PSC AGM – A CRUSHING DEFEAT FOR GILAD ATZMON AND THE ANTI-SEMITES
This is a cross-post from Tony Greenstein’s blog.
The 30th Conference of PSC promised to be one of the more controversial PSC AGMs and it certainly lived up to it. Entering the conference, who was there giving out blue badges commemorating the massacre at Deir Yassin, but the eminence grise of the holocaust deniers, Paul Eisen – neo-Nazi apologist extraordinaire.
Despite his fulminations against what he calls ‘Zionism’ Eisen is remarkably similar to them. The Zionists exploit the holocaust for their own purposes and Eisen exploits the massacre of Palestinians for his own purposes, i.e. denial of the holocaust and rehabilitation of the Nazis.
The first item on the agenda was a closed session at which the appeal of Frances Clarke Lowes against his expulsion was to be heard. Last April, Francis declared on the Brighton & Hove PSC Discussion List that he was proud to be a holocaust denier. For his pains he was expelled from Brighton PSC and not one voice was raised in his defence in Brighton PSC. I reported his statement to the Executive and sometime in May he was also expelled from national PSC. Francis however had the right of appeal to the national conference and chose to exercise that right.
The speech is printed, in a highly edited version, on (who else?) Gilad Atzmon’s site.
It is fair to say that Clarke-Lowes speech did him no favours. It was extremely anti-Semitic, talking about the ‘Jewish narrative’ and speaking about Jews as a group with common properties. He openly stated that the holocaust was a myth (something Atzmon has not included in his version of the speech). People literally gasped as they heard him describe the holocaust as a ‘myth’ and a number of people told me that if he hadn’t been expelled they would have resigned.
The speech from the Executive, from Hugh Lanning, was superb, moving and to the point. It ended by asking conference not to let evil enter our hearts. Conference upheld the expulsion by 165 vote to 35 with 6 abstension. A couple of days ago I had sent an e-mail to the Secretary of PSC, Ben Sofa, saying that in my opinion a majority was not good enough, we needed at least a 3-1 majority. In the end we got 5-1. In fact it was considerably more because I had not realised that the zany Communist Party of Great Britain – Marxist Leninist, the followers of the hereditary oligarchy otherwise known as the ‘socialist state of North Korea’ had taken a decision to oppose any condemnation of holocaust denial. Their amendment to the Executive’s Motion 2 read:
‘This AGM resolves that PSC’s chief focus shall remain that of building support for Palestine and Palestinians and against zionism and imperialism. It is not the PSC’s job to act as thought police on behalf of zionism and imperialism, and we refuse to ask the Palestinians to bend their narrative to one that is acceptable to zionist ears.’
That so-called communists, led by Harpal Brar and his daughter Joti Brar, think that the Palestinian narrative includes holocaust denial or that there is any contradiction between opposing the denial of the holocaust and opposing imperialism and Zionism is truly amazing. But as Harpal Brar made clear in a subsequent speech he cast no doubt on the fact of the holocaust.
In other words most of those who voted against Clarke-Lowes’ expulsion, did so despite his views on the holocaust and primarily as part of a wider disagreement with PSC Executive. And since they brought virtually all of their membership of about 20 to the conference, it is clear even that that stage that those who had any sympathy with Clarke-Lowes were a tiny handful.
After the lunch break we had a guest speaker, Omar Barghouti from the Palestinian Boycott National Committee. He detailed the increasingly open racism of the state, its attacks on the memory of the Nakba, which has been made unlawful, the shameful decision of the Supreme Court to uphold the Citizenship Law which prevents Israeli Arabs from living with their spouse in side Israel.
It must have been a shock when Omar went out of his way to make it clear that anti-Semitism and holocaust denial were no part of the politics of the Palestinians. ‘Ours is an anti-racist cause’ he stated, in case anyone had failed to decipher the meaning of the speech. He generously paid tribute to PSC as the world’s most effective solidarity organisation and to Britain for leading the way in Boycott. It is a compliment that are indebted to honour and repay.
After Omar’s speech the Executive motion 2 and that from Naomi Wimborne Idrissi were taken, along with all 3 amendments from Gill Kaffash/Rosemary Earnshaw, Exeter PSC and the CPGB-ML (above). All the amendments were heavily defeated with less than 20 votes out of over 250 delegates (the votes in the Executive elections indicate there must have been an increase in people arriving by at least 50). Harpal Brar was the only person to speak with any passion or conviction for the amendments. And to his credit he made it clear that of course he accepted that fact of the holocaust without reservation but that there were a number of other acts of genocide we should condemn – that of the Armenians for example, the Iraqis and others. In other words he was speaking agains the Zionists’ holocaust exceptionalism – the idea that the holocaust of Jews is unique. I agree.
Even Gill Kaffash chose not to mention anything to do with holocaust and instead mounted a free speech argument, coupled with the assertion that we stick to Palestine not extraneous issues. But speaker after speaker, with the exception of Exeter PSC’s constitutionalist Dave Chappell (FBU), made it clear that it was not possible oppose the racism that Palestinians suffer from and yet tolerate holocaust deniers and their associates. A member of the Communications Workers Union, whose name I didn’t catch, made this clear in a particularly impassioned contribution, as did Roland Rance from Jews 4 Boycotting Israeli Goods and other speakers.
In the end both the Executive Motion and the one from J-Big were passed with barely 10 votes, if that, against. A humiliating and crushing defeat for the Atzmonites and holocaust deniers in the movement. In my own speech I quoted Atzmon’s statement that Jews who speak as ‘ethnic’ Jews, i.e. who are Jewish simply reinforced Zionism. I asked how is it that people agreed when UNISON passed boycott policy in 2007, that I should speak as someone who is Jewish precisely in order to take head on the Zionist lies that to support the Palestinians is anti-Semitic? I never received an answer from Atzmon’s few supporters. Nor will I. Because the growing number of Jews who are breaking from Zionism, partially or completely, has been growing, especially in the United States. Only the Zionists and the Atzmonites deplore this phenomenon.
It is the Zionists’ supporters – be it the EDL and BNP in this country – or John Hagee of Christians United for Israel – who described Hitler as god’s messenger sent to drive the Jews to Israel, who are the real anti-Semites, and on this of course Harry’s Place is silent.
Many other motions were also passed including one on the disgraceful attacks on Palestinian children by the Israeli military. It is to the eternal shame of the West that they have nothing to say about the shackling and torture of children even, to say nothing of the shackling of Palestinian women prisoners, even while they are giving birth.
There were discussions about the growing successes of the boycott movement, in particular the loss of a £500m contract for Veolia in West London and tribute was paid to Angus Geddes for his sterling work in this area. The closure of Ahava, the Israeli store that traded in stolen goods was also highlighted as was the Judaification of the Negev. Bernard Regan in particular spoke well on the latter and his experiences when visiting Israel with a delegation.
This is also the 30th anniversary of the foundation of PSC and a motion was passed mandating the Executive to organise series of fundraising activities and celebrations. When you consider what we have had to battle against to build an organisation that has now achieved over 5,000 members, then this is indeed a success and tribute was paid to faithful stalwarts like Jeremy Corbyn MP, Baroness Jenny Tonge and Bruce Kent. It is a measure of our success that when I first became involved in Palestinian politics Gerald Kaufman and Tony Benn were both members of Labour Friends of Israel. Today Gerald Kaufman has sponsored an Early Day Motion with Jeremy Corbyn on the racist Jewish National Fund.
And conference also made us, including myself, realise, that whatever disagreements we may have with the Executive, what we have in common is far greater than that which divides us. For the first time ever I even voted for Bernard Regan for the Executive and he accused me of stealing his lines! A special mention should be made of Ben Sofa, the Secretary, who has never wavered in his support for tackling the issue head on.
Because the Executive realised that if the holocaust deniers had got their way, the trade unions – with their history of fighting fascism – would have disaffiliated and we would be a cacophony of noise without influence. Those who argued that we should concentrate on Palestine and Palestinians failed to recognise that that means you must politically engage with the mainstream of society and that you have, at all costs, not to hand your opponents weapons to attack you with.
People were angry at the constant misrepresentation of Palestinian activists you see on sites like Harry’s Place, a place where only rabid Zionists with cloth ears venture. However it was important when attacked by such people to recognise that whilst their accusations of ‘anti-Semitism’ may be libels 99 times out of a hundred, there are occasions when we have to sit up and take notice.
So it is that Nahida, an Atzmonite in Liverpool branch, where there have been problems, could write that:
‘The crusade against PSC was ignited by Zionists from outside the movement beginning in September, following an article published on the Zionist hate-website Harry’s Place (HP), and a letter from the Board of Deputies of British Jews” (BODBJ), accusing PSC and its branches of publishing anti-Semitic articles and linking to Holocaust denial websites, which arguably is a crude lie. However, the crusade was sustained, promoted and amplified by insiders with questionable loyalty, who roam freely within the Palestine solidarity movement.’ Following those attacks and demands by BOD of British Jews, certain elements inside the solidarity movement picked up where Zionists stopped. Since then they have initiated a campaign of defamation against Palestinian activists (including myself) and numerous other supporters.’
We, i.e. me and members of groups like J-Big, are the ‘inside’ Zionists as opposed to the honest ones. The problem with the Atzmonites is that their arguments and terms of reference are merely an echo of the Zionist argument. They are the reflection of Zionism in much the same way as Zionism was a reflection of anti-Semitism. And as I pointed out, to most Jews, in the pre–holocaust period, Zionism was considered a species of anti-Semitism.
All in a all a very good day for PSC and the Palestinians and an abject defeat for the apologists for Atzmon and Eisen.
Because I was heavily involved in the debate on specific motions, comments would be welcome both on this and the other issues debated at the conference.
Tony Greenstein
I don’t always see eye to eye with Tony, but he has done well with this campaign. And this is also a well written and informative report.
For some weird reason I read “PCS” instead of “PSC” first and was very confused…
Good report, and good outcome.
The problem is with this is that these people are not Nazis at all.
In fact most of them are Jewish themselves. And even when they are not, the people they look for to inspiration, are.
They actually represent an important non-European, Middle Eastern, view on the Jewish question. These kind of views, even if false, are widely held in the Middle East and just hammering them at a conference in the UK won’t do you much good.
The victory of the Muslim Brotherhood in the Egyptian elections, and the high vote the Salafists got also, mean such people are going to be anything but isolated.
It is particularly symptomatic that Harpal Brar and his organisation, who can hardly be accused of being soft on or sympathetic to Nazism (!!!), can see this. They are not often right, indeed they are often wacky third-worldists, but on this position their insights from a non-Eurocentric position stood them in good stead. Even a stopped clock is sometimes correct.
From a non-European perspective this looks like Western-centred arrogance. European Jews and Brits lecturing non-European Jews about not being soft on the Arabs and their terrible anti-Jewish prejudices.
The Atzmonites are not entirely wrong either. Insofar as they are sceptical about the Holocaust, which some are more than others, they are of course wrong as the Brarites also noted.
But some of the other things they say about the Israel lobby in the West are much closer to reality. Atzmon’s division of Jews into different categories based on the embrace or otherwise of identity politics is not ‘anti-semitic’ at all, but almost exactly analogous to a pretty mainstream understanding of the (in some ways) similar phenonemon of political Islam. (See my article on Political Islam and ‘Jewish Identity Politics’)
Another point, being as these people are not fascists or Nazis, but mainly Jews and other sincere Palestinian supporters.
Is it only being badly wrong on the Jewish Holocaust that is grounds for chucking people out of the Palestine movement, or is it the same for other similar events as well? Like the Armenian genocide? Note that the French bourgeoisie is just in the process of banning denial of this event also.
Is anyone who supports the Turkish government’s views on this to be chucked out and shunned? Or is the Jewish genocide ‘special’, despite the disclaimers?
Because if people take this to its logical conclusion, they are going to have rather a hard time not just with many Palestinians – particularly Hamas supporters – and some of their Jewish supporters. But a big problem with many other Arabs, not to mention Turks as well. Given as the Turkish government has quite a lot of authority among those oppressed by Israel at the moment, this is not smart.
Don’t kid yourself that these people are ‘isolated’. The Brarities are not stupid when it comes to non-European politics, their stance says otherwise. This is another example of the British left shooting itself in the foot.
“The Brarities are not stupid when it comes to non-European politics”
Yes, as can be seen in Harpo Brar’s ludicrous writing on Songun and North Korea.
[...] following extended comment was put on the Socialist Unity blog in response to their cross-posting an article by Tony Greenstein about the recent Palestine Solidarity Campaign conference, where a number of supporters of some of [...]
Yes, they are Stalinists. I do know that.
#3
Blimey, if you think that SU is Euro-centric, then good luck with the rest of the left!
What Redscribe has not grasped is that the PSC has broken through into the workers movement in Britain. 14 national unions are affiliated, and the campaign is working with the TUC. These achievements can only be maintained through genuinely broad-based campaigning.
The reason that the Israeli government and supporters are concerned is that the PSC has broken through into the “mainstream”. The report from the pro-Zionist think tank, the Reut Institute, exactly identifies this is a crucial danger to Israeli government interests.
In these conditions, any hint of anti-semitism or Holocaust denial will deal a tremendous blow to the solidarity movement. The PSC is not a debating society. It is a campaigning organisation which knows that anti-racism, and opposition to anti-semitism, are vital if it is to actually deliver mass support for the Palestinians.
It was a shock to hear someone describe the Holocaust as a “myth”. But it would have been a bigger shock if they hadn’t been shown the door.
Unfortunately, this issue may have overshadowed the reports of widespread membership growth, successes in the Veolia campaign, and the full agenda of work in the coming year. But this was a very successful AGM whose decisions were both principled and effective.
So basically this is all about accomodating to the existing prejudices of the British trade unions. Or at least what you think they are.
The problem with that is that this phenomenon, of Jewish ‘anti-semitism’ in overreaction to the oppression of Arabs by Jews, is flawed and subjective but with progressive motivation at bottom. A more principled position would be to explain this to trade unionists, who are capable of understanding a complex argument if it explained properly and sensitively.
As it is, the PSC has dumped on people who may be wrong on many things, but are still fighters against oppression at root.
And they are not isolated. Far from it. This will bite back at the PSC.
“So basically this is all about accomodating to the existing prejudices of the British trade unions. ”
Intolerance for anti-semitism and Holocaust denial are “prejudices” now are they?
Not all Stalinists are Kim worshipers; but Harpo certainly is:
http://www.lalkar.org/issues/contents/jan2012/kimjongil.html
A very good outcome and not before time. The solidarity movement will be much healthier for this. The Atzmonite view has been shown for what it is – harmful and destructive to both Jews and Palestinians. You cannot fight racism with racism, and you have to ask in whose interest it is to associate the Palestinian cause with antisemtism and holocaust revisionism, as Atzmon et al do. it’s certianly not in the interest of the Palestinians.
I don’t know where Redscribe gets the impression that most of Atzmon’s supporters are Jews. In my experience there are not many of these supporters altogether in any case (but they are good self-publicists)and very few apart from Atzmon himself are Jews. Besides, some Jews unfortunately can be antisemites too. It is racism and antisemitism that is the problem, not the ethnicity of the people promoting such pernicious views.
Funnily enough,for all Atzmon’s condemnations of “Jewish ideology” and “Jewishness” and proudly calling himself an “ex-Jew” and a “self-hating Jew” he doesn’t exactly put his own Jewish identity in the background!
No doubt this humiliation will feed Atzmon’s stupid conspiracy theories, and sense of victimhood (he has an ego the size of the Occupied Territories), but more importantly it is a wake up call to activists on solidarity issues to be careful about who is piggy-backing on their issue and why.
The AGM as a whole sounds like a well attended and successful event – let’s hope that a successful year of campaigning follows.
Redscribe – the only accomodation to prejudice here is in the suggestion that someone who denies the Holocaust has something positive to offer the solidarity movement with Palestine. That presumably will now be your “principled” task to work with such people. The rest of us will continue building the PSC certain that we won’t be bitten by such eccentricity.
Good stuff – the last thing the PSC needs is racists and Stalin worshiping sects like the CPGB(ML)
Those who cant figure out the difference between Judiasm or jewish Culture and Zionism are either thick or racist..
The PSC have crossed a line here and the leadership are imposing a bureaucratic sect like discipline on the organisation. They have set themselves up as the policemen of the Palestinian solidarity movement. The idea that Atzmon is a Nazi is borderline psychotic. He is a critic of the Jewish religion but then I guess so is everybody who hasn’t yet converted. Criticism of the Jewish religion, its constituent beliefs and ideologies, is not anti-semitism. Virtually every teenage boy of Jewish heritage who has ever rebelled could be described as anti-semitic on that basis. There is a world of difference between the anti-semitic belief that Jews are racially inferior and criticising the Jewish religion which, let’s face it, like all religions is crap and does provide a lot of the justification for Zionism just as Christianity provided rationalisations for the Crusades etc.
David Ellis,
1) It seems that the person expelled was promoting holocaust denial. Do you believe that holocaust denial should be accepted?
2) What organisation(s) should people who want to support the Palestinian struggle work in /with?
3) Don’t you find it strange to be on the side of actual Stalinists (ie people who state that they agree with and defend the real actual Stalin, carry pictures of him and have a society in his name)?
#16 Yes we might have expected you to be part of the thought police. PSC would have been better served discussing practical means of showing solidarity with the Palestinians instead of wasting its time on this garbage. There is a danger that PSC is becoming just a mouth piece of Fatah, Hamas and the Zionists and of course the bogus two-state peace process. Most of the people doing the expelling of the Stalinists would themselves have been Stalinists. Nearly every one of them, like yourself would have been a big Gramsci fan fighting the glorious `war of position’. But of course, Trotsky, even whilst his family, comrades and millions of workers were being wiped out in the Soviet Union by the Stalinists far from demanding counter violence from his supporters sought United Front agreements for practical ends in the fight against the class enemy as the correct way to undermine the influence of Stalinism. You on the other hand are like some Gulag camp guard deciding who shall live or at least what they shall believe. That is Stalinism.
#15
You are being an ignorant apologist for racism here, you should read his book “The wandering Who” to see how it is peppered with references to the classic themes of anti-Judaic bigotry.
#16 `1) It seems that the person expelled was promoting holocaust denial. Do you believe that holocaust denial should be accepted?’
There are all sorts of people who deny the Holocaust and for all sorts of reasons including Stalinist conspiracy theorists and actual fascists who want to distance fascism from its violent past so they can go forward to a violent future but one group who do not deny the holocaust are hard core Nazis. Why would they? They are proud of it.
#18 `You are being an ignorant apologist for racism here, you should read his book “The wandering Who” to see how it is peppered with references to the classic themes of anti-Judaic bigotry.’
Bull shit. Racism is repulsive criticism of the Jewish religion is totally legitimate otherwise every person of Jewish heritage who ever became an aethiest would be an anti-semite. Within every religion there is plenty to criticise. You are doing what the Nazis did and the Zionists do: identifying a religion with a race, a religious belief system with a nation.
David Ellis,
Bizarre answer to my 3rd question (the only people I have seen describe Tony Greenstein as a Stalinist are those zionist trolls who post their filth every so often on here), but none to the other 2.
Holocaust denial?
Which organisation should people do Palestine solidarity work through?
The reality is that I don’t believe you have an answer to the second because you have never once in all the times I have read a comment from you on Palestine had anything practical to say about how progressive people in this country should support the Palestinian struggle.
For the record, I think that expelling people from broad solidarity organisations is something to be done only in extreme situations.
I suspect had I been there I would probably have agreed with the majority, but as I haven’t read the text of what the individual said I’m not in a position to make a definitive comment.
#20
Atzmon does not criticise the religion, indeed he specifically states that his criticism is not of the religious Jewish identity; he is opposed to people who self-identify with Jewish culture, and to do so he peddles the usual tropes of anti-Judaic hatred.
David Ellis,
I see that you have responded re holocaust denial- I had not noted this when I mad a comment that is awaiting moderation.
Clearly you are absolutely wrong. It is common for Nazis to deny the holocaust in part or whole and yet completely support the legacy of the Nazi regime as they see it. It is precisely the fact that Nazis do this that holocaust denial is a crime in so many European countries.
David substitute “Muslim religion” for “Jewish religion” and you’ll see how stupid you look. Anyway its not a theological criticism of Judaism to try as Atzmon does, for just one example, to rehabilitate the blood libel
It’s this sort of exchange actually convinces me that Ellis is a troll. He knows the jargon and how to construct a good orthotrot sloganeering rant but constantly drags the discussion into ludicrous, and occasionally very harmful, directions. Yet he *never* talks about anything concrete he’s done.
I think he’s very skilled at the game he plays but I’m increasingly convinced it is only a game.
#24 Why would that make me see `how stupid’ I look? I’m no fan of the Muslim religion either.
Seems to me this is an initiative led by the Stalinist supporters of Fatah designed to create the political conditions to reinforce PSC’s support for the bogus two-state peace process. This requires the legitimisation of the Zionist state and the removal of all those from the movement who refuse to recognise Israel’s right to exist so that Fatah can abandon the refugees and run its little bantustan with Zionist approval. Such approval could only ever be temporary. This is not solidarity with the Palestinians but setting them up for the final act of genocide at the hands of the IDF and the settler shock troops.
It was bad enough when the Stalinists subordinated the anti-apartheid movement to the petit bourgeois sell outs of the ANC but at least the ANC didn’t offer the whites a little piece of South Africa where they could continue their racist practices with their blessing though no doubt there are areas of S. Africa where the ANC does turn a blind eye to such things after all what is that compared to the mess they have made of the country.
#21 `For the record, I think that expelling people from broad solidarity organisations is something to be done only in extreme situations.’
That’s big of you. Being a stalinist you must have much experience of bureaucratically manouevering opponents out of a movement.
#25
AGREED
#25 If anybody is playing a game Mike it is you with the lives of the Palestinians. An entire conference taken up on discussing anything but solidarity with the Palestinians. What a joke. As for Newman he actually is a Zionist and supports Fatah because they are prepared to legitimise a Zionist state.
Mike,
Mike, someone made the argument that “David Ellis” was the pseudonym for a rightist provocateur not long ago. I argued against such an “ultraleftist” position (why would they bother?) but reading #17 and his claim that supporting the expulsion of someone from the PSC for holocaust denial is tantamount to being “some Gulag camp guard”, you know, I may be changing my mind…
#28 Let’s face it Newman you are a fan of the Chinese stalnist police state so who gives a shit what you say. Not only that you give uncritical support to Fatah and the PA which is a regime of the semi-colonial type people in the rest of the Arab world are in open revolt against.
David Ellis,
‘After the lunch break we had a guest speaker, Omar Barghouti from the Palestinian Boycott National Committee. He detailed the increasingly open racism of the state, its attacks on the memory of the Nakba, which has been made unlawful, the shameful decision of the Supreme Court to uphold the Citizenship Law which prevents Israeli Arabs from living with their spouse in side Israel…
‘Many other motions were also passed including one on the disgraceful attacks on Palestinian children by the Israeli military. It is to the eternal shame of the West that they have nothing to say about the shackling and torture of children even, to say nothing of the shackling of Palestinian women prisoners, even while they are giving birth.
‘There were discussions about the growing successes of the boycott movement, in particular the loss of a £500m contract for Veolia in West London and tribute was paid to Angus Geddes for his sterling work in this area. The closure of Ahava, the Israeli store that traded in stolen goods was also highlighted as was the Judaification of the Negev. Bernard Regan in particular spoke well on the latter and his experiences when visiting Israel with a delegation.
‘This is also the 30th anniversary of the foundation of PSC and a motion was passed mandating the Executive to organise series of fundraising activities and celebrations. When you consider what we have had to battle against to build an organisation that has now achieved over 5,000 members, then this is indeed a success and tribute was paid to faithful stalwarts like Jeremy Corbyn MP, Baroness Jenny Tonge and Bruce Kent. It is a measure of our success that when I first became involved in Palestinian politics Gerald Kaufman and Tony Benn were both members of Labour Friends of Israel. Today Gerald Kaufman has sponsored an Early Day Motion with Jeremy Corbyn on the racist Jewish National Fund.’
No, nothing about solidarity, unlike all your contributions you troll.
I am a keen follower of David Ellis.
Look here!
David Ellis created a Page.
Committee for a Unified British Section of the Fourth International
Political organisation
21 January at 12:23
Or here!
“The workers in each EU state need to take the power, instigate a programme of emergency socialist measures (repudiation of the bail out; state monopoly of credit; socialisation and democratisation of the job-slashing, anti-investment, profiteering monopolies; a regime of full employment based on sharing the available productive work; balanced budget with sufficient income taxation collected to pay for decent public services; the greening of our instrastructure) and then negotiate a Socialist EU and perhaps a global currency.”
I just wish David would point me to the page where he writes about what he is doing to bring this about.
And so, therefore…..
#28 I’m beginning to come round to that way of thinking. The only think I don’t understand is why the real
Slim ShadyDavid Ellis has not stood up to point out the imposter.#33 Uncle Vanya you noticed. Thanks manc.
#34
That is where I am going .. ..
#37 I’d second it. It’s verging on the ridiculous and completely preventing any serious discussion or debate.
#36 Not me.
David Ellis’s contributions here are awful even by his pretty low standards.
‘Mike’ in post #25 above is spot on.
His aim is to toxify threads and abuse anybody to the Right of him (which is everybody!).
Mike is spot on in Post #25 above.
Ellis’s aim is to toxify threads, stifle debate and draw attention to himself with outrageous claims.
His de facto defence of Atzmon’s anti-Semitism and his declaration that all the main groups in the Palestinian struggle are Zionists are awful even by his low standards.
David Ellis is now banned
There are a number of odious people far worse than Ellis who are allowed to post on here without being banned and I am personally prejudiced due to some of the appalling misrepresentations/ unsubstantiated allegations he has made against me (including of being soft on rape!!).
However, the fact that there is pretty good evidence (cited by a variety of contributors) that the prime aim is disruption leads me say I would not oppose him being banned.
After all he was given plenty of leeway by Tony Collins around Christmas.
#42
It is not a democracy. He is banned, end of story
#43 My last comment crossed with your last. I’m not arguing and I have always said it’s your blog, your rules. It’s not like he is in fact being sent to a gulag
That’s the way I’d prefer to do it, to be honest: If your politics are good, you’ll convince people without abusing them. But if you turn every thread into an absurd ultra-pure argument about… well, I can’t really say, if I’m honest – then you’re not gonna be welcome around here. It’s a fine line, and these days I’d err on the side of giving people plenty of chances, if we’re in the same moral universe. But in the end, we want a site where people can exchange ideas. At its best this is a site where opponents can leave with respect for each other’s point of view. That’s the marker, really. Red-line issues like racism aside, if your presence is serving to make people feel unwelcome, unable to just talk about their views and feeling the need to defend themselves against pretty outrageous accusations, a time is gonna come where you’ll be banned.
Speaking of feeling unwelcome, I see the motion-sickness-causing “comment scrolling” feature has come back. Apologies if it’s made any of you sick, I’ll get rid of it.
#45
Fortunately I have never been granted that power, otherwise the temptation would be compelling
Yep,all the (inaccurate) generalisations by Ellis are based on ignorance. And let’s not trust anyone who makes comments on “the Jews” or “the Arabs”.
For the reality of racism happening right now in Palestine see this article just sent to me by a friend who spent last summer with ICAHD rebuilding houses destroyed by Israels attempts at ethnic cleansing: http://ceasefiremagazine.co.uk/palestine-home-demolition-ethnic-cleansing/
#48 You are so far up your own insignificant arse it’s embarrassing.
Of course there is a general problem with the sparts. Apparently they hit on this idea that what most of us call ‘offensive’ is in fact ‘angular’ and a distinguishing trait of real revolutionaries. Possibly the moment when they passed from sect like offensiveness (which, after all, who can honestly say, as monty python would have it) to genuinely cult like wierdness.
Being angular is I guess in normal speak, essentially behaviour that will get you banned.
@50Of course there is a general problem with the sparts
“Best” Spart poster is halfway down this page:
http://www.revleft.com/vb/spartacists-international-communist-t34300/index.html?p=1729005
I wonder if that’s Ellis with the stapler?
This site is now showing an excellent quality of discussion in the exchange of views.I now feel its tightened security would have protected posters like me from perceived trolling.At the time it was a badge of honor being separated from quagmire debates.Now I regret it.
If I was Ellis I’d be a much bigger fan of bannings and censorships as given the total, unalloyed skitter the man talks he’s never going to convince a single sentient human being to agree with him through the process of open, unexpurgated argument.
To see why the Palestinian solidarity movement is also a movement against all racism read this: link: http://ceasefiremagazine.co.uk/palestine-home-demolition-ethnic-cleansing/ .
David H, your comments got stuck in the spam filter. I liberated them.
StevieB,
So what are you going to do with Hamas supporters? Do they get the same treatment?
Logically you should treat them like Nazis too. Take a look at the Hamas charter!
Indeed, arguably not to do so would be an indicator of racism on your part.
From the Hamas charter:
“The prophet, prayer and peace be upon him, said: The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him! This will not apply to the Gharqad, which is a Jewish tree”
I think this is a good deal more potent that anything Gilad Atzmon or any of his co-thinkers have said.
Or how about this:
“Today it is Palestine and tomorrow it may be another country or other countries. For Zionist scheming has no end, and after Palestine they will covet expansion from the Nile to the Euphrates. Only when they have completed digesting the area on which they will have laid their hand, they will look forward to more expansion, etc. Their scheme has been laid out in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and their present [conduct] is the best proof of what is said there.”
Again, far more potent than anything those just expelled have said. If you throw Atzmon’s supporters out of the Palestine solidarity movement, then logically you must throw those who support these people out also.
I don’t actually agree with the views of either. But both trends are fighters against the oppression of the Palestinians, and it is perfectly principled to work with both in support of Palestinians. Despite such views, which are not driven by support to Nazism but are a reaction to actual racist oppression here and now.
If it is unprincipled to work with those people expelled from PSC because of their views, then logically it must be unprincipled to work with Hamas supporters also
But you have a problem. Hamas are the elected leadership of the Palestinians, in the last free elections.
No matter, that is what consistency demands.
Its very simple – if you are so ‘principled’, you should make support for Hamas in any form incompatible with membership of PSC.
If you don’t do that, you are contradicting yourselves.
I’m sure the Zionists will point this out more and more insistency.
They wont allow this inconsistency to pass. PSC will be merclessly hounded to do this also.
Redscribe- in Europe people with anti-semitic views discriminated against Jews, pesrecuted them, subjected them to Pogroms and ultimately committed genocide.
In Palestine, Arab people who bore no responsibility for any of the above were subjected to terrorism and ethnic cleansing by Zionist Jews in the name of establishing a self-proclaimed Jewish state, and continue to be the victims of that state.
Hamas is in Palestine.
The PSC is in Europe.
Gaza City isn’t Brighton.
Consistency, or formal logic?
Yes, and Gilad Atzmon is an Israeli Jew in ethnic terms.
Not a Bavarian stormtrooper.
What some have not yet figured out is that Zionism has created a situation where, paradoxically, some opponents of Zionist racism now mistakenly believe, or at least suspect, that the Jewish holocaust is a Zionist fairy story to justify racism in the here and now.
That is basically what the Brarites were arguing at the conference.
On this point Harpal Brar and his comrades are right.
All the fulminations and innuendos that they are anti-semitic in the world wont wish this point away.
Either you understand that, or you must believe that PSC is the kind of movement that attracts wannabe Nazis to be long term leading members like the guy who was expelled last week. He is the ex-chair of PSC.
You can accuse those leftists who disagree with your analysis on this of being closet slavering Jew-haters and wannabe goose-steppers till you are blue in the face. Its ironic to harp on about the awful Stalinist politics of Brar, and yet throw this kind of innuendo against him – straight out of the Stalin school – as well as others with very different views who agree with him on this issue.
Maybe you think Noam Chomsky is a Nazi symp too? He made essentially the same points years earlier. He’s no Stalinist. Nor am I for that matter, see this for instance
Whatever, you are not addressing the point.
#60 I’m not really that bothered what he is in ethnic terms. It’s where he operates and chooes to live that counts.
#61 “You can accuse those leftists who disagree with your analysis on this of being closet slavering Jew-haters and wannabe goose-steppers till you are blue in the face. Its ironic to harp on about the awful Stalinist politics of Brar, and yet throw this kind of innuendo against him – straight out of the Stalin school – as well as others with very different views who agree with him on this issue.”
You are ascribing a lot of things to me.
First of all my response was to David Ellis, who was suggesting that Nazis don’t deny the holocaust-presumably you accept that many if not most of them do?
Secondly, I accept that Brar and his followers are not Nazis, closet, wannabe or otherwise (as did the author of the lead post on this blog).
And thirdly let’s face it, there is a bit of a difference (to say the least) between saying that the holocaust is used by Zionists as a weapon to justify their treatment of the Palestinians and denying it took place.
Was Chomsky a holocaust denier? If so I wasn’t aware of the fact.
Vanya,
Apologies if any of my contributions garble your views with anyone else’s. It is late, there is a lot to reply to, and I’ve got a bad cold so I’m not on my best form …
True, but surely even you can see that this is a mistake that could be comprehensibly made in some situations.
Of course he is not a holocaust denier(!!!!)
He does, however, believe it is possible for someone to deny the holocaust for mistaken, but progressive motives.
‘Apologies if any of my contributions garble your views with anyone else’s. It is late, there is a lot to reply to, and I’ve got a bad cold so I’m not on my best form …’
Accepted anyway but particularly as I’m feeling a bit shitty myself at the moment.
‘Of course he is not a holocaust denier(!!!!)’
Didn’t think so (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
Thanks for directing me to the inspiring thread on the sparts jelly tot. It included this useful dissection of the ‘method’ behind the madness:
http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/critiques/sullivan/pub-5sparts.html
Redscribe as far as I can work out is preforming the same angular job for the true church of atzmon. Can’t you do him a favour and give him what he wants as well Tony?
This a far too narrow definition of racism, and one used by contemporary racists to claim that their emphasis on alleged sharp cultural and value differences and the alleged determining effect of these on political positions and social practice are not racist as no inferiority is explicitly stated.
In a reply to Zionist claims that Green Left Weekly and the far left generally are anti-semitic that I drafted on behalf of the paper’s editor, I approvingly quoted Israeli academic Dina Porat, from the Zionists’ own journal, that criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic “when it attributes Jewish qualities to Israeli military and political behaviour”. I think that’s a good bit of irony to serve back to the Zionists as it’s not only a fair definition of anti-semitism in regard to Israel but also the Zionists do not stick to it at all. We can genuinely show that we explain the oppression of Palestinians by the Israeli state and army’s capitalist, settler-colonial, imperialist nature, not at all their Jewish nature.
Some genuine supporters of Palestinian rights get this wrong and believe there’s some essential Jewish nature that at least partially explains Israeli action. It’s a judgement call for the movement when and to what extent patient explanation and focusing on agreed, non anti-semitic, positions are called for rather than discipline. But this guy went far beyond this into the despicable and/or dangerously paranoid arena of holocaust denial, so the efforts of Tony Greenstein and the PSC majority are to be applauded.
“Redscribe as far as I can work out is preforming the same angular job for the true church of atzmon. Can’t you do him a favour and give him what he wants as well Tony?”
What, you mean I should be banned for not agreeing with you John?
Or rather with what you are saying now, as opposed to what you were saying five years ago when Martin Smith was one of your leaders?
I bet even in the archives of this blog there are posts from you defending Gilad Atzmon.
Hey, guess what? You were right then! Not now though.
Reminds me of the old song about the changing party line. Now how does it go … “oh my darling Clementine… ” Or something like that
I never defended atzmon. I was for about a year mistaken in thinking that his appalling views were not motivated by anti-semitism. It became increasingly difficult to mantain this view, notwithstanding the powerful temptations to be consistantly correct about everything and never retract anything one has ever said on Harry’s Place. Sometimes though, its the sensible thing to do. I saw your last comments and realised you were not quite as bad as at first you seemed. But ‘eurocentrism’? Really. I never argued anything so patronising.
Also though I’ve just realised who you are (or I think I have). My apologies for thinking you were an atzmon groupie (or on the other hand a provocateur from Harry’s Place). But your first couple of posts were terrible.
“I never defended atzmon. I was for about a year mistaken in thinking that his appalling views were not motivated by anti-semitism.”
Its late, but I am an insomniac with a stinking cold.
Just on this. GA is not motivated by anti-semitism, but by anti-racist angst and guilt IMO.
See my review of his book here. Don’t know if you’ve read it, or seen my review. There is other stuff on the same subject on my blog, but too many links on a post gets it caught in the spam filter, so I’ll refrain
One other thing. It a shame that David Ellis has been banned, people are too quick to ban people like him while allowing some very nasty people to post.
He is a hot tempered, probably quite young comrade who needs more political experience to temper his anger with those to his right. I have no doubt that he is sincere, having observed him for quite a while, he is a classic ‘left Trotskyist’. There are not many such people around, and though I don’t agree with them on quite a bit, they can be far-sighted on some things. I think he is too abrasive and driven by anger to survive long on a site like this, but he was a firm supporter of Respect (post – SWP) and that makes him not too bad in my book.
He’s wrong about Atzmon being a critic of the Jewish religion though. Atzmon is not hostile to Judaism, but to secular ‘Jewishness’. Which makes accusations of ‘anti-semitism’ problematic also, since without the Jewish religion secular Jewishness would never have come into existence, obviously (Andy Newman is also wrong here, but for complementary reasons).
Atzmon’s reasoning is quite simple, if you are not Jewish, for reasons of faith, you are ‘Jewish’ for reasons that must be ethnocentric.
Ie, you must in effect be a racist. That’s probably a slight oversimplification of his view, but not by much. Actually I suspect it is much too simple a view, but it is a crude anti-racist position that needs further analysis and development.
But since Jews are not, for Marxists, a nation, it is still something worthy of serious consideration.
And I should also add, David Ellis is right to defend Atzmon against the short-sighted denunciation here, even if his reasoning for doing so is sometimes a bit confused. That is an honourable and principled position, and not easy. Time for bed now
#70
It took us about 3 years.
#70
This is a highly contentious point in its own right. The most sophisticated Marxist accounts of nationhood come fro the complementary traditions of Otto Bauer, Eric Hobsbawm and Benedict Anderson.
The Jews have certainly historically fulfilled the conditions of bauer as being a “community of expereince”, and thus this can arise a “community of consciousness”
The rise of political nationalism in the nineteeth century did see a minority of Jews express thois distinctive community of consciousness in nationalist terms (nationalism doesn’t necessarily lead to the demand for a nation state).
Once the political dmeand for a Jewish nation state gained hegemony among the Jewish “community of consciousness”, then they became – de facto – a modern nation. the actuallity of Israel cements that as a shared national project that all self-identifying Jews, even those who reject Zionism, have to relate to.
As such Jews are as much a “nation”, an imagined community with distinct cultural symbolisms and identifiers – as the English or the Welsh.
#70 Some marxists do consider the Jews to be a nation.
And I’m afraid that as much as the ideas of Atzmon that you describe may appear merely to be a crude anti-racist position, my understanding is that they are an attack on Jews as a people.
The way I see it, it is legitimate to attack the idea that the Jews are a people with superior rights, but it is not legitimate to suggest that the entire Jewish identity, as distinct from adherence to the Jewish religion, is inherently wrong. This means that there is something negative about Jews as people.
And the idea that the Jews are legitimately a people as opposed to the idea that it is merely a question of following a religion (or not), or even that they are a nation, does not necessitate support for Israel.
And I refer you back to my earlier point about Brighton and Gaza City.
#74 For the avoidance of doubt I am not attacking the Jewish religion- just re-read and realised how that may have come across!
Redscribe’s arguments are worse than those of Ellis.
Ellis is simply a prententious pseudo-Trotskyist poseur.
He spouts abstract slogans, while being completely impervious to facts.
His arguments at #15 are particularly hilarious, since he argues that a democratic vote is an example of “bureacratic sect-like discipline”.
As I’ve pointed out before, his suggestion that Atzmon and his co-thinkers are simply “anti-religious” is totally false.
Redscribe however, is well able to see what the facts are. He simply sweeps them under a rug and dismisses them, because he is a spineless opportunist.
This methodology is most useful to those socialists operating in the West, who are willing to receive the patronage and largesse of third world regimes.
It’s therefore no surprise to see the Brarites in the same camp as Atzmon, Redscribe and Ellis on this one.
Harpal Brar’s organisation has always been a firm supporter of the Kim dynasty in North Korea too.
But as Tariq Ali’s account of a visit to Pyonyang, in the London Review of Books makes clear, this often involved saying whatever the regime demanded in return.
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v34/n02/tariq-ali/diary
Applying such a liquidationist method, Redscribe argues at #3, that the PSC should accomodate to anti-Jewish prejudices, just because they’re “common in the Middle East”.
In relation to Egypt for instance, he says
“The victory of the Muslim Brotherhood in the Egyptian elections, and the high vote the Salafists got also, mean such people are going to be anything but isolated.”
But the high votes for MB and Salafists reflect the continued hold of reactionary-traditionalist ideas on the Egyptian masses.
Under Mubarak, MB were allowed to develop as a semi-official opposition through their welfare programmes, while the Salafists are funded by Qatar and Saudi Arabia.
One might as well argue that because anti-Jewish prejudices are common amongs Saudis, the socialists should keep quiet about it because “they might be isolated”.
Or indeed, that because they were common in the Tsarist empire, the Russian Social Democratic and Labour Party shouldn’t have included opposition to anti-semitism in its programme.
Socialists do not accomodate to political prejudices, they tell the truth, even if it means swimming against the stream.
#74
Andy makes some key points on Jewish nationhood. A nation does not also reflect a common ethnicity, but can also reflect a shared oppression and cultural values, which become entrenched in resistance to that oppression.
Israel has to be seen in that context. This is why denial of the Holocaust cuts so deep, as it denies the historical impetus behind the emergence of Zionism as the dominant strand of Jewish consciousness, a retreat from the universality of the human experience into a separate and unique Jewish experience at odds and distinct from that universality.
#77 Good points. But the question of anti-semitism among people who are directly oppressed by Israel is one primarally for progressives among those people.
The PSC operates here. Extreme anti-semitism is generally in historic decline, but the growing legitimacy of opposing Israel is open to be manipulated by anti-semites who have little else to hang their vile politics on.
Not only do progressive people have a duty to oppose anti-semitism anyway, but we also have a duty to ensure that support for the Palestinians is not weakened in precisely the way that Zionists such as the HP crowd would seek to do.
But Bauer’s definition is a pretty useless definition of a nation as distinct from any manner of widespread social bodies with shared identity as a trade union or a religion can be a an imagined community with distinct cultural symbolisms and identifiers.
Stalin actually had a more sophisticated view of the issue of Jewishness and nationality than Bauer or Michel Lowy who have discussed this specifically (I don’t think Hobsbawm or Anderson have , in fact the latter’s Imagined Communities seems a catchy title rather than in itself an adequate summary of his thesis as he stressed that nations were different from earlier forms of imagined communities in that they existed within specific boundaries which seems to contradict Bauer and Andy). Stalin wrote that Jews had a “national character” and constituted in the Russian empire “separate national minorities within compact majorities of other nationalities in integral regions”. While he and many other people expected the process of assimilation to continue unabated, the implication was there were potential roots for a separate nation to develop. The potential raw material of Jewish culture became the basis of a nation, not everywhere in the world but through the social, economic and cultural interactions among the Hebrew speaking Jews who due to Holocaust and war settled in large enough numbers in and forced out enough people from Palestine.
You can call the diverse Jewish communities around the world what you like, but the idea that say Woody Allen is part of a Jewish nation in the same way that he is part of the American nation, or an Israeli Jew is part of the Israeli nation, in which people speak the same language, interact economically and socially with each other every day, partake in national communications media on a daily basis, are educated and socialised in national school and post-school education systems, etc etc, expands the concept of the nation to be meaninglessly broad.
Andy like Bauer conflates a fully developed nation with the building blocks it was made from and the struggle to make it. Also more sophisticated than Bauer or Lowy is Anthony Smith, the editor of the leading academic journal in the field, Nations and Nationalism, who follows a materialist method of locating nations in mass public cultures based on common territories and economies. In a 1995 founding text of the journal he argues that ethnic and cultural roots are not the basis of a “geological” process, that it is not an evolutionary process of a new layer gradually forming over essentially set foundations, but of an “archaeological one”, in which nationalists uncover, represent and recreate the past, in moves that can involve abrupt shifts and discontinuities, but from a constrained and determined basis. Of course categories aren’t sharply distinct or static in reality. The Israeli nation is based on and interacts with global Jewish communities, but is distinct from these. This type of understanding is a lot clearer than jumbling the whole lot together.
#80 was writing rather quickly and I know that Jews who settled in Israel didn’t speak Hebrew outside religious rites until it was developed as a national language as a classic “archeological” move by nationalists.
I have been convinced for years that “David Ellis” was a computer programme, probably run by MI5 or MI6, to sow a bit of disruption wrapped in Trotspeak on left discussion lists. Apparently such automated means of intervening on the Internet have been used by the Americans in the “war on terrorism”. In the light of that information, it wouldn’t be much of a stretch to set up a computer programme that hinges on “You are a Stalinist” “you are a Gulag camp guard” etc. etc, and turn it loose on lists like this one. Banning “David Ellis” is thus pretty much like deleting a computer virus.
Redscribe as far as I can work out is preforming the same angular job for the true church of atzmon. Can’t you do him a favour and give him what he wants as well Tony?
He hasn’t insulted my mother yet.
Comedy gold! I’m picturing Holly from Red Dwarf…
That, of course, is the other reason I’m unconvinced about banning. Good luck with it.
#84 More Queeg than Holly?
[...] PSC AGM – A CRUSHING DEFEAT FOR GILAD ATZMON AND THE ANTI-SEMITES [...]
[...] I have been convinced for years that “David Ellis” was a computer programme, probably run by MI5 or MI6, to sow a bit of disruption wrapped in Trotspeak on left discussion lists. Apparently such automated means of intervening on the Internet have been used by the Americans in the “war on terrorism”. In the light of that information, it wouldn’t be much of a stretch to set up a computer programme that hinges on “You are a Stalinist” “you are a Gulag camp guard” etc. etc, and turn it loose… [...]
That is not true. He divides Jews into three categories, one being purely religious Jews, two being people of Jewish origin who do not regard that ethnic identity to be a political issue, and three those
who regard that identity as their primary political focus.
He considers the first two categories to be innocuous and harmless. He considers the third category to be in essence racist.
Personally I think his schema is part right, part wrong. Jews are not a nation with a territory. And a nation has to have a territory, otherwise the concept is meaningless – Andy Newman’s Austro-Marxist conception is non-Marxist and non-materialist. Therefore they cannot assimilate those from other national origins in the absence of religious conversion. And as is well known, those pushing the idea of the Jews as a modern nation were not religious, very much to the contrary.
So his point is that what he calls ‘Jewish Identity Politics’ is ethnocentric. I don’t like the term ‘identity politics’, I prefer to call it communalism, for reasons I will be writing about soon. But he is right that there is a strong ethnocentric aspect to Jewish ‘national’ consciousness.
Where he is wrong, however, is that he appears to be fixated on the current situation of Jews in the Middle East as an oppressor people, and he appears to dismiss the idea that any aspect of Jewish political expression is marked by past oppression.
In my view, there are some progressive ‘third category Jews’, whose consciousness reflects that past oppression and not the current oppressor status. Some of them are the ones Atzmon is currently feuding with. In fact both sides are so angry, in a confused way with each other, that they are rabidly slandering each other. A sad spectacle, since both sides are motivated by confused anti-racist sentiments (though with different emphases). In such a situation the progressive position is to be a conciliator.
Gilad Atzmon’s is a one-sided view you might expect from an Israel left-liberal with a particular experience, but it is flawed in my view.
However, these are the kinds of political differences that can and should be debated fraternally and rationally. My suspicion is that as Zionism loses it moral authority among decent Israeli Jews, there will be a lot more embarking on the kind of trajectory he has undergone.
What is even more stupid about the denuncation of him as anti-semitic is that actually, his writings are aimed at convincing Jews as well as non-Jews of the correctness of his analysis, and convincing them that assmiliation and abandoning what he calls ‘Jewish identity politics’ is in their best interest. Anyone who reads his book can see that. That is not the behaviour of an anti-semite or a racist. If you are a racist who loathes a particular ethnic group, you do not produce written material aimed at convincing them of the truth of your ideas!!! These attacks simply do not make logical senses.
He is a confused, in some ways confusing, but also quite original thinker. It is perfectly principled to engage with him and people with similar views in a fraternal manner.
Prianikoff’s position, as argued above, does not appear to distinguish between the nationalism of the oppressed and the nationalism of the oppressor. The crime of Gilad Atzmon seems to be having been born in the oppressor people, being profoundly repulsed by that, and embracing in a contradictory way some of the conceptions common among those his people oppress.
The prejudice that PSC is accommodating to in the British trade union movement, by the way, of which I spoke earlier, is the view that says that Arab hostility to Israel is fundamentally a similar thing to the Nazi hostility to Jews. It isn’t, that is a racist, Zionist conception that must be confronted and defeated. Soft elements of that prejudice are common among European social democracy and that is what PSC is accomodating to by purging these left-liberal Jews and their co-thinkers.
If you want to see that racist view in a more potent form, in all its glory, go and look at Harry’s Place.
I am all for a fight against backward consciousness, but there is more than one way to undermine backward consciousness among oppressed peoples, and one of them is solidarity.
Redscribe,
“The prejudice that PSC is accommodating to in the British trade union movement, by the way, of which I spoke earlier, is the view that says that Arab hostility to Israel is fundamentally a similar thing to the Nazi hostility to Jews.”
Tell you what, until I read that, I thought you may be worth discussing with on this issue.
Those words really do put you on a par with the likes of Ellis for utter stupidity.
The Palestine Solidarity Campaign is accomodating to the view that opposing Israel is akin to Nazism!!!!
I rarely say this about anyone on here, but what a fucking idiot you are!
1. People who are described as Jews or who describe themselves as Jews can be found all over the world behaving in so many different ways individually and socially that the only unifying characteristic of the sum total of these people is that for different historic reasons, they have ended up with the same word as description: ‘Jew’.
2. One way round this problem is to decide on some defining characteristics even though this will contradict what some Jews are saying about themselves.
3. Various forms of the religion of Judaism is one. ‘Identifying’ with the state of Israel is another. A proven matrilineal line is another. Being ‘part of the Jewish community’ is another. These are all categories invented by Jews. Other definitions from outside include ‘he looks Jewish’ (!), statements about the essence of ‘the Jew’ from philosemitic to anti-semitic.
4. There is only a ‘problem’ about ‘secular Jews’ if you want there to be one. In other words, the ‘problem’ is in the politics or intentions of those who say it’s a ‘problem’. People can be secular versions of faith groups if they want to be. Famously, many people describe themselves as lapsed or ex-Catholics – sometimes with a nation state attached – eg ‘I’m an Irish Catholic but I don’t go to mass and my children aren’t having a Catholic education etc etc’
5. ‘Secular Jews’ aren’t a bloc. To say they are a bloc or a group is stretching categorisation beyond usefulness.
6. Jews who say they are self-defining (or others saying that that Jew over there self-defines) is a reduction to a point of meaninglessness. The main reason why a secular Jew will say that he or she is a Jew is because that Jew’s parents told that person that he or she is one! The main reason why that person’s parents told him or her that is that the parents’ parents told those people that they were. Again, I’m not sure that this is much different from people noting that most of their forbears have eg Irish or German or French names even though such people are not living in Ireland, Germany or France. If there is a problem about it, it is once again in assuming that essential, inescapable, genetic characteristics were inherited along with names and tastes in food etc.
7. There are two complementary ways in which essentialism can work as an oppressive force – a) when used by Jews and b) when used against Jews. This requires there to be a duality of potential in the role played by some Jews. Used against Jews it pigeon-holes them ready for eg ridicule, dispossession, persecution and murder. Used by Jews it pigeon-holes that group of Jews for special treatment, consideration and/or to play a role in dominance, oppression and murder.
8. If both your parents told you you were Jewish, it is only possible to be not-Jewish by doing some non-authentic ie by hiding eg through changing key markers of one’s outward contact with the world eg name, birth certificates, etc. Simply announcing that one is no longer a Jew has virtually no meaning – particularly if one’s parents were non-religious in the first place.
9. in other words the element of choice in the matter comes in how you ‘negotiate’ the concept you’ve been handed. This seems to me to be highly liberating. In a society that is not persecuting you for being Jewish (by their definitions and standards), you can make choices about how you express what we all express which is ‘interculturalism’ ie the cultural mish-mash that expresses the things we do, say and think. Ultimately, this is political – because we all live in nation states – and you will be asked to identify (or not) with aspects of the state you find yourself in; along with aspects of the economic system you find yourself in. Because all nation states use ‘race’ as part of the way in which they exert power and hegemony, you are called on to take up a role in relation to the dominant ideology on such matters and so you have to decide which way to go on it – agree or resist, whilst bearing in mind that whether you want to or not, in any society known so far, you won’t leave the description ‘Jew’ outside the door.
He is a confused, in some ways confusing, but also quite original thinker. It is perfectly principled to engage with him and people with similar views in a fraternal manner.
- Atzmon’s categories of Jewish people is hilarious pseudo-philosophical tosh. How anyone can use his gibberish as a serious basis for discussion is beyond me.
He considers the first two categories to be innocuous and harmless. He considers the third category to be in essence racist.
- I’ve never practiced any variant of the Jewish religion, nor am I a Jew in any sense of the word, but according to Atzmon’s definition I could still be a third category Jew because being such is independent of categories 1 and 2.
Atzmon is a holocaust denying racist parasite, pure an simple.
Not a very political response. People who resort to crude abuse only reveal their own political insecurity.
How then do you explain the decades-long influence of the Labour Friends of Israel in the British Labour movement, including the support of leftists like Tony Benn even, up to the 1980s?
It’s not as if it was not known that Israel was built on land taken from the Arabs against their will. It is rather widely believed (and it still is widely believed) that the Arabs are a reactionary people, who basically deserved that, whereas the Jews were a progressive people and victims of the Holocaust etc.
It is the residue of that sentiment and prejudice, present even among those who are very cautiously now accepting that the Palestinians are the victims in this situation, that PSC are appeasing by purging these people. And the logic, I repeat, is to purge Hamas supporters as well.
The origin of both this current and Hamas supporters here is in the Middle East and the politics of the Middle East, and the primary focus of political activity of both is the Palestine question and the politics of the Middle East. So in this context your ‘distinction’ between political activity in London and Gaza is completely meaningless.
At least Mike Rosen is replying politically, will come back to address his points later.
#89 Redscribe
“Prianikoff’s position, as argued above, does not appear to distinguish between the nationalism of the oppressed and the nationalism of the oppressor.”
You’re digging yourself into an even deeper hole when you equate holocaust denial and antisemitism with the “nationalism of the oppressed”.
Bigotry and racism disseminated amongst oppressed groups by the ruling class is a more scientific description.
I would like to endorse Michael Rosen’s descriptions above.
@Redscribe:
“The origin of both this current and Hamas supporters here is in the Middle East and the politics of the Middle East, and the primary focus of political activity of both is the Palestine question and the politics of the Middle East.”
I find it interesting that you seem to discount culture and religion from the equation – why? The history of the Jews in the Middle East stretches back centuries. The ebb and flow of relations and attitudes has ranged from golden to dark ages, from ghettoes to freedoms, from security to genocide. Most of this occurred in the framework of (competing or successive) Islamic dynasties in which a minority of Jews may have wielded some political influence but whose positions, status and safety were always at risk – always. The Jews were never secure in their status and were never safe from social political persecution of varying degrees.
This too, plays a role.
#93 ‘People who resort to crude abuse only reveal their own political insecurity.’
No, frequently it reveals lack of sufficient vocabulary.
#92 Surprise, surprise the swivel-eyed Joe Kane appoints himself witch finder general.
- Racists like Atzmon who plaigerise the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and Mein Kampf aren’t hard to spot. You don’t even need swivel eyes, whatever they are, to do it.
Yes that is right Joe because the Tel Aviv Jewish born leader of a nulti-ethnic jazz band is so obviously a Nazi isn’t he? Bloody idiot.
- I’ve no idea if Atzmon is a nazi or not. As far as I’m aware, Nazism was something specific to inter-war Europe and, by definition, died with the Fuhrer in his Berlin Bunker.
Atzmon claims the Protocols of the Elders, although a forgery, are true. Just like Hitler claims in Mein Kampf. Atzmon fails to cite his source and thus fails to pay proper public tribute to those whose intellectual endeavours he bases so much of his paranoid Jewish world conspiracy theory drivel on. That’s plaigerism.
The fact Atzmon very rarely cites his sources often throws his reviewers, many of whom are unable to recognise, for instance, that Atzmon’s “organismus” was used by Hitler in Mien Kampf –
Gilad Atzmon: The Wandering Who? A Study of Jewish Identity Politics
Book review by Elias Davidsson,
November 14, 2011
So much for Atzmon’s originality.
It would help everyone involved, especially his own groupuscule of supporters, if Atzmon would cite and acknowledge his sources. It’s a major failing in his work. If he wants to be treated as a serious intellectual he’ll have to start using the proper academic apparatus.
I hear Atzmon is thinking of changing the name of his backing group to The Brown House Ensemble. I don’t know if that’s true or not.
In another blow against anti-semitic thuggery, a certain Carole Swords has been convicted of harassment and assault of an elderly Jewish man in a supermarket. Carole ‘Go back to Russia’ Swords is a senior member of a party called Respect, but I’m sure that won’t stop anyone on here applauding the court convicting an antisemite.
Presumably Respect, which is known for its proudly uncompromising official stance on racism, will now expel her.
Or perhaps it won’t.
Mick Hartley/
“a certain Carole Swords has been convicted of harassment and assault of an elderly Jewish man in a supermarket”
is 59 elderly now? somebody better tell the government. And given that the gentleman in question had appointed himself as a “volunteer” to defend Israeli goods in a Tesco’s store, I assume he wasn’t particularly frail – unless he was one of those human shields that you Decents despise so much.
“the court convicting an antisemite”.
Was the conviction for racially aggravated assault then? I haven’t seen any mention of that in the reports, and a £250 fine would hardly seem appropriate. So I suspect the guy’s Jewishness was not an issue in the case any more than Ms Swords’ Jewishness.
And your blog is tedious, pretentious, monomanic crap, you tosser.
What lone nut said. And I assume that now that a PhD student who asked that pro-Israel campaigners from Stand With US stop filming his children at SOAS has been acquitted of assaulting them, Mick Hartley will be demanding that the assault charges against those campaigners be reinstated.
Though to pre-empt charges that I’m trying to curry favour with anyone from Respect, I’ll point out that I thought it was pretty much moribund anyway, so the demand to expel anyone is moot.
So, you suggest that Hamas’ politics are not an expression of the nationalism of the oppressed?
Presumably then you are also one of those who equates the racism of say, the Ku Klux Klan in the USA, with the racism of the Nation of Islam.
If so, you will find plenty of co-thinkers for that kind of view on Harry’s Place. I hope not, because I thought you were better than that.
As expected, the usual resentment at far-left antisemitism being brought to book, reduced to arguing over whether 59 is still young enough to be assaulted.
“And your blog is tedious, pretentious, monomanic crap, you tosser.”
What are on about, angry boy? I don’t have blog.
#104
“Though to pre-empt charges that I’m trying to curry favour with anyone from Respect, I’ll point out that I thought it was pretty much moribund anyway, so the demand to expel anyone is moot.”
In the words of Mark Twain,
‘This report of my death was an exaggeration.’
The idea that the best way to build a socialist party in modern Britain is to follow (Stalin’s development of) Lenin’s model is probably closer to terminal decline in the long run
#106 But is 59 elderly or not?- it was you that used the word.
And was the charge that the incident was racially agravated or not?
If not, why, as LN asked, is the Jewish ethnicity of either Defendant or Aggrieved Party of any relevance?
The reality is that the sad attempts of people like you to morally blackmail supporters of the Palestinians to keep quiet by alleging that criticism of Israel oppression of the Palestinians is anti-Semitism simply doesn’t wash amy more.
joe kane,
You say that one of Atzmon’s sources is Mein Kampf. But of that book he said in an interview:-
Now that suggests that he has not read Mein Kampf, or has read it and interpreted it in a highly unorthodox fashion, or perhaps that he’s a dodgy antisemitic fantasist that any organisation that wants some credibility had better give a wide berth.
http://engageonline.wordpress.com/2011/10/06/
@ Vanya
I would say 59 is old if not elderly. And what kind of mitigation do you think it amounts to if we class that person as merely ‘old’?
Swords wasn’t convicted of racially aggravated assault but she has used racist abuse in protests against the same people, as this charming clip shows: http://standforpeace.org.uk/sfp/?p=26
“Go back to bloody Russia”.
Presumably you would like to know which part of Russia specifically she was referring to before you concede that that was racism.
“alleging that criticism of Israel oppression of the Palestinians is anti-Semitism…”
Punching someone in the face doesn’t equal ‘criticsm’. Someone who sneers at English Jews to ‘go back to Russia’ and who attacks one of them is an antisemitic thug, plain and simple. But it’s no surprise to see you, Vanya, clutching at any filthy straw to excuse such a disgusting person.
#111
[THIS REFERS TO A COMMENT NOW DELETED]
Redscribe – i am not going to tolerate blatant anti-semitism like this.
SU will not host comments that make a defence of holocaust denial.
On reflection – Redscribe is now BANNED.
As (s)he argued that holocaust denial can be the result of a progressive impulse, or that there should be “fraternal debate” with holocaust deniers, then (s)he can find somewhere else to do it.
#110
mick – you have made your point. Move on now.
There’s a group on facebook that I found that I’m a part of and the other night, they appeared in the right hand corner of the screen having a chat which I was party to. Someone from Iran was ‘explaining’ to someone in Syria that the everyone in the media was a Jew and all Jews were zionists so they were really up against it. I joined in and suggested that not everyone in the media was Jewish and that not all Jews were zionists. Then we had a bit of a conversation about that, though the person from Iran kept suggesting that I was only making my point because I was a)sticking to my brethren and b)I was pro-Israeli…the conversation went on and both the Syrian and the Iranian people indicated that they respected their leaders and anyone who attacks them from the inside was a western and/or zionist stooge. I then did my anarcho-marxist shtick about none of us would get peace and justice if we believed in the leaders of nation states as presently constituted. This then became a debate about Gadaffi, I think, where they said that he was more good than bad, but I said, putting faith in leaders like him, was no guarantee of anything because he happily started chumming up with the West when he thought it suited him etc etc. They then indicated a sense of desperation (Ihope I’ve got that right) along the lines of ‘who else will defend us, then, if we don’t believe in our leaders?’
Just thought I’d share that. Not sure what it proves or disproves. Just that I’m still thinking about it.
And I suppose I’ve left out that as a group, they clearly believe that any resistance of any kind to the regimes in Syria, Iran and North Africa are or were fomented by the West and/or the zionists. And that’s part of why, they say, they have to defend those regimes. In other words, the political part they play in the ‘anti-imperialist struggle’ includes being against the uprisings because the uprisings are in essence imperialist. (That’s me summing up where they’re coming from. I think.)
Andy, would it not be better to give someone like Redscribe a warning rather than hastily banning him outright? S/he often has some well-argued comments on other topics. Why this person but not an obvious racist (however well-connected with the Labour Party) like John P. Reid seems a bit inconsistent.
Hi Michael (#114). Firstly re: relevant experiences of my own, in conversations during a visit to Israel & the West Bank in 2010, with my girlfriend who is a ’1948 Palestinian’.
I met three highly educated & articulate people, two of them medical doctors (one of those a Fatah official) and the other a physicist, whose explanation of the ultimate reason for the current oppression and dispossession of the Palestinian people was global ‘Jewish’ political and financial power, especially in the USA.
That was not the only view I encountered- on that same visit I met members and supporters of the Israeli Communist Party whose explanation was very different, ie in terms of imperialism and colonialism.
Maintaining that (correct) position is not so easy, in view of the Israeli claim that it is the Jewish state in carrying out its murderous and land-grabbing policies.
Interesting the subtle way in which pro-Zionists are shaping this discussion. We should be intensely concerned about anti-Semitism amongst a people who have been horribly oppressed, yet not so much about the Euro-centric- dare I say- White supremacist undercurrent prevalent not only in it’s most extreme form aginst Palestinians but also against “fellow” Jews from the Mezrahi, Shepardic and Ethiopian Falasha communities within Israel.
Further to Michael.
Re: Libya and Syria, the people you were discussing with have a point. There is a Western agenda, chiming with the agenda of the Gulf (Saudi, Qatari, Kuwaiti, etc) kingdoms- ie, those Arab states which have been the most accommodating to Israel + US imperialism, but have the most vile social model: 80-90 percent of inhabitants have no rights and live in poverty, as mere ‘migrant workers’.
And now, after the NATO-imposed regime in Libya is a fait accompli, it is revealed that the new regime that ‘we’ bombed into power has thousands of political (or merely black African) prisoners and is torturing them.
Oh, and also that, to ensure that the new Libya is fully ‘democratic’, anyone suspected of sympathising with the previous government will not be allowed to stand for election.
#117
Come off it, you can’t libel someone who is unidentifiable except through an Internet pseudonym!
For my money, arguing that holocaust denial could be from a misguidedly progressive angle, is itself anti-Semitism; and I have no interest in an argument that we should engage in debate with holocaust deniers.
#118
We should be particularly concerned about anti-Semitism in the UK solidarity movment, which is what we have responsibility for.
Omar, funny you should mention white supremacism. The ‘group’ I mentioned links in some of its members’ posts to David Duke. Seems like old Dukey can be drawn on by all sorts of different folk.
#121
Yes, but in the interests of solidarity there may be instances of British organisations forging alliances with Arab organisations that may have some questionable views. You still think that pro-Zionists pointing this out while denying the specific anti-Arab and anti-”Brown” racism within Israel is acceptable. They are holding the hoops and we appear to be all to willing to do the jumping. BTW, can you free up my other comment from your filter,please?
#122
Well we know the far-Right will try to weasel in where they can, but that is not the same as anti-Semitism from the Middle East.
Omar, funny you should mention [to repeat myself] anti-Arab racism I was just looking at the trajectory of Avigdor Lieberman. Holy mackerel.