On a minor point of syntax, as I do notm wish Mr Greenstein to be labouring under any misapprehension: my remark on ‘looking up on the Internet’ of course referred, as even the causal reader will have noticed, to the invitation to Atzmon that Mr Greenstein wishes ‘Zionists and others’ not to know about, not to Mr Greenstein’s picket. I would no more join Mr Greenstein in a political activity than I would attend a lecture series by David Icke, and for the same reason. If he cares to check the archives of both this web log and my own, he will see that we picked up on Atzmon’s bigotry a long, long time ago, and have been following the story since then.

Arsehole.

ii. I also note the comments of ‘big Jewboy’ who has the cheek to accuse me of being a ’self-hating Jews’. If there was such a phenomenon, then someone who describes themselves in the language of the NF/BNP would merit that appellation.

However BJB is also a liar. When I visited Syria many years ago it certainly wasn’t paid for by the Ba’athist regime but by the PLO! There was no Conference, period. Why did I and others go to Damascus? Because those good friends of the Israelis, the Phalangists, who controlled the Lebanese Embassy in London, had denied us visas. The PLO took us across the border minus a visa. Incidentally I took the time to visit both the Damascus and Beirut Jewish communities and when visiting the former I was arrested. But then the only risk Big Mouth BJB would probably take is to post a few lies on this list.

As for the ’self-hater’ label, well apart from loving myself dearly, I find it no surprise that BJB uses this term. It’s borrowed from the anals of Nazi lexicon. It was first used against anti-Nazi Germans, who were held to hate their nation & race and therefore to hate themselves, because the primary component of the individual was his/her racial makeup. No surprise then that as a good Zionist, our Jewboy, as he delicately refers to himself, should reach for the sewers of Nazi defamation.

Oh and I have no recollection of speaking to Kramm’s Labour Club. The only one which didn’t affiliate to the LMCP, from memory, is the elitist Oxford University Labour Club, the biggest collection of dimwits I recall. At all others, where I spoke there was overwhelming support. Indeed what was so remarkable was that UJS and the Zionists tried to bar me from every academic institution, thus guaranteeing that double the number turned up!

And my views on terrorism weren’t acceptable to these future members of the ruling class? Too bad really. Yes I upbraided Labour Briefing on their Thatcher story. The attack on Thatcher by the IRA was obviously legitimate. She was a military target. No doubt Kramm & Co. are happy with the bombing of Iraqi cities like Falluja but deem it ‘terrorism’ when the IRA targetted members of our own ruling class.

When the Zionists targetted a Hamas bomb maker (you know the organisation the Shin Bet set up to undermine secular Palestinian nationalism) they also killed 14 civilians. Now that is terrorism.

Re the Atzmon picket. It is extremely regrettable that the SWP/Bookmarks is hosting his speech on Zionist Identity, however I would have thought that BJB would probably agree with most of what Atzmon has to say on the Jewish lobby in the USA.

For socialists however, Atmon’s belief in the world Jewish conspiracy, and his distribution of holocaust denial material, puts him beyond the pale. It’s no accident that the Zionists on this list seem to spend more time attacking those of us organising the picket than the target of our wrath. But then again, Zionists and anti-Semites have traditionally always shared a lot in common – such as the belief that Jews did not belong in the lands of their birth. Isn’t the Zionist HQ today named Balfour House after the author of the Balfour Declaration, the very same AJ Balfour who introduced the 1905 Aliens Act to keep out Jews from the pogroms. But as A B Yehoshuah, an Israeli Zionist and novellist, in a speech to UJS said: ‘Even today, a real anti-Semite must also be a Zionist.’

Tony Greenstein
>>In any case, I note from Greenstein’s email to the SWP the following splendid conclusion: “I must therefore demand that Atzmon’s invitation is withdrawn from Marxism 2005 with immediate effect. I look forward to receiving confirmation that this has happened as soon as possible, as it is in all our interests that the Zionists and others are not aware of this invitation.”
Too late, old boy. We didn’t even need our extensive intelligence apparatus; we just looked on the Internet.
Posted by Oliver Kamm at June 10, 2005 01:54

Greenstien is a dangerous crank. One of his more despicable acts was to attend anti-Zionist conference in Syria paid for by the Bath’ist regime. The same regime that reduced its Jewish community to penury and continued to imprison Jews on trumped up charges of espionage well into the late 1980’s. Greenstein is a supporter of terror, he’s another who uses the Holocaust to attack Jews and is, the walking personification of thye self hating Jew

Posted by bigjewboy at June 10, 2005 02:07 PM

Just an impressionistic judgement, but I think you’ll find it hard to locate anyone else willing to take you seriously who is not already well-disposed to the SWP if you continue to venture such entirely unsubstantiated assertions as “there is now a tendency that is able to argue that criticisms of the Israeli state are in themselves anti-semitic”.

Anyone is able to argue it, but I have yet to meet anyone who actually does argue it, in public or in private.

Yes, Lewis argues about the importation of european racial notions (even before Stewart chamberlain, etc) in the middle-east but also combining with a pre-existing template to form a variant of traditional racial anti-semitism. Which is similar to, but not exactly the same as european ideas, if my memory serves me well, but distinctly different from previous levels of hostility, etc

obviously Bernard Lewis does not take a crude view of these developments and he is a scholar of Islamic studies, etc

1. Thanks O.K. for telling me about your attitude to the term ’self-hating’ jews. I haven’t read your website. There’s only 24 hours in a day. Even so, it’s not what I asked. I simply asked if you (or anyone else here) was in the business of being outraged by the Kahanist Shit list. No matter.

2. re Irving. I wasn’t trivialising what was loosely known as the Irving trial. I was trivialising the idea that anyone might think of suing him. I hope you can see the distinction? I’m amazed that you seem desperate to disagree with me even when we’re not in disagreement.

3.re SWP and anti-semitism. No, I don’t have to agree that what you define as anti-semitism is necessarily that. All I can see is that there is now a tendency that is able to argue that criticisms of the Israeli state are in themselves anti-semitic. I’ve seen this argued in terms of it being a denial of nationhood, therefore selfhood, therefore anti-semitic. I’ve seen it justified here in terms of suspect motives, bad company and the like. Israel is one part of Jewry. Anti-semitism is an attack on Jews for being Jews. If ever people say eg Israel is like it is because that’s how Jews are, or that attacks on Israel are justified because Israelis are Jews and so on, then I agree that’s anti-semitism. I do not regard the SWP position on Israel as being anti-semitic. It’s not an attack on Jews for being Jews. If anything, the SWP position on israel has been more an attack on America! You said that the SWP was ‘anti-Jewish’. I said that it isn’t and cited the example of the production of the Holocaust Denial leaflet (not a simply autobiographical incident) as evidence that they are not. This was an ANL leaflet and, if as you folks often say, the ANL was simply an SWP front then the SWP was indeed heavily implicated in producing one of the best and most accessible refutations of HOlocaust Denial that I’ve seen in years, easily read by eg school students etc. and sponsored by Hugo Gryn (the first one, anyway).

4. I am of course deeply hurt and worried by the fact that you won’t take my ideas seriously anymore. I had no idea that you take YOURself so seriously that you wave people aside like this, rather as if you were some potentate dismissing supplicants. I shall know in future that I’m too lowly for debate with you and apologies to you for being not good-enough. Happy and interested in continuing the debate with others, of course.

2. I’m pleased to hear you’re well-informed about the Irving libel suit against Penguin Books, as was not in evidence when you referred to the Irving ‘trial’ – an event that is a figment of your imagination. I don’t regard either Irving’s opinions or your suggestion that liberal political rights be abridged as all a bit of a giggle, so you’ll forgive me for finding your sense of humour a little esoteric.

3. I have given specific cases of the SWP’s antisemitic agitation in order to demonstrate that its celebration of Atzmon’s antisemitic conspiracy theories is not aberrant. You have not disposed of these points by ignoring them while airily complaining of ’smears’, or by citing matters that are of purely autobiographical interest to you. I did not claim that the SWP promulgates Holocaust denial, at least in the form that Irving expounds it, and your introduction of the issue is a non sequitur.

4. I didn’t ask you to make “any kind of official statement about Atzmon”, whatever that means. I asked whether you were prepared to condemn the actions and attitudes of a party that celebrates the writings and opinions of a man who believes the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion offer an accurate portrayal of the state of modern America. You aren’t. I therefore shall know better than to take you seriously as an interlocutor on matters pertaining to Jews and Zionism in future.

Indeed, as any decent study of anti-semitism will show there are various manifestations of anti-Semitism, in terms of intensity and centrality to belief systems (eg. Nazi racial theories).

but you might do well to read Bernard Lewis’ contention that Middle Eastern anti-Semitism/Judaeophobia changed in the latter half of the 19th century as the influence of ‘racial’ anti-semitism came across from Europe.

Clearly, even forms of hatred do not remain static but absorb ideas and fetishes from other areas. Also, see the grow in the 1930s of arab proto-fascist groupings, etc. [ See Bernard Lewis’ Semites and anti-Semites or Stephen Payne’s work, etc]

So judging Middle Eastern attitudes towards Jews prior, to say, 1850 and afterwards, is not comparing like with like, and rather invalid.

2. Dear oh dear, the Irving case has really got you going. I’m quite aware of what the case was about, I’ve read the Lipstadt book and even visited the Irving website. I was being facetious. I’ll repeat that, facetious. It was a joke. Repeat a joke. I don’t think there’s much point in pursuing libel cases about anything and respect Arthur Scargill for what he did (or rather didn’t do). But then I don’t know what I’d do if I was libelled. I was merely indicating that some people (not me, gettit?) might consider going on the legal route to oppose Holocaust denial.(As do the Germans.) That’s all the joke was meant to imply. Meanwhile, I note that this stupid little digression has done nothing other than to distract attention from what other people might or might not do constructively to oppose Holocaust Denial. And what’s more, somewhat irritatingly from your point of view, that I told you that several Jewish members of SWP (and myself) spent many, many hours writing a lengthy leaflet (then updating it several years later) on Holocaust Denial. It doesn’t quite fit the ‘SWP is anti-Jewish’ smear, does it?

3. You seem to know more than me about who has organised the various Atzmon occasions. In which case, you get condemning straight away. I’m not sure that HP is quite the place from which I would want to make any kind of official statement about Atzmon, though I’m obviously quite interested in engaging in this debate here through which you might see quite clearly what I think. I also think that groups of people making statements are more important and more effective than one individual and I’m sure that there’s a group emerging that I can identify with and support.