Perhaps, dear readers, you should think twice about forming your views based on what Byrnzie says given where Byrnzie's views are formed.
You still haven't answered my question. I asked you why you repeated that attack on Michael Neumann that I've already rubbished in this very same thread?
It is bad enough that Counterpunch, in the name of defending human rights, would publish such patently false charges as true. It is outrageous that they would present the anti-Semitism of the middle ages as a progressive response to the Jewish people, whom they portray as intrinsically reactionary and criminal. In doing this, Counterpunch has turned the definitions of "progressive" and "reactionary" on their heads. In fact, they have completely turned logic on its head. What will they support next? The Spanish Inquisition?
NOTE: Counterpunch is publishing other articles supporting the spurious charges from Aftonbladet. One, entitled "Israeli Bodysnatchers", was authored by Bouthaina Shaaban, chief spokesperson for President Assad of Syria and a former Syrian "Minister of Expatriates". Shaaban describes herself as "a Nobel Peace Prize nominee". (I love when people claim that as a credential. Literally anyone can be nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize, so those who cite it as an honor always do so fraudulently.) In addition to repeating the absurd organ trafficking charges, her article also baselessly blames Israel for the assassination of Swedish Foreign Minister Anna Lindh.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
I'll also note that I brought all of this up before. In fact, B, I know that you are aware of all of this stuff because you were diligent enough to go find the article that explains CounterPunch's antisemitism where I found all of the above links. Your response, which appears earlier in this thread, was to dismiss all of this because the article was published by algemeiner.com, which you described as a "pro-Jewish" website (I've already said it, but I'll say it again, interesting choice of words). You made no effort to engage with the accusations, all of which were accompanied by extensive links. You simply ignored the fact that Counterpunch deals in anti-semitism, launched an ad hominem attack against the "pro-Jewish" website that would dare point such a thing out, and have gone straight back to relying on Counterpunch for your opinions and feeding their offerings to the good readers of this thread.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
And again, Counterpunch has repeatedly run articles by prolific anti-Semite, Gilad Atzmon. Briefly, Atzmon has questioned whether the Holocaust occurred, while simultaneously arguing that, if Hitler’s genocide did occur, it can partly be explained by Jews’ villainous behavior. Atzmon also explicitly charged that Jews are indeed trying to take over the world, and has endorsed the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, arguing about the document that “it is impossible to ignore its prophetic qualities and its capacity to describe” later Jewish behavior. You can see for yourself as follows: http://www.counterpunch.org/2003/08/28/the-most-common-mistakes-of-israelis/ http://dissidentvoice.org/2010/02/dreyfus-the-protocols-and-goldstone/
Your desperation is truly pathetic Yosi. Instead of simply labeling the author of that article an anti-Semite and hoping it will stick, why don't you pick some actual quotations from it and then explain to us how they're false and/or anti-Semitic? I.e, did the Zionists not collaborate with the Nazis to some degree during WWII? This is not the first time I've heard it. Did they or didn't they?
Either way, I can't see any clear evidence of anti-Semitism in that article. Not that that would be of any interest to you of course. Just the fact that he criticizes Israel makes him an anti-Semite, right?
Here's what some notable people had to say about his 2011 book 'The Wandering Who? A Study of Jewish Identity Politics':
'John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago wrote that "Gilad Atzmon has written a fascinating and provocative book on Jewish identity in the modern world" and that the book "should be widely read by Jews and non-Jews alike." Richard Falk wrote it was "absorbing and moving" book that everyone who "care[s] about real peace" should "not only read, but reflect upon and discuss widely." James Petras wrote that the book is "a series of brilliant illuminations and critical reflections on Jewish ethnocentrism and the hypocrisy of those who speak in the name of universal values and act tribal" which "uncovers the links between Jewish identity politics in the Diaspora with their ardent support for the oppressive policies of the Israeli state." He also wrote that Atzmon “has the courage to...speak truth to the power of highly placed and affluent Zionists who shape the agendas of war and peace in the English-speaking world."
I'll also note that I brought all of this up before. In fact, B, I know that you are aware of all of this stuff because you were diligent enough to go find the article that explains CounterPunch's antisemitism where I found all of the above links. Your response, which appears earlier in this thread, was to dismiss all of this because the article was published by algemeiner.com, which you described as a "pro-Jewish" website (I've already said it, but I'll say it again, interesting choice of words). You made no effort to engage with the accusations, all of which were accompanied by extensive links. You simply ignored the fact that Counterpunch deals in anti-semitism, launched an ad hominem attack against the "pro-Jewish" website that would dare point such a thing out, and have gone straight back to relying on Counterpunch for your opinions and feeding their offerings to the good readers of this thread.
You still haven't answered my question: Why have you repeated the attack on Michael Neumann that I've already rubbished in this very same thread?
Let's be perfectly honest here Yosi: You will do everything you can to defend Israel's crimes, and use every slippery trick in the book to do so. And when things don't go your way you will predictably reach for the anti-Semitism card and play it on cue. Your persistent efforts in trying to deflect attention from the abuse and suffering inflicted on the Palestinians is ample evidence that you regard these people as superfluous, and their oppression by the Israeli's as an irrelevance. Like most of Israel's leaders down the years you regard the Palestinians as inferior beings, who are no better than dogs. "You [Palestinians] shall continue to live like dogs, and whoever wishes may leave, and we will see where this process leads." – Moshe Dayan .
And your desperation to try and paint me as an anti-Semite is truly pathetic and utterly shameless.
So, let's for arguments sake take your word for it that Counterpunch is run by anti-Semites - because it happens to publish articles by authors that criticize Israel, and because it published an article dealing with organ theft from dead Palestinians.
The same topic was also addressed in articles published by CNN, ABC, Al Jazeera, The Huffington Post, Global Research, and the Guardian, e.t.c.
Are they all run by anti-Semites too? Or is just Counterpunch run by anti-Semites?
What is shameless is that when it is pointed out that you are posting articles from a shamelessly antisemitic website you fly into a rage attempting to defend out-and-out anti-semites. You seriously just defended Gilad Atzmon! Mearsheimer was taken to the woodshed for that book blurb by every respectable person on earth and almost immediately tried to walk the blurb back (which of course you make no mention of). Seriously, do you know the first thing about Gilad Atzmon?
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
What is shameless is that when it is pointed out that you are posting articles from a shamelessly antisemitic website you fly into a rage attempting to defend out-and-out anti-semites. You seriously just defended Gilad Atzmon! Mearsheimer was taken to the woodshed for that book blurb by every respectable person on earth and almost immediately tried to walk the blurb back (which of course you make no mention of). Seriously, do you know the first thing about Gilad Atzmon?
You say it's an anti-Semitic website. I say bullshit. You're just reaching, because you have nothing else up your sleeve.
Why did you repeat that bullshit attack on Michael Neumann that Michael Neumann already publicly rebuked, and which I've already rubbished in this thread? Were you hoping that somebody might read it and take it seriously?
Even your friends disagree with you. From the Wikipedia article on Gilad Atzmon: In March 2012, a group of leading Palestinian activists issued a statement calling for "the disavowal of Atzmon by fellow Palestinian organizers, as well as Palestine solidarity activists, and allies of the Palestinian people". Describing him as a racist and antisemite, the statement affirmed that "we regard any attempt to link and adopt antisemitic or racist language, even if it is within a self-described anti-imperialist and anti-Zionist politics, as reaffirming and legitimizing Zionism." Signatories to the statement included Ali Abunimah, Naseer Aruri, Omar Barghouti, Nadia Hijab, Joseph Massad and several others.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
So basically, either you have just thrown your support behind a straight-up antisemite or you are so intellectually careless that you threw your support behind one without even bothering to know the first thing about who you were supporting. Either way, no one should take you seriously.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
None of that proves that what he said is false. Instead of simply telling us that he's a holocaust denier, and that that he's an anti-Semite, why don't you provide some proof? What specifically did he say that warrants those descriptions? Or is that not relevant? Are we supposed to simply take your word for it?
So basically, either you have just thrown your support behind a straight-up antisemite or you are so intellectually careless that you threw your support behind one without even bothering to know the first thing about who you were supporting. Either way, no one should take you seriously.
Typical Yosi, twisting things in order to try and win a debate.
Show me where I threw my support behind him.
You must think you're talking to a five year old, or that five year olds will read this thread and be won over to your cause.
And considering you refuse to answer my question re: Michael Neumann, I'll repost what he himself said regrading the bullshit attack upon him. (By the way, this was put to bed many years ago now, so it's telling that you're still obediently rehashing this redundant IDF.com Hasbara talking point):
Michael Neumann clarified exactly what he intended by the above statement, published without his permission by 'Jewish Tribal Review' who Neumann regards as anti-Semitic:
'I will not self-censor my writings because they may be misused by antisemites, and it is only in this very particular and limited sense that I 'don't care' about encouraging antisemitism. Antisemites misuse all sorts of materials, including the statements of committed Zionists and of Mahatma Gandhi. It would be futile and impossible for me to tailor my writings to avoid such misuse.'
'...let me begin with the greatest absurdity, the claim that I am antisemitic. In rejecting this claim I do not hide behind my Jewishness; there may have been, on rare occasions, Jewish antisemites. But there is nothing even close to antisemitism in my opinions.
Take the material that has caused the most outrage, a private email correspondence allegedly reproduced on the Jewish Tribal Review site. I have never denied that such a correspondence occurred, but only said the truth: that the site is not to be trusted, and that, lacking the original emails, I cannot vouch for its accuracy. I am distressed that the CJC has made so much of the material, not because it embarrasses me, but because it legitimates a truly poisonous, truly antisemitic site. I will comment on the material as if it were accurate, because that is the only way I can refute the claims made on its basis. However at the same time I repudiate that material. No one has disputed that it was published, not only without my consent, but against my express wishes.
What is almost comical about the use of the Jewish Tribal Review material is its context. The correspondence exists only because I published an article called "Blame Yourself: American Power and Jewish Power". This article is entirely devoted to attacking the myth that Jews control America: I believe and hope it to be one of the most systematic and effective attacks on that myth published to date.
As a result of its publication, I received a good deal of hate mail. One message I kept, entitled "Neumann the Zionist", reads as follows:
"Neumann's Jewish stripes finally begin to show, as we all knew they would. The Jews commandeer American foreign policy and make it do their dirty work, then send their mole Neumann to tell the goyim that its all their fault. How utterly predictable. You, Chomsky, Bennis, you're all the same. Go pick up your paycheck from the ADL. Show me a Jew who criticizes Israel and I'll show you a Zionist who hasn't had his coming out party yet. You just had yours."
The Jewish Tribal Review is much more polite, but it was precisely their unhappiness with my contentions that provoked the email exchange.
In this exchange, two sentences have been quoted entirely out of context: it strains my conciliatory intentions to believe that the quoting was done in good faith. Both occur in the following passage:
"My sole concern is indeed to help the Palestinians, and I try to play for keeps. I am not interested in the truth, or justice, or understanding, or anything else, except so far as it serves that purpose. This means, among other things, that if talking about Jewish power doesn't fit my strategy, I won't talk about it. If an effective strategy means that some truths about the Jews don't come to light, I don't care. If an effective strategy means encouraging reasonable anti-Semitism, or reasonable hostility to Jews, I also don't care. If it means encouraging vicious, racist anti-Semitism, or the destruction of the state of Israel, I still don't care."
...I am the first to admit, and regret, the disturbing and intemperate language of the paragraph, but in context its meaning is not alarming. My correspondent has reproached me for showing no interest in further investigations into Jewish power. Having failed to demonstrate that Jews control America, he nevertheless wants me to endorse open-ended, unsystematic investigations into Jewish ownership. He wants me, that is, to help him dig up dirt on the Jews, in the guise of pursuing The Truth.
In this context, it could hardly be clearer that my reply concerns my political writing, not my academic work. My political writing has a political, not an academic purpose; it is to help the Palestinians. For reasons detailed in the "Jewish power' article under discussion, I believe that the myth of Jewish control of America - an antisemitic myth - harms and discredits the Palestinian cause. So I say that, even if it is true that Jews own this or that or the other thing, I am not *interested* in such truths.
My correspondent takes this, in mock horror, as some admission that I habitually twist the truth to suit my political objectives; I regret to say that the CJC happily embraces this interpretation. But my statement means what it literally says: that I am not *interested*, as I write on behalf of the Palestinians, in irrelevant truths, truths that don't further the Palestinian cause. It does not mean that I am out to conceal or twist truths. It does mean - which is what I am saying - that I am not about t o climb on board in search of Jewish power when that project has nothing to do with the welfare of the Palestinians. Later on I make clear that, in general, I do believe that political objectives may trump the obligation to be truthful, but go on to say that almost everyone believes this. Lies were used to hide Jews from Hitler, and indeed at times to defeat him; it is childish to believe that, in politics, one must always be truthful. But I have never seen any occasion to bend the truth on behalf of the Palestinians, and I take great care for the factual accuracy of my claims.
What then of the statement: "If it means encouraging vicious, racist anti-Semitism, or the destruction of the state of Israel, I still don't care"?
In the first place, as the preceding statements make clear, I am stressing the importance of the Palestinian cause by considering extreme possibilities. I first say that "if talking about Jewish power doesn't fit my strategy, I won't talk about it." In other words, I first say that I will not uncover truths detrimental to the Jewish people if that doesn't help the Palestinians. This hardly sounds like the project of an antisemite.
In the second place, the statement is neither antisemitic, nor does it encourage antisemitism. It raises a remote possibility, and says that, should what I do - my writing - encourage antisemitism, that will not deter me. As I said in my letter to the National Post: "I will not self-censor my writings because they may be misused by antisemites, and it is only in this very particular and limited sense that I 'don't care' about encouraging antisemitism. Antisemites misuse all sorts of materials, including the statements of committed Zionists and of Mahatma Gandhi. It would be futile and impossible for me to tailor my writings to avoid such misuse." The notion that I would even contemplate deliberately cultivating antisemitism is absurd, not only because my family has been decimated by (Nazi) antisemites, but also because I have argued, at length, that Zionists manipulate antisemitism to their own purposes. (The Israeli commentator Ran HaCohen, in http://www.antiwar.com/hacohen/h-col.html, is of much the same opinion.)
Finally, the import of the passage can be understood by making a substitution in some of it. Suppose a committed defender of Israel had said:
"My sole concern is indeed to defend Israel, and I try to play for keeps. I am not interested in the truth, or justice, or understanding, or anything else, except so far as it serves that purpose. This means, among other things, that if talking about Jewish power doesn't fit my strategy, I won't talk about it. If an effective strategy means that some truths about the Jews don't come to light, I don't care. If an effective strategy means encouraging reasonable anti-Semitism, or reasonable hostility to Jews, I also don't care. If it means encouraging vicious, racist anti-Semitism, I still don't care."
Of course I have left out the part about the destruction of the Israeli state, but that cannot be considered an antisemitic comment. It should now be clear that a willingness to tolerate these extreme consequences is neither antisemitism nor encouragement to antisemitism. Indeed the noted Israeli dove, Uri Avnery, has accused Zionists of exactly the same refusal to be deterred by antisemitic reactions: see his essay, "Manufacturing Antisemites". Like me, Zionists certainly care about the reactions - they won't just let such reactions stand in their way...
The notion that I am antisemitic or racist becomes even more absurd in the light of my repeated claims that Israeli crimes endanger and discredit the Jewish people - not because Israeli crimes ought to be blamed on all Jews, but because they are committed in the name of all Jews. (Many Jews object to this: hence the dissident Jewish organization called "Not In My Name".) Why would an antisemite care about this? Why have these repeated assertions, readily available to the CJC, never made it into their polemics?
...This is not to deny that my criticism of Israel is savage; I do indeed call Israel "an emerging evil". But I have no hatred of Israel, pathological or otherwise. Israel is an abstraction; to hate it would be foolish. Like all nations it contains wonderful and awful people; it is far too complex and heterogenous to hate.'
More from the wiki article on Atzmon, Byrnzie's new hero:
John Lewis writes that some Palestinian activists see Atzmon's "anti-Jewish" rhetoric as "discrediting their cause".[4] Andy Newman also described his writing as "anti-Jewish hate-speech".[72] The British Socialist Workers Party, which at one time regularly invited him to their annual Marxism event, now distances itself from Atzmon.[4]
Several of Atzmon's statements regarding Jews and Judaism have led to allegations of antisemitism. In 2004 the Board of Deputies of British Jews criticized Atzmon for saying, "I'm not going to say whether it is right or not to burn down a synagogue, I can see that it is a rational act."
In a 2005 piece David Aaronovitch criticized Atzmon for writing in his essay "On Anti-Semitism"[75] that "We must begin to take the accusation that the Jewish people are trying to control the world very seriously" and "American Jewry makes any debate on whether the 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion' are an authentic document or rather a forged irrelevant. American Jews do control the world, by proxy. So far they are doing pretty well for themselves at least"; Aaronovitch said Atzmon was "a silly boy advancing slightly dangerous arguments."[76] Aaronovitch also criticized Atzmon for circulating an essay by Paul Eisen defending Holocaust denier Ernst Zündel and supporting many aspects of Zündel's Holocaust denial theories.
In a 2006 piece in The Guardian, David Hirsh cited Atzmon's "On Anti-Semitism" essay, and particularly its Jewish deicide claim that "the Jews were responsible for the killing of Jesus," as an example of Atzmon's "openly anti-Jewish rhetoric."
Nick Cohen, in a 2009 piece for The Observer, criticised Atzmon's declaration that "Jewish ideology is driving our planet into a catastrophe" and "the Jewish tribal mindset – left, centre and right – sets Jews aside of humanity".[81][82] In his blog for The Times, Oliver Kamm charges Atzmon with antisemitism for his article "Truth, History and Integrity",[83] in which Atzmon writes, "As it happened, it took me many years to understand that the Holocaust, the core belief of the contemporary Jewish faith, was not at all an historical narrative for historical narratives do not need the protection of the law and politicians. . . . It took me years to accept that the Holocaust narrative, in its current form, doesn’t make any historical sense."
According to Irish academic David Landy, a former chair of the Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign, Atzmon's words, "if not actually anti-Semitic, certainly border on it".[85] Ynetnews has used Atzmon as an example of Jewish anti-Semitism: "Gilad Atzmon, an Israeli jazz musician, defines himself as anti-Jewish and sees the torching of synagogues as a rational move."
In September 2011 trade unionist and blogger Andy Newman[88] wrote in The Guardian that Atzmon's political writing are "a wild conspiracy argument, dripping with contempt for Jews"
The Community Security Trust report on antisemitic discourse in the UK in the year 2011, published in November 2012, describes Atzmon as increasingly regarded among anti-Zionists as an unwelcome antisemite:
Atzmon's analysis of Jewish history, identity and culture introduces an unusually explicit and quite new antisemitism into far left-wing politics. Leading Jewish anti-Zionist figures have denounced Atzmon as an antisemite. Most anti-Zionists have followed suit and now also condemn Atzmon, but some factional splits have occurred due to a minority of activists defending him.[97]
In Rewriting History: Holocaust Revisionism Today, a book-length assessment of the Holocaust denial movement published in December 2012 by Hope not Hate, Atzmon is listed among the "Who's who of Holocaust Revisionism":
For some time left-wing anti-Zionists defended Atzmon’s views, but since he embraced Holocaust Revisionism, publicised the work of outright Holocaust deniers and came out with other irrefutably antisemitic comments, his support base on the anti-Zionist left has waned. Nevertheless, there are still some left activists and academics who are prepared to defend him in spite of the evidence and have praised The Wandering Who?[98]
In the book's foreword, Nick Lowles writes: "Despite being Jewish himself, Atzmon has promoted Holocaust deniers and claims that the established history of the Holocaust is misleading. He attacks Jewish identity in a way that would clearly be recognised as racist if it were about any other minority identity and claims that people might think that Hitler was right about the Jews because of their behaviour today. He tells crude antisemitic jokes and mocks any concerns about antisemitism."
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Byrnzie: "Oh that guy that says that Jews killed Jesus and that the Holocaust isn't historical fact and that Jews run the world and are outside the bounds of humanity and that it's rational to burn down synagogues, that guy's not an antisemite, he's just criticizing Israel! You're just playing the antisemitism card to stifle dissent!"
It's actually kind of sad and pathetic how blatant your bullshit is now that you've stumbled into this one.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
More from the wiki article on Atzmon, Byrnzie's new hero:
Hilarious. Yosi produces an article by this writer that was published in Counterpunch. The article itself then becomes sidelined by Yosi when asked to provide evidence that by publishing it Counterpunch can be accused of anti-Semitism. Instead Yosi posts a bunch of quotes from other people criticizing Atzmon and accusing him of anti-Semitism. And because I had the nerve to question Yosi's accusation that Counterpunch is anti-Semitic, this Atzmon is apparently my 'new hero'.
Byrnzie: "Oh that guy that says that Jews killed Jesus and that the Holocaust isn't historical fact and that Jews run the world and are outside the bounds of humanity and that it's rational to burn down synagogues, that guy's not an antisemite, he's just criticizing Israel! You're just playing the antisemitism card to stifle dissent!"
It's actually kind of sad and pathetic how blatant your bullshit is now that you've stumbled into this one.
My bullshit? I tell you what's bullshit: Placing those quotation marks around that invented piece of gibberish you just posted and claiming that that's what I said. You should be fucking banned for that.
And again, Counterpunch has repeatedly run articles by prolific anti-Semite, Gilad Atzmon. Briefly, Atzmon has questioned whether the Holocaust occurred, while simultaneously arguing that, if Hitler’s genocide did occur, it can partly be explained by Jews’ villainous behavior. Atzmon also explicitly charged that Jews are indeed trying to take over the world, and has endorsed the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, arguing about the document that “it is impossible to ignore its prophetic qualities and its capacity to describe” later Jewish behavior. You can see for yourself as follows: http://www.counterpunch.org/2003/08/28/the-most-common-mistakes-of-israelis/ http://dissidentvoice.org/2010/02/dreyfus-the-protocols-and-goldstone/
Your desperation is truly pathetic Yosi. Instead of simply labeling the author of that article an anti-Semite and hoping it will stick, why don't you pick some actual quotations from it and then explain to us how they're false and/or anti-Semitic? I.e, did the Zionists not collaborate with the Nazis to some degree during WWII? This is not the first time I've heard it. Did they or didn't they?
Either way, I can't see any clear evidence of anti-Semitism in that article. Not that that would be of any interest to you of course. Just the fact that he criticizes Israel makes him an anti-Semite, right?
Here's what some notable people had to say about his 2011 book 'The Wandering Who? A Study of Jewish Identity Politics':
'John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago wrote that "Gilad Atzmon has written a fascinating and provocative book on Jewish identity in the modern world" and that the book "should be widely read by Jews and non-Jews alike." Richard Falk wrote it was "absorbing and moving" book that everyone who "care[s] about real peace" should "not only read, but reflect upon and discuss widely." James Petras wrote that the book is "a series of brilliant illuminations and critical reflections on Jewish ethnocentrism and the hypocrisy of those who speak in the name of universal values and act tribal" which "uncovers the links between Jewish identity politics in the Diaspora with their ardent support for the oppressive policies of the Israeli state." He also wrote that Atzmon “has the courage to...speak truth to the power of highly placed and affluent Zionists who shape the agendas of war and peace in the English-speaking world."
Yep, sounds like Goebbels himself.
So this isn't you attempting to defend Gilad Atzmon? Funny, I thought it was.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Seriously Yosi, take your lame accusations of anti-Semitism, your desperate attempts to defend Israel's racism and oppression of an entire people, and your slippery lawyers-tactics and outright lies, and try spinning this bullshit on somebody more gullible instead.
More from the wiki article on Atzmon, Byrnzie's new hero:
Hilarious. Yosi produces an article by this writer that was published in Counterpunch. The article itself then becomes sidelined by Yosi when asked to provide evidence that by publishing it Counterpunch can be accused of anti-Semitism. Instead Yosi posts a bunch of quotes from other people criticizing Atzmon and accusing him of anti-Semitism. And because I had the nerve to question Yosi's accusation that Counterpunch is anti-Semitic, this Atzmon is apparently my 'new hero'.
You're really showing your true colours Yosi.
Gilad Atzmon is a reknowned antisemite. Gilad Atzmon is a regular contributor to Counterpunch. Are we not to assume that Counterpunch stands behind the authors they publish? Plus, you know, there's all the other non-Atzmon evidence against them.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Byrnzie: "Oh that guy that says that Jews killed Jesus and that the Holocaust isn't historical fact and that Jews run the world and are outside the bounds of humanity and that it's rational to burn down synagogues, that guy's not an antisemite, he's just criticizing Israel! You're just playing the antisemitism card to stifle dissent!"
It's actually kind of sad and pathetic how blatant your bullshit is now that you've stumbled into this one.
My bullshit? I tell you what's bullshit: Placing those quotation marks around that invented piece of gibberish you just posted and claiming that that's what I said. You should be fucking banned for that.
I didn't say that you said that. It's an imitation. I thought that was obvious.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Comments
Global Research.com: http://www.globalresearch.ca/israel-agrees-to-return-stolen-organs-of-dead-palestinians/5358247
And the Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/israel-organ-harvesting/
And CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/12/21/israel.organs/
And ABC: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2009-12-22/israel-admits-organ-harvesting/1187094
And here's another article from Haaretz: http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/.premium-1.530848
http://community.pearljam.com/discussion/194387/jewish-settler-attacks-terrorist-incidents/p11
From the end of the article:
It is bad enough that Counterpunch, in the name of defending human rights, would publish such patently false charges as true. It is outrageous that they would present the anti-Semitism of the middle ages as a progressive response to the Jewish people, whom they portray as intrinsically reactionary and criminal. In doing this, Counterpunch has turned the definitions of "progressive" and "reactionary" on their heads. In fact, they have completely turned logic on its head. What will they support next? The Spanish Inquisition?
NOTE: Counterpunch is publishing other articles supporting the spurious charges from Aftonbladet. One, entitled "Israeli Bodysnatchers", was authored by Bouthaina Shaaban, chief spokesperson for President Assad of Syria and a former Syrian "Minister of Expatriates". Shaaban describes herself as "a Nobel Peace Prize nominee". (I love when people claim that as a credential. Literally anyone can be nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize, so those who cite it as an honor always do so fraudulently.) In addition to repeating the absurd organ trafficking charges, her article also baselessly blames Israel for the assassination of Swedish Foreign Minister Anna Lindh.
Either way, I can't see any clear evidence of anti-Semitism in that article. Not that that would be of any interest to you of course. Just the fact that he criticizes Israel makes him an anti-Semite, right?
Here's what some notable people had to say about his 2011 book 'The Wandering Who? A Study of Jewish Identity Politics':
'John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago wrote that "Gilad Atzmon has written a fascinating and provocative book on Jewish identity in the modern world" and that the book "should be widely read by Jews and non-Jews alike." Richard Falk wrote it was "absorbing and moving" book that everyone who "care[s] about real peace" should "not only read, but reflect upon and discuss widely." James Petras wrote that the book is "a series of brilliant illuminations and critical reflections on Jewish ethnocentrism and the hypocrisy of those who speak in the name of universal values and act tribal" which "uncovers the links between Jewish identity politics in the Diaspora with their ardent support for the oppressive policies of the Israeli state." He also wrote that Atzmon “has the courage to...speak truth to the power of highly placed and affluent Zionists who shape the agendas of war and peace in the English-speaking world."
Yep, sounds like Goebbels himself.
You link you posted is a link to this thread.
"You [Palestinians] shall continue to live like dogs, and whoever wishes may leave, and we will see where this process leads." – Moshe Dayan .
And your desperation to try and paint me as an anti-Semite is truly pathetic and utterly shameless.
http://adamholland.blogspot.co.il/2009/09/blood-libel-promoted-by-counterpunch.html
The same topic was also addressed in articles published by CNN, ABC, Al Jazeera, The Huffington Post, Global Research, and the Guardian, e.t.c.
Are they all run by anti-Semites too? Or is just Counterpunch run by anti-Semites?
In March 2012, a group of leading Palestinian activists issued a statement calling for "the disavowal of Atzmon by fellow Palestinian organizers, as well as Palestine solidarity activists, and allies of the Palestinian people". Describing him as a racist and antisemite, the statement affirmed that "we regard any attempt to link and adopt antisemitic or racist language, even if it is within a self-described anti-imperialist and anti-Zionist politics, as reaffirming and legitimizing Zionism." Signatories to the statement included Ali Abunimah, Naseer Aruri, Omar Barghouti, Nadia Hijab, Joseph Massad and several others.
Show me where I threw my support behind him.
You must think you're talking to a five year old, or that five year olds will read this thread and be won over to your cause.
Michael Neumann clarified exactly what he intended by the above statement, published without his permission by 'Jewish Tribal Review' who Neumann regards as anti-Semitic:
'I will not self-censor my writings because they may be misused by antisemites, and it is only in this very particular and limited sense that I 'don't care' about encouraging antisemitism. Antisemites misuse all sorts of materials, including the statements of committed Zionists and of Mahatma Gandhi. It would be futile and impossible for me to tailor my writings to avoid such misuse.'
..and in more detail here: http://mneumann.tripod.com/cjctripo.txt
'...let me begin with the greatest absurdity, the claim that I am antisemitic. In rejecting this claim I do not hide behind my Jewishness; there may have been, on rare occasions, Jewish antisemites. But there is nothing even close to antisemitism in my opinions.
Take the material that has caused the most outrage, a private email correspondence allegedly reproduced on the Jewish Tribal Review site. I have never denied that such a correspondence occurred, but only said the truth: that the site is not to be trusted, and that, lacking the original emails, I cannot vouch for its accuracy. I am distressed that the CJC has made so much of the material, not because it embarrasses me, but because it legitimates a truly poisonous, truly antisemitic site. I will comment on the material as if it were accurate, because that is the only way I can refute the claims made on its basis. However at the same time I repudiate that material. No one has disputed that it was published, not only without my consent, but against my express wishes.
What is almost comical about the use of the Jewish Tribal Review material is its context. The correspondence exists only because I published an article called "Blame Yourself: American Power and Jewish Power". This article is entirely devoted to attacking the myth that Jews control America: I believe and hope it to be one of the most systematic and effective attacks on that myth published to date.
As a result of its publication, I received a good deal of hate mail. One message I kept, entitled "Neumann the Zionist", reads as follows:
"Neumann's Jewish stripes finally begin to show, as we all knew they would. The Jews commandeer American foreign policy and make it do their dirty work, then send their mole Neumann to tell the goyim that its all their fault. How utterly predictable. You, Chomsky, Bennis, you're all the same. Go pick up your paycheck from the ADL. Show me a Jew who criticizes Israel and I'll show you a Zionist who hasn't had his coming out party yet. You just had yours."
The Jewish Tribal Review is much more polite, but it was precisely their unhappiness with my contentions that provoked the email exchange.
In this exchange, two sentences have been quoted entirely out of context: it strains my conciliatory intentions to believe that the quoting was done in good faith. Both occur in the following passage:
"My sole concern is indeed to help the Palestinians, and I try to play for keeps. I am not interested in the truth, or justice, or understanding, or anything else, except so far as it serves that purpose. This means, among other things, that if talking about Jewish power doesn't fit my strategy, I won't talk about it. If an effective strategy means that some truths about the Jews don't come to light, I don't care. If an effective strategy means encouraging reasonable anti-Semitism, or reasonable hostility to Jews, I also don't care. If it means encouraging vicious, racist anti-Semitism, or the destruction of the state of Israel, I still don't care."
...I am the first to admit, and regret, the disturbing and intemperate language of the paragraph, but in context its meaning is not alarming. My correspondent has reproached me for showing no interest in further investigations into Jewish power. Having failed to demonstrate that Jews control America, he nevertheless wants me to endorse open-ended, unsystematic investigations into Jewish ownership. He wants me, that is, to help him dig up dirt on the Jews, in the guise of pursuing The Truth.
In this context, it could hardly be clearer that my reply concerns my political writing, not my academic work. My political writing has a political, not an academic purpose; it is to help the Palestinians. For reasons detailed in the "Jewish power' article under discussion, I believe that the myth of Jewish control of America - an antisemitic myth - harms and discredits the Palestinian cause. So I say that, even if it is true that Jews own this or that or the other thing, I am not *interested* in such truths.
My correspondent takes this, in mock horror, as some admission that I habitually twist the truth to suit my political objectives; I regret to say that the CJC happily embraces this interpretation.
But my statement means what it literally says: that I am not *interested*, as I write on behalf of the Palestinians, in irrelevant truths, truths that don't further the Palestinian cause.
It does not mean that I am out to conceal or twist truths. It does mean - which is what I am saying - that I am not about t o climb on board in search of Jewish power when that project has nothing to do with the welfare of the Palestinians. Later on I make clear that, in general, I do believe that political objectives may trump the obligation to be truthful, but go on to say that almost everyone believes this. Lies were used to hide Jews from Hitler, and indeed at times to defeat him; it is childish to believe that, in politics, one must always be truthful. But I have never seen any occasion to bend the truth on behalf of the Palestinians, and I take great care for the factual accuracy of my claims.
What then of the statement: "If it means encouraging vicious, racist anti-Semitism, or the destruction of the state of Israel, I still don't care"?
In the first place, as the preceding statements make clear, I am stressing the importance of the Palestinian cause by considering extreme possibilities. I first say that "if talking about Jewish power doesn't fit my strategy, I won't talk about it." In other words, I first say that I will not uncover truths detrimental to the Jewish people if that doesn't help the Palestinians. This hardly sounds like the project of an antisemite.
In the second place, the statement is neither antisemitic, nor does it encourage antisemitism. It raises a remote possibility, and says that, should what I do - my writing - encourage antisemitism, that will not deter me. As I said in my letter to the National Post: "I will not self-censor my writings because they may be misused by antisemites, and it is only in this very particular and limited sense that I 'don't care' about encouraging antisemitism. Antisemites misuse all sorts of materials, including the statements of committed Zionists and of Mahatma Gandhi. It would be futile and impossible for me to tailor my writings to avoid such misuse." The notion that I would even contemplate deliberately cultivating antisemitism is absurd, not only because my family has been decimated by (Nazi) antisemites, but also because I have argued, at length, that Zionists manipulate antisemitism to their own purposes.
(The Israeli commentator Ran HaCohen, in http://www.antiwar.com/hacohen/h-col.html, is of much the same
opinion.)
Finally, the import of the passage can be understood by making a substitution in some of it. Suppose a committed defender of Israel had said:
"My sole concern is indeed to defend Israel, and I try to play for keeps. I am not interested in the truth, or justice, or understanding, or anything else, except so far as it serves that purpose. This means, among other things, that if talking about Jewish power doesn't fit my strategy, I won't talk about it. If an effective strategy means that some truths about the Jews don't come to light, I don't care. If an effective strategy means encouraging reasonable anti-Semitism, or reasonable hostility to Jews, I also don't care. If it means encouraging vicious, racist anti-Semitism, I still don't care."
Of course I have left out the part about the destruction of the Israeli state, but that cannot be considered an antisemitic comment. It should now be clear that a willingness to tolerate these extreme consequences is neither antisemitism nor encouragement to antisemitism. Indeed the noted Israeli dove, Uri Avnery, has accused Zionists of exactly the same refusal to be deterred by antisemitic reactions: see his essay, "Manufacturing Antisemites". Like me, Zionists certainly care about the reactions - they won't just let such reactions stand in their way...
The notion that I am antisemitic or racist becomes even more absurd in the light of my repeated claims that Israeli crimes endanger and discredit the Jewish people - not because Israeli crimes ought to be blamed on all Jews, but because they are committed in the name of all Jews. (Many Jews object to this: hence the dissident Jewish organization called "Not In My Name".) Why would an antisemite care about this? Why have these repeated assertions, readily available to the CJC, never made it into their polemics?
...This is not to deny that my criticism of Israel is savage; I do indeed call Israel "an emerging evil". But I have no hatred of Israel, pathological or otherwise. Israel is an abstraction; to hate it would be foolish. Like all nations it contains wonderful and awful people; it is far too complex and heterogenous to hate.'
John Lewis writes that some Palestinian activists see Atzmon's "anti-Jewish" rhetoric as "discrediting their cause".[4] Andy Newman also described his writing as "anti-Jewish hate-speech".[72] The British Socialist Workers Party, which at one time regularly invited him to their annual Marxism event, now distances itself from Atzmon.[4]
Several of Atzmon's statements regarding Jews and Judaism have led to allegations of antisemitism. In 2004 the Board of Deputies of British Jews criticized Atzmon for saying, "I'm not going to say whether it is right or not to burn down a synagogue, I can see that it is a rational act."
In a 2005 piece David Aaronovitch criticized Atzmon for writing in his essay "On Anti-Semitism"[75] that "We must begin to take the accusation that the Jewish people are trying to control the world very seriously" and "American Jewry makes any debate on whether the 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion' are an authentic document or rather a forged irrelevant. American Jews do control the world, by proxy. So far they are doing pretty well for themselves at least"; Aaronovitch said Atzmon was "a silly boy advancing slightly dangerous arguments."[76] Aaronovitch also criticized Atzmon for circulating an essay by Paul Eisen defending Holocaust denier Ernst Zündel and supporting many aspects of Zündel's Holocaust denial theories.
In a 2006 piece in The Guardian, David Hirsh cited Atzmon's "On Anti-Semitism" essay, and particularly its Jewish deicide claim that "the Jews were responsible for the killing of Jesus," as an example of Atzmon's "openly anti-Jewish rhetoric."
Nick Cohen, in a 2009 piece for The Observer, criticised Atzmon's declaration that "Jewish ideology is driving our planet into a catastrophe" and "the Jewish tribal mindset – left, centre and right – sets Jews aside of humanity".[81][82] In his blog for The Times, Oliver Kamm charges Atzmon with antisemitism for his article "Truth, History and Integrity",[83] in which Atzmon writes, "As it happened, it took me many years to understand that the Holocaust, the core belief of the contemporary Jewish faith, was not at all an historical narrative for historical narratives do not need the protection of the law and politicians. . . . It took me years to accept that the Holocaust narrative, in its current form, doesn’t make any historical sense."
According to Irish academic David Landy, a former chair of the Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign, Atzmon's words, "if not actually anti-Semitic, certainly border on it".[85] Ynetnews has used Atzmon as an example of Jewish anti-Semitism: "Gilad Atzmon, an Israeli jazz musician, defines himself as anti-Jewish and sees the torching of synagogues as a rational move."
In September 2011 trade unionist and blogger Andy Newman[88] wrote in The Guardian that Atzmon's political writing are "a wild conspiracy argument, dripping with contempt for Jews"
The Community Security Trust report on antisemitic discourse in the UK in the year 2011, published in November 2012, describes Atzmon as increasingly regarded among anti-Zionists as an unwelcome antisemite:
Atzmon's analysis of Jewish history, identity and culture introduces an unusually explicit and quite new antisemitism into far left-wing politics. Leading Jewish anti-Zionist figures have denounced Atzmon as an antisemite. Most anti-Zionists have followed suit and now also condemn Atzmon, but some factional splits have occurred due to a minority of activists defending him.[97]
In Rewriting History: Holocaust Revisionism Today, a book-length assessment of the Holocaust denial movement published in December 2012 by Hope not Hate, Atzmon is listed among the "Who's who of Holocaust Revisionism":
For some time left-wing anti-Zionists defended Atzmon’s views, but since he embraced Holocaust Revisionism, publicised the work of outright Holocaust deniers and came out with other irrefutably antisemitic comments, his support base on the anti-Zionist left has waned. Nevertheless, there are still some left activists and academics who are prepared to defend him in spite of the evidence and have praised The Wandering Who?[98]
In the book's foreword, Nick Lowles writes: "Despite being Jewish himself, Atzmon has promoted Holocaust deniers and claims that the established history of the Holocaust is misleading. He attacks Jewish identity in a way that would clearly be recognised as racist if it were about any other minority identity and claims that people might think that Hitler was right about the Jews because of their behaviour today. He tells crude antisemitic jokes and mocks any concerns about antisemitism."
It's actually kind of sad and pathetic how blatant your bullshit is now that you've stumbled into this one.
And because I had the nerve to question Yosi's accusation that Counterpunch is anti-Semitic, this Atzmon is apparently my 'new hero'.
You're really showing your true colours Yosi.