NATIONAL IDENTITY: THE JEWS, THE ENGLISH & THE SWP
One of the most interesting publications on the left is “Jewish Socialist” which includes amongst its aims “affirming the vitality of Jewish communities” and to “reclaim a people’s history of the Jews”.
The latest issue includes an interview with Michael Rosen concerning the attacks on Jewish activists by Gilad Atzmon and Paul Eisen, who claim that the only way to be a Jew supporting the Palestinians is to renounce Jewish identity. Regretably these ideas seem to have gained some ground on Counterpunch and PeacePalestine.
Atzmon singles out for attack Julia Bard and David Rosenberg, whose son Reuben is one of the contributors to this blog, and also Michael Rosen. Atzmon claims they are Zionists because they are Jews, and everyone self-identifying with Jewishness is a Zionist.
It is worth following Atzmon’s argument before we refute it, because he does raise a number of issues that do deserve addresssing.
The question arises because Julia, David and Michael are secular Jews. According to Atzmon: “although David and Julia do not like God that much, in spite of the fact that they are not that impressed with Judaism either, they still very much want to be part of the Jewish community. I wonder why. What is it that they need from the Jewish community? Why don’t they just ‘get on’ with the socialist agenda and join the human family as ordinary people?”
Atzmon was objecting to an article in the Jewish Chronicle that said: “Julia Bard and David Rosenberg are committed Jews. They feel passionately about Jewish history, they have a strong Jewish element to their social lives and their children have inherited a love of Hebrew and Yiddish culture….David and Julia do not belong to a synagogue, do not believe in God and are antagonistic towards Zionism. They feel strongly that these factors should not exclude them from full acceptance as part of the mainstream Jewish community.”
In particular Atmon attacks the concern by Jewish socialists of defending the continued existence of the Jewish nation: “Bard. Seemingly, a liberated Jew is disturbed by the fact that the Jewish community is ‘shrinking’. One may wonder why a liberated being as well as a ‘socialist’ is concerned with issues to do with assimilation and the disintegration of a regressive tribal community.”
Atzmon’s conclusion is to “re-define Zionism as a modern form of Jewish activism which aims at halting assimilation, we can then re-asses the entire Jewish tribal political activity as an internal debate within a diverse Zionist political movement. We should then regard the colonizing of Palestine as not more than just one single face of Zionism. In fact, Jewish Socialism fits very nicely into the Zionist project. Being an integral part of the Zionist network, it is concerned with the future of the Jewish secular tribe, it is there to collect the lost souls amongst the Jewish leftists and it brings them back to Blooms. The shift towards presenting Zionism in a new terminology invites us to regard Zionism as global Jewish tribal political activism.”
In Jewish Socialist, Michael Rosen reposts by saying: “They end up doing what both classic anti-Semites and Zionists do, which is to make one big generalised lump of ‘Jewism’, It ends up with an essentialised view of the Jew who cannot escape from the ‘Jewish Power’ nexus. It was explained to me in great detail on the Peacepalestine website that someone like me is part of the ‘Jewish power’ nexus whether I like it or not”
For Atzmon it is the recognition and identification of a Jewish nation that is Zionism, and Jews should abandon their Jewish identity. As Atzmon explains: “Identity and identity politics alienate one from one’s reality, not to say authenticity. … Identity is in fact nothing but Identification. Searching for Identity is not a genuine search into the notion of one’s authentic self. Identity politics aim at setting measures of Identification, it sets categories of belonging, it demands recognition and it opposes any form of authenticity or real self. It prefers gathering and grouping rather than meditation on the self. In fact, people who possess a genuine notion of a real self do not crave the acceptance of any community, neither Jewish nor any other.”
But as Michael Rosen correctly argues: “It is a form of cultural domination or cultural imperialism to believe that there is a neutral place that you should assimilate to”.
Of course in England, and most other places Jews are a minority, so Rosen’s further point holds: “Assimilation holds a notion of a neutral host with minorities around the host. It replicates a ruling class idea that somehow this neutral host welcomes the outsider and has the right to tell the outside how to behave”
But in Israel, Jews are the majority. So how would Atzmon’s position bear upon Israel? We are now in a slightly more complex political context. What rights have majorities to define their cultural and national identity? In principle the issue is the same: most people define themselves through shared attributes of class and gender, but also through a complex matrix of shared culture, geography, history and politics that comprises national identity.
Equality demands that each of the nations of the world has equal rights to statehood, including the Jews settled in Palestine. Of course given the complex history, politics and interlocking geography of Jewish and non-Jewish settlement in historical Palestine, this is far from unproblematic. I believe any eventual peace settlement would probably require a single federal state, that respected the equality of both peoples. But a single state doesn’t mean a single nation. As long as Jews self-identify themselves as a Jewish nation, then they are a nation, and they make a huge cultural contribution to the world.
Atzmon requires Jews to renounce their national identity, and identifies being a Jew with being a Zionist. In that context his call for a secular, non-Zionist Palestine means the extinguishing of the Jews as a people. (I am of course not suggesting that Atzmon is calling for Jews to be extinguished as human beings, just that their Jewish identity should be relinquished). Becasue Gilad Atzmon wants the Jewish identity to be restricted only to religious Jews, he denies Jewishness any cultural or national aspect, which is why he is an anti-Semite.
Gilad Atzmon has been controversially linked to the British SWP, through his repeated appearances at events they organise. The SWP play a central role in the Stop the War Coalition and in campaigning in solidarity with Palestine, they also play a dominant role in Unite Against Fascism, which is another political campaign that needs to relate to questions of national identity. The SWP were also part of the Scottish Socialist Party, and very uncomfortable about the way the SSP raised issues of national identity.
So what is the underlying attitude of the SWP to national identity politics? In the book “Scotland Class and Nation” (1999) Alex Callinicos writes a key-note article on “Marxism and the National Question” that relates to the rise of nationalism as a political ideology, he writes “There are in fact two kinds of nationalism. The first is imperialist nationalism of the dominant powers – American, British French and German. … Secondly, there is the revolutionary nationalism of the oppressed – the ideology that serves to unite a people suffering the domination of an imperial power in their struggle to break free.”
So far so good: we then look forward to Callinicos explaining how nationalism in these two forms of political project relates to national identity, why the oppressed nations struggle to retain their identities against the metropolitan power, and how within the imperial powers the ruling class must conduct a political and cultural battle to promote expansionism and chauvinism. We look forward to learning how Callinicos thinks this relates to the issue in question, how non-oppressed nations like the Scots, Catalans and Basques are devoloping new forms of nationalist politics outwith the paradigm of colonial relationships. But we are disappointed – instead we get another potted history of the attitude of Lenin to the Csarist Russian empire, as if that experience were normative.
So what do the SWP say about national identity? This was explained most starkly by Paul McGarr writing in Socialist Worker: “Ordinary people in England may live on the same piece of land as the rich, but they have nothing else whatever in common.”
National Secretary of the SWP, Martin Smith writes in a review of Billy Bragg’s book “The Progressive patriot”: Bragg “ throws together a number of disconnected historical events, myths and anecdotes and tries to make a case for an English national identity.”
In “Wales, Class Struggle and Socialism” Socialist Worker journalist Charlie Kimber gives a quote from Lenin without citation that reads: “Our banner does not contain the slogan national culture but international culture” … and Kimber concludes: “All of us benefit from drawing on the best of international culture rather than remaining imprisoned by the particular culture we happen to be born into”
For the vast majority of people, national culture and national identity exist and are important. The English, Scots and Welsh have as much culture, history and tradition to be proud of as the Jews, so the arguments of Michael Rosen, Julia Bard and David Rosenberg defending the idea of socialists identifying with the Jewish nation are equally valid for English, Scottish and Welsh socialists. The problem with denying the right to national identity for the majority host culture is that it allows the right wing an unchallenged opportunity to represent themselves as the true voice of those identifying with that nationality. In Israel it is even more disastrous becasue to deny the majority their right to a national identity is to feed fears of the Jewish nation being liquidated.
The real terms of the debate relating to opposition to the BNP fascists for example should not concede to them a permission to define national identity, rather we should dispute the values they put forward as English or British in terms that most English or British people understand. To do otherwise is to seal ourselves off with the minority who identify with vanilla flavoured international culture, and passes by the opportunity to win an argument with the majority that our national identity should be inclusive and celebrate diversity.
If we apply Paul McGarr’s approach to Palestine, then apart from a “false consciousness” identifying with Zionism then Israel’s Jewish population have “nothing else whatever in common” with each other? But there can be no peace in the Middle East that does not recognise the Jewish nation’s right to identity. Is it too trite to observe similarity between Paul McGarr’s position that national identity does not exist and Gilad Atzmon’s position that it should not exist?
If we apply the idea that national identity is falsely constructed by throwing together “a number of disconnected historical events, myths and anecdotes” to the question of Scottish independence, then we draw the false political conclusion that the debate should be between Scottish national identity and proletarian internationalism (a Proletarian internationalism that bears a marked similarity to unconscious identification of London’s culture with universal human culture). In fact the real debate happening among hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of Scots is whether they are British or Scottish, and what sort of Scotland they want to live in. A much more vibrant and exciting debate, based not on arbitrary “universal” values but rooted in a resonant and deeply rich, specifically Scottish, culture and geography. A culture and political identity based not upon ethnicity but upon self-identification with Scotland’s history and civic institutions,
It seems to be no coincidence that the SWP do not grasp how objectionable Atzmon is, because his attitude to Jewish assimilation is a reductio ad absurdum of their own understanding of national identity. The difficultly is that when applied to a number of concrete political issues it can result in mistakes like with the UAF’s unwillingness to embrace progressive patriotism in the fight against the fascists, or conservatism in not understanding the radical opportunities of redefining Welsh, English and Scottish identities and throwing out the old British garbage.
It might be worth noting that Atzmon is not a member of the SWP nor (unlike Michael Rosen) does he write political columns for the SWP - he is a talented jazz musician, and works with other like minded progressive musicians in that capacity to help support the movements against racism and imperialism etc.
The problem you seem to have with the SWP is that as Marxists we defend the classical Marxist analysis of nationalism rather than go along with the deeply problematic Stalinist notion of the ‘Popular Front’ (with its idea of reclaiming ‘national culture’ for ‘democracy’ against fascism). I can’t be bothered to go through why nationalism is necessarily an imaginary and invented ideology again which rose alongside the development of nation states and the spread of capitalism - but I would just quickly challenge the idea that UAF have made a ‘mistake’ by not trying to out play the racist and fascist BNP at the whole flag waving game. Waving the flag of St George more passionately than the BNP in the current climate (as you seem to suggest) would not help destroy the BNP - indeed it would probably bolster the bigots and racists. The problem with the BNP is not that they are ‘not British’ or not ‘patriotic’ enough - the problem is that they are violent neo-Nazis who want a race war.
Comment by Snowball — 19 June, 2007 @ 5:56 pm
You’ve made similar remarks in another recent thread on the issue of England and national identity/culture. Approving references to something called ‘progressive patriotism’ is dangerous sub-Bragg pseudo-radical nonsense. You pose a false choice between proletarian internationalism and a deep-rooted sense of national identity in English working class consciousness. Actually proletarian internationalism has an honourable and healthy history - quite how you associate this an unconscious identification of London’s culture with universal culture is bizarre. What on earth is ‘London culture’? What you say about working class association with the trappings of English bourgeois nationaliam is hardly news and it is one that warms the cockles of successive ruling classes. But who are these working classes who live now in this country and what does this national identity consist of? Henley Regatta? The Battle of Trafalgar? Line-dancing? What about all the working class people who live in this country now but have other antecedents and cultural reference points? If you’re talking about specifically English reference points that working class people have (as opposed to international ones) then, sure, lets talk about things that point to and encourage a sense of unity and solidarity between working class people - certainly, a lot harder than slipstreaming bourgeois nationalism and deluding yourself you’re meeting unrevolutionary-minded workers half-way to ‘win them over’. We are not in the business of debating so-called national culture and identity (whatever that means), which is likely to just give a Leftist veneer to bourgeois nationalism. We’re supposed to be socialists - you know, a class approach?
Comment by Doug — 19 June, 2007 @ 6:05 pm
Where for God sake did you find the following in Atzmon’s writings:
“Atzmon requires Jews to renounce their national identity, and identifies being a Jew with being a Zionist. In that context his call for a secular, non-Zionist Palestine means the extinguishing of the Jews as a people. This is why Gilad Atzmon is an anti-Semite.”
Atzmon says yes to Judaic identity, he questions the secular one, he denounces Jewish socialists as much as he would mock Aryan Marxists. Is it that difficult to understand? You probably want to read Lenin criticism of the Bund.
Atzmon tells Jews, Chicken Soup is fun, yet it isn’t really a political identity.
Can you prove otherwise?
Comment by Jasper Kroningen — 19 June, 2007 @ 7:52 pm
Just a small one, the Legendary Jewish Socialist Michael Rosen has been performing lately with a Jewish Klezmer band named “Yishar koach” (London Barbican) . This is not a crime, yet, if Mr, Rosen understands Jewish culture he should have known that ‘Yishar Koach’ is a clear reference to ‘JEWISH POWER” (Koach=power, and Yishar refers to the straightness of one’s will to coincide with the ‘right’ cause). Can anyone explain here how is it that the Socialist Rosen celebrates the notion of ‘Jewish Power’? I live in Austria and I do not many Austrian socialists who celebrate their ‘Aryan powers’ or even belonging………
I wonder whether SWP are familiar with the fact that one of their columnists identifies openly with Jewish Power. I may suggest that it is not very surprising bearing in mind the fact that Rosen performed this year at the Zionist London Jewish Book fair….
May I suggest that UK socialist better look into their ranks…
Comment by Jasper Kroningen — 19 June, 2007 @ 8:15 pm
Jasper - you ask “Where for God sake did you find the following in Atzmon’s writings:”, well here:
http://www.counterpunch.org/atzmon01202007.html
Atzmon writes: “three escape routes are left for the Zionist and this includes every form of Jewish political tribalism. One entails total segregation: transforming the Zionist Ghetto into a windowless monad. This form of Zionism eliminates the notion of the other. Such a solution is reflected clearly in Sharon’s disengagement as well as in Rosen anti-assimilationist approach. The second option is obviously returning to orthodoxy. The numbers of Israelis who happen to leave behind the secular Hebraic culture and re-embrace Judaic orthodoxy reveal that such a solution is a common practice, rather than a remote philosophical option. The third option is obviously a flight from Jewishness, Judaism and any other form of Judaic tribalism. It means, leaving chosenness behind. This is probably the only form of real Jewish resistance to Zionism. “ (my emphasis)
Atzmon identifies secular Jews who are proud of their identity with expansionist Zionists like Sharon. It is deeply offensive to equate, as he does in the same artilce Julia Bard with Golda Meir, just becasue both do not want to see the Jewish national identity extinuished. p>
Atzmon also argues that the only real Jewish form of resistance to Zionism is to abandon Jewishness.
The only other option he concedes is ulta-orthadox religious Judaism. However, to say that only religious Jews are Jews is to deny Jews the right to self identify as a nation, and to demand cultulal assimilation.
Or am I misunderstanding what I regard as the clear meaning of his words?
Comment by Andy — 19 June, 2007 @ 8:39 pm
Snowball.
Please distinguish between questions of national identity on the one hand, and nationalism on the other - nationalism is a political ideology that promotes the nation. National identity is a question of which nation people feel they belong to, if they choose to. It is quite possible to have national identity and also be an internationalist.
Your claim that the SWP’s position on this is “classical” Marxism is problematic, unless you are just using the word “classical” to be a synonym for whatever happens to be the SWP’s position. Frederick Engels, for example writing in die Neue Rheinische Zeitung in 1849 writes about historic and non-historic peoples, and clearly recognises the question of national identity.
When Roman Rosdolsky’s book appeared in English criticising Engels over the question of Non-Historic peoples, I remember the review in the ISJ defended Engels in this question. (the question of non-Historic referred to those remnants of older populations that resisted the creation of modern bourgeois nation states, such as the Highland Scots). It is not necessary for us to enter the debate about what Engels thought here, suffice to say that within the “classical” Marxist tradition there was recognition of national identity – indeed Marx himself was a big supporter of German nation building.
We could also refer to Otto Bauer’s Die Nationalitätenfrage as a serious attempt within the Marxist tradition to understand the enduring political legacy of national identity.
Also you claim that nationalism (sic – I think you mean National identity in this context) is “is necessarily an imaginary and invented ideology again which rose alongside the development of nation states and the spread of capitalism”. Yet there is clear evidence that nations existed before capitalism, indeed the whole supplanting of the Anglo-Saxon nobility with a Norman nobility doesn’t make any sense unless you accept that the pre-conquest English were a nation . Another clear example was the uprising of Owen Glyn Dwr in pre-Capitalist 1400, when according to Charlie Kimber: “the rebellion achieved a national focus. Welsh students returned from Oxford to take part in it. Welsh agricultural labourers came back from England to join Glyn Dwr”.
With regard to the UAF – I have been told many times by UAF supporters how bad Searchlight’s material is, allegedly for conceding to nationalism. When all it does is report how British and commonwealth people fought the fascists in WW2, and this is a tradition to be proud of. UAF do not address their material at people who are receptive to the BNP’s message – and that is a mistake.
It is of course a ludicrous misrepresentation of my position to say I criticise the BNP for not being British enough or not patriotic enough. However it is reasonable to question what sort of patriot doesn’t support the England football team and supports Denmark instead because they are all white, or what sort of patriot wishes Britain had lost the second world war.
The main problem you have is that you are not addressing a real debate that is actually going on about national identity.
Comment by Andy — 19 June, 2007 @ 9:29 pm
Doug
You say that I “pose a false choice between proletarian internationalism and a deep-rooted sense of national identity in English working class consciousness.”
Absolutley not.
It is not me who makes this counterposition, but Martin Smith and Paul McGarr. I accept that people can both have a deep rooted sense of national identity AND be proletarian internationalists. Why not?
There are parts of English national identity that I am very comfortable with. It doesn’t mean that I think people of other nations are inferior, indeed it is you who tells them to abandon their national culture for vanilla flavoured “internationalism”, not me. I say let us celebrate the rich tapestry of difference, learn from each other, and build international friendship and solidarity.
Of course proletarian internationalism has a long and proud history. Again you are confusing political nationalism with national identity, as if they are the same thing.
You and I both oppose political nationalism which puts one nation as superior to another. You and I both believe that working people of the world must unite around our common class interest. But to do so does not require that we deny that people self-identify with nationality.
Martin Smith says that national identity is invented: this is the internationalism of the metropolitan power that says being internationalist is being like us.
You ask: “What about all the working class people who live in this country now but have other antecedents and cultural reference points?”
Well if they want to consider themselves English, they are very welcome to do so and Englishness will be enriched by them. If they want to live here and continue to identify with their other culture, they are also very welcome to do so, and the new cultural synergy will be of mutual benefit. Or they can identify with both nations, or neither.
This is why I stress that Englishness is a question of civic identity. In my town there are several thousand Goans, mainly Catholics from the Indian sub-continent who have Portuguese passports, but no identification with Portugal. It is very noticeable how many of them wear England shirts, and enthusiastically support England in the football.
That is the England I am proud of – a nation that welcomes people from around the world, and is inclusive and welcoming so that they can chose to make it their own. But that is their choice, if they want to live here and not identify themseves as English they are equally welcome.
Comment by Andy — 19 June, 2007 @ 9:52 pm
As a side note, anyone subscribing to the ludicrous idea that national identity is a product of capitalism will have a lot of trouble dealing with the history of antiquity. The notion of Greekness features prominently in the work of Aristotle, not to mention the juxtaposition of Roman-ness to barbarism.
Comment by Korakious — 19 June, 2007 @ 11:51 pm
Just thought I’d chip in to point out that the fascist bnp are *british* nationalists, not *english* nationalists. It’s hard to point to a sense of belonging to Britian these days, devolution has led more english people to self-declare as english.
Naturally, the “british” bourgeoisie (that is to say, those in favour of the Union) will call the reforms implemented in wales and scotland that are benefiting working people — but not working people in england — unfair because they want to do away with these reforms. The Daily Mail objects to the freebies because supposedly they can’t be paid for — which is nonsense, obviously.
Blair has admitted that the barnett formula has been retained to tie scotland to the union and thinks it is a price worth paying. It would be a disaster for British Imperialism if there was a split by scotland from the union — an act which could take a third of the armed forces with it.
Must dash…
Comment by Charlie Marks — 20 June, 2007 @ 12:07 am
Good point Korakious,
I think it likely you know more about Greece than me. But … having studied latin at school (just because I am so old) and thereofore Roman history, the Roman’s had a very strong sense of national identity and patriotism, but their national identity was based upon the civic institution of citizenship, not ethnicity or language (Romans were of all ethnic origins within the empire and towards the later art of the empire a majority of Roman citizens were Greek speakers)
Comment by Andy — 20 June, 2007 @ 12:09 am
Korakious is right.
There is some confusion existing between nationalism and the modern nation state — the latter comes with the development of a capitalist economy, the former predates it.
As far as i can assertain, most of the tendencies within the english left regard wales and scotland as pre-nations; since they never became proper capitalist nation states, the claims of people with welsh or scottish national identity to political independence of their nation not progressive.
This last assumption is wrong, i feel — especially today, when the UK is junior partner in the imperial conquest of iraq and afghanistan.
Comment by Charlie Marks — 20 June, 2007 @ 1:25 am
Andy,
I have never seen the word “extinguishing” in any of Atzmon wrtings!!!
Andy, believe me, i know his writings very very well.
Moreover I have now searched Google for ‘Gilad Atzmon extinguishing’ and ‘Gilad Atzmon extinguish’
http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=Gilad+Atzmon+extinguish&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
it seems as if Atzmon has never used the word extinguish (ing) in any of his writing. In other words, you simply put words in his mouth?
Clearly there is zero similarity between the CP quote of Atzmon and the one you were supposed to support.
You better concentrate…
Yocheved
Comment by Yocheved — 20 June, 2007 @ 3:17 am
With all this reason (and pseudo-reason), I think you’re overlooking the extent that one’s sense of identity (national or otherwise) is emotional rather than rational, and can be made up of a number of sometimes conflicting elements. I also think language plays a very large part, as does persecution, in one form or another. This is the reason that English national identity has not been particularly pronounced in recent times, and why recently it has grown somewhat.
I don’t think any international-proletarian-class-solidarity-thang can trump patriotism, until perhaps everyone speaks the same language.
Andy,
I think you’re a bit off on the Romans. If you check Juvenal’s “Satires” he seems pretty peeved at the foreigners - Greeks in particular, who I don’t think he sees as proper Romans, notwithstanding their citizenship. It would be surprising if ethnic chauvinism didn’t exist in ancient Rome, but the example of Greece brought up by Korakious should kill the strange notion that national identity or nationalism are modern creations.
Comment by Richard Carey — 20 June, 2007 @ 3:35 am
most of the tendencies within the english left regard wales and scotland as pre-nations; since they never became proper capitalist nation states, the claims of people with welsh or scottish national identity to political independence of their nation not progressive.
Not sure about Scotland in this context - surely the rise of the bourgeoisie was well under way by 1707?
But I’m not sure a debate about the SWP’s stance on nationalism is worth having. An organisation that enters a nationalist party in one country, mobilises religious support in another and then claims to defend the classical Marxist analysis of nationalism must have a well-developed sense of humour.
Comment by Phil — 20 June, 2007 @ 8:53 am
Yochaved.
I did not claim that Atzmon used the word “extinghuish” or “extinguishing”. Nor did i claim that I was quoting him using the word.
I wrote: “Atzmon requires Jews to renounce their national identity, and identifies being a Jew with being a Zionist. In that context his call for a secular, non-Zionist Palestine means the extinguishing of the Jews as a people.”
When Atzmon says that the only way Jews can effectively oppose Zionism is to stop being Jews, he is asking that the Jews cease to be a Jewish nation, and only be a religion.
This means extinguishing them as a nation or people. It does not of course mean extinguishing them as human beings, but they would cease to be Jewish human beings.
The quote I offer does clearly support that interpreatin of Atmon’s attitude to the Jews: he beleives Jews should stop being Jews.
Comment by Andy — 20 June, 2007 @ 10:54 am
Richard - interesting point you make about the Romans. Of course Juvenal was writing in the early Empire, and the process was at an early stage - the Empire would last another 1300 years after then, but only another 200 years in Rome. The very fact that the Empire would move its capital in 330 AD to a Greek city suggests that Roman citizenship had a civic identity divorced from the city and people of Rome.
But your point also raises the question about whether there is a distinction between national identity and ethnic identity. All Roman citizens could share civic identification, but this does not prevent them for continuing to feel affinity for people from their own part of the Empire, and who they shared language and culture with.
Comment by Andy — 20 June, 2007 @ 11:05 am
What I don’t understand here is Andy’s references to ‘the Jewish nation’. The existence of a Jewish people and Jewish culture and the right of individuals to self-identify with it shouldn’t be in dispute (which is why Atzmon is wrong, wrong, wrong) but that doesn’t require us to accept that this is a national identity. There is a Jewish nation in Palestine but that’s a separate question.
Personally I am all for making full use of any progressive elements in the British and/or English national heritage including the anti-fascist consciousness in the Second World War against today’s fascists (etc) but I don’t think that’s the same as ‘progressive patriotism’.
Comment by Ken MacLeod — 20 June, 2007 @ 11:12 am
Andy, do not play games… the meaning of the word extinguish is –‘to put an end to or bring to an end; wipe out of existence’. To mention this word in reference to Jews has a clear meaning and you know it.
Atzmon argument is very easy. Once you remove Judaism out of Jewishness you are left with Racial orientation as well as culture (which Atzmon mocks as chicken soup). For Atzmon, neither chicken soup nor racism are sufficient ethical or political arguments.
According to Atzmon Jews are not a nation and have never been a nation. Indeed they have some national aspirations. But this isn’t enough..
Moreover, since Zionism is Jewish nationalism then to oppose Zionism is to oppose Jewish nationalism.
Andy, you better produce an argument rather than just mess around with words..
Comment by yocheved — 20 June, 2007 @ 12:06 pm
Ken:
‘The existence of a Jewish people and Jewish culture and the right of individuals to self-identify with it shouldn’t be in dispute’
Atzmon doesn’t dispute this right, yet he asks what stands at the core of this right…What makes a Jew into a jew once Judaism is removed. Atzmon wonders what kind of socialists are the ‘Jewish Socialists’ are they a racially orientated Marxists?
Do you have an answer?
Can you see how pathetic it is?
Comment by yocheved — 20 June, 2007 @ 12:13 pm
Ken - that is quite a challenging argument :o)
One of the ways that blogging is different from other forms of publishing is that you are much more exposed to people picking it apart, which is a good discipline.
The question of Jewish “national” identity is something I have been puzzled about for a while, and I welcome input from people who know more or have thought more about it.
Firstly, to a certain degree the dispute is historical because the fact that Israel has now been a nation state on a particular piece of land for 59 years, where they have had children and grandchildren means that Israeli Jews do need to be treated as an nation, whatever our definition of the two thirds of the world’s Jews who do not live in Israel. This is why I say that “equality demands that each of the nations of the world has equal rights to statehood, including the Jews”. I do not think there can be any peace which does not acknowledge the Jews in Palestine as a nation, but the impact of the Zionist state being imposed by force on other people’s land does make it problematic, and a creative solution will need to be found. I also think that Israelis will never want a creative solution until the Israeli state has been in some way disempowered - whether through military defeat, or more preferably through diplomatic and economic isolation.
Personally i fully agree with those Jews who have sought other forms of community based self determination, and who have argued that the solution of the Jew’s problems will only come with the solution of humanity’s problems - which is a recognistion of the dispersed and multi-ethnic nature of the Jewish people and a rejection of ghettoisation. But even there I still think we can recognise that that is a Jewish “nation”, and people can self-identify with more than one nation (in the way some people consider themselves English and British - why not then Jewish, English and British?).
Progressive patriotism is perhaps a debate for another day: worth looking at the article Eric Hobsbawm wrote in January 1983 about Patriotism: http://www.amielandmelburn.org.uk/collections/mt/index_frame.htm
Comment by Andy — 20 June, 2007 @ 12:26 pm
Yochaved
I have amended the original article to make it clearer what I mean - thanks for pointing out that it could be misinterpretted.
Comment by Andy — 20 June, 2007 @ 12:35 pm
Atzmon has it nailed. When the Rosenbergs & Rosen celebrate a Jewishness devoid of statehood & devoid of God – what is left? Just Jewish ethnicity! Lefty, secularists are premising, what they like to refer to elusively as their ‘identity’ on nothing more than race. When the Rosenbergs state they have ‘a strong Jewish element to their social lives’ what they mean is, they prefer to hang out with people who have the same blood type as they do, a bit like Hitler. I dread to imagine what the Rosenberg’s social life consists of, sitting around swapping recipes for gefilte fish? How the winter evening must fly by……
Comment by Aisha — 20 June, 2007 @ 1:46 pm
Andu, thanks for the attention…
however, I can clearly see it by now, you fail to differentiate between Nation, Folk, people, racial orientation and and ethnic identity… Atzmon is far ahead of you and others on that topic. You aren’t as well familiar enough with Atzmon’s differentiation between Jews, Jewishness and Judaism…
Moreover, if Jews are indeed a nation, as you insist to claim, then their socialists must be engaged in nothing but ‘National Socialism’. Andy, is it where you want to go?
Fine with me, it may explain why Rosen performs in Zionist Gatherings, it may explain why Julia Bard succumbed to the Jewish barbarian ancient blood ritual and circumcised her son..
Comment by yocheved — 20 June, 2007 @ 2:19 pm
Aisha
Surely any claim to a Jewish “ethnicity” fail when you go to Israel and see the IDF soldiers ranging from blond haired nordic types through to black africans? whetever does define Jews as Jews, it is not shared ethnicity.
And to say that everyone who identifies themselves with a certain culture and national identity is “a bit like Hitler” is a dangerous argument, because it means you think the vast majority of the world’s population are “a bit like Hitler”.
Also I detect a hostility from Yochaved/Aisha towards Jewish culture, belittling it as just being some recipes.
Comment by Andy — 20 June, 2007 @ 2:23 pm
Writing as a sometime contributor to Jewish Socialist, I must say that I too have problems with the formulation of Jews as a ‘nation’ in your sentence ‘As long as Jews self-identify themselves as a Jewish nation …’. You seem to me to be saying that non-Israeli Jews have a national identity which is the same as that of Israeli Jews.
I think this is inaccurate as well as being bad politics.
It’s inaccurate in that it’s a poor descriptor of the consciousness that people like me, members of my family and our friends actually have. The stories and memories and elements of self-identity that people share are bounded by memories of religion, and ways of doing family, and a vague sense of biological inheritance from past generations (including an inheritence of an experience of racism).
National boundaries and desires don’t come into it.
It’s true that prior to 1948 some Jews saw themselves as a nation. But I’d not see their experience as creating a common Jewish nation (not least because Zionism was a minority current in Jewish politics in each of the US, Britain, Europe and the Arab world before 48).
I don’t think it’s necessarily wrong or unhelpful in general to speak of a national consciousness (in which context Neil Davidson’s work should surely be the important reference point), it’s just inaccurate in this context.
In so far as today Jews in Britain or the US identify with Israeli, which of course most do, I think it’s because of a recognition of a different national location (alongside a belief in a common cultural or racial identity).
Solidarity is always as much about recognising difference as it is about commonality. The fact that some British lefties like to buy Palestinian olive oil doesn’t make us Palestinian. Nor, in the same way, does the fact that some Jews in Britain send money to some Israeli charities make them part of a common Jewish nation.
As for the bad politics; if you see Jewish consciousness as racialised (a phrase which has other problems) it does at least stop you asking why was there no nation? After all, there isn’t a nation of Black people, or of Whites.
The other reason why I’d be against putting non-Israeli Jews in a national box with Israeli Jews (even if it was accurate, which as I’ve already said, I don’t think it is), is because it conceals the important ways in which strategies to promote a pan-Jewish nationalism have been a conscious intervention into Jewish politics.
National (or racial or cultural) consciousness, as Hobsbawm pointed out (in a different context to his piece you cite above), is all about the constant reinvention of tradition.
In the context of Zionism, national consciousness has very specifically been about saying that the problems of a people who shared a common linguistic, racial and heritage would be solved by them acquiring first a national consciousness and then a nation state. In the context of Zionism today, Jewish nationalism means saying that the problems of Jewish people in New York or London can be solved by military or political victories for Israel, which given the policies of the Israeli ruling class means victories over Palestinians or other Arabs.
The JC might agree that there is such a thing as a Jewish nation, and probably people in the UK who consciously identify with the Israeli right - but that’s for the reason that they want Jewish politics in Britain to be expressed in those sorts of nationalist terms.
For those of us who don’t think that ‘we’ are all in it together against the crazy, sub-human, Jew-hating Arabs, there’s a great deal at stake.
Comment by Dave — 20 June, 2007 @ 2:25 pm
Yochaved - the slur about “national socialism” sits uneasily with your own sensitivity about the use of the word “extinguish”.
What do people associate with the term “national socialism”? Do you really think that is a good description for Julia Bard and David Rosenberg, or me come to that?
The concepts of “Nation, Folk, people, racial orientation and ethnic identity” are all somewhat elusive ones, which is why how people self-identify is important. But the fact that we don’t have an adequate understanding of how national cultures and national identities are constructed doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
What this exchange has convinced me is that the dispute about Atzmon is indeed symptomatic of the whole question of Scottish, English and Weslsh identity, becasue we are ending up at the same point, where some on the Brit-left (not the SWP to be fair to them) describe socialists who favour Scottish indepenence as National Socialists.
Comment by Andy — 20 June, 2007 @ 2:31 pm
As the editor of PeacePalestine, I can say I am more than familiar with Atzmon’s arguments, as well as with the manner in which Rosen sought to present his own level of activism and the lively debates that sprung from this on my blog.
I also frequently encounter that people miss the main element of the call for the renouncing of “Jewish Identity as a Political Weapon”. One can and should be whatever one wants, no matter what that is, as long as other people are in no way harmed, physically or psychologically. What happens oftentimes with the campaigners who admit (as Rosen does) that Palestinians are not their real issue, and that they don’t know that much about it, but are involved as Marxists and generally as leftists, decide at any rate to make their own identity as the pivotal point of how things should be in the world, and they suggest that their cultural or ethnical belonging carries a weight that others should be obligated to recognise, most particularly regarding Palestine and Israel, as if just being Jewish is enough to give one a moral criterion and a stronger intellectual argument. Yet, if one is a marxist, shouldn’t there be unity of people into fighting for rights across all divisional lines, regardless of what one thinks or does in his own private life or one’s political affiliations, be they secular or Muslim? (Famously, these Secular Jewish campaigners do not support a Palestinian’s right to aggregate in religious parties, but they themselves are part of Jews for this or that). Should one campaign as a Jew in an ethnic capacity if this very differentiation is meaningless in a European environment and meaningful instead in the Middle East? The last time importance was given to the characteristic of ethnic division of Jews, regardless of people maintaining the moral, religious and ethical beliefs of Judaism or not, people were walled in with yellow stars on their coats.
If one suggests that Palestinians should be supported in resistance and in their democratic choices,(precisely what Atzmon does) the Palestinians are chided by these Jewish Secular campaigners because Palestinians are not able to divide themselves from their relations to their faith and secular politics as a progressive secular Jew is able to do, and seeks to demonstrate to them it appears. There is little to no support of Palestinians, and this always comes out. The focus is on keeping the issues and the worldview one that conforms to a limited vision, and Atzmon counters this by asking them to adopt a univeralist calling, since, as was pointed out, Tushkes and Blintzes are not a political argument.
The use of Jewish identity as a POLITICAL instrument is the problem. Support for Palestinians should be without conditions, given that they find themselves in this situation through no fault of their own. We have an obligation to listen to them, follow their lead, and in no way to dictate to them what we expect of them in order for them to earn our support. Palestine is in the Middle East, not in Europe, and many activists in the West forget this.
Comment by thecutter — 20 June, 2007 @ 3:05 pm
Another side point.
I find the toytown cosmopolitanism-dressed-as-internationalism (side point within side point, looking at the components parts of internationalism gives us a rather different definition of the term than the one usually adopted by the first world left) quite amusing. Almost exclusively, the people who claim to feel equally comfortable with hanging out with people of whatever nationhood -we’re all workers anyway!- are usually people who have never lived in a foreign country, or if they have, they’ve never lived in a country with lingo-cultural environment different than their own, or finally, are native English speakers, in which case, no matter which country they move to, they always find someone to chat with in their native tongue.
It’s vaguely similar to academic Marxists slagging off workers for not being proletarian enough.
Comment by Korakious — 20 June, 2007 @ 3:05 pm
Thanks for the input, Dave.
I am very open to my understanding being improved on this subject!
I understand your point that if we accept that there is ONE Jewish nation, then since 1948 that tilts the issue of Jewish identity towards support for the actually existing Jewish state.
But does self-identification with a nation necessarily mean having a state? Wales and the Welsh in particular spring to mind as an example of a nation with no state, and despite much less civic identity than Scotland - has a very distinct high and low culture distinguishable from both England and Britain.
To me your description of “The stories and memories and elements of self-identity that people share are bounded by memories of religion, and ways of doing family, and a vague sense of biological inheritance from past generations (including an inheritence of an experience of racism).” sounds like national identity, particularly because your references to a vague sense of biological inheritance (and not so vague as for example my nephews who have a Jewish mother, look very Jewish) does include a sense of being a distinct people.
To refer to Neil Davidson, yes he wrote a substantive article on this subject: http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/isj82/davidson.htm I was going to debate it more fully in a seperate post, partly becasue Neil seems to be saying something more nuanced and subtly different from Martin Smith and Paul McGarr, and I think what the SWP say in their paper is of more politicall significacne than in their theorectical journal.
For example while Paul and Martin argue national identity does not exist, Neil Davidson favourably quotes George Kerevan describing the difference between nationaliam and internationalism: “Nationalism, reflecting the social position of the individual caught in the allegiances imposed by civil society and its exterior state.’ On the other, ‘Proletarian internationalism, reflecting the class position of the worker and the kernel of the socialist mode of production developing within capitalism.’ The two are quite different in nature: ‘The former is materially determined by the external appearance of bourgeois society, the latter by its essence”
The recognistion that national identity is “materially determined by the external appearance of bourgeois society”, is a postion I would agree with, and is very different to what Snowball and Doug have argued above.
Comment by Andy — 20 June, 2007 @ 3:11 pm
I would urge you to look at Neil’s two books on Scotland (The Origins of Scottish Nationhood and Discovering the Scottish Revolution), which I think take the positions further than his ISJ articles.
One key idea he uses is that of “national consciousness”, this enables him to write about why people in Scotland have felt more Scottish in one period or less in another - without falling into the trap of saying there is or is not or has or has not been a Scottish national identity.
He also has a number of useful points to make about the “reality” behind different kinds of consciousness. In the start of The Origins, he makes the useful point that under capitalism a class movement will also have as its starting objective the creation of a society where workers see themselves as such and fight on that basis. Conversely, where there is a national movement but no nation state, the goal of the national movement is to create that state.
Or, as he puts it, nicely: for a class-based movement, the goal is the raising of consciousness to the level of reality, whereas for a national movement, the goal is the raising of reality to the level of consciousness.
Neil’s distinction between consciousness and identity is also apposite to the point I made above that to accept the existence of a common Jewish consciousness (whether racial or cultural in origin) is to do something different from describing Jews (in Israel or elsewhere) as a nation.
Comment by Dave — 20 June, 2007 @ 4:00 pm
One more observation, I took a glance at the Table of Contents of Jewish Socialist and saw that the title of the document by Rosen and Bard was referred to anti-semitic elements rising in Palestinian activism. I find this definition at best misguided, at worst, an attempt to tag arguments that are in no way expressing racial hatred of any kind, but rather are calls for humanist involvement, especially if one claims to be a Socialist, in an inflammatory and false way, to discredit them and the people who are active in supporting Palestinian resistance, and not in dictating what Palestinians are supposed to be doing so that we can lend them our “important support”.
As a matter of fact, criticising those who are being inconsitent is not offending their belonging to a cultural, religious or ethnic identity that they hold dear, claiming that it is anti-semitic to do so suggests that they really haven’t grasped the meaning of the term, and they seek special status for their ethnic conglomeration as a political tool. Their inconsitency is their own problem. It is when they belong to groups where it COUNTS that one is of an ethnic or religious group or not, and at the same time, claiming to be an international socialist, where class is the essence. The two things are completely inconsistent, and worse still when they use this tool to determine the direction that activism towards Palestinians should go, and who criticise the Palestinians for voting for Hamas, when they are not saying the only reason they did it was a protest vote. Let the Zionists hang onto an ethnic determinism of Jewishness, we prefer not to.
Comment by thecutter — 20 June, 2007 @ 4:03 pm
Thanks dave
I just bought those two books on Amazon, thanks for recommending them. I did find Gregor Galls “Radical Scotland” useful on this subject as well.
I accept your refinement of the idea of national identity towards national consciousness, where identity could imply a movement towards a state. Although these are not necessarily distinctions inherent in the meaning of the words, we could agree that as the vocabulary to make a technical distinction.
I am still not sure that defining a nation also implies a political movement towards a state. (But even if it did I have no problem with the idea that identifying an English nation is part of breaking up the UK and building an English state.)
I also agree that were Israel not to have existed then within the diaspora national-consciousness could express itself in various non-state forms of self-determination, and for the 8 million or so Jews who don’t live in Israel I suppose that in one form or another that is what they do, and it is also a political battle to promote forms of self-determination that do not identify with Israel over those that identify the Jewish national consciousness with the need to defend the actually existing Jewish state.
But surely, whether we approve of israel or not, Israel today is a nation state?
Comment by Andy — 20 June, 2007 @ 4:24 pm
Speaking of Neil Davidson’s books, Allan Armstrong’s article/pamphlet “Beyond Broadswords & Bayonets” offers a good critique of both the left-unionist tradition from which Neil Davidson comes and the left-nationalist perspective of groups like the SRSM. It is available here (scrolls to the bottom).
Comment by Korakious — 20 June, 2007 @ 4:58 pm
Andy: “Yochaved - the slur about “national socialism” sits uneasily with your own sensitivity about the use of the word “extinguish”.”
Yocheved: Why, please elaborate! To say that our Jewish socialist are actually ‘national socialist’ is to reflect on what they do and say (read bellow). To put the word ‘Extinguish’ in Atzmon’s mouth (without him saying it) is on the verge of criminality.
Andy: “What do people associate with the term “national socialism”? Do you really think that is a good description for Julia Bard and David Rosenberg, or me come to that?”
Yocheved: Actually, I do!!! People who engage in blood rituals and chop their infant’s son male organ as a matter of celebration of ethnic belonging (Julia Bard and David Rosenberg ) are probably the lowest humanity has ever produced. Rosen who performs with Jewish Power Klezmer band (Yishar Koach) succumbing for the supremacist Jewish school…. They (Rosen, Bard and Rosenberg & Co) can always claim not to know what their secular Jewish culture means for real, but then where is your argument aiming…
Andy: “The concepts of “Nation, Folk, people, racial orientation and ethnic identity” are all somewhat elusive ones, which is why how people self-identify is important. “
Yocheved: They are not illusive at all, you just fail to understand them and what do they mean for Jewish people and for Jewish socialists im particular…
Andy: But the fact that we don’t have an adequate understanding of how national cultures and national identities are constructed doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
Yocheved: what do you mean by “we”? Some of us know and some of us don’t.
Andy: “What this exchange has convinced me is that the dispute about Atzmon is indeed symptomatic of the whole question of Scottish, English and Weslsh identity, becasue we are ending up at the same point, where some on the Brit-left (not the SWP to be fair to them) describe socialists who favour Scottish indepenence as National Socialists.”
Yoheved: Nonsense!!! There is a major difference between folkish culture, an identity that is orientated around geography, and Jewish socialism. Jewish socialism is a racially orientated affair. While a black and a Muslim can become a Scottish socialists, they won’t make it into the Jewish socialists not even in million years.
Just give it a thought!
Comment by yocheved — 20 June, 2007 @ 6:17 pm
Andy: Surely any claim to a Jewish “ethnicity” fail when you go to Israel and see the IDF soldiers ranging from blond haired nordic types through to black africans? whetever does define Jews as Jews, it is not shared ethnicity.
Aisha: Indeed, human geneticists have contested that there is little concentric DNA between Ashkenazi Jews, Sephardi Jews or the various other Jewish denominations. So I ask again, if a Jew rejects God, denies aspirations for nationhood & acknowledges that evidence of shared genetics is spurious, at best, what are they left with that is Jewish? I would say that for parents to carve into an infant’s genitalia without even the pretext of ‘God will’ makes them far more barbaric than their faithful brethren & aligns them closer to Josef Mengele than they would like to admit.
Andy: And to say that everyone who identifies themselves with a certain culture and national identity is “a bit like Hitler” is a dangerous argument
Aisha: Who mentioned culture?! What culture? I was discussing race. If any ethnic group seeks to align itself exclusively with others of the same race then they are straying into National Socialism. This is the desire of Nick Griffin, Le Penn, Olmert & the Rosenbergs.
Andy: I detect a hostility from Yochaved/Aisha towards Jewish culture, belittling it as just being some recipes.
Aisha: Recipes are very important Andy! Have you ever improvised cake making? It’s nothing less than a culinary disaster let me tell you. However, I’d love for you to tell me what Jewish culture entails when you take away religion, nationality & the beloved gefilte fish. Enlighten me please!
Comment by Aisha — 20 June, 2007 @ 6:25 pm
Korakious
I read the article.
I don’t really understand Armstrong’s distinction in this context between “from above” and “from below”.
What it seems to me is that the union was certainly necessary from the point of view of England’s rulers to neutralise the destabilising factor of Scotland.
Also I am shocked to read criticism of the Duke of Monmouth :o)
I was brought up in Keynsham the folk of which town fought for Monmouth, and I have never heard criticism before for him leaving the field at Sedgemoor, after all the day was lost, and he fought ferociousy with pike, sword and pistol until all hope was gone, nothing could have been achieved by him dying there.
I have often wondered why the last two insurrections on English soil both happened within a few miles of each other, the Monmouth rebellion in 1685 and the Bristol “Riots” of 1831. Is it the cider?
Comment by Andy — 20 June, 2007 @ 7:10 pm
you know, I’m pretty content aligning my Jewish identity with early Woody Allen films and klezmer music.
i’m trying to read the rest of the OP so i can form an opinion of where i stand, but every time i try i run away screaming. if there’s one thing i love even more than feminist “realness,” it’s Jewish “realness.”
Comment by belledame222 — 21 June, 2007 @ 4:38 am
I see the litigious liar Gilad Atzmon has reverted to using the name Yocheved to defend his unsurprisingly misunderstood self. There are so many links showing him to be a liar, a racist, a buffoon and a bully, to provide one wouldn’t be cricket (if he’ll pardon the Englishism). So make do with this and I’ll try to remember to be back later. http://tinyurl.com/2u7lwe or do you need this? http://tinyurl.com/2u7lwe
Comment by Mark Elf — 21 June, 2007 @ 7:44 am
Just been alerted to this thread and thought that as someone mentioned and as the subject of several Red Herrings (never mind gefilte fish) thrown in by Atzmon and his acolytes, I ought to respond.
Between the bourgois Jewish Chronicle and Atzmon’s blinkered obsessions there is a fair amount of misinformation. Neither me personally, nor the editors of Jewish Socialist collectively, talk in terms of a “Jewish nation” - peoplehood certainly, and the right to national cultural autonomy certainly. We hope through the magazine we have contributed to a critique of territorial nationalism and majoritarianism, and raised issues concerning the rights of minorities in all societies.
In terms of the Jewish question we have challenged the notion of the centrality of Israel to Jewish life - a notion promoted by Zionism, and ironically also by Atzmon, and mirrored in less sophisticated left-wing discussions of Jewishness, Israel, Zionism.
While supporting the rights of minorities to fully and freely develop their distinct cultures, (against the cultural chauvinism inherent in assimilationism) we also promote an identity with open borders. Since its inception Jewish Socialist has published jewish and non-jewish writers and the Jewish Socialists Group has never been an exclusively jewish organisation. We’ve always preferred membership to be a matter of ageeeing to work for the political perspectives of the organisation rather than a matter of biology.
Comment by David Rosenberg — 21 June, 2007 @ 9:05 am
David says: “Jewish Socialists Group has never been an exclusively jewish organisation. We’ve always preferred membership to be a matter of ageeeing to work for the political perspectives of the organisation rather than a matter of biology.”
So, members don’t need to be Jewish (but why would non-Jews join a Jewish group, and for the record, how many non-Jews are members of the Jewish Socialists Group?) Is being Socialist a flexible criterion as well?
Besides, I find it interesting that you consider the definition of Jew as being biologically bound. Is biological determinism part of your political perspectives that are agreed upon? I thought Jewishness was cultural… at least that was the debate on my blog as presented by Rosen. Thanks for correcting me on this amazingly flexible concept. I shall try to keep a tally sheet.
Do you fail to realise, David, that there is an incredible inconsistency in your conceptualisation of the group you are part of?
Comment by thecutter — 21 June, 2007 @ 9:50 am
Hi David
Personally i still have some difficulty in understanding the distinction between being a “nation” and being a “peoplehood”, especialy when that peoplehood then involves, as you put it, national cultural autonomy.
Is not “a peoplehood with a national culture” a “nation”?
Similarly I am still not convinced in the distinction that Dave makes above between “national identity” and “national consciousness”
I think that to a certin extent concepts that are inherenty elusive are being made even more slippery becasue we are trying to find words that acknowledge Jewishness without legitimising or endorsing israel.
But my own preoccupation here is with the question of the English, and whether we are a “peoplehood with a national culture”.
If we apply Paul McGarr’s statement: “Ordinary people in England may live on the same piece of land as the rich, but they have nothing else whatever in common.” to the Jews, we would even have to take out that bit about living on the same bit of land, becaue Jews are dispersed. It would then read: “Ordinary Jews and rich Jews have nothing whatever in common”
Or to adapt Martin Smith similarly it would say: “He throws together a number of disconnected historical events, myths and anecdotes and tries to make a case for a Jewish national identity.” Which sounds remarkable similar to me to Atzmon’s reduction of Jewishness to an arbitrary collection of recipes.
Comment by Andy — 21 June, 2007 @ 10:08 am
Andy. Re the distinction between nation and peoplehood, it is an internal Zionist issue. Nation is the Hebrew ‘leom’, and Peoplehood is the hebrew ‘am’. Zionists say let’s us make the ‘am’ into leom (let’s turn the people into a nation). The Bund say let’s be people amongst nation (as oppose to nation amongst nations). The problem with Jewish socialists is that they want to be cosmopolitan as well as people (hence national socialists). In other words they want to have the Geflithe (as opposed to cake) and eat it.
Comment by yocheved — 21 June, 2007 @ 10:23 am
Thanks Yocheved,
so you are saying that for people informed by this distinction in Hebrew:
“leom” = nation = country => state
“am” = people = folk
Whereas I would understand the normal English meaning to be:
nation = people
country = land => state
Comment by Andy — 21 June, 2007 @ 10:40 am
Yochoved (or perhaps Atzmon?) wrote ‘People who engage in blood rituals and chop their infant’s son male organ as a matter of celebration of ethnic belonging (Julia Bard and David Rosenberg ) are probably the lowest humanity has ever produced.’
While this comment (blood rituals!) is almost beyond comment, it does indicate that Yochoved’s antagonism to Jewishness is based on something other than internationalist humanism.
Comment by David L — 21 June, 2007 @ 11:22 am
Or to put it another way.
Is the distinction in Hebrew similar to that in German
Die Leute = people in the sense of a collection of human beings
Das Volk = A people united by some shared identity
Comment by Andy — 21 June, 2007 @ 11:24 am
David L
I think what you say is correct about Yochaved’s/(Atzmon’s?) hostile language and obvious deep antagonism towards David and Julia - which does smell of Jew hating. Certainly the “blood rituals” language is resonant with Mediavel Christian anti-Judaic bigotry.
I have discussed different forms of Jew hating, and how Atzmon is an anti-semite before on this blog:
http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=327 and http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=326
However, it might be worth saying that David and Julia’s son Reuben Bard-Rosenberg has himself made the politics behind circumcision a public issue, and therefore to a certain extent legitimised that debate - though obvioulsy not in the offensive and bigoted way that Yochaved does:
http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=171
Reuben wrote: “.There is no justification for deciding on behalf a child that he should experience pain and risk, and - for the duration of his life - sacrifice potential for sexual pleasure - simply because his parents believe that god said he should. An interesting comparison might be made here with Tattoos. Nobody is allowed to get a tattoo until they are 18 - regardless of parental consent. Tattoos may look silly and may be hard to remove but they do not involve removing a piece of the human body.They do not alter fundamental physical experiences. If people must wait until they’re 18 to get inked then surely circumsision should be a matter for consenting adults. Right now circumsisions are being carried out, with public money, on people who are not consenting adults . Unless we actively take a stand, we are all implicated in this gross violation of children’s rights.”
Comment by Andy — 21 June, 2007 @ 11:31 am
Reuben’s point about circumcision is entirely legitimate. But those whose unsavoury language on the topic has already been identified by Andy, seem to have forgotten that male circumcision is also required by Islam. The only difference of which I am aware is that Jewish males are circumcised at eight days, while Muslim males are usually circumcised at around ten or twelve years, which must be far more traumatic.
Comment by Stephen Marks — 21 June, 2007 @ 12:03 pm
David, I have a Masters Degree in Politics & Philosophy but strangly had never before come across the term ‘peoplehood.’ So I Googled it.
Peoplehood : Global Jewish partnership with Israel at its heart — and the importance of the Jewish people in strengthening Israel — is crucial to Israel’s continued existence as a Jewish, democratic state. Numerous projects targeting vulnerable sectors — new immigrants, the elderly, disadvantaged youngsters, populations at-risk, women, populations in Israel’s periphery — are aimed at making Israel a more inclusive society.
Alternatively you can visit www.peoplehood.org & read the rants of Jewish Activist Yossi Abramowitz, who’s primary aim is to ‘help the Jewish people’
Seemingly, ‘peoplehood’ refers to all people so long as they are Jewish.
Comment by Aisha — 21 June, 2007 @ 1:31 pm
Andy seems to be reacting to the SWP’s apparent denial of a material bases of both nationalism and national identity, but seems to bend the stick in another, idealist direction. I agree with the criticisms of Andy conception of the Jewish people as a nation, which seems part of a greatly inflated conception of what a nation is, as if any form of cross-class social or cultural formation that is associated with a collective identity in human history is a nation. There’s plenty of arguments and evidence presented by the main theorists of the nation of the last few decades - Benedict Anderson, Ernest Gellner, Anthony Smith, Michel Lowy and the mentioned Hobsbawn - as well as in the classical Marxist tradition as to why its more useful to see nations more specifically as formations arising fundamentally from the development of capitalism. Some of the afore-mentioned though weren’t too clear on the role of common territory and economy in forming a nation. Here’s a bit from a thesis I’m writing critiquiting Michel Lowy’s critique, in his book /Fatherland or Mother Earth?/, of Stalin’s 1913 pamphlet ‘Marxism and the National Question’, followed by my own take on a Marxist defintion of a nation:
The inadequacy of Löwy’s critique, with regards both to rigidity and to “fetisihisation of territory” can further be seen from a brief examination of what might at first glance appear to be the triumph of the subjective over the objective, the formation of Israel from scattered Jewish communities. Löwy as noted states that the Jews, per se, should be unproblematically treated as a nation. However this tell us nothing about the surely qualitative difference between diverse Jewish communities around the globe speaking various languages and interacting with various peoples, and the Hebrew speaking people of Israel with their innumerable daily interactions. Stalin emphatically rejects the notion the notion that the Jews are a nation, but also argues that Jews are an example of a social group that is not a nation but due to common conditions of existence possesses a “national character” (he uses quotation marks) . While this is somewhat unclear, it seems to imply both that social categories are not totally fixed and rigid, and also that the Jews are a potential nation, with elements of Anderson’s “religious community” and Smith’s “ethnie”, though actually held together by a particular economic role in pre-capitalist European society . If the Jews had no national character it is unlikely that Zionism would have had any purchase, however if they were clearly a nation, it is unlikely that Zionism would have remained a minority current before the Second World War. It is only when Zionism, for particular historical reasons, became hegemonic among Jews and led mass emigration to Palestine and a subsequent war with Arab communities there, did Jews form a common capitalist economy on a common territory with a new common language, and through innumerable new social connections (businesses, collectives, trade unions, bureaucracies, armed forces, communications media, artistic endeavours) create a new common culture (with Smith’s excavations from the Jewish past to be sure): in short forging the Israeli nation (which, in terms of the constant yet contradictory flux of nations discussed above includes to varied extents the Hebrew speaking Arab people residing in Israel)…
To sum up, the nation is understood in this thesis to be a dynamic social formation that is fundamentally a result of the development of capitalism, whereby through particular historical processes a group of people from varied yet determinative ethnic and linguistic backgrounds (ethnie) inhabiting a common territory forge a common economy, language and culture. It has a powerful subjective element that can be summarised in the concept “imagined community”, which is both constituitive of the nation itself (in language and national culture), and which is expressed as varied forms of nationalism, (politically-oriented ideology), and national identity (socially situated self-identification). Nationalism and national identity ultimately depend on but also feed back into the nature and history of the nation and social groups within it.
Comment by Nick Fredman — 21 June, 2007 @ 2:50 pm
I find it interesting that no one has addressed any of the points made in my interventions. Seeing as how my blog has been called into account here, and how people who agree with Atzmon are called “acolytes” by those who are antagonistic to him, it seems as if there is an a prioristic tendency to revel in the repetetive rehashing of the standard ad hominems (remember, Sue Blackwell had to publish an apology for insinuating he was a racist on her blog, the PSC motion to silence Atzmon was defeated, the SWP has not bent to pressure to “disinvite” Atzmon to speak and play at their events…) it seems that “throwing the stone and hiding the hand” is the modus operandi around here when obviously, it is an extremely slim and noisy minority that feels it represents a collectivity. I believe this is another of their illusions. Why not debate the persons you attack rather than instigate and then ignore them when they bring up areas of legitimate political inquiry? Why not be seriously engaged in debate rather than telling us your reading lists?
Comment by thecutter — 21 June, 2007 @ 3:39 pm
I see you’ve got the hardcore racists Rizzo and Atzmon posting Andy.
I’ll give you a little story about the buffoonery of Atzmon.
He was billed to be playing a gig with George Galloway last November.
“Jazz racism and Resistance” in London.
At the last minute Galloway pulled out .
Telling Martin Smith to feed Atzmon the line “I’m stuck in the House of Commons voting on Iraq”.
poor Gilad went on to cite this excuse on Marys blog.
What actually happened was that *someone* rang Rob Hoveman, Galloways assistant and gave him some info on Gilads writings.
Galloway pulled out and Gilad never checked Hansard.
There was no vote on Iraq that night.
Watch and see at Marxism 2007 and see how many make themselves scarce when this racist is around.
Comment by tim — 21 June, 2007 @ 3:48 pm
Tim, you say I am a “hard core racist”. Demonstrate your smear.
Comment by thecutter — 21 June, 2007 @ 4:13 pm
And, Tim, why don’t you call David a racist when he says being a Jew is a biological thing? This was what Hitler was saying all the time, making the Jews a Race and what have you.
Comment by thecutter — 21 June, 2007 @ 4:15 pm
This is what we had so far…
Andy comes up with something that looks like an argument in favour of of progressive Jewish secular nationalism (this isn’t a joke).
Yocheved says, Ok then, if they are Nationalist as well as Socialist, they must be nothing but ‘national socialists’.
Andy is confused; he has nothing clever to say to oppose such a claim.
David Rosenberg is horrified as well, he can probably see some truth in Yocheved’s/Atzmon’s argument. Yet he remembers very well that he had chopped his son’s organ for a non-spiritual reason (at the end of the day, he is a secular Jew rather than an observant one). Rosenberg cannot really claim to be a progressive himan being.
Rosenberg says we aren’t nation, it is the peoplehood that we are after. Rosenberg must believe in Socialism of one people,
Atzmon must be wondering what happened to the socialist cosmopolitanism. Is there a unique socialism of one people? Isn’t it all about working class? Isn’t it something that goes beyond race and gender?
All that time Michael Rosen, the secular rabbi/poet, is performing with a band called ‘Jewish Power’ (Yishar Koach). He as well providing family entertainment at the Zionist London Jewish Book Fair. Clearly, they keep busy these tribal progressive people.
Mark Elf who runs another ‘Jewish Only’ progressive blog joins in. Once again he fails to keep his cool, pretty amusing as usual.
Tim, at a moment of despair presents Galloway as a Zionist operator.
Galloway, yet to confirm that this he is indeed one.
All that time Atzmon is preparing for his coming appearance at Marxism 2008.
And Yocheved is having a laugh.
Comment by yocheved — 21 June, 2007 @ 5:41 pm
Galloway clearly is an anti Zionist.
But he wont have anything to do with a racist like you.
Secondly,knowing that you wouldnt even know whether there was a vote on Iiraq that night he just used the first excuse that would work with a dullard.
Or perjaps youd like to tell us why he wont share a platform with you Gilad,while happy to have Rosen on his radio show.
Comment by tim — 21 June, 2007 @ 5:49 pm
tim, why not respond to me? Are my questions too complicated? I think they were pretty direct, just like your name calling was pretty direct. All I ask is that you demonstrate what you say, and then say if David’s claim that anyone can join Jewish Socialists group, even non Jews, because “Jewish Socialists Group has never been an exclusively jewish organisation. We’ve always preferred membership to be a matter of ageeeing to work for the political perspectives of the organisation rather than a matter of biology”.
The biological argumentation has been proven to be thoroughly racist. Unless, you don’t think so??? Let’s deal with the arguments, this way, we can respect you as an adversary.
Comment by thecutter — 21 June, 2007 @ 5:54 pm
How I wish I could sign this petition along with Julia, David & Rubeun to stop the suffering Gaza, but unfortunately, being a Muslim, I don’t qualify.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/letters/story/0,3604,899805,00.html#article_continue
Comment by Azad Ewe — 21 June, 2007 @ 6:37 pm
Well Azad, it seems that even their letter says that they don’t share views on the resolution of the Israel-Palestinian conflict…. so the matter that unites them isn’t agreeing to work for political perspectives, but is oriented in selective grouping of arbitrary (by birth in this case) groups… typically, it is indeed a desire to make statements together selecting to identify themselves as Jews (and therefore concerned: “As Jews in Britain, we are immensely concerned about the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and the West Bank” as if being Jews is the reason they are concerned…) and sign group letters that claim that they see all people as humans and therefore, send money to their campaign.
I am all for money going to Palestinians for relief, resistance and development, no doubt about it, but you are right about the way those who support their campaign, and would like to sign, are excluded at the get go because “biology matters” intervene.
It is telling that they do not respond to the pointing out of their terrible inconsistencies, nor engage in debate about the points some of us bring up that might require something a little more effort and dialectics than name calling and telling third-hand unconfirmed rumours.
Comment by thecutter — 21 June, 2007 @ 7:14 pm
What strange views fro the racists.
Rizzo and Atzmon are usually to be found arguing that the status of Palestinian refugee passes through blood lines.
Comment by Blow me — 21 June, 2007 @ 7:38 pm
Blood lines? No, sport, it has everything to do with geographical connections to the places that they were deported from and where immigrants came to settle / colonise / take over / control and dominate. Palestine is a geographic location that you can find on maps throughout history, and Palestinians are connected to their culture, language and religions, yes, but most particularly to their land.
So, come on, show me where I’m racist instead of calling me one, and tell me why David R isn’t when he says Jewishness is biologically determined.
Comment by thecutter — 21 June, 2007 @ 7:59 pm
Article at top: -
In “Wales, Class Struggle and Socialism” Socialist Worker journalist Charlie Kimber gives a quote from Lenin without citation that reads: “Our banner does not contain the slogan national culture but international culture” … and Kimber concludes: “All of us benefit from drawing on the best of international culture rather than remaining imprisoned by the particular culture we happen to be born into”
Just noticed this thread. Did Kimber really literally say that as quoted?
If so he’s either suffering from selective amnesia, or he’s deliberately cut out the most important part of the quote. I don’t even need it in front of me, because I’ve read the pamphelt so many times I know it by heart.
“…the international culture of the working class”
If the SWP journos are peddling this crap as Marxism, they really ought to change the name of the paper to “Socialist..”, but since they always argue against adopting any conscious socialist demands, perhaps they ought to change it to “..”
As for Fatzmon, he attacks people in Israel who served time while he was playing his trumpet.
Comment by Alex Nichols — 21 June, 2007 @ 8:16 pm
oh Mary.
You want a special case for the blood and land connection passing down through the generations of refugees.
but for only one set of people.
Comment by Blow me — 21 June, 2007 @ 9:00 pm
Alex - either your memory or the pamphlet you recall is incorrect. Here’s Lenin, writing in 1913:
“The class-conscious workers combat all national oppression and all national privileges, but they do not confine themselves to that. They combat all, even the most refined, nationalism, and advocate not only the unity, but also the amalgamation of the workers of all nationalities in the struggle against reaction and against bourgeois nationalism in all its forms. Our task is not to segregate nations, but to unite the workers of all nations. Our banner does not carry the slogan “national culture” but international culture, which unites all the nations in a higher, socialist unity, and the way to which is already being paved by the international amalgamation of capital.”
Source: marxists.org
Comment by Phil — 21 June, 2007 @ 9:14 pm
Some of the arguments used by these two idiots “Yocheved” and his handmaiden “Aisha” are appalling racist drivel.
Presumably Hitler was a fascist because he started out by hanging around in Bierkellers with other Germans? So therefore, English people who go to pubs are crypto fascists? Indians who go to a family wedding are straining at the leash to be neo-nazis? It’s too laughable for words! Apolitical drivel.
“Yocheved” is also being deliberately misleading when he suggests that “Yishar Koach” means “Jewish Power” in Hebrew. It comes from “SheKoiach”, which is traditionally shouted out after someone has recited or sung a passage in Synagogue.
Which means “more strength to you” or words to that effect. “Yish” does not mean “Jewish” by any stretch of the imagination.
By the way Leom is not the same word as state, which is Medinat.
P.S. I hope all those people raising the Brit Mila question are prepared to argue it in Ramallah!
Comment by Alex Nichols — 21 June, 2007 @ 9:52 pm
OK, Mr Blow, so you have now stated that Jews are Jews by blood. How very racist of you… That makes two people so far claiming this, and no one who criticises Atzmon and myself by calling us racists having a word to say about it.
Blow, You don’t write very well, so reading is probably hard for you as well, but make a special effort fo me and say where I mention blood regarding Palestinians, although genetically, they are most certainly closer to one another on a statistical basis than Jews are to one another.
I don’t want to cause your index finger extra fatigue, so I’ll save you the scroll up and repost it right here:
Blood lines? No, sport, it has everything to do with geographical connections to the places that they were deported from and where immigrants came to settle / colonise / take over / control and dominate. Palestine is a geographic location that you can find on maps throughout history, and Palestinians are connected to their culture, language and religions, yes, but most particularly to their land.
So, come on, show me where I’m racist instead of calling me one, and tell me why David R isn’t when he says Jewishness is biologically determined.
Comment by thecutter — 21 June, 2007 @ 10:17 pm
63: Not so fast sunshine….
“..those Jewish Marxists who mingle with the Russian, Lithuanian, Ukrainian and other workers in international Marxist organisations and make their contribution (both in Russian and Yiddish) towards creating the international culture of the working class, uphold the best traditons of Jewry by fighting the slogan of national culture” - Critical Remarks on the National Question Progress Moscow 1971 page 14.
Which is an argument about what *political organisation* you support, not whether you fast on Yom Kippur or eat Tzimmes and Latkes.
Hey! The Lubavicher Rebbe’s brother was a Trotskyist.
Comment by Alex Nichols — 21 June, 2007 @ 10:18 pm
Alex, Yocheved is a woman’s name. Since you are looking for debate, why not address any of the posts I have thus far made. Not that you have to, of course, they are too pertinent to the discussion, but just for the joy of dialectical discourse, and to set firmly your position on the points that I have highlighted about the inconsistencies of utilising Jewish belonging as a political argument, when those who say they do it also say being Jewish is a biological matter, but apparently, you don’t seem to argue that this is racist.
Comment by thecutter — 21 June, 2007 @ 10:23 pm
Gilad Atzmon/Yocheved - I have to say it’s bad timing writing about you when you’re such a spent force even Harry’s Place had to come out and rescue you, their need for you being greater than the anyone else’s bar Engage. Just to say, rejecting antisemites and other racists isn’t maintaining a Jews only blog, and exposing your childish antics isn’t losing my cool. It’s just exposing your phoney ID and your phoney self. Oh but while you’re here, did you demand money from Sue Blackwell, and did she pay you or your lawyers any?
Mary (thecutter) - You complain of people not responding to your comments and yet you are behind an on line petition to give neo-nazis and other antisemites a free pass to the Palestine solidarity movement. You challenged Michael Rosen and others to explain any objection to it thus http://www.petitiononline.com/grosveno/petition.html
I’d just like to see if those who claim they are dedicating their best efforts to the Palestinian people object to this petition, and if so, i what way, precisely. I think it could be the watershed to separate those who put themselves to service for the Palestinians and those who expect the Palestinians to serve them.
Please, do take a look, sign if you agree, and if you don’t agree, do substantiate the motivations.
thecutter | 01.13.07 - 5:35 pm | #
In spite of the antisemitic abuse and smears Michael Rosen had put up with on your Der Sturmer type site and the fact that it’s not easy to take seriously something described as a “watershed” by its own author, he was decent enough to set out his position as follows:
I’ve had a look at the petition.
1. I thought that the principle of petitions is that they say where and who it’s from and where and to whom it’s going. In most cases, the ‘where from?’ question identifies the group it comes from so that we can see how that group runs itself and what it’s principles are etc. Otherwise, we might end up signing up for something that we might agree on but disagree with that group’s objectives. Example: I won’t sign up for petitions produced by UKIP though I might agree with some of their anti-EU sentiments. This petition doesn’t say who it’s from or where it’s going. [well Mary, who is it from and where is it going?]
2. “There are individuals within the Palestinian solidarity movement seeking to create divisions…”
I don’t think I’ve ever seen such a sentiment expressed on a petition before ie that makes an accusation about unnamed people doing things that aren’t cited below. Which individuals? Saying what? When? Where? In PSC? In or from another organisation? [well Mary, when? where?]
3. Petitions have to get rid of ambiguities (usually done by them emerging out of discussion between members of an organisation or several groups). This petition includes these two sentiments:
a) that it’s wrong “presenting both sides as victims”
b) that it’s right to believe in the “equality of all persons, regardless of their race, religion, political or other orientation”
It’s not clear from anything said within the petition how these two sentiments can be expressed side by side. [a watershed Mary? you’re too modest, it’s a masterpiece!]
4. Petitions have to iron out contradictions:
These two ideas contradict each other:
a)To that end we advocate for one unified State with equal rights for all its citizens.
b) Any attempts at dictating what the Palestinians should do will be looked upon with great circumspection and suspicion
I don’t see how you can “advocate” one solution whilst condemning people for “dictating” something, unless you’re saying that there is an important distinction to be made between advocating and dictating. In my experience, political advocating is seen by most people as a form of dictating. I happen to agree with one-state theory but I’m aware that a group ‘advocating’ it is read by some as trying to “dictate” that plan. [I repeat, a masterpiece!]
5. “We demand free speech for sincere critics of Zionism”
I don’t know how a petition can distinguish between ’sincere’ and any other kind of critic. Some fascist groups are “critics of Zionism” - ie people who wouldn’t sign up for the petition’s clause on equality. In my experience, these people are ’sincere’ but I wouldn’t ‘demand’ their free speech within the Palestine Solidarity movement. [but you would, wouldn’t you Mary?]
6. “Smear campaigns will not be tolerated.”
They won’t be tolerated by whom? As this petition doesn’t come from a group, it’s not clear who’s going to do the not-tolerating, nor is it clear how these acts of non-toleration are going to be carried out. [would it be for Atzmon to doctor their writings on your and other sites? Would it be for other friends of yours to do the same except only on your site because Atzmon’s more famous than your other chums?]
Then again, it’s not clear what is or is not a ’smear campaign’. One person’s ’smear campaign’ is another person’s ‘reasoned criticism’. So who will decide what is or is not a ’smear’? Again, as this doesn’t come from a group, nor do we know how this group (if it is a group) is constituted, we don’t know how this threat is to be carried out. [it’s going to be you, Atzmon and Israel Shamir, but not Martin Webster, oh no!]
For these six reasons I cannot sign this petition.
And your considered response?
Michael, so you don’t like the petition. Fine! I agree with Jihad [another Gilad Atzmon ID - go see, he does anti-Arab racism as well, in fact he seems to do that more instinctively] here, the problem is that Palestinians are the priority. [Rosen doesn’t seem to have a problem with that]. That is something that would never make sense to someone like you, and you can quit your insulting me on JSF, they are quoted now fully on Zionist blogs, because they try to defame me. This tells me more than a lot. [and now Atzmon’s resurrected (wow just like his hero Jesus!) on Harry’s Place]
Why should people take your comments seriously when you can’t even explain your own hypocritical dishonest petition?
Comment by Mark Elf — 21 June, 2007 @ 10:27 pm
67: My arguments are my own and I’ll debate whatever points I want to.
Your arguments would go down well amongst Larouchies and fascists.
As to who’s who, I really couldn’t care less.
Comment by Alex Nichols — 21 June, 2007 @ 10:36 pm
why would my arguments go down well with the Larouches and fascists? Please be specific.
Comment by thecutter — 21 June, 2007 @ 10:39 pm
70. Clearly you’ve led a sheltered life for the past 20 years.
I’d suggest you do a bit of research on that one.
Quite a lot of dupes are taken in, even people as experienced as Cockburn.
(Look at the swamp he landed in with his embrace of Larouchite material on Global warming)
But someone who’s in bed with Shamir is more than just a dupe.
Comment by Alex Nichols — 21 June, 2007 @ 10:45 pm
Yocheved is indeed a woman’s name and yet Gilad Atzmon, the person who uses that woman’s name, is a man. Jihad is Arabic and yet Gilad Atzmon, who uses that name, is Israeli. Antisemitism is the main weapon of the zionist movement and yet Gilad Atzmon uses it all the time whilst pretending to hold that “Palestinians are the priority.” What a bundle of contradictions. Who can penetrate the mind of such a tormented genius?
Comment by Mark Elf — 21 June, 2007 @ 10:47 pm
Mary (thecutter) - please be specific about the petition you produced to cover for your neo-nazi and antisemitic friends. There must be a common standard here. You’re not on your own blog now.
Comment by Mark Elf — 21 June, 2007 @ 10:49 pm
No, Alex. Why should I do the research on a claim you make? This is standard praxis in debate and discussion. You call me a name or insult me, and I am supposed to back it up… Strange. If you claim that my argumentation is fascist, you have to say why. Otherwise, people start to wonder what your arguments are worth. (Those who actually stop to think that freedom of discussion and logical discourse mean something).
Again, what has Shamir got to do with me or what I have written here or on my blog? (Now, isn’t THIS one going off topic!)
Mark Elf (sigh) you really are a one trick pony, aren’t you. What matters is “who someone is”, and their arguments are just avoided or they are misinterpreted, with the continual use of smearing. I think you should check the amount of smear campaigns you have launched that have been justly exposed for what they are. If you don’t trust them on PePa, reports of them are on The People’s Voice, Redress, Middle East Online, Amin, Uruknet and other places. Not everything can be found within the pages of the JC.
But, just for the sake of argument, let’s say Yocheved is Gilad. So what? Is he banned from discussion here? Why should he be?
Comment by thecutter — 21 June, 2007 @ 10:58 pm
Just shifting the focus a little bit. Since “Aisha/Mary” is an Italian, I wonder what her attitude to organised Catholicism is?
I happen to like lots of Irish Catholics, but most of them are rather irreligious people, whose parents might well go to Midnight Mass and have statues of the virgin in their homes. Fine by me, I’d never mention it.
On the other hand, when I was last in Rome and visited the Vatican, I witnessed the spectacle of a young woman, crawling on her hands and knees to kiss the feet of a statue of J.C. She was virtually moaning in ecstasy.
Now quite frankly, I found that an apalling sight.
What does Mary think about it and the Vatican’s role under Mussolini and during WW2. Just interested.
Comment by Alex Nichols — 21 June, 2007 @ 10:59 pm
I’m not Aisha. I post here and everywhere as thecutter.
Don’t shift focus. Back up your own claim.
Besides, Catholics don’t claim any unity but religious unity, and they have no ethnic claims whatsoever, although the current terrorial claims are Vatican City.
Comment by thecutter — 21 June, 2007 @ 11:04 pm
75: So you’re suggesting that there is complete separation of Church and State in Italy? Not last time I checked.
Comment by Alex Nichols — 21 June, 2007 @ 11:07 pm
You don’t seem to check things much, Alex, but jump to conclusions and make declarations without even caring if they are accurate or not. A scene of individual mystic communion turned your stomach in Vatican, (religious ecstacy is not easy for others to tolerate, but you seem frankly intolerant about it. It wasn’t on High Street, but in Vatican, in front of a Statue you claim was Christ… as far as I know, the only statue they let you touch in Vatican is the foot of the S Peter in bronze by Arnolfo del Cambio…) but it’s hardly representative of the collectivity, especially not in secular Italy, and, did you check the ID of the faithful worshipper? Could have been from anywhere at all, maybe not even Catholic. At any rate, the relationship between the church and State in Italy (I was not even taking about Italian Catholicism, but about it as an international religious phenomenon) is so off topic and it serves to allow you to avoid backing up your insults against me, and by extension against Aisha, which you are obligated to do if you want to be taken seriously, with argumentation, not insult.
To satisfy you while you do your research on your claims, it should be clear that Catholics do not claim to be an ethnic group, and any unity that they endorse is religiously inspired. If this reflects upon how Catholics live in the countries they can be found in, that seems quite natural, especially when European political parties have been oriented as Christian ones since the end of the Second World War in the Christian Dems and their offshoot groups on the continent and in other forms in Ireland, and the presence of the Vatican in Italian territory obviously exercises an effect on our national politics more than in other States. This is so logical, it doesn’t even need explanation. Is that a Fascist thought too?
Comment by thecutter — 21 June, 2007 @ 11:25 pm
Alex, don’t confuse me with someone with an axe to grind in this discussion - I’m just waiting for all these people with the weird pseudonyms to go away. My only point was that Kimber’s quote from Lenin is a genuine quote (from the 1913 document). I was slightly disappointed when I checked this, to be honest - it’s always fun to catch someone out doctoring their sources. But it was not to be.
Comment by Phil — 21 June, 2007 @ 11:26 pm
missed this one: Mark Elf: “Mary (thecutter) - please be specific about the petition you produced to cover for your neo-nazi and antisemitic friends. There must be a common standard here. You’re not on your own blog now.”
Ah, I’m on yours? Playing in “territory of the adversary”, well, I thought that rules of debate were valid in any forum where rules of courtesy are respected. “Neo Nazi and Anti Semitic friends?” —uhm, who??? Again, unsubstantiated name calling. Here is the petition, if anyone wants to read it.
An open statement of commitment to the Palestinian Solidarity Cause
There are individuals within the Palestinian solidarity movement seeking to create divisions by:
* deliberately shifting focus away from Israel’s war crimes and its supremacist Zionist ideology;
* imposing unilateral agendas by presenting both sides as victims;
* sabotaging service to the just cause of the Palestinian people;
* ignoring the issue of right of return for the Palestinians;
* utilising the platform of the Palestinian discourse to argue about anti-Semitism, which is not a Palestinian problem and not created by Arabs.
Our primary and single concern is solidarity with the Palestinian people.
As ethical human beings we consider it our obligation to:
* do all we can to allow the information to be diffused as widely and as quickly as possible;
* ensure the argument of the oppression and disenfranchisement of the Palestinian people stays in the forefront;
* present as clear and honest a picture as possible of the meaning of Zionism and the Jewish State;
* to cross the divide and to unite in our war against the Zionist crime.
We accept and believe in equality of all persons, regardless of their race, religion, political or other orientation. We believe that full and unconditional support of the Palestinian people is a condition sine qua non for activists to adopt, and we recognise that their attachment to their homeland is a fundamental and unalterable condition. To that end we advocate for one unified State with equal rights for all its citizens.
Any attempts at censoring reasoned critique of Israel and Zionism must be refused a priori, as it is in conflict with the goal of seeking to protect and support the Palestinian people - as their empowerment is the only way to peaceful coexistence for all the populations of the Middle East. Any attempts at dictating what the Palestinians should do will be looked upon with great circumspection and suspicion. Palestinians themselves wish to construct their own future and are not pawns to be shifted on the chessboard.
We demand free speech for sincere critics of Zionism and call for an end to campaigns created in order to ostracise its most vocal critics. Smear campaigns will not be tolerated, as we recognise that they are the instrument of choice of Zionists, and detract energy from our work. We will not hesitate to expose the instrumental usage of them, no matter the claimed principles of those who are engaged in creating such campaigns. On the other hand, open dialogue and reasoned argumentation is welcome and greatly encouraged as a tool to understanding and collaboration.
The indigenous people of Palestine are facing extermination by the hands of the Jewish State, and the world keeps silent. The sooner we draw public attention to Israel’s needless wanton destruction, the sooner we can do away with this horrifying, insufferable situation.
If you agree with this statement, please sign the petition.
http://www.petitiononline.com/grosveno/petition.html
There it is… have a field day with it, since it matters so much to you. I would hope that all committed socialists and those who support the right of indigenous people to resist oppression would find it acceptable. Of course, you and Tony are exceptions, because stating that the priority in Palestinian Activism is ONLY Palestinians rubs you the wrong way…. it takes all kinds, can’t say Maman wasn’t right about that one.
Comment by thecutter — 21 June, 2007 @ 11:43 pm
“Yocheved” cites Michael Rosen’s participation in Jewish Book Week as evidence that he is a “national socialist”. Presumably, this is true of the other participants in the events, such as French academic Julia Kristeva, Palestinian writer Samir El-Youssef, and Palestinian Ambassador to London Professor Manuel Hassassian; or does “Yocheved” only apply this to Michael Rosen? Why should this be, I wonder?
Comment by Roland Rance — 22 June, 2007 @ 12:49 am
Mary(thecutter)- Atzmon’s “arguments” have been dealt with so many times he just goes away and changes them and lies about what his detractors have said. That makes debate impossible. That’s one reason why he uses fake ID, no one who really knows him takes him seriously and he knows it. He also uses it to praise his own work. I doubt if he is banned from here. If there was a blanket ban on known racists you wouldn’t be here and Yocheved (Atzmon) would have had a few difficulties too. Atzmon gets wiped out any time he gets into an argument so I can understand him not wanting to use his own name. That’s why he tends to stick to the no right of reply sites that you listed. He said he wanted “any debate” and yet he uses expensive lawyers and crude smears to try to silence critics. You’ve mentioned this Sue Blackwell thing a few times now. How much did it cost him and how much did he get for Sue Blackwell to carry on calling him an antisemite and a racist? Go on. Boast some more Mary though why anything Atzmon does is anything for you to brag about I don’t know. The problem for Atzmon now is that by pretending to be principled, every time he doesn’t sue for being called the racist that he is the more readers will know, as you do, that the accusation is true. But people must be clear, Sue Blackwell is still calling Atzmon a racist and an antisemite. http://www.sue.be/pal/Atzmon.html
I’d add liar to that but I’ve had more time to see what he has written than she has.
But Mary, since argument is so important, explain your petition. Scroll up. See Michael Rosen’s points that you refused to address when you had your neo-nazi cohorts baying all around and address them now point by point. You never know, you might get the number of signatories up. On the other hand, people who realise that they’ve been duped into supporting a cover for a ragbag of neo-nazi white supremacists might want to unsign. But go on - give it a go. You insisted that people explain their reluctance to sign and that has been done. Now you explain yourself. I’ll give it some time while you take instructions from Yocheved/Gilad and try to get some on line “friends” to come here to support you so I’ll turn in now and look forward to you avoiding the issues tomorrow.
Oh no! I’ve just seen your comment #80. you restate the petition without explaining it. Oh dear Mary, your dishonesty is as obvious as your racism. I’ll post Michael Rosen’s queries again. Your petition is a cover for neo-nazis like Shamir and Eisen and antisemites like Atzmon and you.
Goodnight
Comment by Mark Elf — 22 June, 2007 @ 1:00 am
From comment 68 - the one Mary (thecutter) chose seems not have seen:
This is what Michael Rosen wrote about the petition that Mary Rizzo drafted as a cover for her neo-nazi and racist chums. I know I’ve already posted this but Mary Rizzo is pretending not have seen it at the same time as pretending that she welcomes argument:
I’ve had a look at the petition.
1. I thought that the principle of petitions is that they say where and who it’s from and where and to whom it’s going. In most cases, the ‘where from?’ question identifies the group it comes from so that we can see how that group runs itself and what it’s principles are etc. Otherwise, we might end up signing up for something that we might agree on but disagree with that group’s objectives. Example: I won’t sign up for petitions produced by UKIP though I might agree with some of their anti-EU sentiments. This petition doesn’t say who it’s from or where it’s going. [well Mary, who is it from and where is it going?]
2. “There are individuals within the Palestinian solidarity movement seeking to create divisions…”
I don’t think I’ve ever seen such a sentiment expressed on a petition before ie that makes an accusation about unnamed people doing things that aren’t cited below. Which individuals? Saying what? When? Where? In PSC? In or from another organisation? [well Mary, when? where?]
3. Petitions have to get rid of ambiguities (usually done by them emerging out of discussion between members of an organisation or several groups). This petition includes these two sentiments:
a) that it’s wrong “presenting both sides as victims”
b) that it’s right to believe in the “equality of all persons, regardless of their race, religion, political or other orientation”
It’s not clear from anything said within the petition how these two sentiments can be expressed side by side. [a watershed Mary? you’re too modest, it’s a masterpiece!]
4. Petitions have to iron out contradictions:
These two ideas contradict each other:
a)To that end we advocate for one unified State with equal rights for all its citizens.
b) Any attempts at dictating what the Palestinians should do will be looked upon with great circumspection and suspicion
I don’t see how you can “advocate” one solution whilst condemning people for “dictating” something, unless you’re saying that there is an important distinction to be made between advocating and dictating. In my experience, political advocating is seen by most people as a form of dictating. I happen to agree with one-state theory but I’m aware that a group ‘advocating’ it is read by some as trying to “dictate” that plan. [I repeat, a masterpiece!]
5. “We demand free speech for sincere critics of Zionism”
I don’t know how a petition can distinguish between ’sincere’ and any other kind of critic. Some fascist groups are “critics of Zionism” - ie people who wouldn’t sign up for the petition’s clause on equality. In my experience, these people are ’sincere’ but I wouldn’t ‘demand’ their free speech within the Palestine Solidarity movement. [but you would, wouldn’t you Mary?]
6. “Smear campaigns will not be tolerated.”
They won’t be tolerated by whom? As this petition doesn’t come from a group, it’s not clear who’s going to do the not-tolerating, nor is it clear how these acts of non-toleration are going to be carried out. [would it be for Atzmon to doctor their writings on your and other sites? Would it be for other friends of yours to do the same except only on your site because Atzmon’s more famous than your other chums?]
Then again, it’s not clear what is or is not a ’smear campaign’. One person’s ’smear campaign’ is another person’s ‘reasoned criticism’. So who will decide what is or is not a ’smear’? Again, as this doesn’t come from a group, nor do we know how this group (if it is a group) is constituted, we don’t know how this threat is to be carried out. [it’s going to be you, Atzmon and Israel Shamir, but not Martin Webster, oh no!]
For these six reasons I cannot sign this petition.
Comment by Mark Elf — 22 June, 2007 @ 1:06 am
I stayed up longer than I intended to post those questions so please do as you demand of others Mary and engage with the dicussion and don’t just do the crude smear thing like your mentor yocheved.
Thanks
Comment by Mark Elf — 22 June, 2007 @ 1:14 am
Blimey, having posted a fairly innocuous comment this morning before going to work i’ve checked it again at midnight only to find that the misunderstadings and misineterpretations have multiplied. Maybe I should have spent an extra minute writing an extra sentence this morning to spell it out like the ABC…
When I said that “the Jewish Socialists Group has never been an exclusively jewish organisation. We’ve always preferred membership to be a matter of ageeeing to work for the political perspectives of the organisation rather than a matter of biology.” I thought I was making it clear that we do not uphold “biological” definitions of identity. OK, I should have put quote marks around it to make it absolutely clear.
Anyway I hope that has put that one to rest. As for those who can’t relate to a sense of Jewish peoplehood outside of Zionism’s dfefnition of it - you’ve really got to ask who are the Zionists in this discussion? who are the ones who continually treat any positive expression of Jewish cultural identity as “zionist”? Who thinks the Jewish world revolves around Zion?
The jewish people in their secular and religious forms have been around a great deal longer than Zionism, and most likely will be aroudn long after Zionism.
In this regard Atzmon showed his true colours some weeks back on the peace palestine blog when he was running down Ashkenazi jewish culture in racist terms and advisng Mike Rosen to read BerBorochov (Zionist!) about ashkenazi Jewish culture and saying that while zionists were wrong on some things they were right about this(!)
I think debating with Atzmon and his supporters is a dead end. I think the SWP’s embrace of him is at least 90% opportunistic, but allows poisonous ideas to spread. I suspect the real debate is about the unresolved issues raised historically by the Bund, and moving beyond the terms of reference on the national question held today by slavish followers of Lenin.
Comment by David Rosenberg — 22 June, 2007 @ 1:25 am
It is unfortunate that the article on Atzmon was so muddled. As the evidence that both he, Rizzo and the rest of the unseemly crew is anti-Semitic is overwhelming. Jews and their efforts at racial supremacy are the problem.
There is no great mystery about the fact that Dave & Julia are atheists but like to be part of a Jewish community that isn’t racist or chauvinist. The best friend at my wedding was a Pakistani Muslim who is both a Marxist and an atheist. Most of his friends of Muslim. So what? There are long standing cultural, personal ties which don’t for one moment imply racism.
It is therefore unfortunate that the writer of the article knows so little about what he is writing. The idea of Jewish nationhood is a Zionist idea, clearly based on the ideas of race. What else connects Jews from India, France and Morocco but the myths of race? Religion I would suggest, and that too is tenuous. S/he might also read Abram Leon’s ‘The Jewish Question – A Marxist Interpretation’. Historically Jews were a ‘people-class’ i.e. they were defined by their social and economic role and in Eastern Europe they occupied the same area, primarily the Pale of Settlement and had their own language, Yiddish, and therefore yes, they did have certain national traits.
In fact Atzmon displays the classic symptoms of both anti-Semitism and Zionism. Historically the two were different sides of the same coin, hence why in his latest offering on Rizzo’s Peace Palestine blog, ‘the dialectic of negation’ he reserves his venom for diaspora Jews, which is a classic Zionist symptom. If you read the early Zionist (& not so early either!) then if you didn’t know they were Jewish you would assume they were anti-Semites e.g. Jacob Klatzkin :
‘Galut can only drag out the disgrace of our people and sustain the existence of a people disfigured in both body and soul - in a word, of a horror. At the very worst it can maintain us in a state of national impurity and breed some sort of outlandish creature in an environment of disintegration of cultures and of darkening spiritual horizons.’ (Arthur Hertzberg, The Zionist Idea).
In fact Atzmon uses the term ‘Zionist’ and ‘Jew’ interchangeably and that too is a feature of both Zionist advocates and anti-Semites. On his own site in his article ‘On anti-Semitism’ he altered the term ‘Jew’ to ‘Zionist’ because it was so blatant.
Equality doesn’t incidentally demand that each ‘nation’ has the right to form a state. Otherwise we would accord that to any group who called themselves a nation, such as the Afrikaaners. The right to form a nation is the right of an oppressed nation. Israeli Jews are oppressors and Marxists start from the dividing line between the oppressed and oppressor. In Israel the continuation of a Jewish state means Palestinian oppression and it is the latter which defines Israeli Jewish ‘nationhood’.
The mere fact Mary Rizzo denies that Atzmon, or whatever pseudonym he happens to be using (usually Palestinian!) is anti-Semitic is proof enough that she is what she denies in her fellow soul mate. For example on June 28th 2005 I wrote to Atzmon stating that ‘We live in a society where a tiny minority, of whatever religion or none, own and control the wealth of the world.’ To which Atzmon replied: ‘And guess who they are?????? Zios and their supporters.’
Or just take a few quotes, which he has ‘subtly’ amended on his site:
[http://www.gilad.co.uk/] “we must begin to take the accusation that the Jewish people are trying to control the world very seriously…. …. American Jewry makes any debate on whether the ‘Protocols of the elder of Zion’ are an authentic document or rather a forgery irrelevant. American Jews do try to control the world, by proxy… I would suggest that perhaps we should face it once and for all: the Jews were responsible for the killing of Jesus who, by the way, was himself a Palestinian Jew.” ‘On Anti-Semitism’…
Occasionally it looks as if they are almost there, you can see them running the show, running American political life, running American show business, running the ‘new middle East’, running the Communist revolution but then, as it appears, something always goes wrong… The J’s are the ultimate chameleons, they can be whatever they like as long as it serves as some expedient. ‘The J word, the J people and the J spot
Protocols of the Elders of Zion (Verse 2) ‘Now, it looks as if Zionist lobbies control American foreign politics. After so many years of independence, the United States of America is becoming a remote colony of an apparently far greater state, the Jewish state
I first came across Atzmon when he issue an attack on myself and other Jewish anti-Zionists headed ‘Protocols of Learned Elders of London’ and he continued to address me as ‘Elder’. No prizes for guessing where this comes from.
In his latest ‘Dialectic of Negation’ on Rizzo’s site he argues that ‘…negation of Zionism is a good enough reason to set a powerful Jewish political identity. Though this may explain why Jews are so involved in Palestinian solidarity, it may additionally explain why the Palestinian solidarity movement has never made it into a global mass movement.’ In other words it is the Jewish presence within the Palestine Solidarity movement that explains its lack of success, as if facts on the ground in Palestine don’t count.
The reality is of course different. At a time when the Palestinians are engaged in their own internal fights, and noone doubts that Israel and the US are primarily to blame, is it seriously expected that the Palestine solidarity movement will somehow triumph? It is one of the political tragedies of the Palestinians that they haven’t been able to do what Black South Africans did, which is create an equivalent of the ANC. There should be one organisation where Israeli Jews like Ilan Pappe can become members alongside Palestinians.
But just to explain why it is important to ensure that the Rizzos, Israel Shamirs and Atzmons remain where they are at the moment, i.e. on the fringes of the Palestine solidarity movement looking in, I will take as an example what happened at UNISON Conference this week. People may not know but UNISON became the third trade union to support a boycott and it explicitly supported both an academic, sporting, cultural and economic boycott of Israel. Sure enough the Zionists raised the old bogey of anti-Semitism and started quoting from the Hamas charter (which is indefensible, but also irrelevant). As a delegate to the conference I replied to this person pointing out that those who use the memory of the victims of holocaust to justify racism today do no more than sully the memories of those who died at the hands of the Nazis. The reaction of the conference was immediate and clear. Conference not only voted overwhelmingly (so overwhelming that the card vote that the Zionists had said they would demand was not called for as it would have merely emphasised their humiliation) for the resolution but literally dozens of delegates, in particular Black delegates, came up to me personally to thank me for saying what I had said, viz. that accusations of anti-Semitism are an abuse of the very term. Was this ethnic or racist chauvinism on my part? Was I asserting my racial superiority etc? Of course not. I was acting in solidarity with the oppressed. The night before I and others in PSC had talked via a video Skype linkup with trade unionists in Tubas, a small village in the Jordan valley who had made it clear that Palestinians were looking to our vote for support.
So when Rizzo says that ‘The use of Jewish identity as a POLITICAL instrument is the problem.’ My response is that it may be her problem but it is not that of the Palestinians. It was not Jewish identity but settler colonialism which used the myths of an ancient Jewish race that was the problem. An anti-racist Jewish identity is no problem whatsoever and I have never heard any Palestinian (bar Abu Atzmon) who says that it is.
But for Rizzo and Atzmon Boycott is irrelevant. There is no article on the current boycott campaigns in trade unions because that would create problems. As last week’s Jewish Chronicle front page made clear it is Jewish activists – people like Mike Rosen, Stephen and Hilary Rose and Sue Blackwell (to Atzmon she is an honorary Jew!) who are in the forefront of boycott.
The reality is that Rizzo and Atzmon are only interested in peddling their sick and sordid racism. Rizzo purports not to be an anti-Semite yet her site is littered with anti-Semitism. From the sick Rowan Berkely to the open holocaust denier Paul Eisen of Deir Yassin Remembered. That is why we pushed hard for PSC to openly dissociate themselves from DYR Atzmon & co. And we succeeded. Some people didn’t like us raising the issue, some saw it as irrelevant but the PSC Executive made it absolutely clear that they were not wanted and if Rizzo thinks differently just let any of them apply openly, in their own names, to be members of PSC. If you want a good example of the trash on Rizzo’s site just take the quote below:
‘Regarding gas, again I am not sure but the evidence for the use of homicidal gas-chambers is not good at all. The evidence against it is much, much stronger.’ That is from Paul Eisen. http://www.haloscan.com/comments/thecutter/117192641046077827/
It is incidentally ironic that Atzmon flays Jewish identity when he has his own Jewish alter ego Artie Fishel or some such. It is Atzmon who has identity problems yet it is all quite simple. Identity is not something fixed and describes that which we or groups of people do. Jewish identity is not fixed. Jews in ancient times would not even recognise their modern counterparts. Jews in Britain today would hold their noses and more before they went into a typical Jewish ghetto in Poland and would no doubt run fast out of it. The main thing that preserved Jewish identity was anti-Semitism and today it is Zionism, yet Zionism is not strong enough to do so which is why the majority of Jews are assimilating or marrying out.
So when Atzmon/Aisha says ‘When the Rosenbergs & Rosen celebrate a Jewishness devoid of statehood & devoid of God – what is left? Just Jewish ethnicity!’ he is wrong. What is left is an anti-racist Jewish identity. Zionism drew certain conclusions from the holocaust, viz. that if Jews were victims they could also be the perpetrators of racism. And today Zionism justifies its crimes with reference to the holocaust. But some Jews drew opposite conclusions namely that if Jews were opposed to racism then they, above all, should oppose racism wherever it comes from and whoever perpetrates it. That is the identity which e.g. Michel Warshawski inherited from his rabbinical father in Belgium. Ironic that despite having resigned from DYR, Rizzo still has an article on her site by him (probably without his knowledge or agreement).
Dave L is right. Atzmon’s antagonism isn’t to Jewishness, because there is no such thing. What he defines as Jewishness is a racial, biological inheritance, part of being an elder I guess!
The issue of circumcision is a complete red herring. A non-issue. Personally I am opposed to circumcision having changed my mind. My 2 younger boys are therefore uncircumcised but to be honest it is hardly the worst thing in the world and is no comparable to e.g. female circumcision. The concentration on this reminds me of the Nazis concentration on Jewish ritual slaughter – they much preferred slaughtering Jews instead.
Mary Rizzo should though try to tell the truth. ‘Sue Blackwell had to publish an apology for insinuating he was a racist on her blog, the PSC motion to silence Atzmon was defeated, the SWP has not bent to pressure to “disinvite” Atzmon to speak and play at their events…) ‘ Sue Blackwell did not apologise for calling Atzmon a racist and does so today. She apologised if she had given the impression that he was a Nazi – slightly different. She also refused his solicitor’s demand for £1,000 precisely because she hadn’t apologised. I have also called Atzmon an anti-Semite and he too has backed off suing me. The PSC motion wasn’t to silence Atzmon and since PSC Executive agreed to our main demand, i.e. no association with Atzmon & co. we consider it a good victory. No the SWP hasn’t, yet, refused to invite Atzmon. This opportunism, because that is what it is, is deplorable but we all live in hope!
And maybe I’ve missed it, but Dave Rosenberg didn’t say that being Jewish was biological. He above all is a cultural non-Zionist! And then in all innocence Rizzo asks ‘Again, what has Shamir got to do with me’. Well actually he’s got a lot to do with you and Atzmon. Or don’t you recall defending him against being a racist on Jews 4 a Just Peace? I resigned from the list because they continued to allow you to post such crap. Or does she take back her defence of him? In fact most if not all of Shamir’s closest political supporters post on Peace Palestine to the acclamation of yourself and Atzmon and why not, birds of a feather…
Comment by Tony Greenstein — 22 June, 2007 @ 1:27 am
Mark, I really don’t have the time, and it’s been dealt with since November,and the debate of the things I have mentioned has been diverted back to personalisation and not addressing the issues I have mentioned by and large. If you like personalisation, and if you want to know more about the Petition, the articles and comments are all up on the blog, go back and read them, I am sure you will find everything you are looking for and more. But at least you have tried to address something that was mentioned here, so I’ll hand it to you without wasting my time because you call me a racist, but just don’t say why…. What is it that I have written that is racist? Go on now, call me a Self Hating Jew, because you don’t have any other arguments or evidence. When you don’t, you make thing UP!!! Webster (uh? huh??? Shamir is another of these claims, when you still have to say why dropping his name next to mine is supposed to mean anything, it sure means nothing to me).
As to the smear campaigns, well, they are a problem from Finkelstien to Atzmon from Vanunu to Bishara and all kinds of places in between. I am sure you are aware how much time they waste for all concerned. Yet, why not ask Sue about Atzmon paying or not… I seem to believe that it was not at all necessary, in fact, she decided to settle without litigation. Here is a link that mentions the affaire for those who might be interested. http://peacepalestine.blogspot.com/2007/03/smear-first-apologise-later-sue.html
precisely on the petition you mention and the amount of signatories (including some illustrious ones who have translated it into other languages, Mona Baker, for instance), here is a segment I wrote that may be relevant to this discussion: from http://peacepalestine.blogspot.com/2006/12/palestinians-need-support-not-division.html
It is important to mention that this petition, diffused here and there (not nearly as widely as we might have wished, but this is the risk of cyber activating) got so far, in its brief existence, over 1120 signatures. The bulk of them were from Arabs. Compare this to another petition that had been circulating for over a year and a half, which was once on Sue Blackwell’s absurd “Nazi Watch” page http://www.sue.be/pal/nazis.html, which is just an extensive smear page, but now can be found as a delightful 404 here: http://www.sd-il.com/politics/statements/signLetter.php. Needless to say, floating around in Internet 20 times longer, this petition managed to get 170-something signatures. This should come as no surprise, as it was designed solely to insult and throw dirt on some activists who are not promoting the idea that anti-Semitism is the real issue in Palestine activism. It served no purpose beyond gatekeeping and maintaining the dominance of the discourse in the hands of a few isolated individuals. Those who signed labelled those who critique the efficiency of Jewish and Israeli power as being instrumental in the oppression of Arabs as “anti-Semites”. It seems that this is one more of the taboo topics, one of the many. Silencing these voices is to interrupt any kind of mutual discourse, even if it is in disagreement, and it plays into the game of the Zionists. I think that most people are quite sick of this sort of behaviour. It is popular in “old boys’ clubs” and various Internet forums, where any voice that challenges the majority is silenced by expulsion.
so, if you want to get my view on smear campaigns, just plug in at the top of my blog other reports of smear campaigns right on the top left corner of my blog. put the word smear, and see what you get. Don’t forget the lively comments sections.
this one is about you, Mark. http://peacepalestine.blogspot.com/2006/03/self-righteous-jews-sans-frontieres.html
So, even with my shortage of time, you can find anything you need and more with the sources presented here.
Comment by thecutter — 22 June, 2007 @ 1:36 am
tony, verbose tonight. I’ve got lots of work to do, and if David gets of lickety split with ” and ” I get the same harangue you dish out all the time. I’ve addressed you on all of this on other venues. Just check out the above links to debunk the bulk of your claims.
What you should awaken to is that comments blocks do not contain only things written by myself, and pushing them off as being my quotes, and probably out of some larger context just doesn’t cut it. You still have not made a convincing case against me or Gilad, but that is your affair, I’m tiring out of looking for intellectual discussion and getting instead accusations that are as ridiculous as they are unsubstantiated from you and those who don’t even read my blog, but seem to pretend to be experts. Just for the record, my blog is usually pretty popular, especially in the Middle East, and more than that, the posts it has get picked up in many places, some major sites and aggregators, most of the authors send me their pieces directly, and most of them get translated and disseminated in many languages. If you call that being on the margins, I’m fine with that! I didn’t ask Warashawski for permission. I doubt he would object to my blog, and the journalist he was addressing in the article is practically my best friend, so I don’t believe there would be major problems there. But you never know, he might think it’s more important to be conditioned by the opinions of Tony Greenstein than being read by several thousand people a day. Not a huge number, I admit, but it’s fine with me.
Besides, on the Boycott, my blog deals with it, and for the last time, take a look and you will find it. You needn’t dictate to everyone what should be posted or not. I mentioned again and again on the academic left (or lepht, as you seem to type all the time) that I am affiliated with the Palestinian BSD campaign, as well as with Badil and Al Awda Italia. Half of my work is in Italian, so you wouldn’t be aware of it.
All this public discussion of me is tiring me out.
But, I think I would like David to elaborate on his statement, and why “biological” is a quote marked thing, and if not using quotes, how would he restate this sentence to be clear even to someone like me who reads things very literally, as I believe people should be clear in discussions in avoid misunderstandings.
Comment by thecutter — 22 June, 2007 @ 1:54 am
Tony, as to your alleged support of Hamas many months too late, here is something you may have missed.
http://peacepalestine.blogspot.com/2005/10/jews-against-zionism-more-like-jews.html
and those not accepting the re-writing of history, on the FAILED PSC motion, here is a post. http://peacepalestine.blogspot.com/2007/03/report-on-2-failed-motions-by.html
another post about Tony that should shed some light on his claims;
http://peacepalestine.blogspot.com/2007/03/gilad-atzmon-enough-is-enough.html
this one is a must read, and the comments are 377, but well worth the time spent if one is interested in this kind of thing. http://peacepalestine.blogspot.com/2007/02/here-we-go-again-shifting-focus-away.html
Comment by thecutter — 22 June, 2007 @ 2:09 am
# 77 You’ve side stepped the most important question I raised, which was on the relationship between Church and State in Italy and by extension, in any country. You also showed your double standards. This response clearly shows your political agenda isn’t a socialist one.
# 78 You’re right, it wasn’t a deliberate quote snipping exercise by Charlie Kimber. OTOH, by selecting the particular quote he did, he tended to provide cover for mainstream “multiculturalism”, which is a policy that’s actually closer to the Austro-Marxists that Lenin criitcises in his pamphlet.
# 85 re. Abram Leon’s ‘The Jewish Question – A Marxist Interpretation’
Yes it’s an important Marxist work on the question, but inadequate, generalising too much from the situation of Jews in mediaeval Europe. It could also be argued that Leon’s ideas influenced his group’s poltical practice in WW2. I’m not convinced that his section really absorbed Trotsky’s strategic orientation in the PMP.
Comment by Alex Nichols — 22 June, 2007 @ 8:14 am
But no explanation of your own petition then?
Comment by Mark Elf — 22 June, 2007 @ 8:32 am
Latest attempt to clear misunderstandings/misinterpretations.
I don’t give any credence to pseudoscientific notions of “race”. the JSG does not accept religious definitions of “jew” (ie passed down biologially through the maternal line. for us, Jewishness is a matter of self-defnition.
When someone wishes to join the JSG nobody asks them whether they are Jewish or in which way they consider themselves Jewish - the question is: do they support the political perspectives of the group which in essence are based on the principles of socialism, diasporism and secularism.
obviously flowing from this we are committed to fighting all forms of racism including antisemitism, which would rule out some contributors here, but not on the basis of not being Jewish enough.
Comment by David Rosenberg — 22 June, 2007 @ 8:39 am
I have never heard of a band called ‘Jewish Power’. I’ve never played alongside a band called ‘Jewish Power’. To say that I have is a lie. This is the third lie that Atzmon and/or people who contribute to peacepalestine have made up about me. Lie one: that I’m ‘against assimilation’. Lie two: that I’m ‘against Palestinians having the vote.’ These lies are based on the fact that I had said that I was entirely neutral about whether people want to ‘assmilate’ or not, and, as noted above, I don’t accept the normative definitions of assimilation. Lie two was based on the fact that I said that I didn’t want to intervene or influence Palestinian politics and whether they had the vote or not was their affair. Why should these people be so keen to make up these lies? Needless to say, none of them has been withdrawn.
Comment by Michael Rosen — 22 June, 2007 @ 8:55 am
Re 90, what’s to explain then, that you can’t read in several posts and hundreds of comments where I’ve provided the links? Look, sugar, I’ve got work to do, it’s hotter than hell here, and if you care enough, go to the places where I indicate and there is what you need. Couldn’t be simpler.
89… I’ve side-stepped your side-step then? I believe I’ve answered your OT question quite clearly. Read it again, slowly this time, and it might make sense. Meanwhile, respond to the things that I’ve asked of you to substantiate, that you yourself brought up. You know, the fact that you say I represent fascist thought, other heavy slurs like that. I realise debate is hard for you, but don’t worry, you’re in “good” company, your comrades here do no better, but they don’t bother refining one another’s dialectic, they are busy name calling and rewriting history. Well, one can indeed rewrite one’s own and say that extinguished convicted crimes are as good as undone, but that isn’t the same story for a public voting on political motions, which are not as they have here been represented. I like the truth, and I like people to be honest.
91, I just find it odd, David, that you had made such a statement that if I printed it as you have put it anywhere, in my blog, or anyplace at all, most normal people would critique it as raging biological determinism, and therefore racism. Funny thing is, I’ve never uttered anything coming close - and have been repeatedly been called one who is anti-semitic, racist, spokeswoman for fascists, etc, (of course, never coming up with a single sentence of mine that can back this up… yawn… but I keep asking, if you guys keep saying it, sooner or later, someone will turn the lights on for you) while others have ignored this sentence. Wonder why that is… quite interesting, if nothing else. And still, I am interested in hearing how you would have written that sentence if you were defining what a Jew is. (someone who says he is one is a little flimsy as an argument, given that Tony says that to Palestinians, this self-identity means A LOT!)
Beyond the fact that it does seem odd to me that a group that is specifically called “jewish something or other” has a policy (you claim) of not having Jewishness as a criterion. It actually makes no sense at all. And if you look at the petition that Azad found, you can see that it actually “does” seem to be an important criterion for these gathering of like people. Please, do tell me who the non-Jews are that are part of your group and also, their statistical relevance. I think this alone states whether or not your contention has any serious validity, or if it’s just wishful thinking.
Rosen, you’ve had (unlike most other self-defined anti Zionist blogs) complete and ample possibility to express yourself, engage in free and open dialogue with others on my blog. And you complain about it as well. If your quotes and statements have been debated, please get used to the fact that this is considered to be quite normal. You have been asked to clarify things you have said, perhaps “without looking twice at the sentence”, as David has done here, and when sentences like his come out, you can be certain that you will be challenged to substantiate them. If you feel you were misrepresented, that is probably your own fault, as you were given absolute liberty to clarify anything that you wished.
What “withdrawal” are you expecting? The one like Sue had to do? Check out the link I posted to get the real info on it, rather than the half-truths and distortion that Elf provides, missing all the facts - after 400 or so posts on the thread about you, the blog conversation moves on, and people lose interest in you and your running circles around your own prose.
I give free speech possibility to everyone. It is their own responsibility to manage it well. Even people like Gene and David T from Harry’s (where the gang bang mentality is only slightly more aggresive than here, but at least some have the good taste to limit the word length, as we all have other things to do) realise that comments sections are autonomous and people say what they say.
Comment by thecutter — 22 June, 2007 @ 9:31 am
Does the racist buffoon Atzmon really sue people who say he is a racist buffoon?
Comment by Blow me — 22 June, 2007 @ 9:44 am
Well, as a matter of fact, you didn’t answer it, you simply said it was “off topic” and dodged the question with some ambiguous waffle.
I suggested that the Italian section of your triumvirate should clarify her position on the realtionship between Catholicism and the state, since she lives in a country, where the Church has considerable political and economic power.
If you are consistently democratic and socialist (which you aren’t), a straight answer to this question might help clarify your politics.
This is especially true, since member 3 of the triumvirate is well known for his espousal of Orthodox religious polemics against Judaism.
This is nothing like the populist leftist tradition in countries like Italy, which famously has a pasta called the “Priest Strangler”, or Greece, where people often refuse to board planes when they see a Priest getting on.
If you were able to sort your head out on this one, your political line would be consistent on many other situations. Unfortunately, you haven’t demonstrated any ability to do so and therefore, you form a political bloc with people that the left should not work with, at the risk of disorganising itself.
Until you get that straight, then it’s perfectly legitimate for socialist organisations to give you a wide berth.
Comment by Alex Nichols — 22 June, 2007 @ 9:54 am
Rizzo, thanks for explaining to me the etiquette of blogs. However, I did exactly as you suggest. No, of course people who make up lies don’t withdraw them and I don’t expect for one second they will. Welcome to the land of irony. I repeat: I’ve never heard of a band called ‘Jewish Power’. I’ve never played with a band called ‘Jewish Power’. Whoever says that I played with a band called ‘Jewish Power’ is lying. Meanwhile, please feel free to go on explaining the principles of fair play to me.
Comment by Michael Rosen — 22 June, 2007 @ 10:00 am
Rozen, did you perform along side a band called “Yishar Koach’?
.
Yes or No?
In case you do not remeber, does the Barbican rings a bell?
Do You know what ‘Yishar Koach’ means?
Do you speak Yiddish or you just bulshit about it all?
Do your homework my dear poet….
You are welcome to say, Sorry, i didn’t know the meaning of the word Yoshar Koach, but then stop telling us about Jewish culture because you are clueless about the subject!!! This is not a crime but nothing to be proud about….
Comment by yocheved — 22 June, 2007 @ 10:06 am
Andy
Apparently Bundists love to speak about Yiddish. The reason is simple, without God, soil and Hebrew, all they have left is Yiddish. They speak about Yiddish culture but they don’t understand what Yiddish stands for. They speak about Jewish culture but they do not know that Yiddish is a low language by definition. Yiddish is sfat Chulin (daily language) as opposed to sefat kodesh (holly language). Yiddish and Ladino allow Jews to communicate on daily basis without employing the language of the Bible. Yet, Unlike Yiddish, Ladino has its poetry, authentic music and prose. Yiddish has very little to offer culturally.
The progressive Moel Rosenberg and the ignorant poet could share with us the names of the 10 internationally leading Yiddish authors, Composers, a single Yiddish Opera or even half a requiem. The Yiddish speakers were living at the heart of Europe, Jews were writhing in English German and French yet, they produced none of that in Yiddish. All we have out of Yiddish is filthy Jokes about Tuches (Buttocks ) and money. Ha yes and we have Bashevis Singer, he is indeed something else. I actually admire him but he is one,
Somehow, you won’t find major texts translated into Yiddish. You would hardly find major texts written in Yiddish. In other words, Bundist secular Jewishness is a fantasy shared by half a dozen Jews. And even they cannot support it because (so i suspect) they do not speak the language. Pathetic!!!
Comment by yocheved — 22 June, 2007 @ 10:12 am
Andy,
Am /Leom Nation /peoplehood are internal Jewish binary oppositions that cannot be translated into English. This is why this thread that started as a legitimate debate, has now become a meeting place for the last Jewish socialists.
Mind you, Andy, these rejected beings have to meet somewhere, and thanks to Atzmon humiliating them they are now mocked wherever they go.
do you mind if they stay here for a day or two?
Comment by yocheved — 22 June, 2007 @ 10:13 am
I’ve never claimed to know more Yiddish than I know. I’ve played with two sets of musicians at the Barbican. The first was an ad hoc group who, to my knowledge, had no name and weren’t Jewish and accompanied me, John Agard, Francesca Beard, Jared Louche and Valerie Bloom. The second time was an anniversary gig with John Agard, Jo Shapcott and Francesca Beard and there were two musicians one of whom plays in a Klezmer band called…I forget…something like…oi karkoush…no…nothing like that but the title meant something like let’s celebrate. They were introduced by their first names and not as a band name. The guy busks at Columbia Market. No one mentioned anything about Jewish Power or any such…
Comment by Michael Rosen — 22 June, 2007 @ 10:22 am
Gilad,
Do you really sue people who say you are a racist anti semite?
Perhaps refusing to appear with you,as Galloway did, because of your racism would spark a legal case?
Comment by tim — 22 June, 2007 @ 10:23 am
my God, I’ve just realised something worse: I’ve played several times on the same bill as Atzmon!!!
re: yiddish, the idea that millions of people of the past should have to justify their language and culture (post hoc, as it were) is absurd. re Yiddish, see wikipedia.
Comment by Michael Rosen — 22 June, 2007 @ 10:37 am
97: “Yiddish is sfat Chulin (daily language) as opposed to sefat kodesh (holly (sic) language).”
More linguistic bullshit: In Yiddish, Yiddish is “Mamma Loshen” Hebrew is “Loshen Kodesh” You know bupkes about Yiddish Mr Ubermensch.
Comment by Alex Nichols — 22 June, 2007 @ 10:47 am
Michael,
Why do you think Galloway refused to appear with Gilad?
Comment by tim — 22 June, 2007 @ 10:47 am
The rest of #97 is ignorant supercillious nonsense, actually quite typical of the mainstream Israeli attitude to Yiddish. There were and are, dozens of Yiddish authors, poets and playwright. The holocaust in Europe put paid to Yiddish more than any other factor.
Comment by Alex Nichols — 22 June, 2007 @ 11:02 am
Rosen
So you have now admitted performing with a band called Yishar Koach (which stands for Jewish Power)…. As you can see, I ignore the Elfs and the Greenstein of this world. I refer to you here because you are an Artist, though totally deluded. I am sure that you were not aware of the meaning of the word Yishar Koach… just be careful in the future and make sure you stop preaching about Jewish culture because. As I said before, you are clueless about the subject….
Comment by yocheved — 22 June, 2007 @ 11:06 am
#105. Since he’s now resorting to the Goebbels tactic. (Endless repetition of a lie) I’d suggest it’s time to pull the plug on this creep now.
Comment by Alex Nichols — 22 June, 2007 @ 11:10 am
sorry 106, too late, Rosen already admitted…,
Comment by yocheved — 22 June, 2007 @ 11:20 am
Rosen:
“my God, I’ve just realised something worse: I’ve played several times on the same bill as Atzmon!!!”
You were billed with Atzmon in spite of the fact that you paddle in Jewish supremacist views (Yishar Kochecha) and Yiddish trash…Atzmon was happy to share stage with you (or billed with you) because unlike you, your ilk (and the SWP as well), Atzmon actually believes in freedom of speech and artistic diversity.
Atzmon wants to see a vivid debate between real opponents. He is against any form of exclusion.
This is why, Atzmon plays every night in a sold out rooms and the Judeo Proletarians are getting smaller and smaller. How many are you by now, 6, 7 or 8 at the most…???
Comment by yocheved — 22 June, 2007 @ 11:22 am
Blimey
I go away for a few hours … …
Nick thanks for the useful discuscussion of nations, I look forward to your book when it comes out. This thread has become too overwhelmed with the Atzmon dispute to contunie a serious discussion on the nature of nations, but I will come back to it soon.
Phil - thanks for finding where Kimber’s Llenin quote comes from. I was too lazy to search myself.
Tony - Incidently just becasue I don’t start from Leon’s work doesn’t mean I am unaware of it. Just becasue I don’t agree doesn’t mean I don’t understand. You say my position is to support a state: ” to any group who called themselves a nation, such as the Afrikaaners. The right to form a nation is the right of an oppressed nation. Israeli Jews are oppressors and Marxists start from the dividing line between the oppressed and oppressor.”
Well this is precisly the paradigm I am objecting to, becasue the oppressed/oppressor duality is inadequate to cope with the question of the emerging movements of non-oppressed nations - such as the Scots and catalans. Nor is it adequate to deal with modern day israel, where despite being unambiguous oppressors, any soluton of deconstructing the Zionist project is going to have to put some alternative in place that recognises their Jewish identity
Nor was this paradigm ever adequate for example to deal - for example - with the role of the Magyar in Austro-Hungary. My preoccupation of course is the national question of England, Wales and Scotland, and the break up of what Nairn calls Ukania, rather than the question of Jewish identity.
Despite the way some of it has gone, I have learned from this debate, and I think that some of the difficulties are based upon lack of consensus over terminology. I have had a look at Neil Davidson’s “Origins of Scottish nationhood”, and the first two chapters do give a useful summary of the tersm like National consciuosness, national identity, etc.
Based upon Neil’s terminilogy the Jews do have national identity, in the sense of cultural signifiers
Comment by Andy — 22 June, 2007 @ 12:33 pm
on a train using a mobile. can’t access or type easily. but i never
played with a musician who said he was a band called ‘jewish power’ nor used that yiddish? expression .he used another phrase for the band he belonged to - not playing that day. its eisen and atzmon who bang on about j. power
Comment by Michael Rosen — 22 June, 2007 @ 12:56 pm
Andy: the Jews do have national identity, in the sense of cultural signifiers
Azad: interesting, so what are these signifiers? And what are they intended to signify excatly?
Comment by Azad Ewe — 22 June, 2007 @ 1:32 pm
Tony, you write: “It is therefore unfortunate that the writer of the article knows so little about what he is writing. The idea of Jewish nationhood is a Zionist idea, clearly based on the ideas of race. What else connects Jews from India, France and Morocco but the myths of race? Religion I would suggest, and that too is tenuous. S/he might also read Abram Leon’s ‘The Jewish Question – A Marxist Interpretation’. Historically Jews were a ‘people-class’ i.e. they were defined by their social and economic role and in Eastern Europe they occupied the same area, primarily the Pale of Settlement and had their own language, Yiddish, and therefore yes, they did have certain national traits.”
It is not clear to me what you are referring to here as “national traits”. Abram’s work is of limited value for today because his race-class theses does not relate to the Jewish Diaspora in modern Western societies today, and his work is also informed by a catastrophist view of late capitalism (understandable in the time and circumstances of his writing it!)
What is does not address is the endurance of people who continue to self-identify with Jewishness, despite being secular.
However self-identity is not enough. We can follow Voloshinov that consciousness is a social phenomenon not an individual one. Individuals internalising and accepting ideological signs and cultural constructs that their community has developed over time .
A shared collective consciousness of Jewishness is a national consciousness, and the shared and historically contingent cultural and ideological identifiers of Judaism are – in my book – a national identity.
I personally am happy with the conclusion that people with national consciousness and a national identity are a nation. There is no implication of shared biology (no modern nation has shared biology!).
With the Diaspora Jews, there is no reason that that national consciousness should not coexist with the political project of maintaining a multi-national Jewish community spread across the world. (the existence of a Zionist Jewish national state is a different issue)
But when discussing the national question in generality we cannot start from Zionism in particular, and define our response as its negation.
If the Scots, Welsh and English are a nation, and for some hundreds of years have been able to be a nation within a multi-national state then so can the Jews be a nation. Identification of a people as a nation does not necessarily imply support for a political state project, nor myths of biology or race.
Comment by Andy — 22 June, 2007 @ 2:08 pm
But if one is trying to sustain a position that any signifier that indicates eastern european jew stuff is ‘trash’, then you have to suggest that all those who dot agree it’s ‘trash’ are eg covert or unconscious zionists, impediments to the palestinian struggle, liars, self-deceivers, tiny in number and irrelevant, ignorant, jewish chauvinist etc etc. It follows from this that there is only one decent position to maintain: jews are shit and it is incumbent on any jew who wishes to be in favour of human rights, justice for all, equality etc etc, it is to become an ex-jew. How this alchemical transformation can take place shall remain a mystery as the one main exponent of ex-jewness seems incredibly proud that he is the world’s greatest expert on klezmer,highly knowledgable about yiddish and hebrew, the significance of jewish festivals, andhow to fire guns for the israeli state. Most of these sound to me like signifiers of jewness rather than ex-jewness but why should that get inbthe way of a good provocation. By the way I am not Michael Rosen, the very successful American jazz saxophonist, nor the very successful Michael Rosen, ex-member of the folkrock band Eclection. There are also two other michael rosens who write childrens books neither of whom are me.
Comment by Michael Rosen — 22 June, 2007 @ 2:53 pm
I don’t agree with Yocheved that Yiddish is not a worthy language and that the Eastern European culture was valueless. It was probably marginal because of lack of interaction (contamination as we call it now), it was not able to progress far beyond the elements of the family and commerce.
It is a popular culture that is basically dead and buried, though… keeping it alive are those who don’t understand it, and this is the point that I find odd of those whose idea of Jewishness are a few songs and stories that they heard Bubbe saying to her sisters… The point may be, if we are talking about popular culture, it’s all good, but we have to try to understand it and not distort it to mean what we think it was all about. Yiddish would have survived without Israel, and this is another of Israel’s crimes.
Comment by thecutter — 22 June, 2007 @ 3:39 pm
Sorry Rosen
you play games again, you presented your Klezmer band as Yishar Koach,
I was there with some Ex Israeli friends, we couldn’t stop laughing!
While Eisen and Atzmon are critical of J power, you somehow decided to incorporate into your stage act… this is wild so to say.
Comment by yocheved — 22 June, 2007 @ 5:20 pm
Andy, there is nothing wrong about Jewish National signifiers, but then you may want to ask yourself what do they really signify?
However, nothing is wrong with Chicken Soup, Bagel and Rosen talking about Tukhes, yet, neither Rosen’s tukhes nor chicken soup are political arguments.
Can you see it?
Comment by yocheved — 22 June, 2007 @ 5:25 pm
Ok, now to sort this confusion Elf has, and while he might not trust me, he could always ask Sue Blackwell if any of what i am about to print is true:
Elf (to who he thinks is Atzmon): Oh but while you’re here, did you demand money from Sue Blackwell, and did she pay you or your lawyers any?
thecutter (not Atzmon, but since I mentioned this to him today and know he’s in the studio, he authorised me to disclose the details): Gilad’s solicitors sent a legal letter stating that she had an option to go to litigation, or to furnish an apology on her site and keep it up for a period of time. She decided to put up the apology, so the barrister’s actions ended there, (almost). She had to pay his barrister’s fees, which amounted to £1000. Gilad asked the barrister to devolve the entire sum to Palestinian Medical Aid, a NGO.
Elf, (to me): You’ve mentioned this Sue Blackwell thing a few times now. How much did it cost him and how much did he get for Sue Blackwell to carry on calling him an antisemite and a racist? Go on.
thecutter: As I said, the costs of the initial actions were £1000, which Sue had to pay, and they were devolved in their entirety in charity. Ask Sue, she must have the receipt someplace, as it was she who had to make the donation. Had she not chosen to settle, she would probably have had to pay damages far greater, and her legal council suggested she cut her losses even if she had to eat crow. She attempted to save face by continuing to not truly alter her site in a meaningful way, as my blog post illustrates, but her inconsistencies are now public domain, and calling someone a racist for a few years without it being true makes her look ridiculous and it actually does at times bring about a revision that was unexpected. Does Sue think he’s a racist? If she does, she writes lies to save herself money. If she thinks he isn’t she should have informed her comrades of her change of face.
Elf: Boast some more Mary though why anything Atzmon does is anything for you to brag about I don’t know. The problem for Atzmon now is that by pretending to be principled, every time he doesn’t sue for being called the racist that he is the more readers will know, as you do, that the accusation is true.
thecutter: oh really, ask Sue if she had to change her site because she would lose the court case, or if she is a thoroughbred hypocrite. At any rate, currently, since you love tales of law and defamation, there is a major litigation underway and the counterparty is now running circles around itself to cut its losses. Sometimes things get resolved as in CIF, and Gilad gets an article, as they prefer to settle by not being taken to court, and he at times doesn’t mind just being given his right to defend himself. Other times, international newspapers speak of moving their trial to other countries than where the action was initiatated because they know they would lose in the UK.
Elf: But people must be clear, Sue Blackwell is still calling Atzmon a racist and an antisemite. http://www.sue.be/pal/Atzmon.html
I’d add liar to that but I’ve had more time to see what he has written than she has.
thecutter: well, this might be in violation of the terms established by her agreement with Gilad’s solicitor. He should check into that, it might cost her a far sight more than the 1000 quid already out of her pocket.
Comment by thecutter — 22 June, 2007 @ 5:36 pm
Cutter: “I don’t agree with Yocheved that Yiddish is not a worthy language and that the Eastern European culture was valueless.”
Yochi: I do not know how to value cultures, all I know is that within the Judaic culture, Yiddish is regarded as low culture, the daily culture, Sefat Chulin and Mama loshen…
Cutter: It was probably marginal because of lack of interaction (contamination as we call it now), it was not able to progress far beyond the elements of the family and commerce.
Yochi: NO, it wasn’t developed because cultured Jews preferred to express themselves in Polish , Russian, French, German, English and later in Hebrew (the Zionists). Besides, the high language was the holly language (the Hebrew)…
Cutter: It is a popular culture that is basically dead and buried, though… keeping it alive are those who don’t understand it, and this is the point that I find odd of those whose idea of Jewishness are a few songs and stories that they heard Bubbe saying to her sisters…
Yochi: You are wrong my dear cutter, it is alive and vivid amongst orthodox Jews. Indeed it is Bizarre that the Rosens and the Resonbergs claim to be its proponents without having a clue about this culture.
Cutter:The point may be, if we are talking about popular culture, it’s all good, but we have to try to understand it and not distort it to mean what we think it was all about. Yiddish would have survived without Israel, and this is another of Israel’s crimes.
Yochi: You are totally wrong, Many Israelis understand Yiddish and as I said this language is alive amongst these who needed this language all those years i.e. the Torah Jews. Torah Jews are authentic people, they circumcised their son for a spiritual reason unlike Rosenberg who engages in old Blood ritual.
However cutter, it is the Hebrew that was invaded by Israel….
Comment by yocheved — 22 June, 2007 @ 5:39 pm
Rosen, we do not argue that every Jewish east European is trash, in fact some of us admire Judaic culture. Unlike Rosenberg and yourself we understand what the ‘Brit Mila’ stands for. We understand what convent with God stands for.
What we are saying here is that: you and your ‘tukhes’, Rosenberg and his barbarian blood rituals, Elfs and his Exclusive J blog are the opposite of progressive identity. You are celebrating Jewish trash.
While authentic Jews are searching for the ‘Schina’ you are celebrating a a list of dead end empty signifiers.
and this is very sad!
Comment by yocheved — 22 June, 2007 @ 5:47 pm
Yoch, I’m a linguist, and I love all languages and dialects. I am not going to put a value judgment on Ivrit or Yiddish because to me it’s a totally irrelevant question. That Yiddish is still used as the spoken language in a small group is good for Yiddish, and I am pleased to hear it. I am referring, actually, to the idea that those who grew up in Europe or North America have of “our” connection to Yiddish, which is actually little more than some jokes, songs and expressions. I can’t think of much else. Presenting this as culture is presenting a world that is the world of the ghetto or visits from folks from the old country or things that aren’t OURS, but someone else’s.
When one speaks a language, one learns a worldview and a metalinguistic vocabulary comes up as well. The untranslatable is always sitting on one’s shoulder. So, if one wants to PLAY with terms of another language, they can do that, without it meaning that they have gained any “knowing” or access into it. They are usually loving themselves and the idea that they form of what they feel when they say a few sentences that get a nudge nudge, wink wink out of others who are happy to feel like part of the club. Rosen has stated on my blog that he doesn’t know the language, and you have pointed out that he doesn’t even investigate the name of the group he appears with. If he wants to celebrate low or popular culture, let him. We take it at what it is if we want to. But tell me…. did you get on the guest list or did you PAY money to see Rosen?!
Comment by thecutter — 22 June, 2007 @ 5:55 pm
Rosen: How this alchemical transformation can take place shall remain a mystery as the one main exponent of ex-jewness seems incredibly proud that he is the world’s greatest expert on klezmer,highly knowledgable about yiddish and hebrew, the significance of jewish festivals, andhow to fire guns for the israeli state.
Yochi: where is exactly the problem? Assuming that you are referring to Atzmon here ☺ , Atzmon knows Klezmer music inside out, he understands Hebraic culture, his knowledge of Yiddish is rather limited, but substantial enough to know that you are ‘Balegule’. Atzmon was an IDF soldier, something that he regrets. Where is exactly the problem? Atzmon is capitalizing on his experience and knowledge as an advanced critique of Jewish culture.
Rosen: Most of these sound to me like signifiers of jewness rather than ex-jewness but why should that get inbthe way of a good provocation.
Yochi: actually this is the most stupid thing you have said so far. You claim for your ‘right of self determination’. If you are indeed entitled, something Atzmon agrees with, why can’t he, Atzmon, define himself as an ‘Ex Israeli’. Unlike you he fills his identity with some real content.
Rosen: By the way I am not Michael Rosen, the very successful American jazz saxophonist,
Yochi: Funny enough I have never heard about this Rosen the sax man, tell me more about it so I can tell Gilad ☺
Comment by yocheved — 22 June, 2007 @ 6:05 pm
Can somebody snd the above exchanges to a therapist.
These two obsessive racists need some help.
PS>
Gilad.
Are you going to sue Galloway for refusing to gig with you because you are an anti semite?
Comment by tim — 22 June, 2007 @ 6:06 pm
CUTTER: I AM REFERRING, ACTUALLY, TO THE IDEA THAT THOSE WHO GREW UP IN EUROPE OR NORTH AMERICA HAVE OF “OUR” CONNECTION TO YIDDISH, WHICH IS ACTUALLY LITTLE MORE THAN SOME JOKES, SONGS AND EXPRESSIONS.
YOCHI: FINE, SO HIT ME WITH THE GOOD, WITH THE BEAUTY, AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, BASHVEIS SINGER IS DOING GETTING THERE…. YET ROSENBERG MUTILATES BABIES AND ROSEN SPEAKS ABOUT TUKHES ,,,, THIS IS FAR FROM CULTURAL CELEBRATION
CUTTER: IF HE (ROSEN) WANTS TO CELEBRATE LOW OR POPULAR CULTURE, LET HIM. WE TAKE IT AT WHAT IT IS IF WE WANT TO.
YOCHI: FOR SURE WE LET HIM, IN FACT WE KEPT QUIET ABOUT IT FOR A WHILE… EVERY MAN IS ENTITLED TO BE AN IGNORANT.
CUTTER: BUT TELL ME…. DID YOU GET ON THE GUEST LIST OR DID YOU PAY MONEY TO SEE ROSEN?!
YOCHI: MONEY MONEY, ALL YOU CARE IS JUST MONEY,
I paid in shekels
Comment by yocheved — 22 June, 2007 @ 6:16 pm
so the long and the short of this bollox is that i intro’d two musicians who gave me a name for themselves which means you say ‘jewish power’ even tho i hav only ever seen one of them in band called something else?! and my crime is that i didnt know this is what it meant???!!! i hav i repeat never claimed to know more yiddish than i do. why should i? thats only what you want to say about me. i will check with the organisers to see if the musicians were booked under that title. i will ask my family who were there what they were called. i seem to remember that the fiddle player said thsat he didnt know any yiddish and it would hav been him who gave the two of them the ad hoc name for the day - if they did ! the problem is your thesis is tha t you think this stuff gets in the way of supporting the palestinians and that attacking it and mocking it and misrepresenting it helps them. unlike you i have nevr made great claims that what i do is of some great service to the palestinians andyet younkeep trying to lever a position for yourself wherebyi am a jewish chauvinist ‘elder’ who is claiming my usefulness. all because i had the temerity to suggest that your views - on ‘jewish power’ and east european jews made you a poor choice of speaker in any anti racist pro liberation meeting. everything you say here about east european jews confirms my understanding that you are wrong in thinking you can fight racism with racism. and yes i know all about the silly pedantic get-out clauses that enable you to say that all your sneeres, insults, mockery and abuse are NOT racism. i suggest that someone with your views would not be able to be the main speaker for boycott motions in unions because it would easily be shown that you had racist attitudes towards one section of the membership. eg that all jews in this union ie your comrades , were impkicated in ‘jewish power’.
Comment by Michael Rosen — 22 June, 2007 @ 6:53 pm
Ah Yochi, are you sure you didn’t pay with Rumkowski’s coin from Lodz Ghetto?
Comment by thecutter — 22 June, 2007 @ 7:00 pm
i think you’ll find that atzmon pronounced himself an ex-jew, not an ex-israeli.
Comment by Michael Rosen — 22 June, 2007 @ 7:05 pm
Rosen, are you saying he isn’t allowed to do both?
Comment by thecutter — 22 June, 2007 @ 7:11 pm
Atzmon a soldier? The SWP says that he was a paratrooper, not just a humble soldier. He claimed that he was never violent, even as soldier. But if he was a member of an elite force in Israel’s army then he must have persuaded his handlers that he was violent enough for this elite violent zionist force.
But getting back to the questions. I see that in the spirit of inclusion, Atzmon (Yocheved) won’t answer my questions but he did send his typist, thecutter (Mary Rizzo), to boast of a legal victory over Sue Blackwell, a prominent boycott Israel campaigner. I just want some more detail on this victory. Did he demand money and did he get any. Because if he demanded money and didn’t get any, what was his victory? Or was he simply trying to undermine and intimidate a high profile opponent of the state he once served in an elite capacity (and possibly still does, wittingly or not)?
And that hypocritical petition that Mary Rizzo drafted to cover for neo-nazis and other racists worming their way into the Palestine solidarity movement. Michael Rosen raised some good questions about it (see post #68 above) and I haven’t seen the author of it answer any. It’s important because the failure of Mary Rizzo to reply really exposes her own dishonesty and exposes the racist motive behind the petition. It also shows that she does not believe the title of the petition - Palestinians are the priority. She believes that Gilad Atzmon, Israel Shamir and Paul Eisen and other assorted racists are a higher priority.
I know this is all good fun for Atzmon, using the Palestinians like he does and humiliating the SWP who host him because Martin Smith likes his music and the ordinary membership just follow blindly but there are still people naive enough to fall for someone’s lies no matter how transparent they are so Atzmon must be exposed wherever he or his cohorts rear their heads. He won’t get more supporters on account of the publicity. He did used to mockingly thank his detractors, now he tries to gag them.
So just to recap - Atzmon (posing here as Yocheved) is a liar and a racist who wants to open the Palestine solidarity movement, not to all comers, but to racists and is willing to go to extraordinary lengths to harrass those of us who believe that racism, zionism and antisemitism, can only harm the Palestinian cause.
We are winning boycott Israel proposals across the board in unions in the UK. Many of the initiators of the proposals are Jewish and this is one in the eye for the zionists who falsely claim that anti-zionism is antisemitism. Atzmon and Rizzo are determined to prove the zionists right on that one and if the SWP becomes too closely involved with this movement in the unions the zionists will exploit their involvement with exposed liar and racist Atzmon to do great harm to the most successful anti-zionist movement that anyone here can remember.
The honest anti-racists among us must expose the Atzmons and the Rizzos at every turn lest they do the harm they seem to be intent on.
Comment by Mark Elf — 22 June, 2007 @ 7:15 pm
Elfonsino
No much time for you, you ask what he won?
Here it is, it is called an apology…
A note on Gilad Atzmon
My comments about Mr. Atzmon have been removed from this page at the request of his lawyers. I would like to make it clear that I have never called Mr. Atzmon a nazi, a neo-nazi or a fascist. To the extent that readers of my website may have been misled into an impression that I regard Mr Atzmon as a Nazi sympathiser, I apologise to him. (Sue Blackwell http://www.sue.be/pal/health_warning.html)
You want to talk Shekels, yes he won at that front as well. Sue has sent money which Atzmon donated the Medical Aid for Palestine.
If you want to know the exact details, you better ask Sue,,, she knows.
However, the story about Atzmon being a paratrooper and an elite soldier is a fantasy you and your ilk like to entertain yourself with, probably something to do with your bizarre libidinal needs.
Categorically, there is not a single violent incident in Atzmon’s military history. When Atzmon was ordered to confront Palestinian as an oppressor he left the Army, soon after he left Israel.
Atzmon is going to perform this weekend at the German Communist Party annual conference. So we leave you in your newly born cyber Shtetle. You can discuss the new hegemony of ‘ the good Jews’ in British trade unions. Just make sure you don’t end up speaking about Jewish power and Elders of anti Zion.
So while you are getting ready for your Gefilthe. Atzmon is going to unite with some real working class people, far better than wasting time on these 5-7 north west London imposters.
Comment by yocheved — 22 June, 2007 @ 7:48 pm
Information for Mike Rosen:-
—————————-
Just to confirm that I was correct in #64, in my translation of the phrase “Yishar Koach”:-
Quote:- “Yishar Koah, or Yasher Koach, יישר כח means congratulations”
Quote:- “Yasher koach” translates literally as “May your strength be firm.”
My mother even used to say, with a Yiddish twang, “I haven’t got any Koiach”, when she was feeling tired.
So whether you did, or did not play with said Klezmer band, so bloody what?
Comment by Alex Nichols — 22 June, 2007 @ 9:00 pm
Tomorrow he is in Dortmund performing in front of thousands of European communists at the German Communist Party celebration. Concert is sold out for two weeks. The tickets for his 9/7 Marxism 2007 concert are about to sell out (700 so far).
When is the last time anyone paid a penny to listen to Greenstein or Rance.
Even if you pay me money I refuse.
Atzmon’s papers and books are translated into as many as 24 languages. When is the last time Elf has been translated? \
Last time I saw Greenstein and Rance was at the PSC AGM. Their motion was voted out by the entire room (95%).
Five idiotic ‘progressive Jews’ do not agree with Atzmon. Big fuck’n deal…
Can we move on?
Comment by Red Ben — 22 June, 2007 @ 9:16 pm
Thanks for that Gilad - nothing like pricking your notorious vanity to get you to contradict yourself once again. You said you were ignoring me. Your version doesn’t quite tally with the fact that Sue Blackwell is still making it clear on her site that you are a racist and an antisemite as your latest Jew baiting comment has shown. That connects you with the working class? No wonder the SWP’s John Rose compared you to Churchill. The best the SWP could say was that you raise money for them.
And now you’re playing for the Communist Party in Germany - another Nazi-Soviet pact - what fun! Maybe you could pay Ernst Zundel a visit since you’re so fond of Eisen’s puff piece for him. Or is he back in Canada? Not being one of his followers or one of his followers’ followers I wouldn’t know.
Re the paratrooper thing - I make a rule of never believing anything about you until you categorically deny it. You have lied about every individual that you have criticised. Every single one and seriously that is what makes it so dismaying that the SWP still hosts you. But you know it’s certainly not for your politics. All of the SWPrs who have gone on record about your politics have made vague references to disagreements with you. That’s because they know you are a racist but having “categorically” denied it they can’t own up now. All very sad.
But you’re too modest Gilad. They really do love you at the zionist Harry’s Place and you don’t raise money for them. You help them out for free and you know precisely what you are doing.
Anyway, now you’ve exposed yourself here as a rabid Jew baiter could you answer the queries above about the petition you signed? That’s the thing that you and your typist Mary have studiously avoided answering. So go on, give it a go.
Comment by Mark Elf — 22 June, 2007 @ 9:21 pm
oh, and since you must be relentless, get on that plane and warn the Deutsche comrades that they are about to let a monster into the biggest Communist gathering in Germany (UZ Pressefeste) tomorrow. Here’s the program, you may need to boycott all the others too:
http://www.dkp-online.de/pressefest/2007/download/programm.pdf
Comment by thecutter — 22 June, 2007 @ 9:23 pm
Elf, so, if Sue says it, it’s True? I mean, what sort of logic is this? Can Sue be wrong? Even she admits that she was…Let’s see again the details of what she wrote,
“Gilad is Jewish (and plays great jazz) but there have been some disturbing reports about things he has allegedly said recently which appear to condone violence against civilians. Not sure whether he said them or not, but anyway I found his “Protocols of the Elders Of London” highly offensive, not least because it slagged off some of my closest Jewish comrades while cosying up to the highly dubious Israel Shamir. So long, Gilad, thanks for the music.”
that’s what Sue put on her Nazi Alert Page
“disturbing reports” – by whom?
“things he has allegedly said” – did he or didn’t he?
“appear to condone” – do they or don’t they?
“not sure whether he said them or not” – oh, but she sticks the idea in people’s heads of rumours as truth…. This is not a very firm basis to smear someone at levels that it creates something of a monster and anathema of them, but that did not stop Sue.
Just like Sue, no one likes their friends being slagged off, but slagging off people seems to be the speciality of Sue and her own friends. Yet, if it is done, there should be a legitimate REASON for it and proof that there is something concrete behind the slagging. Crimes or instigation to crime, words and deeds that demonstrate the suppression of the rights of others, that sort of thing. Neither she nor her comrades could ever come up with a reason for it beyond affiliations that they have pumped to mean what they want them to mean, actions that they have blown out of proportion and wilfilly manipulated and distorted, and worst of all, intent. Wherever in the world does Sue Blackwell get the idea that Gilad Atzmon condones violence against civilians? Isn’t a claim that is this inflammatory and defamatory be one that should be substantiated? She has thrown the accusation around and hasn’t bothered to substantiate it in any way. Sue says it, that has to be enough.
http://peacepalestine.blogspot.com/2007/03/smear-first-apologise-later-sue.html
Again, Elf, calling another person who defends their friend against smears and actually discusses thing in an argumentative way “a typist” is a sexist insult and an offense to the autonomy of the other person. If I were a man would you use this term? Think about it.
Why do you feel it so necessary to act like an over the hill miserable Archie Bunker?
but, for the sake of fun, Michael, a very talented debunker of all things Zionist on the web had this comment to make on Sue, enjoy:
I think Sue’s points are reasonable.
Afterall, I’ve heard disturbing reports that Sue is an idiot and things she has allegedly said and done are allegedly idiotic (but I am fairly sure she has said and done them), though it is true that I’m not sure whether or not she said other even more idiotic things, but basically she appears to condone idiocy.
I think the Idiot Alert page needs an addition, not that I would wish to appear to condone that, or not, as the case may be, but there is a disturbing report that it allegedly exists, not that I would condone its existence, even if the disturbing report of its alleged existence was true, though someone allegedly said it is.
Essentially, I have no opinion on the matter, and leave it up to the individuals conscience whether or not they choose to believe the alleged reports that I niether can confirm nor deny, nor condone for that matter, regarding the alleged idiocy of the said person, whose existence I neither condone nor deny, except in a disturbing report to that effect.
I hope I’ve made myself clear. But just to clarify, I don’t wish to condone, or deny, anything I’ve said above, or am alleged to have said. In fact, I’m not even sure if I’ve said them or not.
However, this does remind me of a disturbing report…..
Michael |
Comment by thecutter — 22 June, 2007 @ 9:38 pm
I should point out that the ‘German Communist Party’ at whose fest Atzmon is booked to play is a small sect which has never got more than 0.3% of the vote in federal elections. Most of its members left after reunification to join the PDS, a party formed from the former East German ruling party the SED.
This party has now merged with a left breakaway from the Social Democrats, to form a new left party Die Linke, which has scored around 8% in some regional elections.
Comment by Stephen Marks — 22 June, 2007 @ 9:59 pm
Reminder:-
———–
Clear lie by jew-baiting Yocheved #34:
“Rosen who performs with Jewish Power Klezmer band (Yishar Koach)”
see: #64,#134
Comment by Alex Nichols — 22 June, 2007 @ 10:09 pm
Stephen, generally, radical communist parties get extremely scarse votes, as the adherents to these parties do not often support the electoral system and do not participate. The party I was affiliated with in the USA, the ISO, which is the US version of the SWP, never even RAN in elections, had a small following, but its annual meetings were quite important cultural events. This year’s programme was good: http://www.socialismconference.org/
list of speakers. Barbara Becnel, Paul D’Amato, Kelly Dougherty ,
Josh Frank, Laura Flanders, Luciana Genro, Amy Goodman, Howie Hawkins, Dahr Jamail, Marlene Martin, Camilo Mejia, John Pilger, Anthony Prior, Yusef Salaam, Jeremy Scahill, Michael Schwartz, Ahmed Shawki, Sharon Smith ,
Jeffrey St. Clair, Dahlia S. Wasfi, Dave Zirin … as well as John Carlos.
How many votes a party gets in a Federal election is the criterion for radical left parties? That one is news to me.
Comment by thecutter — 22 June, 2007 @ 10:14 pm
http://jonrogers1963.blogspot.com/
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Comment by Alex Nichols — 22 June, 2007 @ 10:45 pm
Gilad,
George Galloway did not show up to perform with you because you are a racist anti semite.
Are you suing him?
Comment by tim — 23 June, 2007 @ 12:52 am
Elfonsino,
it is Yochi, Atzmon doesn’t have time for you and your ilk, he records albums, writes books, he performs every night and mocks your shrinking pathetic identity.
Atzmon is having fun, you seem to sudder.
Atzmon feels sorry for you and others.
But it is down to girls, just join humanity, as simple as that…
Comment by yocheved — 23 June, 2007 @ 1:09 am
Alex, you become Shimshon der Giber, yet, intellectual capacity isn’t your stronger side, Please tell us all, If ‘Yisher Koach’ is just an innocent greeting, how many time did you use it in the last week when entering your corner shop or even your local news agent (assuming they aren’t run by your racial brothers). When is the last time you welcomed a Goy with Yishar Koach? Alex, save yourself the answer. I know the answer,,,,never,,, Yishar Koach is something Jews tell Jews and Jews only. You never tell a Goy Yishar Koach, because Yishar Koach is not a universal greeting, it is a tribal one.
Koach means power (and when your mother was ‘Krechzing’ about Koach she complained about her lack of energy/power). Yishar means straighten. Together it means may your power will be focused on the right cause, and this right cause is obviously Jewish. This is why you’ll never honour a Goy with it.
If you speak Hebrew and I think you do, you are welcome to suggest an alternative interpretation. But first explain us all why Jews and even progressive Jews do not greet the Goyim with Yishar Koach, elaborate on the exclusivity….
However, we are progressing here , you already accept that Rosen performed with Yishar Koach, however, being a total ignorant you fail to understand how loaded Yishar Koach is…
Comment by yocheved — 23 June, 2007 @ 1:24 am
I can’t keep up with these childish antics so I’m just skimming bits here and there but I couldn’t help noticing Mary Rizzo of all people accusing me of sexism for calling her Atzmon’s typist. I don’t associate typing with women, in fact I thought that went out in the seventies (round about the time of the grainy picture of you on your blog, Mary). But it’s pretty rich coming from someone who types article after article on instructions from a rabid Jew baiter like Atzmon and hosts comments from people she calls her friends that use gender, sexuality and mental health issues as put-downs. Your friend Atzmon (using the name Yocheved) has already done some of that in this thread. His “Jihad” anti-Arab stereotype on your blog is certainly misogynistic - not to mention racist (oops, I already did mention racist). In fact it’s the portrayal of Arabs one might find on MEMRI. It’s amazing how much you antisemites borrow from the zionists. But for all your borrowing from them, it’s they who owe you and big time too. While the boycott campaign is drawing false allegations of antisemitism, you and Atzmon are busily trying to prove them right. But you do have more articles dictated by Atzmon on your blog than anything by anyone else including yourself.
And did you say something about having explained your petition? So copy and paste here. I’m damned if I’m venturing into the your sewer to see what lies you’ve told there. Why didn’t you answer Michael Rosen’s points? Like Atzmon, you have no case for your antisemitic politics. So you repeat over and over “chicken soup” “gefilte fish.” That’s not debate Mary, at best its placing orders in a kosher restaurant, at worst its racist stereotyping.
I should point out to the weary reader who has no commitment one way or another and who has never even heard of Atzmon (in common with most SWP members), this is not about Mary Rizzo or about Atzmon. Both are ludicrous racist liars and I’m sure casual readers would have noticed that. Their writings and sayings should be taken with the same pinch of salt one would take with the feed frenzies in the comments on their mirror sites, Engage and Harry’s Place. The problem here is that after decades of being falsely accused of antisemitism by zionists the SWP has embraced an antisemite in Gilad Atzmon and in so doing they are in danger of bringing the causes they are associated with into disrepute. That’s the issue here. The leadership of the SWP has placated the more aware of their members by promising that Atzmon won’t be allowed to speak. The problem there is that they’ve lied that lie before. But John Rose’s comparison of Atzmon with Churchill wasn’t intended as a compliment.
Comment by Mark Elf — 23 June, 2007 @ 3:22 am
I love the idea that greetings that are particular to this or that self-defining group should not pertain to that self-defining group. The world must be told. Welsh people who usually speak English must stop using Welsh greetings, English people in France must stop using English greetings, Muslim English speakers must stop using ’salaam aleikum’. Stoppit now, do you hear me! Yochaved hath spoke.
And, I wouldn’t boast too loudly about the German Communist Party. I think you’ll find a history none too honourable there, dating back in particular to some ghastly adventures with the Comintern, not to mention the Stasi and putting down of the workers’ uprising of 1953. I should know, I was in East Germany in 1957.
Comment by Michael Rosen — 23 June, 2007 @ 9:57 am
I got distracted clearing up my two year old’s sick.
The famous phrase that I was so complicit in…you know, furthering the world zio-neo-con conspiracy etc etc…by allowing a musician to say…er…apparently…and sneer sneer, i didn’t understand because I don’t know as much yiddish as I claim to…is in fact…er Hebrew? Is that right? And you said it means ‘Jewish power’ but in fact it means somthing like, ‘may you have strength’ which you interpret as meaning ‘Jewish power’ simply because Jews say it to each other. So ’sei gesint’ or ’sei mir gisint’ would mean ‘Jewish health’, would it? Rather than something like, ‘be well!’? So, a French person in England saying ‘Bonjour’ is saying, ‘let’s have a good French day together’.
The irony here is that I only learnt ’sei gesint’ about twenty years ago from the utterly non-Jewish florist who lived over the road from me. Amazing, language spreads and moves and appears in all sorts of places. The ‘exclusiveness’ of hundreds of yiddish words and translated yiddishisms have in fact appeared in the mouths of many peoples all over the world - nosh, shlock, shtum etc etc. Not so exclusive after all. ‘Do me a favour’, ‘enjoy’, ‘enough already’ are translated yiddishisms used widely. But presumably this is all further evidence of the insidious reaching out of Jewish Power, which must be cleansed from the world…
Comment by Michael Rosen — 23 June, 2007 @ 10:20 am
Elf, It’s very simple. You say you don’t have the time for the nonsense you continue to yammer on about. Fine. All I ask of you is to find the sentences or phrases I write that are racist. That’s all, and the situation ends. If you are correct, and have proven me as a racist, I will publicly state that Elf is correct (a kinda, sorta, non-commital one like Sue the fence sitter, since it seems to be something that you think is adequate) and that I have been wrong. Anything else is just your ridiculous flailing about in a bizarre obsessed manner. Really, take a look at yourself. You convince yourself and your little group of buddies, no one else.
If you can’t find them, and you have an entire blog, you have years of postings on JPUK, One State groups and anywhere else you want to look, then it proves you are a liar and a “buffoon”. Happy hunting.
BTW, I’ve pointed out racist statements right on this board by those who are somehow on your side. You haven’t uttered a word. Makes me think you don’t know it when it bites you on the nose.
If you don’t think that calling a person a “typist” for someone else is sexist and demeaning, then your problems are more serious than they seem.
Comment by thecutter — 23 June, 2007 @ 11:16 am
Rosen: “And, I wouldn’t boast too loudly about the German Communist Party. I think you’ll find a history none too honourable there, dating back in particular to some ghastly adventures with the Comintern, not to mention the Stasi and putting down of the workers’ uprising of 1953. I should know, I was in East Germany in 1957.”
gosh! Atzmon can no no right as far as you are concerned! If he plays to a German Communist public, he’s probably been in kahoots with nostalgists for the Stasi! Get a grip, won’t you!!! You sound like Silvio Berlusconi who mentions the Stalinist Gulags every time the Communists in Italy raise their heads. Whistle with me, won’t you “whose side are you oooooon?”
Comment by thecutter — 23 June, 2007 @ 11:21 am
Rizzo, you’re getting excited, telling me to get a grip. I wasn’t telling anyone not to play anywhere. I was just suggesting that the old German commies aren’t worth boasting about. It’s not always certain which side they are or were on, since you ask. Were they on the side of the oppressed in 1953 or indeed when the wall came down? Yes, I do often whistle that song and you make that old mistake of thinking that just because the capitalists attack the Stalinists, then there must be something right about Stalinism. That was my parents’ mistake, not mine.
One other thought re the great Rosen plays with Jewish Power lie. Of course, it wasn’t a moment of Jewish exclusivity at all. It was a moment of multi and inter cultural sharing: poets whose origins are in rural England, Guyana, Malaysia and in my case Jewish. The abuse heaped on this occasion speaks volumes to me about attitudes.
In the meantime, enjoy the stalinfest! I agree, though, Atzmon accompanying the movie ‘Battle of Algiers’ at the SWP’s Marxism, and therefore without being given the space to spout all this antisemitic stuff, could well be worth a listen. I, for one, think his music is great. I love its intercultural fusions.
Comment by Michael Rosen — 23 June, 2007 @ 11:33 am
Yochi: “But it is down to girls, just join humanity, as simple as that…”
And with that? As much as I like you Yochi, that comment is total ignorance.
To the entire group of “intellectual socialists”: It seems that there is a heavy communication problem between the “boys and the girls”, where some call themselves “blow me” and no one seems to really be bothered by it, someone calls a poster a “typist for Atzmon” and can’t see that this is a sexist and classist insult (he meant it that way, but won’t admit it). I’ve never seen a more sexist gathering of posters than here. I mean that sincerely. It’s pretty illuminating.
The Socialists of the UK are simply ridiculous. It’s not about girls and boys or closed units and Humanity. It’s about one-upmanship. This thread has been low level almost entirely, and some of the initial questions I have asked have never been addressed, instead, to be overcome by harangues against me, as if this is normal…. It’s highly irregular, actually, but perhaps this escapes all of you. When you all mature and treat issues as arguments instead of referring to who is making the argument and then taking sides as if we are on a playground, it will be a brand new day. I won’t hold my breath.
This is why political people are really tiresome. They are very self-focused and see things with blinders that are frustrating for others to tolerate. I’ve never seen a single one of these “righteous and honest” pro-Palestinians reach levels of agreement with me on even the most basic things that if it is others saying it, they will say it was their idea! It is staggering, and I’m certainly not the only one who sees it, but it’s the “corporative behaviour” that shows how you simply do not deal with argument and dialectic, but you are looking at so many factors such as one’s political colour, sex, age, etc. If you want to win people to your side, you are operating with the wrong tools. Perhaps no one here can see that, and that wouldn’t surprise me.
If this represents socialist “unity” you will remain the laughing stock of the true progressives and radical leftists of Europe. You are foolish little idiots who argue like Bubbes. And I mean that with all due respect for the Bubbes, whose job is to argue so that we little ones know what’s right and wrong (and then we do what we want anyway).
Get out your mirrors. You are shameful creatures.
Comment by thecutter — 23 June, 2007 @ 11:47 am
I’m sure Mark Elf can answer for himself, but before you complain that he’s a socialist, I should check whether he thinks of himself as one. The last thing I ever read by him on the subject, he seemed to think he wasn’t. That shouldn’t stop you pouring out some rage against socialists and politicos if that’s how you feel but I don’t think ME is a legit pretext. Your attempt to use ‘bubbes’ in a sexist way and then to retract it is a wonderful piece of rhetoric, but whoops, Rizzo, whoops.
And there was me thinking that you would be bringing your obvious talents as a translator to the table to adjudicate on whether the aforesaid Hebrew phrase (that may or may not have been used on the aforesaid occasion) could be legitimately translated as ‘Jewish Power’. What a pity. You’re probably angry to share that with us now.
Comment by Michael Rosen — 23 June, 2007 @ 11:54 am
ie ‘too angry’.
Comment by Michael Rosen — 23 June, 2007 @ 11:55 am
Hebrew and Yiddish are not my languages. I don’t know them, so I can’t contribute in any meaningful way to philological debate about them, although I enjoy reading the interventions, because I am learning something about it.
Why is referring the the things Bubbes do sexist? Didn’t you watch the behaviour of Grannies when they get together with other Grannies? It’s not about what behaviour is right or wrong, but defending their families and making a show of it for the whole neighbourhood to hear. I think it’s a fitting metaphor and it comes to mind every time I see these “debates” where it comes down to bringing out the life, death and miracles of the “institutional enemies of the people”…. Could be that you don’t understand the image, can’t do much about that. Maybe you could argue more correctly with “Blow me”.
At any rate, perhaps Elf isn’t a Socialist, but he seems to be awfully concerned about what the SWP does, so I assumed he had some sort of affiliation, even if informal. If he is a conservative or supports Labour, my bad. It still doesn’t change how he behaves on this forum entitled Socialist Unity.
Comment by thecutter — 23 June, 2007 @ 12:02 pm
Another thing about language, Rosen. I am familiar with six languages in my “linguistic groups” (Italian and English native languages) and in a pinch can function even in ones that I’m not fluent in, being able to capture the sense of the meaning. Yet, I would never pretend to assume that I am aware of context of a Portugese phrase since I’ve never been in Portugal, but I can literally interpret it, perhaps not understandig what it would mean to native speakers in their context. These matters are at the core of linguistics, and especially in colloquial idioms. Language does not exist in a vacuum, and if an Israeli is telling you that the usage carries certain baggage, a bit of humility on your part could widen your horizons and you might do well to not be so defensive. Assume once in a while that the experience of others has some value.
But, language is interesting because it is cultural and most especially, geographically connected. The Italian I spoke in Chicago does not fit like a glove on the European hand, and I would venture to guess that a language such as Yiddish, which I heard throughout my childhood, but never spoke, has suffered an even more divergent metamorphosis, in that it is no longer geographically oriented except in Israel and in the communities of the NK or in the kitchens of some of the older women. Therefore, I would tend to assume that those who have heard it used in an Israeli context have a greater handle on the metamorphosis of its meaning, and the “hidden” meanings that come from usage and context, than someone who lives outside of Israel.
Comment by thecutter — 23 June, 2007 @ 12:32 pm
rizzo, nice lecture. ifb you look back at your ‘bubbes’ reference you used it as a demeanung signifier. i’m fully aware of context. i think you’ll find that some israelis find it difficult and even unsavoury pickin up the connotations in anglo and U S contexts. the user of the aforesaid phrase - if he did - is english as i am. i’m all for humility re language. the person who seems least humble about is the person who said that yiddish has no grammar, no etymology and is ‘low’ and has no literature apart from IBS. You would know that all this is silly and tho he won’t listen to a jewish ‘elder’ like me, he might listen to you explain that every language has grammar and etymology, no language is ‘low’ and yiddish does inded hav a literature. but he has another agenda and might not even listen to you on that matter, eh? xcuse errors, i’m on the road again.
re
Comment by Michael Rosen — 23 June, 2007 @ 1:02 pm
#148 Mike Rosen
“I don’t know as much yiddish as I claim to…is in fact…er Hebrew?”
It’s Hebrew, but ‘Koiach’ is also used in Yiddish.
But you were a red-diaper baby, so how would you know?
As I’ve explained, the phrase does not mean “Jewish Power” and is not a “greeting”, contrary to the ill-informed opinions of these self-appointed “experts”.
It’s also totally irrelevant, since the whole topic is a deliberate smear, designed to deflect attention from the practical collaboration of the AtzmoRizzoShamiral triumvirate with jew-baiting racists and holocaust deniers.
The real questions are; what are their real motives and whether the left should have anything to do with them?
Atzmon is entitled to earn a living as a musician, but his politics stink.
Comment by Alex Nichols — 23 June, 2007 @ 1:07 pm
Mr on the road again; glad you liked the “lecture”, too bad you don’t understand the content at all. You asked me to contribute to a philological analysis of two languages I don’t even speak! I repeat, YOU expected this of me. Sorry I responded. Yet, can you understand the absurdity of this, especially when I told you that even languages that I do speak but are not my native tongues hold secrets beyond my comprehension and that a person in intimate contact with it is more to be trusted as to how these expressions are “taken” in their modern or geographic context. It was you expecting something out of me I couldn’t deliver. You have a severe attitude problem and are as touchy as an eel! Try to calm down, and don’t project your anger onto me. I’m as calm as can be, doing my work and breaking concentration by jumping in here now and then for distraction. It’s just a game, this stuff, try to get a handle on that. No one here but us chickens, you can act like a human who respects others and treats them with dignity instead of being so aggressive and defensive!!
The Bubbes reference is beyond your comprehension, and if you want to assign a modern character to a genre of individuals who are representative of a generation, go right ahead, but that does make the world fit into your image of how it is, rather than how it actually is. Perhaps the Bubbes in the UK are Salon Grannies, but I wouldn’t know that. I know the fence, market and kitchen kind. Women’s liberation didn’t get that far, and their domestic kingdom is by and large shared in a cultural way by those in their context. They would be the first to admit this is how they are, and wouldn’t be offended a bit! They might be offended that you, presumably an educated adult male, act like them, but it would stop there.
But let’s move beyond your need to put me down for the Comrades. The “distinction” between a popular language and a language of “culture” should be pretty evident to one and all. I know loads of great stories told in Romanesco, but books written in this language practically don’t exist, and a professor would never lecture in this language, ever. Romanesco is the “family” or “street” language, meant only for those who are part of the group, no one else can get into it, and if they do, it’s not in a genuine way. I extend that reasoning to the question at hand: Yiddish for the person who is not part of the Yiddische welt is probably a similar experience, meaning, it can’t be authentic for that person, but notionistic in a way that those who spoke it may not even identify themselves with, and delegated to a context of jokes, songs, and “the words everyone knows” as you say. If an Israeli is saying that it (Yiddish) coexisted with another language in the same person, they would always opt for German or Polish for the formal, high and cultural contexts and the Yiddish interpreted as “low” in a domestic context. It’s not an opinion, you are free to admit it, this is how it is interpreted by those who speak Ivrit, but have heard Yiddish all their lives, and it is a statement expressing the orientation that Yiddish terms have today, in the context in which they have evolved and in the meanings they have taken over time. Yiddish exists in a certain closed sphere, and if there is someone saying that hearing a Yiddish phrase as it is today and how it is used in Israel, I’d tend to believe this person above you, who hasn’t got the context to make the judgment.
Comment by thecutter — 23 June, 2007 @ 1:28 pm
alex, how do you put me in a triumvirate with someone I have no connection to? It’s completely absurd! Like Elf putting Atzmon in an elite paratroopers unit… Flights of fancy that if you repeat them enough, (thinking that anyway they are somehow meaningful) that makes them true.
Anyway, it is you guys giving me some notoriety. I’m just a humble activist-translator. Why do you waste such energy on me. Get other hobbies.
Comment by thecutter — 23 June, 2007 @ 1:31 pm
…Just to illustrate how their guru Shamiral plays on the theme of “Jewish Power”.
In an essay he wrote called ” A Yiddishe Medina”, he defines the period of 1917-1937 as one of ” Jewish ascendancy in the Soviet Union”?
Look at the dates carefully.
1917 was the year of the February and October revolutions.
1937 was the “Year of Terror” launched by Stalin, that destroyed the remnants of the Bolshevik party and Red Army.
So, Lenin and Trotksy, the old Bolsheviks and the Red Army leaders prior to the great purge are defined as representing “Jewish Ascendancy”.
Or “Jewish Power” to use a rather less creative interpretation of language than has been displayed by the AtzoRizzoShamiralists here.
Draw your own conclusions as to the nature of their politics.
Comment by Alex Nichols — 23 June, 2007 @ 1:32 pm
Just noticed something that slipped past me, and a friend who dropped by (laughing his arse off reading these things) pointed out to me: Elf wrote
“But you do have more articles dictated by Atzmon on your blog than anything by anyone else including yourself.
And did you say something about having explained your petition? So copy and paste here. I’m damned if I’m venturing into the your sewer to see what lies you’ve told there.”
Now, if that’s not an amazing non sequitur, I don’t know what is! He won’t go into the Sewer (my blog) but he knows what’s on it!! even down to the “grainy seventies picture”!!! Now he’s even making my appearance an issue.
Comment by thecutter — 23 June, 2007 @ 2:14 pm
Bassem here, and since Mary is letting me to use her computer now i hope she don’t get mad now for me to paste in the article about Mark Elf that he says he won’t go in to read. I don’t know what is the policy here about printing thing from other sites, but I post it here all the same, this way Mark Elf can save himself from having to go to site by Mary and contaminating him self.
(sElf-)Righteous Jews (sans frontieres)
There is a phrase in Jewish tradition known as “Righteous Gentiles”. Rather than really take notice of the distinctively racist sound of it, in the sleepy Western ear it carries a sort of aura of holiness. Here is a definition taken from Wikipedia, so I am assuming it is pretty standard:
“Righteous gentiles or “Righteous Among the Nations” was a term originally used in Jewish tradition to deal with the concept of non-Jews who were good people. By Jewish tradition, the large set of laws and precepts contained in the Torah, as well as the Talmud and oral law, are only required of Jews, who are regarded as having inherited the obligation from their ancestors who volunteered for the duty. In contrast to the 613 commandments enjoined upon Jews, by Jewish tradition, non-Jews have to follow less detailed ethical principles contained in the Noahide Laws.”
So, using rational logic, we can safely deduce that this automatically assumes that Gentiles (non-Jews) are for some reason not “good people” anyway, and that there should be a sort of categorisation of those who were different from the others and were “good”, thus meriting a label of “righteous Gentiles”. Sounds pretty racist to me, but for the moment, I let the reader reflect upon any possible implications of this.
What this post is about is about those who I would consider the (Self-)Righteous Jews, with the standard definition I found of self-righteous being:
1. Piously sure of one’s own righteousness; moralistic.
2. Exhibiting pious self-assurance.
It’s all about the certainty to be morally in the right, and comparing one’s rightness against the other who obviously couldn’t be right. It uses the terms and techniques of putting the other “in his place” and humiliation of the opponent in a public way, seeking to influence others that this person is bad, dangerous, a plague even, is a standard tool. It is usually very snotty, accusatory and rude. It omits discussion because it has determined a priori the limits, the terms and the subject of discourse, as well as the outcome and position of all the participants in it. I’d say that this category is pretty much the leitmotif of almost all bloggers who put their Jewish identity first, and of almost all of those activists who adopt the label “Anti-Zionist Jews”. I am sure there are exceptions to this category, but they usually don’t do internet activism, so we hear little from them.
Back to our (Self-)Righteous Jews. They can be considered those who have decided to determine the who, what, how of pro-Palestinian activism, and they dictate who is allowed to speak not based on any reflections or information from Palestinian sources in activities to further the cause of redress and justice for an oppressed people fighting for their survival, but more often than not, based primarily on the criterion of what they determine is anti-Semitic. This is the major issue and no other issues will ever take priority. They can be identified especially by their irresistable urge to put the concept of being Jewish first, and other moral considerations are completely left to an arbitrary determination of how well the person who they are “considering” embraces the specialness of being Jewish. The issue is their percieved anti-Semitism metre, which, actually, they are unable to define. I would suggest they carefully read Tony Lerman’s interview, it might teach them a thing or two.
Up for special scrutiny, of course are those who are not Jews, or are no longer Jews or do not identify themselves as Jews because they reject the Nazi racial and racist implications of the Jews as an ethnic group or race that are “different” from others. In my experience with activism, especially that which is almost all written such as that we do on Internet, those who single the individuals out and attempt to smear them, going the time-tested route by labelling them as anti-Semites, without a stitch of evidence, by the way, often consider themselves to be atheists or agnostics. Some are Buddhists and others claim to be simply “secular”, so their Jewishness is not a religious identification, and therefore, where does that leave us in understanding who they believe themselves to be?
They define themselves as a racial and ethnic category, different from others, just in the way that our grandparents rejected Jewishness as a race during the Nazi era!! The fact that they may be parents, handicapped, gay, immigrants, vegetarians, ecologists, arms dealers, poets, Englishmen, opera buffs, doctors, all of this is totally insignificant before the self-categorisation as belonging to “The Jewish People”, even if one’s living situation is more clearly affected following a vegetarian regime than by lighting the candles on Hannukah, and therefore would affect one’s identity in a more indelible way, generally affecting the lives of those with whom they live and work. Obviously, in their minds, they themselves consider themselves part of a separate, special, particular group, that then has to have special, particular, separate treatment by everyone. In their minds, it also gives them a right to smear and defame, not feeling themselves in any way obligated to provide any evidence to support their destructive name-calling and attempts to defile, smear, ruin and obstruct the work one is doing. Being Jewish, in this case is also used as a plastic shield, where one can be spared the smear of being called an anti-Semite (self-hating is still kinda cute, heroic to a lot of them and brings about an idea that the poor person is suffering, has a conscience, rather than that he or she is a racist, monstrous and irrational being. The self-hater can be helped, but the anti-Semite must be banned from discussion, and it is always the self-righteous Jew who is the first to label others in that way, regardless of it being true or false, like an old advert in Italy said, “basta la parola”, The word is enough).
Living with this situation, the self-proclaimed Anti-Zionist Left Secular Jews feel they have a special right to express themselves on Jewish issues, and that others should be silenced. No, not expressing on necessarily religious issues, in fact, they rarely will go there, because as they themselves admit, besides the Neturei Karta, which they see as nutbars for some reason (even though the NK refuses the idea that Jews must “return” to Palestine, and for reasons that are really Jewish, in that they are based in a religious interpretation of the religious texts of the Jewish faith), their primary task is to be ready to defend all Jews of the world against people who they claim peddle anti-Semitism, a political issue, not a religious one, while at the same time, they decide who is allowed to express themselves on almost any issue having to do with Israel-Palestine, the Jewish Lobby, WWII, Zionism and Pan-Arabism and even the Jewish religion. The standard procedure we have seen with Ken Livingstone (get someone to declare he is anti-Semitic and then threaten and punish him, so that he serves as an example for all).
We see it in the Zionist sites and blogs, where you cannot post commentaries that challenge certain racist precepts and statements such as the West Bank Colonist Treppenwitz’s who (self-righteously) teaches his children that Palestinians are dangerous people, even though it breaks his (self-declared and certainly self-righteous) liberal heart. He decided to spam my mailbox with wishes for my violent death under the wheels of the IDF, which I passed on to others to witness. You can read them on Umkahlil’s blog. Judy, the London-based Israel cheerleader deletes the comments that challenge her neanderthal political analysis (“Palestinians are shameless in accepting Welfare from the West, they should get up off their duffs and start working like the rest of us” – failing to notice that it’s Israel that gets the lion’s share of the world’s Welfare.) Lisa Goldberg deletes my comments expressing that she should have reported to the Palestinian police the (alleged) film she (allegedly) saw of an (alleged) Palestinian assassination of an (alleged) collaborator. She gets feisty and calls me a troll for daring to challenge her to treat her own story as something serious. Nevermind that all the Palestinians I know who read it said that what she had quoted was almost impossible (that the man with the gun to his head would shout, “I want to make a last phone call,” and “Mom, I love you!”) When I tell her that it is indeed possible and auspicable to participate in the process of legal justice rather than telling second hand stories that then get embroidered and become urban legends, she sicks her squad on me to insult me as if I was committing some serious crime in calling upon her to act like a civil individual and assume responsablility for the material she claims to be privvy to. I hate to tell her this, but I wasn’t born yesterday, and I know a thing or two about Hasbara, and planted stories are extremely common and seem to convince the pro-Israeli and moderate people without any kind of reflection. Often, they are subsequently demonstrated as manufactured.
Latest in the long series of (Self-)Righteous Jews is Mark Elf. His blog, obviously, only deals with Jewish issues, and that might be why it’s called Jews Sans Frontieres. He is really only interested in Jews, and that is his prerogative. My blog is interested in issues of peace, war and Palestine, it’s called Peacepalestine. I don’t have any problem with him being focussed on Jews, it’s where his interests and affiliations lie and at least he’s open about it. On the Just Peace UK list (famous, among other things, for promoting a picket of Gilad Atzmon and trying to get his act pulled from the SWP summer festival, both efforts dismal failures…. Somehow, most of the promoters just weren’t in town. I think Mark Elf had to leave early to pick up his kid, someone else who promoted it vocally was in Leeds, and others had excuses…. Never before in my life had I heard of leaving a picket before the object of contention was finished,and this event lasted an hour, nor of those who support a picket but do not participate, since a picket demands physical presence, but this doesn’t seem to phase them. I leave the reader to peruse the issue which was vastly covered both in this blog and in Elf’s as well as on the JPUK list.) But, what did someone (Roland Rance) try to do in JPUK for my “offensive” rejection of the protests? Tried to ban me from JPUK by creating a disgusting little poll, failing also in this dismally, because evidence of his accusations of me were obviously not forthcoming. I am generically “bad” and had opinions against the picket that were contrary to the other vocal seven, that should be enough! Off with her head!
So, where does that tie in to Mark Elf? Let’s be specific. Elf states that Engage, a Pro-Israel, anti-Boycott activist group, which he allows to comment on his blog, have moderated his own comments on theirs, (boo hoo and he must mention this in JPUK as a sign of ???what???). I had remarked that I myself was banned by Elf on his blog. Certainly, I can’t be considered pro-Israel. I have promoted Boycotts against Israel and also the Academic one together with Palestinian activists back before the AUT did (see this blog for interventions by Omar Barghouti) by translating the material in Italian and diffusing it, creating awareness and petitions and seeking the intervention of the Europarliamentarians of Italy, two of them committing themselves to spreading the material to their colleagues. I have organised boycotts of Jaffa fruits in my regional supermarkets and other concrete activities that I imagine are at the antipodes of those people of Engage who Elf hosts on his comments without any difficulties. (Why? You ask yourself! It is weird and almost incomprehensible without a leap of rational thought. It might be because I will not bother to discuss my own distancing from all ethnic criteria, -nobody’s business but my own- and my criticism of activists who use their ethnic, religious or national identity as the determining factor of their activism. I have learned that this is something that most of the Anti-Zionist Jews can’t abide, they stress again and again that they act as Jews and that their voice as Jews is what makes them more righteous, a better voice that people should take seriously, they tend to constantly consider the ethnic criteria and part of their activity is to “out” people as not really Jewish or to keep calling people Jewish who themselves say they are not. Defining others on the Jewish plotline is a very important activity, and evidently, there is a method to the madness). How did our Elf respond?
“I banned you for promoting anti-semitism and this list should do so as well but then perhaps they feel you act as a balancer to the likes of Eric Lee and Linda Grant. And since I have banned you I don’t post comments to your blog. My point was that Engage people do still comment on my blog in spite of them banning me from theirs …. I’m not aware of using any info from you., in fact I avoid you like the plague because I think you (with Atzmon, Eisen and Shamir) are the plague.
Hope this clarifies things.”
Well well! “The Plague’s” response was not late in coming:
“Anti Semitism???? Where was I ever anti Semitic or promoting it, and you must be extremely specific since you go around raising such a slur against me.”
Of course, he seems to forget I cued him and Sue Blackwell that the blogger they were praising to the high heavens posted lengthy pieces supporting Shamir and Eisen. I mentioned to him that Eurabia was coined by Oriana Fallaci, I demonstrated that Martin Smith had forwarded me a letter from Moshe Machover declaring the opposite of what was quoted in a comment on Elf’s blog… these comments were deleted, but the information of course was utilised in one way or another. In fact, Blackwell hightailed it to the blog in question to give the blogger a lecture in who is righteous and who is not. Yet, this is an unimportant side issue. Elf has to be consistent and honest with himself, not with me.
I’d like to see how Engage is not racist, how I am anti-Semitic, (of course, he has made further comments on the JPUK board about other arguments, but ignored my post, but I will continue to insist that he provide concrete evidence for his defamatory slur against me, he only has over 6000 posts on JPUK and the other Yahoo groups, 418 blog entries here and the comments on his blog to sort through), and how a group that supports Israel’s “right to exist as a Jewish (exclusivist) State” is fine and dandy with him. He has no problem, evidently, with a group that insists that any activities that are designed to weaken Israel’s stranglehold on Palestinians and their power through peaceful economic means are anathema to them and must be contrasted. They are not the plague, even though their activities enable Israel and they are unabashedly Zionist.
Seems like our self-righteous little Elf has some explaining to do.
Comment by thecutter — 23 June, 2007 @ 2:41 pm
Bassem again, I know Mark Elf wants to read commentary on the petition, but he is going to have to go into the comment areas in the posts that are linked by Mary if he look for it, because why to repeat discussion that is already someplace if he alone want to know and is told where to look? No one at his service here, He has to be responsible for him self and do the work for him self.
I have for him one question. Why does a petition have to be explained? If you like it you sign on it, if you don’t, you don’t sign on it! It is a matter of personal freedom and no one force any one to sign what they don’t like. Is simple, no? It was not a petition against any one, not like the one against the people Mark Elf don’t like that got 170 to sign, and then Anis and others ask off of it, but at that time, the petition was already disappeared! THAT was a petition against other people. The PATP one, which in PalSolidarietà in Italy was appreciated by all and all new members sign it because they agree to it, was a good petition. You don’t like it? And so what. No one force you to. And, I know Mary, she didn’t expect signing from the gate keepers, because why would they always be fighting her if they agreed with her? You don’t need worry! She don’t want your signature, it means nothing to her. But to put down all who sign it as nazi and racist anti-semites is very bad and you paint all people you don’t agree with with same paintbrush. We will get our freedom without your help.
Comment by thecutter — 23 June, 2007 @ 2:56 pm
http://jonrogers1963.blogspot.com/
See: Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Comment by Alex Nichols — 23 June, 2007 @ 3:33 pm
A word or two about yiddish which Yocheved-Atzmon defines as a low culture. Does “low” here mean what I think it means? ie working class. Because there is no doubt that the height of Yiddish cultural expression - newspapers books, theatre, film was when the majority of the world’s jewish community spoke yiddish, mostly as a first language.
Many of the great Yiddish writers and poets,from working class backgrounds, used Yiddish newspapers, of which there were plenty, to get theroe early works in print. In inter-war Poland where the Zionists did their best to atttack Yiddish as a low language, (and no doubt Atzmon-Yocheved) woudl cheer them on, the anti-Zionist Bund brought out a daily newspaper.
The Bund was also the main force in running a system of Yiddish libraries through the kultur-lige. they were opposed by the Zionists and also by the “torah jews” the only kind of jews apart from himself that Atzmon appreciates. (or is he an ex-jew? - I can’ty say that without thinking of the python sketch…)
If anyone is truly interested in the cultural output historically in Yiddish you could contact YIVO the Yiddish institute which moved from Eastern Europe to New York,after the majority of yiddish speakers in the world were wiped out by the Nazis (though admittedly, Yocheved-Atzmon’s close associate Paul Eisen might dispute the latter point).
What is worse that ignorant Zionists running down Yiddish culture? Those who purport to oppose Zionism but seem to share every bit of its cultural and class critique of yiddish, of working class diaspora culture, (though they don’t mind making the odd bob or two taking and reworking its musical creativity).
What also grates is the narrwoness of their understanding of language - always with Hebrew/Zion at the centre in trying to understand jewish languages.
Yiddish is around a thousand years old and incorporates various bits of biblical hebrew - though meanings change when they are used in yiddish. For example, molekhamoves means “angel of death” in biblical hebrew. In modern Yiddish it means “machine gun”.
Alex Nichols is completely right about “yishar koekh”, whcih in modern Yiddish is usually pronounced sh’koekh and as the classic Yiddish English dictionary (Uriel Weinreich) translates: “appreciation”, “thanks” “well done” “more power to you”.
Rosen, you lobbes, how can you live politically with having appeared with a band whose name means…”well done”?
And just to correct one of many smears, Julia Bard and myself are often attacked in the jewish community for arguing and writing AGAINST the practice of circumcision - a postion we came to after our sons were circumcised - but a position we have argued consistently since Julia wrote an article in Jewish socailist in 1989 called “Circumcision: tradition or coercion? ”
The intro says: …for many parents and newborn babies the reality is traumatic. Now is the time to break the silence and resist coercion.”
If it’s not too personal a question, Gilad, are you circumcised and if so do you consider your parents jewish supremacists, racists and jewish power freaks for letting this happen and not questioning it?
Comment by David Rosenberg — 23 June, 2007 @ 3:38 pm
#166 “Many of the great Yiddish writers and poets,from working class backgrounds..”
Well, they actually aren’t even following the Stalin line on this one.
Here’s a little ditty in Yiddish from the time of the Soviet purges:
(A Mother in dialogue with her son, regarding a proposed marriage, where the CPSU is the shiddach-makker.)
“Ver vet dich unter der chupe firn zuzenu?
-Der gantster Komsomol, mamenu.
Oy, ver vet dich bentshn, zuzenu?
-Oy, Stalin mit Kalininen mamenu.”
It kinda makes you wanna heave….
Comment by Alex Nichols — 23 June, 2007 @ 4:08 pm
How dare you, Nichols?! Yes, I am a Red diaper babe but that didn’t mean that I wasn’t inducted into the filthy low ways of yiddish phrases, songs etc. No one has yet commented on what might be called the Bakhtin approach to culture, which celebrates the carnivalesque, physical, rabelaisian side of culture in response to ‘high’ culture’s attempts to burden the body and ‘low’ life with guilt and shame. Bakhtin called it subversive laughter, noting the medieval popular culture that had mock rituals on altars at the time of the ‘Festival of Fools’ and/or the election of Lords of Misrule at Carnival time, Mardi Gras debunking, debagging etc. I love the way Atzmon turns out Puritan hostility towards this subversive laughter. No matter. Blow that thing, man.
Comment by Michael Rosen — 23 June, 2007 @ 5:02 pm
Rosenberg, I have learnt the error of my ways. I am full of guilt and shame as directed by the saxophonist who knows all. Why rub my nose in it?
Comment by Michael Rosen — 23 June, 2007 @ 5:09 pm
sh’koekh Rosen!
Comment by David Rosenberg — 23 June, 2007 @ 5:50 pm
Since I don’t want to take anything as a given, and am open to arguments by anyone who has more knowledge about a subject than I do, I took a look at what David Rosenberg writes on Yiddish.
David writes: A word or two about yiddish which Yocheved-Atzmon defines as a low culture. Does “low” here mean what I think it means? ie working class. Because there is no doubt that the height of Yiddish cultural expression - newspapers books, theatre, film was when the majority of the world’s jewish community spoke yiddish, mostly as a first language.”
thecutter: Actually, most Yiddish speakers spoke the language of their country as well, and some of them as their first language, especially in urban areas.
Films???? What films are you talking about? Where are these Yiddish films? I don’t remember ever hearing of any, can you enlighten us? Books were generally not even translated into that language, so I wonder what kind of literary tradition, libraries, etc., there were. Wondering out loud. I am sure there were books printed, but I don’t know if the most important Jewish people of the day chose to express themselves as writers in novels, or rather if they wrote in the other languages in Europe with a literary tradition. I’m thinking of Kafka, as a particularly interesting example, as he didn’t even write in Bohemian, but rather in German….
Think about Borochov, the great Philologist of Yiddish if you don’t seem to still get my drift — taken from a ten second search:
Borochov’s orientation to the land of Israel and the heritage of the Jewish people were embedded in his childhood experiences. When he was eleven years old he tried to run away from home and go on Aliya to Palestine. He was caught and returned. However, young Borochov did not get a basic Hebrew education.
Borochov attended the government Gymnasium (high school). He did not know enough Hebrew to write in it, and though he later became one of the greatest researchers of the Yiddish language, he did not know it well as a youth. http://www.zionism-israel.com/bio/ber_borochov_biography.htm
If you then want to say that Yiddish was a first language of let’s say AT LEAST a philologist of the language, if we want to go for the creme de la creme of the literary elite, I wonder what it is that makes you so convinced. I’m sure not that convinced.
David: “Many of the great Yiddish writers and poets,from working class backgrounds,”
Thecutter: Now,this has to be one of the most absurd claims ever made. What kind of working class background are you talking about?? Given the structure of societies in Eastern Europe, Jews were not metalworkers, factory labourers, etc. In fact, they were almost entirely restricted to small commerce and small tradecraft (artisans). I mean, not quite the industrial proletariat!!! They did not belong to the “working class” and in fact, Zionism was good at attempting to create a “working class Jew”, because there really wasn’t such a thing. The Bund, which failed largely because Lenin was opposed to them and the Bolsheviks rejected them. Perhaps they could not integrate working class values into a class of people that was NOT working class.
David: “The Bund was also the main force in running a system of Yiddish libraries through the kultur-lige.”
thecutter: great, the Bund, an “internationalist” group contributes to culture, but it does strike one as odd, if nothing else, to heighten a uniquely Yiddish, non universalist spreading of culture when at the same time the rest of the Working Class organisations in the world, (for better or for - probably - worse) were talking about Cultural Revolution that would create a universal world man, united in class and not race. But anyway, this is just a comment on the difference between them and other labour unions of the day.
David:”What is worse that ignorant Zionists running down Yiddish culture? Those who purport to oppose Zionism but seem to share every bit of its cultural and class critique of yiddish, of working class diaspora culture,”
thecutter: perhaps you should reassess if yiddish speakers were classified as you claim, or if there really was a working class Jewish diaspora culture.I believe even your pal Greenstein would view this in a similar way, but would be loathe to admit it.
david: “Alex Nichols is completely right about “yishar koekh”, whcih in modern Yiddish is usually pronounced sh’koekh and as the classic Yiddish English dictionary (Uriel Weinreich) translates: “appreciation”, “thanks” “well done” “more power to you”.”
thecutter: fine, but then, why is it not ever used with gentiles? EVER. Think about it for a moment. I believe this was Yocheved’s point, that it’s not like Shalom, Mazel Tov, La Chaim… it is something that is reserved for a restricted group, and if it indeed is so, one can imagine that it might be loaded. I am not saying either one of you are wrong or right, but that this is a good and valid point for thinking.
David (on his wife’s article about ritual circumcision)”The intro says: …for many parents and newborn babies the reality is traumatic. Now is the time to break the silence and resist coercion.”
thecutter: great and yishar koekh.
David: “If it’s not too personal a question, Gilad, are you circumcised and if so do you consider your parents jewish supremacists, racists and jewish power freaks for letting this happen and not questioning it?”
thecutter: He’s written that he’s circumcised. It’s in the public (almost wrote pubic…) domain, because he chose for it to be, but I think you wrote about your children’s Brit Mila, telling the world about it. But, let’s be honest, it doesn’t matter whether or not he was circumcised, and at 8 days, I don’t think he was even able to make a decision on his own over the matter. What is instead more relevant is if he made the choice to circumcise his own son, which he did not do. This should be where the question you ask is directed.
Comment by thecutter — 23 June, 2007 @ 6:21 pm
For example, molekhamoves means “angel of death” in biblical hebrew. In modern Yiddish it means “machine gun”.
That’s mildly interesting (which isn’t faint praise by the standard of most of this thread). I remember a witness in Shoah saying he’d heard this phrase used by a crowd of people about to be ’sorted’; he saw this as a sign that some of them guessed what was happening, but he translated the actual phrase as ‘angel of death’. I wonder if the guy just hadn’t caught up with the more literal modern meaning, perhaps because his Hebrew was better than his Yiddish.
Comment by Phil — 23 June, 2007 @ 7:03 pm
haven’t got too much time to answer all of this and going out soon so just a few points:
The jews were among the most urbanised groups filling the factories in Russia’s industrialisation (especially boot and shoe factories, cigarette factories, clothing factories etc.)
In 1905, the reason why the Bund was many times bigger than the Bolsheviks, whas not just because the Bolshevks were keener to recruit middle class intellectuals but because the Bund had a working class base.
In inter war Poland the metalworkers were a significant part of the union movement that the Bund organised in - so where you get the idea there were no Jewish metalworkers…you’ve been reading too much Borochov. Of course it was the case that in Tsarist Russia and in inter-war Poland Jews impoverished jews were excluded from very many occupations. One of the Bund’s biggest struggles which it worked very closely with the left wingof the Polish Socialist party (PPS) on was economic discrminiation. In areas where they could get elected to coucils inthe 1920s and 30s they were able to break down some of these barriers of discrimination.
Indeed there was a lot of cooperation between the Bund and the left wing of the PPS as they shared the same universalistic anti-nationalist values and had similar political priorities.
Yiddish films were made especially in the 1920s and 30s in America and Poland.
Certainly some of the bourgois Jewish writers chose to write in languages other than Yiddish but there was a wealth of Yiddish litrerature. Writing continued even under the nazi ghettos - especially among the Yiddish Young Poets movement in the Vilna ghetto. You may appreciate why it wasn’t so easy to get a universalist audience for their writing at the time.
Interestingly there was a Yiddish writers union with its own building in Palestine (made up of non-Zionist Yiddish speaking refugees), and one of the early actions of the new-born Israeli state was to encourage mob violence to evict them after which the building became home to the Hebrew Writers Union.
I think the arguments over sh’koekh are really too silly to bother with any further comment.
The points about circumcision have been particularly unpleasant. Although Julia wrote about our own experience in passing in the context of her 1989 article the recent concetration on this was because of a mistaken statement the Jewish Chronicle wrote (which they corrcted a week later) but Atzmon ran with the incorrect version.
The Jewish Chronicle approached us for an interview - we were very skeptical about it. As we predicted, they twisted various things we said to fit their agendas. We hadn’t talked about circumcision until near the end when we were talking about controversies in our magazine and when we said that athough we had circumscised our sons, we regretted it and would not do the same if we had another son, the JC wrote exactly the opposite and unwittingly or not Atzmon colluded with this lie.
The question I was asking about Atzmon’s circumcision is whether he throws the same insults around at his family for allowing him to be circumcised as he throws at us. I mean, it’s not as if I was asking him to admit to once being a Zionist paratrooper or anything like that.
Comment by David Rosenberg — 23 June, 2007 @ 7:35 pm
thanks for answering in a civil way, David. I too have got no time, but if some time comes up, I’ll get back to what you’ve written. I don’t really agree with much of it, but it’s at least pleasant to read a response that is focused on content and not insult.
Comment by thecutter — 23 June, 2007 @ 8:03 pm
Elf, Mary can type in more languages than you have brain cells. Most importantly, her blog is devoted to the Palestinians, where as yours narcissistically obsesses on any topic as long as it involves the Jews… ‘egotism sans frontiers’
MElf: you repeat over and over “chicken soup” “gefilte fish.” That’s not debate Mary, at best it’s placing orders in a kosher restaurant, at worst its racist stereotyping.
How I wish we could point to the great Yiddish operas, composers & Philophers but sadly we are left with the gefilte fish. There is no coherent agenda among anyone on here in terms of what it might be that constitutes Jewishness. All you can do is point to a dialect you don’t speak, a nation state you don’t (explicitly) support, a religion you don’t believe in & a Diaspora that doesn’t even share the same DNA…. I’m lost. Remind me again, why did poor Rueben get Chopskied? What is this ‘As a Jew-ishness’ referring to?
Rosenberg talks about ‘peoplehood’, Andy talks about ‘cultural signifiers’ & Mark Elf consults his thesaurus for the billionth time & comes up with the words (wait for it) buffoon & racist! Well done Mark, the flights of your imagination are dazzling….
Catastrophically, for you, all you can agree on that is definitely ‘Jewish’ is the bagel & even that’s full of holes.
Comment by Sarah — 23 June, 2007 @ 8:12 pm
David, you can go on ‘proving’ as much as you like but these folks won’t have it. You can point to the ‘Yiddish renaissance’, Aleichem, anyone. It won’t make any difference. They have an agenda. They are intent on proving that there is no such thing as Jewish apart from the Jewish that they want to say exists, which is ‘Jewish Power’ of the zio-neo-con variety. There is therefore a question which might be asked, why the energy spent on trying to metaphorically eliminate something of the past? Why distort a multicultural music and poetry event into some kind of exclusivist Jewfest? What’s the politics of it all? Where does it take us along the road to universal liberation, freedom, equality etc?
Comment by Michael Rosen — 23 June, 2007 @ 8:29 pm
No, Rosen. I don’t have any agenda of the sort. It has nothing to do with Palestinian (or even Jewish) liberation, as far as I can see it, so I just don’t get into it too much. I simply believe that it is hard to be genuine when what you are passing off as genuine is actually a lampoon of something that is not yours to begin with, because you are decontexualising it and emphasising the “colour” qualities of it. Like someone saying Oy oy after every sentence or something, some of the crap “old country” plays I saw years ago where the actors didn’t know Yiddish very much but knew that was when they’d get “the laugh”. Same effect. This was one of the points of Artie Fishel (Gilad Atzmon’s recent musical persona). And, if we are talking about “universal”, well, you simply can’t use Yiddish as the example of it, as it was anything but, or do you happen to know even one gentile who speaks it? It was a unique, limited, restricted idiom linked to a particular group of people, some of them actually very spiritual. But, you strip the spiritual element, fine, you are left with something else. If you are doing a performance that is using it in jokes and popular stories, fine, but don’t pass it off as something universal, or even political. Where is this universal message? Is anyone outside of the restricted group able to comprehend it?
Comment by thecutter — 23 June, 2007 @ 8:57 pm
So that makes it like Welsh, Basque, Occitan, Caribbean ‘nation language’ etc etc etc. So what? As it happens I know two gentiles who can speak it, one a prof of Germanic studies who interviewed for a series on European languages that I’ve been presenting on Radio 3 and the other a Polish researcher based in Warsaw. But again, so what? And anyways, of course I wasn’t claiming that Yiddish should be some kind of lingua franca for the universal, but that dialects and creoles aren’t an obstacle for universalist ideas. However, sneering at and denigrating them is!
Comment by Michael Rosen — 23 June, 2007 @ 9:23 pm
hey, Rosen, you simply either choose to misunderstand me, or you choose to misinterpret me, but ya got a bone to pick and that’s your ticket. No one is stopping you, but at least realise what you are on about. I adore languages. I’ve said all of them are good. Here. on this thread. sheesh. I founded a translations collective that unites 85 activists working in altogether 19 languages, including Basque, so debating ME on them being valid languages is idiotic. We believe that we can bring thoughts from every place to every language group in their own language. Translating IN is just as vital and necessary as translating OUT, and this is something that in the Yiddish world was simply not done very much, if you have to wait until the 20s for some Shakespeare, and probably just Merchant of Venice at that.
And then I am interested in the comments that David made, that really don’t seem sound to me. Especially when he repeats the idea that Yiddish was the first language of everyone. I just don’t think this is the case AT ALL, if so many chose to write in other languages, if there was no way to share other cultures with those who ONLY spoke that language, in the lack of translations of important texts, the horizons were going to remain those of the popular experience.
I am debating the idea of people pushing a language off as their own authentic culture it isn’t really, it was a second or third language even for one of its greatest philologists, so I think that might be representative of just how common knowing two languages was, and how there were certain “areas” of language use that we can’t even relate to, if we are operating from a stereotyped idea of the culture that spoke it, and of their values and lifestyle.
Jews were by and large not proletariats, and I doubt many of you are or even that your parents were, and probably that most of your friends and relatives have no one in the family who has ever seen a factory floor. Hey, it’s not a problem, it’s pretty much the standard thing.
The “inverted pyramid” construct is pretty sound today, as it was in Europe when Yiddish was spoken here, given the conditions, if you ask me. (If this is the case, the life that yiddish represents is not “universal” (you were claiming that this is what it’s all about… “that dialects and creoles aren’t an obstacle for universalist ideas.”, although they might also be, in reality, if one looks at evidence) and besides, people shouldn’t use it as a political argument. What is political about it nowadays? Well it might be political, but it isn’t socialist and it can’t be international.
and that brings me to the idea that someone’s ethnic or cultural identity is his thing, but it has no greater “leverage” or as Greenstein said somewhere, it gives greater authority and “strengthens the argument”, for issues having to do with Palestinian liberation struggles, I find that frankly ridiculous.
Comment by thecutter — 23 June, 2007 @ 10:10 pm
# 178 The whole argument about “universal” languages is elitist anyway.
So far, no language in history has been univeral and those which have acquired widespread usage have done so through conquest and trade: Greek, Latin, Arabic, Spanish and English.
Yiddish is one of the only languages that had speakers across national boundaries in Central and Eastern Europe, one of the reasons for the high proportion of internationalists amongst the Jewish population there. As someone once said, ‘Yiddish never had an army and navy’.
While I don’t think the social conditions exist for reviving Yiddish on that scale, I won’t join in the deeply misinformed denigration of Yiddish here.
Nor was it the position of Marxists to do so, even under Stalin, until the crackdown on the Jewish Anti-Fascist Commitee and execution of Solomon Mikhoels after WW2.
The very widespread Yiddish literature from the 19th century onwards is well documented and includes a great deal of socialist and trade union material.
Rather like the languages of the opressed nations in the Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian empires, it was the development of nationalism which spurred the development of modern idioms, literary movements and a press. But it’s also the case that German was widely spoken by the intelligensia throughout much of the region.
By the way, it’s not true either that Hebrew and Yiddish are the only languages to have survived because of their links to liturgical use. That’s also true of Welsh. Without a literate class, vocabulary and grammar don’t get codified. The literate class engaged in this prior to the 19th century would have been from the clergy. So, without knowing any Welsh, I would predict that there are expressions in Welsh which derive from Biblical vocabulary, or Chapel usage, which have transmuted into everyday modern use. Clearly there is a symbiosis between popular idioms and literary formalism too.
There’s no doubt that Welsh would have gone the way of Cornish, had the bible not been translated into the Welsh language.
In Cornwall and Devon, the “Prayer Book rebellion” was caused by the attempt to impose an English speaking bible in church services.
Lacking a Cornish translation, the rebels defended the Latin bible. When it failed, the Cornish language began a process of terminal decline as a living language.
There were clear class dimensions to the rebellion, since it attempted to link up with peasant rebels in Kent, who had grievances stemming from land clearances and the poll taxes.
Which tends to show that the solution to the issues of national opression and language rights is rarely possible without dealing with class exploitation too.
Comment by Alex Nichols — 23 June, 2007 @ 11:27 pm
thecutter - “you simply either choose to misunderstand me, or you choose to misinterpret me”
This from someone who hosts incitements to the hatred of named Jews, for being Jews, by way of doctored quotes. That’s not misunderstanding by you or by Atzmon et al, it’s deliberate falsehood. And besides you can’t even explain a dishonest petition you authored so don’t plead for understanding. You don’t understand yourself.
I’m so glad you’re not involved in the boycott Israel campaign Mary. Like Engage, you’re more interested in campaigning against principled ant-zionists. Thankfully it shows.
Anyway, if Tony Greenstein is saying what you attribute to him, that is a matter for him. But Jews are entitled, as Jews, to campaign against zionism and there are many reasons for us to do so. We do not seek to validate our arguments by reference to our being Jews (as you and David Aaronovitch claim) but to invalidate zionist arguments. It’s kind of pointless saying that to someone like you or Atzmon because your own antisemitism seems designed to validate the zionists’ bogus complaint that anti-zionism is antisemitism. Jews against zionism ought to be evidence that that isn’t so. Unfortunately because Atzmon and you couldn’t stand certain Jews speaking out against antisemitism in the Palestine solidarity movement, Jewish activists became a target for your antisemitism which is all a bit of a distraction from the main cause as well as ammunition for the zionists. But we are involved in the main cause and we don’t give it the bad name that you seem determined to give it.
I remember when Roland Rance asked an Israeli activist to join Jews against zionism, the guy asked, “why Jews against zionism? why not people against zionism?” It’s a good question and one I have asked many times but it’s a question Mary, just a question. You have elevated it to an obsession. Move on. There are Jews against zionism and that’s that. You don’t like it, Atzmon doesn’t like it, Engage doesn’t like it either. But it’s a fact. Get over it.
Comment by Mark Elf — 23 June, 2007 @ 11:29 pm
Elf, who said I’m not involved in the Boycott Israel campaign?! I said I AM dozens of times!!! I work with PACBI, Badil and Palestinian BSD campaign as well as promote it in Italy through Al Awda and the three Palestinian-Italian organisations I work with, as well as translate on it all the time for Tlaxcala. I mean, what are you fucking on about once and for all!? Time you learn to read. And again, just find anti-semitic things I have written, that’s all you have to do. PRINT THEM OUT, COPY THEM, MAKE THEM KNOWN!!! Unless you do that, you can’t go on calling me anti-semitic. It makes no sense except in your own warped little world.
But still, to invalidate Zionist arguments using a Zionist argument simply strikes me as inconsistent. And, you have to learn to start to respect the opinions of others, your behaviour is really so thoroughly unbecoming.
Comment by thecutter — 23 June, 2007 @ 11:59 pm
It’s interesting to see more and more daylight between Rizzo and Atzmon. Of course trillions of people are bi and tri lingual and always have been. This neither proves nor refutes any of the arguments here. People speak a ‘minority’ language when it suits them and a ‘national’ language sometime else. Rizzo still hasn’t said quite why she and Atzmon should have such a preoccupation in trying to prove that anyone who is interested and/or enjoys bits of Yiddish, reading about Yiddish is worthy of contempt. Are people of Caribbean origin who are interested in eg African retentions in patois similarly worthy of contempt, or educated Italians who are interested in Italian regional languages? And what is the vested interest in trying to prove that, say, Paul Kriyaczek’s book ‘Yiddish Civilisation’ would be, in your and the saxophonist’s terms, an oxymoron?
Comment by Michael Rosen — 24 June, 2007 @ 2:07 am
By the way, if you’re counting Jewish proletarians, pretty well all my grandparents worked in various kinds of clothing factories but again, so what? Is Tony Benn less able to fight for equality because he comes from the liberal aristocracy? Are we witnessing the production of a league table of who is the most historically valid oppression-fighting cultural group with Rizzo and Atzmon ‘proving’ that the Jews are bottom of the table as the least valid, or something?
Comment by Michael Rosen — 24 June, 2007 @ 2:13 am
I doubt that anyone could find anything anti-semitic that you’ve written, rizzo. You’re absolutely right. You might one day scratch your head and wonder why you’ve thought it OK to have Rowan Berkeley come to your website, not once, but countless times to make claims about jews (eg that they started two world wars and were going to start another) over and over again. This goes on in the context of discussions about how every jew (left, right, religious, secular etc) is implicated and inseparable from something called ‘Jewish Power’, that any attempt to counter this idea is hailed as behaviour akin to the ‘Elders’ of the ‘Protocols of the Elder of Zion’, alongside a particular sneering, distorting rhetoric about ‘exclusiveness’ and chauvinism of the jews in the pro-Palestinian movement, whereas my acquaintance with anti-zionist jews is that most of them/us work over and over again in intercultural contexts, in cooperation with anti-racists of all kinds and backgrounds and the ‘jewishness’ issue is primarily one of challenging the hegemony of diaspora zionism, rather than some kind of jewish jingoism.
To keep claiming that it is chauvinism etc in such a persistent, tireless way suggests to me something much, much more obsessive and suspect than a few peoople meeting up and exchanging yiddishisms. An example of the distorting nature of this obsession is the dialogue that is played out above which began with me being accused of playing with a group called ‘Jewish Power’ - which, now we’ve sorted it out, is nothing less than a lie. (reminder: i played in a multi-cultural poetry event, with musical interludes by two musicians, one of whom plays in a bigger band the name of which cannot reasonably by any stretch of the imagination be translated as ‘Jewish Power’. The band itself, by the way, I seem to remember from what the fiddle player told me, doesn’t even have a majority of people of jewish origin in it and something in the back of my mind tells me that the reason why the band’s name was chosen was something to do with what he thought that people used to say on celebratory occasions when the band’s kind of music was being played which is why I thought the name translated as ‘let’s celebrate’! For other legit translations, see above.)
The intention of such smears, exaggerations and lies is that the likes of me are accused of being inseparably linked to zionism, sucked into it against our best intentions. The irony here being that it’s the likes of me (and, more importantly, others much more active than me) who are singled out for particular hate and loathing by a journal like the Jewish Chronicle (see its recent highlighting and targeting of Jewish academics involved in the boycott.)
Comment by Michael Rosen — 24 June, 2007 @ 8:42 am
Mary (thecutter) - having an antisemite like Atzmon deliberately doctor the writings of named Jews to redefine zionism to include anti-zionist Jews is an incitement to the hatred of those Jews and simply for being Jews. Being an anti-zionist Jew does not validate any zionist argument. You are simply rambling to hang in there. You can say what you like on the your own racist sewer site and have your own band of medieval Christian cultist trolls support you and each other no matter what you (or they) say. Venture out of the sewer and your neo-nazi troll squad won’t keep be able to keep up. How many sites do you want them to bookmark? You remember asking people on your site to harrass me on mine. How many answered the call? And if they decide to follow any call to here, that will merely act as further exposure. And you said the poet was cornered.
Crawl back into your own sewer now Mary. Atzmon/Yocheved seems to have given up. You do the same. Perhaps both of you should ask for some space on the Socialist Workers Party’s site. You listed various conspiracy sites where you and Atzmon get published and where your Jewish targets don’t get rights of reply but neither of you have written for Socialist Worker, unless you count Atzmon’s ludicrous assertion that Jews against zionism are a “powerful lobby.”
Someone recently told me that you might actually be decent yourself but that you had inadvertently cut certain antisemites - like Atzmon et al - too much slack and now you can’t lose face by denouncing them or renouncing your association. Atzmon is fond of saying to Jews that it’s never to late to join humanity - though what makes him humanity’s gatekeeper, I don’t know. But taking his point, you could always consider what you have allowed him to and others to write and run a few corrections. You might feel better for it. It’s impossible to tell how someone feels on line though I’ve seen a few of your trolls attribute feelings to others but I think you come across as bitter and twisted and it may well be that you have found yourself following Atzmon too closely into the sewer.
I remember thinking he was wonderful until I started to notice that his points about Jews generally were getting a bit too, well, general. I wrote to him about this from an old aol account (I don’t think I have copies) and he wrote back to me making it clear that he thought that all secular Jews were bad news and that he “loves” Neturei Karta,” the most reactionary. Couple this with his doctoring of Michael Rosen’s writing to make it look like Michael is anti-assimilation when Neturei Karta have a whole anti-assimilation theology and there is a glaring inconsistency there. But take it with the sheer dishonesty and we are looking at an intolerance towards an ethnic identity that is accurately described as racist, or more specifically antisemitic. If I’m right and you are indeed bitter and twisted then it could be because you are following this guy a little too closely without following what he is actually saying and when you accuse others of ad hominem attacks you are actually inverting your own ad hominem defence of the indefensible. Just a thought.
Comment by Mark Elf — 24 June, 2007 @ 9:10 am
This (below) is what the targeting of boycotters means on the ground (while rizzo and atzmon sneer and carp at jewish antizionists some of whom are laying their livelihoods on the line). Time to stop the attacks, rizzo and atzmon, or it’ll become ever more obvious which side your attacks benefit.
This is taken from a post on Harry’s Place today:
“A list of boycott supporters and agitators should be drawn up and published. They should be individually targetted. If any are invited to universities or conferences, a campaign to disinvite them should be launched. Those who collaborate with them should be added to subsidiary lists. They should be constantly scrutinized for discriminatory actions against Israeli students and Jewish students. If they commit such, they should be pursued via the lawcourts and other institutions of authority.
Most effective, though, will be action to reduce and stop funding for the institutions or departments where they work. A few years ago, boycott and sanction advocating dons from one of the most illustrious Cambridge Colleges returned home from a US fund-raising trip with their tails between their legs, because most invited potential donors had been told about their anti-Israeli activities and just didn’t give them anything. We haven’t heard any more anti-Israel tirades and threats from that particular high table since.”
Comment by Michael Rosen — 24 June, 2007 @ 9:31 am
You might one day scratch your head and wonder why you’ve thought it OK to have Rowan Berkeley come to your website, not once, but countless times to make claims about jews.
Sarah: Mary should not be scratching herself on her head but patting herself on the back. Unlike wannabe Fuhrer, Mark Elf who deletes anyone he disagrees with, Mary permits views she doesn’t endorse to be expressed on her blog, even (& this is what bothers you) if they scrutinize history in a way that is not sanctioned by the ‘Yiddish Mafioso’
Comment by Sarah — 24 June, 2007 @ 11:37 am
Rosen:There are Jews against zionism and that’s that. You don’t like it, Atzmon doesn’t like it, Engage doesn’t like it either. But it’s a fact. Get over it.
S: It’s far from being a ‘fact’ because none of you can articulate what it is what makes you Jewish.
Comment by Sarah — 24 June, 2007 @ 11:40 am
Enough has been written above by Atzmon and his supporters to establish the original claim, that they are hate-filled antisemitic bigots. Sarah Gillespie’s reference above to the “Yiddish Mafioso” is the latest (but not the crassest) evidence of this. These people have their own sites, which they are free to fill at will with their unpleasant sneers and bile; now they seem intent on colonising other sites, and preventing any genuine discussion of the issues by diverting the debate along their own lines.
At least, though, they have written enough to convict themselves in their own words. I doubt very much whether any regular reader of the Socialist Unity site has had their views changed by any of this, except to understand that what some of us have long claimed about these bigots is indeed true.
Comment by Roland Rance — 24 June, 2007 @ 12:25 pm
Rosen: Rizzo still hasn’t said quite why she and Atzmon should have such a preoccupation in trying to prove that anyone who is interested and/or enjoys bits of Yiddish, reading about Yiddish is worthy of contempt.
Sarah: Nonsense, I think you know by now that enjoying Yiddish is not a crime, but speaking on behalf on the Palestinians ‘as someone who enjoys a bit of Yiddish’ probably should be.
However, I own a book my mother ordered for me years ago from the Guardian called ‘Found Treasures, stories by Yiddish Women Writers.’ I have never read it, but now, glancing through it now I am absoltey staggered by the orgy of self pity savagery that passes as folk-law. ‘Jazal & the Purim Player’ for example, tells the tale of a young heroine living in occupied Palestine who is so seized by grief that she dresses her kitchen broom up in Arab costume so that she can cathartically beat the shit out of it.
The last para reads ‘she vented her rage upon the broom which still stood alit in its Arab clothing. She beat her anger into it so fiercely that it fell over like a living thing beaten to a pulp lying face down on the ground. Jazel cried out, “So will all the enemies of Israel lie at my feet!”
And this is showcased as an ‘anthology of prose retrieving the lost worlds of our foremothers written in Yiddish: the language at the cultural core of European Jewry.’
Comment by Sarah — 24 June, 2007 @ 12:27 pm
Sarah - if you are Sarah Gillespie then both you and Atzmon have lied to incite people against Jewish anti-zionists for being Jews. Mary Rizzo has never expressed disagreement with you for lying. In fact she said on my blog that neither of you have lied on her blog. In your case you lied in the comments to say that Michael Rosen had said that he is against the Palestinians having the right to vote. Using a similar tactic Atzmon doctored Michael Rosen’s comment to make out that he is anti-assimilation. He has also lied about how he came to be in dispute with various activists on the Just Peace UK list.
I do not delete comments that I simply disagree with. I delete deliberate lies and racism and time wasting stupidness unless it serves to act as a self-exposé of those who leave the comments. Twice I caught you posting to my blog using stereotypically Jewish names to make out that zionists are in agreement with Deborah Maccoby and me in our principled and honest condemnation of Atzmon’s antisemitism. I exposed it in a post to my blog and Mary Rizzo panicked and came along with a lecture to me on netiquette - not that she agrees with your antisemitic nonsense or anything. I delete your comments now without even bothering to read them so I wouldn’t know if I agree or disagree with them. I actually thought you were posing as Aisha above but I’m not that interested so no need to confirm or deny. But by your ludicrous insulting antics complete with bogus IDs - that’s you and Yocheved/Atzmon - you make reasoned debate impossible and you do so deliberately. That too is a form of censorship and the racism that motivates it gives you far more in common with a furher than me.
But you carry on commenting here. This site may not get many hits but its visitors will mostly be leftists who need to see just what it is that the SWP is giving credibility to when it hosts Gilad Atzmon/Yocheved.
Roland Rance is absolutely right about you and your cohorts’ comments on this site. On Peace Palestine they may be extremely unpleasant, even upsetting, for people who think they can come and reason with any of you only to suffer torrents of anti-semitic, indeed nazi-type, abuse. But here you, Atzmon and Rizzo simply expose yourselves to an audience a tad more enlightened than the cult around Peace Palestine. And now Mary wants to back peddle to make out she’s only being libertarian. That doesn’t quite tally with some of her own Der Sturmer style posting complete with anti-semitic stereotypes of Michael Rosen, Deborah Maccoby and me and no doubt others too.
But go get some more of your Peace Palestine friends. Let’s see them all. Go get Berkeley and Eisen. Tell us what you and Mary disagree with about them. I’ll certainly delete them if they come to my site. But it’s necessary for this site to allow people to see just what the SWP is consorting with in Atzmon and who both Atzmon and Rizzo insist must be allowed their say in the Palestine solidarity movement.
Comment by Mark Elf — 24 June, 2007 @ 1:20 pm
Progressive Rosen
Here are some HOT NEWS…
I assume that you support the academic boycott; somehow it didn’t stop you from appearing in the Jewish Book Week.
As you can see this wonderful family event was supported by the ISRAELI EMBASSY and UJIA…. THIS IS REVOLTING Mr. Rosen, are you going to lose your memory again? or are you going to tell us that you didn’t know… Shame on you.
I am afraid that you will have to stop bulshitting at a certain stage.
The more I read about you the more I realize that you and your ilk are embarrassment to the notion of progressiveness.
However, here are the links:
http://www.jewishbookweek.com/jewish-book-council/supporting-book-week.php
Supporting Book Week
The Jewish Book Council relies on private donations and sponsorship for a large proportion of its income.
SPECIAL THANKS TO The Arts Council of England, The Charities Advisory Trust, the John S Cohen Foundation, the Dorset Foundation, the Foyle Foundation, the Israeli Embassy, The Jewish Chronicle, the Porjes Trust, the UJIA.
Comment by yocheved — 24 June, 2007 @ 3:32 pm
That’s pretty interesting, Yochi. Proves what a bunch of hypocrites they are. They talk as if they are on the cutting edge of activism, but they are only promoting themselves.
“honest and principled”, can take a flying leap, as they are so narcissistically obsessed on their images of being universalists (as if they know what it means).
but, this is another interesting little chicca: Elf: doubt that anyone could find anything anti-semitic that you’ve written, rizzo. You’re absolutely right.
Wow! I’ve never written anything anti-semitic!!! He only has thousands and thousands of forum posts, blog comments all over the place, blog entries, articles to sort through and he is cetain that NO ONE could find ANYTHING…. Now, when are you going to stop calling me an anti-semite?
Greenstein complains that out of the last 20 articles on Peacepalestine, 7 are by Palestinians, 2 are by European activists in Al-Awda and the Anti-Imperialst camp, 1 is by an American Jewish Anti-Zionist, 1 is simply copied from the JPost, 1 is by Fisk, 1 by Atzmon, 1 by me (about a forum for discussion), 1 by a Syrian working in Nahr el-Bared, 2 by Avrum Burg doing an interview where he changes his mind on Aliyah and 1 by Warashawski. UH… he has a major problem with the stuff on a blog called PeacePalestine having this sort of material…Tony’s problem is that I haven’t written a feature article about him! So, they say (lying) that I am not involved with the Boycott campaign. Well, Rome is hardly the headquarters of a British Labour Union, and we have our OWN campaigns, as well as the more important ones from Palestine, which they certainly don’t know or care about, so how would they know what I do?
Besides, it is totally obvious he has no clue to the Palestinian street or to its blogosphere!!! Much less the news and analysis sites. Why not criticise all 750 blogs that haven’t posted about it in a main title and have rather focused on expressing the Palestinian opinion on the dramatic recent events? Because he would look like the total idiot he is, that’s why. He is already the laughing stock, and this would seal the deal.
Comment by thecutter — 24 June, 2007 @ 3:52 pm
looking through the comments on the link Elf got from my site. LIAR!! he said he didn’t go there ‘cuz it is a sewer..
Well, that thread has a comment block, here’s some nice bitz:
Rosen: re Jewish book week. In recent years it has been attended by Harold Pinter, Jacqueline Rose, Carmen Callil. I have no problems appearing there as in a tiny way, strengthens the hand of those who would like to break zionist hegemony and weaken the hands of those who would insist on it.
thecutter: so, does the Israeli Embassy try to break Zionist hegemony? this is a good one!!!
Here’s some more fun from johng:
This along with Cutters strange remarks about the essential harmlessness of Islamophobia (its just ignorence etc) point beyond anti-semitism to a much more common….well, ignorence, which provides the seedbed for the normal bigotries of modern Europe.
my remark:
WHAT? what the hell are you talking about JohnG? Put the (my presumed) quote up, or if that’s too much, just link the comment. And, uhm, a person should really be careful to spell the word “ignorance” correctly. Otherwise he just looks ignorant. and: john, post the comment you claim I make! Don’t keep avoiding the admission that you are a liar.
his reply:
Do you honestly think I keep track of your nonsense? Its there, you know its there, search your own comments for ‘Islamophobia’. If there are none, then thats a pretty poor reflection on you isn’t it?
johng | 01.25.07 - 6:54 pm | #
on that thread there’s Joe90 praising Gilad, saying it’s too bad he couldn’t come see him when he was up that way for a talk. There is Rosen saying about 20 times he would not post anymore, (he might have the record of saying that, after Rowan Berkeley), all kinds of fun! Oy maties!!!
Comment by thecutter — 24 June, 2007 @ 4:13 pm
Elf: both you and Atzmon have lied to incite people against Jewish anti-zionists for being Jews
S: Elf the fact that you regard yourself primarily to be a ‘Jew’ is of zero interest to me & reading your turgid, repetitive diatribes is like a slow lobotomy.
Try to concentrate; when you do cartwheels of joy across your living room floor because you’ve discovered a new internet surveillance gadget on the market, nobody gives a shit if you do it ‘as a Jew’ or as ‘the Dagenham village idiot.’
However when you & your 4 cohorts attempt to inflict, what you refer to as your ‘identity,’ onto the Palestinian resistance movement & turn into a Marxist, secular kosher arena, you will face criticism as indeed you did at the PSC AGM.
Talking of Jews, last night Gilad played his multiple award winning fusion of gypsy tango be bop jazz with his *Jewish* band to the biggest leftwing gathering in Germany put together by the communist party with thousands of refugees from Iraq, Kurdistan, Palestine. Not once did he blow into his saxophone ‘as a Jew’ but as a human being.
What did you do Mark? Was it another wild Saturday night counting the ‘dpi’ on Mary’s blog photo?
Comment by Sarah — 24 June, 2007 @ 4:56 pm
Goodness Mary (thecutter), you can do teenspeak.
I couldn’t help noticing you referring to someone praising Atzmon once upon a time. I too have praised Atzmon before he came out as an antisemite. Well he started writing openly antisemitic things. Liar that he is, he stills claims not to be antisemitic. He’s just someone who lies about Jews and uses your site to doctor their writings, as do others on your site. And specifically to incite the hatred of Jews. Amid all the lies some people don’t notice the antisemitism immediately and it takes a while for the penny to drop. The SWP doesn’t have that excuse. Lenin’s Tomb did notice immediately. That said, there are still a lot of things he says that I agree with. The trouble is he intersperses it with antisemitism and that causes confusion for some people and undermines a movement that is nothing if not anti-racist. Now I know there are some Palestinians, other Arabs and Muslims who borrow from European antisemitism but they are lashing out incoherently at their oppressors. The likes of you and your white and sometimes Jewish or Israeli cohorts are exploiting their righteous but misplaced anger. But your Der Sturmer style on line rag seems to keep your commentors entertained and didn’t the fascist activist Israel Shamir thank you for all the help you had given him in gaining a foothold for antisemitism at Counterpunch. Yes Mary, I am aware of your achievements but I don’t think a socialist blog is the place to air them. I do hope people will scroll up to see Atzmon posing as Yocheved. Edit/find will do it. and a trip down your sewer of a site will confirm it’s him.
Comment by Mark Elf — 24 June, 2007 @ 5:02 pm
Well, which of the nice blokes here was “blow me” then? How come someone makes Blood arguments, and you don’t say Boo? You look at who’s “typing” (i tried to sing the post, but it wouldn’t work) and not at what they say, except to comment that it’s “teenspeak”, whatever that is supposed to mean.
and I’d LOVE to get your opinion on the bit johng (a frequent poster on your blog, I presume) has that I posted here. The most inconsistent, buffonesque and incoherent crap I’ve read in ages!!! It’s all for entertainment, no matter what political colour this blog might be. (oh, and you are supposed to say whether or not you are a Socialist, I think the direct question was, with someone answering on your behalf that you were not).
Comment by thecutter — 24 June, 2007 @ 5:16 pm
But, actually Elf and Tony too; since you are harping on about honest and principled supporters of Palestinians, I’d really be interested what you think of the participation of Rosen in an event that was sponsored by the Israeli Embassy. It matters, lending one’s reputation to events financed by Israel, if one is serious about fighting Zionist hegemony by not lending credibility to their initiatives and who takes boycotting (even cultural, in your case) seriously. I am so particular about it, that for at least 10 years, I won’t buy or rent any product with Israeli technology, although Intel is the largest market here in Italy. I won’t buy their citrus, even… I wouldn’t imagine getting up on stage by an event that the Embassy of Israel promoted and financed. That would be just about as low as one can go, and when I do go up on stage for conferences and such, I certainly inform myself as to all the participants, sponsors and even to the people selling gadgets in the foyer. So, please, express an opinion (not on someone’s opinions, but on their actions) about this troubling inconsistency.
Comment by thecutter — 24 June, 2007 @ 5:33 pm
Elf has decided that he can “challenge me” and then when I respond, it’s hate-filled and must be edited. So, for the three people left who are watching and laughing (or weeping) here are the two scandalous “hate-filled” things that sensitive eyes should not read!!
not you, Elf, Sue. She’s the one who decided to pay the barrister’s fees and take down claims that he was racist, in order to not have to be taken to court and risk losing a lot more than her reputation as a wishy washy person who prints smears for 3 years and then takes them back because she isn’t really sure after all if there is anything to the smears.
Think about it. She might think she can have it both ways, but she probably can’t.
Just keep attacking Gilad and I. The opinion of a self-obsessed little idiot like you is meaningless. All of your posts are about you, or the people you hate. It’s just the most narcissistic site I’ve ever seen, no Palestinians around for miles, and Tony laments that my site is full of Palestinian writers, when instead it should be about UK jews!!! You people are amazing, truly. What you say really doesn’t matter, because you are so irrelevant, it’s not funny.
Gilad doesn’t need to doctor their writings, it’s pretty clear that by using their own words, they hang themselves. Later, much later, they have to explain, “I didn’t MEAN what I wrote about Biological matters, that was supposed to have quotes!” “When I said Atzmon looks like a Jew, he shouldn’t take it that I am into biological determinism”…etc. You guys do yourselves wrong on your own, and project it onto us. And, calling someone a racist liar all the time is just getting tired. Get some lessons from your child how to act with others.
I won’t bother with the rest of your crap. I have other stuff to do and you tire me out.
the other one:
Elf, Just thought about something. I mean, if one looks at the contents of my blog, half of it is written by Palestinians, Lebanese and Syrians, all promoting Palestinian rights and the right of return, and almost all the rest is by people extremely active in Palestinian solidarity work, one has to wonder why you would consider it a sewer. Are you insinuating that Palestinian voices are crap, and that knowing what’s on the Jewish Chronicle is far more important to Palestinian solidarity work? Just wondering. And besides, I should respond to the Joe 90 insinuations. I didn’t ask Joe to come and fight against you. I wondered why someone who participated on my blog in a supportive way, called me his friend in private emails, said that how I was being treated and how I had been treated were shameful, would feel comfortable watching that happen on your blog and not say something. It was wondering out loud. Do I need to reprint the nasty comments Joe Kane wrote about you again? I think you remember them, and it’s great that a hypocrite like him is your friend, because you are very similar. But, more than that, it’s easy for someone like him to be an internet warrior. He can sit comfy behind a monitor and slur, while I was out on the streets, getting Jaffa fruit to be pulled from the largest chain in my province. My eight year old daughter got all her friends to wage a campaign to sensibilise people against adding to the riches of Saban, and not buying Power Rangers school supplies, we spend every Saturday handing out leaflets, from one shop to another. If Joe has the dignity to attack me, attack Atzmon, as anti-semites, he is out of his mind. We do legwork and reach those who aren’t hooked to computers. It’s easy to criticise. Very easy when someone does nothing. Oh, this is not me claiming it, Joe admitted it all the time. He decides rather to feel so appalled when someone says Marxist Rabbi. I think you people must get a solid grip. You lose touch with reality.
Comment by thecutter — 24 June, 2007 @ 5:48 pm
Thecutter - This isn’t about you. It’s about the SWP’s relationship with the lying Jew-baiter Atzmon (posing above as Yocheved).
This shouldn’t require so much space or time. You have given your site over to Atzmon and others to lie about what various principled anti-Zionist Jews have written and done. You - and in particular Atzmon and also a woman called Sarah Gillespie - have done so to incite hatred against Jews. We call that antisemitism and it has been described as the “socialism of fools.” It has certainly been denounced by the SWP many times. Sometimes I thought that they have been too precious about it. They give Norman Finkelstein a wide berth. Now because of a mistake by one man in the leadership they can’t admit that they got it wrong about Atzmon so they persist in their relationship with him. But I do hope people will scroll up to Yocheved/Atzmon’s posts here. That is what the SWP is hosting. And that’s the kind of thing that could bring the Palestine solidarity movement into disrepute and could undermine the growing movement to boycott Israel.
Comment by Mark Elf — 24 June, 2007 @ 5:56 pm
are you a member of the SWP or not?
Comment by thecutter — 24 June, 2007 @ 5:59 pm
and since you avoid it, I repeat>
But, actually Elf and Tony too; since you are harping on about honest and principled supporters of Palestinians, I’d really be interested what you think of the participation of Rosen in an event that was sponsored by the Israeli Embassy. It matters, lending one’s reputation to events financed by Israel, if one is serious about fighting Zionist hegemony by not lending credibility to their initiatives and who takes boycotting (even cultural, in your case) seriously.
Comment by thecutter — 24 June, 2007 @ 6:02 pm
Since I’m really avoiding a nasty piece of financial translation, I’m perusing the comments on PePa, trying to find what Elf wanted, and finding some other interesting tidbits. Here are some:
I’m no expert on the internal politics of the activist Left (European branch), but I sense this goes back to the issue of “gatekeeping” that thecutter has raised before.
I’ve also found Jews Sans Frontieres’s judeocentrism ugly. The comments are extremely well informed (and articulate), but I’m always wondering what does being Jewish have to do with any of this?
I imagine some could argue, as Seth Farber did in an earlier thread, that the emphasis on Jewish identification is a useful tactic intended to weaken Zionism’s claim to speak for all Jews, and defuse charges of “antisemitism.” That may be true, but I don’t think it’s what thecutter is talking about here, because the emphasis on Jewish identity is used as a weapon in INTERNAL debate.
What’s going on here is the old issue of “gatekeeping.” The idea, In my opinion, is to make sure that all discussion of Zionism steers clear of identifying any links between it and Judaism. Now that may be a true proposition–that Zionism is an alien excresence on Judaism. But the problem is that the issue is not allowed to be explored, and the goal is given priority over anything to do with the Palestinian people.
trouvere | 03.19.06 - 9:31 pm | #
*****
Trouvere, you got it right, it is indeed ALL about gatekeeping. I find it interesting that a bunch of people who claim to be against the occupation and against Zionist expansionism have all the willingness in the world to exchange in dialogue and to give space to those whose work is to undermine all concrete activist efforts to bring about the end to the illegal occupation, but seem to think that I am such a great threat, enough that I should be banned, moderated, silenced, smeared.
As you can see, if one challenges the Colonists, the Aliyah Babes and those who enable the occupation of Palestine and get the range of reaction ranging from squadron-like abuse, deletion and refusal to discuss to invasion of my mailbox with hate letters hoping for my violent death, one might expect anti Zionist people to behave a little better. We are SUPPOSED to be fighting for the same goal, but apparently, there are other issues that are more important, and it is clear that recognising Jews as the leaders of discourse is the main issue.
As to the Seth point of view, I still have to read the book he sent and review it. Yes, we had a similar discussion, that he believed using ethnic criteria somehow changes the message and the perception of the message. I see it basically as an obstruction to other more important tasks, such as translating information to diffuse in many places, giving space to voices that are calling our attention to the situation that Palestinians are experiencing, and economically weakening the support of Israel, since this was effective in South Africa.
It’s really an internal debate, but their techniques must be exposed for the manipulative thing they are, and for the harm it does to the Palestinians in deflecting energy from them and back onto Jewish activists and their pet issues about their identity.
thecutter | Homepage | 03.20.06 - 12:52 am | #
*****************
I went back and spent a little time at Jews Sans Frontieres. I realized something that should have been obvious to me: it’s not a site about Zionism, and it’s most definitely not a site about Palestine. (You’ll look long and hard before finding anything with a Palestinian name in it.) I’m not claiming deceptive advertising–Elf’s title is clear enough, but it hadn’t fully sunk in before. I think thecutter may be making the same categorical error that I did.
What it is is another site about Jewishness. The topics that really get the juices flowing over there are 1. antisemitism, 2. holocaust denial, 3. the trinity of Atzmon, Eisen, and Shamir, and 4. the internal politics of the British Jewish community. By contrast the discussions of Zionism–though well-informed–seem flat and by-the-numbers.
Although the particular identity they’ve chosen for themselves is a high-toned and exclusive one, JSF is first and foremost another Jewish “identity” blog, not fundamentally different from the Aliyah Babes’ sites.
File it under J-blog, not Palestinian blog. Any relationship to the Palestinian cause is purely coincidental. When a conflict arises between the Palestinian cause and their Jewish idenitity, as it does in the work of Atzmon, Eisen and Shamir, there is never any doubt about what is going to be sacrificed.
trouvere | 03.20.06 - 8:22 pm | #
****************
Mary, do you happen to have the comment that got you banned on Elf’s blog? what was is about? did you give you a reason for the banning?
Angus | 03.29.06 - 8:20 am | #
*******************
Angus, what happened at Elf’s blog: (and he gave no reason for banning at the time, but recently has claimed I’m a promotor of Anti-Semitism. He still can’t come up with the goods, but if the mud sticks, he slings it).
There was in JPUK the idea to picket Gilad Atzmon who was going to speak at a Marxist bookstore. I was against the picket, and was vocal about it. But, what then actually happened was on that blog in the comments, Roland Rance said Moshe Machover was in favour of the picket. Gilad told me Moshe was against the picket. (They know one another very well and this was the assurance MM gave Gilad. A picket may or may not be a big deal, but to be picketed by Anti-Zionists, one ostensibly would be on the other side of the fence, and this is something that should be fought. So of course, Gilad wanted to know where people stood in regards to it).
Roland printed an email in the blog by Moshe which said he had told Martin Smith (SWP chairman) that he was against Gilad speaking there. Martin told Gilad it was untrue. Gilad called and put Martin on the phone and I heard Martin with my own ears saying, “I never got anything from Machover, in fact, in person he told me he was against all actions contrary to Gilad”. I asked Martin to send me an email verifying this, which he did. I put this up on my blog and then posted that information to Elf’s blog. I believe that they should know that either MM is pulling a fast one on all of them, or that there was something a little fishy, whatever it was. This was enough to have gotten me banned. Anyway, the emails and whatever are all on record on this blog, even the nasty ones MM sent to me, I put up.
That’s it! So, Elf says, I am a promotor of Anti-Semitism because I support Atzmon! Atzmon has not been demonstrated to be this “Anti Semite” but the label sticks. He is a complete and total Palestinian supporter, and therefore, an Anti Zionist, if we have to call it that, and he, as a philosopher, clarifies his views with the discourse of identity and use of narratives. They have yet to find what is so horrible in what he writes, (check out his 1001 Lies about GA to see how they attack him and how he counters it).
thecutter | Homepage | 03.29.06 - 1:29 pm | #
Comment by thecutter — 24 June, 2007 @ 6:25 pm
Atzmon and Rizzo continue to denounce Michael Rosen for appearing at Jewiush Book Week, and imply that this is “revolting”, and somehow proof of support for Zionism. I repeat the question I asked above, which they for some reason ignored: Is Professor Manuel Hassassian, the Palestinian Ambassador in London, who appeared at a Jewish Book Week event on 4 March, also a Zionist?
In a typically snide and ignorant comment, Rizzo also claimed above that “you have to wait until the 20s for some Shakespeare, and probably just Merchant of Venice at that.” This is simply wrong. According to a review of “Shakespeare on the American Yiddish Stage” by Joel Berkowitz, “At first the Yiddish repertoire revolved around comedies, operettas, and melodramas, but by the early 1890s America’s Yiddish actors were wild about Shakespeare. . . . The Jewish King Lear of 1892 was a sensation. The year 1893 saw the beginning of a bevy of Yiddish versions of Hamlet; that year also saw the first Yiddish production of Othello. Romeo and Juliet inspired a wide variety of treatments. The Merchant of Venice was the first Shakespeare play published in Yiddish, and Jacob Adler received rave reviews as Shylock on Broadway in both 1903 and 1905.”
The combination of prejudice and ignorance displayed by these increasingly hysterical racists is quite breathtaking.
And by the way, some of the comments by Atzmon are not only untrue, but also libellous. I trust that, in any action taken by the tarh=get, this weblog will not also be implicated.
Comment by Roland Rance — 24 June, 2007 @ 6:45 pm
Mr elf why is it u do the blog 4 jew only blood but u say always brilliant saxo Gilad racist this racist that? He never cares abuot what blood type
Iwhen u r always saying words ‘as jewish person’ then I am not free because I must say I don’t like u as ‘as jewish person’ or be quiet & never put critisim. Mr elf u try make me that I am antijew or never speeking
u say who ‘what makes gilad humanity gatekeeper’ but humanity family hasn’t need gate or gatekeeper just being open not counting dna b4 coming in
I hope u b as a person 1 day better
Peace
Kasim
Comment by Kasim — 24 June, 2007 @ 6:45 pm
Thank you Roland Rance, to which, yes, we could add Harold Pinter, Carmen Callil and some others. However, I think it is an entirely legit question to ask even if it has nothing to do with what we’re talking about as it is an ad hominem question yet again, yet again, yet again about me, as if I represent others, am an important member of any organisation or some such. I am not.
I had my doubts about appearing at JBW and so I asked all sorts of people whose opinions I trust whether they thought it was a good idea or not. I didn’t consult either rizzo or Atzmon because I don’t trust them.
Every event I or any other performer does has problematic questions re funding. It would be quite reasonable to argue that money from the British state, major corporations, banks, exploitative companies, firms with links to the third world, prize monies, record companies whose technology can be linked to the war in the congo and/or Israel etc etc all go into organisations that pay for gigs where I and others perform. I discover sometimes that even benefits and left political events aren’t entirely ‘clean’. I think I shared a bill with Atzmon for Deir Yassin Remembered that was sponsored by the Saudi regime and as I came off the stage, a deputation from the embassy came round to the dressing area and shook our hands. I had no idea who these people were, they came, as it happens, with Paul Eisen, who at the time, I trusted one hundred per cent, and we all shook their hands. Me too. It turned out that they were people from the Saudi embassy, I’m not sure how high up, possibly the ambassador himself. I regret that.
GA has just played the German Communist Party. I wonder how many ex-stasi members were there. I wonder how much of the German Communist party’s funds and/or premises come care of the old East German regime? It may well be that the KPD can bring in refugees, as can most left organisations that offer refugees support and, by the sound of it, a bloody good concert. Hooray for that. But let’s not kid ourselves that the finance is always utterly clean.
But I’m happy to take criticism for JBW. As I say, I took my cue from Pinter and Callil and, I noted that some Palestinians had been present and I consulted people whose opinions in I trust in organisations I sympathise with. No one said, don’t do it. If, next time, especially with the boycott up and running, people whose opinions I trust said ‘don’t do it’ I wouldn’t.
However, all this is ad hominem shite about me and where I read poetry doesn’t deal with the pages and pages of jew-baiting, anti-jewish paranoia that atzmon, gillespie and rizzo’s site go in for. It’s therefore a handy deflection from those questions but doesn’t move anything on at all. If I died tomorrow, that stuff would still be on the table as a problem along with all the sneering at jewish anti-zionists who have, as I have said, put their livelihoods on the line in supporting the boycott, see the witch hunting quote from Harry’s Place that I provided above and the witch hunting going on on the pages of the Jewish Chronicle. And all Gillespie can offer is yet more carping.
Meanwhile, I see that Atzmon is persisting with a lie about that band’s name. It wasn’t called what you say it was called. It was called what Dave Rosenberg says it was called. No worries, if you wanna play this kind of silly game, you blow them stasis wild, comrade, blow’em wild. It’s better than being sent to the gulag, I guess…
Comment by Michael Rosen — 24 June, 2007 @ 7:10 pm
Roland, nothing against Jewish books… but against the sponsor. Take a look. Comment (it’s free)
So, fine, I didn’t do my internet search on Shakespeare in Yiddish and missed it by 18 years (not a lot in the history of a language), but even so, systematic translation was still centuries “late”. Naturally, even I do little translations or adaptations for my friends, and when I was in high school, I completely wrote in theatrical form Breakfast of Champions, because there wasn’t one (that we knew of) and we wanted to do it. Never was published, was performed 5 times. There naturally would be translations of theatre pieces in all languages (we are talking about theatre, you see, where there would be the MAXIMUM amount of translations into languages, because it does not require reading), but I am talking about a systematic, correct and definitive translation, (which basically exists in every language for the major authors, excepting Latin, which has a different kind of translation philosophy). So, my point (for whatever OT stuff it is, and I am tired of it and won’t bother again) still remains valid.
libel? and first of all, how are you even sure Gilad Atzmon has posted!? you are quite silly.
Comment by thecutter — 24 June, 2007 @ 7:11 pm
Readings in Scottish culture
“There is no doubt that Robert Knox was a man of high intellectual attainments and it could be claimed that he was one of the greatest medical teachers of all time. Certainly, no other teacher in the history of the Edinburgh medical school excited such loyalty and enthusiasm in so many students or attracted to his lectures so many representatives of sister professions and other non-medical members of the Edinburgh intellectual and social Establishments.”
©2000 The Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh
“What a field of extermination lies before the Saxon-Celtic..races…”
“the Jews who followed any calling were not really Hebrews, but sprung from a Jewish father and a Saxon or Celtic mother..the real Jew has no ear for music, no love of science or literature ”
“..race is everything”
Robert Knox 1850
Comment by Alex Nichols — 24 June, 2007 @ 7:14 pm
Silly Rosen.. you had to ASK other people if an event sponsored by the Israeli embassy was something to do or not?
I would think that you could make that kind of decision alone if you are “honest and principled” and you want to do your part to bring down the Zionist hegemony. It’s not hidden under any odd name, it’s very clear.
Comment by thecutter — 24 June, 2007 @ 7:14 pm
…and therefore silly Pinter, silly callil,silly Kristeva and of course silly Palestinian ambassador, huh?
Comment by Michael Rosen — 24 June, 2007 @ 7:38 pm
Readings in English Literature: the Christian philanthropists.
“The political role of the Anthropological Society of London…became quite clear in 1865 when one of its members, Governor Eyre of Jamaica, reacted to a rebellion of black farmers at Morant Bay with a degree of ruthlessness unusual even in the nineteenth century. He declared martial law and his troops went on a 30 day rampage, killing 439 black people, flogging at least 600 others…dashing out children’s brains, ripping open the bellies of pregnant women and burning over 1,000 homes..
Britain was polarised…an Eyre defence committee was set up supported by Dickens, Tennyson, Tennyson, Matthew Arnold and Charles Kingsley…They saw him as saviour of the West Indies and sought to raise £10,000 for his legal expenses.”
Peter Fryer “Staying Power” pps. 177-8
Comment by Alex Nichols — 24 June, 2007 @ 7:50 pm
Kasim (or as I suspect, Gilad, the stereotype’s a bit too, er, stereotypical)- I have no issue with people’s blood type or their ethnic or other origin. I say of Israel that it is a colonial settler state based on ethnic cleansing and racist laws and I have a blog - Jews sans frontieres - that browses the media, usually exposing media lies or hypocrisy. or sometimes just filtering news. My reference to Gilad Atzmon (aka, I suspect, you) being humanity’s gatekeeper was based on him telling various Jewish anti-zionist activists that it’s not too late for them to join humanity. Being a sax player doesn’t make him the judge of who can join humanity. You can be Jewish and human at the same time. We are all entitled to our identity. Actually it’s zionists who insist that without a Jewish state there can be no Jewish identity and I honestly believe that the likes of Atzmon and Rizzo help the zionists and Israel.
If visitors have scrolled down and read this far then they will have been treated to an example of a typical thread on the Peace Palestine site where Mary Rizzo (who for some bizarre reason calls herself “the cutter”), Gilad Atzmon and maybe two or three other antisemites simply abuse their political opponents for being Jewish. Two Gilad Atzmon favourites are posing as an Israeli woman, Yocheved, or as Arab men using ridiculously stereotypical broken English. When he does the Arab man he usually throws in a bit of misogyny to complete the racist stereotype. But this too is useful for those of us who want the SWP, formerly useful anti-racist activists, to drop Atzmon lest they harm both the anti-war and the anti-zionist movements. It’s so often the case that antisemitism is the tip of a far larger racist iceberg. And Atzmon’s attacks on various Jewish anti-zionist activists all began when, following the lead of Ali Abunima of Electronic Intifada, they condemned Israel Shamir, who himself is a promoter of various neo-nazis throughout the west and eastern Europe.
For most anti-zionists, zionism is a racist ideology and project because it involves corralling Jews into Palestine, often by collaborating with antisemitic movements or states, driving out the native Arab population and copper-fastening the gains of the colonial settlement and ethnic cleansing by way of an array of racist laws to grant settlers supremacy over the natives. This system is very similar to the apartheid system in South Africa and the Jim Crow system in the American south but this system is about Jewish supremacy rather than white supremacy. It does have most features common to all colonial settler states. Curiously, Atzmon has recently sought to redefine zionism as being something about Jewish endogamy/anti-assimilation. For some bizarre reason he accused Michael Rosen of saying that he was opposed to assimilation. He had to doctor Michael Rosen’s writing to do that and why Counterpunch runs such nonsense I’ll never know. So for Atzmon now, zionism isn’t even about the Palestinians any more. It’s about writings he falsely attributes to Jews he doesn’t like.
When we look at Israel’s structure we see an apartheid state. This (if you are Atzmon) needs a bit of explaining. Apartheid is a system of legally enforced segregation. Now if people want to only marry people or have children from their own identity group that should be fine. It’s not what I have done but it’s fine. It’s when it is enforced by law that it is wrong. Now I know that Atzmon isn’t familiar with apartheid in South Africa because I followed a thread on Peace Palestine once when someone kept making out that they were somebody important using the name “One People” came along. I think Sarah Gillespie then tried to make out that the person was Ronnie Kasrils and that he would actually lower himself to post to the Peace Palestine sewer. I think it was her anyway but Atzmon’s vanity draws him into spontaneously responding to threads. When he has time to plan his articles he can quote Lenin c 1903 lecturing the Jewish Bund but when he has to think on his feet he gets overwhelmed by his own buffoonery. Can you believe he didn’t know who Kasrils was? And when it started to dawn on him that the guy might have a bit of a profile, Gilad (”join humanity”) Atzmon got straight to the heart of the matter. “Is he a Jew?” he asked. And that was in his own name so you can imagine the fun and games when he uses a false ID. To be fair Atzmon finally described Kasrils as a hero when he had it slowly explained to him who Kasrils was. Atzmon thinks that I am the worst kind of Jew. I describe myself as an anti-zionist Jew and I will say so to undermine the zionist claim to represent all Jews. For Atzmon that makes me what he calls a third category Jew. It was this category business that had the SWP’s John Rose likening him to Churchill. Well according to Atzmon’s categories Kasrils is a third category Jew. That’s Atzmon - no principles, no consistency, no sense. The Palestinian cause is either a vehicle for his antisemitism or a big joke to him.
Comment by Mark Elf — 24 June, 2007 @ 7:51 pm
Rosen: …and therefore silly Pinter, silly callil,silly Kristeva and of course silly Palestinian ambassador, huh
Rosen,
Pinter and Kristeva are artists, they can do what ever they like, they are not carrying the boycott flag. They are not committed politically but you are. The Palestinian Ambassador is doing his Job. But you pretend to be a boycotter. You are supposed to boycott Israel. But somehow as soon as we dig into your recent history we find you in bed with the Israeli Embassy and the JC… This is revolting beyond belief Mr Rosen… You clearly prefer your racial brotherhood to real authentic progressive thinking.
Comment by yocheved — 24 June, 2007 @ 7:59 pm
Readings in Italian Catholicism
“I used to get irritated by that dogged belief in “Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus”: that no one outside the Catholic Church can possibly be saved. Bishops still talk of the Catholic Church as the only true church of Jesus Christ, dismissing all other strands of Christianity as heretical. Many cardinals mention millenia of Judaism or centuries of Protestantism with an acid sentence..nothing other than the Church will be tolerated. “It’s Catholic or nothing in Italy” It’s an argument I’ve heard many times, and one which presents a relentless circular logic.
“Italy is Catholic”….”I know, but why”… “Because it does’t have any other religions.”… “Why not?….” “Because we’re Catholics!”
In August 2000, a Church declaration.. endorsed by the Pope announced that the Catholic Church represented the only “valid” and “genuine” Christian episcopate. Even to many Catholic onlookers it appeared like something from the Middle Ages. The inspiration for such announcements is invariably Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, a man who heads what is called the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith (an organisation that acts as the guard dog against pluralism and tolerance”
Tobias Jones “The Dark Heart of Italy” 2004
Comment by Alex Nichols — 24 June, 2007 @ 8:12 pm
Come on, chaps. Don’t feed the trolls.
Comment by Phil — 24 June, 2007 @ 8:18 pm
Elfonsino I can promise you that Kasim isn’t Atzmon, even as a spy you are a complete failure.
However, make sure you realise: humanity’s gates are wide open. Try it, get off your Jews only cyber shtetle. Make friends, you might even learn to love your neighbor. You may even end up loving your enemies (Gilad and Rizzo). you may even end thanking me for saving you lost soul…
Comment by yocheved — 24 June, 2007 @ 8:38 pm
Mr Elf I don’t understand yr writing. I am student in London. I try my English. I see gilad @ SOAS student union with friends last winter term & again another time in Pizza express. U strange person. I am trying 2 learn English but I think your Punjabi, Urdu & Arabic would be more ‘ridiculously broken’ than my English is.
Please say 2 me why you think mysongeny is typical Arab trait?
Comment by kasim — 24 June, 2007 @ 8:44 pm
Sarah, let’s look at this very calmly. Mr Wiki himself is winding himself up in tizzy because I just guessed and said that from what I knew of Yiddish literary material, (and I was specifically speaking of translations, because this is how culture is disseminated in the world) and admitting that I’m a linguist and translator, but that Hebrew and Yiddish were not included in my working languages, that there was no tradition of translating the greats of world literature for Yiddish-speaking people to read. I suggested that even something like theatre, the most widely spread kind of literature, from the Greeks on down, and even the most famous European playwright, were probably not translated and it was in the 20s when Shakespeare was done, and most likely The Merchant of Venice.
Roland got pretty shaken up by this, and he did his research and came up with the right answer: Roland - “The Merchant of Venice was the first Shakespeare play published in Yiddish, and Jacob Adler received rave reviews as Shylock on Broadway in both 1903 and 1905.”
The combination of prejudice and ignorance displayed by these increasingly hysterical racists is quite breathtaking.”
Well, I got it right, one play: (MV), and wrong, missed it by 15 or so years! And this displays breathtaking prejudice and ignorance!! Who’s hysterical now?
Comment by thecutter — 24 June, 2007 @ 8:58 pm
Sarah to Rosen: “Why cant you simply confess that you happily performed at an event sponsored by the Israeli Embassy!?
Yochi: You see Sarah, Rosen is left with just a few options: to admit being an idiot (though he isn’t the smartest boy around, I wouldn’t call him an idiot), to blame capitalism (this is indeed pathetic, he tried it, it doesn’t work), or to tell again I I didn’t know, I don’t remember, but being rather silly he closed the door on this option. Apparently, he says that he took some advice (this is really his best joke ever)….. in other words the progressive poet went to bed with the Israeli Embassy consciously with the approval of his Jewish progressive friends. The moron has managed to incriminate them all. What a silly man…However, Wiki man already said that the event was kosher….. Basically they all admit now to collaborate with Israel… it is not funny, it is actually sad and it means that ATZMON WAS CORRECT ALL THE WAY THROUGH.
Sarah to Rosen: I promise if you Atzmon, who plays every single night, has never performed at an event sponsored by Israel. Nor does he consult ‘people he trusts’ over the matter. He just simply who ever is organizing it.
Youch: This is obviously the case; the first thing you do when asked to perform in a politically charged event is checking who stands behind it, who supports it, who are the sponsors. You see Sarah, Rosen is far from being sophisticated. He isn’t really a politician, he is an opportunist. Demolishing him is not fun and it gets us nowhere…. It is simple and even slightly boring, once you open his box the shit is keep coming out…… I think that it is clear now beyond doubt… we are dealing here with a bunch of morally corrupted being. We are confronting people who politically and consciously acting under a Jewish Banner but as soon as you criticize their political identity, once you question their Jewishness, they insist to stop you, they tell you, “ don’t dare you touch my Jewish flower”.
In other words they believe that the J word is beyond criticism. Sounds familiar. clearly they are no different to Zionists. If you ask me they are actually far worse than zionists. Zionists have dignity, the bundist (at least the last 6 ) have none. We expected them to keep quiet for a year after their humiliating defeat at the PSC AGM. I am still looking for a hint of dignified statement from the chopper, from the Embassy deliveryman, from the Copy machine man It is not funny anymore, it is actually very very sad,,, it is a shocking glimpse into Jewish misery…. I somehow feel very sad for them…
Comment by yocheved — 24 June, 2007 @ 9:16 pm
Roland, seeing as how you are really into correcting the nuts and bolts of sites, that you love to change content of sites and that you yourself are breathtakingly knowledgeable, I suggest this summer hobby for you:
http://pages.unibas.ch/shine/translators.htm
A site with the translations of Shakespeare into European languages. It is utterly fascinating, and I wish I had seen it earlier. Strangely enough Yiddish is not on there, but we know there was a Yiddish translation of Merchant of Venice. Your skills as a philologist will aid you greatly in helping this webmaster redress the balance. It will be interesting to know it there ever was a translation in Yiddish of the complete works of Shakespeare. If not, we have a summer hobby for David and Alex as well. And you guys think I don’t care about your happiness?
Comment by thecutter — 24 June, 2007 @ 9:28 pm
Cutter you are out of this world
So these devoted Yiddish enthusiasts have never taken care of registering the one and only translation of the great Shakespeare. Foooy , do they buy Yiddish papers? Actually, Atzmon and his moronic Artie Fishel does more for Yiddish Culture than all of them together.
Oy oy oy
As I said all the way through, they are idiotic imposters, they do not mean or believe a word that comes out of their mouths.
Comment by yocheved — 24 June, 2007 @ 9:46 pm
Elf had time for his harangue, but no time to answer this very simple yes or no question:
are you a member of the SWP or not?
Comment by thecutter — 24 June, 2007 @ 9:46 pm
Readings in Cointelpro:
“…prominent radicals faced..attack when they began to develop broad followings and express anti-capitalist ideas. Some were portrayed as crooks, thugs, philanderers, or government agents, while others were physically threatened or assaulted until they abandoned their work. “
Comment by alex nichols — 24 June, 2007 @ 10:06 pm
There is no such thing as West Germany. A wall came down, remember? Something that was opposed by commies both sides of it before uniting stasis with western stalinists and tankies.
Who said that I sought advice from ‘jewish’ people? Your assumption not mine. Thanks but no thanks for the advice on how to mislead people.
And still the abuse and sneering rolls on and on and the central question as to why remains unanswered. Relax. You’ve come to Europe and find that you hate jews.
Comment by Michael Rosen — 24 June, 2007 @ 11:34 pm
…and I should have said, but got caught up with something….ad hominem attacks on me are beside the point. Me and what I do are not the reason for your hate and loathing of ashkenazim, your diatribes against ‘jewish power’, the citing of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Attacking me is just acid froth to keep your mates happy. It doesn’t prove the rightness of your central ‘argument’, the one that keeps you off the pages of any left journal in this country including the organisation that books you to play.
(This has nothing to do with Rosen doing a gig at JBW or you and me doing one for DYR and the Saudis.. Nice distraction. But utterly irrelevant. And the stuff about trying to find some rationale as to why my position is different from others who appeared at JBY is nitpicking rubbish. I repeat I don’t represent anyone. And I would think that Pinter has signed up for more stuff than I have. But your real beef is reall with ‘Jewish Power’, not with silly, silly Rosen and his tukhes jokes. Why demean yourself? You’re the Richard Wagner/Alfred Rosenberg of our day, don’t waste such ideas on a lightweight like me.)
Comment by Michael Rosen — 24 June, 2007 @ 11:45 pm
I see rizzo is asking Elf if he’s a member of the SWP or not? More obsessing with ad hominem questions. As Elf has spent the last couple of years tearing his hair out over why a)the SWP books Atzmon b)attacking the SWP in public for doing so c)berating me for not attacking the SWP enough for booking Atzmon…then, rizzo, I’d've thought it would be quite strange if Elf WAS a member, no? The SWP is not known for being very sympathetic towards members who attack any part of their policies in public, and to my knowledge, exact democratic centralism and boot them out…so q.e.d.??? But clearly McCarthyism suits you…are you, or were you ever a member…etc. Elf, you pleading the foist or the fift? Or making for the Mexican border?
Comment by Michael Rosen — 25 June, 2007 @ 12:06 am
Rosen, sorry but your logic doesn’t work with me. I figured he was Socialist, and someone here said he was not. I said, oops, sorry, and asked if he was, and if he was a member of the SWP. Is this ad hominem (attack) I didn’t know there was such a thing as an ad hominem question. This is a new one. And actually, in my view, it’s completely ridiculous to make demands from a party one is not a member of or affiliated with. This is why in conventions only card carrying members vote on motions, this is why registered voters are the only ones allowed to participate in that primary in the US and they takes one ballot or the other, generally, the party they feel closer to.
An outsider can express an opinion, but he sure can’t tell them what to DO! What relevancy would he have, that he’s leaving the party??? Get real now.
And therefore, the very simple question (without the “ad hominem” you like to put in there to make you sound like you are presenting a dialectical argument when you have proven yourself yet again the king of wishy-washy). When someone tells someone what to do, this would make me assume, logically, that there was an affiliation. If someone from outside the party is hounding and barking about what to do, it’s like a fly buzzing around. A lot of noise for nothing. A lot like you.
you are right, and here is my mea culpa: I never heard of you (nor have 99 percent of my readers) before Atzmon brought you to my attention. No, you are not worth all the attention. You really ARE that insignificant. And with every one of your posts my view of your mediocrity increases. Mind, it’s no crime to be mediocre. It’s really just fine. I just wonder why you are given all the attention, in precisely the same way you do. have a lovely night.
Comment by thecutter — 25 June, 2007 @ 12:31 am
Well, it would be harder to give better evidence of mediocre thinking that imagines people on the left don’t rail at others on the left without being members of their party. Mix in the fact that you express complete ignorance of how Leninist parties work. For example, no Leninist party would allow one of its members to picket against it or even express support for that picket. AGain, as you would say to me, it’s no crime to be ignorant and/or mediocre. I agree, I have no idea why a megastar like Atzmon should waste his time with me either. Look to yourselves not me for the answer to that one, your problem, not mine! AFter all, as a man of principle and you as a site host, usually take on the big hitters like Moshe Machover. Now there’s someone really worth slashing to bits for the sake of the Palestinians, eh? Little people like me can fall back and watch in awe as peacepalestine leads the assault on jewish power via Moshe Machover, yiddish theatre and Mark Elf’s non-membership of the SWP. Impressive stuff. Now, why is it that no one will touch Atzmon’s views in any left journal in the UK? Not even the SWP who books him for Marxism? Now why would that be? Must be that the SWP is in the grip of Jewish power too, I reckon. And you have a lovely night too, oh wise and great one.
Comment by Michael Rosen — 25 June, 2007 @ 1:24 am
And thanks Socialist Unity for hosting this one. In time, it’ll be interesting to hear what people who have observed the conversation made of it…
Comment by Michael Rosen — 25 June, 2007 @ 1:40 am
Rosen, if you have any dignity in your system, just piss off… you had been exposed today as the Israeli embassy deliveryman. You performed with a Klezmer Band named Yishar Koach (however, this is how you named them on stage) yet, you do not have the minimum respectful manner to remember their name, all you say is ‘I met them in the street’, ‘my memory is faling’. Rosen take responsibility for fuck sake. …. What you do is s unheard of. You call yourself a socialist?
Actually, we do not attack you in person, we do not care about you, and you are indeed insignificant. But you choose to act under a Jewish progressive secular banner while knowing fuck all about Jewishness, secularity and progressiveness. You speak about Yiddish wile knowing fuck all about the Yiddish culture. You are a loud ignorant and this is symptomatic to you all. You are as well a compulsive liar, you tell us about the JC campaigning against you but then, just a few posts later we find out that you were performing in the JC sponsored book festival. What are you made of Mr Rosen?
Rosen, Atzmon doesn’t touch you, it is actually me Yochi. If Atzmon goes for you, you will find yourself again staring one of his grand papers. I can imagine his titles: “Isakofsky, The Deliveryman” ‘The 3rd category Poet’, ‘The double agent’. You may want to choose one…
However, you could learn from Machover. Once Rizzo (with the help of Martin Smith) exposed him as a compulsive liar
http://peacepalestine.blogspot.com/2005/06/martin-smith-of-swp-statement-on.html
Machover imposed silence on himself. Unlike you and alike, he has dignity. He knew that he fucked up. Did you see him recently?
Rosen, Just one question to you, why can’t you just stand up and say: ‘Here I am, My name is Michael Rosen, I am a human being, I made a mistake, maybe more than one, I am sorry . Let’s start again’.
This is all you have to do. to regret for fuck sake or just to raise a white flag (Something you could learn from Shimon Tzabar)
Cutter: you are right, Rosen is a mediocre, I am myself shocked by the level of his argumentation…. yet, his behaviour (sleeping with the Israelis while pretending to boycott them) is symptomatic to these disastrous 3rd category creatures. As you can see we are back in Sq 1.
We are back with Atzmon’s Protocols of the Elders of London. These people are indeed `Zionists to the bone.
It is totally established…
Comment by yocheved — 25 June, 2007 @ 5:14 am
Goodness me! I meant to say, in fact I’m sure I did say that I had heard that Mary Rizzo might actually be a decent person who just got in too deep with hardcore antisemites like Atzmon and Gillespie. Is that really such cause for apoplexy? Does that really call for more lies, racism, deliberate misunderstanding and projection?
It’s all quite simple: Atzmon is antisemitic and has doctored the writings of named Jewish activists to smear them and to promote his racist agenda. It all began because he felt moved to protect a fascist activist who uses the name Israel Shamir together with other names. Mary Rizzo is Atzmon’s main host though he does post to other conspiracy sites. He has a fan called Sarah Gillespie who, like her mentor, also doctors writings to undermine the targets of her antisemitism. Further Atzmon has been posting here using the name Yocheved - he forgot that he’d used that one on my site, and Kasim - and maybe others. Kasim, if people bother to scroll up, is an anti-Arab racist stereotype much like “Jihad” another Atzmon ID. Kasim has now accused me of saying that misogyny is “typical.” Funny how an ID with broken English knows expressions like DNA and misogyny. It’s Atzmon stereotyping Arabs. That’s what I said.
All the above adds up to an entirely inappropriate guest for the SWP’s Marxism summer school.
Comment by Mark Elf — 25 June, 2007 @ 6:55 am
Lie one: I didn’t say the JC campaigned against me. I said that it is campaigning against the Jewish sponsors of the boycott. The Jews they highlighted as organisers of the boycott did not include me because I’m not an organiser of the boycott. What it does is with me is run articles about my work but spends half of them talking about my politics.
Lie two: I haven’t performed with a ‘Klezmer band’. I performed with two musicians in a multicultural poetry and music event. The musicians did not use the name ‘Yishar Koach’. You said I performed with a band called ‘Jewish Power’. I didn’t. That is a lie. it doesn’t become more true because you keep repeating it.
Lie three: You have used the phrase ‘double agent’ about me. That is a lie.
Lie four: Machover isn’t ’silent’.
Absurdity: that someone who says that he or she is a secular Jew has to fulfil some kind of Atzmon conditions of Jewishness and then when this or that person doesn’t come up to the conditions you set, you think it proves some overall point you’re making about the illegitimacy of people calling themselves (or being called) Jews. And you think it’s you who can decide these things! You seem to think that you have some magic powers of legislation, determining the nature of this or that category with a stroke of the pen. Not so.
I will explain why I used to use the pseudonym ‘Isakofsky’. When I first came to the internet and blogs, I thought that the etiquette was to use a pseudonym as a log in. I chose a joke that has personal resonance with my late son. There never was any doubt who I was, because I always, always, always logged in with my website attached. There was no secret about that. There was never any doubt about who I was. One click and a reader was there. Your sneers and distortions about that are symptomatic of your whole project. I note that most people who use pesudonyms leave no trail back to who they are. I always, always did link the name ‘isakofsky’ straight back to my website. To claim, as you have done in the past, that I was hiding or using another identity is a lie.
Your problem is with European Jews. That’s why you keep using the ‘joke’ about the ‘Elders of Zion’. A lot of Israelis do have a problem with European Jews. Even ex-ones. Even ex-soldiers. Of course, you should keep looking for new ones to hate and despise and lie about.
Of course you will write lies and abuse about me on your or rizzo’s blog because there is no left journal in this country that will print what you have to say. You are not only a brilliant sax player. You are a blog artist. Of course it makes you angry that even the political party that books you to play won’t invite you to speak or write for them. That would make me angry too.
You can’t answer the problem how it was more wrong for me to appear at JBW than Pinter, Callil, Kristeva and several Palestinians. You try to do it by turning me into an organiser of the boycott. I am no such thing. That is a further distortion, one that you make in order to make me into something worth attacking even as you say I’m not worth attacking!
Absurdity: I note that you and rizzo keep saying that I’m mediocre, beneath contempt and useless (because that is part of your rhetoric and abuse) and yet you feel it necessary to keep returning to abusing me. Your problem not mine.
What’s more, you are now slandering and libelling me.
Comment by Michael Rosen — 25 June, 2007 @ 8:34 am
It’ll be interesting to hear what people who have observed the conversation made of it
After 235 comments - most of them from ‘yocheved’ (30 comments) and ‘thecutter’ (59!), or else in direct response to them - I’m not sure anyone is observing it any more. I certainly think it’s gone beyond the point where engaging in it can do any good.
Don’t feed the trolls.
Comment by Phil — 25 June, 2007 @ 9:13 am
i played with two musicians from ’she’koyoch’, a nine piece ensemble . to say i played with a ‘band’ called ‘jewish power’ is a lie.
Comment by Michael Rosen — 25 June, 2007 @ 9:45 am
Phil, don’t you think that it’s standard and normal that when within the article itself, my blog is being called anti-semitic, for me to respond? I was alerted to this post by someone who visited Elf’s site and said that he was going on YET AGAIN about the people he really fights - atz and myself. I’ve even asked the direct interested (Rosenberg) about the use of a loaded and extremely insulting accusation against me, (unsubstantiated, I would venture to guess, since even Elf said that no one would ever be able to find a single anti-semitic thing I have ever written, no matter how extensively I am available to read in places they can to look, and they know all of my nicknames, and have only ever used the same ones, the yahoo one and the blogger one, when not writing articles in my own name) in the Jewish Socialist article. If he (DR) hasn’t responded, but others have done so, and not really saying anything more than that Atzmon (who they say is anti-Semitic, but if you check out the Sue Blackwell affaire, it’s a wishy-washy ad hominem and determined basically by what these same 5 or 6 people here say and not on her own judgment of evidence!!!) is always on my blog and that I allow all sorts of people to comment. Yes, I do. Guilty as charged: even those I don’t agree with, as long as they are civil and respectful of others, even ROWAN BERKELEY (who actually says Elf is OK!) well, this is the reason!!!!
Atzmon is a great and insightful writer and I’m certainly not the only one to publish him, and he is published not only in “conspiracy sites” as Rosen claims, but on so many radical left ones, DV, CP, TPV, Uruknet, Palestinian ones, and in the major radical left ones in Spanish (Rebeliòn, Cubadebate) and in other languages on many other sites, just look it up and see. I’m happy to host him on my blog, just as I’m happy to host the many Palestinian writers who send their work to me, Omar Barghouti, Remi Kanazi, Ramzy Baraoud, Khalid Amaryeh, Nadia Hasan, and so many others, (this is criminal, according to Tony Greenstein! We should be writing about him as Gaza burns…) as well as the other thinkers from the Arab world who we translate into English and other languages through Tlaxcala, the translation collective of anti-imperialist activists founded by myself and HORROR!!–> the other two obscene racists, Manuel Talens and Ernesto Pàramo!!
So, yes, wishing for reasoned debate, I get insulted thouroughly as if this is operative procedure. And then, you are calling ME a troll. Do you understand what a troll is? Have I not been called to task both in the article itself and in the extensive verbally aggressive posts? Think for a minute before putting the gag on everyone because it is quite clear that although (perhaps) minor in number, mary, yocheved, sarah, Bassem, Snowball, Kasim and Jasper, we run circles all around the argumentation of the Socialists here, who simply fail again and again to present coherent and logical argumentation, or even to answer very direct questions. At best, they wish to go far off topic on how good we are at pinpointing the first translation of Shakespeare into Yiddish, and being heavily chastised because we missed it by 15 years; having it disclosed once again that MM is not the man they think he is when it comes to being sincere and coherent. They blame it on not being able to freely express himself in a political party!!! (Just for the record, I’m not formally in one, but was heavily affiliated with the ISO i the 80s, and the editor of Socialist Worker is one of my oldest friends, so I tend to get the lowdown on the SWP pretty close to the source, and I know that internal dissent is normal and anyone saying that it isn’t is a “liar and buffoon”, to use the standard foot-stomping prose popular here. Since he is also really close to St Clair, I know what is thought of of Tony G in Counterpunch, he is a laughing stock. Maybe he can improve his reputation now, but he has some work to do). I can understand why you want them to stop, it doesn’t make them look good.
And, you must admit something, at least, Atzmon and PeacePalestine for some reason always bring out so much banter on sites. You should be happy someone’s looking at this insignificant little paper here. It seems like the other threads get 10 comments.
Comment by thecutter — 25 June, 2007 @ 9:58 am
Rosen’s blurb about Elf pleading the 5th or the 1st is hilarious! Who is he? The fabulous Zero Mostel, Elia Kazan? Part of his insistence on clinging to his Jewishness like a barnacle is an attempt to redeem himself from the grinding pedestrian monotony of being a Dagenham council worker. Being hauled in front of the House of un-American activities committee would the stuff of wildest wet dreams!
Comment by Sarah — 25 June, 2007 @ 10:18 am
Not only racism, but also class prejudice and elitist snobbery from Sarah Gillespie. What a truly unpleasant example of something you might tread in.
Comment by Roland Rance — 25 June, 2007 @ 2:07 pm
I have wondered whether to close down comments on this thread, as of some of the anti-semitic and just plain nasty stuff being posted.
But then again, I think cutter and Atzmon are exposing themselves, and those being attacked by them seem to be doing a good job of responding.
Comment by Andy — 25 June, 2007 @ 2:21 pm
well Andy, apparently you have a different standard of dialectical discourse that normal politically active people on the radical left do. (please, if Atzmon’s not even posting, how can he expose himself? and could you show the PRECISE WAY I’m exposing myself as…as… whatever you don’t claim I’m exposing myself as!!! You people just crack me up, if I’m allowed to let you know at how shocking your absense of clear expression or even logical discourse is). If name calling and insulting in the most rude and contemptuous manner possible (what Elf and Co are good at), is the thing making this thread so nasty, they are certainly insuperable. Yes, it would be in their interests to close down this thread and bury it where no one can see how poorly they handle argumentation, and how poorly you, the author, have addressed any of the queries I’ve posted, even about the sexist and racist responses to me. Nothing, not a word. I, for one am glad that this thread has evolved how it has. I’m going to copy and archive it and it certainly can serve as an example.
Comment by thecutter — 25 June, 2007 @ 2:55 pm
those being attacked by them seem to be doing a good job of responding
Well, yes and no. The trouble is, anyone coming to a thread like this fresh will just see endless to-and-fro exchanges between A and B. Even if A’s ranting and B is defending him-/herself coherently and rationally, to anyone skimming the thread it could easily look as if they’re both as bad as each other. Also, the longer these exchanges go on, the more danger there is B will get sucked in and end up descending to A’s level.
The bottom line is, most of us want debates to get resolved, or failing that to remain civil and on-topic. Trolls want to keep them going as long as possible, and keep them digressive and abusive. There’s no point arguing with a troll, because they don’t actually want to stop arguing.
Comment by Phil at work — 25 June, 2007 @ 3:41 pm
Rance: Not only racism, but also class prejudice and elitist snobbery from Sarah Gillespie.
S: Sorry to disappoint you Roland, I come from about 4 generations of cockney factory workers. I merely suspect that you, Elf & co can’t cope with your own banality. I have nothing against Dagenham council employees but Elfy should go for it & embrace what he is, instead of imagining himself to be some sort of unaversalist ‘pseudo français’ radical.
Comment by Sarah — 25 June, 2007 @ 4:10 pm
distortion, rizzo: I didn’t say Atzmon was not published on the net. I said he isn’t published by left journals in this country. Nothing more nothing less.
distortion, rizzo: I didn’t say that the SWP won’t allow for dissent. I said that they wouldn’t tolerate a member picketing one of their own events.
Comment by Michael Rosen — 25 June, 2007 @ 5:18 pm
no rosen, no heavy research: all you have to do is go back to what you said yesterday, it was this:
“The SWP is not known for being very sympathetic towards members who attack any part of their policies in public, and to my knowledge, exact democratic centralism and boot them out…so q.e.d.???”
so… think about it, when you call my comment a distortion, your own is actually one of your very own self.
Rosen: “I didn’t say that the SWP won’t allow for dissent. I said that they wouldn’t tolerate a member picketing one of their own events.”
oh… sure you said that.
Comment by thecutter — 25 June, 2007 @ 5:54 pm
Why the heavy sarcasm here, Mary? Michael wrote yesterday “no Leninist party would allow one of its members to picket against it or even express support for that picket”. He made no comment about intolerance of dissent; I’m sure that dissent is allowed within the party, but that isn’t the point Michael was making. The whole essence of democratic centralism (which I would expect an ex-member of the ISO to understand) is an agreement to act collectively and under the party’s discipline once a decision has been reached, even if you opposed the decision. Of course the SWP would expel a member who joined a public picket of their bookshop; and they would be quite right to do so.
Comment by Roland Rance — 25 June, 2007 @ 6:23 pm
You just don’t get it Roland. If Rosen made a comment about dissent and toleration of a picket in Leninist parties, what the hell does that have to do with the SWP? As far as I know, they are a Trotskyist party, so any comments he makes about other parties simply mean nothing when he then goes on to say that the SWP uses disciplinary measures to expell members who dissent!! We were talking about the SWP, so any of these contradictions you are attempting to point out are merely you contradicting Rosen, and not me. I’ve never said I was a member of the ISO; in fact, I said I WAS NOT! I just happened to share a flat with wonderful people who today are at the apex of the group, and was affiliated by sympathy and common philosophies, but they weren’t radical enough on Palestine for me, so I never joined. You may have such a jaundiced eye reading that you can’t even interpret the text printed out plain and clear. Never worry, I’ll copy it again in case you are hard of seeing:
Rosen:“The SWP is not known for being very sympathetic towards members who attack any part of their policies in public, and to my knowledge, exact democratic centralism and boot them out…so q.e.d.???”
kind of contradicts your:
Rance: “I’m sure that dissent is allowed within the party, but that isn’t the point Michael was making. The whole essence of democratic centralism (which I would expect an ex-member of the ISO to understand) is an agreement to act collectively and under the party’s discipline once a decision has been reached, even if you opposed the decision. ”
How can I not be sarcastic with the likes of you whose bread and butter is political discussion, but you can’t argue even one point without being blown out of the waters of dialectic. And there I was, going to ask Gilad if he’d been in any British Left journals to his knowledge, but on second thought, they are nothing to be proud of as structures of thought, discourse and debate, if you people are the examples of it that I’ve seen. Better off staying with the US, Canadian, Middle Eastern and Continental European ones.
Comment by thecutter — 25 June, 2007 @ 6:52 pm
It’s not enough that you distort Michael Rosen’s words — you even distort your own! You wrote above “The party I was affiliated with in the USA, the ISO, which is the US version of the SWP, “, “Just for the record, I’m not formally in one, but was heavily affiliated with the ISO in the 80’s”. Now you say “I just happened to share a flat” with them. My fault, I suppose — I shouldn’t expect honesty from you.
And you STILL don’t understand Michael’s point, which is about the difference between inrternal dissent and external discipline. You even quote his statement “The SWP is not known for being very sympathetic towards members who attack any part of their policies in public“. What part of “in public” don’t you understand?
Comment by Roland Rance — 25 June, 2007 @ 7:08 pm
oh Roland, are you truly so thick or is this just an act to get the last word in?
I was affiliated and ALSO shared a flat. I was not a member and SAID THAT! One can be affiliated without joining, and it had its own status. I attended their meetings (naturally, I lived in the place they were held half the time!!!) helped sell their papers and books, helped with conferences and hosting visiting members, did some proofing work when they needed it, everything but recruiting and voting… I’d call that a pretty heavy affiliation. It’s kind of like living in pary headquarters, if you catch my drift, and still today, these people are close friends and keep me in the loop.
It is you who doesn’t understand Rosen’s point. He wrote this:
Rosen: distortion, rizzo: I didn’t say that the SWP won’t allow for dissent. I said that they wouldn’t tolerate a member picketing one of their own events.
He did not. He said a Leninist one wouldn’t. Get it? Picket - Leninist Party - SWP not tolerating “attacks”- boot them out… His original post said nothing about the SWP and picketing, and this is when I had to look up at what he said to see why he was so nervous that I asked (in an ad hominem question -sic-) Elf if he was in the SWP after assuming he was socialist and being told he was not.
Back to you and I: Explain, referred to Rosen’s comments, 1) pickets and SWP, 2) Leninist groups’ policies and SWP, and 3) his insistence that “and to my knowledge, exact democratic centralism and boot them out” when they attack in public the policies.
and YOUR claim that: “I’m sure that dissent is allowed within the party, but that isn’t the point Michael was making. The whole essence of democratic centralism (which I would expect an ex-member of the ISO to understand) is an agreement to act collectively and under the party’s discipline once a decision has been reached, even if you opposed the decision. ”
YOU still don’t understand that we are talking about the SWP here. Try to stick to the things Rosen has said. Can you not see that they are thoroughly inconsistent and in contradiction with you? No one is saying parties don’t take disciplinary measures for those who actively violate their decisions after a vote, and compare it to those who “who attack any part of their policies in public,” which does not necessarily mean that they enforce a gag, or in this case, bringing up his picket thing, set a policy on the “picket” and how it should be dealt with. Why are there discussion groups if one is not allowed to “attack” and criticise the direction of their party or its policies? Unless you live with the party leaders, as i happened to, and politics is just going to be discussed constantly, there are communication organs, meetings and now, internet, to make the thing as public as everything can be and is, so how can it be stifled and still insist dissent can coexist, if ALL dissent leads to expulsion? Do they just have to accept the decisions from on high and shut up? I really don’t expect you to understand the subtleties of these idiosyncracies pointed out, and as usual the discrepancies between “he said” and “he meant” are just too much for my tastes if you people are supposed to be well versed in these discussions.
Comment by thecutter — 25 June, 2007 @ 7:43 pm
British left Journals… what a joke, there is no such a thing.
Is there a British Counter Punch? Is there a British Dissident Voice, is there a British Palestinian Chronicle? Is there a British Reblion? Is there a British Amin?
Is there any British left magazine with 100.000 readers a day?
The only British based political magazine with 700.00 readers a week is Middle East On Line. Atzmon is there on a regular Basis.
Comment by yocheved — 25 June, 2007 @ 7:44 pm
#”I have wondered whether to close down comments on this thread”
Yeah, I think it’s time for bed.
Continuing it just allows Atzmon to wave his horn around, advertise his latest gig and spot opportunities for another lawsuit.
Comment by Zebedee — 25 June, 2007 @ 8:05 pm
Andy,
I’m referring when I speak of national traits to things like language (Yiddish), territory (Pale of settlement), particular socio-economic roles and a shared culture which takes all this in and more.
You are right. Leon doesn’t apply to the Jewish diasporah today or rather it is proof that when there is no longer a distinctive socio-economic role, as in the Middle Ages/early capitalism, or even as peddlars etc. in the Polish ghettoes then Jewry is on the way out. And that is true. There is a very fast rate of assimilation today (over 1/2 Jews marrying out) and there is therefore a crisis of British Jewry. It is estimated there are 220,000 Jews in Britain cf. to 1/2 million when I grew up. Of course it will be many generations before Jews are reduced to almost nothing, since the Orthodox will continue, but the signs are clear. British Jewry will not only continue to decline (and the same is true of the USA) but the concentration of ultra-orthodox as a percentage of that population will grow.
You state that a ’shared collective consciousness of Jewishness is a national consciousness’. Yes it could be, but it might just be the consciousness of an ethnic minority. But regardless in Britain and elsewhere today there is no such shared collective consciousness. If anything the Jewish community is fragmenting as apart from Israel there is little to hold them together and it is ludicrous to suggest that Jews all over the world constitute a nation. In fact it is not ‘nation’ we are talking about but ‘race’ and many Zionists will vehemently argue (albeit not out aloud) that the Jews are a race apart. You are right - there is no shared biology but what else could possibly say that Chinese and Moroccan Jews are part of the same nation? Catholics also have a shared religious consciousness but that does not a nation make.
It doesn’t matter what the project is, though I’m not aware of a project of ‘maintaining a multi-national Jewish community spread across the world’ the fact is that the efforts of Jewish idealists is not a corollary of nation.
Only Zionism posited the idea of a Jewish race/nation. It’s not a negation of Zionism to state the obvious - Jews are not in any sense, shape or form a nation. It was the anti-Semites who argued that they were a nation/race apart and I don’t take my definitions from them. Take Israel away and you will see an even faster decline in the Jewish community.
I don’t accept that the Scots, Welsh and English are a nation - they are 3 nations! I think we are seeing the gradual break-up of the British state but in any case there is territorial continuity, a common language and a shared culture (of sorts!). But it is only a nation(s) when defined against the other and that is why negation is sometimes important, albeit not in the anti-Semitic fashion of Atzmon (Yocheved).
Tony
Comment by Tony Greenstein — 25 June, 2007 @ 8:16 pm
The cutter states that Sue Blackwell had to pay Atzmon’s lawyers £1,000. I’m sorry but I know, since I was integrally involved in the reply she sent to the solicitors.
She paid nothing to the solicitor, who demanded first £1,000 and then £1,250. She paid £100 to Medical Aid for Palestine, but nothing to Atzmon’s shyster lawyers. Hence there is no receipt because nothing was paid. Sue paid the £100 and agreed to shift Atzmon from the Nazi Alert page to another page, whilst keeping the comments about him intact. When Yocheved/Atzmon’s lawyers wrote asking for more money she simply pointed out that the original offer, to switch pages and pay MAP, was without prejudice to or accepting of Atzmon’s claims.
I’m really sorry Mary if Atzmon has lied to you too. But then, as Mark Elf, has said, he is both a liar and an anti-Semite.
Tony Greenstein
Comment by Tony Greenstein — 25 June, 2007 @ 8:20 pm
It would have been appropriate for one collaborator, Atzmon, to pay in the coin of another collaborator, Rumkowski.
>>Ah Yochi, are you sure you didn’t pay with Rumkowski’s coin from Lodz Ghetto?
Comment by thecutter — 22 June, 2007 @ 7:00 pm
Comment by Tony Greenstein — 25 June, 2007 @ 8:23 pm
Why does Atzmon/Yocheved need to lie? Sue Blackwell has devoted a whole page to Atzmon, whom she makes clear is an anti-Semite on http://www.sue.be/pal/Atzmon.html
But Sue sent a cheque for £100, not a £1,000 made out to MAP. So Atzmon has donated nothing (no surprise there). His lawyer got NOTHING which means that Atzmon was seriously out of pocket. Noone incidentally said that Atzmon is a neo-Nazi
And I don’t know why Atzmon uses Yocheved since they both use the same style of language and insult. Maybe he knows his name is mud!
>>You want to talk Shekels, yes he won at that front as well. Sue has sent money which Atzmon donated the Medical Aid for Palestine.
Tony G
Comment by Tony Greenstein — 25 June, 2007 @ 8:38 pm
Mark,
Mary has already admitted to me that she and Atzmon drew up the petition. What arrogance. Drawing up a petition, in the name of the Palestinian people, in order to cover their backsides!
Tony
>>Anyway, now you’ve exposed yourself here as a rabid Jew baiter could you answer the queries above about the petition you signed? That’s the thing that you and your typist Mary have studiously avoided answering. So go on, give it a go.
Comment by Tony Greenstein — 25 June, 2007 @ 8:40 pm
No, at Rosen’s gig, the currency was the Rumkowski Lodz coin, so she had to pay with Shekels.
Oh, Greenie, if Sue didn’t have some kind of pressure, meaning, that she was not going to be able to continue in her claims, which, apparently is what she settled to do, (but if she is not honouring her part, well, then, I suppose Gilad’s barrister should be informed of this). And, the comments intact?? why not look at the wishy-washy stuff that is on the Nazi Alert page referring to him… she had to show that she is inept to decide on her own who is a racist and who is not. Now, ask yourself a question: why would she have to give a contribution to the charity that Gilad wanted if she were not asked for compensation? And, seeing that you are really concerned about the money aspect, when a clamp fee makes you take city hall to the courts….I ask you, if she is cheap, that’s another matter, and would imagine the barrister would waiver whatever she was not coming up with, since the costs at that point were legal, and Gilad did not pay a penny. Makes you sort of wonder what she tells you. Oh, did you know the one about being out of town at her dad’s too? Was that the part you wrote? The woman seriously handled everything like an amateur. But, who is to say that it’s all over? She wanted to settle out of court, because she could not insist something that she could not defend… or she could not defend something she’d written, because you wouldn’t be there to feed her with the lines in court?
Comment by thecutter — 25 June, 2007 @ 8:44 pm
Most of the articles listed below are lifted without permission, but strangely Boycott is not among them.
There is an international boycott campaign, there has been international publicity and attacks on the Boycott campaign in Britain and yet NOT A MENTION OF THIS on Ms Rizzo’s site. Instead anti-Semitic nonsense from Atzmon among others. And are 2 articles by/about Avraham Burg more important than the fact that Boycott is winning successes in major British unions? Is an attack on Jewish anti-Zionists who have been integrally involved in the Boycott campaign (so much so that in the Jewish Chronicle this week the Zionist Board of Deputies expresses their anger at such involvement) more important than Atzmon’s attacks on Jewish involvement in Palestine solidarity campaigns?
Or is Rome cut off from the rest of the world? Dershowitz in the USA has heard of the boycott campaign in Britain but Mary Rizzo hasn’t. It’s a question of priorities. And as for that Palestinian street (which one?) I think some of us are more in touch than Mary will ever be. That’s why Brighton PSC, which I am a member of, has an active campaign of solidarity with Tubas in the Jordan valley. Perhaps Mary will enlighten us as to what actual solidarity she is engaged in (apart from solidarity with Atzmon/Yocheved and assorted anti-Semites)?
Tony Greenstein
>>Greenstein complains that out of the last 20 articles on Peacepalestine, 7 are by Palestinians, 2 are by European activists in Al-Awda and the Anti-Imperialst camp, 1 is by an American Jewish Anti-Zionist, 1 is simply copied from the JPost, 1 is by Fisk, 1 by Atzmon, 1 by me (about a forum for discussion), 1 by a Syrian working in Nahr el-Bared, 2 by Avrum Burg doing an interview where he changes his mind on Aliyah and 1 by Warashawski. UH… he has a major problem with the stuff on a blog called PeacePalestine having this sort of material…Tony’s problem is that I haven’t written a feature article about him! So, they say (lying) that I am not involved with the Boycott campaign. Well, Rome is hardly the headquarters of a British Labour Union, and we have our OWN campaigns, as well as the more important ones from Palestine, which they certainly don’t know or care about, so how would they know what I do?
Comment by Tony Greenstein — 25 June, 2007 @ 8:55 pm
It is a pity that Mary Rizzo, who has not to my knowledge made any anti-Semitic comments herself, provides cover and apology for anti-Semitic liars and nutcases like Atzmon.
Atzmon continues the pretence that he is not Yocheved but every word his alias utters is similar to Atzmon! Maybe we should ask a linguist for an analysis? How about Sue Blackwell!!!
Seriously, ‘if you have any dignity’ is one of Atzmon’s favourite phrases, and coming from someone with no dignity it is all the more surprising.
Michael Rosen performed at the Jewish Book Club and he’s an Israeli Embassy deliveryman? Try harder Atzmon. Didn’t you justify the apologetics of German Zionist Joachmin Prinz in Wir Juden for the Nazi system? Don’t you hold hands with the Harry’s Place Zionists including the sad Mikey? Aren’t all your attacks on Yiddish, Mike R and Dave R just a reflection of the Zionist hatred of the Jewish diaspora and its rich cultural heritage? You are a fake.
And since I also had an e-mail from Machover supporting the picket that makes Atzmon/Yocheved a liar twice over. And maybe Martin Smith too.
So why Atzmon do you need to post under false names and pretend otherwise? Why the Arab names etc? Are you so lacking in support?
Tony Greenstein
>>Rosen, if you have any dignity in your system, just piss off… you had been exposed today as the Israeli embassy deliveryman. You performed with a Klezmer Band named Yishar Koach (however, this is how you named them on stage) yet, you do not have the minimum respectful manner to remember their name, all you say is ‘I met them in the street’, ‘my memory is faling’. Rosen take responsibility for fuck sake. …. What you do is s unheard of. You call yourself a socialist?
Actually, we do not attack you in person, we do not care about you, and you are indeed insignificant. But you choose to act under a Jewish progressive secular banner while knowing fuck all about Jewishness, secularity and progressiveness. You speak about Yiddish wile knowing fuck all about the Yiddish culture. You are a loud ignorant and this is symptomatic to you all. You are as well a compulsive liar, you tell us about the JC campaigning against you but then, just a few posts later we find out that you were performing in the JC sponsored book festival. What are you made of Mr Rosen?
Rosen, Atzmon doesn’t touch you, it is actually me Yochi. If Atzmon goes for you, you will find yourself again staring one of his grand papers. I can imagine his titles: “Isakofsky, The Deliveryman” ‘The 3rd category Poet’, ‘The double agent’. You may want to choose one…
However, you could learn from Machover. Once Rizzo (with the help of Martin Smith) exposed him as a compulsive liar
http://peacepalestine.blogspot.com/2005/06/martin-smith-of-swp-statement-on.html
Machover imposed silence on himself. Unlike you and alike, he has dignity. He knew that he fucked up. Did you see him recently?
Rosen, Just one question to you, why can’t you just stand up and say: ‘Here I am, My name is Michael Rosen, I am a human being, I made a mistake, maybe more than one, I am sorry . Let’s start again’.
This is all you have to do. to regret for fuck sake or just to raise a white flag (Something you could learn from Shimon Tzabar)
Cutter: you are right, Rosen is a mediocre, I am myself shocked by the level of his argumentation…. yet, his behaviour (sleeping with the Israelis while pretending to boycott them) is symptomatic to these disastrous 3rd category creatures. As you can see we are back in Sq 1.
We are back with Atzmon’s Protocols of the Elders of London. These people are indeed `Zionists to the bone.
It is totally established…
Comment by yocheved — 25 June, 2007 @ 5:14 am
Comment by Tony Greenstein — 25 June, 2007 @ 9:07 pm
A petition is a petition. Like my friend Bassem, (who’s brother Remy, together with two other Palestinians and a Canadian worked on it with Gilad and I) said yesterday: petitions don’t get explained. If you like their content, you sign, if you think it’s no good, you don’t. No one is constraining anyone to sign. At most, you make a counter petition and offer it for people to sign.
It should be relatively simple to understand a concept of the sort. Yet, you say it’s all about you, but Remy didn’t even know who any of YOU are when we were here working on it!! Do you think you are the only people who act like you promote Palestinians, but have an agenda that maybe isn’t as bad as some, but for sure, Palestinians are not your priority and you even would prefer that a Palestine blog post is about you than about the troubles in Gaza. When it comes to issues, for you and many of your political comrades, the most important one is what attitude people have of the Jewish activists or even to issues having to do with anything Jewish. Remy, when he worked on this petition with us, in total ignorance of you or your obsessions, is against anyone who speaks as if they know what the issues are, but don’t promote ROR and the need of the elected officials to govern, no matter what party they are of if they are secular or not. There are some who put the focus on the “two States for two people”, those who say “Israelis have suffered too, let’s spend time with that”, those who say that there is no such thing as an extremely powerful Jewish lobby, and claiming that those saying this are therefore “misguided if not anti-Semitic”. So, hope that explains what is mysterious to you when we say that the priority is Palestinians, and “there are those not putting them first” can and does mean millions of people.
Comment by thecutter — 25 June, 2007 @ 9:11 pm
Under an ‘offer to make amends’ Sue offered, on a without prejudice basis, to pay £100 to MAP. But you and Atzmon said she paid £1,000 and that she even got a receipt. Well that’s a lie which you have now accepted. She paid NOT A PENNY towards his costs, hence he had to pay them himself. And quite rightly. Why should she pay an anti-Semite money because he objects to being associated with neo-Nazis?
Tony G
>>Oh, Greenie, if Sue didn’t have some kind of pressure, meaning, that she was not going to be able to continue in her claims, which, apparently is what she settled to do, (but if she is not honouring her part, well, then, I suppose Gilad’s barrister should be informed of this). And, the comments intact?? why not look at the wishy-washy stuff that is on the Nazi Alert page referring to him… she had to show that she is inept to decide on her own who is a racist and who is not. Now, ask yourself a question: why would she have to give a contribution to the charity that Gilad wanted if she were not asked for compensation? And, seeing that you are really concerned about the money aspect, when a clamp fee makes you take city hall to the courts….I ask you, if she is cheap, that’s another matter, and would imagine the barrister would waiver whatever she was not coming up with, since the costs at that point were legal, and Gilad did not pay a penny. Makes you sort of wonder what she tells you. Oh, did you know the one about being out of town at her dad’s too? Was that the part you wrote? The woman seriously handled everything like an amateur. But, who is to say that it’s all over? She wanted to settle out of court, because she could not insist something that she could not defend… or she could not defend something she’d written, because you wouldn’t be there to feed her with the lines in court?
Comment by Tony Greenstein — 25 June, 2007 @ 9:13 pm
mmm, if MM supported the picket, why was he so loathe to 1) go, 2) admit what his position was when I asked him? Makes me wonder.
Since Martin Smith sent the email I asked for that would put MM’s position expressed to him in public domain, knowing it was meant for publication, one would think he was pretty sure about what was going to be close to the “official” version. Either MM wants to make everyone happy-unhappy, or he simply didn’t agree to either position and wanted an easy way out. Maybe you never should have involved him.
Comment by thecutter — 25 June, 2007 @ 9:18 pm
why would someone need to make amends if they did not wrongly cause harm? Amends for what? Obviously, and this is the main point, although the economic matters are the most important to you, and I know what I know, and it’s not what you know, so until we can get Sue and Gilad to speak rather than people who know them, AMENDS are paid because she had to alter the content of her site because what was up was defamatory.
Comment by thecutter — 25 June, 2007 @ 9:23 pm
The Green Man: “There is an international boycott campaign,,,….”
Yochi: And there is ‘Rosen’ in bed with the Israeli Embassy….
“http://www.jewishbookweek.com/jewish-book-council/supporting-book-week.php
Supporting Book Week
SPECIAL THANKS TO The Arts Council of England, The Charities Advisory Trust, the John S Cohen Foundation, the Dorset Foundation, the Foyle Foundation, THE ISRAELI EMBASSY, The Jewish Chronicle, the Porjes Trust, the UJIA”
Is it a boycott? Actually from here it looks like collaboration…..
Yishar Koach ………………………
Comment by yocheved — 25 June, 2007 @ 9:52 pm
It seems that Atzmon/Yocheved is now referring people to a Zionist smear site. Fine. The libel damages will be even bigger!
Comment by Tony Greenstein — 25 June, 2007 @ 9:54 pm
The Green Man: “There is an international boycott campaign,,,….”
Yochi: And there is ‘Rosen’ in bed with the Israeli Embassy….:
“http://www.jewishbookweek.com/jewish-book-council/supporting-book-week.php
Supporting Book Week
SPECIAL THANKS TO The Arts Council of England, The Charities Advisory Trust, the John S Cohen Foundation, the Dorset Foundation, the Foyle Foundation, THE ISRAELI EMBASSY, The Jewish Chronicle, the Porjes Trust, the UJIA”
In the JC they said ‘Rosen is Chosen’, in Yiddish you may actually say ‘Rosen Der Chosen’
Is it a boycott? Actually from here it looks like collaboration…..
Yishar Koach ………………………
Comment by yocheved — 25 June, 2007 @ 9:55 pm
“She’Koyokh Klezmer Ensemble is a group of young London-based professional musicians from culturally diverse backgrounds dedicated to performing Eastern European folk music, employing ornaments, phrasing and rhythms specific to a variety of national folk styles. They bring a fresh, passionate energy to Balkan, Greek and Turkish folk music as well as to an extensive repertoire of Ashkenazi Jewish melodies once played in the Shtetls of countries such as Poland, Romania and the Ukraine.
The band consists of a unique and versatile combination of instrumentalists, from self-taught Lithuanian-Jewish accordionist Jim Marcovitch to Royal Academy of Music graduate, clarinettist Susi Evans, and Meg Hamilton on Violin, Irish-Jewish Ben Samuels from California - mandolin, Robin Harris - trombone, Oliver Baldwin - double Bass, Matthew Bacon - guitar, Frazer Watson - darabucka and tapan. For special occasions: Dimitris Chaidemenakis from Greece- poyk. ”
What an odd way to express jewish exclusiveness and ‘jewish power’!
Ex-Israeli army man accuses secular anti-zionist European Jews of collaboration. Yeah right.
Comment by Michael Rosen — 26 June, 2007 @ 12:23 am
Atzmon, you are an ignorant liar. It is simply false (and defamatory) to claim that I “operate politically solely within exclusive Jewish cells”. You know nothing about me, my political activity, my comrades and associates. Why don’t you stick to writing on a subject you know about. Could it be because all you know about is your own big mouth and hyper-inflated ego, which would be a boring subject, so you have to invent and fantasise?
You really are scraping the barrel when you resort to posting a link to a Kahanist smear site in order to libel Tony Greenstein. And then you have the effrontery to accuse Michael Rosen of “collaborating with the Israeli Embassy”. Unlike you, my friends and I do not go out for cosy drinks and chats with Zionists. I am so pleased to see that they found you “utterly charming and a delightful drinking companion”. What a beautiful occasion that must have been, all those racist bigots together.
Comment by Roland Rance — 26 June, 2007 @ 12:29 am
Roland, I don’t want to get in the way of whatever it is you are trying to do so that you can keep avoiding the questions that were related to the discourse you chose to undertake with me. I know it’s impossible to make all those contradictions between Rosen and your good self coincide, and that is why you are instead toying around with trying to pass Gilad off as a Zionist and Yochi off as Gilad when this is just one of those arguments that one says, and if it is; SO WHAT?! and if it isn’t; SO WHAT?!!
I wish to contribute one little tidbit that might cause others (not you or the folks you hang with). No one knows the life and all the actions of another, of course, no one can assume to know all the political affiliates, although one can deduce what they are. Atzmon (who you keep insisting is Yochi) is out there and up to scrutiny by the public eye almost his entire life, probably 300 days out of a year. He’s not going around hiding things, his movements are around for anyone to witness. (as a matter of fact, today he had lunch with the editor of Palestine chronicle, so I would hardly call him the Lunching with Zionists sort). If it is so politically relevant that he accepted the invitation to meet with a writer from Harry’s bearing in mind it would be used by you folks, he did it anyway. He probably only takes orders from his wife now and then, I can’t see him doing that from you of all people, but he was aware of the stakes. Besides, if you want to convince Zionists to change, you have to sometimes interact with them, preaching to the choir is not politically very effective.
But, let’s mention one thing I know about interacting with anti zionist activists, who we were supposed to, once upon a time, share strategies with and work harmoniously despite some divergencies. You recently shared a stage in London with Jeff Blankfort, much more widely circulated than you are and host of a progressive radio program. I’ve known the man (through internet only) for a relatively long period of time, and I think that only in your circles is he given really harsh treatment. Even Chomsky has a soft spot for him, from what someone who knows both of them has told me. Now, what is interesting is, sharing a stage, one would imagine that the folks on the panel shake hands. I even shake hands with Zionists when we do it, knowing we will fight and things will get heated. Yet, there is respect for people putting themselves up for public scrutiny that allows each of us somehow to be civil and not make a spectacle of our dissimilarities or how we might feel about one another. Well, I asked Jeff how the conference went, and he told me that it was the strangest thing ever: when he walked past you, you turned your head in the other direction in a theatrical way and ignored him. Now, I’m not saying you aren’t free to decide who to snub, but you restrict your circle to 1) the people who you are supposed to change 2) people who are working towards the same goal. Think about if in the end, the idea of a closed cell is such an absurd image of where you’re going politically at least on this issue.
Comment by thecutter — 26 June, 2007 @ 12:49 am
but you restrict your circle to 1) the people who you are supposed to change 2) people who are working towards the same goal.
that should have read:
but you restrict your circle to EXCLUDE 1) the people who you are supposed to change 2) people who are working towards the same goal.
Comment by thecutter — 26 June, 2007 @ 12:52 am
Roland, re the SWP and ‘democratic centralism’ etc. You’re right. Of course there is dissent within the organisation. They encourage it at Marxism. What they don’t like is members expressing dissent in public after a collective decision has been reached. As you say. I should know, my parents’ lives were ruled by that for twenty years. Thus, rizzo wondering if Elf is a member is not one of her smartest contributions, given that Elf picketed the SWP bookshop and attacks the SWP for inviting Atzmon to play over and over again.
Meanwhile it really is strange that Socialist Worker and Socialist Review don’t open their pages to Atzmon, Gillespie and Rizzo…especially as Rizzo is, she says, a close buddy of SW editor. Attacking socialists (even ones you disagree with) in a personalised, lying, distorting way might have something to do with it, but then the old atzmo-gillespie-rizzo ‘zio-world- conspiracy-of-Jewish-power-as-sustained-by-collaborationist-European-secular-anti-zionists’ thing is not their line either. After all, they disagree quite strongly with someone like Billy Bragg (on another issue altogether) but he’ll be debating at Marxism this year. So there’s room for someone like him. And Tom Stoppard. And Michael Billington. And Tony Benn. So whatever Atzmon, Gillespie and Rizzo really believe must be way off the SWP dial, huh? How odd.
Comment by Michael Rosen — 26 June, 2007 @ 1:14 am
so Rosen, after 20 years of experience, it only took a nod from Roland here to make you eat crow on this remark:
Rosen:“The SWP is not known for being very sympathetic towards members who attack any part of their policies in public, and to my knowledge, exact democratic centralism and boot them out…so q.e.d.???”
oh, now don’t go on about the subtleties of what you possibly Meant by the word “public” in reference to “any part” most especially, whatever a connection to a Leninist party is supposed to mean in this debate and why it is so bizarre first to assume Elf was not Socialist, and to ask if his pushiness with a party he is not even a member to is a normal thing. To me, it’s not normal. So one has to absolutely be OUT OF a party to publicly express ANY opinion against their policies according to you and the logic just should have been clear to me? That’s an odd one. And besides, did he go to the picket? I seem to think he was one of those picking up his kid or going to a service for his father or something.
Hey, why would I write for Socialist Worker? I see no point in it when I can update my own blog whenever I want and be posted on sites I like a lot more like Uruknet, Axis, OnLine Journal, the People’s Voice whenever I ask them. Is publishing in The Socialist Worker the biggest thing to do? I actually did write a paper for them once, and Alan said he thought it was great, but since they are not updated very regularly, and he wanted to see it in print as quickly as I did, asked if I wouldn’t mind it being put up in Counterpunch, and it was. So, honestly, I don’t know why it is so necessary to be in the ISO’s party paper, although it’s a decent paper.
Comment by thecutter — 26 June, 2007 @ 1:28 am
Yes, ‘any part’ was linked to ‘in public’. Yes, ‘in public’ was my point. That’s why I used the phrase. Of course, they argue, dissent and row in private. Do it in public and you get chucked out. Even if you try to form a faction (or a fraction) you get chucked out. That’s how leninist parties operate and I have no argument with that. No crow. No eat. If Elf were to become a member, and he went on attacking the organisers of Marxism for inviting Atzmon, he’d be asked to stop and if he didn’t he’d be asked to pack his bags. For once, rizzo, I’m not saying this to argue against you. In fact, I’m offering it to you so that you don’t get your compass wrong in delineating Elf or anyone else. If you want to turn it into something I’ve got wrong…well, I guess it’s a reflex.
The other interesting thing is when people ask to join an organisation like the SWP and they’re refused…
Comment by Michael Rosen — 26 June, 2007 @ 1:46 am
Hey Mazal Tov, Herr Rosen der Chosen, memory is back, oy oy oy, yesterday you found them in the “market” now they become the symbol of Multi Culti (a bit of German slang to revive your fading Yiddish skills)
Rosen are you are either senile or a liar, on 102 you told us: “The guy busks at Columbia Market” , he was hardly no one, a street musician…you couldn’t even remember his name (this is the kind of solidarity you perform with someone who shared stage with you, shame on you ugly bourgeoisie snob) . Today he moves up street: “The band consists of a unique and versatile combination of instrumentalists, from self-taught Lithuanian-Jewish accordionist Jim Marcovitch to Royal Academy of Music graduate,”. Seemingly people move up and down classes just to fit into you self preservation project.
Now read carefully you pathetic ignorant so you may start to internalize the level of crap you are involved with!
Shekoach is a shortcut for ‘Yisher Koach’ and and Yisher Koach is the embodiment of the Jewish Supremacist precept. It isn’t coincidence that Yisher Koach and Shekoach are the most common expressions used by settlers. I will elaborate on that later.
Since I knew that you will admit eventually I collected some relevant information…
Here is a extract of an explanation made by a Rabbi..
http://www.balashon.com/2006/02/yishar-koach.html
“ Yishar Koah, or Yasher Koach, means congratulations.
When congratulating someone who has had the merit of performing a MITZVAH (commandment ) or other worthy task in SHUL, we say Yasher Koach, or the shortened form of Shkoach.The words literally mean, “May your strength be firm”. “
As you can already gather, the words Shkoach and Yiser Koach are judaically orientated and associated with Mizvoth.
The Rabbi continues…”
“Yasher Koach was originally intended to be used exclusively for one who had read from the Torah.”
Yasher Koach refers solely to the Jewish Miztvha . It has NO UNIVERSAL CONOTATIONS. It is there to congratulate a JEW for acting JEWISHLY…It is all about Koach (power) in a strict Jewish reference to COMMANDMENTs (Mitzvhos)!
Indeed I wonder why a secular east European Jew associates himself with such a charged JEWISH RELIGIOUS expression.
But in fact it is far worse, Yisher Koach is the most common say amongst settlers, those who believe that dispossessing Palestinians is a Mitzvha. Shekoach is what a settler would tell an IDF soldier in a road block. He congratulates the soldier for turning Palestinian life into misery… Rosen, is it what you like to associate yourself with?
I am sure that our Palestinian friends will be slightly distressed when they find out that you identify yourself so closely with their oppression.
Just to make sure that I do not mess you around I entered a settler blog and collected some Shekoachs just for you to look at (so you learn the Language Game). Just to make sure that you realize what you associate yourself with…
The Following is a collections of comments written by settlers reffering to some right wing protest against the GAZA disengagment…
http://pinchas.blogspot.com/2005/08/photo-blog-gush-katif-protests-where.html
“Gush Katif Protests, Where was everybody?”
XXXXXXX
American Jew said…
Here in america, we are so proud of you! i was there (in Gush Katif) this past month, and i couldnt believe what they had built up! Thank you for the very emotinal picturs, and all i can say to those who went on this big “tiyul” is YASHER KOACH! Go do whatever you can do to stop the dreadful disengagment, and may we merit to see Moshiach right now, and sharon and all the other evil politicians will see what is right! DO ALL THAT YOU CAN DO, AND BE ALL THAT YOU CAN BE! GO FIGHT AND STOP THE DISENGAGMENT NOW!!!!!!!!! AMEN
6:15 PM
Anonymous said…
YISHAR KOACH i wish i was there 2 support, but unfortunetly i’m stuck in atlanta georgia u.s.a. if this doesnt bring masiach then i dont know wat will!! I.R.Litzman
8:35 PM
Ezzie said…
YISHAR KOACH.
4:20 AM
Thank you so much for your journey to save Gush and for this report…
ICH KOACH…
Kol Ha Kavod…
Tizke la Mitzvot
Chabbat Chalom,
Michael Rosen, musicians are free to call themselves what ever they like. They aren’t Palestinian solidarity activists but you are or at least made the impression you were at a certain stage.
If you really want to know, some of these musicians aren’t even Jewish (that’s what I heard, not that I care) but you are, a proud political Jew, you love your ‘Yiddish culture’ , You love yourself, so now learn to take responsibility.
Now you know what Shekoach means, you admitted performing with Shekoach, you admitted collaborating with the Israeli Embassy in the J book fair… is there any more fiascos ahead, I think that we have more than enough ….
I still want to believe that you were just too stupid and failed to understand what you were doing … I want to believe that you forgot to check who sponsored the Book week, that you didn’t not know what Shekoach means, because if you did your homework and went ahead , you are nothing less than a hard core Zionist…
I think that we are more or less ready for the Elder Of London Verse 2
This time featuring the Progressive Michael Chosen.
Again, like Rosenberg you can save yourself saying: ‘Sorry Yochi and everyone else,, i am regretting , i was foolish, I didn’t do my homework, I ll take care next time.
You see Rosenberg has balls, he regreted… Machover has balls to keep silent … but as things stand you have your shekoach.
Comment by yocheved — 26 June, 2007 @ 2:02 am
Rosen, who wants to write for the Socialist Worker and Socialist Review?
As you probably know, Atzmon has enough support in the party. He could easily find his way in if he wanted to. He isn’t interested at all. If you didn’t get it, Atzmon is not affiliated with any party or institution. He believes that artists must maintain independence!!!
Unlike you, he is neither a socialist nor a Marxist in a sense that he refuses to limit himself to mere dialectical materialism. Yet, he runs a collective band. A band that is playing in the biggest Socialist, Marxist and solidarity events around the world.
He believes in solidarity that elevates people to spiritual brotherhood.
Unlike you he treats people who shares stage with him with total respect (go and read again your 102). This is why he plays with the same people for very many years sometime decades.
For him working class politics is not an ideology, it is actually a way of living.
Comment by yocheved — 26 June, 2007 @ 3:02 am
“The latest issue includes an interview with Michael Rosen concerning the attacks on Jewish activists by Gilad Atzmon and Paul Eisen, who claim that the only way to be a Jew supporting the Palestinians is to renounce Jewish identity.”
Regarding the above, I wouldn’t say that I want to renounce Jewish identity at all. On the contrary, I’ve never felt my Jewish identity more. It’s more a kind of blind, mindless collective and tribal Jewish identity which, for me, is, at the moment at least, on hold.
But who knows what the future may hold?
Paul
Comment by Paul — 26 June, 2007 @ 5:16 am
Yes, it took me some time to find out the band’s real name and not the name that you called them. duh! That’s a bad?! duh!
You should address your linguistic illiteracy to the band (two of whom I am glad I played with, and yes, some of whom busk at Columbia Market (that’s no insult in my book!) . Why would a group of musicians of mixed origin want to call themselves ‘Jewish Power’? They don’t think they’re called ‘Jewish Power’. And the two musicians I played with don’t think that they’re called ‘Jewish Power’. The fact that you do is about as significant as a someone saying that everytime someone says ‘bloody hell’ they’re really saying ‘by our Lady, Hell’, and so really they’re blaspheming by insulting the Virgin Mary. Language is not the same as archaeology. You said I played with a band called ‘Jewish Power’. I didn’t. No one apart from you, thinks I did. Perhaps you think that if someone is called Taylor he ought to make suits and someone called Brewer should be making beer.
Your band is terrific, Atzmon. You don’t have to keep telling us. That’s not the argument. The fact that after hundreds of postings, articles and appearances, you think that you still have to tell us is you and your band are great is a pity. You run a terrific band.You are a terrific musician. Understood. They/you have a fantastic effect on political and solidarity occasions. I won’t speak for others here, but that’s what I think. You don’t need to remind me of that. Perhaps you’re reminding others.
I think you’ll find that David Rosenberg and Julia Bard were able to work out their attitude to circumcision without any help from you. Same goes for millions of people around the world.
The idea that I, or anyone else, has to come to the judgement table of Atzmon, and be a ‘man’ (snigger at sexist crap) and regret something or renounce something is just silly. Just because you’re a great musician, it doesn’t mean that you’re the Lord Chancellor.
If you’re still getting excited about Jewish Book Week, then you really should start firing off letters to Harold Pinter, Carmen Callil and Julia Kristeva and the various Palestinian intellectuals who’ve appeared there over the years. The fact that you single me out in this, suggests to me that you’re thinking about ego and not politics.
And no, of course you don’t want to write for SW or SR or get closer to the organisation. And never have. Of course not. Absolutely not. Not at all. No. Not ever. Never. Never. Never.
All this started you’ll remember, because, way back, you started out on your journey of explaining to the world that there was a problem with, yes, ‘jewish power’ (not the mythical name for a band) but the zio neo con conspiracy etc etc. When people started criticising this, you turned on the jewish socialist organisations and individuals and developed your theories of why they’re all in essence zionist. (I summarise, excuse me). All this silly stuff about me is small, small, small beer beside your big, big claims. I’d be interested in seeing you get an article printed anywhere in any left journal readily and easily available where you laid out your complete world view on this front. You keep getting waylaid and excited about individuals and events. Yes, of course your stuff is on the internet but many people don’t get to find their way to it. Why aren’t your theories out there in eg the New Statesman, the Guardian, Tribune, the Independent or indeed Socialist Worker or Socialist Review? Not the knockabout abuse stuff (neither you or rizzo can quite work out why, if we’re so mediocre and insignficant you keep writing about us and to us…), but the hard theory? Most people I know, know your music, know of your solidarity with the Palestinians and that you are ‘critical’ of Israel (that’s how they and your reviewers in the music press put it) but don’t know about these big, world theories and your critique of ashkenazi culture, your analysis of the failure of every leftwing Jew apart from you and so on. You can say it’s their fault, but most people I know don’t comb the internet, look back at threads on blogs etc etc. One well-placed article in a wellknown newspaper or journal is still a better way to cause a stir than hundreds of thousands of words on the web. I assure you, people just don’t know the full picture of the Atzmon philosophy and politics. Some think it’s just atzmon v greenstein or atzmon v secular circumcisions or atzmon v rosen or atzmon v rance or atzmon v elf, atzmon v machover (and other great battles of our time). Now, you wouldn’t want to be reduced to something as trivial as that, surely???
Comment by Michael Rosen — 26 June, 2007 @ 8:42 am
By the way, you’ve been uncharacteristically silent about the ‘Saudi handshake’. Recap: I read poems by Palestinian poets at Deir Yassin Remembered. Paul Eisen brings ‘guests’ to the dressing area. The guests want to shake our hands. The performers shake hands with the guests. Paul and guests disappear. Paul returns and apologises to me because, he says, the guests came from the Saudi embassy.
Out of interest, were you there that day? Did you shake their hands? If you did, do you now regret that? If you weren’t there, I note that you seem reluctant to pass on any comments on that episode. And did the Saudi regime sponsor that occasion? (I have no idea). If they did, is there a problem with that?
Comment by Michael Rosen — 26 June, 2007 @ 9:15 am
[…] (and we are now getting between 700 and 1000 visitors per day) will know now that my recent post on national identity caused a bit of a storm between on the one hand Gilad Atzmon (writing under a variety of […]
Pingback by SOCIALIST UNITY » BLOGS, TROLLS & LIBEL — 27 June, 2007 @ 11:56 am
[…] This is the first of a two part article on Marxism and national identity (I have already touched on these issues here) […]
Pingback by SOCIALIST UNITY » THE ENGLISH — 12 July, 2007 @ 11:11 pm
site: www.parrotearring.com…
janjaweed…
Trackback by ngm insurance — 27 October, 2007 @ 2:35 pm
[…] SOCIALIST UNITY » NATIONAL IDENTITY: THE JEWS, THE ENGLISH & THE SWP […]
Pingback by Why Learn German Slang Words? - The Blog Planet — 13 September, 2009 @ 7:31 pm
[…] SOCIALIST UNITY » NATIONAL IDENTITY: THE JEWS, THE ENGLISH & THE SWP Nor, in the same way, does the fact that some Jews in Britain send money to some… Personally i still have some difficulty in understanding the distinction between…. Well done Mark, the flights of your imagination are dazzling……. Pingback by SOCIALIST UNITY » THE ENGLISH — 12 July, 2007 @ 11:11 pm.www.socialistunity.com/?p=554 - SOCIALIST UNITY » NATIONAL IDENTITY: THE JEWS, THE ENGLISH & THE SWP […]
Pingback by First computer - Computer electronic - Computer graphic mathematical first steps — 13 August, 2010 @ 7:28 pm