Greenstein and Rance correctly quote Atzmon as saying: 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.
But this is highly selective and misleading. Here's the argument that this quotation introduces: How is it that people living today feel accountable or chased for a crime committed by their great great great ancestors almost 2,000 years ago? [...] Zionists claim that the whole of Palestine belongs to the Jews because their Jewish ancestors lived there 2,000 ago. Jews attempting to live on confiscated Palestinian lands nowadays regard themselves as the same Jews who lived in Palestine two millennia ago. [...] I wouldn't ask the Italians to apologise on behalf of the Romans for their part in Christ's killing simply because Italians do not feel remotely offended when Romans are blamed for it.
(Omissions for the sake of clarity and brevity - click on the text to check the full version on the website). I've seen this particular piece of selective quotation being offered before in the comments boxes on this site, and it really is time that this one was dropped.
I don't want the point I'm making to be misrepresented. It is not intended as a defence of what GA has written (I don't like the article in question, in either of its versions). I'm saying that Greenstein & Rance have made made some excellent arguments, and that these should be quite sufficient to persuade their readers without the use of selective quotation.
Gilad Atzmon makes many charges against Jews and many demands of Jews. Some of these are contradictory and of course with the cover he receives from people who ought to know better he doesn't have to be consistent or honest. He accused Jews of killing Jesus in an article in which he linked Jews at the White House to Jews involved with the Bolsheviks. You will probably have noticed that Atzmon revels in the discord he causes and the time that he wastes that would be better spent opposing zionism and the allies of zionism, in particular he just loves having SWP types jump through hoops to justify their promotion of him, so I won't bust a gut looking for examples on his site of quotes from him but again I warn you not to trust in what you find today on Atzmon's website. He has changed some of the words, removed some items from his index to make them harder to find and he uses the same motifs in different articles.
I think it was you who claimed not to be able to find Atzmon saying that Jews are trying to rule the world when a quick google search showed the quote cropping up on various sites including Lenin's Tomb when Lenin was opposed to any SWP involvement with Atzmon and on sites who saw nothing wrong with Atzmon's remarks.
Again I ask you to be careful when defending this lying, racist who has brought such discredit to the SWP especially if it means you accusing others of misleading, misquoting or quoting out of context. Atzmon is a liar and the SWP leadership has been increasingly dishonest in its defence of its relationship with him.
We've discussed this before - I don't want to take up a lot of space in the comments reproducing the comments in question.
You: Again I ask you to be careful when defending this lying, racist[...]
Mark, is it not possible to discuss this rationally? Did I need to print the words "not intended as a defence" in bold capitals? We've discussed this passage before and you never mentioned that there was any significant alteration to this part of the article. Well is there?
I wanted to see the case that you and G&R make minus certain arguments that I think don't work. I don't think it helps to you to win new advocates of this case (within the SWP or elsewhere) if you demand uncritical acceptance of every word uttered by you or G&R.
Honestly, I don't know. He has said enough that is plainly racist without me pouring over his every word. His lies, his meanderings and his propensity for changing his site without notice or without leaving an audit trail make it impossible to pin him down on what he has said or where he actually stands on the question of Palestine and/or the Jews.
There is no arguing with the SWP from within or without on this issue because, they have been so clearly unprincipled, if they continue with Atzmon they will harm themselves (as a socialist group - of course they may wish to follow the RCP/LM/tns, in which case the organisation's gain - if any - will be the party's loss) and if they decide to ditch him they will be owning up to too much regarding their collaboration which has led them into some outrageous statements in what has more to do with Martin Smith's taste in music and the SWP's unreponsiveness to its grass roots than it does with the SWP's ideology. The plain fact is that with what was known of Atzmon from Marxism 2004 the honourable stance would have been to ditch him. Martin Smith likes his music and so he was invited to Marxism 2005. Various grass roots members asked him to reconsider and he refused and the party issued the most disingenuous statement on this whole business with the possible exception of Atzmon's own dishonest statement on the affair, which the SWP ran and (I believe) still runs on its own website.
Warning people against accusations that Tony and Roland are trying to mislead anyone is not telling you to accept every word they say though it is not usual for the SWP to pay so much attention to the minutiae of a lying racist's articles. In fact if you can think another then please name them. Check out (I think it was) Chris Harman's article on Mearsheimer and Walt. There was nothing that could be construed as antisemitic in it but Harman (if it was him) slapped it down for its potential to be exploited by antisemitic conspiracy theorists. And you want me to go blow by blow and line by line for someone who, unlike M & W, can say that the "protocols" are irrelevant because we must take the view that Jews (or was it American Jews) are trying to rule the world very seriously.
If you want to know the ins and outs of Atzmon's work, ask Martin Smith or Atzmon himself. Neither will be as honest nor as rational as me.
Now, it is not irrational to call a lying racist a lying racist. He has threatened to sue me for this so I repeat it over and over knowing that like the other side of his coin, the zionists at the Engage site, he monitors my site avidly. I also know that he has been caught in so much racism and so many lies he would not dare sue or if he was stupid enough he would lose.
Now, let's get back to the beginning. Atzmon first came to attention in the political sphere for stridently expressed condemnation of Israel. His antisemitism was in the public domain back in 2003 but to his chagrin it was barely noticed. Though when he said "the zionists are always keen to exploit world pain for Jewish gain" I wrote to him for clarification and he insisted he meant Jewish not just zionist gain. He then attacked Tony Greenstein, Deborah Maccoby and Roland Rance for following Ali Abunimah's lead in condemning the fascist Israel Shamir - you know all this I know and I know I have said all of this before. But Atzmon has claimed that it was Jews against zionism who attacked him. Just not true as he and you know.
Now he has been hosted by SPSC and the SWP to denounce those who want himself, Shamir and Eisen exposed for their racism and isolated (in what used to be a time-honoured SWP tradition). He claims that to include them would enhance the movement. In fact he claims that those who want them exposed want to deny the Palestinians a leading role in the solidarity movement. To date I know of no SWP supporter who has condemned him for his dishonesty or his abuse of the solidarity movement as a vehicle for neo-nazi apologists or activists like Shamir and Eisen.
Finally I hope, you may have noticed for all Atzmon's allegations that Jews against zionism - whether organised as such or acting as individuals - are denying Palestinians a leading role in the movement, he hasn't named one Palestinian who has been undermined or sidelined by those he condemns.
The only conclusion about Atzmon is one you claim is irrational, he is a liar, a racist and a buffoon.
In fact Babeuf could be accused of the same sin, because this is the following quote:
1. How is it that people living today feel accountable or chased for a crime committed by their great great great ancestors almost 2,000 years ago? I assume that those Jews who get angry when blamed for killing Jesus are those who identify themselves with Jesus's killers…..
THE LAST SENTENCE WAS OMITTED BY BABEUF.
2. Why is it that the Jews who repeatedly demand that the Christian world should apologise for its involvement in previous persecutions, have never thought that it is about time that they apologised for killing Jesus? I wouldn't ask the Italians to apologise on behalf of the Romans for their part in Christ's killing simply because Italians do not feel remotely offended when Romans are blamed for it. I merely suggest that if a Jew feels offended when accused, this reveals attachment to the perpetrators. It might be the right time for the Jewish state to ask for forgiveness on behalf of the Jewish people for their immoral behaviour.
I think this latter point, which follows on from the first makes it quite clear that Atzmon does subscribe to the Jew as Christ killer and those who feel offended this reveals their attachment to the accusation. We didn't include this for reasons of space but I do not believe we quoted Atzmon out of context, quite the contrary, the more context we give the more guilty he is!
I appreciate your blog very much, though I don't get to read it as often as I'd like.
It seems to me that Counterpunch prints Atzmon's stuff because his analysis fits in perfectly with their line on anti-semitism. They're not interested in fighting to distinguish between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. Atzmon and other Counterpunch-types accept the Zionists' conflation of Zionism and Judaism, as you point out. It is, in my opinion, the worst aspect of Counterpunch's politics, and makes all anti-Zionists look bad.
It's no accident that Counterpunch publishes so much material on Israel by conservatives, people who've got no analysis of imperialism.
If you're trying to get Counterpunch to apologize for publishing Atzmon's work, you're fighting a losing battle.
I think the above passage in the Rance-Greenstein letter both misses the point and misses an opportunity. Whether people 'assimilate' or not should be a matter of neutrality, shouldn't it? If you say, you welcome assimilation, you're in effect saying that you welcome the disappearance of Jewry. Not a great position to take up, I'd've thought. And if the assimilation is the only way to survive racism/genocide etc, then it's existentially wrong too. It congratulates the silent and the invisible. There is also a problem with the notion of assimilation in itself. It assumes that moving towards the dominant culture is desirable too. Of course it's what plenty of Jews did (I know the descendants of an Austrian Jewish Baron, made into an aristocrat, I think for designing Vienna! and we all know about Rothschild...)
I think there are better models to be talking about if you're talking about surviving the Holocaust. Take France: there were something like 250,000 Jews in France before the war and something like 76,000 perished. Yes, each and everyone of these deaths was caused by genocide and a mix of betrayal, collaboration and antisemitism. But what of the remainder? How come they survived in the midst of an occupation and a collaborationist regime?
I realise all this is only a footnote to the main argument that Rance and Greenstein are making, it's just that I think they made themselves hostages to fortune with the assimilationist remark.
But also, given the prevalence of anti-Semitism in the 19th Century in Europe, it was a conscious strategy for many who wanted them and their children to get on in life. Maybe it is regrettable that people had to do this but Jews were living in times which are very different to now, when Jews had been the middlemen in society and were generally despised because of those roles.
The problem we have is looking back and applying standards now to what was happening then. Jews were e.g. petty traders and undoubtedly acquired certain characteristics which were not the most admirable. Whether that was fair or not the fact is that the term Jew was extremely pejorative and many Jews did want to escape all that.
I also think that given the Zionists and the Orthodox frequently compare assimiliation to Hitler's final solution, because both result in the disappearance of Jews, then I do think we should not be too timid of saying that assimilation is one positive response of Jews to the society they live in.
What you say Mike presupposes that it is simply one way traffic but one of the results of assimilation is also that the non-Jewish world also takes on board aspects of Jewish culture, language etc. Look at how words like chutzpah have almost become part of the norm.
Re France, I cover this and other countries in terms of the survival rate of Jews during the Holocaust in the 4 part series of articles I did in Weekly Worker (below).
http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/63...633/
zionism.htm
http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/63...632/
zionism.htm
http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/63...631/
zionism.htm
http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/63...630/
zionism.htm
The more general point I make in these articles is that the more Jews wee implanted in those societies the greater their chances of survival. It was precisely the successful battle against the tormentors of Dreyfuss that led to what you described, a relatively high percentage of Jewish survival in the Holocaust. The one exception to this is Holland, where the majority of Jews, some 75% I seem to recall, were exterminated. This was because the level of repression was such that even though the Dutch took in many cases extraordinary steps to oppose the deportations, including a general strike in Amsterdam, the Nazis were able to bring the full weight of their coercive apparatus to bear including the dispatch of some 4 special police units. But in e.g. Bulgaria, the ovewhelming majority survived because Jews weren't separate.
Also Holland did not have a local ruler but direct rule. You ask how come the French survived in the midst of an occupation and a collaborationist regime. Unpalatable as it may be, the fact is that the interposition of Vichy between the Nazis and Jews was itself responsible in part for the relatively low death rate. Many Vichy officials and police were unwilling to act as Hitler's willing executioners and even people like Daladier balked at simply handing Jews over to be deported to Auschwitz. In fact nearly all those who did die were Ostjuden who were not integrated into French society. The other factor was the occupation of part of France, Nice I believe, by the Italians, who were positively hostile to any attempt at deportations, so much so that they played tricks on Eichmann when he arrived.
Tony
http://onedemocraticstate.org/fa...rg/
fascism.html
I have learnt from that article, from various other things that you've written, and I'm following the current discussion between you and isakofsky with interest, which is much more interesting than the matter I unfortunately have to continue with here.
I was trying to show that you left a few hostages to fortune in the article, and since I'd encountered these before, I hoped I could persuade you to drop these and strengthen the argument in this area. Unfortunately Mark can't accept that this was my purpose, whatever I say to the contrary.
You say: In fact Babeuf could be accused of the same sin, because this is the following quote [...] THE LAST SENTENCE WAS OMITTED BY BABEUF.
This is not so, for several reasons. I indicated my omissions clearly, stated why there were omissions, and I made the quotation a link to the article so that readers could scrutinise the whole text to compare it with my extract. And in the unlikely event that they didn't realise bold underlined blue text constituted a link, I even invited them to click on the text to read the original.
But more importantly, the sentence you you say I omitted misleadingly is entirely consonant with the case I was making. Your quotation, in isolation, only makes sense if Atzmon was a Christian anti-semite, or at the very least thought that his target audience would be persuaded by Christian anti-semitic statements. Does this really seem plausible to you? The sentences I added (and the whole passage in the article that I linked to) show that quotation was the beginning of an argument that doesn't hinge on Christian anti-semitism at all.
The sentence you quoted was clearly phrased in the most provocative manner possible by Atzmon - as if he's baiting you. I think you swallow the bait.
I'm not trying to hold Atzmon to the same standards of debate because I'm not even debating with Atzmon. That, in turn, is because I disagree thoroughly both with what he says and the way he presents it. I think your case is very strong, but I was trying to point out what I think are some significant weaknesses (I haven't even got on to the others, including the Protocols quote).
I thought that this could be discussed seriously in the comments box here, but I may be wrong, since Mark now only seems to be able to accept two positions on the matter - 100% with him, or 100% with Atzmon. At present I'd say I'm convinced by about 90% of what you say (and 0% by Atzmon's characteristic arguments), but I won't accept the rest on trust. I look up references or quotes, and when there seems to be a conflict, I think I have a right to express doubts without Mark accusing me of "defending Atzmon" when I expressly and clearly said the opposite.
Look, if you think that I'm probably alone in occupying this position, then you can safely disregard what I've said, or pretend that I'm an envoy of Atzmon or whatever. But if you think there may be plenty of others who largely agree with you but still have queries, then I think you ought to engage with them.
It's very difficult for people to track down evidence that may be a few years old on the web, where sites are liable to change frequently, so it's disappointing to see the same unconvincing quotes trundled out when I'm quite sure you have much more effective evidence in your possession. The desire to use handy bitesize killer quotes is understandable, but if they don't work, I think you should trust your readers to follow a more complex case.
I've just looked up Counterpunch (in vain) to see if they might have reconsidered. Evidently they're parti pris. Surely they can't all be jazz fans?
Atzmon insists that Israel should be regarded as fascist precisely because he traces Israeli aggression back to some supposed flaw in the Jewish character. This runs parallel to Daniel Goldhagen's thesis that Naziism and the Holocaust can be traced back to centuries-old flaws in the German national character.
The similarity is not co-incidental: Goldhagen argues as a Zionist, while Atzmon, although an anti-Zionist, still argues within the same Zionist framework, as Tony Greenstein and Roland Rance have argued.
Mussolini's Italy and Hitler's Germany were both major, independent capitalist powers. Israel, on the contrary, is dependent on continued U.S. to the tune of billions of dollars each year. The fact that there has been a fascist current within Zionism from Jabotinsky onwards is irrelevant (ill-considered aside: by some people's reasoning, I suppose that would mean I endorse Jabotinsky's ideas - and as it happens, I'm a big fan of composer Arnold Schoenberg who did endorse Jabotinsky in his later years).
Anyway, I think Tony Greenstein and Roland Rance have explained all of this better in their article. Look at point 2 in the first section, or at the "Jewish Gatekeepers" section.
In the Gospels, the Romans (who in reality conducted a brutal occupation of Judea) are portrayed, when they are mentioned at all, very sympathetically, and are seen as the dupes of the cunning, treacherous Jews who are determined to get Jesus executed, as a blasphemer against Judaism, for claming to be the divine Son of God, but aren't able to execute him themselves, so they dupe the Romans into thinking he is a political rebel against Rome. This has been shown by many modern scholars (modern New Testament scholarship seems to have passed Atzmon by) to be entirely unhistorical. The Jewish authorities did have a right to execute people at the time, and the punishment would have been stoning; the fact that Jesus died on a Roman cross shows that he was indeed a political rebel against Rome - crucifixion was the standard punishment for rebellion against Rome.
It is accepted by many modern scholars that the Gospels as we have them are a reworking of the original source-material writen by Jesus's disciples - a reworking which took the blame away from the Romans and put it on the Jews. it is of great significance that the Gospels as we know them were written soon after the Jewish War of 70AD, when it was a deep embarrassment to followers of Christianity that the main figure of their religion had died on a Roman cross. The historical evidence shows that Jesus never claimed to be divine, and his earliest followers regarded him as the non-divine Jewish Messiah - but Christianity, at the time when the Gospels as we know them were written, had changed, under the infuence of St Paul, into a religion which regarded Jesus as the divine Son of God who had come not to lead a rebellion against Rome but to die to save all mankind from hell. So the Jews were accused in the Gospels of deicide and were portrayed as an accursed people, a charge which lies at the basis of the long history of European antisemitism and which has never been made against the Romans or Italians.
And if Jesus is seen as a human being who was executed by the Romans for rebellion, modern day Italians don't need to feel offended by this any more than modern day Greeks need to feel offended because the ancient Greeks killed Socrates.
My impression is that Atzmon is in fact motivated by Christian antisemitism.
Deborah
Collectively you aptly demonstrate one of the problems Gilad has diagnosed. You claim Palestinians are your priority – but predictably this thread is consumed with pointless banter about Mussolini, Daladier & of course, Eichmann. What do you imagine any of this have to do with the terrorized people of Beit Hanoun? Why should any of this be their problem?
It’s not surprising this piece was rejected by Counterpunch. It’s basically unreadable & tedious & has very little to do with Atzmon's piece or indeed any of Atzmon texts. Clearly you have not understood him as you have failed to engage with any of Gilad's deconstructions.
Elf
I agree with your friends that ‘Bufoon’ is a desperately lame and anachronistic insult, but in a court of law, it is an insult none the less. We have still not verified whether you have any assets. If you are so certain you would triumph in a libel case, why don’t you inform us? I propose you check out the following site, Basic UK Libel Law For Idiots (their title, not mine!) www.urban75.com/Action/libel.html
I knew many SWPers years ago as a student. If you would have told me then that they would now be supporting Atzmon and hosting him i can honestly say that i would not have believed it.
As you have an interest in these things, check out Atzmon's piece, yesterday, which he published in an extreme-right wing conspiracy site:
http://
hurryupharry.bloghouse.ne...on_is_jesus.php
The essence of Atzmon's argument, if you care to follow it, is that since the Enlightenment, Jews have an ethnic identity which is premised upon the duality of tribalism and universalism": projecting the outward appearance of a "cosmopolitan man" while maintaining a "tribal" identity in the privacy of the home. Atzmon thinks that this strategy is doomed to fail. Why? Because:
this solution led to false and deceptive behaviour. Either you pretend to be a cosmopolitan while in the ‘street’ or you lie to your God at ‘home’. This behavioural code, though being very pragmatic, happens to be non-ethical by definition. It is based on deception: both self-deception and deceiving the other.
In a nutshell, the argument is that any Jewish identity (other than the Neturei Kara), is premised on hatred and deception of non-Jews. Atzmon believes that he, in particular, is hated for speaking this truth about the true nature of the modern Jew.
Oh yes. He also compares himself to Jesus.
I just replied to your email on that. I got two hits from that Truthseekers site last night so I had read his latest nonsense. I also got a hit from Shamir readers: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sh...ers/message/
845
It appears that he and Shamir are definitely still friends and Shamir is quite proud of his lying racist friend. I'm sure that various SWP members have predicated their support for Atzmon on the false grounds that he had broken with Shamir.
"Sarah Gillespie" - You don't seem to be aware of how libel works in this country. In order to be libellous something has to be both untrue and defamatory.
I have said that Atzmon is a liar. That is defamatory but it is true.
I have said that Atzmon is a racist. That is defamatory but it is true.
I said that he posted as Yocheved. I think he may have said that that is his wife's name. Even if, as he said, I accused him of being a woman wrongly, then that would be untrue but, unless you're a macho moron, it could hardly be described as defamatory. Anyway, I don't think that's his wife's name and from what I have heard he would never tolerate so assertive a woman as that "Yocheved" seemed to be, under his own roof .
You don't have to give a running commentary of how you're getting on assessing my assets. Atzmon dare not sue me and if he does he will lose and prove my point about his sheer buffoonery.
But since you mention Israel's atrocities in various places, could you point me to some of Atzmon's writing on them. I don't mean just mentioning their names. I mean him writing about what you say I should be writing about. He could of course have written lots about zionist atrocities, after all there are a lot to write about. Indeed Israel couldn't, and therefore shouldn't, exist without them. But since he thinks it's more important to launch antisemitic attacks on bona fide anti-zionist activists in defence of his fascist friends, Eisen and Shamir, he might be a little too busy.
You are deluded if you imagine we can’t sue Mark Elf. Unfortunately for you both, incessantly accusing somebody of being anti-Semitic doesn’t make them an anti-Semite.
You are probably aware, The Guardian initially curtailed Gilad’s response to David Hirsh’s attack on its Comment Is Free blog. However, after reading Gilad’s papers & consulting their lawyers, they realized Gilad has nothing to hide & promoted his response as an autonomous blog. If an institution of The Guardian’s repute is willing to sanction Gilad’s texts, I promise you a British court would do the same. The question remains: do you actually own anything (other than a copy of How to Loose Friends & Never Influence People)?
But thanks for being so stupid as to say that the Guardian won't publish anything by a lying racist. Obviously when I thought I read an article by Shimon Peres in the same Guardian newspaper it was a figment of my imagination. Or do you want to defend or sue for him too?
By the way, you forgot to shed crocodile tears for the Palestinians you pretend to support. Don't come back with more stupidness, I'm arranging my share portfolio tonight.
I suppose I have two main questions:
(1) When, if ever, are the SWP/SPSC/Sarah Gillespie going to realise that Atzmon is leading them down the road to far right racist theorising?
(2) If they ever do decide that Atzmon has just gone too far, and start to denounce him, where will people like Mary "The Cutter" Rizzo, Sarah Gillespie, and all the others going to go? Are they going to reject the Shamir/Atzmon line, or will they carry on loyally defending him.
My guess is that we'll see an eventual SWP position piece on anti-jewish racism, which condemns the Shamir/Atzmon implicitly. They won't do so in terms, because that would be to admit error. Martin Smith will have to stop asking Atzmon to do fundraising jazz gigs. However, you'll still get the "We are all Hezbollah" rhetoric, and they'll continue to work with the Muslim Brotherhood, and Mark will get use to firefighting a fair amount of "perfidious cosmopolitan jew" theorising in his political work.
Atzmon's personal political fan club will stick with him, and you'll find yourself reading pieces of Palestinian solidarity and anti-imperialist rhetoric, which suddenly shock you because they quote Shamir or Atzmon or Zundel or Faurisson as authorities, and you'll wonder how the Left ended up developing a red-green-brown alliance.
A spectre is haunting Europe...
Sarah - thanks for the nice compliments ! Will you or Atzmon be suing Mark. Up to now you haven't sued anyody and as far as i'm aware you haven't issued any legal proceedings. Stop bluffing - you couldn't even bluff a two year old.
I'm merely pointing out that the zionists have cried wolf for so long now nobody hears when principled anti-racists raise the same cry. I'm saying that people like you and Hirsh have made life a little more difficult for honest Jews. Perhaps you're pleased with what you have done. As far as I can see this is all to the benefit of the racist war criminals of the State of Israel.
By the way, is that Sarah Gillespie real? You seem like you know. I know her English is mostly too good for Atzmon (except on Hirsh's article on Cif) but asking about my assets on a blog? Honestly! Can she really not see that's such a giveaway for a climb down by her lying racist idol?
I think your a little deluded with what happened with The Guardian. After all at the top of Atzmon's piece was a disclaimer that has never been used before on a piece(as far as i'm aware) by Comment is Free , which was hardly a glowing tribute to Atzmon :
"An adjudication in favour of Mr Atzmon does not imply any agreement with his views and, as in the case of the views expressed in other blogs, should not be taken as implying any agreement with them on the part of the Guardian."
Wonder why The Guardian had to state this ?
So come on you two. If you've got something serious to say say it. If not, don't come here.
Atzmon is libel proof on the question of whether or not he is a liar and a racist. There is no question, he is both.
Still, I haven't seen anything to suggest that Atzmon is a Christian convert - I thought they were supposed to advertise the fact openly and proselytise. But if this were true, I'd be happy to change my judgement. Then instead of a provocative statement followed by a dodgy, but not anti-semitic argument, I'd agree that we have a classic statement of Christian anti-semitism followed by mere window dressing. Similarly, I'd have to believe that Atzmon was truly deranged to read the remark on the Protocols as anything other than a tasteless and provocative wisecrack (you can imagine sane but uneducated and uninformed Russian villagers being taken in by Black Hundreds propaganda a century ago, but for anyone like Atzmon to believe that the Protocols were anything other than racist garbage today would definitely require serious mental imbalance and not just seriously faulty poltical judgement). If you've good reason to believe these things, then I can certainly see why you and others construe these passages as you do.
One tiny reservation - nothing to do with Atzmon: if we suggest anti-semitism as a motivation for Saul/Paul of Damascus and the Gospel writers this risks re-mystifying the causes of anti-semitism. These Christians were only a persecuted minority at the time, and not in a position to persecute anyone themselves. I would follow Abram Leon on this - some of the historical details may be superseded now, but I think his main arguments still stand.
Anyway, since Mark's financial assets have once again been threatened (bluffingly, I trust), I feel queasy saying anything that might remotely be misconstrued as coming from the other side, so I think I'll shut up.
Nice try babeuf
And no, I’m not Gilad www.myspace.com/sarahjeangillespie though we do share a (Jewish) bass player who I believe is listed on www.jewishbassplayersansfrets.com
No he was a vaguely practical new-agey type. A bit like George Monbiot, complete with aristocratic ancestry.
I thought they were supposed to advertise the fact openly and proselytise.
Would it be safe to do so in this jew-ridden ZOG universe in which we live?
to believe that the Protocols were anything other than racist garbage today would definitely require serious mental imbalance and not just seriously faulty poltical judgement
You speak as if the two were mutually exclusive.
Sarah Gillespie - you're a Robyn Hitchcock fan. Pity.
re: Atzmon etc. Gillespie goes on and on misunderstanding how libel works. Let's try this: X could write an article for the Guardian in which X says that eg there is a Jewish lobby that is not only seeking to tie US policy to Israel's needs and demands but is also trying to make the US run all policy according to the needs and demands of this Jewish lobby. what's more, it's succeeding.
To my (MR) mind, the overall meaning of this is antisemitic. In some context or another, I can imagine the Guardian printing this if written or said by one of its columnists or when quoting someone. Now there is nothing anyone can do about this under libel law. No one has been libelled. If on the other hand, I were to say that the person writing this (let's call him Fathead) was antisemitic. It's just possible that Fathead could sue me for saying that he is antisemitic. However, there isn't the faintest chance that he'd win because it would be easy for me to call up expert witnesses to define antisemtism and prove that these statements fell within this definition. Atzmon's problem (apart from wondering why he exists) is that he has blurted out a sequence of classic (yes) antisemitic utterances and as a chain and as a totality (ie re killing Jesus, the Protocols, holocaust denial, Israel compared unfavourably to the Nazis, statements about 'the Jew', Jews trying to run the world)the statement that Atzmon is an antisemite is irrefutable. If he would now like to be known as a non-antisemite, then he's got a bit of work to do. If he would like to renounce all the statements that he's made re the list I've given above, and also explain why he's renouncing them, and never makes any such statements again, then perhaps after a while, we could start to believe that such a twat has had a real think and is perhaps not the antisemite he once was. However, it seems pretty clear from recent statements that he's not going to do any such thing.
Of course, like Babeuf, it would be nice to think that Atzmon is a classic Jewish provocateur in the tradition of Lenny Bruce and Sacha Baron Cohen. One major problem with this is one of discourse. Bruce and Cohen both conducted their provocations within the entertainment business and 'art'. In other words, in an environment in which clowing, irony, reverse roles, sarcasm, imagery are essential parts of the rhetoric. Atzmon's art is his sax where no doubt he expresses some of this within his music. However, he chooses to make his statements about Jews in an entirely political form: the essay and the political interview. No matter how hard one can try, I don't see how it's possible to see any room to interpret these statements and 'work's as ironic, purely for provocative effect, reverse roles etc. They are what they are and of course that's how and why they're being taken up by people of many different persuasions who think that they've discovered an explanation for the world's (or their own) problems: the Jews.
Mark, why don't you own up that you're a Rothschild? Elf? Whoever heard of 'Elf' outside of a fekkn Irish folk story? Gillespie, his forbears funded the building of the Suez Canal and he's living out his life in a castle in Dagenham, known locally as Castle Ford.
I am a friend of Gilad's & my husband is a lawyer specializing in Publishing & Media defamation. I regret to inform you that he & Gilad have been in consultation regarding your libelous comments & the case against you is formidable. We are currently trying to ascertain what assets you might have - but so far have discovered nothing. Perhaps you would enlighten us? It may certainly save you money in the long term.
Regards
Sarah"
Now you say that I "reprehend people with impunity on my blog." It's nice to see you bracketing your idol with Linda Grant. So you were bullshitting with your first comment and bullshitting with your latest. And letting on that you're a wannabe popstar. Thanks for that.
But you missed what I said. You have said that the Guardian would not have published Atzmon's article if he were a racist and a liar. Remember you already stand exposed as a liar for this lying racist yourself. But I said that the Guardian has also run an article by Shimon Peres. He is a liar and a racist. In fact he is a notorious racist war criminal. Go on Sarah, explain how it is the Guardian can do that? But before you do you have to point me to all of Gilad Atzmon's articles about the Palestinians themselves. I asked that already and you failed, already.
Also you say "it is pretty impossible for a contributor to critique or oppose Jews without being sued for anti-Semitism." Having pretended some expertise in law you now speak of suing? for antisemitism. Can you give one example of that in the UK? I do know of one case where a guy won damages for being falsely accused of antisemitism. It was during a libel action over a guy who was accused of taking bribes from the oil for food programme during the Iraq sanctions. The barrister accused the plaintiff (that's the person doing the suing since you know nothing about that stuff your husband specialises in) of having made a gratuitous reference to the wife of a newspaper proprietor being Jewish. The plaintiff said that that was a false allegation of antisemitism and the judge increased the damages as a result. The guy was George Galloway. Now if George Galloway can have his damages increased from the most pro-zionist newspaper in the UK because its barrister (under privilege) made a veiled allegation of antisemitism then anyone can sue anyone for an open allegation of antisemitism such as I have made against Atzmon. People have even been sued for libel for emailing to egroups. Ask your husband, he'll know.
Anyway, here's the relevant bit of the judgment and Here's the whole judgment:
One aspect of aggravation was the unfortunate attribution in cross-examination of anti-semitism. I am quite prepared to accept that it was a slip, in the heat of the moment, and that it was not intended to be put forward as part of the Defendants’ case. It is necessary for me to consider exactly how it came about. Mr Price wished to refer to a fund-raising letter written by Mr Galloway for the purposes of obtaining support in these proceedings. In it he suggested that he had been attacked by The Daily Telegraph because of his views on the Middle East in general and the Palestinian cause in particular. Wisely or unwisely, he referred to Lord Black (formerly proprietor of The Daily Telegraph) and his wife Barbara Amiel as being among Mr Sharon’s most vociferous supporters. Mr Price wished to put this document to him in the course of cross-examination. Before he did so, and I believe when it was not actually in front of him, he somewhat unguardedly said that Mr Galloway had referred to Barbara Amiel’s hostility towards him being due to the fact that she was Jewish. The document, of course, said no such thing.
I think we can see who the racist is here.
From the few recordings I've heard of Lenny Bruce, his provocations were aimed at liberal hypocrites; Atzmon thinks his are aimed at crypto-Zionist hypocrites. As far as I can tell, Bruce's judgement was correct, while I believe, of course, that Atzmon's is utterly wrong. Perhaps, as you say, Atzmon the musician is closer to Bruce than he is to Atzmon the polemicist (even Wagner shrank from incorporating his most pernicious ideas into his music-dramas, anxious to ensure that his art would survive long after his polemics had been consigned to the cess-pit where they belong). From what I've heard of the Artie Fishel project, on the other hand, it has little artistic worth precisely because it is driven by the needs of Atzmon the polemicist.
As far as I understand it, you are not only opposed to Atzmon being given a platform to speak (Scottish PS, Marxism in the past) but also to play (LMHR, SWAppeal). Is this principally because the performances come at too high a price - namely, the absence of open criticism of Atzmon the polemicist? I think I would agree with that. (I would assume you don't have the same objection to Atzmon performing at musical venues unconnected to any political campaign.)
Sorry, isakofsky, I skimmed over that passage earlier without taking it in. I agree 100% with it, and thanks for coming up with that formulation in answer to my repeated questioning. Maybe something along these lines can be used in future instead of leaving single isolated quotes to convey the point.
Mark said (a couple of days ago) To date I know of no SWP supporter who has condemned him for his dishonesty or his abuse of the solidarity movement as a vehicle for neo-nazi apologists or activists like Shamir and Eisen.
OK, I've seen enough. Here goes: I condemn him for his dishonesty and abuse of the solidarity movement as a vehicle for neo-nazi apologists and activists like Shamir and Eisen.
No, I'm not againt Atzmon playing anywhere. If I was an organiser of solidarity events, SWP events etc, I personally wouldn't book him and I'm fairly sure that, if asked, I wouldn't share a platform with him. But that's a personal act on my part, not an attempt to restrict to artistic freedom. But I don't run events, and I don't book people. What's more, if he turns up and plays you can never be sure that he won't suddenly seize the mike and shout something/say something etc. But again, that's the headache for organisers not for me. So, my position is artistic freedom, I think he's a liability and a disaster for the left so I wouldn't touch him with a barge pole, but if people want to book him to play, I'm not going to say that he should be banned. And I'm not prepared to say that the event at which he plays should be boycotted or even picketed. I know it's all a fine line and I'm open to being convinced otherwise on some of this and I'm thinking it through even as I write. The reason for this is that none of us has ever really been put in this position before. It's as if, as part of the anti-apartheid movement, we had a musician who was black and sounded off crazy stuff about black people being latently inferior and unable to do this, that or t'other according to racist formulations about black pepole. And we'd be saying, oh yeah but he's a great guitarist, or some such and he gets in other great musicians, he's too valuable an asset and we can all talk to him and make him see sense over this stuff, give us time etc etc. But we never were put in that position by anyone. (As far as I can remember. Perhaps some people wanted to keep Fema Kuti at arms length, I don't know...)
It's no good coming out with mealy mouthed nonsense in defence of this lying racist piece of shit on the basis that he was given a right to reply to another defender of racists (David Hirsh). You have to address the point raised.
Now as for this libel business. I am not accusing Atzmon of libel, I am saying he is a liar and a racist. I can back this up but I have spent too much time on it already. My big problem is the fact that he is making the SWP look absolutely ridiculous and he is studiously undermining people who were campaigning against Israel's war criminals when he was an Israeli paratrooper. And have never stopped.
Now have some integrity or stop digging.
By the way you can find your comment on line because I had to approve in order to read it. When I saw that you hadn't even tried to show me Atmon's writing about the Palestinians I deleted it btu you can find it on co-comments. Post it here by all means when you face the reality of Atzmon's lies, racism and now sheer hypocrisy.
Thanks
I read that, but I still can't believe my eyes.
As the song says: "So Nu, so sue!"
And Sarah, I can't leave without mentioning how many wonderful aspects of both your character and your legal knowledge are exhibited in your obsession with Marks "assets". Plwase be sure to stress in court just how much your perception of Elf's assets had to do with your suing. They'll be impressed.
Moving swiftly on…
Mark, Gilad dedicates his music to the Palestinian people every single night of the week to packed out venues. While his texts deconstruct Jewish identity & its dependency on the notion of anti-Semitism, his music mourns, celebrates & artistically reinstates the stolen nation of Palestine. It’s not just me that feels this - but the 1000’s of people who have bought his albums - which is why Gilad has accolades & awards & you have, well, your assets…….
With the precious little sense one can make of his written words he is a liar and racist and a gift to the zionist movement. If you can't see that you are blind, I suspect deliberately blind.
He has not deconstructed the Jewish identity he has attacked Jews in the anti-zionist movement for following the lead of Palestinians in the same movement in condemning fascists like Shamir and Eisen. That's it, that's all.
Regarding how my time gets spent day or night according to my tracker you have spent more time on this blog today and tonight (15/12) than I have.
Only come back if you have something to say.
I had said that Jesus was a human being and not the Son of God and this was his reaction:
"G: Human being??? Not a son of God? Who do you think you are? You have just re-murdered the son of God and his spiritual heritage. Indeed you are a proper Christ killer and you have very good reason to be concern with the association."
And for good measure,here below are two other choice extracts from this correspondence.
Deborah
"Jewish people and you included have problems with great people who
expose their ugliness. This is why you murdered and re murder systematically and symbolically , this is why your ancestors ousted Sponoza, and this is why you campaign against Shamir and Eisen."
"Again the Q I would like to raise is how come a J like yiourself is so
concerned with the association with Christ killers. Why Italians aren't that concerned with a very similar accusations? At the end of the day, it was their Roman ancestors who made the crime. The reason is simple. While Italians developed an ethical thinking, your resemblance to the murderous great priest is shockingly apparent. It is something you try to push under the carpet,
You know so welll that you are a modern day Christ killer.
You (andyour 3rd category ilk) insist to act as kosher commandants. You are there to decide who is dangerous, who is right and who is wrong. Who is good for the Palestinians, you aree there to Crucify the enemies of the Jewish people. in your private list, Paul Eisen his a shining yellow star. Shamir is the devil and slowly but surely you learn recognise that i am the 'most dangerous' of them all. Let me tell you, somehow, you are not as talented as the great Cohen. You are not even as talented as myself. You have to practice a lot before the next lesson."
I'm guessing that she's such a super sleuth that she'll know by now that I have a house, a car and a caravan. Well worth his while to have a punt in the casino known as the Royal Courts of Justice! I'm a bit worried though about the demand on my time. Atzmon would be hard pressed to find a lawyer to act against such overwhelming evidence. See, if he had a lawyer and I showed the lawyer what he has said, and then denied, on record, the lawyer would say "the game's up Gilad." Trouble is, Atzmon would probably do an Irving and act for himself.
Commenting by HaloScan
