Perfect irrationality: the shortest route between anti-semitism and Islamophobia

I've overlooked the fact that Gilad Atzmon has tried to portray his detractors as giving vent to a singularly Jewish, indeed, zionist self-indulgence. This, of itself, is a grotesque distortion of our position. Gilad Atzmon has made many anti-semitic pronouncements. I won't bore readers with still more quotes. Visit his site and read beyond his disclaimer. It wouldn't be accurate, though, to call him a neo-nazi. However, his association with Paul Eisen and his willingness to distribute Paul Eisen's holocaust denying literature (with which, apparently, Atzmon has "slight disagreements") does mean that where Atzmon goes he carries the shadow of neo-nazism with him. The anti-semitism should be enough to make him persona non grata but Paul Eisen links with approval to the Zundelsite. Click on the link in the headline to this post and then check out Zundel. Find the section headed Victims of Zion. See who these victims are. I'm not Deborah Lipstadt so I don't want to give them the publicity they have so far lacked but way down the page is a "Victim of Zion" called Nick Griffin. Yes, it's him, the BNP leader being touted as "victim of Zion" and this on account of a conviction for racism. But Griffin's racism isn't directed at Jews these days and he doesn't claim to be anti-"zionist", unlike his competitor/mentor, John Tyndal. No, Griffin's beef is "Islamisation".

The reason we are opposed to any form of racism is because we are opposed to all forms of racism and any flirtation with an anti-semite, yes, a rambling, bumbling, self-contradicting one, but an anti-semite all the same, is a step on a route from anti-semitism to Islamophobia and all other racism too.

Plucky little Atzmon and the powerful lobby

I'm suffering a bit of Gilad Atzmon fatigue so I didn't noticed this email to the Just Peace list until someone sent it to me. Atzmon had someone post it for him because he doesn't approve of people identifying as Jews so he won't join a "powerful lobby" like Just Peace UK. Anyway here it is:

This is to confirm that I am not a Holocaust denier, I have never denied the Nazi Judeocide and I do not have any intentions to do so in the near future. [not sure who's accused him of being a holocaust denier but he does admit - though not in this email - to distributing an article by holocaust denier Paul Eisen, albeit with slight disagreements] For me racism and Nazism are categorically wrong and it is that very realisation that made me into a devoted opponent of Israel and Zionism. For me, Zionism, being a racist expansionist movement, is no different from Nazi ideology. [standard anti-zionist stuff] In my writings, I try to suggest some alternative philosophical and ethical realisation of historical narratives and current world affairs. [he rambles and contradicts himself and he denounces Jews as Jews] This of course applies to the Holocaust. I would argue that atrocities should be realised in ideological terms rather than in measurable positive terms. Rather occasionally I question the impact of the Holocaust as a "mean of justification". I try to scrutinise its role within western politics and discourse. [don't we all? Now get to the point]In fact, I am not interested at all in the debate concerning the scale of Jewish casualties. As we all know, it wasn't only Jews who died in that bloody war and it isn't the number that makes the difference. For me the Holocaust isn't a question of quantity but rather a moral lesson, it is search into the essence of being amongst others. These ideas make me very unpopular amongst Zionists and their supporters.[thanks for that - all anti-zionists are unpopular with zionists and if anything Atzmon has got off very lightly when it comes to zionist denunciations. The problem with zionists is that they have been falsely accusing good people of anti-semitism for so long now, they don't notice the real thing - anyway, get to the point]

I may mention as well that I am a Jazz musician and a novelist. I am not a politician; [nebach!]I have never been a member in any political party. I am acting independently. I am not associated with any political body and I do not intend to be associated with one in the foreseeable future. I deeply believe in an open intellectual exchange in which people with many different and opposing views can hear and be heard. I do believe that we must learn to listen to our opponents. Unless we do that we will never win. I would argue that any form of discourse is acceptable as long as it doesn't bridge the elementary ethical barrier i.e. endorsing violence and discrimination.[and of course Israel Shamir's reiteration of the medieval blood libel and Paul Eisen's holocaust denial and sympathy for Hitler are elementarily ethical?]
I do believe that those who try to block me at the moment are in fact the gravest opponents of our society. [Tony Greenstein, Deborah Maccoby, Roland Rance and me] They are fighting against the most basic notion of human liberty.[we are fighting against anti-semitism in this instance] Their tactics which include: censorship, defamation and smear campaigns, [examples?]are the essence of Zionist political practice.[well we are Jews after all] For those who already managed to forget, burning books and exclusion were Nazi common strategies. [The nazis weren't noted for their discernment over who should or shouldn't attend socialist gatherings and they positively approved of anti-semitism] Those who try to stop me from appearing in Marxism 2005 next month and Bookmarks later this week are in fact reactionary forces who aim to shatter the most intrinsic notion of intellectual life. They fight against freedom of speech, freedom of interpretation and ideological diversity. They are trying to forcefully implant their obscure views
in the very core of British left discourse.[I think I'm going to be sick - excuse me] It is devastating to find out that those non-progressive calls are expressed under the banner of British Jewish left (Anti Zionist Jews, JPUK etc'). [this is a complete lie from Atzmon - check this "By contrast, I really do not understand those who fight Zionism in the name of their secular Jewish identity. I have never understood them. I have never really understood what secularism means for the Jewish people. Do they refer to a hidden core of Jewish secular ethic philosophy? I have always failed to understand those secular Jews who declare "not in my name", those who claim to be "atheists" and "enlightened humanists" but at the same time talk in the name of a strange tribal brotherhood."] - I would rather prefer to believe that after such a long history of Jewish suffering, left Jews would position themselves of the forefront of the battle against discrimination and defamation. [this is why he calls Tony Greenstein and Roland Rance "under-cover zionists"] - No doubt many Jews do and I am very thankful for that.[but how will you know they're Jewish? they have to renounce it remember?]

I am engaged here in a ferocious battle against a very powerful and influential lobby of people who lack any sense of moral awareness or intellectual integrity. [as already said, the zionist movement, probably through ignorance, has been very kind to Atzmon so he is referring to Jews like myself] I may as well mention that I don't have any plans to give up.[it's the SWP who should be giving Atzmon up] And yet, I use this opportunity to call my opponents to attend the coming events and to engage themselves in a fruitful dialogue with me and everybody else.

Gilad Atzmon

Sorry to repeat on previous posts but Gilad Atzmon doesn't explain how one engages in fruitful dialogue with someone who says

Even though the Jews only make up 2.9 per cent of the country's population, an astounding 56 per cent of Clinton's appointees were Jews. A coincidence? I don't think so. . . 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. . . the Jews were responsible for the killing of Jesus

and then that

to act as a Jew against Zionism is just a silly mistake that leads nowhere

and again that

If Israel is the state of the Jewish people and the Jewish people themselves do not stand up collectively against the crimes that are committed on their behalf, then every Jewish person, Jewish symbol and Jewish object becomes an Israeli interest and a potential terrorist target. It is up to the Jewish people to take a stand against their Jewish state and to disassociate themselves from their zealous national movement

He can say one thing, then the opposite thing, both with equal conviction. Let him engage in "fruitful dialogue" with himself. There's still time to call this thing off.

The Jewish Rifle Association

A friend and I have exchanged a lot of emails about what to do about Atzmon at Bookmarks and then he sent me this link to Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership. I wonder what he meant.

Boycott of Israel

After the apoplexy that greeted the AUT's decision to boycott Israeli academia it may surprise some to know that the USA has imposed sanctions on Israel's arms trade because of Israel's sale of drones to China. In fact the sanctions have been in place for three months now. I think the AUT should have a special special conference to follow the American lead on this.

Gilad the performing elephant

There's an elephant in the living room and no one wants to draw attention to it. The elephant in the living room on this occassion is the fact that Gilad Atzmon is on the list to appear at the SWP's annual event, Marxism 2005 and he is to give a talk at the SWP's bookshop, Bookmarks on Friday 17/6/2005. I shouldn't really say that no one wants to draw attention to it. I didn't want to because I was sure the invites were sent out by people (or even just one person) who don't know that Atzmon veers from rambling buffoonery to outright anti-semitism and that his presence on a leftist platform is entirely inappropriate. Tony Greenstein has written to the SWP to get them to rescind their invites to Atzmon and the replies have been so curt as to be wilfully insulting. Much correspondence between Atzmon and Greenstein has been posted to the Just Peace e-list and the UK Left Network. Well now Gilad Atzmon has posted the whole of their correspondence on to his own site while the Peace Palestine blog has an abridged version. There are a couple of other sites where the Atzmon at Marxism issue has been aired after a fashion but these tend to be sites where the SWP and other anti-zionists are routinely accused of anti-semitism. These are not on very firm ground. They can hardly admit that they have been lying about the SWP and anti-zionism for years and that now they have stumbled on something that makes their bogus allegations ring true.

But there are well meaning people who are opposed to Atzmon's presence at leftist events. Apparently Moshe Machover has threatened to pull out of Marxism 2005 and Michael Rosen has said that he will denounce Atzmon from his own slot at the event.

Meanwhile Roland Rance posted a useful comment to an earlier post post of mine on Atzmon. In a quote I use from Atzmon he complains that the Jews have the rest of humanity so bamboozled over what one can or cannot say that "basically you can never win. But neither can they." "But neither can they"? I nearly cut that last sentence because I didn't understand it. Maybe now I do:

Atzmon is not merely doing a book signing at Bookmarks; he is speaking on "The Deconstruction of the Zionist Identity". This from a man who has written: ""Even though the Jews only make up 2.9 per cent of the country's population, an astounding 56 per cent of Clinton's appointees were Jews. A coincidence? I don't think so. . . 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. . . the Jews were responsible for the killing of Jesus".

Regarding a threat by Jews against Zionism to picket the Bookmarks event

Of course, this will not impress Atzmon, who has written "to act as a Jew against Zionism is just a silly mistake that leads nowhere". On the other hand, he has also written "If Israel is the state of the Jewish people and the Jewish people themselves do not stand up collectively against the crimes that are committed on their behalf, then every Jewish person, Jewish symbol and Jewish object becomes an Israeli interest and a potential terrorist target. It is up to the Jewish people to take a stand against their Jewish state and to disassociate themselves from their zealous national movement".

So there you are - damned if we do, and damned if we don't. There's no satisfying some people.

Or to put it another way, "basically you can never win. But neither can they."

Telegraph: Malcolm Rifkind is a traitor

Actually the Telegraph didn't say that. They said that about George Galloway, with far less evidence than there appears to be about Rifkind and it cost them dear. Now it turns out that Malcolm Rifkind's name has turned up on an authenticated document at Iraq's foreign ministry building. The document shows that the company that employed Rifkind in 1999 was seeking a meeting with Saddam Hussein's representatives in New York and that the meeting was bound up with the oil business during the sanctions regime. The document actually says that the meeting was to be attended by Rifkind himself but Rifkind puts this down to secretarial negligence at the company, the Australian multi-national BHP, and he denies that he was involved in any meeting, prospective or actual, with Saddam Hussein's representatives. So there we have Rifkind's name on a document showing that he (or at least his company) were interested in a deal with Saddam Hussein.

Now I'm interested in two questions here. Why has this document emerged now? And why hasn't the Telegraph denounced Rifkind as a traitor or indeed denounced him at all? Well, it might surprise people to know that Rifkind voted against the war on Iraq. That could explain why the document has surfaced so close to a leadership battle in the Tory party. But what about the Telegraph? Assuming the document has only just come to light then it could be that the Telegraph has been chastened by its defeat by George Galloway. But Rifkind's former employers admit that the document is genuine in this case whereas no such admission, no credible admission anyway, was forthcoming in the Galloway case. So he's anti-war (anti-war on Iraq anyway) and the evidence against him seeking to benefit from oil deals with the former Iraqi regime is admitted to be genuine, subject to Rifkind's own disclaimer. So what's the Telegraph's problem? Could it be that it's because he's a Tory and Tories can do what they like? They can even vote with their consciences (if indeed that's what it was) on issues like war. Clearly he hasn't emerged unscathed. After all the document has been the subject of reports but he hasn't been subjected to the combination of apoplexy and glee that greeted the allegations against Galloway. There's a lesson here. If Rifkind was on the left, if he had campaigned against the war rather than just voted against it, and, of course, if he wasn't a Tory he would be in the stocks right now just as they tried to place Galloway in the stocks. So Tories cannot prosper from treason, for if they prosper, none dare call it treason. (Hat-tip, Sir John Harrington)

Gilad Atzmon and the J-word

There's been much controversy about the Socialist Workers Party's invitation to Gilad Atzmon to promote his book at their book shop, Bookmarks, and to appear at their annual event: Marxism 2005. The controversy revolves around what he has written and who his friends are. Two of his friends are Israel Shamir and Paul Eisen. Israel Shamir is a shadowy figure and some say that he has alter egos who are Swedish and/or Russian fascists. His unsavoury politics were first exposed, as far as I know, by the owner of the Electronic Intifada website: Ali Abunimah and Hussein Ibish. But have a see for yourselves here. Paul Eisen I mentioned in a recent post. He has gone from ill-considered imagery through anti-Jewish generalisations to the poisonous embrace of neo-nazism as expressed in his support for Ernst Zundel and his pro-nazi take on WWII and the holocaust, such, if you believe Eisen and Zundel, as the latter was. Shamir and Eisen's pro-nazism is easy enough to expose. Just look at what they have written. Atzmon is a little more difficult to pin down. His wild allegations hurled at Jewish anti-zionist friends of mine, that they are actually under-cover zionists on account of their refusal to renounce their Jewishness is enough for me but what of others who don't know the people he has denounced or their contribution to the struggle against zionism?

Well, take a look at his article: The J word, the J people and the J spot. It rambles a bit, but take this following quote:

The J’s are the ultimate chameleons, they can be whatever they like as long as it serves as some expedient. As soon as you criticise their expansionist militant national beliefs (Zionism) you hurt them as a race (Semites), they would insist that anti Zionism is in practice a form of anti Semitism. When you condemn their racist tendencies, they are transformed immediately into an innocent cultural identity (merely chicken soup consumers). When you criticise their exclusive cultural leanings, they then become a race again (it isn’t me it’s all down to my mother, she is Jewish, I am just a consequence of her racial belonging). But it goes further, when you scrutinise their racist and supremacist religious law (Talmud) they remind you that most of them are in fact secular (true by the way), but then, when you question their secular philosophy, they would immediately confess that, in fact, there is no such philosophy. You may push your luck and ask them what stands at the core of their ethnic belonging. A ready made answer would be given instantly: ‘it is Hitler rather than Moses who made us into J’s’. Hitler never asked for our religious beliefs, he killed us just for being J’s.’ When you remind them that Hitler is no longer with us, they would assure you that a new one is just about to be born. Basically you can never win. But neither can they.

Clearly Atzmon doesn't just have a problem with the Jewish people, he has a problem with the word Jew. Some of what he says might be acceptable if he said some Jews but his target is the whole of the Jewish people. We don't have to jump through hoops to establish his anti-semitism, as the zionists did in the case of, say, Ken Livingstone. We just have to read his own words, or if you were at Marxism 2004 (which I wasn't) listen to them, or indeed the words of his many critics who are members of the SWP. Then consider whether this guy is a suitable person to appear at two Marxisms in a row and to have a book signing at Bookmarks.

Jewish State cedes territory to China

Well it's not actually a Jewish state, in fact it's barely Jewish at all. So it's not Jewish, nor is it a state but Birobidzhan, the former Jewish Autonomous Region of the former USSR, is ceding territory to China. Oh, ok, well it's not ceding terrritory to China. It has signed a bilateral cooperation protocol "with a delegation of the people’s government of the city of Jiamusa of the Heilongjiang province headed by its mayor Li Haitao." And the agreement doesn't actually cede territory, it leases it.

The Chinese delegation also expressed an intention to begin developing one of iron-ore fields, the reserves of which in the region exceed one billion tonnes, and take part in joint exploring of oil and gas fields. According to specialists’ estimates, the region’s oil reserves exceed 100 million tonnes.

The protocol also envisages trade, cultural, educational, medical and other forms of cooperation.

So no boycott there then.

Muslims sans frontieres

Are you offended by that headline? If you are, you are probably an editor of Medialens. Or maybe you think "Muslims sans frontieres" doesn't scan like "Jews sans frontieres" or that "Muslims sans frontieres" isn't a pun on "Jeux sans frontieres." I noticed I was getting hits from the Medialens message board and when I tracked back there was someone posting a link to this blog with the opening lines of a post. I think it must be a bloglet thing. That notifies subscribers when a blog has been updated. Well the chap who kept doing was told off by the editors thus:

Frankly, we find the name of the blog offensive and believe it is likely to alienate quite a few people visiting our site. Imagine 'Muslims Sans Frontieres'... It's ugly.

It's ugly? It trips off the tongue. It scans as I said. Fortunately someone who enjoys this blog posts to the Medialens message board

It is in no way offensive. It's a joke Eds! Remember Jeux Sans Frontier aka Its a Knockout?

It is a superb blog, specifically Jewish and written by Mark Elf a Jewish anti-zionist who goes out of his way to attack anti-semitism whenever he can.

Ahh that was nice wasn't it. Well not nice enough for the "Eds".

Fair enough. We got the joke and we weren't commenting on the blog itself (which we know nothing about). In isolation, without visiting the site, the name could be misinterpreted.

So, they got the joke. So what was all that nonsense about "Muslims sans frontieres"? What's the joke there? And they know nothing about my blog itself. I don't know how many Eds there are at Medialens but how long could it take just one of them to take a peek and see for themselves who might be offended by it or why?

From the Bethlehem ghetto

...the Bethlehem Bloggers. I received a link to this by email recently. It's a very professional looking blog with pictures, resources and links. Not many comments I noticed, so comment.

Free Palestine - today in New York

From the Bionic Octopus

To my unending irritation, it turns out I've got my big parental reunion brunch and all-day outing on the same day (today) as the fucking Salute to Israel Parade. Well, aren't my parents going to be tickled when I wear my Stop The Wall t-shirt to Park Avenue Cafe.

There's a counterdemo on, and I urge all in the area to make it up there if you can. Here's the info, from Palestine Activist Forum of New York:

---

Home Is Where the Occupation Is ...
home is where bulldozers level houses ...
30,000 Palestinians left homeless since 2000 ...
home is where illegal settlements steal land ...
425,000 settlers seize thousands of acres each year ...
home is where expelled residents are forbidden to return ...
6,000,000 Palestinian refugees displaced for 57 years

While they celebrate, we mourn.

Join the Palestine Activist Forum of New York (PAFNY) and stand up for justice in Palestine as we protest the "Salute to Israel" parade
11:00 am – 3:00 pm Sunday, June 5th, 2005 59th Street & 5th Avenue
Approach from the West side only
Please dress in black to mourn all those who have lost their lives due to the Israeli Occupation. Signs will be provided, but please wear kuffiyas and bring Palestinian flags.

The parade claims to be "the largest single gathering in the world in support of Israel" – so making visible our solidarity and unity in support of justice for Palestinians is especially important.

PAFNY is an independent network of organizations and individuals in NYC committed to justice for the people of Palestine. We are Muslims, Jews, Christians, and atheists from a variety of different cultural and ethnic backgrounds, united in outrage at the atrocities committed daily by the Israeli military.

Other endorsers include: No Pride in the Occupation (NYC)

So if you're in New York, hurry, hurry, hurry.

On deletions and bans

I feel I ought to say a few words about my increasing propensity to delete comments. I delete comments when I believe that they are made, mostly to waste time and tie people (in particular me) in sterile debate at the expense of more useful activities. I also delete openly racist and abusive comments. I am not opposed to debate per se, even with zionists. The mildest of criticism I have received over deleting comments by trolls is that it is censorship. That came from a guy who posted wilful lies about my own posts. I didn't mind the first time, but when he kept on doing it I deleted his comments. I don't accept that this is a form of censorship. On the contrary, trolling is a form of censorship for reasons outlined above. The same guy, indeed anyone, can run their own blog. I won't interfere or complain about their right to do so. In fact the same guy did set up his own blog and told the same lies about me that he told by way of my comments box. Next up I was accused of stalinism by a blogger from New York who is an Alan Dershowitz acolyte. He too denounced me on his own blog. I think being called a stalinist for deleting trolls' comments is just a tad over the top. He presumably thought I was a trotskyist and that stalinist was, to me, the vilest form of abuse. Still another guy accused me of fascism for deleting his silly comments. In his case I only deleted them because whilst he felt free to comment on every post I made, he never answered any questions. I usually have an honest go at answering some questions even by manifest trolls for the first few times. Regarding bans, this is a very blunt instrument so I don't do them very often and when I do it's only temporary. The first time I did, I ended with well-wishers asking me why they had been banned. At present I only have two bans in place and I only did those today. I even had the decency to respond to this guy's questions about the future for Palestine in two posts but he still accused me of not responding. He also insisted on continuing questioning another blogger and persisted when I asked him to question the other blogger on the other blogger's blog. Is that too much to ask? Anyway, as you can see, I don't really have a consistent policy on deletions and bans; try a comment and see how it goes, or better still, start your own blog.

Update 3/8/2005 - I now have a "chat" facility so if you want to hurl some bogus or tenuous allegations at me for others to see then comments in the chat box have more chance of being seen for longer before they inevitably get deleted.

Cheers!

Sympathy for the Devil

Paul Eisen has finally come out as, or at least gone over to, supporting a full-blown neo-nazi take on Hitler and the holocaust. I met Paul Eisen at the home of some Palestinian friends a bit over two years ago and he persuaded me to go to a Deir Yassin Remembered event addressed by, among others, Marc Ellis and entertained by a band called Anatolia. I remember George Galloway and Simon Louvish were there. There were a group of reform rabbis there as well and the event and the group has support from, in particular, reform rabbis in both the US and the UK. Many rabbis have written to the Jewish Chronicle supporting Deir Yassin Remembered and they have been roundly denounced by zionists for doing so, mostly because zionists either deny what happened or seek to play down its significance, or, of course they say, you shouldn't be looking.

My first issue with DYR was last year when a card depicted Jesus on the cross looking away from holocaust corpses and looking horrified towards a ravine containing the victims of the Deir Yassin massacre (I'm going from memory, it was something like that). I emailed Paul Eisen to say that the imagery was unsound and he claimed not to understand my problem with it. No one else openly objected though I suspect that many people believed it to be an innocent mistake in the quest for striking imagery. Next up Paul Eisen published an essay titled "Jewish Power". The article was clearly anti-semitic and was critiqued and denounced as such by many people, though still many people took the view that Paul Eisen was being naive or clumsy in his use of language. More recently I heard that the anti-semitic Israel Shamir was on the board of Deir Yassin Remembered, presumably at the invitation of Paul Eisen. Well now, no doubt can remain about where Paul Eisen stands on the political spectrum. His latest offering is a rambling apologia for holocaust deniers and even for Hitler himself and the nazis. I won't even include a block quote here as some zionists have a nasty habit of attributing quotes directly to the quoter. You will have to click on the red headline above, read the whole article, and weep for Deir Yassin Remembered which is going to be as buried as Deir Yassin itself if Israel Shamir and Paul Eisen have their way.

Something that emerges from this to my mind is the fact that I believe the zionist movement itself has a lot to answer for in terms of publicising holocaust denial which could and should have gone the way of flat earth societies. I have tended to the view that the zionists like a bit of holocaust denial so that they can do a lot of holocaust memorialising, often to distract people from what Israel is and does. They even asked a wilfully misleading question to have about 22% (or thereabouts) of New Yorkers suggesting that "it's possible" that the holocaust didn't happen. I think this led to the making of Schindler's List with its happy ending in a glorious technicolor Israel in an otherwise black and white film. Anway, this latest offering by Paul Eisen taints all who carry on business with him. He needs to be denounced and isolated.

As an aside, the zionists don't seem to have cottoned on to Paul Eisen just yet. This follows a familiar pattern. When Israel Shamir delivered an openly anti-semitic speech at the House of Lords a few months back, it was 7 weeks before the Jewish Chronicle (the UK's leading zionist newspaper) noticed it. Shamir seems to take the view that Jews should renounce being Jewish or forever take the rap for killing Jesus. Jazz saxophonist, Gilad Atzmon, takes the view that if you do not renounce being Jewish then you are a crypto- or under-cover zionist. All I have ever seen in the JC about Atzmon is that he has said unpleasant things about his country, ie, his anti-zionism was condemned but not his anti-semitism. He too started in what many believed was the naive school of inadvertent anti-semitism, but his denunciations of anti-zionist Jews, like Roland Rance and Tony Greenstein, make this position untenable. And now Paul Eisen is openly expressing sympathy, if not directly with Hitler, then certainly for his supporters. And the zionist movement seems not to have noticed. In earlier posts about these Jewish jew-haters I said "enough already!" Well now it's gone beyond enough.

Meanwhile some clumsy clot at the SWP seems to have copied and pasted from last year's invitations to Marxism 2004 and invited Gilad Atzmon to Marxism 2005. I remember a handful of SWP members commenting here that it was a mistake and that he was a disgrace. I hope the organisers spot this and rescind the invite and soon.

Where to from here?

The reason I am opposed to zionism and the existence of the state of Israel is because I believe that the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians and the establishment of a racist state in their place was not justified and can never be justified. Short of desiring a democratic secular state, much like a western state, I haven't considered much about how this should be achieved or what it would look like once it was achieved. When I was young and I began to discover the truth about Israel, I tried to get on with zionism for reasons of tribal loyalty and the quiet life. I even went to Israel three times staying on the same kibbutz twice. But once I heard about how Israel was established and how it maintained its existence I took the view that, as a bookshop assistant is said to have told a customer asking for Alan Dershowitz's "The Case for Israel", "there is no case for Israel." It was just rather a long time before I expressed that view. Anyway, considering "where to from here?", when the most powerful forces on earth support the racist war criminals of Israel seems like an exercise in futility to me and I haven't got a clue where to from here. I mean in terms of opposition I support boycotting Israeli goods, cultural and sporting links, academia, etc. Exposing the constant stream of lies we are told in the mass media is an important activity. Supporting, or at least putting into context, the various forms of Palestinian resistance and Israeli solidarity action also helps. But how a post-zionist Israel/Palestine will constitute itself I really don't know. Help, however, is at hand. This website - www.ONE-STATE.org has many articles and other resources dealing with the question of the future for Israel/Palestine. So if you want a non- or anti-zionist take on where to go from here then go there and don't ask me.

Thanks

The Jews defamed?

Consider this first paragraph of an article in today's Guardian headed "Le Monde editor 'defamed Jews'."

A French appeal court has found the editor-in-chief of Le Monde and the authors of an opinion piece in the paper guilty of "racial defamation" against Israel and the Jewish people.

Now since most of the paragraph is not in quotes it's hard to know what the actual ruling is saying. It's certainly possible to "racially defame" the Jews for example, if we take racial to mean pertaining to an identity group based largely on descent. But how does one racially. defame Israel or indeed any other state or institution?

The French umbrella group for Jewish associations, CRIF, said it "noted with satisfaction" the appeal court ruling, adding that the verdict "clearly set limits on a deviation that consists of incriminating 'the Jews' in the name of a criticism of Israel".

The group added: "We have always considered that criticism of Israeli policy falls under the category of the free and democratic exchange of ideas, but that debate cannot express itself as a demonisation of Israel nor of the Jews."

But demonisation, if harsh criticism can be so described, of Israel is not the same as demonisation of the Jews. So what is this ruling saying? For CRIF (the French equivalent of the British Board of Deputies) it's protecting Israel, not just Jews in general.

It should be noted here that one of the people responsible for the article is himself Jewish and his lawyer is not pessimistic about what the ruling means for future criticism of Israel:

Georges Kiejman, who defended Mr Morin (who is Jewish), said he did not think the decision would prevent free and frank debate on the Middle East question in France.

"The court made plain that it found the text as a whole constituted a very potent critique, but a perfectly tolerable one given the complexity of the situation," he said. "It was just those two passages that were picked out. All it means is people are going to have to re-read their copy a bit more carefully; be very careful not to talk about 'the Jews', for example, but about 'some Israelis'."

It should further be noted that the court only awarded the two complainant organisations (the France-Israel Association and Lawyers Without Borders) one euro between them.

Gulf war?

Here's Joseph Massad bemoaning the gulf between what is known and what is reported on the middle east.

What makes these anti-scholarship attacks possible and popular is the existence of a major discrepancy, even a radical disconnect, between popular knowledge and media coverage about the Palestine/Israel conundrum and established scholarly knowledge about the topic. It is this disconnect that the witch hunters mobilise against scholarship as proof that it is not media and popular knowledge, which defends Israeli policy and Zionism`s axioms, that is ideological, but rather academic scholarship which has largely uncovered unsavory facts about both. Thus when young American students who come from ideologically charged homes, schools, and environments, attend university classes about the subject, they mistake established scholarship as pro- Palestinian propaganda, a conclusion that is propped up by the likes of Campus Watch, the David Project, and the Anti- Defamation League, all three organisations who make it part or all their business to attack scholarly criticisms of Israeli policy.

And then

This is not to say that scholarship is unbiased. On the contrary, all respectable scholarship about Nazi Germany and the holocaust, to take an important example, is indeed biased against the Nazis, but no one except anti-Semites would dare equate scholarly judgment of Nazi Germany and the holocaust as the "Jewish" perspective or narrative. The same applies to scholarship about South Africa under Apartheid, which is never described as the `Black` perspective or narrative. Feminist scholarship is equally biased against sexism, but is not labelled as `women`s` narrative or perspective. Scholarship on Stalin, on US slavery, on British colonialism, on American racism, on institutionalised sexism and discrimination against women, etc, is always biased, and no amount of lobbying from right-wing groups will force academics to teach the Nazi or slavery perspectives in the interest of "balance."

Fair comment

Every so often I think a comment is worth a post in its own right. Tonight it's one from a fellow blogger in response to a zionist troll who uses several IDs to post comments to tie people down in sterile debate. Pabs, however, is made of better stuff. See this. For this post our seeker after truth (ie zionist troll) uses the name "Stuck"

Asking questions is the best way to find out what people REALLY believe, do they have an idea? an ideal? or are they just shouting a slogan?

it is a tradition going back to the Greeks :)

I have found that people with reasoned beliefs are normally happy to articulate them, in a clear structured form, but clearly people with irrational or ill formed ideas might find it taxing to put a reasoned the case, we shall see?

therefore I ask again (accepting for the sake of the argument that a single state solution is desirable, etc and we should all try to get on well together):

HOW to bring it about? Meaders says with a 'mass' movement?

the next obvious question, logically speaking, is on what basis is such a mass movement based? what programme ? what demands?

if my questions are too demanding please let me know :)

PS: I'd lay off the coffee for a while, people seem a bit tense here

This is a call for open and honest debate from someone who uses various IDs and who doesn't state his or her own position. Anyway, here's an articulate response

where to start? well neither violent struggle nor some kind of vanguard take-over of the state are ideas that anyone should consider, just in case 'stuck' is fearful of that. so that leaves, as i said, breaking down the idea that religious or ethnic identity are appropriate criteria for the foundations of either moral or political community. There is no grand scheme for bringing about such a critical consciousness. It can come from writing columns or books or articles to the educated middle classes challenging ideas of racial or religious superiority/exclusion. It can also be, and is already being, put in place by acts like setting up mixed communities where Israelis and Palestinians, Muslims/Jews live and work together and so grow to see each other as complex individuals rather than simply embodiments of a cultural or racial grouping. It can take place when jews go and do work among Palestinians through ISM or Rabbis For Peace or B'Tselem or ICAHD. It can take place when Palestinians speak out in their own community about the need to understand the Jewish perspective and experience. Edward Said, for all those accusations of being a supported of terror, did this regularly. It can occur through ventures like the one Said set up with Daniel Barenboim, the East-West Divan Orchestra in which young Arabs and Israelis came together to play music and learnt to see each other not as some enemy who must be prevented from gaining statehood or returning to stolen property because then he might wipe out judaism but as real people.

This is no small task but it is a beginning. At some stage such understanding will be broad enough to begin some kind of political programme. This is not pie-in-the-sky. The Israeli peace movement was non-existent before Lebanon but Israeli society was first shocked and then changed by what it saw. The narrative of 'purity of arms' was discredited and the corpses of children in the street did something to dispel the notion that Palestinians did not exist or were all terrorists. Mass civil disobedience in the first intifada achieved similar effects. These are the strategies we must focus on.

Once collaboration and inter-community contact is at a sufficient level the dominant order can be challenged by setting up more and more Palestinian/Israeli communities, more collaborative projects. A focus on the plight of Israeli Arabs and a campaign to recognise their particular oppression and denial of services by the state should be part of this. The electoral system should be used as more and more Palesraelis or Israstinians emerge, individuals of mixed race or origin who see themselves as neither Israelis or Palestinians but as citizens. Gush Emunim and Hamas will, I am sure, hate this but so what. The achievements of collaboration and understanding will outweigh those of fear and suspicion. Borders will be destroyed.

The programme would be based on democracy and secularism as its core characteristics rather than on religious identity. There is no reason why religion should not be provided for within this framework if significant religious communities continue to exist at present levels. Communities will still be able to apply Jewish law or Islamic custom but the State will enshrine secular laws banning encitement to religious hatred etc. It will do this because the majority of citizens from both communities will recognise that this is the correct way. They already do.

If you're fearful that communities will be oppressed by the tyranny of the majority and if large groups of people still choose to live isolated from others in an exclusive community we can look at other contexts where self-determination exists for a group within a state, maybe through some degree of regional government or through a set of safe-guards built into the constitution preserving, for example, the right of orthodox jews not to work on the Sabbath.

There's no final blueprint because it allows for evolution and a little thing called democracy. But its an argument for change seeking to convince people not a blueprint for enforced revolution.

This was from Pablo K, owner of the Human Tide blog.

Me, I haven't a clue about how to overcome zionism or what will replace it. I just have this abiding feeling that a state based on colonial settlement, ethnic cleansing, apartheid laws and relentless aggression has no right to exist. That's it, that's all.

Nazis "return" to Israel

Check this out from IsraelNationalNews.com. Roland Rance drew my attention to neo-nazi websites based in Israel a while ago but now the news has entered the mainstream. An article titled Police Discover Ring of Neo-Nazi Immigrants from CIS states that

Israeli Police have uncovered a group of at least 20 neo-Nazis who immigrated to Israel from the former Soviet Union under the Law of Return.

But apparently

Police are not yet certain how to proceed, due to the lack of legal basis for prosecuting Israelis espousing anti-Semitic ideology.

Incredible!

Dershowitz is pro-Palestinian

Here's an interesting opening couple of paragraphs on the front page of the Jewish Chronicle (subscription only on line) today.

America's best known civil liberties lawyer warned this week that "if you win in court, and lose in the court of opinion, that's not a victory."

Speaking in the aftermath of the defeat of the AUT boycott of Israel, Professor Alan Dershowitz, in London on behalf of the Jerusalem College of Technology, noted: "There is a systematic effort, systematic and well financed, on the part of anti-Israel groups, to focus on young people. The goal is to create a generation of future leaders, 20 years from now, who will be Ken Livingstone, who will reflect the ignorant, one-sided, bigoted, biased views of Ken Livingstone."

First up, it's interesting to me that Dershowitz's admission of moral defeat over the AUT boycott stands in contrast from the "letter from America" I published a few days ago. The letter was from Dershowitz's greatest admirer. This Dershowitz fan (possibly a Dershowitz wannabe) won't have it that Norman Finkelstein has wiped the floor with him in debate or that Finkelstein has comprehensively exposed him as a liar and a plagiarist. But anyway, I digress. Dershowitz is offering his advise on how to undermine anti-zionist activity.

When I speak on college campuses I immediately declare myself as pro-Palestinian, which I am - pro-Palestinian, pro-Israel, pro-peace, pro-two-state solution, pro-vibrant Palestinian democracy - and then distinguish that position from the extremists on the left, the Sue Blackwells, who don't want peace."

Can you believe that this could get worse? Well try this with regard to Sue Blackwell:

The form of advocacy in which she is engaged contributes to violence and makes peace more difficult. She is a significant barrier to peace."

So two things to listen out for when a zionist speaks: 1.Zionists are pro-Palestinian and 2.Sue Blackwell is a barrier to peace, sorry, a significant. barrier to peace. Then we'll know if Dershowitz's advice has been taken.

Better world without Balfour

Here's a letter from today's Independent, following a puff piece on the proposed sale of the last remaining signed letter that came to be known as the Balfour Declaration. The letter itself was drafted by Sir Leon Simon. Now read on...

Sir: As the great-grandson of Sir Leon Simon, let me assure you that I believe that the world would be a far better place if the Balfour declaration which he helped draft ("A scrap of paper that changed history", 26 May) had never been drafted.

The fact that antisemites such as Balfour (and, later, antisemite evangelicals in the Bush administration) threw their weight behind the creation of Israel just goes to show that it was never in the interests of the Jewish people.

On the contrary, it was in the interests of Western imperialism to have a colonial settler state in Palestine, one that is wholly reliant on Western aid (military and economic) and that is wholly scared of the people who surround it (who were forcibly evicted from their homes in 1948). And it was in the interests of Western rulers to divert Jewish struggles away from anti-racism and social justice and towards the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian peoples.

More and more Jews are coming to see what my great grandfather failed to see, that the only just solution in the Middle East is a Palestine in which Jews and Muslims, Arabs and Europeans, live alongside each other with equal rights and an equal stake in the state; a solution in which the Balfour declaration is finally put to rest.
DAN MAYER

LONDON N10

I think Dan Mayer should get the proceeds.