[IMC-UK-Features] Intruding on Private Grief - Atzmon etc.

[clara]

Dear Tony,
Do not send me private mails.
How hard is it to get that?

Do you think that bullying and spamming me with your emails will get me
to engage with you when I have clearly stated that I do not want to
receive them?
Better think about your strategy if you are so clearly failing to reach
your target audience.
However: Do not send me private mails.

clara


tony greenstein wrote:
> One of the reasons I have to e-mail people individually is that there doesn't seem to be any other way to engage people and that has been the same ever since the wiki page going up.
>    
>   I realise that I'm older than most (all?) people around IM but for those who might remember the Miners Strike they will remember how Arthur Scargill was attacked by the gutter press.  Why?  Because attacking individuals is easier than dealing with the issues.  I've tried not to do this despite being called 'scumbag' etc. by ftp because I realise where it's coming from.
>    
>   Someone asks where the difference between Atzmon and myself lie in terms of Palestine.  A great deal.  Atzmon sees the problem as 'Jewishness' I see it as imperialism and colonialism.  I see the overthrow of Zionism as part and parcel of the social struggles in the wider Middle East (for demographic reasons a South Africa won't occur).  Atzmon has no critique of the wider Arab arena and the repressive regimes in the region and how the US supports them.  Unsurprisingly since Israel apparently controls the US!
>    
>   People may see me as an 'enemy' of IM.  I suggest that it is the way that IM has responded that has polarised this issue and prevented it being dealt with.  It was not possible to engage politically with IM because you didn't have the mechanism to do so.  I had every right to object to overtly anti-Semitic articles on IM.  If people were to take a look you would see I have posted a number of articles to do with the police attack on the Brighton Lebanon demo., employment rights etc.  I recognise it is a valuable resource and my desire was that it didn't allow itself to become the place of first resort for racist conspiracy theorists. 
>    
>   If someone searches for Atzmon, they'll find about 40 contributions.  Do they add anything to the sum of human knowledge?  When someone says that they don't understand much of them that is because they are, for the most part, undistinguished waffle.  The fact that Atzmon's favourite philosopher (about whom he gave a talk to the SWP) is Otto Weininger, of whom HItler said there was only 1 Jew and he killed himself, should tell you volumes, not least the fact that he was a dedicated mysoginist (woman hater).
>    
>   You might also ask why an article on 'The Embarrassing Case of TG' by Atzmon is up on IM.  It is a personal attack because I and others sought to exlude the openly holocaust denial Deir Yassin Remembered group from Palestine Solidarity Campaign.
>    
>   People might also ask why it is that I, who has been consistently attacked by Zionists on virtually every campus I've spoken for 'anti-Semitism', nonetheless says Atzmon is anti-Semitic.  I don't use the term lightly but when, e.g. the 'Esther to Aipac' article on IM (which is much worse than the Hunters article incidentally and should be deleted/hidden) speaks about anti-Zionist historians like Norman Finkelstein and Lenni  Brenner not 'daring' to challenge revisionist, i.e. holocaust denial historians, then that should ring some bells.  Does Atzmon believe there is a valid debate to be had about whether the Nazis exterminated Jews, gays, gypsies, sinta, the mentally & physically handicapped etc. etc.?  Atzmon does not debate the lessons of the Holocaust he uses code words to challenge the very idea that it ever happened.
>    
>   If the article that is proposed goes up it will be universally panned for its dishonesty.  I'm surprised that that is so difficult to see.  It does not address the issues, eg
>   i.  Why does IM not have a mechanism for dealing swiftly with articles that are overtly racist or chauvinist?
>   ii.  Why was the person who objected to Atzmon's articles banned whilst he is subject to no such sanction?
>   iii.  Why has noone even had the courtesy to explain what the banning means.  Not being an expert in IM I don't have a clue as to whether, if I put up a post about the court case concerning assault at the Lebanon demo in Brighton 2 years ago, which I have initiated against the Police and is currently going to the Court of Appeal because the Police are seeking to exclude all evidence regarding their branding of the march as 'anti-Semitic', whether or not it will fall foul of the ban?  Ironic really since I stand to be bankrupted taking the Police to court over false allegations of anti-Semitism.  But that is the point.  The Zionists are happy to confuse false allegations of anti-Semitism with the real thing.  Those who support the Palestinians should do no such thing.
>    
>   Unless the article says something about the original cause of what happened, i.e. the articles that were posted by Atzmon, it will be seen as nothing more than an exercise in self-justification and therefore self-serving.
>    
>   And for the record, I don't see IM UK as 'the enemy' but rather a friend who's fallen by the way!
>    
>   Tony Greenstein
> 
> imc-uk-features-request at lists.indymedia.org wrote:
>   Send IMC-UK-Features mailing list submissions to
> imc-uk-features at lists.indymedia.org
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-uk-features
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> imc-uk-features-request at lists.indymedia.org
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> imc-uk-features-owner at lists.indymedia.org
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of IMC-UK-Features digest..."
> 
> 
> Today's Topics:
> 
> 1. Re: feature proposal: Indymedia UK and the Atzmon-Greenstein
> affair (Chris)
> 2. Re: feature proposal: Indymedia UK and the Atzmon-Greenstein
> affair (Shiar)
> 3. Re: feature proposal: Indymedia UK and the Atzmon-Greenstein
> affair (ilyan.thomas at virgin.net)
> 4. Re: feature proposal: Indymedia UK and the Atzmon-Greenstein
> affair (Chris)
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 22:17:48 +0000
> From: Chris 
> Subject: Re: [IMC-UK-Features] feature proposal: Indymedia UK and the
> Atzmon-Greenstein affair
> To: imc-uk-features at lists.indymedia.org
> Message-ID: <20080220221748.GA7788 at aktivix.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> 
> Hi
> 
> On Wed 20-Feb-2008 at 04:26:39AM -0800,
> guidoreports at riseup.net wrote:
>>> Do you believe that *all* articles on the site that
>>> are not posted by their authors should be hidden?
>> To be honest I am uncomfortable with peoples work being
>> posted without their awareness. They may not be happy
>> with their stuff (which may be copyrighted) being posted
>> and they are not in a position to defend themselves from
>> criticism if they don't know about it. Their work could
>> also be edited without their say so.
> 
> There have been a few occasions where authors have
> complained and in these case we have, of course, complied
> with their wishes, and hidden articles or fixed
> attributions or whatever -- I really don't think there is
> an issue here. 
> 
> We can't verify who wrote what and who posted what and at
> the same time have anon open publishing can we?
> 
>>> This isn't what happens at the moment and the plan is
>>> to create a seperate wire for reposts...
>> This I think is an excellent idea. That way the newswire
>> could be more concentrated on news and people trying to
>> push an agenda by spamming the wire with other peoples
>> stuff that they happen to agree with would be given
>> their own forum away from the front page.
> 
> The plan is to display the reposts newswire on the front
> page, there was a discussion at the network meeting was
> where exactly this would be placed.
> 
> The characterisation of all activists who sometime post
> the work of others as "people trying to push an agenda" is
> a very broad and negative stereotyping of the users of the
> site that I don't agree with. 
> 
>> As I understand it it was Greenstein that started this
>> not necessarily over the post in question but over other
>> stuff that Atzmon has said.
> 
> No that isn't the case, the feature that this thread is
> discussing, explains how it actually started: 
> 
> On 24 October (i.e. over two months after the article
> was posted), Tony Greenstein, a British Palestine
> Solidarity activist, contacted IMC UK
> http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-uk-features/2007-October/1030-y9.html
> asking for the article to be not only hidden but removed
> completely from the site, having been brought to his
> attention by Moshe Machoever. 
> 
>>>> 2) Do two individuals (Greenstein and ftp) engaged
>>>> in their own cyber-war really deserve their own
>>>> feature?
>>> I don't think this is an accurate summury of the
>>> debate or the proposed feature.
>> Well, it is my opinion that if either of the two
>> individuals concerned had been struck by lightning
>> shortly after this situation arose then the 'debate'
>> would have died with them. Does anyone disagree?
> 
> I don't agree, the first time there was a debate about an
> article by Gilad Atzmon nither of these two individuals
> contributed to the discussion.
> 
> The discussion started because these comments were posted
> to it:
> 
> What a piece of classical Antisemitism. Purim, Jews,
> Zionism, collaboration with Nazis. All that's missing is
> Purim cookies baked with Christian blood. Shame on
> Indymedia for publishing such a vile screed.
> 
> What on earth is racist trash masquerading as an
> academic paper doing on Indymedia? 
> 
> On after this was raised here Andi said:
> 
> this is definitely not racist and the author takes some
> pain to make sure it isn't. 
> 
> http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-uk-features/2007-March/0307-it.html
> 
> And Yossarian said:
> 
> I don't think it's racist, although it's certainly
> guaranteed to piss people off, which is fine...
> 
> Basically it's a controversial article, which is
> somewhat on the edge but seemingly meant as a positive
> contribution.
> 
> http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-uk-features/2007-March/0307-3c.html
> 
> So the article was left up... The core of this issue isn't
> about individuals it's about politics.
> 
>>>> 3) Will this not just act as a greater magnet for
>>>> every zionist nutter with too much time on their
>>>> hands?
>>> I doubt it, there isn't a huge issue with trolls of
>>> this nature and I doubt it would cause one we can't
>>> deal with, in any case we should't let people like
>>> this set our agenda should we?
>> You have previously mailed me off-list (for a very good
>> reason) and said that this was indeed the most proflific
>> spam that we get. Confused?
> 
> Yes, I think you are rather confused, I suggest that you
> re-read that email, I think you will find no mention of
> "zionists", "nutters" or "zionist nutters" in it.
> 
> The discussion then was about pro-war / pro-imperial
> trolling, you said:
> 
> Its not like pro-war propanganda is a huge issue on the
> site. When you consider the amount of pro-war spam that
> moderators have to deal with in comparison with say
> zionists/conspiracy theorists/hierarchical groups/the
> barking mad ect then the pro-war stuff is tiny by
> comparison.
> 
> http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-uk-features/2007-September/0905-ev.html
> 
> To which I replied:
> 
> With all respect you have admitted that you don't do
> moderation on the site and the only people who get to
> see how much pro-war content is posted (mostly comments)
> are people doing admin or people who follow the site via
> the viewallposts page and I think Ilyan is the only
> person who does this.
> 
> http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-uk-features/2007-September/0905-tz.html
> 
>> No we should not let outside influences set our agenda.
>> Though it could be argued that by taking up huge amounts
>> of our time that is exactly what they are doing.
> 
> Isn't the core issue here the disagreement *within* the
> collective, hence the new disputed article type and the
> lengthy discussions and not "outside influences"?
> 
>> My point is that this whole issue has been forced onto
>> our agenda by an organised campaign by a few individuals
>> who represent noone but themselves.
> 
> That is true to an extent, but if there was no
> disagreement on this issue within the collective then it
> wouldn't have taken up all the time it's taken would it?
> 
>>>> 5) Socialist Unity? SWP?? Hierarchy anyone? Are we
>>>> going to give a platform to every crap trot group
>>>> that slags us off or expresses an opinion on the
>>>> subject?
>>> Pointing out that other sites are running
>>> misinformation and disinformation about Indymedia
>>> isn't exactly promoting these sites is it?
>> It is still giving them a platform. The hierarchy rule
>> is not perfect but is there for a very good reason.
> 
> The rule says:
> 
> Hierarchy : The newswire is designed to generate a news
> resource, not a notice-board for political parties or
> any other hierarchically structured organizations.
> 
> Are you seriously suggesting that the proposed feature
> would act as a "a notice-board for political parties"?
> 
>> I think that putting a huge feature in the middle column
>> is exactly what those who are attacking IMC UK want. 
> 
> I don't have any reason to think that Tony Greenstein
> doesn't want just what he is asking for -- all Gilad
> Atzmon articles to be deleted and for a no-platform policy
> to be appied to him. I doubt he would like the feature
> article because it is quite critical of his lobbying
> style.
> 
>> I have no problem with replying to deliberate
>> disinformation but by giving this amount of space to it
>> is counterproductive. Other more worthy material would
>> ultimately be pushed off the front page by doing this. 
> 
> I don't agree, I think that disinformation /
> misinformation is such a serious issue and also one that
> is clearly not greatly appreciated, that it is worth
> adressing in this manner.
> 
> The bottom feature article on the front page is:
> 
> - Protest against secret Nato summit on Afghanistan
> 12-12-2007 23:05
> http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/12/387702.html
> 
> It's over two months old -- is keeping it on the front
> page a bit longer a really good reason not to publish a
> feature article that a lot of time has been put into? 
> 
>> I'm also left wondering if this situation would have
>> developed into what it is had a lot less time been spent
>> countering arguments from one individual and his
>> supporters. A simple statement making our views on anti
>> semitism clear followed by ignoring all other attempts
>> at provocation might just have worked. Who knows?
> 
> But, I think it became clear at the network meeting that
> we are not in a position to agree "A simple statement
> making our views on anti semitism clear" other than we are
> all opposed to it... But this still leaves open the issue
> of whether Gilad Atzmon's article is racist and whether he
> is a racist -- we didn't address suggested way forwards on
> this in a structured manner (though looking at this again
> 2. should come before 1.):
> 
> 1. Is he racist?
> * If so ban him,
> * If not then 2
> 2. Is an article he has written racist?
> * If so then hide it
> * If not then don't hide it.
> 
> https://docs.indymedia.org/view/Local/UkNetworkMeeting2008#Session_5
> 
> Chris
> 

-- 
-- --
PGP key
http://keys.indymedia.org/cgi-bin/lookup?op=get&search=A6DB74C0
Key fingerprint = D789 FE5A 44EB A4BC 77E4 CA 9D 146F B26C A6DB 74C0
-- --