortable with an Arab child”

Said’s attempt to register his son Ahmed to a kindergarten in the Ein Ganim neighborhood in Petah Tikva was not very welcome. “What can I tell you,” stuttered the teacher, “I have a lot of Russians in the class. I don’t know if they will have any opposition. I have no problem, but let me talk to the parents. I will have a parents meeting and tell them, so that there are no problems.”

“What could happen,” insisted Said “the kid does not have a tail.”

Holon: The city with the most equality

Following repeated quests, insistent and repeated, Holon turned out to be lacking racism. All the sectors, without exception, were invited to rent apartments on Sokolow street and have their children join the kindergarten in Kiryat Ben-Gurion regardless of religion and race. Even when Said insisted and asked the renter: “It won’t bother you that I am an Arab?” He responded: “I don’t care. It’s not a problem.”

Hadera: Ashkenazis are cultured

The city of Hadera did not welcome Sanbeto. When he asked to rent an apartment in the Rambam neighborhood, he received responses in the negative. Itai, when he called later at the same number, got a better response. “I am looking for cultured people,” said the owner at the restaurant in the south of Hadera where Sanbeto looked for work as a waiter. No one wanted him. Three candidates for the job after him, Said, Yehuda and Yisrael, were actually invited to an interview.

The kindergarten teacher from Pisgat Zeev in Jerusalem was happy about the call from Boris and spoke with him in fluent Russian. Sanbeto spoke in Hebrew, but also to a positive response. Said, in contrast, received this response: “I don’t want to hang up on you. I recommend that you give up on this one and look for another.” At 4:50 pm Yehuda asked for work at the cafeteria at Malha Mall. He got a positive response. At 5 pm Said called the same place and was informed: “We have already found workers.” At 5:15 pm Itai called. The response: come for an interview tomorrow.

Haifa and the Krayot: Surprising Success for Arabs in Krayot

For the job of waiter at the coffee house in the Yefe Nof neighborhood of Haifa, three went: Boris, Yisrael and Itai. Boris got a negative response, Israel also, while Itai was invited to interview. Said, who was disappointed in the other cities, encountered positive responses, both in renting and kindergarten hunting. [©]

That is why I and many others who are Jewish support a Boycott of Israel.

Tony Greenstein

6. Paul Miller - September 4, 2007

Thanks Fleshisgrass. In my book that e-mail from Reynolds not an apology but a justification, and I can only second Engage’s own comment (the update to the original post) on what Reynolds said in his own defence.

7. fleshisgrass - September 4, 2007

Tony, I’m interested in this. Just started Beyond Jews and Arabs by Ammiel Alcalay which is one of the saddest things I’ve read all year. Racial discrimination is always shameful. It’s also very very prevalent

But again again again your double standard. I can think of so many countries where this racism happens or happened until recently. For example, right here, in the ’60s - http://fleshisgrass.wordpress.com/2006/12/07/tracked-down-a-poem/. But who else are you boycotting on these grounds?

Without any complacency at all, Israel is moving in the right direction.
The new Abraham Fund UK supports TAFI(srael) in co-existence between Jewish and Arab Israeli citizens - they are making a difference and they are optimistic. Maybe you’re involved with them? http://www.abrahamfund.org/

When a Jewish leader says he does something you disagree with in your name, you can disown it publicly these days (and you do.) But boycott?? Come on! And as a Jewish moral gesture?

In this country at this time, Islamophobia is a more urgent threat than antisemitism. Many Muslims must feel pretty precarious right now. There’s a lot of racism in Israel, yes. But why is it that whenever people who oppose a certain type of presentation of Israel on grounds of antisemitism speak up about it there is so often a) silence b) denial and scorn or c) a diversion of the type you provide, to the effect that (I paraphrase, obviously) “Israelis are racist, therefore they deserve no protection from racism and no respect”? Why?

8. Mikey - September 4, 2007

I find it interesting that Tony Greenstein has commented. One should take his ideologically motivated comments with a pinch of salt. When one wonders whether of not there can be such a thing as a Jewish antisemite, one only needs to look at the writings of Tony Greenstein. To give an example Tony Greenstein wrote circa 1982 a pamphlet entitled “Zionism: antisemitism’s twin in Jewish garb.” That pamphlet was praised by the far right wing and antisemitic National Front who commented on his “painstaking researches” and referred to it as “a seminal work, as important in its own way as was [Holocaust Denier Richard] Harwood’s ‘Did Six Million Really Die.’” The effusive praise from the National Front continued:”fascinating and vital reading for the student of modern history,” “his booklet is good. Read it and see!” [1]

In the early 1980s Tony Greenstein was involved with an organisation known as BAZO and he distributed their material at National Union of Students (NUS) conferences.[2] This is an organisation where Dr. George Mitchell, the President of it, attended a Jewish Society meeting at Strathclyde University, took photographs of those present and threatened to send the pictures to
Beirut [3]

NUS publicly condemned a BAZO leaflet entitled Against Zionism as antisemitic, and why its conference noted that BAZO literature was not dissimilar to that of the fascist National Front and therefore called upon NUS to ban BAZO activities “from its base in Strathclyde Union and any other campus in the United Kingdom”?

By the late 1980’s Tony Greenstein was on the founding editorial committee of, and went on to become the editor for, a magazine entitled RETURN that was banned in 1990 by the National Union of Students by its then President Maeve Sherlock, in a decision actively supported by Steven Twigg, the next President of NUS (who went on to become a Labour Party Member of Parliament) and other leading NUS members, including its Womens’ Officer. Maeve Sherlock specifically ruled that RETURN was “anti-Semitic.”[4]

[1] Philip Drax,”Book Review,” Sussex Front January 1983 p. 9
[2]Jenni Frazer, “On Campus,” Jewish Chronicle, January 2, 1981.
[3] “BAZO Leader to Appeal,” Jewish Chronicle, August 24, 1979.
[4]Unsigned Editorial, “NUS Attack on Freedom of Speech,” RETURN, No. 2, March 1990, pp. 4-5; Unsigned Editorial, “More Hypocrisy,” RETURN, No. 4, September 1990.

9. Mikey - September 4, 2007

(Note in above post: Reference for comment about BAZO being banned by NUS was Jenni Frazer, “UJS Learns to Push and Pull,” Jewish Chronicle, January 2, 1981)

By the Spring 1981 NUS Conference BAZO were advertising that they were selling Lilienthal’s book – a book by an author who questioned the authenticity of The Diary of Anne Frank, who had signed a petition supporting a known Holocaust denier, and who was promoted by the National Front. The then President of NUS called the book “antisemitic,” warning delegates: “I don’t want to see this book at conference.” The NUS executive put out a statement at that conference, saying that “the actions of BAZO help antisemites in their activities,” and went on to add: “We are not willing to allow BAZO to have stalls at our conferences, or publicise their material through our publications”[5]

Jewish students may join their Jewish Society for all manner of reasons – religious, cultural or social – but why did RETURN magazine hold the Union of Jewish Students in complete contempt, calling them, in an editorial, “a wing of Israel’s propaganda network”? And why did Tony Greenstein argue that UJS “act as paid and unpaid informers for Mossad”? [6]

Tony Greenstein opposed Holocaust Memorial Day and went so far as to call it “obscene”? [7]

More recently Asghar Bhukari, a spokesman for the Muslim Public Affairs Committee (MPACuk) was exposed for financing the Holocaust denier David Irving. [8] Despite this Greenstein went to Bhukari’s web site and sent him a very friendly message praising him for writing “a very excellent” article and for being “honest.” [9]

I note that Tony Greenstein writes above that Gilad Atzmon “is without doubt an anti-Semite.” This is all very well but he does not mention that in June 2006 he sent Atzmon a friendly email saying “I shall be more than happy to hear you play the sax! ” and went on to continue that some of Atzmon’s “remarks re the holocaust were spot on ” [10]despite the fact that Tony Greenstein cannot get the fact right about the Holocaust himself. [11]

[5]“Students Ban BAZO,” Jewish Chronicle, April 10, 1981.
[6]Editorial, “Lies, Damn Lies and the UJS,” RETURN, No. 3, June 1990; Tony Greenstein, “The Fossilisation of Identity,” RETURN, No. 4, September, 1990.
[7]Letter, The Observer, February 6, 2000.
[8]Jamie Doward, “Muslim leader sent funds to Irving,” The Observer November 19, 2006
[9]http://www.mpacuk.org/content/view/3047/1/
[10]http://www.gilad.co.uk/html%20files/tony%27semail.htm
[11]http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/archives/2007/01/24/tony_greenstein_more_errors_than_paragraphs.php

10. yishaym - September 5, 2007

Because I’m a Jew, I’m a bit uncomfortable completing the sentence “Because he’s a Jew…”

11. yishaym - September 5, 2007

And now seriously. For me, being a Jew has nothing to do with metaphysical beings, real estate or chanting. Well, maybe a bit of chanting (my birthday is Yum Kippur, so I’m a bit sentimental about that). It has nothing to do with GIlad Atzmon either. Can we have a Gilad Atzmon filter on this blog please?

For me, being a Jew means a commitment to a set of humanistic values. It means caring about the Ger and the Almana. It means that women have rights, workers have rights, animals have rights.

The big innovation of Judaism was a coherent, comprehensive and consistent moral system. That’s why the old man needed a single god. If there’s two, they can quibble. One can support slavery while the other opposes it. In fact, pre-monoteistic religions didn’t deal with morality at all. Take the greek gods: they do whatever they please. Some systems - like the Egyptian and Asurian - were about preserving social order. The purpose of the gods was to ordinate the king. Jewdaism gave us a legal system which was above the king. Above any administration, or none.

So, because I’m a Jew I must do the right thing.

Now, as for the racism of “because he’s a Jew”, well, is it in any way different from “Because he’s black”, “Because she’s Muslim”, “Because he’s from Manchester”?

12. Susan - September 5, 2007

Because he’s Jewish doesn’t mean that he knows anything about Jewish history, culture or even the Jewish religion. It doesn’t mean that he isn’t embarassed and ashamed of being a Jew. It doesn’t mean that he is being extra-critical of Israel in order not be considered pro-Israel because he’s Jewish. I could go on, but I think you can get the point.

13. Dr Brian Robinson - September 5, 2007

Tony G is well able to defend himself, but as regards praise for his work from racist websites, I’ll just quote what another controversial figure, Lenni Brenner, said when this was brought up against him - cockroaches like gourmet food every bit as much as you do.

But on the whole I prefer to ignore ad hominem discussions and as far as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is concerned I would like to refuse to get drawn into any discussion that does not concentrate on the injustices of illegal settlement building, those parts of the separation barrier that encroach upon internationally recognised Palestinian land, the harassment of Palestinians at checkpoints that is not justifiable in terms of Israeli security (and there’s a lot of it, as I’ve seen for myself), the strangling of the Gazan economy; and indeed, to refuse participation in discussion that does not recognise that if you add up all of what the Israeli government does, rather than what some of its spokespersons and apologists say, the only conclusion one can come to is that the unspoken aim is simply one of ethnic cleansing.

Outraged statements about ‘academic freedom’, ’singling out’, misplaced attributions of ‘antisemitism’ and so on, are so many obfuscatory red herrings. There were a few articles not so long ago in some of the Israel press reporting on a growing reactionary feeling in Israel that there was no-one to whom to “give back” the West Bank, with the implication that there was no need (and in any case “there was no occupation”, only “disputed territories”. You hear that argument too in some quarters in this country).

I no longer wish to argue about whether a boycott is or is not antisemitic - I want to talk only about those points a few of which I’ve made above. When Israel starts negotiating in good faith, then we can talk about Palestinian rejectionists and the rest.

14. fleshisgrass - September 5, 2007

Yishay asks: Now, as for the racism of “because he’s a Jew”, well, is it in any way different from “Because he’s black”, “Because she’s Muslim”, “Because he’s from Manchester”?

Yes and no. Racism is not a uniform predictable thing - it takes different forms with different ethnicities and in different regions. The question is, can we identify different types of racism? When I finished this post on stereotyping Jews (which I ended with a caution to myself about recognising stereotypes and preconceptions) I started working on a “Because he’s a Muslim, he…” piece, with - it turns out - somewhat ambitious plans for a series on racial stereotyping.

It’s very hard to gather evidence and to make sure I’m sufficiently knowledgeable and sufficiently sensitive to write on other types of racism. That I haven’t written on them yet doesn’t mean I don’t care or that they’re less urgent or less important. Anti-Muslim stereotyping (in particular around Muslims as a 5th column) is a serious issue here in the UK and elsewhere in Europe and America and it needs attention.

So don’t necessarily hold your breath, but if what I come up with is any good I’ll post it.

15. fleshisgrass - September 5, 2007

Susan, that’s cheating. But I get your point which, I believe, is about Jews who, in their attitude to Israel, are a dangerous combination of ignorant and hypercritical. When you’re both ignorant and hypercritical, the only route to follow is demonisation.

16. Tony Greenstein - September 5, 2007

My first political involvement was in 1970 when the South African Springboks toured Britain. The Boycott movement of that day was led by Peter Hain. Did I stop and say, I can’t do this because there are other racist countries too? That was certainly the argument of apologists for South African apartheid. The Black countries are worse, Black S Africans are better off here in apartheid South Africa etc.

The point was that apartheid was unique. Not only was SA a western bastion, upholding the very regimes surrounding it that oppressed their own people, but alone in the world (bar Israel) they accorded rights and privileges according to some arbitrary and unchanging factor - skin colour (or religion/race in Israel). That is why what happens in Israel is unique. Most ‘islamic’ states use Islam to oppress other Muslims. In the ‘Jewish’ State the definition of who is Jewish is used in order to allocate privileges to one (Jewish) and deny them to the other. Look at the current controversy over the new JNF Bill where it is argued that it is fine to allow the Israeli Lands Administration not to lease or rent or allocate land to non-Jews, because that is in the JNF Constitution. Not only does this apply directly to the JNF land (13%) but also to the 80% owned by the State itself.

Besides this all the Abraham funds in the world are irrelevant because they don’t tackle the source of the inequality and racism. It assumes that racism in Israel is a matter of prejudice, personal antagonism without realising that personal antagonism and prejudice (racism on an individual level) springs from the structures in Israel which give superior rights to one and not the other.

Israel is therefore unique as an ethnocracy. It is a bastion of the West in the Middle East and a surrogate for US foreign policy, which is the source of most misery there and elsewhere. It is also I might add transforming the Jewish religion into state worship and fixing in people’ minds the idea that Jews are oppressors. There’s more than enough reasons there to oppose the Israeli state and yes to support a boycott because only a boycott will and is making an impression.

I don’t reply to Mikey, who is my internet stalker and someone who, by his own admission, has an obsession with what I write. But for the benefit of others I will make a few comments on his absurd nonsense:

i. I have no control over whether others cite my writings. My position is clear and unlike Mikey I’ve been an active anti-fascist for 30+ years. The last public meeting the godfather of British fascism, John Tyndall tried to hold in Brighton was prevented because I organised the counter-opposition. Mikey and his fellow anoraks have never engaged in any anti-fascist work.

ii. The article that Phillip Drax (no such person exists!) wrote ‘praising’ my work also described me as a Trotskyist which he also stated was ‘political rabies’. More to the point the paper in which it appeared, Sussex Front, had previously printed about 10-12 articles attacking me, including printing my name and address. Why? Because I was the Secretary of the local ANL which drove the NF out of Brighton and Hove. Hence why on a number of occasions I was physically attacked by groups of fascist thugs, 2 of whom were convicted. The article Mikey cites was written after the NF became aware I was an anti-ZIonist and was written for the sole purpose of giving a helping hand to those they perceived as my Jewish nationalist opponents. It is no surprise that Mikey therefore uses this piece of nonsense. This isn’t supposition. The article he selectively quotes says exactly that !

iii. Brian Robinson has already made the point but I’ll make it in a different way. Even the Devil can quote the Scriptures. But at least, unlike Herzl, I have never sought out a favourable review from an anti-Semitic writer. Herzl did exactly this with Eduard Drumont, who edited the main French anti-Semitic daily, La Libre Parole. That of course is different. My pamphlet on Zionism and anti-Semitism details this and many other examples of ACTIVE Zionist collaboration and praise for anti-Semitic canards and vicer versa.

iv. Mikey refers to NUS and attempts to ban myself and others. I was a socialist activist in NUS, being a delegate to 13 NUS Conferences and a member of its Polytechnics Committee for 2 years. Of course the right-wing (Phillips, Aaronovitch, Woollas etc.) tried to ban me and others. Today these same people are New Labour supporters, Islamaphobes and racist supporters of New Labour’s policy on asylum seekers.

v. Perhaps Mikey can tell people whether he’s been for any more drinks with his good friend Gilad Atzmon?

Tony Greenstein

>>Tony, I’m interested in this. Just started Beyond Jews and Arabs by Ammiel Alcalay which is one of the saddest things I’ve read all year. Racial discrimination is always shameful. It’s also very very prevalent

When a Jewish leader says he does something you disagree with in your name, you can disown it publicly these days (and you do.) But boycott?? Come on! And as a Jewish moral gesture?

Mikey said,
September 4, 2007 @ 10:33 pm

17. fleshisgrass - September 5, 2007

Dr Robinson, I have a mixed reaction. Your first point (to paraphrase) “just because racists like what we say, doesn’t mean we’re wrong.” Racists like the boycott because it’s against Jews - Israel is a Jewish project. And you propose that we ignore the threat of Jew-hate - in a classic bit of anti-semitism denial you call it a ‘red-herring’.

Your middle chunk about how we should view the conflict - I was with you until the end. You won’t find any evidence that the Israeli government, although it could try a lot harder to integrate its different ethnicities, is trying to ethnicly cleanse its Arab Israeli citizens. I’m not an aplogist for the Israeli government, just don’t like unsubstantiated and libellous, let’s face it, assertions.

The way we view the conflict is different from the way we should view the boycott - they’re not the same. The conflict is a violent struggle where each side feels their survival is at stake. Whereas boycott is a bit of post-colonial angst-ridden partisan moral masturbation. It’s been ages since I heard a decent reason to boycott Israel.

You rule out the possibility of taking action to support Palestinians in their movement for a state *and at the same time* resisting antisemitism. If you think that by condemning people who are currently worried about antisemitism you will goad them into stopping being worried about antisemitism, that’s wrong and also callous. If your abundant (and admirable) empathy for Palestinians prevents you from also empathising with the majority of Israeli Jews, then you have a problem with bias. And empathy, by the way, shouldn’t mean unconditional support.

Lastly, high-handed activists in my union are attempting to punish only Israel. In justifying the boycott they use all kinds of stereotypes. Surely you don’t seriously think we can debate the boycott (as we’ve been directed to do) and omit academic freedom, singling out and antisemitism?

18. fleshisgrass - September 5, 2007

Tony, you talk about Herzl but a lot has changed since then.

And South Africa was different - a case of stark racist injustice and a campaign for majority rule. Majority rule in Israel involves working to bring about equality of opportunities for, particularly, Mizrahi and Arab Israelis, and other ethnicities.

If you want to claim the boycott is the only thing that is working, please cite some examples.

29th November 1947 - UN Partition Plan resolved that Palestine would become two states - Jewish and Arab. Jews wanted political autonomy back then and everybody knows why. The world gave it to them. 5.3 million Jews in Israel - the majority - want it now. Doesn’t mean they’ll always want it, but considering the climate of hate and the threat from Muslim supremacists in the region, and a resurgence in antisemitism elsewhere I’d have thought you’d understand why they want it.

But the people I tend to hear talking most loudly about taking it away are invariably people who live secure lives in mature democracies. I’m for a prosperous Palestinian state and a prosperous Jewish state with equal rights for Israeli Arabs and equal rights for Arab Jews. And maybe, just maybe, with time, and by mutual consent, the borders will soften to nothing.

19. Mikey - September 5, 2007

SWo much for him being an “anti-fascist.” One wonders why Tony Greenstein last year was involved in organizing a rally that caused such a commotion that one person ending up reporting the following incident to the local newspaper: “Somebody clocked I was wearing a Jewish symbol on my necklace. All of a sudden, a crowd of people had surrounded the car and were shouting anti-Jewish chants. Somebody stuck a banner through the car window and I had to struggle to fight them off. They were calling me a terrorist and Jewish scum and insulting my family. They were pushing and kicking the car and caused £400 damage to the bodywork. This abuse was racist and highly personal and deeply offended me.” Chief Superintendent Kevin Moore, a senior police officer, commented, “I can only assume the intention of the demonstration in an area where there is a large Jewish population was a deliberate attempt to provoke and incite.” [1]

Tony Greenstein should also explain why he wrote a letter to a paper arguing that an assault on an eight year old autistic boy with a broken arm which was so serious that according to his father “his hearing was impaired for several days” and the police had to be involved was “reasonable chastisement.”[2]

[1] http://archive.theargus.co.uk/2006/9/6/215271.html
[2] http://www.theargus.co.uk/search/display.var.1088710.0.this_assault_was_hardly_reasonable_chastising.php

20. Dr Brian Robinson - September 5, 2007

Thank you Fleshisgrass. I have one question. Why should Jews in Israel be privileged over non Jews?

I look forward to your answer.
With good wishes
Brian

21. fleshisgrass - September 5, 2007

Dr Robinson, there are a number of discriminatory laws in Israel, and there are a growing number of anti-discrimination laws also. Please be specific about the privileges to which you refer.

22. Tony Greenstein - September 6, 2007

Sorry I don’t know your name, so ‘flesh is grass’ will have to do.

Yes a lot’s changed since Herzl, but the attitude to anti-Semitism hasn’t. Take Argentina. Now one can argue over Zionist collaboration with Nazism and their deliberate sabotage of e.g. the boycott of Nazi Germany, but how do you explain the silence over Argentina, when according to Israeli newspapers such as Hadashot at the time, there was a deliberate policy in the embassy not to rescue the ‘wrong sort’ of Jews, i.e. leftists. Bear in mind that despite being less than 1% of the population, Jews were about 10% of those tortured and murdered. Contrast this with the Soviet Jewry campaign - all bells and whistles - yet noone was being tortured or disappeared.

Yes in South Africa the majority was deprived of its political rights. But that isn’t too differnet today because there is rough parity between the number of Israeli Jews and palestinians, inc. those in the W Bank/Gaza. But right from the beginning there was a conscious understanding and plan dalet to exclude i.e. transfer Palestinians out of the country to create that majority. This was the subject of much discussion among those responsible for the nuts and bolts of colonisation like Joseph Weitz.

I can’t share your optimism. We have just seen the JNF bill given a first reading, with a majority of 4-1 (just 10 Jewish MKs voting against). We have opinion polls saying that over 75% of Jews don’t wish to live next to an Arab, we have a large majority saying marriage to an Arab is treason, treason not merely distasteful and we have a consistent majority in opinion polls saying that they would like to see Arabs transferred out of Israel. Of course you will find racism in an opinion poll in any western country but not anything like those amounts. And they are growing not diminishing.

The problem is a Jewish state. Once you define people with privileges, which is what being Jewish amounts to, or is there some special essence of being Jewish that defines a jewish state(?) then you are on the road to apartheid. Why is it that only Arab villages which are unrecognised? Some 50%. Jewish towns and villages are by definition recognised. Why the campaign for judaification of the Galilee and Negev. Doesn’t the term ‘Judaification’ remind you of something?

As Meir kahane defined it, we can either have a Jewish or a democratic state but not both. And not only him. That is being echoed now on the website of the JNF and the comment of one of their leaders in Israel recently, viz. that Jews didn’t wait 2,000 years for a democratic state but a Jewish state.

>>Tony, you talk about Herzl but a lot has changed since then.

If you want to claim the boycott is the only thing that is working, please cite some examples.

Tony Greenstein

PS: I have no intention of replying to Mikey who spends his whole life digging up articles by or about me and asking silly questions. What a sad existence. I happen to be on the neo-Nazi Redwatch site, whereas I doubt they’ve even heard of sad Mikey. But since he is so fond of asking questions maybe he can tell people why he likes to go for cosy drinks with the infamous anti-Semite and supporter of the Protcols of the Elders of Zion, one Gilad Atzmon? Clearly another example of the phenomenon I described above whereby Zionists hate the Jewish diaspora so much they start echoing the most vile calumnies of the anti-Semites. (http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/archives/2007/03/19/gilad_atzmon_and_jewishness.php)

23. yishaym - September 6, 2007

While our dear Tony Greenstein spent another long, comfortable evening in his cosy chair, composing another brilliant 3 page response to a blog post, the Abraham Fund got the city of Haifa to commit to teaching Arabic in all Jewish schools.

Now, what was that about irrelevance?

24. yishaym - September 6, 2007

Dear Dr. Robinson,

Thank you. I also have one question. Why is it whenever someone tries to depart from a simplistic, radical position they are asked to excuse all and every injustice in the world?

What is the logical link from Fleshisgrass’s thoughtful comments to your question?

I look forward to your answer.
wish best wishes,

- Yishay

25. Mikey - September 7, 2007

It is no wonder that Tony Greenstein does not answer my questions as he does not really have any good answer. The reason I met Gilad Atzmon is the same reason I meet with other extremists - I am conducting research into extremists. Gilad Atzmon is in my opinion an extermist and like my other extremists I met him.

However _ I have shown on the link above Tony Greenstein to be wrong about his theories of Zionist-Nazi collaboration so now he comes up with new nonsense.about Jews from Argentina - another recurring theme in his attempts to discredit Zionism.

The policy of the Israeli government regarding Argentinian Jews was summed up by Yigal Allon, the foreign minister in Yitzhak Rabin’s government, who argued that those who could be saved, must be saved. Menachem Begin himself endorsed this policy - he wanted them all to be brought to Israel including the radical leftists:

“I told them there was only one solution: Aliya. The situation in Argentina is terrible. It is in a state of anarchy.At the embassy they asked what would be done with the leftists. I answered: they should be brought to Israel. The junta should be promised that if they release these people, we will take them home immediately. Let’s assume they join Matzpen [Israeli-based communist organization], we will not approve but nevertheless accept it. Otherwise these young people are lost.”

Source

Yitzhak Mualem “Between a Jewish and an Israeli Foreign Policy: Israel-Argentina Relations and the Issue of Jewish Disappeared Persons and Detainees under the Military Junta, 1976-1983″ Jewish Political Studies Review 16:1-2 (Spring 2004) Available at:
http://www.jcpa.org/jpsr/jpsr-mualem-s04.htm

Tony Greenstein is caught out yet again distorting the truth.

Tony Greenstein also attacks the campaign for Soviet Jewry on the basis that “noone was being tortured or disappeared.” Tony Greenstein fails to mention Soviet Jews who were thrown in prison for their political beliefs such as Natan Sharansky - for as he said in 1977 “I had been arrested on false charges of high treason. My real crimes: fighting for human rights inside the Soviet Union and for the rights of Soviet Jews, myself included to emigrate.”

Source:

Natan Sharansky - The Case For Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tryanny & Terror (New York: Perseus Books Group, 2004) p. ix

Tony Greenstein also fails to mention the long running campaign of antisemitism that ran through the Soviet Union for - example in 1953 there was the infamous Stalin’s doctors plot. Here nine doctors of whom six were Jewish were accused of being “Vicious Spies and Killers” whose goal was “shortening the lives of leaders of the Soviet Union by means of medical sabotage.” They were “inhuman beasts” in a “terrorist group” who “tried to undermine the health of the Soviet military leadership cadres, to remove them from the power structure and thereby weaken the defense of the country.” The Jewish “doctor killers” were a “fifth column” and “recruited by a branch-office of American intelligence — the international Jewish bourgeois-nationalist organization called ‘Joint,’” who gave orders for “the extermination of leadership cadres of the USSR.” The plot was uncovered and “The filthy face of this Zionist spy organization” could be revealed. According to a number of sources the purpose of this fabrication was that a show trial could be staged and used as a pretext for deporting all Soviet Jews to Siberia “for their own safety.” The idea was that approximately sixty famous Soviet Jews would denounce the traitorous “doctor-murderers” in a letter that would be published in Pravda. The signatories would propose that the entire Soviet Jewish community would be “voluntarily” deported to protect them from “the Russian people’s righteous wrath.” Fortunately Stalin died before this act of what could well have been mass murder could be carried out.

Sources:

Vicious Spies and Killers under the Mask of Academic Physicians Pravda 13th January1953 p. 1 Translation by P. R. Wolfe and BINIE staff available at http://www.cyberussr.com/rus/vrach-ubijca-e.html
David Bandberger Stalin’s Last Crime?Recent Scholarship on Postwar Soviet Antisemitism and the Doctor’s Plot Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History Vol 6. No. 1 Winter 2005 pp. 187-204, A. Mark Clarfield The Soviet “Doctors’ Plot” – 50 years on BMJ Vol. 325 21st -28th December 2002 pp. 1,487-1,489, Simon Madievski The Doctors’ Plot Midstream September-October 2003

Tony Greenstein yet again has been dishonest!

26. Anne On - February 25, 2008

Tony Greenstein in 3 Easy Steps

http://simplyjews.blogspot.com/2007/04/tony-greenstein-in-three-easy-steps.html

Great internal links to the real McCoy too.

27. fleshisgrass - February 25, 2008

Look, Tony Greenstein (may he simply stop in his tracks and then wander away) has been awful for a long time. But if, with his petty criminal record, he was good enough for the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign before he started pointing out that holocaust denial was unacceptable, then his petty criminal record counts for nothing in the PSC’s case against him now.

What a bunch of gonads they all are.

Alef List Posting Number 10

2008-09-16T10:53:00.002+01:00

Message to Alef List December 30, 2007

A litany of errors

Tony Greenstein wants to know "where the myths I and countless others grew up with, viz. that the Palestinians ran away because they were ordered to do so, came from and why?"

Despite the words of Greenstein, these are not "myths" because as Benny Morris commented:

"... it turns out that there was a series of orders issued by the Arab Higher Committee and by the Palestinian intermediate levels to remove children, women and the elderly from the villages. So that on the one hand, the book reinforces the accusation against the Zionist side, but on the other hand it also proves that many of those who left the villages did so with the encouragement of the Palestinian leadership itself."[1]

As Efraim Karsh points out,

[whilst] the Jews were attempting to keep the Arabs in Haifa, an adhoc body, the Arab Emergency Committee, was doing its best to get them out. Scaremongering was a major weapon in its arsenal. Some Arab residents received written threats that, unless they left town, they would be branded as traitors deserving of death…..
Already on April 25, the American consulate in Haifa was reporting that the "local Mufti-dominated Arab leaders urge all Arabs [to] leave [the] city and large numbers [are] going." Three days later it pointed a clear finger: "Reportedly Arab Higher Committee ordering all Arabs [to] leave." Writing on the same day to the colonial secretary in London, Sir Alan Cunningham, the British high commissioner for Palestine, was equally forthright: "British authorities in Haifa have formed the impression that total evacuation is being urged on the Haifa Arabs from higher Arab quarters and that the townsfolk themselves are against it." Finally, a British intelligence report summing up the events of the week judged that, had it not been for the incitement and scaremongering of the Haifa Arab leadership, most Arab residents might well have stayed. [2]

Tony Greenstein states: "Ben Gurion's attitude to transfer, as opposed to when speaking for the record, is also too well, known for serious contradiction." Sadly, Tony Greenstein does not state what this attitude of David Ben-Gurion was:

Ben Gurion at the November 1936 Jewish Agency Executive meeting, "We do not deny the right of the Arab inhabitants of the country, and we do not see this right as a hindrance to the realization of Zionism." [3]

Ben-Gurion in an October 1941 internal policy paper, "Jewish immigration and colonization in Palestine on a large scale can be carried out without displacing Arabs." [4]

Ben-Gurion in the same paper from 1941 'in a Jewish Palestine the position of the Arabs will not be worse than the position of the Jews themselves."[5]

Presumably, Greenstein would view the above as Ben-Gurion, "speaking for the record." Consequently, it may be worthwhile to consider Ben-Gurion's 1937 letter to his son, as properly quoted and not in the distorted format:

We do not wish and do not need to expel the Arabs and take their place. All our aspirations is built on the assumption – proven throughout all our activity – that there is enough rooms for ourselves and the Arabs in Palestine. [6]

Flicking through some of Greenstein's post this month leaves me amazed at the catalogue of distortions and errors that he makes. I have not got the time to detail them all, but to mention just one, Greenstein commented the other day "Zionists like Nathan Schwalb … [said] that the murder of Jews in the Nazi holocaust was a price that the Jews had to pay to obtain a state." Whilst he does not give a reference, Greenstein is no doubt referring to an alleged letter that Schwalb sent that subsequently appeared in Rabbi Weissmandel's book, Min Hametzar (From the depths) that was published posthumously in 1960.

Greenstein ignores the fact that Schwalb testified under oath in 1987 that he never sent such a letter. [7] Whilst no one is suggesting that Weissmandel is a liar, as both Yehuda Bauer and Walter Laqueur pointed out, as Weissmandel's book was published posthumously, we cannot say for certain that the book was not altered by some of his fanatical followers prior to publication. [8] Dina Porat dismisses the letter out of hand. She describes it as a "pure invention" whose "contents contradict both Shwalb's true position on the matter and the Zionist leaders in Palestine." [9] Shabtai Teveth, author of a multivolume biography of David Ben-Gurion and numerous other historical works, agrees with Porat and calls the letter "entirely a figment of Weissmandel's imagination." [10]

I could go on and on and on pointing out errors by Greenstein. He seems not to care about the truth, all he wants to do is to propagate his own myths about Zionism. What amazes me is that more people on this list have not told Greenstein that either he simply does not know what he is talking about or he is a blatant liar. There is no other possible explanation.

Mikey

December 30, 2007

Endnotes:
[1] Ha'aretz interview, January 9, 2004
[2] Efraim karsh, "Were the Palestinians Expelled?" Commentary Vol 110, No. 1 (July-August 2000) pp.29-34
[3] Efraim Karsh, "Resurrecting the Myth: Benny Morris, the Zionist Movement, and the 'Transfer' idea," Israel Affairs Vol 11 No. 3, July 2005 pp. 469-90
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Efraim Karsh, "Revisiting Israel's 'Original Sin': The Strange Case of Benny Morris," Commentary, September 2003, pp. 46-50
[7] Statement of Claim between Nathan Dror (Plaintiff) and Ithaca Press, David Wolton and Jim Allen , High Court Of Justice Queen's Bench Division 1987-D-1648
[8] Yehuda Bauer, Jews for Sale:Nazi Jewish Negotiations 1933-1945, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994) pp. 74-81, p. 99 and Walter Laqueur, "The Anti-Zionism of Fools" New Republic November 2, 1987 pp 33-39
[9] Dina Porat "'Amalek's Accomplacies' Blaming Zionism for the Holocaust: Anti-Zionist Ultra-Orthodoxy in Israel during the 1980's ," Journal of Contemporary History Vol. 27 No. 4 October 1992. pp. 696-729.
[10] Shabtai Teveth, Ben-Gurion and the Holocaust, (New York and San-Diego: Harcourt Brace and Company,1996) p. 7

Alef List Posting Number 9 - American Jews and the Holocaust

2008-09-16T10:46:00.001+01:00

Message to Alef List October 8, 2007

Distorting the Holocaust Record – Tony Greenstein Style

Tony Greenstein continues his efforts to denigrate Zionist leaders during the Holocaust. In order to do so, this time he picks upon Rabbi Stephen Wise, the leader of the American Jewish Congress in 1942. Tony Greenstein states, "during the holocaust their spokespersons such as Stephen Wise delayed for over 3 months even publicising the holocaust" because he agreed to a request from the American Under-Secretary of State, Summer Welles to remain silent despite his knowledge of Hitler's plan to exterminate every Jew in Europe. Tony Greenstein also incredibly sates that the Zionist answer to the Holocaust "was no answer at all." On the point about Rabbi Wise, Tony Greenstein ignores the fact that David Wyman has pointed out:

Wise had no viable choice in the matter. The State Department was responsible for American rescue policy. Had Wise contravened Welles's request, he would have alienated the department of Government whose co-operation was essential in the efforts to save European Jews. [1]

Whilst Rabbi Wise's hands were tied, Tony Greenstein does not choose to discuss those Zionists in America whose hands were not so tied. For example, throughout 1943, Peter Bergson, a Zionist emissary from Palestine set up the Bergson Group where together with Ben Hecht the group organized a series of public rallies, full-page newspaper ads, and Congressional lobbying efforts that culminated, in October 1943, in the introduction of a Congressional resolution urging the creation of a U.S. government agency to rescue Jewish refugees. In one day alone, President Roosevelt received 5,000 letters from American Jews about the Holocaust. The public controversy caused by Congressional hearings on the resolution, combined with behind-the-scenes pressure from Treasury Department officials, convinced President Roosevelt to establish the War Refugee Board in January 1944. The War Refugee Board's activities, which included financing the rescue work of Raoul Wallenberg, played a crucial role in saving the lives of over 200,000 people during the final 15 months of the war. [2]

Tony Greenstein does not mention the Labour Zionist monthly Jewish Frontier that used a special edition in November 1942 to bring to the attention of the English speaking world the horrors of the Final Solution. The lead editorial of that issue concluded:

The annals of mankind hold no similar record of organized murder as a calculated policy of state. We publish this sombre record to acquaint the free world with these facts and to call on the governments of the allied nations to do whatever may be done to prevent the fulfilment of this horror that broods over the blood-engulfed continent of Europe." [3]

Tony Greenstein also does not mention another American Labour Zionist monthly magazine Furrows, whose editorial in December 1942 stated:

Where is the voice of our government, of the Christian churches, of our labor movement, of our justice-loving intellectuals? … Why have the reports of the criminal acts of mass-destruction … failed to arouse the wrath and indignation of the free world? … We must shout out loud until our pain is heard. We must call for help from every quarter and seek ways of salvaging those who are not yet doomed." [4]

The editorial line of Furrows, was to continue campaigning along these lines for many months.

Tony Greenstein does not mention Jacob Fishman, a militant Zionist and a bombing proponent, who went on to assist in a challenge to Rabbi Wise for the leadership of the American Zionist movement who offered three possibilities for the Allies in his newspaper column of 27th June 1944. Either the Allies could warn that Budapest "will be bombed and reduced to ashes" if deportations continued, they could bomb Auschwitz and the other death camps in Poland or they could bomb one of Hitler's residences "saying that this is punishment for the mass murders." Fishman morally justified the bombing of Auschwitz on the grounds that whilst some Jews may die in the bombing raids many more may be able to escape and possibly join the partsans in fighting against the Nazis. [5]

Neither does Tony Greenstein comment upon the Independent Jewish Press Service in America that subsequently argued that the Allies should "Bomb ruthlessly the cities from which Jews are deported, so it becomes a matter of personal security for the enemy to have the Jews remain. Follow this up with a warning that the bombings will continue until the Jews are permitted to depart for neutral lands." According to Dr Rafael Medoff, one of the reasons that the Hungarian Authorities halted deportations to Auschwitz on July 7, 1944, was a fear that the Allies would heed to Jewish requests and partake in retributive bombing of their own cities. [6]

In Tony Greenstein's attack on Zionism, there is no mention of the rescue efforts of, for example, Henrietta Szold, who founded the American Zionist organization, Hadassah, and initiated and ran the Youth Aliyah programme which rescued 22,000 children from Nazi occupied Europe.[7] Tony Greenstein would have preferred the children stay and fight the Nazis. Maybe, in Tony Greenstein's world, these children without either guns or other weapons stood a chance against the Nazi regime that turned out to have both the determination and the ability to slaughter them. Moreover, there is no mention that by 1934 American Zionist leaders were fighting so hard for the relaxation of immigration controls and for refugees to be admitted to neutral countries that American Secretary of State Carr bemoaned "the aggressiveness of our Jewish friends." [8]

The above are just a small selection of the efforts of American Zionist leaders during the Holocaust. This substantially ignores all the efforts of the Zionist leaders in Palestine during the Holocaust. These have been very well documented in books such as Dina Porat's, The Blue and Yellow Star of David [9]and Shabtai Teveth's Ben-Gurion and the Holocaust.[10] For information about the efforts of British Zionists and the Holocaust, Tony Greenstein might wish to consult Martin Gilbert's recent book Churchill and the Jews.[11]

The facts that Tony Greenstein is prepared to leave out and the lies he is prepared to tell in order to indict Zionist leaders is truly astonishing.

References

[1] David Wyman, The Abandonment of the Jews: America and the Holocaust 1942-1945 (New York: Pantheon, 1986) p. 54

[2] Rafael Medoff , "How America Leaned of the Holocaust" The David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies April 2003 available at http://wymaninstitute.com/articles/2003-04-neverdie.php ..

[3] Marie Syrkin, "Did Zionists Abandon European Jews?" Reconstructionist Vol LII No. 6 May-June 1987

[4] Rafael Medoff , "Conflicts between American Jewish leaders and dissidents over responding to the news of the Holocaust: three episodes from 1942 to 1943" Journal of Genocide Research Vol 5. No. 3 September 2003 pp. 439-50

[5] Rafael Medoff "'A Foolish Encroachment upon the Allied High Command'? American Jewish Perspectives on Requesting U.S. Military Intervention Against the Holocaust".Modern Judaism Vol. 20, 2000 . pp. 299-315 quoting Jacob Fishman, "From Day to Day" Morgen Zhurnal June 27, 1944 pp. 1-2

[6] Rafael Medoff ibid., quoting editorial of Independent Jewish Press Service (IJPS) July 28, 1944 P. 3-A

[7] See http://www.zionism-israel.com/bio/biography_Henrietta_Szold.htm

[8] Quoted by Marie Syrkin op. cit.

[9] Dina Porat The Blue and Yellow Stars of David: The Zionist Leadership in Palestine and the Holocaust, 1939-1945 (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1990)

[10] Shabtai Teveth Ben-Gurion and the Holocaust (New York: Harcourt Brace, 1996)

[11] Martin Gilbert Churchill and the Jews (London: Simon & Schuster, 2007)

Alef List Posting Number 8

2008-09-16T10:43:00.001+01:00

Message to Alef List September 5, 2007

Tony Greenstein exposed

When Tony Greenstein puts his fingers to the keyboard, he has an irresistible urge to type out lies. His latest post defaming me is a case in point:

1. Tony Greenstein alleges that I "was thrown out of a Jews Against Zionism seminar recently for sitting there texting others the content of what was happening." This is a lie. I was making notes on a Blackberry hand-held device. I even offered to show them to Roland Rance. He threw me out anyway. The fact that I didn't share his ideology was enough to get me banned. My conduct at that meeting was totally unobjectionable and I left quietly and peacefully. And this was publicly confirmed by Deborah Maccoby of Jews for Justice for Palestinians. [1]

2. Tony Greenstein also claims that I am a friend of Gilad Atzmon and that I worship him as a hero. This is another lie. I have publicly attacked Gilad Atzmon's opinions. Tony Greenstein, on the other hand, sent Gilad Atzmon a gushing email saying that he would be delighted to hear him play jazz and that his views were "spot on re: the Zionist collaboration with the Nazis." [2] This is, of course, laughable: Tony Greenstein has shown many times that he can't get the simplest facts right when peddling his Zionist-Nazi conspiracy theories. [3]

Why does Tony Greenstein invent these lies about his critics? Because it's the only way of hiding the truth about himself. Last year, for instance, he was involved in organizing a rally that resulted in this account in the local newspaper: "Somebody clocked I was wearing a Jewish symbol on my necklace. All of a sudden, a crowd of people had surrounded the car and were shouting anti-Jewish chants. Somebody stuck a banner through the car window and I had to struggle to fight them off. They were calling me a terrorist and Jewish scum and insulting my family... This abuse was racist..." [4] A senior police officer commented: "I can only assume the intention of the demonstration in an area where there is a large Jewish population was a deliberate attempt to provoke and incite." [5]

Only a few weeks later, Tony Greenstein wrote to the same paper about a violent assault on an eight year old autistic boy with a broken arm – an assault so serious that, according to the father, "his hearing was impaired for several days" and the police had to be involved. Did Tony Greenstein side with the autistic boy and his father? Not at all. He wrote to say that this blatant act of child abuse was simply "reasonable chastisement." [6]

Mikey

[1] http://www.haloscan.com/comments/levi9909/2890867578743241483/#309662
[2] http://www.gilad.co.uk/html%20files/tony%27semail.htm
[3]
http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/archives/2007/01/24/tony_greenstein_more_errors_than_paragraphs.php
[4] http://www.theargus.co.uk/display.var.895756.0.hunt_for_racists_at_peace_protest.php
[5] http://archive.theargus.co.uk/2006/9/6/215271.html
[6]
http://www.theargus.co.uk/search/display.var.1088710.0.this_assault_was_hardly_reasonable_chastising.php

Alef List Posting Number 7- Tony Greenstein and the Zionism Equals Nazism Equation

2008-09-16T10:38:00.003+01:00

Message to Alef List August 30, 2007
Tony Greenstein on the connection between Zionism and Nazism

Tony Greenstein states in post to this list (Thu Aug 30 01:04:17 IDT 2007) :"It's not me who makes the connection between Zionism and Nazism."

Source: http://list.haifa.ac.il/mailman/private/alef/2007-August/013199.html

The facts include –
1. In 1983 Lenni Brenner came to the UK on a speaking tour. Tony Greenstein helped to organize that tour. The tour poster directly equated the Star of David with the Swastika.

2. Tony Greenstein was closely associated with an organization entitled BAZO – (British Anti Zionist Organisation). BAZO produced leaflets using Nazi imagery in relation to its discussions of Zionism. For example – One leaflet entitled "Israeli Expansion" was subtitled "The Zionist Policy of 'Lebensraum' in Occupied Palestine; Views of Zionist Leaders."

3. In 1989-1990 Tony Greenstein was on the editorial collective of a magazine entitled RETURN and by December 1990 he was the named editor. If we look at for example issue 1 (March 1989) at a cartoon on Page 31 the cartoon had Palestinians dressed in stripy outfits (similar to what Jews were in the Holocaust) with a caption suggestion the Israeli soldiers in that cartoon were just like the Nazis.

4. The Editorial of Return issue 2 March 1990 which contained Tony Greenstein on the editorial collective stated:

"Middle East Report no 157 (March-April 1989) claims that comparisons of Israeli policy towards the Palestinians with that of Nazi Germany before 1938 towards the Jews are 'of dubious accuracy, even when they are made by Israeli Jews'. The contributors to this issue of RETURN Magazine disagree with this claim; many of them would argue that it is dangerously mistaken.

"In the articles in this issue, such a comparison frequently appears…. The reality of Israeli practice in the occupied territories… is in no way less brutal than the pogroms suffered by Jews in Tsarist Russia, or than the events of Kritallnacht…..

"Tony Greenstein considers true and false Holocaust analogies. He cites Israelis who fear the Nazification of Israeli society, and others who welcome it…..

"One comparison between Zionism and Nazism is the policy of 'transfer' of unwanted people."

5. Tony Greenstein himself wrote in RETURN issue 2 from March 1990 an article titled "Holocaust Anologies, Repaying the Mortgage" on pages 14-19 which seems to be devoted to Tony Greenstein trying to justify a Nazi Zionist comparison. Greenstein even discusses in that article "Judeo-Nazi views in the Halacha (oral law)" and wants to provide "final proof of how the Nazi analogy with repression in the West Bank is correct."

This vile article can be seen on line at

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/pdf/Holocaust%20Analogies%20--%20Repaying%20the%20Morgage.pdf

6. More recently Tony Greeenstein has said, "I deliberately described Israel's actions as a blitzkrieg. Those who use starvation, thirst and hunger as reprisals against civilians, who destroy water and electricity plants, are, in the words of the late Yehashayu Leibowitz, a distinguished religious philosopher and winner of the Israel Prize, Judaeo-Nazis." (Weekly Worker Letters July 20, 2006 available on line at http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/634/letters.htm )

7. In a post to this list on Fri Mar 16 20:13:44 IST 2007 Tony Greenstein stated "....Zionism shares many facets with Nazism" See: http://list.haifa.ac.il/mailman/private/alef/2007-March/010465.html (via subscription)

8. When making his statement that "It's not me who makes the connection between Zionism and Nazism," Tony Greenstein seems to have forgotten what he had written less than 26 hours earlier on Tue Aug 28 23:11:18 IDT 2007: "Israel is unique in basing its definition of the untermenschen on who is and who is not Jewish."

Source: http://list.haifa.ac.il/mailman/private/alef/2007-August/013184.html

The above include some examples of Tony Greenstein making a connection between Zionism and Nazism, no doubt there are plenty more. The truth is that Tony Greenstein has spent the best part of the last thirty years trying to make a connection that he denies he makes.

Mikey

Alef List Posting Number 6 -9/11 Conspiracy Theories

2008-09-16T10:35:00.000+01:00

Message to Alef list August 29, 2007

Tony Greenstein and 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Tony Greenstein thinks that it is perfectly reasonable that anyone might believe a conspiracy theory about 9/11. "Given that the Bush administration lies as a matter of course is it any wonder that people challenge the official version?" He also presents his own conspiracy theories in relation to 9/11: "We know for a fact that the CIA had warning of what was to happen." This is a brazen lie. The CIA did not know that aeroplanes were to be hijacked on September 11, 2001, nor did the CIA know that buildings such as the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon were to be targeted.
Greenstein went on to state that the CIA : "did nothing." Far from doing nothing, the CIA provided President George W. Bush more than 40 intelligence articles relating to Bin-Laden between January 20 and September 10, 2001. In late June 2001 as reports came through that planning for an attack "had reached a crescendo" "the CIA ordered all its station chiefs to share information on al Qaeda with their host governments and to push for immediate disruptions of cells." On July 5, 2001 the CIA had meetings with Richard Clarke and John Ashcroft about the warning that a terrorist attack by al-Queda was imminent. On August 6, 2001, the CIA Presidential briefing stated: "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US." [1] For Greenstein to suggest to suggest they did nothing is simply ludicrous.
It is true that there were early reports that a car bomb had exploded outside the State Department. This changed as further reports came in.
• numerous eyewitness accounts of an American Airlines passenger plane crashing into the Pentagon
• phone calls from passengers on American Airlines flight 77 reporting that it had been hijacked
• eyewitness accounts of airplane parts and the bodies of airline passengers still strapped in their seats found at the Pentagon crash site, as well as photographs of airplane parts
• the remains of bodies recovered at the Pentagon crash site positively identified as matching those of the passengers and crew on American Airlines flight 77 [2]

Sources:
[1] The 9/11 Commission Report pp. 254-65 available at http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf
[2] US Department of State - http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Jun/28-581634.html

Alef List Posting Number 5

2008-09-16T10:31:00.002+01:00

Message to Alef List August 21, 2007

In a post to Alef on Thursday August 9, 2007 at 06:00:23 IDT, Tony Greenstein made a number of claims. I think members of this list should be grateful if I take the trouble to point out three of his errors in that post.

1. 1. Misquote from David Ben-Gurion

Tony Greenstein stated: "In 1937 he [David Ben-Gurion] wrote to his son that 'We will expel the Arabs and take their places.'"

The Truth

This has been exposed as a disgraceful distortion. What Ben-Gurion actually said in that letter was as follows: "We do NOT wish and do NOT need to expel Arabs and take their place. [Emphases added] All our aspiration is built on the assumption – proven throughout all our activity – that there is enough room for ourselves and the Arabs in Palestine."[1]

2. 2. Error on population

Tony Greenstein stated, "Even in the area that the United Nations allocated to a Jewish state, a majority of the population were Arabs."

The Truth

According to the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine, based on official figures up to the end of 1946 there were estimated to be approximately 498,000 Jews in the Jewish State and 407,000 Arabs and others, leaving the majority population as Jewish. [2]

3. 3. Error on bombs in Iraq

Tony Greenstein stated: "Zionist agents in Iraq [were engaged in] setting off bombs in Jewish areas."

The Truth

According to the Iraqi Government 5 bombs were set off in areas where Jews might congregate. Prior to their trial in 1950, the Iraqi Government claimed that those arrested, including Shalom Salih and Yosef Basri, were guilty. There was not a single prosecution witness who could testify that they had seen the accused where the explosions occurred. The court relied upon the testimony of Shalom Salih, despite the fact that his testimony was extracted after severe torture The radical pan-Arab Istiqlal party in Iraq contained many pro-Nazi members who wanted Jews expelled from Iraq and their property seized. As Moshe Gat concluded in his study, "It is here, most probably, that the perpetrators of the bombings should be sought." [3]

Sources
[1] Efraim Karsh "Revisiting Israel's 'Original Sin': The Strange Case of Benny Morris" Commentary September, 2003, 46-50
[2] United Nations Special Committee on Palestine, Recommendations to the General Assembly, A/364, 3 September 1947 available at http://www.mideastweb.org/unscop1947.htm
[3] Moshe Gat "Between Terror and Emigration: The Case of Iraqi Jewry." Israel Affairs Vol. 7 No. 1 (Autumn 2000), 1-24

Anti-Racists against Anti-Zionists

Tony Greenstein Goes on the Attack

Greenstein pre-empted on Edelman

Greenstein to review Nicosia's latest book

Distorting the Holocaust: The Case of Haim Bresheeth

On Islamic antisemitism

Tony Greenstein, Man of Violence

The post and the comments below appeared on Harry's Place

Comments

Roland Rance Exposed!

Maccoby vs. Maccoby

Greenstein and Feivel Polkes - More Lies

A Classic Greenstein Lie!

The Deleted Post - Tony Greenstein : The Man, The Distortions, The Omissions and The Lies.

The Socialist Unity Debate

29 August, 2008

78 Comments »

Tony Greenstein on Mass Muder etc

Defend Tony Greenstein!

Comment viewing options

Nathan Weinstock: ex-anti-Zionist

Comments

This post originally appeared on Socialist Unity

7 February, 2008

320 Comments »

Jews and Jew Haters II: From Cranks to Clowns

This post originally appeared on Harry's Place

Jews and Jew Haters: The Anti-Zionist Jewish Squabble

November 21, 2007

Jews and Jew Haters: The Anti-Zionist Jewish Squabble

Engage - Email

Flesh is Grass

Complete this sentence: “Because he’s a Jew, he …” August 19, 2007

Comments»

Alef List Posting Number 10

Alef List Posting Number 9 - American Jews and the Holocaust

Alef List Posting Number 8

Alef List Posting Number 7- Tony Greenstein and the Zionism Equals Nazism Equation

Alef List Posting Number 6 -9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Alef List Posting Number 5