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

[ekes]

Having read the feature I've been trying to write up something about it,
but I feel Shair has started to explain what I wanted to more neatly:

> I hope you can distinguish between the feature and Atzmon's writing. I
> tried to engage with Atzmon from both perspectives and as i told you in a
> private email, i thought the 2nd position (Atzmon is anti-semitic) is
> quite obvious and most people would understand why (at least because of
> the long history of anti-Semitism and anti-anti-Semitism in Europe), while 
> the 1st (he's anti-Zionist not anti-Semitist) isn't that familiar.
---%<---
> It would depend on who reads it really. Preconceptions and idological
> engagements with texts determine a big part of what we understand from
> them.

Our conclusions about what's wrong with Atzmon's analysis and the use of
the section of the feature that deals with Atzmon's writing and it's
critics may however be different.

One of the issues with Indymedia is we will, and insist on, discussing
articles on individual merit. The trouble with this method is it makes
it very difficult if we then do end up having a discussion around the
post and a poster in more depth. Especially when it is a poster, not an
organisation or an organised campaign.

Here it is importantly that it is common to both sides discussing
Atzmon, including himself, that they argue it is in fact unhelpful to
focus on specific lines. This is the case of much writing needing
context, but with Atzmon there can be no doubt that there are sections
of his writing that are vague and invite interpretation.

This makes any section dealing with the specific article, or other parts
of his writing or writing about him, and dealing with them using the
analysis it has been given on and off the newswire less useful.

One thing the article does bring out with its links off site is that
Atzmon's writing is largely part of a discussion within and between
Jewish Anti-Zionists. Whether they choose to define themselves as Jewish
it is part of the discussion and their background. Atzmon's writing is
obsessed by the concept of Jewishness. This actually makes reading all
the more difficult for a wider audience not versed in the nuance of this
particular argument.

The debate within Indymedia is from people of different backgrounds of
Left movements, largely around Europe, but outside as well. I've learned
very quickly that when it comes to discussing anything to do with
Israel/Palestine the understanding the conversation is quite different.
Even the language of discussion is different, and when written in
English the same words are used and expected to hold different emphasis.
This is because of background and audience, just as much as Atzmon's
writing itself.

This again makes the analysis method of Atzmon's writing an unfair
reflection of the collectives discussion or understanding about having
articles that he has written on the site.

The article more broadly as fits the IMC feature style spends a lot of
time collecting up posts actually made to Indymedia. In the unusual
context of this debate, where people chose or chose not to post to the
newswire or e-mail lists for different reasons, it is hard to produce a
reflection of positions in the discussion within the collective.

So where do we go from here?

The feature shouldn't be about Atzmon and his writing but about the
collective and it's position. If we, unlike Atzmon, are willing to
accept that anti-semitism exists we need to be able to give an
interpretation to his writing in a larger context than the context
Atzmon chooses. If Indymedia UK activists have not the energy or wish to
do this I'm afraid we have to consense to do neither and loose a part of
the feature. It may be a shit solution, or it may be the end of the
promotion (by discussion) of Atmzmon. Outside of something much broader
being written it may however be the only one.

ekes