Harry's Place

Ny first response is that if you aren’t Jewish then you don’t qualify to try and intellectualise what is or is not Antisemitism. You aren’t a potential victim, you haven’t grown up with it and you can’t synthesise it.

Look what happens when PC councils try and synthesise so-called “Islamaphobia”. They get it wrong and go OVER sensitive.

Would be nice is isntitutions would go oversensitive to Antisemitism instead of letting it just be part of teh natural order of things.

ADL reports increased Antisemitic activity in radio talk shows and internet concerning the financial crisis.

You mean question to Martin Shaw, right?

Example: Yesterday a poster at BBC 5Live started a thread “Jewish Intifada Uprising” in reference to Jewish settelers increased violence against Palestinians.

I complained that when there was an Intifada inspired by Arafat it was called “Palestinian Intifada” and that it was an Intifada of people and NOT a religion. We don’t call it a Muslim Intifada.

They agreed.

The left will put up with anybody no matter how racist (or totalitarian) as long as they’re also anti-Zionist or anti-American. They think, wishfully, you can’t be racist by association. They are, of course, wrong.

“The Jew as a Lucky Tag – Get Out Of Jail Free”

Dontcha just love those stories that introduce that the author knows someone who is Jewish and so anything they then say or write can’t be Antisemitic because I have my “Lucky Jew Tag” and that means it can’t be Antisemitic.

The Antisemites NEVER thinks that what they write is Antisemitic and so don’t understand the self-hating Jew isn’t a defence.

The left will put up with anybody no matter how racist (or totalitarian) as long as they’re also anti-Zionist or anti-American. They think, wishfully, you can’t be racist by association. They are, of course, wrong.

Its interesting that the Biden/Palin debate featured a “Who Loves Israel The Most” two minutes. Hence Zionism=Americanism in the left’s eyes.

But even the American Marxists of the Dem party Love Israel (well this week anyway) while it is the Right Wing Republican Patriot who hates Jews and Israel (I listen to Republican Broadcasting so I should know!)

Why do you use parentheses for the description of Atzmon as an “ex Jew” ???

My understanding is that Atzmon has converted to Christianity, and therefore does indeed consider himself as an “ex-Jew”. And by the terms of his own understanding of Jewishnes, and the understanding he holds in common with many other Christians, someone who renonunces Judaism and becomes a Christian is indeed an no longer Jewish.

Are you implying that he was never Jewish? or that he still is Jewish?

Andy

Well, I’ve met him, and he strikes me a pretty Jewish.

I mean, would you regard the term “ex-asian” or “ex-african” as sensible.

There is no security barrier between antisemitism and the scale and ferocity of anti-Israel hate.

Funnily enough, those who hate Israel the most also tend to be the most hateful towards all aspects of mainstream Jewish narrative. They are also more likely to display “anti-Zionism” that can only be rationalised by reference to traditional antisemitic tropes.

When does a fanatical “anti-Zionist” become another antisemite?

I remember flicking through a copy of that burgundy covered guide to Jewish law that I think all Utd Synagogue kids used to get on their bar mitzvah. It explained that dung is no longer classed as dung for religious (cleanliness really) purposes when it becomes dry enough to crumble between your fingers. Thats when it ceases to be dung and becomes mere dirt.

Not sure how that fits the ‘when’s it antisemitic’ question, but I’m sure its relevant somehow.

Andy,

Where do you hear Atzmon has converted to Christianity? Is there any evidence for this?

Cut and paste HP comment threads for the last 100000 years here please:

Greenstein claims that Atzmon has converted to Christianity, but I don’t think that he has.

His “ex Jew” self-designation ties into his views on Jewish Power. Because Atzmon thinks the ‘real’ problem is not Zionism, but “Jewishness”, he calls himself an “ex Jew”. That is why his main source of attack is anti-Zionists who describe themselves as Jews. That, in Atzmon’s eyes, makes them agents of Jewish Power.

One is nuttier than the other, but I think that David T nails it when he ask the question: does Martin Shaw (or anyother of those who are so fast in dismissing antisemitism in anti-Zionism) dare to identify a specific and present antisemite by his words and not by his jackboots and swastika armband?
Because if they don’t, I have nothing in common with them.

Of course, the potential reply (of a coward) is “yes, but so and so are not big players in the pro-Palestinian solidarity movement”. Or even better: “They have changed their views lately”

David – you seem to suggest the defeat of the Roland Rance motion to a previous PSC AGM was evidence of the acceptance of anti-semitism within the pro-Palestinian movement.

You presumably therefore would see it as a less ‘racist’ outcome had PSC passed his motion, which included clauses such as:
“Those who support antisemitism are in effect supporting Zionism”
“we resolve to conduct a campaign against the Zionist institutions in Britain”.

Is that the case?

Francis Clark-Lowes holds no status within PSC and ceased being its Chairperson (who is not the leading officer within PSC’s structures) 7 years ago.

“And by the terms of his own understanding of Jewishnes, and the understanding he holds in common with many other Christians, someone who renonunces Judaism and becomes a Christian is indeed an no longer Jewish.”

Funny that Eichmann didn’t see it that way. Not so funny, on reflection.

“Francis Clark-Lowes holds no status within PSC and ceased being its Chairperson (who is not the leading officer within PSC’s structures) 7 years ago.”

I think this is, at least, an implict acknowledgement that the PSC was led by an antisemite for a number of years. That is progress of a sort.

Renouncing Judaism does not necessarily imply embracing Christianity. Is there any evidence that Atzmon became a Christian? Sorry to repeat the question……

Is it, in fact, the view of the PSC that those who promote the “Shamir”/Eisen line on Jewish Power, and on the Holocaust, are racists?

Atzmon’s view on this issue, is that he is not a marginal figure, and that his analysis of Jewish Power is widespread among those who truely care about Palestinians. His writing is widely circulated on Palestinian solidarity websites, and is published by Counterpunch (as are other “Jewish Power” theorists. There are petitions against those who attack him, signed by hundreds of people, arguing that opponents of those who reject the Jewish Power thesis are false friends of Palestinians. His supporters also include the likes of Oren Ben Dor, who is a prominent academic and occasional broadsheet columnist. Ian Donovan, of RESPECT, I think was vocal in his defence of Atzmon.

So what I’d like to know is:

(a) Does Martin think that the Eisen/Atzmon/Shamir/Clark-Lowes Jewish Power thesis is racist?

(b) Is Jewish Power theorising widespread within Palestinian Solidarity politics, or marginal

(c) Apart from Rance/Greenstein, who in Palestinian Solidarity politics is actively opposing the Jewish Power theorists?

I have read the exchange between Shaw and Hirsh; and I have read lots more by supporters of the boycott. Nowhere have I read anything that even begins to justify why Israel has been singled out for a boycott by the UCU. Has anyone? Show me a link.

It is merely a statement of fact – not a comment on his views.

Chris Larus,

“You presumably therefore would see it as a less ‘racist’ outcome had PSC passed his motion, which included clauses such as:
“Those who support antisemitism are in effect supporting Zionism”
“we resolve to conduct a campaign against the Zionist institutions in Britain”.

Is that the case?”

But that is received wisdom in PSC anyway. They are nothing new. What was defeated was the plea by some longstanding anti-Zionist Jewish members that

a) PSC recognise antisemitism IS a problem within it and

b) distance itself from it.

I think one strive to be an “ex-Jew” just like someone can be an “ex-Frenchman” or an “ex-Cherokee”. I doubt such a complete transformation would be easy though. Atzmon’s utter bat-shit insanity proves this.

David,

at the risk of going off on one again, and sidetracking the thread,

“His “ex Jew” self-designation ties into his views on Jewish Power. Because Atzmon thinks the ‘real’ problem is not Zionism, but “Jewishness”, he calls himself an “ex Jew”. ”

there are, I think, two chief definitions of ‘Jew’

a) Jewish by birth or descent

b) Jewish by practice and/or belief (there, of course, more, but).

Atzmon clearly fulfils a), doesn’t fulfil b) EXCEPT in terms of his own understanding of himself as a quasi-Christian prophet, revered by many as the atypical good Jew by virtue of his negating his Jewishness.

As to whether he is Christian or not, that depends how one defines ‘Christian’.

Atzmon has surely equated Zionism with Christ-killing. He sees them both as quasi-cosmic crimes, revealing a dark truth about nature of Jewishness. That is, in the worst sense, ‘Christian’, to some extent. Does he attend church? No, as far as I can see. But he does to some extent see culture, at least its highest forms, chiefly his own media, music and literature, as the antithesis of Judaism and Zionism.

That shares many traits with a kind of cultural Christian anti-Judaism and antisemitism that has deep roots in European society and civilization.

We live in a post-modern age, and many of the more traditional identities, such as devout, professing, church attending Christianity, are passing away. Both the Enlightenment and its dark twin, post-Christian antisemitism and racism, are and were part of that process. The analogue of ‘Christian’, in the sense of systematically, ideologically, ethically (both replacing the category for most people of ‘theology’) anti-Jewish is not what it was 100 years ago, just as the category of ‘Jew’ is not what it was 100 years ago. ‘Jew’ used to mean 80% ‘European’. Now it is 41% ‘Israeli’, 49% ‘American’. Modern systematic, non- as well as Jewish, ideological anti-Zionism borrows much from earlier Christian thought-categories: the division of the world into black-evil and white-good (or, in fact, the reverse), Zionism as a quasi-crucifixion of the Palestinian-suffering servant people, a crime so terrible, so unjustifiable, with no mitigating circumstances for the Jews concerned that matter.

There is also a post-modern ‘forgetting’ of the past: that Jews were defined as a dispossessed national group for most of European Christian history. Now, its most extreme form, Jewish history is defined by and effectively begins with the holocaust. The Jew is ‘white, European’, and despite that the Nazi did not think him so, he is himself propagating an antisemitic myth when he thinks and defines himself as ‘Palestinian’ i.e. Israeli.

Atzmon is confused. No question. His mother is largely to blame, I think. In fact Atzmon is a common phenomenon is post-Enlightenment Jewish history: the self-hating Jewish artist. He hates what he perceives as the restricting ‘ghetto’ whence he came, and goes overboard in assimilating the anti-Jewish Christian or classical myths that he sees at the heart of the culture he strives to embrace and embody. But it is far less acceptable to be a Jewish cultural Christian convert and define oneself against other Jews by traditional Christian anti-Judaism or antisemitism than in the past. Which is why Atzmon both spouts this nonsense and distances himself from it at the same time.

He may well classify as schizophrenic.

But there is another thing about Atzmon that is less often observed: he is actually seriously culturally deficient. He had/has at least one academic parent, and his command of English testifies to that. What he wants to be is pure artist. And, following the upbringing of his mother, he has come to see Jewishness and Judaism as the antithesis of art. But, there are plenty of Jewish artists and musicians who are

a) esteemed as greater artists than he, in music or literature,

b) far more successful,

c) far happier and, finally,

d) have no problem reconciling this with some kind of Jewish family or communal existence.

Atzmon is, in fact, a fairly mediocre artist. The only reason he is known is because, not only does he play up the anti-Zionist angle, he goes one step further, and tries be, as I said, a quasi-Christian prophet who achieves sainthood by negating his Jewishness. A kind of ‘Jewishness in dissolution’, a Marx might have put it, himself raised a Christian and believing communism was the true fulfilment of ‘the human basis of Christianity’.

Cut and paste HP comment threads for the last 100000 years here please:

Sorry, my distraction made me lose this interesting comment by David T

“Well, I’ve met him, and he strikes me a pretty Jewish.”

I want to know, “a pretty Jewish what?” Or, are you the pretty Jewish _something_ and he has struck you when you met him?

“What! He dares strike ME, a pretty Jewish!!!” That sort of thing. I just want to understand.

plantation westworld do you imply that everyone posting here is cutting and pasting comments like you do?

As David T has stated quite recently that only insane people identify as Jewish, Atzmon, but DT’s standards, epitomizes mental health?

Oh, I think Atzmon is a nut, and I feel quite sorry for him. He’s hugely screwed up.

What I’m more interested in, these days, is who buys into his “Jewish Power” theorising.

It is noticeable that Clark-Lowes cites Jewish “Jewish Power” theorists, and says that their activities “gave me permission” to run his own Jewish Power theorising.

On Atzmon’s art: I had a very interesting conversation with a friend of the Palestinian woman who guests on Atzmon’s award winning “Exile” album.

Apparently, she has hugely fallen out with Atzmon: and now regards him as a Jewish colonist, who has stolen “her” culture with his music, just as Jews have stolen “her” land.

Atzmon, I understand, accepts that she is right, and feels terribly guilty.

Yes is the simple answer, but anti-Muslim and anti-Arab feeling also shapes pro-Israeli sentiment in many quarters.

That is certain.

I am as suspicious as judeophillia as judeophobia. The two are often share roots.

Surely, one of the first steps to becoming a good ex-Jewish Jew (Atzmon), or non-Jewish Jew (Ahem…) is to cease being obsessed with Jewish Jews (i.e. Jews).

I think both over-judeophiles (rather than regular philo-Semites) and judeophobes both credit Jews with having more, almost supernatural, power than they do. the former sees Islam as such a threat that he’s glad to have these curly-haired ubermensch on his side.

Greg – try the last two sentences of this one by Tom Hickey:

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/335/7611/124

Unfair to Israel?
We are accused of unfairly singling out Israel—the Jewish state—and hence of being anti-semites. We are asked why we do not propose a boycott of other states whose policies are barbaric and inhuman, such as China, Saudi Arabia, Iran, or Zimbabwe.
But whether a boycott is appropriate in such places depends on the merits of each individual case. In the case of Israel, we are speaking about a society whose dominant self image is one of a bastion of civilisation in a sea of medieval reaction. And we are speaking of a culture, both in Israel and in the long history of the Jewish diaspora, in which education and scholarship are held in high regard. That is why an academic boycott might have a desirable political effect in Israel, an effect that might not be expected elsewhere.

Yes, that’s precisely it.

“Surely, one of the first steps to becoming a good ex-Jewish Jew (Atzmon), or non-Jewish Jew (Ahem…) is to cease being obsessed with Jewish Jews (i.e. Jews).”

Absolutely. And I have discussed this with Gilad. He is very aware of the irony of the situation.

plantation westworld do you imply that everyone posting here is cutting and pasting comments like you do?

Of course not, sir. I cut and pasted JC because I agree and I like to save time, because time is money. I am certain that would save time if rather than do this debate once again. You can take the million other comments about Andy, David, Shamir, Rosen, Rance, Greenstein, Paul Eisen, and the Atzmon guy that everyone is so concerned about if he is a Jew or not and put them here. We can rehash it all again and again because we really SHOULD CARE whether or not Atzmon is converted to Christianity!

from some comments above me:
Yes, that’s precisely it.

“Surely, one of the first steps to becoming a good ex-Jewish Jew (Atzmon), or non-Jewish Jew (Ahem…) is to cease being obsessed with Jewish Jews (i.e. Jews).”

Absolutely. And I have discussed this with Gilad. He is very aware of the irony of the situation.

Hey, guys, just relax, cease being so obsessed with Jews! They are ordinary people like anyone else. Even if David T says he “strikes him a pretty Jewish”, whatever that’s supposed to mean. I wouldn’t want to be a goy caught dead saying something like that.

Mark – thanks for the link/quote but it’s so weak it sounds like post-fact retrospective justification. I think a more honest explanation is that Israel-bashing is very fashionable in British academic circles, whereas China- and Sudan-bashing isn’t. Do you think the UCU leadership had a meeting where they went through all the countries they didn’t like and argue the merits for and against an academic boycott – and only Israel pasted the test? I don’t. I think certain members who are passionately anti-Zionist have pushed this through, convincing some of their co-unionists and ignoring others.

As I write I guess the point I’m trying to make is that whilst an action may not be racist in intent, it can be racist in effect. Whilst anti-Zionists may think that singling out Israel (for whatever spurious and patronising reasons they come up with) may be purely political/human rights related, in reality it’s discriminatory against a set of people in a manner that harks back to overt bigotry in days gone by. The inability to recognise the concerns of Jewish folk is symptom of the obvious disrespect the anti-Zionists have for anyone who isn’t anti-Zionist. As is the inability of these anti-Zionists to distance themselves from overt anti-Semites (”We are Hezbollah!”). Why should Jews give these haters the benefit of the doubt?

“We can rehash it all again and again because we really SHOULD CARE whether or not Atzmon is converted to Christianity!”

Well, if we could be certain of that, following the Otto Weininger model, we should expect Gilad to commit suicide in less than two years.

plantation westworld:
I couldn’t care a hoot if somebody is converted unless the person is pretending to be Jewish and is not. Same goes for others too. Of course it is a scandal that part of the left and many Palestinians and Islamists consort with Eisen/Shamir/Atzmon.
I have published some articles on the Swedish-Russian anti-Semite Adam Ermash, who is writing under the name Israel Shamir. Nevertheless just recently Tikkun published a text of this person.
By the way Ermash/Shamir pretends to live in Jaffa Israel and he admitted to have converted to the Greek Orthodox religion.

David T., I’m not sure why you take situations and tweak them. You call me a ‘Communist’ (capital ‘C’) which implies that I am or have been a member of a party that calls itself ‘Communist’. Not true.

Nobody from the SWP ever told me to ‘fuck off’, either in fact, or metaphorically. If you imagine that they did, that’s fine. If you’ve interpreted the replies I received on the letters pages of SW, as ‘fuck off’, that’s fine too, but that’s an interpretation not a fact. And I would suggest that if those replies constitute a ‘fuck off’ then almost every disagreement or rebuttal or refutation in the history of political debate would be a ‘fuck off’.

However, absolutely none of this contributes to this debate, and I’m sorry to digress. I did so just so that it’s on record that I don’t agree with the two descriptions you’ve provided. They are just your opinions.

“Does antisemitism play a serious part in anti-Israel campaigning?”

In the scale of the campaigning? – yes. Historically, people have often been excited about Jews. Do we think that ended in 1945? In 1948? On 9/11? Do me a favour.

In the nature of the campaigning? – certainly not necessarily, but you’ll inevitably get escalating antisemitic impacts when Israel and her supporters are repeatedly and only portrayed in demonic terms.

In the motifs of the rhetoric? – yes, countless continuities between The Protocols and what Zionists are accused of these days.

A more useful debate might be “Does conscious or uncouscious antisemitism play a serious part in anti-Israel campaigning”. Or even, “Is most contemporary antisemitism motivated by anti-Israel campaigning”

“We are accused of unfairly singling out Israel—the Jewish state—and hence of being anti-semites. We are asked why we do not propose a boycott of other states whose policies are barbaric and inhuman, such as China, Saudi Arabia, Iran, or Zimbabwe.
But whether a boycott is appropriate in such places depends on the merits of each individual case. In the case of Israel, we are speaking about a society whose dominant self image is one of a bastion of civilisation in a sea of medieval reaction. And we are speaking of a culture, both in Israel and in the long history of the Jewish diaspora, in which education and scholarship are held in high regard.”

I would say the boycott was based on anti-white prejudice rather anti-Semitism. Of all the countries that could have been singled out Israel is the only western one, a country that is effectively European. What youre basically saying is Sudan and China are bound to behave like barbarians because they are but we should expect better from white people.

Like the South Africa in the 80s, where everyone seemed to think it worse that blacks in South Africa were denied the vote than their neighbours in various other countries were denied their lives.

Michael Rosen, why are you expecting facts here? It’s all opinion and speculation, especially about who’s Jewish or Christian or whatever. They take these things very seriously. Everybody’s got to have their obsession, I guess.

Israel is effectively European? That’s a good one! Try looking at a map now and then!

Shaw was referring to Western opposition which is rather broader than the various irrelevant, powerless groupuscules that you constantly obsess over.

Anti-semistism, thank goodness, is at a low level in Europe by historical standards.

In light of this your energies might be better employed in seeking out creative solutions to end the conflict rather endlessly wallowing in self-pity and victimhood.

Also has you the thought ever entered your tiny minds that the reason for the disproportionate interest in Israel amongst might be a function of the fact that this conflict is widely seen by news organisations as one of the biggest stories on the International agenda for a variety of reasons, and thus more people are aware of it than say what is going on in other hotspots which may have a much higher body count. This is a much more plausible reason that widespread anti-semitsm.

Greg – agreed.

Another more useful debate might be, “Is antisemitism the most serious (ie lkely / practical / impacting) outcome of anti-Israel campaigning”.

- After all, what other outcomes will there be? Israeli withdrawal from West Bank, removal of security barrier and granting of Eged bus freedom pass to all Palestinians? Repeal of Law of Return? End of anti-Israel terrorism in favour of other campaignig methods? Closure of Likud, Kadimah and everything to the right? Acceptance and guarantee of Israel’s basic right to exist from Arab and Muslim world? Israel’s voluntary dissolution and establishment of one-state nirvana light unto the nations?

Sadly, Atzmon comes from a long lilfe of self-hating or “ex-” Jews.

Two famous names in Christianity come to mind: St Paul, the founding father of Christian anti-semitism, and Torquemada, the grand inquisitor in Spain.

They have always been and always will be Jews who reject their original identity. Ok, fine, that’s their right.

What’s so sadly ironical is that there are people who subscribe to the anti-semitic views of such ex-Jews and then claim they can’t actually be anti-semites because their role models are “Jewish”!

And this sums the far-left and right who target Israel and Zionism as bastions of evil: they either have no logic worthy of debate or they are pure cynics.

St Paul, the founding father of Christian anti-semitism

TBH, I think you might have been on firmer grounds if you’d said “St John” (not sure I would necessarily agree with that, either, but still)

This is quite interesting discussion (I’ve not been through it all: i don’t necessarily endorse it all..but it looks like a healthy and well-informed and well-sourced antidote to this sort of statement)

I’m not sure I’m be so inclined to rush in to defend Torquemada, though… (although I might utter vaguely Jesuitical sophistries about who he was answerable too: ie the state, not the church)

Pace Venichka,

“St Paul, one of the founding fathers of Chrisitan anti-semitism”.

He was the one, after all, who threw out the Jewish part of Chrisitianity (throwing the baby out with the bath water, so to speak).

Flanker, you’ve found us out.

You see, we the Jews / neo Cons / Zog – the the behind-the-scenes power masters of the world, responsible for all wars, suffering and poverty, and the real controllers of the USA, well, er, we think you’re really important and a dangerous enemy who could well destroy us just with your brilliantly witty and insightful comments alone.

So from time to time we have to take out your posts and assign our best people out to analyse your comments.

We could arrange for your assassination, but that would be too easy, and because we’re so very, very evil, we’ll just put you in a James Bond scenario, from which you can then escape, and destroy us and save the world.

Or at least, I guess this is what you must be thinking this while you jack yourself off and post your usual garbage here…

Dream on, rich little boy, dream on

Porque no te callas, Flanker?

Time for a joke: (It is Friday)

Three Jewish mothers are standing around and chatting about their sons. The first one comments, “My son really cares about me. Even though he lives in a different country and thousands of miles of away, he still comes to visit me every birthday and not only that he also telephones me every week to make sure that I am all right.” The second one comments: “My son also really cares about me. He lives over 100 miles away but each Friday night, even if it is snowing, he makes sure to come home and see me for dinner.” The third mother then pipes up: “That is nothing, I know for certain that my son really cares about me. Each week he visits a psychoanalyst and all he talks about is me.”

“St Paul, one of the founding fathers of Chrisitan anti-semitism”.

St Paul wrote a few letters to the Ephesians.

Chrisitianity’s core texts were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

Christ killed no Jews and is not reported to have uttered a single anti-semitic blurb.

The early ‘Christians’ often shared synagogues with Jews for Purposes of worship.

In Egypt today, the only ’synagogue’ operating is a Coptic church gthat the two faiths have agreed to share.

Christianity is not Judaism’s ‘replacement’ theology. If Judaism has any validity, any truth, any god, then at some point those truths would have to be vaulted onto all of humanity while at the same time leaving the germ, the genesis of those truths intact.

I’m a Christian, and I don’t even think about Jews all that much.

I understand my faith, I see the Judaica in it and celebrate it, but at the same time of see the continuation of pre-Christian traditions and celebrations( Zoroastrian as well) incorporated into that Judaica in a smooth, seamless and joyous amalgamation.

If that piss some off, then they can just bite me!

To disparage the beliefs of 2.5 billion poeple, and put them all those beliefs and the theology down to mere expressions of anti-semitism is bigoted and simple-minded to the nth degree.

Would there be any use in pointing out that Christians don’t do suicide-bombings?

To ascertain Christainity’s level of anti-semitism, I sugggest that some here question ex-Muslim converts to Christianity about their views on Jews pre-conversion.

Ask them about what they were taught about Jew.

Christianity isn’t perfect, it is open to different interpretations, but it really is a vast improvement on other options.

Idiots like Sandra Bernahrd notwithstanding.

Michael

I will happily amend the “communist” description

I do think that the SWP told you to “fuck off”, in the sense that (a) you said that Atzmon was a racist and (b) the SWP pooh poohed your concerns and continued to invite him to take part in their events.

I must confess that I am fairly reluctant to pin the label of anti-Semitism on anybody unless the proof is clear and overwhelming. It is always better to be careful, to give the benefit of a doubt, to imagine that people are careless or ignorant, to challenge them respectfully. The onus of proof is always on the accuser and, unless you can prove it, better restrain yourself.

And yet, and bearing all this in mind… I have lived in this country for 30 years, have been involved in my place of work and local community, have met, talked and befriended endless people from all possible creeds and ethnicities. In all these years, until few years ago, I did not encounter even a single act in my environment on which I can put my finger and say “this is anti-Semitic”. And then, in the last few years, I have been in a number of exceedingly unpleasant situations in which clearly, unambiguously anti-Semitic tropes were used to my face. Examples? “The reason I hate you people is because you think you are the chosen people, that you are better than others!”, “Should I introduce you as a Jew or as an Israeli?” (that’s at a meeting of my local branch of a political party – and a hint, it is not BNP), “Had Adolph Hitler been more diligent, there would have been no Palestinian problem”, “You Jews control United States”. Enough? Well, there are three common denominators to all this. Firstly, they were all made in the course of an argument about the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Secondly, they were all made by people who define themselves as on the left of British politics. Thirdly, each and every one of the individuals who uttered them would have been genuinely astonished and angry to be called an anti-Semite.

I am not trying for a moment to imply that every anti-Israeli, or anti-Zionist, is an anti-Semite. Again, the onus of proof is on the accuser. But, too often for comfort, once you scratch an anti-Zionist you discover a real cesspool of anti-Semitic tropes and prejudices. This is not theory, this is my experience.

Those anti-Zionists (like Michael Rosen) who are obviously not anti-Semitic should acknowledge this openly, because without openness this contagion will fester and spread.

Professor Martin Shaw? He’s an arsehole. He’s one of the believers in the trope of “George Bush is the most dangerous man in the world” liberal propaganda.
He’s completely deranged. http://www.martinshaw.org/

Does Anti-Semitism Play a Serious Part in Anti-Israel Campaigning?

And next week’s topic – ‘Is the Pope really German’.

Anti-jewish racism I encountered as a child – pretty limited, and I’m sure much less than somebody who was, say, black or asian growing up in 70s/80s Britain.

Ones that stick out:

- being chased and grabbed by skinheads shouting “yid yid yid” when I was 10 or so.

- being stopped by some kids in the street, one of whom told me that Hitler was his grandad. As the kid was asian, it seemed unlikely.

- being told by my piano teacher, who was annoyed by my lack of practice, that she wasn’t surprised that Hitler had it in for the Jews.

Limited, mostly low level stuff. People calling each other “jews” for being stingy etc.

In the last few years: the Protocols have come alive for me.

Is it really as bad as all that in the UK now? Goodness. Glad I left 20 years ago.

Anyway, we’ll keep a welcome in the hillsides…. ;)

David T., Like I said, your description that it was a ‘fuck off’ is just your opinion. In your own words a ‘pooh-pooh’ turns into a ‘fuck off’. To get pedantic about it for a moment, a fuck-off implies some kind of rudeness, get lost, why don’t you fuck off about it. As none of that occurred, I never saw it as a fuck-off. Your sense of history is a little weak too. For a while Gilad Atzmon was 1) invited to play and talk. Then he was invited 2) only to talk. Then 3) he wasn’t invited to do either. For your own reasons, it seems as if you need to describe this sequence of events as if only 1) has ever existed. This is peculiar. Political organisations revise their views and positions. If you can’t acknowledge that, then what you say and write has much more to do with your own worldview than what’s going on in the world of reality. I suspect your need to call me a ‘Communist’ belongs in the same fantasy.

sorry, I was in haste. My ‘2)’ should read, ‘only to play’.

My quick Jewish Joke – and my favourite:–

“Psychologists have come up with two strategies for arguing with a Jewish Mother. Neither of them work!”

In the last few years: the Protocols have come alive for me.

That is because you realise that via your blog you can control world opinion!

Well, put it this way.

Let’s say that you are a hard working lefty, who is close to but not a member of the SWP. You’ve written pamphlets with them. You’ve joined their front organisations, and served on their national council. You’re a successful and well loved broadcaster and childrens’ author. You think of the SWP as your comrades and friends; your spiritual home.

Then one day, the SWP invites somebody along to participate in their events who is very pushing a far right line. Everybody points it out. You do too. However, for some reason, your friends and comrades don’t seem to take these objections seriously. He is invited back again and again. On some occasions, he just plays. On other occasions – and I’m thinking of the “Cultures of Resistance” gigs – he puts forward his political views.

You think “oh well, they can’t have understood me properly. I’ll phrase it better”.

You write a very nice article explaining why they’ve made an innocent, and wholly understandable mistake.

They tell you that you’ve got Atzmon wrong, and invite him back again.

Eventually, at some point, surely, you must have asked yourself: What am I doing wrong? Does Martin Smith think that jazz is cooler than kids poetry perhaps? Am I wrong?

Or to put it another way: when Atzmon was laying into you, taking the piss out of you, racially abusing you, who would you have naturally turned to for support. Surely, it would be the SWP, and their anti-racist front organisations.

Except you couldn’t do that, could you. Because they were supporting Atzmon instead.

PS: I’d have supported you. But then I’m not a Trotskyite, so I suppose you don’t care for my support.

Anti-jewish racism I encountered as a child – pretty limited, and I’m sure much less than somebody who was, say, black or asian growing up in 70s/80s Britain.

- being chased and grabbed by skinheads shouting “yid yid yid” when I was 10 or so.

David T, I did the 50’s and with me it was “Jew Boy” Jew Boy!” in Stoke Newington where I can remember the post war prefabs and the still bombed out church in Stoke Newington High Street.

The strange thing is that my family weren’t religious at all and this was the first time I was made to realise I was Jewish and other people weren’t. Remember, I was 5-6.

How can you tell people that you didn’t think that the happenstance of you simply being born into family “A” instead of family “B” made you the butt of hate and you never did anything to deserve it.

I was castigated for my opinions about “muffin” and that I didn’t know about his background – well some us also have stories to tell too!

It occured to me I might be one of the oldest posters at HP. Hey guys & gals – have some respect!! LOL!!

Silly, silly David T. You have so NOT described what happened nor what I felt. Your binaries are all wrong too. No matter.

Tell me – what does it take to be spared the label anti-Semite? Do you insist that it is compulsorily to love Jews? Or can one get away with merely being sympathetic? What deficiency of affection marks the decline into the dreaded state of anti Semitism?

I wonder because, it can not be without coincidence, that the writers, thinkers, artists, teachers attacked here, also happen to be the most charming, gentle souls you could ever be lucky enough to meet. The very people open to contemplate or challenge the hegemony of Jewish identity politics, are also infused with more grace & charisma than a placard-waving, slogan-shouting Marxist could imagine possible.

This was of course true of Jesus & Spinoza. If you go to any of Atzmon’s concerts @ Ronnie Scotts or the packed out jazz clubs of Europe, you will be faced with evidence of the same – in spades.

But here @ place de’ Harry, we have Trotskyites, pseudo liberals & rabid Zionists happily conferring together under one kosher umbrella, as if it rains. And trust me, you don’t need a weather man to know that it will soon be pouring.

All these stories about being called a Jew Boy or a yid. Surely you have read Paul Eisen:

Anti-Semitism in its historic, virulent and eliminationist [sic] form did exist and could certainly exist again, but it does not currently exist in the West in any significantly observable form.

That should tell you.

“Silly, silly David T. You have so NOT described what happened nor what I felt. Your binaries are all wrong too. No matter.”

Michael – you’ve spent a big chunk of your adult life working with the SWP! Your judgement on “what’s going on” isn’t likely to be brilliant, is it?

Michael Rosen: “You have so NOT described what happened…”

Exactly which bit is incorrect?

“And trust me, you don’t need a weather man to know that it will soon be pouring.”

Well, that’s the subject under discussion.

Most of us have directly experienced a notable rise in Jewish Conspiracy mongering: sometimes barely dressed up as anti-Zionism, and sometime – in the case we’ve been discussing here – completely open.

I do think that it will “soon be pouring”.

Frankly, I think it is “pouring” already.

The main sign of it “pouring” is that people who think of themselves as left wing and progressive anti-racists – like Martin Shaw – can quite honestly not see any racism in his part of the political spectrum at all; and think that David Hirsh etc. are whining.

Aisha,

Tell me , what does it take to be spared the label Islamophobe? Do you insist that it is compulsory to love muslims?…what deficiency of affection marks the decline into the dreaded state of Islamophobe? etc etc……

Aisha, I’m happy not to bother calling you a stupid C…t and Antisemite because that’t what you want. Doh!!! BTW you obviously WANT to qualify for being called Antisemite (Jew Hater) because it makes you feel good.( I suspect)

Tell me – what does it take to be spared the label anti-Semite? Do you insist that it is compulsorily to love Jews? Or can one get away with merely being sympathetic? What deficiency of affection marks the decline into the dreaded state of anti Semitism?

But here @ place de’ Harry, we have Trotskyites, pseudo liberals & rabid Zionists happily conferring together under one kosher umbrella, as if it rains. And trust me, you don’t need a weather man to know that it will soon be pouring.

Oh its classic. In fact I wouldn’t be suprised that if you published that in a newspaper you might just get a legal challenge for your antisemitism. You want it and I’d love to give it to you!

So now replace the word “Jew” with “Black” or “Muslim”. My guess is that you are too hateful to notice anything.

I too, would love to know how someone can strike you as ‘pretty Jewish’. How do you identify a Jew, exactly?

I wonder because, it can not be without coincidence, that the writers, thinkers, artists, teachers attacked here, also happen to be the most charming, gentle souls you could ever be lucky enough to meet.

Classic non-argument, akin to the ‘I have some Jewish friends, therefore I cannot be an antisemite’ non-argument.

Hitler was kind to dogs. He was an antisemite.
End of argument. Now buzz off.

we have Trotskyites, pseudo liberals & rabid Zionists

We know where you are coming from, thanks for making it so obvious. Jews who will not lie down and die, but insist on having their own free country, are ‘rabid’ in the eyes of someone like you.

I can’t believe we’re back to bleedin’ Atzmon and what that does or doesn’t reveal about SWP’s attitude to Jews.

Never mind SWP’s pig headed flirting with Gilad Atzmon, how about their fully conscious embrace of Hizbollah?

One is a nutter with a saxophone, the other sends truck bombs into Jewish community centres. If there are indeed Jews whom SWP respect, then I know where I’d rather see them expending their energies.

Aisha: to not be labelled an anti-semite is simple. stop talking about Jewish power, that “zionists” control the world’s governments and banking systems, and stop singling out Israel for sanctions when other states — especially those that are Israel’s enemies — are far more deserving of those sanctions. And don’t insist on its destruction.

If you don’t do those things and focus instead on criticizing Israeli policy — as opposed to the existence of the state — few here and elsewhere will label you an anti-semite.

Not the answer you wanted to hear, i’m sure.

If you focus on criticizing Israeli

“In the case of Israel, we are speaking about a society whose dominant self image is one of a bastion of civilisation in a sea of medieval reaction”

I see, ALL Israelis have that self-image? That’s why we need to boycott… ALL Israeli academics, everywhere in the world, not just in Israel.

So, what you’re saying is that there is no pluralism in Israel or Israelis outside Israel and tha all Israelis are identical. Gosh, Wow, you must be an academic yourself, because you’re so fucking intelligent and incisive!

But hang on… if you can accuse an entire nation of being something negative, isn’t that “racism”? Well, yes, but they’re only fucking Israelis, so who the fuck cares if we are racist about them?

I dunno.

All I can say is that Gilad strikes one as very Jewish. By that, I mean he comes across as a ‘mediteranean’ type – to be frank, Jews look Spanish, Greek, Arab to me.

There’s also his Israeli accent and mannerisms.

In fact, come to think of it, he’s a pretty stereotypical Jew. Musician. Talks all the time. Obsessed and conflicted about Jewishness. In fact, if you think about the Nazi characterisation of Jewish art, that’s Atzmon: not original, magpie like ‘borrowing’ from other cultures, and so on.

Atzmon knows this. It clearly tortures him.

I dunno how people identify Jews by sight. I was sniffed out by a Turkish border guard, who repeatedly said ‘Jew’ at me while he stamped my passport. And in Morocco, a teenager followed me about for round about half an hour, shouting racist insults at me, while offering to fuck my wife with his (so he claimed) “big Berber cock”.

DAvid T., it’s not a matter of whether I know ‘what’s going on’ inside the SWP or not, as you imply, but whether you can be arsed to describe the sequence of events as they’ve happened. Look back at your last post, and you still can’t bring yourself to write that the SWP stopped inviting Gilad A. You have to keep writing your narrative as if they still do. As I said, that says much more about you than the anything to do with reality.

Of all the countries that could have been singled out Israel is the only western one, a country that is effectively European.

20% of Israeli citizens are Arabs. Another 40% are Jews descended from immigrants from Arab and Muslim countries. The majority of Israelis descended from European Jews are already second or third generation Israeli born (the exception being more recent immigrants from European former Soviet Union countries), and a growing percentage of the Israeli born are already a mixture of descendants of Jews of Arab and Muslim countries and descendants of European Jews.

How is Israel European, exactly?

Michael

Your last comment is priceless!!

Turkey aspires to be a member of the European union. How is Turkey European, exactly?

Michael, I don’t know the ins and outs of this SWP-Atzmon affair, but let’s face it, the SWP are a bunch of brain-washing cultists. I got to know plenty of them at university.

For what it’s worth, I do think your radio programmes some years back on the English language were excellent.

Mike Rosen wrote:

“Look back at your last post, and you still can’t bring yourself to write that the SWP stopped inviting Gilad A.”

yeah, they did, AFTER 4 years

that puts matters in a different light eh?

ps Michael, if a working two-state, Israel-Palestine solution were eventually found and implemented, would you still be actively involved in trying to distmantle Israel, or would you possibly accept its existence and move on?

Seriously, Michael, I’d like to know what you think about that.

Michael, Paul Eisen includes you on a list of Righteous Jews
(See http://www.righteousjews.org/initial-list.html), on the same website where he writes:

“But Ernst Zündel is a Holocaust denier because he believes the Holocaust narrative falsely defames his people and their history. He is a racialist because race, for him .. is vital and precious in the life of human beings, and that his own white and German race .. as is every other race, something to be cherished and preserved. He is a patriot … He remembers Adolf Hitler for the national regeneration he brought. ”

What an honour you have been givn Michael, and no doubt you deserve it.

Actually, I think that Michael was being deliberately – although mildly – sarcastic – he knows full well that the SWP behaved like the rabble most of the Left now knows them to be, and treated him in a particularly shabby fashion.

What he means, is the exact opposite of what he appears to be saying: i.e. “yes, you’re right – and they took 4 years to even take the simplest action to deal with the problem they’d created. Even now, they won’t admit that they were wrong. And I’m still waiting for my apology”

But sarcasm doesn’t always come across brilliantly in print. People sometimes take it at face value!

Michael, why do you think the SWP did it? I’ve got three theories, some or all of which may be true:

(a) They genuinely didn’t realise what Atzmon’s politics were.

(b) When they realised that he was a ‘live one’, they thought

“Oh, but he says pretty much the same thing that Hezbollah and Hamas do. If we acknowledge that the sort of thing that Atzmon says is unacceptable to anti racists and socialists, then we’ll have great difficulty in maintaining publicly our support for these genocidal racist organisations. Best just keep insisting that he isn’t a racist.”

(c) Martin Smith thought “Hey! Me appearing in a smoky nightclub, on stage with a famous jazz musician. Niiiiiiiiice!!”

Which one do you think it was?

Do you think that you’ve learnt anything from the experience?

Actually, here’s a thing…

Wouldn’t it be amazing if a Jewish far Leftist once said – ONCE – “I got it wrong. I thought that there was no anti-semitism on the Left. Now I know that there is. Sure, I warned in the politest way I could, without embarrassing the Central Committee about some of the, um, odd alliances we were making, and how I thought that they were tactically unwise, and not in the interests of the international proletariat. I really thought that all this ‘antisemitism’ rubbish was a Zionist trick. I just couldn’t believe that it was possible for an anti-racist to believe and say all these things. But I was wrong. Now I realise that every time I opened my mouth, all my ‘comrades’ heard was: “more Jewish special pleading”. Some – not all – but some of them genuinely do think like that. We desperately need to de-Nazify our movement, and I for one, will step up to the baracades and say: No! You shall not pass!”.

Actually, it would be nice if any member of the SWP said something like that.

What do you think. Will they?

David T., the only bit of sarcasm I noted above was you with your ‘priceless’ quip.

Your broad point is that the SWP should say they were wrong. You seem to occupy a most bizarre position. You spend a good deal of time explaining to people who don’t really need it explained (they agree anyway) what’s wrong with the SWP. A person might get to think that the lady doth protest too much…You know: the fascination with something which you fear you might on one too many occasions agree with…so you keep having to point out to people that the object of your fascination is something you despise beyond words. Would it help to talk to someone about this?

But your other bizarre position is where you set yourself up as some kind of prophet or king who has to be answered to. (perhaps blogging is going to your head? There are people you can talk to about this too.). The idea that the SWP or Jewish leftists, or whoever, should a) come and tell you what they did wrong and then b) this would in some way then satisfy you, is beyond belief. The whole point of your argument is that even if such people did say they were wrong on this or that, you wouldn’t touch’em with a bargepole anyway. So it’s a completely false demand on your part and issued in bad faith. It just looks good on a blog. So your closing flourish ‘it would be nice if…’ is air guitar.

White Trash Spotter, I’m on a lot of lists. One of them appears to be run by some nice Jewish people and it’s called something like the ‘Jewish Shit List’. Presumably, this concerns you too, as it rather looks from the list as if certain Jews are being targeted. Hasn’t it occurred to you that if I got into the business of demanding that I was taken off Paul Eisen’s list or some such, then I would be taking Paul Eisen’s view of me as ‘righteous’ as of some importance?

So, do you think you have learnt anything from the way the SWP treated you, Michael?

Mike,

do you consider Atzmon to be a racist, or someone that articulates racism?

So it’s a completely false demand on your part and issued in bad faith. It just looks good on a blog.

No, it looks pretty dire from here.

David T., have you learnt anything from what the British and American are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan? (As I said, your megalomaniac tendencies are getting the better of you. I don’t answer to you. I don’t know you. I don’t know who you are or what you do or why I should have to have that kind of conversation with you. This conversation began with two simple corrections of fact. And now you’re interrogating me? You’re like the Stalinist police who once they got someone inside the cell they had to find something to torture them for.

Modernity, perhaps you were too busy to follow my a) letter to SW and b) a long spat on the old Peacepalestine blog c) a long article in Jewish Socialist magazine. Believe me, there is absolutely no reason why you should have followed any of this, but I think, as they say, I made my position so clear that you can see it on a dark night in winter.

Er – well if you don’t mind my asking, what are you doing commenting on this blog?

Mike,

hey, why not less of a POLITICAL answer to a straight question?

do you consider Atzmon to be a racist, or someone that articulates racism?

yes or no?

I accept that my last reply might put you off answering further questions. I am sorry for my rudeness.

I would be interested to hear your take on Francis Clark-Lowes’ views, above.

re: how is turkey european?

hmmm let’s see… for starters, the capital, Istanbul, is located in Europe. The Turkish republic’s predecessor, the Ottoman empire, controlled most of southeastern europe, and modern Turkey includes a few thousand square miles of European territory (Turkish Thrace), including Gallipoli.
Therefore, Turkey definitely qualifies as European, much the same way as Russia does.

You are a stalinist interrogator, David!
You are torturing poor Michael Rosen…
You are so bad.

And he would only want to finish you off with a shot in the neck when the Revolution comes, you burgeois pig. How come you treat poor old Marxist Michael Rosen this way? That is no way to treat someone who would only build relatively small gulags if in power.

The capital of Turkey is Ankara.

I still don’t see how a self respecting anti racist can want to be associated with SWP whilst it is in open alliance with an antisemitic terrorist group. 4 years for Atzmon, but how many more for Hizbollah?

Not intending to be Stalinist about this, but any chance of an explanation?

Michael, is ‘Stalinist’ intended as an insult?

Sheleylee, no one insists or asks you to love muslims. Far from it. Cohen & Aronivitch ensure the opposite. Maybe a few might ask you to cease bombing them for a while, or at least stop incarcerating them without charge or due protection from the magna cata.

Anti-semistism, thank goodness, is at a low level in Europe by historical standards.

Drivel. You are saying that Jews should be thankful there is no Final Solution being implemented these days.
Antisemitism in Europe is by far at its highest level since 1945, and increasing all the time.

In light of this your energies might be better employed in seeking out creative solutions to end the conflict rather endlessly wallowing in self-pity and victimhood.

More patronising drivel. Israel has been doing a huge amount since 1948 to end the conflict. I’d like to see you live for 60 years among neighbours constantly trying to annihilate you – once you have done that, then you could come back and post such condescending nonsense.

David T:

All I can say is that Gilad strikes one as very Jewish. By that, I mean he comes across as a ‘mediteranean’ type – to be frank, Jews look Spanish, Greek, Arab to me.

Yeah, right: all you dusky people – Jews, Arabs, Greeks – look the same to me.

You do know that many Jews are light-skinned with blue eyes, right?

In fact, come to think of it, he’s a pretty stereotypical Jew. Musician. Talks all the time. Obsessed and conflicted about Jewishness. In fact, if you think about the Nazi characterisation of Jewish art, that’s Atzmon: not original, magpie like ‘borrowing’ from other cultures, and so on.

I hope this is a rather poor attempt at irony, because it comes across as viciously antisemitic.

Aisha, do remind us who else but some Muslims have come to this country and are plotting to overthrow its culture. And have plotted and carried out mass-murders of its citizens.

Wouldn’t it be amazing if a Jewish far Leftist once said – ONCE – “I got it wrong. I thought that there was no anti-semitism on the Left. Now I know that there is. Sure, I warned in the politest way I could, without embarrassing the Central Committee about some of the, um, odd alliances we were making, and how I thought that they were tactically unwise, and not in the interests of the international proletariat.

Yes, indeed, David, it would be amazing. But if they only regarded it as a ‘tactical’ mistake, that would be no more than some Hamas murderers are saying already sometimes, viz. ‘This is not the right time to murder Jews, because the eyes of the world are upon us just now because of XYZ, and it would be bad PR of us’.
This is not enough. It would be only an apology for the tactics of the SWP, not for their antisemitic politics.

for starters, the capital, Istanbul, is located in Europe

Oh, dear … and this was from our very own educated newspaper editor.

To disparage the beliefs of 2.5 billion poeple, and put them all those beliefs and the theology down to mere expressions of anti-semitism is bigoted and simple-minded to the nth degree

To completely distort the post you were responding to and put these words in the poster’s mouth – words he never wrote – is indeed bigoted and simple-minded.

The number of Christians is totally irrelevant here. And to deny the Christian church’s very long list of persecutions and murders of Jews over many centuries is indeed bigoted and simple-minded to the nth degree.

A person might get to think that the lady doth protest too much…You know: the fascination with something which you fear you might on one too many occasions agree with…so you keep having to point out to people that the object of your fascination is something you despise beyond words. Would it help to talk to someone about this?

What a pretentious asshole.

Oh jeez, modernity is on his ‘yes or no’ riff. Mod, I’ve spent thousands of words describing in great detail on exactly where I thought a year or so go G.A. fits in the spectrum of anti-semitic/racist ideas. There was a public debate over several days with GA and others at the peacepalestine blog, letter to SW, a long, long article/interview in Jewish Socialist Magazine. If you think any of this doesn’t come up to standard (vis a vis opposition to racism etc) give me a shout. In the meantime, I’ll skip the inquisition just now.

I came to this blog on this occasion to correct the statements in which D.T. said I was a Communist and that the SWP told me to fuck off. I later pointed out that D.T.’s way of telling the SWP-Atzmon story is to leave off the final chapter. And suddenly, I’m taken in for questioning. If you wanted to have a conversation about this stuff, there’s a way of doing it. I would know who you are in the way that you know who I am. Modernity, if you can’t go round the block to find out what I said about G.A. over and over and over again then just consider yourself lucky. D.T., as most of it applies to Francis C-L, then there’s not much to add to that either. It’s OK, I won’t be back to bother you again, until the next time someone like D.T. chooses to embellish a story by making up porkies about me. Ta-ra.

“Is antisemitism the most serious (ie lkely / practical / impacting) outcome of anti-Israel campaigning”.

This reminds me of a question I have thought about – if someone is kicking your head in, does it matter if the boot belongs to an anti-Zionist or an anti-Semite?

Perhaps the whole anti-Zionist vs anti-Semite debate is moot – the irrationality and stereotyping by anti-Zionists (and displayed in spades by such commenters as Flanker) is a bigotry of the same order as racism. So why bother justifying if someone is actually a racist if their actions or intents are just as bad? I mean, it’s not as if the anti-Zionists want peace and dialogue between the Israelis and the Arabs; on the whole, they want the Arabs to cleanse the middle east of its Jews.

Mike Rosen wrote:

“Oh jeez, modernity is on his ‘yes or no’ riff. Mod, I’ve spent thousands of words describing in great detail on exactly where I thought a year or so go G.A.”

Mike,

I never understand you, one moment you come over as someone hard done by, on other occasions you are pushy and inquisitive for knowledge (when HP was closed down recently), other times you act as if butter wouldn’t melt in your mouth, and then there are instances such as this, when you can’t answer a straightforward question on whether or not you think Atzmon is a racist, or that he articulates racism.

I’m sure you could give an affirmative if you wanted, but instead you ramble on, presumably assuming that the readers won’t remember the events surrounding the SWP’s four years of hosting Atzmon, or that they will forget the picket of Bookmarks?

I’m sure you’re familiar with the lower working-class vernacular, but you really do take the piss on this topic.

Still if you want to play the shifty politico, onetime antiracist, who can’t bring himself to make a simple yes or no on Atzmon’s racism, then that’s your problem

But then I suppose you venting at HP, instead of your erstwhile comrades in the SWP, is much easier

pity though, I thought you had more character

“But your other bizarre position is where you set yourself up as some kind of prophet or king who has to be answered to.”

Oh. While, I thought he was behaving like a lawyer all this time.

I done heard a rumour that lefties don’t hate Jews – what do you think about this lefty what hates Jews?

Self-awareness? What tha fuck you talkin’ about?

hey hardly oxfordian, are you saying Istanbul ISNT located in Europe. Better check a map then buddy

yes correct the capital is ankara, i meant the principal city of course. that’s what happens when you scribble in a hurry.

“Does Anti-Semitism Play a Serious Part in Anti-Israel Campaigning?”

Oh, fuck off! Of course anti-Semites are going to criticize Israel but that doesn’t mean that criticism is anti-Semitic. Stop all this stigmatizing of legitimate criticism by trying to equate it with something that is abhorrent!

Ny first response is that if you aren’t Jewish then you don’t qualify to try and intellectualise what is or is not Antisemitism

And if you’re not black you won’t know what is racism against blacks which means you can’t be aware of your own racism if you are racist. I suppose. In that case, how can you hold someone responsible for committing offences that they aren’t aware of? You can’t, which is why your “first response” is fucked up. Clearly people who aren’t Jewish can know what is anti-Semitic and I don’t think we need you to engage in unwitting apologetics for those who do spout anti-Semitic drivel.

ADL reports increased Antisemitic activity in radio talk shows and internet concerning the financial crisis.

It’s their job to do that. If there was no anti-Semitism they’d have nothing to do and no funding either. Don’t you also think that there is a little bit of racism against “ragheads” for all the problems in the world too?

incarcerating them without charge or due protection from the magna cata

(post from 12:37) I have heard of many real or presumed abuses of human rights of Muslims in this country, but surely throwing them to Big Felines is not one of them.

“It’s [the ADL's] job to [report increased antisemitic activity]. If there was no anti-Semitism they’d have nothing to do and no funding either.”

That’s an interesting critique of the ADL. It would be normal to attack their methodology to show how they might have got it wrong, but instead, with exactly no evidence, you characterise the ADL as fundamentally a money-making organisation, definitionally incapable of reporting antisemitism honestly. Are all organisations tasked with collating statistics on racism, rape, etc., to be viewed in this light, or is it only organisations that monitor antisemitism that are to be dismissed so blithely?

“Don’t you also think that there is a little bit of racism against “ragheads”…”

I often wonder about people who use disgusting, racist terms in this way, in inverted commas. My theory is that people who do this imagine that by imputing them as the unstated views of some unidentified, racist adversary, they can relish the frisson of employing such taboo terms at no moral cost to themselves. I don’t think they can.

Are all organisations tasked with collating statistics on racism, rape, etc., to be viewed in this light, or is it only organisations that monitor antisemitism that are to be dismissed so blithely?

Most of the aforementioned organizations act like this. At least eventually, regardless of what they were set up to do. Why is it you think I believe only organizations that monitor anti-semitism would behave differently?

My theory is that people who do this imagine that by imputing them as the unstated views of some unidentified, racist adversary, they can relish the frisson of employing such taboo terms at no moral cost to themselves. I don’t think they can.

Nice theory. I don’t think it flies. I have seen many people on this site talking about the fundamental backwardness of Arabs and Muslims and they rarely get an eyebrow raised at them. But I have seen many people with perfectly legitimate criticisms of Israel dismissed as anti-Semites. One person on here had a problem with the “security fence” and was accused of wanting to see the deaths of Jews. Pretty outlandish exaggeration, I think.

“Why is it you think I believe only organizations that monitor anti-semitism would behave differently?”

I don’t, which is why I posed it as a question. I thought it was a possibility, because it’s a stupid position to take to assume that all of these kinds of organisations would have to show rising statistics, without any reference to their methodologies. If you say that your default position is that all such organisations are definitionally discredited, then I’m happy to take your word that this is how you feel.

There is Islamophobia in the comments here, and there is antisemitism. Some of it is challenged, and some is not. When it’s not, that doesn’t imply general approval of such comments. I’ve been called an antisemite here, too. Boo-hoo!

Some charges of antisemitism are justified, and some are not. Some charges of Islamophobia are justified, and others are not.

What I would say is that someone who makes broad slurs of Islamophobia, using terms like “raghead”, without reference to any particular person or example, is as bad as the person who cries antisemitism without justification. I find your appropriation of “raghead” creepy.

Also, someone who dismisses attempts to monitor antisemitism without reference to methodology – and likewise, who uses straw man arguments about how criticism of Israel is not necessarily antisemitic, when no-one is saying it is – demonstrates a lack of seriousness about antisemitism.

It’s ironic that you accuse HP of a lack of even-handedness in dealing with racism, because of some implied, tacit approval of Islamophobic comments, when you, yourself, demonstrate the converse lack of even-handedness, quite explicitly.

“Hasn’t it occurred to you that if I got into the business of demanding that I was taken off Paul Eisen’s list or some such, then I would be taking Paul Eisen’s view of me as ‘righteous’ as of some importance?”

Michael, I wouldn’t dream of getting between you and Paul Eisen. I mean, the man obviously adores you and your views.

Hi Michael,
I for one am not demanding anything of you, honestly. It’s just that since you’ve sent some posts here I assumed you might be open enough to discuss some of your views. I genuinely don’t know much about your views, only that you apparently oppose Israel. Which is fine – that’s your right. I’d just like to know whether you’d accept a viable and implemented version of the two-state solution that’s been bandied around for ages but never realised. That’s all. I’m not even asking you to justify your position – it’s none of my business why you think what you do. But I would like to know what you think, if only because you’re rather famous and I enjoy your programmes enough to see you as someone whose views would always be worth listening to. That’s it.

Dont bother, Albert. Michael’s too busy spending quality time with his new pal Paul Eisen to condescend to answer your questions.

A few lines from Michael Rosen:

If you go into other people’s countries
and bomb them
they will bomb you.

This was the first lines of a poem written by Rosen and published by Socialist Worker a few days after the 7/7 terrorist bombs exploded in London killing numerous innocent civilians.

It says it all really.

“Nice theory. I don’t think it flies. I have seen many people on this site talking about the fundamental backwardness of Arabs and Muslims and they rarely get an eyebrow raised at them. But I have seen many people with perfectly legitimate criticisms of Israel dismissed as anti-Semites.”

This is a free speech site, not a political party. Just about anything and everything is going to be expressed here. Plenty of people say things with which I disagree. I certainly do ‘raise any eyebrow’ at them (something unsignifiable on an electronic forum). I rarely waste my time addressing them all or even most of them because a) I don’t have the time and b) I’d rather express my opinion on the topic in hand, or address someone whose views I consider worth addressing, for whatever reason.

But, to iterate: this is not a political party. It is a (pretty much completely) free speech forum. If it is anything, it is a community, of individuals, some regulars, some just passing through, with a wide spectrum of views, some of the regular of which the sort one routinely finds at Seymour’s Place.

Seymour’s Place, one of Michael’s (and your?) regular haunts, is much closer to a political party because the censorship enforced is much stricter i.e. there is something closer to a ‘party line’.

‘This is a free speech site, not a political party. ‘

Actually, of course, it is a blog. With a forum attached.

When people define HP as ‘BNP’ or a ‘racist sewer’ or whatever, it reminds me how many of the same people define ‘Zionist’ and ‘Zionism’. They ignore the many forms and variety of beliefs and opinions among ‘Zionists’, and essentiallise them as suits. Linda Grant, whom Michael similarly chose to essentialise as ‘Zionist’, despite her professing different, makes the point much better than I.

Essentiallizing HP as a de facto or quasi-political party seems to me an exercise by its exponents in projection.

You are absolutely right, Zkharya.

There are, essentially, three ways of running a blog: (a) only registered users are allowed to submit comments and, once they abuse the policy of the blog, they will be de-registered; (b) everybody is allowed to submit a comment, but all comments are pre-moderated and only approved comments are published; or (c) all comments are published at once, except that some comments may be deleted later by list managers.

Each procedure has its shortcomings and they are obvious to everybody: I will not insult the intelligence of all concerned by listing them. HP (like CiF, for that matter) follows route (c), which allows for an immediacy and liveliness absent in other type of blogs. However, (unlike CiF) it clearly has no resources to police comments in real time – and we all know how, with all its resources, CiF so frequently fails to remove blatantly racist comments or removes fairly innocent ones.

Although it not always feels like that, those reading and posting on this website must be presumed to be grown-up, consenting adults. They must know that this is an open blog that reflects a very wide range of views, from totally objectionable on one side of the debate, to totally objectionable on the other side, with everything in-between – and this applies to virtually every topic. Moreover, not all objectionable views are challenged because life is too short to argue with every single piece of excrement and also because some views are simply too disgusting to allow for civilised debate.

Anyway, if people coming here are too sensitive, the rest of the internet is just a click away. But it is pure bad faith to accuse HP of pandering to this-or-that objectionable view simply because somebody posted here a comment to that effect.

Zkharya,

good points, but Mike Rosen is occasionally a very political bloke, so I doubt he’d lose any sleep if his perceived political opponent (Zionists, HPers, antifascists, Israelis, etc) were banned at Lenin’s Tomb, it is not exactly if SWP or their fellow travelers are really prepared and capable of honestly debate their own politics, and the implications.

Islamophobia and whipping up fear and hatred of Muslims is the key element of pro-Israel campaigning of which HP is simply a part

And, for the record, much as I find David T personable, I think his presentation is sloppy, at times (though, this is only a blog, not SWP headquarters), he and other posters of article do cross a line which looks to me like Islamophobia, at times.

However, the fact that SWP took 4 years to drop Atzmon is very revealing and, were it not for the fact that SWP is electorally insignificant, something I might conceivably lose sleep over.

But I hang out at HP rather than Seymour’s Place because I find more in common with the posters here than there. This is for many reasons, some but not all political. For the record (such as it is worth), I think the people here, on the whole, have fewer emotional, social and psychological problems. They are more ‘normal’ (as they say in Hebrew), whatever that might mean for me at this time.

However, having said that, HP=BNP is a good example that breaks the rule of ‘fewer emotional, social and psychological problems’.

So, I dunno. I just find the atmosphere more conducive. I am more likely to talk to people here and get something out of it (bags of gold, and material gains, of course).

Actually, of course, the free speech thing is a big draw. I’d rather waste my time on a lengthy post here, where it has a chance of staying up, than LT, CIF or JSF, where there is a good chance of deletion.

Islamophobia and whipping up fear and hatred of Muslims is the key element of pro-Israel campaigning

More crap from an antisemitic pile of turds.

This was the first lines of a poem written by Rosen and published by Socialist Worker a few days after the 7/7 terrorist bombs exploded in London killing numerous innocent civilians

Yup, he is a disgusting little shit. I have got rid of all his books the moment I discovered this.

hey hardly oxfordian, are you saying Istanbul ISNT located in Europe. Better check a map then buddy

I was saying it isn’t the capital as you claimed, you disgusting and ignorant asshole.
And to think that this illiterate claims to be a ‘newspaper editor’ …

Perhaps the whole anti-Zionist vs anti-Semite debate is moot – the irrationality and stereotyping by anti-Zionists (and displayed in spades by such commenters as Flanker) is a bigotry of the same order as racism. So why bother justifying if someone is actually a racist if their actions or intents are just as bad? I mean, it’s not as if the anti-Zionists want peace and dialogue between the Israelis and the Arabs; on the whole, they want the Arabs to cleanse the middle east of its Jews

Excellent point.

“Islamophobia and whipping up fear and hatred of Muslims is the key element of pro-Israel campaigning of which HP is simply a part”

That’s right, HPBNP, if you state a lie enough times to some people, you might be able to convince some people that it’s true.

Your use of the “Islamophobia” card is really pathetic: if you see extremist Islam as representative of mainstream Islam – and most here, including myself, do not see any such representation – then it’s you who are Islamophobic.

Free speech is about criticising ideas and views, not about a group or nation of people collectively. Criticising Jews merely because they are Jews has nothing to do with reasoned debate but everything to do with anti-semitism.

There’s absolutely nothing wrong with or bigotted about criticising specific views aired publicly by extremist Islamist groups.

If you cannot see a difference between the two, then why bother posting here?

Who is Michael Rosen?

Michael Rosen is an acclaimed author of books for children and a poet. He was given the grand honour last year of being appointed the Children’s laureate.

Michael Rosen also lectures and broadcasts.

Away from these activities, Michael Rosen is known on this blog as being an anti-Zionist Jew. He has associated himself with the Communist Socialist Workers Party via speaking at their events and writing poems for their newspaper.

I trust this is not an unfair representation.

HPBNP – “Islamophobia and whipping up fear and hatred of Muslims is the key element of pro-Israel campaigning of which HP is simply a part”.

Or: “Antisemitism and whipping up fear and hatred of Jews and /or Zionists is the key element of anti-Israel campaigning of which HPBNP is simply a part”.

HPBNP – care to provide some examples of this Islamophobia from UK Jewish or UK Zionist representative bodies? (rather than individuals who happen to be Jewish or Zionist)

Is the SWP ‘communist’? Gluckstein was a Trotskyite, yes? But does that mean SWP is Trotskyite and, to that extent, Marxist?

Islamophobia and whipping up fear and hatred of Muslims is the key element of pro-Israel campaigning of which HP is simply a part

You are overstating it – 90% of Islamophobia is caused by the Islamists.

Racism is caused by racists.

Zkharya,

in my view it is probably better to characterise the SWP as would-be Leninists, very loose quasi-Trots, sometimes Marxists

Communist has a very particular political meaning pertaining to Communist Parties, the Comintern, Comniform, ex-CPs, various Stalinist and Maoist groupings, etc

the two are not necessarily synonymous

Zkharya,

You ask,

Is the SWP ‘communist’? Gluckstein was a Trotskyite, yes? But does that mean SWP is Trotskyite and, to that extent, Marxist?

The answer is yes. You only have to look at their web site to see this. For example they state:

Revolutionary party

Those who rule our society are powerful because they are organised — they control the wealth, media, courts and the military. They use their power to limit and contain opposition. To combat that power, working people have to be organised as well. The Socialist Workers Party aims to bring together activists from the movement and working class. A revolutionary party is necessary to strengthen the movement, organise people within it and aid them in developing the ideas and strategies that can overthrow capitalism entirely.

This is pure Leninist. They used to have a slogan:

Neither Washington nor Moscow but International Socialism

This idea is Trotskyist.

They have an event every year that they call Marxism and the list goes on. By their own definition they must be Communist. Of course,if SPGB Gray comes along, he will deny the SWP is Communist because he thinks that neither Lenin, nor Trotsky, nor Mao nor any other Communist leader you can think of was Communist. As far as he is concerned the only real Communists are the tiny amount in his own party. If we ignore him then the SWP would not deny they are a Communist organisation. (Interestingly Trots rarely refer to themselves as Communist and prefer the term Socialist – possibly to distinguish themselves from the Stalinists that they profess to despise.)

re: “you disgusting and ignorant asshole.
And to think that this illiterate claims to be a ‘newspaper editor’ …”

hey hardly oxfordian, don’t hold back, let it all hang out.
Have you ever had anything constructive to say? you really need an anger management regime to deal with your pathological abusive nature.

Maybe he should stick to children’s stories?

The idiot ‘newspaper editor’ who keeps calling me, abusively, ‘hardly Oxfordian’ – partly because his brain is too small to comprehend the nature of my screen name even after I’ve explained it to him and partly because he is simply an abusive prat – lectures me on abuse. What a moron,

Michael Rosen may write moderately amusing children’s doggerel in a recognisably ‘Look at me, aren’t I clever!’ style; but he is still a complete arsehole.

Vildechaye

mmm…..Well Istanbul is in Europe because it was until the middle ages Constantinople and it’s on this side of the Bosphorous…unlike the rest of the country which is in ASIA MINOR. And no, Turkey is not culturally europe and and it’s quite hilarious to point out it’s european presence during the Ottoman empire. It wasn’t a cultural exchange, it was Imperial annexation. Your explanation was daft.

Nearly Oxfordian may write tedious piss but he still deserves to be hit in the face with hammers like the friendless braying loudmouth embarassing drunk he is.

Sheleylee: Turkey is european precisely because constantinople now istanbul, its principal city, not tomention thousands of square miles of territory, is in Europe. Europe is a geographic, not a cultural entity. I never said the Ottoman empire was a cultural exchange, so your critique is, as you so clevelry put it, “quite daft.”

As for Barely Oxfordian, i suppose only your towering intellect (hmm) could conflate “hardly” or “barely” oxfordian to the level of, what was it again, “idiot,” “abusive prat,” “moron,” and last post’s favourites “re: “you disgusting and ignorant asshole. And to think that this illiterate claims to be a ‘newspaper editor’ …”

yeah, there’s an equivalency there. you actually should be flattered i even read your posts, by the sound of it, few others do.

kisses and have a nice day. and next time don’t hold back my boy.

Maybe HP should conduct a survey of visitors: you know, religion, beliefs, ethnicity, favourite colour etc. That way when anyone says HP is XYZ you can say UVW.

I find it interesting… you lot keep insisting that Atzmon is in (on? pardon my Israeli style english) the far right, but I see his writing on every leftist / progressive site you can name, in fact, it is pretty staple stuff, interrupted only by Andy Newman claiming it’s on the right and of course, this site itself which is pretty rightward leaning. How is it that only Harry’s Place, “Sociality Disunity” and Michael Rosen think he is on the right?

And… to state that someone looks and acts “Jewish” is pretty sarking racist if you ask me, while at the same time we are here to look at Israeli diversity, which I can assure you, is less diverse than you think it is.

The only one going on now about Atzmon is you. You wouldn’t be Atzmon by any chance?

As for his/your being allegedly right wing, my view is this: extreme right and extreme left meet. Atzmon is somewhere in borderlands, lost.

“And… to state that someone looks and acts “Jewish” is pretty sarking racist if you ask me”

Well, to say it about an anti-Jewish Jewish antisemite like Gilad Atzmon is pretty daft, yes.

“while at the same time we are here to look at Israeli diversity, which I can assure you, is less diverse than you think it is.”

Well, if you insist on shoving the category of ‘Israeli Jewish’ into the straitjacket of ‘European’, ‘white’ or whatever it would be. Especially if you think applying the epithet of ‘plantation’ and the allusion to the science fiction film ‘westworld’ is a profound description as what Israel is. Atzmon won the Israeli science fiction prize, didn’t he?

One of the best science fiction treatments of colonialism I have ever read is Stephen Baxter’s “Space”, the 2nd volume in his Manifold trilogy. Did you ever read it by any chance?

RE: “Michael Rosen may write moderately amusing children’s doggerel in a recognisably ‘Look at me, aren’t I clever!’ style; but he is still a complete arsehole.”

What did you do, place?

Do stop sniffing glue, ‘newspaper editor’.

I see his writing on every leftist / progressive site you can name

You mean leftist crypto-fascist.

Rarely oxfordian:
Do stop sniffing glue, ‘newspaper editor’.

Oh what a clever response. almost as good as your “progressive = crypto-fascist” remark. love that line, with no grounds, no nothing, just an opinionated half wit. I suppose i like everyone else should bow to your superior wisdom, as exemplified by the abusive vapid horseshit you seem to excrete on a routine basis.

and as always don’t hold back boy. hit me baby one more time.

“and as always don’t hold back boy. hit me baby one more time”

Funny how the far right find it so difficult to express themselves without using sado-masochistic sexual language…

far right??? i’m afraid you’re confusing me with the abusive right winger i was responding to.

Martin Shaw’s elegant demolition of Hirsch and Co was just about the only thing worth reading in the last edition of Democratya. There was some speculation at the time on the saner blogs about how long he would remain listed as an advisory editor of that publication. I can see what they mean

“Martin Shaw’s elegant demolition of Hirsch and Co…”

Perhaps you haven’t read Norm’s final response. If you have, I’m sure you’ll be happy to address any one of the points that he makes, that Shaw never got around to demolishing first time around, elegantly or otherwise.

Shaw wilfully puts his head in the sand and seems unable and/or unwilling to accept blatant anti-semitism as such; case in point: the constant referral to “zionists” controlling media, governments, banks, etc. Can he really believe it’s unreasonable for Jews not to suspect anti-semitism when these types of nonsensical accusations have been leveled at jews for the past two centuries. I think David Hirsh and esp. Norm Geras both demolished Martin Shaw’s argument and if he leaves Democratiya it’s because he can’t hold his head up among that crowd anymore.

I thought that Shaw was very weak on the matter of history, especially Israel’s birth and creation, Jonathan. His simplistic accepting of Pappé’s narrative, ignoring or excluding any mitigating factors for Palestinian Jews’ actions in a war they had to win, was very poor, from an academic point of view. As for calling Palestinian Jews guilty of genocide…

No doubt Shaw elucidated to your satisfaction your pre-existing point of view. That does not, of course, make him right.

There was some speculation at the time on the saner blogs…

How absolutely delightful. This settles it, then. You are sane, anybody with a different opinion is mentally ill. This is a powerful intellectual and moral argument.

What a pity that the Soviet Union is no longer around and it is not usual to incarcerate those who think differently than you, John Edwards, in a lunatic asylum.

We are presently being spammed by a Canadian Holocaust Denier called Syd Walker

http://sydwalker.info/blog

It goes without saying that he is also a fan of Israel Shamir.

He is not an old style nazi. In fact, he styles himself as some kind of environmentalist.

His posts are a mixture of Holocaust Denial, pro-Palestinian advocacy, and general conspiracy theories.

Martin Shaw et al can’t identify this as racism.

cf:

“NO MORE ARRESTS FOR POLITICAL OR HISTORICAL OPINIONS – *INCLUDING* OPINIONS DISLIKED BY THE ZIONIST LOBBY!

End apartheid in Palestine NOW!

Liberty, Equality, Fratenity!”

Martin Shaw would find it hugely difficult to determine whether or not this was racism.

David: I believe that there are two components to Martin Shaw’s argument. The first is, indeed, a very high standard for what is anti-Semitism. (The exact opposite for his amazingly low standard for genocide, but I digress.) But the second argument is that, even if you can prove that, here or there, somebody in the boycott debate made anti-Semitic remarks, this is not a significant and influential component for that particular debate. In other words, while David Hirsch claims that anti-Semitism plays an important role in motivating the boycott campaign, Martin Shaw claims that, at most, this role is marginal and not influential. Thus, I would guess that his reply will be that (a) Syd Walker is not part of the UCU boycott campaign, and (b) even had he been, this is not an influential voice.

There are major flaws in his argument, but we must engage with what he is saying (and with these flaws).

Oh, he’s not a UCU boycotter at all

The point is, though, that anti-semitism only seems to be recognised when it appears in “traditional” forms: i.e. wearing pointy hats or red and black armbands. If it comes from somebody who appears to be left wing, progressive, or otherwise ‘non traditional’, it isn’t recognised at all.

I would immediately recognise as racist, theories which postulate Israeli control of America, the press, complicity in 9/11 and so on.

It is pretty clear to me that – even when people move on from ranting about “Zionists”, to wibblling about “Jewish Power” – they’re regarded, not as racist loons, but as “just a different point of view”.

These perspectives are present at every level, including the highest, of the BDS movement: and frankly pretty much nobody seems to be bothered by it. Martin Shaw, as we’ve seen, simply denies that they’re present, or ‘count’ as racism.

“David Hirsch claims that anti-Semitism plays an important role in motivating the boycott campaign…”

Does he? It’s been a while since I read the debate, and maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t remember him putting this across and it would have surprised me had he placed much emphasis on what motivates boycotters.

All the same, you are correct that Syd Walker would only be relevant to this debate were he what Shaw would regard as an important enough player. Francis Clark-Lowes certainly was, but I’m sure Shaw would satisfy himself that as he’s no longer head of the PSC, he too can be discounted. I agree, from reading Shaw’s arguments, it’s hard to imagine what kind of evidential standard would satisfy him. The use of antisemitic tropes; singling out of Jews for punishment (though not as the unintended consequence of the implementation of some universal policy); support for explicitly antisemitic organisations by many of the key players/bodies in the boycott movement; and a Holocaust denier as head of one of the main pro-boycott organisations.

Maybe Shaw’s looking for some metaphysical quality of antisemitism, to be found in the souls of boycotters. Maybe the “antisemitic gene”?

I know, David, that Martin Shaw is against the boycott.

Now, the basic flaw in his argument is as follows. His definition of anti-Semitism is (or so it appears) a wish to inflict actual harm or discrimination on individual Jews because they are Jews. This essentially fits with classical Right-wing anti-Semitism, which has reached its extreme expression in the Holocaust. This definition is clearly much too restrictive and falls dramatically short of the standard in modern approach to racism and racial discrimination. In particular, it does not consider as anti-Semitic the wish to discriminate against Jews as a collective because they are a Jewish collective. I don’t know what are Martin Shaw’s views on Holocaust-denial, but if he is consistent he probably doesn’t see it as anti-Semitic.

An abusive, garbage-spewing, ignorant (’Istanbul is Turkey’s capital’) tosser calls me ‘halfwit’. What a sad moron.

Nearly Oxfordian may write tedious piss but he still deserves to be hit in the face with hammers like the friendless braying loudmouth embarassing drunk he is

Go back to masturbating in the bathroom, useless asshole.

First I get textual analysis of my screen name (You call it Israel, not me, man. Plantation is where we sell services to people like David T can use, hair transplants. So what? Should I have changed my nickname just to comment here?) Then the guess goes out that maybe I’m Atzmon. Can’t anybody say anything about Atzmon not being on the right without being suggested they are Atzmon? But more to the point, it’s incredible that none of you seem to think it’s even slightly racist that someone is saying they met someone and they hit them as pretty Jewish. Then goes for the stereotypes. Again, like I said, if I was a goy saying that, I’d be getting told to fuck off. And I’d deserve it.

But, for the comic relief, we get how David claims he was followed around a half hour by a Moroccan Berber who said he’d give David’s wife some of his manhood. Really!

Let me say one thing, these stories are great for looking like you are really world travellers, because they are almost all false, or maybe they are done so that you can feel important. Never been to a dinner party next to someone who hadn’t had “an offer of ten camels to marry me” and all that bullcrap? I hear them all the time, mainly from really unattractive women a little past midlife. Anyone who hasn’t heard one of these stories, raise your hand.

Keep it coming David T! You are a funny MC

You call it Israel, not me

You need treatment.

“…Accordingly, I very much doubt that I can prove to Martin Shaw’s satisfaction, that there is an important strain of anti-semitism, structural or motivational, within a section of Israel/Palestine campaigning.”

Of course you won’t be able to. The idee fixee of the Jew-hater who cloaks himself in Israel-hatred plays out just as you have described. Being an idee fixee it is not amenable to objective proof or clarification in either direction. Reasoned and reasoning people will not be able to engage with this extreme enactment of “I have made up my mind so don’t confuse me with facts.” The facts will simply be ignored unless they tie in with the hatred and distorted views.

This hatred of Israel is so visceral, so deeply entrenched and impervious to reasoned argument, that it surely has to fall into the same category as the mindless, blood and bone Jew-hatred which resulted in the Holocaust.

And we don’t even have to prove its existence. It uses the same tropes and accusations and the same imagery about Israel as did the Nazis about the Jews.