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

[Shiar]

On Wed, February 20, 2008 7:11 am, ionnek wrote:
[....]
> 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.

There are two possible explanations for this: either i was biased and
didn't notice it while writing, or some people are so biased (in the
opposite direction) that they read the text in a biased way without
noticing it. I know the sensitivity of the anti-Semitism issue and the
Jewish/Israeli/Palestinian history make it very difficult to be neutral
and objective, but i don't think that's a good excuse. The other issue is
what seems to be to be a personalisation of debate, that some our friends
are involved and the rest of it.

[...]

> 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.

Right, I guess it wouldn't after this polite block. One thing, though, i
couldn't help notice the use of the word "improve". Is that to do with the
quality or the politics?

> 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.

See my comment after the long quotes outlining the two 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.
[...]

Now imagine, just for the fun of it, including the above paragraphs in the
feature. In order to see how biased or objective one can be, note the
contrast in your selection of words in describing each framework:
One seems - The other is
1) A special type of argument - An analysis
2) constructs a world-spanning network of Zionists - An analysis of
anti-semitism as an ideology with real consequences
3) doesn't focus on the politics of the state of israel [or] the
oppression of paleestinians [and i don't know where you got that from!] -
It is enough to hint..
...And so on. Also note the unequal space allocated to describe each
argument, which was the accusation thrown at me.

> 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.

Indeed, i hope so too. But don't also forget that accepting/accommodating
the Zionist arguments, and state political/propaganda in general, has
destroyed many groups too. I hope Indymedia won't be one either. We should
be careful with both, shouldn't we?

> 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.

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. And for
what it's worth, I don't agree with Atzmon's analysis at all, not because
i think he's anti-Semite, but because i think it's lacking a lot of other
things, and this was kinda touched upon in the feature.

> 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 would still maintain that this is neither true nor accurate but anyway..

> 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.

It would depend on who reads it really. Preconceptions and idological
engagements with texts determine a big part of what we understand from
them.

> 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.

Yeah, me too, and hence the feature.

> 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

I wouldn't have sited Greenstein as one of my sources if i were you. His
language is so sensualised and ideologically charged that you can hardly
distinguish between what's his true, rational opinion and what's his
polemic. If you don't agree with he's saying about Indymedia and his fight
with us is only a few moths old, how could you accept what he says about
Atzmon and their war is years old and much more personal?

> 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 would also argue that our collective understanding of many other
political issues is not "very developed", and that's why i proposed that
stupid "political guide" which i now don't think is ever gonna see light.

> 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.

Thanks for the compliments. I am not really interested after all this in a
statement tbh. It's too late, it would probably sound daft from what
people were proposing, and i don't think we're the kind of organisations
that issue statements.

-- 
Shiar