[IMC-UK-Features] feature proposal: Indymedia UK and the Atzmon-Greenstein affair

Mon Feb 18 20:15:51 PST 2008

So finally here's a feature about this bitter affair. I think it is very
necessary now given the disinfo 'campaign' against icm uk now and the
confusion or misinformedness i've encountered with some
outsiders/activists.

The IMCers at the heart of the conflict have already seen it and some of
them have had input in it. Some haven't been that responsive.

I guess we should allow more than the usual 24 hours for this one. So,
unless there's a block, i will publish it on Thurs evening/night.

Also, in light of the responses i got, and anticipation of what's gonna
happen on the list, and also my previous experience with proposing
'problematic' features in the past, i have decided to propose this one
in an almost personal capacity rather than as imc-uk-features.

Enjoy :)

-- 
Shiar

P.S. ftp, chrisc: could you please have a look at the disinfo bit and see
if there are any details missing or if you have any more links/details (I
didn't have time to go through comments, for example). Thanks.

-------

For easy reading: https://docs.indymedia.org/view/Local/ImcUkFeatureAtzmon

<h2>Title: Indymedia UK and the Atzmon-Greenstein affair</h2>

Author: IMCistas

<h2>Abstract:</h2>

Although moderation discussions and disagreements within the IMC UK
collective are not that rare, never before has a post proved so
controversial and divisive like an <a
href="http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/08/378213.html">article</a> by
controversial Israeli writer and musician Gilad Atzmon titled "Saying NO
to the Hunters of Goliath". The disputed post has triggered serious,
heated discussions among Indymedia UK moderators, two active IMCers
leaving the collective, as well as a malicious campaign of spamming and
disinformation against Atzmon and Indymedia UK itself. However, the
controversy was also an opportunity for IMC UK to reflect on the process
of moderation and the need for a deeper political discussion. The purpose
of this feature is to establish the facts and clarify IMC UK's position(s)
on the Atzmon-Greenstein affair, anti-Semitism and moderation issues in
general.

<h2>Content:</h2>

It goes without saying that Indymedia stands firmly against all forms of
racism. The <a
href="http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/static/editorial.html">Editorial
Guidelines</a> clearly state that "posts using language, imagery or other
forms of communication promoting racism, fascism, xenophobia, sexism,
homophobia or any other form of discrimination" will be hidden. This
obviously includes anti-Semitism as well and many anti-Semitic articles
have been hidden straight away in the past. The problem with Atzmon's
above-mentioned article, however, is that not all IMC UK moderators seem
to agree that it -or the author himself, for that matter- is
anti-Semitic.

<h3>Anti-Semitism, anti-Zionism and other anti's</h3>

The article in question was posted on Indymedia UK by a third party on 14
August, 2007. It had appeared on a number of sites [ <a
href="http://www.pacificfreepress.com/content/view/1531/81/">1</a> | <a
href="http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18178.htm">2</a> |
<a
href="http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/08/saying-no-to-the-hunters-of-goliath/">3</a>
| <a href="http://www.mathaba.net/0_index.shtml?x=560763">4</a> | <a
href="http://middle-east-online.com/english/?id=21767">5</a> | <a
href="http://www.uruknet.info/?p=35317">6</a> | <a
href="http://peacepalestine.blogspot.com/2007/08/gilad-atzmon-saying-no-to-hunters-of.html">7</a>
| <a
href="http://palestinianpundit.blogspot.com/2007/08/saying-no-to-hunters-of-goliath.html">8</a>
] as well as Atzmon's <a
href="http://www.gilad.co.uk/html%20files/saying%20NO.htm">own
website</a>. The article almost passed without attention on Indymedia UK
at the time and no comments were posted to it until 18 October, 2007, when
Tony Greenstein, one of Atzmon's long-term opponents, posted a comment
asking Indymedia moderators to "quickly take it down."

While the article is mainly about the <a
href="http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/07/345513.html">Lebanon war</a>,
it contains some controversial parts such as this:
<blockquote>
"Clearly, the Zionist interpretation is engaged with nothing more
than the concrete symptom, with the simplest manifestation of the
animosity that surrounds it rather than with the core of the problem
itself. Hitler was indeed defeated, Jews are now more than welcome in
Germany and in Europe, yet, 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."
</blockquote>

While this was interpreted by some as blaming Jewish people for the
Holocaust, which is what outright Nazis would say, it was read by others
as acknowledging 'mere facts': that Jewish people were hated by some in
Europe before WW2 and they are hated by some in the Arab Middle East now.
The reason for the confusion seems to be that, while he blames "inhuman
policies that are implied by Jewish nationalism and its political and
cultural offshoots" for the present "unpopularity" of Israel in the ME, he
does not state as clearly why Jewish people were "unpopular" in Europe
before WW2. Instead, he focuses on the "simplistic Biblical worldview"
that was inherited by Zionists and Neocons, rather than an analysis based
on colonial history. What's sure, though, is that Atzmon's style is very
provocative and often appears to be intentionally designed to wind people
up.

The article soon attracted a flame war in comments, which cannot be
accessed at the moment as the article has been put in the new "disputed"
category. The flame war, however, soon moved onto the newswire and the
imc-uk-features list, as will be shown later on.

Earlier that year, <a
href="http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/03/364419.html">another
article</a> by Atzmon (again posted on Indymedia UK by someone else)
sparked another <a
href="http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-uk-features/2007-March/thread.html#6457">heated
discussion</a> but was left up as most moderators seemed to agree that it
was not racist, however controversial.

The Palestine Solidarity activist, who had served in the Israeli military,
is widely quoted <a
href="http://www.gilad.co.uk/html%20files/onanti.html">saying</a>:
"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 (in fact Zionists) do control the world," which
effectively plays into Nazi and far-right propaganda about Jewish people.
As Steve Cohen put it in his book <a
href="http://www.engageonline.org.uk/ressources/funny/contents.html">That's
Funny You Don't Look Anti-Semitic</a>, "Anti-semitism is not simply a type
of national chauvinism that happens to be directed against Jews — although
this is obviously an important aspect of it. [...] The peculiar and
defining feature of anti-semitism is that it exists as an ideology. It
provides its adherents with a universal and generalised interpretation of
the world. This is the theory of the Jewish conspiracy, which depicts Jews
as historically controlling and determining nature and human destiny."

However, others argue that the quote is taken out of context and that
there is a difference between a "Jewish world conspiracy" and a "Zionist
world conspiracy", the latter being a political ideology that aims to
impose its worldview on the rest of the world by any means possible, just
like Neoconservatism. Further, they argue that the fact that the
out-of-context snippet could then be abused by genuine anti-Semites "does
not invalidate" the whole text. As an <a
href="http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/26272">article by
Seth Farber</a> put it: "Unlike Eisen, however, Atzmon opposes all
racialist explanations based on allegedly biological traits or collective
dispositions. Thus he indignantly rebuffs the charges of racism or
anti-Semitism that his arguments have provoked. While Atzmon's conclusions
are not based on biological racism and while there is reason to doubt that
his motives are anti-Semitic per se, some of his conclusions are similar
to those of anti-Semites."

In an <a href="http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/12/387155.html">audio
interview</a> conducted by a UK IMCer, Atzmon refuses to be labelled
anti-Semitic and explains where he is coming from and why he is being
witch-hunted by his so-called "five opponents". In regard to the
controversial paragraph in the disputed article mentioned above, he
insists that he did not mean to blame the Holocaust on the 'unpopularity'
of Jewish people in Europe as such but, rather, that Israelis (and the
whole world) should "learn the lesson" and not allow it to happen again,
in Palestine, Iraq or elsewhere. (Listen also to his <a
href="http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/01/388930.html">Brighton
talk</a> earlier this year.)

In fact, Atzmon rejects the whole concept of anti-Semitism as used by his
critics: 
"There is no anti-Semitism any more. In the devastating reality
created by the Jewish state, anti-Semitism has been replaced by political
reaction." (Atzmon's views on anti-Semitism can be found <a
href="http://www.gilad.co.uk/html%20files/onanti.html">on his
website</a>.)

Later on, in a rather rude <a
href="http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-uk-features/2007-November/1103-qk.html">response</a>
to an IMC UK admin who <a
href="http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-uk-features/2007-November/1101-aj.html">argued</a>
that his writings were anti-Semitic, Atzmon wrote: 
"[The concerned IMCer] refers to me saying: 'His arguments that there
is a Zionist plan to dominate the world do seem to me to be disturbing.' I
agree with you, it is indeed very very disturbing, but I believe that your
job is to expose it rather than to silence it."

He then goes on: 
"I am indeed critical of any form of Jewish politics (left, right and
centre). The reason is rather simple: I am opposing any form of identity
politics grounded on racial belonging." [...] "[The concerned IMCer]
probably fails to realise that in my writings I differentiate between
Judaism (religion), Jews (the people) and Jewishness (ideology)." And
his problem, he argues, is with the latter, or what he calls the
"tribal political identity"..

This does not seem to have helped much and it was argued that simply
replacing the word "Jewish" with "Zionist", while keeping the 'same
logic', does not mean the underlying discourse is not anti-Semitic. In
fact, this kind of word-conflation has been used by neo-Nazis in their
anti-Semitic literature.

<h3>Moderation, resignations and spamming</h3>

On 24 October (i.e. over two months after the article was posted), Tony
Greenstein, a British Palestine Solidarity activist, <a
href="http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-uk-features/2007-October/1030-y9.html">contacted
IMC UK</a> asking for the article to be not only hidden but removed
completely from the site, having been brought to his attention by Moshe
Machoever. This (complete removal) has only happened in very exceptional
circumstances, such as pornography, personal details and the like.

Having been forwarded to the imc-uk-features list, Greenstein's email
sparked a <a
href="http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-uk-features/2007-October/thread.html#8033">long
discussion</a> on the list, with some asking for the article to be hidden
[ <a
href="http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-uk-features/2007-October/1030-1q.html">1</a>
| <a
href="http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-uk-features/2007-October/1030-1q.html">2</a>
| 3 ] and others saying it should stay [ <a
href="http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-uk-features/2007-October/1030-5w.html">1</a>
| <a
href="http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-uk-features/2007-October/1030-gy.html">2</a>
| <a
href="http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-uk-features/2007-October/1030-ke.html">3</a>
]. Over the course of the following few days, two IMC UK admins called for
a "no platform" policy and a "blanket ban" on Atzmon [ <a
href="http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-uk-features/2007-October/1030-vz.html">1</a>
| <a
href="http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-uk-features/2007-October/1030-07.html">2</a>
| <a
href="http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-uk-features/2007-November/1101-aj.html">3</a>
| <a
href="http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-uk-features/2007-November/1102-we.html">4</a>
] as they spotted "disturbing" ideas and "bad" links in some of his other
articles [ <a
href="http://www.gilad.co.uk/html%20files/protocols.html">1</a> | <a
href="http://www.gilad.co.uk/html%20files/onanti.html">2</a> ]. Other
admins opposed that arguing that Atzmon was misquoted and misrepresented,
and that there is a difference between "Jewish world conspiracy" and
"Zionist world conspiracy" [ <a
href="http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-uk-features/2007-October/1030-c3.html">1</a>
| <a
href="http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-uk-features/2007-November/1102-3f.html">2</a>
| <a
href="http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-uk-features/2007-November/1102-17.html">3</a>
].
Soon, more UK IMCers jumped in to side with one side or the other, often
without much of an argument [ <a
href="http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-uk-features/2007-November/1102-lo.html">1</a>
| <a
href="http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-uk-features/2007-November/1103-rv.html">2</a>
| <a
href="http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-uk-features/2007-November/1103-6l.html">3</a>
| <a
href="http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-uk-features/2007-November/1106-1j.html">4</a>
]. Some broader implications of this case were also <a
href="http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-uk-features/2007-November/1103-yn.html">raised</a>:
should all articles suggesting that the US foreign policy is strongly
influenced, or determined, by Israel or the Zionist lobby be hidden? A pub
meeting in London between the two 'camps' did not resolve anything.

After some further discussion on the list that seemed to go nowhere [ <a
href="http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-uk-features/2007-November/1102-74.html">1</a>
| <a
href="http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-uk-features/2007-November/1103-o9.html">2</a>
| <a
href="http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-uk-features/2007-November/1105-35.html">3</a>
| <a
href="http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-uk-features/2007-November/1105-sd.html">4</a>
], with two admins prepared to block a blanket ban on
Atzmon [ <a
href="http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-uk-features/2007-November/1103-fm.html">1</a>
| <a
href="http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-uk-features/2007-November/1106-uj.html">2</a>
], one IMCer decided to <a
href="http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-uk-features/2007-November/1108-9b.html">leave
IMC UK</a> as he felt he was "simply not functioning on the same planet as
the rest of the most active site admins", while keeping his activity
within IMC London. Another IMCer soon <a
href="http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-uk-process/2007-November/1108-eh.html">followed</a>
as he "did not want to be associated with a group that endorses such
bullshit". Some emails from frustrated or shocked IMCers followed [ <a
href="http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-uk-process/2007-November/1108-tz.html">1</a>
| <a
href="http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-uk-process/2007-November/1108-y9.html">2</a>
| <a
href="http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-uk-features/2007-November/1110-xw.html">3</a>
], while the 'scandal' was <a
href="http://middle-east-online.com/english/Default.pl?id=23023">circulated</a>
elsewhere on the web.

Meanwhile, Tony Greenshtein, a Jewish anti-Zionist British activist, was
busy posting long articles and emails all over the place demanding that
Atzmon's article is taken down and the author is banned from Indymedia. It
has since transpired that there has been a long-running 'war of attrition'
against Gilad Atzmon by a group calling itself Jews Against Zionism
(JAZ).

The conflict is said to have begun after Atzmon wrote an article,
provocatively entitled <a
href="http://www.gilad.co.uk/html%20files/Londonelders.html">"The
Protocols of the Elders Of London"</a>, which railed against the way some
JAZ members had treated Israeli writer <a
href="http://www.israelshamir.net">Israel Shamir</a> (for some background
see here <a href="http://www.counterpunch.org/atzmon06172005.html">1</a> |
<a
href="http://www.marxists.de/racism/antisemitism/counterpunch.htm">2</a> |
<a href="http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/03/364493.html">3</a> ). It
is also worth mentioning that Indymedia is not the first group that has
been forced to side with either Atzmon or Greenstein in this years-long
spat. Both Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) and the Socialist Workers
Party (SWP) had been more or less though the same, and both took time to
consider the issues and came to a decision not to reject Atzmon [ <a
href="http://www.swp.org.uk/gilad.php">1</a> | <a
href="http://www.exetersocialists.org.uk/SWP&Gilad%20Atzmon.htm">2</a> |
<a href="http://www.workersliberty.org/node/7542">3</a> ].

Greenstein's posts on Indymedia UK about Atzmon's article have included:
<a href="http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/11/385294.html">Why does
Indymedia Tolerate an anti-Semitic article by Gilad Atzmon?</a> | <a
href="http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/11/385349.html">Why is Indymedia
hosting openly Gilad Atzmon's anti-Semitism</a> | <a
href="http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/02/390689.html">How Indymedia UK
became a safe haven for Anti-Semitism</a>, all of which have been hidden
as complaint about moderation (i.e. non-news) or
inaccurate (see this <a
href="http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-uk-features/2007-November/1107-93.html">response</a>
by an Indymedia admin). He has also sent numerous emails to the features
list [ <a
href="http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-uk-features/2007-November/1109-74.html">1</a>
| <a
href="http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-uk-features/2007-November/1109-13.html">2</a>
| <a
href="http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-uk-features/2007-November/1109-5k.html">3</a>
| <a
href="http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-uk-features/2007-November/1109-gf.html">4</a>
| <a
href="http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-uk-features/2007-November/1110-wf.html">5</a>
| <a
href="http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-uk-features/2007-November/1111-0t.html">6</a>
| <a
href="http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-uk-features/2008-January/0129-sd.html">7</a>
| <a
href="http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-uk-features/2007-November/1110-sr.html">8</a>
] often copying to other groups and individuals in an attempt to pile up
pressure on Indymedia moderators to do what he wanted. He has even asked
other people to allegedly lobby on his behalf [ <a
href="http://freethepeeps.wordpress.com/2007/11/13/an-email-from-a-stranger">1</a>
| <a
href="http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-uk-features/2007-November/1110-03.html">2</a>
| <a
href="http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-uk-features/2007-November/1111-rh.html">3</a>
].

After a while, people got fed up with Greenstein's unsolicited emails [ <a
href="http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-uk-features/2007-November/1111-6u.html">1</a>
| <a
href="http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-uk-features/2008-January/0121-bm.html">2</a>
]. To browse the list archives and send emails to people personally is
considered an abuse of mailing lists, to say the least. One IMCer <a
href="http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-uk-features/2007-November/1111-6u.html">wrote</a>:
"Tony, I'm not really happy with the way this is going. The personal
is political and I'm really not comfortable with the way you're acting
here. It just seems a bit too full on."

More seriously, on 3 December 2007, someone <a
href="http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-uk-features/2007-December/1203-np.html">faked
an email</a>, using Sharpmail, that appeared to be coming from one of the
IMCers at the heart of the conflict, proposing in his name to ban all
Greenstein's posts. This was probably "the straw that broke the camel's
back". After several proposals from various people [ <a
href="http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-uk-features/2007-November/1112-1w.html">1</a>
| <a
href="http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-uk-features/2007-December/1204-hx.html">2</a>
], the features list was finally put <a
href="http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-uk-features/2008-January/0128-pa.html">on
moderation</a>, i.e. all incoming mail would need to be approved by list
admins. But this meant that discussion on the unresolved issue was no
longer possible, so a <a
href="https://docs.indymedia.org/view/Local/UkModerationAtzmon">wiki
page</a> was started where all relevant stuff was collected.

Other prominent players who appeared in this fiasco included Mary Rizzo,
an Italian journalist who runs a no-less controversial blog called <a
href="http://peacepalestine.blogspot.com">PeacePalestine</a> (see her
emails to the features list: <a
href="http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-uk-features/2007-November/1111-iq.html">1</a>
| <a
href="http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-uk-features/2007-November/1111-mr.html">2</a>
| <a
href="http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-uk-features/2007-November/1103-qk.html">3</a>
). Another was David Gehrig, an openly Zionist IMCer from <a
href="http://www.ucimc.org">Urbana Champaign IMC</a>, who set up a <a
href="http://geniza.wordpress.com/topic-index">blog</a> called
"Anti-Semitism and Indymedia UK". Gehrig was involved in a similar
campaign over charges of anti-Semitism which caused a <a
href="http://archives.lists.indymedia.org/imc-us-process/2004-May/000650.html">deep
conflict</a> between <a href="http://www.indybay.org">IndyBay</a> and <a
href="http://sf.indymedia.org">San Francisco IMC</a> in 2004 (see <a
href="http://archives.lists.indymedia.org/imc-us-process/2004-March/date.html">list
archives</a>). One UK IMCer at the heart of this recent conflict has also
set up a <a href="http://freethepeeps.wordpress.com">blog</a> to support
Atzmon and document what's happening from his (the IMCer's)
perspective.

<h3>Decisions and disinformation</h3>

A long-awaited IMC UK network meeting <a
href="http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/02/391384.html">took place in
Nottingham</a> on 9-10 February, 2008. The Atzmon-Greenstein affair and
related moderation and process issues <a
href="http://docs.indymedia.org/view/Local/UkNetworkMeeting2008MinutesSunday#Anti_Semitism">dominated
the discussions</a>, along with other pressing issues such as the new
design and new Content Management System (CMS).

Just before the network meeting, Greenstein had <a
href="http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-uk-features/2008-February/0206-v3.html">asked
one IMCer</a> if he could write a letter to be read out at the gathering
summing up his views on the issue. This was opposed by many [ <a
href="http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-uk-features/2008-February/0206-5e.html">1</a>
| <a
href="http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-uk-features/2008-February/0206-yc.html">2</a>
| <a
href="http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-uk-features/2008-February/0207-uj.html">3</a>
] as it was felt that this would not be productive, given Greenstein's
previous engagements. Earlier, David Gehrig <a
href="http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-uk-features/2008-January/0130-ip.html">had
written</a> to the features list suggesting ways to 'resolve' the issue
"in a spirit of problem-solving".

While the fate of Atzmon's article could not be decided and some political
issues remained contested, some things were very clear: there is no place
for anti-Semitism on Indymedia; Zionism should not be equated with world
Jewry; it is OK for people to criticise Israel's aggressive policies
against the Palestinians; more in-depth debate about what is and what is
not anti-Semitic is needed. A couple of practical steps were agreed
towards these ends: a further meeting between the 'two camps', clearer
editorial guidelines, and starting a collective "political guide for
Indymedia admins". It was also decided that Greenstein has been disruptive
and abusive and should be banned from the lists. Likewise, any
other/similar disruption related to this issue will also not be
tolerated.

As to the article itself, a new category called "disputed articles" was
created (at the moment articles are either shown normally or hidden) to
reflect the dispute process. It was also decided to take moderation
discussions off the features list and <a
href="http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-uk-features/2008-February/0202-9q.html">create
a new list</a> for that, with some <a
href="http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-uk-moderation">list
rules</a> in an attempt to avoid the recent unpleasant experience of
imc-uk-features.

Early in the affair, a number of <a
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29">trolls</a> had
jumped in, posting fabricated and inaccurate accounts of what was going
on. Many newswire posts and comments were hidden as "inaccurate",
"non-news" or "disruptive" [ <a
href="http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/02/390729.html">1</a> | <a
href="http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/02/390751.html">2</a> | <a
href="http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/02/390924.html">3</a> | 4 ....
]. What's more, many of these (especially the recent ones) were from
well-known trolls who have been running an organised disinformation
campaign against Indymedia UK. Their clever disinfo posts in the past have
centred around Israel/Palestine, Cuba and other sensitive political
issues, but have also included false accounts of meetings or demos being
called or cancelled, misrepresentation of the moderation process and
personal attacks against IMC admins.

Disinformation is defined as deliberately misleading information announced
publicly or leaked by a government, intelligence agency, corporation or
their agents for the purpose of influencing opinions or perceptions.
Unlike misinformation, which is also a form of wrong information,
disinformation is produced by people who intend to deceive their audience.
A group might plant disinformation in reports, in press releases, in
public statements or in practically any other routine, occasional or
unusual communique. Disinformation can also be leaked, or covertly
released, to a source who can be trusted to repeat the false information.
A common disinformation tactic is to mix truth, half-truths and lies.
Disinformants sometimes seek to gain the confidence of their audience
through emotional appeals or by using semi-neutral language interlaced
with threads of disinformation (more background: <a
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disinformation">1</a> | <a
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_warfare">2</a> | <a
href="http://www.answers.com/topic/disinformation">3</a> | <a
href="http://www.disinfo.com/site/">4</a> ).

After the network meeting, the Atzmon-related disinfo campaign
intensified. The <a
href="http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/02/391088.html">first fabricated
account</a> appeared on February 11th, by someone calling himself Steve.
The <a
href="http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/02/391121.html">second</a> was
by a fictional group of Birmingham University students who had had a
meeting to discuss the network meeting's outcome. Another was posted under
the name of the Birmingham Anti-Racist Campaign (ARC), claiming the group
"condemned without reservation the recent conclusions drawn at the
Indymedia UK meeting." Of course, there were no Steves or students at the
meeting, and ARC doesn't know anything about it. Other posts were
published under the name of made-up activists who were angry with the way
Indymedia was handling the problem [ <a
href="http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/02/391287.html">1</a> | <a
href="http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/02/391576.html">2</a> ]. Even
this feature, while being drafted on the wiki, was <a
href="http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/02/391679.html">not
spared</a>.

What's more worrying is the circulation of this disinformation on the
wider web. A couple of articles and comment threads have already appeared
elsewhere and many readers have fallen into the trap. Even Tony Greenstein
seems to have <a href="http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=1706">done so</a>
(he quotes some of the above-mentioned disinfo posts).

So far, three articles have appeared on the Socialist Unity site, with
such inaccurate titles, misrepresentations and distortions: <a
href="http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=1690">How Indymedia UK lost its way
and became a safe haven for Anti-Semitism</a>; <a
href="http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=1706">Indymedia Capitulates to the
Anti-Semites and Holocaust Deniers</a>; <a
href="http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=1707">Fallout as Indymedia Embraces
Anti-Semitism</a>. Another article also appeared on the Workers'
Liberty site bearing the title <a
href="http://www.workersliberty.org/story/2008/02/14/defend-tony-greenstein">Defend
Tony Greenstein!</a>. Again, the article is clearly biased, or
misinformed, and misrepresents the facts. All articles have attracted
numerous comments, some of which appear to be coming from the same disinfo
trolls mentioned above.

What remains there to say is that, despite the political disagreements,
the IMC UK collective is determined to not give on to any bullying,
blackmailing or lobbying. Indymedia has a mission that is far more
important than these scuffles. It's not the first time and won't be the
last.

--------