Fallout As Indymedia Embraces Anti-semitism

The following two articles, originally posted to Iindymedia, were hidden by the editors (IM collective), and express deep dismay at the decision last weekend to continue to allow defence of holocaust denial and anti-Semitism to be carried by Indymedia, while at the same time censoring critics who object to anti-Semitism.

The network meeting, complete capitulation
Steve from the Manchester activist collective | 11.02.2008 14:18

During last weekend the Indymedia network meeting was held. Despite the efforts of some to pretend there where a number of issues to be discussed the reality was there was one issue that mattered. That of Anti Semitism and the promotion of it by some admins.

Some readers may be aware of how this issue has been thrown around like a hot potato because of how divisive it has been and how a small group have hijacked the newswire for their own political agenda. Various people have made contributions and this certainly upset some admins who didn’t like the rise of democratic control within the collective as they wanted to retain power through the use of “blocks” when they needed to.

A number of us stood back from the arguments and made no contribution prefering to rely on the network collective meeting and trusting that it would to address the issue. Perhaps not surprisingly considering the aggressive tactics used to date by the likes of FTP and others this was not the case. Objections to Anti Semitism were shouted down, the inevitble cries of “Zionist” were used to stifle debate and the emphasis cleverly shifted to a critism of long term anti Zionism campaigner Tony Greenstein who has refused to be knocked back by bullying and a campaign of internet slander by FTP and others.

FTP got exactly what he wanted, yet another analysis of “process” and “procedures” to prevent the hiding of blatant Anti Semitism when it comes up on the newswire.

For me this is the last straw, Indymedia is now alinged with Holocaust deniers and racists when it suits the politcial aims of a small group of individuals and as such I will no longer be contributing news items, pictures, videos or moral support.

So long and good luck to those couple of individuals who have decided to stay in and repair the damage.

Peace and Love

Maz, Richard and Sarah on behalf of the meeting
Birmingham Uni condems racist Indymedia decision | 11.02.2008 18:40 | Anti-racism | Indymedia

“An utter disgrace” was the conclusion of a meeting held today at Birmingham University in response to the disgusting decision by indymedia editors to give in to the gang of racists who have pushed an anti Jewish agenda on the site for several months.

A large group came together to express their anger and dismay when it become clear from the minutes than rather than no platforming these racists they would be allowed to continue to post and be supported.

Detailed here is the wording in the minutes of the meeting issued on the indymedia discussion page.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Anti-Semitism
There was a discussion about the anti-Semitism issue and indymedia’s definitions about what constitutes anti-Semitism.

Concern that this is a prelude to an increasing climate of hiding Palestinian articles or criticisms of Israel.

Sends out a signifier that UK Indymedia has a position on their dispute.

This is a big and divisive question overall not just in the IMCs. Might be worth comparing with other positions and coming to a collective statement on this.

Might also be worth hiding the discussion about if to hide it as this should not be in the comments and a public dispute.

Post was long buried in the archives asking for the post to be hidden, so it was not controversial at the time.

Agree that what Greenstein has done and his campaign has been disruptive. All agreed this was the case. This is not a personal problem, it is a political problem. Responsibility of the collective to discuss this.

Proposal to move the disputed post into a third place that is not hidden but flagged as under discussion. Two stand-aside, no blocks. (tech wise, This will remove all the comments from the post in question.)
Proposal to to hide the article but not no platform the writer. This was blocked.

Proposal to ban Greenstein from the lists with arguing about this and hide posts about this on the lists and disruptive posts in general. This is already been done.

Proposal to discuss the issue of anti-Semitism and to get deep into the politics by those who wish to do so.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

An utter and complete climb down and retreat in the face of naked racism. We call upon all members of the indymedia collective to reject these minutes, establish a clear and open commitment to a written policy of no platform for racists.

Group spokespeople

Birmingham Uni condems racist Indymedia decision

85 comments on “Fallout As Indymedia Embraces Anti-semitism

  1. Jim Carroll on said:

    Utterly disgraceful that alleged progressives cannot recognise antisemitism when it is shoved in their faces. Time to consider a boycott of indymedia.

  2. goodwin sands on said:

    Both articles are claimed to be fantasy, possibly by you, ftp, but there doesnt seem to be any supporting evidence either way.

    If you have more direct evidence that the articles are not genuine please provide it; we cant be expected to be persuaded by your gut instinct alone.

  3. Well, I know who was at the meeting. No Steve from Manchester. I also know what happened, as do the other 30+ people who were there. It was nothing like suggested. Not one person shouted ‘Zionist’ – in our facilitated discussions……

    I recognise the style of the troll – he often signs himself as a trio – and whilst claiming to be a group doesn’t specify which group or any contact details.

    “Maz, Richard and Sarah on behalf of the meeting”

    What meeting, called by whom and attended by whom?

    A threesome behind the bike sheds maybe?

    You can trust it if you want ……… Theres so many lies about IMC UK on this site already that it doesn’t really make the slightest bit of difference.

    Even Andy will get bored with the monotony of TGs obsessive irrationality at some point.

  4. Back to the question of indymedia UK.

    I have noticed the central features column has not been updated for a while. I hope this is not due to some crisis and demoralisation sweeping the remaining members of the IMC – but it probably is.

    Indymedia has always been a difficult project – the open publishing newswire model attracts allsorts of nutters.

    FTP is one of the few remaining moderators who undertakes the job of ‘hiding’ problem posts. This is a thankless task which makes one the subject of all forms of abuse.

    But it is bizarre to make a stand in support of posting Atzmon’s dangerous rambling crap.

    Allsorts of stuff gets hidden – some of it quite good. If you write a polemic and post it up it stands a chance of being ‘hidden as non-news rant’. This is to keep the newswire focused on anti-capitalist direct action.

    Why Atzmon was not simply hidden like all other ‘non-news rants’ I don’t know. Why has FTP/ Roy Bard decided to make a stand in defence of Atzmons non news rants?

    I doubt if FTP is really a racist – just confused. He is good at defending Muslims etc. But perhaps he has had to deal with so many Islamophobic nutters he has lost his bearings?

    About Indymedias policy of hiding items. I have had stuff hidden because it mentions the protests and actions of ‘hierarchical organisations’ like socialist parties. (I wasn’t even a member or supporter of these parties – just spreading news of working class activism!) But if these posts are ‘hidden’, but Atzmon is allowed, then Indymedia UK is probably doomed.

    This is sad – it was one of the first great activist / anti-capitalist web resources. I first encountered it at the turn of the century during the anti-summit counter protests. I have in the past helped write features for it, reporting actions from trashing GM Crops to pensions strikes. Maybe now it is an outmoded model as the web has moved on?

    To invent a new category of ‘disputed’ articles bathed in pink or whatever (is this the case?!) suggests a deep problem. There is paralysis through lack of clear politics.

    That has always been a problem with turn of the century ‘activism’. Sometime in the 1990’s we ceased to be ‘socialists’ or ‘anarchists’ or feminists’ – we became ‘activists’ instead – defined by our non-passivity! This was a de-ideologising of the movement, a shift towards a radical pragmatism, at one stage even refreshing and opening up a space for newly radicalising forces. But it also lets in all sorts of dodgy politics and leads to paralysis when difficult questions come up like Atzmon.

    And there are the familiar problems with ‘consensus decision making’ where majority votes are not allowed. This allows one person to block a decision. I have seen it nearly wreck anti-capitalist actions. This is also related to the old debates about ‘the tyranny of structurelessness’.

  5. http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=1706#comment-42905

    “ftp at #39 is a nasty Jew-hater on the run.

    Asked to explain the following from Atzmon

    “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”

    ftp replies: “does the text actually refer to “Jewish victims of the Holocaust”? Did not quite a few Jews emigrate to Israel after the war? Perhaps the term “grandparents” is there for a reason. Do you think the birth of Israel was unconnected to the holocaust? I don’t.”

    How disingenuous. It was not the first sentance that needed explaining it was the second.”

    Behave yourself Andy ffs.

    Writing slurs and then closing the thread is bang out of order.

    I was not explaining that sentence, I was responding to this question, as requested by joepolitix:

    ““What is the common feature between the Jewish victims of the holocaust and the Israelis today? Almost the only factor is their shared Jewishness. So what is Atzmon getting at?””

    So, you accuse me of hating Jews on the basis of an entirely false premise, for starters.

    “Fortuntately, ftp’s political ally Rizzi helped him out, and explained that in her view the holocaust was because Jews are selfish greedy people.”

    That is HER view (which you misrepresent) – you are back to smearing by association. I have been very careful not to express my view to date.

    My take on the matter is to look at the situation in Israel/Palestine now.

    Palestinians resist Israeli Occupation. The zionists then use the fact of resistance to blame the Palestinians for Israel’s own actions. Whilst Qassams are clearly aggressive (but not particularly effective), they cannot, and do not justify collective punishment of the entire population of Gaza. Neither do suicide bombings by militant groups justify the collective punishment of the entire Palestinian population. The ICJ ruled that the wall was illegal, in spite of the Israeli states’ attempt to justify it with the fact of suicide bombings.

    However, it is also clear that suicide bombings and Qassams have had an impact on Israel, and have played a part in determining the Israeli response. The real issues remain the facts of the Nakba and the occupation, and it is the restoration of justice for Palestinians that will end the resistance.

    It would be simplistic and naive to pretend that Palestinian actions have had no effect, and that therefore they are entirely innocent victims – and it would be equally wrong to claim that Palestinian actions absolve Israel of all responsibility for its own actions.

    I do not see why it should be any different when looking at the conditions and events that led up to the second world war, but Atzmon does not outline what he thinks these are, and the claims that he justifies the Holocaust, or says it is the fault of the Jews are both preposterous, and invented. Those who scream loudly are inserting their own interpretation and analysis.

    I think you’ve revealed much more about Andy Newman than ftp in that disgusting little outburst.

    If you have evidence that I hate Jews, kindly produce it. I would be most interested to see it.

    If you do not have the evidence, and you have a shred of decency in you – then I think you should consider apoplogising.

  6. With the invasion of Gaza immanent this is beginning to look like a Stalinist witch hunt.

    Good luck with the Hands off the People of Palestine split you are preparing the way for in the HOPI vein. Will you be dubbing Hamas a fascist imperialist client leadership of Iran just as the Zionists send in their death squads?

  7. david Ellis

    Yes we wish to split the Palestinian solidarity movement, becasue we want to exclude neo-Nazis, anti-Semites, holocaust deniers, and those who defend them.

    In my view such a split would be a good thing.

  8. ftp

    I do not misrepresent Riizi’s view. I assume that you do accept that the German nazi party WAS anti-Semitic? let us compare what Rizzi wrote with a standard nazi text from 1934:

    Werner May, Deutscher National-Katechismus 2nd edition (Breslau: Verlag von Heinrich Handel, 1934), pp. 22-26.

    The Jew is mostly a merchant, as he was for millennia in the past. There are no Jewish construction workers in Germany, no smiths, no Jewish miners or seamen. Nearly all major inventions were made by Aryans.
    How has the Jew subjugated the peoples?
    With money. He lent them money and made them pay interest. Thousands and thousands of Germans have been made wretched by the Jews and been reduced to poverty. Farmers whose land had been in the family for more than 100 years were driven from their land because they could not pay the interest.
    What happened to those farmers?
    They had to move to the cities. Torn from the land to which they belonged, robbed of their labor that gave their lives purpose and meaning, they fell victim to poverty and misery.

    Mary Rizzo 2008

    Jews were unpopular: this is a fact. They did not seem to know it, perhaps, because many were highly successful and powerful, so they did not notice that their actions were having consequences on a mass of people. But, actually, the fact (fact) that many Jews (as a whole) were indeed unpopular for reasons that to these particular individuals were normal situations (ie. landlords, moneylenders, businessmen without scruples who would finance any political party at all just to fill their own pockets) had at some level “normalised” the resentment and the “ignoring the resentment” at a widespread level. ”

    It is the same sentiment, almost the same language.

  9. ftp #7

    I note that you yourself very carefull don’t explain what Atzmon is getting at.

    I am not interested in your using the “don’t look at that, look at this” defence. I too work for palestine, I have been working in palestine solidarity on and off for thirty years.

    I am interested in your views on the Nazi holocaust.

    You see you have argued that there is doubt about the numbers. You have argued that Nimmo should not be stigmatised for describing the Auschwitz gas chambers as “discredited” and for linking to anti-Semitic web sites from his blog. You say I have misrepresented Rizzi, who has clearly argued that the holocaust was explicable by what she sees as the the anti-social behaviour of Jews. You defend Atzmon, who seeks to rationalise growing hostility to “Jewish tribalism”

    All of this is pretty clear evidence to me that you defend anti-Semitism. And who does that?

  10. Ian Donovan on said:

    “Yes we wish to split the Palestinian solidarity movement, becasue we want to exclude neo-Nazis, anti-Semites, holocaust deniers, and those who defend them.”

    Does this include Hamas supporters? 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?

  11. Ian:

    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.

    Reply:

    Exactly right, and then it will cease to be a Palestine solidarity movement and instead become a Palestine paternalism movement.

    I don’t know if you saw the CH4 documentary ‘Inside Hamas’ the other night. In my view it was a distortion. Here are my impressions of it and of Hamas in general.

    INSIDE HAMAS

    Having just watched the CH4 documentary on Hamas, a few things need to be said. Firstly, this was a cleverly constructed hour-long smear masquerading as balanced journalism. There was hardly a scintilla of contextualisation injected to help the average uninformed citizen watching understand the background, history, and material conditions which gave rise to Hamas and the current crisis in Gaza. Israel’s role, the brutality and savagery of its occupation and the iron heel under which the Palestinians exist, was hardly touched on. Neither was the corruption of the Fatah leadership which contributed largely to grassroots support for Hamas as an alternative.

    What did come across was the extreme privation and desperation of the Palestinians in Gaza on the one hand, and their resilience and determination to resist on the other. The beatings meted out to demonstrators by Hamas policemen was hard to watch and, sadly, it is clear that the determined and combined efforts of the US, Israel, and the EU to divide the Palestinians has met with some success. I thought the scenes of doctors working at a Gazan clinic heeding a demand by the Fatah govt in Ramallah to walk out on strike or else go without pay particulary enlightening, and also repugnant.

    The comments of the man whose child was hit by an Israeli missile fired in retaliation for a rocket attack by the resistance I thought very cogent. Israel is the 4th largest military power in the world, sponsored by the world’s sole hyperpower, the US. Primitive homemade rockets fired across the wall are futile, and though I would never criticise an occupied people’s right to resist their occupation by any means they see fit, for me the way ahead for the Palestinians was shown by the recent breaking of the blockade. Mass action.

    Mass action on the ground combined with an international BDS campaign to chip away at the false foundation of moral legitimacy upon which the apartheid State of Israel exists is the way ahead in the short and medium term.

    Within Islamist resistance movements such as Hamas and Hezbollah, there are contradictory currents of progressive and regressive thought. Only through our efforts in solidarity with the Palestinians can we hope to see their progressive currents grow and gain more influence.

    One thing is clear: this is not the time to dissect Hamas and the Palestinian resistance from afar. They do not need our approval. On the contrary, it is we who need to gain theirs – both their approval and their trust.

    The pressing needs of the anti-imperialist struggle demand that the left unite around BDS in solidarity with the Palestinian people.

  12. Ian

    that is a somewhat disingenuous question.

    Hamas are a mass movement of oppressed people, who do not organise around anti-Semitism nor actively promote it, despite their rather stupid adoption of the protocols, that is a higly marginal aspect of their political world-view. You do no favours to Hamas nor to the palestinians generally to equate Hamas with the Holocaust Deniers, anti-Semites and neo-Nazis in Europe and America.

    In contrast, Atzmon, Eisen, Rizzi and co are legitimising on a daily basis the sort of anti-Semitic language and arguments from Der Stuermer. Both in their own direct words, and also by defending those who go further still than them.

    You think that you are arguing the same as the SWP, but you are not. You effectivley admit that Atzmon is an anti-Semite, but say, so what? Whereas the SWP deny that Atzmon is an anti-Semite.

    This argument matters, because it has been a long term strategic objective to prevent the far right from infiltrating progressive campaigns. For example environmentalism, or supporting strikes. If holocaust denial becomes accpeted as some sort of legitimate discourse that is a major victory for the fascist right. What we see is anti-Smits like Atzmon and co, gradually legitimising the discussion of holocaust denial within the left – for example the defence of Paul Eisen (an open holocaust “sceptic”)

  13. Andy

    You wish to split the Palestine solidarity movement. That is clear.

    When you accuse me of being pro-fascist, I cannot take it seriously, because I think your (and Greenstein’s) standards of ‘justice’ are bordering on fascistic. And if anyone doesn’t accept the list of smears and circumstantial bullshit that the two of you push, then it is merely heaped onto them. So, now Indymedia, which is clearly not united on this issue is being attacked and labelled as an Holocaust denial and anti-semitic site. You steadfastly refuse to see that continually over-egging the pudding is a counter-productive and useless tactic.

    As to the 2 quotes – the first goes much further than the second. I am not thecutter, and I am not responsible for what thecutter thinks. The current viewpoint that it is anti-semitic to discuss the pro-Israel lobby because it evokes the protocols does not mean that there is no pro-Israel lobby, or that such a lobby is not powerful. Is there any truth in what thecutter said? Its impossible to know, because you are ensuring that no rational debate can take place – it is abundantly clear that anyone who tries to unpick it runs a risk of being smeared and attacked by you and Greenstein. So, I’m not prepared to even go there.

    “I note that you yourself very carefull don’t explain what Atzmon is getting at.”

    That’ll be because I am not Atzmon. So I can’t. I have thoughts about what he is getting at, but he left it to the reader to make up their own mind. The way you fill in the blanks is not the way I do.

    “You see you have argued that there is doubt about the numbers.”

    Have I? I seem to remember that I pointed out it was Greenstein who took part of a post, out of part of a ‘discussion’ happening in a comments section on another site, and then stated that there is uncertainty about the numbers. Phil too stated that the number is an estimate on which there is a scholarly agreement.

    “You have argued that Nimmo should not be stigmatised for describing the Auschwitz gas chambers as “discredited” and for linking to anti-Semitic web sites from his blog. ”

    Clearly he has been stigmatised – my argument is that his whole viewpoint on the Holocaust should be taken into account before jumping on the Steve Plaut bandwagon and organising a widespread campaign of harrassment against him. The issue of the links was brought up recently – it wasn’t part of the discussion on the IMC UK features list at all. I haven’t said anything about the links which came after the discussion iirc.

    “You say I have misrepresented Rizzi, who has clearly argued that the holocaust was explicable by what she sees as the the anti-social behaviour of Jews.”

    Well, that isn’t how I interpret what she wrote. She disputes your interpretation as well when she states: “You can warp your interpretation all you want, this is the reading of the text as I see it. If you say that means, Jews were responsile for all evil that befell them, well, you better go to night school and catch up on reading comprehension, because it is neither in the original nor in my interpetation of it.”

    ” You defend Atzmon, who seeks to rationalise growing hostility to “Jewish tribalism””

    I am against kneejerk reactions – and think there should be a considered, joined-up response to the claims that TG made when he demanded the no-platforming of Atzmon on Indymedia. You want a kneejerk reaction and assist TG in his vitriolic and vindictive campaign, which obscures rather than clarifies.

    That is why this thread exists – you want to believe that trolling is truth – in the same way that Greenstein wants to believe that a report from a white supremacist nazi site is truth because it affirms what he wants to believe.

    I favour rational, joined-up debate by mature adults. You and Greenstein are part of a continuum that makes such a debate impossible when it comes to Israel or the Holocaust.

    So, I will not express my views. Its more fun watching you demonise and abuse without any idea of what I actually think.

    Any evidence that I am a “nasty Jew-hater” ?

  14. JOhn #13

    No one is suggesting that Hamas nor its supporters should be excluded.

    Who should be excluded are far-right holocaust deniers and those who actively seek to legitimise anti-Semitism within the Palestinian Solidarity movement.

    Surely you see a distinction between offerienf solidarity with Hamas as an actually existing mass organisation of the oppressed, and Paul Eisen arguing that the evidence for the existence of the gas chambers at Auschwitz is weak?

    If hamas started promoting holocaust denial, then that would provide us with a hot potato, but that is not the concrete situation we are dealing with, and it does no nfavours to the palestnians to blur the distinction.

  15. Andy:

    Who should be excluded are far-right holocaust deniers and those who actively seek to legitimise anti-Semitism within the Palestinian Solidarity movement.

    Reply:

    I agree, however there is a legitimate debate to be had within the movement on the influence and role of the pro-Israel/Zionist lobby in the US. Many good people believe that this lobby does influence US foreign policy, while others, myself among them, believe that this relationship works the other way round. That said, a powerful lobby does exist in the US and I and others reject completely the idea that to point this out is to be antisemitic. Ghada Kharmi is one noted and respected Palestinian activist who believes that the jury is still out on this issue and there are many within the PSC and SPSC who come down on either side of this question. This does not make them antisemitic.

  16. ftp – if it walks and quacks like a duck.

    You see, there is a whole pattern of bahaviour from the far-right, holocaust deniers and anti-Semites to shape debate and then step back and deny that they have said what the clear meaning of their words suggests.

    But you are clear enough here: “I favour rational, joined-up debate by mature adults. You and Greenstein are part of a continuum that makes such a debate impossible when it comes to … the Holocaust.”

    So you quite clearly are speaking here in favour of a “debate” about the holocaust, but what is there to debate? This is the background to our argument that we should contextualise Nimmo’s defence of David Irving and Nimmo’s use of the term “discredited” to describe the Auschwitz gas chambers.

    Why should the left open the door to a “debate” over holocaust denial? yes – it is the responsibility of the left to prevent a legitimisation of such neo-nazi ideology.

  17. JOhn

    There is a pro-Israel lobby in American politics. There is also a pro-China lobby in US politics. I agree that to discuss the degree to which the pro-Israel lobby may inflence US foreign policy is not anti-Semitic.

    However, that is not the line of dispute with Atzmon, Eisen and Rizzi. here there are much richer themes of traditional anti-Semitism in play.

  18. Ian Donovan on said:

    “Hamas are a mass movement of oppressed people, who do not organise around anti-Semitism nor actively promote it, despite their rather stupid adoption of the protocols, that is a higly marginal aspect of their political world-view. You do no favours to Hamas nor to the palestinians generally to equate Hamas with the Holocaust Deniers, anti-Semites and neo-Nazis in Europe and America.

    In contrast, Atzmon, Eisen, Rizzi and co are legitimising on a daily basis the sort of anti-Semitic language and arguments from Der Stuermer. Both in their own direct words, and also by defending those who go further still than them.”

    I didn’t equate Hamas with Holocaust Deniers, Neo-Nazis et al. I merely pointed out that they also belonged, according to Andy’s logic, in the same category in which *he* included such people. I also think these characterisations are hyperbolic and completely unconvincing. And an explicit, postive reference to the Protocols in my view counts for more than most of the tenentious extrapolations that give rise to this bizarre argument in the first place.

    The fact is, that virtually all of the people that are being denounced as sinister anti-semites etc in this crackpot series of threads are Jewish. The only genuine anti-semite that has surfaced in all this debate is Jock McTrousers, who just happens to be the only one whose identity is unknown. A troll in other words, who is just a variation on the other trolls of the more Zionist persuasion who are also attracted here.

    If the only ‘anti-semites’ you can find to pillory in a discussion like this are Jews, then you are not waging a serious struggle against racism, but simply tilting at windmills. It also reflects, again, a liberal view of racism. Racism is not bad ideas in people’s heads, but fundamantally a power relation.

    What power relation is the material reality behind this argument? Only the one between Israelis (the oppressor) and their imperialist backers on one side, and Palestinians (the oppressed) on the other.

    If some on the recieving end of the current power-relation (or even some from the oppressor camp who have come to sympathise with them) taunt the current oppressor and their sympathisers with references to a power relation that used to exist, from another era, then that is a regrettable manifestation of human fallibility and short-sightedness, and needs to be argued against.

    But rationally. Not like this. Not according to the norms of heresy hunts in far left sects, to which this bears a distinct resemblance. Due recognition also has to be given to the use of that former power relation, and the genocide that grew from it, as a propaganda weapon of the totatitarian kind by the current Israeli state … and their supporters overseas – which is actually a provocation and an incitement of such responses.

    No due recognition is being given here. Which is why this discussion is attracting REAL scum from Harry’s Place. People who really do deserve to be treated like Nazis, people who support mass murder in the here and now.

  19. Andy @ #18

    “But you are clear enough here: “I favour rational, joined-up debate by mature adults. You and Greenstein are part of a continuum that makes such a debate impossible when it comes to … the Holocaust.””

    You were the one who said:

    “I am interested in your views on the Nazi holocaust.”

    but you also say:

    “So you quite clearly are speaking here in favour of a “debate” about the holocaust, but what is there to debate? ”

    So, there is, in your view only one valid position.

    Is there, in your nasty head, any other aspect of history where it is impossible to have a discussion because there is only one legit way of viewing it?

    What do I believe?

    Any evidence that I am a “nasty Jew-hater” ?

  20. Tony Greenstein on said:

    FTP asks if there is any evidence that he is a ‘Jew hater’. One can only judge these things according to what people do. FTP has consistently supported posting anti-Semitic, non-news as someone said, articles by Atzmon whilst hiding any replies. Those who tolerate and protect racists and anti-Semites can also be presumed to share the views of those they support, especially when they move to silence opposition to them, as FTP has done.

    Re Hamas:
    There is an old principle, you support an oppressed people and their organisations unconditionally but critically. We should support Hamas unconditionally against Israel and its attacks. But I don’t support Hamas when e.g. it attacks striking workers, Palestinian demonstrators etc. Is that so hard to understand?

    Hamas should be criticised for having the Protocols in their Charter. The PLO would never have done this and that is a sign of regression in Palestinian politics. That is a direct result of the intensity of Israel’s attack on the Palestinians. The deliberate policy in the 1980’s of suppressing as far as possible secular Palestinian organisations and promoting and helping give birth to Hamas has resulted in a sectarianisation within Palestinian politics.

    Hamas is an Islamic movement. Many Palestinians are Christian or even no religion or even Jewish surprisingly. A movement based on one religion cannot be a national liberation movement as the old PLO or ANC was, but clearly Hamas has moved away from its old client relationship with Israel and is in the forefront of resistance. I support it for that reason.

    Incidentally Hamas does not propagandise on an anti-semitic basis because, apart from anything else, they know what harm it would do politically to the Palestinians. Atzmon & co. don’t care but they are more than prepared to engage in propaganda, the sole purpose of which is to focus on ‘Jewishness’ and Jews. As such they take the heat off those who are culpable, the United States, western imperialism who are the bulwarks of the Israeli state.

    It really is that simple. The fact that Indymedia is unable to delete anti-Semitic articles, and the Esther to Aipac one is worse than the Hunters one, is testimony to the depoliticisation of that collective.

    Whatever ftp pretends, it is clear that this affair has caused massive ructions within them.

    And I completely agree with Andy Newman. I do want to exclude neo-Nazis, anti-Semites, holocaust deniers and the rest of the loony tunes from the Palestine solidarity movement. Why? Because:
    a. the Palestinian struggle is nothing if not anti-racist. Anti-racism is a principle that runs through such support.
    b. if Palestine solidarity supporters turn to racism then we will simply become discredited. It is that simple and I’m sorry ftp cannot understand this.

    Tony Greenstein

  21. ftp, I can’t, personally, stand this type of pose:

    “I favour rational, joined-up debate by mature adults….” and then, “So, I will not express my views.”

    I’ve written to you before that I’m not interested in “typing” anyone before hearing what they say, or seeing what they do. But this is simply nonsense.

    Were this, or Indymedia, a narrowly focussed academic journal, with a track record of contributions from Jewish and non-Jewish historians digging into the record of violence then I’d favour debating the materials to hand.

    It, and Indymedia, are not. So when I hear the words “debate” and “Holocaust” run together in single sentence I, organically, infer the worst. This could be because I’m a liberal in Ian Donovan’s parlance. Racist *ideas* do seem to occupy heads (an appropriate location) and no matter how desperately you try to empiricise the “power relations” you come back down to a simple issue:

    As progressive, anti-racists who are against imperialism it is important to undermine, expose and contradict the ‘glue’ that ties our local populations to their ruling ideologies. This, for now, in Britain, is a battle of ideas. Not recognising this is to be an ultra-left opportunist (much in evidence on these threads).

    Why is it so hard to support the notion that Indymedia should have a clear stand on disallowing those who argue that gas chambers have been “discredited”?

    I wholeheartedly agree with Andy’s call to split the Palestinian solidarity movement off from this filth. And on John W’s point regarding Hamas, it isn’t exactly news that socialists have to argue “within” progressive movements for their ideas. Unlike the SWP this does not *entail* splitting from them.

  22. Tony Greenstein states:

    “There is an old principle, you support an oppressed people and their organisations unconditionally but critically. We should support Hamas unconditionally against Israel and its attacks. But I don’t support Hamas when e.g. it attacks striking workers, Palestinian demonstrators etc.”

    So Tony Greenstein has no problem supporting the murderous suicide bombings of Hamas, which he is prepared to support “unconditionally,” what upsets him if they do not give enough power to Palestinian trade unions.

    One can only conclude Greenstein is blinded by hatred.

  23. #21 FTP asks in relation to whether or not there were gas chambers at Auschwitz:

    “So, there is, in your view only one valid position. ”

    The answer of course is yes, there is only one valid position. There was a nazi holocaust that killed around six millions Jews – the exact number we can never know – and there were gas chambers at Auschwitz.

    What other position could there be?

  24. Mikey:

    So Tony Greenstein has no problem supporting the murderous suicide bombings of Hamas, which he is prepared to support “unconditionally,” what upsets him if they do not give enough power to Palestinian trade unions.

    Reply:

    No, TG understands that suicide attacks do not reflect the depravity of those who carry them out, rather they reflect their desperation. He also understands that a stealth bomber and an apache helicopter kills far more civilians than a suicide bomber. And he understands, too, that there is no moral equivalence between the violence of the oppressor and the violence of the oppressed.

    Mikey, why don’t you fuck off back to your pro-Israel/Zionist sites and leave us to focus on supporting the Palestinians?

    You really and truly are a piece of shit.

  25. John W

    Did you have a nightmare last night about a “hydra headed monster” or “International Jewry”?

    Any comment as to why the SPSC hosted Atzmon?

    Andy,

    I have an awful lot of criticism for antisemites, including those of the far-right and far-left variety. The reason I have been attacking Tony Greenstein on these threads is that people seem to tolerate his nonsense.

    It can be pointed out that Tony Greenstein does not seem to care about what Palestinians want or their desires, all he cares about his own agenda which is attacking Zionism. This is evidenced by the fact that he left the PSC at the time of the Oslo Accords, where prima facie it seemed that the PLO recognised Israel and accepted the concept of a 2 State Solution to the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians. If Tony Greenstein did care about the Palestinians and what they wanted, he would have also supported a 2 State Solution. His actions showed that his “solidarity” with the Palestinians only extend so far as the Palestinians agree with him. The fact that the majority of Palestinians seem to agree that a 2 State Solution is the best solution to the crisis, that Hamas support amongst Palestinians has dropped to 15% and that the majority want Hamas to change their policy on Israel(poll in November 2007) is completely lost on Tony Greenstein.

    Unlike certain others here who simply attack Zionism with no understanding, it is quite clear that Tony Greenstein has read some Zionist literature, the point is that he then misquotes it to make an unjustified political point. Those not so familiar with books such as Menachem’s Begin’s Revolt (a copy of which I have) may not realise that Tony Greenstein misquotes his sources or gets it wrong by rehashing claims that were published in one book that were discredited. This is the case with his continual use of the book Perfidy by Ben Hecht as a source and his admiration for Lenni Brenner’s travesty, Zionism in the Age of the Dictators. He therefore needs to be exposed.

    I have, on more that one occasion, challenged Tony Greenstein to a debate. I suggested that he write a 10,000 word essay properly footnoted on his theories of Zionism, Nazism and collaboration. I said that he could also enlist the assistance of Lenni Brenner and Roland Rance to do this. I commented that within 1 month of him producing his essay, I would, in conjunction with Paul Bogdanor, publish a response of a similar length. Tony Greenstein has rejected the challenge; he may be sensible enough to know that his argument does not stand up to scrutiny.

  26. Andy @ # 25

    #21 FTP asks in relation to whether or not there were gas chambers at Auschwitz:

    bollocks!

    What you actually said is:

    “I am interested in your views on the Nazi holocaust.”

    You now say:

    “The answer of course is yes, there is only one valid position. There was a nazi holocaust that killed around six millions Jews – the exact number we can never know – and there were gas chambers at Auschwitz.”

    I don’t disagree with any of that.

    Battersea power station @ #23

    “ftp, I can’t, personally, stand this type of pose:

    “I favour rational, joined-up debate by mature adults….” and then, “So, I will not express my views.””

    That’ll be because I don’t believe that Andy Newman is capable of rational, joined-up debate or being a mature adult when it comes to the issue of Atzmon and Indymedia. I find it tactically useful to allow him to continue exposing himself by carrying on with the smearing and unpleasant behaviour, without any facts to back it up. I see no reason to provide him with any ammunition that he and Greenstein can then decontextualise, misinterpret and use against me or Indymedia.

    “Why is it so hard to support the notion that Indymedia should have a clear stand on disallowing those who argue that gas chambers have been “discredited”?”

    Because if we start no-platforming individuals on the basis of one word, ignoring every other thing they have said on the subject, then we will become as nasty as Andy and Tony. And I don’t want to be like them, or associated with a group that behaves like them, or you for that matter.

    I’m sure you’ll find that difficult to understand.

  27. So ftp you believe someone coould argue that the gas chambers at Auschwitz had been “discredited”, but still not be a holocaust sceptoc or denier? Ahh, no we need to look at the other contexts, such as the links to open anti-Semitic web-sites on their blog for example? In what possible context could the word “discredited” be associated with the existence of the gas chambers, and that be OK? And the actual context of course of Nimmo writing this was the gaoling of David Irving – the holocaust denier.

    There are facts. One of which is that you defend Nimmo, another of which is that you defend Atzmon. And that you argue that the clearly anti-Semitic views of Mary Rizzo are not anti-Semitic. the fact is that you seek to prevent the exclusion of anti-Semites and holocaust deniers from the palestinian solidarity movement.

    The reason why this subect is so difficult to in down is the well-established behaviour of Holocaust Deniers like david irving of skirting around the issue, and creating a smokescreen for what they are really saying, and a web of innuendo, and confusion. This is all part of a sort of political grooming process to make the grotesque seem normalised.

    Your method of argument here is very similar, a sort of now you see me now you don’t dance around the hot buttons of anti-Semitism without ever actually pressing them. I wonder why you would do that?

  28. goodwin sands on said:

    25 @ ‘The answer of course is yes, there is only one valid position. There was a nazi holocaust that killed around six millions Jews – the exact number we can never know – and there were gas chambers at Auschwitz.’

    Exactly the point. Some stories simply don’t have two sides. Yes there were gas chambers in Auschwitz, yes Hitler ordered the genocide, and yes six million Jews died as a result. And yes Holocaust denial is a fascist activity whose apologists are trying to make inroads on the left and finding themselves deservedly ostracised. And yes Gilad Atzmon and Paul Eisen are part of this activity.

    I think an important distinction is being elided when the question is formed ‘is it possible to mention that the Israel lobby in the US is powerful’. Yes there is a powerful pro-Israel lobby but Americans in general are quite strongly pro-Israel so this is no surprise. The claim often goes further, that the lobby is in all-powerful juggernaut that dictates US policy and controls US media and government. To say the former is not to say the latter. To say the latter is to have fallen into the trap of anti-semitism. Indymedia is full of the latter (although on inspection much of it seems to come from the same single poster).

    I think another distinction needs to be honoured, which is that between political confusion and anti-semitism. I have seen many disturbing things from ftp but none rise to outright anti-semitism. However, he is now at the top of a slippery slope taking the first steps prepared for him by fascists like Eisen. Were I more certain of his wisdom, Id leave it at that word to the wise. But ftp is acting like someone with something to prove, and he has decided to prove his anti-zionism by defending anti-semites like Atzmon and Rizzo (note spelling). He is on very treacherous ground and he has not shown himself to be particularly careful. But at the moment I do not think he can be accused of anything more than a deep political confusion that leaves him lending his ear to anti-semites and – in some cases – adopting their arguments.

  29. goodwin sands on said:

    30 @ ‘In what possible context could the word “discredited” be associated with the existence of the gas chambers, and that be OK?’

    I am interesting in hearing ftp’s response to this question. Can he construct such a context? I dont think so.

  30. Ah, it seems someone figured it out. The history books tell of a situation where many Jews were unpopular, and this lead to catastrophe.

    I state (correctly) that Jews were unpopular, as we have documented as a matter of fact by the events of the Holocaust. Anyone needing to go to a text in Gothic letters should get out a little more. This stuff is still in the schoolbooks.

    I do not justify the unpopularity, but I explain the reasons the MASS of Jews were punished for the VIEWS others had of the group, due in part to propaganda, and in part to the fact that there were indeed individuals, (and Brenner’s book even documents this) who were Jewish but who assured that levels of hatred for Jews were kept high, even by financing Anti-Jewish parties. This was for their personal gain. I believe that this too is not information that has any political colour, it is fact. We are also talking about a “class” of people that traditionally owned the slums. I know, because my family was from the Prague slum and this is how things worked. Jews exploited other Jews, and it is not a matter of Jew, but of Rich exploiting poor.

    Are we now saying that there are no rich people who exploit poor people? It was due to the exploitation by the few that the fault fell on the majority. This was used as propaganda, but most were oblivious to the relationship with the other… the societies were very divided. My Grandmother did not learn the language of the country until she became a “slave”, excuse me, “free servant” to in exchange for a rented flat for the family.

    The views that circulated in Europe are statement of historical fact, not an opinion, and even less a value judgment. If you are unable to read that and understand it, you are certainly lacking in these skills and should try to learn something, rather than look for a pretext.

    Now, as with Israel, there are the “few”, the Israelis and then even those who will say it is not Israelis, but only Israeli leaders and the powerful money that goes to Israel, that promote their own agendas, not thinking about how this is perceived by others, ie. those who accept Israel as a Jewish state are indeed responsible should catastrophe befall Israel in a major way, Blinded to the minority creating a pretext for hatred to be felt. Keeping Anti-Semitism alive is useful only to Israel, and they know it. So, they, like you, fan the fire, neglecting the real issues and distorting anything simply because you are mentally lazy and fundamentally bigotted against non-Jews or those who do not think Jewishness is anything special.

    Now, rather than “debate” on this nothing of a board, I will mention that around 180 Palestinians and Palestinian activists, many bloggers and humanitarian movments have said clearly what they think of Tony’s actions. Not to mention Amin, the People’s Voice, Dissident Voice and about 30 Palestinian bloggers.

    He doesn’t care about Palestinians, and Mikey and FTP are aware of it. Both drawing different conclusions to something so obvious!

  31. goodwin sands on said:

    Your grandmother was exploited by a Jew and thus the Holocaust.

    Mary don’t bother. Youre only digging yourself in deeper.

  32. You’re rewriting history with every post Andy.

    The only thing that has come out since the Nimmo discussion in April is that he has links to dodgy sites on his blog. No new quotes to back up the claim. So the evidence is now one word and links to a site. This balanced with his statements that there were 12 000 000 victims of Hitler, that there were death camps where gassing took place, and that the killings were directly ordered by Hitler. If he is a Holocaust Denier, he appears to be keeping it to himself.

    In terms of Atzmon, I don’t read the articles the same as you, and I have yet to see objective proof that he is a “nasty Jew hater”. I am, as you are well aware, not the only person on the left who doesn’t accept that he is racist, based on what is known so far.

    I haven’t made any statement about whether Mary Rizzo’s statement is anti-semitic or not. I have said that you’ve misrepresented what she wrote, and so has she.

    “the fact is that you seek to prevent the exclusion of anti-Semites and holocaust deniers from the palestinian solidarity movement.”

    No, the fact is that I am not interested in expunging people without it being clear that they are anti-semitic or Holocaust Deniers. And you accuse me of being pro-fascist……. I actually believe that ‘innocent till proven guilty’ is a better formulation than ‘guilty because Andy Newman and/or Tony Greenstein think so, even though others are not so sure’.

    “Your method of argument here is very similar, a sort of now you see me now you don’t dance around the hot buttons of anti-Semitism without ever actually pressing them. I wonder why you would do that?”

    I think I’ve answered that – I don’t respect you any more than you respect me – and I see no reason to jump through your hoops. Regardless of what I say, or who I am, you have decided that I am a “pro-fascist… nasty Jew-hater”, and nothing is going to change your mind. I think you’ve revealed loads about yourself in this exchange – and I’ve deliberately revealed as little as possible, in order to show how rabid your judgements are, and how slim the evidence you base them on is.

    Are your judgements trustworthy? Should the Palestinian solidarity movement expunge people on your say so? I would say not.

  33. goodwin sands on said:

    A splendid circumlocution answering a question that you were not asked.

    Here again is Andy’s question: ‘In what possible context could the word “discredited” be associated with the existence of the gas chambers, and that be OK?’

  34. goodwin, are you really that dumb? Or have you got a lot of trouble reading?

    We are talking about historical analysis of past events.

    It has nothing to do with Jews being the only exploiters (of other Jews, especially, as was the case of my family. If you know nothing about requalification of the Prague slums, I don’t think you do, you should study up on it before making other stupid statements and accusations. You will learn a lot of interesting things.) It is about rich people exploiting poor people. There was propaganda, which, as propaganda is made to do, takes ONE element of a situation and brings it to its exasperation, not allowing critical thinking.

    Look at it this way: I’ll assume for now you are a Jew, ok? If you have ever been to a wedding, what is the conversation? It’s generally a little business meeting, and someone says how this deal or that deal went. A guy who makes a lot of money is happy about it, and wants a lot of people to know. In Italy, they drive Ferraris and carry authentic Prada bags. That this is a positive thing is a given by people who are doing well.

    Now, since you all are into Identity politics, and again, I am assuming you HAVE been to weddings and Bar Mitzvahs, when someone tells of his success, the guys he works with etc, one of the first things asked is, “how many Jews are there?”. (If a gentile asks, he is called anti-Semitic though!) There is pride in money, and why not?!

    Don’t know why this is that Jews always want to know who the other Jews are in this or that society, but I’ve heard it all my life. I’ve never heard a Catholic ask, “are there any other Catholics? Is the boss a Catholic?” Frankly, I’ve never heard them ask if others were Jews either. Being really ethnically-aware of the group is a very Jewish thing. It has its reasons in history, but to deny it seems to me a mission impossible.

    People who are poor resent the rich, and the rich are oblivious to this, as busy as they are ignoring what poor people think.

    Now, not all the Jews were poor or rich. My family was poor, but there were others that weren’t. Yet, when there is a time of crisis, the masses, no matter what group, gangs up against those who “have”. That the separation and lack of assimilation created a complete lack of communication, despite attempts made, or so I suppose, compared to other Slavic countries, the Jews, poor or rich, were unaware of the propaganda used by the NON-Jewish rich to shift attention away from themselves and onto another place. They want to keep their power, but know that they can’t have a mass that is going to fight them, so they invent the scapegoat of the entirety of Jewish people who are then PROMOTED as being represented by the ones who are obviously exploiting, being that money likes to show itself. So, as history books will tell you, propaganda sought to exaggerate so as to create a Demon, an enemy that could be identified. In order to shift the class struggle onto a different target, while maintaining its own power, and possibly gaining, the non-Jewish power (economic and institutional) blamed the Jews, and it was then easy to deflect the group resentment.

    This is not value judgment, this is history. It involves class struggle, the rise of nationalisms, the use of propaganda, and the drive for war to protect interests. Anti-Semitism was exploited both by Jews and Non-jews in this matter.

  35. goodwin sands on said:

    mary @ 37: ‘Or have you got a lot of trouble reading?’

    I have a lot of trouble reading rot and pretending its not rot.

    ‘It has nothing to do with Jews being the only exploiters’

    Tell that to Hitler.

    ‘It is about rich people exploiting poor people.’

    Yes, that is why the Holocaust killed six million rich people. Oh excuse me, I don’t think I’ve got that quite right.

    ‘In Italy, they drive Ferraris and carry authentic Prada bags.’

    Ah the Ferrari-driving Prada-carrying Jews. Incredible. And the crap that followed on beggars description. Is it really your intention to declare your Jewish stereotypes, or are we just getting that as a side dish?

    ‘This is not value judgment, this is history.’

    This is absolute bollocks is what this is. Your argument is that because some but not all Jews did exploitively well in Europe – their success was a contributor to the Holocaust. A child could see through that argument. Some but not all Czechs were exploitively successful, yet the Czechs werent deported to the gas chambers as a class. Some but not all amateur chess players were exploitively successful, yet they werent deported to the gas chambers as a class. Some but not all men named ‘Carl’ were exploitively successful, yet they werent deported to the gas chambers as a class.

    The difference is that you – mimicking Atzmon – are willing to assign something essentialist ‘the Jews were very unpopular’ but unwilling to assign the essentialist ‘those named Carl’.

  36. Are you for real Goodwin? How is it possible to be able to warp a clear presentation that is spelled out and insert words of your own liking? I seriously believe you have a deficiency in reading aptitude. You might have wanted to get the OK from Andy and Tony and Roland on this first though, because it’s pretty much common fodder in any leftist analysis. Or, maybe the fact that you are a rightwinger has something to do with not having been exposed to this argumentation?

    Do you know anything about Pre-WWII history in continental Europe? Of course, it’s important at all times for the rich to find a scapegoat and the non-Jewish rich found this is the Jewish rich.

    I mean, this is stuff that one discusses in Socialist circles without attributing any racism to it!

  37. Jews Against Being Stereotyped on said:

    Goodwin Sands, could you please just shut your mouth…er, sooner rather than later? You are making us all look like SUCH a bunch of schmucks. Get a f*cking education if you want to argue with any conviction… Sands: “Tell that to Hitler.” Hitler is dead, Goodwin, and has been for 60 years. Stop beathing ife into him, and get yourself a LIFE.

  38. Jews Against Being Stereotyped on said:

    ah, that was meant to say
    Stop breathing life into Hitler. I really mean it, Sands. This Rizzo woman is running circles around you, BTW. She certainly knows her facts.

  39. Contrary to what the poster calling himself/herself “Jews Against Being Stereotyped” says, “This Rizzo woman … certainly knows her facts,” she is quite clueless. She seems to let herself be led Gilad Atzmon who it appears that she worships. No offense to the genuinely disabled but it would be like letting a pilot of a plane being led by a blind person in a passenger seat. The whole Rizzo/Atzmon thing is plainly dumb.

    The Cutter (Rizzo) is pathetic. She is American Italian and believes that she is a Palestinian mother.

    http://palestinian.ning.com/profile/maryrizzo

    By her previous post she is also quite gullible as to the old atisemitic argument about Jews being rich and tries to spread this.

    I think she needs to see a psychiatrist about her issues and maybe she should take Atzmon with.

  40. goodwin sands on said:

    So are you The Great Genius Himself or just his South American minion ‘JABS’? Either way you’re not what Id call redolent with excess persuasiveness.

  41. goodwin sands on said:

    Another great genius heard from. Reminds me of Peter Cook in ‘Bedazzled’ as the devil complaining that his power is limited by the fact that he has as workers Lechery and Sloth.

  42. goodwin sands on said:

    Matthew’s comments – ‘cross-dressing’, ‘petticoats’, ‘queer’ etc. – speak for themselves. Clearly another Genius For Atzmon.

  43. I wasn’t at the meeting, have never met any of the named players work with the Scotland IMC site, taking no active role in UK-wide IMC maintenance but have heard from those who were at the meeting and this is bang out of order.

    The 2 articles you repost here bear no relation to the difficult discussion at the Notts meeting.
    * who are the Manc Activist Collective?
    * Who are these people at B’ham University?
    * “objections to anti-semitism were shouted down” by a “gang of racists” ? Fuck off that would happen at any anarchist-leaning group’s meeting, even if I didn’t already know that to be false.

    I have enjoyed some of the articles here in the past and think there’s merit in the concerns about certain reposts to the UKIMC newswire. But its difficulties arise from trying to be fully democratic and accountable.

    Here you’re reposting false reports, followed by articles from an unrelated website, with a headline saying that Indymedia “embraces anti-semitism” ?!

    It’s untrue, sensationalist, stirring and unpleasantly sectarian. It’s also so far from what I know to be the case that it’s thrown, for me, my entire regard for this website out the window. Why should I believe your Respect split stuff when this is your sources and method for writing about this issue?

    It’s not like you’re doing this for Ad money, but this is one less subscriber to your RSS feed.

  44. Tony Rogers on said:

    Well I was one of those at the network meeting and what was reported by Steve from Manchester is spot on. Indymedia has got itself into a real mess over this and it needs a clear out of the some of the mods. Trouble is it’s nearly impossible to be accepted as a mod by the inner circle so the entire situation is self perpetuating.

  45. click click on said:

    The meeting at Birmigham Uni certainly took place, my sister is Sarah one of those named who took the job of reporting. They posted a follow up to the Indymedia site as well with full details of where, when and those who were involved who were willing to be identified but this only lasted about 30 mins before it was removed and another post put in its place.

    I used to read Indy a lot in the old days but most of it now is just cut ‘n’ pastes from blogs and nutcases raving about Jews and Israel so I don’t bother much anymore. I think Indy is one of those ideas that has just run its course and come to the end of its life. Shame but no great loss.

  46. If Andy Newman had any editorial integrity he would email imc-uk-contact at lists.indymedia.org, and ask them if Tony Rogers was at the meeting, or was telling the truth. He would also ask if Steve was the meeting, or if the Birmingham Uni story is true.

    And then he would publish the verified response.

    Sadly, he doesn’t so he’s unlikely to………

    He’s prefers causing sectarian division with lies, smears, trolling and irrational hysterical nonsense.

    Yes or no?

  47. ftp comes to a website and questions somebodys Editorial Integrity ?

    Is this the death of irony as we know it (chuckle)

    Considering ftp is the one individual who has done more than anybody else to damage the Indymedia project with his defence of Atzmon and Mary Rizzo among others while leading a cyber campaign against Tony Greenstein and those who have tried to save Indymedia from him and his camp followers he has no right to question others. Here’s an idea ftp why not publish on the Indy site the FULL list of audio files that were made at the network meeting rather than just some. How about the one when you and others shouted down those trying to oppose the blatant anti-semitism on the site. How about when you refered to a respected long term Indy volunteer as a Zionist because he disagreed with you ?

    Your bullying of the UK Indy collective might have worked but it won’t work here.

  48. #53

    Ludicrous, ftp.

    You have already posted here as a comment that in your opinion these reports are inaccurate. there is no additional independent verification gained by e-mailing the collective. Clerally there are different reports of that meeting circulating.

    What we do know is that you defend a number of anti-Semites. You argue that someone should not be condemned as a holocasut denier just because they use the word “discredited” to decsribe the existnce of the Auschwitz gas chambers, etc.

    Perhaps Goodwauin sands is correct and you personally are not an Anti-Semite. In whch case I wthdraw that specific accusation.

    But you certainly defend and promote Anti-Semitism, and is that any better?

  49. No platform means no platform on said:

    Yeah right ftp we email the list controlled by you of the website controlled by you to see if we can get confirmation of a story written by you.

    I’m more inclined to believe those whom you are attempting to surpress and silence.

  50. Yes – there are reports from those who went – and there are reports from trolls who didn’t go, but who are gaining succour from your need to believe they are credible.

    I’m delighted that you are now prepared to withdraw the “nasty Jew hater” allegation. 🙂

    I deny defending any “nasty jew haters” – but I don’t expect you to understand that the fact that the SWP reached a different conclusion on Atzmon to your own one, might mean that there is a genuine debate to be had here.

    The fact that it is impossible to have any debate because of the irrational hysteria that Greenstein has been creating for years, latterly with the support mainly of yourself (and now the AWL ffs!) means a lot of ugliness has taken place, damage caused and there is still no clarity……………

    Go read the Irving judgement if you need to remind yourself what a Holocaust Denier is.

    You have reason to reflect Andy. So does Tony Greenstein.

    Shame you both appear incapable of it. No?

  51. andy newman on said:

    The SWP’s support for Atzmon is more tenuous than you think.

    Do you notice that no-one in the SWP ever defends him?

    They invited him to events before they understood the issue, and now continuing to do so as a desperate face saving exercise to protect the reputation of Martin Smith, by ignoring the problem and hoping it goes away.

  52. Yes, I kinda knew you’d say that.

    And do you really think that they would have issued that statement if they truly believed he was a “nasty Jew hater”? Did Martin Smith write it and print it all on his own, do you think?

    They’ve never had a problem shafting individuals before……

  53. ftp wrote,
    “and there are reports from trolls who didn’t go”

    Well that’s what you claim but you would say that wouldn’t you? It seems to me that the minutes of the meetings don’t seem long enough for such an event and the idea that the whole Atzmon/Greeny affair was decided in just a few short conversations and a quick vote is ludicrous. You know as well as I do that this issue has consumed the collective for the past few months. Three people have left the collective, two others have taken a back seat that is as good as leaving and only loyalty to the idea of collective decision making is stopping others from asking you to step aside. with all this history are you really suggesting that there was no dispute, discussion, argument, resolution and agreement. I will be meeting with a friend later today who was there and he has promised full details but he first comment was telling when said that you were the problem that nobody knew how to deal with.

  54. Trolls ?

    Are they trolls because you decide they are Matthew ? To some they seem to be people who have compliled a report on the meeting that some in the Indy network don’t want others to read.

  55. Mathew.

    can you please explain when the SWP discussed at length the question of whether or not Atzmon is an anti-Semite?

    If they have had such a discussion and are all convinced he is not, then why has no one from the SWP ever defended Atzmon on this blog? they seem keen enough to debate other matters.

  56. They issues a statement becasue they were under pressure, and needed to do so in oprder to save face for Martin Smith.

    there has never been any collective discussion in the SWp about whether or not Atzmon is an anti-Semite.

    Or perhaps you can clarify for me where the discussion took place?

  57. goodwin sands on said:

    The reason that its ‘impossible’ to have a rational debate ftp is that you are defending an irrationality as if it were rational and whenever things get uncomfortable for you you shout ‘Tony Greenstein!’

    Gilad Atzmon circulates Holocaust denial. Mary Rizzo is proud to have Paul Eisen sign her little petition. Good people are dropping out of Indymedia because Indymedia has crossed the line, and it has crossed the line because you have pushed it across.

  58. Jews Against Shoplifting on said:

    Clearly, this hasbara parrot, Sands, imagines that by squawking something often enough, he will convince someone out there that it’s true.

    Either present some black and white evidence for your way-out fantasies or stop making a fool of yourself, Shifty Sands.

    But the facts speak for themselves,and here are a few documented ones: (put http://www. and then geocities.com in front and .pdf behind)
    Greenstein, the petty criminal: tonygreencard/greencrime
    Greenstein, the shoplifter: tonygreencard/greenfine
    Greenstein, the credit card fraudster: tonygreencard/greensteal
    Greenstein, the bully who beats Jews up: tonygreencard/greenbully

    This is who Sands regards as the epitome of “rationality”.

  59. Tony Rogers on said:

    The saga continues. ftp has now instigated a policy whereby any posts or comment that tries to raise this issue he quickly classifies as “disinformation” and claims that they are all being written by the same person. Three issues here, we have always been told that Indy does not keep a record of IP details so how does he know they are all the same person ? If Indy is keeping details, who has them, what security is in place and finaly where they doing it when the servers were seized by the Special Branch a little while ago.

    I remember at that time one activist spent some time trying to get confirmation that IP logs were not kept but was fobbed off and stopped contributing as he felt the security was compromised.

    If however Indy does not keep IP logs, how does ftp know that all the complaints are the work of one person, or is he just using that as he latest tactic to prevetn dissent ?

  60. goodwin sands on said:

    “Clearly, this hasbara parrot, Sands”

    Fuck off why dont you. You may not believe it but there are people in this world who do actually object to anti-semitism without being ‘hasbara parrots’.

  61. Jews Against Shoplifting on said:

    Sands:…there are people in this world who do actually object to anti-semitism without being ‘hasbara parrots’.

    Indeed? And you and your zio friends here belong in that category???!! hahahahahha

  62. So it looks as though some IM admins at least are begining to stand up to ftp.

    This information page tucked away in a corner of the IM site gives the true picture of events— https://docs.indymedia.org/view/Local/ImcUkFeatureAtzmon?rev=1.13

    and most intersting of all tells us that there was much, much more discussion of the anti semitism issue than ftp maintains here. It also confirms what was said in one of the posts listed above, posts that ftp called “disinformation” and “untrue”. Presumably IM mods are also now part of the great Zionist plot to plant disinformation on IM as ftp claims !

    Maybe we are seeing the start of the fightback to reclaim IM.

  63. goodwin sands on said:

    The initial draft/rant was presumably from ftp given its absolute failure to see any other side of the argument that his own, which seems to be an ftp specialty, and the now-ritualized tirade against Greenstein. Having essentially lost the battle – Atzmon posts now going into a specially designed purgatory, branded with scarlet letters – ftp gives us a revisionist history. Its comic reading, a third-rate intelligence being defended by a fourth-rate intelligence who at one point cites the fifth-rate intelligence of Mary Rizzo as a source.

  64. imc person on said:

    To turn a phrase, You don’t know the half of it !

    I’ve been directly involved with the UK collective for over three years and this dispute was always coming. Roy (FTP) has taken an increasingly weird line on this subject to the consternation of most of the others mods but we have all been in a quandry as to what to do because of Roy’s use of the blocking vote within the collective decision making.

    I don’t think Roy is a racist, I do think he has some view about Jews that make me feel uncomfortable and I do think that at times he crosses the line, the problem is that nobody wants to really confront him because he does a lot of the dogsbody work that others can’t be arsed with and they are worried that if he goes the UK site will fall away as it did in Manchester and Wales.

    The Notts meeting didn’t really solve anything and the discussion went on for hours and hours despite what is says in the notes. So now we are really back where we were before. Anti Semitic fruitcakes like Atzmon and Mary Rizzo are all over the newswire and half the activist community in the UK think we have become an offshoot of Stormfront while the other half have just given up (the hits count has nearly halfed since this started in October. In my view the UK site will wither away while the regional sites will grow, I am now only working for a regional wire preferring the grass routes nature of the work.

    Time will tell but indy will never be the same again

  65. click click on said:

    The digging gets ever deeper !

    It seems that the UK collective just can’t grasp the mess they have made of this and how discredited the site has become since this started becoming common knowledge. The latest disaster in the making is now to produce a “We didn’t do it” feature report which some of the increasingly hapless mods are seriously suggesting should be made a centre page article which is actualy going to blame the whole thing on some sort of organised group who have targeted the site with a “disinformation campaign” !

    Thanks God some of the other mods are now finaly jumping up and trying to inject some measure of common sense to proceedings and put a stop to it.

    Doug and Guido are trying their best but Chris and Roy are of course pushing for the usual blame to be attached to Greinstein and “disinfo trolls” to try and deflect attention from the real issue.

    The article which can be seen here, https://docs.indymedia.org/view/Local/ImcUkFeatureAtzmon
    is now up to its 19th version and it looks as though more is to come as successive mods all add their ten penny worth.

    Of course dealing with the Anti Semitism at the heart of the problem, no platforming anti-semites and apologising for lying to everybody seems not be on the agenda.

  66. Niemoeller's poor neighbour on said:

    The obvious error of their proposed article is it just goes to prove the critics right. Their ‘ Poor old us’ article basically starts from the premise that there is no anti-Semitism. Despite there being resignations over this, all teh attention it has generated has been unfair. Pah!

    Quite how ‘Jews rule the world’ is not any better than ‘blacks come to our country and steal our jobs and steal our women’ is lost on them. One admin actually endorses ZOG. His argument is to paraphrase, Zionists are disproportionally represented in the U.S. Gvt. How much does that differ from NeoNazis seizing the prevalence of black youths in the British Crime Survey? What both positions share is the automatic urge to overlook any other explanation for the phenomena than the ethnicity.

    What the people in IMC UK working on this “We are innocent and its all a conspiracy” rubbish want to promote is the idea that it is all down to crackpot Greenstein versus misunderstood Atzmon- who is veritably feted by some within that organisation.

    Atzmon has stated clearly in articles on his site that Jews rule the planet, that the Protocols are essentially true and he has distributed holcocaust denial literature and has personally submitted an article to Radical Press- for those who don’t know they are a total cesspit of anti-Semitism and under investigation by the Canadian Human Rights Council. The laziest scratching beneath the surface reveals a direct line from Atzmon to the Zuendel site and other far-right groups. Does he have to do dress up as an SS officer and sign his correspondence ’18’ to ring alarm bells at that place?

    It’s a real no brainer. The man is a racist. Which means anyone defending him is either a racist or an idiot.

    I can just imagine what the reaction would be if an IMC started endorsing racist stereotypes about black people… but somehow if it’s against the Jews. It is probably just Jewish whinging… because we all know what the Jews are like, eh, nudge! nudge!

  67. Difficult to believe that it has come to this on Indymedia. What the hell has been going on there, it all seems to be the result of a small group taking control and not being reflective of the wider viewpoint (seems familier !)

  68. freethepeeps on said:

    You don’t get it do you ?

    We don’t care what you think. We run imc and you don’t, if you don’t like it don’t read it.

  69. Niemoeller's poor neighbour on said:

    And there we have it the new authoritarian voice of IMC UK.

    Keep it up and you’ll be the only one left reading it.

  70. Well they got to version 21 in the end (no really !) before finaly all throwing their toys out of the pram and decideing not to post it after all ! – No really you couldn’t make it up could you ?

    See here
    http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-uk-features/2008-February/0221-qy.html

    As a consequence at least one more mod (Shiar) looks like they’ll be jumping ship soon. As “Niermoellers’ poor neighbour” in 73 said soon only ftp will be left reading it.

    UPDATE
    Now even Gatzmon has rejected them by asking for all his writings to be pulled from the site because he thinks the decision making process was crap, this may be the funniest thing I had ever seen !!!

  71. goodwin sands on said:

    After all that excruciating argybargy Atzmon wanted the post removed? All for naught? Hows that for gratitude?

  72. Yes Shiar is taking a step back and yes one other mod has also indicated they will be stepping away from the collective when he has completed a software project but no that is not a problem. IMC needed to strip out some of the dead wood and has now been left with a key group who can take the newswire forward.

  73. “…now been left with a key group who can take the newswire forward” = Anybody who objected to antisemitism has been forced out.

    I wonder how the mods who had the courage to stand up to the bullying of ftp and others and were not prepared to compromise on the issue of racism feel about being called “dead wood”

  74. goodwin sands on said:

    Im not persuaded that ‘IMCer’ speaks for Indymedia UK. At least some of what they complain about as a ‘disinfo campaign’ appears to be literally that: disinfo. By which I dont mean Tony Greenstein’s occasionally overbroad claims (although Atzmon is legitimately scored for his Holocaust denial connections, I still havent seen direct evidence he’s become one himself), it seems more likely they’re refering to several posters here who claim an intimacy with the inner machinations of Indymedia UK they do not actually have.

    I would argue that this made their decision-making process more difficult rather than easier, and gave the reality-impaired faction of Inydmedia more power than they otherwise would have had.

    Nevertheless it is gratifying but unsurprising to see that Atzmon has rewarded his Indymedia minions by stabbing them in the back after all their effort on his behalf.

  75. Niemoeller's poor neighbour on said:

    The UK project doesn’t have a problem with (outmoded) “dead wood” it is has a problem with racist woodworm and so long as it does it is guaranteed that it is going to eventually crumble under growing alienation.

    If nothing else they will either reach a point where either they can’t attract anyone to run the project or can’t attract anyone but racists and nutters to post to the place. Either way it is heading on a course far from its original intent.

    They have already found out that there is nothing positive to be gained by shaking hands with the extreme right.

  76. Niemoeller's poor neighbour on said:

    #78 Indeed someone seems to be spamming their newswire with bogus reports of student meetings and the such and a certain ‘Mike Cooperson’ who is on par for with CID plain clothes for subterfuge skills, but there are also some things appearing that seem to be genuine.

    It’d be better if “both sides” stopped conflating the real issues with the opportunistic trolling, it damages both stances. There is plenty enough to complain about regarding the anti-Semitism without needing anything else and likewise trying to lump the minor trolling in with the grievances is obvious flannel.

    And yes, your enemy’s enemy is never your friend. Once you enemy is out of the way he’ll be guaranteed to stab you in the back.