Newsletter No 253

The historical revisionist movement would receive little notice outside academic circles were it not for its willingness to examine established versions of Jewish myth and history. For this reason, Zionist propaganda has done its utmost not only to discredit it but to silence it, resorting repeatedly to terrorist attacks internationally against scholars who have dared to question the facts of the so-called 'Jewish holocaust'.

In a reader's letter to The Barnes Review, a teacher wrote: 'It is so much fun to use your articles for a portion of history and geography lessons [in our schools]. This way, a large variety of opinion can tickle the imagination of children and allow them to think for themselves... By all means, continue to explore the fascinating history of mankind, wherever it may lead'.

The phrase 'wherever it may lead' is most significant here and what is most feared by the Zionist propaganda machine is that such explorations will lead to the TRUTH.

It has been said that: 'The truth will set you free'. Indeed, the truth is one weapon in the Palestinian war for freedom denied to the Zionists, and the search for and publication of the truth must be encouraged AT ALL COSTS. In this context, it is ironic to note that, in a legal action taken against an historical revisionist by the Zionists, when the scholar under attack proved that he had published nothing more than the truth, a judge declared that 'The Truth is no Defence'. And yet, Zionist influence has become so powerful that the international community, so quick to defend freedom of expression in other circumstances, was conspicuously silent in the face of this outrageous ruling.

There is a character in Western literature named Don Quixote who attacked a windmill under the mistaken impression that it was an enemy. It is not Don Quixote's misperceptions that have made him beloved, but rather his willingness to take on ANY challenge in his quest for justice. Is this not precisely what is at the core of the historical revisionist movement as well? History must not be confused with religion, and yet, apparently, there are certain areas where history and religion both must yield to fantasies promoted by the Zionists in their efforts to conceal past and perpetuate present and future crimes against humanity and the Palestinian people. The Zionists, who proclaim a 'right' to occupy the land of Palestine on the grounds of a 2,000 year old previous Occupation of the land, have managed, by virtue of the 'chosen people' and Jewish 'holocaust' myths, to curtail international scholarly investigations into the past, present and future. History always has been a curious mixture of fact, speculation and human perception, an account of events written usually by the winners, and one that has been recounted in such a way as to bolster the appearance of legitimacy of those in power. A famous example of the divergence between accepted history and fact in the West is the case of Richard III of England, portrayed by William Shakespeare as a murdering hunchback in the interests of promoting rather precarious Tudor claims to the throne of England. Astonishingly, this version of history prevailed, partly due to the literary brilliance of Shakespeare's writing, until the 20th century, when a combination of archaeological discoveries and scholarly research revealed a vastly different reality.

Whatever the facts or fictions with respect to the Jews in Europe during the Second World War, it is an indisputable fact that the Zionists have USED the 'Jewish holocaust' argument both as a sword and as a shield where their invasion and continuing occupation of Palestine is concerned. Another fact: the Zionist programme with respect to the invasion and occupation of Palestine had its beginnings in the 19th century, quite prior to the Second World War, and it is a FACT that the Zionists then embraced the concepts of racial purity and ethnic genocide that are attributed to the Nazis later in history and that they continue to do so, making their Occupation of the Palestinian homeland a racist apartheid state to rival that of White South Africa. Yet another fact: practical as well as intellectual research has shown that some of the so-called 'truths' about the Jewish holocaust during the Second World War are pure fiction. It is another fact that Jewish 'history' from 'biblical' times onwards is permeated with fictions and misinformation. History even at its best, is partly fact and partly opinion, interwoven with rumours and folktales and it is utterly incomprehensible to find ordinarily intelligent human beings refusing to investigate all claims made with respect to the 'Jewish holocaust' in order to come closer to a knowledge of what really happened. That, however, is the situation in the Western world today. Surely there is something wrong with this picture!

Any claims of a 'Jewish holocaust' of the Second World War should be subject to ordinary standards of evidence and proof. Moreover, there have been horrendous acts of genocide throughout history, and the attitude that somehow a Jewish holocaust would be more despicable and subject to different standards of proof than any other is arrogant and indefensible.

ANY Zionist propaganda, whether it pertains to the so-called 2,000 year old claim to Palestine or whether it demands Palestine as 'compensation' for the 'Jewish holocaust' must be countered, and the truth should be used as aggressively as possible in resistance to the Zionist Occupation of Palestine.

There can be no justification for ignoring or silencing legitimate academic research and theory with respect to the events of the Second World War. In ordinary situations, it is assumed that a habitual liar lies about everything. Why is it that the world accepts the Jewish version of the 'Jewish holocaust' without question when the Zionists have demonstrated a total and proven disregard for the truth in all other situations and circumstances?

Logic, reason and facts must never be subverted to political blackmail. The seed of Zionism that was planted at the end of the 19th century in Europe were carefully cultivated by the Zionists to blossom into the poisonous fruits of the Jewish holocaust myth as a tool with which to fight the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people to their homeland. There have been countless holocausts throughout the history of humanity. There is NOTHING special about the 'Jewish people' and therefore, could be nothing special about any 'Jewish holocaust', whatever the facts and fictions of that particular holocaust might be. The true crime here is the monstrous fashion in which Zionists have manipulated and twisted the suffering of some Jews in Europe during the Second World War into a vast propaganda machine. One need only read Zionist documents of the era in order to see how well the concept of a Jewish 'holocaust' suited the Zionist programme in Palestine. Furthermore, there is hard evidence that the Zionists themselves were allied with the Nazis in encouraging their own people to flee from Europe in their greed to take over the Palestinian homeland.

On 21 July 1933, the Zionist Federation of Germany wrote to the Nazi party: 'In the foundation of the new State, which has proclaimed the race principle, we wish to adopt our community to these new structures... Our recognition of the Jewish nationality allows us to establish clear and sincere relations with the German people and its national and racial realities. Precisely because we do not want to underestimate these fundamental principles, because we too are against mixed marriages and for the maintaining of the purity of the Jewish group... To attain its practical objectives, Zionism hopes that it will be able to collaborate with a government that is fundamentally hostile to the Jews...'

In 1938, the Zionist leader Ben Gurion declared that, 'If I knew it was possible to save all the children in Germany by taking them to England, and only half of the children by taking them to Eretz Israel, I would choose the second solution. For we must take into account not only the lives of these children but also the history of the people of Israel'. He stated moreover that: 'The Zionist's task is not to save the 'rest' of Israel which finds itself in Europe, but to save the land of Israel for the Jewish people'.

In the American Jewish Conference of 2 May 1948, Rabbi Klaussner stated: 'I am convinced people must be forced to go to Palestine... For them, an American dollar appears as the highest of goals. By the word 'force', I am suggesting a programme. It served for the evacuation of the Jews in Poland and in the history of the 'Exodus'... To apply this programme we must, instead of providing 'displaced persons' with comfort, create the greatest possible discomfort for them... At a second stage, a procedure calling upon the Haganah to harass the Jews.'

In Theodore Herzl's 'Diaries', in the late 19th century, he declared that: 'Anti-Semites will become our surest friends, anti-Semitic countries our allies.'

The old Roman maxim, 'Cui bono?' comes to mind. Who but the Zionists have benefited enormously from the tales of the 'Jewish holocaust'? Any independent research or study of the subject would be a threat to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.

The work done by historical revisionists in investigating the history of the Second World War in Europe is not the foundation of any arguments against the continuing existence of the Zionist entity in Palestine, but it does offer valuable support to the resistance movement against a vile Occupation that seeks to conceal its true nature under the shelter of the preposterous myth of the eternal 'Jewish victim'.

Looking at the history of the Jewish people in Europe and elsewhere, it is clear that it was the Jewish horror of 'assimilation' which lay at the very root of any anti-Jewish feeling and that, far from being victims, they occupied an enviable position compared to the poor.

In feudal Europe, this refusal to assimilate, coupled with the mobility and freedom of the Jews was in stark contrast to the serf who was chained virtually to the land on which he worked. The Jews, moreover, considering themselves 'one nation', with loyalty only to their own people, preferred moveable property to land as this kept their wealth fluid, easily transported from one nation to another.

Moreover, Jewish traffic in moveable goods, and their position as pawnbrokers in Europe, gave them considerable influence over governments and politics. It was Jewish wealth, incidentally, that helped to finance Richard I of England's despicable 'crusade' in Palestine.

Moreover, Jews tended to be literate in an era when the European Christian Church discouraged literacy outside of the clergy. Jews were employed as secret agents and spies by many European powers precisely because of their international connections, literacy and mobility.

As a people who refused to assimilate, who spoke a foreign language and who were literate, wealthy and mobile, they could not but foster natural resentment and hatred in the hearts of the native poor. This lead to occasional hostile responses, when native populations struck out at Jewish communities, visible embodiments of wealth and freedom, perceived as arrogant because of their 'ghetto' mentality, and hated for their willingness to engage in usury. In fact, for the poor and the desperate, the only relationship with Jews often would be as a supplicant dependent upon the mercy of a moneylender. Such relationships are not positive in nature. 'Anti-semitic' feelings often were simply a response to prevailing Jewish attitudes and that it was the Jewish insistence upon viewing themselves as superior and apart from the rest of humanity that is to blame for anti-Jewish acts in the course of history.

The tendency on the part of the Jews to engage in international commerce reached a peak in the 19th century when such families as the Rothschilds became a major influence in international politics. The infamous Balfour Declaration would never have been written had it not been for the financial power and political influence of English Jews. Throughout the 20^th century, Jewish influence grew in power through increasing control of international finance and the media. This is nothing more than a fact and yet, to state this is to invite instant accusations of 'anti-semiticism'.

Historical revisionists who dare to investigate the Jewish 'holocaust' immediately are accused of being anti-semitic as well. Despite the fact that the Jews are not the only semitic people and that Ashkhenazi Jews are not even Semites, although in typical fashion, Jewish propaganda has developed this fiction, ignoring the semitic nature of the Arab people, Jewish use of 'anti-semiticism' as a weapon is nothing new. The Zionist movement used the spectre of anti-semitism as a means of encouraging the emigration of Jews to Palestine. Zionist terrorist groups operating throughout the Arab world, particularly during the 1950s, committed acts of terrorism against their fellow Jews to generate an appearance of rampant 'anti-semiticism' in order to 'persuade' them to 'emigrate' to Palestine.

Moreover, if Jewish history in terms of Europe and the holocaust is beyond question, does it not follow logically that the official Jewish version of the history of Palestine should be beyond question as well? Why should one particular portion of the tale be accepted unconditionally but other parts be subject to ordinary standards of truth?

In view of the ongoing ethnic genocide against the Palestinian people and the blatant deceptions and denials by the Zionists in the face of concrete evidence, why is it so difficult for people to accept the concept that the Zionist art of deceit began in the 19th century and continued through the decades, and that so-called 'facts' about the Jewish holocaust are as false as their claims that they do not deliberately murder Palestinian civilians?

A few examples among hundreds: The world saw proof of the massacres of Sabra and Shatila and indeed, the guilt of Butcher Sharon was proclaimed in a Zionist court! The world saw a young boy who was cowering behind a rubbish bin with his father and begging for mercy shot in cold blood and yet the Zionists tried to deny this. The world saw hard evidence of the terrible massacre at Qana, and yet the Zionists denied it outright at first, until forced to acknowledge that it happened but that it was an accident! The world recently saw a young Palestinian stripped to his underclothing, handcuffed, prostrate on the ground, helpless for over half an hour before he was shot in the head at close range by a Zionist soldier after the Zionists attempted to claim that they shot a 'terrorist' who was resisting and who had been trying to detonate explosives. The world has seen evidence of the recent massacre in Jenin, evidence of mass graves and the brutal slaughter of civilians and yet the Zionists continue to deny that any of this took place.

If no such massacre took place, why is it that the Zionist entity refused to allow the media and the United Nations to examine the situation in Jenin? Look at the entire fabric of Zionist 'history' and you will find it to be a densely woven carpet of lies.

From the original lie of 'A land without a people for a people without a land' onwards, the entire invasion of Palestine by the Zionists is founded upon flagrant deceptions.

The struggle against Zion is not only a national struggle for the Palestinian people; it is a struggle against a philosophy of racial supremacy and imperialism. Any individual of strong moral fibre and integrity will not only deny the right of the Zionists to create a wholly Jewish homeland in Palestine but would resist the concept of the establishment of such a racially biased government anywhere in the world. Any one who believes in justice must quarrel with the whole concept of a State predicated upon membership in a group that has no basis in democracy, ordinary concepts of Statehood or even religion. The Ashkenazi and the Sephardic Jews are entirely different races; if one is to speak of the 'Semitic' people, this does not translate to 'Jews' but includes the Arab people. As for religion, many of the Jews in Palestine and worldwide are atheist, so it is not the religious affiliation that makes one a Jew. On what basis do some Palestinians support a 'Jewish homeland'? This has no foundation in land ownership or in political theory either. There is NO justification for the resurrection of an outdated, racist ideology that provides for an 'exclusively Jewish State' anywhere on this planet. There is no justification for the occupation of other peoples' land either. It goes against fundamental principles of human rights and democracy.

The issue of the 'Jewish holocaust' is NOT the primary concern of Palestinian and Arab resistance, and one should not become sidetracked into devoting ones entire lives and minds to this issue. The primary concern is the freedom of Palestine and of the Arab Nation. And yet, one must support the efforts of independent scholars and academics who are devoting their lives to the search for the truth with respect to Jewish history and who do so under threat of imprisonment and serious personal injury.

Palestinian resistance to an Occupation which has robbed the Palestinian people not only of a homeland but of ordinary human rights and even of their lives should be unqualified and there should be no reluctance to engage in questioning so-called 'facts' of Jewish history, including but not limited to the so-called Jewish 'holocaust'. Aside from the fact that there is no cause for Palestinians to agonise over the suffering of Jews past, present or future, history is by no means in the nature of a sacred text, nor is it necessary to 'pull our punches' when dealing with an enemy that considers us an inferior species. Zionism is the enemy of justice and Zionism is founded upon a premise that Jewish lives are somehow more valuable than any one else's lives and that Jewish versions of history are not to be questioned. The fact that Zionists have engaged upon a deliberate use of a 'Jewish holocaust' as a tool of propaganda to attempt to justify the imposition of a 'wholly Jewish homeland' in Palestine and as an all-purpose shield against any attacks against Zionism is the only reason that this topic concerns Palestinians.

The Zionists chose this particular battlefield and it is our duty to use every weapon at our disposal in response. Palestinian academics like Edward Said only compromise their own commitment to the liberation of Palestine and support of truth by engaging in laments with respect to the Jewish 'holocaust', and those who denounce 'terrorism' according to U.S./Zionist definitions not only attempt to diminish the sacrifices of our martyrs, but strengthen the Zionist stranglehold on international opinion.

Any one who supports Zionism, whether Jewish or not, is not only an enemy of the Palestinian people but is an enemy of justice, democracy and fundamental human rights as well. Whoever that person may be, from whatever group or religion, and whatever reasons may be given, his/her identity is less important than the fact of supporting an indefensible Occupation. The Zionist entity is founded on the corpses and ruins of Palestinian lives and Palestinian dreams, and individuals of steadfast integrity cannot be intimidated into becoming apologists for Zionism under any circumstances.

The same Zionist propaganda that labels legitimate armed resistance as 'terrorism' and its own flagrant terrorism and genocide as 'self-defence' continues to perpetuate the myths of the Jewish 'holocaust'. Resistance to the Zionist Occupation must be unconditional and unrelenting. Palestinians who are dedicated to the principle of resistance need not concern themselves with spurious allegations that they are crossing the borders of morality by questioning any official version of Jewish history any more than they need to accept the boundaries drawn by the Zionists on the map of the homeland.

The phrase 'wherever it may lead' is most significant here and what is most feared by the Zionist propaganda machine is that such explorations will lead to the TRUTH.

Logic, reason and facts must never be subverted to political blackmail. The seed of Zionism that was planted at the end of the 19th century in Europe were carefully cultivated by the Zionists to blossom into the poisonous fruits of the Jewish holocaust myth as a tool with which to fight the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people to their homeland. There have been countless holocausts throughout the history of humanity. There is NOTHING special about the 'Jewish people' and therefore, could be nothing special about any 'Jewish holocaust', whatever the facts and fictions of that particular holocaust might be. The true crime here is the monstrous fashion in which Zionists have manipulated and twisted the suffering of some Jews in Europe during the Second World War into a vast propaganda machine.One need only read Zionist documents of the era in order to see how well the concept of a Jewish 'holocaust' suited the Zionist programme in Palestine.Furthermore, there is hard evidence that the Zionists themselves were allied with the Nazis in encouraging their own people to flee from Europe in their greed to take over the Palestinian homeland.

In Theodore Herzl's 'Diaries', in the late 19th century, he declared that: 'Anti-Semites will become our surest friends, anti-Semitic countries our allies.'

From the original lie of 'A land without a people for a people without a land' onwards, the entire invasion of Palestine by the Zionists is founded upon flagrant deceptions.

Another person rejects the concept of Holocaust Denial and follows Revisionist thinking

"Jewishness in its lowest form is the aim towards the imprisonment of meaning and fixation of ideas. In that very sense, I am very sorry to tell you Mr. Greenstein, you are presenting the lowest form of rabbinical and talmudic Jewish existence. You try to determine meanings and to stop any possible critical scholarship and interpretation. ... If you were a real Jew rather than just a shallow form of talmudic Zionist you would stand up to Eisen and fight with his interpretation with dignity. But as it seems you are incapable."

Jews Against Zionism trying to stop Gilad Atzmon from speaking to Socialist Workers Party
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 16:04:27 -0700 From: Jeff Blankfort jblankfort@earthlink.net
http://www.counterpunch.org/atzmon06172005.html

The Gag Artists. Who's Afraid of Gilad Atzmon?
By MARY RIZZO - humdrum2@libero.it

So as to avoid any confusion, let it be stated loud and clear: There is no Palestinian Solidarity Movement.

Palestinian solidarity is different from Palestinian Liberation, a principalthat implies the Palestinian people being able to express their aspirations of freedom. Palestinian society, with its massive and disorganised diaspora, is lost in dispersion, lacks the means to insist that the media gives equal time to its story, and has enormous difficulty expressing and sustaining a unified project, whether it be a vision of a Palestinian State, secular or religiously inspired as it may be, or co-existence together in a single State with the Jews of Israel.

The sole element on which all Palestinians concur is their need to become political subjects and to abandon their stateless status. Only in this way will they be finally able to come into possession of their human and civil rights, including the Right of Return.

The Palestinian Solidarity "Movement" is rather a galaxy of individuals and organisations that are generally not Palestinians. The common ground is that they all agree that their program is "Peace in the Middle East". On one end of the parabola we have those who see no problem with the idea of Israel as a Jewish State. They would like to see some kind of settlement for the Palestinians that will abate them, tossing a virtual bone at them by supporting the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza (but not the West Bank, which is another story, seeing as how it is historically relevant to the Jewish people). They sustain that the only way to guarantee a secure Israel, which is a given, is by maintaining a Jewish majority, and other matters must take off from that premise. People in this camp run the gamut of the political spectrum, from right to left. They generally have the most space dedicated to them in public discourse, as it is a message that reflects and embraces many elements of the accepted Zionist stance, and they address a general public with great success, often depicting themselves as progressives when upon close observation, there is very little progressive in their ideas.

On the opposite end of the parabola, and often in conflict with the former are those who put the interests of the Palestinians first, as they accept to support the cause for justice of the victims of the appropriation of Palestinian land and those living under occupation or in exile. This group often, but not always, insists on the full Right of Return for the Palestinians, because it is a guaranteed right, and therefore, legitimate and just, in addition to compensation and integration into a unified State together with Jews. This group sometimes is in touch with what Palestinians aspire to, but not always.

Since these people are often not Palestinians, they have a tendency to identify and define themselves by their personal characteristics. Within this latter group we find primarily people who identify themselves as being on "the Left". Many are members of leftist political parties, others are sympathisers, almost all engage in dialectical discussion groups with progressives, rather than reach out to the first group or even to the general public. They operate in a closed milieu of others just like them, progressive or Marxist collectives and discussion groups. Many of them have years of hands on political experience, and are imbued with the culture of these groups. They refer to those in other parties as comrades quite naturally. In essence, they should be weaned on dialectic.

In the UK, the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) has invited Gilad Atzmon to appear at their annual convention this July, "Marxism 2005". Atzmon, former Israeli, is a fervent and outspoken anti-Zionist, promoter of full Right of Return, and is in favour of the establishment of a Single State which encompasses all the people in historical Palestine. He is engaged in deconstructing the supremacist nature inherent in an ideology like Zionism that excludes a priori those who are not Jews, and which grants Jews special rights in historical Palestine. He is a writer and musician. His performances include the message dedicated to his political beliefs. Although he is not affiliated with any political party, he is a political artist whose agenda is Palestine and the interests of the Palestinian people.

It is expected that he won't just perform his music at Marxism 2005, but that he will make a presentation of some sort, the title advertised as being "Beauty Against Zionism". This will be Atzmon's third appearance at the SWP convention, or rather, it is scheduled to be, since there are some Marxists who don't want that to happen.

In the UK, Jews Against Zionism can't abide Gilad Atzmon, and they have demanded that the SWP renege his invitation. Tony Greenstein, together with others, has publicised his demands on the forum of Just Peace UK, a mainly, but not exclusively Jewish group. He has put forth an edict that Atzmon is an anti-semite (as well as anyone who supports him), that he is associated with anti-semites (because he, like thousands of others, reads material which Tony does not approve of), and that he is a Holocaust Denier or at the very least, an apologist for them.

Greenstein and several of his friends on JPUK, the UK Left Network and JAZ have determined that Atzmon is a liability (a title wielded at Atzmon's supporters as well as some other even more offensive opinions) to the Palestinian Solidarity Movement and that his voice is leading towards a dangerous path and has no place in it. He has placed conditions upon Atzmon, as well has having placed demands upon the SWP even though Greenstein is not affiliated with this party.

He undertakes these actions, which seem to be the tip of the iceberg that has been building up for a long time in his desire to weed out the movement, and divide it into Tony-friendly or not, largely for the stated reason that Atzmon distributed through his mailing list a paper "The Holocaust Wars" written by Paul Eisen. Greenstein, having decided that it is classified as "Holocaust Denial" yet not having been able to establish his position except within his representing Atzmon's views. Atzmon is accused of having read the paper and thinking others might want to read it as well. Regardless of the content of the paper, which should be debated properly, if anyone is really interested, the very appearance of the paper is unfathomable for Greenstein and for those who share his opinion. Those responsible for it should not have voice in the Palestinian solidarity movement, because they would contaminate it.

Greenstein has written to the SWP demanding, not requesting, that they cancel Atzmon's appearance as well as a speaking event at the SWP's bookshop in London, which in lieu of cancellation, will be picketed. In other words, Greenstein decides who he likes or not, who has the right to speak or not, and when they do speak, he dictates what it is they talk about. He wants to be master of discourse; the most vocal, most pure, and official voice of the Palestinian Solidarity Movement. Those who disagree with him and his agenda are in his mind on the "other side of the camp" and gone full circle, having fallen into anti-semitism. They are not good for the Palestinian people.

Atzmon wrote an article exposing the attempts of some of the members of this group to undermine an important Palestinian Solidarity group, Deir Yassin Remembered (DYR), which has the crime of hosting people on its board of whom Greenstein and his close allies do not approve and not for any merit or demerit of the organisation itself. Greenstein criticised the contents of the article, but since it was primarily direct quotes from people on the JPUK board, it could not be contested for accuracy or denied. In a recent epistolary exchange between Atzmon and Greenstein, we see Greenstein saying:

"I certainly wish to see a speedy end to Deir Yassin Remembered. It can only do great damage to the Palestinian cause in so far as it is led by a holocaust denier and associated with another virulent anti-Semite."

Greenstein seems to know what is best for the Palestinian people, but what precisely gives him this information is a real mystery. Is he a self-appointed spokesman for them or does he just set the agenda because his ideas are the most important, significant and true ones? Atzmon claims that non-Palestinian activists are soldiers for the Palestinian people, required to listen to them and be at their service and states, "Instead of doing that (debating the paper he contests) you prefer to act under your Jewish banner whatever it means (something that you do constantly). You run campaigns solely with your Jewish comrades (rather than in the forefront of world working class). Rather than joining or even forming a humanistic open discourse, you try to stop the world from moving on. You insist on locating your worldview in the centre of any possible discourse. Why do you do it? Because you are a supremacist Jew. You must believe that you know better. You must believe that you know better than the SWP what is important for the British working class. You must think that you know better than the Palestinians what is right for the Palestinian people. Are you familiar with the notion of modesty? Just contemplate over the remote possibility that you may not know better."

One can read Atzmon and not agree with him, dislike his ideas or style, and especially when he critiques the mindset of Zionism and Jewish Identification as well as the mechanisms that protect Israel from having to act decently as is expected of any other nation in the world,, but no one should be permitted to deny him the possibility to exercise his right of free speech. One might not like what he says, whether the critic be Zionist or anti-Zionist, but shutting him up seems to be very old school left, right out of Stalinism.

Debate between "anti-Zionist Jew for Peace" and Gilad Atzmon
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2005 12:49:49 +0300 From: Israel Shamir ishamir@013.net.il

An interesting debate between Gilad Atzmon and an 'antizionist Jew for peace' Tony Greenstein. This Tony fights mainly against other non-Zionists, calls for dismantling of Deir Yassin Remembered and has no qualms about his support of ADL clones. Gilad Atzmon - Tony Greenstein debate A debate between Tony Greenstein, an anti-Zionist ethnic Jewish activist and Gilad Atzmon, an ordinary Jazz musician http://peacepalestine.blogspot.com/ What follows is a brief version of a private email exchange between Tony Greenstein and Gilad Atzmon which was posted by Tony Greenstein on JPUK. Many have asked for wide distribution, Mr Greenstein in primis, and due to space reasons, I present only an edit here. Basic typos have been corrected and it has been arranged into a dialogue style to aid in comprehension, yet the content remains unvaried. An unabridged version is available here http://www.gilad.co.uk/html%20files/Greenstein-Atzmon.html .

T: I note that in the tirade below, (The Elders of London*) you accuse Jews Against Zionism and myself of being 'undercover Zionist agents of influence'.

G: As it seems, you are calling for Jews to act under their ethnic/racial banner. i.e. Jewishness. I was sure that as a Marxist you should aim to let Jews become ordinary human beings i.e. equal comrades, rather than an isolated and segregated ethnic group.

G: Holocaust Denial is in itself a Zionist terminology and I refuse to accept it or to use it.

T: I understand that you have been distributing Paul Eisen's most recent The Holocaust Wars which denies, in the course of defending Ernest Zündel, that there ever was a holocaust or extermination of European Jewry by the Nazis.

G: Mr Greenstein, True, I circulated Paul Eisen's paper. I do believe that argumentative texts must be circulated as widely as possible. I am sure that in case you have a counter argument to suggest Paul will be delighted to address it. By the way, my take on the subject is slightly different than Paul's one and yet, I found Paul very attentive to my criticism. Furthermore, let me assure you that if I ever see a great text written by yourself I'll be the first to circulate it. This is my way, that is what I believe in.

T: You admit you only disagree 'slightly'. By your own admission you are condemned as either a knave or a fool or more probably both. I haven't the slightest intention of engaging with holocaust deniers, any more than I have time to waste on flat earthers.

G: I assume that if you had just a hint of integrity you may have realised along time ago that the Holocaust doesn't lead necessarily to just one 'conclusion'. First, there might be more than one and if this is not enough, it might even provide us with more than one moral lesson (in case you don't realise, a moral lesson is a dynamic process while a conclusion is a firm and fixed idea). For me, the Holocaust like any other historical narrative is a dynamic process of realisation and interpretation. For me to be in the world is to be engaged in a dynamic process of interpretation. For me and not only me...Judaism at its very best is merely a dynamic critical process of re-reading and re-writing. For me the beauty of Judaism is conveyed by the imagery of a single Biblical page: a few lines of Biblical text and many different interpretations around it (deconstruction). On the other hand, Jewishness in its lowest form is the aim towards the imprisonment of meaning and fixation of ideas. In that very sense, I am very sorry to tell you Mr. Greenstein, you are presenting the lowest form of rabbinical and talmudic Jewish existence. You try to determine meanings and to stop any possible critical scholarship and interpretation. As bizarre as it may sound, Mr Paul Eisen, a man you try to destroy for being an anti-Semite, is presenting us with the ultimate beauty of Judaic thinking. Unlike you, Eisen is engaged in interpretation (Parshanut). Eisen is engaged in a process of re-reading and re-writing. Eisen follows the most radical form of orthodox Judaic spirit.

Let me tell you, Eisen was raised as a Jew, unlike you he managed to internalise the essence of Judaism, this is enough to make him into a very important voice. If you were a real Jew rather than just a shallow form of talmudic Zionist you would stand up to Eisen and fight with his interpretation with dignity. But as it seems you are incapable.

Instead of doing that you prefer to act under your Jewish banner whatever it means (something that you do constantly). You run campaigns solely with your Jewish comrades (rather than in the forefront of world working class). Rather than joining or even forming a humanistic open discourse, you try to stop the world from moving on. You insist on locating your worldview in the centre of any possible discourse. Why do you do it? Because you are a supremacist Jew. You must believe that you know better. You must believe that you know better than the SWP what is important for the British working class. You must think that you know better than the Palestinians what is right for the Palestinian people. Are you familiar with the notion of modesty? Just contemplate over the remote possibility that you may not know better......Let me tell you Mr. Greenstein, Marxism isn't an internal Jewish affair (it may had been for a while, but not any more) and so with the Palestinian cause. It is our duty (as human beings) to show our support to the Palestinian people but we are not allowed to tell them what to do. We are not allowed to tell them what is right or wrong, we can only offer ourselves as soldiers, this is what Paul is doing, this is what I try to do.

Your frequent usage of the word 'insist' (you insist that the SWP kick me out and you insist that DYR will spit out Shamir or Eisen etc.) reveals a clear image of classic Jewish supremacist tendencies. You blame others for being white supremacists, just because you are daily engaged in supremacist practices. Considering the clear fact that you can't even present a simple argument. I would conclude that you should scrutinise your own conduct. You better look in the mirror Mr Greenstein, you better get used to the idea that you are just an ordinary human being like all of us, you can't 'insist' anymore, you can only suggest, and you better be polite about it.

T: Not that this should be any surprise given your association with Israel Shamir, who makes a habit of supporting and defending white supremacists.

G: With all due respect, you won't find any support for white supremacists in any of my writings. If you read my writings you will find the very opposite. I am against any form of supremacism. I wrote 2 books about the subject. Anyhow, I assume that you have a serious problem with Shamir, and yet I do not know what do you mean by the term 'association'. As you should know I am not a politician and not even a political activist. I am an artist: I am a musician and a writer. The notion of association means nothing to me. I am not a member in any party, I act solely as an individual. I am interested in Shamir's writings as much as I am interested in any other writer who supports the Palestinian people. For me Palestine is more important than all those childish political games. I believe in freedom of spirit and freedom of speech. I would fight for you or anyone else in case someone would try to censor your writings. But then, let me admit, you are right about one thing, I am not associated with any pro Palestinian Jewish organisation. I do believe that the Palestinian cause is a human issue, it is far more important than Jewish politics. I hope that sooner rather than later you will realise it yourself.

T: I didn't accuse you of supporting white supremacists, I stated that you associate with Shamir who supports white supremacists. That is clear from his web site, his repetition of the blood-libel myths and his collaboration with neo-Nazis.

G: I already addressed the association issue, again you use a terminology that is inapplicable to me. I am not associated with anyone. I am reading Israel occasionally, I think that he is a very important writer. But at the same time I would read every paper written by Brenner. I just read, I am a reader and a writer. Again, it is possible that you associate me with Shamir but this is your problem.

T: I certainly wish to see a speedy end to Deir Yassin Remembered. It can only do great damage to the Palestinian cause in so far as it is led by a holocaust denier and associated with another virulent anti-Semite.

G: As you may know, I performed in DYR this year and it was one of the most emotionally moving events I've ever taken part of. Mind you I am performing every night for over 25 years. You insist to bring DYR down, and let me tell you, this is enough to make you into a Zionist.

T: Some, who draw the necessary conclusions from the holocaust, will hold that racism whomsoever it is directed against is wrong and will therefore adopt anti-Zionist and indeed anti-fascist politics.

G: For a change I am in total agreement with you, I am against racism and in fact in my writing you won't find a single racial reference. Moreover, when I write about Jewish identity I analyse it in ideological and philosophical terms. For me Jewishness is a mind set. Nothing to do with the quality of one's blood or the religion of one's mother.

T: Ironically it also mirrors the Zionist libel that anti-Zionism=anti-Semitism.

G: I agree with you and this is another reason for me not to come with such a conclusion. And yet you blame me for being an Anti-Semite just because I am ridiculing yourself and your own shallow Marxism. Mr Greenstein, I must let you know that to be a Marxist is not just a 'language game', It is not enough to call someone a 'comrade' and to expect him to remove Gilad Atzmon from his conference. To be a Marxist is to be a critical thinker. But then not only that you aren't critical, you engage in censorship of any possible critical thinking. Basically you follow the most devastating Rabbinical practices. No wonder why you act as 'Marxist Jew' rather than just a Marxist. You probably regard Marxism as an internal Jewish affair, this may explain the fact that you allow yourself to come to the SWP with demands.

T: I have no intention of taking lectures in respect of Marxism from someone who is supportive of Eisen's thesis that the holocaust didn't happen.

G: This may be true but somehow you don't stop visiting my mail box. Being educated as a German philosopher I am very interested in different aspects of Master Slave dialectic (Hegel). Thus, I wonder why you are begging for my recognition. Why do you take the role of the slave in this debate? I ask just because I am really not interested in being your master or anyone else' s master.

T: Clearly it is outrageous that a socialist organisation should invite you to their annual beanfeast. However that is their problem, not mine.

G: Apparently it isn't their problem. They are very happy with it, this will be my third successful appearance in the conference. But somehow you aren't happy at all. You keep humiliating yourself sending them lengthy letters and get a short clear cut dismissal.

If you have any dignity in your system you better take a rest. Look for enemies somewhere else.

Jewish tactics revealed - From: JWR_Editor-in-Chief Subject: JWR TODAY for Monday, June 20, 2005 - outlook: The Jewish Ethicist, By Rabbi Dr. Asher Meir ---> worth considering: Someone disagrees with you? Compare 'em to a Nazi. Works like a charm. A Hitler charm.