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

[ionnek]

Hi features,

first of all, thanks to Shiar for collecting all this material and taking on the
hard job of proposing a feature about a very conflictual issue.  I participated
in the discussion about Shiar's feature before he proposed it to the list. We
had very long emails, respectful in tone but hard in argument. 

I feel that we haven't yet found a way to represent the different positions
within imc uk about the showing or hiding of Atzmons posting. Although Shiar
took on some of the feedback I gave, the draft still reads, as Tony puts it,
„slightly one-sided“. I am trying to work out why this is, I think it's not
about a few formulations, but about the structure of the draft. 

Working on a concrete project (an article, doesn't necessarily need to be a
feature) seems to be a good way for us to get our heads round the complex
conflict we are dealing with. I hope that as a result of this discussion, we
can come up with a short statement that has been proposed by many on this
list.

I assume the feature won't go up tomorrow with so many people unhappy about it,
me included. 
If it needs a block to give us more time to improve it, i am willing to do this.
It would be my first block ever, and it certainly is not directed against any
individuals. I just think we need more time.

In the discussion we had about the feature, I came to the preliminary conclusion
that the various controversial positions about the atzmon article within the
network (and outside) are based on two very different frameworks.

One seems to be a special type of anti-zionist argument. I am not an expert on
anti-zionism, and i don't think that every criticism of the Israeli state is
anti-semitic. What I mean seems to be a critique of Israel that doesn't focus
on the politics of the state of israel (which is as necessesary as critique of
any opressive state), but constructs a world-spanning network of Zionists
supporting it, held together by something like a Judaic world view (Atzmon
illustrates this with the shared tendency of israelis and neocons to
personalise things combined with a dualistic judaic world view). It seems that
this argument doesn't focus on the oppression of palestinians, but on
„exposing“ and explaining the power of Israel far beyond the lobbying and
diplomacy common to states. This is, for the time being, the best I can do to
describe this.

The other framework I would describe as an analysis of anti-semitism as an
ideology with real consequences, how it has functioned in the past and is being
transformed in the present. I'll try to explain this, more from my own
observation than intensive theory reading. I wish someone could explain
better.

As Shiar quoted Steve Cohen: Anti-semitism „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.“ 
Anti-semitism is not characterised by a number of separate „bad statements“,
like „israelis tend to generalise things“ or „jews are not and were not
popular“, or „there are jews in the american government“. Rather, it works
through the relationships that are constructed between such statements and the
combination of „mere facts“ and hinted suggestions for interpretation. This
makes it so difficult to „nail down“ anti-semitic discourse. You don't need to
say: „All Jews are bad and therefore should be gassed.“ Even many neonazi and
fascist groups don't say it so plainly. 
It is enough to hint that maybe the germans had reasons to allow the jews
amongst them to be deported, and combine this with, say, the suggestion that
Auschwitz maybe wasn't so bad after all, that the gas chambers were never put
to work etc etc. This evokes a completely different perception of the
holocaust: Not genozide, but merely the removal of people who allegedly „didn't
fit in“, just by hints. Or the connections between Jews (secular, religious, in
Israel or elsewhere, rich or poor...), jewish cultures, Israelis, the Israeli
State and the Neocons can be established by rethorically paralleling them –
they are all functioning according to the ideology of Zionism, which is based
on a Judaic world view – draw your own conclusions. All context and differences
are erased – what is left are only the hints to the jewish world conspiracy.
Anti-Semitism does not need to say „there is a jewish world conspiracy“, it is
enough to hint at it to set the ideological mechanisms of anti-semitism in
motion. Every fact, however contradictory, can be fitted into this anti-semitic
ideology.

That's how the mechanism of anti-semitism works: It only needs to hint, and you
can only see it when you look at the relations between the individual
statements. Engaging with anti-semitic discourse in all it's vagueness, rather
than clearly rejecting it, has destroyed many political groups in the past. I
think indymedia uk will not be one of them.

I think the wider dispute about the Atzmon text is based on these two different
readings. Even though additional opinions have been included in the feature
draft, the extensive interpretation of Atzmon engages with the first reading –
the one that would probably describe itself as anti-zionist, certainly not
anti-semitic. For me, this reading is open to the accusation of the
perpetuation of anti-semitic discourse. 
The feature doesn't engage with the second reading - how anti-semitism works.
But this is the reason why several imc uk volunteers are strongly opposed to
Atzmon. I think if we publish it as it stands, it will be read not as the
representation of a sincere discussion in the network, but simply as support
for Atzmon – although it was certainly not written to express this. 

Personally, I am not interested in spending my free time understanding and
arguing against Atzmon's position, dissecting every detail of it. It has now
become „part of my struggle“ because it is published and defended within the
imc uk network. To me it is plainly anti-semitic. I find it necessesary to
discuss it to learn more about the mechanisms of anti-semitism – how it is
possible that statements like Atzmons can be read as anything other than
anti-semitic. The article on imc, especially the first few paragraphs, and
other articles of Atzmon as well, function in exactly the way I tried to
describe. Yossarian and startx have given some explanations on this list. It's
worth reading Greensteins summary – although he has been spamming us and acted
like a troll, he is trying to explain point by point why Atzmons text can be
read as anti-semitic. I don't agree with what he says about indymedia, but I
agree with much of his criticism of Atzmon.
http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=1690

In my view, the indymedia newswires are not a space for writings like Atzmons.
But the recent discussion in indymedia shows that a collective awareness of
anti-semitism doesn't seem to be  very developed, although there is unease for
many individuals. Others might say that imcs solidarity with the palestinians
is not very developed.
I hope that this discussion helps us to find better criteria on what is
acceptable and what isn't. If we manage to produce an article or a statement
that nobody needs to block, we will have taken a big step forward. The credits
go to Shiar who has written and amended the first draft, takes all the
criticism, engages in discussion and collected all the material.

best
ionnek