You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Holocaust Denial’ tag.
The most infamous essay of CiF contributor Ben White was a 2002 CounterPunch piece titled, “Is it possible to understand antisemitism?”.
First, there was this passage:
I do not consider myself an anti-Semite, yet I can also understand why some are. There are, in fact, a number of reasons. One is the state of Israel, its ideology of racial supremacy and its subsequent crimes committed against the Palestinians. It is because Zionists have always sought to equate their colonial project with Judaism that some misguidedly respond to what they see on their televisions with attacks on Jews or Jewish property.
And he further linked the rise of antisemitism with “the widespread bias and subservience to the Israeli cause in the Western media”.
But, equally as pernicious was this:
[There was a] controversy in Germany over alleged anti-Semitic remarks made by Jürgen Möllemann, the deputy leader of the FDP party, when he compared the Israeli government’s actions to those of the Nazi regime. Since his remarks Jewish groups have taken to the streets to call for Mr Möllemann’s resignation.
Comparisons between the Israeli government and the Nazis is unwise and unsound, since the Israelis have not (at the time of going to press) exterminated in a systematic fashion an enormous percentage of the Palestinians. Cold-blooded killings, beatings, house demolitions, vandalism, occupation, military assaults, and two historical pushes at ethnic cleansing–yes. Full fledged genocide–no.
However, the comparison is not anti-Semitic. It does not make racist assumptions, nor does it smack of bigotism.
(Also of note, White has recommended an essay by Holocaust denier Roger Garaudy, in his book on “Israeli Apartheid”.)
Regarding the Israel-Nazi analogy, White has also employed language which at least evokes this political parallel, such as in the following passage from an essay posted on his website:
“Palestinians, who, in the name of a ‘social-democratic experiment’, had to endure massacres, death-marches, and ethnic cleansing…”
In addition to such comparisons being intellectually unserious, such morally obscene comparisons between Israel and Nazi Germany are codified as antisemitic by the EU Working Definition.
Flash to a Twitter exchange yesterday which involved Sunny Hundall, editor of Guardian partner blog, Liberal Conspiracy, Louise Mensch, British MP, and David Shariatmadari, deputy editor of ‘Comment is Free’.
The row began after White posted an essay at Liberal Conspiracy, titled “Mensch to speak at ‘extreme’ Israeli conference“, which criticized Mensch’s upcoming appearance at a Stand With Us conference, and leveled simply unserious accusations that StandWithUs “donors accused the group of having “a web of funders who support organisations that have been accused of anti-Muslim propaganda.”
There was, of course, quite a bit of vitriol below the line, which included defenses of the Israel=Nazi Germany comparison after one commenter brought attention to White’s defense of this view.
Here is a snippet from the Twitter exchange which followed.
Then when Ben White joined the exchange, taking issue with Mensch’s characterization of his views, Mensch responded thusly:
Then, Comment is Free editor, David Shariatmadari, chimes in:
So, the Guardian’s Shariatmadari evidently finds it morally relevant whether or not White was defending comparisons between Israel and Nazi Germany broadly (not as bad), or whether there was a specific charge that Israel exterminates Palestinians in Auschwitz-like concentration camps.
Did Mensch really have to Tweet this morally intuitive argument to the Guardian’s ‘Comment is Free’ deputy editor?
Further, Shariatmadari’s grave concern about Ben White’s “reputation” speaks volumes about a media group who continually licenses commentators who may possess a liberal veneer but are morally compromised by an undeniable antipathy towards Jews.
Related articles
- ‘Comment is Free’ Land: Here be Jews… (cifwatch.com)
- Guardian publishes letter by Tony Greenstein suggesting comparison between anti-Israel protests & those against Nazis (cifwatch.com)
- UK philosopher Ted Honderich repeats his Guardian refrain that Palestinians have the right to murder Israelis (cifwatch.com)
- CiF piece critical of Gilad Atzmon elicits storm of antisemitic reader comments, including organ theft libels (cifwatch.com)
- Guardian issues ‘progressive in good standing’ card to Carlos Latuff: racist and anti-Semite (cifwatch.com)
- #PropagandaWaves: The Guardian’s Roy Greenslade or the ‘Free Gaza’ Movement? (cifwatch.com)
- Guardian publishes letter stating “Israel forfeits right to be treated as member of the community of nations” (cifwatch.com)
- Why is an essay on alleged Israeli racism in the “Jewish Belief” section of ‘Comment is Free’? (cifwatch.com)
- MEMO and Carlos Latuff, “respectfully” criticizing Israel (cifwatch.com)
- CiF comment, justifying antisemitism as normal reaction to Zionism: 74 “recommends” & not deleted (cifwatch.com)
- +972 and a revealing Twitter exchange between CiF Watch and a radical left Israeli Jew (cifwatch.com)
- The Guardian’s abusive Deborah Orr (cifwatch.com)
I’m not sure which is more interesting, the very notion of the Guardian giving national security advice to Israel “Israel is unwise to raise the nuclear stakes“, Nov. 6, or the following passage in the editorial which represents one of the most surreal understatements I’ve read in a long time.
The Guardian, after sternly lecturing Israel on the folly of even considering a preemptive attack on Iranian nuclear facilities, writes:
“It is true that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has voiced a profound antipathy for Israel, which has been interpreted in many quarters as threatening the existence of the Jewish state.”
So, Ahmadinejad has voiced an “antipathy” towards Israel “which has been interpreted…as threatening the existence” of Israel”?!
In fact, Ahmadinejad has repeatedly and quite explicitly called for its destruction, has engaged in crude antisemitism, and called the Holocaust “a myth”.
Here are just a few examples:
General hatred, antisemitism, and Holocaust Denial:
Aug. 2, 2006, as reported on Iranian state TV
“Are they human beings?… They (Zionists) are a group of blood-thirsty savages putting all other criminals to shame.”
July 6, 2006, as quoted by Iranian News Agency
“The Zionists think that they are victims of Hitler, but they act like Hitler and behave worse than Genghis Khan.”
March 21, 2007, New Year’s message aired on Iranian TV
“It is quite clear that a bunch of Zionist racists are the problem the modern world is facing today. They have access to global power and media centers and seek to use this access to keep the world in a state of hardship, poverty and grudge and strengthen their rule.”
Feb. 28, 2007, to a meeting of Sudanese Islamic scholars in Khartoum
“The Zionists are the true manifestation of Satan…”
Sept. 23, 2008, address to the UN
“The dignity, integrity and rights of the American and European people are being played with by a small but deceitful number of people called Zionists. Although they are a miniscule minority, they have been dominating an important portion of the financial and monetary centers as well as the political decision-making centers of some European countries and the US in a deceitful, complex and furtive manner.”
Sept. 18, 2009 Al Quds Day rally in Tehran
“They (the Western powers) launched the myth of the Holocaust. They lied, they put on a show and then they support the Jews…. If as you claim the Holocaust is true, why can a study not be allowed? … The pretext for establishing the Zionist regime is a lie… a lie which relies on an unreliable claim, a mythical claim…”
August 7, 2010, Televised conference in Tehran
No “Zionists” were killed in the World Trade Center, because “one day earlier they were told not to go to their workplace.”
Israel should be destroyed:
Oct. 25, 2006, in an address to 4,000 students at a program titled, ‘The World Without Zionism’:
“Israel must be wiped off the map … The establishment of a Zionist regime was a move by the world oppressor against the Islamic world . . . The skirmishes in the occupied land are part of the war of destiny. The outcome of hundreds of years of war will be defined in Palestinian land.”
Dec. 12, 2006, comments to Iran’s Holocaust Conference
“Thanks to people’s wishes and God’s will the trend for the existence of the Zionist regime is downwards and this is what God has promised and what all nations want…Just as the Soviet Union was wiped out and today does not exist, so will the Zionist regime soon be wiped out.”
Nov. 13, 2006
“Israel is destined for destruction and will soon disappear. Israel is “a contradiction to nature, we foresee its rapid disappearance and destruction.”
Feb. 5, 2010, at a news conference in Damascus with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad
“With Allah’s help the new Middle East will be a Middle East without Zionists and Imperialists.”
And, of course, the following image has been “interpreted” by some as calling for the end of Zionism:
In fairness, the Guardian does allow for the possibility that Israel may be justified in defending itself, and carefully tutors the state’s leaders on the ethical guidelines required to thwart a potential Iranian attack:
“To have any justification for its use, it requires an immediate and proximate threat, as existed when Israel was faced with Egyptian tank divisions manoeuvring on its borders to the loud drum beat of war, which persuaded Israel to attack first in the 1967 Six Day War…”
However, they subsequently argue that there may even be a bright side to the possibility that Iran will acquire nuclear arms:
“The reality is that Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons is seen as a threat for reasons partly of Israel’s own making – foremost its absolute reliance on a policy of military supremacy and deterrence to underpin security. A nuclear-armed Iran would hole that policy below the waterline, making it far more difficult, for instance, to launch the kind of war it waged against Hezbollah in Lebanon in 2006.”
Yes, the progressive end result: A nuclear Iran will deter Israel from defending itself against the likes of Hezbollah and Hamas!
Finally, in disgust, the Guardian lashes out at the stubborn Zionists who will likely be unmoved by the advice provided by the sage commentators in London who clearly understand what’s best for Israel.
“If that is Netanyahu’s aim – to use the threat of war to leverage diplomatic effect – it is the behaviour of a tinpot state, not the mature democracy Israel claims to be.”
While we’ll never know who wrote this particular editorial, there are tropes which evoke the following passage from a 2009 CiF essay:
“[To] the western media…Ahmadinejad is nothing but a Holocaust-denying fanatic. The other Ahmadinejad, who is seen to stand up for the country’s independence, expose elite corruption on TV and use Iran’s oil wealth to boost the incomes of the poor majority, is largely invisible abroad.”
This was written by Guardian Associate Editor Seumas Milne in 2009.
Straight Left – the pro-Stalinist UK Communist Party paper where Milne served as “business manager” – may have perished with the collapse of the Soviet Union, but its spirit of stoic resistance in the face of imperialism lives on.
The Guardian is not a newspaper in any real sense of the word, but a theoretical journal of far left thought intent on arranging the news in a pattern consistent with a rigid ideological agenda.
Whether the editorial is informed simply by the unimaginable naiveté of not understanding that the only thing standing in the way of Israel’s destruction is the credible threat of force against her enemies, or a visceral hostility to the “tin pot” Jewish state – or, more likely, a combination of the two – their chiding of what they see as a petulant Israel makes one thing crystal clear.
The fundamental moral imperative of Zionism – the historical understanding that never again will Jews allow their freedom, their fate, indeed their very existence, to be contingent upon the benevolence of others – continues to be vindicated both by the words and actions of Israel’s enemies, and by the pseudo-intellectual musings of their enablers in the West.
Related articles
- Will radical anti-Zionist Richard Silverstein be charged with espionage? (cifwatch.com)
- Israel, Likudniks & their enablers: The Guardian’s Ian Williams takes a brave stand against Zionism! (cifwatch.com)
- #PropagandaWaves: The Guardian’s Roy Greenslade or the ‘Free Gaza’ Movement? (cifwatch.com)
- Harriet Sherwood finds her favorite kind of Israeli – the anti-Zionist variety (cifwatch.com)
- ‘Comment is Free’ Land: Here be Jews… (cifwatch.com)
- Guardian reader comment of the day: The Protocols of the Learned Elders of CiF Watch Zionists (cifwatch.com)
- The Guardian’s Jonathan Freedland reconciles with the anti-Zionist left (cifwatch.com)
- The Guardian’s Harriet Sherwood: Amplifying the voice of radical anti-Israel NGOs (cifwatch.com)
John Mearsheimer
This is cross posted at The Jewish Week by Ben Cohen
For a few days last month, it seemed that John Mearsheimer had walked straight into a scandal of his own making, with no way out.
Over the previous five years, the University of Chicago professor and co-author of the much-maligned book, “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy,” had frequently faced the charge of anti-Semitism. Invariably, Mearsheimer indignantly dismissed this suggestion as monstrous.
And then Gilad Atzmon came along.
Atzmon is an Israeli-born jazz musician who currently lives in London. When he’s not blowing into his saxophone, he spends his time waging war on what he regards as the crime of all crimes — the continued existence of a separate Jewish identity, rooted in hostility to gentiles and embodied by the State of Israel, or “Isra-hell,” as Atzmon prefers to call it.
Atzmon has doggedly pushed his message through his writings and, on occasion, through his music. A few years ago, he set up an outfit named Artie Fishel and the Promised Band, whose schmaltz-soaked klezmer tunes were intended to demonstrate that anything carrying the label “Jewish” is — you’ve got it — artificial, kept alive only to perpetuate the anti-gentile ideology that is Judaism.
If Atzmon sounds like Larry David’s evil twin, be assured that he’s far worse. The kick he gets from needling Jewish sensibilities is the kick of someone who viscerally loathes the subject that produced him and now consumes him. When Atzmon traffics in anti-Semitic tropes — for example describing the “credit crunch” as a “Ziopunch,” or declaring that “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” is an accurate reflection of the global power of American Jews — he radiates the delight of someone liberated from a huge emotional burden.
Until now, Atzmon’s ravings have mainly been spread by various anti-Semitic and Islamist websites. Atzmon has never written for a serious publication, nor lectured at a reputable university. Most importantly, his intellectual contributions are utterly unoriginal, derived from two poisoned sources. When Atzmon separates the world into “organic” and “inorganic” (or artificial) nations, he echoes the propaganda of the Nazis. When he caricatures Israel’s actions toward the Palestinians as the modern incarnation of the Judaic racism expressed in the Talmud, he echoes the propaganda of the Soviet Union.
It is this background that explains the disbelief that first greeted John Mearsheimer’s dust jacket endorsement of Atzmon’s new book, “The Wandering Who.” Even Mearsheimer’s most trenchant critics speculated that the blurb was a ghastly mistake, and one that would fatally undermine his oft-stated insistence that he is not anti-Semitic.
But when Adam Holland, a respected and widely read blogger, e-mailed Mearsheimer to ask whether he was aware of Atzmon’s flirtation with Holocaust denial (“We should ask for some conclusive historical evidence and arguments rather than follow a religious narrative,” Atzmon has written) and his recital of telltale anti-Semitic provocations (“Why were the Jews hated? Why did European people stand up against their next-door neighbors?”), he received a disarming reply. Mearsheimer stood by his endorsement of Atzmon’s book.
A number of prominent commentators, among them Jeffrey Goldberg, Walter Russell Mead, the popular British blog Harry’s Place and even Andrew Sullivan, a previously reliable supporter of Mearsheimer, rushed to confront and condemn the professor. Still, Mearsheimer didn’t budge, insisting on the blog of his “Israel Lobby” co-author, Harvard University’s Stephen Walt, that Atzmon was neither a Holocaust denier nor an anti-Semite, but someone honestly wrestling with the question of “Jewish particularism.”
And there, more or less, is where the scandal petered out, forcing Mearsheimer’s detractors to consider the disturbing possibility that anti-Semitism is no longer that much of a scandal.
This conclusion, sadly, contains a good deal of merit. As far as large swaths of academia and the media are concerned, the victims of anti-Semitism are no longer Jews, but those unjustly accused of being anti-Semites.
The Atzmon episode takes this inversion one step further. So long as the target is Israel, or Zionism, or even Judaism as a set of ideas, anything goes; equally, any invocation of anti-Semitism on the part of critics is simply a smear to be dismissed.
Who, then, qualifies as an anti-Semite in John Mearsheimer’s world? One has to assume the bar is set very high: you would have to explicitly declare your hatred of Jews as individuals, for instance, or advocate that Jews should sit in separate subway cars. But if you use the Holocaust as a stick with which to beat the Jews, or slyly undermine its “narrative,” or assert that conspiracy theories bear some correspondence to reality, or argue that Jewish government officials are more suspect than others because of their dual loyalty to Israel, that’s not anti-Semitism, he would say — just an honest expression of legitimate opinions.
It’s worth remembering that when the term “anti-Semitism” was coined in 19th-century Germany, its authors were not Jews, but Jew-haters. They wore the badge of anti-Semitism with pride, creating political parties with such names as the “League of Anti-Semites.” The word was owned not by the victims, but by the perpetrators.
In that sense, nothing much has changed. The torrid controversies around anti-Semitism today indicate that the Jewish community has claimed neither the ownership nor the definition of the word. That’s why John Mearsheimer thinks his understanding of anti-Semitism is far superior to yours or mine. And that, you might say, is the greatest scandal of all.
Ben Cohen is a New York-based commentator who writes frequently on Jewish issues and Middle Eastern politics.
Related articles
- Gilad Atzmon vs Tony Greenstein, in “Battle of the self-hating Jews” (cifwatch.com)
- CiF piece critical of Gilad Atzmon elicits storm of antisemitic reader comments, including organ theft libels (cifwatch.com)
- Jew hatred as liberal commentary: Guardian provides platform to vicious antisemite, Gilad Atzmon (cifwatch.com)
- At the Guardian’s online bookshop, antisemitism is shipped within 24 hours! (cifwatch.com)
Earlier in the month, after a mild rebuke of Gilad Atzmon in a CiF essay for engaging in antisemitism which hurt the Palestinian cause, the Guardian provided Atzmon a platform to respond.
As we noted at the time, it is no exaggeration to state that Atzmon’s antisemitism is no less virulent or odious than what can be found on the website of David Duke.
Briefly, Atzmon believes that Jews control the world, has given credibility to Holocaust denial, and indicated that modern-day antisemitism should be seen as a justifiable reaction to Jewish villainy.
A review of Atzmon’s latest book, “The wandering who?” – which rehashes many of the same antisemitic narratives advanced in his blog – by the CST’s Mark Gardner, can be read here.
But, who needs to rely on reviews of “The wandering who?” written by Jews who, Atzmon would no doubt argue, are immutably crippled by obtuse ethnic loyalties when you can read the book yourself and reach your own conclusions.
In fact, you don’t even have to go to Atzmon’s website to purchase his book, as the Guardian decided that Atzmon’s musings on Jewish villainy is something their discerning readers need to know:
Per the Guardian’s online bookshop:
Note the editor’s synopsis of Atzmon’s book:
“An explosive unique crucial book tackling the issues of Jewish identity Politics and ideology and their global influence.“
To be clear, here’s how the Guardian describes the aim of their online bookshop:
“The aim of this site is to present you with a tailored selection of handpicked books that reflect the Guardian and Observer’s well-respected literary coverage and reviews.
So among the “tailored selection of handpicked books which reflect the Guardian and Observers well-respected literary coverage and reviews” is an expose on world Jewry’s injurious “global influence”.
And, how helpful of “the world’s leading liberal voice”: the extremist Judeophobia of Gilad Atzmon is ready to ship in just one business day – and 20% off the cover price!
The Guardian: Your one-stop, hassle-free, 24/7 purveyor of antisemitism.
Related articles
- Gilad Atzmon vs Tony Greenstein, in “Battle of the self-hating Jews” (cifwatch.com)
- Jew hatred as liberal commentary: Guardian provides platform to vicious antisemite, Gilad Atzmon (cifwatch.com)
- Andy Newman’s racist left: And, how I became a “right wing troll” (cifwatch.com)
- Andy Newman’s socialism of fools: The remarkable staying power of leftist antisemitism (cifwatch.com)
- CiF piece critical of Gilad Atzmon elicits storm of antisemitic reader comments, including organ theft libels (cifwatch.com)
- Lauren Booth on “Jewish supremacism”, why antisemitism is justified, & the wisdom of Gilad Atzmon (cifwatch.com)
- Legitimizing antisemitism: Guardian provides platform to Alison Weir, blood libel promoter (cifwatch.com)
This is cross posted by Richard Millett
Here is the transcript and much clearer audio of a remarkable exchange between myself, Jonathan Hoffman and someone calling herself Jane Green outside Rivercourt Methodist Church on Thursday 6th October after a Palestine Solidarity Campaign event. I also include the PSC’s response. (Warning: Extreme language)
Audio:
Transcript:
Hoffman: You’re a Holocaust denier.
Me: You said there were no showers.
Green: Fuck off, fuck off.
Hoffman: Did you say there were no showers, did you say there were no gas chambers?
Me: How did the Jews die, how did the Jews die in the Holocaust?
Hoffman: How did the Jews die in the Holocaust, Madam?
Green: They had their foreskins chopped off.
Hoffman: And were there any gas chambers, Madam?
Green: I don’t know, I wasn’t there, darling.
Hoffman: What about the historical evidence?
Me: You said there were showers beforehand.
Green: They had showers there, too.
Me: And how did the Jews die in the Holocaust?
Green: I have no idea, I wasn’t there.
Me and Hoffman: How many Jews died in the Holocaust?
Me: How many Jews died in the Holocaust?
Green: I think a few hundred thousand did.
Me and Hoffman: But not six million?
Green: I didn’t count them, no.
Me: And do you care?
Hoffman: Was there a Holocaust?
Green: I have Jews in my family, and I’ve fucked enough Jews to tell you about circumcised.
Hoffman: Did the Holocaust exist?
Me: What’s your name, Madam?
Green: Course the Holocaust existed, I’ve seen the fucking photos. My name, Jane Green. Nice Jewish name.
Me and Hoffman: How many Jews died in the Holocaust, Jane Green?
Green: Six million and one.
Me: You said a hundred thousand before.
Green: Six million and one if it makes you happy.
Hoffman: Were there any gas chambers in the Holocaust?
Green: I don’t know, I wasn’t there.
Hoffman: But before you said there weren’t any, so say that again.
Green: I didn’t say that.
Hoffman: Say there were no gas chambers.
Green: Stop harassing me.
Hoffman: Say there were no gas chambers in the Holocaust again.
Green: I’ve no idea, I wasn’t there.
Me: Do you deny the Holocaust?
Hoffman: Do you deny the Holocaust, Madam?
Unknown woman: Course I don’t deny the Holocaust.
Green: Nobody does. No one of any intelligence denies the Holocaust.
Unknown woman: I do not deny the Holocaust.
Green: But you’re using it to fucking kill the Palestinians. You are using it.
Hoffman: Sorry, nobody is using it.
Green: You are using it to commit genocide against another people, yes you are.
Hoffman: You know that calling it a Holocaust (against the Palestinians) is anti-Semitic?
Green: I don’t call it a Holocaust, the Jews call it a Holocaust. It’s meaningless to me. The Jews call it a Holocaust. A Holocaust is a general term for a conflagration. Look in your dictionary.
Hoffman: Do you know comparing Israel’s policy to Nazi policy is anti-Semitic? Do you know that, Jane?
Green: No.
Hoffman: You don’t know that?
Green: I see them as Nazis. I see the Jews in Israel as total Nazis.
Hoffman: You know that’s an anti-Semitic remark, Jane?
Green: I don’t give a fuck.
Hoffman: Jane Green, right?
Green: Jane Green.
Hoffman: Jane Green.
Green: Nice Jewish name.
PSC response:
START
Statement Following Public Meeting In Hammersmith On 6 October 2011We unequivocally condemn the views recorded by Richard Millett of a person on the public pavement in Hammersmith on 6 October 2011. Even though the recording suggests that the person appeared to have been harangued by the interviewers, the sentiments expressed have no place in the campaign for Palestinian rights and justice. Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) has a very clear policy opposing all forms of racism, including Islamophobia and anti-Jewish prejudice. Moreover, PSC has issued a further statement opposing attempts to deny or minimise the Holocaust.
It is important to remember that the recorded remarks were made outside,and not inside, a meeting organised by West London PSC which was widely advertised and open to all members of the public. The meeting itself drew upon a panel of speakers of different faiths – Jewish, Muslim and Christian – who all focused on the necessity for Jerusalem to be a city for all its residents, irrespective of faith or ethnicity.
West London Palestine Solidarity Campaign
pscwestlondon@googlemail.com
END
Even though PSC condemns Green’s “views” and “sentiments” it actually defends her by suggesting that she might have said what she did because she was being “harangued”. In any event she wasn’t harangued at all but took great pleasure in taunting us about the Holocaust, as you can clearly hear.
PSC also makes a weak attempt to distance itself from Green by emphasising that her remarks took place outside the meeting and that the meeting was focused on Jerusalem.
Green actually took inspiration from the meeting, at least for her accusation that Jews are using the Holocaust to kill the Palestinians. Not long before this exchange she had heard the Reverend Stephen Sizer in the meeting blame “guilt for the Holocaust” on what he thinks is happening to the Palestinians:
Jane Green is not a one-off. Remarks similar to hers are whispered at the many anti-Israel events up and down the country. You just don’t get an opportunity to record them, so they are easily denied.
Related articles
- Antisemites, terror supporters, & Holocaust deniers: aka, just another Palestinian Solidarity Campaign event (cifwatch.com)
- Gilad Atzmon vs Tony Greenstein, in “Battle of the self-hating Jews” (cifwatch.com)
- CiF contributor Ghada Karmi promotes Greater Palestine. (cifwatch.com)
- The Guardian’s Simon Jenkins is tired of our “obsession” with Nazism and the Holocaust (cifwatch.com)
- Jew hatred as liberal commentary: Guardian provides platform to vicious antisemite, Gilad Atzmon (cifwatch.com)
- Guardian publishes letter by Tony Greenstein suggesting comparison between anti-Israel protests & those against Nazis (cifwatch.com)
Richard Millett’s recent post, “Sizer, the Rivercourt Methodist Church and Holocaust Denial” should be read in its entirety to see how depraved discourse by anti-Israel activists in the UK has become, but here are a few highlights from the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign event that Millett attended.
The event was held by the West London Palestine Solidarity Campaign. Due to speak were Reverend Stephen Sizer, Arthur Goodman (Jews for Justice for Palestinians), Linda Ramsden (Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions) and Daud Abdullah (of Middle East Monitor, and CiF contributor). Ghada Karmi (a one-state solution proponent and CiF contributor) couldn’t make it, so was replaced by a “member” of Anarchists Against the Wall.
Director of the pro-Hamas Middle East Monitor, and occasional CiF contributor,Daud Abdullah
Rev. Stephen Sizer, who has a habit of associating with Holocaust Deniers, notorious antisemites, and Islamists who support terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians, said that church leaders refuse to speak out about Israel’s crimes because of “guilt for the Holocaust and fear of anti-Semitism”. Sizer further added that churches which side with “the occupation” and Zionism have “repudiated Jesus, have repudiated the bible and are an abomination”
Millett also writes:
At the end of the event Jonathan Hoffman persuaded me to stand outside the church with him to hand out pro-Israel leaflets to the congregants as they left the church. It was a futile gesture and all it did was encourage someone who called herself “Jane Green” to tell us that there weren’t any gas chambers in the Holocaust, that the Jews had instead died having had their foreskins chopped off, that only a couple of hundred thousand Jews died in the Holocaust, that the Jews are using the Holocaust to commit genocide against the Palestinians and that all the Jews in Israel are total Nazis, as you can hear here:
This is the hatred that the anti-Israel movement engenders: a coalition which includes Christian inspired antisemitism, Sizer, Islamists who support terror attacks against Israeli civilians, Abdullah, and a PSC groupie who denies the Holocaust and thinks Israeli Jews are Nazis.
That two of the scheduled speakers at this hate fest have been given a platform by the Guardian comes as no surprise.
To turn an axiom coined by liberal Jewish pundit Peter Beinart around, it is simply undeniable that the pro-Palestinian camp increasingly demands that adherents to their cause leave any semblance of liberalism at the door.
Related articles
- Poisoning the wells: David Hearst’s Jewish problem (cifwatch.com)
- Pat Condell on the endemic antisemitism which informs the Palestinian cause (cifwatch.com)
- Lauren Booth on “Jewish supremacism”, why antisemitism is justified, & the wisdom of Gilad Atzmon (cifwatch.com)
- Is it possible to “understand” Ben White’s antisemitism? CiF again sanctions opposition to peace with Israel (cifwatch.com)
- Guardian story downplays firebombed synagogue, blames “settlers” for vandalized Arab graves w/o evidence (cifwatch.com)
- Jew hatred as liberal commentary: Guardian provides platform to vicious antisemite, Gilad Atzmon (cifwatch.com)
- Guardian again airbrushes Raed Salah’s extremism, antisemitism, and terrorist affiliations (cifwatch.com)
- Guardian publishes letter stating “Israel forfeits right to be treated as member of the community of nations” (cifwatch.com)
The Guardian’s comfort with publishing essays by antisemites – providing their commentary includes “progressive” tropes about anti-imperialism, anti-colonialism or anti-Zionism – makes me wonder if the only thing preventing the paper from posting commentaries by racists like David Duke, Nick Griffin, or David Irving (and their fellow political travelers), is that such haters have failed to master the faux liberal language of the Guardian left.
Back in 2009, the Guardian’s literary critic John Lewis interviewed Atzmon, in the music section of the Guardian – a piece focused primarily on Atzmon’s Jazz career. The profile briefly took note of Atzmon’s pro-Palestinian activism, anti-Zionism, and what they characterized as the saxophonist’s “firebrand political outbursts”, while only barely alluding to his well-documented record of antisemitism in this throw away passage:
Some Palestinian activists see his provocatively anti-Jewish rhetoric as discrediting their cause [emphasis mine]
The Guardian profile of Atzmon included this headline and photo:
As a Rosh Hashana greeting on Wednesday evening, Sept. 28, The Guardian published a letter by Atzmon, Letters: Moral obligation and Jewish identity, which responded to a CiF commentary by Andy Newman which singled out Atzmon as an example of antisemitism on the left.
Atzmon’s letter included the following:
“How to define a Jew is a loaded topic since Jews define themselves in many different ways, some contradictory, and use those definitions to try to achieve political aims. And yet not many people dare to touch upon these subjects for fear of being accused of antisemitism. To paraphrase what I say in my book, “An antisemite used to be someone who hates Jews; nowadays an antisemite is someone Jews hate.” [emphasis mine]
“But I also insist that each of us has the right to express his or her opinion on the subject without being censored, bullied or intimidated by charges of antisemitism.It is very disappointing to see a newspaper renowned for its egalitarian stance publishing, without checking, the unsubstantiated rantings of self-interested campaigners.”
Here are a few passages from Atzmon’s essays over the years which are quite “substantiated”, as they are quoted verbatim from Atzmon’s own website:
Jews aspire to, and have succeeded in, controlling the world:
“Zionists complain that Jews continue to be associated with a conspiracy to rule the world via political lobbies, media and money. Is the suggestion of conspiracy really an empty accusation? … we must begin to take the accusation that the Jewish people are trying to control the world very seriously … 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 do try to control the world, by proxy.
“American Jews (in fact Zionists) do control the world.. So far they are doing pretty well for themselves at least. Whether the Americans enjoy the deterioration of their state’s affairs will no doubt be revealed soon.”
Holocaust Denial (Jewish Power prevents serious research into whether the Holocaust indeed happened):
“The established history of the Holocaust is a “religion” that “doesn’t make any historical sense”. [Jewish power has] “managed to prevent the West from accessing one of the most devastating chapters of Western history”.
The injurious role of “Jewish bankers” and other “rich Jews”:
“Throughout the centuries, Jewish bankers bought for themselves some real reputations of backers and financers of wars and even one communist revolution. Though rich Jews had been happily financing wars using their assets, Alan Greenspan, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve of the United States, found a far more sophisticated way to finance the wars perpetrated by his ideological brothers Libby and Wolfowitz…
There is no antisemitism anymore:
”There is no anti-Semitism any more. In the devastating reality created by the Jewish state, anti-Semitism has been replaced by political reaction. I am saying that these acts [vandalizing synagogues and Jewish cemeteries]…should be seen as political responses rather than racially motivated acts or ‘irrational’ hate crimes. If Israel is the state of the Jewish people and the Jewish people themselves do not stand up collectively against the crimes that are committed on their behalf, then every Jewish person, Jewish symbol and Jewish object becomes an Israeli interest and a potential terrorist target….we should be consistent and regard any act against Jews as a political reaction rather than an irrational racist attack.”
Here is the photo accompanying Andy Newman’s critique of Atzmon. Please note the caption.
Let it be known that the Guardian’s understanding of legitimate liberal commentary evidently includes even those who explicitly charge Jews with engaging in a conspiracy to take over the world, accuse “rich Jews” and “Jewish bankers” of starting wars and revolutions, and lend credibility to Holocaust Denial.
Indeed, much of Gilad Atzmon’s commentary on Jews is simply indistinguishable from the most odious extreme right antisemitism advanced in the 19th and 20th centuries.
There is, of course, one mitigating factor for the Guardian which morally ameliorates Atzmon’s expressions of hate towards Jews.
He’s “an advocate of the Palestinian cause”.
Related articles
This was written by Dr. Andre Oboler, and originally was published by the Jerusalem Post. Oboler is co-chair of the Online Antisemitism Working Group of the Global Forum to Combat Antisemitism.
It’s been over three years since the issue of Holocaust denial on Facebook was first raised. The truly amazing thing is that after countless protests, petitions, letters and meetings with experts, Facebook continues to refuse to recognise Holocaust denial as a form of hate. The social media platform continues to make a special exception and would rather spin and stonewall than fix a bad policy.
The danger today comes more from Facebook’s own position than from the content itself. The $70 billion dollar company’s refusal to recognise that Holocaust denial is a form of hate has continued despite advice and research from numerous experts. Facebook’s various justifications and efforts to redefine the issue seem to be the only thing that changes.
When the leading international experts on online antisemitism gathered in Jerusalem last month, the issue of Facebook’s policy on Holocaust Denial was one of many issues on the agenda. The Online Antisemitism Working Group meeting covered a comprehensive review of conferences and research reports on online hate from around the world. The experts examined new challenges that result from technological innovation, discussed recent incidents, and reviewed past challenges that were enumerated when the working group last met at the Global Forum to Combat Antisemitism in 2009.
The increased concern on the Facebook Holocaust denial situation resulted from a lack of progress over the past two years and growing frustration in the expert community. In 2010 it had seemed Facebook had changed their policy without publically announcing it, but in 2011 more Holocaust denial groups appeared to be making a comeback and Facebook reasserted it’s position that Holocaust denial in and of itself was not considered by the company to be hateful. In truth, many groups and pages were only removed when the media specifically named them or published photographs of them. Experts who had met with Facebook on behalf of their own organizations had begun to feel they were going in circles. There was not much more to be said, all the arguments had been laid out before Facebook, the logical conclusion was obvious, and yet no progress was being made.
A video conference with a senior manager from Facebook was productive on a number of other issues, particularly the question of the responsibility users with special privileges should have. In the meeting Facebook requested a policy paper discussing this proposal in more depth. The Holocaust denial issue however remained an irrational sticking point that was embedded in an unwritten corporate policy. Following further discussion, the working group co-chairs, David Matas and myself, wrote to Mark Zuckerberg to explain that Holocaust denial was in and of itself hate speech and that Facebook’s exception for “historical events” led to an inconsistency in its policies. All hate speech should be treated the same, to do otherwise is to condones certain forms of hate. Not only was no reply forthcoming, even the policy paper that was sent to Facebook at their request received no acknowledgement.
Of all the issue of online hate the working group discussed, Facebook’s Holocaust Denial policy appeared to be the only one where a company was clearly saying “won’t” rather than “can’t”. Technical problems have technical solutions; the experts on the Global Forum Working Group discussed such solutions, shared knowledge and brainstormed on new approaches. When people refuse to recognise the danger of Holocaust denial, that is a human problem, and a danger to much of the fabric of human rights in modern society. It was in response to the Holocaust and the global desire to avoid a repetition of history that much of the modern human rights framework was created.
Holocaust survivors will not be with us forever, and once they are gone it will become increasingly difficult to convince people the Holocaust really happened. Denial will become more popular and more acceptable. The Nazi’s told their victims no one would believe them even if they did survive because the reality was just so implausible. If we struggle to understand the danger when the survivors themselves write to us, as they recently wrote to Facebook, then how are we as a society going to fair once they are gone?
To see Facebook ignoring the danger and denying the hateful nature of Holocaust denial is deeply concerning. To see the ethnicity of Jewish staff brought up in official statements to support the company’s assertion that it must know what it is doing, even while ignoring the warning of so many experts, is troubling. Technology however continues to change, and with the rise of Google+, Facebook may soon have real competition. Having a choice of platform will restore power to the public and may see the start of a race to retain users. When this happens it will be up to society to assert loudly and strongly that hate has no place in our online communities, and that Holocaust denial is no exception. I wonder if we are ready for that challenge?
The comprehensive report of the Online Antisemitism Working Group, including many recommendations for different sectors of society, will be published later this year. I hope by then we will be able to report that Facebook has had a change of heart.
There are few people who even try anymore to claim that the Council on American-Islamic Relations is a legitimate Muslim “civil rights” organization. In fact, a recent poll showed that only 11% of American Muslims believe that CAIR represents their interests.
CAIR Director Nihad Awad (lower right) delivers speech under Hezbollah flag during speech in Washington, DC in 2002 (Photo from site of ADL)
The facts about the extremism, and terrorist affiliations, of the U.S. group are simply beyond dispute, and include the following:
- U.S. Federal law enforcement believes that the CAIR is the product of a Hamas-support network in the United States.
- CAIR was named an unindicted co-conspirator in the terror-finance trial against the Holy Land Foundation and its former officials.
- CAIR operates a Web site that makes anti-Semitic material, which includes Holocaust Denial, available for visitors interested in learning about Islam.
- In 2007, U.S. federal prosecutors described CAIR as “having conspired with other affiliates of the Muslim Brotherhood to support terrorists.”
- In 2003, CAIR’s Florida chapter invited William Baker to its annual banquet. Baker, a known right-wing extremist, warned in his book, Theft of a Nation, that Jews throughout the world “can easily become agents for specific world powers in order to create unrest and disharmony.”
Yet, Alison Flood’s “9/11 children’s colouring book angers U.S. Muslims“, Aug. 31, (in the Guardian’s Children and Teen Books section) extensively quotes CAIR officials who condemned a book written to teach children the lessons of 9/11, as “disgusting”. And, even more audaciously, given CAIR’s proven ties to Islamist terrorists, Flood quotes a CAIR official as complaining that the book “characterizes all Muslims as linked to extremism, terrorism and radicalism.”
Further, Guardian moderators also deleted comments beneath the line critical of CAIR – including those which merely pointed to reputable reports on the group’s extremist agenda.
Here, for instance, was my comment from last night:
“Just so we’re all clear, CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations) has been designated as an unindicted co-conspirator by the U.S. Justice Dep’t in the terror-finance trial against the Holy Land Foundation and its former officials, and are well-understood to be affiliated with Hamas. Read more at: http://www.investigativeproject.org/1854/doj-cairs-unindicted-co-conspirator-status-legit“
And, then:
There were also, for instance, seven consecutive deleted comments between 9:40 and 10:02.
But, beyond their biased moderation process, the larger question is why the Guardian would legitimize, and frame as progressive, a group so unquestionably compromised by proven links to terrorist movements?
There is a word generally used which aptly describes those who sanction and approve of groups who are intolerant, misogynistic, antisemitic, and support violence: At least in political terms it’s known as being Reactionary.
Related articles
Here at CiF Watch we, like many others, have for some time been following the very worrying events taking place with alarming regularity in too many British universities.
From the cancellation of lectures by some pro-Israeli speakers, through the heckling and intimidation of others, to the despicable attacks upon Talya Lador-Fresher (Israel Deputy Ambassador to the UK) last year in Manchester and a protester outside SOAS just recently, these events indicate beyond all doubt that something is seriously amiss in the higher education system of Great Britain. Ambassador Ron Prosor apparently thinks so too.
“Speaking at a conference on British-Israeli diplomatic relations at the think-tank Chatham House, he said there had “never been so much hatred and hypocrisy towards the state of Israel in British universities.”
Just as there seems to be very little enthusiasm in those same establishments to face up to the issue of Islamist radicalization within the confines of their protected walls, or the long-since known (but recently further publicized) subject of the funding of some of those institutions by human-rights abusing regimes and dictatorships, nothing very effective appears to be being done to counter the virulently anti-Israel (and sometimes anti-Semitic) atmosphere in what are supposed to be bastions of free debate and liberal enlightenment.
A post (which recently generated some renewed interest) on the Daphne Anson blog regarding the Leicester University lecturer Dr. Claudia Prestel raises some questions as to just how committed the management of British universities are in combating extremism in their institutions. As pointed out in the post, Dr. Prestel has links with the Leicester branch of ‘Friends of Al Aqsa’. She has written for their magazine and spoken together with the chair of that organization, Ismail Patel, at an event organized by the Leicester University Palestine Support Group. She is also a supporter of Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) against Israel.
Some might say that what Dr. Prestel or any other university lecturer chooses to do with his or her free time is nobody’s business. Others might raise reasonable concerns that perhaps the political opinions of such lecturers do not always remain outside the lecture hall. What I found particularly interesting about this specific case is that Leicester University runs a centre for the study of the Holocaust, of which Dr. Prestel is also a member. And yet nobody in that institution seems to think it inappropriate that she should maintain connections with an organization which has quoted Holocaust deniers on its website, headed by a man who supports a terrorist organization with genocidal aspirations of its own.
‘Friends of Al Aqsa’ is one of the more extremist Islamist organizations at work in Britain today. It supports the Muslim Brotherhood-linked charity ‘Interpal’ (proscribed by the US Treasury) and advertises it on its website. It collaborates with the Khomenist Iranian-funded faux human rights organization known as the Islamic Human Rights Commission in organizing events such as Al Quds day at which public support is expressed for the Iranian proxy militia Hizbollah.
Advert for Friends of Al Aqsa sponsored event
Ismail Patel himself is a member of the red-green ‘Stop the War coalition’ and has represented that body at a Hizbollah conference. He is a spokesperson for the Muslim Brotherhood affiliated ‘British Muslim Initiative’, has been involved in the organization of the annual ‘Islam Expo’ hate-fest, is a member of ‘Conflicts Forum’ which advocates engaging with terrorists and was a passenger aboard the ‘Mavi Marmara’ which tried to break the Israeli naval blockade on Gaza last May. The voyage was co-sponsored by the Turkish organization the IHH which is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood’s ‘Union of Good’. Patel’s recommended reading list includes the work of Holocaust denier Roger Garaudy who does not believe that there was a Nazi plan to exterminate the Jews of Europe or that there were gas chambers.
One wonders if those attending last year’s conference on the subject of Holocaust Denial at Leicester University’s Centre for Holocaust Studies were aware that one of the associate members of that centre rubs shoulders with Islamist extremists who are not averse to a little denial of the Nazi Holocaust themselves and support both Hamas – with its genocidal charter – and the Iranian regime infamous for the Holocaust denial of its president.
One especially wonders whether the management of the Stanley Burton Centre for Holocaust Studies and Leicester University as a whole consider Dr Prestel’s extra-curricular associations appropriate under the circumstances and whether or not they have given any thought whatsoever to the fact that allowing people such as Ismail Patel to speak on their campus is precisely the sort of supine approach which is contributing to the spread of increasingly violent extremism in universities throughout the British Isles.
As people who study racial hatred as a profession, one would hope that they would be able to make that rather obvious connection.
Our post on Dec. 31 noted that Guardian columnist Rachel Shabi (an outspoken critic of Israel) is Facebook friends with a notorious anti-Semite (and Wikileak celebrity) by the name of Israel Shamir.
To recap our previous post, Shamir is an outspoken Holocaust denier, who has referred to Jews as “virus in human form,” and has claimed quite explicitly that Jews are indeed trying to take over the world.
Well, it turns out that Shabi’s Facebook friendship with Shamir is no fluke. We’ve learned, from a highly reliable source, that Shabi is also FB friends with the Hamas and Hezbollah-loving former MP, George Galloway.
But, that’s not all.
Shabi’s FB friend list also includes CiF columnist, and apologist for anti-Semitism, Ben White, and Moazzem Begg, the British Muslim (former inmate at Guantanamo and Amnesty International poster boy) who acknowledged attending al-Qaeda training camps and is a supporter of the Taliban.
Think about this. A Guardian columnist who writes about Israel is friends with virulent anti-Semites, an outspoken supporter of radical Islamist movements, and even one known former al Qaeda member.
Knowledge of the company Shabi keeps certainly places her gratuitous criticism of Israel in much better perspective.
Shabi’s comments in her Guardian piece on Jan. 23, 2009, The self-defence defence, speak volumes about the disdain she has for the nation the Guardian deems her fit to objectively cover:
“Most Israelis, in other words, seem to have convinced themselves that their own moral superiority somehow sanctions and justifies their own acts of moral repugnance.”
Yes, “morally repugnant” is certainly one term that comes to mind when meditating upon the views, and friendships, of Rachel Shabi.
Hawkeye
Omar2
WellofSense
Medusa
The Alchemist
Louise
Tosca
Maimon
Telling the Truth
Israelinurse
Adam Levick
Margie in Tel Aviv
Guest/Cross Post
Hadar Sela
Democracy deficits & moral deficits: The mindless anti-Zionism of CiF contributor Mark Weisbrot
January 31, 2012 in Uncategorized | Tags: anti-Zionism, Antisemitism, Arab Spring, Comment is Free, Delegitimization, Holocaust Denial, Marc Weisbrot, Terrorism | by Adam Levick | 16 comments
Weisbrot’s sophistication and erudition, when expounding upon the U.S war against sadistic Taliban terrorists, was on display in his previous CiF entry, where he thriftily and pithily summed up the US campaign as “soldiers pissing on corpses [and] drones slaughtering civilians”.
He characterized the U.S. war against terrorism more broadly as arguably indicative of “a crusade against the Muslim world” – agitprop which seems to slip off Weisbrot’s tongue with the ease of someone schooled in the Noam Chomsky school of tyranny apologetics.
And, as I noted previously, Weisbrot quite explicitly accused the U.S. of committing a “Holocaust” in Iraq, accusing critics of such a characterization as guilty of “Holocaust Denial”.
Naturally, as part of his broader anti-American ideological package, Weisbrot is necessarily as hostile to Israel as he is sympathetic to Arab despots.
Weisbrot – whose output of anti-Zionist and (mostly) anti-American vitriol, at Znet and CiF, is quite impressive – today published “Why American ‘democracy’ promotion rings hollow“, Jan. 31.
While the broader narrative, mocking American democracy promotion in the Arab world is itself a work of political sophistry worthy of scrutiny, the following passage about Israel is a much repeated, if banal, narrative within Guardian-Left circles, and represents yet another casual assault on the Jewish state’s legitimacy.
Write’s Weisbrot:
The notion that the Arab world, which continues to be defined by increasing intolerance towards religious and ethnic minorities, extreme antisemitism, and the denial of basic human rights – in stark contrast with Israel’s unique and enduring democratic prowess - possesses any moral credibility in denouncing the U.S. is a political inversion of the first order.
Arabs of Palestinian origin, whose rights are systematically denied throughout the (non-Jewish) Middle East, have become the propaganda tool of choice for far left ideologues such as Weisbrot – activists who similarly fail to mention the absence of such democratic values in Palestinian ruled territory.
The reason why Western liberals fear the upheavals in the Arab world is the increasingly clear slouch towards Islamist political movements which are, by definition, decidedly reactionary and illiberal, and at odds with true democratic values.
The romaticization of the Arab Spring, the edifice of a “democratic” revolution, is becoming increasingly difficult for those who claim intellectual integrity to maintain.
The Muslim Brotherhood and Salafists in Egypt, the Enhada Party in Tunisia, or major parties vying for power in Libya, can largely be defined (or may likely, one day, be defined) by a greater adherence to (in spirit or letter) Sharia law, and an atavistic, ideological antisemitism which bears little if any connection to the plight of the Palestinians.
As a report on antisemitism in the Arab world in the context of the ‘Arab Spring”, written by scholars at the Kantor Center for the Study of Contemporary European Jewry at Tel Aviv University, noted:
Of course, the continuing Arab antipathy towards Jews is not at all surprising to those who study the politics of the region, and the habitual denial of this endemic Judeophobic dynamic by Guardian reporters and commentators is documented continually on the pages of this blog.
But the mere ubiquity of voices like Weisbrot, at ‘Comment is Free’, who are willfully blind to the most malign anti-Jewish racism, makes it no less deserving of critical scrutiny, nor, especially, any less morally repugnant.
Related articles
Share this: