[Imc-uk-features] for the Atzmon moderation page

[Roy Bard]

Hi

I'm sending this from my gmail account so it doesn't go directly to the
list. It is intended for the wiki page.

A few points I'd like to make.

Firstly:

On 14th November, Tony Greenstein wrote to the list:

"I understand and I'm not trying to rush you and the collective. I agree
that it is more important that you discuss this fully internally before
reaching a decision. The article is in any case up on various right-wing
sites so it's not a question of preventing exposure to it but ensuring that
Indymedia is not tarnished with his nonsense."
http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-uk-features/2007-November/1114-1v.html

On the same day he wrote:

"I accept you have a site to run and I am happy to leave it to the Indymedia
collective to make their decision."

On the 17th November on this page we can see that he wrote:

"I am therefore posting a reply directly to members of the collective and
others whose posts aren't diverted to the junk page."

So, is he trying to rush the collective, or not? You decide.

Is he respectful of our decision making process? You decide.

Also on the 17th November, on this page he wrote, in another email to a
private address:

"Not for the first time, Atzmon has - appropriately enough - posted to a
site which also regularly carries holocaust denial stuff. I realise that
this will not bother at least one member of the Indymedia collective -
'freethepeeps' - who is all over the net defending Atzmon, but it should
worry a collective that has the following guidelines on Discrimination:
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=7517"

However, if you go to the article he links to, under the first para, it
says:

"Note from the Editor of Redress Information & Analysis"

and that would seem to be because it was lifted from here:
http://redressnewsblog.blogspot.com/2007/11/saying-no-to-hunters-of-atzmon.html

Do we now penalise authors whose work is C+P'd to horrible sites? I resent
the inference about me, I have posted on the list, my blog and Mary Rizzo's
blog IIRC - that others have reposted my post is not my responsibility, it's
theirs. I look forward to Greenstein explaining how that line got onto ' the
truthseeker'........

It certainly throws some doubt on his bald claim that Atzmon posted to a a
holocaust denial site.

Furthermore, Greenstein is now apparently in the business of 'distorting the
message' on Media lens (of all places!)

There (http://members5.boardhost.com/medialens/msg/1195157116.html) , he
offers a quote from Atzmon:

""we must begin to take the accusation that the Jewish people are trying to
control the world very seriously…. …. American Jewry makes any debate on
whether the 'Protocols of the elder of Zion' are an authentic document or
rather a forgery irrelevant. American Jews do try to control the world…."
http://www.gilad.co.uk/html%20files/onanti.html"

Click on his link and see for yourself that he has misquoted Atzmon - he has
omitted the qualification "(in fact Zionists)"  - perhaps he thinks
the readers of media lens are fools who just trust quotes without
checking the source material?
This is, I would suggest typical of his smearing tactics.

Finally, if this debate about the article is really being decided on a case
by basis, the real focus should surely be the terms "Judaic worldview" and
whether Tony Greenstein understands what Atzmon wrote about the Holocaust.
After all, that is what he talks about in his article, reposted to this
wiki.

"Atzmon's article speaks of a 'world Judaic view' and explains that 'the
Jewish state and the sons of Israel are at least as unpopular in the Middle
East as their grandparents were in Europe just six decades ago.' This is
apparently 'the real meaning' of the Nazi holocaust. It wasn't fascism or
crazy ideas of racial supremacy that led to Auschwitz, it was that the Jews
and presumably the Gypsies, Slavs and gays were 'unpopular'. By the same
logic the Palestinian's situation can also be blamed on their
'unpopularity'.
The reason that Jews were allegedly 'unpopular' in Nazi Germany, (& this is
arguable for anyone who has read any serious academic studies such as Ian
kershaw's Hitler Myth or Popular Dissent in the 3rd Reich) is because they
were repeatedly targetted by the Nazis as the embodiment of both capitalism
and communism."

The article does not btw mention a "world Judaic view" - so another
Greenstein misquote.

Here's what it actually says:

"They in fact follow a Biblical lesson. Within the Judaic worldview, history
and ethics are often reduced into a banal single binary opposition
principle."

 Elsewhere Atzmon is clear that he uses the term Judaic to refer to religion


eg:" From a Judaic (i.e. religious) point of view, to depart from Judaism is
in practice to form a new Church."
http://www.gilad.co.uk/html%20files/100years.html,

"Since I find the arguments stated in the name of Jewish secularism empty, I
feel an urgent need to deconstruct them. I may as well mention that I
welcome Judaic objection to Zionism. I truly support Neturei Karta and any
other form of Jewish religious objection to Zionism."
http://peacepalestine.blogspot.com/2005/04/gilad-atzmon-interview-it-aint.html

"Needless to say, a faith that stimulates the consciousness (Ideology) and
steers the unconsciousness (Spirit) is a very good recipe for a winning
religion. This structural bond of ideology and spirit is fundamental to the
Judaic tradition. The bond between the legal clarity of the halacah
(ideology) and the mysteriousness of Jehovah or even Kabala (spirit) makes
Judaism into a totality, a universe in itself"
http://www.gilad.co.uk/html%20files/purim.html

If religious teaching does not seek to impose a religious worldview
then maybe you can conclude that Atzmon really is saying that ALL Jews
regardless of
whether they are 1st, 2nd or 3rd category, religious or secular,  have
the same worldview.
Atzmon himself however clearly doesn't share that worldview, so it
would be a false statement anyway.


After that, look at the 2nd quote - is it true Jews were unpopular in Europe
6 decades ago, or was there no rampant anti-semitism?  Then find the words
where Atzmon says that this justifies the holocaust - and if you find them,
please help me to see it by quoting them to me, because I've read and reread
it and I still can't see them. Perhaps thats why Greenstein says
"apparently" because it appears that way to him through his haze of
animosity towards the author.

Heres another Atzmon quote about 'the real meaning' of the Holocaust:

"Ahmadinejad may be seen by some as a Holocaust
denier, yet as far as I can see, he is one of the very few statesmen who
manages to internalise the real meaning of the Holocaust. He says No to
racism."
http://blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/Week-of-Mon-20070402/060941.html

In the Atzmon email phunkee posted to the list, Atzmon states:

"The meaning of the Holocaust is preventing the Holocaust in
Palestine and Iraq. The Meaning of the Holocaust is preventing the
already planned Holocaust in Iran."

If that is what Atzmon means again, is it racism to say that the real
meaning of the Holocaust is "No more racism!"? No more Holocausts! ?

1)If you conclude that religious teaching does intend to inculcate a
worldview, then is it anti-semitic to say that?

2) Is saying that the 'real meaning of the Holocaust' is "no more racism"
anti-semitic ?

If the answer to the 2 final questions is no, then the article
is not anti-semitic, and counter readings and criticisms should be
offered via comments,
because the reasons that Greenstein gives for saying that the article
is anti-semitic do not hold up to scrutiny.

Greenstein gets it wrong all the time............... Does he really
understand Atzmon better than Atzmon?

ftp
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-uk-features/attachments/20071118/3419e944/attachment.htm