Gilad Atzmon – Now an Open Holocaust Denier

A guest post by Tony Greenstein

In the past week, reports have circulated that Sylvia Stolz, lawyer for Ernst Zundel, a neo-Nazi serving 5 years in a German prison for race hate crimes, had cited a newspaper report claiming that Gilad Atzmon had described the history of the 2nd World War and the Nazi Holocaust as ‘a complete forgery.’

This has been widely reported (15.1.08). , not least on fascist sites such as David Duke’s and the Zundelsite.

The Adelaide Institute, also a Holocaust Revisionist site, reported that in the trial of Dr Rigolf Hennig, whom Stolz was defending, the lawyer referred to the report thus:

‘A few days ago, on 27 November 2005, Gilad Atzmon introduced the most radical blow that has as yet been struck against the political indoctrination forced on us.
This is to be found in Exhibit No. 1….He describes the historiography of the Second World War and Holocaust, … as a complete falsification invented by Zionists and Americans. He shows that the real enemy was not Hitler but Stalin.’

Atzmon’s supporters, especially Mary Rizzo insist that it is all a question of ‘rabid Zionists (who) have united with the so-called ‘Jewish anti-Zionists protagonists’. This time, they insist upon believing that I am a Holocaust Denier.’ Gilad Atzmon – “Public Lapidation” round one’ 18.1.08 . It is all a question of Atzmon’s critics ‘circulating the news from a site that specialises in what they call Holocaust Denial. It’s a site I don’t read, and won’t even link to..’ This is somewhat strange coming from Mary Rizzo as Atzmon and co. dispute whether there is even such a thing as holocaust denial.

At present it is not possible to determined the truth or falsity of the report, although it is unlikely that there is no smoke without fire, given that the statements attributed to Atzmon are so similar to much of his other writings. In a post to me by an Atzmon supporter, Kristoffer Larson cites a German report that

‘There was a ‘heated debate between the writer and the audience in the course of which several members of the audience left the hall under protest. Atzmon referred to the historiography about the World War II and about the Holocaust such as we know it as a complete forgery initiated by Americans and Zionists. According to him the true enemy was not Hitler but Stalin. According to Atzmon.’

Whether or not Atzmon is correctly quoted is immaterial. Even if he is given the benefit of a very considerable doubt, by his own words it is clear that he has now become a fully fledged holocaust denier.

I first became aware of Gilad Atzmon when he posted an article The Protocols of the Elders Of London . This is posted on a site which lists Atzmon as one of its main contributors. Typical of the articles alongside it entitled ‘David Irving: Excerpt from a Radical’s Diary January 17, 2008’ or ‘Liberation of the Camps’ a full blooded holocaust denial article.

Atzmon’s article, a caricature of the infamous Czarist forgery, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, dubbed myself and other members of Jews Against Zionism as ‘Elders’ and offered ‘a glimpse into the abusive, assertive and violent world of Zionist lobbying’. Why was it written?

In 2005 Jews Against Zionism activists had called for the ostracism of a small group on the fringes of the Palestine solidarity movement, Deir Yassin Remembered [DYR]. DYR had taken onto its Board of Advisors one Israel Shamir. In his Discussion of Anti-Semitism, he argued for an alliance between Palestine solidarity activists and the white supremacist right. ‘For as long as Richard Perle sits in the Pentagon, Elie Wiesel brandishes his Nobel Prize, … we need the voices of Duke, Sobran, Raimondo, Buchanan, Mahler, Griffin and of other anti-bourgeois nationalists.’

Shamir’s appointment prompted long standing Israeli Jewish activists – Lea Tsemel, Michael Warshawski and Jeff Halper – to resign from DYR. Tsemel and Warshawski wrote that ‘There is no room for a racist in an institution aimed to fight for the memory of the Deir Yassin victims of Ethnic cleansing and massacre.’ and likewise Jeff Halper stated that

‘To turn the Deir Yassin tragedy into a discussion of Jewish racial characteristics, to dirty it with racist discourse, to create a situation where the people who were the most committed to honoring its memory… raises serious, fundamental questions…. Has Deir Yassin been hijacked by a cult more intent on pursuing hate campaigns against the fictive “Jews”

Shamir even went so far as to accuse the fascist British National Party of not being anti-Semitic enough! ‘I do not feel at ease accusing you and your comrades of betraying the Britons and joining with the Jews, but if I’d keep mum, stones won’t.’

In 2001 an article, Serious Concerns About Israel Shamir by Ali Abunimah & Hussein Ibish stated that ‘We do not have any need for some of what Israel Shamir is introducing into the discourse on behalf of Palestinian rights, which increasingly includes elements of traditional European anti-Semitic rhetoric.’

But in an e-mail of 12.6.05. Atzmon’s explained to me that ‘I regard Shamir as a unique and advanced thinker.’ Just how unique and advanced Shamir’s thinking is can be gleaned by his views on Auschwitz: ‘Another go of Zionist propaganda. The camp was an internment facility, attended by the Red Cross… This idea of “bombing Auschwitz” makes sense only if one accepts the vision of “industrial extermination factory”, and it was formed only well after the war.’

When I read Atzmon’s ‘Elder’s of London’ article I wrote to him questioning his support for DYR and Paul Eisen, its British Director, who had written two pamphlets – ‘Jewish Power’ and ‘Holocaust Wars’, a tribute to Zundel. To my query that ‘I understand that you have been distributing Paul Eisen’s most recent The Holocaust Wars which denies, in the course of defending Ernest Zundel, that there ever was a holocaust or extermination of European Jewry by the Nazis.’ Atzmon replied, on 6th June 2005 thus: ‘True I circulated Paul Eisen’s paper…. By the way, my take on the subject is slightly different than Paul’s one and yet, i found Paul very attentive to my criticism. Furthermore, Let me assure you that if I ever see a great text written by yourself I ll be the first to circulate it. This is my way, that is what i believe in.’

This ‘great text’ of Eisen is posted on the Zundel site . According to which:
‘Zundel does not deny that the National Socialist regime targeted Jews or that Jews suffered at their hands, but he does deny specific, albeit key aspects of the Holocaust narrative as we know it. …
o That there ever was an official plan on the part of Hitler or any other part of the Nazi regime systematically and physically to eliminate every Jew in Europe.
o That there ever existed homicidal gas-chambers.
o That the numbers of Jewish victims have been exaggerated.’

Eisen writes:

‘How do those Germans, now nearing the end of their lives, feel when told that what seemed so right then and perhaps even still seems so right, was in fact so wrong? … How might it feel to be forbidden, alone amongst the peoples of Europe, to recall your recent history with anything but shame?’

For Eisen, it is a terrible thing that the Holocaust cannot be recalled ‘with anything but shame’. And in a passage ‘The Hitler we loved and why’ we are told that ‘Ernst Zundel was once involved in the publication of a book called The Hitler We Loved and Why, but Ernst Zundel was not the only German who loved Hitler and is probably not the only German who still loves Hitler. Millions of Germans loved Hitler, who … still cherish his memory.’

There is no mention of the terror state that the Nazis created. The abolition of the unions, the incarceration and murder of trade unionists in Dachau, still less the extermination of millions of untermenschen. Eisen goes on to state that:

‘Nothing seems to fit about the gassing story. The numbers of victims crammed into the space, the design and construction of the gassing facilities, the lack of protection for the attendants, the implausibility surrounding the rate of cremation, the huge errors, omissions and disparities in eye-witness accounts — all these and more, when added to the near total absence of hard affirmative evidence, makes one wonder why anyone believed such a story in the first place. No-one has yet been able to explain how a gas chamber worked. No-one has been able to explain how pellets of Zyklon B were poured into holes that do not and never have existed. No-one has been able to explain how the Sonderkommando (special detachment) of Jewish prisoner/attendants was able to enter a gas chamber immediately, … In effect, no one has been able to take up the Faurisson challenge: “Show me or draw me a Nazi gas chamber!’

And if there is any doubt, then Eisen makes his views clear in a posting of 26th February 2007. ‘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.’

In an e-mail to me of 26.6.05. Eisen states that ‘There is a very strong possibility that the revisionists are substantially correct.’ On DYR’s own site, Eisen has written an article In Clear Sight of Yad Vashem (January 2006) wherein he states that ‘The Holocaust too has come under assault. Over the last fifty years, revisionist scholars have amassed a formidable body of substantial evidence, which runs in direct opposition to the traditional Holocaust narrative. “Where is the evidence,” they say, “for this alleged gargantuan mass-murder? Where are the documents? Where are the traces and remains? Where are the weapons of murder?”

Yet in an e-mail that Atzmon sent me on 23.6.05: he wrote:

‘how dare you classify innocent and honest people as H deniers. Can’t you see that this is a crime. Mr Eisen whom you despise his learning the H for 3 years, he is an expert. I myself working on WW2 for over ten years.’

And there is no doubting that Eisen has become an ‘expert’ holocaust denier. Atzmon continues:

‘I do not have any doubt that our notion of the H will change radically in the near future. Too many discrepancies. and as I said, the only active scholarship is in the hands of the revisionists. The funny bit is that only left Jews are defending the Zio-Anglo-American’s H narrative. Ask yourself why. I think that it is simple. You are not religious, you killed god….’

This was in reply to my comment that ‘at best. What they [DYR] are doing is playing into the Zionists’ hands.’ To which Atzmon replied: ‘Nonsense, you maintain the zio narrative while blaming us for playing to their hands?…. Paul’s H scholarship is not going to interfere with his DYR activity. Paul is a humanist, whether you like it or not, and so is everyone who is involved with DYR.’

And in his The Embarrassing Case of Tony Greenstein Atzmon expresses his anger that ‘my friend, activist Paul Eisen the most peaceful person I have ever come across’ has been called a racist.’

On June 17th 2005 Jews Against Zionism, together with many others, picketed a talk by Atzmon at the Socialist Workers’ Party bookshop Bookmarks. We protested that an organisation that calls itself socialist should sully itself by association with Atzmon. Atzmon himself had, at the SWP’s instigation put out a statement denying that he was a holocaust denier. It was clearly a damage limitation exercise but given that Atzmon had denied he was a holocaust denier we were prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Today it is clear that Atzmon has not changed. In recent months he has posted a number of articles and made a number of comments that make it clear that Atzmon is a fully-fledged holocaust denier. He may be confused but his deep anti-Semitism has led him along the path of holocaust denial.

A Jewish Conspiracy Theorist
Atzmon has always believed in Jewish conspiracies. On the leaflet which we gave out at the picket, we quoted his ‘On anti-Semitism’ as stating that:

“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 elder of Zion’ are an authentic document or rather a forgery irrelevant. American Jews do try to control the world, by proxy… I would suggest that perhaps we should face it once and for all: the Jews were responsible for the killing of Jesus who, by the way, was himself a Palestinian Jew.”

Atzmon has subsequently changed ‘Jewish people’ to ‘Zionists’ and added (in fact Zionists) after ‘American Jews’ but the meaning remains the same.

Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf that ‘They are based on a forgery, the Frankfurter Zeitung moans and screams once every week: the best proof that they are authentic.’ The only difference on this question between Atzmon and Hitler is that for Hitler the ‘fact’ that what the Protocols said was true meant they were authentic whereas for Atzmon it is irrelevant if they are a forgery, because clearly they are true! A distinction without a difference.

Atzmon is quoted in the Guardian (12.5.05) ‘I’m not going to say whether it is right or not to burn down a synagogue, I can see that it is a rational act’. Which is substantially the same as what he writes in his essay ‘‘on anti-Semitism’.

Instead of seeing the Israeli state as an outpost of US imperialism, he reverses the relationship. ‘it looks as if Zionist lobbies control American foreign politics. After so many years of independence, the United States of America is becoming a remote colony of an apparently far greater state, the Jewish state.’ The Protocols Of The Elders Of Zion (Verse 2) But then for Atzmon ‘The J’s are the ultimate chameleons, they can be whatever they like as long as it serves as some expedient.’

In Dialectic of the Negation Atzmon demonstrates that an anti-Semite must also be a Zionist. ‘Early Zionists were critical enough to expose the non-ethical characteristics amongst their fellow brothers. Zionism was there to erect a new ethical Jew, a genuine moral being….’ And goes on to hold that the reason that the Palestine solidarity movement hasn’t succeeded is because of the number of Jews in it! ‘Though this may explain why Jews are so involved in Palestinian solidarity, it may additionally explain why the Palestinian solidarity movement has never made it into a global mass movement. Apparently, not many people around are that keen to join a liberal synagogue.’

But it is in his essay ‘From Esther to AIPAC’ that Atzmon reveals his true feelings:

‘The Scholars who are engaged in the study of the Holocaust religion … are engaged with a list of events that happened between 1933-1945. Most of the scholars are themselves orthodox observants. Though they may be critical of different aspects of the exploitation of the Holocaust, they all accept the validity of the Nazi Judeocide and its mainstream interpretations and implications. Most of the scholars, if not all of them, do not challenge the Zionist narrative, namely Nazi Judeocide, yet, more than a few are critical of the way Jewish and Zionist institutes employ the Holocaust…. no one goes as far as revisionism, not a single Holocaust religion scholar dares engage in a dialogue with the so-called ‘deniers’ to discuss their vision of the events or any other revisionist scholarship.’

Atzmon berates the fact that Lenni Brenner, Shraga Elam, Marc Ellis and Norman Finkelstein ‘dare’ not engage with Holocaust deniers. Atzmon has difficulty understanding that astronomers for example have long ceased arguing with the followers of Aristotle and Ptolemy about whether Sun is the centre of the solar system.

In Hunters of Goliath Atzmon justifies the Holocaust he is now denying, arguing that ‘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.’ Hence they are prevented from ‘internalising the real meaning’ of the Nazi holocaust. Maybe the Gypsy, gay, Polish victims of the Nazis should recognise that it was their ‘unpopularity’ which caused their murder?

But Atzmon, via Knuckles or Edna Spennato, who acts as his pseudonym and post-box, has recently decided to junk any pretence. Below is an interesting debate on the Socialist Unity web site re Knuckles/Atzmon’s views and responses:

Asked whether there might be ‘the slightest ethical problem’ in distributing Eisen’s Holocaust denial essay Knuckle’s response is that ‘I regard Paul as an ethical man whose work deserves to be very well distributed,… Once again, try providing the evidence that Paul promotes holocaust denial.’ Asked whether Knuckles has any problems when Atzmon embraces Jews as Christ-killers theme, Knuckles asks ‘Who do you imagine killed Christ, the Germans? the Palestinians?’ to which the obvious retort comes back ‘Try the Roman occupiers.’ (10.1.08)

Asked by goodwin sands as to how he defends Eisen’s holocaust denial, Knuckles/Atzmon replies that ‘Eisen is not a Holocaust denier’.

Sands then puts to Knuckles the passage in Holocaust Wars which begins ‘Nothing seems to fit about the gassing story’ to which Knuckles first tries to avoid the subject then merely repeats that ‘you haven’t proved Paul is a holocaust denier.’ Stephen Marks then repeats the Eisen quote that ‘The evidence against (gas chambers) is far greater than that for’ and substitutes the Palestinian Naqba and other acts of genocide to see whether Knuckles agrees that that is a form of denial.

Sands then explains to Knuckles that this was all debunked in the David Irving trial to which Knuckles retorts that ‘Not one single thing was ‘de-bunked’… Now YOU explain to all of us just how they managed to do it. Answer the questions Eisen is asking!’ Finally Knuckles/Atzmon comes out.

‘Eisen asks some very pertinent questions about the so-called Holocaust, [notice the ‘so-called Holocaust’] particularly the official Zionist narrative, [a favourite phrase of Atzmon] which is full of holes….’ And he asks ‘how the nazis managed to pull off the greatest disappearing trick in history,’ and he goes through each of Eisen’s points asking each time ‘Please explain’. ‘These are all very legitimate questions which you are not able to answer. ….. Referring me to some trial notes won’t do…’

Knuckles/Atzmon then makes his own views crystal clear: ‘The implausibility surrounding the rate of cremation (*), the huge errors, omissions and disparities in eye-witness accounts (*) — all these and more, when added to the near total absence of hard affirmative evidence, makes one wonder why anyone believed such a story in the first place.’ (11.1.08, @ 12:46 am). ‘Knuckles’ concludes: ‘Now tell us how they got rid of 6 million bodies, was it all made into soap and lampshades…’

And ‘Knuckles/Atzmon’ concludes that ‘your problem with Paul is not the content of his essay, as you cannot argue with it, you have a problem with the fact that he QUESTIONS the official Zionist narrative of the Holocaust, which is FULL OF HOLES.’ Note the use of ‘Zionist narrative of the Holocaust’ a favourite Atzmonism, as if it were a changing story line.

This discussion continued on Mary Rizzo’s, anti-Semitic Peace Palestine site. Here Atzmon and Knuckles appear to be separate people, but then Atzmon has a fascination with his alter ego, Artie Fishel.

Knuckles writes, baiting Goodwin Sands: ‘Sands, remember you have not been able to answer one single question posed in Eisen’s essay.’ (11.1.08.) and Atzmon reinforces this:

‘Mary i have seen this Goodwin on Socialist Jewnity… if he manages to come with answers we should publish them. Just for the laugh… It is pretty funny, all those socialist crypto Zios are as well H scholars… they know what, how when and how many… But they never come up with an answer…their Job is to maintain the Zio H narrative in the left… somehow, it doesn’t work anymore.’ 11.1.08.

Mary Rizzo, a devoted fan of Atzmon, asks ‘who’s an anti-semite, dude? Do you see anti semitic posts on my blog?’ which demonstrates that irony is lost on Rizzo.

Atzmon responds, 12.1.08., that

‘Goodwin you are not a leftist, you are a self loving joker like Greenslime and the others…, Now go back to your cyber shtetle and give us a break… I am happy i circulated Eisen and he is indeed a friend of mine. Knuckles … is right, is another friend of mine and she says that the only H that is relevant for us is the one in Pls and in Iraq!!! … if you cannot see it, then f**k off. you have nothing to do here…’

And then Paul Eisen intervenes.

‘True enough Mary, but I’m beginning to see other outcomes looming. What I call ‘the Ukrainian option’ is one of them.

The Ukrainian peasant listens (for a couple of hundred years) about why the Jewish tavern keeper, tax farmer, landlord or whatever is doing what he’s doing…. But the time comes when he’s just had enough. He lifts his axe and splits the Jews head – it’s what they call a pogrom. Jewish power needs to be confronted. – peacefully and intelligently – and the sooner the better for everyone’

A ‘peaceful’ pogrom to accompany a non-existent Holocaust. Mary Rizzo, who only a few hours previously has denied there have ever been anti-Semitic posts to her blog, warns that ‘Paul, you realise that statement of yours is going to me misquoted, out of any context and interpreted as your approval of pogroms. The second part of your statement is going to be completely disregarded.’

Atzmon intervenes again. ‘Gaswind Sound, we do not give a toss about your gas obsession. if symptoms keep coming back either change your diet a see a doctor, and now bounce back to your social Jewnity shetetle…’ Gilad Atzmon | 01.15.08 – 1:50 am

On a separate blog, Duncan Money notes that ‘you let the openly anti-Semitic Holocaust denier ‘knuckles’ post here without criticism.’ (12.1.08.) and Atzmon responds that ‘Mr Money… we do not take the labels: anti Semite and H denier very seriously. Every visitor who comes with this crap identifies himself as a Zionist or a crypto one..’ And therein lies the rub. He continues:

However, it is very possible that Knuckles doesn’t love Jews in particular and I wonder, is it a crime? Don’t you think that loving Jews in particular is a form of discrimination (of others) i.e. racism?… I must admit that I have never seen her engaged in any form of H denial. I have seen her saying that she doesn’t care that much about people who died 60 years ago. … I ve seen her as well questioning the Zionist H narrative, is this a denial? Just let us know so we learn more about the emerging Zio discourse.’

So there we have it. Holocaust denial is merely an ‘emerging Zio discourse.’ It had no reality.

One can but hope that the SWP, will learn from the Dubai businessman’s debacle that the money that Atzmon raises for the party will never compensate for the damage to one’s political reputation.

The postings of Knuckles and Atzmon are almost certainly by the same person. They use the same modes of expression and turn of phrase. But whether Atzmon merely uses Knuckles to repost his own words, with a view to deniability, or whether Knuckles is a clone, it is clear that Atzmon has now crossed the red line. ‘Jewish Power’ leads inexorably to holocaust denial. Jews possess certain traits, ‘Jewishness’ according to Atzmon which make them conspire together. Support for the Palestinians is a battle against Jews. If anti-Semitism used to be the socialism of fools, today it is the anti-Zionism of idiots.

94 comments on “Gilad Atzmon – Now an Open Holocaust Denier

  1. Ian Donovan on said:

    This is just a polemic between two different groups of Jewish leftists, both with flawed politics, slandering each other in a manner than looks to those not involved quite silly. It’s perfectly obvious that Atzmon is not a Nazi; its equally perfectly obvious Tony Greenstein is not a Zionist. What is sullying reputations is continuing this nonsense. No doubt there will be another flame war and in short order comments will have to be closed. Waste of time if you ask me. That’s all I have to say on this matter.

  2. Ian – nazis are not the only anti-Semites.

    This is likely to continue as long as Atzmon’s anti-Semitism is tolerated and condoned on the left.

  3. Ian Donovan on said:

    Nah, this is a false polemic. Quite crazy, reminiscent of different groups of Maoists denouncing each other.

  4. Ian Donovan on said:

    No, Atzmon is a misguided, exaggerated and quite ludicrious (at times) opponent of the racism currently dominant among his own people and ruling class. Tim Robinson is a racist who supports the terror-bombing of Arabs and Muslims.

  5. Ian

    You are minimising the ideological importance of holocaust denial.

    the fact that a high profile former israeli musician defends holocaust denial is bad enough. the fact that he is then in turn defended by the left is very damaging. I am bewildered that you yourself describe Atzmon as “Jewish leftist”. he clearly does not self-identify himself as Jew for one thing, the other is that he clearly is no leftist.

    Atzmon reinforces Zionist arguments that opposition to Israel is underpinned with anti-semitism; and also sows terrible division within the palestinian solidarity movement.

    If you tolerate Atzmon then why not David Duke? The only logic that says Atmon is acceptable but not Duke is that somehow spreading hatred of Jews is not as bad as inciting hatred of blacks. But why would that be?

    If anyone was writing about blacks in the language that Atzmon writes about Jews, there would be outrage.

  6. Ian Donovan on said:

    It’s not even clear to me that he is defending Holocaust Denial. The ‘evidence’ quoted to back that up is just as specious as that of Atzmon in arguing that Tony is some kind of Zionist. Neither really adds up.

    What is clear, however, is that both sides of this argument endorse George W. Bush’s dictum that “if you are not for us, you are against us”. When transferred to the left, this brings Maoist-style lunacy. Let the flame wars begin!!! And everyone else better duck!

  7. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.

  8. Ian.

    First of all, racism and anti-Semitism cannot be reduced to attitudes to foreign policy!

    Just becasue Atzmon opposes Israel doesn’t mean he isn’t an anti-Semite, and just becasue Tim supports Israel and the war in Iraq doesn’t make him a racist.

    Anti-Semitism is a dangerous ideology, and it is not just Greenstein who is blowing the whistle on Atzmon.

    You seem to have a double standard, becaaue if somewhen was writing this sort of stuff about Muslims you would correctly identify them as islamophobic, but becuase it is against Jews, you consider it not a problem? When jews themselves, and anti-Zionist Jews – are saying this is anti_semitism, then why dispute it.

    The recent post on Mary Rizzo’s site with pictures of Greenstein, Gilad Shilat, Daud Harisi, David Hirsch and Arial Chraon, each with J E W written under their pictures, was clearly anti-Semitiam, and could have come straight from the pages of Der Beobachter .

    These were the responses in the comments:

    This is so wonderfully off-beat, and so apt for the characters we are dealing with, whose methods and even their manner of speech is like something straight from the Life of Brian

    In the Life of Tony, Ariel and David, the truth is indeed stranger than fiction.
    another potential HP flag… perhaps they should have a revolving banner…. this one is specially for G.Sands…

    Liberty is the right to exterminate those who resist converting to the prevaling Zio H narrative. Gassing not necessary, as they die of boredom.
    knuckles | 01.12.08 – 12:12 pm | #

    this is funny like hell

    I love Daud Harisi, i really want him back!!!
    Gilad Atzmon | 01.12.08 – 1:48 pm | #

  9. Ian Donovan on said:

    “The recent post on Mary Rizzo’s site with pictures of Greenstein, Gilad Shilat, Daud Harisi, David Hirsch and Arial Chraon, each with J E W written under their pictures, was clearly anti-Semitiam, and could have come straight from the pages of Der Beobachter.”

    It didn’t come from Der Beobachter, though, did it? It came from a Zionist site, and was a parody of that. The ‘JEW’ caption was placed on Gilad Shalit by supporters of Israel, and also appears (or at least appeared) on Harry’s Place. Is Harry’s Place then also anti-semitic? Perhaps we should compare HP Sauce with Der Beobachter?

    Personally, I think this was a tasteless parody of something that was genuinely racist – against non-Jews. Tasteless and slanderous because it associated Tony Greenstein with Ariel Sharon.

    Though the jokes about Sharon being a vegetable were funny – along the lines of “How many members of the royal family can you get in a mini-metro? Five – Prince Phillip in the driving seat, the queen in the passenger seat, Charles and Anne at the back. And Lord Mountbatten in the ashtray!”.

    As I said, I am neutral between Atzmon and Greenstein, I regard both as misguided and flawed leftists. Your attempts to scandalise the SWP on this will fall flat, because they are over the top and there is nothing scandalous about this aspect of their recent politics. On this, the SWP are broadly correct.

  10. Meanwhile, whilst Greenstein is accusing Atzmon of being a Holocaust Denier, he spends his time distorting the facts of the Holocaust to try and argue that the Zionists collaborated with the Nazis. It seems to me a case of pot calling the kettle black.

  11. Ian Donovan on said:

    Its rather obvious, isn’t it? Peacepalestine is the third most popular English Language pro-Palestinian blog, and its general thrust is an honourable defence of Palestinian rights. It has a clear anti-racist thrust, and much that it publishes is very powerful and laudable – which is why it is popular. But sometimes I think you have trouble discerning who is racist or not, Andy, judging by your defence of Tim, the zionist and imperialist.

  12. furious on said:

    Andy are you completely stupid? You put this ridiculous extract from the long and tedious ding-dong between Tony Greenstein and Gilad Atzmon up here so you can blather on and on and on about it forever.

    HAVEN’T YOU NOTICED WHAT IS GOING ON IN GAZA RIGHT NOW?

    Israeli missile strikes, borders closed, power station shut down by the Israeli blockade, dozens of Palestinians dead just in the past few days…

    DON’T YOU THINK THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN A BIT MORE RELEVANT AND USEFUL TO POST?

    Andy, your dedication to sectariana against the SWP is quite stupid enough, but clowning around like this when REAL PEOPLE ARE SUFFERING IN PALESTINE IS A DISGRACE.

  13. David T on said:

    Gilad Atzmon does not describe himself as left wing. He is not a fan of the SWP, but will work with them on Palestinian issues because they will promote his politics to a broader audience.

    When I met him, he was mostly interested in talking about environmentalism, and about Hitler’s prescient realisation of the importance of preserving the environment.

    He also explained that the arab nationalism was deeply rooted in the blood and soil of the middle east: which was not true of jews.

    Gilad Atzmon is a kind of Bobby Fischer figure. Most people can see this.

    The only ones who can’t are those members of the Socialist Workers’ Party who are under an obligation to support the party line.

  14. Gilad Atzmon on said:

    Andy and the rest of you,

    If you care about Pls, make sure you write about Gaza in the dark!!!

    But if you prefer a J war, i will serve you with one….

    Palestinian solidarity movement is not divided!!!

    In fact it is more united than ever. As you surely know, the resistance to Greenstein/Rance/Blackwell last AGM was overwhelming (95%).

    As you probably know, Rance, Elf and Blackwell were clever enough to take it in.. They are pretty quiet. Greenstein wasn’t clever enough… and I have good reason to believe that he will manage to drag you (Andy) down with him. It is obviously your choice. Just prepare yourself.

    In case you didn’t get it yet. People out there start to see what is going on.

    Here in Britain they see Lord ‘cash machine’ Levy, Proxy Tycoon Abrahams and now Peter Hain supported by prominent Zios,,,, it is all out in the open…

    In America we have the Neocons…Wolfy and his mates…

    For a few years, Jewish lobbies tried to silence the discourse that exposes this exact interference in Anglo American politics. Indeed, I was one of the very few who stood up. already in 2003 I wrote ,’ who cares whether the Protocols were genuine or not’. With Levy and Wolfy , we have information about elder Zios flooding in.

    With Levy and Abrahams making the headline, the Protocols are MAINSTREEM NEWS.. rather than a remote Tsarist forgery…

    Clearly some people want to silence the discourse. We call them Zionist

    Interestingly enough, Greenstein and you Andy do not want us to talk about it either. This is enough to make you into rabid Zionists.

    I may suggest to you Andy that those who fight us are a very sporadic voices operating within some marginal so called ‘Jewish Left’. As you probably know, we have more than a few Jews who fight for Palestine as ordinary human being. Michael Rosen admitted here last week that he saw a poing in doing just that (avoiding the J banner). We admire those people. But we indeed have a serious problem with Jewish gatekeepers.

    We believe that if Israel is entitled to define itself as the Jewish State, we are rather entitled to ask what the words: Jew, Jewish, Judaism, and Jewishness stand for. I believe as well that Jews around the world would benefit from such an approach.

    If Palestinian people would have to fight Israelis alone, we would have peace by now. But this is not the case. Palestinians fight global Zionism, a very powerful lobby that took Britain and USA into an illegal war in Iraq. Israel openly pusshing for war against Iran. I am very sorry to tell you that you Andy serve this Lobby by trying to silence the discourse.

    Luckily enough you are marginal on the verge of unnoticeable.

    We will move on and we will win (Just because we have nothing to lose)

    All the best
    Gilad

  15. David T on said:

    hahaha Andy, you’re going to have lots of fun!

    I’ve been asking why the SWP has been promoting this crank for about three or four years. The SWP have actually been pretty weedy in justifying their alliance with Atzmon. Mostly their argument is “We don’t let him talk anymore”. That isn’t true – Atzmon does talk about his political views at some SWP sponsored events.

    In any case, the more you fight with Atzmon and his defenders, it will become clearer and clearer to you that you’re dealing with a far right grouping.

    As you’re in the business of knifing the SWP, these little battles with Atzmon and his followers will give you lots of ammunition.

    The reason that the SWP promote Atzmon is as follows:

    1. Martin Smith is impressed by celebrity.
    2. The SWP tolerates anti-jewish racism, and indeed promotes it.

  16. Greenstein tells us:

    “Whether or not Atzmon is correctly quoted is immaterial. Even if he is given the benefit of a very considerable doubt, by his own words it is clear that he has now become a fully fledged holocaust denier.”

    He then uses another 3510 words, hardly any of them Atzmon’s, and fails to show that Atzmon “by his own words” is a fully fledged holocaust denier. He threads together circumstantial stuff that wouldn’t stand up to scrutiny anywhere.

    So, he fails completely again…..

    May the trolls descend on this thread like a plague of locusts :-)

  17. Ian Donovan on said:

    Earlier I wrote:

    “The ‘JEW’ caption was placed on Gilad Shalit by supporters of Israel, and also appears (or at least appeared) on Harry’s Place. Is Harry’s Place then also anti-semitic? Perhaps we should compare HP Sauce with Der Beobachter?”

    Actually it’s still there. Go and look. I won’t post a link, because it’s against SU policy, but go and look for yourself.

  18. Charles Dexter Ward on said:

    It is really quite tragic, seeing such a gifted man make a fool of himself. He’ll end up like Bobby Fischer if he carries on like this.

    Shut up, Gilad, and play your sax.

  19. If you care to look this blog has frequently posted about palestine.
    http://www.socialistunity.com/?cat=13

    The argument that we should be talking about Paletsine and not mentioning anti-Semitism is the classic “don’t look over here, look over there” defence.

    And Ian, the fact that PeacePalestine is a popular proPalesinian blog makes it MORE of a problem that it tolerates anti-Semitism. The fact that most of Tony’s post is about PeacePalestine and Atzmon and he only mentions the SWP in passing answers your rather disreputable implication that I am only interested in opposing anti-Semitism to get at the SWP!!!!

    (Not that I am accusing the SWP of anti-Semitism I hasten to add – just that they have ended up with an unfortunate relatioonship with Atzmon, who they shouldn’t touch with a barge)

  20. Ian Donovan on said:

    It represents a strain of leftist thought, of Israeli-Jewish origin. A fact that can’t be conjured away or exorcised by this kind of demonisation. This is not about a recrudesesence of anti-semitism, but rather an overreaction against Israeli-Zionist racism by a layer of Israeli Jews, that mistakenly targets Jewish culture itself as inherently racist and aggressive in a fascist-like sense. A new political development, not a revival of something old. Huffing and puffing won’t solve this political problem.

  21. David T on said:

    Atzmon has a passing interest in Palestinian politics, although he is far more interested in jewish identity politics.

    What I think you are seeing with Atzmon, is a group of jews – Eisen, Atzmon, Rizzo, and arguably Shamir (who may or may not be jewish) – using the Palestinian issue to make a grand statement about their own cultural identities.

    It is ironic, therefore, that Atzmon spends so much time insisting that “Palestinians are the priority”.

    What he is really far more interested in doing is producing pastiches of arabic music, posing, and posting on websites under his various dubious noms de plume, including “Jihad Abu Az Zamman”. Hilarious.

    I’ve met Gilad Atzmon and I’m inclined to be at little sympathetic to him than I was before, on the basis that you shouldn’t really mock the afflicted.

    I have absolutely no sympathy, however, for the SWP. The best you can say about Martin Smith is that he has been showcasing this guy’s far right politics because he is too stupid to recognise them for what they are.

    However, given that a number of SWP comrades pointed out, years ago, that Atzmon’s views are from the extreme right, I don’t think the SWP deserves the benefit of that doubt.

  22. Ian, I wish I could be so generous; “…A new political development…”?
    About as new as mid-70s punks wearing swastikas and using gas chamber images on their favourite record labels.

  23. Jock McTrousers on said:

    It’s refreshing that no-one has a problem with revisionists, just deniers. Only joking – I know you lot consider any questioning of any aspect of the ‘holocaust’ as being denial. Remember that often quoted observation, from that banal pseudo-philosopher (whose name I’ve forgotten), that a scientific theory must be capable of being falsified. So too with evidence; if it can’t be questioned it isn’t evidence – so those who would protect the holocaust story from questions are the real deniers. If it can’t be questioned, then it’s not a historic fact but an imposed orthodoxy, a form of oppression – I picture the bigwigs of Prague, after Heydrich’s massacres, gathering publicly to shout ‘Heil Hitler’. If we’re legally obliged to proclaim the holocaust orthodoxy verbatim, who in his right mind wouldn’t doubt it. Those who would impose this orthodoxy dishonour their own dead, as they do in so many other ways.

  24. Holy God spare us from yet another Greenstein opus! How many times can this man recycle the same coma-inducing diatribe? Who needs uranium enrichment or gas when you can just send the terminally dull Greenstein in to bore everybody to death?

    It’s pretty clear that poor old Tony is as mad as a box of frogs. He is probably acting out to prompt some sort of psychiatric intervention. Perhaps his loved ones can find a hospital for Jew’s Against Pathophysiological dysfunctions. I hope so. Otherwise: people of Brighton & Hove lock up your poultry products! Tony’s about to flip!

    I can’t bare to read it this latest installment but I imagine it goes something like this:-

    ‘Gilad is a horrid Nazi because Duke & Shamir & Stolz don’t disagree with absolutely everything he says & I don’t want anyone to be Gilad’s friend & if you are then I’ll tell Lenni Benner & he’ll come & get you at the school gate’.

  25. Is it summer already? All the same reruns on all three channels….

    Now that Tony’s been recycling this “turgid” (love that word) bit of prose, let’s talk facts: 1) Tony says it was “widely reported” and posts a link from Press TV. As I mentioned elsewhere on this same post (Indymedia) that Press TV has been thoroughly debunked and is considered to be probably exclusively a disinformation site. 2) In fact, what was reported was false. 3) Tony and his new best buddy who doesn’t support the Boycott, Shraga Elam (his new best buddy because he is the only one who is continuing the smearing of Gilad and a few others at these purely obsessive-compulsive levels) have been spreading around stuff as evidence of Gilad Atzmon’s presumed Holocaust Denial stuff from….(wait for it, it gets really good here) A Holocaust Revision site! I leave it to all of you to reflect on THAT! But, Shraga has just illuminated me on some things which would amaze any and everyone. I had to ask an icon of research what he had to say when I sent to him the quote by this Shraga,

    “Haven’t you ever read what I wrote about the Holocaust Religion, a term that I invented and what I wrote abot the Holocaust Industry, which I didn’t invent, but Finkelstein got it from me?”

    Uh huh… Shraga wrote that.

    The icon wrote: Interesting Science Fiction.

    Then, we have David T, who is still so starstruck that he met (gasp!) Gilad Atzmon (notorious hermit), he has to repeat it in every single post comment! He claims Gilad and my blog are on the right. Then goes on to say we utilise the Palestinian issue for our own personal identity issues as Jews. Enough to make one laugh, but let him go on and on with his theories.

    As to Ian being upset that this issue is going on again, can’t say anything more than I AGREE! Tony can’t seem to get anything else on his mind. He is frankly obsessed to a pathological point not to mention deluded, but then, he sends around false things knowing they are false, uses Holocaust Denial stuff to call someone else a Holocaust Denier… it’s really actually pretty funny. So, it is a bonafide legit site for him, it is very good for his allies to know. They would not want to have to admit they are associated with one who posts stuff on the internet and in emails and forums from a Revisionist site, (apparently taking the content as accurate).

    The Gilad Shalit spoof …. ah, one of Pepa’s more interesting moments recently. Yes, we took the piss. But, there is a detailed post precisely about circumstances surrounding it, http://peacepalestine.blogspot.com/2008/01/some-human-beings-are-more-human-than.html might be worth a read if people want to understand the reasons behind it.

    Tim supports Israel and the Iraq war and Andy says “he’s not necessarily racist”. I don’t know if there is anything more humourous that I have read all week! Andy, if you didn’t exist, we would have to create you.

  26. David T on said:

    Then goes on to say we utilise the Palestinian issue for our own personal identity issues as Jews. Enough to make one laugh, but let him go on and on with his theories.

    Oh come on. It is pretty obvious Mary.

    I mean, it kind of explains why yer actual muslim Palestinian activists don’t want to have anything to do with you and, indeed, denounce you.

    That’s not what fascinates me though. I enjoy this all from a “look how mad sections of the far Left have gone” perspective. And what is mostly going on here is that one very star struck person in the SWP is promoting a man with very far right wing views: and his comrades who are horrified by all of this can’t do anything about it at all. The SWP is STILL showcasing Atzmon.

    Jews angsting about being jews, and going a bit weird as a result, isn’t news to me. This tends to happen, from time to time with all small minority groups.

    But the SWP having got itself into such a bind. Well, that’s pathological, isn’t it?

  27. Anyone for a bowl of lochshen soup at Harry Morgan’s in St. John’s Wood after Martin Bright’s documentary on Ken Livingstone this evening?

  28. I think David T is correct that it is the question of identity politics that Atzmon is fixated with. Hence the mockery he uses against gefilte fish and chicken soup, belittling any signifiers of a cultural identity for Jews.

    This is very similar to Martin Smith’s approach to English identity:

    “Waving the St George flag is not about inclusion-it’s all about exclusion. What are we supposed to celebrate? The Empire? Or the fact that we live in a society where the levels of inequality continue to grow? All you are left with is David Beckham, Jonny Wilkinson and big profits for the breweries. Not much really.”

    This is why i think there is a political root to the relationship. If you think that all forms of collective identifictaion with a national culture are backward, then Atzmon’s rejectioon of Jewishness doesn’t seem problematic. (I suspect ian Donovan is comeing from a similar place).

    But what it means is that Atzmon would deny the right of Jews to self-identify themselves with a collective identity.

  29. I mean, it kind of explains why yer actual muslim Palestinian activists don’t want to have anything to do with you and, indeed, denounce you.

    OOOH, who!? come out with names David T!!!!

  30. David T on said:

    The thing is, Martin Smith is doing this (I presume) because he believes in a class identity which transcends all national constructs.

    Atzmon, by contrast, has a specific problem with any jewish cultural identity at all, manifested in any way, and particularly by jews who declare themselves ‘anti-Zionist’. That’s why he is so utterly fixated upon Greenstein, Rance, Brenner, and so on.

    He’s not a socialist. He’s not an opponent of nationalism. He is very keen on arab nationalism which he regards as “authentic” in a ‘blood and soil’ way that a jewish cultural identity is not.

  31. Andy, we believe that one should not use an ethnic identity in an ideological way, this is what we are against. Just like not all Palestinians, whites, blacks, Jews, think alike or have the same cultural experiences or cultural references, nor does it stand to reason that someone should say, “I am a Jew, and therefore I should be the first to recognise and fight racism” or “Blacks know more about racism than whites”. (is it genetically programmed? Do all Jews, Blacks or Whites have a radar and built in mechanism that other people do not have that makes them exclusive and different from others?)

    Saying that all Jews (or anyone) have a certain quality, characteristic and moral barometer is a racist statement. Gilad talks about the “ideology” behind someone saying “I am a Jew, and therefore, i act this way”. As if being Jewish is the reason for the action, like it is something genetic or natural. Being Jewish is NOT a political position. Doing something and saying “I do it cuz I’m a Jew” is, on the other hand.

    Is it really that complicated to suss out?

  32. David, I agree that Martin Smith and Atzmon are not coming from the same place (though I expect that Smith also thinks Arab, or at least Palestinian nationalism is progressive – he used to be a very strong supporter of Irish nationalism, and was less critical than many SWP members of the IRA). I suggest that his views on identity politic are very under-theorised.

    But his rejection of English or British identity, puts him in a similat mindset over just this issue with Atzmon’s rejection of Jewish identity. I suspect that once you start deciding on whether someone’s form of identity is valid depends upon whether it is anti-imperialist or not, then Atzmon’s “anti-Zionist” hatred of Jews doesn’t seem as offensive.

  33. Tony Greenstein on said:

    Even by his own previous standards, Ian Donovan’s comments are a disgrace. For a start Atzmon defines himself as ‘ex-Jewish’. Secondly he is not, by any stretch of the imagination a leftist. Someone who came into all of this by defending Israel Shamir and Paul Eisen, both fully committed holocaust deniers is not a leftist.

    It is noticeable that whereas once Atzmon denied he was a holocaust denier today he doesn’t bother.

    Ian Donovan has spent too long on the political fringes to be able to understand that sometimes you have to make a stand against racism and anti-semisim rather than excuse it. Atzmon deserves to be taken at his word. He believes, as he makes clear, in ‘Jewish Power’ not class, not colonialism, not imperialism. It is the Jews and that is why he and a poor Zionist propagandist such as Mikey make excellent bedfellows. What this has to do with ‘leftism’ is beyond me and says more about Ian than anything else.

    E.g. when I first wrote an article attacking these people for the Guardian CIF, they responded with an article and comments on Rizzo’s PeacePalestine, where I was subject to the usual libellous and obscene comments. Mikey, true to his previous defence of Zionist collaboration with anti-Semites, supplied personal details of me in order to help Atzmon out. For example

    ‘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/

    For those who are unaware, Zionists have consistently tried to ban people like myself, Roland Rance and yes George Johannes (a Jewish member of the ANC) from campuses making all sorts of accusations of anti-Semitism. They consistently failed but Atzmon, being both an anti-Semite and a Zionist, is happy to pick up on their accusations and Mikey is happy to supply them. It is little wonder that Mikey defends to the last ditch the collaboration of Rudolf Kastner, leader of Hungarian Zionism, and the Jewish Agency from such accusations.

    For example Zeev Sternhell, a committed Zionist but a serious historian, writes in his ‘The Founding Myths of Israel’ pp. 328-9 that:
    ‘Before the war, the Yishuv and the Zionist movement did not accord the diaspora any intrinsic value. Zionism was based on a negation of the diaspora [as Atzmon recognises when attacking the Jewish Bundists]. During the war, and especially when the machinery of extermination began to operate, this view gained a terrible implication… Consequently the Jewish communities of the diaspora were recognised as having only one function: to serve the Yishuv…’ And explaining why the Zionist leaders didn’t make public appeals and campaigns re the Jews under the Nazi heel, all Sternhall, who is looking for an explanation can say is: ‘After all, Zionist leaders believed they would have to appeal to those countries for support in their struggle for a Jewish state once the Nazi scourge was eliminated. On one hand they did not want the war to appear to be a ‘Jewish’ war and on the other hand it was important not to squander the possibility of future advantages.’

    Sternhell’s book, the best account I’ve read of the origins of Labour Zionism tries to explain the phenomenon whereby the Zionist leaders and movement did nothing and worse. Mikey simply pretends it didn’t happen and all was sweetness and light, hence why I usually ignore him. Like his idol, Kastner, he makes a tacit alliance with Atzmon against his real enemies – Jewish anti-Zionists. But he is correct in recognising that Atzmon is no anti-Zionist, unlike the hapless Ian Donovan.

    Ian pretends that it is not at all clear that Atzmon is defending holocaust denial. I think I’ve proved that beyond any reasonable doubt. Indeed Atzmon himself doesn’t protest any longer since the evidence is now damning. The days of code words are over. Only Donovan and the SWP want to cling to the ludicrous statement that Atzmon supplied in June 2005.

    And let us be clear. Anti-Semitism and Holocaust Denial play into the hands of the oppressors of the Palestinian people. It gives powerful ideological legitimation to what Israel is doing now in Gaza. If we hold hands with the holocaust deniers and anti-Semites we reinforce the very argument for the existence of a separate Israeli Jewish state. That is why people believe that Shamir and Atzmon are assets of the Israeli state, because if they’re not they’re doing a very good job for it.

    It is also why Atzmon concentrates his fire on people like Sue Blackwell. When the academic boycott campaign was at its height, Atzmon denounced it as ‘book burning’. Those who have played a part in the BDS campaign know very well that charges of anti-Semitism are a staple of the Zionist attack. If my own union, UNISON, had even thought that these allegations were true then they would not have started down this road. But Palestine solidarity to Atzmon is irrelevant. What matters is that those supporting a Boycott also condemned Atzmon and his mentor, Israel Shamir. Far from Palestinians being their main cause, it is the Atzmon ego that triumphs over all.
    And we see another phenomenon. The Gilad Shalit campaign put out nakedly racist posters, appealing to Israeli Jews to help save him because he is Jewish. They at least had the excuse of operating within a racist paradigm. The Atzmonites thought they’d put my head on a poster and also David Hirsh. Far from making the obvious political point that we reject such racism they developed it and called it their own. That is where these creatures come from and that is why Ian Donovan needs to examine just where his politics – from IBT to CPGB to Respect/SWP to whatever now – have led. Other than gross opportunism. I say this because tragically the German CP also did much the same. After 1930 you won’t find a single Jewish KPD member of the Reichstag. They decided to appeal to the ‘left’ of the Nazi Party, the Streichers and Federers. They hated ‘Jewish capitalism’ – fine so do we but how about extending it a little further went their argument, failing to see that the most ‘left’ Nazi saw German capitalism and ‘constructive’ unlike the destructive parasitic ‘Jewish’ capitalism. We all know where this strategy led.

    But when Ian Donovan says that ‘I am neutral between Atzmon and Greenstein,’ then he has really lost it. You are neutral between a racist and an anti-racist? I suspect Ian that you have begun to lose your political bearings. The experience of acting as an apologist for every twist and turn of the SWP and then finding them turning round and destroying all that you placed your faith in, with all the excuses they made for abandoning class politics, have taken their toll.

    I understand what Furious is saying. Next Saturday I and other members of Brighton PSC will be out campaigning in town against the horrors of what is happening in Gaza. Make no mistake, this is not either or. But it is of no help to the Palestinians if we excuse one form of racism in order to oppose another. That is why Atzmon and co. play no part in any real solidarity, they confine themselves to criticism of Jewish anti-Zionists. The fact that the Zionists have repeatedly recognised, not least in the Boycott movement, that Jewish anti-Zionists led the way, that we took the flak from the Zionists, is a recognition of the fact that they fear we challenge their right to speak on behalf of all Jews. Atzmon, FTP and the rest do nothing except write on blogs. They would prefer to pretend that all Jews are Zionists and so they agree with them. That is the irony. Just as Zionism came out of anti-Semitism, so Atzmon’s anti-Semitism comes from Zionism.

    For example I could stand up at the UNISON Conference as a Jewish member of UNISON and challenge the Zionist claim that to support Boycott is to be anti-Semitic. Atzmon mocks this. How do you know you were the only Jew he asks? Did you see the rest of them in the toilet, demonstrating his gutter neo-Nazi humour. So I make no apologies whatsoever for taking these creatures on. And Ian Donovan should hang his head in shame for allying with them – because that is what he has done. He supported what the SWP did in 2005 and he is still doing the same today despite now being on opposite sides to the SWP in Respect. The word Solidarity is a stranger to his ears.

    And Atzmon responds in kind. His take on the various New Labour scandals is that it is all a question of Jewish capitalists ‘or prominent Zios,,,, it is all out in the open…’ Prominent Zios means Jews. The fact that Hain is not Jewish or indeed any of the actors, that they have taken money from all sorts, Jewish and non-Jewish is irrelevant. The fact that the Tories did much the same and their cash machine was Mohammed Fayed is also irrelevant. If I or anyone had said it’s ‘Arab money’ that would have been equally racist. See my letter in The Independent last Friday on the Hain affair. It is the nature of a parliamentary system that has 2 capitalist parties that leads to corruption of this type. Hain is a disgrace but it is nothing to do with Jews.

    In fact the Jewish Chronicle did do exactly when the GLC funded an anti-Arab racism conference in the mid-1980’s. It spoke of ‘Arab money’. I took them to the Press Council, the only person to have successfully done so. ‘Arab money’ like ‘Jewish money’ is racist because money knows no ethnic allegiance. But if you focus on the ‘Jewish’ then you excuse imperialism and the West. That is what Atzmon does and that is what Ian Donovan excuses.

    So it’s no accident that Atzmon now tells us that ‘the Protocols are MAINSTREEM NEWS.. rather than a remote Tsarist forgery…’ Thank you. This is the polluted sewer that Atzmon swims in and Ian Donovan, if he still calls himself a socialist, should reflect before setting pen to paper.

    David T, who is also a buddy of Mikey, and equally supportive of Zionism, is both right and wrong about the SWP’s motives. Yes it has something to do with Martin Smith’s music tastes (though it also has more to do with his fronting their benefits). But it doesn’t have anything to do with the SWP promoting anti-Jewish racism. I have seen nothing from the SWP to this effect. Turning a blind eye to something is not the same as supporting it. The KPD in Germany was criminal in what it did. It left the German working class defenceless and the Jews with it. But they were not anti-Semitic they just preferred to appease anti-Semitism. It is a distinction that Mikey would be incapable of understanding. And David too goes for drinkies with Atzmon though he has a somewhat better understanding of the ‘blood and soil’ nature of Atzmon’s racism.

    But there is a growing recognition in the Palestinian solidarity movement of who Atzmon and his fellow creatures – Knuckles et al – represent. At the last PSC Conference what rendered the motion we put academic was the Executive statement that PSC would have nothing to do with Deir Yassin Remembered. Indeed a link with DYR had been taken off the PSC website shortly before. The reality is that people recognise that Atzmon has nothing to offer except his vacuous racism.

    I just hope Ian Donovan strikes up a first where many socialists are concerned. That is he reflects upon the position he is arguing for because he will otherwise come to regret it.

    Tony Greenstein

  34. David T on said:

    In reply to #40 Mary (the cutter)

    That’s not what he believes at all.

    Anybody who has read any of his articles, or the dialogues in which he engages on your website, will be very clear what his position is.

    Gilad Atzmon’s small bunch weirdly loyal supporters do sometimes try to santitise his views, but Atzmon always cocks it up by saying something or other truely stupid, which give him away. What is quite funny is to see him carefully crafting a phrase so – he thinks – he hints at something truely outrageous and shocking in a ‘deniable’ way. But actually, it is crystal clear where he’s coming from…

    The thing is, Mary and Gilad, people aren’t idiots. If you want to create a little club of weirdos and bigots, fair enough. But when non-mad people like Andy call you on it, don’t go boohooing about how unfairly you’ve all been mischaracterised.

  35. Jock McTrousers on said:

    ” 30. David T. Yes he’s giving the, “Popper for Rebels” talk. Part of the Special Speakers / Pompous Ass track.

    Comment by BatterseaPowerStation — 21 ”

    No I’m not, but POPPER! – that was the guy! He was a right wing nut and a boring bastard, and so are you.

  36. David T. I think you’re being overly generous about Martin Smith, but that’s beside the point. Atzmon strikes me as being a typical artist who has come into politics. It’s never been an easy transition (one side typically suffers while the other ossifies).

    His shock-sax pose has all the force of a teenager on their first demo against racism. His “ironic distance” from “Jewishness” (what’s original and shocking about this?) has landed him in all sorts of dodgy company and cut him off from quite a few folk he’d probably be better off with on-side.

    He needs to, ahem, change key. This trajectory puts him in the “tired old bollocks,” category for me. Now, where’s that Sebald book?

  37. David T on said:

    Andy

    Yeah.

    I wonder if Smith agrees with Atzmon’s assessment that any jewish cultural identity is suspect and to be opposed. Atzmon thinks that opposing jewish cultural identity is standing up to Jewish Power.

    I wonder if Martin Smith thinks the same thing.

    Tony:

    For example I could stand up at the UNISON Conference as a Jewish member of UNISON and challenge the Zionist claim that to support Boycott is to be anti-Semitic.

    For example, jewish Atzmon can stand up at an SWP meeting, explain his Jewish Power thesis, and promote the works of the jewish Eisen and the supposedly-jewish Shamir, and then publish the results on the jewish Rizzo blog, and challenge the Zionist claim that to support Holocaust “revisionism” is to be anti-Semitic.

    Oh, hang on…

    I’m not a supporter of Zionism. I’m an anti-Zionist, to the extent that these terms mean anything at all. Rather, I am a supporter of states establishing regional federations on the basis of a common respect for democracy and fundamental human rights, pooling to the extent they choose their sovereignty, by measures which might include opening borders, lowering tariffs, providing for common regional citizenship rights, and levels of social protection.

    This is an excellent model for regional democracy, peace and economic development. We’ve followed a model like this in Europe for the last 60 years and it seems to have worked incredibly well.

    I’d encourage you to work for such an outcome as well.

  38. 45. Forgive me jock. Right wing I’ll grant, but boring, never!
    As for me, guilty as charged! You should write to Martin Smith over at the SWP though, I’m sure with your tone you’re a shoe-in for a speakers slip (at least).

  39. David T, cut the crap and just come out with the names of Muslim Palestinian activists who have denounced Gilad Atzmon or myself.

    As to Tony, I think it is high time he sought professional help.

    I have NEVER seen a person spend so much time and energy posting hundreds and hundreds of posts against the people he hates (oh, not the Zionists, Mary Rizzo, Gilad Atzmon, Paul Eisen). His arse must be the size of a house. That is the only thing that comes to mind right now. I have no desire to waste further time of mine with his rank idiocy. Anyone who sees my site knows what it is, what the content is, and Ian is right, it is always in the top three Palestinian blogs as ranked by various search engines. Is Tony implying that Palestinians and Palestinian activists are AntiSemites? Sure Tony is notoriously unpopular to the readers of my blog, because Tony doesn’t care who he sides with, the rabid Zionists here like Tim, and David T or settlers, just as long as they hate who Tony hates, they are OK with him!! We debunk his lies. Tony knows he is lying and smearing and doing little to nothing else. That is the most interesting aspect of it all. That this is the central purpose to his life.

  40. Sorry mary, you have lost me there.

    In the sentence “Mary Rizzo is a palestinian blogger”, Palestinian is an adjective, but it also wouldn’t be true.

    In the sentence Mary Rizzo is an Italian blogger who writes about palestine, Italian is an adjective, and the statement is true.

  41. Ian Donovan on said:

    “But when Ian Donovan says that ‘I am neutral between Atzmon and Greenstein,’ then he has really lost it. You are neutral between a racist and an anti-racist? I suspect Ian that you have begun to lose your political bearings. The experience of acting as an apologist for every twist and turn of the SWP and then finding them turning round and destroying all that you placed your faith in, with all the excuses they made for abandoning class politics, have taken their toll.”

    Er, no Tony, I’m very proud of my staunch support for the Respect project, and my defence of it against all comers, including you, the AWL and latterly the SWP leadership. All of whom have in common false and reactionary allegations of “communalism” against Respect. Tony has no project, nothing, zilch, no perspective except this kind of bizarre floundering.

    Tony has not remotely demonstrated that Atzmon is a racist. Sometimes Tony behaves extremely irrationally about this question – like when he initiated a ‘picket line’ outside Bookmarks against an Atzmon book launch and initially threatened that anyone who crossed it would be treated as a scab. He also bizarrely accused me of being sympathetic to Holocaust denial. When I pointed out the obvious fact that this was a crazy thing to do and would lead to a physical confrontation with the SWP, he suddenly sobered up and was forced to apologise for the latter and repudiate the former idea.

    I’ve seen these hystrionics before, and they dont impress me. I’m not concerned by his Bush-like political ultimata (“if you’re not for us, you’re against us”). They are the opposite of rational debate. He doesn’t actually believe that anyone can sincerely disagree with him about something, and that their ideas need to be answered comprehensively and politically. Well sorry mate, you’ll have to do better than that.

  42. David T on said:

    Palestinian as an adjective,

    No, Palestinians are not “an adjective”. They’re actual real people, with hopes and needs, in a terrible situation. They’re not there to fight for Tony Greenstein’s trotskyite ideal state, of Atzmon/Rizzo and all the other “ex jews” problems with their own cultural identity.

    Actually, it is professional Borat impersonator, ‘Israel Shamir’, who the Palestinians have a problem with. I expect Atzmon wouldn’t be too popular if they’d ever heard of him outside, erm, the SWP, a few zany blogs in the UK, and the pages of the increasingly weird 9/11 conspiracy journal, “Counterpunch”.

    “As to Tony, I think it is high time he sought professional help.”

    ho ho. Oh, the irony!

    because Tony doesn’t care who he sides with, the rabid Zionists here like Tim, and David T or settlers, just as long as they hate who Tony hates, they are OK with him

    Of course, you’re right to some extent about Tony Greenstein. Tony was VERY disappointed with Fatah when it signed up to Oslo. He felt personally betrayed – having given so much of his life to his dream of a binational secular socialist state, imagine how awful it must have been to discover that the Palestinians weren’t fools, and didn’t actually want to run their state according to a failed model dreamed up in some student union back in the 1980s!

    Likewise, how disappointing it must be for the likes of Atzmon and Rizzo to discover that Hamas have a tiny 15% approval rating, and that they’re more keen on living ordinary stable lives than fighting a jihad against International Jewish Power for the amusement of a bunch of malcontent “ex-jews”.

    Isn’t it about time that you took the motto “Palestinians are the Priority” seriously?

  43. From everything to nothing:

    Greenstein – original post:

    ” Even if he is given the benefit of a very considerable doubt, by his own words it is clear that he has now become a fully fledged holocaust denier.”

    Greenstein at #42:

    “It is noticeable that whereas once Atzmon denied he was a holocaust denier today he doesn’t bother.”

    It is equally noticeable that he doesn’t say he is one……..

  44. Rizzoworld on said:

    “And while I, and the Fatah movement to which I belong, strongly oppose attacks and the targeting of civilians inside Israel, our future neighbor”

    Marwan Barghouti.
    Zionist.

  45. Tony Greenstein has some chutzpah. He has been exposed time and time again by myself and others for the way he distorts the history of the Zionists in the Holocaust both in Hungary and in the Yishuv. He does not use scholarly sources for much of his information but polemical nonsense. For anyone who wishes to know about Zionists in the Holocaust, I suggest the following scholarly book:

    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)

    If they were to read that, they would see much of where Greenstein goes wrong.

    Greenstein’s information on Kasztner ignores the fact that Kasztner was a witnness in a trial in Israel in the mid-1950s. This case went to the Supreme Court where by 4:1 majority it was deemed that Kasztner’s actions could not be deemed collaboration. Not only this but Kasztner managed to save the lives of close to 1,700 Jews who escaped the clutches of the Nazis. Kasztner’s was also involved with fellow committee member Joel Brand in a bid to save 1,000,000 Jewish lives. Greenstein ignores all these efforts and the work that Kasztner’s commitee did in assisting Jews escaping the border from Slovakia and Poland as well as his part towards the end of the war in assisting 18,000 Jews sent to labour camp in Austria – most of whom survived the war.

    Greenstein leaves out so many crucial facts and distorts others that it is horrendous.

    I can go on and on and on with Greenstein’s distortions, but all I would say is that any one who relies for information on the Holocaust on his work or Lenni Brenner’s work probably need their head examined.

  46. “before the word BLOG, Palestinian is an adjective”

    But then you’re not in the top anything Mary.
    Unless of course you meant to say.
    “Blogs with Palestine in the title”

    And your membership of Palestinian Mothers,is I’m sure grammatically correct in your world.

  47. An Amateur Anthropologist on said:

    “Whether or not Atzmon is correctly quoted is immaterial.”

    It is if you’re accusing Gilad of holocaust denial.

    Sometimes this “Socialist Unity” vanity project is just so toe-curlingly bad as to make a good basis for a sitcom. Probably set in Tooting.

  48. oh, timmy, do your own research. There are loads of engines dedicated to various arguments, you plug them in, and out pop the results. Social Rank has one for many arguments. That one monitors hundreds of thousands of posts a day and my blog is always in the top 5, usually in the top 3. I don’t make this stuff up, nor did Ian Donovan. The blog gets a lot of readers. So, is this the problem for you? And, even were it not so popular, the posts from it are picked up on hundreds of sites. I’d say it’s widely disseminated, but again… does it matter?

    I never said I was a Palestinian, Andy made that one up when he created the sentence where I claimed I was a Palestinian blogger (you can’t trust anyone here for accuracy, can you… make it up and then it is good. Nice way to operate, but I don’t go for it). I am a member of Palestinian Mothers network, Tim. I was invited to join by the webmaster who is a friend. There are also men that are members, and people who are not Palestian, so obviously, we look at the name of the blog as not necessarily referring to us personally. And I think it is only David that is overly interested in my ethnic group, as if he has the vaguest idea of what it is. Clearly the blog doesn’t have Jews in its title.

    sheesh, got to explain everything to these people.

  49. David T on said:

    OK, so now you’ve seen Atzmon and Rizzo in action, at first hand.

    Can anybody explain to me why the SWP thought it was a good idea to have this section of the extreme right on board in the first place?

    Anybody?

  50. David T, how many posts is it then since you have made a claim that you know to be patently false and you will not substantiate it? I’d say we’ve seen you in action. Need I add more?

  51. Mary

    I dis not say you were claiming to be palestinian, but if you say you blog is a top palestinian blog, the clear implication is that it is written by palestinians.

  52. Yeshiya on said:

    #1 I read Donovan’s post at the beginning, which is *completely wrong*, and then skipped everything else.

    We’ve been through all this before and, having declared a comments policy which excludes racists, the moderators of the SU blog, then proceed to allow the racist imbeciles using pseudonyms to worm their way into the debate once again.

    Well it probably helps boost the reading figures, but this strikes me as utterly opportunist.

    This is NOT a debate between two groups of “anti-zionists” (a term which I think is not very useful anyway) The question is anti-imperialism

    Atzmon is a half-wit, who has latched onto a character who is the propaganda arm of an organised campaign on the internet to spread lies and race hate.
    He doesn’t offer the correct solutions. He’s a diversion from them.

    Socialists should neither work with, nor engage in debates with him.
    They should simply put forward their own politics forward, including their critiques of this political trend.

    Once again, the most principled position on this has been taken by Alan Woods.
    Not a coincidence, I’d suggest.

  53. Andy, dear, it is really simple:

    Andy: Sorry mary, you have lost me there.

    In the sentence “Mary Rizzo is a palestinian blogger”, Palestinian is an adjective, but it also wouldn’t be true.”

    I never said I was a Palestinian blogger. You put it in quotes, I said Palestinian before blog is an adjective. Then David comes out with Palestinians are a people (as if he has to tell us this)… I think you all know what to do with your language, don’t you? Perhaps take night courses to refresh?

  54. My husband started a motorcycle blog. It is obviously not written by a motorcycle. Motorcyle is an adjective that describes the content of the blog. So simple, even a child understands, but not apparently you lot!

  55. I knew a bloke in the mid 80s who adopted a scouse accent as he thought it made him appear radical and associated him with the Militant Council.
    Problem was the Militant council wasnt particularly radical,represented about 15% of Liverpool,nobody believed he was a scouser,it was all about hiding his public school background .

    Marys Palestinian identity problems remind me of him.

  56. Mary

    If you say it is a palestinian Blog, that doesn’t mean a blog about palestine, it means a blog from Palestine or by palestinians.

    perhaps you are not a native speaker of English, which would explain why it seemed like you were making a false claim.

    More accurately you could have written “it is a top pro-palestinian blog” or ” a top blog about palestine”

    But i doon’t think you should correct native speakers of english and claim we don’t understand our own language.

  57. David T on said:

    What does your husband think of your relationship with Gilad?

    I imagine you to be rather like the obsessed fan, “Mel”, from Flight of the Conchords.

  58. Mary #68

    Do you think there is any possible ambiguity that the blog might be written by a motorcycle?

    No – obvioulsy not, that is why we need make no distinction.

    BUt when referring to nationality and regional origin, we use more precise formualations to remove ambiguity.

    There is a difference between a blog about palestine, and a blog from palestine or written by palestinians.

    Only in the case of a blog from palestine or written by palestinians would we describe that as a “palestinian blog”

    For example I am always careful in discussing constitutional issues in the Britosh parliamant to distinguish between a Scottish MP, and an MP reppresenting a Scottish constituency. this is becasue an English woman might represent a Scottish constituency, and a Scot might represent an English constitucency. You cannot just say “a scottish MP”

  59. Judging by the adverts on Palestinian Mothers,Mary isn’t the only confused one.

    Palestinian Dating
    Find Your Arab Soul Mate Today! Search photos, email, chat and more

  60. goodwin sands on said:

    Hey, Mary and Gilad.

    Paul Eisen says the gas chambers of Auschwitz wouldn’t work. He supports his claim using the very same lies that were debunked in the Irving trial, and which were shown indisputably in the Irving trial to have originated with the far-far right, grotesque figures like the self-confessed “Hitler-lover” Ernst Zündel.

    Are you generally happy to carry water for self-confessed Hitler lovers, Mary and Gilad, or are you just making an exception for Eisen?

  61. I don’t believe I need English lessons, but you folks surely do.
    http://palestine.dailyvoices.com/community
    “Discover The Hottest Blogs From Palestine .
    Want to know the hottest blogs on Palestine ? You have come to the right place!
    At palestine.dailyvoices.com we are constantly monitoring the top blogs and blog posts on Palestine .

    Tracked this week: 309,930 posts from 193,728 blogs”

    That should satisfy the blog and grammatical curiosity.

    David T is curious, he seems to be very taken with Gilad. I would cut that out a bit if I were you, you might end up being called a Groupie the way Tony does with me. Your partner might not be able to get a laugh out of it, seeing as you are really thrilled to talk about having met him and gotten on nicely.

    At any rate, my husband tries to understand that I am dedicated to Palestine. I have been before I knew Gilad, and Gilad and I have a purely “platonic” relationship. There! How is that for the gossip portion of the blog supposedly about Socialists and Unity.

  62. Yeshiya #66

    I am open to suggestions of how we can address this better.

    The trouble is there is a large slice of the left who find Atzmon’s views unobjectionable, so simply refusing to debate them does nothing to shift that.

    Our willingness to host this debate has noothing to do with pursuing ratings, if anything it puts people off, and i would rather have a quieter life.

  63. Yeshiya on said:

    At least twice before, you’ve allowed debates with the same people to run into the hundreds of posts and then closed them, having concluded that the AtmoRizzo trolls were purveyors of racial and religious bigotry.

    So what exactly has changed?

  64. Yes, Mary does host on her blog one Paul Eisen who sent an email round last year headlined “WHY I SUPPORT ERNST ZUNDEL.” Just about sums him up really.

  65. #76

    Mary, are you saying that native speakers of English do not understand the subtlety of our own language?

    I note the site you reference says:

    Discover The Hottest Blogs From Palestine .
    Want to know the hottest blogs on Palestine ?
    all blogs that cover Palestine

    Which is it? On, from or covering. For a native English speaker only a blog from palestine, or by a palestinian is a palestinian blog

    I know that prepositions are the hardest part of mastering a foriegn language acurately. But the fact that another wb-page is incorrect doesn’t vindicate you.

  66. Goodwin, save your wind for Tony. He reads Holocaust Revisionist sites, reprints their articles, sends them in emails and publishes them on forums. Apparently, they are truthful to him.

    I have never done any of the above, no matter what he falsely claims. The question goes to Tony, the HD expert.

  67. Andy: Mary, are you saying that native speakers of English do not understand the subtlety of our won language?

    Mary: who did you win the language from? And, I didn’t write the blurb from the ranking engine. So, apparently, what they mean is that they focus on blogs that are FROM Palestine, ON Palestine and COVER Palestine.

    Today, my blog is third out of “193,728 blogs”

    I never said I was Palestinian, but my blog is a Palestinian blog. Is this REALLY that complicated for you people, or are you just bored?

  68. Yeshiva #78

    Nothing has changed. Indeed one of the things that hasn’t changed is the acceptance of Atzmon’s anti-Semitism from parts of the British left.

    So far I have not read anything anti-Semitic nor racist on this thread so far. Correct me if I am wrong.

    If there is, then we will close it down.

  69. #82

    No Mary. Your blog is not a Palestinian blog. It is a blog about palestine, since you are neither a palestinian, nor is the blog originating from Palestine.

  70. It’s the repetitiousness that really merits a close down. But carry on, lads, I’ll be cooking now, while my husband plays me a sonata on a mandolin.

  71. goodwin sands on said:

    Here’s a simple one, Mary. The Holocaust denier Paul Eisen claims — in the essay you and Gilad champion, and that he’s only days ago said he was glad to distribute — that the gas chambers at Auschwitz couldn’t have worked because there was no way to put the Zyklon B in them. This is what Ernst Zündel claimed, and also what Irving claimed in his trial. And, as the trial showed, it was a lie. If you want, I can post you a photo of one of the supposedly non-existent holes in the roof of Krema 2.

    So, Mary, by defending the lies of Paul Eisen you and Gilad are also defending the lies of Zündel and Irving — demonstrable, obvious, proven, anti-Semitic lies.

    You can no longer pretend you don’t know.

    Mary, why do you defend Holocaust denial?

  72. It is also the case that on her website Mary has a logo that says

    “I’m a member of: Palestinian Mothers.”

    I think Mary is suffering an identity crisis.

  73. goodwin sands on said:

    One other point.

    Mary: “Goodwin, save your wind for Tony. He reads Holocaust Revisionist sites, reprints their articles, sends them in emails and publishes them on forums. Apparently, they are truthful to him.”

    You are now implying Tony is a Holocaust denier?

    Words have no meaning whatsoever to you, do they, Mary?

  74. goodwin, just one before I turn on the gas (of my cooker). I do not agree 100% with a single human being who has ever lived. Differences people have of opinion, however should be respected. I never published what you claim on my blog. So, keep on inventing shit. On the other hand, I do not believe that the topic of further study of ANY historical event should be taboo, nor should people be punished or censored or killed for expressing views that they hold.

    If we are not afraid of truth, why are we afraid to debate?

    what is the big problem here? I think you people are seriously only obsessed with attacking individuals and you don’t give a toss about Palestinians (certainly the Zionists here don’t), but those like Goodwin are simply a waste of time for any human being.

  75. David T on said:

    David T is curious, he seems to be very taken with Gilad.

    Gilad struck me as a nice enough sort of person, but really rather messed up and a bit nutsy. The world is full of slightly zany people, with weird and obnoxious views. As long as they’re not, you know, giving speeches on SWP platforms, their hang ups are really their own private tragedy, as far as I’m concerned.

    I wouldn’t normally come across him, because I don’t like jazz. I also follow the far left more closely than I follow the weirder corners of the far right. Although I try to keep my knowledge up of those groups which float around ‘mainstream’ extreme right groups and Islamist groups, my knowlege of the “ex-jew” movement of people associated with “Israel Shamir” just isn’t that good. Until recently, I wouldn’t have thought it was that significant, because it mostly feeds into the weird miasma of kooks and conspiracists that you find on the internet.

    The only thing that makes any of this of interest to me is the dogged determination of the SWP, repeatedly, to showcase Atzmon and to help him promote his politics.

    Again, this really only matters to me because I’m primarily trainspottery about the extreme left.

  76. Tony distributes things from Holocaust Revision sites. I never have.

    He claims this is sufficient to be a HD.

    If that is the case, follow his logic. This is his argument.

  77. Has anyone actually met Mary, or is it possible she’s an Israeli intelligence psy-ops AI experiment run wild?

    I’m not paranoid, according to my CIA handler.

  78. Tony Greenstein on said:

    Ian Donovan writes at #53:

    >>Tony has not remotely demonstrated that Atzmon is a racist. Sometimes Tony behaves extremely irrationally about this question – like when he initiated a ‘picket line’ outside Bookmarks against an Atzmon book launch and initially threatened that anyone who crossed it would be treated as a scab. He also bizarrely accused me of being sympathetic to Holocaust denial. When I pointed out the obvious fact that this was a crazy thing to do and would lead to a physical confrontation with the SWP, he suddenly sobered up and was forced to apologise for the latter and repudiate the former idea.

    Ian Donovan denies that Atzmon is anti-Semitic. So when Atzmon refers to this site as ‘socialist Jewnity’ is that anti-Semitic? It could have come from the NF (the BNP don’t do such obvious anti-Semitism these days).

    Is that anti-Semitic?

    I cite his ‘on anti-Semitism’ article ‘“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 elder of Zion’ are an authentic document or rather a forgery irrelevant. American Jews do try to control the world, by proxy… I would suggest that perhaps we should face it once and for all: the Jews were responsible for the killing of Jesus who, by the way, was himself a Palestinian Jew.”

    Is that not anti-Semitic?

    Atzmon continually talks about Jewish lobbies, Jewish power and so on. He justifies the Holocaust as being on account of the ‘unpopularity’ of Jews.

    Is that anti-Semitic?

    To Goodwin Sands he says ‘Now go back to your cyber shtetle’.

    Anti-Semitic?

    To Duncan Money he says ‘Mr Money… we do not take the labels: anti Semite and H denier very seriously. Every visitor who comes with this crap identifies himself as a Zionist or a crypto one..’

    Anti-Semitic or just indicative of where he is coming from?

    What more evidence do you require? You are beginning to sound like ‘Knuckles’. Whatever evidence is presented concerning the actualite of the Holocaust it isn’t enough. If you start from the basis that Atzmon can’t be anti-Semitic because the SWP wouldn’t have worked with him if he was, then you’re right – he isn’t anti-Semitic. But then nor is anyone else!

    I’m sorry that Ian Donovan, being unable to distinguish between anti-Semitism and plain ignorance, has now decided to make things up.

    I have never accused Ian Donovan of being sympathetic to Holocaust denial. Not surprisingly since I don’t believe it. Nor have I ever accused the SWP of being sympathetic to holocaust denial. I would have prefered Ian to join the picket rather than crossing it, as is usually the norm with socialists, but I didn’t consider him a scab and don’t. Merely a not very sophisticated apologist for the indefensible!

    Tony Greenstein