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…. ;)